SOLUTIONS

eVALUatiOn Matters
A Quarterly Knowledge Publication on Development Evaluation
Fourth Quarter 2015
EMERGING
SOLUTIONS TO
DEVELOPMENT
CHALLENGES
Volume 2
VOLUME 1
Responding to a Changing
Development Agenda: Challenges
for Evaluators
Karen Jorgensen, OECD
From MDGs to SDGs:
Evaluating Global Environmental
Benefits
Geeta Batra, Juha Ilari Uitto and Lee Cando-
Noordhuizen, GEF
Accounting for Happiness in Policy
Evaluation
B. Essama-Nssah, Independent Consultant
VOLUME 2
Looking ahead – Inclusive Growth and
Transitioning to Green Growth in Country
Strategy Papers: Progress and Challenges
IDEV, African Development Bank
Emerging Trends in Redesigning Results
and Alignment Tools for Country Strategies
by Multilateral Development Banks
Richard Schiere, African Development Bank
Scaling up African Development Bank
Country Strategy Papers: Challenges
and Opportunities
IDEV, African Development Bank
Published by
idev.afdb.org

eVALUatiOn Matters
A Quarterly Knowledge Publication on Development Evaluation
EMERGING
SOLUTIONS TO
Third Quarter 2015
DEVELOPMENT
CHALLENGES
Volume 1
VOLUME 1
Responding to a Changing
Development Agenda: Challenges
for Evaluators
Karen Jorgensen, OECD
From MDGs to SDGs:
Evaluating Global Environmental
Benefits
Geeta Batra, Juha Ilari Uitto and Lee Cando-
Noordhuizen, GEF
Accounting for Happiness in Policy
Evaluation
B. Essama-Nssah, Independent Consultant
VOLUME 2
Inclusive Growth and Transitioning
to Green Growth in Country Strategy
Papers: Progress and Challenges
IDEV, African Development Bank
Emerging Trends in Redesigning Results
and Alignment Tools for Country
Strategies by Multilateral Development
Banks
Richard Schiere
Scaling Up African Development Bank
Country Strategy Papers: Challenges
and Opportunities
IDEV, African Development Bank
Published by
idev.afdb.org
eVALUatiOn Matters
is a quarterly publication from Independent Development
Evaluation at the African Development Bank Group. It provides
different perspectives and insights on evaluation and development
issues.
Editor-in-Chief: Felicia Avwontom (f.avwontom@afdb.org)
Produced under the guidance of the AfDB Evaluator General,
Rakesh Nangia.
The team that contributed to this issue includes Deborah
Glassman (consultant), Mireille Cobinah (printing); Clement Banse,
Oswald Agbadome, and Karen Rotmunsterman, who provided
comments.
© 2015—African Development Bank (AfDB)
African Development Bank Group
Immeuble du Centre de commerce international d’Abidjan (CCIA)
Avenue Jean-Paul II
01 BP 1387, Abidjan 01
Côte d’Ivoire
Phone: +225 20 26 44 44
Fax: +225 20 21 31 00
Internet: www.afdb.org
Design & layout: Créon and Felicia Avwontom
(based on original design by Phoenixdesignaid)

Contents
4
11
35
62
69
80
89
Emerging Issues in Evaluation
Rakesh Nangia, African Development Bank
A huge potential and equally huge challenges await the evaluation community–which must continue to build on newfound
momentum and be bold in forging ahead. This will help bring about the qualitative changes necessary for economic
transformation and sustainable development.
Looking ahead – Inclusive Growth and Transitioning to Green Growth
in Country Strategy Papers: Progress and Challenges
Independent Development Evaluation, African Development Bank
How can the AfDB enhance the design of its country and regional strategies and strengthen their role as programming
instruments in guiding Bank operations in light of the strategic objectives of inclusive growth and transition to green
growth? An IDEV technical report indicates progress in integrating inclusive green growth into Country Strategy Papers in
the last three years, but the challenges are somewhat greater for inclusive than for green growth.
Scaling up AfDB Country Strategy Papers: Challenges and Opportunities
To what extent do AfDB Country Strategy Papers (CSPs) address scaling up challenges and opportunities in supporting
the development of AfDB regional member countries? Most of the elements of a scaling up strategy are already present in
current CSPs. The main challenge for the AfDB is to recognize the importance of scaling up for its development effectiveness
agenda and to assure systematic application of good scaling up practice in the design and implementation of CSPs.
Emerging Trends in Redesigning Results and Alignment Tools for Country
Strategies by Multilateral Development Banks
Richard Schiere, African Development Bank
The conventional results log-frameworks that were originally designed and applied to projects are not an adequate results
and alignment tool for country strategies as they merely aggregate impact, outcomes, outputs and inputs of individual
projects. This paper describes emerging trends among MDBs in redesigning results and alignment tools for country strategies.
Public-Private Partnerships Require their own Infrastructure:
How can MDBs Address the Capacity GAP?
Erika Ismay MacLaughlin and Khaled Ibn Waleed Hussein Samir
PPPs are not a panacea for the infrastructure challenges of cash-strapped countries. PPPs must be approached strategically
and selectively to fully realize their potential value. The challenges and complexities of PPPs are particularly acute for Africa.
The AfDB should critically examine its current approach and achievements in promoting PPPs , as other MDBs have done,
and identify opportunities to better implement a strategic, long-term vision for Africa's development.
Evaluation of Public-Private Partnerships in Agriculture in Côte d’Ivoire:
Challenges and Prospects
Samuel Kouakou
Given the increasing use of PPPs in the agriculture sector in Côte d'Ivoire, developing tools to monitor and evaluate their
implementation seems urgent. How can evaluation help ensure efficient and effective use of PPPs in achieving sustainable
development results?
Rigorous Impact Evaluation for Better and Faster Development Results
Chi Bemieh Fule
The potential to reorient resources towards investments with greater development impact is often undermined by traditional
monitoring and evaluation techniques that examine the input-process-product chain. Evaluation results from two typical
agricultural education institutions in Cameroon underscore the need for rigorous impact evaluation for better and faster
development results.
The mission of Independent Development Evaluation
at the AfDB is to enhance the development effectiveness of the
institution in its regional member countries through independent
and instrumental evaluations and partnerships for sharing
knowledge
Evaluator General: Rakesh Nangia, r.nangia@afdb.org
Managers:
Samer Hachem, S.hachem@afdb.org
Karen Rot-Munstermann, k.rot@afdb.org
Rafika Amira, r.amira@afdb.org
Questions?
Telephone: +225 2026 2041
Web: http://idev.afdb.org
Write to us: EvaluationMatters@afdb.org
idevhelpdesk@afdb.org
Copyright: © 2015—African Development Bank (AfDB)

4
From the AfDB
Evaluator General
Rakesh Nangia
Emerging Issues
in Evaluation
Welcome to eVALUAtion Matters. In this issue, we focus on emerging issues in development and in
development evaluation.
Good evaluators always look in the rear-view mirror to avoid pitfalls as they chart out the way forward.
In my rear-view mirror, I observe great progress as well as rapid and significant changes taking place in
the still nascent field of development evaluation. Thus, to me, it is no surprise that 2015 was declared the
International Year of Evaluation. A key objective of designating 2015 the International Year of Evaluation
is to advocate and promote evaluation and evidence-based policy making at international, regional,
national and local levels. This is important, for despite the progress made, development evaluation and
use of evidence to make policy decisions is still in its infancy.
Evaluation is generally recognized as a key feature of every learning organization. In Africa in particular,
it is growing, albeit slowly, as a full-fledged discipline and practice within governments and organizations.
This evolution positively affects the development process, pushing further the effectiveness of initiatives
by measuring success, assessing progress, enabling mid-course correction, fostering the learning of
lessons, focusing most importantly on evidence. In the last edition of eVALUation Matters, I mentioned
the increasing interest in impact evaluation largely due to its ability to assess changes (intended and
unintended) that can be attributed to an initiative.
Assessing impact through rigorous scientific methods remains key to maintaining the development process
on sound and solid foundations. Impact evaluation thus seems to be one of the (re) emerging issues that pose
questions around the opportunity and costs of applying experimental or quasi-experimental methods
to inform policy decisions.
Beyond this traditional debate on scientific methods, I am keen to see an evaluation community that has
greatly diversified its areas of interest by opening up evaluative thinking to various political and developmental
themes. With the shift from the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to the Sustainable Development
eVALUatiOn Matters

Goals (SDGs), I believe the issue of evaluation of global policies will mark the world over the next decade. Despite
largely positive results, many developing countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, have lagged behind
with respect to the MDGs. Although progress against the MDG targets could be assessed easily, evaluating
and understanding reasons for the trends both locally and globally has been a much greater challenge. With
the adoption of the SDGs, including a comprehensive M&E framework, global public policy will take on a
new dimension with an increased consideration for
important development factors such as human and
environmental rights, gender, equity, sustainability,
inclusion, and so on. The prescribed use of evaluation
in the SDG framework will put greater emphasis on
the relevance and effectiveness of public policies by
responding to the dual question: “Are we doing the
right things and are we doing them the right way”?
The strength of Evaluation remains its ability
to focus on value, including timeliness.
Whether looking at economic value, value for
money, social or societal values, evaluation
remains a fascinating discipline that adapts to
new development challenges.”
5
In this context, questions such as happiness or quality of life induced by public policies gain a central
place. Whether evaluating the operations of the African Development Bank or the national policies of a
state, one of the major concerns is now the ultimate beneficiary: the citizen. It is henceforth the ability of
interventions and policy to change lives for the better that is sought.
The strength of evaluation remains its ability to focus on value, including timeliness. Whether looking
at economic value, value for money, social or societal values, evaluation remains a fascinating discipline
that adapts to new development challenges. It also has the ability to make the most of the potential of
communication technologies to improve its tools and methodologies and thus constantly strengthen the
participatory approach by taking into account the views of all key stakeholders.
The use of mobile phone-based communications has proved useful for evaluation and it is certainly an
emerging practice to be encouraged as networks spread fast throughout Africa. The challenge for the near
term is how we can continue to expand horizons and use technology to bring increased participation and
value for money without compromising quality and robustness. Lack of imagination and creativity is the
only barrier to strengthening development outcomes and increasing value for money.
Another concern is raised by the boom of Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) as a privileged instrument
of development financing by states. After several decades of experimentation by states and development
institutions, there are now numerous studies on the impact of PPPs, their successes and failures. In a
structural context of limited public resources, evaluators and leaders share a common interest in knowing
the real ability of PPPs to provide a solution for infrastructure deficits and the optimal conditions for
their use. Of course, PPPs as such can only be as good as the environment in which they are undertaken,
and this should spur countries to undergo the structural reforms that are needed for better governance
and an enabling business environment. A body of evidence will continue to be built in order to provide
more precise answers to these questions.
At this time, the question is no longer how to evaluate a particular project or development initiative, because
much expertise has been acquired in this field. The major challenge for countries and organizations such as
the African Development Bank is to demonstrate how broadly their policies have brought a positive change
in the lives of African people. This calls for deployment of more appropriate (complex) methodologies to
address global concerns about the validity and legitimacy of public action itself.
A quarterly knowledge publication from Independent Development Evaluation, African Development Bank Group

6
Methodological issues
In my opinion, methodological issues will
persist in debates in the evaluation world as the
development agenda progresses in our countries.
The imperatives of accountability demand that we
push the methodological frontiers to the farthest
possible point and ensure the credibility and
validity of evaluation. In this respect, with several
forthcoming evaluation reports, we will see more
and more debates on the quality of evaluations
and their utilization, as well as on meta-synthesis
methodologies to help make further sense of an
increasing body of evaluative evidence.
Where we can expect further innovation in the
post-2015 evaluation agenda
Mostly, the debate will continue to be about
reengineering — how we evaluate our strategies
and policies — triggering innovative solutions to
focus more on the questions that matter to endusers
in areas such as inclusion, gender, equity and
efficiency. Our ability to strengthen the learning
process through evaluation, to ensure positive
change and knowledge sharing, will also be put to
test, with out-of-the-box and technology-informed
thinking needed to reach the next level.
Communication of evaluation results remains a
challenge. Impressive results have been achieved
lately by evaluators opening up and communicating
results in an efficient manner using social media.
However, this is the first step – raising awareness.
We need to do better and foster greater utilization
of all generated knowledge by decision makers and
the general public. These challenges are important
not only for development organizations but also
within developing countries where evaluation is
steadily gaining importance.
Last, but not least, we need innovation to build
strong national evaluation systems that promote an
evaluation culture of knowledge sharing, learning and
accountability towards the institutions and the public.
It is important for an institution like the African
Development Bank to evaluate the effectiveness of
its initiatives. But there is clear evidence that the
size of development budgets is shrinking fast. In
some countries, this has now become a “rounding
error”. It is therefore paramount to ensure that public
resources in general are not invested for limited
results and without prior comprehensive appraisal
of the relevance and chances of success of policies.
Thankfully, there is growing demand for strong
evaluation systems and evaluation capacity building
from governments and civil society organizations.
Indeed, development of evaluation capacity in
developing countries constitutes an additional tool
to strengthen good governance in these countries.
This is also recommended by the United Nations
General Assembly resolution passed in December
2014 whereby the UN recognizes that evaluation
is an important component of the development
process and that it can strengthen and support
development results. The resolution stresses the
need for multilateral and bilateral cooperation to
strengthen national capacity to conduct evaluation
activities at the country level.
Looking ahead, and glancing in the rear-view
mirror, I see huge potential and huge challenges.
The evaluation community needs to continue to
build on its new-found momentum and be bold in
forging ahead. This is critical to making a difference
and bringing about the qualitative changes necessary
for economic transformation and sustainable
development.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Rakesh Nangia is the Evaluator General at the African Development Bank. Prior to joining the AfDB,
he spent 25 years at the World Bank where he held several positions including Director of Strategy
and Operations for the Human Development Network and Acting Vice-President for the World Bank
Institute. He attended the Indian Institute of Technology in Delhi and Harvard University and holds
degrees in business administration and engineering.
eVALUatiOn Matters

7
Recently Completed IDEV Evaluations
• Evaluation of Bank Assistance to Small and Medium Enterprises
(2006–2013)
• Independent Evaluation of Bank Group Equity Investments
• Independent Evaluation of General Capital Increase VI
and African Development Fund 12 and 13 Commitments:
Overarching Review
• Independent Evaluation of Policy and Strategy Making
and Implementation.
• Administrative Budget Management of the African Development
Bank. An Independent Evaluation
• Cameroon Country Strategy and Program Evaluation
A quarterly knowledge publication from Independent Development Evaluation, African Development Bank Group

8
Country Strategy
Papers at the African
Development Bank
At the AfDB, a Country Strategy Paper (CSP) articulates how corporate objectives
and priorities are to be achieved in any particular country through the Bank’s
activities and investments. The CSP establishes a country strategy for Bank
interventions for four to five years. It is the output of a larger process of country
strategy development, from the Bank’s ongoing dialogue with a regional member
country to identify shared priorities and opportunities, to the Country Team
development of the CSP document, to its execution 1 .
1 AfDB Country Strategy Papers Toolkit.
eVALUatiOn Matters

Assessment of Inclusive Growth and Transitioning
to Green Growth in Country Strategy Papers; and of
Scaling up Country Strategy Papers: An Introduction
9
In 2014, Independent Development Evaluation (IDEV)
African Development Bank, assisted by external
consultants, 2 conducted its second independent qualityat-entry
assessment (QEA2) of AfDB Country Strategy
Papers (CSPs). The first independent assessment (QEA1)
was conducted in 2009. Quality-at-entry refers to design
elements of a strategy at the time of its approval by the
Bank’s Board and is a critical foundation for ensuring
desired development outcomes.
The Second Independent Quality-at-Entry
Assessment (QEA2) evaluated the quality-at-entry
of 45 of the Country Strategy Papers (CSPs) prepared
by the Bank in 2009-2013, 3 and the five Regional
Integration Strategy Papers (RISPs) prepared during
the same period. As part of this review, a comparison
was made with the 12 CSPs evaluated in 2009 (QEA1).
From experience to knowledge...
From knowledge to action...
From action to impact
Strategizing for the
“Africa We Want”:
An Independent Evaluation of
the Quality at Entry of Country
and Regional Integration
Strategies
Summary Report
January 2015
An IDEV Corporate Evaluation
The evaluation intended to provide the Board and Management with an independent and evidencebased
assessment of the quality-at-entry of CSPs and RISPs, as well as with suggestions to better
position the Bank to achieve the objectives outlined in its Ten-Year Strategy (TYS); distill, for
operations staff and managers, lessons learned and potential improvements to the design of
upcoming country/regional strategies; and provide the Bank with suggestions for improvements
to the quality assurance process. The evaluation also sought to assess recent initiatives, including
changes to the Bank’s processes for the design, preparation and quality assurance of CSPs and
RISPs, aimed at further improving quality-at-entry (prospective component) with particular
attention to the objectives of inclusive growth and transition to green growth that frame the Bank’s
Ten Year Strategy (TYS). As a related effort, QEA2 also included an assessment of the scaling up
dimension of CSPs.
Table 1: TYS Strategic Objectives
Inclusive Growth
Transition to Green Growth
MS+ S+ MS+ S+
QEA2 ALL (n=45) 60% 22% 71% 22%
QEA2 pre-TYS (n=29) 55% 10% 55% 14%
QEA2 post-TYS (n=16) 69% 44% 100% 38%
2 Centennial Group International, a Washington DC-based strategy consulting firm.
3 Four CSPs completed in early 2014 were included within the 2013 cohort.
A quarterly knowledge publication from Independent Development Evaluation, African Development Bank Group

10
The AfDB Ten Year Strategy
The TYS has two overarching objectives –
inclusive growth and the gradual transition
to green growth. It also identifies five core
operational priorities: (i) infrastructure
development; (ii) regional integration;
(iii) private sector development; (iv)
governance and accountability; and (v)
skills and technology. Finally, it highlights
three areas of special emphasis: (i) gender;
(ii) agriculture and food security; and (iii)
fragile states.
operations in light of the strategic objectives of
inclusive growth and the transition to green
growth. Future CSPs and RISPs will need to be
aligned with the Bank’s new TYS. 5 The Evaluation
Team developed a theory of change that could
be used in the future as part of the Readiness
Review to assess the compatibility of CSPs/RISPs
with the TYS. This report “Looking Ahead --
Inclusive Growth and Transitioning to Green
Growth in Country Strategy Papers: Progress
and Challenges” is on page 11.
The summary evaluation report, entitled
“Strategizing for the Africa we want: An
Independent Evaluation of the Quality at Entry
of Country and Regional Integration Strategies”
it available online. 4
The present document comprises two technical
reports from the evaluation study: The
prospective component, which examined
how the Bank can enhance the design of its
country and regional strategies and their role
as programming instruments in guiding Bank
Finally, QEA2 assessed the extent to which the
strategy papers have considered the potential
for significantly scaling-up the impact of ADB/
ADF-funded operations and programs. Scaling
up (that is, ensuring that the focus is not only on
the one-off direct impact of a project/program
but rather on how the impact can be replicated
and/or scaled up by the concerned Governments
and other partners) is a concept that is rapidly
gaining currency in development institutions.
It has been tested and applied in various contexts.
The report (Scaling up) is on page 35.
4 http://independentevaluation.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/opev/
Documents/Quality_at_Entry_of_Country_and_Regional_Integration_
Strategies.pdf)
5 At the Center of Africa’s Transformation. Strategy for 2013–2022.
eVALUatiOn Matters

11
Looking ahead – Inclusive
Growth and Transitioning
to Green Growth in
Country Strategy Papers:
Progress and Challenges*
Summary
Inclusive growth is defined as economic growth that broadens access to sustainable socio-economic
development opportunities for more people, countries and regions while protecting the vulnerable.
It includes economic, social, spatial and political inclusion. Green growth is defined as economic
growth that manages natural assets efficiently and responsibly, minimizes waste and pollution,
and strengthens resilience to exogenous shocks, including weather and climate-related events.
Inclusive growth and green growth policies are largely about good growth policies, and this is
emphasized by African Development Bank (AfDB) strategy documents. However, they include
an added focus on addressing the economic policy, regulatory and social barriers as well as the
temporal and spatial trade-offs that constrain inclusive green growth.
A number of African countries (for example, Ethiopia, Rwanda, South Africa and Kenya) have
already articulated inclusive green growth strategies. The AfDB is a key player on the global
knowledge agenda in both areas and has undertaken innovative work in a number of countries.
It has also articulated a results framework for inclusive green growth, within the one-results
agenda. This report emphasizes that while consistency across countries is helpful, there are also
country-specific challenges that may shape inclusive green growth objectives for different countries.
For South Africa, for example, the priorities may be to address high levels of income inequality,
water scarcity air pollution and emissions, while for Madagascar the focus may be on reducing
overall poverty and regional disparities, improving food insecurity through better agricultural
productivity, and building resilience to natural disasters.
* This article was excerpted from an assessment that is complementary to "Strategizing for the “Africa We Want”: An Independent Evaluation of the Quality at
Entry of Country and Regional Integration Strategies
A quarterly knowledge publication from Independent Development Evaluation, African Development Bank Group

12
There has been progress in integrating inclusive
green growth into Country Strategy Papers
in the last three years, but the challenges are
somewhat greater for inclusive than for green
growth. Table 1 summarizes the ratings of
CSPs for quality at entry as regards inclusive
growth and green growth. 1 There has been
an increase in the percentage of CSPs with
ratings satisfactory and above for both inclusive
and green growth. CSPs approved in the
2010-12 period also score higher than those
approved in 2009. However the score overall
has been higher for green than for inclusive
growth. This is in part because the “bar” for
inclusive growth has been set high, including
voice and accountability as well as economic
opportunity. It is partly also because the AfDB,
in the interests of selectivity and comparative
advantage, does not focus on sectors which
reduce poverty directly, such as health, primary
education, social protection, agricultural
productivity and disaster risk reduction. Its
current areas of focus do address inclusive
growth, but less directly, and pillars and
programs need to be designed specifically to
address these two priority objectives.
Many CSPs mention the challenges of
inclusiveness and green growth in the
background diagnostics. However, to date, few
CSPs have taken the next step to articulate the
sector, institutional and macro policy challenges
which need to be addressed to move forward with
inclusive green growth strategies. For example,
energy subsidies (which are generally neither
inclusive nor green) are rarely discussed. And in
countries where Gini coefficients indicate high
levels of inequality, or where there are regional
disparities, there is rarely a discussion of how
these key elements of lack of inclusiveness are
tackled. Though financial governance is often
addressed, political accountability and voice are
discussed more rarely, except in the countries
1 It should be emphasized that these ratings do not affect the overall rating
of the CSP for quality at entry, since this was not a criteria for rating over
a period during which most CSPs were approved before approval of the
new Long term Strategy.
designated as fragile states. Often, the broader
political and institutional contexts are neglected.
While many CSPs discuss climate change, fewer
address environmental governance, integrated
land and water management, the economic and
health costs of environmental degradation or
what is being done to address air, land or water
pollution.
Many CSPs mention integration of inclusive
green growth in priority pillars, but there is
room for clearer articulation of how these
objectives will be achieved. This is despite the
fact that several of the newer pillar strategies (for
example, those for energy and for private sector
development) do include inclusive green growth
elements. Pillars which integrate inclusive green
growth should also summarize the main policy
instruments: these include economic (including
investments, public expenditure more broadly
and “smart” subsidies); regulatory; and social
marketing instruments. For example, in naturalresource
rich countries, the natural resource
governance pillar would include a discussion of
support to improved financial management of
mining/oil and gas revenues and EITI (extractive
industries transparency initiative), but also
public expenditure allocation, environmental
governance, programs to benefit local
communities, concession management, and
worker safety.
With regard to lending, while inclusive growth
is included in some policy-based budget support
operations, there is also an opportunity for
supporting green growth through this type
of instrument. For inclusive growth, budget
support may include support to local government
to improve financial/program management
capacity in delivery of basic services, often
together with other development partners. Sierra
Leone, Egypt, and Ethiopia are examples. Several
African countries (for example, Morocco,
Mozambique) have participated in policy based
lending operations with other development
partners in support of green growth or climate
eVALUatiOn Matters

esilience, but not the AfDB to date. Budget
support operations most frequently fall under
the governance or infrastructure pillars, but
are cross-sectoral.
In investment lending, operations could do more
to incorporate inclusive and especially green
growth elements, though there are some very
interesting examples. Cameroon is one of the
few countries to include a reduced incidence
of water-borne disease as a desired result of its
urban drainage and sanitation program. For
Kenya the new infrastructure projects will be
designed to minimize their ecological footprint;
to promote clean energy; to mainstream climate
resilience; and to contribute to more efficient
management of Kenya’s natural assets. Sierra
Leone has the same inclusive green growth
approach for water. The Mali program supports
the government’s pro-poor strategy and
includes a focus on agricultural productivity
and resilience in the drought-vulnerable, north
which has suffered the most civil unrest. Despite
the Bank’s longstanding focus on environmental
and social impact assessment (ESIA), few of the
infrastructure/regional integration operations
specifically address improved ESIA in results
frameworks, and only some address pedestrian
and traffic safety (Mauritius does both) or the
“softer” areas of trade and transport facilitation
(Burkina does).
A particularly challenging area for green
growth includes strengthening data and
information for decision-making. The MDGs
(Millennium Development Goals) have
provided an impetus for better data collection
and analysis in the social sectors and as regards
poverty, but geographical information, on
land cover, soil erosion or fertility trends,
on water resources and water quality, on
weather and climate (and services to endusers),
on air quality, remains in general very
weak. Often countries are reliant on global
models or outdated information. In principle
strengthening information for decision making
would fall under the governance pillar but
could be implemented through a variety of
different policy-based, sector or governance
operations. None of the CSPs reviewed included
provision for strengthened information, despite
its importance for quality analytical work and
policy dialogue.
Policy dialogue and analytical work on inclusive
green growth, as in other areas, has been limited
to date and results are reflected unevenly in
CSP design and policy reform. As the Bank
strengthens its position as a knowledge Bank,
there will need to be more focus on this area, as
well as on partnerships with other organizations.
Furthermore substantive results of the work
of client countries and other organizations as
regards inclusive green growth could usefully
be reflected in the CSPs.
The focus now needs to be on implementation,
on results monitoring, and on learning from
and sharing experience, through the range of
lending and knowledge instruments that the
Bank has at its disposal. There also needs to
be further work on strengthening the country
knowledge bases as regards the constraints
to and drivers of inclusive green growth. The
“theory of change” presented in the main text
summarizes how CSPs would incorporate
inclusive growth and transition to green
growth, moving from diagnostics to strategic
prioritization and mainstreaming in pillars and
programs to achieve green growth outcomes.
This document makes some suggestions of how
to achieve this change in the country context.
The attachment to this chapter summarizes and
rates the inclusive growth and green growth
content of all of the CSPs reviewed under this
evaluation. It illustrates the variety of challenges
faced by different countries, and reinforces the
argument that no one size fits all. It also provides
illustrations of how the inclusive green growth
content of CSPs could be strengthened moving
forward.
13
A quarterly knowledge publication from Independent Development Evaluation, African Development Bank Group

14
Definition of Inclusive
Growth and Green Growth
Inclusive growth and green growth definitions
have evolved over recent years, but both concepts
are regarded as tools to achieve short term growth
while also ensuring longer term growth that is
economically, socially and environmentally
sustainable. Both emphasize the quality of
growth, emphasizing widely shared growth that
uses natural capital responsibly. 2 For The World
Bank, for example, inclusive green growth aims
to operationalize sustainable development by
reconciling growth and poverty alleviation with
avoiding irreversible and costly environmental
damage 3 . The Asian Development Bank 2020
Strategy (2008) includes three integrated pillars:
inclusive growth, environmentally sustainable
growth and regional integration. Inclusive growth
includes rapid, sustainable growth to expand
economic opportunities, broader access to these
opportunities, and social safety nets. Green growth
(developed more recently) is defined as economic
progress that fosters environmentally sustainable,
low carbon, socially inclusive development. 4 Thinktanks
such as McKinsey emphasize the access
to productive employment aspect of inclusive
growth 5 together with the technological change,
markets and enabling policy environments that
will drive green growth. 6 The UNDPs’ work on
inclusive growth argues that societies based on
equality, with benefit sharing and participation
in decision making and benefit sharing tend to
perform better in economic development. 7 The
2 The Brundtland Commission (1987) first articulated the “triangle” of
sustainable development; but debate has continued since then between
prioritizing “poverty reduction or growth,” or “grow now clean up later”
approaches. Inclusive green growth concepts seek to reconcile these
differing views by arguing that inclusive green growth paths do not
necessarily slowly slow the rate of economic growth.
3 Inclusive Green growth: the Pathway to Sustainable Development World
Bank May 2012.
4 Green Growth, Resources and Resilience: ADB,UNEP, ESCAP (Economic
and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific) 2012.
5 It further clarifies five criteria for inclusive growth, including creation
of job opportunities for the poor, creating equal opportunity to assets,
enhancing non-income aspects of development, reducing risk and
vulnerability and reducing structural inequalities. Stein Hansen ADB
Sustainable Development working paper 13 June 2010: Inclusive growth
in the Energy Sector.
6 How to Make Green Growth the new Normal. McKinsey Sustainability
Practice, Copenhagen Forum on Green Growth 2012.
7 UNDP International Policy Centre for Inclusive growth website 2013
UNDP, like the World Bank, argues for a strategy
that links inclusive growth and environmentally
sustainable growth. 8
For The African Development Bank inclusive
growth and the transition to green growth form
the two pillars of its 2013-2022 Development
Strategy, comprising growth that is economically
empowering and environmentally sustainable.
The Bank has five priority areas for investment:
infrastructure, governance, private sector
development, education and skills development
and regional integration, which will contribute
to achievement of the two priority pillars. With
regard to inclusive green growth, The 2013-2022
Strategy sharpens but is not a major departure
from the 2008-2012 Strategy, which supports the
drivers of stronger and more equitable growth,
opportunity and economic integration as well
as gender equity and seeks better to integrate
environment and climate change into country
strategies. 9
Thus, even though CPSs under review mostly
predate finalization of the TYS 2013-2022, a
review of CPSs against the themes of the 2008-
2012 strategy can also provide insights into the
degree to which they are oriented towards inclusive
green growth.
Inclusive growth is the overarching objective
in the 2013-2022 AfDB strategy, and is defined
as economic growth that broadens access
to sustainable socio-economic development
opportunities for more people, countries and
regions while protecting the vulnerable. It includes
economic, social, spatial and political inclusion. 10
Inclusive growth will lead to equality of treatment
and opportunity, deep reductions in poverty
and expanded access to jobs, expanding the
economic base across gender, age and geography.
8 Helen Clark, UNDP Administrator, Opening speech at UNDP Regional
Bureau for Africa Conference on Transforming Africa through Inclusive
Growth and Sustainable Development, December 2013.
9 AfDB Medium Term Strategy 2008-2012 pages 18 and 19.
10 Inclusive growth in Africa, presentation at Manila Global Development
Network Conference June 2013 Steve Kayizzi Mugerwa, Director
Development Research, African Development Bank.
eVALUatiOn Matters

