1

REPORT TO CONGRESS ON

EVALUATION STANDARDS AND PRACTICES AT THE 

MULTILATERAL DEVELOPMENT BANKS

A Report to Congress 

in response to

Section 7029(a) of the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260)

United States Department of the Treasury

October 2021
2

Report of the U.S. Department of the Treasury Pursuant to Section 7029(a) of the

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260)

October 2021

Executive Summary

Development evaluations help to provide shareholders with accountability by assessing program

and institutional performance and supporting learning by determining why programs performed

as they did and how programs can be improved. The five major multilateral development banks

(MDBs) of which the United States is a shareholder—the World Bank, the African Development

Bank (AfDB), the Asian Development Bank (AsDB), the European Bank for Reconstruction and

Development (EBRD), and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB)—are widely viewed as

standard-setters among development organizations in using evaluations to support high-quality

development projects that achieve tangible results.

1

 Treasury, in its position on the MDBs’

Boards of Directors, aims to refine the MDBs’ already robust evaluation functions and promote

evaluation lessons to improve projects, strategies, and operations. 

Section 7029(a) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (the “FY 21 Act”) requires the 

Secretary of the Treasury to “instruct the United States executive director of each international 

financial institution to use the voice of the United States to encourage such institution to adopt 

and implement a publicly available policy, including the strategic use of peer reviews and 

external experts, to conduct independent, in-depth evaluations of the effectiveness of at least 35 

percent of all loans, grants, programs, and significant analytical non-lending activities in 

advancing the institution’s goals of reducing poverty and promoting equitable economic growth, 

consistent with relevant safeguards, to ensure that decisions to support such loans, grants, 

programs, and activities are based on accurate data and objective analysis[.]” Section 7029(a) 

also requires the Secretary of the Treasury to submit a report on steps taken in FY 202 by the

U.S. Executive Directors (USEDs) and the international financial institutions consistent with 

7029(a) compared to the previous fiscal year. 

The operating environment for independent evaluators became more challenging in FY 20 due to 

the COVID-19 pandemic, which persisted into FY 21. Many evaluations suffered delays, and 

travel restrictions have negatively affected evaluators’ ability to perform field visits, leading to 

new ways of conducting evaluations that rely heavily on country surveillance. Treasury and the 

USEDs (hereafter, collectively referred to as “Treasury”) continued to engage with the MDBs’ 

independent evaluation offices on their work plans, evaluations, and tools for learning despite 

challenges. We used our voice at each institution to maintain focus on the four priorities laid out 

in the FY 21 Act and on the effectiveness of evaluations to contribute to development objectives 

at the MDBs. The report finds that during the exceptional restrictions resulting from the 

1 For an overview of evaluation practices at the MDBs, and discussion of these practices relative to other development 

organizations, see Treasury’s 2014 report to Congress on MDB evaluation. 

2 When referring to a specific MDB, this report is based on data for that MDB’s FY 20, as opposed to the U.S. 

government’s FY 20. The World Bank’s FY 20 ran from July 2019-June 2020; at the other four MDBs, FY 20 ran 

from January 2020-December 2020. 
3

pandemic, the MDBs generally maintained high standards on the four central components of 

section 7029(a) in FY 20, as follows. 

(i) Adoption and implementation of a publicly available evaluation policy. All MDBs

maintained a publicly-available evaluation policy. Following up on a 2018 evaluation

recommendation, the AsDB continued its collaborative process to draft an AsDB-wide

Evaluation Principles document to complement the existing evaluation policy instituted in 2008. 

As explained below, the AfDB faced some challenges in the implementation of its policy in FY

20, due to the President’s termination of the Evaluator General without Board concurrence,

based on application of staff rules. 

(ii) Strategic use of peer reviews and external experts. In FY 20, 100% of evaluations

completed by the MDBs’ independent evaluation offices underwent internal review, and, across

the MDBs, an average of 89% underwent external review. In particular, Treasury’s recent

engagement with the IDB on this priority led to a significant milestone in FY 20, as the IDB

introduced the practice of obtaining external reviews on all major evaluations for the first time. 

