95560 Results Frameworks in Country Strategies – Lessons from Evaluations Abbreviations and Acronyms AAA Analytical and Advisory Assistance CAS Country Assistant Strategy CASCRR Country Assistance Strategy Completion Report Review CLR Completion & Learning Review CPF Country Partnership Framework PLR Performance & Learning Review SCD Systematic Country Diagnostics TA Technical Assistance VPU Vice Presidency Unit WBG World Bank Group Director-General, Evaluation : Ms. Caroline Heider Director, Independent Evaluation Group, Country , : Mr. Nick York Corporate, and Global Evaluations Manager : Ms. Geeta Batra Team : Luis Alvaro, Xiaolun Sun, Geeta Batra, Marcelo Selowsky, Shoghik Hovhannisyan. i Contents 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 2. Results Framework ............................................................................................................... 4 Definition .............................................................................................................................. 4 STEP 1. Identifying the broad goals for country assistance ........................................... 4 STEP 2 . What are the key constraints/bottlenecks that need to be removed/addressed in order to reach these goals? The role of the SCD............................................................... 4 STEP 3 Identifying possible areas of WBG engagement from those areas identified in the SCD. ............................................................................................................................ 5 STEP 4 Selecting a subset of objectives as the specific CPS operational objectives. .... 5 STEP 5 Developing the results chain between the selected CPS (operational) objectives and WBG instruments and resources ............................................................... 6 STEP 6 A monitoring framework to gauge progress and results. ............................... 10 3. Summary and Key lessons .................................................................................................. 11 Boxes Box 2.1: Examples:.................................................................................................................. 4 Box 2.2: What are country objectives/outcomes and outputs? How are they different from project outcomes and outputs? .................................................................................................. 6 Tables Table 2.1: The table below summarizes the type of information that can provide clarity to each of the above transmission channels: ................................................................................. 9 Figures Figure 1. Country Engagement Cycle ....................................................................................... 2 Figure 2: Results Framework .................................................................................................... 3 Figure 3.: Using the Results Chain to Develop the WBG Program.......................................... 7 Annexes ANNEX 1: EXAMPLES OF RESULTS FRAMEWORKS.................................................. 13 ANNEX 2: CPF RESULTS MATRIX ................................................................................... 17 1 1. Introduction 1.1 In 2005, the WBG formally introduced the Results Framework in the CASs as a key tool for improving the quality of the WBG’s strategy in borrowing member countries, maximizing the development effectiveness of WBG assistance, and demonstrating measurable results of international aid in fostering growth and reducing poverty. Since then, much progress has been achieved in developing a results framework in the WBG’s Country Assistance Strategies (CASs, including Country Partnership Strategies). Today, all CASs discussed at the Board of Executive Directors have a results framework, usually in the form of a matrix in the annex. These Results Matrices define the outcome indicators and milestones for tracking WBG program progress and mid-course corrective actions, fulfilling important accountability as well as learning objectives. The results-based CAS approach has brought several benefits including the focus on results, better alignment between the WBG country engagement and national priorities, and flexibility in instruments to accommodate programming for the increasingly diverse set of Bank clients, including IDA, IBRD and fragile countries. 1.2 Despite this progress, IEG’s country program evaluations and reviews of CAS completion reports (CASCRs) have discussed a few pitfalls in the results frameworks. Common deficiencies include a focus on outputs instead of outcomes, a weak link between designed interventions and outcomes, and the absence of monitoring indicators to track outcomes. Several recent IEG evaluations and reports, including the 2013 The Matrix System at Work and RAP 2013, have demonstrated that a weak CAS results framework is a key determinant of unsatisfactory outcome performance at the country program level. 