Evaluation of the Bank’s Country Strategy and...

An IDEV Country Strategy EvaluationBurundi: Evaluation of the Bank’s Country Strategy and Program

2004–2015 Summ

ary ReportIndependent Developm

ent Evaluation

From experience to knowledge... From knowledge to action... From action to impact

An ID

EV C

ount

ry S

trat

egy

Eval

uatio

n

Burundi:Evaluation of the Bank’s Country

Strategy and Program 2004–2015Summary Report

Independent Development EvaluationAfrican Development Bank

September 2016

IDEV conducts different types of evaluations to achieve its

strategic objectives

Thematic Evaluations Project Cluster Evaluations

Regional Integration Stra

tegy

Evaluations

Project Perfo

rmance Evaluations

(Public Secto

r)Impact Evaluations

Project Performance Evaluations

(Private Sector)

Coun

try S

trate

gy E

valu

atio

n

Evaluation Syntheses

Corporate Evaluations

Sect

or E

valu

atio

ns

Coun

try

Stra

tegy

Eva

luat

ions

From experience to knowledge... From knowledge to action... From action to impact

An ID

EV C

ount

ry S

trat

egy

Eval

uatio

n

Burundi:Evaluation of the Bank’s Country

Strategy and Program 2004–2015Summary Report


September 2016

Task manager Herimandimby Razafindramanana, Chief Evaluation Officer, IDEV

Team members Clement Bansé, Evaluation Officer, IDEV; Eglantine Marcelin, Junior Consultant, IDEV

Consultant Economic Decision Support (EDS) with Mary van Overbeke as EDS Team Leader

Internal peer reviewer Boubacar Ly, Consultant, IDEV

External peer reviewer Claudine Voyadzis, Senior Consultant

Internal Bank reference group Joel Tokindang, Principal Country Economist, Burundi field office (BIFO); John Ndikumwami, Senior Transport Engineer, BIFO; Hercule Yamuremye, Senior Social Development Specialist, BIFO; Philipppe Ngwala, Senior Social Protection Specialist, The Transition Support Department (ORTS); Léandre Basole, Senior Macroeconomist, Governance, Finance and Economic Management Department (OSGE); Jean-Louis Kromer, Chief Natural Resources Management Officer, African Natural Resources Center (ANRC); Ali Eyeghe, Principal Social Protection Specialist, Human and Social Development Department (OSHD); Monia Moumni, Chief Water and Sanitation Engineer, Water and Sanitation Department (OWAS); Mamadou Diomande, Finance Officer, Procurement & Fiduciary Services Department (ORPF)

Knowledge management officer Jacqueline Nyagahima, Consultant, Najade Lindsay, Junior Consultant

Other assistance/contributions provided by Myrtha Diop, Administrative Assistant, IDEV; Ruby Adzobu-Agyare and Blandine Gomez Sokoba, Assistants, IDEV

Special thanks to Abou Ba, Resident Representative, BIFO, and the entire team of the Burundi Field Office (BIFO)

Division manager Samer Hachem

Evaluator-General Rakesh Nangia

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

© 2016 African Development Bank Group All rights reserved – Published September 2016

Burundi: Evaluation of the Bank’s Country Strategy and Program 2004–2015 – Summary Report IDEV Country Strategy Evaluation, September 2016

DisclaimerUnless expressly stated otherwise, the findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the various authors of the publication and are not necessarily those of the Management of the African Development Bank (the “Bank”) and the African Development Fund (the “Fund”), Boards of Directors, Boards of Governors or the countries they represent.

Use of this publication is at the reader’s sole risk. The content of this publication is provided without warranty of any kind, either express or implied, including without limitation warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement of third-party rights. The Bank specifically does not make any warranties or representations as to the accuracy, completeness, reliability or current validity of any information contained in the publication. Under no circumstances including, but not limited to, negligence, shall the Bank be liable for any loss, damage, liability or expense incurred or suffered which is claimed to result directly or indirectly from use of this publication or reliance on its content.

This publication may contain advice, opinions, and statements of various information and content providers. The Bank does not represent or endorse the accuracy, completeness, reliability or current validity of any advice, opinion, statement or other information provided by any information or content provider or other person or entity. Reliance upon any such opinion, advice, statement, or other information shall also be at the reader’s own risk.

About the AfDBThe overarching objective of the African Development Bank Group is to spur sustainable economic development and social progress in its regional member countries (RMCs), thus contributing to poverty reduction. The Bank Group achieves this objective by mobilizing and allocating resources for investment in RMCs and providing policy advice and technical assistance to support development efforts.

About Independent Development Evaluation (IDEV)The mission of Independent Development Evaluation at the AfDB is to enhance the development effectiveness of the institution in its regional member countries through independent and instrumental evaluations and partnerships for sharing knowledge.

Independent Development Evaluation (IDEV)African Development Bank GroupAfDB HeadquartersAvenue Joseph Anoma, 01 BP 1387, Abidjan 01, Côte d’IvoirePhone: +225 20 26 20 41E-mail: [email protected]

Layout & production: Visual Identity – www.visualidentity.co.uk Original language: French – Translation: AfDB Language Services Department

mailto:idevhelpdesk%40afdb.org?subject=

http://idev.afdb.org/

http://www.visualidentity.co.uk

Acknowledgements iiAcronyms and Abbreviations vExecutive Summary 1Management Response 7

Introduction 19Evaluation Objectives and Approach 19Evaluation Limitations 19

Country Context 21Political and Institutional Context of Government Action 21Economic Performance 21Burundi’s Fragility, Challenges and Development Opportunities 24

Bank Strategies and Programs During the 2004–2015 Period 25

Findings: Achieving Development Outcomes 29Relevance 29Effectiveness 32Sustainability 37Efficiency 39Policy Formulation Knowledge and Counselling 40Summary:HasTheBankMadeaDifferenceinBurundi? 42

Findings: Performance-Based Management 45Development Results-Based Management 45Implementation of The Paris Declaration and Principles for Engagement in Fragile States 45Complementarity and Synergies 46LeverageEffect 47

Findings: Country Performance 48

Conclusion and Recommendations 49Conclusion 49Recommendations 50

Annexes 55Methodological Approach 56Change Theory 62List of Operations 2004–2015 66Level of Bank Contribution to Fragility Factors 70OfficialDevelopmentAssistancetoBurundi 71

Contents

Contents

PRARatingandImplementationScheduleofProjectsThatUnderwentPRA 73List of Sector and Thematic Studies and Other Analytical Works 75Map of Burundi 76Selected Bibliography 77

Endnotes 80

List of figures Figure1: ChronologyofkeyPoliticalEventsinBurundiandAfDBEngagement(2003–2014) 22Figure 2: Geographical Coverage of Projects 27Figure3: ImpactofAfDBOperationsonChangesinFactorsofFragilityuntil2014 37

List of tablesTable 1: AfDB Strategic Orientations in Burundi 25Table2: TrendsinPEFAIndicators(retainedinPAREIII,IVandV) 35

An ID

EV C

ount

ry S

trat

egy

Eval

uatio

n

vAbbreviations and Acronyms

Abbreviations and Acronyms

ABOUTIP Burundi Public Works Agency

ADF African Development Fund

AfDB African Development Bank

AO Audit Office

ARMP Public Procurement Regulatory Agency

AWF African Water Facility

BIF Burundian Franc

BIFO Burundi Country Office

BS Budget Support

BTC Belgian Technical Cooperation Agency

CBFF Congo Basin Forest Fund

CGPM Public Procurement Management Unit

CNCA National Aid Coordination Committee

CODE Committee on Operations and Development Effectiveness (AfDB)

CPIA Country Policy and Institutional Assessment

CSAR Reforms Monitoring and Support Unit

CSM Special Tenders Board

CSP Country Strategy Paper (AfDB)

DPCG Development Partner Coordination Group

EAC East African Community

ECCAS Economic Community of Central African States

EU European Union

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FAPSA Fund for African Private Sector Assistance

FNL National Liberation Forces

FRN National Road Fund

FSF Fragile States Facility 1 (AfDB)

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GEF Global Environment Facility

GHG Greenhouse Gas

GPRSP Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper

HIMO Labour-intensive

HIPC Heavily Indebted Poor Country

IDA International Development Association (World Bank)

IDEV Independent Development Evaluation

IMF International Monetary Fund

ISTEEBU Burundi Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies

vi Burundi: Evaluation of the Bank's Country Strategy and Program 2004–2015 – Summary Report

LCB Local Competitive Bidding (LCBSD – Standard Document)

MDG Millennium Development Goal

MDRI Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative

MTEF Medium-Term Expenditure Framework

NA Undocumented/Not Available

ODA Official Development Assistance

ODR Roads Authority

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

ONEF National Employment and Training Observatory

P(M)IU Project (Monitoring and) Implementation Unit

PABV Watershed Development Project

PABVARC Watershed Development and Climate Resilience Improvement Project

PADSP Private Sector Development Support Project

PAPCE Job Creation Support Project

PARE Economic Reforms Support Programme

PAREG Economic and Governance Reforms Support Programme

PCCF Post Conflict Country Facility (AfDB)

PCR Project Completion Report

PD Paris Declaration

PEFA Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability

PFM Public Finance Management

PIA Project/Programme Impact Area

PMRSE Multi-sector Socio-Economic Reintegration Project

PRA Project Results Assessment

PRCGF Project to Strengthen Public Finance Management

PRCI Institutional Capacity Building Project

PRECA Public Administration Capacity Building Programme

PREIEL Electric Power Infrastructure Rehabilitation and Extension Project

PREIHMR Rural Water Supply Infrastructure Rehabilitation Project

PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper

QaE Quality at Entry

RN National Road

TA Technical Assistance

TFP Technical and Financial Partner

UA Unit of Account2

US United States of America

WB World Bank (Group)

An ID

EV C

ount

ry S

trat

egy

Eval

uatio

n

1Executive Summary

Executive Summary

This document is a summary of the main findings of the evaluation of the African Development Bank’s strategy in Burundi during the 2004–2015 period. The evalu-ation was initiated and carried out by the Bank’s Inde-pendent Development Evaluation (IDEV) Department.

Regarding methodology, the evaluation focused on 18 evaluation issues. Special attention was paid to Burundi’s context of fragility, factors of fragility, and the trend and reflection of such factors in Bank strat-egies. Fifteen completed projects were thoroughly analysed and were the subject of outcome evaluation reports. These projects sought to support the develop-ment of economic infrastructure, the strengthening of economic governance and social inclusion.

The evaluation was carried out within a difficult context marked by growing political and economic instabil-ity from the second quarter of 2015, impeding the fielding of a mission for data collection and making it difficult to analyse project outcomes and their sustain-ability. However, the fielding of a launching mission in April 2015 and the organization of a video conference workshop involving key stakeholders in November 2015 complemented documentary sources. However, the impact of the current situation on the achieve-ments made so far and on their sustainability is still largely unknown and could be very negative.

From 2004 to 2015, cooperation between the AfDB and Burundi was characterized by the country’s fragility and post-crisis context. In 2004, fragility took a multidi-mensional form covering the political, economic, social and environmental spheres and fuelled by structural, cyclical and especially conflict-related factors. The more favourable institutional environment that prevailed at the beginning of the period under review subsequently deteriorated. This was clearly reflected in the Mo Ibra-him Index which showed a significant improvement in public governance between 2005 and 2010, followed by a slowdown, and even a deterioration in 2014. There

are two distinct periods, namely the period following the first presidential election held on 2005 and the post-2010 presidential election period. Between 2005 and 2010, the country undertook to implement social and economic reforms and to strengthen the frame-work for the implementation of international assistance. Mechanisms were established for the coordination of assistance and dialogue between the Government and technical and financial partners. Progress was made in public finance management, and strategies were designed in various sectors (infrastructure, private sector development, education and health). However, it should be noted that despite this enabling environment, corruption lingered on. After 2010, the pace of reforms slowed down, strategies were not fully implemented, and coordination weakened.

The Bank is one of Burundi’s key partners. It played a significant role in reviving cooperation and norma-lizing relations with international partners, particu-larly by mobilizing the Second Pillar of the Fragile States Facility (FSF) so as to clear the arrears owed to the Bank, thus paving the way for the attainment of the decision point of the HIPC Initiative in August 2005 and the completion point in 2009. According to OECD data, the AfDB occupied the fourth position among the top donors (excluding the IMF) in terms of volume of assistance given to Burundi during the 2004–2015 period, far behind the World Bank Group (WB), the European Union (EU) and Belgium. However, the Bank’s weight increased with almost the same amounts of financing as Belgium or the EU at the end of the period under review, particularly in 2012–2013.

During the period under review, the AfDB focused its strategy on four Country Strategy Papers whose quality was considered satisfactory and which were largely aligned on the Bank’s priorities and overall strategies, particularly infrastructure development, regional integration, private sector development as well as governance. The successive strategies

2 Burundi: Evaluation of the Bank's Country Strategy and Program 2004–2015 – Summary Report

were consistent with national (Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper [PRSP] I and II, and Burundi Vision 2025) and sector (particularly in the infrastructure and public finance management reform sectors) strategies which the AfDB also helped to develop. They were implemented during the period under review following a sequence adapted to the coun-try’s context, development and various challenges to be addressed. They were based on in-depth anal-yses of the prevailing context, the situation of the key sectors as well as ongoing dynamics. These anal-yses clearly identified the main factors of fragility and the strategies directly or indirectly addressed some of these factors. However, the impact of these factors of fragility on economic and social dynam-ics and their numerous mutually reinforcing effects were underestimated. Interactions between the various factors of fragility, the more specific role of politics as well as weak capacity and the risks they posed to the effectiveness and sustainability of operations were not adequately reflected in the strategies.

Concerns about inclusive growth were taken into account, as well as the gender issue which is system-atically mainstreamed into Country Strategy Papers. This has been more effective and more visible after the update of the Burundi Country Gender Profile in 2011. On the contrary, concerns about green growth were hardly addressed although the Bank adopted an integrated approach to sustainable development through “green and sustainable growth” objectives outlined in its new Ten-Year Strategy 2013–2022. The Bank is operating in the environmental sector though it is not an area for priority actions, and the sustainability of farms and resilience of infrastructure and communities to climate change constitute stra-tegic issues in Burundi. Lastly, regional integration within the East African Community (EAC) has been a constant concern and is reflected in the weight of multinational projects in the portfolio. Nevertheless, though the Country Strategy Papers clearly indicate the importance to be accorded to this component, they say very little about the manner in which this goal will be pursued by the AfDB and the priorities to be implemented in the domain.

The strategy developed by the Bank resulted in a portfolio dominated by two priority sectors, namely the transport infrastructure pillar (48% of the port-folio) and the economic governance pillar (16%). At the same time, the Bank implemented operations in eight other sectors of which the main ones were the social sector (9%), energy (12%) and agriculture (6%). This relative dispersal of financing, which runs counter to the principle of selectivity, is partly due to the fact that many operations are multinational operations and the use of a wide variety of inter-vention mechanisms (9 funds and instruments in total). The total volume of Bank financing in Burundi during the 2004–2015 period amounted to UA 544 million, of which UA 237.6 million for 31 national operations (that is UA 7.66 million per project and about UA 20 million per annum on average), the rest (UA 306.4 million) for mainly multinational projects involving Burundi.

The combination of various methods of intervention seems to be justified by the stakes and their ratio-nale was strengthened during the period under review. Specifically, the recourse to the FSF and its three pillars was very relevant and well adapted to the context of Burundi. Similarly, budget support opera-tions and capacity building programmes directly targeting the establishment of a governance frame-work that is conducive to the implementation of the Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy were fully justified in view of the stakes (the need to restore macroeconomic balances and re-establish a public finance management system that ensures fiscal discipline, the allocation of resources to the priori-ties of the strategy and the effective delivery of public services) and complied with the principles of engage-ment in fragile States. However, multinational opera-tions, particularly those outside the scope of the two priority pillars, were not clearly aligned on the logic of intervention of successive Country Strategy Papers and did not show complementarity with the rest of the portfolio.

Overall, the effectiveness of Bank operations is moderately satisfactory. The achievement of outcomes in the infrastructure domain is satisfactory.

An ID

EV C

ount

ry S

trat

egy

Eval

uatio

n

3Executive Summary

However, the outcomes of the implementation of initial programmes in the social sector and particu-larly the governance sector, fell short of expectations. This is mainly due to difficulties in assessing initial conditions. The quality of projects at entry assess-ment suffered from lack of data and information on the situation of a country emerging from 10 years of civil war, and from over-ambition with respect to the management capacity of the country’s institutions and organizations.

Concerning budget support operations, institutional capacity was poorly reflected in programme design only during PARE III (2010) through the adoption of a programmatic approach comprising a limited number of measures and thrust areas, a clear sequence and a multi-tranche disbursement aligned on the budget schedule.

The outcomes of Bank operations are especially significant in terms of mobility and transport on main (National Road [RN] 3, 5, 13, 14 and 15) as well as secondary (related rural) roads, access to electric-ity in the town of Bujumbura and in some localities which benefited from a reintegration or employment programme (urban councils in Bujumbura, and the rural provinces of Ngozi, Gitega, Kayanza, Rutana, and Bururi) where the operations implemented, particu-larly through labour-intensive works, helped to gener-ate 4.3 million man days of work, a third of which was performed by women, with a significant impact in terms of income distribution.

In the economic governance domain, several functions of the public finance management system were improved thanks to the Bank’s support opera-tions (particularly the budget preparation process, the setting up of cash position management tools, the overhaul of the public procurement system, the establishment and operationalization of an internal control system and the Audit Office). These achieve-ments helped to rehabilitate a decrepit system and operationalize its core functions. However, the quality of the public finance management system as a whole remains poor in view of Public Expenditure and Finan-cial Accountability indicators.

Besides these outcomes which were clearly targeted by the six budget support programmes and the capacity building programmes implemented concur-rently, the Bank also contributed to restoring and sustaining macroeconomic stability through the programmes implemented, the analytical works carried out and the policy dialogue initiated at vari-ous levels, to creating fiscal space for the implemen-tation of a number of commitments made by the Government within national strategic frameworks (notably concerning demobilization, education and health) and to strengthening the institutional frame-work for the formulation and implementation of the Government’s national and sector strategies as well as development assistance.

The Bank played a very active role in promoting dialogue and monitoring infrastructure policies, particularly in the road sub-sector where the Bank significantly contributed to fostering close consulta-tion between the main actors by financing an infra-structure action plan in 2009 which has been used as a framework for coordination. In the governance and public finance management domains, the Bank, together with the EU and the WB, is spearheading dialogue with the Government on the orientation of reforms and the implementation of the strategy. However, coordination has remained limited despite the progress observed in 2009–2010. It is also weakened by lack of technical capacity by ministe-rial entities and lack of coordination even within the authorities. Lastly, the Bank intensified dialogue with the Government on regional integration (since 2012, it has played a leading role in this domain) as well as on private sector development.

However, it is worth noting that Burundi failed to establish a dialogue and coordination framework for engaging in a strategic dialogue to systematically monitor the implementation of sector and national strategies, address the issue of resource allocation between and within sectors, and determine the budg-etary implications of the policies implemented.

The progress made in key Bank thrust areas and the support provided in the budget and macroeconomic


domains contributed to the gradual removal of some factors of fragility, though the scope of this trend is more limited than initially expected. Human and institutional capacity for administrative and economic governance was strengthened; underemployment was reduced through various social infrastructure projects; equal access to services and resources has begun to improve through budget support operations which contributed to creating a fiscal space, making it possible to expand educational and health services; and conditions conducive to growth have improved. These findings should, however, be qualified: struc-tural fragility factors remained entrenched at the end of the period under review and the fragility of the State, like that of society, have not fundamentally changed. In addition, the deterioration of the institutional and political environment in 2015 aggravated some factors of fragility which had been addressed through Bank interventions such as employment, access to services and resources, conditions conducive to growth, particularly macroeconomic stability and the business environment.

The contribution of the outcomes of all projects to the achievement of the Bank’s objectives is limited regarding the sustainable stimulation of economic growth and the reduction of poverty: growth which peaked between 4% and 5%, falling below PRSP targets, remained inadequate to signifi-cantly increase per capita income. The prevalence of monetary poverty measured by the latest survey conducted in 2013–2014 remained very high, affecting 64.6% of the total population of Burundi, against 67.1% in 2006.

The sustainability of achievements and outcomes is a serious cause for concern in Burundi. The sustainability of the Bank’s operations is considered moderately satisfactory for economic and social infrastructure projects. This is due to the financial constraints inherent in maintaining and ensuring the upkeep of the facilities built at various levels of project implementation, though in some cases appropriate measures have been taken, and to institutional inse-curity. Concerning governance support operations,

sustainability is fragile due to lack of ownership of reforms by the Government and to a fragile macro-economic, political and institutional environment. In addition, the current political instability poses a seri-ous threat to the viability of all the investments made.

Bank effectiveness is considered moderately un sa-tisfactory in the economic infrastructure sector and fairly satisfactory regarding the implementation of governance, reintegration and employment promotion projects. Recurrent implementation delays (excluding budget support programmes which were disbursed on time, thus ensuring the predictability of assistance) are partly due to poor quality at entry assessment of operations, resulting in adjustments, and the weak technical capacity of project implementation entities. However, the establishment of the Bank’s Field Office has had a positive effect.

