Mr. William Buiter, Chief Economist for the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, opened the third workshop by welcoming participants and commending them on progress made over the past two years. Mr. James W. Adams, World Bank Vice-President for Operations Policy and Country Services and, along with Mr. Buiter, a co-chair for the workshop, followed up on the opening remarks by highlighting the links between the objectives of the third CAW workshop and the broader international harmonization agenda. He underscored the importance of collaborative efforts in achieving better development outcomes, and the need for continued work to exploit economies of scale for both development partners and clients—especially with respect to the capacity building component of analytical work.

The first portion of the morning session was devoted to an update on the joint website for Country Analytic Work—a website developed to facilitate multi-donor coordination and cooperation in order to improve the development impact and cost-effectiveness of analytic work. The website presentation was followed by a roundtable discussion and comments from representatives of participating agencies regarding on-going joint country analytic work which their institutions had participated in. Next, John Sinclair, Operations Advisor for the World Bank’s Quality Assurance Group (QAG) outlined the Bank’s real-time assessment process for country analytic work, and how changes in the Bank’s general approach to country analytic work had opened the door to greater opportunities and increased work with partners.

The remainder of the morning session and the afternoon agenda were dedicated to discussions on cooperation in country analytic work in the areas of social protection, gender, and environment. The workshop concluded with agreement on a number of new initiatives, including an action plan for expanding interagency cooperation on country analytic work in the above areas, and a renewed commitment from development partners to support the joint website. Mr. Hilary Benn, MP, Minister of State for International Development, then joined conference participants to deliver a keynote speech which emphasized the challenges facing the development community and the need for targeted and coordinated actions by partner agencies in order to more efficiently and effectively help their clients achieve development goals. Following is a detailed summary of the day’s major sessions; the full agenda and the list of participants are attached as annexes to this document.

In the opening presentation, Julio S. Vega, Administrator of the CAW website, noted that as of June 2003, over 20 multilateral/bilateral agencies had designated their contact points to facilitate the sharing of ongoing and planned analytic work through the website. He indicated that the website contained information on over 2000 analytical products, including completed, on-going and planned analytical work, product guidelines, and best practice reports. Statistics on website usage showed that from January through May 2003 the CAW document library received over 700,000 hits from interested users. He also noted that the development community had recognized the contribution of the CAW joint website in promoting and facilitating harmonization efforts. Commenting on Mr. Vega’s presentation, a number of speakers emphasized the importance of strengthening coordination in country analytic work and viewed the CAW website as a valuable tool in this respect. A representative from SIDA mentioned that the upcoming Forum for Economists to take place in Stockholm would provide a venue to emphasize the importance and use of the CAW website. Some participants asked for clarifications on the types of documents to be posted on the website, and asked how the CAW website differed from other World Bank ICT-based initiatives. Mr. Vega clarified that while the CAW website was linked to the Development Gateway, it provided a much richer database on analytical work and guidelines at the individual country level.

Next, representatives of several agencies—including the UNFPA (also representing UNDG), JBIC, AfDB, OECD, SIDA, UNECE, NORAD and SDC—outlined initiatives that their institutions had taken to strengthen donor collaboration in the conduct of diagnostic work. Speakers mentioned that inter-agency cooperation did occur at both the country and sector levels—especially in undertaking work on financial management issues such as procurement and financial accountability—but voiced concern that the broad harmonization mandate had not yet been mainstreamed. A speaker suggested that one way to facilitate progress at the operational level would be to include more complete contact information on the CAW website in order to promote informal contacts among institutions.

John Sinclair (from the World Bank’s QAG unit) discussed the World Bank’s real-time assessment process for country analytic work, and outlined how it was being adapted to the changing nature of analytical work in order to emphasize increased participation by others in the context of the PRSP/CDF process, and how these changes opened the door to greater opportunities for sharing. One speaker noted that the OECD was also considering the issue of participation and the willingness of donors to provide a coordinated effort. A participant mentioned that it was important that small countries feel that they have access to analytical skills, but that his institution could only credibly and consistently provide this type of service in the context of partnership. A representative from EBRD added that their institution was also charged with measuring results, and emphasized that there was a need to put a credible story on the table in order to legitimize the institution’s increased use of resources for analytical work.

