i

Contents
I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 4
II. Background .................................................................................................................................... 4
III. Purpose, Objectives, Scope and Use ................................................................................. 8
IV. Approach and Methodology................................................................................................ 10
V. Deliverables, Work Plan, and Timetable ..................................................................... 15
Annex 1: Terms of Reference ...................................................................................................... 18
Annex 2: Centennial Group International ............................................................................ 25
Annex 3: MIC TAF Projects 2002-2017 .................................................................................. 27
Annex 4: Evaluation Matrix.......................................................................................................... 33
Annex 4: Project Review Template and Guidance ........................................................... 37
Annex 5: Case Study Outline ........................................................................................................ 46
Annex 6: Country Case Study Methodology ................................................................ 47
Annex 7: Interview Template – Country Counterpart ................................................... 48
Annex 8: Interview Template – Bank Managers/Executive Directors .................. 50
Annex 9: MIC TAF Survey – Client Country Project Managers ................................... 51
Annex 10: MIC TAF Survey – Bank Task Managers.......................................................... 54
Annex 11: Report Outline ............................................................................................................. 59

ii
Acronyms

ADB - African Development Bank

ADF - African Development Fund
AfDB - African Development Bank Group
CODE - Committee on Operations and Development Effectiveness
CSP - Country Strategy Paper
DAC - Development Assistance Committee
ECG - Evaluation Cooperation Group
ESW - Economic Sector Work
GCI - General Capital Increase
GDP - Gross Domestic Product
GNI - Gross National Income
IDEV - Independent Development Evaluation Department
METS - Morocco, Egypt, Tunisia, and South Africa
MIC - Middle Income country
OECD - Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
PAR - Project Appraisal Report
PCR - Project Completion Report
PCRN - Project Completion Report Note
PCREN - Project Completion Report Evaluation Note
PPP - Public Private Partnership
PSD - Private Sector Development
QAE - Quality at Entry
RDG - Regional Directorate
RDGC - Regional Directorate for Central Africa
RDGN - Regional Directorate for North Africa
RDVP - Regional Development, Integration and Business Delivery Complex
RISP - Regional Integration Strategy Paper
RMC - Regional member country
SMCC - Senior Management Coordinating Committee
SVP - Senior Vice President
TA - Technical assistance
TAF - Technical Assistance Fund
UA - Units of Account
WB - World Bank

iii
 Evaluation of the Middle-Income Countries Technical Assistance Fund
Inception Report

I. Introduction

At the request of the Board of Directors of the African Development Bank Group
(AfDB or the Bank), the Independent Development Evaluation (IDEV) has launched
the Evaluation of the Middle-Income Countries Technical Assistance Fund (MIC TAF
or the Fund) as part of its 2018 work program.

The overall mandate of the MIC TAF is to enhance the volume, quality,
competitiveness and development effectiveness of the Bank’s operations by
providing grant resources to MICs.

The evaluation aims at assessing the development effectiveness of the Fund in order
to provide the Board with evidence based findings that will support its decision-
making process. In this regard, IDEV has retained the services of Centennial Group
International to support its evaluation team in carrying out the assignment. Annex 1
provides the Terms of Reference.

This Inception Report lays out the objectives, scope, design, framework and
methodology for carrying out the Evaluation of the Middle-Income Countries
Technical Assistance Fund.

II. Background

The MIC TAF was established by the Bank in 20021 following the limited access of
regional member Middle-Income Countries (MICs) to financial resources for
investment preparation and studies. The objective was to enhance the volume,
quality, competitiveness and development effectiveness of the Bank’s operations by
providing grant resources for capacity building, economic and sector work and
project preparation in MICs.

At its inception, the grant supported activities in four priority areas: project
preparation; technical assistance; capacity and institution building; and economic
sector work. A review of the Fund’s guidelines in 2011 introduced an additional
priority area for the AfDB: supporting activities in MICs to improve regional
integration

In line with the Bank’s credit policy, the eligibility of regional member countries
(RMCs) to MIC TAF is limited to those countries that can access the Bank’s non-
concessional AfDB window (Category C Countries) as well as those that can access

1AfDB. 2011. “The Revised Guidelines for the Administration and Utilization of the
Middle-Income Country Technical Assistance Fund.” Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire: African
Development Bank.
4
both the non-concessionary ADB window and the concessional African
Development Fund (ADF) window (Category B, or Blend Countries). For analytical
purposes, it is important to note that since the inception of the MIC TAF, some
countries have graduated from the ADF window to the ADB window, which implies
that the actual number countries eligible for MIC TAF grants has increased. Table 1
lists the eligible countries as of July 2018.

Table 1: MIC TAF Eligible Countries

Middle-Income Countries Blend Countries
Algeria Equatorial Guinea Nigeria Cameroon
Angola Gabon Seychelles Kenya
Botswana Libya South Africa Senegal
Cape Verde Mauritius Swaziland Zambia
Congo, Rep Morocco Tunisia
Egypt Namibia

At the establishment of the MIC TAF, the Bank provided an initial allocation of UA 1
million as seed money. However, given the small size of the initial resources vis-a-
vis the growing needs of regional member MICs, the Bank made annual allocations
from the ADB Net Income to the MIC TAF, except in 2003, 2005, 2012, 2013 and
2016. In total, UA 96 million has been allocated to the MIC TAF through the ADB Net
Income between 2002 and 2017. As at 31 December 2017, the Fund has been
depleted with only a total uncommitted resource of UA 60.24 thousand remaining.
This is a sharp contrast to the demand for MIC TAF grants with a pipeline of about
UA 55 million for 2017/2018.

Over the past two decades, AfDB has been pursuing initiatives to enhance its
engagement with middle-income countries (MICs).2 The MICs in Africa are a highly
diversified group, with 2017 GDP per capita ranging from $5,927 (Nigeria) to
$34,865 (Equatorial Guinea). AfDB employs a differentiated and country-specific
approach in its engagement with MICs.

The MIC TAF was created in 20023 as part of a set of recommendations by the 2001
Task Force to enhance Bank operations in MICs. In 2005, the MIC TAF’s menu of
activities was expanded and the guidelines revised with four priority areas: (i)
project preparation; (ii) technical assistance and capacity/institution building; (iii)
economic and sector work; and (iv) activities that promote the private sector. The

2 As of July 2018, 17 RMCs are classified as MICs. The classification follows that of the
World Bank (WB) which is based on GNI per capita. In 2018, WB classifies as MICs those
with GNI per capita between $1,006 and $12,235.
3 The MIC TAF was initially called the Middle-Income Countries Trust Fund, which was

renamed MIC TAF in 2008.

5
2005 guidelines established an exceptional Delegation of Authority Matrix4 for grant
approvals.

In 2008, AfDB issued the Strategic Framework for Enhancing Bank Group Support to
Middle Income Countries which acknowledged the declining competitive position of
AfDB in MICs. The strategic framework sought to deepen engagement with MICs
through greater selectivity and focus, better service delivery through efficient
business practices, improved range and pricing of financial products, limited
provision of concessional resources, and delivery of advisory services.

With respect to the MIC TAF, the strategic framework called for more creative and
effective utilization of the Fund in additional areas, including investments in global
public goods, development of knowledge bases, dissemination of best practices,
financing trade-related technical assistance, and facilitating partnerships between
MICs towards achieving MDGs. The strategy also envisioned the MIC TAF to blend
concessional resources with AfDB loans to specifically address the elimination of
pockets of poverty in MICs. The MIC TAF would also be used as a catalyst to mobilize
additional resources from partner institutions and donors.

In 2009, AfDB Management established the MIC TAF Working Group to review the
use and guiding principles of the Fund. The main concerns at that time included the
relatively modest utilization of the Fund, difficulties in ensuring timely
implementation of projects, and lack of knowledge about the Fund. Based on the
findings of the Working Group and consultations with the Board and MICs, the MIC
TAF guidelines were revised in 2011, which remain in effect today. The new
guidelines added a new area of focus – activities promoting regional integration;
doubled the ceiling per grant from UA 600,000 to UA 1.2 million; raised the approval
thresholds of the Delegation of Authority Matrix; simplified disbursement
arrangements; raised the threshold for procurement of equipment and introduced
use of procurement agents; streamlined the project preparation and approval
process; instituted a results-based logical framework requirement; clarified
reporting requirements; and established a MIC TAF focal point in the Bank to
improve coordination. Figure 2 shows an increase in approval amounts between
2011-2016; with the depletion of the Fund, approvals fell in 2017.

4 The delegation of authority matrix enables Vice Presidents to approve requests up to UA

300,000 and the President to approve requests up to UA 500,000. Board approval is required
for requests above UA 500,000 on a lapse of time basis.

6
Figure 2: MIC TAF Approvals 2004-2017

A 2018 AfDB Senior Management Coordinating Committee (SMCC) note identified

the following results from the MIC TAF: significant levering effect with UA 11 million
of studies leading to over UA 2 billion of Bank-funded projects during the past five
years; enhanced quality at entry of Bank projects; strengthened and evidence-based
policy dialogue; and scaling up of impact of Bank projects. The note found the
implementation performance of MIC TAF projects to be mixed, with UA 11.3 million
of projects as of 1Q2018 eligible for cancellation due to, among others, poor
institutional set-up and inadequate resources for implementation on the part of the
recipient.

AfDB continues to review its approach to MICs, including a proposal for MIC
groupings5 and a framework for understanding MIC diversity and commonalities
(see Table 2). A 2018 briefing to the Committee on Operations and Development
Effectiveness noted the usefulness of the MIC TAF as tool for TA and capacity
development, and the strong pipeline of 80 projects amounting to UA 53 million.
The briefing note called for: prioritization of selection criteria for MIC TAF projects
given that demand outstrips supply of funds; further streamlining of processes with
minimal fiduciary risk; and clean-up of the portfolio to cancel and reallocate funds
from non-performing grants. The briefing also noted the planned independent
evaluation of the MIC TAF, the results of which will feed into the ongoing rethinking
of the guidelines.

5The proposed groups of the MICs are: oil exporting economies; small MICs or
SMICs; and METS composed of Morocco, Egypt, Tunisia, and South Africa. Each
group has several common characteristics.
7
Table 2: MIC Characteristics
GDP per
Population Bank Lending
MIC Capita ($;
(thousands) Activity
PPP; 2017)
Oil Exporting Economies: lack of diversification; limited private sector; and high
inequality
Algeria 15,150 42,008 Moderate
Angola 6,813 30,774 High
Congo, Rep. 6,707 5,400 Moderate
Equatorial Guinea 34,875 1,314 Low
Gabon 19,266 2,068 Moderate
Libya 9,792 6,471 Low
Nigeria 5,927 195,875 High
Small MICs: capacity constraints; most business-friendly private sector; lower inequality
Botswana 18,146 2,333 Low
Cabo Verde 6,942 553 High
Mauritius 21,628 1,268 Moderate
Namibia 11,528 2,588 High
Seychelles 28,712 95 Moderate
Swaziland 9,882 1,391 High
METS: relatively developed economies; well developed private sector markets
Morocco 8,612 36,192 High
Egypt 12,994 99,376 High
Tunisa 11,987 11,659 High
South Africa 13,403 57,398 High
Note: Classification (High, Medium, Low) of Bank Lending Activity is from the 2018 briefing to
CODE and is based on two criteria: use of Bank financing resources and frequency of Bank lending.

III. Purpose, Objectives, Scope and Use

Purpose:
The purpose of this evaluation is to provide credible evidence on the development
effectiveness of the MIC TAF. An independent evaluation of the Fund’s development
effectiveness has not been conducted since its establishment in 2002. It is
anticipated that the present evaluation will fill this evidence gap.

Objectives:
The overall objective of this evaluation is to examine the extent to which the MIC
TAF has achieved its original goals and delivered development results in recipient
regional MICs. The evaluation will also investigate issues around MIC TAF’s

8
governance, as well as the factors that hinder (or promote) the utilization of funds
from both the supply and demand-side.

Scope:
The scope of the evaluation will span the period 2002-2017 during which the Bank
approved 183 projects amounting to UA 101.8 million with a focus on the latter
period of 2011-2017.

At end-2017, 70 projects amounting to UA 48.3 million were ongoing, and nine

projects amounting to UA 1.1 million were terminated. The evaluation will assess
the relevance, efficiency, and efficacy of the program as a whole. In addition, the
evaluation will provide feedback on the governance of the program, including
recommendations for improvement.

Utilization:
The primary users of the report are:
- The Board of Directors: The findings of the evaluation are intended to inform
the Board of Directors of AfDB in deciding on the allocation of additional
resources to the Fund from the annual net income of the Bank including a 5
million UA allocation from the 2017 net income allocation.
- Bank Management (mainly RDVP and SVP complexes): The findings will also
be useful to the Bank’s management in improving the general management of
the Fund.
- MIC TAF Recipients countries: To a lesser extent, the evaluation results
would be useful to recipient countries to improve their engagement with the
Bank and the effective use of the Fund’s resources.

Evaluation questions:

The evaluation will also investigate issues around MIC TAF’s general management,
as well as the factors that hinder (or promote) the utilization of funds from both
supply and demand sides. In line with the standard evaluation criteria, the
evaluation will respond to the following questions:

1) Relevance:
a. To what extent did the design of MIC TAF interventions align with the
purpose and objectives of the Fund in beneficiary MICs?
b. To what extent are MIC TAF interventions aligned with the policies and
strategies at the: (i) AfDB level (strategic, national, regional and sector
priorities), and (ii) the national level (development and sector focused
priorities)?
c. To what extent have the interventions funded by the MIC TAF been
technically sound? How robust are the design of MIC TAF interventions
with regard to assumptions, risks, and mitigation measures?

9
 d. How consistent and complementary were MIC TAF interventions with
ongoing operations in the country (AfDB and/or other development
partners)?
2) Effectiveness:
a. To what extent were MIC TAF’s strategic objectives as a Fund achieved,
through effective implementation of its interventions?
b. To what extent has the MIC TAF contributed to improving the
performance – at the level of timeliness, implementation progress and
cost effectiveness - of AfDB’s ’s pipeline in those targeted countries?
c. To what extent has MIC TAF grants contributed to the identification of
new business opportunities for the AfDB in MICs?
3) Efficiency:
a. How responsive has the MIC TAF been in responding to funding requests
from users (MICs, the Bank, and the Private Sector)?
b. Has the Technical Assistance Fund responded adequately to the evolving
needs of MICs?
c. Were AfDB processes and procedures, as well as the internal
coordination with other partners adequate?
d. If any, how does the MIC TAF perform compared to similar funds in other
multilateral institutions?
4) Sustainability:
a. To what extent have these interventions contributed to long-lasting,
institutional capacity strengthening; improved political and governance
environment, greater risk management and resilience to exogenous
factors, in the targeted countries?
b. How sustainable are the funding mechanisms of the MIC TAF?
5) Governance:
a. How is the governance framework for the MIC TAF assessed in the
context of other similar funds at the AfDB and in other multilateral
institutions?
b. To what extent has the MIC-TAF developed a coherent Results-based
Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) System?
c. What governance framework is suitable for the MIC-TAF going forward?
d. What key lessons can be learnt and recommendations drawn from the
implementation of MIC TAF operations, and how can these be translated
into better operational performance and engagement with MICs?