The presentation states that the Bank will invest
in infrastructure that unlocks the potential of
the private sector, championing gender equality
and community participation. Further, the Bank
will invest in skills for competitiveness, ensuring
that these skills better match requirements and
opportunities in the local job markets.
trade-offs, between short term costs and longer
term productivity/sustainability gains (as in
investing in better designed roads or watershed
management), or spatial trade-offs (investing
in wastewater treatment may involve costs for
one municipality but ensure cleaner water for a
municipality lower down the river).
15
Green growth is the second objective, and seeks
to ensure that inclusive growth is sustainable,
by helping Africa gradually transition to “green
growth” that will enhance economic growth
through building resilience, managing natural
assets efficiently and sustainably including through
increased agriculture productivity, and promoting
sustainable infrastructure. 11 It aims to maximize
natural resource use efficiency, minimize waste
and pollution, and strengthen the resilience to
exogenous shocks, including weather and climaterelated
events.
Inclusive green growth policies are largely
about good growth policies. Policy instruments
include economic incentives, regulations and
social marketing to induce behavioral change.
Constraints are often political and social (and
sometimes linked to broader distrust in what
government can deliver for citizens as well as
to poor communications, as was illustrated by
the riots over following the sudden removal of
fuel subsidies in Nigeria). But there may also be
11 Transitioning towards green Growth: A Framework for the African
Development Bank November 2013 (draft).
The AfDB strategic work includes a review of the
literature, and AfDB staff have contributed to the
debate on inclusive green growth in international
fora, adapting conceptual and operational
approaches to the African context. There is
consensus that there is no single inclusive green
growth model and this is also the case for Africa
with its widely diverse demography, geography,
political economy, cultures and economic growth
paths.
Inclusive Green Growth
in Africa
Several countries have undertaken strategic
work to mainstream inclusive green growth into
development plans. Among the earliest have been
Rwanda and Ethiopia, both of which have also
attached high priority to poverty reduction in their
growth agendas over the last decade. South Africa,
Kenya and Sierra Leone have also developed green
growth strategies. Rwanda’s strategy is summarized
in the box below. Rwanda and Ethiopia have moved
the furthest in implementation.
Rwanda: Integrated Strategy for Green growth, Prosperity, and Climate Resilience
Three priority themes:
• Energy security, low carbon energy, green industry & services
• Sustainable land & water management for food security, urban development, biodiversity
& ecosystem services
• Social protection, disaster management & climate resilience
14 integrated programs supported by development partners Development partners through
investments (land husbandry, water harvesting, irrigation US$150 m) & budget support
Enabling pillars: institutions, finance, capacity, innovation, infrastructure, planning, monitoring
Source: Rwanda: Green Growth and Climate Resilience National Strategy October 2011
A quarterly knowledge publication from Independent Development Evaluation, African Development Bank Group

16
Ethiopia’s strategy is also integrated into its
broader development plan. It seeks to make
best use of its water and land resources, seeking
to improve crop and livestock practices to
increase yields, food security and income,
restore forests for economic and ecosystem
services, expand electric power generation from
renewable sources and support modern, energy
efficient technologies in transport, industry
and buildings. 12 The strategy articulates
the economic, health and welfare benefits of
adopting the new approach. It emphasizes the
multiple benefits of green growth approaches in
particular sub-sectors. Improved, fuel-efficient
wood stoves, for example, reduce wood use
and land degradation, while improving health
outcomes from reduced smoke inhalation,
especially for women and small children.
Expanding hydro-electric energy, both
large and small, including through regional
integration, increases energy access without
increasing GHG emissions, bringing economic
and welfare benefits, while also increasing
export revenues.
Green economy strategies for middle income
countries often stress the potential gains from
policy reform: for South Africa, one of the most
water-stressed countries on the continent and a
high GHG emitter, price reforms (with stepped
tariffs to ensure adequate service to lower income
households) in energy and water can improve
efficiency, while implementation of pollution
charges can improve air and water quality and
bring welfare gains. Energy subsidies are neither
inclusive nor green nor economically efficient.
For Egypt, for example, energy subsidies have a
substantial macro-economic cost 13 and budget
burden, though, as with Nigeria, there are difficult
political economy constraints to overcome in
reform programs.
12 Ethiopia’s Climate Resilient, Green Economy Strategy: Pathway to
sustainable development 2012. The Global Green Growth Institute
worked with GoE in articulation of the strategy.
13 According to a discussion with a WB chief economist energy subsidies
in Egypt are equivalent to 8% of GDP and 20% of expenditure. They also
contribute to congestion and pollution in the major cities.
The AfDB Green Growth framework summarizes
support that AfDB has provided to Sierra Leone
and Mozambique in articulation of their own
inclusive green growth strategies. In Sierra Leone
the AfDB was able to respond to a request to
mainstream inclusive green growth into their
PRSP (Agenda for Prosperity). The AfDB is
planning to assist the Government of Kenya with
preparation of an inclusive green growth strategy.
As well as the Green Growth Institute, the
Climate and Knowledge Development Platform
supported by DIFID provide opportunities for
partnership. The UK ODI (Overseas Development
Institute) is helping AfDB develop a toolkit for
mainstreaming green growth into CSPs.
Some countries have taken advantage of
Development Policy Lending (budget support)
to implement inclusive green growth strategies,
though not yet through AfDB supported
operations. 14 Morocco, for example, is
implementing a policy loan (US$ 300 million)
with the support of the World Bank to promote
revenue diversification in rural Morocco,
improve management of natural resources and
encourage a shift towards low carbon growth
(with less dependence on imported thermal
resources. Himachal Pradesh In Northern India
is taking a package of two DPLs totaling US$ 200
million to support adoption of environmentally
sustainable and socially responsible hydropower,
climate responsible development, empowerment
of local communities in watershed management,
environmentally sustainable industrial and
tourism development and improved GIS and
spatial information systems. Mozambique,
highly vulnerable to floods and droughts, is
implementing a Climate Change Development
Policy Loan for US$ 60 million with many
green growth elements. Its objective is to build
effective institutional and policy frameworks
for climate resilient development through
14 World Bank DPL for Inclusive Green Growth in Morocco, Project Appraisal
Document 2013; World Bank Project Information Document for Second
Inclusive green Growth DPL to Himachal Pradesh India Februrary 2014,
World Bank Mozambique Climate Change Development Policy Loan,
Project Appraisal Document, November 2013.
eVALUatiOn Matters

improved development planning, and climate
resilience in the key sectors of agriculture,
health, social protection, roads, energy and
hydro-meteorology.
Measurement of Inclusive
Growth and Green
Growth
There has been progress on measurement but
there are outstanding challenges. With regard
to inclusive growth, at the ADB conference
in Manila an integrated index was discussed
combining GDP, inequality, health and
education, governance, employment elasticity
and infrastructure. 15 A ranking was constructed
for countries in Africa for the 2005-2010 period.
The challenge is illustrated by the ranking
outcomes. Egypt and Tunisia scored first and
fourth respectively, while Nigeria scored third
from last and well below DRC, and Zambia
also scored very poorly. There are difficulties in
“weighting,” country-specific circumstances and
social expectations which make using a common
“composite” measurement to compare across
countries very difficult. (Mauritius and Ghana
also score well, and Mali and Central African
Republic poorly).
The 2012 ADB Guidance paper on inclusive
growth 16 includes 8 indicators: job creation,
access to infrastructure and services,
access to business opportunities, voice and
accountability, social protection, regional
integration, access to knowledge and innovation,
and agricultural productivity. The IMF has also
developed a composite index using a narrower
set of indicators 17 which integrates trends in
economic growth and income distribution
to assess social mobility, and compares these
over time. The IMF Paper emphasizes also the
15 See footnote 9.
16 Briefing note 6 for AfDB long term strategy; Inclusive Growth 2012.
17 “Inclusive Growth: Measurement and Determinants” Rahul Anand,
Saurabh Mishra, and Shanaka J. Peiris IMF Working Paper 13/135 May
2013.
links between growth and inclusive growth,
including macroeconomic stability, human
capital, and structural changes.
UNEP, OECD, ADB and the World Bank are
developing indicators for green growth. 18 These
include indicators on changes in natural assets,
environmental and resource use productivity in
economic activities, environmental quality and
health, policies and opportunities and the socioeconomic
context. The literature emphasizes
data challenges even in OECD countries and
does not attempt a composite index. The
AfDB Framework paper on green growth (see
footnote 9) includes suggested indicators to
measure progress, grouped by status of natural
assets, efficiency of natural resource use and
resilience and suggests that individual countries
choose indicators from among these, depending
on their economic structure and the focus of
CSPs.
African Development Bank CSPs are
increasingly selective, for good reason. The
LTS recommends that countries focus on only
two pillars out of infrastructure, governance,
private sector development, skills and higher
education, and regional integration. While there
are opportunities for mainstreaming inclusive
green growth into all of these pillars, the AfDB
cannot and should not address the challenges
comprehensively in every strategy.
The AfDB has developed a One Bank Results
Measurement Framework for 2013-2016. The
purpose is to track progress with achieving
AfDB goals through measurement at a number
of levels.
18 OECD Green Growth measurement Framework 2009, UNEP “Moving
Towards a Common Approach on Green growth indicators” April 2013, for
the Green Growth Knowledge Platform, the World Bank WAVES (Wealth
and Ecosystem Services Accounting) initiative which is piloting including
natural asset depletion or restoration in national accounts in selected
developing countries. UNDP Sustainable Development Knowledge
Platform website, UNDESA Indicators for Sustainable Development:
Guidelines and Methodologies 2007. The UN system is working towards
adoption of an agreed set of sustainable development indicators, to
complement the MDGs.
17
A quarterly knowledge publication from Independent Development Evaluation, African Development Bank Group

18
Level 1 tracks progress in achieving inclusive
growth and green growth, and includes a number
of simple metrics; it is recognized that AfDB
cannot be held accountable for achieving ll these
indicators, given the (correct) need for selectivity. 19
Level 2, centered around the five priority pillars,
tracks progress in improving governance,
infrastructure, private sector development
(which includes agriculture), technical skills/
higher education and regional integration. The
level 2 indicators are mostly intermediate output
indicators. There is scope for including green
growth tracking indicators in these.
Levels 3 and 4 track organizational effectiveness
and efficiency.
The ADBLTS includes five priority pillars: several
already have inclusive green growth objectives
embedded within them (see section 5 below).
These are not, however, currently included in the
common results tracking system. There is scope for
including inclusive and green growth intermediate
outcome indicators in the level 2 tracking system.
The toolkit for integrating green growth into CSPs
being developed by ODI (Overseas Development
Institute) may do this, but it will be important
to learn from the experience of the particular
countries as they move forward with implementing
CSPs which integrate these objectives explicitly.
While there are many advantages in having a
consistent approach across countries, there are
19 ADB 2013. Managing for Development Results – The One-Bank Results
Measurements Framework (2013-2016). Discussion Paper presented
at the ADF 13 Second Replenishment Meeting, June 13. African
Development Fund. For inclusive growth the indicators include a total
of 25 indicators covering economic, social, spatial (access to services)
and political (voice, gender parity, level of accountability) inclusion as
well as competitiveness, business environment and trade indicators.
For transition to green growth six indicators were selected around the 3
pillars of green growth. For the resilience pillar they include food security
and resilience to water shocks; for managing natural assets efficiently
and sustainably they include an index on environmental management
capacity and agricultural productivity; and for minimizing waste and
pollution they include indices on the energy intensity of GDP, and
percentage of electricity generated from renewables. The indicators all
use available information, and will be tracked until 2016, when they
will be reassessed. The level 1 indicators currently do not include health
status, apart from overall life expectancy: given the high incidence of air
and water borne disease, tracking changes in incidence would be a useful
addition in tracking both inclusive and green growth.
also pitfalls. Importantly, citizens of countries
will have different perceptions of priorities. Thus
while Egypt and Tunisia scored well on inclusion
over the 2005-10 period according to several
important, objective criteria (see footnote 18),
the 2011 Revolutions highlighted the importance
for Egyptian and Tunisian citizens of lack of
voice and lack of government accountability.
Botswana and Zambia on the other hand, despite
highly uneven income distribution and pervasive
poverty in some areas, remain politically stable.
Nigeria also scores poorly and has serious pockets
of instability. For countries such as Madagascar,
increasing resilience to climate shocks and
agricultural productivity may be the main green
growth priority, with reduced GHG emissions
having low priority. For South Africa in contrast,
addressing water scarcity, increasing energy
efficiency and reducing GHG emissions may be
the most important.
Asian Development Bank:
Lessons from ADB on
Inclusive Green Growth
The Asian Development Bank has recently
concluded an evaluation of experience with
inclusive growth, which was articulated as
a core objective, together with economic
development and environmental sustainability
in the 2020 Strategy, approved in 2008. 20 ADB’s
inclusive growth framework has three pillars:
promoting high, sustained economic growth
(pillar 1), broadening inclusiveness through
greater access to opportunities (pillar 2), and
strengthening social protection (pillar 3). 21
ADB’s approach to inclusive growth thus
focuses on economic opportunity and social
20 ADB Thematic Evaluation Study: ADB’s Support for Inclusive Growth,
March 2014.
21 Strategy 2020 provides no explicit definition of inclusive growth. It
includes three pillars of inclusive growth: (i) high, sustainable growth that
creates and expands economic opportunities; (ii) broader access to these
opportunities so that all segments of the population can participate in
economic growth by improving human capacities through investments
in education, health, and basic social protection, as well as enhancing the
poor’s access to markets and productive assets; and (iii) social safety nets
to prevent extreme deprivation.
eVALUatiOn Matters

protection, and, unlike ADB’s (see above) does
not explicitly include voice or political inclusion.
The study finds that ADB’s priorities have been
largely skewed toward pillar 1, leaving limited
support for pillars 2 and 3. As the study stresses,
growth alone cannot adequately promote social
inclusion. Policies and interventions to broaden
access to opportunities and build strong social
safety nets are also vital for achieving greater
inclusion.
The ADB evaluation of inclusive growth has two
core recommendations. First, it urges that ADB
support for growth under pillar 1, for example,
through infrastructure investment, be made more
inclusive. For example, road projects can improve
inclusiveness if they are linked with programs
addressing education and health care in the same
area. Similarly, water and sanitation projects
have a better chance of reducing water-related
diseases if complemented with education efforts
promoting good hygiene. And second, the study
calls for an increase in investments for greater
inclusiveness—namely, access to opportunities
under pillar 2 and for social protection under
pillar 3—relative to those under pillar 1. The
evaluation emphasizes, furthermore, that making
this shift is not just a matter of classifying projects
under the three pillars. Rather, it involves
designing and selecting projects and country
program strategies that incorporate inclusion
objectives, in both the private and the public
sectors.
The results of the evaluation provide interesting
lessons for ADB. The evaluation suggests that
ADB has focused less on supporting equality
of opportunity or social protection, which the
evaluation finds is an important component of
inclusive growth. ADB has a broad definition
of inclusive growth, but the LTS priority pillars
are not focused on social protection (ADB
pillar 3), or the social sectors more broadly. And
support for agriculture (which is the principle
source of work in most African countries and
where there are strong correlations between
increased productivity and reduced poverty 22 )
increasingly falls under the infrastructure or the
PSD pillar. So it will be the more important for
programs and pillars to be designed specifically
to address inclusive green growth. Where ADB,
for selectivity reasons, is phasing out of sectors
with a strong inclusive growth element (such
as agriculture or rural water supply), it will be
important to explain why, and to explain what
government/private sector/other development
partners are doing to advance these agendas.
Furthermore, as the ADB evaluation states,
it will be important to make a stronger link
between ADB strategies and inclusive green
growth.
The following sections discuss challenges
and opportunities for incorporating inclusive
growth and transition to green growth in CSPs,
moving from diagnostics and strategic choices, to
incorporation in pillars, policies and programs.
The discussion articulates in more detail the
“theory of change” illustrated in the QaE2
summary and provides a number of country
examples.
Incorporating Inclusive
Growth and Green Growth
into CSPs: Diagnostics
and Strategic Choices
CSPs generally start with a summary of the
political economy and macro-economic
developments. They also often include a
discussion of progress and challenges with
achieving the MDGs (millennium development
goals). Many (though not all) include a short
discussion of progress with poverty reduction
(including regional and urban-rural challenges),
employment and economic diversification
challenges and gender issues. Most also include
a paragraph on climate and environment.
But discussions of the cross-cutting issues
22 WDR on Agriculture, World Bank 2008.
19
A quarterly knowledge publication from Independent Development Evaluation, African Development Bank Group

20
of inclusive green growth are generally quite
limited.
Inclusive Growth
The background section of a CSP integrating
inclusive growth would include a discussion of
progress and challenges with moving forward with
a growth path that broadens access to sustainable
socio-economic development opportunities
for more people, countries and regions while
protecting the vulnerable, and including economic,
social, spatial and political inclusion.
Very few of the CSPs reviewed include a discussion
of the four elements of inclusion: These dimensions
are of course inter-related and need to be discussed
together.
• Concerning economic inclusion, all CSPs
include a discussion of macro-economic growth
trends, and most refer to progress with poverty
reduction. A discussion of trends with gini
coefficients, a key indicator of inclusive growth,
should also be included. This is missing in many
CSPs. Also, many of the poverty analyses are out
of date, and a more determined effort by MDBs
and countries to update them is a priority
• Concerning social inclusion, nearly all CSPs
summarize progress with achieving the MDGs,
many have a brief discussion of gender, and
some discuss youth employment and alienation.
A broader discussion of issues around social
hierarchy and exclusion should also be included,
if these are important. There is rarely a discussion
of social protection programs
• Concerning spatial inclusion, most CSPs
discuss rural-urban poverty differentials but
only in very brief terms, even where there are
stark differences, but only some refer to regional
differences and then in rather general terms,
and without discussing causality and possible
solutions. ADB includes also in spatial inclusion
important level of living indicators such as the
distance from an all-weather road, access to
Inclusion: Country Examples from Nigeria, Mali and Cote d’Ivoire
The Nigeria CSP 2012-16 discusses economic, political and social inclusion issues and the
insurgency issue. It mentions challenges with energy subsidy reform. However, given the income
disparities between the north and the south and broader personal security challenges, the
CSP could usefully include either specific support for addressing these issues, or a discussion
of what others are doing. The CSP supports agricultural value chain enhancement, consistent
with economically inclusive growth. The support for infrastructure could address governance
and safety issues, however, while the support for irrigation could mention that there is a focus
on the north, and complementarities with a Ministry of Agriculture program which supports
groundwater irrigation in the north.
The Mali interim CSP 2013-4 includes a discussion of the recent conflicts and challenges of
the new government. It seeks to increase resilience by supporting socio-economic infrastructure
in the more fragile north, and there is also an agricultural program for the Sahel. More broadly
the focus on agriculture and water supply support inclusive growth. Studies are proposed on
youth employment and the private sector’s potential to contribute to inclusive growth. The
CSP also mentions that the broader Government program is targeted to pro-poor growth,
inclusive access to services and institutional development and governance.
The Cote D’Ivoire 2013-17 CSP has strong focus on inclusion and poverty reduction. It
supports economic and social re-integration, and integration of youth into employment.
Progress with land tenure reform is also mentioned. The focus of the energy access program
will be rural and peri-urban electrification, while the rural infrastructure program will also
help agricultural marketing and food security.
eVALUatiOn Matters

electricity, clean water or to mobile phones. Few
CSPs address other important areas of inclusion
related to infrastructure development (safety,
resettlement) and worker safety in general or
safety of artisanal miners.
• Concerning political inclusion, most CSPs
mention recent elections the system of
government and some discuss decentralization.
Few broach issues of political and social
freedoms, including freedom of the press,
political restrictions on minorities, voice,
political, judicial or police accountability
(though financial accountability is generally
discussed in governance sections).
Regarding information and the quality of
information, to date most of the CSPs report
on most of the 25 “level 1” Indicators outlined
in the “one results framework, but not always
systematically, and sometimes in a fragmented
way. CSPs would also benefit from a discussion
of the quality of this information in the country,
and, where it is inadequate, could usefully
include proposals to improve information
quality. The MDGs have, however, contributed
to better information on social indicators.
Regarding policies, practices and regulations
that impact inclusive growth, there is scope for
a stronger (if brief) analysis of key issues such as
land tenure, energy pricing, utilities governance,
decentralization and the quality of local service
delivery. Often these are not addressed at all.
Many of these issues also impact green growth.
The background analysis should then feed into
discussion on strategic choices. There are of
course other factors, such as ADB past experience
and strength of the dialogue/comparative
advantage, ongoing government programs, and
areas of focus of other development partners.
But where, for example, there are particular
challenges regarding the health MDGs, voice,
freedom of speech and social exclusion, and the
Bank makes a decision to focus on infrastructure
and financial governance, it is especially
important that the CSP articulates what is being
done to improve inclusion more broadly. For
most CSPs the link between the background
diagnostic and the choice of strategic pillar
could be strengthened.
Towards Green Growth
The background section of a CSP integrating
green growth would include a discussion
of progress and challenges with moving
forward with a growth path that builds
resilience to exogenous shocks especially
those that are weather related, manages natural
assets efficiently and sustainably including
through increased agriculture productivity,
and promotes sustainable infrastructure
development, while minimizing waste and
pollution.
Few of the CSPs reviewed discuss these
elements systematically. They are of course
inter-linked, and for all dimensions there are
strong linkages between green growth and
inclusive growth.
• Concerning building resilience, most
CSPs mention commodity price shocks.
Some discuss food price shocks, which
are a particular concern in countries
heavily dependent on imported food. Only
some address weather and climate risks
systematically, and few discuss the factors
behind floods or droughts in urban and rural
areas. 23 The analyses often discuss climate in
very general terms rather than addressing
substantive issues of sector, spatial, economic
or social vulnerability. There is usually no
discussion of the quality of weather/climate
services. 24
• Concerning efficient and sustainable
management of natural assets, CSPs in
23 They are often linked to poor land, agriculture, watershed, drainage or
solid waste management practices, inadequate land use planning and
poor quality construction.
24 Some CSPs.
21
A quarterly knowledge publication from Independent Development Evaluation, African Development Bank Group

22
countries rich in minerals or oil and gas will
often discuss their contribution to GDP, and
will discuss compliance with EITI (Extractive
Industries Transparency Initiative). They
rarely discuss the extent to which revenues
are used for inclusive growth programs.
Very few discuss pollution, worker safety, or
environmental compliance, and none artisanal
mining. Regarding renewable resources, water
resources issues are often mentioned, water
quality more rarely. Land/land and water
management (including erosion and fertility
trends) are rarely discussed, despite their
importance for agricultural productivity and
broader ecosystem services. The management
of forests and woodlands (fuel-wood accounts
for 90% of timber use in Africa) 25 is rarely
discussed, neither is tourism, coastal zone
or protected area management. Institutional
capacity and governance issues are rarely
discussed.
• Concerning developing infrastructure
sustainably while minimizing waste and
pollution, most CSPs include a discussion
of water and sanitation and irrigation, often
with a focus on access rather than operation/
maintenance, though sometimes within an
IWRM framework. Solid waste (garbage)
management is discussed rarely, as is storm
drainage or the impact of poor drainage on
health, though there are some exceptions
(Cameroon). Many CSPs discuss electricity
access, transmission and redistribution
efficiency, and energy sources, including
options for renewable and off-grid energy
and environmental impacts. There is less
discussion of tariffs and affordability. There
is rarely a discussion of energy for cooking 26 .
There is rarely a discussion of oil, petroleum
or gas policies, links with transport or other
sectors or impacts on inclusive green growth.
Urban air pollution is rarely discussed despite
Towards Green Growth: Madagascar and Morocco
The Madagascar interim CSP (2013-14) comprises two pillars, infrastructure and
improved governance. Madagascar faces severe challenges of political instability so a longer
term strategy is not feasible. The first pillar focuses on rural and irrigation infrastructure.
In this disaster risk country, the CSP emphasizes that these will be designed to address
climate risks, environmental sustainability and longer term maintenance as well a rural
connectivity, food security and agricultural productivity. The second includes natural
resource governance, covering both improved management of mineral resources and
improved control of species trafficking in this bio-diversity rich country, where ecotourism
is important to the economy.
The Morocco CSP 2012-2016 is well aligned with government’s own program, which is
aimed at inclusive green growth. It emphasizes water scarcity, the need to mainstream
climate concerns in the economic sectors, and the potential of renewable energy. The CSP
supports water, sanitation and irrigation development with a focus on water resource and
demand management, wastewater treatment and climate resilience. Analytical work is
proposed on irrigation, basin management and climate impact. In energy the CSP supports
solar, wind, small hydro, improved distribution and access with focus on rural areas; and
energy efficiency, especially in industry. Transport focuses on efficiency and logistics. The
CSP does not specifically address policy reform, although this is ongoing in Morocco in
the energy sector, and it does not mention road safety or road maintenance (which may
already be well covered).
25 FAO Forest Resource Assessment 2010.
26 The great bulk of energy use in Africa is for cooking and there are options
for increasing sustainable management/use or reducing negative health
impacts from fuel-wood use.
eVALUatiOn Matters

its impact on health 27 . Most CSPs discuss
transport infrastructure, including road
density and port capacity, 28 and may include
a discussion of road funds or, less frequently,
provision for rural road maintenance.
Some mention the need to address “soft”
infrastructure and governance, trade and
transport facilitation, “informal” tariffs
and road-blocks. Fewer discuss safety (for
pedestrians and passengers), and only some
mention management of environmental and
social impacts. 29
Regarding information and the quality of
data for decision making, to date most of the
CSPs do not report systematically on the 6
“level 1” Indicators outlined in the "one results
framework. CSPs would also benefit from a
discussion of the quality of this information
in the country, and, where it is inadequate,
could usefully include proposals to improve
information quality as part of the governance
agenda. Geographical information (eg on water
and land resources, soil fertility trends, hydrometeorology,
water and air quality, erosion,
and natural resources) has not benefited from
the same “push” as social indicators regarding
data to inform decision making, and while
CSPs mention that ADB has supported better
economic and financial statistics, this has not
been the case for geographical data.
Few CSPs discuss cross-cutting issues such as land
tenure, land use planning (including coastal zone
management), or the adequacy of information for
decision making (see above), or the drivers behind
natural resource degradation or air pollution.
And few discuss price or other policies which may
impact inclusive green growth. This is a critical
issue, and needs much more emphasis in CSPs.
23
27 1.9 million to 2.2 million young children die annually from upper tract
respiratory diseases in Africa (World Bank “Disease and Mortality in
Sub-Saharan Africa” 2nd edition 2006. Many of these are related to the
way that fuel-wood is used for cooking, as well as to urban air pollution
and dust. Several CSPs mention GHG emissions, which are (with some
important exceptions) low in Africa and are currently one of the 6 “core”
indicators to be monitored regarding progress towards green growth.
28 Rail and air transport are discussed less frequently, though in a number of
countries there is great potential for efficiency gains.
29 Some of these issues may more appropriately be addressed under the
relevant pillars, but they are mentioned here because of their crosscutting
relevance to inclusive green growth.
It is recognized that it would be a challenge to
address, even if briefly, the inclusive green growth
diagnostics summarized above, also address
macro-economic trends, and remain within the
20 page limit of CSPs. Furthermore the CSP is
not primarily an analytical document; it is roadmap
for engagement with a country over a 4 to 5
Support to Energy in Ethiopia in 2012-16 CSP
The Ethiopian government is committed to an inclusive green growth path, and is aware of
the importance both of sound land and water management, and of the potential of hydroelectric
energy. The Bank’s program in the current CSP focuses on transmission, but also on
renewable energy, including wind and geothermal both through AFD funding and through
SREP 1 , which is also supporting energy efficiency for SMEs. The CSP also supports improved
cookstoves for household energy, bringing both efficiency and health gains. The government
and other development partners are supporting watershed management and reforestation.
However the Bank, after conducting environmental and social impact assessments, withdrew
from financing Gibe Gibe 2 because of concerns both about impacts and about contract
management, and SREP does not support large Hydro. As regards access, there are also
challenges in definition, important in strategic alignment with country results. For Ethiopia
access means access to a rural settlement, while standard international definitions imply
access to households. Reliability of service (hours per day, chance of power cuts) is not usually
included in definitions despite its importance.
1 Strategic Renewable Energy Program, one of the Climate Investment Funds, and targeted at low-income countries (for Africa, Mali, Ethiopia, and
Liberia were included in the first group of countries supported by the program).
A quarterly knowledge publication from Independent Development Evaluation, African Development Bank Group