1.3 The new Country Partnership Framework (CPF) provides an opportunity to strengthen the results frameworks in CPFs. Replacing the Country Assistance Strategy, the CPF is the new central tool of World Bank Group Management and the Board for reviewing and guiding the WBG’s country programs and gauging their effectiveness. It identifies the key objectives and development results through which the WBG intends to support a member country in its efforts to end extreme poverty and boost shared prosperity in a sustainable manner. 1.4 The CPF process has four components (see Figure 1): the SCD, which provides the analytic underpinnings for the strategy; the CPF, the WBG’s country strategy, which draws on the SCD; the Performance and Learning Review (PLR), which is used periodically to update the CPF, monitor its implementation and learn from the findings; and the Completion and Learning Review (CLR), which is prepared when the CPF is complete, and is used to inform the next CPF. 2 Figure 1. Country Engagement Cycle Systematic Country Performance Completion Country Partnership & Learning & Learning Diagnostic Framework Review Review Results Framework 1.5 A Results Framework (RF) is an integral part of all the components of the CPF process. The RF calls for a clear specification of country and WBG goals, the specific objectives selected by the country strategy in order to best contribute to those goals, a theory of change that relates those objectives with the instruments, and finally a monitoring system that identifies yardsticks of progress and achievements. As noted above, much progress has been made in specifying the RF in the World Bank Group’s CAS, CPS and Completion Reports; however the system would benefit from strengthening especially if it is to contribute to the effective implementation of the new engagement approach that the WBG has recently launched. The objective of this note is to provide suggestions for improvement in Results Frameworks for Country Strategies based on an IEG analysis of WBG’s country strategies approved during FY08-FY14 and the CASCRs prepared by country teams during FY12-FY14. 3 Figure 2: Results Framework 4 2. Results Framework Definition 2.1 A Results Framework represents the underlying logic that explains how the development objectives of a country program are selected and how they are to be achieved. Within the new CPF framework, the major stages of the Results Framework as shown in Figure 2 are as follows. STEP 1. IDENTIFYING THE BROAD GOALS FOR COUNTRY ASSISTANCE 2.2 This first stage broadly defines with the country authorities and stakeholders the main areas of common interest; that is, the intersection of the twin goals of the WBG and countries’ own goals. Country development goals are longer-term or higher-order development objectives identified by the country. They are usually neither achievable in the CPF period nor solely addressed by the CPF program. Box 2.1: Examples: Country Development Goals Key Constraints 1. Reduce mismatch between labor market 1. Insufficient supply of highly skilled and productive people in demand by employers demand and supply 2. Stagnant or declining agricultural yields 2. Revitalization of the Rural Economy 3. High rural road transport costs 3. Improve agriculture competitiveness 4. Credit to SMEs and poor households 4. Expand access to credit and other financial constrained but expansion needs to preserve services to priority areas for national financial stability development, infrastructure, small business and the populations currently excluded 5. High childhood malnutrition 5. Improve living conditions, particularly for the poor and vulnerable STEP 2 . WHAT ARE THE KEY CONSTRAINTS/BOTTLENECKS THAT NEED TO BE REMOVED/ADDRESSED IN ORDER TO REACH THESE GOALS? THE ROLE OF THE SCD. 2.3 The SCD will identify the main policies and institutional reforms that could contribute most to the achievement of the common goals, independent of whether the WBG will address them. Both stages one and two are important for the focus and relevance of the WBG engagement. Also, prioritization of main policies and institutional reforms in the SCD will set the basis for an effective approach to selectivity. In doing so, the SCD is expected to help weed out weakly relevant engagements. 