The Bank’s objective is to ensure consistency with national mechanisms and use national public finance management and procurement systems as much as possible. These systems are, however, limited due to their fiduciary risks, despite the support provided by the Bank to improve them. Neverthe-less, the Bank continued to provide budget support to Burundi throughout the evaluation period, which was not the case for all the donors involved in this process. In addition, it is continuing efforts to achieve a greater alignment and harmonization, despite the linger-ing weaknesses of national mechanisms. In 2013, the Bank initiated the use of national procurement procedures within the framework of local competitive bidding on a pilot basis.

The Bank has established cooperation mechanisms incorporating key results-based management aspects such as the systematic mainstreaming of a results-based framework for involvement in strategies as well as in most projects. Surveillance systems are considered satisfactory and their use intensified toward the end of the 2004–2015 period. However, the mainstreaming of some elements has not been fully satisfactory: the prin-ciples of involvement are not fully realistic and opera-tional, lessons learned from previous operations as well

An ID

EV C

ount

ry S

trat

egy

Eval

uatio

n

5Executive Summary

as conditions for ensuring sustainability are not system-atically taken into account; sensitization and the compe-tences of staff have not been entirely satisfactory.

The complementarities and synergies of Bank programmes were not fully exploited. Though oper-ations have a specific and well-established logic that seeks to ensure coherence with other operations as well as ensure continuity with previous opera-tions, potential complementarities/synergies are not systematically included in documents and are not exploited. This is the case with multinational and national projects in particular, but it is also visible in budget support programmes and other operations.

Lastly, though the Bank’s operations helped to secure additional financing in many sectors and enabled the Government to mobilize additional resources for its development, the Bank’s strategy is not intended to ensure the large-scale mobilization of resources to address overall or sector issues or replicate projects implemented on a larger scale.

The evaluation makes six recommendations:

1. More explicitly include regional integration and inclusive growth objectives in the strategy, and ensure that they are reflected in the portfolio of operations and mainstreamed into national policies.

2. Better mainstream environmental issues into strategies and operations in the context of infra-structure and agricultural projects, clearly gear-ing them towards the inclusion and strengthening of factors of resilience to climate change.

3. Continue to carry out analytical works to inform the formulation and implementation of policies and strategies by focusing on issues relating to inclusive growth, gender, vulnerability and the development of economic activities in order to promote the development of integrated markets within EAC.

4. Play a key and more active role in reviving dialogue on governance and public finance management as well as private sector develop-ment issues.

5. Continue to implement budget support opera-tions while ensuring the economic and financial viability of the investments made and the poli-cies implemented by the Government and coor-dinating (in particular) the investment projects financed with internal and external resources.

6. Support the establishment of a system to monitor and evaluate strategies and programmes imple-mented in the country.

An ID

EV C

ount

ry S

trat

egy

Eval

uatio

n

7Management Response

Management Response

The evaluation, which focused on the Country Stra-tegy Papers (CSP) 2004–2005 (interim), 2005–2007, 2008–2011 and 2012–2016, was conducted according to the criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability. Its scope of anal-ysis focused on the design of CSPs, their execution and consideration of Bank’s sectoral and cross-cut-ting strategic issues. This retrospective evaluation exercise contributes to enriching the thinking on the position of the Bank and on the choice of its interven-tions in Burundi for the period ahead.

Relevance

Management welcomes IDEV’s findings which notes that the CSPs are aligned with national development strategies and Bank’s priorities and strategy, and which believes that the quality of the CSPs at entry sufficiently takes into account the overall context and the situation of major sectors, current dynamics and expected prospects. Management also welcomes that IDEV’s analysis on the factors of fragility are consistent with that of other technical and financial partners. To take into account the limited reference to the factors driving fragility as highlighted by IDEV, Management has, since the establishment of the Department in

charge of Transition, strengthened the inclusion of fragility factors in operations initiated over the recent years and intends to build on this momentum.

However, Management would have wished IDEV to do more analysis on the crisis facing the country and its underlying reasons, and specific recommenda-tions on operational and strategic plans to respond better in the future to fragility situations and thus more effectively fight against the negative socio-economic effects of the crisis on the population.

In this context, Management wishes to stress that it will apply to all future transactions a “fragility lens” not only during the extended period of the CSP, but also in the new CSP 2018–22. Specifically, on the basis of the Strategy for addressing fragility and building resil-ience in Africa (2014–19), the Bank will strengthen its leading role in strategic dialogue, partnership and advocacy on issues of fragility in the CSP extended period. Even if the Bank does not intervene directly on political issues, it could contribute, through the resources of Pillar III of the Transition Support Facility and the Trust Funds, to the peace building process and reconstruction, by providing the necessary expertise through targeted technical assistance on economic and financials questions, as well as advocacy. The

Management welcomes the results of the Independent Development Evaluation (IDEV) which focused on the strategies and programs of the African Development Bank in Burundi from 2004 to 2015. Management overall supports the findings of this report. This report emphasises the need to integrate more explicitly, both in the strategy and in operations, the regional integration and inclusive growth objectives, as well as environmental and climate changes issues. The report also stresses the need for the Bank to conduct further analytical work in the design of Country Strategy Papers (CSPs) and to continue playing a leading role in the revival of a joint dialogue on governance and public financial management issues, as well as in the field of private sector development. Finally, the report highlights the need for further budget support in parallel to ensuring the economic and financial viability of investments, and the establishment of effective monitoring and evaluation mechanisms. These various findings and recommendations will be taken into account both in the proposed extension of this strategy 2012–2016 to 2017, as well as in the design of the next Bank assistance strategy in Burundi and the various operations stemming from it.


Bank will also explore opportunities to support training for political actors on targeted areas related to social and political cohesion. Furthermore, as part of the new CSP preparation, a specific study on the sources of fragility and its regional implications will be under-taken to deepen the understanding of the situation in Burundi. This study will enable the Bank to play a key role with other technical and financial partners in thinking about specific solutions for exiting the crisis by supporting areas where the Bank has a compar-ative advantage. On the operational side, manage-ment will ensure that new projects are systematically designed on the basis of a political economic analy-sis (Political economy analysis) that will identify the

“special measures” related to the context and neces-sary for the good performance of projects.

Management notes IDEV’s findings on the main-streaming of gender in successive CSPs, although with the absence of a specific approach and of practical arrangements for women to benefit from Bank interventions’ outcomes. To address this need, Management ensures since 2012 that actions target-ing women are particularly emphasised at both the appraisal and implementation phases. Indeed, new projects now always include a gender analysis in their preparation in order to promote gender equality. In the future, new projects will include, to the extent possible, components to improve the capacity of line ministries in the area of gender equality, and disaggregated indi-cators by gender to monitor results.

IDEV’s evaluation notes the limited consideration of green growth in successive CSPs. While acknowl-edging that further efforts are needed, management believes that, given the investments made in the envi-ronment field and the size of the Burundi portfolio, the green growth issue is sufficiently addressed. This is notably the case through the following projects: Watershed Management Project (PABV), Watershed Management and Support for Climate Resilience Project (PABVARC) and the Support to Employment Creation Project (PAPCE) and in the energy sector (including renewables) with the hydroelectric dams of Rusumo and Ruzizi III. As an example, because of their investments in watershed protection, reforestation

and the construction of small dams, both the PABV and PABVARC projects will have a positive impact on the resilience of beneficiary communities to climate change. Management also believes that the interven-tions made on the environment deviate in no way from the priorities adopted in CSPs to the extent that these projects include components related to high labor intensity works (2008–2011 CSP) and rural infra-structure (2012–2016 CSP).

Management fully supports IDEV’s analysis on the need to adapt the design of budget support to the insti-tutional context and committed since 2012, alongside other donors like the World Bank, to continue support the Government in building capacity in public finan-cial management to address institutional fragility and weaknesses regularly identified in the management of public finances.

Effectiveness

Management welcomes the progress made in the development of economic infrastructure that allowed for the positive reinforcement of drivers of growth (particularly in terms of mobility, transport costs and access to electricity) and the reduction of some fragil-ity factors (in particular by strengthening governance and promoting employment skills). Management also noted however the need to strengthen the contribution of Bank’s operations to poverty reduction, in line with the objectives of the 2013–2022 Bank strategy, taking into account internal and external constraints.

Regarding the two transport projects assessed, management agrees with the analysis of the results achieved through the implementation of two road projects (RN14 and RN15) which relate primarily to improved mobility measured through the ease of access to basic socio-economic infrastructures and the facilitated domestic trade. Management also notes IDEV’s finding on the limited impact of these projects on the dynamics of international trade and the importance of an integrated approach in this area. Management believes nevertheless that, in terms of the dynamics of trade, the construction of a road is

An ID

EV C

ount

ry S

trat

egy

Eval

uatio

n


only one element and that other economic factors as well as the level of development of the countries are to be taken into account. Therefore, in addition to infrastructure investments, the Bank, as the leader of technical and financial partners, supports the coun-try in the design of its regional integration strategy which is currently being adopted. This strategy gives prominence to trade between countries and to the free movement of goods and services. Management also shares IDEV’s findings on the quality of techni-cal studies that led to giving up on components or that resorted in getting additional funding. To address the recurring problem of the quality of technical stud-ies, which negatively impact the cost and duration of project implementation, the Bank intends to continue the dialogue with the Government so that various capacity building projects in support of the road construction agency be regularly planned to allow staff to acquire the skills needed to better monitor the quality of these studies. Building on its leadership role among partners in the transport sector, the Bank will also help the Government to improve the program-ming of technical studies so that the necessary resources can be mobilised to ensure their quality.

Regarding the results achieved by the PABV project, Management welcomes the IDEV evaluation confirm-ing that the project has overall achieved the desired results and even surpassed the initial targets of components “Conservation and improvement of resources” and “Improving agro-forestry-pastoral production”, which were the main project components. BIFO wishes to recall that PABVARC was initiated to enhance the outcomes of PABV and thus to strengthen the resilience of communities to climate change.

As for capacity building and governance support, management notes the assessment made by IDEV on their effectiveness and is committed to further strengthen the dialogue with the Government in the future to improve these operations’ quality at entry which has been a major source of observed underperformance in the implemen-tation of the various operations.

On social projects, Management notes that the analysis would have benefited from a specific

assessment of the Multisectoral Project for Socio-economic Reintegration (PRMSE) and of the Support for Employment Creation Project (PAPCE) because the overall assessment made of the results does not reflect the effectiveness of these two operations separately. As an example, management believes, as IDEV stresses, that the effectiveness of PMRSE is moderately satisfactory, but notes, however, that the achievement rate of this project reaches 95.75%. Finally, Management notes with interest the finding on the weakness of the targeting of vulnerable popu-lations among the beneficiaries of social projects and is committed to taking advantage of targeting methods that have proven effective in the Burun-dian context to take into account these categories of populations in future interventions.

Sustainability

Management broadly agrees with IDEV’s findings related to institutional sustainability that show that progress has been made through capacity building actions while noting technical shortcomings in some areas. The same holds true in terms of the financial sustainability of certain infrastructure investments with regard to maintenance management. Manage-ment has, in collaboration with other technical and financial partners, strengthened dialogue with the Government so that the regulations already in place stipulating that 10% of municipal budgets be oriented towards the upkeep and maintenance of relevant infrastructure are effectively imple-mented. In addi-tion, in response to IDEV findings on the viability of transport projects’ achievements, linked in particu-lar to non-compliance of the axle load, Management has already planned the procurement of mobile axle weighing as part of the RN 5. Management also notes the existence of the National Road Fund (FRN) for road maintenance. Within the transport sector projects financed by the Bank, efforts are made to ensure the optimal management of resources from the FRN. The resources, consisting of mostly charges on fuel and road tolls at border crossings, prove to be insuffi-cient (BIF 18 billion/year) compared to the expressed needs (over 30 billion BIF/year). To this end, revenues


from the truck toll in Gitega (RN15) financed by the Bank will be used to strengthen the FRN resources. The Government also plans to increase the fuel tax to strengthen the FRN. Furthermore, the implemen-tation of already installed weighbridges at the border of Ruhwa, Gasenyi and the parking lot for trucks in Gitega, will contribute to this fund. The Bank will also continue the dialogue with the Government to ensure the sustainability of road investments.

As for the viability of governance projects, Manage-ment notes IDEV’s findings in particular related to: (i) the weak ownership of economic strengthening reforms and continued low technical capacity, (ii) a fragile and potentially unstable macroeconomic envi-ronment, and (iii) a fragile political and governance environment that question the authorities’ willing-ness to pursue reform strategies and technical and financial partners’ ability to keep their commitments. In collaboration with other technical and financial partners, BIFO continues its support to strengthen-ing public financial management capabilities to help raise the level of technical skills. In addition, Manage-ment also notes that in a fragile country like Burundi, budget support operations are to: (i) be conducted in parallel with institutional support programs targeting the same priority areas; (ii) be used as dialogue instru-ments that dynamically guide reforms in priority areas to reduce poverty and create a strong and inclusive growth; (iii) make program objectives less ambitious and be designed taking into account implementation deadlines of reforms; and (iv) agree with the author-ities on more realistic disbursement conditions that also take into account country capacity.

Cross-Cutting Areas

Management is pleased that IDEV noted the Bank’s interest on environment protection as a specific objective in the context of support to the sector in successive CSPs (2005–2008 and 2012–2016), while also endorsing findings on the weak national and local capacities for the management and main-tenance of infrastructure built as part of projects initiated in the environmental sector. The Bank

intends to strengthen dialogue with the Government to further involve local beneficiary communities in infrastructure maintenance.

Regarding the implementation of environmental safe-guards, Management shares the concerns raised by IDEV and intends to sensitise the various Bank depart-ments on the need to include environmental experts in supervision missions for better monitoring of actions related to environment protection.

Efficiency and Performance-Based Management

Management agrees entirely with the comments made by IDEV on performance-based management includ-ing on shortcomings related to efficiency, managing for development results, the Paris Declaration imple-mentation and engagement principles in fragile States. Management intends to continue or undertake appro-priate actions to address the identified deficiencies.

On efficiency, Management has already undertaken a number of measures including holding regular portfo-lio reviews, using a results-based logical framework, provided training to project managers, organising regular supervision missions, and opening a country office in 2012. Management will work more to meet deadlines in operations’ implementation, which IDEV rightly points out as the main problem. As an example, the Bank intends to strengthen monitoring to reduce the time taken to complete the conditions precedent to the first disbursement, to encourage the regular work of the inter-ministerial Bank’s portfolio moni-toring committee and work towards strengthening the capacity of management units on procurement. The Bank’s country office in Burundi will strengthen its dialogue with national authorities in this regard. However, it should be emphasised that since the opening of BIFO in 2012, the implementation of the CSP and portfolio performance have overall improved and are assessed as satisfactory over time due to the establishment of a close project monitoring system, including through regular consultations with country authorities, other technical and financial partners and

An ID

EV C

ount

ry S

trat

egy

Eval

uatio

n


project implementation units (PIU) on issues requiring special attention.

Specifically, some actions are to be expected based on the Bank’s areas of intervention. On capacity build-ing and governance projects, the Bank will ensure a better design of these projects by setting realistic timeframes and providing the project with manage-ment teams selected on a competitive basis to avoid capacity weaknesses identified in the past. Based on the institutional capacity assessment results, the Bank will also consider the relevance of teams of local and international experts to benefit from the most appropri-ate analyses and capacity to the most relevant sectors. On infrastructure projects, special emphasis will be placed on improving the quality of technical education, as stated in the effectiveness section.

The Bank intends to address the shortcomings raised by IDEV on results-based management in (i) the design of logic of interventions and/or of the logical frame-work, (ii) the incorporation of lessons learned from previous operations, and (iii) the capacity of imple-menting agencies in financial management. The Bank will work closely with departments to improve quality at entry on the aspects raised, and with the Government to strengthen the capacity of implementing agencies.

Finally, Management shares the analysis made on alignment with country systems and the use of the country’s public financial management and procure-ment systems. The assessment highlights the fact that fiduciary risks still prevent the use of country systems by the various partners. In collaboration with other technical and financial partners, a follow up will be done to assess progress and decide on alignment actions on country systems. The Bank would like to note that caution is needed in this area since the use of country systems requires a comprehensive analysis to ensure that systems are in line with the Bank’s perfor-mance requirements. As an example, the use of rules and procedures of country procurement for future Bank interventions, as indicated in the new rules and procedures, would require to simultaneously under-take significant capacity building actions in procure-ment to enable timely implementation.

Finally, although the High 5s have been established after the period covered by the IDEV evaluation, Management notes that achievements linked to previ-ous strategies are also largely aligned on the Bank’s current fivepriority areas. As part of the CSP period of extension until 2017, it has been agreed to maintain the strategic direction with its two pillars: (i) “Strengthening governance” and (ii) the “Infrastructure improvement”.

Although the extension of a CSP involves, by defini-tion, maintaining its strategic direction and its pillars, Management recognises that the Bank cannot ignore the current context of increased fragility and continue to operate as usual. Therefore, the management will take action in the CSP extended period to mitigate the adverse socio-economic effects of the current socio-political crisis on the population. To this end, as part of planned operations during the extension period, Management will place particular emphasis on protecting social safety nets through a strength-ened “social focus” and preferential access to public contracts for young people and women.

In particular, under Pillar I “Strengthening Govern-ance”, the objective is to promote an adequate insti-tutional framework through capacity building in order to improve skills in the area of development and moni-toring of reforms, including mobilization of domes-tic revenue, budget planning, internal control and procurement. Given the interruption of external aid which results in economic strangulation, improvement in public financial management (PFM) will contribute to a better delivery of public services (health, education, etc.), ushering in an improved quality of life for Burun-dians (High-5 improve the quality of life of people in Africa) and thereby mitigate the country fragility.

Under Pillar II “Infrastructure improvement”, the objective is the development of “green” infrastruc-ture, respectful of the environment, in the transport and energy sectors to allow better integration of the country in the sub-region (High-5 – Light up Africa and Integrate Africa). It also includes the develop-ment of irrigation infrastructure in order to increase agricultural production and thus contribute to reduce the level of malnutrition in the country (High-5 Feed


Africa). Infrastructure improvements should help to increase household access to basic infrastructure, helping to mitigate the factors of fragility. Infrastruc-ture operations will also contribute to fight against insecurity and exclusion of vulnerable groups, particu-larly through the construction of rural roads in produc-tion areas, as well as marsh management, watershed protection, rehabilitation of schools/health centres and markets, and support to women’s groups. Infra-structure projects may, where possible, develop high

Summary of Management Action

Recommendation Management Response

RECOMMENDATION 1: Integrate more explicitly the regional integration and inclusive growth objectives in the strategy and operations of the Bank.

Integrate more explicitly the regional integration and inclusive growth objectives in the strategy, and ensure that they are reflected in the operations portfolio and relayed in national policies.

Agreed. This recommendation was taken into account in developing the 2012–2016 CSP which will be extended to December 2017. The Department will also ensure that this is included in the 2018–2022 strategy.

One of the pillars of the 2012–2016 CSP, extended until December 2017, aims to develop infrastructure, especially in transport and energy. The transport projects will facilitate internal mobility as well as international connections and thus the regional integration of Burundi.

Regarding inclusive growth, the proposed intervention in rural infrastructure will increase agricultural production and will contribute to reduce the level of malnutrition in the country. In addition, all the proposed interventions will integrate activities to facilitate job creation for the young and will then contribute to reduce insecurity and exclusion of vulnerable groups.

For better inclusiveness, the Bank’s operations will continue to pay special attention to gender issue, as it currently does with the PABVARC and PAIRB where more than 60% of the activities are targeting women, because of their insecurity. In addition, the Bank strengthens the impact of its infrastructure operations on this segment of the population, thereby promoting inclusive growth, by focusing on the rehabilitation of health centres and schools, the construction of markets and rural roads and support to women’s groups.

intensity labor approaches to provide opportunities for direct and indirect employment for thousands of young people left to idleness and violence. Finally, the Bank will contribute to the promotion of social safety nets through agricultural projects, in consultation with other development partners (World Bank, European Union, UNICEF). This approach will provide support to vulnera-ble groups through the transfer of means of production and accompanying measures to lift them gradually out of the poverty trap.

An ID

EV C

ount

ry S

trat

egy

Eval

uatio

n


RECOMMENDATION 2: Better integrate environmental and climate issues to strategies and interventions in the context of infrastructure and agriculture projects.

In this light, it is recommended that the next CSP devote greater attention to these issues building on extensive analytical work in collaboration with specialised international partners in this regard.In addition, the Field office could specifically include staff trained in these areas to strengthen the mainstreaming of these issues in the strategy and at operations level, and in monitoring and evaluation. The consideration of environmental issues will contribute to promote “green growth” and strengthen country resilience through appropriate management and beneficiary communities by promoting agro-ecology and ecosystem services.

Agreed. This recommendation will be taken into account in the current CSP, which has been extended to 2017, and in the next CSP 2018–2022.

Specific studies are planned on green growth opportunities in Burundi. The Bank will ensure the integration of recommendations/findings of these studies, particularly in policies, strategies and regulations that will be developed by the country authorities. In the context of future operations, we will consider capacity building activities on environmental and climate issues.

