PROGRAM DOCUMENT (P111816)

Transcription

1 GOVERNANCE PARTNERSHIP FACILITY PROGRAM DOCUMENT (P111816) Original: Approved by GPC on October 11, 2008 Draft Revision: February 7, 2012

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS A BACK GROUND AND OUTLINE OF THE FACILITY 2 A 1 Introduction 2 A 2 Next phase of GAC and GPF 4 A 3 What the GPF tries to achieve 8 A 4 Structure of the Governance Partnership Facility 9 A 5 Resourcing the GPF 12 B HOW IS THE GPF MANAGED? 14 B 1 Management Principles and Functions 14 B 2 Roles and responsibilities of the GPC, Secretariat, and Standing Review Committee 15 B 3 GPF Results Framework 20 Annex 1: Detailed description of Windows Annex 2: GPF Selection Process 37 Annex 3: Access Criteria to the GPF Windows Window Window Window Window 4 46 Annex 4: General Conditions for Establishing and Managing a GPF Disbursing Trust Fund 47 Annex 5: Supplementary funding to activities funded by Governance Partnership Facility (GPF) 49 Annex 6: Results Framework for the GPF 52 1

3 A A 1 BACK GROUND AND OUTLINE OF THE FACILITY INTRODUCTION 1 The first Implementation Plan of the World Bank Governance and Anticorruption (GAC) Strategy was approved by the Board of Executive Directors in A second phase implementation plan of the GAC was submitted to the Board in late From the start of its implementation, the GAC has produced a strong positive momentum within the Bank to scale up and strengthen governance work. The establishment of a Governance Council chaired by the three Managing Directors of the Bank has provided the impetus for support throughout the organization and for improved resource allocations. Without a significant scaling up and deepening of engagement on governance, there is a risk that the stated ambitions of the Bank in its GAC Strategy are frustrated. 2 The Governance Partnership Facility (GPF) was launched in December 2008 followed by successful implementation of 90 projects funded by the proceeds of the Multi Donor Trust Fund of the GPF. The founding Development Partners of the GPF are the Netherland s Foreign Ministry, the UK s Department for International Development (DFID) and Norway s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The GPF is designed to help the Bank deliver on its commitment to scale up engagement in governance and anti-corruption work in developing partner countries in conjunction with comparable efforts by participating Development Partners. It aims to establish a global strategic partnership on governance among like-minded multilateral and bilateral development partners. 3 This is an update and revision of the 2008 Program Document of the GPF, a multi-donor program to support the implementation of the GAC strategy. The revisions in this Program Document are based on the lessons learned from the first three years of implementation. The revised Program Document also includes changes needed to accommodate new phase of implementation of the GAC, as well as changes needed to accommodate additional support from the founding partners and from donors joining the GPF. 4 Good governance is crucial to successful development and poverty reduction, and to achieving the MDGs through building more capable and accountable states that can deliver services to the poor, promote private sector led growth and tackle corruption effectively. Donor understanding of governance has broadened and deepened significantly over the past decade. It has gone beyond the frontiers of economic governance and the management of the economy, and beyond analysing and reforming public services and the public sector. As described in the GAC Strategy, the World Bank Group s governance work now recognises and stimulates working on the new frontiers of governance, including a better understanding of the political economy of development, and in particular, the effect of power relations and other institutional incentives on the demand for better government and political accountability and in 2

4 creating the conditions for faster growth and poverty reduction. Other donors are also viewing governance in a similar manner recognising that governance is not just an end in itself, but a means to greater development effectiveness and risk mitigation. 5 The World Bank and Development Partners are committed to implementing ambitious governance strategies in order to promote growth and poverty reduction. They believe that by working more systematically together in a joint and complementary ways they have more impact than through the current plethora of ad hoc formal and informal partnership arrangements. The GPF Partners emphasize the importance of governance for development outcomes and are heavily engaged in this area. 1 For the World Bank there has been a change in momentum since the start of implementation of the GAC Strategy. There is a significant degree of congruence between the various strategies of the Bank and Development Partners joining the GPF. They recognize a strong relationship between governance and growth and view governance in terms of state capability, accountability and responsiveness. 2 Differences among the Partners in terms of mandates, skills, country coverage and organizational arrangements create possibilities for complementarities along individual expertise and can facilitate global, regional and country-level partnerships. 6 The GPF is a vehicle to strengthen partnerships between the Development Partners and the Bank to make governance work for the poor. The Development Partners in the GPF see scope to bolster the Bank s considerable technical strengths, especially in sectors such as human development, infrastructure, as well as public sector reform and public financial management, in providing more effective support for governance reforms to help countries achieve the MDGs. Similarly, the GPF allows the Bank a means of ready access to technical expertise among the GPF partners in areas such as natural resource management or demand side governance and support to non-executive institutions. Consistent with the goal of the GAC Strategy, the Development Partners support the view of governance from a broader perspective, going beyond its traditional areas of interest in public financial management and civil service reform, or anti corruption grounding development work in a better understanding of the political economy of countries and the related governance obstacles to poverty reduction is central to the common view on governance. Other areas of interest for the Partners include: Increasing the effectiveness of the Bank s in-country presence, especially in Africa and fragile states. Collaborating on integrating governance in sectors and other cross-cutting themes such as gender and environmental management and strategic areas such as growth. 1 For example: UK Government s 2006 White Paper Making Governance Work for the Poor and the World Bank s Strengthening World Bank Group Engagement on Governance and Anti-Corruption, March 28, 2007 (DC ). 2 For example: Norad s work on Taxation in Developing Countries - 3

