Document of The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Report No: ICR00005151 IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT ON A SMALL GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF USD (0.86) MILLION TO THE Macroeconomic and Financial Management Institute for Eastern and Southern Africa FOR MEFMI Grant Agreement (II) - DMF II (P158441) {Date} Macroeconomics, Trade And Investment Global Practice Other Region Regional Vice President: Mustakiym Ayhan Kose Country Director: Caroline Louise Freund Regional Director: Marcello de Moura Estevao Filho Practice Manager: Doerte Doemeland Task Team Leader(s): Diego Rivetti ICR Main Contributor: Diego Rivetti ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS DeMPA Debt management performance assessment DMF Debt Management Facility DMS Debt management strategy DSA Debt Sustainability Analysis FM Financial management GA Grant agreement ICR Implementation Completion and Results Report IDA International Development Association IMF International Monetary Fund IP Implementing partner LIC Low income country M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MEFMI Macroeconomic and Financial Management Institute for Eastern and Southern Africa MoF Ministry of Finance MTDS Medium term debt management strategy PAD Project Appraisal Document PDO Project Development Objective TA Technical assistance WB World Bank TABLE OF CONTENTS DATA SHEET ....................................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. I. PROJECT CONTEXT AND DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES ....................................................... 4 II. OUTCOME ...................................................................................................................... 6 III. KEY FACTORS THAT AFFECTED IMPLEMENTATION AND OUTCOME .................................. 8 IV. BANK PERFORMANCE, COMPLIANCE ISSUES, AND RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME .... 8 V. LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................ 9 ANNEX 1. RESULTS FRAMEWORK AND KEY OUTPUTS ........................................................... 13 ANNEX 2. PROJECT COST BY COMPONENT ........................................................................... 17 ANNEX 3. RECIPIENT, CO-FINANCIER AND OTHER PARTNER/STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS ...... 18 ANNEX 4. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS (IF ANY) ..................................................................... 19 The World Bank MEFMI Grant Agreement (II) - DMF II (P158441) DATA SHEET BASIC INFORMATION Product Information Project ID Project Name P158441 MEFMI Grant Agreement (II) - DMF II Country Financing Instrument World Investment Project Financing Original EA Category Revised EA Category Not Required (C) Organizations Borrower Implementing Agency Macroeconomic and Financial Management Institute Macroeconomic and Financial Management Institute for for Eastern and Southern Africa Eastern and Southern Africa Project Development Objective (PDO) Original PDO To strengthen capacity of DMF-eligible countries to manage debts effectively, so as to enable governments to finance their operations prudently with appropriate cost-risk mix to contribute to macro-economic stability and ensure sustainable debt levels over the long term. Page 1 of 19 The World Bank MEFMI Grant Agreement (II) - DMF II (P158441) FINANCING FINANCE_TBL Original Amount (US$) Revised Amount (US$) Actual Disbursed (US$) Donor Financing TF-A2231 854,706 751,230 751,230 Total 854,706 751,230 751,230 Total Project Cost 854,706 751,230 751,230 KEY DATES Approval Effectiveness Original Closing Actual Closing 10-Mar-2016 24-Mar-2016 31-May-2019 31-Dec-2019 RESTRUCTURING AND/OR ADDITIONAL FINANCING Date(s) Amount Disbursed (US$M) Key Revisions 31-Jul-2019 0.60 Change in Loan Closing Date(s) KEY RATINGS Outcome Bank Performance M&E Quality Satisfactory Satisfactory Substantial RATINGS OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE IN ISRs Actual No. Date ISR Archived DO Rating IP Rating Disbursements (US$M) 01 04-Jun-2019 Satisfactory Satisfactory 0.60 ADM STAFF Role At Approval At ICR Regional Vice President: Jan Walliser Mustakiym Ayhan Kose Page 2 of 19 The World Bank MEFMI Grant Agreement (II) - DMF II (P158441) Country Director: John Panzer Caroline Louise Freund Marcello de Moura Estevao Director: Carlos Felipe Jaramillo Filho Practice Manager: Mark Roland Thomas Doerte Doemeland Task Team Leader(s): Emre Balibek Diego Rivetti ICR Contributing Author: Diego Rivetti Page 3 of 19 The World Bank MEFMI Grant Agreement (II) - DMF II (P158441) I. PROJECT CONTEXT AND DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES Context A. Country Context The Grant agreement between the WB and Macroeconomic and Financial Management Institute for Eastern and Southern Africa (MEFMI) is part of the implementation arrangements for the