Document of  The World Bank  FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY      Report No: ICR00004380    IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT  (GRANT NUMBERS H647‐3A AND H876‐3A AND TRUST FUND NUMBER TF‐099645)    ON A    REGIONAL IDA GRANT  IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR 16.3 MILLION  (US$25 MILLION EQUIVALENT)  AND     ADDITIONAL FINANCING  IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR 43.3 MILLION  (US$65 MILLION EQUIVALENT)    AND    A MULTI‐DONOR TRUST FUND   IN THE AMOUNT OF UP TO US$29 MILLION EQUIVALENT     TO THE   AFRICAN CAPACITY BUILDING FOUNDATION (ACBF)    FOR AN  AFCC2/RI‐ACBF REGIONAL CAPACITY BUILDING PROJECT ( P122478 )    August 31, 2018    Governance Global Practice  Africa Region      CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS     Exchange Rate Effective July 31, 2018    Currency Units  =   SDR and US$  US$1.4  =  SDR 1      FISCAL YEAR  July 1 ‐ June 30                                  Regional Vice President: Hafez Ghanem  Country Director: Elizabeth Huybens  Senior Global Practice Director: Deborah L. Wetzel  Practice Manager: Hisham Ahmed Waly  Task Team Leader: Deryck R. Brown  ICR Main Contributors: Amitabha Mukherjee, Deryck Brown      ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS    AAP  Annual Action Plan  ACBF  African Capacity Building Foundation  AERC  African Economic Research Consortium  AFCRI  Regional Integration Department in the Africa Region (of the World Bank)  AFDB  African Development Bank  APIF  African Policy Institutes Forum  ASCON  Administrative Staff College of Nigeria  AU‐CAP  African Union Capacity Building Project  AWDF  African Women Development Fund  BIDPA  Botswana Institute for Development Policy Analysis  BOG  Board of Governors  CAPAN  Cellule d’analyse des Politique de Developpement de l’assemblee Nationale (Benin)  CAPES  Confederation of Associations in the Private Employment Sector (CAPES)  CAS  Country Assistance Strategy  CEPA  Center for Policy Analysis  CEPOD  Centre d’etudes de Politiques pour le Developpement (Senegal)  CGIAR  Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research  CLK‐Net  Country Level Knowledge Network  COI  Conflict of Interest  CDMAP  Africa Capacity Development Management Action Plan  CESAG  Senegal Regional Management School  CODESRIA  Council for the Development of Social Science Research in Africa  COMESA  Community of East and Southern African States  CQS  Consolidated Quotation System  CSD  Climate Change and Sustainable Development  CSA  Climate Smart Agriculture  DGF  Development Grant Facility  EA  Environment Assessment  EB  Executive Board  ECCAS  Economic Community for Central African States  ECOWAS  Economic Community for West African States  EDPRS  Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy  EPM  Economic Policy Management  ERM  Enterprise Risk Management  ES  Executive Secretary  ESAMI  Eastern and Southern African Management Institute  ESRF  Economic and Social Research Foundation  FMA  Financial Management Assessment  GIMPA  Ghana Institute for Management and Public Administration  HESPI  The Horn Economic and Social Policy Institute  HR  Human Resources  IBRD  International Bank for Reconstruction and Development  IC  Individual Consultant  ICB  International Competitive Bidding  ICT  Information and Communications Technology  IDA  International Development Association  IFR  Interim (Unaudited) Financial Report  IPAM  Institute of Public Administration and Management (Sierra Leone)  ISR  Implementation Status Report  K&L  Knowledge and Learning  KIPPRA  Kenya Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis  LCS  Least Cost Selection  LIPA  Liberia Institute of Public Administration  MDAs  Ministries, Departments and Agencies  MDI  Management Development Institute, Gambia  MDTF  Multi Donor Trust Fund  MAP  Management Action Plan  MEFMI  Macroeconomic and Fiscal Management Institute of Eastern and Southern Africa  M&E  Monitoring and Evaluation  MTR  Midterm Review  NCB  National Competitive Bidding  ORAF  Operational Risk Assessment Framework  PDO  Project Development Objective  PRC  Permanent Representatives Committee  PRCS‐RCA  Projet de Renforcement des Capacités en Statistiques de la Republique Centrafricaine  PTIC  Philippine Telecommunication Investment Corporation  PWC  Price Waterhouse Coopers  QBS  Quality‐Based Selection  QCBS  Quality‐ and Cost‐Based Selection  RBM  Results Based Management  REC  Regional Economic Communities  RE‐MDTF  Recipient‐Executed Multi Donor Trust Fund  RFM  Results Framework and Monitoring  RIDA  Regional International Development Association (funds)  SADC  Southern African Development Community  SIG  Special Interest Group  SMTP  Strategic Medium‐Term Plan  SOE  Statement of Expenditures  TAP‐NET  Technical Advisory Panels and Networks  TOT  Training of Trainers  UNDP  United Nations Development Programme  WAMI  West African Monetary Institute  WUA  Women’s University for Africa  ZEPARU  Zimbabwe Economic Policy Analysis and Research Unit          TABLE OF CONTENTS  DATA SHEET .............................................................................................................................1  I. PROJECT CONTEXT AND DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES ........................................................ 9  A. CONTEXT AT APPRAISAL ........................................................................................................... 9  B. SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DURING IMPLEMENTATION (IF APPLICABLE) ...................................... 17  II. OUTCOME ...................................................................................................................... 17  A. RELEVANCE OF PDOs .............................................................................................................. 17  B. ACHIEVEMENT OF PDOs (EFFICACY) ........................................................................................ 18  C. EFFICIENCY ............................................................................................................................. 23  D. JUSTIFICATION OF OVERALL OUTCOME RATING ..................................................................... 25  E. OTHER OUTCOMES AND IMPACTS .......................................................................................... 25  III. KEY FACTORS THAT AFFECTED IMPLEMENTATION AND OUTCOME ................................ 30  A. KEY FACTORS DURING PREPARATION..................................................................................... 30  B. KEY FACTORS DURING IMPLEMENTATION .............................................................................. 36  IV. BANK PERFORMANCE, COMPLIANCE ISSUES, AND RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME .. 36 A. QUALITY OF MONITORING AND EVALUATION (M&E) ............................................................. 36  B. ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, AND FIDUCIARY COMPLIANCE ..................................................... 41  C. BANK PERFORMANCE ............................................................................................................. 42  D. RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME ........................................................................................ 43  V. LESSONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................. 45  ANNEX 1. RESULTS FRAMEWORK AND KEY OUTPUTS ............................................................ 49  ANNEX 2. BANK LENDING AND IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT/SUPERVISION ......................... 68  ANNEX 3. PROJECT COST BY COMPONENT............................................................................. 71  ANNEX 4. EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS ............................................................................................ 72  ANNEX 5. BORROWER, CO‐FINANCIER AND OTHER PARTNER/STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS ... 73  ANNEX 6. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS .................................................................................... 90  ANNEX 7. CONTEXT AT APPRAISAL ........................................................................................ 97  ANNEX 8. ACBF LETTER OF COMMITMENT & ACTIONS TAKEN ............................................. 103  ANNEX 9. KEY OUTPUTS DELIVERED BY ACBF SUB‐PROJECTS BY THEMATIC AREA ............... 116  ANNEX 10. ACBF SUCCESS STORIES ...................................................................................... 124  ANNEX 11. ACBF SUB‐PROJECTS FINANCED BY RIDA1, RIDA2 AND RE‐MDTF ....................... 136  ANNEX 12. THINK TANKS SUPPORTED BY ACBF ................................................................... 142  ANNEX 13. ICR PREPARED BY ACBF ...................................................................................... 144    The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478)       DATA SHEET     BASIC INFORMATION   Product Information  Project ID  Project Name  P122478  AFCC2/RI‐ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project  Country  Financing Instrument  Africa  Investment Project Financing  Original EA Category  Revised EA Category  Not Required (C)  Not Required (C)  Related Projects              Relationship  Project  Approval  Product Line  Additional Financing  P127549‐ACBF Regional  05‐Dec‐2013  IBRD/IDA  Capacity Building  Project ‐ SMTP 3  Organizations  Borrower  Implementing Agency  African Capacity Building Foundation (ACBF)  African Capacity Building Foundation (ACBF)  Project Development Objective (PDO)    Original PDO  The project‘s objectives are to contribute to: (i) enhanced capacity for effective policy  formulation and management in ACBF sub‐grant recipients‘ countries; and (ii) improved and  sustained management of ACBF‘s operations.    Revised PDO  To (i) improve capacity of ACBF’s clients to deliver and measure their development  results; and (ii) enhance ACBF’s organizationaleffectiveness and efficiency.      Page 1 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) FINANCING      Original Amount (US$)   Revised Amount (US$)  Actual Disbursed (US$)  World Bank Financing          25,000,000  24,986,442  24,462,896  IDA‐H6470    29,000,000  28,999,992  28,999,992  TF‐99645    65,000,000  64,970,258  63,613,988  IDA‐H8760  Total    119,000,000  118,956,692  117,076,876  Non‐World Bank Financing        Borrower     0     0     0  Total     0     0     0  Total Project Cost  119,000,000  118,956,693  117,076,876        KEY DATES      Approval  Effectiveness  MTR Review  Original Closing  Actual Closing  17‐Mar‐2011  01‐Aug‐2011  12‐Sep‐2016  31‐Dec‐2015  31‐Dec‐2017       RESTRUCTURING AND/OR ADDITIONAL FINANCING      Date(s)  Amount Disbursed (US$M)  Key Revisions  05‐Dec‐2013  13.76  Additional Financing  Change in Project Development Objectives  Change in Results Framework  Change in Components and Cost  Change in Loan Closing Date(s)  Change in Financing Plan  Reallocation between Disbursement Categories  Change in Legal Covenants  Change in Implementation Schedule  06‐Feb‐2017  81.29  Reallocation between Disbursement Categories      Page 2 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) KEY RATINGS      Outcome  Bank Performance  M&E Quality  Satisfactory  Moderately Satisfactory  Substantial    RATINGS OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE IN ISRs      Actual  No.  Date ISR Archived  DO Rating  IP Rating  Disbursements  (US$M)  01  04‐Jan‐2012  Moderately Satisfactory  Moderately Satisfactory  10.89  02  09‐Sep‐2012  Moderately Satisfactory  Moderately Satisfactory  10.89  03  23‐May‐2013  Moderately Satisfactory  Satisfactory  12.82  Moderately  04  25‐Jun‐2014  Moderately Unsatisfactory  43.36  Unsatisfactory  05  30‐Dec‐2014  Moderately Satisfactory  Moderately Satisfactory  57.21  06  19‐Jun‐2015  Moderately Satisfactory  Moderately Satisfactory  66.63  07  26‐Dec‐2015  Satisfactory  Moderately Satisfactory  72.18  08  27‐Jun‐2016  Satisfactory  Satisfactory  76.05  09  29‐Dec‐2016  Satisfactory  Satisfactory  81.29  10  26‐Jun‐2017  Satisfactory  Satisfactory  85.23    SECTORS AND THEMES      Sectors  Major Sector/Sector  (%)    Public Administration   100  Central Government (Central Agencies)  50  Other Public Administration  50      Themes    Major Theme/ Theme (Level 2)/ Theme (Level 3)  (%)    Page 3 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) Economic Policy  16    Fiscal Policy  8    Subnational Fiscal Policies  8      Economic Growth and Planning  8    Migration, Remittances and Diaspora  8  Engagement        Private Sector Development  33    Jobs  13    Job Creation  5    Youth Employment  8      Enterprise Development  20    MSME Development  20        Public Sector Management  20    Rule of Law  15    Judicial and other Dispute Resolution  5    Mechanisms  Legal Institutions for a Market Economy  5    Personal and Property Rights  5      Data Development and Capacity Building  5    Data production, accessibility and use  5        Social Development and Protection  26    Social Inclusion  19    Other Excluded Groups  19      Social Protection  5    Social Safety Nets  5      Fragility, Conflict and Violence  2    Forced Displacement  2        Human Development and Gender  8    Labor Market Policy and Programs  8    Labor Market Institutions  8          Page 4 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478)   ADM STAFF  Role  At Approval  At ICR  Regional Vice President:  Obiageli Katryn Ezekwesili  Hafez M. H. Ghanem  Country Director:  Yusupha B. Crookes  Elisabeth Huybens  Senior Global Practice Director:  Sudhir Shetty  Deborah L. Wetzel  Practice Manager:  Anand Rajaram  Hisham Ahmed Waly  Task Team Leader(s):  Mamadou Lamarane Deme  Deryck R. Brown  ICR Contributing Author:    Amitabha Mukherjee                   Page 5 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  Capacity‐building is a difficult area in which to intervene: there are few lasting success stories to showcase investments  and efforts directed to this objective. However, as indicated in World Bank (WB) Africa regional strategies over the years,  the  WB  remains  committed  and  engaged  on  capacity‐building,  which  remains  essential  for  the  economic  and  social  transformation of countries in Africa.  The African Capacity Building Foundation (ACBF) project was a US$119 million investment project originally financed  by  a  US$25  million  Regional  IDA  (RIDA)  Grant  and  up  to  US$29  million  in  a  Multi  Donor  Trust  Fund  (MDTF).  It  was  approved  on  March  17,  2011.    A  December  5,  2013  Additional  Financing  (AF)  and  restructuring  added  US$65  million  through a RIDA Grant, increasing total project cost to US$119  million. The  project closed  on December 31, 2017. The  project was designed during 2009‐2011 in a difficult environment: the ACBF was implementing its own managerial and  organizational  reforms,  the  WB  was  engaged  in  difficult  discussions  with  its  own  shareholders  about  replenishing  its  International Development Association (IDA) funding and the proposed project was to be financed through a different  duo of WB instruments compared with previous years, which would impact the way ACBF operated. Implementation was  also affected by the Ebola epidemic in some West African countries. At the same time, the ACBF also received financing  in parallel by African governments, the African Development Bank (AfDB) and other partners.  The  project’s  original  development  objectives  were  to  contribute  to:  (i)  enhanced  capacity  for  effective  policy  formulation and management in ACBF sub‐grant recipients’ countries; and (ii) improved and sustained management of  ACBF’s operations.  The PDOs were tightened at the December 5, 2013 restructuring and AF (when US$13.76 million had  disbursed). The revised PDOs – which enhanced project ambition and rigor ‐ were to: (a) improve the capacity of ACBF’s  clients  to  deliver  and  measure  their  development  results;  and  (b)  enhance  ACBF’s  organizational  effectiveness  and  efficiency. The results indicators were also revised to reflect the project’s ‘stretch goals’.  Because the project became overall more ambitious and the operation can be assessed based on revised outcomes and  outcome targets, a split rating has not been applied: overall outcome is rated Satisfactory, Bank performance is rated  Moderately Satisfactory, and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) quality is rated Substantial (summarized below).   Overall  Bank  Relevance  Efficacy  Efficiency  M&E Quality  Outcome  Performance   High  Substantial  Substantial  Satisfactory  Moderately  Substantial  Satisfactory  The project’s original development objectives were highly relevant for the WB, the ACBF and for Africa. The project was  aligned with the WB Africa Region’s strategy of strengthening institutional capacity of African countries, regional economic  communities (RECs) and public sector entities.  Bank support under the project focused on enabling the ACBF to implement  its  Third  Strategic  Medium‐Term  Plan  (SMTP3)  efficiently,  measuring  the  results  of  such  support  to  sub‐projects,  and  controlling ACBF operating costs. The project objective remains relevant today, exemplified by Bank support for capacity  building  for  the  African  Union  Commission  and  preparation  of  a  regional  capacity  building  project  to  strengthen  civil  service and public administration capacity through regional and international networks.  On efficacy, the project substantially achieved its objectives. Both the original PDO indicators and nine out of 12 IRIs  were achieved. During 2014‐2017, all three PDO indicators and fourteen of fifteen IRIs were achieved: this was a significant  achievement, since the 2013 restructuring and AF should have been completed in 2012, but spilled over into December  2013.  The  ACBF  established,  strengthened  and  nurtured  the  growth  of  numerous  regional  and  country‐specific  policy  institutes, think tanks and university programs in economic policy management (EPM) and public sector management  (PSM).  ACBF  also  ramped  up  its  own  Knowledge  and  Learning  (K&L)  activities,  including  publishing  an  annual  flagship  Page 6 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) report (the African Capacity Report), and creating and sustaining a network of African think tanks, some of which are on  global lists of excellence. Lastly, ACBF substantially met the targets for becoming more efficient in its operations.  Evidence beyond project objectives and results indicators indicates the results and impact of ACBF’s work across Africa.  ACBF financing facilitated the growth of think tanks on the African continent long before independent think tanks became  a  global  phenomenon.  ACBF  financing  contributed  to  the  emergence  of  policy  professionals,  economists,  and  entrepreneurs  across  African  countries,  including  women  professionals.  Many  ACBF  alumni  –  recipients  of  ACBF  scholarships – are in leadership and management positions in governments, international organizations, academia and  the private sector, and are champions  for the ACBF.   The ICR summarizes some of the success stories  of sub‐projects  financed  by  the  ACBF  –  many  others  are  available  on  the  ACBF  website  and  those  of  its  sub‐projects;  tracer  studies  conducted over the years by some universities and think tanks have tracked the progress of their alumni. Annex 13 (the  ACBF ICR) provides more detail on the results and impact of ACBF’s work across Africa through the project.  The Bank‐executed MDTF financed a series of analytical notes on lessons learnt from the Foundation’s long experience  with capacity‐building across the African continent, covering nine themes: (i) Enhancing policy uptake in Africa: the role  of think tanks; (ii) Managing think tanks in Africa: what works and what does not; (iii) How to ensure the sustainability of  African think tanks; (iv) Beyond capacity building to capacity retention and utilization; (v) Building capacity in economic  policy  management:  lessons  from  regional  training  programs;  (vi)  Measuring  the  effectiveness  of  capacity  building  programs in Africa; (vii) Challenges of capacity building in fragile states: lessons from Africa; (viii) Supporting policies of  regional integration in Africa: experiences and lessons from policy institutes; and (ix) Public sector management in Africa:  experiences and lessons from ACBF’s training programs.  The project’s efficiency was substantial.  Efficiency of use of  project funds was substantial. This was largely due to cost  control efforts and several rounds of ACBF organizational and operational streamlining during the project period. These  efforts enabled the ACBF to meet project results indicators on operational efficiency.  The project was restructured twice,  received Additional Financing in 2013 and was extended by two years.  The PDO, results indicators and activities were  refined at restructurings to provide greater focus in Bank support, improve measurement of achievements and facilitate  sustainability  of  ACBF  operations,  especially  through  increased  contributions  from  African  governments  and  other  partners. It achieved the revised PDO indicator on efficiency and the revised IRI on operational efficiency. In addition,  ACBF generated significant financing from non‐traditional donors such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF),  improving its prospects for sustainability.  Bank  performance  is  rated  Moderately  Satisfactory.   There  were  some  shortcomings  in  the  wording  of  the  PDO  and  project results indicators at preparation. These were addressed at restructuring.  The Bank seems to have underestimated  the time needed to retrofit ACBF sub‐projects for RIDA1 financing, as well as the internal impact, on ACBF operations, of  the  implementation  of  the  MAP.   On  the  other  hand,  enhanced  implementation  support  was  facilitated  by  Bank  supervision resources and the Bank‐executed MDTF. The AF and restructuring slipped from 2012 to December 2013 to  enable the replenishment of IDA 16 to conclude and, later, to obtain clarity on the issues laid out in the ACBF Letter of  Commitment. The task team was quite stable, with the appropriate skills and experience, as supervision documents and  ACBF feedback demonstrate. The Bank could have acted faster to resolve the issue of ineligible expenditures (2014‐2016).   This ICR highlights several lessons for the ACBF and the World Bank:  Lessons for ACBF:   a) Over‐dependence on a single donor can hurt organizational sustainability. The ACBF became overly dependent on a  single donor (the WB) and, until recently, paid little attention to its own sustainability. With financial sustainability a  challenge, it would be desirable for the ACBF governing bodies to set concrete fund‐raising targets and decide what  actions need to be taken, by when, and by whom in ACBF, to give effect to the 2012 BOG decision to establish an  Endowment Fund of US$500 million by 2022 (this Fund has remained static at US$5 million since its inception in 2012);  Page 7 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) b) It would be desirable for the ACBF to not jettison its hard‐won core business strengths built up over decades –  especially on macroeconomic management, monitoring and evaluation, and think tank‐based knowledge‐sharing.  At a time when ACBF’s sustainability is uncertain, it appears to have moved into new thematic areas such as tobacco  control. At the same time, numerous countries across Africa are confronting challenges in areas in which ACBF seeded,  or  built  up,  enviable  expertise  –  such  as  in  macroeconomic  management,  economic  policy  management,  public  investment management, and monitoring and evaluation. It would be desirable for ACBF to avoid the temptation to  cast off its hard‐won thematic strengths which, coupled with its close relationships with governments across Africa,  can make it a unique provider of technical and analytical support to a growing number of countries that appear to  need such policy advice and implementation support over the medium term. And the network of think tanks that  ACBF  has  seeded  and  nurtured  across  Africa  –  many  financially  sustainable  by  now  –  constitute  an  unparalleled  intellectual  resource  for  the  continent,  one  that  ACBF  could  take  to  the  next  level  by  playing  a  leadership  role  in  identifying and forging new intellectual partnerships beyond Africa, enabling it to carry Africa’s lessons to a global  audience and usher in fresh ideas and innovations to Africa; and   c) ACBF’s business model must reflect ‐ and adapt swiftly to ‐ its often‐swiftly changing operating environment. After  a period of relevance when the ACBF made a significant contribution to Africa’s capacity development, it appears that  the organization failed to adapt sufficiently rapidly to changes in its operating environment and (re)make/reinvent  itself to ensure its continued relevance to Africa in the 21st century. The Foundation took the Bank’s continued funding  for granted and, when  confronted with the issue of sustainability, tended  to persist with its business model.  It is  argued that the designation of ACBF as a specialized agency of the African Union Commission demonstrates its ability  to successfully adapt itself to its evolving operating environment. This, however, avoids the fundamental issue of the  current paucity of reliable medium‐term funding for the ACBF. With hardly any reliable funding commitments from  new partners (such as the AUC) or from traditional donors (such as the WB), ACBF has been compelled to pick up  business on an opportunistic basis, which sometimes appears to take it further away from its core business strengths,  which are valued by governments across Africa.  Lessons for the World Bank:  a) Choice  of  instruments  is  important  ‐  for  example,  the  decision  to  begin  using  Regional  IDA  could  have  had  the  unintended  effect of driving away  bilateral donors  who previously supported ACBF, because they  did  not want to  contribute to IDA and again to an MDTF;   b) The Bank’s decision to impose a “cap” of 15 on the number of countries in which ACBF could operate with RIDA  Grants produced two perverse effects: (i) a “reverse adverse selection problem” or selection bias, i.e. ACBF chose 15  countries where they could get results since they were also under pressure from the Bank and its shareholders to  demonstrate results and impact, even though these 15 countries were not necessarily the countries with greatest  need; and (ii) African countries that had pledged support to SMTP3 but were excluded from the list had no incentive  to convert their pledges into cash contributions;  c) Exit strategies need to be carefully prepared: the decision to discontinue support to ACBF without an explicit exit  strategy hurt the ACBF and its sub‐projects, with the WB exit appearing to place the Bank at potential reputational  risk with governments in Africa, the ACBF and ACBF sub‐grantees;  d) It is desirable to avoid disconnects between the regional and the national.  There  was a disconnect between what  the  Bank  was  supporting  through  the  ACBF  (e.g.  support  for  think  tanks  and  graduate  training  programs)  at  the  regional level and what was happening at the country level in terms of capacity building; and  e) Introducing Bank‐like processes and controls in bodies where they may not be appropriate may generate adverse  consequences: In its attempt to help ACBF address identified control weaknesses, the Bank persuaded it to introduce  processes  and  procedures  that  mirrored  the  Bank’s  own  and  –  in  some  cases  –  were  inappropriate  for  a  smaller  organization. The result was an increasingly bureaucratic control environment, loss of ACBF agility, a ballooning of  staff costs during 2009‐2014, and onerous procedures being passed on to sub‐grantees.  Page 8 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) I. PROJECT CONTEXT AND DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES    A. CONTEXT AT APPRAISAL    Context  1.  The  context  at  appraisal  was  somewhat  different  from  that  of  most  World  Bank‐financed  capacity‐building  operations: the Bank had supported the African Capacity Building Foundation (ACBF) since its birth in 1991. The ACBF  was  born  on  February  9,  1991  as  the  outcome  of  a  partnership  between  African  governments  and  the  international  development community. The World Bank, the African Development Bank (AfDB) and the United Nations Development  Program (UNDP) constituted the ACBF’s sponsoring agencies, joined by governments from Africa1 and other continents2,  bilateral partners and – in September 2002 ‐ by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The vision for such a partnership  was articulated by the World Bank’s then Vice President for the Africa Region, Edward “Kim” Jaycox, at a stakeholder  meeting in New York in 1989: “The goal and vision can be stated relatively simply: 10, 15, 20 years from now, every Sub‐ Saharan African country could have its own cadre of very good policy analysts and economic managers— and Africa  could  have  clusters  of  first‐class  training  and  management  institutions.  There  will  be  much  less  need  for  technical  assistance  and  expatriate  advisors  in  these  areas.  More  important,  Sub‐Saharan  Africa  will  be  in  more  control  of  its  economic destiny, less vulnerable to external shocks and more competitive in the global market place…Africa must have  its capacities.” This vision gave birth in 1989 to the Africa Capacity Building Initiative, and then in 1991 to the ACBF whose  mandate  was  to  finance  capacity‐building  across  Africa  with  strong  ownership  from  African  governments.  In  1995,  following a broad consultative process involving the World Bank‘s African Governors and a study which yielded a strategy  on  how  the  World  Bank  might  enhance  the  impact  of  its  operations  in  Africa,  the  Bank  initiated  the  Partnership  for  Capacity Building in Africa (PACT), whose implementation was entrusted to ACBF from 2000 onward. The ACBF, under  its first Strategic Medium‐Term Plan (SMTP1), provided grants and technical support to some 40 countries in Sub‐Saharan  Africa and to about 34 regional and continental institutions until 2005. The World Bank supported SMTP1 by providing  Development  Grant  Facility  (DGF)  Grants  of  US$147.6  million,  which  represented  56  percent  of  the  total  amount  mobilized by ACBF under SMTP1, and by serving as Trustee of the multi‐donor trust fund for SMTP1 (SMTP1 MDTF) under  which donors provided US$85.4 million3.  2. The World Bank was represented on both ACBF governance bodies until 2011 – the Regional Vice President (RVP)  for the World Bank’s Africa Region is formally a member of the ACBF Board of Governors (BOG) and a Director or PREM  Sector Manager typically represented the Bank on the ACBF Executive Board (EB). After approval of the RIDA‐financed  project in 2011, World Bank task teams would supervise the project and – through implementation support and technical  advice ‐ assist the ACBF in developing and refining its objectives, policies, procedures and practices.  3.  At  appraisal,  the  ACBF  had  evolved  into  a  pan‐African  international  organization  based  in  Harare.  Investing  in  capacity‐building initiatives, with all African countries and other partners represented in its governance structure, its  1 Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo (Brazzaville), Democratic Republic of Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea Bissau, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe. 2 Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, India, Ireland, The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. 3 Project Appraisal Document for the ACBF Project (World Bank Report no. 56099) Page 9 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) vision  was  to  become  the  premier  African  capacity  development  entity,  a  trusted  advisor  to  national  and  regional  decision‐makers, and an effective partner to development stakeholders. Its 3‐stage evolution is depicted below.  Phase 1: 1991‐2001 ‐ Inception and Institutional Growth  Focus: strengthening core public sector capacity for economic policy management (EPM) and analysis to support structural and  economic policy reforms. Six focus areas:   Enhancing capacity for effective policy formulation and management   Strengthening macroeconomic, financial and debt management   Strengthening performance of academics and public sector managers   Fostering inclusiveness and effective participation of non‐state actors in sustainable development   Improving accountability and parliamentary oversight at national and regional levels    Enhancing the policy research capability of African regional economic communities (RECs).   Phase 2: 2002‐2011 – Consolidation, Systematization and Diversification  First Strategic Medium‐Term Plan (SMTP1 2002‐2006)   Second Strategic Medium‐Term Plan (SMTP2 2007‐2011)  Six core competency areas, including economic policy and management  Phase 3: 2011‐2017 – Strategic Focus, Operational Efficiency and Results Measurement  Third Strategic Medium‐Term Plan (SMTP3 2012‐2016)  Focus shifted to three strategic pillars and seven focus areas  Underpinning SMTP3 were efficiency, results and impact of interventions.  4. In 2011, the Bank moved from using DGF Grants to Regional IDA to finance its contribution to ACBF; several factors  contributed to this change, including:   a) The Bank’s initial vision of support was predicated on an ambitious US$1 billion ACBF program for the first fifteen  years, envisaged to be funded by the PACT TF ‐ the World Bank decided to source its contributions from own  income and its DGF, providing annual tranches to the ACBF, although these grants were not tied to specific sub‐ projects or purposes;   b) The  World  Bank  contributed  US$150  million  to  the  ACBF  even  though  none  of  the  other  contributors  fully  delivered on their initial pledges;   c) In September 2008, an anonymous letter received by donors (the ‘Chamba letter’) alleged human resource and  financial management malpractices at ACBF, resulting in suspension of Bank contributions, unease among donors  about  ACBF,  an  ACBF‐commissioned  audit,  a  Bank‐led  integrity  review,  the  subsequent  adoption  of  a  Management Action Plan (MAP), and departures of several ACBF managers and staff. However, the audit and  the integrity review – which took almost two years to complete – did not establish any of the allegations, though  they identified several risk factors, resulting in improved risk assessment, enhanced internal controls and more  effective and transparent personnel and operations policies and processes;   d) The 2008 financial crisis impacted the ACBF and its donors. The Bank had to respond to requests for support  from economies across the world. Donor countries and aid agencies began to confront aid budget constraints,  Page 10 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) as  their  policies  and  public  finances  focused  on  crisis  management  and  post‐crisis  recovery.  Some  bilateral  donors concentrated their aid  budgets  on selected sectors and countries.   The overall mood of ACBF donors  changed from liberal support to seeking accountability for performance and results in exchange for financing;  e) The  Bank  also  confronted  tough  questions  from  its  shareholders  during  the  2008‐2010  IDA  replenishment  discussions, which – together with the Chamba‐related investigations and audits ‐ resulted in a 2009‐2011 hiatus  in Bank financing to ACBF;  f) Prior to 1998 (when the 1997 Bank reorganization was completed) the “ACBF project” had no institutional ‘home’  in the World Bank, although several Departments, loosely coordinated by the front office of the Africa RVP, dealt  with ACBF issues as they arose. Nor was any Bank Department tasked with tracking Bank‐financed ACBF activities,  performance or results. The Bank’s own internal reforms included abolition of the DGF and greater attention –  including from the Board ‐ to trust‐funded activities, which had important implications down the road.   g) After 1998, ACBF issues – because they had to do with public sector capacity‐building ‐ came within the remit of  the newly‐created Poverty Reduction and Economic Management (PREM) Department: the PREM Director for  Africa and the PREM Sector Manager for Public Sector and Institutional Reform began to handle ACBF issues.  However,  no  Bank  budget  (BB)  was  allocated  for  dialogue,  supervision  or  follow‐up:  a  Senior  Public  Sector  Specialist was designated to handle ACBF‐related issues and usually accompanied the PREM Director and Sector  Manager when they travelled for BOG and EB meetings. In addition, without a Country Management Unit (CMU)  providing BB and having a stake in project success, no Bank supervision occurred until the RIDA1 and RE‐MDTF‐ financed project was approved in 2011.    5. By appraisal, the cumulative effect of all these developments culminated in significant decisions by the Bank’s  Board (and, by extension, all other ACBF funders) about ACBF’s thematic priorities, financial support, financing  instruments, results and cost controls. Bank financing to the ACBF resumed in 2011, but through a new instrument  (a Specific Investment Grant, as it was then known) and with financing sources (a Regional IDA grant and an RE‐ MDTF Grant) and amounts subject to approval by the World Bank’s Board, with a clear picture of ACBF thematic  focus, agreed actions for institutional strengthening and significant changes in mutual obligations (i.e. projectized  support by the Bank for agreed ACBF sub‐projects and activities, with legally binding provisions on project execution,  procurement, financial management, results indicators and results reporting). To some ACBF stakeholders, the 2011  Grants appeared to be a “bridging finance” between the DGF and IDA: it was argued that since the Bank suspended  disbursements to ACBF after the Chamba letter and also failed to meet its original pledge of USD150 million, the  2011  IDA  Grant  was,  in  a  way,  a  symbolic  compensation  to  the  ACBF.  This  trend  was  reinforced  at  Additional  Financing in 2013, with RIDA2 also subject to the same conditions as RIDA1. The RE‐MDTF Grant approved in 2011  – to be spent by the ACBF ‐ was subject to Bank supervision, whereas previous MDTFs (into which the Bank itself  contributed  its  DGF  pledges)  were  ‘pass‐through’  instruments.  Because  the  2011  RE‐MDTF  was  subject  to  Bank  supervision, it was accompanied by a Bank‐executed MDTF (BE‐MDTF) which provided for “enhanced supervision”.     6. The World Bank supported the ACBF from February 1991 until December 31, 2017, contributing US$344.72  million (or 51.6 percent) of the total amount of US$668.32 million that flowed to the ACBF from all sources during  these 27 years. From 1991 to 2010, the World Bank provided more than US$223 million in financing for the ACBF.  From January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2017, US$155.5 million4 (or 55.5 percent of ACBF total expenditures during  4 This includes US$38.4 million from the Development Grant Facility released in calendar 2011.   Page 11 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) this period) flowed from the World Bank to the ACBF.  An overview of ACBF financing from different sources during  1991‐2017 is at Table 1.  Table 1. ACBF Financing: World Bank and Other Sources (1991‐2017, US$ million)  ACBF Phase 1 Phase 2 SMTP1 SMTP2 SMTP3 Strategy Total % 2017-2021 World Bank 15.00 10.00 148.10 108.000 63.622 0 344.722 51.6% AfDB 6.05 6.00 12.00 12.00 4.60 7.00 47.65 7.1% AfDB Special       14.41 4.96 19.36 2.9% Operations UNDP 6.72 - - 1.10 1.00 0 8.81 1.3% Bilateral Partners 37.62 26.69 89.12 31.02 - 0 184.45 27.6% African Countries 2.17 2.71 5.65 9.43 22.47 3.38 45.81 6.9% BMGF       10.12 1.97 12.10 1.8% AACES       3.00 3.00 0.4% Other (IMF, RKF) - - 2.41 - - 2.41 0.4% TOTAL 67.57 45.40 257.28 161.55 119.22 14.82 668.32 100.0% Source: Adapted from data received from ACBF, May 2018.5 7. From 2011, the  Bank  designated  a  task  team  and  provided  it  with  a  budget  to  supervise  implementation,  provide fiduciary oversight and implementation support, and periodically report to Bank management on project  implementation and results. Periodic project status reports – later to be called Implementation Status Reports or  ISRs ‐ would be publicly disclosed upon adoption of the Bank’s Access to Information Policy.  Thus, for the first time,  the  ACBF  became  subject  to  World  Bank  supervision  and  fiduciary  oversight,  while  the  Bank  –  through  its  implementation support and supervision ‐ began to better understand ACF processes and actual practices.  5 The WB amount for SMTP3 included some financing for preparation of the Strategy for 2017‐2021.  Page 12 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) Theory of Change (Results Chain)  8.  The  Project  had  a  results  framework  that  could  be  connected  to  the  key  elements  of  the  original  Project  Development Objectives (PDOs). The Project Appraisal Document (PAD) did not describe in detail the results chain  or the logic  behind  the operation. This was not required by Bank  procedures at the  time of  project preparation.  Nonetheless, the linkages can be discerned, as indicated in Figure 1.  9. The original PDO is broken down into sub‐objectives to establish connection with indicators and activities; the  revised PDO is, likewise, disaggregated into 2 sub‐objectives. The Results Chain below links the sub‐objectives with  the PDO indicators, intermediate results indicators and components.  Figure 1. 2011 RIDA1 Project PDOs, Indicators, and Components  Components    Intermediate    PDO‐level Results     Results  Indicators    Indicators                  Economic policy  1. Capacity Building  research completed in    policy institutes  Sub‐Grants  supported by ACBF              Number of            PDO 1. To contribute  recommendations,    MDAs supported by the      to enhanced capacity  targeted economic    submitted by  policy units (number)    for effective policy    ACBF grantees,  Students receiving a  formulation and  Master’s degree  and used by  certificate in Economic  management in ACBF  Policy, Public  government in  Administration and/or  sub‐grant recipients’  Statistics  policy formulation     countries              Students receiving      training certificates in  Economic Policy, Public  Administration and/or  Statistics                                                      2. Improved ACBF    Ratio of total staff costs        to total budget      Management  % of sub‐projects in      PDO 2.  To contribute  ACBF portfolio rated  Process and  Satisfactory  Ratio of total  to improved and    budget to total  Structure  Ratio of amount  sustained  disbursed to amount  active portfolio  committed in the  management of  portfolio  value    ACBF operations  Grant recipients  submitting quarterly  M&E reports in line  with project RFM              Page 13 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) Figure 2. Additional Financing ‐ Revised 2013 Project PDOs, Indicators, and Activities  Components    Intermediate    PDO‐level Results     Results  Indicators  Indicators              Number of requests for  products and services  1. Grants to ACBF received by ACBF’s  Supported Programs and clients  Percentage of clients’  User satisfaction Projects products that have  undergone peer review  of ACBF clients’ process     products and Percentage of ACBF  clients with functional  services   M&E systems      Number of  engagements/    interactions between  ACBF clients and  PDO 1. To Improve  policymakers  the capacity of                  ACBF’s clients to    Number of participants      attending long‐ and    deliver and measure  short‐term trainings    conducted by ACBF  their development  clients    results  Number of times ACBF  K&L products or  documents are  downloaded in Africa  and the rest of the  world    Number of requests      received by ACBF for  K&L products    Number of times ACBF  K&L products are cited                                              Percentage of total staff      Enhance ACBF’s     PDO 2. To enhance   costs to cash outflows     organizational ACBF’s 2. Institutional Support     Actual contributions    effectiveness and to ACBF from African    organizational governments to SMTPs    efficiency effectiveness and Percentage of activities  implemented from 2014  efficiency Annual Business Plans    Number of portfolio  reviews conducted              Project Development Objectives (PDOs)  10. The original project development objectives were to contribute to: (i) enhanced capacity for effective policy  formulation  and  management  in  ACBF  sub‐grant  recipients’  countries;  and  (ii)  improved  and  sustained  management of ACBF’s operations.  Page 14 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) Key Expected Outcomes and Outcome Indicators  11. Achievement of the development objectives was to be measured through two PDO‐level indicators:  a) Number of recommendations, submitted by ACBF grantees, and used by governments in policy formulation. This  indicator was intended to track the increased use of ACBF sub‐grantees’ outputs – specifically the think tanks and  policy units/institutes ‐ toward improved economic formulation in beneficiary countries; and  b)  Ratio of Total Budget to Total Active Portfolio Value (in percent). This indicator was intended to measure how  much ACBF was spending to deliver and manage each US$1 of the grants it made. It was meant to track the evolution  in operational efficiency, identified as critical to a sustainable program and to ACBF effectiveness.  12. Additional intermediate and output‐based indicators for each component, and baselines and targets for the  project, were developed. These are shown in the Results Chain above and in the Results Framework and Monitoring  (RFM) at Annex 1. The RFM ensured effective monitoring of project achievements during its envisaged execution  period of 2011 to 2015. Component 1 key performance indicators tracked outputs from the Sub‐projects in the three  major types of institutions (think tanks/economic policy units; Regional Economic Communities (RECs); and Training  Institutions) supported by the ACBF and included in the 2011 pipeline. Component 2 indicators focused on budget  efficiency  ratios  and  portfolio  management  performance.  The  project  RFM  was  to  be  the  first  step  towards  developing a broader set of indicators and a measurement framework based on the overall ACBF portfolio, for the  ACBF’s upcoming Third Strategic Medium‐Term Program (SMTP3).  Components  13. The project had two components: “Capacity Building Sub‐Grants” and “Institutional Development”.   The  first  component  ‐  “Capacity  Building  Sub‐Grants”  ‐  financed  ACBF  sub‐grants  to  public  and  private  beneficiaries in Sub‐Saharan African countries and to Regional Organizations serving these countries. The sub‐ grants  were  intended  to  finance  technical  assistance  sub‐projects  approved  under  SMTP2  to  enhance  the  institutional  capacities  of  these  beneficiaries  in  four  areas:  (i)  economic  policy  analysis  and  development  management; (ii) financial management, accountability and transparency; (iii) national statistics and statistical  systems;  and  (iv)  regional  economic  cooperation  and  integration  and  provision  of  regional  public  goods.  However, to be eligible for financing under the RIDA1 and RE‐MDTF Grants, sub‐projects had to meet explicit  eligibility criteria, including the following:   o The maximum amount of any Sub‐grant was limited to US$5 million equivalent;  o The maximum amount of all Sub‐grants made to any one Sub‐grantee was limited to US$7 million equivalent,  so that funds were not concentrated in a particular area or entity;  o To be eligible for financing under the RIDA Grant, sub‐projects would have to be for the benefit of, or be  carried out in, countries  that were eligible for IDA financing. Thus, sub‐grants to IBRD‐only countries and  countries in arrears to the Bank would be ineligible for financing under the RIDA Grant; the RE‐MDTF could,  however, finance such sub‐grants;  o Any proposed sub‐project involving feasibility studies or engineering designs for specific investments, and  which might therefore trigger World Bank safeguard policies, would not be eligible for financing under either  the RIDA Grant or the RE‐MDTF Grant;   o Sub‐grants  would  be  subject  to  Bank  fiduciary  requirements  (e.g.,  relating  to  procurement,  financial  management and audit); and   Page 15 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) o Given ACBF‘s lack of experience with World Bank policy and operational requirements, seven sub‐projects  out of the twelve projected in the 2011 pipeline were identified for prior Bank review; any adjustments to  the pipeline would have to be submitted to the Bank for approval and decision regarding Bank prior review.   The second component ‐ “Institutional Development” ‐ financed activities to strengthen ACBF operations and  institutional capacity. These comprised (a) continued implementation of the activities under the Management  Action  Plan,  (b)  development  of  a  forward‐looking  medium‐term  strategy  (SMTP3)  for  ACBF,  including  enhancement of the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system; (c) appraisal, supervision and evaluation of sub‐ projects,  and  (d)  implementation  of  knowledge  and  learning  activities  designed  to  enhance  skills  and  peer  learning in economic and public sector management in Africa. Goods, services, training and operating expenses,  including ACBF staff salaries, were eligible for financing under this component.     The RE‐MDTF co‐financed the RIDA operation to build synergies among ACBF donors, minimize transaction  costs  (for  ACBF,  the  Bank,  and  other  donors)  and  provide  a  continental  canvas  for  ACBF  activities.    It  was  envisaged  that  RE‐MDTF  resources  would  also  enable  ACBF  to  support  programs  in  non‐IDA  countries  and  countries in arrears to the World Bank.  14. At the time, project costs by component and source of financing were difficult to estimate, given uncertainties  about the scope of the ACBF Grants program and the extent of donor pledges that would actually materialize.  The  table below shows the best estimate of project costs at approval.    Table 2. Project Costs by Component and Source of Financing (at approval in March 2011)   Project Cost By Component  RIDA  RE‐MDTF  Total  (US$ M)  (US$ M)  (US$ M)  A. Capacity Building Sub‐Grants  15.0  22.6  37.6  B. Institutional Development  10.0  27.0  37.0  Other (WB RE‐MDTF management and    2.0  2.0  supervision costs and fees)   Total Financing Required  25.0  51.6  76.6  Source: Adapted from World Bank (ACBF PAD page 15)    15. The above financing amount and instrument was based on critical assumptions made about ACBF activities. In line  with ACBF planning needs, Bank assistance through the RIDA1 and RE‐MDTF Grants was initially considered under an  Adaptable Program Grant (equivalent to the Specific Program Loans or APLs), with two phases and triggers. However, it  was ultimately decided to design the RIDA1 Grant of US$25.0 million equivalent and the RE‐MDTF Grant of US$51.6  million as Specific Investment Grants (equivalent, as instruments, to Specific Investment Loans or SILs) to support the  achievement of SMTP2 objectives ending in December 2011, given that the ACBF strategic medium‐term plan (SMTP3)  for 2012‐2016 was yet to be finalized. The PAD stated that “When IDA16 resources are identified and a new SMTP3 is  endorsed by ACBF‘s governing bodies for the period 2012‐2016, a follow‐up operation supporting the implementation  of the said strategy will be prepared in FY12. New financial support from IDA and under a RE‐MDTF for the next operation  will be dependent upon evidence of continued satisfactory implementation of the MAP and satisfactory execution of  the proposed Project.”6    6 PAD (Report no. 56099), page 14  Page 16 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) B. SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DURING IMPLEMENTATION (IF APPLICABLE)    Revised PDOs and Outcome Targets   16.  The  PDOs  were  revised  at  Additional  Financing,  approved  on  December  5,  2013  when  US$13.76  million  had  disbursed.  The  revised  PDOs  were  to:  (a)  improve  the  capacity  of  ACBF’s  clients  to  deliver  and  measure  their  development results; and (b) enhance ACBF’s organizational effectiveness and efficiency.  Revised PDO Indicators  The revised PDO indicators were to:   (i) Improve the capacity of ACBF’s clients to deliver and measure their development results; and  (ii) Enhance ACBF’s organizational effectiveness and efficiency  Revised Components  17. The revised components comprised:  Component 1. Grants to ACBF Supported Programs and Projects  Component 2. Institutional Support to ACBF  Other Changes  18. At Additional Financing the project was restructured to include (a) Additional Financing; (b) a change in the Project  Development Objectives; (c) changes to the Results Framework; (d) changes in Components and Cost; (e) a change in  the Closing Date; (f) a change in the Financing Plan; (g) reallocation between Disbursement Categories; (h) a change in  Legal Covenants; and (i) a change in the implementation schedule due to the extension of the closing date.    Rationale for Changes and Their Implication on the Original Theory of Change  19. The changes had been anticipated in the 2011 PAD, which stated that “When IDA16 resources are identified and  a new SMTP3 is endorsed by ACBF‘s governing bodies for the period 2012‐2016, a follow‐up operation supporting the  implementation of the said strategy will be prepared in FY12. New financial support from IDA and under a RE‐MDTF  for the next operation will be dependent upon evidence of continued satisfactory implementation of the MAP and  satisfactory execution of the proposed Project.”7 This also explains the rationale for the changes, and why the impact  on  the  original  theory  of  change  was  minimal.  In  fact,  the  refinements  to  the  PDO,  the  PDO  indicators  and  the  intermediate‐level indicators (IRIs) strengthened the project focus on achievement of its development objectives.    II. OUTCOME    A. RELEVANCE OF PDOs    Assessment of Relevance of PDOs and Rating  20. The original PDOs were highly relevant, and modifying them at the 2013 restructuring increased their relevance.  The original PDOs were based on past ACBF performance and lessons learnt from Bank and other donors’ support to  the ACBF, and were meant to enable the ACBF to address its client countries’ capacity challenges (especially in policy  formulation and economic management) highlighted in the SMTP2. These PDOs were highly relevant to the Bank, other  ACBF  donors,  the  ACBF  itself,  and  ACBF  sub‐grantees.  The  revised  PDOs  were  even  more  relevant,  capturing  more  accurately sub‐grantees’ capabilities and achievements, as well as ACBF’s movement towards greater efficiency and  7 PAD (Report no. 56099), page 14  Page 17 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) effectiveness. The ACBF demonstrated improved efficiency over the period: a high disbursement‐to‐cash outflow ratio  (80.7 percent) and low staff cost‐to‐cash outflow ratio (15.7 percent) for FY2015. Overall implementation progress was  adequate to ensure completion of project activities and achievement of project results by the extended closing date.  In  addition,  disbursements  were  in  line  with  projections.  There  were  no  material  concerns  regarding  project  management,  procurement,  financial  management,  and  M&E.  The  improvements  in  ACBF  efficiency  and  M&E  and  results tracking capability attracted other ‘non‐traditional’ donors (e.g. BMGF) to ACBF. Lastly, at project closing, PDO  relevance remained high because regional capacity‐building remained high on the Bank’s priorities in the Africa region,  exemplified by the continued support to the African Union Commission, the request by the Regional Vice President for  a discussion note to be prepared in new approaches to capacity building in Africa, and the preparation of an ambitious  regional capacity‐building project focusing on strengthening public administration capacity through networks of civil  service and public administration training entities. Overall, therefore, the relevance of PDOs is rated High.    B. ACHIEVEMENT OF PDOs (EFFICACY)  Assessment of Achievement of Each Objective/Outcome  21. The PDO is broken down into four sub‐objectives (two original and two revised), which are assessed individually,  based on progress achieved on the relevant indicators and targets in the results framework.  Table 3. Summary of PDO Ratings  PDO  Rating  Overall Rating  PDO 1 (original, 2011). To contribute to enhanced capacity for  effective  policy  formulation  and  management  in  ACBF  sub‐ Substantial  grant recipients’ countries  PDO  2  (original,  2011).  To  contribute  to  improved  and  Modest  sustained management of ACBF’s operations   Substantial  PDO  3  (revised,  2013).  To  improve  the  capacity  of  ACBF’s  Substantial  clients to deliver and measure their development results  PDO  4  (revised,  2013).  To  enhance  ACBF’s  organizational  Substantial  effectiveness and efficiency    22. During RIDA1 (2011‐2013), the project achieved both its PDO indicators and nine of 12 IRIs. The three IRIs not  achieved related to outcome 2 (improved and sustained management of ACBF operations).   While the objectives were  clear, the alignment and linkage between project activities/components and their contribution to the PDO could have  been clearer. Due to the large number of indicators, the extent of achievement of each objective is summarized below.    Table 4. RIDA1 Period (2011‐2013) – Extent of Achievement of Each Objective   PROJECT DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE (PDO):  1. Enhanced capacity for effective policy formulation and management in ACBF sub‐grant recipients’ countries  2. Improved and sustained management of ACBF operations  PDO Level Results  Baseline  Values (2012 – 2013)  Remarks  Page 18 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) Indicators  2010  Target  Achievement    Performance  2013  Dec. 2013  1. Number of  260 percent of target achieved  recommendations,  Represents  the  number  of  policy  submitted by ACBF  0  15  39  Achieved  recommendations submitted to and used  grantees, and used by  by  governments  from  Policy  Institutes  government in policy  financed by RIDA1.  formulation  147.6 percent of target achieved   The  2013  achievement  exceeded  the  2013  2. Ratio of total budget  target  by  5.9  percentage  points8.  The  to total active Portfolio  8%  12.4%  6.5%  Achieved  total  active  ACBF  portfolio  value  value  comprises RIDA1, RE‐MDTF and non‐RIDA  projects.  INTERMEDIATE RESULTS INDICATORS  Component 1: Strengthened key institutions and human resources involved in policy formulation  3. Economic policy  396.7 percent of target achieved   research completed in  Relates  to  Policy  Institutes  financed  by  0  30  119  Achieved  policy institutes  RIDA1/RE‐MDTF.  (Note:  PNRC‐CAF  was  supported by ACBF  not yet declared effective)  181.5  percent  of  target  achieved  for  TA  4. MDAs supported by  and 211.6 percent for training  the targeted economic        MDAs  were  supported  through  TA  (e.g.  policy units (number)        Achieved  process  facilitation,  change  management  ‐ Technical assistance  0  65  118  and  advisory  services)  and  short‐term  (TA)  0  155  328  training.    Sub‐projects  included  RESPEC,  ‐ Training  PROFAP, PRCS CAR, HESPI and KIPPRA.  5. Students receiving a  Master’s degree  181.1 percent of target achieved   certificate in Economic  Based  on  Master’s  degree  programs  e.g.  0  180  326  Achieved  Policy, Public  PSMTP‐GIMPA,  CMAAE,  PRCS‐CAR,  EPM  Administration and/or  Makerere.  Statistics  6. Students receiving  187.1 percent of target achieved   training certificates in  Based  on  short‐term  training  offered  by  Economic Policy, Public  0  450  842  Achieved  CMAAE,  CODESRIA,  PROFAP  and  PRCS‐ Administration and/or  CAR  to  middle‐level  public  sector  Statistics  managers and other stakeholders.   Component 2: Improved ACBF management process and structures  7. Ratio of Total  Achievement was 114.5 percent of target.   Administrative Costs  16%  17.2%  14.7%  Achieved  Includes  RIDA1,  RE‐MDTF  and  non‐RIDA  (excluding staff) to Total  projects.  Budget  8 PDO indicator 2 was intended to measure the extent of control of ACBF operating cost ratio. The baseline is correct and the target was  indeed set at 12.4 percent because at approval in 2011, the ACBF was in the process of implementing the MAP which, among other things  called  for  strengthened  control  functions  such  as  internal  audit,  risk  management,  financial  management  and  procurement.  It  was  envisaged at approval that the indicator 2 ratio would rise because of the increased staffing implications. The intent of the indicator and  target was to control the anticipated rise. As it happened, some ACBF managers/staff departed in 2012 and ACBF streamlined its functioning  which, along with the increase in portfolio value, lowered the achieved ratio to 6.5 percent ‐ i.e. ACBF over‐performed on this indicator.  Page 19 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) 73.7 percent of target achieved.   Includes RIDA1, RE‐MDTF and non‐RIDA  projects. ACBF exceeded the target for  Total Staff Costs by 15.2 percentage  points.  This ratio comprised RIDA and  8. Ratio of Total Staff  Not  non‐RIDA expenses, and reflected the  60%  57.7%  70.2%  Costs to Total Budget  Achieved  semi‐fixed nature of Staff Costs. ACBF  states that in the immediate term, it  could not reduce its total staff cost ratio  to the targeted level (as it was able to do  with variable costs) owing to the semi‐ fixed nature of these costs.   89.5 percent of target achieved   9. Percentage of Sub‐ The baseline was 46 sub‐projects. At end‐ projects in ACBF  Not  2013, 63 sub‐projects in the ACBF portfolio   46   80%  71.6%  portfolio rated  Achieved  were  reviewed  and  rated  in  the  portfolio  Satisfactory  review  covering  Jan‐Dec  2013,  of  which  71.6% were rated Satisfactory.   10. Ratio of amount  117.1 percent of target achieved   disbursed to amount  90%  98%  114.8%  Achieved  Includes  RIDA1,  RE‐MDTF  and  non‐RIDA  committed in the  sub‐projects.   portfolio  11. Grant recipients  submitting quarterly/  128 percent of target achieved   M&E reports in line with  70  sub‐projects  out  of  a  portfolio  of  73  0  75%  96.0%  Achieved  the Project Results  active  sub‐projects  submitted  quarterly  Framework and  reports by December 2013.   Monitoring  61.4 percent of target achieved  12. Yearly approved sub‐ Not  Includes  RIDA1,  RE‐MDTF  and  non‐RIDA  0  44  27  projects/grants  Achieved  sub‐projects.  New  Grant  approvals  were  suspended due to liquidity constraints.  23. During RIDA2 (2014‐2017) all three PDO indicators and fourteen of fifteen IRIs were achieved,  as summarized  below.  In  hindsight,  this  was  a  significant  achievement,  since  the  2013  restructuring  and  additional  financing  was  scheduled to be completed in the summer of 2013, but spilled over into December 2013 due to concerns among some  Bank shareholders about the pace and coverage of ACBF governance improvements, resulting in RIDA2 approval being  delayed by about six months until the receipt of the ACBF Letter of Commitment (see Annex 8). This delay held up  RIDA2  financing  for  SMTP3,  and  ACBF  sub‐projects  envisaged  to  be  financed  under  SMTP3  remained  in  suspended  animation – and were retrofitted in early 2014, causing further start‐up delays ‐ until RIDA2 was approved.  Table 5. RIDA2 Period (2014‐2017) – Extent of Achievement of Each Objective  Values (2014–2017)  INDICATOR  TARGET  ACHIEVEMENT  COMMENTS  PERFORMANCE  (2017)  (Dec 31, 2017)  Project Development Objective (PDO):   (i) Improve the capacity of ACBF’s clients to deliver and measure their development results   (ii) Enhance ACBF’s organizational effectiveness and efficiency  Page 20 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) 1.a User satisfaction of ACBF  102 percent of target achieved for 1.a and  90%  92%   Achieved  113.75 for 1.b  clients’ products  The  two  measures  cover  products  and  services  offered  by  ACBF  sub‐projects  to  meet  their  clients’  and  beneficiaries’  1.b.  User  satisfaction  of  needs.  The  data  is  derived  from  80%   91%   Achieved  ACBF clients’ services  satisfaction surveys conducted during the  reporting  period  by  14  sub‐projects  involving 1,400 respondents.  116.89 percent of target achieved  2.  Percentage  of  sub‐ Includes  sub‐projects  rated  Highly  projects  in  ACBF  portfolio  77%   90%   Achieved  Satisfactory  (HS),  Satisfactory  (S)  and  rated satisfactory and above  Moderately Satisfactory (MS).   100 percent of target achieved  3.  