(iii) Conducting independent, in-depth evaluations of the effectiveness of at least 25%3 of all

loans, grants, programs, and significant analytical non-lending activities. Despite the impact

of the pandemic and its travel restrictions, we find that the MDB independent evaluation units

have adjusted well to the new normal and are able to conduct independent inquiry into the results

of an average of 51% of the annual project portfolio, ranging from 30-65%. This figure is based

on a revised methodology that is better suited to the pandemic and post-pandemic world,

departing from our previous singular focus on in-person field visits to reflect all in-depth

research on projects, and reflects both site visits conducted before the pandemic as well as virtual

independent research. As a result, this year’s coverage ratio cannot be compared to previous

years’ ratios. In addition, we strongly advise that the coverage ratio and its performance

compared to the arbitrary threshold outlined in legislation not be seen as a proxy for MDB

evaluation effectiveness, as project evaluations are only one part of the value that evaluators

provide to shareholders and clients. 

(iv) Ensuring that decisions to support such loans, grants, programs, and activities are based 

on accurate data and objective analysis. Treasury has made learning from evaluation results a 

priority in its engagement with the MDBs, and thus welcomes the MDBs’ progress in this area. 

Notable in FY 20 was the EBRD’s action plan to improve its self-evaluation system; the AfDB’s 

revisions to its readiness review to promote greater attention to lessons learned and a regional 

pilot of artificial intelligence tools to inform operations; and the AsDB’s implementation of its 

new strategic plan to improve knowledge sharing as well as its roll-out of its new project 

templates to explicitly require reference to lessons learned. 

In accordance with the above, this report details actions taken by Treasury and the five 

aforementioned MDBs in FY 20. Section I of the report reviews the MDBs’ performance on the 

four central components of section 7029(a). Section II provides an overview of Treasury 

engagement with the MDBs on evaluation issues. 

3 Per section 7029(a) of the FY 20 Consolidated Appropriations Act, applicable to the period covered in this report.
4

I. Assessment of the MDBs’ Performance Consistent with Section 7029(a)

(i) Adoption and Implementation of a Publicly Available Evaluation Policy

Overview. Every MDB has a publicly-available evaluation policy that details the principal 

responsibilities and governance structure of its independent evaluation office, including its 

relationship with the MDB’s management and the Board of Directors.4 These are periodically 

updated. In addition, individual cases occasionally test the effectiveness of the policy. In FY 20, 

at the AfDB, the President terminated the Evaluator General based on the application of staff 

rules. While the Board committee that oversees the evaluation unit and is charged with 

responsibility for hiring and firing the Evaluator General was informed, the decision to terminate 

was not taken by the Board. Treasury viewed this as inconsistent with the AfDB’s evaluation 

policy.

 

Actions in FY 20. An AsDB Task Force made up of both the independent evaluation office and 

regular staff worked to develop an AsDB-wide Evaluation Principles document, which we 

expect to be finalized in 2021. The Principles will complement the evaluation policy by: (i) 

covering both independent and self-evaluations, (ii) outlining the key principles for evaluation, 

and (iii) clarifying roles and accountability. At the AfDB, Treasury advocated for the institution 

to respect the decision-making power of the Board in matters concerning senior evaluation 

personnel actions, as codified in the evaluation policy. Treasury also was instrumental in AfDB 

Governors’ decision to set up an Ad Hoc Committee to review certain governance issues at the 

bank, including the independence of oversight and accountability units, such as evaluation.

Priorities for FY 2021. An independent review of the EBRD evaluation system in FY 19

suggested a need for revisions to the EBRD evaluation policy. As the term of the Evaluation

Department (EvD)’s head at EBRD is ending, the institution will undertake this revision once a

new head is in place. We will engage closely to ensure it remains a publicly-available, highstandard policy. Treasury will also seek to protect the independence of the evaluation unit at the

AfDB as a new evaluation head is hired, and we will participate in the hiring process.

