GOVERNANCE PARTNERSHIP FACILITY
PROGRAM DOCUMENT
(P111816)
Original: Approved by GPC on October 11, 2008
Draft Revision: February 7, 2012
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
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 1-4
29
Annex 2: GPF Selection Process
37
Annex 3: Access Criteria to the GPF Windows
39
3.1 Window 1
39
3.2 Window 2
42
3.3 Window 3
44
3.4 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
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
A
BACK GROUND AND OUTLINE OF THE FACILITY
A1
INTRODUCTION
1 The first Implementation Plan of the World Bank Governance and Anticorruption (GAC)
Strategy was approved by the Board of Executive Directors in 2008. A second phase
implementation plan of the GAC was submitted to the Board in late 2011. 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
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
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 (DC2007-0005).
2
For example: Norad’s work on Taxation in Developing Countries http://www.norad.no/en/Thematic+areas/Macroeconomics+and+public+administration
3
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012




A2
7
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.
NEXT PHASE OF GAC AND GPF
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
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
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 results4:






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 2014. 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
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
Table 1: Results achieved with GAC implementation with GPF support
GOAL: GAC responsiveness
PURPOSE: Bank resources
Bank-Wide
Bank-Wide
Governance Partnership Facility (GPF)
IEG (Independent Evaluation
Group) FY2011
Grant reporting and monitoring (GRM)
Staffing
Data sources
QAG (Quality Assurance
Group) FY2008
Pre GAC
(2004-2008)
WB country level strategies GAC responsiveness of project level
sensitive to governance
GAC responsiveness of country
level
Staffing
Governance and PEA: 45%
GAC in Fiduciary: 64%
Demand side of Gov: 42%
Portfolio-wide fiduciary risk
mitigation: 15%
Selectivity of GAC entry
Strengthening Country
Institutions: 17%
Smarter design of projects and
program by countries: 15%
Overall staffing Bank spending None
for governance on governance
FY07: 385
(in $ million)
FY07: $152
None
GAC responsiveness of project level
GAC responsiveness of country
level
Staffing
Budget
Budget
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% ↑)
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%
↑)
Overall staffing
for governance
FY10:439=>
(14%↑)
Bank spending # of GPF-funded
on governance
staff FY11
(in $ million)
42 (Staff:5,
FY10:$169
Extend-term
=>(11%↑)
consultant:37)
See chart 1
See chart 2
IEG (Independent Evaluation Group)
FY2011
Governance and Political Economy
Analysis: 15%
Quality of Enhanced Fiduciary Aspects:
Sectors/regions sensitive to 22%
Use of Country Systems: 23%
governance
Strengthening Country Institutions:
Sectors: 58%, Regions: 61% 23%
Results Orientation : 40%
Post GAC
(2009-2011)
No QAG report from
2009-2011
GAC- update
(2012-)
QAG report 2013:
proposed, to be funded by GPF
QAG report 2014:
proposed in GAC update, funded by WB
-
Budget
Staffing
See chart 3
See chart 4
Budget
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 Staffing and Budget
-
-
6
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
GOAL: GAC responsiveness
(Source: IEG report, 2011)
Chart 2: Country level
Chart 1: Project level
Governance and Political
Economy Analysis
Portfolio-wide fiduciary
risk mitigation
25%
Quality of Enhanced
Fiduciary Aspects
22%
30%
Use of Country Systems
Pre GAC
32%
Post GAC
Strengthening Country
Institutions
23%
Results Orientation
Strengthening Country
Institutions
Smarter design of
projects and program by
countries
45%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
47%
Pre GAC
Post GAC
20%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
PURPOSE: GAC bank resources (Source: IEG report, 2011)
Chart 3: Staffing
Chart 4: Budget (in $million)
500
400
$200
388
369
360
385
410
430
439
$150
300
Staffing
200
$165 $169
$152 $158
$140 $138 $147
$100
Budget
$50
100
0
$0
FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10
FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10
7
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
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.
A3
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 2008.
World Bank. Decentralization in Client Countries: An Evaluation of World Bank Support: 1990-2007. Washington, DC 2008.
8
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
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.
A4
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 1.
18 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
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
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 results6.
19 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 2011.
10
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
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 3.
24 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
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
Figure 1: Schematic selection process of GPF projects
A5
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 2014. 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
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
27 Like many donor agencies, the Bank is facing increased demands for its support, while
being asked to do more with less7. 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 4.
29 The GPF has brought benefits beyond the current plethora of ad hoc and informal
partnership arrangements8 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
8
REFERENCE INCREASE IN LENDING, IMPACT OF CRISIS, etc
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
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
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 5.
32 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 6.
33 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
HOW IS THE GPF MANAGED?
B1
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
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
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 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE GPC, SECRETARIAT, AND STANDING REVIEW
COMMITTEE
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
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
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)
Standing Review
Committee (SRC)
• Strategic Guidance
•Co-chaired by PREM VP
and DFID
• Members at VP and DG
level
• Approve Annual Work
Plan
• 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
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012





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
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
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
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012


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
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
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).
B3
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
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012

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
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
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)
Report To
GPF Results
Framework
GPF Reporting on Results
Results
Framework
Annual
Report
Grant
Funding
Request
(GFR)
Field Visits
Governance
AntiCorruption
(GAC) Plan
Quality
Assurance
Group (QAG)
Report
Governance
Partnership
Council (GPC)
Bank
Management
GAC inputs
Surveys
Interviews
Window
1/2/3/4
Review
Independent
Evaluation
Group (IEG)
Report
GAC council
GAC portal
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
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
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
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
Figure 4: Conceptual framework for measuring GAC results
Measuring GAC Results
DEVELOPMENT EFFECTIVENESS
Internal objectives
External objectives
Organizational Effectiveness (bank)
Country systems, Institutions, organizations
INPUTS
OUTPUTS
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
DEVELOPMENT
Quality
of
service
delivery
OUTCOMES
Poverty
reduction
Growth
Human
Development
RA 1
Quality of
Project
RA 3
diagnostic
results
work,
IEG, ICR
project
RA 2
preparation
and
Impact of
AAA and
counterpart
country
trust in the
dialogue
Bank
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
implementation of the GAC Updated strategy, and;
the
successful
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
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
Figure 5: GPF and GAC results chain
GAC
GPF
Window1& 4
Window2
Improve
Country Level GAC
•GAC Business Plans
•Window 1 projects
•Window 4.2. projects
Better Outcomes in
Sectors and
Thematic areas
•Window 2 projects
Stronger
Institutions
•Change management
•Capacity
•Greater Accountability
Improve
Service Delivery
•Service Delivery
Window3 &4
Increase
Knowledge and Learning
•Window 3projects
•Window 4.1. projects
•Window 4.3. projects
Develop Partnership
•Partnership
53 Although evidence from the application of the GAC update results framework may
provide a proxy for the impact of GPF funded interventions embedded in the larger GAC
effort, a number of idiosyncratic characteristics of GPF funded interventions may suggest
a more detailed review. In order to address this issue, the GPF results framework will apply
the same methodology proposed in the GAC update results framework (results areas 1 or
GAC Responsiveness) to a portfolio of “GPF-intensive” country programs (window 1
recipient countries) and projects (that benefited from outputs financed by windows 1, 2 and
3. The results from the recent IEG 2010 evaluation and QAG 2009 portfolio review will
provide a baseline for measuring the extent to which both the GAC update and the GPF are
influencing and changing “the way the World Bank conducts its business”. Box 1 provides a
brief description of the results area 1, the methodologies behind IEG and QAG and their
respective baseline levels.
25
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
Box 1: Measuring GAC Responsiveness in countries and projects
GAC responsiveness (RA 1) entails systematic tracking and monitoring of the extent to which programs (CASs,
ISNs) and projects are responsive to the GAC strategy at entry and during implementation. While the quality at
entry may be a necessary condition for improved performance at the country (CAS, ISNs) and project levels,
the quality of implementation is of critical importance in determining final outcomes and impact. Similarly
GAC Impact (RA 2) will determine whether, to what extent and in what way does GAC responsiveness lead to
better project outcome (and ultimately, portfolio, outcomes).

Result Area 1, GAC Responsiveness in country programs (CASs)
To evaluate the quality of CASs formulation and its responsiveness to the GAC strategy, this results framework
will replicate the methodological approach, based on five criteria, used during the 2010 IEG evaluation of GAC.
The results obtained by the IEG 2010 will be used as baseline indicators against which the results of the new
round, scheduled for 2013, will be compared. The new round will likely include CASs of countries that
benefited from window 1 grants and others that did not, providing a good opportunity for comparison: (i)
against each other, and; (ii) against the 2010 baseline. The IEG Evaluation of country programs found
improvements in strengthening country institutions (from 17% in Pre GAC to 47% in post GAC) and fiduciary
aspects (15% in Pre GAC to 22% in Post GAC) while no improvements in selectivity of GAC entry points (from
46% in Pre GAC decreased to 44% in post GAC) and signaling (from 32% in Pre GAC decreased to 25% Post
GAC). The highest value for each dimension (pre or post-GAC) will be used as baseline against the portfolio
of window 1 GPF recipient country will be compared.

