Naples, 18 February 2009Donor Committee Meeting0 International Reconstruction Fund Facility for Iraq (IRFFI) Stocktaking Review Presentation of Main Findings

Naples, 18 February 2009Donor Committee Meeting11 Objectives of the Review Independent assessment to determine whether : IRFFI projects on track to achieve results Implemented in efficient & effective manner Providing value for money Effective mechanism Iraqi donor dialogue Compare UNDG ITF and World Bank ITF Identify lessons learned

Naples, 18 February 2009Donor Committee Meeting2 Methodology Selection of projects; document review; interviews with UN, World Bank, donors and Iraqi Officials at various stages Field work conducted by Iraqi consultants/ academics on sub-contract with Scanteam Presentation of initial findings at 7 th Donor Committee Meeting, Baghdad June 2008 Circulation of drafts and finalisation of report Main Report + Project Annexes Volume 2

Naples, 18 February 2009Donor Committee Meeting3 Main Findings Important point of engagement donors and Iraq Rapid and effective mobilization of funding and political support Most projects showed progress towards objectives and meaningful impact on lives of beneficiaries Some projects strengthening GOI capacity, policy No evidence of systematic corruption. Best practice for transparency Accomplishments realized under extreme security conditions, unprecedented for an MDTF Negative perceptions dominate/reporting 3

Naples, 18 February 2009Donor Committee Meeting4 Project Findings: Overview Portfolio Ratings UNDG ITFWB ITF Efficiency AcceptableModerately Satisfactory Effectiveness Moderately Satisfactory Value for Money Moderately Satisfactory National Ownership Moderately SatisfactorySatisfactory On Track to Meet Objectives Partially On Track 4

Naples, 18 February 2009Donor Committee Meeting5 Efficiency: UNDG ITF Technical quality of project design and planning uneven, improving over time Value-added of Clusters to project design unclear Remote management systems of varying quality, better with time; all projects used DEX Monitoring systems at project-level: uneven quality Individual project reporting: uneven, narrative Average implementation delay 130%, affected by both conditions and agency management 5

Naples, 18 February 2009Donor Committee Meeting6 Efficiency: World Bank ITF Technical quality of Project Document good to robust Quality of project planning good Project management structures good (PMU, WB supervision); implementation difficulties in GOI Project monitoring systems robust; independent monitoring agent Quality of project reporting good Average implementation delay 70% 6

Naples, 18 February 2009Donor Committee Meeting7 Effectiveness: UNDG ITF-1 High activity levels despite poor field conditions: 141 projects, USD 850 million disbursed Most projects delivered tangible and quality goods and services to beneficiaries Evidence of strengthening system/capacity and policy Effectiveness undermined by implementation delays, mixed counterpart performance, reductions in scope and sustainability problems Relevance uneven. ISRB not able to play robust priority setting/coordinating role to strengthen relevance with DEX modality 7

Naples, 18 February 2009Donor Committee Meeting8 Effectiveness: UNDG ITF-2 Portfolio had broad scope. In portfolio reviewed, three project types : –Two Quick Impact projects experienced significant delays. –Six short term gap filling or emergency service delivery projects contributed to basic service delivery –Five medium term recovery oriented projects delivered services, with stronger capacity development/policy focus Limited quick impact effectiveness. Stronger outcomes with recovery-oriented projects. 8

Naples, 18 February 2009Donor Committee Meeting9 Effectiveness: World Bank ITF Delivered tangible goods of high quality and valued by beneficiaries Important contribution to strengthening capacity of Iraqi institutions and systems Single project type: support to Iraqi ministries for implementation of medium term recovery projects Effectiveness eroded by implementation delays and changes in project scope, often related to situation inside of counterpart Ministries 9

Naples, 18 February 2009Donor Committee Meeting10 IRFFI National Ownership UNDG ITF meets all technical requirements of ownership, strengthening over time with changes to the decision-making process Quality of ownership affected by capacity of GOI systems and UNDG ITF implementation pressure Negative perception of ownership by some in GOI WB ITF projects fully owned by GOI 10

Naples, 18 February 2009Donor Committee Meeting11 IRFFI Performance: Overview IRFFI: system linking ownership (recovery priorities), strategic direction and oversight, coordination, and implementation into an integrated system with broad implementation capacity, supported by significant financial and political resources. Performance of individual projects influenced by performance of overall system 11

Naples, 18 February 2009Donor Committee Meeting12 Performance: Start-up Phase Significant achievements during start-up phase: Effective and rapid mechanism for mobilizing broad-based international support for recovery Two Facilities established and operational in timely manner, with high activity levels during early operational period Broad scope of operations for addressing recovery issues IRFFI delivers important political good: participation and inclusiveness in polarized situation 12

Naples, 18 February 2009Donor Committee Meeting13 Operational Phase Deteriorating conditions /8, with inaccurate assumptions and expectations Increased risk, complexity. Administrators adjust systems, but objectives, strategy and expectations remain same. GOI unable to fully exercise ownership of IRFFI DC did not provide adequate strategic guidance, oversight during period Reporting does not provide adequate situation analysis negative perceptions of performance Accountability concerns within UNDG model: lack central point of authority for oversight, QA 13

Naples, 18 February 2009Donor Committee Meeting14 Lessons Learned I MDTFs best practice in post-crisis situations: –Rapidly mobilize financial and political resources –Create dialogue space authorities donors –Impartial platform in politicized environment –Multilateral Administrator with staff, systems in place for handling high-risk situation –Pools political, implementation risks, information costs across actors –May reduce overall transaction costs of imple- mentation, especially for national authorities (time wastage of particular importance) 14

Naples, 18 February 2009Donor Committee Meeting15 Lessons Learned II Strong fiduciary management, transparency, accountability (vs. bilateral: poor insight, inefficiencies, vulnerable to corruption) Potential for common donor approach spill- over from MDTF to bilateral activities key value-added for national authorities Hit the ground running: exploit own capacities, relations to stakeholders, political access Ensures stable, predictable, flexible funding to recovery priorities; supports stronger local voice; enhances big picture planning for all parties 15

Naples, 18 February 2009Donor Committee Meeting16 Lessons Learned III MDTFs high-risk, high-cost environment: QA should be intensive overheads higher MDTFs are integrated systems, consensus built. Performance dependent on/vulnerable to –Ownership and leadership by authorities –Donor involvement – policy/decision making + substantive inputs (conflict analyses, poverty studies, gender & environment assessments…) –Built on trust hostage to least flexible time cost to find acceptable solutions can be high Donor funding not always consistent with principles of MDTF (earmarking and visibility) 16

Naples, 18 February 2009Donor Committee Meeting17 Lessons Learned IV Two window MDTF potential: broader scope of needs than single administrator. IRFFI model not exploited: comparative advantages not identified, no division of labor More focus on quality-reporting on higher-level results (Outcome) better results frameworks, indicator systems, achievement verifications UN model needs change: (i) remove conflicts of interest w/ independent project appraisal, (ii) create independent management point for accountability for quality and performance 17