103328 For Official Use Only CLR Review Independent Evaluation Group CPS Data Country: Uruguay CPS Year: FY11 CPS Period: FY11 – FY15 CLR Review Period: FY11 – FY15 Date of this review: January 7, 2016 Ratings CLR Rating IEG Rating Development Outcome: Satisfactory Satisfactory WBG Performance: Good Good Executive Summary i. Uruguay is one of the richest countries in Latin America, and the economic context for this CPS was one of initially high growth, slowing down during the second half of the CPS period primarily owing to weakening external conditions. Average growth was about 5 percent annually during the period, but growth slowed significantly starting in 2012 and is projected at 1.6 percent in 2015 by the IMF. This slowdown was problematic because Uruguay’s success in reducing poverty was primarily a function of rapid job creation accompanied by significant growth in real wages. The key challenge for the government during the CPS period was to continue reducing poverty in a sustainable way, while enhancing competitiveness of the economy. The government defined its longer term priorities in a five-year budget coinciding with the 2010-2015 mandate of the new administration and with the CPS period. The priorities were to: 1) adhere to prudent fiscal policies, 2) strengthen competitiveness, 3) expand and improve social service delivery, especially education, 4) enhance productivity and job generation in the agriculture and food sector, 5) protect the environment and mitigate the effects of climate change, and 6) improve the security of citizens. ii. The CPS supported government priorities structuring interventions to help Uruguay sustain growth by enhancing infrastructure and improving living standards. The focus areas of the WBG program were: (I) reducing macroeconomic vulnerabilities and strengthening public sector administration, (II) enhancing competitiveness and infrastructure, (III) improving agriculture and the environment, and mitigating climate change, and (IV) improving inclusion and equity. iii. A favorable external environment and strong growth during 2010-12 provided a positive background to advance the agenda of social reform while also consolidating the public finances. Net public debt was reduced as a share of GDP and the share of foreign currency denominated debt declined, while inclusion and equity improved with falling unemployment, health and education improved, and social transfer programs became better targeted. Results were mixed on environment and on addressing the effects of climate change, with progress made on the promotion of sustainability of small and medium farms but slow development of a state of the art climate and agriculture information and decision support system. Under Focus Area II the program contributed to enhance competitiveness and infrastructure, but still Uruguay has a long way to go in these areas. The program introduced new instruments (Program for Results, risk hedging of CLR Reviewed by: Peer Reviewed by: CLR Review Coordinator Juan José Fernández Pablo Guerrero, Mark Sundberg, Manager Ansola and Surajit Consultant, IEGHE Lourdes Pagaran, CLR Goswami Coordinator Consultants, IEGHE IEGEC For Official Use Only 2 CLR Review Independent Evaluation Group exposures of power utility to low rainfall and high oil prices), but it could have been much more ambitious—particularly in Focus Area II—as noted in the CLR. A country with the potential and capacity of Uruguay would be expected to target bolder objectives on competitiveness and infrastructure, and have a more comprehensive and effective effort on education where results were disappointing. iv. The program had interventions across the four focus areas. The selection of areas was driven by the government, which had a clear strategy and understanding of where the WBG could help based on previous experience. Resources were concentrated on strengthening public sector administration, enhancing infrastructure, improving agriculture and the environment, and increasing social inclusion. The selected areas were congruent with the country’s development goals. The WBG’s work program was in areas where it had shown capacity to deliver in the past, and the division of labor with other development partners was based on government interest. The selection of areas also was in line with the two broad areas identified subsequently by the SCD, of sustaining the social compact by strengthening inclusion and equality of opportunity and sustaining growth with productivity and competitiveness. At the same time—and reflecting strong country ownership of the program—the government drove the choice for areas of involvement and one result was that the Bank did not engage in some areas where it has global knowledge and expertise, such as secondary and tertiary education, the informal economy, and youth employment. The results framework had an adequate design showing the country outcomes, issues and obstacles, outcomes to which WBG expected to contribute, intermediate indicators, and WBG activities. The lack of ambition in program targets reflected a conservative approach by the government that was accepted by the Bank. Although causal chains were not explicitly discussed in the text, the annex with the results framework lends itself for inference of causal links. Outcome indicators were generally well chosen to reflect targeted outcomes. But in a number of instances the indicators were vague or referred to processes and outputs rather than outcomes, and quantified targets were generally unambitious in light of Uruguay’s potential and public sector capacities. Moreover, IFC specific activities were kept outside the framework and referred in very general terms in some focus areas as “IFC support,” which makes IFC’s significant contributions to the program difficult to evaluate and suggests poor internal WBG collaboration. Donor coordination appears to have been good under this CPS, especially among the CAF, IADB, UN agencies, FONPLAT and WBG. v. IEG agrees with the fairly standard lessons in the CLR about the mix of analytical and financing instruments, institutional capacity building, maximizing the impact of analytical and knowledge work, and the need to focus on the impact of interventions and strive to link program objectives with measurable outcomes to ensure successful evaluation. IEG notes additionally that having the country in the driver’s seat of a WBG program is desirable for program implementation, but also has the potential of leaving the WBG out of areas where it has significant comparative advantage, experience, and things to contribute—for example secondary and tertiary education in Uruguay. While other development partners (IADB) were involved in these areas, the CLR recognizes that a more comprehensive education strategy would probably have been more effective to improve education results in Uruguay. It will be important to strike a balance in this regard to ensure that the WBG’s program effectively contributes to Uruguay’s development goals in the areas where the WBG has shown the most skills and effectiveness in the past. Moreover, the very good ratings of development outcome for this CPS belie a lack of ambition in program targets for a country as developed as Uruguay. Targeting results that make a difference, are measurable and hard to achieve, but still are within reach, would be in Uruguay’s best interest. For Official Use Only 3 CLR Review Independent Evaluation Group Strategic Focus Overview of CAS/CPS Relevance: Relevance of the WBG Strategy: 1. Congruence with Country Context and Country Program. Uruguay is a high-income country whose $18,940 per capita GDP (current PPP $, 2013) positions it as one of the richest in Latin America. Income inequality—while high by OECD standards—has been reduced in recent years (from a Gini coefficient of 0.45 in 2010 to 0.38 in 2013). Poverty also was reduced substantially, standing at 12 percent in 2013, the lowest in Latin America. Average annual growth during the CPS period was about 5 percent, although growth slowed significantly starting in 2012, reflecting a regional slowdown, and is projected at 1.6 percent in 2015 by the IMF. This slowdown was problematic because Uruguay’s success in reducing poverty was primarily a function of rapid job creation accompanied by significant growth in real wages.1 The key challenge for the government during the CPS period was to continue reducing poverty in a sustainable way, and enhancing competitiveness of the economy. The government defined its longer term priorities in a five-year budget coinciding with the 2010-2015 mandate of the new administration and with the CPS period. In addition to adhering to prudent fiscal policies, the priorities were to strengthen competitiveness, expand and improve social service delivery, especially education, enhancing productivity and job generation in the agriculture and food sector, protecting the environment and mitigating the effects of climate change, and improving the security of citizens. The CPS supported the government priorities structuring its interventions to help Uruguay sustain growth by enhancing infrastructure and improving living standards. 2. Relevance of Design. Uruguay’s high-income status called for a program based on real partnership that added value to the government’s program, and stressed knowledge and know-how transfers. The Bank’s programmatic DPL series complemented by investment operations with substantial institutional reform content and focus on results responded to this need, and was accompanied by a government demand-based system for analytical and technical assistance. Analytical services, knowledge transfers and technical assistance were organized as a joint program intended to respond to government needs, and respond flexibly to demands. The financing of this program was shared by Uruguay and the WBG. The joint nature of the knowledge services program ensured a good complement with the DPL series and investment operations, and WBG interventions were well targeted to achieve the objectives of the program. The major assumption for the interventions to achieve the objectives was government ownership, which was ensured by the government being in the driver’s seat of the program. Synergies between IBRD and IFC were exploited in some instances, for example by working together in developing a strategy for Private Public Partnerships, and helping Uruguay implement it. But on the whole collaboration within WBG was weak. Following government suggestions for a coordinated development partner effort, the WBG consulted with development partners during CPS preparation and agreed on a division of labor based on government preferences. 