Under the new Development and Business Delivery Model (DBDM), experts in charge of environment and climate issues will be deployed to the Regional Hub for East Africa to be based in Nairobi and will be able to support BIFO staff as needed. In addition, BIFO staff capacity will continue to be strengthened through training organised within the Bank.


RECOMMENDATION 3: Continue the development of analytical work aiming to strengthen the design of policies and strategies, and their implementation.

Institutional support should remain a high priority with the aim to strengthen the design of coherent policies and strategies, their update and monitoring in areas supported by the Bank. Analytical work can be entrusted to external experts associated with local research teams. Among the themes to be addressed, the following could usefully feed the design of action plans: on social integration mechanisms, on social and/or community issues as well as on gender equality, on promoting endogenous growth areas, and green growth and investment opportunities in this area. The recommendations of the 2011 gender analysis should be taken into account in the short term and the update of this study planned in the 2012–2016 CSP’s mid-term review should be completed as soon as the political situation improves.

Agreed. This recommendation will be taken into account in the current CSP, which is under extension to 2017, and in the next CSP 2018–2022.

The preparation of the new CSP 2018–22 will include a solid analytical work program, which will be agreed with the authorities, taking into account the studies undertaken by other development partners. These analytical work of the Bank contribute to the design of national policies and strategies of Burundi. The Bank could resort to external experts, preferably from academia and research, and local associations on matters for which it would not have the required expertise.

The recommendations of the “gender profile in Burundi” prepared in 2009, are already taken into account in projects, especially in infrastructure projects through the systematic inclusion of specific activities to promote gender equality. The Bank will further strengthen this aspect in future operations and ensure that the “Gender Profile” study is updated as soon as the socio-political situation makes it possible. New projects will include a systematic gender analysis during their preparation to promote gender equality. These projects will include components designed to improve the capacity of line ministries in the field of gender equality; and relevant performance indicators disaggregated by gender for progress monitoring.

As part of the new CSP preparation, a specific study on the sources of fragility and its regional implications will be undertaken to deepen the understanding of the situation in Burundi. This study will enable the Bank to play a key role with other technical and financial partners in thinking about specific solutions to exit from the crisis by focusing on areas where the Bank has a comparative advantage.

Furthermore, specifics briefs will be designed and will take into account current Bank’s strategies and cross-cutting issues: (i) governance country profile; (Ii) updating the Infrastructure Action Plan prepared in 2009 (transport and energy); (iii) water and sanitation sector analysis; (iv) response to climate change (v) poverty Analysis (inclusion issues); (vi) agriculture and food security; (vii) Public Private Partnership approach in leading sectors such as agribusiness, tourism, lake transport, etc.

An ID

EV C

ount

ry S

trat

egy

Eval

uatio

n


RECOMMENDATION 4: Play a more active leadership role in the revival of a joint dialogue on issues of governance and public financial management, as well as in the field of private sector development.

A coordinated approach must be established to develop joint analysis and monitoring tools to ensure consistency of budget support programs, whether at the level of allocations, periods of disbursement or capacity building actions.The Bank can further be a driving force for the revival of a joint dialogue on budget support, which should give priority to maintaining macroeconomic and, in particular, macro-fiscal stability, on the sustainability of policies and on PFM reform and on strengthening economic governance. This high-level framework led by the Ministry of Finance requires that be clarified the mandate given to the CSAR and the technical and human resources available to it. The establishment of a joint fund with the World Bank and the EU to provide technical support for the implementation of PFM reform and the administration strengthening could in this context be considered.

Agreed. This recommendation was taken into account in designing the 2012–2016 CSP, which will be extended to December 2017. Management will also ensure that this is included in the 2018–2022 strategy. Specifically, it is planned to:

Continue the dialogue with the country on maintaining macroeconomic and especially macro-fiscal stability, as well as on the sustainability of policies and the reform of public financial management and of strengthening economic governance.

Given the limitations of existing administrative structures, the Bank will strengthen coordination with other partners for the establishment of a new coordination framework for more synergy in supporting reforms. Initially, the Bank will play a leading role in the establishment of a joint donor matrix for effective reform monitoring.


RECOMMENDATION 5: Continue budget support in parallel to ensuring the economic and financial viability of investments and policies implemented by the Government and (in particular) the coordination of investment projects funded from internal and external resources.

The evaluation found that budget support had significant outcomes both in terms of macroeconomic stability and in terms of reforms, although less significant than initially expected. The use of this instrument is still recommended in situations of fragility and in the case of Burundi, as soon as the current country instability and political obstacles are removed. Budget support indeed remains a preferred instrument for influencing the fiscal framework, reinforcing the state, consolidating the overall policy consistency and ensuring their medium-term sustainability. Particular attention should be paid in this context to the means to dedicate to ensure the financial viability of investments.

Agreed. No budget support is provided for during the CSP extension period given the socio-political situation. However, management may consider budget support in the implementation of the 2018–2022 strategy, if conditions are met, including resuming the reform program with the IMF. This support will take into account previous operations’ completion reports and the assessment made by the EU which focused on all budget support allocated to Burundi from 2005 to 2013 by seven major donors (WB, EU, AfDB, the Netherlands, Norway, France and Belgium).

In consultation with the other technical and financial partners, the Bank will pay special attention to budget support by introducing reforms and building capacity to ensure Burundi’s financial viability and sustainability. The reforms will focus, among other things, on the organisations in charge of governance in targeted sectors to be financed by budget support coupled with capacity building operations.

In addition, the Bank includes systematically, in the design of its operations, measures to ensure the viability of investments. For the transport sector, the Bank has already initiated dialogue with the Government on improving the sustainability of the National Road Fund (FRN). Discussions are also underway with other partners to identify appropriate mechanisms to ensure the economic and financial viability of investments in other sectors, particularly in the areas of energy and agriculture.

An ID

EV C

ount

ry S

trat

egy

Eval

uatio

n


RECOMMENDATION 6: Support the establishment of a monitoring and evaluation system of strategies and programs implemented in the country.

The report highlighted the difficulty of assessing the contribution of interventions to strategic objectives. This is an important and crucial issue in fragile situations, to make CSPs more operational tools. This involves providing targets for strategies and projects in both the short and long term. One of the approaches to explore is the systematic use of different theories of change designed by sector as well as by cross-cutting issues such as gender, so as to have a useful common framework both at the strategy design level, management and ex-post evaluation.

Agreed. Management acknowledges that efforts must be made to strengthen the use and definition of theories of change and results framework, as is the case at a more general level for Bank’s CSPs. Management will do so by:

The introduction of new guidelines and tools on results for CSPs, currently being prepared by the Department of Quality Assurance and Results (ORQR) and planned for the first quarter of 2017. This will enhance our reliance on theories of change, on results monitoring and our presentation of directions in strategies.

The definition of theories of change in the 2018–2022 strategy, in line with CSP guidelines currently being prepared by ORQR.

Sectoral thematic analyses to be carried out ahead of the next CSP taking into account the different theories of change and cross-cutting issues (gender, climate change, etc.).

It should be emphasized that various mechanisms (including regular consultations between the different stakeholders, project supervision, quarterly and annual reports, mid-term project review, project completion, and post-assessment, etc.) will be considered in a country in fragile situations like Burundi, for the establishment of an effective monitoring and evaluation framework of country programs and country projects.

The National Statistical System of Burundi has significant constraints and most of the data which should have been used for the evaluation of the strategy were not available. In this context, a focus will be provided on capacity building of sector ministries to integrate relevant indicators disaggregated by sex, as part of operations’ implementation and monitoring. To assess the impact of its assistance, the Bank will use the indicators of the revised monitoring results framework of the CSP and indicators provided in projects’ logical framework.

An ID

EV C

ount

ry S

trat

egy

Eval

uatio

n

19Introduction

Introduction

Evaluation Objectives and Approach 3

This evaluation report covers the Bank’s strategies, operations and policy dialogue activities imple-mented in Burundi using all relevant programming and financing instruments during the 2004–2015 period. This evaluation, which was initiated and conducted by IDEV, is consistent with the overall eval-uation of the outcomes of the Bank’s development results carried out at the behest of the Committee on Operations and Development Effectiveness (CODE) of the Bank’s Board of Directors. The evaluation process focused on two main themes: (i) the achievement of development outcomes; and (ii) the management of the Bank’s performance-based operations.

The approach combined technical and evaluative expertise focused on two main angles of analysis, namely the strategic (overall) level and the opera-tional (operations) level. A set of evaluation issues was used to structure the collection and analysis of qualitative and quantitative information. An in-depth analysis of policy and sector strategy documents, and project documents was complemented by the analysis of statistical data. A preparatory mission conducted a series of interviews with the authori-ties and stakeholders in April 2015 in Bujumbura. The difficult political and security situation prevail-ing in Burundi from April 2015 hindered the field-ing of a team mission during the data collection phase. Thus, information gathering was completed remotely, particularly through telephone interviews and a three-day intensive workshop organized in Abidjan in November 2015 to solicit the views of the key stakeholders of the Bank and Burundi through a video conference. In addition, a local consult-ant carried out field visits concerning two opera-tions in the agriculture and water infrastructure domains in December 2015. The cross-analysis of the findings of these multiple sources of information

(triangulation) helped to prepare 15 project results assessment (PRA) reports and conduct sector and policy analyses in the country on which the responses to evaluation issues, and the conclusion and recommendations of this report are based.

Evaluation Limitations

This results-based evaluation was carried out within a difficult context marked by growing politi-cal and economic instability from the beginning of the second quarter of 2015, affecting the conduct of the evaluation. The impossibility to deploy the entire evaluation team on the ground during the data collection phase reduced the informative base. Such a visit would have made it possible to meet project beneficiaries, project implementation units, other technical and financial partners as well as Burundian administrative authorities. This hindered in-depth discussions and exchanges on implemen-tation procedures, the sustainability of outcomes (particularly in the infrastructure sector), the level of coordination, internal synergy and collaboration with other donors, the role played by the AfDB in policy dialogue and changes in the public policies of the beneficiary country. It was also difficult to determine the exact level of contribution by the AfDB because its operations in the governance domain are imple-mented in the form of budget support (BS) opera-tions in parallel with other partners. However, the evaluation team tried to specify such contribution based on the joint evaluation of the budget support operations implemented during the 2014–2015 4 period and the indicators that are more directly linked to the activities of the AfDB.

The difficult context and growing instability from 2015 hampered the analysis of outcomes and their sustainability. The methodology used in the


overall evaluation carried out by IDEV made it possi-ble to conduct an in-depth analysis of 15 completed projects and prepare project outcomes evaluation reports. Due to the country’s situation, it was not possible to carry out an in-depth analysis of four

projects completed in 2015. The prevailing uncer-tainty and impossibility to determine the evolution of the situation on the ground make it difficult to assess the effect of this context on the Bank’s thrust areas and the achievements made so far.

An ID

EV C

ount

ry S

trat

egy

Eval

uatio

n

21Country Context

Country Context

Political and Institutional Context of Government Action

The landmarks in Burundi’s recent political history can be summarized as follows: (i) successive waves of violence since the country gained independence (1962–1993); (ii) protracted civil war (1993–2003); (iii) a post-conflict political transition following the signing (2000) and implementation of the Arusha Agreement (2000–2005); (iv) progress in the demo-cratic process resulting in the organization of elections in 2005 and 2010; (v) restriction of political space for dissenting opinions and growing insecurity from 2010 up to 2015 mainly characterized by violence after the re-election of President Nkurunziza. These events as well as the changing commitments of the inter-national community and the AfDB are summarized in Figure 1 on the next page.

The protracted conflict (1993–2003) weakened the capacity of the Government to design and steer the implementation of public policies. Reforms have been implemented and donors have provided support to build the capacity of the administration but it is still characterized by serious dysfunctions. Widespread corruption5 has also weakened the political and administrative equilibrium.

Economic Performance

After the political and economic transition (2000–2005), the Burundian economy improved with the implementation of the Government’s reform programme. During the 2004–2013 period, the econ-omy visibly stabilized with an annual GDP growth rate of about 4% 6. However, the growth rate remained

below macroeconomic projections and less than the one observed in East African Community (EAC) member countries. The rate, which was slightly more than the population growth rate (3.2%), proved insuffi-cient for a significant increase in per capita income. Per capita GDP at purchasing-power parity (PPP) 7 reached USD 747 in 2013 and USD 730 in 2015, still below the pre-conflict level (USD 774), though higher compared to the lowest level reached in 2001 (USD 437).

In 2009, the country reached the completion point of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initia-tive and benefited from the cancellation of debt owed various creditors totalling USD 833 million in net pres-ent value, and an additional cancellation of debt in nominal value owed three creditors under the Multi-lateral Debt Relief Initiative (MDRI). Thus, outstanding external debt dropped from 104% of GDP in 2007 to 18.4% in 2013.

The economic challenges, which were complex at the beginning, have remained virtually the same: the economy is undiversified and highly vulnera-ble to external shocks (particularly world prices and regional instability), policies and the vagaries of the weather and climate change. The primary sector accounted for 41% of GDP in 2005 and about 38% in 2013 (data obtained from the Burundi Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies). Almost 70% of Burundi’s export capacity still depends on the coffee sector which is struggling to recover. The private sector is embryonic due mainly to lack of investment in productive infrastructure (particularly electricity) and an unfavourable (legal and regulatory) business environment, despite the progress made. Burundi moved from the 169th position in 2010 to the 117th position in 2014 in the “Doing Business” ranking.


2006

August 2000Arusha agreements: Regional peace and reconciliation agreements, multiparty

2004Post-Conflict Country Facility

2004 PAREG

2004 PRCI

2005 PREIHMR

2007 PCRPREIEL

2006 PABV

2004 PMRSE

2006 PARE 1

2006 KICUKIRO–KIRUNDO (RN14) ROAD

2004Brussels Conference

August 2005Eligible for the enhanced HIPC Initiative

2005Communal, legislative and senatorial elections: CNDD-FDD victory

2005President’s appointment: Nkurunziza (CNDD-FDD)

September 2006Peace agreements with FLN

2007Joins the East Africa Community (EAC)

2004–2013 Evaluation Period

Inte

rnat

iona

l In

volv

emen

tAf

DB

Invo

lvem

ent

Even

ts in

Bur

undi

2004 2005 2007

July 2003FNL rebels’ attacks

2003

Figure 1: Chronology of key Political Events in Burundi and AfDB Engagement (2003–2014)

CSP 2005–2007Targeted interventions on living conditions in rural areas and the strengthening of economic governance

I-CSP 2004–20052004–2005 PRSP 2004: AfDB Reen-gagement interventions

2003Note on political dialogue

Multi-sector

Water and sanitation

Energy

Agriculture

Social

Transport

An ID

EV C

ount

ry S

trat

egy

Eval

uatio

n

23Country Context

2008 2009 2010 2011 2014

2008Strategy for enhanced engagement in fragile states

FSFFragile States Facility

2004 PAREG

2004 PRCI

2005 PREIHMR

2007 PCRPREIEL

2006 PABV

2004 PMRSE

2009 MDRTSP

2006 PARE 1

2006 KICUKIRO–KIRUNDO (RN14) ROAD

2010 GITEGA-NYANGUNGU-NGOZI (RN15) ROAD

2008 PARE 2 2010 PARE 3 2011 PARE 4 2012 PARE 5

2012FSF Evaluation

2014Conclusions of High-Level Panel on Fragile States

2007Strategic Framework for Peacebuilding

January 2009Reaching rhe HIPC point of Completion

2012Development partners conference in Geneva

May 2010Communal elections: objection to the results and subsequent violence

May 2011Creation of the Independent National Commission for Human Rights

June 2010Presidential elections: Nkurunziza; violence

2004–2013 Evaluation Period

January 2013Resumption of the dialogue between FLN and the Government

2012 2013

Figure 1: Chronology of key Political Events in Burundi and AfDB Engagement (2003–2014)

CSP 2008–2011PRSP 2006 Interventions to support effective government (economic governance and public sector institutions); and enhance employment opportunities (agricultural sector)

CSP 2012–2016PRSP II 2012 targeted interventions on state building and improving infrastructure


Burundi’s Fragility, Challenges and Development Opportunities

In 2004, fragility was multidimensional, cover-ing political, economic, social and environmental domains. It was fuelled by structural and cyclical factors and those more directly related to the conflict (See Figure 3). The context of Burundi was marked by: (i) extreme poverty (67% of the population in 2006); (ii) extreme concentration of political and economic power; (iii) systemic social exclusion ensuing from a

“power struggle within the context of extreme poverty and scarce resources [which] turned ethnic issues into a means of mass mobilization 8”; and (iv) popula-tion and land pressure with serious consequences on the exploitation of natural resources.

Since 2004, Burundi’s trajectory shows an overall improvement in fragility factors, except State legiti-macy, poverty, the rule of law and individual safety. This was reflected in the country’s CPIA scores, the Fragile States Index and the Governance Index of the Mo Ibrahim Foundation 9. However, the fragility of the State and society has not fundamentally changed. Structural fragility factors remain deep rooted:

❙ the undiversified economy dominated by a weak primary sector offers limited opportunities and employment prospects for youths;

❙ land disputes within a context of population pres-sure and land scarcity are disquieting;

❙ the instability of the Great Lakes region remains serious with potentially destructive links with the conflicts in the countries of the region.

Fourteen years after the signing of the Arusha Peace Agreement, the persistence of extreme poverty 10 and use of political violence with impunity are worrying, especially as some fragility factors reinforce and combine with each other in a dangerous way. It is necessary to underscore the following combinations: (i) population dynamics, youth unemployment and violent political mobilization; (ii) land-related issues and environmental degradation; and (iii) the return of 1.2 million war victims.

However, Burundi has many assets. It has huge water resources with great potential for its agricul-tural sector. The coffee sector can offer high quality production that can boost growth. Burundi also has a mining potential (coltan and nickel) which is currently exploited using artisanal methods. Lastly, the country occupies a strategic geographical position for trade within EAC and ECCAS to which it belongs.

An ID

EV C

ount

ry S

trat

egy

Eval

uatio

n

25Bank Strategies and Programs during the 2004–2015 Period

During the 2004–2013 period, four Country Strat-egy Papers (CSPs) provided the framework for cooperation between the AfDB and Burundi respec-tively covering the 2004–2005; 2005–2007; 2008–2011, and 2012–2016 periods. The table below presents the main orientations (pillars) of these papers.

The Bank’s overall objective was to stimulate strong, sustainable and job-creating economic growth for inclusive development. This strat-egy hinged on two pillars, namely economic infrastructure (rural roads and electricity) and economic governance.

Initially, the operations implemented under the “infrastructure” pillar focused on the rehabilitation of basic social infrastructure (drinking water supply and sanitation, health, etc.), agricultural facilities and rural development support. Secondly, the 2005–2007 CSP and especially the 2008–2011 CSP prior-itized the development of anchor infrastructure with the improvement of road infrastructure (including regional road infrastruture) as well as the construc-tion or rehabilitation/expansion of electric power installations. The Bank also sought to promote

socio-economic integration through labour-inten-sive works (HIMO). Figure 2 shows the geographical distribution of these operations which covered some of the poorest large areas of the country 11.

The “Economic Governance” pillar sought to estab-lish an efficient and transparent administration, strengthen the public finance management (PFM) system and improve governance conducive to busi-ness development and growth.

The total volume of Bank financing in Burundi during the 2004–2015 period amounted to UA 544 million, of which UA 237.6 million for 31 operations specific to the country (that is UA 7.66 million per project and about UA 20 million per annum on aver-age), the rest (UA 306.4 million) for mainly multina-tional projects involving Burundi. The AfDB portfolio between 2004 and 2015 shows some degree of concentration on two priority sectors which repre-sented 64% of the institution’s net commitments in Burundi, namely: (i) transport infrastructure (48%); and (ii) economic governance (16%). However, for the rest, AfDB intervention was quite dispersed with actions implemented in eight other sectors, of which the main ones were the social (9%), energy

Pillar 1 Pillar 2

Interim CSP 2004–2005 Strengthening Economic Governance Social Sector: Socio-economic Reintegration

Full-fledged CSP 2005–2007 Improving the Living Conditions of the Population

Strengthening Economic Governance

CSP 2008–2011 Good Governance Job Creation

CSP 2012–2016 Governance and Capacity Building Support Infrastructure Improvement

Table 1: AfDB Strategic Orientations in Burundi

Bank Strategies and Programs during the 2004–2015 Period


(12%), agriculture (6%), and to a lesser extent, the environment (3%), water and sanitation (2%), and communication (2%) sectors. The list of ongoing projects in the AfDB portfolio in Burundi during the cooperation period covered by the evaluation

– 2004–2015 – is appended to this report (Annex 3). The Bank occupies the 4th position among donors (excluding the IMF) in terms of volume of assistance given to Burundi, behind the World Bank (WB) Group, the European Union (EU) and Belgium (Annex 5).