global trust fund, Debt Management Facility II (as described in section II below), where MEFMI is one of the partner organizations in implementing technical assistance activities. All DMF II activities are global and provided to low and lower middle- income countries based on individual demand. This project will benefit, through the implementing partner, IDA-eligible countries and low-income countries (LICs), including those that graduate from being IDA-eligible but were part of the initial program (Debt Management Facility 1, November 2008 to June 2014). B. Sectoral and Institutional Context Debt Management Facility for Low Income Countries (DMF I) was a World Bank-administered Multi-Donor Trust Fund. The objective of the DMF I was to strengthen public debt management (PDM) capacity and institutions in LICs. DMF I closed in 2014. DMF Phase II (DMF II) has an expanded mandate for debt management technical assistance products and services. DMF II also envisions partnership with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and substantially scales up provision of technical assistance (TA) in debt management for eligible countries. The DMF II Trust Fund was activated on February 17, 2014. The DMF II program officially launched at the Fifth Annual Stakeholders’ Forum in April 2014, marking a new phase of the Facility. The new phase continues to support products provided under DMF I and also extends the work to new activities for supporting domestic market development, training on the debt sustainability framework, and others. Implementing Partners’ (IP) contribution to the DMF II is an important element of the program efficiency and implementation of the work program. The collaborative approach takes the form of participation of IPs in DMF II missions and training activities. The participation of the IPs in the DMF II’s work program is governed by the grant agreements (GAs). In accordance with the respective GA, each IP contributes to specific number of activities in compliance with Bank policies, including mission activities and training events. C. Higher Level Objectives to which the Project Contributes Relationship to global strategy: This program is linked with the World Bank’s global initiative on supporting clients in strengthening capacity in debt management, as by the mandate given by the Board (May 2007). Project Development Objectives (PDOs) To strengthen capacity of DMF-eligible countries to manage debts effectively, so as to enable governments to finance their operations prudently with appropriate cost-risk mix to contribute to macro-economic stability and ensure sustainable debt levels over the long term. Key Expected Outcomes and Outcome Indicators As the DMF II program is implemented jointly with the World Bank and the implementing partner, MEFMI in this case, the monitoring of results is conducted by the DMF II Secretariat for the entire program. This will include the following criteria: • Client countries demonstrate improved debt management capacities and institutions as evaluated through the DeMPAs; Page 4 of 19 The World Bank MEFMI Grant Agreement (II) - DMF II (P158441) • Quality of government debt management is improved through a regular development of Debt Management strategies; • Client countries continuously conduct government debt sustainability analysis (DSA); • Client countries, based on pre-conditions and prevailing market infrastructure, take steps towards further developing domestic debt market, if it forms part of debt management objectives. Monitoring of the intermediate results is based on the number of activities joined or organized by MEFMI as follows: (i) DEMPA missions (including subnational missions) – 14 activities (ii) MTDS missions (including subnational missions) – 14 activities (iii)Reform Plan missions – 10 activities (iv)Domestic Debt Market Development missions – 4 activities (v) Training events (DSA, MTDS, DeMPA) – 9 activities (vi) DMF Stakeholders’ Conference – 4 activities Components The objective of the Project is to strengthen the capacity of Eligible Member Countries (as defined in http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTDEBTDEPT/Resources/468980-1238442914363/DMFEligibleCountries.pdf) to manage debts effectively, so as to enable governments to finance their operations prudently with appropriate cost-risk mix to contribute to macro-economic stability and ensure sustainable debt levels over the long term. The Grant will support related outputs under any of the following components of the DMF II: • Application of the Debt Management Performance Assessment (“DeMPA�) tool; • Design of Debt Management Reform Plans; • Assistance in Medium-Term Debt Management Strategy (“MTDS�) Development; • Assistance in Domestic Debt Market Development and • Organization of Regional Training Events. Specifically, the activities (“Activities�) to be carried out by the Recipient in support of the DMF II components listed above may