Percentage  of  total  This  signals  that  a  significant  proportion  disbursements  (including  80%   80%  Achieved  of  ACBF  resources  was  spent  on  K&L  products)  to  cash  programmatic  activities  including  K&L  outflows  products.  INTERMEDIATE RESULTS  Component‐1: Grants to ACBF Supported Programs and Projects  4. Number of requests for  556 percent of target achieved  products and services  1,200  6,673  Achieved  664 requests were recorded from 15 sub‐ received by ACBF’s clients  projects.  5.  Percentage  of  clients’  125 percent of target achieved  products  that  have  All  products  generated  by  ACBF  clients  undergone  peer  review  80%   100%   Achieved  were  subjected  to  a  peer  review/quality  process (or any other quality  control process.  control mechanism)  103.75 percent of target achieved  Criteria  to  measure  M&E  system  6. Percentage of ACBF  functionality  of  ACBF  clients  include:  clients with functional M&E  80%   83%  Achieved  timely  submission  of  quarterly  reports,  systems  completion  of  the  RIDA  data  instrument,  generation  of  success  stories  and  the  existence of an M&E focal person.  7.  Number  of engagements/  360  2,111  Achieved  586.39 percent of target achieved  interactions  between  ACBF  13  sub‐projects  had  349  policy  clients and policymakers  engagements/interactions  563.94 percent of target achieved  8.  Number  of  participants  The 2017 mid‐year measure recorded 1,712  attending  long‐  and  short‐ enrolments  in  six  long‐term  training  1,800  30,045  Achieved  term trainings conducted by  programs and 3,575 in short‐term training  ACBF clients  from  7  Think  Tanks  and  4  regional  development organizations  586.39 percent of target achieved  9.‐  Number  of  times  ACBF  Targeted  campaigns  including  social  K&L products or documents  55,000  310,171  Achieved  media  contributed  to  an  increase  in  the  are  downloaded  in  Africa  number  of  downloads.  Data  on  the  and the rest of the world  number  of  downloads  is  collected  from  Page 21 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) the  ACBF  website,  virtual  library  and  partner  websites  using  Advanced  Web  Statistics 7.6 application.  373 percent of target achieved  10. Number of requests  Most  requests  were  generated  from  received by ACBF for K&L  300  1,119  Achieved  events  attended  by  ACBF  staff  and  products  feedback from e‐mail alerts.  219.75 percent of target achieved   The  increase  is  attributed  to  direct  targeting of individual faculty members in  11. Number of times ACBF  12,500  27,469  Achieved  academic institutions. The figure refers to  K&L products are cited  citations  generated  from  online  publications, using the ‘Publish Or Perish’  platform and Google Scholar.  Component 2: Institutional Support to ACBF  114.12 percent of target achieved   ACBF  states  that  continued  efforts  are  12. Percentage of total staff  17%  14.6%  Achieved  being  made  to  contain  and  reduce  costs to cash outflows  institutional  costs  while  maintaining  high  service quality  65.5 percent of target achieved   The  target  in  the  PAD  was  US$35  million.  hence  this  has  been  used  to  calculate  achievement  of  this  IRI.  However,  there  was  a  discrepancy  that  was  picked  up  during  supervision  between  the  PAD  13. Actual contributions  US$35  target and the target set out in the Letter  from African governments  US$22.93 million  Not Achieved  million  of  Commitment,  which  was  somewhat  to SMTP1SMTP3  lower  (USD21.11  million).  For  the  ICR,  though,  the  PAD  figure  is  what  counts.  The  extent  of  achievement  signals  a  positive  trend  in  converting  pledges  by  African  member  countries  into  actual  contributions.  101.05 percent of target achieved   This is the average execution rate of ACBF  Departments’  work  plans  at  project  closing.  The  breakdown  by  ACBF  14. Percentage of activities  Department is: OPD (91%), K&L (95%), FAD  implemented from 2014  95%  96%   Achieved  (98%),  RSPD  (94%),  LAD  (95%)  and  IAD  Annual Business Plans  (100%).  The  ACBF  states  that  some  planned  activities  (e.g.  related  to  K&L)  could  not  be  implemented  due  to  insufficient funds.  200 percent of target achieved   Four  reviews  were  conducted  by  the  15. Number of portfolio  closing  date,  comprising  the  2016  Annual  2  4  Achieved  reviews conducted  Portfolio Review and the first, second and  third  Quarter  2017  Portfolio  Reviews.  Following project closing on Dec 31, 2017,  Page 22 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) the  first  Quarter  2018  Portfolio  Review  was under finalization on March 31, 2018.  24. Additional results achieved on the ground, but not sufficiently captured in the results framework, include: (a)  ACBF contribution to building M&E, procurement and financial management capacity in the ACBF sub‐projects, as a  result of which many sub‐projects were able to access funding from other donors, strengthening their sustainability;  (b)  the  impact  of  readily  available  and  hands‐on  ACBF  implementation  support  on  increasing  client  capacity  and  resolving issues on the ground – this consistent feedback was given to ICR missions during its visits to sub‐projects in  Zimbabwe (ZEPARU, WUA, MEFMI), Ghana (IDEG, WAMI), Senegal (PPRC, SNCR) and Cote d’Ivoire, and reiterated at  the May 15‐16 ICR Validation Workshop in Harare by sub‐projects in other countries (e.g. HESPI/Ethiopia); (c) akin to a  ‘seal of good housekeeping’, the assurance provided to potential donors when they learn that the sub‐project they are  considering for support is financed by – and in partnership with ‐ the ACBF; and (d) ACBF’s success in over‐converting  the target value of pledges from African countries into actual contributions.      Justification of Overall Efficacy Rating   25.  The  rating  of  Substantial  is  justified  by  the  extent  of  achievement  of  the  PDO  indicators  and  of  the  IRIs,  the  feedback from ACBF’s governing bodies and sub‐projects (see Annex 5), the additional results on the ground, and the  missed opportunities to (a) approve the project earlier than March 2011 (due to the ongoing IDA replenishment and  RIDA establishment discussions between the Bank and its shareholders); (b) achieve the three unfulfilled RIDA1 IRIs  relating to ACBF operations; and (c) complete the 2013 restructuring and additional financing in 2012 (as originally  scheduled) rather than in December 2013 (as actually happened).    C. EFFICIENCY    Assessment of Efficiency and Rating  Rating: Substantial  26. The PAD (at approval in 2011) or the Project Paper (at AF in 2013) did not provide a cost‐benefit analysis of the  activities to be financed under the project.  This was partly because the benefits from such a project were difficult to  quantify, and partly because Bank procedures did not require a cost‐benefit analysis for capacity‐building operations.  The  nature  of  the  activities  financed  by  the  project  –  mainly  consultancy  services,  training  and  knowledge‐sharing,  besides ACBF operational costs (including costs of staff salaries, travel and limited office equipment) ‐ does not lend  itself to standard economic or financial analyses to determine efficiency or value for money.  However, the second  component  of  the  project  (original  and  revised)  was  focused  on  improving  ACBF’s  organizational  and  operational  efficiency.  Hence,  the  efficiency  assessment  of  the  project  is  based  on  (a)  project  costs  by  component,  (b)  project  performance in respect of PDO 2 (original and revised) and related IRIs, (c) a qualitative assessment of the project’s  implementation efficiency and impact such as institutional strengthening of ACBF‐supported sub‐projects and feedback  from stakeholders including sub‐projects and (d) the continued implementation support and supervision from the Bank  all through the project’s life, funded by the Bank’s own budget and BE‐MDTF supervision and management resources.  Based on this analysis and available data, project efficiency is rated Substantial.    27. An overview of the implementation period, original component allocations and actual expenditures is presented  below. The project was extended by 24 months from the original four years to six years, but this was due to the AF  approved  on  December  5,  2013.  The  Project  disbursed  98.4  percent  of  the  allocated  amounts,  indicating  efficient  project management, implementation support and supervision by the ACBF of its sub‐projects.  Page 23 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) Table 6. Project Cost By Component  IDA‐H6470‐001 (RIDA1) Original Components (2011)  Allocation (US$M)  Actual (US$M)  % of Allocation  First Component: Capacity Building Sub‐Grants  15.00  15.00  100  Second Component: Institutional Development  10.00  10.00  100  Total     25.00    25.00     100.00  IDA‐H8760‐001 (RIDA2) Revised Components (2013)  Allocation (US$M)  Actual (US$M)  % of Allocation  Component A: Capacity Building Sub‐grants, Capacity  44.00  39.50  89.77  Indicators Report and Peer Learning Activities  Component B: Institutional Development  21.00  25.50  121.43  Total     65.00    65.00     100.00  TF‐99645‐001 (RE‐MDTF) Revised Components (2013)  Allocation (US$M)  Actual (US$M)  % of Allocation  Component A: Capacity Building Sub‐grants, Capacity  15.00  13.10  87.33  Indicators Report and Peer Learning Activities  Component B: Institutional Development  14.00  14.00  100.00  Total     29.00    27.10    93.45    28. The second component, focusing on improved management of ACBF operations, overspent its total allocation of  US$45  million  by  11  percent,  but  the  circumstances  of  this  increase  indicate  mostly  efficient  ACBF  institutional  development and sub‐project management and oversight.  During the Mid‐Term Review (MTR) mission in September  2016, ACBF requested a reallocation of US$4.56 million from Category 1 (Program Costs) to Category 2 (Institutional  Costs) to enable it to partially meet its operating expenses during 2017. This amount consisted of savings or funds  recovered/reallocated from sub‐projects. The reallocation request was approved by the Bank through the February  2017 restructuring. This ensured that ACBF obtained the resources to continue supervision and management of its  current portfolio of sub‐projects, which were largely financed by RIDA and RE‐MDTF, and to ensure smooth and orderly  closure of projects financed by RIDA and RE‐MDTF on December 31, 2017. Prior to this, the Ebola epidemic halted sub‐ project implementation in several countries: ACBF had to invest additional effort to support sub‐projects as soon as  the epidemic subsided and it was safe to travel within and across countries.      29. The main challenge facing ACBF was its ability to meet its operating costs. The Additional Financing approved in  December 2013 provided for a Bank contribution to operating expenses on a declining basis over the first three years of  the project: US$8 million in 2013 (retroactively), US$7 million in 2014 and USD$6 million in 2015 ‐ a total of US$21 million  over three years. The expectation at the time was that (a) funds from other sources such as Sweden (as the lone bilateral  donor), the AfDB and African member countries would ‐ over this time ‐ supplant World Bank funds; and (b) a US$35  million final phase of Bank support would be forthcoming, which would include a further ‐ though much diminished ‐  contribution to operating costs. In the event, Sweden withdrew its pledge and AfDB support was far lower than pledged.  However, African member countries' contributions came in over target due to ACBF efforts (see Table 5) and the ACBF  also received funding from BGMF and the Gates Foundation which, when added to ACBF’s continuing cost‐cutting and  savings, enabled the ACBF to manage its operating costs.     Page 24 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) D. JUSTIFICATION OF OVERALL OUTCOME RATING    30. The Overall Outcome is rated Satisfactory.  As indicated earlier, the relevance of PDOs is rated High, given the high  relevance of the capacity‐building agenda for the WBG across Africa, and in individual African countries, at project closing.  In  addition,  the  revised  PDOs  became  even  more  relevant  for  the  reasons  explained  earlier.  Second,  efficacy  is  rated  Substantial given the track record of ACBF achievements regarding PDO indicators and IRIs, and the fact that the ACBF had  only four years (given the slippage in AF approval from 2012 to December 2013) to absorb the AF and show results. Third,  efficiency is rated Substantial. Given the context and for the reasons stated, the Overall Outcome is rated Satisfactory.     E. OTHER OUTCOMES AND IMPACTS    Gender  31. Numerous ACBF‐financed sub‐projects supported gender‐related issues, with the Zimbabwe‐based Women’s  University in Africa (WUA) providing a best‐in‐class example. The WUA, established with ACBF support with financing  from the AfDB, has blossomed into an internationally recognized entity, in its own professional niche, on a sustainable  growth path.  It has graduated more than 6,000 students, of whom about 80 percent are women. Almost 90 percent  of  WUA  expenditures  are  met  from  student  fees.  The  WUA  has  opened  new  campuses  in  Malawi  and  Zambia  in  collaboration with local universities.  32.  Regional  integration  activities  implemented  by  regional  institutions  contributed  to  enhancing  capacity  for  economic development and integration, women empowerment, youth employment, and supported institutional  transformation processes for implementing the continental agenda. The African Union Capacity Building Project (AU‐ CAP) organized regional training workshops in Private Public Partnerships and Microfinance targeted at Women and  Youth in addition to conducting the 8th African Private Sector Forum for youth and women. The main outcome of this  Forum was the establishment of training for African women and youth entrepreneurs, African enterprises owned by  women  in  different  sectors,  African  women  in  the  private  sector  and  establishment  of  a  Mentorship  Program  for  young  entrepreneurs.  The  African  Women  Development  Fund  (AWDF)  continued  to  strengthen  women’s  organizations in Africa to promote women’s rights and make their voices heard. The AWDF organized a Chief Executive  Officers’ Forum during the reporting period to create the platform for these women leaders to discuss how to improve  the leadership functions of their organizations.  The  CEOs’ forum  was followed by  individual coaching sessions for  women  leaders.    As  a  result,  Vimbai  Mlambo  from  Zimbabwe,  for  example,  who  benefited  from  the  Forum  and  coaching sessions, was promoted to Executive Director after the departure of the Director of her organization. She  was also invited by UN Women to join a women’s leadership group on women and HIV and AIDS in Zimbabwe where  she brought young women’s voices and concerns for action in this space. According to Vimbai “AWDF coaching project  has  truly  been  inspirational  and  contributed  hugely  to  my  personal  development  and  prepared  me  into  my  new  leadership position”.   Institutional Strengthening    33. The ACBF Knowledge and Learning (K&L) Department peer‐reviews flagship and other reports to assure quality:   The Department ensured that knowledge products were of acceptable quality by having them reviewed by  renowned experts. Every knowledge product went through a review process, including ACBF internal reviews  and external blind reviews.   Page 25 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478)  For specific products, such as the Africa Capacity Report (ACR), in addition to the review process, ACBF had  put in place an External Review Group (ERG) selected globally, expected to provide intellectual guidance and  critical insights and challenge the ACBF ACR team to develop its thinking and ensure that the ACR delivers a  critical, evidence‐based, policy‐oriented Report by a set target date.   Professional editing of reviewed products, conducted by an external firm, is also part of quality assurance.  34. There is evidence that think tanks supported by ACBF have strengthened their capacity and capabilities, and  now serve a broader audience.   Agriculture  and  food  security.  FANRPAN  trained  its  country  nodes  focal  points  to  undertake  advocacy  on  Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) policy. Node coordinators now have improved capacity to support in‐country  advocacy activities, namely, developing concept notes, mobilizing diverse stakeholders and facilitating the  national  policy  dialogues,  keeping  abreast  with  food,  agriculture  and  natural  resources  policy  issues  and  participating where required.  The FANRPAN Nodes are also taking the lead in engaging with the media to  create  national  awareness  on  CSA  issues.  FANRPAN  is  now  being  perceived  as  the  go  to  organization  for  expertise and research on agriculture and food security issues in Africa. During the reporting period, FANRPAN  was engaged by ACBF and FAO to conduct a Needs Assessment for Establishment of an African Centre for Best  Practices, Capacity Development and South‐South Cooperation (SSC). FANRPAN successfully completed the  assignment  and  presented  the  needs  assessment  report  during  a  validation  workshop  and  it  was  well‐ received.   Creating  platforms  for  dialogue  on  national  policy:  The  HESPI  in  Ethiopia  organized  a  Consultative  policy  seminar on Federalism in Somalia. The meeting provided the Somali stakeholders various federalism practices  and  institutional  governance  frameworks  on  intergovernmental  relations.  The  participants  are  now  supporting  the  Somalia  government  formation  by  way  of  helping  in  mechanisms  of  constituent  States  formation, including aspects of power and resources sharing and transfer mechanism.   Promoting evidence‐based policy making: The Cameroon Policy Analysis and Research Centre (CAMERCAP)  completed a study on science and technology and innovation in Cameroon including an Action Plan presented  to the Government to support the revival of science and technology innovation in Cameroon. Some of the  recommendations  contained  in  the  Action  Plan  include:  development  of  a  National  Research  Policy  Document; mainstreaming of innovation in all policy formulation and; incentives for the promotion of local  investment in science, technology and innovation and development of scientific and technological research.  In  Ethiopia,  the  HESPI  finalized  9  high‐quality  and  peer  reviewed  research  products  of  regional  scope  and  importance including topics such as: Small and medium enterprises access to Finance in Ethiopia: Synthesis  of  Demand  and  Supply,  Quantifying  the  road  influence  zone  on  socio‐economic  development;  and  Fiscal  Federalism and Decentralization in Selected IGAD member countries. Recommendations emerging from the  studies will be used for policy formulation.   Public Financial Management: HESPI trained eight (8) senior Audit officials of the supreme Audit Institutions  of Somalia and South Sudan in Addis Ababa as part of efforts to consolidate the capacities of Audit Chambers  in the two countries and ensure effective auditing. Feedback from the trainees indicated that the training  helped  the  auditors  to  influence  the  change  process  of  standardizing  financial  audits,  fraud  audits  and  instituting internal control systems. The institution also trained ten (10) Public Finance Management (budget  and treasury) officials mainly from Ministries of Finance and Economic Planning of South Sudan and Somalia  on  Fiscal  Transparency  and  effective  budget  management.  Practical  and  hands‐on  experiences  of  Kenya,  Page 26 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) Somali  and  South  Sudan  were  shared  among  trainees  and  this  helped  to  establish  a  network  system  for  sharing information on issues related to effective public financial management.   35.  Two  other  dimensions  of  ACBF  performance  pertinent  to  this  ICR  relate  to:  (a)  ACBF  visibility  through  its  communication and outreach efforts and (b) the performance of think tanks established or supported by it. ACBF  outreach and communication was captured through data relating to ACBF website usage, page views, the ACBF e‐ Library and ACBF social media initiatives (e.g. Twitter and Facebook).  36. ACBF data on website hits and page views show significant increases during 2014‐2017, evidence of increased  ACBF visibility through its knowledge products, knowledge events and online information. Figure 3 depicts website  usage statistics.  Figure 3. ACBF Website Hits and Page Views, 2014‐2017 (million)  Website Statistics 2014‐2017 (in million) 25 22.9 20 15 14.8 10.7 11.4 10 10.2 7.0  5 5.8 0 0.5 2014' 2015' 2016' 2017' Page Views Website Hits    Source: ACBF March 2018   37.  ACBF data on virtual library  usage  for 2011‐2017 show that  out of more  than 85,000  users  (of whom about  61,000 were new users), 58 percent were from Africa, 18 percent from Europe, 11 percent from the Americas and 9  percent from Asia (Table 7). More information on virtual library usage is at Annex 7. ACBF uses two web analytic and  traffic  measurement  tools  ‐  Google  Analytics  and  Advanced  Web  Statistics  (AWStats).  It  took  this  decision  after  observing  anomalies  and  inconsistencies  in  its  statistics.  AWStats  appears  to  be  less  effective  at  gathering  geographical location statistics but can identify other statistics for database‐driven files such as PDFs. In contrast,  Google Analytics appears to be more accurate for geographical location statistics but appears constrained in respect  of other indicators. The data presented by ACBF is a compilation using both tools.      Table 7. ACBF Virtual Library Usage Statistics by Continent, 2011‐2017  Page 27 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) Continent  Users  New Users  85,256% of  60,927% of    Total:   Total:   100%   100%   (85,256)  (60,927)  1.  Africa  57.79%  58.06 %  2.  Europe  18.33 %  18.26 %  3.  Americas  11.16 %  11.10%  4.  Asia  9.08 %  9.02%  5.  Other  3.65 %  3.56%  Source: ACBF, February 2018 38.  Many  policy  research  institutes  and  think  tanks  ‘seeded’  by  ACBF  have  grown  into  internationally  and  regionally reputed centers of excellence.  In Zimbabwe, for example, the Zimbabwe Economic Policy and Research  Unit (ZEPARU) and MEFMI are examples of entities (established by the ACBF with AfDB financing) that have grown  in their own professional niches.  ZEPARU advises Zimbabwean authorities and appears to be gaining traction on  subjects (e.g. mining) on which its expert advice is relevant for Zimbabwe. MEFMI has gained recognition as a regional  body with considerable technical and policy expertise in macroeconomic, fiscal and debt management, working with  the World Bank, the IMF and other international bodies and advising African governments.  Text Box 1: Think Tanks Supported By ACBF  The ACBF has supported 45 think tanks in 29 African countries; some examples are given below. More details  are at Annex 9 (key outputs by theme), Annex 10 (success stories) and Annex 12 (ACBF‐supported think tanks).  The Institute for Democracy and Governance (IDEG) was established in Ghana in 2000 as an independent, not‐ for‐profit  policy  research  and  advocacy  organization.  Its  mission  is  to  generate  knowledge  and  enhance  the  capacity of citizens to influence public policy choices so as to consolidate democracy and good governance in  Ghana and the rest of Africa. It was ranked 69th in the 2017 ranking of Top Think Tanks in Sub‐Saharan Africa.  In 2003, IDEG, in partnership with the ACBF, launched a 4‐year Interface Capacity Building (IDEGCAP) Project  (2003‐2007) aimed at empowering citizens and non‐state actors to influence public policy decisions and their  outcomes. Under the project, IDEG undertook policy research and analysis, dialogue and advocacy, and capacity  building  activities.  IDEG  also  serves  as  the  Secretariat  for  the  Africa  Governance  Monitoring  and  Advocacy  Project (AfriMAP) in Ghana.  Page 28 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) The Macroeconomic and Fiscal Management Institute of Eastern and Southern Africa (MEFMI) is a regionally  owned  institute  with  fourteen  member‐countries9.  During  the  1980s  and  1990s,  when  African  governments  faced  capacity  constraints  for  debt  and  reserves  management  and  macroeconomic  management,  senior  economic officials and financial managers in Eastern and Southern Africa launched the Eastern and Southern  Africa Initiative in Debt and Reserves Management (ESAIDARM) in 1994, whose mandate was later broadened  to cover macroeconomic and financial management issues and renamed MEFMI in 1997. Supported by ACBF,  MEFMI  activities  focus  on  macro‐economic  management,  financial  sector  management  and  sovereign  debt  management. Its Fellows Development Programme trains promising young professionals into specialists and  experts  available  to  their  countries  and  to  Africa.  MEFMI  clients  typically  comprise  ministries  of  finance,  ministries of economic development and planning or equivalent, central banks and other public institutions that  interface with these core entities.  The  Kenya  Institute  of  Public  Policy  Research  and  Analysis  (KIPPRA)  is  an  autonomous  public  institute  established in 1997 with ACBF support. It began functioning in Nairobi from 1999. Uniquely, it then became an  autonomous think tank established under an Act of Parliament (the KIPPRA Act No. 15 of 2006, which became  effective on February 1, 2007). Its mission is to provide quality public policy advice to the Government of Kenya  by conducting objective research and analysis and through capacity‐building, to contribute to the achievement  of national development goals.   The West Africa Monetary Institute (WAMI) is a regional institute based in Accra, Ghana. Established in January  2001, its mission is to undertake technical preparations for the establishment of a common West African Central  Bank and the launching of a single currency for the West African Monetary Zone (WAMZ).  Mobilizing Philanthropic and Private Sector Financing  39. The ACBF is making efforts to diversify its financing sources, including from NGOs and the private sector. In  2015, the ACBF, as part of its business strategy to diversify its financing sources, obtained a grant of US$18 million  from BMGF for work on tobacco control. The Grant is under implementation, financing policy research, technical  assistance to think tanks, and public awareness‐raising about tobacco control. ACBF also partnered with AUSAID  in a fee‐for‐service arrangement.  Poverty Reduction and Shared Prosperity  40.  Several sub‐projects supported by the ACBF have undertaken policy research and analysis on issues to do  with poverty and shared prosperity. For example, HESPI (Ethiopia), IDEG (Ghana), PPRC (Cote d’Ivoire), and others  participated in preparation of Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs), SCDs and other similar products. ACBF  and  its  sub‐projects  have  provided  need‐based  scholarships  to  students  from  low‐income  or  disadvantaged  families, as the IRIs for RIDA1 and RIDA2 have captured. In Rwanda, ACBF support enabled participation of young  researchers in national policy processes following the establishment of the Economic Policy Research Network  (EPRN)  in  2010.  The  EPRN  facilitated  the  generation  of  a  critical  mass  of  highly  skilled  and  capable  young  economists, researchers and analysts who are driving economic policy, poverty reduction and related fields in  Rwanda.  The  EPRN  has  become  a  major  contributor  to  national  policies,  with  its  work  recognized  by  the  Angola, Botswana, Burundi, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Rwanda, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, 9  Zambia and Zimbabwe.  Page 29 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) government and with EPRN being called upon to present its views and positions on strategic policy issues including  the  Economic  Development  and  Poverty  Reduction  Strategy  (EDPRS).  ACBF  has  also  supported  enhanced  inclusiveness  and  effective  participation  of  non‐state  actors  in  policy  and  development  processes,  by  creating  space for inclusive engagement and participation of the private sector and civil society organizations, including  women’s organizations and media associations, in national and regional development processes. ACBF supported  the  institutional  development  and  operational  efficiency  and  effectiveness  numerous  national  NGOs,  private  sector  and  media  organizations  such  as  the  Co‐ordinating  Assembly  of  Non‐Governmental  Organizations  in  Swaziland in Swaziland; the Lesotho Council of NGOs; the Association of NGOs in Gambia; Non‐Governmental  Organizations Coordinating Committee in Zambia; the Botswana Council of NGOs and the Zambia Chamber of  Small  and  Medium  Business  Associations,  as  well  as  the  West  African  Journalist  Association  and  the  Media  Institute of Southern Africa.  Support to such organization has enabled them to make significant contributions in  amplifying the voices of citizens and the private sector into national policies and programs that reduce poverty  and boost shared prosperity.  41. Food Security and Agriculture: In Mauritania, the Centre Mauritanien d’Analyse de Politique (CMAP) produced  a report on competitiveness of the agricultural sector which led to an agreed Action Plan to be implemented by  the Ministry in charge of Agriculture. The effective implementation of the action Plan will allow the government  amongst others to identify the Mauritanian agricultural products with highest export potential in the external  market; and to develop Advisory Program to support producers and maintain agricultural machinery.  It would  also contribute to revitalize and reorganize the seed sector with the objective of making quality seed available by  strengthening the structures in charge of their production and their multiplication.  Finally, an information system  on the market prices of agricultural products will established.  Other Unintended Outcomes and Impacts   ACBF has moved closer to the African Union Commission (AUC) and has been designated as a specialized  agency of the AUC. It is actively assisting the AUC with the implementation of Agenda 2063.   K&L Products such as Africa Capacity Indicators and African Governance Outlook are in high demand. These  and other ACBF knowledge products and expert opinions have become influential: ACBF has been invited to  present and disseminate its products at workshops, conferences and meetings at national, continental and  global level;   ACBF  alumni  (its  scholarship  recipients)  have  been  some  of  its  most  vocal  champions  –  many  are  in  professional,  academic  and  political  leadership  positions  including  in  national/provincial/municipal  governments, with NGOs working on development, or with international organizations such as the UN, the  World Bank and the AfDB; and   The alignment of the ACBF M&E system and those of grantees led to greater harmonization that facilitated  tracking and reporting on RIDA1 and RIDA2 results.     III. KEY FACTORS THAT AFFECTED IMPLEMENTATION AND OUTCOME    A. KEY FACTORS DURING PREPARATION    Factors beyond Bank or ACBF control  Page 30 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) 42. Project preparation coincided with the World Bank’s IDA replenishment process. Bank‐donor negotiations  included  the  issue  of  establishing  a  Regional  IDA  facility,  for  financing  sub‐projects  such  as  ACBF.  Until  these  discussions were concluded, it was not possible for the Bank to commit to RIDA financing for ACBF. On the ACBF  side, this led to uncertainty about the quantum and timing of World Bank financing, exacerbating a situation  where the release of DGF funds was suspended by the Bank in 2009 following the Chamba letter, putting stress  on  ACBF’s  ability  to  finance  operating  and  program  costs.  According  to  ACBF  management,  the  Bank  never  notified ACBF of a suspension although, as a matter of fact, it did withhold funding, putting ACBF at risk. As a  result, implementation of ongoing ACBF sub‐projects was delayed, as was start‐up of ACBF sub‐projects proposed  to be financed by the RIDA1 and RE‐MDTF Grants.     43. The Ebola epidemic affected implementation in some countries.  After the epidemic subsided, sub‐project  and ACBF staff were able to resume implementation and supervision.   Factors within the Bank’s control  44. The Bank’s move to finance the ACBF through a Regional IDA Grant and an associated RE‐MDTF was the  outcome of the decision by its management to change the instrument of support to the ACBF. As part of a  broader decision regarding the appropriate use of DGF resources, Bank management decided that institutions  such as ACBF, which were seen to need long‐term funding, would be more appropriately funded through other  sources. Accordingly, Bank financial support to ACBF was to be provided under a RIDA Grant. At the same time,  the  historical  pass‐through  SMTP1  MDTF  would  be  replaced  with  a  new  RE‐MDTF  governed  by  the  same  operational policies as the RIDA Grant. ACBF and the RIDA1 operation met the eligibility criteria for a regional  IDA Grant (see Text Box below).    Text Box 2: ACBF’s Mandate and Regional Work Made It Eligible for A Regional IDA Grant    While ACBF was not formally established as a regional organization by member states, it was created as  an autonomous non‐profit agency with full juridical personality to serve a continent‐wide function in  Africa. It had the legal status and fiduciary capacity to receive grant funding and the legal authority to carry  out SMTP activities proposed to be financed under the RIDA1 Grant (and RE‐MDTF); (b) ACBF did not – and  still does not ‐ meet eligibility requirements to take on an IDA credit because it did not generate revenue  and would not be able to repay the credit; (c) the costs and benefits of the activity to be financed with an  IDA grant were not easily allocated to national programs; (d) the activities to be financed under RIDA1 were  related to coordinated interventions to provide regional public goods in capacity‐building; (e) while grant  co‐financing for the activity from other donors was expected under the new RE‐MDTF, such co‐financing  would not be sufficient for ACBF‘s planned activities; and (f) under the RIDA1 operation, ACBF would be  the recipient of an IDA‐funded regional operation involving many of IDA‘s Member Countries.    Regional IDA support to ACBF was also justified by the regional focus of many ACBF interventions that  would be consolidated in the SMTP2 program to be financed under RIDA1. ACBF had assisted in moving  forward the regional integration agenda by strengthening the capacities of regional economic communities  (RECs) ‐ such as ECOWAS, ECCAS, COMESA and SADC10 ‐ which provided a platform for policy harmonization  ECOWAS = Economic Community of West African States; ECCAS = Economic Community of Central African States; 10  COMESA = Community of East and Southern African States; and SADC = Southern African Development Community. Page 31 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) and enhanced trade among member  countries. The ACBF SMTP2 grant pipeline had  continued  to build  upon  this  and  would  provide  funding  to  COMESA,  CODESRIA11,  and  West  African  Monetary  Institute  (WAMI). ACBF had also been instrumental in leveraging several institutions for regional higher education  and skills development in economics, public policy, public sector management, financial management and  accountability as well as banking sector and capital market regulation.    Under its proposed SMTP2 grants, ACBF was also poised to continue support to regional‐based research  and  education  institutions  such  as  Economic  Policy  Management  (EMP)  at  the  University  of  Ghana,  Economic  Policy  Management  (EPM)  at  the  University  of  Makarere  in  Uganda,  the  Ghana  Institute  of  Management  and  Pubic  Administration  (GIMPA)  in  Ghana,  and  the  Horn  Economic  and  Social  Policy  Institute (HESPI) in Addis‐Ababa. Regional think tanks such as the African Economic Research Consortium  (AERC) which benefited from ACBF support, provided a significant source of economic policy capability to  the  region.  Finally,  ACBF  had  established  and  was  set  to  continue  nurturing  several  Technical  Advisory  Panels and Networks (TAP‐NETs) which had fostered communities of practice and peer learning networks  with substantial regional benefits spilling over national boundaries.    45. The RIDA‐financed project specified sub‐projects and other activities to be financed, along with cost‐control  targets and RIDA funds could no longer be commingled with other funds. In a significant departure from the  previous PACT‐ACBF financing structure, financing was tied to specific outcomes, results and activities (see Box  below).  The  key  feature  of  the  ACBF‐PACT  financing  structure  was  that,  with  only  a  few  exceptions,  funds  provided were not “targeted” by donors for specific activities. They were commingled in a common PACT‐ACBF  Trust Fund administered by the World Bank and transferred to ACBF as required.   Text Box 3: ACBF Financing Structure – RIDA1 Ushered In Significant Changes  In the past, ACBF donors used to influence allocation decisions through their membership on the BOG.  Specific allocation decisions were made by the EB, primarily in response to recommendations made by the  ACBF Secretariat. This approach ran counter to the level of “control” normally required by donors. It was  argued at the time that the continuing commitment of financing to ACBF‐PACT by a large number of donors  and  African  Governments  was  an  indicator  of  substantial  donor  confidence  in  ACBF  capacity  and  performance. However, two potential risks were inherent in such a financing structure: (i) ACBF’s actual  operating practices at the time gave rise to a significant risk that commitment authorities approved by the  EB  could  exceed  actual  contributions  and  (ii)  the  willingness  to  accept  discrete  “targeted’  funds  could  eventually  undercut  ACBF’s  relatively  unique  common‐pool  financial  structure  and  the  resulting  programming  flexibility.  To  mitigate  those  risks,  ACBF  moved  towards:  (i)  limiting  annual  commitment  authorities  for  new  ACBF  sub‐projects  to  20%  less  than  the  annualized  amount  of  explicit  “pledges”  received  and  (ii)  moving  the  cycle  of  pledging  and  subsequent  financial  commitments  forward  so  that  financing of subsequent cycles would already be in place prior to the expiration of the previous cycle.12     46. The Bank took actions to address the issues in the Chamba letter in its capacity as trustee of the PACT MDTF  and on its own behalf in respect of the DGF: (i) funds allocated for the FY09 DGF (US$26 million) were frozen, as  were the balance of undisbursed funds under the SMTP1 MDTF (US$42 million); and (ii) additional audits were  11  Council for the Development of Social Sciences Research in Africa  12  The 1997 evaluation report suggested that ACBF establish a policy prohibiting acceptance of targeted financing  held separate from the common‐pool PACT‐ACBF Trust Fund, but the evolution of international aid practices was to  make this irrelevant, as donors became increasingly uncomfortable with financing not tied to specific activities.  Page 32 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) conducted to identify if fraud or corruption had in fact taken place at the sub‐grantee level ‐ no cases of fraud or  corruption were established.    47. In June 2010, following progress in MAP implementation and consultations with donors, the Bank approved  the release of an initial tranche of both the FY09 DGF Grant and the SMTP1 MDTF to ACBF. Based on positive  assessment of the implementation of management actions conditioning the availability of an initial tranche of  each  of  the  FY09  DGF  Grant  and  undisbursed  amount  of  the  SMTP1  MDTF  and  intended  to  restore  effective  internal controls and financial procedures within ACBF and for ACBF grantees of existing and upcoming grants,  the  Bank  disbursed  US$17  million  in  June  2010.  At  approval  of  RIDA1  in  March  2011,  it  was  expected  that  remaining conditions, which were prerequisites to availability of a second and third tranche of each of the FY09  DGF Grant and SMTP1 MDTF aggregating a total of US$51 million, would be met in 2011. Concurrently, the Bank  decided to resume support to implementation of SMTP2 program.    48. Three lessons informed project design, financing mode and the Bank’s role vis‐à‐vis the ACBF:    Enhancing a systematic approach to track results: ACBF was required to initiate a new RFM with a dual focus  on (i) tracking ACBF‘s operational performance through December 2011; and (ii) enhancing the M&E system  for proper monitoring of the future strategy (SMTP3);    Appropriate  management  of  fiduciary  risks:  Bank  management  felt  that  the  pre‐RIDA  pass‐through  arrangements  for  donor  financing  and  DGF  grants  to  the  ACBF  and  the  consequent  limited  contractual  fiduciary oversight role of the Bank as donor and as trustee in relation to disbursements made to ACBF had  proved to be inadequate. Based on the fiduciary assessment of the ACBF at appraisal, the Bank and ACBF  agreed  that  RIDA  financing  required  the  application  of  standard  Bank  fiduciary  policies  and  technical  supervision to provide better assurance that Bank and donor funds were spent for intended purposes.   Addressing the Bank’s perceived conflict of interest (COI): Bank management felt that the Bank‘s continued  presence  on  the  EB  would  pose  COI  issues  between  the  Bank‘s  roles  as  (i)  executive  director  of  ACBF  endorsing ACBF managerial actions and approving projects for funding and (ii) as trustee and financier, with  fiduciary  and  supervision  responsibilities  and  arms‐length  agreement  terms.    For  the  RIDA1/RE‐MDTF  project,  the  Bank  determined  that  its  formal  supervision  role  would  be  incompatible  with  its  continued  representation at the Executive Board, and decided to withdraw from the EB.   49. The Bank undertook a detailed 2010‐2011 assessment of ACBF fiduciary capacity – to the standards applied  to World Bank‐financed sub‐projects – which formed the basis for ACBF to be financed through RIDA1 and RE‐ MDTF  Grants:  these  fiduciary  standards  and  processes  raised  the  bar  for  ACBF  and  its  sub‐grantees,  and  provided assurance to other donors about the adequacy of ACBF’s fiduciary capacity:   The ACBF financial management (FM) assessment examined the ACBF’s capacity to carry out the FM functions  required for the proposed Grants: subject to a few suggested improvements, the assessment showed that  ACBF had the capacity to carry out the FM functions required to implement the proposed grants. It had, with  Bank  and  AfDB  support,  improved  its  FM  and  governance  as  part  of  its  MAP.  As  a  result,  the  ACBF  had  substantially implemented improved Manuals to guide FM, Procurement  and Operations activities. It had  also strengthened its FM staffing, which enhanced, among other things, internal controls, audit systems and  controls at sub‐grantees’ level.   The FM assessment, through risk evaluation, noted some systemic issues to be addressed through a time‐ bound Action Plan. The weaknesses included (i) completing its IT systems integration: ACBF used the SUN  system  for  accounting,  which  only  interfaced  with  the  payroll  system  and  allowed  manual  intervention  Page 33 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) between  –  and  sometimes  within  –  subsystems,  making  internal  controls  less  effective;  and  (ii)  other  improvements including (but not limited to) the full adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards  and the regular issuance of Interim Financial Reports (IFRs) in format and substance satisfactory to the Bank.  An agreed Action Plan in the PAD detailed the additional actions required and the timetable to strengthen  the FM function.   Procurement under the project would be carried out in accordance with the World Bank's Guidelines, a major  fiduciary change for the ACBF. The use of the World Bank's procurement guidelines would be mandatory for  all  contracts  financed  under  the  Grants.  At  Sub‐grant  level,  these  requirements,  and  the  particular  procurement  methods  to  be  used  and  institutional  arrangements  to  be  maintained  by  the  Sub‐grantees,  would be elaborated in ACBF‘s Procurement Guidelines, which were to be updated and finalized as part of  the updated  Operations  Manual, as a condition of project effectiveness. The ACBF was required  to apply  specific procurement methods detailed in the PAD. The Bank and ACBF reviewed the ACBF’s template for the  Financing Agreement with Beneficiaries and ACBF prior review thresholds which had remained unchanged  for decades were revised. The ACBF Procurement Guidelines had been structured on the Basis of the World  Banks 1992 Procurement and Consultants’ guidelines and had remained unchanged until about 2011. These  changes also led to cost savings and operational efficiencies as ACBF involvement and travel was reduced  considerably compared to the past.   The overall capacity of ACBF to manage procurement under the proposed project was deemed adequate and  the procurement risk was rated as ‘medium’ driven by likelihood (ML). The procurement assessment showed  that ACBF had adequate institutional arrangements with clear roles and responsibilities for procurement. In  addition  to  an  existing  procurement  unit,  ACBF  had  recruited  an  international  Procurement  Specialist  to  strengthen  the  management  of  its  internal  procurement  and  that  of  Sub‐grantees.  Several  operational  guidelines  had  been  developed  and  adopted  by  the  ACBF  to  mitigate  the  identified  risks.  The  envisaged  contracts to be procured under the project were generally of small value.   It was understood that the procurement capacity of sub‐grantees would only be known after the sub‐projects  were appraised by ACBF. Historically, the majority of ACBF grant recipients had been government and quasi‐ government  agencies  with  procurement  knowledge  based  on  national  procurement  laws.  The  contracts  envisaged, though many and scattered, were expected to be small in value. In addition, ACBF had already  put in place policies and procedures to assess Sub‐grantee capacity and mitigate against potential risks.   The  Bank  requested  –  and  the  ACBF  agreed  to  ‐  specific  procurement‐strengthening  actions,  laid  out  in  a  Procurement Action Plan in the PAD, including: (i) revision by ACBF, as a condition of effectiveness, of its  Operational Manual (including Procurement Guidelines for its Grant Recipients) to ensure consistency with  other Manuals and with Bank policies; and (ii) training (with ongoing assistance from the Bank) of Project  Officers  in  procurement  and  FM  for  Sub‐grants,  in  particular,  familiarization  with  the  Bank‘s  specific  procurement requirements for the RIDA and RE‐MDTF Grants. In addition, ACBF was required to conduct an  annual procurement audit (commencing FY 2011) with experts whose terms of reference, qualifications and  experience were acceptable to the Bank, and furnish the report of the audit to the Bank not later than 6  months after the end of the year.   The  Bank  also  specified  the  disbursement  methods  and  processes:  the  proceeds  of  both  Grants  would  be  disbursed against eligible expenditures incurred under SMTP2 – a major departure from previous modes of  financing. These expenditures comprised eligible goods, services, training and operating costs. Retroactive  financing of up to US$5 million equivalent of the IDA Grant and 20% of the RE‐MDTF for operating expenses  under  Component  2  (Institutional  Development)  was  also  provided.  ACBF  financial  statements,  including  those for the project, would be audited annually by independent auditors acceptable to the Bank. The Bank  would  disburse  the  RIDA  Grant  and  RE‐MDTF  Grant  proceeds  based  on  consolidated  and  quarterly  Page 34 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) withdrawal requests sent by ACBF. The Bank would provide ACBF with advances through two Designated  Accounts opened respectively for each Grant in a reputable commercial bank, satisfactory to the Bank. To  allow for proper tracking of eligible expenditures financed under the RIDA1 and RE‐MDTF Grants, withdrawal  requests would be accompanied by unaudited Interim Financial Reports (IFRs) indicating sources and uses of  funds. While the operating costs and Sub‐grants to Sub‐grantees could be committed during FY2011, the  RIDA1 Grant and RE‐MDTF Grant proceeds were envisaged to be disbursed over 4 to 5 years, reflecting the  normal disbursement period of ACBF‘s sub‐grants.    Factors within the ACBF’s control  50. The EB approved several sub‐projects in anticipation of RIDA1 and RE‐MDTF financing (i.e. when the project  was  under  preparation),  when  the  quantum  of  such  financing  was  still  not  known  (see  risks  in  Box  below).  Consequently, RIDA1‐ and RE‐MDTF Grant‐ financed sub‐projects had to be “retrofitted” (i.e. their project costs  reduced, implementation timelines revised, and results indicators updated to bring them into alignment with  those in the Bank‐financed project) following approval by the Bank of RIDA and RE‐MDTF financing.    51. The Chamba letter led to significant actions by ACBF governing bodies, which impacted RIDA1 preparation.  Notable  ACBF  actions  included:  (i)  a  freeze  on  approval  of  new  sub‐projects;  (ii)  an  independent  review  by  a  consultant of the corporate governance framework at ACBF; (iii) ACBF’s adoption and implementation – over the  next  few  years  –  of  a  Management  Action  Plan  (MAP  –  see  next  section)  to  strengthen  its  Internal  Control  Framework; and (iv) commissioning of a forensic audit and human resources audit of ACBF.     52. The ACBF adopted a MAP in 2009 and implemented it through 2014 – it shaped ACBF’s outlook, functioning  and processes for almost a decade.  A new ES took office in July 2009 and moved aggressively to design and  implement  a  far‐reaching  MAP  to  restore  good  management  at  the  ACBF.  A  new  management  team  was  recruited,  with  half  of  the  positions  being  externally  filled.  With  Bank  and  AfDB  support,  ACBF  management  implemented  MAP  actions  designed  to  restore  (i)  effective  internal  controls  and  financial  procedures  within  ACBF; (ii) effective controls for existing sub‐projects implemented by ACBF grantees as well as for the selection  and approval of new sub‐projects; and (iii) effective oversight of ACBF management. The MAP revived ACBF with  better‐motivated  staff,  strengthened  internal  controls,  and  enhanced  systems  and  tools  allowing  for  swift  resumption of SMTP2.     53.  The  various  audits  and  investigations  conducted  following  the  Chamba  letter  found  no  instance  of  embezzlement  or  corruption  of  any  sort;  they,  however,  recommended  that  ACBF  should  strengthen  its  systems and processes to avert the risks identified. In response to these recommendations, ACBF developed a  MAP which was approved by the World Bank and implemented to the satisfaction of all financing partners. The  MAP provoked a significant increase in ACBF’s operating costs. Unfortunately, the inflows expected following the  implementation of the MAP never materialized, because all bilateral partners withdrew support to ACBF.  Due to  insufficient inflows, the Bank found the cost/revenue ratio of ACBF to be inappropriate and began discussions on  a restructuring of ACBF. The ACBF EB committed in a “Letter of Commitment” sent to the World Bank’s Vice  President for the Africa Region in November 2013, to implementing deep reforms to address the cost/revenue  imbalance. These reforms were concluded by the current ES and completed to the satisfaction of the World Bank  in October 2014. Details of the implementation of these reforms are at Annex 8. Following these reforms, the  ACBF has become a more efficient and effective institution, which operates with a clear business model built  around the following five service lines: (a) Resource mobilization to finance the capacity development effort in  Africa; (b) Capacity Development Advisory Services; (c) Investment in Capacity Development (including managing  Page 35 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) funds that development partners invest in capacity development in Africa); (d) Promoting innovation in capacity  development and (e) Leveraging knowledge and learning for capacity development.    B. KEY FACTORS DURING IMPLEMENTATION    Factors within ACBF control  54.  ACBF strengthened its fiduciary arrangements for World Bank RIDA financing. The ACBF strengthened its  procurement arrangements, hiring more staff, training them on Bank procurement processes and procedures,  and submitting for Bank review relevant procurement documents (e.g. terms of reference, bid documents and  contracts  above  agreed  threshold  amounts).  It  also  strengthened  project  financial  management,  internal  controls, internal audit and financial reporting and was required to submit quarterly unaudited interim financial  statements to the Bank’s financial management specialists for review.    55. Under RIDA1 and RIDA2, ACBF strengthened its M&E capacity, results tracking and results reporting, while  also making its K&L products available more widely. The ACBF was required to submit to the Bank semi‐annual  implementation progress reports for RIDA‐financed sub‐projects and activities and update its RFM and revise its  Operations Manual to – among other things – enhance its sub‐project monitoring and evaluation. The monitoring  and  evaluation  of  progress  towards  achieving  the  project  objectives  would  entail  continuous  and  systematic  collection of data on inputs, outputs and intermediate outcome indicators of the Project. The main beneficiaries  of ACBF K&L products are African policy makers; development partners; universities across Africa and beyond.  The  knowledge  products  are  made  more  accessible  through  various  channels,  including  posting  on  the  ACBF  website (the E‐Library) in both English and French versions; products launch in many countries (e.g. the Africa  Capacity Report) in partnership with think tanks that participate in their production and with other partners such  as UNCTAD, IDEA and UNECA. Printed copies and flash‐drives are used to disseminate products during events in  which ACBF participates.    Factors within Bank control  56. The Bank could have communicated more effectively with ACBF on several occasions. There was need for  more effective and timely communication. The point was also made that the Bank did not consult with ACBF –  which  considered  itself  a  partner  –  about  its  decision  to  withdraw,  nor  was  the  ACBF  officially  informed  in  a  clear and timely manner about the Bank’s decision to stop further funding when the project closed in December  2017. This is also the case regarding the matters surrounding the travel audit and ineligible expenditures. Even  before these events, the  Bank did not communicate frankly to  ACBF about the internal discussions that took  place in the aftermath of the Chamba letter. Had the Bank been more open and candid with the ACBF and sub‐ projects, the latter might perhaps have realized earlier that Bank financing was to end in 2017.    IV. BANK PERFORMANCE, COMPLIANCE ISSUES, AND RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME    A. QUALITY OF MONITORING AND EVALUATION (M&E)    57. The overall quality of M&E is rated Substantial.    58. At RIDA1 start‐up, M&E was an established ACBF function since 2008 – its key features provide context for  assessing  the  quality  of  M&E  during  2011‐2017.  The  ACBF’s  results  management  function  was  formally  Page 36 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) institutionalized in early 2008 when the Foundation adopted the Managing for Development Results (MfDR) as  an overarching approach to strengthen its performance, learning and accountability. An Operations Evaluation  Department (OED) was established in 2008, with a mandate to build and implement a robust results‐based M&E  system to enable systematic performance tracking and results reporting for the Foundation. The establishment  of the OED marked the commitment of transforming ACBF into a results‐oriented and learning organization. A  September 2008 OED comprehensive review of ACBF M&E requirements and institutional capacity ‐ the so‐called  “Audit of ACBF M&E  System” ‐ largely informed the design and operationalization of the M&E system of the  Foundation. Sufficient skilled and experienced staff were recruited by ACBF over the years to discharge M&E  roles and responsibilities.     59. By 2010, the ACBF  M&E system covered four major elements:  evaluation policy, an M&E Manual, M&E  processes, and M&E tools:     The Evaluation Policy described the procedures, approach and processes to guide ACBF’s evaluation work.  It outlined the types of evaluation to be conducted by ACBF, including Mid‐term Reviews, End‐of‐Project  Evaluations, Project Completion Reports, Thematic Evaluations and Strategic Plan Evaluations. In addition,  the policy specifies the roles and responsibilities of key actors in evaluation processes and provides guidance  on how to use evaluation findings or products.    The M&E Manual provided guidance on embedding the MfDR into ACBF operations. It complemented the  evaluation  policy  and  operations  manual  with  step‐by‐step  guidance  on  monitoring,  evaluating  and  reporting  on  ACBF  capacity‐building  interventions.  The  manual  contained  key  tools  and  templates  for  planning, data gathering and analysis and reporting at both ACBF and project levels and provided criteria  for assessing data quality in terms of reliability and validity.   M&E processes comprised the key steps defined by ACBF in monitoring and evaluating its capacity‐building  interventions.  These  included:  (1)  assessing  the  theory  of  change  of  the  proposed  interventions;  (2)  development a Results Measurement Framework (RFM) and the related M&E Plan for the interventions; (3)  conducting baseline for measuring the initial status of the results‐level indicators and setting appropriate  targets;  (4)  conducting  regular  monitoring  missions;  (5)  conducting  mid‐term  reviews  to  assess  the  implementation progress and ensure achievement towards the intended objectives; (6) conducting end‐of‐ project evaluations to assess changes brought about by the intervention and its development impact as well  as the key lessons to be drawn up; (7) organizing results dissemination activities and use of lessons.    M&E tools: Two categories of tools or instruments were developed to support M&E processes within ACBF.  First, the corporate‐level tools are designed to help compile data from sub‐projects and also to facilitate the  planning  and  reporting  processes  at  ACBF  Secretariat.  These  include:  Business  Plan  monitoring  matrix,  departmental plan progress reporting template, donor‐specific reporting templates. Second, the project‐ level tools and templates for harmonizing the planning and reporting processes at grants recipients’ level.  RFM  and  M&E  Plan  are  the  key  planning  tools  to  be  used  in  the  project  appraisal  document  (PAD).  In  addition,  the  Foundation  also  developed  quarterly  reporting  template,  indicators  tracking  table  (ITT),  administrative data collection tools kits, performance data sheet, M&E capacity assessment tool and success  stories template.     60. The M&E unit’s remit has three elements: upstream reviews of project proposals (to ensure logical clarity of  proposed  interventions  and  the  adequacy  of  results  monitoring  arrangements);  participating  in  mainstream  project  supervisions  (for  systematic  performance  monitoring)  and  downstream  assessments  of  implemented  interventions (to determine the extent to which results have been achieved and to re‐examine initial assumptions  to improve future interventions). Despite frequent movements, the M&E unit’s mandate has largely remained  Page 37 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) stable; it is currently staffed by two M&E Specialists.    61. Despite ACBF M&E capabilities at RIDA1 start‐up, the move from DGF to RIDA financing required the ACBF  to further strengthen this function. ACBF embedded the RIDA results framework and M&E requirements into its  organizational M&E processes to strengthen its M&E capacity.  It also aligned its M&E system with those of sub‐ grantees for greater harmonization to facilitate RIDA1 ‐ and later RIDA2 – results tracking and reporting.  M&E Design    62. The RIDA1 M&E function was designed to enable timely management decision‐making through regular and up‐to‐ date  information  about  the  performance  of  ACBF‐financed  sub‐projects  and  to  identify  actual  or  potential  implementation problems. M&E findings were reflected in Quarterly and Annual Progress Reports submitted to ACBF  management and shared with the BOG, EB, IDA and other donors.  These Progress Reports reflected implementation of  activities under Sub‐projects managed by ACBF Sub‐grantees, ACBF’s own institutional activities, training and studies,  performance indicators and Financial Monitoring Reports (FMR). They also covered other issues identified during ACBF  project supervision and the effect of actions taken to resolve such issues. The fourth Quarterly Report is in the form of  an Annual Report, covering progress during the year.    63. Due to ACBF’s existing corporate M&E system, the RIDA1 M&E system was largely embedded in ACBF’s own M&E  organization,  tools  and  systems,  enhancing  the  probability  of  sustaining  project  gains  in  future.  Hence,  further  strengthening  ACBF  capacity  for  data  collection,  reporting  on  activities  and  outcomes,  and  tracking  of  key  results  at  corporate and grantee levels was a priority activity supported by the Project. The continued functioning of a full M&E  Unit with dedicated staffing strengthened a results culture within the Foundation.     64. Based on an M&E assessment during project preparation, the ACBF adopted an Action Plan to prepare (a) a draft  Results Framework and Monitoring RFM for the Project acceptable to the Bank and (b) a draft RFM for two Strategic  Medium‐Term Plans (SMTP2 and SMTP3) to be completed when the Strategies were finalized. Furthermore, the ACBF  undertook – through binding legal covenants ‐ to: (i) adjust its staff responsibilities in a manner satisfactory to the Bank  to ensure that assessments of the M&E systems to be used under proposed Sub‐grants were conducted upstream by the  Recipient  (i.e.  during  preparation  of  each  Sub‐project,  prior  to  its  approval  for  financing);  (ii)  prepare  quarterly  monitoring and evaluation reports on all ACBF activities (including Sub‐projects) in form and substance acceptable to the  Bank. In addition, as a condition of effectiveness, ACBF revised its Operations Manual to – among other things ‐ further  enhance Sub‐project monitoring and evaluation.    M&E Implementation    65. The implementation of the existing ACBF M&E system commenced from 2010, when the EB approved the Results  Measurement Framework (RFM) as the standard tool to support the articulation of the results chain for all ACBF‐funded  interventions and the M&E Plan as the main RFM instrument. The RFM was designed to ensure effective monitoring of  results during project implementation.     66. Upon RIDA1 approval in 2011, numerous ACBF sub‐projects – either ongoing or approved but not yet started –  were rapidly ‘retrofitted’ to access RIDA1 funding. Because these sub‐projects did not have M&E arrangements aligned  with Bank/RIDA requirements, project and ACBF staff needed to be trained to effectively perform RIDA‐associated M&E  functions while modifying project M&E indicators and monitoring arrangements. Several hands‐on regional M&E training  Page 38 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) workshops  were  conducted  for  the  relevant  sub‐projects  and  ACBF  staff.  Customized  training  was  also  provided  on  specific  M&E  challenges  faced  by  project  staff.  The  2011  project  retrofits  involved  nearly  70  sub‐projects  which  successfully and rapidly were helped to integrate stronger M&E arrangements into their operational processes. Since  then,  these  sub‐projects  have  systematically  tracked  performance  for  varied  purposes,  including  to  meet  ACBF/RIDA  M&E  requirements.  In  addition,  M&E  arrangements  have  become  a  key  component  of  all  new  ACBF‐supported‐sub‐ projects with a well‐defined RFM in the ACBF appraisal document to guide results monitoring and reporting.    