77882 FY14 Development Grant Facility (DGF) Supplementary Information as part of the DGF section of the report: “A Consolidated Report on the World Bank’s Grant Making Facilities for FY14� ANNEXES 1. FY14 DGF Budget Allocations by Short Term and Long Term Programs...…………………….. 1 2. FY14 DGF Programs by Millennium Development Goals……………………………………..... 4 3. DGF Grant Allocations from FY98-FY14……………………………………………………..… 5 4. DGF Eligibility Criteria…………………………………………………………………………. 13 5. Operational Policy: OP 8.45 for Grants………………………………………………………...... 14 6. Partnership Participation Grants (PPGs)…………………………………………………..……... 16 7. Programs Disengaging from DGF…………………………………………………..……………. 17 8. Agreed Exit Strategies for Long-Standing DGF Programs……………………..………………... 18 9. FY14 DGF Council Members…………………………………………………..………………... 19 10. Global Partnership Programs (GPPs): Rules for Source of Funding………..…………………… 20 11. Implementation of the DGF Results Framework………………………………………………… 21 12. Timetable of Independent Program Evaluations…………………………………………............. 23 13. Summaries of Independent Evaluations……………………………………………..…………… 27 14. World Bank Independent Evaluation Group: Guidance on Program Evaluation……..………... 29 15. Partners in DGF Supported Programs…………………………………………………..………... 35 16. Summaries of FY14 DGF Programs: Ongoing and Proposed…..……………………..………… 37 Annex 1 FY14 DGF Budget Allocations by Long Term (Window One) and Short Term (Window Two) Programs FY13 FY14 Exit Independent Title of Partnership Actual Proposed Year a/ Evaluation LONG TERM PROGRAMS - TOTAL 25.48 16.13 SD 4.35 0.00 Global Facility for Disaster Reduction & Recovery 2.25 0.00 FY13 2014 Cities Alliance 2.10 0.00 FY13 2014 HD 11.23 8.55 The African Program for Onchocerciasis Control (APOC) 2.15 2.15 FY15 2016 UNAIDS Global and Regional Activities 3.30 1.65 FY15 2016 Partnership for Child Development 1.50 1.50 FY14 2015 Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR) 1.55 1.25 FY15 2016 Research and Development in Human Reproduction 1.52 1.20 FY15 2016 Association for the Development of Education in Africa 0.60 0.50 FY15 2016 Stop Tuberculosis Partnership 0.61 0.30 FY15 2016 FPD 2.86 1.93 Consultative Group to Assist the Poor 2.52 1.60 FY15 2016 Toronto Center 0.34 0.33 FY14 2015 DEC 2.75 1.86 Global Development Network 2.07 1.86 FY15 2016 Strengthening Bank's Support to the Arab World 0.68 0.00 FY13 2014 OPCS 4.29 3.79 Statistical Capacity Building Program - Marrakech Action Plan for Statistics 2.50 2.00 FY15 2016 - Program for Education Statistics (PES) 1.50 1.50 FY15 2016 Global Financial Management Partnerships 0.29 0.29 FY14 2015 Note: a/Exit year: Last year of DGF funding. 1 Annex 1 FY13 FY14 Exit Independent Title of Partnership Actual Proposed Year a/ Evaluation SHORT TERM PROGRAMS - TOTAL 29.79 34.14 SD 13.45 10.74 Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF-2) 3.00 6.94 FY16 2017 Global Partnership for Oceans (GPO) 0.75 0.75 FY15 2016 International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime (ICCWC) 0.75 0.75 FY15 2016 Legacy Pollution and its Health Impacts Affecting Poor Communities 0.70 0.60 FY14 2015 Construction Sector Transparency Initiative (CoST) 0.50 0.50 FY14 2015 Partnership for Biosafety Risk Assessment and Regulation 0.40 0.40 FY14 2015 Partnership for Agricultural Market Information System (AMIS) 0.40 0.40 FY15 2016 Building Capacity in Food Safety 0.40 0.40 FY15 2016 Innovative Tools for Mainstreaming Conservation of Threatened Species into Development - Threatened Species Partnership 1.00 0.00 FY13 2014 Strategic Inst. on Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation & Dev. in Mountain Regions 0.75 0.00 FY13 2014 Climate Finance Knowledge Platform 0.20 0.00 FY13 2014 Affiliated Network on Social Accountability - MENA f/ 1.50 0.00 FY14 2015 Arab Finance Facility for Infrastructure 2.00 0.00 FY13 2014 Agricultural Insurance Vulnerability Reduction & Climate Change Adaptation 0.15 0.00 FY13 2014 Brazilian Experience for African Development Partnerships 0.50 0.00 FY13 2014 Land Governance Monitoring and Implementation (Global Code of Conduct) 0.45 0.00 FY13 2014 HD 10.08 6.74 Supporting the "Teach for All" Model in the Developing World 1.50 1.70 FY14 2015 Population and Reproductive Health Capacity Building Program 1.00 1.00 FY14 2015 Regional Partnership Program on Health Systems and Policies (RPPHSP) 0.95 0.95 FY14 2015 Investing in Early Childhood Development (ECD) 0.50 0.75 FY15 2016 Arab Regional Agenda for Improving Education Quality (ARAIEQ) 0.80 0.70 FY14 2015 HANSHEP 0.50 0.70 FY15 2016 Roll Back Malaria 1.10 0.55 FY15 2016 Roma Education Fund 0.44 0.39 FY15 2016 Bridging the Knowledge Gap for Results in MNC Health 0.87 0.00 FY13 2014 S-S Coop.: Strengthening Health Systems in Lusophone Countries 0.27 0.00 FY13 2014 UWEZO 0.70 0.00 FY13 2014 Promoting Youth Employment & Employability 1.45 0.00 FY13 2014 FPD 1.85 3.00 infoDev Regional Innovation Networks for Climate Technology (RIN:CTech) 1.50 1.50 FY14 2015 New Generation of Women Entrepreneurs 1.15 FY16 2017 Supporting the Emerging Entrepreneurial Ecosystem 0.35 0.35 FY15 2016 2 Annex 1 FY13 FY14 Exit Independent Title of Partnership Actual Proposed Year a/ Evaluation SHORT TERM PROGRAMS - Continued PREM 2.61 4.36 Jobs and Development 1.05 FY16 2017 Global Initiative for Fiscal Transparency (GIFT) 0.75 FY16 2017 Network for Integrity in Reconstruction 0.55 0.65 FY15 2016 Girl Hub: Investing in Adolescent Girls and Young Women 0.50 0.50 FY14 2015 Performance-based Public Management in SAR ( PER PAL) 0.50 FY16 2017 Revitalizing Multilateral Trade Cooperation in a Multi-Polar World 0.35 FY16 2017 Public Expenditure Management Network in Asia 0.30 0.30 FY15 2016 Natural Resource Charter 0.26 0.26 FY14 2015 African Center for Economic Transformation (ACET) 1.00 0.00 FY13 2014 OPCS 1.35 2.65 Global Partnership to Strengthen Capacity of Supreme Audit Institutions 1.35 1.40 FY14 2015 Open Data Partnership for Development 1.25 FY16 2017 MNA 0.00 1.50 Arab Spring Development Initiative (DEC) 1.50 FY16 2017 AFR 0.00 3.70 South Africa Health Knowledge Hub (HDN) 2.00 FY16 2017 Intra-African Talent/Labor Mobility and Skills Development Program (PREM) 1.70 FY16 2017 PARTNERSHIP PARTICIPATION GRANTS 0.45 1.45 Global Governance and Strengthening Developing Country Voice (PREM) - International Tax Dialogue (OECD) 0.15 0.15 FY15 2016 - G 24 0.15 0.15 FY15 2016 Sustainable Advancement of Gender Equality (SAGE) 0.15 0.15 FY14 2015 Cities Alliance (SDN) 0.50 FY16 2017 Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (SDN) 0.50 FY16 2017 DGF PROGRAM BUDGET SUMMARY Total Allocations to Programs 55.27 50.27 Of which: Long-term Programs (Window One) 25.48 16.13 Short-term Programs (Window Two) 29.79 34.14  of which new programs: 10.25 DGF Administration Budget 0.90 0.90 TOTAL DGF BUDGET 56.17 51.17 Note: Window 2 funds go to programs expected to receive DGF support for 1, 2, or 3 years. Programs indicated in italics are new FY14 DGF proposals. f/ Fallow year requested; plans to return in FY15. 3 FY14 DGF Programs - by Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)* Annex 2 Promote Gender Combat Reduce Eradicate Extreme Achieve Universal Equality and Improve HIV/AIDS, Ensure Develop a Global Child Poverty and Primary Empower Maternal Malaria and Other Environmental Partnership for Mortality Hunger Education Women Health Diseases Sustainability Development (US$1.25m) (US$5.46m) (US$5.59m) (US$2.8m) (US$1.20m) (US$6.65m) (US$10.29m) (US$17.03 m)  CGAP (1.60)  Association for the  Girl Hub: Investing  Research and  Research and  APOC (River  Cities Alliance  Arab Regional Agenda for  Global Partnership to Development of in Adolescent Girls Training in Development in Blindness) (2.15) (0.50) Improving Education Strengthen the Capacity of Education in Africa and Young Women Tropical Diseases Human  Roll Back Malaria  Critical Ecosystem Qual. (0.70) Supreme Audit Institutions (0.50) (0.50) (1.25) Reproduction (0.55) Partnership Fund  Construction Sector (1.40)  Partnership for Child  Population and (1.20)  Stop TB Partnership (6.94) Transparency Initiative  Natural Resource Charter Development (1.50) Reproductive Health (0.30)  InfoDev Regional (0.50) (0.26)  Roma Education Capacity Building  UNAIDS (1.65) Innovation Network  Global Development  Partnership for Biosafety Fund (0.39) Program (1.00)  South Africa Health for Climate Network (1.86) Risk Assessment and  Teach for All (1.70)  Sustainable Knowledge Hub Technology (1.50)  Global Facility for Regulations (0.40)  Global Partnership Advancement of (2.00)  Legacy Pollution Disaster Reduction and  Partnership for Agricultural for Oceans (GPO) Gender Equality and and its Health Recovery (GFDRR) Market Information System (0.75) Empowerment Impacts Affecting (0.50) (AMIS) (0.40)  Investing in Early (0.15) Poor Communities  Global Financial  Building Capacity in Food Childhood  New Generation of (0.60) Management Partnership Safety (0.40) Development (ECD) Women  International (0.29)  Supporting the Emerging (0.75) Entrepreneurs Consortium on  Global Governance and Entrepreneurial Ecosystem (1.15) Combating Wildlife Strengthening Developing (0.35) Crime (ICCWC) County Voice (0.30)  Network for Integrity in (0.75)  Regional Partnership Reconstruction (0.65) Program on Health Systems & Policies (0.95)  Statistical Capacity Building Program (3.50)  Toronto Center (0.33)  HANSHEP (0.70)  Public Expenditure Management Network in Asia (0.30)  Arab Spring Dev. Initiative (1.50)  Global Initiative for Fiscal Transparency (0.75)  Jobs and Development (1.05)  Open Data Partnership * These programs have been categorized based on their primary objectives and area of concentration; some programs could be correctly included under other categories as well. (1.25) New FY14 programs are italicized.  Performance Management in SAR (0.50)  Intra-African Talent / Labor Mobility (1.70)  Revitalizing Multilateral Trade Cooperation (0.35) 4 Annex 3 DGF Grant Allocations from FY98- FY14 PROGRAMS BY NETWORK AND SECTOR FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 -------- Amounts in US$ Million -------- Sustainable Development Network (SDN) 13.26 14.60 10.85 21.86 19.13 17.48 17.14 20.18 20.82 20.98 22.75 26.89 26.91 22.63 18.35 17.80 10.74 Agriculture and Environmental Services 4.69 3.90 2.60 9.01 7.85 7.10 5.70 9.80 9.90 8.10 5.88 9.68 11.61 12.05 9.50 9.45 10.24 Support to High Level Task Force on Food Security 0.75 0.75 0.75 Brazilian Experience for African Dev. Partnerships 0.50 0.50 0.50 Land Governance Monitoring and Implementation 0.35 0.40 0.45 Agriculture Ins. Vulner. Reduc. & Climate Change Adapt 0.13 0.15 0.15 Partnership for Biosafety Risk Assessment and Regulation 0.40 0.40 0.40 Partnership for Agr. Market Information System (AMIS) 0.40 0.40 Building Capacity in Food Safety 0.40 0.40 Alliance for Good Fisheries Governance 0.40 0.40 0.40 Trade Standards Practitioners Network 0.25 0.25 0.25 Support to Agricultural Value Chain Dev. & Diversif 0.20 0.20 0.20 Mob. Res. Stew.: Comm., Cons, &Markets (CCM) 0.90 0.90 0.90 Afr. Agr. Water Invest. Partnership 0.30 0.15 0.30 Global Animal Health Initiative a/ 1.00 1.00 1.00 The Global Prog. on Fisheries (PROFISH) 0.50 0.50 0.50 Global Donor Platform for Rural Dev. 0.20 0.20 0.20 Int'l Assess. of Agr. Science & Tech. for Dev. 0.50 0.50 0.50 Standards and Trade Development Facility 0.30 0.30 0.30 Millennium Project Hunger Task Force 0.25 Regional Initiative for Dryland Management 0.40 0.30 0.20 The World Commission on Dams 0.80 0.30 Special Prog. for African Agr. Research (SPAAR) 0.63 0.70 0.70 0.25 Empow. Comm. to Enhance Access to Res. (IFAD) 1.00 0.50 Growing Forest Partnership (GFP) - Phase II 3.80 3.50 3.00 Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund b/ 5.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 2.50 0.50 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 6.94 Innovative Approaches to Threatened Species Program - Threatened Species Partnership 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 - Global Tiger Initiative 1.00 1.00 1.00 Support to the Global Legislators Organization (GLOBE) 0.50 0.50 0.50 Knowl. Partner. for Measur. Air Poll. & GHG Emiss. in Asia 0.15 0.15 0.15 Strat. Inst on Clim. Chg Impacts, Adapt & Dev in Mt. Reg. 0.75 0.75 0.75 Climate Finance Knowledge Platform 0.40 0.30 0.20 5 Annex 3 PROGRAMS BY NETWORK AND SECTOR FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 Legacy Pollution and its Health Impacts Aff. Poor Comm. 0.70 0.70 0.6 Global Partnership for Oceans (GPO) 0.75 0.75 Int. Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime (ICCWC) 0.75 0.75 Global Partnership for Env. Gov./Principle 10 0.70 0.70 0.60 Partnership for Env. Assessment in Africa 0.13 0.13 0.13 Sustainable Land Mgmt Prog - TerrAfrica 1.00 1.70 1.70 Developing the 2015 Global Forest Alliance Gov. Model 0.40 AFR - Africa Stockpiles Program 1.50 1.20 1.50 Targ. Res. and Cap. Build. for Coral Reef Mgmt a/ 1.00 1.20 1.00 Global Invasive Species Prog. (GISP) 0.30 0.60 0.80 Global Chemicals Management 0.60 LAC - Dev. Connect. Betw. Biolo. and Geosp. Info. 0.40 0.40 Forest Partnerships Program 0.48 0.37 0.47 0.75 0.80 0.80 0.75 Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) 0.30 0.30 0.30 EXT - COM+ : Alliance of Comm. for Sust. Dev. 0.20 UN Convention to Combat Desertification (CCD) 1.25 1.25 1.25 World Resources 2002-2003: Living in Ecosystems 0.15 0.25 The Global Water Partnership 1.00 1.43 0.80 0.84 0.40 The Millenium Ecosystem Condition Assessment 0.50 Reg. Env. Capa. Build. in the Mediterranean (METAP) 0.96 0.80 0.73 Earth Council Strategy 0.30 Social Development 1.00 0.50 0.60 0.60 1.35 1.05 1.55 6.50 3.75 2.28 0.50 1.50 0.00 Affiliated Network on Social Accountability - MENA 0.50 1.50 0.00 Affiliated Ntwk for Social Accountability (ANSA) - S.A. 1.50 1.50 1.28 Global PPP & Multi-Donor TF for Youth Invest. 2.00 1.00 1.00 Affiliated Ntwk for Social Accountability (ANSA) - East A 0.50 1.50 1.25 Affiliated Ntwk for Social Accountability (ANSA) - Afr 0.50 0.50 1.50 Global Fund for Community Foundations 0.55 0.55 0.55 Global Fund for Indigenous Peoples (GFIP) 0.60 0.60 0.80 Cultural Heritage 1.00 0.50 Urban/Infrastructure 0.63 2.58 1.68 2.25 2.03 2.73 1.70 1.70 4.00 9.00 13.83 10.71 11.06 7.80 7.85 6.85 0.50 Global Facility for Disaster Reduc. & Recov. 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.25 4.25 2.25 The Cities Alliance 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.70 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.55 2.10 2.10 Arab Finance Facility for Infrastructure 1.00 1.00 2.00 Construction Sector Transparency Initiative (CoST) 0.50 0.50 0.50 Subnational Development Tech. Assistance Prog 2.00 2.00 1.85 6 Annex 3 PROGRAMS BY NETWORK AND SECTOR FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 Global Road Safety Facility 1.00 1.00 3.00 0.50 City Indicators Facility 0.45 0.38 0.38 CapacityBuild. For Managing Water Scarcity in MENA 0.38 0.33 0.33 The Nile Basin Initiative 0.70 ProVention Consortium 0.35 0.33 0.33 Global Initiative on Transport Emissions 0.20 0.20 City Assistance Strategy Program 0.83 0.83 Water Utility Partnership (UADE) 0.55 0.50 0.38 Capacity bldg for Global Appl. of Urban Indicators 1.13 0.20 Int’l Program on Highway Development & Mgmt. 0.08 0.13 0.08 Financial / Private Sector 3.30 3.30 3.99 4.60 3.25 3.45 5.70 4.50 1.74 Public-Private Infrastructure Dev. Group (PIDG) a/ 3.70 3.00 1.74 Public-Priv. Infras. Advisory Facility (PPIAF) 2.63 3.30 2.50 2.00 2.00 1.50 ATMS/AMSCO Capacity Building Program 1.80 1.50 0.15 1.20 Global Corporate Governance Forum (GCGF) 0.65 0.50 0.50 0.25 Business Partners for Development 0.65 1.20 0.50 0.25 Enterprise Networks in West, East & South Africa 0.30 0.26 0.15 Toronto Leadership Ctr. for Financial Sector Superv. 0.50 0.30 0.45 Business as Partners in Development Program 0.35 Energy, Mining & Telecoms 3.65 4.33 2.58 6.00 6.00 4.20 3.44 3.58 3.83 2.83 1.50 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 Extractive Industries Tech. Advisory Facility (EI-TAF) 0.50 0.50 0.50 Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative 0.50 0.50 0.50 Information for Development (infoDev) 3.00 3.33 2.58 4.00 4.00 3.00 2.65 2.50 2.50 2.00 1.50 Communities and Small-Scale Mining 0.28 0.33 0.33 Global Gas Flaring Reduction Public-Private Partner. 0.29 0.30 0.50 Solar Development Corporation 0.65 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.20 0.50 Human Development Network (HDN) 25.59 26.09 24.04 29.22 31.19 35.08 34.95 31.44 33.52 31.48 28.23 24.38 24.91 23.78 20.81 21.31 15.29 Health, Nutrition & Population 22.06 22.84 20.23 25.35 25.32 24.90 24.52 24.04 24.20 21.60 21.10 17.78 18.38 17.09 13.92 13.82 9.75 UNAIDS Global & Regional Activities 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.50 3.50 3.30 1.65 African Programme for Oncho Control (APOC) 1.92 2.75 2.55 2.70 2.76 2.85 3.27 3.27 3.00 2.72 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.25 2.25 2.15 2.15 Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR) 3.00 3.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.00 2.50 2.00 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.66 1.66 1.55 1.25 Research & Development in Human Reproduction 2.50 2.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.50 1.85 1.62 1.62 1.52 1.20 Roll Back Malaria 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.16 1.31 1.14 1.14 1.10 0.55 Pop. & Reproductive Health Capacity Building Prog. 2.10 2.10 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.20 2.20 1.42 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.00 Stop TB Initiative 0.10 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.30 Bridg. the Know. Gap for Results in MNC Health 1.20 0.87 0.87 7 Annex 3 PROGRAMS BY NETWORK AND SECTOR FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 S-S Coop: Strength. Health Systems in Lusophone Cntries 0.27 0.27 0.27 Reg. Part. Prog. on Health Systems and Policies (RPPHSP) 0.95 0.95 0.95 HANSHEP 0.50 0.70 Global Forum for Health Research 2.50 2.84 3.13 6.00 6.93 7.15 7.45 6.78 6.78 5.28 5.55 3.74 3.84 2.92 Strength. Health Statistics thru the Health Metrics Ntwk 1.00 1.00 0.87 Mainstreaming Nutrition in MCH Prog. 1.30 1.30 1.24 International Program for Lung Health 1.00 1.00 0.95 The West African Multidisease Surveillance Center 0.30 0.40 0.40 UN Standing Committee on Nutrition 0.10 0.10 0.10 Health Equity Fund a/ 1.50 0.00 Nutrition and Gender 0.50 0.50 0.50 Onchocerciasis Control Programme (OCP) 2.64 1.85 1.85 1.85 1.73 1.70 Global Micronutrient Initiative 1.20 2.00 1.20 1.20 1.20 Establishing a Center of Excellence for Nutrition 1.00 0.90 0.90 Malaria Control Program (MCP) 0.50 0.40 Ensuring New Vaccines for the Poorest 0.30 UN ACC Sub-Committee on Nutrition 0.10 0.10 Global Dracunculiasis (Guinea Worm) Eradication 1.50 Network Improved Reprod. & Health (NIARSH) 0.60 Children’s Vaccine Initiative 0.40 15-Nation Study of Early Childhood Dev. Programs 0.10 Education 3.43 3.15 3.72 3.27 5.28 9.79 9.74 5.96 8.58 9.58 6.78 4.50 4.78 5.09 5.44 6.04 5.54 Partnership for Child Development 0.24 0.25 0.39 1.39 1.38 1.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.60 1.50 1.50 1.50 Development of Education in Africa (ADEA) 0.08 0.29 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.35 0.35 0.35 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.75 0.60 0.50 Roma Education Fund h/ 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 0.50 0.54 0.49 0.44 0.39 UWEZO 1.00 0.80 0.70 Supporting "Teach for All" Model in the Developing World 1.30 1.50 1.70 Arab Reg. Agenda for Impr. Education Quality (ARAIEQ) 0.60 0.80 0.70 Investing in Early Childhood Development (ECD) 0.50 0.75 GIQAC - Global Init. for Quality Assurance Cap. c/ 1.28 1.28 1.15 The Nelson Mandela Institution (NMI)--AIST 0.50 0.50 Global Prog. for the Assess. of Edu. Achieve. 2.50 2.50 2.50 AFR: AAU-QA Support for Afr. Higher Educ. c/ 0.50 Early Child Dev. Capa.-Building Init. (ECDCI) 0.35 0.50 0.50 Tertiary Edu. Quality Assurance Network - The Asia-Pacific Quality Network c/ 0.36 0.36 0.36 8 Annex 3 PROGRAMS BY NETWORK AND SECTOR FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 - Iberoamerican Net. for Qua. Assu. in Higher Edu c/ 0.22 0.22 Program for Education Statistics 0.09 0.70 1.07 1.07 1.43 1.43 1.20 Capacity Building for Edu. Plan. & Mgmt (IIEP) 1.43 1.42 1.00 Zambezi Forum on Higher Education (ZFHE) 0.20 Program for the Assess. of Student Achievement 0.95 1.08 0.95 1.62 2.09 2.08 World Links for Development 0.67 0.55 0.75 1.52 1.51 GDN - Education Research Component in GDN 0.75 1.19 1.18 Forum for Afr. Women Educationalists (FAWE) 0.40 0.48 0.48 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 Education for All 2000 – Assessment Activities 0.25 Promoting Basic Education 0.75 1.88 Early Childhood Care and Development 0.10 0.18 Int’l Program for Improving Educational Outcomes 1.00 Task Force on Higher Education and Society 0.15 Social Protection 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.60 0.60 0.40 0.70 1.15 0.75 0.30 0.00 1.75 1.75 1.60 1.45 1.45 Promoting Youth Employment & Employability 1.75 1.75 1.60 1.45 1.45 Understanding Children's Work - Phase II 0.10 0.10 0.20 Private Pension Research Partnership 0.10 MENA Child Protection Initiative (CPI) 0.60 1.05 0.75 Autonomia Foundation 0.50 0.50 0.30 Poverty & Soc. Welfare Monitoring in ECA 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 Cross-Sectoral Programs 0.29 0.35 0.35 Global Partnership for Disability and Dev. g/ 0.29 0.35 0.35 Finance & Private Sector Development (FPD) 6.25 7.00 7.50 7.63 6.73 6.93 7.89 0.77 0.57 0.60 4.33 4.35 3.70 4.58 4.71 4.93 Consultative Group to Assist the Poorest (CGAP) 6.25 7.00 7.50 7.13 6.73 6.33 5.53 0.50 0.50 0.50 4.33 3.90 3.32 2.92 2.52 1.60 Toronto Center 0.45 0.38 0.36 0.34 0.33 Infodev Reg. Innov. Netw. for Climate Tech. (RIN:CTech) 1.30 1.50 1.50 Supporting the Emerging Entrepreneurial Ecosystem 0.35 0.35 AIOS-WB PARTNERSHIP 0.10 Int'l Org. of Pension Supervisors (IOPS) 0.07 0.07 0.07 Supporting Insurance Supervision 0.20 0.20 0.20 Fin. Sector Reform & Strengthening Init. (FIRST) 0.50 0.40 0.60 Strengthening Grassroots Businesses Init. (SGBI) 1.50 Investment Climate Facility for Africa a/ d/ 0.00 0.00 New Generation of Women Entrepreneurs 1.15 9 Annex 3 PROGRAMS BY NETWORK AND SECTOR FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Network (PREM) 0.92 0.72 1.11 1.03 2.53 2.63 3.47 2.19 1.53 2.18 3.22 3.35 2.73 3.08 2.66 2.61 4.36 Economic Policy 0.50 0.63 0.80 Integrated Framework for Trade 0.50 0.63 0.80 Gender 0.22 0.22 0.51 0.28 0.63 0.18 0.36 0.36 0.80 1.80 1.80 1.60 0.90 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Girl Hub: Investing in Adolescent Girls and Young Women 0.50 0.50 0.50 Sustainable Advancement of Gender Equality (SAGE) g/ 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.60 0.60 0.50 Gender Innovative Fund (GIF) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.30 MENA Gender Research and Training Network 0.30 0.18 0.36 0.36 Gender & the Rural Travel and Transp. Policy (RTTP) 0.19 0.28 0.33 ActionAid REFLECT Adult Literacy Program 0.22 0.22 0.32 Poverty Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.75 0.50 1.00 1.47 1.60 0.60 0.00 0.60 0.60 0.60 Trade Data for Low Income Countries 0.60 0.60 0.60 Global Governance and Strength. Dev. Country Voice 0.47 0.60 0.60 International Comparison Programme 1.00 1.00 1.00 Partnership in Statistics 0.75 0.50 Poverty Analysis Initiative 0.60 Public Sector 0.70 0.50 0.90 0.83 0.85 0.23 0.13 0.38 0.82 1.15 1.23 2.58 2.16 2.11 3.86 African Center for Economic Transformation (ACET) 1.50 1.50 1.00 Good Gov.: Commu. Mob. To Combat Corrup. 0.23 0.25 0.38 0.55 0.40 0.40 0.40 Natural Resource Charter 0.26 0.26 0.26 Network for Integrity in Reconstruction 0.55 0.65 Public Expenditure Management Network in Asia 0.30 0.30 LAC MIC Gov. and Public Mgmt Partnership Facility (LCR) 0.30 0.30 0.18 The Growth Dialogue 0.35 0.50 Public Expenditure Mgmt & Peer Assisted Learning 0.30 0.30 0.18 Global Org. of Parlia. Agst Corrup. (GOPAC) 0.13 0.13 0.14 Forg. Partner. for Good Gov. in Pub. Exp. & Rec. Mgmt 0.90 0.83 0.85 Leadership Fund for African Women 0.30 0.27 International Anti-Corruption Conference 0.24 African Economic Research Consortium (AERC) 0.40 Global Initiative for Fiscal Transparency (GIFT) 0.75 Jobs and Development 1.05 Revitalizing Multilateral Trade Cooperation 0.35 Performance-based Public Management in SAR (PERPAL) 0.50 10 Annex 3 PROGRAMS BY NETWORK AND SECTOR FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 Operations Policy and Country Services Network (OPCS) 0.73 0.51 0.83 0.09 2.38 3.38 3.38 1.55 10.05 8.50 9.15 8.10 8.10 6.05 6.54 5.64 6.44 Quality Promotion 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 9.50 8.50 8.75 7.75 7.75 5.70 5.30 4.00 4.75 Statistical Capacity Building Program - Marrakech Action Plan for Stat 5.90 5.70 5.70 5.70 5.70 4.20 3.50 2.50 2.00 - Program for Education Statistics (PES) 1.60 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 Small States Network for Economic Development (SSNED) b/ 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.30 Development Gateway Foundation d/ 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 Open Data Partnership for Development 1.25 Financial Management 0.73 0.51 0.83 0.09 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.55 0.55 0.00 0.40 0.35 0.35 0.35 1.24 1.64 1.69 Global Financial Management Partnership g/ 0.58 0.34 0.67 0.09 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.55 0.55 0.40 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.29 0.29 0.29 Glob. Part. to Strength. Capacity of Supreme Audit Inst. 0.95 1.35 1.40 UNCTAD: Blue Print for Green Accounting 0.14 0.17 0.17 Administrative & Client Support 0.73 0.73 0.73 Caribbean Reg. Tech. Assist. Center (CARTAC) 0.73 0.73 0.73 Development Economics (DEC) 2.00 3.20 3.40 4.76 4.70 4.70 4.45 4.00 3.50 3.50 3.50 4.30 4.30 3.23 2.98 2.75 1.86 Global Development Network - Core Program e/ 2.00 3.20 3.40 4.76 4.70 4.70 4.45 4.00 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 2.55 2.30 2.07 1.86 Strengthening Bank's Support to the Arab World 0.80 0.80 0.68 0.68 0.68 World Bank Institute (WBI) Regional Centers for Evaluation Capacity Development [Cancelled] e/ Legal Department 0.75 0.70 0.60 0.20 0.20 0.20 Legal Capa. Build. Init. for Int'l Trade & Inv. in Afr. 0.20 0.20 0.20 International Development Law Institute (IDLI) 0.75 0.70 0.60 Middle East and Northern Africa (MENA) 1.50 Arab Spring Development Initiative (DEC) 1.50 Africa Region (AFR) 3.70 Intra-African Talent/Labor Mobility/Skills Development Program (PREM) 1.70 South Africa Health Knowledge Hub (HDN) 2.00 Partnership Participation Grants (PPG) f/ 0.45 0.20 0.45 0.60 0.30 0.45 0.45 1.45 Global Governance and Strength. Dev. Country Voice - International Tax Dialogue (OECD) 0.075 0.10 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 - G 24 0.075 0.10 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 - OECD Global Forums 0.15 0.15 Sustainable Advancement of Gender Equality (SAGE) g/ 0.15 0.15 0.15 Global Partnership for Disability and Dev. g/ 0.15 11 Annex 3 PROGRAMS BY NETWORK AND SECTOR FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 Global Financial Management Partnership g/ 0.30 Cities Alliance (SDN) 0.50 Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (SDN) 0.50 Return to Institution 5.01 DGF Administration 0.40 0.93 0.93 0.93 1.40 1.18 1.18 1.18 1.18 1.18 1.18 1.18 1.18 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 Total DGF Core Budget 48.65 52.99 48.76 65.38 68.96 71.18 71.49 68.42 71.55 69.02 69.02 72.97 73.07 63.76 57.37 56.17 51.17 Consultative Group on Int’l Agr. Research (CGIAR) h/ 50.09 50.30 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 Special Programs 0.65 1.50 30.57 30.00 30.00 9.00 30.00 26.00 23.50 26.00 30.00 26.00 PACT/ACBF i/ 30.00 23.00 30.00 28.00 26.00 22.00 26.00 30.00 26.00 African Virtual University (AVU) 0.65 1.50 0.57 7.00 4.00 2.00 1.50 East Timor 5.00 Institutional Grant Programs 22.70 20.21 26.60 31.50 27.91 26.82 26.72 29.80 26.80 26.80 26.80 18.80 SD - Social Development Civil Society Fund j/ 0.70 1.80 1.80 2.50 2.41 2.50 2.50 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 OPCS - Institutional Development Fund (IDF) 14.00 12.41 16.80 19.00 17.50 15.00 15.00 19.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 OPCS - Post Conflict Program (PCF) 8.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 8.00 9.32 9.22 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 Total Budget 122.10 125.00 155.93 176.88 176.86 157.00 178.21 174.22 171.85 171.82 175.82 167.77 123.07 63.76 57.37 56.17 51.17 Note: Italics indicate new programs in FY14. a/ Because of implementation constraints facing Health Equity Fund and the Investment Climate Facility for Africa, the FY06 funds allocated for these two programs ($1.5 m and $1.0 m respectively) were reallocated to other DGF priority areas namely Global Animal Health Initiative ($0.56 m); Coral Reef Management ($0.2 m); and Public-Private Infrastructure Development Group ($1.74 m). b/ Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund returned in FY09 as a new multi-year phase. SSNED returned in FY12 as Window Two in second phase. c/ In FY08, these programs were subsumed in a new program GIQAC - Global Unit. For Quality Assurance Capacity. Extension requested on use of FY08 allocation. No FY09 request, funds are proposed for FY10. d/ Funding for Gateway had not been included in the FY07 DGF budget document. However, at the Board meeting of June 27, 2006, the Board decided to provide $1 m through reallocation from within the budget; the President noted that another $1 million in the next year (FY08) would also make sense. The reallocation in FY07 was achieved by using DGF funds which had been allocated for the Investment Climate Facility for Africa but later cancelled because of a sizable contribution from IFC. e/ The Global Development Network was sponsored by Poverty Reduction PREM Network under the DGF FY98-06. In FY10 it received an additional funding of $0.5m from reallocation of a cancelled WBI program "Regional Centers for Evaluation Capacity Development". The additional funding is included in the amount shown. f/ Previously Membership Fee Programs. The Bank is contributing a portion of the cost to defray expenses of convening partnership and inviting developing countries participation. g/ Became Partnership Participation Grant (in the case of Global Financial Management Partnership; temporarily for one year). h/ CGIAR is moved out of DGF and funded separately as of FY11. i/ In FY07, the Board approved up to $150 million over 5 years for PACT: "A Proposed Strategy for Further Bank Support to ACBF/PACT (2007-2011)", September 5, 2006. j/ One of the three funding facilities under the umbrella structure called the Social Development Civil Society Fund Secretariat launched on 12/17/07, formerly the Small Grants Program. 12 Annex 4 DGF Eligibility Criteria There criteria were approved by the Board. [See The Development Grant Facility: FY98 DGF Annual Review and Proposed FY99 DGF Budget (R98-258, October 28, 1998)]. 1. The program contributes to furthering the Bank’s development and resource mobilization objectives in fields basic to its operations, but it does not compete with or substitute for regular Bank instruments. Special grants should address new or critical development problems, and should be clearly distinguishable from the Bank’s regular programs. 2. The Bank has a distinct comparative advantage in being associated with the grant program; it does not replicate the role of other donors. The relevant operational strengths of the Bank are in economic, policy, sector and project analysis, and management of development activities. In administering special grants, the Bank has expertise in donor coordination, fund raising, and fund management. 3. The program encompasses multi-country benefits or activities which it would not be efficient, practical or appropriate to undertake at the country level. Informational economies of scale are important for research and technology work; and operations to control diseases or address environmental concerns (e.g., protect fragile ecosystems) might require a regional or global scope to be effective. In the case of grants directed to a single country, the program will encompass capacity-building activities where this is a significant part of the Country Assistance Strategy and cannot be supported by other Bank instruments or by other donors. This will include, in particular, programs funded under the IDF. It will also include programs related to initial post-conflict reconstruction efforts (for example, in countries or territories emerging from internal strife or instability). 4. The Bank’s presence provides significant leverage for generating financial support from other donors. Bank involvement should provide assurance to other donors of program effectiveness, as well as sound financial management and administration. Any single grant to a recipient should generally not exceed 15 percent of expected funding over the life of Bank funding to a given program, or over the rolling 3-year plan period, whichever is shorter. Where grant programs belong to new areas of activities (involving, for example, innovations, pilot projects, or seed-capital) some flexibility will be introduced to allow for the Bank’s financial leverage to build over time. The target for the Bank grant not to exceed 15 percent of total expected funding will be pursued after allowing for an initial start-up phase (maximum 3 years). 5. The grant is normally given to an institution with a record of achievement in the program area and financial probity. A new institution may have to be created where no suitable institution exists. The quality of the activities implemented by the recipient institution (existing or new) and the competence of its management are important considerations. 6. The management of the recipient institution is independent of the Bank Group. While an arm’s length relationship with the Bank’s regular programs is essential, the Bank may have a role in the governance of the institution through membership in its governing Board or oversight committee. The arm’s length relationship with the Bank’s regular programs is appropriate in most cases, and will be maintained. In cases of highly innovative or experimental programs, Bank involvement in supporting the recipient to execute the program will be allowed. This will provide the Bank with an opportunity to benefit from the learning experience, and to build operational links to increase its capacity to deliver more efficient services to client countries. 7. Grant programs are expected to incorporate an explicit disengagement strategy. In the proposal, monitorable action steps should be outlined indicating milestones and targets for disengagement. The Bank’s withdrawal should cause minimal disruption to an ongoing program or activity. 8. A key element of the DGF is that programs and activities financed under it should promote and reinforce partnerships with key players in the development arena, e.g. multilateral development banks, UN agencies, foundations, bilateral donors, professional associations, research institutions, private sector corporations, NGOs, and civil society organizations. 13 Annex 5 OP 8.45 – Grants These policies were prepared for use by World Bank staff and are not necessarily a complete OP 8.45 treatment of the subject. October, 1999 Note: OP 8.45 reflects the policies set out in Development Grant Facility (DGF): A Proposal (R97-185; M97-52), July 29, 1997;The Development Grant Facility: FY98 DGF Annual Review and Proposed FY99 DGF Budget (R98-258), October 28, 1998; and The Development Grant Facility: FY99 DGF Annual Review and Proposed FY00 DGF Budget R99-150), July 26, 1999. Questions may be directed to the DGF Secretariat, RMC. Grants are an integral part of the Bank's1 development work and an important complement to its lending and advisory services.2 The Bank's main objectives in extending grants are to encourage innovation, catalyze partnerships, and broaden the scope of Bank services. Grants enable the Bank to leverage its financial resources, people, and skills, and to combine forces with other partners in pursuit of shared objectives. Grants can complement, expand, and enhance Bank programs, but they do not substitute for Bank financing of regularly budgeted activities. 1. The Bank provides grants from the following main sources: (a) the IBRD administrative budget through the Development Grant Facility, (b) IBRD net income, and (c) IDA resources. This OP sets out Bank policy governing grants from these sources. The Bank also administers and in some cases executes grants from donor- supported trust funds.3 Trust fund policies and procedures are set out in OP/BP 14.40, Trust Funds. Grants from the IBRD Administrative Budget: Development Grant Facility 2. Because grants are an integral part of the Bank's work, they are generally made from the IBRD administrative budget. Such grants are normally channeled through the Development Grant Facility (DGF) to enable the Bank to prioritize allocations.4 DGF grants are used only to support activities that meet the Bank's overall grant-making objectives (see para. 1) and that are consistent with the Bank's institutional and sector priorities.5 DGF grants must also substantially meet eight eligibility criteria (see Annex 4). 3. Grants under the DGF are made from an annual budget endorsed by a Bank wide DGF Council, recommended by Management, and approved by the Bank's Board of Executive Directors. The Executive Directors have delegated to Management the authority to approve grants of up to $1 million per individual program for programs that meet the eligibility criteria and the Bank's strategic priorities, from amounts derived through reallocations within the DGF budget approved by the Board, up to an aggregate of no more than 10 percent of that budget. Policies Under Individual DGF Programs 4. Some grant programs included in the DGF, while broadly consistent with overall DGF policies and procedures, have their own governance structures, subgrant eligibility criteria, and subgrant allocation procedures.6 14 Annex 5 Grants from IBRD Net Income 5. On the recommendation of Management and the Executive Directors, the Governors of the Bank allocate funds from IBRD's net income in the interests of the IBRD's members as a whole and in support of the Bank's development priorities.7 In making these allocations, they take into account the IBRD's overall financial position, risk, and outlook: allocation of grants from the IBRD's net income is considered only if there are funds available beyond the amounts necessary to maintain adequate reserves. 6. Grants from IBRD net income are generally used in three ways: (a) to support IDA countries, as transfers made either directly to IDA or to related instruments; (b) for special country-specific situations for which use of the Bank's normal lending instruments is not feasible; and (c) in special circumstances, to support associated multilateral institutions or other priority activities. IDA Grant Funding8 7. Under certain circumstances, IDA can provide a limited amount of grant funding in lieu of IDA credits, subject to normal IDA Board approval procedures and policies. Use of IDA grants is limited to (a) funding in the context of debt relief provided under the Highly Indebted Poor Country (HIPC) debt initiative; and (b) for exceptional support to post-conflict countries, as a last resort, where other resources are inadequate or inappropriate and as part of a concerted international effort. ____________ 1. "Bank" includes IBRD and IDA. 2. At the country level, grants can complement loans to achieve poverty reduction where potential returns are high but less immediate, such as in the case of technical assistance or capacity building. They can also be useful where the recipient is financially weak and lending is either unavailable or inappropriate, such as in post-conflict situations. At the global and regional levels, grants can complement loans where potential returns are high, such as in health research or global rule-making, but take a longer time to develop and are not captured in a single country or through market mechanisms. 3. Major donor-supported trust funds include, for example, the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) and the Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP). 4. In special cases, other parts of the administrative budget extend grants, primarily within the Bank. For example, two programs support innovation within the Bank-the Innovation Marketplace ($3 million in FY98) and the PSD Exchange ($1 million in FY99)-and one program supports research within the Bank-the Research Support Budget (about $5 million in FY98). 5. Institutional priorities are identified in a variety of forums, including the Strategic Compact, Strategic Forums, the Strategic Directions paper, and other Bank documents and discussions. Sector Boards are responsible for establishing sector strategies. 6. These grant programs include, for example, the Institutional Development Fund, the Small Grants Program, and the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research; further information is available at the DGF website. 7. In certain cases (e.g., IDA), indicative allocations have been included in multidonor agreements. However, in all such cases, allocations are contingent on fund availability and approval by the Board of Governors. Individual grants from net income allocations (for example, individual HIPC grants or grants under the IDA Debt Reduction Facility) are approved by the Executive Directors. 8. Operational policies related to IDA are contained in the IDA12 and earlier replenishment agreements approved by the Board of Governors. For further reference, see Additions to IDA Resources: Twelfth Replenishment-A Partnership for Poverty Reduction (IDA/R98-105), December 23, 1998. 15 Annex 6 Partnership Participation Grants (PPG) – Transition Window The Partnership Participation Grant (PPG) 1 is a transitional window, introduced to help with the smooth exit of long-standing DGF supported programs. PPGs provide an appropriate level of funding to maintain the balance between the requested level of funding for individual grants, and the transaction costs and required due diligence/supervision of these grants. In FY11, the PPG window was further revised to ensure that it became a useful instrument to manage the smooth transition of long-standing programs within the context of the DGF’s reorientation. Additionally, the revised policy has been discussed with the Corporate Finance and Risk Management Vice Presidency (CFR) to ensure its alignment with CFR’s Ancillary Expense policy. Key characteristics of the revised PPG – Transition Window:  PPG is a transitional support window for programs under the DGF; it is not a permanent window;  New programs will not be allowed to receive PPG grants;  PPG provides funding on a declining basis, for a maximum of three years with the total budget envelope of PPG programs not to exceed US$4 million annually;  Funding for each program will be capped at US$500,000 over the maximum of three years, with the possibility of front-loaded support, back-loaded support or the same level of funding throughout. Previous DGF Support for “Membership Fees�: Programs that have already received support under the Membership Fee category through FY11 (OECD Global Forum and G-24) will be phased down with a limited number of years of DGF support and/or will be supported under CFR’s upcoming revised Ancillary Expense Bank Budget category. In the case of the OECD Global Forum, DGF support was used to finance travel expenses for forum participants from non-OECD countries. In the case of the G-24, DGF support was used to finance research/analytical papers by consultants from developing countries. Going Forward on Partnership Participation Grants: The DGF Council and the Board agree on the revised strategy for Partnership Participation Grant (PPG) programs. Accordingly, PPG funding from the DGF is provided on a declining basis for a maximum of three years. For FY14, it is requested that programs under this category (see table below) plan their budgets accordingly. Sponsoring Network Program Exit Year PREM Sustainable Advancement of Gender Equality FY14 G-24 FY15 International Tax Dialogue FY15 SDN Cities Alliance FY16 Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery FY16 1 PPGs have replaced the previous DGF category of Membership Fee Programs, which was introduced in FY07 after an internal review indicated that in some DGF programs, the Bank’s presence as a participant was more important than the level of funding it provided. It was perceived that in certain instances, the Bank had a “membership� role in certain partnerships, which could be sustained by the provision of a small grant with minimal conditions attached. The size of the grant was capped at US$150,000. 16 Annex 7 Programs Disengaging from DGF Title of Partnership US$M Title of Partnership US$M FY14 11.78 FY15 continued Partnership for Agricultural Market Information Partnership for Child Development 1.50 0.40 System (AMIS) Toronto Center 0.33 Building Capacity in Food Safety 0.40 Global Financial Management Partnership 0.29 Global Partnership for Oceans (GPO) 0.75 International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Partnership for Biosafety Risk Assessment and Regulation 0.40 0.75 Crime (ICCWC) Legacy Pollution and its Health Impacts Affecting Poor 0.60 Roll Back Malaria 0.55 Communities Construction Sector Transparency Initiative (CoST) 0.50 HANSHEP 0.70 Population and Reproductive Health Capacity Building 1.00 Investing in Early Childhood Development (ECD) 0.75 Program Regional Partnership Program on Health Systems and 0.95 Network for Integrity in Reconstruction 0.65 Policies (RPPHSP) Arab Regional Agenda for Improving Education Quality 0.70 Public Expenditure Management Network in Asia 0.30 (ARAIEQ) Supporting the "Teach for All" Model in the Developing 1.70 Supporting the Emerging Entrepreneurial Ecosystem 0.35 World Affiliated Network on Social Accountability – Natural Resource Charter 0.26 1.50 MENA Global Governance and Strengthening Developing Girl Hub: Investing in Adolescent Girls and Young Women 0.50 Country Voice (PREM) Global Partnership to Strengthen Capacity of Supreme 1.40  International Tax Dialogue (OECD) 0.15 Audit Institutions Infodev Regional Innovation Networks for Climate 1.50  G 24 0.15 Technology (RIN:CTech) Sustainable Advancement of Gender Equality (SAGE) 0.15 FY15 21.80 FY16 18.19 Stop Tuberculosis Partnership 0.30 Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF-2) 6.94 UNAIDS Global and Regional Activities 1.65 Global Initiative for Fiscal Transparency (GIFT) 0.75 Jobs and Development – Strengthening a Multi- The African Program for Onchocerciasis Control (APOC) 2.15 1.05 Disciplinary Approach to Finding Solutions Revitalizing Multilateral Trade Cooperation in a Research and Development in Human Reproduction 1.20 0.35 Multi-Polar World Performance-based Public Management in SAR Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR) 1.25 0.50 (PERPAL) Intra-African Talent/Labor Mobility/Skills Association for the Development of Education in Africa 0.50 1.70 Development Program Consultative Group to Assist the Poor 1.60 South Africa Health Knowledge Hub 2.00 Global Development Network 1.86 Open Data Partnership for Development 1.25 Statistical Capacity Building Program New Generation of Women Entrepreneurs 1.15  Marrakech Action Plan for Statistics 2.00 Arab Spring Development Initiative 1.50  Program for Education Statistics (PES) 1.50 Cities Alliance 0.50 Roma Education Fund 0.39 Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery 0.50 17 Annex 8 Agreed Exit Strategies for Long-Standing DGF Programs On April 1, 2010, the Development Grant Facility’s (DGF) Council decided that support for all Window One and long-standing Window Two DGF programs lacking clear exit strategies should be phased down to free up funding for new and innovative proposals. The Bank’s Board ratified this decision on June 10, 2010. As outlined in the FY11 DGF Board paper, all programs will thus be required to comply with the requirement that recipients of DGF grants should have a clearly articulated and time-bound strategy for disengagement from DGF. To ensure the implementation of this requirement, the DGF Secretariat worked with the relevant Sponsoring Units of the 24 programs falling under this category to formalize their exit strategies. The agreed funding horizons and exit venues are detailed below for reference. Last Year of Future DGF Funding Program Name DGF funding Window Programs Directly Exiting DGF Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund - Phase II FY16 none The African Programme for Onchoceriasis Control FY15 none Research and Dev. in Human Reproduction FY15 none Research and Training in Tropical Diseases FY15 none Roll Back Malaria FY15 none Global Forum for Health Research FY11 none Population and Reproductive Health Cap. Bldg. FY14 none Roma Education Fund FY15 none Toronto Center FY14 none Good Gov./Commu. Mobil. to Combat Corrupt.: PTF FY12 none Strengthening Bank’s Support to the Arab World FY13 none Marrakesh Action Plan for Statistics FY15 none Program for Educational Statistics FY15 none Global Financial Management Partnerships FY14 none Programs Planning to Transition to PPG Cities Alliance FY16 PPG FY14-16 Assoc. for the Development of Education in Africa FY15 none Prom. Youth Employment and Employability FY13 none Sustainable Advancement of Gender Equality FY14 none Programs Exiting Window One Planning to Re-apply Under Window Two Partnership for Child Development FY14 none Programs Discussed in Senior Management Review Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery FY16 PPG FY14-16 UNAIDS Global and Regional Activities FY15 none Stop Tuberculosis Partnership FY15 none Consultative Group to Assist the Poor FY15 none Global Development Network FY15 none 18 Annex 9 FY14 DGF Council Members CHAIR CFP Michael Koch NETWORK VPUs SD Grace M. Yabrudy/Lydia Kruse Tietz HD Armin Fidler OPCS Anders G. Zeijlon PREM Pierella Paci DEC Claudia Sepulveda FPD Frank Sader/ Klaus Tilmes REGIONAL VPUs AFR Trichur K. Balakrishnan SAR Nicolette Bowyer-Walker/Andras Horvai MNA Omer Karasapan ECA Gail Richardson/Joseph Manoharan Owen LAC Imad Saleh EAP Philip Karp CENTRAL VPUs LEG Alessandra J. Iorio/Andrea Stumpf CFP Roberto Tarallo 19 Annex 10 Global Partnership Programs (GPPs): Rules for Source of Funding Governance: Governance: Governance:  All key decisions on  All key decisions are taken jointly by  All key decisions are program execution are the Bank and its partners. taken by an entity taken by the Bank. external to the Bank. Source of Funding: Source of Funding: Source of Funding:  Primary source of funding  Use of BB resources is restricted to  DGF is the only source of is BB. Trust funds and funding of in-house secretariat costs. Bank funding. BB reimbursements may be funding must not be used, used but do not affect the  Trust fund resources may fund both as Bank is not Bank’s role as decision- program costs and in-house secretariat accountable for outputs. maker. costs.  DGF grants must flow to entities outside the Bank for funding costs of externally managed activities. Accountability: Accountability: Accountability:  Program outputs and  Where BB funding is used, program  Planning and monitoring outcomes should be outputs and outcomes should be of results handled as part approved as part of the approved as part of budget process and of DGF budget process. budget process. specified in the Unit Compact as “partnership outputs.�  Program outputs and outcomes should be specified in the Unit Compact. Source: SFRVP guidelines to VPUs on FY05-07 business planning, December 2003. 20 Annex 11 Implementation of the DGF Results Framework A revised DGF results framework (RF) was introduced in FY12 to improve monitoring and reporting, and allow programs to demonstrate more clearly how they are achieving results. A recent review of FY12 proposals and FY13 progress reports indicate that the new RF is beneficial and of strategic value to programs, both in terms of enhancing their intrinsic quality and as a program management tool. RFs are now also included in the DGF Grant Agreements as guidance during implementation for the task teams as well as funding and implementing partners. The review points to the strong likelihood of achieving the objectives behind the revision of the DGF RF template in that: (i) tangible results indicators are being established; (ii) monitoring and reporting is improving; and (iii) the trends so far in results reporting point to likely improvements in measuring development impact and enhancing program sustainability beyond the period of DGF support. The revised RF requirement to develop the proposed program’s theory of change gives a strong incentive to formulate more realistic, and time- and cost-sensitive Development Objectives (DOs) for the short period of DGF support, by making any mismatch with the performance indicators readily apparent. This contrasts with earlier RFs, in which long-term goals, Program Development Objectives (PDOs) were expressed without sufficient review of how funding would be allocated across the various activities over the 3 years of DGF funding. The revised RFs require a sharper distinction between the partnership program’s longer-term goals beyond the DGF period, and the specific results for which the proposal is holding itself accountable during the limited period of DGF financial support. Another significant benefit of the new RF is in progress reporting, which has improved in overall quality. In many of the programs reviewed, the Progress Reports delineated well the baselines, the achievements to date, and the final outcome targets for the PDOs and Intermediate Objectives (IOs). The review found that both the DO and IO Indicators are specific, measurable, and time-based. The analytical inputs have also been enhanced in the new RFs. Proposals effectively delineated the link of the IOs to the DOs, that is, the specific pathways through which the IOs would directly support the achievement of the DOs. Improved progress reporting significantly enhances the transparency, validity and usefulness of performance data for program management either in terms of modifying low-achieving programs or scaling-up those that are performing well. These improvements in progress reporting would also help ensure the effectiveness of long-term partnerships and enhance resource mobilization. From the most recent round of approvals, it is evident that the DGF Council has fully taken into account the RFs of proposals, in order to ensure the alignment of results measurement with the re-oriented DGF strategy, and to improve selectivity, and match approvals more closely with DGF funding constraints. The Council considered the causality links between inputs/outputs and outcomes to ensure that results can be attributable to DGF support and program interventions. Feedback and suggestions for improvements have been given to the teams on weaknesses in the RFs. 21 Annex 11 Overall Trends in Results Reporting The recent review of FY13 progress reports indicate that the new Results Framework (RF) is beneficial and of strategic value to programs, both in terms of enhancing their intrinsic quality and as a program management tool. Key trends in results reporting included:  The theory of change section in the RF requires the program team to think through the causal links, and provides an opportunity to outline the pathways from inputs/outputs to outcomes, through a careful analysis of core issues, underlying incentives for behavioral change, and the magnitude of the gap between baselines and targets.  The new RF prodded teams to delineate/define what the baseline conditions are, and explain the current conditions, making it easier to see what the net contribution or value-added are of the DGF’s support.  The RF has enabled teams to make the DOs more realistic, because of the need to more closely match the indicators and be consistent with the program’s underlying theory of change. Overall, DO indicators are specific, measurable, and time-based .  In the selection of programs that were reviewed, there is a much clearer distinction between the partnership program’s longer-term goals (beyond the period of DGF support), and the specific results for which the proposal is holding itself accountable (corresponding to the DGF support period).  Overall partnership arrangements, including an analysis of what each key partner brings to the table (i.e. value-added), are now analyzed.  Where budgetary allocations for outputs are specified, more transparent monitoring of the use of funds is possible.  There is room to improve overall reporting on the progress of the M&E set-up and activities, perhaps through a revised template.  In cases where the baseline, achievements to date, and targets for the DOs and IOs are clearly delineated, it is easier to track progress for program management and budget adjustment purposes.  Future alterations of the template may include the addition of a section on “gap analysis� i.e. what remains to be done to fully achieve the targets, and a quick assessment of the likelihood of achievement in the time remaining. 22 Annex 12 Timetable of Independent Program Evaluations Evaluation to be completed in the year shown 1 WINDOW 1 PROGRAMS 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 X HD UNAIDS Global and Regional Activities X The Afr. Prog. for Onchocerciasis Control (APOC) X Stop Tuberculosis Partnership X Res. and Train. in Tropical Diseases (TDR) X Research and Dev. in Human Reproduction X Partnership for Child Development X Asso. for the Dev. of Education in Africa X FPD Consultative Group to Assist the Poor X Toronto Center X PRM Good Gov./Commu. Mobil. to Combat Corruption: PTF X DEC Global Development Network X Strengthening Bank's Support to the Arab World OPCS Statistical Capacity Building Program X - Marrakech Action Plan for Stat X - Program for Education Statistics (PES) X Global Financial Management Partnerships 1 Evaluations of Window One programs are expected to be available to Sector Management no later than November 30 in the year shown so that the findings can be taken into account in proposing funding allocations for the subsequent DGF budget. 23 Annex 12 Timetable of Independent Program Evaluations (Cont’d) WINDOW 2 PROGRAMS 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 X SDN Global Animal Health Initiative X African Alliance on Social Accountability (AASA) X Affiliated Ntwk for Social Accountability (ANSA) – East Asia X Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund X Alliance for Responsible Fisheries X Trade Standards Practitioners Network X Global Forest Partnership (GFP) - Phase II X Global PPP & Multi-Donor TF for Youth Invest. X Affi. Ntwk on Soc. Acct. & Gov. in S.A. & the Glo Part. F. X Support to High Level Task Force on Food Security X Agr. Ins. Vulner. Reduc. & Climate Change Adapt X Innovative Approaches to Threatened Species Program X Global Legislators Organization (GLOBE) X Knowledge Partner. for Measure. Air Pollu. & GHG Emi. in Asia X Extractive Industries Tech. Advisory Facility (EI-TAF) X Brazilian Experience for African Development Partnerships X Land Governance Monitoring and Implementation X Strtg. Init. on Climate Change Impacts, Adapt and Dev in Mt. Rg. X Climate Finance Knowledge Platform X Arab Finance Facility for Infrastructure X Partnership for Biosafety Risk Assessment and Regulation X Legacy Pollution and its Health Impacts Affecting Poor Comm. X Affiliated Network on Social Accountability - MENA X Construction Sector Transparency Initiative (CoST) X Partnership for Agr. Market Information System (AMIS) X Building Capacity in Food Safety X Global Partnership for Oceans (GPO) X Int. Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime (ICCWC) 24 Annex 12 Timetable of Independent Program Evaluations (Cont’d) WINDOW 2 PROGRAMS 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 X HDN The Global Forum for Health Research X Roll Back Malaria X Population and Reproductive Health Cap. Building Program X The West African Multidisease Surveillance Center X Understanding Children’s Work Phase II X GIQAC – Global Init. For Quality Assurance Cap. X Strengthening Health Statistics thru the Health Metrics Network X Roma Education Fund X The Nelson Mandela Institution (NMI)—AIST X Promoting Youth Employment & Employability X Bridg. Know. Gap for Rslts in Matern, Nb, Child Hlth (PMNCH) X S-S Cooperation: Strength. Health Systems in Lusophone Countr. X Uwezo X Regional Partnership Prog. On Health Systems and Policies X Arab Regional Agenda for Improving Education Quality (ARAIEQ) X Supporting the “Teach for All� Model in the Developing World X HANSHEP X Investing in Early Childhood Development (ECD) X FPD infoDev Regional Innovation Networks for Climate Technology X Supporting the Emerging Entrepreneurial Ecosystem X New Generation of Women Entrepreneurs X PRM Gender Innovative Fund (GIF) X Trade Data for Low Income Countries X LAC MIC Gov. and Public Mgmt Partnership Facility (LCR) X African Center for Economic Transformation (ACET) X Natural Resource Charter X Girl Hub: Investing in Adolescent Girls and Young Woman X Network for Integrity in Reconstruction X Public Expenditure Management Network in Asia X Global Initiative for Fiscal Transparency (GIFT) X Jobs and Development: Strengthening a Multi-Disciplinary Appr. X Revitalizing Multilateral Trade Cooperation in a Multi-Polar World X Performance-based Public Management in SAR (PER PAL) 25 Annex 12 Timetable of Independent Program Evaluations (Cont’d) WINDOW 2 PROGRAMS 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 X OPC Small States Network for Economic Development X Glob. Partn. To Strength. Capacity of Supreme Audit Institutions X Open Data Partnership for Development X AFR/PREM Intra-African Talent/Labor Mobility/Skills Development Program X South African Health Knowledge Hub X MNA/DEC Arab Spring Development Initiative PARTNERSHIP PARTICIPATION GRANTS 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Global Forum and Developing Country Voices (PREM) X - International Tax Dialogue (OECD) X - G 24 Secretariat X - Global Partnership for Disability and Development (HDN) X Sustainable Advancement of Gender Equality (SAGE) X Cities Alliance (SDN) X Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (SDN) 26 Annex 13 Summaries of Independent Evaluations: The Population and Reproductive Health Capacity Building Program (PRHCBP) The PRHCBP is a unique program of the World Bank that was started in 1999 and funded by the Development Grant Facility of the World Bank to provide grants aiming to support NGO. Its objective is to build the capacity of organizations and agencies to develop and implement innovative and culturally appropriate interventions in the sensitive fields of population and reproductive health, leading to healthier behavior at individual and community levels, reducing the impoverishing effects of poor reproductive health, and improving reproductive, maternal and child health outcomes of hard to reach populations. The program has a global reach, but with a particular focus during the last 5 years on Sub- Saharan Africa. A total of 80 grants were awarded for the period 2005-2010. Over 65% of the grants awarded went to intermediary organizations that built the capacity of local grass-root NGOs. Independent Evaluation Findings: The evaluation has found the program to be relevant and efficient, and the partnership seems to be achieving its mission. The lack of original baseline and targets does not allow for a quantifiable measurement of the accomplishments, but comments and assessments made by grantees during interview and reports lead to this conclusion. The PRHCBP remains therefore a highly relevant program in the sense that it makes funding available to NGOs and agencies as well as partnership and initiatives in sexual and reproductive health, for which this funding is crucial in allowing them to implement strategies and programs that contribute to the overall objectives but also the local initiatives to improve the health of the poor and vulnerable. Several NGO’s interviewed expressed that without the PRHCBP funding, most would not have implemented the projects for which the funding was provided. The seed funding provided through these grants which range from $50,000 to an exceptional maximum of $200,000 has helped leverage millions of additional dollars by NGOs. Performance indicators for the program were found to be too process oriented and would not capture the essence of the change the program brought about. The independent evaluation indicated that the PRHCBP program design had 4 major weaknesses: (i) The performance indicators are output indicators and do not allow to measure performance in reaching outcomes. The articulation between the performance indicators and the specified outcomes for the PRHCBP is not there. (ii) The program design did not establish a results framework nor a process for tracking overall performance of the program outside of the intermediate and end of program reports from the grantees on their activities and achievements. (iii) There was no monitoring and evaluation system created to monitor progress over the life of the PRHCBP, except for the periodic evaluations mandated by the DGF. (iv) In the program design, there is absence of linkage between the PRHCBP program and country-office work. This lack of linkage constitutes probably the key problem in terms of efficiency and sustainability of the program. Recommendations: The independent evaluation recommended that the DGF support not be discontinued but rather merged if possible with another program with a stronger link with country-level operations. The NGO community for which this is the only opportunity to work with the Bank as a partner would be hard hit, without some sort of continuation of the support. _______________________ Source: Rouguiatou Diallo, June 2012. 