IV. Approach and Methodology

Approach.
The evaluation approach takes into account the large number of projects and
countries relative to the resources, time, and documentation available for the
evaluation.
The approach will have four components:
(i) a desk review of a sample of projects complemented by surveys of task or
project managers in the Bank and client countries;
10
 (ii) in-depth case studies in selected countries to be visited;
(iii) semi-structured interviews of Bank counterparts in selected countries;
and
(iv) semi-structured interviews of selected Bank Executive Directors,
managers, and staff.
The approach will enable both operational as well as strategic perspectives on the
MIC TAF. Specifically, the evaluation will perform the following activities all of
which will feed into the evaluation of the Fund:

 Undertake a desk review of a target of at least 90 projects (50% of MIC TAF

portfolio)6;
 Carry out surveys of task managers in the Bank and project managers in the
client countries;
 Undertake visits to four countries to perform 2-3 case studies per country as
well as conduct semi-structured interviews of the Bank’s main counterparts
on the MIC TAF, including the project pipeline, in the country;
 Conduct semi-structured interviews of the Bank’s main counterparts on the
MIC TAF in an additional four countries through teleconference or
videoconference;
 Conduct semi-structured interviews of the Bank’s main counterparts on the
MIC TAF in an additional three countries that are now eligible for the MIC
TAF and have a pipeline of projects through teleconference or
videoconference; and
 Conduct semi-structured interviews of selected Bank Executive Directors and
managers.

Methodology:
The evaluation will be based on a rapid evaluation methodology. This choice can be
explained by
- the time constraints to provide evaluation findings to support evidence
based decision-making within the Bank;
- the limited resources devotes to the evaluation ;
- Little background information existing on the effectiveness of the Fund’s
operations;
- the challenges in collecting sufficient documentation on the various
operations conducted under the MIC TAF.
The rapid evaluation methodology will include the use of mixed methods to strike to
ensure triangulation and validity of the findings. The tools involved in this
evaluation are:

 Project Reviews. The evaluation will review projects based on available

documents which include: MIC TAF proposals from clients; project appraisal
reports; approval documents; progress and supervision reports; audit

6 Depending on documentation availability

11
 reports; and project completion and evaluation reports (for completed
projects). The evaluation matrix (Annex 4) and project review template
(Annex 5) are attached.

 Case Studies. The evaluation will conduct case studies of 2-3 projects in
Morocco, Tunisia, Gabon, and South Africa. The case studies will include field
visits and interviews of project stakeholders and beneficiaries. A draft
outline of the case studies (Annex 6) has been developed and will be refined
based on review of the underlying projects prior to the country visit.

 Semi-structured Interviews. The evaluation will conduct semi-structured

interviews covering the MIC TAF, including the project pipeline, in 11
countries (see Annex 7 for draft interview questionnaire for counterparts).7
The focus will be the value added of the projects; systemic issues that affect
efficiency, effectiveness, and sustainability; and the project pipeline. In
addition, there will be interviews of selected Bank Executive Directors and
managers to get their views on the MIC TAF (see Annex 8 for the draft
interview questionnaire for Bank).

 Surveys of Client Project Managers and Bank Task Managers. The evaluation
will send short surveys to country project manager and Bank task managers
of all projects. The responses will complement the findings from the desk
reviews of the projects. (see Annex 9 for survey of client country task
managers and Annex 10 for the survey of Bank task managers).

 Benchmarking. Programs similar to the MIC TAF will be identified in the

World Bank Group, Inter-American Development Bank, and Asian
Development Bank. Evaluations of similar programs will be used for
benchmarking, supplemented by interviews of relevant staff and managers in
these institutions.

Documentation collection status and sampling approach

Document collection will cover all 17 countries plus Multinational with MIC TAF
projects during 2002-2017 (Table 3). Annex 3 provides the list of MIC TAF projects
in the 17 countries plus Multinational. The document coverage target is at least 50%
(or about 90 projects) of the total 2002-2017 MIC TAF projects, which should
provide adequate basis for assessing the total portfolio. Table 3 provides the status
of the documentation collected to date8.

7 Three of the countries – Republic of Congo, Cameroon and Mozambique – did not
have MIC TAF projects during 2002-2017, but have pipeline.
8 July 25 2018

12
Table 3: Document Availability

Country Region Cost No. of Appraisal Completion

(UA Operations Report Report
million)
Algeria North 6.92 11 1 0
Angola South 0.82 2 1 0
Botswana South 5.44 13 6 0
Cape Verde West 6.02 8 8 3
Egypt North 12.43 20 12 3
Equatorial Guinea Central 1.53 3 0 0
Gabon Central 8.56 12 4 0
Kenya East 1.20 1 1 1
Mauritius South 4.08 9 3 1
Morocco North 11.28 21 12 3
Multinational 3.38 8 4 1
Namibia South 4.73 9 5 1
Nigeria West 3.81 9 0 0
Seychelles East 5.59 11 4 0
South Africa South 3.56 6 2 0
Swaziland South 6.09 11 3 0
Tunisia North 13.68 26 9 2
Zambia South 2.71 3 1 0
Total 101.83 183 76 15

Thus far, appraisal documents are available for about 40 percent of the approved
projects. This would enable an assessment of the relevance of the Fund. Table 4
shows the regional and sector distribution of the projects with appraisal
documentation. However, project completion reports are available for only 15
percent of the closed/completed projects. The low percentage of closed/completed
projects with PCRs presents a major constraint to the evaluation of the effectiveness
of the Fund.

13
Table 4: Share of MIC TAF Projects and Appraisal Reports

Region/Sector Share of No of MIC TAF Share of Available Appraisal

Projects Reports

Regional distribution
North 45% 47%
West 10% 11%
East 6% 7%
Central 9% 6%
South 30% 29%
Sectoral distribution
Agriculture 18% 18%
Finance 7% 7%
Multi-sector 33% 25%
Social 18% 20%
Transport 7% 12%
Water Supply & 8% 12%
Sanitation
Others 9% 7%

The selection of countries to be visited – Tunisia, Morocco, Gabon, and South Africa -
for in-depth case studies was based on several factors, including regional
distribution, number of MIC TAF projects, MIC TAF project pipeline, and Bank
lending activity. The characteristics of the four countries to be visited are described
in Table 5 below. A total of five projects for case studies have been identified in
Morocco and Tunisia based on the availability of PCRs (Table 6). However, there are
no projects with PCRs in Gabon and South Africa.

Table 5: Characteristics of Countries to be visited

Country Region IDEV No. of MIC MIC TAF Bank No of MIC

Country TAF Project Lending TAF
Evaluation Operations Pipeline Activity projects
(UA with PCRs
million)
Tunisia North Yes 26 3.3 High 2
Morocco North Yes 21 2.7 High 3
Gabon Central No 12 3.7 Moderate 0
South Africa South Yes 6 7.0 High 0

14
Table 6: Selected Projects (See Annex)

Eleven countries have been selected for semi-structured interviews of Bank

counterparts. The selection took into account regional representation, number of
MIC TAF projects, and pipeline of MIC TAF projects (Table 6). The selected countries
include the four countries to be visited, as well as three countries with no previous
MIC TAF projects but have a pipeline. The total of 11 countries where semi-
structured interviews9 on the MIC TAF will be conducted cover all four regions and
accounting for about half of the total MIC TAF projects approved during 2002-2017
and about 65 percent of the current pipeline.

Table 7: Characteristics of Countries Selected for Semi-Structured Interviews

MIC TAF
GDP per
No. of MIC Project IDEV Bank
Capita
Country Region TAF Projects Pipeline Country Lending
(US$; PPP;
2002-2017 (UA Evaluation Activity
2017
million)
Tunisia North 26 3.3 Yes High 11,987
Morocco North 21 2.7 Yes High 8,612
Gabon Central 12 3.7 Moderate 19,266
South Africa South 6 7.0 Yes High 13,403
Mauritius South 9 3.5 Moderate 21,628
Seychelles East 10 0.8 Moderate 28,712
Nigeria West 9 3.7 Yes High 5,927
Angola South 2 7.0 High 6,813
Congo, Rep Central 0 1.0 Moderate 6,707
Mozambique South 0 1.2 na 1,247
Cameroon Central 0 1.8 na 3,694

V. Deliverables, Work Plan, and Timetable

The evaluation will be carried out in four phases.

Inception Phase. During the inception phase, an initial Inception Report is

drafted based on available documents. Document collection will be completed
during this phase. Upon completion of the document collection, the case studies
will be selected. Arrangements for country visits and interviews will be initiated.
The comparator funds in other MDBs will be identified, including available

9The interviews will done through teleconference or videoconference except for

those countries to be visited.
15
 evaluations of these funds. A final Inception Report will complete this phase of
the evaluation.

Project Review Phase. During this phase, the desk reviews of the projects will
be conducted. An initial draft of the case studies will be developed to help
establish the focus and design of the plan visits. The surveys will be sent out.
Interviews of Bank managers and officials will be started. Discussions with key
staff and managers in other MDBs with similar programs will begin during this
phase.

Field Visits and Client Interview Phase. During this phase, the members of the
team will travel to Morocco, Tunisia,10 Gabon, and South Africa to conduct case
studies of selected projects as well as semi-structured interviews of main Bank
counterparts on the MIC TAF, including the project pipeline. In addition, semi-
structured interviews on the MIC TAF, including the project pipeline, will be held
with counterparts in Algeria, Angola, Cameroon, Mauritius, Nigeria, Republic of
Congo, and Seychelles via video or teleconference.

Analysis and Report Preparation Phase. This final phase will involve
preparation of the draft Technical Report (see Annex 11 for an initial outline)
based on analysis of inputs from the project reviews, interviews, case studies,
and surveys. The report will be finalized after taking into account comments
from IDEV. In addition, a short Policy Brief, Final Synthesis Report, and
Presentation PowerPoint will be prepared.

Timeframe. The assignment’s duration will be five months, from mid-June 2018
to mid-November 2018. Table 8 gives the deliverables and the target dates for
submission, and Table 9 shows the timeline of reports and main activities.

Table 8: Deliverables and Target Dates for Submission

Deliverables Target Dates
Draft Inception Report 26 June 2018
Inception Report 16 July 2018
Draft Technical Report 1 October 2018
Final Synthesis Report 30 October 2018
Policy Brief 30 October 2018

10 Tunisia is both a scoping and data collection mission.

16
Table 9: Timeline
June July August September October November
Inception Phase
Draft Inception Report
Documentation Collection
Final Inception Report

Project Review Phase

Desk Reviews
Case Study Drafts
Client and Bank Task Manager Surveys
Interviews of Bank Managers and Officials

Field Visits and Client Interviews

Field Visits
Client Interviews

Analysis and Report Preparation

Draft Technical Report
Final Technical Report
Policy Brief
Final Synthesis Report
Presentation Powerpoint

17
Annex 1: Terms of Reference
African Development Bank Group

Independent Development Evaluation

Evaluation of the Middle Income Country Technical Assistance Fund (MIC TAF)

Terms of Reference

I. Introduction

This Terms of Reference (ToR) outlines the evaluation of the Middle-Income Country
Technical Assistance Fund (MIC TAF, or the Fund) by the Independent
Development Evaluation function (IDEV) of the African Development Bank Group
(“the Bank, or AfDB”). This evaluation was undertaken following the request of
AfDB’s Board of Directors on 12 April 201811 that IDEV conduct an evaluation of the
development effectiveness of the MIC TAF in 2018. The recommendations of the
MIC TAF will provide evidence-based information to support AfDB Board of
Director’s decisions on the renewal of its annual allocation of ADB Net Income to the
Fund. This includes the transfer of an outstanding UA 5 million upon the
endorsement of the evaluation report on the MIC TAF by the Board of Directors.

This document is the ToR for the evaluation of the MIC TAF and the recruitment of
a consultancy firm to assist IDEV in undertaking the evaluation. The ToR is
organized into four sections: Section I provides the background of the Fund since its
creation in 2002. Section II highlights the objectives and scope of the evaluation,
including the evaluation questions based on the OECD-DAC evaluation criteria.
Section III defines the approach and tasks of the evaluation, and the technical
expertise and professional profile expected of the consultant. Section IV sets out the
expected deliverables of the evaluation and the respective timelines.

II. Background

Despite their high per capita income status, Middle-Income Countries (MICs) in
Africa still face significant economic challenges in reducing unemployment, income
inequality, and poverty. Indeed, while these group12 of countries have grown rapidly

11 AfDB. 2018. “Allocation of ADB 2017 Net Income: Revised Version

(ADB/BD/WP/2018/26/Rev.1/Approval)”. Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire, African Development Bank
Group.
12 MICs in the African region are heterogeneous and thus vary by geographic size,

population, income-level, and the incidence of (extreme) poverty.

18
in the past few years, their institutional capacity has rather remained low. 13 In
addition, MICs access to market resources has hampered their ability to utilize
concessional resources mainly for investments preparation and studies.
To bridge this capacity gap, the AfDB established the MIC TAF in 2002 to enhance
the volume, quality, competitiveness and development effectiveness of its operations
by providing grant resources to MICs. At its inception, the grant supported activities
in four priority areas in MICs, namely: project preparation; technical assistance,
capacity and institution building; economic sector work (ESW), and activities that
promote the growth of the private sector. A review of the Fund’s guidelines in 2011
introduced an additional area of focus for the AfDB, i.e. supporting activities in
MICs14 to improve regional integration. In line with the Bank’s credit policy, the
eligibility of regional member countries (RMCs)15 to MIC TAF is limited to those
countries that can access the AfDB’s non-concessional ADB window (Category C
Countries) as well as those that can access both the non-concessional ADB window
and the concessional ADF window16 (Category B, or Blend Countries).
At the establishment of the Fund, the Bank provided an initial allocation of UA 1
million as seed money for the MIC TAF. However, given the small size of the initial
resources vis-a-vis the growing needs of regional member MICs, the AfDB made
annual allocations from the ADB Net Income to the MIC TAF, except in 2003, 2005,
2012, 2013 and 2016. In total, UA 96 million has been allocated to the MIC TAF
from the ADB Net Income between 2002 and 2017. As at 31 December 2017, the
Fund was depleted with only a total uncommitted resource of UA 60,240 remaining.
This is a sharp contrast to the demand for MIC TAF grants presently estimated at
UA 50 million annually.17

Since its establishment in 2002, the MIC TAF has financed 182 operations across 10
sectors in 18 countries. Till date, a total of UA 101.2 million have been committed in
MICs by the AfDB through the MIC-TAF financing instrument. Available data on
the MIC TAF global portfolio shows the predominance of multisector operations (i.e.,
Public Sector Management, Private Sector Management, and Institutional Support),
followed by social sector projects (i.e., education – technical and vocational education
(TVET) and higher education; health, and poverty alleviation/microfinance)
respectively.

The top three beneficiaries of the MIC TAF grants are Tunisia (26), Morocco (21),
Egypt (20). These countries are also the highest beneficiaries by the total grant size.

