For Official Use Only CLR Review Independent Evaluation Group 1. CAS/CPS Data Country: Kazakhstan CAS/CPS Year: FY12 CAS/CPS Period: FY12 – FY17 CLR Period: FY12 – FY17 Date of this review: December 2, 2019 2. Ratings CLR Rating IEG Rating Development Outcome: Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Unsatisfactory WBG Performance: Good Fair 3. Executive Summary i. This review of the World Bank Group’s (WBG) Completion and Learning Review (CLR) covers the period of the Country Partnership Strategy (CPS), FY12-FY17, and updated in the Performance and Learning Review (PLR) dated September 26, 2016. ii. The Republic of Kazakhstan is a land-locked upper middle-income country with a nominal GNI per capita of $7960 in 2017. The country depends on oil, with production and exports of hydrocarbon accounting for 21 percent of GDP and 62 percent of exports in 2017. Average annual GDP growth declined from 6.5 percent during 2006-2011 to 3.6 percent during the CPS period (2012-17), primarily due to deteriorating oil prices after 2013. The fall in oil prices reduced the growth of non-oil activities and the associated gains in wages and employment. Per capita GDP grew at 2.1 percent during the CPS period and contributed to reduce the poverty headcount ratio at national poverty line from 5.5 to 2.5 percent of the population between 2011 and 2017. Income distribution improved, with the Gini index falling from 0.28 in 2011 to 0.275 in 2017. The Human Development Index improved from 0.765 in 2010 to 0.800 in 2017. Kazakhstan key development challenges and goals set in the Strategy 2030 and Strategy 2050 include strengthening macro- economic management (including strengthening of non-oil sources of revenues), reducing the state presence in the economy, strengthening regional economics through infrastructure and agricultural value chains, ensuring equal access to high quality education, enhancing social protection, managing natural resources, policy regarding water resources and improving governance and public sector capacity. 1 iii. The CPS sought to improve competitiveness and foster job creation (Focus Area I), strengthen governance and improve efficiency in public service delivery (Focus Area II) and ensure development is environmentally sustainable (Focus Area III). These areas were broadly aligned with the government’s 2010 Strategic Plan 2020 (issued in 2010), which focused on business climate reforms, economic diversification, human resources, basic services, and public sector reforms. Furthermore, the focus areas were aligned with the government’s increasing priority to reduce the adverse environmental impacts of growth. Similarly, the three focus areas were aligned with the longer-term, Kazakhstan 2050 Plan (issued in 2012), which includes efforts 1 Systematic Country Diagnostic, pp. 93-94. CLR Reviewed by: Panel Reviewed by: CLR Review Manager/Coordinator Jorge Garcia-Garcia Mauricio Carrizosa Xiaolun Sun IEGEC Consultant IEGEC Consultant Acting CLR Review Manager, IEGEC Takatoshi Kamezawa Sr. Evaluation Officer, IEGEC For Official Use Only CLR Review 2 Independent Evaluation Group to strengthen institutions, improve infrastructure, and enhance human capital among its key components. iv. At the outset of the CPS period, IBRD’s total outstanding commitments reached $3,745 million, including one DPL for $1 billion and one investment loan for roads for $2.12 billion. During the CPS period, IBRD’s new commitments reached $3.56 billion, about $2 billion larger than the amount proposed in the CPS and $1 billion lower than the amount proposed in the PLR. Macroeconomic management and transport accounted respectively for 84 and 85 percent of commitments in the starting and new portfolios. Other sectors where new loans were granted included education, finance, and water. The starting portfolio also covered environment and natural resources, poverty and equity, urban, rural and resilience, but there were no new loans in these areas. Grants and Trust Funds covered Youth Corps, Energy Efficiency, Forest Protection, and Catastrophic Risk Insurance. v. IEG rates the CPS development outcome as Moderately Unsatisfactory. On Competitiveness and Jobs (Focus Area I), transport costs fell, the electricity grid expanded its capacity and the financial sector improved its financial soundness. Non-oil sector exports expanded moderately. No progress was made in strengthening fiscal discipline and knowledge for growth in agriculture. It is too early to know if changes in the curriculum for technical vocational education built skills for employment. On Strengthening Governance and Improving Efficiency in Public Service Delivery (Focus Area II) the program helped to set up a social protection net and supported a moderate improvement in custom governance and in budget and accounting institutions. The program did not help reduce the out-of-pocket costs for health services. On Ensuring Development is Environmentally Sustainable (Focus Area III) there was progress in safeguarding the environment but less than expected in raising energy efficiency. vi. IEG rates WBG performance as Fair. The CPS and PLR tackled well-known development challenges. Its focus areas and objectives were aligned with the government’s development program. The program was demand driven and based on good knowledge of the economic and political constraints in the country, a result of the WBG’s engagement through the JERP/RAS program. The ASA and loans program balanced the country’s needs for technical and financial assistance. Although the program objectives had substantial relevance, the number of objectives was excessive for Kazakhstan capacity. Furthermore, the results framework suffered from weaknesses in the logical chain connecting indicators to results and results to objectives; this deficiency makes it difficult to assess the impact of the program. There was scope for closer cooperation between the WB and IFC. With some exceptions, both organizations worked largely separately to deliver their programs. The CPS and the PLR identified well the risks of the program and selected appropriate mitigation measures, including a WB $1 billion loan to cushion the macroeconomic impact of lower oil prices and ASA on finance and macroeconomic management. Implementation of some of the planned started later than originally planned. vii. The most relevant lessons of the CLR are summarized below. First, knowledge of the country and flexibility to adjust allowed the WBG to engage in the government’s development agenda. Second, to improve the impact of the program, the World Bank (Bank) and the government need to solve the systemic issues that delay the program’s execution. Third, selectivity and flexibility continue to be key for achieving results. Fourth, careful sequencing project phases can make project implementation more effective. Fifth, a smooth implementation of complex projects requires that the organizations involved in their design and execution own the projects. Sixth, after the sharp depreciation of the tenge (the national currency), the experience with the Almaty Ring Road Project demonstrates that close collaboration between the government, the private sector, WBG and other financial institutions can reduce costs and optimize project structure. viii. IEG adds the following lessons: • Capacity constraints raise the risks from crises. The oil crisis uncovered a limited local capacity to implement programs. Because building capacity takes time, the WBG needs For Official Use Only CLR Review 3 Independent Evaluation Group to allocate more human and financial resources to building capacity, improve the monitoring and evaluation of operations in the country, and include the latent risks of capacity constraints in its preparation of future projects and strategies. • CPS results frameworks help assess programs and contribute to create and disseminate knowledge about what works and does not work. The Kazakhstan CPS suffered from an incomplete framework that prevented adequate monitoring and measurement of results. To assess programs and build knowledge the WBG needs to ensure its results frameworks have (a) clear and coherent chain of results and (b) indicators that can be measured and truly reflect the development outcomes. 4. Strategic Focus Relevance of the WBG Strategy: 1. Congruence with Country Context and Country Program. The CPS objectives were broadly congruent with the Country’s context and programs. Kazakhstan’s development program (as articulated in the Government’s ten-year development plan) aimed to consolidate economic recovery, diversify the economy, provide qualitative social, housing and communal services, increase and improve human capital for sustained growth and social wellbeing, managing natural resources, policy for water resources, and strengthen interethnic consent, security, and stability of international relations. 2 Furthermore, the government sought to reduce the environmental impact of growth through energy efficiency, reduced environmental discharges, and low-carbon techniques. To support this program, CPS objectives sought to improve competitiveness and foster job creation (Focus Area I), strengthen governance and improve efficiency in public service delivery (Focus Area II) and ensure development is environmentally sustainable (Focus Area III). On competitiveness, for example, the CPS aimed to strengthen fiscal discipline, an objective that became increasingly relevant in 2014, when oil prices fell, growth rates declined, and fiscal performance deteriorated. To restore medium-term growth the country needed to ensure a credible medium-term fiscal consolidation. Other CPS objectives covered additional priority needs, including improvements in the business climate, job creation, human capital, and institutions. 2. Relevance of Design. The proposed interventions could help in most instances achieve the CPS objectives and the government’s development goals. For example, proposed investments in power could help improve energy transmission to poor areas, a DPF could help strengthen fiscal discipline, and an Advisory Services and Analytics (ASA) program could improve the social protection system. The mix of loans and ASA work was well-aligned to the relative needs for financing and capacity building in different sectors. For example, four loans for macroeconomic management and road infrastructure, where financing needs are larger and capacity is stronger, accounted for 82 percent of total planned lending. In other areas, where financing needs were lower and capacity building needs higher; ASA accounted for 65 percent of total ASA work. Trust Funds supported capacity building and environmental management. IFC interventions sought to make the economy more competitive and diversified by concentrating on the financial sector, manufacturing, agribusinesses and services, and infrastructure and natural resources. Selectivity 3. The CPS addressed key development challenges covered by government programs, such as macroeconomic management and infrastructure gaps. Attention to these challenges was underpinned by thorough analytics and by the Bank’s comparative advantage in the selected sectors (e.g., roads, energy). Nevertheless, the CPS/PLR sought 13 objectives and planned to lend for 17 new projects (17), both of which may have been too large for Kazakhstan’s implementation capacity. Although the actual number of new projects (9) was more limited, the high number of objectives (13) remained unchanged and may have been excessive for the country’s capacity to deliver them, as reflected in the number of planned projects that were not implemented, the poor portfolio + December 2012, see https://strategy2050.kz/en/page/multilanguage/ For Official Use Only CLR Review 4 Independent Evaluation Group performance by number of projects, and the low outcome ratings on a number of pre-existing and new projects. Broadly poor outcomes suggest that the Bank could have been more cautious, perhaps pursuing fewer objectives with better chances of achievement. Alignment 4. The CPS objectives were aligned with the 2013 corporate goals of poverty reduction and shared prosperity. Focus Area I supported reducing poverty through rapid growth (fiscal discipline, financial development, efficiency gains from better regulation and lower transport costs, human capital development). Focus area II supported shared prosperity through interventions such as those to improve health and social protection systems, governance and accountability, and delivery of government services to all groups, especially to the lowest income groups. Focus area III addressed issues that affect all groups, but especially the lower income groups. Its emphasis on reverting past environmental damages, preventing future ones and using energy more efficiently would help to promote growth and prevent further damage to the health of the low–income population. 