Each IEG evaluation contains recommendations to management, and management is accountable to the Board for follow-up. Both management and IEG rate the level of adoption and implementation of all recommendations from sector, thematic and corporate evaluations from the previous three calendar years. These ratings are updated annually based on the progress made in the implementation of the recommendations. Fully implemented recommendations are archived as completed. Recommendations that are older than three years are submitted to CODE to be archived on a no-objection basis.
2006 IEG tracks management's progress on 79 recommendations. These include 21 new recommendations from six IEG studies presented to the Board in calendar year 2005 and 58 recommendations carried forward from calendar years 2002 to 2004.
In 2006, IEG rated 66 percent of its recommendations as having been adopted by management at high or substantial levels (Figure 1). This compares to 75 percent in 2005 and 62 percent in 2004. Thus, 2006 continues the trend of high or substantial adoption of about two thirds of IEG's recommendations by management.
Figure 1: The Level of Adoption of IEG Recommendations Similar
to Previous Years | 
Source: IEG Data |
IEG and management agreed on the rating on level of adoption for 65 percent of recommendations (50 out of 77*) . This figure represents a decline from 70 percent in 2005, and 78 percent in 2004. Figure 2 shows the distribution of adoption ratings by Management and IEG.
Figure 2: Management and IEG Ratings of Level of Adoption of Recommendations | | Management Ratings | IEG Ratings | | High | Substantial | Medium | Negligible | Difference of Opinion | Sum of Management Ratings | | High | 17 | 8 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 34 | | Substantial | 0 | 25 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 33 | | Medium | 0 | 1 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 10 | | Negligible | 0 | 0 | 0 | | 0 | 0 | | Difference of Opinion | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | | Sum of IEG Ratings | 17 | 34 | 21 | 5 | 2 | 79 |
Source: IEG data.
Note: Fields in gray show agreement between managent and IEG, fields to the right of the diagonal represent higher rating by management than by IEG, fields to the left of the diagonal show higher rating by IEG than by management. The sixth column shows the sum of ratings in each category by management; the seventh row shows the sum of ratings by IEG. |
Selected Examples of Follow-up Action
During the last years there have been a number of recommendations that have prompted responsive actions by management and improvements of Bank operations. Recommendations that have had impact include IEG's review of lines of credit, the global programs review, and the evaluation of the World Bank Group's experience with extractive industries.
IEG's evaluation of lines of credit from 2004 provides an example of corrective action by management. IEG found poor results of Bank-funded lines of credit (LOC) due to widespread lack of compliance with operational policies governing LOCs. IEG recommended that Bank management update OP 8.30 to cover all LOCs across all sectors and regions. In response, CGAP undertook a self-evaluation of LOCs for compliance with OP 8.30, which confirmed IEG's original findings. Subsequently, management implemented IEG's recommendations to ensure the effectiveness of future LOCs. In response to an open question in the client survey, one Bank staff member acknowledged that the " evaluation of Bank LOCs has provided guidance on our recent design of an LOC in the area of micro and small lending. Lessons learned in that report have proved very enlightening."
IEG's evaluation of the World Bank's approach to global programs found that the Bank's selectivity and oversight of its global program portfolio had been weak, because the existing selectivity criteria were broad and difficult to apply and because of poorly defined expectations with respect to the roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities of Bank staff who are overseeing individual programs. In response to IEG's recommendation to improve the Bank's selectivity and oversight of global programs, management has put in place new business processes which recognize GPPs as a separate product line of the Bank and has initiated work on a monitoring framework and indicators to assist global program task managers in improving oversight. The Quality Assurance Group has also initiated quality-at-entry reviews of new DGF-supported programs to help strengthen the adoption of these new business processes. Management rated the level of adoption of all four recommendations from this report “high”; IEG rated the adoption as "substantial" for two recommendations and “high” for the remaining two.
IEG's evaluation of the World Bank Group's experience with extractive industries (EI) found that, while the Bank's EI projects have produced positive economic and financial results, the Bank could do more to enhance the EI sector's contribution to sustainable development and poverty reduction. Among the issues highlighted were ensuring greater compliance with environmental and social safeguards, promoting improved governance and management of EI revenues, and developing an integrated sector strategy that went beyond returns to investors. Following IEG's recommendations, Management has adopted a clearer strategy for the sector and is mainstreaming new guidelines for better addressing EI sector issues in strategy documents (CAS), particularly for LICUS countries. Guidelines are being prepared for improved upstream screening of projects for safeguards requirements. The EI transparency initiative (EITI) is being expanded, and the distribution of project benefits among key stakeholders is being done as standard practice. A WBG Community Development Facility has been established for increasing local community participation in EI projects. The level of adoption for all recommendations from the EI evaluation has been rated "high" by both Management and IEG.
*Two recommendations constitute a difference of opinion and did not receive an adoption rating. These are excluded from the sample when comparing levels of adoption. |
RSS