Result Area 2, GAC Responsiveness in projects
In order to assess whether projects that benefited from GPF funded activities were more sensitive to GAC
issues during preparation (quality at entry), this results framework will replicate the methodology used by the
QAG 2009 review, and will use its results as baseline indicators. However, in order to do so, it is essential that
“GPF intensive projects” be identify. This is not as straight forward as identifying “GPF intensive country
programs” because multiple windows may have contributed to project preparation so attribution is more
difficult to establish. In order to address this issue on a cost effective manner, during the review scheduled for
2013, TTLs at the time of project preparation in all projects selected for evaluation will be ask to acknowledge
whether project benefited from GPF interventions funded only through windows 1, 2 and 4.2 (other windows
may have contributed through CoP, just-in-time technical advice and peer reviews; however the public good
nature of this services is more difficult to attribute and quantify). In order to validate answers provided by
TTLs, country managers/directors would be asked to state their own view. In order to minimize perception
bias or “noise” caused by time elapse since project preparation, we propose that PADs acknowledge the
extent to which GPF funded activities were used. The QAG 2009 review found that 42% of sampled operations
used demand side measures; 45% paid attention to governance and PE; and 64% used enhanced fiduciary
safeguards; and, overall, 46% of projects were evaluated to be “GAC responsive”.
54 During the initial wave of GPF funded interventions funds were awarded to a number of
innovative initiatives such as: (i) country and sector-wide political economy analysis (PEA)
and governance risks assessments; (ii) DFGG innovations and support programs, and; (iii)
support to non-executive institutions. In 2009 the Quality Assurance Group of the World
Bank reviewed 180 projects and classified 45% of these as being GAC responsive. These
projects are currently at various stages of completion, yet by 2013 nearly 90% of them
should have reviews stating the extent to which development objectives were achieved. If
funding is available, the review of a new set of projects in 2014 (approved in 2013) using the
same methodology applied in the 2009 review will provide a view of impact of the GAC, and
to some degree the effects of the GPF portfolio. A sub-sample of projects deemed GAC
responsive, according to the QAG methodology, and already completed with an ICR at the
26
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
time of the 2013 review will provide the treatment group against which the baseline
comparison is made
Program Level Indicators
55 Program level indicators are linked to each GPF window and try to capture the extent
to which interventions are:
a. Properly designed, and therefore outputs are timely, relevant and contributed to
inform project preparation or CASs;
b. Properly implemented, and therefore objectives and outputs were delivered to the
satisfaction of client (internal or external), and;
c. Properly aligned with GPF’s window objective, and therefore ex-post intervention
contributed to the specific objectives sought by each programmatic GPF window.
Annex 6 provides a set of program indicators for each GPF programmatic window.
GPF Secretariat Management Indicators
56 In addition to policy and program level indicators, this results framework also includes
measures for evaluating GPF management performance. In the Results Framework these
measures are included in Output Area 5. These indicators used capture the extent to which
the GPF secretariat performs its core functions, namely: (i) strengthening and coordination
of partners; (ii) monitoring and evaluation of grants; (iii) dissemination and reach-out
efforts. Annex 7 provides a list of key indicators on this area.
Table 1: Results Monitoring Timeline and Modalities
Part A: Timeline
2008
QAG
IEG
GPF
sponsored
reviews
Annual
Results
Report
based on
2009
*
2010
2011
2012
*
*
*
*
2013
*11
2014
*12
*
*13
Window Window Window Window
1
2
3
4
*
*
11
If funding available
If funding available
13
Subject to IEG decisions
12
27
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
GRMs and
RF of each
project
Lesson
learned
Workshops
(eg. WOW,
by region
or
thematic)
*
*
*
*
Part B: Description of Modalities (please provide)
QAG
IEG
GPF
sponsored
evaluations
Annual
Results
Reports
based on
GRMs and
RFs
Lesson
Workshops
(eg. WOW)
The Quality Assurance Group (QAG) selects a representative sample of projects
for a detailed review. This QAG-led review benchmarks the focus on GAC along
three dimensions: attention to governance and political economy, GAC in
fiduciary aspects, and the demand side of governance.
A logical framework, linking GAC inputs to outcomes, forms the basis for this
evaluation. The IEG evaluation is based on a results chain that allows for an
informed assessment of the Bank efforts. The results chain links inputs, such as
the GAC strategy and implementation activities, to outputs, that is, more GACresponsive Bank engagement in partner countries. Furthermore, more GACresponsive engagements in turn contribute to intermediate outcomes (enhanced
state capacity and social accountability) and outcomes (i.e. poverty reduction).
This includes reviews such as the Window 1 review report (in 2011), followed by
reviews of another topic every year: Window 2 in 2012, Window 3 in 2013 and
Window 4 in 2014.
Grant Reporting Monitoring (GRM) reports are the World Bank’s standard Trust
Funds reports.
The reports will use the RFs that each project has prepared.
GRMs plus RFs will be posted on the Bank’s Client Portal to be viewed by all
Donor Partners.
These events also serve an important evaluative purpose.
28
ANNEX 1: DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF WINDOWS 1-4
WINDOW 1: SUPPORTING GOOD PRACTICE COUNTRY LEVEL GAC STRATEGIES
Objectives
Create strong incentives, through a competitive process, for a number of
leading country teams to implement intensively programs that rigorously
and systematically address the governance impediments to development.
This Window supports 2-3 year GAC Business Plans that will a) deepen and
widen governance engagement beyond the traditional areas of Bank focus
and b) contribute to the design and implementation of Country Assistance
Strategies. Support is awarded in a competitive fashion, including peer
reviews and a presentation by the Country Directors. GPF1 supports 18
country programs over the four initial years of the GPF (FY 2009-13) with a
total cost of $30.5 million The Bank’s GAC phase 2 implementation calls for
Country Teams to deepen dialogue and engagement with clients and
Development Partners and to strengthen demand for governance and
accountability, with incremental capacity to respond to that demand. The
Window 1 programs take stock of governance and corruption impediments
to development goals, identify analytical work needed, and outline a
business plan addressing GAC issues.
Approach
Outputs
and
Results
Relationsh
ip to other
Windows
Selection
criteria





Priorities
GAC sensitive Country Assistance Strategies (CAS) will be implemented.
These CAS address governance constraints to development at country level,
integrate Governance and Anti Corruption activities in World Bank country
programs and strengthen partnerships at country level between the World
Bank, government, civil society and other Development Partners.
Synergy and complementarily with activities funded under Window Two will
be used as entry points to strengthen implementation of governance in
sector activities at the country level. Grants to partner country NGOs,
academic organizations and think tanks can be used as an integral part of
the activities funded in Window 1 and where Bank country teams will
supervise the effective use of these grants.
Strong Bank country management commitment to program: Bank financing
of a significant portion of implementation costs and commitment to ensure
continued support after three years,
Quality of the shared assessment of governance constraints/drivers of
change
Country-level GAC strategies with strong focus on outcomes, results and
showing broader, deeper engagement in governance. This includes strong
political economy analysis; sector governance; accountability mechanisms;
civil society engagement and demand for good governance activities.
Evidence of organizational capacity and resources at country level to deliver
on program commitments.
Additional funding to existing Window 1 programs will depend on a positive
assessment of initial outputs and results achieved, a substantial increase in
funding for governance activities from Bank budget, and a business plan for
complete integration of governance in Bank operations in country.
Fragile states; Large poor economies with significant potential spillover
effects; Countries where the GPF Donor Partners and the Bank submit joint
proposals; Countries where the Partners aim to work with and through the
Bank; Partner governments with demonstrated ownership of agreed
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
program; Countries capacity building is an urgent Bank priority for rapid
engagement (prior to more permanent regional staffing levels
arrangements).
What
would be
funded
In Window 1 countries that are first time recipients, the GPF will fund a
substantial portion of staff and consultant costs and direct operational costs
for the first three years of the GPF Grant. The programs will fund Bank AAA ,
including technical assistance to countries and components of project
preparation work. Lending and grant activities to governments that result
from this work will not be funded by the GPF but as part of the Bank’s
regular program and or by separate grants from the Bank or the Donor
Partners.
30
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
Objectives
Approach
Outputs and
Results
Relationship to
other Windows
WINDOW 2: GOVERNANCE IN SECTORS AND THEMATIC AREAS
Support cutting edge governance activities in sectors and thematic areas with a
significant demonstration and scaling up effect in key Bank operations.
 Spread best practice examples of governance in sectors and thematic areas
across client countries.
 Develop approaches to governance in sectors and thematic areas that can be
used Bank wide and by other development partners.
This Window will support programs of non-lending activities that stretch the
frontiers of governance work in sectors and thematic areas. The GPF will not
support the Bank’s traditional areas of focus within sectors, but address innovative
approaches to ensure that governance plays a core role in the design and
implementation of the Bank’s lending programs in core sectors such as health,
education, infrastructure, energy and transport.
In particular, this Window will be open to proposals that bundle activities to
support evidence based policy development for sectors with direct, “Just in Time”
country-level governance activities that support Bank operations in specific
sectors/thematic areas and competitively selected projects. Policy development
and Just in Time support can include the following topics:
o Political Economy Analysis (PEA) in sector operations,
o strengthening systems of accountability within sectors,
o transparency and accountability of regulatory functions (including
governance challenges in natural resources management);
o augmenting joint engagement of government and civil society in
accountability for delivery of services;
o monitoring and evaluation of sector performance as entry point for sector
governance;
o Integration of Demand for Good Governance in design and implementation
of sector projects;
o Support for rigorous impact evaluation of governance in sectors .
Innovative programs that stretch the frontiers of governance work in selected
sector and thematic area, especially focusing on improving project preparation and
enhanced accountability in project implementation.
Window One supports activities at country level. Many of these include governance
activities in sectors that will benefit directly from the policy development and the
Just in Time support provided in Window 2. Window 3 will focus on research and
monitoring of results of governance activities, in particular in sectors. Window 4 will
support global governance programs, which may also include governance in sector
activities (e.g. CoST).


Selection
criteria




Activities anchored in Bank-wide approaches to governance in sectors and
thematic areas, with the potential for greater country level engagement.
Governance activities that are outside the Bank/country’s current focus on
sector wide reforms.
Activities that support development effectiveness by incorporating of
governance in Bank lending instruments and operations [such as P4R and DPLs].
Support to regional and global initiatives not covered in Window 4
Activities that create capacity in country for operationally relevant governance
31
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
Priorities:
What would be
funded
research and analysis:
In-country work, led by teams based in the country or sector anchor units.
Joint proposals by the World Bank and the Donor Partners and that will
contribute to dissemination of approaches to governance in sectors and
thematic areas among development partners.
Staff and consultant costs and direct operational costs on a grant basis and related
implementation costs. [Up to [100%] of staff costs]. The programs will fund advisory
activities within Bank AAA , technical assistance, and relevant project preparation
work. Lending and grant activities to governments that result from this work will be
funded as part of the Bank’s regular program and/or by grants from the Bank or
Donor Partners as appropriate.