27 Annex 13 Summaries of Independent Evaluations: Roma Education Fund (REF) The Roma Education Fund (REF) was established by the Open Society Foundation (OSF) and the World Bank in the framework of the Decade of Roma Inclusion in 2005. Its mission and ultimate goal is to close the educational gap between Roma and non-Roma. In order to achieve this goal, the organization supports policies and programs which ensure quality education for Roma, including the desegregation of education systems through the following programs and projects: (i) Project Support; (ii) Scholarships; (iii) Policy Development and Capacity Building; (iv) Communication and Cross Country Learning; (v) Reimbursable Grant Program; and (vi) ‘A Good Start’ project in Hungary, Macedonia, Romania and Slovakia. Independent Evaluation Findings: The general findings of this evaluation, combined with the independent ratings by the evaluators according to the OECD/ DAC criteria, show that the Project Grant Program, Scholarship Program and Policy Development and Capacity Building are the most relevant programs of REF and have had significant impact in reducing the education gaps between Roma and non-Roma. These programs form the core of the REF activities. The Communication and Cross-country Learning program in turn, has appeared less relevant, and its impact is difficult to verify. The Reimbursable Grants program cannot be assessed using the same criteria as the other programs, and therefore cannot be compared. Furthermore, the independent evaluation indicated that the financial sustainability of all programs is a concern. Most of the activities fully depend on external financing and in most cases Governments do not contribute to them. The work must be carried out using other funding sources or as volunteer work. Recommendations: REF should continue and even further enhance its attempts to close the educational gap between Roma and non-Roma, as the program has shown good results. Furthermore, REF should continue supporting development of models and good practices in partnership with educational institutions, Roma representatives and NGOs, and disseminate the good examples within the country and in the region. REF should consider defining program-level overall objective and program-level monitoring indicators for its core programs (Project Support Program, Scholarship program, Policy Development and Capacity Building Program as well as Communication and Cross-Country Learning Program). REF should also introduce a more participatory country strategy development process and review its Monitoring & Evaluation Systems. In order to make impacts more sustainable, REF should provide support to projects applying multiple strategies (direct support, piloting, policy development, capacity building, advocacy, etc) and address access, quality and desegregation in parallel. There is clear evidence that such an approach provides better and more sustainable results. _______________________ Source: Raisa Venäläinen, Finland, Lead Researcher, Dejana Razić-Ilić, Serbia, Alexandru Teodorescu, Romania, Ilir Gedeshi, Albania, Hugo Sager, Switzerland, AppRaisal Consulting RV Helsinki, Helsinki, 27 October 2012. 28 Annex 14 World Bank Independent Evaluation Group: Guidance on Program Evaluation Independent program evaluation: Programs receiving DGF funding of US$300,000 or more over the life of the program must undertake an external evaluation every three to five years that is independent of the program’s management. Some flexibility is allowed with respect to the timing based on program circumstances and the preferences of partners. The DGF encourages programs to follow the IEG/DAC Sourcebook of Indicative Principles and Standards for Evaluating Global and Regional Partnership Programs (GRPPs) in terms of both process and substance. The programs’ governing bodies should commission the evaluation, approve the evaluation terms of reference, select the evaluation team (ideally using competitive methods), and receive the final evaluation report – or establish an oversight subcommittee for these purposes. Both CFPTO and IEG typically provide feedback and comments on the draft terms of reference for upcoming evaluations. Overall, IEG continues to observe progress in improving the independence and quality of evaluations of GRPPs in which the World Bank is involved. In terms of its own work program, IEG completed Global Program Reviews (GPRs) of three programs in 2012 — the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria; the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR); and the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF). The GPR of the Global Fund was the largest and most complex GPR that IEG has undertaken to date, since the Global Fund is the largest GRPP in which the World Bank is involved, disbursing more than $3 billion in grants annually to developing and transition countries. The Review found that the Bank has had extensive engagement with the Global Fund at the global level through the Global HIV/AIDS Program and the International Health Partnership and related initiatives, but has been less engaged at the country level. Collective donor efforts have contributed to increased availability and use of disease-control services, particularly for HIV/AIDS. However, sustaining client countries’ disease-control programs in the face of decelerating external support will require a substantially more coordinated approach than has occurred to date. Both GFDRR and FCPF are trust-funded programs located in the World Bank. GFDRR has grown rapidly since 2006 in response to evident demand from developing countries for reducing disaster risks, making this one of the two largest technical assistance programs located in the Bank. Being active in a field with many players, its comparative advantage is in providing technical and financial assistance that is integrated with the Bank’s country operations. FCPF is helping countries benefit from future large-scale payments for reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD). However, the uncertainty regarding future financial flows to REDD+ has complicated its mission. The World Bank needs to articulate a vision around how it plans to support REDD+ going forward, in order to meet client expectations about future financing growth. IEG is currently undertaking GPRs of the Bank Group’s partnerships with the Global Environment Facility and the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization, and is overseeing a joint evaluation of the Climate Investment Funds along with the evaluation departments of the other multilateral development banks participating in the program. When these are completed, this will provide the opportunity to synthesize the World Bank’s experience as a partner in four large GRPPs (including that of the Global Fund). The following table provides suggested evaluation questions for global program evaluations in relation to the standard OECD/Development Assistance Committee criteria. This framework has been designed to cover the wide range of GRPPs including: (a) knowledge, advocacy and standard-setting networks; (b) technical assistance programs; and (c) investment programs. It is not expected that each evaluation should cover every question. Evaluations should also be tailored to the age and maturity of each program: evaluations of younger programs should focus more on their relevance, design, governance and management, and those of more mature programs on their outcomes and impacts. 29 Annex 14 Major Evaluation Criteria and Suggested Evaluation Questions for GRPP Evaluations A. Relevance 1. Objectives What are the goals, objectives, strategies, and major activities of the program? How well has the program articulated and activities these in terms of a program logic or theory of change, and in terms of providing a basis for an objectives-based evaluation of relevance and efficacy? How consistent are the various statements of objectives and activities in historical program documents, on the Web site, and in the evaluation terms of reference? How have these changed over time since the program was started or during the evaluation period? Are there any implicit objectives that have not been explicitly articulated that are nonetheless well understood and agreed by the program’s major partners? 2. Supply-side To what extent does the program reflect an international consensus on the need for collective action to address a relevance (from global/regional concern that can only be addressed, or addressed more efficiently, by donors’ pooling their financial the donor and other resources together? How has this consensus or agreement been expressed? What have been the origin, the perspective) authorizing environment, and the evolution of the program? To what extent has there been agreement not only on the need for action, but also the definition of the problem, on priorities, and on strategies for action? To what extent have all the key players in the field signed onto the agreement, and how has this changed over time? Is the original consensus that led to the creation of the program still present? For donor-driven programs (started by only a handful of donors), has the program succeeded in attracting more international support for the program? For programs (such as global and regional environment programs) that are implementing international conventions, are their objectives and activities still aligned with the objectives of these conventions? 3. Demand-side To what extent are the objectives of the program consistent with the needs, priorities and strategies of beneficiary relevance (from countries as articulated in the countries’ own Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers, and in donor strategies such as the the beneficiary United Nations Development Assistance Frameworks and the World Bank Country Assistance Strategies? To what perspective) extent has the voice of beneficiary countries been reflected in the international consensus underlying the program? What has been the role of beneficiary countries in the design, governance, and implementation of the program? To what extent do the interests of donor and beneficiary countries coincide? 4. Vertical To what extent is the program providing global or regional public goods as opposed to national or local public relevance goods, or even private goods? If the program is not providing global or regional public goods, then what is the (subsidiarity) rationale for organizing the partnership? To what extent are the activities of the program being carried out at the most appropriate level – global, regional, national or local – in terms of efficiency and responsiveness to the needs of beneficiaries? To what extent are the activities of the program competing with or substituting for activities that individual donors are undertaking or could undertake more efficiently by themselves? If so, what is the value added of the partnership over and above the activities of the individual donor partners? 5. Horizontal To what extent is the program competing with other programs or entities that are providing similar goods and relevance services? If so, what is the comparative advantage, value added, or core competency of the program in question in (absence of relation to these other programs or entities? Are there alternative or more efficient ways in the program’s goods and alternative services could be provided, such as by the private sector under regular market conditions? sources of supply) 6. Relevance of To what extent are the strategic approach and the priority activities of the program appropriate for achieving the design objectives of the program? What is each type of activity expected to contribute to achieving the program’s objectives? Is the balance between the various types of activities appropriate in light of the program’s resources, the needs and priorities of beneficiaries in the sector, the subsidiarity principle, and alternative sources of supply? Is the geographic coverage of the program consistent with the objectives of the program, such as addressing extreme poverty or the particular needs of fragile states? Are the strategies of the program still appropriate for achieving the objectives, given recent developments in the sector (such as the development of new technologies)? To what extent does the achievement of the objectives depend on the behavior of organizations and individuals – whether public or private, and functioning in bureaucracies, markets, or collectivities? 30 Annex 14 B. Efficacy 1. Theory of change What is the essential theory of change for the program? How are these activities expected to contribute to the achievement of the program’s objectives? How well has this been articulated in terms of a formal results chain or logical framework? What are the boundaries of the program’s activities and potential impacts, respectively? Who are the program’s principal partners at the governance level and the principal participants at the implementation level (including the final beneficiaries)? What goods and services is the secretariat specifically accountable for delivering? What outputs and outcomes are expected to be achieved (a) through the direct participation of the actors immediately associated with implementation of the program; (b) through complementary activities conducted by the partners or host organization; and (c) through participation in the program by other stakeholders at the global/regional and country/local levels? What are the principal assumptions that underlie the program’s theory of change? 2. Monitoring and To what extent does the program have an effective monitoring, reporting and learning framework including (a) reporting measurable indicators that meet the monitoring and reporting needs of the governing body and management; (b) framework systematic and regular processes for collecting and managing data, including baseline data; and (c) feedback processes to facilitate decision making and learning? How useful are the performance indicators for assessing the effectiveness of individual activities – their progress, outputs, reach and outcomes? To what extent are these indicators SMART: specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and timely? What has been the general nature and quality of the data collected by the program? Are the data adequate for the conduct of the evaluation? If not, what additional data are required? To what extent does monitoring and reporting involve the participants and beneficiaries, and is thereby effective in creating a sense of local ownership? What would be some cost- effective ways of improving the monitoring, reporting and learning framework of the program? 3. Outputs What sets of activities did the program initiate during the review period? Which activities have been completed? What outputs have been produced? What has been the quality of these goods and services? Which activities were the most/least effective in contributing to the achievement of the program’s objectives, and why? What constraints – both internal and external – did the program face in implementing these activities? How did the program overcome these constraints in order to complete the activities successfully? Are there any activities that should be modified, discontinued or added to the current portfolio in order to achieve the objectives more efficiently? 4. Reach (including What underlying and enabling conditions – or linkages – are necessary for the effective implementation of the linkages to country- program’s activities and the achievement of the program’s objectives at the country or local levels? What has level activities) the program done to establish or facilitate the establishment of such linkages, assuming that the program has a mandate to do so? To what extent are these linkages in place, operational, and effective? How are the program’s country-level activities related to or integrated with those of other local, national and international actors in the same area? To what extent has the program contributed to increased coherence of efforts among these actors at the country level? To what extent have these other actors influenced the strategies and activities of the Global and Regional Partnership Program (GRPP)? To what extent has the GRPP positively influenced the strategies and activities of these other actors? 5. Outcomes What are the intended outcomes as these relate to the objectives of the program? Given the stage and maturity (including of the program, what progress is it making towards achieving these intended outcomes, as articulated in the unintended theory of change? What is the evidence that the program’s outputs are leading to intended outcomes, whether outcomes) initial, interim, or final? What factors (internal and external) are influencing the achievement or non- achievement of these outcomes and objectives? How have the program’s objectives, strategies and activities evolved in response to learning from experience and emerging risks and opportunities? 6. Impact What have been the impacts of the program’s activities on the welfare outcomes of the affected individuals, assessments households and communities? To what extent can these impacts be attributed to the outputs and outcomes of the program? 31 Annex 14 C. Efficiency 1. Source and uses of What have been the principal sources of funds received during the evaluation period by different categories of funds donors? To what extent have these funds been restricted or ear-marked to particular activities, and if so how? What have been the principal uses of the funds by type of activity? What have been the administrative costs vs. the program activity costs? What have been the program’s expenditures on its major product lines and at the global, regional and country levels, respectively? 2. Financial Does the program have transparent annual financial reports, prepared in compliance with agreed financial management, guidelines and audited to international standards by an independent auditor? Are financial reporting and reporting, and auditing arrangements satisfactory, particularly from the perspective of donors? Do the recorded categories of compliance expenditures facilitate adequate monitoring and attribution of costs to activities and results? Are actual expenditures compared against the budget of the program? Is this financial information available to the governing body and management for decision-making? Has the program taken sufficient measures to identify financial risk (such as unfulfilled pledges from donors or future commitments to beneficiaries) and formulated strategies for dealing with these risks? 3. Selected Has the program cost more or less than planned? How did its expenditures measure up against its expenditure approaches to plan? To what extent were the program’s activities conducted and outputs achieved in a cost-effective way? assessing efficiency How do actual administrative and activity costs compare with benchmarks from similar programs or activities (to the extent that these are available)? Do the program benefits outweigh the costs of individual activities? What are the processes and criteria that have been established for allocating financial resources (including grants) to various program activities? Are these being applied consistently? How effective and efficient are they? How have they evolved over time in response to new objectives or priorities? How has the degree of core vs. restricted funding affected the efficiency or cost-effectiveness of the program? Have there been any areas of obviously inefficient use of resources? 4. Financial Does the program have clear and realistic plans for mobilizing financial resources to meets its targets and resource needs? To what extent is this strategy effective, and how might it be improved? To what extent does the mobilization (both governing body play a role in mobilizing resources? Are there financial requirements, such as minimum annual strategy and results) contributions, that condition membership on the governing body? How has the pattern of public and private financing for the program affected the scope, reach, and results the program has achieved? 5. Efficiency and How do the benefits and costs of delivering the development assistance through the GRPP compare with those cost-effectiveness of traditional development assistance in which donors and partners take part? Is the GRPP delivering the from the expected outputs and outcomes in a timely manner? Is reporting adequate to satisfy donors’ and partners’ need donor/partner for visibility and accountability to stakeholders? Has there been a reduction in individual donors’ supply of perspective competing activities or in overlapping work among donor agencies and partners (such as through joint supervision, monitoring, or evaluation)? To what degree is the GRPP contributing to increased process harmonization of efforts between donors within the country? Is this having any effect on donor costs? 6. Efficiency and To what extent are there benefits of aid harmonization or improved aid coordination associated with the GRPP cost-effectiveness from the perspective of beneficiaries? Given the benefits received, are the costs of participating (such as from the beneficiary preparing proposals, reporting, time spent in GRPP meetings) worthwhile? How does receiving the perspective development assistance through the GRPP affect the transaction costs for the beneficiaries over what would be the case (or what is the case) from development assistance delivered through traditional bilateral or multilateral programs? In what ways could transaction costs by the beneficiary groups be reduced further? D. Governance and Management 1. Governance and What are the governing bodies and management units of the program, including executive bodies, advisory management committees and subcommittees? What are their articulated roles and responsibilities, as laid out in the program arrangements charter and other constitutional-level documents? How clear is the division of roles and responsibilities between the governing and management bodies? How do these compare with standard functions of governance and management? Are the governance and management arrangements adequate for achieving the partnership’s goals, objectives, and major activities? Are there any important functions such as conflict resolution that have not been assigned? 32 Annex 14 2. Legitimacy and To what extent do the governance and management structures (a) permit and facilitate the effective efficiency participation and voice of the different categories of stakeholders in the major governance and management decisions, taking into account their respective roles and relative importance. Is there a clear understanding/ definition of who are the key stakeholders and beneficiaries of the program? How are the interests of the different categories of stakeholders represented in the governance of program? Is membership on the governing body is restricted to financial and other contributors (i.e., shareholders), or does it also include other non- contributing stakeholders? To what extent are the available communication mechanisms functioning well and facilitating good communication between the program and its various stakeholders? To what extent do the governance and management structures facilitate efficient decision-making? What mechanisms does the governing body use to reach its decisions? For stakeholder models of governance with broad membership on the governing body, what mechanisms used to deal with potential efficiency problems in decision making? To what extent are the voices of developing countries and technical experts being effectively expressed and contributing to efficient decision- making? To what extent is the most up-to-date scientific and technical advice being sought to inform policy making and operational effectiveness? 3. Accountability What are the articulated roles and responsibilities of the various partners, participants, and host organizations at and responsibility each level? To what extent are these clearly articulated, appropriate (in terms of representation, inclusion, influence, efficiency, timeliness, and application of needed expertise), and being followed? To what extent is the assignment and exercise of responsibilities between governance and management appropriate relative to good practice? How are the members of each governing body selected? How is the program manager selected and his/her performance reviewed on a regular basis? What has been the performance of each governing body and the program management unit relative to its terms of reference, expected duties, and commitments? To what extent have they been compliant with their responsibilities under the partnership charter? 4. Transparency, To what extent does the program have a policy on transparency and disclosure that covers governance and fairness, and management, decision making, accountabilities, staffing, contracting, dissemination, financial accounting, conflicts of interest auditing, and M&E? What policies and procedures are in place for stakeholders and the general public to access information about the partnership? To what extent do these policies meet or achieve good-practice standards such as publicly disclosing the minutes of all board meetings (at least in summary form)? To what extent are they being applied and functioning well? To what extent does access to information, consultation, or decisions of the governing body and management favor the interests of some partners and participants over others, at both the governance and management levels? To what extent does the program have a policy on identifying and managing conflicts of interest, particularly in its partnerships with NGOs and the commercial private sector? If so, to what extent is the program effectively applying the policy? Do the benefits derived from such partnerships outweigh the reputational and other risks to the program? 5. Programs located What are the respective roles and responsibilities of the host organization and the program in relation to each in host organizations other? To what extent are these clearly articulated, including (a) for what functions the program manager is accountable to the governing body and the host organization, respectively; and (b) the processes to resolve conflicts if and when these occur? What are the benefits and costs to the program of being located in the host organization? To what extent is the hosting arrangement positively or negatively affecting the legitimacy and effectiveness of the governance and management of the program? E. Sustainability 1. Theory of How does the program expect that the benefits arising from its activities will be sustained in the future after sustainability the activities have been completed? What are the assumptions underlying this theory of sustainability? How does the program expect that its long-term goals will be reached and how will progress be measured along the way? What are the expected roles and activities of other actors in this process, including the complementary activities of donor partners, and the capacity, ownership, and commitment of country-level actors and beneficiaries? What activities is the program undertaking today to enhance sustainability of benefits, such as strengthening the institutional and human resource capacity of beneficiaries? What criteria and processes has the program established to devolve activities and define potential exit strategies? 33 Annex 14 2. Program What is the “health of the partnership�? What are its principal strengths such as (a) well focused objectives; sustainability (b) a well-tested theory of change’ (c) an inclusive membership involving all the major actors in its field; and (d) effective and efficient governance and management; and (e) adequate financial resources? What are the principal threats to the sustainability of the program, such as (a) failure to keep the program’s objectives or design relevant in a changing global context; (b) competition from other sources of supply; (c) difficulty in demonstrating results; (d) issues in relation to governance and management; and (e) difficulty in mobilizing financial resources? To what extent does the program secretariat have an effective relationship with its host organization, if applicable? What actions is the program undertaking to enhance its own sustainability? 3. Global/ regional What are the respective roles of the program and its global/regional partners in achieving and sustaining the partners (and their expected outcomes of the program? How critical are the complementary activities these global/regional complementary partners to achieving and sustaining the program’s long-term goals? Upstream programs that are generating activities) knowledge and providing technical assistance generally require the inclusion of their priorities in country strategies as well as complementary follow-on investments. To what extent are the expected contributions of global/regional partners sufficiently harmonized (with those of program’s secretariat and among themselves)? What actions has the program undertaken to bring about effective collaboration with its global/regional partners? 4. Country-level To what extent has the program established goals and targets to achieve at the country level? To what extent is stakeholders (their there evidence of country-level commitments and ownership (by national governments, civil society, ownership and academia, etc.) to the program’s country-level goals? To what extent have the program’s country-level capacity) institutional development and capacity building activities been successful? To what extent have the institutional structures, policies, protocols, and work plans promoted and advocated by the program been incorporated into countrywide strategies, national plans of action and budgets? If new institutional arrangements have been put in place as a result of the GRPP, to what extent have these been “institutionalized/nationalized� by the country? If global policies and standards have been adopted how strong is the evidence that local authorities have started to apply them? If local endeavors (public or private) have been adversely affected by the GRPP, how have these “conflicts� been resolved? Are these groups now participating in the program? 5. Scaling-up and To what extent does the GRPP have phased implementation plans that involve replication and scaling up? To replicability what extent do these entail the development of proof of concept and implementation models to be applied in different countries and within countries? To what extent have these implementation models been developed with appropriate country stakeholders, and taken into account country resources and needs? To what extent are there risks that plans to scale up the program’s activities may undermine the sustainability of current achievements? Are there signs the program is overstretched within and across countries? To what extent has the program established linkages between start up or pilot activities and national programs? Are there structured mechanisms for learning (e.g., good monitoring, information and reporting systems) and the ability to use these for mobilizing broader in-country demand? What is the likelihood that such activities will be broadened to wider and larger beneficiary groups, and leveraged to bring about even more benefits than originally intended (and without high cost implications)? How do these activities factor in the national development agenda? 6. Devolution and exit What is the readiness of participating countries to take responsibility for the devolved responsibilities of a GRPP strategy without major external support? To what extent are the devolved activities consistent with national development plans? To what extent does the country have a schedule (phased or otherwise) for assumption of such responsibilities? How far do these commitments extend (number of years) after the GRPP has exited from the country? What mechanisms are in place to take up and continue the activities previously supported by the GRPP? What does the resource mobilization plan for devolution look like? Is there evidence that devolved activities will be supported within national public financial accounts and systems? Would there emerge new or different partnerships after the GRPP has exited? What form might such partnerships take, such as Sector-wide approaches or Poverty Reduction Support Credits? 34 Annex15 Partners in DGF Supported Programs The table below demonstrates the broad reach of the DGF in bringing partners together. The listed entities are both recipient organizations and partners. Multilaterals: African Development Bank (AfDB); Asian Development Bank (ADB); European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD); European Investment Bank (EIB); Inter-American Development Bank (IADB); Islamic Development Bank (IsDB); Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD); OECD/PARIS21; The European Commission; The European Union (EU); G-24; The World Economic Forum; World Trade Organization (WTO); International Monetary Fund (IMF); International Finance Corporation (IFC); United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO); United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP); United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC); UN-Habitat; United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO); The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR); United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA); United Nations Foundation (UNF); United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (UN ESCWA); United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLAC); The United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UN ESCAP); United Nations Development Programme (UNDP); United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF); UN Women; United Nations Capital Development Fund (UNCDF), United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), World Food Program (WFP), World Health Organization (WHO); United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNCCC); The Secretariat of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES); The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria; UNITAID; Global Environment Facility (GEF); Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC); Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS); Indian Ocean Commission (COI); African Union (AU); League of Arab States; South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC); Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SOPAC); International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol); World Customs Organization (WCO); World Meteorological Organization (WMO); International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC); International Labor Organization(ILO); The International Organization for Migration (IOM); Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN); Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD); Economic Community Of West African States (ECOWAS); Southern African Development Community (SADC); Organization of American States (OAS); Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (ISESCO); International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO); United States - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Bilaterals: France, Netherlands, Norway, Iceland, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Austria, Denmark, Ireland, Luxembourg, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Belgium, Finland, Slovenia, Romania, Hungary, Canada, United States, Japan, Philippines, Indonesia, Korea, China, Thailand, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (China), Singapore, Brunei, Madagascar, Senegal, Ethiopia, Nigeria, South Africa, Rwanda, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Liberia, Sierra Leone, South Sudan, Sudan and Timor Leste, Mexico, Peru, Uruguay, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Pakistan, Australia, India, Afghanistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Palestine. 35 Annex 15 Foundations: John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Soros Foundation, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Ford Foundation, James Tudor Foundation, Packard Foundation, Exxon Mobil Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Citi Foundation, Michael and Susan Dell Foundation, MasterCard Foundation, the Aga Khan Foundation, Bernard van Leer Foundation, Conrad N. Hilton Foundation, Hewlett Foundation, Robertson Foundation, Skoll Foundation, Finnegan Family Foundation, America for Bulgaria Foundation, Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Foundation, Lone Pine Foundation, The P&G Fund of the Greater Cincinnati Foundation, The Samberg Family Foundation, The Seedlings Foundation, Western Union Foundation, W.L.S. Spencer Foundation, Jorge Paulo Lemann, Bezos Family Foundation, Goldman Sachs Foundation, Development Gateway Foundation, Nike Foundation, Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, Qatar Foundation, Network of European Foundations, Open Society Foundations Others (NGOs, Private Sector, CSOs, Universities, Research Institutes, etc.): The Nature Conservancy Worldwide Fund for Nature The National Geographic Society (NGS); World Conservation Union (IUCN); World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF); United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG); Habitat for Humanity International (HFHI); President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR); MERCK & Co.; Mission to Save the Helpless (MITOSATH); Sightsavers International; American Lung Association; Research Institute for Tuberculosis; Partners in Health (PIH); International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease (IUATLD ); American Jewish World Service (AJWS); Universidad Politecnica de Madrid (UPM); Wellcome Trust; Metropolis; Aventis Pharmaceutical; Burroughs Welcome Fund; GlaxoSmithKline; Global Forum for Health Research; Infectious Disease Research Institute; International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers; Medicines for Malaria Venture; Open Society Institute (OSI); Euro Health Group; Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine; Union national de casisess d’assurance maladie (UNCAM); London School of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene; Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research; Pan American Health Organization; Fundacao Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ); Organization of Ibero-American States; Visa Inc.; New Profit Inc.; The HSBC Global Education Trust; Abu Dhabi Education Council; Cisco Systems Inc.; Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu; FedEx; Arab Resource Collective; Asia Pacific Regional Network; Association for the Development of Education in Africa; International Step by Step Association; la Fundación Centro Internacional de Educación y Desarrollo Humano (CINDE); Child Fund International; CARE International; Arab Fund for Social and Economic Development; Economic Research Forum; Silatech; Regional Education plan for Latin America and the Caribbean (PRELAC); Summit of the Americas; African Union Observatory; World Wide Web Foundation; Google; The Revenue Watch Institute; Korean Institute of Public Finance (KIPF); Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; McKinsey and Company; Cordell Hull Institute; European University Institute; South African Institute of International Affairs; Korea Institute for International Economic Policy; Centro Brasileiro de Relações Internacionais; Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations; King Abdullah II Fund for Development (KAFD); Arab Partnership Program Fund; Endeavor Global; Centro de Coordinacion para la Precencion de los Desasteres Naturales en America Central (CEPREDENAC); Oxfam International; Mercy Corps; Oracle; Arab Gulf Programme for Development (AGFUND); International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT); The International Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI); Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI); World Economic Forum); International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM); Centre for Energy, Petroleum and Mineral Law and Policy (CEPMLP); Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA); OPEC Fund for International Development (OFID). 36 Annex 16 Summaries of FY14 DGF Programs: Ongoing and Proposed 2 Sustainable Development Network (SDN) Partnership for Biosafety Risk Assessment and Regulation…………………………………………………………. 39 Partnership for Agricultural Market Information System (AMIS)…………………………………………………... 41 Global Food Safety Partnership (GFSP)……………………………………………………………………………... 43 Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund - Phase II………………………………………………………………............ 45 Partnership to Address Legacy Pollution and its Health Impacts Affecting Poor Communities…………………….. 47 Global Partnership for Oceans (GPO)……………………………………………………………………………..…. 49 International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime (ICCWC)……………………………………………….… 51 Cities Alliance (PPG)*……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 53 Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) (PPG)*…………………………………………… 55 Construction Sector Transparency Initiative (CoST)……………………………………………….………………... 57 Human Development Network (HDN) Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDs (UNAIDS)……………………………………………………….…… 59 The African Program for Onchocerciasis Controln (APOC)………………………………………………………... 61 Stop Tuberculosis Initiative………………………………………………………………………….………………. 63 Research & Development in Human Reproduction (HRP)………………………………………….………………. 65 Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR)………………………………………………………………… 67 Roll Back Malaria Partnership…………………………………………………………………………………..…… 69 Population & Reproductive Health Capacity Building Program ………………………………………………..... 71 Regional Partnership Program on Health Systems and Policies…………………………….……………………….. 73 Harnessing Non-State Actors for Better Health for the Poor (HANSHEP)……………………………………...…... 75 Partnership for Child Development…………………………………………………………………………………... 77 Association for the Development of Education in Africa (ADEA)……………………………………………..…… 79 Roma Education Fund…………………………………………………………………………………….………….. 81 Arab Regional Agenda for Improving Education Quality (ARAIEQ)………..……………………………………... 83 Supporting the “Teach for All� Model in the Developing World………..………………………………………....... 85 Investing in Early Childhood Development: Accelerating the Learning for All Agenda……………………………. 87 2 These program summaries are based on information provided by task managers in applications for FY14 DGF funding. *Partnership Participation Grant (PPG) is a transitional window, introduced to help the DGF Council with the smooth exit of long-standing DGF supported programs. Italics indicate new programs in FY14. 37 Annex 16 Finance and Private Sector (FPD) Consultative Group to Assist the Poor (CGAP)………………………………………………………………. 89 Toronto Center…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 91 infoDev Regional Innovation Network for Climate Technology……………………………………………… 93 Supporting the Ecosystem for Fostering a Dynamic Entrepreneurship in MENA…………………………….. 95 New Generation of Women Entrepreneurs (New)……………………………………………………………... 97 Development Economics (DEC) Global Development Network…………………………………………………………………………………. 99 Operational Policy and Country Services (OPCS) Statistical Capacity Building Program: Marrakech Action Plan for Statistics………………………………… 101 Statistical Capacity Building Program: Program for Education Statistics (PES)…………………….………... 103 Global Financial Management Partnership…………………………………………………………………….. 105 Global Partnership to Strengthen Capacity of Supreme Audit Institutions……………………………………. 107 Open Data Partnerships for Development (New)……………………………………………………………… 109 Poverty Reduction and Economic Management (PREM) Natural Resource Charter………………………………………………………………………………………. 111 Network for Integrity in Reconstruction (NIR)…………………….………………………………………….. 113 Public Expenditure Management Network in Asia (PEMNA)..……………………………………………….. 115 Girl Hub: Investing in Adolescent Girls and Young Women………………………………………………….. 117 International Tax Dialogue (OECD) (PPG)*…………………………………………………………………... 119 Global Gov. and Strength. Dev. Country Voice: G-24 (PPG)*………………………………………………... 121 Sustainable Advancement of Gender Equality (SAGE) (PPG)*………………..……………………………... 123 Global Initiative for Fiscal Transparency (GIFT) (New)…………………………………...…………………. 125 Jobs and Development: Creating Multi-Disciplinary Solutions (New)…………………………………….….. 127 Revitalizing Multilateral Trade Cooperation in a Multi-Polar World (New)………………………………….. 129 Performance-based Public Management in SAR (PER PAL) (New)………………………………………….. 131 Middle East and North Africa Region (MENA) Arab Spring Development Initiative (DEC) (New)……………………………………………………………. 133 Africa Region (AFR) Intra-African Talent/Labor Mobility and Skills Development Program (PREM) (New)……………………… 135 South Africa Health Knowledge Hub (HDN) (New)…………………………………………………………... 137 38 Annex 16 Partnership for Biosafety Risk Assessment and Regulation Bank Contact (TTL) Name: Eija Pehu Responsible Sector and Bank Unit: Agriculture and Environmental Services (AES) Full Name of Recipient Agency: Center for Environmental Risk Assessment (CERA) Contact Information of the Recipient Agency: www.cera-gmc.org Budget for the grant period (US$ million) Total Recipient Program Budget: 2.72 FY14 DGF Grant Amount: 0.40 DGF Percentage: 15 % Grant Development Objectives and expected Development Outcomes The program goal is to enable client country stakeholders to better promote harmonization and rationalization of biosafety regulations which can in turn facilitate evidence-based decision-making in countries that are considering the adoption of agricultural biotechnology. Expected outcomes include:  At least 50% of targeted countries will be able to participate in OECD working group and task force meetings;  Development of environmental risk assessment guidance for pro-poor food crops with at least 1 food-security relevant crop being subject of an OECD consensus document within 5 years;  Concerned developing country voices will be able to contribute to the formulation of positions that they can then share during the OECD discussions as delegates;  A venue for direct discussions, exchange of views and real time following of global trade agendas and requirements for entry into the OECD markets will be created through face-to-face dialogues at the working group meetings in OECD;  Developing country representatives will become active participants, and leaders, in international technical discussions through a direct connection between technical biosafety capacity building and an international policy dialogue; and  At least two of the targeted countries will have begun to implement and incorporate risk assessment into national regulatory biosafety systems. Main Activities Main components/activities planned for FY13:  Addition of Uruguay as a partner country. Other countries in the Partnership are: Bangladesh, Kenya, Paraguay, Tanzania, Uganda and Vietnam.  First delegation from Bangladesh to participate in the OECD Working Group on Harmonization of Regulatory Oversight in Biotechnology (WGHROB).  Submission of a completed draft document on the biology of cassava at the 27th Meeting of the WGHROB.  Lab and field course on non-target testing of genetically engineered plants that will include participants from the seven Partnership countries.  Technical training activities for risk assessors and regulators from the partnership countries. This includes 4 for Uruguay and Paraguay; 2 for Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda; 2 for Vietnam; 2 for Bangladesh. Performance Indicators (Intermediate Outcomes/Outputs) IO Indicators: (i) Number of countries receiving biosafety risk assessment technical support; (ii) Number of developing countries represented at annual/biennial OECD meetings and global fora related to biosafety and biotechnology; (iii) Number of selected, participating countries that actively contribute to the development of international guidance for risk assessment; and (iv) Number of regional workshops and conferences organized by CERA on risk and benefit assessment of modern biotechnologies relevant to food security in order to facilitate fruitful exchange of information, the preparation of harmonized guidance and its application in different contexts. PDO indicators: (i) Percent of program-supported countries that are integrated into, and regularly participate in recurring OECD working group/task force meetings on regulatory oversight of biotechnology and safety in novel foods and feed; (ii) OECD consensus documents cover food security relevant crops (cassava, cowpea, sorghum, etc.); and (iii) Number of developing country stakeholders that begin to implement/incorporate or strengthen technical risk assessment competencies in their national systems in their countries. 39 Progress and Achievements (including challenges, if any) In Bangladesh, the partnership supported the Biosafety Core Committee (BCC), the technical advisory group under the Bangladesh Biosafety Framework. The meetings were regularized and they provide practical and informative discussions and training. These include topical presentations and discussions of events and scientific issues relevant to the work of the BCC. The topics have included: a review of Bangladesh’s obligations under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and the activities of COP/MOP 6; a review of the Bangladesh Guidelines for the Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Genetically Engineered Plants; a presentation of the work currently in progress at the OECD Working Group on Harmonization of Regulatory Oversight in Biotechnology (WGHROB). In East Africa, a draft consensus document on the biology of cassava has been prepared by scientists from Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania along with experts from Brazil, Nigeria and the US and has been submitted to WGHROB. This document is foundational to the biosafety risk assessment of genetically engineered cassava that is being field tested in East Africa. In Paraguay and Uruguay, a symposium “Agricultural Biotechnology Risk Assessment and Regulation� open to a broad array of stakeholders and a workshop “Problem Formulation for Environmental Risk Assessment of GM Crops� for those engaged in biosafety risk assessment were conducted. Other activities included technical training programs on: application, authorization and compliance management of confined field trials; addressing gene flow in environmental risk assessment and a strategic discussion on joint review of biosafety dossiers. Partners CERA (DGF grant recipient, in kind and financial contribution), OECD (in kind contribution). Governance and Management Changes Center for Environmental Risk Assessment (CERA), a part of the non-profit International Life Sciences Institute Research Foundation (ILSI RF) is the main partner. CERA’s work program is guided by the CERA Advisory Council, of which the Bank TTL (Eija Pehu), the co-TTL from ENV (Mary-Ellen Foley) and Peter Kearns from OECD are members, provides strategic advice and feedback on CERA's programs. CERA, as part of ILSI RF, is also governed by the ILSI RF Board of Trustees which provides fiduciary oversight for all ILSI RF centers. ILSI RF is responsible for the financial management and the required audits and CERA of the programmatic content. OECD's structure for technical dialogue and consensus building on biosafety is through the Working Group on the Harmonization of Regulatory Oversight in Biotechnology, a partner in the GPP. Exit Strategy (Disengagement from DGF and Sustainability) The program will disengage from DGF funding after FY14, the third year of DGF support. During the three-year period that DGF funds are provided, CERA has worked with each of the developing country partners to gain in-country governmental support for continued involvement in the OECD working group. The increment brought by DGF is envisioned to continue by developing country’s own funding, and some of the support is likely to come from expanded lending portfolio in biosafety. Additionally, developing country leaders such as India and Brazil, as well as regional economic groupings, such as ECOWAS and COMESA, will be encouraged to act as hubs for organizing regional workshops to continue preparation for OECD Working Group participation. 40 Annex 16 Partnership for Agricultural Market Information System (AMIS) Bank Contact (TTL) Name: Sergiy Zorya Responsible Sector and Bank Unit: Agriculture and Environmental Services (AES) Full Name of Recipient Agency: AMIS Secretariat housed in the UN Food and Agriculture Organization Contact Information of the Recipient Agency: www.fao.org Budget for the grant period (US$ million) Total Recipient Program Budget: 4.80 FY14 DGF Grant Amount: 0.40 DGF Percentage: 8% Grant Development Objectives and expected Development Outcomes The AMIS is one of the most important deliverables of the G20 agricultural stream. The Bank has been working actively with FAO and OECD from the very beginning to design the AMIS in a way that both promotes ownership and buy-in from countries and mobilizes the existing talents of several international agencies. Objectives. The development objective of the AMIS is to improve the transparency of global agricultural markets by generating better and more uniform information on the supply and demand of maize, rice, soybeans, and wheat, and putting this information in the public domain. The data used to generate this information originates in and is owned by the countries participating in the AMIS (which account for 90 percent+ of the world’s food), but is shared with all countries. Outcomes. The success of this partnership will be measured by improvement in the availability and quality of global data on food commodity balances and by the number of countries participating in capacity building for data collection and market analyses for targeted crops. It will also be measured by the extent of collaboration between international organizations and the participating countries to improve the short-term global food outlooks, better understand the impacts of fundamentals and policy actions on global food markets, and strengthen the global early warning capacity. Main Activities The development objective will be accomplished through the following activities: (i) improvements in the reliability and timeless of food balance data reported by participating countries; (ii) development and the use of a consistent methodology for analyzing food balances across participating countries; (iii) improvements of the short-term global food outlook based on the data provided by participating countries; (iv) dissemination of analysis of factors that impact on global agricultural commodity markets; (v) promotion of dialogue and coordination between countries and international organizations; (vi) capacity building for data collection and market analysis in participating countries; (vii) provision of open access to AMIS data, information, and analsis. Performance Indicators (Intermediate Outcomes/Outputs) 1. Number of countries providing reliable and timely data to the AMIS; 2. Harmonized methodology for construction of national food balances is developed and made available to the participating countries; 3. The AMIS market and policy indicators are developed, monitored, analyzed, and reported to the public; 4. Number of countries participating in the AMIS capacity building activities for data collection and food balance’s preparation; 5. Number of technical meetings of the Global Food Market Information Group; 6. Number of policy dialogue and coordination meeting of the Rapid Response Forum. Progress and Achievements (including challenges, if any) AMIS has made substantial progress since the last year's application. The first and most important output has been the creation of the web-based Statistical Database. Twenty out of 23 members finished historical baselines, facilitating the preparation of real time monthly updates of food balances that are publicly available. The Secretariat started to produce monthly AMIS Market Monitors updating estimates of how much food is available globally and risks to international market and prices. There has also been progress in developing market and policy indicators and preparing capacity strengthening activities in selected countries. Another big achievement of the last year was AMIS's contribution to calm markets and to avoid trade restrictions in July 2012, when global grain prices spiked. The Secretariat produced the market situation & outlook analysis and closely worked with the Rapid Response Forum to convey messages to AMIS members that exporting countries should not restrict normal flow of shipments, while importers were recommended to refrain from giving an impression of panic by purchasing from world markets in an orderly manner. For whatever reason, no AMIS country introduced trade restrictions in 2012/13 in contrast to 2008 and 2010 and excessive global food price spikes were avoided. The Rapid Response Forum of February 2013 at the Bank HQ reconfirmed the importance of this partnership and acknowledged its positive role during the last period of market vulnerability. 41 Partners FAO; OECD; France; Japan; and Gates Foundation. Governance and Management Changes AMIS is an initiative of the G20. All G20 and invited non-G20 countries are committed to provide market and stocks data for wheat, rice, maize and soybeans and related information as well as resources for participation of their country staff in the AMIS meetings. AMIS is designed to ensure ownership and buy-in from the member countries in the production of the data in question, and is unique in terms of the quality of data that it will generate. It is designed to be of service to all countries. AMIS consists of : (i) the Secretariat, which is responsible for producing market outlooks, assessments, and analyses to support the Rapid Response Forum and the Global Food Market Information Group; (ii) the Global Food Market Information Group, consisting of technical representatives from countries participating in AMIS, who provide and assesses data and information on food balances and policy developments; and (iii) the Rapid Response Forum composed of the senior country r, which promotes early discussion among decision-level officials about the imminence of volatile international market conditions to encourage coordination of policies and the development of common strategies. The AMIS Secretariat is a platform housed at the FAO in Rome and it conducts its activities in conformity with the Financial Regulations of FAO. The governance of the Secretariat is undertaken by its Steering Committee, consisting of representatives of ten international organizations and entities. The Bank co-owns and co-leads the Secretariat. By doing this, the Bank is able to influence a high level policy dialogue on food security at the Rapid Response Forum, the group of senior agricultural policy makers-- in particular what is discussed, what issues require urgent attention by the Rapid Response Forum to address global food price developments, and how to do it. It also allows bringing in the private sector, and shares analytical work on agricultural markets and food security among partners, and uses the comparative advantage and expertise of different organizations influence global policy dialogue on food price volatility and food security. Exit Strategy (Disengagement from DGF and Sustainability) FY15 is last year of DGF funding. The FAO fixed cost staff time for AMIS has become the part of the regular budget cycle of FAO, and FAO is strongly committed to provide long-term staff time to this partnership. Other international organizations, including the Bank, are also committed to provide finance and other support, including in-kind support through staff time and travel. For resource mobilization from other sources, AMIS has already mobilized funds from the Government of Japan and the Gates Foundation. In the next years, it will be essential to continue demonstrating the good results to mobilize more resources. 