13AfDB. 2008. “2008 Presidential Working Group on Middle Income Countries

(ADB/BD/WP/2008/168).” Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire, African Development Bank Group.
14 AfDB. 2011. “The Revised Guidelines for the Administration and Utilization of the Middle-

Income Country Technical Assistance Fund”. Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire: African Development
Bank.
15 It is important to note that some RMCs may have graduated from the ADF to the ADB

window which implies that the actual number countries eligible for MIC TAF grants may
vary overtime.
16 Ibid.
17 AfDB. 2018. “Allocation of ADB 2017 Net Income: Revised Version

(ADB/BD/WP/2018/26/Rev.1/Approval)”. Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire, African Development Bank

Group.

19
The least three (3) benefitting countries in terms of both grant number and volume
were Equatorial Guinea, Kenya, and Angola. Table 1, below, shows the number of
MIC TAF operations across regions as well as their financial costs.

Table 1: Distribution of MIC TAF Resources by Regional Directorates

AfDB Regional Directorates Number of MIC-TAF Financial Commitment,
Operations (UA)
RDGC 15 10,085,518.52
RDGE 11 6,192,728.00
RDGN 78 44,316,230.65
RDGS 53 27,426,279.21
RDGW 8 6,018,776.00
RDNG 9 3,806,239.74
MULTINATIONAL 8 3,384,794.00
TOTAL 182 101,230,566.12
Source: SAP, African Development Bank Group, with IDEV calculation

The management and governance of the MIC TAF have been decentralized since its
establishment in 2002. The Fund is managed by the Regional Development,
Integration and Business Delivery Complex (RDVP), with delegated authority to the
Regional Directorates, for the benefit of MICs in their respective regions. Presently,
the Bank-wide focal point for the MIC TAF is located in the Regional Directorate for
North Africa (RDGN). Although this position was established to ensure the formal
coordination of MIC TAF activities, the incumbent’s role has solely focused on the
communication and dissemination of information about the MIC TAF.18

Despite the growing number of approved operations, 19 a significant number of

operations remain eligible for cancellation. The latest data on MIC TAF operations
qualifying for cancellation reveal that 15% of the total approved amount between
2012 and 2017 were eligible for cancellation as on 27 March 2017.20 Although there
has been a decline in cancellations in recent months (for example, 23% on 31
December 2017; 19% on 31 January 2017; and 16% on 22 February 2018), the
present level of cancellation of MIC TAF operations remains high.
Indeed, notwithstanding the significant amount of resource dispensed through the
MIC TAF, an independent evaluation of the Fund’s development effectiveness has
not been conducted since its establishment in 2002. It is anticipated that the present
evaluation will fill this evidence gap.
III. Purpose, Scope and Evaluation Questions

This evaluation examines the extent to which the MIC TAF has achieved its original
goals and delivered development results in recipient regional MICs. The analysis
will cover the entire period of the Fund’s operational existence, from its inception in
2002 to 2017. In terms of methodology, the evaluation will use content

18 Meeting with MIC TAF Focal Point on 11 April 2018.

20 See AfDB (2018).

20
analysis, portfolio and document review, structured interviews, and focus
group discussions to analyse information on the MIC TAF. In addition, field
missions and online user and beneficiary surveys will be carried out to
triangulate and validate the data.

The evaluation will also investigate issues around MIC TAF’s general management,
as well as the factors that hinder (or promote) the utilization of funds from both
supply and demand sides. In line with the standard evaluation criteria, the
evaluation will respond to the following questions:

6) Relevance:
a. To what extent did the design of MIC TAF interventions align with the
purpose and objectives of the Fund in beneficiary MICs?
b. To what extent are MIC TAF interventions aligned with the policies and
strategies at the: (i) AfDB level (strategic, national, regional and sector
priorities), and (ii) the national level (development and sector focused
priorities)?
c. How robust are the design of MIC TAF interventions with regard to
assumptions, risks, and mitigation measures?
d. How consistent and complementary were MIC TAF interventions with
ongoing operations in the country (AfDB and/or other development
partners)?
7) Effectiveness:
a. To what extent were MIC TAF’s strategic objectives as a Fund achieved,
through effective implementation of its interventions?
b. To what extent has the MIC TAF contributed to improving the
performance – at the level of timeliness, implementation progress and
cost effectiveness - of AfDB’s ’s pipeline in those targeted countries?
c. To what extent has MIC TAF grants contributed to the identification of
new business opportunities for the AfDB in MICs?
d. To what extent have the interventions funded by the MIC TAF been
technically sound?
8) Efficiency:
a. How responsive has the MIC TAF been in responding to funding requests
from users (MICs, the Bank, and the Private Sector)?
b. Has the Technical Assistance Fund responded adequately to the evolving
needs of MICs?
c. Were AfDB processes and procedures, as well as the internal coordination
with other partners adequate?
d. If any, how does the MIC TAF perform compared to similar funds in other
multilateral institutions?
9) Sustainability:
a. To what extent have these interventions contributed to long-lasting,
institutional capacity strengthening; improved political and governance
environment, greater risk management and resilience to exogenous
factors, in the targeted countries?
b. How sustainable are the funding mechanisms of the MIC TAF?
10) Governance:

21
 a. How is the governance framework for the MIC TAF assessed in the
context of other similar funds at the AfDB and in other multilateral
institutions?
b. To what extent has the MIC-TAF developed a coherent Results-based
Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) System?
c. What governance framework is suitable for the MIC-TAF going forward?
d. What key lessons can be learnt and recommendations drawn from the
implementation of MIC TAF operations, and how can these be translated
into better operational performance and engagement with MICs?

IV. Objectives of the Assignment and Tasks of the Consultant

The overall objective of this assignment is to support the evaluation of the Bank’s
Middle-Income Country Technical Assistance Fund (MIC TAF). The consulting firm
will be responsible for identifying and systematically synthesizing evidence from
various sources, and conducting the evaluation following the OECD-DAC evaluation
criteria and principles as well as the good practices from the Evaluation Cooperation
Group (ECG).

Under the guidance of the Evaluation Task Manager, the consultant is expected to
undertake the following tasks:
1) Conduct a desk review of all relevant documents (including relevant AfDB
strategies and policies) and MIC TAF portfolio between 2002 and 2017.
2) Undertake a scoping mission and prepare an inception report summarizing
background information and methodology (including evaluation questions,
theory of change, and tools for data collection and evaluation);
3) Prepare mission agendas and planning for consultations and discussions with
the Bank’s staff, government officials, the private sector, and relevant civil
society organizations in the beneficiary MICs; conduct field missions (scoping
and data collection); and gather information through an online survey of the
stakeholders.
4) Conduct and write-up specific case studies of MIC TAF funded operations/studies
using qualitative and quantitative evidence to respond to the evaluation
questions;
5) Analyse primary and secondary data on the Bank’s MIC TAF and produce a
draft evaluation report.
6) Revise and finalize evaluation reports and deliverables based on comments
received from IDEV, the Reference Group and other stakeholders.
7) Undertake other duties identified as supporting the smooth conduct of the MIC
TAF evaluation.

V. Timeline and Deliverables

This assignment should be completed within a maximum period of 6 months,

beginning from mid-May 2018. The table below presents an indicative timetable of
the tasks, tentative dates, and deliverable for the evaluation.

22
Task Tentative dates Deliverables

Desk review of documents and portfolio.

Drafting Inception Report (first draft)

Preparation of the Agenda for Scoping

Mission
15-05-2018 – 29-06-2018
Scoping Mission
Work on the Inception Report by 1st version of the 1st
consultant deliverable: (Inception Report)
Final version of the 1st
Integration of comments received
deliverable
Preparation of the agenda for main
mission (and finalization of data collection
and evaluation tools) 25-06-2018 – 23-07-2018

Data Collection Mission

Work on Draft Technical Report, 1st version 2nd deliverable

23-07-2018 – 15-09-2018
Including Case Studies (Draft Technical Report)

Inputs and comments to the

Inputs to the draft report and review 15-09-2018 – 22-09-2018
draft report
Integration of comments received by the Final Report, and a 2-page
30-10-2018
consultants Policy Brief
Submission of Final Synthesis Report and Final Submission of Synthesis
13-11-2018
Presentation Slides for CODE and PPT

VI. Consulting Firm’s profile

The consulting firm to be considered for the evaluation must demonstrate the
following qualifications:

1) A proven background in evaluation of development assistance, country

strategies, projects, and experience working in Middle-Income Countries in
Africa.
2) A strong knowledge of multilateral development agencies’ context. Experience
working for the AfDB is an asset.
3) Previous experience in evaluation of thematic issues such as partnerships, trust
funds, and cooperation activities in multilateral institutions.
4) Excellent understanding and experience of evaluation principles and practices,
including the use of Theory of Change and the development of strategic lessons
and recommendations.
5) Experience in researching, analysing, consolidating, and presenting quantitative
and qualitative data.

23
6) A highly skilled and multidisciplinary evaluation team with proven technical
experience in evaluating projects/programs in main sectors and other thematic
areas relevant to the MIC TAF (such as agriculture, finance, the social sector,
transportation, institutional support, public sector management, and private
sector management).
7) The proposed team must also demonstrate fluency in both English and French.
Knowledge of Portuguese will be an advantage.

24
Annex 2: Centennial Group International

The Centennial Group

The Centennial Group (www.Centennial-Group.com) is a global strategic and policy advisory

firm that provides advice on a wide range of development issues. Centennial works with private
and non-government clients as well as with development institutions such as the African
Development Bank, the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the Japan Bank for
International Cooperation (JBIC), the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), the
Development Bank of Latin America (CAF), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP),
the UN Economic Commission for Africa, the International Fund for Agricultural Development
(IFAD) and other UN agencies.

Selected recent examples of Centennial’s engagements that are relevant to the proposed
evaluation include:

 Accelerating Development Impact in Africa through the High 5s: Support to the
High-Level Panel. Centennial supported the two co-chairs, Kofi Annan and Horst
Kohler and the Panel appointed by President Adesina in their work and the preparation of
their report. The preparatory work for the report included a review of the High 5
strategies and related implementation plans and also took account of the new
Development and Business Delivery Model. The report summarized the Panel’s
conclusions and recommendations, which focused on the decade 2016-2025 to achieve
the High 5s. It was discussed at the Governors’ Forum at the Bank’s 2017 Annual
Meetings in Ahmedabad.
 The evaluation of the AfDB East Africa Regional Integration Strategy 2011-2015.
The evaluation covered all the operations approved and implemented under the strategy.
 The Second Independent Quality at Entry Assessment of AfDB CSPs and RISPs,
which evaluated whether the quality at entry of CSPs and RISPs approved since the last
Independent QAE exercise taken for CSPs approved between 2008 and 2009 and
suggested potential improvements to the Bank’s design process of its country/regional
integration strategies in light of the Bank’s Ten-Year Strategy for 2013-2022.
 The two-part evaluation of the AfDB’s implementation of GCI-VI and ADF 12 and
13 Commitments which included an overarching review and an evaluation of the Bank’s
policy and strategy making and implementation.
 Support to the Development of Financial Sector Development Policy and Strategy.
The project entailed the finalization of the Bank’s Financial Sector Development Policy
and Strategy, 2014-2019.
 A synthesis report on lessons of experience from evaluations on private sector

25
 development (PSD) for IDEV/AfDB. The PSD synthesis mined the vast evaluation
knowledge available on the private sector (enabling environment for PSD, microfinance,
private equity, public private partnerships, SMEs, etc.) drawing on evaluations carried
out by multilaterals and bi-laterals to synthesize lessons for AfDB.
 Evaluation of Efficiency and Effectiveness of the African Development Bank’s
Operational Procurement Policies and Practices. The purpose of this evaluation was to
give Bank Senior Management credible, factual and experience-based evidence about the
efficiency and effectiveness of its procurement policies and processes that will help guide
the Bank’s operational procurement strategy.
 Sector-wide Evaluation: ADB’s Support for the Agriculture, Natural Resources,
and Rural Development Sector between 2005 and 2017. This ongoing evaluation
includes a review of some 110 PCRs (including the validation reports for 90 of these
projects), plus fieldwork in four countries (China, Cambodia, Bangladesh, and
Tajikistan).

Further information on these engagements is provided in the project overviews beginning on the
next page.

In addition, Centennial recently completed the study “Africa Reset – A New Way Forward”
for JICA, presented at a Forum chaired by President Ouattara in March 2017. The study is an
update of our earlier work “Africa 2050: Realizing the continent’s full potential,” which was
presented at the Governors’ Forum of the AfDB’s Annual Meetings held in Rwanda in 2014. The
update paid specific attention to strategies and policies related to macroeconomics, demographics
and urbanization, fragility and conflict, education and skills development, agriculture,
commodities and terms of trade, regional integration, and industrialization and infrastructure.

Our comparative advantage in conducting the proposed assignment derives, inter alia, from our
access to in-house and globally positioned senior experts with the required knowledge and
experience at the highest level in the areas relevant to the review– the design, supervision,
completion reporting and evaluation of development projects. We supplement our senior team of
international experts with national experts, and with junior staff to undertake parts of the
required document review, data compilation, and selected analysis.

