Back to cover

Results and Performance of the World Bank Group 2022

Management Comments

Management of the World Bank Group welcomes the Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) report Results and Performance of the World Bank Group 2022 and thanks the IEG team for having taken on board several comments previously provided. Management is pleased with IEG’s overall positive findings on performance at the project and country level. The report’s main findings, analysis, and lessons provide a source of learning that informs strategic decision-making for Bank Group management.

World Bank Management Comments

Overall

Management welcomes the report’s overall positive findings and is pleased that satisfactory project outcome ratings are at a historical high. Management is also satisfied with the stable and positive performance on quality at entry and quality of supervision at the project level. Management also welcomes the increased effectiveness of Bank Group support at the country level, with more than 70 percent of country programs rated moderately satisfactory or higher, accompanied by a steady increase in inclusion of International Finance Corporation (IFC) and Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) activities throughout the full country engagement cycle. While the report has a few methodological shortcomings stemming from its innovative nature, management broadly concurs with the areas for future direction, which had already been identified in other IEG products, most notably in the World Bank Group Outcome Orientation at the Country Level evaluation (World Bank 2020b). The valuable lessons offered by the report are well aligned with management’s outcome orientation agenda and therefore are embedded in current efforts. As some key initiatives in this regard have only recently been launched, some of the findings are not yet reflected in the cohort of products covered by the report. Management notes IEG’s intention to use this report as the baseline against which future country programs will be assessed.

While reassured by the positive performance, management notes the extraordinarily different global development context in recent years. The Results and Performance of the World Bank Group (RAP) analysis covers FY13–22. The past two years offer a very early view of the COVID-19 response, as well as the current context of compounding crises (post–COVID-19 recovery; the impact of war in Ukraine; inflation; food and energy insecurity; recession; the increasing prevalence of fragility, conflict, and violence situations; and climate events). In the RAP’s preliminary assessment, COVID-19 does not seem to have an immediate implication for the reviewed results. Nevertheless, management remains vigilant of how the complex global context impacts all World Bank’s clients in diverse ways and to varying degrees, and what the consequences for future World Bank engagements would be. Managing risks is paramount in this volatile environment and the report offers insights to avoid reversals of progress made over the past two decades.

Country Engagement Guidance

Management notes IEG’s assertion that the country engagement guidance revised in 2021 is intended to address most of the identified shortcomings and finds the lessons of the report useful for effective implementation of this guidance. Management adjusted the country engagement guidance to offer teams a more flexible approach to articulate and monitor their contribution to selected high-level outcomes (HLOs), including in the results framework. The changes are providing a more structured approach for setting HLOs anchored in the country’s development priorities and articulating the Bank Group’s collective contributions to those outcomes, including through indirect pathways and through a coordinated One Bank Group approach. The revised narrative describes more clearly the role and complementarities of investments, policies, and institutions, and contributions from the public and private sectors. The time horizon of HLOs extends beyond the Country Partnership Framework (CPF) cycle as long as it remains relevant as high-level development goal that the Bank Group seeks to contribute to, on the basis of country priorities and demands for Bank Group engagement, Systematic Country Diagnostic findings, and other strategic considerations. At the end of the CPF cycle, the Completion and Learning Review (CLR) contextualizes and puts in perspective the results achieved under the CPF objectives—including results attributable to projects and interventions predating the current CPF cycle—and progress observed toward the selected HLOs. These changes, accompanied by the Outcome Orientation Roadmap, are ambitious and therefore require consistent implementation and handholding.