67.  Internally,  ACBF  updated  its  project  proposal  review  process  by  including  its  M&E  staff  in  the  Project  Review  Committee (PRC).  The PRC ensured that ACBF‐financed sub‐projects’ results  frameworks  and results indicators were  aligned  with  RIDA  and  that  grantee  sub‐projects’  indicators  were  fully  integrated  in  project  management  and  performance reporting.  The March 2017 World Bank‐ACBF Annual Project Implementation Progress Report confirmed  that 86% of ACBF clients had functional M&E systems against an annual target of 79%.     68. ACBF substantially implemented the challenging RIDA2 M&E requirements, and made strong efforts to comply with  RIDA1 and RIDA2 reporting requirements throughout implementation from 2011 to 2017. RIDA1 required the ACBF to  prepare and submit one report each year, while RIDA2 required submission of two reports each year. ACBF submitted  all  required  RIDA  progress  reports  (9  in  total)  within  the  specified  deadlines.  These  reports  require  consolidation  of  multiple data sources including quarterly implementation progress reports submitted by sub‐projects, specific tools to  gather data on RIDA core indicators (RIDA indicators data instruments) from sub‐projects, ACBF departments’ progress  reports, updates from the Office of the Executive Secretary, and BOG and EB meeting updates. In addition, mid‐term  reviews were conducted for sub‐projects to assess progress, identify critical gaps and challenges and seek solutions to  ensure achievement of intended objectives and results. Sub‐projects that closed also undertook a project completion  report (PCR) as a self‐assessment – from the grantees’ perspective ‐ of achievements and lessons.     69.  A  retrofit  was  applied  in  2014  for  RIDA2‐financed  sub‐projects  which  had  been  designed  and  had  started  implementation before RIDA2/RE‐MDTF approval which came with additional M&E requirements from the Bank. In this  case, too, sub‐project results frameworks had to be aligned with RIDA M&E framework.     70. ACBF also extended M&E processes and practices to special evaluations. Thus, every year, several sub‐projects were  selected,  using  well‐defined  evaluation  criteria,  for  end‐of‐project  or  final  evaluations.  Thematic  evaluations  were  conducted for ACBF intervention including Training Program and Policy Analysis (Think Tanks). And the last two ACBF  strategic plans (SMTP2 and SMTP3) were systematically evaluated for the first time in the history of the Foundation.     71. Since 2011, all ACBF‐supported sub‐projects, regardless of source of funding, monitor performance regularly and  report through the quarterly process defined by the Foundation. Every project prepares and submits a progress report  every quarter to ACBF which reviews and provides feedback. The reports produced by sub‐projects for the fourth quarter  of each year represents their cumulative annual report. Furthermore, the output‐ and outcome‐level results indicators  are  systematically  tracked  and  summarized  in  the  Indicators  Tracking  Table  (ITT)  designed  by  ACBF  for  use  by  sub‐ projects.  Such ITTs, which show indicator‐wise progress, are prepared by sub‐projects every six months and submitted  to the ACBF.    72. As a result, all ACBF clients by project closing have well‐defined RFM and M&E plans aligned with the RIDA results  indicators: this was a significant achievement, reflects well on ACBF and Bank teams and was confirmed by sub‐grantees  when  a  joint  World  Bank‐ACBF  ICR  mission  visited  sub‐projects  in  four  countries  in  April  2018.  The  criteria  used  to  measure the functionality of ACBF clients’ M&E systems include timely submission of quarterly reports, completion of  Page 39 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) RIDA data instrument, generation of success stories and the existence of an M&E focal person. The high indicator value  depicts significant improvement in ACBF sub‐grantees’ M&E capabilities.     73. In many cases, ACBF sub‐grantees’ improved M&E capability enabled them to access funding from diverse sources,  strengthening the probability of sustaining project gains.  This was emphasized to the joint Word Bank‐ACBF ICR mission  which visited several sub‐projects in Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana, Senegal and Zimbabwe.     M&E Utilization    74.  Even  before  project  closing,  M&E  was  being  utilized  by  ACBF  at  the  corporate  and  sub‐grantee  levels.  The  September  2016  World  Bank  Mission  Aide  Memoire  noted  that  the  ACBF  had  a  robust  M&E  system  in  place  at  institutional and sub‐grantee levels and producing accurate, validated data on all project indicators.    In 2017, ACBF launched an M&E information management system at the corporate level. According to the  2017 RIDA Progress Report, an ACBF M&E Information Management System (IMS) was launched to enhance  quality and results. The Foundation states that it developed the IMS to facilitate planning and performance  reporting at corporate and operational levels.   ACBF responded to requests to strengthen M&E capacity‐building for the African continent. It developed  a comprehensive program called the M&E Capacity Building Program for Africa (M&ECB) in collaboration  with key development actors in Africa in response to M&E capacity strengthening needs for the continent.  A task team from ACBF, AfrEA, CLEAR‐AA and AUC drafted the three components of the program: Accessing  Quality  M&E  Training  and  Professional  Development;  Strengthening  National  M&E  Systems  and  Networking;  and  Leveraging  M&E  Knowledge  and  Practices.  To  gather  further  inputs  and  relevant  contributions for consideration and improve the program, the M&ECB Program was presented during the  8th  AfrEA  International  Conference  in  March  2017  in  Kampala,  Uganda.  Following  the  conference,  the  preparation of the two main program components was assigned to CLEAR and AfrEA. The document is now  under review to ensure consistency and to avoid duplication of ongoing efforts in the continent (e.g. Twende  Mbele program, Short‐course trainings). In addition, ACBF was invited to join the task force developing a  collaborative M&E training curriculum for Africa. This is part of the program under development by ACBF.   ACBF identified different ways to effectively utilize M&E products and results. First, a management action  plan is systematically prepared to respond to the findings and recommendations of the review/evaluation  of interventions undertaken by ACBF. This action plan is regularly monitored throughout its implementation  by the M&E unit and reported to Management. Second, the supervision or project implementation support  missions  also  serve  as  platforms  to  review  M&E  reports  and  take  actions  to  address  critical  issues  or  concerns. For instance, the restructurings of RIDA sub‐projects were mainly based on progress monitoring  which helped identify sub‐projects with challenges.     Justification of Overall Rating of Quality of M&E  75. The preceding sections, and Bank supervision missions, justify the overall rating of Substantial for quality of M&E.  The June 2017 ISR, for example, stated that progress towards the achievement of the Project Development Objective  remained Satisfactory. “All three PDO indicators either met or exceeded their 2016 end‐of‐year targets. Likewise, both  project components are performing satisfactorily with all 12 intermediate indicators meeting or exceeding their 2016  annual targets. The PDO continues to remain relevant to Bank, Borrower, and member countries of ACBF, as well as sub‐ grantee priorities…no material concerns have emerged regarding project management, procurement and M&E since the  MTR mission, which took place in September 2016.  Page 40 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478)   B. ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, AND FIDUCIARY COMPLIANCE    Environmental Compliance  76. Not applicable. The project was categorized, for environmental assessment (EA) purposes, as “C”, since all  the activities were for technical assistance and did not involve any environmental impacts. Sub‐project proposals  that might involve design work leading to investments, such as feasibility studies and engineering designs, would  not be eligible for financing under either of the Grants. The Additional Financing was also similarly categorized  as “C” for the same reasons.    Social Compliance 77. There were no social compliance issues as this was a category C project.  However, the operation did have  a significant impact on Africa’s citizens including through (a) empowering women’s education (e.g. through the  Women’s  University  of  Africa),  (b)  training  women  entrepreneurs  and  future  women  business  leaders  as  summarized elsewhere in this ICR.    Fiduciary Compliance  Procurement  78. Overall, ACBF procurement performance was satisfactory through RIDA1 and RIDA2. An ACBF procurement  unit was established in 2011 as part of the Management Action Plan (MAP). Since then, the unit has overseen  procurement activities valued at more than US$20 million, with over US$10 million comprising procurement for  RIDA‐ and RE‐MDTF‐financed activities. At project appraisal, procurement risk was rated Moderate, mainly due  to  adequate  institutional  arrangements  indicating  clear  roles  and  responsibilities  for  procurement  staff.  A  Procurement Specialist was engaged to work on sub‐grant operations and corporate procurement for goods and  services.  ACBF  later  strengthened  its  procurement  capacity,  adding  a  Procurement  Assistant  responsible  for  shopping and small‐value contracts and then a bilingual Procurement Assistant (proficient in English and French).  Over the years ACBF Procurement and Program staff were trained in World Bank procurement guidelines and  processes. At sub‐grant level, procurement methods were initially included in the Operations Manual. As part of  the  sub‐project  appraisal  process,  the  ACBF  assessed  the  institutional  capacity  of  sub‐grantees  in  handling  procurement and agreed on mitigation measures. In some small sub‐grants (mostly small sub‐grants), where it  was not cost‐effective to have a full‐fledged procurement unit, available staff were designated as procurement  focal points. The World Bank undertook annual post procurement reviews (PPRs) and the risk rating dropped  from Moderate to Low. Key procurement challenges during implementation comprised: (a) loss of staff in 2014  as part of the ACBF cost‐efficiency measures, affecting implementation (only 15 percent of the procurement plan  was implemented that year); (b) contract management was handled by the ACBF procurement unit when it could  more appropriately have been assigned to the ACBF Operations Department (i.e. by Project Officers). Over time,  a  template  was  developed  to  systematize  contract  management  by  Project  Officers.  Other  than  the  above  challenges, no procurement issues were noted by supervision missions in the last year or supervision.    Financial management  79. Financial management performance was rated satisfactory, overall.  During RIDA1, the ACBF strengthened  its financial management, accounting, internal controls and internal audit as part of the implementation of the  Management Action Plan (MAP). During RIDA2, overall, financial management was satisfactory. FM risk rating  was moderate at inception and during implementation.    Page 41 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) 80. “Questionable expenditures” and their resolution during 2015‐2016. The February 2015 Travel Audit Report,  commissioned by the Bank after another anonymous letter was issued on May 1, 2014, led the Bank to claim  reimbursement of US$228,687.88 as “ineligible expenditures” and also identify an additional US$305,663.914 as  “questionable expenditure. After an independent audit and verifications by the Bank’s Financial Management  Specialists, US$182,854.94 remained a subject of non‐agreement between ACBF and the Bank, as the Bank did  not recognize some expenditures approved by the ACBF EB. The Bank and ACBF agreed that ACBF would submit  substitute documentation for the residual amount to resolve the matter. The Bank officially withdrew its demand  for a refund by a letter dated September 21, 2017.    C. BANK PERFORMANCE    Quality at Entry  81. The quality at entry is rated Moderately Satisfactory.  RIDA1  82. The instrument for Bank support significantly changed: the use, in tandem, of a RIDA Grant and an RE‐MDTF Grant  innovatively addressed the uncertainty about project cost estimates and helped ACBF complete the implementation  of SMTP2 and finalize the preparation of SMTP3. RIDA1 supported ACBF by providing IDA financing in the Bank’s 2011  fiscal year to complete the final year of SMTP2 (instead of the usual DGF contribution), consolidate the results achieved  under  the  MAP,  and  assist  the  ACBF  to  finalize  preparation  of  SMTP3,  in  order  to  allow  timely  preparation  and  implementation of donor support to the new strategy.    83.  While  RIDA1  objectives,  scope,  components  and  design  were  carefully  thought  through,  the  project  results  indicators and the Results Management Framework, in hindsight, could have been designed more appropriately to  enable attribution of causality between project activities and targeted outcomes.  PDO indicator 1, as worded, created  a disconnect between ACBF‐financed support for sub‐grant recipients and enhanced country (i.e. government) capacity.  Supervision documents and discussions with Bank and ACBF staff and management indicate that this was realized early  in RIDA1 implementation, and addressed in 2014 at Additional Financing.    Quality of Supervision  84.  The  quality  of  Supervision  is  rated  Moderately  Satisfactory  overall,  comprising  Moderately  Satisfactory  for  the  RIDA1 period and Satisfactory for the RIDA2 period.    85. It took some time for the World Bank supervision missions to achieve a relationship with ACBF, which was not  familiar with Bank operational policies and practices, and not used to being supervised in its activity implementation  beyond BOG and EB oversight. RIDA 1 and RIDA2 mission and supervision documents and Implementation Status Reports  are quite detailed and candid.    86. Over the years, the Bank teams had the right mix of skills and experience, assessing project progress and providing  realistic and candid implementation status ratings. The mix of skills enabled the Bank teams to support implementation  and provide advice on implementation, risk mitigation and results monitoring. The slow start‐up of RIDA1 (in part due to  the retrofitting of sub‐projects) was reflected in the downgrade of ISR DO and IP ratings to Moderately Satisfactory in  January and September 2012, with actual disbursements stagnant at US$10.89 million. By May 2013 the IP rating had  improved  to  Satisfactory  but  the  DO  rating  remained  at  MS.  Meanwhile  the  Additional  Financing  was  approved  in  December  2013.  In  June  2014,  although  disbursements  had  risen  to  US$43.36  million,  the  DO  and  IP  ratings  were  Page 42 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) downgraded  to Moderately Unsatisfactory, mainly  due  to the concerns raised by the  May  1, 2014 anonymous letter  which led to audits and reviews of travel and other expenditures. By December 2014, the DO and IP ratings had risen to  MS, staying there till December 2015, when the DO rating was upgraded to Satisfactory while the IP rating remained at  Moderately Satisfactory. From June 2016 until closing, both DO and IP ratings remained at Satisfactory.     87.  Under  the  leadership  of  the  Bank  team,  the  Bank‐executed  MDTF  has  financed  a  series  of  analytical  notes  on  lessons learnt from the Foundation’s long experience with capacity‐building across Africa. The objective of this series  is to document and disseminate key lessons on capacity‐building in Africa that highlight successes and failures based  primarily – though not exclusively ‐ on ACBF’s project interventions. With close to three decades of capacity‐building on  the continent, this is an opportune reflection on lessons learnt in this challenging field to understand what has worked,  what has not, and why; the implementation bottlenecks facing countries in Africa; what critical success factors underlie  capacity‐building interventions; and what initiatives could be undertaken to effectively and sustainably support capacity  development efforts in Africa. The key themes covered are: (i) Enhancing policy uptake in Africa: the role of think tanks;  (ii) Managing think tanks in Africa: what works and what does not; (iii) How to ensure the sustainability of African think  tanks;  (iv)  Beyond  capacity  building  to  capacity  retention  and  utilization;  (v)  Building  capacity  in  economic  policy  management: lessons from regional training programs; (vi) Measuring the effectiveness of capacity building programs in  Africa; and (vii) Challenges of capacity building in fragile states: lessons from Africa.    Justification of Overall Rating of Bank Performance  88.  The  overall  rating  is  Moderately  Satisfactory.  The  Bank  team,  especially  during  2014‐2017,  provided  very  professional implementation support along with supervision and established a trusted relationship with ACBF and sub‐ projects. The team had the needed skills. However, this was not enough – management attention to this sensitive, high‐ risk and potentially high‐reward project appears to have been somewhat episodic. As the ACBF ES states in the Lessons  section, it would have been desirable for the ACBF and Bank management to have remained in closer communication,  and for Bank management to have communicated to ACBF management more clearly and more in advance its intention  to stop further financing. For these reasons, the rating of MS appears justified.    D. RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME  The risk to development outcome is rated Substantial, and is explained below.    89. RIDA1 and RIDA 2 identified key risks, some of which came to pass:  1. Cost Sustainability and Financial Risks  90.  At  RIDA1  approval,  ACBF  was  in  a  potentially  precarious  financial  position.  The  level  of  donor  support was uncertain. It was recognized that ACBF‘s financial situation would be affected by the spillover  of the 2008 international financial crisis and delays in establishing the MDTF for SMTP2.  At that time,  ACBF anticipated a loss of more than US$23 million that had been expected from European and North  American donors and from African countries. Additional Bank funding through RIDA1 was seen as helping  mitigate the risk of reduced grants to ACBF beneficiaries.  Internal cost reduction efforts were required  and  ACBF  needed  to  actively  manage  its  operating  costs,  to  make  available  more  resources  for  sub‐ projects and to increase ACBF efficiency.  91. During RIDA1 and RIDA2, ACBF management adopted measures to contain operating costs: (i) ACBF  tried to contain operating and overhead expenses during the remainder of SMTP2. Caps and limits on  Page 43 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) staff,  travel,  consultants,  administrative  and  knowledge  activities  costs  were  introduced  and  were  maintained  for  2011;  (ii)  broader  commitment  to  performance  and  cost‐efficiency  measures  were  adopted as part of the governance framework defined and monitored by the EB; (iii) ACBF started making  budget or grant commitments based on resources available: agreements with sub‐grantees contained a  clause  stating  that  grant  disbursements  were  dependent  on  fund  availability;  (iv)  ACBF  considered  cancelling some grants awarded in 2008 or earlier and to recommit these resources if possible; (v) ACBF  continued trying to collect unretired advances (US$6 million at RIDA1 approval and about US$1 million  at RIDA2 closing) under closed grants, even though the likelihood of recovery was low, partly because  some  of  these  funds  had  already  been  used  for  eligible  expenses,  but  had  not  yet  been  properly  accounted for.  2. Governance Risks  92. Bank and donor concerns at appraisal about oversight of ACBF management practices highlighted  the critical role of its governance organs. A Corporate Governance Review (CGR) was initiated in mid‐ 2009 by the ACBF EB to assess the relevance and effectiveness of the management and EB functions in  order to strengthen ACBF corporate governance. The September 2010 Governance Action Plan based on  the  CGR  aimed  to  bring  governance  practices  at  ACBF  in  line  with  good  practice  principles  in  similar  institutions. The plan addressed the functions and relationships among the ACBF governance organs as  well as the competencies required of EB members for effective leadership and for effective oversight and  audit functions. The governance action plan was approved by the BOG in September 2010, subject to  nuancing the confidentiality provisions as they apply to representatives of the sponsoring agencies on  the EB, given that these members have obligations towards their respective organizations.   93.  World  Bank  management  was  of  the  view,  at  RIDA  approval,  that  establishing  an  appropriate  governance relationship between the Bank and ACBF required resolution of the COI inherent in the  Bank's  multiple  roles.  Bank  management  took  the  view  that  the  Project  would  place  the  Bank  in  an  unprecedented  position  of  having  concurrent  executive  and  supervisory  functions  in  an  IDA‐recipient  organization, creating both real and apparent conflicts of interest that potentially could undermine the  legitimacy of EB decisions and put the Bank's reputation at risk. At the same time, the Bank's departure  from the EB needed to be appropriately managed to address transitional issues for ACBF, the Bank, and  other donors and stakeholders. With due regard to the need to balance all these concerns, the Bank’s  withdrawal from EB participation was formalized at the September 2011 BOG meeting. Actual withdrawal  occurred upon the adoption of those formalities.  94.  The  Bank  took  steps  to  mitigate  COI  concerns  during  the  transition  period,  comprising:  (i)  full  disclosure to stakeholders of the Bank's dual role within the context of its decision to disengage from the  EB; (ii) measures to facilitate prompt effectiveness of the IDA Financing Agreement and RE‐MDTF Grant  Agreement and ensure effective project supervision, with adequate supervision resources; (iii) project  supervision  to  address  explicitly  any  remaining  institutional  issues;  (iv)  ACBF  and  the  Bank  to  ensure  effective communication of the shift in the Bank's role as it disengages from the EB; (v) the World Bank  Group staff member appointed to serve on an interim basis on the EB would not be nominated by or be  mapped to any Bank Vice Presidential Unit (VPU) involved in preparation or supervision of the proposed  Project;  (vi)  clear  terms  of  reference  for  the  appointed  staff  member  would  be  prepared,  requiring  Page 44 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) his/her  recusal  from  EB  discussions  and  decisions  that  involved  the  RIDA  Grant  or  RE‐MDTF  Grant,  including  sub‐project  approvals,  budgets  or  resource  allocations;  (vii)  establishment  of  effective  information and decision firewalls between the EB and Bank staff involved in project oversight; and (vi)  a regular stock‐taking by IDA management, aligned with the supervision process, would be conducted to  ensure that these safeguards would operate as intended.  3. Capacity Risks  95. The forensic and human resource audits conducted in 2009 revealed some lapses in internal control  processes and in general compliance with ACBF’s policies. The implementation under the MAP of the  recommendations  coming  out  of  these  audits  led  to  a  profound  restructuring  of  ACBF  involving  re‐ engineering  of  its  systems,  policies,  processes  and  procedures  and  adjusting  its  staffing  to  develop  a  strong cadre of staff, update ACBF policies and create a culture of compliance with ACBF policies.   96. At the operational level, MAP implementation through July 2010 yielded rapid results: (i) Internal  controls were enhanced and the Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) framework was being used for risk  management;  (ii)  systems,  processes  and  supporting  manuals  were  being  improved  to  increase  institutional effectiveness; (iii) a human resources development and management strategy, in line with  those of similar international organizations, was being implemented to attract and retain the best talent;  (iv)  knowledge  creation  was  becoming  more  effective  through  internal  expertise,  and  channels  for  communicating new knowledge to Operations Departments; (v) an operations evaluation function was  institutionalized and evaluation findings, lessons and recommendations were being implemented; (vi)  business  continuity  was  strengthened;  (vii)  resource  mobilization  and  partnership  building  were  streamlined in ACBF activities; (viii) communication and visibility improved regarding ACBF‘s activities;  and  (ix)  corporate  governance  was  being  enhanced  through  better  delineation  of  responsibilities  and  further  collaboration  between  the  three  governing  bodies  (BOG,  EB,  ES),  improved  EB  oversight  responsibilities and better recruitment processes and requirements for EB members.    V. LESSONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS  97. This ICR highlights several lessons for the ACBF and the World Bank:  Lessons for ACBF:   a) Over‐dependence on a single donor can hurt sustainability. The ACBF became overly dependent on a single donor  (the WB) and, until recently, paid little attention to its own sustainability. This meant that, if that donor withdrew,  26 years of effort could be lost. This pertains to ACBF’s own institutional costs as well as the grants to sub‐projects.  Since the Bank, on average, had provided over 50% of the resources that funded ACBF, the Foundation should have  been more actively managing this risk. With financial sustainability a challenge, it would be desirable for the ACBF  governing bodies to set concrete fund‐raising targets and decide what actions need to be taken, by when, and by  whom in ACBF, to give effect to the 2012 BOG decision to establish an Endowment Fund of US$500 million by 2022  (this Fund has remained static at US$5 million since its inception in 2012);  b) It would be desirable for the ACBF to not jettison its hard‐won core business strengths built up over decades –  especially on macroeconomic management, monitoring and evaluation, and think tank‐based knowledge‐sharing.  At a time when ACBF’s sustainability is uncertain, it appears to have moved into new thematic areas such as tobacco  Page 45 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) control.  At  the  same  time,  numerous  countries  across  Africa  are  confronting  challenges  in  areas  in  which  ACBF  seeded, or built up, enviable expertise – such as in macroeconomic management, economic policy management,  public  investment  management,  and  monitoring  and  evaluation.  It  would  be  desirable  for  ACBF  to  avoid  the  temptation to cast off its hard‐won thematic strengths which, coupled with its close relationships with governments  across Africa, can make it a unique provider of technical and analytical support to a growing number of countries that  appear to need such policy advice and implementation support over the medium term. And the network of think  tanks  that  ACBF  has  seeded  and  nurtured  across  Africa  –  many  financially  sustainable  by  now  –  constitute  an  unparalleled intellectual resource for the continent, one that ACBF could take to the next level by playing a leadership  role in identifying and forging new intellectual partnerships beyond Africa, enabling it to carry Africa’s lessons to a  global audience and usher in fresh ideas and innovations to Africa; and   c) ACBF’s business model must reflect ‐ and adapt swiftly to ‐ its often‐swiftly changing operating environment. After  a period of relevance when it made a contribution to Africa’s capacity development, it appears that ACBF failed to  adapt sufficiently rapidly or nimbly to changes in its operating environment and (re)make/reinvent itself to ensure  its continued relevance to Africa in the 21st century. The Foundation took the Bank’s continued funding for granted  and, when confronted with the issue of sustainability, tended to persist with its business model.  It is argued that the  designation of ACBF as a specialized agency of the African Union Commission demonstrates its ability to successfully  adapt itself to its evolving operating environment. This, however, avoids the fundamental issue of the current paucity  of reliable medium‐term funding for the ACBF. With hardly any reliable funding commitments from new partners  (such as the AUC) or from traditional donors (such as the WB), ACBF has been compelled to pick up business on an  opportunistic basis, which sometimes appears to take it further away from its core business strengths, which are  valued by governments across Africa.  Lessons for the World Bank:   a) Choice  of  instruments  is  important  ‐  for  example,  the  decision  to  begin  using  Regional  IDA  could  have  had  the  unintended effect of driving away bilateral donors who previously supported ACBF, because they did not want to  contribute to IDA and again to an MDTF;   b) The Bank’s decision to impose a “cap” of 15 on the number of countries in which ACBF could operate with RIDA  Grants produced two perverse effects: (i) a “reverse adverse selection problem” or selection bias, i.e. ACBF chose  15 countries where they could get results since they were also under pressure from the Bank and its shareholders to  demonstrate results and impact, even though these 15 countries were not necessarily the countries with greatest  need; and (ii) African countries that had pledged support to SMTP3 but were excluded from the list had no incentive  to convert their pledges into cash contributions;  c) Exit strategies need to be carefully prepared: the decision to discontinue support to ACBF without an explicit exit  strategy hurt the ACBF and its sub‐projects, with the WB exit appearing to place the Bank at potential reputational  risk with governments in Africa, the ACBF and ACBF sub‐grantees;  d) It is desirable to avoid disconnects between the regional and the national. There was a disconnect between what  the  Bank  was  supporting  through  the  ACBF  (e.g.  support  for  think  tanks  and  graduate  training  programs)  at  the  regional level and what was happening at the country level in terms of capacity building; and  e) Introducing Bank‐like processes and controls in bodies where they may not be appropriate may generate adverse  consequences: In its attempt to help ACBF address identified control weaknesses, the Bank persuaded it to introduce  processes  and  procedures  that  mirrored  the  Bank’s  own  and  –  in  some  cases  –  were  inappropriate  for  a  smaller  organization. The result was an increasingly bureaucratic control environment, loss of ACBF agility, a ballooning of  staff costs during 2009‐2014, and onerous procedures being passed on to sub‐grantees. The onerous procedures  were also passed on to the sub‐grantees. The staff cost escalation was later managed by the ES, beginning with the  first wave of separations in October 2012 and a second in January/February 2014.  Page 46 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478)   Reflections from the ACBF Executive Secretary    At the ICR Validation Workshop in Harare May 15‐16, 2018, the ES highlighted some of his reflections:    The Bank has strongly supported the Foundation financially and technically since ACBF was created. It has by  far  been  the  largest  ACBF  funder,  which  is  highly  appreciated  by  the  Foundation  and  its  beneficiaries.  The  relationship between the Bank and ACBF, especially at the technical level, has significantly improved over the  years  as  confirmed  by  the  TTL  and  other  Bank  staff  dealing  with  ACBF.  As  a  result  of  this  improvement,  Implementation Support missions were reduced to only once a year. On its part, the Foundation repositioned  itself and became a specialized agency of the African Union.      ACBF brought capacity development back to the center of Africa’s development discourse and put up credible  efforts to diversify its source of funding, with an unprecedented level of financial contributions from African  member  countries.  Notwithstanding  the  Bank’s  strong  support  to  ACBF  and  the  Foundation’s  record  disbursement rate of RIDA funds, the Bank’s relationship with ACBF over the years has been characterized by  several issues that present lessons for future engagement.    ACBF’s work and achievements could have benefitted from more interest at the Bank. The feeling at the ACBF  is  that  the  Bank’s  leadership,  especially  at  the  Africa  Region  showed  little  interest  in  ACBF’s  work  and  its  achievements.  The  conditions  that  may  have  been  well‐intended  could  prove  to  be  burdensome,  create  unintended consequences and expose the Foundation to risks.  Before the release of RIDA II funds, the Bank put  some conditions that were very difficult to implement.  For instance, the requirement to reduce staff cost to  17% or less within one month, which resulted in immediate significant reduction by almost half of the staff of  ACBF and significant reduction of salaries of remaining staff. Also, the Bank’s approach was nothing short of  micromanagement  illustrated  by  the  discussions  about  the  number  of  managers,  titles  of  managers,  etc.— instead of focusing on letting ACBF achieve the 17% as it saw fit.  The result was decline in staff morale, high  turnover and anonymous letters from disgruntled staff who were laid off.     Engaging and discussing with ACBF before the end of the RIDA project could have provided an opportunity to  learn valuable lessons and better prepare for the future. Even though the Mid‐term review of the RIDA project  commissioned by the Bank recommended a thorough engagement with ACBF on the lessons learned and the  way forward before the end of the RIDA project and despite the request by ACBF along the same lines, the RIDA  project ended in a way that left ACBF in limbo and in an extremely precarious position. The only thing that was  done was to request ACBF to provide the Bank with its plan and strategy for sustaining itself at the end of RIDA.     Anonymous allegations against the Foundation could have been handled and treated in a manner that did  not harm the Foundation and expose it to high levels of risk. The way the Chamba letter and the anonymous  letter of May 2014 were handled and treated proved to be damaging to the Foundation even though at the end,  all the allegations were found to be false. First, ACBF felt that it was already found guilty and should prove itself  innocent. Second, the wrong signal was unwittingly sent to other partners resulting in some of them deciding  to stop supporting ACBF  or to withholding support. Third, in each case, in spite of well‐acknowledged  quick  action by ACBF at least in the case of the 1 May 2014 letter, it took more than two years to end the matter,  thereby subjecting ACBF to significant costs, pain and risks.     Page 47 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) ACBF’s  27‐year  knowledge,  expertise,  experience  and  achievements  in  Africa  could  have  been  better  capitalized  upon  to  support  the  Bank’s  development  programs  in  Africa.  There  is  no  doubt  that  ACBF  has  considerable  experience  in  developing  think  tanks,  supporting  public  administration,  establishing  training  programs in various fields, supporting higher education institutions and parliaments, etc.  This expertise and  remarkable  achievements  could  have  been  better  capitalized  on  to  support  the  Bank’s  operations  in  Africa  instead of setting up parallel and sometimes competitive programs.      ACBF’s  implementation  of  the  reforms  promised  in  the  Letter  of  Commitment  of  November  2013  and  achievement  of  PDO  should  have  been  better  acknowledged  and  rewarded.  At  high  cost,  the  Foundation  assiduously and successfully implemented the letter of commitment of 2013 without much shown by the Bank  in terms of proper acknowledgement  and support. The Foundation  became  more efficient with consistently  staff cost ratio of 17% or less from 2014 to 2017.  Since the end of the RIDA funding the question ACBF is asking  now is: more efficient for what? Also, the Foundation is better governed as illustrated by the establishment of,  increase in the number of meeting of the Executive Board to 4 times a year from 2 or 3 a year, monthly updates  to the Executive Board, quarterly update to the Board of Governors and strengthening of the link between the  Executive Board and the Board of Governors. In line with the requirement of the Bank, the Foundation’s efforts  resulted in increased contribution from African countries which saw historically record contributions from this  constituency.  Without partnership with the Bank, ACBF will not be in a position to meet the expectations and  increasing demands for its services from these countries.     ACBF and indeed Africa would have benefitted more if commitments were fully met. The Bank pledged $100  million to support SMTP3 but disbursed only US$65 million, which created major challenges to ACBF and its  grantees and exposed ACBF and the Bank to significant reputational risks.  The Bank also agreed to support and  even  spearhead  the  drive  for  funding  ACBF’s  capacity  building  in  Africa,  but  unfortunately  this  did  not  materialize.    .    Page 48 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project ( P122478 ) ANNEX 1. RESULTS FRAMEWORK AND KEY OUTPUTS         A. RESULTS INDICATORS    A.1 PDO Indicators            Objective/Outcome: 1. To contribute to enhanced capacity for effective policy formulation and management in ACBF sub‐grant recipients‘ countries  Formally Revised   Actual Achieved at  Indicator Name  Unit of Measure  Baseline  Original Target  Target  Completion  User satisfaction of ACBF  Percentage  55.00  0.00  80.00  91.00  clients’ (a) products and (b)  services    05‐Dec‐2013  05‐Dec‐2013  31‐Dec‐2017  29‐Dec‐2017    Products  Percentage  60.00  0.00  90.00  92.00    05‐Dec‐2013  05‐Dec‐2013  31‐Dec‐2017  29‐Dec‐2017       Services  Percentage  55.00  0.00  80.00  91.00    05‐Dec‐2013  05‐Dec‐2013  31‐Dec‐2017  29‐Dec‐2017      Comments (achievements against targets): 102 percent of target achieved for 1.a and 113.75 percent for 1.b. The two measures cover products and  services offered by ACBF sub‐projects to meet their clients needs. The data are derived from satisfaction surveys conducted during the reporting period by  14 sub‐projects involving 1,400 respondents.         Objective/Outcome: 2. To contribute to improved and sustained management of ACBF‘s operations.  Page 49 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) Formally Revised   Actual Achieved at  Indicator Name  Unit of Measure  Baseline  Original Target  Target  Completion  Percentage of subprojects in  Percentage  62.10  0.00  77.00  90.00  ACBF portfolio rated  satisfactory and above    05‐Dec‐2013  05‐Dec‐2013  31‐Dec‐2017  29‐Dec‐2017    Comments (achievements against targets): 116.89 percent of target achieved. This includes sub‐projects rated Highly Satisfactory (HS), Satisfactory (S)  and Moderately Satisfactory (MS).      Formally Revised   Actual Achieved at  Indicator Name  Unit of Measure  Baseline  Original Target  Target  Completion  Percentage of total  Percentage  63.10  0.00  80.00  80.00  disbursements (including  knowledge products) to cash    05‐Dec‐2013  05‐Dec‐2013  31‐Dec‐2017  29‐Dec‐2017  outflows (Efficiency Ratio)    Comments (achievements against targets): 100 percent of target achieved. This signals that a significant proportion of ACBF resources was spent on  programmatic activities including Knowledge & Learning products.        Objective/Outcome: 2013 Revised 1. Improve capacity of the Recipient's clients to deliver and measure their development results  Formally Revised   Actual Achieved at  Indicator Name  Unit of Measure  Baseline  Original Target  Target  Completion  User satisfaction of ACBF  Percentage  55.00  0.00  80.00  91.00  clients’ (a) products and (b)  services    05‐Dec‐2013  05‐Dec‐2013  31‐Dec‐2017  29‐Dec‐2017    Page 50 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478)   Products  Percentage  60.00  0.00  90.00  92.00    05‐Dec‐2013  05‐Dec‐2013  31‐Dec‐2017  29‐Dec‐2017       Services  Percentage  55.00  0.00  80.00  91.00    05‐Dec‐2013  05‐Dec‐2013  31‐Dec‐2017  29‐Dec‐2017      Comments (achievements against targets): 102 percent of target achieved for 1.a and 113.75 percent for 1.b. The two measures cover products and  services offered by ACBF sub‐projects to meet their clients needs. The data are derived from satisfaction surveys conducted during the reporting period by  14 sub‐projects involving 1,400 respondents.      Formally Revised   Actual Achieved at  Indicator Name  Unit of Measure  Baseline  Original Target  Target  Completion  Percentage of subprojects in  Percentage  62.10  0.00  77.00  90.00  ACBF portfolio rated  satisfactory and above    05‐Dec‐2013  05‐Dec‐2013  31‐Dec‐2017  29‐Dec‐2017    Comments (achievements against targets): 116.89 percent of target achieved. This includes sub‐projects rated Highly Satisfactory (HS), Satisfactory (S)  and Moderately Satisfactory (MS).        Objective/Outcome: 2013 Revised 2. Enhance the Recipient's organizational effectiveness and efficiency  Formally Revised   Actual Achieved at  Indicator Name  Unit of Measure  Baseline  Original Target  Target  Completion  Percentage of total  Percentage  63.10  0.00  80.00  80.00  disbursements (including  knowledge products) to cash    05‐Dec‐2013  05‐Dec‐2013  31‐Dec‐2017  29‐Dec‐2017  Page 51 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478)   outflows (Efficiency Ratio)    Comments (achievements against targets): 100 percent of target achieved. This signals that a significant proportion of ACBF resources was spent on  programmatic activities including Knowledge & Learning products.        A.2 Intermediate Results Indicators        Component: 1. Capacity Building Sub‐Grants  Formally Revised   Actual Achieved at  Indicator Name  Unit of Measure  Baseline  Original Target  Target  Completion  Number of requests for  Number  200.00  0.00  1200.00  6673.00  products and services  received by ACBF’s clients    05‐Dec‐2013  05‐Dec‐2013  31‐Dec‐2017  29‐Dec‐2017    Comments (achievements against targets): 556 percent of target achieved. 664 requests were recorded from 15 sub‐projects.      Formally Revised   Actual Achieved at  Indicator Name  Unit of Measure  Baseline  Original Target  Target  Completion  Percentage of clients’  Percentage  55.00  0.00  80.00  100.00  products that have  undergone peer review    05‐Dec‐2013  05‐Dec‐2013  31‐Dec‐2017  29‐Dec‐2017  process (or any other quality  control mechanism)    Comments (achievements against targets): Target exceeded: 125 percent of target achieved. All products generated by ACBF clients were subjected to a  peer review/quality control process.  Page 52 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478)       Formally Revised   Actual Achieved at  Indicator Name  Unit of Measure  Baseline  Original Target  Target  Completion  Percentage of ACBF clients  Percentage  25.00  0.00  80.00  83.00  with functional M&E systems    05‐Dec‐2013  05‐Dec‐2013  31‐Dec‐2017  29‐Dec‐2017    Comments (achievements against targets): Target exceeded: 103.75 percent of target achieved. Criteria used to measure M&E system functionality  among ACBF clients include: timely submission of quarterly reports, completion of RIDA data instrument, generation of success stories, and designation of  an M&E focal point (person).      Formally Revised   Actual Achieved at  Indicator Name  Unit of Measure  Baseline  Original Target  Target  Completion  Number of  Number  60.00  0.00  360.00  2111.00  engagements/interactions  between ACBF clients and    05‐Dec‐2013  05‐Dec‐2013  31‐Dec‐2017  29‐Dec‐2017  policymakers (cumulative)    Comments (achievements against targets): Target exceeded: 586.39 percent of target achieved. 13 sub‐projects had 349 policy  engagements/interactions.      Formally Revised   Actual Achieved at  Indicator Name  Unit of Measure  Baseline  Original Target  Target  Completion  Number of participants  Number  300.00  0.00  1800.00  30054.00  attending long and short‐ term trainings conducted by    05‐Dec‐2013  05‐Dec‐2013  31‐Dec‐2017  29‐Dec‐2017  Page 53 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478)   ACBF clients (cumulative)    Comments (achievements against targets): Target exceeded: 563.94 percent of target achieved. The 2017 mid‐year measure recorded 1,712 enrolments  in six long‐term training programs and 3,575 in short‐term training from 7 think tanks and 4 regional development organizations. The numbers seem large  because (i) although ACBF only provided a limited number of scholarships to facilitate full‐time participation, many of the facilities that made the courses  operational (eg. libraries, computer labs, classrooms) were funded with the proceeds of ACBF grants and therefore all participants benefited from ACBF  funding whether they received direct financial support or not; and (ii) there was a massive expansion of online training offerings that expanded access to  training and increased the enrolment numbers.        Component: 2. Institutional Development  Formally Revised   Actual Achieved at  Indicator Name  Unit of Measure  Baseline  Original Target  Target  Completion  Number of times ACBF K&L  Number  5000.00  0.00  55000.00  310711.00  products/documents are  downloaded in (a) Africa and    05‐Dec‐2013  05‐Dec‐2013  31‐Dec‐2017  29‐Dec‐2017  (b) Rest of the world    Comments (achievements against targets): Target exceeded: 586.39 percent of target achieved. Targeted campaigns including social media contributed  to an increase in the number of downloads. Data on the number of downloads is collected from the ACBF website, virtual library and partner websites  using Advanced Web Statistics 7.6 application.      Formally Revised   Actual Achieved at  Indicator Name  Unit of Measure  Baseline  Original Target  Target  Completion  Number of requests received  Number  140.00  0.00  300.00  1119.00  by ACBF for K&L products    05‐Dec‐2013  05‐Dec‐2013  31‐Dec‐2017  29‐Dec‐2017    Page 54 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478)   Comments (achievements against targets): Target exceeded: 373 percent of target achieved. Most requests were generated from events attended by  ACBF staff and feedback from email alerts.      Formally Revised   Actual Achieved at  Indicator Name  Unit of Measure  Baseline  Original Target  Target  Completion  Number of times ACBF K&L  Number  2500.00  0.00  12500.00  276942.00  products are cited.    05‐Dec‐2013  05‐Dec‐2013  31‐Dec‐2017  29‐Dec‐2017    Comments (achievements against targets): Target exceeded: 219.75 percent of target achieved. The increase is attributed to direct targeting of individual  faculty members in academic institutions. The figure refers to citations generated from online publications, using the 'Publish or Perish' platform and  Google Scholar.      Formally Revised   Actual Achieved at  Indicator Name  Unit of Measure  Baseline  Original Target  Target  Completion  Percentage of total staff  Percentage  22.30  0.00  17.00  14.60  costs to cash out flows    05‐Dec‐2013  05‐Dec‐2013  31‐Dec‐2017  29‐Dec‐2017    Comments (achievements against targets): Target exceeded: 114.12 percent of target achieved. ACBF states that continuous efforts are being made to  contain and reduce institutional costs while maintaining high service quality.      Formally Revised   Actual Achieved at  Indicator Name  Unit of Measure  Baseline  Original Target  Target  Completion  Actual contributions from  Amount(USD)  24350000.00  0.00  35000000.00  22930000.00  African governments to  SMTP III    05‐Dec‐2013  05‐Dec‐2013  31‐Dec‐2017  29‐Dec‐2017  Page 55 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478)     Comments (achievements against targets): Target not achieved: There was a shortfall of USD 12,070,000 or 34.48 percent. This partially reflects the fall‐ off of African contributions after ACBF's operations were limited to 15 countries (the so‐called reduced footprint), which provided a disincentive for  countries that had originally pledged but were not included on the list of 15. In addition, as with all African regional institutions, ACBF experienced  difficulties in collecting on pledges.      Formally Revised   Actual Achieved at  Indicator Name  Unit of Measure  Baseline  Original Target  Target  Completion  Percentage of activities  Percentage  70.00  0.00  95.00  96.00  implemented from Annual  Business Plans    05‐Dec‐2013  05‐Dec‐2013  31‐Dec‐2017  29‐Dec‐2017    Comments (achievements against targets): Target exceeded: 101.05 percent of target achieved. This is the average execution rate of ACBF departmental  work plans at project closing. The breakdown by department is: OPD (91 percent); K&L (95 percent); FAD (98 percent); RSPD (94 percent); LAD (95  percent); and IAD (100 percent). ACBF could not implement some planned activities (eg. in K&L) due to insufficient funds.      Formally Revised   Actual Achieved at  Indicator Name  Unit of Measure  Baseline  Original Target  Target  Completion  Number of portfolio reviews  Number  2.00  0.00  2.00  4.00  conducted    05‐Dec‐2013  05‐Dec‐2013  31‐Dec‐2017  29‐Dec‐2017    Comments (achievements against targets): Target exceeded: 200 percent of target achieved. By the time of project closing on December 31, 2017 ACBF  was doing quarterly portfolio reviews.       Component: 2013 Revised New Component A. Capacity Building Sub‐grants, Capacity Indicators Report and Peer Learning Activities    Page 56 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478)    Component: 2013 Revised New Component B. Institutional Development            Page 57 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) Detailed Results Information    PART A  (RIDA1: 2011‐2013)    PROJECT DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE (PDO):  3. Enhanced capacity for effective policy formulation and management in ACBF sub‐grant recipients’ countries  4. Improved and sustained management of ACBF operations  Values (2012 – 2013)  Baseline  PDO Level Results Indicators  Target  Achievement  Remarks  2010  Performance  2013  Dec. 2013  Achievement was 260 percent of target.   1. Number of recommendations,  Represents the number of policy recommendations  submitted by ACBF grantees, and used by  0  15  39  Achieved  submitted to and used by governments from Policy  government in policy formulation  Institutes financed by RIDA1.  Achievement was 147.6 percent of target.   The 2013 achievement exceeded the 2013 target by  2. Ratio of total budget to total active  8%  12.4%  6.5%  Achieved  5.9  percentage  points.  The  total  active  ACBF  Portfolio value  portfolio value comprises RIDA1, RE‐MDTF and non‐ RIDA projects.    INTERMEDIATE RESULTS INDICATORS    Component 1: Strengthened key institutions and human resources involved in policy formulation  Achievement was 396.7 percent of target.   3. Economic policy research completed in  Relates  to  Policy  Institutes  financed  by  RIDA1/RE‐ 0  30  119  Achieved  policy institutes supported by ACBF  MDTF.  (Note:  PNRC‐CAF  was  not  yet  declared  effective)  4. MDAs supported by the targeted        Achievement was 181.5 percent of target for TA and  economic policy units (number)        Achieved  211.6 percent of target for training.   ‐ Technical assistance (TA)  0  65  118  MDAs  were  supported  through  TA  (e.g.  process  Page 58 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) ‐ Training  0  155  328  facilitation,  change  management  and  advisory  services)  and  short‐term  training.    Sub‐projects  included  RESPEC,  PROFAP,  PRCS  CAR,  HESPI  and  KIPPRA.  5. Students receiving a Master’s degree  Achievement was 181.1 percent of target.   certificate in Economic Policy, Public  0  180  326  Achieved  Based  on  Master’s  degree  programs  e.g.  PSMTP‐ Administration and/or Statistics  GIMPA, CMAAE, PRCS‐CAR, EPM Makerere.  Achievement was 187.1 percent of target.   6. Students receiving training certificates  Based  on  short‐term  training  offered  by  CMAAE,  in Economic Policy, Public Administration  0  450  842  Achieved  CODESRIA,  PROFAP  and  PRCS‐CAR  to  middle‐level  and/or Statistics  public sector managers and other stakeholders.   Component 2: Improved ACBF management process and structures  7. Ratio of Total Administrative Costs  Achievement was 114.5 percent of target.   16%  17.2%  14.7%  Achieved  (excluding staff) to Total Budget  Includes RIDA1, RE‐MDTF and non‐RIDA projects.  Achievement was 73.7 percent of target.   Includes RIDA1, RE‐MDTF and non‐RIDA projects.  ACBF exceeded the target for Total Staff Costs by  15.2 percentage points.  This ratio comprised RIDA  8. Ratio of Total Staff Costs to Total  and non‐RIDA expenses, and reflected the semi‐ 60%  57.7%  70.2%  Not Achieved  Budget  fixed nature of Staff Costs. ACBF states that in the  immediate term, it could not reduce its total staff  cost ratio to the targeted level (as it was able to do  with variable costs) owing to the semi‐fixed nature  of these costs.   Achievement was 89.5 percent of target.   9. Percentage of Sub‐projects in ACBF  63 sub‐projects in the ACBF portfolio were reviewed    80%  71.6%  Not Achieved  portfolio rated Satisfactory  and  rated  in  the  portfolio  review  covering  Jan‐Dec  2013.   Achievement was 117.1 percent of target.   10. Ratio of amount disbursed to amount  90%  98%  114.8%  Achieved  Includes  RIDA1,  RE‐MDTF  and  non‐RIDA  sub‐ committed in the portfolio  projects.   Page 59 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) Achievement was 128 percent of target.   11. Grant recipients submitting quarterly/  70 sub‐projects out of a portfolio of 73 active sub‐ M&E reports in line with the Project  0  75%  96.0%  Achieved  projects  submitted  quarterly  reports  by  December  Results Framework and Monitoring  2013.   Achievement was 61.4 percent of target.  Includes  RIDA1,  RE‐MDTF  and  non‐RIDA  sub‐ 12. Yearly approved sub‐projects/grants  0  44  27  Not Achieved  projects.  Approval  of  new  Grants  was  suspended  due to liquidity constraints.  Page 60 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) PART B  (RIDA2: 2014‐2017)    Values (2014–2017)  INDICATOR  TARGET  ACHIEVEMENT  COMMENTS  PERFORMANCE  (2017)  (Dec 31, 2017)  Project Development Objective (PDO):   (i) Improve the capacity of ACBF’s clients to deliver and measure their development results   (ii) Enhance ACBF’s organizational effectiveness and efficiency  1.a  User  satisfaction  of  ACBF  clients’  Achievement was 102 percent of target for 1.a and 113.75 of  90%  92%   Achieved  products  target for 1.b.  The  two  measures  cover  products  and  services  offered  by  ACBF  sub‐projects  to  meet  their  clients’  and  beneficiaries’  1.b.  User  satisfaction  of  ACBF  clients’  needs.  The  data  is  derived  from  satisfaction  surveys  80%   91%   Achieved  services  conducted  during  the  reporting  period  by  14  sub‐projects  involving 1,400 respondents.  Achievement was 116.89 percent of target.  2.  Percentage  of  sub‐projects  in  ACBF  77%   90%   Achieved  Includes  sub‐projects  rated  Highly  Satisfactory  (HS),  portfolio rated satisfactory and above  Satisfactory (S) and Moderately Satisfactory (MS).   Achievement was 100 percent of target.  3.  Percentage  of  total  disbursements  This indicates that a significant proportion of ACBF resources  (including  K&L  products)  to  cash  80%   80%  Achieved  were  spent  on  programmatic  activities  including  K&L  outflows  products.  INTERMEDIATE RESULTS  Component‐1: Grants to ACBF Supported Programs and Projects  4. Number of requests for products and  Achievement was 556 percent of target.  1,200  6,673  Achieved  services received by ACBF’s clients  664 requests were recorded from 15 sub‐projects.  5.  Percentage  of  clients’  products  that  Achievement was 125 percent of target.  have undergone peer review process (or  80%   100%   Achieved  All products generated by ACBF clients were subjected to a  any other quality control mechanism)  peer review/quality control process.  6. Percentage of ACBF clients with  80%   83%  Achieved  Achievement was 103.75 percent of target.  Page 61 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) functional M&E systems  Criteria to measure M&E system functionality of ACBF clients  include: timely submission of quarterly reports, completion of  the RIDA data instrument, generation of success stories and  the existence of an M&E focal person.  7.  Number  of  engagements/  360  2,111  Achieved  Achievement was 586.39 percent of target.  interactions  between  ACBF  clients  and  13 sub‐projects had 349 policy engagements/interactions  policymakers  Achievement was 563.94 percent of target.  8.  Number  of  participants  attending  The 2017 mid‐year measure recorded 1,712 enrolments in six  long‐  and  short‐term  trainings  1,800  30,045  Achieved  long‐term training programs and 3,575 in short‐term training  conducted by ACBF clients  from 7 Think Tanks and 4 regional development organizations  Achievement was 586.39 percent of target.  Targeted campaigns including social media contributed to an  9.‐ Number of times ACBF K&L products  increase in the number of downloads. Data on the number of  or documents are downloaded in Africa  55,000  310,171  Achieved  downloads is collected from the ACBF website, virtual library  and the rest of the world  and  partner  websites  using  Advanced  Web  Statistics  7.6  application.  Achievement was 373 percent of target.  10. Number of requests received by  300  1,119  Achieved  Most requests were generated from events attended by ACBF  ACBF for K&L products  staff and feedback from e‐mail alerts.  Achievement was 219.75 percent of target.   The  increase  is  attributed  to  direct  targeting  of  individual  11. Number of times ACBF K&L  12,500  27,469  Achieved  faculty members in academic institutions. The figure refers to  products are cited  citations  generated  from  online  publications,  using  the  ‘Publish Or Perish’ platform and Google Scholar.  Component 2: Institutional Support to ACBF  Achievement was 114.12 percent of target.   12. Percentage of total staff costs to  ACBF states that continued efforts are being made to contain  17%  14.6%  Achieved  cash outflows  and reduce institutional costs while maintaining high service  quality  13. Actual contributions from African  US$  US$22.93  Achievement was 108.62 percent of target.   Achieved  governments to SMTP1‐SMTP3  21.11  million  This signals a positive trend in converting pledges by African  Page 62 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) million  member countries into actual contributions.  Achievement was 101.05 percent of target.   This is the average execution rate of ACBF Departments’ work  14. Percentage of activities  plans at project closing. The breakdown by ACBF Department  implemented from 2014 Annual  95%  96%   Achieved  is: OPD (91%), K&L (95%), FAD (98%), RSPD (94%), LAD (95%)  Business Plans  and IAD (100%). The ACBF states that some planned activities  (e.g.  related  to  K&L)  could  not  be  implemented  due  to  insufficient funds.  Achievement was 200 percent of target.   Four reviews were conducted by the closing date, comprising  15. Number of portfolio reviews  the 2016 Annual Portfolio Review and the first, second and  2  4  Achieved  conducted  third  Quarter  2017  Portfolio  Reviews.  Following  project  closing  on  Dec  31,  2017,  the  first  Quarter  2018  Portfolio  Review was under finalization as of March 31, 2018.         Page 63 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) B. KEY OUTPUTS BY COMPONENT  (Note: The ‘Key Outputs’ rows in the table below may please be read in conjunction with Annex 9)    Objective 1: Enhanced capacity for effective policy formulation and management in ACBF sub‐grant recipients’ countries  1. Number of recommendations submitted by ACBF grantees and used by  Outcome Indicator:  government in policy formulation  1. Economic policy research completed in policy institutes supported by ACBF  2. MDAs supported by the targeted economic policy units (number)  ‐ Technical assistance  ‐ Training  Intermediate Results Indicators  3. Students receiving a Master’s degree certificate in Economic Policy and Public  Administration and/or Statistics  4. Students receiving training certificates in Economic Policy, Public  Administration and/or Statistics  1. Economic policy recommendations and options proposed to governments by  ACBF‐supported think tanks   2. Policy advisory support provided by ACBF‐supported think tanks   Key Outputs by Component  3. MDA officials’ skills improved on economic policy management, public sector  (linked to the achievement of Objective 1)  management and financial management    4. Training curricula developed by ACBF Grantees and sub‐projects through ACBF‐ Component 1: Strengthened key institutions and human resources  supported training programs   involved in policy formulation  5. Institutional support provided to sub‐grantees by ACBF in the form of technical  assistance, training and development of manuals/processes/procedures for  operations, fiduciary management and risk management  6. Support by ACBF to policy and training institute networks  Objective 2: Improved and sustained management of ACBF operations   Outcome Indicator:  1. Ratio of total budget to total active Portfolio value  Intermediate Results Indicators  1. Ratio of total administrative costs (excluding staff) to Total Budget  Page 64 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478)   2. Ratio of Total Staff Costs to Total Budget    3. Percentage of Sub‐projects in ACBF portfolio rated satisfactory    4. Ratio of amount disbursed to amount committed in the portfolio    5. Grant recipients submitting quarterly/ M&E reports in line with the Project    Results Framework and Monitoring    6. Yearly approved sub‐projects/grants  1. Operational, financial and administrative procedures and systems developed  and deployed  Key Outputs by Component  2. Financial, administrative and operational manuals prepared and adopted  (linked to the achievement of Objective 2)  3. Staff performance appraisal system developed and adopted    4. Quality assurance project implementation support missions undertaken   Component 2: Improved ACBF management process and  5. African Capacity Reports prepared and disseminated   structures  6. Africa‐wide, regional and country‐specific peer‐to‐peer knowledge‐sharing  events delivered  7. Staff development program developed and adopted  Page 65 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) 2013 Revised Objective 1. Improve the capacity of ACBF’s clients to deliver and measure their development results 1.a User satisfaction with ACBF clients’ products   Outcome Indicators  1.b User satisfaction with ACBF clients’ services  1. Number of requests for products and services received by ACBF’s clients  2. Percentage of clients’ products that have undergone peer review process (or  any other quality control mechanism)  3. Percentage of ACBF clients with functional M&E systems  4. Number of engagements/ interactions between ACBF clients and policymakers  Intermediate Results Indicators  5. Number of participants attending long and short‐term trainings conducted by  ACBF clients  6.  Number of times ACBF K&L products/documents are downloaded in  Africa and the rest of the world  7.  