include: (a) Collecting country background information on the debt management situation in Eligible Member Countries, including information on fiscal policy, monetary policy and legal framework related to debt management, as well as related technical assistance programs if available. (b) Drafting summaries of country strengths and weaknesses with respect to debt management, based on the above identified background information. (c) Facilitating data aggregation, teaching useful functions including the cost-risk of the existing debt portfolio for MTDS workshops and trainings. Page 5 of 19 The World Bank MEFMI Grant Agreement (II) - DMF II (P158441) (d) Organizing and/or participating in training and outreach events related to the DMF’s work program. (e) Participating in the preparation of reports, presentations and other knowledge products for workshops, training and outreach activities The work program carried out under one or more of the Activities listed above was agreed between the World Bank and the Recipient, subject to the no-objection from the relevant Eligible Member Countries. II. OUTCOME Assessment of Achievement of Each Objective/Outcome Component 1- DeMPA Technical Assistance. MEFMI undertook (4) DeMPA assessment missions to Lesotho, Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe during the four years period of the grant (March 2016 to December 2019). 3 were done in 2018 and the last one in 2019. 107 country officials were trained and their capacity to apply the DeMPA methodology to identify strengths and weaknesses in their countries’ debt management practices, as well as designing tailored reform plans to address the weaknesses identified, were enhanced. Assessment: • The DEMPA findings have helped countries in identifying capacity building needs as evidenced by follow up mission requests after DEMPA assessments. Two requests for Reform Plan support were received and responded to. • Awareness created at the level of senior policymakers is expected to result in sustained implementation of reforms which will enhance debt management practices. • The interventions also helped to identify common priority areas for debt management reform across countries in the region. Component 2-Reform Plan Technical Assistance MEFMI participated in five (5) Reform Plan TA Missions during 2016 and 2019 to Mozambique, Rwanda, Uganda, and Zambia. Uganda requested for two (2) reform plan follow-ups to assess progress made since previous DeMPA assessments. • These requests signal increased awareness among senior policymakers and desire to reform debt management practices in line with international best practice. • The TAs also helped to identify common priority areas for debt management reform across countries in the region. Component 3-MTDS Technical Assistance 349 country officials were trained during eleven (11) TA missions to eight (8) eligible member countries, and their capacity to use the MTDS as basis for designing debt management strategies was enhanced. In some countries Page 6 of 19 The World Bank MEFMI Grant Agreement (II) - DMF II (P158441) (Tanzania, Uganda, and Rwanda), government officials are able to develop and update their own debt management strategies with minimal external support. Assessment: • Greater awareness (by senior policymakers) of the cost and risks of alternative financing options and the need to minimize them. In some countries (Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda), debt management strategy is underpinned by the legal framework and this has made it a regular activity in their annual calendar of events. • Country officials are able to develop borrowing strategies, combining different sources of finance to meet the government financing needs. • Regular publication of debt management strategies has helped to promote transparency and facilitates communication with market participants and other stakeholders in Uganda, Tanzania, Kenya, Rwanda and Zambia. Component 4- Domestic Debt Market Development Technical Assistance MEFMI Grant supported three (3) domestic debt market development technical assistance to Tanzania, Zambia and Malawi. 19 officials were equipped with practical skills required to effectively manage public domestic debt and identify priority areas that must be addressed to support development of the government securities market. Assessment: • Increased awareness among senior policymakers and desire to reform debt markets to make them a cost- effective and sustainable source for financing development. • Countries developed prioritized and sequenced action plan to guide implementation of reforms to support the development of the domestic debt markets. Component 5-Training Workshops (DeMPA, MTDS, DSA) MEFMI in collaboration with The World Bank and IMF delivered nine (9) regional training events in the areas of DSA, MTDS, and DeMPA. The beneficiaries totaled 302 out of which about 50 percent or 152 were female. # of Number of