An ID

EV C

ount

ry S

trat

egy

Eval

uatio

n

27Bank Strategies and Programs during the 2004–2015 Period

RN14

RN15

RWANDA

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO

TANZANIA

Kirundo

Nemba

Ngozi

Kayanza

Gitega

Rutana

Bururi

Bujumbura

Projects sociaux

Projects routiers30 Km

20 mi PABV

PREIHMR

Figure 2: Geographical Coverage of Projects

An ID

EV C

ount

ry S

trat

egy

Eval

uatio

n

29Findings: Achieving Development Outcomes

Findings: Achieving Development Outcomes

Relevance

The Bank’s strategies in Burundi are consistent with the country’s needs and priorities, and its overall strategies to particularly address fragility factors.

Evaluation Criteria Rating

Relevance of the strategy to the country’s needs (analysis of the context of fragility, adapting assistance to changing fragility factors, and addressing fragility factors)

Satisfactory

Alignment with the country’s development framework

Satisfactory

Aligning operations on the Bank’s long-term strategies

Highly satisfactory

Mainstreaming cross-cutting concerns into strategies and operations (gender, youth employment, regional disparities, and green growth)

Moderately satisfactory

Complementarity/Selectivity and synergies with the Bank’s ongoing operations and those of other partners

Moderately satisfactory

Consistency of the logic of outcomes, and complementarity of instruments

Satisfactory

Relevance Satisfactory

The quality of analyses is satisfactory. The Coun-try Strategy Papers include in-depth analyses of the overall context and situation of key sectors as well as ongoing dynamics and future prospects. These analyses have been consolidated over time, with greater focus beginning from the 2008–2011 CSP, the inclusion of a prospective dimension and better

mainstreaming of external factors. It is necessary to update them during mid-term reviews to adapt the strategy to the changing context and issues. Sector analyses were deepened during the evaluation period, but they did not systematically include the analysis of existing policies and/or the need to improve the qual-ity of such policies.

The factors (political, economic, social and envi-ronmental) of Burundi’s fragility have been well identified in the Bank’s strategy documents. The assessment of fragility reflects a consensus with the other TFPs regarding its nature, which is of a politi-cal origin with serious consequences on the economy and the social sphere, and compounded by environ-mental degradation and population pressure. Succes-sive diagnoses have helped to identify and highlight the different fragility factors, but their root causes and interactions, particularly the role of political factors as well as weak capacity, are not adequately taken into account in strategies.

Bank operations directly or indirectly targeted struc-tural fragility factors and resilience building, particu-larly: (i) human and institutional capacity by building capacity in administrative and economic governance; (ii) underemployment since 2004 with labour-inten-sive infrastructure project works (water and electric-ity) targeting youths; (iii) more equitable access to services, resources and jobs, and growth through budget support operations and investments in road, electrical power and water supply infrastructure, by focusing on some more underprivileged regions (Gitega, Kayanza and Muramvya) as well as the busi-ness climate and private sector development which are necessary for the devolution of power; and (iv) the environment through Watershed Development Projects and Watershed Development and Climate Resilience Improvement Project (PABV and PABVARC).


Risks are systematically considered in all CSPs, though this varies in terms of accuracy and scope. However, mitigation measures have not been systematically provided for (particularly in the 2004–2005 CSP and the 2008–2011 CSP) and little infor-mation is given on the implementation of these measures (responsible entities, resources, actors to be involved, etc.).

The Country Strategy Papers and operations cover-ing the evaluation period are perfectly consistent with national development strategies. Country Strategy Papers are aligned on and consistent with: (i) the National Development Strategy (PRSP I and II); and (ii) the relevant sector and thematic strat-egies. Overall, the implementation of projects that have been the subject of results assessment (PRA) is satisfactory, and even very satisfactory. Project alignment with national strategies and sector frame-works is satisfactory.

Overall, the Bank’s strategies and operations in Burundi are consistent with its overall priorities and strategies. The Bank’s operational priorities listed in the Medium-Term Strategy (2008–2012) and then included in the Ten-Year Strategy (2013–2022) focus on infrastructure development, regional integra-tion, private sector development, skills and technology development, as well as governance and accounta-bility. Furthermore, in its Fragile States Strategy, the Bank recommends that States which are slowly recovering, like Burundi, should prioritize (i) capacity building, and (ii) reconstruction of infrastructure. The Bank’s portfolio in Burundi is in keeping with these various strategic priorities.

Gender issues are systematically mainstreamed into CSPs. This has been more effective and visi-ble after the update of the Burundi Country Gender Profile in 2011. Gender issues are included in some projects which specifically target women. However, no specific approach or practical arrangements have been adopted to enable women to effectively benefit from project outcomes. Moreover, outcomes/impacts on women are not analysed.

Inclusive growth concerns have been addressed in national strategies while concerns about green growth have hardly been taken into account. Succes-sive Bank strategy documents which seek to reduce poverty among the underprivileged segments of the population have continuously focused on inclusion. The AfDB, with the World Bank, was one of the first partners to focus on underemployment, particularly youth underemployment. After the resumption of cooperation, direct activities targeted social inclusion issues (for example, youth employability), but slowly gave way to a more indirect approach, particularly through road infrastructure projects in which related activities focusing on basic infrastructure were systematically included to combat job insecurity and exclusion of vulnerable groups. Though the Bank has adopted an integrated approach to sustainable devel-opment by including “green and sustainable growth” objectives in its new 2013–2022 Ten-Year Strategy, its strategy in Burundi has not devoted much atten-tion to the development of green growth. The Bank has intervened in the environmental domain notably with two watershed development projects though it is not a priority area.

Environmental concerns were considered in Burun-di’s country strategy when analysing the country context, policy dialogue and strategy content with-out considering them as a thrust area. At the begin-ning of the evaluation period (2005–2008 CSP), the Bank explicitly targeted the sector by including envi-ronmental protection as a specific objective in its agricultural sector support. The last ongoing strat-egy (2012–2016 CSP) continues to support agri-cultural and environmental infrastructure through the second generation of the Watersheds Develop-ment Programme. Some progress has been made in the environmental domain, but the sustainability of achievements depends on capacity at both the national and local levels to manage and maintain the infrastructure constructed.

The sensitivity of the environment to the operations implemented was taken into account by categorizing projects, environmental, social and complementary

An ID

EV C

ount

ry S

trat

egy

Eval

uatio

n


assessments, and mitigation measures adopted. However, the implementation and monitoring of planned measures and/or expected outcomes to ensure the sustainable management of projects is not systematic, adequate or very successful.

The Bank’s portfolio in Burundi is fairly selective, focusing on priority sectors in which the Bank can make the most of its comparative advantages. However, the dispersion of other operations in many sectors may, as presented in Bank Strategies and Programmes during the 2004–2015 Period, hinder compliance with the principle of selectivity.

The presentation of areas where it has comparative advantages also improved with successive CSPs, particularly extensive expertise in economic infra-structure (notably in the transport sector), includ-ing regional integration, and wide experience in economic governance.

The Bank’s strategy evolved during the period under review and followed a sequence adapted to the coun-try’s context, development and numerous challenges:

1. the strategy (2004–2007) initially focused on economic and social stabilization in order to restore macroeconomic stability through budget support operations, re-establish basic State financial management functions by providing technical support for reforms (PAREG and PRCI), stabilize the framework for cooperation by paying up arrears and quickly designing tools for provid-ing assistance to vulnerable groups (particularly through labour-intensive works and demobiliza-tion programmes);

2. the strategy (2008–2011) then sought to conso-lidate reforms and structure the economy by strengthening governance support (continuation of BS operations and institutional components) and incorporating a job-creation objective in the short term (with the continuation of labour-inten-sive works) and supporting infrastructure invest-ment in the medium term (roads and electricity sector); and lastly

3. the strategy (2012–2016) more clearly focused on the promotion of sustainable growth by support-ing the State to establish a framework conducive to investment (particularly through BS operations and institution building projects) and continuing efforts to invest in productive infrastructure.

Several methods of intervention were used to address these challenges whose rationale during the evaluation period needs to be speci-fied. Recourse to the FSF and its three pillars proved to be very relevant and well adapted to this context. The first pillar (Additional Support) helped to finance major budget support and infrastructure projects. The second pillar (Settlement of Arrears, through the award of a UA 8 million grant in 2004) enabled Burundi to normalize its relations with international partners and reach the completion point of the HIPC Initiative (January 2009). The third pillar (Capacity Building) financed various capacity building projects.

The AfDB opted for budget support operations which were implemented throughout the period, except in 2007, and capacity building programmes (more than 32% of the resources were devoted to operations in the country, more than 70% which were financed by the FSF). Institutional fragility and weaknesses of the public financial management system, which consti-tute risk factors, were addressed by the AfDB as well as other donors involved in BS operations. However, the design of the AfDB’s programmes in this domain was poorly adapted to the institutional context at the beginning of the period, but improved considerably from PARE III with the introduction of a programmatic approach based on a matrix of restricted, clearly-iden-tified and well-sequenced measures.

Besides the two main instruments (ADF and FSF), other funds (such as the Fund for African Private Sector Assistance, the EU African Infrastructure Trust Fund, the African Water Facility, and the Global Environment Facility) were used to finance multina-tional operations which represent more than 60% of the portfolio in Burundi, reflecting the importance attached to regional integration. However, though


Country Strategy Papers indicate the importance of this component, they say very little about the manner in which regional integration will be pursued by the AfDB and its priorities in the domain. These operations, particularly when considered outside the scope of the two priority pillars, are not clearly consistent with the intervention logic of successive CSPs 12 and do not have any complementarity with the rest of the port-folio. The use of these various instruments somewhat affects the overall consistency of the programme with the “country” strategy.

Regarding emergency assistance, four operations were financed with support from other partners in the hope that development projects will take over the provision of such assistance. These include two projects initiated in 2009, in partnership with FAO, to provide assistance to people affected by the conflict and climatic hazards, a project to help drought victims, complementing grants provided by other TFPs, as well as the jointly supported central market rehabilitation project.

Furthermore, in 2012, the Bank opened a Country Office in Burundi (BIFO) as part of its decentraliza-tion policy and in line with the recommendations of its strategy on intervention in fragile States.

Effectiveness

Overall, the effectiveness of the Bank’s operations is moderately satisfactory. The outputs in the economic infrastructure domain are satisfactory. Those in the social and especially governance (particularly during the implementation of the initial programmes) domains fell short of expectations.

On the whole, project outcomes are moderately satisfactory. The Bank’s operations contributed to promoting the positive evolution of some growth factors (particularly mobility, transport costs and

access to electricity) as well as reducing some fragility factors (particularly by building governance capacity and promoting employment). However, their impacts on economic growth and poverty reduction remained limited in a context marked by severe internal and external constraints.

Project Outcomes Evaluation Rating 13

Infrastruc-ture 14

Governance Social

Effectiveness in achieving outputs

Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory

Moderately Satisfactory

Effectiveness in achieving outcomes




Effectiveness Moderately Satisfactory



Support for the Strengthening and Rehabilitation of Economic Infrastructure

On the whole, the achievements of the five completed socio-economic infrastructure projects examined within the framework of this evaluation, as well as their quality and contribution to achiev-ing expected outcomes are satisfactory.

In general, the envisaged outputs of road works were achieved, although some activities had to be abandoned or supplemental financing sought due to cost underestimation during project design. The road

“tarring” component (RN15: 30 kilometres between Nyangungu and Ngozi and RN14: 37 kilometres between Kirundo and Gasenyi) was fully realized in line with good practice and in accordance with the relevant international standards, with technical alter-natives due notably to the scarcity of some materials. Related rural roads were upgraded as planned and most local socio-economic facilities (schools, health centres, and markets) were constructed, except two out of the five schools envisaged under the Nyan-gungu-Ngozi Road (RN15) Project. Conversely, the

An ID

EV C

ount

ry S

trat

egy

Eval

uatio

n


equipment supply and support for women’s groups component under the RN15 Project was abandoned for want of financial resources. In addition, the staff of the Roads Authority (ODR) were trained under difficult conditions related particularly to the rotation of staff and trainers.

The two projects had significant immediate impacts in terms of mobility, but did not affect international trade dynamics. The most significant outcomes concerned the improvement of access for the population and development of local business activities (PCR 2010).

The immediate impacts of the construction of the road linking Rwanda with Burundi via RN14 were: (i) the reduction of travel time between Kicukiro and Kirundo (from 6 hours to 2 hours), (ii) the reduction of transit time for travellers and goods on the border (admin-istrative and customs formalities) by more than half, and (iii) the opening up of Kirundo Province (devel-opment of 150 kilometres of rural roads, against 80 kilometres initially envisaged) which is characterized by a high rate of poverty. The movement of people and goods has increased, as shown by the slight increase of 2% in the average annual daily passenger traffic on the Burundian side of the border (a 6% increase on the Rwandan side) and a more than 200% increase annually in the volume of goods on the Nemba border post (Project Completion Report 2010 and Perfor-mance Evaluation Report 2013). However, the inter-national transit traffic of goods on this road, which is part of the Northern Corridor from Mombasa, is still low because the length of the stretch constructed is very short compared to the total length of the North-ern Corridor and because it has to cross three borders, whereas the central corridor (to Dar es Salaam) crosses only one.

According to the socio-economic impact assess-ment, the project helped to open up the area by easing access to distant markets and promote the implementation of various agricultural development projects financed by many development partners. The combination of these two factors improved farmers’ incomes by increasing the selling price of agricul-tural products, thus significantly improving the living

conditions of the local population, particularly women (Performance Evaluation Report, June 2013, p. 4).

Concerning the RN15 Road Project, road traffic trends observed in 2013 also show a significant increase in passenger traffic on the road (224.9%). The upgrad-ing of 74 kilometres of rural roads led to an increase in the proportion of the population living less than 2 kilometres of walking distance from a vehicular road from 15% to 60%. The tarring of RN15 and develop-ment of related roads greatly improved the marketing of agricultural products which, in many cases, has quadrupled. At the same time, access by the popu-lation in the PIA to basic services has significantly improved, with 90% of the population having easy access to such services after the implementation of the project, against less than 50% previously. The enrolment rate and health centre attendance rate have also increased remarkably (10% increase in the enrolment rate), thanks also to the free educa-tion policy implemented by the Government (Project Completion Report).

Although expected project impacts in terms of improvement of the living conditions of the local popu-lation seem to have been achieved, the goal of facil-itating the development of trade between the North and South was not fully attained because the 30 kilo-metre stretch covered by this project phase is only a portion of the 80-kilometre long Gitega-Ngozi road. This goal will be properly assessed only at the end of the second project phase (which is ongoing).

Concerning the energy domain, activities were implemented to extend electrical power networks, but inadequate seed financing necessitated the mobiliza-tion of other development partners (the World Bank and the Chinese International Cooperation Agency) to cover all the planned components. This was true in the case of the rehabilitation component part of whose activities was transferred to the World Bank-funded PURSE 15 project and some activities related to the “connection and public lighting” component to PMIEE 16 and PURSE. The project mainly focused on the extension of the electrical power network and helped to construct an approximately 33-kilometre


long MV line, a 58.6-kilometre long LV line and a 5.5-kilometre long mixed line. The project also carried out advocacy and provided institutional support to operational units.

The expected project outcomes were partially achieved. The project enabled the underprivileged segments of the population living in the four periph-eral districts of Bujumbura (Gituro, Taba, Mirango and Buterere) to have access to electricity as well as the extension of the electrical power network to a newly developed neighbourhood (Carama). The project also helped to reduce power blackouts by extend-ing the Bujumbura 30 kV line and constructing two new secondary transmission lines, reducing the load on the existing network. According to the PCR, the Bujumbura 30 kV line was considered very reliable with a virtually zero power blackout rate in 2012. Lastly, between 2006 and 2012, the rate of access to electricity by the population of Burundi rose from 2% to 6.5% (World Bank), but this trend falls far short of the project targets for the entire country for 2015 and 2020, that is 20% and 30% respectively.

In rural areas, the Watershed Development Project (PABV) produced substantial, albeit sporadic socio-economic impacts within a post-crisis context by: (i) injecting large sums of money in rural areas; (ii) creating temporary jobs 17, thus helping to improve the incomes of the population and the socio-economic reintegration of returnees; and (iii) contributing to opening up rural areas through the construction and/or maintenance of earth roads. There was a one-off improvement in agricultural production and some beneficiaries highlighted benefit in terms of improve-ment in incomes. However, all economic impacts are not yet visible. In addition, the monitoring activities envisaged were not carried out because GPS data on wooded areas were not produced due to planning issues related to the late delivery of equipment and capacity building.

The protection of watersheds throughout the coun-try was initiated as a pilot initiative under PABV. The coverage of endangered slopes and lands in each

province is far from adequate as only about ten slopes were covered. There are therefore plans to upgrade the ongoing Watershed Development and Climate Resilience Improvement Project (PABVARC) to a more comprehensive programme based on the lessons learned from PABV.

Support for Capacity Building and Governance

Overall, the effectiveness of the Bank’s economic governance support operations is “moderately satisfactory”. Economic governance support covers institutional support (PAREG, PRCI and PSAGC) and budget support (PAREG and PARE I to V) programmes.

The outcomes of institutional support programmes are moderately satisfactory. PAREG’s effectiveness is moderately unsatisfactory due to its very ambi-tious design: a very demanding and vague matrix of measures and support that does not fully address institutional weaknesses. However, the programme contributed to re-establishing the bases for budget and accounting management needed to pursue devel-opment efforts (for example, adoption of the budget and accounting plan). The effectiveness of PRCI is rated moderately satisfactory. The project helped to improve debt monitoring through the procurement of the Debt Management and Financial Analysis System (DMFAS) software and training of senior treasury staff, the establishment of ONEF and statistical capacity building, particularly in the production of national accounts. However, the outputs produced, particu-larly technical assistance and training, are transient, posing the risk of dilution of training and eventually having little impact on the manner in which staff perform their duties.

The effectiveness of budget support programmes is considered moderately satisfactory. Though generally the approach used by the six programmes was coherent, their design better addressed insti-tutional capacity only from PARE III, with a limited number of measures and thrust areas as well as a specific sequence of reforms. Another significant

An ID

EV C

ount

ry S

trat

egy

Eval

uatio

n


achievement was the adoption of a programmatic approach with multi-tranche disbursement aligned on the budget schedule.

These programmes contributed to improving the public finance management (PFM) system, particu-larly the reinforcement of external and internal audits, public procurement management, budget prepara-tion, and transparency in budget preparation, imple-mentation and monitoring. However, these outcomes are often partial and the improvement of the PFM system quality, as reflected by the Public expend-iture and financial accountability (PEFA), remains modest. Table 2 highlights trends in the PFM system based on the scores obtained on a number of PEFA indicators specifically targeted by the programmes. The last 2014 PEFA conducted in 2015 shows that there has been little progress in the overall scores of the indicators selected to monitor the outcomes of budget support programmes which remain poor, except the one relating to the exhaustiveness of budget information (PI6). Generally, the outcomes of the PFM system in the public procurement, internal control and external audit domains still show major weaknesses, with a significant improvement margin. However, there are very positive developments in a

few aspects directly targeted by AfDB budget support programmes, particularly the coverage and quality of internal audits and efforts made to prepare and submit budget execution monitoring and external audit reports within the prescribed time frames.

The impact of operations on economic management and governance beyond public finance management can be assessed based on trends in some indicators of progress in these domains (CPIA and Mo Ibrahim indicators). CPIA indicators show an uneven devel-opment marked by progress between 2005 and 2007, followed by a period of stagnation, then a new turnaround from 2011 which, however, seems to be losing momentum at the end of the period. Generally, the situation in 2013 was better than the one at the beginning of the period, though the sustainability of progress is not very certain.

Support for Social Inclusion

The effectiveness of social projects (PMRSE and PAPCE) is moderately satisfactory. Outputs were achieved in line with projections regarding the tarring of streets in Bujumbura and Ngozi. The rehabilitation/

2008 2011 2014 CSP Targets

PI6 Exhaustiveness of the information contained in budget documents

C B B

PI7 Operations implemented by the Central Administration not reported

D+ D+ D+ 2012–2016 CSP: progress from D+ in 2009 to C+ in 2013 (B+ in 2016)

PI19 Optimum competitive use of resources and procurement control

D+ C+ D+ 2012–2016 CSP: progress from D+ in 2009 to C+ in 2013 (B+ in 2016)

PI20 Effectiveness of the internal control of non-salary expenditure D+ D+ C

PI21 Effectiveness of the internal audit system D+ C+ C+ 2012–2016 CSP: progress from D+ in 2009 to C+ in 2013 (B+ in 2016)

PI24 Monitoring of budget execution in the course of the year D+ C+ C+

PI26 Scope, nature and monitoring of external audits D+ D+ D+ 2012–2016 CSP: progress from D+ in 2009 to C+ in 2013 (B+ in 2016)

PI28 Examination of audit reports by Parliament D NA C+

Table 2: Trends in PEFA Indicators (retained in PARE III, IV and V)

Source: PEFA 2014 – NA: Not available.

An ID

EV C

ount

ry S

trat

egy

Eval

uatio

n


construction of schools (19 + 10), health centres (9) and trades centres (1) did not tally with the number initially provided for due, among other things, to prob-lems related to the identification of the initial state of the facilities. The entrepreneurship support provided did not reach all the farmers’ associations envisaged. The experience of ABUTIP, which is a partner in the implementation of infrastructure works, was a key element in the effectiveness of social projects.