(ii) Strategic Use of Peer Reviews and External Experts

Overview. MDB evaluation products receive two types of peer review: (i) internal review by

staff from the evaluation office as well as management and operational staff from the MDB; and

(ii) external review by peers from the evaluation offices of other MDBs, stakeholders from

shareholder governments, and other evaluation experts outside the MDB. Peer review is

considered best practice in the industry and a valuable part of ensuring independence and

integrity in the evaluation process. The majority of significant evaluation products are

independently reviewed by at least one to three external reviewers, including technical experts or

evaluation experts, depending on the complexity of the evaluation product and its topic. While

Treasury does not believe it is always necessary or cost-effective to conduct external reviews for

4 At each MDB, the independent evaluation office is under the oversight of the Board of Directors, to which it 

submits evaluation products, its annual budget and work program, and periodic reports on actions taken by the MDB 

in response to evaluation findings. The Board also appoints the head of the independent evaluation office and 

oversees performance review and remuneration.
5

all significant evaluations, they provide an important function, and their strategic use should be a

priority for all the MDBs. 

Coverage of Peer Reviews. Treasury finds that

100% of significant evaluations5that the

MDBs’ independent evaluation offices

completed in FY 20 underwent internal review. 

This has been the consistent result for several

years and indicates internal peer review is a

well-established practice among MDB

evaluation units. 

Across the MDBs, an average of 89% of

significant evaluations benefited from external

review, compared to 65% in FY 19. Four

MDBs now require external

reviews for all major evaluation

products, with the IDB

instituting this requirement for

the first time in 2020. This

change at the IDB follows

several years of engagement

from the U.S. Executive

Director’s Office to reinforce

that external peer review is in

line with international standards. 

The EBRD’s use of external

reviews also improved in FY 20. 

Chart 1 shows trends in external

review coverage. 

Priorities for FY 21. Treasury will continue to monitor this practice to sustain the current

approach. 

(iii) Conducting Independent, In-depth Evaluations of the Effectiveness of at Least 25

Percent of All Loans, Grants, Programs, and Significant Analytical Non-lending

Activities. 

Overview. The MDBs’ independent evaluation offices produce a broad range of evaluation 

products, from project evaluations to assessments of internal corporate processes, and use 

different definitions for what constitutes an independent, in-depth evaluation. Treasury has 

understood the legislative language to mean that Congress wishes the MDBs’ independent 

5 This includes project evaluations, sector and thematic reviews, country program evaluations, impact evaluations,

corporate evaluations, and evaluation annual reports. It excludes the independent “validations” of self-evaluations

of projects by MDB staff, which are typically only reviewed internally due to their large number.

Table 1. Evaluations Subject to Peer Review

(FY 20 Coverage Ratio)

MDB

Internal 

Reviews

External 

Reviews

World Bank 100% 100%

AfDB 100% 100%

AsDB 100% 100%

EBRD 100% 67%

IDB 100% 80%

Average 

(non-weighted) 100% 89%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Chart 1. MDB External Review Coverage

FY 20 vs. FY 19

2019 2020
6

evaluation units to conduct in-depth analysis on a certain percentage of projects completed in a 

given year. 

Qualifying Considerations. Treasury notes that there are some issues with relying on a higher

coverage ratio of “independent, in-depth evaluations” as the main criterion for assessing the 

effectiveness of MDB evaluation systems. Having a strategic approach to in-depth project 

evaluations, as Treasury outlined in its 2014 report and summarized below, is the most 

crucial threshold for an effective and efficient approach to evaluation. This strategic 

approach is likely to differ based on the different operating models and shareholder needs at each 

institution.

1. The coverage ratio, as defined to focus on projects, does not adequately reflect the value 

of institutional evaluations such as process evaluations, thematic evaluations, or 

corporate evaluations, for which project-level assessments may be a tangential element, 

and yet they have considerable impact on the MDBs’ operations and development 

effectiveness. Discovering operational or policy strengths and weaknesses can create a 

strong case for targeted or systematic improvements that drive significant results across 

the operations ecosystem. Thematic case studies are particularly valuable, even when 

done remotely, because they allow for an evaluation that goes beyond lending, and often 

takes a longer-term perspective. Through institutional evaluations, evaluators play a 

critical role in making Board oversight more effective, by helping hold Management 

accountable for weaknesses in institutional and operational policies that can affect far 

more than a single country or sector. 

2. The criteria of independent conduct of project evaluations does not recognize the value of 

the system of self-evaluation and independent validation. At all MDBs, the independent 

evaluation offices receive project teams’ self-evaluation reports on completed projects 

and validate, according to resources, anywhere from 1/3 to 100% of projects, thus 

providing through objective review a strong incentive for staff to engage in honest 

reflection. Such validation, however, is done by desk review and therefore, has not 

qualified as an “in-depth” evaluation for the coverage ratio. Yet, in many cases, 

validations of self-evaluations can provide a rich assessment of operational performance. 

