Development Effectiveness Review

2011 Report

Development Effectiveness Review
2011 Report

 2012 Asian Development Bank All rights reserved. Published 2012. Printed in the Philippines

ISBN 978-92-9092-670-2 (Print), 978-92-9092-671-9 (PDF) Publication Stock No. RPS124607 Cataloging-In-Publication Data Asian Development Bank. Development Effectiveness Review 2011 Report. Mandaluyong City, Philippines: Asian Development Bank, 2012. 1. Development. 2. Development effectiveness. I. Asian Development Bank. 3. Asia and the Pacific. 4. Asian Development Bank.

Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the data used in this publication. Variations in data in ADB publications often result from different publication dates, although differences may also come from source and interpretation of data. ADB does not accept responsibility for any consequence of their use. By making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area, or by using the term “country” in this document, ADB does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area. ADB encourages printing or copying information exclusively for personal and noncommercial use with proper acknowledgment of ADB. Users are restricted from reselling, redistributing, or creating derivative works for commercial purposes without the express, written consent of ADB.

Note In this report, “$” refers to US dollars.

6 ADB Avenue, Mandaluyong City 1550 Metro Manila, Philippines Tel +63 2 632 4444 Fax +63 2 636 2444 www.adb.org For orders, please contact: Department of External Relations Fax +63 2 636 2648 adbpub@adb.org

Contents
Abbreviations Executive Summary Introduction Level 1: Development Progress in the Region Poverty and Human Development Outcomes Other Development Outcomes Level 2: ADb’s Core Outputs and Outcomes ADB’s Core Sector Outputs ADB’s Contribution to Development Outcomes ADB’s Development Impact at the Country Level Level 3: ADb’s Operational Effectiveness Has the Quality of ADB’s Completed Operations Improved? Have the Quality at Entry and Portfolio Performance of ADB’s Operations Improved? How Successful is ADB at Transferring and Mobilizing Development Finance? Is ADB Improving Its Strategic Focus and Selectivity? Is ADB Managing Knowledge Better? Is ADB Forming Better Partnerships? Level 4: ADb’s Organizational Effectiveness Is ADB Aligning Its Human Resources to Increase Operational Effectiveness? Is ADB’s Budget Adequate to Support Operational Effectiveness? Are ADB’s Business Processes and Practices More Efficient? Actions Actions under Implementation Priority Actions for 2012 Conclusion v 1 7 9 9 14 19 19 24 36 39 39 45 47 49 54 55 59 59 61 63 67 67 67 69

iii

Appendixes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. ADB Performance Scorecard 2011 List of ADB Countries Changes to Data Asia and Pacific Development Outcomes ADB Sector Outputs Outcomes of Operations Completed in 2011 Country Partnership Strategies at Completion Sovereign and Nonsovereign Operations at and after Completion Technical Assistance Projects at Completion Sovereign Operations during Implementation Disbursements Cofinancing Strategic Focus in Operations Partnerships Human Resources Business Processes and Practices 73 86 87 93 99 105 122 123 128 130 133 134 135 139 142 144

Abbreviations
ADB ADF ASEAN CAPE CO2 CoP CPS CSO DEfR DMC DVA FCAS GDP IAE IED km Lao PDR MAKE MDG MfDR OCR PBA PCR PRC PVR QAE SMEs TA XARR – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Asian Development Bank Asian Development Fund Association of Southeast Asian Nations country assistance program evaluation carbon dioxide community of practice country partnership strategy civil society organization development effectiveness review developing member country direct value-added fragile and conflict-affected situation gross domestic product internal administrative expenses Independent Evaluation Department kilometer Lao People’s Democratic Republic Most Admired Knowledge Enterprise Millennium Development Goal managing for development results ordinary capital resources program-based approach project completion report People’s Republic of China PCR validation report quality at entry small and medium-sized enterprises technical assistance extended annual review report

v

Children in the Tondo neighborhood in the Philippines study by the light of energy-efficient compact fluorescent lamps supplied under the Philippine Energy Efficiency Project.

Executive Summary
The Asian Development Bank (ADB) has completed the 2011 Development Effectiveness Review (DEfR), its fifth annual corporate performance assessment. The review evaluated ADB’s progress against the Strategy 2020 results framework, and highlighted performance trends and needed Management actions. The DEfR reviewed progress in Asia and the Pacific toward key development objectives (Level 1). It further assessed ADB’s performance in delivering core sector outputs and outcomes (Level 2), and improving operational and organizational effectiveness (levels 3 and 4).

Summary Performance Scorecard 2011
ADB Countries Development Context for ADB Operations: Asia and Pacific Development Outcomes (Level 1) Poverty and Human Development Outcomes Other Development Outcomes ADB Performance Core Outputs and Outcomes (Level 2) Output Delivery Outcome Achievement Operational Effectiveness (Level 3) Quality of Completed Operations Quality at Entry and Portfolio Performance Finance Transfer and Mobilization Financing for Strategy 2020 Priorities Gender Mainstreaming Knowledge Managementa Partnerships Organizational Effectiveness (Level 4) Human Resourcesa Budget Adequacya Business Processes and Practices ADB = Asian Development Bank, ADF = Asian Development Fund. Good: Two-thirds or more of key performance indicators (KPIs) in the group are on track or above target. Mixed: Less than two-thirds but more than half of KPIs in the group are on track or above target, or half of KPIs are off track (red) and the other half exceed desired progress or are above target (green). Poor: Half or less than half of KPIs in the group are on track or above target. Indicators in this category assess ADB-wide performance only. Note: Gender Mainstreaming is a KPI within the composite indicator “Financing for Strategy 2020 Priorities.” Source: ADB Strategy and Policy Department.
a

ADF Countries

mixed good ADB Operations good poor poor good good good good good good good poor good

poor good ADF Operations mixed poor poor good good good good good good good poor good

1

Development Effectiveness Review 2011
The DEfR found that ADB had achieved most of its operational and organizational effectiveness targets. ADB improved the quality of its ongoing operations, and earned good ratings for its two previously weak performance areas: support for gender mainstreaming in operations and finance mobilization. However, the review confirmed that the quality of ADB’s recently completed operations—including their delivery of core sector outcomes— remained considerably below target despite improvements from the previous year. Furthermore, project delays and cancellations lowered the outputs to be delivered during 2009–2012 from Asian Development Fund (ADF) operations. Management is concerned about these findings and has instructed staff to implement fully the corrective actions adopted in 2010–2011. A summary of the performance of ADB as a whole and the ADF as a subset is presented in the summary performance scorecard table. At Level 1 (Asia and Pacific development outcomes), rapid economic growth in Asia and the Pacific continued to reduce poverty and improve social outcomes. Gains were seen in indicators such as gender parity in education and rural water supply, but progress remained slow in many areas, particularly in the poorer ADF countries. Substantial gaps remain in country attainment of the Millennium Development Goals, and overall regional trends underline the need to accelerate efforts to achieve the globally agreed upon targets by 2015. At Level 2 (outputs and outcomes), 2011 data show that ADB as a whole remains on track to deliver a substantial proportion of programmed core sector outputs by 2012. For ADF operations, the expected output achievement of several indicators is lower than the originally programmed outputs due to project delays, restructuring, and cancellations. This finding underlines the importance of ongoing initiatives to improve project performance. The assessment of outcomes shows that ADB’s performance improved considerably but remained below the 80% target. The main reason for this is the low rating given to Pakistan’s restructured and closed projects. While restructuring dampened outcome achievement in the short term, it enabled financial and human resources to be allocated to more promising projects. This improved portfolio performance in Pakistan, and in the medium to long term is expected to strengthen ADB’s overall outcomes performance. ADB delivered more successful projects (Level 3 operational effectiveness), as shown by the rise for the second consecutive year in the proportion of recently completed sovereign operations rated successful. Nevertheless, the 3-year average success rate remained off track at 68%. As with core sector outcomes, performance was largely influenced by portfolio restructuring in Pakistan. ADB’s success rate for recently completed nonsovereign operations improved slightly compared with the revised 2010 figure but fell short of the 80% target. A higher percentage (78%) of recently completed technical assistance (TA) projects were rated successful, putting the 80% target within reach for ADB as a whole. TA performance in ADF countries also improved, although it remained off track. ADB will ensure that the 2008 TA reforms are sustained, and will initiate a review of the impact of these measures in 2012. The Independent Evaluation Department evaluated the completed country strategies and programs for seven countries: four were rated successful and the remaining three partly successful. The strategic positioning and program relevance of almost all of the country strategies and programs were considered satisfactory. The main reasons for the partly successful ratings related to country assistance program delivery and sustainability. This highlights the need for continued implementation of actions to improve project performance. The performance of sovereign operations during implementation improved sharply, with

2

Executive Summary

91% of ADB and 89% of ADF operations rated satisfactory. This may be attributable to ADB’s continued efforts to strengthen project design and implementation. ADB continued to achieve the target for project start-up time. ADB greatly expanded cofinancing for ADB and ADF operations. The increase was sufficient to raise the performance of ADF operations from off track to on track. ADB continued to transfer funds rapidly to both ADB and ADF operations. ADB continued to allocate a greater proportion of its financing to Strategy 2020’s five core areas of specialization. These areas now account for 96% of ADB’s financing. While this confirms ADB’s continuing strong focus on core areas of operations, the consequences of a sharp decline in support for other operational areas may need to be examined and adjustments considered. ADB’s performance in promoting environmental sustainability, gender mainstreaming, private sector development, and regional cooperation and integration exceeded targets. The impressive performance in gender mainstreaming, which surpassed targets for the first time, reflects ADB’s successful implementation of actions since 2009. Staff perceptions of knowledge management at ADB continued to improve, surpassing the 2012 target for the second consecutive year. ADB also received wider external recognition of its progress in knowledge management in 2011 when it won the Asian Most Admired Knowledge Enterprise Award and was named a finalist for the global award. To reinforce this progress, ADB consolidated its knowledge departments under one vice-presidency and plans to develop strategic directions for knowledge management. ADB also made excellent progress on partnering with civil society organizations and conducting country partnership strategy and portfolio review missions jointly with other development partners. ADB’s organizational effectiveness (Level 4) improved further in 2011. ADB allocated more staff to operations departments and

resident missions, achieving the 2012 target. Considerable progress was also made toward gender balance at ADB. Sizable increases in ADB’s internal administrative expenses budget for 2011 and 2010 helped reverse the declining trend in budget adequacy indicators, and ADB stretched these funds further by prioritizing activities and implementing efficiency measures. Average processing time was longer than in the previous year for sovereign operations. Most of these operations had not yet benefited from the 2010 streamlined business processes. ADB Management is concerned about this finding and has instructed staff to implement fully and expeditiously the 2010 streamlined business processes. ADB is investigating key processing bottlenecks to define appropriate actions. ADB delegated the administration of 40% of its projects to resident missions, and all resident missions led country programming, portfolio review, and economic work. In addition to deploying more staff to resident missions, ADB strengthened their capacity through extended special missions to train and support staff in procurement work. To sharpen its results focus, ADB refined its corporate results framework and DEfR scorecard in early 2011 and is now undertaking a full review of the framework. Results-based work plans were implemented at all levels of the organization to ensure that staff work plans are closely aligned to Strategy 2020 goals. ADB continued to consolidate country, sector, and project results management and also continued to help developing member countries strengthen the results focus of their public sector management systems. A review by the Independent Evaluation Department found that ADB needs to make greater efforts to achieve progress in these areas in order to transform itself into a fully results-based organization. Since 2010, Management has intensified efforts to improve project implementation and outcomes and is monitoring actions to ensure their timely implementation. All operations departments have identified measures to remove their performance

3

Development Effectiveness Review 2011
weaknesses and are monitoring these measures regularly through their results-based work plans. To consolidate improvements and further advance ADB’s performance, ADB will • implement expeditiously the initiatives defined by the project implementation working group in 2010 and the ADB-wide and departmental action plans to improve project outcomes adopted in 2011; • involve more systematically sector experts (including communities of practice) to ensure quality at entry and quality during implementation of multisector projects; • initiate a review of the TA reforms adopted in 2008 to assess their impact on TA performance and identify further actions needed; • continue to implement the 2010 streamlined business processes and adopt actions to improve its efficiency following further analysis on processing bottlenecks; • continue to implement the revamped actions to achieve the gender balance targets under the Third Gender Action Program extension, 2011–2012; • identify better indicators to measure budget adequacy and efficiency for the upgraded results framework to be introduced in 2013, while continuing to implement efficiency measures to deliver quality operations within the budget; and • further mainstream managing for development results at ADB by completing the review of the corporate results framework, improving the use of resultsbased work plans, sharpening the results focus of ADB-wide sector and thematic operational plans, consolidating country and project results management and reporting, and reinforcing support for developing member country capacity development on results-based public sector management.

4

Key Performance Indicator Signals
Progress (toward achieving target) At or above target Improved On track (exceeded desired progress to attain target) Stable Deteriorated Improved On track but watch (met desired progress to attain target, but requires close monitoring) Stagnated Deteriorated Improved Off track (fell short of desired progress to attain target)
a

Signal

Direction of Annual Changea

Stagnated Deteriorated

Improved or deteriorated if annual change is at least 3%; stable or stagnated if change is less than 3%. Source: Asian Development Bank Strategy and Policy Department.

5

A water supply project enables this school in Armenia to receive water for more hours of the day, improving students’ health and hygiene.

Introduction
The 2011 Development Effectiveness Review (DEfR) is the fifth annual corporate performance report of the Asian Development Bank (ADB). The review assesses the progress ADB made in 2011 toward implementing its long-term strategic framework, Strategy 2020, detailing ADB’s performance against the indicators and targets at the four levels of its corporate results framework (Figure 1).1 Based on this assessment, the DEfR identifies the main challenges ADB faces and proposes remedial actions. The DEfR process is an important contributor to the culture shift at ADB toward the delivery of results. The 5-year history of the DEfR enables a firmer assessment of performance trends and challenges in ADB as a whole and the Asian Development Fund (ADF) as a subset. The longer perspective also increasingly allows Management to assess the impact of actions ADB has implemented to improve effectiveness. The comprehensive ADB performance scorecard for 2011 is in Appendix 1.2 The 2011 DEfR is based on the ADB corporate results framework approved by the Board of Directors in 2008 and refined in 2011. The targets for levels 2–4 of the results framework expire in 2012. Therefore, ADB initiated a review
1

Figure 1: Strategy 2020 Results Framework
Level 1 What development progress is Asia and the Pacific making? Level 2 Is ADB contributing to development in the region? Level 3 Is ADB managing its operations effectively? Level 4 Is ADB managing itself efficiently?
ADB = Asian Development Bank. Source: ADB Strategy and Policy Department.

in January 2012 to determine new targets and refine the results framework to ensure its continued relevance as a corporate management tool. The revision process will consider lessons learned since 2008, emerging good practices, changes in ADB’s operational context, and feedback from stakeholders. ADB intends to adopt the updated results framework in 2013.

ADB. 2008. Strategy 2020: The Long-Term Strategic Framework of the Asian Development Bank, 2008–2020. Manila; and ADB. 2008. ADB Results Framework. Manila (R166-08). The list of performance indicators, their definitions, and the methodology used to compile data are available at http://www.adb.org/Documents/Policies/ADB-ResultsFramework/Results-Framework-Indicators.pdf The assessment of ADB generally covers (i) for Level 1, progress in all of ADB’s developing member countries (DMCs); and (ii) for levels 2–4, ADB operations funded by ordinary capital resources and the ADF. The assessment of ADF generally covers (i) for Level 1, progress in ADF countries (a subgroup of ADB DMCs that have access to ADF, including blend countries with access to both ordinary capital resources and the ADF); and (ii) for levels 2–4, the ADF-funded operations. The classification of ADB DMCs used in this report is given in Appendix 2. Progress assessments generally exclude operations financed from ADB’s Countercyclical Support Facility, which was established in 2009 to help DMCs respond to the global economic crisis, because these operations were outside ADB’s regular operations.

2

7

A worker checks machinery at the Lahendong 2 geothermal power plant in Sulawesi, a subproject of the ADB-financed Renewable Energy Development Project in Indonesia.

Level 1
Development Progress in the Region
ADB monitors development outcomes in Asia and the Pacific to track progress and help shape ADB’s operational strategy.3 This section examines the region’s performance in achieving the objectives of poverty reduction and human development, and other regional outcomes (growth, regional cooperation and integration, basic infrastructure, finance, governance, and the environment). The 2011 DEfR draws on the most recent data available on the indicators, which range from 2008 to 2011.

X Poverty and Human Development mixed ADF ADB Outcomes

poor

The region’s rapid economic expansion continued to reduce poverty and improve some social outcomes, often dramatically. However, wide gaps in country attainment remain (Table 1 and Appendix 1, Tables A1.1 and A1.2, and Appendix 4, Tables A4.1–A4.3). Overall, regional trends in poverty and human development remain unchanged since the last DEfR,

Table 1: Poverty and Human Development in Asia and the Pacific (Level 1)
Asian Development Bank Countries Latest Target 2005 2009 2015 27.0 23.6 27.4 90.9 94.1 100.0 Asian Development Fund Countries Latest Target 2005 2009 2015 29.0 24.0 29.3 79.1 79.6 100.0 Asian Development FundOnly Countries Latest Target 2005 2009 2015 39.2 33.1 30.9 68.2 68.3 100.0

Indicator Population living on less than $1.25 (PPP) per day (%) Primary education completion rate, both sexes (%) Ratio of girls to boys in: Primary education Secondary education Tertiary education Women in nonagricultural wage employment (%)

0.97 0.91 0.82 30.0

1.00 0.97 0.90 31.0

1.00 1.00 1.00 Increase

0.91 0.91 0.71 26.7

0.94 0.94 0.76 26.7

1.00 1.00 1.00 Increase

0.81 0.71 0.48 28.8

0.86 0.83 0.50 26.6

1.00 1.00 1.00 Increase

continued on next page

3

As ADB is a small player in a large, dynamic region, overall progress at this level cannot be attributed to ADB’s performance.

9

Development Effectiveness Review 2011
Table 1 continued

Indicator Under-5 child mortality (per 1,000 live births) Women (aged 15 and above) living with HIV (number, million) Population with sustainable access to improved water source (%): Urban Rural Population with sustainable access to improved sanitation (%): Urban Rural

Asian Development Bank Countries Latest Target 2005 2009 2015 57 49a 29 1.31b 1.72 Reverse

Asian Development Fund Countries Latest Target 2005 2009 2015 68 60 36 0.14b 0.30 Reverse

Asian Development FundOnly Countries Latest Target 2005 2009 2015 102 95 50 0.07b 0.06 Reverse

95.4 79.0

95.7c 82.0c

96.7 81.1

90.8 75.6

91.0 77.5

95.3 82.5

81.9 58.6

86.2 62.5

83.9 71.6

61.9 38.5

62.2c 40.8c

77.6 63.3

70.0 42.2

71.1 45.6

82.7 62.8

65.1 33.1

67.8 35.5

78.9 61.4

PPP = purchasing power parity.
Note: For latest values, bold font signifies that the indicator is on track to achieve the internationally agreed target for 2015. Targets are calculated by ADB for its country groups based on 1990 official figures or earliest available data thereafter. ADB countries include all of its developing member countries. Asian Development Fund (ADF) countries are a subset of ADB countries that have access to the ADF (including blend countries with access to both ordinary capital resources and the ADF). ADF-only countries are a subset of ADB countries that have access only to the ADF. ADB, ADF, and ADF-only country lists are based on country classification during its eighth replenishment period (Appendix 2). Data have been revised to include new country data on poverty and development made available in 2010–2011 (Appendix 3, Table A3.1).
a b c

2010 data. 2001 data used for baseline. 2008 data.

Sources: Regional aggregates are prepared by the ADB Strategy and Policy Department using country data from the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP) Statistics Division as part of the partnership between ADB, the United Nations Development Programme, and UNESCAP on the Millennium Development Goals. Estimates are weighted averages of actual country values or imputed country values wherever data are missing for the year required; population data used as weights are from the United Nations Population Division, World Population Prospects: The 2010 Revision. New York for population data (accessed 4 October 2011); HIV data are from the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS). 2010. Report on the Global AIDS Epidemic 2010. Geneva.

underlining the urgency of accelerating efforts to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) human development targets by 2015. Figure 2 shows that the region has made considerable progress toward the MDGs since 1990—their baseline year—and illustrates the progress required to reach the 2015 targets for the selected indicators.4 While the targets for income poverty, gender parity in primary
4

and secondary education, and access to clean water in rural areas have been met, targets for primary education completion, child mortality, access to clean water in urban areas, and access to improved sanitation in rural and urban areas are proving more difficult to achieve. Only half of key performance indicators for poverty and human development outcomes are on track or above target, therefore the region’s

10

The DEfR assesses progress at Level 1 against data from 2005—the baseline year for Level 1 indicators.

Level 1 Development Progress in the Region

Figure 2: Progress since 1990 of Selected Millennium Development Goal Indicators toward 2015 Targets
Income poverty Primary completion rate Gender parity, primary Gender parity, secondary Gender parity, tertiary Child mortality rate Access to clean water, urban Access to clean water, rural Access to improved sanitation, urban Access to improved sanitation, rural 0 20 40 60 80 100 %
Note: Figure shows the percentage progress achieved by selected indicators since the 1990 baseline relative to progress required to meet 2015 targets for the Millennium Development Goals. Source: Asian Development Bank Strategy and Policy Department.

Progress from 1990 to 2005 Progress from 1990 to most recent data 2015 Forecast 2015 Target

120

140

160

180

200

220

score is mixed.5 ADF countries are also making insufficient progress in rural water supply and gender parity in tertiary education. With only one-third of indicators on track or above the MDG targets, progress for ADF countries as a group is rated poor. The performance of ADFonly countries is similar to ADB countries as a whole, with half of key performance indicators on track.6 ƒ Income Poverty
ADB ADF

ADB and ADF countries achieved the 2015 income poverty target as early as 2005. ADF-

only countries are on course to reach the target well before 2015. When the MDG target year is reached, the proportion of the population in ADB countries living on less than $1.25 a day is projected to be 18.6%, far surpassing the regional target of 27.4%. Despite this success, some countries have been left behind. In a quarter of countries in the region, at least 30% of the population was living in poverty in 2009.7 Growing income inequality continues to be a challenge for Asia and the Pacific. During 1990–2005, income inequality increased in 18 of the 28 countries for which data are available.

5

The score of the composite indicators is based on the percentage of off-track key performance indicators: The score is good (green) if two-thirds or more of key performance indicators are on track or above target; mixed (amber) if less than two-thirds but more than half of key performance indicators are on track or above target, or if half are off track and the other half exceeded desired progress or are above target; and poor (red) if half or less of key performance indicators are on track or above target. Appendix 4 provides the complete list of MDG indicators monitored by the partnership between ADB, the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, and the United Nations Development Programme, broken down into ADB, ADF, and ADF-only countries (Tables A4.1–A4.3). Poverty headcount ratios exceeded 30% in 6 of the 24 countries with data in 2009: Bangladesh, India, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Lao PDR), Nepal, Timor-Leste, and Uzbekistan.

6

7

11

Development Effectiveness Review 2011
In seven Asian countries for which data has become available for 2008 and 2009, the global economic crisis had not—at least by 2009—slowed the pace of poverty reduction seen in the pre-crisis years.8 Most countries in the sample showed declines in the percentage of people living on less than $1.25 a day that were either similar to or larger than past trends would indicate. In Indonesia, for example, past trends would indicate 20.6% living on $1.25 a day, but 2009 data showed the figure was 18.7%. ƒ Quality of Primary Education—Primary Completion Rate
ADB
off track

ƒ

Gender Equality—Ratio of Girls to Boys in
Primary Education Secondary Education Tertiary Education ADB ADB ADB
on track

ADF ADF ADF

on track on track off track

ADF

off track

In 2009, about 94% of primary-age children in ADB countries were attending school—a higher percentage than the developing regions of the world combined (89%). The net enrollment ratio increased by only 0.15 percentage points per year in 2005–2009 compared with 0.32 percentage points per year in 1999–2005. Despite the slowing progress, ADB countries as a group remain on track to meet the target of near-universal enrollment in primary education. One indicator used to gauge the quality of primary education is the percentage of children that complete the last grade of primary school. This increased steadily for ADB countries as a group; and in 2009, 94% of children in the region completed primary education. The completion rate for ADF countries was lower at 80% and for ADF-only countries at 68%. The biggest improvements in primary completion were in Bhutan (whose completion rate was among the lowest in 2005), Georgia, and India. However, the improvement was insufficient to enable the region as a whole, or the ADF and ADF-only countries, to achieve the target.

The region has already achieved gender parity based on enrollment in primary and secondary education, and is on track to achieve it in tertiary education by 2015. ADF and ADF-only countries are likely to match this performance only in primary and secondary education as gender disparity in tertiary education remains pronounced in these countries, partly because fewer girls than boys enroll in the earlier stages of education. In ADF countries, more than 50% of girls do not attend secondary school, compared with 45% of boys.9 ƒ Women in Nonagricultural Wage on track ADF Employment ADB

on track

The proportion of women in nonagricultural wage employment is an indicator of women’s empowerment and a reflection of their access to tertiary education opportunities. This indicator showed a slight increase in both ADB countries and ADF countries between 2005 and 2009. By 2015, women’s participation in nonagricultural wage employment in the region is likely to reach only 33%—far short of the average of 48.3% in developed countries in 2009, but nevertheless an increase on the 2005 figure.10 ƒ Access to Health—Under-5 Child Mortality
ADB
off track

ADF

off track

Progress in reducing child mortality remained sluggish, mirroring the performance of the regional health MDGs. Although child mortality fell from 57 deaths per 1,000 live births in

8

The seven countries for which data are newly available are Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Indonesia, the Lao PDR, Malaysia, and Viet Nam. ADB. 2011. Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment. Discussion paper presented at the second ADF XI replenishment meeting, Dhaka, Bangladesh. 5–6 December 2011. United Nations. 2011. The Millennium Development Goals Report 2011. New York. Statistical Appendix.

9

10

12

Level 1 Development Progress in the Region
2005 to 49 per 1,000 in 2010, the target of 29 per 1,000 in 2015 is out of reach. The 2012 regional MDG report identified several reasons for the slow progress, including (i) insufficient public spending on health; (ii) poorly performing public health services; and (iii) insufficient health personnel, basic infrastructure, and women’s development.11 Significant differences in access to and quality of such services have led to wide disparities between countries in child mortality reduction. Of the 13 countries with high under-5 mortality in 1990 (more than 100 deaths per 1,000 live births), 9 reduced their rates by 58%–85% by 2010, while 4 lowered theirs by only 29%–46% in the same period. Maternal mortality was also insufficient, despite a drop from 379 maternal death per 100,000 live births in 1990 to 187 per 100,000 in 2008. The presence of a trained birth attendant during delivery is crucial. In Asia and the Pacific, however, only 66% of births were attended by skilled health personnel, compared with 88% in Latin America and the Caribbean and 81% in Northern Africa in 2008. ƒ Women Living with HIV
ADB
off track

groupings—ADB, ADF, and ADF-only—fell well short of that needed to achieve the 2015 MDG target for urban water supply. Figures for 2008 show that efforts to provide rural dwellers with access to clean water were more successful than similar interventions in urban areas. The 81.1% target for ADB countries was achieved in 2008. The most recent data show that 82% of the region’s rural population has sustainable access to an improved water source. The growth in percentage coverage since 2005 was fastest in Afghanistan, Kiribati, TimorLeste, and Viet Nam. ADF-only countries are also on track. However, the coverage rate in ADF countries is unlikely to reach the target despite improvements. Access to an improved water source in rural areas continues to lag behind service provision in towns and cities. However, 2008 data show that the gap had narrowed, and an urban dweller was 1.2 times more likely to use an improved drinking water source than a person living in a rural area. ƒ Sustainable Access to Improved Sanitation
Urban ADB Rural ADB
off track off track

ADF

off track

As the most recent data on women living with HIV is from 2009, this indicator has not been updated since the last DEfR. ƒ Sustainable Access to an Improved Water Source
Urban Population ADB Rural Population ADB
off track

ADF ADF

off track off track

ADF ADF

off track off track

Although water supply coverage in urban areas continued to rise, the latest figures indicate only a marginal improvement of 0.3 percentage points for ADB countries and 0.1 percentage points for ADF countries compared with 2005 figures. The rate of progress in all three country

Despite the importance of sanitation and hygiene to good health, progress in providing improved sanitation remains unsatisfactory in all country groupings. The situation is particularly dismal in the region’s rural areas where 6 in 10 people lack access to improved sanitation. Critical impediments to progress in sanitation are inadequate investment in the sector and poor technical and management capacities, especially at the local level. These factors are compounded by a lack of awareness of the link between improving access to sanitation and better public health.

11

ADB, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, and United Nations Development Programme. 2012. Accelerating Equitable Achievement of the MDGs: Closing Gaps in Health and Nutrition Outcomes. Bangkok.

13

Development Effectiveness Review 2011
X Other Development Outcomes
ADB
good

ADF

good

The region appears to be recovering from the financial crisis, as shown by the significant annual growth in gross domestic product (GDP) per capita and the expansion in trade volumes and basic infrastructure—particularly electricity and telecommunications. Governance and the climate for private sector participation also improved, and the rate of increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions slowed. With almost all indicators registering progress, ADB and ADF countries are both rated good (Table 2, and Appendix 1, Table A1.2). ƒ Growth
ADB
on track

considerably more trade integration, at 65%, while Latin America and the Caribbean (20%) and sub-Saharan Africa (13%) have much less. The trend toward greater intraregional trade with Asia and the Pacific continued at a faster pace for the weaker ADF and ADF-only countries. These countries trade mostly with close neighbors because of their less-developed production capacities and trade infrastructure. In 2010, the ratio of their total trade with the region to their total trade with the world rose to 62% for ADF countries (from 58% in 2009) and 68% for ADF-only countries (from 66% in 2009). Southeast Asia and the Pacific had the highest trade integration at about 70%, while Central Asia had the lowest at 31%. ƒ Access to Basic Infrastructure:
Telecommunications ADB Roads Electricity ADB ADB
on track on track on track

ADF

on track

ADB countries recorded a robust per capita GDP growth rate of 8.2% in 2010, up from 6.4% in the previous year, indicating a recovery from the global economic crisis. This average was again heavily influenced by strong figures from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) (9.8%) and India (7.4%). ADF countries grew by 4.5% and ADF-only countries by 3.8%, showing improvement over 2010 figures. However, recent data suggest a moderation in growth in 2011 because of the sluggish pace of recovery in major industrial economies.12 ƒ Regional Cooperation and Integration
ADB
on track

ADF ADF ADF

on track on track on track

ADF

on track

The region’s trade volume declined (from $3.0 trillion in 2008 to $2.5 trillion in 2009) because of the global economic crisis, but then expanded to $3.5 trillion in 2010. ADB’s developing member countries (DMCs) are trading more with Asia and the Pacific. The ratio of DMCs’ total trade with the region to their total trade with the world was 52% in 2010—slightly higher than the 2005 baseline of 51%. By comparison, the European Union had

The expansion of basic infrastructure— telecommunications, roads, and electricity— underpins economic and social development, including the achievement of the MDGs. The region continued to increase access to telecommunications (aided by mobile telephony), and electricity rapidly. Access to telecommunications nearly doubled between 2006 and 2010, while the share of households with electricity rose from two-thirds to fourfifths. Progress was even faster in ADF and ADF-only countries. Access to roads increased more slowly, with 2 kilometers (km) more paved roads for every 10,000 people in 2008 compared with the baseline of 12 km per 10,000 people in 2005. The 44% increase in road access in the PRC had a large influence on this figure. Road access in ADF and ADF-only countries rose marginally.

12

ADB. 2011. Asian Development Outlook 2011 Update: Preparing for Demographic Transition. September. Manila.

14

Level 1 Development Progress in the Region
Table 2: Growth, Regional Cooperation and Integration, Infrastructure, Finance, Governance, and Environment in Asia and the Pacific (Level 1)
Baseline Values Indicator Growth Gross domestic product per capita (at constant 2000 prices, $) Regional cooperation and integration Intraregional trade in total Asia and the Pacific trade (%) Access to basic infrastructure Telecommunications: fixed lines and mobile telephone subscribers (per 1,000 people) Roads: paved roads for every 10,000 people (km) Electricity: household electrification rate (%) Finance Banking assets to gross domestic product (%) Governance Cost to start business (% of gross national income per capita) Time to start business (days) Governance and public sector management assessment from country performance assessments Environment Carbon dioxide emissions (tons per capita)5
Notes: 1. For ADB and ADF latest values, bold font signifies that the indicator is on track to achieve the 2015 target. 2. ADB countries include all of ADB’s developing member countries. ADF countries are a subset of ADB countries that have access to the ADF (including blend countries with access to both ordinary capital resources and the ADF). ADF-only countries are a subset of ADB countries that have access only to the ADF. ADB, ADF, and ADF-only country lists are based on country classification during its eighth replenishment period (Appendix 2). 3. Intraregional trade as a share of total trade in Asia and the Pacific is computed as the ratio of the total trade of the country grouping with Asia and the Pacific to the country grouping’s total trade with the world. The higher the share, the more integrated the country grouping is with Asia and the Pacific. Total trade is the sum of exports and imports. 4. Data have been revised to include new country data on other development indicators made available in 2010–2011 (Appendix 3, Table A3.2). 5. The regions CO2 emissions are comparable to those Latin America and the Caribbean at 2.9 tons per capita, and remains substantially lower than the 11.2 tons per capita for the developed world, 8.0 tons for Europe, and 17.9 tons for the United States. Sources: World Bank, World Development Indicators online database for gross domestic product per capita, access to telecommunications, paved roads, and carbon dioxide emissions (accessed 6 January 2012); International Finance Corporation and the World Bank, Doing Business online database for cost and time to start business (accessed 18 January 2012); International Monetary Fund, Direction of Trade Statistics CD-ROM (issued in December 2011) for intraregional trade; United Nations Population Division, World Population Prospects: The 2010 Revision, New York for population data (accessed October 2011); Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2011. Paris for electrification (accessed January 2012); ADB Office of Regional Economic Integration for finance; and ADB country performance assessment ratings for governance and public sector management assessment.

Latest Values ADFOnly 369 Year 2010 ADB 1,532 ADF 830 ADFOnly 433

Year 2006

ADB 1,132

ADF 698

2005

51

58

60

2010

52

62

68

2006

408

283

155

2010

809

894

573

2005 2002 2005 2006 2006 2006

12 68 78 46 50

8 47 58 53 52 3.3

4 18 59 65 55 3.3

2008 2009 2009 2011 2011 2011

14 81 89 25 33

9 60 65 27 34 3.6

5 31 70 29 42 3.6

2005

2.6

1.1

0.3

2008

3.0

1.2

0.3

ADB = Asian Development Bank, ADF = Asian Development Fund, km = kilometer.

15

Development Effectiveness Review 2011
ƒ Finance
ADB
on track

ADF

on track

The share of banking assets to GDP increased by 11 percentage points during 2005–2009 for the region as a whole and for ADF-only countries, while ADF countries registered more modest increases. Despite these improvements, access by households in Asia to financial services remained low. Data obtained from Financial Access reveal that ADB countries on average had in 2010 about 668 commercial bank accounts per 1,000 adults while ADF countries had 423. Both country groups fell far behind Latin America and the Caribbean (with 1,015 accounts) and even further behind the more developed economies within the region such as Singapore (2,236) and outside the region such as the United States (2,022). South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa had the lowest share of households with access to banking globally. Among the factors identified for low access to finance are low household incomes, insufficient legal environment for lending and protection of deposits, inadequate competition, and lack of basic infrastructure such as electricity and telecommunications.13 ƒ Governance
Cost to Start a Business ADB Time to Start a Business ADB
on track on track

After initial rapid improvements in facilitating formal business start-ups in the years since 2004—the earliest data assessed by the DEfR— the pace of reduction in both cost and time to start a business slowed. The average cost of starting a business declined to 24.6% of gross national income per capita in 2011 from 25.1% in 2010 and 30.5% in 2009, while the average time needed to start a business decreased to 33 days from 35 in 2010 and 39 in 2009.14 Slower progress in these indicators is to be expected, because at a certain level further improvements are harder to achieve and require more difficult actions. However, some countries with low costs of entry have been able to reduce these costs far more than the average, which indicates that the potential for improvement remains.15 Marginal improvements have also continued in governance and public sector management indicators, both in ADF and ADF-only countries.16 Average ratings for both country groups were 3.6 out of a possible 6. ADF countries were rated highest on quality of budget and financial management, and efficiency of revenue mobilization; they were weakest in transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public sector. ƒ Environment

ADF ADF ADF

on track

on track

Governance and Public Sector Management Assessment
on track

A clear trend in CO2 emissions is evident from the 4-year data set and additional data preceding the DEfR baseline year: The growth in per capita CO2 emissions for ADB countries as a whole slowed from about 7% in 2006 to

13

Financial Access. 2010. The State of Financial Inclusion Through the Crisis. Washington, DC: World Bank. Regional aggregates were computed by the ADB Strategy and Policy Department using country data from the report. In 2011, the cost of starting a business was 14.7% of gross national income per capita in the Republic of Korea and less than 1% in Singapore. The average time to start a business was 14 days in the Republic of Korea and 3 days in Singapore. In Latin America and the Caribbean, the cost of starting a business was 37.3% of gross national income, and it took an average of 54 days. Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, and Thailand are examples of countries where the average cost of entry is 6% of gross national income per capita. The indicator is based on individual country assessments conducted by ADB covering (i) property rights and rule-based governance; (ii) transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public sector; (iii) quality of public administration; (iv) quality of budgetary and financial management; and (v) efficiency of revenue mobilization.