42 Annex 16 Global Food Safety Partnership (GFSP) Bank Contact (TTL) Name: Francois Le Gall Responsible Sector and Bank Unit: Agriculture and Environmental Services (AES) Full Name of Recipient Agency: Massey University Contact Information of the Recipient Agency: s.d.morriss@massey.ac.nz Grant Development Objectives and expected Development Outcomes Total Recipient Program Budget: 1.20 FY14 DGF Grant Amount: 0.40 DGF Percentage: 3% Grant Development Objectives and expected Development Outcomes Objectives: The Grant objectives are to support the implementation of the Global Food Safety Partnership (GFSP) by (i) establishing and facilitating the three working groups of experts and stakeholders; (ii) by initiating the launch of the global food safety knowledge base and the Open Educational Resource (OER) platform, incorporating state-of-the-art Information Technology (IT); and (iii) supporting the implementation of pilot training modules as described in the Five-year Work Plan of the GFSP. Development Outcomes: The GFSP program is to support improved food safety systems, enhance agri-food value chains, accelerate economic growth, and improve livelihood and public health outcomes.. Main Activities The Program objectives will be achieved through three main activities, namely: 1. Setting up new global food safety Public-Private Partnership (PPP); 2. Building food safety capacity through an innovative open source knowledge sharing community of practice; and 3. Delivering five-year work program of demand-driven food safety projects and advisory service. Performance Indicators (Intermediate Outcomes/Outputs) PDO Indicators: 1. Creation of a global food safety public-private partnership 2. Building capacity through an innovative open source knowledge sharing of community of practice 3. Supporting cutting edge R&D through a global network of food safety professionals and institutions IO Indicators: 1. Number of participating members 2. Number of financiers (private sector foundations, donors, etc.) contributing to the partnership 3. Implementation of pilots of training materials and modules 4. Identification and promotion of best practices in capacity building program and investments in food safety, including metrics as well as M&E systems that can inform the design of new programs Progress and Achievements (including challenges, if any) Key achievements include establishment of the innovative public and private partnership and leveraging initial resources to support the implementation of the 5-year plan. The DGF grant is facilitating the establishment of the advisory working groups and web-based knowledge sharing and communication platform, and also supported preparation of the 1st Annual Partnership Conference. The 1st Annual GFSP Conference was convened at the World Bank Offices in Paris on December 10-12, 2012, to launch the GFSP, report on progress to date and review future actions. The Conference brought together over 90 participants from some 50 organizations. The Conference was followed by two days of workshops on tools for assessing capacity for food safety systems 43 in developing and middle income countries, curriculum development, and promotion of good agricultural practices on-farm and good aquaculture practices. The Conference reflected a variety of perspectives, and provided an opportunity to develop the basis for consensus on the fundamental need for enhanced capacity to ensure food safety throughout the value chain with a focus on developing and middle income countries. The Partnership represents a new paradigm for collaboration across the public, private and service provider sectors, recognizing that all stakeholders have important roles to play in improving global food safety systems and supporting better access to domestic and global food markets. The conference reviewed next steps and took advice from the gathering on implementation of activities, including formation of the working groups, methodologies for national capacity building needs assessments, preliminary identification of initial candidate beneficiary countries (long list), and arrangements for delivery of the first year work program. Advisory Working Group (WG) formation was advanced during the Conference and there was good feedback and strong endorsement of the approach for the establishment phase. Massey University’s role at the Paris launch was to stimulate and lead the discussion on the establishment of WGs and to gauge the consensus of the meeting in relation to functioning of the WGs once established. It became clear during the meeting that the WG formation strategy would need revisiting in order to ensure wider engagement of stakeholders and consequently buy-in to WG outcomes. The stakeholders were very supportive that the WGs should have clear management framework, terms of reference and operating guidelines. It was agreed that Massey University would engage with a smaller group of interested parties to develop draft TORs and Guideline documents for the WGs establishment. These would then be circulated for review and feedback and when final would form the basis for WG formation over the summer 2013. Partners The most significant result of the Partnership to date has been bringing together the public, private and service provider sectors under a new paradigm for collaboration to improve global food safety systems and supporting better access to domestic and global food markets. Previously, no such global partnership existed for all of the different stakeholders (farmers, industry, retailers, regulators, NGOs, donors and international agencies) across the entire agri-food value chain. GFSP has benefited from the interactions with key members (IFC, industry associations, FAO, OIE, WHO, UNIDO, WTO, APEC working group, universities). Three EFOs have supported development and pilot delivery of trainings on Good Management Practice (GMP) and Hazard Analysis & Critical Control Points (HACCP) and Good Aquaculture Practices (GAqP) in China, Indonesia and Vietnam in FY12-13, establishment of the web-based knowledge platform, development of a 5-year work plan, and pilot implementation of selected work plan activities. Donor funding for the MDTF is expected to reach $40M or more by FY17, with initial commitments from the Netherlands and Canada. Overall, the Partnership is ready for implementation, based on the strong interest by donors and partners, and the ongoing pilot activities. Governance and Management Changes We have adopted a streamlined administration of the MDTF (a ‘light’ governance structure). Day-to-day operations of the Partnership are supported by a Secretariat, initially based in the Bank and headed by a Program Manager. The Secretariat will interact with Advisory Working Groups supported by the DGF. Exit Strategy (Disengagement from DGF and Sustainability) The Bank would play a leadership role in the initial organization, management and administration of the GFSP through hosting the Secretariat and management of the MDTF. While the work of the Partnership is expected to continue, the Bank would focus on establishing the Partnership and on its initial operation, over a minimum of five years (FY12-17), with FY15 as the last year of DGF funding. Governance arrangements for the Partnership after the initial period will be determined by the partners by around year three. The Bank would likely remain engaged as a partner after this initial phase, but the Secretariat would be expected to evolve into an autonomous body under the GFSP. 44 Annex 16 Critical Ecosystems Partnership Fund – Phase II Bank Contact (TTL) Name: Valerie Hickey Responsible Sector and Bank Unit: Agriculture and Environmental Services (AES) Full Name of Recipient Agency: Conservation International (CI) Contact Information of the Recipient Agency: www.cepf.net Budget for the grant period (US$ million) Total Recipient Program Budget for FY13: 18.30 FY14 DGF Grant Amount: 6.90 DGF Percentage: 16% Grant Development Objectives and expected Development Outcomes The Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) is a global partnership program that provides strategic assistance to nongovernmental and private sector partners in conserving Earth’s biodiversity hotspots. The primary objective is conservation and management of globally-important biodiversity through strengthened involvement and effectiveness of NGOs and other sectors of civil society in biodiversity conservation. This grant supports a second phase of DGF and CEPF funding to expand, and replicate, successful implementation models within at least 14 of 30 eligible hotspots worldwide. The project promotes empowerment of civil society and local ownership, environmental governance, effective national and local institutions, and more efficient and cost-effective delivery of global and national benefits. Expected outcomes from the five year program include: (i) strengthened protection and management of biodiversity within selected hotspots and critical ecosystems; (ii) increased local and national capacity to integrate biodiversity conservation into development and landscape planning; and (iii) expanded and improved monitoring and learning to demonstrate biodiversity impact and enable adaptive management and replication. Main Activities The overall CEPF program has four components. DGF funding is used exclusively to support components 1 and 2. Component 1: Strengthening protection and management of globally significant biodiversity focuses on key biodiversity areas and address threats to biodiversity across broad landscapes that include a matrix of land uses, including protected areas, biological corridors and high value conservation sites in production landscapes, including indigenous reserves, community and private lands managed for a conservation objective. This component finances civil society participation in improving management and expansion of protected areas, conservation planning, and support to communities, including indigenous groups and other partners, in management and stewardship of biologically-rich lands that buffer key biodiversity and protected areas. Component 2: Increasing local and national capacity to integrate biodiversity conservation into development and landscape planning. This component empowers civil society actors to take part in, and influence, decisions that affect local lives and livelihoods and, ultimately, the global environment. The project supports activities to integrate biodiversity conservation in production landscapes and sectors, including enabling civil society groups to plan, implement, and influence biodiversity outcomes as effective partners in sustainable development. Component 3: Monitoring and knowledge sharing. This component supports monitoring and evaluation of individual projects and programs and derives and shares lessons learned within the hotspot. Monitoring and evaluation of individual projects are led by Regional Implementation Teams (RITs) and include: (a) systematic analysis and documentation of grantees’ performance against individual project and ecosystem targets; (b) assisting civil society groups, including local communities and Indigenous Peoples, to engage in participatory monitoring; and (c) expanding and formalizing information sharing and learning opportunities across the hotspot. Component 4: Ecosystem profile development and project execution supports three subcomponents (a) the development of ecosystem profiles; (b) the role of the Regional Implementation Teams as an extension service and in grant-making; and (c) overall execution and administration of the global program by CI, through the CEPF Secretariat. Performance Indicators (Intermediate Outcomes/Outputs) (1) At least 14 critical ecosystems with active investment programs involving civil society in conservation, including at least 9 new regions. (2) At least 600 civil society actors, including NGOs, indigenous peoples and private sector actively participate in conservation programs guided by CEPF ecosystem profiles. (3) At least 24 million hectares of key biodiversity areas with strengthened protection and management, including at least 1.5 million hectares of new protected areas. (4) At least 3.5 million hectares in production landscapes managed for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. 45 Progress and Achievements (including challenges, if any) Since the beginning of its second phase in 2007, CEPF has supported active investments in eight regions totaling over $73 million (Indochina, Polynesia-Micronesia, Western Ghats of India, Caribbean Islands, Maputaland-Pondoland-Albany, Mediterranean Basin, Eastern Afromontane and East Melanesian Islands). Other investments – totaling nearly $19 million – were made in 11 other regions to consolidate results achieved under Phase I (Atlantic Forest, Cape Floristic Region, Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests of Tanzania and Kenya, Guinean Forests of West Africa, Southern Mesoamerica, Tropical Andes, Succulent Karoo, Caucasus, Madagascar, Mountains of Southwest China and Tumbes- Choco-Magdalena). CEPF-2 has provided support to over 380 civil society organizations, over half of which are local NGOs. This support has secured 10 million hectares of key biodiversity areas that now are better managed and their biodiversity better protected, almost 1 million hectares of new protected areas have been gazetted, and 3.4 million hectares of production landscape is being managed for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. Partners The CEPF started in 2000 as a partnership between Conservation International (CI), the Global Environment Facility (GEF), and the World Bank. The Government of Japan and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation joined in 2002 and the French Development Agency (AFD) became the sixth partner in March 2007. The European Commission joined the partnership in 2012 with a commitment of Euro 18m, and the Japanese committed an additional $25m under Phase 2 in 2012. Governance and Management Changes CI administers and executes the project on behalf of the CEPF partners through the CEPF Secretariat, which includes the CEPF Grant Management Unit and Regional Grant Directors. The CEPF Secretariat is responsible for strategic and financial oversight of the global program, overall information management, and global outreach and communications. The Secretariat supervises the ecosystem profiling process for each hotspot, selection and oversight of Regional Implementation Teams (RITs), and overall program performance to ensure that all activities and financial management are in compliance with Donor Council decisions and the approved Operational Manual, including World Bank Safeguard Policies and procurement guidelines. The Donor Council is comprised of senior representatives from each CEPF donor institution. The Council reviews and approves the Operational Manual, ecosystem profiles, annual spending plans and the selection of Regional Implementation Teams. The Donor Council was chaired by Jim Wolfensohn until his retirement in 2012. Jean-Michel Severino now chairs the Donor Council. The Working Group is comprised of technical experts from each donor institution. Approved terms of reference for the Working Group include providing guidance to the Secretariat on strategy development, monitoring, and other aspects of implementation, as well as reviewing and approving any grant application from CI (to avoid conflict of interest). The members also act as advisors to their respective Donor Council representatives and as focal points. Under CEPF-2 greater decentralization of decisions on grant-making and monitoring to locally-based Regional Implementation Teams in recipient countries is empowering local institutions in developing countries. Exit Strategy (Disengagement from DGF and Sustainability) The CEPF is a long-term multi-donor program with different donors funding different phases, with FY16 as the anticipated last year of DGF funding. The first phase of CEPF leveraged an additional $130 million of non-CEPF funds toward specific projects and civil society activities within targeted hotspots, thus contributing to sustainability beyond CEPF involvement. CEPF-2 also promotes the piloting of innovative financial mechanisms, including payments for ecosystem services and market transformation initiatives. The Donor Council is currently engaged in strategic planning for Phase 3 of CEPF, with a particular focus on sustainability and how to engage new donors as original partners phase out. On a hotspot level, the CEPF Secretariat and the RITs are leading donor roundtables to invite donors to coordinate activities in the CEPF geography to maximize impact and to build on the social grantee infrastructure that CEPF has midwifed. This is a key component of sustainability of results in each region, and one that allows the Bank to hand over to other potential donors. 46 Annex 16 Partnership to Address Legacy Pollution and its Health Impacts Affecting Poor Communities Bank Contact (TTL) Name: Jostein Nygard Responsible Sector and Bank Unit: UDR - SDN Full Name of Recipient Agency: Blacksmith Institute Contact Information of the Recipient Agency: www.blacksmithinstitute.org Budget for the grant period (US$ million) Total Recipient Program Budget: 3.00 FY14 DGF Grant Amount: 0.60 DGF Percentage: 20 % Grant Development Objectives and expected Development Outcomes Legacy pollution (LP) is pollution that remains from past activities. It is estimated to affect about 100 million people, disproportionately affecting the poorest communities and children, resulting in a cycle of poverty, and contributing to the problem’s persistence. There is no systematic international level mechanism to address legacy pollution, and current efforts are insufficient. The main purpose of this GPP is to design a new partnership mechanism (alliance) on an international scale to deal with toxic legacy pollution and its health effects in low and middle income countries that would assist local communities to protect and improve their health and livelihood. Expected outcomes include: i) Partnership facility that aims to address legacy pollution is designed and financing is identified; and ii) National and international support to address LP in low/middle income countries is enhanced. Main Activities The partnership is now gradually moving from the design to the implementation phase. The key components that brings the project into implementation include: 1) Mobilize Global Alliance on Health and Pollution (GAHP) members and other stakeholders to strengthen the GAHP and enhance support for it; 2) Expand the inventory of toxic hotspots and raise awareness on the global scope of legacy pollution and its health and socio-economic impact and; and 3) Test the design and operation of the GAHP through pilot clean-up projects. Between three and five pilots are being conducted that is testing the potential designs of the partnership and feed-back the lessons learnt into the design of the partnership. All pilot activities contribute towards the objective of designing and developing the full partnership. The grant will also produce a GAHP report that will provide information about GAHP experiences, present approaches to clean-up of contaminated sites and present the health risk associated with contaminated sites. Performance Indicators (Intermediate Outcomes/Outputs) Main results include: (i) The partnership (i.e. the GAHP) to address toxic pollution in priority low- and middle-income countries is designed and steps are undertaken towards its operation; (ii) Progressively stronger national and international support and capacity to address legacy pollution in the selected priority low- and middle-income countries is demonstrated. Performance indicators for the intermediate outcomes/outputs are:  Global inventory covers 80 countries in all six regions, including at least 1900 sites assessed in total (at present more than 2800 sites are included in the GAHP data based more than 1600 assessed);  Global inventory data is presented in 15 events: 2 in each region, and at least 2 conferences or events per year that are regional or international in nature;  At least 10 articles cite data or reports on the global inventory, especially research related to the impacts of pollution in peer-reviewed journals. (Will also expand with a separate GAHP publication).  At least 3 countries cite data / reports on the global inventory in their draft policy related documents.  Draft constitutive document is shared and discussed with at least two multilateral development agencies, one bilateral agency, two UN agencies, one developing country government, two international NGOs, one national NGO and one private sector organization.  At least 2 multilateral development agencies, 1 bilateral agency, 2 UN agencies, 2 developing country government agencies, 2 international NGOs, 2 developing country NGOs and 1 private sector organization are members of the Partnership Board.  At least two new bilateral donors and two private sector representatives commit funds towards the partnership;  At least 3 pilot projects in three separate countries within two different regions are conducted to test the design of the partnership. Results of the pilot projects are published, including lessons learnt and their implications for the design of the partnership. Partnership design is modified as necessary based on experience from the three pilot projects. Pilot projects result in reduced toxic exposures to local communities at the selected sites. 47 Progress and Achievements (including challenges, if any) As of April 15, 2013 Grant agreement with Blacksmith Institute (BI) was signed and funds were disbursed in November 2011 while the 2nd agreement was signed and funds disbursed in November-December 2012. A consultative group (CG) of focal points from all the regions, LEGEN, OPCS, ENV and UDR formed in 2011 to enhance synergies between WB work and the DGF-funded activities continues to operate. Latest coordination meeting held in April 2013. 1. Mobilize GAHP members and other stakeholders to strengthen the GAHP and enhance support for it: By April 2013, BI has met with more than 60 agencies to discuss the initiative, strategy for establishing the partnership/alliance and the work plan for 2012-14 for the GAHP (incl. 8 multilaterals, 28 bilaterals, 15 international organizations and 16 governments, while the GAHP alliance now includes 21 members (see partners below). The structure of the GAHP has been developed, its constitutive documents have been formulated and its action plan has been issued. The GAHP was established in July 2012 and its first Annual meeting held in April 2013. Its organization is well established. Significant co-financing has been secured, including Euro 5m through a grant from EC and a number of smaller grants while further fund mobilization is going on through dialogues with about a dozen donor agencies. 2. Expand the inventory of toxic hotspots and raise awareness on the global scope of legacy pollution and its health and socio-economic impacts: The Toxic Sites Identification Program (TSIP) progressed in AFR, ECA, and LCR. Meetings and workshops with MoEs in were held in 14 countries, which raised the overall awareness of toxic pollution and its health impacts and gaining support for addressing it at the national level. 141 investigators have been trained, 130 investigators hired for conducting screening and 268 new sites have been screened in LSC, AFR and ECA. TSIP database results have been presented at eleven international events and after extensive dialogues and technical presentations seven new countries is expected to collaborate with the GAHP. Two research papers on the TSIP have been published in addition to three issues on GAHP subjects in the Journal of Health and Pollution and other publications. Development is also ongoing in quantifying the global burden of disease from hazardous waste. 3. Test the design and operation of the GAHP through pilot projects: (i) Selection criteria for the pilot projects have been defined, shared with potential partners, feedback received from most GAHP members and adopted by the GAHP. The selection criteria are now assisting countries in choosing sites for interventions and remediation. (ii) The first pilot clean-up project has been established (mercury-free artisanal gold mining processes from the Philippines in Indonesia) while the next set of pilot projects have been identified for upstart during Spring 2013. Partners The partnership is moving from the design to the implementation phase, with efforts focused on developing strategy to approach potential members and raise awareness on the effort to design partnership and the importance of legacy pollution. GAHP includes how 7 international and bilateral agencies (WB, ADB, BID, EC, GIZ, UNIDO, and UNEP), 9 government agencies (from the Philippines, Indonesia, Madagascar, Mexico, Peru, Senegal, Uruguay and Argentina), 5 NGOs and a large number of (technical) observers (like WHO, US-EPA). Intensive work continues to expand the number of partners and to ensure that good division of labor is established to respond optimally to client demand. Governance and Management Changes There are no changes in governance and management arrangements. Based on consultations, the term ‘alliance’ is now used. The formal now is now GAHP that focuses on both legacy pollution and active pollution sites. Exit Strategy (Disengagement from DGF and Sustainability) The DGF funding is focused on the incubation of the partnership/alliance, and working with partners, an action plan to identify resources and donors is the key effort in the design phase of the partnership/alliance, with efforts focused on identifying, building, and ensuring sustainability of the partnership/alliance. The capacity of the partnership/alliance to attract donors is an important test of the initiative, and a successful partnership is leveraging additional funding, illustrating the value of the partnership/alliance. The Bank is expected to be engaged through the DGF window for the first three years, FY14 being the last year of DGF support, during which the partnership is designed, tested, and funding is identified. Continued action to secure funding will ensure that the DGF’s exit will not affect the financial soundness of the program. 48 Annex 16 Global Partnership for Oceans (GPO) Bank Contact (TTL) Name: Peter Kristensen Responsible Sector and Bank Unit: Agriculture and Environmental Services (AES) Full Name of Recipient Agency: Indian Ocean Commission (IOC) in Quatre Bornes, Mauritius, & Parties to the Nauru Agreement Office (PNAO) Majuro, Marshall Islands Contact Information of the Recipient Agency: IOC: www.coi-ioc.org; PNAU: www.pnatuna.com Budget for the grant period (US$ million) Total Recipient Program Budget: 100 FY14 DGF Grant Amount: 0.75 DGF Percentage: 9% Grant Development Objectives and expected Development Outcomes The GPO’s goal is to sustainably enhance the economic, social and ecological performance of the ocean’s ecosystems and living resources, with improved benefits captured by coastal and island developing countries and global benefits accruing to the planet as a whole. Specific targets over ten years include: (i) Sustainable revenue from ocean ecosystem services with markets doubled – disproportionally benefiting developing coastal states; (ii) Rebuilding strategies in place for at least half of the world’s fish stocks currently identified as overfished; (iii) Economic loss in fisheries cut in half, through reduction of subsidies contributing to overcapacity; (iv) Two thirds of the world’s food fish provided by sustainable aquaculture; (v) Certification procedures for aquaculture and for wild catch fish harmonized; (vi) Global nutrient over-enrichment and coastal hypoxia beginning to reverse as a result of fertilizer use efficiency and increase in the proportion of nutrient resources recovered and reused from human and livestock wastes, and (vii) Marine protected areas doubled. These objectives will be achieved through: Component 1: Valuation of ocean ecosystem services and identification of reforms. The component’s objective is to better inform decisions about the use of the oceans and identify needed investments, by supporting countries to assess the potential value of the services provided by healthy ocean ecosystems under their jurisdiction. Component 2: Investments in governance reforms in priority ocean areas around the world (national and regional scale). The component’s objective is to provide direct investments to Governments and stakeholders to help rebuild the natural capital of the living oceans by supporting: (i) Rights-based fisheries management, governance reforms ; social investments to support the transition and certification of best practices, traceablility; (ii) Sustainable aquaculture development; (iii) Marine pollution reduction, including: regulatory reforms to introduce economic incentives for reducing marine pollution from land-based sources; and infrastructure, research and technology for pollution reduction, increased fertilizer efficiency etc. Component 3: Global knowledge and advocacy for the living oceans. The component’s objective is to provide a platform for exchange of knowledge and promotion of key policy reforms, in support of the investments in component two. The following activities would be supported: (i) Global Oceans Knowledge Platform; (ii) advocacy and technical assistance to reduce the risks of pollution from offshore extractive industries; (iii) support for harmonization of sustainable seafood certification programs; (iii) introduction of standards to promote blue business practices and investment, particularly in international financing institutions; and (iv) global M&E of progress. Main Activities The specific activities of the GPP under DGF financing is to pilot the introduction of rights-based fisheries management systems in (at least two) priority ocean areas of the world, in order to sustainably enhance a key ocean ecosystem service in these regions. This support would provide crucial technical assistance at the regional level to identify governance reforms for the shared fisheries, as a basis for continued and future investment and support by the larger Global Partnership for Oceans. Support rights-based fisheries management in the Western Pacific Ocean and Southwest Indian Ocean, including (i) rapid TA to specify the management system requirements for tuna fisheries (registry, observation systems and compliance systems for fishing vessel day scheme for tuna), (ii) analytical studies on options to maximize the value of vessel days through multi-zone licensing (FSMA), (iii) development, piloting and training in implementation of management system, (iv) partnership building, multi-country and multi-region coordination. The Grant to Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) finances the Recipient’s activities under the following Objectives: 1) Support science- and evidence-based fisheries management in the Western Pacific Ocean. 2) Operationalize management system requirements for the vessel day scheme (PNAO subgrant). The Grant to Indian Ocean Commission (IOC) finances the recipients activities under the following objectives: 1. Support the implementation of the agreement of port state measures to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and 49 unregulated fishing approved by the FAO conference on 22 November 2009 (“FAO Agreement�) as well as resolution on conservation management measure for the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC). 2. Promotion of best practices in fisheries governance amongst members of the South West Indian Ocean Fisheries Commission (SWIOFC). 3. Project management Monitoring and Evaluation (Indian Ocean Commission, “COI�). Performance Indicators (Intermediate Outcomes/Outputs) In 3 years, with support from DGF, the Global Partnership for Oceans would aim to achieve: (1) Registry, observation systems and compliance systems for fishing vessel day scheme for tuna and/or other key priority fisheries established in two priority areas (Western Pacific & Southwest Indian Ocean); (2) Rebuilding strategies for tuna stocks discussed and agreed with IOC and PNAO country constituents; (3) Vessel days management system developed and piloted with revenue improvements documented. PDO Indicator 1: Rebuilding strategies in place for key migratory fish stocks (Western Pacific tuna stocks, and Southwest Indian Ocean tuna stocks). PDO Indicator 2: Revenues from tuna fisheries to member countries of the Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) from tuna fisheries increased by 5 percent, and maintained at current levels to member countries of the Southwest Indian Ocean Fisheries Commission Progress and Achievements (including challenges, if any) Progress to date (April 2012-April 2013) under Intermediate Outcome (IO) Indicators:  IO Indicator1: Management system requirements for tuna fisheries in the Western Pacific developed (Yes/No). Progress: Registry, observation systems and compliance systems for fishing vessel day scheme for tuna in Western Pacific is in preparation stage.  IO Indicator 6: Legal framework in Southwest Indian Fisheries Commission member countries is reviewed to determine if adequate to implement resolutions for rights in tuna fisheries, adopted by Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (Yes/No). Progress: Review of laws and regulations has been initiated.  IO Indicator 8: Port State Measures adopted to enforce rights (Yes/No). Progress: Review and consultations on measures have been initiated. Partners AusAID; Governments of Japan, Netherlands, Norway and Iceland; Conservation International (CI); Parties to the Nauru Agreement Office (PNAO); The Nature Conservancy (TNC); United Nations (UN);Worldwide Fund for Nature; Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS); European Union (EU); Global Environment Facility (GEF); Indian Ocean Commission (COI); The National Geographic Society (NGS); World Conservation Union (IUCN); World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF). Governance and Management Changes The governance arrangements of the Global Partnership for Oceans as follows: (1) Assembly of Partners which includes all partners in the GPO contributing to the overall development and implementation of the partnership. (2) GPO Secretariat. The World Bank will assign staff to provide management and administration and other operational support covering: (i) the day-to-day administration of the GPO and (ii) the operations of the GPO, (3) GPO Fund Steering Committee to provide strategic guidance on the overall use of a GPO multi-donor trust fund (MDTF) that would be managed by the World Bank, to review and endorse the GPO fund’s annual work program, and to review annual progress and financial reports of activities financed by the MDTF. Exit Strategy (Disengagement from DGF and Sustainability) In year one (April 2012-April 2013), DGF kick-started the implementation of sustainable management reforms followed by up- scaling of what the DGF resources incubated in years 2 and 3 with support from an Oceans MDTF. DGF will disengage after year 3 after receiving FY15 funding with MDTF and other funds, enabling further scale-up. 50 Annex 16 International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime (ICCWC) Bank Contact (TTL) Name: William Magrath Responsible Sector and Bank Unit: Agriculture and Environmental Services (AES) Full Name of Recipient Agency: United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC) Contact Information of the Recipient Agency: www.unodc.org Budget for the grant period (US$ million) Total Recipient Program Budget: 6.17 FY14 DGF Grant Amount: 0.75 DGF Percentage: 12% Grant Development Objectives and expected Development Outcomes The goal of ICCWC is promotion of effective law enforcement nationally and internationally in support of sustainable natural resource management regimes by providing a framework to embed environment and natural resources law enforcement (ENRLE) in the development agenda and promote cooperation among the five agencies on: 1) Enhanced awareness of ENR crime; 2) Provision of institutional analysis and support to countries on natural resource crime, including applied research and threat assessment; 3) National level capacity building, including legal frameworks, and; 4) Coordinated enforcement actions, including support to networks of enforcement agencies, intelligence sharing, and targeting. Main Activities ENR Crime Awareness. This includes activities to increase understanding by policymakers, law enforcement officials and prosecutors, natural resource managers and the general public of the importance and consequences of environment and natural resource crimes. These would involve meetings, workshops, conferences and reports and publications and use of other media. Institutional Analysis and Support to Countries. This includes assistance to developing countries in the application of diagnostic methods to better understand ENR crime problems and to develop and evaluate policy and program responses. This takes the form of sector studies, consultative missions, technical assistance and training, workshops. National Level ENRLE Capacity Building. This includes support, based on analytics such as above, to developing country ENRLE agencies. It includes training programs, support for acquisition of specialized equipment, technical assistance, including specialized legal support. Enforcement Cooperation and Coordination. Developing country law enforcement agencies acting alone or in coordination with authorities from other countries, would undertake any enforcement operations associated with the program. The partnership might support assistance to planning, coordination and assessment. This includes assistance with communications, intelligence gathering, analysis and dissemination, planning of operations, specialized equipment and training. Performance Indicators (Intermediate Outcomes/Outputs) An increase in the number of developing countries with effective and well-functioning ENRLE; (ii) The significance of ENRLE in international law enforcement fora is increased; (iii) Number of countries supported with detailed analytics and diagnostics regarding ENRLE issues; (iv) Number of countries with increased ENRLE capacity; (v) Number of high impact, multi-country, multi-agency ENRLE operations. Progress and Achievements (including challenges, if any) ENR Crime Awareness. Environmental Crime is the focus of the Thematic Debate during the UNODC Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (CCPCJ), 22-26 April 2013. Member States and experts are invited to discuss the topic under the title “Challenges post by emerging crime that have a significant impact on the environment and ways to deal with it�. A discussion guide has been prepared with relevant background information. During the CCPCJ, different side event featuring wildlife crime and its link 51 to transnational organized crime were organized. The Wildlife and Forest Crime Analytic Toolkit, formally launched during the Standing Committee of the CITES Secretariat in July 2012, has now been translated into three languages (English, French and Spanish) and is ready to be implemented through pilot studies in cooperation with interested Governments. The Governments of Bangladesh, Peru and Gabon have officially expressed their interest for implementing the Toolkit. Nepal and Liberia have also expressed interest and will be invited to participate in a pilot study by CITES Secretariat. Institutional Analysis and Support to Countries. Since last year’s application, UNODC has established contact with Governments interested in the pilot implementation of the Wildlife and Forest Crime Analytic Toolkit, namely the Governments of Peru and Bangladesh. In order to prepare and coordinate the pilot study in Peru, UNODC is in contact with the Peruvian Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Environment. In an initial informal meeting with the Peruvian Ministry of Agriculture, further procedures had been discussed. UNODC has also been in contact with the Chief Conservator of the Bangladesh Forest Department, requesting for the nomination of a governmental focal point and will follow-up with regard to further coordination of the pilot study. Initial working-based kick-off meetings are planned to take place in Q4 of 2013. National Level ENRLE Capacity Building. Capacity-building, technical assistance and training programs will be designed based on the results from the pilot studies conducted with the Wildlife and Forest Crime Analytic Toolkit. In addition, at the CITES Conference of the Parties (March, 2013), a two day workshop was held to build capacity in ENRLE. Enforcement Cooperation and Coordination. Assistance to planning, coordinating and assessing enforcement cooperation will be delivered on the basis of needs identifies through the pilot studies conducted with the Wildlife and Forest Crime Analytic Toolkit. UNODC is further exploring the possibility of cooperating with the University of Washington in the field of forensics, namely on using methods based on DNA analysis to stop illegal poaching in elephants in Africa. Partners Interpol, UNODC, the World Customs Organization (WCO); and the Secretariat of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). Governance and Management Changes ICCWC was established in 2010. The Letter of Agreement establishing ICCWC enumerates the general principles shared by the partners, but does not establish ICCWC as a formal, independent entity. Participating agencies, including the Bank, have designated staff to represent them on ICCWC Senior Experts Group, the chair of which is currently held by the Chief of Enforcement Services of the CITES Secretariat. Following discussions at the Senior Experts Group, on which the Bank is represented, UNODC was identified as the lead agency to mobilize and manage resources for ICCWC’s global program. The Senior Experts’ Group would play an advisory role to UNODC’s administrative and management function. There has never been an expectation that ICCWC would have a standalone secretariat, but rather than the ICCWC Global Support Program, to which DGF would provide catalytic resources, would raise the profile of ENRLE within each member organization. As such, UNODC manages the resources to implement the Global Support Program on behalf of the members, under the oversight of the Senior Experts’ Group. Exit Strategy (Disengagement from DGF and Sustainability) DGF support will provide catalytic funding for the ICCWC partnership. In turn, by raising awareness and piloting the types of institutional coordination, capacity building and analyses that the ICCWC partners can offer, this support will embed ENRLE within each member’s own work-program. This in turn will mobilize additional funding to continue these services based on each member’s comparative advantage. In addition, each partner is committed to securing and spending its own resources to provide these services after the DGF support. This includes the Bank, which is already using IDA resources in South and South East Asia to finance operations that, among other things, support ENRLE. FY15 is the last year of DGF funding. 52 Annex 16 Cities Alliance Bank Contact (TTL) Name: William Cobbett Responsible Sector and Bank Unit: FEU - SDNCA Full Name of Recipient Agency: Sub-grants to external recipients Contact Information of the Recipient Agency: www.citiesalliance.org Budget for the grant period (US$ million) Total Recipient Program Budget: 21.50 FY14 DGF Grant Amount: 0.50 DGF Percentage: 2% Grant Development Objectives and expected Development Outcomes The over-arching objectives of the Cities Alliance are to:  Strengthen and promote the role of cities in poverty reduction, and in sustainable development;  Capture and strengthen the synergies between and among members and partners; and  Improve the quality of urban development cooperation and lending. The Cities Alliance is primarily a vehicle for partnership, seeking to improve the quality and coherence of support being provided to city and national governments in the developing world, as well as the quality of members’ own urban programs. To this end, the Cities Alliance does not develop separate implementation capacity, but work through the existing capacity of its members, as well as other partners, to promote the vision of “Sustainable Cities without Slums.� To achieve this vision, the Cities Alliance will promote new partnerships between local and national government, slum dwellers, private foundations, the private sector, NGOs and other partners. The Cities Alliance prioritizes support to cities, local authorities, associations of local authorities and/or national governments that are committed to:  Improving their cities, and local governance, for all residents;  Adopting a long-term, comprehensive and inclusive approach to urban development;  Implementing those reforms necessary to effect systemic change, and to achieve delivery at scale; and  Decentralizing resources to empower local government. Main Activities Support provided by the Cities Alliance falls within the following broad categories:  Citywide and nationwide slum upgrading programs;  City development strategies; and  National policies on urban development and local government Within these broad categories, Cities Alliance members and partners are able to respond to a range of developmental challenges, which are identified as priorities by the city or national government, slum dwellers, and other members or partners. City development strategies are generally multi-sectoral and citywide, and can encompass a wide range of sustainable urban development priorities, including subjects related to three pillars of sustainable development (economic, social and ecological) as well as investments, governance systems and physical implementation. The Cities Alliance offers support to meet its objectives, including the following types of activities:  Country programs - longer-term programmatic support, at a multiple city / national scale;  Catalytic projects - shorter-term activities designed to catalyze change;  Knowledge activities - activities designed to fill knowledge gaps and build capacity at local, national, regional and global levels; and  Communication support and advocacy - activities designed to improve awareness of relevant policies or activities, influencing behavior and contribute to dynamic local, national, regional and global debates. Performance Indicators (Intermediate Outcomes/Outputs) The program delivers the following Outputs that contribute to the Intermediate Outcome of cities increasingly characterized by effective local government, active citizenship, and delivering improved and responsive services to the urban poor: (i) national policy frameworks developed and/or enhanced to address urban development needs; ii) local pro- poor and climate resilient strategies and plans developed and resources mobilized; (iii) mechanisms to engage citizens in city/urban governance developed; and iv) capacities of cities in governance and management strengthened. Progress and Achievements (including challenges, if any)  Through country programs, mainstreamed a culture of dialogue at community, municipal and national levels in Uganda as an approach to urban issues, rolled out a community-based, participatory approach to city-wide slum upgrading in Vietnam, launched national advisory committee to coordinate and guide urban development in Greater Accra, Ghana, and finalized design of strategic, partnership-based programs in Mozambique and Burkina Faso. 53  Established a network of African country program partners, including representatives from national government, local government and organizations of the urban poor, from Ghana, Uganda, Burkina Faso and Mozambique for south- south learning and knowledge exchange.  Consolidated the MENA Joint Work Programme Partnership consisting of WB, UN Habitat, UCLG, CMI, MedCities, France, Germany and Italy to foster inclusive growth in cities through adoption of a three year work program, continuation of diagnostic work in Tunisia and successful advocacy efforts at the European Commission.  Supporting efforts of mayors and organizations of slum dwellers to cooperate and carry out joint enumeration exercises of informal settlements (‘Know Your City’) to address the urgent need to recognize that informal settlements are integral parts of a city a that urban poor communities should always be included in the planning and provision of public services.  Joint events and exhibitions with CA members including WB, UN Habitat, UCLG and Slum Dwellers International to promote the role of Youth in cities, housing policies in African cities and national enabling environments for investments in African cities at global events such as the World Urban Forum VI in Naples.  Initiated campaign to promote pro-poor housing policies in Africa through awareness raising, learning and capacity building, and action coalitions. Provided support to strengthen knowledge management capacities and strategies of UCLG-Africa. Approved funding for 7 new knowledge generation projects during CY2012, and supervised implementation of 30 on-going activities ($7.3m), in fields of slum upgrading, municipal finance, decentralization, strategic planning, and environment/climate change.  Approved grants of $1.6m to assist the secondary cities of Uganda to prepare municipal development strategies, support the development of an integrated environmental World Bank sanitation strategy for greater Accra (Ghana), support city-wide upgrading process in 20 small/ medium cities in Vietnam, and for Tunisia Urbanization Review.  Supported national and regional State of Cities Reports to raise awareness of the importance of cities in economic development and poverty reduction. Partners United Cities and Local Governments; Metropolis; Brazil, Chile, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Philippines, South Africa, Australia, France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Spain, Sweden, United States, World Bank, European Commission, Habitat for Humanity International, Shack/Slum Dwellers International, UN-Habitat, and UNEP. Governance and Management Changes The CA is governed by a Charter agreed by the Partners, who are members of the Consultative Group (CG), which serves as the primary decision-making body of the partnership, responsible for its strategic direction and review of overall performance. An Executive Committee of the CG provides policy guidance, and oversight of the CA Secretariat. A full- time Secretariat manages day-to-day operations. A Policy Advisory Forum helps raise the profile of city/urban issues. During the second half of 2013, the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS) will become trustee for the program and host of its Secretariat, to be relocated from Washington to Brussels. Exit Strategy (Disengagement from DGF and Sustainability) The Partnership Participation Grant is part of CA’s phased exit from DGF funding. FY16 will be the last year of DGF support to CA under the Partnership Participation Grants. 54 Annex 16 Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) Bank Contact (TTL) Name: Prashant Responsible Sector and Bank Unit: FEU – SDN Full Name of Recipient Agency: Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) Contact Information of the Recipient Agency: www.gfdrr.org Budget for the grant period (US$ million) Total Recipient Program Budget: 62.50 FY14 DGF Grant Amount: 0.50 DGF Percentage: 1% Grant Development Objectives and expected Development Outcomes The primary development objective of GFDRR is to reduce disaster losses (lives and livelihoods) to contribute in the fight against poverty, building adaptive capacities in high-risk low and middle-income countries to manage multiple natural hazard risks. GFDRR promotes disaster risk management (DRM) and climate change adaptation (CCA) in national development plans through PRSPs, CASs, UNDAFs, NAPAs and other sector development strategies. DGF support to GFDRR enables the ISDR system to enhance global and regional advocacy and knowledge management among stakeholders to achieve strategic goals of the Hyogo Framework for Action. The outcomes include the standardization and harmonization of hazard risk management tools, methodologies and practices to be used by highly disaster prone countries. Strategic and innovative partnerships in risk reduction, anchored in regional organizations, and a systematic and coordinated approach to this agenda among the international community, sustains a strong country engagement to prioritize DRM. Building on the momentum gained through regional and global programs, GFDRR provides technical assistance through several donor trust funds to disaster hotspot countries to identify risks to their poverty reduction and economic growth, and help them design risk reduction and risk financing strategies. Through its country engagements GFDRR supports moving away from a reactive relief approach to a proactive prevention and preparedness stance that is integral to national development plans, resulting in increased investments in risk reduction. Main Activities GFDRR is organized in three tracks:  Track I funded out of the DGF grant, and managed by the UN/ISDR secretariat, supports enhanced global and regional advocacy and knowledge management for mainstreaming DRM by facilitating exchange of good practices, identifying and managing cross- boundary risks, and developing common tools and methodologies for risk reduction.  Track II supports the mainstreaming of disaster risk mitigation in national development plans that would catalyze investments in hazard prevention, mitigation, and preparedness.  Track III provides technical assistance and supplemental financing to accelerate a coordinated sustainable recovery in a post disaster situation, primarily in low-income countries, while using the opportunity to introduce DRM measures to ensure “resilient recovery.� Performance Indicators (Intermediate Outcomes/Outputs) The global and regional work program is focusing on: (i) Enhanced regional cooperation and knowledge management for mainstreaming DRM; (ii) Standardized and harmonized DRM tools and methodologies; and (iii) Improved coordination, coherence of actions and communication among ISDR system partners to support Hyogo Framework for Action implementation. 55 Progress and Achievements (including challenges, if any) Strengthening its support to vulnerable countries, GFDRR approved 31 projects in FY12. DGF funding has leveraged a strong global partnership through GFDRR, which, working closely with UNISDR, continues to promote sustained global advocacy and regional cooperation to advance the agenda for disaster and climate risk management, some examples include: in Asia, the ASEAN Disaster Risk Financing and Insurance (DRFI) Roadmap, stimulated commitment and actions for standardized national disaster loss databases across Asia; In LAC the Regional “Nayarit Communiqué� highlighted shifts in DRR legislative frameworks in a number of countries; in MNA, the Plan of Action of the Arab Regional Strategy for DRR (2010-2020) was accepted by the League of Arab States; In ECA, the South Eastern Europe and Caucasus Catastrophe Risk Insurance Facility initiated a comprehensive risk-based regulatory framework for catastrophe insurance. In Africa, the African Union Commission’s Department of Rural Economy established a sub- working group to accelerate implementation of the Africa Program of Action on DRR. The growing strategic commitment of the World Bank to DRM is reflected in the number of Country Assistance and Partnership Strategies (CASs/CPSs) that now consider disaster and climate risks in their approach to development. Out of a representative sample of 79 CASs in 2012, 75% recognized natural disasters as a challenge to sustainable development, up from 46% in 2006. This upward trend has taken place across regions and country income groups. The GFDRR/World Bank DRFI Program worked with the Mexican G20 Presidency to develop a joint report on disaster risk financing and insurance. The Pacific Catastrophe Risk Assessment and Financing Initiative (PCRAFI) started its next phase to develop regional and country-level disaster risk financing solutions. The GFDRR Standby Recovery Financing Facility (Track III) approved nine new projects, which included five Post Disaster Needs Assessments (PDNAs) in response to government requests. In the Horn of Africa, GFDRR implemented a comprehensive regional response to the 2011 drought, with post disaster interventions in Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda and Somalia. PDNAs in Kenya and Djibouti - the first ever in response to drought - led to new and restructured World Bank investments. The GFDRR-supported PDNA conducted for the 2011 Thailand floods included for the first time the implementation of a rapid Social Impacts Assessment. Partners GFDRR’s work through multi-sector partnerships of the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR) includes engagement with the UN, other international and regional organizations like UNEP, UNCCC, UNESCO, WHO, UNDP, WMO, ILO, IFRC, ADB, AfDB, IADB, ASEAN, ECLAC, ESCAP, SOPAC, ECA, UN ESCWA, recipient governments, private sector, regional resource institutions, inter regional governmental organizations such as the African Union, ASEAN, IGAD, CEPREDENAC, ECOWAS, SADC, OAS, League of Arab States and SAARC and the donors; Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, European Commission, Netherlands, Norway, Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK, USA. India has joined the partnership as a donor recently. Discussions are ongoing with Chile, Mexico, Indonesia and South Africa to join the global partnership as official donors. Governance and Management Changes GFDRR is governed and managed by a charter adopted on February 23, 2007, and amended in May 2010. The governance and organizational structure of the GFDRR include a Consultative Group and a Secretariat. The Consultative Group is chaired by the Vice President for Sustainable Development of the World Bank. A Co-Chair is selected by the Consultative Group from among its members, presently the UK. The Consultative Group approves the GFDRR’s indicative annual work program and results framework. The GFDRR Secretariat housed in the HQ World Bank carries out and manages its day-to-day operations. The UN ISDR Secretariat is responsible for global and regional deliverables supported by Track I financing. In FY13, Austria joined GFDRR as a new donor. Togo and the Solomon Islands joined the CG as developing country members, while Haiti was invited by the CG to continue as a member for another 2 year term. The new GFDRR Partnership Strategy (2013-15) was endorsed. The proposal to hold one Annual CG meeting in the Spring was approved, in combination with an informal meeting to take place in the Fall. It was also agreed that the number of non-contributing invited low income countries on a two-year staggered-rotating basis would be two for the CG meetings and four for the informal fall meeting from 2014 onwards. Exit Strategy (Disengagement from DGF and Sustainability) The Partnership Participation Grant is part of GFDRR’s phased exit from DGF funding. FY16 will be the last year of DGF support to CA under the Partnership Participation Grants. 56 Annex 16 Construction Sector Transparency Initiative (CoST) Bank Contact (TTL) Name: Jordan Schwartz Responsible Sector and Bank Unit: Transport Sector Board; Infrastructure Policy Unit (SDN) Full Name of Recipient Agency: Engineers Against Poverty (EAP) Contact Information of the Recipient Agency: www.engineersagainstpoverty.org Budget for the grant period (US$ million) Total Recipient Program Budget: 1.50 FY14 DGF Grant Amount: 0.50 DGF Percentage: 38% Grant Development Objectives and expected Development Outcomes Mismanagement and corruption in the construction sector are estimated to account for 10 to 30 percent of the total value of construction projects. CoST was developed to test whether specific multistakeholder mechanisms could curb and reduce such losses effectively. Building on the lessons and implementation experience of the CoST Pilot Phase (2008 – 2011), the objectives of this GPP are to mainstream CoST’s disclosure and assurance routines within existing CoST countries and to broaden the Initiative to new countries (reference PDO (1) and (2)). Providing support to governments to improve the accuracy and relevance of project data will result in the public being better informed about construction projects, particularly with regard to cost and timeliness of delivery. Empowered with information, stakeholders (e.g. citizens, media, parliament, and oversight agencies) will be able to challenge procuring entities over instances of poor performance, mismanagement or corruption and demand better projects and more effective and efficient delivery systems. This percentage does not account for a proposal requesting funding for EUR 1 million (for 4 years) submitted to the Netherlands, which is being considered subject to the preparation of a business plan. DfID has pledged to support CoST and more clarity is being sought from DfID on the amount and timing Main Activities Country Operations: Funding is primarily directed to the domestic multi-stakeholder groups to establish a domestic CoST program by: (i) developing an implementation plan for a specific period; (ii) working with government procuring entities to disclose project- level information; and (iii) raising additional finance from local and bilateral donors. International Support Functions: International Secretariat (IS) provides technical assistance to participating countries, deals with queries from interested countries, engages with bilateral and multilateral donors to raise funding for the global CoST program and maintains the international website. Interim Board (IB) Meetings: The IB was elected in mid-2011 as CoST’s interim executive body. Performance Indicators (Intermediate Outcomes/Outputs) IO 1: Number of existing CoST countries introducing the CoST mandatory disclosure requirement. Progress to date: The majority of existing countries continue to use the old template for their disclosure. IO 2: Number of procuring entities (within existing CoST countries) disclosing information. Progress to date: Disclosure has taken place in Vietnam within 5 procuring entities. No other country has disclosed information during this reporting period. However, Guatemala is planning a large disclosure event in May 2013. IO 3: A global governance structure for CoST has been agreed. Progress to date: The Interim Board has agreed to and accepted the design for the International Program’s governance structure. However, this decision is conditional on the final approval of an elected International Board. IO 4: An International Board for CoST has been elected and has assumed its functions. Progress to date: An Interim Board was elected in March 2012 and will serve as CoST’s executive body until the International Board is formed. The Interim Board will 57 remain adequate until country participation ramps up dramatically to expand the scope of the program. IO 5: The number of multi-stakeholder groups across new country participants. Progress to Date: As of April 25, El Salvador and the Ukraine have applied to join CoST and are in the process of developing their implementation plans, which includes designing a multi-stakeholder group. IO 6: The number of new country participants introducing the CoST mandatory disclosure requirement. Progress to Date: El Salvador and the Ukraine have applied to join CoST and are in the process of developing their implementation plans. It is expected that the mandatory requirement will be introduced within 6 months. IO 7: Number of Procuring Entities disclosing information within new country participants. Progress to Date: As of April 25, El Salvador and the Ukraine have applied to join CoST and are in the process of developing their implementation plans. It will take at least 8 to 10 months for disclosures to being in these countries. IO 8: Target level of funding (in US$) is secured. Progress to date: To date US$950k has been leveraged from external sources. Progress and Achievements (including challenges, if any)  CoST formally launched the ‘CoST International Program’ at events in South Africa and the UK in October 2012.  