32
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
WINDOW 3: PROMOTING SHARED LEARNING INFORMED BY IMPACT ASSESSMENTS OF
Objectives:
Approach:
Outputs and
Results
GOVERNANCE INFLUENCE ON DEVELOPMENT OUTCOMES
 Stimulate strategic shared learning from implementation of innovative
governance activities.
 Promote innovation in measuring results and impact of governance
activities.
In consultation with stakeholders, the Window 3 program will develop an
agenda for impact assessments to develop and harvest knowledge of how
governance influences development outcomes. The Window 3 program
will promote wider adoption of indicators and impact assessment in
governance and seek to facilitate the financing of activities beyond the
GPF. The Window will support activities to organize core knowledge
about governance, lessons learning and enhanced dissemination of
knowledge about results in governance through a network of agencies
such as GSRDC, the Transparency and Accountability Initiative and similar
agencies. Window 3 can include commissioning of research on behalf of
the GPF Partners, (both conventional research and ‘un-conventional’
efforts) to systematically distil lessons from operational experience as a
process for harmonizing research and impact evaluations for governance
programs.
This window will give development practitioners in partner countries, the
Bank and Donor Partners access to operationally relevant governance
knowledge to strengthen country governance and Bank/Partners
programs. This Window would inter alia:
o Support the operational design of specific interventions and tool
kits for impact assessments of governance activities;
o Promote the application of governance indicators in partner
countries;
o Develop expertise in partner country organizations and the private
sector to monitor and evaluate results in governance.
o Support the development of mixed methodologies (quantitative
and qualitative) to assess change and results in governance
projects.
o Develop a body of evidence on key governance issues, including
lessons about the effectiveness of different approaches.
o Support knowledge creation and dissemination of cross cutting
and innovative governance themes, such as DFGG (i.e. enabling
environment for DFGG, contextual factors for DFGG in countries,
etc.)
Implementation of a strategic learning activities for governance
practitioners in countries, in partner organizations and the World Bank,
based on lessons drawn from analysis and impact assessments of
governance operations and activities; Establishment of knowledge and
learning networks / Communities of Practice to improve access to
governance knowledge and to undertake policy relevant research into
results of governance activities.
33
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
Relationship to
other Windows:
Selection
criteria:
Priorities:
What would be
funded:
Windows 1, 2 and 4 will emphasize activities with direct country level
impacts, whereas the results emphasis in Window 3 will be on global
learning. The strategic plan will further elaborate concerning cases where
proposals may appear to be suitable for multiple windows.
Selection criteria for research, tool kits and learning will be developed
following preparation of an initial strategic learning plan, which identifies
specific knowledge goals over 3-5 year horizon – and breaks these down
into a sequenced program of work.
 Strategic governance impact assessments. Impact assessments will be
targeted at (a) country level governance program (b) global and
regional governance programs. Priorities and selection criteria for
impact assessments will be determined by agreement in the SRC,
based on inputs and proposals from the World Bank and the partners.
 Knowledge work that highlights the nexus between governance and
development with specific attention to (i) the linkages between
governance and growth in specific country circumstances; (ii)
sequencing of governance activities-and (iii) design -- how to adapt the
approach to cross-cutting public sector capacity and accountability
initiatives to specific country circumstances, in fragile states, LICs and
MICs.
Staff, consultants, direct operational costs. Research and tool kits
contracted out to other organizations.
34
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
WINDOW 4: INNOVATIVE APPROACHES TO STRENGTHENING COUNTRY SYSTEMS THROUGH
Objectives:
Approach:
PUBLIC SECTOR MANAGEMENT
Strengthen openness and accountability of institutions in the executive branch of
government
Develop and test innovative reform programs that enhance accountability,
transparency and responsiveness of public sector institutions responsible for public
financial management, civil service reform, service delivery and other core functions
of the state. Rigorous methodologies will be applied to test different approaches and
develop a modified framework for public sector management activities, integrating
governance aspects and produces.
Outcomes
and Results
Innovative public sector governance approaches tested, documented and
disseminated within the World Bank and among partners. Networks for knowledge
and learning for Public Financial Management, Civil Service Reform and related Public
Sector Management areas created and supported.
Relationship
to other
Windows:
Other GPF windows do not support public sector activities, undertaken by the
executive branch of government. This window is complementary to the other
Windows and
Selection
criteria:
o
o
o
o
Priorities:
What would
be funded:
Innovation
Scalability
Sensitivity to country context
Innovative approaches to PSM that provide better grounding in the political and
institutional realities in country.
o Innovative approaches to PSM that integrate reforms of core state functions with
improved service delivery.
Activities to be funded in Window 4 will initially be limited to support specific Public
Financial Management activities, divided into three Sub-Windows:
Sub-Window 4.1 is focused on Programmatic PFM Policy Research and Data
Generation. The Window will deliver a program of work to advance global
understanding, knowledge and learning on PFM reform and PFM applications through
data, research and development of tools for practitioners. Sub-Window 4.2 will
support demand based PFM Activities. Similar to the procedure for Window 2, a Bank
wide call for Expressions of Interest (EOIs) will invite Bank staff to nominate activities
in this Sub-Window, in particular activities in collaboration with the Donor Partners.
Activities will be selected on a competitive basis, based on the quality of the proposal
and the innovative aspects of the proposals.
Sub-Window 4.3 will support Peer to Peer Learning among Development Practitioners
in PFM. The primary role of this sub-window will be to offer strategic and high-quality
inputs to the Community of PFM practitioners within and outside the Bank, with an
emphasis on the Development Partners engaged in Window 4.
As additional resources become available, the activities in Window 4 can be expanded
to include broader Public Sector Management. Specifically, the Window will provide
35
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
seed financing for innovative and sustainable monitoring frameworks that track the
degree to which public sector management arrangements have changed in practice.
The key criteria for such framework are that they must push the boundaries of
current measurement techniques, and the long term sustainability of the monitoring
framework must be evident. Second, the Window will finance work that leads to
standardization of indicators of "in practice" changes within and between
development agencies, in order to allow systematic learning from external advice and
project interventions. Such work would, in effect, convert stand-alone donor
interventions into monitorable experiments that can be used as part of a global effort
in lesson learning concerning effectiveness in the design of interventions.
Finally, it will finance innovative analytic work that provides compelling insights into
the significance of changed public sector management arrangements for social and
development outcomes. The criteria for such analytic work will include its significance
for understanding which areas of public sector management matter for important
outcomes, and the degree to which the analytic work is likely to trigger other and
more extensive work examining this question.
36
ANNEX 2: GPF SELECTION PROCESS
The aim of the Selection Process of the GPF is to enable the Partners to select high quality
proposals that are aligned with the objectives of the World Bank’s GAC. The process is
undertaken in stages as shown in the diagram below.
Stage 1
Stage 2
EOIs
Full Proposals
• Screening
Secretariat
• Consultations
with VPUs
• Peer reviews
• CD
presentation
Selection
• SRC Selection
Meeting
• GFR Revision
• Child TF
activation
In Stage 1, Bank teams submit short, one page Expressions of Interest (EOIs) that set out the
main idea and justification for the activity they plan to propose. In the three selection rounds
undertaken to date close to 500 EOIs were received. These EOIs are screened by the Secretariat
against the objectives of the GPF Window for which they are submitted. The Secretariat also
consults with the Regional and Network VPUs to discuss how the relevant EOIs are aligned with
the priorities of the VPU. Subsequently, the Secretariat invites the teams with EOIs that match
with the Window objectives and meet the VPU priorities to submit a full proposal. These
proposals are in the Grant Funding Request (GFR) format. All proposals are assessed by two
experienced, independent governance experts contracted by the Secretariat. For the final
selection, the Standing Review Committee (SRC) meets to discuss each proposal, and to decide,
based on various inputs including the peer reviews and the available funds, which proposals will
be approved for funding. Following selection by the SRC the Secretariat will work with the team
to set up the Child TF and to finalize the results framework of each grant.
In Window 1, the GPF supports the preparation and implementation of governance activities
that have been identified through a rigorous governance programming process undertaken as
part of a World Bank Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) or similar multi donor country level
planning. The initiative for a proposal is taken by the Bank’s country team and proposals need
to be sponsored and cleared by the World Bank’s Country Director. The WB Country Team
staffs are strongly encouraged to collaborate with Development Partners’ in country in
preparing their Window 1 proposals.
In the selection process for Window 2, the GPF Secretariat collaborates closely with governance
focal points in sector networks / anchor units in the World Bank.
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
In Window 3 the GPF supports knowledge and learning, frequently through Communities of
Practice which bring practitioners together and invest in knowledge products as well as coordination to facilitate synergies across Communities of Practice – and between initiatives by
development partners (e.g. the GSDRC). As a partnership, an objective of the GPF is to build a
knowledge platform that cuts across development organizations. Therefore, collaborative
proposals with GPF Partners are strongly encouraged.
In Window 4 there are three sub windows. Window 4.2 supports PSM and PFM activities based
on demand expressed by Bank teams and will follow a similar two stage competitive selection
process as Windows 1-3. Proposals for activities in Sub windows 4.1 and 4.3 will derive from
PSM and PFM policy inititiatives by the World Bank to advance global understanding and
learning in these sectors. The proposed activities will be submitted to the SRC for approval as
Grant Funding Requests (GFR) for a comprehensive work program, with indicative sub activities.
38
ANNEX 3: ACCESS CRITERIA TO THE GPF WINDOWS
The access criteria for Windows 1-4 are outlined below, and will further be detailed to task
teams through the periodic issuance of Calls for Proposals (CfPs). Recipient executed activities
may be requested in the context of all four windows. Country/task teams will typically be
expected to complete proposals from their own resources. Indicative sizes for proposals are
for Window One USD 500,000 – 3 million, for Window Two a minimum of $100,000 and
maximum of $500,000 for a single country (less than 50 million population) to $1 million for
large countries, and $1.5 million for multi-country proposals. For Window 3 the range is from
$50,000 to $500,000. For Window 4, the range of funding ceilings is set for each of the subwindows. If required, the GPF Secretariat/SRC may elect to support teams with full proposal
preparation/seed grants of up to $25,000. Proposal preparation grants would be used with
clear parameters for use and results, only for the purpose to facilitate the development of
high quality proposals for teams that lack resources and proposal preparation
capacity/expertise.
3.1
Window 1
In general, a Window 1 program of the GPF is likely to support governance-related
interventions identified as priorities through a CGAC-like process. A Window 1 proposal
generally would include the following:





Brief description of main issues in country with regard to governance.
Status of the CAS and the CGAC.
Overview of analytical work undertaken for the CAS and CGAC and of relevant
analytical work recently undertaken by Donor Partners.
A clear statement of the Bank’s GAC strategy as emerging from the CGAC and
integrated into the CAS and its role in addressing key CAS objectives relating to
growth and poverty reduction. This would include an assessment of the risks that
the CGAC strategy will face in implementation and how these are to be
addressed.
Description of the key elements of the CGAC work program integrated into the
CAS, with a particular focus on the two or three priority governance-related
activities to be undertaken with support by the GPF that address critical
development constraints, including:
i. Justification why these have been selected as priority governance programs, what
the contribution of these programs will be to growth and poverty alleviation, what
the longer term prospects are to achieve impact and results with these programs.
ii. Requirements for further political economy analysis to better understand the factors
that will drive progress on these programs.
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
iii. Description of the three main priority governance initiatives to be supported
through Window One, including inputs and outputs / outcomes.
iv. Description of the consultations held with government counterparts and the level of
commitment and support for the proposed program by the government.
v. Description of the relation of the initiatives to be supported by Donors in country–
and of consultations with and/or engagement in program preparation by Donors
Partners and others.
vi. Description of the consultation and review process within the World Bank.
vii. Potential connections with Window 4 activities supported by the GPF.
viii. A results framework with monitoring and reporting arrangements for the program.
ix. A human resource and staffing plan that addresses the staffing needs implicit in the
work program, with a particular focus on staff capacity in Bank field offices for
governance work and for outreach to civil society.
x. Detailed budget with an estimate of the overall CGAC requirements over three years
and the contributions expected from the Bank’s own budget, and the plans for the
gradual transfer of personnel costs from GPF to WB Country Program.
xi. The proposal would need to indicate who is on the drafting team, and who will be
on the team to implement the program. The Task Team Leader, with responsibility
for managing in country the funds allocated from the MDTF, will need to be
indicated and Trust Fund accredited.
xii. Potential partnerships with other Development Partners for the implementation of
the priority governance programs.
xiii. For multi-year programs, a risk assessment and mitigation proposal, including risks
of political interference as per the Bank’s Articles of Agreement, along with any
other elements (such as a description of country consultations) that may be required
in connection with guidance provided to Bank staff for GAC implementation.
Access Criteria Window One
A Window One proposal will be assessed against the following criteria:

Activities - The GAC-related activities to be financed through the GPF are clearly
defined.
40
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012

Analysis - The proposal clarifies how CAS priorities and proposed GAC-related
activities are aligned with the country’s governance and political economy
realities, as evidenced by appropriate diagnostic work, including use of analytical
work done in country by the GPF partners, including the quality of shared
assessments
of
governance
constraints.

Country level engagement- The proposal demonstrates that activities are linked
to country operations and Country Assistance / Partnership Strategy (CAS / CPS).
Strengthened and innovative efforts to advance engagement and ownership
with client counterparts/governments on GAC issues as part of the broader
policy dialogue.

Additionality – How the GPF funds will complement / not substitute existing
bank operations / funds from other sources.

Capacity – Evidence of the ability of Bank country teams to delivery the
proposed program in country.

Results – Strong outcomes and results focus with clearly stated, tangible, and
achievable results, given the political economy realities in the beneficiary
country. Proposal provides a plan how results will be monitored.