14

15

16

16

less than 4% in 2008 (Figure 3).17 The slower growth in emissions is a combined effect of the economic slowdown and efficiency gains in the power sector. This is particularly influenced by the PRC where smaller, less efficient coal-fired power plants were replaced with larger, more efficient plants. The PRC has also started to gradually diversify its power supply away from coal and toward renewable energy sources. At 3.0 tons per capita, the region’s CO2 emissions remain substantially lower than the 11.2 tons per capita for the developed world, and are comparable to those of Latin America and the Caribbean.18

Figure 3: Declining Growth in Carbon Dioxide Emissions
8.0 6.0 % 4.0 2.0 0.0 2006
Source: World Bank.

2007

2008

17

The delinking of CO2 emissions from economic growth has only been possible in developed economies through structural changes (a greater share of economic activity taken up by the service and knowledge sectors, and improved technology). Developing economies that strive for inclusive growth by establishing physical and social infrastructure will be unable to lower CO2 emissions while maintaining rapid economic growth. The existing international agreement on climate change recognizes this limitation, but it contains no details on the type of support to be provided by the Annex 1 countries (i.e., the industrialized countries listed in the Kyoto Protocol), and in turn the amount of CO2 emissions that is justifiable for continued economic growth. Without this information, there is little basis for evaluating progress of the CO2 emissions indicator. United Nations. 2011. The Millennium Development Goals Report 2011. Statistical Appendix. In 2008, average CO2 emissions per capita were 8.0 tons for Europe and 17.9 tons for the United States.

18

17

An ADB-funded suspension bridge links two villages on either side of a river in Sri Lanka, saving villagers time and money and making their lives easier.

Level 2 ADb’s Core Outputs and Outcomes
In pursuing its vision of an Asia and Pacific free of poverty, ADB employs its limited resources in its areas of comparative strength—the core areas of infrastructure, environment, regional cooperation and integration, finance sector development, and education, as identified by Strategy 2020. ADB also operates on a limited scale in other areas, including health, agriculture and natural resources, and public sector management, in partnership with other organizations. ADB operations are designed to support the three complementary development agendas of inclusive economic growth, environmentally sustainable growth, and regional integration. Level 2 assesses two aspects of ADB operations: (i) ADB’s achievement of core sector outputs targeted for delivery in 2009–2012, and (ii) the contribution of recently completed operations—sovereign and nonsovereign—to their intended outcomes.19 Progress in these two areas determines the Level 2 scores. In 2021 addition, Level 2 reports the outputs delivered during 2008–2011 and outputs expected for delivery during 2014–2017 from projects approved during 2008–2011 to assess the recent trends in outputs delivered and planned by ADB. It also examines ADB’s performance
19

in promoting the Strategy 2020 priority themes of gender equity, good governance and capacity development, environmental sustainability, private sector development, and regional cooperation and integration. Recently completed technical assistance (TA) projects are assessed for their contribution to sector and thematic outcomes. Finally, it reviews ADB’s contribution to development impacts, including inclusive growth, at the country level based on country assistance program evaluation conducted in 2011.20

X ADB’s Core Sector Outputs
ADB
good

ADF

mixed

In 2011, ADB made progress in delivering programmed core sector outputs for ADB operations; however, for ADF operations, the output achievement by 2012 is likely to be substantially lower for several of the indicators. With 16 of 19 output indicators expected to achieve the target of 85%, the 2011 DEfR rates ADB’s performance good (Table 3). For ADF operations, 10 of the 18 output indicators are expected to achieve the target, therefore ADF’s performance is rated mixed.21

In this report, “operations” is used as a collective term for the various types of ADB assistance financed by ADB’s ordinary capital or ADF resources, excluding assistance funded by technical assistance (TA) grants, which are referred to as “TA projects.” ADB’s contribution to country development outcomes and impacts is also described in the development effectiveness country brief series. ADB completed an additional 8 country briefs in 2011, bringing the total to 22. As one of the 19 indicators (expressways built or upgraded) has no programmed outputs from ADF operations, the total number of indicators for ADF operations is 18.

20

21

19

Development Effectiveness Review 2011
Table 3: Progress in Achieving ADb Output Targets for 2009–2012 (Level 2)
Delivered Delivery Total Delivered in or Expected and Expected Delivery before in 2012 by End 2012 Expected (%) (%) After 2012 Programmed for 2011 (%) 2009–2012a (A) (B) (A + B) (%) 67,600 1,257,000 25,481,000 15,700 6,200 68,200 1,028,600 10,808,000 2,431,000 482,500 1,300 39,700 3,400 194,615,000 15,800 4,574,000 4,480,000 6,460,000 3,223,000
3

Sectors and Core Sector Outputs Education Classrooms built or upgraded (number) Teachers trained (number) Students benefiting from school improvement programs or direct support (number) Energy Installed energy generation capacity (MW equivalent) Transmission lines installed or upgraded (km) Distribution lines installed or upgraded (km) New households connected to electricity (number) Greenhouse gas emission reduction (tCO2-equiv/yr) Finance Microfinance accounts opened or end borrowers reached (number) SME loan accounts opened or end borrowers reached (number) Transport Expressways built or upgraded (km) National highways and provincial, district, and rural roads built or upgraded (km)b Railways constructed and/or upgraded (km) Beneficiaries from road projects (number)b Water Water supply pipe installed or upgraded: length of network (km) New households served with water supply (number) Wastewater treatment capacity added (m3/day) New households served with sanitation (number) Land improved through irrigation services, drainage, and flood management (ha)

84 67 95 67 60 88 80 99 99 92 66 77 57 66 76 49 39 18 65

3 31 2 29 27 0 12 0 0 6 24 11 0 29 14 37 32 33 25

87 98 97 96 87 88 92 99 99 98 89 88 57 95 90 86 72 51 91

1 2 1 1 12 12 0 1 0 0 10 7 41 4 9 4 21 43 9

20

ADB = Asian Development Bank, ha = hectare, km = kilometer, m = cubic meter, MW = megawatt, SMEs = small and medium-sized enterprises, tCO2–equiv/yr = tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year. Notes: 1. Numbers may not sum precisely because of rounding. 2. Bold font signifies that the indicator is expected to achieve at least 85% of its target outputs by the end of 2012. 3. By 2011, nonsovereign projects achieved 100% of programmed SME loans (7,014), transmission lines (1,150 km), and greenhouse gas emission reduction (3,478,580 tCO2–equiv/year). They achieved 83% of the programmed distribution lines installed or upgraded (48,000 km) by 2011 and 58% of installed energy generation capacity (11,146 MW). The remaining outputs will be delivered in or after 2012. a ADB financed about 35% of the total cost of operations that programmed these outputs. b Of the total target, 59% (about 22,000 km) represents the distance to be covered by rural roads. About 26% of anticipated road beneficiaries are expected to benefit from rural roads. Sources: ADB reports and recommendations of the President approved in 2003–2006 for programmed outputs; project completion reports, extended annual review reports, and estimates from operations departments for targets delivered and expected.

Level 2 ADB’s Core Outputs and Outcomes
ƒ Achievement of Output Targets and one transport indicator (road beneficiaries). The remaining eight indicators are unlikely to meet their targets by 2012 (Appendix 1, Table A1.4). Of these, three (greenhouse gas emission reduction; national highways and provincial, district, and rural roads built or upgraded; and railways constructed and/or upgraded) experienced slippage in output delivery but are expected to deliver a large proportion of the programmed outputs over a longer period of time. The five other indicators (installed energy generation capacity, new households connected to electricity, households connected to water supply, wastewater treatment capacity added, and households served with new sanitation connections) saw substantial reductions in their outputs due to project cancellations, and major changes in project scope following slow project implementation, cost overruns, and limited counterpart funding.24 The 2011 DEfR output achievement findings for ADF operations confirm the need to implement fully the actions introduced in 2010–2011 to improve project implementation and outcomes. These actions are discussed further on pp. 42–43. ƒ Output Trends

The DEfR monitors ADB’s achievement of programmed outputs by tracking a set of 272 sovereign and nonsovereign operations approved during 2003–2006 that intended to deliver core sector outputs specified in the results framework. It was assumed that these projects would be completed within 6 years and therefore that their core sector outputs would be delivered by 2009–2012. The 2011 DEfR introduced a number of improvements to ensure greater accuracy in the measurement of outputs (Appendix 3). In addition, it applied a target of 85% for output achievement by 2012 for each indicator, and it excluded outputs expected to be delivered after 2012 from the assessment of output achievement to capture the timeliness of output delivery.22 Applying these refinements, all of the indicators for education, energy, and finance are on track for ADB as a whole, showing good performance in delivering their programmed outputs. Most of the indicators for transport and water are also on track. The three off-track indicators (railways constructed and/or upgraded, wastewater treatment capacity added, and households served with sanitation) experienced delays but are expected to deliver a substantial proportion of their programmed outputs after 2012 (Appendix 1, Table A1.3).23 24 For ADF operations, good progress was made on all five education and finance indicators, two energy indicators (transmission and distribution lines installed or upgraded), two water indicators (water supply pipes installed or upgraded and land improved through irrigation services, drainage, and flood management),
22

This section provides an overview of the composition of delivered and programmed outputs of ADB and ADF operations. It describes the direction of change in delivered and programmed outputs in the core sectors of operation, and therefore indicates how the mix and level of outputs is changing over time. This enables ADB to quantify and assess its current and future contribution to core sector outputs.

The refinements to the methodology include (i) application of a cap of 100% achievement of targets for all indicators at the project level to prevent overachieving indicators from biasing the overall results; (ii) counting only outputs delivered and expected to be delivered during 2009–2012 to capture the timeliness of output delivery, and excluding outputs expected in 2013 and beyond; (iii) adjusting the target for rating output delivery to 85% from 100% on account of the more stringent assessment parameters; and (iv) excluding the outputs of six operations with original completion dates in 2013 and beyond. Details are in Appendix 3. Overall, these refinements made the rating more stringent. Operations departments assessed the delivered outputs based on project completion reports (PCRs) when available, or staff estimates if the projects were physically completed but the PCRs had not yet been prepared. Expected outputs for ongoing projects were based on staff estimates. Delivery of core sector outputs will extend beyond 2012 in 36 of 272 ADB projects (13.2%). Delivery of core sector outputs will extend beyond 2012 in 19 of 147 ADF projects (12.9%).

23 24

21

Development Effectiveness Review 2011
Delivered ADB Outputs Compared with delivered outputs reported in 2007–2010, more outputs were delivered in 2008–2011 for 14 of 19 core sector output indicators (Appendix 5, Table A5.1).25 Notable increases were seen in • education: teachers trained; • energy: distribution lines installed or upgraded; • finance: microfinance accounts opened and small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) loan accounts opened; • transport: national highways and provincial, district, and rural roads built or upgraded; and beneficiaries from road projects; and • water: all five indicators. ADB supported the electrification of 3.9 million new households by installing or upgrading 109,000 km of electricity transmission and distribution lines during 2008–2011. Road construction or upgrading provided better transport access to 450 million people in Asia and the Pacific. ADB projects provided better access to clean water for 9.8 million more households. Irrigation, drainage, and flood management programs improved 20.6 million hectares of land. Delivered outputs dropped considerably for railways constructed or upgraded, greenhouse gas emissions reduced, classrooms built or upgraded, and students benefitting from school improvement programs. For railways, the decline was caused by fewer operations and/or smaller projects. For greenhouse gas emissions reduction, projects that delivered this outcome during the previous period moved out of the 2008–2011 pool of projects. The lower education figures reflected the smaller number of large, sector-wide projects.26 Programmed ADB Outputs Outputs programmed for 2014–2017 are based on operations approved in 2008–2011. All were approved after ADB’s adoption of Strategy 2020 and its results framework, therefore the assessment showed a marked increase in outputs in ADB’s core sectors compared with the previous periods. Compared with programmed outputs reported in 2013–2016, outputs are expected to increase for 14 of 19 indicators. Significant increases are seen in • education: classrooms built or upgraded and students benefitting from school improvement programs; • energy: energy generation capacity installed, distribution lines installed or upgraded, new households connected to electricity, and greenhouse gas emissions reduced; • finance: microfinance accounts opened; • transport: national highways and provincial, district, and rural roads built or upgraded; railways constructed and/or upgraded; and beneficiaries of road projects; and • water: water supply pipes installed or upgraded, and new households served with water supply; wastewater treatment capacity added; and land improved through irrigation, drainage, and flood management. About 32 million students are expected to benefit from new classrooms and other school improvement programs, while 6.2 million households will be connected to electricity, 303.5 million people will benefit from road projects, and 8.3 million more households will be served with a water supply (Appendix 5, Table A5.1). In the same period, significantly fewer outputs were programmed for teachers trained,

25

Most of the ADB operations that delivered the core sector outputs reported in 2004–2011 were approved before the adoption of Strategy 2020 (i.e., in the late 1990s to 2007). In earlier years, including the baseline year, there were sector-wide projects for which ADB had claimed the outputs for the entire sector. Thus, ADB is unlikely to match the baseline in years without sector-wide projects.

26

22

Level 2 ADB’s Core Outputs and Outcomes
transmission lines installed or upgraded, expressways built or upgraded, and new households served with sanitation. The notable decline in programmed outputs for expressways is because of a reduction in ADB’s involvement in major expressway projects in key client countries, while in other indicators reductions reflect minor variations from the baseline. Delivered and Programmed ADF Outputs For ADF operations, delivered outputs in 2008–2011 grew for 13 of the 19 indicators (Appendix 5, Table A5.2). ADF resources enabled the installation of an additional 25 megawatts of energy generation capacity. The installation or upgrading of 26,000 km of transmission and distribution lines helped electrify 1.3 million more households in ADF countries. Road projects benefited 135.4 million people; and almost 2 million households were provided with a clean water supply. Notable declines compared with the previous 4-year period were seen in classrooms built or upgraded, students benefitting from school improvement programs, greenhouse gas emissions reduced, and expressways built or upgraded. The reasons for these declines mirror those identified for ADB outputs (p. 22). Outputs programmed for 2014–2017 grew for 14 of 19 indicators. They were substantially higher for classrooms built or upgraded; students benefitting from school improvement programs; greenhouse gas emissions reduced; new households connected to electricity; number of road project beneficiaries; new household served with water supply and sanitation; and land improved through irrigation services, drainage, and flood management. Lower outputs are planned for teachers trained, transmission lines installed or upgraded, and railways constructed and/or upgraded. ƒ New Output Indicators for Energy, Transport, and Education

With the target year of the results framework approaching, ADB began to review the framework’s structure and constituent indicators in early 2012. The new results framework, which will be adopted in 2013, is likely to include several new indicators to improve the measurement of sector outputs and outcomes. The ADB communities of practice (CoPs) for energy and transport have proposed five new indicators and are gathering data to determine appropriate baselines (Table 4).

Table 4: Programmed Outputs Using New Energy and Transport Indicators
Sectors and Indicators Energy Additional installed capacity using renewable energy (megawatt) Energy saved (terawatt-hour equivalent) Transport Movement of people and goods on roads built or upgraded (average daily vehicle-kilometer) (million) Movement of people and goods on railways built or upgraded (average daily converted ton-kilometer) (million) Urban rail- and bus-based mass transit systems built or upgraded (kilometer)
a

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

129 13.4

700 66.4

1,481 11.7

1,871 33.4

875 28.8

a

14.7

12.9

16.3

21.5

17.6

0 0

181.86 0

2.08 13.0

0.35 12.8

117.11 12.5

Note: Data on programmed outputs are from reports and recommendations of the President issued since 2007. This indicator was renamed from “electricity saved (gigawatt-hours equivalent)” as stated in the 2010 Development Effectiveness Review. This was done to broaden its scope.

Source: Estimates by Asian Development Bank energy and transport communities of practice.

23

Development Effectiveness Review 2011
The proposed indicators for energy (additional installed capacity using renewable energy, and energy saved) and sustainable transport (urban rail- and bus-based mass transit systems built or upgraded) are intended to capture the increased emphasis on environmental sustainability in ADB’s energy and transport operations. The data gathered so far indicate an increasing trend toward providing additional energy generation capacity through renewable sources. The other two indicators—movement of people and goods on roads and railways built or upgraded—are intended to replace or complement existing transport indicators on road beneficiaries, and provide a consistent measure of the use of the infrastructure built. The education CoP is developing new indicators that will focus more on people rather than infrastructure and will introduce learning and quality standards. Work has begun to develop a consistent estimation methodology and gather information for (i) educational institutions brought under new or improved quality standards, and (ii) students brought under learning standards and learning assessment.

X ADB’s Contribution to Development Outcomes
ADB
poor

ADF

poor

The analysis of outcomes of ADB operations draws on 76 project and program completion reports (PCRs) of sovereign operations and 14 PCRs of nonsovereign operations—called extended annual review reports (XARRs)— issued in 2011 (Appendix 6, Table A6.1). The operations reviewed in the 2011 PCRs and XARRs were approved during 1997–2010 and had a median approval year of 2004; 80% were approved in 2001–2007. These operations included 121 components (94 for core sectors and 27 for other sectors) as some operations contained multiple components. The outcome assessment shows that, although performance improved from the previous year, some operations did not deliver fully their intended core sector outcomes. Since outcomes achievement remained substantially below the target of 80%, performance is rated poor. Because of sampling differences, success in delivering outputs cannot be directly linked to outcome achievement (Box 1).

box 1: Comparing Outputs and Outcomes
The success in delivering core sector outputs cannot be directly related to the effectiveness rate of core sector outcomes for the following reasons: (i) The project samples are different in two ways: First, operations used to assess outputs were approved during 2003–2006 (the baseline year for level 2 outputs), whereas operations used to assess outcome achievement were approved during 1997–2010. Second, the output analysis includes all projects approved during 2003–2006 that are physically complete or have project completion reports for delivered outputs, whereas the outcome analysis only assesses operations with project completion reports and extended annual review reports issued in 2011. The output analysis also includes expected outputs for ongoing projects that will be delivered in and after 2012. As a result, only 26 operations were common to both samples. (ii) Output assessments do not capture program loans, but outcome assessments include these operations. (iii) The output assessment captures the quantity of physical outputs delivered or expected to be delivered, and the number of people benefiting or expected to benefit, whereas the outcome assessment looks at quantity, quality, cost efficiency, and sustainability of services or outputs delivered and their contribution to specific sector outcomes.

Source: Asian Development Bank Strategy and Policy Department.

24

Level 2 ADB’s Core Outputs and Outcomes
The 2010 DEfR scorecard reported the same outcomes rating. Since then, ADB has taken many actions to improve implementation and outcome achievement, in addition to those taken since 2004 as part of the reform agenda. The high percentage of ongoing projects that are rated satisfactory (91%) suggests that these actions are improving project performance (p. 45). ƒ Achievement of Outcomes in ADB’s Core Sectors of Operation
ADB
off track

circumstances, as well as the expertise used to design and manage projects. Country. Effectiveness ratings of individual countries can be influenced by a host of issues, including capacity, policy environment, and portfolio restructuring. For instance, the Pakistan effectiveness rating (18% during 2009–2011) is considerably lower than the ADB average mainly because of the country’s decision to “spring clean” or restructure its entire ADB portfolio. This lowered ADB’s overall outcome performance because of the large number of Pakistan operations.27 For example, ADB’s core sector effectiveness rates would increase from 70% to 79% if Pakistan’s restructured portfolio were removed from calculations. However, from Pakistan’s perspective, portfolio restructuring has been beneficial because it has enabled resources to be allocated toward more promising projects, and has thus improved portfolio performance.28 The short-term cost of using this management tool is more than compensated for by stronger future effectiveness ratings and development impact (Box 2).

ADF

off track

ADB’s performance in achieving core sector outcomes improved, rising to 71% in 2011 from 61% in 2010 for ADB overall and to 63% from 59% for ADF operations. The 3-year average figures were 70% for ADB and 66% for ADF (Appendix 6, Table A6.2). Factors Influencing the Effectiveness Ratings Analysis of the 3-year average effectiveness ratings shows that ADB performance is influenced by specific country and sector

box 2: Portfolio Restructuring is Good Practice
Portfolio restructuring is a proactive portfolio management tool and an important component of effective country portfolio performance measures. Restructuring may be precipitated by changes in country circumstances and development priorities, and deficiencies in project design and implementation. It typically involves the closure of projects before their expected completion date. This leads to substantial cancellations, which temporarily depress project ratings but allow more financial and human resources to be focused on bringing the remaining projects in the portfolio to a successful conclusion. The Asian Development Bank conducted portfolio restructuring exercises in the People’s Republic of China and the Philippines in 2003–2004, Indonesia in 2004, Pakistan in 2004 and 2006–2007, India in 2005, Bangladesh in 2007, and Sri Lanka and Viet Nam in 2007–2008. Portfolio restructuring has typically resulted in country portfolios showing above-average performance in subsequent years. Since the peak of portfolio restructuring in 2007, most countries review their portfolios regularly as part of the annual country portfolio review mission. Therefore the need for major cancellations has been much reduced.
Source: Asian Development Bank Central Operations and Services Office and Strategy and Policy Department.

27 28

Thirty-eight (16%) of 237 core components reviewed in 2009–2011 belonged to Pakistan. Currently, 89% (16 of 18) of ADB projects being implemented in Pakistan are rated satisfactory.

25

Development Effectiveness Review 2011
Sector. There have been marked differences in the effectiveness ratings of different sectors (Figure 4). During 2009–2011, transport was ADB’s best performing sector, averaging 80% effectiveness, while education at 58% and water at 61% were the weakest (Appendix 6, Table A6.2). The lower performance in the water sector remains the case even without the restructured Pakistan portfolio. The performance of water sector operations is discussed in pp. 27–28.

Figure 5: Effectiveness Rates of Core Sector Components, 2009–2011
100 80 60 40 20 0
78 60 88 70 63 53 76 63 68 29

%

Energy

Transport and ICT

Water

Finance

Education

In stand-alone sector projects

In multisector projects

Figure 4: Effectiveness Rates in Core Sectors, 2009–2011
100 80 60 40 20 0
71 79 80 92 61 71 71 75 79 58 70 79

ICT = information and communication technology. Source: Asian Development Bank project completion reports and extended annual review reports issued in 2009–2011, and Strategy and Policy Department.

Energy Transport Water Finance Education Total and ICT
ADB without Restructured Pakistan portfolio

ADB

ADB = Asian Development Bank, ICT = information and communication technology. Source: ADB project completion reports and extended annual review reports issued in 2009–2011, and Strategy and Policy Department.

development impacts. The main challenge is to ensure due diligence and sound project administration, particularly for multisector projects. ADB’s operations departments and the sector CoPs have already begun to strengthen peer reviews of project quality at entry and ensure adequate involvement of sector experts in project implementation.29 Outcome Achievement in Core Sectors Energy. The effectiveness rate of energy components increased to 75% in 2011 from 67% in 2010 (Appendix 6, Table A6.2). Their 3-year average (2009–2011) was 71%, largely influenced by the poorer performance of components in multisector projects.29 The energy outcomes achieved in 2011 included (i) more households connected to power or energy resources, (ii) higher quality of energy supply, and (iii) development of sustainable sources of energy. The construction of transmission and distribution lines helped provide power to more than 411,000 new households in Bangladesh, the Lao PDR, and Nepal. In Nepal, the Rural Electrification, Distribution, and Transmission Project helped increase the

Expertise. Similar to last year’s DEfR, the 2011 DEfR found that individual sector components included under multisector projects were less effective than the same components processed as stand-alone sector projects (Figure 5). For example, a transmission line component in a multisector project did not show the same level of success as a stand-alone transmission line project. This may be attributable to the lower levels of time and expertise that ADB and its counterpart agencies dedicated to processing and implementing sector components in multisector projects. However, this does not necessarily indicate that ADB should discourage multisector projects, which, when managed effectively, can bring significant synergic

%
29

In 2011, there were 12 energy components; 9 in the core sector (6 sovereign and 3 nonsovereign operations) and 3 in multisector operations.

26

Level 2 ADB’s Core Outputs and Outcomes
national electrification rate from 15% in 1999 to 56% in 2011.30 The wider access to a power supply helped small industries and improved people’s lives in rural areas. In the projects rated less effective, the main reasons given for low outcome achievement were poor project design and inadequate institutional management capacities. Transport and communication. Transport and communication components in 2011 had the highest annual effectiveness rate (85%) and the highest 3-year average effectiveness rate (80%) among the five core sectors.31 Transport outcomes achieved in 2011 included greater access to markets and basic social services, improved quality and efficiency of transport systems, and sustainability through better administrative capacity and adequate budgeting for operation and maintenance. Data indicate that new and/or improved roads in Cambodia, the People’s Republic of China (PRC), India, and the Kyrgyz Republic reduced vehicle operating costs by 28% and travel time by about 47%.32 These benefits contributed to more trade and investment in the project areas and better accessibility of the rural poor to markets, growth centers, jobs, and basic social services such as schools and hospitals. The Western Yunnan Roads Development Project in the PRC helped increase the volume of imports and exports by 28% during 2004–2008.33 The project facilitated trade and investments between the PRC and Myanmar, and increased per capita gross domestic product (GDP) by 11% in the project area over the same period.
30 31 32 33

Water. Similar to last year’s rating, the annual effectiveness rate of water operations was low at 53% in 2011.34 The 3-year average effectiveness rate (2009–2011) was 61%. Water components rated effective (i) increased access to and quality of water supply; (ii) provided sustainable access to sanitation services; and (iii) improved irrigation, drainage, and flood management infrastructure services. The improved water supply and sanitation facilities benefitted more than 30 million people in the PRC, India, Uzbekistan, and Viet Nam. Women and children particularly gained from the reduction in waterborne diseases brought about by the better health and living conditions in project areas. In water components that were rated less effective, a sequence of compounding negative factors eroded effectiveness. This usually began with poor due diligence, such as poor technical design and insufficient budget, and subsequently extended to limited ownership and inadequate technical and management capacity of the implementing agencies, and serious start-up delays resulting from poor due diligence. The steep escalation of raw material costs led to fewer outputs than expected, and hence failure to achieve the expected outcomes. ADB recognizes the severity of these challenges and has introduced stronger measures to improve the quality of design and implementation (Box 3). Finance. The effectiveness rate of finance components improved markedly to 78% in 2011 from 61% in 2010,35 raising the 3-year average to 71%. Finance operations extended about 800,000 microfinance loans to

ADB. 2011. Project Completion Report: Rural Electrification, Distribution, and Transmission Project in Nepal. Manila. In 2011, there were 27 transport components: 20 in the core sectors and 7 in other sectors. Data are for 14 components, where PCR estimates are available. ADB. 2011. Project Completion Report: Western Yunnan Roads Development Project in the People’s Republic of China. Manila. The DEfR reviewed 19 sovereign water components, 13 in core sector operations (water and other municipal infrastructure and services, and agriculture and natural resources operations) and 6 in multisector operations. A total of 27 finance sector components were reviewed in 2011, of which 16 are sovereign and 11 are nonsovereign (21 in the core sector; 7 outside the sector: 2 agriculture and natural resources, 2 industry and trade, 2 water and other municipal infrastructure and services, and 1 multisector operation).

34

35

27

Development Effectiveness Review 2011

box 3: Improving Water Operations Effectiveness
In recent years, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) has strengthened quality-at-entry design reviews and assessment of project readiness filters, and implemented more detailed and timely monitoring during implementation. While the impacts of these measures can only be judged later when projects are completed and their performance evaluated, the strong performance of ongoing portfolio of water sector operations suggests that ADB is making good progress. However, to sustain improvements, project management practices need to be further improved. Led by its Water Community of Practice, ADB has initiated actions to help regional departments, including resident missions, improve performance in the sector. These include (i) continued peer review of projects at key design stages, with more in-depth review and assistance with project design in developing member countries with a record of poor project effectiveness; (ii) more capacity building and awareness for project teams on project design, target setting, and assessment of risks and assumptions to improve the defining of expected project outcomes; (iii) development of water project case studies for inclusion in ADB project management training; (iv) increased review of mission implementation reports and project performance reports to detect signs of underperformance early on; and (v) development of leading indicators to help predict final performance. These actions are integral to successful implementation of ADB’s new water operational plan, 2011–2020, adopted in 2011. The community of practice will monitor the impact of improved quality-at-entry processes on project performance.
Source: ADB Water Community of Practice.

SMEs, farmers, and other beneficiaries in Bangladesh, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, and Uzbekistan. The Second Financial Sector Program in Cambodia supported the efficient issuance and better management of government securities, and strengthened anti-money-laundering activities through the establishment of a financial intelligence unit to monitor suspicious transactions.36 Nonsovereign finance operations in Azerbaijan, the PRC, India, and Kazakhstan also helped develop capital markets and promoted anti-money-laundering initiatives through the adoption of transparent banking transaction procedures. Finance components that were rated less effective were constrained by inadequate policy and regulatory frameworks, poor market conditions, and limited government ownership.

Education. The effectiveness of education36 components in 2011 was 44%—the lowest of all the sectors, down from 57% in 2010.37 The 3-year average effectiveness rate (2009– 2011) was 58%, which was largely due to the low effectiveness rate of Pakistan components. When these components are excluded, the 3-year performance for education jumps to 79%. Of the components rated effective in 2011, the main outcomes achieved included greater access to quality education, including higher quality teachers. In Nepal, through the Secondary Education Support Project, ADB constructed 800 additional secondary school classrooms, benefiting 30,000 students; while the Teacher Education Project trained about 115,000 in-service teachers.38 More than 31,000 students benefited from scholarship grants in the country. In the Lao PDR, ADB helped reduce repetition rates to 14% in 2009

36 37 38

ADB. 2011. Project Completion Report: Second Financial Sector Program in Cambodia. Manila. Of the nine components, seven were in the core sector and two were in multisector operations. ADB. 2011. Project Completion Report: Secondary Education Support Project in Nepal. Manila; and ADB. 2011. Project Completion Report: Teacher Education Project in Nepal. Manila.

28

Level 2 ADB’s Core Outputs and Outcomes
from 18% in 2005 and increased primary education attendance rates to 79% from 72% in the same period. The components rated less effective suffered from a number of problems including inadequate project design, weak management capacities, and insufficient project supervision. A technical education and vocational training project that was rated less effective had complex and ambitious design that led to large cost overruns, and weak implementing agencies that lacked the knowledge and skills to ensure the sustainability of the investment. Supervision was affected by the high turnover of project officers and the heightened security risk of the project area. Sustainability of outcomes. The PCRs reviewed found that 85% of effective core components in 2011 were likely to sustain their outcomes. All effective components in energy and education, 91% of transport components, and 80% of water components were rated likely to be sustainable. Finance components had the lowest likelihood of sustainability, at 71%. The 100% rating for sustainability of energy outcomes was underpinned by the use of high quality equipment and technology, the steady supply of and demand for services, reasonable tariffs, and the availability of adequate operations and maintenance funds. For education components, strong government commitment to improving access to and quality of education, including capacity development of teachers, reinforced sustainability. Reasons for lower sustainability included insufficient government funds and human capacities for transport components, and an inadequate tariff regime for water components. The sustainability of the two effective finance components is likely to be reduced by the weak capacity of microfinance institutions to attain operational and financial viability, and the lack of market-friendly policies to encourage commercial lending. ƒ Achievement in Other Sectors

ADB’s achievement of other sector outcomes improved slightly to 74% in 2011 from 72% in 2010, giving a 3-year average effectiveness of 68%. Of the 121 components reviewed in 2011, 22%—all sovereign—were in other sectors, including agriculture and natural resources, health, public sector management, and industry and trade. Agriculture. Seven of eight agriculture components (88%) reviewed in 2011 were rated effective, a significant improvement from 68% in 2010 and 56% in 2009. The 3-year effectiveness rate was 67%. Through its agricultural operations, ADB supported the production, processing, and marketing of high-value crops in Bangladesh and Indonesia; livestock in Nepal; and fisheries in Sri Lanka. In Indonesia, ADB’s earthquake and tsunami emergency support provided agricultural and fishery inputs and machinery, and rehabilitated more than 26,000 hectares of damaged farmlands and fishponds, restoring livelihoods to 23,000 farmers and fishers. Health. Two of three health components (67%) reviewed in 2011 were rated effective compared with 75% in 2010,39 matching the 3-year average. The health components rated effective increased access to improved quality health services. For example, an HIV/ AIDS prevention and capacity development project in the Pacific helped reduce new cases of HIV infection by establishing testing and counseling for HIV, training health workers, and providing laboratory equipment. ADB also supported primary health care in Indonesia by improving human capacity, and constructing and equipping health facilities. One multisector health component that was rated less effective did not achieve its intended outcomes because of the lack of a sector strategy for managing devolved social services and the weak capacity of local governments.

39

Two of the three health components were in the sector and one was in a multisector operation.

29

Development Effectiveness Review 2011
Industry and trade. Three of the four industry and trade components (75%) in 2011 were rated effective,40 compared with one of two components (50%) in 2010, producing a 3-year average effectiveness rate of 67%. The components rated effective helped increase access to improved business development services and developed SMEs. For example, a new enterprise registration system in the Lao PDR eliminated cumbersome procedures, substantially reducing the number of days needed to register an enterprise and lowering costs by 35%. Public sector management. In 2011, 8 of 11 public sector management components (73%) were rated effective in 2011, lower than the 2010 rate of 77%.41 The 3-year effectiveness rate was 71%. The main outcomes achieved by the components rated effective included increased access to more efficient public services, improved public financial management, development of legal and policy frameworks, and the provision of crisis response funds (for Indonesia, the Philippines, and Viet Nam). The three components rated less effective encountered problems related to poor government ownership, complex program designs and targets, and weak implementing agency capacity. ƒ Achievement of Thematic Outcomes of ADB Operations regional cooperation and integration (Table 5, and Appendix 6, Tables A6.3 and A6.4).43 The effectiveness of achieving thematic outcomes in 2011 improved slightly for all priority themes except for gender equity and regional cooperation and integration.44 Overall, the projects and programs reviewed in 2011 were marginally less targeted on thematic issues, but modestly more effective in achieving thematic outcomes. TA projects reviewed in 2011 were more focused on key thematic outcomes and more effective in achieving the intended outcomes than those reviewed in 2010 (Appendix 6, Table A6.5).45 In 2011, 96% of TA projects targeted capacity development, compared with 65% in 2010 (Appendix 6, Table A6.5). The effectiveness rate for capacity development was 90% in 2011, an increase of 14 percentage points from 2010. The same pattern of increased focus and effectiveness was evident for governance. In TA projects, declining thematic outcomes were seen only in gender equity. Contribution to Environmental Sustainability Table 6 presents the types of environmental targets and results in sovereign infrastructure components—energy, transport, and water (for ADF operations, see Appendix 6, Table A6.7). Of the 55 infrastructure components reviewed in 2011, the percentage of those targeting environmental outcomes dropped to 53%, considerably lower than the 3-year average of 71%. The average effectiveness rating of 83% was 3 percentage points higher than the 3-year average. This indicates significantly reduced targeting, but slightly

ADB contributes to thematic outcomes through its projects, programs, and TA operations.42 In 2011, projects and programs targeted the priority themes in line with the 3-year average, except for environmental sustainability and
40 41 42

All industry and trade components were in the sector. Ten public sector management components were in the sector and one was a multisector operation. “Thematic outcomes” refer to outcomes delivered in ADB’s priority areas of capacity development, environment, gender, governance, private sector development, and regional cooperation and integration. Strategy 2020 identifies gender equity, good governance and capacity development, and private sector development as drivers of change. Components were reviewed in terms of their contribution to these four themes and the two thematic core operational areas: environmental sustainability and regional cooperation and integration. The lowered effectiveness rating for gender could be partly a result of the more rigorous assessment of gender equity achievement in 2011. Starting 2011, the assessment was screened by gender specialists to ensure quality. A total of 135 TA completion reports were reviewed (excluding project preparatory TA). They were approved during 1998–2010 and had a median approval year of 2007.