The Prime Minister of the UK, David Cameron, endorsed CoST in his New Year’s letter to the G8. The International Secretariat is working with the UK Government to incorporate CoST in the G8’s Program ahead of its Northern Ireland Summit in June 2013 and the potential for DFID reinvesting in CoST’s International Program.  El Salvador and the Ukraine applied to join CoST in April 2013. Discussions are ongoing about the shape of the Program in each country, but both will be fully participating by the end of June 2013.  There has also been a considerable amount of engagement with other countries interested in joining CoST such as Mexico, Botswana, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Mauritius, Uganda and South Africa.  CoST’s International Secretariat (IS) and the county-level Multi-Stakeholder has leveraged additional donor funding. The IS secured EUR 205k from Germany’s GIZ and the MSGs have received USD 685k from bilateral donors.  Despite successful fundraising efforts by MSGs, disclosure of project information has fallen behind. Only 4 new projects were disclosed in Vietnam in 2012. However, more disclosure is scheduled to take place in Guatemala, Ethiopia, Malawi and Vietnam before end of calendar year 2013 on more than 50 projects (in total).  The leverage target for FY13 is USD 4 million. So far, about USD 950k have been leveraged. Partners There have been no changes to CoST’s partnership. Governance and Management Changes The functions attributed to each governance body within the previous Board Summary have not changed. The Interim Board remains in place and serves as the Initiative’s Executive Body until several additional countries are incorporated into the program, after which the ‘final’ International Board will be elected. Exit Strategy (Disengagement from DGF and Sustainability) The funding strategy is to source funding from bi-lateral agencies, participating countries and from the private sector, both at the country and international level. During the Pilot Phase DFID limited outreach to donors until CoST had proven its feasibility resulting in outreach beginning formally in late-2010. The Bank began consultations with the Governance Partnership Facility to have CoST incorporated into the facility in late FY12. CoST is being established in the UK as a Charity to enable it to accept funding directly from donors and administer a MDTF independently. It is expected that sufficient donor and private sector interest will be generated during the next two years of DGF funding to ensure that the program is sustainable by FY15. FY15 is the last year of DGF funding. 58 Annex 16 Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) Bank Contact (TTL) Name: David Wilson Responsible Network and Sector: HNP - HDN Full Name of Recipient Agency: Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) Contact Information of the Recipient Agency: www.unaids.org Budget for the grant period (US$ million) Total Recipient Program Budget: 484 FY14 DGF Grant Amount: 1.50 DGF Percentage: 0.7% Grant Development Objectives and expected Development Outcomes The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) is a partnership of 11 Cosponsors with a central Secretariat, established in 1994 to draw on the experience and strengths of UN-system organizations to effectively respond to AIDS. The overarching goal of the Partnership is to support countries to achieve universal access to HIV prevention, treatment, care and support, in line with the target on AIDS under Millennium Development Goal 6 (MDG 6) and the 2011 Political Declaration on HIV and AIDS. The UNAIDS Strategy (2011-2015) articulates a vision of Zero new infections, Zero discrimination and Zero AIDS-related deaths. To enhance efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of results, implementation of the Strategy will be facilitated by a Division of Labor between the Secretariat of UNAIDS and the 11 Cosponsors. This grant will financed the activities of the UNAIDS Secretariat under the new Division of Labor. Main Activities 1. Leadership and Advocacy: Influence the setting of a rights-based and gender-sensitive HIV political agenda for the three Strategic Directions outlined in the UNAIDS Strategic Plan, based on strategic information, including data on the current drivers of the HIV epidemic; 2. Strategic Information: Coordinate and lead the generation and synthesis of strategic information, provide strategic guidance, tools, and other materials to support decision-making; and 3. Surveillance, monitoring and evaluation of the epidemic and responses: Provide cutting edge and up to date surveillance and knowledge on the HIV epidemic. Performance Indicators (Intermediate Outcomes/Outputs) Outcome Indicators Baseline Target/Scope Data source Frequency D1: Leadership and Advocacy: Outcome - Positive and measurable movement on key issues and drivers of the epidemic % countries with non- 65% (n.112), 2010 (NCPI BI. Q2) 2015: (a) Domestic NCPI 2012 Every 2 discriminatory laws Or 62% (n. 106), 2010, action (b) Law AIII. Q1.1 years successfully reformed Coordination, coherence and partnerships: Outcome - Technical, political and financial partnerships and programs accelerate social change %//No. countries that promote 84% (n=145) 2013: 90% (n=155) NCPI 2012 Every 2 stakeholder interaction 2015: 94% (n=162) AII.Q3 years Mutual accountability: Outcome - UNAIDS delivers value for money, clearly managing high impact operations that link human and financial resources to results and demonstrate improved efficiency, effectiveness and outreach UBRAF annual multi-stakeholder 2010: Two global multi- In 20+ countries UNJT report Annual review stakeholder UBRAF consultations and UBW Progress and Achievements (including challenges, if any) UNAIDS has moved from a 2-year process focused budgeting and work planning system to a 4-year Unified Budget, Results and Accountability Framework (UBRAF) focused on achieving demonstrable results to halt and reverse the AIDS epidemic by 2015. The December 2012 Global Report on the AIDS epidemic entitle “Results� prepared by the UNAIDS Secretariat continues to be one of the most important policy and advocacy documents used by governments, donors, NGOs and other partners as it articulates and explains how progress against the 30 year old epidemic is gaining momentum. According to the report, a 50% reduction in the rate of new HIV 59 infections (HIV incidence) has been achieved in 25 low- and middle-income countries between 2001 and 2011. More than half of these countries are in sub-Saharan Africa where the majority of the new HIV infections occur. HIV prevalence in young people aged 15 – 24 fell by 27% in the decade 2001 – 2011. This global trend was driven by significant declines in prevalence in young people in all regions except Eastern Europe and Central Asia where prevalence rose by 20%. Despite these achievements, an estimated 40% of all new adult HIV infections in 2011 were in young people (15 – 24) and HIV continues to have a disproportionate impact on sex workers, men who have sex with men and people who inject drugs. In March 2012, UNAIDS supported the convening of an AU summit, at which the UNAIDS Executive Director addressed African Ministers of Finance asking them to consider the large economic returns from investing into the AIDS response – lower health related costs and increased productivity. UNAIDS has since worked to help African governments take ownership through integrating AIDS financing in national budgets. Strategic information lies at the core of UNAIDS policies and programs of support to countries. Through the UNAIDS Secretariat, modeling studies have made it possible to provide estimates for countries to ‘Know Your Epidemic’ and national analyses coupled with strategic planning mean countries can also ‘Know Your Response’. New guidance on "National AIDS Strategies and Implementation for Results" were developed by UNAIDS which expressly drive hard choices to priorities actions and where money is to be spent when addressing difficult and controversial issues; for example reducing resources spent on generic action and putting more resources towards addressing the needs of key affected populations. The Investment Approach to AIDS Strategy and Implementation supports national governments and their funding partners and calls for three main areas of investment that will have the most impact on HIV and AIDS, basic program activities, critical enablers and synergies with other development sectors. This approach forms the basis of the new generation of National Strategic Plans. Partners UNAIDS is a Cosponsored program of 11 UN agencies (including specialized agencies), UNHCR, UNICEF, WFP, UNDP, UNFPA, UNODC, ILO, UNESCO, WHO, UN Women, and the Bank. In order to identify innovative ways of providing technical support to countries, including integrating HIV financing and servicing delivery into broader health systems, UNAIDS engages with PEPFAR and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB, and Malaria, together the largest funders of the AIDS response for low and middle income countries. In addition, UNAIDS seeks to catalyze a broader approach to dealing with HIV/AIDS by engaging with non-traditional partners such as academia, Parliamentarians, and faith-based organizations. Governance and Management Changes The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) was established through the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) resolution 1994/24 of 26 July 1994 to “undertake a joint and co-sponsored United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS, on the basis of co-ownership, collaborative planning and execution, and an equitable sharing of responsibility� with six UN-system cosponsoring organizations: UNDP, UNICEF, UNFPA, WHO, UNESCO and the World Bank. This group was joined by UNODC in 1999, ILO in 2001, WFP in 2003 UNHCR in 2003, and UN Women in 2012. Exit Strategy (Disengagement from DGF and Sustainability) FY15 will be the last year of DGF support. 60 Annex 16 The African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control (APOC) Bank Contact (TTL) Name: Donald Bundy Responsible Network and Sector: Health Nutrition and Population Full Name of Recipient Agency: APOC/World Health Organization Contact Information of the Recipient Agency: www.who.int/apoc/en/index.html Budget for the grant period (US$ million) Total Recipient Program Budget: 129 FY14 DGF Grant Amount: 2.15 DGF Percentage: 1.7% Grant Development Objectives and expected Development Outcomes The primary objective of the African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control (APOC) is to establish effective and self-sustainable community-directed treatment of Onchocerciasis with the drug ivermectin (CDTI) throughout the 20 program countries in Africa (outside the West African OCP area), which are endemic for Onchocerciasis, and if possible, eradicate the vector by using environmentally safe methods in selected and isolated foci. The program is geared towards the estimated 103.6 million people at risk of the disease in the 20 program countries. The program which was set up in 1995 to expand and build on the successes of the Onchocerciasis Control Programme in West Africa (OCP) also ensures that there is no reinvasion in the former 11 OCP countries. The main activities include the following: (a) Distribution of Ivermectin through community-directed treatment with Ivermectin (CDTI), (b) Mapping the distribution and endemicity of Onchocerciasis and other NTDs (especially Lymphatic Filiariasis, Schistosomiasis and STH), (c) epidemiological and entomological evaluations, (d) Co-implementation of synergisitic health interventions with Ivermectin distribution (e) Monitoring, evaluation and disease surveillance, (f) Operational research, (g) Training and capacity building, (h) Strengthening the community health system by integration of CDTI into the national health systems. Main Activities Main activities include: (i) assessment and mapping distribution and endemicity of onchoceriasis, loaisis, LF and other NTDs; (ii) epidemiological evaluation and disease surveillance; (iii) mass distribution of ivermectin and other drugs through community-directed health care; (iv) vector elimination; (v) local and national training and capacity building ; (vi) advocacy and education; (vii) biostatistics and information systems; (viii) community-based “co-implementation� of synergistic health commodities and interventions with ivermectin distribution; (ix) integration of CDT into national health systems; (x) monitoring and evaluation; and (xi) Operational Research. Performance Indicators (Intermediate Outcomes/Outputs)  Health Impact (DALY): The Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) declined from 22.8 in 1995 to 9.6 in 2010 per 1000 persons, a reduction of almost 60%. This means that MDA has averted about 8.2 million DALYs between 1995 and 2010. APOC achieved this health impact at very moderate costs: between 1995 and 2010, coordination of mass treatment had cost roughly US$ 257 million (68% of disbursements being made by APOC and the remainder by national onchocerciasis task forces;( government salaries, drug costs and community costs not included);  Sustainability: In 2012, APOC initiated evaluation of sustainability in 4 projects in DRC especially as project implementation has been difficult due to the conflict in the eastern part of the country. In one of the projects, evaluation had to be stopped due to the conflict. The others were not making much progress towards sustainability and the challenges to sustainability included low level of political and financial support from the Provincial authorities, transportation and communication difficulties linked to long distances and poor infrastructure and general insecurity.  Training: APOC trained 82,938 health workers in 15 APOC countries and 3,836 in 8 Ex-OCP countries. These health workers in turn mobilized communities to select 159,690 community members who were trained as Community Drug Distributors (CDD). 482,731 CDDs were retrained within the year.  Treatment coverage: 80.2 million people treated in 2011, compared to less than 75.9 million in 2010 with ivermectin in almost 142,338 communities compared to 120,000 last year, with mean geographic and therapeutic coverage rates of about 97 percent and 77.4 percent respectively.  Elimination of vector transmission: Phase 1b epidemiological evaluations which looked to see if elimination infection breakpoints have been reached and if treatment can be safely stopped was undertaken in 13 foci. In all the foci, the epidemiological breakpoint point had been reached and treatment could stop. However to stop the treatment, in these foci, 61 entomological evaluations to confirm interruption of transmission will be undertaken in 2013. and  Co-implementation: Data about 10 health interventions available from 10 APOC countries, indicated that 31.7 million treatments were given. Of these treatments, 76.1% were those for Lymphatic Filariasis. Progress and Achievements (including challenges, if any)  In 2012, phase 1a epidemiological evaluations for assessing the trend towards breakpoint (<5% mf prevalence in all the villages surveyed) were conducted in 15 foci (33,634 people examined in 162 villages) distributed in 9 countries. Out of the 15 projects evaluated in 2012, 12 are close to the breakpoint.  In 2012 over 80.2 million people were treated with ivermectin based on preliminary treatment data.  During the reporting period, APOC Management supported various training workshops to strengthen National capacity. Up to 572 health care providers were trained specifically on the CDTI/CDI Strategy, Entomological evaluation, treatment coverage surveys, data management and geographical information systems (GIS).  During the period covered, over 83,000 health workers at different levels received training which covered many areas ranging from the theory and practice community-directed interventions through to entomological and epidemiological evaluation methods and project financial management.  In 2011, 352,594,500 (77%) tablets were supplied to 14 APOC countries and 107,939,500 (23%) to three ex-OCP countries for the control/elimination of Onchocerciasis or for LF and Oncho control/elimination.  APOC donors re-affirmed their pledges indicating that the program goal of controlling Onchocerciasis is fully funded through 2015. However, achieving the goals of elimination of river blindness in several countries and integration with the broader Neglected Tropical Disease (NTD) agendas will require additional funding.  The World Bank will continue to provide fiscal and fiduciary oversight to APOC through 2015. Partners African Development Bank, Canada, Kuwait, Luxembourg, MERCK & Co., MITOSATH, Saudi Arabia, Sabine Vaccine Institute, Sightsavers, DfID, USAID, the World Bank, the World Health Organization, 13 NGOs, the Mectizan Donation Program, and the Government of Nigeria. Governance and Management Changes The Program is based on a partnership between the governments, intergovernmental organizations and foundations contributing to the APOC II Fund, the governments of African countries with endemic Onchocerciasis, the cosponsoring organizations of the Program- IBRD, and WHO, NGDOs and Merck & Co. The Bank serves as the Fiscal Agent. WHO is the Executing Agency. APOC management oversees the development of procedures for executing CDT projects, approves projects, coordinates monitoring and evaluation exercises and reports to the governing Exit Strategy (Disengagement from DGF and Sustainability) By 2015, all APOC activities were to be fully transitioned into the participating countries’ national NTD programs, mainstreaming Oncho control into national health systems. It is now recognized that elimination is achievable -Onchocerciasis has been eliminated in parts of Senegal and Mali. However, it is also recognized that progress in some countries – especially Angola, CAR, DRC, and South Sudan- is less advanced and major efforts will still be required beyond 2015 to achieve control. The Joint Action Forum (JAF) decided that APOC should not close in 2015 as that would be untimely, given that no endemic countries would have achieved elimination by that date. There was clear consensus in favor of continuing a dynamic APOC to 2025 for Onchocerciasis elimination with co-implementation with other NTDs and health interventions as well as health system strengthening. In March 2012, the Africa Region presented APOC to the World Bank Executive Board meeting. As concerns the DGF, the program will exit in FY15. The Africa region is discussing funding beyond 2015. 62 Annex 16 Stop Tuberculosis Partnership Bank Contact (TTL) Name: Montserrat Meiro-Lorenzo Responsible Network and Sector: HNP - HDN Full Name of Recipient Agency: World Health Organization Contact Information of the Recipient Agency: www.stoptb.org Budget for the grant period (US$ million) Total Recipient Program Budget: 9.80 FY14 DGF Grant Amount: 0.61 DGF Percentage: 6% Grant Development Objectives and expected Development Outcomes The Partnership’s objective is to eliminate tuberculosis as a public health problem, and ultimately freeing the world of TB (MDG 6c). The Partnership’s mission is to: 1) ensure that every TB patient has access to effective diagnosis, treatment and cure; 2) stop the transmission of TB and reduce its social and economic toll; and, 3) develop and implement new preventive diagnostic and therapeutic tools, and strategies to stop TB. The MDG goal of halting and reversion the incidence of TB has been achieved globally. Therefore, the revised 2013-2015 strategy has the following new targets:  By 2015: global burden of TB disease (deaths and prevalence) reduced by 50% relative to 1990 levels.  By 2050: global incidence of TB disease at less than 1/ million population (elimination of TB as a global problem). Main Activities  Global TB Drug Facility (GDF): (a) supply and access to low-cost, quality-assured anti-TB drugs to countries needing support; (b) provide technical assistance and monitoring in all GDF-supported countries; (c) facilitate direct procurement, including the use of multilateral financing.  Partnership governance, coordination, and innovation: (a) support an accelerated plan for DOTS expansion; (b) mobilize resources for 2006-2015 workplan gaps at the national level; (c) launch and scale up new TB/HIV implementation policies; (d) replicate and scale up drug-resistant TB treatment programs and consolidated analysis of results and strategy revisions; (e) establish new networks to support revised national TB strategic plans that include explicit approaches to reaching the poorest;  Advocacy, social mobilization, and communications: (a) organize advocacy for World TB Day; (b) launch a joint TB/HIV advocacy strategy with UNAIDS and other partners; (c) develop advocacy plans for high-burden countries; (d) develop comprehensive community social mobilization strategies and pilots in several countries.  Resource Mobilization, Financial Management and Information System Development: Comprising mobilization of resources for the Partnership in general, management of financial resources, and compliance with reporting requirements of donors according to international accounting standards. Performance Indicators (Intermediate Outcomes/Outputs)  Global TB Drug Facility: (i) GDF applications reviewed; and, (ii) monitoring missions on applications of TB drugs and diagnostics, patient treatment, and procurement and supply of anti-TB drugs to meet demand and applications conducted.  Advocacy and Communications: (i) one annual Report per Working Group completed; (ii) global and regional events highlighting and discussing TB held; (iii) 3-5 high level missions to mainstream TB control conducted; (iv) advocacy strategies for up to 4 endemic countries developed; (v) policy briefings are conducted and multilateral agencies engaged in implementation of advocacy strategy; (vi) partnership coordination facilitated through special advocacy opportunities such as G-8 and UNGASS; (vii) World TB Day work-plan, theme and outreach activities prepared; (viii) civil society organizations involvement and partners collaboration at country-level increased.  Governance, Coordination and Innovation: (i) Annual activities and financial reports of Stop TB Secretariat submitted and (ii) common approach to TB research resource mobilization formulated.  Resource Mobilization, Financial Management and Information System Development: (i) fiduciary audits and annual report completed in time and shared with donors. 63 Progress and Achievements (including challenges, if any) McKinsey & Company completed the independent evaluation in 2008. Evaluators concluded that the Stop TB Partnership had been “very successful�. The Partnership has had a significant impact on TB control and research. It has been instrumental in building a strong platform for: (i) a broader agenda for TB control and research, (ii) an expanded partnership, and (iii) an impressive track record of innovation and delivery The evaluation included some recommendations to improve the effectiveness of the working groups, the Global Drug Facility (GDF) and the Green Light Committee (GLC), and to launch work on harmonizing research goals. Progress on the implementation of all those recommendations is satisfactory. Intensive resource mobilization efforts have resulted in total income of the Stop TB Partnership Secretariat of an estimated $80 million. The Stop TB Partnership has directly contributed to documented and evaluated success in TB control in several Bank client countries, notably in India and China, where country leadership, technically sound interventions and financing support (including that of the Bank’s) resulted in highly effective TB control programs. The Partnerships has coordinated technical assistance to countries such as establishment of a domestic supply of fixed-dose combinations, blister- packed tuberculosis drugs in Indonesia. It provides countries assistance with their GFATM grant applications resulting in an increased proportion of applications in each GFATM round. The increase in quality of the applications has also been substantial with a higher percentage of applications being approved in the Round 10 of the GFATM. The partnership raised funds to support innovation in the area of patient identification and community involvement. In the area of research and development of new tools, there are now 10 drugs, 7 vaccines and at least 13 new diagnostics in clinical. At the end of 2011, we had delivered first line drugs to treat 19, 886, 158 adults and 784, 075 pediatric patients, and second-line drugs for 55, 800 patients. Partners By November 2012 the Partnership counted with over 1200 active partners, up from 589 in 2007 – NGOs, bilateral donors, WHO, US-CDC, Soros Foundation/OSI, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, American Lung Assoc., Research Institute for TB, Partners in Health, IUATLD, UNITAID, World Bank. Governance and Management Changes Following the recommendations of the last two meeting of the coordinating board an internal organizational assessment and the work of a steering committee the Board has been restructured to reduce the number of participants from 34 to maximum of 29 and its role and responsibility has been clarified as follows:  The Stop TB Partnership Board has a responsibility to: a) the global TB community to build awareness, facilitate consensus on strategy, and identify key strategic issues affecting TB; and b) the Secretariat to provide oversight and guidance and to set strategic direction and approve budgets.  To fulfill this role, the Partnership Board will be represented by no more than 29 members, representing a mix of rotating and fixed voting seats and non-voting seats. The Board will be based on the following composition: o Nine fixed voting seats – includes 3 donors (USAID, CIDA, Netherlands/UK), 1 foundation (BMGF), 2 technical agency seats (to be rotated between three founding technical agency members – KNCV, the Union, CDC), and 3 multilateral agencies (WHO, Global Fund, World Bank). o Between 14-16 rotating seats – includes 6 countries, 1 northern NGO, 1 southern NGO, 2 communities, 2 Working Groups, 1 private sector, 1 multilateral, and 2 open seats to be filled strategically for new partners or donors. o Three Non-voting seats- including the Board Chair, Board Vice-Chair, and UNITAID. 3. The Stop TB Partnership Board will be supported by an Executive Committee of up to 8 voting members and a Finance Committee of up to 4 voting members. Exit Strategy (Disengagement from DGF and Sustainability) TB control has greatly benefited from this effective partnership. The Partnership’s sustainability does not depend on the DGF’s resources and even without them the Bank could still remain engaged in the Partnership. FY15 will be the last year of DGF funding. 64 Annex 16 Research and Development in Human Reproduction (HRP) Bank Contact (TTL) Name: Rafael A. Cortez Responsible Network and Sector: HNP - HDN Full Name of Recipient Agency: WHO Contact Information of the Recipient Agency: www.who.int/reproductive-health/hrp/l Budget for the grant period (US$ million) Total Recipient Program Budget: 18.8 FY14 DGF Grant Amount: 1.20 DGF Percentage: 8.0% Grant Development Objectives and expected Development Outcomes The Human Reproduction Program (HRP) originated in 1972 as a WHO special program to support and evaluate international research and development related to human reproduction, with particular reference to the needs of developing countries. The World Bank became a cosponsor–along with UNFPA, UNDP and WHO–of a re-structured "UNDP/UNFPA/WHO/World Bank Special Program of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction" in FY88. The Special Program carries out two broad types of activities: (1) coordinating research through a global network; and (2) building national capacity in fertility and sexual and reproductive health research. The overall expected outcome of HRP is to assist countries to make accessible through primary health care system, reproductive health to all individuals of appropriate ages as soon as possible and no later than 2015 (ICPD Programme of Action, paragraph 7.6) Main Activities HRP seeks to advance the agenda agreed upon at the International Conference on Population and Development held in 1994 and the actions promoted in the Global Reproductive Health strategy adopted by Member States in 2004 and in the Strategy for the Prevention and Control of Sexually Transmitted Infections in 2006. HRP's agenda includes:  Family planning: Research and development of new and improved methods of contraception and assessment of their efficacy and safety; and research, development and clinical standard setting related to infertility;  Maternal and neonatal health: research and development of new and improved preventative and curative interventions in maternal and perinatal health; and the preparation of clinical standards, norms and tools in maternal and perinatal health, including their field testing;  Control of reproductive tract infections (RTI) and sexually transmitted infections (STI): Research and development of new technologies, methods and strategies for prevention and control of STIs including HIV and HPV, mother-to-child transmission of HIV and syphilis, and microbicides;  Prevention of unsafe abortion: Research and development of interventions for preventing unsafe abortion and improving post-abortion care; and  Technical support: Building research capacity, through systematic reviews, facilitating dissemination of research findings, and improving quality of sexual and reproductive health; and research on the impact of health sector reform on sexual and reproductive health. Performance Indicators (Intermediate Outcomes/Outputs) DGF supported activities contribute to the achievement of the following goal: National research capacity strengthened as necessary and new evidence, products, technologies, and interventions and delivery approaches of global and/or national relevance available to improve maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health, to promote active and healthy ageing, and to improve sexual and reproductive health. (Reference: WHO Organization Wide Expected Result (OWER) 4.2). Within this, HRP is responsible and accountable for 3 main areas of work:  strengthening of national research capacity and generating new evidence on sexual and reproductive health through the comprehensive development and support of research centers;  carrying out updated systematic reviews of new relevant evidence on best practices, policies and standards of care to improve sexual and reproductive health. DGF support is related to activities under each of these areas, and  provision of new evidence, available products, technologies, interventions and delivery approaches of global and/or national relevance to improve maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health 65 Progress and Achievements (including challenges, if any) Against the above sub-objectives, progress was made on the following areas during FY12-13 (CY2012): 1. As of December 31, 2012 the capacity of 20 Research Centers has been strengthened. Goal for 2012 was 20, and has been achieved. 2. As of December 31, 2012, HRP initiated 35 systematic reviews were published. Goal for 2012 was 20. HRP exceeded its target. 3. As of December 31, 2012, 25 new studies were initiated. These are multi-year studies contributing to the research on RH. Goal for CY 2012 was to initiate or update 18 studies, which has been met. Partners HRP is a special program of the UNDP, UNFPA, WHO and the World Bank, with UNICEF and UNAIDS having recently joined the program. Partners that provided funding in FY13 include: American Jewish World Service, China, Flanders (Belgium), Ford Foundation, Italy, India, James Tudor Foundation, Japan, Norway, Netherlands, Packard Foundation, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), United Kingdom, United Nations Foundation, Universidad Politecnica de Madrid, Wellcome Trust, World Health Organization (WHO), and the World Bank. Governance and Management Changes  The Policy and Coordination Committee (PCC) meets annually and sets overall policy and program direction. It is comprised of co- sponsors, 11 high-donor countries, and member states selected from each of the six WHO regions, cooperating parties and observers.  A Standing Committee (SC), composed of representatives of the co-sponsoring agencies (World Bank, UNDP, UNFPA, WHO, UNICEF), meets three times each year to review HRP’s plans of action, make proposals to the PCC on financing, and review HRP’s allocation of resources and other issues.  A Scientific and Technical Advisory Group (STAG), reporting to the PCC and the SC, reviews the content, scope, & dimensions of HRP & recommends priorities and a plan of action.  A Gender and Rights Advisory Panel provides advice and guidance on matters relating to gender and human rights. Through a strategic planning process managed by STAG and approved by PCC, HRP developed and is implementing a six-year strategic plan covering the period 2010-2015, which also forms the basis of biennial and annual work plans. Changes: In FY13, UNICEF and UNAIDS joined the partnership. UNICEF is a cosponsor of HRP while UNAIDS has been given a permanent seat on the PCC. This became effective December 1, 2012. This does not affect DGF eligibility criteria or governance processes and was endorsed by the Bank. In addition, Dr. Marleen Temmerman joined as new Director for the HRP program on 15 October 2012. The Bank actively participated in the selection of the new Director. Exit Strategy (Disengagement from DGF and Sustainability) The HRP is the main instrument within the United Nations system for research in human reproduction, bringing together policy-makers, scientists, health care providers, clinicians, consumers and community representatives to identify and address priorities for research to improve sexual and reproductive health. It is a multi-donor program in its fortieth year of operation. The World Bank is a key member of its governance structure, represented on the PCC and the SC, and has also provided funding to the program since FY88. DGF funding is expected to end in FY15. However, this is not a large proportion of the funding received by the program, and it should be able to sustain itself beyond FY15. Looking beyond FY15, it would be important for the Bank to remain engaged with the HRP given its relevance to the Bank’s work on reproductive health. However, the shape and level of this engagement will depend on the outcomes of the current evaluation of the program and the discussion on its future direction and scope as well as the global trends shaping global health priorities over the next three years. 66 Annex 16 Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR) Bank Contact (TTL) Name : Armin Fidler Responsible Network and Sector: HDNHE Full Name of Recipient Agency: TDR/World Health Organization Contact Information of the Recipient Agency : www.who.int/tdr Budget for the grant period (US$ million) Total Recipient Program Budget : 62 FY14 DGF Grant Amount: 1.55 DGF Percentage: 2.5% Grant Development Objectives and expected Development Outcomes TDR's overall goal is to improve the health conditions of people living in disease endemic countries by reducing the number of deaths, suffering and economic loss caused by these diseases. This is done through research, whether based on new basic knowledge generated and effective tools developed, improved interventions and strategies for scaling up implementation, or through enhanced capacity of individuals and institutions in disease endemic countries. TDR's health research is led and owned by people living in disease-endemic countries, which allows them to set priorities according to their real needs, relevant to their community. This innovative health research allows DECs to lead and actively participate in health research, which in turn leads to sustainable development. The World Bank is a co-sponsor of the Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases, together with UNICEF, UNDP and WHO, which acts as the Executing Agency. As a co-sponsor, the World Bank is actively involved in the management of the Programme, through ongoing consultation, participation in the TDR Standing Committee which usually meets twice a year to review the overall management of the Programme, and through permanent membership on TDR's top governing body - the Joint Coordinating Board (JCB). Main Activities TDR’s vision, of making research and innovation improve the health of those burdened by infectious diseases of poverty has been translated into specific goals for impact. These goals, and associated activities, include: to foster research on infectious diseases of poverty that leads to health improvement; to engage disease endemic regions and countries in setting the health research agenda and harmonizing the global response; to strengthen the capacity of individuals and institutions in disease endemic countries to perform research related to their own priority health issues; to develop innovative knowledge, solutions and implementation strategies that respond to the health needs of disease endemic countries; to translate innovation, knowledge, solutions and implementation strategies to policy and practice improving health; to promote the involvement of individuals, communities and societies in the use of research evidence to reduce the burden of endemic diseases in their countries. Performance Indicators (Intermediate Outcomes/Outputs) Details of TDR impact monitoring and measurement are outlined in the TDR Performance Assessment Framework, available at http://www.who.int/tdr/publications/about-tdr/strategy/framework/en/index.html. PDO Indicators include:  Number of quality consultations/reports for consensus facilitated by TDR  Number of publications in peer-reviewed journals (per year) arising from TDR support  Proportion of TDR grantees' publications with first author from disease endemic countries institutions  Number of new and improved drug/diagnostic products or vector control tools developed with significant contribution from TDR and used  Number of new and improved case management, control or implementation strategies with significant contribution from TDR and used  Funds made available for the biennium to cover planned activities  Proportion of funds spent accordingly to work plans Progress and Achievements (including challenges, if any) The 2012 TDR Results Report (Key Performance Indicators Report) will be presented to the JCB for endorsement in June 2013. Progress made on key performance indicators established in 2007 is illustrated at the end of this interim report. The KPI in the Results Report contain much more detail and analysis. Selected highlights include: 67 1. The Global Report for Research on Infectious Diseases of Poverty was launched in April 2012, at a conference organized by the European Commission; 2. Seven countries changed policy to adopt rapid syphilis testing into their prenatal screening programs. With vital support from the BMGF and in close collaboration with the London School for Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), a framework has been developed for the introduction of rapid STI tests into country programs; 3. A project looking at community-based strategies for enhanced access to control interventions developed for urban, rural and nomadic settings in Africa was redefined. This project, conducted in several African countries, builds upon previous studies sponsored by TDR in Burkina Faso and Ghana, and will build evidence for added value of community-based interventions to enhance poor populations’ access to health interventions; 4. In 2012 TDR continued to support the African Network for Drugs and Diagnostics Innovation (ANDI), hosted in UNECA and fully operational; 5. Intervention research is being prepared in nine countries in Latin America for innovative community-based ecosystem management interventions for better disease prevention of dengue and Chagas disease, a project aiming at a 2014 delivery date; 6. Data management for Phase III of Moxidectin clinical trials is taking place, followed by data analysis, in parallel with identification of a partner to take over this project for the next development phase; 7. ASEAN Network on innovation. The strategic business plan for the ASEAN NDI was completed by its taskforce and secretariat, including: a review of the R&D landscape, a business model, governance and organizational structure; 8. A guidance framework for testing the safety and efficacy of genetically modified mosquitoes, developed in partnership with USA FNIH, was posted on TDR’s web site for public consultation; 9. The project addressing Institutional capacity strengthening in implementation research through developing an IR training curriculum and package has been brought closer to finalization. Partners In addition to about 24 countries on the Board, other members are: Aventis Pharmaceutical Gates Foundation, Burroughs Welcome Fund DFID, Development Cooperation Ireland Euro Health Group (Denmark), Exxon Mobil Foundation GlaxoSmithKline, Global Forum for Health Research (Switzerland), Infectious Disease Research Institute (USA), International Development Research Center (Canada), International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Medicines for Malaria Venture (Switzerland), Novartis Pharma AG, Open Society Institute (OSI), Rockefeller Foundation, Swedish International Development Program, Swiss Agency for Development Cooperation, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine , UNICEF, USAID, UNDP, Welcome Trust, WHO. Governance and Management Changes Based on a draft external evaluation (approved by the JCB - Board in June 2012) significant changes were made in management and portfolio. Staffing has been reduced dramatically from around 100 to 30 including a 50% decentralization goal. Offices have been shifted from the Geneva campus into WHO premises in order to save resources. A new Director, Dr John Reeder, joined the Programme in February 2012 and has since catalyzed the drafting and endorsement of the new strategy by TDR’s governing bodies. Exit Strategy (Disengagement from DGF and Sustainability) With the current emphasis on the need for new and more effective interventions (new drugs, diagnostics, treatment, innovative methods of health care delivery) for the MDGs and the acceleration demanded by the Bank and its shareholders to reach them by 2015, TDR has entered into several new areas and needs sustained partnership support from the Bank. The latest independent evaluation resulted in TDR's new strategy & business plan which was endorsed by the TDR Joint Coordinating Board for implementation during the period 2008 – 2018. An interim evaluation is envisaged for 2013. TDR will exit from DGF after receiving FY15 funding. 68 Annex 16 Roll Back Malaria Partnership Bank Contact (TTL) Name: Anne M. Pierre-Louis Responsible Network and Sector: HNP - HDN Full Name of Recipient Agency: WHO/ RBM Secretariat Contact Information of the Recipient Agency: www.rollbackmalaria.org Budget for the grant period (US$ million) Total Recipient Program Budget: 23.80 FY14 DGF Grant Amount: 0.55 DGF Percentage: 4.6% Grant Development Objectives and expected Development Outcomes The Roll Back Malaria Partnership (RBM) was founded to serve as a global framework for implementing a coordinated response against malaria. Scaled-up malaria control is expected to contribute in the long term significantly to the sustained socio-economic development of endemic countries. RBM’s overall strategy is to reduce malaria morbidity and mortality by universal coverage with malaria prevention and treatments of populations at-risk through the strengthening of health systems. In 2008, RBM launched the Global Malaria Action Plan (GMAP) that allows the international community to unite and coordinate efforts . The first single comprehensive roadmap to fight malaria, the GMAP charts the way forward to scale up malaria control in the short term, eliminate the disease where feasible, and ultimately eradicate malaria. The 2015 GMAP objectives and targets as revised in 2011 by the RBM Partnership Board are: (1) Reduce global malaria deaths to near zero by 2015; (2) Reduce the global malaria cases by 75% by 2015 (from 2000 levels); and (3) Eliminate malaria by 2015 in 10 countries and in the WHO European region. Achieving the GMAP targets will contribute significantly to achieving the related Millennium Development Goals. Main Activities The grant will finance multiple activities of the RBM Secretariat and the RBM Partnership mechanisms (working groups, sub-regional networks) annually. The DGF grant will be used to ensure that "harmonized and aligned action by all malaria control partners" is achieved through the strengthening of partner coordination by the RBM mechanisms for (i) the provision of implementation support towards the RBM GMAP priorities at country and regional levels ensuring maximum value for money of existing malaria control investments; and for (ii) the mobilization of technical assistance to support countries’ access to and use of malaria control financing. The RBM Partnership consists of more than 500 partners from seven constituencies. Performance Indicators (Intermediate Outcomes/Outputs)  PDO 1: Reduce global malaria deaths to near zero by 2015: Baseline 2008: Malaria accounted for an estimated 863 000 deaths in 2008, of which 89% were in the African Region (Estimate 767 000), followed by the Eastern Mediterranean (6%) (Estimate 52 000) and the South-East Asia Region (5%) (Estimate 40,000);  PDO 2: Reduce global malaria cases by 75% by 2015 (from 2000 levels): Baseline 2000: Estimated 23million cases of malaria worldwide. The vast majority of cases (85%) were in the African Region (Estimate 173 million), followed by the South-East Asia (10%) (Estimate 38 million) and Eastern Mediterranean Regions (4%) (Estimate 15 million);  PDO 3: Eliminate malaria by 2015 in 10 countries (since 2008) and in the WHO European region: Baseline 2008: None Progress and Achievements (including challenges, if any)  Disease Control: More than one million lives have been saved over the 2001-2010 decade. This has led to a global 38% reduction in estimated malaria mortality. The 2011 report on a Decade of Partnership and Results documents the reaching of 2010 GMAP disease burden targets in at least 11countries south of the Sahara, and in 32 endemic countries outside of Africa. The high levels of intervention coverage in many settings have also led to lower malaria transmission and decreased disease endemicity. By 2013, four countries against the 2008 elimination baseline have been declared malaria-free (Armenia, Morocco, Turkmenistan, and United Arab Emirates). 69  The Southern African Development Community (SADC) health ministers have developed an Elimination 8 (E8) regional strategy to progress towards malaria elimination status. Moving toward elimination will require that in addition to scaling up effective malaria control interventions, action will also need to focus on strengthening systems functions such as surveillance and monitoring and evaluation.  Country funding: International disbursements to malaria-endemic countries were estimated at US$ 1.84 in 2012, compared to US$ 0.2 billion in 2002. Maintaining disease control achievements over the next decade however, and preventing it from resurging as a major public health threat, will require a diversified approach to resource mobilization. Following the cancellation of the Global Fund’s grant in 2011, RBM assisted countries in conducting gap analyses and the development of more diversified and predictable financing strategies, including access to the Global Fund’s transitional funding mechanism.  Country program planning and tracking: Roadmaps for all 47 countries or territories in sub-Saharan Africa are periodically updated on the RBM website and serve as basis for the development of the malaria control score cards for the progress briefing of African Heads of State united in the African Leaders Malaria Alliance (ALMA). RBM coordinates technical assistance responses to resolve implementation bottlenecks that slow down progress. The RBM Partnership is also providing country support for the improvement of country commodity forecasting. Substantial progress is reported for bed net coverage, as well as in the provision of Artemisinin-based combination treatment courses and rapid diagnostic tests. Emerging resistance to ACT on the Thai-Cambodia border is being closely monitored as well as emerging insecticide resistance in many countries, including in Africa.  Knowledge generation and innovations to finance global public goods for malaria control: Innovative m-health IT solutions have been pilot tested and are now in the process of being mainstreamed into health information systems. The Affordable Medicines Facility- malaria (AMFm), developed under RBM auspices and intellectual leadership from the World Bank, will be integrated into core Global Fund grant management and financial processes, following a transition period in 2013.  Advocacy and Resource Mobilization: Advocacy activities were stepped up in 2011-2012 to introduce the malaria control agenda into health systems and budget support agendas provided by OECD donor agencies. A Strategic Framework for Malaria Communication at Country Level was launched in 2012. The RBM Partnership has also engaged the dialogue with potential new donors, such as the BRICS countries and countries in the Arab region and is exploring other areas of innovative financing such as malaria bonds, remittances, pledge guarantees. Partners Consists of more than 500 partners from seven constituencies covering malaria endemic countries, multilateral development agencies, donor countries, NGOs, foundations, the private sector, and research & academic institutions, represented on the RBM Board together with the UN Special Envoy on Malaria, the Global Fund, UNITAID and ALMA. Governance and Management Changes The RBM Partnership is coordinated by its Executive Director located at the RBM Secretariat, hosted by WHO at its headquarters in Geneva. The Secretariat engages relevant partners in key areas of global malaria control and mobilizes and coordinates technical support provided to endemic countries. The RBM Board provides strategic direction to the global malaria control community and develops and oversees the implementation of the annual Partnership Workplan. The World Bank has been a Board member since RBM's inception in 1998. RBM uses working groups to undertake its activities in advocacy, resource mobilization for countries, vector control, case management, procurement & supply management, etc., and to promote consensus on agreed technical strategies for going to scale. Four African sub-regional networks, assist with planning and coordinating external support to national malaria control programs. Exit Strategy (Disengagement from DGF and Sustainability) As per exit strategy by 2015, the DGF grant amount has been reduced, with FY15 as the anticipated last year of DGF funding. As the RBM Partnership Work Plan (PWP) is expanding, the RBM Secretariat has been actively prospecting new donors, as well as asking current Partners to increase their contributions to ensure that efforts can be sustained and that new activities can be addressed in the context of GMAP implementation. 70 Annex 16 Population and Reproductive Health Capacity Building Program Bank Contact (TTL) Name: Rafael A. Cortez Responsible Network and Sector: HNP - HDN Full Name of Recipient Agency: Multiple – civil society organizations Contact Information of the Recipient Agency: go.worldbank.org/GJB6QOL9J0 Budget for the grant period (US$ million) Total Recipient Program Budget: 1.00 FY14 DGF Grant Amount: 1.00 DGF Percentage: 100% Grant Development Objectives and expected Development Outcomes The Population and Reproductive Health Capacity Building Program, a program of the World Bank's Development Grant Facility, supports innovative ways to stimulate and sustain local responses to population and reproductive health needs. It provides funding for organizations working to  increase access to and choice in family planning;  reduce maternal mortality and morbidity;  promote the health of adolescents;  reduce harmful practices such as Female Genital Mutilation;  support of Reproductive Health public goods through appropriate technology and research;  promote gender equality, participation and inclusion Main Activities  On-granting to international and grass-roots organizations and support to development of networks  Support to operations research leading to the development of cost effective interventions and protocols  Support to organizations active in technology and information transfer to community levels. Performance Indicators (Intermediate Outcomes/Outputs) PRHCBP provides resources directly to NGOs/CSOs to support innovative ways to stimulate and sustain local responses to population and reproductive health needs. It supports 10-15 grants annually, each with its own PDO and Results Framework with agreed indicators to measure progress against its PDO. The overall PRHCBP program, however, only has program objectives which form the basis for each grant recipient’s PDO and results framework. Progress and Achievements (including challenges, if any) The Population and Reproductive Health Capacity Building Program (PRHCBP) is a direct partnership with international and national NGOs and civil society organizations, supporting them in their work of capacity building within local communities for better reproductive health outcomes. In FY 13, grants worth US$ 1.0 million were provided to 11 organizations, including: Action Group for Health, Human Rights, and HIV/AIDS (Uganda), BEMFAM- Family Welfare (Brazil), Centro Paraguayo de Estudios de Poblacion (Paraguay), Development Aid from People to People (Malawi), Fundamental Human Rights and Rural Development Association (Pakistan), Juzoor (West Bank), Palestinian Family Planning and Protection Association (West Bank), Profamilia (Dominican Republic), Rutgers WPF (Indonesia), Swayam ShikshaPrayog (India), Women and Health Alliance (Ethiopia). Grants often support more than one of the PRHCBP higher order objectives. Highlighted below are some of the achievements of PRHCBP grant recipients in FY11 and FY12 (the completed cycles):  FY12 grant recipient ICOMP helped raise awareness and build capacity of youth, community members and health workers for preventing sexual exploitation of young girls in 2 districts of Ethiopia. The project reached 4000in school youth and 200 out-of- school youth through its health awareness sessions.  FY12 grant recipient Juzoor addressed gender based violence in a conflict affected region through providing training to 85 healthcare providers and 50 managers on appropriate protocols and management of gender based violence incidents. In addition, it targeted 45 community leaders and held community sessions with over 1000 participants to raise awareness.  FY11 grant recipient Marie Stopes International established an Infoline in Timor Leste to provide RH information to youth. 71 2,797 young people (between 10-24 years of age; male and female) used it for their RH related questions between August 2011 and March 2012. The intervention also developed a comprehensive manual on youth friendly counseling specific to the Timor- Leste context with participation from stakeholders across different sectors. This is currently the only comprehensive, evidence based resource on young people’s sexual and reproductive health and, counseling skills in the local language.  JOICFP, an FY12 grant recipient is using community theatre to raise awareness about maternal health through use of “Picture Theater� in 5 districts of Timor-Leste. The intervention successfully leveraged support from the Ministry of Health for finding real life stories on maternal deaths in the community and identified 7 key issues preventing men’s involvement in maternal health, that have been addressed in the communication tool developed by JOICFP. Partners Internal: DGF Secretariat; External: None (in terms of management, supervision and financial support to PRHCBP) Governance and Management Changes The program is managed by the Health, Nutrition, and Population Unit in the HD Network. The program comes under the umbrella of DGF and is governed by its requirements. Grants are provided to CSOs via a competitive process. Applications are invited and vetted by a review committee, which is comprised of 8-10 individuals from the Bank and civil society. Bank staff invited to participate in the review committee represent different regions and sectors such as gender and social development at the Bank. HDNHE manages the day-to-day coordination and supervision for the grants including (i) inviting and reviewing proposals according to established criteria; (ii) identifying and informing the grant recipients (ii) processing grant agreements and extension requests, if any; (iii) ensuring disbursement of grants; and that (iv) grants are executed as agreed through monitoring interim and final activities and financial reports. Exit Strategy (Disengagement from DGF and Sustainability) The PRHCBP has served an important role since its launch in 1997. The program has been distinctive in providing a mechanism to bridge the gap between large multilateral donors which may not have the capacity to fund and monitor small scale activities at the community level, and grass-roots groups which may initially lack the knowledge and capacity required to approach major donors and government for funding. The program has also helped to strengthen the Bank’s relationship with the civil society on reproductive health, and has simultaneously enabled the Bank to support work on important issues at the community level such as female genital mutilation, that are very difficult to address through lending or government programs even when governments are strongly supportive. In 2010, the Bank’s Reproductive Health Action Plan (RHAP) was initiated. One of the key pillars of the RHAP is to improve reproductive health outcomes through leveraging partnerships, including those with the civil society. While the PRHCBP has helped to create and strengthen such partnerships, the Bank is now poised to move towards a broader, more systematic engagement with civil society. This includes a shift away from financing and towards consultation. In this regard, the Bank has already begun engaging the civil society on reproductive health through its Health, Nutrition, and Population Consultative Group and the civil society group evaluating the implementation of the RHAP. The PRHCBP independent evaluation covering the period 2005-2011, was completed, and has recommended that given its useful role the Bank may want to consider a merger with another program that has stronger links with country-level operations. The IE also recommended a revision of the results framework to include process indicators that better reflect the program’s outputs and achievements should the program continue. The program will exit from the DGF after receiving FY14 funding. 72 Annex 16 Regional Partnership Program on Health System and Policies Bank Contact (TTL) Name: Armin Fidler Responsible Network and Sector: HNP - HDN Full Name of Recipient Agency: WHO, MENA Health Policy Forum Contact Information of the Recipient Agency: www.euro.who.int/observatory; www.wpro.who.int/asia_pacific_observatory menahpf.org Budget for the grant period (US$ million) Total Recipient Program Budget: 29.8 FY14 DGF Grant Amount: 1.15 DGF Percentage: 9% Grant Development Objectives and expected Development Outcomes The Regional Partnerships Program on Health Systems and Policies (RPPHSP) brings together in the Europe and Central Asua, East Asia and Pacific/South Asia, Middle East and North Africa and Latin America and Caribbean regions, governments, international organizations, foundations and civil society, and the research community to generate evidence for decision-makers based on the policy priorities relevant to each region. The objective of the RPPHSP is to: 1. work in partnership with a range of academics, policy- makers and practitioners to comprehensively describe and analyze health systems, the changes they undergo and trends in health policies and reforms; 2. utilize experience from countries in each region and relevant countries outside the regions supported under the program to illuminate policy issues and support the countries in taking evidence based decisions; 3. communicate effectively with policy-makers through a range of dissemination strategies and encourage debate about issues raised by research developments; and 4. draw on the strengths of partner organizations and networks to provide evidence-based advice to national policy-makers. Main Activities The following activities will be undertaken with corresponding products: 1. Country Monitoring through: (a) preparation of country reports that describe health systems and capture trends; (b) monitoring of reforms to facilitate review of country health systems; (c) comparisons and learning work across countries; and (d) reviewing trends over time. 2. Preparing thematic and comparative analytical studies, case studies, policy briefs and several other publications. 