4.  The Bank Evaluation System and Activities

A. The Evaluation System

4.1 This Chapter provides the annual report on the status of the Bank's Evaluation System (BES). It also outlines the activities of the Evaluation Office (), which have not been covered in the previous chapters. In summary, the status of the BES reveals that there is greater emphasis given to real time evaluation. Major improvement have been accomplished in setting ex-ante benchmarks and "retrofitting" projects objectives. For the first time, the portfolio assessment of 1997 covers all projects under execution. Compliance to complete Project Performance Reviews (PCRs) needs to be strengthened. No Borrower Ex-Post Report (BEP) was received in 1997. The Board of Executive Directors reviewed two Country Program Evaluations, a new product submitted by in 1997. also presented for review the evaluation of the Regional Technical Cooperation Program. Sectoral and thematic evaluations were also submitted.

4.2 Three years ago, the Board of Executive Directors approved the regulations which provide direction for the implementation of the Bank Evaluation System. These regulations specify the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders in evaluation. They outline among others: the programming of evaluation work, the conduct of evaluation activities, the processing of the reports, feedback and dissemination mechanisms. The Bank's Evaluation System (BES) aims at using evaluation functions as a systemic tool for institutional learning and as an instrument for assessing the effectiveness of Bank funded activities. The BES involves the participation of four main stakeholders: the Borrowers, Bank Management, the Evaluation Office and the Board of Executive Directors. Each stakeholder plays a unique role as contributor to the system. The success of the system hinges on this contribution and on the participation of the stakeholders in their respective roles.

4.3 The Bank Evaluation System covers all phases of Bank operations in a methodologically consistent fashion. The BES supports the four levels of administration within the Bank; which are the project or activity level, the thematic or country program level, the strategic and policy levels.

4.4 At the activity level, the BES begins with the identification of ex-ante benchmarks during the formulation of the project, continues with result oriented performance monitoring during project execution, and ends after project completion with an assessment of results achieved and the developmental impact. It is the responsibility of Borrowers and Bank Project Teams to establish project benchmarks at the project design stage and to maintain an open dialogue to ensure cooperation and collaboration during project implementation. For the past four years, Bank Management assisted by Country Offices, has produced annual portfolio assessments with increasing coverage of on-going operations. There is also a growing trend to include mid-term evaluations during project execution, with no systematic pattern as to who is accountable for their conduct.

4.5 Most of project ex-post evaluation work fall under the responsibility of Borrowers and Bank Management. The Borrower Ex-Post Evaluations (BEP) was in the past a contractual obligation in every loan. As of 1993, Bank Management decided to make them facultative. A recent trend consists of identifying in loan operations, the intention for an ex-post evaluation. As in the case of mid-term evaluation, there is no systematic pattern as to who is accountable for the conduct of ex-post evaluation. This new trend is, de facto, superseding the BEP system. In addition, the Country Office is required to prepare a Project Completion Report (PCR) within three months after the final disbursement of a loan. Moreover, the Evaluation Office conducts Project Performance Reviews (PPRs). 's selection of PPRs to be conducted is based on a sampling of project evaluations undertaken in the context of thematic evaluations. In addition, together with the Regional Operations Depar-tments and Country Offices, has participated in task forces to improve the Project Performance Review Form used in the Bank's portfolio management exercise, as well as the new guidelines for the Project Completion Reports.

4.6 At the program level, Headquarters staff, together with Country Office and Borrowers provide feedback on country program performance. They prepare the Country Papers (CPs) which define the parameters of the country strategy and portfolio. CPs are submitted to the Board of Executive Directors. Also, the Evaluation Office has completed two Country Programs Evaluations (CPEs). This new product being piloted, provides feedback on the coherence of the country strategy with Bank policies and with the existing project portfolio. CPEs summarize as well the views of client groups to enable improvement in Bank delivery of services. In 1997, CPEs for the Dominican Republic and for Ecuador were reviewed by the Board of Executive Directors. has also conducted an evaluation of a thematic program, the Regional Technical Cooperation Program.

4.7 At the policy and strategy levels, with the support of Bank Management, the Board of Executive Directors is developing the cadre of policies which will provide Bank staff with policy direction for the implementation of the Eighth Replenishment strategic objectives. Central department conduct thematic reviews and distill good practices and the Evaluation Office conducts thematic and policy evaluation such as the one on Women in Development, Social Investment Funds and Science & Technology.