5 STEP 3 IDENTIFYING POSSIBLE AREAS OF WBG ENGAGEMENT FROM THOSE AREAS IDENTIFIED IN THE SCD. 2.4 Not all the key constraints identified by the SCD can be addressed by the Bank in its assistance strategy. Some of them may be of such an institutional and long-term nature (for example the instability and uncertainty created by peculiarities of the electoral cycle, the deep rooted structure of land ownership, etc.) that efforts to address them can be postponed or undertaken by others. This stage is a first cut at identified areas of engagement where the WBG could potentially play a role. STEP 4 SELECTING A SUBSET OF OBJECTIVES AS THE SPECIFIC CPS OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVES. 2.5 The transition from the previous stage to the current is a complex one and has been a salient weakness in current Country Assistance Strategies. What subset of the objectives identified in the SCD should be selected as specific operational objectives of the country assistance strategy? It calls for selecting those that can be delivered best given the WBG resources, knowledge, country ownership, and in collaboration with donors. The ability of the institution to be selective is critical as proliferation of objectives in the CPS may disperse the institution’s efforts, may tax the capacity of the country and prevent catalytic effects and transformational impacts. The development of operational results chains (step 5) will be an integral part of this process. 2.6 Many times the CPS set objectives seem too ambitious given the instruments that the WGB fields and/or the assumptions are too unrealistic (regarding what is expected for the government, the development partners, the private sector, for instance) or are simply not specified. On the other extreme one could have CPS objectives that are very realistic and basically equal to the project objective, but with no clear catalytic (transformational) impact that may influence broader objectives and goals. (For example, the CAS objective is equal to the number of additional irrigated farms, an output from an irrigation project.) See Box 1. Setting the CPS objective at an appropriate level would help avoid some of the common problems observed in the current country strategies, where CAS objectives are sometimes indistinguishable from country goals (hence unrealistic), or taken directly from individual supporting projects (hence inadequate). The timeframe for delivering the expected CAS outcomes is a particularly important aspect to consider in defining each CAS objective. 6 Box 2.2: What are country objectives/outcomes and outputs? How are they different from project outcomes and outputs? • Outputs are tangible products or services delivered, and outcomes are the use of those products or deliverables. Traditionally, outputs and outcomes were referred to in the context of a project. When applied at the country level, country outputs are the system or the products or services of the system provided on an ongoing basis which are substantial in terms of the size or importance to reflect country-level developments. • Examples of country level outputs include (i) road system expanded, improved, and maintained; (ii) education system expanded, improved, and maintained; and (iii) electrical system expanded, improved, and maintained. The corresponding outcomes are (i) improved movement of people and goods; (ii) increased education attainment; and (iii) increased and/or more efficient use of electricity including that generated from renewable energy. • An example: Outputs: Increased Kilometer of Road Outcomes: Reduced Transport Costs, Reduction in Travel time A discussion of how the project scaled up and resulted in national level outputs and outcomes, while contributing to the twin goals. 2.7 Thus, a CPS objective is a statement of what the WBG intends to achieve, expressed in terms of an intermediate or final development outcome, as opposed to a financed deliverable (output). These are the WBG’s objectives that the WBG expects to be held accountable for achieving during the CPF period. Examples: 1. Improve attainment of market-demanded skills in high education 2. Increase agricultural productivity in rice and corn industry 3. Reduce road travel time for the rural population 4. Increased access to finance for poor households and SMEs STEP 5 DEVELOPING THE RESULTS CHAIN BETWEEN THE SELECTED CPS (OPERATIONAL) OBJECTIVES AND WBG INSTRUMENTS AND RESOURCES 2.8 The operational results chain is the most critical and challenging task in developing the Results Framework of a country strategy. It presents a logical explanation of how the planned WBG interventions can lead to the expected CAS objectives, beginning with inputs, moving through activities and outputs, and culminating in outcomes, impacts, and feedback, and calls for aligning WBG resources with the selected objectives. It needs to make explicit the underlying assumptions about the actions by the government, the private sector (households and firms), and other development partners, including the possible impact of external shocks. It allows to identify risks associated with these assumptions and consider 7 changes if these risks materialize. A clear result chain is critical for accountability, mid- course corrections, learning, and, is integral to exercising selectivity. Specifying the final result chain and the precise CPS objective may involve a process of iteration and revision during program design. 