5 Drawing on the substantial body of Bank knowledge and evaluation skills in the areas of governance so that the Development Partners may strengthen the accessibility of knowledge, skills and tool kits for their staff and for developing partner country governments and experts. Promoting greater international harmonization and dissemination of development research. Over time, review whether the number of governance related Trust Funds of Development Partners at the Bank could be reduced and examine if the GPF could bring greater discipline, strategic direction and oversight to governance Trust Funds. Promoting gender equality by limiting reproduction of gender inequality across generations. A 2 NEXT PHASE OF GAC AND GPF 7 The GPF has provided critical resources needed to meet the change management objectives of the GAC strategy. Over the past 2 years the Facility has helped the Bank to deliver on its GAC commitments. Recent reporting by GPF funded projects and a Review of the Window 1 programs supported by the GPF has shown that real progress has been achieved in mainstreaming governance in Bank operations, at country level, and in key sectors for development. The GPF supported projects have produced invaluable lessons, and the program has supported the development of effective organization structures and web based learning tools to disseminate knowledge of governance throughout the Bank 3. 8 The World Bank prepares for a second phase of GAC implementation. The overarching objective for GAC remains to help build capable and accountable states. The by-line for Phase II (update) will be continued evolution alongside a step change. Continuities will include a focus on mainstreaming GAC in all Bank work, and in particular to embed GAC in all Bank formal sector strategies; continued reform and changes in internal Bank systems; continued lesson learning and knowledge management; a modest program designed to help catalyze global action for strengthened global governance; and changes to senior Bank structures for the management and oversight of GAC. 9 Alongside these continuities will be a number of step-changes in GAC Implementation. Three are fundamental. First, there will be a shift from a focus on transactions to the strengthening of country systems and institutions. Recent internal and external evaluations have identified the importance a shift from a narrow focus on the management of Bank projects and the protection of Bank funds to the use and strengthening of country systems. Second, the Bank will put in place a more nuanced and systematic approach to risk management, incorporating a variegated approach by country. Third, there will be a more structured and precise approach to results: The focus in Phase I was largely internal Bank procedures and practices. Phase II (update) will use 3 See GPF report on Implementation of Window 1 projects and the GPF 2011 Annual Report. 4

6 identified a four-step results chain that tracks the line of sight from Bank operations right through to development outcomes. 10 The GPF has achieved positive results in supporting the implementation of the GAC. There is a range of independent data that can be used to illustrate progress in many critical areas of the GAC agenda. The original Program Document committed the Bank to demonstrate that GPF helped to achieve progress on two things: first that Bank operations would be increasingly GAC-responsive; and second, that Bank resourcing (ie staff and money) would increase over time. To date, at the end of the first phase of GAC implementation, various analysis by independent evaluation shows progress with the following results 4 : the use of governance and political economy analysis rose by 66%; quality of fiduciary analysis rose by 36%; strengthening country institutions rose by 176%; a results orientation increased by 12%; overall governance staffing rose by 14%; and Bank spending on governance rose by 11% (in a flat budget environment). This data reflects the fact that the GAC strategy and implementation plan is having a real impact across the Bank in many different ways. It also highlights the fact that GAC is itself not a sector with narrowly defined outputs and outcomes as is the case with say education. Governance represents a way of thinking, a way of approaching development issues. The first phase of GAC implementation succeeded with GPF support to embed a governance perspective in Bank operations. In the GAC Update it is planned to repeat the QAG study in An earlier repeat study, to review impact of the GPF is proposed for 2013, subject to the availability of funding. The results achieved with GAC implementation are presented in more detail in Table 1 on the next page, and the detailed Results Framework of the GPF is presented in Annex 6 of the Program Document. 4 The data are obtained from various sources including the Quality Assurance Group (QAG) Review of Governance Responsiveness in World Bank Operation (2009), the Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) interim evaluation of GAC implementation (2011), the GPF Window 1 review report (2011). 5

7 Table 1: Results achieved with GAC implementation with GPF support GOAL: GAC responsiveness PURPOSE: Bank resources Bank-Wide Bank-Wide Governance Partnership Facility (GPF) Data sources QAG (Quality Assurance Group) FY2008 IEG (Independent Evaluation Group) FY2011 IEG (Independent Evaluation Group) FY2011 Grant reporting and monitoring (GRM) Pre GAC ( ) WB country level strategies sensitive to governance Governance and PEA: 45% GAC in Fiduciary: 64% Demand side of Gov: 42% Sectors/regions sensitive to governance Sectors: 58%, Regions: 61% GAC responsiveness of project level Governance and Political Economy Analysis: 15% Quality of Enhanced Fiduciary Aspects: 22% Use of Country Systems: 23% Strengthening Country Institutions: 23% Results Orientation : 40% GAC responsiveness of country level Portfolio-wide fiduciary risk mitigation: 15% Selectivity of GAC entry Strengthening Country Institutions: 17% Smarter design of projects and program by countries: 15% Staffing Budget Staffing Budget Overall staffing for governance FY07: 385 Bank spending on governance (in $ million) FY07: $152 None None Post GAC ( ) No QAG report from GAC responsiveness of project level Governance and Political Economy Analysis: 25% (66% ) Quality of Enhanced Fiduciary Aspects: 30% (36% ) Use of Country Systems: 32% (39% ) Strengthening Country Institutions: 23% Results Orientation : 45% (12% ) See chart 1 GAC responsiveness of country level Portfolio-wide fiduciary risk mitigation: 22% (46% ) Selectivity of GAC entry Strengthening Country Institutions: 47% (176% ) Smarter design of projects and program by countries: 20%(33% ) See chart 2 Staffing Budget Staffing Budget Overall staffing for governance FY10:439=> (14% ) See chart 3 Bank spending on governance (in $ million) FY10:$169 =>(11% ) See chart 4 # of GPF-funded staff FY11 42 (Staff:5, Extend-term consultant:37) a) GPF disbursement of 18 W1 countries (in $ million) FY09:$0.4, FY10:$3.3, FY11:$5.8 b) BB-PSG disbursement of 18 W1 countries (in $ million) FY09:$22, FY10: $24, FY11: $23 GAC- update (2012-) QAG report 2013: proposed, to be funded by GPF QAG report 2014: proposed in GAC update, funded by WB - GAC-update Staffing and Budget - - 6

