Develop mechanisms and instruments between Bank, IFC and MIGA such as joint action plans, coordinated business development and integrated product offerings in strategically important countries to offer a wellsequenced package of forestrelated products and services to clients and better use the synergies between the public and private sector arms of the World Bank Group. Depending on country circumstances, opportunities for synergies exist in such areas as: mobilization of private funds for conservation, including by encouraging private investment in sustainable tourism and markets for eco-friendly products use of IFC advisory services focused on leveling the playing field for community forestry and small and medium enterprises in the sector potential combination of Bank policy reform and IFC/MIGA support to catalytic investments with demonstration effects in timber concessions certification and industry standards for biodiversityfriendly business practices where experience shows that voluntary industry action can be effectively supported by government policies REDD/carbon finance agenda where pilot investments supported by IFC can complement the policy-level work led by the Bank and its forest-related partnerships.
In a few cases World Bank Group cooperation has facilitated effective forest sector&ndash related outcomes. The Bank Group has been most effective as an institution when the World Bank's work to help countries lower barriers to private sector entry in the forest sector has been combined with IFC and MIGA support to catalyze sustainable investments in the forest sector. Action on such complementary services was found in China, Nicaragua, Russia, and Uruguay but nowhere else.
Original Response: Agreed: Management agrees that close collaboration at the country-level is needed between the Bank, IFC and MIGA and could lead to better outcomes. Ideally, Bank investment should focus on policy and institutional reforms which help create the enabling environment for the type of private investments which can be mobilized by the private sector. At the same time, Management is of the view that a coordinated approach would be viable in only limited conditions, where there was both government demand for this type of sequencing, and private sector interest in investment.
The demand-driven nature of Bank lending would makes strategic sequencing of interventions somewhat challenging.
Consequently this objective can be best promoted by opportunistic interventions, constant exchange of information of planned activities at early stages of project preparation and joint missions rather than rigid action plans.
The Bank and IFC, together with MIGA, will launch consultations between the agencies to identify and remove impediments to smooth collaboration and how to enhance joint engagement with client countries. This will happen both at the level of management and task teams.
IFC will continue to look for synergistic opportunities and collaborate with the Bank and MIGA at the strategic and project levels where it makes sense in certain countries and markets.
MIGA will actively collaborate with the Bank and/or IFC when supporting FDI into these projects, and will look for synergistic opportunities within the WBG.
IFC/WB Action 7A: Improve information exchange between IFC and the World Bank
Indicator: Data about respective pipeline operations is regularly exchanged as the basis for forward planning
Baseline: Ad hoc
Target: Quarterly joint team meetings held between IFC and WB staff
Timeline: Launched by FY14
WB/IFC Action 7B: Coordination in pipeline development between Bank and IFC
Indicator: Number of countries where there are complementary Bank and IFC projects
Baseline: None
Target: 3 FIP operations underway with IFC and WB involvement
Timeline: FY15
WB/IFC Action 7C: Undertake a joint Bank-IFC workshop to identify and subsequently address constraints and impediments to more effective collaboration
Indicator: workshop held
Baseline: None
Target: one workshop including regional representation.
Timeline:
FY15
7A, 7B, and 7C have all been achieved. Ample examples of collaboration and joint mechanisms (such as the FIP partnership), including combination of investment and advisory. IEG recognizes, with caution, the activities in Gabon and Cote D'Ivoire and reiterates the CODE message around the need for ex ante analysis of environmental, social and economic impacts, including analysis of alternate land use from a poverty perspective.
The IFC and WB continued to collaborate closely in Forest Investment Plan (FIP) supported forestry programming in Laos and Indonesia and added a new effort in Mozambique in 2017. Also in 2017 IFC led WB supported studies of Commercial Forestry Plantation Investment Plans for Ethiopia and Sierra Leone with the explicit goal of providing recommendations for private and public investments in commercial plantation and associated forest industry clusters. In addition, IFC is now exploring possible FIP support for new Advisory Services projects in Mexico. (7B).
IFC conducted a one day Forestry and Wood Product Investment Planning workshop in September 2016. The workshop was attended by 20 people, including WB forestry principals, and focused on strategic obstacles and opportunities in forestry investments throughout the value chain, which assisted in identifying common geographies and reinforcing themes. IFC and WB also teamed-up to support the New Generation Plantation Platform ("NGP") including operational and participant support to the NGP field visits to Laos in December 2016 and attendance to their 10th Year Encounter/Strategic Planning session held in London/Edinburgh in June 2017 where a joint WB-IFC presentation was provided. (7C).
IFC and WB improved collaboration throughout the year. The respective forestry teams regularly shared information, consulted on relevant forestry investment projects specific issues to ensure consistency of approach, and met on an as-needed basis. Examples include (i) the WB invited IFC involvement in early stage country-specific forestry programming in Gabon and Cote d'Ivoire, (ii) potential oil palm investments in several countries (Indonesia, Mexico and Gabon) provided good opportunities for the WB and IFC forestry staff to share information about forestry and conservation activities beyond traditional forest investments, and (iii) joint distribution of knowledge sharing and policy notes. (7A).
