The WBG should link these measures to a results framework that shifts the SFDCC toward a focus on outputs such as power produced, power access, forest cover, transit share of urban trips, rather than money spent.
Original Response: Ongoing/Agree A long-term results framework for SFDCC is under development, as stated in the Interim Progress Report for SFDCC, May 2010. The SFDCC results framework will be outcome-oriented and is currently being developed in a consultative manner as envisioned in SFDCC. In addition to tracking WBG actions at the input level, the new results framework is being designed to track outputs, outcomes and impacts related to WBG actions. Potential indicators at all of these levels (including the suggested output indicators: power produced, power access, forest cover, transit share of urban trips) are currently being assessed for their feasibility, simplicity, and suitability in communicating results at different levels and scales. Separate results frameworks are under development for the CIF with an emphasis on impact, outcome and output indicators. Results chains link projects to the CIF final outcomes through pilot country outputs and outcomes, program replication outcomes, and transformative impact. The Multilateral Development Banks are currently in a process to identify reliable indicators to measure results and achievements at each level.
The Climate Change Action Plan to be presented following the Paris COP will be the next phase in the Bank's results framework. This document will be central to the Bank's forward looking approach to climate change, and so it will be important that the action plan includes an output- and outcome- oriented results framework, moving beyond the input-oriented focus on commitments of the SFDCC. Depending on the contents of the action plan it could represent completion of this recommendation, but as yet the plan is still in development.
The Management update does not address any other changes in results framework indicators since the 2014 update. IEG's comments in the 2014 update on progress and limitations in core sector indicators, corporate scorecard measures, and the lack of project level data remain relevant in the absence of new information.
At the request of the Board, the World Bank Group will be presenting a Climate Change Action Plan in Q3 of FY16, building upon the pillars of the 2008 SFDCC. The plan will include both IFC and World Bank regional and sectoral input, and will operationalize the SFDCC pillars into relevant concrete actions, related to energy, environment, transportation, and others. Additionally, the action plan, under the framework of these pillars, will define the new WBG commitment to increase by up to one-third WBG climate financing from 21% to 28%.
At this writing, the draft long-term results framework for the SFDCC has not been disclosed, so IEG is unable to rate it. The Environment Strategy has a results framework which includes tracking the GHG impact of World Bank projects, a notable step forward. It also will track the number of people newly gaining access to renewable electricity, and generation capacity of renewable energy due to Bank interventions, but does not track energy efficiency.
A long-term results framework has been prepared as part of the SFDCC Close-out report. It has been developed in a consultative manner and is tailored to track results at three tiers. The first and highest tier sets the global context for the results framework organized around the four areas climate resilience, climate mitigation, climate finance, and knowledge /capacity / innovation / partnerships. In the second tier, the focus is on outputs and outcomes supported by WBG operations which include support to country programs, policies, and knowledge activities as well as to global public goods. The third tier focuses on operational effectiveness of WBG programs to achieve low carbon and climate resilient development results. For lending activities this includes the quality and implementation performance of the climate-related portfolio, as defined by a new system that the World Bank has adopted for tagging projects at board approval as providing climate mitigation or climate adaptation co-benefits. For non-lending activities, this includes the integration of climate change considerations into Country Assistance Strategies (CASs) and sector strategies. Finally, Tier III includes the integration of CC considerations into various knowledge products including AAA, guidelines, and tools.
Results frameworks for the CTF, FIP, PPCR and SREP have been approved by the Trust Fund Committees. The results frameworks are designed to operate: (i) within existing national monitoring and evaluation systems; and (ii) the MDBs own managing for development results (MfDR) approach. With the approval of the results frameworks as living documents, the Trust Fund Committees established the basis for an adaptive M&E approach. The data generated through the M&E system should allow countries to take corrective action based on information/evidence. The adaptive management approach requires a constant and sustained feedback mechanism which allows countries to reflect on measures, approaches, methodologies etc. and initiate change when data or observations point towards the need to adapt to changing circumstances.
IEG's concern was that the Bank Group develop indicators which directly provide incentives for management and staff to pursue cost-efficient climate mitigation. A specific area of concern was that current incentives disfavor energy efficiency, where projects can be smaller and more expensive to prepare and yet offer higher economic returns to clients and greater impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Also of concern was a lack of incentives forcatalytic efforts that might be small in lending terms but large in impact.
Some progress on indicators has been made.The initiation of GHG accounting at the Bank is a important step forward, but much depends on how the GHG accounts will be used. Renewable energy generation capacity has been made a core indicator, and is used in both the SFDCC Tier II results framework and the environment strategy framework.Emissions, and emissions reductions enter the Tier II framework. However, there is as yet no core indicator for energy efficiency, undermining its inclusion in the Tier II results framework. More seriously,the Tier III framework --Operational and Organizational Effectiveness -- remains focused on expenditures. (Resultsenter only in the form of outcome ratings, for which there is a lag of many years.) Climate-related expenditure now enters the IFC departmental scorecards; likewise this may have a positive effect of boosting attention to climate but could lead to a distorted portfolio.
The SFDCC developed in a consultative manner, an outcome-oriented results framework to accommodate new developments in the global climate negotiations and knowledge. This was endorsed by the World Bank board in May 2012. The Results Framework is a living document that will evolve and improve over time as the World Bank's ability to report on results expands. The current indicators are aligned with the availability of data based on the corporate scorecard, sector strategies, and core sector indicators.