Social Protection

Robert Holzmann, Director, Social Protection, World Bank, discussed the Bank’s new Risk and Vulnerability Assessment (R&VA)—an instrument representing an extension of the Bank’s traditional Poverty Assessments, which takes a multi-disciplinary approach encompassing several components of vulnerability, in order to gain a better understanding of the impact of risk on income and welfare, and its role in the persistence of poverty. He explained that forward-looking poverty interventions must be based on such assessments of vulnerability in order to ensure lasting poverty reduction, and described three alternative approaches to undertaking R&VAs: (i) the assessment of risks and available risk management instruments as an extension of traditional poverty assessments; (ii) the identification of likely risks for groups at high risk of poverty based on observed poverty indicators, linked with an assessment of the risks and current social risk management interventions; and (iii) micro-econometric methods for vulnerability assessment. Mr. Holzmann noted that the social risk management framework adopted by the Bank had been presented and discussed with the Bank’s development partners—including the ADB, DFID, World Food Program, and USAID—who in turn had adopted versions of the framework for their own strategic thinking and operational work.

Annalisa Conte, of the UN World Food Program, described the program’s Livelihood and Risk Assessment using a case study on Cote d’Ivoire. The instrument attempts to discern in which circumstances food aid is required, and for whom. In the case of Cote d’Ivoire, the exercise used participatory techniques to involve rural people in identifying and analyzing risks, and in determining the resources available in their own communities to manage the risks which were identified. The study highlighted the fact that different groups of society are exposed to the same types of risks at different levels depending on age, sex, asset base, cultural and behavioral practices. Several risk response strategies—both formal and informal—were outlined. In the end, it was discovered that social capital, food stocks use, and liquidity and cash savings use, were the vehicles most often used as key livelihood strategies.

Samuel Frankhauser, EBRD, then presented a case study focusing on the impact of tariff reforms and their affordability in the energy sector. He elaborated that, in general, cost-effectiveness and efficiency issues are underlying factors pointing to need for reform in EBRD countries. The analysis explored risk vis-à-vis price shocks, and mitigation measures that could be undertaken by identified income groups and sub-groups. Mr. Frankhauser stressed that since EBRD normally has less of a poverty focus in its work, collaboration with other agencies in this area was key. He added that some of the work in the case discussed was based on existing World Bank background surveys.

The general discussion indicated that a significant amount of work in the area of social protection had been facilitated by increased data availability, and one speaker noted that the World Development Report 2000/2001: Attacking Poverty was a particularly useful source of information. A representative from EBRD also mentioned that they would share with development partners the survey data gathered in carrying out the case study presented earlier. Participants also agreed that there was a need for increased focus on social protection issues at the country level, as opposed to emphasis on research and tools. Several instances of collaboration between agencies on the ground were mentioned, including a study on South Eastern Europe undertaken by EBRD and financed by DFID; and joint work on Afghanistan involving the IBRD and the World Food Program.

Gender Assessments

Karen Mason, Sector Director, Gender and Development Unit, World Bank, served as the moderator of the session. She outlined the goals of the session, underscoring the need to promote inter-agency collaboration by identifying which agencies conduct country-level gender assessments, and how. She explained that there existed a range of practices across agencies, whereby some employed full scale assessments across all countries, others (e.g. FAO, UNICEF, and IADB) conducted specialized assessments, and others performed analyses only for selective countries, or for none at all. Ms. Mason noted that lack of uniformity in coverage complicated collaboration, but was not an insurmountable barrier to joint efforts in the area.

Lucia Fort, Gender Specialist, Gender and Development Unit, World Bank first described the Bank’s Country Gender Assessments (CGA), elaborating that, as part of its 2001 gender mainstreaming strategy, the World Bank is completing CGAs in all countries where the Bank has an active portfolio. CGAs normally include a profile of male/female roles, activities, resources and rights; a description of institutions affecting gender relations and the country’s gender equality action plans and international commitments; and; possible gender-responsive policy and operational interventions important for poverty reduction and economic growth. The aim of the CGA is to identify areas for intervention where promoting gender equality is particularly important for economic growth and poverty reduction in a given country. In the Bank, how CGAs are conducted varies by country depending on available information, interest of stakeholders and other considerations. In some countries, existing surveys are used as the analytical base for the CGA, while in other cases existing studies are used.