4.8 The success of the Bank evaluation system is much dependent on the dissemination and use of evaluation information such as lessons learned and methodologies. Management and the Evaluation Office have their respective responsibilities for this purpose. 's contribution has been to make available copies of its reports and disseminate them to stakeholders. In 1997, electronic information systems were updated to provide, on the INTERNET, the disclosure of evaluation results according to Bank policy. has also created an INTRANET site to provide to Bank staff access to the full text of all its evaluation reports. In addition, staff has organized workshops and conference to share results of evaluation studies, and has participated in conferences organized within and outside the Bank Management. REG1/RSS has undertaken to create an electronic inventory of the Project Completion Reports which will be available on the INTRANET to Bank staff.. For the present time, keeps in its library a copy of the PCRs that it has received and makes them available to stakeholders. The collection goes back many years.

4.9 is not privy to the work of the committees of Management. Hence, in terms of ensuring the use of evaluation information for decision making and improvement of project/program design, the main responsibility rest with the Office of the Controller. Country Offices and Borrowers ensure the application of evaluation lessons learned to the design and monitoring of programs and projects. All stakeholders contribute to the different stages of the project cycle, coordination among them, and the unobstructed flow of information between all are vital to the success of the BES. The goal of the system is to draw on the evaluation experience of borrowers, non-borrowing countries and Bank's own operations, incorporate the lessons learned for the improvement of ongoing activities.

4.10 During 1997, with the support of the Operational Departments, continued promoting and supporting In-Country Capacity Building in Evaluation. facilitated cooperation in evaluation activities with other development agencies. Responding to requests from Bank departments, continued its training activities in the logical framework methodology and provided technical support to Country Office staff, in many instances retrofit any project. REG1/RSS has also provided coaching to project team and country office staff.

1. Review of Evaluation Reports

4.11 A unique feature of the Bank Evaluation System is that submits drafts of its evaluation reports to different committees of the Bank before finalizing the document and formally submit it to the Board of Executive Directors. There are three levels of review. The first is the ad hoc advisory committee which is formed for each evaluation study. The Advisory Committee provides technical support to the evaluator. It brings together peers from Bank staff and specialists from outside the Bank. The second level of review is the Evaluation Coordinators Group chaired by the Director of , which enable departmental representatives to comment the draft report. Finally, the draft report is submitted simultaneously for consideration by Management's Audit and Evaluation Committee and by the Board Matters and Evaluation Committee of the Board of Executive Directors.

4.12 The members of the Evaluation Coordinators Group are named by Managers and Office Heads to represent the views of their units. ECG is a consultative committee. It is a working level group dealing with evaluation matters and assists in its support role to Management in activities such as the preparation of the annual work plan, reporting on evaluation results, dissemination, development of norms and methodologies etc. Representatives of offices of Executive Directors are invited to participate in meetings when the subject matter under discussion concerns a country in their constituency.

4.13 In 1997, the ECG met 25 times between February 4 and December 16, 1997. Unfortunately, attendance to ECG meetings reduced significantly as a result of a decision made by Management's Audit and Evaluation Committee indicating that ECG members were to contribute not as Management representatives but in their own individual capacity. Nevertheless, contributions from ECG members often validated or added to the information used by in its reports. Frank exchanges provided relevant insights into systemic considerations which has facilitated the wording of recommendations which were realistic in their likelihood of being implemented by Management. ECG also provided a useful forum to distill lesson learned from a systemic perspective.

2. Reporting for Development Impact

4.14 The recent "Report of the Development Committee Task Force on Multilateral Bank" echoes the emphasis placed in both TAPOMA and similar reports on the need for MDBs to become more "results-oriented institutions. The Bank has implemented numerous measures in this direction, in particular the annual protfolio assessments. In 1997, Management has continue to improve the portfolio assessment exercise. For the first time there was full coverage of the number of loans reviewed for the exercise. Also, regional departments are conducting reviews, and are participating actively in the implementation/execution reviews of the projects, in order to take corrective actions to improve the portfolio.

4.15 In addition, a task force was formed to review and improve the Project Performance Review Form (PPRF). The PPRF was designed by Management to obtain information regarding a project's development objective and the likelihood of achieving. The form introduces the logical framework methodology as a substantive component of the portfolio assessment process (i.e., development objectives, components, indicators and risk assessments).

