70802 Independent Evaluation Group Work Program and Budget (FY13) and Indicative Plan (FY14-15) Report to the Board of Executive Directors from the Budget Committee and Committee on Development Effectiveness ∗ Meeting of May 23, 2012 The Budget Committee (BC) and the Committee on Development Effectiveness (CODE) met jointly to discuss the paper entitled the IEG Work Program and Budget (FY13) and Indicative Plan (FY14- 15) (R2012-0103[IFC/R2012-0148, MIGA/2012-0026]). Members broadly supported IEG’s proposed Work Program and Budget for FY13 and Indicative Plan for FY14-15, noting in particular its strategic focus encompassed in the four strategic clusters. Members commended IEG’s process for developing its work program and budget, recognizing the fruitful interactions with CODE and Budget Committee members. They greatly appreciated the independent External Review and asked that the exercise be conducted every other year. Members noted that the work program takes into account the 2015 MDG deadline and supported its emphasis on the challenge of inclusion. Members asked that IEG consider including WBG crisis preparedness and resilience in the work program; members also commented that the timing of outputs should be aligned with important upcoming initiatives (e.g. corporate reforms, MICs, green growth). At the same time, members noted that the work program was ambitious and commented on the need to address bunching and staffing issues. Members welcomed the new feature of applying a selectivity framework to the work program. They suggested that given constrained resources there is a need to review the work program regularly and provide for some flexibility. IEG agreed with the need to identify tradeoffs and noted that a number of requests from CODE members would be addressed in the work program without adding new evaluations, while other topics would need to be dealt with through alternative products based on existing evaluation work. IEG acknowledged the issue of bunching and is monitoring the timely preparation, review and lead-time of Approach Papers (APs). Members recommended granting IEG a one-time authority to spend an additional amount of $0.7 million for FY13, noting the reasons behind the FY12 underrun and the FY13 backlog of work were justified and the intent to start FY14 on a better footing. In order to establish a more transparent and equitable contribution from each WBG entity to IEG, a majority supported a phased approach to WBG contributions in which Alternative II in the addendum to the Issues Note would be implemented in FY13 while Alternative I would come into effect in FY14. Members asked that the exact numbers for such contributions be included in the revised paper to the Board. Members also asked IEG to elaborate on the specific responses to the External Review recommendations. Members agreed to send the revised IEG Work Program and Budget document to the full Board on an absence-of-objection basis. IEG acknowledged the helpful conversations with EDs and management as well as the positive input from the External Review and its recommendations. It highlighted the work program’s strategic focus on post-crisis directions (PCD), emerging multi-polar growth, changing aid-architecture and the MDGs. In response to members’ comments on the Global Program Reviews (GPRs), IEG commented on the Bank’s involvement in global and regional partnership programs and the importance of reviewing its engagement in these. It also reiterated the importance of the Management Actions Record (MAR) and its dual learning and accountability functions to draw from lessons learned and follow-up on recommendations. IEG also sought a clarification on the budget approval process and trust-funded programs. Members assured IEG that as a matter of principle any decisions pertaining to IEG’s budget must be taken by the Board. Management commented on IEG’s role and contribution to WBG’s effectiveness, work program emphasis, learning strategies and evaluation of knowledge products. In addition, it noted the importance of prioritization, in particular for GPRs and real-time evaluations, to manage bunching and account for absorptive capacity. It also suggested including MAR indicators in IEG’s results framework. ∗ This report is not an approved record.