8 GOAL: GAC responsiveness (Source: IEG report, 2011) Chart 1: Project level Chart 2: Country level Governance and Political Economy Analysis Quality of Enhanced Fiduciary Aspects 25% 30% Portfolio-wide fiduciary risk mitigation 22% Use of Country Systems Strengthening Country Institutions Results Orientation 32% 23% 45% Pre GAC Post GAC Strengthening Country Institutions Smarter design of projects and program by countries 20% 47% Pre GAC Post GAC 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% PURPOSE: GAC bank resources (Source: IEG report, 2011) Chart 3: Staffing Chart 4: Budget (in $million) Staffing $200 $150 $100 $50 $140 $138 $147 $152 $158 $165 $169 Budget 0 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 $0 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 7

9 11 As with the first phase of GAC implementation, the GPF remains to be aligned with the objectives of the GAC. The GPF supports the implementation of the GAC Strategy through programs that rigorously and systematically address governance impediments to development effectiveness and strengthening of country systems. The GAC Strategy continues to be a major policy initiative by the Bank. With support from senior management, the GAC Strategy provides the overarching framework for the GPF. With support from the Governance Council, dozens of Bank teams have been able implement innovative governance activities. The Window One Workshop organized by the GPF in Cape Town in September 2010 established a strong foundation for dialogue between Bank management and staff implementing governance activities and for sharing lessons learned. 12 The GPF will continue to enable the Bank to implement the second phase of its GAC Strategy. Learning lessons from the first phase of GAC implementation, the GPF will work through the existing GAC mechanisms. The GPF will support the GAC through these main focus areas: a. Innovative, country level governance programs. b. Frontier areas of governance in sectors through single, multi-country and global initiatives. c. Sharing lessons and results through Global GAC learning and knowledge platforms d. Strengthening Country Systems through improvements in core public sector capabilities and accountability of the state. A 3 WHAT THE GPF TRIES TO ACHIEVE 13 Development partners and World Bank increasingly recognized that political accountability is critical for achieving poverty reduction and enhancing development effectiveness. Evaluations by the Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) over the past few years confirm that an understanding of a country s political context is critical for development effectiveness and for achieving results in core governance reforms. 5 The Bank's GAC Strategy has underscored the importance of demand for better governance at various levels, and the need to work with a broad range of stakeholders to strengthen systems of accountability and improve a country's overall governance. The events of the 2010 Arab Spring demonstrate the impact of not engaging citizens in development decisions and allowing for recourse and accountability to citizens will not sustain development results. The GPF allows the Bank to be more innovative in its efforts to develop a better understanding of the political conditions that affect development, to 5 World Bank. Public Sector Reform: What Works and Why? An IEG Evaluation of World Bank Support. Washington, DC World Bank. Decentralization in Client Countries: An Evaluation of World Bank Support: Washington, DC

10 incorporate these findings into reform programs and to engage with non state actors in all elements of development. 14 The GPF will continue to support for the strategic push by the World Bank to engage in innovative frontiers of governance work. Frontier areas of governance are those activities which promise to enhance the development effectiveness in core sectors for development, but for which Bank clients may be reluctant to borrow. In the period ahead the GPF will focus in particular on the application of governance in sectors such as health, education and infrastructure. Integrating governance into cross-cutting themes such as gender, the environment and growth. The GPF also support efforts to innovate core public sectors management approaches and better connecting these core reforms with better service delivery. It is also helping to provide resources so a wider group of voices and actors can be included in the development process. This could be supporting leadership programs, multi stakeholder approaches, enhanced accountability for development outcomes by executive, non-executive accountability institutions (e.g., parliaments), non-governmental stakeholders (e.g., civil society/private sector organizations), and gender-informed operations. 15 The GPF is helping many teams across the Bank to better understand the governance underpinnings of reforms, for example, by undertaking an analysis of political economy in sectors and countries. GPF will support these leading edge activities for their potential to be scaled up and produce tangible inputs in the engagement in governance work in country through Bank operational products. 16 Knowledge, tools and learning on governance is a key output of the GPF. The projects under implementation produce valuable lessons to be harvested and disseminated and used By the Bank, the GPF partners, but also the wider development community. In this regard, the GPF outputs become global public goods. For this purpose, the GPF organizes learning events, supports the GAC Knowledge and Learning Portal and has helped to establish Communities of Practice that bring together practitioners in various aspects of governance. A 4 STRUCTURE OF THE GOVERNANCE PARTNERSHIP FACILITY 17 Four programmatic windows address the objectives of the GPF. They focus on (i) the country level governance programs, (ii) frontier governance work applied in sectors, (iii) global/regional knowledge and learning programs, and (iv) innovative approaches to public sector governance and public finance. In these four areas. In these four areas, GPF funded activities can be Bank or Recipient executed. The GPF allows for grants to other entities, such as non-governmental organizations, for recipient executed activities. Further details of each Window of the GPF are provided in Annex Window One supports the best and most important of the World Bank s country level programs that rigorously and systematically addresses the governance impediments to development. Among the proposals submitted by Bank teams, the GPF has identified the 9