3. IFC’s interventions addressed both focus area 2—competitiveness and infrastructure—and focus area 3—agriculture, climate change, and environment. IFC contributed significantly to focus area 2 by investing in a barge transport system for moving iron ore from Corumba (Brazil) down the Parana-Paraguay river system. IFC also contributed significantly to focus area 3 by investing in a cooperative of about 2,500 dairy producers in Uruguay which exports over 80 percent of its output, and in a company that exports lemons and other citrus fruits and lemon-based products. The CPS objectives were not designed with the IFC program in mind and therefore did not do justice to a very good IFC program, suggesting weak WBG collaboration on this CPS. 1 Uruguay Systematic Country Diagnostic, World Bank Group, Washington DC, June 2015. For Official Use Only 4 CLR Review Independent Evaluation Group Selectivity 4. The program had interventions across the four strategic areas. The selection of areas was driven by the government, which had a clear strategy and understanding of where the WBG could help based on previous experience. Therefore the resources were concentrated on strengthening public sector administration, enhancing infrastructure, improving agriculture and the environment, and increasing social inclusion. The program was based on consultations with the authorities, who had strong expectations about Bank support in specific reform areas. The selected areas were congruent with the country’s development goals, but program objectives could have been more ambitious for an advanced country like Uruguay. The WBG’s work program was in areas where it had shown capacity to deliver in the past, and the division of labor with other development partners was based on skill, experience, and government interest. The selection of areas also was in line with the two broad areas identified subsequently by the SCD, of sustaining the social compact by strengthening inclusion and equality of opportunity and sustaining growth with productivity and competitiveness. At the same time—and reflecting strong country ownership—the government drove the choice for areas of involvement and the Bank was not engaged in some areas where it has global knowledge and expertise, such as secondary and tertiary education. In hindsight, according to the CLR, this may have preempted a more comprehensive education strategy that would have been more effective in improving Uruguay’s education results. Alignment 5. Shared prosperity and eradicating poverty were supported by Bank interventions, mostly indirectly. In education, the Bank supported the construction and maintenance of 40 full time schools for children whose communities lack basic infrastructure. In the social sector, the Bank’s work helped target disadvantaged groups that had been kept outside the social safety net. Interventions were also aimed at protecting the vulnerable from rising electricity prices due to external factors. 5. Development Outcome Overview of Achievement by Objective: Focus Area I: Reduce Macroeconomic Vulnerabilities and Strengthen Public Sector Administration 6. Objective 1: Gradually reduce public sector indebtedness and improve public debt profile. Support from DPL operations (FY11, FY12, and FY13), an Institution Building Technical Assistance Loan (ITBAL-FY07) and its additional financing (FY12), and knowledge services on capacity building (FY13) and public expenditure review (FY12) helped the government improve the efficiency of public administration. While this helped indirectly reduce macroeconomic vulnerabilities, most of the advice on reducing public sector indebtedness and improving the public debt profile was provided by the IMF. Perhaps the main contribution of the Bank under this objective was that Uruguay took advantage of IBRD’s local currency financing capabilities to support the government’s objective to reduce currency risk in their sovereign debt portfolio. In 2011 they converted IBRD loans totaling US$150 million into Uruguayan pesos through the first local currency financing via the swap market. Net public debt as a share of GDP was impressively lowered, from 37 percent in 2009 to 20.7 percent in 2015, against a target of 23.3 percent. The share of foreign currency denominated debt declined from 56.7 percent of GDP in 2009 to 51 percent of GDP in 2015, against a target of 55 percent. (Achieved) For Official Use Only 5 CLR Review Independent Evaluation Group 7. Objective 2: Introduce performance oriented budgeting. With help from the DPLs (FY11, FY12, and FY13) and the Institution Building Technical Assistance Loan (FY07, FY12) the government improved its public administration. The IMF took the lead on technical aspects of performance-based budgeting. Through the IBTAL—a long term engagement—the Bank took the lead in strengthening the capacity in eight ministries, helping create planning, evaluation, and quality control units. The budget 2010-2014 was prepared with a programmatic classification, and the government has adopted output and outcome indicators for twenty nine expenditure programs in seven priority areas, against the nine areas targeted under the program. The Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA—FY13) report noted that Uruguay is still at an incipient stage of using the budget as a planning tool for public policies. It also noted that at present the government does not prepare comprehensive financial statements compliant with international standards. (Achieved) 8. Objective 3: Deepen e-government reforms to enhance efficiency and transparency. A law on electronic documents and e-signature was enacted in November 2009 and the number of public administration transactions increased to over three hundred in April 2015, meeting the target under the program with a substantial margin. The IBTAL (FY07, FY12) provided technical support in this area. (Achieved) 9. Objective 4: Make public procurement more efficient and transparent through a properly functioning regulatory agency and the upgrading of public procurement software. A procurement regulatory agency to strengthen procurement systems was created in 2012 and a registry of government suppliers is operating and connected to the government procurement system. The registry’s software is operational and is now in use by all public entities. The ITBAL (FY07) provided technical support in this area. (Achieved) 10. Based on the rating of its objectives, IEG rates Focus Area I as Highly Satisfactory. The program was successful in enhancing the public procurement system and the use of e-government, and contributed in the areas of performance oriented budgeting and improving the public debt profile, where other development partners took the lead. The Bank had minor influence on objective #1, but supported the other objectives with interventions of more direct impact. At progress report stage indicators on fiscal deficit reduction, credit to GDP ratio, and increased capital market activity were dropped because targeted outcomes were not directly influenced by Bank operations. Focus Area II: Enhance Competitiveness and Infrastructure 11. Objective 5: Streamline administrative processes for firm creation. The number of days to start a business fell from 65 in 2010 to 5 days in 2015, well below the target of less than 65 under the program, thus meeting the target. The Bank did not contribute directly to this objective. (Achieved) 12. Objective 6: Enhance access to financial services of low income households. The target was to increase the share of family allowance beneficiaries that receive their allowances through debit cards, from none in mid-2012 to 50 percent by 2015. It was not met, and as of December 2014 the number was only 14 percent. At the same time, the number of electronic points of sale (POS) was increased from 13,000 in mid-2012 to 37,300 in April 2015, exceeding the target of 23,400. (Partially Achieved) 13. IFC support for a local bank led to lending to small farmers, but the CLR did not indicate how many of them were low-income. 14. Objective 7: Improve the transparency and efficiency of stock exchange operations through computerization. With Bank support the government improved the efficiency of the Stock Exchange. The Registro del Mercado de Valores (Stock Exchange) is computerized and 93 percent— against a target of 70 percent–of all public securities are in electronic format. (Achieved) 15. Objective 8: Develop institutional framework for coordinating logistics management across the public and private sectors. As part of the First Programmatic Public Sector, For Official Use Only 6 CLR Review Independent Evaluation Group Competitiveness, and Social Inclusion DPL (FY11), the National Logistics Institute (INALOG) was created by law on November 11, 2010 and became operational at end-2011. It has focused on developing unified logistic statistics, supporting public education programs on logistics, promoting widely Uruguay as a logistics hub, and starting to study specific export supply chains to identify potential efficiency gains for national producers. The WBG has exchanged information with the institute on the Logistics Performance Index and provided assistance when INALOG applied for funding from the Multi-Donor Trust Fund for Sustainable Logistics. (Achieved) 16. The IFC project on barging iron ore had a role in developing/supporting the institutional framework in river transport system, but the CLR did not articulate how the project contributed to this objective. 