Financial Management Information Systems
33
AFR
EAP
ECA
LCR
SAR
HS
AFR
S
MNA
MS
ICR Outcome Rating
EAP
MU
ECA
18 15 12 9 6 3 0 U
LCR
Number of projects
Figure 3.1. Regional Distribution of ICR Project Outcome Ratings
Regions
MNA
SAR
12 9 6
AFR
EAP
H
AFR
S
ICR Development Impact Rating
ECA
EAP
M
LCR
ECA
N
MNA
0
SAR
3 LCR
Number of projects
Figure 3.2. Regional Distribution of ICR Development Impact Ratings
Regions
MNA
SAR
Bank and borrower performance were very similar across all projects. In 61% of the projects, the Bank and borrower performance received satisfactory or above ratings. In 39 % of the projects, these ratings were moderately satisfactory or below. Fewer than five projects were rated HS in both Bank and borrower performance.
IEG Ratings The IEG conducts an ex-post evaluation of ICRs and independently assesses ratings with a similar six-point scale (except “development impact” and “risk to development outcome” ratings) plus an additional scale: Not Rated (N/R). A comparison between