Number of requests received by ACBF for K&L products  8. Number of times ACBF K&L products are cited  Component 1  1. In‐depth analysis and response provided to development issues  2. Policy options responding to development challenges proposed  3. Improved accessibility to policy products and services  Key Outputs by Component  4. Increased awareness for policy engagement   (linked to the achievement of 2013 Revised Objective 1)  5. Enhanced knowledge in policy analysis on national development issues      6. Policy guidance and technical assistance provided to decision makers  Component 1. Grants to ACBF Supported Programs and Projects  7. Enhanced peer learning in policy practice and knowledge sharing  8. Accessibility to degree programs in development management increased  9. Expertise and competencies in policy analysis and public sector management  improved  10. Improved quality of training material and resources  2013 Revised Objective 2. Enhance ACBF’s organizational effectiveness and efficiency  Outcome   1. Percentage of sub‐projects in ACBF portfolio rated satisfactory and above  Page 66 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) 2. Percentage of total disbursements (including K&L products) to cash outflows  1. Percentage of total staff costs to cash out flows  2. Actual contributions from African governments to SMTP1‐SMTP3  Intermediate Results Indicators  3. Percentage of activities implemented from 2014 Annual Business Plans  4. Number of portfolio reviews conducted  Component 2  1. ACBF’s management procedures and processes enforced  2. Financial, administrative and operational manuals revised, adopted and applied  Key Outputs by Component  3. Staff performance appraisal system rolled out  (linked to the achievement of 2013 Revised Objective 2)  4. Quality assurance project implementation support missions undertaken    5. African Capacity Reports produced and disseminated  Component 2: Institutional Support to ACBF  6. Africa‐wide, regional and country‐specific peer‐to‐peer knowledge‐sharing  events delivered  7. Staff development program adopted and rolled out  Page 67 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478)   ANNEX 2. BANK LENDING AND IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT/SUPERVISION    A. TASK TEAM MEMBERS  Name  Role  Preparation13  Yusupha Crookes (AFCRI)  Director  Jan Walliser (AFTPM)  Acting Sector Director  Anand Rajaram (AFTPR)  Sector Manager  Mamadou Deme (AFTPR)  Senior Public Sector Specialist/Task Team Leader  Macmillan Anyanwu (AFTPR)  Operations Officer  Said Al Habsy (AFTDE)  Operations Adviser  Diego Garrido Martin ((AFTDE)  Extended Term Consultant  Isabel Mignone Del‐Carril (AFTDE)  Operations Officer – Trust Funds  Francis Kanyerere Mkandawire (AFTFM)  Financial Management Specialist  Daniel Yaw Domelevo (AFTFM)  Senior Financial Management Specialist  Patrick Kabuya (AFTFM)  Financial Management Specialist  V.S. Krishnakumar (AFTPC)  Manager – Procurement  S.M. Quamrul Hasan (AFTPC)  Senior Procurement Specialist  Simon Chenjerani Chirwa (AFTPC)  Procurement Specialist  Tijan Sallah (AFTCP)  Manager  Nicolette DeWitt (LEGAF)  Lead Counsel  Agata Pawlowska (CFPIR)  Senior Operations Officer  Ivonna Kratynski (CTRLP)  Lead Finance Officer  Magdalena Manzo (CFPTP)  Senior Operations Officer  Frode Davanger (AFCRI)  Operations Officer  Reynaldo P. Castro (AFTPR)  Consultant  Douglas I. Graham (OPCFM)  Consultant  Madeleine Chungkong (AFTPR)  Program Assistant  13 Per Project Appraisal Document, Annex 6, p. 63  Page 68 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) Supervision/ICR    Deryck R. Brown  Senior Public Sector Specialist & Task Team Leader  Andrew Asibey  Procurement Specialist  Chitambala John Sikazwe  Procurement Specialist  Baison Banda  Procurement Specialist  Wedex Ilunga  Senior Procurement Specialist  Howard Bariira Centenary  Senior Procurement Specialist  Tandile Gugu Zizile Msiwa  Senior Financial Management Specialist  Zoe Kolovou  Counsel  Alexandra C. Bezeredi  Social Safeguards Specialist  Amitabha Mukherjee  ICR Contributing Author  Blessing Manyanda  Procurement Assistant ‐ Team Member  Kisa Mfalila  Environmental Safeguards Specialist  Jean Okolla Owino  Team Member  MacDonald Nyazvigo  Team Member  Aleksandar Kocevski  Operations Officer ‐ Team Member  Zohreh Bahrehbar  Voice Secondee ‐ Team Member  Kateryna Elishyieva  Voice Secondee ‐ Team Member  Michael Christopher Jelenic  Public Sector Specialist ‐ Team Member         B. STAFF TIME AND COST  Staff Time and Cost  Stage of Project Cycle  No. of staff weeks  US$ (including travel and consultant costs)  Preparation  FY11  27.030  169,321.01  Total  27.03  169,321.01    Supervision/ICR  FY11  0  12,166.11  Page 69 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) FY12  31.172  242,741.33  FY13  33.210  285,469.67  FY14  21.400  164,946.00  FY15  23.283  189,271.09  FY16  21.976  254,048.87  FY17  24.498  202,540.20  FY18  23.740  355,840.15  FY19  1.100  7,489.08  Total  180.38  1,714,512.50               Page 70 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) ANNEX 3. PROJECT COST BY COMPONENT    Project costs by component are summarized in the table below. The paragraphs following the table provide context  for the difference between the amounts at approval and actuals at closing.     IDA‐H6470‐001 (RIDA1):        Amount at Approval   Actual at Project  Percent of  Original Components (2011)  (US$M)  Closing (US$M)  Approval  1: Capacity Building Sub‐Grants  15.00  15.00  100.00  2: Institutional Development  10.00  10.00  100.00  Total     25.00    25.00     100.00          IDA‐H8760‐001 (RIDA2):        Amount at Approval   Actual at Project  Percent of  Revised Components (2013)  (US$M)  Closing (US$M)  Approval  A: Capacity Building Sub‐grants,  Capacity Indicators Report and  44.00  39.50  89.77  Peer Learning Activities  B: Institutional Development  21.00  25.50  121.43  Total     65.00    65.00     100.00    TF‐99645‐001 (RE‐MDTF):        Amount at Approval   Actual at Project  Percent of  Revised Components (2013)  (US$M)  Closing (US$M)  Approval  A: Capacity Building Sub‐grants,  Capacity Indicators Report and  15.00  13.10  87.33  Peer Learning Activities  B: Institutional Development  14.00  14.00  100.00  Total     29.00    27.10     93.45    By way of context, as of December 2016, progress towards the achievement of the PDO was satisfactory. All three  PDO  indicators  were  either  exceeded  or  were  on  track  to  reach  their  2016  end‐of‐year  targets.  Likewise,  both  project components were performing satisfactorily, with 9 out of 12 intermediate indicators exceeding their 2016  annual targets, while another three were on track to do so by the end of calendar 2016.   Page 71 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478)   ANNEX 4. EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS  Efficiency Gains From The Project  Benefit described in PAD/Project Paper  Progress under the Project  Remarks      RIDA 1  Ratio of total budget to total active  Baseline 8%, target 12.4%, actual 6.5%  Gain materialized  Portfolio value  Ratio of total Admin. (Excl. Staff) to Total  Baseline 16%, target 17.2%, actual  Gain materialized  Budget  14.7%  Baseline 60%, target 57.7%, actual  Gain has not materialized  Ratio of Total Staff Costs to Total Budget  70.2%  Percentage of Sub‐projects in ACBF  Target 80%, actual 71.6%  Gain has not materialized  portfolio rated satisfactory  Ratio of amount disbursed to amount  Baseline 90%, target 98%, actual  Gain materialized   committed in the portfolio  114.8%  Grant recipients submitting quarterly/  Baseline 0%, target 75%, actual 96%  Gain materialized.   M&E reports in line with the Project  Results Framework and Monitoring  Baseline 0, target 44, actual 27  Gain has not materialized   Yearly approved sub‐projects/grants      RIDA2  Percentage of total disbursements  Target 80%, actual 80%  Gain materialized  (including K&L products) to cash  outflows  Percentage of total staff costs to cash  Target 17%, actual 14.6%  Gain materialized  out flows  Actual contributions from African  Target US$35 m; actual US$23.40 m  Gain not fully materialized  governments to SMTP  Percentage of activities implemented  Target 95%, actual 96%  Gain materialized  from Annual Business Plan  Target 2, actual 4  Gain materialized  Number of portfolio reviews conducted            Page 72 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) ANNEX 5. BORROWER, CO‐FINANCIER AND OTHER PARTNER/STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS    Two groups of ACBF stakeholders were requested to respond to a brief survey: (a) current BOG and EB members  and past EB members and (b) ACBF sub‐projects. Their responses are summarized below.    ACBF Sub‐projects  Summary of Survey Responses    Page 73 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) Page 74 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) Page 75 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) Page 76 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478)   Question: Do you see any need for future support from the ACBF?  Comments:   1. Financial Support; to strengthen capacity of member countries in macroeconomic and financial  management,  in  particular,  countries  need  technical  assistance  to  conduct  debt  sustainability  analysis, establish and manage sovereign wealth funds, tax and revenue administration of natural  resources,  development  of  gender  responsive  policies,  as  well  as  understanding  cross  border  payment  systems  and  loan  negotiation  amongst  others.  2.  Technical  Support;  to  strengthen  institutional system in procurement, risk management, results based budgeting and M&E.   1.  Funding  research  studies  2.  Funding  capacity  building  of  staff  3.  Funding  research  findings  dissemination workshops    Provision of adequate information on strategic and sustainable project funding, Reduce micro‐ management   Page 77 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478)  ACBF Supported [project] to implement [project]. This was a pilot project and we would like to  scale it up to benefit more youth and women in [country]    We wish ACBF financial support for our [Project], of which the ACBF Foundation was the main  donor. We did the preselection of the third promotion for three years now, because of the lack of  funding, we cannot start the program.   Support to targeted interventions such as conducting core research…to insulate think tanks from  interference  in  rendering  independent  policy  advice.  Such  support  also  helps  as  a  signal  in  unlocking other resources such as from Government and other partners.    In  view  of  the  satisfactory  cooperation  that  [project]  has  had  with  ACBF  over  the  past  two  decades,  in  terms  of  capacity  building,  we  suggest  the  sustaining  of  the  ACBF's  technical  and  financial support, as observed since the start of the [Program] activities    Technical assistance    The financial and training/capacity building support on the incubation of the various innovations,  marketing, linkages with the industry and society, and infrastructures such as expansion of the  students’  labs  and  classes  and  the  student  hostels.  Other  support  is  the  support  on  the  scholarships especially for the female students and students form the region (outside [country])    More assistance on claims and direct payments. The deadlines for transfers of direct payments  are too long and this has a negative impact on the progress of project activities.    ACBF's  core  or  program  support  contributed  immensely  to  [think  tank’s]  institutional  development  and  the  strengthening  of  its  human  resources  and  technical  capacities.  These  capacities  have  been  crucial  to  sustaining…operations  even  as  ACBF  steadily  reduced  its  support…after  2013.  Future  ACBF  support  that  sustains…institutional  and  technical  capacities,  would enable…to mobilize complementary project resources for operate regionally, especially in  African fragile states, as well.    As  my  project  is  a  Master  program,  I  will  suggest  supporting  us  by  given  scholarship  for  the  students and support for the administration of the program (materiel, car, salaries).    Yes,  there  is  need  for  continued  support  in  capacity  building  especially  the  research  forums  initiated  through  the  ACBF  financial  support  and  the  [project]  Masters  in  Regional  Integration  developed through ACBF support.    We need support that will help to design and implement our own research agenda. The support  will  be  in  terms  of:  (1)  grant  for  research  activities,  dissemination  and  communication,  (2)  collaborative research program, funds for implementation of specific research program.    It  is  much  desirable  that  ACBF  supports  the  innovative  bridge  program  for  inclusive  capacity  building in Africa‐ a program that has exceeded expectations in delivery of outputs and outcomes  ‐ and addresses the severe capacity development gap in the fragile and post conflict states.    Core support to be able to retain key staff and also funding for regional activities    To be more reactive with timely response and action.    ACBF  should  provide  funding  so  that  more  highly  qualified  Africans  should  be  sponsored  for  Masters, PhD and for internships    [Think  tank]  is  currently  seeking  to  enhance  inclusive  capacity  building  for  individuals  from  underrepresented countries and groups (including women, fragile and post‐conflict states). The  recent support from ACBF was for bridge program for underrepresented countries and groups. A  total of 20 PhD and 20 Masters Bridge Program students supported by ACBF would be seeking to  undertake the Collaborative Masters and PhD Programs offered by [think tank], but the current  Page 78 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) challenge is availability of scholarships. Therefore, we seek from ACBF targeted scholarships for  fragile and post‐conflict states so as to build a pool of economists in these states    ACBF should support the Project in terms of funds to continue with the program. It can also assist  by talking to the various governments where the beneficiaries are coming from.    To consolidate on the gains made by the Project by supporting the medium‐term strategic agenda  of the [entity] which covers institutional & legal reform; macroeconomic policy convergence and  trade  integration;  capital  market  integration  and  payment  and  settlement  systems  inter‐ connectivity, necessary for the Institute's new strategic direction and the expanded mandate of  the [entity].    1.  Applicants  from  fragile  countries  like  Liberia  and  Sierra  Leone  cannot  afford  the  fee‐paying  option,  hence  the  continued  support  from  ACBF;  2.  Countries  like  The  Gambia  that  are  least  represented  should receive sponsorship to build capacities. Supports should  be in  the form of  tickets, stipend, accommodation, books and school fees.       Page 79 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) ACBF: Board of Governors and Current and Former Executive Board Members  Summary of Survey Responses  Page 80 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) Page 81 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478)         Page 82 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) ACBF Stakeholders  Comments  Question:  How  would  you  assess  ACBF  performance  on  project  design,  preparation,  implementation,  Monitoring and Evaluation and cost‐efficiency during 2011‐2017 (i.e. during implementation of RIDA1,  RIDA2 and RE‐MDTF)?  Comments:   The number of sub‐projects in Cameroon downgraded from 06 to 01. The amount also decreased  and the delay of implementation postponed due to the difficulties at the HQ   We  discussed  the  proposals  extensively  before  agreeing  on  financing.  We  received  less  information during project implementation and afterwards. Later, the 'traffic light' system was  introduced that gave us information on the status of the sub‐projects   ACBF  has  more  than  20‐year  experience  and  Track  Record  in  the  capacity  building  field.  This  helped  the  foundation  to  design  and  supervise  effectively  a  variety  of  capacity  building  sub‐ projects. The best performance is in the capacity building of capacity building institutors where  the people developed and their graduating institutions were a solid contribution to the impact on  macroeconomic policy of some countries.    Question:  How  would  you  assess  the  World  Bank's  support  to  the  ACBF  during  2011‐2017  on  implementation, M&E and supervision?  Comments:      The  supervision  of  the  grant  was  at  arms  length  and  could  have  benefitted  from  more  in  situ  participation of the World Bank for a better understanding of the challenges and successes of the  projects.   The World Bank’s support was satisfactory and achieved the intended objectives. The M&E and  supervision were adequately done and this is the reason the support achieved its purpose.    Process of releasing funds by World Bank is rather slow.    The World Bank could provide more sustained and active support, and be clearer at an earlier  stage if likely future levels of support. The Bank provided funding then stood back, and gave the  impression that future support depended not on demand from Africa, or ACBF’s performance,  but on internal dynamics.    The World Bank has been the back bone of ACBF's success since its creation. The Bank should  increase its support both financial and technical implementation to enable the Foundation play  its rightful role towards the developmental effort of the continent. With the African Union (AU)  accepting ACBF as its specialized agency for capacity building, it is critical that the Bank uses that  political space to advance Africa's development agenda.    The World Bank has been very engaged in providing support to ACBF on implementation as well  as in M&E supervision notwithstanding that the Bank has decided to discontinue its support to  the Foundation.   The support was hardly acquired. But it was necessary to relaunch the Foundation   WB needs to get regular value for money audit and evaluation reports vetted by EB from ACBF  before  considering  up‐scale.  WB  also  needs  to  check  the  sufficiency  of  internal  control  procedures, where much action is needed. Presently the management reports and discussions in  Page 83 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) EB are mostly geared to resources mobilization rather than on what ACBF has done to ensure  economic, effective, and efficient utilization of those resources, and how ACBF has sub served its  core  functional  responsibilities  in  the  continent.  Resources  are  insufficient,  but  equally  ACBF  should provide credible assurance of value for money utilization of its existing resources and how  it is serving its core functional objectives.   My dissatisfaction is mainly due to WB not honoring its commitments and not coming out clearly  as to the reasons    Good thing was the availability of finance. Very dominant in EB meetings: two caps, i.e. financier  and micro‐management. Odd situation during the integrity investigation.    ACBF had just created a solid M&E department and the new approach depended on data in the  design  of  sub‐projects.  Baselines  were  created  and  assessed  and  new  data  collected  during  supervision.  Performance  could  thus  be  tracked  by  objective  and  progress  towards  final  outcomes. This came from joint work with the World Bank     Question: How satisfied are you with the current provisions about composition, structure, responsibilities  and mandate of the ACBF Board of Governors?  Comments:    In terms of responsibilities, the Board of Governors need to do more on resource mobilization  and providing political support at the country level of the uptake of ACBF initiatives.    Organizations need to evolve with the challenges of the times. ACBF needs to do the same. What  worked in the period we were serving may no longer be relevant for the challenges ahead. For  example. Bringing in private sector members to the board. Ensuring day to day versus longer term  strategic guidance. Also risk management in light of the governance evolutions and the role of  boards. I am not sure how ACBF has adapted to these since the last review     Question:  How  satisfied  are  you  with  the  mandate,  functions,  focus,  organizational  structure  and  performance of the ACBF Secretariat?  Comment:    I was impressed by the dedication, professionalism and commitment of staff during my tenure.    Question: As a member of ACBF's Executive Board, how would you assess the overall performance of the  ACBF sub‐projects financed by RIDA1, RIDA2 and the RE‐MDTF?  Comment:   Overall, I am satisfied except for one or two projects that did not perform well due to governance  issues.    Not all the funds were released by the World Bank.    The reviews have all been satisfactory.   Based  on  my  experience  from  the  time  I  joined  the  ARC  of  ACBF,  I  consider  that  their  overall  performance is very good and I base this in comparison with other international organizations  that I have worked with.   EB members have only some theoretical knowledge about these sub‐projects as presented by the  Secretariat.  Page 84 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478)   Question: How would you assess the overall performance of ACBF sub‐projects financed by RIDA1, RIDA2  and the RE‐MDTF?  Comments:    Whereas  the  downsizing  made  a  lot  of  sense,  it  stretched  to  a  breaking  point  thus  difficult  to  gauge optimal structure.    We  discussed  the  proposals  extensively  before  agreeing  on  financing.  We  received  less  information during project implementation and afterwards. Later, the 'traffic light' system was  introduced that gave us information on the status of the sub‐projects.    Question: What ‐ in your view ‐ were the top 3 successes/achievements of the ACBF during 2011‐2017?  Comments:   More visibility at international level, Inclusion as AU partner, More knowledge products released   RIDA disbursement of more than 80%. Support to AUC   The  ACBF  during  the  period  under  consideration  achieved  ‐  1.  full  project  development  and  implementation; 2. ensured successful oversight of all the projects while, and 3. restructuring the  secretariat to ensure cost effectiveness in the management of all the projects.   1. The capacity of Think Tanks, 2. The annual ACR and the Capacity of the Secretariat    1. Support to think tanks, 2. Capacity support for policy development at Ministries of Finance, 3.  Excellent implementation of World Bank project.   Restructuring the Foundation to ensure higher levels of efficiency, stronger internal controls and  impactful projects across Africa.    Public Service Governance Capacity Building, Technical Assistance to CSOs, Board Diversity.    Moving  from  a  grant  making  body  towards  one  making  a  contribution  in  providing  advice,  analysis, and direct support to Africa; more strategic; leaner and providing more value for money.    Being AU (African Union) agency.    Technical support to the AU for development and planning for implementation of Agenda 2063,  key  knowledge  products  in  support  of  continental  development  frameworks,  Human  and  Institutional capacity development of key institutions on the continent.   Continued support to capacity building of African countries; having been selected as one of the  specialized  agencies  of  the  African  Union;  succeeded  in  obtaining  the  support  of  the  Bill  and  Melinda Gates Foundation.    Question:  What ‐ in your view ‐ were the top 3 successes/achievements of the ACBF during the period  you were on the Executive Board?  Comments:   Achievement of the core mandate, ability to respond to funding constraint, successful downsizing    1. Support to Policy Analysis and Research Institutes. 2. Support to RECs 3. Introduction of African  Capacity Reports    1.  Critical  scrutiny  of  sub‐projects  before  approval.  2.  clear  focus  on  goals  to  be  attained.  3.  Successful completion of various sub‐projects.   Page 85 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478)  1. Securing increased African financial contribution and ownership; 2) introducing independent  risk  and  audit  committee;  3)  developing  an  index  and  publishing  assessed  results  on  status  of  capacity in Africa.    Support  for  some  think  tanks;  Support  for  countries  with  fragile  states,  Success  in  mobilizing  resources from private sector    Question: What ‐ in your view ‐ are the top 3 challenges confronting the ACBF today?  Comments:   Improve financial support to field operations, improve the diplomatic presence and recognition  as a capacity building partner for African countries, better sharing of knowledge products   1. Political instability in the African countries. 2. Insufficient Resources. 3. Insufficient oversight  over the sub‐projects.    WB Scaling down its support. Member states low implementation rate.   1.  The  key  challenge  to  the  ACBF  is  resource  mobilization  especially  from  African  member  countries to the ACBF. 2. Given the resource constraints there is the concomitant challenge of  capacity  of  the  secretariat  and  finally.  3.  To  bring  development  partners  especially  European  countries on board to support the capacity efforts of the ACBF on the African continent.   1. Sustainability in terms of Financial resources to implement is mandate.    1. Financial sustainability, 2. Competition in Capacity development.    Resource Mobilization, Attracting talent and geographic location of Head office.    Project  Monitoring  and  Evaluation,  Slow  Response  in  Fulfillment  of  Pledges  by  some  member  countries, Low Capacity Development in the Private Sector.    Having an assured volume of funds to allow multi‐year planning and support: continuing to refine  strategic focus; and more emphasis on outcomes as well as outputs.    Getting new funding partners, recovering African states pledges and contributions.    Visibility, Ownership and Financial Resources.    Resources and partnership, are topics to be covered.    Departure  of  two  significant  donors  (WB  and  SIDS)  and  there  they  need  to  be  aggressive  in  resource mobilization; adopting to their new business model; funding the strategy for 2017‐ 2021.    Question:  As a member of the 2008‐2014 ACBF Executive Board, what ‐ in your view ‐ were the top 3  challenges confronting the ACBF during that period?  Comments:   Funding, 2. following to the funding, able to meet demand from member states    over staffing, funding and attracting caliber staff    1.  Integrity  investigation  2.  Resource  mobilization  (broader  than  WB)  3.  Keep  capacity  development on the development agenda    1. Delayed release of funds from major donors. 2. Succession from one Executive Secretary to  another.    1. Maintaining financial support of bilateral donors; 2. functioning in the challenging host country  environment including attracting talent; 3. Ensuring long term support for capacity building when  the funding modalities were shifting to project and earmarked approaches   Page 86 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478)  Effectiveness of ACBF's support for Governance; Scattering meager resources over a plethora of  sectors; Stability of funding and staffing     Question: What ‐ in your view ‐ are the top 3 actions that ACBF needs to take (and by when) to address  its key challenges and risks?  Comment:   Fund raising to improve financial support to field operations via Think tank, be better known by  African common people or citizen / presence and publicity    Question: What ‐ in your view ‐ are the top 3 actions that ACBF needs to take (and by when) to address  the key challenges and risks it confronts and/or to adapt to its evolving operating environment?  Comments:   1.  The  ACBF  needs  to  diversify  its  base  of  support  to  incorporate  private  sector  support  and  financial contributions. 2. As an Agency of the African Union leverage its position to ensure the  continued support of the African Governments through fulfilling their pledges to the institution,  and 3. Through greater support expand its project portfolio whilst moving towards service level  agreements rather than the provision of grants to institutions.   ACBF needs to reposition itself from Grant making organizations to implementer of projects and  provider of knowledge products. Establish partnership frameworks.    1. Implementation of a new business model, 2. Diversify development partners, 3. Pursue with  AU Financing mechanisms.    Ensure  a  more  engaged  board  of  governors,  better  resource  mobilization  and  better  remuneration of Foundation staff.    Succession  Plan  for  key  personnel,  Stakeholder  Engagement  with  more  member  countries,  Aggressive Resource Mobilization.    Greater clarity on role as specialized body of AU (end 2018): consequential financial contribution  from Africa encouraging renewed support from external donors and founders (ongoing): firmer  results based strategic choices (annual starting 2019).    Getting more funding partners and sources as well as having more African countries joining.    Maintaining  strong  continental  ownership,  Effective  response  to  capacity  Challenges,  Mobilize  adequate resources.    Cost reduction, involvement of stakeholders, ROI of projects.    More  aggressive  resources  mobilization  and  broader  advocacy,  explore  the  new  profile  as  a  specialized agency of the AU; solicit more financial and political support from African member  countries.   1.  Restructure  the  management  to  create  a  CFO,  who  would  individually  and  jointly  with  ES  provide  management  assurances  about  adequacy  of  internal  controls  and  efficient  financial  management;  2.  Top  management  (Directors  with  the  exception  of  Head  IAD)  should  have  collective responsibility of raising resources and promoting its fruitful end use; 3. IAD functions  should be upgraded to include value for money audit with due audit risk analysis.    Diversifying donor base. Support to Fragile states.    Question: What ‐ in your view ‐ were the top 3 actions ACBF needed to take during that period to address  its key challenges and risks and/or to adapt to its evolving operating environment?  Comments:  Page 87 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478)  Shedding of staff, increased member contributions, reduced overhead expenses    1. Introduce organizational changes as response to the integrity investigation (audit committee +  information flows/management form sub‐projects) 2. Maintain the relationship with (potential)  financiers despite of being in hot water. 3. Prepare a new strategic plan to meet the challenges  and show results. Good idea: African Capacity Reports    1. Reduce reliance on two major funding sources. 2. Reduce role of a 'Grant disbursement' to a  holistic service provider in capacity development issues in the continent.    1.  Define  the  value  proposition  for  bilateral  donors  to  stay  in;  2.  Speed  up  process  of  decentralization to other locations. 3. Redesign partnership arrangements to adapt to changing  funding modalities    More  strategic  focus  of  support,  Board  of  Governors  action  to  ensure  more  predictability  of  funding, better choice of secretariat’s management  Question:  If there are any other lessons/issues/suggestions you would like to highlight, please use the  comments/text box below.  Comments:   ACBF as pan African institution needs to increase the awareness of its existence, of its presence  and the importance of its role or contribution to achieve Agenda 2030 SDG and AU 2063 FTYIP.   ACBF  has  a  noble  mission  in  the  African  agenda  and  it  has  to  develop  the  niche  of  premier  institution for capacity development in Africa    1. Strong point: convening power; mobilizing African leaders and creating African ownership. 2.  Capitalize more on the huge number of sub‐projects and information gathered over the years. 3.  Be satisfied with less money (sub‐projects) and focus more on knowledge management    ACBF has executed admirably in a changing context and has managed to deliver sustained results  in  capacity  building.  The  changing  priorities  and  modalities  of  finance  require  ACBF  to  be  constantly nimble in adapting to new challenges. Founder organizations like the World Bank can  help make that happen.   As a global support institution, the World Bank should continue to support the development of  Africa through enhancing its related institutions and to do so through its continuing support to  the Africa Capacity Building Foundation.   The World Bank should re‐consider its decision not to support ABCF and also support ACBF to  mobilize resources from other donors.    Cost reduction.    The World Bank may want to reconsider its support to ACBF based on the new business model of  the Foundation.          Page 88 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) ACBF comments on the ICR are awaited and will be summarized below when received.                              Page 89 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) ANNEX 6. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS    World Bank  1. Project Concept Note  2. Concept Note Review Meeting Minutes  3. Project Appraisal Document  4. Project Paper (2013 Additional Financing)  5. Restructuring Paper (2016 restructuring)  6. Mission Aide Memoires  7. Mid‐Term Review Mission Aide Memoire  8. Implementation Status Reports  9. PACT and ACBF Evaluation Reports    ACBF and Sub‐Projects  1. ACBF Constitution  2. ACBF Operational and Procurement Manuals  3. ACBF Progress Reports  4. Africa Capacity Reports  5. ACBF Publications (see ACBF website)  6. Publications by ACBF Sub‐projects (see respective websites)    Evaluations of the ACBF    1. 1995:  Mid‐Term Evaluation of the African Capacity Building Initiative ‐ A UNDP Evaluation undertaken by  the Nordic Consulting Group.  2. 1996:  An Evaluation of the Performance of ACBF under its Pilot Phase ‐ External Evaluation carried out by  Development Associates, USA.  3. 1997:  PriceWaterHouseCoopers Financial Review of ACBF – External Evaluation by the World Bank.  4. 1999:  Study on Integration of PACT into ACBF – An assessment by GRM, Australia.  5. 2000:  CIDA Operations Assessment Mission to ACBF by Mr. Enrique Madueno.  6. 2000:  DFID‐commissioned Assessment undertaken by Prof. John Toye.  7. 2001:  Operations Review by France carried out by Mr. Dominque Mas.  8. 2001:  Operations Review by DFID carried out by Mr. Jeremy Clarke, Senior Governance Adviser.  9. 2001:  World Bank DGF Programs and Financial Operations Review Mission to ACBF by Mr. Paul Hubbard.  10. 2002:  DFID‐commissioned Assessment undertaken by Diana Goldsworthy and Paul Bennell.  11. 2002:  Change Management Diagnostic Study commissioned by ACBF Executive Board.  12. 2002/2003:  World Bank Mid‐Term Review of PACT by John Silverman et al.  13. 2004:  Review of Development Effectiveness of World Bank Support to Capacity Building in Africa  ‐  conducted by the Operations Evaluation Department, the World Bank.  14. 2005: Review by World Bank Operational Taskforce on Capacity Building in Africa.  15. 2010 Mid‐term review evaluation of SMTP1 by ITAD  Page 90 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) FLAGSHIP & OTHER REPORTS PUBLISHED BY ACBF    1. Africa Capacity Reports (ACRs)  ‐ ACI 2011: Capacity Development in Fragile States   ‐ ACI 2012: Capacity Development for Agricultural Transformation and Food Security   ‐ ACI 2013: Capacity Development For Natural Resource Management (ACI 2013)   ‐ ACR 2014: Capacity Imperatives for Regional Integration in Africa (ACR, 2014)   ‐ ACR 2015: Capacity Imperatives for Domestic Resource Mobilization in Africa  ‐ ACR 2017: Building Capacity in Science, Technology and Innovation for Africa’s  Transformation     2. Publications on Agenda 2063   ‐ African Critical Technical Skills and Key Capacity Dimensions Needed for the First 10 Years  of Agenda 2063   ‐ Capacity development Plan Framework Buttressing Implementation of the First 10 Years  Plan – “The Africa We Want”  ‐ Capacity Requirements for the New African Vision agenda 2063 ‐ “The Africa We Want”.   ‐ Survey of the capacity Needs of Africa’s Regional Economic Communities and strategies  for Addressing Them   ‐ Assessment of Internal and external Risks Associated with the Implementation of the  African Union’s Agenda 2063  ‐ A Digest of OUA‐AU Treaties, Conventions and Agreements, 1963 to 2014    3. Occasional Papers   ‐ Youth Unemployment in Africa: Capacity Building and Innovative Strategies  ‐ Drivers of Economic Growth in Africa  ‐ ACBF Board of Governors Issues Paper: Accessing Funds for Development: Required  Capacities for Resource Mobilization and Absorption  ‐ Policy and Institutional Dimensions of Africa's Political Economy in an Age of  Globalization  ‐ Infrastructure Development and Financing in Sub‐Saharan Africa: Toward a framework  for capacity enhancement  ‐ The Retention of Highly Skilled Returnees in Mozambique: An Institutional Approach  ‐ Development Drivers in Africa: Role of Innovation    4. Development Memoirs   ‐ The Role of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in Africa’s Sustainable and  Inclusive Development: Understanding the Capacity Challenges   ‐ Addressing Africa’s Youth Employment and Food security Crisis: The Role of African  Agriculture in Job Creation   ‐ Transparency and Accountability in the management of Public Funds: How sensibly must  African Countries Stand?   Page 91 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) ‐ The African Capacity Building Foundation: Rising to the Challenges of Capacity through a  Unique and Innovative Framework   ‐ Governance and transformative Leadership in Africa: Progress, Prospects and Challenges     5. Policy Briefs   ‐ Building Capacity in Science, Technology, and Innovation for Africa’s Transformation: The  Role of Private Sector   ‐ Building Capacity in Science, Technology, and Innovation for Africa’s Transformation: The  Role of Governments   ‐ Building Capacity in Science, Technology, and Innovation for Africa’s Transformation: The  Role of higher learning and research Institutions   ‐ Building Capacity for Domestic Resource Mobilization: The Role of Development Partners   ‐ Building Capacity for Domestic Resource Mobilization: The Role of the Private Sector  ‐ Building Capacity for Domestic Resource Mobilization: The Role of of Government  ‐ Building Capacity for Domestic Resource Mobilization: The Role of the Civil Society     6. Books   ‐ African Financial Governance Outlook: Effective Public Financial Management for  Sustainable Development   ‐ African Financial Governance Outlook: Public Financial Governance Reforms, the Recent  Progress in Africa. Preliminary Findings of the AGO Pilot Phase   ‐ Gender Budgeting as a Tool for Poverty Reduction: Concept, Practices and capacity  Implications     7. African Community of Practice on Management for Development Results (AfCoP)  ‐ The Mediterranean Migration Crisis: Roots Causes and Implications for the African  Continent  ‐ Guidelines for initiating and Managing Evaluation   ‐ Influencing Inclusive Growth through Peace Building and Reconciliation   ‐ Unpacking Nigeria’s policy Response to Youth Unemployment: The Youth  Enterprise with Innovation in Nigeria (YOUWIN)   ‐ Trade Facilitation in Africa   ‐ National Planning Processes and Accountability     Page 92 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) FLAGSHIP & OTHER REPORTS PUBLISHED BY ACBF SUB‐PROJECTS    1. EDRI   ‐ Analysis of Changes in Food Consumption Patterns in Urban Ethiopia.  ‐ Road Sector Development and Economic Growth in Ethiopia.  ‐ Does Electricity Supply Strategy Matter? Shortage and Investment: Reflections based on  CGE   ‐ Climate Conventions and Africa/Ethiopia.  ‐ Carbon Markets and Mitigation Strategies for Africa/Ethiopia: Literature Review and the  Way forward     2. HESPI   ‐ Making Public Finance Management the Central Instrument of Policy and Recovery  ‐ Rebuilding Capacity for Effective Public Finance Management: The Case of Somalia’s  Transition from Conflict  ‐ Economic Growth in the Horn of Africa: Identifying Principal Drivers and Determinants  ‐ Assessment of Economic Integration in IGAD  ‐ Regional Integration and Trade in Africa: Augmented Gravity Model Approach  ‐ Composition of growth and alleviation of income poverty and child under nutrition in  Sub‐Saharan Africa    3. COMESA   ‐ A methodological guideline for implementing the 2008 SNA in the financial services  sector was developed;  ‐ COMESA intra‐regional trade potential, opportunities and challenges;  ‐ Sugar Competitiveness study in COMESA which resolved the Kenya sugar safeguard  application concerns;  ‐ The impact of the Transpacific Partnership on AGOA eligible COMESA Member States  trade with the USA  ‐ Comprehensive audit of NTBs, their causes and costs in the COMESA region  ‐ An assessment of joining COMESA by the republic of Tunisia, South Sudan and Somalia  ‐ Taking Stock of the Implementation of the COMESA Integration Agenda    4. IPAR Rwanda   ‐ Great lakes support program: cost of production and the determinants of farmer  incentives to invest in their coffee plantations  ‐ Public Financing for Agriculture  ‐ Impact of Land reforms in Rwanda on women economic empowerment  ‐ Disability Rights: Gap analysis of the level of inclusion of disability issues   ‐ Assessing the reproductive and Sexual Health of the Historically Marginalized people  ‐ IMIHIGO Public Contract Evaluation 2016‐2017  Page 93 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) ‐ Update selected Indicators in the log frame for the Land Tenure Regularization  Programme  ‐ Strengthening the impact on employment of sector policies  ‐ Production of case studies on Science, Technology and Innovation in Rwanda  ‐ Cost Benefit Analysis of Tax Incentives in Rwanda    5. KIPPRA   ‐ An assessment of Water Reforms in Kenya: Selected Indicators  ‐ Financial Needs for Private Sector  ‐ Firm Development, Regulation and Competition  ‐ Investment, Growth, Opportunities and Business Environment  ‐ KIPPRA‐Treasury Model (KTMM)‐ updating the model with new data, monitoring key  macroeconomic variables, generating medium term projections  ‐ Scoping Paper on the review of Oil and Gas Governance and Exploitation in Kenya  ‐ Sustainability of Current Account Deficits in Kenya (YP)  ‐ Pre‐conditions for successfully tapping Diaspora remittances for infrastructure  development in Kenya.  ‐ Land Reforms in Kenya: Land Registration and Land Investment  ‐ Understanding the Banking Structure in Kenya.   ‐ Baseline Study on Counterfeiting, Piracy and Illicit Trade  ‐ Concept on Situational Analysis of Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products in Kenya in  collaboration with the International Institute for Legislative Affairs (ILA)  ‐ Accelerating Industrial Development in Africa: The Case of Kenya [Enterprise Survey]    6. WAIFEM   ‐ Financing infrastructure for sustainable development in west Africa  ‐ Structure and composition of the labor market in the Gambia   ‐ Poverty analysis and mapping in Liberia  ‐ The challenges of exchange rate management in ECOWAS  ‐ The challenges of fiscal decentralization in Nigeria    7. MPPRAP   ‐ How best small businesses can be supported to harness their potential of creating jobs;   ‐ Ways to improve adoption of climate smart agricultural technologies among small holder  farmers    8. IGAD   ‐ Final report on the fourth biennial meeting of the IGAD business forum (IBF)  ‐ Report of the workshop validation of the preparation and negotiation modalities for IGAD  to join the tripartite free trade area.  Page 94 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) ‐ Macroeconomic  Performance  of  IGAD  Member  Countries  Using  Macro‐Econometric  Models: The Cases of Ethiopia, Kenya, Sudan, and Uganda Model Specification, Estimation  Result, Discussion and Analysis.  ‐ Report  by  the  Horn  Economic  and  Social  Policy  Institute  for  the  Secretariat  of  the  Intergovernmental Authority for Development Think Tank Network.   ‐ Report  by  the  Horn  Economic  and  Social  Policy  Institute  for  the  Secretariat  of  the  Intergovernmental Authority for Development Operation research Manual    9. ESRF  ‐ Localization and Community Awareness of SDGs: Capacity Building and Empowerment of  the Local Institutions and Actors for Successful SDGs Localization and Implementation.  ‐ Training guide for updating and preparation of district strategic plans.  ‐ Participatory governance on natural gas economy.  ‐ Kilimanjaro region mapping of industrial potential areas 2017.  ‐ Enhancing industrialization in Tanzania as a pivotal pillar of economic growth: mapping of  extant industrialization potentials in Mwanza region.    10. ZIPAR   ‐ Financing the Economic Stabilization and Growth Programme (Zambia Plus) in the  Shadow of the IMF.  ‐ Scaling the Eurobond Debt wall    11. CMAP   ‐ Revue Pays Sur le Renforcement des Capacités en Mauritanie.   ‐ Stratégie pour le développement du secteur industriel en Mauritanie : 2015‐2019.  ‐ Revue des dépenses publiques dans le secteur de l’eau en Mauritanie (2006‐2016).  ‐ La Mobilisation des Ressources Intérieures en Mauritanie : Taxation optimale du tabac en  Mauritanie.  ‐ Situation de référence des Objectifs du Développement Durable en Mauritanie  ‐ Etude pour la création d’une Agence Mauritanienne de Promotion des Exportations  ‐ auritanie Transformation de la trajectoire de l’emploi des jeunes.  ‐ Rapport sur l’Evaluation des Objectifs du Millénaire pour le Développement en  Mauritanie.  ‐ Etude sur les filières attachées aux industries minières  WEBSITE LINKS OF SUB‐PROJECTS FINANCED BY ACBF  HESPI:    www.hespi.org   ZIPAR:    www.zipar.org.zm   KIPPRA:   www.kippra.or.ke   AERC:     www.aercafrica.org   CAPEC:     www.capec‐ci.org   Page 95 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) IDEC:     www.idec.org.bi   EEA:     www.eeaecon.org   EDRI:     www.edri.org.et   ESRF:     www.esrftz.org   IPAR Rwanda:  www.ipar‐rwanda.org   CMAP:    www.cmap.mr   CAMERCAP:   www.camercap‐parc.org   CEPOD:   www.cepodsn.org   CADERDT:   www.caderdt.com   CERCAP:   www.cercap.net   IDEG:     www.ideg.org   NM AIST:   www.nm‐aist.ac.tz    2iE:     www.2ie‐edu.org  AUST:     www.aust.edu.ng  EPM Ghana:   www.epm.ug.edu.gh   EPM Makerere:  www.mak.ac.ug   EPM Zambia:   www.unza.zm   EPM Abidjan:   www.gpe‐afrique.org   EPM Yaounde:   www.gpeyaounde.org   CESAG:   www.mbf.cesag.sn   GIMPA:   www.new.gimpa.edu.gh   WAIFEM:   www.waifem‐cbp.org  CODESRIA:   www.codesria.org    AU :     www.au.int   EAC:     www.eac.int   COMESA:   www.comesa.int   UEMOA:   www.uemoa.int   IGAD:     www.igad.int   WAMI:    www.wami‐imao.org  AWDF:     www.awdf.org   FANRPAN:   www.fanrpan.org   AAU:     www.aau.org   EABC:     www.eabc‐online.com     Page 96 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) ANNEX 7. CONTEXT AT APPRAISAL    The  context  at  appraisal  was  somewhat  different  from  that  at  most  World  Bank‐financed  capacity‐ building sub‐projects: the World Bank had supported the Africa Capacity Building Foundation (ACBF)  since  its  establishment  in  1991;  this  contextual  section  provides  the  backdrop.  The  seventies  and  eighties  had  seen  an  outpouring  of  international  financing  and  technical  assistance  to  Africa  (it  was  estimated that more than 100,000 expatriate technical experts were advising African governments by the  late  eighties),  as  well  as  the  emergence  of  liberation  movements,  the  discovery  of  natural  resource  deposits and ‐ over time – the emergence of new countries. The focus of international assistance also  evolved from large infrastructure to economic management, poverty reduction and conflict management.  The  African  Capacity  Building  Foundation  (ACBF)  was  born  on  February  9,  1991  as  the  outcome  of  a  partnership  between  African  governments  and  the  international  development  community.  The  World  Bank,  the  African  Development  Bank  (AfDB)  and  the  United  Nations  Development  Program  (UNDP)  constituted the ACBF’s sponsoring agencies, joined by governments from Africa14 and other continents15,  bilateral partners and – in September 2002 ‐ by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The vision for such  a partnership was articulated  by the World Bank’s Vice President for the Africa Region,  Edward “Kim”  Jaycox, at a stakeholder meeting in New York in 1989: “The goal and vision can be stated relatively simply:  10, 15, 20 years from now, every Sub‐Saharan African country could have its own cadre of very good policy  analysts and economic managers— and Africa could have clusters of first‐class training and management  institutions. There will be much less need for technical assistance and expatriate advisors in these areas.  More important, Sub‐Saharan Africa will be in more control of its economic destiny, less vulnerable to  external shocks and more competitive in the global market place…Africa must have its capacities.” This  vision gave birth in 1989 to the Africa Capacity Building Initiative, and then in 1991 to the ACBF whose  mandate was to finance capacity‐building across Africa with strong ownership from African governments.   In 1995, following  a broad consultative process involving  the  World Bank‘s African Governors  and  a  study which yielded a strategy on how the World Bank might enhance the impact of its operations in  Africa, the Bank initiated the Partnership for Capacity Building in Africa (PACT), whose implementation  was entrusted to ACBF from 2000 onward. The PACT was a collaborative effort among the World Bank,  AfDB and UNDP to take concrete steps towards improving economic and public management capacity in  Africa.  The  ACBF,  under  its  first  Strategic  Medium‐Term  Plan  (SMTP1),  provided  grants  and  technical  support to some 40 countries in Sub‐Saharan Africa and to about 34 regional and continental institutions  until 2005. The World Bank supported SMTP1 by providing multiple DGF Grants for a total of US$147.6  million, which represented 56 percent of the total amount mobilized by ACBF under SMTP1, as well as by  14  Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo (Brazzaville), Democratic Republic of Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea Bissau, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe. 15  Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, India, Ireland, The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. Page 97 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) serving as Trustee of the multi‐donor trust fund for SMTP1 (SMTP1 MDTF) under which donors provided  US$85.4 million16.  The  World  Bank  was  represented  on  both  ACBF  governance  bodies  until  2011  –  the  Regional  Vice  President (RVP) for the World Bank’s Africa Region was a member of the ACBF Board of Governors (BOG)  and  a  Director  or  PREM  Sector  Manager  was  a  member  of  the  ACBF  Executive  Board  (EB).    And  after  approval  of  the  project  in  2011,  World  Bank  task  teams  would  supervise  the  project  and  also  provide  implementation support to the ACBF in developing and refining its objectives, policies, procedures and  practices.  From 2011‐2017, the ACBF received US$119 million from the World Bank, representing more than 50  percent of ACBF’s total financing during this period. The World Bank funds comprised US$90 million from  two Regional International Development Association (RIDA) Grants and US$29 million from a Recipient‐ executed Multi‐Donor Trust Fund (RE‐MDTF). The first RIDA Grant (hereafter RIDA1) of SDR 16.3 million  (US$25 million equivalent) was approved by the World Bank’s Board of Executive Directors on March 17,  2011 with an original closing date of December 31, 2015. The closing date was extended by two years at  Additional  Financing.  The  RE‐MDTF  had  the  same  approval  and  closing  dates.  The  second  RIDA  Grant  (hereafter  RIDA2)  was  approved  on  December  5,  2013  as  Additional  Financing  (AF)  along  with  restructuring  and  an  extension  of  the  closing  date  to  December  31,  2017.  A  second  restructuring,  approved on February 6, 2017, reallocated costs between disbursement categories.  At appraisal, therefore, the ACBF had evolved into a pan‐African international organization based in  Harare. Investing in capacity‐building initiatives, with all African countries and other partners represented  in its governance structure, its vision was to become the premier African capacity development entity, a  trusted  advisor  to  national  and  regional  decision‐makers,  and  an  effective  and  efficient  partner  to  development  stakeholders.  It  sought  to  achieve  this  by  expanding  financing  for,  and  influence  on,  developing  African  countries’  human  and  institutional  capacity  for  sustainable  growth  and  poverty  reduction.  From  1991‐2001  (the  inception  and  institutional  growth  phase),  ACBF  focused  on  strengthening core public sector capacity for economic policy management (EPM) and analysis to support  structural  and  economic  policy  reforms.  ACBF  focused  on:  (a)  enhancing  capacity  for  effective  policy  formulation  and  management,  (b)  strengthening  macroeconomic,  financial  and  debt  management,  (c)  strengthening the performance of academics and public sector managers, (d) fostering inclusiveness and  effective participation of non‐state actors in sustainable development, (e) improving accountability and  parliamentary  oversight  at  national  and  regional  levels,  (f)  enhancing  the  policy  research  capability  of  African  regional  economic  communities  (RECs)  and  (g)  strengthening  statistical  systems  and  capacity.  ACBF’s operations during the subsequent period (2002‐2011) diversified into six core competency areas3,  including economic policy and management. This period, in fact, coincided with the Foundation’s first and  second  Strategic  Medium‐Term  Plan  (the  2002‐2006  SMTP1  and  the 2007‐2011  SMTP1I).  In  2012,  the  Foundation formulated its third Strategic Medium‐Term Plan (the 2012‐2016 SMTP3), with focus shifting  from six core competency areas to three strategic pillars4 and seven focus areas5  (covering the first two  16 PAD (Report no. 56099) Page 98 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) years of the implementation of the strategy); underpinning the SMTP3 was efficiency, results and impact  of interventions.  In 2011, the Bank moved from using DGF Grants to Regional IDA to finance its contribution to ACBF:  several factors contributed to this change in the main instrument of World Bank support to the ACBF,  including an increasingly results‐oriented approach of the international development community. Key  contributory factors included:  a) The initial vision of World Bank support to the ACBF was predicated on an ambitious US$1 billion ACBF  program for the first fifteen years, envisaged to be funded by the PACT TF. World Bank management  agreed to contribute up to 15 percent (i.e. US$150 million) of this envisaged program cost through  grants, with the rest envisaged to be sourced from other multilateral and bilateral sources and from  African member countries. [The World Bank honored its pledge of US$150 million.]    b) The  World  Bank  decided  to  source  these  contributions  from  own  income  and  thereafter  from  its  Development Grant Facility (DGF), providing annual contributions to the ACBF. These grants were not  tied to specific sub‐projects or purposes. The DGF grants financed ACBF annual work programs (i.e.  capacity‐building sub‐projects across Africa and ACBF own operating costs) underpinned by successive  Strategic Medium‐Term Plans (SMTPs – see Box below)17, with Bank membership of the BOG and EB  thought  to  provide  sufficient  oversight  of  and  familiarity  with  ACBF  capacity,  activities  and  performance.    Text Box 4. World Bank Commitment To ACBF SMTP1 and 2    The World Bank supported SMTP1 by providing multiple DGF Grants for a total of US$147.6  million which represented 56 percent of the total amount mobilized by ACBF under SMTP1. It  also served as Trustee of the multi‐donor trust fund for SMTP1 (SMTP1 MDTF) under which  donors  provided  US$85.4  million.  Thereafter,  on  September  5,  2006,  the  Bank’s  Board  approved Bank support to the SMTP1I program and objectives over 2007‐2011 through a series  of DGF grants totaling up to $150 million to be approved annually. The Bank funding to SMTP1I  was  justified  on  the  basis  that  it  not  only  “fits  within  the  Bank’s  framework  for  supporting  capacity development in Africa, as articulated in the CDMAP18, [but] independent evaluations  [of  ACBF  programs]  have  confirmed  the  effectiveness  of  ACBF/PACT  in  addressing  several  aspects of the capacity development challenge in Africa”19.      c) From  its  inception  to  2010,  ACBF  underwent  15  independent  and  rigorous  evaluations  and  assessments: they are listed in Annex 5.    17 Source: PAD Report no. 56099, page 7 Capacity Development in Africa: Management Action Plan (CDMAP), Report SecM2006-0323  18  19 African Capacity Building Foundation (ACBF)/ Partnership for Capacity Building in Africa (PACT), A Proposed Strategy for Further Bank Support to ACBF/PACT (2007-2011). World Bank Report No36976, August 8, 2006  Page 99 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) d) It became clear within a few years that ACBF would not be able to raise the envisaged US$1 billion, ‐  but  alone  among  all  donors  the  Bank  kept  its  commitment  to  its  US$150  million  contribution.  At  different times during 1991‐2008, when the World Bank reviewed its contributions to the ACBF, the  fact that other donors would end up contributing far lower amounts than they had pledged was never  explicitly recognized; if it  had been, the Bank may  have decided during the nineties  to reduce the  quantum of its contributions to the ACBF. Thus, the World Bank paid US$150 million to the ACBF even  though none of the other contributors fully delivered on their initial pledges.     e) In  September  2008,  anonymous  letter  received  by  donors  (the  ‘Chamba  letter’)  alleged  human  resource and financial malpractices at ACBF due to deviations from operating policies and practices.  The  letter  resulted  in  suspension  of  Bank  contributions,  unease  among  donors  about  ACBF  management and operating practices, an ACBF‐commissioned audit, a Bank‐led integrity review, the  subsequent adoption of a Management Action Plan (MAP), and departures of several ACBF managers  and staff. But an ACBF‐commissioned audit and the Bank’s integrity review of the allegations – both  taking almost two years to complete – did not establish any of the allegations. It identified several risk  factors and called for improved risk assessment, internal controls and more effective and transparent  personnel  and  operations  policies  and  processes.  The  MAP  addressed  the  structural  weaknesses  identified  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  World  Bank.  The  reforms  were  closely  monitored  by  the  Bank  throughout the duration of the project.    f) The 2008 financial crisis impacted not only economies, but also the ACBF and its donors.  The Bank’s  own finances came under stress due to requests for support from economies across the world. Donor  countries  and  aid  agencies  began  to  confront  aid  budget  constraints.  Many  donor  governments’  commitment to development aid also weakened as their policies and public finances focused on crisis  management  and  post‐crisis  recovery.  Many  bilateral  donors  changed  their  priorities  and  concentrated their aid budgets on only a few themes, sectors, countries or regions (e.g. the UK began  to focus on only the very poorest countries and significantly reduced – if not stopped – aid to other  countries.    In  addition,  in  the  post‐2008  world,  major  ‘traditional’  donors  contributed  to  capital  increases for key multilateral institutions such as the IMF, the World Bank and regional MDBs. Hence  the initial US$1 billion ACBF funding scenario was no longer realistic by 1997 and even less so by 2010,  while the overall mood of ACBF donors (including, for example, the Bank’s own Board) changed from  liberal support to demanding accountability for performance and results in exchange for financing.  The  Bank  also  confronted  tough  questions  from  its  shareholders  during  the  2008‐2010  IDA  replenishment  discussions,  which  –  together  with  the  fallout  from  the  Chamba  letter  including  investigations and audits ‐ resulted in a 2009‐2011 hiatus in Bank financing to ACBF.    g) The nature of the instrument for Bank support to the ACBF (i.e. grants from its own income and DGF)  created a rather unusual situation in the Bank – internally and vis‐à‐vis the ACBF ‐ about the Bank’s  role and responsibility:   There was no fiduciary obligation on the Bank to ensure appropriate management or uses of Bank  funds, neither was there any legally obligatory supervision or implementation support role for the  Bank other than the obligations arising from its BOG and EB memberships. The Bank’s Board and  Page 100 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) senior management used to review proposed Bank contributions to the ACBF when (a) discussing  the  use  of  Bank  own  income,  (b)  before  annual  allocations  were  proposed  in  the  Bank’s  administrative  budget  and  (c)  before  the  contributions  were  released.  Such  pre‐RIDA  contributions were grants from own income or DGF and were not ‘projectized’.   Externally,  the  ACBF  became  used  to  a  situation  where  its  largest  funder  had  no  fiduciary  or  oversight role over the ACBF, except to the extent that EB members reviewed and approved (or  rejected) project financing proposals and BOG members approved ACBF policies and strategies.  BOG and EB meetings often lasted two to three days with numerous agenda items. In practice,  the ACBF Executive Secretary and the ACBF Secretariat/management team were free to grow the  ACBF to support an expanding portfolio of sub‐projects across the African continent, subject to  BOG and EB  oversight. Nevertheless, over this period, BOG and  EB  members  raised important  issues,  resulting  in  the  codification  of  operating  policies  and  procedures  (including  for  procurement, financial management, internal audit and controls) and staff rules.   Prior to 1998 (when  the 1997 Bank reorganization was completed) the “ACBF project” had  no  institutional ‘home’ in the World Bank, although several Departments, loosely coordinated by the  front office of the Africa RVP, dealt with ACBF issues as they arose. Nor was any Bank Department  tasked with tracking Bank‐financed ACBF activities, performance or results. In addition, the Bank’s  own  internal  reforms  included  abolition  of  the  DGF  and  greater  attention  –  including  from  its  Board – to trust‐funded activities, with important implications down the road.    After  1998,  ACBF  issues  –  because  they  had  to  do  with  public  sector  capacity‐building  ‐  came  within  the  remit  of  the  newly‐created  Poverty  Reduction  and  Economic  Management  (PREM)  Department: the PREM Director for Africa and the PREM Sector Manager for Public Sector and  Institutional Reform began to deal with ACBF issues. However, no Bank budget (BB) was allocated  for dialogue, supervision or follow‐up: a Senior Public Sector Specialist was designated to handle  ACBF‐related issues and usually accompanied the PREM Director and Sector Manager when they  travelled  for  BOG  and  EB  meetings.  In  addition,  without  a  Country  Management  Unit  (CMU)  providing BB and having a stake in project success, no Bank supervision took place until the RIDA1  and RE‐MDTF‐financed project was approved in 2011.    By  appraisal,  the  cumulative  effect  of  global,  Bank‐  and  ACBF‐specific  developments  culminated  in  significant  decisions  by  the  Bank’s  Board  (and,  by  extension,  all  other  ACBF  funders)  about  ACBF  thematic priorities, financial support, financing instruments, results and cost controls. This ACBF project  was approved on March 17, 2011 and became effective on August 1, 2011: Bank financing to the ACBF  thus resumed in 2011, but through a new instrument (a Specific Investment Grant as it was then known)  and with financing sources (an IDA grant and an RE‐MDTF Grant) and amounts subject to approval by the  World  Bank’s  Board,  with  a  clear  picture  of  ACBF  thematic  focus,  agreed  actions  for  institutional  strengthening  and  significant  changes  in  mutual  obligations  (i.e.  projectized  support  by  the  Bank  for  agreed  ACBF  sub‐projects  and  activities,  with  legally  binding  provisions  on  project  execution,  procurement,  financial  management,  results  indicators  and  results  reporting).  To  some  ACBF  stakeholders,  the  2011  Grants  appeared  to  be  a  “bridging  finance”  between  the  DGF  and  IDA:  it  was  argued that since the Bank suspended disbursements to ACBF after the Chamba letter but also failed to  meet its pledge, the 2011 IDA Grant was, in a way, a symbolic compensation to the ACBF for the Bank’s  failure to fully meet its pledge. This trend was reinforced at Additional Financing in 2013, with RIDA2 also  Page 101 of 216 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project (P122478) subject to the same conditions as RIDA1. The RE‐MDTF Grant approved in 2011 – to be spent by the ACBF  ‐ was subject to Bank supervision, whereas previous MDTFs (into which the Bank itself contributed its  pledges  –  were  ‘pass‐through’  instruments  which  entailed  no  fiduciary  obligation  on  the  Bank’s  part).  Because  the  2011  RE‐MDTF  was  subject  to  Bank  supervision,  it  was  accompanied  by  a  Bank‐executed  MDTF (BE‐MDTF) which provided for “enhanced supervision”.     The  Bank  now  designated  a  task  team  and  provided  a  budget  (from  its  administrative  budget)  to  supervise implementation, provide fiduciary oversight and implementation support, and to periodically  report  to  Bank  management  on  progress  towards  achievement  of  project  objectives,  project  implementation and results. Periodic project status reports (PSRs) – later to be called Implementation  Status  Reports (ISRs) ‐ would be  publicly disclosed  upon adoption of the Bank’s Access to Information  Policy.    