17. Objective 9: Sustain the national road network in good or very good conditions. The target was to maintain at least 35 percent of the road network in good or very good condition by 2015 as measured by the International Roughness Index (IRI)—from a baseline of 46 percent in 2009. The CLR reports that 42 percent of the road network was in good/very good condition in 2012, but there has been no update on the indicator because the required equipment to validate road conditions has been out of service for the past two years. New measurements are expected to be conducted in December 2015. The Bank supported this objective through the Road Rehabilitation and Maintenance Program for Results (FY13). The latest project supervision report (June 2015) does not report an actual number for percentage of road network in good condition, but uses instead an estimate based on extrapolation of previous IRI surveys of the national road network. (Not Verified) 18. Objective 10: Improve the efficiency of the water utility (OSE) management, leading to an increase in access to sewerage services and reduction in water losses. The target was to have 9,224 additional families connected to the sewerage network by 2015, and as of that date 12,037 additional families were connected to the sewerage network. The indicator did not capture some important dimensions of the objective, such as efficiency and non-revenue water (NRW) losses. The CLR reported a reduction in non-revenue water losses and improvements in efficiency. The Bank supported this objective through the OSE Modernization and Systems Rehabilitation project (FY07) and the OSE Sustainable and Efficient project (FY13). The latest supervision report of the latter (December 2015) notes that OSE has made important strides in their NRW reduction program as new water meters are being acquired and contracts for measurement and control in Salto and La Paz/Las Piedras are under implementation. (Achieved) 19. Objective 11: Increase demand and supply of energy efficient goods and services, and contribute to energy savings. The market share of residential and commercial energy efficient appliances increased to 18 percent, and of municipal lighting to 63 percent, meeting the targets under the program. Energy efficiency practices were introduced within the national energy utility based on an Energy Efficiency Law approved in September 2009 with supporting regulatory legislation issued in 2012. This objective was supported by the trust-funded Energy Efficiency GEF project (FY05). The Bank continues with work in this area. For the next CPF, an ESW on Low-Carbon Growth Strategies (FY15) proposed sixty six measures to improve energy efficiency that is estimated to have the potential of cutting emissions by half. (Achieved) 20. Based on the rating of its objectives, IEG rates Focus Area II as Satisfactory. Yet, the program under this area was quite unambitious2 in its targets, and therefore the impact of the program on 2 The program was unambitious in a number of indicators across focus areas. For example, the indicator on e- government was overachieved by more than 10 times—number of public administration transactions available on-line grew to 323 by April 2015 against a target of 25 (baseline was 20 in 2009); the target on number of days to create a firm was just slightly below the baseline of 65 days in 2010 in a country where private sector development remains essential; and the proportion of newborns with disabilities being monitored by early detection and treatment units was targeted to be > 0 percent in 2015 from a baseline of 0 percent in 2006. For Official Use Only 7 CLR Review Independent Evaluation Group competitiveness and infrastructure was not as significant as needed by Uruguay at this stage of development. The main interventions were the Road Rehabilitation and Maintenance PforR (FY13), the OSE Sustainable and Efficient project (FY13), and the OSE Modernization and Systems Rehabilitation APL2 (FY07). Moreover the Bank provided technical assistance on wages and productivity (FY14), on the Development of Financing Options for Public Private Partnerships in the Road Sector (FY13), on the design of the railway regulator (FY15), and on trade and competitiveness. Focus Area III: Improve Agriculture and the Environment, and Mitigate Effects of Climate Change 21. Objective 12: Develop an integrated and publicly accessible climate and agriculture information and decision support system. The Sistema Nacional de Informacion Agropecuaria (SNIA) is not yet operational for the public as expected under the program, although its first data products are ready for use as a climate service resource for decision making. The system is recognized as one of the most advanced emerging agricultural decision support systems in the world. The Agriculture Ministry was expected to launch the system in CY15 according to the CLR but project implementation has been affected by budgetary restrictions imposed by the government. The main intervention supporting this area was the Sustainable Management of Natural Resources and Climate Change project (FY12). (Partially Achieved) 22. Objective 13: Promote environmentally sustainable and economically viable production systems in small and medium-sized farms. 6,459 small and medium-sized farms3 have adopted farm-level improved Natural Resources Management (NRM) and biodiversity conservation practices, covering 881,882 hectares, which represents 24.1 percent of the total number of small and medium- sized farms in Uruguay. This achievement met the target under the program, which supported the objective through the Integrated Natural Resource and Biodiversity Management project (FY05) and knowledge services like the Family Agriculture ESW (FY10). (Achieved) 23. IFC projects on a dairy cooperative and growing citrus fruits were relevant to this objective but the CLR did not articulate how they contributed to promoting environmentally sustainable production systems/ improving NRM and biodiversity. 24. Based on the rating of its two objectives, IEG rates Focus Area I as Moderately Satisfactory. Focus Area IV: Improve Inclusion and Equity 25. Objective 14: Improve the targeting and coordination of information on beneficiaries of social programs. The registry of beneficiaries for the main transfer programs—Family Allowances and Tarjeta Uruguay Social—is updated regularly, as targeted under the program. Census data was used to identify areas with insufficient coverage, and the indicators of critical deficiencies (marginalization) were updated. The Integrated System of Information of the Social Areas (SIIAS) is fully operational for 13 participating central government institutions, as envisaged under the program. (Achieved) 26. Objective 15: Strengthen measures to prevent non-communicable diseases. The targets were to: 1) increase the percentage of women aged 50-69 and covered by the public provider (ASSE) who had a mammogram in a given year, and 2) increase with the share of newborns with disabilities being monitored by early detection and treatment units. The latter target was achieved while the former—on coverage of mammograms4—was not. (Partially Achieved) 3 The CLR mentions 6,459 farms while the ICR for the Integrated Natural Resource and Biodiversity Management project (FY05) mentions “4,667 small and medium-sized farmers and livestock producers” directly benefiting. 4 Coverage increased from 7.8 percent in 2009 to 12 percent in December 2014, against a target of 20 percent. For Official Use Only 8 CLR Review Independent Evaluation Group 27. Objective 16: Increase coverage of the National Health Insurance, including retired workers, and spouses and domestic partners of workers. The share of the population covered by the national health insurance system increased from 43 percent at end-2009 to 69 percent by December 2014, against a target of 60 percent, thus meeting the program target. (Achieved) 28. Objective 17: Contribute to the consolidation of full-time school program by building and rehabilitating full-time schools and improving learning outcomes in these schools. The number of students enrolled in full time schools increased from 37,600 in 2009 to 45,223 in 2015— falling slightly short of program target of 47,000. The gap in repetition rates in 1st grade between 1st and 2nd quintiles of full time schools and the 5th quintile of all urban schools was reduced from 6.8 percent in 2011 to 4.8 percent in April 2015, thus meeting the target. The share of students enrolled in 6th grade in full time schools with test scores corresponding to or higher than the National Learning Evaluation’s level two increased from 32 percent in math, and 52 percent in reading (in 2006) to 41.3 percent in math and 48.2 percent in reading in 2013 – short of target, particularly in reading. (Mostly Achieved) 29. Objective 18: Strengthen capacity to generate, transfer, and adapt knowledge and technology. The institutional framework for science, technology transfer, and innovation (STI) has been strengthened through initiatives in research, education, and public-private research alliances. This objective was included ex-post—at CLR stage—and thus IEG will not rate it. (Not Rated) 30. Based on the rating of objectives, IEG rates Focus Area IV as moderately satisfactory. The series of DPLs (FY11, FY12, and FY13) supported this area complemented by the ITBAL (FY07), a Social Programs Assessment (FY14) and a Public Expenditure Review on Pensions (FY12). In addition the area was supported by a project on Non-Communicable Disease Prevention (FY08) and projects on education--Basic Education 3 project (FY02), Support of Public Schools (FY13), and the Education MECAEF (FY10). Overall Assessment and Rating 31. IEG rates the overall development outcome of this CPS as Satisfactory as 12 out of 17 objectives were Achieved or Mostly Achieved. A favorable external environment and strong growth during 2010-12 provided a favorable background to advance the agenda of social reform while also consolidating the public finances. Net public debt was reduced as a share of GDP and the share of foreign currency denominated debt declined, while inclusion and equity improved with falling unemployment, health and education improved, and social transfer programs became better targeted. Results were mixed on environment and on addressing the effects of climate change, with progress made on the promotion of sustainability of small and medium farms but slow development of a state of the art climate and agriculture information and decision support system. Under Focus Area II the program contributed to enhance competitiveness and infrastructure, but still Uruguay has a long way to go in these areas. While results on the whole were positive for Uruguay and the program introduced new instruments (PforR, risk hedging of exposures of power utility to low rainfall and high oil prices), the program could have been much more ambitious—particularly in Focus Area II—as noted in the CLR. A country with the potential and capacity of Uruguay would be expected to target higher quantitative objectives on competitiveness and infrastructure, and have a more comprehensive and effective effort on education where results were not as expected. Objectives CLR Rating IEG Rating Focus Area I: Reduce Macroeconomic NA Highly Satisfactory Vulnerabilities and Strengthen Public Sector Administration Objective 1 Achieved Achieved Objective 2 Achieved Achieved Objective 3 Achieved Achieved Objective 4 Achieved Achieved For Official Use Only 9 CLR Review Independent Evaluation Group Focus Area II: Enhance Competitiveness and NA Satisfactory Infrastructure Objective 5 Achieved Achieved Partially Partially Achieved Objective 6 Achieved Objective 7 Achieved Achieved Objective 8 Achieved Achieved Objective 9 Achieved Not Verified Objective 10 Achieved Achieved Objective 11 Achieved Achieved Focus Area III: Improve Agriculture and the NA Moderately Satisfactory Environment, and Mitigate Effects of Climate Change Objective 12 Achieved Partially Achieved Objective 13 Achieved Achieved Focus Area IV: Improve Inclusion and Equity NA Moderately Satisfactory Objective 14 Achieved Achieved Partially Partially Achieved Objective 15 Achieved Objective 16 Achieved Achieved Mostly Mostly Achieved Objective 17 Achieved Objective 18 Achieved Not Rated 6. WBG Performance 32. At the start of the CPS period, IBRD had 9 ongoing operations totaling $674 million. The ongoing portfolio included investment operations in social protection, education, innovation, transport, natural resources, agriculture, water, and institution building. Three trust funded activities for $23 million provided complementary financing (for energy, environment, and gas recovery). 