4.16 This year, Management has expanded the coverage of the number of loans reviewed for the portfolio assessment exercise. As the portfolio assessment is a vital element of the status of the Bank's Evaluation System, it is useful, in this context to refer to Management report. According to Management, the annual assessment of portfolio management for 1996 concluded that 86% of the 418 major projects under execution are on-track to achieve their development objectives while 14% (54 projects) were judged unlikely to achieve their goals unless corrective actions are taken. Management subsequently developed action plans for each of these 54 "problem projects" and will review their status on a regular basis.

4.17 The portfolio assessment also identified 112 projects that were experiencing implementation difficulties. Weak institutional capacity in project executing agencies was identified as a major factor in 90% of these cases, leading the Bank to undertake a special study of this issue.

4.18 This fourth annual portfolio evaluation, marked the first time that the Bank was able to evaluate the entire 1997 portfolio from the perspective of project implementation progress and expected achievement of development objectives. The structure of the portfolio reflects the rapid growth in IDB lending in recent years: 54% of the total portfolio commitment value ($35.4 billion) was approved in the last three years. Changes in sectoral priorities are also notable: commitments for social projects increased by 10 percentage points (to 44% of total commitments) between 1994 and 1996, offsetting, in part, the relative decline in lending for infrastructure projects.

4.19 Problem projects were found to be concentrated in a number of countries. Eleven countries had portfolios in which projects experiencing implementation problems accounted for more than 40% of the total commitment value, or with more than 20% of the project number were problem projects. Accordingly, Management assigned priority to these 11 countries in planning its annual Country Portfolio Review missions, which are instrumental in discussing issues and resolving problems with the highest levels of authority in the borrowing country.

4.20 These results indicate a positive development of a "real time"assessment component of the Bank Evaluation System. Also a new Bank information system provides an almost complete coverage of Bank lending operations. Management has established a two-dimensional project information system that will assess both implementation status and the attainment of development objectives for projects in execution. Historically, the Bank has measured primarily the implementation status of its portfolio, but, in the last two years, has made an effort to assess the attainment of development objectives.

4.21 Through the use of a single reporting form, the new comprehensive rating system will measure and report on both implementation status as well as attainment of project objectives. This new project information system is now accessible via the Bank's INTRANET system.

3. Mid-Term & Ex-Post Evaluations

4.22 When the Board Members request that an evaluation be prepared, it is not always recorded in the minutes of the Committee of the Whole. Because there does not exist yet a Bank-wide system for tracking evaluation activities, the total number of evaluations expected in 1998 from on-going loans cannot be easily determined.

4.23 's own evaluation activities are in part determined by evaluations carried out by other stakeholders and by evaluation requirements contained in the loan documents. In 1997, in an attempt to track the completion of required evaluation products, continued to develop a tracking system of evaluations and to identify the "pipeline"of evaluations past, present and future.

4.24 The analysis of loan documents enables the Evaluation Office in the future in constructing the future pipeline of evaluation products due upon final disbursement of loans. For example, of the 60 loan proposals approved in 1997, some 13 included requirements for mid-term reviews and 19 ex-post evaluations. Six of the loan proposals require both.

4. The 1997 Project Completion Reports

4.25 In 1995, Management began a process to redesign the PCR's in light of the TAPOMA Report and the new evaluation system of the Bank. Upon request of the Executive Vice-President, a Task Force on PCRs was formed to address the issue of PCR compliance and quality, and to develop standardized procedures for processing PCRs. The Task Force was formed with representatives from various departments including . The Working Group reviewed the PCR form in order to simplify it, and to include concepts related to the logical framework methodology (i.e. lessons learned in terms of development objectives, components, experience with the executing agency, etc...).

4.26 In 1996, draft guidelines were prepared. These are being reviewed and were put into effect in 1997. They are meant to ensure that the PCRs become an integral part of the Bank's Evaluation System which now includes such related items as the use of logframes and indicators in project preparation, the portfolio report using these indicators to show where the Bank stands in terms of portfolio performance and, finally, the PCR as the last link in the chain.

4.27 The new PCR is not only the final product of the Bank's portfolio Management system, it is one of the key elements of the BES. It contains a history of execution of each project, an analysis of execution problems and steps taken to deal with them, an analysis of facts affecting the sustainability of the project and evaluation of Bank and borrower performance. Last but not least, it will include lessons learned and recommendations for future projects.