Beneficiaries from Regional Training Activities Completed: 2016 – 2019 Activity Activity Type 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total Total Debt Sustainability Analyses 27 27 48 31 133 4 Medium Term Debt Management Strategies 0 40 36 28 104 3 Debt Management Performance Assessment 34 0 31 0 65 2 Total 61 67 115 59 302 9 Page 7 of 19 The World Bank MEFMI Grant Agreement (II) - DMF II (P158441) Assessment: • There is greater awareness at senior level policymakers on the importance of DSAs and government uses DSA results to monitor the country’s risk of external debt distress, inform annual budget formulation and borrowing decisions. Furthermore, in countries like Uganda/.., and Tanzania, officials can conduct their own DSAs with minimal external support, using the revised DSF. • In Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania, formulation of debt management strategy is underpinned by legal framework and has made it a regular activity in their annual calendar of events. With these interventions, countries are expected to optimize the composition of their respective debt portfolios and hence safeguard debt sustainability. • The training sensitized participants on sound practices in debt management, enhancing their capacity to apply the DeMPA methodology to assess their countries’ public debt management performance, identify strengths and weaknesses in their countries’ debt management practices, as well as designing appropriately tailored reform plans. Following these trainings. • Participation of Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) staff raised awareness among auditors on the sound practices in debt management and widen the pool of competent auditors to serve the transparency and accountability pillar of public debt management. Overall Outcome Rating The overall outcome rating is Satisfactory for the project. Other Outcomes and Impacts DMF II External Evaluation Report of June 2018 Section 4.2 page 25 commended MEFMI participation in DMF activities as follows: "There is some indirect evidence from interviews with client country staff in Africa that the participation of MEFMI …..in TA missions has been of considerable value and has helped these IPs develop their debt management TA delivery capacity". III. KEY FACTORS THAT AFFECTED IMPLEMENTATION AND OUTCOME Closing date Restructuring gave the IP the chance to improve the achievement of the original PDO that could not have been done by the original project closing date to capture more results, outcomes and output of already-planned activities. Factors Subject to Government Control: The Governments of the countries had, during project implementation either promptly or delayed adoption of key strategic documents to guide and support domestic market development/ debt management through Parliament adoption and issue of the Government Action Plans sch as publishing intervention reports. IV. BANK PERFORMANCE, COMPLIANCE ISSUES, AND RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME The project followed the guidance provided by the M&E plan of Bank Investment projects and the DMF Charter approved by the Steering Committee. The core design of the M&E system included implementation progress and performance review. Evaluation was envisaged using internal and external evaluation Implementation The overall responsibility for project monitoring, evaluation, and reporting rested with the DMF Secretariat. Page 8 of 19 The World Bank MEFMI Grant Agreement (II) - DMF II (P158441) The day-to-day duties were carried out by the coordinator of the secretariat who worked closely with the task Team Leader and the DMF Program Manager. Implementation progress and performance were assessed in line with the indicators identified in the Results Framework and were supplemented by detailed project progress reports and financial management reports in a format agreed upon in the Grant letters Internal evaluation. The Task Team Leader and the Financial Management Specialist reviewed semi-annual progress reports based on the performance indicators of the results-based monitoring and evaluation framework. MEFMI participated in the Implementation Coordination Group (ICG) discussions and annual DMF Stakeholders meetings and consolidated their views and findings which enriched the implementation process. Program Manager consolidated the findings of the year into an Annual Report for Steering Committee review. A comprehensive evaluation report was also provided by the IP at project completion which is attached. Financial management assessment was carried out during preparation. Off sight Supervision was also regularly carried out through project accounts and procedures review to ensure compliance with fiduciary requirements throughout the life of the project. The required interim financial reports were submitted to the World Bank on time and in acceptable manner. Although the World Bank noted some financial management