2.9 The operational results chains have been the workhorse for the design and evaluation of strategies. The operational results chains today provide the basis for accountability. Completion Reports report on the achievement of objectives and IEG reviews the Completion Reports. In select countries, the Country Program Evaluations takes a deeper look at the delivery of results, and over a longer time horizon. And yet, as detected by IEG’s past work, the operational result chain remains perhaps the weakest element of present country strategies. A common weakness observed is the reporting of outcomes at different levels; some seem to be project level outcomes and some outcomes are reported at the national level. However, there is little explanation of the links between the two levels. How did a specific project influence national magnitudes? (Box 1) Figure 3.: Using the Results Chain to Develop the WBG Program 1 Key Constraints: WBG Interventions WBG Strategy and CPF - Identify key contraints to Objectives -Describe WBG's major interventions Country Goals: towards achieving CPF objectives. achieving country goals. -Formulate CPF objectives -Identify country's goals -Discuss complementary actions by the WBG intends to -Identify key contraints to which contribute to achieving the ountry goals country goals by other stakekholders -- other donors, support. government, beneficiaries, etc. -- the WBG intends to addressing one or more key intervene with. constraints. necessary for WBG interventions to achieve the CPF objectives. 2.9 There must be a clear articulation of a results chain for each CPF Objective (or group of CPF Objective) including the intervention logic that explains how on-going and planned activities are translated and scaled up to achieve the CPF Objective and how the CPF Objective relates to a Country Development Goal (Figure 3). The main development constraints to achieving the country’s development goal, which issues the WBG is helping to address and how, the assumptions and risks underlying the WBG’s approach and assumptions regarding contributions from other development partners or the country, must be reflected. To the extent several instruments are mobilized (different types of lending instruments, AAA, TA, etc.) it is important for the Result Chain to first recognize the synergy between instruments – their joint impact may be larger than the sum of the parts. This is critical in identifying country-level or transformational impacts. Because the CPF objectives are usually higher on the Results Chain than the project interventions of the WBG, 1 World Bank Group Guidance: Country Partnership Framework Products. World Bank Group. July 1, 2014. 8 the Results Chain should specify some minimum catalytic effects which result from the interventions (Box 1). Thus synergy and catalytic effects are key dimensions of the Result Chain. 2.10 The various channels through which these synergies or catalytic effects happen include: 2.11 Synergies between different WBG instruments and among WB, IFC and MIGA (internal synergies). The complementarity between Analytical Advisory Activities (AAA), lending, and Technical Advice (TA) and between policy lending and investment operations may have an important impact for the enabling environment and encourage replicability and sustainability. This can provide the opportunity to identify a contribution of the WBG that is larger than the sum of its parts–critical for a country-level or transformational impact. For example, the Turkey CASCR (CASCR FY08-11) objective on Increasing renewable energy and energy efficiency demonstrated Complementarity between DPL, credit lines, and AAA; complementarity between IBRD and IFC credit projects, and pilots on wind farming and complementarity between supporting improved legislation, providing financing and pilot approach. 2.12 Complementarity between WBG programs and those of other partners (external synergies). This can operate through financing, sharing of know-how, and TA. Evidence shows that complementarity takes a variety of forms, ranging from specialization by sector and/or within sector to specialization by activity (AAA, etc.) Complementarity with others may bring risks if supporting arrangements are not in place (SWAPS, etc.). For example, the Sri Lanka CASCR: (CASCR FY09-12) Objective on Resettlement and reconstruction had a good explanation of the signaling and convening role of the Bank and a Bank operation tracked progress in the resettlement process and informed the international community at a time when the country was under considerable security. 