were not counted as stand-alone or parent projects. Of these 275 projects, 152 were evaluated in this study; the lending amounts of the repeat and subprojects were aggregated into the parent project. Included in the 152 evaluations were 42 projects that were evaluated for risk intensity and IFC’s additionality, although it is too early to evaluate them in depth. The balance of 123 projects was not evaluated because 40 Africa Enterprise Fund and Small Enterprise Fund projects had already been evaluated by IEG and discontinued, and because 83 projects were either non-F&A projects or not carried out by CAG joint ventures. To compare the performance of the F&A projects with the performance of IFC projects worldwide, IEG has drawn on the results of the XPSRs. IFC’s evaluation system for investment operations is based on self-evaluation. Investment staff prepare XPSRs for a random, representative sample of projects. IEG-IFC then undertakes an independent review of the project’s performance and the XPSR’s assigned ratings (and adjusts them if needed) to ensure that the prescribed evaluation guidelines and criteria are applied consistently. The advisory services projects have been desk reviewed using IEG’s project completion report framework. Because this system was only introduced in 2006, IEG has focused much of its effort to date on the evaluative substance of the project completion reports (IEG-IFC 2009), on the sufficiency of evidence, and on the correct application of the rating guidelines (supplemented with selective field validation). IFC and IEG are working on plans to establish a rigorous advisory self-evaluation system validated by IEG, similar to the one used for investment projects (XPSR system). There were 205 stand-alone advisory service projects over the review period. Of these 205 projects, 81 were not evaluated, because prior to 2006, the records of advisory service projects were not systematically collected or stored centrally. Therefore, IEG has evaluated 124 projects in the aggregate: 97 projects were evaluated for this specific agribusiness study and 27 projects had been previously evaluated by IEG within a pilot program across business lines. To compare the performance of the agri-
TABLE A.4
Corporate and Sector Strategies IEG has used expert judgment, in addition to its in-house expertise, to examine the relevance and degree of implementation of the various IFC strategies along the supply-value chain. The team also reviewed project and strategy information and evaluation results produced by other donors (multilateral and bilateral), both information in the public domain and information made available upon request. To evaluate sector-level performance, IEG also used the established European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) Evaluation Department evaluation methodology, which was applied to the evaluation of the EBRD’s Agribusiness Operations (OPER No: PE07-378S–June 2008). The methodology has been adjusted by IEG to allow for the equivalence between EBRD’s system and IEG’s XPSR rating system (following results of joint project evaluation), and for the IFC’s sector objectives set out in the agribusiness development plan. This methodology assesses four components of IFC’s performance in the agribusiness sector: relevance, efficacy, efficiency, and role and contribution. First, it assesses relevance by considering the degree to which IFC agribusiness sector investment projects have stated the objectives set out in the agribusiness development plan. Second, efficacy is measured by considering the degree of IFC projectdevelopment success achieved in targeting the policy objectives (weighted by the development outcome [DO] rating). Third, efficiency is evaluated by considering the degree of IFC project financial success (weighted by the projects business success rating). Finally, role and contribution are measured by considering the degree of success IFC had in providing value added to its projects (weighted by the role and contribution rating). The IFC investment projects
Documents Reviewed for the 42 Countries Covered by the IFC Evaluation Portfolio XPSRs and minis
Advisory services
Agriculture-based
12
14
12
Transforming
46
41
46
108
40
108
28
30
28
194
125
194
Not classified Total Source: IEG.
|
Counts of the documents reviewed for the 42 countries in which the evaluation portfolio falls are presented in table A.4.
Country typology
Urbanized
96
business advisory projects with the performance of the IFC advisory projects worldwide, IEG has drawn on the ratings of a previous IEG evaluation (IEG-IFC 2009).
Growth and Productivity in Agriculture and Agribusiness
Risk intensity