5. Development Outcome Overview of Achievement by Objective: 5. The assessment follows the IEG-WBG Shared Approach on Country Engagement and considers the degree to which CPS objectives (designated as outcomes in the PLR and CLR results matrices) were achieved. In assessing achievement of objectives this review distinguishes between achieving the objective and the target for the indicator. The objective may not be achieved while the target is achieved because the indicator is inappropriate to measure achievement of the objective. Focus Area I: Improving Competitiveness and Fostering Job Creation 6. Focus Area I has seven objectives: (i) Strengthening fiscal discipline and trade openness/integration; (ii) Expanding non-oil sector exports and employment; (iii) Reinvigorating financial sector; (iv) Building skills for employment; (v) Strengthening knowledge for sustained growth in agriculture; (vi) Improving energy transmission to poor areas; (vii) Building transport connectivity and lowering costs. 7. Objective 1: Strengthening fiscal discipline and trade openness/integration. The World Bank supported this objective with the FY16 Kazakhstan Programmatic Development Policy Financing and three ASAs: Fiscal Management for Growth, Improvement of Public Debt Management, and Enhancement of Fiscal Sustainability. The objective has one indicator: • Prudent management of oil revenue maintained, with the government’s net financial worth (measured by difference between the stock of assets of the National Fund of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the sovereign debt) above the 2012 level of 20% of GDP by 2017. The ICR for the loan supporting this objective reports that the net financial worth of the Republic of Kazakhstan was 15.3% of GDP in 2017. Not Achieved. The indicator does not measure fiscal discipline properly and is affected by external events that are independent of government actions but which could change the Fund’s net financial worth. Moreover, the objective lacks an indicator to measure trade openness and integration. IEG rates Objective 1 as Not Verified. 8. Objective 2: Expanding non-oil sector exports and employment. The Bank supported this objective with the FY08 World Bank Technology Commercialization Project, IFC investments in the real sector (e.g., manufacturing), two IFC advisory services (AS), two ASAs and four Joint Economic Research Program (JERP). IFC advised 10 companies on corporate governance and advised banks and joint stock companies. The ASAs provided TA on regulation and on how to promote exports and attract foreign direct investment (FDI) in non-resource intensive sectors. The JERP addressed competition and regulatory constraints, how to benefit from the recent access to the For Official Use Only CLR Review 5 Independent Evaluation Group World Trade Organization, constraints in the labor market, and simplifying procedures in the mining sector. The objective has four indicators: • Improved regulatory environment, as measured by Doing Business ranking (up from 46 in 2011 to 35 by 2017). The country improved its ranking to 36 in the Ease of Doing Business report (2018) which is current as of June 1, 2017. Achieved. • Technology Commercialization Office (TCO) established, awarding at least 10 small technology commercialization grants (pre-commercialization, joint research with industry, international patenting, industrial internship for scientists) and enabling at least 15 groups of scientists to perform high-quality research. The technology commercialization project supported the establishment of 33 senior scientist and junior research groups. The groups had been established by the end of 2015. Additional information provided by the region shows that at least one of the subprojects supported by the Technology Commercialization Project exported goods worth KZT230 mln (equivalent to US$652,000). Achieved. • IFC invested in manufacturing (paper packaging, cement), agribusiness (food and beverages, agriculture commodities), and real estate. During the period FY12-FY17, IFC’s total net commitment in the non-financial sector was $90.8 million, about 43% of IFC’s total long-term investment commitments. IFC’s portfolio increased the participation of investments in the non-financial sector from 34 percent to 65 percent. Additional information provided by the region indicates that between 2012 and 2017, the amount of direct jobs of IFC clients (agribusiness and cement) increased from 400 to 2400 Achieved. • IFC provided advisory services on corporate governance to Government and over 100 companies and conducted studies on tax transparency and regulatory reform. The CLR reports that IFC provided advisory services to 10 companies, not meeting the target. Not achieved. Although three of the four targets were achieved, two of those achieved do not measure the dimensions of the Objective (exports and employment). The first one helps to measure the results of the WBG support for improving regulations. The fourth indicator reports about IFC activities carried out but does not inform whether the objective was achieved. On balance, IEG rates Objective 2 as Partially Achieved. 9. Objective 3: Reinvigorating financial sector. The Bank supported this objective with one ASA to strengthen the stability of the financial sector and two JERP to improve the insolvency of the [financial] system. IFC support included investments in the financial sector, lines of credit for trade finance, and an AS to promote financial inclusion. The objective has three indicators: • Ratio of NPLs [non-performing loans] to total loans (32.6% in 2012) at least halved by 2017 and well provisioned. The WBG financial data show that the ratio of bank non-performing loans to total gross loans more than halved, from 19 percent in 2012 to 7 and 9 percent in 2016 and 2017, (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/FB.AST.NPER.ZS?locations=KZ) and provisions amounted to 75 percent of banks’ portfolio excluding that for BTA Bank. The decline is the result of a bailout package channeled through the state-owned Problem Loan Fund. The information is insufficient to conclude that the NPLs have been well provisioned. Mostly Achieved. • IFC invested in financial institutions, including microfinance and universal banking, and provided trade guarantees. Sector portfolio serving 15,200 microfinance and 10,000 SME clients. The CLR reports that IFC investments in three financial institutions resulted in extending financial services to more than 134,000 MSMEs. IEG has verified that the MSME portfolio of IFC client financial institutions exceeded the targets. Achieved. • IFC providing advisory services to microfinance institution to improve its lending operations, serving more clients in rural area and thus supporting rural development. The report on IFC’s For Official Use Only CLR Review 6 Independent Evaluation Group AS informs that the number of outstanding loans increased from a baseline of 10,100 to 11,229 at the end of FY17. Achieved. IEG rates Objective 3 as Mostly Achieved. 10. Objective 4: Building skills for employment. The World Bank supported the objective with the FY11 Technical and Vocational Education Modernization project. The indicator was: • Share of technical vocational education programs revised in line with new (2013) competency standards by at least 20% by 2017 - better equipping graduates with skills demanded in labor market. The core curriculum of 147 educational programs (70 percent of programs) was revised and aligned with occupational standards. Achieved. The indicator cannot measure whether the new curriculum builds skills better than the old one. While the indicator target was achieved, there is no evidence to show that the objective was achieved. Lacking such evidence, IEG rates the objective as Not Verified. 11. Objective 5: Strengthening knowledge for sustained growth in agriculture. The Bank supported this objective with the FY13 Second Irrigation and Drainage Improvement Project. IFC support included loans to agribusinesses, three ASAs covering agricultural policy matters and two advisory services on food safety and resource use efficiency. The livestock project aimed at supporting the objective was dropped. The objective has four indicators: • New applied technologies in farming (for example, conservation agriculture, new methods of veterinary diseases testing) result in increased crop/fodder output, supporting 50% increase in meat production (0.84 million tons in 2010) by 2017. The CLR reports that meat production increased 0.96 million tons in 2017. IEG could not verify this number; if valid, it means food production increased 14 percent over the baseline value. Not Verified. • IFC invested in agribusiness (food and beverages, agriculture commodities). IFC provided loans to a food processing company. IFC’s financing helped improve the risk profile of the company and supported its international expansion. Achieved. • IFC Food Safety Program focuses on (a) assisting one food company in implementing food safety practices; (b) stimulating development of local institutional capacity for promotion and implementation of suppliers’ food safety standards; and (c) promoting sector-wide demand by raising awareness about agribusiness standards and developing client pipeline. IFC advised one company on implementing food management systems and another on improving food safety practices; it also helped 12 suppliers of processed food to build their capacity. Achieved. • IFC providing advisory services on energy efficiency at two levels as explained in objective 2 of Focus Area III. [The two levels are: (a) policy, to open up new markets and (b) company, to provide targeted assistance to first-mover private sector and utility efficiency projects.] IFC did not provide advice on policy to open new markets. IFC advisory services on energy and water efficient solutions are discussed in Objective 13. Since IFC failed to provide advisory services at the policy level, this review concludes the target was Not Achieved The indicators do not measure achievement of objective. In particular, indicators two, three and four report on IFC activities, which are not evidence of achievement of the objective. As the impact on knowledge and growth is not known, IEG rates Objective 5 as Not Verified. 12. Objective 6: Improving energy transmission to poor areas. The World Bank supported the objective with the FY10 Moinak Electricity Transmission project and the FY11 Alma Electricity Transmission project. The objective has one indicator: • Kazakhstan Electricity Grid Operating Company’s (KEGOC) transmission capacity increased by 5% between 2012 (34,000 MVA) and 2017 to alleviate existing and projected power shortages in South and East Kazakhstan, two of the poorer areas of the country. The Annual For Official Use Only CLR Review 7 Independent Evaluation Group Report of KEGOC for 2017 shows that the installed transformer capacity was 36,660 MVA, an increase of 8 percent over the capacity installed in 2012. Achieved. The indicator measures well the expansion of capacity in electricity services and the achievement of the objective. IEG rates the objective as Achieved. 