For Official Use Only CLR Review Independent Evaluation Group 1. CAS/CPS Data Country: Brazil CAS/CPS Year: FY12 CAS/CPS Period: FY12 – FY15 CLR Period: FY12 – FY15 Date of this review: June 22, 2017 2. Ratings CLR Rating IEG Rating Development Outcome: Moderately Unsatisfactory Moderately Unsatisfactory Good on implementation and WBG Performance: Fair Fair on design1 3. Executive Summary i. Brazil is an upper middle-income with a GNI per capita income of $9,990 in 2015. During the review period, Brazil’s annual economic growth declined from 4.1 percent prior to the CPS (2008- 2011) to 0.3 percent during the CPS period (2012-15). This deterioration followed tighter fiscal and monetary conditions during 2010-11 and adverse external trade and financing environments, an unsustainable fiscal stance after 2011, and political instability that undermined investors’ confidence. Reduced growth impacted poverty. Brazil achieved an impressive reduction of extreme poverty rates, from 9.9 percent in 2001 to 2.8 percent in 2014. This reduction was associated with a decline in inequality, from a Gini index of 59.3 in 2001 to 51.4 in 2014. However, as a result of lower growth, poverty increased again in 2015 to about 3.4 percent. The extreme poverty rate in rural areas (9.1 percent in 2013) is higher than in urban areas (3.1 percent in 2013). Brazil’s Human Development Index improved from 0.740 in 2011 to 0.754 in 2014, ranking 79 th among 188 countries. ii. Government strategies, most importantly the Growth Acceleration and “Brazil Without Poverty” programs sought to address Brazil’s three key development challenges at the time of CPS preparation. These challenges included the need to accelerate economic growth and strengthen resilience to international shocks; to reduce inequality and offer human development opportunities to all, especially women; and to enhance environmental sustainability and resilience. The CPS was aligned with those strategies and focused on providing support to sub-national governments to help enhance implementation of national policies, while also providing knowledge intensive services at the federal level. iii. The World Bank Group (WBG) Country Partnership Strategy (CPS) was prepared against a background, in 2011, of solid growth and poverty reduction. The CPS envisaged a combination of investment and policy lending and of Analytical and Advisory Activities (ASA) to support four focus areas: (i) efficiency of public and private investments, (ii) quality and provision of public services for low income households, (iii) regional economic development, and (iv) sustainable natural resource management and climate resilience. WBG support was aligned with several Government programs, 1 The CLR did not provide an overall assessment of WBG performance. Instead, the CLR rated design (paras.53 and 55) and implementation (paras.4 and 59) separately. CLR Reviewed by Peer Reviewed by CLR Review Manager/Coordinator Mauricio Carrizosa and Juan José Fernandez- Anjali Kumar Nathaniel Jackson, Ansola, Consultant Acting Manager, IEGEC Consultants Takatoshi Kamezawa, Lourdes Pagaran Senior Evaluation Officer CLRR Coordinator, IEGEC For Official Use Only CLR Review 2 Independent Evaluation Group including the second Growth Acceleration and “Brazil without Poverty” programs, as well as other more specific plans. iv. At the beginning of the CPS period, the Bank’s portfolio stood at $9.1 billion. From FY11 to FY15, the Bank’s active portfolio declined by 20.9 percent to $7.2 billion. The decline was the net result of: (i) the closing of $5.9 billion of the $9.1 billion pre-existing portfolio; and (ii) the approval of new operations amounting to $8.8 billion, of which $4.8 billion (all the DPOs) also closed before the end of the CPS period. The new operations during the CPS period ($8.8 billion) were 19.6 percent below the total planned amounts ($10.2 billion) and declined by 29.6 percent with respect to the previous CPS. Compared to the previous CPS period, the composition of Bank operations shifted toward DPOs and subnational lending. DPOs and several investment loans were multisector operations. Bank operations covered several areas, including public sector management, transportation, water, rural development, health, energy, environment, education, and social protection. Most loans (91.9 percent) were to sub-national governments. The share of lending to subnational governments increased from 32.5 percent in the previous CPS to 61.0 percent during the FY12-FY15 period. The number of completed analytical and advisory activities (ASA) during the CPS period (75) was below the total number of planned tasks (81). v. IFC played an important role in Brazil, particularly in supporting MSMEs through investments in local financial institutions and through investment and advisory work with PPPs. During the CPS period, Brazil was IFC’s third largest client in terms of its long-term loans and equity investments, and its largest client in Latin America. IFC’s operations totaled $5.6 billion over the CPS period, slightly above CPS forecasts of roughly $1 billion annually, though half of these investments were in short-term lending under the global trade finance program (GTFP.) IFC’s advisory projects totaled $23.3 million. Despite IFC’s efforts to provide evidence beyond the indicators of the results matrix, IFC’s development contributions are sometimes difficult to gauge accurately because of the lack of indicators that pertain to IFC activities. vi. On balance, IEG rates the development outcomes as Moderately Unsatisfactory. Program outcomes were mixed at best. On Focus Area I (efficiency of public and private investments), progress was modest on public sector management (PSM), public-private partnerships (PPPs), and productivity policies. On Focus Area II (public services for low income households), improvements on social assistance (Bolsa Familia), health coverage, and gender mainstreaming policies were substantial, albeit with little evidence of improved quality on health services. On Focus Area III (regional economic development), some progress was noted on transport and logistics and IFC investments helped increase the supply of energy services in Brazil’s Northeast Region. On Focus Area IV (sustainable natural resource management and climate resilience), the WBG support achieved a modest expansion of protected biomes and little or no improvement in environmental management. There was no progress towards the PPPs on irrigation that IFC sought. Achievements on education objectives, on access to water and sanitation, on integrated water resource management (WRM) could not be verified. vii. Overall WBG performance is rated as Fair. The CPS benefited from a design that aligned objectives to development challenges and country programs, combined with support for improved policies and needed investments, and leveraged the Bank’s financial contributions with its ASA and with resources from other development partners (mainly trust funds for environmental management). Selectivity towards poor states strengthened the focus on poverty reduction. However, design would have benefited from a more deliberate programmatic approach to policy lending, more efforts to achieve synergies between the Bank and IFC, and more attention to the adequacy of outcome indicators, including quantitative indicators that would pertain to IFC activities. On program implementation, portfolio performance deteriorated significantly towards the end of the CPS period. Implementation faltered largely due to Brazil’s deteriorating economic performance and political crisis, which constrained fiscal resources and reduced client attention to Bank projects. Nevertheless, weaknesses in Bank supervision before FY15 may have also played a role. Furthermore, more attention to ASA on structural issues could have improved the WBG’s preparedness for the 2014-15 economic crisis. Implementation could have benefited also from a stronger partnership with the IFC and more coordination with the IDB. Although the CPSPR For Official Use Only CLR Review 3 Independent Evaluation Group simplified its monitoring indicators, it did not improve their adequacy, as many of the indicators did not measure CPS outcomes accurately. viii. IEG agrees with CLR lessons, which are summarized as follows. First, a program largely focused on sub-national governments will benefit from a strong engagement with the national Government to address federal and fiscal constraints as well as tensions between the two levels (e.g., on thematic priorities). Second, ASA that balances areas of government demand with strategic economic issues (e.g., productivity) will provide country-wide knowledge that bears upon the specific areas of client demand. Third, the combination of adverse economic conditions, political changes at the State level, and institutional weaknesses will limit what the WBG can achieve in the short to medium term, despite the WBG’s long-term engagement. Fourth, a deterioration of public finances as a result of recession will have an adverse impact on portfolio performance. Fifth, portfolio risks may be more closely linked to specific sectors (urban, municipal), due to the particular complexities or conditions that those sectors face, than to the different capacity levels of the Northeast compared to the South. Sixth, attention to fiscal sustainability at the subnational level will improve the performance of DPOs that focus on service delivery. ix. IEG provides the following three lessons. First, DPO lending in a programmatic setting could help the Bank to better achieve a more consistent sequencing of policies and achievement of welfare outcomes. By way of example, two or three programmatic Bahia loans, in lieu of stand- alone operations, could have helped better achieve outcomes (e.g., on education quality) by strengthening the reforms and allowing more time for reform implementation and achievement of the outcomes. Second, Bank-IFC collaboration can be stronger than that under the CPS. More planning and coordination between the two institutions (e.g. resulting in joint ASA and parallel operations) could bring in synergies between reforms, public, and private investments, for example on WRM. A Joint Implementation Plan (JIP) between the Bank and IFC could have facilitated the collaboration of two institutions at the sector level, following the example of successful JIPs in countries where there is clear interdependency of public and private sector solutions, the problems are complex and there is sufficient scale, such as with the JIPs in the health sector in India and the Sustainable Cities initiative in Turkey.2. Third, indicators that accurately reflect outcomes are critical to enable program evaluation, particularly for IFC projects that reflect private sector activities and outcomes. For example, country-wide access to education says little about education outcomes from Bank sub-national projects. Similarly, and given multiple sources of finance, the total number of MSMEs financed overstate the reach and development impact of IFC finance in terms of stimulated economic growth and employment generation. PSM reforms can be more fully measured by entry and exit PEFA type surveys than by simple MTEF or RBM designations. 4. Strategic Focus Relevance of the WBG Strategy: 1. Congruence with Country Context and Country Program. CPS objectives were aligned to Government programs that addressed well-identified constraints to economic growth, poverty reduction, and environmental sustainability. On growth, the CPS objective to increase the efficiency of public and private investments was congruent with Government objectives under Brazil’s second Growth Acceleration Plan (2011-14) that aimed to raise the investment rate to 22 percent of GDP by 2014. On poverty, the CPS aimed to improve the provision of services for low income households and to foster regional development, aims that were congruent with the Government’s “Brazil without Poverty” program, introduced in 2011, which supported poverty reduction through income transfers, productive inclusion, and access to public services. On environmental sustainability, the CPS aimed to improve resource management and climate resilience and supported Brazil’s emissions control, conservation, and climate change mitigation objectives, as reflected for example in the Government’s Action Plan for Prevention and Control of Deforestation in the Amazon. With the WBG focusing on 2 IFC Smart Practice, “From Art to Science: Theory and Practice of Joint Implementation Plans across the World Bank Group”, December 2015. For Official Use Only CLR Review 4 Independent Evaluation Group sub-national governments, its objectives were also broadly congruent with state-level multi-annual development plans. Although the CPS Progress report (CPSPR) maintained the CPS objectives, a gender outcome was added in response to a new Government program (“Woman: Living without Violence”) to provide integrated services to address issues of gender-based violence through comprehensive services to women. 2. Relevance of Design. The combination of lending with advisory services and analytics (ASAs) could potentially achieve the CPS objectives through improved policies and increased sector infrastructure. Although the WBG lending program was small for a country as large as Brazil, its interventions in specific states or municipalities could be significant, particularly when including the possible effects of state-wide policy reforms. Achievement of objectives then would rest on the quality, additionality, and implementation of the policies and investments. For example, a package of WBG ASA and lending could conceivably support the right policies and investments to accelerate rural development in the State of Ceará and thus help achieve the CPS objectives of improved investment efficiency and access to services. Broadly, the proposed lending and ASA afforded attention to areas that were relevant to CPS objectives. 3. Nevertheless, there were four areas where the CPS design could have been improved. First, a stronger engagement with the Federal Government would have helped to better address the policy links and tensions between the federal and sub-national governments (e.g., on fiscal performance). Second, a more deliberate emphasis on programmatic policy lending could have been better tailored to achieve the welfare gains derived from better public sector management (PSM) and service delivery reforms, which require relatively longer gestation periods than those provided by the stand- alone operations that the Bank envisaged. Third, possible synergies between Bank and IFC activities could have been better identified. The CPS largely listed the activities that the Bank and IFC would do in each area, but made little effort to spell out the areas where synergies could bear on the CPS design (e.g. on parallel projects). To lay out the strategy on the Bank Group collaboration at the sector level, the Bank and IFC could have developed a joint implementation plan (JIP), particularly in infrastructure financing, or a similar collaboration document. Fourth, the CPS/CPSPR could have designed better monitoring in some areas, including definition of quantitative indicators and targets that better reflected the geographic areas of influence of WBG interventions (e.g., on education), of baselines (e.g., on state water agencies that function properly) to assess progress, and of IFC objectives, outcomes, indicators and targets (e.g., on tertiary education and MSMEs) in the results framework. Selectivity 4. The CPS objectives were well-grounded on the Bank’s country knowledge and congruent with Brazil’s goals. The CPS included critical areas that could support poverty reduction or shared prosperity, but did not articulate a plan for the division of labor on these areas with other development agencies. WBG selectivity was largely driven by the Government’s request for a further focus on sub- national governments. Geographically, the program prioritized the nine States in the Northeast, the country’s poorest region. Thematically, the program was to focus on areas where Brazil faces second generation development challenges and can benefit from the WBG’s knowledge and experience, with a catalytic role for interventions that would yield strong demonstration effects. However, given the large size of the country, WBG support was widely spread, covering about twenty subnational borrowers plus the federal government as well as a wide range of topics. Alignment 5. Although the CPS was prepared before the launch of the corporate twin goals, the program’s objectives were aligned with WBG’s poverty reduction and shared prosperity goals. Although the CPS did not target or monitor poverty and shared prosperity directly, the proposed interventions could conceivably contribute to them directly or indirectly. The CPS increased the WBG focus on Brazil’s poorest region and covered areas critical to poverty reduction and shared prosperity, including productivity growth (to raise economic growth), public sector management and services (to build the human capital of the poor) and skills and jobs (to raise employment growth). Proposed interventions to help sub-national governments improve investments and provide better services to the poor were For Official Use Only CLR Review 5 Independent Evaluation Group more effective than interventions towards employment growth or enhancing productivity and competitiveness. Interventions in the latter two areas would possibly require more attention under a shared prosperity goal. 5. Development Outcome Overview of Achievement by Objective: 6. Following the shared approach, the assessment is based on the updated CPSPR results matrix. The program objectives are aggregated to arrive at the development outcome rating. This review uses the following structure and terminology: strategic objectives (focus areas); results area (objectives) and outcomes. It is noted that there are 12 program objectives, not 13 as listed in the CASPR. Focus Area I: Increase Efficiency of Public and Private Investments. 7. Focus area I had two objectives: (i) Improved Fiscal and Public Sector Management and (ii) Enhanced Private Sector Development (PSD) Policies. These objectives were supported by a combination of Development Policy Operations (DPOs), Investment Project Financing (IPFs) including Sector Wide Approach Operations (SWAps), Program for Results Operations (PforR), Technical Assistance Operations (TA), and Bank Economic and Sector Work (ESW) and non-lending technical assistance (NLTA). Bank support covered the States of Acre, Amazonas, Bahia, Ceara, Minas Gerais, Parana, Pernambuco, Piaui, Rio de Janeiro, Rio Grande do Sul, Sergipe, and Tocantins; and the municipalities of Belo Horizonte, Recife, and Rio de Janeiro. The IFC focused on Public Private Partnerships (PPPs), micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs), and trade finance. 8. Objective 1: Improved Fiscal and Public Sector Management. This objective was aligned with Brazil’s Fiscal Responsibility Framework that sets limits for personnel expenditures and indebtedness at all levels of government, thereby requiring PSM improvements. The objective had two specific outcomes and associated indicators:  Greater adoption of some elements of medium-term fiscal frameworks (MTEFs) in 15 States and Municipalities. This outcome was to be measured by the following indicator and target: (i) functioning investment screening processes in Minas Gerais, Rio de Janeiro, Ceará, Rio Grande do Sul, Pernambuco and (ii) work initiated on such processes in other States and Municipalities. The target was not met as only one subnational government (Pernambuco) has a functioning investment screening process, well below the target of 15 States. The CLR reports that only Sao Paulo has made some progress on costing systems but with limited support from the Bank while other states are only at the initial stages of investment planning systems. [Not Achieved].  Increased result orientation in planning, budgeting and expenditure (including procurement processes) in one or more sectors in 14 States supported by the Bank. This outcome was to be measured by the following indicator and target: Increased (or deepened) coverage of sectors by formal results based management (RBM) processes including results agreements or formal results monitoring systems providing feedback to program managers in States supported by the Bank. The CLR reports that there was some progress toward the target, as six States (Acre, Amazonas, Bahia, Minas Gerais, Pernambuco, and Rio de Janeiro) that benefited from Bank support increased (or deepened) the coverage of sectors by formal RBM processes, albeit in varying degrees and well below the target of 14 States. [ Partially Achieved]. 9. With one outcome Not Achieved and one Partially Achieved, Objective 1 is rated as Partially Achieved on balance. Progress was very limited on MTEFs while some progress was noted in increasing results orientation in planning, budgeting and expenditure management. 