Clarify roles and accountabilities for setting GAC strategic priorities:
At the country level, Bank country strategies should continue to serve as the primary mechanisms for reflecting the priorities and needs of clients on GAC issues. Donor-funded initiatives need to be appropriately aligned.
At the VPU level, GAC work plans should be informed by demand in partner countries and should set priorities for overall resources useboth Bank budgets and trust funds. In keeping with Bank policies on the integration of trust fund allocations with the budget process, decisions on allocations of trust funds to GAC activities should involve line management in Vice Presidency Units (VPUs).
At the corporate level, the GAC Council should focus on institution-wide issues and risks, and on benchmarking the GAC responsiveness of Bank operations.
Original Response: Partially agreed. Management concurs with the view that CASs and ISNs be the primary means by which client governance issues are raised and addressed. The Bank is committed to the Paris and Accra agendas on alignment. Management agrees that the GAC Council should focus on strategic and institutionwide issues. Management is unconvinced of the need to create additional GAC work plans at the VPU level. There is a danger that these would create an additional task that would be of limited additional value. Management commits to restructure the GAC Council, with a further increased focus on strategic and institutionwide issues, in the context of GACII and will report in the context of a mid-term GAC update.
It was recommended that at the country level, Bank country strategies should continue to serve as the primary mechanisms for reflecting the priorities and needs of clients on GAC issues and alignment with Donor-funded initiatives. The Systematic Country Diagnostic (SCD) and Country Partnership Framework (CPF) process is a promising step forward in clarifying roles and accountabilities for setting GAC strategic priorities at country level. Governance and corruption issues have featured prominently in SCDs as the Global Governance Practice (GGP) established mechanisms to incorporate GAC issues into the SCD process. The SCD/CPF Process Evaluation by IEG is ongoing and it is expected that robust evidence on the effectiveness of this measure would emerge by end of FY17.
The management has adopted a Strategic Framework for Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in World Bank Group Operations: engaging with citizens for improved results in January 2014, under which, there is a commitment to take 100% citizen feedback in Bank operations. The initial results have been promising. As per World Bank Group Corporate Score Card of April 2016, Projects with beneficiary feedback indicator at design has increased from only 26 % at the baseline (FY14) to 86 % for all projects and 91 % for projects in FCV countries in FY16 (Q2).
CPF/SCD process serves as the primary mechanism for identifying and reflecting governance and corruption priorities at the country level. Governance and corruption issues featured prominently in Systematic Country Diagnostics as the GGP established mechanisms to incorporate GAC issues into the SCD process. The GGP actively explored processes for including governance-related efforts into the strategies for other Global Practices, reflecting changes in the allocation of responsibilities. Important progress was made in implementing the Bank's commitments to 100% citizen feedback (in projects with identified beneficiaries) and to enhanced transparency - actions which substantially contributed to the Bank's support for improved governance at the country level.
The CPF/SCD process is a promising step forward in clarifying roles and accountabilities for setting GAC strategic priorities. The work with other GPs, and the commitment to 100% citizen feedback, are also promising. IEG hopes that robust evidence on the effectiveness of these new measures will start to emerge, inter alia from IEG's ongoing SCD/CPF Process Evaluation
CPF/SCD process serves as the primary mechanism for identifying and reflecting governance and corruption priorities at the country level. Governance and corruption issues featured prominently in Systematic Country Diagnostics as the GGP established mechanisms to incorporate GAC issues into the SCD process. The GGP actively explored processes for including governance-related efforts into the strategies for other Global Practices, reflecting changes in the allocation of responsibilities. Important progress was made in implementing the Bank's commitments to 100% citizen feedback (in projects with identified beneficiaries) and to enhanced transparency - actions which substantially contributed to the Bank's support for improved governance at the country level.
The reported improvement in integration of governance issues in CASs and AAA is encouraging. However, the progress on the commitment in MAR 2013 to fundamentally overhaul the GAC in CAS monitoring function, with a roll out in FY14, has been delayed by the transition to two new instruments: the Systematic Country Diagnostic and the Country Partnership Framework. A positive step forward has been the creation of the SPARK page on Governance Work in Systematic Country Diagnostics.