2.13 Scaling-up of projects or individual interventions. These interventions can have broader effects if the intervention has demonstration effects that induce other public and private agents to participate through public or local funds or by communities themselves. Sustainability of the initial efforts and ways to sustain it beyond the WBG project is important. Scaling up is particularly pertinent for pilot interventions that seek higher impact through replication. Multiple examples show even successful pilots may fail in having higher impact when scaling up mechanisms have not been sorted out. For example, the Niger (CASCR FY08-11) Objective on Improved access of the rural population to basic health and nutrition had a good but brief account of project providing a minimum package of services targeted to the poor that eventually was scaled-up. The project contributed to a sector wide SWAP that helped with a smooth transition from project to project implementation motivating donors to assist through a pooled account. 2.14 Impact on public policies and legislation that may have a broader impact on the rest of the economy by improving the enabling environment and incentives for other actors to commit resources and have a response consistent with the CAS objective. Expected impact through public policy will depend of the likelihood of the government implementing intended policy reform; the risks are high when implementing such policy reforms requires overriding 9 or negotiating with conflicting interests. For example, the Moldova: (CASCR FY09-13) Objective on Improved competitiveness of the enterprise sector states that a competitiveness DPL helped reduce the administrative burden of business regulation and facilitated the export sector through the reduction of non-trade barrier. This was an important agenda supported by the DPL, however detailed explanations of the mechanism through which the interventions impact public policy would be useful. 2.15 Impact on public institutions and their impact, which may be particularly important for institutions providing public goods. Achieving solid institutional gains often takes longer than a single strategy period; as a result, the challenge is to identify the intermediate step a given strategy can reasonably propose to achieve. For example, Brazil (CASCR FY08-11) Objective on Supporting states moving toward a broader PMS focus- based on results is an interesting and well explained example of Bank efforts at improving regional institutions through dissemination differentiation of experiences as a response to independent demands from the state governments themselves. The program consisted basically of state level DPLs accompanied by TA. The focus of assistance was to achieve PSM based on results, and the narrative explains the sequence of investments in several states and hoe the approach was extended to new states and municipalities interested in replicating the approach Table 2.1: The table below summarizes the type of information that can provide clarity to each of the above transmission channels: WBG internal How will the WB, IFC and MIGA collaborate at the institutional level and how will the synergy various instruments complement and reinforce one another to achieve the expected CPF objective? • The activities of the three institutions are often presented separately; an effort should be made to integrate them and to discuss how the three institutions will maximize synergies in program planning so as to achieve the CAS objectives. Working with How will the WBG work with the government and other development partners to deliver the partners expected CPF outcomes? • It should provide information on: Who does what? • How is the cooperation organized? • Who plays the leading role? • What aspects of the partnership need attention? Scaling-up of pilot What mechanism is put in place for the scaling-up to take place? projects • It should provide information on the extent that the initial project will provide the incentive for central and local authorities and the private sector (households, firms, and communities) to expand/replicate the initial approach. • How will it be sustained when the WBG project is completed? • Going from pilots to broad development outcomes may take more than one CAS. Timing of the anticipated scaling-up should be discussed in sufficient detail as it determines what outcomes can be expected during the CAS period. Impact on public How are the WBG’s knowledge work and DPOs expected to have an impact on policies? policies 10 • AAAs and Development Policy