26
Annex 3: MIC TAF Projects 2002-2017

Intervention Name Country Region Sector Name Capital applied Approval Original
for date Closing Date
1. APPUI TECHNIQUE AU PROGRAMME CRÉATION NOUVELLE Algeria RDGN Agriculture 504,000.00 12/11/2012 12/31/2015
EXPLOITATION
2. ETUDE SUR LA DIVERSIFICATION ECONOMIQUE EN ALGERIE Algeria RDGN Ind/Mini/Quar 781,350.00 4/7/2015 12/31/2017
3. ASSISTANCE TECHNIQUE POUR L'ELABORATION D'UN SIG AU PROFIT D Algeria RDGN Water Sup/Sanit 750,000.00 5/19/2015 12/31/2018
4. MODERNISATION DU SYTEME DE COLLABORATION ET DE Algeria RDGN Communications 496,500.00 8/4/2009 12/31/2013
COMMUNICATION
5. RECADRAGE DE LA STRATEGIE E-ALGERIE ET ELABORATION DE LA DEM Algeria RDGN Communications 798,652.00 2/10/2014 6/30/2017
6. APPUI À LA SUPERVISION DE LA MODERNISATION DU SI DES BANQUES Algeria RDGN Finance 750,000.00 8/17/2012 12/31/2015
7. RENFORCEMENT DES CAPACITES MINISTERE FINANCES Algeria RDGN Finance 497,000.00 11/15/2011 12/31/2013
8. MIC - ETUDE SUR LA CROISSANCE INCLUSIVE ET L’EMPLOI Algeria RDGN Social 553,785.34 2/17/2015 12/31/2017
9. PROJET D'ASSISTANCE TECHNIQUE A LA CAISSE NATIONALE D'EQUIPE Algeria RDGN Multi-Sector 600,000.00 5/22/2007 6/30/2010
10. APPUI A L'ORGANISATION DU FORUM AFRICAIN DES AFFAIRES ET DE Algeria RDGN Multi-Sector 398,000.00 10/13/2016
11. PROJET D’APPUI AU DEVELOPPEMENT DE LA PME (PAD-PME) Algeria RDGN Multi-Sector 792,165.00 3/2/2015
Total MIC Operations in Algeria 6,921,452.34
12. CABINDA PROVINCE AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT STUDY Angola RDGS Agriculture 420,045.00 12/22/2014 6/30/2016
13. MIC - ETUDES FINANCEMENT ET SECTEUR PRIVÉ Angola RDGS Social 398,478.00 2/14/2014 12/31/2015
Total MIC Operations in Angola 818,523.00
14. MIC FUND - CAPACITY BUILDING TO THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE Botswana RDGS Agriculture 293,300.00 2/27/2007 12/31/2009
15. WASTEWATER REUSE AND WATER HARVESTING FOR IRRIGATION Botswana RDGS Agriculture 600,000.00 10/4/2011 5/31/2013
STUDY
16. MIC FUND - AGRICULTURE SECTOR REVIEW Botswana RDGS Agriculture 476,795.00 2/16/2007 12/31/2008
17. FEASIBILITY STUDY FOT A 200 MGW CONCENTRATING SOLAR POWER PL Botswana RDGS Power 600,000.00 11/3/2009
18. MIC TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GRANT TO BOTSWANA DEVELOPMENT Botswana RDGS Finance 223,843.00 12/6/2016
CORPO
19. EDUCATIONAL STANDARDS AND TECHNICAL AND VOCATIONAL Botswana RDGS Social 600,000.00 3/19/2010 12/31/2013
EDUCATION
20. STATISTICAL CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAMME - PHASE II (SCB II) Botswana RDGS Multi-Sector 490,600.00 7/7/2011 6/30/2014
21. SUPPORT FOR FAST TRACKING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF VISION 2016 Botswana RDGS Multi-Sector 245,653.32 3/1/2007 12/31/2008
22. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO PRIVATIZATION Botswana RDGS Multi-Sector 600,000.00 10/14/2010 6/30/2013
23. CAPACITY BUILDING TO NBIFIRA, NON-BANKING FINANCIAL SERVICES Botswana RDGS Multi-Sector 600,000.00 9/22/2010 6/30/2013
24. DEVELOPMENT OF A CORPORATE GOVERNANCE CODE Botswana RDGS Multi-Sector 151,565.00 3/1/2007 12/31/2008
25. INSTITUTIONNAL STRENGTHNENING LOCAL AUTHORITIES FOR Botswana RDGS Multi-Sector 283,594.67 1/30/2008 12/31/2009
EFFECTIV
26. MINING AND DIVERSIFIACTION STUDY Botswana RDGS Multi-Sector 275,047.98 6/8/2010 4/30/2012
Total MIC Operations in Botswana 5,440,398.97
27. MIC-CAP VERT ECONOMIE BLEUE Cape Verde RDGW Agriculture 1,000,000.00 10/17/2016 1/31/2018
28. DATA CENTER PROJECT Cape Verde RDGW Communications 297,188.00 7/28/2010
29. PROJET PILOTE POUR LE RENFORCEMENT DE L’EMPLOYABILITÉ ET DE Cape Verde RDGW Social 800,000.00 8/22/2016 12/31/2018
30. CAPACITY BUILDING GRANT FOR MICRO & SMES DEVELOPMENT Cape Verde RDGW Multi-Sector 773,659.00 3/8/2013 12/31/2015

27
 THROUGH
31. SUPPORT FOR PROMOTING ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY AND INVESTMENT Cape Verde RDGW Multi-Sector 795,000.00 10/15/2014 12/31/2016
THR
32. MIC TAF: EFFICIENT TAX AND REVENUE ADMINISTRATION FOR IMPRO Cape Verde RDGW Multi-Sector 775,239.00 8/16/2013
33. ENQUETE SUR LES DEPENSES ET LES REVENUS DES MENAGES Cape Verde RDGW Multi-Sector 797,730.00 6/25/2014
34. APPUI AU RECENSEMENT AGRICOLE Cape Verde RDGW Multi-Sector 779,960.00 6/25/2014 12/31/2017
Total MIC Operations in Cape Verde 6,018,776.00
35. FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION/REHABILITATION OF Z Egypt RDGN Agriculture 600,000.00 6/15/2009 2/28/2012
36. PREPARATION OF A MASTER PLAN FOR THE Egypt RDGN Agriculture 600,000.00 11/10/2009 11/30/2014
REHABILITATION/REPLACEM
37. USE OF RENEWABLE ENERGY FOR PUMPING IRRI Egypt RDGN Agriculture 800,000.00 2/26/2015 3/31/2018
38. NATIONAL DRAINAGE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Egypt RDGN Agriculture 400,000.00 2/1/2016
39. SHARM EL-SHEIKH AIRPORT PROJECT Egypt RDGN Transport 1,200,000.00 4/15/2015
40. PPP TRANSACTION ADVISORY SERVICES FOR HELWAN WASTEWATER Egypt RDGN Water Sup/Sanit 600,000.00 10/31/2011 12/31/2013
TREA
41. IMPROV. OPER. EFF. EXIST. POWER PLANTS Egypt RDGN Power 490,400.00 5/16/2011 12/31/2013
42. STUDYING INTEGRATION WIND POWER Egypt RDGN Power 494,000.00 5/16/2011 12/31/2013
43. NAVISAT-PROJET DE SATELLITE GEOSTATIONNAIRE Egypt RDGN Communications 600,000.00 5/20/2009 12/31/2010
44. CSD LOCAL CAPITAL MARKET DEVELOPMENT Egypt RDGN Finance 891,595.00 7/10/2015 12/30/2017
45. RESTRUCTURING OF NASSER SOCIAL BANK Egypt RDGN Finance 396,571.00 10/11/2016
46. INSTITUTIONNAL SUPPORT TO NATIONAL BANK OF EGYPT (MIC) Egypt RDGN Finance 300,000.00 3/31/2007
47. MIC - INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT Egypt RDGN Social 400,000.00 11/8/2016
48. UPDATE OF ACTUARIAL STUDY FOR NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE Egypt RDGN Social 180,000.00 8/18/2016 6/30/2017
49. SOCIAL FUND FOR DEVELOPMENT: MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES Egypt RDGN Social 600,000.00 10/11/2006 12/31/2011
SUP
50. RURAL INCOME AND ECONOMIC ENHANCEMENT PROJECT (RIEEP) IN Egypt RDGN Social 600,000.00 1/13/2010 12/31/2014
THE
51. STATISTICAL CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM PHASE II (SCB-II) Egypt RDGN Multi-Sector 490,600.00 5/20/2011 6/30/2014
52. CAPACITY BUILDING FOR EGYPTIAN AGENCY OF PARTNERSHIP FOR DEV Egypt RDGN Multi-Sector 1,200,000.00 4/29/2015 12/31/2016
53. STRENGTHENING THE INSTITUTE OF NATIONAL PLANNING Egypt RDGN Multi-Sector 1,200,000.00 5/7/2015 3/31/2018
54. ECONOMIC SUMMIT: ASSISTANCE TO MIC Egypt RDGN Multi-Sector 390,000.00 11/19/2014 12/31/2015
Total MIC Operations in Egypt 12,433,166.00
55. APPUI 'ENQUETE DEMOGRAPHIQUE & DE SANTE Eq Guinea RDGC Social 333,826.00 8/7/2009
56. APPUI A LA MISE EN OEUVRE DU PLAN NATIONAL DE DEVELOPPEMENT Eq Guinea RDGC Multi-Sector 395,515.25 4/10/2009 12/31/2010
57. PROJET D'APPUI TECHNIQUE À LA PROMOTION DU SECTEUR PRIVÉ Eq Guinea RDGC Multi-Sector 798,000.00 12/12/2014
Total MIC Operations in Equitorial Guinea 1,527,341.25
58. ETUDE STRATÉGIE DE TRANSFORMATION DE L'AGRICULTURE BASÉE Gabon RDGC Agriculture 991,095.00 2/10/2017
SUR
59. ETUDE D'UN PROJET D'APPUI AU PROGRAMME GRAINE-PHASE 2 Gabon RDGC Agriculture 993,878.00 2/10/2017
60. PRO. APPUI DEV. INF. RIZ - MIC (PADIACN) Gabon RDGC Agriculture 477,488.61 1/20/2011 3/31/2013
61. ETUDE DE PREPARATION DU PROGRAMME APPUI A L'INITIATIVE GABON Gabon RDGC Agriculture 1,199,000.00 6/30/2016 12/31/2017
62. APPUI TECHNIQUE AU PROGRAMME NATIONAL D’EVALUATION Gabon RDGC Environment 967,360.92 2/14/2017 3/31/2018
ENVIRONNE
63. ENQUETE NATIONALE SUR EMPLOI ET CHOMAGE Gabon RDGC Social 499,942.74 6/4/2009 3/31/2011

28
64. MIC - RENFORCEMENT DE LA CAISSE NATIONALE D'ASSURANCE MALADI Gabon RDGC Social 498,724.00 10/15/2010 12/31/2011
65. MIC - REALISATION DE L'ENQUÊTE DEMOGRAPHIQUE ET DE SANTE 201 Gabon RDGC Social 447,139.00 2/4/2011 12/31/2012
66. PROJET APPUI CHAMBRE DE COMMERCE DU GABON Gabon RDGC Multi-Sector 785,168.00 10/14/2014 6/30/2017
67. ETUDE EN APPUI A L'ELABORATION D'UN PROGRAMME NATIONAL DE Gabon RDGC Multi-Sector 100,000.00 8/3/2004
BO
68. PROJET D'APPUI À LA MISE EN PLACE D'UN DISPOSITIF D'INCUBATE Gabon RDGC Multi-Sector 799,107.00 5/14/2014 6/30/2016
69. PROMOTION DES INVESTISSEMENTS DANS LES FILIERES PORTEUSES CA Gabon RDGC Multi-Sector 799,274.00 6/3/2016
Total MIC Operations in Gabon 8,558,177.27
70. KENYA TOWNS SUSTAINABLE WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION Kenya RDGE Water Sup/Sanit 1,200,000.00 11/9/2016
PROGRAM
Total MIC Operations in Kenya 1,200,000.00
71. MIC GRANT REVIEW OF OULTLINE PLANNING SCHEMES FOR MUNICIPAL Mauritius RDGS Transport 600,000.00 7/24/2007 8/31/2009
72. FEASIBILITY STUDY OF THE ISLAND CONTAINER TERMINAL Mauritius RDGS Transport 1,180,000.00 5/27/2015 2/28/2018
73. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT FOR DAM Mauritius RDGS Water Sup/Sanit 300,000.00 4/22/2014 10/31/2016
DEVELO
74. WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN STUDY Mauritius RDGS Water Sup/Sanit 562,890.00 6/1/2009 12/31/2011
75. HEALTH SECTOR REVIEW Mauritius RDGS Social 163,396.00 7/16/2008 8/31/2009
76. MIC GRANT IN SUPPORT OF REFORM PROGRAM Mauritius RDGS Multi-Sector 186,931.00 7/18/2006
77. STATISTICAL CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM PHASE II (SCB-II) Mauritius RDGS Multi-Sector 490,600.00 6/3/2011 6/30/2014
78. MIC GRANT SUPPORTING THE MAURITIUS COMPETITIVENESS AND Mauritius RDGS Multi-Sector 300,000.00 2/9/2010 6/30/2011
PUBLI
79. MIC GRANT SUPPORTING DEBT Management Mauritius RDGS Multi-Sector 296,013.00 12/9/2010 12/31/2014
Total MIC Operations in Mauritius 4,079,830.00
80. MIC - PROJET DE SAUVEGARDE ET DE DEVELOPPEMENT SOCIO-TERRITO Morocco RDGN Agriculture 496,000.00 4/28/2009 5/31/2011
81. MIC - APPUI TECHNIQUE AU DEVELOPPEMENT DES INFRASTRUCTURE D' Morocco RDGN Agriculture 494,200.00 2/21/2011 6/30/2013
82. ASSISTANCE TECHNIQUE POUR LA PROMOTION DES JEUNES Morocco RDGN Agriculture 497,200.00 1/12/2012 10/31/2014
ENTREPRENE
83. ELABORATION D'UN PROGRAMME DE CONFORTEMENT ET DE Morocco RDGN Transport 600,000.00 4/1/2010
REPARATION
84. ETUDE SCHÉMA DIRECTEUR AEP MOULOUYA Morocco RDGN Water Sup/Sanit 204,994.00 1/10/2013 12/31/2014
85. PROJET D'APPUI À L'AMÉLIORATION DU SYSTÈME DE GARANTIE AU MA Morocco RDGN Finance 464,988.00 1/19/2011 12/31/2013
86. PROJET DE RENFORCEMENT DU CADRE DE REGULATION ET DE contrôle Morocco RDGN Finance 480,350.00 12/13/2010 12/31/2012
87. PROJET DE MODERNISATION DU CADRE ORGANISATIONNEL DE GESTION Morocco RDGN Finance 536,976.00 2/27/2013 12/31/2018
88. PROJET D'ELABORATION DU CODE MONETAIRE ET FINANCIER Morocco RDGN Finance 489,258.00 9/20/2012 12/31/2015
89. MIC-ETUDE SUR LA STRATEGIE DE DEVELOPPEMENT DE Morocco RDGN Social 470,406.00 3/11/2011 12/31/2012
L'ENSEIGNEMEN
90. MIC - APPUI UNIVERSITÉ NUMÉRIQUE A L'UNIVERSITE INTERNATIONA Morocco RDGN Social 774,600.00 10/10/2013
91. MIC-SYSTEME D'INFORMATION POUR L'AMELIORATION DE LA Morocco RDGN Social 398,000.00 1/29/2016 6/30/2018
GOUVERNA
92. MIC - APPUI TECHNIQUE POUR L’ÉLABORATION D’UN SYST D’INFOR D Morocco RDGN Social 380,800.00 7/30/2013 12/31/2016
93. ASSISTANCE TECHNIQUE EN FAVEUR DE L'AGENCE NATIONALE DE L'AS Morocco RDGN Social 600,000.00 9/29/2006 12/31/2007
94. ASSISTANCE TECHNIQUE EN FAVEUR DE LA CAISSE NATIONALE DES OR Morocco RDGN Social 600,000.00 8/31/2006 12/31/2007
95. ETUDE SUR LA CONCEPTION D'UN NOUVEAU SYSTEME DE Morocco RDGN Social 188,000.00 11/27/2006
REMUNERATION