4.28 One of the issues addressed in the new guidelines is the review process of the PCRs. One Region reviews all the PCRs at their Management Review Committee (CRG), with the presence of the Country Office Representatives. This sends a very positive message to the Country offices that PCRs are being carefully reviewed at Headquarters, and provides incentives to improve the quality of PCRs. This Region also requires that lessons learned from the PCRs be included in the profiles (I and II) of new operations.

4.29 In 1997, the Bank generated 38 new Project Completion Reports. This compares with 29 reports received in 1996 and 22 received in 1995. It appears that these numbers represent an increase due to the recuperation of backlog from years before. Full compliance to PCR guidelines in 1997 occur only in 37% of the cases.

4.30 In 1997, reviewed 56 PCRs from the previous 36 months Of the PCRs received up to December 31, 1997, 100% were prepared following the old guidelines, which are now superseded. This may have impacted their uneven timeliness and reliability. It is important to point out that PCRs to be prepared in 1998 using the new guidelines are likely to show an improvement in their analytical content, contained more useful conclusions and recommendations for future projects.

5. Evaluability of the Operations Approved in 1996

4.31 Evaluability refers to the issue as to whether an operation can be empirically monitored or evaluated during and after implementation. In paragraph 2.101 of document AB-1704 , approved by the Board of Governors, it is indicated that will contribute towards the Bank's transparency by undertaking independent and systematic evaluations of the Bank's strategies, policies, programs, activities, delivery support functions and systems. Within its mandate of providing oversight and support for the enhancement of the effectiveness of the BES, has taken an incremental annual approach. During 1994, concentrated its efforts on evaluability within the BES at project level. In 1995, began to focus its attention on evaluability at the level of country or thematic programs. In 1996, has also paid attention to evaluability at the policy and strategy levels.

4.32 The Bank has made progress at the project level. Some 80% of all lending operations approved in 1997 had benchmarks/ logframes includes in the design. In its Annual Report for 1994, reported that half of the projects included definitions of standards for success. Some 40% of the projects have benchmarks. The concept of logframes which do contain these definitions and benchmarks was not applied in 1994. In contrast, 53 of 78 loans approved in 1996 included logframe analysis and related indicators. This was greatly facilitated by a March 1995 decision by Management to require the introduction of appropriate performance benchmarks into project design. Implementation of this requirement will enable monitoring during execution and facilitate ex-post evaluations.

4.33 conducted a review of all loan proposals approved by the Board in 1996. This exercise revealed that an increasing number of documents were incorporating the required monitoring and evaluation elements. The table shows that within three short years, the application of logframes, for example, increased dramatically within the Bank. Logframes do include monitoring and evaluation devices such as indicators. They are therefore useful in themselves and for future evaluations and monitoring.

4.34 In 1995 and 1996, reported that the quality of the logical frameworks, benchmarks and indicators was uneven. In 1997, the situation improved to the point that all logframes have usable indicators. Further progress is still possible, as indicator research continues. On the other hand, the "assumptions"described in the logframes were at times less clearly spelled out in 1996 and 1997 documents. This should not be a major obstacle for later evaluations, however. In addition judging from the results of the past two years, the system should improve further, as Bank staff at Headquarters and in the field participate in training programs targeted to the formulation of benchmarks and indicators and evaluation.

4.35 In short, the comprehensive "evaluability assessment" of all Board-approved 1997 Loan Proposals, as measured by the inclusion of logframes was encouraging.

6. 1996 Country Paper Evaluability Exercise

4.36 The above comments refer to 1996 loan documents. As part of its 1997 Work Program. conducted also an assessment of the evaluability for four Country Papers produced in 1997 (Argentina, Costa Rica, Paraguay and Uruguay). The purpose of the exercise was to ascertain the extent to which these documents reflect the current Bank priorities, and establish whether or not progress or achievement can be measured against the desired strategic outcomes. CPs that were approved by the Programming Committee of the Board of Executive Directors during 1997 were identified, and a program and schedule of review was prepared.

4.37 The review conducted in 1997 revealed that there was improvement in CPs in so far as the incorporation of evaluability features, as compared to the last year's review. There has been a gradual attempt to include some bench marking features, as well as better defining of the goal of the strategy. CP objectives were, in general, very clearly stated in most CPs reviewed.