One significant challenge is establishing a credible and measurable line of sight to HLOs, and management finds the RAP’s conceptual framework for this useful. HLOs are a new feature in the revised guidance, as the report points out, and the analysis of past CPFs based on HLOs may not give an appropriate depiction about CPF achievements and performance. Previously, CPFs used focus areas and references to the twin goals, Sustainable Development Goals, and individual country development goals. The revised guidance includes explicit reference to the contribution of CPF objectives to HLOs whereby progress toward HLOs is measured by selected indicators over multiple CPF cycles. CPF results frameworks gain increased relevance, as they provide an empirical basis to substantiate the Bank Group’s contributions to HLOs. This will better align the country program instruments with the Bank Group’s business model of helping client countries achieve HLOs over time, while still maintaining a strong degree of accountability within the CPF cycle. Management will purposefully use the unpacked concept of line of sight proposed by IEG to continue refining the way it defines HLOs.

Future Directions

Management values the proposed future directions as an opportunity for further fine-tuning recent reforms, particularly during implementation. The paragraphs in the following sections offer both some clarifications and steps forward.

Enhancing the Effectiveness of World Bank Group Support at the Country Program Level

Management concurs with the report’s emphasis on the need to further advance adaptive management throughout the country engagement cycle but would like to reiterate that flexibility occurs at multiple levels. In its 2021 outcome orientation paper, management explained that “…in the way the WBG [Bank] Group aims for outcomes, adaptation and course corrections can be strategic or tactical. Strategic adaptations involve higher level changes, for example adding, removing, or adjusting a development objective in response to new knowledge or emerging constraints, priorities, or opportunities. […] Tactical adaptations focus on course corrections to navigate implementation challenges and ensure the achievement of existing objectives. […] These decisions are typically made at the project level and reflected in the ISRs [Implementation Status and Results Report] and ICRs [Implementation Completion and Results Reports]” (World Bank Group 2021c, 8–19).The revised country engagement guidance encourages teams to be more proactive to reflect changes in the results matrix, with the explicit requirement to explain the impact of such changes on the objectives and the HLOs. Management is working with country teams to create the necessary training, incentives, and space for this to happen effectively. A strengthened CPF Academy (revamped in 2022) is offering dedicated guidance on this matter. Tactical adaptations are organic to the way the World Bank aims for outcomes, as reflected for example by the large number of operations that were adjusted and repurposed during the COVID-19 response.

Management shares the view that clients are often better served through a holistic Bank Group approach but cautions against overgeneralization. Given the many nuances, the treatment of experience of One Bank Group in the report seems unnuanced. The three Bank Group institutions develop country-specific collaboration and programming approaches depending on country needs, sectoral landscape, institutional and other risks, and timing of the respective interventions. Not all CPF objectives lend themselves for collaboration. Within the Bank Group, the World Bank’s comparative advantage lies in the ability of do “systemwide” engagement. Notwithstanding the need for selectivity based on comparative advantages, management has emphasized through the revised country engagement guidance the importance of joint work, and it believes that the introduction of HLOs helps Bank Group institutions identify common ground to deliver longer-term results by combining and sequencing multiple products.

Strengthening Risk Identification and Mitigation

Management concurs with the importance of more explicit risk management in country engagements but does not find it feasible to include alternative scenarios in CPFs. The RAP makes the broad assertion that the Bank Group was good at identifying (some) risks but fared less well on risk mitigation. Management however believes that the best measure of effective suggesting that both risk identification and mitigation are also improving. The report concludes that “the response to crises as known risks materialize is often ad-hoc and inconsistent across countries and over time” (74). The application of standardized approaches is not desirable as the World Bank’s responses to crises are typically country and situation-specific and regional or country management is best placed to assess the level and intensity of engagement in an unstable situation. The RAP suggests the inclusion of scenarios in CPFs in advance so that corrective action can be taken in a timely manner, depending on which scenario unfolds. Management believes it is not realistic to expect a publicly available CPF to outline some of the major potential risk scenarios—such as, for example, political upheaval—as doing so could be counterproductive. While CPFs cannot be expected to engage in scenario planning on all political risk factors, World Bank management agrees that there needs to be systematic discussion about different situations during the CPF period. This discussion must happen organically throughout the country engagement cycle, as those situations directly influence the client’s ability to achieve the desired HLOs. Finally, as evidenced through the current context of compounding crises, external risks can never be fully mitigated.

