Progress to Date on Our Institutional Priorities
The indicators tracked in the Corporate Results Framework (CRF) provide key information on the Bank’s contributions to the development of Latin America and the Caribbean as well as progress in achieving specific results in each of the Bank’s five institutional priorities for 2012–2015. Those priorities are: (a) Social policy for equity and productivity; (b) Infrastructure for competitiveness and social welfare; (c) Institutions for growth and social welfare; (d) Competitive regional and global international integration; and (e) Protect the environment, respond to climate change, promote renewable energy, and ensure food security. The Bank’s Board of Governors ratified these strategic priorities in the Ninth General Capital Increase Agreement (GCI-9).
The CRF is comprised of four levels of indicators, presented in the following tables. The regional development goals show the region’s progress in addressing long-term development challenges. The outputs table summarizes how IDB-financed operations are contributing to the region’s development. The lending program indicators reflect how the Bank is directing its lending capacity toward priority areas. And the operational effectiveness and efficiency table shows progress in achieving organizational targets. Where relevant, a traffic light symbol is used to indicate the likelihood of achieving the 2015 targets.1 Finally, a second series of tables presents similar information for the countries eligible for the Bank’s Fund for Special Operations (FSO).
What We Have learned
Before reviewing the progress made against specific targets, we would like to share a few thoughts about what the Bank has learned about improving the effectiveness of the CRF as both an accountability and managerial tool. The end of 2013 marks the midpoint of the current 2012-2015 CRF period, making this a good time to assess what the Bank has learned regarding the process, content, and use of the CRF.2
First, it is essential to fully engage technical specialists in the process of designing the CRF to ensure that the indicators included capture the breadth3 of the Bank’s activities within each of its institutional priorities as well as to promote the establishment of clear indicator definitions and realistic targets. Staff engagement in the CRF design is also critical to promote ownership of the indicators throughout the Bank.
Second, given the demand-driven nature of the Bank’s activities, it is challenging to establish precise targets as country priorities may shift over the course of the CRF period, both in terms of sectors as well as activities within a sector. One potential strategy to improve accuracy in target-setting is to increase country engagement in the CRF design.
A third lesson learned relates to how the CRF supports decision-making. In order to reinforce the use of CRF data throughout the Bank, it is important to integrate and align it with the Bank’s other instruments to measure corporate performance, namely the results-based budget indicators and individual career performance system. To this end, after having mapped the key indicators from each of these tools, the Bank is exploring ways to better integrate them in 2014.
Taken together, these lessons will serve to further consolidate the Bank’s ability to manage for development results. The Bank has already begun to implement some of these lessons and will continue to pursue even greater alignment, ownership, and use of the CRF moving forward. This process will continue to benefit from the guidance of the Board of Executive Directors and the ongoing post-2015 agenda discussions. In addition, the Bank will remain committed to the principles of development effectiveness agreed upon at the High-Level Forums in Paris (2005), Accra (2008), and Busan (2011) and consider them as the CRF is refined. Finally, the CRF will reflect the forthcoming update to the IDB’s Institutional Strategy in 2015.
Click on the links to view the Tables:
In addition to the Bank’s own stock-taking, two key sources of the lessons learned are the Multilateral Development Bank Working Group on Managing for Development Results and the recommendations and suggestions to improve the CRF from the Office of Oversight and Evaluation’s (OVE) Mid-term Evaluation of the IDB-9 Commitments in 2012. return
The CRF currently captures 48% of the number of projects in the active portfolio. Furthermore, given the time needed for an approved operation to actually generate measureable results, outputs from projects approved under a different strategy period may be reported.return