24
year period, building on past experience, country
priorities and Bank strategy. However, CSPs
need to build on past diagnostics and available
information, and provide support for lending and
improved knowledge to inform decision making.
It may be helpful looking forward to revisit the
background section of the CSPs in the light of
the new LTS. Specifically, the country context
and prospects section could be re-structured
to focus more on the main pillars of inclusive
growth and green growth, and these in turn could
be linked more explicitly to strategic options
and the rationale for Bank prioritization. The
discussions on macro-economic trends could be
shortened with a longer discussion forming an
annex if necessary. And, given the new strategy,
the CSP should also address data and information
shortfalls regarding monitoring progress towards
inclusive green growth.
Incorporating Inclusive
Growth and Green Growth
into CSPs: Priority Pillars
and Program/Project Design
There is scope for integrating inclusive growth
and green growth much more strongly in
pillar and program design than is common
practice, as regards lending and non-lending
support. The LTS has identified five key pillars
for Bank Group engagement: Infrastructure,
Governance, Regional Integration, Higher
Education and technical training, and Private
Sector Development. 30 Some, though not all,
of the ADB strategies framing support to these
have already identified key elements which
emphasize economic, social, political and spatial
inclusion, or efficient resource use, resilience, and
minimization of pollution. Reflection of inclusive
green growth in pillar and program design is
similarly uneven at present. The paragraphs below
30 There are three priority themes: gender, agriculture and food security,
and environment and climate change. The LTS emphasizes that these
themes need to be integrated within the five priority pillars, while
addressing the key objectives of inclusive growth and transitioning to
green growth.
address challenges and progress in integrating
inclusive green growth into the priority pillars.
The infrastructure and governance pillars are
addressed in greater detail than the other three,
in part because these are the priority pillars in
many of the CSPs, and in part because the focus
of the regional integration pillar is often on
infrastructure, while private sector development
and governance are closely linked.
Integration of inclusive growth presents more of a
challenge than integration of green growth, though
there are also links between the two. Inclusive
growth has been defined to include political as well
as economic, social and spatial inclusion. ADB,
as a development institution, does not generally
intervene directly in political inclusion, and
though its programs can be designed to strengthen
voice, particularly in the governance agenda. In a
number of countries dialogue on voice and political
freedom is highly challenging. Furthermore, ADB,
in the interests of selectivity, is moving away from
some sectors which lend themselves directly to
inclusive growth; in Malawi, for example (2013-17
CSP) there has been a shift away from agriculture,
health and education. Green growth as currently
defined lends itself more easily to integration
within the priority pillars.
Infrastructure Pillar
The Infrastructure pillar includes energy,
transport, water (including water and
sanitation, irrigation, hydro-electric power,
and broader water resource management),
and ICT (information, communications and
technology). 31 These sectors contribute directly
to growth, but need to be designed carefully to
contribute to inclusive growth. With very low
electricity access rates and high unit costs, there
are affordability issues for less affluent people.
Road transport needs to take a network approach,
31 A review of the Bank’s ICT strategy and action plan for 2012-2014 (Review
of the Bank’s ICT strategy and action plan for 2012-2014, ADB 2012)
demonstrates its importance for growth and competitiveness. But it
indicates also the Bank may be understaffed in this important and rapidly
changing field. This paper does not focus on ICT because of the limited
number of CSPs which support it, either through the Bank’s private sector
arm or through public sector interventions.
eVALUatiOn Matters

include rural roads and address pedestrian and
passenger safety, public transport, informal
roadblocks, traffic management and trade and
transport facilitation. An inclusive green growth
approach to infrastructure is closely integrated
with the governance agenda.
Energy
The Bank’s new Energy Sector Policy 32 has
nine objectives, with the first focused on
affordable energy access. It aims to develop
the sector in a socially, environmentally
and economically sustainable way; to move
towards cleaner energy paths, to enhance
governance, to promote environmental and
social responsibility and to integrate a response
to climate change. Energy sector policy reform
and inclusive green growth are closely linked.
CSPs vary in the way they address energy, but
few address specifically rural energy access,
few discuss oil/petroleum price policies,
and very few discuss cooking energy, which
accounts for the great majority of energy
demand in Africa, and for which fuel-wood
32 Energy Sector Policy of the ADB Group 2012.
and charcoal will remain the primary source
at least until 2030. 33 The focus tends to be
on transmission and distribution, both very
important for both access (indirectly) and
efficiency (directly), and on new generation
– where, often, options for new energy
sources are discussed, with an emphasis on
renewables. CSPs rarely address head-on issues
of affordability or tariff policies. The regional
integration agenda also provides scope for
efficiency gains. The Bank incorporates
environmental and social impact assessment
into new power generation projects, and has
withdrawn from some operations where these
risks have seemed high. Recent hydro-electric
energy programs include Bumbuna (Sierra
Leone) and Lom Pangar (Cameroon).
Transport
Better connectivity is key to economic growth. 34
But transport infrastructure alone does not
33 Fuel-wood and charcoal are the primary cooking energy for over 80% of
households in Africa, charcoal was a US$ 8 billion industry employing 7 million
people directly in 2008 and is projected to growth at more than 3% per
annum over the next two decades. (Agroforestry World October 2013).
34 The ADB invests in ports and railways and urban transport as well as
roads. But this section focuses on roads and road transport because
the sample of CSPs supporting other transport modes is quite
limited.
25
Improving Transport and Connectivity in the Republic of Congo and Democratic
Republic of Congo
The Congo Republic CSP 2013-17 transport operations are well designed to address inclusive
green growth. The program aims to reduce farm to market costs and facilitate trade more broadly.
There are also specifics on improving governance in the infrastructure sectors, and provision for
establishment of a road fund to address operation and maintenance. Road safety could usefully
be addressed specifically.
The DRC 2013-17 CSP transport program includes rural road rehabilitation, with a focus on
the central region the CSP includes elements for better maintenance, social and environmental
impact assessment. The governance program and institutional strengthening program for the
sector is particularly strong; it support: (i) National Road Maintenance Fund (FONER) reforms;
(ii) reforming the Roads Authority to improve investment quality; and (iii) building the capacity
of support structures and smallholder organizations. The associated PSD and regional integration
programs could increase the inclusive growth contribution of rural roads, but a brief description of
accompanying programs in agriculture and livestock productivity enhancement would be helpful.
The CSPs also support regional integration, specifically river transport, and the Kinshasa-Brazzaville
road and rail bridge, which will contribute to growth from enhanced trade and reduced transport costs.
A quarterly knowledge publication from Independent Development Evaluation, African Development Bank Group

26
necessarily do much for inclusive growth.
Equatorial Guinea and South Africa have relatively
well developed infrastructure, and highly unequal,
and deteriorating, gini coefficients. Furthermore
poorly planned, designed infrastructure can
contribute to erosion and loss of productivity in
other sectors. 35 Focusing on national networks
while neglecting rural connectivity can contribute
to social exclusion. But better road infrastructure,
if well planned, reduces transport costs, increases
competitiveness, helps reduce losses in agriculture
and thus contributes to “resource efficiency”, key
35 Nigeria is currently investing over US$ 400 million in program to address
erosion and improve watershed management, reversing degradation
caused in part because of poorly designed infrastructure in a highly
erodible landscape, with a focus on the south-east.
elements in a green growth agenda. Investments in
road infrastructure, if they are combined with road
safety measures, sound environmental and social
planning, and policies which ensure maintenance
and provide for safe public transport, can be both
green and inclusive. Few CSPs attempt to quantify
the cost to GDP of poor transport. The Mauritius
2014-18 CSP is one of the few to do this; road
congestion and traffic accidents between them
cause losses to GDP of 2.8% annually.
And the Burundi 2012-16 CSP mentions that
poor infrastructure reduces competitiveness/
efficiency, underlining that 35% of exported and
45% of imported food costs are transport related.
Examples of Support to the Water Agenda Within an Inclusive Green Growth Framework
Water scarcity is addressed unevenly: the Cape Verde CSP emphasizes this development risk
and includes support for water harvesting, while although Botswana is in a global “hotspot”
for vulnerability to drought there is little discussion of the risk that water scarcity poses to
diversified economic development. The Djibouti CSP rightly raises water scarcity as a key
issue: it supports water and sanitation, studies on exploring additional water resources,
and cooperation with Ethiopia on potential water transfers.
Hydro-meteorological services: The Niger CSP supports improved weather and climate
services and is the only CSP to do so.
Some CSPs address water resource development for energy (e.g. Lom Pangar in Cameroon,
Bumbuna 2 in Sierra Leone, Inga in DRC, Lesotho Highlands); multi-purpose water resource
development is supported more rarely (Kandadji in Niger). All include a comprehensive
assessment of environmental costs and benefits, but coverage of increased access as a direct
result of the intervention is uneven to say the least.
Water and sanitation remain priorities though in some countries, despite a successful
experience, CSPs are moving away from the sector (Ethiopia, Zambia). In DRC and Sierra
Leone, for example, the Bank supports drinking water and sanitation in urban and rural
areas, linked (for Sierra Leone) to strengthened local government service delivery and (for
DRC) to support to community-based water management systems by non-governmental
grassroots associations and the local private sector. In many CSPs a greater focus on
environmental health would address inclusive green growth directly, given the high incidence
of malaria and water borne diseases. The Cote D’Ivoire and Cameroon address these issues
and include a focus on urban drainage, flood management and solid waste management.
Irrigation infrastructure supports the agriculture/food security objectives. The Niger
CPS correctly placed enhanced food security through increased resilience to floods and
(above all) droughts at the heart of inclusive green growth and its development strategy.
The CSP supports improved water resource management for agriculture and energy, as
well as enhanced infrastructure development and support to local government service
delivery. The Malawi CSP links support to irrigation and sustainable intensification with
improved land and water management. Other “good practice” CSPs in this regard include
the Gambia and Mali.
eVALUatiOn Matters

The link between rural road improvement
and the agricultural productivity/value chain
agenda may need to be further strengthened.
There are strong links, in terms of reduced
transport to market costs, and reduced losses.
The Zambia CSP (2011-15) integrates inclusive
growth into the transport program, describing
road safety aspects, reduced transport costs for
men and women, and benefits from increased
agricultural productivity. But without support
to other areas of agriculture and marketing they
cannot always be realized. Some CSPs do not
describe accompanying support measures by
government, other donors or the private sector.
Water
The Bank’s water programs are guided by the
Africa Water Vision and the MDGs which
stress improved water and sanitation, while the
Bank’s integrated water resource management
(IWRM) policy also emphasizes that water is an
economic, social and environmental good. CSPs
include support to multi-purpose water resource
development, irrigation, water for energy and
water and sanitation. Very few address watershed
management or flood management directly,
areas which are key to the resilience element of
inclusive green growth, few address governance
reforms and few provide support to improving
the quality of hydrological or weather and climate
information (precipitation is a key element of this)
for decision making. Niger is the only CSP (2013-
17) explicitly addressing improved weather and
climate services. Disaster risk preparedness often
includes a strong element of preparedness and
early warning systems for floods or droughts, and
this does not tend to be a focus of ADB, although
it is important for inclusive green growth.
Regional Integration Pillar
The Regional Integration strategy 36 supports
trade and integration through provision of
regional infrastructure and capacity building.
Inclusive green growth is implicit in the benefits
36 Regional Integration Strategy, ADB 2009.
brought about by regional integration. They
include more efficient, lower cost trade between
African countries 37 , more efficient use of power
and water through cooperation and connectivity,
cooperation on regional public goods, and
welfare gains and a more favorable investment
environment from peaceful, transparent,
consistent relations between countries. Most of
the regional strategies have a strong emphasis on
building the capacity of regional institutions on
the one hand, and strengthening trans-boundary
infrastructure, especially transport and energy,
on the other. 38 Several CSPs include support
for trans-boundary infrastructure, often with
additional regional integration funding.
There could be more focus in CSPs on the “softer”
areas of regional integration, in order to clarify the
inclusive green growth gains. And these measures
should be reflected in results frameworks. These
include trade and transport facilitation, and
removal of informal check-points and barriers
which may affect the safety of traders as well as
increase transport costs. These are important if the
“hard” investments are to bring more widely spread
and sustainable economic benefits. The Burkina
CSP has a strong analysis of the importance of
these elements, which could usefully be included
in the program and results framework. The
Malawi CSP describes well the benefits of better
transport links for private sector development.
Regional roads are usually designed with health
posts (including for HIV-aids) at major truck stops
and borders, but these are not mentioned in most
CSPs. Road safety is rarely discussed. A further
weakness is that CSPs rarely discuss the approach
to environmental and social impact assessment or
resettlement for trans-boundary roads.
CSPs do not always reflect the content of regional
programs, even though these may of benefit to
individual countries. None of the CSPs mentions
37 The great majority of officially recorded African trade is with countries
outside the continent.
38 This paper does not assess the Regional Integration Strategies for their
inclusive green growth content. It focuses, rather, on regional integration
content of the CSPs.
27
A quarterly knowledge publication from Independent Development Evaluation, African Development Bank Group

28
the ADB/African Union Climdev program, for
example, which is intended to strengthen the
capacity of regional weather centers (located in a
number of African countries) to strengthen and
share information both between centers and with
African countries. On the other hand the East
Africa RISP has a strong focus on development of
shared water resources, which are an area of focus
for these CSPs, but the proposed Inter-regional
early warning systems for Flood Prevention and
water basin management is not mentioned in any
of the CSPs.
Governance Pillar
The Governance Pillar is cross cutting. Its three
re-enforcing pillars, improved “public sector and
economic governance, sector governance, and
an improved business climate … form the basis
of the vision of transparent and accountable
governments able to meet the twin objectives of
the TLS for inclusive growth and transition to
green growth”. 39 The Strategy/action plan itself
emphasizes the links between sound governance
and sound sector development. Extractive industry
and natural resource governance is a building block.
The strategy also emphasizes the need for improved
policy, regulatory and legal reforms to reverse
land degradation, establish pollution standards
for Africa’s rivers, strengthen transboundary
cooperation, improve regulatory oversight and
build climate information systems to inform
transparent decision making. Sound, transparent,
accountable governance systems are key to ADB’s
inclusive growth approach, which emphasizes voice
and social and spatial as well as economic inclusion.
Most CSPs reviewed have a more limited
approach to governance, emphasizing financial
management at the macro-level. 40 Accountable
financial management could usefully go the
next step and include specific goals for public
expenditure allocation to programs that would
address inclusion and green growth (support
to education, or to soil fertility enhancement,
Regional Integration Programs in DRC: Inclusive Green Growth Potential
The DRC CSP 2013-17 includes an interesting analysis of the costs of lack of regional
integration, with African countries’ share in DRC exports representing less than 10% of
DRC’s trade. The discussion of barriers covers not only poor physical infrastructure but also
red tape and inefficiency. On average, cross-border procedures take 44 days for exports and
63 days for imports, i.e. respectively 12 and 15 days longer than the average for the other sub-
Saharan African countries. The average costs by container are about USD 3,500 - well above
the average for the other countries of the continent. Given the well-known risks to safety of
smaller traders (eg between DRC and other Central African countries) CSP implementation
could also usefully explicitly address this area, important to inclusive growth. The Bank
continues also to play the lead role in developing DRC’s hydro-electric energy resources,
specifically Inga 3, and will support development of the electricity network of the Great Lakes
countries. It also aims to support development of navigation on the Congo river.
The DRC CSP is consistent with the Central Africa RISP (2011-15) which aims to develop
regional infrastructure and institutional capacity. The RISP aims also to safeguard the
integrity of the Congo Basin’s forests, water resources and ecosystems, recognizing their
national, regional and global importance. Included in the DRC CSP are the Congo Basin
Forest Ecosystems fund, which supports community based sustainable forest management
initiatives, and the Forest Investment Program, one of the initiatives under the Climate
Investment Fun, which also has a strong community focus.
39 Governance Strategic Framework and Action Plan (GAP II) 2014-18
ADB 2013.
40 The ADB One Results Agenda also emphasizes this aspect of governance,
though the GAC strategy includes improved management of natural
resources in its own results framework.
eVALUatiOn Matters

for example). Some CSPs do, however, support
improved delivery of public services at local
level, supporting improved local financial
governance and program management (Sierra
Leone and Ethiopia are examples). Accountable
local service delivery is key to inclusive growth.
Few CSPs discuss environmental or social
governance, despite their importance for
inclusive green growth.
Some CSPs support strengthened statistical
capacity, but mostly at the central government
level. Other areas of statistics which are
important to sound decision making for
inclusive green growth, such as geographical or
climate information, agricultural productivity,
traffic accidents or the quality of road
maintenance, are very rarely addressed. They
may be supported through operations, but need
to be discussed. Health and education statistics
have improved in part thanks to the impetus
of the MDGs.
Some CSPs address the governance aspects
of infrastructure development well (see
Infrastructure Pillar p. 22), albeit unequally.
There is rarely a discussion of the barriers
(different stakeholder interests, local elite
capture) to reform, or to how these may be
overcome given constraints. Civil society and
non-government organizations are rarely
discussed in CSP implementation, though they
may be consulted during preparation. There is
rarely discussion of the governance barriers to
sector policy reforms (in energy for example,
or in land tenure).
For natural resource rich countries there
is more scope to address natural resource
governance. The Ghana CSP, for example, has
little about plans for managing the natural
resource revenues (oil, gas, gold) to benefit
local citizens or for long term “rainy day” issues
despite the importance of recent discoveries
and the impact on growth. The Angola CSP
mentions the Sovereign Wealth Fund, but
does not seem to propose dialogue over the
way it is currently used (for large industry and
infrastructure rather than for social programs,
SME support or agricultural productivity
despite pervasive poverty). The Chad CSP
mentions support to EITI but there are no
29
Governance in CSPs: Some examples
The Burundi, Ethiopia and Sierra Leone CSPs both support improved local service delivery
and governance, and are well targeted to inclusive growth in these areas. They are also financed
together with other development partners.
The Egypt interim CSP 2012-13 proposed budget support operations to improve governance
over a range of areas. These include budget reform, financial sector and banking reform, taxation
policy reform, enhanced government transparency, more private-sector-relevant job training,
pro-poor social service and infrastructure delivery, and decentralization. While important for
inclusive growth this was an ambitious agenda for a new, inexperienced government. It was
supported by a number of development partners that might also have resulted in added complexity.
The DRC CSP included a frank analysis of challenges in mining governance. It concluded that
transparency had improved, especially regarding regulations, for oil and gas, forest concessions,
mining contracts and publication of revenues. But due to poor enforcement regarding traceability
of mining revenues, in 2013DRC was suspended from EITI for one year, and the IMF suspended
a program. Furthermore the decentralization of natural resource management, and participation
of provided for by law remains ineffective and the participation of local communities in decisionmaking
in that area is insignificant. IMF suspended its program because of NRM governance
issues.
A quarterly knowledge publication from Independent Development Evaluation, African Development Bank Group

30
specifics on how governance will be improved
and what better patterns of expenditure would
be. None of the CSPs address issues such as
worker safety or environmental pollution issues
of oil and gas governance, artisanal mining
and their health impact. These are important
in several countries, including Ghana, DRC,
and Nigeria. There is also little discussion of
the governance arrangements of large-scale
foreign investment in mining in countries such
as Guinea or Cameroon.
There is scope for ADB to support broader crosssectoral
governance reforms that will facilitate
the transition to inclusive green growth. 41 A
key area includes improved environmental
and social management of investments in the
infrastructure and natural resources sectors,
both non-renewable and renewable. Although
not termed as such, in the Mauritius CSP
ADB supports the government’s program
towards a greener, more inclusive economy.
The Bank provides budget support initiatives
in gender (principally education), land use
41 The WB, for example, has supported Morocco through a US$ 300 million
Green Growth Development Policy Reform, which supports revenue
diversification in rural areas, improved natural resource management,
and a transition to lower carbon growth. It succeeds a Solid Waste
Management policy loan, which supports enhanced sector governance,
sustainability and management.
PSD Support to South Africa CSP 2103-17: Challenges and Opportunities
South Africa’s own development strategy emphasizes the need to create jobs and to promote
inclusive green growth, raising GDP growth through structural reforms, reducing inequality,
and promoting rural development and green/environmentally sustainable, inclusive growth.
The key objective is to reduce unemployment and associated poverty by generating 5 million
new jobs by 2020 and 11 million by 2030. Currently the 11th largest GHG emitter in the world,
South Africa aims to transition to a lower carbon economy, investing in solar and wind energy
and cleaner coal, and more efficient transport and water management.
ODA represents only 1% of South Africa’s budget, so the private sector has a key role. With
the largest, most sophisticated private sector in Africa, there are good opportunities for ADB
to align its PSD support with its own LTS.
Job growth is the stated focus of ADB's private sector arm's investments in mining,
manufacturing, SME support and PPPs, which account for over 50% of CSP support, through
investments, lines of credit and green finance (South Africa has received US$ 500 million
from the Clean Technology Fund 1 ). Emphasis will be given to environmentally sustainable
(green) and inclusive investments, but the extent to which the ADB program, concentrated in
capital-intensive infrastructure projects, can have a near-term impact on green and inclusive
growth is not elaborated. It would also be helpful to understand how support to PSD and
governance will help create the conditions for job intensive growth and less inequality. The
political, governance and structural challenges to creating more flexible labor markets, though
well understood, are extremely difficult to address. The CSP also includes analytical work on
manufacturing, and it finances Middle Income Country grants. 2
The CSP includes a matrix which provides a summary of lessons learned from the previous
CSP. These included the need to reduce the number and spread of operations, problems with
efforts to provide microcredit to SMEs, the need to focus more attention on capacity building,
particularly at the local level, to focus on regional infrastructure programs, the need to better
prepare staff to work on green growth initiatives, and the need to post more private sector staff
in the new field office, given the large number of direct private sector investments in the ADB
portfolio. Also, much more work is needed to assist the government in developing PPP projects.
1 The CTF is one of the Climate Investment Funds and supports countries’ transitions to low carbon economies. Generally for middle income
countries, funds are highly leveraged with public and private funding sources. Other African beneficiaries include Morocco and Nigeria.
2 The broader CSP QEA 2 review found that MIC grants have been very challenging to implement in a number of countries, with procedures that
are poorly understood by member countries, and often inadequate implementation support from ADB.
eVALUatiOn Matters

planning, improved public transport, a shift to
more renewable energy, extending water and
sewerage to lower income groups, reducing water
pollution, reducing transport emissions, regional
economic integration, technology and job skills
development, and PSD.
There is also scope for CSPs to refer to lessons
from other countries and development
partners. Botswana has long been a model
for good natural resource governance, and
is now participating in the WAVES (wealth
and ecosystems accounting initiative) which
attempts to incorporate natural resource
depletion or restoration (in the case of
renewable resources) into national accounting
systems. And Sierra Leone has had strong
support from DIFID for development of its
justice and police system, key governance
elements of a transparent, inclusive society.
Private Sector Development Pillar
The Private Sector Development Strategy 42 has
three objectives: (i) improving Africa’s investment
and business climate; (ii) expanding access to
social and economic infrastructure; and (iii)
promoting enterprise development. Within
the broader framework of the Bank’s Strategy
for 2013-2022 it looks forward to a vision of a
decent work environment for Africans, offering
productive employment. The strategy argues
for private sector involvement in infrastructure
that is efficient, environmentally sustainable
and supports low carbon growth (recognizing
that reputable investors benefit from having a
reputation for corporate social and environmental
responsibility). The strategy also highlights value
chain development and commercialization in
agriculture, together with rural infrastructure
improvement. The strategy is thus well integrated
with inclusive green growth.
Assessment of the CSPs’ PSD pillars for inclusive
green growth content presents challenges for two
42 “Supporting the Transformation of the Private Sector in Africa: Private
Sector Development Strategy 2013-17”, ADB 2013.
reasons. First, the treatment of the activities of the
private sector department of the ADB in CSPs is
very uneven, often incomplete and sometimes
entirely missing. There is little discussion of its
investments in Nigeria despite their importance
(US$ 380 million was approved to the power
sector in February 2014, for example). Similarly,
the department has a US$ 112 million investment
in mining in Guinea, which is not discussed in
the CSP. Second, the PSD strategy correctly
illustrates the strong links between private
sector development, infrastructure and sound
governance. This link is illustrated in the “doing
business” tables of the CSPs. Many of the programs
to enable PSD fall under these two pillars. Support
to rural infrastructure, for example, enables value
chain development and commercialization in
agriculture, which is very largely a private sector
activity (This is recognized in the Nigerian
government’s agricultural transformation agenda,
though not articulated in the ADB CSP).
Where PSD is described explicitly, the links
with inclusive green growth are discussed
in some cases. The Mauritius PSD program
is well linked to job creation and land use
management (recognizing the importance of
the tourism industry). The Sierra Leone CSP
supports economic diversification through
SMEs and business development, but could
make more reference to its links with value
chain development in agriculture and fishing,
given that they are identified as key sectors in
the government’s development plan, and that
they are key to employment creation (over 70%
of jobs) and inclusive green growth (dependent
on sound land, water and marine resources
management). Furthermore it would have been
helpful to describe ADB's role in the important
Bumbuna hydro-power and Addax sugar-cane
biofuel projects, which both support green
growth (clean energy).
Skills and Technology Pillar
The skills and technology pillar contributes
directly to inclusive growth and indirectly to
31
A quarterly knowledge publication from Independent Development Evaluation, African Development Bank Group

32
green growth, but relatively few CSPs include this
pillar: green growth is addressed more rarely than
inclusive growth. This is despite the potential
benefits of technology and skills to inclusive
green growth. Science and technology have
the potential to assist with adoption of modern
technologies that use resources more efficiently
(the spread of mobile phone applications is a
well-known example). Together with skills
development, these interventions can help
men and women, including youth, move from
low-productive employment which is usually
inefficient in its use of human capital and natural
resources (subsistence agriculture or informal
services), to more productive work linked to value
chain enhancement, and to greater economic
diversification. More productive and skilled
employment is generally also better for health
and safety than low skilled work. Most CSPs
focus on governance.
A number of CSPs discuss the challenge of
unemployment, particularly youth unemployment,
but rather few go the next step to articulate
strategies and programs to address this issue,
despite its importance for inclusive growth (and
social stability). The Tunisia interim CSP (2014-
15) is one of the few explicitly to target both
regional disparities and youth employment, and
to target youth employment promotion, within the
broader framework of a discussion of government’s
priorities regarding inclusive growth. The Kenya
CSP supports vocational training of youth and on
a study on sustainability of educational facilities.
The Malawi CSP also supports training.
Areas of Special Emphasis
The priority pillars identified in the Bank’s
Strategy for 2013-2022 will include a focus on
three areas of special emphasis: fragile states,
agriculture and food security and gender. These
are also highly relevant for inclusive and green
growth. CSPs address these issues unevenly, and
all present challenges which will need further
attention moving forward.
• Fragile states: a particular challenge is posed
by countries which are not designated as
fragile, but which have elements of fragility
in them, due to unresolved conflicts, regional
disparities and perceived injustices. Regional
disparities, for example, are insufficiently
addressed in countries such as Nigeria and
Cameroon, but are well considered “ex post”
in Tunisia, Mali and Madagascar. It is often
a challenge for ADB, and other development
partners, to address the social exclusion and
lack of “voice” issues that may contribute to
fragility, since government ownership of CSPs
is key to successful implementation But there is
scope nonetheless for better integration of this
important dimension. The Bank’s fragile states
Table 2: Summary Assessment of CSPs for Inclusive and Transition
to Green Growth Content
QAE2 pre-TYS (n=29)
QEA2 post-TYS (n=16)
MS+ S+ MS+ S+
Inclusive Growth 55% 10% 69% 44%
Transition to Green Growth 55% 14% 100% 38%
Table 3: Summary Assessment of CSPs for Inclusive and Transition
to Green Growth Content: 2009/10, 2011, 2012 and 2013/4
QAE2 pre-TYS
QEA2 post-TYS
2009/10 (n=10) 2011 (n=9) 2012 (n=10) 13/14 (n=13)
MS+ S+ MS+ S+ MS+ S+ MS+ S+
Inclusive Growth 30% 0% 67% 0% 70% 30% 69% 46%
Transition to Green Growth 40% 10% 58% 28% 70% 30% 100% 23%
eVALUatiOn Matters

strategy was articulated in 2008 and focuses
on rebuilding community infrastructure and
services and enhancing economic opportunity,
including through micro finance. It is currently
being enhanced to develop a greater focus
on regional issues, and on understanding
the underlying causes of fragility including
capacity to deliver services and governance.
The QEA2 review rated only 45% of CSPs MS
or above in the way they addressed issues of
fragility.
• Agriculture and food security: The
ADB is moving away from supporting
agricultural productivity and land and
water management and towards value-chain
enhancement through PSD, rural roads and
irrigation to facilitate commercialization,
greater competiveness, and sustainable
intensification. These are key to agricultural
modernization. But to ensure inclusive
green growth ADB needs to partner with
other programs that address research,
technology, extension, improved land and
water management and agro-forestry,
and sustainable fuel-wood and charcoal
production. Without these elements,
which need to be reflected in CSPs, PSD
and rural infrastructure will be much less
effective. The Madagascar and Burundi CSPs
support more climate resilient agriculture,
and food security, and the Gambia CSP
supports agricultural productivity directly.
Agriculture is especially important to
inclusive green growth in most African
countries because of its contribution to GDP
and employment on the one hand, and its
dependence on natural resources (land and
water) on the other. The QEA2 review rated
68% of CSPs MS or above in the way they
addressed agriculture and food security,
since most CSPs stated that infrastructure
support would help increase agricultural
productivity and value chains. Moving
forward, it will be important to articulate
how they will do this and to monitor it in the
results framework. Agricultural productivity
is included as a level 1 Indicator in the “one
results Bank” framework.
• Gender: Most CSPs include a brief description
of progress and challenges in achieving gender
parity, in areas such as education, employment,
and legislation, and several also discuss maternal
and child health issues. A few CSPs also discuss
gender appropriate infrastructure and PSD.
A few also discuss youth unemployment,
important both because of its gender dimension
and because of the risks to social stability that
youth alienation brings. In general, this area of
inclusive growth is poorly addressed. The QEA2
review rated only 39% of CSPs MS or above
in the way they addressed gender. The gender
dimension (males as well as females) of inclusive
growth will need to get much more attention in
CSPs moving forward.
Conclusions and Summary
Assessment
The elements of inclusive green growth are
already articulated in a number of CSPs. QAE 2
included an informal grading of CSPs for their
inclusive green growth content. This grading does
not enter into the final CSP quality assessment,
since the LTS was approved only towards the end
of the period under review. But the objectives
of the 2008 strategy, which included growth,
environmental sustainability, and poverty
reduction are consistent with an inclusive green
growth lens. The tables below summarize the
results of the assessment. It should be emphasized
that these are not necessarily systematic, since
the content of the CSPs reviewed varies very
widely. But they do provide some illustrations of
strengths and weaknesses of the CSPs in inclusive
green growth content.
The tables illustrate that, over the period under
review, CSPs have made progress in articulating
strategies that incorporate the elements of
33
A quarterly knowledge publication from Independent Development Evaluation, African Development Bank Group