Monitoring the Use and Influence of Advisory Services and Analytics

Management shares the appreciation of the importance of advisory services and analytics (ASAs) to deliver outcomes—as highlighted in the Strategic Framework for Knowledge—as well as the need for better measurement of their effects, although the report shows an incomplete picture of ASA performance. While the implementation of the Strategic Framework for Knowledge will certainly be influenced by the RAP 2022 conclusions, management has reservations on the way the report oversimplifies the varying objectives and use of ASAs. The report does not distinguish between various types of ASAs and how and when they influence development outcomes at the country level: (i) a significant number of ASAs are intentionally designed to inform narrow aspects of operational design and so are never intended to have a larger impact at the country level, and their value is reflected through project-level results; (ii) some ASAs conducted during a CPF cycle, such as advocacy work, could inform and influence activities and operations in future engagement cycles; (iii) other core ASAs in the country engagement cycle such as Country Climate and Development Reports do not seem to have been recognized in the process; and (iv) global, regional, and thematic ASAs that can have significant influence across several countries are not considered. Recognizing this variety, management is making strides to better align ASAs with the outcome orientation agenda. While coverage is not comprehensive, it is encouraging to see that the impact is high for that portion of the portfolio which has been assessed. The revised country engagement guidance also addresses this issue through (i) increased emphasis on capturing indirect pathways in the results frameworks, which will influence future country engagement, and (ii) encouraging teams to include the contribution of ASAs in discussing development outcomes in CLRs. Dedicated activities in the Outcome Orientation Roadmap will provide guidance to operational teams on how to capture the contribution of indirect pathways—of which ASA is an important part—to HLOs.

International Finance Corporation Management Comments

IFC management welcomes IEG’s flagship report Results and Performance of the World Bank Group 2022. This year, the RAP goes beyond updating project-level portfolio performance trends to reporting on the Bank Group’s country-level outcomes and performance. We welcome IEG’s review and the establishment of the baseline for future reviews in this regard. In addition, the RAP 2022 presents helpful first-time analysis regarding IFC’s performance on project dimensions, such as work quality, role and contribution, additionality, and investment outcome ratings. IFC management acknowledges the IEG analysis on projects at the extreme end of the spectrum—highly successful and highly unsuccessful—which has great potential for future learning.

Management is pleased to see the continued positive trends in IFC’s development results, particularly in the context of compounding crises and uncertainty. As detailed in the RAP 2021 report (World Bank 2021b), IFC management has implemented a deliberate, multifaceted effort over the years to strengthen the institutional focus on development results. This included, among others, establishing the Economics and Private Sector Development Vice Presidential Unit to strengthen country, market and country assessments and launching the Anticipated Impact Measurement and Monitoring (AIMM) framework to improve project assessment, selection, and design as well as providing additional resources for staff to focus on project evaluations and placing greater emphasis on work quality and candor for operational staff. This approach is now firmly embedded in IFC’s investment and advisory operations, and we are pleased to see these efforts bearing fruit. Overall, the development outcome of evaluated IFC investments has improved to 52 percent in 2019–21 from 47 percent in 2017–19 (reported in RAP 2021) and a sustained recovery from the lowest level of 41 percent in 2016–18. While the full effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on portfolio performance have yet to materialize, management is pleased to see increasing IFC development outcome ratings and is optimistic that the reversal in declining results will be sustained. Similarly, with respect to IFC advisory projects’ development effectiveness ratings, 62 percent of projects evaluated in 2019–21 were rated mostly successful or higher, a continuous improvement from 52 percent in 2017–19 (reported in RAP 2021). As the report recognizes, these development effectiveness ratings demonstrate a significant continuous recovery from the lowest level at 38 percent in 2015–17. While noting the marked improvement in development effectiveness ratings for advisory projects in International Development Association (IDA) / fragile and conflict-affected situations (FCS) contexts, management acknowledges, with concern, the poor outcome ratings for IFC investments in Africa, as well as in FCS markets more broadly, and commits to undertake a review of the key drivers. IFC 3.0, launched in 2017, enshrined IFC’s commitment to supporting private sector development in the most challenging markets, with Africa being designated as one of IFC’s three strategic focus regions. IFC also set ambitious goals through both the capital package and as part of the Bank Group fragility, conflict, and violence strategy to accelerate its program in fragile and conflict-affected markets, where private sector activity is constrained by both financial and nonfinancial risks. Advisory services play a critical role in IFC’s programs in both project preparation and capacity building in these regions, and management is pleased to note the stark improvement in development effectiveness ratings for advisory projects in IDA/FCS markets (from 22 percent mostly successful or higher in 2015–17 to 56 percent in 2019–21). However, development outcome ratings for investment projects in Africa and IDA/FCS markets continue to lag behind the IFC average, particularly in the areas of work quality and additionality. Given the centrality of Africa as well as IDA/FCS markets to IFC’s mission, management is keen to better understand the underlying drivers of investment outcome ratings in these areas and commits to an in-depth, internal review with a view to improving development performance in priority markets.