43

44

45

30

Level 2 ADB’s Core Outputs and Outcomes
Table 5: Thematic Outcomes in ADb Sovereign Components, 2009–2011 (%)
2011 Components Targeting Specific Outcome 53 12 67 75 89 55 Components Effective in Achieving Target 83 54 40 73 72 64 2009–2011a Components Targeting Specific Outcome 71 8 67 76 89 54 Components Effective in Achieving Target 80 59 51 68 67 59

Theme Environmental sustainability Regional cooperation and integration Gender equity Governance Capacity development Private sector development

ADB = Asian Development Bank. a All 62 components reviewed in 2009 were in core sectors only. Components targeting environmentally sustainable growth refer to infrastructure sector (energy, transport, and water). Sources: Asian Development Bank project completion reports issued in 2009–2011, and Strategy and Policy Department.

Table 6: Environmental Outcomes in ADb Sovereign Infrastructure Components, 2009–2011 (%)
2011 Environment Results CO2 emissions reduced Clean energy supported Environment improved Environmental management improved Environmental awareness improved Total Components Targeting Specific Outcome 17 22 74 44 Components Effective in Achieving Target 83 100 57 67 2009–2011 Components Targeting Specific Outcome 23 39 76 47 Components Effective in Achieving Target 81 89 62 71

Sector Energy, transport Energy Water All

All

18

50

29

68

53

83

71

80

ADB = Asian Development Bank, CO2 = carbon dioxide. Note: Components may have one or more environmental target and achievement. Sources: Asian Development Bank project completion reports issued in 2009–2011, and Strategy and Policy Department.

31

Development Effectiveness Review 2011
improved effectiveness of environmental outcomes in ADB operations. The reduction of CO2 and other air pollutants was the objective of 17% of components. All of them were in the energy and transport sectors, and 83% of the components were rated effective in achieving their results. In Bangladesh, the Dhaka Clean Fuel Project improved air quality significantly in the capital through the reduction of CO2, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, and suspended particulate matter.46 In the PRC, the Gansu Heihe Rural Hydropower Development Investment Program supported the use of clean and renewable energy from hydropower, providing affordable and reliable electricity to rural consumers.47 The reduction of effluents and sludge was the aim of 74% of components, and 57% noted satisfactory progress. In India, the hygienic wastewater management and disposal system developed under the Rajasthan Urban Infrastructure Development Project helped improve the living conditions of about 1,400 households in slum areas.48 In the PRC, the Wuhan Wastewater Management Project introduced more efficient sludge dewatering technologies to treat concentrated sludge, benefiting 9 million residents in Wuhan and in the downstream areas of the Yangtze River.49 Most of the less effective water projects suffered from inadequate project design and an increase in civil works costs by the time of project implementation, preventing them from delivering planned levels of facilities and services, and associated environmental outcomes. About 44% of infrastructure components included improving environmental management as an intended outcome (compared with 60% in 2009 and 46% in 2010), and about twothirds were rated effective—lower than last year’s rating. Many of these components aimed to improve the capacities and management of implementing agencies in corporate governance, spatial planning, and strategic environmental assessment and monitoring. Only 18% targeted improving environmental awareness as an intended outcome, and only half of these were rated effective—also lower than in previous years. Efforts to raise environmental awareness in many components rated less effective reached fewer beneficiaries than originally intended, typically due to the reduced scope of campaigns. For many other components rated less effective, the PCRs contained insufficient information to determine whether the environmental outcome was achieved. Only 19% of TA projects targeted environmental sustainability as an intended outcome, and 92% were rated effective. In the Caucasus region and Central Asia, TA operations helped generate awareness of the benefits of introducing sound solid waste management practices. In South Asia, they fostered knowledge sharing on hazardous waste management, scaling up of energy technologies, promoting green urban development, and promoting mainstreaming of climate change resilience; and in the Pacific islands they piloted innovative technologies and developed major energy conservation measures. Several TA projects in the PRC led to policy innovations to address water pollution from nonpoint sources, developed shallow-ground geo-energy technologies and other energy conservation programs, drew up guidelines on river basin water resources allocation and flood and drought management, and established regional supervision centers to improve environmental law enforcement.

46 47

ADB. 2011. Project Completion Report: Dhaka Clean Fuel Project in Bangladesh. Manila. ADB. 2011. Project Completion Report: Gansu Heihe Rural Hydropower Development Investment Program in the People’s Republic of China. Manila. ADB. 2011. Project Completion Report: Rajasthan Urban Infrastructure Development Project in India. Manila. ADB. 2011. Project Completion Report: Wuhan Wastewater Management Project in the People’s Republic of China. Manila.

48 49

32

Level 2 ADB’s Core Outputs and Outcomes
Contribution to Regional Cooperation and Integration Of the sovereign operation components reviewed in 2011, 12% targeted regional cooperation and integration outcomes, and 54% reported satisfactory results. ADB supported improvements in cross-country transport networks that increased interregional trade and investments in Azerbaijan, the PRC, and Nepal. A finance project in Afghanistan helped establish an agreement with India and Pakistan on cross-border financial supervision. Improved regional cooperation under the Mekong Tourism Development Project promoted tourism and increased public revenues in the Greater Mekong Subregion, particularly in Cambodia and Viet Nam.50 A regional health project in the Pacific helped reduce new HIV/AIDS infections through awareness programs and capacity development of health workers. The remaining 46% of components rated less effective—all in transport and communication— did not achieve satisfactory results because of DMCs’ limited coordination capacity and inadequate funding for operation and maintenance of the transport networks. ADB’s TA projects also contributed to regional integration by strengthening the capacity of regional and subregional institutions. For example, they supported the ASEAN Secretariat, South Asia Subregional Economic Cooperation, the Pacific Financial Technical Assistance Center, and the Pacific Association of Supreme Audit Institutions. Outputs included the regional transport blueprints for South Asia and a plan for an integrated Greater Mekong Subregion railway network. A TA project to identify agriculture and natural resources research priorities in Asia and the Pacific resulted in the signing of the Asia and the Pacific Regional Food Security Partnership Framework between ADB, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, and the International Fund for Agricultural Development. Contribution to Gender Equity Two-thirds of all sovereign components reviewed in 2011 were in projects with explicit gender targets.51 The gender-related targets included (i) less gender disparity in education and human capacity development, (ii) more nonagricultural jobs for women, and (iii) increased representation of women in decision making. Of components with targets, 40% reported satisfactory results. Low effectiveness rates were caused by a lack of sex-disaggregated data (e.g., the number of women representatives in decisionmaking committees or the number of females included in capacity development training programs) on some gender design measures, which hampered assessment of outcomes; unavailability of information on the progress of some gender action plans; and failure to implement gender-related activities. Such problems were typically associated with projects classified as having “some gender benefits.” These were not usually accompanied by project gender action plans, and therefore lacked regular reporting on gender equality results in PCRs. The effectiveness rates were higher for projects classified as having a “gender equity” theme or “effective gender mainstreaming,” and those with gender action plans. Nevertheless, the low effectiveness rates highlight the need for greater attention to implementing gender-targeted activities supported by adequate resources and regular monitoring. Under the Northwest Crop Diversification Project in Bangladesh—one of the successful projects—more than 150,000 women farmers benefited from access to extension services, new technologies, skills training, and microcredit to

50 51

ADB. 2011. Project Completion Report: Tourism Development Project in the Greater Mekong Subregion. Manila. Projects were classified as category I (gender equity), category II (effective gender mainstreaming), and category III (some gender benefits) during project appraisal.

33

Development Effectiveness Review 2011
help households diversify into cash crops.52 Access roads were improved and new markets were built with special facilities and selling spaces for women vendors. Women’s income and assets, confidence, and family status grew, and domestic violence declined. The Secondary Education Support Project in Nepal removed barriers to girls’ school attendance by providing scholarships and safe accommodation, improving teaching, and modernizing the curriculum to make it more relevant to the job market. It also upgraded the skills of women teachers and provided rental allowances to help them find secure housing closer to school. As a result, girls’ enrollment in grades 6–10 rose from 40% in 2002 to 47% in 2008, and examination pass rates for girls increased from 74% to 84% in the same period.53 TA projects also contributed to improving gender equity by improving women’s capacities and strengthening the supporting policy environment. For example, a TA project in Pakistan helped to integrate the Gender Reform Action Plan into the annual development programs in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Under a TA project in Cambodia that promoted gender equity in local governance, the training and forums provided opportunities for women councilors to exchange views; acquire new skills; and improve their confidence in communication, advocacy, and the promotion of gender equity. Contribution to Governance and Capacity Development Governance and capacity development remained a high priority for ADB’s recently completed sovereign operations and TA projects reviewed in 2011. Good governance was a theme in about 75% of all sovereign operations, and 73% achieved satisfactory results (Appendix 6, Table A6.3). These components focused on improving accountability, participation, predictability, and transparency by targeting financial management and procurement systems and combating corruption.53 Of the sovereign operations that contributed to good governance in 2011, 17 were policybased loans with an average effectiveness rate of 76%. Finance operations had the highest effectiveness rate at 79%, followed by industry and trade with 71%, public sector management with 69%, and energy and multisector with 67%. Most of the 52 policy-based loans completed in 2009–2011 targeted improving sector policies and frameworks (98%), institutions (98%), human resources (87%), private sector development (92%), service delivery (81%), public financial management (79%), and transparency and public disclosure (79%). Effectiveness in achieving these outcomes ranged from 69% to 80% (Figure 6). The highest effectiveness rate was achieved for promoting transparency and public disclosure, while the lower effectiveness rates were reported for developing human resources and improving service delivery (Appendix 6, Tables A6.9 to A6.11). Capacity development targets were included in 89% of the sovereign components, with an effectiveness rate of 72%. The targets were mostly related to strengthening institutions, improving organizational systems and procedures, and developing human resources through training.54 ADB’s focus on capacity development in its sovereign operations, for example, has helped improve the effectiveness and efficiency of state road management agencies in India, developed a teacher education strategy and action plan in the Lao

52 53

ADB. 2011. Project Completion Report: Northwest Crop Diversification Project in Bangladesh. Manila. These are the priority areas outlined in the Second Governance and Anticorruption Action Plan: ADB. 2006. Second Governance and Anticorruption Action Plan. Manila. ADB. 2007. Medium-Term Framework and Action Plan on Integrating Capacity Development Programs and Operations. Manila.

54

34

Level 2 ADB’s Core Outputs and Outcomes

Figure 6: Outcomes Achieved in Policy-Based Program Loans, 2009–2011
100 80 60 % 40 20 0 Transparency and public disclosure Institutions Sector policies Private Public financial sector management development Human resources Service delivery 80 78 76 73 71

69

69

Source: Asian Development Bank Strategy and Policy Department.

PDR, and reduced power transmission and distribution losses in Nepal. The Development Effectiveness Review (DEfR) found that 74% of TA projects also helped build government capacity in public sector management, including integrated planning and budgeting, public procurement, mainstreaming results-based approaches, financial management and accounting, modern tax administration, debt management, macroeconomic and fiscal monitoring and analysis, and project implementation and administration. ADB’s TA support to Cambodia helped establish key financial infrastructure and strengthen institutions. This fueled growth in financial outreach, increasing access to credit to 9.3% of the population by the end of 2010 from 5.8% in 2007. Another TA project helped the Government of the Maldives update the base year for measuring real GDP, leading to more accurate economic growth estimates and statistical data, and stronger government planning capacity. Contribution to Private Sector Development In 2011, 55% of sovereign components promoted greater private sector development.
55

These components had an effectiveness rate of 64%.55 Most focused on removing policy barriers to private investments and developing public–private partnerships for key infrastructure. For example, ADB supported the unbundling of the power transmission and distribution system in Bangladesh, encouraged service contracts for the operation and maintenance of the PRC’s water supply and sanitation systems, and facilitated concessions in cargo-handling services in India’s ports. The components rated less effective suffered from (i) implementing agencies’ inadequate capacities to utilize public–private partnership arrangements, (ii) uncertain regulatory frameworks, and (iii) lack of vibrant private sector enterprises willing to undertake the delivery of key infrastructure and social services such as vocational skills training and health. TA is also an important tool for promoting private sector development, particularly for improving laws and institutional arrangements. For example, a TA project in Cambodia supported the restructuring of the country’s railway system, which is now privately operated. A TA project in Pakistan led to the establishment of a government committee dedicated to removing constraints to private sector investment in infrastructure.

Nonsovereign components were not included in the outcome analysis, but all of the 14 nonsovereign components contributed to private sector development.

35

Development Effectiveness Review 2011
X ADB’s Development Impact at the Country Level
While the analysis of outputs and outcomes in Level 2 is built on the performance of ADB’s individual operations, their contribution to development impact—such as more inclusive and environmentally sustainable growth—can be best gauged at the country level by assessing the combined impact of ADB’s projects, TA, and policy dialogue.56 This section examines evaluations undertaken in 2011 of ADB’s country strategies and programs in seven DMCs: the Maldives and Uzbekistan, based on country assistance program evaluations (CAPEs); and Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, and Timor-Leste, based on country partnership strategy (CPS) final review validation reports prepared in lieu of full CAPEs. ADB’s Independent Evaluation Department (IED) conducted all the evaluations and validations.5758 ƒ The Maldives helped meet the shortfall in electricity supply on Malé and expanded the power supply on several outer islands. The increase in power generating capacity and geographic coverage helped improve the quality of life across the country, enhance the environment for economic development, and increase energy efficiency. ADB also promoted interisland movement of passengers and cargo, increasing maritime safety and connectivity between Malé and the outer islands. While ADB’s support for education has been limited, its assistance in the sector contributed to an improvement in postsecondary education standards and led, indirectly, to the establishment of the country’s first university. This is expected to help fulfill the country’s increasing need for skilled human resources. ƒ Uzbekistan

The CAPE for the Maldives assessed the lengthy period of ADB’s engagement from 1978 to 2010.57 The overall development impacts of ADB’s country program were rated partly successful. Operations in energy, education, and transport and information and communication technology (ICT) were rated successful, whereas assistance in public sector management and tsunami emergency assistance was rated partly successful. For an island country such as the Maldives, the distance between its scattered islands poses a major challenge for inclusive growth. ADB played an important role in promoting more inclusive development by reducing the disparities between Malé and the outer islands. ADB
56

ADB has supported Uzbekistan’s development since 1998, following the country’s independence in 1991. The CAPE assessed ADB’s support during 2002–2009.58 Overall, ADB’s country assistance program was rated successful. Strategic positioning was rated satisfactory and its country program—focusing on sustainable rural development, private sector development, regional cooperation, and human capital development of the poor—was highly responsive to the government’s priority of making growth more inclusive. ADB contributed to the country’s development through its operations in transport, water, and education. Its transport program improved connectivity through two railway rehabilitation projects, which led to a considerable improvement in average passenger speeds— from 55 km per hour before the rehabilitation to 80 km per hour after rehabilitation. ADB’s

Most of the completed country partnership strategies were formulated before Strategy 2020 when inclusive growth became an explicit part of ADB’s strategic agenda. However, this exercise is still useful in assessing the extent to which ADB has supported the three strategic agendas of Strategy 2020 even before its adoption. ADB. 2011. Country Assistance Program Evaluation: The Maldives. Manila. ADB. 2011. Country Assistance Program Evaluation: Uzbekistan. Manila. An earlier CAPE, completed in 2006, covered ADB’s support for Uzbekistan from 1996 to the end of 2004: ADB. 2006. Country Assistance Program Evaluation: Uzbekistan. Manila.

57 58

36

Level 2 ADB’s Core Outputs and Outcomes
water supply and sanitation program in Uzbekistan helped 451,000 beneficiaries save 2–4 hours per day collecting water, while also lowering their spending on water. Better water quality contributed to a lower incidence of dysentery, which fell from 50 cases per year to 30 in one project town and from 8 cases per year to 6 in another town. Although ADB’s operation in education is small, its focus on introducing a textbook rental scheme provided a solid basis for sustainable provision of affordable textbooks to students in basic education. The government and its development partners considered this ADB’s most successful education intervention. ƒ Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, and Timor-Leste likely to be satisfactory) and Sri Lanka (rated satisfactory). The validation report recognized that ADB assistance had contributed to the recent growth in Solomon Islands, particularly by providing strategic connectivity and improving the legal and regulatory environment for starting and running formal businesses. The validation report for Sri Lanka noted that the outputs of ADB operations have contributed to the country’s good progress toward some MDGs, including increasing the percentage of the population with access to safe drinking water, and reducing maternal mortality and the incidence of poverty. The country strategies for Indonesia, Kazakhstan, and Timor-Leste were rated partly satisfactory in terms of their development impact. In Indonesia, ADB’s program was oriented predominantly to policy-based loans that were undertaken in collaboration with several development partners. However, the benefits of these interventions were not evident at the time of CPS completion. The actual outcomes of ADB’s program are expected to be felt once the new policy and institutional structures are fully established and the projects implemented under the CPS come to fruition. In Timor-Leste, ADB’s assistance to the road and water sectors has contributed to some beneficial development outcomes, but they had less impact than expected. The development impacts were also assessed as likely to be limited in Kazakhstan, primarily because none of the four public sector projects planned for 2004– 2006 was delivered. However, the report drew attention to the positive results from ADB’s ongoing projects: (i) road transport operations contributed to a 36% annual growth in trade between Kazakhstan and the Kyrgyz Republic, (ii) irrigation and drainage projects increased incomes and employment in the participating farm communities, and (iii) rural water facilities provided more access to safe drinking water and improved health in villages.

The five CPS final validation reviews showed ADB’s strong focus on inclusive growth.59 Indonesia’s CPS supported pro-poor sustainable economic growth and social development. ADB’s most recent CPS for Kazakhstan recognized the weak links between the country’s high growth rates (from its oil boom) and poverty reduction, and made inclusive growth through private sector development and human development (along with sustainable environmental management, and regional cooperation) the cornerstones of its country strategy. For Solomon Islands, the main strategic goal of ADB’s assistance under its last CPS was to contribute to pro-poor economic growth led by the private sector by improving transport services and the business environment. Similarly, the CPS for Sri Lanka focused on strengthening the investment climate and achieving socially inclusive development. In Timor-Leste, the CPS included ADB’s support for transport infrastructure as a means to strengthen connectivity and support social and economic development. The assessment of the development impacts was positive for Solomon Islands (rated
59

The periods covered by the review were 2006–2009 for Indonesia, 2004–2006 for Kazakhstan, 2006–2010 for Solomon Islands, 2009–2011 for Sri Lanka, and 2006–2010 for Timor-Leste.

37

The Small Business Development Project in Samoa enabled local people to borrow start-up capital to open businesses.

Level 3
ADb’s Operational Effectiveness
ADB must closely monitor its operational effectiveness as this is fundamental to the delivery of its development agenda. ADB needs to assess the relevance and quality of its services to ensure that they deliver optimal value to clients. Is ADB doing the right things— both at the country strategy and individual project levels—and is it doing them well? Is it mobilizing sufficient finance and knowledge for developing member countries (DMCs) and sustaining strong partnerships to maximize impact? Is ADB continuing to focus its activities in areas of comparative strength, such as infrastructure and regional cooperation, while increasing support for cross-cutting themes, such as the environment and gender mainstreaming? This section reviews progress in these areas against 23 indicators in the ADB corporate results framework. deterioration of the success rate of completed CPSs from last year’s perfect score. The success rates of completed sovereign and nonsovereign operations improved, although both indicators still fell considerably short of the target. The quality of completed TA projects also improved. The perceptions result, which is surveyed every 3 years, is carried over from the 2009 survey. With only two of the five indicators on track, the aggregate score for ADB is poor. The ADF is also rated poor as o nly two of the four indicators are on track. ƒ Completed Country Partnership Strategies Rated Successful
ADB
off track

ADF

watch

X Has the Quality of ADB’s Completed Operations Improved?
ADB
poor

ADF

poor

In assessing the quality of ADB’s completed operations, five indicators are examined: evaluation ratings of completed CPSs, sovereign operations, nonsovereign operations, and TA projects; and perceptions of ADB’s effectiveness in reducing poverty (Table 7). The data show a

CPSs translate Strategy 2020 into operational programs of 3–4 years in ADB DMCs. IED assesses ADB’s performance in designing and implementing CPSs through CAPEs. Starting in 2011, in the absence of a CAPE, IED validates the CPS final review together with a detailed supplementary self-evaluation, both of which are prepared by regional departments. Combining the ratings from two CAPEs and five CPS final review validation reports issued in 2011, the CPS success rate was 57% for ADB and 67% for ADF countries (Figure 7, and Appendix 7, Tables A7.1 and A7.2). Both figures are below the 2012 target of 70%.60

60

In 2010, the CPS success rate of 100%—for both ADB and ADF countries—was based on the CAPE ratings for Bhutan and the Lao PDR. Due to the small sample size for this indicator, comparisons with previous years may not be meaningful.

39

Development Effectiveness Review 2011
Table 7: Quality of Completed Operations (Level 3)
Asian Development Bank Indicator Completed CPSs rated successful (%) Completed sovereign operations rated successful (%)b Asian Development Fund Baseline Base2012 Base2012 Yeara line 2008 2009 2010 2011 Target line 2008 2009 2010 2011 Target 2009 2004– 2006 average 50 50 100 57 70 50 50 100 67 70

71

66

60

63

68

80

76

68

61

62

67

80

Completed nonsovereign 2008– operations rated 2010 successful (%)c average Completed technical assistance projects rated successful (%)d Positive perceptions of ADB effectiveness in reducing poverty (%)e 2004– 2006 average

69

69

72

80

80

78

76

75

78

80

78

74

72

73

76

80

2006

45

50

60

Same as ADB

ADB = Asian Development Bank, CPS = country partnership strategy. a For indicators with a 3-year average as the baseline, the figures represent the 2006–2008 average for 2008, the 2007– 2009 average for 2009, the 2008–2010 average for 2010, and the 2009–2011 average for 2011. b Where available, project performance evaluation report (PPER) ratings are taken as the final rating. If a PPER was not prepared, an available project completion report (PCR) validation report rating is used. Otherwise, PCR ratings are used. Counting of projects rated successful in PCRs, PCR validation reports, and PPERs is based on their year of circulation. Baseline and later values may change when PPER and PCR validation report ratings differ from the original PCR ratings. c The figure for 2010 (and therefore the baseline) has been revised based on new data. d This excludes preparatory technical assistance; figures for previous years have been recalculated. e The ADB perceptions survey is conducted every 3 years. Sources: ADB Department of External Relations, and Strategy and Policy Department.

Figure 7: Ratings of Country Assistance Program Evaluations and Country Partnership Strategy Final Review Validation Reports, 2011
Partly successful: Kazakhstan, the Maldives, and Timor-Leste (43%) Successful: Indonesia, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, and Uzbekistan (57%)
Sources: Asian Development Bank country assistance program evaluation studies and country strategy and program final review validation reports issued in 2011.

40

Level 3 ADB’s Operational Effectiveness
Of the seven country strategies and programs assessed in 2011, six were considered satisfactory in terms of strategic positioning and program relevance, but only two were as successful in each of three other evaluation criteria: efficiency in delivering the country program (Indonesia and Uzbekistan), sustainability (Indonesia and Solomon Islands), and impact (Solomon Islands and Sri Lanka).61 The main reasons for the partly successful ratings of the CPSs related to program delivery and sustainability, such as delays in project implementation, limited capacity of national agencies to implement projects and deliver services, slow introduction or implementation of reforms due to political challenges, and inadequate funding for operation and maintenance. ADB has taken action to improve CPS quality at entry (QAE) and implementation through improvements in CPS business processes in 2006 and 2010.62 ADB is also improving country sector diagnostics by upgrading quality assurance mechanisms for sector assessments and road maps, and by reviewing the quality of assessments and strategies for promoting inclusive growth in existing CPSs. The ongoing actions to improve project implementation and outcomes are expected to improve program delivery and sustainability, which were the weaker areas highlighted in the CAPEs and final review validation reports. ƒ Completed Sovereign Operations Rated Successful
ADb
off track

with the 3-year average (2009–2011) success rate rising to 68% of ADB operations and 67% of ADF. The annual success rate also continued to increase steadily to 79% for ADB operations and 75% for ADF operations in 2011 (Figure 8, and Appendix 8, Tables A8.1 and A8.2). By country grouping, the 2011 annual success rates were 86% for countries with access only to ordinary capital resources, 75% for blend countries, 78% for ADF-only countries, and 82% for countries with fragile and conflictaffected situations (FCASs) (Appendix A8, Table A8.3). Despite these strong gains, the 3-year average remained well below the 2012 target of 80% and was therefore rated off track. The success rate was 69% for project loans, and 66% for policy-based loans. Success rates were derived from the project completion reports (PCRs), PCRs validation reports, and project performance evaluation reports of 228 operations completed during 2009–2011. These operations were approved during 1991–2010 (75% during 2000–2005) and had a median completion year of 2010. Nine countries had 10 or more PCRs in 2009– 2011. Five of these exceeded the target of 80% of PCRs rated successful: the PRC (100% of 15 PCRs rated successful), Viet Nam (100% of 12), the Lao PDR (90% of 10), Cambodia (87% of 15), and Indonesia (86% of 14). The Philippines, Sri Lanka, and Uzbekistan had large portfolios and success rates of 60%–71% (Appendix 8, Table A8.4). Pakistan, which had 34 PCRs with an average success rate of 21%, was an exception. As discussed in the Level 2 outcome section (p. 25),

ADF

off track

The success rate of completed sovereign operations continued to increase gradually,
61

“Strategic positioning” assesses the design quality of the CPS sector and country strategies by sector and overall; “program relevance” reviews the design quality of assistance programs by sector and overall; “efficiency” looks at resource utilization and portfolio performance and assistance programs by sector and overall; “sustainability” considers prospects for sustaining outputs and outcomes of assistance programs by sector and overall; and “development impacts” assess contributions of assistance programs to the country’s achievement of development results. The success ratings of country strategies and programs for Indonesia, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, and Uzbekistan were based on CPSs processed from 2006 onward (and therefore are likely to have benefited from the improved business processes adopted in 2006). The ratings for Kazakhstan, the Maldives, and Timor-Leste were based on CPSs and other country planning documents that were mostly processed before 2006.

62

41

Development Effectiveness Review 2011

Figure 8: Completed Sovereign Operations Rated Successful, 2007–2011
85 80 75 70 % 65 60 55 50 2007 ADB Annual 2008 ADF Annual 2009 ADB 3-yr ave 2010 2011 ADF 3-yr ave Target: 80%

ADB = Asian Development Bank, ADF = Asian Development Fund, ave = average, yr = year. Source: ADB Strategy and Policy Department.

the country embarked on a much-needed portfolio restructuring exercise, resulting in the closure of 58 projects since 2007. All of the projects for which PCRs were prepared in 2009–2011 belonged to this pool, and therefore had low success rates. If PCRs of projects included under Pakistan’s restructured portfolio were excluded, the 2009–2011 success rate would be 77% for both ADB operations (9 percentage points higher) and ADF operations (10 percentage points higher). However, the restructuring of the Pakistan portfolio led to substantial loan charge reduction and a more focused and better performing portfolio. The good performance of Pakistan portfolio today suggests that their success rates at completion are likely to improve in the near future (footnote 28). PCR validation reports and project performance evaluation reports downgraded eight projects

from successful to partly successful and upgraded one from partly successful to successful. As a result, the 3-year average success rates during 2004–2010 fell by 1–3 percentage points per year (Appendix 3, Table A3.4). The main reasons identified for partly successful and unsuccessful ratings in 2009–2011 PCRs were insufficient supervision by ADB during implementation, inappropriate project design, inadequate capacity of implementing agencies and institutional structures for implementation, and procurement-related problems. In 2010 and 2011, after the DEfR found low project success rates and outcome achievement, ADB adopted a series of actions to improve project QAE and during implementation.63 These actions built on

63

ADB. 2010. Good Implementation Practice: Report of the Project Implementation Working Group. Manila; and ADB. 2011. Improving Project Outcomes. Manila (available at http://www.adb.org/documents/improving-project -outcomes). The actions aimed to (i) improve country sector diagnostics, (ii) reinforce QAE assurance, (iii) achieve total project readiness, (iv) improve oversight of project and portfolio performance, (v) promote efficient and professional procurement, and (vi) apply lessons more systematically.

42

Level 3 ADB’s Operational Effectiveness
initiatives ADB had undertaken since 2004 to improve project performance.64 To achieve full project readiness for implementation before approval, regional departments are applying approval preconditions, including full technical design; completed safeguards action plans (including resettlement); confirmation of the availability of counterpart financing; and advance procurement of goods, works, and services. To underpin timely project implementation, regional departments are structuring projects into fewer but larger contracts, particularly for large infrastructure projects. To boost project supervision capacity in resident missions, many operations departments are deploying staff with project management skills to the field through more flexible posting arrangements. Country portfolio performance review missions are focusing increasingly on the status of output and outcome delivery, in addition to disbursements and contract awards. ƒ Completed Nonsovereign Operations Rated ADB anticipates that ongoing measures to improve project QAE will translate into stronger ratings at project completion. Introduced in 2009, these measures promote greater attention to (i) the formulation of the development objective and project rationale; (ii) the structure of the project team, acknowledging externally commissioned expertise; (iii) implementation arrangements, including realistic time schedules, supervision, monitoring, and reporting; and (iv) the presentation of issues in the report and recommendation of the President. ƒ Completed Technical Assistance Operations Rated Successful
ADB
watch

ADF

off track

Successful ADB

off track

The 3-year average success rate of recently completed nonsovereign operations increased to 72% in 2011 from the revised baseline figure of 69% in 2010.65 The success rate was derived from 25 XARRs issued in 2009–2011 for projects approved during 1994–2008 (60% during 2005–2008, including 5 in energy and 20 in finance) (Appendix 8, Table A8.6). One energy project and six finance projects were rated partly successful or unsuccessful. Reasons for less-than-satisfactory performance include problems with business success and sustainability; profitability of ADB’s investment; and the quality of ADB’s work in terms of screening, appraisal, structuring, and monitoring and supervision of the project (Appendix 8, Tables A8.7 and A8.8).
64

ADB reversed the downward trend in the 3-year average TA success rate. The 2009–2011 success rate for TA operations increased to 78% for ADB and 76% for ADF (Figure 9 and Appendix 9). ADB is considered on track to achieve its target, although faster progress is needed for TA projects in ADF countries to earn the same rating. The positive impacts of the TA reform efforts launched in 2008 are expected to translate into higher success rates for TA projects currently being implemented.66 TA trends for ADB’s four country subsets diverged during 2009–2011. The 3-year average success rate of TA projects improved for blend countries (from 62% to 68%) and declined slightly for ADF-only countries (from 68% to 66%). It remained stable at 83% for countries with access only to ordinary capital resources and 61% for countries designated as FCASs. The success rates were derived from 456 TA PCRs (excluding project preparatory TA projects) issued during 2009–2011. The projects were approved during 1994–2010 (more than

In 2004, ADB embarked upon a reform agenda to increase its development effectiveness. ADB also adopted the Action Plan to Improve Loan and Technical Assistance Portfolio Performance in 2005. The figure for 2010 changed from 80% to 69% because IED downgraded two XARRs from successful to partly successful. ADB. 2008. Increasing the Impact of the Asian Development Bank’s Technical Assistance Program. Manila.

65

66

43

Development Effectiveness Review 2011

Figure 9: Completed Technical Assistance Projects Rated Successful, 2007–2011
85 80 75 70 % 65 60 55 50 2007 ADB Annual 2008 ADF Annual 2009 ADB 3-yr ave 2010 2011 ADF 3-yr ave Target: 80%

ADB = Asian Development Bank, ADF = Asian Development Fund, ave = average, yr = year. Source: ADB Strategy and Policy Department.

70% during 2004–2009), and had a median approval year of 2001. Where ratings were less than successful, the main reasons were (i) inadequate technical and management capacity of the executing agency; (ii) lack of progress with complementary actions or reforms; (iii) delays in consultant engagement; (iv) unforeseeable political, environmental, and technical factors; (v) inappropriate design; and (vi) insufficient ADB supervision during implementation. ADB continued to ensure that its TA portfolio is adequately managed by keeping the number of active TA projects (excluding project preparatory TA projects) within a manageable size. Regional departments have also adopted other quality assurance measures. For example, building on the success of the high-level tripartite portfolio review of the India TA portfolio, ADB is piloting the approach in other DMCs with large TA portfolios, such as Bangladesh. To minimize delays in TA project implementation, ADB also introduced an

electronic consultant management system in October 2010 to improve the recruitment of consulting firms. As a result, the average time spent recruiting consulting firms dropped from 160 days in October 2010 to 99 days in July 2011. In 2012, ADB will initiate a review of the 2008 TA reforms to strengthen its approach further. ƒ Positive Perceptions of ADB Development Effectiveness in Reducing Poverty
ADB
watch

As the next independent perceptions survey of ADB will be conducted in 2012, ADB’s score on this indicator has not been updated. In the interim, ADB surveyed clients in Central and West Asia to better understand stakeholders’ perceptions of ADB’s work. The survey includes respondents from government, the private sector, civil society and nongovernment organizations, the media, development partners, and academia. The results are expected in the second quarter of 2012.

44

Level 3 ADB’s Operational Effectiveness
X Have the Quality at Entry and Portfolio Performance of ADB’s Operations Improved?
ADB
good

ADF

good

In evaluating quality at entry (QAE) and portfolio performance, five indicators are examined focusing on the QAE of CPSs and sovereign and nonsovereign projects, the performance of sovereign operations during implementation, and project start-up times (Table 8). While the three QAE indicators based on biennial surveys were not updated, the 2011 DEfR confirms the improved performance of sovereign operations during implementation. With all but one indicator achieving the 2012 targets, this category is rated good for both ADB and ADF operations. ƒ Quality at Entry Rated Satisfactory
Country Partnership Strategies ADB Sovereign Projects Nonsovereign Projects ADB ADB ADF ADF
off track

technical, financial management, safeguards, procurement, and disbursement.67 Under this system, the proportion of ADB’s projects rated satisfactory at implementation improved sharply from 75% in 2010 to 91% in 2011 for ADB operations and from 71% to 89% for ADF operations in the same period, easily surpassing the target of 80% (Table 8, and Appendix 10, Table A10.1). The comparable rates were 95% for OCR-only countries, 88% for blend countries, 91% for ADF-only, and 88% for countries designated as FCASs (Appendix 10, Table A10.2). At least 90% of ongoing projects performed well on the technical, financial, and safeguards criteria. Projects rated satisfactory achieved at least 74% of their projected disbursements and contract awards on average by the end of 2011. In contrast, projects classified as actual problem achieved only about 40% of their projected disbursements and contract awards by the end of 2011. Seven of the 10 sector categories had 20 or more ongoing projects: agriculture and natural resources, education, energy, health and social protection, transport, water and other municipal infrastructure and services, and multisector (Figure 10). The proportion of projects rated satisfactory at implementation in these seven sectors ranged from 86% to 98%. Two sectors had only 10 ongoing projects: industry and trade with a satisfactory rating of 80% and public sector management with a satisfactory rating of 70%. Finance, with 17 projects, had a satisfactory rating of 88% (Appendix 10, Tables A10.3 and A10.4). The momentum for good project implementation has been established at different levels of ADB: Quarterly operations review meetings, chaired by operations vice-presidents, monitor portfolio performance

The 2010 QAE assessment reported in the 2010 DEfR showed improvements in the QAE of CPSs and sovereign and nonsovereign projects relative to the 2008 QAE assessment. As the next assessment is due in 2012, ADB’s scores on the QAE indicators are unchanged. ADB has identified the constraints to the QAE of nonsovereign projects and anticipates that the impact of the corrective measures put in place will be evident in the results of the 2012 assessment (p. 43). ƒ Project Performance during Implementation Rated Satisfactory ADB ADF

A new, more stringent project performance rating system was introduced in January 2011, based on five key performance indicators:

67

The ratings for the five indicators are combined into a single project rating: on track, potential problem, or actual problem. Projects with the first two ratings are considered satisfactory, and projects rated actual problem are considered unsatisfactory.