13. Objective 7: Building transport connectivity and lowering costs. The World Bank Group supported this objective with the FY09 South-West Roads project, the FY12 East-West Roads project and the FY16 Center-West, Regional Development Project. IFC support included an equity investment, a loan to a railcar leasing company, and advisory services. The objective has three indicators. • Increased transport efficiency through reduction in road-user costs and rate of road crash fatalities along 1,062 km section of Western Europe-Western China (WE-WC) Road Corridor by at least 10% by 2017 (in 2007: road users’ cost was $0.26 per vehicle-km and road crash fatalities were 11/100 million vehicle-km). Road user cost was $0.24 per vehicle km (8% lower than baseline value) and the number of road crash fatalities had decreased to 9.5 per 100 million vehicle-km (14% lower than the baseline value) by December 2017. Mostly achieved. • IFC invested in a rail leasing company. IFC invested $20 million and lent $39 million to Eastcomtrans, a railcar leasing company. Achieved • IFC advises Government on structure and implementation of international tender for Big Almaty Ring Road (BAKAD). IFC provided the indicated advisory services. Achieved Road user cost and crash fatalities measure adequately the effects of the interventions on the achievement of objectives. These were very close to targets. The other two indicators measure IFC activities, not transport connectivity or costs effects. IEG rates Objective 7 as Achieved. 14. The program achieved Objectives 6 (energy transmission for poor areas) and 7 (transport), mostly achieved Objective 3 (financial sector) and partially achieved objective 2 (non-oil sector exports and employment). IEG could not verify achievement of Objectives 1 (fiscal discipline and trade openness/integration), 4 (skills for employment) and 5 (agriculture). With four objectives achieved, mostly achieved or partially achieved, IEG rates the outcome of WBG support under Focus Area I as Moderately Unsatisfactory. Focus Area II: Strengthening Governance and Improving Efficiency in Public Service Delivery 15. Focus Area II has four objectives: (i) Improving governance; (ii) Strengthening budget and accounting institutions; (iii) Reforming social protection system; (iv) Sharpening strategic approach to health reforms 16. Objective 8: Improving governance. The objective was supported with the FY08 Customs Development project, a FY Tax Administration Reform Project and JERP/RAS for Civil Service Reform. The objective has one indicator. • Physical inspections of import declarations by customs reduced from 70% in 2007 to 20% by 2017; and average customs processing time at border posts (24 hours in 2010) reduced by 75% by 2017 as evidenced from client surveys. The CLR reports that physical inspections fell to 4.9 percent (target was 20 percent) and processing times fell to seven hours (71 percent versus target of 75 percent). The ICR review of the Customs project reports progress in processing time (53%) but this fell short of the target (75%) and with no evidence of attribution to the project. It also says: “It is possible that interactions between the Bank and Government over the long period between project design and implementation could have influenced this and other achievements, but there is no evidence of this in the ICR”. The objective had a broad governance scope while the Bank project and the results indicator addressed only customs. Partially Achieved. For Official Use Only CLR Review 8 Independent Evaluation Group 17. The objective had a broad governance scope while the Bank project and the results indicator addressed only customs. 3 IEG rates the Objective 8 as Partially Achieved. 18. Objective 9: Strengthening budget and accounting institutions. The World Bank supported this objective with the FY11 Statistical Capacity Building Project and the FY15 Capacity Building for Public Sector Accounting Reform, five JERP/RAS tasks [Improved Approach to Results- Oriented Budgeting; Improvement in Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations; Development of e- Procurement System; Expenditure Efficiency Reviews; Strengthening Public Sector Internal Audit] and one ASA for developing e-procurement system. The objective has three indicators. • Increase in e-procurement transactions (25,000 in 2012) by 20% by 2017, and efficiency of e-procurement system enhanced by introduction by 2014 of electronic reverse auction system. The e-reverse auction system is operational, as reported by the report Survey Responses on e-Government Procurement System from the Asian Development Bank. IEG could not validate the CLR information that there have been about 123,000 open bidding transactions, which exceeds the target of 25,000. Partially Achieved. • Quality and efficiency of public spending improved through introduction of targeted reviews of selected areas on rolling basis, with at least four reviews completed during 2013–16. There is no public information available to judge whether the quality and efficiency of public expenditure improved. The 2018 PEFA report indicates that processes and the quality of financial management have improved. The information does not show nor prove that spending is more efficient and of better quality (e.g., more value for money). The Open Budget Initiative reports that budget transparency improved from “minimal” in 2010 to “limited” in 2017, with the score increasing from 38 to 53, a gain driven by improvements in budget oversight. Although oversight, processes, and the quality of financial management have improved this is not sufficient to conclude that public spending is more efficient and of better quality. Not Achieved. • International standard user satisfaction survey on quality and reliability of statistical data introduced in 2012 with 80% satisfaction rates by 2017. In 2016, 94 percent of users were satisfied with the quality and reliability of statistical data. Achieved. Available data suggest better budget oversight and statistics, but with no evidence of better quality or more efficiency of spending. On balance, IEG rates Objective 9 as Partially Achieved. 19. Objective 10: Reforming social protection system. The World Bank supported this objective with a four-year ASA program. The objective has one indicator. • Conditional cash transfers piloted in at least two regions. The ASA assisted the government in developing instruments to implement a conditional cash transfer program, in implementing a pilot in three regions (Akmola, East Kazakhstan and Zhambyl), and in preparing its full scale implementation in 2018. Achieved. The indicator measured reasonably the achievement of the objective. IEG rates the objective as Achieved. 20. Objective 11: Sharpening strategic approach to health reforms. The Bank supported this objective with the FY08 Health Sector Technology Transfer and Institutional Reform project and the FY16 Social Health Insurance project. The objective has one indicator. • By 2016, 10% reduction in population's out-of-pocket health expenditures as share of total health expenditures (32.9% in 2010). Health expenditures increased from 32.9% of total health expenditures in 2010 to 35.3% in 2016. Not Achieved. 3 Six categories make the World Bank’s governance indicators (see https://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/Home/Reports For Official Use Only CLR Review 9 Independent Evaluation Group The indicator does not measure adequately the achievement of the objective. IEG rates Objective 11 as Not Verified. 21. The program achieved Objective 10 (conditional transfers), and partially achieved objectives 8 (customs) and 9 (e-procurement). IEG could not verify objective 11 (health). With three objectives achieved or partially achieved, IEG rates the outcome of WBG support under Focus Area II as Moderately Unsatisfactory. Focus Area III: Ensuring Development is Environmentally Sustainable. 22. Focus Area III has two objectives (i) Safeguarding the environment; (ii) Raising energy efficiency. 23. Objective 12: Safeguarding the environment. The World Bank Group supported this objective with the FY07 Ust-Kamenogorsk Environmental Remediation project, the FY05 Forest Protection and Reforestation project, the FY13 Second Irrigation and Drainage Improvement Project, seven ASAs (JERP/RAS), two GEF projects, and two TA of the Partnership for Market Readiness. The objective has three indicators. • Remediation of the high-priority industrial waste dumps polluting the air and groundwater in Ust-Kamenogorsk and establishment of groundwater monitoring system. IEG’s review of the project’s ICR found that (a) the groundwater quality monitoring system is operating; (b) 31.5 of the 45.5 hectares of contaminated land have been remediated; (b) five of the seven waste dump sites had been remediated, one was partially remediated (80 percent) and the seventh was not. Therefore, the seventh waste dump continues contaminating. Mostly Achieved. • Reforestation of 44,000 ha completed and damage from forest fire in Irtysh Pine Forest reduced by 50% by 2017 (9 ha per case of fire on average during 2009–11). IEG’s review of the ICR for the Forestry Project reports that 46,000 has were reforested by May 2015, 61,000 has in Aral Seabed were rehabilitated and fire management improved in 650,000 has. There is no information on reduction in damage from forest fires during the program period. Achieved. • Water supply systems rehabilitated in 113,000 ha covering four southern oblasts, bringing water distribution by service providers to levels demanded by farmers. There are no results yet because the irrigation project supporting this result started late. Not Achieved. The indicators convey well what could be expected from the interventions. With one target achieved, one mostly achieved, and one not achieved IEG rates Objective 12 as Mostly Achieved. 24. Objective 13: Raising energy efficiency. The World Bank supported this objective with the FY13 Energy Efficiency project (Swiss Trust Fund) and one ASA (JERP/RAS). The objective has two indicators. • Cumulative energy savings in targeted public facilities will increase from 0 to 825 GWh by 2017. The target was not achieved because of delays in executing the project that would trigger the savings. Total savings reached 178 GWh, below the target value. Not Achieved. • IFC providing advisory services on renewable energy and energy efficiency at two levels: (a) policy level, to open up new markets by removing legal and regulatory barriers to private investments and (b) company level, to provide targeted assistance to first-mover private sector and utility efficiency projects. At the policy level, IFC provided advice for the development of the 2016 Green Economy Law and engaged in comprehensive policy-level advice for developing renewable energy markets. To reduce the risks from exchange rate fluctuations the law permits indexing electricity tariffs (Feed-in tariffs) to changes in the exchange rate. At the company level, IFC advised four renewable energy companies on efficient solutions for using energy and water, and to another company to increase investment in climate friendly energy and water efficient solutions. The indicator lacked For Official Use Only CLR Review 10 Independent Evaluation Group baseline and target values. IFC delivered the advisory services. The indicator does not measure progress on energy efficiency. Achieved. The first indicator measures energy efficiency results from the interventions but its target was not achieved. The second indicator only describes IFC advisory services on energy. Additional information provided by IFC shows than one company saved US$53,000 per year on energy and water use. On balance, IEG rates Objective 13 as Partially Achieved. 