Susanne Wadstein, Gender Advisor, Policy, SIDA stated that the goal of gender equality through the adopted gender mainstreaming approach has been an overall goal for Sida’s co-operation interventions since 1996. Though Sida has had some success in attaining its goals in this area, the institution has struggled at times with achieving tangible results. She highlighted two ongoing strategy processes which have been useful in helping mainstream the goal of gender equality and women’s rights into Sida’s work. Sida has initiated an experimental phase in two countries—Ethiopia and Kenya—where selected aspects of gender that are of specific importance to the country will receive the bulk of attention. The focus areas are identified by the countries themselves in their own action plans and are chosen from the aspect of Sida’s comparative advantages, based on experiences, competence and knowledge. For Ethiopia, the area identified was female genital mutilation and women’s rights, while in Kenya, the focus area was women’s right to land and property.

In the ensuing discussion, several representatives mentioned difficulties which they faced in trying to mainstream gender within their own institutions—partly because many of their staff viewed country gender assessments as having little value-added. Other participants indicated that in this respect it was important to send a coherent set of signals across institutions in order to help set an agenda that was credible, feasible and sustainable. A speaker from AfDB added that the agency was planning an expansion of work on gender issues and would be open to collaboration. In this respect, a common approach—for example, building on Sida’s framework—would broaden the scope for collaboration among institutions. It was noted that the MDB Working Group on Gender would continue to discuss ways in which agencies could collaborate on work in the area; OECD-DAC and the United Nations group were also mentioned as providing suitable fora for pursuing efforts on harmonization.

Environmental Assessments

Magda Lovei, Lead Environmental Economist, Environment Department, World Bank, discussed Country Environmental Analyses (CEAs), noting in her presentation that analytical and advisory services have been one of the main pillars of the Bank’s environmental agenda. Although it is now recognized that appropriate environmental and social policies are a key to sustainable development, work in the environmental area is often viewed as imposing extra costs; thus, donor coordination and collaboration on analytical work in the area is especially important. Ms. Lovei detailed a number of shifting emphases in environmental tools, including a shift from impact assessment, and focus on technical solutions at the project level, to more upstream analysis focusing on policies and institutions at the country level. CEAs were introduced by the World Bank as an important tool to implement the Bank’s Environment Strategy. CEAs are designed to inform policy dialogue with countries; facilitate mainstreaming the environment into development and poverty reduction policies and strategies; and to guide capacity building. She emphasized that coordination in the area is essential for reducing parallel efforts by partners, consolidating and making available information in a consistent manner, and to facilitate the harmonization of environmental assistance, capacity building, and safeguard approaches. A framework for coordination has been established, including several CEA workshops, stocktaking on international experience and methodologies, participation in other institutions’ analytic work, and joint implementation of CEAs.

Yolande Wright, Environment Advisor, Africa Great Lakes and Horn, and Urban and Rural Challenge Team, DFID, presented the Ethiopia CEA, which is jointly managed by DFID and the World Bank. This work was initiated after the first CEA workshop organized by the World Bank, and is aimed at mainstreaming environment into the PRSP process in Ethiopia. DFID has also undertaken work on CEA/SEA with other donors, such as with the Dutch (on Ghana) and with OECD-DAC in developing SEA guidelines. Ms. Wright noted the difficulties in establishing who owns the CEA and its recommendations, how to include environmental aspects into the PRSP/PRSC monitoring and review, and how to assess the impact of CEA. A key aspect of collaborative efforts is thus the need for donors to take a unified approach to integrating environment into PRSP/National Development Plan processes.