Operations (DPOs) are often deployed to influence policy changes. Some details are needed, for example, on the policy dialogue generated by the WBG’s activities, the design of policy reforms, and the implementation of the new policies. • How do AAA and policy lending complement each other in influencing policies? Impact on public What do the WBG and other partners plan to do, what are the obstacles, and what results are institutions expected by when? • How do TA and lending complement each other in having an impact on the reform of institutions? • As institutional building often spans more than one strategy period, it is critical to bear in mind when setting CPF objectives that the full impact of the WBG program may come much later. STEP 6 A MONITORING FRAMEWORK TO GAUGE PROGRESS AND RESULTS. 2.16 To assess the success of the WBG program, monitorable indicators are needed to measure the achievements of the CPS objectives. This last element of the Results Framework should be a clear result matrix (Annex 2) that identifies a set of outcome indicators that can be empirically measured and tracked. A CAS results matrix is a tool for assessing the achievement of the CAS objectives. It summarizes the key country goals, the CAS objectives (and the medium to long-term WBG objectives as relevant), and the supporting programs by the WBG, the government and development partners; but most importantly it defines the outcome indicators to be used for measuring the attainment of the CAS objectives. 2.17 The importance of good outcome indicators is well understood among WBG country teams; progress in defining appropriate CAS outcome indicators has been made and reflected in recent CASs. In general, good CAS outcome indicators should be: • Close proxies of the CAS objective; • Of the same scope as the CAS objective – the appropriate scope may be achieved by a set of indicators rather than a single indicator; • Measurable, with a baseline and a target (and target date); • Supported by a data collection system to generate the relevant information by the target date. 2.18 In cases where such “ideal” outcome indicators do not exist, or where it is desirable to assess achievement at a lower level, indicators that measure intermediate outcomes may be defined. The same general rules apply to ensure that these indicators provide a meaningful measurement for assessing WBG program achievement. It should be remembered, however, that the outcomes as measured by these indicators are not sufficient evidence for the achievement of the CAS objectives; further discussion is needed to draw conclusions and lessons with regard to the WBG’s success in delivering the CAS outcomes. 11 Examples: 1. Raise IT achievement scores of undergraduates: Baseline: 49 percent in 2010, Target: 60 percent in 2014, Actual: 56 percent in 2014. 2. Raise English language achievement scores of undergraduates: Baseline: 59 percent in 2010, Target: 67 percent in 2014, Current Value: 69 percent in 2014. 3. Increase paddy rice yields (irrigated): Baseline: 2.5 tons/ha in 2010, Target: 3.6 tons/ha in 2014, Actual: 3.4 tons/ha in 2014. 4. Increase Corn yields: Baseline: 2.5 tons/ha in 2010, Target: 3.6 tons/ha in 2014, Actual: 3.4 tons/ha in 2014. 5. Increase % of people in rural areas provided with access to water supply: Baseline: 60 percent of rural population in 2010, Target: 80 percent of rural population in 2014, Actual: 84 percent of rural population in 2014,: 6. Increase volume of new loans to Small and Medium Enterprises: Baseline: USD 2.9 million in 2010, Target: USD 3.4 million in 2014, Actual: USD 3.1 million in 2014. 3. Summary and Key lessons 3.1 The development of a results framework is an important step in the formulation of a country strategy. It facilitates strategic thinking, helps gain clarity around key objectives, and promotes learning and accountability. As a management tool, a good CAS results framework has two interlinked but distinct components that serve different purposes: a results chain that explains how the WBG program would achieve each CAS objective and contribute to the country goals that the WBG chooses to support; and a results matrix that provides the metrics for assessing the achievement of the CAS objectives. Clearly, without a clear results chain to explain why the WBG pursues a certain set of objectives during a CAS period, the results matrix loses meaning to measure the achievement of these objectives; similarly, without a well-developed results matrix, it is impossible to assess the success of a CAS program, or to draw lessons for the future. 