10. Objective 2: Enhanced Private Sector Development (PSD) Policies. This objective was aligned with the Government’s Growth Acceleration Plan that sought economic policies and For Official Use Only CLR Review 6 Independent Evaluation Group investment policies to raise Brazil’s growth rate. The objective had two specific outcomes and associated indicators:  Strengthened institutional framework for public-private partnerships (PPPs) in Bank-supported States. This outcome was to be measured by the following two indicators and targets: (i) Improved PPP frameworks in Paraná, Bahia and Rio de Janeiro, some progress in other states and (ii) support through IFC in structuring PPP transactions. Progress toward the first target was limited to Rio de Janeiro, where the CLR reports that procedures for the technical analysis of PPPs were established and a PPP project pipeline was created. It is still too early to assess the quality of PPPs. With respect to the second target, IFC invested in and helped structure nine PPP projects that covered several sectors and expected to bring in $3.9 billion in private investments. [Partially Achieved]  Demonstrable contribution to policy dialogue on productivity issues and progress achieved in improving institutional frameworks and policy actions to promote productivity and competitiveness enhancing investments in Bank-supported states. This outcome was to be measured by the following two indicators and targets: (i) Three joint dialogues on productivity policy at federal level and (ii) productivity-focused policy actions linked to Bank support at State level. With regard to the first target, the CLR reports that the Government held four events that covered cross-cutting productivity issues, regulatory simplification, innovation, and the digital economy. The second target did not materialize. Bank lending to the States of Ceará, Pernambuco, Rio Grande do Sul, and Tocantins supported investments (e.g., transport in Rio Grande do Sul and Tocantins), but were not focused on productivity or competitiveness policies or frameworks. There were no indicators or targets for IFC activities. Financial institutions supported by IFC increased their MSME portfolio from 109,000 to 448,000 MSMEs and delivered U$3.65 billion of trade finance. Nevertheless, there is little direct evidence of attribution for IFC’s contribution to productivity and competiveness. In order to ascertain IFC’s contribution to productivity and competitiveness, an impact evaluation would need to be completed. [Partially Achieved]. 11. With two outcomes Partially Achieved, Objective 2 is rated as Partially Achieved. 12. Given the ratings of objectives 1 and 2, IEG rates Focus Area I as Moderately Unsatisfactory. On PSM, the Bank achieved more progress on increasing results orientation in planning, budgeting and expenditure management than on the adoption of MTEFs in 15 states. On private sector development. IFC helped mobilize private investments but Bank achieved modest progress on improving PPP frameworks. The Bank achieved some progress on productivity dialogue but no progress on productivity focused policies. Focus Area II: Improve quality and expand provision of public services for low income households. 13. Focus Area II had three objectives: (i) consolidate and strengthen the social protection system, (iii) improve the quality of education for low income groups, and (iii) improve access to health care for low income households. These objectives were supported by a combination of DPOs, IPFs and TA operations; IFC investments; and several pieces of Bank ESW and NLTA. Bank support covered the Federal Government; the Federal District; the States of Acre, Amazonas, Bahia, Ceara, Minas Gerais, Parana, Pernambuco, Piaui, Rio de Janeiro, Rio Grande do Norte, Rio Grande do Sul, Sergipe, and Tocantins; and the municipalities of Belo Horizonte, Manaus, Recife, Rio de Janeiro, and Teresina. IFC investments covered tertiary education services and heath care networks. 14. Objective 3: Consolidate and strengthen the social protection system. This objective was aligned with GoB’s “Brazil Without Poverty” program. The Bank supported this objective primarily through the 2nd Bolsa Familia project (FY11). Most of the project’s funding ($185 million) co-financed Bolsa Familia cash transfers and the remainder ($15 million) covered technical assistance for the program (on targeting and institutional strengthening) and for the Ministry of Social Development (on For Official Use Only CLR Review 7 Independent Evaluation Group M&E and consolidation of the social protection safety net). ASA covered several relevant social protection issues (e.g., on the Government’s flagship “Brazil without Poverty” program). 15. The CPS sought one outcome under this objective: to enhance the extreme poverty eradication program (the Bolsa Familia cash transfer program). This outcome was measured by the percentage of families in Quintile 1 that received transfers from Bolsa Família (PNAD), with a 2009 baseline of 50 percent. The last ISR of the Bolsa Familia operation reports that 71.5 percent Quintile 1 families received transfers from Bolsa Familia (PNAD) in 2014, shy of the 2015 target of 78 percent. The CLR suggests that changes in the measurement methodology may underestimate the extent of progress. IEG rates Objective 3 as Mostly Achieved. 16. Objective 4: Improved the quality of education for low income groups. This objective was aligned with the GoB’s National Plan for Education, and particularly with the Government’s increased focus on raising student learning, enhancing the vocational and technical education system, and increasing participation of the poor in tertiary education. It was supported by subnational operations in Acre, Ceará, Minas Gerais, Pernambuco, and Recife. The CPS sought the following two outcomes:  Improve quality and increase coverage of ECD services (creche and pre-school), targeted to the lowest income quintiles. This outcome was to be measured by the following two indicators: (i) Pre-school participation for the poorest two quintiles of the population; (ii) Creche (day care) participation for the poorest two quintiles of the population. The CLR reports that pre- school participation increased from a 2009 baseline of 42 percent to about 79 percent in 2014 (78 percent for boys and 80 percent for girls), above the 2015 targets of 54 percent. The CLR also reports that day care participation was partially achieved, increasing from a 2009 baseline of 14 percent to about 18 percent in 2014 (17 percent for boys and 18 percent for girls), below the 2015 targets of 20 percent. However, the results reported from the CLR cannot be verified from the project documents supporting this objective. [ Not Verified]  Improve learning outcomes and completion rates in primary and secondary education as measured by the national education quality index, IDEB. This outcome was to be measured by Brazil’s basic education development index (IDEB), which rates learning outcomes on a scale of 0 to 10, for primary and secondary education. The CLR reports that: IDEBs for primary education increased from a baseline of 4.0 in 2009 to 4.5 in 2015, below the 2015 target of 4.7. The IDEBs for secondary education increased from a baseline of 3.6 in 2009 to 3.7 in 2015, below the 2015 target of 4.3. These indicators cover the national level, not the specific areas that the Bank supported. The ICR for Pernambuco reports that the IDEB score for the final grades of Fundamental Education was 3.6 (target of 3.3). There is no information of progress in IDEB scores for the other States that the Bank supported on education. There were no outcomes, indicators or targets for IFC investments in tertiary education institutions that provide services to low and middle-income students. The higher education institutions in which IFC invested reached 700,000 students per year, but the extent to which these included low-income students was not quantified. IFC reports that those institutions serve mostly young working adults from the middle and lower-middle income brackets and are located in the north and northeast regions of the country, which are the poorest in the country. IFC activities on tertiary education were not included in the CPS results framework. [Not Verified] 17. Objective 4 is rated as Not Verified. There was no evidence of the WBG’s contribution to outcomes on education for low income groups. 18. Objective 5: Improved access to health care for low income households. This objective was aligned with the GoB’s Family Health Program, which provides basic health coverage. Furthermore, the CPSPR added a gender dimension that was aligned with the new GoB program “Woman, Living Without Violence”. The CPS sought three outcomes, as follows:  Improved access to quality primary health care. This was to be measured by the percentage of the population covered by Family Health Strategy in municipalities with more than 100,000 people and benefitting from PROESF, a government program supported by the Bank’s Family Health Expansion and Consolidation Project II. The CLR states that the coverage target was For Official Use Only CLR Review 8 Independent Evaluation Group exceeded, but the quality dimension was not achieved. The ICRR of the second phase of the Family Health Extension Program which supported this objective reported an increase in coverage of the Family Health Strategy Program (PSF) to 48.2 percent in 2014, above the 2009 baseline of 36.2 percent and the 2015 target of 43 percent. However, the ICRR (rated U) also noted that the technical quality was modest and client satisfaction was negligible. [ Mostly Achieved].  Development of integrated health care networks. This was to be measured by number of Regional Health Care Networks (RHCNs) that deploy governance mechanisms (regional management committees, interregional base contracts or intergovernmental agreements- based regional or global consortia). The CLR reports that the number of RHCNs deploying those mechanisms increased from the baseline of “none’ in 2009 to 15 in 2015, meeting the 2015 CPS target of 15. The project supporting this objective was restructured including a change in the formulation of the target from absolute number to percentage. Using the percentage indicator, the target of 100 percent was achieved based on participating regions covering all 16 states plus federal districts. IFC made two investments in the health care sector, including in the largest hospital network in Brazil. [Mostly Achieved].  Active Gender Policies. This was to be measured by the number of States supported by the WBG in implementing substantive policy or institutional reforms or investments for the empowerment of women and protection of women from Gender Based Violence. The CLR reports that this number increased from the baseline of “none” in 2009 to 6 in 2015, exceeding the 2015 target of 5. [Achieved]. 19. With two outcomes Mostly Achieved and one Outcome Achieved, IEG rates Objective 5 as Mostly Achieved. 20. Given the ratings of objectives 3 to 5 (2 Mostly Achieved and 1 Not Verified), IEG rates Focus Area II as Moderately Satisfactory. Progress on strengthening social protection was strong. Furthermore, there was progress on health care coverage, albeit with limited influence on quality, and on supporting policies to combat violence against women. Progress on education could not be verified. Focus Area III: Promote regional economic development through strategic investments and policies 21. Focus Area III had three objectives: (i) expand access to improved basic sanitation, (ii) improve transport and logistics, and (iii) increase the supply of clean and efficient energy services. These objectives were supported by a combination of IPFs, DPOs, and TA operations; IFC investments; one MIGA Guarantee (Sao Paulo Transport); and several pieces of Bank ESW and NLTA. Bank support covered the Federal Government; the Federal District; the States of Acre, Amazonas, Bahia, Ceara, Espirito Santo, Minas Gerais, Parana, Pernambuco, Piaui, Rio de Janeiro, Rio Grande do Norte, Rio Grande do Sul, Sao Paulo, Sergipe, and Tocantins; and the municipalities of Alto Solimoes, Belo Horizonte, Manaus, Recife, Rio de Janeiro, Santos, Sao Bernardo, Sao Luis, Sao Paulo, and Teresina. Knowledge services covered pollution, logistics and trade, metropolitan governance, infrastructure financing, and road safety improvement. IFC invested in water companies, ports, waterways, and energy services. 22. Objective 6: Expanded access to improved basic sanitation. This objective was aligned with GoB’s program “Water for All”, aimed at ultimately universalizing access to clean water and sewage services. Bank support covered seventeen sub-national Governments with 21 lending operations. Their implementation suffered from delays linked to fiscal constraints or short term emergencies. Bank ASA addressed water and sanitation issues in Rio de Janeiro. IFC invested in Santa Catarina’s water and sanitation companies, CASAN and AEGEA. The WBG sought two outcomes, as follows:  Increase access to and improve the efficiency of water supply. This was measured by three indicators: (i) Percentage of households with access to clean water; (ii) Average non-revenue For Official Use Only CLR Review 9 Independent Evaluation Group water losses; and (iii) Percentage of municipalities with service providers regulated by independent regulators. Access to clean water increased from the baseline of 91.0 percent of households in 2010 to 95.8 percent in 2014, surpassing the target of 93.0 percent. The CLR reports that non-revenue water losses (a measure of efficiency of water supply) remained unchanged at around the baseline of 37 percent between 2010 and 2014, not achieving the targeted reduction to 35 percent, although the Bank helped reduce losses through a project in Rio Grande do Norte. The CLR also reports that coverage of independent regulation of water services increased from the baseline of 30 percent of municipalities in 2010 to 56 percent in 2014, shy of the target of 60 percent. The first of these indicators (access) is country-wide and therefore does not provide an accurate reference for the Bank’s impact, as Bank projects covered only selected areas. Although the CLR added that 245000 people had access to water in rural areas from Bank projects, it did not indicate how these connections improved the percent of people covered in their areas. Furthermore, the CLR also reports that both CASAN and AEGEA increased their customers, but the CPS did not provide baselines or targets on these indicators or discuss the extent to which IFC investments contributed to the increases. The third indicator (independent regulation) does not measure access to or efficiency of water supply. [Not Verified].  Increase access to sewage services and treatment of waste water. This was measured by the percentage of Households with access to sewerage. The CLR reports that the latter increased from the baseline of 70.0 percent of households in 2010 to 75.4 percent in 2015, above the target of 75.0 percent. This indicator is country-wide and therefore does not provide an accurate reference for the Bank’s impact, as Bank projects covered only selected areas. Although the CLR added that 306000 people had access to sanitation in rural areas from Bank projects, it did not indicate targets or how these connections improved the percent of people covered in their areas. Furthermore, a review of Bank projects indicates that operations in Teresina, Sergipe, and Espirito Santo provided access to sewerage to about 112000 households, but no targets or indications of increases in the percentage of population covered were made available. Furthermore, there is no indication of the impact of IFC’s support for CASAN and AEGEA on access to sewerage. [Not Verified]. 23. Objective 6 is rated as Not Verified. 24. Objective 7: Improved transport and logistics. This objective was aligned with GoB’s National Plan for Logistics and Transport, within which several States were developing State transport and logistics plans, and undertaking initiatives to improve urban mobility and address intercity transport issues. The Bank’s main contribution was through TA components in multi-sector operations in Paraná, Rio Grande do Sul, Sao Paulo and Tocantins. The TA activities suffered from budget cuts that delayed progress on transport planning. Bank transport related ASA covered urban development issues (including urban pollution), transport logistics, and road safety. IFC invested to expand ports capacity and cargo operations (Rio Grande do Sul, Salvador and Santos) and to unlock waterways in the north of Brazil.  The Bank sought one outcome under this objective: to improve integrated transport infrastructure and management with sustainable urban mobility. To assess progress towards integrated transport, the CPS monitored two targets: (i) that “States (Minas Gerais, Paraná, Rio Grande do Sul and Tocantins) will have in place improved integrated transport management and overall efficiency with emphasis on green transport, as measured within the supporting Bank projects”; and (ii) that “States and cities (Belo Horizonte and Rio de Janeiro) will have integrated transport within a broader urban management framework as measured with the support Bank operations”. The CLR reports that the first was partially achieved, as Bahia, Rio Grande do Sul. Tocantins, and possibly Paraná, but not Minas Gerais, developed multimodal transport and logistics plans. The CLR did not report on efficiency or green transport in those states. The second target was also partially met as Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo, Belo Horizonte, and Curitiba expanded public transport infrastructure, improved bus and rail services, expanded bikeways, improved pedestrian facilities, and updated urban For Official Use Only CLR Review 10 Independent Evaluation Group development plans and policies, albeit with concerns remaining on affordability and sustainability of fares. Although IFC investments may have improved transport infrastructure, the CPS did not define monitoring indicators and targets to assess these activities. MIGA supplemented these efforts with guarantee support in the Sao Paulo sustainable transport sector. [Partially Achieved]. 25. With the only outcome rated as Partially Achieved, objective 7 is also rated as Partially Achieved. 26. Objective 8: Increased supply of clean and efficient energy services. This objective was aligned with the Government’s “Light for All” program.  The outcome sought by the CPS was to increase access to energy services in remote areas. The CLR reports that the target – to reduce households lacking electricity in North and Northeast from the baseline of 590,294 families in 2010 to 90,294 families in 2015- was surpassed (at 27,462 families). The CLR also notes that the attribution to the WBG interventions could not be established. The two Bank projects on energy - the pre-existing FY10 ELECTROBRAS Distribution Rehabilitation Project and the FY12 Energy and Mineral Sector Strengthening project – did not focus on the CPS outcome. The only ASA covering energy – on the macro effects of pre-salt oil discoveries – also did not address this outcome. Nevertheless, IFC funded four investments that increased the supply of clean and efficient energy services in the states of Maranhao, Ceará, Bahia, Pernambuco and Rio Grande do Norte, albeit with no indication of their impact on access in remote areas. [ Partially Achieved] 27. With the only outcome rated as Partially Achieved, Objective 8 is also rated Partially Achieved. 28. Given the ratings of objectives 7 through 9, with one objective not verified and two objectives partially achieved, IEG rates Focus Area III as Unsatisfactory. Some progress was achieved on transport and logistics and toward the supply of clean and efficient energy services through IFC investments. Progress on access and efficiency to water supply and sewerage services was unverified. Focus Area IV: Improve sustainable natural resource management and climate resilience 29. Focus Area IV had four objectives: integrate water resources management, expand sustainable agriculture, improve environmental management, biodiversity, conservation and climate change mitigation, and provide more effective disaster risk management (DRM). These objectives were supported by a combination of APLs, DPOs, SILs and TA operations; IFC investments; and several pieces of Bank ESW and NLTA. Bank support covered the Federal Government; the Federal District; the States of Acre, Amazonas, Bahia, Ceara, Espirito Santo, Minas Gerais, Paraiba, Parana, Pernambuco, Piaui, Rio de Janeiro, Rio Grande do Norte, Rio Grande do Sul, Sao Paulo, Sergipe, and Tocantins; and the municipalities of Belo Horizonte, Sao Bernardo, and Teresina. IFC had one project in the Amazon which targeted environmentally sustainable and commercially viable forestry operations. 30. Objective 9: Integrated water resources management (WRM). This objective was aligned with several GoB initiatives, most importantly with the Interaguas program that seeks a better articulation and coordination of actions in the water sector. The Bank’s Federal Integrated Water Sector Project (Interaguas, FY12) supported efforts to improve the coordination and strengthen the capacity among federal institutions in the water sector toward an integrated approach. At the sub- national level, Bank lending covered WRM issues in the States of Ceará, Espirito Santo, Pernambuco, Sergipe, Rio Grande do Norte, Rio Grande do Sul, Sao Paulo, and Sergipe. ASA included an NLTA and a RAS on the management of the Sao Francisco river valley. The CPS sought a dual outcome as follows:  To improve WRM. The Bank defined two targets to assess progress: (i) 13 State water agencies and 4 river basin water agencies that are properly functioning, applying the For Official Use Only CLR Review 11 Independent Evaluation Group management instruments established by law, and are reasonably well staffed; and (ii) Volume (20 million m3 per year) of bulk water being charged (and 50% percentage collected of that volume) in the country, excluding power generation. The CLR reports that the first target was met. However, as the CPS or CPSPR did not provide baselines, there is no basis to quantify progress during the CPS period. On the second target, the CLR measured the monetary values of water billed and paid, not the physical amounts (m3) and the CPS or CPSPR did not provide baselines. It reports that in 2014 water charged in the country reached BRL264 million, of which 89% of invoices were paid. But there is no indication of the volume billed. With no baselines or accurate measurement, there is no basis to assess progress. [ Not Verified]  To develop innovative irrigation approaches. The CPS target was to increase the area under PPP arrangements for irrigation from the 2010 baseline of less than 3,000 hectares to 200,000 hectares in 2015. This target was not achieved, with no PPP concessions as of today. IFC reported that prevailing circumstances such as the enabling environment, market conditions, and availability of sponsors were not conducive to PPPs during the CPS period. Objective 9 is rated as [Not Achieved]. 