45

Development Effectiveness Review 2011
Table 8: Quality at Entry and Portfolio Performance (Level 3)
Asian Development Bank Asian Development Fund 2012 Base2012 Baseline Baseline 2008 2009 2010 2011 Target line 2008 2009 2010 2011 Target Indicator Year Quality at entry of CPSs rated satisfactory (%)a 2006 33 75 100 80 33 75 100 80 Quality at entry of sovereign projects rated satisfactory (%)a 2006 81 85 89 85 76 83 94 85 Quality at entry of nonsovereign projects rated satisfactory (%)a 2008 50 50 57 85 Performance of sovereign operations during implementation rated satisfactory (%) 2010 75 75 91 80 71 71 89 80 Average time from approval to first disbursement in sovereign operations (months)b 2006 12 12 11 10c 10 10 13 12 12 10 10 12
CPS = country partnership strategy. a Quality-at-entry assessments of CPSs and projects are conducted every 2 years. b Average time from approval to first disbursement of sovereign loans and Asian Development Fund grants approved in the previous 5 years (e.g., 2011 figure is based on 2006–2010 average). c Excludes operations financed by the Countercyclical Support Facility. Sources: Asian Development Bank Central Operations Services Office, Independent Evaluation Department, and Strategy and Policy Department.

Figure 10: Project Performance Rated Satisfactory during Implementation, 2011
100 80 60 % 40 20 0
Agriculture and Natural Resources Education Energy Health and Social Protection Multisector Transport and ICT Water and Other Municipal Infrastructure and Services

95

92

86

95

98

89

91

ICT = information and communication technology. Sources: Asian Development Bank Central Operations Services Office, and Strategy and Policy Department.

46

Level 3 ADB’s Operational Effectiveness

to ensure that problems are identified and actions adopted promptly. Portfolio performance-related indicators and actions— including department-level actions under the 2010 Good Project Implementation Action Plan—have also been built into operations departments’ results-based work plans introduced in 2010 and are monitored regularly. In 2011, ADB Management took over from IED the preparation of the annual portfolio performance report, which allows Management to be more closely involved in the detailed analysis of portfolio performance and defining of remedial actions. ƒ Average Time from Approval to First Disbursement in Sovereign Operations
ADB ADF

facility to provide loan advances for detailed design before project approval. The use of comprehensive project readiness filters to ensure timely implementation has become increasingly mainstreamed in all regional departments. ADB is also reviewing the impact of the readiness filters on overall project performance to identify lessons and further improve their application.68

X How Successful is ADB at Transferring and Mobilizing Development Finance?
ADB
good

ADF

good

Timely start-up of operations is of key importance to ensuring the implementation quality of ADB projects. Operations approved during 2006–2010 took an average of 10 months from approval to first disbursement for both ADB and ADF, reaching the 2012 target for ADB operations (10 months) and surpassing the target for ADF operations (12 months). Nonsovereign projects took an average of 8.2 months from approval to first disbursement during the same period, compared with 8.6 months in the previous year. The average time from the effectivity date to the disbursement of the first 30% of project loans dropped by 40% from 37 months for older projects (with PCRs issued in 2011, 80% of which were approved during 2001–2007) to 22 months for more recent projects (approved during 2006–2010 and ongoing as of the end of 2010). This suggests that the timeliness of project start-up has improved. As part of the project implementation and outcomes action plans (footnote 63), ADB created the pilot $150 million project design

In 2011, ADB operations totaled $21.7 billion: $14.2 billion financed by ADB and special funds and $7.5 billion by cofinancing partners. To examine ADB’s role as a development financier, the results framework assesses transfer and mobilization through two indicators for the disbursement, covering sovereign and nonsovereign operations, and one indicator for cofinancing (Table 9). ADB continued to perform satisfactorily in mobilizing finance for its DMCs, despite a slight dip in the disbursement ratio for sovereign operations. Funds were transferred rapidly to both ADB and ADF operations, and cofinancing for ADB and ADF operations was greatly expanded. With all indicators on track to meet their targets, this category is rated good for both ADB and ADF. ƒ Disbursement Ratio for Sovereign watch ADF watch Operations ADB Although the 2011 disbursement ratio fell slightly to 22% for ADB operations and to 19% for ADF operations, ADB is on track to meet the 2012 target. The decrease reflects the larger number of new projects, which tend to have smaller disbursements in the first year, and the smaller weight of policy-based loans in the total available balance for disbursements (6% compared with 8% in 2010, 14% in 2009,

68

The results of this review are expected to be discussed in ADB’s forthcoming 2011 annual portfolio performance report.

47

Development Effectiveness Review 2011
Table 9: Finance Transfer and Mobilization (Level 3)
Asian Development Bank Asian Development Fund 2012 Base2012 Baseline Baseline 2008 2009 2010 2011 Target line 2008 2009 2010 2011 Target Yeara 2006 23 29 26c 23c 22 At least 23 At least 50 18 25 27 21 19 20

Indicator Overall disbursement ratio for sovereign operations (%)b Overall disbursement ratiod for nonsovereign loans and equity (%) DVA cofinancing relative to ADB financing approved annually (%)
a

2006 2004– 2006 average

43

45

37

51

52

9

11

16c

25e

32

20

13

11

8

13

30

20

ADB = Asian Development Bank, DVA = direct value-added. For indicators with a 3-year average as the baseline, the figures represent the 2006–2008 average for 2008, the 2007–2009 average for 2009, the 2008–2010 average for 2010, and the 2009–2011 average for 2011. The ratio of total disbursements in a given year to the net loan and Asian Development Fund grant amount available at the beginning of the year or period, plus loans and Asian Development Fund grants that have become effective during the year or period, less cancellations made during the year or period. Excludes operations financed by the Countercyclical Support Facility. The ratio of total disbursements in a given year to the net loan and equity investment amount available at the beginning of the year or period, plus loans and equity investments that have become effective during the year or period, less cancellations made during the year or period. The ratio for 2010 was lowered by cancellations.

b

c d

e

Sources: ADB Controller’s Department, and Office of Cofinancing Operations.

and 18% in 2008). The policy-based loan disbursement ratio improved from 60% in 2010 to 64% in 2011, while the project disbursement ratio remained at 20%. ƒ Disbursement Ratio for Nonsovereign Operations ADB

ƒ

Cofinancing ADB

ADF

ADB’s disbursement ratio for nonsovereign operations improved on its strong performance in 2010, rising to 52% of total available financing and exceeding the 2012 target of “at least 50%” (Appendix 11, Table A11.3).

Direct value-added (DVA) cofinancing relative to ADB financing increased by 7 percentage points to 32% for ADB operations and by 17 percentage points to 30% for ADF operations compared with the previous 3-year period, exceeding the targets by a large margin (Figure 11). This is the first time since 2006 that the DVA cofinancing ratio for ADF operations has exceeded the 2012 target of 20%. In 2011, ADB mobilized $4.17 billion in DVA cofinancing, which included $3.28 billion from official sources (80%) and $0.89 billion from commercial sources (20%) (Appendix 12).69 ADF operations received $1.51 billion of DVA

69

ADB clarified its DVA cofinancing calculation in 2011 to include Trade Finance Program DVA cofinancing and revised parallel loan DVA cofinancing. Using this approach, ADB’s total DVA cofinancing will be $7.48 billion as a result of an increase in DVA cofinancing from commercial sources to $4.20 billion. The 2011 DEfR is continuing to use the original DVA cofinancing calculation to enable consistent trend analysis from the baseline year.

48

Level 3 ADB’s Operational Effectiveness

Figure 11: Direct Value-Added Cofinancing, 2007–2011
35 30 25 20 % 15 10 5 0 2007 2008 2009 ADB
ADB = Asian Development Bank, ADF = Asian Development Fund. Source: ADB Strategy and Policy Department.

Target: 20%

2010 ADF

2011

cofinancing. The steep rise in DVA cofinancing for ADF operations was largely attributable to a record increase in grant cofinancing. Grant cofinancing of investment projects increased almost eightfold, from $127 million in 2010 to $971 million in 2011. Two ADF-funded sector-wide education operations received about $1 billion in DVA cofinancing: the Third Primary Education Development Project in Bangladesh ($736 million) and the School Sector Reform Program in Nepal ($265 million).70 In preparing the Nepal program, ADB worked closely with eight other development partners and provided TA to the government to help formulate and structure the program. Building on the primary education program in Bangladesh, ADB led the design and structuring of the follow-on sector-wide intervention, adopting a results-based financing mechanism that links disbursements to implementation milestones. ADB provided TA to the government
70

to prepare a macro plan for primary education, including a common policy and financing framework and a joint partnership agreement. Eight development partners provided cofinancing. ADB intensified its efforts to establish new framework cofinancing agreements and expand existing ones. In 2011, ADB signed two new agreements with the Nordic Development Fund and the OPEC Fund for International Development. In total, ADB has signed nine agreements with bilateral and multilateral financing partners for a cofinancing program of about $9 billion.

X Is ADB Improving Its Strategic Focus and Selectivity?
ADB
good

ADF

good

The term “strategic focus and selectivity” refers to the proportion of financing allocated to

ADB. 2011. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors: Proposed Loan to Bangladesh for the Third Primary Education Development Project. Manila; and ADB. 2011. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors: Proposed Loan to Nepal for the School Sector Reform Program. Manila.

49

Development Effectiveness Review 2011
Strategy 2020 core operational areas, and the support given to four priority themes: private sector development, regional cooperation and integration, environmental sustainability, and gender mainstreaming.71 Gender mainstreaming made notable progress over previous years. As a result, all indicators either exceeded their targets or were on track to achieve their targets (Table 10). This category is therefore rated good for both ADB and ADF. 72 ƒ Financing for Strategy 2020 Priorities
ADB ADF

Strategy 2020 called on ADB to maximize its results, efficiency, and impact by refocusing its operations on five core specializations that best support its agenda: infrastructure, finance sector development, education, environment, and regional cooperation and integration.72 Strategy 2020 set the institutional goal of

Table 10: Financing for Strategy 2020 Priorities (Level 3)
Asian Development Bank Asian Development Fund Baseline Base2012 Base2012 line 2008 2009b 2010 2011 Target line 2008 2009 2010 2011 Target Yeara 2008 2004– 2006 average 2004– 2006 average 2004– 2006 average 2004– 2006 average 79 79 80 92 96 80 67 67 79 88 96 80

Indicator Financing for Strategy 2020 core operational areas (%) Projects supporting private sector development (%) Projects supporting regional cooperation and integration (%) Projects supporting environmental sustainability (%) Projects with gender mainstreaming (%)c
a

29 7

38 7

39 10

38 15

36 18

30 15

15 11

19 11

22 15

28 19

28 21

30 15

14 35

21 27

27 27

35 34

43 41

25 40

9 45

12 37

18 37

26 45

34 53

25 50

b c

For indicators with a 3-year average as the baseline, the figures represent the 2006–2008 average for 2008, the 2007–2009 average for 2009, the 2008–2010 average for 2010, and the 2009–2011 average for 2011. Excludes operations financed by the Countercyclical Support Facility. Includes projects identifying gender as a theme and other projects with effective gender mainstreaming.

Sources: Asian Development Bank reports and recommendations of the President, Regional and Sustainable Development Department, and Strategy and Policy Department.

71

Two of the Strategy 2020 priority themes—environmental sustainability and regional cooperation and integration— are also core areas of operations according to ADB’s strategy. The other core areas of operations are infrastructure, finance sector development, and education. ADB has adopted corporate operational plans to develop key sector and thematic operations further in line with ADB’s strategic agendas. The plans developed so far cover energy, transport, water, education, finance, climate change, food security, and health. ADB is developing plans for environment, public–private partnerships, social protection, and urban development. ADB monitors the plans using their results frameworks.

72

50

Level 3 ADB’s Operational Effectiveness
having 80% of ADB operations in its core operational areas by 2012. In 2011, the proportion of ADB operations supporting core areas increased to 96% in 2011 from 92% in 2010, and to 96% from 88% for ADF countries (Appendix 13). While this confirms ADB’s continuing strong focus on core areas of operations, the consequences of a sharp decline in support for other operational areas may need to be examined and adjustments considered. The proportion of infrastructure approvals increased to 87% of total approvals in 2011 from 64% in 2009. Education sector approvals continued to increase from a low base in 2009 to 5% in 2011, supported by the new education sector operations plan. ADB’s support for finance sector development declined sharply to 3% of total approvals in 2011 from 12% in 2009 and 14% in 2010. Experience has shown that the level of operations in some areas can be volatile. For example, ADB expects to approve about $1.25 billion worth of finance operations in 2012, representing about 9% of the total expected operations—triple the 2011 percentage for the sector. ADB also approved $359 million in TA (327 projects) in 2011, 86% of which supported ADB’s core operational areas. Water sector support was the highest at 21% of total TA financing, followed by transport and communication at 16%, energy with 15%, and finance sector development at 5%. ƒ Support for Private Sector Development
ADB ADF
watch

ADB support for private sector development in 2009–2011 declined to 36% from 38% in 2008–2010 but remained above the 2012 target of 30%. ADF support for private sector development remained at 28%, slightly below the 2012 target. Of the 38 new projects approved in 2011 that supported private sector development, 23 were sovereign operations (including 14 funded by the ADF), 14 were nonsovereign, and 1 had both sovereign and nonsovereign components (Figure 12). Sovereign operations supporting private sector development included transport and communications projects, and financing

Figure 12: Projects that Support Private Sector Development, 2011
Sovereign and nonsovereign 1 (3%)

Nonsovereign operations 14 (37%)

Sovereign operations 23 (60%)

Source: Asian Development Bank Strategy and Policy Department.

51

Development Effectiveness Review 2011
for SMEs, power, roads, water supply, and urban services. ADB intends to scale up and strengthen its public–private partnership activities in line with its public–private partnership operational plan for 2012–2020 currently under preparation. ADB’s operations in this area will be based on four pillars: advocacy and capacity development, enabling environment, project development, and project finance. During 2012–2014, ADB will strengthen its institutional arrangement for public–private partnership by refining its business processes, as well as its financial and human resource mobilization and deployment. ƒ Support for Regional Cooperation and Integration ADB ADF contributing $50 million annually over 3 years, starting in 2012, and is administering the fund. To promote knowledge sharing on trade, ADB brought together more than 70 trade officials, ASEAN Secretariat officials, and ADB staff to learn and share experiences on the dynamics of trade and production networks and online trade policy tools. ADB also launched the Asian International Economists Network, an internetbased network of international economic policy experts from government, academia, research institutes, and the private sector. The network’s goal is to strengthen institutional capacity on trade policy in Asia and the Pacific, and to expand cooperation among trade ministries, experts, and policy makers. ƒ Support for Environmental Sustainability
ADB ADF

ADB continued to boost its support for regional cooperation and integration. In 2009–2011, 18% of ADB projects and 21% of ADF projects supported regional cooperation and integration—both exceeding the target of 15%. ADB approved 21 projects supporting regional cooperation and integration in 2011 (including 8 ADF-funded operations). Four projects were in the energy sector and 17 were in transport and communication. These included transport network improvements in the Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation region, such as (i) rehabilitation of Afghanistan’s road and railway networks to provide links from Central Asia to markets to the south, east, and west; (ii) information and communication technology network connectivity linking Tonga to the rest of the world; and (iii) hydropower generation capacity to enable the Lao PDR to export electricity to Thailand. In 2011, ADB approved an equity contribution to the ASEAN Infrastructure Fund that will finance and catalyze public and private investment in priority infrastructure in Southeast Asia. ADB is

In 2009–2011, 43% of ADB projects and 34% of ADF projects supported environmental sustainability. Environmental sustainability was a theme in 49% of the projects approved in 2011 and the primary classification for 20%. Projects included solar power generation and energy efficiency, water supply and water-based natural resources management, and urban sector development including urban services improvements. In 2011, ADB approved the Urban Services Improvement Investment Program to improve water supply and sanitation in Georgia, thereby easing the pressure of a growing population on the country’s urban infrastructure.73 The Ha Noi Metro Rail System Project (Line 3: Nhon–Ha Noi Station section), also approved in 2011, will provide low-carbon public transport that reduces greenhouse gas emissions. 74 Of the 57 projects (including 18 ADF-funded operations) supporting environmental sustainability, 45 will help address climate change—19 through mitigation, 5 with

73

ADB. 2011. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors: Proposed Loan to Georgia for the Urban Services Improvement Investment Program. Manila. ADB. 2011. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors: Proposed Loan to Viet Nam for the Ha Noi Metro Rail System Project. Manila.

74

52

Level 3 ADB’s Operational Effectiveness
mainstreaming, a sharp increase from the previous 3–year period and surpassing the 2012 targets (Figure 14). In 2011, 51% of ADB operations and 67% of ADF operations incorporated gender mainstreaming, a major improvement from 42% of ADB operations and 53% of ADF operations in 2010. Missed opportunities for gender mainstreaming were minimal. ADB will strengthen the review of all projects at entry to ensure consistent and rigorous application of the gender classification. Further progress was made in 2011 in incorporating gender mainstreaming in infrastructure, such as energy and transport, with 36% of energy projects and 39% of transport projects categorized as gender mainstreaming. This represents a significant increase from 11% of energy and 31% of transport projects in 2010. Gender mainstreaming in water supply and sanitation and municipal infrastructure projects also increased from 73% in 2010 to 89% in 2011. Education and health projects continued to perform consistently well in mainstreaming gender. The upward trends reflect the successful implementation of actions ADB has taken since 2009 when its poor performance in promoting this theme was highlighted in the 2008 Development Effectiveness Review (DEfR). ADB increased the number of gender specialists, introduced refined gender mainstreaming project category guidelines, expanded staff training on gender inclusive projects, and launched the pilot results delivery scheme.75 These actions also led to better ownership and oversight by regional departments, and improved collaboration between gender specialists working on thematic and sector issues. To sustain progress on gender mainstreaming, ADB extended the Gender and Development Plan of Action to 2012.

Figure 13: Projects that Respond to Climate Change, 2011

Adaptation 5 (11%)

Mitigation and Adaptation 21 (47%)

Mitigation 19 (42%)

Source: Asian Development Bank Strategy and Policy Department.

adaptation measures, and 21 using both (Figure 13). Projects contributing to climate change mitigation, such as those involving energy efficiency and renewable energy, will help rein in greenhouse gas emissions. Energy projects include a solar power project in India, a wind power project in Pakistan, and a combined gas facility in Viet Nam. Projects promoting climate change adaptation will finance climate resilient infrastructure, support vulnerability mapping, and develop provincial government capacity to manage potential climate change impacts. ƒ Support for Gender Mainstreaming
ADB ADF

In 2009–2011, 41% of ADB operations and 53% of ADF operations incorporated gender
75

Responding to the findings of the 2008 DEfR, ADB Management introduced a pilot results delivery scheme in 2010 that links ordinary capital resources allocation to performance in cofinancing operations and support for education and gender mainstreaming. Under this scheme, an additional ordinary capital resources allocation of at least 2% of the original amount is awarded to regional departments achieving the targets for use in the following 2 years.

53

Development Effectiveness Review 2011

Figure 14: ADB Projects with Gender Mainstreaming, 2004–2011

60 50 40 % 30 20 10 0 2004 2005 2006
Annual

Target: 40%

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

3-year average

Note: Performance against target is assessed using 3-year moving averages. Source: Asian Development Bank Regional and Sustainable Development Department.

Table 11: Knowledge Management (Level 3)
Asian Development Bank Asian Development Fund 2012 Base2012 Baseline Baseline 2008 2009 2010 2011 Target line 2008 2009 2010 2011 Target Year 2006 54 55 60 62 66 60 Same as ADB

Indicator Annual MAKE survey assessment rating (%) ADB perceived externally as excellent source of knowledge on development issues (% strongly agreeing)a

2009

29

29

40

Same as ADB

ADB = Asian Development Bank, MAKE = Most Admired Knowledge Enterprise. a Data obtained from ADB perceptions survey conducted every 3 years. No assessment for 2011; in 2010, ADB adopted a baseline and established target for 2012. Sources: ADB Department of External Relations, and Regional and Sustainable Development Department.

Gender experts also participated in review missions to help regional departments strengthen the implementation of project gender action plans. ADB also continued to provide gender capacity development support to executing agencies through learning opportunities at country, subregional, and interregional levels.

X Is ADB Managing Knowledge Better?
ADB
good

ADF

good

Progress on ADB’s knowledge management is assessed through an indicator of internal perceptions of knowledge management at ADB and through an indicator of external perceptions of ADB as a source of knowledge on development issues (Table 11). As staff

54

Level 3 ADB’s Operational Effectiveness
perceptions of ADB’s performance as a knowledge management institution continued to improve, this category is rated good. The 2012 stakeholder perceptions survey will assess the progress on external perceptions of ADB and the results will be reported in the 2012 DEfR. ƒ Staff Perceptions of Knowledge Management at ADB ADB and product services programs, complete a special evaluation study on ADB’s knowledge management, further strengthen the CoPs, and upgrade the information and communication technology system to support knowledge management across ADB. ƒ External Perception of ADB as a Source of Knowledge on Development Issues

ADB advanced the implementation of its Knowledge Management Action Plan, 2009–2011. Staff perceptions of knowledge management at ADB continued to improve in 2011, surpassing the 2012 target of 60% for the second consecutive year. ADB’s rating rose to 66% in 2011 from 62% in 2010.76 ADB’s progress on knowledge management was recognized globally when it won the Asian Most Admired Knowledge Enterprise (MAKE) Award in 2011 and was named a finalist for the Global MAKE Award. The Knowledge Management Action Plan, which underpinned this achievement, sharpened the knowledge focus in ADB operations, empowered ADB’s CoPs, strengthened ADB’s external knowledge partnerships, and enhanced staff learning and skills development. To reinforce progress on knowledge management, ADB consolidated its knowledge departments—the Economics and Research Department, the Office of Regional Economic Integration, the Regional and Sustainable Development Department, and the Office of Information Systems and Technology— under one vice-presidency (Knowledge Management and Sustainable Development). Under this strengthened institutional arrangement, ADB envisages advancing further its strategic directions, business processes, operations, and resourcing of its knowledge management activities. It plans to develop a new action plan, review and improve the management of knowledge
76

This indicator, introduced in 2011, measures clients’ perceptions of ADB’s effectiveness in creating and sharing knowledge, complementing the MAKE survey of staff perceptions of ADB’s knowledge management. The independent stakeholder perceptions survey is conducted every 3 years. This indicator will be assessed for the first time using the results of the upcoming 2012 perceptions survey. A baseline of 29% and a target of 40% were established for respondents strongly agreeing with the following statement: “ADB is an excellent source of knowledge on development issues.”

X Is ADB Forming Better Partnerships?
ADB
good

ADF

good

ADB made excellent progress on partnering with civil society organizations (CSOs) and conducting country strategy and portfolio review missions jointly with other development partners. ADB also expanded its use of program-based approaches (PBAs) (Table 12). With all three indicators achieving their 2012 targets, this category is rated good for ADB and ADF. ƒ Participation of Civil Society Organizations in Sovereign Operations
ADB ADF

ADB further increased CSO participation in its 2011 sovereign operations. CSO participation rose to 91% from 79% in 2010 for ADB

The staff perception rating was based on the results of the seventh MAKE survey that ADB conducted in November 2011. The number of staff participating in the 2011 survey (813 staff) was 28% higher than the number of respondents (637 staff) to the 2010 survey.

55

Development Effectiveness Review 2011
Table 12: Partnerships (Level 3)
Asian Development Bank Asian Development Fund 2012 Base2012 Baseline Baseline 2008 2009 2010 2011 Target line 2008 2009 2010 2011 Target Year 2006 2006 78 29 76 45 72a 62a 79 51 91 51 80 10 85 20 82 26 75 29 81 23 96 24 80 8

Indicator Sovereign operations with CSO participation (%) New program-based approaches approved (number) CPS and CPR missions conducted jointly with at least one other development partner (% annually)
a

2006

33

39

56

65

88

60

40

44

61

74

88

60

CPR = country portfolio review, CPS = country partnership strategy, CSO = civil society organization. Excludes operations financed by the Countercyclical Support Facility. Sources: Asian Development Bank Central Operations Services Office, Regional and Sustainable Development Department, regional departments, resident missions, and Strategy and Policy Department.

operations, and to 96% from 81% in 2010 for ADF operations (Appendix 14, Tables A14.1 and A14.2). The strong performance was driven by greater staff capacity in the use of participatory approaches, more collaboration with CSOs in the preparation of social safeguards documents and in monitoring safeguards implementation, and increased awareness of the role of civil society among project implementers. ADB updated its staff guide to consultation and participation,77 and published 10 civil society country briefs describing civil society’s operations and engagement with ADB in the selected countries. ADB will revise its methodology to better monitor CSO participation at different stages of the project cycle and institutional capacity for CSO participation.

ƒ

Program-Based Approaches
ADB ADF

The use of PBAs implies a greater focus on country ownership, use of country systems, reliance on the DMC’s budget framework, and coordination among development partners. ADB continued its strong support for PBAs, approving 51 operations using PBAs in 2011— including 10 in ADF-only countries—and 24 operations using PBAs in its ADF operations (Appendix 14, Table A14.3). The number of projects supporting PBAs thus remained far above the 2012 targets. An example of a project using a PBA is the Rural Primary Health Services Delivery Project in Papua New Guinea, for which ADB approved financing of $20 million, to be implemented under the sector-wide approach that is currently in place for the country’s health sector.78 Another example is the Third Primary Education Development Project in Bangladesh, for which ADB approved a $320 million loan as part of

77 78

ADB. 2011. Strengthening Participation for Development Results. Manila. ADB. 2011. Report and Recommendation of the President: Proposed Loan to Papua New Guinea for the Rural Primary Health Services Delivery Project. Manila.

56

Level 3 ADB’s Operational Effectiveness

a pool of financing from the Government of Bangladesh and nine development partners. ƒ Joint Country Partnership Strategies and Country Portfolio Review Missions
ADB ADF

The proportion of CPS and country portfolio review missions conducted jointly with other development partners continued to increase, again surpassing the 2012 target (60%) for ADB and ADF by a wide margin. It rose to 88% from 65% in 2010 for ADB operations, and to 88% from 74% in 2010 for ADF operations. ADB conducted 18 of 19 CPS review missions and 20 of 24 country portfolio review missions in close coordination with development partners.79 ƒ Progress on Paris Declaration Commitments

fiduciary risk that their use in ADB-financed procurement entails. ADB also did poorly on the ninth indicator, aid predictability. ADB’s aid predictability performance is constrained by (i) the occurrence of exogenous events, such as natural disasters and the global economic crisis, which necessitate an ADB response through demand-driven lending operations that cannot be anticipated; and (ii) the extent to which DMCs record aid disbursements in their public accounts. ADB’s use of 3-year rolling pipelines makes its aid highly predictable; however, this information was not always captured in DMCs’ accounting systems. ADB played a significant role in ensuring that the perspectives of Asia and the Pacific were an important part of the agenda and outcomes of the Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, held 29 November–1 December 2011 in Busan, Republic of Korea. The forum reviewed progress made since the 2005 Paris Declaration and determined the direction of the future aid framework. ADB (i) promoted the need to make countries’ public sector management systems more results oriented, (ii) highlighted the role of aid in catalyzing private sector involvement, (iii) stressed the importance of strengthening country systems and institutions to improve development effectiveness, and (iv) supported discussions on the evolving role of DMCs in promoting mutual cooperation. The main outcome of the forum was the endorsement of the Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation by all stakeholders, reiterating the commitments and actions set out in the Paris Declaration and the Accra Agenda for Action. ADB will work closely with the development community to agree on global indicators and processes for monitoring the Busan Partnership agreement.

ADB reported on its performance during 2008–2010 on the indicators defined by the 2005 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and its follow-up agreement, the 2008 Accra Agenda for Action. The average results of the three annual internal monitoring surveys met or exceeded the 2010 targets on five of the nine Paris Declaration indicators relevant to ADB operations: aligning aid with national priorities, coordinating TA, using public financial management systems, avoiding parallel project implementation units, and increasing joint missions. ADB also made good progress in the use of PBAs in its lending and in the conduct of country analytical work jointly with other stakeholders. ADB fell short of the 2010 targets for the use of country procurement systems; however, meeting this target depends largely on the quality of such systems and the potential for increasing

79

ADB participated in joint CPS consultation missions in Bangladesh, Cambodia, the PRC, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, the Lao PDR, Malaysia, the Maldives, Mongolia, the Philippines, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, TimorLeste, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Viet Nam. ADB held joint portfolio reviews in Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bhutan, Cambodia, Georgia, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, the Lao PDR, Mongolia, Nepal, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Samoa, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Viet Nam.

57

ADB is helping the Government of Bhutan expand technical and vocational training facilities throughout the country.

Level 4
ADb’s Organizational Effectiveness
ADB needs to manage its human resources carefully to maximize the talents of almost 3,000 staff at headquarters and in resident missions across the region. It must ensure that its limited funds are managed effectively and its business processes are efficient and flexible. This section reviews progress in these areas against the 13 indicators in the corporate results framework.

X Is ADB Aligning Its Human Resources to Increase Operational Effectiveness?
ADB
good

To assess ADB’s human resources management, the results framework uses four indicators to capture the adequacy of staffing in operations departments and resident missions, gender

Table 13: Human Resources (Level 4)
Baseline Year 2004– 2006 average 2004– 2006 average 2007 2008 Asian Development Bank Baseline 52 2008 53
b

Indicator Budgeted international and national staff in operations departments (%)a Budgeted international and national staff in resident missions (%)c Representation of women international staff in total (%)d Staff engagement survey results (index)e
a b c

2009 53
b

2010 55
b

2011 56
b

2012 Target 56b

42

46b

47b

48b

48b

48b

29 60

28 60

28

29 68

31

35 67

d e

“Operations departments” refer to regional departments and the Private Sector Operations Department. Figures are annual percentages, rather than 3-year rolling averages. This represents the proportion of international and national staff positions in resident missions of those assigned to regional departments. This indicator follows the targets of the Third Gender Action Program. The staff engagement survey is conducted every 2 years.

Source: Asian Development Bank Budget, Personnel and Management Systems Department.

59

Development Effectiveness Review 2011
balance at ADB, and staff motivation and satisfaction (Table 13). ADB achieved its 2012 target for staff resources in operations departments and resident missions. Considerable progress was made toward gender balance at ADB, although much faster progress is needed to meet the target. Staff motivation and satisfaction was not updated because the next biennial survey of staff engagement will be conducted in 2012. With most indicators performing satisfactorily, this category is rated good. ƒ ƒ Staff Resources in Operations Departments
ADB

Pakistan, and Viet Nam to work with national procurement officers to improve their capacity and help to reduce procurement delays. As part of implementing Our People Strategy and the Human Resources Function Strategic Framework and Action Plan, ADB continued to improve the delivery of human resource services, and to accelerate the recruitment of experts. This resulted in a high level of recruitment, halving the international staff vacancy rate to 3.2% in 2011 from 6.4% in 2008.80 ƒ Gender Balance at ADB ADB
off track

Staff Resources in Resident Missions
ADB

The proportion of international and national staff located in operations departments increased in 2011, reaching the 2012 target (Appendix 15, Tables A15.1 and A15.2). The number of staff located in resident missions increased, although the proportion remained the same (48%), equaling the target. By the end of 2011, 56% of international and national staff positions (951 of 1,713) were in operations departments. Of the positions assigned to regional departments, 48% (409 positions) were in resident missions. The share of resident mission staff in regional departments is expected to climb further to 51% by 2012, exceeding the target of 48%. In 2011, ADB added 70 positions for international and national staff (67% of total new positions) in operations departments at headquarters and in resident missions. Of the 56 new positions in regional departments, 29 (52%) were assigned to resident missions. Including two safeguards specialists and five procurement specialists, 33 international staff were posted to resident missions. The procurement specialists were assigned to the resident missions in Bangladesh, the PRC, India,
80

The representation of women international staff improved by 2 percentage points to 31% in 2011. The proportion of women in new international staff appointments increased to 46% in 2011 from 36% in 2010 and 19% in 2008 (Appendix 15, Table A15.3). However, these improvements were insufficient to put ADB on track to meet the 2012 target of 35% women international staff. The representation of women international staff at entry levels (1–4) was 38% in 2011, below the target of 40% (Figure 15). At pipeline levels (5–6) it was 30%, also falling short of the target of 35%. Representation at senior levels (7–10) reached an all-time high of 23%, although it was still short of the target of 25% women international staff (Appendix 15, Table A15.3). The Third Gender Action Program extension, 2011–2012, seeks to increase the recruitment rate of women at all levels, and the retention rate of women international staff.81 It introduced measures to hold managers accountable for achieving gender results, including a gender action agreement with specific performance indicators and targets, which heads of departments and offices and directors are required to sign annually

ADB envisaged creating 500 new positions in its Work Program and Budget Framework, 2010–2012. ADB added 410 positions in 2010 and 2011. ADB. 2011. Updating the Third Gender Action Program (GAP III): GAP III Extension (2011–2012). Manila.

81

60

Level 4 ADB’s Organizational Effectiveness

Figure 15: Gender Balance at ADB, 2011
50 40 40 30 20 10 0 Entry levels Pipeline levels Target Senior levels Actual All levels 38 35 30 % 25 23 35 31

ADB = Asian Development Bank. Source: ADB Budget, Personnel and Management Systems Department.

and report on. ADB is also taking steps to retain more female staff through a mentoring program, workshops on gender inclusiveness for senior staff, and gender awareness briefings for all staff. ADB has adopted communication and change management plans promoting gender diversity within the institution, and is continuing to promote flexible work arrangements for all staff with the extension of the work-from-home pilot. ƒ Staff Engagement ADB

significantly to Strategy 2020 goals. It adopted a new position classification system for national and administrative staff to recognize their substantive roles and clarify their career progression opportunities. In 2012, ADB will realign human resource management functions to enhance support to managers and departments, further streamline human resource services, and make greater use of internal expertise in staff training and development. In addition, special attention will be given to staff career development through programs for mentoring, rotation, and staff exchange. ADB plans to conduct a new staff engagement survey in 2012.

The May 2010 staff engagement survey, which had shown improving staff engagement during 2008–2010, also identified areas for improvement. Department heads consulted staff and formulated follow-up actions in response to these findings. Progress on the action plans are monitored and reported to staff. Responding to the survey findings, ADB also launched a new rewards and recognition program to recognize individual and team achievements and behaviors that contribute

X Is ADB’s Budget Adequate to Support Operational Effectiveness?
ADB
poor

ADB’s budget adequacy is assessed through four ratios measuring internal administrative expenses (IAE) related to project approvals, disbursements,

61

Development Effectiveness Review 2011
Table 14: budget Adequacy (Level 4)
Indicator Internal administrative expenses per $1 million of project approval ($’000) Internal administrative expenses per project approved ($ million in 2000 constant prices) Internal administrative expenses per $1 million disbursement ($’000) Internal administrative expenses per project under implementation ($’000 in 2000 constant prices)
a

Baseline Yeara 2004–2006 average 2004–2006 average 2004–2006 average 2004–2006 average

Asian Development Bank Baseline 43 2008 32 2009b 28 2010 27 2011 31 2012 Target Maintain

2.8

2.4

2.3

2.2

2.2

Maintain

62 427

46 399

41 395

43b 395

50 397

Maintain Maintain or increase

b

For indicators with a 3-year average as the baseline, the figures represent the 2006–2008 average for 2008, the 2007–2009 average for 2009, the 2008–2010 average for 2010, and the 2009–2011 average for 2011. Includes operations financed by the Countercyclical Support Facility.