Social infrastructure and labour-intensive works had a positive impact on the living conditions of the target population, but the expected impacts on youth vocational training and business development are very low due to implementation difficulties and lack of expertise by the Bank and the actors involved in this domain. Impacts on employment through labour-intensive (HIMO) works were transitory, but according to the PCRs, these operations helped to generate 4.3 million man days of work 18, 1.56 million man/days of which were performed by women. The impact assessment conducted by PMRSE shows that access to basic social facilities was facilitated and that attendance at health centres also exceeded projections. The living conditions of the local popula-tion along rehabilitated roads (estimated at 350 000 in Bujumbura) were significantly improved.

The effectiveness of targeting is difficult to verify. While the Bank’s social projects targeted some vulnerable segments of the population (jobless persons, displaced persons, refugees, ex-combat-ants, single women, orphans, and youths), target-ing by geographical area does not indicate whether activities actually benefitted those targeted, espe-cially youths.

Impacts of Bank Operations on Fragility Factors

The Figure 3 19 highlights the fragility factors targeted by the Bank (circled). In keeping with its mandate, the Bank did not directly intervene in the political and security domains. In some domains, there was a correlation between the Bank’s operations on a

fragility factor and its progress during the evaluation period, which was confirmed through discussions with stakeholders. Specifically, institutional and polit-ical stability improved at least until 2014 and access to services and resources increased. There is a corre-lation between the budget support operations jointly implemented by donors that helped to create a fiscal space, making it possible to improve educational and health service delivery and implement the Govern-ment’s free access policy. Furthermore, by main-taining macroeconomic stability, these programmes also helped to achieve a stable growth rate during the decade. However, the effectiveness of these changes is uncertain, especially considering the worsening political context in 2015 and its impact on growth, employment and poverty.

Impacts of Bank Operations on Growth

The contribution of the outcomes of all projects to the achievement of the Bank’s objectives of stimulating sustainable economic growth and reducing poverty is limited. Growth, which peaked between 4% and 5%, falling below PRSP targets, remained inadequate to significantly increase per capita income. The prevalence of monetary poverty remained very high. Monetary poverty in 2014 affected 64.6% of the total population of Burundi, against 67.1% in 2006, indicating a very slight improvement over the last eight years. The Bank’s operations mainly contributed to growth by support-ing the development of the construction sector through economic infrastructure projects. The signs of a sustainable increase in economic activity and incomes in the long term are barely visible. The low diversification of the economy limits the country’s export capacity and hinders trade within the coun-try and with neighbouring countries. Private invest-ments, particularly direct foreign investments, did experience the sustained growth needed to develop new production capacity and promote the emer-gence of growth sectors. Internal constraints, espe-cially those related to fiscal, legal, economic and political instability, are serious.


Sustainability

The sustainability of Bank operations is moderately satisfactory regarding economic and social infrastructure projects. Concerning infrastructure, technical soundness and national capacity building are factors of

Social factors Economy EnvironmentPolitical factors

Institutions, political instability

Extreme poverty absence of a middle class

Growth Environment and population growth, land-related conflicts

Economy dominated by agriculture, offers limited job opportunities and vulnerable to shocks

Employment particularly among youths

Deep social divisions (clan/tribe/province); inequitable access to services, resources and jobs

Return of 1.2 million refugees/displaced persons and high population growth

Risk of resumptions of mass violence

Violent political mobilisation

Use of political violence with impunity

Figure 3: Impact of AfDB Operations on Changes in Factors of Fragility until 2014

Factor with a negative growth trend

Factor with a positive growth trend

AfDB’s thrust area

Note: the colours correspond to change: positive (reducing the level of fragility) = green; negative = red; no specific change = grey; and not to the situation (whether or not satisfactory) of each factor…

Source: ADE.

sustainability, despite shortcomings and the difficulties faced. The sustainability of governance is weak due to the lack of ownership of reforms by the Government and a fragile political and economic environment. On the whole, the political instability that began in 2015 poses a serious threat to the sustainability of all the investments made.

An ID

EV C

ount

ry S

trat

egy

Eval

uatio

n


Projects Sustain-ability Evaluation Ratings 20

Infrastruc-ture

Governance Social

Technical soundness

Satisfactory NA Satisfactory

Institutional sustainability and capacity building


Moderately Unsatisfactory


Enabling environment (legal and political frame-work, and socio-political context)


Unsatisfactory Moderately Unsatisfactory

Economic and financial viability




Environmental and social sustainability

Satisfactory Moderately Unsatisfactory


Sustainability Moderately Satisfactory



On the whole, the sustainability of the Bank’s port-folio in Burundi is moderately satisfactory. The main concerns regarding the sustainability of invest-ments and outcomes are financial and institutional and depend on the political environment and governance.

On the whole, the technical viability of infrastruc-tural investments is satisfactory, although design problems were identified in some isolated cases (such as RN14). The main infrastructure sustainabil-ity risk is non-compliance with axle load standards as well as recurrent natural disasters (landslides). Progress was made regarding the institutional sustainability of economic and social infrastructure projects thanks notably to the capacity building activi-ties implemented by the Bank in the national and local entities involved in the projects (the Roads Authority, CSEP, the departments in charge of water manage-ment, and Municipal Water Authorities). However,

technical gaps remain in many areas (particularly regarding water management and forestry).

Financial viability, particularly the upkeep and maintenance of the investments realized was effectively considered in large-scale infrastruc-ture projects (mainly roads and electrical networks) whose financial viability is considered satisfactory. Under normal circumstances, road infrastructure maintenance is implemented with the participa-tion of the beneficiary communities in the mainte-nance and securement of the roads and rural roads constructed and through the National Road Fund (FRN). This Fund has sufficient resources to cover the maintenance of priority sections, including the rehabilitated national roads (RN).

Difficulties are faced as regards small-scale infra-structure due to the weak financial capacity of bene-ficiaries and maintenance entities. Specifically, the financial capacity of municipal councils 21 has not been clearly established. This also applies to their capacity to supervise and implement works. Two out of the fifteen projects whose outcomes were eval-uated are facing difficulties regarding economic and financial viability: the Watershed Development Project (PABV), including the monitoring and main-tenance entities (the Department of Forestry of the Ministry of Water Resources and Environment) lacks the resources needed to ensure the sustaina-bility of project achievements; and the Rural Water Supply Infrastructure Rehabilitation Project (PREI-HMR), where the fees collected from beneficiaries are insufficient to ensure the operation and main-tenance of the water supply facilities constructed, while council water supply authorities lack technical capacity and working capital.

Budget support programmes are normally consis-tent with the logic of institutional sustainability and capacity building. The sustainability of governance projects in Burundi is considered moderately unsatisfactory and limited by three factors, namely:


1. institutional sustainability that is hindered by the partial ownership of economic governance reforms, particularly in the domain of PFM, and by persistent weak technical capacity of rele-vant institutions;

2. a fragile and potentially unstable macroeco-nomic environment, affecting budget imple-mentation, private sector development and the economic viability of reforms;

3. a stormy political and governance environment that is sapping the willingness of the authorities to continue the implementation of the reform strategies adopted and undermining the conti-nued commitment of TFPs.

Generally, the recent social and political insta-bility constitutes a risk factor that may jeopardize the sustainability of the achievements and positive impacts of the Bank’s thrust areas (roads, electric-ity, water supply, and integrated rural development). These risks include the withdrawal of the external support provided to the relevant sectors to ensure the continuity of investments; the neglect or significant limitation of maintenance of facilities; the destruction of infrastructure through unpatriotic acts and poten-tial social unrest; the inadequate use and unguaran-teed access to the services that have been developed (transport, electricity, water, or food security).

Efficiency

Bank efficiency is deemed moderately unsatisfactory in the economic infrastructure sector and moderately satisfactory in the governance and social sectors. Project implementation delays are still a major problem on which the opening of the Bank Country Office has, however, had a positive impact.

Project Efficiency Evaluation Ratings 22

Infrastruc-ture

Governance Social

Adherence to schedule

Unsatisfactory Moderately Satisfactory


Cost-benefit analysis

Satisfactory NA Moderately Satisfactory

Cost-effective-ness analysis

NA NA Moderately Satisfactory

Efficiency Moderately Unsatisfac-tory



Efficiency varies depending on the type of project, period of implementation and criteria used. The main issue is adherence to schedule. Overall, the cost-benefit analyses of projects (virtually all, except BS and institutional capacity building projects) show a fairly satisfactory outcome, indicating that the prof-itability of such projects was deemed satisfactory, despite implementation difficulties.

Only five out of the fourteen projects for which infor-mation was available adhered to the indicative sche-dule. On average, the actual duration of projects was 48 months instead of the 33 months projected, that is 15 additional months (see table in Annex 6). The factors that affected project implementation in Burundi include:

❙ gaps in project design owing to lack of prior analyses often due to the post-conflict context and to the poor knowledge of infrastructure and field conditions;

❙ partial disbursement of national counterpart contributions due to budgetary constraints;

❙ weak management capacity in sectors and in the entities responsible for implementation, causing procurement delays.

An ID

EV C

ount

ry S

trat

egy

Eval

uatio

n


In the road sector, there is a wide gap between the theoretical and actual duration of projects without necessarily resulting in additional costs. According to the PCR and discussions held with stakeholders, the RN14 project, which was expected to be imple-mented over a 38-month period, eventually neces-sitated an additional 23-month period owing to late start-up caused notably by adjustments made to the project, as well as difficulties faced at project start-up by the project monitoring and implementation unit (PMIU). The delays in the implementation of the RN15 project (an 18-month time overrun) were due particu-larly to deficiencies in prior studies (preliminary and final design studies) as well as the average perfor-mance of the PMIU (delays in the processing of files and their poor quality).

In the area of economic governance, budget support projects were considered as the most efficient projects regarding implementation. Tranche disburse-ment schedules were generally adhered to, helping to ensure the predictability of assistance and facilitate budget and cash management. The efficiency of these projects improved during the evaluation period with the introduction of a programmatic approach. Conversely, the implementation of capacity building projects expe-rienced long delays. Concerning PAREG (2004–2011), for example, the time overrun (50 months) was mainly due to the programme’s extreme complexity with respect to the country’s capacity, but also inadequate Bank supervision (carried out once a year during the early years and twice a year from 2008).

The projects implemented in order to promote socio-economic reintegration and job crea-tion also encountered implementation difficulties which were reflected in the significant time overrun for reasons similar to those already mentioned (the need to review some technical aspects of projects or re-design projects based on information that was not available during design, delays in the establishment of project implementation entities; dysfunctions of project implementation monitoring units; lack of an effective supervision mission; public procurement delays; and delays in the disbursement of counter-part contributions).

Overall, the cost-benefit analyses of projects (virtu-ally all, except BS and institutional capacity building projects) show a fairly satisfactory outcome, indicat-ing that the profitability of such projects was deemed satisfactory, despite implementation difficulties.

The opening of the Burundi Country Office (BIFO) in 2012 contributed to significantly improving Bank performance, especially following the establishment by BIFO of a mechanism for close project monitor-ing, particularly through regular consultations with the country’s authorities, other TFPs and project imple-mentation units.

Policy Formulation Knowledge and Counselling

The Bank played an active role in policy dialogue on infrastructure and, particularly, the road sub-sector as well as in public management. It also sought to revive regional integration policy and programme dialogue. Analytical works contributed to facilitating this dialogue and improving the quality of national and sector strategies in these areas, with concrete repercussions on public action, even if the expected outcomes in terms of policies implemented were not fully achieved.

Note: in the absence of a main field mission, it was difficult to assess the quality of dialogue and the progress that it could stimulate.

Various dialogue, coordination and monitoring frame-works were established in Burundi between 2007 and 2008 to facilitate dialogue between the author-ities and donors (for example, the Partner Coordi-nation Group (PCG) or the Budget Support Special Partnership Framework). The effectiveness of this complex joint dialogue mechanism was called into question in various studies 23, as it was weakened by the technical capacity constraints of existing entities which were still not systematized, inadequately coor-dinated, and suffered from lack of Government lead-ership and too much or poorly oriented involvement


of actors. In such a context, the Bank prioritized bilat-eral channels and, notably, the institutional steering framework instituted together with the World Bank, as well as broad-based consultation of actors for CSP formulation. This enabled it to sustain dialogue with the Government and stakeholders, despite some difficulties resulting mainly from the absence of a Bank office in Burundi up to 2012.

AfDB was particularly active in dialogue on its main intervention pillars. In the road sector, TFPs main-tained permanent dialogue with the Government through the PCG, thereby fostering complementarity between the operations of key sector donors, namely AfDB, WB and EU. The Bank actively contributed within this framework to preparing and launching an infrastructure action plan in Burundi in September 2009. The plan is in line with the objective of turning Bujumbura into a “hub” in East Africa that will help to geographically open up the country by (i) connecting it to the sub-regional road network; (ii) implement-ing the Rwanda, Burundi and Tanzania railway plan; and (iii) renovating the Bujumbura port and building a multimodal logistics platform. Since the opening of BIFO in 2012, the Bank has reinforced its presence and has become leader in the infrastructure sector.

Regarding the implementation of economic policies and PFM reform, the Bank contributed, through vari-ous studies on the country’s economy and poverty, to building knowledge and strengthening the under-standing of economic policy stakes, and played an active role in dialogue on PFM through PARE II (2008–2009). Considered by Bank representatives as unequal, this technical dialogue on reforms was conducted within the partnership framework and following a bilateral logic, given the decline in the activity of the joint framework, especially since 2012.

The Bank has also been playing a leadership role in regional integration dialogue since 2012. Works have been carried out on this theme to specify the strategic orientations that the country could adopt, and recently through the study entitled “Leveraging

Regional Integration” (2013), notably on the private sector environment, but also by incorporating the regional dimension into sector studies such as the infrastructure action plan or domestic resource mobilization. The Bank has also been paying special attention to private sector promotion since 2012. It Bank contributed to establishing and operationaliz-ing the single private sector/public sector institutional consultation framework. The Bank also participated in the dialogue conducted within the Sector Group on Private Sector Development (SGPSD), notably by providing technical support to the Ministry of Trade which is in charge of coordination. This group helped, among other things, to formulate a national private sector development strategy which was validated in 2012, and steer reforms that have led to an improve-ment in Doing Business indicators.

The Bank is also engaged in dialogue with civil society, mostly during workshops organized to prepare CSPs or thematic forums. BIFO acknowledges that the Bank very rarely approaches civil society and should inten-sify interactions.

The Bank started dialogue on climate change issues and had planned a study entitled “Address-ing Climate Change, Challenges and Opportuni-ties” for the period 2012–2016 which has not been conducted to date.

Analytical works carried out were useful in improving cooperation with the country, particularly the quality of public policies, notably by: (i) supporting the prepa-ration of the full-ledged PRSP and the strategic docu-ment “Burundi Vision 2025”; (ii) fuelling dialogue with the Government on the economy’s short-term sensi-tivity to external shocks, regional integration chal-lenges and PFM reforms to be undertaken; and (iii) establishing a TFP-shared framework for infrastruc-ture operations (action plan) as well as developing the elements required for the policy on energy (master plan for generating, transporting and distributing elec-tric power) and on transport (development of maritime transport on Lake Tanganyika).

An ID

EV C

ount

ry S

trat

egy

Eval

uatio

n


Summary: Has the Bank Made a Difference in Burundi?

According to OECD data, the Bank occupied the 4th position among donors (excluding the IMF and the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria) in terms of volume of assistance granted over the period 2004–2013, but came far behind the IDA group, the EU, and Belgium (see Annex 5). The weight of the Bank however increased at the end of the period, particularly in 2012–2013, with amounts of financ-ing almost equal to those of Belgium and the EU.

The Bank contributed to improving a number of development factors in Burundi in a context which remained difficult throughout the period under review. First of all, the Bank contributed to reviving cooper-ation with Burundi, notably by mobilizing FSF Pillar 2 resources to pay arrears owed to the Bank. This enabled Burundi to normalize its relations with inter-national partners, and to reach the HIPC Initiative deci-sion point in August 2005 and, as a result, to benefit from debt alleviation which had a considerable long-term impact on macroeconomic stabilization. The

budget support which the Bank subsequently conti-nued to grant (with the exception of 2007) and that represented over 10% of total BS received by Burundi contributed to maintaining the fiscal space required to honour commitments made under national stra-tegic frameworks (notably regarding demobilization, education and health), while observing macro-budg-etary framework stability. The situation has, nonethe-less, deteriorated since 2011, with reduced BS and increased budgetary pressures.

The Bank was an active partner within the inter-national community in strengthening the institu-tional framework for formulating and implementing Government’s national and sector strategies as well as development assistance, particularly in the trans-port sector, and in developing a regional integration policy. Concerning governance and PFM, the Bank is, together with the EU and WB, among the partners engaged in dialogue with the Government on reform orientation and strategy implementation. Moreover, it was among the first partners, alongside WB, to focus on under-employment, especially among youths, and private sector development.

An ID

EV C

ount

ry S

trat

egy

Eval

uatio

n

45Findings: Performance-Based Management

Findings: Performance-Based Management

Development Results-Based Management

Bank operations (strategies and projects) included some of the key characteristics of robust results-based management:

❙ Country Strategy Papers (CSPs) explicitly focused on performance monitoring. These strategies systematically included a results-oriented frame-work establishing links between country objec-tives and the outcomes and outputs contained in the AfDB strategy. Most projects included a logi-cal framework (or matrix) which structurally sets out the outcomes targeted. Out of the 21 Bank projects in Burundi with available documentation, 20 had a logical framework.

❙ the surveillance systems on which the country portfolio is based are satisfactory and their use increased at the end of the evaluation period. Performance monitoring was carried out mainly through the two mid-term reviews of CSP 2008–2011 and CSP 2012–2016 which comprised port-folio reviews.

In contrast, the following characteristics of results-based management were not satisfactorily incorporated:

❙ the intervention logic and/or logical framework were not totally realistic or sufficiently buttressed in some projects and components of the strategy. For example, the contribution of the road infrastructure project (RN14) and the water supply infrastructure project (PREIHMR) to poverty reduction and/or the achievement of MDG targets was overestimated. Other institutional/budget support projects, espe-cially at the beginning of the period (3 programmes

– PAREG, PRCI, PARE I), were also not realistic.

❙ the Bank’s strategy and the projects did not systematically identify and reflect the lessons learned from previous operations, notably regard-ing their sustainability.

❙ the financial management systems did not func-tion effectively due to many problems, nota-bly: (i) inadequate staff strength and skills, and the absence of PIU performance contracts; (ii) inappropriate award and management of public contracts; (iii) faulty procurement planning and process; (iv) poor management of disbursements (and VAT payment); (v) poor accounting software parameterization and control; (vi) poor mastery and application of AfDB rules and procedures; and (vii) low national ownership (mobilization of counterpart contribution, preparation of quarterly reports, cash flow plans, etc.). Despite the support provided and the training organized, the situa-tion did not improve much and the observations were almost identical in the two mid-term reviews (2010 and 2014 respectively).

❙ during the period under review, many projects suffered from inadequate actor skills and involvement, on the part of both the Bank (for example, inadequate project supervision, late issuing of no-objection opinions, etc.) and the Government of Burundi.

Implementation of the Paris Declaration 24 and Principles for Engagement in Fragile States 25

In 2011, Burundi achieved only 3 of the 15 Paris Declaration 26 indicators. There was a decline between 2005 and 2010 with respect to the use of country public finance management systems (23%


of aid only), the establishment of parallel implemen-tation entities, the organization of joint missions and analytical works, as well as the use of common procedures or arrangements. The issues of trust, fiduciary risks and low national capacity were still major obstacles to the implementation of the princi-ples of the Paris Declaration.

The Bank seeks, as much as possible, to ensure alignment with country arrangements and the use of country public finance management and procurement systems. In contrast to other donors, the Bank continued to provide budget support in Burundi for the entire evaluation period. It also sought greater alignment and harmonization, despite the lingering weaknesses of country arrangements. In 2013, the Bank undertook, on an experimental basis, to use country procurement procedures for local competitive biddings (LCBs). The ongoing review of the Public Procurement Code and the local compe-titive bidding standard documents (LCBSDs), with assistance from the Bank, the World Bank and the Belgian Cooperation, will, in the long term, enable the use of the country procurement system. The Bank also entrusted the management of 14 out of 19 projects to existing entities within the oversight ministries.

The harmonization and coordination of opera-tions remains a challenge in Burundi. The entities established in 2005 and 2007 (PCG and Partner-ship Framework) helped to improve coordination and dialogue between the Government and partners, in any case, during the first years. However, there were lingering loopholes, as the mechanism was generally ineffective to address strategic problems, and func-tioned differently according to sector. As concerns PFM and BS, coordination between partners was quite limited despite the progress made in 2009–2010. It mainly consisted in exchanging informa-tion during the formulation phase, with few initiatives taken to establish and share common diagnoses. This resulted in inconsistencies in the indicators matrices adopted by donors, thereby causing the postpone-ment of disbursement of the second tranche of PARE V.

The Partnership Framework, in which the Bank parti-cipates, suffered from lack of steering at the high-est level, inappropriately targeted participation by the actors concerned as well as lack of preparation and monitoring of meetings.