4.38 In the area of Strategic Goal and Operational Objectives, performance indicators were generally included in country strategies. In most cases, the CPs were clear as to how the achievement of the goal and its objectives were to be measured at the end of the strategic cycle. The majority of the strategies were focused, and reflected the composition of the portfolio as well as the country's development plans and objectives. Most CPs also addressed, albeit superficially, the IDB-8 priorities of poverty and social equity, modernization of the state and integration, and the environment.

4.39 CPs reviewed identified development bottlenecks and challenges faced by the country, though few addressed the current institutional capacity of the country. Most importantly, the 1997 CPs , reflect better the incorporated guidelines of the Bank. Additional work in the area of identification of the risks associated with the implementation of the strategy is anticipated.

B. Activities of the Evaluation Office

4.40 The year 1997 was more productive than most previous years. The Office produced a range of activities:

• Project Performance Reports (21),
• Evaluation Reports (2),
• Country Program Evaluations (2),
• Performance Reports (3),
• Best Practice Papers (4),
• Conferences and Seminars (15)

1. Dissemination and Corporate Evaluation Support

4.41 After the creation of the Evaluation Office (), questions arose as to how lessons learned from evaluation reports could be applied in new operations. After a series of communications between the Bank Management and , new procedures were agreed upon by the Board of Executive Directors in August 1995, which state that "... the systematic dissemination of evaluation findings and incorporation of lessons of experience into policies and operations are key objectives of the Bank's evaluation system. They represent a shared responsibility between the Evaluation Office and Management" (Procedures for the Bank Evaluation System RE-200-3; 9 August 1995,p. 5-6).

4.42 In the past years, Management's dissemination role has been a cooperative one following the instructions of the Board: "...Management will take the appropriate measures to ensure that the findings and conclusions from evaluations are adequately considered .... and taken duly into account in the processing of new loan and technical cooperation operations." (Procedures for the Bank Evaluation System RE-200-3; 9 August 1995,p. 6). A special report on this topic is prepared for mid-year review.

4.43 In 1997, the following activities took place in :

1. Dissemination of completed 1997 reports were distributed to respective stakeholders.
2. The full text of the annual report and abstracts of evaluation reports is made available to outside stakeholders in fulfillment of the Bank's disclosure policy.
3. An additional Internet electronic version of all 1994-1997 evaluation summaries and annual evaluation reports.
4. Summary Reports on "best practices" were prepared for Bank staff. They will be published in 1998;
5. An internal electronic system (INTRANET) was completed in 1997 for Bank use which consists of most evaluation documents up to 1997.
6. Requests from Bank Departments and Bank staff regarding lessons learned were followed and assisted.

1. Dissemination reference guides from previous years were updated.

4.44 As a result, almost all evaluation reports, proceedings, seminars and working papers are now available in both paper and electronic form. In addition, for the first time, stakeholders outside the Bank may access 's evaluations in summary form.

4.45 In the new year, more is intended to facilitate dissemination of evaluation products within the Bank. The list of planned activities includes additional seminars with interested parties, lessons learned workshops with the regions and support for the new electronic dissemination systems.

4.46 Dissemination outside the Bank remains somewhat problematic. The Bank's Policy on Disclosure of Information (GN-1831-3) provides serious limitations on the dissemination of documents. The Policy in effect permits that only the Annual Report of and the "abstracts of evaluation reports approved by the Board" can be distributed outside the Bank.

4.47 As for all dissemination products and processes, within and outside the Bank, shares this responsibility with Management. Together with Management, is reviewing ways in which its products can be made available to Bank staff in a more systematic and user-friendly fashion in 1998.

a) Evaluation Support Services

4.48 During 1997, 990 participants received training in the four areas of concentration of logframe workshops: (i) basic and primer; (ii) project teams and counterparts at design level; (iii) project teams and counterparts at execution level; and (iv) C and D countries ad hoc logframe training. Of this total, 156 staff members participated at headquarters workshops, and 483 professionals and executives participated in in-country workshops.

4.49 A total of 27 in-country workshops were carried out, covering 14 borrowing member states. Of these in-country workshops, 12 were conducted by and 15 by RE1/RSS. These workshops provided support to 21 investment projects, of which 6 were at the design stage and 8 at the execution stage. A significant effort was made in the case of C and D countries, particularly since July 1997, when the ad-hoc program was approved. Nine "C and D" countries were covered: Ecuador, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Bolivia, Uruguay, Haiti, Paraguay, Dominican Republic, and Honduras; and a total of 490 national execution agency officials were trained in the use of logframe methodology. In addition 50 senior executives participated in half day information seminars as part of these "C and D" country activities. An additional important effort was the training of trainers workshop carried out in Venezuela at which 24 CO staff were trained.