31. As progress on WRM could not be verified, IEG rates Objective 9 as Not Verified. 32. Objective 10: Expand sustainable agriculture. This objective was aligned with the GoB’s Low Carbon Agriculture Program, aimed at improving environmental sustainability in the agriculture and livestock sectors. Bank lending on agriculture included 17 projects covering 15 States. ASA addressed the impacts of climate change on agriculture, agricultural productivity and competitiveness issues, and agriculture risks.  The CPS outcome was to improve market access for and adoption of Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) by small rural producer organizations. To assess progress towards this outcome, the Bank monitored: (i) the number of small producer organizations supported by Bank-financed projects and (ii) the number of States implementing programs that promote the adoption of CSA. The CLR reports that the number of small producer organizations increased from a baseline of 2,730 in 2009 (30 percent led by women) to 14,218 in 2015 (30 percent led by women), 27.5 percent below the target of 19,600 (30 percent led by women). It also reports that the number of States implementing CSA programs increased from 0 to seven, above the target of four. Based on available evidence, two states have implemented programs that promote the adoption of CSA by farmers. However, neither of these indicators measure market access or actual adoption of CSA. 33. Objective 10 is rated as Not Verified. 34. Objective 11: Improved environmental management, biodiversity, conservation and climate change mitigation. This objective was aligned with the GoB’s National Policy for Climate Change as well as with action plans to prevent and control deforestation in the Amazon (the Amazon Region Protected Areas Program-ARPA) and other biomes. The CPS sought three outcomes as follows:  Expand areas under effective protection. The CPS target was to expand areas under effective protection by 15 million hectares (ha). From 2010 to 2015, official data (sidra.ibge.gov.br) shows that the protected land area expanded by 2.7 million ha and the protected marine area expanded by of 0.08 million ha. These add up too much less than the CPS target of 15 million ha. Nevertheless, the CLR reports “existing protected areas under improved management and newly created protected areas” of 31.2 million ha. (4.6 million in the Cerrado Biome, 26.0 million in the Amazon Biome, 0.4 million in the Pampa Biome, and 0.2 million in marine areas). However, the ISRs of the four projects that supported this outcome reported a total increase of only 12.5 million ha. during the CPS period (only 7.6 million ha. in under the Amazon Phase II Project), including new protected areas and areas brought under enhanced biodiversity protection. Furthermore, there was little evidence of impact on management or biodiversity in the two projects that IEG already assessed (Cerrado and Pampa). The two For Official Use Only CLR Review 12 Independent Evaluation Group other projects (Amazon Phase II and Marine Areas) are still active and thus their outcomes have not yet been validated by IEG. Hence, we have little or no evidence on how "effective" the protection was. Deforestation rates, an indicator of biome management effectiveness, rose between 2012 and 2015 in the Amazon Biome and remained unchanged in the Cerrado Biome. IFC’s primary project in the Amazon region, which focused on environmentally sustainable and commercially viable forestry operation, is currently on hold and thus no results were reported. [Partially Achieved].  Improve institutional capacity for environmental management. Bank operations in Acre, Parana, Rio Grande do Sul, Sao Paulo, and Tocantins supported actions toward this outcome. The Bank monitored three indicators/targets: (i) development of more transparent and user friendly tools to speed up licensing processes; (ii) improved social participation and control mechanisms; and (iii) creation of ecological-economic zoning (ZEE) land use planning tools in three States. Activities to improve licensing processes are being implemented, albeit not yet completed, with more progress in Sao Paulo and Tocantins than in Acre, Paraná, and Rio Grande do Sul. The CLR did not report or discuss progress on social participation and control mechanisms. The creation of ZEEs, supported by components under Multi-sectoral projects, is still under preparation in Rio Grande do Sul, Sao Paulo, and Tocantins. [Not Verified].  Upscale the rural environmental cadaster. The indicator/target was “to improve capacity to receive, analyze, and approve Rural Environmental Cadaster entries and link them to the national system”. The target was to improve such capacity in 10 States & Federal District. The Bank was to support implementation of the cadaster in the Cerrado Biome (10 states and the Federal District). The Bank’s main expected support was a Forest Investment Project that did not materialize during the CPS period. Accordingly, the target was not achieved. [ Not Achieved]. 35. On balance, IEG rates Objective 11 as Partially Achieved, reflecting some progress on protected areas. 36. Objective 12: More effective disaster risk management (DRM). This objective supported the GoB initiative to develop a DRM program. The Bank supported this objective through 11 lending operations to 10 sub-national governments and ASA covering disaster risk management strategy, economic and fiscal impacts, financing, and insurance (particularly in agriculture).  The CPS sought one outcome under this objective: to improve disaster preparedness and coordination of post disaster response. Progress was measured by the number of State/City early Warning Systems Revamped. The Bank financed Early Warning Systems (EWSs) in the States of Espiritó Santo, Paraná, Rio de Janeiro, Rio Grande do Sul, and Sao Paulo. Warning systems were revamped in two states (Paraná and Rio de Janeiro), below the CPS target of 10 states/cities of Bank engagement. This measured progress on disaster preparedness. On post disaster response coordination, there is no indication of progress. The CPS did not design an outcome, indicator or target for this dimension of the outcome it sought. [Partially Achieved] 37. Objective 12 is rated as Partially Achieved. 38. Given the ratings of objectives 9 through 12 (Not Verified or Partially Achieved), IEG rates Focus Area IV as Unsatisfactory. No progress could be verified on integrated WRM or on expansion of sustainable agriculture. Modest progress materialized on conservation, institutional capacity for environmental management, and DRM. Overall Assessment and Rating 39. IEG rates the CPS development outcome as Moderately Unsatisfactory. Substantial progress was made on Focus Area II (public services for low income households). Bank interventions on social protection did well, with the Bank funding cash transfers and providing TA that contributed to improve targeting. WBG interventions contributed to expand access to basic health and develop For Official Use Only CLR Review 13 Independent Evaluation Group health care networks, although progress on the quality of both remained challenging. Bank support also helped mainstream gender services, particularly on combating violence against women. Although the WBG may have made progress on education services, indicators in this area impeded an assessment. On the three other focus areas, progress was modest at best. On Focus Area I, there were limited advances on PSM and productivity. On focus Area III, there was some progress on transport and logistics and on the supply of energy services in remote areas. On Focus Area IV, there was limited progress on conservation, environmental management and DRM. Inadequate indicators impeded an assessment of achievements on access to water and sanitation services, WRM, and CSA. IFC has a substantial investment portfolio in Brazil, though nearly three-quarters of the net investment during the FY12-15 period was in the financial sector with limited direct impact on CPS outcomes. IFC’s development impacts were not well represented in the CPS results framework, as it failed to define and incorporate the development outcomes of IFC’s activities, particularly in terms of relevant development indicators for private sector activities. Objectives3 CLR Rating IEG Rating Focus Area I: Increase Efficiency of Public Moderately and Private Investments Unsatisfactory Objective 1: Improved Fiscal and Public Sector 1 outcome “Not Achieved”, and 1 Partially Achieved Management. outcome “Mostly Achieved”. Objective 2: Enhanced Private Sector 2 outcomes “Partially Achieved” Partially Achieved Development Policies. Focus Area II: Improve quality and expand provision of public services for low income Moderately Satisfactory households Objective 3: Consolidate and strengthen the Outcome “Achieved” Mostly Achieved social protection system. Objective 4: Improved the quality of education 1 outcome “Achieved” and 2 outcomes Not Verified for low income groups. “Partially Achieved” Objective 5: Improved access to health care for 3 outcomes “Achieved” Mostly Achieved low income households. Focus Area III: Promote regional economic development through strategic investments Unsatisfactory and policies Objective 6: Expanded access to improved 1 outcome “Mostly Achieved and 1 Not Verified basic sanitation. outcome “Achieved Objective 7: Improved transport infrastructure Outcome “Partially Achieved” Partially Achieved and management. Objective 8: Increased supply of clean and Outcome “Achieved” Partially Achieved efficient energy services. Focus Area IV: Improve sustainable natural resource management and climate Unsatisfactory resilience Objective 9: Integrated water resources Outcome “Mostly Achieved” Not Verified management. Objective 10: Expand sustainable agriculture. Outcome “Partially Achieved” Not Verified Objective 11: Improved environmental 1 outcome “Achieved” and 1outcome management, biodiversity, conservation and Partially Achieved “Partially Achieved” climate change mitigation. Objective 12: More effective disaster risk Outcome “Partially Achieved” Partially Achieved management. 3 There are 12 objectives, not 13 objectives (as listed in the CASPR) For Official Use Only CLR Review 14 Independent Evaluation Group 6. WBG Performance Lending and Investments 40. At the beginning of the CPS period, the Bank’s portfolio stood at $9.1 billion. From FY11 to FY 15, the Bank’s active portfolio declined by 20.9 percent to $7.2 billion. The decline was the net result of: (i) the closing of $5.9 billion of the $9.1 billion pre-existing portfolio; and (ii) the approval of new operations amounting to $8.8 billion, of which $4.8 billion (all the DPOs) also closed before the end of the CPS period. The new operations during the CPS period ($8.8 billion) were 19.6 percent below the total planned amounts ($10.2 billion) and declined 29.6 percent with respect to the previous CPS. As the recession advanced, yearly amounts declined from a little over $3.0 billion each in FY2012 and 2013 to $2.0 billion in 2012 and to only $0.5 billion in 2015. The marked decline in Bank operations reflected the difficulties that the program encountered (e.g. weak counterpart funding capacity, state borrowing capacity, and interest in deep fiscal adjustment measures) as Brazil’s macroeconomic environment deteriorated. Despite the decline in total Bank operations, DPOs increased 9.8 percent in value, and from 5 to 11 in number between the two CPSs, although yearly DPO approvals also declined sharply in 2015. As a result, DPOs increased from 35.6 percent of total lending during FY08- FY11 to 54.7 percent during FY12-FY15. 41. The composition of overall operations (new lending, the pre-existing portfolio, and active trust fund operations (a total of $18.7 billion active operations at some point during the CPS period), shifted toward DPOs and subnational lending. Each of the DPOs supported reforms in multiple sectors, covering primarily public sector management and service delivery (mainly education, health, and social protection). The remaining operations (investment loans, SWAPs, and one PforR) supported either multiple sectors (6.4 percent percent) or only one sector, including transportation (22.5 percent), PSM (10.3 percent), water (5.5 percent), service delivery (5.0 percent), rural development (4.4 percent), health (3.1 percent), energy (2.8 percent), environment (3.1 percent), education (1.5 percent), and social protection (1.0 percent). Most loans (91.9%) were to sub-national governments. The share of lending to subnational governments increased from 32.5 percent in the previous CPS to 61.0 percent during the FY12-FY15 period. 42. The Bank’s active portfolio in Brazil performed less well compared to its comparators (LAC and Bank-wide) towards the end of the CPS period. The share of projects at risk increased from 12.1 percent in FY12 to 28.6 percent in 2015 (in terms of number of projects), a trend that appears specific to Brazil, as the average deterioration for LCR was much less pronounced (with that average reflecting Brazil’s deterioration), and little or no deterioration for the Bank’s global portfolio. The CLR suggests that the deterioration reflected the impact of the severe political and economic crisis, which resulted in a lack of counterpart funding, budget sequestration and lack of government attention. The CLR notes that intensive attention to portfolio problems in FY15-16, improved portfolio performance. 43. Brazil’s portfolio at exit also did not perform as well as its comparators (LAC and Bank-wide). During the review period, the share of projects rated as moderately satisfactory or better was at 46 percent, lower than its comparators. Although in terms of commitments the share was higher at 76.6 percent, but still lower than the LAC and Bank-wide average. However, the risk to development outcome (RDO) was at par with its comparators. The CLR reports that based on a multivariate analysis, urban and municipal projects were more problematic than projects in other sectors, due to complex environments (urban) and low capacity combined with fiscal constraints (municipal). Disbursement ratios declined sharply in 2013 and 2014, to some extent as a result of the deterioration of fiscal conditions and the availability of counterpart funds. Nevertheless, disbursement ratios had partially recovered by 2015, in the midst of the recession, perhaps as a result of increased Bank attention to portfolio issues in FY15. 44. During the CPS period, IFC had made 73 projects for a total of $4.7 billion, above net commitments of $3.8 billion during the previous CPS period of FY08-11. IFC’s investments were highly concentrated in the financial sector and accounted for approximately 75 percent of total net commitments. Within this financial sector lending, IFC provided $0.9 billion to support long term lending (primarily to support SMEs) and $2.4 billion for short-term financing under the global trade For Official Use Only CLR Review 15 Independent Evaluation Group finance program (GTFP). The GTFP represented 51 percent of IFC’s total net commitments over the period. Other sector investments included electric power (6 percent of net commitments), transportation (3%), education (3%) and health (2%). PPP projects, which cut across many sectors including infrastructure, health and education, tended to be the largest projects outside of the financial sector. IFC’s total net exposure at the beginning of the CPS period was $2.2 billion and the current IFC exposure to Brazil is $2.0 billion. 45. IEG reviewed 16 XPSR Evaluation Notes and produced one Project Evaluation of a telecommunication project and one Evaluation Summary of a bank project supporting SME lending. Of the 18 projects reviewed, 7 were rated Successful, 4 Mostly Successful, 4 Mostly Unsuccessful, 2 Unsuccessful and 1 Highly Unsuccessful. Compared with Bank, the CLR indicates that IFC’s portfolio did not suffer a significant deterioration during the economic crisis. However, IFC’s net commitments dropped by roughly one-third after FY 2014, with net commitments of $0.8 in FY15 vs. average net commitments of $1.26 billion for FY12-14. 46. MIGA issued one guarantee in the sustainable transportation sector during the review period. MIGA’s total net exposure to Brazil is $361 million. Analytic and Advisory Activities and Services 47. The total number of completed tasks during the CPS period (75) was below the total number of planned tasks (81), albeit larger than the number of tasks completed during the FY08-FY11 CPS (69). Completed tasks covered a wide range of topics, including public sector management in several areas (e.g., debt, water, social housing, pensions), growth and competitiveness (e.g., on productivity, urban growth, oil and gas discoveries), services (e.g., education, health, social protection), environment (e.g., low carbon city development, deforestation, impact of climate change on agriculture), sector issues (e.g., agriculture risks, housing and health finance), fiscal issues (medium- term expenditure frameworks, intergovernmental finance), and private sector development (ROSCs on corporate governance, accounting standards, insolvency and creditor rights). This ASA program was well aligned with the CPS focus on fiscal and public sector management, services to the poor, and environmental sustainability. Nevertheless, attention to structural issues was belated, discouraged by weak Government demand. This may have reduced the WBG’s preparedness for the impacts of recession on operations. Furthermore, the use of Reimbursable Advisory Services (RASs) was impeded by legal obstacles that prevented the signing of new RASs. Bank Evidence of dissemination is limited. Only 10 of the 35 economic and sector work tasks are readily available to the public as Bank reports (in documents.worldbank.org). Task records for the others show dissemination activities only exceptionally. 48. IFC had a significant advisory service (AS) program during FY12-15. From FY12-FY15, IFC approved a total of 20 AS projects—14 of which are still active--with a total funding of $23.3 million. While these levels are impressive, they represent a significant reduction from the previous CPS period (FY08-11) average of 7-10 AS projects totaling roughly $11 million per year, despite the CPS focus on IFC’s expected contribution to advisory work. The two largest AS projects supported IFC investment projects, one for an airport concession project ($2.7 million) and another in the sustainable forest management sector ($2.3 million.) 49. IEG reviewed five IFC AS projects through PCR Evaluation Notes. The Development Effectiveness ratings were mixed; one project was deemed Successful, while two were rated Mostly Successful and two Mostly Unsuccessful. Both of the Mostly Unsuccessful projects were to support financially viable firms, but the projects did not deliver the development outputs that the project documents anticipated. Results Framework 50. WBG’s interventions supporting the CPS sought to reduce critical constraints to Brazil’s goals of higher growth, inclusion, and environmental sustainability. However, some CPS indicators were defined too broadly (at the national level) when the level of interventions were at the subnational levels and hence posed difficulty in terms of attribution. There was no discussion in the CPS of the scale up from project/city/state to country level outcomes (for example in the case of objective 5). In For Official Use Only CLR Review 16 Independent Evaluation Group some cases, outcome indicators reflected inputs (e.g., investment screening processes), not outcomes (e.g., efficiency of investments). Some indicators refer to targeted population such as the lowest income quintiles, but could not be verified from project level documents supporting the objective (for example Objective 5). Further, the CPS results framework did not include indicators to reflect the possible impact of IFC’s considerable investment in supporting the MSME sector through local financial institutions. Instead, IFC uses standard sector indicators, which are owned and periodically revised by operational teams, to indicate development results. At the CPSPR, the number of outcomes were consolidated from 37 to 19, and some outcomes were merged while others were dropped where the Bank did not expect to have an impact. Although simplification was warranted, the CPSPR could have taken the opportunity to resolve the measurability issues outlined above. Furthermore, the CPSPR could have reviewed the results matrix to ensure that outcomes of some interventions (e.g., on energy) were adequately reflected in the matrix. Partnerships and Development Partner Coordination 51. The Bank and the IMF supported the Federal Government in complementary areas of financial management. While both the Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) supported subnational governments (e.g., in the State of Bahia), there is little indication that these institutions coordinated their efforts. IFC partnered with the IDB (primarily in the financial sector) and Brazil’s National Development Bank (BNDES) for the design of public-private partnerships in the social sectors. Safeguards and Fiduciary Issues 52. Safeguards policies were triggered in thirty-one out of forty-four operations that were closed and validated by IEG during the review period. According to the ICRs, compliance was generally reported as satisfactory, with adequate due diligence at the preparation stage (appropriate policy identification, consultations, instruments preparation and disclosure). However, the ICRRs reported that projects were relatively silent on implementation activities and provided little or no evidence of impacts and mitigation of the reported issues across sectors. According to the ICRRs, implementation of the involuntary resettlement policy was particularly challenging in most practice areas. Displacement issues ranged from lack of operational guidelines, improper information disclosure, and incompetence of local contractors to handle population displacements, in addition to delays in compensation of Project Affected People (PAPs). The ICRRs also reported that about 500 compensation processes and over 1,500 pending cases of resettlement remained unresolved at the end of the CPS period mainly in the Agriculture, Water, Urban Development, Environment and Natural Resources practice. 