It should be underscored that in Burundi, AfDB’s action is generally consistent with the principles for engagement in fragile States, notably the third (“Focus on State building as the central objective”), the ninth (“Act fast… but stay engaged long enough to give success a chance”), as well as the need for inclusiveness which guided successive CSPs.

Complementarity and Synergies

While, on the whole, there was continuity between actions and previous operations, occasional comple-mentarity and/synergies were, on the contrary, not adequately used, particularly in the area of economic governance and between national and international projects. Nonetheless, efforts were made at the end of the period to better coordinate institutional support.

There was strong complementarity between capacity building projects (PAREG and PRCI, especially) and BS programmes in the area of PFM and private sector development. Despite obvious synergies between these two forms of support, however, the projects were managed separately due notably to a difference in schedules and accumulated delays in implement-ing institutional support. In 2013, the Bank estab-lished an umbrella entity (PRECA) to oversee and ensure consistency between five capacity building projects set up at the same time.

In the area of infrastructure, consistency and comple-mentarity between investments were ensured by including the projects in a national action plan aligned on those of the other donors, as well as ensuring continuity in relation to the actions implemented under the previous CSPs (notably in the case of social and agro-environmental infrastructure).

An ID

EV C

ount

ry S

trat

egy

Eval

uatio

n

47Findings: Performance-Based Management

Leverage Effect

The Bank did not align its strategy with a large-scale resource mobilization logic to address the overall or sector challenges, or to replicate at a higher level the projects implemented, but its operations paved the way for more financing in many areas and helped the Government to mobilize additional resources for its development, notably by:

❙ contributing, through the use of FSF Pillar 2, to the payment of accumulated arrears owed to AfDB, thereby eventually enabling cancellation of a substantial portion of external public debt;

❙ participating in maintaining macroeconomic stability through amounts paid as BS (UA 48.3

million). Macroeconomic framework stabiliza-tion was an essential condition for continuing the development and national and international funds mobilization process;

❙ incorporating (particularly in PAREG and PARE V) measures designed to increase the State’s capacity to generate own resources, with posi-tive impacts at first, as tax revenue increased sharply from 2008 to 2011, before declining in 2012 and 2013;

❙ mobilizing additional resources to fully finance the operations included in some projects, the initial costs of which had been under-estimated (such as PREIEL), or partners to finance actions that had not been carried out (for example, PREIHMR).


Findings: Country Performance

The institutional context in which cooperation between AfDB and Burundi developed from 2004 to 2013 was marked by two periods: the period following the first presidential election in 2005 characterized by a constructive climate and the country’s commitment to implementing reforms on many social and economic fronts, and strengthening the framework for implemen-tation of international assistance; and the period which followed the second election in 2010 marked by a slow reform pace and slackening of dialogue and coordina-tion. The decline observed in 2010 and reflected by stagnation, after a significant improvement in the Mo Ibrahim Index relating to public management quality between 2005 and 2010, marked the beginning of a more difficult period which impacted reform ownership and the pursuing of PRSF objectives.

Many problems caused by national entities were observed in and affected the implementation of Bank projects. The irregular holding of meetings of the Inter-ministerial Portfolio Monitoring Committee

impeded efficient project implementation. The following obstacles were also underscored: (i) lack of knowledge and, in some cases, absence of inter-nal control of procedures within PIUs; (ii) the weak capacity of executing agencies to monitor and eval-uate project-related activities; (iii) the rotation of implementation teams and profile mismatch in the teams; and (iv) late payment of counterpart contri-butions. Although the Government included these counterpart contribution resources in the State budget at the time of project implementation, these resources were not provided to the projects in due time for various reasons.

The continuation of the benefits generated by AfDB operations is a serious long-term concern. It partly depends on Government action and, notably, its capacity to maintain macroeconomic stability and macro-budget framework sustainability, and PFM and governance system reform. In that connection, the dynamic started in 2012 is hardly reassuring.

An ID

EV C

ount

ry S

trat

egy

Eval

uatio

n

49Conclusion and Recommendations

Conclusion and Recommendations

Conclusion

The evaluation identified major challenges for the Bank’s future strategy in Burundi.

At the level of strategies and the portfolio

Although the strategies and the underlying change theory are deemed generally relevant, there were weaknesses in the initial analysis and the monitor-ing of fragility factors, the causes and interactions of which were not sufficiently understood, as well as in the effective consideration of these factors and the risks that they posed to the effectiveness and sustain-ability of operations. Major challenges, notably linked to weak capacity, were thus under-estimated.

In spite of a certain level of selectivity of priori-ties (infrastructure and governance), the portfo-lio showed dispersal of the rest of the activities in many sectors whose link with the strategy was not always clearly established. Its overall consistency was, therefore, affected.

Although the strategies recognized the importance of regional integration, and treated the issue as a cross-cutting theme, the Bank’s objectives in this area, where it has a comparative advantage, were not sufficiently explicit, neither was the manner in which country operations were aligned on this approach.

Upon resumption of cooperation and in the prevailing post-conflict context, the Bank focused on short-term reintegration and job-creation, especially for vulner-able persons (youths and women). This produced significant impacts on income distribution. The Bank

subsequently shifted the focus of its projects to more medium-term anchor infrastructure. In a country where the monetary poverty prevalence rate among the population is still close to 65%, and where pros-pects for economic activities and employment are very limited, the objectives of creating “immediate” jobs are, nevertheless, still totally legitimate.

Lastly, the consideration of the environmental chal-lenge stemmed from the need to observe procedures in the area, but was not sufficiently targeted at strate-gic development opportunities.

At the implementation level

The sustainability of achievements and outcomes is a serious concern in Burundi. It is linked to financial constraints in maintaining and servicing the facili-ties built at the various implementation levels, even though mechanisms were provided for in some cases, and to institutional insecurity. The poor quality at entry assessment of projects due notably to the lack of data and information on the existing situation in a coun-try emerging from 10 years of civil war partly explains why the resources needed to ensure economic viability were not sufficiently taken into consideration. In addi-tion, there was the issue of ownership, by the enti-ties concerned, of the constructed facilities and, in the case of governance projects, the reforms implemented.

Implementation delays were recurrent (except for BS programmes which were disbursed in time, thereby ensuring aid predictability). Such delays were partly due to poor quality at entry assessment of operations, which led to readjustments, and to the low technical capacity of project executing entities.


At the level of the Paris Declaration Principles

The Bank played an active role in implementing dialogue and aid coordination arrangements. However, the mechanism established at the national level did not function as expected, with conse-quences on the level of complementarity and syner-gies in aid allocated by donors, notably in the area of governance and PFM.

The Bank pursued a strategy of alignment with country systems, contrary to disengagement from budget support by many donors owing to the linger-ing high fiduciary risk. On the whole, the use of public finance management and procurement systems by donors, however, declined in the country between 2007 and 2010.

State institutional capacity building, in particular, was a constant concern and the amounts of financing specifically allocated for this objective were substan-tial (close to 5% of the country portfolio for the eval-uation period). The Bank systematically sought to consolidate the capacity to formulate and implement policies and programmes in its thrust areas. There is visible progress, but the system is still generally weak and very fragile.

Recommendations

More explicitly include regional integration and inclusive growth objectives in the strategy, and ensure that they are reflected in the portfolio of operations and mainstreamed into national policies.

The next country strategy should more explicitly incor-porate regional integration objectives which are a Bank priority in Burundi. It is a cross-cutting theme with implications in many sectors, but the objective must also be in line with an explicit and coherent approach for updating the legislative framework and strengthening trade within the East African Commu-nity (EAC). Making these objectives more explicit will help the Bank to integrate multi-national projects more coherently in its strategy.

At the same time, balance between anchor infrastruc-ture projects (roads, electricity) and basic infrastruc-ture projects designed to create jobs in the short term should be reconsidered. In a country where poverty is still very widespread and almost generalized in some provinces, and in a context where under-employment, especially among youths, is a major concern, laying emphasis on operations that help to combine imme-diate jobs (notably through labour-intensive works) and long-term development is a necessity. The Bank has experience in this area, but must reinforce the

“long-term development of income-generating activ-ities” component.

In that connection, the evaluation has shown that designing anchor infrastructure projects compris-ing a main activity and related activities (opening up through rural roads, development of minor infra-structure, etc.) is an approach that produces posi-tive outcomes for the local population and should be continued by giving the same importance to the two components.

Better mainstream environmental issues into strategies and operations in the context of infrastructure and agricultural projects, clearly gearing them towards the inclusion and strengthening of factors of resilience to climate change.

The evaluation has highlighted some weaknesses in taking environmental challenges into consideration, especially concerning measures adopted by infra-structure projects to reduce environmental impacts. Moreover, Burundi’s special environmental condi-tions and recent trends require more systematic vigilance to climate change threats and risks to the integrity of infrastructure and production factors in rural areas. In that connection, it is recommended that the next CSP should pay greater attention to these challenges by buttressing them with in-depth analytical works, in collaboration with international partners specialized in the field.

In addition, the Country Office could include staff specifically trained in these issues to strengthen the cross-cutting consideration of these challenges in the

An ID

EV C

ount

ry S

trat

egy

Eval

uatio

n

51Conclusion and Recommendations

strategy and in operations, as well as their monitor-ing and evaluation. The consideration of these envi-ronmental challenges should contribute to working towards “green growth” and building the resilience of the country through adapted facilities and of the beneficiary communities by promoting agro-ecology and ecosystem-based services.

Continue to carry out analytical works to inform the formulation and implementation of policies and strategies by focusing on issues relating to inclusive growth, gender, vulnerability and the development of economic activities in order to promote the development of integrated markets within EAC.

Institutional support should remain a major prior-ity geared towards strengthening the formulation of coherent policies and strategies, their updating and monitoring in Bank-supported sectors. The eval-uation has shown that analytical works are useful and contribute to strengthening the Government and partner intervention framework. These works may be entrusted to external experts, in association with local research teams. Among the themes to be treated, those concerning social integration mecha-nisms, social and/or community and gender equality issues, the promotion of endogenous growth zones as well as green growth and investment opportunities in the area could be used to formulate action plans. The recommendations of the 2011 Gender Study should be taken into account in the short term, and the updat-ing of this study, which was planned in the mid-term review of CSP 2012–2016, should be conducted as soon as the political situation improves.

Play a key and more active role in reviving dialogue on governance and public finance management as well as private sector development issues.

The strengthening of coordination/consultation between partners working for governance and public finance management is essential in Burundi’s fragility context. A concerted approach should be established to develop joint analysis and monitoring tools and to ensure coherence in BS programmes, be it at the level

of the amounts of financing granted, disbursement periods or capacity building actions.

The Bank can further play a leading role in reviving joint dialogue on budget support which should primar-ily concern the maintenance of macroeconomic and macro-budget framework stability in particular, the sustainability of the policies implemented as well as PFM and economic governance reform. This high-level framework steered by the Ministry of Finance requires that the mandate given to Reforms Monitor-ing and Support Unit (CSAR) and the technical and human resources placed at its disposal should be specified. The establishment of a common WB and EU fund to provide technical support for implementing PFM reform and reinforcing the administration could be envisaged in that connection.

Continue to implement budget support operations while ensuring the economic and financial viability of the investments made and the policies implemented by the Government and coordinating (in particular) the investment projects financed with internal and external resources.

The evaluation has shown that budget support has had significant impacts on macroeconomic stability and on reforms, although such impacts fell short of those expected initially. The use of this method is still recommended in fragility situations and in the case of Burundi, as the country’s current instability and polit-ical stalemates will be addressed. In fact, BS remains a privileged instrument for working on the budget-ary framework and building the State to consolidate coherence in all the policies and ensure their sustain-ability in the medium term. In that connection, special attention should be paid to the resources to be allo-cated to ensure the financial viability of investments.

Support the establishment of a system to monitor and evaluate strategies and programmes implemented in the country.

The report has highlighted the difficulty in assessing the contribution of operations to strategic objectives.


In fragility situations, it is an important and essen-tial stake in turning CSPs into more operational tools. This requires the setting of objectives for short- and long-term strategies and projects. One of the avenues to be explored would be the systematic use

of the various change theories developed by sector and for some cross-cutting issues such as gender, in order to adopt a common framework that can be used to define strategies and ensure their steering and ex-post evaluation.

Annexes


Annex 1: Methodological ApproachIt was not possible to organize even a light field mission for data collection, given Burundi’s difficult political and security situation. However, the preparatory mission organized in April 2015 and a workshop organized in Abidjan from 17 to 19 November 2015 enabled the holding of discussions with Country Office staff as well as a number of Burundian stakeholders (see list in Table 1.c). Moreover, two project visits – PABV and PREIHMR – were undertaken by a local consultant between 17 and 21 December 2015.

On the whole, the evaluative approach comprised the two main analysis levels: the strategic (overall) level and the operational (operations) level.

Overall Level (Country Strategies)

Contribution Analysis

The analytical approach adopted for this evaluation is the contribution analysis. It was the starting point for (re)building the change theory of Bank assistance in Burundi during the period 2004–2013. The change theory has a high heuristic potential in that it summarily and systematically highlights the logical causal links between the various levels of intervention and outcomes (outputs, effect and impact). The analysis mainly sought to check to what extent Bank assistance contributed to achieving expected outcomes through more general action frame-works, namely: Bank priorities and national development priorities and policies.

Evaluation focus on immediate and intermediate outcome levels

Under this results-based evaluation, focus was on outcomes analysis at the output level and at the level of immediate and intermediate effects. It was with much difficulty and only where robust data sources existed that outcomes at the higher level (impact) could be recorded.

Country and sector analysis grid

The main tool for collecting relevant information and analysing outcomes at the strategic level was the specific grid (Country Template) developed by IDEV. It fed the Bank’s overall assessment of development results (OADR).

Moreover, the evaluation team mobilized an internal working tool which established an analysis of the country’s key sectors where AfDB operations were concentrated. This analysis was conducted mainly on a documentary basis, as well as by holding, as much as possible, discussions with some stakeholders during the Abidjan Work-shop (17 to 19 November 2015).

57Annexes

An ID

EV C

ount

ry S

trat

egy

Eval

uatio

n

At The Level of Operations (Evaluation of Project Outcomes)

Project selection approach

Project selection was conducted by IDEV during the study start-up phase using defined criteria (mainly completed projects or projects with a sufficiently high disbursement rate for achieving outcomes) to determine projects eligible for results assessment (PRA).

The projects that were preceded by an in-depth study had the following features:

❙ They represented 32% (UA 156.6 million) of the total budget for operations in Burundi approved between 2004 and 2013.

❙ They covered 6 out of the 10 AfDB intervention sectors in Burundi and in the region during the period 2004–2013, namely: Multi-sector, Transport, Social, Water and Sanitation, Agriculture and Energy. The Finance, Environment, Communications and Urban Development sectors were not covered by the sample.

❙ At the level of intervention mechanisms, the projects that underwent PRA only mobilized the African Devel-opment Fund (FAD) (58% of total) and the Fragile States Fund (FEF) (42%). This reflected the importance of the first two instruments at the overall portfolio level (they represented 86% of the total budget allocated to Burundi for the period).

The projects that were not yet mature and/or that were not included in the analysis due to their size or their imple-mentation level underwent an analysis of their links with Bank country strategies.


Reporting PhaseData Collection

and Analysis PhaseStartup Phase

Response to Evaluation Issues – Findings and Conclusions

Data Col-lection and Assumptions

Further Infor-mation

Structuring into Sub-issues

Evaluation Issues

Indicators

Summary and RecommendationsResponse Elements

Crosscheck-ing and Verification

1. Inventory of available information and documentation review

2. Context analysis and rebuilding the change theory

3. Structuring evaluation issues and preparing evaluation framework

4. Detailed inventory of operations and sampling

5. Preparatory mission to Burundi

6. Preparation and testing of tools collected

1. Analysis of relevant documents and literature

2. Distance Evaluation:

(a) Telephone conversations

(b) Video-conferences

(c) Site visit (6) PABV and (4) PREIHMR by a local expert in Burundi between 7 and 21 December 2015

1. Incorporation of results – summary of information by indicator, analysis by sub-issue, preliminary response

2. Triangulation of information and checking of validity

3. Conclusions and recommendations

❙ Summary note on documentary review

❙ Baseline “change theory” framework

❙ Information collection and analysis grid

❙ Start-up report

❙ Evaluation grid systematically filled and targeted – preliminary responses and assumptions to be checked

❙ Comparison of information with field reality – reports

❙ Provisional technical report

❙ Final summary report

Information and discussion sessions with AfDB stakeholders (including preparatory mission)

Presentation of the approach to AfDB at the begining of the workshop in Abidjan, discussions with stakeholders, structured end-of-workshop discussions

Discussion sessions on provisional technical summary report, PRAs and OADR

1.a Evaluation Issues

59Annexes

An ID

EV C

ount

ry S

trat

egy

Eval

uatio

n

1.b Evaluation Issues

Issues Criteria

QE1 – Relevance of assistance in a context of fragility and transition to greater resilience

❙ AfDB strategy and fragility context analysis ❙ Adapting assistance to trends in fragility factors ❙ Addressing fragility factors and building resilience

QE2 – Aligning portfolio with Bank strategy and innovative practices ❙ Aligning operations with Bank general priorities ❙ Taking into consideration new priority objectives: inclusive green growth ❙ Adapting instruments and methods to better address needs

QE3 – Inclusiveness of Bank operations Social sector project effectivenessIncorporation of a cross-cutting concern in strategies and operations in the areas of: ❙ gender equality ❙ youth employment ❙ regional disparities

QE4 – Economic infrastructure and growth stimulation ❙ Economic infrastructure objectives defined and outcomes achieved ❙ Economic infrastructure outcomes achieved ❙ Impact on economic growth

QE5 – Strengthening governance ❙ Economic governance objectives defined and outcomes achieved ❙ Impact on economic governance, PFM and business climate

QE6 – Outcomes sustainability Sustainability of outcomes achieved in the areas of: ❙ economic infrastructure ❙ economic governance

QE7 – Target beneficiaries/groups ❙ Definition of target groups ❙ Perceived impact of operations on target groups

QE8 – Environmental sustainability and transition to green growth ❙ Incorporation of environmental concerns and transition to green growth into: • the strategy • operations ❙ Main achievements of environmental concern incorporation measures

QE9 – Efficiency of operations ❙ Appraisal of portfolio efficiency ❙ Adapting financial instruments to the specific needs of fragile States ❙ Role of the opening of Bank Country Office in portfolio efficiency

QE10 – Observance of timing and operational standards ❙ Duration of operations and consistency with objectives ❙ Level of decision-making process efficiency

QE11 – CSP quality ❙ Needs assessment and strategic alignment ❙ Bank strategic positioning and comparative advantage ❙ Monitoring and evaluation, consideration of risks and

mitigation measures

QE12 – Selectivity ❙ Origin and content of the selectivity principle ❙ Strategic selectivity ❙ Operational selectivity

QE13 – Coordination and synergies Complementarity and synergy between operations in the following areas: ❙ capacity building ❙ public finance management ❙ infrastructure ❙ analytical works with the other Bank operations

QE14 – Policy dialogue ❙ Involvement in policy dialogue with the Government and the other partners

❙ Mechanisms for dialogue with national and international actors ❙ Trends in and achievements of policy dialogue with national and

international actors


QE15 – Analytical works ❙ Justification and outcomes of scheduled analytical works ❙ Justification and outcomes of unscheduled analytical works ❙ Impacts of analytical works on the Bank’s image among stakeholders

and on policy dialogue with them

QE16 – Implementation of the Paris Declaration and the principles for engagement in fragile States

❙ Compliance with the principles for engagement in fragile States ❙ Bank contribution to implementing the Paris Declaration

QE17 – Leveraging other resources ❙ Decisive nature of Bank operations for resuming cooperation ❙ Leveraging other resources generated by Bank operations in the

areas of: • economic governance • infrastructure

QE18 – Performance management strategy ❙ Reflection of the performance requirement in: • strategies • operations

1.b Evaluation Issues (Continuation)

61Annexes

An ID

EV C

ount

ry S

trat

egy

Eval

uatio

n

No. Name

1 Burundi Rural Water Agency

2 Burundi Rural Water Agency/Management

3 Burundi Public Works Agency – ABUTIP

4 Japanese International Cooperation Agency

5 Public Procurement Regulatory Agency – ARMP

6 World Bank

7 Burundi Country Office – BIFO

8 Reforms Monitoring and Support Unit of the Ministry of Finance – CSAR

9 Project Implementation Units

10 Federal Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Burundi

11 Civil Society Coalition for Election Monitoring – COSOME

12 Gitanga Council, Rutana Province

13 Belgian Technical Cooperation Agency (BTC)

14 Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit– GIZ

15 International Monetary Fund – IMF

16 Forum for Strengthening Civil Society in Burundi – FORSC

17 Burundi Institute of Statistics and Economics

18 Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock

19 Ministry of Public Health and the Fight Against AIDS

20 Ministry of Energy and Mines

21 Ministry of Finance and Economic Development Planning

22 Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Equipment

23 Ministry of Trade, Industry, Posts and Tourism

24 Anti-corruption and Economic Malpractice Observatory – OLUCOME

25 Press Observatory

26 Government Action Observatory – OAG Burundi

27 Burundi Revenue Authority (OBR)

28 Burundi Environmental Protection Authority

29 Roads Authority (OdR)

30 Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations – FAO

31 United Nations Development Programme – UNDP

32 REGIDESO

33 Council Water Authority

34 Executive Secretariat of the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region

35 AfDB Services – OITC; ORTS; OSHD

36 Twitezimbere ASBL, Community Development

37 European Union

1. c. List of Entities Involved in Discussions


Annex 2: Change TheoryThe overall objective was to stimulate strong, sustainable and job-creating economic growth for inclusive devel-opment, based generally on two pillars, namely: (1) basic and economic development infrastructure (rural areas, roads, electricity, etc.) and (2) economic governance.