33. During the CPS period, IBRD made commitments totaling $1,057 million for fifteen operations, including three DPLs addressed to competitiveness, social inclusion, and public sector improvements. Other projects continued with work on infrastructure, health, education, energy, agriculture and industrial development, and mitigating the effects from drought events on investment project financing. Eight trust funded activities for $6.3 million provided complementary financing. IBRD committed resources during the CPS period were significantly higher than the proposed $700 million under the program, primarily because of additional resources provided through a Public Sector and Social Sector DPL (FY13), the project to mitigate investment project financing (FY15), and additional financing for education. 34. On overage for the period FY10-15 IBRD committed resources were disbursed at a faster rate than for the LCR region and the Bank, surely reflecting the prevalence in the program of DPL interventions. The average disbursement ratio for Uruguay’s investment operations during the CPS period was 33 percent, as compared to 26 percent and 22 percent for the LCR region and Bank-wide, respectively. 35. The Uruguay portfolio was less risky than the LCR Region and Bank wide portfolios. During FY10-15, the Uruguay portfolio had 12 percent of the projects at risk compared to 20 percent for the LCR Region and Bank-wide. On a commitment basis the Uruguay portfolio also performed better, with For Official Use Only 10 CLR Review Independent Evaluation Group 6 percent of the commitments at risk compared to 17 percent for the LCR region and 19 percent Bank- wide. IEG reviewed the ICRs of six projects that closed during the FY10-FY15 period and rated five as moderately satisfactory and one satisfactory. With respect to active projects, management assessments report that the majority of projects were making satisfactory progress towards achieving their development objectives. 36. The IFC portfolio consisted of seven investment projects with US$177.3 million of net commitment. All of them remained active at the end of the review period. Two of them with US$58.3 million of net commitment were already active at the inception of the review period. The two largest IFC investments were in river transportation and trade finance. 37. The CLR made no comments on the IFC portfolio and the IEG has not reviewed any of the projects. Based on IFC internal documents, the projects appear to be implemented as planned except for one which is operating in a “crisis mode”. 38. MIGA did not have an active project during the review period. Analytic and Advisory Activities and Services 39. A program of analytic work and advisory activities and services including 8 Economic and Sector Works (ESWs) and 24 Technical Assistance (TA) tasks was delivered during the FY10-FY15 period. The Bank provided advice to the government on policy-making using a series of policy notes made in conjunction with IDB and CAF, especially at the time of the new administration taking over (March 2015). Other advice and technical assistance covered areas of interest to the government on road safety, health promotion and prevention of non-communicable diseases, human resources in health, energy efficiency, and teacher’s policies. All in all, the program of AAA supported well the Bank’s lending program. 40. The Bank facilitated Uruguay’s participation in 17 South-South initiatives on subjects that ranged from road maintenance and performance-based contracts with Morocco, to ICT in education with Armenia, information systems in agriculture with Mexico, and risk management with regional counterparts. Uruguay also benefited from exchanges with Spain and Morocco on irrigation, and Argentina on road safety, infrastructure, and irrigation. 41. IFC had one advisory service (AS) project for US$440 thousand which was started in FY08. It closed in FY13 and was rated Mostly Successful at completion but IEG has not yet validated the rating. Results Framework 42. The results framework had a good design showing the country outcomes, issues and obstacles, outcomes to which WBG expects to contribute, intermediate indicators, and WBG instruments. Although the causal chains were not explicitly discussed in the text, the annex with the results framework lends itself for inference of causal links. While outcome indicators generally reflected the targeted outcomes, in a number of instances they were vague or referred to processes and outputs rather than outcomes. Quantified targets were generally unambitious in light of Uruguay’s potential and public sector capacities. IFC activities were kept outside the framework, which referred in very general terms in some focus areas to “IFC support.” This approach makes difficult to evaluate the impact on the program of IFC contributions. The scale up to country level outcomes could be inferred from the original results framework but were not explicitly discussed in the program documents. Partnerships and Development Partner Coordination 43. Overall coordination was good, with the government ensuring development partner cooperation and coordination. For example, based on government preferences, the Bank focused on primary education and the IDB on secondary education. Following consultation on gender issues with UN, IDB, CAF and other agencies, Uruguay was chosen as one of the countries where the Bank conducted consultations for the next gender strategy. Analytical work on demographic change and social policies is being done with UN-ECLAC. The PforR transport project channeled joint financing with CAF, IDB and Fondo Financiero Para el Desarrollo del Plata (FONPLAT). Work on climate smart agriculture was done For Official Use Only 11 CLR Review Independent Evaluation Group in cooperation with FAO-UN, who provided technical expertise. Under the guidance of the Ministry of Finance, IFC, CAF, IDB and private sector representatives started discussions on public-private partnerships. Moreover, policy notes for the new administration were prepared in consultation with CAF and IDB. Safeguards and Fiduciary Issues 44. No fiduciary issues were identified in the WBG’s portfolio during the review period. 45. Environmental assessments triggered in five category “B” projects evaluated by IEG5 were observed. Compliance with other safeguard policies, however, is unclear in projects in the transport sector (safeguards on involuntary resettlement and cultural property), the education sector (resettlement safeguard), and energy and mining (environmental assessment) owing to insufficient information in the Implementation Completion and Results reports of the projects. 46. On IFC’s seven investment projects, four had ESRR (Environmental and Social Risk Rating) scores of 2 (Satisfactory), one had a score of 3 (Partly Unsatisfactory), and two had not been assigned a score (ESRR: Unassigned) yet because they were too new. Ownership and Flexibility 47. The government was committed to the program and in the driver’s seat during the CPS period, which was obviously critical for the good program implementation observed during the CPS period. The Bank was flexible in responding to specific government requests. In general, ideas to innovate were coming from the government, and the Bank sought to design appropriate instruments to address the government’s vision. For example, the livestock tracking idea which was elaborated jointly between government experts and the Bank, or converting information into a decision making tool in the Sistema Nacional de Información Agropecuaria. Some knowledge products were the result of government interest, and were jointly funded by Uruguay and the Bank. At the same time, some operations were cancelled because of the government’s lack of interest of Bank financing for them. For example, an industrial pollution project—part of original CPS—was transformed into a small IDF grant channeled through the Ministry of Environment, which did not implement it because other issues took priority. WBG Internal Cooperation 48. According to the Bank team, during the CPS period the local IBRD office in Montevideo supported IFC in the organization of meetings and participation in them. The government wanted to promote the public-private partnership agenda, and IBRD and IFC teams responded by meeting in Buenos Aires to develop a strategy for potential collaboration in Southern Cone countries. IBRD and IFC jointly supported Uruguay in implementation of PPPs, including opportunities in transport, solid waste management, renewable energies and a liquefied natural gas import terminal. Portfolio reviews that included all WBG teams regularly discussed activities of IBRD, IFC, and MIGA. At the same time, there are indications that CPS objectives were not designed with IFC interventions in mind, suggesting weak internal WG cooperation on this CPS. In fact, IFC activities on financial services, agribusiness, renewable energy, logistics, and water were not specifically included in the results framework of the CPS, which only referred to “IFC support.” Risk Identification and Mitigation 49. The CPS identified the main risks—all considered low—such as debt sustainability, political and social risk, risk to civil service reform, and climate change and natural disaster risk. For debt sustainability, mitigation consisted of DPL financing, dialog on fiscal policies, and technical assistance. For political and social risk, a joint AAA program that aimed to contribute to consensus-based political processes was undertaken. In addition the program aim was to create fiscal space to address emerging social and other needs. For civil service reform opposition—where the Bank was not involved—the 5 All category “B” for safeguard purposes – not in the top tier of needed attention for safeguard compliance. For Official Use Only 12 CLR Review Independent Evaluation Group Bank was prepared to provide technical assistance based on its considerable experience on the issue in other Latin American countries. For climate change and natural disasters support under the natural resources management focus area included climate change adaptation measures and risk hedging instruments. The government’s awareness of increased risks from unpredictable rainfalls and severe droughts encouraged the enhancing of resilience to these risks. The Bank was instrumental to this initiative through a specific operation addressing climate smart agriculture and a weather based derivative transaction. In hindsight all major risks were managed successfully, and—aside from a significant regional economic slowdown during second half of the CPS period—risks did not materialize. Overall