Budget – A realistic budget that links the proposed activities to other Bank
activities, or would produce results as evidenced by additional Bank and/or
development partner support. Bank complementary funding would signal strong
Bank regional management commitment to the proposed program. A
commitment to pick up all continuing personnel costs after three years is
required.
In the competitive process for Window One additional consideration will be given to
proposals that concern the following countries or include the following elements:
 Fragile states.
 Large poor economies with significant potential spill over effects.
 Countries where government has demonstrated strong ownership of the agreed
program.
 Countries where the Bank and the Donor Partners submit joint proposals.
 Countries where the Partners aim to work with and through the Bank.
 Countries where the Bank needs to add capacity urgently to enable rapid
engagement (prior to more permanent regional staffing levels arrangements).
41
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
3.2
Window 2
A Window 2 proposal will aim to stretch the frontiers of governance work within the Bank,
support cutting edge activities that have significant demonstration effects and spread good
practice across countries. More importantly, these activities should help build country
ownership of governance related interventions. In the second phase of GPF implementation,
Window 2 will focus in particular on the application of governance in sectors. Proposals for
Window 2 will relate to the objectives of six governance thematic areas applied in sectors
listed below. This Window will also be open to proposals that bundle multiple country-level
interventions in any of the six thematic areas into a coherent package. Within the six thematic
governance areas, innovative South-South knowledge exchange initiatives would also be
considered. Proposed activities will need to apply the Bank’s guidelines on multi-stakeholder
engagement.
-
Program 1: Political Economy Analysis to provide an enhanced understanding of the
enabling environment and to identify entry points for enhanced development effectiveness
(including growth, core of government reforms, and sector development objectives).
-
Program 2: Leadership, coalition building and multi-stakeholder approaches including social
accountability mechanisms.
-
Program 3: Strengthening Institutions of Accountability, with a special emphasis on
parliament, the judiciary, ombudsman, anti-corruption commissions.
-
Program 4: Sectoral Governance Reforms aimed at developing sound sector-level systems
of transparency and accountability and reforming regulatory functions. This can, for
example, include proposals concerning the governance challenges associated with natural
resources management.
-
Program 5: Generating public goods for governance to be applied at country level (e.g.
diagnostics, surveys, score cards on service delivery).
-
Program 6: Implementation at country level of innovative regional and global governance
programs in sectors.
An outline of a Window 2 proposal will generally include the following:
-
Clarification how the proposed program supports the Window 2 objectives (stretching the
frontiers of governance work in sectors, support cutting edge activities with demonstration
effect, and spread good practice examples), why the proposed activities are a useful
country-level entry point, and what value it adds to global knowledge and understanding of
governance in sectors.
42
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
-
Explain how the proposed activities contribute to development of one or more of the six
Window 2 thematic governance areas listed above.
-
A description of the activities to be undertaken, and of the responsible agencies. Window 2
activities will frequently be undertaken by or with organizations that are not part of the
executive branch of Government, or that are civil society organizations. This may require
additional clarification regarding the responsibilities and accountability mechanisms of
these organizations.
-
An assessment of any risks, including risks of political interference as per the World Bank’s
Articles of Agreement, posed by the proposed activities, along with any other elements
(such as a description of country consultations, development partner inputs) that may be
required in connection with guidance provided to Bank staff for GAC implementation.
Access Criteria
Proposals for support in Window Two will be assessed against the following criteria:
The following criteria will be used to evaluate and assess proposals received through a 2 stage
process for Window Two of the Governance Partnership Facility.
1. Innovation – Does the proposal “stretch the frontiers” of governance work by the Bank?
2. Balance - Where capacity development for core agencies is part of the proposal, is it
balanced by support for demand-side governance?
3. Focus – Are the proposed GAC-related activities well specified and focused on key entry
points and interventions?
4. Country level engagement – Will the proposal contribute to the Bank’s sector
operations at country level? For multi-country or regional proposals, is there evidence of
robust, in-country work that meets the demands / requests from country level Bank
operations? In countries that lack effective demand for better governance: will the
proposed work help to build ownership/demand? Will the proposed activities help in
developing country assistance strategies and can this activity be a building block for a
CGAC strategy?
5. Results – Are the results clearly stated, tangible, and achievable given the political
economy realities in beneficiary countries, and are they grounded in the Bank’s
operational products? Is there a clear plan for monitoring and reporting on the results?
43
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
6. Additionality – How will the GPF supported GAC-related activities leverage existing Bank
supported initiatives / projects? Is funding for these activities available?
7. Knowledge & Learning – Are there opportunities to create synergies with other country
programs / sectors / networks?
8. Budget – Is there evidence that the proposal leverages other funds – Bank or otherwise?
Is the proposed budget reasonable and within sensible parameters for funding available
in Window 2 of the GPF? The SRC may agree to set budget ceilings for allocations to
activities in Window 2.
Additional consideration will be given to proposals developed jointly by the Bank and Donor
Partners and that propose activities that will be closely coordinated with the Donor Partners in
country.
3.3
Window 3
Window Three will support a learning, knowledge management and impact assessment
program that will be implemented as part of the GAC Implementation Plan. In cases where
there is thematic overlap with notably Window 2, the Secretariat will provide guidance to
teams as to the appropriate Window for submission. Generally, Window 2 will emphasize
activities with direct country level impacts, whereas the results emphasis in Window 3 will be
on global learning. Teams cannot submit similar proposals at the same time to multiple
windows.
Window 3 envisions support for GAC related learning, knowledge management, tool
kits, and monitoring and evaluation (M&E)/results measurement of GAC activities. Window 3 is
intended to be more than a source of financing for a next generation of GAC knowledge. An
important aim is to help build an operationally-useful, functional knowledge platform where:
i.
development practitioners can reliably expect to find operationally useful material, sorted
for quality;
ii.
operationally important gaps are being addressed; and
iii.
there exists the possibility of making knowledge and community of practice linkages
across hitherto disconnected thematic and regional stovepipes.
The knowledge work will highlight the nexus between governance and development with
specific attention to (i) the linkages between governance and growth in specific country
circumstances; (ii) sequencing -and (iii) design -- how to adapt the approach to cross-cutting
public sector capacity and accountability initiatives to specific country circumstances. Activities
may be global in nature, and/or strategically incorporate initiatives and opportunities and the
regional and country level. Anticipated activities/products to be funded under this window
include (i) summary and synthesis of operational ‘good practices’, (ii) thematic syntheses, (iii)
44
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
quantitative, micro-level research on the development impact of governance interventions,
including support for the development of actionable governance indicators; (iv) micro-level
research on sequences of change, (v) comparative country-level studies, and (vi) the impact
within developing countries of new global governance dynamics (e.g., Extractive Industries
Transparency Initiative; UN Convention Against Corruption).
Eligibility Criteria for Window 3
The following will be the criteria for decision-making as to which proposals will receive GPF
Window 3 support:
 Content areas: Proposals submitted for Window 3 financing should have as their
principal purpose the development of operational knowledge:
o proposals from communities of practice should detail the specific operational
examples, good practice notes and syntheses they plan to develop;
o research proposals should lay out clearly the specific methodologies they plan to
use, and the micro-level hypotheses they plan to explore.
 Proposals that are directly responsive to country-level operational concerns and
ongoing dialogue will receive added consideration;
 Proposals that address governance concerns in fragile state settings will receive added
consideration;
 Proposals that include structured narratives of good practices, both as value adding in
them, and as building blocks for comparative assessment, will receive added
consideration;
 Proposals should describe (and budget) how they will link knowledge development to
efforts to build a community of practice, including:
o Plans for making relevant knowledge available in user-friendly, web-based
format;
o Plans for linking knowledge efforts to the development of a thematic community
of practice;
o Workshops and other face-to-face networking efforts (but resources for these
efforts should not exceed one-third of the total budget – and proposals should
explicitly seek to incorporate face-to-face networking into workshops etc already
programmed for some other purpose, which could benefit from enhanced
attention to related governance issues ).
 Proposals that explicitly build linkages between communities of practice within the
WBG, and related communities in partner organizations.
 Proposals that are implemented in ways that build developing country research capacity
– preferably in twinning arrangements with existing governance research networks –
will receive some added consideration.
 All proposals will receive equal consideration based on standard GPF criteria, including:
o All proposals should submit a results-based budget in a range to be determined
by the SRC based on available resources in a particular selection round.
45
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
o The application process should be initiated with a 1-2 page concept note for
feedback from the GPF Secretariat as to whether the proposed idea fits with GPF
Window 3 criteria.
o As with Window 1 and 2, a similar 2-stage procedure will be used to select
Window 3 proposals.
o The process of deciding among eligible proposals will be a competitive one – and
quality will be the dominant criterion for deciding which to support.
3.4
Window 4
Window 4 will be divided in three sub Windows, each with separate selection procedures.
Sub-Window 4.1 is focused on Programmatic PFM Policy Research and Data Generation.
The Window will deliver a program of work to advance global understanding, knowledge and
learning on PFM reform and PFM applications through data, research and the development of
tools for practitioners. The activities will seek to emphasize PFM for sector outcomes and
effective budget execution, as well as PFM challenges and effective institution building
strategies for particular country contexts (including fragile, resource-rich, and small
economies). The resource allocations will be approved as part of an overarching PFM
Business Plan by the World Bank’s Public Sector and Governance (PRMPS) growth. The
business plan will clearly present the additionality of GPF Window 4 resources to the units
overall thematic PFM work, including notably Bank-budget and other existing resources (e.g.,
Korea, EFOs).
Sub-Window 4.2 will support Demand Based PFM Activities. Similar to the procedure for
Window 2 above, a Bank wide call for Expressions of Interest (EOIs) will invite staff to
nominate activities in this Sub-Window. Activities will be selected on a competitive basis,
based on the quality of the proposal and the innovative aspects of the proposals. The EOI will
be based on a 1-2 page selection criteria emphasizing (i) alignment to the themes/issues set
out (ii) joint proposal by GPF partners, notably in country programs, and (iii) promoting either
innovation in diagnostic instruments and/or operational advice/support to country programs.
It is expected that the ensuing portfolio of activities will include largely activities of relatively
short duration (spanning a maximum of 2 FY), having discreet objectives and deliverables, and
contributing to the overall results objectives of Window 4.
Sub-Window 4.3 will support Peer to Peer Learning among Development Practitioners in
PFM. The primary role of this sub-window will be to offer strategic and high-quality inputs to
the Community of PFM practitioners within and outside the Bank, with an emphasis on the
Development Partners engaged in Window 4. Examples include providing resource-persons,
targeted event organization, virtual web spaces (e.g., using the Bank’s new E-Teams platform).
Activities in the Window will seek to leverage other existing global events and partner
activities (e.g., CAPE, thematic country events, and advisors meetings). The initial resource
allocation for this Sub Window will be limited. Therefore Sub-Window 4.3 will be managed as
a single project by the same Bank Task Manager responsible for Sub Window 4.1, based on a
work program to be approved by the SRC.
46
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
ANNEX 4: GENERAL CONDITIONS FOR ESTABLISHING AND MANAGING A GPF DISBURSING TRUST
FUND
1. Accreditation: The Task Team Leader (TTL) must be TF accredited [system check takes place
when GFR is submitted through the work stream].
2. P Number: An active P number managed by the same TTL submitting the GFR is required for a
GPF Child Trust Fund (ChTF)
3. Replenishment and CashFlow: – At least 80% of the last installment will need to have been
disbursed and/or committed before replenishment can take place. Installment can be
advanced or changed based on adequate justification.
4. Grant Closing Dates – Child TF closing dates should be set to either April 30 or October 31 (to
avoid end of FY/CY bunching) but no later than October 31, 2013. All Child TF activities should
be completed by this date. All sub-Windows will need to conclude activities and reporting to
the Secretariat no later than April 30, 2014.
5. Extensions – Up to 2 extensions of up to 6 months each can be given, over the lifetime of the
Child TF. No extensions beyond the dates beyond those mentioned in condition 4 above.
Extensions are granted by the GPF Window or Program Manager based on adequate
justification and satisfactory implementation status.
6. End Disbursement Dates – For BE trust fund, this is automatically set at four months after
grant closing dates. For RE trust fund, this is set at 6 months after grant closing dates. This
period is provided to complete SES or invoice payments against work completed by closing
date, review and validate expenses charged to the Child TF, close out any open commitments
with no pending payments, etc.
7. Claw Back– At least 25% of funds must have been committed (i.e. contracted) 6 months from
the time that funds have been transferred to the Child TF. The Secretariat has the right to
reclaim these funds and to return to the GPF Parent Trust Fund in case this requirement is not
achieved.
8. Grant Reporting and Monitoring (GRM) – An annual progress report for the period May 1 to
April 30 is due using the GRM system on May 31. If a VPU does not achieve 100% compliance
with the GRM reporting requirements, the delinquent Child TF will not be replenished and the
VPU will not be allowed to submit new proposals the next time a call for proposal is done by
the GPF Secretariat.
9. Change of TTL – When a TTL moves to another unit, the Child TF will normally not follow the
TTL to this new unit. A new TTL must be appointed promptly and duly updated in SAP (see
interim LOR requirement below). Delay in appointing a new TTL may cause the Claw Back
clause to be applied.
10. Completion Report – The Completion Report must be submitted to the GPF Secretariat within
3 months after the closing of the Child TF. Completion reports must document actual
achievements, indicating outputs and dissemination strategy.
47
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
11. IRIS filing – TTLs must submit copies of all GPF documentation and correspondence to
archiving in IRIS, in accordance with the Bank’s document retention policy.
12. Letters of Representation [LOR] – LORs must be submitted prior to the institutional deadline
(normally June 30) to allow for the GPF TTL to submit the LOR for the parent TF. Previous TTL
should issue an interim LOR before the new TTL is accepted. A handover note must be
provided by the outgoing TTL to the incoming TTL.
13. Recipient Executed Child TFs – All standard procedures for RETF apply, including compliance
with fiduciary safeguards and supervision responsibilities of the TTLs. It is the TTLs
responsibility that supervision activities are adequately budgeted. The GPF Secretariat has
set a maximum of 10% of the Grant Amount as cost of supervision of a GPF funded RETF. Any
amount over the maximum will be shouldered by the managing unit.
14. Transfer Schedule. Transfer schedule must be filled out in the GFR and should reflect
expected disbursements and commitments for the period to ensure funds are available from
the Child Trust Fund at the time of contracting.
15. Administrative Fees for Bank-Executed Child TFs. The GPF parent TF has a customized fee,
therefore, no separate fees will be paid to the VPUs. As allowable expenses include several
categories including Staff time, any staff time associated with administration and
management of the Child TF is included in the approved GPF allocation.
16. Allowed Expenses. The GPF program can fund only the following expense categories: (a)
Associated Overhead; (b) Consultant Fees; (c) Contractual Services; (d) Extended Term
Consultants; (e) Media & Workshop Costs; (f) Staff Costs; (g) Temp Costs; and (h) Travel
Expenses.
17. Field Based Benefits is not eligible for GPF funding. Task Managers who are planning to hire
staff to be funded by the GPF TF should keep this in mind at the planning stage. For the
definition/details of each expense category please go to the Trust Funds site and look for
Trust Fund Restriction Table.
18. “Grant” is not an eligible expense for a GPF BETF. This expense category has recently been
disallowed in the Bank. Alternative mechanism can be developed in consultation with the
GPF Secretariat.
19. Sub-Window: For projects with multiple components to be managed by different TTLs from
different VPUs, the establishment of a Sub-window can be considered. This will then serve as
pass through for funds to be channeled to different components which will be established as
Child TFs. The TTL of the Sub-window will be responsible for all activities, fund flows and
reporting of all Child TFs under the sub-window.
20. Bank Procedures and Guidelines. All GPF ChTFs are governed by the Bank’s Procurement,
Administrative, and other relevant Bank policies and guidelines.
48
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
ANNEX 5: SUPPLEMENTARY FUNDING TO ACTIVITIES FUNDED BY GOVERNANCE PARTNERSHIP
FACILITY (GPF)
Background
The purpose of this note is to provide guidance on the procedure to expand engagement in the
GPF by current and new development partners and to facilitate financial contributions to GPF
activities.
The overall objective of additional funding is to support the GPFs objectives and to strengthen
GPF projects. Any additional funding should not harm the integrity of the GPF and not
undermine the selection process and selection decisions of the Standing Review Committee
(SRC) of the GPF. Additional funding should also not lead to stand-alone projects that do not
contribute to the overall strategic objectives of GAC implementation or the objectives of the
Partners. In contrast, additional funding should leverage GPF projects in a manner similar to
GPF funding, by bringing additionality to Bank operations. In that context, additional support
can contribute to donor harmonization, to limitation of the proliferation of Bank-managed Trust
Funds and to lower transaction costs. Additional contributions –from new or current partners –
need to comply with standard World Bank regulations for Multi Donor Trust Funds.
Additional support by the founding GPF partners
The procedure for additional support by DFID, the Netherlands and Norway as the founding
partners of the GPF is relatively straightforward. In most cases, additional support to ongoing
GPF projects comes from a Donor Partner already present in the country where the GPF activity
is undertaken. In such cases the specific GPF activity will be well aligned with the country
program of the Donor Partner(s). Channelling additional funds through the GPF therefore a
logical solution for increased harmonization and reduction of transaction costs for all. In
principle, the additional support should be targeted at projects that have been selected by the
SRC.
The procedure for additional financial support to ongoing GPF activities from current GPF
partners is:


The Donor Partner and the GPF Task Manager agree on a program that expands the
ongoing GPF project (e.g. by increasing the number of activities or the scope of the
intervention) and they agree on a revised budget, based on the intended additional
contribution.
The Task Manager submits the revised program with detailed budget, and a transfer and
disbursement schedule to the GPF Secretariat for submission to the SRC.
49
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012