The purpose of the Results Framework is to help monitor progress in four areas over the coming decade:
i. Country-led climate actions to increase resilience to the impacts of climate change and variability so that development results are achieved even with a changing climate
ii. Country-led climate actions to reduce or capture greenhouse gases
iii. Mobilization of finance and markets (including private resources) for country-led climate actions on increasing resilience or mitigation, including setting up innovative financing mechanisms, leveraging private sector resources, and taking a catalytic global role in increasing climate financing
iv. Fostering innovation, knowledge, capacity, and partnerships in support of actions to increase resilience, mitigation, or climate finance; for example, advancing knowledge on climate and development; developing mitigation- and adaptation-related toolkits, guidelines, and products; building capacity and expertise; and working with development partners to facilitate global action
The Framework includes a three tier-structure that defines the results chain and specifies a set of indicators that will be used to measure progress and performance on the results for each tier:
i. The first and highest tier is organized around the four areasclimate resilience, climate mitigation, climate finance, and knowledge /capacity/innovation/partnerships. It includes indicators that show the status of high-level outcomes in each of these action areas, and which cannot be attributed to the World Bank Group; instead, countries and their development partners all contribute to these achievements through their interventions, actions, and policy decisions across multiple sectors.
ii. In the second tier, the focus is on outputs and outcomes supported by WBG operations, which include support to country programs, policies, and knowledge activities, as well as to global public goods. The results in this tier reflect the contribution of the WBG to the development efforts of the country.
iii. The third tier focuses on operational effectiveness of WBG programs to achieve low-carbon and climate-resilient development results. It includes the entire range of investment financing, programs, and strategies that are being adjusted to take into account climate change.
Separate results frameworks have been developed for the four CIF programs with an emphasis on impact and outcome indicators. Results chains link projects to the CIF final outcomes through pilot country outputs and outcomes, program replication outcomes, and transformative impact. The results frameworks for theClean Technology Fund(CTF),Pilot Program for Climate Resilience(PPCR), andScaling Up Renewable Energy Program(SREP) each contain a fewcore indicatorsthat all countries are required to report on annually, with support from the MDBs.These core indicators can be measured consistently by all pilot countries and aggregated. This will enable the CIF to meaningfully report back on achievements at the country level, fund level and over time.The results framework of theForest Investment Program (FIP)does not contain core indicators, but discussions towards agreeing on a few core indicators are ongoing. Toolkits to guide the monitoring and reporting on the CTF and PPCR are currently under final review. The toolkits consist of clear and concise core indicator guidance sheets accompanied by a performance monitoring table or scorecard. PPCR pilot countries will establish their baselines and targets on the core indicators in 2013, CTF countries will start reporting on the core indicators in the second half of 2013.
The SFDCC itself is no longer operative, and has been replaced by attempts to mainstream climate change relevant indicators into core results frameworks for the Bank.
The Bank has made significant progress on adopting output-oriented results measures in Core Sector Indicators, including generation capacity for hydropower and thermal power (though not other generation sources), energy access by household connections, forest cover restored, and projected energy and fuel savings from energy efficiency. However, not all sectors are covered yet, and the degree to which data is being collected on these indicators is unclear. The corporate scorecard tracks emissions intensity as a national indicator, but tracks only WBG contributions to climate change mitigation through the impacts of special climate funds and not regular operations.
One reason for this is a lack of data on GHG impacts at the project level. The Bank has made significant progress on developing GHG accounting systems for Bank-financed investment lending. GHG impact estimates are being produced for the portion of Energy, Forest, and Agriculture sectors that are covered by GHG methodologies. However, these estimates are not yet being shared publicly in a systematic or aggregate manner, and estimates are solely ex ante and are not tracked during supervision or updated at closure. GHG estimates are generated solely for reporting and not for influencing project design. In the medium term these estimates could be used to feed into carbon pricing, on which the Bank has shown leadership in encouraging adoption by governments and large corporations.
The CIF have simplified results frameworks resulting in a more feasible and consistent set of indicators, with greater focus on outcomes such as renewable energy production and energy access. The Independent CIF evaluation, however, observed that the CTF and SREP indicators do not track the institutional changes that would contribute to the CIF's long term transformational goals.
Noticeable progress has been made in implementing the SFDCC Framework, in particular regarding TIER II.
The World Bank has launched two instruments to track better its impacts on sustainable development. Core Sector Indicators have been developed and are being used in most sectors. These are a predefined set of results indicators that allow for improved aggregation of results from Bank operations. Secondly, ex ante assessment of GHG impact from Bank operations is being rolled out as agreed in the Environment Strategy of the Bank. The first sectors to be included were energy and forest sectors. Finally, the forest team has begun work to develop forward looking proxy indicators that would allow better predicting long term project results already during the implementation phase.
The Agriculture Global Practice has commenced GHG analysis of its investment lending. The overall goal is to assess the GHG footprint of its investment operations. In addition, work is ongoing on the development of climate smart agriculture indicators for prioritizing and assessing CSA investments. The indicators are available at 3 levels: Policy and enabling environment, CSA technologies and practices, and CSA impacts/results.
Under the CIF, MR toolkits have been developed to guide countries in reporting on the progress with achieving result indicators set out in CIF investment plans. For all four CIF programs, consolidated results reports will be presented to the CIF governing bodies in November 2014.
Project level monitoring and reporting follows the relevant MDB policies and procedures. Project-level results feed into the results reports at the level of the investment plans.
The World Bank Group also continues moving toward an output-based results framework through development of knowledge products and analytical works that (i) strengthen the case for inclusion of multiple benefits of mitigation opportunities in economic analysis to provide a fuller accounting of benefits of interventions to society (e.g. lives saved, energy saved, jobs created, GDP and agriculture benefits); (ii) serve as a catalyst for scaling up mitigation finance in the most impactful way; and (iii) expand the list of indicators with important output-based development objectives. As this work comes to fruition, providing a solid technical basis for any new indicators, consultations may result in changes to the current indicators, which are aligned with the available data in corporate scorecards, sector strategies, and core sector indicators as listed above.