25. The program mostly achieved Objective 12 (safeguarding the environment) and partially achieved objective 13 (energy efficiency). On balance, IEG rates the outcome of WBG support under Focus Area III as Moderately Satisfactory. Overall Assessment and Rating 26. IEG rates the CPS development outcome as Moderately Unsatisfactory. On Competitiveness and Jobs (Focus Area I), transport costs fell, the electricity grid expanded its capacity and the financial sector improved its financial soundness. There is no evidence of progress in strengthening fiscal discipline, knowledge for growth in agriculture, or impact of changes in the curriculum for technical vocational education on skills building for employment. On Strengthening Governance and Improving Efficiency in Public Service Delivery (Focus Area II) the program helped to set up a social protection net and supported a moderate improvement in customs governance and in budget and accounting institutions. The program did not help reduce the out-of-pocket costs for health services. On Ensuring Development is Environmentally Sustainable (Focus Area III) there was good progress in safeguarding the environment and modest progress on raising energy efficiency. Objectives CLR Rating IEG Rating Focus Area I: Improving Competitiveness and Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Unsatisfactory Fostering Job Creation Objective 1: Strengthening fiscal discipline and trade Not rated Not verified openness/integration Objective 2: Expanding non-oil sector exports and Not rated Partially achieved employment Objective 3: Reinvigorating financial sector Not rated Mostly achieved Objective 4: Building skills for employment Not rated Not verified Objective 5: Strengthening knowledge for sustained Not rated Not verified growth in agriculture Objective 6: Improving energy transmission to poor Not rated Achieved areas Objective 7: Building transport connectivity and Not rated Achieved lowering costs Focus Area II: Strengthening Governance and Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Unsatisfactory Improving Efficiency in Public Service Delivery Objective 8: Improving governance Not rated Partially achieved Objective 9: Strengthening budget and accounting Not rated Partially achieved institutions Objective 10: Reforming social protection system Not rated Achieved Objective 11: Sharpening strategic approach to Not rated Not verified health reforms Focus Area III Ensuring Development Is Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory Environmentally Sustainable Objective 12: Safeguarding the environment Not rated Mostly achieved Objective 13: Raising energy efficiency Not rated Partially achieved For Official Use Only CLR Review 11 Independent Evaluation Group 6. WBG Performance Lending and Investments 27. At the outset of the CPS period, IBRD’s total commitments reached $3,745 million, with 16 operations, including one DPL for $1 billion and one investment loan for roads for $2.12 billion. During the CPS period, IBRD’s new commitments reached $3.56 billion, about $2 billion larger than the amount proposed in the CPF and $1 billion lower than the amount proposed in the PLR. The lending program was driven by macroeconomic conditions and infrastructure building, responding to a need to adjust to lower oil prices and to the government’s desire to integrate more the internal and external markets and exploit better its locational advantage with its large neighbors, Russia and China. Because the oil price shock forced a change of priorities, there was no additional lending during the CPS period for agriculture (AGR), environment and natural resources (ENV), poverty and equity (POV), and social, urban, rural and resilience (URS), where the pre-existing project amounts lent were relatively small. Seven small projects for a total of $56 million were financed with Grants and Trust Funds; they covered areas such as Youth Corps, Energy Efficiency, Forest Protection, and Catastrophic Risk Insurance 28. During the CPS period, Kazakhstan’s portfolio performed relatively well. For closed operations that IEG validated, nine of the 13 accounted for 98 percent of the amount lent and were rated Moderately Satisfactory or Satisfactory; the ratings exceeded those of ECA (92 percent) and the World Bank (83 percent). Of the active operations, five of 9 projects l account for 87 percent of commitments and their performance is rated as Moderately Satisfactory or Satisfactory in their implementation status reports (ISR). Kazakhstan closed projects have a moderate or lower risk to development outcome (RDO) than those of ECA and Bank-wide by value (21 versus 63 and 55 percent). 29. As for the risk of project execution, Kazakhstan has a lower risk (4 percent) than the Bank (20 percent) and ECA (14 percent) when measured in value of commitments but higher risk when measured by number of loans. (25, 21 and 15 respectively). The disparity in portfolio risk by value and number of loans reveals the concentration of the Kazakhstan portfolio in a few large value loans 30. During the CPS period, IFC made net commitment of $213.6 million with an average net commitment of $35.6 million. The total fell short of the target of $200-300 million of annual investments. IFC’s net commitment for the financial sector accounted for 57.5% of the total net commitment. The largest project was IFC’s $70.1 million loan to an IFC client bank in FY13. IFC provided short-term trade finance guarantee with an average net commitment of $43.7 million during the period. IEG validated three individual investment projects during the review period, with two EvNotes and one Project Evaluation Summary. IEG rated Mostly Successful one project and Unsatisfactory two projects for their Development Outcome rating. IFC projects were unable to achieve their intended development impacts in part because of the severe impacts of the global financial crisis on Kazakhstan’s banking sector. MIGA did not underwrite new guarantees. Analytic and Advisory Activities and Services 31. The World Bank delivered 124 tasks in its ASA program, exceeding the 52 tasks the CPS and PLR identified. Such increase resulted from the expansion of the Joint Economic Research Program (JERP) and its evolution into a Reimbursable Advisory Services (RAS) program during the CPS period. The expansion originated in client demand for policy advice and technical assistance during the WBG’s response to the macroeconomic crisis and, also, to a partnership framework arrangement signed in 2014. The tasks covered topics aligned with the CPS and PLR objectives and their distribution is aligned with that of lending. The program was intensive in ASA interventions in areas where financing was small. The ASA work focused almost entirely on Kazakhstan, although one of the largest tasks, roads, sought to integrate the country with China, Russia and its Central Asian neighbors. ASA dissemination was relatively limited, given the contractual nature of the JERP/RAS program, a demand–driven activity and paid for by the government. When possible, some of this knowledge has been disseminated (e.g., fiscal, SCD). For Official Use Only CLR Review 12 Independent Evaluation Group 32. During the CPS period, IFC approved seven new AS projects amounting to $$12.5 million of IFC funds, out of which three projects for $1.65 million were terminated prior to their implementation. IFC and EBRD established a strategic partnership to deliver to public sector clients in Kazakhstan and the ECA region PPP transaction advisory services for preparing tender of selected challenging infrastructure projects in countries of operation in 2016. IEG did not validate any Project Completion Reports (PCRs) of AS projects during the period. Results Framework 33. The CPS objectives addressed some of the critical constraints for achieving the country’s development goals. For example, in Focus Area I, fiscal discipline is essential for ensuring economic stability and reducing uncertainty, good roads are needed to reduce transport costs and integrate markets, sound regulations are needed for effective competition; supplying electricity to poor areas improves the welfare of the poor. The objectives were more focused in Focus Area II than in areas I and III. The causal chain between interventions and objectives was clear and convincing in most instances. For example, DPLs can facilitate improvements in fiscal discipline. Several objectives were not underpinned by adequate results indicators making it difficult to assess the impact of the program. For example, establishing a technology office does not necessarily lead to more non-oil exports; a better insolvency framework in itself does not lead to fewer non-performing loans; all indicators related to IFC activities describe what IFC does (e.g., invest in agribusiness) but do not measure the effect of what it does (e.g., strengthen knowledge for sustained growth in agriculture).. Furthermore, several indicators lacked baselines, target values, and dates. Some of the other objectives had adequate indicators (e.g., lowering transport costs and crash fatalities to improve connectivity). In sum, the results framework fell short of what was needed to know what the program contributed to Kazakhstan’s development program. Partnerships and Development Partner Coordination 34. The World Bank has partnered with many international organizations in the country. The Swiss government provides trust funds for some of the projects the Bank financed (Energy and Youth Corps). The OECD and the World Bank worked in several reviews of early childhood education, one of which was a Policy Review Report. The World Bank and WHO collaborate in the implementation of a Health Sector Technology project. The World Bank works in parallel, not jointly, with other international financial institutions involved in transport (ADB, EBRD, IDB, JICA) and irrigation (ADB and IDB). IFC engaged with EBRD and ADB to help develop the Almaty Ring Road PPP project. The government signed separate partnership framework arrangements (PFAs) with the World Bank, Asian Development Bank, Islamic Development Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The arrangements have facilitated coordination and complementarity among them, under the leadership of a high-level Coordination Council, comprised of officials from the government and the four organizations. Safeguards and Fiduciary Issues 35. Of the 13 projects IEG validated during the CPS period eight projects in the sectors of agriculture, energy, environmental and natural resources, trade and competitiveness triggered environmental and social safeguards. The CLR did not assess the country’s compliance with the safeguards. The ICRs for the eight projects and their reviews by IEG indicate that all due diligence requirements were respected. Implementation issues related to safeguards and fiduciary issues were budget shortage, limited access to sub-projects, dust, noise, engine exhaust, disposal of solid non- hazardous waste, and construction difficulties associated with the movement of machines, material and workers. In the environmental and natural resources sector additional issues were the restricted access to resources, implementation delays, data inconsistencies, radioactive contamination of land. The ICRs and the IEG reviews inform that the issues have been resolved or in the process of being resolved. Compliance was reported as achieved in all operations. 