The operations under the “Infrastructure” Pillar concerned the rehabilitation of basic social infrastructure (drink-ing water supply and sanitation, health, etc.), agricultural facilities and support to rural areas, road infrastructure improvement as well as the establishment or rehabilitation/extension of electric power infrastructure (including those with a regional dimension). It entailed ensuring socio-economic reintegration by creating jobs and deve-loping skills; stimulating rural economic development and improving living conditions, while preserving the envi-ronment; improving access to infrastructure; and stimulating corporate competitiveness.

The key assumptions and major risks under the “Infrastructure Pillar” concerned:

❙ appropriate sizing and overall design of infrastructure by ensuring overall consistency and integration;

❙ effective use of such infrastructure;

❙ the adapted nature of support for needs and conditions in rural areas which meet the two-fold competitiveness and sustainability challenge;

❙ another assumption, mainly for water, agricultural and road infrastructure, and, to a certain extent, electric power infrastructure, is the capacity to keep mechanisms in good condition and/or ensure their resilience to extreme events, which implies proper upkeep (maintenance) and predictability.

63Annexes

An ID

EV C

ount

ry S

trat

egy

Eval

uatio

n

The “Economic Governance” Pillar concerned the establishment of an efficient and transparent administration, as well as governance improvement which is conducive to business development and growth. This pillar was hinged on two components, namely reform and institutional capacity building support, and economic reform support (including through general budget support). It mainly concerned the successful implementation of a set of reforms. The success of these reforms in contributing to creating a growth-friendly environment depended on a set of internal and external assumptions/risks, namely:

❙ Government commitment;

❙ the existence of constructive dialogue between the stakeholders at all levels;

❙ an effective economic and institutional framework that ensures efficient resource management (budget, staff, planning, etc.);

❙ a conducive international and regional economic context (cost of raw materials, regional stability, etc.);

❙ the existence of dynamic and transparent enterprises to exploit economic development opportunities;

❙ a stable political and social climate which fosters the improvement of the security situation.


Infrastructure is used (access, frequency of use) and links ensured

Conditions for sustainable use are ensured

The competitiveness and sustainability of agricultural areas are reinforced

Infrastructure is properly sized and designated (integration and coherence)

Agricultural development outputs are adapted to the needs and conditions of rural areas

Infrastructure is established (labour force mobilised) and used, its maintenance is ensured

The required adapted inputs are supplied for rural development

❙ Job creation and socio-economic integration (ex-servicemen, war victims, youths)

❙ Labour force capacity building

❙ Job opportunity (PW)

❙ Vulnerable group support

❙ Basic infrastructure reconstruction

❙ Vocational training

Integration/ job-creation projects

Rehabilitation of basic infrastructure employment prog. support

❙ Improved soil management/protection

❙ Increased arable land

❙ Land heritage protection

❙ Dev. of women’s IGAs

❙ Development of irrigation

❙ Access to/management of water sanit. services

Rural area projects

Development of water catchments (envir.); agropastoralism, rehabilitation of water facilities; rural and agricultural dev.

❙ Improved road infrastructure (rural roads, national roads)

Road infrastructure projects

Kicukiro-Kirundo; Nyamitanga-Mwityoza, Gitega-Ngozi; Corridor RN3 and RN13

❙ Development of national and regional electricity infrastructure

❙ Increased supply of and accessibility to energy

Electricity infrastructure projects

Rehabilitation – extension, interconnection; hydroelectricity

❙ Productivity diversification, improvement

❙ Increased production

❙ Increased farmer income

❙ Sustainable water and soil management

❙ Links between production-consumption

❙ Improved access to infrastructure (social, roads, electricity network)

❙ Improved business competitiveness

Effect

IMPACTStimulate Strong, Sustainable and Job-creating Economic Growth for Inclusive Development

Financial and non-financial INPUTS (dialogue, expertise, etc)

Output Output Output Output

Effect Effect

Assumption P1

65Annexes

An ID

EV C

ount

ry S

trat

egy

Eval

uatio

n

Political and social stability, improved security situation

Favourable international and regiuonal economic context

Effective economic and institutional framework efficiency managing budget resources

Enterprises identify economic opportunities and use them transparently

Consecutive dialogue and transparent interactions between the business-social world and the Government

Government embarks on reforms

❙ Reinforced control entities

❙ Economic and structural reforms – liberalisation, diversification of productive base budgetary discipline

❙ PFM reforms

❙ Creation-improvement – training macroecon. management instruments and capacity

❙ Capacity building – statistics, HR

❙ Corruption control

❙ Institutional building, decentralisation

❙ Private sector promotion

❙ Improved operational efficiency of the public administration (HR management, planning reforms)

Reform support and institutional capacity building projects

(key administrations)

❙ Improved economic governance – macro-economic consolidation and efficient budget public procurement and control systems regional integration dynamic private sector

Economic reforms support programmes

PAREG I, II and PARE I to V (ABG)

IMPACTStimulate Strong, Sustainable and Job-creating Economic Growth for Inclusive Development

Financial and non-financial INPUTS (dialogue, expertise, etc)

Output

Effect Effect

Assumption P2


Anne

x 3:

Lis

t of O

pera

tions

200

4–20

15

SAP

Code

Proj

ect N

ame

Appr

oval

Dat

eFu

nds

Mob

ilize

dNe

t Loa

n/Gr

ant (

UA)

Sect

or/

Coun

try

or M

ulti.

or

Exc

l. Lo

an

Sect

or/

Over

all

Agric

ultu

re10

,061

,233

4%2%

P-BI

-AA0

-011

Emer

genc

y Ai

d Ki

rund

o &

Muy

inga

28/0

6/05

SRF

354,

271

P-BI

-AA0

-010

Deve

lopm

ent o

f Wat

er C

atch

men

ts (P

ABV)

01/0

3/06

ADF

8,99

8,42

1

P-BI

-AAZ

-001

Emer

genc

y Hu

man

itaria

n ai

d –

Confl

ict

02/0

4/09

SRF

354,

271

P-BI

-AAZ

-002

Hum

anita

rian

Aid

Clim

ate

Haza

rds

02/0

4/09

SRF

354,

271

Envi

ronm

ent

8,41

2,30

84%

2%

P-BI

-C00

-001

Basi

ns D

evel

opm

ent P

roje

ct (P

ABVA

R)22

/04/

13FS

F/GE

F8,

412,

308

Mul

ti-Se

ctor

72,2

60,7

9630

%13

%

P-BI

-KF0

-001

PRCI

– In

stitu

tiona

l Cap

acity

Bui

ldin

g Pr

ojec

t07

/07/

04AD

F2,

130,

000

P-BI

-KA0

-001

PARG

E –

Econ

omic

Ref

orm

s Su

ppor

t/Sup

port

A08

/12/

04AD

F8,

214,

886

P-BI

-KA0

-002

PARE

I –

Econ

omic

Ref

orm

s Su

ppor

t Pro

gram

me

08/1

1/06

ADF

7,30

0,00

0

P-BI

-K00

-006

PARE

II –

Eco

nom

ic R

efor

ms

Supp

ort

25/1

1/08

FSF

12,0

00,0

00

Recr

uitm

ent o

f Mac

ro-e

cono

mic

For

ecas

t and

Ana

lysis

Expe

rt10

/11/

09FS

F33

0,73

9

TA M

inis

try o

f Pla

nnin

g an

d Re

cons

truct

ion

11/1

1/09

FSF

486,

044

P-BI

-K00

-007

PARE

III –

Eco

nom

ic R

efor

ms

Supp

ort P

rogr

amm

e19

/05/

10FS

F10

,000

,000

P-BI

-K00

-008

PARE

IV –

Eco

nom

ic R

efor

ms

Supp

ort P

rogr

amm

e IV

26/0

5/11

FSF

7,00

0,00

0

P-BI

-K00

-009

PARE

V –

Eco

nom

ic R

efor

ms

Supp

ort P

rogr

amm

e11

/07/

12FS

F12

,000

,000

P-BI

-K00

-010

PRCG

F09

/11/

12FS

F1,

244,

681

P-BI

-K00

-011

PADS

P09

/11/

12FS

F88

4,73

0

P-BI

-KF0

-004

MO&

PS D

ata

Colle

ctio

n Ca

paci

ty B

uild

ing

09/1

1/12

FSF

400,

920

P-BI

-KF0

-002

Empl

oym

ent a

md

Entre

pren

euria

l Ins

t. Ca

paci

ty B

uild

ing

12/1

1/12

FSF

1,34

7,79

6

67Annexes

An ID

EV C

ount

ry S

trat

egy

Eval

uatio

n

P-BI

-KF0

-003

Pove

rty M

&E S

tatis

tics

Capa

city

Bui

ldin

g12

/11/

12FS

F1,

921,

000

P-BI

-KA0

-005

PARG

E I

18/1

2/14

FSF

7,00

0,00

0

Pow

er21

,598

,459

9%4%

P-BI

-FA0

-002

Elec

trica

l Pow

er In

frast

ruct

ure

Reha

bil.

and

Exte

n.05

/07/

07AD

F7,

258,

459

P-BI

-FA0

-100

JIJI

Mul

embw

e Hy

dro-

Elec

tric

Pow

er P

roje

ct23

/06/

14FS

F14

,340

,000

Soci

al19

,197

,079

8%4%

P-BI

-IE0-

002

Mul

ti-Se

ctor

Rei

nteg

ratio

n Pr

ojec

t13

/12/

04AD

F8,

488,

537

P-BI

-IE0-

003

Job-

Crea

tion

Proj

ect

24/0

6/09

ADF

10,0

00,0

00

P-BI

-IZ0-

003

Emer

genc

y As

sist

ance

to V

ictim

s of

V F

lood

s02

/04/

14SR

F70

8,54

1

Tran

spor

t94

,460

,000

40%

17%

P-BI

-DB0

-015

Gite

ga-N

yang

ungu

-Ngo

zi Pr

ojec

t Pha

se 1

27/0

9/10

SRF

24,1

00,0

00

P-BI

-DB0

-016

Gite

ga-N

gozi

Proj

ect P

hase

229

/06/

11AD

F/SR

F42

,000

,000

P-BI

-DB0

-017

Mak

ebuk

o –

Ruyig

i Roa

d Pr

ojec

t Pha

se18

/12/

13AD

F8,

940,

000

P-BI

-DB0

-018

RN 1

8 Ny

akar

aro-

Mw

aro-

Gite

ga P

hase

124

/09/

14AD

F19

,420

,000

Urba

n De

velo

pmen

t35

4,27

10.

1%0.

1%

P-BI

-J00

-001

Buju

mbu

ra M

arke

t Em

erge

ncy

Assi

stan

ce10

/07/

13SR

F35

4,27

1

Wat

er S

up/S

anit

11,2

63,1

485%

2%

P-BI

-EA0

-004

Reha

bilit

atio

n an

d Ex

tens

ion

Proj

ect

14/1

2/05

ADF

11,2

63,1

48

A. T

otal

Nat

iona

l Pro

ject

s23

7,60

7,29

310

0%44

%

Agric

ultu

re19

,980

,000

7%4%

P-Z1

-AAF

-003

Lake

Tan

gany

ika

Deve

lopm

ent P

rog.

(Bur

undi

)17

/11/

04AD

F4,

960,

000

P-Z1

-AB0

-005

Buge

sera

Rur

al D

evel

opm

ent P

roje

ct (B

urun

di)

25/0

9/09

ADF

15,0

20,0

00

Com

mun

icat

ions

10,2

73,8

513%

2%

P-Z1

-GB0

-008

Eass

y Pr

ojec

t12

/09/

07Af

DB10

,273

,851

Anne

x 3:

Lis

t of O

pera

tions

200

4–20

15 (C

ontin

uatio

n)


Envi

ronm

ent

6,10

3,89

42%

1%

P-Z1

-C00

-038

E Tr

aini

ng E

xten

sion

Pro

gram

me

Supp

ort

19/0

5/11

CBFF

6,10

3,89

4

Fina

nce

35,4

27,0

7312

%7%

P-Z1

-HAA

-016

PTA

Bank

2nd

Lin

e of

Cre

dit &

TA

Supp

ort

12/0

3/08

FAPS

A35

,427

,073

Mul

ti-Se

ctor

14,7

50,0

005%

3%

P-Z1

-K00

-012

Stat

istic

al C

apac

ity B

uild

ing

ICP-

Afric

a08

/09/

04AD

F14

,750

,000

Pow

er42

,056

,532

14%

8%

P-Z1

-FA0

-034

Nels

ap In

terc

onne

ctio

n Pr

ojec

t – B

urun

di27

/11/

08AD

F15

,150

,000

P-Z1

-FAD

-007

Regi

onal

Rus

umo

Hydr

opow

er –

Bur

undi

21/1

1/13

EU-A

ITF

26,9

06,5

32

Soci

al29

,000

,000

10%

5%

P-Z1

-IBE-

006

APOC

(PHA

SE II

I)15

/07/

08AD

F15

,000

,000

P-Z1

-IZ0-

008

MDR

TSP

Mul

ti-Co

untry

Dem

obiliz

& R

eint

e25

/02/

09AD

F14

,000

,000

Tran

spor

t14

2,80

0,00

047

%26

%

P-Z1

-DB0

-037

Kicu

kiro

– K

irund

o Ro

ad P

roje

ct20

/09/

06AD

F15

,300

,000

P-Z1

-DB0

-047

Nyam

itang

a-Ru

hwa-

Nten

dezi-

Mw

it Ya

zo R

oad

16/1

2/08

ADF

100,

000,

000

P-Z1

-DB0

-073

Mul

tinat

iona

l (Bu

rund

i-Rw

anda

): Pr

ojec

t D27

/06/

12AD

F27

,500

,000

Wat

er S

up/S

anit

616,

394

0.2%

0.1%

P-Z1

-EAZ

-019

Gret

Lac

s Rw

eru,

Cyo

haha

Et M

ar. A

kany

ar22

/12/

09AW

F61

6,39

4

B. T

OTAL

Mul

tinat

iona

l Pro

ject

s30

1,00

7,74

610

0%55

%

Wat

er S

up/S

anit

384,

246

7%0.

1%

P-BI

-EAZ

-002

Form

ulat

ion

of W

ater

Man

agem

ent P

lan

01/0

9/06

WFE

384,

246

Pow

er2,

985,

210

56%

0.5%

P-Z1

-FAB

-006

Stud

y on

Rus

umo

Ener

gy T

rans

porta

tion

Line

s27

/10/

06AD

F2,

571,

210

P-BI

-F00

-003

Prod

uctio

n M

aste

rpla

n Pr

ojec

t, TR

A30

/04/

14FS

F41

4,00

0

Anne

x 3:

Lis

t of O

pera

tions

200

4–20

15 (C

ontin

uatio

n)

69Annexes

An ID

EV C

ount

ry S

trat

egy

Eval

uatio

n

Anne

x 3:

Lis

t of O

pera

tions

200

4–20

15 (C

ontin

uatio

n)

Agric

ultu

re D

R29

8,89

76%

0.1%

P-BI

-AB0

-001

Buge

sera

PPF

Inte

grat

ed R

ural

Dev

elop

men

t27

/12/

08AD

F29

8,89

7

Tran

spor

t1,

670,

000

31%

0.3%

P-Z1

-DB0

-060

DSM

-Isak

a-Ki

ga/K

eza-

M R

ailw

ay P

hase

217

/11/

09AD

F1,

670,

000

C. T

otal

Ope

ratio

ns, E

xclu

ding

Loa

n5,

338,

353

100%

1.0%

Gran

d To

tal (

A+B+

C)54

3,95

3,39

2


Annex 4: Level of Bank Contribution to Fragility Factors

Impact Identifiable Contribution Level of Contribution to Impact

Positive and stable growth Road infrastructure projects, including those with a sub-regional dimensionRural area projects, opening upBusiness climate and private sector development

High

Greater mobilization of State resources (domestic and external) and enhancement of its credibility

Budget support (PARE I to IV)Institutional support (PAREG and PRCIFSF projects ❙ budget process streamlining and transparency ❙ Cash flow management and

computerization of expenditure chain ❙ Operationalization of the Audit Bench ❙ Functioning support and MT vision

(Burundi 2025)

High. Contribution to greater mobilization of State revenue, although PFM system quality has not improved in a real significant manner (see PEFA and governance indicators)

Re-establishment of relations with TFPs Payment of arrearsPolicy dialogueAnalytical works and coordination (leadership in the transport and regional integration sectors by the end of the evaluation period)

High

Access to basic services, improvement of public services and community structures

Improved access to electricity, drinking water, markets, educational services and health in some provincesRevision of the public procurement system – ARMPODR-community association partnership for road development and maintenance

Moderate. Contribution to improving access to services

Stabilization and social integration Reintegration of persons demobilized at the end of armed conflictSources of income assured through social projects during transition periodFocus on under-employment, especially among youths (one of first TFPs with WB)

Moderate. Satisfactory outcomes, but poor beneficiary targeting and low job sustainability potential

Management of natural resources and agro-ecology

Access to drinking water (PREIHMR)Development of water catchments as specific project (PABV) and as component of a social project

Low. (sustainability not assured)

71Annexes

An ID

EV C

ount

ry S

trat

egy

Eval

uatio

n

Anne

x 5:

Offi

cial

Dev

elop

men

t Ass

ista

nce

to B

urun

di

PAC

to B

urun

di

by D

onor

Typ

e20

0420

0520

0620

0720

0820

0920

1020

1120

1220

13To

tal/

Dono

r%

per

Do

nor

% p

er

Dono

r by

Assis

tance

Ty

pe

DAC

Coun

try

Bila

tera

l Ass

ista

nce

Tota

l

67.7

364

.55

98.5

711

7.85

158.

516

1.75

212.

4817

8.42

164.

2518

4.82

1408

.92

35.3

8%10

0.00

%

Belg

ium

12.8

916

.35

25.9

714

.26

40.2

531

.12

41.3

946

.91

45.8

650

.25

325.

258.

17%

23.0

9%

Unite

d St

ates

10.0

612

.56

17.7

711

.79

13.1

16.3

928

.02

21.3

121

.59

21.1

917

3.78

4.36

%12

.33%

Neth

erla

nds

7.57

4.94

12.5

17.9

924

.52

15.8

218

.96

18.3

916

.06

29.6

516

6.4

4.18

%11

.81%

Norw

ay5.

073.

916.

7522

.06

26.3

728

.86

19.9

914

.14

10.5

910

.48

148.

223.

72%

10.5

2%

Germ

any

3.14

2.98

5.5

9.03

10.2

715

.13

21.8

124

.47

18.4

19.6

513

0.38

3.27

%9.

25%

Japa

n0.

160.

320.

846.

497.

6516

.69

31.6

112

.22

25.6

924

.27

125.

943.

16%

8.94

%

Fran

ce13

.96

10.0

69.

3513

.41

11.2

57.

3312

.510

.04

9.48

11.5

110

8.89

2.73

%7.

73%

Unite

d Ki

ngdo

m0.

394.

585.

45.

9811

13.8

214

.25

10.7

91.

126.

3273

.65

1.85

%5.

23%

Switz

erla

nd1.

551.

162.

025.

295.

536.

139.

1910

.27

8.28

7.27

56.6

91.

42%

4.02

%

Othe

r DAC

Co

untri

es12

.94

7.64

12.4

411

.54

8.48

10.3

814

.73

9.75

7.01

4.03

98.9

42.

48%

7.02

%

Bila

tera

l Ass

ista

nce

– Ke

y No

n-DA

C Co

untri

es To

tal

00.

010.

050.

060.

090.

10.

360.

510.

310.

542.

030.

05%

100.

00%

Turk

ey0

00.

040.

040.

070.

050.

070.

030.

090.

490.

880.

02%

43.3

5%

Thai

land

00

00

0.01

0.05

0.25

0.1

0.03

0.02

0.46

0.01

%22

.66%

Othe

r Non

-DAC

Co

untri

es

00.

010.

010.

020.

010

0.04

0.38

0.19

0.03

0.69

0.02

%33

.99%


Mul

tilat

eral

As

sist

ance

– To

tal

200.

0618

8.21

209.

7225

9.93

237.

7227

0.87

324.

6427

8.36

292.

7130

8.64

2570

.86

64.5

7%10

0.00

%

IDA

69.6

759

.45

112.

2285

.67

66.6

647

.73

111.

5292

.85

103.

9710

3.43

853.