3. Engaging policy makers through seminars, conference and policy dialogues, national and international workshops, country report launches and other media in order to communicate evidence of good practices in health policy making. 4. Providing management support for the supervision of grant activities, support to existing links, ensuring quality control and mobilization of resources. 5. Setting up and institutionalization of new partnerships and technical assistance by European Observatory to the other regional partnerships with limited experience in undertaking observatory-type research. Progress and Achievements (including challenges, if any) Country Specific Information and Country Monitoring: MENA HPF commissioned a scoping review study on primary and preventative healthcare in the MENA region. A multi-stakeholder research priority setting workshop on health financing and social protection was conducted in December 2012. The outcomes of the workshop will inform a call for research papers on identified research priorities, to be presented at the next biannual conference. In APO, the Health in Transition (HiT) series has been successful applied in the Asia Pacific Region. In 2012, the Malaysia HIT was completed bringing the total number of HiTs produced to 3 (Fiji and Philippines completed in 2011). 19 other HiTs are underway. In EO, 16 HiTs have been finalized in 2012 including Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Germany, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Moldova, Russian Federation, Sweden, Turkey, Canada, USA, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Veneto Region. 12 more HiTs are underway with 2 at final draft. Thematic and Comparative Analytical Studies: MENA HPF identified three main research streams and thematic areas that align with prevailing pan-regional/global development priorities. Scoping review studies as well as stakeholder workshops for 73 all three thematic areas, (1) Primary and Preventative Healthcare (2) Health financing and Social Health Protection, (3) Political Economies of Healthcare have been initiated or conducted. In APO, a policy brief on Direct Household Payment for Health Services in the Asia Pacific Region has been published in 2012. A policy brief on human resources has been developed. A concept for a comparative analysis of Governance in Hospitals has been developed and reviewed. In EO, 10 comparative studies were carried out focusing on health systems; governance; health insurance; quality of care; health policy; and, chronic disease. Engaging and Consulting with Policy Makers: In MENA HPF, two stakeholder workshops on primary health care and health financing and a regular regional conference was held to facilitate debate on policy relevant issues and identify the evidence based required to inform evidenced based health policies. In APO, the Department of Health in the Philippines was provided technical support to launch the HiT. In EO, over 30 policy dialogues were conducted including inputs to WHO regional meetings and EU Presidencies. Technical Assistance and Partnerships: Setting Up and Institutionalization: In terms of establishment of networks, EO is already in place. APO and MHPF has been set up. LAC is being developed with the assistance of EO. In MENA HPF, to move forward with institutionalization of the Forum, an Advisor was recruited and hired to officially register the Forum as a regional entity in the Middle East. The Forum will be registered as a NGO based in Egypt. It is expected that registration will be completed by June 2013, along with the below activities which are pending, delayed due to the unexpected vacancy of the Executive Director. It is also anticipated that the Advisor will shift to serve as a full-time Executive Director in June 2013 Partners  European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies: WHO Regional Office for Europe, Government of Belgium, Finland, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Veneto Region, European Commission, European Investment Bank, World Bank, Union national de casisess d’assurance maladie (UNCAM), France, London School of Economics and Political Science and London School of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene.  MENA Health Policy Forum: Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, International Development Research Center, United Kingdom Department of Health, United Nations Children’s Fund, WHO Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean and World Bank.  Asia Pacific Observatory on Health Systems: Governments of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (China), Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Asia Development Bank, Australian Agency for International Development, WHO Regional Office for South-East Asia, WHO Regional Office for the Western Pacific and World Bank.  LAC RHP: Pan American Health Organization, Argentina, Brazil, Fundacao Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ) and World Bank. Governance and Management Changes The RPPHSP is comprised of four regional partnerships each with its own governance structure. The EO and APO are WHO programs of work and all activities are carried out in accordance with the constitution, rules and regulations, and policies of WHO. They have a tripartite structure consisting of:  Steering Committee, which includes the World Bank and has responsibility for the strategic direction by guiding the work and monitoring performance.  Research Advisory Group (RAG) composed of a core team of researchers who work in their personal capacity, advise on the process of quality control for research products and provide input on the strategic direction of the research agenda; and  Secretariat (based in the WHO EURO office in Brussels for EO and in Manila WHO WPRO office for APO) that is responsible for day-to-day management of the EO and its program of research under the guidance of the Steering Committee. MHPF is an NGO registered in Switzerland. The MHPF Secretariat is housed within the WHO office in Amman which provides MHPF institutional and administrative support. Exit Strategy (Disengagement from DGF and Sustainability) FY14 will be the last year of DGF support. 74 Annex 16 Harnessing Non-State Actors for Better Health for the Poor (HANSHEP) Bank Contact (TTL) Name: Armin Fidler Responsible Sector and Bank Unit: HDNHE Full Name of Recipient Agency: HANSHEP Secretariat, using CA Legal (former Crown Agent) as the administrator. Contact Information of the Recipient Agency: www.hanshep.org; Program Manager: Thomas.Feeny@calegal.co.uk Budget for the grant period (US$ million) Total Recipient Program Budget: 98.5 FY14 DGF Grant Amount: 0.50 DGF Percentage: 0.5% Grant Development Objectives and expected Development Outcomes In 2009, the Taskforce for Innovative International Financing for Health Systems released a landmark report exploring some of the key factors that would support the achievement of the health MDGs by 2015. It found that "improving the health of the world’s poor will often involve managing, harnessing, mobilizing and raising the performance of the non-state sector – in addition to strengthening the role of the government in governance, regulation, contracting and quality enhancement – a neglected area over the past decades". The HANSHEP partnership offers a platform for countries, development partners and donors to present otherwise independently run programs - focused on harnessing NSA for the benefit of the poor - and discuss the possibility of pooling skills and resources to increase impact and reduce transaction costs. A vast majority of joint funding initiatives enabled through the HANSHEP partnership will be dedicated to build capacity in countries. What DGF funds will not do is add to the existing program initiatives. Instead, DGF funds will play a catalytic role for the partnership by complementing vertical program activities with a cross cutting learning modality for the benefit of its members and the countries they assist. We know that capacity (or lack thereof) amongst frontline staff plays a major role in government's and development partners’ ability to better leverage NSA. By synthesizing and disseminating cumulated expertise and lessons learned through a distinctive knowledge management platform, the partnership would enable its members to strengthen the capacity of its staff working in operations in developing countries. It would also facilitate "South-South� exchange between countries that have or are about to embark on NSA initiatives. Main Activities Approved HANSHEP programs have commenced. Ring fenced funds through the DGF grant will be allocated to the development of the learning modality and a distinctive knowledge management platform. Activities will include:  Development of a knowledge “business plan� that will ensure effective capturing and translation of knowledge in a way that is relevant for frontline staff, government and non-state actors. The business plan will focus on how to leverage DGF funds as seed money for building a distinctive KM platform, with the intention to mainstream KM into all HANSHEP activities going forward.  Mapping and synthesizing existing knowledge and expertise on the many complex aspects of harnessing NSA (for example: effectively aligning state and non-state actor incentives, designing PPPs, etc.)  Design and implement knowledge dimensions to all HANSHEP programs, to effectively capture lessons learned  Package� knowledge in a digestible way and make it available through the HANSHEP website, HANSHEP events and through the channels of individual HANSHEP partners. This will include exercises such as ‘signposting’ users to different resources available online and building on other effective KM platforms such as: www.rbfhealth.org.  Activities could also include the development of a flagship course that offers practical and pragmatic tools for policy makers, NSA and frontline development staff. Performance Indicators (Intermediate Outcomes/Outputs) For activities undertaken with DGF funds, the following indicators will be measured:  Quality of the KM business plan, in terms of its appropriateness for front line staff as well as applicability and sustainability to be mainstreamed into HANSHEP activities 75  Accessible knowledge and evidence on effective NSA provision of quality, affordable basic health services for the poor (# NSAs reporting application of HANSHEP-generated or HANSHEP synthesized evidence / lessons learned)  Cross program and cross agency learning Progress and Achievements (including challenges, if any) This is the first year of DGF funding, so program activities are just beginning. The first grant activity, a content scan analyzing existing knowledge platforms was completed in February 2013. As anticipated, the findings of this scan had several implications for refining the objectives and activities of the Grant, notably:  Target users (policymakers and practitioners) do not see a need for a new ‘one-stop shop’ of knowledge resources relating to non-state actors in health. They highlighted instead a need for ‘connecting’ structures that bring knowledge and demand and supply closer together. In other words, the value of the DGF grant will be greater if utilized to support a range of initiatives that will improve how people access, understand, apply and disseminate knowledge resources. Four interconnected initiatives have been recommended through the Content Scan and will be presented to HANSHEP members for review in March 2013:  HANSHEP Learning Gateway – an open access navigation tool integrated into the existing HANSHEP website.  Community Synthesizers. Individuals embedded within an existing knowledge sharing network or regional community of practice  Regional Learning Brokers. Intermediaries focused on addressing priority capacity needs by connecting relevant ‘supply’ and ‘demand’ stakeholders from regional Communities of Practice or learning networks.  Learning Literacy Workshops. One day workshops focused on enhancing the ‘learning literacy’ of participants. Partners The World Bank Group (World Bank and IFC) is a founding member of this partnership, since its conception in 2010. This commitment was solidified by the High Level Task Force on International Innovative Financing for Health Systems (Brown/Zoellick, 2009), and is consistent with priorities defined in the 1997 and 2007 HNP Sector strategies. Other founding members include the AusAID, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, DFID, the Government of Rwanda (Ministry of Health), KfW Entwicklungsbank (on behalf of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development), the Rockefeller Foundation and USAID. The Dutch, JICA and WHO have observer status at HANSHEP. In addition to Rwanda’s membership, developing countries that either have vast experience or great demand in harnessing NSA, part-take on a rotating basis by presenting and attending partnership meetings. Governance and Management Changes A rotating chair is selected annually from within the Members. Sarah Bloom from DFID was elected Chair effective March 15th 2012. She will be seconded by Julia Watson (Senior Health Adviser, DFID). Exit Strategy (Disengagement from DGF and Sustainability) The DGF grant will be used as seed money to design, implement and subsequently, mainstream knowledge management and capacity building into HANSHEP activities. At the most recent membership meeting, HANSHEP members identified knowledge management as high priority. With the foundation of a solid KM platform designed to serve frontline users, demand and broad support from HANSHEP members will ensure sustainability of the capacity building and learning modality. DGF funds will be allocated across the three years with the exit strategy clearly outlined upfront, with FY15 as the anticipated last year of DGF funding. 76 Annex 16 Partnership for Child Development Bank Contact (TTL) Name: Donald Bundy Responsible Sector and Bank Unit: EDU - HDNED Full Name of Recipient Agency: Partnership for Child Development (PCD) Contact Information of the Recipient Agency: www.schoolsandhealth.org and www.child-development.org Budget for the grant period (US$ million) Total Recipient Program Budget: 16.54 FY14 DGF Grant Amount: 1.50 DGF Percentage: 9% Grant Development Objectives and expected Development Outcomes PCD fills a gap in the Bank portfolio, catalyzing civil society action, especially in the area between education and health. The goal of the program is to support countries, particularly GPE countries, in attaining their Education for All goals by increasing the quality and number of programs that improve the health, nutrition and psychosocial status of school-age children, especially girls, thereby improving their educational access. The program promotes a gender-aware, life-cycle approach, and includes programs on pre-school children, school age children and youth in its portfolio. The key outcome is enhanced effectiveness of education sector programs, with emphasis on school health and nutrition (SHN), prevention and mitigation of HIV, youth at risk and increasing access to education for vulnerable children including those with disabilities. PCD has four major roles:1) catalyzing and leading policy engagement, resulting in enhanced demand;2) catalyzing civil society and academic institutions to create knowledge of early child development (ECD) and school health programs, leading to an evidence base for design and implementation;3) supporting institution building by coordinating civil society actions and creating partnerships which catalyze policy reform change in countries and development agencies;4) providing long-term support for capacity building and training at country and institutional levels. Main Activities  To strengthen the evidence base: Leading to the promotion of good practice of cross-sectoral school health and nutrition (SHN) programs.  To strengthen the capacity of education sectors in low and middle income countries: Leading to the strengthening of development policies and plans for cross-sectoral programs in SHN, early child development, HIV education and support for orphans and vulnerable children.  To improve, collect, share and disseminate information and knowledge: Leading to the promotion of evidence for cross-sectoral SHN programs through global dissemination.  To strengthen global, national, regional and local partnerships: Leading to the design and implementation of more effective and informed school health and nutrition programs and policies. Performance Indicators (Intermediate Outcomes/Outputs) PDO Indicator: Average primary completion rate among EFA-GPE countries that are supported by PCD. IO Indicator(s): 1) Effective unit established in the MoE to mainstream the education sector response to SHN & HIV. Effectiveness means the unit is staffed with at least 50% time focal point, has a budget, is guided by a national/education sector policy on SHN and HIV, and implements the strategic response as part of the education sector national work plan. 2) SHN & HIV included in curriculum and teachers trained in its delivery. 3) Effective regional networks established to share information among countries on school health and HIV sectoral responses, and promote sectoral leadership. Effectiveness means network is adopted by regional political entity, network provides technical report, network holds regional meeting. Progress and Achievements (including challenges, if any)  Strengthening the evidence base: Building on the World Bank publication Rethinking School Health, PCD has given focus to informing comprehensive SHN. PCD supported the World Bank in the development of the Systems Approach for Better Education Results (SABER), establishing the first consensus reference standards for SHN. 34 countries in Africa, the Caribbean and South Asia have now used this tool to assess their school health systems. PCD is conducting impact evaluations with the governments of Mali, Ghana, Kenya and Ethiopia, and SHN supply chain analysis in Botswana, Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana, Kenya, Mali, Nigeria, this work will inform effective re-design of national SHN programs. A supply chain analysis of Nigerian state feeding program with the University of Berkley has been conducted as well as an agricultural market study in Mali to analyze market trends. PCD, GPE, The World Bank and blindness prevention NGOs have conducted an analysis demonstrating the cost-efficiency of screening and low-cost spectacle provision (13,000 children across 50 schools in Cambodia). Based on this experience the partners are now developing programs to address disability in schools in five low income countries. PCD is working with multiple development partners to evaluate the scalability of a SHN program in Ethiopia which includes: meals and deworming for 37,000 school children; improved WASH for 15,000 children; agricultural extension services for 1680 farmers; and training for 70 government officials. In Ghana, PCD has supported a nationwide assessment of the nutritional and health status of the three million children across 50 districts that are dewormed through the school-based NTD program. 77  Building capacity and technical assistance: PCD continues to provide technical assistance to SHN programs in over 35 countries. This year, PCD and partners organized the 8th Annual Africa Short Course with 28 participants from 11 countries, focused on ‘Reaching the Last 10%’. Over 8 years the course has trained over 251 policy makers from 30 countries. This year courses were offered in Thailand (42 participants from 9 countries) and in Laos (40 participants from 11 countries). PCD has worked with multiple government programs to implement comprehensive strategies for their SHN. Building on this success, PCD is working with other countries including Ethiopia, Tanzania and Laos PDR to develop and update national SHN plans. PCD, UNILEVER and the Osun State Government in Nigeria have jointly implemented comprehensive SHN programs. Through this project 90 school health promoters and 966 teachers from 322 schools were trained to improve the hygiene, dental health and nutrition practices of 90,000 children in Osun State. PCD has supported the launch of a new SHN M&E system in Sri Lanka to cover all 95 zones. The system implemented has captured over 1600 school-level records on key health and education outcomes, including attendance, screening and referral practices.  Improving, collecting, sharing and disseminating knowledge: PCD continues to be the primary source for access to information across the education and health sectors. PCD manages the following websites: www.schoolsandhealth.org (on school health) with 34000 visits from 177 countries; www.thiswormyworld.org (deworming); www.hgsf-global.org (school) with over 350 documents; www.londonntd.org (London Centre for Neglected Tropical Disease Research) contains a database on NTDs and operational support. A documentary has been developed for global broadcast telling the story of successful school feeding programs in Mali and Kenya. PCD is also working with multiple partners to develop knowledge products for join publication: A sourcebook of 14 school feeding case studies; a transition study exploring how countries move to nationally owned school feeding programs; A guidelines document for governments on the development of school feeding program planning; an analytical review of global school feeding policy and legal framework. PCD has also published two papers, Worms, wisdom, and wealth: Why deworming can make economic sense. (A joint article by PCD, World Bank and the University of Washington published in Trends in Parasitology) and Are school food programs in low-income settings sustainable? Insights on the costs of school feeding compared to investments in primary education (accepted by the Food and Nutrition Bulletin).  Strengthening global, regional, national and local partnerships: PCD continues to support networks, based in Regional Economic Communities (including ECOWAS, EAC and CARICOM) to promote sharing good practice and operational experience. These networks have grown to include government representation from over 40 countries. Situation analyses conducted by the networks have been used to inform the activities of the regional councils of ministers, including the application of the SABER tool for policy making. Activities supported by the network have included: a workshop in Ghana with 56 government and civil society participants from 12 African countries, to support the role of teacher associations in supporting HIV affected teachers; a Global Child Nutrition Forum, hosted by Ethiopia focusing on the development of the school-age child, with over 200 global experts from 23 sub-Saharan African countries. This year PCD, in partnership with the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) and the Natural History Museum (NHM) has launched the London Centre for NTD Research. This new centre will carry out research in key operational areas for effective programming. Partners There has been an exponential growth in the number of partners that PCD works with (over 116). This is due to the increased global attention on school based deworming and school feeding and the neutral platform that PCD provides for partner engagement. Governance and Management Changes In line with the recommendations of the IEG Evaluation FY06, PCD has established an independent International Advisory Board (IAB) to guide vision and strategy and enhance accountability, fiscal and ethical conduct. The IAB consists of representatives of civil society, UN Agencies, and academic institutions. A Technical Advisory Group (TAG) provides input into content and technical aspects of PCD’s work. The TAG is composed of representatives of UN Agencies and academic institutions with long standing experience in the field of SHN. The Coordinating Centre, housed in London coordinates work and manages finances. The First Annual Meeting of the IAB and TAG took place in June 2008 during which TORs and procedures were formally approved. The First PCD GPP Annual Report was also launched. Subsequent meetings have taken place each year. Exit Strategy (Disengagement from DGF and Sustainability) The PCD Global Program aims to build the capacity of countries to more effectively access and use World Bank finance and EFA-GPE resources, and to encourage support from other development partners. Thus the program will have a natural endpoint when the target clients have transitioned from the development of policy and plans to the disbursement of finances for operations. This has already happened to a large extent in Southern Africa, and the program is shifting its emphasis to East, West and Central Africa, and to a lesser extent Asia. This approach was adopted based on recommendations of the independent evaluation in FY04 and the IEG evaluation in FY06. FY14 will be the last year of DGF support. 78 Annex 16 Association for the Development of Education in Africa (ADEA) Bank Contact (TTL) Name: Douglas Sumerfield Responsible Sector and Bank Unit: AFTHD Full Name of Recipient Agency: Association for the Development of Education in Africa (ADEA) Contact Information of the Recipient Agency: www.adeanet.org Budget for the grant period (US$ million) Total Recipient Program Budget: 5.30 FY14 DGF Grant Amount: 0.60 DGF Percentage: 11.3% Grant Development Objectives and expected Development Outcomes ADEA’s goal is to act as a catalyst for innovative policies and practices conducive to change in education through the pooling of thinking, experiences, lessons learned and knowledge and becoming a premier network for policy dialogue between agencies, senior African policy makers, and the African education stakeholders. ADEA’s Strategic Framework 2008-2012 repositions the Association vis-à-vis Africa's major educational challenges. It is anticipated that ADEA will continue its important work as a “network of networks.� Main Activities  Component 1: Foster shared understanding for coordinated and effective action by the main stakeholders to tackle the major challenges facing educational development in Africa.  Component 2: Contribute to continental and regional integration in education, as envisioned in the AU's Plan of Action for the Second Decade of Education for Africa (2006-2015) and New Partnership for Africa's Science and Technology Consolidated Plan of Action.  Component 3: Generate knowledge and lessons from successful experiences in areas that are critical to the qualitative transformation of education in Africa in order to reinforce the policies and capacity for reform.  Component 4: Disseminate as widely as possible the findings accumulated by ADEA from policy dialogue, analytical research and exchanges of experience in order to support knowledge sharing, inter-learning and capacity building. Component 5: Improve ADEA's performance in the areas of management, planning, evaluation, accounting, and financial reporting while strengthening its institutional capacity/organizational mechanisms. Performance Indicators (Intermediate Outcomes/Outputs)  Component 1: (i) Number of partnerships promoted, formed or strengthened; (ii) Number of North African countries effectively joining; (iii) Number of international policy dialogue/capacity-building fora organized or attended by ADEA. Component 2: (i) Number of direct linkages with African Regional Economic Communities (RECs) which will implement the African Union Decade of Education; (ii) Number of instances of technical assistance provided to AU Second Decade and Africa’s Science & Technology Consolidated Plan of Action.  Component 3: (i) Number of high-quality analytical research works/case studies produced and extent to which they treat challenges relating to gender equity and HIV/AIDS (ii) Number of African ministries of education participating directly in ADEA’s research activities.  Component 4: (i) Number of users of ADEA publications and fields in which they are used — annual survey of website’s hits and downloads and direct orders of publications; (ii) Number of ADEA events covered by the media.  Component 5: (i) Improved assessment of ADEA’s overall performance by African ministers and development agencies ADEA Secretariat’s coordination and management capacities increased — staffing. Progress and Achievements (including challenges, if any)  Component 1: DGF funds facilitated the participation of African education stakeholders at the Triennale, a regional forum attended by ministers of education and training from across Africa, as well as representatives from bilateral and multilateral development agencies, academics, researchers, NGOs/CSOs, and the private sector. The 2012 Triennale focused on the promotion of critical knowledge, skills and qualifications for sustainable development. These stakeholders since have endorsed the Triennale’s proposals. Several follow-up activities have been completed (workshops, forums), and further country-specific implementation plans are currently under development.  Component 2: The grant financed ADEA’s participation in AU Commission high-level meetings and other education conferences/workshops organized by African and international partners (EU, COMEDAF, CONFEMEN, EAC, JICA, OECD, BMZ, Korea) throughout the year. Further, partnership building and strengthening are key to ADEA’s Triennale follow-up strategy. Accordingly, missions were undertaken by ADEA to build or strengthen key partnerships that are needed to foster ownership, collaboration and implementation of the Triennale’s recommendations. Finally, ADEA signed MoUs with institutions dealing with ICT integration in education.  Component 3: DGF financed translation/finalization of the primary documents and studies presented at the Triennale. ADEA 79 commissioned a policy implementation document to operationalize strategies for implementing the paradigm shifts in basic education, TVSD and tertiary education advocated during the Triennale. The President of Burkina Faso presented the document at the January 2013 African Heads of State Summit. ADEA’s Working Group on Education Management and Policy Support initiated a revitalization of higher education EMIS systems in Zimbabwe and Burkina Faso. Technical support led to the production of a collaborative study of record keeping systems in universities, teacher training colleges, polytechnics and industrial technical vocational centers and their alignment with national planning needs.  Component 4: Activities included: i) revamping ADEA’s website, and disseminating Triennale information; ii) updating ADEA’s profile database from the Triennale and mission activities; and iii) commissioning articles for ADEA’s Newsletter (including the special Triennale edition).  Component 5: Activities included: i) team building of working group (WG) staffs; ii) WG coordination meeting to plan and implement the Triennale follow-up; iii) development of a monitoring and performance evaluation of ADEA WGs; and iv) support to the management of the Working Groups. Partners ADEA is a partnership between two major constituencies for the development of education in Africa: African ministries of education, and technical and funding partners. ADEA’s Bureau of Ministers is comprised of 10 ministers of education who represent Africa’s five regions, and who serve for a four-year period. The current list of ADEA Steering Committee members includes: African Development Bank (AfDB), Austria, CIDA Canada, Department for International Development UK (DfID), European Commission, Finland, France, Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian (Portugal), Germany, Ireland, Japan, Netherlands, Switzerland (SDC), UNESCO, UNICEF, USAID, and the World Bank. Furthermore, the Executive Secretary has initiated contact with China, India, Brazil, and Qatar, to explore possible partnerships. In February 2012 the Korean International Cooperation Agency (KOICA) formally announced that it was joining ADEA's Steering Committee. In addition, in December 2012 the Norwegian government signaled its intention to re-engage with ADEA after a years-long absence, and sent a representative to the fall Steering Committee meetings. Governance and Management Changes As stipulated in the 2010 DGF grant agreement, ADEA contracted a management consulting firm (Universalia of Canada) to perform an external evaluation covering the period January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2009. The primary recommendations of the independent evaluation are reflected in the following aspects of ADEA’s work program, namely: i) reinforcement of African countries’ networks of experts and practitioners within the areas for collaboration offered by the regional economic communities (RECs); ii) stepped-up collaboration with RECs, regional and sub-regional institutions, institutions and networks for applied research, and institutions and networks of practitioners and support/accompaniment to inter-country quality nodes; iii) a systematic effort to achieve convergence between ADEA’s objectives/activities and those of the African Union; iv) concerted planning with the African Union, the RECs, WAEMU, UNESCO/BREDA, ISESCO, CONFEMEN, etc.; v) systematic use of planning, monitoring, evaluation and performance measurement tools; vi) mobilization of funding from countries, the private sector, new players in international cooperation, etc.; and vii) re-organization of the Secretariat’s work and mode of operation to focus on support to inter-country quality nodes. Since completion of the independent evaluation, ADEA has made a conscious effort to incorporate these recommendations into its structure and operation, most notably the Vision Paper and 2013-2017 Medium Term Strategic Plan. Updates on both of these documents are to be reviewed, discussed and voted on at ADEA’s spring Steering Committee meetings in May 2013. In addition, an organizational audit of ADEA, financed by USAID, will be presented at the spring meetings. Finally, as per the 2013 DGF grant agreement, an independent evaluation of ADEA covering the period January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2012 is due by November 30, 2013. The Secretariat is aware of its obligation and will submit TORs for the assignment shortly. Exit Strategy (Disengagement from DGF and Sustainability) FY15 is the last year of DGF funding for ADEA. ADEA is aware that its DGF funding is being phased out, and actively has sought financing from outside its traditional sources. The Association’s newest member is South Korea (February 2012), and Norway has signaled its intention to re-engage. Other possible partners include China, India, Russia, and Qatar. 80 Annex 16 Roma Education Fund Bank Contact (TTL) Name: Marijana Jasarevic Responsible Sector and Bank Unit: ECA – HDN Full Name of Recipient Agency: Roma Education Fund (REF) Contact Information of the Recipient Agency: romaeducationfund.hu Budget for the grant period (US$ million) Total Recipient Program Budget: 11.80 FY14 DGF Grant Amount: 0.39 DGF Percentage: 3% Grant Development Objectives and expected Development Outcomes The REF was created in 2005 by the Decade of Roma Inclusion to promote desegregation and inclusion of Roma children through grants, advocacy, and research. The Decade is an initiative sponsored by the World Bank, other Multi-lateral organizations, and 12 participating countries to promote policies to improve the welfare of the Roma. The REF objective is to help the Central and Easter European countries to close the gap in educational outcomes between Roma and non Roma population. Main Activities 1. Grants/Projects; 2. Policy Development and Technical Assistance; 3. Communication and Knowledge Sharing; 4. Reimbursable Grants for EU Funded Programs; and 5. Scholarship Program Performance Indicators (Intermediate Outcomes/Outputs) To monitor the progress made in the achievement of its stated objective the REF has developed a set of monitoring indicators for each of the programs it finances. The key indicators that the REF uses for monitoring the program outcomes are included in the DGF progress report and can be summarized as follows:  pre-school education participation;  prevention of early school leaving;  upper secondary education completion rates;  Roma children graduated from tertiary education;  Roma parents participation in children’s education;  desegregation;  number of REF projects;  education staff trained through REF supported projects Progress and Achievements (including challenges, if any) The REF has continued to make progress towards closing the gap in educational outcomes between Roma and non-Roma populations through policies and programs, and by supporting the provision of quality education for Roma students including desegregation of educational systems. Over the last seven years (2005-2012) REF has allocated grant funding for a total of 328 projects, including small TA and capacity building grants supporting the implementation of ongoing projects. In addition, REF approved 37 reimbursable grants to boost implementation of ESF funded projects. The REF Board, in 2012 approved 51 new grants to support implementation of projects in 13 countries. Among the projects approved is a Secondary scholarships program in Slovakia financed under DGF grants. Furthermore, in 2012 with the World Bank TA support, REF developed a new grant guidelines application and the new online system for grant’s application will be launched in 2013. REF also received training from WB staff on monitoring & evaluation instruments, results based management and impact evaluations. In terms of specific outcomes, REF supported projects in 2012 resulted in: (i) 21,344 Roma pupils attending pre-school education; (ii) 9,165 Roma pupils completing upper secondary education; (iii) 566 Roma pupils graduating from University; and (iv) 106,410 Roma parents participating in school activities. In order to create a stronger evidence base for its work, REF is engaging in more action research and in 2012 REF conducted and supported a number of studies and research. In 2009 REF approved a medium term (2010-2015) strategy with a view to become financially sustainable by 2015. 81 The core idea is that REF would move increasingly to implement large scale projects and interventions directly. Becoming an implementing agency in addition to the current grant making, research, and advocacy roles, would allow REF to become financially independent. REF has already taken concrete steps in implementing this strategy. In 2010 it received a grant to implement EC funded pilot, and in 2012 REF was granted additional funds by EC to follow up on the project in Slovakia. In 2012, an external evaluation of the efficiency and effectiveness of REF as an institution was conducted. The report’s main findings are that: “REF should maintain its role and attempts to eliminate segregation of Roma in the education system and in closing the educational gaps between Roma and non-Roma...� Partners Open Society Institute (OSI), private foundation, Network of European Foundations, private foundation, Sweden, Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, Romania, Hungary, Germany, European Commission, UNICEF, Remembrance and Future Fund, and World Bank Community Connection Fund. Governance and Management Changes The REF consists of a Swiss and a Hungarian Foundation, each of which is overseen by a separate Governing Board. The Swiss Foundation’s Governing Board is responsible for the overview of the REF’s general operations and the approval of grants and projects. In accordance with the statutes and by-laws of the REF, the Swiss Foundation’s Governing Board consists of up to nine members. The Swiss Foundation’s Governing Board meets regularly, four times a year. The board’s members mutually agree on the appointment of one member as Chair. The Chair organizes the Swiss Foundation’s Governing Board meetings and proposes their agenda in consultation with the REF Director. The primary responsibilities of the Swiss Foundation’s Governing Board are as follows: a. Setting the REF’s policies; b. Approval and amendment, as necessary, of the REF’s operations guidelines, and internal policies; c. Selection of the REF’s Director; d. Approval of the REF’s annual budgets; e. Approval of the REF’s annual financial audits; f. Resolution of issues confronting the REF, as necessary; and g. Approval of projects and programs. REF governance arrangements were strengthened in 2009. An office has been established in Romania, with its own legal foundation statute and Board. This new foundation is in addition to the long-established foundations in Switzerland and Hungary (where REF is headquartered). All three Boards approved a document which outlines the relationship between them to promote transparency and clarity, developed a single budget covering all three Foundations, and established an Executive Committee with clear TOR to make decision-making more efficient and to enable the main Boards to focus on the broader issues outlined in the REF Strategy. In 2013, REF will open new country offices in Slovakia and Montenegro. Exit Strategy (Disengagement from DGF and Sustainability) An exit strategy for the World Bank contribution has been discussed and agreed with the DGF secretariat. Support through DGF will be requested until 2015. This will help ensure that other financial supporters maintain their commitment. The exit strategy agreed on a 10 percent annual reduction in DGF funding until 2015, with FY15 being the last year of DGF support. Social inclusion of Roma is a corporate priority, and the Bank is seeking additional ways to expand its contribution beyond its support to REF from the DGF. It has established a Multi-Donor Trust Fund to facilitate bilateral government contributions to REF; top level management support is also established. 82 Annex 16 Arab Regional Agenda for Improving Education Quality (ARAIEQ) Bank Contact (TTL) Name: Juan Manuel Moreno Responsible Sector and Bank Unit: MNSHE Full Name of Recipient Agency: Arab League Organization for Education, Culture and Science (ALECSO) Contact Information of the Recipient Agency: www.alecso.org.tn, alecso@alecso.org.tn, h.wadi@alecso.org.tn Budget for the grant period (US$ million) Total Recipient Program Budget: 4.00 FY14 DGF Grant Amount: 0.80 DGF Percentage: 20 % Grant Development Objectives and expected Development Outcomes The main objective of the project is to create a regional network of world-class programs that will generate the knowledge base, policy tools and expertise networks necessary to systematically address education quality issues in all countries of the region. Thus, improved quality of education will lead to improved governance structures and practices in the education sector and also to enhanced employability of graduates in the Arab world. Main Activities  Supporting the establishment of world-class regional programs on: o Evaluation of Student Achievement, o Teacher Professional Development, o Early Childhood Education, o Curriculum Innovation and ICTs in Education, o Entrepreneurship in Education;  Developing regional and country level technical capacity to design evidence-based policies and programs for improving education quality;  Developing regional benchmarking tools that allow countries to compare their performance and policies in the region and beyond;  Building partnerships and networks of institutions and experts that provide abundant avenues and financing mechanisms for the sharing of knowledge, dissemination of good practices, and the mobility of researchers, managers and practitioners. Performance Indicators (Intermediate Outcomes/Outputs) PDO Indicators:  Number of countries producing at least one policy memorandum using student assessment data  Number of countries participating in ARAIEQ regional programs  Number of countries where ARAIEQ activities are having an impact on country-level AAA and lending operations (as reported by WB TTLs and other international donors active in the country)  Number of countries having initiated major quality-oriented education initiatives drawing on ARAIEQ participation (as reflected in relevant legislation and reported by Ministry of Education top policy makers)  Number of regional and international organizations joining the ARAIEQ partnership IO Indicators:  Number of countries having solicited help from, used the services offered by, ARAIEQ Programs Institutions  Number of researchers, managers, and practitioners participating in regional networks and exchange programs  Amount of extra resources raised -- from public and private sector --to contribute to ARAIEQ activities  Number of countries applying ARAIEQ-sponsored system diagnostic tools, collected and used system data  Number of countries identified as establishing a functioning National Student Assessment system  Number of countries having systematically disseminated student performance data to all stakeholders  Number of local researchers, managers and practitioners trained in the context of ARAIEQ activities  Number of downloads Progress and Achievements (including challenges, if any) Year 1 of this initiative has essentially been devoted to setting up the network of the five regional programs and to consolidating the governance and management structure of ARAIEQ, including the whole array of administrative and financial procedures and agreements between ALECSO and the five institutions which are hosting the five regional programs mentioned above. Thus, the Executive Committee, the Scientific Advisory Board, and the Project Management office at ALECSO, all became fully operational this year. Moreover, it was decided to establish a Sub-Grant scheme vis-à- vis the five host institutions and this entailed preparing an Operational Manual and individual MoUs between ALECSO and the host institutions. In terms of development objectives, considerable progress has been made this year (2012) in 83 creating an Arab network of five programs geared to provide the knowledge base, the policy tools and the communities of experts in relation to five key dimensions or aspects of education quality. All five regional programs are now implementing their business plans designed along those lines. Further, two regional events have taken place during 2012, attracting both policy makers and practitioners from all over the Arab World. In its first year of implementation, ARAIEQ has already succeeded in positioning itself as a regional reference in the area of education quality improvement, with key regional players such as the Islamic Development Bank, UNESCO and UNICEF acknowledging and providing visibility to the initiative and partnering with ALECSO in different modalities of collaboration. Partners The Founding partners are ALECSO, Qatar Foundation and the World Bank. This partnership arrangement is and will remain open for other international organizations, as well as for private sector actors. UNESCO, ISESCO, OECD WEF, and the Arab League have already expressed interest in ARAIEQ, as have extra-regional organizations such as the Organization of Ibero-American States (ALECSO’s sister organization in the LAC region), as well as a key bilateral such as the German Agency for International Development (GIZ). Governance and Management Changes The overall governance structure of the GPP features the following: (i) Executive Council, (ii) Scientific Advisory Board, (iii) Program Management Unit. The Executive Council, headed by the Director General of ALECSO, includes representatives from key national and international funding partners, including the World Bank, and representatives of the National Ministries of Education. In parallel, a Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) has been appointed to play a consultative role and reports to the Executive Council. The SAB is composed of selected five regional and five international experts (one each for each Program) who offer technical advice on the activities of the five regional ARAIEQ programs (we refer to as “Pillar Programs�) to ensure that most recent knowledge and best practices are used. Each of the Pillar Programs is hosted by leading regional institutions. These are: 1. The APIQIT (Arab Program for Curriculum Innovation, Qualifications, and ICT) is hosted by the CNTE (National Center for Education Technologies) in Tunis, Tunisia. 2. The APTP (Arab Program for Teacher Policies) is hosted by the QRTA (Queen Rania Teacher Academy) in Amman, Jordan. 3. The APECD (Arab Program for Early Childhood Development) is hosted by the ARC (Arab Resource Collective) in Beirut, Lebanon. 4. The APEEI (Arab Program for Entrepreneurship Education Initiatives) hosted by Injaz Al-Arab in Amman, Jordan. 5. The APEEPA (Arab Program for Evaluation and Education Policy Assessment) hosted by UNESCO-Beirut. Exit Strategy (Disengagement from DGF and Sustainability) FY14 is the last year of DGF support. By the end of the three year DGF grant period, we anticipate that the already well- functioning ARAIEQ governance structure (of Executive Committee (EC), Scientific Advisory Board (SAB), and Program Management Office) will be in a strong position to carry out the mandate that ARAIEQ has defined for itself in such a way that the initiative would have attracted additional funding and will no longer be reliant on the World Bank for funding or guidance. This entails the mainstreaming of ARAIEQ within the mandate and set of priorities of both ALECSO as the regional leading institution and the rest of partners which are now participating or who can join in the future. The World Bank may choose, if requested, to be a part of the Executive Committee membership but it will see its role in all other management capacities curtailed substantially. 84 Annex 16 Supporting the “Teach for All� Model in the Developing World Bank Contact (TTL) Name: Barbara Bruns Responsible Sector and Bank Unit: LCSHE Full Name of Recipient Agency: Teach For All Contact Information of the Recipient Agency: www.teachforall.org Budget for the grant period (US$ million) Total Recipient Program Budget: 18.50 FY14 DGF Grant Amount: 1.50 DGF Percentage: 8% Grant Development Objectives and expected Development Outcomes The global NGO Teach For All (TFAll) supports a unique model for recruiting, training and mentoring talented university graduates to become primary and secondary school teachers and deploying them to meet the needs of a country’s most disadvantaged students. It is based on the Teach For America program’s 21 years of experience in the US. Teach For All was launched in 2007 in response to requests from developing countries for similar help in raising the quality of schools in high-needs areas by supplying them with teachers recruited from top universities. Over time, Teach For All can also be expected to generate a pipeline of high-skill education leaders and managers committed to equitable, high quality public education – as has resulted in the US, where a striking number of Teach For America alumni are school district chancellors, charter school founders, and public school directors and administrators. Improving the quality of education system managers in developing countries is a serious challenge. Bank support for Teach For All is: (i) helping to scale up this innovative public-private partnership for improved teacher quality and stronger education system management in 8 developing countries, as a strategy for “investing smartly (by harnessing private resources and an innovative approach) and “investing for all� (given the program’s focus on improving the quality of schools in high-needs areas), both of which are core goals of the Bank’s new education strategy, “Learning for All�; (ii) assisting Teach For All in conducting rigorous program impact evaluations, to build global evidence on the cost-effectiveness of this approach vis a vis other reform strategies aimed at increasing teacher quality and education system results in developing countries; and (iii) facilitating Teach For All’s operational engagement in the LAC and South Asia regions by promoting dialogue between the local social entrepreneurs launching TFAll programs and the Bank’s government partners, who typically employ the Teach For All teachers. Main Activities 1. Strengthening Teach For All programs in 8 developing countries: Teach For All’s global bureau provides its developing country affiliates with sustained hands-on technical support. Country programs are backstopped continuously by extended specialist visits in the core operational areas of teacher recruitment, teacher screening and selection, pre-service training, in-service training, organizational development (HR, budgeting, strategic planning, and fundraising) and impact measurement. The full package of technical support costs roughly $350,000 per year per country. The funding under this partnership is supporting these technical assistance activities on the ground for 6 LAC (Chile, Peru, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia and Mexico) and 2 South Asia (India and Pakistan) partner programs. 2. Evaluating program impact: To build rigorous evidence on the cost-effectiveness of Teach For All’s model, the DGF grant is financing a randomized controlled trial of the program in Chile (Ensena Chile). Ensena Chile was selected because TFAll and the Bank team believe it has reached a sufficiently mature level of operations to generate a robust measure of the TFAll model’s impact. (Two program impact evaluations have been launched in the past, but have not followed the rigorous identification strategies that the Bank team believes are essential for credible results.) Research questions include: i) the impact of “Ensena Chile� on student learning, student academic motivation and life goals; ii) the impact on student learning of Teach For All’s evidence-based approach to pre-service teacher training, which emphasizes a highly interactive classroom atmosphere, efficient use of class time, and well-planned lessons with clear goals, iii) the impact on new teacher effectiveness of Teach For All’s model of intensive teacher mentoring (with weekly support visits from master teachers); and iv) the long-term impacts of TFAll alumni on education management and education policy in Chile (a tracer study of past Ensena Chile teachers). 3. Supporting knowledge sharing across countries and regions (conferences, workshops and publications): Teach For All supports ongoing knowledge exchange and networking across its country affiliates, including an annual global meeting, regional meetings and study visits. Performance Indicators (Intermediate Outcomes/Outputs) Performance indicators for this partnership are: PDO No. 1: Global reach of Teach For All model expanded: Performance indicators: i) number of Teach For All country programs established; ii) increase in number of teachers recruited/placed; iii) increase in number of students served by these programs PDO No. 2: Improved learning results and life chances for TFAll beneficiary students and broader long-term impacts on Chilean education system: Performance indicators: i) learning outcomes and schooling progress for TFAll beneficiary students (i.e., primary or secondary school graduation rates, higher education participation rate) ii) movement of TFAll teacher alumni into education leadership posts. 85 Progress and Achievements (including challenges, if any) Implementation is progressing smoothly, thanks to the institutional capacity and integrity of the TFAll global bureau and the caliber and commitment of the local program managers. Measured against the agreed performance indicators for intermediate outcomes, seven of the eight partner organizations have achieved larger scale over the grant period, with a steady increase in the number of teachers recruited and placed, and the number of students served over the grant period. Thanks in part to World Bank support, Latin America is one of TFAll’s most flourishing regions within the global network. In 2012, the programs in Latin America fielded more than 300 teachers in 136 schools – reaching over 20,000 children. South Asia is also a region of high strategic importance to TFAll given the magnitude of educational need in Pakistan and India. These programs have grown exponentially from fewer than 100 teachers fielded in their inaugural years to over 550 teachers in 2012 who have reached nearly 40,000 children. TFAll’s vision is to scale to over 1,500 teachers by 2015. The one exception to successful expansion is the Brazil program, which was unable to scale due to resistance from teachers’ unions over TFAll teacher placement. In December 2012, CEO Fabio Campos decided to put the Brazil program’s recruitment efforts on hold for 2013 and 2014, and to direct efforts toward a campaign to secure political support for a national policy of alternative teacher certification, which would allow TFAll teachers to be employed in public schools. Fabio continues to work with a small team to advance this agenda and TFAll continues to support the group as an early stage program, with the goal of re-opening a full-fledged program in the future. The second key activity is a rigorous impact evaluation to generate credible evidence of whether and to what extent exposure to the Teach For All program improves: a) the learning outcomes, schooling progress, and non-cognitive development (e.g., self-esteem, study habits, attitudes towards school, life goals) of beneficiary students; and b) the movement of Teach For All teacher alumni into national and local education leadership positions. TFAll has finalized the research design and contracted MIT’s Abdul Jameel Latif Poverty Action Lab (JPAL) for a randomized control trial of the Enseña Chile (ECh) program over the 2013-2015 school years and data collection in the sample of treatment and control schools began in April 2013. This represents a one year delay from the original timetable, because the team was concerned about adequate sample size during 2012. In order to guarantee adequate sample size, the evaluation will track two cohorts of ECh teachers (those recruited in 2013 and those in 2014). Partners Deutsche Post DHL, Visa Inc., Robertson Foundation, New Profit Inc., The HSBC Global Education Trust, Credit Suisse, Michael and Susan Dell Foundation, Oracle, Skoll Foundation, Finnegan Family Foundation, Abu Dhabi Education Council, Acacia Conservation Fund, America for Bulgaria Foundation, Applied Materials, Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Foundation, Cisco Systems Inc., Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, Lone Pine Foundation, Maureen Orth, The P&G Fund of the Greater Cincinnati Foundation, The Samberg Family Foundation, The Seedlings Foundation, Western Union Foundation, W.L.S. Spencer Foundation, Jorge Paulo Lemann, Bezos Family Foundation, FedEx. Governance and Management Changes Teach For All is a legally-established 501 c 3 non-profit corporation. The Bank TTL participates in TFAll’s high level Advisory Group, which provides strategic input to its CEO and senior leaders and helps to guide and monitor partnership activities. TFAll submits annual reports on program progress and funding utilization to the World Bank as well as audited accounts. Exit Strategy (Disengagement from DGF and Sustainability) Teach For All recognizes the Bank’s funding will only last three years and FY14 being the last year of DGF support. DGF funding is helping TFAll to supply its fast-growing network of developing partner organizations with the technical and institutional support they need for success during their critical early years. These partners are already beginning to demonstrate the viability of the model across widely different socio- cultural and economic contexts and to deliver concrete results for disadvantaged children in some of the most impoverished and educationally deprived parts of the world. Validating this “proof of concept� through the rigorous impact evaluation of Ensena Chile is expected to help TFAll and its partners garner additional global attention and fresh public and private donor support to replace the DGF resources. 86 Annex 16 Investing in Early Childhood Development: Accelerating the Learning for All Agenda Bank Contact (TTL) Name: Michelle J. Neuman Responsible Sector and Bank Unit: Human Development Network, HDNED Full Name of Recipient Agency: Consultative Group on Early Childhood Care and Development Contact Information of the Recipient Agency: www.ecdgroup.com, lzimanyi@ryerson.ca Budget for the grant period (US$ million) Total Recipient Program Budget: 5.62 FY14 DGF Grant Amount: 0.75 DGF Percentage: 9% Grant Development Objectives and expected Development Outcomes The Consultative Group on Early Childhood Care and Development (CG) is the only Global Alliance working to promote improved investments, policies and actions to support the holistic development of young children in the developing world. Given the growing evidence on the importance of early childhood development (ECD) for children’s well-being as well as for broader social development and poverty reduction efforts, it is timely and urgent to advance ECD on the global and national development agendas. Although there are many innovative programs around the world, it has been challenging for countries to scale up these efforts. The program will intensify and scale up efforts to: (1) build the capacity of policymakers, practitioners, and development partners from all regions of the world to implement better ECD policies and programs; (2) improve the strategic position of ECD in global development agendas; and (3) contribute to the global knowledge base on the healthy development and learning of young children in low- and middle-income countries. The approach is explicitly multi-sectoral and facilitates collaboration among major stakeholders in ECD from education, health, nutrition, and social protection sectors. Main Activities 1. Support global and regional capacity building through: (i) Further development of dynamic communities of practice between and within regions and countries to enhance South-South learning, exchange of evidence and good practice, and institutional relationships at country level; (ii) Grants to existing/emerging regional ECD networks to build country-level capacity in ECD, strengthen networks of stakeholders, and support the design, implementation, and evaluation. 2. Strengthen the position of ECD globally in key international declarations - including the current MDGs and EFA Goals, as well as the post-2015 development framework through: (i) Coordinating the production and launch of a flagship Global Report on ECD, guided by an inter-agency task force; (ii) Facilitating a major global ECD communication initiative in collaboration with major ECD stakeholders to develop agreed upon messages and coordinated strategies for implementation; and (iii) Conducting a resource mobilization study toward increasing the sustainability of the Global Alliance for ECD. 3. Analyze, synthesize, and disseminate international ECD knowledge and evidence through the development of a Global Clearinghouse of ECD research, policies, and programs around the world. This will include an extensive and up-to-date database of studies, guidelines, and tools to inform policy and practice, especially in developing countries. Performance Indicators (Intermediate Outcomes/Outputs) Performance Indicators:  Institutionalization of South-South Learning Platforms across 6 Regional Networks.  