83849 SUMMARY NOTE IFC: CASA INITIATIVE MIDTERM REVIEW S “ upporting development in countries recovering from conflict mate improvements. The review covers all four IFC Business Lines is a priority for IFC and an increasing focus of our work in that CASA works with (Access to Finance, Investment Climate, Sus- Africa. With donor partners Ireland, the Netherlands, and tainable Business Advisory, and Public Private Partnerships) and all Norway, we launched the Conflict Affected States in Africa (CASA) seven countries CASA supported at the time of publication. Dal- Initiative to help coordinate our advisory services activities in coun- berg visited Burundi, DRC, Liberia and South Sudan for stakeholder tries such as Liberia and Sierra Leone. We knew CASA was produc- interviews, and conducted less intensive phone interviews in the ing results – but we wanted to know how we could do even better. remaining countries. The review sought to answer the question: The CASA Mid Term Review provided us and our donors with an “Does the CASA business model actually work?” objective analysis of CASA’s progress, and is helping inform our strategy for expanding our work in conflict affected countries”. Financial Snapshot - Oumar Seydi, IFC Director for East and Central Africa At the time of the review’s publication, the CASA multi-donor trust fund had a total of US$ 20.3 million, out of the US$ 25 million Introduction target. More than 50 percent of all program funds came from the government of the Netherlands, 25 percent from the government Dalberg Global Development Advisors conducted an independent, of Norway, 16 percent from the government of Ireland, and the mid-term review of IFC’s Conflict Affected State in Africa Initiative remaining amount from IFC. This core funding supports all aspects (CASA) in 2012, covering its activities from inception in 2008 until of CASA’s activities including project funding, costs of CASA Coordi- December, 2011. The root-and-branch review looked at CASA’s ac- nators, program management, travel and knowledge management. tivities and effectiveness in promoting private sector development Approximately US$15 million is allocated to project funding, and the in the seven conflict-affected countries CASA covered at the time, rest to all other activities. In addition, Denmark, the Netherlands and basing its findings on interviews with 91 CASA stakeholders and Sweden have committed additional funding of US$15.2 million, or experts, including with CASA’s main donor partners Ireland, the equivalent of seventy-five percent of the CASA multi-donor trust Netherlands, and Norway. The review asked whether CASA is a fund funding. This additional funding (bilateral funding) is dedicated good model for promoting development in fragile countries, and to country programs in South Sudan and Liberia. sought to find areas where the model could be improved. The Dal- berg review’s headline finding was that: ‘CASA is highly relevant based on industry best practices for private sector develop- Key Findings ment in fragile and conflict affected states.’ Relevance and Additionality The Mid Term Review Summarized CASA is highly relevant based on industry best practices for private sector development in fragile and conflict affected states. By focusing Context and Overview on private sector development (PSD) in FCAS in Africa, CASA ad- dresses one of the most important elements in post-conflict recon- Fragile and conflict affected states are expected to be home to 80 struction (as per the World Development Report 2011). Moreover, percent of the world’s poorest people by 2030. Today, half of these according to stakeholder feedback, no other agency is addressing states are in Africa, a rising continent that nevertheless remains PSD in FCAS as comprehensively as IFC through CASA. A full 100 shackled to poverty and a violent history of coups and civil wars. IFC, the World Bank, and large parts of the international develop- percent of IFC Business Line staff rated CASA’s relevance and ad- ment community have made supporting development in conflict ditionality ‘high’ or ‘very high’. Over 80 of local stakeholders (i.e., affected states a priority. In 2008 IFC launched CASA, an Initiative government and private sector counterparts in CASA countries) that is now IFC’s main delivery model for advisory services in frag- and over 70 percent of donor agencies interviewed rating CASA’s ile states in Sub Saharan Africa. CASA was originally active in the relevance ‘high’ or ‘very high’. Central African Republic (CAR), the Democratic Republic of Congo Effectiveness and Impact (DRC), Liberia and Sierra Leone. Burundi and Côte d’Ivoire were added in 2010. In 2011, South Sudan was added. CASA, with CASA’s project support and funding components help generate more its in-country coordinators, promotes private sector development AS projects and sustain the quality of existing projects. During the by supporting small business growth, helping increase access to review period, the IFC AS portfolio in CASA countries increased in finance and financial services, and by promoting investment cli- volume while the overall PEP Africa portfolio shrank. Feedback from 1 IFC Business Line staff provided evidence that CASA significantly im- Knowledge Management pacted portfolio performance. CASA Coordinators’ local presence CASA needs to invest significantly to enhance the KM component, and close engagement with local stakeholders were highly valued by building on the initial “tool development” phase and strengthen- stakeholders, leading to improved quality ratings for some projects. ing its role as a thought leader in FCAS. Accomplishing this requires CASA’s effectiveness varies across countries. Due to differences in hiring a full-time KM Coordinator who works to provide key stake- program duration, and complexity of individual country dynamics, it holders with CASA expertise and insights. is difficult to draw general conclusions on success factors. Efficiency and Accountability Cross-Cutting Recommendations • CASA should widen its foot print by establishing CASA The report found that CASA is operating efficiently toward its pro- programs in new countries. (CASA has since added Guinea, gram and funding targets, but that its human resource approach Mali, Somaliland, and Zimbabwe to its roster of countries.) may not ensure the business model’s sustainability. In order for CASA to continue attracting staff, the career trajectory of Coordi- • CASA should advocate for wider adoption of the CASA nators needs to be defined. Retaining Coordinators who have the model within the WBG and push for the institutional right expertise and experience is critical, as the primary determinant flexibility required for the model’s effectiveness. of the Program’s success is the effectiveness of its Coordinators. • CASA should improve M&E and finance support Strategic Recommendations functions to increase accountability and enable fact-based strategic planning Business Model Conclusion The Dalberg review found that CASA could achieve better results if it engaged with IFC’s four Advisory Services business lines (Ac- CASA’s current model successfully enhances IFC’s advisory services cess to Finance, Investment Climate, Public Private Partnerships,) in conflict affected states. However, CASA’s business model should more effectively. The recommendation (now implemented) was to be adapted to better anchor CASA within the Business Lines, and have CASA ‘champions’ for each business line. Additional business to allow CASA greater flexibility in scaling the model to additional model recommendations include: establish a dedicated budget for countries. The four years of the pilot program have proven that a hiring short-term consultants (STCs) and support staff as needed; comprehensive approach to Funding, Project Support and Knowl- regularly update and ensure consistent development of Country edge Management is effective, and that the key principles of en- Engagement Strategies. gagement, and particularly flexibility, are critical. Moving forward, CASA can greatly enhance its relevance, additionality, effectiveness, Funding efficiency and accountability by addressing the lessons learned and implementing the recommendations outlined above. CASA’s funding should remain flexible, but resource allocation (proj- ect funding and staff) should be formalized to 1) potential future CASA countries and 2) new products tailored for the CASA context. About the Results Measurement Network: IFC’s Results Measurement Network is a global network of approximately 100 professional results measurement staff from Advisory and Investment Services. It covers all IFC regions, industries and Advisory business lines, in addition to staff in the Development Impact Department based in Washington DC. The Results Measurement Network seeks to improve IFC’s development impact by setting standards and ensuring consistency in results measurement. The network also works ensure that results continuously inform strategy, operations, and incentives. www.ifc.org//results 2