1721

.43%

33.1

9%

EU In

stitu

tions

44

.61

53.2

19.1

391

.855

.31

105.

6310

5.56

71.8

149

.55

68.0

666

4.66

16.6

9%25

.85%

IMF

(Con

cess

iona

l Tr

ust F

unds

)

47.5

725

.04

24.3

711

.69

22.1

21.3

520

.92

20.3

415

.32

15.1

922

3.89

5.62

%8.

71%

Wor

ld F

und

9.33

13.4

311

.19

8.86

30.4

429

.11

24.0

620

.74

15.8

435

.82

198.

824.

99%

7.73

%

AfDB

0.09

14.2

316

.77

9.09

14.2

313

.57

17.9

823

46.1

933

.51

188.

664.

74%

7.34

%

UNIV

EF4.

096.

058.

7210

.34

8.94

9.88

10.2

18.

778.

68.

4684

.06

2.11

%3.

27%

IFAD

3.25

4.57

3.74

18.4

16.

415.

26.

948.

427.

819.

0873

.83

1.85

%2.

87%

UNDP

10.8

27.

76.

034.

385.

057.

0610

.24

6.07

6.09

5.88

69.3

21.

74%

2.70

%

GAVI

00

08.

935.

225.

631.

8713

.32

20.6

111

.36

66.9

41.

68%

2.60

%

Mem

o: P

rivat

e Do

nors

, tot

al…

……

……

0.89

0.95

1.24

0.13

0.84

4.05

0.10

%10

0.00

%

Tota

l PAC

Bu

rund

i 20

04–2

013

267.

7925

2.77

308.

3437

7.84

396.

3143

2.72

537.

4845

7.29

457.

2749

439

81.8

110

0.00

%

Over

all p

rogr

amm

able

ass

ista

nce

by c

ount

ry (P

AC) g

rant

ed to

Bur

undi

ove

r the

per

iod

2004

–201

3 ac

cord

ing

to O

ECD

data

.

Anne

x 5:

Offi

cial

Dev

elop

men

t Ass

ista

nce

to B

urun

di (C

ontin

uatio

n)

73Annexes

An ID

EV C

ount

ry S

trat

egy

Eval

uatio

n

Proj

ect

Theo

retic

al D

ates

Effe

ctiv

e Da

tes

Diffe

renc

e

Star

t Dat

e En

d Da

te

Dura

tion

Star

t Dat

e En

d Da

te

Dura

tion

Rate

of

Impl

emen

ta-

tion

Dead

line

Over

run

Theo

retic

al E

nd

Dead

line

Over

run

Rate

of T

heor

etic

al

End

Dead

line

Over

run

PRCI

10/2

004

12/2

007

26 m

onth

s29

/12/

2004

22/0

5/20

0954

mon

ths

200%

17 m

onth

s65

%

PARE

G01

/200

504

/200

615

mon

ths

28/0

6/20

0530

/06/

2011

72 m

onth

s38

0%62

mon

ths

413%

PARE

I11

/200

631

/12/

2007

13 m

onth

s23

/11/

2006

31/1

2/20

0713

mon

ths

None

None

0%

PARE

II11

/200

831

/12/

2009

13 m

onth

s26

/11/

2008

31/1

1/20

0912

mon

ths

−8.

3%1

mon

th7.

7%

PARE

III

07/2

010

12/2

010

5 m

onth

s27

/05/

2010

12/2

010

7 m

onth

s40

%No

ne0%

PARE

IV10

/06/

2011

31/1

2/20

116.

5 m

onth

s21

/06/

2011

31/1

2/20

116.

5 m

onth

sNo

neNo

ne0%

PARE

V07

/201

231

/12/

2013

17 m

onth

s08

/08/

2012

30/0

6/20

1423

mon

ths

35%

6 m

onth

s35

%

PABV

01/0

6/20

0603

/12/

2011

66 m

onth

s20

/10/

2006

31/1

2/20

1162

.5 m

onth

s–5

.3%

None

0%

PMRS

E01

/04/

2005

31/1

2/20

1069

mon

ths

01/1

0/20

0531

/12/

2012

87 m

onth

s26

%24

mon

ths

35%

PAPC

E09

/200

931

/12/

2013

52 m

onth

s14

/09/

2009

31/1

2/20

1463

.5 m

onth

s22

%12

mon

ths

23%

RN 1

430

/10/

2006

31/1

2/20

0938

mon

ths

30/1

0/20

0630

/11/

2011

61 m

onth

s16

1%23

mon

ths

61%

RN 1

512

/201

031

/12/

2013

36 m

onth

s23

/02/

2011

30/0

6/20

1552

mon

ths

44%

18 m

onth

s50

%

PCRP

REIE

L09

/200

731

/12/

2011

52 m

onth

s17

/08/

2007

31/1

2/20

1264

.5 m

onth

s24

%12

mon

ths

23%

PREI

HMR

13/0

1/20

0631

/12/

2010

60 m

onth

s13

/01/

2006

30/0

6/20

1390

mon

ths

150%

30 m

onth

s50

%

MDR

TSP

03/2

009

12/2

012

34 m

onth

sEx

tens

ion

12/2

006

??

Anne

x 6:

PRA

Rat

ing

and

Impl

emen

tatio

n Sc

hedu

le o

f Pro

ject

s th

at U

nder

wen

t PRA


GOVE

RNAN

CEIN

FRAS

TRUC

TURE

SOCI

ALTO

TAL

PRA

PRCI

PARE

GPA

RE I

PARE

IIPA

RE III

PARE

IVPA

RE V

PREIF

ELRN

14RN

15PR

EIHMR

PABV

MDRT

SPPM

RSE

PAPC

E

Rele

vanc

e of

Pro

ject

Ob

ject

ives

64

46

56

66

65

65

55

55

55

5

Rele

vanc

e of

Pro

ject

De

sign

32

23

55

44

34

44

44

44

54

4

Tota

l – R

elev

ance

43

34

55

54

44

54

44

44

54

4

Outp

ut P

rodu

ctio

n Ef

fect

ivene

ss

43

24

44

44

35

54

55

44

44

4

Impa

ct P

rodu

ctio

n Ef

fect

ivene

ss4

32

43

43

33

44

34

4n/

a3

44

4

Tota

l – E

ffect

iven

ess

43

24

44

44

34

43

44

44

44

4

Cost

-Ben

efit A

nalys

isn/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

a5

64

45

44

44

5

Cost

-Effe

ctive

ness

Ana

lysis

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

5n/

a4

34

45

Adhe

renc

e to

Sch

edul

e1

12

64

63

32

12

25

24

23

33

Impl

emen

tatio

n St

atus

3n/

an/

a4

n/a

n/a

44

44

42

n/a

4n/

a3

33

4

Tota

l – E

ffici

ency

22

25

45

44

23

42

53

43

44

4

Tech

nica

l Sou

ndne

ssn/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

a6

55

33

55

45

55

Econ

omic

and

Fin

anci

al

Viab

ility

n/a

n/a

33

33

33

n/a

54

42

4n/

a3

44

4

Inst

itutio

nal S

usta

inab

ility

and

Capa

city

Bui

ldin

g 3

23

33

33

35

44

23

45

34

44

Polit

ical

and

Gov

erna

nce

Envir

onm

ent

32

23

33

33

22

43

23

43

23

3

Owne

rshi

p an

d Pa

rtner

ship

Su

stai

nabi

lity

32

24

33

43

55

52

24

44

44

4

Envir

onm

enta

l and

Soc

ial

Sust

aina

bilit

yn/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

a6

44

55

43

44

44

Resi

lienc

e to

Ext

erna

l Fa

ctor

sn/

a2

24

33

33

n/a

24

23

33

44

43

Tota

l – S

usta

inab

ility

32

24

33

33

54

43

34

44

44

4

Gran

d To

tal

33

24

44

44

44

43

44

44

44

4

75Annexes

An ID

EV C

ount

ry S

trat

egy

Eval

uatio

n

Annex 7: List of Sector and Thematic Studies and other Analytical Works

Type of Works Status

Scheduled under CSP 2005–2007 27

1. Thematic and sector studies under PRSF Conducted

2. Studies on the country’s economic growth Not Conducted

3. Study on the Financial System to Reinforce Private Sector Development Not Conducted

4. Study on the Population to Develop Human Resources as Growth Factor Not Conducted

Scheduled under CSP 2008–201128

1. Analysis of the Sensitivity of Burundi’s Economy to Shocks – Financial Crisis and other Shocks Conducted

2. Country Economic Memorandum Conducted*

3. An Infrastructure Action Plan in Burundi Conducted

4. Study on Budget Management Reform Not Conducted

5. Study on Improving Cash Flow Management and the Public Finance Reform Strategy Not Conducted

6. Fiduciary Risk Assessment (in collaboration with DFID) Not Conducted

7. Updating of the Public Expenditure Review (PER) (in collaboration with the World Bank) Not Conducted

Scheduled Under CSP 2012–2016

1. Leveraging Regional Integration 29 Conducted

2. Addressing Climate Change, Challenges and Opportunities Not Conducted

3. What Gender Profile Trend in Burundi for Greater Women’s Participation in Economic Development? ?

Not Scheduled/Occasional

1. PEFA study Conducted

2. Prospective Study 2025 Conducted

3. Burundi’s Gender Profile Conducted

4. Study on the Mobilization of Domestic Resources Conducted

5. Feasibility Study on the Organization Artisanal Production in Burundi and the Possibilities of Exporting Artisanal Products (2015)

Conducted


Annex 8: Map of Burundi

RWANDA

TANZANIA

DEM

OCRA

TIC

REPU

BLIC

OF

CONG

O

Bujumbara

Source: African Development Bank.

77

An ID

EV C

ount

ry S

trat

egy

Eval

uatio

n

Selected Bibliography


Government of Burundi

A long-term development vision for the country: “Burundi Vision 2025”, 7 p. Illustrated Version.

Poverty Reduction Strategic Framework – PRSF, September 2006, 105 p.

Poverty Reduction Strategic Framework (PRSF II), January 2012, 200 p.

Second Vice-Presidency of the Republic of Burundi, Permanent Secretariat of the National Aid Coordination Committee (SP-CNCA), Independent Evaluation by the Partnership Coordination Group, Final Report, October 2014, 54 p.

Independent Evaluation by PCG Burundi, Annex 1, Priority Action Plan, 2014, 8 p.

Burundi’s National Gender Policy 2012–2025, July 2012, 46 p.

AfDB Policy and Strategy Papers

Fragile State

AfDB – ORFS, Addressing Fragility and Building Resilience in Africa: African Development Bank Group’s Strategy for 2014–2019, June 2014, 50 p.

AfDB Fragile States: Taking Part in Africa’s Inclusive Growth Take-Off, Africa Development Brief, Volume 4, Issue 4, 2013, 12 p.

Review on Development Effectiveness, 2012 Edition, Fragile States and Conflict-affected Countries.

AfDB, Increased Engagement in Fragile States, 2007.

AfDB Performance

AfDB – Operations Evaluation Department, African Development Bank Group, 2012 – Evaluation of the Assis-tance of the African Development Bank to Fragile States, 2012, 27 p.

AfDB – IDEV, Defining Strategies for “the Africa We Want”: An Independent Evaluation of the Quality-at-Entry of Country and Regional Integration Strategies, Summary Report, January 2015.

BAD Staff Guidance on Quality-at-Entry Criteria and Standards for Country Strategies and Regional Integration Strategies, Quality Assurance and Results Department (ORQR) September 2010, 27 p.


Review of the 2012 Portfolio Performance Improvement Plan, Transmittal Note, AfDB, Eastern Africa Regional Resource Centre (EARC) and Burundi Field Office (BIFO), December 2012, 8 p. + Annexes.

AfDB – Burundi Strategic Papers

CSP 2004–2005

Interim Country Strategy Paper, October 2004 – October 2005, Department of Country Operations Central Region (OCCC), August 2004, 31 p.

Interim Country Strategy Paper, October 2004 – October 2005, Corrigendum, 3 p.

CSP 2005–2007

Country Strategy Paper 2005–2007 – (results-based), Country Regional Department Centre, October 2005, 33 p. + Annexes.

DSP 2008–2011

AfDB – OREA, Country Strategy Paper 2008–2011, Country Regional Department East Africa (OREA), Septem-ber 2008, 43 p.

AfDB – OREA, Country Strategy Paper (CSP) 2008–2011 Mid-term Review and Country Portfolio Review, Coun-try Regional Department East Africa (OREA), October 2010, 35 p.

AfDB – OREA, Country Strategy Paper Mid-term Review, Addendum, April 2011, 22 p.

CSP 2012–2016

Country Strategy Paper Pays 2012–2016, October 2011, 19 p. + Annexes.

Combined Report on the Mid-term Review of the Country Strategy Paper (CSP 2012 – 2016) and the Country Portfolio Performance (2013), April 2014, BIFO, 20 p. + Annexes.

Other Actors

European Union ADE, 2014 PEFA Assessment in Burundi, Interim Report, February 2015, 176 p.

Joint Assessment of German, Belgian, European Commission, French, Netherlands, United Kingdom and Swed-ish cooperation with Burundi, Volume 1, Report, February 2014, 140 p.

ADE, Joint Assessment of Budget Support in Burundi (2005–2013), March 2015. Assessment conducted by Belgium, the European Commission, France and the Government of Burundi.

79

An ID

EV C

ount

ry S

trat

egy

Eval

uatio

n


OECD (2011), Report on International Engagement in Fragile States – Republic of Burundi, 80 p.

OECD (2011), Supporting State Building in Situations of Conflict and Fragility: DAC Policy Guidance, Guidelines and Reference Works, OECD Publishing, 111 p.

Impunity Watch, Cordaid, Addressing Gender-based Violence in Burundi: Analyzing Perceptions and Obstacles – Final Report, July 2014, 77 p.

Brachet and Wolpe, 2005, Conflict-Sensitive Assistance: The Case of Burundi, World Bank, Washington DC.

Ndikumana, Léonce. “Distributional Conflict, the State and Peace Building in Burundi.” The Round Table 94, No. 381 (2005): 413–427.

Uvin, Peter. “Structural Causes, Development Co-operation and Conflict Prevention in Burundi and Rwanda.” Conflict, Security & Development 10, No. 1 (2010): 161–179.


Endnotes

1. The Fragile States Facility (FSF) was established in 2008. This name remained valid during the 2004–2013 evaluation period. In 2014, it was renamed Transition Support Facility (TSF).

2. 1 Unit of Account (UA) = 1.39 US $, as at September 2016.

3. The methodological approach to the evaluation is appended to this report (Annex 1). It comprises a diagram of the evaluation process (Annex 1a), evaluation issues (Annex 1b) and a list of the entities contacted (Annex 1c).

4. The European Commission, Belgium, France and the Government of Burundi.

5. The Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) of Transparency International for Burundi also worsened during the evaluation period, dropping from 2.3 in 2005 to 1.9 in 2012.

6. African Development Bank Data, http://www.africaneconomicoutlook.org/en/statistics/.

7. In 2011 purchasing-power parity. Source: HDI, UNDP.

8. Brachet and Wolpe, 2005, Conflict-sensitive Development Assistance: The Case of Burundi, World Bank, Washington DC.

9. Burundi’s CPIA score improved slightly during the 2007–2013 period, increasing from 3 in 2007–2008 to 3.3 in 2014 on a scale of 5. Its ranking in the Fragile States Index also improved slightly, moving from the 18th position (out of 177 countries) to the 21st position (out of 178 countries) between 2005 and 2014. Source: http://ffp.statesindex.org/.

10. According to the latest Modular Survey on Household Living Conditions in Burundi (ECVMB) carried out in 2013–2014, 64.6% of the population still lived below the poverty line with very marked differences between provinces.

11. It is worth noting that in Burundi, there are differences in poverty levels between provinces, but poverty is widespread throughout the country.

12. This includes, in particular, Easy Project, Support to the Expanded Programme on Training in Natural Resource Management, the PTA 2nd Bank Line of Credit & TA Support, and the African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control.

13. The ensuing ratings and analysis are based on the assessment of the outcomes of 15 projects in the economic infrastructure, governance and social support sectors. Detailed ratings are presented in Annex 6.

81

An ID

EV C

ount

ry S

trat

egy

Eval

uatio

n

Endnotes

14. The infrastructure component comprises 5 projects, namely the RN15 Gitega-Ngozi-Nyangungu Road Construction Project – Phase I (2011–2015) and the RN14 Road linking Kicukiro (Rwanda) to Kirundo (Burundi) (2006–2012) as well as the Electric Power Infrastructure Rehabilitation and Extension Project (PREIEL) (2007–2013), the Rural Water Supply Infrastructure Rehabilitation Project (PREIHMR) and the Watershed Development Project (PABV) (2005–2011).

15. Emergency Project for the Electricity Sector.

16. Multi-sector Water and Electricity Infrastructure Project, financed by IDA.

17. According to PCR estimates, more than 125 000 temporary jobs, 55% of them for women, have been created.

18. Normally, these jobs are temporary. Assuming that each person worked for 100 days, about 43 000 jobs would have been created.

19. Based on data from the World Bank, OECD, EU, CENAP, and Human Rights Watch.

20. The ensuing ratings and analysis are based on the assessment of the outcomes of the 15 projects selected in the economic infrastructure, governance and social support sectors.

21. The Municipal Act provides that as from 2013, 10% of the municipal council budgets shall be reserved for the maintenance of infrastructure.

22. The ensuing ratings and analysis are based on the assessment of the outcomes of the 15 projects selected in the economic infrastructure, governance and social support sectors; the cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses are limited due to the inability to visit projects on the ground.

23. Joint Evaluation of German, Belgian, European Commission, French, Netherlands, United Kingdom and Swedish cooperation with Burundi, November 2013; Joint Evaluation of BS Operations in Burundi from 2005 to 2013, March 2015; Baseline Study on Donor Coordination, Harmonization and Alignment in Burundi, Crown Agents, January 2011; OECD Report, 2011.

24. Principles of the Paris Declaration (2005) for aid effectiveness: ownership, alignment, harmonization, results, mutual accountability.

25. OECD Principles (2007) for Fragile States: (1) take context as a starting point; (2) do not interfere; (3) prioritize prevention; (5) recognize that there are links between policy objectives, security and development: (6) promote non-discrimination as a basis for inclusive and stable societies; (7) align with local priorities in different ways depending on the context; (8) agree on practical coordination mechanisms of action of international actors; (9) act fast... but stay engaged long enough to have a chance of success; (10) avoid creating pockets of exclusion.

26. Reliable country public finance management systems; strengthen capacity by coordinated support; and aid is untied.


27. Specific studies relating to particular projects are not included in this table, although they help to understand the functioning and trends of a sector (for example, the feasibility study on the Project to Construct the Rusumo Falls Hydroelectric Power Plant (Rwanda, Burundi, Tanzania) or the Study on the Interconnection of Electric Power Grids between Kigoma (Rwanda) and Rwegura (Burundi). PREIHMR was expected to make an inventory of water resources, conduct a DWSS sector study, prepare a rural DWSS programme and a Bujumbura DWS master plan, and conduct a study on sanitation in urban centres. Only one DWS sector study was conducted.

28. Idem for the study on the Dar-es-Salam Isaka – Kigali-Keza-Musongati Railway Project which was implemented.

29. Initially scheduled to be conducted in collaboration with DFID under CSP 2008–2011, this study was carried out under CSP 2012–2016.

83

An ID

EV C

ount

ry S

trat

egy

Eval

uatio

n

Endnotes

An IDEV Country Strategy EvaluationBurundi: Evaluation of the Bank’s Country Strategy and Program

2004–2015 Summ

ary ReportIndependent Developm

ent Evaluation

idev.afdb.org

Desi

gn &

pro

duct

ion:

ww

w.vi

sual

iden

tity.

co.u

k

About this Evaluation

This evaluation examines the African Development Bank’s assistance to Burundi over the 2004–2015 period as well as its contribution to the country’s development. It aims to draw lessons from past performance to improve the Bank’s future strategy and operations in Burundi. Between 2004 and 2015, the Bank financed national and multinational operations in Burundi that were worth over USD 745 million.

Four Country Strategy Papers guided the Bank’s actions over the period in review. The main focus of these strategies were infrastructure development, regional integration, private sector development and governance. The evaluation is based on data and information gathered from document reviews and a video conference workshop with key stakeholders.

Overall, this evaluation finds that the Bank aligned its interventions to meet the country’s development needs, more specifically on addressing the country’s factors of fragility. The Bank contributed to restoring macroeconomic stability and infrastructure development but these were set back due to the relapse of the institutional and political climate in 2015. The evaluation recommends that the Bank should focus its interventions on regional integration, inclusive growth, environmental concerns, vulnerability and the development of economic activities, informed by its analytical work, and that the Bank should continue to provide budget support to the government to invest in viable projects.

An IDEV Country Strategy Evaluation

African Development Bank GroupAvenue Joseph Anoma, 01 BP 1387, Abidjan 01, Côte d’IvoirePhone: +225 20 26 20 41E-mail: [email protected]

http://idev.afdb.org/

http://www.visualidentity.co.uk

Evaluation of the Bank’s Country Strategy and...

Documents

Transcript of Evaluation of the Bank’s Country Strategy and...