53. INT investigated fraud allegations under three Bank projects during the CPS period. On the Alto Solimoes Project (P083997), INT found fraud, collusion, and corruption in the award and execution of a contract for the extension and improvement of waste water supply services. On the Santos Municipal project (P104995), INT found evidence of fraud in the selection process for the award and the execution of a consulting contract, and obstruction in INT’s investigation of a works contract. On the GEF Rio Grande do Sul Biodiversity Project (P086341), INT substantiated procurement fraud in the awarding of one contract. The Bank took several corrective actions on the Santos project, including an independent procurement review. On the Alto Solimoes project, the Bank cancelled a proposed additional financing. On the GEF project, there were no addition actions the Bank could take beyond identifying the allegations and promptly reporting them to INT. Ownership and Flexibility 54. The WBG conducted consultations during March-August 2011 in preparation for the CPS. Consultations focused on States and Municipalities clients and stakeholders, where most WBG operations were implemented. The consultations suggested wide support for the program. Upon project approval, ownership was typically strong, as reflected for example in the prior actions underpinning the sub-national DPOs. However, ownership in some cases faltered during implementation as capacity constraints or political changes deflected client attention away from projects. The CPS outlined lending and AS operations only for FY12 and FY13, thereby providing For Official Use Only CLR Review 17 Independent Evaluation Group flexibility through the CPSPR’s design for FY14 and FY15. WBG lending at subnational levels and the program of ASA were largely in response to client requests. The CPSPR also reflected flexibility, by simplifying the outcomes sought by the program as more evidence on what was achievable emerged. The CLR noted flexibility in the WBG capacity to respond to changed circumstances such as increased interest on service delivery following public unrest in 2013. WBG Internal Cooperation 55. The CPS and CPSPR outlined Bank and IFC interventions in support of program objectives, with a division of labor where the Bank focused on Government policies and service delivery and the IFC focused on private participation. Thus, for example, in education, the Bank’s focus included curricular reforms in secondary education and IFC’s focus covered financing private sector post- secondary education. Furthermore, the CPS proposed increased Bank and IFC engagements in Brazil’s nine Northeast States. However, there was limited joint work between the two institutions, although there were surely opportunities (e.g., on education, health, and housing) for closer collaboration. Coordination may have faltered in some areas. For example, IFC efforts on MSMEs and on tertiary education were not captured in quantitative indicators and targets in the CPS results framework. Risk Identification and Mitigation 56. The CPS and the CPSPR identified risks related to the size of the lending program and the development impact of the WBG program. On the size of the lending program, the CPS and CPSPR highlighted macroeconomic risks, including a deterioration of the global economic outlook, external debt levels, currency mismatches, and inflationary pressures. Materialization of these risks would deteriorate Brazil’s growth and its fiscal accounts, with reactive fiscal adjustment efforts including restrictions on subnational borrowing and hence on the demand for Bank lending. Despite available buffers (e.g., high international reserves, a flexible exchange rate) the risks of lower growth and fiscal constraints materialized, with an adverse effect on lending. There were no mitigating actions planned that the Bank could deploy to fully offset the impact on lending. The only mitigating measure planned and actionable by the Bank (intensification of knowledge support activities) might have prevented a sharper decline in lending, but not offset it altogether. 57. The CPS and CPSPR also referred to the risk of low WBG development impact due to the small size of the Bank lending program and the complexity of its operations. The WBG aimed to mitigate this risk by levering lending with other activities, including “catalytic engagements”, other financial resources, and integration of lending with knowledge. The Bank increased the total budget for ASA activities from US$ 1.49 million in FY14 to US$ 5.7 million in FY16. However, with a reduced size of the lending program, overall development impact possibly declined. Overall Assessment and Rating 58. IEG rates WBG performance as Fair, as the design and implementation of the program failed to contribute to the achievement of a significant number of objectives and to provide sufficient attention to implementation problems. The CPS design benefited from aligning its focus areas with well-identified development challenges and country programs, from a basic design to achieve CPS objectives through improved policies and increased sector infrastructure, and from the intended leveraging of the WBG’s financial contribution with WBG ASA and resources from other development partners. WBG Lending was adequately balanced between policy-based with investment operations, and combined with ASAs and non-lending technical assistance to clients. Both lending and ASAs were also thematically aligned. Outcomes were well-linked to interventions in the results framework, although the effectiveness of the planned interventions was likely to vary (e.g., dialogues on productivity were unlikely to achieve much actual progress on productivity policies). Selectivity towards the less developed States strengthened the focus on poverty reduction. The main risk that materialized (macroeconomic) was well identified, although effective mitigation measures were not identified. However, the CPS design could have been improved with a stronger engagement with the Federal Government, a more deliberate programmatic approach to policy lending, more efforts to For Official Use Only CLR Review 18 Independent Evaluation Group identify and operationalize synergies between the Bank and IFC, and attention to the adequacy of monitoring indicators, including those that would pertain to IFC activities. 59. Implementation suffered largely from Brazil’s deteriorating economic performance and political environment, both factors being difficult to mitigate. Nevertheless, the WBG implementation performance also faltered in some areas. ASA on Brazil’s structural challenges, which the Bank conducted only in the last two years of the CPS period, could have enabled the WBG to engage more on those challenges and to anticipate the crisis and be better prepared to react to it. Insufficient supervision before FY15, partly due to resource trade-offs with lending, may have affected portfolio performance, which deteriorated throughout the CPS period. Although safeguards compliance was satisfactory at the preparation stage of operations, safeguards implementation was poorly documented and faltered, for example, on involuntary resettlement policies (para. 52). Despite some joint work (e.g., on PPPs), Bank-IFC collaboration and coordination with other development partners, particularly with the IDB, could have been stronger. Although the CPSPR simplified the monitoring indicators, it did not improve measurability, as many of the indicators did not measure CPS outcomes adequately. INT investigated fraud allegations in three Bank projects during the CPS period and the Bank took corrective measures where applicable. All in all, the shortcomings in design and implementation outlined above help explain why the program failed to contribute to a significant number of CPS objectives. 7. Assessment of CLR Completion Report 60. The CLR provides an informative and candid assessment. However, its discussion of results could have been more consistent with the results framework, which envisaged twelve objectives (“results areas”) grouped under four focus areas (“Strategic Objectives”). Under the harmonized IEG- WBG methodology for Assessing CPFs (Guidance on Country Partnership Framework Products) each CPF Objective needs to be rated. Instead, the CLR discussed each of the nineteen outcomes with no discussion of the twelve objectives (results areas in the CPS). Furthermore, evidence of the Bank’s contribution to results was often sketchy. Nevertheless, the analysis of the individual outcomes was informative, albeit limited by inadequacies of their indicators. On WBG performance, the CLR provides several useful insights including a multi-variate analysis of portfolio performance. The CLR results matrix provides detailed information and well-considered lessons from each of the outcomes. The CLR, however, did not cover safeguard and fiduciary aspects. 8. Findings and Lessons 61. IEG agrees with CLR lessons, which are summarized as follows. First, a program largely focused on sub-national governments will benefit from a strong engagement with the national Government to address federal and fiscal constraints as well as tensions between the two levels (e.g., on thematic priorities). Second, ASA that balances areas of government demand with strategic economic issues (e.g., productivity) will provide country-wide knowledge that bears upon the specific areas of client demand. Third, the combination of adverse economic conditions, political changes at the State level, and systemic corruption will limit what the WBG can achieve in the short to medium term, despite the WBG’s long-term engagement. Fourth, a deterioration of public finances as a result of recession will have an adverse impact on portfolio performance. Fifth, portfolio risks may be more closely linked to specific sectors (urban, municipal), due to the particular complexities or conditions that those sectors face, than to the different capacity levels of the Northeast compared to the South. Sixth, attention to fiscal sustainability at the subnational level will improve the performance of DPOs that focus on service delivery. 62. IEG provides the following three lessons. First, DPO lending in a programmatic setting could help the Bank to better achieve a more consistent sequencing of policies and achievement of welfare outcomes. By way of example, two or three programmatic Bahia loans, in lieu of stand-alone operations, could have helped better achieve outcomes (e.g., on education quality) by strengthening the reforms and allowing more time for reform implementation and achievement of the outcomes. Second, Bank-IFC collaboration can be stronger than that under the CPS. More planning and For Official Use Only CLR Review 19 Independent Evaluation Group coordination between the two institutions (e.g. resulting in joint ASA and parallel operations) could bring in synergies between reforms, public, and private investments, for example on WRM. JIP between the Bank and IFC could have facilitated the collaboration of two institutions at the sector level. Third, indicators that accurately reflect outcomes are critical to enable program evaluation, particularly for IFC projects that reflect private sector activities and outcomes. For example, country- wide access to education says little about education outcomes from Bank sub-national projects. Similarly, and given multiple sources of finance, the total number of MSMEs financed overstate the reach and development impact of IFC finance in terms of stimulated economic growth and employment generation. PSM reforms can be more fully measured by entry and exit PEFA type surveys than by simple MTEF or RBM designations. Annexes CLR Review 21 Independent Evaluation Group Annex Table 1: Summary of Achievements of CPS Objectives – Brazil Annex Table 2: Brazil Planned and Actual Lending, FY12-FY15 Annex Table 3: Analytical and Advisory Work for Brazil, FY12-FY15 Annex Table 4: Brazil Grants and Trust Funds Active in FY12-15 Annex Table 5: IEG Project Ratings for Brazil, FY12-15 Annex Table 6: IEG Project Ratings for Brazil and Comparators, FY12-15 Annex Table 7: Portfolio Status for Brazil and Comparators, FY12-15 Annex Table 8: Disbursement Ratio for Brazil, FY12-15 Annex Table 9: Net Disbursement and Charges for Brazil, FY12-15 Annex Table 10: Total Net Disbursements of Official Development Assistance and Official Aid for Brazil Annex Table 11: Economic and Social Indicators for Brazil, 2012 – 2015 Annex Table 12: List of IFC Investments in Brazil Annex Table 13: List of IFC Advisory Services in Brazil Annex Table 14: IFC net commitment activity in Brazil, FY12 - FY15 Annex Table 15: List of MIGA Activities in Brazil, 2012-2015 Annexes CLR Review 23 Independent Evaluation Group Annex Table 1: Summary of Achievements of CPS Objectives – Brazil CPS FY12-FY15 – Focus Area 1: Increase Efficiency of Public and Actual Results IEG Comments Private Investments Objective 1: Fiscal and Public Sector Management Outcome (i): Greater adoption of The CLR reports that the target was not achieved some elements of medium-term and that progress has been slow since the PLR, fiscal frameworks (MTEFs) in with only 3 of the 15 targeted sub-national States and Municipalities governments making progress on the MTEF, (Ceará, Minas Gerais, Rio although with implementation issues: Grande do Sul, Federal District, (i) only one state (Pernambuco) possesses a Alagoas, Rio State, Rio de functioning investment screening process (see IEG: Janeiro, São Paulo, Bahia, S for the Pernambuco Equity and Inclusion Growth Tocantins, Paraná, Recife, DPL, P132768, FY13) –Rio de Janeiro developed Pernambuco, Belo Horizonte, some elements of investment screening that were Piaui). not adopted and Minas Gerais still has a basic system. The CLR also report that investment Baseline: No full-fledged MTEFs, screening processes are not effective yet in the relatively basic multi-year states of Ceara (the CLR does not report specific expenditure management system, operations, under this Indicator, for this state) and fiscal risk analysis methodology Rio Grande do Sul (the ICR prepared for the Rio and fiscal control systems Grande do Sul Strengthening Fiscal and Water Resource Management DPL, P148083, FY14, Target: (i) Functioning investment reports a MU development outcome). screening processes in Minas (ii) regarding work initiated in other States and Gerais, Rio de Janeiro, Ceará, Rio Municipalities: the CLR reports that Sao Paulo has Major Grande do Sul, Pernambuco and made some progress but with limited supported Outcome (ii) work initiated on such from the WBG; that the States of Bahia, Tocantins, Measures processes in other States and Parana, Recife and Piaui are only at an initial Municipalities. stages of investment planning systems and that the proposed operations in the Federal District and Alagoas did not take place. The CLR also reports that the city of Rio de Janeiro has multi-year fiscal targets and projections. The CLR does not report information for the city of Belo Horizonte, that was part of this Indicator. Not Achieved. Outcome (ii): Increased result The CLR reports that the target is mostly achieved, orientation in planning, with results-orientation under implementation in budgeting and expenditure certain sub-national entities: (including procurement - Ceara has received technical assistance since processes) in one or more 2014, under the Strengthening Service Delivery sectors in States supported by Ceara Programme for Results 9 P127463, FY14) the Bank (Acre, Amazonas, - In Minas Gerais, some result-based Bahia, Ceará, Minas Gerais, management (RBM) reforms have been reverted Paraná, Pernambuco, Piaui, after the 2014 elections but maintained in Tocantins, Rio de Janeiro, Rio Education, Health and Security (Second and Grande do Norte, Rio Grande do Third Minas Gerais Development Partnership Sul, São Paulo and Sergipe) SWAP, P101324, FY08 IEG: MS and P121590 FY12, IEG: MS). Baseline: Significant result - Bahia (Bahia Strengthening Fiscal Management orientation in planning, budgeting Incl. Service Delivery DPL, P147984, FY15, see and expenditures exists in Minas Management: MS), Pernambuco (see IEG: S for Annexes CLR Review 24 Independent Evaluation Group CPS FY12-FY15 – Focus Area 1: Increase Efficiency of Public and Actual Results IEG Comments Private Investments Gerais and is at earlier stages of the Pernambuco Equity and Inclusion Growth development in other states. DPL, P132768, FY13), Rio de Janeiro (Rio de Janeiro Enhancing Public Mgt. for Service Target: Increased (or deepened) Delivery DPL, P147695, FY 14, see coverage of sectors by formal Management: U) continue their policies for RBM RBM processes including results and Amazonas has recently developed a agreements or formal results performance management in the security sector monitoring systems providing (Amazonas Fiscal Consolidation for Improved feedback to program managers in Service Delivery DPL, P147979, FY14, see States supported by the Bank Management: S) (Acre, Amazonas, Bahia, Ceará, - Acre has just completed the first year of Minas Gerais, Paraná, implementation of the new performance based Pernambuco, Piaui, Tocantins, bonus for teachers and school staff (through the Rio de Janeiro, Rio Grande do Strengthening Public Policies for Improved Norte, Rio Grande do Sul, São Service Delivery DPL, P147913, FY14, see Paulo and Sergipe). Management: S) - Piaui is receiving support to strengthen the monitoring of capital projects (Piaiui Green Growth and Inclusion DPL, P126449, FY12, that supported the development of RDM, see IEG: MS) - Rio Grande do Sul and Parana are not implementing RBM - Rio Grande do Norte and Tocantins are also in the process of implementing RBM - A proposed operation in Sergipe did not take place and there has been no progress towards RBM in the State and the Bank has not directly supported the RDM in the state of Sao Paulo In total six States accomplished progress directly linked to the WBG support. Partially Achieved. Objective 2: Private Sector Development Policies Outcome (i): Strengthened The IFC supported the structuring and institutional framework for implementation of 9 PPP projects in infrastructure, public-private partnerships waste management, health and education in the (PPPs) in Bank-supported cities of Belo Horizonte (primary care project states 579487 and school project 582687) and Curitiba (waste project 600354) and in the states of Bahia Baseline: PPP framework still (road project 600579 and health project 588887), under-developed in Paraná and Goias (energy project 601051), Para (school project Rio de Janeiro, and other sub- 601015) and for Brazilian Airports (project 595967) national entities. and the Amazon Forest (project 589267). It also reports that USD 3.9 billion were mobilized in Target: Improved PPP frameworks private investments. in Paraná, Bahia and Rio de A report (P133671, see report) reviewing PPP Janeiro, some progress in other practices in Brazil was prepared and the WBG held entities and support through IFC in discussions to strengthen institutional frameworks, structuring PPP transactions. through the Global Infrastructure Facility. Finally, the CLR reports that in Sao Paulo a MIGA Guarantee coupled to an IBRD Loan attracted Annexes CLR Review 25 Independent Evaluation Group CPS FY12-FY15 – Focus Area 1: Increase Efficiency of Public and Actual Results IEG Comments Private Investments private financing for the State highway rehabilitation program and that the city of Rio de Janeiro received support to prepare and manage a PPP project pipeline and that the PPP unit is functioning in the city. However, it reports that it is too early to assess the quality of PPP institutions and processes established. No progress is reported in the CLR for Parana which is a State reported under the target. Partially Achieved. Outcome (ii): Demonstrable The CLR reports that the target was partially contribution to policy dialogue achieved, with substantive policy dialogue held at on productivity issues and the Federal level, including 4 major events, on progress achieved in improving productivity issues. institutional frameworks and It also reports that the IFC supported the national policy actions to promote investment promotion agency (APEX) and other productivity and investment promotion agencies in frontier states, competitiveness enhancing although this has not yet translated into specific investments in Bank-supported reforms – at the exception of Ceara, where the states (e.g. Ceará, Rio Grande dialogue on skills development has proceeded well do Sul, Pernambuco). and evidence that