Increased number of national decision makers and practitioners with knowledge and skills to promote and enhance ECD policies and services in 6 regions.  Increased number of stakeholders with access to up-to-date research, programming tools, and policy guidance on ECD. Intermediate outcomes/outputs:  Representatives from 6 regional networks participating in South-South learning and exchanges  An international on-line ECD course is delivered in 6 regions  A Global Communications Strategy for ECD is developed  A flagship Global Report on ECD is produced  An interactive Global Clearinghouse on ECD research, policies, and programs is created 87 Progress and Achievements (including challenges, if any) 1. Support global and regional capacity building. Key results: i) a needs assessment of 6 regional networks/platforms discussed at the regional learning day of the CG’s 2012 Annual Consultation* attended by representatives of all regions and global partners. Sessions included presentations on learning/online platforms highlighting progress, challenges and ways forward i.e. ECD learning through mobile technology, access to online learning models (SECD) to further explore customized cross-regional learning ii) approval and distribution of subgrants to develop a regional learning and advocacy platform in EE-CEE/CIS; expand Community of Practice to include more diverse stakeholders in Asia-Pacific; scale-up capacity-building nationally/regionally in Africa; establish a formal network in the Arab region and launch Arabic version of SECD 2. Strengthen the position of ECD globally in pre/post-2015. Key results: i) development of concept note for global ECD report and next steps ii) convening of inter-agency Post 2015 Task Team; preparation of background paper and strategy; engagement in 2012/2013 UN thematic consultations and Beyond 2015 civil society campaign; development/dissemination of briefs and a digital timeline to track and analyze progress iii) draft TOR for a resource mobilization study. 3. Development of a Global Clearinghouse on ECD research, policies and programs: Activities included recruitment of technical support in communications and policy/research; development of clearinghouse house conceptual framework. Partners Contributing partners include: Arab Resource Collective, Asia Pacific Regional Network on ECD, Association for the Development of Education in Africa Working Group on ECD, International Step by Step Association, la Fundación Centro Internacional de Educación y Desarrollo Humano – CINDE, the Aga Khan Foundation, Bernard van Leer Foundation, Child Fund International, CARE, Conrad N. Hilton Foundation, Hewlett Foundation, Inter-American Development Bank, Open Society Foundations, Save the Children, and UNICEF. In addition, a wide range of representatives from civil society organizations, international and development agencies, research/educational institutions, and professionals will contribute to the partnership through their participation in the CG Partners Forum (see below). Governance and Management Changes The partnership operates within the existing organization of the CG, which includes a Partners Forum, Executive Board, and Secretariat. The Partners Forum – representing regional networks and platforms, international organizations, development agencies, and civil society organizations, educational institutions and independent experts – will provide input on the overall focus and direction of the DGF-supported activities at an annual business meeting and through ongoing interaction with the Secretariat and the Executive Board throughout the year. The nine members of the Executive Board build alliances, provide oversight of the implementation of the activities, and assist with fundraising. The CG Secretariat facilitates the implementation of DGF-supported activities in close collaboration with the regional networks (about half of the DGF funds would be passed through as sub-grants to directly support activities in developing regions). The CG Secretariat is hosted by Ryerson University and currently operates under Ryerson’s Canadian charitable status. Ryerson will provide fiduciary support. Exit Strategy (Disengagement from DGF and Sustainability) The Bank will be engaged financially in the partnership for three years, with FY15 as the anticipated last year of DGF funding. Given that the proposed partnership is a broad, multilateral work program involving multiple actors and a joint commitment of resources, the partnership will complement, extend, and enhance current and ongoing initiatives. The CG operates on the basis of both financial and in-kind contributions from a wide range of partners who form the international coalition. DGF support over three years will enable the Global Alliance for ECD to become more highly visible and influential among key development players across sectors. 88 Annex 16 Consultative Group to Assist the Poor (CGAP) Bank Contact (TTL) Name: Frank Sader Responsible Sector and Bank Unit: FPD Full Name of Recipient Agency: CGAP Contact Information of the Recipient Agency: www.cgap.org Budget for the grant period (US$ million) Total Recipient Program Budget: 16.60 FY14 DGF Grant Amount: 1.60 DGF Percentage: 9.6% Grant Development Objectives and expected Development Outcomes oused in the World Bank, CGAP is supported by more than 30 development agencies and private foundations that share a common vision to alleviate poverty through financial inclusion. It effectively pools together donor resources to create – as global public goods -- knowledge and insights that can be used by service providers, policymakers and regulators, and funders to advance financial access for poor people. Expected development outcomes over the next five years are as follows: 1) Providers translate client-specific insights into a suite of quality and sustainable financial services for poor people, delivered at scale; 2) Stakeholders understand the financial services needs of underserved smallholder segments; 3) Private and public sector businesses form country-level “ecosystems� that offer low-cost payment services enabling a wider range of client-responsive financial services for the poor; 4) National regulators and policymakers create policy environments that promote financial inclusion; 5) Donors and investors play a catalytic role in providing appropriate financing for financial inclusion. Main Activities CGAP develops innovative solutions for financial inclusion through practical research and active engagement with financial service providers, policymakers, and funders. As a public good at the frontier of a responsible market development effort, CGAP focuses on generating practically-relevant knowledge and insights about poor people’s access to finance and explicitly works toward influencing a broad range of actors to act on that knowledge and insights. CGAP activities include conducting foundational research on clients; testing and demonstrating innovative business models (particularly technology-enabled); providing evidence-based advice and support to policymakers and regulators, both at the global and national level; developing guidance and good practices for donors and investors; and distilling insights from its learning agenda into global knowledge and technical tools that are broadly disseminated through multiple channels to different audiences. Performance Indicators (Intermediate Outcomes/Outputs) The following are CGAP’s desired outcomes under each of the priority areas of its work: 1) Deepen understanding of poor people’s financial needs: Build foundational knowledge on clients; translate client insights into better service offerings; industry designs, tests, and launches client-centric financial services delivered through branchless banking channels; focus on underserved client segments; improve data architecture etc. 2) Advance financial innovation for agriculture-dependent small-holder families: Understand financial needs of non- commercial small-holder families; develop and pilot business models and products to reach smallholder families. 3) Develop robust provider ecosystems: Demonstrate innovation and scale in branchless banking projects; improve industry knowledge and practice in the areas of branchless banking customers, agents, business models and regulatory frameworks; demonstrate feasibility of branchless banking approaches for Government-to-Person (G2P) payment programs; 4) Build a supportive policy environment for financial inclusion: Create enabling environments through close partnership with policymakers; engagement with G20 Global Partnership for Financial Inclusion and Standard-Setting Bodies; research and advice on consumer protection policies that benefit poor people. 5) Promote effective and responsible funding for financial inclusion: Build consensus on evolving role of funders; develop new generation of donor guidance; research on funding flows, instruments etc. 89 Highlights of Progress and Achievements in FY13(including challenges, if any) Deepening understanding of poor clients. Over the past year, CGAP has worked to deepen understanding of poor people’s financial needs and behaviors so that financial markets can offer more appropriate financial services. CGAP brought together financial service providers, funders, policymakers, researchers and civil society organizations to start a conversation on sharpening and identifying a collective agenda for a more client-centric financial inclusion focused on low-income populations. Improving global data on financial inclusion. CGAP partnered with the IMF on its 2012 Financial Access Survey to collect and analyze data on the supply side; on the demand side, CGAP collaborated with the World Bank on the Findex, the global financial inclusion database covering 148 countries, implemented by the WB in partnership with Gallup. In the last year, CGAP also helped the G20 Global Partnership for Financial Inclusion PFI to develop the first commonly agreed Basic Set of Global Financial Inclusion Indicators, which was endorsed by the G20 leaders at their Los Cabos Summit in June 2012. Promoting technology-based business innovations. CGAP continued to play a catalytic role in promoting the use of technology- enabled innovations. Its Technology and Business Innovation Program, co-funded with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, DFID, and the MasterCard Foundation, continued to support business model innovations that have the potential to reach millions of unbanked people, through the use of branchless banking. Fostering supportive policy environment. Over the last few years, a growing number of governments and global policymaking and standard-setting bodies (SSBs) have come to focus on financial inclusion because they recognize its potential to contribute to key development objectives such as economic growth, increased welfare and efficiency, and stability. As the lead implementing partner of the G20’s Global Partnership for Financial Inclusion (GPFI), CGAP has played a critical role in the leading role in the SSBs’ recognition of financial inclusion as an important component to their mandate. Improving effectiveness of funders. CGAP works with a wide range of funders to increase the effectiveness of their microfinance policies and operations, focusing on building staff capacity and increasing accountability for results. Knowledge sharing. As a global platform for sharing knowledge on access to finance, CGAP variety of information that can be accessed through multiple channels, whether in print, online, or through press and other industry channels. Partners Bilateral donors: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, USA. Multilateral donors: African Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, European Commission, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, European Investment Bank, Inter-American Development Bank/Multilateral Investment Fund, International Finance Corporation, International Labor Organization, United Nations Capital Development Fund, World Bank. Private Foundations: Citi Foundation, Ford Foundation, Michael and Susan Dell Foundation, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, MasterCard Foundation, Omidyar Network. Governance and Management Changes CGAP’s governance structure that consists of the Council of Governors (CG) of member donors, the Executive Committee (Board), and the Investment Committee (IC). In 2012, three new members were elected to the Executive Committee (i) the European Investment Bank, representing the DFI constituency; (ii) Japan International Cooperation Agency, representing the Bilateral II constituency; and (iii) Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), representing the Foundation constituency. Exit Strategy (Disengagement from DGF and Sustainability) Since FY1998, the World Bank has funded CGAP through the Development Grant Facility (DGF). At the beginning of CGAP, the World Bank was the largest funder. As a result of growing donor support and of the DGF gradually decreasing its contribution to CGAP over the last five years, the World Bank’s financial contribution to CGAP currently represents 10.7% of total contributions as of April 2013 and is expected to further come down to 9.6% in FY14. As part of the DGF strategic reorientation toward new, shorter- term programs, FY14 would be the last year of DGF funding for CGAP through its Window 1. CGAP is requesting $1.6 million for FY14 and will exit from Bank support after receiving FY15 support. 90 Annex 16 Toronto Center Bank Contact (TTL) Name: David Scott Responsible Sector and Bank Unit: FPD / FFSAB Full Name of Recipient Agency: The Toronto Leadership Centre (formerly: The Toronto International Leadership Centre for Financial Sector Supervision) Contact Information of the Recipient Agency: www.torontocentre.org Budget for the grant period (US$ million) Total Recipient Program Budget: 5.70 FY14 DGF Grant Amount: 0.32 DGF Percentage: 6.8% Grant Development Objectives and expected Development Outcomes The Centre was created in 1997 as a response to a series of regional financial crises (Latin America, Asia) with a mandate to enhance the leadership capacity of banking, securities, and insurance regulators/supervisors in emerging markets to make their countries’ financial systems more stable, resilient and inclusive. The Centre seeks to strengthen the capacity of financial sector regulators and supervisors to promote sound, sustainable financial sector development. It focuses on strengthening the leadership capacity of senior and mid-level officials, particularly in recognizing and dealing with problem and failing financial institutions. The objective is to help the authorities to be more alert and responsive to risks, to be better able to identify emerging problems, and to act to mitigate or minimize the impact of emerging problems in financial institutions and markets. The WB spearheaded the creation of the Centre, including with DGF funding in FY99- 01. As a response to the recent global financial crisis, the Centre ramped up its activities substantially. In view of WB’s close relationship with the Centre, and the centrality of the Centre’s work to WB crisis response work in the regions, the WB was an obvious source of additional funding, in a climate where additional donor funding was hard to attract. Renewed DGF funding for the Centre demonstrated that DGF is responsive to the global financial crisis, and has been presented as part of the WBG crisis response. The expected outcome is that financial sector authorities in significant number of WB client countries improve their preparedness to deal with the ongoing second-round effects of the global financial crisis, and thereafter are better prepared to respond to emerging problems and maintain financial stability in times of distress. Main Activities Centre programs are delivered by former and serving senior regulators and supervisors from advanced and emerging markets who have actually lived through the cases they deliver and share the lessons of success and failure with the participants in an interactive environment. The goal is to impart the imbedded knowledge of these senior officials in a learning format that enables participants to use that knowledge in their own work environments. For this the Centre uses case studies, simulation exercises, breakout group work activities, role-playing and lectures in programs of 3 to 5 days. Participants learn not only from experts but also from their peers. The Centre blends three key elements into its programs: crisis management principles and tools; broader institutional and personnel management tools; and technical expertise in financial regulation/supervision with a focus on implementation. The Centre’s programs help managers to strengthen their agency’s capacity to perform according to international standards; deal effectively with troubled financial institutions and market failures; work with government to establish and maintain an effective legislative and regulatory framework for financial sector development, supervision and stability; support efforts to diversify financial systems and enhance access to financial services; and build relationships with peers as a means to enhance the scope for cross border cooperation. Participants develop skills for more effective communication with the boards and management of financial intermediaries about concerns over risk exposures, the quality of risk management, and the need for financial intermediaries to act to address problems early on, so as to maximize the opportunities for private sector solutions to emerging problems. The topics covered by Centre programs include: systemic crisis management; dealing with weak banks, market manipulation and fraud; risk based supervision and Basel capital rule implementation challenges; the role of deposit and policy holder protection; reorganization of regulatory and supervisory agencies; insurance companies failures; cross border cooperation; inter-agency coordination; contingency planning and testing of plans through crisis simulation exercises; legal powers and division of responsibilities of different national authorities for dealing with weak banks; and legal protection for regulators and supervisors, in common law and civil law legal frameworks. 91 Performance Indicators (Intermediate Outcomes/Outputs) Increased emphasis by the Centre on helping emerging market supervisors prepare to deal with the second-round effects of the global financial crisis, via an expanded number of programs delivered, and expanded number of countries and participants reached. Quality of programs, as measured by formalized evaluation processes, is maintained. Progress and Achievements (including challenges, if any) The Centre has delivered approximately180 programs to over 5000 mid-to-senior level officials from 170 countries since its inception in 1998. The number of programs and participants trained has increased very significantly in 2011 and 2012. Compared to the more recent trend rate of about 20 programs a year, the number of programs increased significantly to 36 in 2011 and almost tripled to 60 in 2012 while the number of participants trained increased dramatically from 561 in 2010 to 825 in 2011 and 1,522 in 2012. International programs run in Toronto are of a global nature. Regional and country programs are tailored to the specific needs of the region/country, in close cooperation with regional supervisors or the host country authorities. Programs are delivered in English, Spanish, and French. In calendar 2012 the DGF grant was used in combination with money from other funders to deliver a total of ten programs which were attended by mid-to-senior level staff from regulatory agencies, central banks, ministry of finance and deposit insurance agencies. These include four regional crisis preparedness programs (two in South Africa (one for banking supervisors and one for insurance supervisors), one in Malaysia (for banking supervisors), and one in Azerbaijan (for insurance supervisors), three country programs related to crisis preparedness (two in Indonesia and one in Cambodia), and three international programs for participants from ODA-eligible countries on crisis preparedness. The curriculum for all ten programs was designed in consultation with staff from the partner supervisory agencies to meet the training needs of the target group of participants. All ten programs received very good ratings by participants ranging from 4.0 to 5.0 (out of 5 maximum, with an average of 4.6. In addition, DGF funds were used to develop five new case studies, to upgrade the insurance crisis simulation exercise, and to translate five case studies as well as the crisis simulation exercise that addresses cross border failure resolution. Partners The Centre’s members include the WB, the IMF, and the Financial Stability Institute (FSI, the training and dissemination arm of the Basle Committee on Banking Supervision, the international standard-setting body). The principle contributors to the Centre in 2012 were Canadian CIDA, Swedish SIDA, the IMF and WB/DGF. The Centre closely collaborates with other international standard-setting bodies such as IAIS, IOSCO, regional organizations of supervisors and regulators, central banks, and regulatory agencies. Governance and Management Changes The Centre is governed by a 12 member board of directors, comprised of former and sitting senior regulators and supervisors, representatives of the WB and IMF, and the Centre’s Executive Director. The board meets twice a year in person and twice by conference call. In the interim the work of the board is undertaken by an executive committee on which the WB is presented. The board has an Audit Committee, and the books of the Centre are audited annually by Ernst and Young LLP in Canada. The board is advised by three Advisory Boards, one each for the banking, securities, and insurance sectors. The principal role of the Advisory Boards is to maintain awareness of the needs of emerging markets supervisors and ensure that the Centre’s programs address those needs. The Centre is managed by the full-time executive director and a staff of eight. Exit Strategy (Disengagement from DGF and Sustainability) Given that the program had sought DGF support for five years, it will exit from DGF after receiving FY14 funding, which will be the fifth year of DGF support. 92 Annex 16 infoDev Regional Innovation Network for Climate Technology Bank Contact (TTL) Name: Jonathan Coony Responsible Sector and Bank Unit: FPD / FPDID Full Name of Recipient Agency: Information for Development Program (infoDev) Contact Information of the Recipient Agency: www.infodev.org Budget for the grant period (US$ million) Total Recipient Program Budget: 15.90 FY14 DGF Grant Amount: 1.50 DGF Percentage: 9.4 % Grant Development Objectives and expected Development Outcomes Through regional innovation networks in East Africa, the Caribbean and North Africa the infoDev Regional Innovation Network for Climate Technology will open and grow climate technology markets by facilitating access to markets, building capacity and promoting south – south knowledge transfer and trade. Specifically:  Accelerating the commercialization of climate technology solutions through coordinating/enhancing regional institutions.  Enhancing information and knowledge flows between institutions by supporting virtual and physical networking for SMEs.  Increasing economic development and job creation through building institutional and SME capacity, accelerating B2B connections, providing advisory services and facilitating access to market and finance opportunities. Main Activities The DGF funding will be used by the regional hubs to: 1. Identify and enhance the capacity of regional partner institutions: Identify, link and build the capacity of institutions that are focused on supporting the commercialization of climate technology. 2. Create an online B2B Climate Technology Market Place Platform: Create an online tool that connects partner institutions including technologists, entrepreneurs and business owners to support networking and B2B linkages. 3. Mechanism for SME Export Facilitation: Implementing programs that assist domestic SMEs enter regional/global markets. Performance Indicators (Intermediate Outcomes/Outputs) PDO Indicator: 3 “Regional Innovation Networks for Climate Technology� established and operational in East Africa, the Caribbean and North Africa by Q3 2014 - supporting 100 climate technology focused SMEs, creating 8,640 direct and indirect jobs, mitigating 2.34 m tons of CO2, delivering 100 training programs and facilitating 30 technology partnerships. Intermediate Outcome Indicators: East Africa Network Established by June 2012; Caribbean Network Established (by June 2013; North Africa Network Established by September 2014. Components:  Identify Regional Partner Institutions: Market analysis and partnership assessment completed; regional operating framework established and MoUs signed with at least six institutions; regional forum hosted.  B2B Platform: Market needs assessed and pilot system online; system launched at Regional Forum; 75 percent of regional partners using the platform at least once a week.  SME Export Facilitation: Regional capacity building program designed; Partners/companies selected to receive services; 100 percent of services delivered. Progress and Achievements (including challenges, if any) With regards to the EACIN network, the following activities were undertaken:  Data collection and analysis: In order to support information and knowledge flows in the region as well as to accelerate commercialization of climate technology solutions, surveys on the available technologies were conducted in the five East African Countries to identify innovations are currently being pursued by those most affected by climate change. The data was analyzed to establish level of development, market preparedness and possibility for support. Draft reports have been prepared. 93  Five case studies were selected for in-depth study and for match making, i.e. accelerated commercialization and scaling up.  A virtual Networks/active brokering of technology transfer platform was developed for South to South knowledge transfer and trade. Case studies and technologies have been posted for showcasing and to enhance knowledge transfer.  To ensure EACIN is available to multiple stakeholders at regional and global presences, ACTS partnered with the UNDP Special Unit for South-South Cooperation and SS-GATE to develop the EACIN website: www.eacin.org.  EACIN has been working with Kenya CIC, providing pipeline of the studied technologies to the Center for possible support.  For EACIN continuity, ACTS and its partner are working on the business plan to be used for fund raising. The business plan has established the gaps that exist especially on adaptation technologies and possible role that EACIN can play to fill these gaps, the possible model that EACIN should implement in line with international best practice.  To promote physical network hence facilitate exchange of information and networking, a conference to present the findings of the field surveys and analysis was held in Nairobi during the year under review. The conference brought together over 300 participants drawn from across the East Africa region and beyond to deliberate on the form of the network.  Publications to be produced under this work include: Agriculture climate adaptation innovations in EA; Water climate adaptation innovations in EA, Energy climate adaptation innovations in EA; Characterization of Climate Change Adaptation Innovations in Energy, Water and Agriculture: A guide; Criteria to assess climate change innovations in energy, water and agricultural sectors; An overview of grassroots innovations in EA; Climate change innovations in EA: the case of agric, water and energy; Vermi-composting as an innovative climate adaptation technology in Rwanda. Caribbean Climate Innovation Network (CCIN): infoDev identified the optimum consortia consisting of the Scientific Research Council (SRC) in Jamaica and the Caribbean Industrial Research Institute (CARIRI) in Trinidad and Tobago to undertake the activities to create a regionally networked CIC. The work is occurring within the strategic framework of the Entrepreneurship Program for the Caribbean (EPIC), which seeks to support local private sector including entrepreneurs and SMEs to develop locally relevant products to spur innovation, economic development and job creation. As such it benefits from strategic anchoring, sharing of skills in this field specific to the Caribbean, and funding both for supervision of the DGF Grant and for probable follow-on funding for the Caribbean CIC following the DGF grant acting as a seed to catalyze these activities. Progress on grant 3: MENA Climate Innovation Network (MCIN): infoDev’s Climate Technology Program team has been working with the MENA region to develop a Climate Innovation Center in Morocco (i.e. the hub for the MENA Climate Innovation Network). Through missions and a stakeholder survey, the team has developed strong connections with the key parties and an understanding of how the Morocco CIC and the MENA Climate Innovation Network can be designed to address regional challenges. The CIC and regional network aim to leverage and support existing climate technology innovation projects, including the Bank-financed Ourzazate solar power project. The team is finalizing the business plan for the Morocco CIC (internal Bank review in May 2013). Advanced conversations are taking place with the Morocco Agency for Solar Energy (MASEN) which is keen to run both the CIC and the MENA regional network. Partners World Bank, DFID, DANIDA, CIDA, Norway government, and various regional network partners. Governance and Management Changes The governance and management of the DGF grants remains the same. Exit Strategy (Disengagement from DGF and Sustainability) The DGF will exit from supporting the partnership after FY14 funding, after having provided the seed investment. Revenue streams are expected from investments in incubated companies, private sector sponsorship, training and consultancy services as well as linking with ongoing university and government funding structures. Approximately half of the funds will be used to establish the regional network with the remaining funds focused on service delivery, outreach and operational expenditures. Funding of operational activities will be the key focus for transition away from DGF funding. It is expected that the partnership outreach/ development in regional markets will enable the identification and sourcing of this funding. 94 Annex 16 Supporting the Ecosystem for Fostering a Dynamic Entrepreneurship in MENA Bank Contact (TTL) Name: Randa Akeel Responsible Sector and Bank Unit: MNSFP Full Name of Recipient Agency: Oasis500 Contact Information of the Recipient Agency: Usama Fayyad usama@oasis500.com, Amy-Kyleen Lute Amy@oasis500 Budget for the grant period (US$ million) Total Recipient Program Budget: 12.50 FY14 DGF Grant Amount: 0.45 DGF Percentage: 2.8% Grant Development Objectives and expected Development Outcomes The Grant Development Objective is to increase the level of new viable businesses and the potential to create jobs in MENA through a program that will scale up regional initiatives to inspire and support potential entrepreneurs to start a business and make it viable for investors who would then help it grow. Activities under this program will also help strengthen the ecosystem at large, engaging existing and potential stakeholders such as governments, universities, investors and incubators/accelerators in each country as a means of transferring their knowledge and entrepreneurship support techniques. This will strengthen the capacity of local ecosystems to foster and scale the level of successful start-ups in their economies as indicated by the program title “Supporting the Ecosystem for Fostering a Dynamic Entrepreneurship in MENA�. For the FY13 period activities were focused in Jordan and Lebanon for FY14 two additional countries will be added Morocco and Tunisia, hence the increase in budget amount. Main Activities I. Building capacity to become a successful entrepreneur:  ‘Mix N’Mentor Days’ run by Wamda at universities and incubators. It is designed to launch a team at the idea stage into a full-fledged start-up.  Acceleration boot camp: An 8-day intensive training program run by Oasis500 during which entrepreneurs are exposed to business modeling, pitching, financials, marketing strategies and illustrations of pitfalls and business experience from sector experts. II. Connecting entrepreneurs regionally, globally, with knowledge Diaspora and featuring role models:  A Silicon Valley-based training series that will bring entrepreneurs from the MNA region to the U.S. for two weeks of intensive workshops and learning sessions from top tier Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and Diaspora Networks.  A series of regional mini-Celebration of Entrepreneurship (“mini-CoE�) events, One day TED-style talk series, featuring startup showcases, panel discussions with regional and global leaders. III. Arabic Publications, Awareness and Educational Programs on Entrepreneurship (Arabic newsletter, TV interviews, featured role models, and Early Stage investment Arabic reality TV show).  A mix of case studies, video and text material as well as translated open educational resourced developed by other educational institutions such as Stanford University. Multimedia educational tools will also be developed and will include info graphics and comics (Cartoons and Videos) covering trends and explaining concepts and how-to’s to entrepreneurs. Performance Indicators (Intermediate Outcomes/Outputs) The program activities are divided into three categories; each of which targets a key component of the building process of an active entrepreneurial ecosystem. The relative outcomes are:  The creation of new startups and enterprises  Opening channels and venues for knowledge transfer regionally and internationally  Spreading the entrepreneurial culture and advocating it A key intermediate outcome that this GPP will achieve is to lay the grounds for a systematic platform that would engage all players in the ecosystem (local and international organizations and donors) to expand and continue the level of engagement and activities over the long run after this GPP exits. 95 Progress and Achievements (including challenges, if any) Achievements so far. The program started in December 2012 and the Educational online platform, Awareness and Publication programs have been started. In terms of impact, together Oasis500 and Wamda were able to scale up (by approximately 50%) the number of entrepreneurs trained with a subsequent higher number of start-ups being approached by Angel investors with some also securing funding.  MixNMentor had 120 Entrepreneur that went through a mentorship program  Twenty start-ups received focused advise and business planning that would attract investors  Three mini CoE and Angel investment events were held in Beirut, Dubai and Jordan. Details on the Mini CoE events are as follows:  Dubai: Oasis500 held an event as part of the Global Entrepreneurship Summit in Dubai on December 2012. Ten DGF program companies were featured 4 of the companies subsequently closed a round of investment.  Beirut: Oasis500 and Wamda held an Angel investor event as part of the Arabnet in Beirut on March 21, 2013. Eight companies were featured and they received over 40 leads for investment that are still under discussion.  Amman:Oasis500 held an Angel Investor Event in Amman on March 27, 2013. Six companies were featured and they received over 30 leads for investment of which one is in the final stages of closing. The rest are still pending. Partners Abraaj Capital, Google, King Abdullah II Fund for Development, Arab Partnership Program Fund, Endeavor Global Governance and Management Changes Initially the Grant agreement was to be signed with Endeavor who is to work in partnership with two other leading regional incubators Wamda and Oasis500. However, Endeavor was not able to secure the capacity needed to manage the coordination. The Grant was thus signed with Oasis500 to work in partnership with Wamda. Oasis500 is a leading early stage and seed investment company with a focus on entrepreneurship in Jordan and the MENA region. Their objective is to “nurture creative ideas in Information and Communications Technology (ICT), Mobile and Digital Media, transforming them into startup companies�. They do this through a program that includes entrepreneurship training, mentorship guidance, incubation and additional follow-up investment funds if required. Wamda means spark in Arabic. The Wamda website creates a regional virtual space, chat room, and a resource center for young entrepreneurs in MENA countries. It is an online clearinghouse for the dreams, ideas, and know-how related to entrepreneurial start-ups. It provides a window into global best practices and insight into how to apply them in a MENA setting. Under the DGF program Oasis500 and Wamda will expand their partnership with high potential incubators/Angel investors in Morocco and Tunisia to build entrepreneurship and capacity in the ecosystem of those two countries. Exit Strategy (Disengagement from DGF and Sustainability) Two programs that are slated to continue supporting this partnership as well as bringing others are: the Early Stage Innovation Financing (ESIF) and the Micro Small and Medium Enterprise facility (MSME) are advancing in their funding. 96 Annex 16 New Generation of Women Entrepreneurs Bank Contact (TTL) Name: Mehnaz S. Safavian Responsible Sector and Bank Unit: FIEEI/FPDVP Full Name of Recipient Agency: PanAfrican University, Enterprise Development Center (EDC), Nigeria; Shorebank International, Pakistan and Washington DC Contact Information of the Recipient Agency: Pan-African University, 2, Ahmed Onibudo Street, Off Adeola Hopewell, Victoria Island, Lagos, Nigeria Budget for the grant period (US$ million) Total Recipient Program Budget: 0.80 FY14 DGF Grant Amount: 1.15 DGF Percentage: 14.5% Grant Development Objectives and expected Development Outcomes The Women Entrepreneurs (WE) Partnership is based on a new paradigm for supporting women entrepreneurs in the World Bank Group. Building on the findings, lessons learned, and recommendations of previous interventions and analytic work, the WEP program will create an entrepreneurial microcosm for select groups of businesswomen. Instead of providing individual products or services to help female entrepreneurs, as the WBG has done in the past with only limited success, private sector initiatives such as Goldman Sachs' 10,000 women initiative have shown that more programmatic interventions, aimed at tackling a suite of key constraints holding women entrepreneurs back, have had a significantly higher success rate. In collaboration with the private sector, the WEP program provides comprehensive support programs covering the spectrum of assistance needs -- from business education, mentoring and networking to financial access. The partnership will be developed jointly with Goldman Sachs as well as other private sector partners. In the initial pilot phase, the program will focus on female-owned micro and small firms in the South Asia and Africa Regions -- specifically in Pakistan and Nigeria -- to develop and test the approach. These pilots combined with already existing experiences within the WBG as well as the private sector will be the starting point for a global Women Entrepreneurs platform, which will be the aggregator of knowledge, networks, partners, and learning. The grant objective of the proposed Women Entrepreneurs T.A. is to provide a package of services to a select group of growth- oriented women entrepreneurs and to measure the impact of these services on revenue growth, job creation, and strengthening of business networks. The initial pilots will be launched in Pakistan and Nigeria, and the experience of the pilots, informed by impact evaluations, will form the basis of the global Women Entrepreneurs Program. The proposed scope of work would provide the following services for selected participants of the pilot program:  A2F: Support access to microenterprise and small business loan products which are currently available almost exclusively to male entrepreneurs and encourage the development of a pilot product which would be customized for women entrepreneurs selected for the program.  Mentors and Networks: Develop networks of mentors and coaches nationally and internationally, including with diaspora, that contribute their time to the development of women entrepreneurs selected for the program.  Business Education: Through custom and targeted business education through the most prestigious local business schools, help build relevant business and networking skills. Main Activities The first year of the program will focus on building program awareness, working to create a public dialogue around women entrepreneurs, tailoring the business training curriculum to local circumstances, setting up future networking and mentoring platforms, designing tailored loan products, selecting the target beneficiaries for the intervention, and establishing baselines for both the control group and them. The partnership will increase financial outreach to women entrepreneurs and also create a Women Entrepreneurs Platform. Performance Indicators (Intermediate Outcomes/Outputs) The intermediate outcomes for the first year revolve largely around the selection of the target beneficiaries.  High eagerness in selected participants  High ability in selected participants  High life certainty in selected participants  High number of participants from male-majority sectors  Bigger and/or more profitable businesses are owned by selected participants  High number of participants from the tradables sector  Increased likelihood of switching to tradable sectors 97 Progress and Achievements (including challenges, if any) Not applicable; this is a new program to start in FY14. Partners IFC, USAID, Goldman Sachs Foundation. Governance and Management Changes The Women Entrepreneurs Program structure will be managed as a standard multi-donor trust fund arrangement. The FPD VPU will house the Secretariat, which will be managed by the ITE Practice, and report to the Director of ITE and FPD VP. The program will be managed and monitored through the Secretariat, and the Steering Committee (comprised of global partners) will act as the advisory committee. The Secretariat will consult and report to the Steering Committee on a semi-annual basis. The partnership strategy includes working initially with Goldman Sachs in tailoring and scaling their methodology in two pilot countries: Pakistan and Nigeria. Local implementing partners will customize the program in each country. Once the pilots are launched, additional financing partners will be included, primarily corporates and foundations. All pilot programs will be executed only at the request of the client/host countries. The programs have already achieved a high degree of legitimacy based on the mature GS program, which has a track record of results, and local country customization. Global partners will be identified based on their appetite for supporting economic opportunities for women through a private sector led approach. Exit Strategy (Disengagement from DGF and Sustainability) After the third year, the WE team expects the partnership to have reached sufficient momentum among its partners to be self- sustaining with the Bank as the implementing partner, but supported by a growing membership of corporates committed to supporting the women entrepreneurship agenda. The proof-of-concept of the comprehensive solutions packages at the country level is also expected to provide practical solutions for WB operations at the country level, with increasing BB resources available to support this work. 98 Annex 16 Global Development Network Bank Contact (TTL) Name: Shiva S. Makki Responsible Sector and Bank Unit: DEC Full Name of Recipient Agency: Global Development Network Contact Information of the Recipient Agency: www.gdn.int Budget for the grant period (US$ million) Total Recipient Program Budget: 10.00 FY14 DGF Grant Amount: 1.80 DGF Percentage: 18.5% Grant Development Objectives and expected Development Outcomes The Global Development Network (GDN) is a public international organization that supports research in economics and social sciences in developing countries and connects researchers and development research institutes globally. Goal (Impact): Improved social and economic development in developing countries. GDN firmly subscribes to the premise that good policy research, properly applied, can accelerate development and improve peoples’ lives by informing better policymaking. Purpose: GDN’s core business is building research capacity, understood as the combination of individual and organizational competences as well as institutional features needed to produce good and relevant research and to mobilize knowledge for public policy purposes. Strategic Outputs: GDN researchers have the knowledge and skills to 1) Conduct high quality policy research in areas set by GDN and partners. 2) Network globally and connect with geographically dispersed fellows. 3) Communicate effectively, engage, influence, lead and have impact. 4) Ensure that their skills and knowledge continue to grow and be sustained. Main Activities As part of its strategy, GDN has redesigned and optimized its Capacity Building Program. It addresses: 1) The need to create more and better opportunities for southern researchers to lead and participate in collaborative research activities; and 2) The importance of promoting the distinctive contribution that the southern perspective can make to knowledge and understanding of complex global issues. GDN’s unique, meritocratic program delivers a mix of skills and knowledge required to become a high-performing researcher and policy interlocutor and includes: 1. Regional Research Competitions providing small grants to young scholars in Africa, Asia, MENA, Pacific, CIS and ECE; 2. Global Research Competitions which promote broadly based collaborative research as the central mode of research activity on important development topics; 3. Global and Inter-regional Research Projects carried out by multi-disciplinary teams of established researchers working with junior peers and advisers; 4. Global Development Awards and Medals Competition which rewards outstanding young researchers and development projects; 5. Annual Global Development Conference which provides young researchers with demonstrated potential and innovative research the opportunity to present their work on a prestigious international platform and network with top researchers and policymakers from around the world; 6. GDNet – Online knowledge sharing and knowledge management services provide a platform for southern researchers to exchange knowledge and contribute to the debate on global issues; 7. Policy Outreach through Policy Labs at the onset of a new research program and Policy Dialogues in order to widely disseminate and validate findings, with a focus on actionable recommendations. This capacity development is an experiential and learning process that progressively builds the aptitude of southern researchers to become key players in the emerging global research environment by effectively undertaking and communicating high quality and policy-relevant research in a globally interconnected way. Performance Indicators (Intermediate Outcomes/Outputs)  Cumulative number of GDN supported researchers for RRCs, GRPs, AMC, GRCs and other projects;  Global Interconnectedness: No. of GDN grants encouraging collaborative research with grantees/researchers; no. of research publications from GDN grants that are authored by more than one grantee; no. of grants that include peer reviews;  Knowledge and Intellectual Abilities: GDN grantees’ level of subject knowledge and research methods; quality of research produced by GDN grantees;  Communication and Engagement: Share of publishable outputs; no. of grants producing policy briefs,; use of GDN-funded research in policy processes;  Continuing Professional Development: Percentage of grantees that are members of professional networks;  Awards and Medals Competition: The number of submissions and number of submissions from younger researchers;  Annual Conference: The number of participants, countries represented and policymakers participating  GDNet: Increase in web traffic and knowledgebase content. 99 Progress and Achievements (including challenges, if any) GDN is an open and dynamic network, working in partnership with 11 Regional Network Partners (RNPs) all across the world, as well as with academic institutions, NGOs, governments, donors and over 12,500 individual researchers. Over 13 years, GDN has empowered researchers from developing countries by strengthening research skills and contributing to higher quality research output, by creating networks to connect researchers globally and by mobilizing academic knowledge to inform public policy. Since 2000, GDN has funded over 3,600 grantees in over 100 countries by providing them with research grants, mentoring, technical and skill building workshops and global research networks. The comparative advantage of GDN is the combination of its focus on research capacity building activities, its global network and reach based on strong local pillars, and its ability to connect researchers with policymakers. The number of researchers being funded by GDN has doubled since 2008. GDN is currently funding more than 380 grantees through over 150 grants covering 73 developing countries. Through the Regional Research Competitions (RRCs), more than 1500 grants have been given by RNPs to support local research talent in their regions. Completed papers have been published in reputed journals and as working papers. The Global Research Competition (GRC), launched as a pilot in FY12, is a unique, central pillar to the Capacity Building Program. Through the GRC, six grants have been provided to 18 early career researchers covering 11 developing countries for collaborating on multidisciplinary and cross-country research on current topics such as food security, education & gender and political, economic and social transformations. Including the GRC, more than 60 GDN grantees have conducted collaborative research (with researchers in other countries) to date. GDN's Global Research Projects (GRPs) currently provide 41 grants that cover the themes of governance, public expenditure monitoring, agricultural policies and urbanization. Encouraging peer review, ongoing GRPs have involved over 200 researchers and experienced scholars working together to generate high quality research and disseminate the results to academics and policymakers in their own countries. Over 96 research reports from ongoing GRPs have been produced. Including the GRPs, over 130 research reports have been shared with policymakers. The Global Development Awards and Medals, recognizing talent, innovation and contribution to research, funded 368 developing country researchers and practitioners since 2000. Nearly 7,200 participants have applied to the competition to date. In the last year, 801 submissions were received. A report of the achievements of the Competition winners is available on: http://www.gdn.int/admin/uploads/editor/files/AMC_Report.pdf. The GDNet Knowledgebase is a forum that helps link researchers and institutions from the South. Over 12,500 researchers have online profiles and 5,253 organizations have profiles. There is high demand for the 20,350 research documents available on GDNet with an average of 35,000 visits every month. Challenges: Evaluations and studies show that despite GDN’s achievements, problems with research capacity still remain such as a very unequal distribution of capacity in low income countries and a lack of demand from policymakers for evidence-based policy work and local research output. To address the challenges GDN intends to: 1) Reach out more to the low income countries, where research capacity is the lowest; 2) Expand its work in the realm of social sciences other than economics; 3) Demonstrate that there can be high quality and useful research work at all levels of capacity, by rigorously identifying areas in which new knowledge would be useful to policy and address policymakers’ unanswered questions; 4) More explicitly define and monitor research capacity building as progressing within a continuum of research skills; 5) Further develop the capacity of researchers to formulate researchable questions on policy-relevant issues and to write good proposals; 6) Through targeted interactions between researchers and policymakers, further develop the policymakers’ demand for research and evidence. Partners GDN continues with its 11 Regional Network Partners and other regional and global partners worldwide. Governance and Management Changes GDN is governed by an Assembly composed of representatives of countries that are party to the GDN Agreement, and by an 18-member international Board of Directors, representing the worldwide research community and leading development agencies, including a World Bank representative. The Board is chaired by L. Alan Winters. Pierre Jacquet joined GDN as President in 2012. Exit Strategy (Disengagement from DGF and Sustainability) A fundraising strategy aligned with GDN’s new activities is being developed by GDN’s new leadership. Given the challenges outlined above, GDN has forward looking strategies including plans for specific regional programs targeted to low income countries. This strategy includes new donors for GDN as well as submitting new innovative proposals to current donors. The World Bank, DFID and IDRC remain the main providers of core funding, and recent successes in finding non-Bank sources have been tied to specific research projects. GDN will exit from current DGF funding in FY15. 100 Annex 16 Statistical Capacity Building Program: Marrakech Action Plan for Statistics Bank Contact (TTL) Name: Barbro E. Hexeberg Responsible Sector and Bank Unit: DEC - OPCS Full Name of Recipient Agency: Multiple agencies Contact Information of the Recipient Agency: go.worldbank.org/PRTR3BCNE0 Budget for the grant period (US$ million) Total Recipient Program Budget: 184 FY14 DGF Grant Amount: 2.00 DGF Percentage: 1% Grant Development Objectives and expected Development Outcomes This program supports the Marrakech Action Plan for Statistics (MAPS), which was developed and agreed at the second International Roundtable on Managing for Development Results held in Marrakech, Morocco in February 2004 and reaffirmed by countries and donors at the Third International Roundtable on Managing for Development Results in Hanoi in February 2007. The objective of MAPS is to support the achievement of better development results by improving the availability, quality, and use of national and international statistical data. Expected outcomes of MAPS are the preparation of national strategies for developing statistical systems in low income countries; mobilization of additional resources to implement these plans; participation of low income countries in the 2010 census round; better data from household surveys; improved data for measuring development progress against key indicators – including the Millennium Development Goals, and in specific areas such as urban development, gender, and education; and improved coordination and harmonization of the international statistical system in support of these efforts. Main Activities 1. Supporting the preparation and adoption of National Strategies for the Development of Statistics (NSDS); 2. Supporting preparations for the 2010 census round; 3. Increasing investment in statistical capacity, based on implementation of NSDSs; 4. Support the operations of the International Household Survey Network (IHSN); 5. Accelerating improvements in measurements in key areas and development indicators, particularly the MDGs; 6. Improving the harmonization and coordination of the international effort to support statistical capacity building. Performance Indicators (Intermediate Outcomes/Outputs) (i) Number of National Strategies for the Development of Statistics (NSDS) completed or under preparation in IDA countries, (ii) Number of countries participating in the 2010 census round, (iii) Amount of investment in statistical capacity in countries, particularly that based on NSDS, (iv) Past and future surveys documented by the International Household Survey Network, (v) Countries participating in Accelerated Data Program, (vi) Improved data and MDG indicators on specific sectors supported by the DGF (education, urban, gender). Progress and Achievements (including challenges, if any) (i) Mainstream strategic planning for improving statistical systems in developing countries: 86.4% of IDA-eligible countries have now completed an NSDS or are designing one. A further 11.1% are currently planning to design a strategy, leaving only two IDA countries out of 81 without a strategy or with an expired strategy with no plans for developing a new strategy. PARIS21 has published various advocacy booklets in collaboration with countries and regional institutions, methodological publications and tools on strategic planning in statistics, and provided on-demand advisory services to countries. They also conducted and published the results from the 2012 round of the Partner Report on Support to Statistics (PRESS), which provides a snapshot of support to statistical capacity development worldwide and, as such, offers information useful in realigning support with nationally owned strategies and plans. To further mainstreaming of NSDS’s in developing countries, PARIS21 has recently launched a task team with a view to preparing revised NSDS guidelines through a consultative process. The new guidelines are scheduled to be published in June 2013. (ii) Prepare for the 2010 round of Population and Housing Censuses: The 2010 round of population and housing censuses spans the period from 2005 to 2014. Throughout the census round, UNSD closely monitors and regularly updates information on censuses taken, planned or postponed. According to information available to UNSD as at the end of 2012, 197 countries or areas have already undertaken a census, enumerating an estimated 89 per cent of the world’s population. 31 more countries or areas are scheduled to conduct a census by 2015, and only 7 countries have not scheduled a census. This is a great improvement over the 2000 round when 29 countries did not participate. (iii) Investment in statistical systems: New lending operations for statistics are being discussed for South Sudan, Nigeria (as part of ERGP) and the Democratic Republic of Congo. The Statistics for Results Catalytic Fund approved a new allocation for Ethiopia. (iv) Set up and support the operations of the International Household Survey Network (IHSN): The IHSN continued developing and upgrading its suite of software applications for the management of microdata. The main achievement is the development and publishing of a new software for the anonymization of microdata. The IHSN also completed a major upgrade and redesign of its 101 website which now provides a rich knowledge base for survey statisticians and microdata users. The Accelerated Data Program (ADP) complements the activities of the IHSN by promoting the use of tools and guidelines at country level and best use of available data through improved practices of data collection, management and dissemination. A few additional countries have joined the ADP which has so far provided direct support to 67 countries,. Partnerships with regional and international agencies, as well as increased integration of ADP into Bank-supported technical assistance programs, provide further opportunities to expand the ADP. A MDTF (currently supported by DfID) has been established to complement DGF funding. (v) Improve data for measuring key topics and the MDGs: Using the data availability dimension of the World Banks Statistical Capacity Indicator, there has been improvement on the availability of indicators for measuring the MDGs. For instance, the average score of the data availability dimension of the score for 117 developing countries has risen from 75 in 2004 to 82 in 2012. An alternative measure reported by PARIS21 is the number of countries that can measure trends for key MDG indicators using national data sources. For example, between 2003 and 2012, the percentage of countries able to monitor trends for more than 16 indicators rose from 0 to 59%. (vi) Increase accountability of the international statistical system: UN Specialized Agencies have adopted a voluntary set of good practice principles to help guide and improve their statistical work. Some UN agencies have also improved their statistical work programs to better incorporate the needs of developing countries, particularly on issues related to statistical capacity building. Partners The recipients of the DGF grants in FY14 will be: OECD/PARIS21 ($0.75 m for the Accelerated Data Program, $0.5 m for the International Household Survey Network, and $0.3 m for the National Strategies for the Development of Statistics) and UN Statistics Division ($0.4 m for Gender Statistics). MAPS Secretariat will use 0.05 to undertake an independent evaluation. External partners in MAPS include regional UN Commissions and Development Banks and bilateral donors contributing to national and international statistical capacity building programs. Governance and Management Changes No changes. Exit Strategy (Disengagement from DGF and Sustainability) MAPS’s exit strategy is aligned with the Millennium Development Goals deadline of September 2015, as some of the programs supported such as gender statistics and the accelerated data program are directly linked to the availability of MDG indicators. Accordingly, FY15 will be the last year of DGF support to the program. A MDTF has been established for the work on IHSN/ADP to complement DGF funding. At the request of the DGF Council an independent evaluation of the MAPS program was completed at the end of November 2008. The evaluation found that the DGF program focuses on the right activities, the MAPS objectives remain relevant, the program has improved coherence of statistical capacity building efforts, and DGF-supported programs have achieved clear outcomes. The next MAPS program evaluation is due in FY 14, and will be finalized in Nov 2013. 