To complement the above, management would also like to highlight important organizational, managerial, and business decisions that have been taken in recent years to scale up both investment and development impact in these Africa and IDA/FCS markets. While we strongly agree that more work needs to be done, we also point to the solid progress that has been made and that may not yet be reflected in the most recent IEG ratings because of the lag between project approval and when projects are rated. In FY22, IFC invested $9.4 billion across 36 countries in Africa—the largest ever annual commitment for the continent—including $2.6 billion in mobilization and $3.0 billion in much needed trade and short-term finance. IFC’s average AIMM score in Africa was 55 and in FCS–low-income countries–IDA17 markets was also 55, higher than the IFC average of 53. IEG’s FY22 evaluation The International Finance Corporation’s and Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency’s Support for Private Investment in Fragile and Conflict-Affected Situations, Fiscal Years 2010–21 and the associated management response provided further detail on IFC’s efforts launched over the past three years to improve impact and work quality in Africa and across IDA/FCS markets. These include the following:

  • Adding experienced, senior resources, including locating five Regional directorships in Africa;
  • Expanding IFC’s overall footprint across Africa, including in FCS markets. IFC has increased the staff in FCS locations by 88 percent (from 89 staff members in FY19 to 167 in FY22) during COVID-19. IFC has also increased the incentives for staff working in FCS. For example, in FY21, 22 percent of corporate awards were given to teams working on FCS, and almost 50 percent (14 of 30) of the staff receiving IFC top 30 individual corporate awards in FY21 were recognized for multiyear efforts in FCS;
  • Scaling up dedicated platforms such as the Africa Fragility Initiative (AFI) which supports responsible private sector-led growth and job creation across 32 African FCS countries;
  • Institutionalizing IFC’s systematic approach to Upstream project development and market creation with special focus on IDA/FCS – The Upstream pipeline in IDA17+FCS markets increased by close to US$ 1.3 billion over FY22 to reach US$ 9.2 billion as of FY22-end
  • Leveraging blended finance resources, such as IDA Private Sector Window (PSW) to help mitigate financial risks, and deployment of tools such as the FCS & LIC IDA Risk Envelope;
  • Enhancing tools to address non-financial risks, such as: (i) development of Contextual Risk Framework–a diagnostic framework used to better understand country context, risks, and fragility drivers to inform strategy and operations in FCS markets; (ii) expansion of ESG advisory services; and (iii) development of a dedicated e-learning module for IFC staff on conflict sensitivity;
  • Development of a Guidance Note on incorporating FCS considerations into Country Private Sector Diagnostics;
  • Prioritization of private equity and venture capital funds in IDA/FCS markets under IFC’s Equity Strategy; and
  • Launching a course on “Tools for Investing in FCS and Low-Income Countries (LICs),” targeted at staff working in these markets.