3.2 A strong CAS results chain should be explicit about the underlying assumptions that the WBG is making with regard to the actions by other development partners and external factors. It is this clarity about the assumptions, thus the associated risks, which gives strength to a CAS results chain. In selecting CAS engagement areas and setting CAS objectives, considerations should be given not just to the country needs and priorities, or diagnosis of potential solutions, which are clearly important, but also to the time needed to produce results, the resource constraints of all partners, and other factors that may affect the delivery of results. 3.3 In particular, the WBG teams should ensure that “the whole is more than the sum of the parts”; that individual sector and objective level decisions are related to the overall shape of the program; that there is a dialogue with the country on policy and strategic direction; that the country context and its own objectives are reflected; that the capacity of the country and 12 the WBG team are taken into consideration; that proper selectivity and sequencing are applied. The role of other stakeholders – the government, the development partners, the civil society, the private sector, the beneficiaries – must also be factored in as their involvement and agreement are critical part of the exercise and ultimately determine the success of the CAS program. 3.4 Finally, for a CAS results framework to be an effective management tool, it should be current. All parts of the results framework should be subject to regular review and update. Issues that were not adequately recognized, assumptions that have become invalid, delays or advances in the WBG’s and/or partners’ program execution, and many other factors may call for a revision of the results chain, as well as the metrics for measuring success. 13 ANNEX 1: EXAMPLES OF RESULTS FRAMEWORKS Example of a Results Framework in Education Country Key Constraints CPF Objectives and Objective Indicators Supplementary Progress Indicators* Interventions that Achieve Development Goals Objectives Reduce mismatch Insufficient supply of skilled Improve attainment of market-demanded skills -Complete and implement higher education -Lending between labor market people in IT industry fluent in high education: development -AAA demand and supply in English, who are in strategy -Other Donors demand by employers -Raise IT achievement scores of undergraduates: -Implement IT learning programs in universities: Baseline: 49 percent in 2010 Baseline: 0 percent of all universities in 2010 Target: 60 percent in 2014 Target: 90 percent of all universities in 2014 Actual: 56 percent in 2014 Actual: 80 percent of all universities in 2014 Source: Source: -Implement English language improvement -Raise English language achievement scores programs in universities: of undergraduates: Baseline: 0 percent of all universities in 2010 Baseline: 59 percent in 2010 Target: 90 percent of all universities in 2014 Target: 67 percent in 2014 Actual: 80 percent of all universities in 2014 Actual: 69 percent in 2014 Source: Source: * Outputs, Actions, or Outcomes to Measure the progress of CPF outcomes 14 Example of a Results Framework in Agriculture Country Key Constraints CPF Objectives and Objective Indicators Supplementary Progress Indicators* Interventions that Achieve Development Goals Objectives Revitalization of the Stagnant or declining Increase agricultural productivity in rice and -Increase % of clients who have adopted an -Lending Rural Economy agricultural yields corn industry: improved agricultural technology: -AAA -Other Donors -Increase rice yields (irrigated): Baseline: 10 percent of farmers in 2010 Target: 50 percent of farmers in 2014 Baseline: 2.5 tons/ha paddy in 2010 Current Value: 60 percent of farmers in 2014 Target: 3.6 tons/ha paddy in 2014 Source: Actual: 3.4 tons/ha paddy in 2014 Source: -Expand agricultural and rural credit availability: Baseline: 10 percent of framers took a credit in 2010 -Increase corn yields: Target: 40 percent of framers took a credit in 2014 Current Value: 35 percent of framers took a credit in Baseline: 2.5 tons/ha in 2010 2014 Target: 3.6 tons/ha in 2014 Source: Actual: 3.4 tons/ha in 2014 Source: -Number of farmers benefiting from agricultural extension and other support services: Baseline: 10 percent of farmers in 2010 Target: 50 percent of farmers in 2014 Current Value: 60 percent of farmers in 2014 Source: 15 Example of a Results Framework in Infrastructure Country Development Key Constraints CPF Objectives and Objective Indicators Supplementary Progress Indicators* Interventions that Achieve Goals Objectives Improve competitiveness High rural road Reduce rural road transport costs: - Rural roads rehabilitated: -Lending of agriculture transport costs -AAA -Reduce road travel time for the rural population Baseline: 10 percent of rural roads needed -Other Donors rehabilitation in 2010 Baseline: average 4 hours to key