It is not clear how the plan for the GAC Council to meet once a year, with more frequent meetings at the working level, will adequately address strategic and operational issues, including institution-wide risk monitoring and results monitoring. Furthermore, while this system of deliberative decision making takes place under the GPP structure, it is unclear how other GPs will fit into the process to ensure systemic treatment of GAC across the Bank's portfolio.
The 2011 IEG assessment noted that the integration of governance issues in CAS documents was an area where significant improvement had taken place. A recent assessment of CAS documents from FY12 and FY13 reveals several additional areas for optimism.As a general rule, most CAS documents appear to be addressing governance issues. Only 4 percent of FY12 CAS documents and 9 percent of FY13 CAS documents do not integrate governance into at least one pillar.Over 80 percent of CAS documents in FY12 and 90 percent in FY13 reflect analytic work on the severity of governance challenges and the prospects for reform. Such analytic work ranged from including some political economy analysis in the CAS to backing up governance analysis with AAA or ESW, such as PERs, PEFAs or CGACs. Additionally, many documents reference governance related analytic work in at least two to three major areas of engagement covered in the CAS. A relatively high proportion of CAS documents (around 71 percent in FY12 and 86 percent in FY13) reference available global governance indicators in the document. Trends towards the use of available governance indicators in CAS documents have been high and improving between FY12 and FY13.
Under the new GGP structure, the GAC Council will meet once a year instead of once a quarter. (The initial expectation of quarterly GAC Council meetings at the VP level was unrealistic.) The focus will shift to more frequent meetings of staff engaged on governance and anticorruption issues directly at the working level.
Progress has been made in strengthening the TOR for the GAC Council. Council meetings aim to focus more systematically in institution-wide risk monitoring and results monitoring. However, they are still somewhat unwieldy given the large number of observers, and the meetings continue to focus on information sharing rather than on decision-making. A more pressing challenge for the Council are the demands for the Change Agenda and the number of principals that have been focused on Change Teams. There may be need to further refine the Council's role and embed it the Bank's new and emerging senior management decision-making structures.
Trust fund resources under the GPF have been committed although new efforts -- while temporarily suspended -- aim to mobilize more TF resources. In the future, funding arrangements should aligned with a revitalized BB process. In other words, allocation of TF resources for GAC should be based on filling fiscal gaps identified by VPUs against monitorable commitments. This would be a more effective and sustainable way of motivating work on GAC rather than using a competitive self standing trust fund that is managed off budget. As such, IEG is not recommending a separate VPU GAC plan but rather the identification of a clear set of GAC activities within VPU work plans that can be costed and financed in a predictable manner.
Finally, IEG agrees with Management's efforts to align GAC work -- whether financed by BB or TFs -- with priorities emerging from CASs and ISNs. However, PREM may not be the only network to take the lead in ensuring systemic incorporation of GAC concerns in CASs. Other networks may need to take the lead provided that the country portfolios are monitored by OPCS and the GAC Secretariat.
Management concurs with the view that CASs and ISNs remain the primary means by which client governance issues are raised and addressed. Plans are currently well advanced to fundamentally overhaul the GAC in CAS monitoring function, with a roll out in FY14. PREM will take leadership on: (1) more strategic upstream engagement with country teams in the CAS preparation process; (2) developing and disseminating a clear set of criteria for CAS monitoring and evaluation, along with clear guidance in CAS preparation; (3) the identification and dissemination of CAS documents that have effectively addressed GAC issues through electronic and other means; (4) a much more robust review process at the concept note stage, drawing upon earlier analytic work, CAS completion reports and (eventually) country governance briefs; and (5) an annual process of downstream monitoring and evaluation of completed CAS documents.
The GAC Strategy Update provided for a revised and strengthened role for the GAC Council, and included terms of reference outlining this role. It mandated the Council to meet quarterly under the chairmanship of the responsible Managing Director. The strengthened GAC Council has strategic and decision-making authority, and is accountable for implementation, results, and impact, reporting to the Bank President twice a year. The next meeting is planned for June 2013.