At the AsDB, for example, independent evaluators take their validation role of selfevaluations seriously, conducting desk reviews on 100% of completed projects, and in 

cases where the evaluators’ view on performance differs from staff views, these 

validations can get quite in-depth. Several MDBs, including EBRD, have recently 

undertaken efforts to inject greater transparency and reliability into the self-evaluation 

system. The EBRD’s self-evaluation reforms will increase emphasis on operational 

team-led project deep dives, cluster evaluations (deep dives into a group of similar 

projects), and impact evaluations. Self-evaluation can provide in-depth insights that 

are particularly valuable to the learning process and improve project quality across 

the institution, and their effectiveness rests in large part on the ownership project 

teams take. 

3. In particular, impact evaluations, such as randomized control trials, usually fall within the 

realm of self-evaluation and are thus excluded from the coverage ratio. Impact 
7

evaluations attempt to measure the causal effects of projects using more 

experimental approaches than other types of evaluations and are rigorously “indepth” and useful for learning. The independent evaluation offices, however, do not 

conduct most impact evaluations at the MDBs. The potential for this tool’s use is 

limited, as well, due to extensive resource requirements. 

4. The volume of in-depth research on projects will vary at each MDB depending on the key 

priorities for accountability and learning that shareholders have from year to year, and 

thus the specific evaluations undertaken. There has always been significant variation in 

the number of project-focused evaluations conducted each year, based on resource 

tradeoffs between these and other evaluation products that can provide a stronger case for 

necessary changes. Depending on the nature of the specific evaluations the MDB 

undertakes in a given year, there may therefore be some volatility in the coverage ratio, 

and a lower figure may not necessarily reflect decreased effectiveness of the evaluation 

unit. 

We thus caution against viewing uniformly higher coverage ratios as a means to raise

accountability and learning at these institutions. Ultimately, Treasury will review MDB 

evaluation units’ work plans according to how well they demonstrate potential to hold 

Management accountable for broader issues or to directly contribute to learning to drive 

improved development results.

Methodology. In the first of Treasury’s MDB evaluation reports to Congress, in 2014, we 

described “in-depth evaluation of projects” as evaluations typically conducted one to four years 

after project completion and involving travel to the field site and interviews with project staff 

and beneficiaries. Subsequently, Treasury’s reports have relied on site visits as the determinative 

data point for defining this type of evaluation, and we compared these visits to the number of 

loans and grants deemed “evaluation ready” in a given year. 

Pandemic restrictions limiting travel, however, led to a reduction in site visits in FY 20. MDB 

evaluation staff at some institutions informed us that evaluation products delivered in FY 20 

relied on work done prior to the pandemic, and so the drop was not as precipitous as might have 

been expected (site visits actually increased at AfDB). This was not uniformly true, however, 

across all MDBs. Furthermore, all institutions expressed that the pandemic restrictions will more 

significantly affect evaluations delivered in FY 21, for which most work was done in FY 20.

Even once pandemic restrictions abate, evaluators will probably maintain use of valuable 

technological methods. Evaluation departments have discovered during the pandemic, and with 

increasing use of data science, that even though site visits are a valuable method of collecting 

information, remote methods are effective for conducting their primary research and can 

help provide a level of in-depth accountability on a wider coverage of projects. For

example, in-depth evaluation of policy-based lending does not require site visits to be effective. 

Both the World Bank and the AfDB have increasing experience with geospatial tools to evaluate 

infrastructure impact. Even country missions have proved effective through remote tools.

Treasury has determined that given these factors, we must reconsider what constitutes an 
8

“independent, in-depth evaluation.” Going forward, Treasury will define an “in-depth 

evaluation” as independent evaluators conducting in-depth primary research on projects. This 

may include staff interviews, beneficiary surveys, quantitative data collection on outcomes

(including geospatial or market research), or other self-verified research relying on sources

beyond Bank project documents, done in-person or remotely. Consistent with our previous 

methodology, we will compare what evaluators are able to accomplish to a measure of oneyear’s worth of evaluation-ready projects at the MDB.6

 We expect the new methodology to 

provide a degree of additional consistency across institutions in defining “independent, in-depth 

evaluations.”