36. An Inspection Panel (IP) case was opened to investigate the alleged violations of Safeguards and Bank’s policies on Environmental Assessment (OP/BP 4.01), Natural Habitats (OP/BP4.04), Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12), project supervision (OP/BP 13.0) and access For Official Use Only CLR Review 13 Independent Evaluation Group to information in the case of the ongoing South West Road Project (P099270). The IP registered the case in August 2011 considering claims over inadequate compensation, environmental harm and inadequate impact assessment. The Bank’s management response pointed that these issues had been acknowledged and were being resolved. After additional interaction with the claimants and the Bank’s management, the Panel recommended no further investigation. Ownership and Flexibility 37. The government has substantial ownership of the demand driven CPS program. That ownership is demonstrated by its request of a $1 billion loan (DPL) –to attenuate the oil price shock of 2014– and by the conversion of the JERP program into an expanded and larger RAS. The World Bank’s prompt response to these requests demonstrate its flexibility in implementing the program, adjusting it to the country’s changing circumstances. Ownership from other stakeholders is less evident given the difficult operating environment for civil society organizations in the country. Nevertheless, the World Bank has engaged citizens in the design and implementation of some projects, such as the Education Modernization, Social Health Insurance and Climate Change and Mitigation for the Aral Sea Basin projects. During the preparation of the CPS the Bank carried out consultations with civil society organizations which identified key areas that are in line with those covered in the CPS program. Also, the WBG has begun to use country systems and is ready to use the Government’s e-tendering module for procurement in WBG financed projects. WBG Internal Cooperation 38. The World Bank and IFC supported objectives 2 (employment and non-oil exports), 3 (financial sector), 5 (agriculture), and 7 (transport), all under Focus Area I, Improving Competitiveness and Fostering Job Creation. They also supported objective 13 (energy efficiency) under Focus Area III, Ensuring Development is Environmentally Sustainable. The IFC operations formed part of the results framework and there were some specific instances of collaboration between the World Bank and IFC, such as in BAKAD (the road project around Almaty), the JERP/Renewable Energy and the Country Private Sector Diagnostic. However, the indicators in the results framework suggest that IFC and the World Bank operated alongside but separately from each other. For example, in objective 3 the program sought to improve the insolvency system and strengthen the stability of the financial sector. IFC invested in financial institutions and advised microfinance institutions to improve their lending operations to serve clients in rural areas. While the World Bank actions (on stability and solvency) are linked to the objective of reinvigorating the financial sector, the results chain from IFC interventions (IFC investments and microfinance lending) to the CPS objective is not clear. Moreover, IFC interventions do not measure results. A similar comment applies to objectives 2, 5 and 7, suggesting that both IFC and the World Bank did not coordinate beforehand on how their interventions would help to achieve the objectives of the WBG’s strategy. Risk Identification and Mitigation 39. The CPS identified three risks: political (e.g., stability, governance, rule of law), economic and management of natural resources (e.g., economic freedom, volatility in oil price and volume), and external (e.g., continued eurozone turmoil and its debt crisis). In the event of adverse external shocks, the CPS envisioned rapid policy advisory work and possible development policy operations; the work on governance would help the World Bank Group to deal with risks to the program and to the portfolio; greater attention to implementation constraints would increase implementing knowledge and lending activities. The external risks materialized when oil prices fell sharply in 2014, making it necessary to effect large adjustments in fiscal, monetary and exchange rate policies. The World Bank mitigated this risk through a development policy loan for $1 billion. The oil price shock brought to the forefront the capacity risks to implementation and sustainability of reforms. While the RAS program helps build that capacity these risks will persist before the higher capacity materializes. Overall Assessment and Rating 40. IEG rates WBG performance as Fair. The CPS and PLR tackled well-known development challenges and its focus areas and objectives were well aligned with the government’s development For Official Use Only CLR Review 14 Independent Evaluation Group program. The program was demand driven and was based on good knowledge of the economic and political constraints in the country, a result of the WBG’s engagement in the country through the JERP/RAS program. The WBG selected a program of loans and ASA that balanced the country’s need for technical assistance and its limited need for financial assistance. The program selected objectives of substantial relevance but its results framework lacks coherence in several areas with weak logical chain connecting indicators to results and results to objectives: in some instances the objectives sought goals that could not be achieved with the program’s tools (e.g., governance and customs); in other instances the program defined the intervention as the indicator, particularly frequent in IFC interventions; last, some indicators could not measure adequately the impact of the program (e.g., targeted reviews and public expenditure efficiency). Furthermore, the number of CPS objectives may have been excessive for Kazakhstan’s capacity to execute the program, as evidenced by the number of planned projects that were not implemented, the poor portfolio performance by number of projects, and the low outcome ratings on a number of pre-existing and new projects. The PLR missed an opportunity to address these deficiencies. These make it difficult to assess the impact of the program and build up knowledge related to its results, design and implementation. The CPS and the PLR identified well the risks of the program and selected appropriate mitigation measures. Some of the program’s poor results obey to the pitfalls in design noted above. 41. Although there were some specific instances of collaboration between the World Bank and IFC, there was scope for both WB and IFC to have a closer dialogue rather than to work alongside but separately from each other. The WB did not act in a timely fashion to reduce capacity risk, which it addressed only when the crisis exploded by stepping up efforts to ensure that government officials could implement the projects better, faster and with fewer mistakes, but this was probably too little and too late. The WB produced knowledge services of substantial relevance and disseminated only some of it (e.g., fiscal, SCD) as it may be restricted for contractual reasons to disseminate RAS output. The WBG complied with safeguards and fiduciary issues in all its operations. The WB responded promptly to the oil price shock with a $1 billion loan to cushion the impact of the falling oil prices and stepping up the ASA on finance and macroeconomic management. The WBG has begun to use country systems and is ready to use the Government's e-tendering module for procurement in WBG supported projects. Delays in starting the irrigation and energy projects affected overall program performance, because the projects have few results to show, pulling down the outcome rating. Overall, delays in implementation, as reflected in the seven PLR projects that were not approved during the CPS period, also contributed to the poor results of the program. 7. Assessment of CLR Completion Report 42. The CLR informs about the program’s development outcomes and the performance of the World Bank Group. The CLR examines how the program aligned with the corporate goals of shared prosperity and inclusive growth and presents adequate evidence about the implementation of the program. The CLR reports that there were no major fiduciary issues and does not discuss how the WBG dealt with safeguards and conflict of interest. The CLR does not discuss the relevance of design of the results framework and the quality of the results indicators, a shortcoming that may explain its optimistic assessment of the impact of the program. The CLR assesses the program’s development outcome by grouping indicators (outcomes in CLR terminology) under the relevant Focus Area and rates an outcome as achieved if the target indicator was met, whether or not the indicator is adequate to rate achievement of objective. The CLR rates outcome by Focus Areas and not by objective. The CLR produces an optimistic assessment of the program’s outcome because its method (a) bypasses mapping indicators to objectives, (b) counts indicator met as objective achieved, neglecting whether it is appropriate to measure achievement of objective; and (c) counts 28 outcomes when it should have examined 13 objectives. The weaknesses in the methodology obscure what the program achieved and failed to achieve. For Official Use Only CLR Review 15 Independent Evaluation Group 8. Findings and Lessons 43. The most relevant lessons of the CLR are summarized below. First, knowledge of the country and flexibility to adjust allowed the WBG to engage in the government’s development agenda. Second, to improve the impact of the program, the World Bank and the government need to solve the systemic issues that delay the program’s execution. Third, selectivity and flexibility continue to be key for achieving results. Fourth, careful sequencing of project phases can make project implementation more effective. Fifth, a smooth implementation of complex projects requires that the organizations involved in their design and execution own the projects. Sixth, after the sharp depreciation of the tenge (the national currency), the experience with the Almaty Ring Road Project demonstrates that close collaboration between the government, the private sector, WBG and other financial institutions can reduce costs and optimize project structure. 44. IEG adds the following lessons: • Capacity constraints raise the risks from crises. The oil crisis uncovered a limited local capacity to implement programs. Because building capacity takes time, the WBG needs to allocate more human and financial resources to building capacity, improve the monitoring and evaluation of operations in the country, and include the latent risks of capacity constraints in its preparation of future projects and strategies. • CPS results framework help assess programs and contribute to create and disseminate knowledge about what works and does not work. The Kazakhstan CPS suffered from an incomplete framework that prevented adequate monitoring and measurement of results. To assess programs and build knowledge the WBG needs to ensure its results frameworks have (a) clear and coherent chain of results and (b) indicators that can be measured and truly reflect the development outcomes. Annexes CLR Review 17 Independent Evaluation Group Annex Table 1: Summary of Achievements of CPS Objectives – Kazakhstan Annex Table 2: Kazakhstan Planned and Actual Lending, FY12-FY17 ($, millions) Annex Table 3: Analytical and Advisory Work for Kazakhstan, FY12-17 Annex Table 4: Kazakhstan, Grants and Trust Funds Active in FY12-17 ($, millions) Annex Table 5: IEG Project Ratings for Kazakhstan, FY12-17 ($, millions) Annex Table 6: IEG Project Ratings for Kazakhstan and Comparators, FY12-17 Annex Table 7: Portfolio Status for Kazakhstan and Comparators, FY13-17 Annex Table 8: Disbursement Ratio for Kazakhstan, FY12-17 Annex Table 9: Net Disbursement and Charges for Kazakhstan, FY12-17 ($, millions) Annex Table 10: Total Net Disbursements of Official Development Assistance and Official Aid for Kazakhstan ($, millions) Annex Table 11: Economic and Social Indicators for