29
96. ETUDE CROISSANCE EMPLOI MAROC Morocco RDGN Multi-Sector 587,200.00 6/27/2012 12/31/2014
97. PROJET D’APPUI AU RENFORCEMENT DES CAPACITÉS DE LA COUR DES Morocco RDGN Multi-Sector 792,000.00 11/25/2015
98. ETUDE STRATEGIQUE DE LA DTFE Morocco RDGN Multi-Sector 797,600.00 5/21/2015 12/31/2017
99. APPUI À LA MISE EN PLACE ET L’OPERATIONN Morocco RDGN Multi-Sector 799,200.00 7/14/2015 12/31/2017
100. PROJET D'APPUI A MAROC EXPORT Morocco RDGN Multi-Sector 630,000.00 7/2/2016 12/31/2018
Total MIC Operations in Morroco 11,281,772.00
101. BOTSWANA/ZAMBIA - SADC NORTH-SOUTH CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT Multinational RDGS Transport 600,000.00 2/5/2007 12/31/2009
STUD
102. MULTINATIONAL ROAD DOUSSALA-DOLISIE Multinational RDGC Transport 325,429.00 3/28/2011 7/31/2013
103. CREATION D'UNE COMMUNAUTE ECONOMIQUE REGIONALE POUR Multinational RDGN Multi-Sector 285,000.00 5/24/2007
L'UNION
104. APPUI INSTITUTIONNEL AU SECRETARIAT GENERAL DE L'UNION DU MA Multinational RDGN Multi-Sector 500,000.00 4/30/2009 12/31/2010
105. APPUI AU SG DE L'UMA - PHASE 2 Multinational RDGN Multi-Sector 495,365.00 5/8/2015 12/31/2017
106. PIDA CAPACITY BUILD. PROJECT INFRAST AUC Multinational RDGS Multi-Sector 600,000.00 12/12/2013 12/31/2016
107. PROJET D’APPUI A LA TRANSFORMATION DU CAFRAD (PAT-CAFRAD) Multinational RDGN Multi-Sector 479,000.00 3/29/2017
108. ETUDE SUR L'INSTAURATION D'UNE ZONE DE LIBRE ECHANGEENTRE LE Multinational RDGN Multi-Sector 100,000.00 10/19/2004
Total MIC Operations - Multinational 3,384,794.00
109. BRUKKAROS GREEN SCHEME PROJECT PREPARATION GRANT UNDER Namibia RDGS Agriculture 100,000.00 10/27/2005
MIC F
110. SUPPORT TO AQUACULTURE DEVELOPMENT Namibia RDGS Agriculture 259,812.24 6/5/2009 3/30/2011
111. NAMIBIA AIRPORT STUDY Namibia RDGS Transport 594,000.00 7/20/2010 12/30/2011
112. NEW PORT OF WALVIS BAY CONTAINER TERMINAL PROJECT - GRANT Namibia RDGS Transport 1,000,000.00 7/22/2013 12/31/2017
113. MIC - SUPPORT TO DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONAL HUMAN RESOURCE Namibia RDGS Social 600,000.00 10/9/2009 3/31/2011
PLAN
114. MIC - SUPPORT TO THE NAMIBIA NATIONAL COUNCIL ON HIGHER EDUC Namibia RDGS Social 396,985.00 2/3/2016 6/30/2018
115. SUPPORT FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NATIONAL MEDICAL BENEFIT Namibia RDGS Social 500,000.00 3/12/2012 12/31/2013
FU
116. STATISTICAL CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM PHASE II (SCB-II) Namibia RDGS Multi-Sector 490,600.00 7/7/2011 6/30/2014
117. MIC GRANT INSTITUTIONAL STRENGTHENING FOR PPP Namibia RDGS Multi-Sector 787,681.00 7/8/2015
Total MIC Operations in Namibia 4,729,078.24
118. ASSET MAPPING OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES IN NIGERIA-MIC GRANT Nigeria RDNG Agriculture 516,000.00 5/30/2014 6/30/2015
119. TRANSACTION ADVISORY SUPPORT TO THE NIGERIAN FED. MIN. OF AG Nigeria RDNG Agriculture 367,700.00 5/8/2015 4/30/2016
120. MIC-GRANT SUPPORT TO BANK OF AGRICULTURE (BOA) LIMITED Nigeria RDNG Agriculture 715,328.00 5/5/2016 6/30/2018
121. MIC GRANT STRENGTHENING OF FEDERAL MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE Nigeria RDNG Agriculture 507,246.00 5/18/2016 12/30/2017
A
122. SUPPORT FOR NIGERIAN EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES TRANSPARENCY INIT Nigeria RDNG Finance 146,010.31 6/10/2015 6/30/2017
123. TRADE MISPRICING THE HIDDEN DRAINAGE OF RESOURCES OUT OF NIG Nigeria RDNG Finance 189,810.95 11/18/2014 6/30/2015
124. MIC-TAF: REHABILITATION OF INDUSTRIAL CLUSTERS AS A DRIVER O Nigeria RDNG Multi-Sector 423,600.00 11/8/2016
125. CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR MEMBERS OF THE NASS Nigeria RDNG Multi-Sector 144,755.00 3/28/2014
COMMITT
126. SUB-NATIONAL DEBT MANAGEMENT CAPACITY BUILDING PROJECT Nigeria RDNG Multi-Sector 795,789.48 1/24/2017
(SUBD
Total MIC Operations in Nigeria 3,806,239.74
127. AGRICULTURE SECTOR STUDY Seychelles RDGE Agriculture 649,400.00 2/27/2013 6/30/2014

30
128. MARICULTURE MASTER PLAN Seychelles RDGE Agriculture 279,973.00 6/8/2010
129. SEYCHELLES - LA GOGUE WATER SUPPLY STUDY Seychelles RDGE Water Sup/Sanit 600,000.00 12/8/2011 9/30/2013
130. MAHE SUSTAINABLE WATER AUGMENTATION PROJECT Seychelles RDGE Water Sup/Sanit 1,200,000.00 4/1/2015
131. SEYCHELLES EAST AFRICA SUBMARINE CABLE LINK PROJECT/STUDY Seychelles RDGE Communications 292,185.00 2/18/2009 12/31/2009
132. DEVELOPMENT OF QUALITY OF SERVICE STANDARDS AND Seychelles RDGE Communications 102,000.00 11/3/2014 6/30/2016
REGULATIONS
133. STRENGTHENING FINANCIAL MARKET Seychelles RDGE Finance 503,416.00 7/8/2015
134. MIC - SUPPORT FOR THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY Seychelles RDGE Social 502,415.00 4/15/2014 3/31/2017
A
135. STATISTICAL CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM PHASE II (SCB-II) Seychelles RDGE Multi-Sector 490,600.00 4/13/2011 6/30/2014
136. TA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF PPP LEGAL, REGULATORY AND Seychelles RDGE Multi-Sector 372,739.00 11/14/2014 6/30/2017
OPERATIONAL
137. TA GRANT FOR THE NEEDS ASSESSMENT STUDIES FOR THE Seychelles RDGE 600.000.00
ESTABLISHMENTOFTHE SEYCHELLES UNIVERSITY SYSTEM
Total MIC Operations in Seychelles 5,492,728.00
138. BBI MIC GRANT REQUEST South Africa RDGS Communications 798,000.00 2/21/2014 12/31/2014
139. MIC - EDUCATION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN NATURAL South Africa RDGS Social 205,950.00 2/19/2016
MINER
140. ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT PILOT PROJECT South Africa RDGS Social 1,200,000.00 4/23/2015 6/30/2018
141. STATISTICAL CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM PHASE II (SCB-II) South Africa RDGS Multi-Sector 490,600.00 7/7/2011 6/30/2014
142. SOUTH AFRICA MUNICIPAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT TECHNICAL South Africa RDGS Multi-Sector 683,527.00 9/7/2016 12/31/2018
ASSIST
143. DEVELOPMENT OF SA OSBP STRATEGY South Africa RDGS Multi-Sector 178,000.00 12/22/2011 8/31/2014
Total MIC Operations in South Africa 3,556,077.00
144. NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN STUDY Swaziland RDGS Transport 354,000.00 10/25/2009 12/31/2011
145. MANZINI-MBADLANE HIGHWAY PROJECT Swaziland RDGS Transport 1,200,000.00 5/28/2014
146. WSS STUDY ON LAVUMISA-NSALITJE CORRIDOR Swaziland RDGS Water Sup/Sanit 462,627.00 5/17/2007 12/31/2008
147. MBABANE MANZINI CORRIDOR (NONDVO) MULTIPURPOSE DAM STUDY Swaziland RDGS Water Sup/Sanit 797,416.00 12/21/2015 12/31/2018
148. ENERGY SECTOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM Swaziland RDGS Power 718,000.00 12/8/2014 12/31/2016
149. HEALTH SECTOR STUDY Swaziland RDGS Social 500,000.00 4/10/2006 12/31/2008
150. MIC GRANT TO MAP HIV/AIDS INTERVENTIONS Swaziland RDGS Social 300,000.00 6/13/2008 12/31/2009
151. ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION STUDY Swaziland RDGS Multi-Sector 298,600.00 4/12/2010 6/30/2011
152. STATISTICAL CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAMME - PHASE II (SCB II) Swaziland RDGS Multi-Sector 490,600.00 2/1/2012 6/30/2014
153. INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT TO ESTABLISH THE SWAZILAND REVENUE Swaziland RDGS Multi-Sector 492,677.00 11/28/2006 12/31/2008
AUT
154. TA FOR PUBLIC FINC MGMT REFORMS Swaziland RDGS Multi-Sector 478,452.00 11/3/2011 12/31/2013
Total MIC Operations in Swaziland 6,092,372.00
155. PREPARATION DU PDAI DE KAIROUAN SUR FONDS MIC Tunisia RDGN Agriculture 75,160.00 4/30/2004
156. DON MIC - PDAI DE GABÈS ET GAFSA Tunisia RDGN Agriculture 380,000.00 7/26/2012 12/31/2014
157. DON MIC - ETUDES DE PRÉPARATION DU PROJET 500 KM DE PISTES A Tunisia RDGN Agriculture 787,000.00 12/18/2013 12/31/2016
158. ETUDE-GESTION DES RISQUES ET MISE EN PLACE D'UN SYSTÈME D'AS Tunisia RDGN Agriculture 325,000.00 8/2/2016 12/31/2018
159. DON MIC POUR LA PREPARATION DU PDAI DE ZAGHOAUN Tunisia RDGN Agriculture 390,000.00 10/27/2014 6/30/2017
160. MIC - APPUI AUX GDA Tunisia RDGN Agriculture 587,138.00 10/20/2009 12/31/2014
161. TRANSFORMATION STRUCTURELLE ET APPUI AUX CRENEAUX Tunisia RDGN Ind/Mini/Quar 798,310.00 8/14/2015

31
 PORTEURS
162. PROJET D'APPUI À LA MISE EN PLACE D'UNE POLITIQUE INDUSTRIEL Tunisia RDGN Ind/Mini/Quar 791,830.00 8/14/2015
163. ETUDE STRATREGIE SECURITE ROUTIERE Tunisia RDGN Transport 1,000,000.00 9/30/2013 12/31/2016
164. ETUDE DU PLAN DIRECTEUR NATIONAL DES TRANSPORTS A L'HORIZON Tunisia RDGN Transport 800,000.00 7/14/2014 6/30/2018
165. PROJET DE MODERNISATION DES INFRASTRUCTURES ROUTIERES Tunisia RDGN Transport 1,200,000.00 10/28/2015
(PMIR)
166. AMELIORATION TAUX D'AEP- BIZERTE ET BEJA Tunisia RDGN Water Sup/Sanit 460,225.31 9/28/2009 12/31/2012
167. ETUDE DE PCI DANS LE GRAND TUNIS Tunisia RDGN Water Sup/Sanit 579,558.00 10/6/2009 12/31/2012
168. ETUDE STRATEGIE ASSAINISSEMENT TUNISIE Tunisia RDGN Water Sup/Sanit 574,988.00 12/4/2009 12/31/2012
169. APPUI A LA MISE EN OEUVRE DE L'E-GOVERNMENT ET OPEN-GOVERNE Tunisia RDGN Communications 683,550.00 12/20/2012 12/31/2014
170. MIC-ETUDE STRATEGIQUE PORTANT SUR LE DEVELOPPEMENT DES Tunisia RDGN Social 271,493.00 11/22/2010 12/31/2013
INDUS
171. ETUDE SUR LA FAISBILITE DU TECHNOPOLE DE SIDI THABET Tunisia RDGN Social 100,000.00 6/3/2004
172. DÉVELOPPEMENT DE LA STRATÉGIE D'EXPORTATION DES SERVICES DE Tunisia RDGN Social 526,583.00 10/9/2009 12/31/2011
173. MIC - PROJET D'APPUI A LA PROMOTION DES INVESTISSEMENTS ET D Tunisia RDGN Social 296,373.00 6/3/2015 6/30/2018
174. MIC- ETUDE SUR LES MALADIES EMERGENTES & RE-EMERGENTES RENF Tunisia RDGN Social 581,223.00 11/3/2009 12/31/2013
175. MIC ETUDE DE RENFORECEMENT DE L'INTEGRATION COMMERCIALE DE Tunisia RDGN Multi-Sector 323,377.00 9/24/2010 12/31/2012
L
176. STATISTICA CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM PHASE II (SCB II) Tunisia RDGN Multi-Sector 490,600.00 3/30/2011
177. PROJET D'APPUI A L'OPERATIONNALISATION DU PLAN D'ACTION DE L Tunisia RDGN Multi-Sector 530,100.00 12/27/2013 12/31/2016
178. OPERATIONALISING PPPS IN TUNISIA (PPP ADVISORY) Tunisia RDGN Multi-Sector 789,000.00 6/14/2013 12/31/2016
179. APPUI A L'INSTITUT TUNISIEN DE LA COMPETITIVITE ET DES ETUDE Tunisia RDGN Multi-Sector 198,848.00 12/3/2009
180. ETUDE D'EVALUATION DU SYSTEME DE MICROCREDIT BTS Tunisia RDGN Multi-Sector 139,484.00 1/6/2010 12/31/2011
Total MIC Operations in Tunisia 13,679,840.31
181. MIC TAF GRANT LUSWISHI FARM BLOCK Zambia RDGS Agriculture 720,000.00 3/22/2016
182. MIC TAF GRANT YOUTH IN AGRIBUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE Zambia RDGS Agriculture 790,000.00 4/26/2016 6/30/2018
COMMODIT
183. INTEGRATED SMALL TOWNS WATER AND SANITATION PROJECT Zambia RDGS Water Sup/Sanit 1,200,000.00 11/18/2016
Total MIC Operations in Zambia 2,710,000.00

32
 Annex 4: Evaluation Matrix

Relevance
Evaluation Questions Sub-questions Indicators Sources of Information
What are the objectives of the MIC TAF? To
Objectives of the interventions under Intervention's objectives
what extent do the objectives of the
review available in the appraisal reports.
interventions align with these objectives?
1.1 To what extent did the design Did the project's objectives fall within the areas MIC TAF Guidelines; MIC TAF
Distribution of MIC TAF projects by areas
of the MIC TAF interventions align of focus set out in the applicable MIC-TAF Request; Request for Approval
of focus
with the purpose and objectives of Guidelines at the time of approval? Memorandum
the Fund in beneficiary MICS? Does the MIC TAF have specific objectives in
each of the beneficiary MIC? If yes, do the Specific objectives formulated for the
CSP, Appraisal reports
interventions carried out in these countries TAF in the CSP
align with these objectives
AfDB Medium Term Strategy,
Did the project's objectives fall within the Project's objectives; Bank policy and
High 5s, Regional, Sector and
Bank's operational priorities? strategy statements
Country Strategy Papers
1.2 To what extent are the MIC TAF
interventions aligned with the MIC TAF Request; Request for
National/sectoral policy objectives;
policies and strategies at the (i) Approval Memorandum Gvt
To what extent are the projects aligned with objectives of the TAF projects; evidence
AfDB level and (ii) national level? Policy/Strategy papers, Bank
national priorities? of government commitment or support
Policy/Strategy papers,
to the project.
Interviews/surveys.