Source: Asian Development Bank Budget, Personnel and Management Systems Department.

and implementation (Table 14). From 2010 to 2011, three budget adequacy indicators—IAE per $1 million of project approval, IAE per $1 million disbursement, and IAE per project under implementation—improved, two of them significantly; one indicator—IAE per project approved—was stable. As ADB’s performance on all four indicators remained below the target of maintaining the 2004–2006 baseline values, it is rated poor. ƒ IAE per $1 million of project approval
ADB
off track

The sizable increase in ADB’s IAE budget for 2010 (13.1% over the 2009 level) and 2011 (12.9% over the 2010 level) provided under ADB’s 3-year budget transformation plan, 2010–2012, helped reverse the declining trend in the indicators.82 The additional resources enabled ADB to allocate more staff time to project processing and administration, thereby safeguarding and enhancing the quality of its expanded portfolio. Considering the expansion in the portfolio and the need to capture efficiency gains in the results framework indicators, ADB will review the indicators in 2012 and identify suitable new indicators and targets. Operational efficiency increased significantly during 2008– 2011. For example, the number of international staff per project approved declined from 8.6 in 2008 to 8.3 in 2011. ADB will take further steps to implement efficiency measures, apply work prioritization exercises, and optimize resource use.

ƒ

IAE per project approved
ADB
off track

ƒ

IAE per $1 million disbursement
ADB
off track

ƒ

IAE per project under implementation
ADB
off track

82

The objectives of the 3-year budget transformation plan, 2010–2012, are to (i) address persistent human and financial resource gaps that have accumulated over several years as operations have expanded significantly, (ii) enhance the quality of ADB operations, (iii) expand ADB’s knowledge services, and (iv) implement Strategy 2020 effectively. This entails large budget and staff increases during the 3-year period, after which ADB will revert to normal budget growth.

62

Level 4 ADB’s Organizational Effectiveness

X Are ADB’s Business Processes and Practices More Efficient?
ADB
good

ADF

good

The business processes and practices indicators gauge ADB’s responsiveness to its clients by reviewing the level of resident mission leadership in project administration, country programming, portfolio review, and economic work. As most indicators met or exceeded targets, the rating is good (Table 15). ƒ Project Processing Time ADB
ADF

22 months, compared with 19 months in 2010. For ADF operations, the processing time was 19 months, compared with 16 months in 2010. Project processing required an average of 23 months, while policy-based loan processing took 16 months in 2011 (Appendix A16, Tables A16.1 and A16.2). One factor influencing the deterioration in this indicator may be that, compared to previous years, there were relatively fewer policy-based loans and supplementary loans—which normally take less time to process—in the operations that became effective in 2011. ADB Management is concerned about the reversal in the trend and has instructed staff to implement fully and expeditiously the 2010 streamlined business processes. ADB is also investigating key processing bottlenecks to define appropriate actions.

Average processing time was longer for sovereign operations that became effective in 2011 compared with the previous 2 years. The preparation of ADB operations took

Table 15: business Processes and Practices (Level 4)
BaseAsian Development Bank Asian Development Fund 2012 Base2012 line BaseYear line 2008 2009 2010 2011 Target line 2008 2009 2010 2011 Target 2006 28 21 19b 19b 22 16 28 19 15 16 19 16

Indicator Average sovereign operations processing time (months from fact finding to effectiveness)a Sovereign operations administered by resident missions (%) Resident missions leading country programming (%) Resident missions leading country portfolio review (%) Resident missions leading country economic work (%)
a

2006 2007 2007 2007

39 91 91 91

38 95 91 100

37 95 95 95

41 95 95 100

40 100 100 100

43 100 100 100

36 94 94 88

39 100 100 100

37 94 100 94

41 100 100 100

41 100 100 100

43 100 100 100

b

Defined as the average time from loan or project preparatory technical assistance fact-finding to effectiveness; or the date on which the loan, grant, or guarantee agreement comes into force. The agreement becomes effective after its signing by all parties, upon the borrower’s compliance with the effectiveness conditions. Excludes multitranche financing facility tranches not processed together with the facility. Supplementary loan approvals are computed from loan fact-finding to effectiveness. Excludes operations financed by the Countercyclical Support Facility.

Sources: Asian Development Bank Central Operations Services Office, regional departments, and Strategy and Policy Department.

63

Development Effectiveness Review 2011
ƒ ƒ Delegation of Project Administration to watch ADF Resident Missions ADB Resident Missions Leading
Country Programming Portfolio Review Country Economic Work ADB ADB ADB

watch

ADF ADF ADF

Framework, 2010–2012, and with support from the recently approved budget for 2012; (iii) strengthen the supervision capacity of resident missions to facilitate project implementation; and (iv) upgrade ICT systems in resident missions to achieve full system integration with headquarters. • Is ADB Managing Itself with More Focus on Development Results? ADB refined its corporate results framework and Development Effectiveness Review (DEfR) scorecard in early 2011 and began a full review of the framework to strengthen it further and update targets for levels 2–4. In 2011, ADB also implemented work plans that link the results achieved by each department, division, and individual staff member to Strategy 2020 priorities. To measure work plan results effectively, more service departments conducted internal client surveys to gauge staff satisfaction with their services. As recognition of the value of these work plans has spread, ADB has begun to compile good practices on preparing and using work plans. ADB will build on this to

ADB delegated the administration of 40% of all ongoing projects and 41% of ongoing ADF projects to resident missions.83 (Appendix 16, Table A16.3 shows the percentage by country group.) All resident missions led country programming, country portfolio review, and economic work in 2011. Several measures were taken to strengthen procurement in resident missions (Box 4). ADB continued to refine the working arrangements under its decentralization model. Taking advantage of its proximity to DMCs, ADB will (i) continue promoting effective field–headquarters teamwork to offer the best services quickly to its government counterparts; (ii) complete its staff decentralization plan according to the Work Program and Budget

box 4: Improving Procurement in Resident Missions
Responding to the project implementation working group’s finding that procurement needed to be strengthened to accelerate processing and reduce risk, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) • expanded training of national procurement officers, • sent ADB procurement specialists on extended missions to support resident mission staff on procurement implementation, and • undertook special missions and review sessions to help resident missions address procurement implementation problems. These and other measures contributed to a 20% drop in noncompliance and accelerated processing with reduced procurement risk. In 2011, ADB staff piloted the Procurement Accreditation Skills Scheme, which offers two options: consultant recruitment and executing agency procurement oversight. The scheme will be rolled out for all ADB staff in 2012.
Source: Asian Development Bank Central Operations Services Office.

83

This captures the proportion of projects that are administered by team leaders in resident missions. However, it does not include projects that are administered by staff who are located in the field but report to headquarters. Similarly, this indicator does not capture projects that are largely administered by resident missions under the joint oversight of country and sector directors. If both types of projects were included, the value of this indicator would rise considerably.

64

Level 4 ADB’s Organizational Effectiveness
improve the quality of the work plans and promote their use as a management tool. ADB continued to sharpen its results focus in planning and monitoring country strategies and operations by implementing new guidelines on country and sector results frameworks. A total of 252 staff were trained at headquarters on managing for development results (MfDR), and 37 directors attended special sessions on the Paris Declaration and MfDR for directors. In addition, two training programs were held in DMCs for resident mission staff, one for Central Asia and the other for the PRC and Mongolia. To demonstrate its contributions to development, ADB produced country development effectiveness briefs for eight countries.84 It also continued to implement quality assurance mechanisms and develop staff capacity to improve the quality of project design and monitoring frameworks. The ADB-supported Asia–Pacific CoP on MfDR continued to support DMCs’ efforts to improve the results orientation of their public sector management systems. In September 2011, the Asia–Pacific CoP, together with its counterpart CoPs from Africa and South America, endorsed the Seoul Statement on Results. This statement concluded that an effective public sector, supported by appropriate management systems, reinforces a country’s capacity to achieve development results, boosts accountability for doing so, and improves ownership of projects financed by development partners. The statement was shared at the Fourth High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness. The 2011 special evaluation study by the Independent Evaluation Department (IED) on ADB’s MfDR agenda implementation concluded that ADB has achieved most of the intended results of the MfDR action plan. Overall, ADB was rated successful in mainstreaming MfDR. Despite this progress, transforming ADB into a fully results-focused organization requires continued refinement of business processes and tools, and strengthening of results-based performance management at all levels. Key actions ADB will undertake will include • reviewing ADB’s results framework in 2012 and adopting a stronger framework in early 2013; • improving results-based work plans and their use to align staff behaviors more closely with Strategy 2020 goals; • sharpening the results orientation of the ADB-wide sector and thematic operational plans by developing staff instructions for preparing and monitoring these plans, and ensuring that all such plans are accompanied by practical monitoring frameworks; • consolidating country results management by promoting a more consistent application of the updated guidelines on country and sector results frameworks, and staff instructions on results monitoring during country portfolio reviews; and providing a more focused staff training program on results monitoring during the reviews; • reinforcing project results management by (a) ensuring the effective use of eOperations—the new project management information system— to enable more systematic and comprehensive results monitoring; (b) continuing with regular and ondemand design and monitoring framework training for all departments, and revising the project completion report format to enable better measurement of project outcome achievement; and (c) continuing to mainstream impact evaluation across ADB; and • reinforcing support for DMC capacity development on MfDR by better integrating MfDR in governance and sector assessments underpinning CPSs.

84

In 2011, ADB published development effectiveness country briefs for Azerbaijan, India, Kazakhstan, the Marshall Islands, Samoa, Tonga, Uzbekistan, and Viet Nam.

65

The expressway, constructed under the ADB-funded Xinjiang Regional Road Development Project, increases the flow of goods and passengers while reducing transport costs and travel times, and improving road safety.

Actions
X Actions under Implementation
In 2011, ADB Management adopted an action plan to improve outcomes following the findings of the 2010 DEfR.85 The plan reiterated the need to intensify efforts to carry out the recommendations of the project implementation working group approved in December 2010 and the 2010 streamlined business processes to ensure project success. Key actions being implemented under the plan aim to (i) improve country diagnosis to ensure the relevance of ADB’s country strategy; (ii) reinforce QAE assurance mechanisms for projects; (iii) promote total project readiness; (iv) strengthen project and portfolio supervision, supported by the new portfolio performance report system for timely identification and resolution of issues; and (v) mainstream the use of country and sector results frameworks in managing country programs. Each regional department also developed its own action plan to address region-specific challenges. ADB continued to implement other initiatives to further improve its performance, responding to commitments made in previous DEfRs. These initiatives are having the desired impact, as demonstrated by the steady improvement in cofinancing mobilization, support for gender mainstreaming through operations, staff perceptions of knowledge management, gender balance at ADB, and allocation of staff to operations including resident missions. In 2011, ADB • mobilized additional investments by proactively identifying cofinancing opportunities and concluding strategic partnerships with organizations that share ADB’s priorities; • expanded gender mainstreaming in operations through application of refined gender mainstreaming project category guidelines, and continued staff training on how to better incorporate gender mainstreaming in project design and implementation; • strengthened its resident missions by adding more staff, including four deputy country director positions, and reinforcing project supervision capacity; • improved human resources management by adding more staff, accelerating recruitment, and improving staff incentives; • improved the gender balance at ADB through proactive recruitment and retention measures, and greater senior staff accountability for achieving targets; and • maximized efficiency gains by streamlining business processes, strengthening ICT systems, improving institutional procurement, and undertaking other costsaving measures.

X Priority Actions for 2012
ADB will continue to implement the actions listed above. Following the findings of this report, Management will emphasize measures on project performance, timely project processing, gender balance at ADB, budget efficiency, and MfDR (Table 16).

85

ADB. 2011. Improving Project Outcomes. Manila. http://www.adb.org/documents/improving-project-outcomes

67

Development Effectiveness Review 2011
Table 16: Priority Actions for 2012
Pages Discussing Actions 41–43 Time Frame Ongoing

Actions Improve project outcomes • Continue to implement the initiatives defined by the project implementation working group in 2010, and the ADB-wide and departmental action plans to improve project outcomes adopted in 2011. Ensure timely delivery of outputs through regular monitoring. • Involve more systematically sector experts (including CoPs) to ensure quality at entry and quality during implementation of multisector projects. • Initiate a review of the TA reforms adopted in 2008 to assess their impact on TA performance and identify further actions needed. Ensure timely project processing • Continue implementing the 2010 streamlined business processes. Investigate issues that slowed processing time, and adopt further actions needed. Improve gender balance at ADB • Continue to implement the revamped actions to achieve the gender balance targets under the Third Gender Action Program extension, 2011–2012. Increase budget efficiency • Further expand efficiency measures to deliver quality operations within the budget. • Identify better indicators to measure budget adequacy and efficiency for the upgraded results framework to be introduced in 2013. Further mainstream MfDR at ADB • Complete the review of the corporate results framework. • Improve the use of results-based work plans. • Sharpen the results focus of ADB-wide sector and thematic operational plans. • Consolidate country and project results management and reporting. • Reinforce support for DMC capacity development on MfDR.

Responsibility Operations departments, BPMSD, COSO, CTL, OGC, OREI, RSDD, CoPs (SPD to coordinate) Operations departments, CoPs

26

2012 onward

44

All departments and offices managing Ongoing TA projects (SPD to coordinate)

63

Operations departments, COSO

2012

60–61

All departments and offices (BPMSD to coordinate)

Ongoing

62 All departments and offices (BPMSD to coordinate) BPMSD, SPD Ongoing 2012

65 All departments and offices (SPD to coordinate) All departments and offices (SPD to coordinate) Operations departments (SPD to coordinate Operations departments (SPD and COSO to coordinate) Regional departments (SPD to coordinate) 2012 2012 2012 Ongoing Ongoing

ADB = Asian Development Bank; BPMSD = Budget, Personnel and Management Systems Department; CoP = community of practice; COSO = Central Operations Services Office; CTL = Controller’s Department; DMC = developing member country; MfDR = managing for development results; OGC = Office of the General Counsel; OREI = Office of Regional Economic Integration; RSDD = Regional and Sustainable Development Department; SPD = Strategy and Policy Department; TA = technical assistance. Source: ADB Strategy and Policy Department.

Conclusion
Asia’s rapid economic expansion has reduced poverty and improved social outcomes, although progress has been highly uneven. While some MDGs have been achieved, progress is lagging in other areas, particularly in the poorer ADF countries. Renewed efforts by the DMCs and development partners, including ADB, are needed to achieve these globally agreed upon human development targets. In 2011, ADB continued to improve its operational and organizational effectiveness, suggesting that the range of actions introduced since 2009 to strengthen development effectiveness may be achieving the intended results. The quality of ongoing operations improved, more operations promoted gender equity, and cofinancing increased significantly, particularly in ADF operations. The 2011 DEfR identified continuing weaknesses in important performance areas. Although the quality of ADB’s recently completed operations— including their delivery of core sector outcomes—improved, it remained considerably below target. Progress in delivering several ADF core sector outputs slowed largely due to project implementation delays, restructuring, and cancellations. These findings confirm the urgency of fully implementing actions introduced in 2010–2011 to improve project implementation and outcomes. ADB Management will therefore intensify efforts to mainstream the implementation of these measures to engender better development outcomes.

69

ADB’s Rural Infrastructure Sector Project helped farmers to increase agricultural productivity and reduce poverty in the Viet Nam countryside.

Appendixes

71

Appendix 1
Table A1.1: Poverty and Human Development Asian Development Bank Countries
mixed

ADB Performance Scorecard 2011

X Level 1: Asia and Pacific Development Outcomes

Asian Development Fund Countriesa Baseline 2005 2007 27.7 79.2 24.0 79.6 29.0 79.1 Latest 2009 Target 2015 29.3 100.0

poor

Indicator 27.0 90.9 93.9 94.1 100.0 26.1 23.6 27.4

Baseline 2005 2007 Signalb

Latest 2009

Target 2015

Signalb

Population living on less than $1.25 (PPP) per day (%)

Primary education completion rate, both sexes (%)

Ratio of girls to boys in: 0.97 0.91 0.82 30.0 57.0 1.31d 1.72 53.5 48.7c 29.5 Reverse 30.5 31.0 Increase 0.86 0.90 1.00 0.94 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.71 26.7 68.5 0.14d 0.93 0.91 0.76 26.3 64.8 0.94 0.94 0.76 26.7 60.4c 0.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 Increase 36.4 Reverse
continued on next page

Primary education

Secondary education

Tertiary education

Women in nonagricultural wage employment (%)

Under-5 child mortality (per 1,000 live births)

Women (aged 15 and above) living with HIV (number, million)

73

74
Asian Development Bank Countries
mixed

Table A1.1 continued

Asian Development Fund Countriesa Baseline 2005 2007 90.7 76.5
e

poor

Indicator 95.4 79.0
e

Baseline 2005 2007 95.5 80.7 62.3 40.2
Rating of composite indicators: Poor: Half or less of KPIs in the group are on track or above target. Mixed: Less than two-thirds but more than half of KPIs in the group are on track or above target. Exception: If half of KPIs are off track (red) and the other half exceed desired progress or are above target (green), a composite rating of mixed (amber) rather than red, is given.

Latest 2009 Signalb 90.8 75.6 70.0 42.2 44.8 70.7 71.1e 45.6e 77.5 91.0e 95.3 82.5 82.7 62.8 95.7e 82.0 62.2e 40.8e 63.3 77.6 81.1 96.7

Target 2015

Latest 2009

Target 2015

Signalb

Population with sustainable access to improved water source (%):

Urban

Rural 61.9 38.5

Population with sustainable access to improved sanitation (%):

Development Effectiveness Review 2011

Urban

Rural

PPP = purchasing power parity.

Rating of key performance indicators (KPIs):

At or above target: Performance at or above cutoff value for 2015.

On track: Performance on track to attain cutoff value for 2015.

Off track: Performance off track to attain cutoff value for 2015.

An arrow indicates a significant (≥3%) change from previous performance: an arrow pointing up indicates improvement; an arrow pointing down indicates deterioration.

Note: Data have been revised to include new country data on poverty and development made available in 2010–2011 (Appendix 3, Table A3.1).

a

Asian Development Fund (ADF) countries are a subset of Asian Development Bank (ADB) countries that had access to the ADF during its eighth replenishment period (2005–2008). The list of countries under each country group is in Appendix 2. b Signals are assessed based on a cutoff value, which is the absolute value that determines whether a country is treated as having achieved the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Cutoff values for the indicators are in Appendix 4. c 2010 data. d 2001 data used for baseline. e 2008 data. Sources: Regional aggregates are prepared jointly by the ADB Strategy and Policy Department using country data from the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP) Statistics Division as part of the regional partnership between ADB, UNESCAP, and the United Nations Development Programme on the MDGs. Estimates use a weighted average of actual country values, or imputed country values wherever data are missing for the year required; population data used as weights are from the United Nations Population Division, World Population Prospects: The 2010 Revision. New York; HIV data are from the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS). 2010. Global Report: UNAIDS Report on the Global AIDS Epidemic 2010. Geneva.

Table A1.2: Other Development Outcomes Baseline Value ADB
good good

Previous Value ADF Value 830 62 894 9 60 89 2011 37 3.5 2011 2011 25 33 65 27 34 3.6
continued on next page

Latest

Indicator Growth GDP per capita (at constant 2000 prices, $) 2006 2005 2006 2005 2002 2005 2006 2006 2006 3.3 2010 50 52 2010 35 46 53 2010 25 27 78 58 2008 82 62 2009 68 47 2008 77 58 2009 81 12 8 2007 14 10 2008 14 408 283 2009 691 712 2010 809 51 58 2009 50 58 2010 52 1,132 698 2009 1,417 794 2010 1,532

Year

ADB

ADF

Year

ADB

ADF

Year

Value

Signal

Signal

Regional cooperation and integration Intraregional trade in total Asia and Pacific trade (%)

Access to basic infrastructure Telecommunications: fixed lines and mobile telephone subscribers (per 1,000 people)

Roads: paved roads for every 10,000 people (km)

Electricity: household electrification rate (%)

Finance Banking assets to GDP (%)

Governance Cost to start business (% of gross national income per capita)

Time to start business (days)

Governance and public sector management assessment from country performance assessments

Appendixes

75

76
Baseline Value ADB
good

Table A1.2 continued

Previous Value ADF Value 1.2 ADF 1.1 2007 2.9 1.1 2008 3.0 Year ADB ADF Year Value Signal
good

Latest

Indicator Environment Carbon dioxide emissions (tons per capita) 2005
Rating of composite indicators: Good: Two-thirds or more of key performance indicators in the group are on track or above target.

Year 2.6

ADB

Signal

ADB = Asian Development Bank, ADF = Asian Development Fund, GDP = gross domestic product, km = kilometer.

Rating of key performance indicators:

Development Effectiveness Review 2011

On track: Progressed against baseline.

An arrow indicates a significant (≥3%) change from previous performance: an arrow pointing up indicates improvement; an arrow pointing down indicates deterioration.

Notes: ADB countries include all of ADB’s developing member countries. ADF countries refer to a subset of ADB countries that had access to the ADF during the ADF’s eighth replenishment period (2005–2008). Unlike Millennium Development Goal targets, the other outcomes do not have targets internationally agreed upon. Data have been revised to include new country data on other development indicators made available in 2010–2011 (Appendix 3, Table A3.2).

Sources: World Bank. World Development Indicators Online database for gross domestic product per capita, access to telecommunications, paved roads, and carbon dioxide emissions (accessed 6 January 2012); International Finance Corporation and the World Bank, Doing Business online database for cost and time to start business (accessed 18 January 2012); International Monetary Fund Direction of Trade Statistics CD-ROM (issued in December 2011) for intraregional trade; United Nations Population Division, World Population Prospects: The 2010 Revision, New York, for population data (accessed 4 October 2011); Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and International Energy Agency. World Energy Outlook 2011. Paris for electrification (accessed 26 January 2012); ADB Office of Regional Economic Integration for finance; and ADB Strategy and Policy Department for country performance assessment ratings for governance and public sector management assessment.

X Level 2: Core Sector Outputs and Their Contribution to Development Outcomes
Table A1.3: Progress in Achieving ADB’s Output Targets for 2009–2012 good

Sectors and Core Sector Outputs
26 21 23 25,481,000 95 2 97 1,257,000 67 31 98 67,600 84 3 87 1 2 1

Total Delivered Delivery Delivered and in or Expected Expected before in 2012 by End 2012 Programmed 2011 (%) (%) (%) Number of for (A + B) (B) (A) Projects 2009–2012a Signal Total Delivery Delivered Expected After 2012 and Expected (%) (%) (A + B + C) (C)
88 100 97

Education

Classrooms built or upgraded (number)

Teachers trained (number)

Students benefiting from school improvement programs or direct support (number)

Energy 16 17 15 8 10 10,808,000 99 1,028,600 80 12 0 68,200 88 0 6,200 60 27 87 88 92 99 15,700 67 29 96 1 12 12 0 1 96 99 100 92 100

Installed energy generation capacity (MW equivalent)

Transmission lines installed or upgraded (km)

Distribution lines installed or upgraded (km)

New households connected to electricity (number)

Greenhouse gas emission reduction (tCO2-equiv/yr)

Finance 11 12 482,500 2,431,000 99 92 0 6 99 98 0 0 99 99

Microfinance accounts opened or end borrowers reached (number)

Small and medium-sized enterprises loan accounts opened or end borrowers reached (number)

Transport 8 56 7 56 1,300 39,700 3,400 194,615,000 66 77 57 66 24 11 0 29 89 88 57 95 10 7 41 4 100 94 98 98

Expressways built or upgraded (km)

National highways and provincial, district, and rural roads built or upgraded (km)

Railways constructed and/or upgraded (km)

Beneficiaries from road projects (number)b

Appendixes
continued on next page

77

78
Total Delivered Delivery Delivered and in or Expected Expected before in 2012 by End 2012 Programmed 2011 (%) (%) (%) Number of for (A + B) (B) (A) Projects 2009–2012a Signal
23 29 22 29 23
Rating of composite indicators: Good: Two-thirds or more of KPIs in the group are on track or above target

Table A1.3 continued

Sectors and Core Sector Outputs
15,800 4,574,000 4,480,000 6,460,000 3,223,000 65 25 18 33 51 91 39 32 72 49 37 86 76 14 90

Total Delivery Delivered Expected After 2012 and Expected (%) (%) (A + B + C) (C)
9 4 21 43 9 99 90 92 94 99

Water

Water supply pipe installed or upgraded: length of network (km)

New households served with water supply (number)
3

Development Effectiveness Review 2011

Wastewater treatment capacity added (m /day)

New households served with sanitation (number)

Land improved through irrigation services, drainage, and flood management (hectare)
3

ADB = Asian Development Bank, km = kilometer, m /day = cubic meter per day, MW = megawatt, tCO2-equiv/yr = tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year.

Rating of key performance indicators (KPIs):

On track: Performance exceeded desired progress to attain 2012 target. Off track: Performance fell short of desired progress to attain 2012 target.

An arrow indicates a significant (≥3%) change from previous performance: an arrow pointing up indicates improvement; an arrow pointing down indicates deterioration.

Notes: Numbers may not sum precisely because of rounding. Figures include outputs delivered from sovereign and nonsovereign operations. For details on the indicator definitions, see http:// www.adb.org/Documents/Policies/ADB-Results-Framework/Results-Framework-Indicators.pdf

a

ADB financed about 35% of the total cost of operations that programmed these outputs.

b

Of the total target, 59% (about 22,000 km) represents the distance to be covered by rural roads. About 26% of anticipated road beneficiaries are expected to benefit from rural roads.

Sources: ADB reports and recommendations of the President approved in 2003–2006 for programmed outputs; project completion reports, extended annual review reports, and estimates from operations departments for targets delivered and expected.

Table A1.4: Progress in Achieving Asian Development Fund’s Output Targets for 2009–2012 Total Delivery Delivered Expected After 2012 and Expected (%) (%) (A + B + C) (C)
1 2 1 88 100 97

mixed

Sectors and Core Sector Outputs
24 20 22 20,681,000 94 2 96 1,254,000 67 31 98 66,600 85 3 88

Total Delivered Delivery Delivered and in or Expected Expected before in 2012 by End 2012 Programmed 2011 (%) (%) (%) Number of for (A + B) (B) (A) Projects 2009–2012a Signal

Education

Classrooms built or upgraded (number)

Teachers trained (number)

Students benefiting from school improvement programs or direct support (number)

Energy 3 5 8 5 2 140,000 1 0 133,600 36 0 5,500 94 6 100 36 1 1,400 70 25 95 300 2 0 2 14 5 0 1 99 16 100 100 37 100

Installed energy generation capacity (MW equivalent)

Transmission lines installed or upgraded (km)

Distribution lines installed or upgraded (km)

New households connected to electricity (number)

Greenhouse gas emission reduction (tCO2-equiv/yr)

Finance 9 6 453,500 92 2,200,000 99 0 7 99 98 0 0 99 99

Microfinance accounts opened or end borrowers reached (number)

Small and medium-sized enterprises loan accounts opened or end borrowers reached (number)

Transport

Expressways built or upgraded (km) 34 3 33 16,700 1,488 72,928,000 57 0 32 15 0 63 72 0 95 14 95 3 86 95 98
continued on next page

National highways, and provincial, district, and rural roads built or upgraded (km)

Railways constructed and/or upgraded (km)

Beneficiaries from road projects (number)b

Appendixes

79

80
Total Delivered Delivery Delivered and in or Expected Expected before in 2012 by End 2012 Programmed 2011 (%) (%) (%) Number of for (A + B) (B) (A) Projects 2009–2012a Signal
12 10 3 11 9 13 19 10 15 16 923,100 19 70 89 733,800 33 2 35 535,700 37 0 37 1,825,100 64 2 65 11,700 87 0 87 99 75 40 46 98

Table A1.4 continued

Sectors and Core Sector Outputs

Total Delivery Delivered Expected After 2012 and Expected (%) (%) (A + B + C) (C)

Water

Water supply pipe installed or upgraded: length of network (km)

New households served with water supply (number)
3

Development Effectiveness Review 2011

Wastewater treatment capacity added (m /day)

New households served with sanitation (number)

Land improved through irrigation services, drainage, and flood management (hectare)

km = kilometer, m3/day = cubic meter per day, MW = megawatt, tCO2-equiv/yr = tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year. Rating of composite indicators: Mixed: Less than two-thirds but more than half of KPIs in the group are on track or above target.

Rating of key performance indicators (KPIs):

On track: Performance exceeded desired progress to attain 2012 target. Off track: Performance fell short of desired progress to attain 2012 target.

An arrow indicates a significant (≥3%) change from previous performance: an arrow pointing up indicates improvement; an arrow pointing down indicates deterioration.

Notes: Numbers may not sum precisely because of rounding. For details on the indicator definitions, see http://www.adb.org/Documents/Policies/ADB-Results-Framework/Results-Framework -Indicators.pdf

a

The Asian Development Fund financed about 54% of the total cost of operations that programmed these outputs.

b

Of the total target, 62% (about 8,900 km) represents the distance to be covered by rural roads. About 43% of anticipated road beneficiaries are expected to benefit from rural roads.

Sources: Asian Development Bank reports and recommendations of the President approved in 2003–2006 for programmed outputs; project completion reports and estimates from operations departments for targets delivered and expected.

X Level 3: Operational Effectiveness
Table A1.5: Operational Effectiveness Asian Development Bank Asian Development Fund

Indicator ADB
poor

BaseBaseline line Yeara Value 2007 2008 ADF 50 76 78 68 61 62 67 50 100 67 70 80 50 69 69c 72 80 66 60 63 68 80 100 57 70 2009 2010 2011 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Target Signal
poor

Base2012 line Target Signal Value 2007

Quality of Completed Operations 2009 71 69c 50

Completed CPSs rated successful (%)

Completed sovereign operations rated successful (%)b

Completed nonsovereign operations rated successful (%) 2004– 2006 average 80 78 77 74 80 78 76 75 78 80 2006 ADB
good

2004– 2006 average 2008– 2010 average 72 73 76

Completed technical assistance projects rated successful (%)d 45 50 60

80

Positive perceptions of ADB effectiveness in reducing poverty (%)e

Same as ADB ADF 33 76 75 83 100 94 80 85
good

2006 2006 2008 2010 2006 12 12 12 11 10i 75 75 91 10 80 10 50 50 57 85 81 85 89 85

33

75

100

80

71 13 13 12 12

71 10

89 10

80 12
continued on next page

Quality at Entry and Portfolio Performance Quality at entry of CPS rated satisfactory (%)f Quality at entry of sovereign projects rated satisfactory (%)f Quality at entry of nonsovereign projects rated satisfactory (%)f Performance of sovereign operations during implementation rated satisfactory (%)g Average time from approval to first disbursement in sovereign operations (months)h

Appendixes

81

82
Asian Development Bank 2012 Target
good

Table A1.5 continued

Asian Development Fund Baseline 2012 Signal Value 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Target Signal ADF 18 21 25 27 21 19 20
good

Indicator

BaseBaseline line Yeara Value 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

2006
i i

23 43 9 25 ADB
good

25 61 10 32 20 13 13 11 11 16i 8 45 37 51 52

29

26

23

22

Development Effectiveness Review 2011

Finance Transfer and Mobilization Disbursement ratio for sovereign operations (%)j Disbursement ratio for nonsovereign loans and equity (%)k DVA cofinancing relative to ADB financing approved annually (%) 2006 2004– 2006 average ADB At least 23 At least 50 13 30

20 ADF
good

Financing for Strategy 2020 Core Operational Areas 2008 92 38 15 35 34 41 43 25 40 ADB 2006 2009 29 54 58 55 60 29 62 66 60 40
good

Financing for Strategy 2020 core operational areas (%) Projects supporting private sector development (%) 79 96 36 18 15 30 15 11 9 45 80 67 29 7 14 35 30 27 27i 17 21 27i 7 7 10i 35 38 39i 79 80i

67 13 11 11 39 19 11 12 37

79 22 15 18 37

88 28 19 26 45

96 28 21 34 53

80 30 15 25 50 ADF
good

Projects supporting regional cooperation and integration (%)

Projects supporting environmental sustainability (%)

Projects with gender mainstreaming (%)l

2004– 2006 average 2004– 2006 average 2004– 2006 average 2004– 2006 average

Knowledge Management

Annual MAKE survey assessment rating (%)

Same as ADB Same as ADB
continued on next page

ADB perceived externally as excellent source of knowledge on development issues (% strongly agreeing)m

Table A1.5 continued

Asian Development Bank

Asian Development Fund

Indicator ADB
good

Base2012 Baseline line Value 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Target Yeara Signal ADF 85 20 40 37 44 61 74 88 23 26 29 23 24 8 60 85 82 75 81 96 80
good

Baseline 2012 Value 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Target Signal

Partnerships 2006 79 51 65 88 60 51 10 91 80 2006 2006 33 37 39 56 29 42 45 62i 78 78 76 72i

Sovereign operations with CSO participation (%) New program-based approaches approved (number) CPS and CPR missions conducted jointly with at least one other development partner (% annually)

ADB = Asian Development Bank, ADF = Asian Development Fund, CPR = country portfolio review, CPS = country partnership strategy, CSO = civil society organization, DVA = direct valueadded, MAKE = most admired knowledge enterprises. Rating of composite indicators: Good: Two-thirds or more of KPIs in the group are on track or above target. Mixed: Less than two-thirds but more than half of KPIs in the group are on track or above target.

Rating of key performance indicators (KPIs):

At or above target: Performance was at or above 2012 target.

On track: Performance exceeded desired progress to attain 2012 target.

On track but watch: Performance met desired progress to attain 2012 target but requires close monitoring.

Poor: Half or less of KPIs in the group are on track or above target. Off track: Performance fell short of desired progress to attain 2012 target. An arrow indicates a significant (≥3%) change from previous performance: an arrow pointing up indicates improvement; an arrow pointing down indicates deterioration. a For indicators with a 3-year average as the baseline, the figures represent the 2005–2007 average for 2007, the 2006–2008 average for 2008, the 2007–2009 average for 2009, the 2008–2010 average for 2010, and the 2009–2011 average for 2011. b Where available, the project performance evaluation report (PPER) ratings are taken as the final rating. If no PPER was prepared, an available project completion report (PCR) validation report (PVR) rating is used. Otherwise, the PCR ratings are used. Counting of successful projects rated in PCRs, PVRs, and PPERs is based on the year of their circulation. Baseline and later values have changed as more PPERs and PVRs become available. c The figure for 2010 (and therefore the baseline) changed because two XARRs were downgraded from successful to partly successful. d Excludes project preparatory technical assistance, figures for previous years have been recalculated. e The ADB perceptions survey is conducted every 3 years. The assessment is based on latest available figures. f Quality-at-entry assessment is conducted every 2 years. g The new portfolio performance rating system was introduced in 2011. The baseline was based on the new system applied to ongoing projects in 2010. h Average time from approval to first disbursement of sovereign loans and ADF grants approved in the previous 5 years (i.e., 2006 baseline covers 2001–2005 average, 2007 figure is based on 2002–2006 average, 2008 figure is based on 2003–2007 average, 2009 figure is based on 2004–2008 average, 2010 figure is based on 2005–2009 average, and 2011 figure is based on 2006–2010 average). i Excludes operations financed by the Countercyclical Support Facility. j Disbursement ratio is defined as the ratio of total disbursements in a given year or period to the net loan and ADF grant amount available at the beginning of the year or period, plus loans and ADF grants that have become effective during the year or period, less cancellations made during the year or period. k The ratio of total disbursements in a given year to the net loan and equity investment amount available at the beginning of the year or period, plus loans and equity investments that have become effective during the year or period, less cancellations made during the year or period. l Includes projects identifying gender as a theme and other projects with effective gender mainstreaming. m Taken from ADB perceptions survey conducted every 3 years. No assessment for 2011; in 2010, ADB adopted a baseline and established target for 2012.

Appendixes

Sources: ADB. 2010. ADB Perceptions Survey: Multinational Survey of Stakeholders 2009. Manila; reports and recommendations of the President approved in 2004–2011; Central Operations Services Office, Controller’s Department, Department of External Relations, Independent Evaluation Department, Office of Cofinancing Operations, Private Sector Operations Department, Regional and Sustainable Development Department, regional departments, and Strategy and Policy Department.