In 2011, therefore, for the first time in 20 years of operation, the ACBF became subject to World Bank  supervision  and  fiduciary  oversight,  while  the  Bank  itself  –  through  its  implementation  support  and  supervision ‐ began to better understand how the Foundation actually worked. The closer relationship  with the Bank brought changes, including the review of, and changes in, ACBF’s internal oversight and  fiduciary responsibilities and institutional and staff strengthening of the ACBF and its beneficiaries. It also  led to rationalizing and decentralizing of ACBF control mechanisms, increased prior review thresholds for  operations and more cost‐effective use of resources than before, particularly on staff travel. ACBF and  Beneficiary  Agreements  were  reviewed  and  enhanced.  Internal  staff  enhancements  included  the  separation  of  the  FM  and  procurement  function  and  the  establishment  of  procurement  Manager  /  Specialist positions to enhance ACBF and beneficiary capacity, as well as systems reviews and controls and  strengthening the ACBF procurement mechanism which had previously revolved around the position of  the ES who possessed the highest approval limits instead of the highest ACBF approval body being the  ACBF Management Procurement Committee.  In addition, the apparent conflict of interest of the World  Bank  being  on  the  EB  and  various  project  and  procurement  Committees  ‐  which  had  undermined  its  independent fiduciary oversight responsibility ‐ was noted by the Bank in 2007 but was only implemented  after  the  2008  Chamba  letter.  This  fiduciary  role  was  further  enhanced  in  2011  and  included  planned  implementation  support  missions.  This  change  marked  a  new  chapter  in  the  World  Bank‐ACBF  relationship, with increased fiduciary oversight and accountability than in earlier periods. The suggested  improvements  included  enhancements  to  the  ACBF  procurement  manual  and  standard  contracts  –  to  include updated provisions for conflict of interest and fraud and anti‐corruption provisions, review of the  contracting procedures for individual consultants and training to ACBF staff in basic procurement at ACB  level  and  ACBF  beneficiaries,  besides  on‐the‐ground  interaction  and  verification  of  the  procurement  systems of selected ACBF beneficiaries.  Page 102 of 216 ANNEX 8. ACBF LETTER OF COMMITMENT & ACTIONS TAKEN  PART A. TEXT OF ACBF LETTER OF COMMITMENT DATED NOVEMBER 8, 2013 8 November 2013    Mr. Makhtar Diop  Vice President, Africa Region   The World Bank  1818 H Street, NW  Washington DC 20433 United  States of America    Dear Mr. Diop,  Letter of Commitment from the Executive Board of the Africa Capacity Building Foundation (ACBF) on the World Bank’s  Financing towards ACBF’s Third Strategic Medium Term Plan (SMTP III)  Introduction    This letter represents an undertaking by the ACBF Executive Board, in exercise of its oversight function to ensure that  the Foundation implements the reforms set out in the Action Plan that appears below. The overarching objective of  the reforms is to secure the sustainability of ACBF and enhance operational efficiency, restructure activities for higher  effectiveness of program of delivery, and focus even further attention on results.    The ACBF remains committed to addressing areas of concern to its funding partners regarding operational modalities  and scope of implementation of  SMTP  III. To this end, the ACBF  Executive Board undertakes to address the issues  enumerated below by identifying specific actions and timelines for performance:    • Strategy and selectivity;  • Efficiency considerations and cost structure;  • Sustainability of ACBF in the long term;  • Ensuring Results/Impact of the Foundation’s Interventions; and  • Governance and the role of the Executive Board.          Page 103 of 216 Strategy and Selectivity    Priority Interventions to Scale up Success    The Executive Board has provided guidance to Management to prioritize a few areas where ACBF has demonstrable  success. The guiding principle for selection is to focus on interventions identified in the Independent Evaluation Report  of SMTP II as areas of comparative advantage. To this end, ACBF will earmark three priority focus areas, viz:  i) Improving capacity for policy formulation through enhancing quality and impact of the work of Policy Think  Tanks. ACBF will primarily support Think Tanks (TTs) on Economic Policy Analysis and Financial Accountability.  The  specific  choices  in  this  area  of  intervention  will  be  TTs  that  have  contributed  to  improving  the  effectiveness of the design and management of public policies and programs, moving forward policy debates  and  generating  innovative  approaches  and  tools  for  policy  analysis,  implementation,  monitoring  and  evaluation.  TTs  that  have  facilitated  dialogues  and  synergies  between  public  sector  and  umbrella  organizations  of  civil  society  and  the  private  sector  and  improved  participation  of  the  civil  society  in  government policy making processes will also be prioritized.  ii) Enhancing capacity for effective regional training partnerships. ACBF will direct its support to two areas of  interventions:  (a)  Economic  Policy  Management  (EPM)  Programs  established  and  jointly  funded  with  the  World  Bank  Institute  (WBI),  and  (b)  the  Public  Sector  Management  and  Training  (PSMT)  Programs  implemented  in  collaboration  with  African  Universities  and  Institutes  of  Public  Administration.  The  EPM  Programs  have  demonstrable  results  as  they  have  increased  the  cadre  of  qualified  economists  and  contributed  to  institutional  strengthening  in  the  public  and  private  sectors  and  tertiary  educational  institutions  in  Africa,  while  the  PSMT  Programs  have  contributed  to  improved  skills  of  public  officers  in  budgeting, negotiation, policy design and management and have also brought about behavioral change of  the public servants towards performance management systems.  iii) Enhancing  policy  results  within  Regional  Economic  Communities  (RECs).  These  programs  aim  at  fostering  regional integration on the continent within sub‐regions as well as continent‐wide. While this area of focus  was rated with mixed results in the independent evaluation of SMTP II, the Foundation is going to put more  effort into networking the RECs and other regional institutions so they can learn from each other, updating the  RECs study that was done in 2006 to assess capacity of the RECs, and to bring in new areas of focus into a  strategy for strengthening the implementation and other capabilities of the RECs.  Focus Countries: Concentrated Footprint to Deepen Results    ACBF will concentrate its footprint in no more than fifteen (15) countries to be supported by RIDA II (referred to as the  SMTP III ‘focus countries’). The ‘focus countries’ have been selected on the basis of eligibility criteria for RIDA, political  economy and needs analysis and ability to achieve results. ACBF member countries other than the ‘focus countries’  Page 104 of 216 will benefit from the Foundation’s knowledge activities such as Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) capacity building  activities,  Capacity  Profiling  and  Capacity  Needs  Assessments,  as  well  as  knowledge  networking  activities.  These  products could be useful in influencing other stakeholders to provide capacity building support to the countries. The  focus countries are Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cote d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Ghana, Malawi, Mauritania,  Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania and Zambia. Although South Africa is not an IDA eligible country the  project serves 16 countries in the sub‐region, coming from both SADC and COMESA regions. Concomitantly, the M&E  function at ACBF will be enhanced to ensure that all proposed interventions and countries of focus are informed by  lessons learnt from the independent evaluation of the SMTP II, as well as from ACBF’s own mid‐term reviews and end‐ of‐project evaluations. The Executive Board is therefore confident that Management will be in a better position to  capture and report on results in the future. Should other financing opportunities arise from alternative funding sources,  ACBF will consult with the major partners of the Foundation to arrive at an effective strategy for broader engagement.  Efficiency Considerations and Cost Structure    ACBF’S New Business Model    From 2013, ACBF Management has been exploring and testing a business model deemed relevant and fit for purpose  to  deliver  the  SMTP  III  objectives  on  the  basis  of  a  base  case  scenario.  This  model  is  premised  on  a  restructured  organization  with  different  ways  of  doing  business  regarding  project  implementation  support  and  nature  of  supervision.    The ACBF new Business Model addresses the following strategic issues:    1. Improving performance to deliver results by establishing strategic partnerships with some of the traditional  partners;  2. Ensuring effective and efficient delivery of results by improving business processes, procedures and use of  ICT to adjust to the funding environment; and    3. Using knowledge products and services to assist member countries which are not SMTP III focus countries?  Major actions and activities of the Model are as follows:    (i) Project Monitoring and supervision    The Foundation has identified travel as a major cost driver and has implemented measures to reduce field visits and  travel‐related activities to ensure efficiency and economy. The ACBF Executive Board undertakes to ensure that these  measures will be sustained and to the extent practicable, actively work towards further improvement. The measures  already put in place have shown considerable cost savings as can be seen from the table below:    Page 105 of 216 The Foundation forecasts that the new business model will result in staff travel costs decreasing by at least 50% from  the 2012 levels. The reduction in costs is without loss of quality in project implementation support to the extent that  the savings are achieved through use of multidisciplinary teams for project supervision with no more than one  mission to a project per year. The portfolio review risk ratings will be used to prioritize missions to the riskiest  projects. Multiple projects in the same country will be supervised during one extended mission and combined with  other activities to serve multiple purposes, including bringing together in one location projects from one region for  training and other project support activities. End of project evaluations will now be done internally using desk  reviews and video conferencing. Project forums that are held once a year to train grantees on procurement, financial  management and M&E will also be used for problem solving in a clinic format and serve as face to face supervision. It  is anticipated that all these efforts will contribute to bringing down costs of supervising the portfolio.    (ii) Decentralization of the Operations Department with partial integration of selected support units (Finance,  M&E, and Procurement)    The proposed decentralization not only improves the effectiveness of project supervision but also has demonstrable  cost‐saving benefits. Close proximity to projects will reduce travel cost. With decentralization ACBF plans to have a  small core of international staff and introduce locally/regionally recruited staff. The Host Country Agreement signed  with  Ghana  includes  provision  of  free  office  accommodation,  which  will  have  a  significant  impact  on  the  cost  of  decentralization to ACBF.    Cost Structure ‐ A 'Fit for Purpose' Operating Model Relentless focus on efficiency    The Foundation is implementing a series of measures to ensure that the operating structure is ‘fit for purpose’, lean  and efficient. In this regard, and in view of the business model described above, the Executive Board has approved a  new structure that will result in overall cost savings of at least US$2.5 million on the wage bill once the reforms are  implemented. The changes being introduced will establish a new structure with a smaller staff complement, a leaner  management team and a flatter structure. In addition, a down ward compensation adjustment will be implemented  resulting in individual compensation adjustment, including non‐payroll benefits, of approximately 20% of the current  compensation.    The Foundation is engaging an external HR consultant to assist with the restructuring process, particularly in aligning  compensation with new levels of responsibility.    Cost‐Savings out of the Restructuring    The table below shows the cost saving implications of the reforms on organizational structure:      Page 106 of 216 Staff Costs & Head Count  Before Reforms  After Reforms  Difference  Cost to ACBF        Professional  7,308,149  4,603,895  ‐37%  Support  745,334  449,822  ‐40%  Total  8,053,483  5,053,717  ‐37%  Headcount        Professional  44  31  ‐30%  Support  20  14  ‐30%  Total  64  45  ‐30%    Sustainability of ACBF in the long term    ACBF has a four‐pronged strategy for financial sustainability, viz. (i) encouraging sustainability of grant recipients; (ii)  ensuring  ACBF’s  operating  costs  are  entirely  covered  by  African  member  contributions;  (iii)  achieving  results  in  operations to justify continued support from Donors; and (iv) growing the Endowment Fund.    Encouraging sustainability of grant recipients    Financial ownership and sustainability of grant recipients is critical to allow support from ACBF to decrease over time  and save resources for new operations while older operations continue to benefit from ACBF’s knowledge/learning  expertise. In August 2012, ACBF issued its “partnerships, graduation and exit policy and strategy”, approved by the  Executive Board in December 2012. These strategies provide for ACBF to limit its support to a project or program to a  maximum of 3 phases or 12 years. Going forward, therefore:  • No  project  will  be  financed  for  more  than  3  phases  and  each  successive  phase  will  be  contingent  on  demonstrable results;  • The nature of funding will evolve from institutional to program with each successive phase; and  Page 107 of 216   • On the exit strategy, ACBF will evolve its working relationship with mature partners, especially think‐ tanks,  from a grant relationship to programmatic collaboration.    Ensuring core staff costs are entirely covered by African member contributions    In the short term, ACBF will review its organizational structure and staffing to ensure that, by January 2017, its core  staff  costs  are  fully  covered  by  African  member  countries’  paid‐in  contributions.  To  achieve  this  objective,  ACBF  is  taking measures to collect the maximum of the pledges to the current SMTP. Indeed,  ACBF aims to collect 30% of  African countries pledges to SMTP III by end of 2013, 50% by end of 2014, 60% by end of 2015 and at least 75% by end  of 2016.    Achieving results in operations to justify continued support from Donors    ACBF sees its relations with donors in general, and especially with the World Bank, as a mutually beneficial engagement  and, therefore, does not envisage its partnership with the Bank in terms of an outright disengagement. On the other  hand, the partnership with the World Bank has allowed ACBF to attract other partners and has also translated into  enhancing the Foundation’s operations and internal control environment. Going forward, ACBF will refocus its activities  on a limited number of countries and thematic areas to achieve and communicate credible results of its operations so  that it can continue to be attractive to development partners interested in capacity development in Africa. The World  Bank’s share of financing is already easing: its share of total pledges in the financing of ACBF has gone from 69% for  SMTP II to 53% for SMTP III, while the shares of the African Development Bank and African member countries rose  over the same period from 7% and 5% to 27% and 15%, respectively.    Strategies for long‐term sustainability: growing the Endowment Fund    ACBF’s long‐term aspiration is to build a sustainable and predictable funding platform that takes care not only of its  operating expenses but also of a continuously increasing part of the overall resource needs of the Foundation. It is with  this objective in mind that the 46th Ordinary Meeting of the ACBF Executive Board approved the establishment of an  Endowment Fund for the Foundation. At its 22nd Annual Meetings, hosted by the Government of Gabon in Libreville  on 27‐30 June 2013, the ACBF Board of Governors endorsed the creation of the Endowment Fund and established a  Permanent Committee of the Board of Governors on Resource Mobilization, tasked with taking the necessary measures  to grow the Fund to the expected levels. The creation of the Permanent Committee, made up largely of African Finance  Ministers, further confirms the concurrence and commitment of all governance organs of ACBF to the need to enhance  stability and predictability in the financing of the Foundation.  Page 108 of 216 There are three stages of sustainability through the Endowment and other direct contributions from African members.  The first stage was mentioned under "Ensuring core staff costs are entirely covered by African member contributions"  which is also the minimal sustainability level. The second sustainability level will be achieved when the combination of  the revenues generated through the investment of the Endowment Fund plus direct contributions of African countries  can  cover  all  staff  and  administrative  costs  ‐‐  expected  to  be  achieved  by  2022.  The  third  and  optimal  level  of  sustainability will be achieved when the revenues derived from the investment of the Endowment Fund and other  direct contributions by African members cover all the operating costs of the Foundation which include core staff costs,  administration costs, and project development and supervision costs. At that point, it is expected that resources from  Donors will exclusively be directed to programmatic activities.  This third level is expected to be achieved by 2026.    Ensuring Results and Impact of the Foundation's Intervention    The Foundation has managed to ensure that the importance of generating and demonstrating tangible results at both  down and upstream levels is well‐understood, appreciated and sustainable. Moving forward, the Foundation’s efforts  are  geared  towards  paying  more  attention  to:  i)  improving  the  quality  of  project  designs;  ii)  provision  of  capacity  support to grantees to ensure effective implementation and monitoring of their projects; iii) continuous improvement  in  the  quality  of  evaluations;  iv)  developing  core  indicators  for  measuring  capacity  building  outcomes  for  both  the  Foundation and the grantees.    In order to ensure sustainable impact, ACBF will continue to strive to become the authority on capacity development  in Africa through continued development of knowledge products (tools, techniques, case studies, evaluations) that are  tied around the subject of its core business.  Governance and the Role of the Executive Board    The ACBF Constitution spells out the role and responsibilities of the Executive Board within the Foundation. Article VIII  stipulates that the Executive Board is responsible for the conduct of the general operations of the Foundation. In this  connection, the Executive Board, among other functions: (i) approves such rules and regulations as may be necessary  for the proper conduct of the Foundation’s affairs; (ii) causes a statement  of policy of the Foundation to be prepared  for approval by the Board of Governors; (iii) determines the priorities of work for the Foundation; (iv) approves the  Foundation’s programs and operational plans; (v) approves the annual report on the Foundation’s activities; and (vi)  approves the terms of any proposed agreements that the Executive Board may by regulation require to be submitted  to it for approval.  The Executive Board is committed to being an engaged board and will put in place measures to enhance its oversight  function. To further improve the Board’s oversight role, the Executive Board will meet every quarter with two of the  meetings being conducted virtually to save on travel costs. Further, management will circulate to the Board the Aide  Memoires of all donor missions at each Executive Board meeting. For the World Bank to be kept in the loop of the  Board’s oversight role, approved Minutes of Executive Board meetings will be routinely shared with the Bank.  Page 109 of 216 The  Executive  Board  has  created  three  committees  to  assist  in  adequately  discharging  its  responsibilities:  the  Operations Committee (OP), the Finance and Human Resource Committee and the Audit and Risk Committee (ARC).  The  Finance  and  Human  Resource  Committee  examines  financial  and  staff  matters,  while  the  OP  examines  and  provides guidance on projects, programs, knowledge management and other operational policy matters. The ARC of  the Executive Board was set up to assist the Executive Board in fulfilling its governance and oversight responsibilities  at ACBF. According to its charter, the ARC has overarching duties and responsibilities on the external audit and internal  audit  activities  as  well  as  the  risk  management  functions  of  the  Foundation.  The  Committee  is  composed  of  four  members. It is chaired by a member of the Executive Board with three other independent experts. The Executive Board  is  taking  steps  to  ensure  that  the  respective  Committees  have  the  requisite  skills  to  effectively  discharge  their  mandates.    To manage risk of default on pledges, the Executive Board approves projects on the understanding that Management  will sign Grant Agreements with projects only subject to available commitment authority. Commitment authority has  in the history of the Foundation been defined to mean confirmed pledges from the donors of the Foundation. Going  forward,  and  because  of  the  unprecedented  delay  in  getting  resources  from  the  Foundation’s  major  donors,  the  Executive Board will ensure that projects are only considered for approval based on signed Financing Agreements with  donors as opposed to approving them on the basis of confirmed pledges.  In light of the challenges facing the Foundation, the Executive Board will maintain the position of a full time resident  Executive Secretary. A replacement has already been identified and he will assume duty on 1st December 2013.    Conclusion    The  ACBF  Executive  Board  commits  to  work  closely  with  the  outgoing  and  incoming  Executive  Secretaries  of  the  Foundation to ensure a smooth transition and attention to the key elements of this Action Plan.    The ACBF Executive Board would like to take this opportunity to indicate its interest in continuing a structured dialogue  between itself and the Senior Management of the World Bank to attend to any issues of concern. We see the World  Bank not only as a financier but as an important partner to ACBF and the delivery of its objectives in Africa.      Yours Sincerely,        2013‐11‐11  Paul Baloyi  Chairman of the Executive Board    Page 110 of 216 PART B. IMPLEMENTATION STATUS OF ITEMS FROM LETTER OF COMMITMENT Page 111 of 216 Page 112 of 216 Page 113 of 216 Page 114 of 216 Page 115 of 216 ANNEX 9. KEY OUTPUTS DELIVERED BY ACBF SUB‐PROJECTS BY THEMATIC AREA    Outputs Delivered  Cumulative  Indicators   Remarks  By Category  Delivered   1. POLICY ANALYSIS  This figure aggregates the total research conducted all the 17 Think Tanks  funded under RIDA/RE‐MDTF grants. It relates mainly to core research (30%)  1.1‐  In‐depth  initiated directly by Think Tanks and commissioned research (70%) by  analyses and  Number of policy  Governments or other development partners at country level. The themes  responses to  research/analyses  295  covered by the research studies were varied and diverse across countries,  development  conducted   and included: food security, agricultural value chain, youth employment,  issues at country  women entrepreneurship, land tenure and use, investment and private  level  sector development, public‐private partnership and infrastructure  development, climate change, etc.  Policy papers include policy briefs, policy recommendations and other policy‐ 1.2‐ Policy options  related documents developed through policy research.  Policy papers are  responding to  Number of policy  more concise and constitute support materials used by decision makers and  development  56  papers produced   other key actors in deepening their understanding on development issues  challenges at  and policy options. Most ACBF‐supported Think Tanks develop three policy  country level   papers on average annually.    Dissemination included meetings, workshops and publications. The purpose  1.3‐ Improved  Number of policy  of dissemination was to present to key actors the main findings from policy  access to policy  products  274  research and policy recommendations on development issues. Publications  products and  disseminated   of research findings remain the main dissemination strategy for most think  services    tanks, representing 60% of the total number of policy products disseminated.  Target audience mainly comprised policy‐makers and high officials from  1.4‐ Policy  Number of policy  public and private sectors and civil society. These events create space to  awareness and  advocacy/  423  engage state and non‐state actors in national development processes. ACBF‐ engagement raised  dialogues  supported think thanks that have emerged as key actors in facilitating  at countries' level   organized   dialogue or advocacy include IDEG, HESPI, IPAR Rwanda, KIPPRA and CEPOD.  Page 116 of 216 Outputs Delivered  Cumulative  Indicators   Remarks  By Category  Delivered   Number of public  1.5‐ Enhanced  policy officials  In addition to the core mandate of conducting policy research and analysis,  knowledge in  trained (short‐ 1,347  most supported think tanks also provided short‐term trainings to partners  policy analysis on  term training  and other clients.  The participants in the training included: officials from  national  courses)  ministry departments and agencies (70%), civil society (20%) and private  development  Number of short‐ sector (10%)The duration of short‐term training varied across ACBF‐ issues     term training  24  supported sub‐projects from 2 days to two weeks   courses organized   1.6‐ Policy  Number of policy  Supported think tanks were instrumental in providing technical advice and  guidance and  guidance and  support to government institutions and other partners as required. Technical  technical assistance  technical  87  advice included facilitating reviewing policy documents and participating in  provided to  assistance  policy committees. Policy advice was an integral element of the interventions  decision makers   provided   of almost all policy think tanks supported by ACBF  1.7‐ Peer‐to‐peer  Number of  Several supported think tanks promoted exchange programs under their  learning on policy  exchange  25  learning and sharing strategies. These included EDRI, EEA, CEPOD, ZIPAR,  practice and  programs  HESPI and IPAR Rwanda  knowledge‐sharing   organized   2. TRAINING PROGRAMS  2.1‐ Access to  degree programs  ACBF supported 12 Long‐term (academic) training programs including: 5  Number of degree  (Masters and PhD)  EPMs (Abidjan, Ghana, Yaounde, Zambia, Makerere); 3 STEM (2iE, AUST,  programs  12  in development  AIST); 1 PSMTP (GIMPA); 1 Agriculture (CMAAE); 1 Gender (FAS) and 1  supported by ACBF   management  Banking & Finance (CESAG)  increased  2.2‐ Expertise and  Number of  This includes mainly participants in Master’s degree from the 12 long‐term  competencies in  participants in  training programs supported by ACBF. Only CMAAE covered a PhD program  policy analysis and  ACBF‐supported  3,287  with 8 students supported. Out of 3,287 participants, there were students  management  degree training  sponsored by ACBF (30%) and non‐sponsored participants (70%).  The  improved   programs  distribution of participants per training program type is: EMPs (39%), STEM  Page 117 of 216 Outputs Delivered  Cumulative  Indicators   Remarks  By Category  Delivered   (26%) and others (35%). These include sponsored and fee‐paying students  2.3‐ Improved  capabilities of  Number of  Refers to ToT sessions targeting faculty members and other teaching staff  faculty members to  training‐of‐trainers  17  from the 12 long‐term training program supported by ACBF  deliver on assigned  organized   mandate    EPMs programs accounted for 70% of the total number of scholarships  2.4‐ Financial  Number of  provided for participants in all 12 training programs supported by ACBF. In  access to training  scholarships  989  addition, the ACBF also supported teaching and learning equipment and  programs increased   awarded   materials as well as other logistic and administrative costs as part of  institutional strengthening.  2.5‐ Improved  Number of training   All the 12 supported training programs had developed comprehensive  quality of training  curricula  training curriculum package at the beginning of the program and proceeded  174  material and  developed and  with reviews for further refining and improvement. An average of 20 training  resources   reviewed   curriculum were prepared for each of the program.  In addition to the long‐term academic training, the supported institutions  2.6‐ Skills in  Number of  also offered short‐term training, mostly in the areas of economic policy  development  participants in  2,616  management, financial management and public administration management.  management  short‐term training   EPMs and PSMTP were the institutions mostly involved in short‐term  improved   trainings  2.7. Knowledge  Number of study  Supported training institutions also organized networking and peer‐learning  sharing and  tours and  activities. The figure includes mainly EPM Alumni Network (EPMAN) PSMTP  promising  166  exchange  Alumni associations meetings (40%), as well as exchange programs organized  experience learning  programs   by individual training institutions (60%)  improved   3. REGIONAL INTEGRATION  3.1‐ In‐depth  Number of policy   ACBF‐supported regional economic communities (RECs) conducted diverse  75  analysis and  research  research studies to inform regional integration agenda in the context of their  Page 118 of 216 Outputs Delivered  Cumulative  Indicators   Remarks  By Category  Delivered   responses to  conducted   respective regions. These include: WAMI, COMESA, EAC and IGAD. The  development  research studies covered critical topic such as regional or cross‐border trade,  issues at the  contract negotiation, regional integration index, convergence criteria,  regional level   regional macro‐economic models.  3.2‐ Policy options   This figure accounts for the synthesis of findings and recommendations  responding to  Number of policy  emerged from research studies conducted by the regional entities. The  development  78  papers produced   papers were mostly developed by IGAD (15%), COMESA (60%), FANRPAN  challenges at the  (15%) and WAMI (10%)  regional level   3.3‐ Policy  Number of policy  awareness and  advocacy/   Relates to interactions and engagement of regional entities with key  engagement at the  20  dialogues  stakeholders at regional level  regional level  organized   increased  3.4‐ Enhanced  Number of officials  knowledge on  of regional   The training targeted mostly RECs staff (COMESA, EAC, WAMI, AU) and other  policy analysis of  institutions  1,583  regional entities officials such as FANRPAN, AWDF and AAU (also playing the  regional  receiving short‐ role of service provider as well)  development  term training  issues     3.5. Knowledge‐ Number of  There were intra‐regional exchange programs (70%) and cross regional and  sharing and  exchange  35  international (30%). The supported regional entities included WAMI, AWDF,  learning improved   programs   FANRPAN and COMESA  Page 119 of 216   SHORT NOTE ON KEY OUTPUTS PER THEMATIC AREAS  (Prepared by ACBF from Progress Reports)      The ACBF has emerged as one of the leading capacity development organizations in Africa. The Foundation  has supported the formulation and implementation of relevant, inclusive and coherent public policies and  programs that have contributed to increased growth and sustainable development across the continent.  The Foundation has built and strengthened public sector institutions and created platforms for inclusive  policy engagement as well as empowered senior public sector officials and managers who are playing a  lead role in national and regional development processes. ACBF has also strengthened and equipped a  number of higher educational institutions that have trained and deployed a cadre of highly skilled and  capable academicians. At the regional level, ACBF has been successful in improving the coordination and  relevance of regional policies and programs. The Foundation has supported the enhancement of policy  research capabilities of Regional Economic Communities (RECs).    Policy Analysis     The  focus  work  of  think  tanks  included  research,  training,  dialogue  and  networking  at  national  and  regional  levels.  Research  conducted  by  the  think  tanks  include  country  needs  assessment,  studies  on  policy issues in agriculture, SMEs and Gender. The think tanks also contributed to building human capacity  in  the  public  sector  by  conducting  trainings  for  auditors,  M&E  technicians  and  statisticians  amongst  others.  In  the  reporting  period,  opportunities  for  dialogue,  networking  and  partnerships  were  created  with government ministries and departments and other national and international research and policy  institutions. The think tanks were also instrumental in providing tailored technical advice and support to  government institutions as required. Examples of achievements by some policy units:     Food  Security  and  Agriculture:  In  Mauritania,  the  Centre  Mauritanien  d’Analyse  de  Politique  (CMAP) produced a report on competitiveness of the agricultural sector which led to an agreed  Action  Plan  to  be  implemented  by  the  Ministry  in  charge  of  Agriculture.  The  effective  implementation  of  the  action  Plan  will  allow  the  government  amongst  others  to  identify  the  Mauritanian  agricultural products with  highest export potential in the external market; and to  develop Advisory Program to support producers and maintain agricultural machinery.  It would  also contribute to revitalize and reorganize the seed sector with the objective of making quality  seed  available  by  strengthening  the  structures  in  charge  of  their  production  and  their  multiplication.  Finally, an information system on the market prices of agricultural products will  established.      FANRPAN trained its country nodes focal points to undertake advocacy on Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA)  policy. Node coordinators now have improved capacity to support in‐country advocacy activities namely  developing concept notes, mobilising diverse stakeholders and facilitating the national policy dialogues,  keeping  abreast  with  food,  agriculture  and  natural  resources  policy  issues  and  participating  where  required.  The FANRPAN Nodes are also taking the lead in engaging with the media to create national  awareness on CSA issues. FANRPAN is  now being perceived as the go to organization for  expertise on  research.  During  the  reporting  period,  FANRPAN  was  engaged  by  ACBF  and  FAO  to  conduct  a  Needs  Assessment for Establishment of an African Centre for Best Practices, Capacity Development and South‐ South  Cooperation  (SSC).  FANRPAN  successfully  completed  the  assignment  and  presented  the  needs  Page 120 of 216 assessment report during a validation workshop which was well accepted.     Creating platforms for dialogue on national policy: The HESPI in Ethiopia organized a Consultative  policy seminar on Federalism in Somalia. The meeting provided the Somali stakeholders various  federalism  practices  and  institutional  governance  frameworks  on  intergovernmental  relations.  The  participants  are  now  supporting  the  Somalia  government  formation  by  way  of  helping  in  mechanisms of constituent States formation, including aspects of power and resources sharing  and transfer mechanism.     Promoting  evidence‐based  policy  making:  The  Cameroon  Policy  Analysis  and  Research  Centre  (CAMERCAP) completed a study on science and technology and innovation in Cameroon including  an Action Plan presented to the Government to support the revival of science and technology  innovation  in  Cameroon.  Some  of  the  recommendations  contained  in  the  Action  Plan  include:  development of a National Research Policy Document; mainstreaming of innovation in all policy  formulation  and;  incentives  for  the  promotion  of  local  investment  in  science,  technology  and  innovation  and  development  of  scientific  and  technological  research.  In  Ethiopia,  the  HESPI  finalized 9 high‐quality and peer reviewed research products of regional scope and importance  including  topics:  Small  and  medium  enterprises  access  to  Finance  in  Ethiopia:  Synthesis  of  Demand and Supply, Quantifying the road influence zone on socio‐economic development; and  Fiscal  Federalism  and  Decentralization  in  Selected  IGAD  member  countries.  Recommendations  emerging from the studies will be used for policy formulation.     Public Financial Management: HESPI trained eight (8) senior Audit officials of the supreme Audit  Institutions  of  Somalia  and  South  Sudan  in  Addis  Ababa  as  part  of  efforts  to  consolidate  the  capacities of Audit Chambers in the two countries and ensure effective auditing. Feedback from  the trainees indicated that the training helped the auditors to influence the change process of  standardizing financial audits, fraud audits and instituting internal control systems. The institution  also  trained  ten  (10)  Public  Finance  Management  (budget  and  treasury)  officials  mainly  from  Ministries of Finance and Economic Planning of South Sudan and Somalia on Fiscal Transparency  and  effective  budget  management.  Practical  and  hands‐on  experiences  of  Kenya,  Somali  and  South  Sudan  were  shared  among  trainees  and  this  helped  to  establish  a  network  system  for  sharing information on issues related to effective public financial management.     Long‐Term Training:   A total of 448 students graduated from The Public Sector Management Training Program of the Ghana  Institute  of  Management  and  Public  Administration  (PSMTP‐GIMPA)  in  Ghana  over  the  RIDA  project  implementation period. There were 4 Master’s Degree students, 8 Bachelor’s degree students and 44 A  level students graduated in Statistics under the  Projet de Renforcement des Capacités en Statistiques de  la République Centrafricaine (PRCS‐CAR) in Central African Republic. 214 Master’s degree students of the  Nelson  Mandela  African  Institute  of  Science  and  Technology  (NM‐AIST)  in  Tanzania  completed  and  submitted their dissertations for examination during the period. The Economic Management Program in  Zambia (EPM – Zambia) graduated 298 participants, EPM‐Ghana graduated 412 participants and EPM‐ Yaounde  graduated  125  participants.  The  Economic  Policy  Management  in  Uganda  (EPM‐Makerere)  trained 252 students. The Collaborative Masters’ Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics (CMAAE)  in Kenya supported 5 PhD fellows.     Most of the students who graduated went back to the organizations where they were working before the  Page 121 of 216 studies, whilst others got promoted. For example, graduates of the EPM‐Ghana program indicated that  before the admission to the program, he was working with a Department in charge of monitoring budget  of Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assemblies (MMDAs) and allocations at the Ministry of Finance of  Ghana, where he was basically in charge of checking whether the MMDAs have gotten their allocations  and utilising them accordingly. After graduation, he has been given a new role on government finance and  economic management, which is a role above what he was doing previously and more related to policy  formulation.    Short‐Term Training:     The  trainings  covered  areas  such  as  Economic  Governance,  Policy  Formulation  and  Implementation,  Administration,  Trade,  Statistics,  Project  Management,  Customer  Relations,  Resource  mobilization,  Financial Management, Leadership, youth employment and entrepreneurship. For example, Within the  Youth employment and entrepreneurship program, the Centre Mauritanien d’Analyse de Politique (CMAP)  conducted coaching sessions on entrepreneurship for the benefit of 105 unemployed young graduates.  At the end of the session, 58 business plans were produced and 2 trainees have succeeded to establish  their own companies: One has created a company called "Flavors of the Desert" for the processing of  Fishing  and  Livestock  Products.  He  established  the  company  with  his  own  funds.  The  second  trainee  created  a  company  called  "Brick  deposit"  funded  by  the  ‘’Caisse  de  Depot  et  Développement  (CDD)’’  through the National Agency for the Promotion of Youth Employment (ANAPEJ).    3.1.3. Regional Integration     The  implementation  of  activities  by  these  regional  institutions  continued  to  contribute  to  enhancing  capacity for economic development and integration, women empowerment, youth employment, good  governance, intra‐African trade, as well as supporting the institutional transformation processes for the  implementation of the continental agenda.    The African Union Capacity Building Project (AU‐CAP) organized regional training workshops in Private  Public  Partnerships  and  Microfinance  targeted  at  Women  and  Youth  in  addition  to  conducting  the  8th  African  Private  Sector  Forum  for  youth  and  women.    The  main  outcome  of  this  Forum  was  the  establishment  of  training  for  African  Women  and  Youth  Entrepreneurs,  African  Enterprises  owned  by  women  in  different  sectors,  African  women  in  the  private  sector  and  establishment  of  Mentorship  Program for young Entrepreneurs.     Furthermore,  The  African  Women  Development  Fund  (AWDF)  continued  to  strengthen  women  organizations  in  Africa  to  promote  women’s  rights  and  make  their  voices  heard.  AWDF  among  others  organized Chief Executive Officers’ Forum during the reporting period to create the platform for these  women leaders to discuss how to improve the leadership functions of their organizations. The CEO’s forum  was followed by individual coaching sessions for the women leaders.  As a result, Vimbai Mlambo from  Zimbabwe,  for  example,  who  benefited  from  the  Forum  and  coaching  sessions  was  promoted  to  the  position of Executive Director after the departure of the Director of her organization. She has also been  invited by UN Women to join a women’s leadership group on women and HIV & Aids in Zimbabwe where  she will bring young women’s voices and concerns for action in this space. According to Vimbai  “AWDF  coaching  project  has  truly  been  inspirational  and  contributed  hugely  to  my  personal  development  and  prepared me into my new leadership position”.     Page 122 of 216 The Association of African Universities’ Capacity Development Project for Revitalization of African Higher  Education Institutions (AAU‐CADRE) based in Ghana, introduced an internship program in 2016 for young  graduates as a way of strengthening university‐industry relationships and linkages and it already yielding  results  by  promoting  graduate  employability.  Some  of  the  interns  have  ended  up  working  at  those  institutions where they did their internships after their graduation with others getting employed by other  organizations/companies.  For  example,  Miriam  Adongo  who  benefited  from  the  internship  program  wrote back to AAU to express her appreciation that had it not been for the internship, she would not have  managed the interview she attended before getting the job as an Environmental Officer with DAI‐KIWASH  project.    The West African Monetary Institute (WAMI) constructed a trade index for the West African Monetary  Zone (WAMZ) to assess each Member State’s performance and relate it to the trade integration goals of  ECOWAS, which is critical to the determination of the extent of trade integration in the Zone. This trade  index was adopted at the meeting of the WAMZ Trade Ministers during the reporting period in Liberia  and it was recommended that the index should be updated and published annually to inform decision  making in the Zone. The College of Supervisors of the West African Monetary Zone (CSWAMZ) meetings  organized by WAMI during the reporting period, contributed to the drafting of a Model Banking Act for  the zone which will be presented for adoption after it has been reviewed by the Legal Institution and Issue  Committee of the zone. When this Act is adopted, will contribute to boosting trade and businesses in the  zone.     The  Common  Market  for  Eastern  and  Southern  African  (COMESA)  organized  the  2nd  Annual  Research  Forum  with  its  theme  ‘Trade  in  Services  and  Trade  Facilitation  for  Inclusive  and  Sustainable  Industrialization in the COMESA region’. The forum brought together scholars from 22 universities, private  sector practitioners, development partners and policy makers from 14 COMESA Member States. Among  its key results was the creation of a committee of 22 leading Universities across the 19 COMESA Member  States to discuss modalities of implementing the COMESA Masters’ Program in regional integration.  Page 123 of 216 ANNEX 10. ACBF SUCCESS STORIES    ACBF‐SUPPORTED SUCCESS STORIES: POLICY RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS      Project Name: Institute for Policy Analysis and Research of Rwanda (IPAR‐Rwanda)   Story Title: Improving public service delivery and performance evaluation in Rwanda    IPAR‐Rwanda is an autonomous policy institute established in 2008. It is one of the lead policy institutes in  Africa  supported  by  the  ACBF.  IPAR  has  emerged  as  the  lead  think  tank  in  Rwanda  and  has  supported  and  influenced a number of significant national policies and programs. The institute has also attained a very high  legitimacy and visibility among state and no‐state actors in the country thereby increasing the demand for its  research products and services. In addition to the Rwandan Government who is the main client and user of  IPAR’s  services,  the  institute  also  provides  services  to  and  collaborates  with  the  World  Bank,  the  African  Development  Bank  (AfDB),  United  Nation’s  Development  Program  (UNDP)  and  other  international  development organizations.  In  2013,  the  Government  contracted  IPAR  to  lead  the  evaluation  of  the  Imihigo‐  an  annual  performance  agreement between the President and Ministers and mayors in the country‐ by conducting an independent  and objective assessment and to recommend ways of improving service delivery and planning including setting  performance targets for the coming year. Unlike the failure of other performance management systems in the  civil  services  in  countries  around  the  globe,  the  Imihigo  has  been  fully  accepted  and  owned  by  leaders  in  Rwanda and the findings and recommendations from the assessment are used to inform both political and  program oriented decision making.  Rwanda has made remarkable progress towards achieving the goal of becoming a middle income country as  reflected by its Vision 2020. This is evident through significant socio‐economic transformation observed in the  last  decade  as  a  result  of  the  implementation  of  programs  under  the  Economic  Development  and  Poverty  Reduction Strategy, EDPRS 1&2.  Rwanda’s progress is mainly attributed to implementation of Performance  contracts (Imihigo). These performance contracts have proved to be a planning and monitoring tool to deliver  the EDPRS targets and to sustain the momentum towards delivering the sustainable development goals.  Imihigo represents one of the successful cases where traditional indigenous knowledge has been harnessed to  drive development and service delivery in Africa. It has become one of the home grown initiatives that are  changing the face of Rwanda as an invaluable tool for planning, monitoring and evaluation of the impacts of  development policies.  Since IPAR was first contracted by the Prime Minister’s office in 2013, the institute has been at the fore front  of  the  evaluation  and  has  successfully  completed  two  evaluations  the  results  of  Imihigo  the  outcomes  and  recommendations  of  which  have  been  used  by  the  President  and  the  Ministers  and  District  Mayors  for  accountability purposes and as a basis for annual planning and investments.       Project Name: Institute for Democratic Governance Capacity Building Project (IDEG‐CAP)   Story Title: Preventing Election Violence and Promoting Peace and Democracy in Ghana     During the period just before the 2012 presidential elections, the threat of widespread political violence which  could mar free and fair elections and rule of law loomed large. To mitigate this risk, IDEG convened a high level  meeting on 27 November 2012—the first of its kind in Ghana. This meeting was attended by institutions of  State, traditional authority and civil society organizations and it successfully adopted the Kumasi Declaration,  Page 124 of 216 popularly  called  the  ‘Peace  Pact’.  In  the  Declaration,  the  presidential  candidates  collectively  took  a  stand  against “electoral violence, impunity and injustice” and jointly committed themselves to the maintenance of  the rule‐of‐law in the country.   The Declaration was signed by all 8 Presidential candidates and each candidate was presented a copy of the  revised edition of the Election Dispute Adjudication Manual (2012) which directed all election disputes to the  Courts for a prompt resolution Over 4,000 people attended the meeting, including high profile dignitaries’ civil  society organizations, youth groups, women’s organizations, religious bodies, professional associations and the  media. The event was broadcast live by the Ghana Television (GTV) and its syndicates in other regions and  received extensive coverage in the electronic and print media.   The Kumasi Declaration became the first‐ever political instrument employed in the management of potentially  violent multiparty elections in Ghana.   In the days leading to the 7 December 2012 elections and after, civic groups and the media used the Declaration  to steer politicians towards peaceful options for solving election disputes. The Declaration also encouraged  both the opposition and the governing parties to resort to the Supreme Court, rather than the streets, in their  dispute over the validity of the results of the presidential elections, published on 9 December 2012.   Today, the Declaration has become an important moral standard for holding political leaders accountable, and  making  them  responsible  for  up‐holding  the  rule‐of‐law  in  the  democratic  politics  of  the  country.  This  innovative  instrument  can  serve  to  peacefully  manage  potential  violent  electoral  disputes  in  other  African  countries.  IDEG’s  Capacity  Building  Project  (IDEG‐CAP  II)  is  funded  by  ACBF  to  strengthen  interface  mechanisms  established  under  IDEG‐CAP  I  between  the  State  and  non‐state  actors,  contribute  to  the  consolidation  of  democratic governance, accelerate poverty reduction, increase growth and sustainable development in the  country through strong ties of cooperation, networking and strategic partnership. Through core funding, ACBF  provides  the  institutional  support  that  enables  IDEG  to  undertake  projects.  In  recognition  of  its  work  in  promoting peace and democracy IDEG received the Martin Luther King Award from the US Embassy in Ghana.  It is doubtful that this achievement would have been possible without ACBF’s continued support to IDEG.       Project Name: Kenya Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis (KIPPRA)  Story Title: Promoting Evidence‐Based Research for Strategic Policy Making in Kenya    The signing of the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) by the Government of Kenya’s has enabled Kenyan  exports  to  enter  EU  markets  without  any  tax  which  has  been  a  huge  relief  for  the  Kenyan  exporters.  http://www.trademarkea.com/news/relief‐for‐exporters‐as‐kenya‐signs‐new‐trade‐deal‐with‐eu/.  The  Government in January 2014 requested the Kenya Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis (KIPPRA),  one of the think tanks supported by African Capacity Building Foundation (ACBF), to provide it with evidence‐ based information that will guide its decision on the signing of the EPA.   The call on KIPPRA was in line with the government’s desire to take pragmatic decision based on evidence and  the trust in the capability of the institution as well as the quality and relevance of its policy research evidence  and  recommendation.  KIPPRA  provided  empirical  evidence  and  recommendations  that  enabled  the  government to move forward with the agreement on the EPA. To ensure quality and relevance of the research,  KIPPRA adopted a participatory approach backed by a multi‐faceted team. The team is composed of individuals  with  extensive  technical  expertise  in  economic  and  trade  analysis  as  well  as  highly  experienced  senior  government officials who were conversant with the intricacies of trade negotiations. The key stakeholders who  participated  in  the  research  included  the  East  African  Community,  Kenya  government,  Kenyan  civil  society,  Kenyan  exporters  and  the  larger  business  community  in  Kenya,  the  European  Union,  and  the  media.  This  participatory and inclusive strategy promoted early‐buy in, ownership and utilization of the outcomes of the  Page 125 of 216 study.  KIPPRA is among the first policy research Institutes established by the Government of Kenya with support from  ACBF. Since its establishment in 1994, the institute has provided insightful research‐based evidence that has  informed a number of strategic policies, programs and projects implemented by the government and other  stakeholders. The EPAs study is one of the many research engagements supported by ACBF.     Project Name: Zambia Institute for Policy Analysis and Research (ZIPAR)   Story Title: Promoting Equitable Development of Constituencies in Zambia    ZIPAR  has  developed  an  alternative  allocation  model  aimed  at  enhancing  effective  allocation  of  the  Constituency Development Fund (CDF) in Zambia. The study and follow‐up presentations and engagement with  government  and  other  stakeholders  has  spurred  deliberations  and  interrogation  of  the  existing  allocation  model.  The CDF was approved by the Parliament of Zambia in 1995 and administered through the local government  to  all  constituencies  in  Zambia.  The  Fund  is  intended  to  support  the  implementation  of  development  programmes at the constituency level. The CDF is the only fund that goes directly to the community and as a  result is an important vehicle for achieving their prioritized needs. There is a reasonable involvement of the  communities in the utilization of the fund.  However, the challenge that was identified is that an equal quantum  of  the  fund  is  disbursed  to  the  constituencies  without  taken  into  account  the  heterogeneity,  including  the  location and endowment of each the constituencies.   It can therefore, be described as a ‘one size fits all’ program.  But the reality is that constituencies in Zambia  differ immensely in terms of geographical size, population size and the levels of deprivations. Notwithstanding  the current allocation model, the CDF has the potential of uplifting the rural and deprived communities as well  as promote equitable development in the country  Furthermore, in the 2015 budget, the government introduced a Local Government Equalization Fund that will  use a resource allocation model to determine how much funds should be disbursed to the constituencies based  on needs.  This new perspective and drive of the government is a direct outcome of a study on ‘Resource Allocation Model  for the Constituency Development Fund’ conducted by ZIPAR,   Evidence of the impact of the resource allocation model was also cemented when a prominent member of  parliament, Hon. Given Lubinda, visited ZIPAR offices on August 13, 2014 without prior notice. The MP was  interested in the model and requested for copies of the publication on the CDF model. He was also interested  in getting to know other research studies that ZIPAR had done.  By adopting a model that takes into consideration the needs and priorities of individual constituencies, the CDF  will go a long way to promote equitable development of the constituencies and Zambia at large.       Project Name: Horn Economic and Social Policy Institute (HESPI)   Story Title: Strengthening Financial Integrity and Accountability in South Sudan      The HESPI project started at the time when South Sudan seceded from Sudan after several years of conflict  which  ruined  institutional  capacities  in  the  country  among  other  humanitarian  damages.  There  were  no  capable  institutions  to  design  the  new  country’s  PFM  laws  and  policies.  As  at  independence  in  2011,  the  capacities  and  functions  of  the  public  finance  integrity  and  accountability  institutions  were  all  at  their  rudimentary stage. The HESPI Grant focused on strengthening institutional capacity in collaboration with the  Government of South Sudan.  The project has provided tailor‐ made training and stimulated knowledge transfer  for senior leadership from the Ministry of Finance and National Audit Chamber.   Page 126 of 216   HESPI  has  conducted  a  robust  diagnostic  study  on  the  institutional  and  legal  context  of  South  Sudan.  This  diagnostic  study  helped  to  assess  the  performances  of  public  agencies  responsible  for  Public  and  Financial  Management (PFM) and financial sector policies and also to appraise the capacity needs of these agencies and  institutions.    The  assessment  served  as  a  basis  for  designing  and  implementing  a  tailor‐made  training  and  technical support to the country. The exercise was to assist in reforming and capacitating its financial integrity  and  accountability  institutions  such  as  the  Ministry  of  Finance  and  Economic  Development,  Bank  of  South  Sudan, Anti‐corruption commission, Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of the Parliament, and National Audit  Chamber.      Among others, the study highlighted capacity gaps in the form of weak internal control and audit functions,  accounting, procurement and reporting, weak institutional and human capacity in the core areas of PFM, lack  of fiscal discipline at all levels, weak leadership, weak tax policy and administration, poor treasury functions,  weak planning and budget formulation which hinder the recovery in the in post‐conflict situation.      Following the assessment, HESPI prepared and submitted to the authorities of the Republic of South Sudan  (RSS) recommendations and strategies that will help alleviate the capacity constraints and improve PFM. In  addition  the  institute  has  provided  hands‐on  training  and  technical  support  to  improve  the  PFM  capacity  deficiencies. HESPI has also sensitized and created awareness among government official on fiscal discipline  and  good  governance  including  the  significance  of  sound  PFM  and  Institution  building.  Important  issues  in  rebuilding  post‐conflict  nations  were  addressed  including  the  role  of  leadership  in  PFM  in  post‐conflict  countries, the role of leaders in state reconstruction, and the importance of good financial governance.       Project Name: Ethiopian Economic Association    Story Title: Improving Domestic Revenue Mobilization of Regional Governments in Ethiopia  The  government  of  Ethiopia  has  embarked  on  a  new  development  trajectory  guided  by  the  Growth  and  Transformation Plan (GTP), 2010‐ 2015. The focus is to attain a middle income status with an average growth  of 11 percent by 2015. The plan emphasizes laying a foundation for the industrial sector to take the lead in the  economic and social transformation of the country.  Accordingly, Ethiopia will require about US$72 billion to  finance the various projects outlined in the plan. Over 68 percent of this revenue is expected to come from  domestic sources, primarily from domestic tax revenue.   The  regional  government  of  Southern  Nations  Nationalities  and  People’s  (SNNP)  Regional  State  in  Ethiopia  reached out to EEA, an ACBF supported policy institute to provide them with research‐based policy options  and hands‐on technical support to improve their capabilities in mobilizing adequate tax revenue to finance  their projects and program.  The request was underpinned by the fact that the regional government did not have the capacity to mobilize  adequate tax revenue. The domestic revenue mobilization capacity as measured by the ratio of tax collection  as a share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or by tax‐to‐regional budget was very low. The average regional  tax revenue‐to‐regional GDP ratio was estimated to be only 1.7 between 2005 and 2010.  Over 84 percent of  the Region’s budget was subsidized by the federal government, 3 percent from non‐tax revenues meaning and  only about 13 percent from its own tax revenues.    The research and technical support provided by EEA enabled SNNP to identify the revenue potential of the  region,  revise  the  region’s  tax  policies,  develop  and  operationalize  effective  tax  collection  strategies.  The  hands‐on technical support also improved skills and competencies of the staff of the Bureau of Revenue of  Page 127 of 216 SNNP to provide technical oversight for revenue planning, implementation monitoring and evaluation in the  region.  The Bureau of Revenue of SNNP has adopted and implemented most of the recommendations provided by the  study, for example:   The Bureau used the findings of the study when preparing the 2011–12 regional annual work plans. It used the  findings to set annual revenue targets for each woreda (district) and municipal town;   The results of the study have been used by the Bureau to support its M&E functions. The biannual M&E process  compares  the  amount  of  revenue  collected  during  each  period  against  annual  agreed‐upon  targets  and  estimated revenue potential;   The Bureau of Finance and Economic Development has used the revenue potential estimates to set the regional  annual revenue target, which is declared as part of the annual regional government budget;    The Bureau of Revenue has also started using the results of the study for its Tax Payers Awareness Creation  activities;    The Bureau has undertaken administrative reforms aimed at reorganizing its human resources based on the  recommendation of the study.     ACBF‐SUPPORTED SUCCESS STORIES: REGIONAL INTEGRATION      Project Name: Inter‐Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD)  Story Title: Enhanced effectiveness of financial sector institutions in IGAD Region     Over the year under review, as part of its strategy to improve the skills and competencies of the staff  within financial integrity institutions, HESPI trained 34 members of the two parliaments Public  Accounts  Committee  (PAC)  and  Economic  Committee  of  the  Parliaments  of  South  Sudan  and  Somalia.  Nineteen  participants  were  from  Somalia  and  fifteen  of  them  were  from  South  Sudan.  The  seminar  aimed  to  improve effective utilization of public resources in the targeted countries by strengthening the capabilities  of the parliamentarians in undertaking their oversight, accountability and legislative roles.  The four‐day  seminar helped to increase their knowledge and understanding on public budget process/cycle, functions  and the legitimate mandates of the PAC and Economic Committee in financial oversight. The seminar also  provided opportunity for experiences sharing from successful post‐conflict nations namely Uganda and  Kenya.  Critical action points such as finalizing legal framework (adopting from others with customization),  capacity building of the committees, protection mechanisms, etc. were set out.     In addition to the above, HESPI implemented a Twining Relationship that enabled project analysis and  loan officers from the Reconstruction and Development Bank of Somalia to gain on the job experience on  how to better manage public resources and conduct professional project analysis in the process of post‐ conflict  reconstruction    from  the  Development  Bank  of  Ethiopia  through  secondment.  