Evidence of ex ante explicit assumptions

Were risks, assumptions etc. identified?
and risk identification; Evidence of Projects Intervention logics,
1.3 How robust are the design of Did the risks and mitigation measures identified
important changes in the political, logical framework; PCR, PCRN,
MIC TAF interventions with regard in the project design, materialize and how did
economic or environmental context; annual reports, Supervision
to assumptions, risks, and these affect the project? How
Evidence of project's objectives and/or reports, interviews, surveys, field
mitigation measures? did the intervention adapt to unexpected
implementation procedures adaptation case studies
changes in the context?
to these changes
1.4 How consistent and TAF projects objectives; Ongoing MIC TAF Request; Request for
complementary were the MIC TAF Did the project support ongoing operations? operations objectives or identified Approval Memorandum; Country
interventions with ongoing implementation problems. Strategy Paper; Supervision

33
operations in the country? Was the project intended to support future TAF projects objectives; Planned reports of major AfDB projects in
operations identified in the Country Strategy operations objectives and the country. Projects pipeline in
Paper? implementation expected challenges. the country. Interviews
Effectiveness
MIC TAF Intervention logic (see
What are the strategic objectives of the MIC Number of MIC TAF projects with EQ 1.1) MIC TAF guidelines+
2.1 To what extent were MIC TAF's
TAF? How can we assess the extent to which "above the line" rating for "relevance" revised version; desk review of
strategic objectives as a Fund
they have been reached? To what extent do we and "effectiveness"; number of projects individual operations: PCR,
achieved, through effective
find evidence that MIC TAF financed supporting ongoing operations; number Evaluations, Surveys; Interviews
implementation of its
interventions have contributed to this of projects contributing to approval of Justification of the board decision
interventions?
evolution? subsequent operations not to replenish the fund after FY
2016.
2.2 To what extent has the MIC TAF
contributed to improving
performance - at the level of Have MIC TAF operation contributed to the Surveys of AfDB and client
survey results
timeliness, implementation improvement (continuation, progress, scale up, countries, interviews in Abidjan
progress and cost effectiveness - of etc) of existing operations ? and during field mission
AfDB's pipeline in those targeted
countries?
Was there subsequent(s) operation linked to
2.3 To what extent have MIC TAF the MIC TAF project; How do we assess they List of operation(s) linked to project;
grants contributed to the are linked? Evidence of links between these PCR, PCRN, surveys of AfDB and
identification of new business Have MIC TAF operations generated new loans/ operations and the TA interventions. client countries
opportunities for the AfDB in MICs? operations? Portfolio analysis

Evaluation notes and audit

Evidence of management problems,
reports, PCR, Supervision reports,
2.4 To what extent have the How would you assess the quality of the conflicts with the partner
Surveys of AfDB and client
interventions funded by the MIC technical and institutional design and of the administration, decision and
countries, implementation
TAF been technically sound? implementation of the TAF intervention? implementation delays, budget
progress of operations supported
overruns.
by or linked to the project.
2.5 To what extend has the MIC Have the outputs expected from the grant been Delivery of planned outputs
PCR, interviews, field vistis
TAF operation been effective? delivered? Identified outcomes

34
 What were if any the unexpected outputs?
Have the expected outcomes been achieved?
What were the unexpected outcomes if any?

Efficiency
How many days did it take for the Bank to
Number of days between official request
approve an official MIC TAF request; What
3.1 How responsive has the MIC and AfDB approval; Number of grants
proportion of requests resulted in a grant? How MIC TAF Request; Request for
TAF been in responding to funding requests received and number
many days between approval and actual Approval Memorandum; PCR.
requests from users? approved, Actual/expected
starting date of the intervention's
implementation time frames
implementation?
What were the "needs of the MICs"; How did
3.2 Has the MIC TAF responded they evolve during the period. What were the The answer to this question will be
Surveys and interviews (phone
adequately to the evolving needs outcomes of the TAF; To what extent did they mainly on the perception of the Bank's
and field visits)
of MICs? meet the "needs of the MICs" during the period clients and task managers
under review

How do the AfDB processes and procedures

3.3 Were AfDB processes and related to the TAF compare with the ones Staff, client and auditor comments in Surveys of AfDB staff and client;
procedures, as well as the internal applied by similar institutions? What are the activity, supervision and audit reports as Appraisal reports, PCR; PCREN,
coordination with other partners, main comments/ complaints of the TAF project well as collected through surveys and Evaluation note, audit and
adequate? teams, the clients, auditors… about the interviews. supervision reports,
processes and procedures?

How do the MIC TAF compare with similar Indicators will be selected on the basis
3.4 If any, how does the MIC TAF
funds in terms of: decision/implementation of indicators available in existing Evaluation of similar funds with
perform compared to similar funds
delay, effectiveness (effect on the operation evaluations of similar funds (European results of MIC TAF evaluation
in other multilateral institutions?
pipeline), efficiency (cost effectiveness)? Commission, EBRD, ADB)
Sustainability
4.1 To what extent have these What were the sustainability findings in the Sustainability ratings from PCR and
interventions contributed to long PCR and PCREN; what was the feedback from PCRN, CSP evaluation and country
lasting, institutional capacity AfDB and client surveys. To what extent was assessments, evidences of PCR and PCRN; Surveys of AfDB
strengthening; improved political the quality and quantity of the intervention (non)sustainability identified through and client; interviews.
and governance environment, pipeline maintained after the end of the TA in comments provided through surveys
greater risk management and this country/ministry…? This question should and interviews.

35
resilience to exogenous factors in only be applied to projects that have been
targeted countries? closed down at least a few years ago.
4.2 How sustainable are the
funding mechanisms of the MIC
Interviews of appropriate officials Annual funding of MIC TAF
TAF?

Governance
What are the similarities and differences
between the governance framework of
5.1 How is the governance
different funds and institutions, what are the
framework for the MIC TAF
reasons for the differences (different Most significant differences with similar Guidance on similar funds in
assessed in the context of other
accountability mechanisms, sources of funding, funds. AfDB, WB, and ADB Interviews
similar funds at AfDB and in other
organizational arrangements etc.), and what
multilateral institutions?
could be the consequence of these difference
on efficiency and effectiveness?
% of interventions for which some
critical monitoring information (to be Progress reports from
Were the reporting requirements in the
identified) is available. A first indicator beneficiaries; supervision reports;
5.2 To what extent has the MIC TAF Guidelines implemented? ; did the progress
could be the ratio of completed project annual Management reports to
developed a coherent results- reports contain adequate information?; Were
that have a Completion Report the Board, PCREN, monitoring
based monitoring and evaluation the projects evaluated as expected? To what
Evaluation Note per country of reports (if any), transversal result
system? extent can we find any transversal result
intervention and over the whole synthesis (per country, per
synthesis/analysis?
portfolio, all period covered and before sector…) if any.
and after 2012
5.3 What governance framework is what are the main weaknesses in the current
suitable for MIC TAF going forward governance; what are the options?
5.4 What key lessons can be learnt,
and recommendations drawn from
the implementation of MIC TAF
operations, and how can these be
translated into better operational
performance and engagement with
MICs

36
Annex 4: Project Review Template and Guidance

All MIC TAF interventions for which at least an appraisal report is available will be reviewed
according to the following Project Review Template. This template selects the evaluation
questions for which project level documents can provide relevant information. Sub question are
therefore made project specific.

Available documents regarding the projects (e.g., Appraisal Report or Evaluation Note), as well
as other relevant documents reviewed (AfDB Medium Term Strategy, High 5’s Strategy, Regional
and sector strategies, Country Strategy Paper, relevant national documents such as Poverty
reduction strategy plans or sector plans) are quoted as relevant in order to support the rating.

Main Findings and/or Issues for Further Investigation are briefly summarized at the bottom of
the template in order to contribute to mission agendas and/ or interviews elaboration when
relevant.

The rating scale used for each criterion is a four-level scale. They build on rating scales used by
the AfDB for evaluating its projects and allow full coherence with Project Completion Evaluation
Notes when available.

These ratings will allow for subsequent horizontal analysis of the projects sample for each
evaluation question.

The template presented hereunder takes the review of project P-MA-EAZ-004 in Morocco as an
example for illustration purposes.

Finance project Country Long name Amount Approval Approval date Original Closing Status of
approved Year Date Project
P-MA-EAZ-004 Morocco ETUDE 2013 10/01/2013 31/12/2014 CLSD
SCHÉMA
DIRECTEUR
AEP
MOULOUYA
Priority Area Project preparation
Sector Water Sup/Sanit
Sub-Sector More Than One Water Supply Sub-Sector
Projects documents Appraisal report, Completion Report Evaluation Note
available (all have
been reviewed)

Rating out of
Evaluation Questions Sub-questions Evidence
4
Relevance

37
 According to the Appraisal report, this study aims to plan
drinkable water access as well as map the needs and resources to
cover the long-term needs in water. Its results will enable to solve
the water problems that arise from the important economic
growth of the region.
To what extent do
Appraisal report : 1.2.2 Cette étude a pour objectif la planification
the objectives of
de l’alimentation en eau potable afin d’assurer la pérennisation du
the interventions
service d’AEP dans cette région. Elle vise également à élaborer le
align with the MIC
bilan besoins/ressources de la zone d’étude et d’identifier les
TAF objectives?
schémas de desserte pour couvrir les besoins en eau à long terme
(Please state the
des localités urbaines et rurales de la zone d’étude tout en
project's
établissant un diagnostic exhaustif de la situation actuelle en
objectives)
matière d’alimentation en eau potable.

1.2.3 Ses résultats permettront de déterminer les solutions idoines

aux problèmes relatifs à la desserte en eau et à l’impact sur les
ressources en eau de la Région, engendrés par l’impressionnant
essor économique que celle-ci connaît.
Did the project's
objectives fall
within the areas of
focus set out in the Yes, "Project preparation" focus area
applicable MIC-TAF
1.1 To what extent Guidelines at the
did the design of the time of approval?
MIC TAF
interventions align
4
with the purpose and The 2012-2016 CSP for Morocco includes a paragraph on non-
objectives of the loans operations. These shall support studies and technical
Fund in beneficiary assistance to support the CSP objectives, enhance the dialogue
MICs? between the Bank and the government and the quality of the
Bank's pipeline. The non-loans operations will support the
country's efforts towards inclusive growth by contributing to
identify the necessary reforms to promote entrepreneurship in
rural areas and sector with a high employment creation potential.

Does the MIC TAF This project is aligned with the objectives of identifying necessary
have specific reforms to support growth and to enhance the Bank's pipeline's
objectives this quality by mapping needs and resources.
beneficiary MIC? If
yes, does this CSP 2012-2016: "Opérations hors prêts
intervention align 3.2.10 Une grande priorité sera accordée aux études économiques
with these et sectorielles et aux opérations d’assistance technique pour
objectives? soutenir la réalisation des objectifs du DSP. Il s’agit d’accompagner
la mise en oeuvre des opérations financées par la Banque en vue
d’améliorer le dialogue avec le Gouvernement et la qualité à
l'entrée du portefeuille, facteurs essentiels de durabilité de l’action
de la Banque. Par le biais des opérations hors prêts, la Banque
appuiera les efforts du pays visant à asseoir les bases d’une
croissance inclusive, en contribuant à l’identification des réformes
nécessaires à la promotion de l’entreprenariat en milieu rural et
des secteurs à fort potentiel de création d’emplois, dont le ciblage
permettra de générer une dynamique nouvelle de transformation"

38
 According to the PCER, this project is perfectly aligned with the
CSP’s second pillar regarding support to green infrastructures, as
well as third pillar regarding access to basic infrastructure such as
Did the project's
water.
objectives fall
within the Bank's
PCER: "Alignement avec le DSP 2012-2016. [...]La Banque a décidé
operational
de financer ce projet afin d'appuyer la concrétisation de la
priorities based on
stratégie de l'Office. La stratégie de la Banque au Maroc pour la
AfDB Strategy, CSP,
période 2012-2016 était bâtie sur deux piliers: (1) le renforcement
and sector
de la gouvernance et de l'inclusion sociale; et (2) le soutien au
strategies? (Please
développement des infrastructures "vertes". Ce dernier pilier
identify specific
concerne plus spécifiquement: (i) le soutien à la croissance verte -
component or
énergie propre, gestion de l'eau; (ii) l'appui à la compétitivité
pillar of the Bank,
logistique - mise è niveau des infrastructures; et (iii) le soutien à
CSP, and sector
l'accès des populations aux infrastructures de base - eau et
strategies and
assainissement, énergie, transports (DSP 2012-2016, p.15). Ainsi,
priorities.)
l'étude en question était en parfaite conformité avec le DSP 2012-
2016, notamment avec le 2ème pilier relatif au soutien au
développement des infrastructures "vertes" (RE, p.3). «
This study is part of the National Office for Electricity and
Drinkable Water's (ONEE -Office National de l’Electricité et de
l’Eau Potable) first pillar that aims to ensure long term access to
drinkable water in urban areas. More broadly, water is key in
1.2 To what extent Morocco both due to climate and to the stress that current
are the MIC TAF economic growth puts on this rare resource.
interventions aligned
with the policies and PCER: "Au Maroc, l'alimentation en eau potable a toujours été une 4
strategies at the (i) préoccupation fondamentale […]. Le pays a dû faire face ces 30
AfDB level and (ii) dernières années à 3 cycles de sécheresse ayant duré chacun 4
national level? années consécutives. Ceci a fragilisé considérablement le pays […].
De plus, les conditions socio-économiques de l’utilisation de l’eau
ont notablement changé depuis plusieurs décennies […]. Ceci a
To what extent are entraîné un accroissement rapide de la demande en eau potable.
the projects Conformément à la vision du gouvernement en matière de
aligned with développement du secteur de l’eau adoptée en 2009, l’ONEE-
national priorities Branche Eau s’est fixé une stratégie basée sur: (i) la pérennisation
(please specify et la sécurisation de l’alimentation en eau potable en milieu
government urbain; (ii) la généralisation de l’accès à l’eau potable en milieu
priorities and rural conformément au principe de droit à l’eau; et (iii)
relevant program)? l’intervention active et soutenue dans le domaine de
l’assainissement liquide et la préservation de l’environnement.
C’est dans le cadre du premier axe de cette stratégie que l’Office
planifie de réaliser des études de plan directeur d’AEP[…].La
finalité de telles études est de trouver des solutions adéquates de
renforcement des ouvrages de production d’eau potable pour
assurer la pérennisation du service, et ce en se basant bien
entendu sur les orientations des Plans Directeurs d'Aménagement
Intégré des Ressources en Eau (PDAIRE) des différentes Agences
des Bassins Hydrauliques (ABH), notamment en matière
d’allocation des ressources (RE, p.1). Le projet-don PRI de la
Banque en soutien à l'ONEE-Branche Eau pour conduite l'étude du
Plan Directeur AEP de la Zone Nord du Bassin Hydraulique de la
Moulouya intervient dans ce cadre."
2.4 To what extent How relevant was
have the the project design
N/A as this is a study N/A
interventions funded to the project
by the MIC TAF been objectives?