83

Development Effectiveness Review 2011
X Level 4: Organizational Effectiveness
Table A1.6: Human and Budget Resources Asian Development Bank Baseline Year Baseline Value 2012 Target ADB 2004–2006 average 2004–2006 average 2007 2008 52 42 29 60 53b 44b 29 53b 46b 28 60 53b 47b 28 55b 48b 29 68 56b 48b 31 56b 48b 35 67 ADB 2004–2006 average 2004–2006 averagef 2004–2006 averagef 2004–2006 averagef 43 2.8 62 427 36 2.5 53 411 32 2.4 46 399 28f 2.3g 41g 395g 27 2.2 43g 395 31 2.2 50 397 Maintain Maintain Maintain Maintain or increase
poor

Indicator Human Resources Budgeted international and national staff in operations departmentsa (%) Budgeted international and national staff in resident missionsc (%) Representation of women international staff in totald (%) Staff engagement survey resultse (index) Budget Adequacy Internal administrative expenses per $1 million of project approval ($’000) Internal administrative expenses per project approved ($ million in 2000 constant prices) Internal administrative expenses per $1 million disbursement ($’000) Internal administrative expenses per project under implementation ($’000 in 2000 constant prices)
ADB = Asian Development Bank.

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Signal
good

Rating of key performance indicators (KPIs): At or above target: Performance was at or above 2012 target. Off track: Performance fell short of desired progress to attain 2012 target. An arrow indicates a significant (≥3%) change from previous performance: an arrow pointing up indicates improvement; an arrow pointing down indicates deterioration. Rating of composite indicators: Good: Two-thirds or more of KPIs in the group are on track or above target.
a b c d e f g

Poor: Half or less of KPIs in the group are on track or above target. “Operations departments” refer to regional departments and the Private Sector Operations Department. These figures represent annual percentages, rather than the 3-year rolling average. This represents the proportion of international and national staff positions in resident missions of those assigned to regional departments. It includes staff posted in resident missions from regional departments. This indicator follows the Third Gender Action Program targets. The staff engagement survey is conducted every 2 years. For indicators with a 3-year average as the baseline, the figures represent the 2005–2007 average for 2007, the 2006–2008 average for 2008, the 2007–2009 average for 2009, the 2008–2010 average for 2010, and the 2009–2011 average for 2011. Includes operations financed by the Countercyclical Support Facility.

Source: ADB Budget, Personnel and Management Systems Department.

84

Table A1.7: Business Processes and Practices Asian Development Bank Asian Development Fund

Indicator ADB
good

Baseline Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 ADF 28 27 19 15 16 19 16
good

Baseline Value 2012 Target Signal Signal 2012 Target

Baseline Value 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Business Processes and Practices 2006 28 27 21 19b 19b 22 16

Average sovereign operations processing time (months from fact-finding to effectiveness)a 2006 36 94 94 88 88 100 94 100 100 94 94 100 94 100 100 100 38 39 37 41 2007 2007 2007 91 91 100 95 100 100 100 91 91 91 95 95 100 100 91 91 95 95 95 100 100 39 39 38 37 41 40 43 41 100 100 100 43 100 100 100

Proportion of sovereign operations administered by resident missions (%)

Resident missions leading country programming (%)

Resident missions leading country portfolio review (%)

Resident missions leading country economic work (%)
Rating of composite indicators:

ADB = Asian Development Bank, ADF = Asian Development Fund. Good: Two-thirds or more of key performance indicators in the group are on track or above target

Rating of key performance indicators:

At or above target: Performance was at or above 2012 target.

On track but watch: Performance met desired progress to attain 2012 target but requires close monitoring.

Off track: Performance fell short of desired progress to attain 2012 target.

An arrow indicates a significant (≥3%) change from previous performance: an arrow pointing up indicates improvement; an arrow pointing down indicates deterioration.

a

b

Defined as the average time from loan or project preparatory technical assistance fact-finding to effectiveness; or the date on which the loan, grant, or guarantee agreement comes into force. The agreement becomes effective after its signing by all parties, upon the borrower’s compliance with the effectiveness conditions. Excludes multitranche financing facility tranches not processed together with the facility. Supplementary loan approvals are computed from loan fact-finding to effectiveness. Excludes operations financed by the Countercyclical Support Facility.

Sources: ADB Central Operations Services Office, regional departments, and Strategy and Policy Department.

Appendixes

85

Appendix 2
List of ADB Countries (As Used in the 2011 Development Effectiveness Review)
Table A2.1: ADB Countries Afghanistan Armeniaa Azerbaijana Bangladesha Bhutana Cambodiaa China, People’s Republic of Cook Islandsa Fiji Georgiaa
a

India Indonesiaa Kazakhstan Kiribatia Kyrgyz Republica Lao People’s Democratic Republica Malaysia Maldivesa Republic of the Marshall Islandsa

Federated States of Micronesiaa Mongoliaa Myanmar Nauru Nepala Pakistana Palau Papua New Guineaa Philippines Samoaa

Solomon Islandsa Sri Lankaa Tajikistana Thailand Timor-Lestea Tongaa Turkmenistan Tuvalua Uzbekistana Vanuatua Viet Nama

ADB = Asian Development Bank.
a

Developing member countries with access to the Asian Development Fund during the eighth replenishment period (2005−2008).

Source: ADB Strategy and Policy Department.

Table A2.2: Classification of ADB Countries OCR-Only China, People’s Republic of Fiji Indiac Kazakhstan Malaysia Philippines Thailand Turkmenistan Blend Countriesa, b Armenia Azerbaijan Bangladesh Cook Islands Georgia Indonesia Republic of the Marshall Islands Federated States of Micronesia Naurud Pakistan Palaud Papua New Guinea Sri Lanka Uzbekistan Viet Nam ADF-Onlyb Afghanistan Bhutan Cambodia Kiribati Kyrgyz Republic Lao People’s Democratic Republic Maldives Mongolia Myanmare Nepal Samoa Solomon Islands Tajikistan Timor-Leste Tonga Tuvalu Vanuatu

ADB = Asian Development Bank, ADF = Asian Development Fund, OCR = ordinary capital resources. Note: To compare over time, the classification of countries during the eighth replenishment of the ADF (2005−2008 period) is applied. Assessments of countries classified as fragile and conflict-affected situations cover 11 countries considered in this category in 2004–2006 (baseline period for many results framework key performance indicators).
a b c d e

Blend countries have access to both the ADF and OCR. Countries with access to the ADF during its eighth replenishment period (2005–2008). India is officially classified as a blend country but has not had access to the ADF since 1986. No access to the the ADF during 2005–2008. Currently with no access to the ADF.

Source: ADB Strategy and Policy Department.

86

Appendix 3
Changes to Data
This appendix explains the changes made to the data reported in the 2010 Development Effectiveness Review (DEfR).1 Tables in this appendix include only those indicators for which data have been revised, with the revised data presented (highlighted) below the original data.

X Level 1: Asia and Pacific Development Outcomes
The data in Tables A3.1 and A3.2 have been revised to include new country data on poverty and human development, and other development outcome indicators made available in 2010–2011.

Table A3.1: Poverty and Human Development in Asia and Pacific (Level 1) (Revised Baseline and Target) Asian Development Bank Countries Indicator Population living on less than $1.25 (PPP) per day (%) Primary education completion rate, both sexes (%) Ratio of girls to boys in: Primary education Secondary education Tertiary education Women in nonagricultural wage employment (%) Under-5 child mortality (per 1,000 live births) 0.97 0.93 0.91 0.81 0.82 30.0 60.7 57.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 Increase 29.8 29.5 0.92 0.91 0.92 0.91 0.70 0.71 26.4 26.7 76.2 68.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 Increase 38.3 36.4 0.82 0.81 0.71 0.49 0.48 27.9 28.8 146.7 102.4 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Increase 54.6 50.1 Baseline 2005 27.6 27.0 88.8 90.9 Target 2015 27.5 27.4 100.0 Asian Development Fund Countries Baseline 2005 33.1 29.0 79.1 Target 2015 30.2 29.3 100.0 Asian Development Fund-Only Countries Baseline 2005 38.8 39.2 69.7 68.2 Target 2015 31.5 30.9 95.0 100.0

continued on next page

1

ADB. 2011. Development Effectiveness Review 2010. Manila.

87

Development Effectiveness Review 2011
Table A3.1 continued

Asian Development Bank Countries Indicator Population with sustainable access to improved water source (%): Urban Rural Population with sustainable access to improved sanitation (%): Urban Rural
PPP = purchasing power parity. Source: Asian Development Bank Strategy and Policy Department.

Asian Development Fund Countries Baseline 2005 Target 2015

Asian Development Fund-Only Countries Baseline 2005 Target 2015

Baseline 2005

Target 2015

95.2 95.4 79.1 79.0

96.7 81.1

90.8 76.1 75.6

95.3 82.7 82.5

82.0 81.9 59.6 58.6

84.1 83.9 71.7 71.6

62.2 61.9 38.7 38.5

77.6 63.3

69.8 70.0 42.6 42.2

82.7 62.8

65.4 65.1 33.3 33.1

79.0 78.9 61.3 61.4

Table A3.2: Growth, Infrastructure, Finance, Governance, and Environment in Asia and the Pacific (Level 1) (Revised Baseline) Baseline Values Indicator Growth Gross domestic product per capita (at constant 2000 prices, $) Access to Basic Infrastructure Telecommunications: fixed lines and mobile telephone subscribers (per 1,000 people) Roads: paved roads for every 10,000 people (kilometer) Finance Banking assets to gross domestic product (%) Governance Cost to start business (% of gross national income per capita) Time to start business (days) Environment Carbon dioxide emissions (tons per capita)
ADB = Asian Development Bank, ADF = Asian Development Fund. Source: ADB Strategy and Policy Department.

ADB 1,124 1,132 398 408 12

ADF 693 698 275 283 9 8 57 58 49 53 45 52 1.1

ADF-Only 364 369 138 155 6 4 59

78

42 46 43 50 2.5 2.6

66 65 52 55 0.4 0.3

88

Appendixes
X Level 2: Core Outputs and Outcomes
Four refinements were made to the methodology for assessing output achievement, and programmed outputs for 2009–2012 were updated accordingly. First, a cap of 100% achievement of targets was imposed for all indicators at the project level to prevent overachieving indicators from biasing the overall results. Second, to capture the timeliness of output delivery, the assessment counted only outputs delivered and expected to be delivered during 2009–2012. The assessment excluded outputs expected in 2013 and beyond which were counted in previous DEfRs. Third, given these more stringent assessment parameters, the target for rating output delivery was adjusted from 100% to 85%. Previous DEfRs applied the higher target because they counted all outputs regardless of when they were expected to be delivered. The revised target was set at 5 percentage points higher than the targets for outcome achievement and project success rates as these are considered more complex. Fourth, the outputs of six operations with original closing dates in 2013 and beyond were removed from the sample. These projects do not meet the DEfR assumptions that projects would be completed within 6 years (Table A3.3).

Table A3.3: Core Outputs and Outcomes (Level 2) (Revised Target: Outputs Programmed for 2009–2012) Sectors and Core Sector Outputs Education Classrooms built or upgraded (number) Teachers trained (number) Students benefiting from school improvement programs or direct support (number) Energy Installed energy generation capacity (MW equivalent) Transmission lines installed or upgraded (km) Distribution lines installed or upgraded (km) New households connected to electricity (number) Greenhouse gas emission reduction (tCO2-equiv/yr) Finance Microfinance accounts opened or end borrowers reached (number) Small and medium-sized enterprises loan accounts opened or end borrowers reached (number) 2,563,000 2,431,000 213,900 482,500 433,000 2,200,000 202,000 453,500 13,200 15,700 6,800 6,200 55,200 68,200 447,500 1,028,600 11,747,000 10,808,000 8 300 1,200 1,400 3,800 5,500 152,500 133,600 1,200 140,000 76,100 67,600 1,518,000 1,257,000 22,515,000 25,481,000 71,400 66,600 1,517,000 1,254,000 20,385,000 20,681,000 ADB ADF

continued on next page

89

Development Effectiveness Review 2011
Table A3.3 continued

Sectors and Core Sector Outputs Transport Expressways built or upgraded (km) National highways and provincial, district, and rural roads built or upgraded (km) Railways constructed and/or upgraded (km) Beneficiaries from road projects (number) Water Water supply pipe installed or upgraded: length of network (km) New households served with water supply (number) Wastewater treatment capacity added (m3/day) New households served with sanitation (number) Land improved through irrigation services, drainage, and flood management (hectare)

ADB 1,300 48,000 39,700 2,800 3,400 222,164,000 194,615,000 14,800 15,800 4,823,000 4,574,000 4,566,000 4,480,000 9,393,000 6,460,000 2,682,000 3,223,000

ADF 60 18,700 16,700 888 1,488 97,449,000 72,928,000 11,100 11,700 1,292,600 1,825,100 572,600 535,700 2,165,900 733,800 667,500 923,100

ADB = Asian Development Bank, ADF = Asian Development Fund, km = kilometer, m3/day = cubic meter per day, MW = megawatt, tCO2-equiv/yr = tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year. Sources: ADB operations departments, and Strategy and Policy Department.

X Level 3: Operational Effectiveness
Ratings for completed sovereign and nonsovereign operations were updated to include ratings from project performance evaluation reports (PPERs) and project completion report (PCR) validation reports (PVRs) prepared in 2011 (Tables A3.4 and A3.5). Ratings assigned by these PPERs and PVRs changed the original ratings based on PCRs or extended annual review reports. Where available, PPER ratings are taken as the final rating. If no PPER was prepared, an available PVR rating is used. Otherwise, the PCR ratings are used. Counting of successful projects is based on the year the PCR, PVR, or PPER was circulated. The baseline for technical assistance projects at completion was recomputed to exclude project preparatory technical assistance projects, which

are rated at completion only if they do not result in investment projects or programs. The baseline of 71% success rating for the performance of sovereign operations financed by the Asian Development Fund during implementation was established (Table A3.6). Cofinancing data in Table A3.7 was adjusted to exclude cancelled projects. In 2009, the sovereign guarantee of $325 million for the Investment Support Program for Viet Nam Electricity and $18 million for the Poti Sea Port Project in Georgia were cancelled in full in 2009. In 2010, the New Zealand grant of $30 million for the Solomon Islands Transport Sector was dropped and the $45 million loan for the Natural Gas Access Project in Bangladesh was also cancelled.

90

Appendixes
Table A3.4: Quality of Completed Operations (Level 3) (Data Revised) Asian Development Bank Indicator Completed sovereign operations rated successful (%) Completed nonsovereign operations rated successful (%) Completed technical assistance projects rated successful (%)a
a

Baseline Year 2004–2006 average 2008–2010 average 2004–2006 average

Baseline 72 71 80 69 79 80

2007 70 69

2008 68 66

2009 63 60

2010 66 63 80 69

2012 Target 80 80 80

80

78

76

75

Excludes project preparatory technical assistance.

Source: Asian Development Bank Strategy and Policy Department.

Table A3.5: Quality of Completed Asian Development Fund Operations (Level 3) (Data Revised) Asian Development Fund Indicator Completed sovereign operations rated successful (%) Baseline Year 2004–2006 average Baseline 75 76 2007 77 78 2008 68 2009 64 61 2010 66 62 2012 Target 80

Source: Asian Development Bank Strategy and Policy Department.

Table A3.6: Portfolio Performance of Asian Development Fund Operations (Level 3) (Baseline Established) Asian Development Fund Indicator Performance of sovereign operations during implementation rated satisfactory (%) Baseline Year 2010 Baseline 71 2007 2008 2009 2010 71 2012 Target 80

Source: Asian Development Bank Strategy and Policy Department.

Table A3.7: Finance Mobilization (Level 3) (Data Revised) Asian Development Bank Indicator DVA cofinancing relative to ADB financing approved annually (%) Baseline Year 2004–2006 Baseline 9 2007 10 2008 11 2009 17 16 2010 26 25 2012 Target 20

ADB = Asian Development Bank, DVA = direct value-added. Sources: Asian Development Bank Office of Cofinancing Operations, and Strategy and Policy Department.

91

Development Effectiveness Review 2011
The corresponding cofinancing for the ADF portion was deducted: $30 million for the Solomon Islands Project and $0.85 million for the Bangladesh Project, which is an ordinary capital resources–ADF blend project.

X Level 4: Organizational Effectiveness
The internal administrative expenses per project approved were revised to exclude cancelled projects and programs in 2008–2010 (Table A3.8). The average processing time for sovereign operations that became effective in 2010 was revised to reflect the appropriate fact-finding dates (Table A3.9).

Table A3.8: Budget Adequacy (Level 4) (Data Revised) Asian Development Bank Indicator Internal administrative expenses per project approved ($ million in 2000 constant prices) Baseline Year 2004–2006 average Baseline 2.8 2007 2.5 2008 2.4 2009 2.3 2010 2.0 2.2 2012 Target Maintain

Source: Asian Development Bank Budget, Personnel and Management Systems Department.

Table A3.9: Business Processes and Practices (Level 4) (Data Revised) Asian Development Bank Indicator Average sovereign operations processing time (months from fact-finding to effectiveness)a
a

Baseline Year 2006

Baseline 28

2007 27

2008 21

2009 19b

2010 16b 19b

2012 Target 16

b

Defined as the average time from loan or project preparatory technical assistance fact-finding to effectiveness; or the date on which the loan, grant, or guarantee agreement comes into force. The agreement becomes effective after its signing by all parties, upon the borrower’s compliance with the effectiveness conditions. Excludes multitranche financing facility tranches not processed together with the facility. Supplementary loan approvals are computed from loan fact-finding to effectiveness. Excludes operations financed by the Countercyclical Support Facility.

Sources: Asian Development Bank Central Operations Services Office and Strategy and Policy Department.

92

Appendix 4
Table A4.1: Millennium Development Goals in ADB Countries Earliest Data Year 1990 1990 1991 1999 1991 1991 1991 1991 1990 1990 1990 2001 … 43.75 56.96 48.74 38.08 4.79 30.03 31.00 0.82 0.90 2009 2009 2010 2010 2009 0.91 0.97 2009 0.97 1.00 2009 90.94 94.12 2009 75.82 78.06 2009 95.00 95.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 Increase 29.49 21.36 Reverse the trend 93.31 94.36 2009 95.00 27.43 25.38 2008 17.55 22.16 95.67 81.07 94.77 1.07 1.10 1.04 32.52 41.99 33.55 … 27.04 23.64 2009 27.41 18.61 Latest Data Year 54.81 35.09 75.79 74.91 69.80 0.85 0.70 0.59 27.61 88.46 64.09 3.79 2005 Data 2015 Cutoff Value 2015 Projection Progress Early achiever Slow On track Slow Slow Early achiever Early achiever On track On track Slow Slow Target Achieved Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No
continued on next page

Asia and Pacific Development Outcomes

Indicators

Population living on less than $1.25 (PPP) a day (%)

Children under-5 moderately or severely underweight (%)

Total net enrollment ratio in primary education, both sexes

Pupils starting grade 1 who reach last grade of primary, both sexes (%)

Primary education completion rate, both sexes (%)

Gender parity index in primary level enrollment

Gender parity index in secondary level enrollment

Gender parity index in tertiary level enrollment

Women in wage employment in the nonagricultural sector (%)

Children under-5 mortality rate per 1,000 live births

Infant mortality rate (0–1 year) per 1,000 live births

Adults (15+) living with HIV (number, million)

Appendixes

93

94
Earliest Data Year 2001 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 38.50 61.92 62.18 40.82 79.05 82.01 95.37 95.67 2008 2008 2008 2008 2.54 2.96 2008 21,911.41 359.60 2009 Reverse the trend … 96.66 81.09 77.62 63.32 10.12 10.13 2010 Reverse the trend 22.40 22.68 2010 Reverse the trend 23.34 12.19 0.0 2.88 96.24 86.51 65.60 48.29 Slow Early achiever Slow Slow 25.76 22.07 2009 Reverse the trend 15.40 252.99 235.40 2009 Reverse the trend 191.85 Early achiever Early achiever Early achiever Early achiever Early achiever … 1.72 2009 Reverse the trend … Latest Data Year Progress 1.31 355.27 44.89 22.17 7.52 64,859.96 1.49 93.32 62.17 55.24 26.64 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No 2005 Data 2015 Cutoff Value 2015 Projection Target Achieved

Table A4.1 continued

Indicators

Women (15+) living with HIV (number, million)

Tuberculosis prevalence rate per 100,000 population

Tuberculosis death rate per 100,000 population

Development Effectiveness Review 2011

Land area covered by forest (%)

Protected area to total surface area (%)

Consumption of ozone-depleting CFCs (ODP metric tons)

CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita)

Population using improved drinking water source, urban (%)

Population using improved drinking water source, rural (%)

Population using improved sanitation facilities, urban (%)

Population using improved sanitation facilities, rural (%)

… = not available, ADB = Asian Development Bank, CFC = chlorofluorocarbon, CO2 = carbon dioxide, ODP = ozone depleting potential, PPP = purchasing power parity.

Note: Cutoff value is the absolute value that determines whether a country has achieved the Millennium Development Goals.

Sources: Regional aggregates are jointly prepared by staff from ADB and the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP) Statistics Division as part of the regional partnership between ADB, UNESCAP, and the United Nations Development Programme on the Millennium Development Goals. Estimates use a weighted average of actual country values, or imputed country values wherever data are missing for the year required. Population data are obtained from the United Nations. World Population Prospects: The 2010 Revision (accessed 4 October 2011); HIV indicator data are from the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS. 2010. Global Report: UNAIDS Report on the Global AIDS Epidemic 2010. Geneva; and ADB Strategy and Policy Department.

Table A4.2: Millennium Development Goals in Asian Development Fund Countries

Indicators 58.58 39.82 82.65 71.51 76.57 0.85 0.78 0.62 26.32 109.26 78.19 0.36 0.14 446.40 59.77 31.32 3.97 1990 1990 27.76 8.01 1990 40.97 34.47 27.07 8.04 1990 360.92 331.93 2001 … 0.30 2009 2009 2009 2010 2010 2001 … 0.89 2009 1990 52.42 47.14 2010 26.06 Reverse the trend Reverse the trend Reverse the trend Reverse the trend Reverse the trend Reverse the trend 1990 68.53 60.40 2010 36.42 1990 26.70 26.74 2009 Increase 27.43 52.42 41.85 … … 243.13 19.95 27.29 12.02 Early achiever Early achiever Regressing/No progress Early achiever 1991 0.71 0.76 2009 0.95 0.83 1991 0.91 0.94 2009 0.95 1.04 1991 0.91 0.94 2009 0.95 1.00 1991 79.11 79.61 2009 95.00 78.06 Slow On track On track Slow On track Slow Slow 1999 73.87 75.34 2009 95.00 79.77 Slow 1991 86.86 87.45 2009 95.00 89.67 Slow 1991 28.37 25.06 2008 19.91 20.07 Slow No No No No Yes Yes No Yes No No No No Yes Yes No Yes
continued on next page

Earliest Data Year 1991 29.01 24.02 2009 29.29 17.54 Early achiever Yes Year Progress

2005 Data

Latest Data

2015 Cutoff Value 2015 Projection Target Achieved

Population living on less than $1.25 (PPP) a day (%)

Children under-5 moderately or severely underweight (%)

Total net enrollment ratio in primary education, both sexes

Pupils starting grade 1 who reach last grade of primary, both sexes (%)

Primary education completion rate, both sexes (%)

Gender parity index in primary level enrollment

Gender parity index in secondary level enrollment

Gender parity index in tertiary level enrollment

Women in wage employment in the nonagricultural sector (%)

Children under-5 mortality rate per 1,000 live births

Infant mortality rate (0–1 year) per 1,000 live births

Adults (15+) living with HIV (number, million)

Women (15+) living with HIV (number, million)

Tuberculosis prevalence rate per 100,000 population

Tuberculosis death rate per 100,000 population

Land area covered by forest (%)

Protected area to total surface area (%)

Appendixes

95

96
Earliest Data Year 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 42.25 45.58 2008 62.84 70.04 71.09 2008 82.66 73.10 54.49 75.59 77.52 2008 82.51 81.29 90.84 90.98 2008 95.30 91.45 1.06 1.21 2008 … 1.18 Slow Slow Slow Slow 3,854.51 190.90 2009 Reverse the trend 0.0 Early achiever Year Progress 8,614.77 0.81 90.59 65.01 65.31 25.68 2005 Data Latest Data 2015 Cutoff Value 2015 Projection Yes No No No No No Target Achieved

Table A4.2 continued

Indicators

Consumption of ozone-depleting CFCs (ODP metric tons)

CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita)

Population using improved drinking water source, urban (%)

Development Effectiveness Review 2011

Population using improved drinking water source, rural (%)

Population using improved sanitation facilities, urban (%)

Population using improved sanitation facilities, rural (%)

… = not available, CFC = chlorofluorocarbon, CO2 = carbon dioxide, ODP = ozone depleting potential, PPP = purchasing power parity.

Notes:

1. Asian Development Fund (ADF) countries refer to a subset of Asian Development Bank (ADB) countries that had access to the ADF during its eighth replenishment period (2005–2008). This includes blend countries, which have access to both the ADF and ordinary capital resources (Appendix 2).

2. The cutoff value is the absolute value that determines whether a country is treated as having achieved the Millennium Development Goals.

Sources: Regional aggregates are jointly prepared by staff from ADB and the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP) Statistics Division as part of the regional partnership between ADB, UNESCAP, and the United Nations Development Programme on the Millennium Development Goals. Estimates use a weighted average of actual country values, or imputed country values wherever data are missing for the year required. Population data are obtained from the United Nations. World Population Prospects: The 2010 Revision (accessed 4 October 2011); HIV indicator data are from the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS. 2010. Global Report: UNAIDS Report on the Global AIDS Epidemic 2010. Geneva; and ADB Strategy and Policy Department.

Table A4.3: Millennium Development Goals in Asian Development Fund-Only Countries

Indicators 61.71 41.26 77.04 67.39 51.80 0.71 0.60 0.47 28.23 150.29 104.58 0.14 0.07 501.12 64.19 17.85 3.20 373.15 1990 1990 1990 15.89 10.80 239.61 1990 36.82 34.64 15.48 10.85 31.70 1990 351.55 342.73 2001 … 0.06 2009 2009 2009 2010 2010 2009 2001 … 0.14 2009 1990 74.42 69.26 2010 34.86 Reverse the trend Reverse the trend Reverse the trend Reverse the trend Reverse the trend Reverse the trend Reverse the trend 1990 102.45 94.93 2010 50.10 1990 28.75 26.56 2009 Increase 27.12 82.91 61.68 … … 279.76 24.98 15.50 18.87 25.60 Early achiever Early achiever Regressing/No progress Early achiever Early achiever 1991 0.48 0.50 2009 0.95 0.54 1991 0.71 0.83 2009 0.95 0.95 1991 0.81 0.86 2009 0.95 1.00 1991 68.21 68.30 2009 95.00 69.39 Slow On track On track Slow Regressing/No progress Slow Slow 1999 70.60 74.46 2009 95.00 79.37 Slow 1999 87.60 91.99 2009 95.00 95.17 On track 1992 30.65 28.21 2008 20.63 22.30 Slow No Yes No No Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
continued on next page

Earliest Data Year 1992 39.24 33.11 2009 30.86 25.31 On track Yes Year Progress

2005 Data

Latest Data

2015 Cutoff Value 2015 Projection Target Achieved

Population living on less than $1.25 (PPP) a day (%)

Children under-5 moderately or severely underweight (%)

Total net enrollment ratio in primary education, both sexes

Pupils starting grade 1 who reach last grade of primary, both sexes (%)

Primary education completion rate, both sexes (%)

Gender parity index in primary level enrollment

Gender parity index in secondary level enrollment

Gender parity index in tertiary level enrollment

Women in wage employment in the nonagricultural sector (%)

Children under-5 mortality rate per 1,000 live births

Infant mortality rate (0–1 year) per 1,000 live births

Adults (15+) living with HIV (number, million)

Women (15+) living with HIV (number, million)

Tuberculosis prevalence rate per 100,000 population

Tuberculosis death rate per 100,000 population

Land area covered by forest (%)

Protected area to total surface area (%)

Consumption of ozone-depleting CFCs (ODP metric tons)

Appendixes

97

98
Earliest Data Year 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 33.06 35.48 2008 61.38 43.26 65.12 67.78 2008 78.94 73.61 58.55 62.50 2008 71.57 75.18 81.87 86.23 2008 83.92 91.13 Early achiever On track Slow Slow 0.30 0.34 2008 … 0.30 Year Progress 0.55 67.84 43.14 57.88 22.76 2005 Data Latest Data 2015 Cutoff Value 2015 Projection No Yes Yes No No Target Achieved

Table A4.3 continued

Indicators

CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita)

Population using improved drinking water source, urban (%)

Population using improved drinking water source, rural (%)

Population using improved sanitation facilities, urban (%)

Development Effectiveness Review 2011

Population using improved sanitation facilities, rural (%)

… = not available, CFC = chlorofluorocarbon, CO2 = carbon dioxide, ODP = ozone depleting potential, PPP = purchasing power parity.

Notes:

1.

Asian Development Fund (ADF)-only countries refer to a subset of Asian Development Bank (ADB) countries that had access only to the ADF during its eighth replenishment period (2005–2008).

2.

The cutoff value is the absolute value that determines whether a country is treated as having achieved the Millennium Development Goals.

Sources: Regional aggregates are jointly prepared by staff from ADB and the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP) Statistics Division as part of the regional partnership between ADB, UNESCAP, and the United Nations Development Programme on the Millennium Development Goals. Estimates use a weighted average of actual country values, or imputed country values wherever data are missing for the year required. Population data are obtained from the United Nations. World Population Prospects: The 2010 Revision (accessed 4 October 2011); HIV indicator data are from the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS. 2010. Global Report: UNAIDS Report on the Global AIDS Epidemic 2010. Geneva; and ADB Strategy and Policy Department.

Appendix 5
Table A5.1: ADB Core Sector Outputs Outputs Delivered 2006–2009 40,600 49,200 42,200 76,100 43,400 25,200 15,700 2007–2010 2008–2011 Baseline 2009–2012 2010–2013 2011–2014 2012–2015 2013–2016 13,300 Outputs Programmed 2014–2017 79,000

ADB Sector Outputs

Sector and Core Sector Outputs 51,000

Baseline 2004–2007

2005–2008

Education

Classrooms built or upgraded (no.) 332,400 7,859,000 12,965,000 11,787,000 22,515,000 8,190,000 2,900,000 318,600 384,400 1,518,000 927,400 481,600 449,200 2,688,000

115,100

Teachers trained (no.)

564,000

598,200

211,200 2,596,000

167,700 31,998,000

Students benefiting from school improvement programs or direct support (no.) 3,700 3,800 3,700 3,600 13,200 12,900 18,100

19,650,000

18,413,000

Energy 13,500 16,100 24,000

Installed energy generation capacity (MW equivalent) 17,300 14,400 19,100 19,900 6,800

4,200

Transmission lines installed or upgraded (km) 26,000 25,700 79,800 89,000

9,100

9,700

10,900

12,000

16,200

14,400

Distribution lines installed or upgraded (km) 2,317,000 3,768,000

17,200

56,200

125,800

123,600

143,000

100,000

144,000

New households connected to electricity (no.)

751,900

2,334,000

3,916,000

447,500

2,170,000

2,868,000

2,938,000

5,215,000

6,204,000

Appendixes
continued on next page

99

100
Outputs Delivered 2006–2009 4,138,000 4,102,000 2,234,000 11,747,000 12,101,000 26,174,000 29,485,000 34,304,000 2007–2010 2008–2011 Baseline 2009–2012 2010–2013 2011–2014 2012–2015 2013–2016 2014–2017 50,073,000 Outputs Programmed

Table A5.1 continued

Sector and Core Sector Outputs

Baseline 2004–2007

2005–2008

Greenhouse gas emission reduction (tCO2-equiv/ yr) 3,609,000 3,651,000 4,488,000 2,563,000 2,163,000 2,163,000 2,115,000 459,700

22,517,000

8,842,000

Finance 580,600

Development Effectiveness Review 2011

Microfinance accounts opened or end borrowers reached (no.) 395,200 399,500 441,500 213,900 208,400 36,400

1,182,000

2,193,000

Small and medium-sized enterprises loan accounts opened or end borrowers reached (no.) 1,400 1,400 1,300 1,400 1,300 2,200

5,900

176,700

64,200

110,000

103,700

Transport 2,000 1,800 2,040 943

Expressways built or upgraded (km) 39,100 42,100 44,200 71,000

1,500

National highways, and provincial, district, and rural roads built or upgraded (km) 3,200 2,600 1,700 780

26,900

48,000

39,600

46,500

76,500

74,100

77,200

Railways constructed and/or upgraded (km)

2,400

2,800

2,700

3,700

6,100

4,300

4,800

continued on next page

Table A5.1 continued

Outputs Delivered 2006–2009 2007–2010 2008–2011 Baseline 2009–2012 2010–2013 2011–2014 2012–2015 2013–2016 2014–2017

Outputs Programmed

Sector and Core Sector Outputs

Baseline 2004–2007

2005–2008

Beneficiaries from road projects (no.) 21,300 17,100 14,000 18,700 14,800 8,400 10,200 12,800 13,600 15,800

410,163,000 422,042,000 429,973,000 396,828,000 450,090,000 222,164,000 209,199,000 267,749,000 267,325,000 262,043,000 303,531,000

Water

Water supply pipes installed or upgraded: length of network (km) 1,814,000 2,473,000 9,780,000 4,823,000 2,816,000 2,895,000 1,524,000 1,757,000

19,300

New households served with water supply (no.) 327,700 328,300 1,028,000 4,566,000 3,406,000 4,429,000 2,497,000

2,104,000

1,302,000

8,285,200

Wastewater treatment capacity added (m3/day) 237,500 187,000 3,842,000 9,393,000 7,858,000 7,954,000

1,380,000

1,010,000

4,202,000

24,252,000

New households served with sanitation (no.) 1,231,000 13,137,000 20,629,000 2,682,000 2,306,000

1,501,000

1,159,000

5,395,000

3,747,000

2,362,000

Land improved through irrigation services, drainage, and flood management (ha)

1,556,000

1,169,000

2,533,000

2,519,000

1,202,000

5,045,000

ADB = Asian Develoment Bank, CO2 = carbon dioxide, ha = hectare, km = kilometer, m3/day = cubic meter per day, MW = megawatt, no. = number, tCO2-equiv/yr = tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year.

Note: Column headers under “Outputs Delivered” refer to periods during which outputs were reported in project completion reports. Column headers under “Outputs Programmed” refer to the periods during which outputs programmed are expected to be delivered. Outputs are assumed to be delivered and reported 6 years after they were programmed.

Appendixes

Sources: ADB project and program completion reports issued in 2004–2011 for delivered outputs, reports and recommendations of the President approved in 2003–2011 for programmed outputs, regional departments, and Strategy and Policy Department.

101

Sector and Core Sector Outputs 2006–2009 33,900 244,700 5,607,000 5,832,000 4,715,400 20,385,000 6,061,000 2,900,000 2,670,000 253,100 331,600 1,517,000 926,400 481,600 449,200 34,800 28,400 71,400 39,300 25,200 15,300 12,800 211,200 2,577,000 2007–2010 2008–2011 2010–2013 2011–2014 2012–2015 2013–2016

Education 78,000 167,700 31,972,000

Energy 23 19 19 25 8 41 598 1,500 1,900 2,300

102
Table A5.2: Asian Development Fund Core Sector Outputs Outputs Delivered Baseline 2009–2012 Outputs Programmed 2014–2017

Baseline 2004–2007

2005–2008

Classrooms built or upgraded (no.)

112,000

50,600

Teachers trained (no.)

488,600

535,900

Development Effectiveness Review 2011

Students benefiting from school improvement programs or direct support (no.)

17,477,000

17,457,000

Installed energy generation capacity (MW equivalent) 3,300 3,500 6,000 7,000 1,200 1,600

252

Transmission lines installed or upgraded (km) 9,600 9,300 9,800 19,000 3,800

2,200

1,600

1,700

2,300

2,100

Distribution lines installed or upgraded (km) 831,700 1,193,000 1,340,000

17,000

2,200

543

2,700

4,600

5,300

New households connected to electricity (no.)