4.50 With the support of the Administrative Department and the three Regional Operations Departments, conducted training sessions in the use of logical framework methodology for design, execution and evaluation of projects. In addition, fourteen regional workshops on project monitoring and execution were held in the Country Offices. In these workshops, 26 projects in execution were "retrofitted"with logical frameworks and five new projects were designed using the logical framework methodology. Altogether, these 32 projects represent $3.1 billion in total loan amounts.

b) In-Country Capacity Building

4.51 continues to provide support to borrowers' initiatives to use evaluation as an instrument for improving public administration. provided assistance to the Government of Costa Rica through the writing of guidelines for developing "Compromisos de Resultados (CDR)", or performance contracts, 20 of which were signed between the President of Costa Rica and each of the 18 government ministries, as well as with 2 public enterprises. Information materials about the CDR program have been widely disseminated internationally. Additional support to Costa Rica included developing a strategy for the strengthening and sustainability of the National Evaluation System as a key component of the public sector reform program. organized and delivered a workshop on Citizen's Charters to include the participatory aspect of government performance evaluation, with consultants for the UK and World Bank in April. Furthermore, staff assisted the Country Office in establishing a performance measurement unit within the executing body of the Modernization of the Health Sector Program (Loans 711 OC-CR and 712 OC-CR).

4.52 staff provided a contribution toward the development of two national TC operations for strengthening the evaluation system of Costa Rica and for the Contralorķa of Peru. Additionally, spearheaded the project team which developed and processed the approval of a Regional Technical Cooperation (Strengthening of Evaluation Functions in South America, ATM/SF-5574-RG).

4.53 The Director of has provided on-going support to the regional and sub-regional organiza-tions of Controller Generals and made presentation during Central American Summit of Controllers General in Guatemala.

c) International Evaluation Network

4.54 repre-sents the Bank as an "observer" to the Expert Group on Aid Evaluation of the Development Assis-tance Committee (DAC) of the Organization for Economic Coope-ration and Develop-ment (OECD). This Group comprises the Heads of the Evaluation Unit of the bilateral donor agencies of the OECD's member countries. The Director of attended Seminars sponsored by the OECD/DAC Expert Group. The Director also participated in the regular meetings of the OECD/DAC Expert Group.

4.55 represents the Bank on the Inter-Agency Working Group on Evaluation (IAWG). The IAWG is comprised of the Directors of Evaluation of 32 specialized agencies of the United Nations system and the Directors of Evaluation of the MDBs. was also represented at the IAWG regular meeting held in Geneva, Switzerland, in November 1996.

4.56 staff also participated in the Annual Meeting of the American Evaluation Association, which was held in Atlanta, Georgia in November 1997.

C. Follow-up on the Implementation of Recommendations Resulting from Evaluation Reports Reviewed by the Board of Executive Directors

4.57 Bank Management is requested to report to the Board annually on the implementation of Board Decisions from Evaluation Reports. "To ensure prompt and effective implementation of Board decisions, the Controller's Office will coordinate the implementation process with respect to action taken by Management" (RE-200-3, §8.20). An Annual Report status is to be provided to the President and the Board by mid-January. In the past, the Annual Report of the Evaluation Office normally included 's review of the implementation report.

a) Status for 1997

4.58 In its Second Annual Report on the implementation of recommendations of the Evaluation Office (RE-212-1), Management proposed that future implementation reports focus on a few major issues from recent evaluation reports. Management and would consult each year on the issues to be reported. The Administration would prepare an issue paper to facilitate discussion. This proposal was approved by the Board in 1997. Management will present its report later this year. It will coincide with 's mid-year report.

b) Projects Evaluation Follow-up

4.59 In the past four years, completed some 40 projects evaluations. The Project Performance Reviews were forwarded to the ECG for review and to the Audit and Evaluation Committee for information. Presently, the Evaluation Coordination Group has no existing system to facilitate the Reporting on the implementation of the recommendations stemming from project evaluations. began a review of the extent to which recommendations are being implemented. Mid-year Report will comment on this.

TOP