Assessment and Rating 50. IEG rates WBG performance as Good. The program was well designed with a set of outcomes addressing important areas of the government program. Each focus area was backed by WBG interventions, which contained an adequate combination of technical assistance, policy loans (DPLs), specific projects to improve the delivery of social services for example, and targeted trust funded activities that complemented well the other interventions. IFC was involved in the second and third areas—competitiveness and infrastructure, and agriculture and environment—with relevant interventions to develop lending to SMEs, agribusiness, infrastructure, and helping Uruguay integrate into the global economy. The results framework had an adequate design showing the country outcomes, issues and obstacles, outcomes to which WBG expected to contribute, intermediate indicators, and WBG activities. Although causal chains were not explicitly discussed in the text, the annex with the results framework lends itself for inference of causal links. Outcome indicators generally reflected the targeted outcomes, but in a number of instances were vague or referred to processes and outputs rather than outcomes. Quantified targets were generally unambitious in light of Uruguay’s potential and public sector capacities. Moreover, IFC specific activities were kept outside the framework and referred in very general terms in some focus areas as “IFC support,” which makes IFC’s significant contributions to the program difficult to evaluate and suggests poor internal WBG collaboration. The scale up of program outcomes to country level outcomes could be inferred from the original results framework but were not explicitly discussed in the program documents. Program implementation was good, although portfolio disbursement was uneven during the period reflecting lumpy disbursements of the three DPL operations. Projects generally performed well. IEG reviewed the ICRs of six projects that closed during the FY10-FY15 period and rated five as moderately satisfactory and one satisfactory. With respect to active projects, management assessments report that the majority of projects were making satisfactory progress towards achieving their development objectives at the end of the CPS period. Donor coordination appears to have been good under this CPS, especially among the CAF, IADB, UN agencies, FONPLAT and WBG. As a result of government preferences, the Bank did not engage in some areas where it has global knowledge and expertise, such as secondary and tertiary education, which in hindsight may have preempted a more comprehensive education strategy that would have been more effective in improving Uruguay’s education results. Assessment of CLR Completion Report 51. The CLR framework of analysis is consistent with progress report objectives. The CLR is candid and discusses the evidence on program indicators, but could have been more substantive in explaining IFC’s contributions to the program objectives, ‘additionality’ of IFC portfolio, and the WBG’s contribution to country outcomes. IFC had a substantial program of interventions but it is hard to assess its impact because the results framework did not include explicitly the IFC interventions, and the CLR does not explain enough how the interventions contributed to specific objectives of the WBG program. More generally, it would have been helpful to have more analysis of how Bank interventions related to program outcomes, emphasizing what was the value added provided by the Bank under the program. For Official Use Only 13 CLR Review Independent Evaluation Group Findings and Lessons 52. IEG agrees with the fairly standard lessons in the CLR about the mix of analytical and financing instruments, institutional capacity building, maximizing the impact of analytical and knowledge work, and the need to focus on the impact of interventions and strive to link program objectives with measurable outcomes to ensure successful evaluation. IEG notes additionally that having the country in the driver’s seat of a WBG program is desirable for program implementation, but also has the potential of leaving the WBG out of areas where it has significant comparative advantage, experience, and things to contribute (for example secondary and tertiary education in Uruguay). It will be important to strike a balance in this regard to ensure that the WBG’s program effectively contributes to Uruguay’s development goals in the areas where the WBG has shown the most skills and effectiveness in the past. Moreover, the very good ratings for development outcome of this CPS belie a lack of ambition in program targets for a country as developed as Uruguay. Targeting results that make a difference, are measurable and hard to achieve, but still are within reach, would be in the best interest of Uruguay. Annexes CLR Review 15 Independent Evaluation Group Annex Table 1: Summary Achievements of CPS Objectives Annex Table 2: Planned and Actual Lending for Uruguay, FY10-FY15 Annex Table 3: Analytical and Advisory Work, FY10-FY15 Annex Table 4: Grants and Trust Funds Active in FY10-FY15 for Uruguay Annex Table 5: Project Ratings for Uruguay, FY10-Present Annex Table 6: IEG Project Ratings for Uruguay and Comparators, FY10-FY15 Annex Table 7: Portfolio Status for Uruguay and Comparators, FY11-15 Annex Table 8: Disbursements Ratio for Uruguay, FY10-FY15 Annex Table 9: Net Disbursement and Charges for Uruguay, FY10-15 Annex Table 10: Net Official Development Assistance and Official Aid for Uruguay Annex Table 11: Economic and Social Indicators Annex Table 12: IFC Investments and Financing Annex Table 13: IFC Advisory Services Annexes 17 CLR Review Independent Evaluation Group Annex Table 1. Summary of Achievements of CPS Objectives CPS FY10-FY15 / Focus Area 1: Reducing Macroeconomic Vulnerability Actual Results IEG Comments and Strengthening Public Sector (as of current month/year) Administration 1. CPS Objective: Gradually reduce public sector indebtedness and improve public debt profile (Achieved) Indicator: Public debt as a percentage of Source: CLR and Uruguay Team GDP Net public debt as a share of GDP decreased to 20.7% in 2015 (Q1). The indicator was revised at the CPSPR Baseline: 37% (2009) stage. Target: 23.3% (2015) Indicator: Share of foreign currency- denominated Central Government public The share of foreign currency denominated debt has declined Source: CLR debt as a percentage of GDP. continuously to 47.9 % in 2011 and 42.7% in 2012, and was 51% in 2015 (Q1) The indicator was revised at the CPSPR Baseline: 56.7% (2009) stage. Target: 55% (2015) 2. CPS Objective: Introduction of a performance oriented budgeting (Achieved) Indicator: 5-year budget for 2010-2014 is prepared with a programmatic classification The 2010-2014 budget was prepared with a programmatic (early 2011). classification. The 2015-2019 budget is being prepared Source: CLR following the same format. Baseline: No Target: Yes Indicator: Define output and outcome The number of priority areas for which output and outcome indicators for at least 9 priority areas. Source: CLR indicators have been identified increased to 7 and there are 29 expenditure programs with outcome indicators in place. There Baseline: 0 (2009) The indicator was revised at the CPSPR are five additional non-programmatic areas (non-priority ones) stage. for which indicators have been defined. Target: 9 (2015) Annexes 18 CLR Review Independent Evaluation Group 3. CPS Objective: Deepen e-government reforms to enhance efficiency and transparency (Achieved) Indicator: Rise in the number of GoU The electronic document and e-signature law (Ley N. 18600) processes started and completed Source: CLR was passed and the number of public administration electronically transactions available on-line grew to 323 (April 2015) The target was exceeded by 45 exceeding the mid-term target of 50. Baseline: 20 (2009) processes. Target: 25 (2015) 4. CPS Objective: Public procurement is made more efficient and transparent through a properly functioning regulatory agency and the upgrading of the public procurement software (Achieved) The procurement regulatory agency (Agencia de Compras y Contrataciones Estatales) was created in 2012 and the Registry of Government Suppliers (Registro Unico de Indicator: A procurement regulatory Proveedores del Estado - RUPE) is effective and agency to strengthen procurement systems interconnected to the State Procurement System. Software for is created and operational and a software the Registry of Government Suppliers has been completed and Source: CLR for the Registry of Government Suppliers is is now in use by 100% of public entities. The indicator was revised at the CPSPR developed stage. The Institutions Building Technical Assistance Project Baseline: No (2009) (P097604) supported the software development for RUPE. According to management assessment, this project is making Target: Yes (2015) moderately satisfactory progress towards achieving its development outcome. Annexes 19 CLR Review Independent Evaluation Group CPS FY10-FY15 / Focus Area 2: Actual Results Comments Competitiveness and Infrastructure (as of current month/year) 5. CPS Objective: Streamline administrative processes for firm creation The number of days to start a business fell significantly to 7 days Indicator: Number of days required to in 2011 (2012 DB) and remained at 6.5 days in 2014 (2015 DB). create a firm Source: CLR and Doing Business The government reported that it has declined to 5 days in 2015. Reports This numbers are below the LAC average of 30.1 days and even Baseline: 65 (2010) below the OECD average (9.2 days). Target: < 65 (2015) 6. CPS Objective: Enhance access of low income households to financial services (Partially Achieved) Indicator: Share of family allowance beneficiaries that receive allowances via Source: CLR debit cards 14% (December 2014). The objective and the indicator were Baseline: 0% (mid-2012) introduced at the CPSPR stage. Target: 50% (2015) Indicator: Number of electronic Points of Sale (POS) available in the country Number of POS available in the country increased to 37,300 (April Source: CLR 2015) exceeding mid-term target of 23,400. Baseline: 13,000 (mid-2012) The objective and the indicator were introduced at the CPSPR stage. Target: 23,400 (2015) 7. CPS Objective: Stock exchange operations are rendered more transparent and efficient through computerization (Achieved) Indicator: The Stock Exchange Register The Registro del Mercado de Valores is computerized and 93% of (Registro del Mercado de Valores) is all public securities are in electronic format. The modernization of Source: CLR computerized and 70% of all public the Stock Exchange Register has resulted in the increase of the securities are in electronic format. total number of new private sector issuances (including stocks, The indicator was revised at the CPSPR corporate bonds and financial trusts) from 8 (December 2009) to stage. Baseline: No 58 (March 2014). Target: Yes 8. CPS Objective: Develop an institutional framework for coordinating logistics management across public and private sector (Achieved) Indicator: The National Logistics Institute National Logistics Institute (INALOG) was created by law Source: CLR and Uruguay Team is created No.18.697 on 11 November 2010. INGALOG became operational Annexes 20 CLR Review Independent Evaluation Group at the end of 2011 after Parliament promulgated its creation. The The objective and the indicator were Baseline: No creation of INALOG was part of the identified actions under the introduced at the CPSPR stage. First Programmatic Public Sector, Competitiveness and Social Target: Yes (2015) Inclusion DPL (P116215). According to management assessments, the program is making satisfactory progress towards its development outcome. 