the operation leading public vocational training providers to better align supply Indicator: Number of joint with demand dialogues on productivity policy at Conversely, too few firms participated in the WBG federal level and productivity- training programs that were supporting firm focused policy actions linked to upgrading in the state of Rio Grande do Sul. Bank Bank support at State level. lending to the States of Ceará, Pernambuco, Rio Grande do Sul, and Tocantins supported Baseline: none investments but were not focused on productivity or Target (2015): 3 competitiveness policies or frameworks. In relation to access to credit, the CLR reports that in 2011-2014 financial institutions supported by IFC investments grew their MSME portfolio from 109,000 to 448,000 MSMEs, and made available over US$38.5 billion of financing. IFC also guaranteed trade transactions of financial institutions through the Global Trade Finance Program. Partially Achieved. CPS FY12-FY15 –Focus Area 2: Improve the quality and expand Actual Results IEG Comments the provision of public services for low-income households Objective 3: Consolidated and Strengthened Social Protection System Outcome (i): Enhanced extreme The CLR reports that 75%, as of 2014, of families in poverty eradication program Quintiles 1 are receiving transfers from the Bolsa Familia program. The bank has supported the Bolsa Familia through the Second Bolsa Familia Annexes CLR Review 26 Independent Evaluation Group CPS FY12-FY15 –Focus Area 2: Improve the quality and expand Actual Results IEG Comments the provision of public services for low-income households Indicator: % of families in Quintile (P101504, FY11) APL that supports the 1 that receive transfers from strengthening of the program’s governance, of its Bolsa Família (PNAD) monitoring and evaluation system, and of the Baseline (2009): 50% linkages between Bolsa Familia and complementary Target (2015): 78% actions beyond the program. The last ISR: S, (December 2016) reports that 71.50% of families in Quintiles 1 are receiving transfers from the Bolsa Familia program. Mostly Achieved. Objective 4: Improved Quality of Education for the Poor Outcome (i): Improve quality Not Verified. - and increase coverage of ECD services (creche and pre- school), targeted to the lowest income quintiles Target A: Pre-school participation Target A: The CLR reports that the target was Major for the poorest two quintiles of the achieved, with 79% of pre-school participation for Outcome population Baseline (2009): 42% the poorest two quintiles of the population reported Measures Latest data (2012): 48% as of 2014 – 78% for boys and 80% for girls.The Target (2015): 54% CLR reports that this indicator was supported by distinct ASAs and TA, such as the Early Childhood Boys- Girls Development NLTA (P123497, FY12, see final Baselines (2009): 42.7% and report) and by the Acre Social Inclusion Sustainable 42.0% Development project (P107146, FY09 – ISR: S, 1- Latest data (2012): 49% and Jan-2012); the Recife Swap Education and Public 47.6% Management Project (P126372, FY12 -ISR: S; 19- Target (2015): 54% and 54% Sep-2012), and the Strengthening Service Delivery for Growth, Poverty Reduction and Environmental Sustainability in the State of Ceará PforR (P127463, FY14, ISR:S, 21-Dec-2016): - In Recife, the ISR (P126372) reports that 80% of all early child education facilities had received the required rehabilitation;35 schools received systematic follow-up on a school management plan from the Core Regional Follow-up team; and 2419.00 children in Grades 1-5 were enrolled in accelerated learning programs. Finally, in Ceara, the ISR (P150110) indicates that as of October 31, 2016, 5.11% of families with children aged 0-5 were enrolled in Cadastro Unico located in targeted municipalities receiving family support The percentage indicated in the CLR cannot be estimated from the numbers in the project documents. Data from the Ministry of Education (see report) indicates that the number of children enrolled in pre- school increased from 4.68 million in 2011 to 4.9 million in 2015 and data published by the Annexes CLR Review 27 Independent Evaluation Group CPS FY12-FY15 –Focus Area 2: Improve the quality and expand Actual Results IEG Comments the provision of public services for low-income households government reports that pre-school enrollment increased from 72.5% to 89.1% between 2005 and 2014. However, the data does not report enrollment for the poorest two quintiles of the population. Not Verified. Target B: Creche (daycare) Target B: The CLR reports that the target was participation for the poorest two partially achieved, with 18% of daycare participation quintiles of the population for the poorest two quintiles of the population Baseline (2009): 14% reported as of 2014 – 17% for boys and 18% for Latest data (2012): 17% girls. Target (2015): 20% The CLR reports that this indicator was supported by the Acre Social Inclusion Sustainable Development Boys - Girls project (P107146, FY09 – ISR: S, 1-Jan-2012); the Baselines (2009): 13.7% and Recife Swap Education and Public Management 14.1% Project (P126372, FY12 -ISR: S; 19-Sep-2012), and Latest data (2012):17.1% - 17.0% the Strengthening Service Delivery for Growth, Target (2015): 20% - 20% Poverty Reduction and Environmental Sustainability in the State of Ceará PforR (P127463, FY14, ISR:S, 21-Dec-2016). No evidence for crèches was found in the indicated interventions. Data from the Ministry of Education (see report) indicates that the number of children enrolled in creche increased from 2.29 million in 2011 to 3.04 million in 2015 and reached 25.6% enrollment nation-wide (enrollment increased by 56.6% between 2011 and 2016, see report). However, the data does not report enrollment for the poorest two quintiles of the population. Not Verified. Outcome (ii): Improve learning The target is achieved, as per the Index of Basic outcomes and completion rates Education Development (IDEB) score (see below). in primary and secondary However, as reported in the CLR, the WBG’s education as measured by contribution to national score is uncertain and national education quality cannot be verified; the CLR reported the list of index, IDEB operations to have contributed to this indicator for certain states only. Likewise, although distinct ASAs and TA were reported to have contributed to this indicator, their contribution cannot be verified. The CLR also mentions that IFC’s investments in clients provided tertiary education services to about 2.8 million students – this is outside the scope of this indicator. Not Verified. Target A: Improve IDEB scores Target A: the CLR reports that the target was for end of primary cycle achieved in 2011 (4.1) and partially achieved at the Baseline (2009): 4.0 (target 3.7) end of the CPS period, according to the latest data, Latest data (2011): 4.1 (target for 2015 (4.5). 3.9) 2013 target: 4.4 Annexes CLR Review 28 Independent Evaluation Group CPS FY12-FY15 –Focus Area 2: Improve the quality and expand Actual Results IEG Comments the provision of public services for low-income households Target (2015): 4.7 Data available on the IDEB website indicates that, as of 2015, the score was 5.2 for the first years and 4.7 for the last years of Fundamental Education. The CLR reports that this indicator was supported by distinct ASAs and TA, and by the Pernambuco Educational Results and Accountability Project (P106208, ICR: S), The Second Minas Gerais Development Partnership Project (P101324, ICR:S; IEG: MS.), and the Acre social and Economic Inclusion and Sustainable Development Project (P107146, ISR:S 18-Oct-2016): - The ICR (P106208) provides the scores for the Pernambuco state only; in 2013 the IDEB scores for the final grades of Fundamental Education was 3.6 (target 3.3) - In Minas Gerais, the ICRR shows no evidence for Fundamental Education. - In Acre, the ISR indicates that the IDEB scores for Fundamental Education was 5.2 for grades 1- and 4.4 for grades 6-9 5 in 2013 Information from the WBG project documents do not permit to assess achievement. Not Verified. Target B: Improve IDEB scores for end of secondary school Target B: the CLR reports that the target was Baseline (2009): 3.6 (target 3.5) achieved in 2011 (4.1) and partially achieved at the 2011 target: 3.7 (achieved) end of the CPS period, according to the latest data, 2013 target: 3.9 for 2015 (3.7). Data available on the IDEB website Target (2015): 4.3 indicates that, as of 2015, the score was 4.3 for Secondary school. The ICR (P106208) shows that in 2013 the IDEB scores for the Upper Secondary Schools was 3.6 (target 3.2) in Pernambuco. In Minas Gerais, the ICRR indicates that IDEB for public secondary schools was improved by 0.26 additional points. The ICR of the same project adds that between 2007 and 2010, the IDEB scores for public Secondary score was 3.65. Information from the WBG project documents do not permit to assess achievement. Not Verified. Objective 5: Improved Access to Health Care, Especially for the Poor Outcome (i): Improved access to The CLR reports that the target was exceeded, with quality primary health care 48.2% of the population, in municipalities with more Indicator: Population covered by than 100,000 inhabitants, covered by the Family Family Health Strategy in Health Strategy (PSF in Portuguese) and benefiting municipalities with more than from the PROESF, as of December 2014. 100,000 people and benefitting The First (P057665, FY02, IEG: HS) and Second from PROESF (P095626, FY08) Family Health Extension Programs -APL supported progress to this outcome. As Annexes CLR Review 29 Independent Evaluation Group CPS FY12-FY15 –Focus Area 2: Improve the quality and expand Actual Results IEG Comments the provision of public services for low-income households Baseline (2009): 36.2% reported in IEG: U for the Second phase, the Target (2015): 43% program supported an increase of the coverage of PSF from 33% in 2006 to 48.2% in 2014, in project areas. Mostly Achieved. Outcome (ii): Development of The CLR reports that the target was exceeded, on integrated health care networks the basis of a change in the indicator, after a Level II restructuring for the Qualisus-Rede Health Network Indicator: Number of Regional Formation and Quality Improvement Project Health Care Networks (RHCNs) (P088716, FY09), considering the project's that deploy governance limitations to influence quality and efficiency of SUS’ mechanisms (regional RHCNs. management committees, Inter- regional base contracts or The new indicator reported in the CLR is the intergovernmental agreements following: “Percentage of priority health regions that based regional or global implemented new governance mechanisms to consortium) support regional coordination and collaboration (regional management committees, Inter-regional Baseline (2009): None base contracts or intergovernmental agreements Target (2015): 15 based regional or global consortium). Baseline: 0 (Dec 2010). End Target: 80% (Dec 2015) Actual: 100% (Dec 2015)”. IEG: U for project P088716 reports that all participating regions implemented new governance mechanisms to support regional coordination and collaboration. Mostly Achieved. Outcome (iii): Support for active The CLR reports that the target was achieved, with 6 Gender Policies States (Bahia –Inclusion and Economic Development DPL, P126351, FY12, IEG: MU), Indicator: Number of States Pernambuco – Equity and Inclusion Growth DPL, supported by the World Bank P132768, FY13, IEG:S) – Acre – Social and Group in implementing Economic Inclusion and Sustainable Development substantive policy or institutional Project, P107146, FY09, see last ISR: S- reforms or investments for the Amazonas – the Modernizing Public Sector empowerment of women and Management, Citizen Security and Gender Policies protection of women from Gender DPL, P147979, FY14, Management: S; and Rio de Based Violence. Janeiro – Enhancing Public Management for Service Delivery in Rio de Janeiro DPL, P147695, FY14, Baseline: None Management: U), including Sergipe, - although the Target (2015): 5 review of the components of the P129652 - Sergipe DPL does not permit to validate this information – possessing stand-along gender components. These project supported the following topics: 1) Strengthening of the role and capacity of the Women’s Secretariats at the state level; 2) Implementation of VAW legislation and policies at the state level; 3) Economic autonomy (of women); 4) Teenage pregnancy and maternal health. In Annexes CLR Review 30 Independent Evaluation Group CPS FY12-FY15 –Focus Area 2: Improve the quality and expand Actual Results IEG Comments the provision of public services for low-income households addition, the WBG supported the preparation of a Gender Study (P127423) published in May 2013 and of a Gender and Social Inclusion NLTA (P132325). Achieved. CPS FY12-FY15 – Focus Area 3: Promote Regional Economic Development through Improved Actual Results IEG Comments Policies and Strategic Public and Private Investments Objective 6: Expanded Access to Improved Basic Sanitation Outcome (i): Increased access to Not Verified. and improved efficiency of water supply Target A: Percentage of Target A: The CLR reports that access to safe households with access to clean water reached 95.8 percent of the households as of water 2014 (according to data from the PNAD/IBGE) and Baseline (2010): 91% that 245,000 people had access to water in rural Target (2015): 93% areas, from WBG supported projects. The following Bank operations supported access to clean water: - IEG:MU of the Rio Grande do Norte Integrated Water Resources Management Project (P089929, FY08) indicates that the number of additional families with access to reliable potable water was 2,697 (72.8% achieved compared to Major the project target of 3000) Outcome - the last ISR: U (May 2017) of the Integrated Measures Water Management in Metropolitan Sao Paulo project (P006553, FY10) reports that 1.5 million people were provided with improved water source under the project - under the Integrated Health and Water Management Project (P095171, FY11, last ISR: S) about 45,000 people were served by simplified water supply systems, and basic sanitation in 10 selected municipalities (as of December 2016) - under the Ceara Rural Sustainable Development and Competitiveness (P121167, FY12, last ISR: MS), 22,000 families had access to water - access to water and sanitation was not improved under the Recife Urban Development and Social Inclusion Project (P089013, FY08, closed FY14), IEG:HU Annexes CLR Review 31 Independent Evaluation Group CPS FY12-FY15 – Focus Area 3: Promote Regional Economic Development through Improved Actual Results IEG Comments Policies and Strategic Public and Private Investments The contributions of Bank operations to the program target indicates that more than 1.5 million people, in rural and urban areas, got access to water services during the CPR period; this number cannot be compared with Target A, measuring an increase in percentage points. However, WDI data for Brazil indicates that the share of the population with access to improved water source increased from 96.9% to 98.1% in Brazil between 2010 and 2015, which is line with the program target. Information from the WBG project documents do not permit to assess achievement . Not Verified. Target B: Average non-revenue Target B: The CLR reports that the target was not water losses achieved, with the average non-revenue water Baseline (2010): 37.4% losses at 37% as of 2014 (see SNIS). Target (2015): 35% However, at the project level, the ICR of the Rio Grande do Norte Integrated Water Resources Management indicates that all project water losses reduction activities (including reduction actions financed by the KfW (German Bank for Development) and CEF (Brazilian Federal Bank) and the Bank intervention) led to reductions in water losses in Monsenhor Expedito pipeline and distribution systems from 46 % estimated losses in 2008 to 38% in 2015 and under the Pernambuco Sustainable Water (P108654, FY10, last ISR: MS , 31-Jul-2011) water losses in the areas targeted by the projects decreased from 975 liter/connection (2008) to 669 as of December 2015. Information from the WBG project documents do not permit to assess achievement . Not Verified. Target C: Percentage of Target C: The CLR reports that the target was municipalities with services mostly achieved, according to ABAR data for 2015 providers regulated by independent that indicates that 2,906 municipalities have regulators services regulated by independent agencies, as of Baseline (2010): 30% 201, 52 % of the total number of municipalities Target (2015): 60% (5,570). However, evidence that this target was supported by the WBG could not be verified from the WBG project documents. Information from the WBG project documents do not permit to assess achievement . Not Verified Outcome (ii): Increased access to The CLR reports that the target was achieved, with sewage services and treatment of 75.4% of the population (83.3% in urban areas) waste water having access to adequate sanitation services Annexes CLR Review 32 Independent Evaluation Group CPS FY12-FY15 – Focus Area 3: Promote Regional Economic Development through Improved Actual Results IEG Comments Policies and Strategic Public and Private Investments Indicator: % of Households with (sewerage and sceptic tanks) according to the access to sewerage 2014 PNAD/IBGE data. Baseline (2010): 70% The CLR also reports that, thanks to WBG support, Target (2015): 75% 306,000 people has access to sanitation in rural areas. However, the review of the WBG project documents indicates that access to sewerage was provided to about 112,000 households during the CPS period: - The ISR of the Municipal APL 3: Teresina project indicates that as of May-04-2016, the number of new household sewer connections constructed was 6,846.00. - The ISR of the Sergipe Water project reports that as of December 19, 2016 105,400.00 domiciliary connections to wastewater collection services (From baseline 55,000 in 2010 to Target 143,000 in 2017) - The ISR of the Espirito Santo Integrated Sustainable Water Management project reports that as of May 9, 2016, no New household sewer connections was constructed under the project. Hence, although the national target was achieved, the WBG contribution is not certain. The CLR also reports the contribution of the IFC that invested in the AEGEA and CASAN and that AEGEA Saneamento increased its water distribution customers from 1.5 million in 2012 to 2.73 million in 2014, while sewage customers increased from 0.74 to 1.17 million in the same period. Information from the WBG project documents do not permit to assess achievement . Not Verified. Objective 7: Improved Transport and Logistics Outcome (i): Improved Partially Achieved. integrated transport The CLR reports the contribution of diverse IFC infrastructure and management investments (TRG, BTP Santos – approved in with sustainable urban mobility FY11 and FY14 - Tecon El Salvador - approved in FY08 and FY12 - and the Hidrovias project 34846, FY15) to increase cargo operations in the ports and efficiency of transport infrastructure, as well as IBRD projects (see below): Target A: States (Minas Gerais, Target A: The CLR reports that this indicator is Paraná, Rio Grande do Sul and partially achieved since several states have Tocatins) will have in place developed multimodal transport and logistics plans improved integrated transport (Rio Grande do Sul, through the Rio Grande do Sul Annexes CLR Review 33 Independent Evaluation Group CPS FY12-FY15 – Focus Area 3: Promote Regional Economic Development through Improved Actual Results IEG Comments Policies and Strategic Public and Private Investments management and overall efficiency SWAP, P120830, FY12, last ISR: MS;, Tocantins; with emphasis on green transport, through the Tocantins Integrated Sustainable as measured within the supporting Regional Development Project (P121495, FY13, Bank projects. last ISR: MS) and Parana- this information is not verified since the CLR did not report the operation that contributed to this State).IEG: MS for the Minas Gerais Partnership II SWAP (P101324, FY08) does not report any progress on Transport. Although not part of this target, the CLR reports progress at the Federal level with the creation of the Logistics and Transport Company (EPL) and the Integrated National Logistics Plan (PNLI), operational in 2015 and progress in certain states; Sao Paulo is developing its Plano Diretor de Transporte e Logistica and state logistics and transport plans have been prepared in Mato Grosso do Sul and is under preparation in Tocantins. Partially Achieved. Target B: States and cities (Belo Target B: The CLR reports that this indicator is Horizonte and Rio de Janeiro) will partially achieved, with the cities of Rio de Janeiro have integrated transport within a (Upgrading and Greening the Rio de Janeiro Urban broader urban management Rail System project, P111996, last ISR: S); Sao framework as measured with the Paulo (metro operations, P106390 and P116170; support Bank operations. trains and signaling project P106038; and sustainable transport project P127723) , Belo Horizonte (the CLR does not report the operation for this city), and Curitiba (the CLR does not report the operation for this city having expanded and improved public transport infrastructure and services, providing additional kms of bus lanes, bikeways, and BRTs, in spite of delays in project implementation. The CLR also reports that a GEF project closed in December 2015 supported training for 600 people from 30 municipalities on sustainable urban mobility training. Partially Achieved. Objective 8: Increased Supply of Clean and Efficient Energy Services Outcome (i): Increased access The CLR reports that the target was achieved, with to energy services in remote only 27,462 households lacking electricity in the areas North and North-East regions, as of 2015. The CLR reports that the Light for All program Target: Households lacking (program executed since 2003 by the Federal electricity in North and Northeast Government) has delivered 562,832 new electricity reduced by 500,000 families by connections between January 2010 and February 2015 2014. The only IBRD project in this area approved Baseline (2010): 590,294 during the CPS period was the Energy and Mineral Annexes CLR Review 34 Independent Evaluation Group CPS FY12-FY15 – Focus Area 3: Promote Regional Economic Development through Improved Actual Results IEG Comments Policies and Strategic Public and Private Investments Target (2015): 90,294 Sector Strengthening project (P126537, FY12) which PDO and intermediate indicators do not relate to this CPS indicator (see last ISR: MS of October 2016).Another ongoing project, the Eletrobras Distribution Rehabilitation project, P114204, FY10 is not directly linked either to this CPS outcome (see last ISR: MS). As mentioned in the CLR, the attribution of the CPS outcome to the WBG projects is not established. Finally, the CLR reports that various IFC investment supported the supply of clean and efficient energy in various North-East states. Partially Achieved. CPS FY12-FY15 – Focus Area 4: Improve sustainable natural Actual Results IEG Comments resource management and climate resilience Objective 9: Integrated Water Resources Management Outcome (i): Improved water Progress towards this indicator was supported by resources management and the Rio Grande do Norte Integrated Water development of innovative Resources Management (P089929, IEG: MU), the irrigation approaches. Rio Grande do Sul Strengthening Fiscal and Water Resources Management DPL (ICR :MU) ; the Pernambuco Sustainable Water (P108654, FY10, ISR: S, 31-Jul-2011); the Sergipe Water Project (P112074, FY12, ISR:MS, 27-Dec-2016); and the Sao Paulo Water Recovery Project - REAGUA (P106703, FY10, ISR:MU, 27-Nov-2016) The CLR also reports that the Bank supported the Major Federal Government (through the Integrated Outcome Water- Interaguas project P112073, FY12, last Measures ISR: MS). Information from the WBG project documents do not permit to assess achievement . Not Verified. Target A: 13 State water agencies Target A: the CLR reports that the target was and 4 river basin water agencies achieved, with the 26 States and the Federal that are properly functioning, District possessing institutions in charge of water applying the management resources management and the creation and instruments established by law, operation of 10 river basin agencies (see data for and are reasonably well staffed. 