The SRC approves the revised program. It is vital that all Donor Partners represented on
the SRC agree with the expanded proposal, to avoid the issue of earmarking by a single
donor in the MDTF.
The AA with the Donor Partner(s) that provide additional funds is amended to reflect
the increased contribution of the Partner(s). Additional funding should not extend
beyond the closing date of the GPF in FY 2014.
The GPF Secretariat transfers additional funds to the GPF project, in line with the
revised program.
GOVERNANCE PARTNERSHIP FACILITY 2
This procedure has been agreed with the Donor Partners and the relevant Departments in the
World Bank. It maintains the integrity of the GPF’s collaborative management structure and
selection process and it avoids creation of additional TFs. It also ensures that GPF projects are
embedded in partnerships in country programs.
Contributions by new GPF Partners
Additional support by new Partners can be provided at two levels.
1. Full Partnership The GPF Program Document includes the requirement that new partners
contribute a minimum of $10 million to become a full partner. This threshold is meant to avoid
revision of the management arrangements of the GPF, without a significant addition to the
Partnership. In case a new full partner is added, this partner will in principle join the GPC and
the SRC of the GPF. In case the number of Partners becomes too large, the existing Partners and
the World Bank will jointly decide how to alter the management arrangements and
membership of GPC and SRC.
2. Limited partnerships New partners may wish to contribute less than $10 million to the GPF.
Such contributions can be limited to certain regions or thematic areas and they can be aimed at
multiple projects or single projects. In order to maintain the integrity of the GPF objectives and
selection process, limited partnership contributions will in principle be only received for GPF
projects that have been selected by the SRC, unless the SRC approves an additional GPF activity
funded by a new Donor Partner.
The procedure for this type of partnership is as follows:



The new partner and the GPF Task Manager agree on a program and budget for an
expanded GPF project.
The Task Manager will submit the revised GPF program and budget to the Secretariat.
The GPF Secretariat will inform the SRC about the revised GFR.
50
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012



In case the contribution of the new donor is less than $1 million, the GPF Secretariat will
facilitate the establishment of an agreement for an Externally Financed Output (EFO)
with the new Donor Partner1. The new donor partner has the option to channel the EFO
through the GPF MDTF or to elect to provide funds directly to the unit of the GPF Task
Manager. In case the latter option is selected the funds will not be included in or pass
through the GPF MDTF.
In case the contribution of the new donor is more than $1 million (but less than $10
million) the new Donor can choose to channel funds through the MDTF, or to establish a
separate co-financing Trust Fund. If the contribution is for a single GPF activity, the TF
may be established by the Unit of the GPF Task Manager of the existing GPF activity. If
the co-funding TF provides funds to several existing GPF projects this TF will be
administered by the GPF Secretariat.
The GPF Secretariat will report all additional funding received to the GPC. All current
and new Donor Partners will receive the same GPF financial, auditing and progress
reports.
51
ANNEX 6: RESULTS FRAMEWORK FOR THE GPF
GOAL: Strengthened and better resourced actions by the World Bank in partnership with contributing donors to
promote GAC reforms that benefit the poor.
Indicator 1
Number or % WB country level strategies sensitive to governance
Baseline
Target
Milestones
QAG data in FY2009.
M1 (2013)
15% of increases- in Bank
sensitivity to GAC.
GAC responsiveness (Out of 180)
 Governance and PEA: 81 (45%)
 GAC in Fiduciary Aspects: 116 (64%)
 Demand Side of Governance: 76 (42%)
Overall Assessment: 76 (46%)
Baseline Data
QAG report: Attention to GAC in CAS/CPS/ISN
(2009)
# WB country
level strategies
sensitive to
governance
-
Comments from
GPF secretariat


Target Data
QAG report: Attention to GAC
in CAS/CPS/ISN (2013)
The data is
available for
2009 but not
for 2013,
unless QAG
research s
repeated.
Data is not
available every
year.
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
Indicator 2
% of sectors/ regions sensitive to governance
Baseline
Target
QAG data in FY2009.
Sectors: 58%
Regions: 61%
Baseline Data
QAG report: Attention to GAC
in CAS/CPS/ISN (2009)
Milestones
15% of increases- in Bank
sensitivity to GAC.
% of sectors/ regions sensitive Comments from GPF
to governance
secretariat
 The data is available
for 2009 but not for
2013, unless QAG
research s repeated.
 Data is not available
every year.
M1 (2013)
Target Data
QAG report: Attention to GAC in
CAS/CPS/ISN (2013)
Indicator 3
Level of core World Bank funding for governance activities
Baseline
Target
Milestones
a) GPF
Disbursement
for 18 W1
Projects
(in $ million)
b) BB-PSG
Disbursement
of 18 W1
Countries
(in $ million)
c) Non-GPF
Trust Fund (TF)
Disbursement
of 18 W1
Countries
(in $ million)
Comments from GPF secretariat
M1 (2010)
M2 (2011)
$3.3
$5.8
$24
$23
$13
$13
M3 (2012)
-
-
-
M4 (2013)
-
-
-
a) GPF disbursement is the GPF
funds disbursed by Window 1
projects.
b) BB-PSG is the Bank Budget spent
on activities related to Public Sector
Governance for the 18 W1
countries.
c) Non-GPF TF is financing of Public
Sector Governance activities by
trust funds other than the GPF.
(FY 2009
data)
a) $0.4 mln
b) $22 mln
c) $11 mln
FY2009
Baseline Data
SAP and
Business
Warehouse.
WB Core funding for
governance activities in
FY2014 has increased since
base year and stabilized
Target Data
GPF Annual Financial
Report (2013)
53
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
Indicator 4
Number of governance qualified World Bank staff (public sector specialist and governance specialist) in Window 1 countries.
Baseline
Target
Milestones
Numbers of GPF funded Staff
Comments from GPF secretariat
a) 3/6 (33%)
b) 10/18 (55%)
c) 15/18(83%)
3 positions are
consultant,
and 12
positions are
staff.
FY 2011
Baseline Data
GPF Survey
(2011)
100% GPF funded
qualified staff to
undertake
governance activities
in Window 1
countries.
M1
(April 2012)
Target Data
GPF Team Leader
Surveys
( 2013) and GRMs
M2
(April 2013)
a) % of GPF
funded staff
in Window1
FCACs.
b) % of GPFfunded staff in
Window1
countries.
c) % of GPFfunded staff in
Window1
countries
based in field.
-
-
-




-
-
-

World Bank doesn’t create specific
Governance Specialist position.
Standing Review Committee (SRC)
identified 6 out of 18 Window1
countries are FCACs.
Window2 and 3 are more crossregional activities, and it is difficult
to measure number of staff for each
country.
Window 1 teams have very different
profiles – ranging from
anthropologists and communication
specialists to political scientists and
engineers, which perhaps is having a
bearing on the innovative, less
technocratic advice being provided
to these teams and their ability to
work across sectoral boundaries.
These indicators will be changed
after confirmation of leaning plan
GAC update.
54
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
OUTCOME: World Bank addresses global, regional and country-level governance impediments to development
effectiveness.
Indicator 1
% of grants identified deliverables and outcomes resulting from collaboration with donor partners.
Baseline
Target
Milestones
% of grants
14/78 (18%) (FY2011)
15% of increases
M1 (2012)
Baseline Data
Target Data
Grant Reporting and
Grant Reporting and
Monitoring (GRM)
Monitoring (GRM)
M3 (2013)
(2011)
(2013)
-
Indicator 2
Number of Expressions of Interest (EOIs) GPF secretariat received
Baseline
Target
Milestones
88/480 in FY 2009
100% increase of rate
M2 (2011)
Baseline Data
EOIs for W1 to W3
Target Data
EOIs for WXX
M2 (2013)
Number of EOIs( rate)
101
-
Comments from GPF secretariat
 GPF support is enhancing
levels of collaboration
between the World Bank and
donors to develop
partnerships for integrating
governance in country
strategies, projects and in
learning.
Comments from GPF
secretariat
 88 out of 480 proposals
were selected. (for a total
value of $70 million)
 11 out of 101 proposals
were short listed. (for total
value of $1.5 million)
55
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
Window1: High quality country-level governance and anti-corruption strategies (CGACs) developed and
systematically mainstreamed in W1 countries
Indicator 1
Average overall assessment score of W1 countries
Baseline
Target
Milestones
3.4 in FY 2011
M1 (2013)
Baseline Data
Window 1 Review (2011)
Average Overall assessment is more
than 4.0
Target Data
GAC annual progress report (2013)
Assessment
Comments from GPF secretariat