weaknesses, such as insufficient and incomplete supporting documents for expenditures remedial actions were taken to resolve the problems. Annual audit reports submitted were reviewed and found satisfactory. A 10-year Retrospective Review was requested by the DMF’s Steering Committee in May 2018. It took stock of the activities supported by the DMF and assessed achievements and challenges, from its inception to end-2018. Recognizing the difficulty of establishing causal determinants of institution building and reform outcomes, the report establishes how DMF interventions relate to changes in debt management outcomes, using cross- country analysis, survey results, and case studies. Independent external evaluation. The DMF program is required to undergo an independent evaluation of implementation. The objective of the independent impact evaluation is to examine fully the achievements of the PDOs. The DMF Secretariat signed an agreement with Universalia Management Group Ltd, an independent evaluation group which carried out the midterm review evaluation. The risk to development outcome is that staff that are trained could be transferred. V. LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS DMF capacity-building efforts have been accomplished through the contributions of the DMFs Implementing Partners (IPs), which participate in DMF missions and trainings. MEFMI also assist in organizing training events and supported continued reform implementation through its country engagements. The IPs have helped with the sustainability of the program. A key lesson is that the technical quality of the partners should be also sustained. The DMF should continue to follow an open platform for identifying and including relevant IPs. The activities of IPs should be well coordinated and avoid overlaps. In conclusion, The DMF Secretariat implementation reviews noted that: • The DMF has contributed to the global debt management landscape. For example, the MTDS tools are used beyond DMF-eligible countries. The MTDS methodology and toolkit have been a game changer in supporting countries develop a comprehensive debt strategy and evaluating associated costs and risks. They have proven so useful that countries that are not DMF-eligible, such as Page 9 of 19 The World Bank MEFMI Grant Agreement (II) - DMF II (P158441) Jamaica, Jordan, Gabon and Lebanon are using them. • Today, more countries prepare and publish debt management strategies, the quality of debt records for government debt has improved, and many countries have improved the organization of their debt-management institutions. • Addressing debt transparency gaps will require tailored support. Its multifaceted nature makes it necessary to tailor interventions specifically to address the remaining gaps particularly related to expanding public sector coverage and debt recording, reporting and monitoring. Enhanced support on strengthening legal and institutional frameworks on debt reporting and monitoring could be useful. DMF III will offer TA on debt reporting and monitoring and increase focus on TA for institutional and legal frameworks. • Some important debt management challenges are beyond the scope of technical staff. Decision making on borrowing is often made at a high-level. Debt management audits and parliamentary oversight remain weak. Public debt is a macroeconomic issue which requires holistic solutions and interventions at appropriate levels. Well-functioning checks and balances would strengthen accountability for debt-related decision making and results monitoring. Increased outreach to decision-makers on debt management, including parliamentarians and auditors is crucial • The DMF support on MTDS or Reform Plan TA is positively correlated with increased likelihood of reforms. Out of 48 survey respondents that benefited from DMF support on MTDS, 32 published a debt strategy in the same or subsequent years, compared to only 6 out of 33 countries without MTDS support. Similarly, out of 48 survey respondents that received support to develop reform plans, 39 implemented a debt management related reform in the same or subsequent years, compared to 24 out of 33 without RP support. • The DMF has played an important role in informing countries’ reform efforts. The Debt Managers Practitioner Program (DMPP) increases reform momentum through participants who bring back enhanced expertise to their countries: countries with participants in the DMPP experienced a higher rate of reform implementation after participating in the program than in the preceding period. Survey results indicate that DMF interventions informed the reforms implemented by countries regarding legislative changes, institutional setup of the DMO, development of the domestic debt market, and preparation of the DMS and DSA. • The DeMPA has become a monitoring tool. To enhance its effectiveness, A review of the DeMPA is in progress, focusing on the methodology’s format and content. On the