39
technically sound? How would you
assess the quality
of the technical
and institutional
The deliverables of this project have been delivered in due time
design and of the
implementation of
the TAF
intervention?
Were risks,
assumptions etc.
identified?
Did the risks and
mitigation
1.3 How robust are
measures A log frame was developed at appraisal stage. However, and this is
the design of MIC TAF
identified in the highlighted by the PCER, the expected outcomes set were out of
interventions with
project design, touch with the possible impact of the project itself which only
regard to 3
materialize and consisted in a study (outcomes regarded availability of water etc) .
assumptions, risks,
how did these The PCER also highlights that risks are listed without mitigation
and mitigation
affect the project? measures
measures?
How did the
intervention adapt
to unexpected
changes in the
context?
Did the project
It was complementary to them as the bank has a long history of
support ongoing
supporting projects in the water sector
operations?
Yes, with the aim of informing their design and thereby enhancing
1.4 How consistent their quality
and complementary
were the MIC TAF Appraisal report: 1.3.7 Il est par ailleurs à rappeler que les
interventions with recommandations du rapport combiné d’achèvement du DSP et de
Was the project
ongoing development la revue du portefeuille, avaient souligné la nécessité pour la
intended to
operations in the Banque de réaliser des études techniques préalables afin 3
support future
country? How do d’améliorer la qualité en amont des projets. L’étude proposée, qui
operations
these add value to est la première opération mise en place dans le cadre du FATPRI en
identified in the
what other donors partenariat avec l’ONEE (pôle Eau) dans le secteur de l’eau
Country Strategy
are doing in the potable, permettra de mettre en œuvre lesdites recommandations
Paper?
countr? et de bien définir les besoins de la région pour les années futures,
ainsi que les actions à mettre en œuvre. De ce fait, l’étude en
question pourra déboucher sur des projets structurants dans la
région et qui peuvent être soumis à un financement de la Banque
au titre de la coopération future.
Effectiveness
To what extent did
the project achieve
Highly satisfactory N/A as we
2.1 To what extent the expected
outputs? lack ex post
were MIC TAF's
info to assess
strategic objectives as To what extent did
As highlighted in the PCER, the expected outcomes set in the impact and
a Fund achieved, the project achieve
logframe were out of touch with the actual content of the project set expected
through effective the intended
which only consisted in a study outcomes
implementation of its outcomes?
were
interventions? To what extent did
This study was supposed to prepare future investment. However, irrelevant
the project achieve
we do not have info on the subsequent investments.
its objectives?

40
 To what extent did
the project
contribute to the Idem
strategic objectives
of the MIC TAF?
2.2/2.3 To what
extent have MIC TAF Was there
grants contributed to subsequent(s)
This study was supposed to prepare future investment. However,
the identification of operation linked to N/A
we do not have info on the subsequent investments.
new business the MIC TAF
opportunities for the project?
AfDB in MICs?
Efficiency
Was the time taken Scale TBD
Date of the funding request letter: February 20th, 2012
3.1 How responsive to respond to the Once several
Approval date : 01/10/2013
has the MIC TAF been government's projects will
Signature date : 05/22/2013
in responding to request reasonable gave been
funding requests in the context of analysed and
That is +/- 11 months from request to approval and +/- 4 months
from users? effective Fund benchmarks
between approval and signature
administration? identified
To what extent did
3.2 Has the MIC TAF the project
responded respond to the
adequately to the needs of MICs, No evidence of changing needs during this project N/A
evolving needs of both at project
MICs? design and during
implementation?
Was the projected
completed within
3.3 Was the project
the planned time
implemented Yes 4
period? Was the
according to plan?
project cost within
budget?
Sustainability
Are there
institutional
mechanisms to
ensure
4.1 To what extent
sustainability of
have these
project results? Are
interventions
there sufficient
contributed to long
resources to
lasting, institutional
sustain project
capacity
results or
strengthening; No specific information available but given high relevance and
implement project 3
improved political effectiveness, estimated most likely
recommendations?
and governance
Is there evidence of
environment, greater
ownership of
risk management and
project results? To
resilience to
what extent will
exogenous factors in
subsequent
targeted countries?
projects or
programs linked to
the project sustain
project outcomes?
Governance

41
 Were the reporting
requirements in
the Guidelines
implemented? Did
5.1 To what extent the progress
The objectives set in the log frame were beyond the possible
has the MIC TAF reports contain
reach of the project, which makes it hard to follow up on them.
developed a coherent adequate
The PCR is the only follow-up document available, and it only rates 3
results-based information? Were
relevance despite the project being completed at the time of the
monitoring and there completion
PCER.
evaluation system? reports for
closed/completed
projects? Were the
projects evaluated
as expected?
Main Findings and/or Issues for Further Investigation
This is typically a project that aimed at paving the way for further investment. However, no information on the subsequent
investments is available in the documentation, so it could be interesting to investigate during the mission and/or by other
means such as surveys.

Desk review rating scales

Relevance:

a.) Relevance of
project objectives

4 – Highly Satisfactory: It is demonstrated that the project objectives do not have any shortcoming
in their alignment with: i) the Bank’s CSP, ii) other applicable Bank strategies, iii) the country’s
development strategies, and iv) the beneficiary needs.
3 –Satisfactory: It is demonstrated that the project objectives have minor shortcomings in the
alignment with: i) the Bank’s CSP, ii) other applicable Bank strategies, iii) the country’s development
strategies, and iv) the beneficiary needs.
2 – Unsatisfactory: It is demonstrated that the project objectives have major shortcomings in the
alignment with two of the following: i) the Bank’s CSP, ii) other applicable Bank strategies, iii) the
country’s development strategies, and iv) the beneficiary needs.
1 – Highly Unsatisfactory: It is demonstrated that the project objectives have major shortcomings in
the alignment with all of the following: i) the Bank’s CSP, ii) other applicable Bank strategies, iii) the
country’s development strategies, and iv) the beneficiary needs..

b.) Relevance of
project design to achieve those objective

4 – Highly Satisfactory: The project design was fully conducive to achieving the project results. The
original design was solid and remained appropriate throughout implementation; no adjustments to
the scope, implementation arrangements or technical solutions were required to ensure the
achievement of the intended outcomes and outputs.
3 – Moderately Satisfactory: The project design was moderately conducive to achieving the project
results. The original design was to large extent, sound and remained appropriate throughout

42
 implementation; adjustments to the scope, minor implementation arrangements or technical
solutions were required and they were carried out in a timely manner to ensure the achievement of
the intended outcomes and outputs.
2 –Unsatisfactory. From approval to closure, the design was marginally conducive to achieving the
project results. The original design was weak and remained irrelevant. Major adjustments to the
scope, implementation arrangements or technical solutions were required during implementation,
but these were not done which negatively affected the achievement of the intended outcomes and
outputs.
1 – Highly Unsatisfactory. The project design was fully not conducive to achieving the project results.
The original design was weak and remained irrelevant during implementation. Major adjustments to
the scope, implementation arrangements or technical solutions were required during
implementation, but these were not done which negatively affected the achievement of the intended
outcomes and outputs.

Effectiveness:

a.) Achievement
of outputs

4 – Highly Satisfactory: Based on the output execution ratio all the project output targets were
reached or are considered on track to be reached by the end of the project in accordance with quality
standards.
3 – Satisfactory: Based on the output execution ratio between 75% and 99% of the project output
targets were reached or are considered on track to be reached by the end of the project. Corrective
actions for off track indicators were implemented in a timely manner to ensure that the end of project
targets could be achieved in accordance with quality standards.
2 – Unsatisfactory: Based on the output execution ratio between 35% and 74% of the project output
targets were reached or are considered on track to be reached by the end of the project. Corrective
actions were not implemented and closely monitored for off track indicators. Poor performance
jeopardized the achievement of one or more outcomes of the project.
1 – Highly Unsatisfactory: Based on the output execution ratio less than 35% of the project output
targets were reached or are considered on track to be reached by the end of the project. Poor
performance jeopardized the achievement of most expected outcomes and the possibility of stopping
or suspending the project considered.

b.) Achievement
of outcomes

4 – Highly Satisfactory: Taking into account the latest value of the outcome indicators and the
analysis of other relevant exogenous risks/factors and assumptions, it is plausible to expect that all
intended project outcomes were achieved or are likely to be achieved.

43
 3 – Satisfactory: Taking into account the latest value of the outcome indicators and the analysis of
other relevant exogenous risks/factors and assumptions, it is plausible to expect that most (>50%)
intended project outcomes were achieved or are likely to be achieved.
2 –Unsatisfactory: Taking into account the latest value of the outcome indicators and the analysis of
other relevant exogenous risks/factors and assumptions, it is plausible to expect that few (5-49%)
intended project outcomes were achieved or are likely to be achieved.
1 – Highly Unsatisfactory: Taking into account the latest value of the outcome indicators and the
analysis of other relevant exogenous risks/factors and assumptions, it is plausible to expect that very
few (<5%) of the intended project outcomes were achieved or are likely to be achieved.

Efficiency:

4 – Highly Satisfactory: The ratio of planned implementation time (as per PAR) and actual
implementation time from the date of effectiveness is >1. Outcomes/outputs are achieved at
lower than planned costs.
3 – Satisfactory: The ratio of planned implementation time (as per PAR) and actual
implementation time from the date of effectiveness is <1 and >= 0.9. Outcomes/outputs are
achieved within 100-110% of planned costs.
2 – Unsatisfactory: The ratio of planned implementation time (as per PAR) from the date of
effectiveness and actual implementation time from the date of effectiveness is <0.90 and ≥0.75.
Outcomes/outputs were achieved at >110% and <=120% of planned costs.
1 – Highly Unsatisfactory: The ratio of planned implementation time (as per PAR) from the date
of effectiveness and actual project implementation time from the date of effectiveness is <0.75.
Outputs/outcomes were achieved at >120% of planned costs.

For Sustainability:

4- Highly Likely: The positive effects exceed expectations and sustainability risks are fully mitigated

3- Likely: The positive effects meet expectations and sustainability risks are low to medium

2- Not Likely : The positive effects are below expectations and sustainability risks are high

1- Highly Unlikely: The project had negative impacts that were not mitigated

For Governance:

4- Highly Satisfactory: HS rating in Relevance and Efficiency; M&E requirements were met; Bank
responded well to emerging project issues

3- Satisfactory: S rating in Relevance and Efficiency; some deficiencies in M&E that were eventually
rectified

44
2- Unsatisfactory: U rating in Relevance and Efficiency; significant deficiencies in M&E that were not
rectified

1- Highly Unsatisfactory: HU rating in Relevance and Efficiency; significant deficiencies in M&E that
were not rectified

45
Annex 5: Case Study Outline

Name of Project:
Country:
Sector:
Proposal Date:
Appraisal Date:
Approval Date:
Closing Date:
PCR Date:

1. RELEVANCE

1.1 Relevance of Project Objectives

1.2 Relevance of Project Design

2. EFFECTIVENESS

2.1 Outputs
2.2 Outcomes

3. EFFICIENCY

3.1 Cost Effectiveness

3.2 Timeliness

4. SUSTAINABILITY

4.1 Technical
4.2 Financial
4.3 Institutional
4.4 Environment and Social

5. KEY FINDINGS

6. LESSONS

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

46
Annex 6: Country Case Study Methodology

Country case studies will be conducted in South Africa, Tunisia, Gabon, and Morocco
using completed projects as the unit of analysis. A review of the MIC TAF portfolio
reveals that while South Africa and Tunisia has 2 and 12 completed projects, Gabon
and Morocco has 6 and 9 completed projects respectively. The country case studies
will, therefore, draw 2-3 projects in each of the aforementioned countries for in-
depth analysis.

The selected projects for the country cases studies should ideally cut across MIC
TAF’s areas of focus (i.e., Capacity Building, Project Preparation, Regional
Integration, Economic Sector Work and Private Sector Development) and reflect the
country’s economic development priorities (or outputs). In addition, the projects are
expected to align with the Bank's focus areas as indicated in the respective Country
Strategy Programmes (CSPs).

The OECD/DAC criteria will be deployed as the main analytical framework to assess
the extent to which the predetermined outcomes and impacts of MIC TAF projects
were achieved, and how they enabled the achievement of both the Bank and
Country-level objectives. For instance, the case studies will examine the extent to
which MIC TAF projects contributed to the realisation of the five focus areas
highlighted in the 2011 MIC TAF Revised Guidelines; and how they enhanced the
quality, volume, and competitiveness of the Bank’s portfolio in the case study
countries. Where available, this analysis should be complemented by the results-
based logical framework of MIC TAF projects.

Information on various aspects of the MIC TAF will be elicited through structured
and semi-structured interviews administered to Bank Task Managers, Country
Project Managers, as well as key government officials in beneficiary countries.
Collated responses will be triangulated and supplemented with a rigorous desk
review of documents related to the MIC TAF and the country.

Instead of a standalone case study for each MIC TAF project within a country as
envisioned in the Revised Inception Report, it is suggested that the 2-3 selected MIC
TAF projects should be examined as a 'single' Case Study with a 'consolidated
outline'. For example, the country case study can comprise of the following: i) A
Country Background; ii) Rationale for the use of the MIC TAF Projects and its
additionality (i.e., for economic diversification); iii) Analysis of selected MIC TAF
projects under the same analytical themes such as relevance, effectiveness,
efficiency, and sustainability; iv) A summary of key findings of all the examined MIC
TAF projects, and v) Lessons learnt and recommendations for MIC TAF at both the
Bank and Country level.

47
Annex 7: Interview Template – Country Counterpart

IDEV is performing an evaluation of the MIC TAF in order to assess the Fund’s
relevance, efficiency and effectiveness. We have requested feedback from your
project managers through a survey. This interview seeks to secure feedback at the
program level, focusing on systemic issues, areas of concern, and opportunities for
improving Bank responsiveness.

1. What were the criteria for the selection of projects for MIC TAF funding?

- link this question to the beneficiary survey and the main objectives of
the MIC TAF
- discuss project pipeline

2. How responsive was the Bank in responding to your request for funding?

- link this question to the beneficiary survey results and analysis of

time elapsed between funding request and Bank approval

3. What were the main issues during the preparation of MIC TAF projects?

- Capacity constraints
- Availability of resources or expertise
- What was the role of the Bank at this stage

4. What were the main issues that emerged during implementation?

- Institutional capacity
- Bank support and monitoring
- Changes in context
- Poor project design
- Transaction costs from Bank requirements (procurement, financial
management, reporting)
- Lack of quality consultants
- Overall assessment of implementation

5. What were the main results from MIC TAF projects?

- facilitation of new projects

- support to ongoing projects
- institutional strengthening
- analytical work on important economic/institutional issues
- private sector development
- regional integrations

48
6. What are the main results expected from the pipeline projects?