2014 from the National Water Agency, ANA). The URL to an article on Groundwater and The Right to Water in a Context of Crisis (Accepted on: 19/12/2015) provided in the CLR shows a list of water resources management institutions in all states. Annexes CLR Review 35 Independent Evaluation Group CPS FY12-FY15 – Focus Area 4: Improve sustainable natural Actual Results IEG Comments resource management and climate resilience The ICRR (11/30/2015) of the Rio Grande do Norte Integrated Water Resources Management (P089929) reports “a fully operational water resources monitoring and information (target reached)”.The ISR of the Sergipe Water Project (P112074, FY12, ISR:MS, 27-Dec-2016) reports that as of December 19, 2016 the state agency responsible for water resources management was not created or designated. The End Target date is 30-Jun-2017. Information from the WBG project documents do not permit to assess achievement . Not Verified Target B: Volume (20 million m3 Target B: the CLR reports that the target was per year) of bulk water being achieved, and that, in 2014, the water charged in charged (and 50% percentage the country reaching BRL 264 million, of which collected of that volume) in the 89% of invoices were paid (see the 2014 ANA country, excluding power report). generation. The ISR of the Pernambuco Sustainable Water project indicates that as of March 21, 2012, Bulk water charges had not been implemented; the TOR were being prepared in Pernambuco. The ISR of the Sergipe Water Project (P112074, FY12, ISR:MS, 27-Dec-2016) reports that the establishment and implementation of water charges for farmers working in irrigated perimeters of Poção da Ribeira and Jacarecica I – related consulting services had already been contracted and the state legal framework was set for the start of the charging; The ISR of the Sao Paulo Water Recovery Project – REAGUA reports that as of September 30, 2016, 43773508.00 Cubic Meter(m3), of water was recovered. The WBG contribution to the target is not verified on the basis of the reviewed projects. Information from the WBG project documents do not permit to assess achievement . Not Verified. Target C: PPP arrangements Target C: the CLR reports that the target was signed for irrigation projects partially achieved and will not be met, given that covering an expanded area: the Federal government has postponed decisions Baseline (2010): < 3,000 ha on PPP arrangements until further notice. The CLR Target (2015): 200,000 ha reports that the WBG supported this outcome through 2 RAS. The ISR of the Pernambuco Sustainable Water project shows that as of March 21, 2012, the Model for private participation in the Canal do Sertão Pernambucano was still being developed. The WBG contribution to this target is uncertain. Information from the WBG project documents do not permit to assess achievement . Not Verified. Annexes CLR Review 36 Independent Evaluation Group CPS FY12-FY15 – Focus Area 4: Improve sustainable natural Actual Results IEG Comments resource management and climate resilience Objective 10: Expanded Sustainable Agriculture Outcome (i): Improved Market Information from the WBG project documents do Access for and adoption of Climate not permit to assess achievement . Not Verified. Smart Agriculture (CSA) by Small Rural Producers Organizations (% of organizations led by women) Target A: Number of Small Target A: the CLR reports that this target was Producers Organizations with mostly achieved, with 14,218 small producer improved market access in the organization (27% below target) supported by the States of Rio Grande do Norte, Rio Bank’s operations in the States of Rio Grande do de Janeiro, Bahia, Amazonas, Norte, Rio de Janeiro, Bahia, Amazonas (no Parana, Para, Sao Paulo, Santa operation is reported in the CLR for this state), Catarina, Pernambuco, and Ceara Parana, Para (no operation is reported in the CLR (% of organizations led by women) for this state, Sao Paulo, Santa Catarina, Pernambuco, and Ceara (no operation is reported Baseline (2009): 2,730 small in the CLR for this state) as of 2015. It also reports producer’s organizations supported that 30% of the organizations (4,266) were led by by Bank-financed Projects (844 women. organizations led by women, 30%) The CLR also points (para. 46) that despite the fact Target (2015): 19,600 small that the number of producers supported felt short of producer’s organizations supported the target, the number of states that adopted by Bank-financed Projects (5,800 climates smart agriculture surpassed the target of organizations led by women, 30%) four states. The reviewed project information permits to validate the following achievements for certain states only: - 33 subprojects of traditional communities with market viability had been identified and financed by the project (End Target 49) under the Sao Paulo Sustainable Rural Development and Access to Market Project - The ISR of the Pernambuco Rural Economic Inclusion, reports: * from 31-Jul-2016 to 05-Jan-2017, 50 Beneficiary Rural Productive Organization (RPOs) were successfully inserted into Local Productive Alliances (LPAs) - (End Target 75) * as of 05-Jan-2017, 15% of the beneficiary RPOs were selling products to institutional or private markets after subproject conclusion (End Target 60%) Information from the WBG project documents do not permit to assess achievement . Not Verified. Target B: Brazilian States Target B: the CLR reports that the target was implementing programs that achieved since, by 2015, the states of Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Paraná, Ceara, Bahia, Rio Grande Annexes CLR Review 37 Independent Evaluation Group CPS FY12-FY15 – Focus Area 4: Improve sustainable natural Actual Results IEG Comments resource management and climate resilience promote the adoption of climate- do Norte and Santa Catarina were implementing smart agriculture (CSA) by farmers programs that promote the adoption of CSA by Baseline (2009): 0 States farmers. Target (2015): 4 States - The ISR of the Santa Carina Rural Competitiveness project reports that as of 10- Nov-2016, 41,386 farmers had adopted an improved agriculture technology promoted by the project (the End Target is 20514.). The ISR also points at the same time 6,540women had adopted an improved agricultural technology - The ISR of the Bahia Sustainable Rural Development Project reports that as of 09-Dec- 2016, no clients (farmers) had adopted an improved agricultural technology promoted by the project. Also, there is no indication whether the technology included climate smart agriculture practices. - Parana (through the SWAP for Parana Multi- Sector Development Project, P126343, FY13) seems to have incorporated components related to disaster risks (see last ISR: MS, December 2016). - the review of the project documents for the projects financed in other states (Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, and Rio Grande do Norte) does not permit to verify that those states were implementing programs that promote the adoption of CSA by farmers. Information from the WBG project documents do not permit to assess achievement . Not Verified. Objective 11: Improved Environmental Management, Biodiversity Conservation and Climate Change Mitigation Outcome (i): Expansion of areas The CLR reports that additional 31.54 million ha of Official data (see under effective protection protected areas. It also reports progress for various IBGE), which may have programs: been revised since the Protected areas to increase: - the Cerrado Biome, part of the Sustainable base year (2010) show Baseline (2010): 120 million ha. Cerrado Initiative (P091827, FY10) supported 147 million Ha. for 2010 Target (2015): 135 million ha. (15 actions to improve management of 24 existing and 150 million ha. for million ha. Increase) protected areas, covering 4.25 million ha. It 2015, an increase of 3 added 401,868 ha of new protected areas (see million Ha., below the Management: MU) – the total under the project is target expansion of 15 4.60 million ha million in the - the Pampa Biome, part of the GEF Rio Grande CPS/CPSPR. do Sul Biodiversity project (P086341, FY10) supported 11 protected areas – the total area was 223,432 ha (see IEG: S). As reported in the CLR, Quarta Colonia was also proposed to the State authorities as a conservative corridor Annexes CLR Review 38 Independent Evaluation Group CPS FY12-FY15 – Focus Area 4: Improve sustainable natural Actual Results IEG Comments resource management and climate resilience (233,635 ha). Hence, under the project 0.47 million ha were protected - under the Amazon Region Protected Areas Program (ARPA) Phase II (P114810, FY12), 6.1 million were brought under enhanced biodiversity protection and 1.5 million Ha of protected areas had been created by March 2016 (see last ISR: S of December 2016). Accordingly, a total of 7.6 million Ha. of new areas, or of existing areas brought under enhanced protection were added. - the Marine Protected Areas Project (P128968, FY15) had added 0.1 Million Ha under enhanced biodiversity protection by April 2016 CPS period. (see last ISR: S of December 2016) Between these operations, a total of 12.5 million ha of natural areas were protected during the CPS period. Finally, the CLR reports the attempts of IFC to develop business in the Amazon and Cerrado regions (under the project Amazon Forest 589267), to support environmentally sustainable and commercially viable productive activities, but it does not report on the link between this operation and protected areas. Partially Achieved. Outcome (ii): Improved Not Achieved. institutional capacity for environmental management and upscaling of Cadastro Ambiental Rural Target A: Environmental Target A: the CLR reports that the target was management capacity will have achieved: improved through (a) the development of more transparent and user- (a) development of more friendly tools to speed up licensing processes transparent and user-friendly and improve social participation and control tools to speed up licensing mechanisms is on track to be completed by processes and improve social 2019, thanks to projects implemented in Acre, participation and control Sao Paulo (Sao Paulo Sustainable Transport mechanisms, project, P1277263), Parana, Tocantins (Tocantins Integrated Sustainable Regional Development Project, P121495, FY12, the last ISR: MS does not possess a related indicator) and Rio Grande do Sul. IEG’s review of the projects reported in the CLR to have contributed to this indicator does not permit to verify progress. Not Verified. (b) the creation of ecological- (b) the CLR reports that the creation of ZEE land economic zoning (ZEE) land use planning tools in three states is also on use planning tools in three track to be completed by 2018-2019, thanks to states projects implemented in Sao Paulo (IEG could Annexes CLR Review 39 Independent Evaluation Group CPS FY12-FY15 – Focus Area 4: Improve sustainable natural Actual Results IEG Comments resource management and climate resilience not verify the project documents given that the CLR did not report on the list of projects for this State), Tocantins (Tocantins Integrated Sustainable Regional Development Project, P121495, FY12, the last ISR: MS does not possess a related indicator) and Rio Grande do Sul (see the TORs). The last ISR: MS (April 2017) for the Federal Integrated Water- Interaguas project (P112073, FY12) does not report progress on the development of an ZEE for the San Francisco River Basin. Not Verified. Not Verified. Target B: Strengthening the Target B: the CLR reports that the target was not Environmental Agencies’ capacity achieved since the system has been delayed to receive, analyze, and approve (under the Forest Investment Program) and will be the rural environmental cadastre completed by 2020. It also reports that the SICAR entries and link them to the will provide essential information for monitoring and national system (Sistema de controlling private rural land use, including Cadastro Ambiental Rural, SICAR), compliance with reforestation obligations. in accordance with Law 12651 Not Achieved. Baseline (2010): 0 Target (2015): 10 States and Federal District. Objective 12: Improved Environmental Management, Biodiversity Conservation and Climate Change Mitigation Outcome (i): Improved disaster The CLR reports that the target was partially preparedness and coordination achieved, with EWS implemented in two states, Rio of post disaster response in de Janeiro (under the Strengthening Public states/cities of Bank Management and Integrated Territorial engagement Development project, (P126735, FY14, last ISR: U) and Parana (under the SWAP for Parana Multi- Indicator: State/City Early Warning sector Development Project (P126343, FY13, last Systems (EWS) Revamped ISR: MS) against a target of 10 states. Baseline (2010): 0 The CLR also reports that the Bank has supported Target (2015): 10 the national level, through the development of the National Disaster database (S2ID) in the CENAD. It also reports that, at sub-national, it has directly or indirectly supported the financing of EWS in: - Rio Grande do Sul under the Rio Grande do Sul Swap (P120830, FY12) - Paraná, through the Paraná Multi-Sector Development SWAP (P126343, FY13) – which last ISR: MS indicates no progress on the improved identification of disaster risks, as of September 2015 - São Paulo through the São Paulo Sustainable Transport (P127723) - its last ISR: MU indicates Annexes CLR Review 40 Independent Evaluation Group CPS FY12-FY15 – Focus Area 4: Improve sustainable natural Actual Results IEG Comments resource management and climate resilience no progress of the indicator related to the improvement of transport management proactively coping with disaster - Rio de Janeiro through the Rio de Janeiro Renovating and Strengthening Public Management Project (P106768, FY11) – with the acquisition and installation of two Meteorological Radars although its last ISR:S indicates no progress on the PDO indicator related to the decrease in the share of false alerts issued by the flooding warning system - Finally, the CLR reports the contribution of the Drought Preparedness and Climate Resilience program in Brazil that delivered a total of 22 reports covering a wide range of topics related to droughts and the creation of a partnership between ANA and Northeastern States to monitor droughts in the Northeast (see site). Partially Achieved. Annexes CLR Review 41 Independent Evaluation Group Annex Table 2: Brazil Planned and Actual Lending, FY12-FY15 Approved Proposed Approval Closing Proposed Proposed Outcome Project ID Project name IBRD FY FY FY Amount Amount Rating Amount Project Planned Under CPS/PLR 2012-2015 CPS CPSPLR P126537 Energy and Mineral Sector Strengthening 2012 2012 2017 50 50 LIR: MS P112073 Federal Integrated Water Sector 2012 2012 2019 110 107 LIR: MS P125630 AF Greening Rio de Janeiro Urban Rail System (SIL) 2012 2012 600 600 NR Cancelled AF Rio de Janeiro State (SIL) 2012 40 Cancelled AF Rio de Janeiro Sustainable Rural Development (SIL) 2012 100 P125829 APL 2 São Bernardo Int. Water Mgment (SIL) 2012 2012 27 21 NR P121167 Ceará Rural Sustainable & Competitiveness (SIL) 2012 2012 2018 100 100 LIR: MS P120139 Pernambuco Rural Economic Inclusion (SIL) 2012 2012 2019 100 100 LIR: MS Cancelled Rio Municipal (SIL) 2012 16 P112074 Sergipe Water (SIL) 2012 2012 2017 70 70 LIR: MS P126351 Bahia DPL 2012 2012 2015 700 700 IEG: MU P126449 Piauí Green Growth and Inclusion DPL 2012 2012 2013 350 350 LIR: MU P106753 Pernambuco Expand. Opportunities, Enh. Equity DPL 2012 2012 2013 500 500 IEG: S P126372 Recife Education and Public Management SWAp 2012 2012 2018 130 130 LIR: MU P120830 Rio Grande do Sul SWAp 2012 2012 2019 480 480 LIR: MS Cancelled Federal Transport (SIL) 2013 100 Dropped South-South Cooperation for Economic Development 2013 30 P126343 Paraná PSM for Development SWAp 2013 2013 2018 350 350 LIR: MS Cancelled Alagoas Extreme Poverty Eradication (SIL) 2013 300 P126452 Rio Grande do Norte Regional Development (SIL) 2013 2013 2019 360 360 LIR: MU P121495 Tocantins Integrated Sustainable Reginal Development (SIL) 2013 2013 2019 300 300 LIR: S P121590 3rd Minas Gerais Partnership DPL 2013 2013 2014 450 450 LIR: HS P126749 Belo Horizonte Urban DPL 2013 2013 2015 200 200 IEG: MU P126465 Rio State DPL III 2013 2013 2014 300 300 LIR: S Annexes CLR Review 42 Independent Evaluation Group Approved Proposed Approval Closing Proposed Proposed Outcome Project ID Project name IBRD FY FY FY Amount Amount Rating Amount Rio de Janeiro DPL: Enhancing Public Management for Service P147695 Delivery 2014 2014 2016 500 500 LIR: MU Rio State Strengthening Public Management and Integrated P126735 Territorial Development 2014 2014 2017 48 48 LIR: U P127463 Strengthening Service Delivery Ceará PforR 2014 2014 2018 350 350 LIR: S P147913 Acre: Strengthening Public Policies DPL 2014 2014 2016 250 250 LIR: S P130682 Espirito Santo Integrated Sustainable Development 2014 2014 2021 225 225 LIR: S Amazonas Fiscal Consolidation for Improved Service Delivery P147979 DPL 2014 2014 2016 216 216 LIR: S Rio Grande do Sul Strengthening Fiscal and Water Resources P148083 Management DPL 2014 2014 2016 280 280 LIR: MS P147157 Bahia Sustainable Rural Development 2014 2014 2021 150 150 LIR: S P147984 Bahia DPL 2015 2015 2016 400 400 LIR: S P130593 (AF) MST PROACRE Loan 2015 2015 150 150 NR Cancelled Bahia Transport 2015 200 Cancelled Piaui Sustainable Human Development and Social Inclusion DPL 2015 200 Piaui Sustainable Development, Social Inclusion and Human Cancelled Development SWAp 2015 120 Cancelled (AF) Pernambuco Education Results & Accountability 2015 175 Cancelled Recife Municipal DPL 2015 180 Cancelled Salvador Social and Infrastructure 2015 100 Cancelled Manaus Municipal Development 2015 100 Cancelled Terasina AF 2015 80 Cancelled Sergipe DPL II 2015 150 Cancelled Paraiba Rural Development 2015 50 Bahia Entrepreneurship and Economic Autonomy among Dropped Women and Afrodescendants 2015 160 Cancelled GDF PSM Project 2015 100 Dropped Alagoas Poverty Reduction & Economic Inclusion 2015 150 Annexes CLR Review 43 Independent Evaluation Group Approved Proposed Approval Closing Proposed Proposed Outcome Project ID Project name IBRD FY FY FY Amount Amount Rating Amount Dropped Fortaleza Municipal Development 2015 100 Cancelled Sao Paulo Metropolitan Development 2015 TBD Cancelled Minas Gerais Metropolitan Development 2015 TBD Total Planned 5,763 4,434 7,737 Approved Approval Closing IBRD FY FY Unplanned Projects during the CPS and PLR Period Amount P126684 BR (AF) RJ Sustainable Rural Development 2013 100 P127245 BR Rio de Janeiro Mun. Strengthening PSM 2013 2018 16 LIR: MU P127723 Sao Paulo Sustainable Transport Project 2013 2019 300 LIR: MU P129652 BR Sergipe DPL 2013 2015 150 LIR: S P132768 BR-Pernambuco Equity & Inclus.Growth DPL 2013 2015 550 LIR: MS Total Unplanned 1,116 Approved Approval Closing On-going Projects during the CPS and PLR Period IBRD FY FY Amount P095171 BR (MST) Bahia Health and Wtr Mgt (SWAP) 2011 2018 60 LIR: S P101504 BR Bolsa Familia 2nd APL 2011 2017 200 LIR: S P106702 BR Integr. Solid Waste & Carbon finance 2011 2016 50 LIR: U P106768 BR Rio de Janeiro Public Management 2011 2017 19 LIR: S P111665 BR- RJ Munic Fiscal Consolid DPL 2011 2013 1,045 IEG: S P117122 BR (AF) SP Trains and Signalling 2011 113 NR P118077 BR (AF) SP Feeder Roads 2011 327 NR P118540 BR Santa Catarina Rural Competitiveness 2011 2017 90 IEG: HS P120391 BR-Federal Univ. Hospitals Modernization 2011 2016 150 LIR: S P122391 BR MST Rio de Janeiro Urban and Hous DPL 2011 2013 485 IEG: MU Annexes CLR Review 44 Independent Evaluation Group Approved Proposed Approval Closing Proposed Proposed Outcome Project ID Project name IBRD FY FY FY Amount Amount Rating Amount P006553 BR APL SP Integrated Wtr Mgmt 2010 2017 104 LIR: MU P099469 BR (APL2) 2nd National Environmental 2010 2016 24 LIR: U P101508 BR-RJ Sustainable Rural Development 2010 2019 40 LIR: MU P103770 BR ALAGOAS Fiscal & Public Mgmt Reform 2010 2012 195 IEG: MS P104995 BR Municipal APL5: Santos 2010 2015 44 LIR: U P106390 BR SP METRO LINE 4 (PHASE 2) 2010 2018 130 LIR: MS P106663 BR Sao Paulo Feeder Roads Project 2010 2015 167 IEG: MS P106703 BR SP Water Reagua 2010 2017 64 LIR: MU P108443 BR SP Sust Rural Dev & Access to Markets 2010 2018 78 LIR: MS P108654 BR Pernambuco Sustainable Water 2010 2018 190 LIR: MS P110617 BR (AF) Bahia State Integ. Pr Rural 2010 30 NR P111512 BR (APL2) RS Rio Grande Integ. Mun. Dev. 2010 8 NR P111996 BR RJ Mass Transit II 2010 2017 212 LIR: S P113540 BR AIDS-SUS 2010 2016 67 IEG: U P114204 ELETROBRAS Distribution Rehabilitation 2010 2017 495 LIR: MS P116170 BR Sao Paulo Metro Line 5 2010 2017 650 LIR: MS P118410 BR Mato Grosso do Sul Road 2010 2016 300 LIR: S P088716 BR Health Network Formation & Quality Im 2009 2016 235 LIR: U P094315 BR Municipal APL4: Sao Luis 2009 2016 36 LIR: U P099369 BR Ceara Regional Development 2009 2017 46 LIR: MS P102818 BR (AF-C)EspiritoSanto Wtr&Coastal Poll. 2009 72 NR P104752 BR Paraiba 2nd Rural Pov Reduction 2009 2014 21 LIR: MU P106208 BR Pernambuco Educ Results& Account. 