format, staff are taking stock of the lessons learned since the last review (2015), comparing the methodology with other assessment tools used by the WB and the IMF. Preliminary conclusions reveal that there is room to provide more detailed guidance throughout the assessment and to display the outputs to facilitate the communication of DeMPA scores with the authorities. One of the objectives of the review is to revise the DeMPA to be able to systematically track granular information embedded in each performance indicator and thus better track progress. This would prompt quick reaction by country authorities, paving the way to debt management reform plans and subsequent implementation. On the content, the review will include the expansion of the debt reporting coverage beyond central Page 10 of 19 The World Bank MEFMI Grant Agreement (II) - DMF II (P158441) government debt towards the non-financial public sector. It will also propose how to better capture the quality of the data reported by the officials. Piloting of the revised DeMPA is estimated for April 2021. • Addressing debt transparency gaps will require tailored support. Its multifaceted nature makes it necessary to tailor interventions specifically to address the remaining gaps particularly related to expanding public sector coverage and debt recording, reporting and monitoring. Enhanced support on strengthening legal and institutional frameworks on debt reporting and monitoring could be useful. DMF III will offer TA on debt reporting and monitoring and increase focus on TA for institutional and legal frameworks. More support is required to address debt-related contingent liabilities and fiscal risks. • More support is required to address debt-related contingent liabilities and fiscal risks. Contingent liabilities, such as guarantees or on-lending to state-owned enterprises, present an important fiscal risk, but they are often not included in the debt management framework. Going forward, DMF III advisory services will be offered to address debt-related contingencies and other relevant fiscal risks within the DMF perimeter. The focus will be on identifying and managing contingent liabilities, such as off-budget and other unreported direct liabilities of the government, obligations under public- private partnerships and the government’s exposure from credit and other financial guarantees, and the associated risks relevant to the DMF-eligible countries. • Peer-to-peer learning programs can be a successful impetus for reform. The DMPP and DMF Stakeholders’ Forum receive overwhelmingly positive feedback from participants. MEFMI Input to Lessons Learnt and Recommendations (included in the Completion Report attached). In the course of implementing DMF II, MEFMI learnt the following lessons which may be useful in informing the planning and implementation of DMF III: • Close collaboration and strategic engagement with country authorities in scoping and implementing capacity building programs results in improved traction and impact. • Leverage on specialized regional expertise to implement capacity building activities, as they have strong background and perspective on the challenges facing the region. • There are countries in the region, such as eSwatini, not eligible for DMF but with elevated debt vulnerabilities, weak debt management capacity and institutions. It is important that such cases be considered (on a case-by-case basis) for DMF support despite the fact that they do not qualify using set eligibility criteria. • The quality and coverage of debt data continues to feature prominently as one key constraint to producing credible debt analysis and strategies and hence decision-making. Broadening DMF activities to cover debt data (debt recording, reporting and monitoring) would be helpful in closing this gap. DMF activities are demand driven. It is important that the scope of engagement at the highest decision-making level is deepened to raise awareness of the importance of sound debt management and reform needs. • Oversight institutions such as the national assemblies and supreme audit institutions are key in enhancing transparency, accountability and implementation of reforms on debt management. It is important awareness is raised and their knowledge on sound practices in public debt management Page 11 of 19 The World Bank MEFMI Grant Agreement (II) - DMF II (P158441) enhanced. • In-country activities such as MTDS and DSA workshops are more valuable in catering for country- specific needs while also reaching out to more participants. • Hands-on use of the debt analytical tools (the Debt Sustainability Framework and MTDS) by participants during missions is important for building and strengthening debt management capacity. • Use of country data in regional trainings such as MTDS and DSA - rather than fictional data, participants benefit more if they use their own country data as they can easily relate the results and draw key messages