Mary Pat Silveira, Chief, Environmental Performance and Governance, UNECE, discussed the institution’s Environmental Performance Review (EPR) Programme, an approach recently reaffirmed at the environment conference in Kiev, which seeks to improve environmental management, integrate environmental policies into the broader development process, harmonize policies across countries, and to encourage open dialogue on key substantive issues. In carrying out its work, UNECE collaborates extensively with key partners, and receives political and financial support from donors and partners. Ms. Silveira specifically highlighted the collaboration between UNECE and the World Bank in Serbia and Montenegro; and Bosnia and Herzegovina. The EPR Programme is linked to implementation of environmental strategy in the UNECE Region, and to date has benefited from collaboration with OECD, UNEP, WHO, UNDP, the World Bank, and EPR donor countries. Going forward it will serve as a tool for implementing guidelines for strengthening compliance with the implementation of Multilateral Environmental Agreements. Ms. Silveira mentioned that a key objective in planning this work will be determining the extent to which partners such as ADB, EBRD, and the World Bank can become involved. For example, she noted that ADB, EBRD, the World Bank and UNECE all have activities planned in Tajikistan in 2003-2004; thus, there is a need to identifying key stages for collaboration. She suggested that it might useful to engage interested organizations in either face-to-face or virtual country-specific planning meetings.

Ms. Ma Xiaoying, Environmental Specialist, Agriculture, Environment and Natural Resources Division, ADB introduced practical issues and lessons learned from ADB’s experience with CEAs in Central Asian Republics. ADB’s environment policy requires CEAs as part of CSP preparation. These outline environmental issues most important to a country’s development strategy and describe ADB’s role in helping remove the environmental constraints on the client country’s sustained development. More specifically, the instrument reviews the state of the environment, provides an assessment of the environmental management regime, and identifies priority areas for environmental assistance and the implications for ADB’s operations. Ms. Xiaoying emphasized the need for greater cooperation between government and the IFIs as well as among IFIs to develop common environmental quality baselines, a systematic analysis of environmental management regime, and priority areas for environmental assistance. She stressed the need for commitment to collaboration at both the management and working levels, and that consensus should be reached with both governments and other donors on the purpose of CEAs, their content, and format.

IDB’s representative added that IDB was working with the World Bank on pilot CEAs, for example, in Colombia; and it was developing a standard methodology facilitate an IDB-wide policy on joint analytical efforts.

Several representatives noted the importance of collaboration in analytical work on the environment, and indicated that a follow-up meeting involving several agencies would be held in London the next day in order to discuss in greater detail ways in which various institutions could work together.

Chairs: James W. Adams, Vice President and Network Head, Operations Policy and Country Services, World Bank (IBRD)/ Willem H. Buiter, Chief Economist, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD)

Speaker: James W. Adams, Vice President, Operations Policy and Country Services Vice Presidency, IBRD

Moderator:
Laszlo Lovei, IBRD, Economic Advisor, Operations Policy and Country Services Vice Presidency

Robert Holzmann, IBRD, Director, Social Protection Unit, Human Development Department, Risk and Vulnerability Assessments (RVA’s)

Annalisa Conte, UN World Food Programme, Livelihood and Risk Assessment: The Case of Cote D’Ivoire

Sam Fankhauser, EBRD, Tariff Reforms and Affordability in the Energy Sector

Comments and Discussion

Moderator:
Karen Mason, IBRD, Sector Director, Gender and Development Unit

Speakers:

Sussane Wadstein, Swedish International Cooperation Agency SIDA, Gender Specialist, Gender Mainstreaming SIDA’s Country Strategies

Lucia Fort, IBRD, Gender Specialist, Gender and Development Unit, Country Gender Assessments

Comments and Discussion

Moderator:
Mark King, Head, EBRD, IFI and Implementation Support; including introduction on EBRD’s Approach to Environment and Country Strategies

Speakers:

Magda Lovei, IBRD, Lead Environmental Economist, Environment Department, Country Environmental Analysis

Yolande Wright, Department for International Development (UK), DFID, Environment Adviser, Africa Great Lakes and Horn, and Urban and Rural Change Team, CEA – A Catalyst for Improved Donor Collaboration on Poverty-Environment Analysis

Mary Pat Silveira, UN Economic Commission for Europe, UNECE, Chief, Environmental Performance and Governance, UNECE Environmental Performance Review Programme: Post Kiev Assessment

Ma Xiaoying, Asian Development Bank, ADB, Environmental Specialist, Agriculture, Environment, and Natural Resources Division, Practical Issues on Challenges/Lessons Learned from ADB’s Experience with CEA’s in CAR’s

Comments and Discussion

Laszlo Lovei, IBRD, Economic Advisor, Operations Policy and Country Services Vice Presidency

Keynote Speaker:
Mr. Hilary Benn, MP
Minister of State for International Development
United Kingdom