11 most promising and committed plans for engagement in governance work in country. Those selected receive support that includes partial funding of the Bank s core costs associated with governance activities, and up to 100% of specific frontier governance activities (see Window 2). The costs covered includes activities such as Bank Analytical and Advisory Activities (AAA) including technical assistance to countries provided by the Bank as part of these advisory activities, and project preparation work. In the current phase of the GPF, 18 Window 1 programs are under implementation and a review of these programs has shown positive results Window Two funds those activities which are seen as stretching the frontiers of the World Bank s governance work. Frontier activities under the GAC Strategy include political economy analysis, strengthening the demand side of governance at national and sector levels, multi stakeholder approaches and support to accountability institutions and implementing global governance initiatives at country level and generating public goods at country level. In some cases it funds the building blocks for later country level governance programs. Activities funded are used by Bank country teams as potential entry points for greater country engagement under the GAC Strategy. Window Two funds non-lending activities such as Bank Analytical and Advisory Activities (AAA) including technical assistance to countries provided by the Bank as part of these advisory activities, and project preparation work. The activities funded under Window Two aim to incorporate governance activities in World Bank operations, in particular in core sectors. For this purpose they produce results which are tangible in the delivery of a Bank operational product. The GPF works closely with Sector Networks, both at anchor level and in the regions. 20 Window Three is intended to stimulate shared learning and promote innovation and best practice by enhancing access to knowledge networks for developing country partners, Development Partners participating in the GPF and Bank Staff and funding policy-relevant research on governance. For this purpose Window Three supports providing a platform of operationally-relevant knowledge, linking this knowledge to reinvigorated communities of practice. It is focused on different aspects of governancefor-development work, on deepening knowledge in key frontier topics (for example: the demand-side of governance; the governance of fragile states); and on the interaction between global governance initiatives, and country-level governance arrangements. Window Three helps the Bank to build an operationally oriented GAC knowledge platform, and to link this platform with other resource centers and helps desks existing in the area of public sector governance. The GPF supports work to bridge the gap in knowledge about governance development interactions; the synthesis of good practice operational experience in governance; strengthen micro-level research on the impact of governance; strengthening the GAC knowledge platform and; communities of practice. 6 Window 1 review report, GPF, September

12 21 Window Four helps the Bank and the Partners to implement governance and public sector activities that strengthen the capabilities of core country institutions and systems, such as public financial management. Window 4 is a new addition to the GPF, which initially will have limited scope. Initially Window 4 is focused on public financial management. Subject to further expansion of the resource base of the GPF, other aspects may be added, such as public procurement, civil service reform as well as institutions for public sector accountability. The fourth Window of the GPF encompasses three sub-windows: Sub-Window 4.1 is focused on programmatic public financial management research and data generation, and will deliver a program of work to advance global understanding, knowledge and learning on public financial management reform and public financial management applications through data, research and the development of tools for practitioners, and Sub-Window 4.2 provides an annual allocation of demand-based knowledge synthesis and learning activities by country/regional/field-based teams, and Sub-Window 4.3 supports peer to peer learning events across development partners. 22 ALL Windows are principally about supporting the spread of governance reforms and implementing innovative governance programs across countries and sectors. This is done through the Bank s advisory and project preparation activities in countries, supplemented by grants to local think tanks, NGOs and other civil society organizations that are active in helping to improve governance. With the exception of the support for political economy analysis which sets the overall context for the Bank s governance work, the analytical work has a strong operational orientation designed to lead to direct improvements in governance either through policy reforms or through capacity building supported by the Bank s regular lending or through grant vehicles used by the Development Partners. In the case of Window One, the very existence of a Country GAC implementation plan implies the existence of a body of knowledge on the country s governance, and GPF funding principally supports programs of governance reforms and only secondarily fill knowledge gaps aimed at future reforms. 23 Each Window has specific selection criteria which are made available to all applicants. The selection criteria reflect the objectives of the individual window, but also the overall objectives of the GPF. The selection criteria for each of the Windows is found in Annex Regardless of the window, all grants are selected on a competitive basis, and include a peer review process. The three-staged procedure for application and selection is outlined below, with the more detailed description included in Annex 3. 11

13 Figure 1: Schematic selection process of GPF projects A 5 Resourcing the GPF 25 To achieve these primary objectives, the GPF uses its substantial resource base to support governance activities undertaken by the World Bank and by partners in civil society and non-executive branches of government. The Multi Donor Trust Fund (MDTF) of the GPF initially received contributions from the founding partners: UK (GBP 31.5 million), the Netherlands (US$13.27 million) and Norway (Norwegian Kroner 50 million). Through the MDTF, the GPF has provided a program budget of around US$65 million to the Windows of the GPF. It is expected that all program funds would be utilized by the end of FY More recently AUS$10 million additional funding has become available when Australia (AusAID) joined as a new partner. The new window 4 has been created subsequently to this increase of GPF funds. 26 The GPF funds upfront staff and operating costs, shared learning and new frontiers activities. GPF funds are aimed to provide additionality and to achieve tangible impact on the governance aspects of Bank operations. For this, GPF activities are aligned with the Bank s core funding and work program related resources and with the scaled up funding available for the GAC. Specifically for Window One, the implications flowing from the GAC implementation plans to be integrated into World Bank Country Assistance Strategies (CAS) is clarified in Window One proposals. Those Window One proposals that reflect country level complementarities, also in the budget, and that have leveraged synergies with Development Partners, and others, will be at an advantage in the competition. The GPF is intended to leverage additional funding for governance work in the World Bank, in particular the Bank s own resources (Bank Budget or BB). Over the life time of the GPF, the World Bank will provide an equal amount of funding to governance activities. The GPF is also used to leverage additional funds from other sources. 12