Kazakhstan, 2012-2017 Annex Table 12: List of IFC Investments in Kazakhstan ($, millions) Annex Table 13: List of IFC Advisory Services in Kazakhstan ($, millions) Annex Table 14: IFC net commitment activity in Kazakhstan, FY12 - FY17 ($, millions) Annex Table 15: List of MIGA Projects Active in Kazakhstan, FY12-17 ($, millions) Annexes CLR Review 19 Independent Evaluation Group Annex Table 1: Summary of Achievements of CPS Objectives – Kazakhstan CPS FY12-FY17: Focus Area I: Improving Competitiveness Actual Results IEG Comments and Fostering Job Creation 1. CPS Objective: Strengthening fiscal discipline and trade openness/integration Indicator 1: Prudent The ICR: MS of project P154702 reports The objective was management of oil revenue that estimated Net Financial Assets of the supported by the maintained, with government net Government (as a share of GDP) for 2017 Kazakhstan financial worth (as measured by is 15.3% - below the 2012 level of 20%. Programmatic difference between stock of The CLR reports that the baseline for Development Policy National Fund of the Republic of 2012 has been revised to 15.5%, however Financing (P154702, Kazakhstan (NFRK) assets and this revision is not reflected in the indicator FY16) and the following sovereign debt) above its 2012 targets of the PLR. ASA projects: Fiscal level of 20% of GDP by 2017. Management for Not Achieved Growth (P129162, FY15), Improvement of Public Debt Management (P128786, FY12), and Enhancement of Fiscal Sustainability (P158642, FY16) 2. CPS Objective: Expanding non-oil sector exports and employment Indicator 1: Improved regulatory The CLR reports that Kazakhstan ranked The objective was environment, as measured by 35th in the Ease of Doing Business for supported by the Doing Business ranking (up from 2017 which reports the ranking for 2016. following ASAs: Major 46 in 2011 to 35 by 2017). The Ease of Doing Business report Enhancement of Outcome (2018), which is current as of June 1, Business Environment Measures 2017 (see doingbusiness.org), reports that (P132680, FY14), Kazakhstan’s rank in 2017 is 36. Enhancing Productivity and Competitiveness Achieved through Enterprise Modernization Support Mechanisms (P127984, FY12), JERP Competition Protection Policy (P147770, FY14), Improvement of Competitiveness through Reduction of Trade Barriers (P143330, FY14), Jobs - Sector Specific Analysis of Barriers and Opportunities JERP FY15 (P153621, FY16), Mineral Tax Regime Analysis (P147763, FY15), and IFC’s PEP CA CG- KAZ AS project (534269, FY11). Annexes CLR Review 20 Independent Evaluation Group CPS FY12-FY17: Focus Area I: Improving Competitiveness Actual Results IEG Comments and Fostering Job Creation At the PLR stage, the indicator dropped part of its target: Business Environment and Enterprise Performance (BEEPs; percent of firms identifying business licensing and permits as a major constraint down from 25.2 percent in 2009 to below 15 percent by 2017). The Ease of Doing Business report (2019) reports that Kazakhstan’s rank improved further in 2018 to 28. Indicator 2: Technology The ICR: MS of project P090695 reports The objective was Commercialization Office (TCO) that 33 Senior Scientist Groups (SSG) and supported by the established, awarding at least 10 Junior Research Groups (JRG) were Technology small technology established as of December 2015. The Commercialization commercialization grants (pre- ICR also reports that there were 33 grants project (P090695, commercialization, joint research awarded by the TCO for P090695 as of FY08). with industry, international December 2015. patenting, industrial internship for The indicator did not scientists) and enabling at least Achieved include a baseline 15 groups of scientists to information and target perform high-quality research. year. Indicator 3: IFC invested in The CLR reports that IFC’s portfolio The objective was manufacturing (paper packaging, diversified in favor of the non-financial supported by the IFC cement), agribusiness (food and sector (manufacturing and agribusiness) investment project RG beverages, agriculture from 34% to 65% (no date provided by the Brands (35534, FY15), commodities), and real estate. CLR). Jambyl Cement (26891, FY09), and Both IFC projects (35534 and 35691) are Soufflet 2 MSK (35691, in the food and beverages sector. In FY15). addition, IFC also invested in cement (26891) and in real estate and The indicator did not manufacturing. include a baseline and target information. Achieved Indicator 4: IFC provided The CLR reports that the World Bank The objective was advisory services on corporate conducted reviews on tax policy (and supported by the governance to Government and transparency) through the JERP and TA following regional IFC over 100 companies and on a new Tax code. However, the AS projects: CAsia CG- conducted studies on tax indicator states that IFC should be the Taj (553287, FY11). provider of advisory services and not the Annexes CLR Review 21 Independent Evaluation Group CPS FY12-FY17: Focus Area I: Improving Competitiveness Actual Results IEG Comments and Fostering Job Creation transparency and regulatory World Bank. The CLR reports that IFC The indicator did not reform. provided advisory services to 10 include a baseline and companies. target information, including year. Not Achieved 3. CPS Objective: Reinvigorating financial sector Indicator 1: Ratio of NPLs to The World Bank’s Global Financial The following ASAs total loans (32.6% in 2012) at Development reports that bank non- supported the least halved by 2017 and well performing loans to gross loans was 6.7% objective: JERP - provisioned. in 2016 while provisions to nonperforming Improvement of the loans was 72%. The ratio of bank non- Insolvency System performing loans to total gross loans more FY13-16(P132696, than halved, from 19 percent in 2012 to 7 FY13; P147790, FY14; and 9 percent in 2016 and 2017 ( P153623, FY15; P157707, FY16) and The National Bank of the Republic of TA for Strengthening Kazakhstan indicate in their Financial Stability of Financial Stability Report 2015-2017 that the stock Sector JERP FY15 of NPL (90+) was 10% of all loans as of (P153643, FY16). December 2017 with 75% provision coverage (Figure 5.4). However, the CLR At the PLR stage, the reported that the decrease in share of indicator was reframed NPL loans was only due to a substantial from the original. bail-out package channeled via the recapitalization of the state-owned Problem Loans Fund (see p.77-78 of the Financial Stability Report 2015-2017. No information is available about whether the 75 percent of provisions is an adequate level of provisions. Mostly Achieved Indicator 2: IFC invested in The CLR reports that IFC’s investments in The objective was financial institutions, including three financial institutions of Kazakhstan supported by IFC’s microfinance and universal resulted in the extension of financial investments in financial banking, also provided trade services to more than 134,000 MSMEs. institutions. guarantees. Sector portfolio KMF, an IFC client and one of the largest serving 15,200 microfinance and MFI in the country has over 220,000 The indicator did not 10,000 SME clients. clients. IEG has verified that the MSME include a baseline and portfolio of IFC client financial institutions target information, exceed the target indicator. including year. Achieved Indicator 3: IFC providing As a result of the AS project, the number The objective was advisory services to microfinance of outstanding loans were increased from supported by IFC’s KZ institution to improve its lending 10,100 at baseline (2013) to 11,229 (value MFTP AS project operations, serving more clients of US$19.5 million) at the end of FY17 (596947, FY14) which in rural area and thus supporting (AS Completion Report). provided advisory rural development. services to promote Achieved financial inclusion of undeserved SMEs in Annexes CLR Review 22 Independent Evaluation Group CPS FY12-FY17: Focus Area I: Improving Competitiveness Actual Results IEG Comments and Fostering Job Creation South Kazakhstan’s remote and rural areas. The indicator did not include a baseline and target information, including year. 4. CPS Objective: Building skills for employment Indicator 1: Share of technical The ICRR IEG: MS of project P102177 The objective was vocational education programs reports that the core curriculum was supported by the revised in line with new (2013) revised and aligned with occupational Technical and competency standards by at standards in 147 or 100% of educational Vocational Education least 20% by 2017 - better programs supported by the project at Modernization project equipping graduates with skills closing (December 2015). The CLR (P102177, FY11). demanded in labor market. reports that there were 212 programs in total which would imply a share of 70%. At the PLR stage, the The CLR also reports that as of June indicator was reframed 2017, 91% of the programs have been from the original. revised with a plan to reach 100% revision by 2019. However, IEG could not find project documents to validate the CLR’s evidence. Achieved 5. CPS Objective: Strengthening knowledge for sustained growth in agriculture Indicator 1: New applied The CLR reports that the objective was This objective was technologies in farming (for planned to be supported by a livestock supported by the example, conservation project that was dropped. In addition, the Second Irrigation and agriculture, new methods of CLR also reports that meat production Drainage Improvement veterinary diseases testing) reached 0.96 million tons at the of 2016. Project (P086592, result in increased crop/fodder However, IEG could not find project FY13) and the following output, supporting 50% increase documents that support this evidence. ASAs: Identifying in meat production (0.84 million While project P086592 aimed to Priorities for tons in 2010) by 2017. rehabilitate and modernize the irrigation Sustainable and drainage systems to support farmers, Development of Animal the project did not monitor this indicator. Nutrition (P148101, FY15), and Agricultural Not Verified Strategy, Policy and Budget Formulation JERP (P129345, FY15). At the PLR stage, the indicator baseline was modified from the original: (0.94 million/tons in 2010) Indicator 2: IFC invested in Both IFC projects (35534 and 35691) are The objective was agribusiness (food and in the food and beverages sector. The supported by the IFC investment project RG Annexes CLR Review 23 Independent Evaluation Group CPS FY12-FY17: Focus Area I: Improving Competitiveness Actual Results IEG Comments and Fostering Job Creation beverages, agriculture CLR reports that investments in RG Brands (35534, FY15) commodities). Brands supported 2,000 direct Jobs. and Soufflet 2 MSK (35691, FY15). Achieved The indicator did not include a baseline and target information, including year. Indicator 3: IFC Food Safety The IFC AS 599215 which provided The objective was Program focuses on (a) assisting advisory services to the company Kazbeef supported by IFC’s one food company in on the implementation of food safety ECA Agribusiness implementing food safety management system. The retailer Metro Standards regional AS practices; (b) stimulating also received advisory services to improve project (599215, FY13). development of local institutional food safety practices and help build capacity for promotion and capacity of twelve suppliers of processed The indicator did not implementation of suppliers’ food food. In addition, the AS project conducted include a baseline and safety standards; and (c) several events, including the International target information, promoting sector-wide demand Food Safety Forum which was delivered in including year. by raising awareness about Kazakhstan, among others. The CLR, agribusiness standards and however, cautions on the reporting of the developing client pipeline. adoption of the systems. Achieved Indicator 4: IFC providing The IFC AS 60167 provided advisory The objective was advisory services on energy services to RG Brands in order to increase supported by IFC’s efficiency at two levels as investment in climate friendly energy and ECA Energy and Water explained in Area of water efficient solutions. 