673,500

834,400

152,500

95,500

154,300

223,900

346,300

375,000

continued on next page

Table A5.2 continued

Outputs Delivered 2006–2009 2,000,000 2,000,000 0 1,200 1,200 251,200 395,000 1,191,000 2,705,000 2007–2010 2008–2011 Baseline 2009–2012 2010–2013 2011–2014 2012–2015 2013–2016 2014–2017

Outputs Programmed

Sector and Core Sector Outputs

Baseline 2004–2007

2005–2008

Greenhouse gas emission reduction (tCO2-equiv/yr) 1,833,000 1,875,000 2,593,000 433,000 33,000 33,000 40,100 325,000

4,308,500

2,000,000

Finance 445,500

Microfinance accounts opened or end borrowers reached (no.) 395,000 398,800 396,200 202,000 202,000 29,800 57,600

1,182,000

2,150,600

Small and mediumsized enterprises loan accounts opened or end borrowers reached (no.) 162 24,800 27,700 29,400 42,300 18,700 20,500 176 176 14 0 0 0 23,700

5,800

176,600

57,600

55,800

Transport 0 21,400 0 15,700 0 16,700

Expressways built or upgraded (km)

162

National highways and provincial, district, and rural roads built or upgraded (km) 656 184 149 149 888

18,600

Railways constructed and/ or upgraded (km)

507

888

888

1,600

723

125

Beneficiaries from road projects (no.)

140,964,000 133,757,200 154,345,000 123,611,000 135,394,000 97,449,000

77,262,600

86,052,000

82,456,000

20,852,000

94,235,000

continued on next page

Appendixes

103

Table A5.2 continued

Sector and Core Sector Outputs 2006–2009 7,000 9,200 11,800 11,100 5,100 6,400 9,300 8,800 2007–2010 2008–2011 2010–2013 2011–2014 2012–2015 2013–2016 7,400

Water 9,800

CO2 = carbon dioxide, ha = hectare, km = kilometer, MW = megawatt, m3/day = cubic meter per day, no. = number, tCO2-equiv/yr = tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year.

Note: Column headers under “Outputs Delivered” refer to periods during which outputs were reported in project completion reports. Column headers under “Outputs Programmed” refer to the periods during which outputs programmed are expected to be delivered. Outputs are assumed to be delivered and reported 6 years after they were programmed.

Sources: Asian Development Bank project and program completion reports issued in 2004–2011 for delivered outputs, reports and recommendations of the President approved in 2003–2011 for programmed outputs, regional departments, and Strategy and Policy Department.

104
Outputs Delivered Baseline 2009–2012 Outputs Programmed 2014–2017

Baseline 2004–2007

2005–2008

Water supply pipes installed or upgraded: length of network (km) 575,800 1,670,000 1,968,000 1,292,600 656,800 770,000 569,600

8,600

Development Effectiveness Review 2011

New households served with water supply (number) 5,700 5,700 183,000 572,600 253,000 278,000

415,800

310,200

562,000

1,740,000

Wastewater treatment capacity added (m3/day) 76,500 161,400 174,500 259,400 2,165,900 493,200 575,900

235,000

240,700

86,800

376,800

482,000

New households served with sanitation (no.) 1,002,000 1,063,000 1,350,000 667,500 531,100

94,800

292,700

444,600

712,800

Land improved through irrigation services, drainage, and flood management (ha)

1,278,000

830,400

473,200

688,700

626,200

4,454,000

Appendix 6
Table A6.1: Project Completion and Extended Annual Review Reports Reviewed Project or Program Title West Zone Power System Development Dhaka Clean Fuel Power Transmission Lines Gansu Heihe Rural Hydropower Development Investment Program—Erlongshan Hydropower Northern Area Rural Power Distribution Outer Islands Electrification (Sector) Rural Electrification, Distribution, and Transmission Acquisition and Rehabilitation of the Masinloc Coal-Fired Thermal Power Plant AES Kelanitissa Power S HS PS PS S HS S S Energy Energy Energy Energy Energy Energy Energy Energy S Energy PCR/XARR Rating Sector Component Effectiveness Rating HE HE E HE E LE E HE LE

Outcomes of Operations Completed in 2011

Sector/Approval No.

Country

Energy

1884/1885

Bangladesh

1942/1943

Bangladesh

7256/2337

Cambodia

2296

PRC

2005

Lao PDR

1887

Maldives

1732

Nepal

7273/2405

Philippines

7167/1815

Sri Lanka

Transport and ICT Regional Airports Rehabilitation Phase I East–West Highway Improvement Rural Road Sector GMS: Cambodia Road Improvement Southern Sichuan Roads Development S S S S HS Transport Transport Transport Transport Transport E E E HE HE
continued on next page

2105

Afghanistan

2205/2206

Azerbaijan

2351/2467

Armenia

1945

Cambodia

1918

PRC

Appendixes

105

106
Project or Program Title Western Yunnan Roads Development Guangxi Roads Development II Mumbai and Chennai Ports (Mumbai Port Trust) Mumbai and Chennai Ports (Chennai Port Trust) Madhya Pradesh State Roads Sector Development Program Rural Roads Sector I Road Rehabilitation 2 Southern Transport Corridor Road Rehabilitation Information Technology Development Road Network Development Subregional Transport Facilitation National Highway Development Sector Investment Program—Project 1 National Highway Development Sector Investment Program—Subproject 1 Provincial Roads Improvement Sector Establishment of the Pacific Aviation Safety Office (Pacific Region) S S S S S S S Transport Transport Transport Transport Transport Transport Transport S Transport S Transport S Transport HS Transport HE HE E E HE E E LE HE E LE S Transport E S Transport E S Transport E S Transport HE PCR/XARR Rating Sector Component Effectiveness Rating

Table A6.1 continued

Sector/Approval No.

Country

2014

PRC

2094

PRC

1556

India

1557

India

1958/1959

India

2018

India

2184

Indonesia

2106

Kyrgyz Republic

1882

Maldives

Development Effectiveness Review 2011

1876

Nepal

2097

Nepal

2210

Pakistan

2231

Pakistan

1888

Viet Nam

2183

Regional

Water Supply and Other Municipal Infrastructure Services Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Tonle Sap Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Sector Wuhan Wastewater Management Rajasthan Urban Infrastructure Development Neighborhood Upgrading and Shelter Sector PS PS S S S WSWM WSWM WSWM Transport WSWM Finance LE LE E E E E
continued on next page

2119/2120

Azerbaijan

G0018

Cambodia

1996

PRC

1647

India

2072/2073

Indonesia

Table A6.1 continued

Sector/Approval No. Rawalpindi Environmental Improvement Development of Poor Urban Communities Sector Western Uzbekistan Rural Water Supply Kashkadarya and Navoi Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Sector S S WSWM E WSWM E Third Provincial Towns Water Supply and Sanitation S WSWM LE PS Finance LE U WSWM I

Country

Project or Program Title

PCR/XARR Rating

Sector Component

Effectiveness Rating

2211/2212

Pakistan

2063

Philippines

1903

Uzbekistan

2208

Uzbekistan

1880

Viet Nam

Education Second Education Quality Improvement Teacher Education Secondary Education Support Restructuring of the Technical Education and Vocational Training System (Balochistan) Distance Education Modernization Maritime Training Rural Basic Education PS PS PS U S S Education Education Education Education Education Education S Education E E E I LE LE LE

1844

Lao PDR

1840

Nepal

1917

Nepal

2133

Pakistan

1999

Sri Lanka

1921/2088

Tuvalu

2380

Uzbekistan

Finance Private Sector and Financial Market Development Program Afghanistan Investment Guarantee Facility Private Banks and Leasing Companies Debt Financing to Bank of Baku Second Financial Sector Program Cluster (Subprogram 1) Second Financial Sector Program Cluster (Subprogram 2) Second Financial Sector Program Cluster (Subprogram 3) Second Financial Sector Program Cluster (Subprogram 4) PS S HS S HS HS HS HS Finance Finance Finance Finance Finance Finance Finance Finance LE E HE E HE HE HE HE
continued on next page

G0067/G0068

Afghanistan

2091

Afghanistan

7229/2233

Azerbaijan

7258/2341

Azerbaijan

2378

Cambodia

2479

Cambodia

2585

Cambodia

2706

Cambodia

Appendixes

107

108
Project or Program Title Bank of Hangzhou Infrastructure Development Finance JSC Alliance Bank Guarantee Facility for Fixed-Rate Notes Issued by Alliance Bank JSC and Secured by Diversified Payment Rights JSC BTA Bank (Bank TuranAlem) JSC Bank Center Credit Microfinance and Employment Financial Markets Program for Private Sector Development (Program Loan) Small and Microfinance Development Mekong Enterprise Fund ADM Maculus Fund II L.P . South Asian SME Leasing Facility S S S S S S Finance Finance Finance Finance Finance Finance S Finance U Finance S Finance U Finance I E I E E E E E E E HS Finance HE S Finance E PCR/XARR Rating Sector Component Effectiveness Rating

Table A6.1 continued

Sector/Approval No.

Country

7240

PRC

7211/2169

India

7235

Kazakhstan

7246

Kazakhstan

7236/2236

Kazakhstan

7255/2336

Kazakhstan

Development Effectiveness Review 2011

1768

Papua New Guinea

2138/2139

Sri Lanka

1963

Uzbekistan

7170

Regional

7226

Regional

7250/2322

Regional

Agriculture and Natural Resources Northwest Crop Diversification Agriculture Sector Development Program Songhua River Flood Management Sector Poor Farmers’ Income Improvement Through Innovation Agriculture Area Development Southern Agriculture Area Development S S S HS S U Finance Agriculture Agriculture WSWM Agriculture WSWM Agriculture WSWM Agriculture E E E E HE E E I I
continued on next page

1782

Bangladesh

2022/2023

Cambodia

1919

PRC

1909

Indonesia

1726

Kyrgyz Republic

2314

Kyrgyz Republic

Table A6.1 continued

Sector/Approval No. Northern Community-Managed Irrigation Sector Community Livestock Development Southern Philippines Irrigation Sector Aquatic Resource Development and Quality Improvement Agriculture HIV/AIDS Prevention and Capacity Development in the Pacific S Health E E S Finance E PS WSWM LE S Agriculture E S WSWM HE

Country

Project or Program Title

PCR/XARR Rating

Sector Component

Effectiveness Rating

2086

Lao PDR

2071

Nepal

1668

Philippines

1910/1911

Sri Lanka

Health and Social Protection

G0021

Regional

Industry and Trade Small and Medium Enterprise Sector Development (Program) Greater Mekong Subregion: Mekong Tourism Development Project (Regional) Private Sector and Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Development Program Cluster (Subprograms I and II) Small and Medium Enterprise Sector Development Program PS S S S Finance Industry Transport Industry Industry Finance Industry E E E E E LE LE

2148/2149/2150

Bangladesh

1969/1970/1971

Cambodia, Lao PDR, Viet Nam

G0083/G0164

Lao PDR

1894/1895/1896

Sri Lanka

Multisector Emergency Disaster Damage Rehabilitation (Sector) HS Transport WSWM HE HE
continued on next page

2409

Bangladesh

Appendixes

109

110
Project or Program Title Earthquake and Tsunami Emergency Support Transport WSMS Finance Education Agriculture Health PSM Balochistan Devolved Social Services Program U WSWM Education Health Infrastructure Development PS Energy Transport WSWM Private Participation in Infrastructure Program S Energy WSWM Transport Earthquake-Displaced People Livelihood Restoration Program Emergency Assistance S S Disaster and Emergency Transport WSWM Fiscal Management and Public Administration Reform Program Commune Council Development Project 2 PS S PSM PSM E HE HE HE HE HE I I I LE LE LE E LE LE LE E E LE E
continued on next page

Table A6.1 continued

Sector/Approval No. S E Energy E

Country

PCR/XARR Rating

Sector Component

Effectiveness Rating

Development Effectiveness Review 2011

G0002

Indonesia

2202/2203/2204/

Pakistan

G0028

2178

Pakistan

2270

Pakistan

2335

Pakistan

G0078

Solomon Islands

Public Sector Management

2215/G0030

Afghanistan

G0066

Cambodia

Table A6.1 continued

Sector/Approval No. Social Services Delivery Program Countercyclical Support State Audit Reform Sector Development Program Private Sector and Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Development Program Cluster (Subprograms I and II) Balochistan Devolved Social Services Program Countercyclical Support Countercyclical Support S PSM S PSM U PSM I E E S PSM E S PSM E S PSM E HS PSM HE

Country

Project or Program Title

PCR/XARR Rating

Sector Component

Effectiveness Rating

2664

Georgia

2563

Indonesia

2127

Indonesia

G0083/G0164

Lao PDR

2202/2203/2204/ G0028

Pakistan

2538

Philippines

2544

Viet Nam

E = effective; G = grant; GMS = Greater Mekong Subregion; HE = highly effective; HS = highly successful; I = ineffective; ICT = information and communication technology; Lao PDR = Lao People’s Democratic Republic; LE = less effective; PCR = project completion report; PRC = People’s Republic of China; PS = partly successful; PSM = public sector management; S = successful; SMEs = small and medium-sized enterprises; U = unsuccessful; WSWM = water, sanitation, and waste management; XARR = extended annual review report.

Notes: (i) The review covered 76 PCRs for 84 sovereign projects and 14 extended annual review reports. A project or program can have one or more sector component, of which each outcome is counted separately. (ii) The first column refers to sectors in ADB’s project classification system: agriculture and natural resources, education, energy, finance, health and social protection, industry and trade, multisector, public sector management, transport and ICT, and water and other municipal infrastructure and services. (iii) The column on “Sector Component” follows Strategy 2020 core operational areas: infrastructure (energy, transport and communication, and WSWM); finance sector development; and education. It also includes other areas of operations, such as health, agriculture, disaster and emergency assistance, industry, and PSM.

Sources: Asian Development Bank project completion reports and extended annual review reports circulated in 2011, and Strategy and Policy Department.

Appendixes

111

Sectors A. Core Sectors Infrastructure 36 Energy 7 Transport and 15 communication Water, sanitation, 14 and waste management Finance sector 21 development Education 10 Subtotal (A) 67 B. Other Sectors Agriculture 16 Health 1 Industry and trade 6 Public sector 11 management Disaster and 0 emergency assistance Subtotal (B) 34 Total 101 51 9 19 23 52 19 53 56 61 9 78 15 53 13 46 61 67 68 58 12 27 72 75 85 145 28 61 71 71 80 25 5 11 80 60 91 35 4 16 63 75 69 34 6 15 65 67 80 94 15 42 37 18 7 76 19 8 2 13 1 100 1 0 2 50 0 0 68 75 50 77 8 3 4 11 88 67 75 73 43 12 12 35 67 67 67 71 12 1 5 8 50 0 80 63 15 8 1 7 1 57 61 9 94 44 71 26 237 58 70 8 45 63 78 5 51 40 59 67 75 0 86 100 61 27 78 66 71 12 83 11 55 12 8 54 7 2 4 6 1 75 38 63 86 50 75 50 0 35 21 150 34 11 10 21 2 43 119 72 65 27 121 74 72 104 341 68 69 26 71 58 70 32 83 72 64 20 74 65 64 78 228

0 = nil, No. = number.

Notes: 1. Project completion reports (PCRs) issued in 2009–2011 include 76 issued in 2011 for core and other sector components, 78 in 2010, and 63 in 2009; and for Asian Development Fund operations, 55 PCRs were reviewed in 2011, 57 in 2010, and 43 in 2009. The extended annual review reports (XARRs) issued in 2009–2011 include 5 in 2009, 6 in 2010, and 14 in 2011. 2. A project or program can have one or more sector component, of which each outcome is counted separately. 3. “Sector component” refers to an operation in one sector or a component of an operation with components in more than one sector. An operation may have one or more sector components, especially in the case of multisector projects.

Sources: Asian Development Bank PCRs and XARRs issued in 2009–2011, and Strategy and Policy Department.

112
Asian Development Bank 2010 2011 Total Effective Total Effective (No.) % (No.) % 2009–2011 Total Effective (No.) % 2009 Total Effective (No.) % 68 67 79 57 Asian Development Fund 2010 2011 Total Effective Total Effective (No.) % (No.) % 2009–2011 Total Effective (No.) %

Table A6.2: Effectiveness in Achieving Outcomes of Sovereign and Nonsovereign Sector Components Reviewed in 2009–2011

2009 Total Effective (No.) %

83 71 87

Development Effectiveness Review 2011

86

71

71 48 66 65 64 70 67 50

70 78

56 0 67 64

0

59 71

65 66

Table A6.3: Intended and Achieved Thematic Results in ADB Sovereign Sector Components Reviewed in 2011 (%) Finance Targeting Specific Result Effective in Achieving Target Targeting Specific Result Effective in Achieving Target Targeting Specific Result Effective in Achieving Target Targeting Specific Result Effective in Achieving Target Targeting Specific Result Effective in Achieving Target Education Core Sectors Other Sectors Total Core and Other Sectors

Infrastructure

Thematic Results

Targeting Specific Result

Effective in Achieving Target

Gender equity advanced and women empowered 75 75 83 78 43 71 70 85 78 25 89 38 68 35 67 56 67 75

62

38

40 73

Governance improved

69

71

Human and institutional capacity developed 81 85 100 44 88 70 93 76

87

71

89

72

Private sector role expanded and/or improved 88 79 44 25 56 60 52

49

56

79

55

64

Regional cooperation and integration developed 6 100 0 0 14 45

18

40

7

100

12

54

ADB = Asian Development Bank.

Notes: 1. The review covered 76 project completion reports (PCRs) for 84 projects, of which 65 PCRs covered core sectors and 24 PCRs covered other sectors. 2. Core sectors are infrastructure, finance, and education. Other sectors include agriculture and natural resources, health and social protection, public sector management, industry and trade, and disaster and emergency assistance. Infrastructure sector components include energy; transport and communication; and water, sanitation, and waste management services. 3. “Sector component” refers to an operation in one sector or a component of an operation with components in more than one sector. An operation may have one or more sector components, especially in the case of multisector projects.

Sources: ADB PCRs circulated in 2011, and Strategy and Policy Department.

Appendixes

113

Thematic Results

Development Effectiveness Review 2011

Gender equity advanced and women empowered 75 75 78 75 33 72 59 85 22 88 43 72 31 70 43 71

Governance improved

Human and institutional capacity developed 83 80 100 38 83 53 100

Private sector role expanded and/or improved 100 75 38 33 54 52

Regional cooperation and integration developed 8 100 0 0 13

Notes: 1. The review covered 55 project completion reports (PCRs) for 61 projects, of which 46 PCRs covered core sectors and 18 PCRs covered other sectors. 2. Core sectors are infrastructure, finance, and education. Other sectors include agriculture and natural resources, health and social protection, public sector management, industry and trade, and disaster and emergency assistance. Infrastructure sector components include energy; transport and communication; and water, sanitation, and waste management services. 3. “Sector component” refers to an operation in one sector or a component of an operation with components in more than one sector. An operation may have one or more sector components, especially in the case of multisector projects.

Sources: Asian Development Bank PCRs for Asian Development Fund-financed projects circulated in 2011, and Strategy and Policy Department.

114
Finance Targeting Specific Result Effective in Achieving Target Targeting Specific Result Effective in Achieving Target Targeting Specific Result Effective in Achieving Target Targeting Specific Result Effective in Achieving Target Targeting Specific Result Education Core Sectors Other Sectors Total Core and Other Sectors Effective in Achieving Target 72 76 34 63 70 88 58 60 75 55 59 43 10 100 12 56

Table A6.4: Intended and Achieved Thematic Results in Asian Development Fund Sovereign Sector Components Reviewed in 2011 (%)

Infrastructure

Targeting Specific Result

Effective in Achieving Target

68

30

71

58

79

48

41

71

18

33

Table A6.5: Intended Thematic Results in 2010–2011 Reported in Technical Assistance Completion Reports (%) 2010 2011 2010–2011

Theme 2 59 65 30 18 29 83 12 95 36 92 19 92 19 73 24 76 27 76 96 90 66 74 74 81 80 84 78 74 92 90 67 5 43 4 50

TCRs Targeting Specific Outcome Effective in Achieving Target Effective in Achieving Target Effective in Achieving Target

TCRs Targeting Specific Outcome

TCRs Targeting Specific Outcome

Gender equity

Governance

Capacity development

Private sector development

Environmental sustainability

Regional integration

TCR = technical assistance completion report.

Note: The review covered 138 TCRs issued in 2010 and 135 TCRs issued in 2011, excluding project preparatory technical assistance.

Sources: Asian Development Bank technical assistance completion reports issued in 2010–2011, and Strategy and Policy Department.

Appendixes

115

Thematic Results

Development Effectiveness Review 2011

Gender equity advanced and women empowered 0 0 1 100 1 100 6 33

Human and institutional capacity developed 19 16 88 4 75 46 87 100 4 75 59 90 70 54

Governance improved

Private sector role expanded and/or improved 14 0 0 0 0 17 79 0 0 23

Environmental sustainability

Regional cooperation and integration developed 6 100 2 50

No. = number, TCR = technical assistance completion report.

Note: The review covered 135 TCRs, excluding project preparatory technical assistance.

Sources: Asian Development Bank technical assistance completion reports issued in 2011, and Strategy and Policy Department.

116
Finance TCRs Targeting Specific Result (No.) Effective in Achieving Target (%) Effective in Achieving Target (%) Effective in Achieving Target (%) Effective in Achieving Target (%) TCRs Targeting Specific Result (No.) TCRs Targeting Specific Result (No.) TCRs Targeting Specific Result (No.) TCRs Targeting Specific Result (No.) Education Total Core Sectors Other Sectors Total Core and Other Sectors Effective in Achieving Target (%) 7 43 90 76 129 100 90 81 78 88 10 9 70 100 33 26 76 92 21 90 36 97 57 95

Table A6.6: Intended and Achieved Thematic Results in 2011 Technical Assistance Completion Reports

Infrastructure

TCRs Targeting Specific Result (No.)

Effective in Achieving Target (%)

0

0

36

86

26

88

9

78

17

88

13

92

Table A6.7: Environmental Outcomes in Asian Development Fund Sovereign Infrastructure Components Reviewed in 2009–2011 (%) 2009 2010 2011 2009–2011

Environment Results 0 20 58 50 73 45 69 44 68 20 50 50 17 100 27 0 25 60 10 100 15 71 75 56

Sectors

With Environment Target

Effective in Achieving Target

With Environment Target

Effective in Achieving Target

With Environment Target

Effective in Achieving Target

With Environment Target

Effective in Achieving Target

CO2 emissions reduced

Energy and Transport

Clean energy supported

Energy

Environment improveda

WSWM

Environmental management improved 64 55 46 63 32 45

Energy, Transport, and WSWM

43

62

Environmental awareness improved 58 33 29 90 18 50

Energy, Transport, and WSWM

28

70

Total Infrastructure Components 68 61 69 75 41

71

59

79

CO2 = carbon dioxide; WSWM = water, sanitation, and waste management services.

Notes: 1. A component may have multiple environmental targets or achievements. 2. “Sector component” refers to an operation in one sector or a component of an operation with components in more than one sector. An operation may have one or more sector components, especially in the case of multisector projects. a Results were based on statements in the project completion reports that contributed to achieving clean water supply and sanitation schemes, e.g., reduced pollution load in water bodies, reduced incidence of waterborne diseases, and improved collection of untreated sewage.

Sources: Asian Development Bank project completion reports issued in 2009–2011, and Strategy and Policy Department.

Appendixes

117

118
Finance TCRs Targeting Specific Result (No.) Effective in Achieving Target (%) 0 0 1 0 1 100 0 0 4 100 0 0 Effective in Achieving Target (%) Effective in Achieving Target (%) 0 0 TCRs Targeting Specific Result (No.) TCRs Targeting Specific Result (No.) TCRs Targeting Specific Result (No.) Total Core Sectors Public Sector Management Other Sectors Effective in Achieving Target (%) 0 0 Effective in Achieving Target (%) 0 0

Table A6.8: Achievement of Regional Cooperation and Integration Outcomes in 2011 Regional Technical Assistance Completion Reports

Infrastructure

Outcomes

TCRs Targeting Specific Result (No.)

Improved cross-border physical connectivity

0

Development Effectiveness Review 2011

Increased international trade and investment with regional and nonregional economies 0 6 67 6 67 7 100

1

Regional macroeconomic and financial stability and financial market development 100 0 0 7 100 11

0

0

0

Improved regional environments, health, and social conditions

7

82

3

100

No. = number, TCR = technical assistance completion report.

Note: The review covered 42 regional TCRs.

Sources: Asian Development Bank regional technical assistance completion reports issued in 2011, and Strategy and Policy Department.

Table A6.9: Intended and Achieved Outcomes in Policy-Based Loans Reviewed in 2009–2011 (%) 2009a 2010b Effective in Achieving Target 80 70 47 36 75 46 80 100 73 94 81 20 33 6 0 73 73 59 100 40 67 12 50 37 79 33 98 27 75 12 100 40 87 69 47 75 79 100 67 94 81 98 76 71 57 47 80 41 78 Targeting Specific Outcome Effective in Achieving Target Targeting Specific Outcome Effective in Achieving Target Targeting Specific Outcome Effective in Achieving Target 2011c 2009–2011

Outcomes Achieved by Program Loans Reviewed

Targeting Specific Outcome

Sector policy improved

100

Public financial management improved

100

Procurement regulations and operations improved

75

Level of corruption reduced

55

Transparency and public disclosure enhanced

100

Decentralization improved

65

Institutions improved

100

Human resources developed and/or capacity development of staff achieved 60 70 87 46 53 73 82 82

100

71 89

87 81

69 69

Service delivery improved

100

Involvement of civil society improved and/or stakeholders empowered 61 58 33 67 100 87 80 47 71

90

24 82 24

50 79 75

56 92 50

62 73 58

Private sector role improved

95

Public–private partnerships developed or established

60

Note: Crisis-related budget support programs are excluded. a Covering 17 project completion reports circulated in 2009 for 20 policy-based loans, of which 6 were subprograms of 3 programmatic approaches. b Covering 12 project completion reports circulated in 2010 for 15 policy-based loans, of which 5 were subprograms of 2 programmatic approaches. c Covering 13 project completion reports circulated in 2011 for 17 policy-based loans and grants, of which 6 were subprograms of 2 programmatic approaches.

Source: Asian Development Bank project completion reports issued in 2009–2011, and Strategy and Policy Department.

Appendixes

119

120
2009 No. 127 109 89 195 29 147 40 139 41 13 55 15 29 8 16 53 14 59 17 221 172 481 19 51 14 63 18 241 % No. % No. % No. % 17 16 13 35 2010 2011 2009–2011

Table A6.10: Types of Policy Conditions Included in Policy Matrices of Policy-Based Loans Reviewed in 2009–2011

Policy Conditions

Legislation, laws, executive decrees, draft legislation, new policies, and frameworks

Directives, agency protocols, resolutions, implementing rules and regulations

Plans and programs

Development Effectiveness Review 2011

Implementation, establishment or restructuring of units, consultations, awareness-raising activities, establishment of databases and monitoring mechanisms 18 55 20 27 32 672 100 366 5 11 3 100 4 1 3 16 4 8 19 5 21 13 8 10 342 3 13 4 0

Continuation of reforms

0 6 4 2 3 100

31 95 49 36 53 1,380

2 7 4 3 4 100

Additional human and financial resources

Review of implementation, audit

Divestment, privatization, outsourcing

Study

Total

No. = number.

Notes: 1. Only policy-based loans were included. 2. Numbers may not sum precisely because of rounding.

Sources: Asian Development Bank project completion reports (PCRs) issued in 2009–2011, which included 13 PCRs issued in 2011 covering 17 policy-based loans, of which 6 were subprograms of 2 programmatic approaches; and Strategy and Policy Department.

Table A6.11: Compliance with Conditions in Policy-Based Loans Reviewed in 2009–2011 2009 2009–2011a % 79 8 0 3 9 2 100 1,340 65 42 49 67 5 4 3 5 100 94 7 1,023 76 No. % No. 505 58 47 20 5 37 672 100 366 100 302 6 23 6 5 1 11 3 26 3 20 5 9 7 20 5 0 9 13 4 23 75 279 76 239 % No. % No. 2010 2011a

Status of Compliance

Fully complied with

Fully complied with but late

Substantially complied with

Partially complied with

Not complied with

Waived or cancelled

Total

No. = number.

Note: Only policy-based loans were included. a Data on the status of 40 policy conditions in 2011 was not available.

Sources: Asian Development Bank project completion reports (PCRs) issued in 2009–2011, which included 13 PCRs issued in 2011 covering 17 policy-based loans, of which 6 were subprograms of 2 programmatic approaches; and Strategy and Policy Department.

Appendixes

121

Development Effectiveness Review 2011

Appendix 7
Country Partnership Strategies at Completion
Table A7.1: Number of Country Assistance Program Evaluation and Country Partnership Strategy Final Review Validation Reports in 2009–2011 Year 2009 2010 2011
a

CAPE 2
a

CPS Final Review Validations

Total 2

2 2 5

2 7

CAPE = country assistance program evaluation, CPS = country partnership strategy. The Independent Evaluation Department completed two other CAPES in 2009 for Cambodia and Viet Nam, both rated successful but were not included in the baseline as their country programs were not developed using results-based CPS.

Sources: Asian Development Bank Independent Evaluation Department, and Strategy and Policy Department.

Table A7.2: Ratings of Country Assistance Program Evaluation and Country Partnership Strategy Final Review Validation Reports Prepared in 2009–2011a Country Bangladesh Bhutan Indonesiab Kazakhstanb Lao People’s Democratic Republic Maldivesc Nepal Solomon Islands Sri Lankab Timor-Leste Uzbekistan
a

Evaluation Period 1999–2008 2001–2009 2006–2009 2004–2006 2000–2009 1978–2010 2004–2008
b

Year Circulated 2009 2010 2011 2011 2010 2011 2009 2011 2011 2011 2011

Rating Successful Successful Successful Partly Successful Successful Partly Successful Partly Successful Successful Successful Partly Successful Successful

2006–2010 2009–2011 2006–2010 2002–2009

b

c

The Independent Evaluation Department completed two other CAPES in 2009 for Cambodia and Viet Nam, both rated successful but were not included in the baseline as their country programs were not developed using results-based CPS. CPS final review validation report. Country assistance program evaluation.

b c

Sources: Asian Development Bank Independent Evaluation Department and Strategy and Policy Department.

122

Appendixes

Appendix 8
Sovereign and Nonsovereign Operations at and after Completion
Table A8.1: Project Completion Reports, Validation Reports, and Project Performance Evaluation Reports Issued for Sovereign Operations, 2004–2011 Year 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
a b c d e f

PCR 73 58 50 48 75 63 78 76
d f

PVR 0 0 0 0 32 45 28
a

PPER 1 3 6 10 5 9 10 7
b

Total 74 61 56 58 112 118 133 111

46c
e

PCR = project completion report, PPER = project performance evaluation report, PVR = PCR validation report. Includes 7 PVRs of 2008 PCRs. Includes 2 PPERs on projects for which PCRs were prepared in 2008. Includes 3 PVRs of 2009 PCRs. 78 PCRs for 81 projects. Includes 3 PVRs of 2010 PCRs. 76 PCRs for 84 projects.

Sources: Asian Development Bank PCRs, PVRs, and PPERs issued in 2004–2011; Central Operations Services Office; Independent Evaluation Department; and Strategy and Policy Department.

Table A8.2: Success Ratings of Projects Based on Completion Reports Issued for Sovereign Operations, 2004–2011 Asian Development Bank Year 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
No. = number. Note: The percentage of projects rated successful includes projects rated successful or highly successful, and excludes projects rated partly successful or unsuccessful.
a

Asian Development Fund No. of Projects Reviewed 40 34 30 31 45 43 57 56 % of Projects Rated Successfula 65 88 77 68 62 56 67 75

No. of Projects Reviewed 73 58 50 48 75 63 81 84

% of Projects Rated Successfula 67 71 78 56 65 57 67 79

Where available, project performance evaluation report (PPER) ratings are taken as the final rating. If no PPER was prepared, an available project completion report (PCR) validation report (PVR) rating is used. Otherwise, the PCR ratings are used. Counting of successful projects rated in PCRs, PVRs, and PPERs is based on the year of PCR circulation.

Sources: Asian Development Bank PCRs, PVRs, and PPERs issued in 2004–2011; Central Operations Services Office; Independent Evaluation Department; and Strategy and Policy Department.

123

Development Effectiveness Review 2011
Table A8.3: Successful Sovereign Operations by Country Grouping, Based on Project Completion Reports Issued in 2004–2011 OCR-Only Countries Year 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 No. 28 11 15 14 15 11 17 14 % 71 73 73 43 73 73 71 86 Blend Countries No. 32 31 23 22 38 34 40 36 % 59 71 74 59 61 47 63 75 ADF-Only Countries No. 13 16 12 12 22 18 24 32 % 77 69 92 67 68 67 71 78 FCAS Countriesa No. 12 8 10 6 16 11 21 22 % 58 50 70 50 50 64 71 82

ADF = Asian Development Fund, FCAS = fragile and conflict-affected situation, No. = number, OCR = ordinary capital resources. Notes: Excludes regional projects. The list of countries in each country grouping is in Appendix 2.
a

FCAS classification of countries is based on the country performance assessment ratings during the baseline period 2004−2006.

Sources: Asian Development Bank project completion reports, project completion validation reports, and project performance evaluation reports issued in 2004–2011; and Strategy and Policy Department.

Table A8.4: Successful Sovereign Operations by Country, Based on Project Completion Reports Issued in 2000–2011 2000–2002 % of Projects Rated Successful 0 0 0 75 100 100 81 100 0 0 64 65 100 0 100 67 78 67 2003–2005 % of Projects Rated Successful 0 0 0 80 100 83 90 100 0 0 75 58 50 0 0 100 80 100 2006–2008 % of Projects Rated Successful 0 0 0 70 100 88 100 0 100 0 60 68 0 0 0 67 78 50 2009–2011 % of Projects Rated Successful 56 100 67 100 0 87 100 100 0 100 75 86 50 0 0 50 90 0

Country Afghanistan Armenia Azerbaijan Bangladesh Bhutan Cambodia China, People's Republic of Cook Islands Fiji Georgia India Indonesia Kazakhstan Kiribati Korea, Republic of Kyrgyz Republic Lao People's Democratic Republic Malaysia

No. of PCRs 0 0 0 16 2 2 16 2 0 0 11 20 2 0 1 3 9 6

No. of PCRs 0 0 0 15 1 6 30 2 0 0 8 26 2 0 0 6 5 1

No. of PCRs 0 0 0 10 5 8 13 0 1 0 10 25 2 1 0 6 9 2

No. of PCRs 9 2 3 9 1 15 15 1 1 3 8 14 2 0 0 6 10 0

continued on next page

124

Appendixes
Table A8.4 continued

2000–2002 % of Projects Rated Successful 0 33 50 56 0 50 64 0 50 0 0 67 0 91 0 33 0 0 50 100 0 67

2003–2005 % of Projects Rated Successful 100 33 100 100 0 71 68 67 41 100 0 67 100 71 25 0 100 50 100 89 0 72

2006–2008 % of Projects Rated Successful 0 0 0 100 0 63 53 0 36 50 0 64 100 100 0 0 0 60 0 92 0 66

2009–2011 % of Projects Rated Successful 75 0 50 50 0 89 21 50 63 0 100 71 86 0 100 0 0 60 0 100 100 68

Country Maldives Marshall Islands Micronesia, Federated States of Mongolia Nauru Nepal Pakistan Papua New Guinea Philippines Samoa Solomon Islands Sri Lanka Tajikistan Thailand Timor-Leste Tonga Tuvalu Uzbekistan Vanuatu Viet Nam Regional Total

No. of PCRs 0 3 2 9 0 6 14 4 6 0 1 12 1 11 0 3 0 0 2 5 0 169

No. of PCRs 1 3 1 4 1 7 19 3 17 1 0 6 3 7 4 1 1 2 1 9 0 193

No. of PCRs 1 2 0 2 0 8 15 3 14 2 0 11 3 1 1 0 0 5 0 13 0 173

No. of PCRs 4 0 2 8 0 9 34 6 16 1 2 14 7 0 1 0 1 10 0 12 2 228

0 = nil. No. = number, PCR = project completion report. Note: Rating of sovereign operations may either be successful or highly successful. Sources: Asian Development Bank project completion reports issued in 2000–2011; and Strategy and Policy Department.

