Background Paper No. 10 The Knowledge and Learning Agenda David Bernstein (ECSP4) and Maria del Carmen Minoso (ECSO1) Background An analysis of the state of play in GAC knowledge and learning (K&L) was conducted in some depth during the preparation of the GAC Strategy Update by Colum Garrity and Dick Calkins (Strengthening Governance, Combatting Corruption: Improving Development Outcomes through Knowledge and Learning (2011). Therefore, we do not need to start the process of identifying where K&L fits in the Global Practice Group structure with an assessment of past efforts or the development of a detailed plan. Instead, the Governance Practice Group should review the K&L Study (and the recent K&L Monitoring Report) and update it as needed. The goal should be to identify those activities that we propose to be handled centrally in the Governance Practice Group and those activities that are better suited to be managed and implemented in the other Global Practice Groups (GPGs) and/or in the Regions/CMUs. A key objective for GAC in the Bank as stated in the 2011 K&L Study is: To equip Bank staff with the knowledge and skills needed to deal with GAC issues and concerns at the country, sector and project levels. This learning objective remains relevant regardless of how the Bank is organized. At the same time, the GPGs are being formed, as the President re-emphasized at the latest Town Hall meeting, to ensure that knowledge in the 14 key areas is collected across the Bank so that it can be shared with clients who can benefit from the best that the Bank has to offer. As a result, the Governance PG will also have a knowledge management and dissemination objective at its core. Proposals for Consideration 1. Organization – Recognize that K&L are key Governance PG functions that require a dedicated management unit that has both the financial and human resources necessary to meet the dual objectives of: (i) organizing and coordinating GAC learning programs for staff and clients; and (ii) collect, manage and disseminate GAC knowledge products using an integrated, cross-GPG platform like the GAC Knowledge and Learning Portal. 2. Coordination – The managing unit should have responsibility for coordinating GAC training programs and knowledge development across the Bank. It can serve this role by providing a library of training courses and materials but should by identifying Governance PG staff that can help with the development and delivery of sector or country-specific GAC training courses. 3. Knowledge – Reestablish the GAC Knowledge and Learning Portal as the “go-to� location for information on all GAC related activities across the Bank. The Portal can collect 1 knowledge products from regions and sectors, serve as hub for information from various GAC communities of practice to ensure a flow of information across the COPs and within the Governance PG, and make available the collection of GAC training programs. 4. Knowledge – The Governance PG should play the leading role in GAC knowledge generation using the existing work developed through the various GAC communities of practice. Much of this content has been posted to the GAC Portal already. The Governance PG should focus efforts on ensuring that tools provide clear guidance on their use in different country and sector contexts and more clearly define indicators and benchmarks to help assess the impact of these tools. Most importantly, the PG should be in a position to provide governance tools and analysis into the new Country Diagnostic tool that is presently being developed. PG staff should also be made available to participate in country diagnostic missions. 5. Training – A GAC staff training program will need to be implemented along several dimensions. There are a number of existing training programs (e-learning modules, GAC 101 course, INT red flag clinics, GAC in Project’s basic GAC, orientation training course, etc.) which can serve as building blocks for a GAC training program. Training courses should also be broad enough (by providing a number of options) to cover institutional development concerns as well as the anti-corruption and compliance focus in existing courses. Training should be considered along the following dimensions: • New Staff - In addition to the INT module on staff’s anti-corruption obligations, the orientation program for new staff should include a basic introduction to GAC issues and policies. This should include a refreshed and updated GAC 101 module that is presently part of the mandatory Fundamentals of Operations course. These courses should provide both a primer on what staff must do if they discover/suspect fraud and corruption (compliance role) and a primer on basics of institutional reform in sectors (institution building). • Existing Staff – A set of GAC modules/options should be included in the Bank’s Core Curriculum available to all staff. A GAC in Operations module should be included in new core course for Bank TTLs. These modules should build on existing GAC in Operations and regionally developed GAC courses to provide staff with terminology, tools, case studies to enable them to identify, map and brainstorm solutions to governance constraints identified in Bank operations (investment projects and CPSes). • Higher Level/Targeted Training – Much of this training may be developed and implemented by other GPGs but the K&L unit in the Governance PG should play a clearinghouse and coordinating role for these courses. This training may focus on specific sectoral governance issues and/or provide a detailed focus skills to ensure that professional staff keep up their technical skills. 6. Client Training – Existing client training on GAC issues has tended to focus on compliance with Bank procedures, with an emphasis on anti-corruption policies. Though some units (e.g. INT) and regions (e.g., EAP, MENA,) have offered more substantive training for client 2 institutions even these courses have focused on skills necessary for corruption prevention and enforcement. While there will likely be a continuing demand for this training, the Governance PG should consider developing governance training courses that are both general in nature (focused on lessons learned for institutional reform and capacity building) and more targeted (sector specific or problem specific training focused on identification of governance constraints and risk management tools). 3