The aforementioned improvement in development effectiveness ratings for advisory projects in IDA/FCS markets demonstrates the results of sustained effort and managerial focus. With the above initiatives and advisory support in place, IFC is proactively aiming to improve the identification, selection, and delivery of investments in Africa and IDA/FCS to increase investment volume and development impact in these priority markets. IFC also closely collaborates with the World Bank and MIGA and hopes that collectively, our efforts would contribute to improving long-term development outcomes in IDA/FCS countries.

Management requests more clarification on the evidence base for the RAP’s characterization of IFC first-loss guarantee facilities as unsuccessful. Chapter 3 of RAP 2022 (the International Finance Corporation Investment Projects section) describes IFC’s experience so far in the use of first-loss guarantee facilities with local banks as “challenging and unsuccessful” (20). This assessment is made in the context of Financial Institutions Group projects in Africa that were rated unsuccessful as part of the 2019–21 reporting cycle. However, this finding is based on a sample of facilities that is not representative of IFC’s broader experience with the small and medium enterprises (SMEs) first-loss guarantee risk-sharing product. The report leverages five Risk-Sharing Facilities (RSFs) that were rated mostly unsuccessful or lower in the 2019–21 reporting cycle, of which, four were with the same client group and all were in Africa. This results in an undue concentration of ratings, which are more reflective of the performance of a sponsor group than performance of RSF as a product. In contrast, IFC has committed 46 SME RSFs (some under a programmatic approach) since FY15 with a total IFC commitment of $442 million directed to underserved SMEs. These IFC investments have a multiplier effect in terms of onlending. The average ex ante AIMM rating for this asset class committed since 2019 is 59. To further support its summary findings, beyond the aforementioned five cases, the report also references the IEG evaluation of IFC investments in K–12 private schools. However, this evaluation cites four RSFs in the K–12 sector, also all in Africa, that were committed in FY05–08, and it is not clear what other RSFs are included (World Bank 2022a). RSFs are a key tool for IFC to support financial inclusion by allowing IFC and local banks to form a partnership with the goal of expanding the bank’s lending with target market segments. IFC management has recognized the challenges with RSF, especially as IFC is targeting more difficult markets. As a result, IFC has reviewed the underlying performance drivers and taken action based on lessons learned. This has included changes to RSF structure, more focused portfolio management, and enhancements of client capacity through a dedicated and programmatic approach like the Small Loan Guarantee Program. Small Loan Guarantee Program reach, use rates, and development results have shown positive trends in terms of effectiveness, with 15 projects committed and over 4,900 SMEs reached so far. Greater clarity on the evidentiary basis underlying IEG’s assessment would be very helpful to support ongoing learning.

Management appreciates different cuts in the analysis of results and is interested in more detail to better understand underlying drivers. For example, management notes that IFC investment projects that are paired with advisory services have higher results than stand-alone IFC investment projects with respect to development outcomes. Fifty-five percent of investment services projects that are paired with advisory services projects have development outcome ratings of mostly successful or higher, compared with 49 percent for development outcome ratings of stand-alone IFC investment projects. The RAP 2022 notes that most of the joint investment services and advisory projects with low investment outcome ratings were equity investments and that this partly explains the result. Management would appreciate a more detailed analysis of the causality between joint investment services and advisory services equity investments and weak investment outcome ratings. More granularity would be helpful in this regard, as IFC has worked to address weak outcomes from equity investments since adopting a new approach to such investments in FY19. This approach has included greater specialization among staff, active portfolio management, systematic assessment of and attention to macroeconomic risks among others. Finally, IEG presents analysis of projects rated at both ends of the rating spectrum (highly successful and highly unsuccessful), noting that diversity in project characteristics limits generalizability of results drivers. IFC would like to work with IEG to refine the analysis over time, as it has potential to yield great learning.