The  Twining  Relationship allowed the beneficiary officers to work with the selected bank for 6 weeks (1Dec. 2014 t‐17  January 2015). Evaluation of the initiative showed that the beneficiary officers gained practical knowledge  and skills on objective loan provision process, procedures and loan cycle monitoring practices, on feasible  loan appraisal procedures ( setting priority sectors and project financing in post‐conflict situations),  on  loan  approval  processes  with  development  banks  especially  in  post  conflict  situations,  how  to  conduct  applied research processes and research capacity building methods within the development banks  and  Project  Rehabilitation  and  Loan  Recovery  Process  in  such  a  way  that  it  would  be  adopted  in  Somalia  context.   Page 128 of 216 In  response  to  a  request  from  the  Somalia  government  authorities,  HESPI  organized  a  high‐level  conference  on  Somalia  Federalism  during  the  year  under  review.  The  event  is  engagement  initiative  supported by the ACBF capacity building grant. The forum aimed to promote dialogue and build consensus  on  the  issue  of  constitutional  and  political  federalism  in  Somalia,  a  fundamental  requirement  in  the  rebuilding of the country and to ensure effective public resources management.  The main rationale was  to  increase  the  awareness  and  understanding  of  Somalis  and  other  stakeholders  through  experience  sharing on the different types of federal governance. The conference was conducted in partnership with  the IGAD Secretariat, World Bank, UNECA and other Non‐Governmental organizations. The conference  culminated  in  identification  and  strategizing  around  key  issues  that  require  further  attention  and  deliberation.       Project Name: Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA)  Story Title: COMESA’s research unit contributions in regional integration agenda     As  part  of  its  effort  to  enhance  the  effectiveness  and  impact  of  its  trade  policies  and  programs,  the  COMESA Secretariat requested ACBF’s support to establish a research unit that will lead and coordinate  trade policy analysis and research at the Secretariat. The Foundation in 2013 approved a grant of US$$3  million  for  the  establishment  and  operationalization  of  the  policy  research  unit.  The  project’s  formal  launching on 11‐ 13th August 2014 brought together representatives from the Coordinating ministries of  COMESA  Member  States,  leading  policy  think  tanks  and  key  policy  research  institutes  in  the  COMESA  region and across Africa.     The Research unit has brought significant improvement to the conduct, coordination and utilization of  research‐based evidence for the policy making work of the trade division and the various policy organs of  the Secretariat. For example, the study on ‘Trade Volumes within COMESA’, motivated by the Secretariat’s  desire  to  improve  intra‐regional  trade  among  member  countries  as  way  of  mitigating  the  aggregate  production deficit of food and agricultural good in the region within the short to medium term, provided  a  number  of  insightful  recommendations  that  were  endorsed  by  the  Intergovernmental  Committee  in  December  2014.  Aside  this,  the  Committee  also  committed  to  ensuring  that  the  finding  and  recommendations of the study feeds into the decisions of the COMESA Council and the 2015 work plan  of the Secretariat.        The  project  has  also  contributed  to  the  coordination  of  research  at  the  Secretariat  through  the  development  of  a  comprehensive  Research  Agenda  which  was  discussed  and  approved  by  the  Project  Steering Committee. The unit has succeeded in integrating its research work into the structures of the  Secretariat  culminating  in  an  increased  request  for  research‐based  information  and  technical  support  from  the  key  policy  organs.    For  instance,  the  research  unit  successfully  responded  to,  and  presented  research‐based  recommendations  to  the  COMESA  Summit  held  in  February  2014  the  findings  and  recommendations were adopted by the Council of Ministers and have been published in the COMESA  flagship publication “Key Issues in Regional Integration Volume III”.    Further, the unit contributed to the study on sugar competitiveness in COMESA in October 2014 which  was a request from the summit.  The outcome have been utilized by Kenya which presented  a request  for a sugar safeguard during the policy organs meetings which held in December 2014, and is a key input  to the forth coming second extra‐ordinary meeting of the trade and customs committee schedule for 9‐ 11th February 2015.  Page 129 of 216   In terms of skills transfer and training, the research unit has provided technical support and hands‐on  training for trade experts, staff of the trade division and COMESA coordinating ministries in trade policy  analysis using software such as E‐views.       ACBF‐SUPPORTED SUCCESS STORIES: REGIONAL TRAINING PROGRAMS     Project Name: Economic Policy Management Programme in Ghana (EPM‐Ghana)   Story Title: Overview of EPM Ghana Achievements     The  overall  goal  of  EPM‐Ghana  is  to  improve  the  performance  and  efficiency  of  the  public  sector  in  Anglophone West Africa given the backdrop of inadequate skills and competencies of the public sector of  African countries to develop, analyse and manage economic policies. Since its inception in 1998, EPM‐ Ghana has received a total grant support of US$9,770,000.00 from ACBF as a major donor (70% of total  resources).  Other  donor  partners  are  the  University  of  Ghana,  the  Joint  Japan  World  Bank  Graduate  Scholarship Programme (JJ/WBGSP) and countries.     In terms of Training, a total of 989 personnel mainly from the participating regional countries (Nigeria,  Sierra Leone, Liberia, Gambia, Ghana and others) have been trained for competencies in Economic Policy  Management. A tracer study conducted in December 2016, found that 64.2 percent of the respondents  were employed in the public sector, with the remaining spread across financial institutions (insurance and  banks), academia, research and private businesses. Additionally, graduates of EPM perform a wide range  of functions in their organizations such as economic advisors (15.6 percent), administrators (20.0 percent),  researchers (5.6 percent), lecturing (2.2 percent), planning (12.2 percent) and project management (12.2  percent),  among  others.  Again,  the  study  found  that  a  large  proportion  of  respondents  (77.9  percent)  have not changed jobs following completion of the Programme.     In  the  area  of  Institutional  Strengthening,  the  Programme  through  the  direct  invention  of  ACBF  is  equipped with fixed assets, including a three‐floor building fitted with Wi‐Fi and power generating plant  to provide uninterrupted power supply, vehicles, modern classrooms, well stocked library, modern video  conference facility and computer laboratory.  These assets serve not only ACBF sponsored scholars, but  also that of JJ/WBGSP scholars and fee‐paying students. Again, ACBF pays the salaries of the staff of the  Programme and regularly train them to improve their skills and competencies on the job.   Also, the assets  endowments from ACBF propelled the Programme to roll‐out a fee‐paying Programme on a full scale. The  fee‐paying Programme has become a key sustainability anchor of the Programme even in the absence of  the major donor ACBF, since November 2016, albeit major fall‐outs from applicants who cannot afford  the fees (i.e. mostly from the public sector).     In sum, the partnership support from ACBF has been of great benefit to the Programme and the human  capacity development of personnel from the beneficiary countries. In order to consolidate these gains,  there is still the urgent need for continued grant support to open up accessibility of the Programme to  fragile countries like Liberia and Sierra Leone and least represented countries like the Gambia.  Again, with  ACBF renewed financial support, the public sector will have access to the programme again. The full fee‐ paying  programme  introduced  as  a  result  of  the  absence  of  ACBF  funding  is  mainly  participated  by  personnel from the private sector, which totally defeats the main objective of EPM‐Ghana as public sector‐ oriented training programme.   Page 130 of 216   Project Name: Public Sector Management Training Programme in GIMPA (PSMTP‐GIMPA)    Story Title: The State of PSMTP GIMPA Today     The Programme hosted by the Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration (GIMPA) and  funded by ACBF from 2006‐2017 (11 years) is a graduate training programme that leads to a Master’s  Degree in Public Sector Management for middle and senior level public sector officers from Anglophone  West African Countries. It has admitted and successfully graduated 448 persons so far with 351 on ACBF  scholarship and 97 on fee paying. This has been a great success since there were no drop outs during the  course of the Programme.     The PSMTP with ACBF funding support accomplished the following for our partner institutions in (ASCON)  Nigeria,  (IPAM)  Sierra  Leone,  (LIPA)  Liberia  and  (MDI)  The  Gambia;  Review/Design  curriculum  of  their  short training programmes, Training of Trainers (TOT) for faculty, faculty and staff development and as  well as faculty and staff exchanges. With ACBF funds, GIMPA built an auditorium for lectures, procured  office equipment, library books and equipment, 4X4 office vehicle and developed and reviewed PSMTP  curriculum.    Promotions and performance of PSMTP Alumni to key policy positions within their various countries have  been encouraging. These are a few examples:     ‐ Dr. Surrur (PSMTP 2006) – Immediate past Head of Civil Service in Sierra Leone.  ‐ Mr. Emmanuel Essilfie‐Conduah (PSMTP 2008) – Manager for Staff Relation, Ghana Exim Bank.  ‐ Mr. Prince Kwame Newman PSMTP (2012) ‐ Currently Director of Administration, Greater Accra  Regional Coordinating Council.   ‐ Sambujang Njie (PSMTP 2014) – currently the Chief Electoral Officer at the Independent Electoral  Commission (IEC), The Gambia  ‐ Mrs  Bertha  Mortoti  (2014)  –  Currently  Deputy  Registrar,  West  African  Examination  Council  (WAEC), Ghana.    As  part  of  strategies  to  sustain  the  programme,  the  PSMTP  Secretariat  and  the  various  country  coordinators incorporated a publicity campaign into the programme to encourage more people to enrol  on the programme on fee paying basis. It is worthy of note that this would not have been possible without  ACBF’s funding contribution and technical support which established the PSMTP.       Project Name:  Banking and Finance Master’s Degree Program (MBF – CESAG)   Story Title: A journey with the African Capacity Building Foundation      Since  2000,  ACBF  has  been  supporting  the  Banking  and  Finance  Master’s  Degree  Program  at  Centre  Africain d’Etudes Supérieures en Gestion (CESAG)  with the main objectives to build the institutional and  human capacity of CESAG to enable it to organize a Master’s Degree in Banking and Finance (MBF) of  international standards. The performance of MBF Project (Phase I) clearly indicates that the MBF at CESAG  is the only training institution in West and Central Africa with the institutional and human capacity to  organize and award a MBF recognized by the Conseil Africain et Malgache de l’Enseignement Supérieur  (CAMES).     Page 131 of 216 When it was established, CESAG’s MBF was recognized as radical institutional and pedagogical innovations  in Africa due to its design, mode of delivery, linguistic and geographical coverage, and duration. Several  pedagogical  and  technical  partnership  agreements  have  been  signed  by  the  Project  with  several  European,  North  American  and  African  training  institutions  and  organizations  to  provide  trainers,  hardware  and/or  software  required  for  training.    CESAG’s  MBF  Project  promoters  and  managers  established  strategic  partnerships  with  CESAG’s  parent  institution,  the  Banque  Centrale  des  Etats  de  l’Afrique de Ouest (BCEAO); its counterpart in Central Africa, the  Banque des Etats de l’Afrique Centrale  (BEAC); the Bank of France; INSEAD; New York University’s Stern School of Business; and the University of  Brussels. As at the end of 2006, four cohorts have been trained, graduating 167 participants.       Over the years ACBF has continued to strengthen the implementation of CESAG’s Master’s  degree program in Banking and Finance (MBF) and to enhance its sustainability. The  approved grant will help train an additional 400 middle and high‐level African managers in  banking and finance and strengthen networking with relevant professional associations,  training institutions and corporations so as to raise the visibility and accessibility of the  program. Several other donors have since provided co‐financing: UEMOA, BCEAO, Banque  de France, European Union, etc.     According to the outcomes of the tracer study conducted recently, at 100 percent, Program completion  rate is excellent and 98 percent of the graduates were recruited by key financial institutions. In 2008,  CESAG’s MBF was recognized as the leading program in banking and finance in Africa, ranked No 1 by the  newspaper “Jeune Afrique”.       Project Name: The African University of Science and Technology (AUST)   Story Title: Promoting Skills in Science and Technology in Africa: The case of AUST     As a young regional research‐focused University with mandate to educate the next generation of scientists  and engineers that can use their expertise to develop Africa, AUST‐Abuja commenced full operations in  2007  amidst  obvious/expected  institutional  challenges.    Some  of  the  challenges  included  provision  of  appropriate  infrastructure  to  support  teaching  and  research,  attraction  and  retention  of  high  caliber  resident/visiting  faculty,  and  capacity  enhancement  of  its  staff  to  be  able  to  discharge  their  functions  efficiently. This informed the expected outcomes of the ACBF‐funded project which seek to improve the  quality  of  research  and  training  facilities  at  AUST,  increase  accessibility  of  African  students  and  professionals to quality training programs in science and technology at AUST.  The first set of activities undertaken by the Project were the training of 13 middle management staff in  various specialized courses and the engagement of 24 PhD students of AUST as Teaching Assistants. The  trainings which ran from March through November 2015 within and outside Nigeria has had tremendous  impact on staff performance, enabling them take up significantly more challenging tasks efficiently as well  as  increasing  productivity  in  the  discharge  of  their  functions,  while  timely  delivery  of  tutorials  to  MSc  students is enhanced by the engagement of Teaching Assistants.   The project  has also enabled AUST to have access  to high quality Visiting Faculty which  the  university  could not have been able to reach. This has impacted the quality of students trained in the university. The  PhD  students  are  sought  after  for  post‐doctoral  programs  in  top  universities  such  as  University  of  Princeton and University of Delaware in the USA.  Another success story is based on the scholarships that were awarded to all 21 female M.Sc. students  from various countries in the sub‐region including Ghana, Chad, Cameroon and Nigeria, enrolled in the  Page 132 of 216 university in 2015/2016 academic year. Being that students need not worry about financial issues, they  have been committed to their studies thus their excellent performance in their examinations so far. Also  worthy of note is the provision of fiber optics and expansion of internet bandwidth from 1MB to 15MB  through the project. This obviously has enhanced the use of the internet for research and training at the  university particularly through the video conferencing facility at AUST which is now fully functional.   All  of  these  would  ultimately  contribute  to  the  achievement  of  project  development  objectives.  The  support of ACBF in the provision of the scholarship is an opportunity to increase the number of females  involved in higher education in science and technology. Without the ACBF program, the interaction of our  students with high quality faculty and the improvement in the ICT infrastructure which is the backbone  for effective modern teaching and high level research would have remained remote to AUST.       Project Name: International Institution for Water and Environmental Engineering (2iE)  Story Title: Faso Soap‐ Innovation in Malaria Prevention    According to the WHO 2014 World Malaria Report, 333 million people in West Africa alone are at risk of  malaria.  Malaria  is  a  curable  and  preventable  disease  transmitted  to  humans  through  mosquito  bites.  Mosquitoes tend to breed in areas where there is stagnant water and prevention of malaria can be tackled  through the elimination of breeding grounds for mosquitoes. Enhancing prevention measures would help  dramatically reduce the proliferation of malaria.    Faso  soap  is  a  project  developed  by  two  students,  Moctar  DEMBELE  (from  Burkina  Faso)  and  Gerard  NIYONDIKO (from Burundi) as an innovative and cheap solution to prevent malaria. The soap acts as a  mosquito‐repellent when used on the skin and also kills mosquito eggs that have been deposited in waste  water from bathrooms. The soap provided two methods of preventing the spread of malaria. This project  initially entered and won the Green Start Up Challenge (GSUC) organized by the International Institution  for  Water  and  Environmental  Engineering  (2iE).  The  GSUC  is  an  ACBF  funded  activity  that  awards  innovative projects which support green growth in Africa and whose social and/or environmental impact  is positive for the African continent’s sustainable development. In 2013, Faso Soap project went ahead to  win  first  prize  (US$  25,  000)  and  the  People’s  Choice  Award  (US$1,  500)  at  the  Global  Social  Venture  Competition (GSVC) out of 600 projects from aspiring entrepreneurs around the world. This was the first  time  since  GSVC’s  launch  in  1999,  the  award  has  been  won  by  an  African  team.  The  project  was  also  selected  among  the  30  top  innovations  of  the  year  by  the  Global  Innovation  through  Science  and  Technology (GIST) initiative.    ACBF’s grant to 2iE has provided the communication and logistical support needed to host the GSUC as  well as allow innovative projects like Faso Soap to compete and win other competitions. Without ACBF  intervention, the GSUC would not exist or this opportunity will take longer to come into effect. In addition,  ACBF support to GSUC has increased its exposure thereby drawing new partners to 2iE. ACBF through this  project highlights the use of local resources to address local problems.    The  principal  beneficiaries  of  ACBF’s  intervention  are  the  entrepreneurs  who  have  been  provided  opportunities to showcase and develop their projects and ideas. In addition, as in the case of Faso soap,  the social impact of this project will go beyond Burkina Faso and spread throughout Africa improving the  prevention of malaria thereby relieving the stress on household budgets for malaria treatment.       Page 133 of 216 ACBF SUCCESS STORIES  ACBF K&L Department     Success  story  #  1.  Guided  the  African  Union  in  identifying  the  capacities  required  to  successfully  implement Agenda 2063 and the strategies at addressing them  In 2013, African countries developed Agenda 2063, an indigenous 50‐year strategic framework for Africa’s  transformation anchored on inclusive growth and sustainable development. However, African leaders had  questions on what it would take to ensure successful implementation of this Agenda.    At the commission of the AUC, ACBF responded rapidly through the development and publication of four  strategic  studies  –  namely,  (i)  “Assessment  of  Internal  and  external  risks  associated  with  the  implementation  of  AU  Agenda  2063”;  (ii))  “Capacity  Requirements  for  the  New  African  Vision  Agenda  2063”; (iii) “Capacity Development Plan Framework: Buttressing Implementation of the First 10‐Year Plan”  and (iv) “African Critical Technical Skills: Key Capacity Dimensions Needed for the First 10 Years of Agenda  2063”. The ACBF studies have been critical in shaping the direction toward successful implementation of  the continental agenda, having identified the capacities and priority programs required for support by the  African  Union  and  its  organs,  regional  economic  communities  and  African  countries  as  well  as  key  stakeholders. More importantly, these studies were delivered at the January 2017 summit of the AU heads  of State and Government which increased the Foundation’s visibility contributing to the decision of having  ACBF as the specialized Agency of the Africa Union on Capacity Development. Moreover, as part of its  contribution to the celebration of OAU‐AU 50th anniversary, ACBF developed and published a strategic  and informative study – “A Digest of OAU‐AU Treaties, Conventions, and Agreements, 1963 to 2014”, to  stimulate the thinking about the need to fast‐track ratification to give momentum to the processes of  regional cooperation and regional integration.    Success story # 2. Enhanced data and empirical evidence on capacity development for informed decision  making through the Africa Capacity Report  Produced since 2011, the Africa Capacity Report (ACR) has been published annually with the objective of  measuring  and  examining  capacity  imperatives  for  meeting  development  goals  in  African  countries  by  focusing on the key determinants and components of capacity for development. The ACR has focused on  key and strategic themes critical to Africa and its socio‐economic transformation: Capacity Imperatives  for  Regional  Integration  in  Africa  (2014);  Capacity  Imperatives  for  Domestic  Resource  Mobilization  in  Africa (2015); Building Capacity in Science, Technology and Innovation for Africa’s Transformation (2017).    Key achievements of the Report include the use of the various capacity indicators and data for research  by universities across Africa and beyond as well as development partners and African policy makers. For  instance, following the publication of the Africa Capacity Report 2015 on domestic resource mobilization,  Madagascar has been developing a domestic resource mobilization strategy within the framework of the  Plan National de Développement (2015‐2019).      Success  story  #  3.  Establishment  of  the  flagship  African  Think  Tank  Summit  for  peer‐learning  and  exchange of innovative solutions to support Africa’s development agenda  Think tanks are independent organizations producing research‐based evidence to address policy issues,  and seeking to inform and influence the policy making processes through various engagement strategies.  They  are  increasingly  seen  as  influential  players  in  shaping  development  policy  and  practice.  A  key  challenge however remained that there was no known platform offering an opportunity for Africa’s think  Page 134 of 216 tanks to exchange ideas and experiences on various strategic issues and contribute their work on the new  dynamism taking place on the continent.    In  2014,  ACBF  which  has  been  leader  and  key  supporter  and  creator  of  think  tanks  in  Africa,  using  its  convening power initiated annual think tank summits that have become a stable platform for experience  sharing and contribution of Think Tanks’ expertise to solving Africa’s common development challenges.  Through  the  years,  ACBF’s  achievement  in  bringing  more  than  100  leading  African  think  tanks,  researchers,  development  partners,  and  policymakers  together  to  advance  the  developmental,  educational, scientific and social relations for Africa’s socio‐economic transformation has been significant.  The Summits have in turn led to the creation of the Africa Think Tank Network which has helped to identify  areas  of  opportunity  and  joint  partnerships  amongst  think  tanks  and  supported  mentorship  of  young  researchers.    Success story # 4. Enhanced knowledge brokerage on Management for Development Results (MfDR),  through a community of practice, that has advanced national and regional development processes  In the framework of the “African Community of Practice on Managing for Development Results” (AfCoP‐ MfDR) project, ACBF has facilitated knowledge sharing among some 5,000 AfCoP members, in 43 African  countries,  which  included  governments,  regional  economic  communities  and  non‐state  actors.  In  the  AfCOP Project completion report, the ACBF‐managed knowledge sharing component was found to be the  most  successful  component  of  the  four  under  the  Project  with  recommendation  for  scale‐up.  ACBF’s  support has enabled knowledge brokerage and transfer of tacit knowledge on key development issues  such  as  regional  integration,  natural  resources  management,  food  security,  domestic  resource  mobilization, inter alia. AfCoP case studies and guides have provided development practitioners with the  ‘what’  and  ‘how’  to  do  things  to  achieve  results  and  impact.  Eighty  eight  percent  of  AfCoP  members  surveyed on the project impact, said they were motivated to change their practices and working methods  through exchanges on the ACBF‐facilitated AfCoP website and access to the MfDR knowledge products.  The tools have been very popular and in demand, requested by universities20 to serve as course materials  or by ministries and departments to conduct different tasks including development programs planning  and evaluation.                 20 These include University of Dar es Salam, University of Dodoma; University of Namibia, Daystar University, University of  Abomey‐Calavi.   Page 135 of 216     ANNEX 11. ACBF SUB‐PROJECTS FINANCED BY RIDA1, RIDA2 AND RE‐MDTF  (Source: ACBF Finance and Administration Department) GRANT   TYPE  GRANT  GRANT  PROJECT   LOCATION  EFFECTIVENESS  PROJECT  FUNDING  PROJECT TITLE    (National/  APPROVAL/SIGNING  CLOSING DATE  ACRONYM   (Country)   DATE  COST (US$)   SOURCES    Regional)   DATE (month/year)    (month/year)   (month/year)   POLICY ANALYSIS Economic and Social Research            1. ESRF   Tanzania    National   Dec‐2012  Feb‐2013  31‐Dec‐17   RIDA2   Foundation   1,246,294.00   Institute of Policy Analysis and            2. IPAR‐CAP  Research Capacity Building   Rwanda    National   June‐2012  June‐2012  30‐Jun‐17  1,410,000.00    RIDA2   Project   Horn Economic and Social           3. HESPI  Policy Institute    Ethiopia     National   Dec‐2011  Jan‐2013  30‐Oct‐17  2,800,000.00    RE‐MDTF   Kenya Institute for Public Policy             4a. KIPPRA  Research and Analysis    Kenya    National   Dec‐2010  Apr‐2011  30‐Jun‐17  1,500,015.00    RE‐MDTF   Kenya Institute for Public Policy  4b. KIPPRA  Research and Analysis    Kenya    National   Dec‐2010  Apr‐2011  30‐Jun‐17  109,717.00   RIDA2   Centre Mauritanien d’Analyse            5. CMAP  de Politiques    Mauritania    National   June‐2012  July‐2012  31‐Dec‐17  1,802,909.00    RIDA2   Cameroon Policy Analysis and              6. CAMERCAP  Research Centre    Cameroon     National   Aug‐2014  Jan‐2015  31‐Dec‐17  700,000.00    RIDA2   Centre d’Etudes de Politiques                7. CEPOD  pour le Développement    Senegal     National   May‐2015  June‐2015  31‐Dec‐17  537,615.00    RIDA2   Institut de Développement            8. IDEC  Economique    Burundi    National   Oct‐2012  Nov‐2012  30‐Sep‐16  1,100,000.00    RIDA2   Page 136 of 216 Zambia Institute for Policy               9. ZIPAR   Analysis and Research     Zambia     National   Aug‐2005  Nov‐2007  31‐Dec‐14  274,809.00    RIDA1   Ethiopia Economics Association                10. EEA   Ethiopia     National   Sept‐2008  Oct‐2008  31‐Dec‐14  283,942.00    RIDA1   Institute for Democratic               11. IDEG  Governance (IDEG) Interface   Ghana    National   Apr‐2009  Apr‐2009  31‐Dec‐17  759,646.00    RIDA1   Capacity Building Project   Ethiopia Development Policy                12. EDRI  Institute    Ethiopia     National   Sept‐2008  Feb‐2009  30‐Sep‐17  226,513.00    RIDA1   Centre d’Analyse des Politiques               13. CAPES   Economiques et Sociales    Burkina Faso    National   Sept‐2010  Sept‐2010  31‐Dec‐17  383,347.00    RE‐MDTF   Malawi Public Policy Research               14. MPPRAP  and Analysis Project    Malawi    National   November 2015  Feb‐2016  31‐Dec‐17  410,000.00    RIDA2   Ghana Economic Policy Analysis               15. GEPARI  and Research Institute    Ghana    National   Apr‐2016  Apr‐2016  31‐Dec‐17  320,270.00    RIDA2   Centre Autonome d’Etudes et  de Renforcement des Capacités               16. CADERDT  pour le Développement au   Togo    National   Sept‐2008  Feb‐2009  31‐Dec‐17  323,036.00    RE‐MDTF   Togo   Centre d’Etudes et de              17. CERCAP   Renforcement des Capacités   Mali    National   Sept‐2008  Feb‐2009  31‐Dec‐17  300,000.00    RE‐MDTF   d’Analyse et de Plaidoyer       Sub‐total ‐ Policy Analysis                    14,488,113.00      REGIONAL TRAINING PROGRAMS Master Degree in Banking           18. CESAG  and Finance Training   Senegal     Regional   Apr‐2012  Sept‐2012  11‐Apr‐17  1,000,000.00    RIDA2   Program    Programme de Formation           19. EPM Abj   en Gestion de la Politique   Cote d'Ivoire    Regional   Apr‐2012  May‐2012  11‐Apr‐17  2,500,000.00    RIDA2   Economique à Abidjan    Programme de Formation           20. EPM Yde  en Gestion de le Politique   Cameroon     Regional   Apr‐2012  Sept‐2012  11‐Apr‐17  2,000,000.00    RIDA2   Economique à Yaoundé   Page 137 of 216 ACBF Support to a  Network of African               21. 2iE  Institutions of Science   Burkina Faso    Regional   Dec‐2012  Jan‐2013  30‐Sep‐17  900,129.00    RIDA2   and Technology Program  in Ouaga   Nouveau Programme de  22. NPTCI  3e Cycle Interuniversitaire   Burkina Faso    Regional   CANCELLED                                   ‐        en  Economie   Financial Governance and  Transparency            23. GFID  Strengthening Project in   Djibouti    National   May‐2012  Aug‐2012  31‐Oct‐17  1,300,000.00    RIDA2   Djibouti    Projet d’Appui à la            24. PROFAP  Formation des Agents de   Chad    National   June‐2012  Oct‐2012  31‐Dec‐17  1,500,000.00    RIDA1   l’Administration Publique   Programme Pays de            25a. PPRC‐CI  Renforcement des   Cote d'Ivoire    National   May‐2013  Aug‐2013  31‐Dec‐17  3,565,878.00    RE‐MDTF   Capacités en Côte d’Ivoire   Programme Pays de               25b. PPRC‐CI  Renforcement des   Cote d'Ivoire    National    As above   204,536.00    RIDA2   Capacités en Côte d’Ivoire    As above    As above   Projet de Renforcement  des Capacités Statistique           26. PRCS‐CAR  de la République   RCA    National   June‐2012  Sept‐2012  31‐Dec‐17  1,000,000.00    RIDA1   Centrafricaine   Renforcement de  Capacités pour la            27. CODESRIA   Production des   Senegal     Regional   June‐2012  Oct‐2012  30‐Apr‐17  1,650,000.00    RIDA1   Connaissances et de  Leadership en Afrique   Economic Policy            28. EPM Gha  Management Training   Ghana    Regional   Dec‐2012  Jan‐2013  30‐Nov‐16  2,783,829.00    RIDA2   Program in Ghana   Economic Policy            29. EPM Zbia   Management Program at   Zambia     Regional   Mar‐2014  Mar‐2014  31‐Dec‐17  1,299,000.00    RIDA2   University of Zambia   Page 138 of 216 Economic Policy            30a. EPM Mkr  Management Program at   Uganda    Regional   Sept‐2012  Dec‐2012  30‐Sep‐17  2,199,199.00    RIDA1   Makerere University   Economic Policy                30b. EPM Mkr  Management Program at   Uganda    Regional    As above    As above    As above   131,600.00    RIDA2   Makerere University   ACBF Support to a  Network of African            31. AUST  Institutions of Science   Nigeria    Regional   Nov‐2012  Jan‐2013  30‐Nov‐17  2,176,062.00    RIDA2   and Technology Program  in Abuja   Africa Institute of science           32. AIST  and Technology    Tanzania    Regional   Nov‐2012  Jan‐2013  31‐Oct‐17  2,260,000.00    RIDA2   Public Sector  Management Training             33. PSMTP‐GIMPA  Program of the Ghana   Ghana    Regional   Jan‐2012  Feb‐2012  31‐Dec‐17  3,229,815.00    RIDA1   Institute of Management  and Public Administration   Collaborative Masters’             34. CMAAE  Program in Agricultural   Kenya    Regional   June‐2012  June‐2012  30‐Jun‐17  2,811,665.00    RIDA1   and Applied Economics    Master Degree in Gender               35. FAS  and Peace Building   Senegal     Regional   Aug‐2012  Nov‐2012  03‐Aug‐16  300,359.00    RE‐MDTF   Training Program   Mandela Institute for                36. MINDS   Development Studies    South Africa    Regional   Nov‐2014  Dec‐2014  30‐Nov‐16  111,947.00    RE‐MDTF   Projet  de Renforcement  des Capacités en  Statistiques, Etudes               37. RESPEC   Prospectives et   Congo    National   June‐2012  July‐2012  31‐Dec‐17  718,589.00    RIDA1   Planification Pour la Lutte  contre la Pauvreté au  Congo   Programme National de  38. PNRC‐CAF  Renforcement des   G. Bissau    National   CANCELLED                                   ‐        Capacités    Page 139 of 216 West African Institute for  Financial and Economic              39. WAIFEM   Management Capacity   Nigeria    Regional   Sept‐2010  Sept‐2010  31‐Dec‐17  700,000.00    RE‐MDTF   Building Project   National Institute For              40. NILS   Legislative Studies   Nigeria    Regional   Sept‐2010  Sept‐2010  31‐Dec‐17  400,000.00    RE‐MDTF   Capacity Building Project   Centre International de               41. CIFAL Ouaga   Formation des Acteurs   Burkina Faso    Regional            289,918.00    RIDA1   Locaux de Ouaga   African Economic               42. AERC BP  Research Consortium ‐   Kenya    Regional   8‐Mar‐2017  8‐Mar‐2017  30‐Nov.‐17  350,000.00    RE‐MDTF   Bridging Programme    Sub‐Total ‐ Training             Programs                  35,382,526.00      REGIONAL INTEGRATION  Strengthening  Institutional Capacity of           43. AWDF  the African Women’s   Ghana    Regional   Feb‐2012  May‐2012  31‐Dec‐17  1,900,000.00    RIDA2   Development Fund    Association of African  Universities’ Capacity  Development Project for           44. AAU‐CADRE   the Revitalization of   Ghana    Regional   Dec‐2012  Jan‐2013  31‐Dec‐17  2,400,000.00    RIDA2   Higher Education  Institutions    Food, Agriculture and           45. FANRPAN  Natural Resources Policy   South Africa    Regional   Dec‐2012  Dec‐2012  31‐Dec‐17  2,044,744.00    RIDA2   Analysis Network    Common Markets for            46. COMESA  East and Southern Africa    Zambia     Regional   Mar‐2013  May‐2013  30‐Sep‐17  2,867,401.00    RE‐MDTF    Capacity Building Project           47. CAP‐WAMI  for the West African   Ghana    Regional   Jan‐2012  Feb‐2012  31‐Oct‐17  2,000,000.00    RE‐MDTF   Monetary Institute  Page 140 of 216 (WAMI)    African Union Capacity            48. AU‐CAP II  Building Program    Ethiopia     Regional   May‐2015  May‐2015  31‐Dec‐17  1,882,950.00    RIDA2    East Africa Business                  49. EABC  Council    Tanzania    Regional   July‐2010  May‐2011  22‐Jul‐14  32,716.00    RIDA1    African Union Capacity               50. AUCAP BF  Building Program –   Ethiopia     Regional   May‐2013  June‐2013  31‐May‐15  608,291.00    RIDA2   Bridging Fund    East Africa Community               51. EAC CAP   Capacity Building Project    Tanzania    Regional   Jun‐2015  Sept‐2015  31‐Dec‐17  550,000.00    RIDA2    IGAD Integration Support              52. IGAD  Project     Djibouti    Regional   Jul‐2015  Aug‐2015  31‐Dec‐17  650,000.00    RIDA2    Projet d’Appui au Centre  de Programmation               53. PACSR‐UEMOA  Stratégique, de   Burkina Faso    Regional   May‐2016  Aug‐2016  31‐Dec‐17  365,000.00    RIDA2   Recherche et de Veille de  l’UEMOA    Sub‐total ‐ Regional                             Integration    15,301,102.00       Grand Total                  65,171,741.00            Page 141 of 216 ANNEX 12. THINK TANKS SUPPORTED BY ACBF    No  Country  Think tank  Name of Think Tank  1  Benin  CAPOD  Conception et Analyse des Politiques de Développement   2  Botswana  BIPDA  Botswana Institute for Development Policy Analysis  3  Burkina Faso  CAPES  Centre d'Analyse des Politiqes Economiques et Sociales  4  Burundi  IDEC  Institut de Développement Economique  5  Cabo Verde  STPC  Strategic Transformation and Policy Centre   6  Cameroon  CAMERCAP  Cameroon Policy Analysis and Research Center   7  Cote d'Ivoire  CAPEC  Cellule d’analyse de politiques économiques du CIRES   8  Ethiopia  HESPI  Horn Economic and Social Policy Institute  9     EEA/EEPRI  Ethiopian Economics Association  10     EDRI  Ethiopian Development Research Institute  11  Ghana  IDEG  Institute for Democratic Governance   12     GEPARI  Ghana Economic Policy Analysis and Research Institute   13     ISSER  Institute of Statistical, Social and Economic Research  14     CEPA  Centre for Policy Analysis  15  Kenya  KIPPRA  Kenya Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis   16     CCG  Center for Corporate Governance  17     AERC  African Economic Research Consortium  18     IPAR‐KENYA  Institute of Policy Analysis and Research  19     ARRF  Africa Research and Resource Forum   20  Liberia  LIMPAC  Liberia Macroeconomic Policy Analysis Center   21  Madagascar  CREAM  Centre de recherches, d’études et d’appui à l’analyse économique à Madagascar   22  Malawi  MPPRAP  Malawi Public Policy Research and Analysis Project   23  Mali  CERCAP  Centre d’études et de renforcement des capacités d’analyse et de plaidoyer   24  Mauritania  CMAP  Centre Mauritanien d'Analyse des Politiques  25  Mozambique  CEEG  Centre of Economics and Management Studies   26  Namibia  NEPRU  Namibian Economic Policy Research Unit  27  Niger  CAPED  Cellule d’analyse et de Prospective en Developpement   Page 142 of 216 28  Nigeria  DPC  Development Policy Center  29     EPAU  ECOWAS Economic Policy Analysis Unit    30     NILS  National Institute of Legislative Studies  31  Rwanda  IPAR‐RWANDA  Institute of Policy Analysis and Research  32  Senegal  CEPOD  Centre d'Etudes de Politiques pour le Développement  33  Senegal  CODESRIA  Council for the Development of Social Science Research in Africa  34  South Africa  FANRPAN  Food Agriculture, Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network   35     MINDS  Mandela Institute for Development Studies  36     AFI  African Futures Institute  37     AIPA  Africa Institute for Policy Analysis and Economic Integration  38  Swaziland  SEPARC  Swaziland Economic Policy Analysis and Research Centre  39  Tanzania  ESRF  Economic and Social Research Foundation  Centre autonome d'études et de renforcement des capacités pour le développement  40  Togo  CADERDT  au Togo   41  Uganda  EPRC  Economic Policy Research Centre  42  Zambia  ZIPAR  Zambia Institute for Policy Analysis and Research   43  Zimbabwe  ZEPARU  Zimbabwe Policy and Analysis Research Unit  44     MEFMI  Macroeconomic and Financial Management Institute of Eastern and Southern Africa  45     SARIPS  Southern African Regional Institute for Policy Studies        Page 143 of 216 ANNEX 13. ICR PREPARED BY ACBF    African Capacity Building Foundation Regional Capacity Building Project Implementation Completion and Results Report July 2018 ABBREVIATIONS AAU Association of African Universities ACBF African Capacity Building Foundation AfCoP African Community of Practice AfDB African Development Bank CESAG Centre Africain d'Etudes Supérieures en Gestion CODESRIA Council for the Development of Social Research in Africa COMESA Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa DGF Development Grant Facility EPM Economic Policy Management ESA East and Southern Africa FAS Femmes Africa Solidarité GAC Governance and Anti-Corruption IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development ICE Information Education Communication ICR Implementation Completion Report and Results ID Institutional Development IDA International Development Association IDEG Institute of Democratic Governance MAP Management Action Plan MDTF Multi Donor Trust Fund M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MIS Management Information Systems MTR Mid-Term Review PDO Project Development Objective PFR Portfolio Review PSMTP Public Sector Management Training Program RIDA Regional International Development Association RVP Regional Vice President SDR Special Drawing Rights SMTP Strategic Medium-Term Plan TA Technical Assistance TOR Terms of Reference UNDP United Nations Development Project WCA West and Central Africa WAMI West African Monetary Institute Contents   EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ 1  1.PROJECT BACKGROUND, CONTEXT, AND DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES ............................. 4  1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE AFRICAN CAPACITY BUILDING FOUNDATION ............................ 4  1.2 THE “CHAMBA” LETTER AND CHANGES IN FUNDING MODALITY AND AMOUNT ........... 6  2.PROJECT DESCRIPTION, PROJECT DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES, AND THEORY OF CHANGE   9  2.1 INITIAL PHASE OF THE REGIONAL CAPACITY BUILDING PROJECT (RIDA I/RE–MDTF) ..... 9  2.2 ADDITIONAL FINANCING OF THE REGIONAL CAPACITY BUILDING PROJECT (RIDA II/RE– MDTF) .............................................................................................................................. 10  3.KEY ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE REGIONAL CAPACITY BUILDING PROJECT .......................... 13  3.1 RELEVANCE OF PROJECT DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES ................................................. 13  3.2 INITIAL FINANCING: RIDA I/RE–MDTF ......................................................................... 13  Component 1: Strengthened key institutions and human resources involved in policy  formulation ........................................................................................................................ 13  Component 2: Improved ACBF management processes and structures ................................. 14  3.3 ADDITIONAL FINANCING: RIDA II/RE–MDTF ............................................................... 16  Component 1: Subgrants to ACBF–supported programs and projects ................................... 16  Component 2: ACBF institutional development .................................................................... 17  RIDA II/RE–MDTF success stories: Component 1, grants to ACBF–supported programs and  projects .............................................................................................................................. 19  Policy analysis and implementation .............................................................................................. 19  ......................................................................................................... 20  Training at the regional level  Regional integration ..................................................................................................................... 21  Knowledge and learning ............................................................................................................... 22  RIDA II/RE–MDTF success stories: Component 2, ACBF institutional development ............... 22  4.PROJECT EFFICIENCY ...................................................................................................... 23  5.WORLD BANK PERFORMANCE ....................................................................................... 25  6. ACBF PERFORMANCE, COMPLIANCE, AND RISKS TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOMES ......... 26  6.1 PERFORMANCE: ACBF HAS MET ALL THE RESULTS REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROJECT . 26  6.2 COMPLIANCE WITH ALL RIDA COVENANT AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS .............. 28  6.3 RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME ............................................................................. 28  World Bank withdrawal of funding ....................................................................................... 28  Safeguarding against fraud and corruption ........................................................................... 29  7.LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................. 29  All reforms have been fully implemented as indicated in the next section on implementation  of the Reforms .................................................................................................................... 63  TABLES Table 1.1: Sources of ACBF financing, 1991–2017 ($ million) ...................................................... 4  Table 2.1: RIDA I costs by component, original funding ($ millions) ............................................ 9  Table 2.2: RIDA II costs by component, Additional Financing ($ millions)  .................................. 10  Table 2.3: RIDA project portfolio growth, 2011–2017 ............................................................... 11  Table 3.1: RIDA II Cumulative outcome indicators, 2013–December 2017 ................................ 16  Table 3.2: Policy analysis outputs and indicators ...................................................................... 19  Table 3.3: Regional training outputs and indicators  .................................................................. 20  Table 3.4: ACBF‐supported economic policy management training program participants, 1998– 2015 ...................................................................................................................................... 21  Table 3.5: Regional integration outputs and indicators ............................................................ 21  Table 3.6: Component 2: ACBF institutional development, as of December 2017 ..................... 22  Table 6.1: ACBF Virtual Library usage statistics 2011 to 2017  .................................................... 27  FIGURES  Figure 2.1: Distribution of RIDA II/RE–MDTF subprojects by thematic area  ........................... 11  Figure 3.1: RIDA I results chain ............................................................................................. 15  Figure 3.2: RIDA II–Additional Financing results chains ......................................................... 18  Figure 4.1: Trends in ACBF costs and disbursements, 2012–2017 .......................................... 23  ANNEXES ‐ ANNEX 1: ACBF‐SUPPORTED SUCCESS STORIES ‐ POLICY RESEARCH & ANALYSIS ‐ ANNEX 2: ACBF‐SUPPORTED SUCCESS STORIES: REGIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM ‐ ANNEX 3: ACBF‐SUPPORTED SUCCESS STORIES: REGIONAL INTEGRATION ‐ ANNEX 4: ACBF SUCCESS STORIES – CONTRIBUTION IN KNOWLEDGE AND LEARNING ‐ ANNEX 5: LIST OF RIDA‐FUNDED PROJECTS ‐ ANNEX 5A: SELECTED FLAGSHIP & OTHER REPORTS PUBLISHED BY ACBF ‐ ANNEX 5B: SELECTED FLAGSHIP & OTHER REPORTS PUBLISHED BY ACBF CLIENTS ‐ ANNEX 6: WEBSITE LINKS OF PROJECTS FINANCED BY ACBF ‐ ANNEX 7: LIST OF EVALUATIONS CONDUCTED ON ACBF PRIOR TO RIDA FUNDING ‐ ANNEX 8: LIST OF KEY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ‐ ANNEX 9: ACBF PROJECT CYCLE ‐ ANNEX 10: RIDA‐1 RESULTS‐LEVEL INDICATORS PROGRESS BY December 2013 ‐ ANNEX 11: RIDA‐2 RESULTS‐LEVEL INDICATORS PROGRESS BY December 2017 ‐ ANNEX 12: UPDATE ON REFORMS CONDUCTED BY ACBF EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Implementation Completion and Results Report covers the achievements, challenges, and lessons learned during implementation of the African Capacity Building Foundation’s (ACBF) Regional Capacity Building Project funded by the World Bank under the Regional International Development Association/Recipient– Executed Multi Donor Trust Fund (RIDA/RE–MDTF) resources from March 2011 to December 2017. The World Bank has supported ACBF from its establishment in February 1991. By the end of the Regional Capacity Building Project on December 31, 2017, the World Bank had contributed $344.72 million, 51.6 percent of the total amount of $668.31 million invested by ACBF since its inception in 1991. From January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2017, the World Bank contributed $155.5 million21 (or 55.5 percent of ACBF total expenditures during this period). The project built on 20 years of funding of ACBF by African countries and donor agencies led by the World Bank from 1991. Since 2011, ACBF’s financing from the World Bank has come through the RIDA instrument, alongside RE–MDTF financing administered by the World Bank on behalf of the donors that contribute to the financing of the ACBF. The RIDA instrument operates on a project basis, with the requirement of a defined results framework and monitoring plan. The Regional Capacity Building Project comprised 53 national and regional subprojects and a set of knowledge and learning activities. The financing agreement committed ACBF to submit regular reports to the World Bank detailing implementation progress on both the subprojects it financed and on the institutional strengthening activities of ACBF. In December 2013, the original Project Development Objectives were revised to focus more on clients and final beneficiaries, to make the results more measurable and directly attributable to the project’s interventions. Overall, the project achieved its development objectives, its performance was credibly measured, and its planned results were achieved. For the period covered by the initial funding, 2011–2013, ACBF achieved both Project Development Objective–level indicators and 7 of 10 intermediate results indicators. During the period of Additional Financing, 2014–2017, all four revised Project Development Objective–level indicators were achieved, as well as all 12 revised intermediate results indicators. ACBF provided support in policy research and analysis that led to solid achievements in improving public service delivery and performance evaluation in Rwanda, preventing election violence and promoting peace and democracy in Ghana, promoting evidence‐based research for strategic policy making in Kenya, promoting equitable development of constituencies in Zambia, and improving domestic revenue mobilization of regional governments in Ethiopia (see annex 1 for details). Other achievements include building public sector management capacity for service delivery in West Africa, strengthening financial systems through capacity building in banking and finance, promoting critical skills in science and technology in Africa, and promoting innovation in malaria prevention (see annex 3 for details). In support of regional integration, two concrete achievements are the enhanced effectiveness of financial sector institutions through support to the Inter‐Governmental Authority on Development and the creation of and support to the research unit of the 21  This includes $38.4 million from the Development Grant Facility released in calendar 2011.   1 Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), which made significant contributions to the regional integration agenda (see annex 2 for details). ACBF recorded success in promoting knowledge and learning. It supported the African Union in identifying the capacities needed to successfully implement Agenda 2063, and the strategies for building them, and in developing and sharing enhanced data and empirical evidence on capacity development for informed decision making through the annual Africa Capacity Reports. Achievements also include launching the flagship African Think Tank Summit for peer learning and exchange of innovative solutions to support Africa’s development agenda. In addition, support for management of the enhanced knowledge brokerage on management for development results, through a community of practice, has advanced national and regional development processes (see Annex 4 for details). Failure of the World Bank to renew funding after project closing in December 2017 threatens the sustainability of the project gains, particularly by increasing the risk that the supported institutions will have to phase out or severely reduce their activities, potentially resulting in policy reversals at national, regional, and continental levels. ACBF has intensified efforts to source alternative funding from African member countries and other donors to maintain its support and contributions to Africa’s transformation agenda. However, the World Bank’s support remains critical to give ACBF sufficient time to secure from other sources the resources required for effective implementation of its mandate. This Implementation Completion and Results Report is organized into seven chapters: Chapter 1 examines the project background and context at appraisal, highlighting the origins of ACBF and its legal status as an autonomous entity. The chapter affirms ACBF as a success story in the history of Africa’s development efforts, as upheld by numerous evaluations between 1991 and 2011. This section also highlights the deep structural reforms conducted by ACBF following the unfounded allegations of fiduciary impropriety made in an anonymous letter in 2008, making it an even more efficient and effective institution with world‐class systems and processes. Chapter 2 examines the Project Development Objectives under RIDA I/RE–MDTF and the Additional Financing that was provided as part of the project restructuring in December 2013 and the reallocation in 2017. The Implementation Completion Report and Results process demonstrates the relevance of the Project Development Objectives, as revised during the Additional Financing, to Africa’s development landscape, as well as the institutional strengthening of ACBF itself, making it a more efficient and more effective institution with a strong focus on results. Chapter 3 examines the key achievements of the project and concludes that the revised Project Development Objectives were achieved. The revised Project Development Objectives were more direct, attributable, and measurable and were achieved fully, with three of the outcome indicators even exceeding targets. A number of success stories are highlighted to demonstrate the performance of the project. Chapter 4 reviews project efficiency and concludes that the project was implemented efficiently, having maintained a staff overall cost ratio that was consistently below the target of 17 percent. As implementation of the Management Action Plan in 2010 led to higher staffing and operating costs, ACBF introduced measures to ensure that the operating structure was “fit for purpose,” lean, and efficient. 2 Chapter 5 analyses World Bank performance in its relationship with ACBF and the project and concludes that the Bank contributed to the institutional strengthening of ACBF. The section outlines the important contribution made by the World Bank, especially at the technical level, to the institutional strengthening of ACBF. It also notes the disconnect between Bank management and ACBF and the impression that Bank management was less interested in the results achieved by ACBF than in its perceived fiduciary challenges. Chapter 6 discusses the performance of ACBF as an organization as well as the overall risks to development outcomes. ACBF went through dynamic organizational changes that have made it a more efficient and effective institution that is winning continental recognition and attracting new strategic partners. A disorderly withdrawal of World Bank support from ACBF would create risks to the project’s development outcomes and ACBF’s sustainability, despite a severalfold increase in contributions of African member countries and support from other donors and new funders. Chapter 7 examines the lessons learned from the implementation of the Regional Capacity Building Project and presents recommendations for future interventions. 3 1. PROJECT BACKGROUND, CONTEXT, AND DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES 1.1 Background of the African Capacity Building Foundation The African Capacity Building Foundation (ACBF) is an autonomous legal entity established under a Founders Agreement of February 9, 1991. ACBF arose from consultations among the African Governors, the World Bank, the African Development Bank (AfDB), and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). The goal was to “take concrete steps towards improving economic and public management capacity in Africa."22 Funding was channeled through a Multi Donor Trust Fund, for which the Bank served as a Trustee until the end of 2011. The World Bank contributed $15 million of a total of $67.57 million during Phase 1 funding (1991–1997) and $10 million of a total of $45.40 million during Phase 2 (1998–2001). After merging with the Partnership for Capacity Building in Africa in 2002, ACBF began developing and operating under Strategic Medium‐Term Plans. During 1991–2017, ACBF invested $668.31 million in capacity development in Africa. More than half of this amount came from the World Bank (table 1). Table 1.1: Sources of ACBF financing, 1991–2017 ($ million) ACBF Phase 1 Phase 2 SMTP I SMTP II SMTP III Strategy Share of Source of (1991– (1998– [2002 – (2007– [2012 – (2017- total financing 1997) 2001) 2006] 2011) 2016] 2021) Total (percent) World Bank 15.000 10.000 148.100 108.000 55.000 8.622 344.722 51.6 African 6.053 6.000 12.000 12.000 4.600 7.000 47.653 7.1 Development Bank AfDB African Community of 14.405 4.955 19.360 2.9 Practice Zimbabwe projects United National Development 6.718 - - 1.096 1.000 0 8.814 1.3 Programme Bilateral partners 37.624 26.687 89.120 31.022 - 0 184.453 27.6 African countries 2.171 2.714 5.649 9.431 22.469 3.378 45.812 6.9 Bill & Melinda Gates 10.121 1.974 12.095 1.8 Foundation Australia Africa Community 3.000 3.000 0.4 Engagement Scheme Other - - 2.406 - - 2.406 0.4 Total 67.566 45.401 257.275 161.549 110.595 23.445 668.315 100.0 Note: SMTP is Strategic Medium-Term Plan. 22 Project Appraisal Document, RIDA I, p.7  4 ACBF’s membership today includes 40 African countries, the World Bank, AfDB, and UNDP. Several non‐African countries were Trust Fund contributors23 until 2011, and others provided direct one‐time support.24 Over the years, ACBF built a strategic partnership with the African Union and is now a Specialized Agency of the African Union, an integral part of the continental development architecture. ACBF is governed by its constitution and run by a three‐tier governance structure: a Board of Governors, deciding its overall policy orientation; an Executive Board, providing operational and financial oversight; and a Secretariat, responsible for its operational and financial leadership and management. ACBF is head‐quartered in Harare, Zimbabwe, according to an agreement signed on May 22, 1991, with the Government of Zimbabwe. ACBF has a regional office in Accra, Ghana, and a service office in Nairobi, Kenya. It is also establishing a physical presence at the African Union Commission. ACBF’s architects envisaged “a continent with effective institutions and policies acquired through sustained investment in people and institutions.” From its inception, the ACBF’s mission has been “to build human and institutional capacity for sustainable growth and poverty reduction in Africa.”25 As part of its 2012 and 2014 restructuring, ACBF adopted the vision statement of an “Africa capable of achieving its own development” and a new mission to “build strategic partnerships, offer technical support, and provide access to relevant knowledge related to capacity building in Africa.” ACBF’s mandate remains that of leading the development and coordination of capacity building initiatives in the design, formulation, monitoring, and evaluation of development policies leading to inclusive growth in Africa. ACBF initially identified three modes of operationalizing its mandate: funding capacity development initiatives, providing technical support, and generating and sharing knowledge. In 2014, ACBF began work on a new business model, completed in 2016, built around five service lines: resource mobilization to finance capacity development in Africa, capacity development advisory services, investment in capacity development initiatives (including managing funds from donors for capacity development), supporting innovation in capacity development, and leveraging knowledge and learning for capacity development. ACBF bases its interventions on the principles of the centrality of capacity to the development process in Africa; the critical role of partnership and a demand‐driven approach in tackling capacity challenges; African ownership and leadership in capacity development; and a systematic, sequenced, and coordinated approach to capacity development that prioritizes implementation capacity and capacity retention and utilization.26 A World Bank mid‐term evaluation of the Partnership for Capacity Building in Africa (PACT) in 2003 recognized ACBF as the premier indigenous institution for capacity building in Africa. Although the World Bank did not conduct any direct supervision of ACBF’s use of its Development Grant Facility funds, it did conduct 14 23  Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, UK, USA  4. Australia, India and Greece.    25  ACBF Operational Manual, p.1  26  External Annual Audit 2014 (page 9).  5 evaluations of ACBF’s activities between 1991 and 2011. 27 One of these evaluations, the PACT mid‐term evaluation in 2003, concluded: ACBF represents a real success story in the recent history of African development efforts. In the space of less than 12 years, ACBF has matured to the point that it now has a credible reputation for being the premier indigenous institution providing long‐term support for the development of professional capacity for policy analysis in Africa. It provides support to an expanding number of key African organizations throughout the region that, in turn, provide economic education, training, policy analysis and advice of international quality directly to their respective governments ‐‐ and, increasingly, to the private commercial sector and civil society organizations as well. That is a remarkable achievement, especially when the amount of financing provided to accomplish it has been infinitesimal as a share of total resources provided for technical cooperation in Africa. 1.2 The “Chamba” letter and changes in funding modality and amount Neither a forensic audit by external auditors commissioned by ACBF nor a review by the World Bank Integrity Vice Presidency found any evidence to support the allegations in the anonymous “Chamba” letter, though they did identify some vulnerabilities. In 2008, the World Bank received an anonymous letter (referred to within ACBF as the “Chamba letter”) that raised allegations of impropriety by ACBF management. Although these allegations were eventually determined to be unfounded, the World Bank initially withheld all ACBF funds under its guardianship while the allegations were investigated. The ACBF Executive Board commissioned a forensic audit that “identified vulnerabilities in ACBF’s operations and weaknesses in ACBF’s general control environment and internal control practices.” The Executive Board shared the audit findings with the World Bank, which then directed its Integrity Vice Presidency (INV) to conduct an additional review, especially at the ACBF subgrantee level. Neither the external audit nor the INV review found evidence to corroborate the allegations in the Chamba Letter. Soon after taking office in 2009, ACBF’s new Executive Secretary ordered the preparation and adoption of a Management Action Plan (MAP), a roadmap to address the findings of the audit and investigation.28 The MAP was approved by the World Bank and all the other donors to ACBF. Implemented over July 1 2009 to 30 June 2010, the MAP focused on strengthening internal controls and enhancing effectiveness and efficiency (see box 1.1).29 Activities under the MAP reinforced risk assessment and fiduciary compliance, as well as financial management, operational management and communication. On 30 June 2010, the World Bank and donors deemed implementation of the MAP to be satisfactory and released the funds that had been withheld. Implementation of the MAP led to a significant increase in ACBF’s operating costs, as it necessitated the creation of additional positions. The cost was a result of the enhanced focus on compliance and controls leading to increased staffing in areas such as finance, procurement, risk assessment, administration, and communication. This increase in operating costs was known and accepted by the ACBF Executive Board, with the expectation that a reformed ACBF would attract a level of financial resources compatible with the new structure of the Secretariat and reflecting the MAP reforms. 27 A full list of these evaluations is attached in Annex. 28  Evaluation of the ACBF SMTP II, July 2012, p. x.  29  MAP Results to the end of 2010 (RIDA I PAD, page 31).   