102 Annex 16 Statistical Capacity Building Program: Program for Education Statistics (PES) Bank Contact (TTL) Name: Husein Abdul-Hamid Responsible Sector and Bank Unit: HDNED Full Name of Recipient Agency: UNESCO Institute for Statistics Contact Information of the Recipient Agency: www.uis.unesco.org Budget for the grant period (US$ million) Total Recipient Program Budget: 14.90 FY14 DGF Grant Amount: 1.50 DGF Percentage: 10% Grant Development Objectives and expected Development Outcomes The purpose of the Program for Education Statistics DGF is to improve the quality of education statistics and to ensure that reliable, comprehensive, and timely education statistics and benchmarking indicators are available. The long-term goal of the Program for Education Statistics focuses on improving data quality at both national and international levels, particularly the timeliness, integrity and coverage of cross-nationally comparable indicators, and to ensure the use of data to provide a complete and informative picture of educational progress and to benchmark the performance of education systems. The Program Development Objectives are to address the rising demand for timely data of high quality which are urgently needed to monitor progress towards time-bound international education targets (e.g., Millennium Development Goals); and second, to inform planning and policy in specific target countries (e.g., Global Partnership for Education). Main Activities The DGF grant assists the UIS and its partners by investing in the longer-term methodology and infrastructure required to improve the international statistical system for education and supporting projects with the following objectives to: (1) improve the quality of national and international education statistics and indicators; (2) develop appropriate methodologies and standards in the field of education statistics; (3) support national capacity in the production and use of data; and (4) strengthen statistical analysis to build a culture of data use that informs policy-making. Performance Indicators (Intermediate Outcomes/Outputs) A marked improvement in relevance, completeness, timeliness, transparency and other aspects of comparative data quality. The indicators will be harmonized with the UIS Data Quality Monitoring and Reporting Framework and will be integrated by UIS into its set of key performance indicators. UIS will provide KPI on completeness and timeliness with the October yearly data release. Quality Dimension: Completeness Objective: (i) Questionnaire and item response rates of countries to various UIS surveys will be steadily improved. (ii) Update key education indicators for at least 85% of all countries every year. Indicators: (i) Response rate (%); (ii) Rate of available key data (%); (iii) Update rate (%). Quality Dimension: Relevance Objective: Improve coverage of data and indicators. Indicators: (i) Improve coverage of data and indicators; (ii) Coverage of Key Indicators (%). Quality Dimension: Timeliness Objective: Reduce the time between the reporting year and the public data release. Indicators: (i) Timeliness of data submission (months); (ii) Time to process (months); (iii) Data freshness (months) Goals: 1) Relevance: UIS to have 100% of countries reporting feedback on indicator prioritization exercise. At least 20 new indicators developed and implemented. 2) Completeness: UIS will publish within each given year new and more recent data for: 85% of countries on primary and secondary education total enrolment; 75% of countries on primary net enrolment and out of school children, on primary pupil-teacher ratio and PCR proxy (gross intake rate to last grade); 66% of countries on tertiary education enrolment, survival to last grade and on public expenditure on education. 3) Timeliness: reducing the average time between receiving data from countries and first release is less than 8 months. Intermediate outcomes: Preparation of data releases, design of data collection instruments, training materials, methodological guides etc. Progress and Achievements (including challenges, if any) Implementation is progressing smoothly and timely data continue to be provided to the World Bank for the World Development Indicators database and for the World Bank Edstats database. The UIS compiled indicators defined by regional stakeholders in Latin America (adult education) and sub-Saharan Africa (school conditions). Analytic and web resources were produced. Regional data were published in the 103 Outlook report (for COMEDAF V) for Africa and analyses were produced for meetings in Latin America. The UIS introduced a new data collection instrument on intended instructional time. The module collects data on intended instructional time by grade in primary and general secondary education. The UIS has provided training and support to assist countries in adapting their data reporting systems to the new ISCED. Training was provided at four regional workshops. UIS advisers, based in the field, provided in-country support. The UIS developed a draft Operational Manual to provide guidance and examples. A Technical Advisory Panel completed the revision of new ISCED fields of education and produced a classification with global consultation. The UIS contributed to the meetings of the TVET Inter Agency Group and helped to prepare a draft report on TVET indicators and a conceptual framework for comparable skills indicators as a follow-up to the G20 Action Plan. The UIS provided institutional capacity support to ensure sustainable production of education finance indicators in Gambia, Ghana, Malawi and Rwanda, where national project teams produced policy briefs. A similar approach was applied in three LAC countries and UIS tools were implemented in Bangladesh and Nepal by the World Bank. The UIS organized regional training workshops for national statisticians in East Asia (27 participants/15 countries) and South and West Asia (18 participants/9 countries). Regional workshops were also conducted for 25 participants/12 countries in the Arab States and for 48 statisticians/24 countries in South and East Africa. They focused on the production and use of education statistics as well as methodologies and mechanisms to improve education information systems. Through its field-based statistical advisors, the UIS provided services to improve the quality and use of data. Data plans help countries report their data according to international standards and were produced in: Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, DR Congo, Gambia, Indonesia, Namibia, Niger, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka and Tanzania. UIS staff provided technical assistance to address gaps in national education statistics and implement improvements related to data production, analysis and dissemination in Bangladesh, Bolivia, Central African Republic, DR Congo, Nepal, Philippines, Sierra Leone and Timor-Leste. The Global Education Digest was released and focused on the impact of grade repetition and early school leaving. Data and analysis were prepared for the EFA Global Monitoring Report and other reports. A gender e-atlas was produced along with a statistical atlas on gender disparities in education. UIS added data interactivity to its website by producing interactive charts on the site; developed animated slideshows on different topics; developed exploratory tools that enable the user to explore further UIS data. Partners The UIS works is partnership with other national and international institutions. For example, the Survey of Primary Schools program was conducted in partnership with the OECD, Statistics Canada and participating countries. In addition, statistical capacity building is carried out in countries expressing the need for such assistance and brings together education policy-makers and planners with statisticians and data producers, which is helpful in building working relationships between these groups within countries. Initiatives to support the use of data, which helps to establish the link between data, evidence and policy, has been conducted in partnership with UN agencies such as UNICEF and regional development banks, such as the Inter-American Development Bank. UIS works in collaboration with other regional agencies, for example, UNESCO works in partnership with the Regional Education plan for Latin America and the Caribbean (PRELAC) and the Summit of the Americas, and in sub-Saharan Africa with the African Union Observatory and the Association for Development of Education in Africa (ADEA) Working Groups. Governance and Management Changes UNESCO Regional Offices provide support to the program by hosting UIS regional staff and through network of national contacts. Exit Strategy (Disengagement from DGF and Sustainability) FY15 is the last year of DGF support. The Bank's presence in this project offers a comparative advantage because it is designed to promote quality statistics and information in the field of education. The Bank, its client countries, and its partners, are prime users of such statistics. As both an implementing and research organization, the Bank has access to a large stock of evidence from its project/program evaluations in the fields of primary and secondary education. This evidence base serves as a comparative advantage in that it will be used to guide the development of new education indicators. In turn, these new benchmarks will permit the Bank to better evaluate future programs and projects. Most importantly, the Bank’s presence helps to: improve the governance model, maintain UIS independence and ensure quality. 104 Annex 16 Global Financial Management Partnership Bank Contact (TTL) Name: Ivonna Kratynski; Sanjay Vani Responsible Sector and Bank Unit: CTRVP; OPSOR Full Name of Recipient Agency: International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) INTOSAI Contact Information of the Recipient Agency: www.ifac.org/PublicSector, www.iasb.org, www.intosai.org Budget for the grant period (US$ million) Total Recipient Program Budget: 4.30 FY14 DGF Grant Amount: 0.29 DGF Percentage: 6.7% Grant Development Objectives and expected Development Outcomes The Global Financial Management Partnership (GFMP) is the vehicle that the Bank uses to provide support for the development and issuance of international accounting and auditing standards for the public sector, public interest oversight of auditing, education and ethical standards for accountants, and related activities. These global public goods are essential components of good governance and financial accountability around the world - but especially in developing countries, where there is typically an acute lack of capacity in the fields of accounting and auditing. The objectives of the Bank’s involvement in the programs are to: (i) Facilitate and support the ongoing development and issuance, in the public interest, of high-quality accounting and auditing standards for application in the public sector; (ii) Support the oversight, in the public interest, of IFAC’s standard-setting activities; (iii) Support the development of a globally accepted integrated reporting framework for both the public and private sectors; (iv) Encourage the dissemination and adoption of IPSASs and INTOSAI Financial Audit Guidelines in client countries; (v) Support related reporting activities; (vi) Facilitate developing country “voice� in the programs, and (vii) Support training and capacity building initiatives to foster the skills and aptitudes required for successful implementation of the standards. Main Activities The Global Financial Management Partnership comprises two distinct programs: (i) the IFAC’s activities in standard-setting and reporting, including but not limited to:  the public sector accounting standards activity of the International Public Sector Accounting Standards Board (IPSASB),  advancement of the Public Interest Oversight Board’s (PIOB) activities of auditing and related standard-setting processes of the Public Interest Activity Committees of IFAC and their respective consultative advisory groups;  advancement through the International Integrating Reporting Council (IIRC) of a globally accepted international integrated reporting framework that promotes reporting of relevant information about organizations’ strategy, governance, performance and prospects in a clear, concise and comparable format. (ii) the development of Financial Audit Guidelines for the public sector based on (private sector) International Standards on Auditing (ISA), under the auspices of the INTOSAI Professional Standards Committee (ASC). Performance Indicators (Intermediate Outcomes/Outputs)  IPSASB – The issuance, and widespread adoption, of high-quality IPSASs addressing public sector specific issues, as well as the continued development of a conceptual framework for public sector financial reporting.  PIOB – Promotion of protection of public interest in the standard-setting process.  IIRC – Promotion of adoption of an integrated framework that communicates how an organization’s strategy, governance, performance and prospects lead to creation and enhancement of value.  INTOSAI-PSC – Full participation in the standards-setting process for international auditing standards published by IFAC-IAASB. This participation includes providing public sector perspectives to each new standard & to selected existing ones, as well as developing guidelines for their implementation in the public sector. Progress and Achievements (including challenges, if any) IPSASB. During 2012, the IPSASB approved and released for comment 2 Exposure Drafts (ED) related to its project to develop a Conceptual Framework for the general purpose financial reporting of public sector entities. The Conceptual Framework continues to be the IPSASB’s key strategic objective and is of fundamental importance to the future of global public sector standard setting. The IPSASB also approved and released for comment a number of consultation papers; 105 approved and published ED47, Financial Statement Discussion and Analysis, a proposed new standard; reviewed comments received on ED46, Proposed Recommended Practice Guideline, Reporting on the Long-Term Sustainability of a Public Sector Entity’s Finances. Following a recent G20 statement, the World Bank and IMF have been tasked to look at transparency and comparability of public sector reporting. An IPSASB Governance Review Group has been established and will include representatives from the Bank, IMF, OECD, INTOSAI, and others. IIRC. The IIRC has launched a pilot program to test the principles of . In April 2013, it launched a consultation draft of the “International Framework.� The consultation period runs through July 15, 2013. INTOSAI. The Financial Audit Subcommittee (FAS) has, with the assistance of INTOSAI experts, continued to contribute to the development of the International Standards on Audit (ISA) and to ensure that INTOSAI members have access to up to date Financial Audit Guidelines. During 2012 there has been two on-going ISA Task Forces where INTOSAI has been represented. The FAS website has been maintained as its main channel of institutional communications. FAS Chair and Director has had several discussions with representatives of IDI (International Development Initiative) and an agreement to support the activities of IDI related to financial audit was signed by the FAS Chair in 2012. During this year FAS has supported the IDI in (i) Development of the IDI Implementation Assessment Tool (ii) Monitoring he training of auditors in the use of the tool. Given that there are few SAIs that have implemented the ISSAIs and that implementation will take several years, it has been considered more relevant to undertake a survey at a later stage. The SAI of Sweden has decided, and announced to the INTOSAI, that they will leave the chairmanship after the INTOSAI Congress in 2013 after having a leading role in standard-setting within INTOSAI since 1995. They are currently working on finding a SAI that are willing to take the responsibility for the chairmanship from 2014 and has the resources and capacity to do so successfully. Sweden intends to stay on as member of FAS, and will make all efforts to make the transition to an incoming chair as smoothly as possible. Partners Asian Development Bank (ADB), IMF, UNDP, Inter-American Development Bank, OECD. Governance and Management Changes The two recipients are well-established international bodies with their own governance structures and oversight boards. IFAC is the global body for the accounting profession, and the IPSASB is one of its standard-setting Boards. The IPSASB consists of 18 volunteer members from around the world with experience and expertise in public sector financial reporting. Members include practitioners from ministries of finance, government audit institutions, public practice, as well as public members. The PIOB comprises 10 individuals and a secretary general, representing a broad variety of professional and regulatory backgrounds. The INTOSAI Professional Standards Committee is a standing committee of INTOSAI, with membership drawn from a representative group of supreme audit institutions. It reports to the INTOSAI Congress. Exit Strategy (Disengagement from DGF and Sustainability) Partnership will exit DGF after receiving FY14 funding. 106 Annex 16 Global Partnership to Strengthen Capacity of Supreme Audit Institutions Bank Contact (TTL) Name: Sanjay Vani Responsible Sector and Bank Unit: Financial Management, OPSOR Full Name of Recipient Agency: International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions Development Initiative (IDI) Contact Information of the Recipient Agency: www.idi.no Budget for the grant period (US$ million) Total Recipient Program Budget: 12.50 FY14 DGF Grant Amount: 1.20 DGF Percentage: 9.6% Grant Development Objectives and expected Development Outcomes The objective of the partnership is to strengthen the government audit capacity of Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) in developing countries, so that there is sustained improvement in public sector governance, transparency and accountability. To that effect, the overall global and regional capacity building program implemented by IDI encompasses areas such as assessing institutional needs, strategic and operational planning, management development, learning for impact, evaluation methodology, detecting fraud, and others. DGF funding supports the activities that promote accessibility and application of the new set of International Standards of Supreme Audit Institutions (ISSAIs) through innovative capacity building approaches. The adoption of the ISSAIs represents a key milestone in the strengthening of the global public sector audit profession, and will contribute to improving audit quality and increasing credibility of SAI audit reports. However, the ISSAI framework may present challenges to developing country SAIs, for instance in terms of changing audit approaches and building skills to ensure successful implementation. Therefore, IDI is developing comprehensive ISSAI implementation activities with a view to reap considerable benefits and economies of scale by producing practical guidance material and mechanisms globally, and to deploy them to developing country SAIs through the regional structures of the International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI). Main Activities Program activities include the ISSAI implementation program design, the development of audit handbooks (guidance and tools to assist SAIs in implementing the concerned auditing processes, with templates, checklists, samples, etc.), design and development of curriculum for e-learning and other Knowledge and Learning materials (which involves expertise in the technical subject, in design and delivery of K&L, and in IT services), consultation surveys, and selection of participating SAIs. The program will target SAIs in four language groups, with SAIs located in low-income and lower-middle income countries given prioritization. Further activities consist of deployment of e-learning and course materials, audit planning on financial and compliance audit (online and face-to-face advisory and quality assurance services), pilot audits with online and onsite support, audit reporting support, and follow-up. These activities are designed so that the guidance components are followed by practical implementation of the gained skills to help ensure sustainable impact. A separate but important activity for accountability is the mapping and development of a performance measurement tool for SAIs. Some characteristics of the program include: (i) the global and regional SAI capacity building activities foster knowledge sharing and creation by connecting practitioners through peer learning and consultation mechanisms; (ii) for the first time, a global comprehensive framework of professional standards for SAIs has been adopted, and the program exploits this window of opportunity by supporting their implementation; (iii) to promote a demand-driven approach and ownership, preparation included a survey among SAIs with an unprecedented 90% response rate; (iv) the activities envisage a combination of e-learning and on-the-job skill building; and (v) the activities are fully consistent with the principles of the INTOSAI-Development Partner MoU, a historical accord for global coordination in SAI capacity building. Performance Indicators (Intermediate Outcomes/Outputs) Program Development Indicator: Number of developing country SAIs who participate in IDI’s program to promote roll-out of the ISSAIs and begin application of the new resource materials, e.g. through incorporation on their audit approach, internal capacity building, and/or conduct of audits. Intermediate Outcome Indicators:  End of CY12: Design of ISSAI roll-out program. Operating network of ISSAI experts. Implementation maturity model. Gap analysis tool. 107  End of CY13: Design of resource materials. Deployment of resource materials in one of the four language groups. Program Development Indicator 2: Availability of a technically sound SAI performance measurement framework, including indicators to measure and monitor implementation of ISSAIs. Intermediate Outcome Indicators:  End of CY12: Mapping exercise completed. Outline of new instrument.  End of CY13: Draft SAI performance measurement framework presented to INTOSAI Congress. Progress and Achievements (including challenges, if any) Important progress has been made in this FY as detailed in the Achievement Report and summarized below. OBJECTIVE 1 - Promote accessibility and application of the International Standards of Supreme Audit Institutions (ISSAIs)  First version of iCATs in financial, performance and compliance audit developed by global team of ISSAI experts and mentors.  261 participants from 67 SAIs in five English speaking INTOSAI regions enrolled for the e-course on iCATs. 230 participants successfully completed the e-course.  iCATs disseminated through 3i Management Workshops to 37 Heads of SAIs and 56 Senior Management staff from 50 SAIs in CAROSAI (14), AFROSAI-E (20) and PASAI(16). OBJECTIVE 2 - Develop a SAI performance measurement framework that includes a tool for measuring implementation of ISSAIs by SAIs  Report on mapping of SAI Assessment tools completed, May 2012.  SAI Performance Measurement Framework (PMF) Concept Note finalized, September 2012  Piloting of SAI PMF in three SAIs INTOSAI-DONOR MOU PARTNERSHIP: The MOU seeks to increase support to SAI capacity development in a harmonized and coordinated manner. The MOU Steering Committee is formed of representatives from the INTOSAI and Donor communities. Three new signatories were added to the INTOSAI-Donor Memorandum of Understanding - AusAid, Asian Development Bank and GAVI Alliance - increasing the number of donors involved in the Cooperation to 19. Partners Contributing partners to global and regional SAI capacity development initiatives include AfDB, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, IADB, INTOSAI, Norway, Switzerland, Sweden, and UK DFID. Governance and Management Changes No governance/management changes have occurred vis-à-vis FY12. IDI is a non-profit organization that aims to enhance the institutional capacity of SAIs in developing countries through needs-based, collaborative and sustainable development programs. IDI is the DGF Grant recipient on the basis of: (i) its role as Secretariat of the MoU SC; (ii) its mandate to support capacity building programs in developing country SAIs; (iii) its experience working with all INTOSAI regional organizations and technical committees; (iv) its experience managing donor funds with financial probity; and (v) its professional staffing and record of technical achievement. Exit Strategy (Disengagement from DGF and Sustainability) The Bank’s DGF funding engagement is limited to the 3-year ISSAI implementation start-up period. Over the life of the DGF-funded program, the SC will oversee the transition to future phases. The Bank is expected to continue providing technical and convening support as member of the SC beyond the time of DGF support, which will end after receiving FY14 funding. The Bank's contribution would enable increased leverage through demonstration effect and convening power. New development partners already indicated their willingness to support financially the global and regional program, and others are expected to join the partnership. But program leverage would not stop at the global/regional level. 108 Annex 16 Open Data Partnership for Development Bank Contact (TTL) Name: Amparo Ballivian Responsible Sector and Bank Unit: DECDG/DECVP Full Name of Recipient Agency: The Open Data Institute Contact Information of the Recipient Agency: Gavin Starks, Chief Executive Office 65 Clifton Street, 3rd Floor London, UK EC2A 4JE Full Name of Recipient Agency: Open Knowledge Foundation Limited Contact Information of the Recipient Agency: Rufus Pollock, Laura James Co-Directors 37 Panton Street, Cambridge, CB2 1HL, UK Budget for the grant period (US$ million) Total Recipient Program Budget: 10.90 FY14 DGF Grant Amount: 1.25 DGF Percentage: 11.4 % Grant Development Objectives and expected Development Outcomes The long term goal of this partnership is to accelerate open data efforts and networks in developing and emerging countries, and apply open data practices specifically to the challenges of reducing poverty and increasing shared prosperity. The vision is to provide comprehensive support for open data efforts, encompassing both data supply and demand, implemented across different agencies, jurisdictions, and economic sectors. The partnership will catalyze this expansion through targeted training, mentoring and research, developing sector-specific data tools and standards, and accelerating the growth of nascent national and regional networks to become lasting nodes in the global open data community. The development objectives of the partnership are to:  Support developing countries to plan, execute and run open data initiatives  Increase re-use of open data in developing countries  Grow the base of evidence on the impact of open data for development For the lifetime of DGF support the partnership has the following three development outcomes: 1. Support and train developing country officials to plan, execute and run open data initiatives that sustainably release data to the public. 2. Increase re-use of open data in developing countries by creating data standards, guidelines, regional networks and demand-side capacity. 3. Grow the base of evidence on the impact of open data for development in order to both identify and learn from failures and successful strategies. Main Activities  Build the partnership by convening major institutions working on open data in developing countries or looking to expand their activities in developing countries and agree to common objectives.  Identify main obstacles for developing countries to embrace of open data and assist them in overcoming them through training, standards-setting, research and technical assistance activities. Performance Indicators (Intermediate Outcomes/Outputs) The key Intermediate Outcomes for first year of DGF support are linked to the overall program outcomes in the following way: (i) Build the partnership, by convening the major institutions working on open data in developing countries or looking to expand their activities in developing countries and agree to common objectives - this will bring in more partners to support the achievement of the higher-order goal (number of institutions joining the partnership). (ii) Identify the main obstacles for developing countries to embrace of open data and assist them in overcoming those obstacles through a variety of activities as described in this proposal - the focus of the partnership is to expand the open data network in developing countries, identifying the main obstacles at the beginning will help set the right priorities for this (number of fellowship programs, number of people trained, number of metrics/standards/guidelines agreed, number of open data applications developed, number of readiness assessments performed). 109 Progress and Achievements (including challenges, if any) Not applicable. This is a new program to start in FY14. Partners Potential partners include: DFID, Development Gateway Foundation, IBRD, IDRC (Canada), World Wide Web Foundation, Arab Economic Research Forum, regional development banks and global private foundations (Google, Gates, Ford and others as described in the full proposal). Governance and Management Changes The proposed governance structure is: 1. Partnership Board: composed of one member from each of the 3 units in the OGDWG, a representative of each of the recipients (OKF and ODI), a representative of other partners and two representatives from developing countries invited for this purpose. This will ensure that the Bank has enough voice, but not a majority, in the Board. The Board will approve the yearly program of activities submitted by the grant recipients, including budget estimates and indicator targets. The annual plan can be revised within the execution year with virtual approval, by consensus, of the Partnership Board members. The execution of activities will be done by OKF or ODI or both. The supervision will be done by DECDG with support of the OGDWG. 2. Grant Recipients: Open Data Institute (ODI) and Open Knowledge Foundation (OKF). These can sub-contract activities to developing country institutions. 3. Partnership Members: besides the ODI and OKF, several other institutions currently active in open data in developing countries or seeking to extend their reach, may join the partnership (please refer to Annex 3 of full proposal to see the list of potential institutions). Grant recipients will receive 3 disbursements after approval of the annual plan of activities. Grant recipients will submit a retroactive report of activities and expenses at the end of each year. Disbursements for years 2 and 3 will be made against satisfactory review of the previous year expenditures and approval of the plan of activities for the following year. DECDG will maintain constant communication with both grant recipients, by multiple means of communication. We expect that the jurisdiction of the Partnership Board would extend to DGF funds only, at least for the first year, since the grant recipients and other potential partners have other fiduciary obligations to their respective funders. Exit Strategy (Disengagement from DGF and Sustainability) FY16 will be the last year of DGF support. The Bank is likely to be engaged in supporting open data in developing countries for many years and it is expected that this engagement will be carried out in coordination with other international institutions through this partnership. However, the nature of this engagement is likely to change over time. The development of metrics, standards, guidelines, and networks requires a big effort at the beginning, but their update and maintenance is less resource consuming once the steady-state is reached. Open data training responsibilities will be transferred over the life of the DGF to other institutions. The ability to conduct readiness assessments will also be transferred and gradually picked up by Bank projects or other donors’ projects. 110 Annex 16 Natural Resource Charter Bank Contact (TTL) Name: Håvard Halland Responsible Sector and Bank Unit: PRMPS Full Name of Recipient Agency: Revenue Watch Institute Contact Information of the Recipient Agency: 1700 Broadway, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10019, USA Budget for the grant period (US$ million) Total Recipient Program Budget: 1.80 FY14 DGF Grant Amount: 0.26 DGF Percentage: 5% Grant Development Objectives and expected Development Outcomes The Natural Resource Charter is intended to provide a mechanism through which governments and societies can: (i) develop strategies to use the opportunities arising from extractive resources to support sustainable economic growth and development; (ii) promote effective global norms in resource governance; and (iii) strengthen mutual accountability among all stakeholders in the implementation of good practice in the management of a nation's natural resources. In line with the NRC's goals, the objective of the FY14 DGF grant is to support the scaling up of work under the NRC core objectives. Main Activities 1. Charter Guidance. In 2013, Precepts 1 to 10 will be further refined by NRC Secretariat staff informed by Technical Advisory Group members, other experts and desk-based research. The structure and material of Level 3 will also be informed by the substantial work undertaken as part of the redrafting of Level 1 and 2. 2. Benchmarking and (self) diagnosis (resource-rich country implementation): Based on scoping missions completed for Tanzania, Sierra Leone and Nigeria in 2012, assess the extractives sector of these countries against the twelve precepts of good governance and economic management outlined in the Natural Resource Charter. 3. Investing in Investing: NRC funding from the Norwegian development agency was received at the end of 2012. This money has now been disbursed to the University of Oxford who will be conducting research on behalf of the NRC around increasing absorptive capacity of resource rich countries (‘Investing in Investing’). The research will be developed over FY14. 4. Underpin NRC Application through Professional Training: In partnership with the Blavatnik School of Government at the University of Oxford, the Natural Resource Charter began the development of a high-level executive training course in natural resource governance, to begin in FY14. 5. Charter Advocacy: Continue to act in a convening role for organizations working on aspects of transparency and accountability along the decision chain associated with natural resources. Hold working group meetings to discuss international best practice and the harmonization of global standards. Performance Indicators (Intermediate Outcomes/Outputs) Development Outcome 1: to continue to support the assessment of the extractives sector of target countries against the twelve precepts of good governance and economic management outlined in the Natural Resource Charter. Baseline Values/Conditions: The Nigerian Natural Resource Charter (NNRC) assessed the Nigerian petroleum sector against the twelve precepts of good governance and economic management outlined in the Natural Resource Charter. Target Values/Conditions: Assessments of extractives sectors of Tanzania, Sierra Leone and Nigeria completed. Development Outcome 2: to advance the capacity of the NRC as a source for capacity building on natural resource policy. Baseline Values/Conditions: In partnership with the Blavatnik School of Government at the University of Oxford, the Natural Resource Charter began the development of a high-level executive training course in natural resource governance. Target Values/Conditions: Building on existing university and organizational expertise the school and the NRC will convene world experts for an annual week-long course to teach participants, ensuring that the training is global in reach and delivered at senior levels to ensure the greatest impact. Development Outcome 3: to generate impetus for international action consistent with the NRC's principles, calling for the home countries of companies and financial centers to support the creation of an enabling environment for strengthened resource governance. Baseline Values/Conditions: The Charter is gaining ground as a global norm for the management of natural resources, including within the extractive industries and capital importing countries. Significant progress in recent years in response to advocacy by a 111 variety of organizations, including NRC: IFC and US OPIC require EI project companies to disclose payments to governments; US listed extractive sector companies are required to disclose all payments made to governments on a country by country basis; EU committed to improving reporting regulation for extractive companies. Target Values/Conditions: Endorsement/partnerships by a further two major regional bodies within and outside of Africa. Progress and Achievements (including challenges, if any) The NRC has expanded its activities significantly over the last year, and has increased its staff number accordingly, from 3.5 staff positions on the 1st of July 2012 to 7.5 staff positions on the 31st of December 2012. The Second half of 2012 saw a public consultation to rewrite precepts 11 and 12. Inputs were gathered from industry, society and other experts. In 2012, the Charter continued to improve its website and expanding its social media presence. The NRC hosted a practitioner’s workshop and started implementing country-specific work. In that regard, the Nigerian Natural Resource Charter (NNRC) assessed the Nigerian petroleum sector against the twelve precepts of good governance and economic management outlined in the Natural Resource Charter. Aside from the activity in Nigeria, scoping missions were completed for Tanzania, Sierra Leone and Nigeria. Members of the NRC Technical Advisory Group and Oversight Board continued their high level ambassadorial work on behalf of the Charter, presenting it and representing it at a wide range of forums to many different audiences. A short and non-exhaustive summary include presentations in Tanzania, Sierra Leone, Ghana, Myanmar, Canada, Denmark, UK and Sweden to senior government officials, ministers and other stakeholders. In 2012 the NRC convened five dissemination and training workshops organized in Ghana, Amsterdam, Budapest, Kenya, and Oxford. These drew in over 100 key stakeholders including government officials, to raise awareness and encourage public endorsement of the NRC. In line with the Phase II work plan, the Charter has begun to deliver trainings, participate in third-party trainings and further develop tailored training materials using the Charter framework. The Natural Resource Charter is currently delivering executive education courses tailored specifically for key stakeholders and decision makers drawn from across civil society, government, international organizations, and academia. Partners The Charter is a multi-stakeholder initiative, bringing together demand-side energy from resource rich countries and insights from a wide variety of key stakeholder across academia, civil society, industry and the development practitioner community. The Charter’s Technical Advisory Group draws from a range of technical backgrounds and regional expertise. The Revenue Watch Institute currently host the NRC and are key partners in the dissemination of, and training around, the Charter with civil society partners. NRC has been able to usefully convene a wide variety of partners including EITI, PWYP, WEF RDMI, EI TAF, ISLP, OPM, ASI, ACET, ICMM, CEPMLP, Global Witness and others. Governance and Management Changes The NRC continues to be hosted by the Revenue Watch Institute. The NRC is looking to build on its institutional independence by become increasingly financial independent of RWI. RWI will continue to act as fiscal sponsor to the NRC for a further year until the NRC is able to demonstrate to donors that it has the financial management systems in place to receive grants directly. Exit Strategy (Disengagement from DGF and Sustainability) NRC is currently working to diversify its funding sources and identify financing partners, working towards a planned exit from the DGF after receiving FY14 funding. New funding commitments for FY14 include USAID and Canada. 112 Annex 16 Network for Integrity in Reconstruction (NIR) Bank Contact (TTL) Name: Kathrin Frauscher Responsible Sector and Bank Unit: WBIOG Full Name of Recipient Agency: Integrity Action-Making Integrity Work Contact Information of the Recipient Agency: www.Integrity Action.org; Claire.schouten@integrityaction.org Budget for the grant period (US$ million) Total Recipient Program Budget: 5.93 FY14 DGF Grant Amount: 0.65 DGF Percentage: 10% Grant Development Objectives and expected Development Outcomes The Integrity Action-facilitated Network for Integrity in Reconstruction (NIR) is a coalition of CSOs in fragile and conflict-affected states (FCS) across 4 regions engaging communities in monitoring and advocating for more accountable and effective management of public resources. NIR works at the grassroots level and has a record of achieving results in terms of citizens’ access to information, multi- stakeholder engagement, and improved service delivery. NIR also acts as a resource base and platform to bring the concerns of affected communities to the fore of international policy debates, offering a civil society complement to the g7+ network of fragile states. It is an advantage that NIR is an existing, functioning network with a proven model of country engagement and DGF funding will catalyze significant scale up in terms of i) global reach and impact, and ii) NIR’s strength as an expanded member driven network reinforcing capacities, tools and lessons learning across fragile and conflict-affected states and informing global dialogue and policy. Endorsed by the Fragility Hub team, proposed activities address some of the key recommendations of the WDR 2011, including tools to match country circumstances, community empowerment to deliver anti-corruption initiatives. The proposed activities are thus strongly aligned to current World Bank programming. Expected outcomes include: i) Greater community engagement in monitoring and decision-making for more transparent, accountable and effective public resource management in fragile and conflict-affected states, measured through number of network partners and monitors; ii) Strengthened capacities, tools and learning across FCS and informed global dialogue and policy, iii) Greater government responsiveness to community engagement, monitoring and advocacy, iv) Improved infrastructure and service delivery as a result of community monitoring and collaborative governance, and v) NIR established as vibrant, self-sustaining organization driven by partners in FCS to better achieve its goals. Main Activities Objective 1: Scale up the reach and impact of community engagement in monitoring and decision-making for more transparent, accountable and effective public resource management in fragile and conflict-affected states.  Integrity Action actively works with 9 civil society country partners (6 DGF-funded sub-grantees) to mobilize and train communities, identify and monitor priority projects and services, and constructively engage government and business to address their concerns. This had led to a resolution of 50% of identified problems, depending on the context.  1,837 monitors are engaging in collaborative governance and monitoring for greater transparency, accountability and effectiveness of public resources, from aid and government budgets to infrastructure and service delivery. In Palestine, the Teacher Creativity Centre has trained 80 teachers and will soon train 1,200 students to conduct social audits of 40 development projects. In Cote d’Ivoire, Social Justice will train 150 people to monitor projects, such as schools and clinics, in resource-rich and conflict-affected areas.  Integrity Action and country partners actively engage in the Construction Sector Transparency Initiative, International Aid Transparency Initiative, Open Contracting Partnership, Open Government Partnership and Publish What You Pay, ensuring community engagement and policy influence to open governments and strengthen state-society relations. 113 Objective 2: Strengthen NIR as an expanded member driven network reinforcing capacities, tools and lessons learning across fragile and conflict-affected states and informing global dialogue and policy.  DevelopmentCheck.org is an online community monitoring platform that provides citizen feedback on the transparency, public engagement and effectiveness of development projects. Integrity Action developed the tool with Young  Innovations in Nepal is working closely with partners to ensure they have an understanding of how to collect and validate data and upload it in Development Check. Training was conducted with five country partners, who are using the tool in their countries – FOCHI in the DRC, PRSTN in Liberia, CAHURAST in Nepal, TCC in Palestine and Luta Hamutuk in Timor Leste.  Integrity Schools for collaborative learning and problem solving – working with local education institutes, Integrity Action organized the course in Francophone Africa (Sept 2012) and the upcoming ones in Anglophone Africa (April 2013), the Arab World (June 2013) and Europe (July 2013). Integrity Action shares community integrity building tools, including Development Check, applied in war-torn countries to improve public resource management.  Integrity Action produced and presented a WBI report on ICT for Open Contracting in Fragile and Conflict-Affected States. Performance Indicators (Intermediate Outcomes/Outputs)  Greater community engagement in monitoring and decision-making for more transparent, accountable and effective public resource management in FCS (9 civil society partners; 1,837 trained community monitors, overseeing 321 projects)  High quality, engaging tools and learning processes are locally owned and applied.  Improved infrastructure and service delivery as a result of community monitoring and collaborative governance. Progress and Achievements (including challenges, if any) Across the 321 projects that NIR partners monitor, success rates vary by country: IWA in Afghanistan – 66%; FOCHI in the DRC – 50%; Luta Hamutuk in Timor Leste – 55%. In Cote d’Ivoire, Social Justice is engaging 150 people to monitor budgets and projects in resource- rich areas and in Palestine 1,200 students will audit 40 projects to ensure greater integrity in infrastructure and service delivery. Partners NIR brings together civil society partners from Afghanistan, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Liberia, Nepal, Palestine, Sierra Leone, South Sudan, Sudan and Timor Leste. This GPP will further enable NIR to strengthen its relations with the OECD Anti-Corruption Task Team, UNDP Global Programme on Anti-Corruption for Development Effectiveness (PACDE), Construction Sector Transparency Initiative (CoST), foundations and bilateral organizations such as DFID, Norad and Open Society Foundations, academic and international NGO partners to contribute to learning, innovations, value for money and results in this field. Governance and Management Changes All funds will flow through Integrity Action for the duration of the DGF. Integrity Action, and ultimately its governing board of trustees, will assume fiduciary responsibilities for safeguarding DGF funds. Country partners may receive DGF funds from Integrity Action through sub- grants. Integrity Action is incorporated in England and Wales as a not-for-profit private company limited by guarantee (company registration no. 4884328) and as a charity with the Charity Commission for England and Wales (charity registration no. 1120927). Integrity Action has established and proven systems and procedures for managing international programs and delivering outcome-based results. Exit Strategy (Disengagement from DGF and Sustainability) As NIR aims to be a more self-sustaining network driven by NIR country partners, the World Bank expects to disengage from DGF funding at the close of FY15. In parallel to scale up activities, NIR is developing its business case for innovative financing and approaching several donors to support the NIR program of work over the longer term. Initial feedback and support suggest that with the signaling impact of DGF funds, it is realistic to assume that the program of work be fully funded for the next three years, after which NIR should be sufficiently established institutionally to sustain activities and support at country level through innovative financing mechanisms, such as a percentage of aid to community-driven accountability and CSO-private partnerships. 114 Annex 16 Public Expenditure Management Network in Asia (PEMNA) Bank Contact (TTL) Name: Robert Taliercio Responsible Sector and Bank Unit: EASPR Full Name of Recipient Agency: Korean Institute of Public Finance (KIPF) Contact Information of the Recipient Agency: jhrv@kipf.re.kr; cshin@kipf.re.kr Budget for the grant period (US$ million) Total Recipient Program Budget: 1.04 FY14 DGF Grant Amount: 0.30 DGF Percentage: 28.8% Grant Development Objectives and expected Development Outcomes The goal of PEMNA is to support formation of a sustainable peer network for public finance practitioners from countries in East Asia and the Pacific (EAP) so that they can share professional experiences implementing public financial management (PFM) reforms, learn from each other, and benchmark their own performance relative to others, in order to improve own country PFM systems. Target participant countries include: Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Korea, Laos, Malaysia, Mongolia, Myanmar, Philippines, Thailand, Timor- Leste, and Vietnam. The Grant Development Objective is to support the first stage of setting up a sustainable peer network for PFM practitioners from EAP countries, including establishing a network governance structure, encouraging member countries’ participation and ownership, supporting development partners’ engagement, and mobilizing additional resources. Expected Development Outcomes: a steering committee, two communities of practice in budget and treasury, and a secretariat are formed and effectively operate in facilitating peer-learning among PFM practitioners. Main Activities Activities include: (i) establishing a steering committee, two communities of practice (CoPs) in budget and treasury, and a secretariat; (ii) organizing activities in each CoP through workshops, exchange visits, videoconferencing, internet-based interactions, a web- based repository of learning, selective use of outside technical expertise, and other activities; (iii) inviting development partners to engage in the network according to their level of interest. The team held a technical launch workshop on June 7-8, 2012 in Bangkok, Thailand. The workshop established two CoPs in budget and treasury in which each CoP discussed key reforms, successes and challenges in member countries. The workshop also established CoP leadership teams: small groups of participants interested in volunteering and playing a leading role in the network. In December 2012, a High Level PEMNA conference was held in Seoul, hosted by the Korean Government in partnership with the World Bank. The conference was attended by finance and budget ministers and vice ministers from seven countries and officials from eleven member countries. In both the high-level and CoP sessions, experiences with PFM reforms were exchanged among participants from various countries. In May 2013 the Ministry of Finance in China and Shanghai Municipal Finance Bureau are planning to host a plenary PEMNA conference in Shanghai partnering with the World Bank. Performance Indicators (Intermediate Outcomes/Outputs) Intermediate Outcomes: A steering committee, two communities of practice, and a secretariat operate under agreed rules of operation, meet on a regular basis, and are implementing activities based on their action plans. These outcomes will be measured by the following indicators: (i) PEMNA’s rules of operation are agreed among member countries and development partners and governance bodies effectively operate in accordance with the rules, (ii) a steering committee is operational, executes its oversight role effectively, and meets on a regular basis; and (iii) two CoPs in budget and treasury meet on a regular basis and hold activities based on the agreed annual plan. 115 Progress and Achievements (including challenges, if any) Through the Bangkok and Seoul conferences, the program has successfully established a Steering Committee, two CoPs in budget and treasury, CoP leadership teams, and a Secretariat. The governance structure has been put in place and the team has been working on operationalizing each function. Through the various CoP activities, officials from member countries have indicated that the network is an extremely useful mechanism in learning about other countries’ successes and challenges. The participants have been gradually taking greater ownership of the network. In addition, development partners have also been engaging actively in supporting the program. The team is facing some administrative challenges working with the KIPF due to the Korean bureaucracy and the newness of their role. Many stakeholders outside the EAP region have shown interest in participating, so the team will have to think about how to manage the membership and how to establish links with other networks. Partners PEMNA is promoting close partnerships with key development partners in the EAP region in strengthening core areas of PFM practice and public sector reform. The Bank and AusAID are the founding partners in supporting the formation of the network. In FY2012-2013, AusAID and the Bank are providing seed funding to launch the network (USD 510,000 from AusAID and 75,000 from the Bank, including staff time and management). The joint Bank-AusAID role is to: (i) facilitate engagement of countries across EAP as network members, either as direct participants or as stakeholders; (ii) provide organizational and logistical support to the network; and (iii) establish a governance arrangement for the network. The Ministry of Strategy and Finance (MoSF) in Korea confirmed in Feb. 2012 that it will provide financial support to PEMNA of USD 1 million annually for the next three years. The MoSF and the Bank have reached out to potential donors including Singapore and Brunei Darussalam. The PEMNA Secretariat was established within the Korean Institute of Public Finance (KIPF) with full-time staff working for PEMNA. Governance and Management Changes The Bangkok and Seoul conferences have formed a Steering Committee (SC), two communities of practice (CoPs) in budget and treasury, CoP leadership teams, and a Secretariat. Topics and issues discussed in each CoP are demand-driven and result from the real- time interests of member country participants guided by the CoP leadership teams. A SC, composed of two representatives from each member country and development partner, is tasked to: (i) develop network strategies, work plans, and budgets; and (ii) provide oversight of CoP activities. The co-chairs of the SC for FY13 are the MoSF and the World Bank. CoP leadership teams have met several times to organize their annual work program. The Secretariat also started operations in Dec. 2012 to support the network activities, particularly supporting the SC, the two CoPs, and the CoP leadership teams, handling overall communications and network administration, including logistical and administrative arrangements for the CoP activities. Exit Strategy (Disengagement from DGF and Sustainability) The Bank’s role is catalytic: DGF funding will provide important seed money to establish the steering committee, set up the CoPs in budget and treasury, form the secretariat and engage member countries and development partners. Initially the Bank would chair the steering committee and set up a multi-donor trust fund to channel additional support to PEMNA. After DGF funding finishes, which is anticipated after FY15, the Bank’s role would be expected to change as the network gains traction with increased ownership of the member countries and development partners. It is hoped that the network would be a sustainable institution and eventually the secretariat would run the network with an advisory committee, of which the Bank would be a member. It is also expected that the Bank would continue to be engaged over the long term, but that its role would change from driver to facilitator over a 3-5 year period. 116 Annex 16 Girl Hub: Investing in Adolescent Girls and Young Women Bank Contact (TTL) Name: Sarah Nedolast Responsible Sector and Bank Unit: PRMGE Full Name of Recipient Agency: Nike Foundation Contact Information of the Recipient Agency: Matthew.DeGalan@nike.com Budget for the grant period (US$ million) Total Recipient Program Budget: 5.60 FY14 DGF Grant Amount: 0.50 DGF Percentage: 9% Grant Development Objectives and expected Development Outcomes The development objective is to enhance the focus on adolescent girls in developing partners' programming and in client country policies. It will do so by strengthening institutional capacity at the country-level to strengthen and scale up investments in vulnerable adolescent girls 10-19 and by fostering greater demand and support for girl-targeted programming. Main Activities Main activities include:  Develop and disseminate knowledge materials and learning opportunities: provide training opportunities and technical assistance to influence and strengthen capacity of in-country policy makers, government and development professionals in the design and implementation of programs that address the unique needs of adolescent girls; leverage and invest in sex and age disaggregated data; and evaluation and research that will build an influential evidence base on the transformational dividend of investing in adolescent girls;  Foster connections, information exchange, and sharing of experience among stakeholders: establish a network to connect global and local girl experts; facilitate cross-country sharing of best practice in girl-centered programming; and prioritize insights from girls to lead and drive scale solutions and communications/messaging. Performance Indicators (Intermediate Outcomes/Outputs)  Number of policy makers and professionals to have completed 2-week training program organized by the mobile Girl Hub University and continue to engage in activities related to the network of experts.  Number of countries receiving technical assistance to design and implement large-scale initiatives focused on addressing the needs of adolescent girls.  Establishment of strong communities in at least 3 countries for collaborating and learning using innovative measure to digitally connect local and global experts. Progress and Achievements (including challenges, if any) The Girl Hub partnership got off to a delayed start, with the first tranche of funding not disbursing until late spring of 2012. Despite this delay, the partnership has made significant progress over the last year. As previously reported, the activities supporting this grant are being delivered through the Girl Effect University (GEU) Platform. Over the past year GEU has laid the groundwork for future growth by building its infrastructure: a team, core curriculum and materials, and a network for participants. Progress has been made toward the primary development objective: to enhance the focus on adolescent girls in developing partners’ programming and in client country policies. Major activities and outputs have included:  Curriculum Development and Knowledge Products - GEU engaged a cadre of girl experts to build a curriculum library that includes thirty-one different topics under three core thematic areas: Girl-Centered Program Design (technical expertise), Influence and Championing Girls (Advocacy) and Private Sector Expertise/Nike Experience (brand development and effective business models).  Workshops and Trainings – As part of its capacity building efforts, GEU delivers workshops and trainings to three target groups: scale planners, implementing organizations, and sector consultants. To date, GEU has delivered three workshops for scale planners and five for implementing organizations, serving 139 participants.  Global Girls Research Initiative – This initiative is a multi-year effort that aims to identify the most effective strategies for improving the well-being of academic girls. As the first phase of this initiative, 75 leading academics and practitioners in adolescent girl programming gathered outside London in October 2012, to share best practices 117 and lessons learned. Five research papers were commissioned for this event, which was co-hosted by Girl Hub and DFID. GEU will cultivate this initial network of experts as part of its ongoing networking activities.  