34
inclusive green growth. Specifically, while
46% of CSPs approved in 2009-10 are rated
Marginally Satisfactory or above for inclusive
growth content and 54% for green growth
content, the corresponding percentages for
CSPs approved in 2013-14 are 69% and 100%.
Kenya, Mauritius, Sierra Leone, Madagascar
and Cape Verde all score well on both elements,
but several others score highly also, including
Tunisia, Egypt, Liberia, Niger, Côte d'Ivoire,
Benin and Lesotho. Interestingly, several of
these have recently emerged from conflict,
suggesting that in these countries particular
attention may be paid to the challenges of
inclusion.
Overall, countries score somewhat higher
on transition to green growth than on
inclusive growth. This underlines some of
the observations made in the report. Firstly,
inclusive growth has been defined as including
a number of key elements, such as voice and
political inclusion, which have not traditionally
been an area of focus for the ADB. Partnering
with other organizations and strengthening
the knowledge base will be key in these areas.
Secondly, while the priority pillars of the LTS
contribute to growth, in order for them to
contribute to inclusive (as well as green) growth
there will need to be careful attention to pillar
and program design to include these elements.
Moving forward, the focus will need to be on
implementation, as well as strengthening core
diagnostics, in-country databases for decision
making, and partnerships with other organizations.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Rafika Amira is the AfDB task manager for the evaluation, "Strategizing for the “Africa We Want”: An
Independent Evaluation of the Quality at Entry of Country and Regional Integration Strategies. This
assessment was conducted by Centennial Group International, under the leadership of Anil Sood and
Ammon Golan and guided by Rafika Amira, with the support of Clement Banse, Evaluation Officer,
and Erika MacLaughlin, consultant.
eVALUatiOn Matters

35
Scaling up AfDB Country
Strategy Papers: Challenges
and Opportunities
Summary
This document presents a review of selected African Development Bank (AfDB) Country Strategy
Papers (CSPs) from a scaling up perspective. It assesses whether and to what extent the CSPs address
scaling up challenges and opportunities in supporting the development of African member countries.
It was prepared as a complement to the formal Independent Development Evaluation of the Quality at
Entry of Country and Regional Integration Strategies.
Following an introductory section, the next section reviews key conceptual issues in considering
scaling up and presents an analytical framework that is used for similar scaling up reviews for other
aid institutions (IFAD, GIZ, UNDP, World Bank, and others) and adapted here specifically to a review
of country assistance strategies.
The next section reviews a range of AfDB corporate documents, including strategies, guidelines and
evaluations to establish whether at the corporate level there exist any significant statements of corporate
policy or practice that would require or guide a scaling up approach in the preparation of CSPs. The
review concludes that AfDB corporate strategies, guidance and evaluation documents do not explicitly
and systematically focus on scaling up. Therefore one should not expect CSPs to do so.
The next section presents the approach used for reviewing and rating a selection of ten recent, broadly
representative CSPs and introduces and explains the set of core questions used in assessing the case
study CSPs. The questions address the following key elements of a scaling up process:
the definition of clearly identified lines of business; selectivity in the inclusion of business lines; an
effective linkage of past, current and future business lines, in support of a well-defined scaling up
vision and pathway that extend beyond the CSP period, and are linked systematically to sectoral
strategies of the country concerned; a well-thought-out exit from past business lines and a wellprepared
entry into new business line; careful consideration of drivers and spaces (enabling factors)
for scaling up, including effective partnership approaches; meaningful results frameworks and M&E
designed and implemented with a view to the scaling up agenda; assessment of the sustainability
of AfDB-supported interventions, and explicit consideration of regional integration.
The penultimate section presents the summary of findings from the ten case study CSPs, both in terms
of overall ratings and their distribution, and in terms of findings for specific questions, highlighting both
strong and weak performances across CSPs and across different dimension of the scaling up process.
A quarterly knowledge publication from Independent Development Evaluation, African Development Bank Group

36
The main findings of the report are as follows:
––
CSPs do contain elements, scattered across countries, which could serve as good
practice examples, if and when AfDB decides to make scaling up a significant part of
its development effectiveness agenda and country strategy design.
––
All of the ten CSPs have at least one element rated “4” (“acceptable”), with the Zambia
CSP the lone exception. Some countries have multiple ratings at that level and higher.
Ethiopia and Kenya overall are rated highest at “4”.
––
CSPs, transport is the best performer in terms reflecting elements of a scaling up approach,
while private sector development is the least successful area.
––
If all the current best practices were combined in a single CSP, the overall rating would
be close to “excellent” in terms of scaling up. This demonstrates that scaling is not “piein-the-sky”,
but could be relatively easily incorporated into AfDB approach to country
strategy formulation and implementation.
The final section summarizes the findings of the review and presents a set of recommendations:
1. AfDB should include scaling up development impact as an explicit and cross-cutting
dimension in its corporate vision, strategy and policy/guidance documents.
2. AfDB should include scaling up as a key dimension in the formulation, implementation,
monitoring and evaluation of its CSPs.
3. The questionnaire developed for this review could be used as a foundation for developing
guiding questions for AdDB staff, similar to the guiding questions developed by IFAD
and used extensively in its implementation of an operational scaling up approach.
4. AfDB may wish to reconsider the structure of its CSP document. The current balance
between general country analysis and documentation on the one hand (1/2 – 3/3 of the
20 page CSP document) and the strategic and programmatic section (1/3 – 1/2) should be
reversed to allow for a more in-depth presentation of scaling up pathways for the main
business lines. Much of the country analysis should be treated as background material
and relegated to a separate document or to an annex of the CSP.
5. As a basis for a more general introduction of the scaling up agenda into its operational
work, AfDB may wish to carry out an institutional scaling up review, similar to the one
completed by a Brookings team for IFAD (Linn et al. 2010). Alternatively, AfDB may
wish to commission a formal scaling up evaluation, such as recently carried out by GIZ
for all its operational activities. In this context, the recently completed review by ODI
for AfDB on scaling up in fragile states would serve as a useful starting point and input.
The review concludes that including scaling up in CSPs is not rocket science, but involves a
set of simple, common sense considerations, as is demonstrated by the fact that most of the
elements of a scaling up strategy can already be found scattered across current CSPs. The
main challenge for AfDB is to recognize the importance of scaling up for its development
effectiveness agenda and to assure systematic application of good scaling up practice in the
design and implementation of CSPs.
eVALUatiOn Matters

Introduction
In this report we review a sample of ten Country
Strategy Papers (CSPs) from the perspective of
whether they consider scaling opportunities
and challenges in the development programs
supported by the African Development Bank
(AfDB). This assessment is complementary to
the Evaluation of Quality at Entry of AfDB CSPs.
But it differs from a standard evaluation, which
would evaluate the quality of AfDB interventions
in relation to the standard criteria of relevance,
effectiveness, efficiency, etc., -- criteria which
are an accepted part of AfDB and many other
donor agencies’ corporate mandate and strategy.
As we document in Section C below, there is
no explicit reference to scaling up in AfDB
corporate strategy and guidance documents in
general and specifically for CSPs. Therefore our
assessment is not an evaluation in the technical
sense of the term, but a review which has to
take as a reference point scale objectives and
considerations that are outside the institutional
objectives of AfDB. 1
However, as we argue in the conclusion of
this report, AfDB should consider moving
towards an explicit recognition of the centrality
of scaling up to its overarching objective of
development effectiveness. Accordingly, in our
view, AfDB should consider how it can help
countries build systematically on successful
development interventions to achieve not only
limited, one-off impacts from individual projects
and programs, but instead to pursue pathways
towards well-identified long-term scale objectives
by supporting the replication and scaling up of
successful interventions in a systematic manner.
This report in Section B introduces a tested
framework for scaling up assessment and
planning. It then reviews in Section C whether
and how scaling up appears in AfDB corporate
1 On could, however, reasonably argue that a systematic focus on scaling
up is an essential part of development effectiveness and thus should be
at the core of the AFDB mission and a focus of evaluations irrespective of
whether it is an explicitly stated objective. See also footnote 7 below.
level strategies. In Section D we explain the
approach that we have used to review AfDB
CSPs from a scaling up perspective, including
an explanation of the list of questions and
ratings that we have used to assess the CSPs.
Section E summarizes the findings of our review.
The concluding Section F pulls together the
main results and presents recommendations.
Appendixes include summary charts of ratings,
the questionnaire, and the detailed write-ups of
the individual sample country reviews.
Scaling up: A Conceptual
Approach for Country
Strategies
In thinking about scaling up, a well-defined
conceptual framework helps in sorting through
key elements of the scaling up process. We draw
on the framework developed by Hartmann and
Linn (2008) in identifying the following eight
elements of a scaling up approach in country
assistance strategies: 2
Definition of scaling up
An agreed definition of scaling up is an important
starting point. Hartmann and Linn (2008) define
scaling up as “expanding, replicating, adapting
and sustaining successful policies, programs or
projects in geographic space and over time to
reach a greater number of people.” This general
definition can be adapted to suit the purpose and
goals of a specific institution, such as AfDB, e.g.,
by adding “in Africa” at the end of the standard
definition.
The innovation-learning-scaling up
process
Scaling up needs to be seen as part of a broader
process of innovation, learning and scaling
up. (Figure 1) A new idea, model or approach
is typically embodied in a pilot project with
2 This framework has been used by the author and others in connection
with scaling up reviews and evaluations for AusAID, IFAD, IFPRI, GIZ, JICA,
UNDP and USAID, and in a recent review of scaling up in fragile states
undertaken by ODI for AFDB.
37
A quarterly knowledge publication from Independent Development Evaluation, African Development Bank Group

38
limited impact. By learning from this experience
with monitoring and evaluation, organizationinternal
knowledge is created and organizationexternal
knowledge is disseminated. Internal and
external knowledge in turn can be used to scale
up the model through expansion, replication and
adaptation with multiple impacts. The experience
from scaling up feeds back into new ideas and
learning for subsequent stages of the scaling up
process. Outside knowledge can also feed into
scaling-up efforts, if an organization picks up
on the pilot experience and learning of another
organization.
Pathways for scaling up
Scaling up is best understood as proceeding
along a well-defined pathway. A “pathway”
is the sequence of steps that need to be taken
in the innovation-learning-scaling up cycle.
It starts with a successful innovation, pilot or
practice and requires as its endpoint a vision
of the ultimate scale judged to be appropriate
if the intervention is successful. In general
there are many possible pathways for scaling
up a successful intervention. Intermediate steps
(which may or may not involve traditional
“projects” to be designed and implemented)
will help ensure progress towards the ultimate
scale goal.
Drivers
A key consideration in determining a scaling
up pathway is the role of “drivers”. These are
the forces that push the scaling up process
forward. Hartmann and Linn (2008) identify
four common drivers:
• Ideas and models: There has to be an idea or
model that works at a small scale and attracts
attention and promises success at larger scale.
Ideas and models may emerge from research
or practice.
• Vision and leadership: A vision is needed
to recognize that scaling up of an idea is
necessary, desirable and feasible. Visionary
leaders or champions often drive the scaling
up process forward.
Figure 1: Innovation, Learning and Scaling Up Linkages
Internal
knowledge
New idea,
model
approach
Pilot Project
M&E Learning
& KM
Scale up
Outside
knowledge
Limited
Impact
Multiple
Impact
Innovation Learning Scaling Up
Source: Linn et al. (2000)
eVALUatiOn Matters

• External catalysts: Political and economic crises
or initiative from outside actors (donors, NGOs,
etc.) may drive the scaling up process forward.
scaled up intervention; and/or the costs of the
intervention need to be adapted to fit into the
available fiscal/financial space.
39
• Incentives and accountability: Incentives
are key to drive the behavior of actors and
institutions towards scaling-up. They include
rewards, competitions and pressure through
the political process, peer reviews and other
evaluations. Monitoring and evaluation
against goals, benchmarks and performance
metrics are essential ingredients to establish
incentives and accountability.
Spaces
Another important factor determining the design
and implementation of a scaling up pathway
is the role of “spaces”. These are the enabling
conditions, the opportunities that can be created,
or the potential obstacles that need to be removed,
to open up the space for interventions to grow.
Hartmann and Linn (2008) identify seven spaces
in their framework:
• Fiscal/financial space: Fiscal and financial
resources need to be mobilized to support the
• Policy space: The policy (and legal) framework
has to allow for, or be adapted to support,
scaling up.
• Institutional/organizational/staff capacity
space: The institutional and organizational
capacity has to be created to carry the
scaling-up process forward.
• Political space: Important stakeholders,
both those in support and those against the
intervention, need to be attended to through
outreach and suitable safeguards to ensure the
political support for a scaled up intervention.
• Partnership space: Partners need to be
mobilized to join in the effort of scaling up.
• Cultural space: Possible cultural obstacles or
support mechanisms need to be identified and
the intervention suitably adapted to permit
scaling up in a culturally diverse environment.
Figure 2: Key components of a systematic scaling up pathway
Designing a systematic scaling up pathway
Drivers (champions, incentives, market or community demand, etc.)
Spaces
(enabling factors)
Innovation
Fiscal and Financial
Institutional
Policy
Environment
Partnership
Etc.
Vision of Scaling
up impact
Monitor and Evaluate
Source: Author
A quarterly knowledge publication from Independent Development Evaluation, African Development Bank Group

40
• Natural resource/environmental space: The
impact of the intervention on natural resources
and the environment must be considered,
harmful effects mitigated, and beneficial
impacts promoted.
Learning through monitoring and
evaluation, knowledge sharing and training
Knowledge about what does and does not work
in scaling up needs to be harnessed through
monitoring and evaluation (M&E), knowledge
sharing and training. Effective M&E is a critical
component of an effective scaling up pathway.
Putting it all together: A systematic
approach to sustainable scaling up
Figure 2 summarizes graphically the key elements
of a scaling up pathway: the innovation, the vision
of scale, drivers, spaces and M&E.
Often scaling up pathways stretch over many years
and involve a sequence of multi-year projects (or
interventions) that may (or may not) be supported
by a donor. Figure 3 reflects this situation. A key
aspect of a successful pathway is that each project
builds systematically on the preceding project to
create a cumulative impact that eventually reaches
the long-term scale goal envisioned. A prerequisite
for long-term success is that each project creates
sustainable results (shown by the green arrows).
Without sustainability, each project’s impact will
be short-lived (shown by the red broken arrows)
and cumulative impact will ultimately return to
zero. 3
Reflecting scaling up in country assistance
strategies
Many donor agencies now prepare country
assistance strategies, such as the Bank’s country
strategy papers (CSPs). What would be a good
way to reflect the scaling up approach in such
strategies?
A good place to start is to define in which “lines
of business” an agency is involved in a particular
country. Lines of business will depend on the
agency concerned and they can be defined at greater
or lesser levels of specificity. In the case of the Bank,
it certainly would be helpful to go beyond the very
high level set of “pillars” commonly identified in
3 The scaling up impact need not follow a linear path was shown in Figure
3. In fact, the innovation diffusion literature shows that innovations
commonly scale up in an S-shaped pathway, with slow impact at first,
then accelerating and finally slowing down again as saturation is
approached.
Figure 3: Scaling-up with successive projects
Impact
scale target
Project 1 Project 2 Project 3
Time
Innovation Learning Scalling up
eVALUatiOn Matters

CSPs, usually “support for infrastructure” and
“support of institution/capacity building.” Under
“infrastructure”, for example, transport, energy,
water and sanitation would be common lines of
business for AfDB. Depending on the program
and country context, it might also be useful to
define lines of business at even greater levels of
disaggregation. For example, for transport, it is
usually helpful to distinguish support for railways,
roads (and even particular kinds of roads, such
as arterial highways, secondary roads, or rural
roads), air and waterways transport, and port
development. In the case of agriculture, specific
lines of business might involve support for different
kinds of crops and related value chains, or support
for rural infrastructure and rural credit. In the case
of institution and capacity building, business lines
might represent support for the strengthening of
specific institutions (e.g., the transport ministry)
or of specific institutional functions (e.g., tax
administration).
A typical country strategy would then cover
the engagement by the donor agency in various
lines of business, for a particular period of time,
in the case of CSPs usually for five years. From
the point of view of scaling up, a number of key
questions need to be asked in developing and
assessing a country program or strategy, with
reference to Figure 4:
• Has the donor agency defined a clear scaling
up pathway for each line of business in which
it is engaged?
• Is there for each line of business a
well-defined long-term scale goal with
intermediate targets, and are these goals and
targets reflected in the results measurement
framework?
• Have the drivers and spaces for the pathway
been identified?
• Has effective M&E been put in place and have the
lessons of past experience in each line of business
been reflected in the program going forward?
• For ongoing lines of business, will the activity
end during the program period (e.g., BL1)
and what is being done to ensure that it is
sustained and where appropriate scaled up
by others beyond the donor’s engagement (as
reflected in the dotted extension of the line)?
41
Figure 4: Lines of Business in a Country Program
BL1
Business lines (BL)
BL2
BL3
BL4
BL5
Country program (years t to t+5)
Years
A quarterly knowledge publication from Independent Development Evaluation, African Development Bank Group

42
• For lines of business that are to start up during
the program period (e.g., BL5) does the new
line of activity build on prior experience by
others or on preparatory analytical work that
has adequately tested the appropriateness of
the intervention (as reflected in the dotted
portion of the line).
These questions can be addressed at different levels
of specificity and detail, depending on how far the
CSP is to determine the design and implementation
of scaling up pathways for particular lines of
business. However, at a minimum there should
be clearly defined set of business lines established
in a CSP and for each the core questions addressed
at least in general terms.
Scaling up in AfDB
Corporate Strategy,
Operational Performance
Reviews and Evaluations
Before we review whether and how scaling up
is addressed in AfDB CSPs, it is important to
consider whether and how scaling up is considered
by AfDB at a corporate level. If there is little or
no recognition of the importance of scaling up
as a corporate goal, and corporate monitoring
and evaluation processes do not track scaling up
performance, then it would come as little surprise
if scaling up receives scant attention at the level
of CSPs. However, if scaling up is an explicit
corporate objective and proactively tracked, then
a lack of effective treatment in CSPs would have to
be explained by shortcomings in the management
of the CSP process at the corporate or individual
country team level.
• CSP guidelines: Staff Guidance on Qualityat-Entry
Criteria and Standards for Country
Strategies and Regional Integration Strategies
(2010); the CSP Concept Note (2008); and the
CSP Annotated Format (2008);
• Institutional performance reviews: Annual
Development Effectiveness Review 2013
(ADER 2013);
• Evaluation documents of AfDB Operations
Evaluation Department: Guidelines for
Country Assistance Evaluation (no date);
Quality at Entry Review (2010); and Evaluation
of the Assistance of the African Development
Bank to Fragile States (2012).
Statements of corporate strategy
Corporate strategies set the broad framework
for country assistance strategies. 4 The objectives
and approaches that the corporate strategies
lay out therefore are (meant to be) guides to
what the institution does at the country level.
Managerial and staff performance, presumably,
is then evaluated according to the expectations
set in the corporate strategy document(s). The
question we address here is to what extent AfDB
recent key corporate strategy documents have
embodied the principle of scaling up in an explicit
and systematic manner.
Strategy for 2013-2022:
A number of features of this corporate strategy
statement reflect a concern with scale of impact:
First, the concept of scale is implicit in the
assessment of African continent’s development
needs and in the goals for AfDB to address these
needs, including:
In order to assess the corporate approach to
scaling up in AfDB, we consider four sets of
corporate level documents relevant to CSPs:
• The requirement of a deep reduction in poverty
and large increases in jobs;
• Statements of strategy: the Strategy for
2012-2022; and the Medium-Term Strategy
2008-2012;
4 “The CSPs provide the means for translating corporate objectives into
assistance programs tailored to the specific needs of client countries.”
(AFDB, Staff Guidance on Quality-at-Entry Criteria and Standards for
Country Strategies and Regional Integration Strategies, 2010, p. 4).
eVALUatiOn Matters

• The need to substantially raise agricultural
productivity and production;
any reference to scale of need or goal (e.g., pp.
14, 19);
43
• The prevalence of large infrastructure gaps;
• The existence of significant skills gaps and
employment needs; and
• The need to open up regional markets.
Second, the strategy presents the Bank as a
“catalyst” and “knowledge broker” and talks about
leveraging Bank resources through partnerships,
cofinancing, and policy and advisory work.
Finally, there are some calls for cooperative and
programmatic approaches, which imply a scale
of impact potentially beyond the confines of the
Bank’s own limited project intervention. For
example:
“[The Bank] will play an increased role in
preparing projects, identifying partners with the
right capacity and expertise and bringing them
together to provide comprehensive solutions
to development challenges as a powerful
complement to its own instruments. And it will
increasingly view those investments as levers
for mobilizing capital from a range of partners
– new and traditional, public and private.” (p.
27/28)
“And by coordinating sovereign and non-sovereign
interventions in public-private partnerships, the
Bank could catalyze major national and regional
infrastructure investments.” (p. 29)
• The term “scaling up” appears a number of
times in the text, but is generally presented in
terms of scaling up inputs (especially increasing
financial resources), rather than in terms of
impact; (e.g., pp. 14, 17, 18, 21, 26)
• There is no focus on how to help countries
scale up their own successful interventions
through appropriate support for planning and
implementation;
• In the discussion of M&E and impact evaluation
there is no indication that the reason for M&E
is to provide a basis for effective replication,
adaptation and scaling up of successful
interventions; (p. 30)
• And in the discussion the development of Bank
culture, there is reference to “encouraging
initiative and innovation”, but not to “scaling
up”. (p. 29)
In sum, while the Strategy 2013-2022
contains important hints that AfDB is aware
of the need to seek impact at scale, there is
no explicit recognition of this as part of the
strategic orientation of the institution nor is it
reflected in the way the document envisages the
implementation of the strategy. There certainly
are no indications that country strategies are
expected to lay out scaling up pathways for the
key business lines of AfB’s engagement in it
member countries.
However, there is no explicit recognition in the
strategy of the need for a systematic approach
to scaling up in project and program design,
implementation, and monitoring and evaluation
(M&E). Some specific limitations may also be
noted:
• The Bank’s past achievements are cast in
terms of absolute levels of impact, without
Medium-Term Strategy 2008-2012:
Like its successor strategy for 2013-2022, the
Medium-Term Strategy 2008-2012 has some
elements that are potentially linked to a scaling
up approach, including:
• A focus on results, selectivity, delivery and
alignment with national strategies; (pp. 9, 12,
18, 23)
A quarterly knowledge publication from Independent Development Evaluation, African Development Bank Group

44
• A catalytic role for and leveraging by AfDB
(pp. 15, 18, 20, 41), developing synergies
across public and private sectors (p. 18),
and support for scaling up private sector
transactions (p. 19);
• Regional integration for bigger markets (pp.
18, 20);
• Stress on partnerships (p. 18);
There are two specific references to scaling up
of programs:
“The RWSSI will provide the vehicle for scaling
up rural water and sanitation delivery during
the MTS period. The Bank will strengthen
partnerships to improve, water, sanitation and
hygiene delivery and water security in RMCs;
it will support RMCs to mainstream Integrated
Water Resources Management in sector
programmes and step up support to strengthen
sector monitoring and evaluation in RMCs.”
(p. 19)
“AU/NEPAD Infrastructure Medium to Long
Term Strategic Framework (PIDA, formerly
MLTSF) will promote a coordinated and
prioritized approach to scale-up infrastructure
development (ONRI/OPSM).” (Annex 4, p. 41)
Finally, the strategy stresses explicitly a critical
element of scaling up – learning from one
program to the next is presented as one of five
key reform areas:
“Enhancing learning and accountability through
evaluation by ensuring timely preparation of
results-oriented completion reports, and stronger
feedback loops from lessons learned to new
operations and strategies.” (p. 23)
However, like the Strategy 2013-2022, the
Medium-Term Strategy 2008-12 does not
explicitly present a systematic operational
approach to scaling up. It therefore provided
at best only very limited strategic guidance for a
scaling up approach in the preparation of CSPs.
CSP Guidance Documents
Based on corporate strategies, institutional
policy and guidance documents provide more
specific direction to managers and staff how to
pursue objectives and implement approaches
mandated at the corporate level. Here we
explore whether and to what extent AfDB
recent CSP guidance documents have provided
directions for scaling up to managers and staff
preparing CSPs.
Staff Guidance on Quality-at-Entry Criteria and
Standards for Country Strategies and Regional
Integration Strategies (2010):
This document mentions “scaling up” explicitly
among a set of seven criteria “to ensure strategic
selectivity of Bank assistance and areas of
support”:
“(vii) Other criteria, such as contributions to
regional integration, generation of synergies
or maintaining continuity in a sub-sector
previously supported by the Bank, scaling-up of
an innovative pilot initiative, ESW, etc.” (p. 11)
Perhaps the most explicit statement of a desired
focus on scale through complementarities and
synergies is found in the following paragraph of
the guidance document (although it appears to
focus mostly on contemporaneous programmatic
synergies, rather than the possibility of building
systematically on complementarities and
synergies also in an inter-temporal, sequential
manner (as suggested in the preceding quote):
“Complementarities and synergies: It is not
sufficient to simply state that a proposed new
operation complements another Bank or
DP-funded project. Instead, the strategy should
explain why this is so. For example, a proposed
new Bank road project might be complementary
to another road project financed by the European
Commission (EC) in that the former might close
eVALUatiOn Matters

an existing gap of a part of latter. In addition,
the new Bank road project might also create
synergies with another ongoing Bank agriculture
project in the same project area that might aim at
rehabilitating rural feeder roads.” (p. 13)
However, despite these laudable, but passing
references to scaling up and complementarities,
this concern is clearly not a central one. There is
also no explanation of what is meant by scaling up
(the term is not listed in the Glossary in Appendix
4) nor any guidance on how scaling up is to be
treated in CSPs.
The guidance document also deals with a
number of aspects that are potentially relevant
to scaling up, such as the need to align with
country priorities, aim for selectivity, support
donor coordination, engage in stakeholder
consultations, analyze government capacity
and learn lessons and carry out M&E. However,
as in the strategies reviewed above, these
issues are considered strictly in relationship
to the specific project interventions and for
the time horizon of the CSP, not as part of a
longer-term strategic scaling up pathway where
these aspects are considered in terms of their
impact on creating the enabling conditions for
successful scaling up.
CSP Concept Note (2008):
This note is an annotated outline for CSPs. It
conveys no indication that scaling up is a concern
to be systematically addressed, beyond the very
vague requirement that expected contributions
to the country’s development goals and lessons
from previous CSPs are to be presented.
CSP Annotated Format (2008):
This note is a more detailed annotated outline
for CSPs, using Mozambique as an example.
As for the preceding note, it shows no explicit
recognition of a scaling up agenda. The results
framework is cast purely in terms of the CSP time
horizon and most output and outcome indicators
are cast in absolute terms, rather than as progress
indicators towards some specified longer-term
(scale) objective.
Institutional Performance Reviews
Most multilateral development organizations
now prepare annual management reviews
of the institutional performance, usually
employing a results management framework
(RMF), which tries to assess institutional
performance at multiple levels. These reviews
(and the RMFs on which they are based) are
potentially important corporate accountability
and learning instruments. Whether or not these
annual reviews explicitly consider scaling up
as a dimension of corporate performance to be
tracked is likely to have an important feedback
into the way management and staff manage
operations, including the preparation of CSPs.
Annual Development Effectiveness Review 2013
(ADER 2013):
AfDB management prepares annual Development
Effectiveness Reviews. The 2013 edition focused
on “sustainable growth for Africa”. The report
in essence endeavors to present a very detailed,
highly quantitative scorecard of Africa’s progress
and AfDB contribution to it.
In line with Strategy 2013-2022, the ADER
2013 talks in broad terms about “achiev[ing]
development pathways that are sustainable in
economic, social and environmental terms” (pp.
5, 8, 36), “bring[ing] about transformational
change” (p. 7), and “mobilizing additional
financial resources, … build[ing] partnerships
with new development actors, and … us[ing]
our own resources more efficiently by leveraging
private investments.” (p. 8).
However, the ADER 2013 does not translate
this broad concern about pathways, scale
and leveraging into a systematic scaling up
perspective. First, all performance indicators
for AfDB program results (Level 2) in Table 2
of the ADER are presented strictly in terms of
absolute numbers (kilometers of roads, numbers
45
A quarterly knowledge publication from Independent Development Evaluation, African Development Bank Group

46
of students, hectares of land, etc.), rather than as
relative measures of progress towards some welldefined
scale goal, one that presumably would be
related to the Africa-wide indicators in Table 1
of the ADER.
Second, in reporting on AfDB institutional
performance (Level 3) in Table 3 of the ADER
there is no indicator for whether and how
effectively AfDB supports scaling up. 5
Third, in reporting on AfDB projects and
programs, it is not clear whether any of them
are part of a well-defined longer-term sectoral
strategy and what contribution they make to
achieving such a strategy. The potential for a
systematic longer-term scaling up perspective
is well represented in the regional transport
corridor concept outlined in the ADER 2013 (p.
29f). Development of effective regional transport
corridors is clearly a long-term development
objective for Africa, and AfDB support could
represent an effective contribution to creating
such corridors. However, the ADER 2013 gives no
indication whether there are longer-term corridor
development, investment and financing plans
and what specific contribution AfDB support in
making to realize these plans. 6
development in 2013. However, regrettably there
is no indication that this will involve a more
effective focus on scaling up.
Corporate Evaluations
Like management’s institutional performance
reviews, the ex post evaluations carried out by
(more or less) independent evaluation offices
have an accountability and learning role, and
what gets evaluated has potentially important
incentive implications for staff and management.
We therefore review selected recent corporate
evaluation documents to see whether or not they
address the scaling up dimension. 7
Guidelines for Country Assistance Evaluation: 8
These guidelines present country assistance
evaluations (CAEs) as a way to “scale up”
evaluations from the project level to the country
program level. 9 CAEs are of direct relevance to
the question of the quality of CPSs, since CAEs
are designed in part to evaluate the design and
implementation of country assistance strategies.
It is therefore of interest whether or not the CAE
guidelines address the question of whether and
how country assistance programs have considered
the challenges and opportunities of scaling up
development impact.
Finally, while recognizing the importance
of generating and sharing knowledge and
disseminating the development results
of completed projects, there is no explicit
recognition of the need to systematically use
this information for building on the experience
of completed programs for replicating and scaling
up successful interventions. (p. 6)
In its concluding section the report notes that
a new results management framework is under
5 IFAD’s results management framework reports on scaling up performance
since 2011.
6 A good example for a well-defined regional transport corridor approach
and monitoring is found in Central Asia in the program developed by
the Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation Forum (CAREC), with
support of the Asian Development Bank and World Bank (among others).
(See Johannes Linn, “Central Asian Regional Cooperation and Integration:
Reality or Mirage?” http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/10/
regional-integration-cooperation-linn)
The short answer is that the guidelines do not
consider the question of scaling up development
impact in country programs. They apply the
standard set of evaluation criteria: relevance,
efficacy, efficiency and institutional development
impact. One might argue that, implicitly, the
question: “Did the instruments of intervention
7 To the extent ex post evaluations should only measure outcomes and
performance against the institutional objectives, one might argue
that where corporate strategies do not specify scaling up as one of
the institutional objectives, evaluations should not assess scaling up
performance. A counter argument is that evaluations presumably are
designed to assess development effectiveness; and since a key aspect of
development effectiveness is whether or not the institution has asked
whether its interventions worked and is systematically building on these
lessons by supporting the scaling up of what work, evaluations should
assess the institution’s performance in regard to scaling up even where
this is not an explicit element of the corporate strategy.
8 Although issued by the AFDB’s Operations Evaluations Department as an
official document, these guidelines do not carry a date of issuance.
9 This reference to scaling up is potentially confusing. It clearly is not
directly related to the concept of scaling up development impact as used
here.
eVALUatiOn Matters