9. CPS Objective: Sustain the National Road Network in good or very good conditions (Not Verified) As of 2012, 42% of Road Network was in good/very good condition and this level was expected to be maintained throughout Indicator: Percentage of the National 2013 and 2014. The CLR reports that there has not been an Road Network in good or very good update in the indicator but new measurements will be conducted Source: CLR condition as measured by the International in December 2015. Roughness Index (IRI). The objective and the indicator were Two Bank projects supported this objective: (i) Road Rehabilitation introduced at the CPSPR stage Baseline: 46% (2009) and Maintenance PforR (P125803) and (ii) Transport Infrastructure Maintenance and Rural Access Project (P057481). Target: ≥ 35% (2015) The former was making moderately satisfactory progress towards achieving its development outcome. The development outcome for the latter was rated moderately satisfactory by IEG. 10. CPS Objective: Efficiency improvement in water utility (OSE) management lead to an increase in access to sewerage services and reduction in water losses (Achieved) Source: CLR Access to sewerage services As of 2015, 12,037 additional families had been connected to the The objective and the indicator were sewerage network. revised at the CPSPR stage. The indicator did not capture several Efficiency and Non-Revenue Water Losses (NRW) Indicator: Number of additional families dimensions of the objective (e.g.  OSE adopted modern management practices that are likely to connected to the sewerage network efficiency and non-revenue water lead to efficiency gains (e.g. 24-hour customer service, losses). Notwithstanding this weakness corporate management, environmental management). Baseline: No in the monitoring framework, the CLR  OSE successfully decreased non-revenue water losses via reported on some measures of efficiency pipe substitution and maintenance (to reduce physical losses) Target: 9,224 (2015) and on non-revenue water losses. Non- and metering (to reduce commercial losses). OSE currently revenue water is the difference between spends approximately two percent of its annual investment the volume of water put into a water budget on replacing water distribution piping. On a national distribution system and the volume that level, NRW decreased over the course of the OSE is billed to customers. Modernization and Systems Rehabilitation Project (P101432) Annexes 21 CLR Review Independent Evaluation Group The Bank supported this objective resulting in 20.5 millions of cubic water recovered per year, equivalent to US$ 10.1 million per year. through two interventions: (i) OSE  The OSE Modernization and Systems Rehabilitation Project Modernization and Systems (P101432) financed a pilot to establish a District of Rehabilitation Project (P101432) and (ii) Measurement and Control (DMC) in the Ayui neighbourhood ofOSE Sustainable and Efficient (P118064). IEG rated the development Artigas where NRW losses went from 906 liters per connection outcome of the former project with a per day in 2006 to 81 liters per connection per day by the close moderately satisfactory. The latter of the pilot. The success of the pilot has spurred a movement to create a network of DMCs throughout the country. project is still ongoing and, according to management assessments, it is making moderately satisfactory progress towards achieving its development outcome. 11. CPS Objective: Increase demand and supply of energy efficient goods and services and contribute to energy savings (Achieved) Market share of energy efficient appliances increased to 18% (residential and commercial) and to 63% (municipal lighting). The results were monitored via surveys and registration of new household appliances. The CLR reports that energy efficiency practices were institutionalized within the National Energy Utility (Administration Nacional de Usinas y Transmisiones Electricas – UTE) and that and Indicator: Market share of energy Energy Efficiency Law (Ley Numero 18597) was drafter and efficiency appliances reaches 10% approved in September 2009. Subsequently, a national regulatory (resident and commercial) and 60% Source: CLR decree was issued in 2012. The decree provided the legal basis for (municipal lightning) the National Energy Efficiency Plan and for the setting up of the The objective and the indicator were “Uruguayan EE and Savings Trust Fund”. Baseline: No revised at the CPSPR stage. The Bank provided support via the Energy Efficiency Project Target: Yes (2015) (P068124), which was a GEF funded operation. In addition, the Bank also delivered an ESW on Low-Carbon Growth Strategies for the Uruguayan Economy (P125103). The ESW proposed 66 measures to improve energy efficiency. Out of the 66 measures, half had zero cost and had the potential of cutting emissions by half. Annexes 22 CLR Review Independent Evaluation Group CPS FY10-FY15 / Focus Area 3: Actual Results Agriculture, Climate Change, and Comments (as of current month/year) Environment 12. CPS Objective: Develop an integrated and publicly accessible climate and agriculture information and decision support system (Partially Achieved) The Bank supported the development of Uruguay’s Sistema Nacional de Information Agropecuaria (SNIA) through the Indicator: Climate and agricultural Sustainable Management of Natural Resources and Climate information and decision support system Change (P124181). According to management assessments, Source: CLR (SNIA) is operational the project is making satisfactory progress towards achieving its development outcome. The CLR reports that Ministry of The objective and the indicator were Baseline: No (2010) Agriculture will be launching the SNIA in calendar year 2015. revised at the CPSPR stage. However, the CLR reports that the SNIA produced the first data Target: Yes (2015) products and that these products were ready for use. 13. CPS Objective: Promote environmentally sustainable and economically viable production systems in small and medium-sized farms (Achieved) 6,459 small and medium-sized farms have adopted farm-level Indicator: Improved Natural Resources NRM and biodiversity conservation practices, covering 881,882 Management (NRM) and biodiversity hectares, representing 24.1% of the total small and medium- conservation practices adopted by at least sized farms in Uruguay. 5,000 small and medium-sized farms, Source: CLR covering an area of at least 800,000 The Bank supported the achievement of this objective through hectares. the Integrated Natural Resource and Biodiversity Management The objective and the indicator were (P070653). According to management assessments, the revised at the CPSPR stage. Baseline: No (2010) project was making satisfactory progress towards achieving its development outcome. Target: Yes (2015) Annexes CLR Review 23 Independent Evaluation Group CPS FY10-FY15 / Focus Area 4: Actual Results Comments Inclusion and Equity (as of current month/year) 14. CPS Objective: Rendering social policies more effective in promoting inclusion by improving the targeting and coordination of information on beneficiaries of social programs (Achieved) The CLR reports that the registry of beneficiaries is updated regularly. The Ministry of Social Development (MIDES) visits households across the country to verify eligibility. After visiting 134,869 households, the MIDES updated information for 99,500 beneficiary households of AFAM-PE (family Indicator: Main social transfer programs allowances) and incorporated 10,000 new households to the (Family allowances and Tarjeta Uruguay program. As for the Tarjeta Uruguay Social, 24,242 Source: CLR and Uruguay Team Social) are based on regularly updated households were identified as receiving the card for which they beneficiary registers. did not qualify, while 1,845 had their benefits reduced. The objective and the indicator were Meanwhile, 10,216 households that qualified but did not revised at the CPSPR stage. Baseline: No (2010) receive benefits were included in the program. Furthermore 23,630 households should have been receiving the benefit but Target: Yes (2015) were not and they have been added (12,814 for TUS Doble and 10,816 for TUS Simple). Census data is being used to identify areas with insufficient coverage, and the indicators of critical deficiencies (marginalization) have been updated. Indicator: The Integrated System of Information of the Social Areas (SIIAS) is fully operational, giving at least nine The Integrated System of Information of the Social Areas Source: CLR participating institutions full access to data (SIIAS) is fully operational for 13 participating central on beneficiaries government institutions. The objective and the indicator were revised at the CPSPR stage. Baseline: No (2010) Target: Yes (2015) 15. CPS Objective: Strengthen measures aimed at preventing non-communicable diseases (Achieved) Indicator: Percentage of women aged 50- The percentage was 12.20% as of December 2014. The CLR Source: CLR 69 covered by the public provider (ASSE) reports that controversial international discussion upon who had a mammogram in a given year convenience of mammogram screening occurred between The baseline and target were revised at 2010 and 2013. These discussions negatively affected social the CPSPR stage. Baseline: 7.8% (2009) Annexes 24 CLR Review Independent Evaluation Group perceptions on the importance of mammogram screening and The Bank supported this objective Target: 20% (2014) thus, to a certain extent, explain the modest progress. through the Non-communicable Disease Prevention Project. (P050716). According to management assessments, the project was making moderately satisfactory progress towards achieving its development outcome. 