GEU Alumni Network – Work is underway to design a plan to build GEU’s alumni network to keep participants connected to GEU and to each other. This network will provide opportunities for the adolescent girl community to stay engaged and share lessons learned. As previously mentioned, the innovation fund for setting up an innovation fund for technical assistance to strengthen the impact of projects, programs, and policies for girls has been dropped for the time being. The GEU team has begun to look beyond its current grant-funded model to explore how the program can be sustained over time. The GEU team began research and business planning in September 2012, leveraging Nike Inc.’s private sector expertise and outside expertise from a business start-up expert. The team is actively exploring options such as user fees, cost-sharing, digital learning platforms, certification programs, and a coaching/franchise model. Partners Nike Foundation, DFID, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Governance and Management Changes Activities financed through this grant are being delivered through the Girl Effect University Platform. The GEU management team includes: GEU Director, Strategy and Design Manager, GEU Manager, and Curriculum Manager. A GEU Advisory Council with representation from donors (including the World Bank) and partners of the Girl Hub will be established where members receive regular updates on the implementation of Girl Effect U activities, including those funded by the DGF. Exit Strategy (Disengagement from DGF and Sustainability) FY14 is the last year of DGF support. The DGF funding is provided with the clear objective of providing seed funding to the Girl Hub which can help leverage additional funding, provide technical expertise, and link Girl Hub services with client country government programs. The Bank's engagement in the partnership is likely to continue beyond the DGF. The degree of engagement as a donor will change in favor of a partnership built on the Bank contributions in terms of content, technical expertise, implementation experience and strong institutional networks both at global and national levels. In countries where national Hubs have been established, other Bank operational units are likely to take over as the primary interface between the Girl Hub and the Bank. 118 Annex 16 International Tax Dialogue (OECD) Bank Contact (TTL) Name: Blanca Moreno-Dodson Responsible Sector and Bank Unit: PREM Full Name of Recipient Agency: OECD Contact Information of the Recipient Agency: www.itdweb.org Budget for the grant period (US$ million) Total Recipient Program Budget: 0.75 FY14 DGF Grant Amount: 0.15 DGF Percentage: 20% Grant Development Objectives and expected Development Outcomes The objective of the program is to promote an effective international dialogue between governments worldwide and international organizations active in the area of tax policy and tax administration reform. This will be achieved by facilitating the identification and sharing of good practices in taxation, supporting the provision of financial support and technical assistance for tax reforms while helping to avoid the duplication of efforts by multilateral and bilateral institutions, and promoting research and knowledge exchange on tax policy and tax administration key issues. Main Activities The ITD program has three main components: 1. an interactive, real-time, worldwide communications network on tax policy and tax administration reforms (the ITDweb), with free access to data and information for tax authorities and other network participants; 2. a database collecting information on bilateral and multilateral financial support and technical assistance on taxation, and 3. periodic international meetings of tax policy and administration experts to discuss issues of common interest, also in connection with the G20 mandate on domestic resource mobilization and the Global Transparency Forum These main activities are supplemented by selected research activities and online discussion groups. Performance Indicators (Intermediate Outcomes/Outputs)  Better tax policy and tax administration support provided by the WBG in the context of Public Finance loans and AAA, and related TA products (by both IFC and IBRD);  increase in the number of ITDweb users worldwide, specially coming from developing countries, and improvement in the richness of website content;  higher number of countries sharing information on the ITDweb;  global and regional conferences on key tax topics of international relevance, organized and rated positively by conference participants, worldwide; and  collaboration arrangements with other international/bilateral organizations involved in the ITD either as partners, observers, or associates. Progress and Achievements (including challenges, if any) The fourth global ITD Conference was held in December 2011 in Delhi, India. The event was hosted by the Finance Ministry of India as a joint initiative of the ITD partners working on tax issues. As in previous ITD Global Conferences, this event provided a unique opportunity for policy makers and practitioners engaged in making tax decisions to exchange ideas and discuss global issues. Under the theme of “Tax and Inequality�, the 2011 ITD Conference discussed the role of taxation in reducing inequalities in income and wealth. Speakers and discussants tried to identify which tax policies and administration practices have failed and which ones could play a greater role in reducing inequalities in the future. More than 350 senior tax policy makers and administrators from 93 countries and organizations participated at this Conference. Conference participants reflected on how persistent inequalities in their countries relate to past tax policy and administration choices, and what tax instruments could be adopted to promote a more productive, efficient, and equitable tax system. Furthermore, the conference represented a great opportunity for harmonizing tax policy and administration practices at a global level, based on current country practices and emerging global challenges. A conference background paper– was prepared and distributed prior to the conference. The paper highlights important tax issues raised by economic developments that have affected the distribution of income, wealth, and living standards within and between countries over recent years. For example, the increasing difficulties related to taxing capital income, whether due to tax competition, tax avoidance or evasion, are a particular concern for tax administrators and policy makers since 119 this type of income is of much greater significance to the wealthiest taxpayers. Similarly, labor mobility has increased worldwide, especially for low income workers, raising new taxation and inequality issues that need to be dealt with at global levels. A regional conference for MENA on the same topic was held in May 2012, organized in cooperation with the US DF4D initiative. The next global Conference is scheduled to take place in Morocco in 2013. The topic is “Taxation and Intergovernmental Relations� and the World Bank (PREM and Investment Climate Department) is currently working on the agenda with inputs from the MNA region. Collaboration among organizations has become more deeply engrained, with increased participation from senior-level staff. Name recognition of ITD has also increased. There are no risks associated with the participation of the World Bank Group in the ITD. On the contrary, the ITD has fostered better internal collaboration with the WB group, mainly between the IFC Global Tax team and PREM. The ITD is playing an increasingly prominent role in the context of the G-20 mandate to international organizations to promote domestic resource mobilization. In particular, the ITD provides an adequate forum for the partners to jointly prepare G-20 mandated reports on how to make tax systems more effective. Partners IMF, OECD, IDB, UN, EU, IFC, Regional tax administration organizations (CIAT, ATAF). Governance and Management Changes The ITD Steering Group is composed of one representative each of the Bank, IMF, OECD, and IDB. The UN is participating as an observer in the Steering Group meetings. The Steering Group determines the objectives and activities of the ITD, establishes the ITD budget and supervises the ITD Secretariat. The ITD Secretariat is based in the OECD Headquarters and is responsible for the implementation of the Steering group decision and the delivery of the ITD work program. An annual report on the activities of the ITD is prepared by the Steering Group and sent to the heads of the Bank, IMF, IDB and OECD, as well as published on the ITD web. A new Memorandum of Understanding on the operations of the ITD is currently in preparation to be signed in 2013. Exit Strategy (Disengagement from DGF and Sustainability) FY15 will be the last year of DGF support. The first independent evaluation carried out in 2006 concluded that the ITD is widely recognized by its clients as a highly relevant initiative which is filling a gap in the existing field of regional and global initiatives in the tax area and can provide an important contribution to implementing the UN Financing for Development consensus and the Paris declaration on Aid Effectiveness. The most recent independent evaluation was finished in March 2013 indicating that much progress has been made according to the initial objectives and suggesting that ITD continues playing an influential role. Also the demand expressed by developing countries for ITD activities, guidance and products continues increasing. Therefore ITD is expected to become a permanent network of multilateral and bilateral institutions working in the tax area, with strong influence on tax policy making in developing countries. International partners participating in the ITD as well as client countries have stressed the importance of a continuing Bank participation in the ITD. 120 Annex 16 Global Governance and Strengthening Developing Country Voice: G 24 Bank Contact (TTL) Name: Gilles Alfandari Responsible Sector and Bank Unit: PREM Full Name of Recipient Agency: G-24 Secretariat Contact Information of the Recipient Agency: www.g24.org Budget for the grant period (US$ million) Total Recipient Program Budget: 0.71 FY14 DGF Grant Amount: 0.15 DGF Percentage: 21% Grant Development Objectives and expected Development Outcomes The objective of the program is to enhance the voice and participation of developing countries in discussions related to the activities and governance of the Bretton Woods Institutions. The Grant provides support to the G–24 Secretariat, enhancing its capacity to assist its member countries (G–24 Members) to engage and participate effectively in discussions and decision making at the Bank's Board, the Development Committee, the IMF Board and the International Monetary and Financial Committee (IMFC). Main Activities With the overriding aim of strengthening the functioning and capacity of the G-24 Secretariat, DGF is supporting two main activities: (i) strengthening the Office of the Director of the G–24 Secretariat to bolster G–24’s capacity to engage in ongoing discussions with the Bank's and the Fund's Boards and to provide support to developing country chairs; (ii) supporting the G–24’s research program, which is aimed at developing and implementing a research and policy analysis agenda. This agenda is aimed at development policy issues of immediate focus at the Board, the Development Committee, and IMFC. Performance Indicators (Intermediate Outcomes/Outputs) (i) A well-functioning G–24 Secretariat that is proactively engaged in the debates on global governance and that provides effective support to developing countries; (ii) Implementation of the agreed-upon research program (with emphasis on papers that inform the discussions of the Development Committee and IMFC); and (iii) Strengthening contributions from developing country researchers/institutions to G–24 Secretariat background papers. Progress and Achievements (including challenges, if any) In FY 2012-2013, the G-24 continued to make good progress towards meeting the objectives of the work program. Over 6 workshops and high-level seminars were held, on IMF Quota and Governance Reform, Small States, Financial Inclusion and Regulating Global Capital Flows. Technical Group meetings were held in Washington, D.C. in September 2012 and in March 2013, where Growth and Productivity, Quota Reform, Long-term Financing for Infrastructure, Capital Flow Volatility and Development of Local Currency Bond Markets were discussed. The following are some of the highlights from the year:  IFI Governance. The G-24 remained actively engaged on IMF Quota and Governance Reform through the G-24 Working Group. The WG met frequently, usually preceding an Executive Board meeting on quota reform, to discuss possible elements of agreement and review technical work by the Secretariat. High-level seminars on the topic were organized in collaboration with Brookings and CIGI in August 2012 and January 2013. The Secretariat was also very actively engaged in supporting and representing the views externally of emerging markets and developing countries in the process of the selection of the President of the World Bank.  Infrastructure Financing. Financing for infrastructure development has figured prominently in the work program and deliberations of the Group. The G-24 has partnered with the Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI, LSE) and produced a series of reports and presentations deepening the analytical work on infrastructure needs and assessing the existing financial architecture, working in close collaboration with a team directed by Professor Nick Stern. This work provided the basis for discussions during the Technical Group Meeting and Spring Meetings in 2013.  Financial Inclusion. The G-24 continued its collaboration with the Alliance for Financial Inclusion (AFI), and jointly hosted a roundtable at the 2013 Spring Meetings on the impact of standard-setting bodies’ provisions on financial inclusion in emerging markets and developing countries, based on country experiences and an exchange 121 of views on how global standards need to be adapted to national circumstances.  Managing Capital Flow Volatility. Recent surges in capital flows have sparked a renewed debate about appropriate policy responses and the role of the IMF. The G-24 has been actively engaged in that debate by commissioning its own policy research, engaging in the discussions at the IMF and in other fora, and organized a high profile seminar and engagement with Executive Directors on the recent Taskforce on Regulating Capital Flows anchored by the Pardee Center of Boston University. Partners G-24 Secretariat; IMF, G-24 member countries. Governance and Management Changes The DGF grant supports the G-24 Secretariat, whose Director reports to the G–24 Ministers and Deputies, through a Bureau comprised of the Chair, the First Vice Chair, and the Second Vice Chair. There is a standing bureau which provides guidance on day-to-day matters. DGF funds are placed in an independent special account. External audits of the financial statements of the G–24 are preformed regularly. Exit Strategy (Disengagement from DGF and Sustainability) FY16 will be the last year of DGHF support for this partnership. However, the partnership will remain strategically important as long as G–24 retains its critical role in shaping and furthering the views and interests of developing countries. The Bank intends to remain engaged with the G–24 on a long-term basis even after DGF funding support ends. 122 Annex 16 Sustainable Advancement of Gender Equality (SAGE) Bank Contact (TTL) Name: Nadereh Chamlou Responsible Sector and Bank Unit: Gender – PREM Full Name of Recipient Agency: Center of Arab Women for Training and Research Contact Information of the Recipient Agency: www.cawtar.org.tn Budget for the grant period (US$ million) Total Recipient Program Budget: 2.53 FY14 DGF Grant Amount: 0.15 DGF Percentage: 5% Grant Development Objectives and expected Development Outcomes The purpose of the SAGE-MNA grant has been to develop over a 5–6 year period (2006-2011) sustainable and diversified capacity in MENA to carry out gender-related and analytically robust policy research. (i) SAGE promoted economic research through competitions in fields that impact women’s economic empowerment and opportunities; (ii) SAGE built the capacity of researchers in necessary analytical tools to produce quality research; (iii) SAGE disseminated the research inside and outside MENA through a series conferences; and (iv) SAGE facilitated the dialogue between decision/policymakers and researchers to shape the content of policies. Main Activities Component 1 (Research and Policy component – GERPA) focused on capacity-building among mainstream economic researchers and encouraged the integration of gender into economic policy research, which would otherwise not have addressed gender. It provided researchers funding to conduct gender-specific research in their fields of specialization, with the intention that this will expose them to the literature and analytics of the field of gender, which they would be able to integrate into their daily work. Most of these researchers were engaged in policy research, leading think tanks or research institutes of MENA. Component 2 (Gender Networks – NGED and PGN) convened Arab and Persian speaking Gender experts and practitioners across disciplines (e.g. policymakers, lawyers, anthropologists, sociologist, NGOs, etc.), with diverse reach into grass root organizations. SAGE funded their participation in conferences to interact with each other and with GERPA researchers, hence strengthening the dialogue among diverse groups dealing with women’s empowerment, as well as creating knowledge management and network tools and products. Performance Indicators (Intermediate Outcomes/Outputs) (i) Increased number of researchers in gender related disciplines (ii) Increased number and higher quality of research outputs Progress and Achievements (including challenges, if any) GERPA: The output from the three rounds of multi-year and multi-tier research competitions is coming to closure. Most research papers have been completed or are in the last stages of the review. Overall around 48 research projects were accepted and funded. Among the completed paper, around 15 have been published in established journals. Another 16-18 papers have been selected for inclusion into a GERPA research compendium, currently under preparation. Researchers have also presented their papers at various regional and international conferences thus helping in the dissemination of the research. In the process, GERPA increased the number of well-trained economists active on gender research from around five, prior to, to about 95, after the GERPA initiative. As many Arab countries are moving into post-revolutionary stages, it has become increasingly clear that the newly elected bodies are dominated by conservative groups. As such, the importance of pushing the gender front has become even more urgent. To this end, several funders have stepped forward to continue the GERPA research. UNDP co-funded GERPA for $100K for two years between 2011 and today. AGFUND pledged $250K for three years, to continue GERPA. This will provide continuity for the research and dissemination of the output. Gender Networks: The progress on the networks has also been sustained. Through the Arab Gender Network (ANGED), CAWTAR has been able to submit proposal for gender work to bilateral and multi-lateral organizations, as well as foundations, and receive funding for this work; thus, keeping the network active and engaged. The Persian Gender Network (PGN) has been established as a standalone non-profit in the US, which will enable it to access and apply for funds independently. It has established its board of directors, and is exploring funding from diverse sources. It will slowly wean itself off of CAWTAR. 123 Partners AGFUND, UN Agencies, Islamic Bank, Ford Foundation, Oxfam, Mercy Corp, GIZ, OFID, IPPF, etc. Governance and Management Changes CAWTAR executes the entire DGF Funds, though only a share of the funds remain with CAWTAR and the remainder is disbursed to researchers. CAWTAR is audited on a regular basis that submits its report to the Board of Trustees. It a CAWTAR is the executing agency, governed by a Board of Trustees. CAWTAR is audited on a regular basis that submits its report to the Board of Trustees. It also has a Technical Committee, which reviews management proposals and recommends them to the Board for approval. For the purposes of GERPA, CAWTAR established a separate governance process to ensure the quality oversight on the economic front. This governance process consists of a Steering Committee which guided the overall direction of the research and approved the yearly work program, and an Advisory Committee which reviews the quality aspects of the research in greater detail. The Steering Committee consists of leading intellectuals, two Nobel Laureates, several sitting ministers, and representatives from the World Bank. The Advisory Committee consists of prominent economists and academics from across the region. Exit Strategy (Disengagement from DGF and Sustainability) SAGE has prepared a disengagement plan with CAWTAR and enacted its disengagement strategy. FY14 will be the third and last year for DGF’s membership contribution for CAWTAR. 124 Annex 16 Global Initiative for Fiscal Transparency (GIFT) Bank Contact (TTL) Name: Nicola J. Smithers Responsible Sector and Bank Unit: PRMPS/PRMVP Full Name of Recipient Agency: The International Budget Partnership at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities Contact Information of the Recipient Agency: krafchik@cbpp.org Budget for the grant period (US$ million) Total Recipient Program Budget: 2.75 FY14 DGF Grant Amount: 0.75 DGF Percentage: 29% Grant Development Objectives and expected Development Outcomes The goal is to help countries bring about sustained and measurable improvements in fiscal transparency. Fiscal transparency is an important governance objective in its own right but is also expected to bring about improvements in government effectiveness by strengthening accountability within government, and to oversight institutions, the public and the clients of public services. There is mounting evidence that fiscal transparency and openness contribute to better development outcomes. There is also evidence that countries can make significant progress in fiscal transparency over relatively short period of time. Nonetheless, progress is patchy and standards of fiscal transparency are still poor in many, indeed most, developed and developing countries. GIFT is a multi-stakeholder action network that seeks to accelerate achievement of this goal by bringing together a diverse actors (including global norm setters, governments, civil society organizations, international finance institutions, and foundations) that hitherto pursued this agenda independently, in order to a) strengthen the international normative architecture for fiscal transparency; b) improve understanding of fiscal transparency incentives, impacts, practical approaches and innovations (such as ICT); c) mobilize interested governments to collaborate in the partnership; and d) support multi-stakeholder initiatives at the country level. DGF financing will help GIFT to build on its promising start, notably UN General Assembly endorsement of GIFT High Level Principles, to significantly expand the GIFT network and work program to achieve these goals. The key final outcomes are: 1. Increased alignment and harmonization of fiscal transparency norms/instruments, and new guidance on public participation in fiscal policy. 2. International and country stakeholders access a deeper body of knowledge and peer/south-south learning on incentives, impact, practical approaches and innovations in fiscal transparency. 3. A broader group of countries actively pursuing fiscal transparency and participation. 4. An increase in the number of multi-stakeholder initiatives supporting fiscal transparency and participation at the country level, in developing countries. Main Activities The objectives for the first year of DGF are to:  expand its work program, undertaking applied research and multi-stakeholder dialogues on the incentives of key stakeholders and evidence of impact of fiscal transparency reform, and norms for public participation in fiscal policy;  undertake further work with stakeholders on harmonization of normative instruments;  gather and share knowledge on country approaches to fiscal transparency reforms and innovative practices;  convene Open Government Partnership (OGP) countries that have formally committed to fiscal transparency reforms and other interested developing countries and launch a community of practice focused on south-south knowledge exchange; and  develop plans for mobilizing developing country governments and new funding sources Performance Indicators (Intermediate Outcomes/Outputs) 1. Revisions consistent with GIFT High Level Principles are proposed to IMF Fiscal Transparency Code and PEFA indicators following broad consultations, and consensus developed towards the development of a guide on public participation in fiscal policy among multi-disciplinary reference group 2. Stakeholder incentives survey and analyses are completed, joint GIFT-Open Government Partnership community of practice is established, evidence increased and practical knowledge of countries increased through peer learning and locally-developed case studies (including Brazil and Philippines). 3. A plan is elaborated and agreed for expansion of the membership and mobilization of funds, and mechanisms are created for collaboration with Open Government Partnership and other countries. The international profile of GIFT is raised. Outreach initiated with academics and media. 4. Plan developed with OGP countries and others (through workshops etc) to support multi-stakeholder approaches at the country level, for example through efficient and coordinated access to good practices, tools, assessments and 125 south-south knowledge exchange. Progress and Achievements (including challenges, if any) Not applicable; this is a new program to start in FY14. Partners Brazil, Philippines, Open Society Institute (OSI), International Monetary Fund (IMF), International Budget Partnership with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Hewlett Foundation Governance and Management Changes GIFT is a multi-stakeholder action network, with seventeen members. GIFT’s governance arrangements are laid out in its “Working Principles�. The GIFT Stewards Committee comprising representatives of all member organizations is the governing body. The GIFT Stewards appoint a rotating Chair. GIFT Stewards meet once a year to approve the work program and budget. A sub-group of five Lead Stewards have a more operational role meeting at least quarterly to monitor progress and update the work program. Four technical working groups comprising representatives from all member organizations are responsible for implementing GIFT’s work program. The International Budget Partnership with its parent Center on Budget and Policy Priorities provides in-kind administrative support. A non-profit organization with extensive experience in global networking, Innovations for Scaling Impact (iScale), facilitates GIFT processes, action-agenda implementation, and administrative oversight, under the overall coordination of the Lead Stewards. As a Lead Steward, the Bank provides guidance, assistance and feedback to the activities and direction of GIFT. The Bank will work with other Lead Stewards to manage the implementation of the activities related to the various working groups and the coordination with Stewards on the work program. There is no intention to transfer GIFT to the World Bank. Exit Strategy (Disengagement from DGF and Sustainability) During the DGF funding period, the Bank, will continue to play a significant leadership and technical role. However, as membership broadens, the Bank expects that national authorities and other organizations will assume active role in directing GIFT’s work program and the Bank’s role can shift from one of leader to one of member. GIFT’s financial plan will serve as the basis for monitoring progress in achieving GIFT’s sustainability goals. GIFT’s governance arrangements will be reviewed during the course of FY15 to take account of expanding membership. Some GIFT objectives are expected to be largely achieved during the period (e.g. norms development), so the focus of the program will evolve. The Bank’s engagement beyond the DGF funding period will depend on the results achieved, the future program needs, the extent to which the forward agenda continues to align with Bank priorities and the value-added that the Bank can provide. FY16 will be the last year of DGF support. 126 Annex 16 Jobs and Development: Creating Multi-Disciplinary Solutions Bank Contact (TTL) Name: Gladys C. Lopez-Acevedo Responsible Sector and Bank Unit: PRMPR/PRMVP Full Name of Recipient Agency:  Korea Development Institute (KDI), Korea  Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER), New Delhi, India  Development Policy Research Unit at UCT, Cape Town, South Africa  Institute for Emerging Market Studies at HKSUT, Hong Kong SAR, China  Latin American Economic Association (LACEA), Bogota, Colombia  Institute for Structural Research (IBS), Warsaw, Poland Contact Information of the Recipient Agency:  http://www.kdi.re.kr/kdi_eng/  http://www.icrier.org/  http://www.dpru.uct.ac.za/  http://www.vprg.ust.hk/centers.html  http://www.lacea.org  http://www.ibs.org.pl/ang/ Budget for the grant period (US$ million) Total Recipient Program Budget: 9.15 FY14 DGF Grant Amount: 1.05 DGF Percentage: 13-14% Grant Development Objectives and expected Development Outcomes The objective of the first year is to build the Network on Jobs and Development (NJD), to: 1. Encourage more multi-sectoral work. The partners are currently active in labor related issues, but rarely take a multi-sectoral approach. Having partners with expertise from different backgrounds will help to cross-fertilize and enrich the approaches to developing solutions to the jobs agenda. 2. Build a broader international partnership. The partner institutions, largely focused on domestic and regional issues, are all very motivated to be part of a larger international network, to share and learn from experiences in other parts of the world and to raise the profile of their engagement. NJD events will engage partners to work together. Principals will jointly propose topics to be highlighted and to coordinate activities–including conferences, Google Hang Outs and policy notes. Each institution will solicit contributions from its own membership network as well as disseminate the activities of the larger partnership. 3. Transition from the Jobs Knowledge Platform (JKP), a Bank-led partnership, to a true external partnership through the NJD. Finalizing the new governance structure and ensuring the smooth transition from JKP to NJD are themselves significant contributions. The initial meetings of principals will focus on further develop the governance structure and the transition plans in the process of finalizing the results framework. Main Activities The DGF funding will provide grants for Research, Blogs, Policy Notes, and Open Report or Wiki on Jobs, Regional Conferences and Google Hangouts, and NJD Governing Body Meetings. Performance Indicators (Intermediate Outcomes/Outputs) Objective 1: Build a vibrant and broad community of practice around the theme of Jobs. Outcomes: NJD governance structure established, governing Body meets regularly, and Bank relinquished its roles as secretariat. Intermediate Outcomes for First Year of Support: NJD governance structure in place Objective 2: Foster consensus on the need to tackle the jobs challenge from a multi-sectoral and multi-disciplinary perspective. Outcomes: A partnership that is multi-sectoral and multi-disciplinary in working on understanding the constraints and solutions to jobs challenges Intermediate Outcomes for First Year of Support: A work program of activities that reflects a multi-disciplinary and multi-sectoral approach to the jobs agenda, including blogs, policy notes, on-line debates and contributions to the Working Wiki (the open source report on jobs). Objective 3: Strengthen capacities, tools and lessons learned across NJD members and inform NJD contribution to global dialogue. Outcomes: North-South and South-South exchanges on research and policy issues, use and dissemination of multi-sectoral data and tools for analysis. Intermediate Outcomes for First Year of Support: Use of the JKP website 127 and data, expanding access to additional multi-sectoral data sources and tools for analysis and results that address the effectiveness of policies and programs. Progress and Achievements (including challenges, if any) Not applicable; this is a new program to start in FY14. Partners Economic Research Forum, IBRD, IDRC, Canada, IZA, Inter-American Development Bank (IADB), McKinsey and Company. Governance and Management Changes The partnership will use the institutional setting developed by the recently launched JKP as the foundation for the NJD. All partners, including the Bank, will participate in the NDJ’s Governing Body. It will meet quarterly in the first year and then 1-2 times a year the second and third year. The first meeting will be in person; thereafter meetings will be a combination of in-person and virtual, as principals are able. Where possible, meetings will be held in conjunction with events that already bring multiple partners together. The Governing Body will identify the topics for research and policy analysis and the activities to be delivered each year. Topics that are priorities for multiple partnerships will be given preference. The activities selected by this body would be carried out by each partner in a decentralized fashion, with coordination between the participating partners to ensure partner ownership of the events. The NJD will ensure that synergies across regions and partners are exploited. The day-to- day activities will be managed by a small secretariat that will report to the Governing Body. The NJD will also have an Advisory Council that will include representatives from ILO, OECD, the private sector, trade unions, as well as academics to provide technical advice on the various activities, and to serve as an independent sounding board. During the first year, the JKP secretariat will provide technical support to the NJD until the NJD’s governance structure is decided. In the second year, the NJD secretariat will be established and based outside the Bank. Exit Strategy (Disengagement from DGF and Sustainability) The Bank will be engaged for 3 years, FY16 being the last year of DGF support. During this period the GPP will actively seek additional funds and phase out the role of Bank as a funding entity. Other partners, including the IDRC, have expressed an interest in being the secretariat of the network. 128 Annex 16 Revitalizing Multilateral Trade Cooperation in Multipolar World Bank Contact (TTL) Name: Chad P. Bown Responsible Sector and Bank Unit: DECTI/DECVP Full Name of Recipient Agency: Recipient Agency:  South African Institute of International Affairs Subgrantees:  Korea Institute for International Economic Policy, Korea  Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Singapore  Centro Brasileiro de Relações Internacionais, Brazil  Center for Policy Dialogue, Bangladesh  Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, India Contact Information of the Recipient Agency: South African Institute of International Affairs Email: catherine.grant@saiia.org.za Budget for the grant period (US$ million) Total Recipient Program Budget: 2.20 FY14 DGF Grant Amount: 0.35 DGF Percentage: 16 % Grant Development Objectives and expected Development Outcomes The partnership aims to stimulate greater engagement and focus of policymakers and the business and research communities in emerging markets, on how multilateral cooperation on trade and investment-related policies is in their interest. The basic aim is to see a greater focus on, and support for the WTO in major middle income countries as the locus of cooperation on trade matters as opposed to the prevailing dominance of regional and bilateral approaches. The development objectives are to:  Reduce trade diversion and excessive administrative costs for business and governments in MICs  Influence national agenda to use the WTO to address issues of interest to business in middle income Final outcomes would be measured as some of the following:  A final, negotiated conclusion to the WTO’s Doha Round of negotiations  Evidence that these middle income countries are continuing to use the multilateral auspices provided by the WTO system  Evidence that these countries themselves are not flouting the multilateral rules and obligations of the WTO. Main Activities Activities will center on a series of meetings hosted by each of the research institutes on specific subjects that are central to sustaining/moving forward multilateral trade cooperation. Each of the partners in developing countries will be the principal convener of an international roundtable on a specific topic(s). Each meeting will target leaders of opinion, senior trade officials, business representatives and independent experts from the host country and other countries in the respective region that are influential in the policymaking debates and/or that have a strong interest in international trade and the operation of the global trading system. Participation in each meeting will also include business representatives, senior analysts and former senior policymakers from developed and developing countries, some of whom will be affiliated with research institutes in those countries. Each meeting will be informed by a single document formed by consolidating a number of short issue papers prepared by the host institute and members of the network that will be established by the partners. Performance Indicators (Intermediate Outcomes/Outputs) The key intermediate outcome is evidence that these research institutes have further developed an enhanced domestic institutional infrastructure and capacity to engage the public on the policy dialogue around the benefits of multilateral cooperation over international trade issues. Improved domestic institutions in this context would be indicated by the business and worker interests that are reliant on the multilateral trading system having a greater voice and access to their national policymakers to continue to facilitate progress for policy reform. The evidence will arise through the DGF resulting in outputs such as inclusive workshops and public dissemination of policy pieces (op-eds, policy briefs, etc) and other research around the topic of development interests in the multilateral trading system. 129 Progress and Achievements (including challenges, if any) Not applicable; this is a new program to start in FY14. Partners Cordell Hull Institute, Washington DC; European University Institute, Italy; South African Institute of International Affairs; Korea Institute for International Economic Policy, Korea; Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Singapore; Centro Brasileiro de Relações Internacionais, Brazil; Center for Policy Dialogue, Bangladesh; Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, India Governance and Management Changes The grant will be allocated to the South African Institute of International Affairs (SAIIA) which would then further disburse funds through sub-grants to the other research institutes. A steering committee will be established to coordinate among the partner institutes to organize a cohesive set of activities and deliverables over the grant period. The steering committee will be made up of a representative from each of the partner institutes as well as a representative from the World Bank, and will meet virtually. The partners will select, manage, deliver and monitor the program activities in collaboration with the Cordell Hull Institute which will oversee the coordination of specific topics and the participants chosen for each roundtable meeting, and will include participation by senior analysts and former policymakers from OECD countries, some of whom will be affiliated with think tanks and research institutes that have established policy research programs centering on the operation of the global trading system. The project will be implemented by the partner institutes in developing countries who will organize and implement activities in their respective regions. Exit Strategy (Disengagement from DGF and Sustainability) The partnership program is time-limited to two years by design, FY15 being the last year of DGF support. It does not establish a formal institutional infrastructure (e.g., there is no “Secretariat�) that would require a formal exit/disengagement plan, instead it will be managed by a steering committee. 130 Annex 16 Performance-based Public Management in SAR (PERPAL) Bank Contact (TTL) Name: Roland Lomme Responsible Sector and Bank Unit: SASGP/SARVP Full Name of Recipient Agency: Institute for Public Enterprise Contact Information of the Recipient Agency: Institute of Public Enterprise, Osmania University, Hyderabad 500 007, Andhra Pradesh, India Full Name of Recipient Agency: BRAC University Contact Information of the Recipient Agency: BRAC University, 66 Mahakhali, Dhaka 1212, Bangladesh Budget for the grant period (US$ million) Total Recipient Program Budget: 6.30 FY14 DGF Grant Amount: 0.50 DGF Percentage: 14 Grant Development Objectives and expected Development Outcomes On the long term, the Performance Peer-assisted Learning (PER PAL) Partnership aims to improve public service delivery by strengthening and mainstreaming performance-based management across Indian states and SAR countries through sharing of experiences, peer-based quality control, cross support, emulation and benchmarking. The objective for the first year of DGF support is to establish two peer-assisted learning networks, one for Indian states and another one for SAR countries, to promote and mainstream performance management through sharing of experiences, peer-based quality control, cross support, emulation and benchmarking. The development objective is to strengthen and mainstream performance-based management across Indian states and SAR countries. The development outcomes are:  Performance-based management institutionalized and strengthened across India (including Indian states) and SAR countries and constituent entities,  Two peer-assisted networks institutionalized to promote performance-based management through sharing of experiences among practitioners, peer-based quality enhancement, cross-support and benchmarking. Main Activities  Update interactive website and launch extranet accessible to PER PAL members and participants  Regional CoP operational  Independent peer reviews of performance management systems Performance Indicators (Intermediate Outcomes/Outputs) Two peer learning networks established, one covering states in India and the other SAR countries, with a Secretariat, at least one CoP operational and a website. Progress and Achievements (including challenges, if any) Not applicable; this is a new program to start in FY14. Partners Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID); Department for International Development UK (DFID); Government of Bangladesh; Government of Nepal; Government of Norway; Government of Pakistan; Government of the Province of Maharastra, India; IBRD. Governance and Management Changes A Steering Committee (SC) will be established to govern the Partnership, including representatives from the GoI, participant Indian states and SAR countries, the SAARC secretariat, the Bank and other development partners supporting the Partnership. Indian states and SAR countries would be invited to nominate a representative once they agree to join and participate in CoPs. The PER PAL SC will meet twice a year and will decide annually on a work program for the two Secretariats that will manage the Partnership. It is expected that the SC will play a critical role in promoting synergies between the Indian and the Regional communities of practice on performance management, and exploit peer learning opportunities across both programs. The Institute of Public Enterprises (IPE) will act as Secretariat to manage partnership activities to support implementation 131 of performance management within India and its responsibilities will include:  Maintain records (info) on PERPAL membership in Indian states, and make these contact details available on PERPAL website.  Facilitate communication between the members of the PERPAL network in India, by maintaining the website content and organizing and coordinating video, tele- and web conferences.  Publish/update relevant information on partnership activities within India and maintain related archives.  Implement the activities in the work program approved by the SC in accordance with the agreed budget.  Assist CoPs in formulating work plans and provide organizational and coordination support for preparation and implementation of COP activities.  Support data collection efforts and benchmarking initiatives.  Organize peer learning activities, stakeholder meetings, and dissemination events in India.  Manage DGF funds and report to SC and DGF TTLs on implementation of the DGF grant  Prepare annual reports and report annually on all financial matters related to implementation of partnership activities in India to the SC  Organize SC meetings in collaboration with the Regional Secretariat. BRAC University will act as the Regional Secretariat to manage partnership activities to support implementation of performance management in SAR countries and its responsibilities will be similar to IPE's but for regional activities. Exit Strategy (Disengagement from DGF and Sustainability) It is planned that the Bank will disengage financially beyond FY16 and that other stakeholders (national governments of SAR countries, Indian state governments, academic institutions, donors) will take over the financing of established and institutionalized Communities of Practice afterwards. 132 Annex16 Arab Spring Development Initiative Bank Contact (TTL) Name: Melise Jaud Responsible Sector and Bank Unit: MNACE/MNAVP Full Name of Recipient Agency: Economic Research Forum Contact Information of the Recipient Agency: 21 Al-Sad Al-Aaly St., Dokki, Cairo, Egypt P.O.Box:12311. Tel: (+202) 333 18 600-603/ Fax: (+202) 333 18 604 Budget for the grant period (US$ million) Total Recipient Program Budget: 6.14 FY14 DGF Grant Amount: 1.50 DGF Percentage: 25% Grant Development Objectives and expected Development Outcomes The purpose of the Arab Spring Development Initiative (ASDI) is to create knowledge, build research capacity, improve access to information, and ensure wide dissemination of new findings in the context of the ongoing political and economic transformation in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. The development objectives of the partnership are:  Inform the policy dialogue and public debate  Fill a knowledge gap on the politics and economics of the Arab Spring  Enhance transparency and accountability, encourage innovation, and foster citizen participation For the lifetime of DGF support, the ASDI program has the following development outcomes: 1. New data and micro-data sets accessed publicly and freely by researchers and the public, via the ERF data portal. 2. Government policy and development community informed through new analytical work on the issues of politics and economics of the Arab Spring, inequality, employment and economic diversification. 3. Facilitated exchange of ideas among scholars, policy makers, development practitioners, disseminated new insights and public debate stimulated. Main Activities 1. Make data publicly and freely available. Similar to the Bank’s open data policy, the ERF will collect and make publicly and freely available to researchers, policy makers and the public, new data, primarily micro-data (household, individual and firm level data) but also country level data, on the Arab countries. An ultimate goal would be to create an open data platform, so that ERF can serve as a regional hub, with the advantage of being closer to the governments, researchers and citizens. The data collection has already been initiated and will continue. ERF has collected 33 household surveys for 13 MENA countries and has initiated a process of collection of firm level data in 3 MENA countries. 2. Generate new insights through research projects focused on new concerns raised since the Arab Spring. The ERF will produce policy relevant research targeting four new topics, namely: (i) The Economics and Politics of Arab Awakening, (ii) Inequality, (iii) Employment, and (iv) Natural Resource and Economic Diversification. 3. Provide platforms for open exchange of ideas and policy discussion among various stakeholders on those four new topics relevant to the region and disseminate knowledge widely. 133 Performance Indicators (Intermediate Outcomes/Outputs) Regarding the first year of support, the program intermediate outcome will be:  Creation of a new platform making data and micro-data publicly and freely available  Publication of new research work on four new topics: the politics and economics of the Arab Spring, inequality, employment and economic diversification  Encouraging open exchange of ideas and policy dialogues through seminars, conferences, online tools but also via new social media. Progress and Achievements (including challenges, if any) Not applicable; this is a new program to start in FY14. Partners Arab Fund for Social and Economic Development, Economic Research Forum, European Union, Global Development Network, IDRC, Canada, Silatech, Swiss Agency for Development Cooperation Governance and Management Changes 1. Partnership structure: The partnership is set as "Bank support to an independent legal entity". ERF is uniquely qualified to be the key implementation partner for the following reasons. First, ERF is as a regional not-for-profit organization, is an independent legal entity, operating under the Egyptian Law on Associations and Community Foundations (Law 84 of 2002) and the Implementing Regulation for Law 84 of 2002 (Ministry of Social Solidarity and Justice Decree 178 of 2002). ERF has a Board of Trustees, a Managing Director and an experienced management team. ERF has a strong governance structure, with clear divisions of labor among its organs as well as transparency and accountability. Second, ERF has a strong track record for conducting research and informing the policy debate. Finally, there is no other big player in this field, with the level of capacity ERF has. 2. Bank's role: The World Bank's involvement will be one of arm’s length in the oversight and management of the initiative, where all decision-making lies with the ERF and outside the Bank. Its involvement and staff time will be paid out of the BB budget. 3. Documentation: The ERF Forum’s charter is voted on by the Research Fellows and available upon request. The Board, which comprises 13 members, includes representatives of the largest 4 donors. The majority (7 out of 13) of the Board of Trustees is elected by the research fellows. The Chief Economist of the World Bank for the MENA region currently represents the Bank on the BOT. Representatives from United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and International Development Research Center (IDRC) have a place on the Board as observers. Like IDRC, the Bank will have a non-voting status on the Board. In addition, the Board acts more as an advisory body and does not vote on ERF projects. Exit Strategy (Disengagement from DGF and Sustainability) DGF support is requested for three years, with declining contributions. This will allow the Bank to progressively disengage and thus limit the risk of ERF being financially dependent on the Bank, making it clear that further funding through DGF will not be available. In addition, during this period ERF will secure additional funding sources from a number of donors. Importantly, the World Bank will remain involved with the ERF as an advisor on knowledge, open data and data access issues. FY16 will be the last year of DGF support. 134 Annex 16 Intra-African Talent / Labor Mobility and Skills Development Program Bank Contact (TTL) Name: Kofi Anani Responsible Sector and Bank Unit: AFCRI/AFRVP Full Name of Recipient Agency: Regional Multidisciplinary Center of Excellence Contact Information of the Recipient Agency: Regional Multidisciplinary Centre of Excellence 6th Floor, Baroda Building, Port Louis, Mauritius Budget for the grant period (US$ million) Total Recipient Program Budget: 5.60 FY14 DGF Grant Amount: 1.70 DGF Percentage: 24% Grant Development Objectives and expected Development Outcomes The partnership seeks to establish "Schengen" and or related type mechanisms from other regions on Talent mobility and skills development to accelerate economic integration, open borders, common policies / laws in Africa. The Partnership is open to all interested African countries after the implementation of the start-up in the context of the Accelerated Program of Economic Integration (APEI) agreed in September 2012 by a group of five reform oriented and like-minded countries (Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Seychelles, and Zambia). The development objectives of the partnership are to:  Boost growth and competitiveness of companies with actions to fill needed skills development gaps.  Enhance intra-African Talent / Labor mobility to address skills mismatch across borders. Main outcome will be the development of an “Intra-African Talent Mobility and Skills Development� framework agreement that would provide an “open platform� to which African countries could subscribe to enhance intra-African labor mobility and fill needed skills development gaps, subject to signing and a commitment to implementation in the spirit of EU type Schengen agreement. Actionable framework activities would remove constraints and address the primary concerns of businesses where such interests intersect with international labor mobility. Main Activities Overall objective is to reach an agreement and facilitate the signing and implementation of a comprehensive framework (Memorandum of Understanding-MOU among participating countries) for intra-African Talent mobility. This will involve:  Stocktaking and Country Assessments of constraints, critical skills gaps, likely impact on reforms and mitigating measures;  Elaboration and Design of Framework Agreement;  Conducting series of Multi-stakeholder Dialogues and Exchanges, and  Preparation and Signing of Framework Agreement by Participating Countries The implementation of the Framework Agreement will be done in year two and three. The Partnership will go beyond this phase of DGF support and focus on scaling up the pilot to involve more interested countries based on their buy-in, and which would require additional resources. Performance Indicators (Intermediate Outcomes/Outputs) (i) Baseline studies / diagnostics produced in participating countries. These will be used to measure subsequent progress through periodic monitoring of agreed indicators and milestones (ii) Skills mapping in participating countries undertaken: These will enable an understanding of the dynamics and interests as well as public perceptions to inform a subsequent communications strategy, and help overcome in the short term challenge of linking supply and demand for labor across borders including tapping into Diaspora talent pools. It will also help in the medium to long term to foster partnerships with local education and training providers to devise appropriate training curricula and programs. (iii) Talent Competitive Profiling designed: This would enable better understanding of how lack of labor mobility and unavailability of skills needed in production processes undermines competitiveness and what might be the benefits of removing some of the barriers to talent mobility in target countries. (iv) Comprehensive policy reforms package produced following multi-stakeholder dialogues and enhanced collaboration between Governments, private sector, and civil society. 135 Progress and Achievements (including challenges, if any) Not applicable; this is a new program to start in FY14. Partners African Development Bank (AfDB); European Union (EU); French Development Agency (AFD); International Labor Organization (ILO); The International Organization for Migration (IOM); UNECA; United Nations Development Programme (UNDP); World Economic Forum. Governance and Management Changes On behalf of the participating countries, Mauritius will take the lead and serve as the main project sponsor. The Regional Multidisciplinary Center of Excellence (RMCE) based in Mauritius will be the Grant Recipient and serve as an Interim Program Secretariat (IPS). The RMCE is governed by a Board of Directors comprising representatives of the three founding members that is Mauritius, the Indian Ocean Commission and the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), as well as other stakeholders. Development partners including the EU, AfDB have provided financial assistance for the RMCE's operations, and the RMCE has successfully managed several external funds for training and capacity building for the African continent. The Governing body of the partnership program will be the Regional Working Group (RWG) of the Accelerated Program for Economic Integration (APEI) of the five reform oriented and like-minded countries (Mauritius, Malawi, Mozambique, Seychelles and Zambia) that signed an agreement in September 2012 to accelerate economic integration. As a Council of Ministers, the RWG serves as the Apex body of APEI. Members of the RWG are the chairs of the National Working Groups (NWGs) appointed by the various countries. The RWG will guide and advise the IPS on the implementation, and parallel efforts to eventually create a permanent Secretariat for the program. The IPS will voluntarily follow Bank policies with respect to financial management, procurement and supervision, and will receive support in these areas from the sponsoring CMU. Exit Strategy (Disengagement from DGF and Sustainability) The Intra-African Talent Mobility Partnership is part of a broader sub-regional (APEI / RMCE), continent-wide (AU) and Global processes (UN, GFMD). The DGF support is mainly requested as seed grant to prepare and jump-start the program. The Bank is not expected to make financial contributions beyond the DGF 3-year funding period but may continue to be involved through direct lending opportunities which the program may generate, or indirectly through advisory services, knowledge exchanges, Technical Expertise and intellectual leadership assistance by virtue of involvement in related sub- regional, continental and global initiatives in Africa. The program will be sufficiently supported and sustained with the involvement of the aforementioned Global Partners, African Governments, UN and related agencies. It is envisaged that the pilot program will generate tangible, visible and measurable benefits drawing the interests of other African countries and private sector companies to spur ultimately replication and scaling up initiatives throughout the continent. 136 Annex 16 South Africa Health Knowledge Hub Pilot Bank Contact (TTL) Name: Patrick Lumumba Osewe Responsible Sector and Bank Unit: AFTHE/AFRVP Full Name of Recipient Agency: To Be Determined Contact Information of the Recipient Agency: N/A Budget for the grant period (US$ million) Total Program Budget: 38.2 FY14 DGF Grant Amount: 2.00 DGF Percentage: 15.7% Grant Development Objectives and expected Development Outcomes The goals of the partnership are:  Broad recognition of the economic impact of TB in the mining industry and the potentially high return on investments in TB control in the industry.  Harmonized TB treatment protocols in the sub-region.  Fund establishment by mining companies to finance TB-related services among mineworkers.  Establishment of a cross-border tracking database and referral system for migrant workers.  Reduction in the incidence of TB among mineworkers and their families in Lesotho, Mozambique, South Africa and Swaziland.  Establishment of a simple claims system for ex-mine workers. Development Outcomes:  Cross-border referral system for migrant workers established.  Health services extended to mine workers, contract workers, their families and mining communities in Southern Africa.  Harmonized treatment protocol finalized and implemented.  Mining companies mobilized and providing funding and technical support for a coordinated effort to address TB in the mining sector  Establishment of a sub-regional database to track mine and ex-mine workers. Main Activities It is anticipated that the first year of DGF will support the following activities:  Analytical work: Economic analysis of the impact of TB in the mining sector and improving the living conditions of mineworkers  Coordination of stakeholders to ensure collaboration among the increasing numbers of organizations with an interest in TB in the mining sector  Development of harmonization of TB management Guidance with WHO country offices and Ministries of Health in Lesotho, Swaziland, Mozambique and South Africa  Initiate the treatment of TB among mineworkers in one major mine, one surrounding community and one labor sending country Performance Indicators (Intermediate Outcomes/Outputs) 1. Economic analysis of the impact of TB in the mining sector and improving the welfare of mineworkers, link to national disease burden, 2. Harmonization of treatment protocols with WHO and technical experts within ministries of health; mapping of access to TB and HIV/AIDS service, 3. Collaboration with mining sector CEOs through a Forum established by the CEOs for an industry-led response to eliminate TB in the mines, 4. Coordination of stakeholders to eliminate duplication of efforts Progress and Achievements (including challenges, if any) This is a new program to start in FY14. Partners  Department for International Development UK (DFID)  Stop TB Partnership  The International Organization for Migration (IOM)  Select Mining Companies  South Africa Chamber of Mines 137 Governance and Management Changes It is envisaged that the Knowledge and Solutions Hub Partnership on TB in the Mining Sector – as the prototype for other health knowledge and solutions work across the Bank - will have a full-time coordinating entity whose activities will be overseen by a Partnership Implementation Committee, which will meet bi-monthly in the first year, and quarterly thereafter, to review progress and make decisions on future work plans. Although the actual funding recipient and coordinating entity has yet to be determined, the Partnership Implementation Committee is the structure that decides on how the money will be spent, with active private-sector involvement, based on the principles of:  demand-driven interventions with a strong evidence base;  lead institutions selected on the basis of their comparative advantage;  effective coordination of stakeholders to ensure a coordinated response;  harmonized sub-regional implementation; and  focus on results. The Partnership Implementation Committee includes the major players focusing on TB and health in the mining sector. This work forms part of the South Africa Knowledge Hub, through which the Bank is establishing a role as an informed broker and the coordinator of multiple actors and donors, and therefore conforms to the following broad structural arrangements. The SA Knowledge Hub will be a partnership program with its own governance and mission statement and it will interface/collaborate/bridge across the public, private sector government and academic spaces. Exit Strategy (Disengagement from DGF and Sustainability) Once the structure and institutional arrangements for the coordinated approach to elimination of TB in the mining sector are established, the importance of the Bank’s role to initiate action across multiple sectors, public and private, and across borders will be less. Some of the activities implemented as a result of the Partnership will be assumed by the South Africa Knowledge Hub structure, which is being jointly established by the South African Treasury and the Department of Health. The Knowledge Hub program runs for 3 years initially, but since the key outcomes of this work relate to the establishment of robust systems to ensure management of mining-related TB and strengthening of health service provision to this vulnerable group, the aim is to ensure sustainability of any gains before work is finalized. The Bank anticipates that this work will be innovative and as we implement more activities, greater interest from ministries of health, stakeholders and donors will enhance the sustainability of the program. For example, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria has already indicated that it would be interested in supporting a sub-regional proposal focusing on TB in the mining sector in southern Africa. 138