(lending and non-lending) achieve their desired
objectives?” would allow the CAE to evaluate
against an objective that includes scaling up. But
this is nowhere hinted at and so can be presumed
not to be the intention.
Quality at Entry Review (2010): 10
The Quality at Entry Review applied eleven
criteria for the assessment of quality at
entry of CSPs: Relevance; Selectivity;
Effectiveness; Risk Assessment; Partnership
and Harmonization; Efficiency; Managing for
Results; Crosscutting Issues; Fragile States;
Impact and Sustainability; and Lessons from
Experience. None of them focus specifically
on the scaling up dimension, even though
various of the criteria and some of the specific
questions asked in rating CSP performance
would clearly be relevant to a scaling up
approach, including such questions as: 11
“Assess the extent to which strategic outcomes are
likely to be achieved, whether the strategy builds
on the progress made in the previous period
and whether the determinants of performance
in achieving the objectives have been identified.
Examine the Arrangements that will support the
overall programme in achieving the objectives
set out in the country strategy, including choice
of aid instruments, set-up within the policy and
institutional context, partnership and country
dialogue.”
“Considering focus, realism and alignment of
strategic goals, is the strategy likely to make a
significant contribution to overall development
goals within the country context?”
“Does the strategy reflect considerations about
impact and sustainability of Bank support? Does
it include mechanisms to sustain the results of
10 “Independent Assessment of the Quality at Entry of ADF 2005-2008
Operations and Strategies: Final Summary Report”, April 2010; and
“Independent Review of Quality at Entry 2005-2008: Final Technical
Report.” July 2009.
11 All questions cited here are from the CSP Review Template in the Final
Technical Report (pp. 188-190).
the Bank’s support, in particular where the Bank
plans to exit from sectors and programs as part
of their focusing strategy?”
“Assess whether the strategy builds on its
previous experiences and supports a learning
approach to strengthen performance within
the country?“
“To what extent does this strategy use analysis
undertaken during the previous period?”
While these questions, if seen as part of an
explicit scaling up agenda, could provide useful
insights into the effectiveness of CSPs for scaling
up, the report does not provide any indication
that this potential has been utilized, since it pays
no attention to the scaling up aspects.
Evaluation of the Assistance of the African
Development Bank to Fragile States (2012):
This evaluation of AfDB engagement in fragile
states uses a set of evaluation questions grouped
under the standard evaluation criteria that do
not explicitly include a reference to scaling
up: relevance, efficiency, organizational
effectiveness, quality, and results. However,
under the criterion “quality” a number of
factors are being considered that are of direct
relevance to the scaling up challenge: “use of
knowledge, analysis and learning; flexibility and
responsiveness of programming; sequencing and
selection; use of partnerships; monitoring and
evaluation; and acceptance and management of
risks.” (p. 10/11)
A number of important conclusions emerge,
which are cited at some length below:
• Under knowledge, analysis and learning:
“The overall conclusion is that the Bank has
not engaged systematically in conducting
in-depth analysis of political economy, fragility
and conflict, drivers of change, or equity
concerns, nor has it made evident use of such
47
A quarterly knowledge publication from Independent Development Evaluation, African Development Bank Group

48
analysis undertaken by others to inform its
programming decisions.” (p. 11)
• Under sequencing and selection of
programming: “The FSS [Fragile States Strategy]
sought a coordinated and comprehensive
reform agenda in fragile states, sequenced in
relation to key priorities, with a clear division
of labor among donors. Current guidance
reaffirms the importance of prioritization and
sequencing based on a clear set of anticipated
priorities, informed by contextual analysis and
a clear rationale for choices. The evaluation
finds generally poor progress in prioritization
and sequencing of activities – by fragile states
themselves, their donors collectively, and the
Bank in its contributions.” (p.12)
• Under working in partnerships: “The 2008
Strategy emphasizes the Bank’s commitments
to work in close collaboration with other
partners on comprehensive reform agendas,
with joint strategies and programs, harmonized
approaches, a division of labor and shared
instruments. Given the scale of needs and
the limits on any one partner’s potential
contributions, active partnering is crucial.”
(p.12) The evaluation concludes that donor
coordination in fragile state is a “recent
phenomenon” and that AfDB partnership
efforts have generally been limited.
• Under monitoring and evaluation: While
the FSS places special emphasis on M&E in
fragile states, including of progress in peaceand
state-building, the evaluation concludes
that it “finds little evidence of monitoring or
evaluation results having influenced AfDB
programming or operations in fragile states.
Consultations around Country Strategy Papers
do not appear to generate useful lessons about
the particular challenges of operating in these
countries. Lessons learned are mainly about
implementation and are not always shared with
counterparts and/or followed up by the AfDB
and national authorities. There are few examples
of systematic feedback and learning from the
AfDB experience from fragile countries up to the
regional and headquarters levels, although the
need to build learning processes into the country
strategy preparation process is recognized in
principle. Instead, feedback loops depend largely
on the interest of individual staff members and
their own informal networks. More integrated
or lateral approaches and linkages to strategy
and programming are underdeveloped, and
there is no evidence of monitoring taking place
on the basis of the result framework of the FSS.
There is little or no use of available data on the
external environment as it relates to ongoing
state building and peace building situations.”
(p. 13)
The conclusion that emerges from these citations
is that the FSS and the evaluation are concerned
about a longer-term development perspective,
with explicit consideration of priority setting
and sequencing over time, with a recognition
that scale and sustainability of impact are
possible only with effective partnerships, based
on a sound understanding of the conditions
of fragility, and feedback from careful and
broad-gauged monitoring that informs the
formulation of programs over time. Although
the term “scaling up” does not explicitly appear
and greater attention might have been paid
to the development of scaling up pathways
in particular country and sectoral contexts,
the underlying logic pays attention to key
elements of a scaling up approach. However, the
evaluation also concludes that generally AfDB
has not effectively implemented key elements of
the FSS that could be interpreted as reflecting
scaling up concerns: analysis of key contextual
conditions, prioritizing and sequencing,
partnership development, and M&E.
Summary of Findings for the Corporate
Approach to Scaling Up
The in-depth review of nine corporate level
documents allows the following conclusions
about AfDB approach to scaling up:
eVALUatiOn Matters

• While broadly concerned with achieving
improved development outcomes for Africa,
corporate strategy documents do not set impact at
scale as an explicit objective for AfDB operational
engagement and do not contain any guidance on
scaling up approaches that might be adopted in
the preparation and implementation of country
assistance programs (and hence CSPs).
• CSP guidance documents mention the
possibility of scaling up of pilots and the
need to learn from prior operations for future
operations in the formulation of CSPs, but
these are only marginal considerations, which
do not reflect an explicit and systematic
approach to scaling up in the formulation
of CSPs.
• Corporate-level results management and
reporting, as reflected in the ADER, are not
designed to monitor the scale of impact of
AfDB activities in relationship to a longer-term
set of developmental goals and do not consider
the effectiveness of AfDB operations in terms
of their support for scaling up.
• Evaluation guidance and practice in AfDB
does not explicitly consider scaling up as one
of the aspects of operational engagement to
be subjected to evaluation. The only (partial)
exception is the evaluation of AfDB activities
in fragile states, which considered some key
aspects relevant to scaling up in a manner that
allows the (unsurprising) conclusion that AfDB
has not pursued an effectively sequenced and
prioritized, partnership driven, and knowledge
and learning based operational engagement in
fragile states, which would be key elements of
an effective scaling up approach. 12
The approach of the scaling up review of AfDB CSPs
Let us now assess how scaling up is treated in CSPs.
We reviewed ten CSPs on a widely representative
basis: by geographic location and per capita income
level, by fragile and non-fragile status, by country
and program size, and by AfDB lending status
(Bank v. Fund). (Table 1) The results reported in
Section E below show a broad range of experience
that provides ample basis for an assessment of
issues and options for consideration, should AfDB
want to integrate scaling up more systematically
into its operational approach.
For each country, we considered a range of
documents, as listed in Table 2.
12 The Fragile States Unit in AFDB is currently exploring the formulation
of an explicit scaling up approach as part of the development of a new
Fragile States Strategy, based on a report prepared by ODI on AFDB’s
experience with scaling up in fragile states. (ODI 2014)
49
Table 1: TYS Strategic Objectives
Country Region GDP/capita (US$
current 2012) A
Fragile/
Non-Fr. B
Population
(millions -2012) C
Portfolio
(UA millions) D
Bank/Fund
Cameroon Center 1166.91 Non-Fragile 21.700 463.00 Fund
DR Congo Center 261.84 Fragile 65.705 472.61 Fund
Ethiopia East 454.80 Non-Fragile 91.729 633.93 Fund
Kenya East 942.54 Non-Fragile 43.178 1488.50 Fund
Nigeria West 2722.30 Non-Fragile 168.834 1445.65 Bank
Sierra Leone West 634.92 Fragile 5.979 116.10 Fund
South Africa South 7351.76 Non-Fragile 52.275 3230.00 Bank
Tunisia North 4236.79 Non-Fragile 10.778 2274.00 Bank
Uganda East 551.16 Non-Fragile 36.346 556.21 Fund
Zambia South 1462.89 Non-Fragile 14.075 141.34 Fund
A
B
C
D
World Bank Data
African Development Bank Classification
World Bank Data
Active portfolio at time of CS
A quarterly knowledge publication from Independent Development Evaluation, African Development Bank Group

50
For each of the countries we reviewed the
relevant documents, with principal emphasis
on the most recent CSP. For each CSP we
addressed a standard set of questions relating to
the scaling up framework described in Section
B above and provided ratings as summarized
in Appendix Table 1. In addition, we rated the
scaling up dimension of the CSP for specific
lines of business as summarized in Appendix
Table 2. These latter ratings are however
only indicative, since the amount of relevant
information provided in the CSPs regarding
specific business lines tends to be very limited
and generally does not allow a definitive
judgment on the scaling up dimensions for
each line of business.
The ratings assess the degree to which key scaling
up aspects are reflected in the CSP. They assess
the scaling up content of the CSP on a six-point
scale where:
6=best practice; 5=excellent; 4=acceptable;
3=limited; 2=very limited; 1=none.
Two caveats are important when considering the
ratings: first, they do not reflect performance
on the ground, but merely the extent to which
scaling up aspects are reflected in the CSP;
second, they are not directly comparable
with the ratings in the main CSP evaluation
document, since they do not refer to quality
against standard criteria of CSP performance,
but refer to criteria of scaling up, which have
not been part of the AfDB corporate strategy
and CSP guidelines (see Part C above). So,
for example, the rating for ESW does not rate
the extent to which ESW is relevant for and
supportive of the implementation of the CSP
strategy in general, but the extent to which it
supports a scaling up potential orientation of
the strategy.
Appendix 3 contains the complete list of
questions regarding the scaling dimensions
of CSPs. They consist of nine general or main
questions, supported in some cases by more
detailed sub-questions. In the remainder of
this section we briefly summarize the general
purpose and rationale for each of the nine main
questions.
Question 1. Are there indications that a longerterm
perspective of scaling up is among the
considerations underpinning and reflected in
the CSP?
Table 2: TYS Strategic Objectives
Country CSP OPSCOM
Minutes
Prior CSP
Completion
Report
CSP Review CAE Readiness
and CPP R Review
Mid-term
Review
Cameroon √ √ √ √ √
DR Congo √ √ Peer Review, Prior CSP MTR
Ethiopia √ √ √ √ Peer Review
Kenya √ √ CSP CN RR, Country Strategy
Evaluation, Prior CSP MTR
Nigeria √ √ √ CSP CN RR Long-Term Strategy
Consultation Meeting
Sierra Leone √ √ √ √ CSP/CSP CN Peer Review,
Evaluation of Policy Based
Operation in the AfDB 1999-
2009 Country Case Study
South Africa √ √ √ CSP Peer Review, Prior CSP MTR
Tunisia √ √ √ √
Uganda √ √ √ √ Uganda Joint WB/AfDB
Country Assistance Evaluation
2001-2007
Zambia √ √ √ √ Joint CAS Review
Other
eVALUatiOn Matters

This question (and its sub-questions) aims to
establish whether the CSP reflects an awareness
of the challenge of scale in the country’s
development prospects and of the opportunities
for scaling up in the country program. Since
scaling up requires a longer-term perspective,
the question also explores whether the CSP has
a perspective in terms of desired impacts and
outcomes that goes beyond the time frame of the
CSP. And since effective scaling up needs to build
systematically on the outcomes and lessons from
any past engagement this also establishes whether
the CSP provides insights on any links between
past AfDB engagement and the current program.
Question 2. Are there clear “lines of business”
for AfDB engagement (past, present and
future)?
Through this question, we aim to establish
whether the CSP presents a clearly indentified
set of business lines, both ongoing and newly
to be initiated. As was explained in Section B
above, unless business lines are well identified it
is not possible to tell whether there are effective
scaling up pathways, linking past engagement
and experience with the entire program under
implementation during the current CSP period
and extending, albeit tentatively, into the future
beyond that period is support of the ultimate
scale goal(s) in each business line.
b. Whether for each line of business there is
an effective linkage between past, current
and future activities in each line of business;
experience shows that continuity and
learning are critical success factors in scaling
up.
c. Whether the CSP indicates that effective
exit strategies have been developed for
those business lines in which AfDB is
terminating its engagement, so as to assure
sustainability of the outcomes created by the
past engagement and, where appropriate, and
effective handing off of the line of business
to others (government, donors, etc.) for
continued scaling up.
d. Whether, for new lines of business to be
initiated during the CSP period, the new
initiative has been adequately justified in
terms of why they are selected and how the
engagement will be sequenced in future.
e. Whether there is any reference to sector
strategies for each of line of business, and
if so, whether the CSP gives a sense that the
sector strategies serve as effective scaling up
instruments; experience shows that sector
(or sub-sector) strategies are a very helpful,
and indeed often essential, instrument for
planning scaling up pathways.
51
Question 3: To the extent there are discernible
lines of business, how have key scaling up
dimensions been addressed?
f. Whether the CSP provides any indication of
“drivers” and “spaces” that would be helpful
for scaling up in each line of business.
This is the core question regarding scaling up
with a number of sub-questions that address the
following key aspects of scaling up:
a. Whether selectivity in regard to business
lines has been applied in the design of the
program; experience shows that if too many
business lines are pursued, it is difficult to
be systematic and effective in supporting
scaling up.
Question 4. How effectively does the CSP address
the partnership agenda (including cofinancing)
Experience shows that successful scaling up
invariably requires effective partnership among
multiple actors. These can be the country’s
national or subnational government agencies, as
well as civil society or business entities, and they
may involve external partners, including official
donors, NGOs or foundations, and business. The
A quarterly knowledge publication from Independent Development Evaluation, African Development Bank Group

52
question explores to what extent the CSP focuses
on partnerships with these multiple actors.
Question 5. How supportive is Economic and
Sector Work (ESW) for a scaling up agenda in
specific business lines?
Effective scaling up requires analytical
preparation in exploring key aspects of the
scaling up pathway in each business line. Ideally
this would involve analysis of scaling up drivers
and spaces in a comprehensive manner, such
as would be expected from a careful sector or
sub-sector review or the preparation of a sector
(sub-sector) strategy. But analytical work can
also address bottlenecks or opportunities relating
to a specific business line that will facilitate the
development and implementation of a specific
business line. Sub-questions explore whether
ESW is linked at all to specific business lines
and whether it support a scaling up perspective.
Question 6. Does the CSP assess the quality of
monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and is M&E
presented as supportive of a scaling agenda?
As noted in Section B above, effective scaling
up requires systematic learning during
implementation along the pathway, which
in turn requires M&E that focuses not only
whether an intervention has the expected
outcomes, but also on what are the key factors
bringing about or preventing the outcomes,
in particular the relevant drivers and spaces
identified as determining the scaling up
pathway. The question therefore explores
whether CSPs refer to M&E, its quality and
any plans to improve it, and whether M&E only
measures outcomes or also focus on drivers
and spaces for scaling up.
Question 7: Does the results framework reflect any
aspects of a longer-term scaling up perspective?
AfDB CSPs always contain an annex with a
matrix that lays out the results framework linking
interventions with mid-term and end-of-CSP
outputs and outcomes, and with high-level
development outcomes. This question explores
whether the results matrix contains quantitative
metrics (measurement indicators) that define
the expected outcomes in relation to an initial
baseline, and in relation to a longer-term scale
objective, usually beyond the end of the CSP
period.
Question 8. Is the sustainability issue addressed?
Evaluations of donor-supported interventions
generally find that sustainability is a particularly
weak area of project performance. As indicated
in Section B above, there is a close relationship
between scaling up and sustainability. Without
sustainability of interventions, scaling up makes
little sense, since the scaled up outcome will
not be sustainable either, unless the underlying
issues of sustainability are addressed. Moreover,
the same drivers and spaces that support or
constrain sustainability (drivers and spaces)
will also generally be relevant for scaling
up. Therefore, if a CSP seriously addresses
sustainability issues (e.g., policy, financial
and institutional factors) then this provides a
promising platform for consideration of scaling
up. Where sustainability issues are neglected, a
key element of a potential scaling up approach
is missing.
Question 9. Is there a clear and strong regional
focus?
For small countries, and especially for countries
that are land-locked, the small size of their
domestic market presents major constraints
to development, unless borders are open to
trade, and transport, transit and logistics
infrastructure allows for unimpeded flows of
goods, services, finance and people. Moreover,
many development challenges involve the
management of regional public goods (and
bads) or region-wide natural assets, such as
river basin management or seed banking,
eVALUatiOn Matters

egional environmental assets and damages
(e.g., biodiversity), and risks of natural disasters
with region-wide impacts or requiring regionwide
responses. At corporate level AfDB
has recognized regional integration as a key
challenge that it needs to address, both through
regional integration strategy papers (RISPs)
and in the context of specific CSPs (see Section
C above). A focus on regional integration is
therefore a key element of a CSP that is oriented
towards support of scaling up. This question
explores to what extent such a focus is clearly
and strongly embedded in the CSP.
Findings of the scaling up review of AfDB
CSPs
For each of the ten countries we reviewed the
CSPs and supporting documents, described how
they addressed the scaling up issues and rated
the CSPs, in line with our scaling up framework
presented in Section B and responding to the
nine questions in Section D above. The Appendix
to this report provides the detailed assessment
for each country. This section summarizes the
findings of the review.
Overall perspective
Considering that we concluded in Section C
that at the corporate level AfDB has no strategic
orientation towards scaling up and that CSP
guidance documents do not require a systematic
consideration of and approach to scaling up in
country strategies one would not expect CSPs
to reflect a clear and well-articulated approach
to scaling up.
This expectation is broadly confirmed by the
ratings in Appendix 1, which presents the
scaling up ratings by country and question.
Overall, the average rating across countries
for overall scaling up performance is 2.9, i.e., a
shade below “limited” consideration of scaling
up.
up with an overall rating 13 of 4 (“acceptable”),
which indicates that some CSPs have relatively
strong scaling up perspectives, even though the
corporate strategy and guidance documents do
not support such an orientation. This positive
picture is further reinforced by an inspection of
individual ratings by country and question. For
each question there is at least one country that
is rated at 4 or better. There are seven individual
ratings at 5 (“excellent”) and one rating at 6
(“best practice”). (Table 3)
Table 3: High scaling up ratings (5 and 6)
Rating Question Countries
6 (“Best Practice”) Sustainability Kenya
5 (“Excellent”) Clarity in lines of Ethiopia
business
Partnership
Sierra Leone
orientation
M&E
Uganda
Results Matrix Ethiopia
Regional Integration Ethiopia, Cameroon, Uganda
If we take the highest ratings for each of the
questions and average them across questions
(see last row in the table of Appendix 1) we
find that the average rating overall is 4.8, only
a shade below “excellent”. In other words, with
a systematic approach to scaling up and picking
up on the best practices scattered currently
across individual CSPs, AfDB could readily
develop CSPs that reflect a strong scaling up
perspective.
On the less positive side, but perhaps more in
line with what one would have expected in view
of the lack of corporate scaling up strategy and
guidance, there are three countries – Nigeria,
South Africa and Nigeria – with CSPs rated at
2 (“very limited”). Moreover, we find that six
countries have at least one rating of 1 (“none”)
and that there are five questions with 1 rating.
(Table 4)
53
It is encouraging, however, that for two
countries – Ethiopia and Kenya – we ended
13 Note that these overall ratings by country are not simple averages of
individual ratings for each question, but reflect an overall judgment of
how well the scaling up perspective is reflected in the CPS.
A quarterly knowledge publication from Independent Development Evaluation, African Development Bank Group

54
Table 4: Low scaling up ratings (1)
Question
Country
Clarity of business Nigeria, South Africa, Zambia
lines
M&E
Ethiopia, South Africa
Results
Zambia
Framework
Sustainability Cameroon, Ethiopia, South Africa, Zambia
Regional
Tunisia, Zambia
Integration
The CPSs for Zambia and South Africa stand
out, with four and three “1” ratings respectively.
It is notable that the Ethiopia CPSs has two “1”
ratings, even as it also has three “5” ratings. This
reinforces the message that a systematic guidance
for scaling up is needed to ensure that AfDB
CSPs reflect a strong scaling up approach across
the board.
Looking at average ratings by question, we find
that the best categories are “regional integration”
(3.5), “partnership orientation” (3.2), “ESW” (3.1)
and “Results Framework” (3.1), while the lowest
average ratings prevails for “sustainability”
(2.2), followed by “M&E” (2.5), and “business
lines” (2.7 for “clarity” and 2.8 for “scaling up
perspective”).
Next, let us consider Appendix 2, where we rated
the various business lines found in the ten CSPs
according to the scaling up perspective. Only
transportation, water/sanitation, energy, private
sector support and strengthening government
capacity appear as lines of business in all or most
CSPs. Among these “transport” tends to be the
strongest business line in terms of scaling up
(3.2), followed by “strengthening government
capacity” (3.0) and “water/sanitation” (2.9), with
“energy” substantially weaker (2.3) and “private
sector” especially weak (1.6). 14 “Agriculture”,
which is represented in only five of the ten CSPs
is also very weak (1.8), while other business lines
are only sporadically represented in the CSP
14 From the detailed CSPs reviews in the Appendix it appears that in no case
did AFDB pursue anything but an opportunistic approach to funding
private sector investments in the countries concerned.
sample and have too few observations to allow
a reliable overall assessment.
Finally, there is one additional observation
on CSPs that is relevant for the scaling up
perspective. Within the overall length constraint
of 20 pages that has been rigorously observed
in the ten CSPs that we reviewed, between half
and two-thirds of the text is devoted to general
observations regarding country conditions,
with only between one half and one third
devoted to the presentation of AfDB strategic
and programmatic positioning in the country.
This balance makes it very difficult to provide a
sufficient amount of information on the specific
business lines that AfDB is pursuing. If a serious
approach to scaling up were to be presented
in the CSPs, then more space will have to be
devoted to the presentation of AfDB strategy
and program, either by relaxing the overall
length constraint, or by rebalancing between
general country information on the one hand
and strategy and program information on the
other.
In the remainder of this section, we review the
examples of strongest and weakest performance
under each of the nine questions, since this can
provide further insight into the need and scope
for greater consideration of scaling up in AfDB
country strategies.
Overall scaling up perspective
This question addresses to what extent CSPs
show an overall concern for scaling up issues.
The stronger CSPs (Ethiopia and Kenya)
recognize the need for transformational change,
stress AfDB catalytic role and potential for
leverage, recognize in their results frameworks
that outcomes during the CSP period need to
contribute to longer-term goals, and effectively
link past engagement with current and future
lines of business in a selective and strategic
fashion. Zambia and Nigeria are weakest in
this broad category, with little or no attention
to a longer-term perspective or the recognition
eVALUatiOn Matters

that broader scale goals need to be pursued in
the interest of development effectiveness. In
any case, however, none of the CSPs has an
overarching framework in which the scaling
up pathways for individual lines of business are
systematically drawn from past to current to
future with a clear vision of scale beyond the
time horizon of the CSP.
Clarity of Lines of Business
The Ethiopia CSP stands out with clearly defined
lines of business (roads, energy, protection of
basic services, private sector development),
followed by Cameroon (roads, power, water/
sanitation, public finance management, business
environment, and land registry), Kenya (roads,
energy, water and sanitation, skills development,
and private sector development), and Sierra Leone
(transport, power, water and sanitation, public
finance management and business environment).
In these cases there is also a clear link for each
business line between past, present and future
engagement.
The CSPs for Nigeria, South Africa and Zambia
are particularly weak in regard to definition
of business lines, in that they describe the
activities in poorly defined, confusing and even
contradictory terms across different parts of the
documents. They also generally do not give a
clear indication whether and how the proposed
activities link up with past AfDB engagement.
Scaling up perspective in business lines
This category involves a number of sub-questions:
• Program selectivity: The Ethiopia CSP is
a model of selectivity, focusing on four
principal lines of business; this was also
strongly endorsed by the CSP Readiness
Review. The Ethiopia CSP also reflects the
intention to deploy fewer, larger loans than in
the past. Other CSPs claim more selectivity
than is actually the case. For example, the
Zambia CSP under the rubric “Support
to Economic & Financial Governance”
includes a wide range of activities, as
reflected in this quote from para. 3.1.15 of
the CSP: “The Bank’s support will consolidate
and improve activities such as budget
management; strengthening audit function of
government; improving procurement systems;
strengthening anticorruption; improving debt
management; enhancing tax reforms; and
support to oversight institutions such as the
Public Accounts Committee of Parliament
with a view to improving transparency
and accountability.” The Tunisia CSP is
particularly bewildering in its multiplicity
of non-lending tasks on top of an already
prolific list of activities supported by loans.
Some CSPs have trust-funded activities that
are not presented as part of their main pillars
of engagement and add to the complexity of
the programs (e.g., Cameroon and DR Congo).
The Nigeria and South Africa CSPs also suffer
from a lack of selectivity.
• Linkage of past and present program to future
engagement: Annex 9 of the Ethiopia CSP is
particularly strong in this regard, as it looks for
each of the business lines at the government’s
recent efforts, remaining challenges, past AfDB
support and its effectiveness, and additional
support to be provided during 2014-18,
specifically with reference to sustainability,
sector governance, gender mainstreaming
and project implementation. In contrast, the
Nigeria, South Africa and Zambia CSPs provide
very little indication of how past activities link
to future ones, although some general lessons
from past engagement are cited. Generally,
however, the individual CSP country reviews
indicate that there is considerable continuity
in AfDB engagement in key programs areas
over time.
• Exit strategies: In a number of CSPs (e.g.,
Kenya, Ethiopia 15 ) it appears that AfDB is
exiting from the agricultural sector (except
15 The lack of an exit strategy is particularly noteworthy in the case of
Ethiopia, since Readiness Review specifically highlighted this as needed.
55
A quarterly knowledge publication from Independent Development Evaluation, African Development Bank Group

56
for rural roads), but there is never a clear
explanation of what, if anything, is being
done in terms of hand-off to others in order
to ensure sustainability of outcomes or
replication and scaling up, building on the
achievements of past engagement. In many
cases, however, it is not clear whether specific
lines of business are phased out and replaced
by new ones (e.g., Nigeria, South Africa,
Uganda, Zambia).
• New business lines: In many cases (e.g.,
Nigeria, South Africa, Uganda, Zambia) it is
impossible to tell from the CSP whether the
particular lines of business envisaged for the
CSP period are new or not. In other cases
(e.g., Tunisia solar energy) no justification is
given for new lines of business. In other cases
(e.g., Ethiopia, Kenya), there are apparently
no new lines of business, indicating a strong
and laudable element of continuity.
• Sector strategies: The Kenya CSP makes
effective references to sector strategies for the
road and energy sectors, and also to an agreed
program for protection of basic services. There
is also a strong and explicit link to the Draft
RISP and to the Scaling up Renewable Energy
Program for Africa. The Uganda CSP refers to
a number of sector strategies that are to guide
the selection and design of specific operations,
such as the National Transportation Master
Plan for roads, the Plan for the Modernization
of Agriculture for rural infrastructure, and
the National Strategy for Higher Education,
Science and Technology for education. By
contrast, in the case of the Zambia CSP,
although it is clear from other available
documents that there are sector strategies
for the areas of AfDB engagement, the CSP
does not refer to these strategies (except for the
transport sector). The South Africa CSP also
does not relate its proposed activities to any
sector strategies. CSPs generally do not allow
a judgment to what extent sector strategies
explicitly focus on scaling up.
• Scaling up drivers and spaces: The treatment
of potential drivers and spaces in the CSPs is
generally weak, which is not surprising since
scaling up is not an overall focus of the CSPs.
However, many of the factors that would be
considered as drivers and spaces for scaling
up are also important for achieving program
impact and sustainability. The one exception
is that all CSPs stress their alignment with
government priorities and with AfDB own
institutional priorities (without however
flagging if there are any tensions between
these two sets of objectives). However, even
in this respect there is generally no specific
identification of how specific interventions in
the CSP are aligned with specific government
priorities.
One example of especially weak consideration of
factors reflecting drivers and spaces is the Uganda
CSP: Aside from stressing its general alignment
with government and AfDB priorities, it does
not identify any specific drivers (champions or
incentives) for specific business lines. Nor does
it address financial/fiscal, institutional, policy
and partnership constraints, even though the
Portfolio Improvement Plan and other relevant
documents (e.g., the completion report of the
previous CSP) clearly identify major constraints
in these areas for program implementation. The
Tunisia CSP similarly neglects all consideration
of key enabling factors (spaces).
Other CSPs do a better job in addressing potential
drivers and spaces. The best treatment among the
ten sample CSPs is to be found in the Kenya CSP.
It considers in detail important factors that affect
sustainability and governance aspects for each
line of business in a separate annex. This includes
key enabling factors (or spaces) relevant for
scaling up, including financial/fiscal, institutional
and policy aspects. Another strong example is
the Ethiopia CSP. It not only refers to general
alignment with government and AfDB priorities,
but also identifies the government and AfDB as a
key driver in some areas. It furthermore mentions
eVALUatiOn Matters

various potential constraints in the risk section
(exogenous shocks, weak institutional capacity,
financing and macro economic constraints, and
governance weaknesses) and gives an explicit
treatment to institutional constraints, to policy
dialogue and to partnership initiatives in the
context of specific business lines.
Partnership orientation
Partnerships are particularly important for
effective scaling up. We therefore gave special
attention to how CSPs approached the partnership
agenda, beyond the general consideration of
partnership space in the preceding question. All
CSPs have a section on aid coordination and many
of them have annexes that present a schematic
presentation of donor presence in different sectors
and thematic areas. Some CSPs go further by
referring to specific efforts by AfDB to participate
in sectoral aid coordination activities and/or they
contain references to particular partnerships with
other donors. None of the CSPs refer to domestic
partners, aside from government counterparts
and from occasional references to the intention
to develop private sector partnerships.
For example, the Sierra Leone CSP, which
is most highly rated in this category (5=
excellent), highlights donor coordination and
division of labor both in general terms and in
co-financing for leverage. Specific partners
are also mentioned for most sub-pillars. 16
Another relatively strong case is the Cameroon
CSP (rated 4=acceptable), which stresses the
importance of partnership and coordination
and conveys the impression that the program
is prepared with considerable attention to seek
out partnerships especially with the World
Bank Group.
On the relatively weaker side are the Uganda
and Zambia CSPs (each rated 2 = very little). The
16 AFDB and World Bank prepared a Joint Assistance Strategy (2008-2012),
however this was not repeated for the CSP 2013-17. No lessons are
drawn from the joint country strategy experience in the 2012 Completion
Report and no explanation is given in the CSP for why the joint strategy
process has been discontinued.
Uganda case is particularly interesting. Uganda
has a history of intensive donor coordination
efforts, including during the mid-2000s a joint
World Bank/AfDB country strategy, later
superseded by a Uganda Joint Assistance Strategy
(UJAS) developed by a group of major donors
together with the government. The World Bank
and AfDB carried out a joint country strategy
evaluation. However, the Uganda CSP 2011-15
notes that the experience with joint strategies has
not been outstanding (time consuming, costly,
inflexible) and that the practice was discontinued.
In terms of partnerships for specific business lines
the CSP notes that the joint WB/AfDB country
strategy evaluation had urged the deployment
of more technical staff to AfDB country office,
but from the CSP it is not clear whether any
particular action was taken in response. More
generally, the CSP does not mention anything
about cofinancing and little about specific
examples of actual or planned partnerships with
other donors in particular business lines. There
is no reference to domestic partnerships beyond
government agencies.
Economic and Sector Work (ESW)
Although the business lines in the Nigeria
CSP are poorly defined and therefore the links
between ESW, TA and lending are not clearly
laid out, one can infer them from the nature of
the ESW and TA envisaged. Moreover, from an
inspection of the results framework, it emerges
that some ESW and TA initiatives areas intended
to be supportive of specific loan operations and
that others support specific operational goals in
terms of policy reform and capacity building. The
DR Congo CSP also reflects a conscious effort
to relate the analytical program to the specific
areas of operational engagement (including the
preparation of sector plans and action programs).
Ethiopia, Tunisia and Uganda also have relatively
strong links between ESW and the operational
program. For Ethiopia, for example, the CSP
specifically recognizes the importance of such
linkages: “The Bank will undertake extensive
ESW to support policy dialogue and the design
57
A quarterly knowledge publication from Independent Development Evaluation, African Development Bank Group

58
of new operations.” (para. 3.3.6) And there are
references to specific ESW items supporting
specific operational engagements (e.g., in the
energy sector). Other CSPs are much weaker in
this category (Kenya, Sierra Leone, South Africa
and Zambia).
In any case, for all of the CSPs there is no
indication that ESW focuses on the scaling up
challenge per se. The main question for ESW and
technical assistance is whether they are part of a
longer-term pathway of engagement and support,
in which specific analytical and TA efforts
systematically support improvements not only in
policy and institutional design, but also in terms
of sustainable and scaled-up implementation. This
will likely require more than a preparation of a
report or a one-time technical assistance activity,
and instead require sustained engagement by
AfDB and/or its partners.
Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E)
All CSPs have a section on M&E, but generally
they refer only to the process of monitoring
progress against the CSP results matrix, not to
the M&E in the specific programs supported by
AfDB. Some of the CSPs also mention support for
strengthening the M&E capacity of government
agencies. Not surprisingly, none of them provide
any indication that M&E is designed specifically
to support a scaling up agenda.
The Uganda CSP is a partial exception to the
general practice in that it has an explicit focus
on M&E and contains an excellent statement
of intent on M&E: “One of the lessons derived
from the previous Bank Group Strategy is that
credible, concise and realistic results for the CSP
and for individual projects are essential in order
to assess the relevance of Bank Group strategy
and operations. This underlines the need for
Bank-financed operations to make a provision
to strengthen the M&E framework in order to
generate the requisite data and information.”
(para. 3.3.1) The Portfolio Improvement Plan in
Annex III of the CSP states that currently there
are “weak M&E systems and lack of capacity
at the project level to execute M&E tasks” and
notes that there is a need to “build capacity for
GoU M&E staff and provide adequate budget
for M&E and enforce the preparation of annual
project monitoring plans”, and that this “has
been singled out for follow up in upcoming
operations”. Three years later the Uganda MTR/
CPPR notes that “[p]roject monitoring and
evaluation systems are weak without baseline
data and poorly defined indicators, presenting a
challenge in the assessment of the achievements
of project results and objectives.” (MTR/CPPR,
para. 5.5.1) So there remains more work to be
done, but at least the M&E challenge appears
to be squarely on the radar screen in Uganda.
Results framework
The Ethiopia CSP has a results matrix that is
overall of relatively high quality. Final outcome
indicators are mostly specified as metrics relative
to a baseline, which allows one to get a sense
of the scale involved (e.g., “increased number
of consumers with access to electricity (in
million) to 4 from 2.03,” “improved road safety
(number of car accident death registered per
1,000 vehicle reduced from 70 in 2009/10 to
27”, etc.); in some cases, progress to an ultimate
scale goal can be inferred from the metric (e.g.,
“Increased access to electricity services from
41% to 60%”). In the case of the Sierra Leone
CSP the results matrix maps readily into the
main lines of business presented in the main
text of the CSP. Moreover, it is very systematic
in its approach to establishing not only clear
quantitative targets for the end year of the CSP
(2017), but it also a set of baseline metrics that
actually allows a judgment of the extent of
progress to be made. However, there is generally
no scale goal indicated beyond 2017 and gives
no indication of what is the extent of process
towards such a goal.
More typically, CSPs have relatively weak
results frameworks, lacking clear links to
the business lines, often without quantitative
eVALUatiOn Matters

outcome measures, and lacking base line data
and longer-term scale goals beyond the time
horizon of the CSP. The reference to “final”
outcomes at the end of the CSP period is
indicative of a mindset that does not think
in terms of scaling up pathways beyond the
CSP time window. The Zambia CSP results
framework is particularly weak in that the final
outcome and output indicators in the results
matrix are mostly stated in very general, nonquantified
terms, such as “reduced transport
cost” under “final outcome” and “improved
core road network” under “final output” for
the transport business line.
Sustainability
The Kenya CSP is the only in our sample of ten
CSPs that deals effectively with sustainability. It
does so in a best-practice manner in its Annex
9, where it considers for each of the business
lines what support is needed during 2014-18 to
assure sustainability, among other objectives.
Especially noteworthy is also the “National
Sustainability Strategy” for the education
sector, which focuses on assuring maintenance
of physical assets and on continuing training of
trainers/mentors.
Other CSPs do not refer to sustainability or do
so only in passing, e.g., in connection with the
development of sector plans in the case of the
DR Congo, or more frequently with occasional
references to support for maintenance of
infrastructure. Particularly striking is the fact
that the risk sections in the CSPs do not address
the risk of lack of sustainability.
Regional integration
The focus on regional integration is generally a
relatively strong feature in our sample of CSPs.
It is especially well developed in the CSPs for
Cameroon, Ethiopia and Uganda. The programs
for transport generally make reference to
regional corridors and those for power refer
to the development of regional energy markets
through interconnection or increased generation
capacity. There are appropriate references for
alignment with the relevant RISP. Nigeria,
Tunisia and Zambia are striking exceptions with
their weak or non-existent references to regional
integration. In view of AfDB strong corporate
focus on support for regional integration, it is
odd that the internal review process did not
rectify these omissions.
Conclusions and
Implications for AfDB
Approach to Scaling Up in
Country Program Strategy
Formulation
The main findings of this review of scaling up in
AfDB CSPs are as follows:
• AfDB corporate strategies, guidance and
evaluation documents do not explicitly and
systematically focus on scaling up.
• Therefore one should not expect CSPs to do so.
And in fact, CSPs do not systematically focus
on scaling up.
• In terms of the analytical framework which
this report proposes for assessing and planning
scaling up in CSPs, key elements are
• the definition of clearly identified lines of
business,
• selectivity in the inclusion of business lines,
• an effective linkage of past, current and
future business lines, in support of a welldefined
scaling up vision and pathway that
extend beyond the CSP period, and are
linked systematically to sectoral strategies
of the country concerned
• well-thought-out exit from past business
lines and a well-prepared entry into new
business line,
59
A quarterly knowledge publication from Independent Development Evaluation, African Development Bank Group

60
• careful consideration of drivers and spaces
(enabling factors) for scaling up, including
effective partnership approaches,
• meaningful results frameworks and M&E
designed and implemented with a view to
the scaling up agenda,
• assessment of the sustainability of AfDBsupported
interventions, and
• explicit consideration of regional
integration.
• Having applied this framework to ten
representative CSPs, we conclude that CSPs do
contain elements, scattered across countries,
which could serve as good practice examples,
if and when AfDB decides to make scaling
up a significant part of its development
effectiveness agenda and country strategy
design.
• All of the ten CSPs have at least one element
rated “4” (“acceptable”), with the Zambia CSP
the lone exception. Some countries have multiple
ratings at that level and higher. Ethiopia and
Kenya overall are rated highest at “4”.
• Among business lines pursued in CSPs,
transport is the best performer in terms
reflecting elements of a scaling up approach,
while private sector development is the least
successful area.
• If all the current best practices were combined
in a single CSP, the overall rating would be
close to “excellent” in terms of scaling up.
This demonstrates that scaling is not “piein-the-sky”,
but could be relatively easily
incorporated into AfDB approach to country
strategy formulation and implementation.
These findings lead to the following
recommendations:
a. AfDB should include scaling up development
impact as an explicit and cross-cutting
dimension in its corporate vision, strategy
and policy/guidance documents.
b. AfDB should include scaling up as
a key dimension in the formulation,
implementation, monitoring and evaluation
of its CSPs.
c. The questionnaire developed for this review
could be used as a foundation for developing
guiding questions for AdDB staff, similar to
the guiding questions developed by IFAD
and used extensively in its implementation
of an operational scaling up approach.
d. AfDB may wish to reconsider the structure
of its CSP document. The current balance
between general country analysis and
documentation on the one hand (1/2 – 3/3
of the 20 page CSP document) and the
strategic and programmatic section (1/3
– 1/2) should be reversed to allow for a
more in-depth presentation of scaling up
pathways for the main business lines. Much
of the country analysis should be treated
as background material and relegated to
a separate document or to an annex of the
CSP.
e. As a basis for a more general introduction
of the scaling up agenda into its operational
work, AfDB may wish to carry out an
institutional scaling up review, similar to
the one completed by a Brookings team
for IFAD (Linn et al. 2010). Alternatively,
AfDB may wish to commission a formal
scaling up evaluation, such as recently
carried out by GIZ for all its operational
activities, but as yet unpublished. In this
context, the recently completed review by
ODI for AfDB on scaling up in fragile states
would serve as a useful starting point and
input. (ODI 2014)
eVALUatiOn Matters

In conclusion, including scaling up in CSPs is
not rocket science, but involves a set of simple,
common sense considerations, as is demonstrated
by the fact that most of the elements of a scaling
up strategy can already be found scattered across
current CSPs. The main challenge for AfDB is
to recognize the importance of scaling up for its
development effectiveness agenda and to assure
systematic application of good scaling up practice
in the design and implementation of CSPs.
61
A quarterly knowledge publication from Independent Development Evaluation, African Development Bank Group

62
Richard Schiere
Emerging Trends in
Redesigning Results and
Alignment Tools for Country
Strategies by Multilateral
Development Banks
Introduction
Country strategies – a planned program of assistance by a donor to a recipient country for a set
period (OECD 2007) – are a key instrument for guiding operations and monitoring performance
for Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs). These strategies not only describe the contribution of
a development institution to national development objectives, but also address broader issues such
as portfolio management, aid coordination, knowledge work, catalytic effects, and organizational
issues. However, the conventional results log-frameworks that were originally designed and applied
to projects are not an adequate results and alignment tool for country strategies as they merely
aggregate impact, outcomes, outputs and inputs of individual projects.
This paper describes emerging trends among MDBs in redesigning results and alignment tools for
country strategies. It discusses how country strategies and the results log-frame have evolved over
the last three decades and describes the limitations of the conventional results log-frames and the
challenges of applying them to country strategies. It then explains how MDBs responded to these
challenges and redesigned results and alignment tools for country strategies. Finally, the paper
discusses the limitations and the political economy challenges of results reporting and evaluations.
eVALUatiOn Matters

Evolution of Country Strategies and Results Log-frames
63
Since the 1980s, country strategies have been a key instrument in guiding development cooperation by
multilateral and bilateral agencies. These “first generation” country strategies were more a collection
of individual projects than a coherent approach on how to contribute to national development
objectives (Dahlgren 2007). These documents reflected more the preferences of donors than the
policy priorities of recipient countries (Menocal and Mulley 2006; Scott, 2006). Around the same
time, results log-frameworks were introduced in the development cooperation business. The results
log-framework was part of the broader “management by objectives” approach that was popular in
the private sector at that time and integrated in the public sector.
The results log-frameworks were meant to stimulate a participatory discussion by choosing a
common approach and explicitly articulating it in the form of a graphic display or matrix of the
different levels, which represented a chain of results expected from a particular intervention, project,
program, or development strategy (PCI 1979, IEG, 2012). These results log-frameworks had a dual
function of presenting a “theory of change” and of using it as a performance evaluation tool. Results
log-frameworks also helped steer development cooperation in recipient countries by indicating how
project interventions contribute to a broader development objective.
With the emergence of Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP), which were a key element to
receive debt relief and were therefore introduced in many recipient developing countries, another
platform to coordinate development partners and align country strategies with national development
objectives was created. Moreover, PRSPs also emphasized participation and ownership building, a
reaction to the structural adjustment programs that lacked sustainability. These issues were later
codified in the 2002 Monterrey Consensus and the 2005 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness,
which emphasized the principles of national ownership, alignment, coordination and results-focus
(United Nations, 2003, OECD, 2005) and were subsequently operationalized in country strategies.
Some of the limits of operationalizing these aid effectiveness principles became evident in joint
assistance strategies whereby several donors have one single country strategy in a recipient country.
In practice, joint assistance strategies were cumbersome as the recipient countries were not always
keen to have donors working too closely together, and development cooperation institutions had
their own individual policies that were difficult to reconcile.
Despite the enlarged role of country strategies – that have evolved from simply describing a
pipeline of projects to a much more comprehensive document that includes issues of participation,
coordination, leveraging and knowledge work – the results log-framework never expanded beyond
aggregating project outcomes and outputs. The traditional results log-framework also hampers
evaluations of country strategies, as it does not permit a comprehensive review of performance
because it does not take into account portfolio and institutional issues such as human resources
and the role of field offices.
This is all the more important as the rise of performance management in country strategies led to
the fading of the distinction between the role of evaluation and results. In the past, monitoring
was considered an internal management function during implementation, while evaluation was
undertaken by an external entity at the end of the cycle. It is now conventional wisdom that
A quarterly knowledge publication from Independent Development Evaluation, African Development Bank Group

64
monitoring and evaluation are complementary
and provide performance information to
support management decisions in a proactive
manner (OECD, 2001). This would therefore
require a matrix that reviews the performance
of the strategy in a comprehensive manner that
is broader than just an aggregation of outcome
and output indicators.
Challenges of Country
Strategy Results Logframes
and Evaluations
Country strategies have both a “dialogue
function” and an “alignment and portfolio
function”. These two functions do not have
the same effect in terms of monitoring and
evaluation (Dahlgren 2007). On the one hand,
the dialogue function seeks to raise awareness
through discussions. Therefore performance
monitoring is not necessary as the country
strategy already served its purpose once the
dialogue is concluded. On the other hand, the
alignment and portfolio functions of a country
strategy do allow for M&E through a results logframework
in a narrow sense as it emphasizes
the aggregated impact of projects and how that
fits with the national development strategy.
Applying the conventional results log-framework
to strategies is more problematic than for
projects given the challenges of describing the
theory of change for three reasons (AfDB a, b
2015).
First, macroeconomic and political factors and
other public and private sector development
partners heavily influence the causality between
impact, outcome, and outputs. Moreover, the
impact can often only be measured a few years
after the strategy has expired because of a time
lag of several years between adopting strategy
objectives, approving projects aligned to these
objectives, and completing the projects that
produced verifiable results.
Secondly, it is challenging to integrate private
sector development outcomes and outputs
indicators in a results log-framework due to a
opportunistic and transactional approach of
these operations. This is contrary to public sector
operations that are designed to achieve specific
development results in a forward-looking and
planned manner. Moreover, the integration of
private sector operations is challenging because of
confidentiality clauses with private sector lenders
that make it difficult to communicate and design
appropriate indicators in a participatory manner.
Thirdly, designing a forward-looking results logframework
is difficult as aggregated outcome
and output indicators in country strategies are
problematic because of significant uncertainty
about the operational pipeline and available
financial resources. Consequently, baseline and
target indicators for future projects – that might
never be funded – are difficult to define. This makes
it difficult to describe the theory of change and use
the results log-framework as an alignment tool.
In addition to these technical design issues, a more
fundamental challenge relates to the political
economy of institutions, or, as Pritchett has
noted, “it pays to be ignorant” (Pritchett 2002).
Institutions do not always have an incentive to
undertake genuine evaluations, not only because
they can be a reputation risk for the lender but
also because they can place the client country in
a politically inconvenient position.
There is therefore an institutional risk that M&E
frameworks will be part of a broader legitimacy
and transparency exercise without providing
rigorous evidence of how country strategies
contribute to the client’s country development
needs (Michaelowa and Borrmann 2006) or
how lessons can be learned. This could be the
reason why both recipient client countries and
development partners are more interested in
discussing new projects in an upcoming country
strategy rather than reviewing the results of the
previous strategy. Conveniently, the conventional
eVALUatiOn Matters

esults log-framework does not allow for capturing
the results of previous country strategies.
log-framework, which can be summarized as
follows (AfDB 2015a):
65
Redesigning Country
Strategy Results and
Alignment Tools
From an institutional perspective, country
strategies offer an opportunity to collect
information on client countries, serve as a
dialogue tool and as an internal steering and
planning tool for future interventions. At the
same time, nearly all development cooperation
institutions have results log-frameworks,
although the preferred format and level of detail
for them vary by organization. The results logframework
has two distinct features: describing
the theory of change through an alignment
framework and assessing progress and the
results of strategies (IEG 2012). An additional
objective is to foster greater integration among
different entities within the same institution
by promoting, for example, the “One Bank”
approach currently being used by the World
Bank Group.
Applying the conventional results logframework
approach to country strategies is
challenging both in terms of describing the
alignment and of monitoring performance.
Impact, outcome and output indicators are
difficult to define based on future pipelines
of projects that have neither been designed
nor for which has funding been secured.
There is also a problem in identifying a clear
attribution of interventions vis-à-vis other
public or private development actors. Moreover,
the strategy is broader than an accumulation
of individual project outcome and output
indicators, and should also include issues such
as portfolio performance, catalytic impact and
institutional issues, which are not included
in the conventional results log-framework.
This has led to different approaches by MDBs
in redesigning the conventional results
1. The first approach is to emphasize the
alignment function and move away from using
the results log-framework as a monitoring
tool. In the case of the Asian Development
Bank, resources and activities are linked
to areas of interventions, sector outcomes,
and national development objectives
(AsDB 2015). Similarly, the Inter-American
Development Bank focuses on the alignment
between national and corporate strategies,
without making any attempt to capture and
aggregate operational results (IaDB 2015).
In both approaches, the project results are
not aggregated in the results log-framework
and the emphasis is on alignment with the
recipient’s development objective. By not
focusing on results monitoring altogether,
it avoids dealing with the challenges of the
conventional log-framework – questions
of attribution and choosing indicators for
future projects that might never materialize.
The operational advantage of this approach is
that task managers spend less time designing
the results log-framework.
2. The second approach is to separate the
two functions of results log-framework –
respectively the alignment and the results
monitoring – into two separate tools, an
approach being taken by the AfDB. The
alignment matrix describes the theory of
change and ensures that there is an overlap
between national development objectives and
corporate priorities. The performance matrix
encompasses a diverse set of indicators to
ensure a comprehensive monitoring of the
country strategies. This includes not only
some outcome and output indicators, but
also performance indicators on portfolio
performance, aid coordination, leveraging
of resources and organizational issues, etc.
The main advantage of the performance
matrix is that it can monitor and evaluate
A quarterly knowledge publication from Independent Development Evaluation, African Development Bank Group

66
country strategies in a comprehensive manner
and present the link between changes in
operational priorities and organizational
capacity clearly, whereas this is not currently
the case in the conventional result logframework.
However, the challenges of
choosing outcome and output indicators
based on a volatile and uncertain pipeline of
projects will persist.
3. Finally, the third approach being pursued
by the World Bank and the Islamic
Development Bank is more conventional
and does not change the nature of the results
log-framework. Like traditional results logframework,
it identifies outcomes and outputs
and links them to specific operations, both
ongoing and planned (IsDB 2015). At the
same time, the World Bank is using the
conventional results log-framework approach
as a means to promote their “One Bank”
approach (World Bank 2014).
Conclusion
MDBs are customizing results and alignment
tools to CSPs. These new results and alignment
tools should avoid complexity and excessive
numbers of indicators so that staff can easily
integrate them in their country strategies.
Irrespective of the improvement in tools
applied to country strategies, it will always be
challenging for any M&E system to address
the political economy of performance. Both
lending institutions and client countries have
a clear interest in presenting positive results
and there is therefore a risk that performance
monitoring will be more of a marketing tool
than an instrument to improve operational
effectiveness. The real challenge is therefore
to create a culture whereby evaluation and
results reporting are considered part of a
broader agenda to promote transparency and
development effectiveness that are subsequently
integrated into future country strategies.
eVALUatiOn Matters

References
African Development Bank, (2015a).
Information Note on the Multilateral
Development Banks Meeting: MDB
Country Strategies: Emerging Practices to
Enhance Quality and Results (forthcoming).
--- (2015b). Strategizing for the “Africa We
Want”: An Independent Evaluation of the
Quality at Entry of Country and Regional
Integration Strategies. Website: http://
independentevaluation.afdb.org/fileadmin/
uploads/opev/Documents/Quality_
at_Entry_of_Country_and_Regional_
Integration_Strategies.pdf
Asian Development Bank, (2015). Guidelines
for the Preparation of Country Assistance
Program Evaluations and Country
Partnership Strategy Final Review
Validations.
Binnendijk, Annette, (2001). Results Based
Management in the Development
Co-operation Agencies: A review of
experiences. http://www.oecd.org/
development/evaluation/1886527.pdf
Dahlgren S., (2007). “An Overview of
Experiences and a Proposal for Shaping
Future Country Programme Evaluation”,
Sida Studies in Evaluation 2007:04.
Independent Evaluation Group (2012).
Designing a results framework for achieving
results: a how-to guide. World Bank Group.
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/
EXTEVACAPDEV/Resources/designing_
results_framework.pdf
Inter-American Development Bank, (2015).
Country Strategy alignment with corporate
and country development priorities
Presentation at MDB meeting on Country
Strategies: Emerging Practices to Enhance
Quality and Results, Abidjan 8-9 June.
Islamic Development Bank, (2015). Planning,
Tracking and Reporting Results on Member
Country Partnership Strategies (MCPSs).
Presentation at MDB meeting on Country
Strategies: Emerging Practices to Enhance
Quality and Results.
Pritchett, Lance, (2002). “It pays to be ignorant:
A simple political economy of rigorous
program evaluation”, The Journal of Policy
Reform, 5(2): 251-288.
Michaelowa, K. and A. Borrmann, (2006).
“Evaluation Bias and Incentive Structures in
Bi-and Multilateral Aid Agencies”, Review
of Development Economics, 10(2): 313–329.
Menocal, A. R. and S. Mulley, (2006). Learning
from experience? A review of recipient
government efforts to manage donor
relations and improve the quality of aid, ODI
Working Paper 268. Overseas Development
Institute. http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.
uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinionfiles/2027.pdf
OECD, (2005). The Paris Declaration on
Aid Effectiveness and the Accra Agenda
for Action, Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development. http://
www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/34428351.
pdf
OECD, (2007). Definition for country strategies
as part of glossary of statistical terms,
https://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.
asp?ID=7232
Practical Concepts Incorporated, (1979).
The Logical Framework: A Manager’s
Guide to a Scientific Approach to Design
67
A quarterly knowledge publication from Independent Development Evaluation, African Development Bank Group

68
and Evaluation, Practical Concepts
Incorporated.
Scott, A., (2006). Emerging Practices of Results-
Based Country Programming among Aid
Agencies, Managing for Development
Results Principles in Action: Sourcebook
on Emerging Good Practice, 1 st . ed. Paris:
OECD-DAC Joint Venture on Managing
for Development Results.
United Nations, (2003). Monterrey Consensus
of the International Conference on
Financing for Development, United Nations
http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/monterrey/
MonterreyConsensus.pdf
World Bank, (2014). World Bank Group
Guidelines on Country Partnership
Framework Products, Washington DC:
World Bank Group.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Richard Schiere is Chief Quality Assurance Officer in the Quality Assurance and Results Department
of the African Development Bank, where he has been working since 2007 in research, policy and
operations. Prior to working at the AfDB, Richard worked for the United Nations for six years in New
York and in Cambodia. He has published two books on China-Africa and written a series of papers
and policy briefs about development cooperation, aid effectiveness and Africa’s emerging partners. He
holds a PhD from the Centre d’Etudes et de Recherches sur le Développement International in France.
eVALUatiOn Matters

69
Erika Ismay MacLaughlin and Khaled Ibn Waleed Hussein Samir
Public-Private
Partnerships Require
their own Infrastructure:
How can MDBs Address
the Capacity gap?
A quarterly knowledge publication from Independent Development Evaluation, African Development Bank Group

70
Aging and inadequate infrastructure are among Africa's most difficult and pervasive development
challenges (Deloitte 2013; AfDB 2010). Infrastructure deficiencies limit economic development by
preventing access to public services and increasing the cost of doing business. Inadequate infrastructure
decreases Africa's economic growth by an estimated two percent per annum and reduces business
productivity by 40 percent, (Deloitte 2013; GAMA 2013) which translates into missed opportunities
for inclusive growth and poverty reduction.
Africa's infrastructure needs span all sectors: transport, energy, water supply and sanitation and
information and communications technology. The estimated cost of addressing these deficits amounts
to USDD93 billion annually until 2020 or approximately 15 percent of Africa's GDP (Deloitte
2013; AfDB 2010). Two thirds of this amount would go to developing new infrastructure and the
remaining one third to the maintenance and rehabilitation of existing infrastructure. Governments,
infrastructure users, the private sector, and other external sources together contribute about USD45
billion, leaving a financial infrastructure gap of nearly USD 50 billion Regional disparities in spending
across the continent further exacerbate the challenges posed by this gap; Middle Income Countries
(MICs) contribute one third of the funds spent on infrastructure whereas fragile states account for
just two percent (Deloitte 2013).
Although there is no universally accepted definition for Public Private Partnerships (PPPs), they
have long been promoted as a potential vehicle for addressing Africa's infrastructure gap and
a means of leveraging private sector resources and expertise. PPP projects generally involve a
contractual agreement between public and private sector actors to deliver a public service in which
the associated risks -- legal, political, regulatory, financial, construction, operation and demand -- of
the initial investment and subsequent service delivery are shared among the various parties (ADB
2009; AfDB 2015; IEG 2014; Araujo and Sutherland 2010). They can cover a range of agreements
with varying degrees of private sector involvement ranging from the design, construction and/
or refurbishment of a public asset to the operation and management of a public asset to deliver
services. A PPP arrangement may, for example, allocate design and construction risks to the private
sector while leaving regulatory risks to the public sector. Ideally, specific risks associated with the
investment are allocated to the party best able to manage them.
Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) such as the African Development Bank (AfDB) have a
clear role to play in facilitating PPPs through co-financing arrangements and providing technical
assistance. Regional Member Country (RMC) governments can access stable long-term financing
through MDBs which would be either unavailable or prohibitively expensive were it accessed through
private sources (Farlam 2005; Deloitte 2008). In addition to adding value by supporting the financially
viability of PPPs, MDBs can also make an important contribution by creating an enabling legal and
regulatory environment, supporting strategic project selection, assisting in the negotiation of fair
agreements, and promoting respect for environmental and social standards (AD 2009; IEG 2014).
To what extent has the development potential of PPPs and the value-addition of MDBs been
realized in Africa? Evaluations carried out by other MDBs are cautionary: PPPs are complex
arrangements suited to mature economies with stable governance, clear legal and regulatory
frameworks, and strong institutional capacity. There may not be sufficient appetite in the private
sector for participating in such arrangements in contexts lacking these conditions. Therefore,
financing notwithstanding, MDBs may be failing to promote PPPs in more challenging contexts.
eVALUatiOn Matters

There are opportunities for the AfDB to better
leverage the potential of PPPs as a means of
addressing the infrastructure gap in Africa. This
article identifies some of these opportunities as
well as the challenges of implementing PPPs in
developing countries. It also discusses strategic
implications for the Bank in light of the experience
of other MDBs.
Why PPPs? The Benefits of
Private Sector Engagement
in Addressing Africa's
Infrastructure gap
Ideally, governments should have three core
objectives when implementing infrastructure
projects: (i) achieving good value for money; (ii)
delivering the required investment on time and
on budget, and (iii) meeting public needs. PPPs
are thought to contribute to these objectives
while addressing infrastructure gaps across
the developing world. The World Bank Group
considers PPPs to be "transformational projects,"
capable of producing spillover effects in multiple
sectors, generating far-reaching impacts, and
helping client countries shift to a higher level
of development. This optimism is not entirely
unfounded as engaging private sector actors in
public infrastructure investment and service
delivery can both reduce financial burdens for
governments and capitalize on the expertise and
cost-efficiency orientation of the private sector.
Redistribution of Financial Burden
Cash-strapped governments have difficulty
mobilizing the significant up-front capital
required for traditional public procurement
processes not only because of the difficulty in
borrowing externally, but also because of the
pressing requirement to manage national debt
levels. Progress in implementing infrastructure
investments may therefore be delayed by years
before public actors are able to raise the up-front
capital required to begin construction (Deloitte
2008; Farlam 2005; Hammami et al. 1999).
PPP arrangements provide an opportunity
for government actors to spread costs across
the lifetime of an asset, alleviating the initial
financial burden and bringing construction of
infrastructure investments forward significantly.
Alleviating the initial financial burden carries
another potential benefit of allowing governments
to devote funds to other development needs over
the short term.
Efficiency Gains, Cost Savings and Value
for Money
It is often assumed that the private sector brings
greater efficiency and cost-effectiveness to the
implementation of infrastructure projects. PPP
arrangements typically require private sector actors
to undertake risks and responsibilities associated
with the design, construction, and maintenance
of infrastructure investments. Payments and
contributions from the public sector throughout
the construction process are based on the delivery
of key project milestones, which creates an incentive
for private sector actors to complete construction of
an asset in timely and cost-effective manner Deloitte
2008; McKinsey 2009).
Furthermore, because PPP arrangements can
involve both the maintenance and operation of
infrastructure assets, private sector actors are
encouraged to identify design and construction
solutions that consider potential costs over the
lifetime of a project. Whereas traditional public
procurement processes may create incentives for
contractors to propose the most cost-effective
short-term proposal to win a particular contract,
PPP arrangements are thought to incentivize an
emphasis on quality and consider longer-term
costs associated with maintenance and operations
(Arajuo and Sutherland 2010; Deloitte 2008).
The evidence of actual efficiency gains realized
by implementing PPPs is mixed, at least in
terms of asset design and construction. A UK
Treasury study found that 70 percent of non-
PPP infrastructure projects were delivered late,
whereas only 20 percent of similar PPP projects
71
A quarterly knowledge publication from Independent Development Evaluation, African Development Bank Group

72
were delivered late. In the same study, 73 percent
of non-PPP projects were delivered over budget,
whereas only 20 percent of PPP projects were
delivered over-budget (UK Treasury 2006). In
a 2005 evaluation, the European Investment
Bank reported similar findings. However, a 2014
evaluation of World Bank Group support to
PPPs indicated that PPP efficiency was similar
to that of public infrastructure projects - some
performed well, but others demonstrated high
costs and construction delays (EIB 2005).
Improved Access, Quality, and
Maintenance of Public Services
Budget deficits and competing policy priorities
create a political disincentive to devote funds
to the maintenance of existing infrastructure.
The effects of neglecting maintenance are often
only recognized in the long-term, long after
specific political actors have left office. Ongoing
neglect creates a situation where developing
countries not only face challenges developing
much-needed new infrastructure but they are
also increasingly unable to maintain current
levels of service delivery as existing assets
deteriorate (Deloitte 2008; Farlam 2005). In such
a situation, the general public has little recourse
for insufficient service delivery. Moreover, the
scarcity of available public goods may encourage
some officials and public servants to accept bribes
in exchange for access to services (Farlam 2005).
Where a private sector actor is made responsible
for running and maintaining public infrastructure
under a PPP arrangement, maintenance and
service delivery standards may be enforced
through contractual performance standards
(Deloitte 2008). Furthermore, because private
sector operators often depend on the payment
of tariffs and fees to ensure the profitability of
the investment, there is a natural incentive to
deliver services that meet consumers’ needs and
expectations.
Virtually all of the projects that were examined
in an evaluation of World Bank Group support
for PPPs were successful in increasing access to
basic public services (IEG 2014). Moreover, it
is possible to introduce contractual provisions
that can further ensure that subsequent public
service delivery is pro-poor by requiring
partners to service poor areas in exchange for
the right to service wealthier areas. Subsidies
provide another means of mitigating the need
for tariff increases in contexts where it is
unfeasible to operate on a cost-recovery basis
(Farlam 2005).
Why have PPPs Failed to
Address the Infrastructure
gap?
Despite the initial enthusiasm for PPPs,
private sector participation in infrastructure
investment remains below the level required to
address Africa's infrastructure gap. The past
decade has further demonstrated that PPPs
are not a panacea for infrastructure challenges
across the developing world where many
projects either fail or result in unanticipated
development impacts. PPP projects are
complicated to establish and implement even
under optimal conditions (McKinsey 2009);
Deloitte 2008). Their success generally requires
long-term political commitment, agreement
among several groups of stakeholders, public
and political support, and a favorable market
environment (IEG 2014; Araujo and Sutherland
2010; Farlam 2005).
Need for a PPP-enabling Environment
Successful PPP arrangements tend to be
found in more mature economies with stable
governance, supportive legal and regulatory
frameworks, sufficient institutional capacity,
and predictable administration of justice (IEG
2014; ADB 2009; Araujo and Sutherland 2010;
Hammami et al. (1999). Unclear or unsuitable
rules, weak governance and similar challenges
tend to increase costs and risk and make
PPP arrangements commercially unviable.
eVALUatiOn Matters

Even when private sector actors are willing
to participate in PPPs, inadequate legal and
regulatory infrastructure can make it difficult or
impossible to conclude an appropriate agreement
for construction, operation, and service delivery
(Deloitte 2008; Araujo and Sutherland 2010;
Farlam 2005).
Beyond requiring a supportive institutional
and regulatory environment, PPPs need a
supportive market environment and sufficient
public procurement capacity to ensure that
they provide value for money (Samir, 2008).
First, there must be a sufficient number of
private sector actors capable of managing and
implementing the design, construction, and
service delivery aspects of each project in order
to ensure sufficient competition. These actors
must then be able to access private financing
sources at a cost that does not outweigh the
potential efficiencies realized thanks to private
sector participation. Finally, public sector actors
must possess sufficient procurement capacity
to ensure fair and transparent competition
among the potential service providers. Absent
these qualities, it will be challenge to ensure
appropriate value for money.
Challenges in Ensuring Pro-Poor Service
Delivery
Although PPPs may lead to more efficiently
delivered public services of higher quality, they
do not necessarily result in greater access to
services, particularly for the poorest segments
of the population. The proposition that PPPs
lead to greater access to services is partly
premised on the assumption that increased
efficiency in service delivery results in lower
service tariffs that make basic services more
affordable (IEG 2014; Farlam 2005). However,
some governments fail to maintain and expand
the provision of basic services in part because
they are under political pressure to preserve
long-standing below-recovery rate tariffs and
also lack accurate information about service
delivery costs (Farlam 2005).
Efficiency gains realized through PPP
arrangements may not suffice to offset the
difference between existing tariffs and actual
service delivery costs. PPPs could in fact raise
costs as private operators attempt to ensure
that they recover their operating expenses.
Moreover, private sector operators may be
hesitant to provide services to poor, remote
areas where the activities are unlikely to be
commercially viable (Farlam 2005; Hammami
et al. 1999). While they can contribute to
improved infrastructure and service delivery,
PPPs may work against inclusive growth if the
poorest segments of the population cannot
afford to access basic services.
Need for Long-term Political and Public
Support
Long-term political and public support is
essential if PPP arrangements are to succeed.
However, many developing countries, and
especially conflict-affected states or states in
transition, lack the necessary political stability
to successfully implement PPPs. Absent an
agreement among various stakeholders and
a clear political champion, PPPs succumb to
political conflict rooted in a fear of change,
restructuring, and possible public sector job
losses Political championship is also tied to
levels of public support -- another requirement
for a successful PPP -- particularly when projects
involve services such as water supply and
sanitation services that are typically thought
to be a public responsibility (Farlam 2005; ADB
2009; Hammami et al. 1999).
A study of the Inter-American Development
Bank's support to PPPs in Brazil demonstrates
the necessity for parties to a PPP arrangement
to develop a clear communications strategy
that explains the needs and benefits of the
PPP and the need for potential tariff increases.
Furthermore, all aspects of project design
and delivery, including the procurement and
contracting processes, must be transparent
(Queiroz et al. 2014).
73
A quarterly knowledge publication from Independent Development Evaluation, African Development Bank Group

74
The Bank's Strategic and Operating
Context for PPPs
The AfDB’s Ten Year Strategy identifies
Infrastructure development as one of five
key operational priorities and emphasizes
leveraging private sector resources through
co-financing arrangements: PPPs clearly have
strategic importance.1 1 Its 2013-2017 Private
Sector Development Strategy also makes the
promotion of PPPs in project financing and
non-lending capacity development activities a
strategic priority.2 2
IDEV has not yet conducted an in-depth
evaluation of the AfDB use of the PPP
mechanism, however a stocktaking assessment
has determined the scope of Bank involvement
and the organizational context underpinning
its activities in promoting PPPs. The assessment
found that, despite the obvious strategic
importance, the AfDB lacks an operational
definition for PPPs and has neither elaborated
a clear operational framework nor identified
a focal point for developing and supporting
PPPs (IDEV 2015). Furthermore, some projects
identified by various sector departments as
PPPs lack some of the basic characteristics
that distinguish them from other co-financing
schemes, such as the delivery of a public service
and shared assumption of risk. Only a few
ongoing non-lending activities support PPP
capacity development.
One important project to watch is the Itezhitezhi
power generation project, a hydroelectric
power generation project situated in Itezhi-tezhi,
Zambia which is considered the AfDB's flagship
PPP project in the high-priority energy sector.
This project has been implemented via a Special
Purpose Vehicle implicating ZESCO, a stateowned
power company which generates and
transmits 80% of Zambia's power supply, and
TATA Construction. In addition, the project
1 www.afdb.org/en/about-us/afdbs-strategy/
2 http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Policy-
Documents/2013-2017_-_Private_Sector_Development_Strategy.pdf
received funding from a number of bilateral
and multilateral donors, including the African
Development Bank. The power generation
station is due to become operational before the
end of 2015, providing much needed generation
capacity in the context of an energy crisis
throughout Southern Africa. The performance
of this project as well as challenges and lessons
learned for future projects will be discussed
further in IDEV's Zambia Country Strategy and
Program Evaluation, which will be finalized in
early 2015.
Enhancing Value-Added: Lessons from
other MDBs
The strategic and operational gaps identified
in IDEV's stocktaking report as well as the
number of new projects which are becoming
operational suggest that the AfDB would
benefit from a more thorough assessment of
its support to PPPs that emphasizes lessons
learned. In the interim, some insight can
be drawn from evaluations conducted by
other MDBs, including the ADB, the World
Bank Group, and the European Investment
Bank, which have all faced challenges in
fully leveraging the potential value-added
of MDBs in supporting and promoting PPP
arrangements. Some key lessons relevant to the
AfDB’s operating context are discussed below.
Co-financing is not
Sufficient
The ADB’s Special Evaluation Study on
Assistance for Public-Private Partnerships in
Infrastructure Development found that lending
and non-lending support has not necessarily
been a catalyst for promoting the creation
of PPPs in developing member countries.
Other challenges, including an unfavorable
investment climate and the length of time
required to implement underlying reforms,
have been responsible for the static number of
PPP transactions in most countries. Providing
eVALUatiOn Matters

support was similarly unsuccessful in that fewer
than half of the supported investments were
actually implemented (ADB 2009).
This finding reflects an "underdevelopment
trap" for private sector participation in
infrastructure development. Low-Income
Countries require additional resources to
meet their infrastructure development needs;
the private sector can provide these resources
but the countries need large markets and
political stability to attract private investment
and promote growth. Furthermore, the lack
of infrastructure and small markets create
a disincentive for investors, particularly for
complex and potentially risky PPP investments
involving service delivery where extant
infrastructure is either insufficient or nonexistent
(Hammami et al. 1999).
The IEG report on World Bank Group support
to PPPs also demonstrates this paradox. It notes
that PPPs are better suited to mature markets
with clear, stable market rules, sound and
predictable legal environments, and the capacity
to produce well-designed projects with an
appropriate allocation of risk (IEG 2014). Most
co-financing support provided by the IMF was
therefore allocated to MICs and Upper MICs.
Technical and capacity development support
provided by the World Bank and IFC advisory
services went primarily to Lower MICs with
comparatively fewer interventions in LICs. As
with the Asian Development Bank, the depth
of World Bank Group Support has been linked
to market maturity and substantial support has
been provided only to Brazil, China, and India
(ADB 2009; IEG 2014).
The underdevelopment trap is particularly
relevant to the work of the AfDB: RMCs include
many LICs with significant infrastructure
challenges and several conflict-affected
countries. Providing them with co-financing
support may help particular projects to succeed
but will not necessarily create the conditions
needed to attract investors to other projects.
Such countries require long-term support
focused on creating an enabling environment
for PPPs.
PPPs are not a Substitute
for Governance Reform
The IEG (2014) addresses this issue most succinctly:
"PPPs require their own infrastructure." The
European Investment Bank notes that PPPs are
often far more complex than public sector projects
and re challenging to implement successfully
even in more mature markets. The success of
PPP arrangements is highly dependent upon
prospects for economic growth, political stability,
a predictable legal environment, and sufficient
institutional and regulatory capacity among other
things. Absent these, PPPs are not a solution
for long-standing public sector inefficiency and
capacity challenges.
The ADB (2009) identifies India as an example of
a developing member country that has succeeded
with a more comprehensive approach that
addresses overall development conditions. In
addition to pursuing several PPP arrangements,
India has introduced widespread sector reforms,
including the systematic incorporation of PPPs
into sector development plans, PPP capacity
development for line ministries, support for
project development, and the introduction of
government financing schemes. South Africa
has also been cited as a country that has
successfully embraced PPPs through regulatory
reform, provision of project guidance, and the
development of PPP frameworks (Farlam 2005).
The success of these governance initiatives has
depended, in turn, upon long-term political
support and engagement (ADB 2009; Farlam
2005).
The need for underlying governance reform is
another pertinent lesson for the AfDB. Many,
if not most RMCs face considerable governance
75
A quarterly knowledge publication from Independent Development Evaluation, African Development Bank Group

76
challenges -- political instability, corruption,
undue influence in the administration of
justice, underdeveloped sector planning and
project development capacity, lack of access to
finance, and the need for substantial regulatory
reform – that limit the potential for successful
PPP arrangements. A coordinated, multi-sector
approach is needed to address these challenges.
The ADB (2009) further found that, absent
coordination and long-term support, the best
practices used in one project were not necessarily
incorporated into subsequent projects, raising
concerns about the sustainability of projectspecific
PPP support. Moreover, without a
crosscutting multi-sector approach, lessons
learned in one sector do not necessarily
get transmitted to other sectors, leading to
repeated mistakes in project development and
implementation (ADB 2009; IEG 2014).
Successful PPP Promotion
Requires Long-term
Engagement
MDBs have typically provided co-financing
support to PPP arrangements. The European
Investment Bank (2005) found that such
interventions provide additionality in terms of
access to affordable long-term financing, but that
most investments would proceed without any
MDB support, albeit at higher costs. The ADB
(2009) also noted that the additionality of its
support has been limited by the timing of its
involvement in PPP arrangements: support was
typically provided only after a concession was
tendered. Although the involvement of MDBs is
associated with better environmental and social
performance, the development benefits of PPPs
might be greater if MDB involvement came earlier
in project selection and design.
IFIs do not act as catalysts for PPPs frequently.
When they do, they identify and convene
potential partners and contribute to structuring
and developing PPPs. MDBs can arguably add
the most value to specific projects by engaging
early. Ideally, support would be provided at the
sector planning stage, where the selection of
commercially viable projects with demonstrated
feasibility is key. Successful PPP arrangements
rely heavily on the quality of project selection
(IEG 2014). MDBs have a clear role to play in
developing PPP pipelines by supporting valuefor-money
assessments that compare the financial
and service delivery benefits of PPP arrangements
against public sector alternatives.
After the initial selection of projects has been
made, MDBs are valuable sources of technical
expertise to support tendering and procurement,
providing advice at all stages of the process
(IEG, 2014; ADB 2009). They can act as an
honest broker between parties during the
negotiation of the final arrangement by assisting
in the identification of well-defined objectives,
promoting an optimal allocation of risk and
ensuring that legal documents are unambiguous
and include effective arbitration arrangements.
Even in more mature markets, contract design
issues are common and asymmetries exist
between the quality of advice received by private
and public actors (European Investment Bank
2005).
Mobilizing for Successful PPPs in Africa
The overall lesson to take from the experience
of other MDBs in mobilizing to promote
infrastructure development and basic service
delivery in Africa may be that PPPs are
not a straightforward solution for Africa's
infrastructure deficit They are complex
undertakings requiring appropriate market
conditions, political buy-in, institutional
capacity, and strategic project selection. MDBs
have a role to play in providing access to
inexpensive, long-term financing for existing
projects, but promoting PPPs requires longterm
engagement and a strategic approach that
goes beyond financing existing projects. This is
particularly true in Africa where many countries
eVALUatiOn Matters

have market and governance conditions that
prove unpalatable to the private sector.
Both the IEG (2014) and the ADB (2009) have
emphasized the need for strategic engagement
to promote PPPs, including the creation of
an organizational definition and operational
frameworks to promote these arrangements.
Both have suggested that PPPs be addressed
systematically as a crosscutting issue in country
strategies, based on a customized diagnostic
of investment and governance environments.
Where necessary, a longer-term perspective
should be adopted that incorporates PPP
awareness, capacity development, project
selection and co-financing support. A demanddriven
approach which focuses primarily on
co-financing projects will allocate the majority
of resources to MICs, whereas lower-income
countries and fragile states will continue to face
serious challenges in funding infrastructure
development.
As an example of best practice, the ADB (2012)
has produced an Operational Framework for
PPPs that addresses the main lessons and
recommendations of the evaluation. It envisions
PPP operations based on advocacy and capacity
development and regulatory and legal reform
that create an enabling environment including
capacity development for public sector officials,
sector analyses, and the development of road maps
for PPPs. It also envisions project development
whereby regional departments are expected to
actively promote PPPs by assisting with project
selection, developing country-specific screening
tests, and providing technical assistance for
procurement and value-for-money assessments.
Lastly, it envisions project co-financing and credit
enhancement products to the resulting projects.
Another important factor to consider is the
AfDB’s possible role in promoting PPPs as
part of broader development partnership. As
IDEV's recent stocktaking assessment noted, the
AfDB has engaged in relatively few non-lending
operations specifically targeting the creation of
a PPP-enabling environment. If it is unfeasible
to provide such support to RMCs given internal
capacity, resources and experience, it must be
determined how the AfDB can partner with other
MDBs to ensure that RMCs receive long-term,
multi-faceted support, including for creating an
enabling environment, capacity building, project
planning, selection, and financing.
Convening potential partners and leveraging
private sector resources through innovative
lending and non-lending support is a key feature
of the Bank's Ten Year Strategy. Promoting PPP
arrangements to address infrastructure gaps
and improve the delivery of basic services fully
embodies these objectives, but PPPs are not a
panacea for the infrastructure challenges of cashstrapped
countries. PPPs must be approached
strategically and selectively to fully realize their
potential value. The experience of other MDBs
suggests that the challenges and complexities of
PPPs may be particularly acute for Africa, which
further underscores the need for a more strategic
approach. Going forward, the AfDB should
examine its current approach and achievements
to date in promoting PPPs critically, as other
MDBs have done, and identify opportunities to
better implement its strategic, long-term vision
for Africa's development.
References
African Development Bank Group, 2010.
"Infrastructure Deficit and Opportunities
in Africa," Economic Brief, Issue 1, Volume
1, http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/
afdb/Documents/Publications/ECON%20
Brief_Infrastructure%20Deficit%20and%20
Opportunities%20in%20Africa_Vol%201%20
Issue%202.pdf
---, Independent Development Evaluation, 2015.
"African Development Bank's Utilization of
the Public Private Partnership Mechanism
77
A quarterly knowledge publication from Independent Development Evaluation, African Development Bank Group

78
(2006-2012), Stocktaking Report,"
unpublished.
IMF Working Paper, http://www.imf.org/
external/pubs/ft/wp/2006/wp0699.pdf
Araujo, Sonja and Douglas Sutherland, (2010).
"Public-Private Partnerships and Investment
in Infrastructure," OECD Economics
Department Working Papers, No.803, OECD
Publishing, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/
papers.cfm?abstract_id=1685344
Asian Development Bank, 2012. "Public-Private
Partnership Operational Plan 2012-2020 -
Realizing the Vision for Strategy 2020: The
Transformational Role of Public-Private
Partnerships in Asian Development Bank
Operations." http://www.adb.org/sites/
default/files/institutional-document/33671/
ppp-operational-plan-2012-2020.pdf
Asian Development Bank Independent Evaluation
Department, 2009. "ADB Assistance for
Public-Private Partnerships in Infrastructure
Development - Potential for More Success,"
http://www.oecd.org/derec/adb/47166423.pdf
Deloitte, 2008. "Closing the Infrastructure Gap:
The Role of Public Private Partnerships,"
http://www.cnrs.fr/aquitaine/IMG/pdf/
closing_the_infrastructure_gap.pdf
Deloitte, 2013. "Addressing Africa's
Infrastructure Challenges" http://www2.
deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/
Documents/Energy-and-Resources/dttl-erafricasinfrastructure-08082013.pdf
Farlam, Peter, (2005). "Working Together -
Assessing Public-Private Partnerships in
Africa," The South African institute of
International Affairs - Nepad Policy Focus
Series, http://www.oecd.org/investment/
investmentfordevelopment/34867724.pdf
Hammami, Mona, Jean-Francois Ruhashyankiko,
and Etienne B. Yehoue, 1999. "Determinants of
Public-Private Partnerships in Infrastructure,"
McKinsey and Company, (2009). "Public-Private
Partnerships - Harnessing the Private
sector's Unique Ability to Enhance Social
Impact," http://mckinseyonsociety.com/
public-private-partnerships-harnessing-theprivate-sectors-unique-ability-to-enhancesocial-impact/
Queiroz, Cesar, Gaston Astesiano, and Tomas
Serebrisky, 2014. "An Overview of the
Brazilian PPP Experience from a Stakeholder
Viewpoint," Inter-American Development
Bank Publications, https://publications.iadb.
org/bitstream/handle/11319/6399/An%20
Overview%20of%20the%20Brazilian%20
PPP%20Experience%20from%20a%20
Stakeholders%C2%BF%20Viewpoint%20
final.pdf?sequence=1
Samir, Khaled Ibn Waleed Hussein, 2008.
"Evaluation and Public Private Partnerships:
Posing the Questions," presentation at
Workshop on Evaluation and Public-Private
Partnerships, African Development Bank,
unpublished.
Thomson, Campbell and Judith Goodwin, 2005.
"Evaluation of PPP Projects Financed by the
EIB" http://www.eib.org/attachments/ev/
ev_ppp_en.pdf
UK Treasury, 2006. "PFI: Strengthening Longterm
Partnerships" https://www2.unece.
org/wiki/download/attachments/23758291/
Treasury%20-%20PFI%20Strenghtening%20
long%20term%20partnerships.pdf?api=v2
World Bank Independent Evaluation Group,
2014. "World Bank Group Support to Public-
Private Partnerships - Lessons and Experience
in Client Countries (FY2002-2012)" http://
ieg.worldbank.org/Data/reports/chapters/
ppp_eval_updated2.pdf
eVALUatiOn Matters

ABOUT THE AUTHOR 79
Erika MacLaughlin is a Junior Consultant working as an Evaluation Coordinator with Independent
Development Evaluation. She has previously worked in evaluation and research teams with Foreign
Affairs, Trade and Development Canada; the Canadian International Development Agency; and the
Public Service Commission of Canada. She holds a juris doctor from the University of Toronto and a
bachelor of arts from the University of Western Ontario.
Khaled Samir Hussein is a Principal Evaluation Officer, Independent Development Evaluation (IDEV),
African Development Bank (AfDB). He worked previously with the Islamic Development Bank and
the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Trade. Khaled’s evaluation work focuses on the AfDB’s private sector
interventions, particularly the thematic areas of Small and Medium Enterprise (SME) and Public
Private Partnership (PPP). He holds a B.A. in Economics and Computing and an M.S. in Finance and
Risk Management from the ICMA Centre, University of Reading in the United Kingdom.

80
Samuel Kouakou
Evaluation of Public-Private
Partnerships in Agriculture
in Côte d’Ivoire: Challenges
and Prospects
The number of Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) has grown in the last two decades. They are
now being used in more than 134 developing countries, contributing about 15-20 percent of total
investment infrastructure.
In recognition of the importance of food security for development, the international community
has expanded public and private investment in agriculture and encourages building on progress
that African governments have made in advancing a vision for agricultural development in Africa.
Côte d’Ivoire has always encouraged private investment. Its recent adoption of an investment code
offering greater incentives is conducive to faster growth in private investment in the economy
in general and in agriculture in particular. Agriculture is the backbone of the Ivorian economy:
It employs 70% of the labour force, contributes 25% of GDP and 60% of export earnings, and
produces more than 10.7 million tonnes of food per year. One of the factors that account for the
past success of agriculture in Côte d’Ivoire is the coexistence of agribusiness groups and small
farmers. The 2010-2015 National Agricultural Investment Program (PNIA) clearly affirms the
will of the Government of Côte d’Ivoire to build on this dynamic partnership: PPPs have already
been established in the rubber, banana, coffee-cocoa and rice sectors.
eVALUatiOn Matters

Côte d’Ivoire’s agriculture is diversified. It is the world’s leading cocoa producer (40% share of
the world market), the leading exporter of cashews, and one of the major producers of rubber
and palm oil. There is potential for developing partnerships with the private sector. As such,
developing tools to monitor and evaluate the implementation of PPPs for sustainable development
seems urgent. Yet several questions must be answered to better understand the need for doing
evaluation differently in the agriculture sector:
81
• How can evaluation help ensure efficient and effective use of PPPs in achieving sustainable
development results?
• What outcomes and performance are expected from PPPs?
• What evaluation criteria are applicable?
The PPP Framework in Côte d’Ivoire
Côte d’Ivoire is a pioneer of PPPs in West Africa. Its first PPP Project, in water supply, dates back
to 1959 with SAUR-SODECI for the distribution of drinking water. More recently, PPPs have been
used in energy and infrastructure for the implementation of such major projects as AZITO in
the electricity sector in July 1998, CIPREL in 1994 and the Henri Konan BEDIE Bridge in 2014.
Regulatory framework for PPPs
The country is constantly improving its regulatory framework and business environment. As part of
its national strategy and to provide the PPP environment with an appropriate regulatory framework,
the Government issued Decrees 1 No. 2012-1151 on December 19, 2012 relating to Contracts of
Public-Private Partnership contracts and No. 2012-1152 on December 19, 2012 concerning the
allocation, organization and functioning of the Steering Institutional Framework for PPPs. PPP
contracts may be used in all areas of economic, social and cultural sector.
The Steering Institutional Framework for PPPs is primarily an institutional framework under
the authority of the President of the Republic. Projects are in line with the 2012-2015 National
Development Plan (PND) and the Public Investment Programme (PIP). Strong political commitment
is demonstrated by the fact that the National Steering Committee reports directly to the Office
of the President. A medium-term development plan and strategy (PND 2012-2015 and PIP 2013-
2015) have been validated by international donors.
Methodology for developing PPP projects
The Government of Côte d’Ivoire intends to improve incentives for private sector investment in
agriculture, in particular, by taking action to support transparent evidence-based policy.
Institutional framework for PPPs
Under the authority of the President of the Republic, the institutional framework for PPPs includes
a National Steering Committee for Public-Private Partnerships (CNP-PPP) that makes decisions 2 ,
validates and guides the steering institutional framework for PPPs. It meets once a month and
1 http://www.ppp.gouv.ci/en/regulation.html
2 http://www.ppp.gouv.ci/committee.html
A quarterly knowledge publication from Independent Development Evaluation, African Development Bank Group

82
whenever necessary. The Steering Committee
Secretariat is supported by the Executive
Secretariat of the PPPs comprising personnel
and experts appointed by Order of the Prime
Minister, Minister of Economy, Finance and
Budget. Both Committee are supported by
the PPP Support Unit located at the National
Technical Studies and Development Office
(BNETD). The Executive Secretariat submits
proposals to the National Steering Committee
for review subsequent to prior discussion.
Table 1: Roles and Responsibilities
in the PPP process
Action
Project identification
Appraisal of the PPP option
Project preparation
Selection of the PPP
candidates and contract
signing or agreement
Contract approval
Project execution follow up
A Technical Ministry
B Support Unit of the PPPs
C National Steering Committee for PPPs
D Executive Secretariat of the PPPs
Authorities concerned
Contracting Authority A with CA-PPP B
support + external media if necessary
CNP-PPP C
Contracting Authority with CA-PPP
support
Contracting Authority with CA-PPP
support
If there is no objection: CNP-PPP
Validation: Council of Ministers
Signature: Project Assignee +
Contracting Authority + Minister of
Economy, Finances and Budget
Contracting authority + CNP-PPP
(with SE-PPP D and CA-PPP support)
Public-private Partnerships
in Agriculture
For many years, PPPs focused mainly on large
infrastructure projects. Using them in agriculture,
and particularly for small farmers, is relatively
recent but they are an important mechanism for
harnessing technology, resources, skills, expertise
and market access to improve the livelihoods of
resource-poor smallholders.
implementation of initiatives for seven of these
- including rice, cashew, palm oil, banana, coffee
and cocoa – began in 2013.
PPP in the coffee and cocoa sector
To better assess and evaluate the implementation
of activities in the coffee-cocoa sector, a PPP
Platform (PPPP) was set up as part of activities
and plenary sessions are regularly organized 3 .
The PPPP is a framework for consultation and
permanent dialogue between stakeholders in
the coffee-cocoa value chain 4 that aims to better
coordinate efforts and initiatives, mobilize and
optimize resources for the implementation of
the National Sustainable Development Program
of the Coffee-Cocoa sector (2QC Program). The
Quantity-Quality-Growth (2QC) program aims
to help promote the socio-economic welfare of
cocoa farmers and their communities.
Ten (10) framework agreements were signed
with investors such as WCF/ACI, WCF/
CLP, HDI/Fertilizers Initiative, MARS/V4C,
CARGILL, GIZ/PROCACAO, WORLD BANK,
HDI (Support to the PPPP), UNDP/GEF, HDI
(S/E Fertilizer Initiative) for a total amount of
$42.6 million.
PPP in rice sector
Rice is an important daily staple in the Ivorian
diet. The average Ivorian eats an estimated 70
kilos per year, and total consumption hovers
at around 1.7 million tonnes per year. Rice is
produced in the country, which is however a
net importer. The Government of Côte d’Ivoire
is committed to stimulating local production.
In 2012, it revised its 2012-2020 National Rice
Development Strategy (SNDR) to better support
local rice paddy, seed production, and created a
dedicated Agency, the National Rice Development
Support to PPPs and private-sector projects
and investments has been a prime imperative
for the Government of Cote d’Ivoire, which
has prioritized eleven value chains. The
3 To date, four plenary sessions have been held. The last one on March 31,
2015, covered May 2014 to March 2015.
4 PPPP was launched on May 21, 2012 and its Protocol adopted on
September 25, 2012 with content based on the 2QC program as a
national sustainable program for the coffee-cocoa sector development,
which has been implemented since 2009.
eVALUatiOn Matters

PLENARY ASSEMBLY
(all members)
83
MANAGEMENT BOARD
Presidency: Coffee-Cocoa Council
Vice-presidency: Private Sector
TECHNICAL SECRETARIAT
(located within the Department of Production and Sustainability of the Coffee-Cocoa Council)
Thematic Group No 1 Thematic Group No… Thematic Group No 8
Office (ONDR), to ensure that the three-phase
strategy be implemented 5 .
The Interval PPPs approach seeks to develop
value chains through a mixed model comprising
out grower programs and commercial farm
development. Intervals’ model aims to create
impact for rural communities through sustainable
job creation and higher incomes. Currently, a
pilot project is underway by Yaanovel in Côte
d’Ivoire and is expected to generate 15,000 jobs
for an investment of $215 million.
Nine rice development clusters were each
attributed to a private-sector investor 6 entrusted
with responsibility for developing the value chain.
PPP in other sectors
PPPs framework agreements were sealed with
investors in many other agriculture sectors.
To develop the maize value chain, the Ivorian
Company of Animal Production (SIPRA)
specializes in the production of eggs, poultry
and poultry inputs has developed for about
5 Achieve self-sufficiency in rice production by 2016 (~1.6 million tonnes of
white rice); run a surplus and build a buffer stock by 2018 and to export
rice to neighboring countries by 2018.
6 Louis Dreyfus Commodities (LDC), LR, CEVITAL, Singapore Agrictec/GAA,
Expert Trading Group (ETG), Yaanovel, AMC and GAN Logis.
$88.9 million, its activities by implementing
a pilot project for intensive corn production,
which eventually will showcase more than
40,000 ha of industrial corn and 5,000 ha of
maize made by local farmers.
The Organization of Exporting Producers
of Bananas, Pineapple, Mango and other
Exporting fruits of Côte d’Ivoire (OBAMCI)
initiated the sweet banana plantations project
for an investment of $9.8 million. The project
will be implemented out on a total area of
250-300 hectares for the pilot phase and will
be expanded to 500 hectares. It is expected
a production of 21000 tonnes of bananas for
export.
This activity will also enable the creation of over 700
direct, permanent jobs and 4,000 people will benefit
from the economic spin of this project says one.
The rubber cultivation Company of Prikro (CHP)
has signed with the Ivorian state, a framework
agreement for the implementation of its integrated
rubber cultivation and food crops project for
an investment of $64 million. This project will
showcase more than 5000 ha of industrial rubber
trees plantations, create 8000 ha of villagers type
rubber plantations, construct the first rubber
A quarterly knowledge publication from Independent Development Evaluation, African Development Bank Group

84
processing plant and over five years commission
the implementation of the production of food
crops (yams, cassava, maize etc.) are also included
the rehabilitation and maintenance of rural
roads and irrigation schemes, the establishment
of village water infrastructure as well as the
construction and the rehabilitation of school
facilities and community health centers in the
concerned villages.
All these PPP projects should help improve food
security.
Investment pipeline
Through the New Alliance for Food Security
and Nutrition, 21 letters of Intent were received
In June 2013, from companies that referenced
over half billion dollars of planned investment.
Major donor investments in agriculture have
begun to flow. The French Development Agency
(AFD) will provide $150 million in a first tranche
of budgetary support for the sector. The World
Bank is contributing, $50 million towards PNIA
implementation, particularly to develop the
rubber, coffee-cocoa and oil palm value chains.
Under the 11th European Development Fund,
agriculture and food security remain priorities
for Côte d’Ivoire.
Results achieved so far
• There is an intervention framework 7 for private
sector investors under the SNDR;
• Rice development Clusters were identified and
assigned to “Cluster Leaders”;
• Cluster Leaders are at different levels in
administrative procedures (most clusters leaders
have not yet installed rice processing units);
• Some investors (SDTM-CI, AJAM GROUP
and GREENWICH INTERNATIONAL) have
expressed interest in the SNDR;
• Three frameworks agreements (LDC, ETG and
Yaanovel) for PPPs were signed and began to
buy paddy in their areas;
• Three frameworks agreements (SIPRA,
OBAMCI, CHP) for PPPs were signed and
projects are ongoing in their areas;
• Three frameworks agreements (AMC, GAN
Logis and Singapore Agritec/GAA) for PPPs
are in preparation.
Emerging Cross-cutting
Issues and Contribution
to Development Evaluation
For PPPs to create transformational change in
developing countries, more partnerships are
required. Creating awareness and providing
data for interested parties are key steps in this
process. So maximum use must be made of the
currently limited evidence. Staying engaged
beyond financial closure of a PPP remains a
strategic necessity.
Concerning the monitoring and evaluation
of PPPs, 8 contracting authorities are invited
to, permanently, ensure the successful
implementation of PPPs by investors in
accordance with the contractual schedule.
Contracts are subject to a periodic audit conducted
at least every three years by the authorized bodies.
The National Steering Committee is responsible of
the monitoring and evaluation 9 of PPP Contracts
implementation.
However, the task could be very tough to achieve
since in the cases of PPPs, investors (profitseeking
organizations) play the role of both
funding agency and project implementation
Unit. Furthermore, PPPs M&E system is not
fully operational in agricultural sector yet. It
will be relevant to design result-based guidelines
to promote a result-based evaluation culture and
to better assess PPPs outcomes and performance
in a changing development environment.
7 Framework agreements, contracts, guideline for feasibility studies, etc.
8 Decree No. 2012-1151 on December 19, 2012, Article 24.
9 Decree No. 2012-1152 on December 19, 2012, Article 8.
eVALUatiOn Matters

In agriculture, many results have been achieved
so far as a contribution to development
evaluation practices. For instance, in August
2012, a Detailed Investment Plan (PID) was
adopted by the Ministry of Agriculture to
support the implementation of the 2010-2015
National Agricultural Investment Program
(PNIA). Also a specific value-chain strategy is
currently being developed and in some cases
amended.
Other achievements include:
• Harmonized M&E indicators for the 2QC
program by the PPPP of the Coffee-Cocoa
sector;
• A working group composed of ten M&E experts
to provide a harmonized approach to monitor
and evaluation the 2QC program;
• Identification of good practices and lessons
learned from education, promoting gender
equality and the fight against the worst forms
of child labor.
Challenges
PPPs require an enabling environment for
their preparation and successful execution and
evaluation must be built into the PPP framework.
However, governance, regulatory failure, and
inadequate sector structure are the most common
PPPs constraints. In addition, competitiveness,
bidding process, regulatory capacity, costs,
legislative and regulatory issues as well as public
and private sector evaluation capacity issues, are
all challenges.
Monitoring and evaluation of cross-border PPPs
remains another challenge. Specifically, the issue is
to change the national institutional framework to
take account of overlapping points at regional level.
When data are available, financial, efficiency and
quality improvements of PPPs can be confirmed.
But in most of the time, data are scarce.
Prospects
A lot of emerging development issues in PPPs
evaluation requires attention and innovative
thinking and action. Some specific actions to change
thinking and to ensure a significant contribution
to development evaluation include the following:
• Developing and implementing evaluation tools
for ex-ante evaluation of PPPs;
• Continue to identify projects of all partners
to better plan and coordinate interventions;
• Establish M&E system of agriculture PPPs;
• Harmonize approaches and training tools;
• Strengthen the capacity of PPPs stakeholders;
• Revise the operational document for the PPP
Platform of the Coffee-Cocoa sector;
• Renew PPPs Management Board members.
Lessons Learnt
• PPP projects are markedly more difficult to
implement than normal infrastructure projects;
• Development outcome ratings of PPPs tend to
be better in countries ready to handle PPPs;
• The presence of a strong regulatory framework
is necessary for projects to succeed;
• PPP success depends on M&E resources to
capture all aspects of performance;
• Political and economic stability, strong
government commitment, a legal, institutional
and regulatory framework allowing financial
and economical security, and a center to
help disseminate best practices and share
knowledge, are all necessary;
• Capacity building for PPPs and building a legal
and institutional framework were the next most
frequently addressed enabling factors;
• A dedicated national PPP unit is needed and
may facilitate inter-ministerial coordination
of projects;
• Project preparation, execution and
implementation must be done clearly and in
a predictable manner that considers potential
obstacles.
85
A quarterly knowledge publication from Independent Development Evaluation, African Development Bank Group

86
Conclusion
The development of PPPs in agriculture will
expand in Côte d’Ivoire during the next decade
considering the economic growth and the food
security policy. However designing, structuring,
and implementing PPPs remain challenging
and complex in a changing development
environment.
The Development of an evaluation framework for
PPPs is interesting for ensuring the sustainability
of agricultural projects. M&E tools for PPPs are
therefore urgently needed considering emerging
practices in development evaluations.
For good governance, accountability and
transparency, greater development effectiveness,
and delivery of tangible results, policies
guidelines for a Results-Based Monitoring
and Evaluation System must be designed and
built, with the participation of all stakeholders,
mainly contracting authorities and beneficiaries.
That will be relevant to promote a result-based
culture and better evaluate PPPs outcomes and
performance.
Recommendations
Successful PPPs require dedicated PPPs units
that do the following:
• Strengthen the capacities of government
agencies, contracting authorities, regional
bodies, private sector trade associations and
farmer organizations to identify and address
issues for the long-term viability of PPPs after
the initial formulation phase;
• Monitor PPPs performance beyond the early
years of operational maturity.
References
New Alliance for Food Security. G8 Cooperation
Framework to Support the New Alliance for
Food Security and Nutrition in Côte d’Ivoire
http://feedthefuture.gov/sites/default/files/
resource/files/Ivory%20Coast%20Coop%20
Framework%20ENG_Final%20w.%20cover.
pdf
GIZ. Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation
and Development (BMZ). Supporting
promotion of the private sector (PPP fund)
https://giz.de/en/worldwide/19287.html
CRDI/IDRC. Syngeta Foundation for Sustainable
agriculture. Conference on « Mettre en place
des partenariats public-privé en Afrique : Créer
de la valeur pour les petits exploitants agricoles
». 26 and 27 March 2012, Ottawa, Canada
http://www.idrc.ca/FR/Documents/PPP-
March-2012-report-Aug%2017-Fr.pdf
• Act as knowledge centers on PPPs preparation,
negotiation and implementation, that can also
provide cost savings for government;
• Help regulate the formulation of PPPs by
government agencies to ensure that they fulfill
all requirements;
• Design M&E tools applicable to the country;
• Have PPPs beneficiaries play a role in PPPs
governance (vital for success);
• Strengthen existing M&E systems and roll out
and expand a post-implementation monitoring
system to better assess the breadth of PPPs
outcomes;
S.E. M. Daniel Kablan Duncan, premier ministre,
ministre de l’économie, des finances et
du budget. Discours lors de la cérémonie
solennelle d’ouverture de la 6ème conférence
sur les partenariats public-privé en Afrique,
Sofitel hôtel ivoire, Abidjan, Thursday 20 th
November 2014.
http://www.gouv.ci/declaration_gouv_1.
php?pages=5&recordID=287
The World Bank Institute. Taking Public-Private
Partnerships (PPPs) Forward in Francophone
Africa
eVALUatiOn Matters

http://wbi.worldbank.org/wbi/
news/2010/03/12/taking-public-privatepartnerships-forward-francophone-africa
Grow Africa. case studies on public-private
agriculture investments, intervalle’s publicprivate
partnership model: the case of rice
production in Cote d’Ivoire, June 2015
https://www.growafrica.com/sites/default/
files/Grow%20Africa%20Case%20Study%20
Series%20-%20Intervalle.pdf
Grow Africa. Agricultural partners take root
across Africa. 2nd Annual Report on privatesector
investment in support of country-led
transformations in African agriculture, May
2014
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/IP/2014/GA/
WEF_GrowAfrica_AnnualReport2014.pdf
Independent Evaluation Group. World
Bank Group. Support to Public-Private
Partnerships: Lessons from Experience in
Client Countries, FY02–12, 2012-12
http://www.francophonie.org/IMG/pdf/
wb_ppp_eval_updated_ieg.pdf
Economic Commission for Africa. Southern
Africa Office. Agricultural Input Business
Development in Africa: Opportunities,
Issues and Challenges
http://www.uneca.org/sites/default/files/
PublicationFiles/sro-sa-agri-iputs-businessopportunities.pdf
Republic of Côte d’Ivoire. Decree No 2012-
1152 portant attribution, organisation et
fonctionnement du Cadre Institutionnel de
Pilotage des Partenariats Public-Privé
http://www.ppp.gouv.ci/uploads//
D%C3%A9cret%20N%C2%B02012-1152%20
du%2019%20Dec%202012.pdf
Colin Kirk, Director, OPEV. Evaluation and
Public Private Partnerships: Posing the
Questions, African Development Bank,
Operations Evaluation Department
http://www.sadcpppnetwork.org/
wp-content/uploads/2015/01/012_1_
EN_Evaluation-and-Public-Private-
Partnerships-Posing-the-Questions-Colin-
Kirk-Director-OPEV.pdf
Mr. Isaac DE. Speech of Session: Investing in
Infrastructures and Services (Transports
and Tourism) through PPP, UK – Côte
d’Ivoire Trade & Investment Forum 2013,
London, October 30, 2013
http://slideplayer.com/slide/2493422/
Le Conseil du Café-Cacao. Partenariat publicprivé.,
Point des préparatifs l’actualisation
du programme Quantité-Qualité-Croissance
(2QC), deuxième session plénière, San-
Pedro, côte d’ivoire, 27-28 mai 2013
http://www.conseilcafecacao.ci/
docs/pppp_2_session/PROJET_
ACTUALISATION_DU_
PROGRAMME_2QC.pdf
87
The Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable
Agriculture. Database of Public-Private
Partnerships in Agriculture
http://www.syngentafoundation.org/__
temp/PPPdatabase141211.pdf
Republic of Côte d’Ivoire. Decree No 2012-1151
relatif aux contrats de Partenariats Public-Privé
http://www.ppp.gouv.ci/uploads//
D%C3%A9cret%20N%C2%B02012-1151%20
du%2019%20Dec%202012.pdf
The Coffee-Cocoa Council. Plateforme de
Partenariat Public-Prive de la filière Café
Cacao (PPPP). Rapport d’activités de la PPPP,
Période de Mai 2014 à Mars 2015, 4ème
session plénière, March, 31st 2015
http://www.conseilcafecacao.ci/
docs/2015/PRESENTATION_RAPPORT_
DACTIVITES_FINAL.pdf
The Coffee-Cocoa Council. Plateforme de Partenariat
Public-Prive de la filière Café Cacao (PPPP). Etat
A quarterly knowledge publication from Independent Development Evaluation, African Development Bank Group

88
de mise en œuvre du programme Quantité,
Qualité, Croissance (2QC), mai 2014 – mars 2015
http://www.conseilcafecacao.ci/docs/2015/
PRESENTATION_avancement_2QC_PPPP.pdf
The Coffee-Cocoa Council. Plateforme de
Partenariat Public-Prive de la filière Café
Cacao (PPPP). Présentation des principaux
indicateurs harmonisés d’Impacts et de
Résultats/Effets, April 2015
http://www.conseilcafecacao.ci/docs/2015/
PRESENTATION_Indicateur_2QC_PPPP.pdf
Café Cacao (PPPP). La 4ème session
plénière de la Plateforme de Partenariat
Public-Privé, rapport de synthèse
de la session plénière, April 2015
http://www.conseilcafecacao.ci/docs/2015/
COMMUNIQUE_FINAL_PLENIERE_
PPPP.pdf
National Rice Development Office (ONDR). Etat
de mise en œuvre de la Stratégie nationale
de Développement de la Riziculture (SNDR),
December 31st 2014
The Coffee-Cocoa Council. Plateforme de
Partenariat Public-Prive de la filière
The National Steering Committee for PPP
http://www.ppp.gouv.ci/committee.html
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Samuel Kouakou is a technical advisor responsible for project evaluation in the Directorate of Evaluation
and Projects of the Ministry of Agriculture, Côte d’Ivoire. He is an E-Learning visiting lecturer at the
International Institute for Water and Environmental Engineering in Burkina Faso. An active member
of several evaluation associations, he is also President of the Ivorian Initiative for Evaluation.
Samuel holds a Diploma in International Environmental Law from the United Nations Institute
for Training and Research, a Master’s degree in Rural Engineering from the International Institute
for Water and Environmental Engineering, and several post-graduate certificates in international
project management, integrated water resources management, gender mainstreaming, results-based
monitoring and evaluation.
eVALUatiOn Matters

89
Chi Bemieh Fule
Rigorous Impact
Evaluation for Better
and Faster Development
Results
Agriculture, a pivotal sector for development, has been receiving considerable attention
lately in terms of funding and orientation. However, the potential to reorient resources
towards investments with greater development impact is often undermined by
traditional monitoring and evaluation techniques that examine the input-processproduct
chain. This paper presents evaluation results from two typical agricultural
education institutions in Cameroon and underscores the need for rigorous impact
evaluation for better and faster development results. This is pertinent as Cameroon
professionalizes its agricultural education system to meet growing demand.
A quarterly knowledge publication from Independent Development Evaluation, African Development Bank Group

90
Introduction
Cameroon faces many socioeconomic issues: a large unskilled labor force, low employment rates,
great vulnerability to insecurity, poor governance, and more. In an attempt to raise the gross domestic
product and employment rates, efforts have been made to train unskilled labor by professionalizing
the educational system. In the agricultural sector, this entails renovating school infrastructure,
re-orienting the curriculum, increasing the number and capacity of staff, targeting a greater number
of trainees, and providing financial support to graduates. Funds mobilized in pursuit of these
objectives are provided partly by the government (which invests 20% of its budget in agriculture),
its partner, the French Development Agency (AFD) through the Programme d’Appui à la Rénovation
et au Développement de la Formation Professionnelle dans les secteurs de l’agriculture, de l’élevage et
de pêche (AFOP), and tuition fees. Despite the remarkable results obtained so far, as evidenced by
monitoring and ex-post evaluation, the impact of the program and efficiency of resource use remains
questionable. This paper attempts to showcase the relevance of impact evaluation in this context by
presenting the case of two agricultural institutions.
Agricultural Educational System: Overview
and Evolution
The agricultural educational system in Cameroon dates back to the colonial era, although it has
evolved with changes in the political climate. In the 1980's, rural training schools were created by
decree, formalizing the system to provide qualified staff for the public service. The decree led to the
creation of three different types of schools: functional training schools, specialized training schools
and training centers for young farmers. Today, the functional training institutions include three
regional agricultural colleges, one school for wildlife, fisheries and forestry and nine technical schools
of agriculture. The specialized training schools include two colleges for cooperation specialists and
three colleges to train specialists in community development. The number of public and private
training centers has risen steadily to an estimated 50 centers.
The functional training schools were intended to operate continuously by enrolling eligible students –
holders of the Cameroon General Certificate of Education Ordinary Level (GCE O/L) and Advanced
level (GCE A/L) on an annual basis. After two years of training, students obtain the Technician
Diploma in Agriculture or B1 Cycle and the Senior Technician Diploma in Agriculture or B2 Cycle,
respectively. Until 2008, the learning approach was pedagogy by objective. Each institution identified
the market needs, defined its goals and developed a curriculum to meet them. In addition to holders
of the GCE O/L, the specialized institutions could also recruit holders of the First School Leaving
Certificate (FSLC). The training centers recruited and continue to recruit holders of the FSLC only.
These schools offer specialized training in various rural disciplines and trainees earn a Cycle C diploma
and become assistant technicians in forestry, community development or cooperative management.
The economic recession in the late 1980s reduced demand for trained personnel in the public service
and was partly responsible for the long decline in the activities of the agricultural educational system.
The sector needed revamping. As unemployment rates rose, the government suddenly took action in
1998 and recruited approximately 4,500 youths into the CFJA for training in animal husbandry and
crop production, not to serve in the public sector, but for self-employment. New targets were set with
eVALUatiOn Matters

support from AFOP. Since 2008, the program has
supported the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Development (MINADER) and the Ministry
of Livestock, Fisheries and Animal Industries
(MINEPIA) to boost the number of professionals
in agriculture and rural development. Each year,
approximately 1000 students graduate as Senior
Technicians in Agriculture or B2 Cycle, from the
country’s 18 schools.
Conventional Evaluation
in the Agricultural
Educational System
The Agricultural Cooperative and Community
Education and Training Division (DEFACC)
oversees the traditional M&E mechanism in
MINADER’s agricultural development system
– Division for education and training in
community and cooperative agriculture. M&E
is conducted once or twice per year, as financial
and human resources permit and has pedagogic,
administrative, financial/budgetary and wealth/
asset components. The typical areas of focus
during the evaluation exercise are summarized
in Table 1.
This evaluation is complemented with a biennial
evaluation carried out by the C2D/AFOP regional
office. The approach is very similar but there
is a more rigorous check on how closely the
school curriculum is respected, teaching staff
qualifications, and the availability and quality
of pedagogic logistics. In addition, the AFOP
program and other C2D-financed programs are
evaluated annually.
The 2014 Evaluation of the three C2D programs in
the rural sector (AMO, ACEFA, AFOP), published
in 2014 by Aide à la Décision Economique, is
evidence of the political interest in evaluation.
However, this interest is superficial and many
problems go unnoticed 1 .
The Technical School
of Agriculture and the
Regional College of
Agriculture
The Technical School of Agriculture (TSA)
and the Regional College of Agriculture (RCA)
share the same campus in the North West
Region of Cameroon. Before revolutionizing the
agricultural educational system in 2008, TSA
recruited FSLC holders who also held the Cycle
C, the GCE O/L and the GCE A/L certificates,
were eligible to be admitted to the RCA. The
roles of the two institutions were complementary
since a student could progress from a lower to a
higher level by attending both. Today, the two
institutions are identical since they have been
constrained to admit only holders of the GCE
A/L and Cycle B1. Prospective trainees take a
competitive exam organized by MINADER.
Those who pass are enrolled in training for two
years and awarded the Cycle B2 diploma and the
Higher National Diploma (HND) simultaneously
at the end of the course.
Based on the evaluative criteria above (and some
additional ones), a brief presentation of both
schools during the 2014-2015 academic year is
presented in Table 2.
91
Table 1: Conventional Evaluation Criteria
Area of concern
Teaching
Administrative
Financial or budgetary
Wealth or Assets
Evaluation criteria
Number of trainers and their qualifications per school, number of students enrolled and graduated
Number of administrative staff and their qualifications
Is expenditure as stipulated in the budget and regulations?
Number of buildings and their condition, surface area of land and level of security or ownership over it
1 Contrat de Désendettement et de Développement du Cameroun.
A quarterly knowledge publication from Independent Development Evaluation, African Development Bank Group

92
Although some criteria like the presence of a
gymnasium are not directly linked to educational
performance, they are being considered because of
their potential to create an enabling environment
for studies. The partial presentation above shows
evidence of redundancy in the use of human and
financial resources, poor infrastructure and the
overarching problem of limited trained staff as
perceived in the field and reiterated in various
evaluation documents.
If these issues are addressed such that the two
schools serve not only as an environment for
acquiring knowledge but also for testing and
generating new knowledge, then a learning
hub is born. This would imply greater outreach
since local farmers would benefit from the
dissemination of the technologies invented.
Both institutions have tremendous potential
for this.
How can Impact
Evaluation Help?
The impact of the training program has been
strengthened partly by AFOP financial support
to graduates in the form of loans and advice to
foster self-employment and the sustainability
of economic activities. It is worth noting
here that not all graduates benefit from this
scheme (also called the “starting block”) partly
because some prefer to seek employment in
already established farms or enroll in other
institutions to obtain higher certificates, and
partly because the funding body rejects some
projects for non-feasibility. Nonetheless, it is
necessary to investigate the efficiency of the
use of resources and the quality of the final
product – the graduate, irrespective of the postgraduation
path taken.
Impact evaluation is an essential tool to
measure the program’s value added by
comparing different scenarios. Examples of
questions asked when verifying the impact of
a program may be: how different is an AFOPgraduate
2 from a non-AFOP graduate? If selfemployment
is the target, how is an AFOPgraduate
different from a non-graduate? The
relevance of this second question emerges from
the fact that there is such a thing as “learningby-doing”
that has been proven to be effective.
An attempt to answer these two questions leads
to an analysis of the resources employed in each
case scenario. Other concerns that may arise
include the justification of the 150,000 FCFA
tuition fee (recently raised to 200,000 FCFA)
compared to the universal flat rate of 50,000
FCFA that all public institutions in Cameroon
levy (except some specialized ones like military,
external relations, etc).
2 The term is used for convenience to refer to a graduate from an
institution receiving support from AFOP.
Table 2: RCA and TSA Bambili Evaluation Results, 2014-2015
Area of concern RCA Bambili TSA Bambili
Teaching
• 10 trainers with minimum qualification of Ingénieur
Technique en Agriculture;
• 150 trainees in first and second year;
• Library, projectors, computer room;
• No sports complex
• 7 trainers with minimum qualification of Ingénieur
Technique en Agriculture;
• 102 trainees in first and second year;
• Computer room and projectors present;
• No library, no sports complex
Administration • 2 dedicated administrative staff • 4 dedicated administrative staff and 1 director
Financial or budgetary
Wealth or Asset
• 3 sources of funding: Public funds (public investment
budget), tuition fees, AFOP and other activities;
• Mode of consumption is satisfactory
• Sufficient classrooms + abandoned buildings and nonfunctioning
latrines, tiny offices, tractor present, possesses
78 hectares of land, standby generator present
Others • No clean water • No clean water
• 3 sources of funding: Public funds, tuition fee, AFOP and
farming activities;
• Mode of employment is satisfactory
• Sufficient classrooms, abandoned buildings and nonfunctioning
latrines, tiny offices, possesses 8,5 hectares of
land, tractor present, standby generator absent
eVALUatiOn Matters

Impact Evaluation
as a Monitoring Tool
Incorporating impact evaluation during the
inception phase of the program would have
been the wisest thing to do. However, since the
program is already operational, the following
elements should be included in the evaluation
design:
• Define evaluation objectives clearly, along
with the type of data to be collected, timing,
resources required in terms of finance,
infrastructure and human resources. This
should be done by an evaluation team.
• Sensitize all stakeholders on the purpose of
the evaluation: funders or AFOP, MINADER/
DEFACC staff, school authorities, staff and
trainees, management board, local authorities
and sector agents, – higher education,
agriculture and rural development.
• Select a private higher educational institution
in the region offering a similar program in
agriculture. A private institution is chosen
because it does not receive assistance from
AFOP, though their tuition fee is slightly
higher.
• With the help of the regional MINADER
delegation and other agricultural civil society
institutions, identify youths holding the GCE
A/L certificate who are practicing agriculture,
either on their own farms or employed on a
farm.
• Define a sample to work with over a period
of five years comprised of students from
AFOP-funded and non-AFOP-funded
institutions and young practitioners.
• Collect data using questionnaires.
• Analyze data using an experimental or
randomized control method (difference-indifference
estimate) to allow for the control
of contemporaneous events and impact
measurements. The coarsened exact matching
approach may also be used.
• Report results on an annual basis to all
stakeholders of the evaluation process.
This design, though non-exhaustive, includes
elements of rigorous impact evaluation to address
problems like attribution and heterogeneity of
impact. At the end of the day, issues regarding
resource use shall also be tackled.
Strong political will is required for such an
exercise, since it entails a huge commitment in
terms of time, human and financial resources. In
addition, its misconception as a check on resource
managers may also hamper its credibility and
realization. An extensive lobbying strategy is
therefore required prior to the evaluative process
proper.
References
ADE, 2014. Evaluation des trois programmes
C2D du secteur rural (AMO, ACEFA, AFOP) :
Analyse Evaluative.
Ministère de l’Agriculture, 1985. La Formation
des Personnels de la Production Rurale au
Ministère de l’agriculture.
93
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Chi Bemieh Fule is an agricultural economist. She holds an MSc in Economics/ Policy Analysis and
an agricultural engineer diploma. She is a lecturer at TSA Bambili, and the Catholic University of
Cameroon. She is also a private consultant with the North West Farmer’s Organization.
A quarterly knowledge publication from Independent Development Evaluation, African Development Bank Group

Comm
Ideas for a
Write
evaluationmat

ents?
n article?
to us
ters@afdb.org

EMERGING
SOLUTIONS TO
DEVELOPMENT
CHALLENGES
Volume 2
idev.afdb.org