75.6% newborns with disabilities monitored by early detection and treatment units as of December 2011. Although the Source: CLR and Uruguay Team Indicator: Proportion of newborns with indicator was not formally monitored beyond 2011, the disabilities being monitoring by early Uruguay team notes that the results have been sustained The indicator was introduced at the detection and treatment units through institutionalized neonatal screening by the Social CPSPR stage and it had already been Security Bank’s laboratory. In addition, the team notes that, in achieved by then. The indicator lacked a Baseline: 0% (2006) the recent years, more diseases have been added to the group precise target and it only noted that a of diseases that require mandatory neonatal screening. “significant” improvement was expected. Target: > 0% (2015) 16. CPS Objective: Gradual increase of coverage of the National Health Insurance, including retired workers, and spouses and domestic partners of public and private sector workers (Achieved) Indicator: Percentage of population covered by national health insurance As of December 2014, National Health Insurance coverage Source: CLR had increased to 69%. Baseline: 43% (end-2009) The indicator was introduced at the CPSPR stage. Target: 60% (2015) 17. CPS Objective: Contribute to the consolidation of the full-time school program by building and rehabilitating full-time schools and improving learning outcomes in these schools (Partially Achieved) As of March 2015, the number of students enrolled in full-time schools reached 45,223 in 205 schools (March 2015). Indicator: Number of students enrolled in full-time schools The Bank supported this objective through the Third Basic Source: CLR Education Quality Improvement Project (P070937) and the Baseline: 37,600 (2009) Support to Uruguayan Public Schools Projects (P126408). The development outcome for the former project was rated Target: 47,000 (2015) moderately satisfactory by IEG. Management assessments for the latter project indicate that it is making moderately Annexes 25 CLR Review Independent Evaluation Group satisfactory progress towards achieving its development outcome. Indicator: Reduction in the gap in repetition rates in 1st grade between 1st and The reduction gap reached 4.8% (April 2015). This is a Source: CLR 2nd quintiles of full-time schools and the 5th significantly greater reduction from the desired outcome, quintile of all urban schools achieving the goal 2 years before the ongoing project’s plans. The indicator was revised at the CPSPR stage. Baseline: 6.8% (2011) Target: 5.7% (2015) The proportion of students enrolled in 6th grade in full-time schools with test scores corresponding to or higher than the Indicator: Proportion of students enrolled National Learning Evaluation’s Level Two reached 41.3% in in 6th grade in full-time schools with test Math and 48.2% in Reading in 2013. There is no more recent scores corresponding to or higher than the data since 2013. Source: CLR and Uruguay Team National Learning Evaluation’s Level Two The Bank provided support through the Support to Uruguayan The indicator was revised at the CPSPR Baseline: 32% Math (2006) and 52% Public Schools Project (P126408). According to latest stage. Reading (2006) management assessments, the project was making moderately satisfactory progress towards achieving its development Target: 45% Math (2015) and 72% outcome. Reading (2015) 18. CPS Objective: Strengthen the country’s capacity to generate, transfer, and adapt knowledge and technology (Not Rated) Source: CLR  The National Innovation Agency (ANII) is currently Indicator: The institutional framework for monitoring 35 sectoral indicators based on reliable Neither the CPS nor the CPSPR science, technology transfer, and methodologies. proposed an objective and indicators innovation (STI) has been strengthened  120 research subprojects in priority areas were through which to measure country´s implemented with research and activities in environment, progress in Bank funded innovation Baseline: No (2009) health, social inclusion and other areas with high social programs. The objective and indicators impact. were introduced ex-post at the CLR Target: Yes (2015)  1,083 scholarships have been awarded to young stage to report on the Bank’s researchers. contribution in the area of innovation. Annexes 26 CLR Review Independent Evaluation Group  Number of graduates from domestic masters and PhD programs reach 806. In addition, 5 graduate programs have been created and 21 have been strengthened.  19 Alliances (public-private research consortia) have been created, developing innovations related to biotechnology, animal and human vaccines, eco-friendly cultivations, among others. CLR Review Annexes Independent Evaluation Group 27 Annex Table 2. Planned and Actual Lending for Uruguay, FY10-15 Approved Proposed Approval Closing Proposed Outcome Project ID Project name IBRD FY FY FY Amount Rating Amount Project Planned Under CPS / CPSPR FY10-15 First Programmatic Public Sector, P116215 Competitiveness and Social 2010 2011 2012 100.0 100.0 LIR: S Inclusion DPL Second Programmatic Public Sector, Competitiveness and P123242 Social Inclusion Development 2011 2012 2018 100.0 260.0 LIR: S Policy Loan with Drawdown Option Institutions Building TAL 2010 / Not P123461 2012 2017 10.0 N/A (Additional Financing) 2011 detailed Sustainable Management of P124181 Natural Resources and Climate 2011 2012 2017 40.0 49.0 LIR: S Change P118064 OSE Sustainable and Efficient 2011 2013 2018 40.0 42.0 LIR: MS Road Rehabilitation and 2010 / Not P125803 2013 2016 66.0 LIR: MS Maintenance PforR 2011 detailed Support to Uruguayan Public P126408 2011 2013 2017 40.0 40.0 LIR: MS Schools Project P115769 Energy Sector Strengthening 2011 Dropped Dropped 100.0 Dropped Dropped Sustainable Industrial P110965 2012 Dropped Dropped 20.0 Dropped Dropped Development Output-based Loan for Social 2010 / Not P123697 Sectors and Human Dropped Dropped Dropped Dropped 2011 detailed Opportunities 2010 / Not P115769 Energy Efficiency Dropped Dropped Dropped Dropped 2011 detailed 2010 / Not Not available Health Sector Support Dropped Dropped Dropped Dropped 2011 detailed Public Sector and Social P131440 2013 2016 260.0 260.0 LIR: S Inclusion DPL Total Planned 700.0 827.0 Unplanned Projects during the CPS and CPSPR Period P111662 (AF-C) Education MECAEF 2010 2013 29.9 N/A Drought Events Impact Mitigating P149069 2015 2018 200.0 LIR: S Investment Project Financing Total Unplanned 229.9 Total Planned and Unplanned 1056.9 during FY10-15 Approved On-going Projects during the CPS and CPSPR Approval Closing Outcome IBRD Period FY FY Rating Amount P106724 UY PRIDPL II / DDO 2009 2012 400.0 IEG: S UY Non Comm. Disease P050716 2008 2016 25.3 LIR: MS Prevention P101432 UY APL2 OSE 2007 2013 50.0 IEG: MS CLR Review Annexes Independent Evaluation Group 28 Approved Proposed Approval Closing Proposed Outcome Project ID Project name IBRD FY FY FY Amount Rating Amount UY Promoting Innovation to P095520 2007 2015 26.0 LIR: MS Enhance Compe P097604 UY Institutions Building TAL 2007 2017 12.1 LIR: MS UY Transp. Inf. Maint. and Rural P057481 2005 2012 70.0 IEG: MS Access UY Integr. Nat. Res. & P070653 2005 2013 30.0 LIR: MS Biodiveristy Mgmt UY FOOT & MOUTH DISEASE - P074543 2002 2010 18.5 IEG: S ERL P070937 UY- BASIC EDUCATION 3 2002 2013 42.0 IEG: MS Total On-going 673.9 Source: Uruguay, CPSPR and AO as of 7/23/15 *LIR: Latest internal rating. MU: Moderately Unsatisfactory. MS: Moderately Satisfactory. S: Satisfactory. HS: Highly Satisfactory. Annex Table 3: Analytical and Advisory Work for Uruguay, FY10 - FY15 Proj ID Economic and Sector Work Fiscal year Output Type P125103 UY Low Carbon Study FY15 Sector or Thematic Study/Note P147070 Uruguay Policy Notes (MST) FY15 Development Policy Review (DPR) P124259 UY Social Programs Assessment FY14 Sector or Thematic Study/Note P123155 UY - One laptop per Child FY13 Sector or Thematic Study/Note P125366 UY PEFA FY13 Public Expenditure Financial Accountability Financial Sector Assessment Program P131610 FSAP Update Uruguay FY13 (FSAP) P112077 UY Health Reform Assessment ESW FY12 Sector or Thematic Study/Note P124430 UY Public Expenditure Review FY12 Public Expenditure Review (PER) Proj ID Technical Assistance Fiscal year Output Type P133277 UY - Rail sector regulation FY15 TA/IAR P148321 UY Scoping Mission for IUWM FY15 TA/IAR P148331 UY Improvement of Pollution Control FY15 TA/IAR P150700 Uruguay: Policy Note on Extractives FY15 TA/IAR P152060 Capacity Building for Oil and Gas Sector FY15 TA/IAR P133277 UY - Rail sector regulation FY15 Not assigned P148321 UY Scoping Mission for IUWM FY15 Not assigned P148331 UY Improvement of Pollution Control FY15 Not assigned P150700 Uruguay: Policy Note on Extractives FY15 Not assigned P152060 Capacity Building for Oil and Gas Sector FY15 Not assigned P143607 UY Wages and productivity FY14 TA/IAR P143607 UY Wages and productivity FY14 Not assigned P123472 Uruguay Financial Capability Survey FY13 TA/IAR P125481 UY-Capacity Building Activities FY13 TA/IAR GCMNB URUGUAY-GIIF-NDVI P126442 FY13 TA/IAR Regltory &Policy UY PPP -Development of Financing P128686 FY13 TA/IAR Options CLR Review Annexes Independent Evaluation Group 29 Proj ID Economic and Sector Work Fiscal year Output Type P130237 Gemloc Uruguay Country Policy II FY13 TA/IAR P123472 Uruguay Financial Capability Survey FY13 Not assigned P125481 UY-Capacity Building Activities FY13 Not assigned GCMNB URUGUAY-GIIF-NDVI P126442 FY13 Not assigned Regltory &Policy UY PPP -Development of Financing P128686 FY13 Not assigned Options P130237 Gemloc Uruguay Country Policy II FY13 Not assigned P117123 UY Integration of Public Policies Risk M FY11 Institutional Development Plan GCMGL Gemloc Uruguay Country P124409 FY11 Client Document Review Policy Source: AO Table ESW/TA 1.4 as of 7/23/15 Annex Table 4. Grants and Trust Funds Active in FY10-FY15 for Uruguay (in US$ million) Approval Closing Approved Project ID Project name TF ID FY FY Amount UTE 10MW Grid Connected Wind Power Farm at P102341 TF 13764 2013 2016 Caracoles Hill 0.54 Strengthening Capacity for Improving P129749 Environmental Compliance and Promoting Cleaner TF 12379 2013 2016 0.32 Production in the Industrial Sector Oriental Republic of Uruguay: Montevideo Landfill P127455 TF 11148 2012 2018 Gas Recovery Project 3.57 Supporting the Ministry of Finance to promote P124966 TF 99448 2012 2015 Uruguay's economic potential 0.42 Institutional Strengthening to Promote Equitable P121882 TF 97964 2011 2014 Access of Society to the Legal System 0.39 P118064 OSE Sustainable and Efficient TF 96016 2010 2013 0.45 UTE 10MW Grid Connected Wind Power Farm at P102341 TF 95828 2010 2016 Caracoles Hill 0.62 Uruguay: EDU- CAR, Child Road User Safety P121477 Initiative. A promising Model for Latin America and TF 96540 2010 2011 0.07 the Caribbean Phases III and IV. Uruguay - Montevideo Landfill Gas Recovery P094495 TF 57504 2007 2013 Project 9.93 Integrated Ecosystem and Natural Resources P077676 TF 55042 2005 2013 Management (GEF) 7.00 P068124 Energy Efficiency Project TF 53298 2005 2012 6.88 Total 30.18 CLR Review Annexes Independent Evaluation Group 30 Annex Table. 