14 27 Like many donor agencies, the Bank is facing increased demands for its support, while being asked to do more with less 7. In this context, the GPF partnership has created new incentives for expanded governance work. The Program finances a portion of Bank staff and operating costs for the implementation in selected projects, with a focus on strengthening capacity in country programs that rigorously and systematically address the governance impediments to development, based on (i) evidence of enhanced Bank engagement in governance activities in country, and (ii) credible plans that this engagement by the Bank country team will be scaled up over time; Up to 100% of Bank staff and related costs to undertake frontier work that helps develop the building blocks for CGAC business plans in countries that are not yet ready for that approach and in countries where CGAC business plans may not be pursued (such as IBRD only or IDA blend countries); The cost of (i) shared learning by the Bank, developing partner countries and Development Partners on governance, (ii) promoting the harmonization of research and knowledge management and (iii) sharing the products with developing countries and donor partners, so that they are better able to analyse and monitor critical governance challenges; as well as the cost of conducting better informed policy debates and decision making, based on strengthened results monitoring. 28 Eligible and ineligible expenditures under the GPF are guided by a set of Terms and Conditions. While staff time and travel are eligible, items such as equipment and software are not eligible. The Terms and Conditions are found in Annex The GPF has brought benefits beyond the current plethora of ad hoc and informal partnership arrangements 8 between the World Bank and Development Partners by: being better grounded in shared partnership goals and principles; building on each organization s comparative advantages and mandates; being more systematic in reaching prior agreements on priorities and addressing the incentives needed for their achievement; being more flexible and efficient in not requiring each partnership initiative to set up separate Trust Fund arrangements, thus reducing the proliferation of such arrangements and lowering transaction costs. 30 Additional Development Partners are expected to join the GPF over time. Joining partners are requested to contribute a minimum amount of $10 million over the lifetime of the GPF. The new partners will be integrated in the existing governance structure of the GPF, without altering the basic principles of the current arrangements, but interim arrangements may be used, with approval of the existing partners, to accommodate specific requirements of incoming partners. Details of the financial contributions, the duration of the GPF, and 7 REFERENCE INCREASE IN LENDING, IMPACT OF CRISIS, etc 8 A recent IEG Review of Trust Funds and Partnerships found that the number and value of Trust Funds is rapidly increasing. From 2006 to 2010 the volume of Trust Funds more than doubled, and reached a total stock value of $26 billion. In FY10 over 2500 Trust Funds during the year disbursed a total of $6.5 billion. 13

15 related issues will be arranged through the standard Administrative Agreements / Arrangements for Multi Donor Trust Funds. 31 Arrangements have been established to allow existing partners make supplementary contributions to existing GPF grants. This supplementary funding is seen as a true measure of partnership. But it is also a means to reduce transactions and limit the number of one-off trust funds and externally financed outputs (EFOs). To date we have seen this in Kyrgyz Republic, Nigeria, and Tajikistan. The process for these arrangements is outlined in Annex The GPF is driven by a strong results orientation. A comprehensive results framework for the GPF outlines the outcomes and outputs that are achieved collectively and for each Window. The results framework is included in Annex GPF grants have a strong outcomes and results orientation and contain with clearly stated, tangible, and achievable results that contribute to the overall purpose of the GPF. Each project has an individual Results Framework that plans how results will be achieved and monitored over the life of the grant. The progress towards results is reported on annual report by the staff member managing the individual grant. These reports, known as Grant Reporting Monitoring (GRM) reports are standard Trust Funds reports and are available to all GPF partners via the client connection site. 34 Reviews of the GPF are undertaken in collaboration with GPF partners. The main objective of the Reviews would be to assess the focus of ongoing GPF funded activities with regard to the purpose and expected outcomes of the GPF and to review the processes used for the selection and management of the activities. The specific focus and timing of the reviews will be approved by the Governance Partnership Council (GPC) as part of the Annual Workplan of the GPF Secretariat. B B 1 HOW IS THE GPF MANAGED? MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES AND FUNCTIONS 35 Under the framework of the Bank s GAC Strategy, the GPF operates on the basis of a set of general principles regarding the relationships among the Bank and Development Partners participating in GPF. The general principles of the GPF partnership are: Partnership: working together, learning together. Quality: merit, evidence based, understanding context. Impact: supporting GAC that has impact for poverty reduction. Efficiency: low transactions costs. Integrity: financial administration and program implementation role of the Bank. Mainstreaming governance: facilitating systematic attention given to the governance impediments to development within Bank Country Assistance Strategies. 14

16 36 Within the GPF there are a number of core functions to be executed. This note sets out the organizational structures and operational procedures by which these functions are executed, and help to set consistent expectations among the Bank and Development Partners participating in the GPF. Formal agreement on the participation in the GPF occurs through entry into Administrative Arrangements with the Bank for contributions to the Multi Donor Trust Fund (MDTF) for the funding of the GPF, of which the description of activities, administrator functions and governance terms will be consistent across donors. At an operational level, the GPF will function as a partnership that facilitates communication between a core group of donor partners with a wide range of common principles. 37 The core functions for management and implementation of the GPF executed by the Bank are: 1. Managing and implementing the strategic directions of the GPF in accordance with the terms of the Administration Agreements. 2. Managing the competitive application process for funding by the GPF. 3. Managing the fund flow through the MDTF to funding of World Bank governance activities. 4. Financial management, procurement and accounting of the MDTF in line with the fiduciary responsibilities of the World Bank as the administrator of the MDTF, and reporting to the donors on the execution of these tasks. 5. Reporting to the GPC and the Governance Council of the Bank on the contributions of the GPF to the implementation of the Bank s GAC Strategy. 38 The Bank s participation in the GPF, in particular with respect to frontier activities and grants for recipient execution, are subject to a Bank staff guidance note on multistakeholder engagement designed to ensure consistency with the Bank s mandate. The Bank is prohibited from interfering in the political affairs of member states, and this requires the Bank, among other things, to assess the risks of such interference when engaging with civil society, the media, parliamentarians and other stakeholders outside executive government. As outlined in the Bank s GAC Strategy, the Bank undertakes multi stakeholder engagement in consultation with government and seeks government approval when required by its operational policies and procedures and works within the country s legal and constitutional framework. B 2 COMMITTEE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE GPC, SECRETARIAT, AND STANDING REVIEW 39 To undertake the core management functions described in paragraph [33], the GPF is organized around three sets of functions and structures: (i) Strategic guidance through a Governance Partnership Council (GPC); (ii) Project selection through a Standing Review Committee (SRC); (iii) Executive functions by a Secretariat. Given the GPF s role of providing support to the Bank s GAC implementation, the design of the partnership is 15