Assessment method is
explained in Window 1
Review Report.
Assessment scores to be
repeated in 2014.
Seven of the 18 programs
were assessed as high. These
include 4.7 for Tajikistan, 4.3
for Mongolia and Uganda,
and 4.0 for Albania,
Cameroon, Nepal, and
Zambia. Four countries were
assessed as low including 2.0
for Liberia, 2.3 for Cambodia,
2.3 for Haiti, and 2.3 for
Sierra Leone. The other seven
programs fell in the middle,
neutral range.
56
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
Indicator 2
Percentage of Window 1 projects rating Highly Satisfactory or Satisfactory on implementation of grant objectives
Baseline
Target
Milestones
Number of projects
No projects operational or
reporting.
Baseline Data
-
At least 80% of GPF projects report
Highly Satisfactory or Satisfactory rating
on likely achievement of grant
objectives
Target Data
Grant Reporting and Monitoring (GRM)
(2013)
M1 (2009)
M2 (2010)
Too few projects
operational
8/12 (66.6%)
M3 (2011)
M4 (2012)
M5 (2013)
13/18 (72.2%)
-
Comments from GPF
secretariat
 Grant Objectives
describe the
intended benefits to
a specific
community/group of
people or
organizations/institu
tional changes that
are to be realized
through one or
more development
interventions.
Indicator 3
Percentage of Window 1 projects rating Highly Satisfactory or Satisfactory on implementation of grant financed activities
Baseline
Target
Milestones
Number of projects
Comments from GPF
secretariat
No projects operational
At least 80% of GPF projects report
M1 (2009)
Too few projects
 Grant
or reporting.
Highly Satisfactory or Satisfactory rating
operational / reporting.
Implementation
on likely achievement of grant financed
M2 (2010)
8/12 (66.6%)
describes financial
activities
situation and
Baseline Data
Target Data
M3 (2011)
11/18 (61.1%)
implementation
activities.
Grant Reporting and Monitoring (GRM)
M4 (2012)
(2013)
M5 (2013)
-
57
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
Window2: Innovative approaches to governance in design and implementation of World Bank approaches developed
Indicator 1
Percentage of Window 2 projects supporting engagement by World Bank in political economy analysis.
Baseline
Target
Milestones
Number of projects
414/33 (12%) FY 2010
Baseline Data
Grant Reporting and
Monitoring (GRM)
(2010)
14
40% increase of projects use PEA
compared to 2010
Target Data
Grant Reporting and Monitoring
(GRM) (2013)
M1 (2012)
15/41 (35%)
M2 (2013)
-
Comments from GPF
secretariat
 Some PEA work has
shifted from country level
to sector level.
 15 W2 Projects delivered
42 PE analysis.
 Political Economy
Analysis has led to
changes in operational
approaches. PEAs identify
governance constraints
that present risks for
ongoing projects and
present
recommendations for
project improvements.
Uganda, Sierra Leone, Kenya, and Tajikistan
58
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
Indicator 2
Percentage of Window 2 projects supporting engagement by World Bank in demand for good governance (DFGG) 15 and social
accountability.
Baseline
Target
Milestones
Number of projects
Comments from GPF
secretariat
16/41 (39%) in FY2011
15% increase of projects use DFGG
M1 (2012)
 35 of the 78 grants
compared to 2011.
reviewed identified DFGG
related outputs (W1-W3)
Baseline Data Source
Target Data Source
M2 (2013)
FY2011
Grant Reporting and
Grant Reporting and Monitoring
 The involvement of civil
Monitoring (GRM)
(GRM) (2013)
society in monitoring of
(2011)
the government's anticorruption action plan and
strengthening civil
coalitions has improved
transparency in budget
management.
 In the Africa region, the
GAC in projects team has
used DFGG as entry point
for developing a strong
work plan to deepen
sector reform.
15
DFGG refers to the ability of citizens, civil society organizations and other non state actors to hold the state accountable and make it responsive to their needs.
59
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
Indicator 3
Percentage of Window 2 projects supporting the World Bank’s engagement with non-executive institutions (Judiciary, Legislature)
Baseline
Target
Milestones
Number of projects
Comments from GPF
secretariat
12/33 (36%) in FY2010
20% increase of involvement of
M1 (2011)
14/41 (34%)
 This is about projects
non-executive actors projects
funded by GPF that work
with non-executive
Baseline Data
Target Data
M2 (2012)
actors and other
Grant Reporting and
GAC annual progress report (2013)
engagements with non
Monitoring (GRM) (2010)
M3 (2013)
executive.
 The GPF grants
supported: capacity
building for better
public expenditure
monitoring,
development of results
indicators to gauge
performance of nonexecutive actors and
legal and regulatory
oversight to promote
transparency and
accountability.
60
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
Indicator 4
Percentage of Window 2 projects rating Highly Satisfactory or Satisfactory on implementation of grant objectives
Baseline
Target
Milestones Number of projects
Comments from GPF
secretariat
No projects
At least 80% of GPF projects report Highly M1 (2009) Too few projects
 Grant Objectives
operational or
Satisfactory or Satisfactory rating on likely
operational/reporting.
describe the
reporting.
achievement of grant objectives
M2 (2010)
21/33 (63.6%)
intended benefits to
a specific
Baseline Data
Target Data
M3 (2011)
27/41 (65.9%)
community/group of
Grant Reporting and Monitoring (GRM)
M4 (2012)
people or
(2013)
M5 (2013)
organizations/institu
tional changes that
are to be realized
through one or
more development
interventions.
Indicator 5
Percentage of Window 2 projects rating Highly Satisfactory or Satisfactory on implementation of grant financed activities
Baseline
Target
Milestones Number of Projects
Comments from GPF
secretariat
No projects
At least 80% of GPF projects report Highly M1 (2009) Too few projects
 Grant
operational or
Satisfactory or Satisfactory rating on likely
operational/reporting.
Implementation
reporting.
achievement of grant financed activities
M2 (2010)
18/33 (54.5%)
describes
financial situation
Baseline Data
Target Data
M3 (2011)
27/41 (65.9%)
and
Grant Reporting and Monitoring (GRM)
M4 (2012)
implementation
(2013)
M5 (2013)
activities.
61
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
Window3: World Bank and Partners have access to knowledge and learning on governance and anti-corruption
Indicator 1
Number of hits of Governance and Anti-Corruption World Bank external portal sites
Baseline
Target
Milestones
Extranet will be launched at 100,000 hits per page
the end of 2011.
Baseline Data
Target Data
Grant Reporting and Monitoring
(GRM) (2013)
Hits per page
M1 (2012)
50,000
M2 (2013)
100,000




16
Comments from GPF
secretariat
Omniture16 has been
introduced since 2011.
In 2010, only total
number of hits is
available. (19,3907)
M2 and M3 are
milestones
The extranet will be
available by the end of
2011.
Online marketing and web analytic tool.
62
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
Indicator 2
Number of World Bank governance related Communities of Practices (CoP)
Baseline
Target
Milestones
Number of CoPs
617 GAC related CoPs
At least 15 CoPs
Baseline Data
Target Data
anecdotal inputs from COPs anecdotal inputs from COPs/surveys
13
-
M1 (2010)
M2 (2012)
M3 (2013)
Comments from GPF
secretariat
 Number of CoPs does not
grow annually.
 Survey will be conducted.
 Communities of Practice
have been instrumental in
validating knowledge and
innovations for
mainstreaming GAC in
sectors.
Indicator 3
Percentage of Window 3 projects rating Highly Satisfactory or Satisfactory on implementation of grant objectives
Baseline
Target
Milestones Number of projects
Comments from GPF
secretariat
No projects operational
At least 80% of GPF projects report
M1 (2009) Too few projects
 Grant Objectives
or reporting.
Highly Satisfactory or Satisfactory
operational / reporting.
describe the intended
rating on likely achievement of
M2 (2010)
10/11 (90.9%)
benefits to a specific
grant objectives
community/group of
Baseline Data
Target Data
M3 (2011)
18/19 (94.7%)
people or
organizations/institutio
Grant Reporting and Monitoring
M4 (2012)
nal changes that are to
(GRM) (2013)
M5 (2013)
be realized through
one or more
development
interventions.
17
Anticorruption, Public Finance, Decentralization, Demand for Good Governance, Administrative Service Reform, and Law and Justice Institutions.
63
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
Indicator 4
Percentage of Window 3 projects rating Highly Satisfactory or Satisfactory on implementation of grant financed activities
Baseline
Target
Milestones
Number of projects
Comments
from GPF
secretariat
No projects operational or At least 80% of GPF projects report
M1 (2009)
Too few projects operational /  Grant
reporting.
Highly Satisfactory or Satisfactory rating
reporting.
Implementa
on likely achievement of grant financed M2 (2010)
10/11 (90.9%)
tion
activities.
describes
Baseline Data
Target Data
M3 (2011)
16/19 (84.2%)
financial
situation
Grant Reporting and Monitoring (GRM) M4 (2012)
and
(2013)
M5 (2013)
implementa
tion
activities.
64
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
Window 4: Innovative approaches to governance in design and implementation of World Bank approaches
developed in the field of Public Sector Management (PSM)
Indicator 1
Percent/Number of Bank staff, partners, and government officials have access to knowledge and learning, and cross-country data. )
Baseline
Target
Milestones Number of projects
Comments from GPF
secretariat
M1 (2012)
 This answer will be
Baseline Data
Target Data
M2 (2013)
collected by GRM
program specific
questions (What type of
governance-related
analytical work has been
undertaken by your
project over the past
year;
how was it disseminated
and; how has this work
produced been used by
development
practitioners within and
outside the Bank?)
65
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
Indicator 2
Number of PFM peer to peer learning activities (internal/external)
Baseline
Target
Milestones
9 on-going World Bank PFM 20 % increase in number of activities.
K&L (2011)
Baseline Data
Target Data
-
M1 (2012)
-
M2 (2013)
-
Indicator 3
Number of W4 projects rating Satisfactory on achievement of grant objectives
Baseline
Target
No projects operational or
reporting (2011).
Baseline Data
-
Number of activities
At least 80% of GPF projects report Highly
Satisfactory or Satisfactory rating on likely
achievement of grant objectives
Target Date
Grant Results Monitoring Report (GRM) (2013)

Milestones
# of projects
M1 (2012)
-
M2 (2013)
-
Comments from GPF
secretariat
9 on-going World Bank
PFM k&L activities18
were discussed during
the Jakarta workshop.
Comments from GPF
secretariat
 Grant Objectives
describe the intended
benefits to a specific
community/group of
people or
organizations/instituti
onal changes that are
to be realized through
one or more
development
interventions.
18
Medium Term Expenditure Frameworks, PFM for sectors/service delivery, Intergovernmental fiscal relations/fiscal decentralization, PFM for Resource Rich Settings,
Public Investment (PIM), Central Finance Agencies(CFAs), IFMIS, Sub-National Finance, Tax Policy and tax administration, State Owned Enterprises (SOEs), Political Economy
for Aid Effectiveness in PFM.
66
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
Indicator 4
Number of W4 projects rating Satisfactory on achievement of grant objectives
Baseline
Target
Milestones
No projects operational or
reporting (2011).
Baseline Data
-
At least 80% of GPF projects report Highly
Satisfactory or Satisfactory rating on likely
achievement of grant financed activities.
Target Date
Grant Reporting and Monitoring (GRM) (2013)
# of projects
M1 (2012)
-
M2 (2013)
-
Comments from GPF
secretariat
 Grant Implementation
describes financial
situation and
implementation
activities.
67
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
GPF secretariat: Strengthen partnership and management in the GPF
Indicator 1
% of surveyed GPF teams/partners agreed that events/learning helped strengthen partnerships at the country level.
Baseline
Target
Milestones
% of survey results
Comments from GPF
secretariat
No survey in FY2011
80% of surveyed audience
M1 (2012)
agreed
Baseline Data
Target Data
M2 (2013)
Survey
Indicator 2
Numbers of World Bank countries with GPF funded activities -receiving supplemental funding from partners
Baseline
Target
Milestones
Countries
No country in June 2008
Baseline Data
Grant Reporting and
Monitoring GRM (2010)
At least 10 countries in
partnerships in countries with GPF
activities (i.e. projects receive
additional funding from DPs).
Target Data
Grant Reporting and Monitoring
(GRM) (2010-2013)
M1 (2009)
M2 (2010)
1 (Kyrgyz)
2 (M1 +Tajikistan)