539 MWh per regional AS project Engagement 3, Outcome 28 year of energy use was expected to be (601067, FY16) and CA (Raising Energy Efficiency). avoided by RG Brands as a result of the Energy Infra AS project project (AS Completion Report). However, (599545, FY14). the CLR reports that there were no policy/regulatory level work on energy The indicator did not efficiency during the CPS period. include a baseline and target information, Not Achieved including year. 6. CPS Objective: Improving energy transmission to poor areas Indicator 1: Kazakhstan The ICRR IEG: S of project P114766 The objective was Electricity Grid Operating reports that the project constructed supported by the Company’s (KEGOC) several transmission lines and Moinak Electricity transmission capacity increased modernized substations. However, the Transmission project by 5% between 2012 (34,000 project did not monitor any indicator (P114766, FY10), the MVA) and 2017 to alleviate regarding transmission capacity. Alma Electricity existing and projected power Transmission project shortages in South and East The ICRR IEG: S of project P116919 (P116919, FY11). Kazakhstan. reports that the project’s construction of several transmission and cross- connection lines, together with the construction, extension and modernization of the substations, resulted in the increase in transmission capacity to the Almaty Annexes CLR Review 24 Independent Evaluation Group CPS FY12-FY17: Focus Area I: Improving Competitiveness Actual Results IEG Comments and Fostering Job Creation region from 1,000 MVA (2009) to 2,000 MVA (July 2014). The Annual report of KEGOC for 2017 report that the installed transformer capacity of the 78 electric substations was 36,660 MVA. Achieved 7. CPS Objective: Building transport connectivity and lowering costs Indicator 1: Increased transport The December 2017 ISR: S of project The objective was efficiency through reduction in P099270 report that 1,060 km of the 1,150 supported by the road-user costs and rate of road km roads supported by the Project has South-West Roads crash fatalities along 1,062 km been successfully built and opened to project (P099270, section of Western Europe- traffic. This resulted in the reduction of FY09) and East-West Western China (WE-WC) Road road user cost to US$0.24 per vehicle-km Roads project Corridor by at least 10% by 2017 and road crash fatalities to 9.5 per 100 (P128050, FY12), and (in 2007: road users’ cost was million vehicle-km as of December 2017. Center-West, Regional US$0.26 per vehicle-km and The December 2017 ISR:S of project Development Project road crash fatalities were 11/100 P128050 reports that all civil work along (P153497, FY16) million vehicle-km). the 305 km road section supported by the . project was opened to the public in October 2017 resulting in a US$0.24 per At the PLR stage, the vehicle-km road user cost as of December indicator target year 2017. Although the target for road crash was modified from the fatalities was achieved, the target for road original: 2013 user cost decreased by less than 10%. Mostly Achieved Indicator 2: IFC invested in a rail IFC provided an equity investment of up to This objective was leasing company. US$ 20 million and an A loan of up to supported by IFC’s US$30 million to Eastcomtrans – a railcar ECT investment project leasing company. (30975, FY13). Achieved The indicator did not include a baseline and target information, including year. Indicator 3: IFC advises The CLR reports that IFC provided The objective was Government on structure and advisory services to structure a PPP supported by the IFC’ implementation of international transaction for the concession of the AS project Almaty Ring tender for Big Almaty Ring Road Almaty Ring Road and supported the Road (593827, FY13). (BAKAD). tender process. The indicator did not Achieved include a baseline and target information, including year. Annexes CLR Review 25 Independent Evaluation Group CPS FY12-FY17: Focus Area II: Strengthening Governance and Actual Results IEG Comments Improving Efficiency in Public Service Delivery 8. CPS Objective: Improving governance Indicator 1: Physical inspections The CLR reported that physical This objective was of import declarations by customs inspections of import declarations fell to supported by the reduced from 70% in 2007 to 4.9% in 2017 from 70% in 2007. In Customs Development 20% by 2017; and average addition, the average customs processing project (P096998, customs processing time at time was reduced to 7 hours in 2017 from FY08) and the ASA border posts (24 hours in 2010) 24 hours in 2010. IEG could not find Technical Assistance reduced by 75% by 2017 as project documents supporting this for Civil Service evidenced from client surveys evidence. The ICRR IEG: MU of project Agency (P130926, P096998 reports that physical inspections FY15). were reduced to 14.8% and customs processing time was reduced to 13.4 The World Bank’s hours as of 2015. In addition, the ICRR of Logistics Performance P096998 could not find evidence of Index reports that attribution to the project as the e- merchandise inspected declaration and e-audit system physically fell from 18 components of the project were not fully percent in 2007 to 5 implemented percent in 2018 and that clearance time Partially Achieved without physical inspection went from 1 day in 2012 (no data for 2007) to 4 days in Major 2018. Outcome 9. CPS Objective: Strengthening budget and accounting institutions Measures Indicator 1: Increase in e- The CLR reports that the target has been The objective was procurement transactions (25,000 exceeded with 123,310 open bidding supported by the ASA in 2012) by 20% by 2017, and transactions undertaken in 2016. In Development of E- efficiency of e-procurement addition, the CLR indicated that the e- Procurement System system enhanced by introduction reverse auction system is already fully (P123590, FY12) by by 2014 of electronic reverse functional. The 2019 Methodology for assisting the auction system. Assessing Procurement Systems report Government to design for Kazakhstan shows that there were and manage an more than 2 million contracts conducted internet-based e- through the public procurement web reverse auction system portal in 2017 (Report). The report Survey Responses on e- At the PLR stage, the Government Procurement System (2017) indicator was reframed by the Asian Development Bank indicate from the original. that the e-reverse auction system is operational (Figure 9). . The Government’s e- procurement website is Partially Achieved http://goszakup.gov.kz/ Indicator 2: Quality and efficiency The CLR reports that there were no public The indicator did not of public spending improved expenditure reviews during 2013-2016 include a baseline through introduction of targeted with the first review completed in FY18 information, including reviews of selected areas on (Kazakhstan Public Finance Review year. rolling basis, with at least four (PFR) (P162003)). In addition, the PEFA Annexes CLR Review 26 Independent Evaluation Group CPS FY12-FY17: Focus Area II: Strengthening Governance and Actual Results IEG Comments Improving Efficiency in Public Service Delivery reviews completed during 2013– 2018 reports that there have been 16. positive developments in Kazakhstan’s Public Financial Management. Not Achieved Indicator 3: International The ICRR IEG: S of project P120985 The objective was standard user satisfaction survey reports that the user satisfaction rating on supported by the on quality and reliability of the quality and reliability of data is 94.4% Statistical Capacity statistical data introduced in 2012 for 2016. The satisfaction survey was Building project with 80% satisfaction rates by conducted by the Public Opinion (P120985, FY11) and 2017. Research Center (report). the FY15 Capacity Building for Public Achieved Sector Accounting Reform 10. CPS Objective: Reforming social protection system Indicator 1: Conditional cash The ASA assisted the government in The objective was transfers piloted in at least two developing instruments and supported by the ASA regions methodologies to implement the Improvement of Social conditional cash transfers (Completion Safety Net System Summary FY14), and supported the (P143065, FY14; government in the pilot implementation of P147259, FY15; the Orleu project to three oblasts P153524, FY16; (Akmola, East-Kazakhstan and Zhambyl), P158663, FY17) and in the preparations for full-scale implementation in 2018 (Completion At the PLR stage, the Summary FY15; Completion Summary indicator was modified FY16; Completion Summary FY17). from the original: Conditional cash Achieved transfers are piloted in at least two regions of the country; and depending on need, gender parity is targeted in activation support services utilization. The indicator did not include a baseline and target information, including year. 11. CPS Objective: Sharpening strategic approach to health reforms Indicator 1: By 2016, 10% The ICRR IEG: MS of project P101928 The objective was reduction in population's out-of- reports that financial risk protection did supported by the pocket health expenditures as not improve with health expenditures Health Sector share of total health expenditures (out-of-pocket) as a share of total Technology Transfer (32.9% in 2010). household expenditures – 35.3% in 2016.. and Institutional Annexes CLR Review 27 Independent Evaluation Group CPS FY12-FY17: Focus Area II: Strengthening Governance and Actual Results IEG Comments Improving Efficiency in Public Service Delivery Reform project Not Achieved (P101928, FY08) and the Social Insurance project (P152625, FY16). At the PLR stage, the indicator was reframed from the original. CPS FY12-FY17: Focus Area III: Actual Results Ensuring Development Is IEG Comments Environmentally Sustainable 12. CPS Objective: Safeguarding the environment Indicator 1: Remediation of the The ICRR IEG: MU of project P078342 This objective was high-priority industrial waste reports that 5 out 7 high priority areas supported by the Ust- dumps polluting the air and have been remediated by project closing Kamenogorsk groundwater in Ust-Kamenogorsk (December 2016). The remediation of the Environmental and establishment of groundwater sixth site started late due to Remediation project monitoring system. disagreements with the site’s (P078342, FY07). management which resulted in 80% of remediation work being completed by The indicator did not project close. The seventh site – the include a baseline and highest priority waste dump (biggest target information, source of radioactive contamination of including year. ground water) – was not remediated. The CLRR also reports that a complex ground water monitoring system was established with a network of 100 monitoring points. Major Outcome Mostly Achieved Measures Indicator 2: Reforestation of The ICRR IEG: MS of project P078301 The objective was 44,000 ha completed; and reports that 46,000 ha were re/afforested supported by the damage from forest fire in Irtysh as of May 2015. In addition, 61,000 ha in Forest Protection and Pine Forest reduced by 50% by Dry Aral Seabed were rehabilitated and Reforestation project 2017 (9 ha per case of fire on 650,000 ha of forest under improved fire (P078301, FY05) and average during 2009–11). management. The ICR: MS of project its GEF grant P078301 mentions in the text that the (P087485, FY14). average area of fire incident was reduced from 23.7 ha (2003-11) to 1.67 ha (2012- At the PLR stage, the 13) after the installation of the early indicator was reframed monitoring