17 closely aligned with the Bank s management and implementation functions around the Bank s GAC Strategy. Therefore it is important to have clear roles and responsibilities for the GPF to avoid duplication and enhance coordination and efficiency. The GPF Secretariat is kept separate from the GAC Secretariat to ensure due attention to specific core functions of the GPF, including the selection of activities to be supported by GPF, and GPF specific reporting to the donors. The Bank s administrator function (including the designated Program Manager) is also kept separate from the GPF Secretariat. 40 Overall leadership for GAC Implementation within the Bank is provided by the Governance Council, a unique cross-bank body chaired by the three Managing Directors which meets on a monthly basis. The Governance Council also has ultimate responsibility for the Bank s GAC Strategy that provides the framework within which Development Partners provide support through the GPF. The priorities for the GPF are derived from the GAC Strategy and its evolving implementation, as overseen by the Governance Council. Activities are delegated from the Governance Council to a GAC Team in the Bank s organizational structure as part of PRMPS. To ensure cohesiveness with other Bank GAC activities and provide managerial oversight of all GAC activities, the GPF Secretariat is also housed in this department. Figure 2: Organization Structure of the GPF Governance Partnership Council (GPC) Strategic Guidance Co-chaired by PREM VP and DFID Members at VP and DG level Approve Annual Work Plan Standing Review Committee (SRC) Selects all proposals Eight members: Bank (5) and Partners (4) Collective, collegial decisions, no individual veto Secretariat Organize selection process and preapprove proposals Monitor results, organize annual reviews Generate learning based on GPF projects Financial management 39 Roles and responsibilities of the Governance Partnership Council (GPC): The GPC provides the overarching leadership and strategic guidance for the GPF, including: To provide strategic guidance to the GPF, in accordance with the Partnership Principles, under the overarching framework of the Bank s GAC strategy. To provide a framework for a regular structured dialogue among the Partners that ensures an upfront understanding on the key operational issues that will determine the effective functioning of the partnership. 16

18 To ensure the adequacy of GPF funding in relation to the demand for funds from the Bank s Regions. To provide preliminary annual allocations of MDTF funds across the four Windows of the GPF. To assess the GPF s focus on outcomes and impact. To endorse the selection criteria for support from the GPF, as they may be proposed over time by the Secretariat, and monitor whether they are observed. To recommend steps to enable the GPF to adapt in a manageable fashion to changing needs and circumstances for implementation of the Bank s GAC Strategy. The GPC meet once a year, and only more often in exceptional circumstances (including during the initiation of the facility). The GPC convene to review progress made and the Annual Work Program. The Annual Work Program is a consolidated report of on-going activities funded by the GPF, as well as selected proposals and planned calls for proposals, and not includes specific, individual requests for funding. There may be additional VCs or virtual meetings if required. An annual report on the GPF implementation prepared by the Secretariat, with comments from the GPC, is submitted to the Governance Council for its consideration. 41 The GPC endorses the criteria for proposal selection and give guidance on the parameters of GPF activities. Selection criteria are specific to each Window, but there are also proposed generic selection criteria as follows: Focus is on activities with high potential impact. Priority to support governance programs in fragile states, large poor economies with significant potential spill-over effects or countries where the Bank needs to add to its capacity urgently to enable rapid and effective engagement on GAC Implementation issues (prior to more permanent regional staffing levels arrangements). Where partner governments demonstrate strong ownership of agreed program. Quality standard must be high. Emphasis on countries where the Bank and Development Partners submit joint proposals and countries where Development Partners aim to collaborate with the Bank at country level. Composition of the GPC 42 The GPC includes representatives of the Bank and Donor Partners contributing to the MDTF. There is no upper limit to the total number of GPC members, overall and from each organization, but the quorum for meetings will be the Bank and at least one participant from each Donor organization (or otherwise agreed by the GPC). Each organization will nominate representatives that are duly authorized and together represent a balanced viewpoint from their organization. The GPC is co-chaired by the Vice President for PREM of the World Bank and a high level representative of one of the Development Partners. Initially this will be the largest donor. 17

19 Role of the Secretariat 43 The role of the Secretariat is: To ensure GPF activities consistently apply the Bank s GAC Strategy and any guidance on its implementation. To coordinate the GPF work program on an ongoing basis. The AWP sets out the broad criteria, e.g. allocations across windows, whereas the Secretariat determines its implementation over the course of the year, including respective calls. To provide timely and adequate information to the GPC in order to enable the GPC to give appropriate guidance. To disseminate information about the GPF within the Bank and organize events that will enable Bank country teams to obtain support from the GPF and learn from best practice examples. To work with the GAC Team to provide support, seed funding and advice to Bank staff in the preparation and execution of activities supported by the GPF. To receive proposals for support by the GPF and examine them for completeness consistency with requirements. To ensure that proposals submitted for GPF funding are adequately scrutinized and prescreened before they are submitted for review and approval by the SRC. The Secretariat will seek advice from the appropriate units within the Bank to ensure that all applications comply with the Bank s mandate and are consistent with the GAC Strategy. To assist the GPC and SRC in all their respective meetings and interactions and to prepare and distribute the minutes of GPC and SRC meetings. To organize reviews of proposals by peer reviewers (from a roster of peer reviewers), to provide guidance to improvements of proposals and to forward confirmed proposals to the SRC. To prepare for the SRC and the peer reviewers a short background note summarizing the context of each proposal that meets initial screening requirements vis-à-vis both Bank engagement in the country and other relevant donor-supported governance activities in country of which the Bank is aware. To monitor implementation of SRC-selected proposals and inform the GPC about progress at the GPC meetings. This may include forwarding proposals regarding amendments to proposal selection criteria to the GPC. To prepare the AWP and the Annual Report to the GPC within four months after the end of the Bank s financial year. To assist the GPC and SRC in all their respective meetings and interactions and to prepare and distribute the minutes of GPC and SRC meetings. To monitor implementation of SRC-selected projects and inform the GPC about progress at the annual meetings. This may include forwarding proposals regarding amendments to the Program Document to the GPC. To distil lessons from GPF-funded activities to be learned and shared more widely. 18