therefrom. • There is greater awareness of the capacity gaps arising from emerging issues in debt management, particularly enhanced market access and potential realizations of contingent liabilities. Hence, there is currently a strong pipeline of outstanding requests for support in these areas. • Integrating the theory of change into the Monitoring and Evaluation framework in order to demonstrate the impact of DMF-funded capacity building activities in the region. This also allows better prioritization and focus activities based on achievable outcomes and not just inputs. • Downstream capacity building activities are also important to sustaining reform momentum MEFMI Challenges/Constraints • There is lack of awareness on the importance of integrating sub-nationals in the overall framework of debt management. This is why there has not been requests for sub-national DeMPA and MTDS. • While capacity to formulate debt management strategies and undertake the necessary analysis has been established, implementation has lagged. Lack of capacity to develop an annual borrowing plan that translates the strategy into an actionable plan is among the key constrains. Thus, more effort should also be devoted to supporting countries in developing requisite capacity to implement their strategies. • Missions have sometimes been postponed by the authorities at very short notice and rescheduled on dates beyond the implementation period. As a result, some planned activities have not been implemented. • There has been lack of demand for some planned missions, as authorities do not consider them priority. However, this could be due to lack of awareness on how some missions would feed into the overall debt management objectives. • Lack of flexibility to use DMF fund to hire regional experts to deliver TA has reduced implementing partners’ responsiveness to country requests and demand. • DMF policy on per diem creates challenges for implementing partners which have to apply different per diems for different activities conducted in the region. • The lack of a monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework for the DMF grant led to challenges of tracking progress on implementation of the grant activities. In other words, • there were no measurable targets, linked to the overall DMF’s M&E framework. Instead, . implementing partners such as MEFMI used their internal M&E frameworks to track progress. Page 12 of 19 The World Bank MEFMI Grant Agreement (II) - DMF II (P158441) ANNEX 1. RESULTS FRAMEWORK AND KEY OUTPUTS A. RESULTS INDICATORS A.1 PDO Indicators Unit of Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Baseline Original Target Measure Target Completion Joint implementation of the Amount(USD) 0.00 854,706.00 854,706.00 751,229.80 DMF activities 24-Mar-2016 31-May-2019 31-May-2019 31-Dec-2019 Comments (achievements against targets): A.2 Intermediate Results Indicators Component: DeMPA, MTDS, Reform plans, Training programs Unit of Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Baseline Original Target Measure Target Completion DMF activities contributed Number 0.00 0.00 54.00 35.00 (DeMPA, MTDS, Reform plans, Training programs etc) 24-Mar-2016 31-May-2019 31-May-2019 31-Dec-2019 Page 13 of 19 The World Bank MEFMI Grant Agreement (II) - DMF II (P158441) Comments (achievements against targets): Page 14 of 19 The World Bank MEFMI Grant Agreement (II) - DMF II (P158441) ORGANIZATION OF THE ASSESSMENT OF THE PDO Page 15 of 19 The World Bank MEFMI Grant Agreement (II) - DMF II (P158441) Page 16 of 19 The World Bank MEFMI Grant Agreement (II) - DMF II (P158441) . ANNEX 2. PROJECT COST BY COMPONENT Amount at Actual at Percentage of Category- Component Approval Project Closing Grant (US$) (US$) Approval (a) Operating Costs 408,126.00 208,822.70 51.17 (b) Training 446,580.00 542,407.10 121.46 Utilization Total Grant Amount Disbursed 751,229.80 87.89 Undisbursed balance cancelled as on April 30, 2020 103,476.20 12.11 Total Grant Amount 854,706.00 854,706.00 100 Actual at Percentage Project Activities - Components Amount at Project Amount of Approval Approval Closing Unutilized Utilized (US$T) (US$T) (US$T) (US$T) 1: DeMPA Tool Application 53,600 8,511 45,089 15.88 2: Design of Debt Management Reform Plan 38,200 12,245 25,955 32.05 3: MTDS Technical Assistance 135,800 86,086 49,714 63.39 4: Domestic Debt Market Development TA 15,400 13,588 1,812 88.23 5: Organization of Regional Training Events 611,706 622,387 (10,681) 101.75 Debt Management Stakeholder's Forum - 8,411 (8,411) Total 854,706 751,228 103,478 87.89 Page The World Bank MEFMI Grant Agreement (II) - DMF II (P158441) ANNEX 3. RECIPIENT, CO-FINANCIER AND OTHER PARTNER/STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS Page The World Bank MEFMI Grant Agreement (II) - DMF II (P158441) ANNEX 4. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS (IF ANY) 1. MEFMI Final Grant Audit l Report 2. MEFMI Project Completion Report Page