Coverage of Independent, In-Depth Evaluations. 

Using the new methodology, Treasury finds that 

evaluators at the MDBs are able to independently 

research results on a large proportion of the MDBs’

annual project portfolios, with all MDBs achieving a 

solid coverage ratio (Table 2). Due to the change in 

methodology, it would be misleading to compare 

performance in FY 20 to previous years.

Priorities for FY 21. We will continue to engage with 

the independent evaluation units in FY 21 to seek a 

balance that is right at each institution between projectlevel primary research and broader institutional 

priorities, while conveying the intent of Congress that the coverage ratio meet or exceed a

threshold of 35%. As the IDB is the only institution currently below the target number for FY 

21, Treasury will encourage the Office of Evaluation and Oversight (OVE) to pursue a higher 

independent, in-depth evaluation ratio. 

(iv) Ensuring that Decisions to Support such Loans, Grants, Programs, and Activities Are 

Based on Accurate Data and Objective Analysis

Overview. The MDBs have robust requirements and systems to facilitate the feedback of 

evaluation results into project design and implementation, strategies, and policies. For project 

design, the MDBs require that evaluation components, such as results measurement frameworks

and the identification of evidence from previous evaluations that was used to inform the design 

of the project, are included upfront in project proposals. The MDBs also have an array of 

feedback loops to improve projects’ implementation in real-time, including regularized progress 

monitoring reports, and project completion reports. As mentioned earlier, several MDBs are 

increasing their emphasis on the self-evaluation system as a tool to improve learning. Finally, 

the MDBs have systems that track the implementation of recommendations from the independent 

evaluation offices, thereby holding themselves accountable for follow through. 

Actions in FY 20. The MDBs continued to improve learning from evaluation results in FY 20. 

6

It is feasible that under this methodology, some institutions could demonstrate a coverage ratio above 100% in the future. This 

may happen if, for example, the evaluators review the MDB’s sector performance over an extended period of time, which could 

require research on a large project portfolio. 

Table 2. Projects Subject to 

Independent, In-Depth Evaluation

(FY 20 Coverage Ratio)

MDB Coverage Ratio

World Bank 65%

AfDB 64%

AsDB 55%

EBRD 38%

IDB 30%

MDB Average 

(non-weighted) 51%
9

• The World Bank continued to use a “knowledge package,” introduced in 2018, which is 

an automatically curated set of relevant lessons and evidence and other relevant 

knowledge, generated on demand for operational project task team leaders to use as they

design new projects. Its Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) also mined their database 

of past health-related crises for lessons learned and put together a Just In Time note that 

synthesized the major lessons and best practices. That ultimately informed the design of 

the COVID Multiphase Programmatic Approach. Another ongoing action in FY20 was 

the work on Outcome Orientation. The WB continued to work to ensure better line of 

sight between country operations and high-level goals through this reform by piloting 

efforts to make the link in several countries. 

• At the AfDB, the Independent Development Evaluation unit (IDEV) arranged eleven 

learning events in FY 20 to disseminate lessons learned from its evaluations across the 

organization. IDEV also engaged in a concerted effort to increase the involvement of 

operations staff in evaluation reference groups, which review the accuracy and quality of 

work throughout the evaluation process. Stronger participation of operations staff not 

only improves the quality but also the utility of the evaluation through stronger 

ownership, adoption, and implementation of IDEV recommendations. One of the

Bank’s regional offices is piloting targeted use of artificial intelligence to collate lessons 

from previous evaluation reports, project completion reports, and other documents, to 

help inform new project concept notes directly. In addition, Management piloted a new, 

enhanced readiness review for project preparation, including a specific criterion to assess 

the extent to which new proposals take account of lessons learned. The new readiness 

review will be rolled out more widely in FY 21. In the context of COVID-19, IDEV 

produced two “Lessons Notes” summarizing lessons learned from the Bank’s response to 

the Ebola outbreak in 2014 and the Bank’s budget support instrument for countries 

experiencing a crisis. Management drew on these Notes in the design of its COVID-19 

Response Facility. 