20 To make arrangements for the periodic reviews of the GPF and present the results to the GPC. To support the Program Manager for the MDTF in the execution of administrative tasks. Composition of the Secretariat 44 The size of the Secretariat remains limited and includes full time Bank staff. The Program level task team leader (TTL) function of the MDTF itself will be outside the GPF Secretariat and allocated to a PRMPS staff member fully accredited as TTL for trust funds. The TTL has the responsibility to ensure that: All responsibilities for the financial management and accounting of the MDTF are undertaken in accordance with World Bank trust fund policies and procedures. Funds are released and payments are executed in accordance with work programs of the GPF, of the Bank teams that are supported by the GPF and with the grant agreements. Calls of funds are issued in accordance with Administration Agreements. To ensure that all proposals are consistent with the Administrative Agreements with the Donors. Standing Review Committee (SRC) 43 The Standing Review Committee (SRC) is charged with the following tasks: To review all packages of proposals pre-cleared by the Secretariat for support under the GPF. To ensure limited transaction costs, there is progressive subsidiary, where proposals can be subject to a non-objection or virtual review. To select proposals for GPF funding on a competitive basis, keeping in mind the GPC s indicative window allocations. To review ex post any activities funded by the GPF. To advise the Secretariat generally on the involvement of external peer reviewers for independent assessments of applications. To determine the Terms of Reference (TORs) to be used in the Periodic Reviews with inputs provided by the Bank s Independent Evaluation Group and the Donors. 45 The Standing Review Committee (SRC) can operate within very short deadlines to ensure that SRC decisions are made on all pre-cleared proposals within a maximum one month timeframe. To achieve this, the SRC will mostly rely on virtual reviews, in addition to a monthly VC and a semi-annual meeting. 44 The SRC represents all Partners in the GPF. The SRC is chaired by the Bank s Public Sector Governance Director and consists of senior level governance experts from the Bank and the Development Partners participating in the GPF. The World Bank appoints five senior representatives. The Development Partners each appoint a senior representative to the SRC as selected among themselves, with the expectation that the Development Partner making the largest actual contribution to date will be one of the four representatives. A revised 19

21 participation arrangement will be established if the total number of partners the number of SRC members reaches ten. The Coordinator of the GPF Secretariat is an additional, ex-officio member of the SRC. In view of the need for speed in the operation of the SRC, each representative will have at least one alternate who can fill in at short notice. The members of the SRC are expected to operate as a team of governance peers. The spirit of the SRC is that individual members do not exert veto power, but rather operate in a collegial fashion based on a joint responsibility for the strategic directions of the Governance Partnership Facility. If, in case of a virtual review on a no-objection basis one of the members disagrees, feedback will be sought from the full SRC, at which point the SRC majority decides. 45 The Donor Partner representatives on the SRC also act as Focal Points for the GPF within their respective organizations. In the first instance, they are the primary counterparts for communication on GPF matters at the global, regional, and country level. They will also need to communicate in a timely manner within their organizations with regard to issues to be addressed at the periodic meetings of the GPC. If the addition of new donors means that the total number of Partner SRC slots is exceeded, existing partners will have to agree on changes in representation (e.g., through multi-member representation). B 3 GPF RESULTS FRAMEWORK 46 The requirements for successful results frameworks have become more demanding as donors and partner developing countries seek greater assurance about impact and value for money of development cooperation. The GPF represents an innovative approach to technical cooperation and capacity building and benefits from careful thinking about the results chain. New approaches are emerging in other programs that enhance the traditional log frame with a range of methods that aim to capture the quality aspects of change management processes and generate information on impact and value for money. 47 Standard log frame approaches often imply a predictable and linear pathway from inputs outputs outcomes impact and that these results can be set out in a pre planned form. The log frame generally sets out a hierarchical set of indicators and targets for each level of the results chain. A standard log frame approach can capture institutional change provided the process can be anticipated and where improvements or reforms proceed in a reasonably predictable manner. But there are a number of issues which suggest the approach needs to be augmented using a range of methods to capture the change process and the specific contribution of the GPF supported interventions. In this way, the revised results framework in the Program Document represents a significant strengthening of the original results framework, informed by the experience of the initial phase of GAC and the GPF, as well as emerging [best] practice. 48 The following issues have been identified as relevant in operationalizing a strengthened approach to results: 20