2009 2016 154 IEG: S P106765 BR Ceara Inclusive Growth (SWAp II) 2009 2012 240 IEG: S P107146 BR MST Acre Social Economic Inclusion 2009 2020 120 LIR: S P107843 BR Fed District Multisector Manag. Proj. 2009 2013 130 IEG: HU Annexes CLR Review 45 Independent Evaluation Group Approved Proposed Approval Closing Proposed Proposed Outcome Project ID Project name IBRD FY FY FY Amount Amount Rating Amount P110614 BR: Sergipe State Int. Proj.: Rural Pov 2009 2012 21 IEG: MU P083997 BR (MST) AltoSolimoes Bsc Srvcs and Sust 2008 2014 24 LIR: MU P088966 BR Municipal APL3: Teresina 2008 2022 31 LIR: S P089013 BR Municipal APL: Recife 2008 2014 33 IEG: HU P089929 BR RGN State Integrated Water Res Mgmt 2008 2015 36 IEG: MU P094199 BR-(APL) RS (Pelotas) Integr. Mun. Dev. 2008 2014 19 IEG: MS P095626 BR (APL2)Family Health Extension 2nd APL 2008 2015 83 LIR: MU P101324 BR-Second Minas Gerais Dev't PArtnership 2008 2015 976 LIR: HS P106038 BR Sao Paulo Trains and Signalling 2008 2015 550 LIR: MS P106427 BR (AF-C)RJ Mass Transit 2008 44 NR P082651 BR APL 1 Para Integrated Rural Dev 2007 2015 60 IEG: U P089011 BR Municipal APL1: Uberaba 2007 2013 17 IEG: MU P095460 BR-Bahia Integr.Hway Mngmt. 2007 2014 100 IEG: MS P081436 BR-Bahia Poor Urban Areas Integrated Dev 2006 2014 49 IEG: MU P089440 BR-Brasilia Environmentally Sustainable 2006 2012 58 IEG: U P092990 BR - Road Transport Project 2006 2013 501 IEG: MS P093787 BR Bahia State Integ Proj Rur Pov 2006 2014 54 LIR: S P087711 BR Espirito Santo Wtr & Coastal Pollu 2005 2012 36 IEG: S P060573 BR Tocantins Sustainable Regional Dev 2004 2012 60 IEG: MS Total On-going 9,143 Source: Brazil CPS and PLR, WB Business Intelligence Table 2b.1, 2a.4 and 2a.7 as of 3/16/17 *LIR: Latest internal rating. MU: Moderately Unsatisfactory. MS: Moderately Satisfactory. S: Satisfactory. HS: Highly Satisfactory. Annexes CLR Review 46 Independent Evaluation Group Annex Table 3: Analytical and Advisory Work for Brazil, FY12-FY15 Proj ID Economic and Sector Work Fiscal year Output Type P117386 BR Money, Credit and Growth FY12 Sector or Thematic Study/Note P117541 BR Soc Protec. during 2008 Twin Crises FY12 Sector or Thematic Study/Note P120864 BR National Health Finance System FY12 Sector or Thematic Study/Note P123109 BR Productivity and Upgrading FY12 PSD, Privatization and Industrial Policy P123292 BR Implications of Oil & Gas Discoveries FY12 Sector or Thematic Study/Note P124201 BR Sao Paulo City Study FY12 Not assigned P126234 Subnational DeMPA - Rio FY12 General Economy, Macroeconomics, and Growth Study P127158 FSAP Update Brazil FY12 Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP) P121840 BR Amazon Deforestation and Protection FY13 Sector or Thematic Study/Note P123747 BR Bringing the State Back to RJ Favelas FY13 Sector or Thematic Study/Note P123869 BR Adpating Watr Rsces in Northeast BR FY13 Sector or Thematic Study/Note P123948 BR Ag Productivity and Competitiveness FY13 Public Expenditure Review (PER) P127423 BR Gender Study FY13 Sector or Thematic Study/Note P127510 BR Status of Urban Pollution Management FY13 Sector or Thematic Study/Note P128005 BR Evidence-based FY13 Sector or Thematic Study/Note P128802 BR: Corporate Governance ROSC IV FY13 Corporate Governance Assessment (ROSC) P129008 Brazil A&A ROSC FY13 Accounting and Auditing Assessment (ROSC) P129384 BR Eradicating Extreme Poverty FY13 Other Poverty Study P130721 BR Impacts of CC on Brazilian Agric. FY13 Sector or Thematic Study/Note P131350 BR RAS with Ministry of Environment FY13 Sector or Thematic Study/Note P123275 BR Locking in Performance Gains FY14 Sector or Thematic Study/Note P127863 Brazil ICR ROSC FY14 Insolvency Assessment (ROSC) P128193 Brazil Productivity FY14 Sector or Thematic Study/Note P132324 Pernambuco State Equity Assessment FY14 Country Economic Memorandum (CEM) P133671 Review of PPPs Practice in Brazil FY14 Sector or Thematic Study/Note P127740 BR Land Governance Assessment FY15 Institutional and Governance Review (IGR) P133162 Brazil - Skills and Jobs FY15 Sector or Thematic Study/Note P133175 BR Chronic disease and the health system FY15 Sector or Thematic Study/Note P143545 BR (MST) Metropolitan Governance FY15 Sector or Thematic Study/Note P146605 Brazil: Urban Poverty and Vulnerability FY15 Other Poverty Study P148311 Brazil-China Study FY15 Sector or Thematic Study/Note P151954 Disaster Risk Financing and Insurance FY15 Sector or Thematic Study/Note P155385 Bahia Agriculture Risk Assessment FY15 Sector or Thematic Study/Note P155386 Agriculture Risk Management Mapping FY15 Sector or Thematic Study/Note P155387 Paraiba Agriculture Risk Assessment FY15 Sector or Thematic Study/Note Proj ID Technical Assistance Fiscal year Output Type P117222 BR Monitoring and Evaluation FY12 Technical Assistance P122688 Brazil E-Waste Policy and Strategy FY12 Technical Assistance Annexes CLR Review 47 Independent Evaluation Group P123148 BR - Education Evidence-Based Policy FY12 Technical Assistance P123497 BR Early Childhood Development NLTA FY12 Technical Assistance P123713 BR Mainstreaming Green Trucks NLTA FY12 Technical Assistance P127363 CMPGL Brazil II FY12 Technical Assistance P119474 Brazil: #7017 Intro of Risk Based Spn FY13 Technical Assistance BR TA & Gdnce MCMV P125651 FY13 Technical Assistance PlanHab(CitiesAllian) P126154 BR-Development of DRM strategy FY13 Technical Assistance BR RAS Management of the São P128160 FY13 Technical Assistance Francisco P129186 Brazil #10157 Intro of Covered Bonds FY13 Technical Assistance P129364 BR RAS Nilo Coelho Irrigation FY13 Technical Assistance P132325 BR Gender NLTA FY13 Technical Assistance P132936 BR JIT Efficiency of Public Spending FY13 Technical Assistance P121521 BR Improving Social Housing in SP FY14 Technical Assistance P126815 BR RAS Municipality of Rio de Janeiro FY14 Technical Assistance P127677 BR Airports PPPs FY14 Technical Assistance P128199 BR-Vulnerable Populations in Brazil FY14 Technical Assistance P129598 BR TF Social Housing FY14 Technical Assistance P132266 BR Public Broadcasting Network FY14 Technical Assistance P132347 BR Intergovernmental Finance FY14 Technical Assistance P132428 BR Trade Facilitation FY14 Technical Assistance P133127 Economic and Fiscal Impact of Natural Di FY14 Technical Assistance BR RAS Sao Paolo Spprt to Education P133366 FY14 Technical Assistance PPP P133368 BR Productive inclusion in BsM FY14 Technical Assistance P127808 BR-Advisory for Rio Integrated Urban Dvl FY15 Technical Assistance P129693 BR Involuntary Resettlement Policy TA FY15 Technical Assistance P130642 BR Rio de Janeiro Low Carbon City Dev FY15 Technical Assistance P131410 BR RAS Sao Paulo PPP Support FY15 Technical Assistance P132342 BR Rio State Fiscal Model FY15 Technical Assistance P133484 BRAZIL HD Impact Evaluation FY15 Technical Assistance P143831 TA Pensions Brazil FY15 Technical Assistance P152338 Preventing Urban Violence in Brazil FY15 Technical Assistance P153758 South-South Cooperation FY15 Technical Assistance P155763 PA-Launch Productivity Dialogue FY15 Technical Assistance Source: WB Business Intelligence 3/21/17 Annexes CLR Review 48 Independent Evaluation Group Annex Table 4: Brazil Grants and Trust Funds Active in FY12-15 Project Approval Closing Approved Outcome Project name TF ID ID FY FY Amount Rating BR DGM for Indigenous People and Traditional P143492 TF 18765 2015 2020 6,500,000 Communities P150892 ProCerrado Federal Project TF A0093 2015 2018 4,300,000 Platform of Monitoring and Warning of Forest Fires in P149189 TF 18566 2015 2018 1,053,000 the Cerrado P148845 Brazil Learning Initiative (SoD Hub) TF 16605 2015 2018 600,000 P128968 BR Marine Protected Areas Project TF 18151 2015 2020 18,200,000 Rural Environmental Cadastre and Fire Prevention in P143376 TF 15228 2015 2018 4,400,000 Bahia State Project SUSTAINABLE PROD. IN AREAS PREVIOUSLY P143184 TF 17368 2015 2019 10,620,000 CONVERTED TO AGRICULTURAL USE P079182 Nova Gerar Landfill Rio de Janeiro TF 18087 2015 2019 136,000 P079182 Nova Gerar Landfill Rio de Janeiro TF 17287 2014 2017 2,277,253 RURAL ENVIRONMENTAL CADASTRE AND FIRE P143362 TF 16192 2014 2018 4,400,000 PREVENTION IN PIAUà STATE PROJECT Development of systems to prevent forest fires and P143185 TF 14140 2013 2014 100,000 monitor vegetation cover in the Brazilian Cerrado SUSTAINABLE PROD. IN AREAS PREVIOUSLY P143184 TF 14225 2013 2014 100,000 CONVERTED TO AGRICULTURAL USE Brazil: Rio Grande do Norte Strategy for Institutional P144735 TF 14559 2013 2016 700,000 Strengthening of the Secretariat of Health P125006 BR N2O Emission Reduction Project TF 13738 2013 2014 2,830,605 Strengthening the Institutional Capacity of the P129617 TF 11956 2013 2016 305,500 Procuradoria Especial da Mulher P127925 BR Fostering Short Sea Shipping TF 10693 2013 2016 300,000 Amazon Region Protected Areas Program Phase II P114810 TF 12073 2012 2018 15,890,000 (GEF) P125937 Breaching the Justice Gap in Brazil through CNJ TF 10771 2012 2016 450,000 Preparation Grant for Brazil Forest Investment Plan for P130210 TF 11559 2012 2015 250,000 FIP P124663 Caixa Solid Waste Mgt TF 11237 2012 2020 4,910,726 P124663 Caixa Solid Waste Mgt TF 11236 2012 2020 25,714,631 Brazil: Reducing Bureaucracy for Faster, More P121738 Transparent, and More Economic Procurement in TF 97283 2012 2014 500,000 Alagoas P120637 PLANTAR GREEN PIG IRON PROJECT TF 98831 2012 2020 7,932,000 P120637 PLANTAR GREEN PIG IRON PROJECT TF 98833 2012 2019 6,050,000 BR Nova Gerar Carbon Finance adn Solid Waste P105389 TF 11149 2012 2015 722,250 Management Project II P093787 Bahia State Integrated Project: Rural Poverty TF 10751 2012 2012 100,000 P125006 BR N2O Emission Reduction Project TF 99137 2011 2014 90,672,107 P120139 Pernambuco Rural Economic Inclusion TF 96046 2011 2012 250,000 Annexes CLR Review 49 Independent Evaluation Group Project Approval Closing Approved Outcome Project name TF ID ID FY FY Amount Rating Strengthening TCU Financial Audit of the P120377 Consolidated Financial Statements of the Government TF 99104 2011 2014 248,994 of Brazil BRAZIL SOLID WASTE PICKER SOCIAL P121881 TF 97192 2011 2014 2,729,900 INCLUSION INITIATIVE P120490 Identification of degraded areas in the Amazon TF 98125 2011 2012 822,000 Brazil Rural Environmental Cadastre Technical P120523 TF 97682 2011 2012 3,500,000 Assistance Project Reforestation with Native Species around AES-Tiete P096337 TF 93023 2011 2015 1,752,000 Reservoirs P086341 BR GEF Rio Grande do Sul Biodiversity TF 95979 2010 2016 5,000,000 IEG: S Sustainable Cerrado Initiative: Goias Sustainable P121671 Cerrado & ICMBio Cerrado Biodiversity TF 97157 2010 2015 3,000,000 protection project Sustainable Cerrado Initiative: Goias Sustainable P121671 Cerrado & ICMBio Cerrado Biodiversity TF 97156 2010 2015 3,000,000 protection project P091827 Sustainable Cerrado Initiative TF 96766 2010 2015 3,000,000 P091827 Sustainable Cerrado Initiative TF 96767 2010 2015 4,000,000 BR-GEF Sustainable Transport and Air Quality Project P114010 TF 95978 2010 2016 8,532,000 IEG: MS (STAQ) P115262 Strengthening the Ministerio Publico in Minas Gerais TF 95718 2010 2013 399,300 P115180 Strengthening Brazil Subnational Audit TF 95683 2010 2013 400,000 Leveling the Playing Field for Quilombola P118988 TF 93831 2010 2015 649,729 Communities in Northeastern Brazil Leveling the Playing Field for Quilombola P118988 TF 93827 2010 2015 375,589 Communities in Northeastern Brazil Leveling the Playing Field for Quilombola P118988 TF 93842 2010 2015 877,614 Communities in Northeastern Brazil BR Nova Gerar Carbon Finance adn Solid Waste P105389 TF 93336 2009 2015 15,497,448 Management Project II P117089 Brazil, State of the Cities Report Project TF 94414 2009 2012 500,000 Combining income and forest protection: açaà P114890 TF 93677 2009 2012 200,000 production Enhancing Operational Capacity of the Controller P109826 TF 92094 2009 2012 378,000 General of Brazil BR Sao Paulo Municipal Government (PMSP) P109751 TF 93186 2009 2012 367,100 Capacity Building for M&E Espirito Santo Biodiversity and Watershed P094233 TF 93210 2009 2015 4,000,000 Conservation and Restoration Project Fundação Centro de Educação do Trabalhador P113637 TF 92581 2009 2012 114,479 Professor Florestan Fernandes (FFF), National Biodiversity Mainstreaming and Institutional P094715 TF 91515 2008 2015 22,000,000 IEG: MS Consolidation Project P093787 Bahia State Integrated Project: Rural Poverty TF 58071 2008 2012 1,655,200 P091407 BR Lages Woodwaste Cogeneration TF 57816 2007 2014 7,500,000 Annexes CLR Review 50 Independent Evaluation Group Project Approval Closing Approved Outcome Project name TF ID ID FY FY Amount Rating Caatinga Conservation and Management - Mata P070867 TF 90274 2007 2014 10,000,000 IEG: U Branca - (GEF) Integrated Management of Aquatic Resources in the P066535 TF 56255 2007 2012 7,180,000 Amazon (AquaBio) P079182 Nova Gerar Landfill Rio de Janeiro TF 53535 2006 2017 15,475,338 P099581 CA: Brazil- Bahia Urban Dev Program-PAT TF 56050 2006 2012 5,965,486 P081023 PCF Sugar Bagasse Cogeneration Project TF 55702 2006 2014 550,000 Rio de Janeiro Sustainable Integrated Ecosystem P075379 Management in Productive Landscapes of the North- TF 54999 2005 2012 6,750,000 Northwestern Fluminen se (GEF) Total 346,684,249 Source: Client Connection as of 3/21/17 ** IEG Validates RETF that are 5M and above Annex Table 5: IEG Project Ratings for Brazil, FY12-15 Total Exit Proj ID Project name Evaluated IEG Outcome IEG Risk to DO FY ($M) 2015 P082651 BR APL 1 Para Integrated Rural Dev 35.1 UNSATISFACTORY SIGNIFICANT BR RGN State Integrated Water Res MODERATELY 2015 P089929 25.8 SIGNIFICANT Mgmt UNSATISFACTORY BR GEF Sustainable Cerrado MODERATELY 2015 P091827 0.0 SIGNIFICANT Initiative UNSATISFACTORY MODERATELY 2015 P094233 BR GEF Espirito Santo Biodiversity 0.0 MODERATE UNSATISFACTORY MODERATELY NEGLIGIBLE TO 2015 P094715 BR GEF National Biod Mainstreaming 0.0 SATISFACTORY LOW BR (APL2)Family Health Extension 2015 P095626 34.7 UNSATISFACTORY SIGNIFICANT 2nd APL BR-Second Minas Gerais Dev't MODERATELY 2015 P101324 1,434.4 SIGNIFICANT PArtnership SATISFACTORY MODERATELY 2015 P106038 BR Sao Paulo Trains and Signalling 662.9 MODERATE SATISFACTORY 2015 P106663 BR Sao Paulo Feeder Roads Project 493.4 SATISFACTORY MODERATE MODERATELY 2015 P126351 BR-Bahia DPL 700.0 SIGNIFICANT UNSATISFACTORY MODERATELY 2015 P126749 BR MST Belo Horizonte Urban DPL 200.0 MODERATE UNSATISFACTORY MODERATELY 2015 P129652 BR Sergipe DPL 150.0 MODERATE UNSATISFACTORY BR-Pernambuco Equity & 2015 P132768 550.0 SATISFACTORY MODERATE Inclus.Growth DPL BR GEF Caatinga Conserv. and Sust. 2014 P070867 0.0 UNSATISFACTORY SIGNIFICANT Mngmt BR-Bahia Poor Urban Areas MODERATELY 2014 P081436 49.3 SIGNIFICANT Integrated Dev UNSATISFACTORY Annexes CLR Review 51 Independent Evaluation Group Total Exit Proj ID Project name Evaluated IEG Outcome IEG Risk to DO FY ($M) BR (MST) AltoSolimoes Bsc Srvcs 2014 P083997 24.2 UNSATISFACTORY HIGH and Sust HIGHLY 2014 P089013 BR Municipal APL: Recife 19.6 HIGH UNSATISFACTORY MODERATELY 2014 P093787 BR Bahia State Integ Proj Rur Pov 84.4 MODERATE SATISFACTORY BR-(APL) RS (Pelotas) Integr. Mun. MODERATELY 2014 P094199 47.5 MODERATE Dev. SATISFACTORY MODERATELY 2014 P095460 BR-Bahia Integr.Hway Mngmt. 100.0 MODERATE SATISFACTORY MODERATELY 2014 P104752 BR Paraiba 2nd Rural Pov Reduction 20.9 SIGNIFICANT SATISFACTORY BR 3rd Minas Gerais Partnership MODERATELY 2014 P121590 450.0 MODERATE DPL SATISFACTORY MODERATELY 2014 P126465 BR Rio State DPL III 300.0 MODERATE SATISFACTORY MODERATELY 2013 P089011 BR Municipal APL1: Uberaba 16.0 MODERATE UNSATISFACTORY MODERATELY NEGLIGIBLE TO 2013 P092990 BR - Road Transport Project 433.2 SATISFACTORY LOW BR Fed District Multisector Manag. HIGHLY 2013 P107843 26.1 SIGNIFICANT Proj. UNSATISFACTORY BR CEARA WTR MGT PROGERIRH MODERATELY 2012 P006449 237.3 HIGH SIM UNSATISFACTORY BR Tocantins Sustainable Regional MODERATELY 2012 P060573 60.0 MODERATE Dev SATISFACTORY BR GEF Amazon Aquatic Res - 2012 P066535 0.0 NOT APPLICABLE NOT APPLICABLE AquaBio BR GEF-RJ Sust IEM in Prod MODERATELY 2012 P075379 0.0 MODERATE Landscapes UNSATISFACTORY BR-Brasilia Environmentally 2012 P089440 44.7 UNSATISFACTORY HIGH Sustainable MODERATELY 2012 P089793 BR State Pension Reform TAL II 4.7 SIGNIFICANT UNSATISFACTORY BR PE-Expand Opport, Enh. Equity 2012 P106753 500.0 SATISFACTORY MODERATE DPL NEGLIGIBLE TO 2012 P106765 BR Ceara Inclusive Growth (SWAp II) 238.7 SATISFACTORY LOW BR: Sergipe State Int. Proj.: Rural MODERATELY 2012 P110614 18.3 SIGNIFICANT Pov UNSATISFACTORY NEGLIGIBLE TO 2012 P111665 BR- RJ Munic Fiscal Consolid DPL 1,045.0 SATISFACTORY LOW BR MST Rio de Janeiro Urban and MODERATELY 2012 P122391 485.0 MODERATE Hous DPL UNSATISFACTORY BR MST Piaui Green Growth and MODERATELY 2012 P126449 350.0 SIGNIFICANT Inclus DPL SATISFACTORY Total 8,841.2 Source: AO Key IEG Ratings as of 5/16/17 Annexes CLR Review 52 Independent Evaluation Group Annex Table 6: IEG Project Ratings for Brazil and Comparators, FY12-15 Total Total RDO % RDO % Outcome Outcome Region Evaluated Evaluated Moderate or Lower Moderate or Lower % Sat ($) % Sat (No) ($M) (No) Sat ($) Sat (No) Brazil 8,841.4 38 76.6 45.9 65.8 52.6 LAC 25,888.5 216 86.1 72.2 68.6 57.9 World 101,828.3 1,215 83.1 71.2 59.4 45.6 Source: WB AO as of 5/16/17 * With IEG new methodology for evaluating projects, institutional development impact and sustainability are no longer rated separately. Annex Table 7: Portfolio Status for Brazil and Comparators, FY12-15 Fiscal year 2012 2013 2014 2015 Ave FY12-15 Brazil # Proj 58 65 66 56 61 # Proj At Risk 7 13 15 16 13 % Proj At Risk 12.1 20.0 22.7 28.6 20.8 Net Comm Amt 9,608.1 11,345.0 12,912.6 8,787.8 10,663 Comm At Risk 1,164.7 1,134.3 2,083.5 2,139.6 1,631 % Commit at Risk 12.1 10.0 16.1 24.3 15.3 LCR # Proj 346 332 315 291 321 # Proj At Risk 68 72 70 68 70 % Proj At Risk 19.7 21.7 22.2 23.4 21.7 Net Comm Amt 33,341.8 30,843.3 29,271.0 27,713.0 30,292 Comm At Risk 4,503.5 6,097.4 6,355.6 5,866.5 5,706 % Commit at Risk 13.5 19.8 21.7 21.2 18.8 World # Proj 2,029 1,964 2,048 2,022 2,016 # Proj At Risk 387 414 412 444 414 % Proj At Risk 19.1 21.1 20.1 22.0 20.6 Net Comm Amt 173,706.1 176,202.6 192,610.1 201,045.2 185,891 Comm At Risk 24,465.0 40,805.6 40,933.5 45,987.7 38,048 % Commit at Risk 14.1 23.2 21.3 22.9 20.5 Source: WB BI as of 5/16/17 Annexes CLR Review 53 Independent Evaluation Group Annex Table 8: Disbursement Ratio for Brazil, FY12-15 Fiscal Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 Overall Result Brazil Disbursement Ratio (%) 22.0 15.2 11.3 19.6 16.7 Inv Disb in FY 946.7 734.8 608.4 999.6 3,289.5 Inv Tot Undisb Begin FY 4,295.5 4,840.8 5,406.2 5,112.5 19,654.9 LCR Disbursement Ratio (%) 22.0 24.0 18.8 20.8 21.5 Inv Disb in FY 3,338.4 3,524.0 2,491.1 2,560.2 11,913.7 Inv Tot Undisb Begin FY 15,201.7 14,712.3 13,281.0 12,336.9 55,531.9 World Disbursement Ratio (%) 20.8 20.6 20.8 21.8 21.0 Inv Disb in FY 21,048.2 20,510.7 20,757.7 21,853.7 84,170.3 Inv Tot Undisb Begin FY 101,234.3 99,588.3 99,854.3 100,344.9 401,021.8 * Calculated as IBRD/IDA Disbursements in FY / Opening Undisbursed Amount at FY. Restricted to Lending Instrument Type = Investment. AO disbursement ratio table as of 5/16/17 Annex Table 9: Net Disbursement and Charges for Brazil, FY12-15 Period Disb. Amt. Repay Amt. Net Amt. Charges Fees Net Transfer FY12 2,771,712,347.1 3,063,161,024.4 (291,448,677.2) 152,786,958.0 4,829,879.7 (449,065,515.0) FY13 1,830,282,563.4 367,920,653.9 1,462,361,909.5 175,673,892.9 8,317,744.4 1,278,370,272.1 FY14 2,701,325,792.7 287,416,667.8 2,413,909,124.9 169,430,231.3 7,895,953.1 2,236,582,940.5 FY15 1,904,428,371.5 362,691,920.1 1,541,736,451.5 185,759,757.1 2,655,500.0 1,353,321,194.3 Report 9,207,749,074.8 4,081,190,266.2 5,126,558,808.5 683,650,839.4 23,699,077.2 4,419,208,891.9 Total World Bank Client Connection 3/21/17 Annexes CLR Review 54 Independent Evaluation Group Annex Table 10: Total Net Disbursements of Official Development Assistance and Official Aid for Brazil Development Partners 2012 2013 2014 2015 All Donors, Total 1288.54 1155.78 914.15 998.71 DAC Countries, Total 1079.29 1071.04 909.83 686.85 Australia 2.66 0.78 0.36 0.67 Austria 1.34 1.4 1.58 1.61 Belgium 3.73 4.75 2.88 2.42 Canada 2.54 2.23 1.3 0.92 Czech Republic 0.01 0.01 0 0.01 Denmark .. -0.08 0.83 0.29 Finland 1.41 1.37 1.06 0.53 France 860.71 121.16 222.9 181.03 Germany 117.71 217.91 468.04 269.44 Greece 0.26 0.06 0.07 0.03 Ireland 0.98 0.53 0.55 0.28 Italy 5.26 4.82 4.63 7.61 Japan -253.64 -14.35 15.38 3.67 Korea 0.52 0.69 0.12 0 Luxembourg 2.6 1.43 1.86 1.7 Netherlands 0.24 0.29 0.12 0.15 New Zealand 0.1 0.13 0.03 0.22 Norway 214.64 678.6 140.05 157.2 Poland 0.08 0.07 0.12 0.09 Portugal 6.47 4.73 3.69 3.08 Slovak Republic 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 Spain 10.53 7.44 5.3 4.37 Sweden 0.87 1.64 1.55 1.76 Switzerland 3.47 4.28 3.66 3.21 United Kingdom 74.23 8.56 16.74 31.91 United States 22.54 22.58 16.97 14.63 Multilaterals, Total 207.56 82.09 2.67 309.36 EU Institutions 188.8 90.27 -27.82 285.28 International Monetary Fund, Total .. .. .. .. IMF (Concessional Trust Funds) .. .. .. .. Regional Development Banks, Total -12.96 -39.82 -4.49 -10.94 Asian Development Bank, Total .. .. .. .. AsDB Special Funds .. .. .. .. Inter-American Development Bank, Total -12.96 -39.82 -4.49 -10.94 IDB Special Fund -12.96 -39.82 -4.49 -10.94 Caribbean Development Bank [CarDB] .. .. .. .. Annexes CLR Review 55 Independent Evaluation Group Development Partners 2012 2013 2014 2015 Council of Europe Development Bank [CEB] .. .. .. .. European Bank for Reconstruction and Development [EBRD] .. .. .. .. Islamic Development Bank [IsDB] .. .. .. .. United Nations, Total 8.46 8.05 8.46 8.05 Food and Agriculture Organisation [FAO] .. 