• The AsDB’s Independent Evaluation Department (IED) continued to implement the 

strategic plan to improve knowledge sharing (introduced in 2018), with greater emphasis 

on online platforms given that many people are working remotely. IED also made 

progress on its initiative to explore the use of an artificial intelligence engine called EVA

to improve access and use of evaluation knowledge (from both self and independent 

evaluation) in real time, with work on the full product beginning in FY 21 and a full 

product launch scheduled in FY 22. ADB instituted several changes to improve realtime self-evaluation and continuous learning in sovereign and non-sovereign projects, 

including launching a Development Effectiveness Forum as a platform to monitor and 

address, when necessary, development effectiveness during a project’s life. The AsDB 

also finished its roll-out of new project document templates that require a more explicit 

reference to lessons from prior relevant projects and independent evaluations.

 

• The EBRD continues to use its Results Management & Self-Evaluation and Knowledge 

Management Working Groups, created in 2019, to better incorporate evaluation results 

into project design and strengthen feedback loops. Actions in 2020 included enhancing 

feedback loops from operations to knowledge, improved IT services, new data 
10

management capabilities, progress on skills mapping, and greater international outreach. 

In particular, EBRD launched the Transition Impact module, which introduced a 

transparent methodology of deriving a project’s delivery score and led to improved 

collection of data during project monitoring, providing a basis for comprehensive 

portfolio analysis to trigger feedback loops.

• At the IDB, the Office of Evaluation and Oversight (OVE) hired a communications 

officer to increase focus on disseminating evaluation results in various ways, including 

through events, newsletters, external blogs, and workshops. This year, OVE organized a 

panel on evaluation lessons that operations teams could find useful to apply in the 

COVID-19 context. In FY 20, Management completed the development of a lessons 

learned search engine that enables project staff to search learnings that the Bank has 

documented on any topic, accessible to all project teams. IDB also initiated a pilot 

project to strengthen feedback loops during project preparation. Based on a database 

compiling IDB-wide lessons learned (including from impact evaluations, project 

completion reports, project monitoring reports, and sector framework documents), 

project teams are provided with a package of recommendations relevant to the profile of 

a new project. 

• All the MDBs continue to promote robust usage of their recommendation tracking 

systems. The AfDB maintains another system focused on project-relevant lessons 

learned for use in project design. The World Bank recently completed a substantial 

reform of the entire Management Action Record (MAR) process of follow up to 

recommendations by its Independent Evaluations Group (IEG), with the objective to 

move away from the current action plan-based system to one that is more strategic, 

thoughtful, and impactful, and develop a new online system to reflect the new process. 

At the ADB, Management revived the practice of seeking IED’s feedback on action 

plans during their formulation, which should lead to stronger uptake of meaningful 

actions.

Priorities for FY 21. Learning will continue to be a top priority in Treasury’s engagement at the 

MDBs on evaluation in FY 21. At the World Bank, as the IEG undergoes its periodic external 

evaluation, we will urge focus on how its knowledge can better inform the institution’s 

operations. Treasury will also work with the World Bank to establish its COVID-19 Lessons 

Library, and on its planned review of Country Partnership Frameworks and the accompanying 

self-evaluation instruments including the Performance Learning Reviews and Completion 

Learning Reviews, with the objective to push country teams to become more outcome oriented in 

capturing results and foster more learning. At the EBRD, Treasury will help the institution

reform its self-evaluation system, with the primary goal of increasing the learning benefit of selfevaluation. Finally, we will continue to monitor the AsDB’s artificial intelligence pilot to 

engage in real-time rapid learning innovations, which will be an important tool in the context of 

interventions to address the ongoing rapidly evolving pandemic.

II. Summary of Treasury’s Engagement with the MDBs on Evaluation
11

Evaluation remained a key component of Treasury’s (and our U.S. Executive Directors’)

engagement with the MDBs in FY 20. Our approach was guided by the four components of

section 7029(a), with a special focus, as mentioned above, on learning. Other key priorities

included helping the independent evaluation offices develop strategic work plans—e.g., focusing

on evaluations in priority areas and that are timed to influence key Board decisions—and

working to ensure the offices retain their independence and are well-resourced. 