IEG recognizes the ongoing collaboration between IFC and the WB on FIP. IEG would like to inquire as to when the planned workshop, as identified in the Roadmap, will be held or what activities will be implemented in its place.
IFC and the WB are collaborating in several countries on Forest Investment Plan Strategies and implementation under the Climate Development Fund including: Ghana, Mozambique, Cote d'Ivoire, Lao, Indonesia, Nepal, and Peru (http://www.climatefundsupdate.org/listing/forest-investment-program).
Workshop on Effective Collaboration has not taken place although there were several IFC-WB joint meetings with NGOs in preparation for the release of the Forest Action Plan. There were also joint WB-IFC missions to important venues including the World Forestry Congress (Durban, 2015), International Association of Impact Assessment (Florence 2015), and the World Forum on Natural Capital (Edinburgh 2015) . Please refer to event websites.
Collaborative work programs to develop joint pipelines have occurred in: Mozambique, Ethiopia, Sierra Leone, Gabon (CAF) Mexico, Colombia, and Peru (LAC), and Indonesia, Lao and Vietnam (ANE). See respective CDS
This year, with the Forest Action Plan being prepared, there are ample examples of information exchange across the WBG agencies. IEG recognizes the ongoing join mission work in Mozambique, Colombia, Ghana, Ethiopia, Vietnam, Lao PDR, etc. but has not had a chance to review the synergies planned under the Joint Action Plan, which should be in line with the thrust still of the Forest Strategy. IEG would value learning more about how "high potential" countries are being selected, with regard to the three Pillars of the Forest Strategy.
Action 7 A. Exchanges between WB and IFC colleagues have drastically increased and has become much more systematic, both at the country-level and at the corporate level:
- at the country-level, IFC and WB teams are exchanging information on on-going dialogue on forest sector, potential opportunities of collaboration. Joint missions are organized. Examples: Mozambique, Colombia, Ghana, Ethiopia, Vietnam, Lao PDR, etc.
- at the corporate-level: the preparation of the Forest Action plan has galvanized strategic discussions between WB and IFC to (i) identify countries with high potential of collaboration, (ii) define collaboration models (captured in the Forest Action Plan). WBG participation to international event (such as World Forestry Congress in Durban, Finance conference in London) include joint WB/IFC colleagues.
Action 7 B. IFC and WB teams have been working together on a number of countries on specific programmatic approaches: Indonesia, Lao PDR, Ghana, Peru and Colombia, Liberia, Ethiopia). Joint missions are organized.
Action 7 C. The preparation of the Forest Action Plan has galvanized strategic discussion on joint engagement.
(note: Mark Constantine and Leopoldo Sposato have completed reviewed and cleared the update and ratings for this recommendation as Task Leader and reviewing Manager and have authorized Kris Luniku to clear in the system on their behalf).
IFC Management committed to improving information exchange between IFC and the World Bank. It proposed the following indicator: Data about respective pipeline operations is regularly exchanged as the basis for forward planning with a target set for Quarterly joint team meetings held between IFC and WB staff to be launched by FY14. IFC also committed to coordinate pipeline development between Bank and IFC proposing the indicator â
number of countries where there are complementary Bank and IFC projects with a target of
3 FIP operations underway with IFC and WB involvement during FY15. IFC also committed to undertaking a joint WB-IFC workshop to identify and subsequently address constraints and impediments to effective collaboration, The Indicator proposed was âa workshop held â with a target of one workshop including regional representation.
to be competed in FY15.
IFC Management has indicated that this recommendation is still Active and has rated itself Medium based on the self-reported findings that Country, project and practice-level communications (e.g. in Mozambique, Colombia, Vietnam, Lao PDR etc.) have improved and IFC participation in land-related events has increased. Management has also indicated and IEG recognizes that WBG reorganization has delayed formalization of consultations. Preliminary preparations are underway for a workshop to be organized in FY15. IFC has alos had substantial involvement in FIP programming (Indonesia, Lao PDR, Ghana, and Peru).
IEG agrees that this recommendation is active and that there has been Medium progress towards its achievement.
7A. Country, project and practice-level communications (e.g. in Mozambique, Colombia, Vietnam, Lao PDR etc.) have improved and IFC participation in land-related events has increased.
WBG reorganization has delayed formalization of consultations.
7B. IFC has substantial involvement in FIP programming (Indonesia, Lao PDR, Ghana, and Peru). There has been IFC-WB consultation at varying degrees with Mozambique being the most significant.
7C. Preliminary preparations underway for workshop to be organized in FY15. Funding support will be critical.