5 IEG Project Ratings for Uruguay, FY10-Present Total Exit FY Proj ID Project name Evaluated IEG Outcome IEG Risk to DO ($M) UY FOOT & MOUTH 2010 P074543 23.2 SATISFACTORY MODERATE DISEASE - ERL UY Transp. Inf. Maint. and MODERATELY 2012 P057481 68.1 MODERATE Rural Access SATISFACTORY UY Energy Efficiency MODERATELY NEGLIGIBLE TO 2012 P068124 0.0 Project SATISFACTORY LOW UY Integr. Nat. Res. & MODERATELY 2013 P070653 30.0 MODERATE Biodiveristy Mgmt SATISFACTORY MODERATELY 2013 P070937 UY- BASIC EDUCATION 3 71.9 MODERATE SATISFACTORY MODERATELY NEGLIGIBLE TO 2013 P101432 UY APL2 OSE 50.0 SATISFACTORY LOW Total 243.2 Source: AO Key IEG Ratings as of 7/10/15 Annex Table 6. IEG Project Ratings for Uruguay and Comparators, FY10-15 RDO % RDO % Total Total Outcome Outcome Moderate or Moderate or Region Evaluated Evaluated % Sat ($) % Sat (No) Lower Lower ($M) (No) Sat ($) Sat (No) Uruguay 243.2 6 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 LAC 32,245.8 252 88.7 75.2 81.5 66.1 World 118,105.4 1,364 81.8 70.0 63.8 50.7 Source: AO IEG Bank and Borrower Performance as of 7/10/15 * With IEG new methodology for evaluating projects, institutional development impact and sustainability are no longer rated separately. CLR Review Annexes Independent Evaluation Group 31 Annex Table 7 Portfolio Status for Uruguay and Comparators, FY11-15 Fiscal year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Average Uruguay # Proj 9 8 8 9 8 9 8.5 # Proj At Risk .. 1 .. 1 1 .. 1.0 % Proj At Risk .. 12.5 .. 11.1 12.5 .. 11.8 Net Comm Amt 299.2 299.2 541.3 790.4 530.4 964.4 570.8 Comm At Risk .. 25.3 .. 25.3 49.0 .. 33.2 % Commit at Risk 8.5 3.2 9.2 5.8 LAC # Proj 349 353 346 332 315 297 332.0 # Proj At Risk 68 61 68 72 70 69 68.0 % Proj At Risk 19.5 17.3 19.7 21.7 22.2 .. 20.5 Net Comm Amt 32,161.5 32,557.8 33,341.8 30,843.3 29,271.0 27,980.4 31,026.0 Comm At Risk 5,316.1 3,195.2 4,503.5 6,097.4 6,355.6 5,846.2 5,219.0 % Commit at Risk 16.5 9.8 13.5 19.8 21.7 20.9 16.8 World # Proj 1,990 2,059 2,029 1,965 2,049 2,032 2,020.7 # Proj At Risk 410 382 387 414 412 453 409.7 % Proj At Risk 20.6 18.6 19.1 21.1 20.1 .. 20.3 Net Comm Amt 162,975.3 171,755.3 173,706.1 176,206.6 192,614.1 196,149.7 178,901.2 Comm At Risk 28,963.1 23,850.0 24,465.0 40,805.6 40,933.5 46,361.8 34,229.8 % Commit at Risk 17.8 13.9 14.1 23.2 21.3 23.6 19.1 Source: AO Projects at risk by year as of 7/2/15 CLR Review Annexes Independent Evaluation Group 32 Annex Table 8. Disbursement Ratio for Uruguay, FY10-15 Average FY10- Fiscal Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 FY15 Uruguay Disbursement Ratio 30.20 35.20 59.90 25.30 19.80 25.50 32.65 (%) Inv Disb in FY 41.30 43.50 48.10 22.60 29.30 30.40 35.87 Inv Tot Undisb 137.00 123.70 80.20 89.20 148.40 119.00 116.25 Begin FY LAC Disbursement Ratio 39.20 30.90 22.00 24.00 18.80 20.80 25.95 (%) Inv Disb in FY 4,998.40 4,513.50 3,338.40 3,524.00 2,491.10 2,561.50 3,571.15 Inv Tot Undisb 12,756.70 14,614.20 15,201.70 14,712.30 13,281.00 12,341.70 13,817.93 Begin FY World Disbursement Ratio 26.90 22.40 20.80 20.60 20.80 21.80 22.22 (%) Inv Disb in FY 20,928.80 20,933.40 21,048.20 20,510.40 20,757.00 21,870.40 21,008.03 Inv Tot Undisb 77,760.80 93,516.50 101,234.30 99,588.00 99,852.70 100,319.20 95,378.58 Begin FY * Calculated as IBRD/IDA Disbursements in FY / Opening Undisbursed Amount at FY. Restricted to Lending Instrument Type = Investment. Source: AO as of 7/23/15 Annex Table 9. Net Disbursement and Charges for Uruguay, FY10-15 Period Disb. Amt. Repay Amt. Net Amt. Charges Fees Net Transfer Jul 2009 - Jun 2010 46,142,243.13 81,292,396.48 -35,150,153.35 19,786,495.82 179,132.56 -55,115,781.73 Jul 2010 - Jun 2011 150,806,597.93 90,102,002.47 60,704,595.46 13,753,832.24 300,693.63 46,650,069.59 Jul 2011 - Jun 2012 57,086,269.85 86,660,028.38 -29,573,758.53 18,925,123.35 2,116,499.10 -50,615,380.98 Jul 2012 - Jun 2013 33,247,854.10 84,147,930.47 -50,900,076.37 27,646,454.46 1,020,604.45 -79,567,135.28 Jul 2013 - Jun 2014 42,088,297.43 72,173,189.14 -30,084,891.71 21,124,583.40 1,456,712.33 -52,666,187.44 Jul 2014 - Jun 2015 62,807,813.13 61,349,117.10 1,458,696.03 17,062,694.57 1,800,000.01 Report Total 392,179,075.6 475,724,664.0 (83,545,588.5) 118,299,183.8 6,873,642.1 (191,314,415.8) World Bank Client Connection 7/20/15 CLR Review Annexes Independent Evaluation Group 33 Annex Table 10. Total Net Disbursements of Official Development Assistance and Official Aid for Uruguay Development Partners 2010 2011 2012 2013 Australia .. 0.03 0.2 0.16 Austria .. .. 0.01 .. Belgium .. 0.05 0.05 0.05 Canada 0.45 0.54 0.45 0.67 Czech Republic .. 0 .. .. Finland 0.12 0.05 0.26 0.38 France 1.15 0.1 1.14 1.06 Germany 0.76 -9.02 0.52 13.97 Greece 0.07 0.08 0.06 0.02 Ireland 0.23 .. .. .. Italy 8.61 0.89 0.43 0.58 Japan 11.36 0.51 -0.08 0.65 Korea 0.02 0.29 0.04 .. Luxembourg 0.12 0.04 0.06 0.02 Netherlands 0.07 .. .. .. New Zealand 0.06 0.08 0.15 0.26 Norway 0.09 0.03 0.05 -0.04 Portugal 0.04 0.09 0.07 0.08 Spain 8.41 5.55 0.98 1.66 Sweden 0.1 0.13 0.24 0.03 Switzerland 0.04 0.02 0.06 0.06 United Kingdom 0.07 0.1 0.2 0.56 United States 1.15 1.57 0.37 0.29 DAC Countries, Total 32.9 1.1 5.3 20.5 EU Institutions 7.1 9.9 3.4 6.6 GEF 1.0 4.3 3.5 2.6 Global Fund .. .. 2.2 1.1 IAEA 0.4 0.1 0.9 0.9 IBRD .. .. .. .. IDA .. .. .. .. IDB Sp.Fund 1.6 0.7 1.1 1.3 IFC .. .. .. .. OFID 0.2 .. .. .. UNAIDS 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 UNDP 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.5 CLR Review Annexes Independent Evaluation Group 34 Development Partners 2010 2011 2012 2013 UNFPA 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 UNICEF 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.8 Multilateral, Total 13.0 17.3 13.3 14.6 Hungary .. 0.1 .. .. Israel 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 Romania .. .. 0.0 .. Thailand 0.0 .. 0.0 0.0 Turkey 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 United Arab Emirates .. .. 0.0 0.0 Non-DAC Countries, Total 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.7 Development Partners Total 46.7 19.4 19.3 35.8 Source: OECD Stat, [DAC2a] as of 7/22/15 CLR Review Annexes Independent Evaluation Group 35 Annex Table 11. Economic and Social Indicators for Uruguay, 2010 - 2014 Uruguay LAC World Series Name 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Average 2010-2014 Growth and Inflation                         GDP growth (annual %) 7.8 5.2 3.3 5.1 3.5 5.0 3.4 2.8 GDP per capita growth 7.4 4.8 3.0 4.7 3.1 4.6 2.3 1.6 (annual %) GNI per capita, PPP (current 16,120.0 17,310.0 18,220.0 19,330.0 20,220.0 18,240.0 14,350.1 13,944.3 international $) GNI per capita, Atlas method 10,400.0 12,010.0 13,910.0 15,640.0 16,360.0 13,664.0 9,371.4 10,260.8 (current US$) Inflation, consumer prices 6.7 8.1 8.1 8.6 8.9 3.8 3.5 (annual %) Composition of GDP (%)                    Agriculture, value added (% 8.8 10.6 9.8 9.6 8.6 9.5 5.1 3.1 of GDP) Industry, value added (% of 27.5 25.5 25.6 26.3 27.4 26.5 33.1 26.8 GDP) Services, etc., value added 63.7 63.9 64.6 64.1 64.0 64.1 62.2 70.2 (% of GDP) Gross fixed capital formation 19.1 19.1 22.2 21.8 21.4 20.7 20.8 21.7 (% of GDP) Gross domestic savings (% 20.4 20.4 19.6 20.0 19.2 19.9 20.6 22.3 of GDP) External Accounts                    Exports of goods and 26.3 26.4 25.9 23.5 23.4 25.1 24.5 29.4 services (% of GDP) Imports of goods and 25.3 26.9 29.1 26.2 25.5 26.6 25.3 29.3 services (% of GDP) Current account balance (% -1.9 -2.9 -5.2 -5.1 -4.6 -3.9 .. .. of GDP) External debt stocks (% of .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. GNI) Total debt service (% of GNI) .. .. .. .. .. .. 3.3 .. Total reserves in months of 7.6 8.3 9.9 11.5 12.7 10.0 8.6 13.6 imports Fiscal Accounts /1                    General government 30.1 28.7 28.5 30.5 30.1 29.6 .. .. revenue (% of GDP) General government total 31.6 29.6 31.3 32.9 33.5 31.8 .. .. expenditure (% of GDP) General government net lending/borrowing (% of -1.5 -0.9 -2.8 -2.4 -3.4 -2.2 .. .. GDP) General government gross 61.6 59.0 59.5 62.1 62.8 61.0 .. .. debt (% of GDP) Social Indicators                    Health                    CLR Review Annexes Independent Evaluation Group 36 Uruguay LAC World Series Name 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Average 2010-2014 Life expectancy at birth, total 76.6 76.8 76.9 77.1 .. 76.8 74.5 70.6 (years) Immunization, DPT (% of 95.0 95.0 95.0 94.0 .. 94.8 92.2 83.4 children ages 12-23 months) Improved sanitation facilities (% of population with 96.0 96.2 96.4 .. .. 96.2 81.2 63.3 access) Improved water source (% of 92.6 93.8 94.9 .. .. 93.8 81.7 80.9 population with access) Mortality rate, infant (per 10.6 10.3 10.0 9.5 .. 10.1 16.3 35.2 1,000 live births) Education                    School enrollment, 88.7 .. .. .. .. 88.7 73.7 51.9 preprimary (% gross) School enrollment, primary 112.0 .. .. .. .. 112.0 108.4 108.2 (% gross) School enrollment, 90.3 .. .. .. .. 90.3 89.8 73.2 secondary (% gross) Population                    Population, total (Millions) 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 608.5 7,044.9 Population growth (annual 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.1 1.2 %) Urban population (% of total) 94.4 94.6 94.8 95.0 95.2 94.8 79.0 52.5 Source: DDP as of 4/14/15 *International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database, April 2015 CLR Review Annexes Independent Evaluation Group 37 Annex Table 12. List of IFC Investments in Uruguay Investments Committed in FY11-FY15 Project Cmt Project Greenfield Project Primary Sector Name NetLoan NetEquity Net Comm ID FY Status Code Size 34301 2014 Active Finance & Insurance G 10,000 10,000 10,000 Transportation and 31445 2013 Active G 187,000 74,000 - 74,000 Warehousing 31556 2013 Active Food & Beverages E 90,000 15,000 - 15,000 Accommodation & 31786 2013 Active G 9,000 5,000 - 5,000 Tourism Services 29934 2011 Active Finance & Insurance E 15,000 15,000 - 15,000 Sub-Total 311,000 109,000 10,000 119,000 Investments Committed pre-FY11 but active during FY11-15  Project Project CMT Greenfield Project Status Primary Sector Name NetLoan NetEquity Net Comm ID FY Code Size Name 26890 2009 Active Agriculture and Forestry E 21,000 10,000 - 10,000 25938 2007 Active Finance & Insurance E 2,500 48,308 - 48,308 Sub-Total 23,500 58,308 - 58,308 TOTAL 334,500 167,308 10,000 177,308 Source: MIS Exract as of End March 2015 and information IFCDocs Annex Table13. List of IFC Advisory Services for Uruguay Advisory Services Approved in FY11-15 Primary Project ImplStart Impl Project Total Funds, Project Name Business ID FY End FY Status US$ Line None Sub-Total - Advisory Services Approved pre-FY11 but active during FY11-15 Primary Project Project Total Funds, Project Name Start FY End FY Business ID Status US$ Line Small Milk Producers' Supplier 558465 Development Program - 2008 2013 CLOSED SBA 440,090 CONAPROLE Sub-Total 440,090 TOTAL 440,090 Source: IFC AS Data as of end of FY14