Treasury also honed in on specific priorities at each of the MDBs, including the following:

• World Bank - Treasury continued to engage on how to improve the system for

operationalizing lessons learned from major evaluations for quicker and more efficient

incorporation of best practices. Treasury supported efforts to improve feedback loops

throughout the evaluation process for better project design and outcomes. Treasury also

continued to advocate for strong independence of the IEG, while also supporting a

constructive relationship between the IEG and World Bank Management. Treasury

increased its interaction with IEG in FY 20 both bilaterally and through its position on

the Board. This included holding multiple bilateral briefings including on IEG’s work

plan to convey USG priorities; on evaluation findings and approach papers; and on USG

expectations for an early evaluation of the WBG’s initial COVID-19 response. Treasury

specifically requested the latter evaluation to ensure effective oversight and learning on

the billions of dollars allocated to the WBG’s COVID-19 response. IEG also initiated the

good practice of quarterly advisors’ meetings to encourage increased interaction between

IEG and the Board, and Treasury actively participated in these meetings. Additionally,

Treasury worked closely with IEG to support several important reforms that aim to

improve more effective evaluation action follow-up, related reporting on action items,

and knowledge management.

• AfDB – Treasury advocated for the independence of the AfDB’s Independent

Development Evaluation (IDEV) department during discussions on an action plan to

strengthen accountability units and during the termination of the Evaluator General. 

Treasury also urged timely follow through on implementation of evaluation

recommendations, most notably recommendations on private sector development, access

to finance, and fragility, in anticipation of new thematic strategies coming forward in

2021.

• AsDB – Treasury provided guidance to IED for evaluations of several keystone policies,

notably the AsDB Energy Policy and the 2009 Safeguard Policy Statement (SPS). The

evaluations will feed into reviews of the respective policies. The revised Energy Policy,

scheduled for Board consideration in late FY 21 or early FY 22, will be critical to shift

borrowers away from reliance on fossil fuels and align AsDB support in the sector with

the Paris Agreement, with greater emphasis on renewable energy sources. The 2009 SPS

will be reviewed over several years, with an updated policy potentially finalized in FY

23. Treasury also strongly urged IED to initiate a real-time evaluation of AsDB’s $20

billion pandemic response package, and we expect several interim evaluation notes and a

final report in FY 21.
12

• EBRD – Treasury, through the ED’s office, has used its voice in the Board to urge the

EBRD President and other Bank senior leadership to prioritize follow-through on the

improvements to the Bank’s evaluation system recommended in the external assessment

completed in 2019. One of the key conclusions of that external assessment was that the

Bank’s self-evaluation system needed to be substantially reformed and rebuilt. To that

end, the ED’s office has engaged with Management and external consultants to help

define the purpose and objectives of the self-evaluation system. We have encouraged

Management to put forward various options, and associated costs, for Board

consideration later in 2021. 

• IDB – Treasury, through the ED’s office, successfully encouraged greater use of external

peer reviews. We also advocated for measures to strengthen the use of evaluation lessons

internally and the ED’s office has pressed IDB management to swiftly implement OVE

recommendations that will strengthen the independence of the IDB Group’s

accountability mechanism, the Independent Consultation and Investigation Mechanism

(MICI). We also urged the Office of Evaluation and Oversight (OVE) to more

strategically align corporate evaluations on governance, the IDB’s innovation lab, and

policy-based lending with the vision of the new IDB President.

Looking ahead, the WB will soon undergo an external assessment of its evaluation department. 

These external assessments, which are conducted periodically, provide a valuable opportunity to

enhance the effectiveness of the MDBs’ evaluation functions and result in specific

recommendations. At the World Bank, next year’s review will focus heavily on the utility of

IEG’s work as well as how to improve its impact in the organization. Treasury will continue to

engage closely in follow-up discussions to implement appropriate recommendations. Following

up on the 2019 external assessment of EBRD’s evaluation system, Treasury will engage on

specific options for the self-evaluation system and the more complex, long-term challenge of

how best to measure wider impact and link the Bank's aggregate contribution to country

progress, taking into account both its mandate to support systemic change and its private sector

orientation. Finally, Treasury will work closely with others at the AsDB and AfDB to facilitate

hiring new chief evaluators, following the completion of the current Director General’s term at

the AsDB and the termination of the Evaluator General at the AfDB.