M3 (2011)
M4 (2012)
M5 (2013)
3 (M2+ Nigeria)
-

Comments from GPF
secretariat
Excludes other forms of
partnership and
collaboration that are
difficult to measure.
The successful use of GPF
funding to pilot innovations
in governance has
attracted interest and
funding support from
donors.
68
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
Indicator 3
Number of events /learning courses GPF secretariat organized
Baseline
FY 2010 (1 event)
Target
At least 15 events in GPF
sponsored governance learning
events
Source of Data
GAC annual progress
reports (2010-13)
Target Data
Milestones
M1 (2011)
Number of participants in
GPF sponsored learning
events
9 events
M2 (2012)
M3 (2013)
-
Comments from GPF secretariat
Indicator 4
% of required projects submit GRM
Baseline
56/56 FY2010
Source of Data
-
19
Target
Milestones
100% of required projects
submit GRM
M1 (2011)
Number of GRMs / projects
required to submit GRMs
88/89 projects
Target Data
Grant Reporting and Monitoring
(2013)
M2 (2012)
M3 (2013)
-
Comments from GPF
secretariat
19
Grant Reporting and Monitoring (GRM) – An annual progress report for the period May 1 to April 30 is due using the GRM system on May 31. If a VPU does not achieve
100% compliance with the GRM reporting requirements, the delinquent Child TF will not be replenished and the VPU will not be allowed to submit new proposals the next
time a call for proposal is done by the GPF Secretariat. Please see page 41.
69
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
Indicator 5
Number of GRMs rolled back due to insufficient reporting
Baseline
Target
7/89 GRMS rolled back
(as of 10/27/2011)
Baseline Data
-
Milestones
Number of GRMs
M1 (2012)
-
Target Data
M2 (2013)
GAC annual progress report (2013)
-
Less than 5 roll back rate

Indicator 6
Percentage of funds disbursed or committed compared to funds received or transferred to Child Trust Fund
Baseline
Target
Milestones Burn rate of GPF program budget
66% (FY2010)
On average across all activated GPF
projects 80% of funds used within
6 months after transfer to Child TF.
M1 (2011)
74%
Source of Data
Bank’s TF reporting
system
Target Data
GAC annual progress report (2013)
M2 (2012)
M3 (2013)
-
Comments from GPF
secretariat
Roll-back: Because of
insufficient data or
contents, GRM is
rejected by GPF
secretariat. (will be
resubmitted after
revision.)
Comments from GPF
secretariat
 Child Trust Fund: This
is also referred to as
disbursing grants,
while the Multi
Donor Trust Fund
(MTDF) is also
referred to as main
or parent fund.
70
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
ACTIVITIES (Window1): 18 Projects
At least 18 Window 1projects delivered and completed in support of mainstreamed in selected countries as a result of additional resourcing
and stronger partnerships.
Activity 1.1
M1
Round 1 and 2 (R1 & R2) selection processes completed, and 11 projects formally established by June 2009
M2
R1 & R2 projects fully mobilized, working towards specified results and have delivered first annual reports, June 2010
M3
Round 3 selection process completed and 6 projects formally established by June 2010
M4
Round 3 projects fully mobilized, working towards specified results and have delivered first annual reports, June 2011
M5-M9 All projects monitored and guidance provided by Secretariat on ensuring optimal results, monitoring report to GPC by October 2010,
2011, 2012, 2013, 2014
M10
Annual monitoring report by Secretariat to GPC, October 2011 -2014.
M11
Window 1 review report by Secretariat to GPC, October 2011
M12
All projects completed, within budget and on schedule, April 2014
Risk
- Project task teams receive insufficient support from management to allow them to provide adequate attention to project priorities
- Task teams unable to recruit qualified personnel to provide expert support to the projects.
- Insufficient capacity in Bank task teams to provide the support necessary for effective implementation.
- Insufficient time provided by GPF for achievement of project results.
71
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
ACTIVITIES (Window2): 41 Projects
At least 41 Window 2 projects delivered and completed, supporting innovation in Bank practice in GAC in non-CGAC countries.
Activity 2.1
M1
Round 1 and 2 (R1 & R2) selection processes completed, and 35 projects formally established by June 2009
M2
35 projects fully mobilized, working towards specified results and 35 have delivered first annual reports, May 2010
M3
Round 3 selection process completed and 11 projects formally established by June 2010
M4
Round 3 projects fully mobilized, working towards specified results and have delivered first annual reports, May 2011
M5-M9 All projects monitored and guidance provided by Secretariat on ensuring optimal results, monitoring report to GPC by October 2010,
2011, 2012, 2013, 2014
M10
Annual monitoring report by Secretariat to GPC, October 2011 -2014.
M11
Window 2 review report by Secretariat to GPC, October 2012
M12
All projects completed, within budget and on schedule, April 2014
Risk
- Project task teams receive insufficient support from management to allow them to provide adequate attention to project priorities
- Task teams unable to recruit qualified personnel to provide expert support to the projects
- CMU environment not receptive to innovations supported by W2 projects.
- Delivery of trust-fund-supported activities is given lower priority than core Bank business, and implementation of W2 & W3 projects is
held back in consequence.
72
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
ACTIVITIES (Window3): 19 Projects
At least 19 Window 3 projects delivered and completed, supporting policy-relevant research and knowledge
Activity 3.1
M1
First selection process completed, and 9 projects formally established by June 2009
M2
First set of projects fully mobilized, working towards specified results and have delivered first annual reports, May 2010
M3
Second selection process completed and 13 projects formally established by June 2010
M4
Second set of projects fully mobilized, working towards specified results and have delivered first annual reports, May 2011
M5-M9 All projects monitored and guidance provided by Secretariat on ensuring optimal results, monitoring report to GPC by October 2010,
2011, 2012, 2013, 2014
M10
Annual monitoring report by Secretariat to GPC, October 2011 -2014.
M11
Window 3 review report by Secretariat to GPC, October 2013
M12
All projects completed, within budget and on schedule, April 2014
Risk
- Project task teams receive insufficient support from management to allow them to provide adequate attention to project priorities
- Insufficient interest across Bank in cross-cutting learning and knowledge management activities supported by W3 projects
- Communities of practice are not perceived as relevant and as adding value by bank staff
- Insufficient Bank resources dedicated to GAC-related learning
- GAC-related knowledge generated is too inwardly-focused on Bank matters and proves to be of little interest to external partners.
73
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
ACTIVITIES (Window4): XX Projects
At least XX Window 4 projects delivered and completed, supporting Public Financial Management (PFM) performance in developing
countries.
Activity 4.1
M1
First selection process will be completed, and XX projects formally established by February 2012
M2
First set of projects will be fully mobilized, working towards specified results and will be delivered first annual reports, May 2013
M3
Second selection process will be completed and XX projects formally established by XXX 2012
M4
Second set of projects fully will be mobilized, working towards specified results and will be delivered first annual reports, May 2013
M5-M7 All projects monitored and guidance provided by Secretariat on ensuring optimal results, monitoring report to GPC by October 2012,
2013, 2014
M8
Annual monitoring report by Secretariat to GPC, October 2012 -2014.
M9
Window 4 review report by Secretariat to GPC, October 2013
M10
All projects completed, within budget and on schedule, April 2014
Risk
- Project task teams receive insufficient support from management to allow them to provide adequate attention to project priorities
- Task teams unable to recruit qualified personnel to provide expert support to the projects
- The Bank changes its strategic focus on PFM
- The support and funding provided through the facility has no impact on PFM/GAC engagement
- The PFM facility will not be able to meet the high expectations of World Bank and donor partners
- The quality of PFM activities funded by the facility does not meet expectations.
74
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
ACTIVITIES (GPF secretariat):
Learning strategy for GPF implemented, and website designed and launched in support of increasing awareness of GPF projects and results
Activity 5.1
Activity 5.2
M1
Strategy developed by GPF Secretariat and approved
Prototype Website being designed by GPF Secretariat, in cooperation with
by GPF partners, January 2009.
GAC Secretariat and was presented to partners for review at GPC meeting
in October 2010.
M2
Strategy implemented from July 2009 (Stage 3-4)
Website design finalized and launched, in connection GAC Knowledge
Window 1 workshop for Bank and partners
Platform, November 2010
implemented in September 2010, to generate crosswww.worldbank.org/governance
country learning on GAC implementation, identify
gaps.
M3
Workplan with emphasis on Knowledge, Learning and The extranet will be available to the donors by the end of 2011. The GPF
Partnerships approved by GPC in Nov 2010. Strategy
secretariat ensures that the extranet (external site) will be implemented
to be reviewed in October 2011, with report to GPC,
smoothly.
and revised as needed.
M4
Revised workplan was approved by GPC in Oct 2011.
Report on website development and usage prepared and delivered to GPC,
October 2012 -14.
Risk
-
Insufficient support from management to facilitate broad support for, and interest in , broad-based knowledge activities
Limited incentives to encourage Bank staff to focus attention on learning across projects, programs and sectors
Communities of practice and other networks are not perceived as relevant and as adding value by bank staff
Insufficient Bank resources dedicated to GAC-related learning
GAC-related knowledge generated is too inwardly-focused on Bank matters and proves to be of little interest to external partners.
75
THIS VERSION: April 9, 2012
GAC RESPONSIVENESS INDICATORS (FROM QAG)
Dimension 1: Governance and Political Economy (GPE) The first dimension (GPE) comprises five
indicators:
• Stakeholder Analysis – the thoroughness of the stakeholder identification and analysis was
evaluated.
• Formal Institutions – the degree to which the PAD reflects a good understanding of the formal
rules of the game was assessed.
• Informal Rules – analysis of the informal rules practiced in public institutions which could affect
project outcomes.
• Risk of Elite Capture – the degree to which the project’s vulnerability to rent-seeking, elite
capture and clientelism was adequately assessed.
• Design Response – appropriateness of project design in light of the political
economy risks identified explicitly or implicitly.
Dimension 2: GAC in Fiduciary Aspects (GFA) The second dimension (GFA) was assessed along four
indicators:
• Risk Identification – the degree to which fraud and corruption (F&C) risks were adequately
assessed.
• Anti-corruption measures – adequacy of fiduciary measures and use of “smart project
approaches” to address F&C risks.
• Sector-wide Institutional Strengthening – extent to which the operation relied on, or engaged in
capacity building of, sector-wide systems rather than a “ring-fenced” approach.
• GAC in Fiduciary Supervision – the degree to which fiduciary supervision
Dimension 3: Demand Side of Governance (DSG) In assessing the third dimension (DSG), panelists
made use of five indicators. While not all operations lent themselves to being assessed on each
individual indicator, all operations displayed responsiveness to at least some of the indicators
below:
• Transparency – the degree to which plans were in place to make project documents publicly
available.
• Beneficiary Participation – existence of formal mechanisms through which beneficiaries could
voice their preferences in design and affect implementation.
• Grievance mechanisms – existence and robustness of mechanisms for grievance redress for those
affected by or involved in the project.
• Third Party Monitoring – adequacy of measures for third party monitoring of project processes
during project implementation.
• Independent Verification – use of survey instruments for independent verification of outcomes
such as access to, and quality of services provided by the project.
76