6 Unfortunately, the increased inflows never materialized. Most bilateral partners withdrew support to ACBF after disbursing their contributions to SMTP II; two donors even reneged on their pledges. As a result of the insufficient inflow of funds, the ratio of operating costs to program costs rose. At the time of appraisal, the World Bank considered the cost of the revamped organizational structure following the implementation of the MAP to be excessive. At the request of the World Bank, ACBF restructured in October 2012 and as a result shed 18 staff members in December 2012. The World Bank considered the cost reduction from this first restructuring to be inadequate, and a further restructuring led to the separation of an additional 22 staff members in December 2013 and January 2014. In addition, to meet the required staff–cost ration of 17 percent, the salaries and benefits of the remaining staff members were cut by some 22 percent for the highest paid staff. A Letter of Commitment that the ACBF Executive Board sent to the World Bank in November 2013 promised additional reforms. ACBF implemented 24 deep reforms in five areas: prioritizing and scaling up operations for success, increasing efficiency, increasing the focus on results and impacts, strengthening governance, and working toward sustainability.30 Box 1.1 Summary of the Management Action Plan 2009 Introduced in 2009, the Management Action Plan (MAP) was a comprehensive participatory exercise that laid a strong foundation for the organization’s turn around. The MAP focused on strengthening ACBF’s internal controls and enhancing its efficiency and effectiveness. Implemented through the end of 2010, the MAP yielded important results even beyond the period of implementation: 1. Internal controls were enhanced, and the Enterprise Risk Management framework is now being used for risk management. 2. Systems and processes and their supporting manuals were continuously improved for increased institutional effectiveness. 3. A human resources development and management strategy, in line with those of similar international organizations, is being implemented to attract and retain the best talent. 4. Knowledge creation is becoming more effective as a result of enhanced internal expertise and new channels for communicating knowledge to operations departments. 5. An operations evaluation function was introduced and institutionalized, and evaluation findings, lessons, and recommendations are being implemented. 6. Business continuity was strengthened. 7. Resource mobilization and partnership building were streamlined in all ACBF activities. 8. Communication and visibility of ACBF’s activities have improved. 9. Corporate governance was enhanced through better delineation of responsibilities and further collaboration between the ACBF’s three governing bodies. 10. Executive Board oversight responsibilities have been strengthened, and better recruitment processes were introduced for selecting Executive Board members 30  Annex 12 presents details of the implementation of the reforms   7 The World Bank never explained its decision to change the funding modality from the Development Grant Facility (DGF) to Regional IDA (RIDA) financing and the nonfulfillment of its commitment in 2007 to contribute $150 million to implementation of SMTP II. The World Bank never explained the reduction in funding level from the pledged $150 million to $108 (DGF $83 million and RIDA $25 million), which adversely affected ACBF’s operations under SMTP II. Even though the World Bank had a seat on ACBF’s Executive Board, it did not communicate this unilateral shift in modality well31 nor did it explain the impact of this shift on the level of contribution to ACBF. The World Bank had announced approval of a $150 million contribution for SMTP II (2007–2011) under the DGF at the Pledging Conference that it hosted in Paris in February 2007. Before it had entirely disbursed its pledge, the World Bank decided that “it was no longer appropriate to use the DGF resources to fund ACBF.”32 This unilateral decision and the accompanying changes in conditions of funding may have influenced other donors, leading to their withholding of funding support to ACBF. The move from DGF to RIDA funding, with the accompanying requirements to adhere to IDA processes and procedures, was a major shift in operational modalities. The operational consequences of the change in funding instrument were not explained to ACBF when the initial RIDA funding was approved.33 31 Board of Governors’ minutes show that the matter was brought to their attention, but it is unclear whether  they could have done anything about it.   32  Project Paper of the Additional Finance for RIDA II, p.2.  33  RIDA MTR Report, 2016.  8 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION, PROJECT DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES, AND THEORY OF CHANGE 2.1 Initial phase of the Regional Capacity Building Project (RIDA I/RE–MDTF) The initial phase of the Regional Capacity Building Project (Regional International Development Association/Recipient Executed–Multi Donor Trust Fund [RIDA I/RE–MDTF]) was approved on March 17, 2011. The Project Development Objectives (PDOs) were to contribute to enhanced capacity for effective policy formulation in ACBF subgrant recipient countries and to improve and sustain management of ACBF operations. Accordingly, the original project funded two components: capacity building, with funding of $15 million in countries that met the IDA criteria for funding, and ACBF institutional development, which was allocated $10 million (table 2.1) Table 2.1: RIDA I costs by component, original funding ($ millions) Actual amount at Share of approval Original component (2011) Amount at approval project closing amount (percent)a Capacity building subgrants 15 14.6 100 Institutional development 10 9.8 100 Total 25 24.5 100.00 a. The difference in the amounts approved and actual at closing could be accounted for by currency gains/losses from SDR to US dollars. The capacity building component financed ACBF subgrants to public and private organizations in Sub‐Saharan African countries and to regional organizations serving these countries. The subgrants financed technical support to subprojects approved under the Strategic Medium‐Term Plan II (SMTPII) funding to enhance the institutional capacities of beneficiaries in four areas: economic policy analysis and development management; financial management, accountability, and transparency; national statistics and statistical systems; and regional economic cooperation and integration and provision of regional public goods. The ACBF institutional development component financed activities to strengthen ACBF operations and institutional capacity in four areas: continued implementation of activities under the Management Action Plan (MAP); development of a forward‐ looking medium‐term strategy (SMTP III) for ACBF, including enhancement of the monitoring and evaluation system; appraisal, supervision, and evaluation of subprojects; implementation of knowledge and learning activities to enhance skills and peer learning in economic and public sector management in Africa; and financing for goods, services, training, and operating expenses. Key results for this component are measured through output indicators related to increased efficiency in resource utilization in ACBF, improved performance of ACBF operational portfolio, and strengthened project management capacity in ACBF (Project Appraisal Document, RIDA I). The RE–MDTF co‐financed the RIDA operations to build synergies among ACBF donors, minimize transaction costs (for ACBF, the World Bank, and other donors), 9 and provide a continental canvas for ACBF activities. It was envisaged that RE–MDTF resources would also enable ACBF to support programs in non‐IDA countries and countries in arrears to the World Bank. 2.2 Additional Financing of the Regional Capacity Building Project (RIDA II/RE– MDTF) Additional Financing of the Regional Capacity Building Project (RIDA II/RE–MDTF) was approved in 2013, with revised Project Development Objectives (PDOs). The revised PDOs sought to enhance capacity for effective policy formulation in ACBF subgrant recipient countries and improve and sustain management of ACBF operations. The approved Additional Financing was $65 million (SDR43.3 million), allocated as indicated in table 2.2. Table 2.2: RIDA II costs by component, Additional Financing ($ millions) Share of Actual amount approval Amount at at project amount Revised component (2013) approval closing (percent)a Enhanced capacity for effective policy formulation in 44.0 38.0 86 ACBF subgrant recipient countries Improved and sustained management of ACBF 21.0 25.6b 122 operations Total 65.00 63.6 100.00 a. The difference in the amounts approved and actual at closing could be accounted for by currency gains/losses from SDR to US dollars. b. The World Bank approved a reallocation from Category A (program) to Category B (institutional support) to extend implementation of RIDA II by one year. Institutional costs would have stayed at the same level proportionally had the balance of $35 million of the Bank’s commitment been honored. The Additional Financing aimed to support “development of capacity in Africa within the framework of SMTP III, which includes improving capacity for policy dialogue and tracking policy impact” (Project Paper p. 2, para. 5). The resources were also used to prepare and initiate implementation of the ACBF Strategy for 2017–2021. The reformulated PDOs sought to ensure that subgrantees would improve their capacity to track, monitor, measure, and report on their own results. The Regional Capacity Building Project went through two restructurings. Changes were made to the results framework, and the project portfolio grew from the initial 13 projects approved in 2011 to 53 by the project closing on December 31, 2017 (table 2.3). 10 Table 2.3: RIDA project portfolio growth, 2011–2017 Phase   Approval Year   # Projects  Per Funding Source  Total  Growth  RIDA‐1  8 RIDA    2011  13  13   ‐  5 ReMDTF   RIDA‐2 (add  31 RIDA    financing)   2013  34  47  261%  3 ReMDTF  Re‐structuring   1 RIDA    2017  6  53  13%  5 ReMDTF  40 RIDA   Total     53        13 ReMDTF  Most RIDA II/RE–MDTF subprojects were approved in or before 2013 (see table 2.3). ACBF had no commitment authority to approve new projects in 2014–2016. The new approvals in 2017 reflect the reallocation of funds from slow performing projects to high performing projects. The project portfolio covered three thematic areas: training, think tanks, and regional integration. Think tanks had the highest allocation, at 40 percent; training had 38 percent; and regional integration had 22 percent (figure 2.1). Figure 2.1: Distribution of RIDA II/RE–MDTF subprojects by thematic area 22% 38% Training Program Think Tanks 40% Regional Integration Source: RIDA Progress Report 2017, p. 9. The restructured project had two components: capacity building subgrants, capacity indicators report, and peer learning activities; and institutional development. Under the capacity building subgrants, capacity indicators report, and peer learning activities component, ACBF provided finance and technical support to subgrantees to enhance the institutional capacity of Sub‐Saharan African governments, regional organizations serving these countries, and other entities established in these countries. Areas covered included economic policy management; public sector management; and regional integration, regional economic cooperation, and 11 provision of regional public goods.34 ACBF also supported research, analysis, workshops, and conferences associated with the production of the Africa Capacity Indicators Report and coordination and convening of peer learning activities (for example, Policy Institute Committees and Strategic Studies Groups). Under the institutional development component, ACBF financed its operating costs, after these were rationalized in a manner that was consistent with its Letter of Commitment of November 2013. 34  RIDA II, PAD page iii.  12 3. KEY ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE REGIONAL CAPACITY BUILDING PROJECT 3.1 Relevance of project development objectives The Project Development Objectives (PDOs) of the Regional Capacity Building Project were fully relevant to the needs expressed by ACBF’s clients at the subgrantee level, country, and ACBF levels. At the subgrantee level, there was low capacity to respond to countries’ development needs in economic policy analysis, governance, financial management, and the interface between state and nonstate actors. An effective response to those expressed needs required good project design, implementation, and results monitoring. 3.2 Initial financing: RIDA I/RE–MDTF The revised PDOs were achieved for the initial financing covering 2011–2013 (RIDA I/RE–MDTF; see annex 11). The PDO indicator “Number of recommendations, submitted by ACBF grantees and used by government in policy formulation,” which was set at 15, was exceeded by 24. This indicator was intended to track the use of the outputs of ACBF subgrantees to improve economic policy formulation in beneficiary countries. An independent evaluation by ITAD Limited, a UK‐based organization, found that ACBF had achieved results in influencing policy processes and outcomes and strengthening transparency and accountability (RIDA II Project Appraisal Document, p. 17). The PDO indicator “Ratio of total budget to total active portfolio value,” used to assess the improved and sustained management of ACBF operations component, exceeded the target by 5.9 percent. The intermediate results and output indicators showed high achievement levels. The indicators measure performance in line with the Result Monitoring Framework for the project’s two components. Component 1: Strengthened key institutions and human resources involved in policy formulation The key performance indicators that tracked the outputs of subprojects in the three major types of institutions (policy units, public sector management institutions, and training institutions) included in the 2011 pipeline exceeded their targets by the end of December 2013:  Policy units completed 169 economic policy research projects, exceeding the target of 119 (for example, Kenya Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis and Horn Economic and Social Policy Institute Progress Report 2013).  Public sector management institutions (ministries, departments, and agencies) supported by technical assistance from the policy units achieved more than twice their target for process facilitation, change management, and advisory services (target 65, actual 118) and for short‐term training sessions (target 155, actual 328) (for example, RESPEC, PROFAP, PRCS‐CAR, HESPI, and KIPPRA subprojects; see annex 5 for details).  Training institutions exceeded targets for graduating students with a master’s degree (target 180, actual 326) or with a certificate (target 450, actual 842). 13 Component 2: Improved ACBF management processes and structures The performance indicators focused especially on budget efficiency ratios and portfolio management performance over the period. Four of `the six indicators achieved their targets:  The ratio of total administrative costs (excluding staff) to total budget, an efficiency measure, performed better than the target of 17.2 percent, with total administrative costs at 14.7 percent of the total budget (2.5 percentage points better than the target).  The ratio of funds disbursed to funds committed in the portfolio exceeded the target of 98 percent by 16.8 percentage point; the disbursement figure includes non‐RIDA projects and may reflect retroactive financing to the start of the project.  Subgrant recipients submitting quarterly monitoring and evaluation reports in line with the Project Results Monitoring Framework exceeded the target of 75 percent by 21 percentage point for all ACBF operations (70 out of 73 projects in ACBF portfolio) including non‐RIDA projects.  The ratio  of  Total  Staff  Costs  to  Total  Budget,  the  Foundation  has  exceeded  by  15.2  percentage point against a target of 57.7 percent. These costs included both RIDA and  non‐RIDA expenses, and is a reflection of the semi‐fixed nature of Staff Costs.   The percentage of subprojects in the portfolio that were rated satisfactory, at 71.6 percent, fell short of the target of 80 percent. A total of 63 projects were reviewed and rated in 2013 (the focus was on RIDA and non‐RIDA projects; Portfolio Review 2013).  Yearly approved subprojects subgrants fell short by 17 (target 44, actual 27) due to limited commitment authority. Figure 3.1 shows the results chain for RIDA I. 14 Figure 3.1: RIDA I results chain Component and key Outputs Intermediate results Project development interventions objectives (PDO) 1. Strengthened capacity of  Economic policy options   Improved quality of  subgrantees in policy proposed  PDO 1. To contribute to policy analysis of ACBF– formulation:  Policy advisory support  enhanced capacity for supported think tanks    Economic policy analysis and  provided   effective policy formulation  Improved skills of officials  development management   Relevant trainings provided to  and management in ACBF participating in ACBF–  Public sector management   ministry, department, and  subgrant recipient countries supported training    Financial management and  agency officials    Improved regional service  accountability    Training curriculum developed   delivery    Science and technology capacity   Institutional support provided   building    Functional networks available    Regional economic cooperation  and integration    Provision of regional public goods 2. Improved ACBF management  Systems and procedures   Improved ACBF’s  PDO 2. To contribute to process and structure: developed   efficiency ratio   improved and sustained  Management Action Plan (MAP)   Performance appraisal system   Strengthened ACBF’s  management of ACBF implementation  developed   organizational systems  operations  Development of results‐oriented   Quality project  and procedures   SMTP III  implementation support   Project portfolio management  missions conducted    Operational systems and   Africa Capacity Report  procedures development   produced and disseminated    Knowledge and learning activities   Knowledge sharing events  implementation   organized   Staffing development  Resource mobilization strategy 15 3.3 Additional Financing: RIDA II/RE–MDTF Under the Additional Financing phase of the Regional Capacity Building Project, the project achieved all four indicator targets for the revised PDO indicators, with three out of four targets exceeded (table 3.1). The revised PDOs were to improve the capacity of ACBF’s clients to deliver and measure development results and to enhance ACBF’s organizational effectiveness and efficiency. These revised PDOs, with their emphasis on client actions, were considered more direct and more readily attributable to subproject activities, and their outputs were more measurable. The targets for ACBF client satisfaction were exceeded for both the product (target 90 percent, actual 93 percent) and the services (80 percent target, 92 percent actual). The percentage of subprojects in the ACBF portfolio rated satisfactory and above exceeded the target by 13 percentage points (77 percent target, 90 percent actual), an impressive performance. The fourth indicator on ratio of total disbursements (including knowledge and learning products) to cash outflows met its target of 80 percent. Table 3.1: RIDA II Cumulative outcome indicators, 2013–December 2017 Overall performance Target Achievement (percentage point Indicator (percent) (percent) difference) 1a. Client satisfaction with ACBF products 90 93 Target exceeded (+3) 1b. Client satisfaction with ACBF services 80 92 Target exceeded (+11) 2a. Percentage of subprojects in ACBF portfolio 77 90 Target exceeded rated satisfactory and above (+13) 2b. Ratio of total disbursements (including 80 80 Target met knowledge and learning products) to cash outflows Overall, the project performance assessment shows that ACBF clients are now able to deliver quality products and services to their beneficiaries in a cost‐effective manner. In addition, the subgrantees were enabled to track and measure the performance of their interventions. Component 1: Subgrants to ACBF–supported programs and projects All eight intermediate result indicators for component 1 exceeded their targets, demonstrating a high level of performance:  Number of requests for products and services received by ACBF’s clients (1,200 target, 6,684 actual).  Percentage of clients’ products that have undergone peer review or other quality control mechanism (80 percent target, 96 percent actual).  Percentage of ACBF clients with functional monitoring and evaluation systems (80 percent target, 83 percent actual).  Number of engagements/interactions between ACBF clients and policymakers (360 target, 2,133 actual).  Number of participants attending long‐ and short‐term training conducted by ACBF clients (1,800 target, 30,230 actual).  Number of times ACBF knowledge and learning products/documents are downloaded in Africa and the rest of the world (55,000 target, 310,171 actual) 16  Number of requests received by ACBF for knowledge and learning products (300 target, 1,119 actual).  Number of times ACBF knowledge and learning products are cited (12,500 target, 27,469 actual). Specific factors explained the exceptionally high performance on the intermediate results indicators. Some prominent ones include:  Demand from clients for technical assistance and short‐term training was higher than anticipated, and the quality of training, including online and blended training modes, was improved.  A majority of ACBF–supported subprojects met the minimum monitoring and evaluation requirements for performance tracking and reporting results of investments in staff training. The criteria used to measure the functionality of monitoring and evaluation systems of ACBF’s clients include timely submission of quarterly reports, completion of RIDA data instruments, identification of success stories, and identification of a focal person for monitoring and evaluation and preparation of completion reports.  Short‐term training increased due to more training offered by think tanks, regional development organizations, and other training centers.  Targeted campaigns, including on social media, contributed to an increase in the number of knowledge and learning product downloads. Download data were collected from the ACBF website, virtual library, and partner websites using the Advanced Web Statistics 7.6 applications. Component 2: ACBF institutional development The four indicators for the ACBF institutional development component exceeded their targets as follows:  Ratio of total staff costs to cash outflows (17 percent target, 14.6 percent actual, which is better than the target).  African members contributed $23.4 million to SMTP III, which is 13 percent higher than the target of $20.74 million. African countries were expected to raise their game to encourage continued support of ACBF by the World Bank and other donors. Their contributions to SMTP III were higher than their cumulative contributions from 1991 to 2011. Despite this show of support, however, donors did not increase their contributions. The World Bank disbursed only 65 percent of its commitment, and none of the bilateral donors stepped forward, not even Sweden, which had pledged $10 million.  Number of portfolio reviews conducted exceeded the target of at least two per year (target 2, actual 4).  Percentage of activities implemented from the Annual Business Plan: ACBF has developed enhanced capacity to carry out planned activities, resulting in the achievement of the planned target of 85.8 percent. Figure 3.2 shows the results chain for RIDA II. 17 RIDA‐2 (Additional Financing) RESULTS CHAIN     i) Improved capacity of ACBF Clients to deliver and measure results;  ii) Enhance ACBF organizational efficiency and effectiveness         i) Improved capacity of ACBF  ii) Improved ACBF organizational  clients to measure and deliver  efficiency and effectiveness   results  Improved delivery of services by   Demand for use of ACBF clients’   Improved ACBF effectiveness   Improved ACBF efficiency   Medium‐Term  skilled ACBF clients’ trainees  products (research, policy briefs,  (portfolio performance)   (Efficiency ratio)   Outcomes  (Client Satisfaction)   and curricula)   (Portfolio Review)   (Client satisfaction)   Skilled personnel produced  ACBF client products  Improved clients’ M&E  Increased use of ACBF  Improved implementation  as a results of long and  disseminated to the right  capacity   knowledge and learning  of ACBF Business Plan   Short‐Term  short term training offered  audience   (Functional M&E system)   products   (BP implementation)   Outcomes   by ACBF clients  (Request)   (K&L products downloads &  (Request)  citations)   Quality training offered  Quality research and  ACBF’s provision of  Quality knowledge and  Efficient strategy put in  Outputs  by ACBF clients  other related products  quality and timely  learning products  place and implemented   (# of long and short term  generated by ACBF clients   support to its clients   generated by ACBF   (BP implementation)   training)  (# of products)   (BP implementation)   (# of K&L products)   Grant  Skilled,  Grant  Skilled,  Sufficient  Skilled,      Sufficient  Skilled,  Inputs  resources  experienced  resources  experienced  resources  experienced  Sufficient  Experienced  ACBF  experienced  provided  and  provided  and  for  and  finances  & motivated  institutional  and  timely by  motivated  timely by  motivated  supporting  motivated  for K&L  K&L staff &  strengthening  motivated  ACBF to  ACBF  ACBF to  ACBF  clients  ACBF staff  consultants  costs  ACBF staff  the clients  clients’ staff  the clients  clients’ staff    18 RIDA II/RE–MDTF success stories: Component 1, grants to ACBF–supported programs and projects Aside from the achievement of PDOs, the results of the Regional Capacity Building Project are also measured through its success stories. These successes cover the three designated areas of the Additional Financing (RIDA II/RE–MDTF): policy analysis and implementation, training at the regional level, and regional integration. Successes were also achieved in knowledge and learning activities. (See annexes 1–4 for more details on these success stories.) Policy analysis and implementation Capacity building in policy formulation was enhanced through support to think tanks to produce research papers, disseminate them, carry out dialogue based on them, and provide training in support of policy analysis (table 3.2). Table 3.2: Policy analysis outputs and indicators Number of outputs Expected output Indicator delivered 1.1 In-depth analysis and response provided to Number of policy research projects conducted 295 development issues at country level 1.2 Policy options responding to development Number of policy papers produced 56 challenges proposed at country level 1.3 Accessibility to policy products and services Number of policy products disseminated 274 improved 1.4 Policy awareness and engagement raised at Number of policy advocacy/dialogues organized 423 country level increased 1.5 Knowledge in policy analysis on national Number of public policy-making officials trained 1,347 development issues enhanced in short term trainings Number of short-term training sessions 24 organized 1.6 Policy guidance and technical assistance Number of policy advice guidance provided 87 provided to decision makers 1.7 Peer learning in policy practice and Number of exchange programs organized 25 knowledge sharing enhanced The main outputs delivered by the ACBF and ACBF‐supported think tanks in policy analysis and implementation included the Africa Capacity Reports, publications on Agenda 2063, development memoirs, preparation and dissemination of policy research studies, policy briefs, and policy recommendations. Dissemination took place through meetings, workshops, and publications. In addition, policy dialogues were held with decision makers and high‐level officials in the public and private sectors and in civil society organization. Some other success stories for ACBF–provided support to think tanks (see annex 1 for details):  Work by the Institute for Policy Analysis and Research of Rwanda led to improved public service delivery and performance evaluation in Rwanda (IPAR‐Rwanda).  Work by the Institute for Democratic Governance Capacity Building Project in Ghana helped prevent election violence and promoted peace and democracy (IDEG‐CAP) 19  The Kenya Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis (KIPPRA) promoted evidence‐based research for strategic policy making in Kenya  The Zambia Institute for Policy Analysis and Research (ZIPAR) promoted equitable development of constituencies in Zambia.  The work of the Ethiopian Economic Association contributed to improved domestic revenue mobilization of regional governments in Ethiopia. Training at the regional level Capacity building. Capacity building was enhanced through ACBF support for increasing access to graduate degree programs and to short‐term training programs. The training programs covered a wide ranges of development subjects including economic policy analysis, public sector management, banking and financial management, science and technology, and agricultural development. Key achievements in this thematic area are shown in table 3.3 below. Table 3.3: Regional training outputs and indicators Number of outputs Expected output Indicator delivered 2.1 Accessibility to postgraduate degree programs Number of degree programs supported 12 (masters and PhD) in development management increased 2.2 Expertise and competencies in policy analysis Number of participants in postgraduate 3,287 and management strengthened degree programs supported by ACBF 2.3 Capabilities of faculty members to deliver on Number of training-of-trainers programs 17 their assigned mandate improved organized 2.4 Financial accessibility in training programs Number of scholarships awarded 989 increased 2.5 Quality of training material and resources Number of training curricula developed 174 improved and reviewed 2.6 Skills in development management improved Number of participants in short-term 2,616 training 2.7 Knowledge sharing and promising experience Number of study tours and exchange 166 learning improved programs Economic policy management. In long‐term training, ACBF supported post graduate degree programs in Africa. Five institutions offered programs in economic policy management (in Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Uganda, and Zambia; table 3.4); three in science, technology, engineering, and math (International Institution for Water and Environmental Engineering, African University of Science and Technology, and African Institute of Science and Technology); one in public sector management training (Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration); one in agriculture (Collaborative Masters in Agricultural and Applied Economics); one in gender (Femmes Africa Solidarité); and one in banking and finance (Centre Africain d’Etudes Supérieures en Gestion. 20 Table 3.4: ACBF‐supported economic policy management training program participants, 1998–2015 Scholarship funding Program enrollment Program completion Sectors source Country Male Female Total Male Female Total Public Private Others Total ACBF Others Total Cote d’Ivoire 478 88 566 452 80 532 519 33 14 566 443 123 566 Ghana 647 225 872 558 197 755 634 170 68 872 448 424 872 Uganda 564 219 783 418 165 583 783 0 0 783 463 320 783 Cameroon 460 121 581 428 114 542 523 46 12 581 442 139 581 Zambia 217 149 366 163 103 266 324 23 19 366 167 199 366 Total 2,366 802 3,168 2,019 659 2,678 2,783 272 113 3,168 1,963 1,205 3,168 Share (percent) 75 25 100 75 25 100 88 9 4 100 62 38 100 Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. The economic policy management program has been ACBF’s most consequential contribution to capacity building for development in Africa. It has made a significant impact both in training large numbers of African economic management professionals and in strengthening the technical capacity of the institutions doing the training. ACBF provided 62 percent of the scholarships for graduate degree programs, and the program attained an 85 percent completion rate (2,678 of 3,168 participants; see table 3.4). ACBF support to regional training programs has built public sector management capacity to improve public service delivery in West Africa, strengthened financial systems through capacity building in banking and finance, promoted critical skills in science and technology, and promoted innovation in malaria prevention (see annex 2 for details). Regional integration Regional programs and the secretariats of regional economic communities have been the main actors driving implementation of the regional integration agenda on the continent. Key achievements accomplished under this thematic area are shown in table 3.5 and in annex 3. Table 3.5: Regional integration outputs and indicators Number of Expected output Indicator outputs delivered 1. In-depth analysis and response provided to Number of policy research activities 75 development issues at regional level conducted 2. Policy options responding to development Number of policy papers produced 78 challenges proposed at regional level 3. Policy awareness and engagement raised at Number of policy advocacy/ dialogues 20 regional level organized 4. Enhanced knowledge in policy analysis on regional Number of regional institution officials 1583 development issues who received short-term trainings 5. Knowledge sharing and learning improved Number of exchange programs 35 21 Two examples of achievements in promoting regional integration are the enhanced effectiveness of financial sector institutions in the Inter‐Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) region through support to IGAD and the creation of and support to COMESA’s research unit, which has made significant contributions to the regional integration agenda (see annex 3 for details). Knowledge and learning ACBF recorded successes in knowledge and learning initiatives, for instance, by supporting the African Union in identifying the capacities required to successfully implement Agenda 2063 and the strategies for addressing them. Another important achievement was the development and sharing of enhanced data and empirical evidence on capacity development for informed decision making through the Africa Capacity Report. Achievements also include convening the African Think Tank Summit for peer‐ learning and exchange of innovative solutions to support Africa’s development agenda. The summit also provided a forum for enhanced knowledge brokerage on management for development results, achieved by creating a community of practice that has advanced national and regional development processes (see annex 4 for details). RIDA II/RE–MDTF success stories: Component 2, ACBF institutional development This component consisted of the program support and corporate processes at ACBF including the provision of services, and operating costs. The Intermediate results indicators under this component were achieved as shown in Table 3.6 below. Table 3.6: Component 2: ACBF institutional development, as of December 2017 Indicator Target Actual 1. Total staff costs as a share of cash outflows (percent) 17 14.6 2. Contributions from African governments to SMTP III ($ millions) 20.74 $23.40 3.  Share  of  activities  implemented  from  the  2014  Annual  Business  Plans  (percent) 80 96 4. Number of portfolio reviews conducted 2 4 22 4. PROJECT EFFICIENCY Implementation of the Management Action Plan (MAP) in 2009–2010 led to higher staffing and operating costs for ACBF. To implement the MAP requested by the World Bank (see chapter 1), new staff positions were introduced, and the salary scale was benchmarked at international levels. As a result, staff costs rose. Following the World Bank Implementation Support Mission of October 2012 and its recommendations, however, ACBF introduced cost‐cutting measure that led to the shedding of close to half of the institution’s staff and a reduction in the salaries and benefits of the remaining staff. The ACBF also implemented measures to ensure that the operating structure was “fit for purpose,” lean, and efficient. The Executive Board approved a new structure for the institution, in line with the business model designed to meet the reform obligations laid out in the Letter of Commitment sent to the World Bank in November 2013. In addition to a smaller staff and reductions in pay and benefits, these commitments led to a leaner management team with a flatter management structure. Following implementation of these deep reforms, ACBF’s ratio of staff cost to total cash outflow has been held to under the target of 17 percent (figure 4.1). Figure 4.1: Trends in ACBF costs and disbursements, 2012–2017 Under RIDA II, the World Bank approved a total of $65 million (SDR 43.3 million) in 2013. Building sustainability into valued interventions such as capacity building for development is a long-term endeavor. ACBF has a four-pronged strategy for ensuring financial sustainability:  Encouraging sustainability among subgrant recipients.  Covering ACBF’s operating costs from contributions from African member countries.  Achieving results in operations to justify continued support from donors.  Growing its endowment fund. 23 As promised in the Letter of Commitment of 2013, ACBF focused its activities on 15 countries and three thematic areas to achieve and communicate credible results and to remain an appealing development partner for capacity development in Africa. Unfortunately, ACBF’s relations with member countries outside the central 15 deteriorated as a result of this focus. Nonetheless, thanks to intensive efforts by the Secretariat, ACBF member countries contributed an unprecedented $23 million to ACBF during the six‐year period 2012–2017, which is more than their cumulated contributions over the 21‐year period 1991–2011 ($22 million). In addition to continued funding from the African Development Bank, ACBF has also attracted new funding partners such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Australian Government’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Afreximbank, and the Arab Bank for Economic Development in Africa. 24 5. WORLD BANK PERFORMANCE The World Bank has made major contributions to ACBF’s institutional strengthening over the years, from supporting resource mobilization to supporting the revamping of its systems and processes. The World Bank supported ACBF’s resource mobilization by hosting pledging conferences for Strategic Medium‐Term Plan I (SMTP I) and SMTP II. The Bank ended this practice in 2012, despite a formal request by ACBF to continue. That same year the World Bank dropped out of ACBF’s Executive Board. In opting out of the Executive Board, the World Bank chose to focus its attention on administrative supervision rather than policy oversight, thereby forgoing the opportunity to be actively involved in shaping the direction of ACBF. The World Bank introduced its own rules, processes, and procedures for managing implementation of the Regional Capacity Building Project. In so doing, the Bank also lost the opportunity to use ACBF to support its own operations in Africa, many of which suffer from capacity shortcomings in implementation. The World Bank’s support of ACBF’s monitoring and evaluation system was particularly important in five areas throughout the RIDA I and RIDA II project cycle:  Promoting a results management culture in ACBF. The World Bank guided ACBF’s Management to enhance monitoring and evaluation within ACBF by expanding the mandate of the monitoring and evaluation unit to cover upstream review of operational products and regular monitoring of project performance.  Enhancing monitoring and evaluation capacity of ACBF–supported projects. The World Bank has not only provided coaching to ACBF but also participated in training organized by ACBF for subgrantees.  Enhancing ACBF’s ability to monitor and evaluate projects. The introduction of progress reports into ACBF operational processes has gradually improved its ability to track the performance of individual subprojects and consolidate progress.  Enhancing ACBF’s ability to track its departmental performance. In addition to improving operational processes, the World Bank’s reporting requirements also enabled ACBF to systematically monitor and report on the quarterly performance of its departments.  Enabling ACBF to measure organizational achievements against its Strategic Plans. Ensuring a more results‐oriented Strategic Plan is one of the key results expected by the Bank in supporting ACBF’s monitoring and evaluation system. ACBF established excellent professional relationship with the World Bank’s technical team and task team leader supervising the project, especially from 2014 to the end of the project. The World Bank’s task team developed a thorough understanding of capacity development and its constraints and made helpful contributions to ACBF’s strategic thinking. As to the overall interest of Bank managements in ACBF’s work and successes on the ground, however, ACBF and its subgrantees believed that the level of interest could have been stronger. The Bank could have better handled the unsupported accusations in the anonymous letter alleging ACBF misconduct and the resulting fallout. As it was, the Bank’s reaction put ACBF in the position of being considered guilty until proven innocent. Had this incident been handled more cautiously, that might have encouraged other donors to stay the course with ACBF. 25 6. ACBF PERFORMANCE, COMPLIANCE, AND RISKS TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOMES 6.1 Performance: ACBF has met all the results requirements of the project Despite severe constraints due to operating with reduced staffing and resources—the World Bank disbursed only 65 percent of the $100 million it had pledged for implementation of Strategic Medium‐Term Plan III (SMTP III)—ACBF met all the results requirements of the project. As part of its reform process, ACBF strengthened its drive for results as well as its governance. (See annex 12 for details of the reforms and the risks they created for ACBF’s resource mobilization.) At the strategic level, ACBF has consolidated its leadership as the African Union’s technical arm for capacity development without losing its independence. This partnership became more strategic with the decision of the African Heads of State and Governments to make ACBF an African Union Specialized Agency. ACBF is positioned to support the continent’s efforts to implement Agenda 2063 and the Sustainable Development Goals. At the operational level, ACBF has:  Consolidated its coordination role in capacity building for development in Africa in support of the continent’s transformation by engaging government officials and other key stakeholders and participating in a series of High‐Level Forums seeking solutions to Africa’s capacity challenges (for example, AfCoP Natural Resource Thematic Group Meeting, Arusha, April 2017; the Bill & Melinda Gates Partners Meeting, Cape Town, April 2017; and the African Think Tanks Summit, Abidjan, April 2017).  Delivered critical knowledge on capacity building for development by producing its Africa Capacity Report, a unique knowledge product published annually since 2011 with the objectives of examining and measuring capacity in African countries for achieving their development agenda. In addition to measuring comparative capacities every year using a composite index, the report focuses on specific thematic areas each year. For instance, the 2017 edition focused on building capacity in science, technology, and innovation for Africa’s transformation. It was launched in March 2017 during the Joint Annual Ministerial Conference of the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa and the African Union Commission in Dakar.  Supported continued capacity building initiatives, providing strong support for the development of the monitoring and evaluation frameworks for Agenda 2063 and the Anti‐ Illicit Financial Flows Project as a member of the Continental Technical Teams. ACBF also helped validate the findings of studies on capacity imperatives for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in Africa and launched the report “Survey of the Capacity Needs of Africa’s Regional Economic Communities.” On knowledge generation and sharing, ACBF has become a knowledge hub, producing numerous knowledge products and services including:  The Africa Capacity Reports. These annual reports provide African countries with data compiled by ACBF and supported by country case studies.  Several studies by the Strategic Studies Group, a strategic network of ACBF that assists it in identifying key policy and other emerging issues requiring its attention and that of its stakeholders. 26  “Capacity Imperatives for Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in Africa,” whose findings highlight the capacity imperatives on which African countries need to focus to fulfil the aspirations of the SDGs within the context of Africa’s own Agenda 2063. ACBF has established a resource center for capacity development. Its library supports ACBF–funded projects through:  The ACBF Virtual Library, a platform for wide dissemination of partners’ publications; general research support, by sharing requested material as electronic copies via email; email alerts publicizing new ACBF knowledge products and services and access to relevant electronic resources. (See table 6.1 for usage statistics and http://elibrary.acbfpact.org/ for details.)  Opportunities for partners to exhibit their knowledge products at ACBF events such as the Capacity Development Forum and ACBF anniversary celebrations.  Assistance in setting up libraries and information resource centers (for example, Macroeconomic and Financial Management Institute of Eastern and Southern Africa (MEFMI), The Zimbabwe Economic Policy Analysis and Research Unit (ZEPARU), and Zimbabwe’s Ministry of Regional Integration). ACBF library users include its staff, ACBF–funded projects, academic staff and postgraduate students, international and development organizations, the diplomatic corps, government officials, members of parliament, media, the private sector, nongovernmental organizations, and civil society organizations. A total of 85,256 online visitors from 185 countries accessed the ACBF Virtual Library over 2011–2017 (see table 6.1), including users in all African countries (57.79 percent of total users). Table 6.1: ACBF Virtual Library usage statistics 2011 to 2017 Number of Number of unique Number of Year visitors visitors downloads 2017 32,229 26,915 310,171 2016 20,163 13,717 346,500 2015 24,424 12,834 476,962 2014 2,998 2,167 108,570 2013 2,394 2,311 3,381 2012 2,159 2,105 469 (Nov and Dec) 2011 (Oct. 24–Dec 889 878 Not available 30) Total 85,256 60,927 1,246,053 At the corporate level, the organizational structure of the ACBF has become leaner and flatter since the implementation of the reforms in 2014. ACBF retrofitted its monitoring and evaluation systems for subprojects funded under RIDA Additional Financing (RIDA II) in 2014. These interventions were developed and active before the approval of the RIDA/RE–MDTF grant, which required the new monitoring and evaluation systems to align the results framework of these subprojects with the RIDA monitoring and evaluation framework. ACBF consolidated its internal monitoring and evaluation system as well. The robustness of these monitoring and evaluation systems coupled with the high quality of its products has enabled ACBF to become an important service provider in capacity building in monitoring and evaluation. For instance, as a member of the 27 Continental Technical Working Group, ACBF has been providing support in developing and implementing the monitoring and evaluation framework of Agenda 2063. Also, ACBF had led the team tasked with designing the monitoring and evaluation framework for curbing illicit financial flows from Africa under the Anti‐Illicit Financial Flows Project. ACBF has significantly improved its visibility in the capacity building development arena, adding to its traditional media activities a social media presence that is gaining increasing traction. Traffic on ACBF’s website (www.acbf‐pact.org) is high and rising, with nearly 11.5 million page views and 23 million web hits in 2017. ACBF also registered an 83 percent increase in Twitter followers (from 1,200 to 2,200). Also, 40 newswire articles were published on ACBF’s website as of the first half of 2017. ACBF maintains regular media engagement. Figure 6.1 shows the evolution of ACBF’s web hits and page views from 2014 to 2017. Figure 6.2. ACBF website usage, 2014–2017 (millions) 25 22.9 20 15 14.8 10.7 11.4 10 10.2 7.0 5 5.8 0 0.5 2014' 2015' 2016' 2017' Page Views Website Hits 6.2 Compliance with all RIDA covenant and reporting requirements ACBF has complied with all RIDA covenant and reporting requirements throughout project implementation. RIDA I required ACBF to submit one report each year, while RIDA II required two reports each year. These reports consolidate multiple sources of data, including quarterly implementation progress reports submitted by subprojects, specific tools developed to gather data on the RIDA core indicators from subprojects, ACBF departmental progress reports, Office of the Executive Secretariat updates, and ACBF’s Executive Board meeting updates. 6.3 Risk to development outcome World Bank withdrawal of funding The World Bank’s failure to meet its commitments in full—$108 million paid against a pledge of $150 million for SMTP II and $ 65 million paid against a pledge of $100 million for STMP III—negatively affected ACBF, which had developed plans and motivated clients based on the pledged level of funding. This exposed ACBF to considerable reputational risk among member countries and subgrantees. 28 The World Bank’s discontinuation of RIDA funding since December 31, 2017, risks reversing the gains that ACBF has made with African governments to strengthen capacity for development planning, prudent financial management, and good governance. The expectations of ACBF, shared by its subgrantees, were that the World Bank would reconsider its position once ACBF had reformed its structure and processes and continue its support. However, ACBF and its member countries do not expect the Bank to withdraw completely. Neither, however, are they fully prepared to plug the gap that is emerging. The interruption of the Bank’s support since December 31, 2017, is likely to make it harder for other donors to continue funding not only ACBF but also its subgrantees, since ACBF is seen as a guarantor of good performance of subgrantees. The withdrawal of World Bank funding exposes both ACBF and the World Bank to serious reputational risks as a reliable financing partner in capacity building on the continent. Even if ACBF finds other sources of funding, the break in the flow of funds has created a confidence gap that will take time to repair. To stop financing ACBF at this time, when it is delivering so well, is neither wise nor justified, especially at a time when capacity development needs are higher because of broad democratization initiatives and continuing imperatives to support economic growth and transformation. ACBF’s position as Africa’s leading institution for capacity building for development has been widely acknowledged, as demonstrated in particular by its recent designation as a Specialized Agency of the African Union. That status makes it difficult for the World Bank to meaningfully support capacity development in Africa without involving ACBF. Safeguarding against fraud and corruption Since August 2010, ACBF has developed a stringent antifraud and corruption policy, with inputs from the World Bank, that applies both to itself and to all its subgrantees. ACBF management is taking swift action to investigate any allegations of corruption or fraud on its projects. Internally, principles of integrity and anticorruption have been emphasized and observed. A professional code of conduct has been introduced, and a process has been established for all eligible staff to declare their assets. At the beginning of each year, all professional staff and staff in procurement and finance departments must submit asset declaration forms. Manuals (both internal and external), such as the Financial Policies and Procedures Manual and the Operations Manual, have been revised to cover enhanced measures to reduce fraud and corruption risks at ACBF and among subgrantees. Management compliance reviews, internal audits, and external audits provide further assurance of ethical behavior. 7. LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Working relationship between the World Bank and ACBF, especially at the technical level, have improved significantly over the years, which has resulted in the reduction in Implementation Support Missions to once a year. 2. Notwithstanding the World Bank’s strong support to ACBF, ACBF’s record disbursement rate of RIDA funds, and the positive results achieved despite the challenges, the Bank’s relationship with ACBF over the years has been characterized by several issues that present lessons for future engagement. 29 3. ACBF’s work could have benefited from more interest from the Bank’s leadership. There is a sense at ACBF that Bank leadership, especially in the Africa Region, showed little interest in ACBF’s work and its achievements. 4. Actions that are well‐intended may become detrimental, create unintended consequences, and expose ACBF to risks. Before the release of RIDA II funds, the World Bank imposed some conditions that were very difficult to implement. For instance, the requirement to reduce staff costs to 17 percent of cash outflows within one month, which resulted in an immediate reduction of ACBF staff by almost half and a significant reduction in the salaries of remaining staff, led to plummeting staff morale, high turnover, and anonymous letters from disgruntled former staff. In this matter, the Bank engaged in counterproductive micromanagement, as illustrated by discussions about the proper number of departments, titles of heads of department, and the like instead of allowing ACBF management to make these decisions and achieve the 17 percent goal based on its deep knowledge of the institution. 5. Direct discussions between the World Bank and ACBF before the end of RIDA could have provided an opportunity to learn valuable lessons and better prepare for the future. Even though the Mid‐term Review of RIDA commissioned by the World Bank recommended engagement with ACBF on lessons learned and the way forward before the end of RIDA, and despite ACBF’s request for such a discussion, RIDA ended in a way that left ACBF in an extremely precarious position and within a cloud of uncertainty. The only request from the World Bank was that ACBF provide to the Bank its strategy for sustaining itself at the end of RIDA. 6. Anonymous allegations against ACBF, which proved to be unfounded, could have been dealt with in a way that did not harm ACBF and expose it to high levels of risk. First, ACBF was made to feel that it had been found guilty before any evidence was presented and that it needed to prove its innocent. Second, the wrong signal was unwittingly sent to other development partners, causing some of them to withdraw their support from ACBF. Third, despite quick action by ACBF, the matter of the anonymous letter of May 2014 was unduly escalated and dragged on for more than two years, only to find that there had been no wrongdoing. This subjected ACBF to significant costs, harm, and risks. 7. Greater use could have been made of ACBF’s 27 years of knowledge, expertise, experience, and achievements in Africa to support the Bank’s development programs in Africa. ACBF has extensive experience in developing think tanks, supporting public administration institutions, establishing training programs, supporting higher education institutions and parliaments, and other capacity building endeavors. Instead of setting up parallel and sometimes competitive programs, the World Bank could have leveraged this expertise and these remarkable achievements to support its operations in Africa. 8. ACBF’s implementation of the reforms promised in the Letter of Commitment of November 2013 and achievement of Project Development Objectives should have been better acknowledged and rewarded. At high cost, ACBF conscientiously and successfully implemented the 2013 Letter of Commitment of 2013, an achievement that received little World Bank acknowledgement or support. ACBF became more efficient, maintaining a 17 percent or lower staff cost ratio from 2014 to 2017. Also, ACBF is better governed, as illustrated by the increase in the number of regular meetings of the Executive Board from two a year to four, the monthly updates 30 to the Executive Board, the quarterly updates to the Board of Governors and the strengthening of the link between the Executive Board and the Board of Governors. In line with the commitment made to the World Bank in the Letter of Commitments of November 2013, ACBF worked to increase contributions from African member countries, thus yielding unprecedented levels of contributions. Despite their steady increase, African contributions remain significantly below the level of resources required to respond to demands for capacity development in African countries. 9. ACBF and its mission to build capacity in Africa would have benefited more if funding commitments had been fully met. The World Bank pledged $100 million to support SMTP III but disbursed only $65 million. This shortfall created major challenges for ACBF and its subgrantees and exposed ACBF and the World Bank to significant reputational risks. The Bank also agreed to support and even spearhead the drive for funding ACBF’s capacity building for development in Africa, but this backing never materialized. 31 Annex 1. Selected success stories: ACBF-supported Policy Research and Analysis Improving public service delivery and performance evaluation in Rwanda, Institute for Policy Analysis and Research of Rwanda The Institute for Policy Analysis and Research of Rwanda (IPAR-Rwanda), established in 2008, is one of the leading policy institutes in Africa supported by the ACBF. As the leading think tank in Rwanda, IPAR has supported and influenced major national policies and programs. It has attained a very high legitimacy and visibility among state and non-state actors in the country, thereby increasing the demand for its research products and services. In addition to the Rwandan government, the main client and user of IPAR’s services, it serves and collaborates with the World Bank, the African Development Bank (AfDB), United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and other international development organizations. In 2013, the Rwandan government contracted with IPAR to lead the evaluation of the Imihigo– annual performance agreements between the country’s president, its ministers, and mayors— by conducting an independent and objective assessment recommending ways to improve service delivery and planning, and setting performance targets for the coming year. The Imihigo, unlike many failed performance management systems around the globe, have been fully accepted and owned by leaders in Rwanda, who use the assessment’s findings and recommendations to inform both political and program-oriented decision making. Rwanda progressed remarkably toward becoming a middle-income country, a goal set by its Vision 2020. Socioeconomic transformation over the past decade has resulted from programs under the Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy (EDPRS 1&2). The progress is mainly attributed to Imihigo, which have proved to deliver the EDPRS targets and sustain Rwanda’s momentum toward the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Imihigo harness traditional indigenous knowledge to drive development and service delivery in Africa. They are one of the home-grown initiatives that are changing the face of Rwanda as an invaluable tool for planning, monitoring, and evaluating the impacts of development policies. Since IPAR was first contracted by the prime minister’s office in 2013, it has been at the forefront of the evaluation of Imihigo, completing two rounds whose outcomes and recommendations have served the president, ministers, and district mayors for accountability and for annual planning and investments. Preventing election violence and promoting peace and democracy in Ghana, Institute for Democratic Governance Capacity Building Project (IDEG-CAP) Just before the 2012 presidential elections, the threat of widespread political violence that could mar free and fair elections and the rule of law loomed large. To mitigate this risk, the Institute for Democratic Governance (IDEG) convened a high-level meeting on 27 November 2012—the first of its kind in Ghana. This meeting, attended by institutions of state, traditional authority, and civil society, adopted the Kumasi Declaration, popularly called the “Peace Pact.” In the declaration, the presidential candidates collectively took a stand against “electoral violence, impunity, and injustice” and committed themselves to maintaining the rule of law in the country. The declaration was signed by all eight presidential candidates, who were each presented with a copy of the revised Election Dispute Adjudication Manual (2012), which directed all election disputes to the courts for a prompt resolution. More than 4,000 people attended the meeting, including youth groups, women’s organizations, religious bodies, professional associations, high profile dignitaries, civil society organizations, and the media. The event was broadcast live by the Ghana Television and its syndicates in other regions and received 32 extensive coverage in the electronic and print media. The Kumasi Declaration became the first political instrument ever employed in managing potentially violent multiparty elections in Ghana. In the days leading to and following the 7 December 2012 elections, civic groups and the media it to steer politicians toward peacefully solving election disputes. The declaration encouraged both the opposition and the governing parties to resort to the Supreme Court, rather than the streets, in their dispute over the validity of the presidential election results, published on 9 December. Today, the declaration has become an important moral standard for making political leaders responsible for upholding the rule of law in Ghana’s democratic politics. Other African countries can use this innovative instrument to peacefully manage potential violent electoral disputes. IDEG’s Capacity Building Project (IDEG-CAP II) is funded by ACBF to strengthen interface mechanisms established under IDEG-CAP I between the state and nonstate actors, contribute to the consolidation of democratic governance, accelerate poverty reduction, and increase growth and sustainable development in the country through strong ties of cooperation, networking, and strategic partnership. ACBF provides core funding that enables IDEG to undertake projects. In recognition of IDEG’s work in promoting peace and democracy, it received the Martin Luther King Award from the US Embassy in Ghana. IDEG’s achievement depended on ACBF’s continued support. Promoting evidence-based research for strategic policy making in Kenya, Kenya Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis In January 2014, the government of Kenya requested the Kenya Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis (KIPPRA), a think tank supported by ACBF, to provide evidence-based information to guide its decision on signing of Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) with the European Union. The EPAs enable Kenyan exports to enter EU markets without any tax, a huge relief for Kenyan exporters. http://www.trademarkea.com/news/relief-for-exporters-as- kenya-signs-new-trade-deal-with-eu/. The government’s call on KIPPRA followed its desire to take a pragmatic decision based on evidence, relying on the institution’s capability and the quality and relevance of its policy research evidence and recommendation. KIPPRA’s evidence and recommendations enabled the government to move forward. To ensure research quality and relevance, KIPPRA adopted a participatory approach employing a multifaceted team of technical experts in economic and trade analysis and highly experienced senior government officials conversant with trade negotiations. The key stakeholders included the East African Community, the Kenyan government, Kenyan civil society, Kenyan exporters and the larger business community in Kenya, the European Union, and the media. This participatory and inclusive strategy promoted early-buy in, ownership, and implementation of the study outcomes. KIPPRA is among the first policy research institutes established by the government of Kenya with support from ACBF. Created in 1994, the institute has provided insightful research-based evidence that has informed strategic policies, programs, and projects implemented by the government and other stakeholders. The EPA study is one of many research engagements supported by ACBF. Promoting equitable development of constituencies in Zambia, Zambia Institute for Policy Analysis and Research The Zambia Institute for Policy Analysis and Research (ZIPAR) developed an alternative allocation model for the Constituency Development Fund (CDF) in Zambia. The CDF, administered since 1995 through local governments throughout Zambia, supports 33 development programs at the constituency level. As the only fund that with community participation in its use, it is an important vehicle for meeting locally prioritized needs. By adopting a model that takes into consideration the needs and priorities of individual constituencies, the CDF would go a long way to promote equitable development of the constituencies and Zambia at large. The ZIPAR study identified the challenge that an equal amount of the fund is disbursed to each constituency without considering their heterogeneity, including their locations and resources. The CDF can therefore be described as a “one size fits all” program. But constituencies in Zambia differ immensely in terms of geographical size, population size, and level of deprivation. Nonetheless, the CDF has the potential to uplift rural and deprived communities and promote equitable development. ZIPAR’s study and follow-up presentations and engagement with government and other stakeholders has spurred deliberations over the existing allocation model. In the 2015 budget, the government introduced a Local Government Equalization Fund that will use a resource allocation model to determine how much funding should be disbursed to constituencies based on their needs. When a prominent member of parliament, Given Lubinda, visited ZIPAR’s offices unannounced on 13 August 2014, he showed interest in the model and requested copies of the publication about it. He also asked about other ZIPAR research studies. Strengthening financial integrity and accountability in South Sudan, Horn Economic and Social Policy Institute The Horn Economic and Social Policy Institute (HESPI) project started in 2011, when South Sudan seceded from Sudan after several years of conflict, which ruined institutional capacities in the country in addition to the humanitarian damage. The new country had no capable institutions to design public finance and management (PFM) laws and policies, and the capacities and functions of public finance institutions rudimentary. The HESPI grant focused on strengthening institutional capacity in collaboration with the government of South Sudan. HESPI conducted a robust diagnostic study on the institutional and legal context, which assessed the performance of public PFM and financial sector agencies and also appraised their needs. The assessment served as a basis for designing and implementing tailor-made training and technical support to reform and enable financial integrity and accountability institutions such as the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development, Bank of South Sudan, Anti-corruption Commission, National Audit Chamber, and Public Accounts Committee of the parliament. The study highlighted gaps in accounting, procurement and reporting, internal control and audit functions, institutional and human capacity in the core areas of PFM. It found weak leadership, treasury functions, tax policy and administration, planning and budget formulation, and lack of fiscal discipline at all levels. HESPI submitted Republic of South Sudan (RSS) recommendations and strategies to the authorities to alleviate the capacity constraints and improve PFM. It sensitized government officials to fiscal discipline and good governance including the significance of sound PFM and institution building. HESPI addressed important issues in rebuilding post-conflict nations, addressed including the role of leadership in PFM and in state reconstruction and the importance of good financial governance. Improving domestic revenue mobilization of regional governments in Ethiopia, Ethiopian Economic Association The regional government of Southern Nations Nationalities and People’s (SNNP) Regional State in Ethiopia reached out to the Ethiopian Economic Association (EEA), an ACBF- 34 supported policy institute for research-based policy options and hands-on technical support to mobilize adequate tax revenue. The need for more secure tax revenue arose from Ethiopia’s Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP), 2010–2015, which needed about $72 billion to finance projects aimed at reaching middle-income status. More than 68 percent of this revenue was expected to come from domestic sources, primarily tax revenue. SNNP did not have the capacity to mobilize adequate tax revenue. The ratio of tax collection as a share of regional gross domestic product was estimated to be only 1.7 percent between 2005 and 2010. More than 84 percent of the region’s budget came from the federal government, 3 percent from non-tax revenues, and only about 13 percent from SNNP tax revenues. EEA research and technical support enabled SNNP to identify the revenue potential of the region, revise the region’s tax policies, and develop and operationalize effective tax collection strategies. EEA hands-on technical support improved the competence of Bureau of Revenue staff to provide technical oversight for revenue planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation in the region. The Bureau of Revenue of SNNP adopted and implemented most of the study recommendations:  The Bureau of Revenue used the study findings when preparing the 2011–12 regional plans to  set annual revenue targets for each woreda (district) and municipal town.   