22 There is the high degree of uncertainty and unpredictability involved in supporting institutional change in an organization such as the World Bank, which is the core objective of the GPF. The likelihood is that the effects of Bank efforts evolve in unpredictable ways and timescales, possibly involving sudden acceleration or reversals of progress. A traditional linear log frame model is not adequately flexible to cope with this, and may require additional tools, more sophisticated mechanisms to be adopted. Results achieved in Window 2, for instance may have the effect of interacting with Window 1 efforts to yield compounding of benefits. At the core of the GPF is the recognition that the context in which change is implemented can have a profound effect on the incentives and interests of management and operational staff in the World Bank who are the stakeholders in the change process triggered by the implementation of the GAC. Other external factors in the authorizing environment in turn can affect priorities and the pace of progress of the adoption of Bank wide governance practices. Viability of specific interventions can be threatened, and similarly new opportunities may emerge that need to be addressed. The activities being supported by GPF are designed to assist in anticipating, understanding and influencing the institutional context to yield more positive outcomes. While standard log frames can address this to a degree by incorporating assumptions about the position of stakeholders, the authorizing environment and other pressures, they cannot adequately map stakeholder interests in detail nor can they anticipate or record actions taken through other interventions in support of the GAC. The specific contribution of GPF-supported activities in partner countries is hard to discern, especially because initially the GPF is focussed on internal change management and because in the majority of cases the level of funding through the GPF is often relatively small and there are several other active donors providing assistance or financial aid. The GPF Secretariat and Bank management continue to invest in evaluative techniques to assist in capturing and attributing the benefits that may arise. Subject to the availability of funds, techniques such as outcome mapping can assist with these evaluative processes, as can target evaluations carried out by high quality experts. The enhanced results framework of the GPF faces particular challenges: o The overall aim of the GPF is to support the implementation of the GAC. To measure its impact it is required to establish a clear baseline at the start of an intervention and to ensure that monitoring processes can allow midterm and end of term reviews against these parameters. Unfortunately, GAC implementation started ahead of the GPF, without a clearly established baseline or a articulated results framework. This limitation can be partly addressed by the use of independent evaluations, but it will play a role in the monitoring of results of the GPF.. o The World Bank systems used to generate the data used for monitoring and measuring indicators of results of the GPF are often not suited for the purpose of measuring results that are not linear and cross cutting in nature. 21

23 The GPF has developed approaches that limit the impact of these constraints, but they limit the level of detail or exactness that can be used in monitoring the results of the GPF. Figure 3: GPF inputs and outputs flow GPF Results Monitoring Grant Monitoring Reports (GRM) Grant Funding Request (GFR) Surveys GPF Results Framework Results Framework GPF Reporting on Results Annual Report GAC inputs Window 1/2/3/4 Review Report To Governance Partnership Council (GPC) Bank Management Interviews Field Visits GAC portal Governance Anti- Corruption (GAC) Plan Quality Assurance Group (QAG) Report Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) Report GAC council Strengthened Results Framework Approach 49 The nature of the challenges outlined above suggests that a comprehensive monitoring framework for GPF requires the combination of both policy and program level 9 indicators. The former are driven by stated mission and goals and are focused at the overarching or systemic level, while the latter focus on activities and their stated objectives. In other words, policy indicators attempt to assess the extent to which policy outcomes are being accomplished, while program indicators focus on the extent to which objectives stated in the intervention where satisfactorily achieved by proposed outputs or deliverables. This has some similarities with the fusion log frame approach being proposed as part of the Budget Strengthening Initiative (BSI), supported by DfID. In that case, The BSI suggests that the fusion model requires a systematic effort to map and trace events and relationships with Government partners and other donors. The pattern of relationships and the different levels of change indicators can then be examined to supplement the programme log frame 10 and country level output frameworks. 9 Policy refers to the goal and outcome level, and program refers to output level. 10 Derived from Daniel Roduner and Kaia Ambrose 2009 A conceptual fusion of the Logical Framework Approach and Outcome mapping. This fusion approach is suggested at country programme level where teams are trying to influence stakeholder organisations, Ministers, officials and other donors, as well as to specific interventions or more usually to examine a package of interventions. It is suggested that the framework can equally well be applied to the overall BSI programme. At that level the aim is to show there is an impact on improving economic governance but we also want to learn lessons and seek changes, for 22

24 50 It should be noted that each GPF funded activity is established as a distinct activity, with a dedicated Task Team Leader, a well defined budget, and most importantly a separate Results Framework. Annually, each of the 90 odd GPF projects reports against its own Results Framework through the Grand Reporting and Monitoring format. After approval, these individual GRMs and their Result Frameworks are published on the Bank s Client Portal, where they can be reviewed by the Donor Partners. Policy Level Indicators 51 Before detailing the GPF Results Framework it is required to review first the current approach to monitoring results of GAC implementation. The GAC Updated Strategy and Implementation Plan is in the process of developing a new monitoring framework that makes use of the recent IEG Report on GAC phase 1 and the 2009 QAG portfolio review. The consultation draft for the GAC update involves four results areas (RAs): (1) GAC Responsiveness; (2) GAC Impact; (3) Institutional Quality; (4) Service delivery and Development Outcomes. Figure 4 provides a visual representation of the results framework for the GAC update, including the four results areas, and the development effectiveness results chain. example, in the way the wider donor community (and developing countries) generally think about and approach TA and capacity building. 23

25 RA 1 THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012 Figure 4: Conceptual framework for measuring GAC results Measuring GAC Results Internal objectives Organizational Effectiveness (bank) DEVELOPMENT EFFECTIVENESS External objectives Country systems, Institutions, organizations INPUTS Quality of diagnostic work, project preparation and counterpart trust in the Bank RA 2 OUTPUTS RA 3 Project results IEG, ICR Impact of AAA and country dialogue De jure changes (law, regulations, etc.) De facto behavior changes (AGIs) Overall government policy stance and institutional strength RA 4 Sector institutional quality and sustainability Quality of service delivery DEVELOPMENT OUTCOMES Poverty reduction Growth Human Development Environment 52 In the case of the GPF, policy or systemic level indicators are not linked to any individual GPF window but try to capture the extent to which: a. The World Bank s GAC strategy is contributing to improved institutional and economic development; b. The World Bank is successfully implementing its GAC Updated Strategy and Implementation Plan; c. GPF funded interventions are positively contributing to the successful implementation of the GAC Updated strategy, and; d. Innovative and successful GPF funded interventions are being mainstreamed into regular country strategic documents (CAS/CPS/ISN), AAA products and lending operations in non-gpf intensive countries and sectors. Figure 5 in the next page provides a conceptual representation of the GPF results framework. 24