- discuss each of the projects in the pipeline

7. How sustainable are the MIC TAF project results?

8. Overall, what was the value added of the MIC TAF compared to alternative
sources of financing projects.

For countries which do not have previous MIC TAF projects but have a pipeline,
the following are the relevant questions:

1. What were the criteria for the selection of projects proposed for MIC TAF
funding?

2. What were the reasons for approaching the MIC TAF for the proposed
projects?

- What are the alternative sources of funding?

- What is the value added of the Bank?
- Do you expect the Bank to finance follow-up projects to the MIC TAF
projects?

3. What are the expected results from the MIC TAF projects?

49
Annex 8: Interview Template – Bank Managers/Executive Directors

IDEV is performing an evaluation of the MIC TAF in order to assess the Fund’s relevance,
efficiency and effectiveness. As part of the evaluation, a sample of projects approved during
2002-2017 is being reviewed. In addition, we are requesting feedback from Bank task
managers and client project managers through surveys. This interview seeks to secure
feedback at a management or Board level, focusing on the systemic issues, areas of concern,
and opportunities for improving governance.

Bank Managers

1, What are your views the governance of the fund?

- project selection
- responsiveness to clients
- program monitoring
- transaction costs
- efficiency
- other issues

2. What are your views on the relevance of the MIC TAF to the Bank’s programs and
priorities?

- links to Bank programs and priorities

- MIC TAF project design issues

3. What are your views on the value added of and results from the MIC TAF?

- clarity of ex ante results expectations

- monitoring of progress towards results
- assessment and reporting of actual results at completion
- strengths and weaknesses of the MIC TAF compared to other ways of
financing projects.

4. What are your views on the sustainability of MIC TAF project results?

5. What are the main areas to focus on to improve the efficiency, effectiveness,
sustainability and ownership of MIC TAF projects?

Executive Directors

1. What are Board expectations from the MIC TAF in terms of results?
2. What are your views on the value added of the MIC TAF? How important is the MIC
TAF in the Bank’s MIC strategy?
3. How does the Board monitor effectiveness of or results from the MIC TAF?
4. What are your views on the main areas of improvement for the MIC TAF?
5. What are your main considerations in deciding on the allocation of net income to
Fund?

50
Annex 9: MIC TAF Survey – Client Country Project Managers

Name:
Organization:
Position
Country
Project Name:

1. To what extent were the MIC TAF projects aligned with national priorities?

1 2 3 4 5
Not Aligned Highly
Aligned

Please explain basis for the rating.

____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________

2. Please rate the responsiveness of the Bank in the following areas (1=not
responsive to 5=highly responsive).

Area Rating
Request for Funding
Approval of Funding
Entry into Effectiveness
Implementation
Procurement
Disbursement
Supervision

Please explain the basis for the rating.

____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________

3. Please check the areas to which the MIC TAF contributed.

Support for implementation of an ongoing project or program

Contribution to the preparation of a new project or program
Strengthening of institutions, including laws and regulations
Analysis of economic or institutional issues

51
 Development of private sector
Support for regional integration

Please list other areas where the MIC TAF contributed.

____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________

4. Please identify areas where the Bank could improve administration of the
MIC TAF.

Processing of client requests

Procurement
Financial management, including disbursement
Reporting requirements during project implementation
Support during project implementation

Please list other areas of improvement.

____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________

5. Please list new projects or programs funded by the Bank that were
originated from the MIC TAF in your country?

____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________

6. For the projects or programs listed in question #5, please describe how the
MIC TAF contributed to the origination of new projects or programs.

____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________

52
7. Please rate the contribution of the MIC TAF projects to the quality and
efficiency of the project preparation process (1=marginal to 5=highly
significant).

Type of Contribution Rating

Feasibility Studies
Institution and Capacity Building TA
Economic and Sector Analytical Work
Other (please identify in the space below)

Please explain basis for the rating.

____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________

8. To what extent did the MIC TAF projects adapt to changes in the context?

1 2 3 4 5
Not Highly
Adaptable Adaptable

Please explain basis for the rating.

____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________

53
Annex 10: MIC TAF Survey – Bank Task Managers

Title/position in the Bank:

Location (HQ, Country):
Unit:

1. Please rate how much you know about the MIC TAF.

1 2 3 4 5
Little or No Highly
Knowledge Knowledgeable

Please comment on rating.

____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________

2. How did you get the information on the MIC TAF? Please check appropriate
box or boxes.

Source of Information
Training
Colleague
Information Session
Own Research
Focal Point of MIC TAF
Request from Country
MIC TAF Guidelines
Others

Comments:
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________

3. Please list the names of the MIC TAF projects you worked on.

____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________

54
4. What was your role in the MIC TAF projects you worked on? Please check
appropriate box or boxes.

Role Project 1 Project 2 Project 3

Task Manager
Consultant
Supervisor
Other

Comments:
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________

5. Did you introduce the MIC TAF grant request?

Project Yes No
Project 1
Project 2
Project 3

6. Please rate the relevance of the MIC TAF to your work program (1=not
relevant to 5=highly relevant).

Project Rating
Project 1
Project 2
Project 3

Please explain the basis for rating.

____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________

7. Please identify ways in which MIC TAF supported your work program.
(Please check relevant items below.)

Project 1 Project 2 Project 3

Supported or complemented an
ongoing project or program
Contributed to preparation of new
project or program

55
 Strengthened dialogue between Bank
and Client
Enhanced knowledge base benefitting
both Bank and Client
Other

Please list other ways the MIC TAF supported your work program.
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________

8. Please rate the responsiveness of the Bank to Client at different stages of the
process. (1= not responsive, 5= very responsive)

Process Project 1 Project 2 Project 3

Request for Funding
Approval of Funding
Entry into Effectiveness
Implementation
Procurement
Disbursement
Supervision
Other

Please explain basis for rating.

____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________

9. Please rate the quality of the MIC TAF project based on the following criteria
(1=low; 5=high)

Quality Area Project 1 Project 2 Project 3

Quality of technical design
Quality of institutional design
Quality of implementation
Quality of coordination with Bank

Please identify other quality aspects you deem important to project

success:
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________

56
10. Based on your experience, could you list new projects that were identified or
facilitated as a result of the MIC TAF interventions, and in these cases, by
which MIC TAF intervention?

____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________

11. For terminated projects, please check reasons for termination

Reason Project 1 Project 2 Project 3

Weak institutional capacity of
recipient
Lack of resources from recipient
Poor project design and
preparation
Complex administrative
procedures of Bank
Other

Please list other reasons underlying terminated projects.

____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________

12. Please rate the quality of the MIC TAF Guidelines (1=poor to 5=very good).

Quality Area Rating

Appropriateness
Comprehensiveness
Clarity
Usability
Overall Quality

Please identify and comment on other aspects of quality of the MIC TAF
Guidelines not covered above:
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________

13. Please rate the governance of the MIC TAF (1=poor to 5=very good)

57
 Governance Area Rating
Clarity of Objectives
Selectivity
Ease of Funding
Monitoring
Focus on Results
Other
Overall Governance

Please identify and comment on other aspects of governance not covered

above:
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________

14. Please list recommendations on how to improve various aspects of the MIC
TAF, including relevance and selectivity, efficiency and responsiveness
(e.g. process improvements), supervision, focus on results, quality
assurance, and effectiveness.
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________

58
Annex 11: Report Outline

1. Executive Summary

2. Introduction
a. Background
b. Purpose, Rationale, Scope
c. Evaluation Methods

3. Evaluation Findings
a. Relevance
b. Effectiveness
c. Efficiency
d. Sustainability
e. Governance

4. Findings and Recommendations

a. Findings
b. Recommendations

5. Annexes
a. Terms of Reference
b. Project Review
c. Case Studies
d. Survey Results
e. Interview Results

59
 Annex 12 : Country visits: selected projects

This table includes projects completed and approved after 2009. They will be
assessed as part of the country visits and undergo extensive additional document
collection.

PROJECT PROJECT NAME APPROVAL PRIO SECTOR TASK

NUMBER YEAR RITY MANAGER
AREA
Tunisia
1- P-TN-E00- AMELIORATION TAUX D'AEP- BIZERTE 28/09/2009 Water Sup/ BEN SASSI
002 ET BEJA Sanit Belgacem
2- P-TN-E00- ETUDE DE PCI DANS LE GRAND TUNIS 06/10/2009 Water Sup/ BEN SASSI
003 Sanit Belgacem
3- P-TN-AAC- MIC - APPUI AUX GDA 20/10/2009 Agriculture KANE
013 Mamadou
4- P-TN-KF0- APPUI A L'INSTITUT TUNISIEN DE LA 03/12/2009 Multi-sector OBAYASHI
002 COMPETITIVITE ET DES ETUDE Natsuko
5- P-TN-E00- ETUDE STRATEGIE ASSAINISSEMENT 04/12/2009 Water sup/ BEN SASSI
004 TUNISIE Sanit Belgacem
6- P-TN-KF0- ETUDE D'EVALUATION DU SYSTEME 06/01/2010 Multi-sector AHMAD
003 DE MICROCREDIT BTS Yasser
7- P-TN-K00- MIC ETUDE DE RENFORECEMENT DE 24/09/2010 Multi-sector LUMBILA
004 L'INTEGRATION COMMERCIALE DE L Kevin Numbi
8- P-TN-IA0- MIC-ETUDE STRATEGIQUE PORTANT 22/11/2010 Social GUEYE
002 SUR LE DEVELOPPEMENT DES INDUS Mouhamed
9- P-TN-A00- DON MIC - ETUDES DE PRÉPARATION 18/12/2013 Agriculture TOLBA
007 DU PROJET 500 KM DE PISTES A Mohamed
Morocco
10- P-MA-AAZ- MIC - PROJET DE SAUVEGARDE ET DE 28/04/2009 Agriculture KHIATI Driss
002 DEVELOPPEMENT SOCIO-TERRITO
11- P-MA-DD0- ELABORATION D'UN PROGRAMME DE 28/04/2009 Transport MORE
002 CONFORTEMENT ET DE REPARATION NDONG
Pierre-Simon
12- P-MA-HZ0- PROJET DE RENFORCEMENT DU 13/12/2010 Finance DIARRA
007 CADRE DE REGULATION ET DE Emmanuel
CONTROLE
13- P-MA-H00- PROJET D'APPUI À L'AMÉLIORATION 19/01/2011 Finance DIARRA
002 DU SYSTÈME DE GARANTIE AU MA Emmanuel
14- P-MA-AAZ- MIC - APPUI TECHNIQUE AU 21/02/2011 Agriculture MAROUKI
005 DEVELOPPEMENT DES Rafaa Ben
INFRASTRUCTURE D' Mohamed
15- P-MA-IA0- MIC-ETUDE SUR LA STRATEGIE DE 11/03/2011 Social KILANI
005 DEVELOPPEMENT DE L'ENSEIGNEMEN JAAFOR Leila
16- P-MA-AAZ- ASSISTANCE TECHNIQUE POUR LA 12/01/2012 Agriculture KHIATI Driss
006 PROMOTION DES JEUNES
ENTREPRENE
Gabon
17- P-GA-I00- ENQUETE NATIONALE SUR EMPLOI ET 04/06/2009 Social OYOUBI
001 CHOMAGE Lucette
Amance
18- P-GA-IBD- MIC - RENFORCEMENT DE LA CAISSE 15/10/2010 Social OYOUBI
002 NATIONALE D'ASSURANCE MALADI Lucette
Amance
19- P-GA-AAB- PRO. APPUI DEV. INF. RIZ - MIC 20/01/2011 Agriculture MOUBAMBA
004 (PADIACN) Jean-Louis
20- P-GA-IBD- MIC - REALISATION DE L'ENQUÊTE 04/02/2011 Social OYOUBI
003 DEMOGRAPHIQUE ET DE SANTE 201 Lucette
Amance
21- P-GA-KF0- PROJET D'APPUI À LA MISE EN PLACE 14/05/2014 Multi-sector TOKO Pierre
001 D'UN DISPOSITIF D'INCUBATE
22- P-GA-K00- PROJET APPUI CHAMBRE DE 14/10/2014 Multi-sector TOKO Pierre
006 COMMERCE DU GABON
South Africa
Projects from Botswana, South Africa, Namibia, Seychelles and Mauritius will be assessed during the country visits in

60
 South Africa
Botswana
23- P-BW-FF0- FEASIBILITY STUDY FOT A 200 MGW 03/11/2009 Power KANONDA
001 CONCENTRATING SOLAR POWER PL Farai
Epiphanius
24- P-BW-KZ0- MINING AND DIVERSIFIACTION STUDY 08/06/2010 Multi-sector HONDE
003 George Jay
25- P-BW-KA0- TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO 14/10/2010 Multi-sector KOMA
003 PRIVATIZATION Baboucarr
South Africa
26- P-ZA-KD0- DEVELOPMENT OF SA OSBP 22/12/2011 Multi-sector MOKATI-
001 STRATEGY SUNKUTU
Bokang
Rosemary
27- P-ZA-G00- BBI MIC GRANT REQUEST 21/02/2014 Communicati YONAZI
002 ons Enock
Namibia
28- P-NA-IAD- MIC - SUPPORT TO DEVELOPMENT OF 09/10/2009 Social MOCHACHE
001 NATIONAL HUMAN RESOURCE PLAN Jason Mosomi
29- P-NA-IZ0- SUPPORT FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF 12/03/2012 Social BA-DIAGNE
001 THE NATIONAL MEDICAL BENEFIT FU Bineta
Seychelles
30- P-SC-GB0- SEYCHELLES EAST AFRICA 18/02/2009 Communicati JACK Salieu
001 SUBMARINE CABLE LINK ons
PROJECT/STUDY
31- P-SC-EA0- SEYCHELLES - LA GOGUE WATER 08/12/2011 Water Sup/ MUTASA
003 SUPPLY STUDY Sanit Christopher
32- P-SC-AA0- AGRICULTURE SECTOR STUDY 27/02/2013 Agriculture EGEH
005 Mohamud
Hussein
Mauritius
33- P-MU-KA0- MIC GRANT SUPPORTING THE 09/02/2010 Multi-sector SUGDEN
001 MAURITIUS COMPETITIVENESS AND Carina
PUBLI
34- P-MU-KA0- MIC GRANT SUPPORTING DEBT 09/12/2010 Multi-sector SUGDEN
002 MANAGMENT Carina
35- Multinational
36- P-Z1-DB0- MULTINATIONAL ROAD DOUSSALA- 3/28/2011 CODO
071 DOLISIE Pamphile
Stanislas
37- P-Z1-K00- CREATION D'UNE COMMUNAUTE 5/24/2007 BOUZGARRO
017 ECONOMIQUE REGIONALE POUR U Malek
L'UNION
38- P-Z1-K00- APPUI INSTITUTIONNEL AU 4/30/2009 BOUZGARRO
027 SECRETARIAT GENERAL DE L'UNION U Malek
DU MA
39- P-Z1-K00- APPUI AU SG DE L'UMA - PHASE 2 5/8/2015 BRETECHE
064 Olivier Joseph
40- P-Z1-KF0- PIDA CAPACITY BUILD. PROJECT 12/12/2013 CHIRWA
021 INFRAST AUC Mtchera
Johannes
41- STATISTICAL CAPACITY BUILDING In all
PROGRAM PHASE II (SCB-II) above
countries

61