Management requests that future RAPs reflect the external operating environment more systematically when presenting findings, as some of the past RAPs have done. With the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbating preexisting weaknesses, the private sector in emerging markets has faced unprecedented crises in recent years, resulting in depressed and changing patterns of demand, reduced access to capital, rising bankruptcies, and the arrival of persistent uncertainty. IFC management thanks IEG for their constructive partnership and collaboration in agreeing to postpone evaluation of IFC projects with high COVID-19 impact exposure. However, projects that faced more moderate COVID-19 impacts were evaluated. More broadly, management maintains that factoring in the external context, including systemic exogenous shocks such as the COVID-19 pandemic, can ensure that results and performance trends are viewed in the appropriate context and that narratives are more nuanced. As acknowledged by the IEG team in their response to Bank Group’s draft-stage comments, providing analysis of the impact of the operating environment brought by volatile macro and market conditions on project results and performance in future RAPs would be indeed helpful.

To assist management and the Board in interpreting the report findings, management requests that in future RAPs, IEG clearly explain that the reported Bank Group performance results are subject to a degree of fluctuation until IEG validation reviews are complete. Management understands that Executive Directors requested that the Board review the RAP as early as possible after FY22-end and that the latest available Bank Group results and performance data be used. If this approach is carried forward, it may have the unintended effect of decreasing the number of projects that can be included in the report as not all projects from the recent fiscal year will have been validated by IEG before the release of the RAP. Specifically, at the time of developing these comments, only 51 percent of the FY21 advisory projects sample has been validated, and thus the development effectiveness rating reported in the RAP is based on this partial sample. Furthermore, this represents only 31 percent of the underlying FY21 advisory portfolio, but this serves as the cohort from which lessons are generalized. The lower coverage of FY21 projects implies a stronger bias on FY20 and FY19 evaluations in the latest three-year rolling grouping.

Similarly for investments, the calendar year 2021 validation coverage is 33 percent of the underlying portfolio. While we appreciate that IEG wishes to provide up-to-date findings to the Board, management would like to safeguard the quality and relevance of findings. To support the interpretation of report findings, management requests that in future RAPs, IEG clearly reference the status of validation and explain that the reported Bank Group performance results fluctuate until IEG validation reviews are complete.

Finally, management acknowledges the country-level outcomes and appreciates the future directions shared for consideration with the Bank Group in chapter 7. Management takes note of the strong Bank Group development outcome and performance ratings at the country program level and acknowledges IFCs contribution to CPF objectives to be concentrated in the areas of business environment and access to finance with IFC advisory being the main instrument to contribute to business environment CPF objectives. Results bear out that if World Bank and IFC jointly deliver on objectives, there is a (slightly) better record of achievement, which points to the benefits and potential for collaboration. Management will consider the future directions presented by IEG with World Bank and MIGA colleagues as the Bank Group further builds on its country engagement programs. With respect to “Monitoring Advisory Services and Analytics Use or Influence” IFC would like to register that regarding advisory services, IFC has a robust process for evaluation, which was developed jointly with IEG and which validates self-evaluations. IFC management is happy to share its experiences if this is to be developed for others.

Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency Management Comments

MIGA welcomes RAP 2022. MIGA welcomes IEG’s Results and Performance 2022 (RAP2022) report and finds it useful and important. MIGA commends IEG for the report’s new contribution to the effectiveness of the Bank Group’s support at the country program level, based on the analysis of Bank Group outcomes and performance. MIGA thanks IEG for the productive engagement during the drafting and finalization of the report.