125

Development Effectiveness Review 2011
Table A8.5: Successful Sovereign Operations by Sector, Based on Project Completion Reports Issued in 2000–2011 2000–2002 Sector Agriculture and natural resources Education Energy Finance Health and social protection Industry and trade Multisector Public sector management Transport and ICT Water and other municipal infrastructure and services Total No. 33 16 26 17 10 7 4 7 32 % 52 75 85 65 40 71 75 14 84 2003–2005 No. 37 21 27 16 10 2 11 8 30 % 51 86 89 69 60 50 82 50 83 2006–2008 No. 35 17 18 13 6 5 13 13 36 % 60 76 72 46 100 40 77 62 78 2009–2011 No. 47 19 13 20 9 11 25 26 34 % 70 58 69 65 89 55 72 62 88

17 169

71 67

31 193

71 72

17 173

47 66

24 228

50 68

ICT = information and communication technology, No. = number, PCR = project completion report. Note: Rating of sovereign operations may either be successful or highly successful. Sources: Asian Development Bank project completion reports, project completion validation reports, and project performance evaluation reports issued in 2000–2011; and Strategy and Policy Department.

Table A8.6: Extended Annual Review Reports, Validation Reports, and Project Performance Evaluation Reports Issued for Nonsovereign Operations, 2008–2011 Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 XARR 5 5 6 14 2 5 3 1 XARR Validation Report PPER Total 5 8 11 17

PPER = project performance evaluation report, XARR = extended annual review report. Sources: Asian Development Bank XARRs, XARR validation reports, and PPERs issued in 2008–2011; Central Operations Services Office; Independent Evaluation Department; and Strategy and Policy Department.

126

Appendixes
Table A8.7: Successful Nonsovereign Operations by Sector, Based on Extended Annual Review Reports, 2008–2011 2008—2010 % of Projects Rated Successful 0 0 100 55 0 0 0 0 100 0 69 2009—2011 % of Projects Rated Successful 0 0 80 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 2011 % of Projects Rated Successful 0 0 67 82 0 0 0 0 0 0 79

Sector Agriculture and natural resources Education Energy Finance Health and social protection Industry and trade Multisector Public sector management Transport and ICT Water and other municipal infrastructure and services Total

No. of Reports 0 0 4 11 0 0 0 0 1 0 16

No. of Reports 0 0 5 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 25

No. of Reports 0 0 3 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 14

ICT= information and communication technology, No. = number. Note: Rating of nonsovereign operations may either be successful or highly successful. Sources: Asian Development Bank extended annual review reports and project completion validation reports issued in 2008–2011, and Strategy and Policy Department.

Table A8.8: Successful Nonsovereign Operations by Country Grouping, Based on Extended Annual Review Reports Issued in 2008–2011 OCR-Only Countries % of Projects Rated Successful 100 50 67 71 Blend Countries % of Projects Rated Successful 100 100 0 75 ADF-Only Countries % of Projects Rated Successful 0 100 100 100

Year 2008 2009 2010 2011

No. of Reports 2 2 3 7

No. of Reports 2 1 2 4

No. of Reports 0 1 1 1

ADF = Asian Development Fund, No. = number, OCR = ordinary capital resources. Notes: Excludes regional projects, which account for the difference in the total shown in this table from the total in Table A8.6. The list of countries in each country grouping is in Appendix 2. Sources: Asian Development Bank extended annual review reports and project completion validation reports issued in 2008–2011, and Strategy and Policy Department.

127

Appendix 9
Technical Assistance Projects at Completion
Table A9.1: Successful Technical Assistance Projects Based on Completion Reports Issued in 2004–2011 Asian Development Bank Year 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Notes: 1. The percentage of projects rated successful includes those rated successful or highly successful; and excludes projects rated partly successful, unsuccessful, or without a rating. 2. Excludes project preparatory technical assistance. Sources: Asian Development Bank TCRs for advisory and regional technical assistance projects issued in 2004−2011, Central Operations Services Office, and Strategy and Policy Department.

Asian Development Fund No. of TCRs 104 94 100 78 104 105 89 88 % of Projects Rated Successful 79 76 78 77 69 73 78 79

No. of TCRs 128 126 137 110 142 137 108 109

% of Projects Rated Successful 79 79 81 81 73 75 78 81

No. = number, TA = technical assistance, TCR = technical assistance completion report.

128

Appendixes
Table A9.2: Ratings of Technical Assistance Projects Completed in 2011 Highly Successful No. 5 2 0 1 0 1 3 0 9 3 0 0 1 5 14 % 8 5 0 25 0 9 16 0 12 33 0 0 33 9 10 Successful No. 42 30 9 3 10 8 9 3 53 5 3 2 2 41 95 % 70 81 82 75 91 73 47 75 71 56 43 100 67 76 70 Partly Successful No. 12 4 2 0 1 1 7 1 11 1 3 0 0 7 23 % 20 11 18 0 9 9 37 25 15 11 43 0 0 13 17 Unsuccessful No. 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 3 % 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sector Core Areas of ADB Operations Infrastructure Energy Transport and communication Water, sanitation, and waste management Other infrastructure Finance sector development Education Other Areas of Operations Agriculture Health Disaster and emergency Industry Public sector management Total

No. of TCRs 60 37 11 4 11 11 19 4 75 9 7 2 3 54 135

ADB = Asian Development Bank, No. = number, TCR = technical assistance completion report. Notes: 1. Project preparatory technical assistance projects are excluded. 2. Total of highly successful and successful projects is reflected in Table A9.1. Sources: ADB TCRs for advisory and regional technical assistance projects issued in 2004–2011, Central Operations Services Office, and Strategy and Policy Department.

Table A9.3: Successful Policy Advisory and Capacity Development Technical Assistance Projects by Country Grouping Based on Completion Reports Issued in 2004–2011 OCR-Only Countries Year 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 No. of TCRs 24 32 35 32 38 32 18 21 % of Rated Successful 80 89 85 94 86 82 78 88 Blend Countries No. of TCRs 37 29 24 32 27 24 19 22 % of Rated Successful 70 73 71 74 57 67 63 73 ADF-Only Countries No. of TCRs 34 27 32 16 38 31 21 19 % of Rated Successful 77 71 78 62 72 62 72 66 FCAS Countriesa No. of TCRs 17 18 18 9 21 19 17 9 % of Rated Successful 57 95 75 45 60 53 74 60

ADF = Asian Development Fund, FCAS = fragile and conflict-affected situation, No. = number, OCR = ordinary capital resources, TCR = technical assistance completion report. Notes: Excludes regional technical assistance. The list of countries in each country grouping is in Appendix 2.
a

FCAS classification of countries is based on the country performance assessment ratings during the baseline period 2004−2006.

Sources: Asian Development Bank TCRs for advisory technical assistance projects issued in 2004−2011, Central Operations Services Office, and Strategy and Policy Department.

129

Appendix 10
Sovereign Operations during Implementation
Table A10.1: Portfolio Performance Rating in 2011 (%) Asian Development Bank Indicators Technical Procurement Disbursement Financial management Safeguards Overall
0 = nil. Notes: 1. Technical assesses progress toward outputs, procurement assesses the conversion of inputs into outputs, disbursement assesses the conversion of inputs into outputs, financial management assesses fiduciary risks, and safeguards assess reputational risks. 2. The portfolio performance indicators and rating system apply to all project loans and grants, including sector development projects, guarantees, periodic financing requests under multitranche financing facilities, and projects financed by the Japan Fund for Poverty Reduction and other trust funds. They do not apply to program loans and grants, multitranche financing facilities, and technical assistance projects. 3. The five indicator ratings are combined into a single project rating by generating an average rating score for the project and aggregating the averages. Each individual rating is assigned a score (green = 1 point, amber = 0.5 points, red = 0 points), and the assigned values for each of the 5 indicators are summed and divided by 5 to produce an overall project rating score of between 0 and 1. A project with a score greater than or equal to 0.90 is rated on track (green); a project with a score of 0.70– 0.89 is rated a potential problem (amber); and a project with a score of less than or equal to 0.69 is rated an actual problem (red), and is at-risk. Appendix 10 of the 2010 Development Effectiveness Review provides more details. 4. Satisfactory rating is the sum of on track and potential problem. 5. Percentages may not add up to 100% because of rounding. Sources: Asian Development Bank Central Operations Services Office, and Strategy and Policy Department. .

Asian Development Fund Actual Problem 2 13 14 2 1 9 On track 96 70 73 97 99 69 Potential Problem 1 14 11 0 0 21 Satisfactory 97 84 84 97 100 89 Actual Problem 3 16 16 3 0 11

On track 97 75 75 98 99 74

Potential Problem 1 13 11 0 0 17

Satisfactory 98 87 86 98 99 91

130

Appendixes

Table A10.2: Projects under Implementation in 2011 Rated Satisfactory by Country Grouping OCR-Only Countries No. of Projects 146 % Rated Satisfactory 95 Blend Countries No. of Projects 193 % Rated Satisfactory 88 ADF-Only Countries No. of Projects 157 % Rated Satisfactory 91 FCAS Countriesa No. of Projects 106 % Rated Satisfactory 88

ADF = Asian Development Fund, FCAS = fragile and conflict-affected situation, No. = number, OCR = ordinary capital resources. Notes: 1. Regional projects are excluded. The list of countries in each country grouping is in Appendix 2. 2. Satisfactory rating may be on track or potential problem.
a

FCAS classification of countries is based on the country performance assessment ratings during the baseline period 2004−2006.

Sources: Asian Development Bank Central Operations Services Office, and Strategy and Policy Department.

Table A10.3: 2011 Portfolio Performance Rating by Sector Ongoing Projects (No.) 105 39 76 17 40 10 42 10 139 81 559 On Track (%) 77 85 64 76 78 50 81 50 73 73 74 Potential Problem (%) 18 8 21 12 18 30 17 20 17 19 17 Satisfactory (%) 95 92 86 88 95 80 98 70 89 91 91 Actual Problem (%) 5 8 14 12 5 20 2 30 11 9 9

Sectors Agriculture and natural resources Education Energy Finance Health and social protection Industry and trade Multisector Public sector management Transport and ICT Water and other municipal infrastructure and services Total

ICT= information and communication technology, No. = number. Note: Satisfactory rating is the sum of on track and potential problem. Sources: Asian Development Bank Central Operations Services Office and Strategy and Policy Department.

131

Development Effectiveness Review 2011
Table A10.4: 2011 Asian Development Fund Portfolio Performance Rating by Sector Ongoing Projects (No.) 59 32 26 10 20 8 19 6 76 46 302 On Track (%) 69 84 54 70 85 50 68 50 67 65 69 Potential Problem (%) 24 9 23 20 10 25 32 33 20 22 21 Satisfactory (%) 93 94 77 90 95 75 100 83 87 87 89 Actual Problem (%) 7 6 23 10 5 25 0 17 13 13 11

Sectors Agriculture and natural resources Education Energy Finance Health and social protection Industry and trade Multisector Public sector management Transport and ICT Water and other municipal infrastructure and services Total

ICT= information and communication technology, No. = number. Note: Satisfactory rating is the sum of on track and potential problem. Numbers may not sum precisely because of rounding. Sources: Asian Development Bank Central Operations Services Office, and Strategy and Policy Department.

132

Appendix 11
Disbursements
Table A11.1: Annual Disbursements for Sovereign Operations, 2008–2011 ($ million) Asian Development Banka Item Project loans Program loans ADF grants Total Disbursementsd
a b c d

Asian Development Fundb 2011 5,796 1,211 510 7,517 2008 1,329 713 177 2,220 2009 1,303 897 347 2,548 2010 1,116 455 358 1,929 2011 1,141 245 510 1,895

2008 4,473 3,447 177 8,098

2009c 4,889 2,761 347 7,996

2010c 4,977 1,365 358 6,701

ADF = Asian Development Fund. Combined sovereign loans (ordinary capital resources and the ADF) and ADF grants. ADF grants and loans. Excludes operations financed by the Countercyclical Support Facility. Numbers may not sum precisely because of rounding.

Source: Asian Development Bank Controller’s Department.

Table A11.2: 2011 Disbursements for Sovereign Operations by Country Grouping OCR-Only Countries Amount ($ million) 3,710 Ratio (%) 26 Blend Countriesa Amount ($ million) 2,981 Ratio (%) 19 ADF-Only Countries Amount ($ million) 820 Ratio (%) 19 FCAS Countriesb Amount ($ million) 630 Ratio (%) 14

ADF = Asian Development Fund, FCAS = fragile and conflict-affected situation, OCR = ordinary capital resources. Notes: Regional projects are excluded. The list of countries in each country grouping is in Appendix 2.
a b

Excludes operations financed by the Countercyclical Support Facility. FCAS classification of countries is based on the country performance assessment ratings during the baseline period 2004−2006.

Sources: Asian Development Bank Controller’s Department, and Strategy and Policy Department.

Table A11.3: 2011 Disbursements for Nonsovereign Operations by Country Grouping ADBa Item Loans Equity Total Amount ($ million) 715 77 792 Ratio (%) 63 20 52 OCR Countries Amount ($ million) 418 9 254 Ratio (%) 61 11 62 ADF Countriesa Amount ($ million) 233 21 427 Ratio (%) 62 59 56

ADB = Asian Development Bank, ADF = Asian Development Fund, OCR = ordinary capital resources. Note: The list of countries in each country grouping is in Appendix 2.
a

Includes regional projects.

Sources: ADB Controller’s Department, and Strategy and Policy Department.

133

Appendix 12
Cofinancing
Table A12.1: Direct Value-Added Cofinancing, 2004–2011 Asian Development Bank Amount Cofinanced by Partners ($ million) 273 346 1,249 695 1,191 3,354 4,425 4,166 Cofinancing Ratio (%) 5 6 17 7 11 29 36 32 Asian Development Fund Amount Cofinanced by Partners ($ million) 102 223 271 209 146 284 720 1,510 Cofinancing Ratio (%) 8 14 18 9 6 9 23 59

Year 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Note: Direct value-added (DVA) cofinancing involves active coordination and formal agreements among financing partners that bring about defined client benefits, including contractual commitments by the Asian Development Bank to facilitate mobilization, administration, or participation in cofinancing. In February 2012, the definition of commercial cofinancing was clarified and now includes trade facilitation program DVA cofinancing and revised parallel loans DVA cofinancing. Applying this new definition, the amount of DVA cofinancing would be $7,483 million in 2011 and $5,281 million in 2010. Sources: Asian Development Bank Office of Cofinancing Operations, Private Sector Operations Department, and Strategy and Policy Department.

Table A12.2: 2011 Direct Value-Added Cofinancing in Sovereign Operations by Sector Projects with DVA Cofinancing (Number) 3 2 7 1 3 1 4 0 10 6 37 Amount Cofinanced by Partners ($ million) 34 1,000 1,142 2 51 2 33 0 752 262 3,279

Sectors Agriculture and natural resources Education Energy Finance Health and social protection Industry and trade Multisector Public sector management Transport and ICT Water and other municipal infrastructure and services Total

DVA = direct value-added, ICT = information and communication technology. Note: Numbers may not sum precisely because of rounding. Source: Asian Development Bank Office of Cofinancing Operations.

134

Appendix 13
Strategic Focus in Operations
Table A13.1: Financing for Strategy 2020 Priorities (2011 approvals) Asian Development Bank Item A. Financing for Core Sectors Infrastructure Energy Transport and communication Water, sanitation, and waste management services Othersa Finance sector development Education B. Financing for Other Areas Agriculture Health Industry Public sector management C. Operations under B with Environmental Sustainability or Regional Cooperation and Integration as Theme Total Financing (A+B) Total Financing for Core Operational Areas (A+C)
Notes: 1. Financing approved for sovereign operations (including Asian Development Fund grants) and nonsovereign operations. Financing for multisector projects is broken down into the respective sector components. 2. Numbers may not sum precisely because of rounding. 3. Percentages may not add up to 100% because of rounding.
a

Asian Development Fund Amount ($ million) 2,408 1,911 145 762 913 91 20 477 144 28 21 15 80 30 (%) 94 75 6 30 36 4 1 19 6 1 1 0.6 3 1

Amount ($ million) 13,026 12,009 4,469 4,639 2,271 630 370 647 832 131 56 65 580 218

(%) 94 87 32 33 16 5 3 5 6 1 0.4 0.5 4 2

13,858 13,244

100 96

2,552 2,438

100 96

Includes projects with several infrastructure components (e.g., urban sector development and disaster rehabilitation), and public sector management projects and programs supporting policy reforms in core sectors.

Sources: Asian Development Bank reports and recommendations of the President approved in 2011, Central Operations Services Office, and Strategy and Policy Department.

135

Development Effectiveness Review 2011
Table A13.2: New Projects Supporting Strategy 2020 Selected Thematic Areas (2011 approvals) Asian Development Bank Item Environmental sustainability Private sector development Regional cooperation and integration Gender mainstreaminga
a

Asian Development Fund No. of Projects 18 14 8 32 Amount ($ million) 769 464 563 1,631

No. of Projects 57 38 21 51

Amount ($ million) 6,874 4,230 2,993 4,656

Note: Projects exclude additional financing that does not result in new or additional outputs. Includes sovereign projects with gender equity as one of thematic priorities under the Asian Development Bank project classification system, and other projects with effective gender mainstreaming.

Sources: Asian Development Bank reports and recommendations of the President approved in 2011, Central Operations Services Office, Regional and Sustainable Development Department, and Strategy and Policy Department.

136

Appendixes
Table A13.3: Financing for Strategy 2020 Priorities by Country Grouping (2011 approvals) OCR-Only Countries Item A. Financing for Core Sectors Infrastructure Energy Transport and communication Water, sanitation, and waste management services Othersa Finance sector development Education B. Financing for Other Areas Agriculture Health Industry and Trade Public sector management C. Operations under B with Environmental Sustainability or Regional Cooperation as Theme Total Financing (A+B) Total Financing for Core Operational Areas (A+C) Amount ($ million) 2,301 2,231 512 1,205 510 4 70 0 713 128 35 50 500 213 (%) 76 74 17 40 14 0 2 0 24 4 1 2 17 7 Blend Countries Amount $ million 9,314 8,507 3,424 2,992 1,670 420 265 542 52 0 20 0 32 7 (%) 99 91 37 32 18 4 3 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 ADF-Only Countries Amount ($ million) 1,302 1,177 583 442 117 36 20 105 92 28 1 15 48 23 (%) 93 84 42 32 8 3 1 8 7 2 0 1 3 2

3,014 2,514

100 83

9,365 9,321

100 100

1,394 1,325

100 95

ADF = Asian Development Fund, OCR = ordinary capital resources. Notes: 1. Covers financing approved for sovereign operations (including Asian Development Fund grants) and nonsovereign operations. Financing for multisector projects is broken down into the respective sector components. 2. The country groupings differ from those presented in Appendix 2. Groupings in this table follow the classification of countries with access to ADF during its ninth replenishment period (2009–2012). OCR-only countries are the People’s Republic of China, the Cook Islands, Fiji, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Turkmenistan, as well as India, which is a blend country without access to the ADF since 1986. Blend countries are Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Georgia, the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Mongolia, Pakistan, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Sri Lanka, Timor-Leste, Uzbekistan, and Viet Nam. ADF-only countries are Afghanistan, Bhutan, Cambodia, Kiribati, the Kyrgyz Republic, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, the Maldives, Nauru, Nepal, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tajikistan, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu. 3. Excludes regional projects, which account for the difference with totals in Table A13.1. 4. Numbers may not sum precisely because of rounding.
a

Includes projects with several infrastructure components (e.g., urban sector development and disaster rehabilitation), and public sector management projects and programs supporting policy reforms in core sectors.

Sources: Asian Development Bank reports and recommendations of the President approved in 2011, Central Operations Services Office, and Strategy and Policy Department.

137

138
Table A13.4: Technical Assistance for Strategy 2020 Priorities (2011 approvals) ADB Total Amount ($ million) % 223.01 62 194.64 54 52.66 15 57.62 16 76.53 21 7.83 19.57 8.80 136.38 44.29 4.30 4.23 13.01 70.56 86.67 24 9.83 13 1.10 1 16.91 33 38 12 1 1 4 20 24.46 1.98 1.50 0.23 2.13 18.63 32 3 2 0 3 24 11.04 2.10 1.30 4.00 0 3.64 14 3 2 5 0 5 17.93 8.66 0 0 0 9.27 35 17 0 0 0 18 4.23 0 0 0 0 4.23 0 2 5 2 2.75 4.63 3.70 4 6 5 0.70 2.70 0.94 1 3 1 0 3.20 1.74 0 6 3 0.70 1.50 0 5 10 0 29 0 0 0 0 29 0 4.38 9.05 2.43 82.96 31.55 1.50 0 10.88 39.03 67.09 3 6 2 54 20 1 0 7 25 44 OCR-Only Countries Blend Countries Amount Amount ($ million) % ($ million) % 52.39 68 66.12 86 44.06 57 62.48 81 14.52 19 13.03 17 13.14 17 34.95 45 13.66 18 13.81 18 FCAS ADF-Only Countries Countriesa Amount Amount ($ million) % ($ million) % 33.34 65 10.50 71 28.40 55 9.00 61 4.03 8 1.43 10 4.85 9 3.35 23 19.53 38 3.53 24 Regional TA Amount ($ million) % 71.16 46 59.69 39 21.08 14 4.69 3 29.54 19

Development Effectiveness Review 2011

Item A. Financing for Core Sectors Infrastructure Energy Transport and communication Water, sanitation, and waste management Othersb Finance sector development Education

B. Financing for Other Areas Agriculture Health Disaster and emergency Industry Public sector management

C. Operations under B with Environmental Sustainability or Regional Cooperation as Theme 359.39 309.68 86 62.21 81 67.22 100 76.85 100 77.15 100 87

Total Financing (A+B)

51.27 50.25

100 98

14.73 10.50

100 71

154.12 138.25

100 90

Total Financing for Core Operational Areas (A+C)

0 = nil, ADB = Asian Development Bank, ADF = Asian Development Fund, FCAS = fragile and conflict-affected situation, OCR = ordinary capital resources, TA = technical assistance.

Notes:

1. The country groupings differ from those presented in Appendix 2. Groupings in this table follow the classification of countries with access to ADF during its ninth replenishment period (2009–2012). OCR-only countries are the People’s Republic of China, the Cook Islands, Fiji, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Turkmenistan, as well as India, which is a blend country without access to the ADF since 1986. Blend countries are Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Georgia, the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Mongolia, Pakistan, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Sri Lanka, Timor-Leste, Uzbekistan, and Viet Nam. ADF-only countries are Afghanistan, Bhutan, Cambodia, Kiribati, the Kyrgyz Republic, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, the Maldives, Nauru, Nepal, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tajikistan, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu. 2. Numbers may not sum precisely because of rounding.

a

FCAS classification of countries is based on country performance assessment rankings and conflict considerations. The list used in the analysis is based on the lowest-ranked countries in the 2011 country performance assessment.

b

Includes multisector TA projects with several infrastructure components.

Sources: ADB technical assistance reports approved in 2011, and Strategy and Policy Department.

Appendix 14
Partnerships
Table A14.1: Sovereign Operations with Participation of Civil Society Organizations, 2006–2011 Asian Development Bank Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
No. = number.
a

Asian Development Fund
a

No. 50 60 65 67 83 91

% of Approvals 78 78 76 72 79 91

No. 40 39 42 39 46 46

% of Approvalsa 85 85 82 75 81 96

Refers to projects funded by ordinary capital resources and the Asian Development Fund approved during the year.

Sources: Asian Development Bank reports and recommendations of the President approved in 2006−2011, Regional and Sustainable Development Department, and Strategy and Policy Department.

Table A14.2: 2011Sovereign Operations with Participation of Civil Society Organizations by Country Grouping OCR-Only Countries Number 27 % 82 Blend Countries Number 3 % 75 ADF-Only Countries Number 28 %

97

ADF = Asian Development Fund, No. = number, OCR = ordinary capital resources. Note: The country groupings differ from those presented in Appendix 2. Groupings in this table follow the classification of countries with access to the ADF during its ninth replenishment period (2009–2012). OCR-only countries are the People’s Republic of China, the Cook Islands, Fiji, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Turkmenistan, as well as India, which is a blend country without access to the ADF since 1986. Blend countries are Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Georgia, the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Mongolia, Pakistan, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Sri Lanka, Timor-Leste, Uzbekistan, and Viet Nam. ADF-only countries are Afghanistan, Bhutan, Cambodia, Kiribati, the Kyrgyz Republic, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, the Maldives, Nauru, Nepal, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tajikistan, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu. Sources: Asian Development Bank Regional and Sustainable Development Department, and Strategy and Policy Department.

139

140
Table A14.3: Program-Based Approaches in 2011 Supported by ADB OCR ($ million) ADF ($ million) 189.00 43.00 48.64 320.00 150.00 250.00 42.94 15.00 80.00 40.00 200.00 74.80 150.00 113.00 100.00 50.00 81.00 240.00 76.00 200.00 43.84 72.00 24.30 200.00 112.00 7.56 40.00

Development Effectiveness Review 2011

Loan/Grant No. 0261 0280 2752 2831 2842 2761 2845 2765 2773 200.00 300.00 15.00 80.00 40.00 200.00 74.80 150.00 113.00 100.00 50.00 81.00 240.00 76.00 200.00 43.84 72.00 24.30 200.00 112.00 7.56 40.00

Country Afghanistan Afghanistan Armenia Azerbaijan Azerbaijan Bangladesh Bangladesh PRC PRC

Total ($ million) 189.00 43.00 48.64 200.00 300.00 320.00 150.00 250.00 42.94

Approval Date 17 October 22 December 9 May 14 December 22 December 5 July 22 December 20 July 5 September 29 November 12 April 23 November 15 July 22 August 18 October 18 October 3 November 4 November 18 November 1 December 7 December 14 December 15 December 16 December 19 December 4 October 21 February 17 October 20 September
continued on next page

2815 2749 2807 2764 2770 2793 2794 2797 2800 2806 2822 2823

Cambodia Georgia Georgia India India India India India India India India India

Project Title Transport Network Development Investment Program (Tranche 1) Energy Sector Development Investment Program (Tranche 3) Sustainable Urban Development Investment Program (Tranche 1) Road Network Development Program (Tranche 3) Water Supply and Sanitation Investment Program (Tranche 2) Third Primary Education Development Railway Sector Investment Program (Tranche 2) Railway Energy Efficiency and Safety Enhancement Investment Program (Tranche 3) Guangdong Energy Efficiency and Environment Improvement Investment Program (Tranche 3) Third Financial Sector Program - Subprogram 1 Urban Services Improvement Investment Program (Tranche 1) Urban Services Improvement Investment Program (Tranche 2) Madhya Pradesh Energy Efficiency Improvement Investment Program (Tranche 1) North Eastern State Roads Investment Program (Tranche 1) Railway Sector Investment Program (Tranche 1) Himachal Pradesh Clean Energy Transmission Investment Program (Tranche 1) Uttarakhand Urban Sector Development Investment Program (Tranche 2) Assam Power Sector Enhancement Investment Program (Tranche 3) Assam Urban Infrastructure Investment Project (Tranche 1) Second India Infrastructure Project Financing Facility (Tranche 3) National Power Grid Development Investment Program (Tranche 3)

2830 2833 2834 2837 2786

India India India India Indonesia

2735

Kazakhstan

2795 2777/0257

Kiribati Lao PDR

Madhya Pradesh Energy Efficiency Improvement Investment (Tranche 2) Infrastructure Development Investment Program for Tourism (Tranche 2) North Eastern Region Capital Cities Development Investment Program (Tranche 2) Agribusiness Infrastructure Development Investment Program (Tranche 2) Second Local Government Finance and Governance Reform Program Cluster (Subprogram 2) CAREC Transport Corridor I (Zhambyl Oblast Section) [Western Europe-Western PRC International Transit Corridor] Investment Program (Tranche 4) South Tarawa Sanitation Improvement Sector Secondary Education Sector Development Program

Table A14.3 continued

OCR ($ million)

600.00 243.24 270.00 300.00 40.00 50.00 20.00 10.82 5.00 59.00 45.00 240.00 130.00 200.00 58.00 138.00 80.00 24.80 120.50 59.00 45.00 240.00 130.00 200.00 58.00 138.00 80.00 24.80 120.50

Loan/Grant No. 2791/0260 2766 2847 0272 2742/ 2743 2846 2841 2840 2783/2784 2785 2801 0255 29 September 12 April 31 March 2 September 9 September 7 December 7 June 30 September 9 December 29 December

Project Title Second Private Sector and SME Development Program (Subprogram 1) Higher Education Reform Western Regional Road Corridor Development Program (Tranche I) School Sector Program Flood Emergency Reconstruction Power Transmission Enhancement (Tranche 3) Punjab Irrigated Agriculture Investment Program (Tranche 2) Governance in Justice Sector Reform Program (Subprogram 2) Bridge Replacement for Improved Rural Access Sector Rural Primary Health Services Delivery Economic Recovery Support Program (Subprogram 2) Economic Recovery Support Program (Subprogram 2)

ADF ($ million) 15.00 20.00 45.00 65.00 50.00

Total ($ million) 15.00 20.00 45.00 65.00 650.00 243.24 270.00 300.00 90.00 20.00 10.82 5.00

Approval Date 4 October 28 July 22 December 22 November 30 March 22 December 22 December 16 December 28 September 30 September 7 November 11 August

2790 0251 2746

Country Lao PDR Mongolia Mongolia Nepal Pakistan Pakistan Pakistan Philippines PNG PNG Samoa Solomon Islands Sri Lanka Tajikistan Uzbekistan

2772

Uzbekistan

2775 2825 2754 2789 2827 2848

Uzbekistan Uzbekistan Viet Nam Viet Nam Viet Nam Viet Nam

Local Government Enhancement Sector Strengthening Public Resource Management Program Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation Corridor 2 Road Investment Program (Tranche 2) Second Central Asia Regional Economic Corridor 2 Road Investment Program (Tranche 1) Housing for Integrated Rural Development Investment Program (Tranche 1) Water Supply and Sanitation Services Investment Program (Tranche 3) Water Sector Investment Program (Tranche 1) Transport Connections in Northern Mountainous Provinces Project Support for the Implementation of the Poverty Reduction Program V (Subprogram 3) Power Transmission Investment Program (Tranche 1)

ADB = Asian Development Bank, ADF = Asian Development Fund, CAREC = Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation, DMC = developing member county, Lao PDR = Lao People’s Democratic Republic, No. = number, OCR = ordinary capital resources, PNG = Papua New Guinea, PRC = People’s Republic of China, SMEs = small and medium-sized enterprises.

Notes: ADB considers policy-based lending and subprojects of multitranche financing facilities as program-based. The counting of program-based approaches (PBA) is based on the 2011 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development guidelines. A PBA is defined as a way of engaging in development cooperation based on the principle of coordinated support for a locally owned program of development, such as a national poverty reduction strategy, a sector program, a thematic program, or a program of a specific organization. PBAs share the following features: (i) leadership by the host country or organization; (ii) a single comprehensive program and budget framework; (iii) a formalized process for development partner coordination and harmonization of development partner procedures for at least two of the following: reporting, budgeting, financial management, and procurement; and (iv) use of local systems in at least two of the following: program design and implementation, financial management, monitoring, and evaluation. A sector-wide approach is a PBA to an entire sector.

Sources: Asian Development Bank regional departments, reports and recommendations of the President approved in 2011, and Strategy and Policy Department.

Appendixes

141

Appendix 15
Human Resources
Table A15.1: Budgeted Staff Complement in Operations Departments, 2006–2011 Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 No. of IS and NS in Operationsa 687 710 732 748 846 951c Total No. of IS and NS in ADBb 1,308 1,341 1,378 1,418 1,540 1,713d % of IS and NS in Operations 53 53 53 53 55 56

ADB = Asian Development Bank, IS = international staff, No. = number, NS = national staff. a Refers to ADB’s five regional departments and the Private Sector Operations Department. b Excludes directors’ advisors and staff in ADB’s Independent Evaluation Department and Office of the Compliance Review Panel, and young professionals. c Includes 105 new IS and NS positions; 30 administrative staff (level 7) converted to NS 1. d Includes 70 new IS and NS positions; 59 administrative staff (level 7) converted to NS 1. Source: ADB Budget, Personnel and Management Systems Department.

Table A15.2: Budgeted Staff Complement in Resident Missions, 2006–2011 Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 No. of IS and NS in Resident Missionsa 280 293 314 327 368 409b No. of IS and NS in Regional Departments 635 659 680 694 762 846c % of IS and NS in Resident Missions 44 44 46 47 48 48

IS = international staff, No. = number, NS = national staff. a Includes staff posted from headquarters in resident missions. b Includes 56 new IS and NS positions; 9 administrative staff (level 7) converted to NS 1. c Includes 29 new IS and NS positions; 29 administrative staff (level 7) converted to NS 1. Source: Asian Development Bank Budget, Personnel and Management Systems Department.

142

Appendixes
Table A15.3: Gender Distribution among International Staff, 2009–20111 2009 Item Entry levels (levels 1–4) Female Male Pipeline levels (levels 5–6) Female Male Senior levels (levels 7–10) Female Male Total ADB International Staffa Female Male
a

2010 % 29 71 No. 135 271 % 33 67 No. 151 247

2011 % 38 62

No. 112 270

117 258

31 69

123 292

30 70

134 317

30 70

29 141

17 83

40 163

20 80

47 159

23 77

258 669

28 72

298 726

29 71

332 723

31 69

ADB = Asian Development Bank, No. = number. Including staff on special leave without pay. Source: Asian Development Bank Budget Budget, Personnel and Management Systems Department.

143

Appendix 16
Business Processes and Practices
Table A16.1: Processing Time for Sovereign Operations in 2006–2011 (months from fact-finding to effectiveness)

Asian Development Bank All Sovereign Operations
28 27 21 19 19 22

Asian Development Fund All Sovereign Operations
28 27 19 15 16 19

Year 2006

Projects
29 29 24 22 20 23

Programs
21 19 12 9 16 16

Projects
28 28 21 17 16 20

Programs
24 23 11 9 15 16

2007 2008 2009 2010
2011

Notes: 1. Refers to projects funded by ordinary capital resources and Asian Development Fund that became effective during the year. Processing time refers to the average time from loan or project preparatory technical assistance fact-finding to effectiveness. 2. Excludes multitranche financing facility tranches not processed with the facility. 3. Processing time for supplementary loan approvals is computed from loan fact-finding to effectiveness. Sources: Asian Development Bank Central Operations Services Office, and Strategy and Policy Department.

Table A16.2: Processing Time for Sovereign Operations in 2011 by Country Grouping (months from fact-finding to effectiveness) Item Projects Programs All Sovereign Operations
a

OCR-Only Countries 29 20 28

Blend Countries 25 23 26

ADF-Only Countries 17 8 15

FCAS Countriesa 13 11 12

ADF = Asian Development Fund, FCAS = fragile and conflict-affected situation, OCR = ordinary capital resources. FCAS classification of countries is based on the country performance assessment ratings during the baseline year (2006). The list of countries in each country grouping is in Appendix 2.

Sources: Asian Development Bank Central Operations Services Office, and Strategy and Policy Department.

Table A16.3: Sovereign Projects Administered by Resident Missions in 2011 (%) Item Administration of sovereign operations
a

OCR-Only Countries 36

Blend Countries 45

ADF-Only Countries 34

FCAS Countriesa 41

ADF = Asian Development Fund, FCAS = fragile and conflict-affected situation, OCR = ordinary capital resources. FCAS classification of countries is based on the country performance assessment ratings during the baseline year (2006). The list of countries in each country grouping is in Appendix 2.

Source: Asian Development Bank Strategy and Policy Department.

144

Development Effectiveness Review The Development Effectiveness Review is the annual corporate performance report of the Asian Development Bank (ADB). It assesses progress in implementing Strategy 2020, ADB’s long-term strategic framework, using the performance indicators, baselines, and targets in the ADB results framework. It analyzes performance trends, identifies strengths and weaknesses, and defines corrective actions. About the Asian Development Bank ADB’s vision is an Asia and Pacific region free of poverty. Its mission is to help its developing member countries reduce poverty and improve the quality of life of their people. Despite the region’s many successes, it remains home to two-thirds of the world’s poor: 1.8 billion people who live on less than $2 a day, with 903 million struggling on less than $1.25 a day. ADB is committed to reducing poverty through inclusive economic growth, environmentally sustainable growth, and regional integration. Based in Manila, ADB is owned by 67 members, including 48 from the region. Its main instruments for helping its developing member countries are policy dialogue, loans, equity investments, guarantees, grants, and technical assistance.

ISBN 978-92-9092-670-2

Asian Development Bank 6 ADB Avenue, Mandaluyong City 1550 Metro Manila, Philippines www.adb.org
Printed on recycled paper

9 789290 926702
Printed in the Philippines

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful