1. Review of EC Investment Support Facilities Craig Davies PPC Executive Secretary Priority Environmental Investment Programme Regional Meeting Brussels, 26 November 2007

2. Background to the evaluation EC has increasingly used ISFs as vehicles for its support for environmental infrastructure The DABLAS Task Force asked for a forward- looking review of ISFs Funding provided by the UK (DFID) Review managed by the PPC Secretariat Review implemented by COWI A/S (Denmark)

3. Evaluation methodology Issues to be addressed: i.General characteristics of ISFs ii.Impact of ISFs on environmental investments iii.Sustainability of the contribution made by ISFs iv.Catalysing effect on investment by IFIs v.Other impacts Three sources of data i.Review of documentation ii.Stakeholder survey iii.Telephone interviews

4. ISFs: timescale and scope DISFBSIFWISFEPPF Facility durationJan 04 – Jun 06May 04 – Oct 06Jun 05 – Dec 07Oct 06 – Oct 08 Geographical scope (ToR) Albania Bosnia-Herzegovina Croatia FYR Macedonia Serbia & Montenegro Georgia Moldova Russia Ukraine Armenia Azerbaijan Georgia Kyrgyzstan Moldova Tajikistan Uzbekistan Albania Bosnia-Herzegovina Croatia FYR Macedonia Montenegro Serbia Geographical scope (actual) Bosnia-Herzegovina Croatia Montenegro Georgia Moldova Ukraine Armenia Azerbaijan Georgia Uzbekistan Bosnia- Herzegovina

5. ISFs: sectors covered DISFBSIFWISFEPPF Sector focus (ToR) Water supply Waste water and sewage Water Solid waste Agriculture Industrial Water supply and sanitation Integrated Water Resource Management Municipal infrastructure (water, waste water, solid waste and air pollution) Sector focus (actual) Water and sanitation (majority of projects focused on wastewater) Water supply Waste water Waste management e.g. manure processing, infrastructure modernisation Water supply and sanitation Water resource management Water management

6. ISFs: funding and management DISFBSIFWISFEPPF FundingEC/Cards ProgrammeEC/TACIS programme EC/ Cards Programme Number of project related studies 101382 IFIs participatingERBD, EIBEBRD,EIB, BSTDBADB, EBRD, WBEIB, EBRD ConsortiumBCEOM (F) JacobsGIBBS (UK) Thalès Engineering and Consulting (F) Sogreah (F) GKW Consult (D) Arcadis-Euroconsult (NL) BCEOM (F) Mazars (F) Jacobs UK Ltd (UK) JacobsGIBBS Ltd (UK) Oikon Ltd (Cr) Project ManagerMichel AlbientzBernard FroelicherGeorge McDonnellSohail Hassan

7. ISFs: budgets and activities DISFBSIFWISFEPPF Facility budget (MEUR)3.62.92.71.8 Number of project related studies 101382 Typical cost of study (EUR)200,000-300,000150,000-250,000337,500200,000-300,000 Average cost of study (EUR)364,000157,651337,500269,000 Number of man days per study170-300200-300250-500200-300

8. ISFs: impacts on investments DISFBSIFWISFEPPF Total expected project costs (MEUR) 205N/A575N/A Total loan commitments (MEUR) 424434038 Loan disbursements (MEUR) 52100 Total project costs / facility budget56.3N/A213.0N/A Total loan commitments / facility budget 11.515.2125.970.6 Total loan disbursements / facility budget 1.47.30.0

9. How well have ISFs met stakeholder needs?

10. How have ISFs supported IFI operations?

11. What are the main advantages of an ISF?

12. How have ISFs provided opportunities for skills transfer?

13. Key findings ISFs have made important contributions to promoting IFI investment in environmental infrastructure Rapid, high-quality project preparation support is most valued by stakeholders Other activities (capacity building, matchmaking etc) are considered less important IFIs have led on project selection IFIs are not usually involved in signing off consultants’ work Management could be strengthened – Steering Committees

14. Recommendations: future ISFs should…. focus on their core strength – high quality project preparation support be more tightly focused on specific countries and sectors have a duration of 3-5 years, reflecting a typical project cycle involve IFIs in preparation of ToRs, tendering and sign-off of consultancy services have improved management, transparency and visibility

15. Discussion point: options for future ISFs Future ISFs (if agreed) will be funded through the IPA and ENPI instruments How can the lessons learned from past ISFs be reflected in the design and implementation of IPA/ENPI programmes?