Historically high MIGA development outcome performance. The report presents many useful findings, and MIGA appreciates IEG’s observations. In particular, the report notes the steady increase in the development outcome success rates of MIGA guarantee projects over the past 10 years. The development outcome success rate for the period under review, FY16–21, reached the MIGA-historic high of 70 percent by the number of projects; though not stated explicitly in the report, RAP2022 also marked historically high success rates of 86 percent for environmental and social effects (E&S) and 72 percent for foreign investment effects, based on the RAP 2022 database. The historic high development outcome success rate was also driven by the historic high success rate of 88 percent for MIGA’s role and contribution, as discussed in the report.

RAP 2022, as well as RAP 2021, recognized MIGA’s solid and steadfast efforts for strengthening self-evaluations as a key factor behind the steady increase in development outcome success rates. MIGA has strived to overcome the challenges of collecting evaluative information through various measures, including evaluation missions to nearly all projects selected for evaluations by the self-evaluation teams in the pre–COVID-19 era and intensifying the collection of projects’ E&S performance information. Over the years, MIGA has also progressed in undertaking self-evaluations of all guarantee projects—including canceled guarantees—which IEG then validates. In addition, MIGA notes that the high development outcome performance of MIGA guarantee projects has been built on the solid foundation of the Results Measurement Systems that have been established in MIGA for more than 10 years, together with MIGA’s increased emphasis on underwriting impactful projects under challenging settings and significantly greater attention given to monitoring, evaluation, and learning.

Historically high MIGA’s role and contribution performance. The report finds that MIGA’s role and contributions were fundamental for successful development outcomes, related to enabling long-term financing, facilitating local currency financing, and improving E&S performance. MIGA’s Financial and Non-Financial Additionality, as outlined in MIGA’s FY21–24 Strategy and Business Outlook, provides a holistic framework for assessing MIGA’s role and contributions: (i) availability of insurance, (ii) increasing tenors, (iii) competitive pricing, (iv) access to funding, (v) lowering borrowing cost, (vi) mobilizing reinsurance capacity, (vii) regulatory capital relief for banks to increase lending headroom, (viii) resolving disputes, (ix) knowledge sharing, and (x) standard setting (for example, E&S, integrity, and corporate governance).

Historically high E&S performance. MIGA welcomes the report’s recognition of MIGA’s contributions to building the E&S capacity of clients and improving the E&S effects of guarantee projects. MIGA notes that E&S effects were the highest-rated development outcome indicator during 2016–21, reaching a historically high success rate of 86 percent. MIGA notes that the strong E&S results in 2016–21 have been on account of MIGA’s enhanced E&S monitoring and supervision efforts of its guarantee projects. The rapid strides made in MIGA’s E&S monitoring work followed the issuance of MIGA’s Policy on Social and Environmental Sustainability (2007), the update and enhancements to the policy as reflected in MIGA’s Policy on Environmental and Social Sustainability (2013), and the development of supportive E&S Review Procedures (2014). MIGA notes the good example cited in the RAP 2022 regarding MIGA’s involvement in a financial intermediary project where MIGA helped develop E&S policies and procedures at the bank’s subsidiaries that were supported by a MIGA guarantee, with MIGA also assisting in establishing the bank’s overall Environmental and Social Management System.

MIGA contributions at the country program level and Bank Group collaboration in country engagement. MIGA’s country-level engagement is vital for MIGA’s work and development impact. MIGA welcomes the Report’s assessment of the Agency’s contributions at the country program level. The report also highlighted the importance of World Bank Group collaboration in the country engagement process, including the quality of the discussion on Bank Group internal collaboration in the CLR Reviews. MIGA made significant progress in integrating MIGA teams into the country engagement process, including Systematic Country Diagnostic, Country Partnership Frameworks, and CLRs. The analysis in RAP was based on the historic country-level assessment before the introduction of the revised Bank Group country engagement guidance adopted in July 2021. The new approach will capture the distinct and joint contributions of the three Bank Group institutions to country outcomes based on the unique mandates and purposes of the Bank Group institutions and their attendant business models.