The Bureau of Revenue used the study results to support its biannual monitoring and evaluation  comparing the amount of revenue collected with agreed‐upon annual targets and estimated  revenue potential.   The Bureau of Finance and Economic Development used EEA revenue potential estimates to set  the annual target declared in the regional government budget.   The  Bureau  of  Revenue  has  also  started  using  the  study  results  for  taxpayers  awareness  activities.   The Bureau of Revenue has undertaken administrative reforms of its human resources based  on the study recommendation.   35 Annex 2. Selected Success Stories: ACBF-supported Regional training programs Promoting public sector development in West Africa, Economic Policy Management Program in Ghana The overall goal of the Economic Policy Management Program in Ghana (EPM-Ghana) is to improve public sector performance and efficiency in Anglophone West Africa to develop, analyze, and manage economic policies. Since its inception in 1998, EPM-Ghana has received a total of $9,770,000—70 percent of total resources—from ACBF. Other donors are various countries, the University of Ghana, and the Joint Japan World Bank Graduate Scholarship Program. A total of 989 personnel, mainly from Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Gambia, and Ghana, have been trained in economic policy management. A tracer study of graduates in December 2016 found that 64.2 percent of the respondents were employed in the public sector, with the others spread across academia, research, private businesses, and financial institutions (insurance and banks). EPM graduates perform a wide range of functions such as administrators (20.0 percent), economic advisors (15.6 percent), planners (12.2), project managers (12.2 percent), researchers (5.6 percent), and lecturers (2.2 percent). A large proportion of respondents (77.9 percent) did not change jobs following the program. Through the direct invention of ACBF, EPM-Ghana is equipped with fixed assets, including a three-floor building with wi-fi and its own generating plant to provide uninterrupted power supply, vehicles, modern classrooms, a well-stocked library, a modern video conference facility, and a computer laboratory. These assets serve not only ACBF-sponsored scholars, but also JJ/WBGSP scholars and fee-paying students. ACBF pays the salaries of the staff and regularly trains them on the job to improve their skills and competencies. The assets from ACBF propelled EPM-Ghana to roll out a full-scale fee-paying program, which became a key sustainability anchor even in the absence of the major donor ACBF since November 2016, despite enrollment losses from applicants (mostly from the public sector) who cannot afford the fees. This totally defeats the main objective of EPM-Ghana as public sector-oriented training program. In sum, ACBF support benefited EPM-Ghana and developed the human capacity of personnel from the beneficiary countries. To consolidate these gains, continued grant support is urgently needed to open up accessibility to fragile countries such as Liberia and Sierra Leone and least-represented countries such as the Gambia. With renewed ACBF financial support, the public sector will have access to EPM-Ghana again. Building Public Sector Management Capacity in West Africa, Public Sector Management Training Programme The Public Sector Management Training Program (PSMTP) hosted by the Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration (PSMTP-GIMPA) and funded by ACBF from 2006 to 2017, leads to a Master’s Degree in Public Sector Management for middle- and senior-level public sector officers from Anglophone West African countries. It has graduated 448 persons so far—351 on ACBF scholarship and 97 fee-paying. There were no dropouts. The PSMTP with ACBF funding support accomplished the following for our partner institutions—the Administrative Staff College of Nigeria, the Institute of Public Administration and Management in Sierra Leone, the Liberia Institute of Public Management, and the Management Development Institute in the Gambia—review and design curriculum of their short training programs, training of trainers (TOT) for faculty, faculty and staff development, and faculty and staff exchanges. With ACBF funds, GIMPA built an auditorium for lectures; procured office equipment, library books, and library equipment; and a vehicle and developed and reviewed PSMTP curriculum. 36 Promotions and performance of PSMTP alumni to key policy positions have included:  Dr. Surrur (PSMTP 2006), immediate past head of civil service in Sierra Leone.   Mr. Emmanuel Essilfie‐Conduah (PSMTP 2008), manager for staff relations, Ghana Exim Bank.   Mr. Prince Kwame Newman PSMTP (2012), currently director of administration, Greater Accra  Regional Coordinating Council.    Sambujang Njie (PSMTP 2014), currently the chief electoral officer at the Independent Electoral  Commission (IEC), the Gambia.   Mrs Bertha Mortoti (2014), currently deputy registrar, West African Examination Council (WAEC),  Ghana.   To encourage more people to enrol in the program on a fee-paying basis, the PSMTP secretariat and the various country coordinators incorporated a publicity campaign into the programme. This would not have been possible without ACBF funding and technical support, which established the PSMTP. Strengthening financial systems through capacity building in banking and finance, Banking and Finance Master’s Degree Program (MBF-CESAG) Since 2000, ACBF has supported the Banking and Finance Master’s Degree Program at Centre Africain d’Etudes Supérieures en Gestion (MBF-CESAG) to build CESAG institutional and human capacity to offer a Master’s Degree in Banking and Finance (MBF) meeting international standards. CESAG is the only training institution in West and Central Africa able to organize and award an MBF recognized by the Conseil Africain et Malgache de l’Enseignement Supérieur. When it was established, CESAG’s MBF was recognized as a radical institutional and pedagogical innovation in Africa due to its design, duration, mode of delivery, and linguistic and geographical coverage. Several European, North American, and African training institutions and organizations provide trainers, hardware, and software required for training under CESAG’s several pedagogical and technical partnership agreements. MBF promoters and managers established strategic partnerships with CESAG’s parent institution, the Banque Centrale des Etats de l’Afrique de Ouest (BCEAO); its counterpart in Central Africa, the Banque des Etats de l’Afrique Centrale; the Bank of France; INSEAD; New York University’s Stern School of Business; and the University of Brussels. By the end of 2006, four cohorts had been trained, graduating 167 participants. ACBF has continued to strengthen the implementation of CESAG’s MBF program to enhance its sustainability. The approved grant helped train an additional 400 middle‐ and high‐level African managers in banking and finance and strengthen networking with relevant corporations, training institutions, and professional associations so as to raise the visibility and accessibility of the program. Several donors have since provided cofinance: the West African Economic and Monetary Union, BCEAO, Banque de France, the European Union, and others. According to a recent tracer study of graduates, the program’s 100 percent completion rate is excellent and 98 percent of the graduates were recruited by key financial institutions. In 2008, CESAG’s MBF was recognized as the leading banking and finance program in Africa, ranked No. 1 by Jeune Afrique. Promoting critical skills in science and technology in Africa, The African University of Science and Technology As a young regional research-focused university with mandate to educate the next generation of scientists and engineers to develop Africa, the African University of Science and 37 Technology (AUST-Abuja) commenced full operations in 2007. It faced obvious institutional challenges: securing infrastructure to support teaching and research, attracting and retaining high-caliber resident and visiting faculty, and enhancing staff capacity to discharge their functions efficiently. The ACBF-funded project at AUST aimed at improving research and training facilities and increase the access of African students and professionals to quality training programs in science and technology. The project first undertook training 13 middle-management staff in various specialized courses and hiring 24 AUST PhD students as teaching assistants. The training, which ran from March through November 2015 within and outside Nigeria, enabled staff to take up much more challenging tasks efficiently and discharge their functions more productively. The engagement of teaching assistants enhanced the timely delivery of tutorials to MSc students. The project also gave AUST access to high quality visiting faculty, whom the university could not have otherwise provided. This improved the quality of students trained in the university. AUST’s PhD students are sought after for postdoctoral programs in top universities such as Princeton University and the University of Delaware in the United States. Scholarships were awarded through the project to all 21 female MSc students enrolled in the university in 2015/16 academic year who came from Cameroon, Chad, Ghana, and Nigeria. Because students need not worry about financial issues, they have been committed to their studies and performed outstandingly in their examinations so far. Fiber optic cables and internet bandwidth expanded from 1MB to 15MB were provided through the project. This enhanced the use of the internet for research and training at the university, particularly through the video conferencing facility at AUST, now fully functional. Promoting innovation in malaria prevention: The case of Faso soap, International Institution for Water and Environmental Engineering According to the World Health Organization 2014 World Malaria Report, 333 million people in West Africa are at risk of malaria, a curable and preventable disease transmitted to humans through mosquito bites. Mosquitoes breed where there is stagnant water, and malaria prevention can be tackled through eliminating breeding grounds for mosquitoes. Enhancing prevention measures would help reduce malaria proliferation. Faso soap was developed by two students, Moctar Dembele (from Burkina Faso) and Gerard Niyondiko (from Burundi) as an innovative and cheap solution to prevent malaria. Faso soap provides two methods of preventing the spread of malaria. It acts as a mosquito repellent when used on the skin, and it kills mosquito eggs that have been deposited in waste water from bathrooms.35 Their project initially won the Green Start Up Challenge (GSUC) organized by the International Institution for Water and Environmental Engineering (2iE). The GSUC is an ACBF-funded activity giving awards for innovative projects that support green growth in Africa and make a positive social or environmental impact for the African continent’s sustainable development. In 2013, the Faso soap project went on to win first prize ($25,000) and the People’s Choice Award ($1,500) at the Global Social Venture Competition (GSVC) out of 600 projects from aspiring entrepreneurs around the world. This was the first time since GSVC’s launch in 1999 that the award was won by an African team. The project was also selected among the 30 top innovations of 2013 by the Global Innovation through Science and Technology initiative.36 ACBF’s grant to 2iE provided the communication and logistical support to host the GSUC, which allows innovative projects such as Faso soap to compete in other competitions. In addition, ACBF support has increased GSUC’s exposure, thereby drawing new partners to 35  “Faso Soap: Integrate the fight against malaria in everyday gestures” (in French).  https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HG1rjY2BxlI.  36  “Faso Soap in the top 30 innovations of the year.” http://www.2ie‐ edu.org/index.php/en/content/article?id=30:faso‐soap‐top‐30‐of‐the‐innovations‐of‐the‐year.  38 2iE. Through this project, ACBF highlights the use of local resources to address local problems. The principal beneficiaries of ACBF’s intervention are the entrepreneurs who receive opportunities to showcase and develop their projects and ideas. In addition, in the case of Faso soap, the social impact of a project will spread through Africa improving the prevention of malaria and relieving the stress on household budgets for malaria treatment. 39 Annex 3. Selected Success Stories: ACBF-supported Regional Integration Programs Enhanced effectiveness of financial sector institutions in the IGAD region, Inter- Governmental Authority on Development As part of its strategy to improve the skills and competencies of the staff of financial integrity institutions, the Horn Economic and Social Policy Institute (HESPI) trained 34 members of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and Economic Committee of the parliaments of South Sudan and Somalia. Nineteen participants were from Somalia, and 15 were from South Sudan. The four-day seminar aimed to improve the use of public resources by strengthening the parliamentarians in their oversight, accountability, and legislative roles. The seminar examined the public budget process/cycle and the mandates of the PAC and Economic Committee in financial oversight. It also provided experience sharing from the successful post- conflict nations of Uganda and Kenya. Critical action points such as finalizing the legal framework (adopting and customizing one from elsewhere), building committees’ capacity, and creating protection mechanisms were discussed. HESPI also implemented a twinning relationship in which project analysis and loan officers from the Reconstruction and Development Bank of Somalia gained on-the-job experience in residency at the Development Bank of Ethiopia on how to better manage public resources and conduct professional project analysis during post-conflict reconstruction. The twinning relationship allowed the beneficiary officers to work with the selected bank for six weeks in December 2014–January 2015. Evaluation of the initiative showed that the beneficiary officers gained practical knowledge and skills on loan procedures and loan cycle monitoring practices, on feasible loan appraisal (setting priority sectors and project financing in post-conflict situations), on loan approval processes with development banks in post-conflict situations, on applied research and research capacity building within the development banks, and on the Project Rehabilitation and Loan Recovery Process that would be adopted for Somalia. In response to a request from the Somali government, HESPI organized a high-level conference on Somali Federalism supported by an ACBF capacity building grant. The forum aimed to promote dialogue and build consensus on constitutional and political federalism in Somalia, a fundamental requirement in rebuilding the country and ensuring effective public resource management. The main rationale was to increase the awareness and understanding of Somalis and other stakeholders through experience sharing on the different types of federal governance. The conference was conducted in partnership with the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development secretariat, World Bank, United Nations Economic Commission on Africa, and nongovernmental organizations. The conference culminated in identifying and strategizing around key issues that require further attention and deliberation. The Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa’s research unit contributions to the regional integration agenda, Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa As part of its effort to enhance the effectiveness and impact of its trade policies and programs, the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) secretariat requested ACBF’s support to establish a research unit to lead and coordinate trade policy analysis and research. In 2013, ACBF approved a grant of $3 million to establish and operationalize the unit. Its formal launch in August 2014 brought together representatives from the coordinating ministries of COMESA member states, leading policy think tanks, and key policy research institutes in the COMESA region and across Africa. The research unit has improved the conduct, coordination, and use of research-based evidence for policymaking in the trade division and the various policy organs of the secretariat. For example, the study on “Trade Volumes within COMESA,” motivated by the desire to improve intraregional trade among member countries to mitigate the aggregate production 40 deficit of food and agricultural goods in the region in the short to medium term, produced insightful recommendations that were endorsed by COMESA’s intergovernmental committee in December 2014. The committee also committed to ensuring that the finding and recommendations of the study fed into the decisions of the COMESA council and the 2015 work plan of the secretariat. The research unit has also coordinated research at the secretariat through the development of a comprehensive research agenda, which was discussed and approved by the project steering committee. The unit’s integration of its research work into the structures of the secretariat has led to increased requests from the key policy organs for research-based information and technical support. For instance, the research unit presented research-based recommendations to the COMESA summit in February 2014 that were adopted by the Council of Ministers and published in the flagship publication Key Issues in Regional Integration Volume III. Further, the unit contributed to the October 2014 study on sugar competitiveness in COMESA requested by the summit. The study was used by Kenya to support a request for a sugar safeguard during the December 2014 policy organs meetings and was a key input to the second extraordinary meeting of the trade and customs committee schedule in February 2015. The research unit has also provided technical support and hands-on training in trade policy analysis using software such as E-views for trade experts, staff of the trade division, and COMESA coordinating ministries. 41 Annex 4. Success Stories: ACBF Contributions to Knowledge and Learning Supporting Guided the African Union in identifying the capacities and strategies required to implement Agenda 2063 In 2013, African countries developed Agenda 2063, an indigenous 50-year strategic framework for Africa’s transformation anchored by inclusive growth and sustainable development. However, African leaders had questions on what it would take to ensure successful implementation of this Agenda, ACBF responded rapidly by developing and publishing four strategic studies: 1. Assessment of Internal and External Risks Associated with the Implementation of AU Agenda  2063.  2. Capacity Requirements for the New African Vision Agenda 2063.   3. Capacity Development Plan Framework: Buttressing Implementation of the First 10‐Year Plan.   4. African Critical Technical Skills: Key Capacity Dimensions Needed for the First 10 Years of Agenda  2063.   The ACBF studies have shaped the course toward implementation of the continental agenda, identifying the capacities and priority programs required by the African Union (AU), its organs, regional economic communities, African countries, and key stakeholders. These studies, delivered at the January 2017 summit of the AU heads of state and government, increased ACBF’s visibility and contributed to ACBF being made the specialized Agency of the Africa Union on Capacity Development. Moreover, to contribute to the celebration of the OAU-AU 50th anniversary, ACBF developed and published a strategic and informative study, A Digest of OAU-AU Treaties, Conventions, and Agreements, 1963 to 2014, to stimulate thinking about the need for fast-track ratification to give momentum to regional cooperation and integration. Provided enhanced data and empirical evidence on capacity development for informed decision making through the Africa Capacity Report Produced annually since 2011, the Africa Capacity Report (ACR) examines the key determinants and components of capacity for development goals in African countries. The ACR has focused on themes critical to Africa and its socioeconomic transformation: Capacity Imperatives for Regional Integration in Africa (2014); Capacity Imperatives for Domestic Resource Mobilization in Africa (2015); Building Capacity in Science, Technology and Innovation for Africa’s Transformation (2017). A key achievement of the ACR is the use of its capacity indicators and data for research by universities across Africa and beyond, as well as development partners and African policymakers. For instance, following the publication of the Africa Capacity Report 2015 on domestic resource mobilization, Madagascar developed a domestic resource mobilization strategy within its framework. No. 3. Established the flagship African Think Tank Summit for peer learning and exchange of innovative solutions to support Africa’s development agenda Think tanks are independent organizations producing research-based evidence to address policy issues and seeking to inform and influence policymaking through various engagement strategies. They are increasingly seen as influential players. In Africa, there was no known platform for think tanks to exchange ideas and experiences on various strategic issues and contribute their work on the the continent’s new dynamism. In 2014, ACBF, the leader, key supporter, and creator of think tanks in Africa used its 42 convening power to initiate annual summits that have become a regular occasion for experience sharing and contribution of think tank expertise to solving common development challenges. Through the years, by bringing more than 100 leading African think tanks, researchers, development partners, and policymakers together, ACBF has advanced the developmental, educational, scientific, and social base for Africa’s socioeconomic transformation. The summits led in turn to the creation of the Africa Think Tank Network, which has helped to identify opportunities, suggested joint partnerships among think tanks, and supported mentorship of young researchers. No. 4. Brokered enhanced knowledge on Management for Development Results through a community of practice advancing national and regional development In the framework of the African Community of Practice on Managing for Development Results (AfCoP-MfDR) project, ACBF has facilitated knowledge sharing among some 5,000 AfCoP members in 43 African countries, including governments, regional economic communities, and nonstate actors. In the AfCOP Project completion report, the ACBF-managed knowledge sharing component was found to be the most successful of four and was recommended for scale-up. ACBF’s support has enabled knowledge brokerage and transfer of tacit knowledge on key development issues such as regional integration, natural resources management, food security, domestic resource mobilization, and others. AfCoP case studies and guides have provided development practitioners with the what and how to do achieve impact. Of AfCoP members surveyed on the project, 88 percent said they were motivated to change their practices and working methods through exchanges on the ACBF-facilitated AfCoP website and access to management for development results knowledge products. The tools have been, requested by universities37 to serve as course materials and by ministries and departments to conduct development programs planning and evaluation. 37  These include University of Dar es Salam, University of Dodoma; University of Namibia, Daystar University,  University of Abomey‐Calavi.   43 Annex 5. List of RIDA-funded projects Grant Grant Grant Regional or Abbreviation Project Location approval effectiveness closing date national date date (under RIDA) Policy analysis Economic and Social Research 31 December 1. ESRF Foundation Tanzania National February 2013 December 2012 2017 Institute of Policy Analysis and 30 June 2. IPAR-CAP Rwanda National June 2012 June 2012 Research Capacity Building Project 2017 Horn Economic and Social Policy December October 3. HESPI Ethiopia National January 2013 Institute 2011 2017 Kenya Institute for Public Policy December 4. KIPPRA Kenya National April 2011 June 2017 Research and Analysis 2010 Centre Mauritanien d’Analyse de December 5. CMAP Mauritania National June 2012 July 2012 Politiques 2017 6. Cameroon Policy Analysis and August December Cameroon National January 2015 CAMERCAP Research Centre 2014 2017 Centre d’Etudes de Politiques pour December 7. CEPOD Senegal National May 2015 June 2015 le Développement 2017 Institut de Développement October September 8. IDEC Burundi National November 2012 Economique 2012 2016 Zambia Institute for Policy Analysis August December 9. ZIPAR Zambia National November 2007 and Research 2005 2014 Ethiopia Economics Association September December 10. EEA Ethiopia National October 2008 2008 2014 11. IDEG- Institute for Democratic Governance December Ghana National April 2009 April 2009 CAP (Capacity Building Project 2017 Ethiopia Development Research September September 12. EDRI Ethiopia National February 2009 Institute 2008 2017 Centre d’Analyse des Politiques Burkina September September December 13. CAPES National Economiques et Sociales Faso 2010 2010 2017 44 14. Malawi Public Policy Research and November December Malawi National February 2016 MPPRAP Analysis Project 2015 2017 Ghana Economic Policy Analysis December 15. GEPARI Ghana National April 2016 April 2016 and Research Institute 2017 Centre Autonome d’Etudes et de 16. September December Renforcement des Capacités pour le Togo National February 2009 CADERDT 2008 2017 Développement au Togo Centre d’Etudes et de Renforcement September December 17. CERCAP des Capacités d’Analyse et de Mali National February 2009 2008 2017 Plaidoyer Regional training programs Master’s Degree in Banking and September 18. CESAG Senegal Regional April 2012 April 2017 Finance Training Program 2012 Programme de Formation en Cote 19. EPM Abj Gestion de la Politique Economique à Regional April 2012 May 2012 April 2017 d'Ivoire Abidjan Programme de Formation en 20. EPM September Gestion de le Politique Economique à Cameroon Regional April 2012 April 2017 Yde 2012 Yaoundé International institution for water and Burkina December September 21. 2iE environmental engineering Regional January 2013 Faso 2012 2017 Programme de Troisième Cycle Burkina 22. NPTCI Interuniversitaire en Sciences Regional CANCELLED Faso Economiques Financial Governance and October 23. GFID Transparency Strengthening Project Djibouti National May 2012 August 2012 2017 in Djibouti Projet d’Appui à la Formation des December 24. PROFAP Chad National June 2012 October 2012 Agents de l’Administration Publique 2017 Programme Pays de Renforcement Cote December 25. PPRC-CI National May 2013 August 2013 des Capacités en Côte d’Ivoire d'Ivoire 2017 26. PRCS- Projet de Renforcement des Central September December National June 2012 CAR Capacités Statistique de la African 2012 2017 45 République Centrafricaine Republic Renforcement de Capacités pour la 27. Production des Connaissances et de Senegal Regional June 2012 October 2012 April 2017 CODESRIA Leadership en Afrique 28. EPM Economic Policy Management December November Ghana Regional January 2013 Gha Training Program in Ghana 2012 2016 29. EPM Economic Policy Management March December Zambia Regional March 2014 Zbia Program at University of Zambia 2014 2017 Economic Policy Management September September 30. EPM Mkr Uganda Regional December 2012 Program at Makerere University 2012 2017 African University of Science and November November 31. AUST Technology Nigeria Regional January 2013 2012 2017 Africa Institute of Science and November October 32. AIST Tanzania Regional January 2013 Technology 2012 2017 Public Sector Management Training 33. PSMTP- Program of the Ghana Institute of January December Ghana Regional February 2012 GIMPA Management and Public 2012 2017 Administration Collaborative Masters’ Program in 34. CMAAE Kenya Regional June 2012 June 2012 June 2017 Agricultural and Applied Economics Master Degree in Gender and Peace August 35. FAS Senegal Regional November 2012 August 2016 Building Femmes Africa Solidarité 2012 Mandela Institute for Development South November November 36. MINDS Regional December 2014 Studies Africa 2014 2016 Capacity Building Project in December 37. RESPEC Statistics, Forecasting, and Planning Congo National June 2012 July 2012 2017 in the Fight Against Poverty in Congo 38. PNRC- Training Support Unit of the National Guinea National CANCELLED CAF Capacity Building Program Bissau West African Institute for Financial September September December 39. WAIFEM and Economic Management Capacity Nigeria Regional 2010 2010 2017 Building Project 46 National Institute for Legislative September September December 40. NILS Nigeria Regional Studies Capacity Building Project 2010 2010 2017 Centre International de Formation 41. CIFAL Burkina des Acteurs Locaux de Regional Ouaga Faso Ouagadougou 42. AERC African Economic Research 8 March November Kenya Regional 8 March 2017 CPP Consortium—Bridging Programme 2017 2017 Regional integration Strengthening Institutional Capacity February December 43. AWDF of the African Women’s Development Ghana Regional May 2012 2012 2017 Fund Association of African Universities’ 44. AAU- Capacity Development Project for the December December Ghana Regional January 2013 CADRE Revitalization of Higher Education 2012 2017 Institutions 45. Food, Agriculture, and Natural South December December Regional December 2012 FANRPAN Resources Policy Analysis Network Africa 2012 2017 46. Common Market for Eastern and March September Zambia Regional May 2013 COMESA Southern Africa 2013 2017 Capacity Building Project for the 47. CAP- January October West African Monetary Institute Ghana Regional February 2012 WAMI 2012 2017 (WAMI) 48. AU-CAP African Union Capacity Building December Ethiopia Regional May 2015 May 2015 II Program 2017 49. EABC East Africa Business Council Tanzania Regional July 2010 May 2011 July 2014 50. AUCAP African Union Capacity Building Ethiopia Regional May 2013 June 2013 May 15 BF Program—Bridging Fund 51. EAC East Africa Community Capacity September December Tanzania Regional Jun 2015 CAP Building Project 2015 2017 Inter-Governmental Authority on December 52. IGAD Development Integration Support Djibouti Regional Jul 2015 August 2015 2017 Project 47 Appui au Centre de Programmation 53. PACSR- Burkina December Stratégique, Recherche et Veille de Regional May 2016 August 2016 UEMOA Faso 2017 l’UEMOA 48 Annex 5a. Selected flagship and other reports published by ACBF 8. Africa Capacity (ACIs)/African Capacity Reports (ACRs) ACI 2011: Capacity Development in Fragile States ACI 2012: Capacity Development for Agricultural Transformation and Food Security ACI 2013: Capacity Development for Natural Resource Management ACR 2014: Capacity Imperatives for Regional Integration in Africa ACR 2015: Capacity Imperatives for Domestic Resource Mobilization in Africa ACR 2017: Building Capacity in Science, Technology, and Innovation for Africa’s Transformation 9. Publications on Agenda 2063 1. African Critical Technical Skills and Key Capacity Dimensions Needed for the First 10 Years of Agenda 2063   2. Assessment of Internal and External Risks Associated with the Implementation of the African Union’s Agenda 2063 3. Capacity Development Plan Framework Buttressing Implementation of the First 10 Years Plan—“The Africa We Want”  4. Capacity Requirements for the New African Vision Agenda 2063—“The Africa We Want”   5. A Digest of OUA‐AU Treaties, Conventions, and Agreements, 1963 to 2014 6. Survey of the Capacity Needs of Africa’s Regional Economic Communities and strategies for Addressing Them     10. Occasional Papers ACBF Board of Governors Issues Paper: Accessing Funds for Development: Required Capacities for Resource Mobilization and Absorption Development Drivers in Africa: Role of Innovation Drivers of Economic Growth in Africa Infrastructure Development and Financing in Sub-Saharan Africa: Toward a Framework for Capacity Enhancement Policy and Institutional Dimensions of Africa’s Political Economy in an Age of Globalization The Retention of Highly Skilled Returnees in Mozambique: An Institutional Approach Youth Unemployment in Africa: Capacity Building and Innovative Strategies 11. Development Memoirs Addressing Africa’s Youth Employment and Food Security Crisis: The Role of African Agriculture in Job Creation Governance and Transformative Leadership in Africa: Progress, Prospects and Challenges The African Capacity Building Foundation: Rising to the Challenges of Capacity through a Unique and Innovative Framework The Role of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in Africa’s Sustainable and Inclusive Development: Understanding the Capacity Challenges Transparency and Accountability in the Management of Public Funds: How Sensibly Must African Countries Stand? 49 12. Policy Briefs Building Capacity for Domestic Resource Mobilization: The Role of Development Partners Building Capacity for Domestic Resource Mobilization: The Role of the Private Sector Building Capacity for Domestic Resource Mobilization: The Role of Government Building Capacity for Domestic Resource Mobilization: The Role of the Civil Society Building Capacity in Science, Technology, and Innovation for Africa’s Transformation: The Role of the Private Sector Building Capacity in Science, Technology, and Innovation for Africa’s Transformation: The Role of Governments Building Capacity in Science, Technology, and Innovation for Africa’s Transformation: The Role of Higher Learning and Research Institutions 13. Books African Financial Governance Outlook: Effective Public Financial Management for Sustainable Development African Financial Governance Outlook: Public Financial Governance Reforms, the Recent Progress in Africa. Preliminary Findings of the AGO Pilot Phase Gender Budgeting as a Tool for Poverty Reduction: Concept, Practices, and Capacity Implications 14. African Community of Practice on Management for Development Results Guidelines for Initiating and Managing Evaluation Influencing Inclusive Growth through Peace Building and Reconciliation National Planning Processes and Accountability The Mediterranean Migration Crisis: Root Causes and Implications for the African Continent Trade Facilitation in Africa Unpacking Nigeria’s Policy Response to Youth Unemployment: The Youth Enterprise with Innovation in Nigeria (YOUWIN) 50 Annex 5b. Selected flagship and other reports published by ACBF clients 12. Ethiopia Development Policy Institute (EDRI) Analysis of Changes in Food Consumption Patterns in Urban Ethiopia Carbon Markets and Mitigation Strategies for Africa/Ethiopia: Literature Review and the Way Forward Climate Conventions and Africa/Ethiopia Does Electricity Supply Strategy Matter? Shortage and Investment: Reflections based on CGE Road Sector Development and Economic Growth in Ethiopia 13. Horn Economic and Social Policy Institute (HESPI) Assessment of Economic Integration in IGAD Composition of Growth and Alleviation of Income Poverty and Child Undernutrition in Sub-Saharan Africa Economic Growth in the Horn of Africa: Identifying Principal Drivers and Determinants Making Public Finance Management the Central Instrument of Policy and Recovery Rebuilding Capacity for Effective Public Finance Management: The Case of Somalia’s Transition from Conflict Regional Integration and Trade in Africa: Augmented Gravity Model Approach 14. Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) A methodological guideline for implementing the 2008 SNA in the financial services sector An assessment of joining COMESA by the republic of Tunisia, South Sudan and Somalia COMESA intra-regional trade potential, opportunities, and challenges Comprehensive audit of nontariff barriers and their causes and costs in the COMESA region Sugar competitiveness study in COMESA, which resolved the Kenya sugar safeguard application concerns Taking stock of the implementation of the COMESA integration agenda The impact of the Transpacific Partnership on African Growth and Opportunity Act– eligible COMESA member states trade with the United States 15. Institute of Policy Analysis and Research (IPAR) Rwanda Assessing the reproductive and sexual health of the historically marginalized people Cost-benefit analysis of tax incentives in Rwanda Disability rights: Gap analysis of the level of inclusion of disability issues Great lakes support program: Cost of production and the determinants of farmer incentives to invest in their coffee plantations Imihigo public contract evaluation 2016–2017 Impact of land reforms in Rwanda on women’s economic empowerment Production of case studies on science, technology and innovation in Rwanda Public financing for agriculture Strengthening the impact on employment of sector policies Update of selected indicators in the log frame for the Land Tenure Regularization Programme 51 16. Kenya Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis (KIPPRA) Accelerating industrial development in Africa: The case of Kenya (Enterprise Survey) An assessment of water reforms in Kenya: Selected indicators Baseline study on counterfeiting, piracy, and illicit trade Situational analysis of illicit trade in tobacco products in Kenya in collaboration with the International Institute for Legislative Affairs (ILA) Financial needs of the private sector Firm development, regulation, and competition Investment, growth, opportunities, and business environment KIPPRA-Treasury Model (KTMM)- updating the model with new data, monitoring key macroeconomic variables, generating medium-term projections Land reforms in Kenya: Land registration and land investment Preconditions for successfully tapping diaspora remittances for infrastructure development in Kenya Scoping paper on the review of oil and gas governance and exploitation in Kenya Sustainability of current account deficits in Kenya Understanding the banking structure in Kenya. 17. West African Institute for Financial and Economic Management (WAIFEM) Financing infrastructure for sustainable development in West Africa Poverty analysis and mapping in Liberia Structure and composition of the labor market in The Gambia The challenges of exchange rate management in the Economic Community of West Africa States The challenges of fiscal decentralization in Nigeria 18. Malawi Public Policy Research and Analysis Project (MPPRAP) How small businesses can best be supported to harness their potential to create jobs Ways to improve adoption of climate smart agricultural technologies among smallholder farmers 19. Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) Final report on the fourth biennial meeting of the IGAD business forum (IBF) Macroeconomic performance of IGAD member countries using macroeconometric models: The cases of Ethiopia, Kenya, Sudan, and Uganda: model specification, estimation result, discussion and analysis Report by the Horn Economic and Social Policy Institute for the Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Authority for Development think tank network Report by the Horn Economic and Social Policy Institute for the Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Authority for Development operation research manual Report of the workshop validation of the preparation and negotiation modalities for IGAD to join the tripartite free trade area 20. Economic and Social Research Foundation (ESRF) Enhancing industrialization in Tanzania as a pivotal pillar of economic growth: Mapping extant industrialization potentials in Mwanza region Kilimanjaro region mapping of industrial potential areas 2017 52 Localization and community awareness of SDGs: Capacity building and empowerment of the local institutions and actors for successful SDGs localization and implementation Participatory governance on natural gas economy Training guide for updating and preparation of district strategic plans. 21. Zambia Institute for Policy Analysis and Research (ZIPAR) Financing the Economic Stabilization and Growth Programme (Zambia Plus) in the Shadow of the IMF Scaling the Eurobond Debt Wall 22. Centre Mauritanien d'Analyse de Politiques (CMAP) Etude pour la création d’une agence Mauritanienne de promotion des exportations Etude sur les filières attachées aux industries minières La mobilisation des ressources intérieures en Mauritanie : Taxation optimale du tabac en Mauritanie Mauritanie transformation de la trajectoire de l’emploi des jeunes Rapport sur l’evaluation des objectifs du millénaire pour le développement en Mauritanie Revue des dépenses publiques dans le secteur de l’eau en Mauritanie, 2006–2016 Revue pays sur le renforcement des capacités en Mauritanie Situation de référence des objectifs du développement durable en Mauritanie Stratégie pour le développement du secteur industriel en Mauritanie, 2015–20 2019 53 Annex 6. Website links of projects financed by ACBF 2iE www.2ie-edu.org AAU www.aau.org AERC www.aercafrica.org AU www.au.int AUST www.aust.edu.ng AWDF www.awdf.org CADERDT www.caderdt.com CAMERCAP www.camercap-parc.org CAPEC www.capec-ci.org CEPOD www.cepodsn.org CERCAP www.cercap.net CESAG www.mbf.cesag.sn CMAP www.cmap.mr CODESRIA www.codesria.org COMESA www.comesa.int EABC www.eabc-online.com EAC www.eac.int EDRI www.edri.org.et EEA www.eeaecon.org EPM Abidjan www.gpe-afrique.org EPM Ghana www.epm.ug.edu.gh EPM Makerere www.mak.ac.ug EPM Yaounde www.gpeyaounde.org EPM Zambia www.unza.zm ESRF www.esrftz.org FANRPAN www.fanrpan.org GIMPA www.new.gimpa.edu.gh HESPI www.hespi.org IDEC www.idec.org.bi IDEG www.ideg.org IGAD www.igad.int IPAR Rwanda www.ipar-rwanda.org KIPPRA www.kippra.or.ke NM AIST www.nm-aist.ac.tz UEMOA www.uemoa.int WAIFEM www.waifem-cbp.org WAMI www.wami-imao.org ZIPAR www.zipar.org.zm 54 Annex 7. List of evaluations conducted on ACBF prior to RIDA funding 1995 Mid-Term Evaluation of the African Capacity Building Initiative—a United Nations Development Programme evaluation undertaken by the Nordic Consulting Group 1996 An Evaluation of the Performance of ACBF under its Pilot Phase—external evaluation carried out by Development Associates, United States 1997 Price Water House Coopers Financial Review of ACBF—external evaluation by the World Bank 1999 Study on integration of the Partnership for Capacity Building in Africa into ACBF— An assessment by GRM International, Australia 2000 Canadian International Development Agency operations assessment mission to ACBF by Enrique Madueno 2000 UK Department for International Development–commissioned assessment undertaken by John Toye 2001 Operations review by France carried out by Dominque Mas 2001 Operations review by the UK Department for International Development carried out by Jeremy Clarke, Senior Governance Adviser 2001 World Bank Development Grant Facility programs and financial operations review mission to ACBF by Paul Hubbard 2002 UK Department for International Development–commissioned assessment undertaken by Diana Goldsworthy and Paul Bennell 2002 Change management diagnostic study commissioned by ACBF Executive Board 2002/2003 World Bank mid-term review of Partnership for Capacity Building in Africa (PACT) by John Silverman and others 2004 Review of development effectiveness of World Bank support to capacity building in Africa—conducted by the Operations Evaluation Department, the World Bank 2005 Review by World Bank Operational Taskforce on Capacity Building in Africa 55 Annex 8. List of key supporting documents Project appraisal documents ‐ Project Appraisal Document on the ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project, World Bank, 2011  ‐ Project Appraisal Document on the ACBF Regional Capacity Building Project, Additional Financing, World Bank, 2011 RIDA project progress reports ‐ RIDA Project Annual Progress Report, ACBF, 2012 ‐ RIDA Project Annual Progress Report, ACBF, 2013 ‐ RIDA Project Semi-Annual Progress Report, ACBF, 2014 ‐ RIDA Project Annual Progress Report, ACBF, 2014 ‐ RIDA Project Semi-Annual Progress Report, ACBF, 2015 ‐ RIDA Project Annual Progress Report, ACBF, 2015 ‐ RIDA Project Semi-Annual Progress Report, ACBF, 2016 ‐ RIDA Project Annual Progress Report, ACBF, 2016 ‐ RIDA Project Semi-Annual Progress Report, ACBF, 2017 Aide-mémoire ‐ Aide Memoire, Implementation Support Mission to ACBF, World Bank, 2012  ‐ Aide Memoire, Implementation Support Mission to ACBF, World Bank, 2013 ‐ Aide Memoire, Implementation Support Mission to ACBF, World Bank, 2014 ‐ Aide Memoire, Implementation Support Mission to ACBF, World Bank, 2015 ‐ Aide Memoire, Implementation Support Mission to ACBF, World Bank, 2016 ‐ Aide Memoire, Implementation Support Mission to ACBF, World Bank, 2017 ACBF documents ‐ ACBF Strategic Medium-Term Plan I, 2002–2006 ‐ ACBF Strategic Medium-Term Plan II, 2007–2011 ‐ ACBF Strategic Medium-Term Plan III, 2012–2016 ‐ ACBF Strategy 2017–2021 ‐ ACBF Long Term Strategic Vision, 2016 ‐ ACBF Operational Manual, 2014 ‐ ACBF Monitoring and Evaluation Manual, 2013 ‐ ACBF Achievements and Impact Assessment, 2016 ‐ ACBF African Capacity Report Evaluation Report, 2015 ‐ ACBF Strategic Medium-Term Plan II Evaluation Report, 2012 ‐ ACBF Srategic Medium-Term Plan III Mid-Term review Report, 2015 ‐ ACBF Supported Policy Think Tank Evaluation Report, 2014 ‐ ACBF Supported Training Program Evaluation Report, 2011 ‐ RIDA Project Mid-Term Review Report, ACBF, 2016 ‐ Projects Portfolio Review Report, ACBF, 2010 ‐ Projects Portfolio Review Report, ACBF, 2010 ‐ Projects Portfolio Review Report, ACBF, 2011 ‐ Projects Portfolio Review Report, ACBF, 2012 ‐ Projects Portfolio Review Report, ACBF, 2013 ‐ Projects Portfolio Review Report, ACBF, 2014 ‐ Projects Portfolio Review Report, ACBF, 2015 ‐ Projects Portfolio Review Report, ACBF, 2016 ‐ Projects Portfolio Review Report, ACBF, 2017 ‐ ACBF Management Team, 2010–2017 ‐ ACBF Organizational Structure, 2010–2017 56 57 Annex 10. RIDA‐I Results level indicators progress, end‐2013  Project development objective  5. Enhanced capacity for effective policy formulation and management in ACBF subgrant recipient’ countries  6. Improved and sustained management of ACBF operations    Indicators Baseline Cumulative values (2012–2013) Comments 2010 Target Achievements Performance 2013 end-2013 1. Number of recommendations, 0 15 39 24 The number of policy recommendations submitted and used submitted by ACBF grantees and used above target from the Policy Institutes under the RIDA I project, mainly from by government in policy formulation KIPPRA and HESPI. PNRC-CAF and PPRC were considered for cancellation as not effective. 2. Ratio of total budget to total active 8% 12.4% 6.5% 5.9% This includes both RIDA I and non-RIDA projects. The total portfolio value better than foundation cost in year 2013, compared with the total active target portfolio value, was 5.9% less than the annual target. Strengthened key institutions and human resources involved in policy formulation 3. Economic policy research completed 0 30 119 169 From policy institutes under the RIDA I project. PNRC-CAF in policy institutes supported by ACBF above target has not been declared effective. 4. Ministries, departments, and The support was in the form of technical assistance (process agencies supported by the targeted facilitation, change management or advisory and mentoring) economic policy units with: and training (short-term sessions). The following projects were  Technical assistance 0 65 118 53 above target involved: RESPEC, PROFAP, PRCS CAR, HESPI, and  Training 0 155 328 173 above KIPPRA. target 5. Students receiving a Master’s degree 0 180 326 146 Based on the Master’s degree training programs: PSMTP- certificate in economic policy and public above target GIMPA, CMAAE, PRCS-CAR, and EPM Makerere. The data administration or in statistics are for students currently enrolled and excludes those who graduated. 6. Students receiving training 0 450 842 392 Based on CMAAE, CODESRIA, PROFAP, and PRCS-CAR certificates in economic policy, public above target offering short-term training to mid-level managers in the public administration, or statistics sector and other stakeholders. Improved ACBF management process and structures 7. Ratio of administrative cost excluding 16% 17.2% 14.7% 2.5% Includes RIDA I and Non-RIDA projects. ACBF used 2.5% less staff to total budget. than the targeted budget to cover administrative costs. better than target 8. Ratio of total staff costs to total 60% 57.7% 70.2% 15.2% Includes RIDA I and non-RIDA projects. ACBF has exceeded 58 Indicators Baseline Cumulative values (2012–2013) Comments 2010 Target Achievements Performance 2013 end-2013 budget worse than by 15.2% the budget allocated for staff costs. This reflects target the semi-fixed nature of staff costs. In the short term, ACBF could not reduce its staff costs as it did other variable costs in line with reduced portfolio and disbursement amounts. 9. Percentage of sub-projects in ACBF 80% 71.6% 8.4% 63 projects were reviewed and rated in ACBF’s portfolio in the portfolio rated satisfactory below target January–December 2013 review. 10. Ratio of amount disbursed to 90% 98% 114.8% 16.8% Includes RIDA I and non-RIDA projects. amount committed in the portfolio above target 11. Grant recipients submitting 0 75% 96.0% 21% 70 of 73 active projects and programs submitted their quarterly quarterly monitoring and evaluation above target report as of December 2013. reports in line with the Project Results Monitoring Framework 12. Yearly approved subprojects and 0 44 27 17 Includes RIDA I and non-RIDA projects. Approval of new grants below target grants was suspended due to liquidity challenges.   59 ANNEX 11: RIDA-2 RESULTS LEVEL INDICATORS PROGRESS – as at end-December 2017 INDICATORS Cumulative Values (2013 – 2017) COMMENTS TARGE ACHIEVEMEN OVERALL T TS PERFORMANC 2017 as at Dec 2017 E Project Development Objective (PDO): ‐ (i) Improve the capacity of ACBF’s clients to deliver and measure their development results; and ‐ (ii) Enhance ACBF’s organizational effectiveness and efficiency. 1.a User satisfaction of ACBF clients’ 90% 93% Target The two measurements reveal the products and services offered by ACBF’s products exceeded partners meet the needs and expectations of their stakeholders or (+3%) beneficiaries. These resulted from the various satisfaction surveys 1.b. User satisfaction of ACBF clients’ 80% 92% Target conducted over the entire period of the project’s duration by the sub-projects services exceeded funded under the grant and involving a more than 15,ooo respondents (+11%) 2- Percentage of subprojects in ACBF 77% 90% Target This includes projects rated Highly Satisfactory (HS), Satisfactory (S) and portfolio rated satisfactory and above exceeded Moderately Satisfactory (MS). In 2017, the Bank has recommended to take (+13%) into “MS rating” as a level of success (in addition to HS and H) that was not included in the measurement in previous years 3. Percentage of total disbursements 80% 80% Target met This achievement shows that a very large proportion of the Foundation’s (including K&L products) to cash resources is primarily devoted to programmatic activities including outflows knowledge production. The Foundation is therefore very keen to the efficient use of its resources in responding to the capacity needs and demand from its clients INTERMEDIATE RESULTS Component-1: Grants to ACBF Supported Programs and Projects 4- Number of requests for products and 1,200 6,684 Target There are two main categories of requests considered for the measurement: services received by ACBF’s clients exceeded technical assistance and short-term training. The demands for products and (+5,484) services of ACBF’s clients have grown up substantively over the project period because of their high-quality standards and usefulness for the clients. 5- Percentage of clients’ products that 80% 96% Target This measurement indicates that most of the products generated by have undergone peer review process (or exceeded concerned ACBF’s clients during the reporting period have been taking any other quality control mechanism) (+16%) through quality assurance process. 6- Percentage of ACBF clients with 80% 83% Target The criteria used to measure the functionality of the M&E system of ACBF’s functional M&E systems exceeded clients include: timely submission of quarterly report, completion of RIDA (+3%) data instruments, production of success stories, existence of M&E focal 60 person and preparation of completion report (eventually). The majority of ACBF-supported projects meet the minimum M&E requirements in terms of performance tracking and reporting. 7- Number of engagements/ interactions 360 2,133 Target There is an increasing number of formal interactions between ACBF’s clients between ACBF clients and policymakers exceeded and decision maker, policy analysts or key development actors. The (+1,773) engagements included research publication, policy dialogue, advocacy workshops, validation workshop, high level forums or panel discussion. 8- Number of participants attending long 1,800 30,230 Target Academic Institutions focuses mainly on long-term or degree courses whilst and short-term trainings conducted by exceeded Think Tanks, regional development organization and other training centres ACBF clients (+28,430) provide short-term trainings. 9- Number of times ACBF K&L 55,000 310,171 Target Targeted campaigns including social media contributed to an increase in the products/documents are downloaded in exceeded number of downloads. Number of downloads are collected from the ACBF Africa and the rest of the world (+255,171) website, virtual library and partner websites using the the Advanced Web Statistics 7.6 application. 10- Number of requests received by 300 1,119 Target Most requests are generated from events attended by ACBF staff and ACBF for K&L products exceeded feedback from the e-mail alerts. (+819) 11- Number of times ACBF K&L 12,500 27,469 Target exceeded An increase is attributed to the direct target of individual faculties in the products are cited (+14,969) academic institutions. These are citations generated from online publications using publish or perish platform and the Google scholar. Component 2: Institutional Support to ACBF 12- Percentage of total staff costs to 17% 14.6% Target Continued efforts are being made to keep the institutional cost as low as cash out flows exceeded possible, but maintain the highest quality of the Foundation’s services (+2.4%) 13- Actual contributions from African US$ 23.40 million Target In overall, African member countries has made tremendous effort to keep governments to SMTP III 21.11 exceeded their commitment by paying their contributions to support the implementation million (+2.29 million) of the 3rd Strategic Plan (SMTP III) of ACBF running from 2012 to 2016. 14- Percentage of activities 95% 96% Target This is an average figure of the execution rate of the work plans of all ACBF’s implemented from Annual Business exceeded Departments as at end December 2017. The breakdown per Department is Plan (+1%) as follows: OPD (91%), K&L (95%), FAD (98%), RSPD (94%), LAD (95%) and IAD (100%). It is also to indicate that a number of intervention initially planned (e.g. K&L related activities) could not be implemented due to the lack of funds 15- Number of portfolio reviews 2 4 Target Four reviews were conducted: Annual portfolio review 2016; and first, second conducted exceeded and third quarter 2017 portfolio reviews (+2) 61 62 ANNEX 12: UPDATE ON REFORMS CONDUCTED BY ACBF The Reforms focused on the following five key areas 1. Prioritizing and Scaling up for Success 5. Working Towards 2. sustainabi Increasing lity Efficiency An Effective and Efficient ACBF 4.  Increasing 3.Strength focus on ening Results Governan and ce Impact All reforms have been fully implemented as indicated in the next section on implementation of the Reforms 63 SUMMARY OF REFORMS ACTIONS IMPLEMENTED •Programmatic areas reduced to three priorities (Policy formulation through support to think tanks;  Training at regional level & Enhancing policy results in RECs) Prioritizing and scaling up for  •Footprint reduced to 15 Countries to Deepen Results success •Multidisciplinary teams used, decentralization implemented & ICT used for increased efficiency in Program  Delivery •Simpler, flatter and leaner management structure (see below) •48% of staff separated; salary cuts ranging from 20% to 4%; Overall reduction of 33% in compensation •Saving of on rental costs with relocation to permanent offices  Increasing efficiency •Saving on travel costs with relocation of Operations for Central and West Africa to Accra from October 1st,  2014 •Reduction of all overhead costs to the strict minimum •Project approvals strictly based on existence of confirmed funding •Full‐time resident Executive Secretary leading the Foundation since 1 December 2013  Enhancing Governance & the  •Minutes of Executive Board meetings shared with World Bank Role of the Executive Board •Greater engagement of the Board of Governors •Frequency of Executive Board meetings increased from 2 to 4 per year, including 2 virtual •Monthly updates to Executive Board and bi‐monthly newsletter to all other Stakeholders •Project design improved & Grantees’ capacity enhanced for effective implementation & monitoring of  their projects; •Results framework developed with core indicators for measuring capacity building outcomes for both the  Increasing focus on results  Foundation and grantees and impact •Knowledge products strictly aligned to the 3 priority areas •Selection of new projects strictly based on lessons learned and capacity of potential Grantees to deliver  results •Refinancing of projects linked to Grantees' demonstrable results •Projects no longer be funded beyond 3 phases •Funding to grantees progressively evolving from institutional to program costs Working towards  sustainability •Bilateral partners reengaged and ongoing effort to diversify financing sources •Operating costs increasingly covered by African contributions •Commitment of African members to growing the Endowment Fund 64 LEVEL OF COMPLETION OF THE REFORMS PERCENTAGE OF REFORM AREA STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION  Programmatic areas reduced to:  Support to policy formulation and implementation,  Training at regional level A. Prioritizing and 100%  Support to regional integration. scaling up for IMPLEMENTATION  Number of African countries in which ACBF can use the success RATE World Bank’s support to SMTP III reduced to 15 (add list).  A new business model has been defined for the Foundation of which grant‐making is only one element  Structure of ACBF Management Team made flatter and leaner around three Department: Operations Department; Knowledge, Monitoring and Evaluation Department; and Finance and Administration Department. These operational departments are supported by 3 other managerial positions, namely in the Office of the Executive Secretary, Internal Audit and Legal Counsel. B. Increasing 100%  Wage bill significantly reduced through separation of 40 Efficiency IMPLEMENTATION staff out of a total of 84, salary cut of 4‐20% for RATE remaining staff and reduction in staff benefits. Overall result is 38% reduction in staff costs  Program delivery costs reduced.  Relocation from Harare city centre to suburb resulting in significant savings on rental costs.  Relocation of Operations Department for West and Central Africa to Accra which, resulting in significant savings on travel costs.  Frequency of Executive Board meetings doubled from 2 to 4 meetings a year (of which 2 virtual)  Minutes of these meetings shared with the World Bank which decided to pull out of the Board in 2011. C. Strengthening 100%  Project approval processes have been revised to ensure Governance IMPLEMENTATION that new commitments are exclusively based on RATE confirmed pledges (in other words pledges for which a grant agreement has been signed).  The Executive Secretary appointed in December 2013 is fully resident in Harare.  Project design significantly improved and grantees’ implementation and monitoring capacity enhanced D. Increasing  Core indicators developed to measure capacity building focus on 100% outcomes for both the Foundation and its grantees, and Results and IMPLEMENTATION presented in the Foundation’s Theory of Change (see Impact RATE below)  Systematic actions taken to continuously improve quality of evaluation. 65  Knowledge products aligned on the 3 priority areas of focus of ACBF’s operations  Programmatic areas and grantees benefiting of ACBF’s support selected based on lessons learned and demonstrable results.  Continuation of ACBF support to any grantee henceforth contingent on demonstrated results  ACBF support to any grantee discontinued after a maximum of 3 phases and funding progressively evolving from institutional costs to program expenditure.  Effort ongoing to re‐engage non‐African E. Working countries/bilateral partners Towards 100%  Concerted effort to diversify funding sources sustainability IMPLEMENTATION (partnership with Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, of the RATE Australia, Afreximbank, China, BADEA, IsDB, etc.). Foundation  Mobilization of African member countries around the objective of progressively covering ACBF’s operating costs and growing the Foundation’s Endowment Fund.  Increase focus on demonstrable results with the objective of securing continued Donor support.                 66   67