0.04 .. .. International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] 1.06 0.87 0.57 0.47 IFAD .. .. .. .. International Labour Organisation [ILO] 2.17 2.55 1.98 2.35 UNAIDS 0.85 0.73 0.68 0.79 UNDP 0.95 0.94 0.44 0.43 UNFPA 2.43 2.08 2.05 1.5 UNHCR 0.17 .. .. .. UNICEF 0.82 0.84 2.73 2.5 World Bank Group .. .. .. .. World Bank, Total .. .. .. .. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development [IBRD] .. .. .. .. International Development Association [IDA] .. .. .. .. International Finance Corporation [IFC] .. .. .. .. Other Multilateral, Total 23.26 23.58 26.53 26.97 Adaptation Fund .. .. .. .. Arab Bank for Economic Development in Africa [BADEA] .. .. .. .. Arab Fund (AFESD) .. .. .. .. Climate Investment Funds [CIF] .. 0.09 0.01 0.06 Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization [GAVI] .. .. .. .. Global Environment Facility [GEF] 23.45 23.74 26.32 26.91 Global Fund -0.18 -0.39 -0.01 .. Global Green Growth Institute [GGGI] .. 0.15 0.2 .. Non-DAC Countries, Total 1.69 2.65 1.65 2.51 Estonia .. .. .. 0.01 Hungary 0.02 0.25 0 0.58 Israel 1.16 1.14 1.39 1.64 Lithuania .. .. 0 0.02 Romania 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.02 Russia 0.02 .. .. .. Thailand 0.06 0.02 0.01 0 Turkey 0.37 1.14 0.21 0.15 United Arab Emirates 0.03 0.08 0.03 0.09 Source: OECD Stat, [DAC2a] as of 3/21/17 Annexes CLR Review 56 Independent Evaluation Group Annex Table 11: Economic and Social Indicators for Brazil, 2012 – 2015 BRA LCR World Series Name 2012 2013 2014 2015 Average 2012-2015 Growth and Inflation GDP growth (annual %) 1.9 3.0 0.1 (3.8) 0.3 1.5 2.6 GDP per capita growth 1.0 2.1 (0.8) (4.7) -0.6 0.4 1.4 (annual %) GNI per capita, PPP 14,750.0 15,110.0 15,650.0 15,050.0 15,140.0 14,770.0 14,878.1 (current international $) GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 12,020.0 12,180.0 11,790.0 9,850.0 11,460.0 9,566.4 10,672.7 (Millions) Inflation, consumer prices 5.4 6.2 6.3 9.0 6.7 3.3 2.7 (annual %) Composition of GDP (%) Agriculture, value added 4.9 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.3 3.9 (% of GDP) Industry, value added (% 26.1 24.9 24.0 22.7 24.4 30.5 28.1 of GDP) Services, etc., value 69.0 69.8 70.8 72.0 70.4 64.2 67.9 added (% of GDP) Gross fixed capital 20.7 20.9 20.2 18.2 20.0 20.7 23.3 formation (% of GDP) Gross domestic savings 20.1 19.4 18.1 16.4 18.5 19.5 24.5 (% of GDP) External Accounts Exports of goods and 11.7 11.7 11.2 13.0 11.9 21.0 30.2 services (% of GDP) Imports of goods and 13.1 14.0 13.9 14.3 13.8 23.1 29.6 services (% of GDP) Current account balance (3.0) (3.0) (4.3) (3.3) -3.4 (% of GDP) External debt stocks (% of 18.5 20.5 23.5 31.3 23.5 GNI) Total debt service (% of 1.9 3.5 2.6 5.2 3.3 3.8 GNI) Total reserves in months 12.2 11.6 11.4 14.4 12.4 9.0 13.2 of imports Fiscal Accounts /1 General government 34.768 34.584 33.064 31.702 33.5 revenue (% of GDP) General government total 37.293 37.547 39.111 42.003 39.0 expenditure (% of GDP) General government net lending/borrowing (% of -2.524 -2.963 -6.047 -10.301 -5.5 GDP) General government gross 62.31 60.364 63.314 73.697 64.9 debt (% of GDP) Health Life expectancy at birth, 73.8 74.1 74.4 .. 74.1 74.7 71.2 total (years) Annexes CLR Review 57 Independent Evaluation Group BRA LCR World Series Name 2012 2013 2014 2015 Average 2012-2015 Immunization, DPT (% of children ages 12-23 95.0 97.0 93.0 96.0 95.3 90.2 85.3 months) Improved sanitation facilities (% of population 81.6 82.1 82.7 82.8 82.3 82.7 66.7 with access) Improved water source (% 85.4 86.2 87.0 87.0 86.4 83.1 83.4 of population with access) Mortality rate, infant (per 14.3 14.3 14.4 14.6 14.4 15.8 33.2 1,000 live births) Education School enrollment, 56.1 86.0 .. .. 71.1 74.4 43.0 preprimary (% gross) School enrollment, primary 130.4 109.8 .. .. 120.1 110.4 105.2 (% gross) School enrollment, 95.6 101.9 .. .. 98.7 92.4 74.7 secondary (% gross) Population Population, total (Millions) 202,401,584 204,259,377 206,077,898 207,847,528 205,146,597 622,849,141 7,218,239,265 Population growth (annual 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.2 %) Urban population (% of 84.9 85.2 85.4 85.7 85.3 79.5 53.2 total) Source: DDP as of 2/1/17 *International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database, October 2016 ** IMF estimates start after 2014 Annexes CLR Review 58 Independent Evaluation Group Annex Table 12: List of IFC Investments in Brazil Investments Committed in FY12-FY15 Project Cmt Project Primary Greenfield Project Original Original Original Loan Equity Net Net Net ID FY Status Sector Name Code Size Loan Equity CMT Cancel Cancel Loan Equity Comm Finance & 30835 2015 Closed E 17,227 16,634 0 16,634 0 0 16,634 0 16,634 Insurance Collective 32505 2015 Closed Investment G 200,000 0 30,000 30,000 0 30,000 30,000 0 0 Vehicles Education 32648 2015 Active G 39,072 37,976 0 37,976 0 0 37,976 0 37,976 Services Transportation 33782 2015 Active and E 98,386 0 67,081 67,081 0 0 67,081 67,081 67,081 Warehousing 33914 2015 Active Health Care G 254,138 50,000 0 50,000 0 0 50,000 0 50,000 Finance & 34243 2015 Active E 100,000 50,000 0 50,000 0 0 50,000 0 50,000 Insurance Agriculture and 34394 2015 Active E 80,000 40,000 0 40,000 0 0 40,000 0 40,000 Forestry Finance & 34525 2015 Active E 475,000 100,000 0 100,000 0 0 100,000 0 100,000 Insurance Agriculture and 34607 2015 Active E 50,000 0 50,000 50,000 0 0 50,000 50,000 50,000 Forestry Finance & 34608 2015 Active G 22,360 0 6,092 6,092 0 0 6,092 6,092 6,092 Insurance Education 34700 2015 Active G 36,387 0 11,794 11,794 0 0 11,794 11,794 11,794 Services Finance & 34766 2015 Active G 41,550 0 37,058 37,058 0 0 37,058 37,058 37,058 Insurance Transportation 34846 2015 Active and E 595,300 0 30,000 30,000 0 0 30,000 30,000 30,000 Warehousing Finance & 35475 2015 Active G 100,449 100,449 0 100,449 0 0 100,449 0 100,449 Insurance Wholesale and 35490 2015 Active G 20,000 0 20,000 20,000 0 0 20,000 20,000 20,000 Retail Trade 35544 2015 Active Information E 2,500 0 2,500 2,500 0 0 2,500 2,500 2,500 Annexes CLR Review 59 Independent Evaluation Group Project Cmt Project Primary Greenfield Project Original Original Original Loan Equity Net Net Net ID FY Status Sector Name Code Size Loan Equity CMT Cancel Cancel Loan Equity Comm 36508 2015 Active Information E 1,280 0 640 640 0 65 640 575 575 Finance & 36662 2015 Active E 20,000 31,400 0 31,400 0 0 31,400 0 31,400 Insurance 31388 2014 Closed Information G 4,000 0 4,000 4,000 0 0 4,000 4,000 4,000 Finance & 31529 2014 Closed G 60,000 10,000 0 10,000 0 0 10,000 0 10,000 Insurance 31903 2014 Active Pulp & Paper G 100,000 100,000 0 100,000 68,413 0 31,587 0 31,587 Food & 32247 2014 Active E 85,000 58,349 25,000 83,349 0 0 83,349 25,000 83,349 Beverages Finance & 32605 2014 Active G 60,000 15,000 0 15,000 0 0 15,000 0 15,000 Insurance Collective 32661 2014 Active Investment G 7,500 0 7,108 7,108 0 0 7,108 7,108 7,108 Vehicles Finance & 32730 2014 Active G 80,000 20,000 0 20,000 0 0 20,000 0 20,000 Insurance Food & 32759 2014 Active E 26,524 19,724 0 19,724 0 0 19,724 0 19,724 Beverages 32938 2014 Active Utilities G 115,000 10,000 0 10,000 0 0 10,000 0 10,000 33142 2014 Active Information G 95,000 70,000 25,000 95,000 40,000 0 55,000 25,000 55,000 Finance & 33226 2014 Active E 255,000 50,000 0 50,000 0 0 50,000 0 50,000 Insurance 33239 2014 Active Utilities E 135,440 0 5,000 5,000 0 0 5,000 5,000 5,000 33334 2014 Active Information G 343,000 0 23,000 23,000 0 3,572 23,000 19,428 19,428 Education 33578 2014 Active E 20,000 0 15,000 15,000 0 818 15,000 14,182 14,182 Services 33579 2014 Active Electric Power G 590,000 200,000 0 200,000 22,311 0 177,689 0 177,689 33642 2014 Active Electric Power G 441,589 0 71,082 71,082 0 0 71,082 71,082 71,082 Transportation 33966 2014 Active G 54,320 54,320 0 54,320 0 0 54,320 0 54,320 &Warehousing Oil, Gas and 34022 2014 Active G 6,486 0 3,724 3,724 0 0 3,724 3,724 3,724 Mining Annexes CLR Review 60 Independent Evaluation Group Project Cmt Project Primary Greenfield Project Original Original Original Loan Equity Net Net Net ID FY Status Sector Name Code Size Loan Equity CMT Cancel Cancel Loan Equity Comm Finance & 34094 2014 Active E 30,000 30,095 0 30,095 0 0 30,095 0 30,095 Insurance Education 34325 2014 Active G 20,000 0 15,500 15,500 0 7,360 15,500 8,140 8,140 Services Finance & 34369 2014 Active E 1,861 0 1,861 1,861 0 0 1,861 1,861 1,861 Insurance 34670 2014 Active Utilities E 3,491 0 3,491 3,491 0 0 3,491 3,491 3,491 Finance & 34762 2014 Active E 2,674 0 2,686 2,686 0 0 2,686 2,686 2,686 Insurance 35145 2014 Active Information E 3,800 0 1,900 1,900 0 53 1,900 1,847 1,847 Finance & 35250 2014 Active E 32,500 57,448 0 57,448 0 0 57,448 0 57,448 Insurance Construction 31059 2013 Active and Real E 60,000 0 25,000 25,000 0 0 25,000 25,000 25,000 Estate Finance & 30071 2013 Closed G 100,000 0 100,000 100,000 0 0 100,000 100,000 100,000 Insurance 31524 2013 Active Health Care E 150,000 50,000 0 50,000 0 0 50,000 0 50,000 32170 2013 Active Electric Power E 731,722 0 98,578 98,578 0 12,189 98,578 86,389 86,389 Finance & 32667 2013 Closed E 39 0 39 39 0 0 39 39 39 Insurance Collective 32690 2013 Closed Investment G 40,000 0 15,000 15,000 0 14,499 15,000 501 501 Vehicles Accommodation 32797 2013 Closed & Tourism G 48,738 0 24,369 24,369 0 0 24,369 24,368 24,368 Services Finance & 32993 2013 Closed G 19,032 19,032 0 19,032 0 0 19,032 0 19,032 Insurance Finance & 33236 2013 Active E 500,000 100,000 0 100,000 0 0 100,000 0 100,000 Insurance Finance & 33308 2013 Closed E 9,516 0 9,516 9,516 0 0 9,516 9,516 9,516 Insurance Annexes CLR Review 61 Independent Evaluation Group Project Cmt Project Primary Greenfield Project Original Original Original Loan Equity Net Net Net ID FY Status Sector Name Code Size Loan Equity CMT Cancel Cancel Loan Equity Comm Finance & 33421 2013 Active G 197,604 0 197,604 197,604 0 0 197,604 197,604 197,604 Insurance 33455 2013 Closed Electric Power E 6,576 0 6,576 6,576 0 0 6,576 6,576 6,576 33539 2013 Closed Electric Power E 53 0 53 53 0 0 53 53 53 Finance & 33576 2013 Closed E 65,871 0 14,928 14,928 0 0 14,928 14,928 14,928 Insurance Construction 29978 2012 Closed and Real G 50,000 50,000 0 50,000 23,251 0 26,749 0 26,749 Estate Finance & 28822 2012 Active E 60,000 50,000 10,000 60,000 0 0 60,000 10,000 60,000 Insurance Transportation 29015 2012 Active E 80,000 30,000 0 30,000 0 0 30,000 0 30,000 &Warehousing Finance & 29682 2012 Closed G 5,000 0 5,000 5,000 0 3,000 5,000 2,000 2,000 Insurance Oil, Gas and 29993 2012 Active G 296,654 40,000 35,000 75,000 0 0 75,000 35,000 75,000 Mining Finance & 30261 2012 Active G 9,210 0 9,483 9,483 0 0 9,483 9,483 9,483 Insurance Agriculture and 30951 2012 Closed G 17,611 0 17,611 17,611 0 13,063 17,611 4,548 4,548 Forestry Education 31080 2012 Active G 309,100 70,000 0 70,000 60,000 0 10,000 0 10,000 Services Finance & 31104 2012 Active E 75,000 15,000 0 15,000 0 0 15,000 0 15,000 Insurance Finance & 31375 2012 Active E 5,000 3,870 0 3,870 0 0 3,870 0 3,870 Insurance Finance & 31377 2012 Active E 300,000 50,000 0 50,000 0 0 50,000 0 50,000 Insurance Food & 31479 2012 Active G 50,000 50,000 0 50,000 0 0 50,000 0 50,000 Beverages 31792 2012 Active Utilities E 168,023 49,585 12,396 61,981 0 0 61,981 12,396 61,981 Finance & 31928 2012 Closed E 16,388 0 16,388 16,388 0 0 16,388 16,388 16,388 Insurance Annexes CLR Review 62 Independent Evaluation Group Project Cmt Project Primary Greenfield Project Original Original Original Loan Equity Net Net Net ID FY Status Sector Name Code Size Loan Equity CMT Cancel Cancel Loan Equity Comm Industrial & 32243 2012 Closed Consumer G 32,200 8,050 0 8,050 0 0 8,050 0 8,050 Products Finance & 32416 2012 Closed E 783 0 783 783 0 707 783 76 76 Insurance Sub-Total 8,130,954 1,706,931 1,057,842 2,764,774 213,976 85,327 2,550,798 972,516 2,465,471 Investments Committed pre-FY12 but active during FY12-15 Project CMT Project Primary Greenfield Project Original Original Original Loan Equity Net Net Net ID FY Status Sector Name Code Size Loan Equity CMT Cancel Cancel Loan Equity Comm Finance & 25223 2011 Active G 20,000 5,000 25,000 Insurance 25,000 20,000 - 5,000 5,000 5,000 28144 2011 Active Health Care E 50,000 - 50,000 99,594 - - 50,000 - 50,000 Education 28565 2011 Active E 30,000 - 30,000 Services 259,200 - - 30,000 - 30,000 Finance & 29362 2011 Active E - 23,517 23,517 Insurance 23,517 - 3,089 23,517 20,428 20,428 Transportation 29505 2011 Active G 97,000 - 97,000 &Warehousing 722,000 - - 97,000 - 97,000 Education 22497 2010 Active E - 6,713 6,713 Services 47,705 - - 6,713 6,713 6,713 Oil, Gas and 28512 2010 Active G - 103,000 103,000 Mining 433,000 - - 103,000 103,000 103,000 Finance & 28956 2010 Active E 199,545 - 199,545 Insurance 25,000 - - 199,545 - 199,545 Finance & 24738 2009 Active E 613,550 - 613,550 Insurance 95,000 - - 613,550 - 613,550 Food & 27783 2009 Active G 25,000 - 25,000 Beverages 63,900 - - 25,000 - 25,000 Oil, Gas and 25781 2008 Active G 50,000 - 50,000 Mining 1,050,600 465 - 49,535 - 49,535 25956 2008 Active Primary Metals G 25,000 - 25,000 25,000 - - 25,000 - 25,000 Annexes CLR Review 63 Independent Evaluation Group Project CMT Project Primary Greenfield Project Original Original Original Loan Equity Net Net Net ID FY Status Sector Name Code Size Loan Equity CMT Cancel Cancel Loan Equity Comm Transportation 25977 2008 Active G 5,900 - 5,900 &Warehousing 11,400 400 - 5,500 - 5,500 Industrial & 26099 2008 Active Consumer E 40,000 - 40,000 222,000 5,000 - 35,000 - 35,000 Products Agriculture and 26135 2008 Active G 40,000 - 40,000 Forestry 393,000 20,000 - 20,000 - 20,000 Finance & 26772 2008 Active E 140,407 - 140,407 Insurance 10,000 - - 140,407 - 140,407 Industrial & 24833 2007 Active Consumer E 35,000 - 35,000 350,000 - - 35,000 - 35,000 Products Food & 25008 2007 Active G 35,000 - 35,000 Beverages 144,000 - - 35,000 - 35,000 Finance & 25462 2007 Active E 895,084 - 895,084 Insurance 55,135 - - 895,084 - 895,084 Food & 25765 2007 Active E 30,000 - 30,000 Beverages 166,400 - - 30,000 - 30,000 Finance & 25939 2007 Active E 216,640 - 216,640 Insurance 12,500 - - 216,640 - 216,640 Finance & 8175 2005 Active G - 3,099 3,099 Insurance 7,500 - 0 3,099 3,099 3,099 Collective 23747 2005 Active Investment G - 15,000 15,000 15,000 - - 15,000 15,000 15,000 Vehicles Transportation 21887 2004 Active E 8,100 - 8,100 &Warehousing 16,200 281 - 7,819 - 7,819 10509 2002 Active Chemicals G 9,000 - 9,000 11,100 - - 9,000 - 9,000 Industrial & 9039 1999 Active Consumer E 17,000 - 17,000 17,000 9,000 - 8,000 - 8,000 Products Collective 8608 1998 Active Investment E - 20,000 20,000 30,000 - 6,000 20,000 14,000 14,000 Vehicles Annexes CLR Review 64 Independent Evaluation Group Project CMT Project Primary Greenfield Project Original Original Original Loan Equity Net Net Net ID FY Status Sector Name Code Size Loan Equity CMT Cancel Cancel Loan Equity Comm Transportation 666 1983 Active E 6,000 2,000 8,000 - &Warehousing 21,000 6,000 2,000 2,000 - Transportation 522 1980 Active G 16,000 4,000 20,000 &Warehousing 20,000 1,800 34 18,200 3,966 18,166 Industrial & 27083 1900 Active Consumer E - - - - - - - - - Products Agriculture and 38227 1900 Active E - - - - - Forestry - - - - Sub-Total 4,371,751 2,604,225 182,330 2,786,555 62,946 11,123 2,723,609 171,207 2,712,486 TOTAL 12,502,705 4,311,157 1,240,172 5,551,329 276,922 96,450 5,274,407 1,143,722 5,177,957 Source: IFC-MIS Extract as of 1/31/17 Annexes CLR Review 65 Independent Evaluation Group Annex Table 13: List of IFC Advisory Services in Brazil Advisory Services Approved in FY12-15 Project Impl Impl Primary Project Name Project Status Total Funds, US$ ID Start FY End FY Business Line 600354 Curitiba Waste 2015 2017 ACTIVE CAS 1,512,882 600437 Maceio Schools 2015 2016 TERMINATED CAS 1,750,985 600679 Jaboatao dos Guararapes - Public Lighting 2015 2016 TERMINATED CAS 932,464 600924 SME & Value Chain Solutions in Latin America 2015 1900 ACTIVE CAS - 601051 Goias Disco 2015 2017 ACTIVE CAS 2,298,677 599175 Itau micro and small enterprise 2014 2016 ACTIVE FIG 198,870 599604 CLA-G&A-Rio de Janeiro Office 2014 2018 ACTIVE CAS 463,442 599605 CLA-G&A-Sao Paulo Office 2014 2018 ACTIVE CAS 576,876 599607 CLAAS -G&A-Dom. Republic Office 2014 2018 ACTIVE CAS 189,227 599879 Tribanco Mobile Banking 2014 2016 ACTIVE FIG 344,667 599934 Sao Paulo Light 2014 2015 TERMINATED PPP 2,045,046 581947 MF Insurance BRA 2013 2014 ACTIVE FIG 335,119 595967 Brazilian Airports Project 2013 2014 ACTIVE CAS 2,758,116 599190 Espirito Santo Schools 2013 2014 TERMINATED PPP 2,071,067 599424 LAC - Brazil, C3P, Business Development 2013 1900 ACTIVE CAS 1,138,470 Improving environmental permitting procedures to operate in the 583088 2012 2015 CLOSED TAC 649,826 State of Acre, Brazilian Amazon 583427 LAC BioTrade Program 2012 2015 ACTIVE MAS 1,723,503 587007 Tribanco EE 2012 2013 ACTIVE A2F 120,000 588887 Bahia Health II - Imaging and Telemedicine PPP 2012 2016 ACTIVE CAS 1,890,434 589267 Sustainable Forest Management Concessions in the Amazon 2012 2017 HOLD CAS 2,264,040 Sub-Total 23,263,711 Annexes CLR Review 66 Independent Evaluation Group Advisory Services Approved pre-FY12 but active during FY12-15 Project Impl Impl Primary Project Name Project Status Total Funds, US$ ID Start FY End FY Business Line 579487 BH Primary Care 2011 2016 ACTIVE CAS 3,662,815 582687 Belo Horizonte Schools 2011 2013 CLOSED PPP 1,555,569 565147 CEAPE Maranhao Advisory Services Project 2010 2013 CLOSED A2F 269,137 567287 ANDE AS 2010 2012 TERMINATED A2F 932,000 568527 Amazon MFI 2010 2014 TERMINATED A2F 768,000 570912 ALIANCA DA TERRA 2010 2013 CLOSED SBA 845,000 575227 Sustainable Forestry in the Brazilian Amazon 2010 2013 TERMINATED SBA 1,650,000 566748 Brazil Frontier States Investment Generation (National-Subnational) 2009 2013 CLOSED IC 2,172,259 25117 Pontal 2 2006 2013 CLOSED PPP 2,067,317 502246 GEF EFCC Sugar Mill Co-Generation 2001 2018 TERMINATED SBA 4,220,000 Sub-Total 18,142,097 TOTAL 41,405,808 Source: IFC AS Data as of 7-31-16 Annexes CLR Review 67 Independent Evaluation Group Annex Table 14: IFC net commitment activity in Brazil, FY12 - FY15 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total Financial Markets 111,155,641 419,463,712 129,268,789 277,919,579 937,807,722 Trade Finance (TF) 768,016,440 714,285,134 663,104,766 344,312,801 2,489,719,140 Primary Production & Commodity Agribusiness & Forestry - (5,000,000) - 64,475,167 59,475,167 Processing Packaged Food & Beverages 50,000,000 - - - 50,000,000 Animal Protein - - 103,565,119 - 103,565,119 Forest & Wood Products 13,532,712 (13,532,712) 31,586,671 - 31,586,671 Manufacturing Construction Materials 0 - - - 0 Chemicals & Fertilizers 0 - 10,000,000 - 10,000,000 Energy Efficient Machinery 0 - - - 0 Tourism, Retail, Construction & Property (Construction & Real Estate) - (22,000,000) - - (22,000,000) Real Estates (TRP) Tourism - 24,584,410 2 (204) 24,584,208 Health, Education, Life Sciences Health 14,914,519 50,000,000 - 50,000,000 114,914,519 Education 35,000,000 - (36,359,881) 49,591,681 48,231,800 Other Infra Sectors Other Infra Sectors 50,000,000 - - (23,251,471) 26,748,529 Oil, Gas & Mining Oil and Gas (525,000) - - - (525,000) Mining 75,000,000 - 3,759,829 (5,777) 78,754,052 Infrastructure Utilities 45,613,712 (37,380,451) 8,446,736 (6,792) 16,673,204 Transportation & Warehousing 30,000,000 - 54,320,000 86,646,526 170,966,526 Electric Power - 102,544,865 267,408,086 (35,986,901) 333,966,050 Municipal Finance (2,944,804) (9,102,073) - - (12,046,877) Telecom, Media, and Technology Telecom (1,500,000) - 120,328,292 3,086,599 121,914,890 Collective Investment Vehicles Private Equity Funds (48,805) 15,000,000 6,837,919 28,097,094 49,886,208 Other CTT Sectors Other CTT Sectors - - - 19,999,873 19,999,873 Total 1,188,214,415 1,238,862,885 1,362,266,326 864,878,175 4,654,221,801 Source: IFC MIS as of 3/20/17 Annexes CLR Review 68 Independent Evaluation Group Annex Table 15: List of MIGA Activities in Brazil, 2012-2015 Project Max Gross ID Contract Enterprise FY Sector Investor Status Issuance 12191 Sao Paulo Sustainable Transport 2015 Active Transportation Spain 361 Total 361 Source: MIGA 3/20/17