economic centers in Target: 80 percent of rural roads needed 2010 rehabilitation in 2014 Target: average 2 hours to key economic centers in Actual: 84 percent of rural roads needed 2014 rehabilitation in 2014 Actual: average 2.5 hours to key economic centers in Source: 2014 Source: Example of a Results Framework in Private Sector Development Country Development Key Constraints CPF Objectives and Objective Indicators Supplementary Progress Indicators* Interventions that Achieve Goals Objectives Increase the use of credit Low level of credit to Increased use of financial services by poor -TA reports prepared to implement key -Lending and other financial Small and Medium households and SMEs: aspects of the forthcoming financial -AAA services in priority areas Enterprises (SMEs) and reform -Other Donors for national development, poor households -Increase number of poor households using infrastructure, by small constrained financial services: Financial inclusion strategy developed business and the populations currently Baseline: 5 percent of poor households in 2010 excluded Target: 15 percent of poor households in 2014 Credit bureau operational Actual: 10 percent of poor households in 2014 Source: New products and financial literacy campaigns supported by WBG advisory -Increase volume of new loans to Small and and convening services have been Medium Enterprises: launched Number of new financial products Baseline: USD 2.9 million in 2010 designed Target: : USD 3.4 million in 2014 Actual: USD 3.1 million in 2014 Source: 16 Example of Results Framework in Health* Country Development Key Constraints CPF Objectives and Objective Indicators Supplementary Progress Indicators* Interventions that Achieve Goals Objectives Improve living conditions, High childhood Improve childhood malnutrition under 1: -Increase % infants under 6 months who -Lending particularly for the poor malnutrition are exclusively breastfed: -AAA and vulnerable -Reduce percentage of children under the age of -Other Donors one who are underweight, stunted: Baseline: 40 percent in 2010 Target: at least 80 percent in 2014 Baseline: 40 percent in 2010 Actual: 85 percent in 2010 Target: at least 80 percent in 2014 Source: Actual: 85 percent in 2010 Source: -Increase % of children who receive breastfeeding plus adequate complementary food (6-9 months): Baseline: 40 percent in 2010 Target: at least 80 percent in 2014 Actual: 85 percent in 2010 Source: - Pregnant/lactating women, adolescent girls and/or children under age one reached by basic nutrition Services: Baseline: 40 percent in 2010 Target: at least 80 percent in 2014 Actual: 85 percent in 2010 *This Results Framework is constructed using “Healthy Development: The World Bank Strategy for Health, Nutrition, and Population Results. WBG, 2007.” and “Core Sector Indicators and Definitions. WBG, 2013”. 17 ANNEX 2: CPF RESULTS MATRIX A Results Framework is usually expressed in a Results Matrix in the CPF. The Result Matrix in the CPF document has the CPF objectives, defined as country outcomes with outcome indicators that the WBG expects to influence during the CPF period, and their links to the relevant development goals for the country and the twin goals of poverty reduction and shared prosperity. The CPF Results Matrix includes high priority CPF objectives and should not attempt to record every expected effect of WBG interventions. The matrix is meant to communicate the key relationships in the results framework to readers of the CPF document, commit the WBG to specific outcomes against which it will be held accountable, and provide a CPF Results Matrix Template “Focus Area A” Definition of Focus Areas and description of the links between the Focus Area and the Twin goals and how the CPF Objectives contribute to achieve one or several specific Country Development Goals within the Focus Area. Statement of CPF Objective Intervention Logic How does the indicative WBG portfolio listed in the right-hand column contribute to the CPF Objectives? What were the criteria for selecting the on-going portfolio? What are the criteria for developing the part of portfolio under preparation? Highlights obstacles to be overcome, logical causality, assumptions and risks. CPF Objective Indicators Supplementary Progress WBG Program Indicators Indicator 1 Milestone or Indicator 1 List of Bank Group interventions Baseline: xx (2014) Baseline: xx (2014) that contribute to CPF Objectives Target: xx (2020) Target: xx (2020) including TFs Indicator 2 Milestone or Indicator 2 Baseline: xx (2020) Baseline: xx (2020) Target: xx (2020) Target: xx (2020) CPF Objective Intervention Logic CPF Objective Indicators Supplementary Progress WBG Program Indicators Sources: World Bank group Guidance: Country Partnership Frameworks Products. WBG. 2014.