system – a 70% reduction. from the original. However, P078301 did not monitor this indicator relating to fire damage directly and the improvement reported in the ICR corresponds to the beginning of the CPS period. Achieved Annexes CLR Review 28 Independent Evaluation Group CPS FY12-FY17: Focus Area III: Actual Results Ensuring Development Is IEG Comments Environmentally Sustainable Indicator 3: Water supply The December 2017 ISR: MU of P086592 The objective was systems rehabilitated in 113,000 was not accompanied by a progress supported by the ha covering four southern oblasts, report. The most recent ISR: MU Second Irrigation and bringing water distribution by (November 2018) also did not provide any Drainage Improvement service providers to levels progress report as the construction Project (IDIP2) demanded by farmers. activities have just started. (P086592, FY13) and the ASA Technical Not Achieved Advisory and Implementation Support for Modernizing and Strengthening Efficiency of Irrigation and Drainage Systems (P154116, FY17). The indicator did not include a baseline and target information, including year. 13. CPS Objective: Raising energy efficiency Indicator 1: Cumulative energy The January 2018 ISR: MS of project The objective was savings in targeted public facilities P130013 reports that the quantified supported by the will increase from 0 to 825 GWh energy savings achieved as result of the Energy Efficiency by 2017. project is 178.3 GWh as of December project (P130013, 2017. FY13). Not Achieved The indicator did not include a baseline year. Indicator 2: IFC providing The IFC AS 599545 provided The objective was advisory services on renewable comprehensive policy-level engagement supported by IFC’s CA energy and energy efficiency at for renewable energy market development Energy Infra AS two levels: (a) policy level, to open and the development of the 2016 Green project (599545, FY14) up new markets by removing legal Economy Law, which includes indexing and the ECA Energy and regulatory barriers to private Feed-in Tariffs (FiT) to exchange rate and Water regional AS investments and (b) company fluctuations. project (601067, level, to provide targeted FY16). assistance to first-mover private At the company-level, the project provided sector and utility efficiency advisory services to 4 renewable energy The indicator did not projects. companies in Kazakhstan (AS completion include a baseline and report): target information, • Vestas - advice on market entry including year. strategy for Kazakhstan; • Fonroche Renewable - advice on regulatory framework, project planning risks including land rights; review of solar resource assessment, E&S risks, feasibility study, etc.; Annexes CLR Review 29 Independent Evaluation Group CPS FY12-FY17: Focus Area III: Actual Results Ensuring Development Is IEG Comments Environmentally Sustainable • Promondis - drafting of bankable project-specific power purchase agreement; • Energomost - present proposals for advisory services in 2017. However, the AS completion report did not mention the results of the proposal. No specific results have been associated with the advisory services provided. 601067 also supported the objective by providing advisory services to one company in order to increase investment in climate friendly energy and water efficient solutions (AS Supervision report FY2017Q4). However, no renewable energy production has been reported yet in the supervision documents of 601067 (AS Supervision report FY2019Q2). Partially Achieved Annexes CLR Review 30 Independent Evaluation Group Annex Table 2: Kazakhstan Planned and Actual Lending, FY12-FY17 ($, millions) Approved Project Proposed Approval Closing Proposed Proposed Project name IBRD ID FY FY FY Amount Amount Amount Project Planned Under CPS/PLR FY12-17 CPF PLR East West Roads Project; P128050 2012 2012 2022 1200 1200 1068 $1.2billion (FY12) Youth Corps Project Swiss 2012 0 0 20 20 TF;$20 million (FY12) Energy Efficiency Project 2012 0 0 20 20 SwissTF; $20 million (FY12) Hazardous and POPs Waste 2012 0 0 34 Management Irrigation and Drainage P086592 Improvement Project (Phase 2013 2013 2022 105 105 103 II);$105 (FY13 Syr Darya Control and North Dropped 2013 0 0 106 AralProject (Phase II); (FY13) Persistent Organic Pollutants(POPs) Management GEF 0 0 Grant(FY12) and Project (FY13-14) Electricity Transmission Dropped 2014 0 0 Project;(FY14) Justice Sector Institutional P143274 2014 2014 2020 36 36 Strengthening Public Sector Accounting 2014 0 0 0.2 Reform Fostering Productive P150402 2015 2015 2021 88 88 Innovation P147705 SME Competitiveness 2015 2015 2021 40 40 P150183 Skills and Jobs 2015 2015 2020 100 100 Macroeconomic Management P154702 2016 2016 2017 1000 1000 and Competitiveness DPL P152625 Social Health Insurance 2016 2016 2021 80 80 Center-West Regional P153497 2016 2016 2022 978 978 Development Corridor Education System P153496 2017 2017 2023 80 67 Modernization Climate Change and Dropped 2017 0 0 10 Mitigation Center-South Regional Dropped 2017 0 0 645 Development Corridor Total Planned 1,345 4,542 3,560 Approved Approval Closing Proposed Proposed Unplanned Projects during the CPS Period IBRD FY FY Amount Amount Amount 17 10 Total Unplanned 0 Annexes CLR Review 31 Independent Evaluation Group Approved Approval Closing On-going Projects during the CPS/PLR Period IBRD FY FY Amount P102177 TVEM 2011 2016 29 ALMA TRANSMISSION P116919 2011 2015 78 PROJECT P120985 KAZSTAT 2011 2017 20 MOINAK ELECTRICITY P114766 2010 2013 48 TRANS PROJECT Tax Administration Reform P116696 2010 2021 17 Project P119856 DPL 2010 2011 1000 P099270 SOUTH WEST ROADS 2009 2022 2125 P090695 KZ Tech Commercialization 2008 2016 13 P096998 CUSTOMS DEVT 2008 2016 19 P101928 HLTH SEC TECH (JERP) 2008 2017 118 UST-KAMENOGORSK ENV P078342 2007 2017 24 REMED P078301 FORESTRY 2006 2015 30 P095155 N-S ELEC TRANSM 2006 2012 100 P049721 AGRIC COMPETITIVENESS 2005 2012 24 AG POST PRIV ASSIST (APL P058015 2005 2012 35 #2) SYR DARYA CONTROL N. P046045 2001 2013 65 ARAL SEA Total On-going 3745 Source: Kazakhstan CPS and PLR, WB Business Intelligence Table 2a.1, 2a.4 and 2a.7 as of 2/8/19 *LIR: Latest internal rating. MU: Moderately Unsatisfactory. MS: Moderately Satisfactory. S: Satisfactory. HS: Highly Satisfactory. Annex Table 3: Analytical and Advisory Work for Kazakhstan, FY12-17 Fiscal Proj ID Economic and Sector Work Output Type Practice year JERP Study to improve ind Environment & Natural P129214 FY13 EW/Not assigned competitiveness Resources Macroeconomics, Trade and P143330 FY13/FY14 JERP Improvement of Compet FY14 EW/Not assigned Investment P147154 KZ - Country Fiduciary System Review FY14 EW/Not assigned Governance FY13/FY14 JERP: M-Term Cntr-Cyclic Macroeconomics, Trade and P129162 FY15 EW/Not assigned Macro Investment P129345 Agriculture Policy JERP FY12 FY15 EW/Not assigned Agriculture JERP Agri-Food Supply Chain P143688 FY15 EW/Not assigned Agriculture Development P146496 Kazakhstan Education Efficiency Review FY15 EW/Not assigned Education Environment & Natural P148276 JERP FY14 Improving Indust Compet FY15 EW/Not assigned Resources P149537 Kazakhstan Railways Strategic Logistics FY15 EW/Not assigned Transport Environment & Natural P156549 SWM Assessment FY16 EW/Not assigned Resources Annexes CLR Review 32 Independent Evaluation Group Environment & Natural P156550 Norms and Standards FY16 EW/Not assigned Resources P146035 Kazakhstan Renewable Energy Integration FY17 EW/Not assigned Energy & Extractives Subnational Doing Business in P158700 FY17 EW/Not assigned Other Kazakhstan Fiscal Proj ID Technical Assistance Output Type Practice year P118983 JERP Dev. of Post-graduate Education FY12 TA/IAR Education P120886 JERP Modernization of Nat test syst. FY12 TA/IAR Education Macroeconomics, Trade and P121184 JERP-Sovereign Wealth Fund Knowldge FY12 TA/IAR Investment Finance, Competitiveness and P122613 Kazakhstan ICR ROSC FY12 Report Innovation "How-To" P123589 JERP - IFRS for SMEs TRNG FY12 Governance Guidance P123590 JERP - DEV E-PROC SYSTEM FY12 TA/IAR Governance Finance, Competitiveness and P127564 KZ Financial Sector Monitoring FY12 TA/IAR Innovation P127945 JERP CCT FY12 TA/IAR Social Protection & Labor Finance, Competitiveness and P127982 JERP -KZ Devt of New Enterp Insolven FY12 TA/IAR Innovation JERP - KZ Enhancement of Business Finance, Competitiveness and P127983 FY12 TA/IAR Enviro Innovation JERP - KZ Enhancing Productivity and Macroeconomics, Trade and P127984 FY12 TA/IAR Com Investment P128690 JERP Pensions FY12 TA/EPD Social Protection & Labor AML/CFT TA to Kazakhstan under JERP Finance, Competitiveness and P128737 FY12 TA/EPD 2012 Innovation Macroeconomics, Trade and P128786 FY12 JERP Public Debt Mngt (incl. SOEs) FY12 TA/IAR Investment P128811 JERP - IFRS application for SMEs - 2 FY12 TA/IAR Governance Environment & Natural P131808 JERP Study Tour FY12 TA/EPD Resources Macroeconomics, Trade and P128641 CEM (Country Economic Memorandum) FY13 Report Investment P128783 FY12 JERP Inter-Governmental Relations FY13 TA/IAR Governance JERP - TA TO SUPPORT PPP DEVT- P128985 FY13 TA/IAR Transport KAZAKHSTAN Finance, Competitiveness and P132518 KZ - Financial Sector Monitoring FY13 TA/IAR Innovation JERP - Enhancing Productivity and Macroeconomics, Trade and P132681 FY13 TA/IAR Compet Investment JERP - Improvement of the Insolvency Finance, Competitiveness and P132696 FY13 TA/IAR Sys Innovation P133165 JERP Modernization of the Social Sphere FY13 TA/IAR Social Protection & Labor P143003 FY13 JERP - RBB FY13 TA/IAR Governance Macroeconomics, Trade and P143222 JERP Govt Securities Yield Curve Issues FY13 TA/IAR Investment P144776 PPP Advisory Kazakhstan FY13 FY13 TA/IAR Transport P144885 Transport Strategy 2020 FY13 TA/IAR Transport Annexes CLR Review 33 Independent Evaluation Group P145164 KZ JERP Education Study Tour FY13 TA/IAR Education Environment & Natural P145450 JERP Study Tour - Environment FY13 TA/EPD Resources P128743 CSO - Kazakhstan FY14 TA/EPD Energy & Extractives P128785 FY12 JERP Results-Based Budgeting FY14 TA/EPD Governance P129034 JERP-PISA-SABER BENCHMARKING FY14 TA/IAR Education P131313 PM BS on indiv responsibility in health FY14 TA/EPD Health, Nutrition & Population P131386 PM BS on Pension Reform in KZ FY14 TA/EPD Social Protection & Labor P131935 Internal Audit (JERP) TA FY14 TA/IAR Governance JERP - Enhancement of Business Macroeconomics, Trade and P132680 FY14 TA/IAR Environme Investment P133809 KZ Legislative Regulation of Mining Sctr FY14 TA/IAR Energy & Extractives P143065 Improvement of Social Safety Net System FY14 TA/IAR Social Protection & Labor P143221 JERP Kazakhstan Logistics Improvement FY14 TA/IAR Transport TA to Kazakhstan under JERP 2013 Finance, Competitiveness and P143337 FY14 TA/EPD Program Innovation P145116 Kazakhstan Pension TA FY14 TA/IAR Social Protection & Labor P145286 KZ JERP SSN Study Tour FY14 TA/IAR Social Protection & Labor P146424 KZ Social Modernization Brainstorming FY14 TA/EPD Social Protection & Labor P147452 KZ e-Learning FY14 TA/IAR Education Macroeconomics, Trade and P147770 JERP Competition Protection Policy FY14 TA/IAR Investment JERP Improvement of the Insolvency Finance, Competitiveness and P147790 FY14 TA/IAR Syste Innovation Macroeconomics, Trade and P147791 JERP Identif. of Constraints to Industri FY14 TA/IAR Investment Macroeconomics, Trade and P148036 JERP Govt securities follow-on TA FY14 TA/IAR Investment P106391 BOTA FY15 TA/IAR Social Protection & Labor P128341 JERP - Kazakhstan EITI (FY12) FY15 TA/IAR Energy & Extractives P130926 FY13 JERP Civil Service Reform FY15 TA/IAR Governance P147259 Improvement of Social Safety Net System FY15 TA/IAR Social Protection & Labor P147383 JERP FY14 -- Results Oriented Budgeting FY15 TA/IAR Governance P147387 JERP FY14, Civil Service Reform FY15 TA/IAR Governance P147763 Mineral Tax Regime Analysis FY15 TA/IAR Energy & Extractives AML/CFT Component - JERP 2014 Finance, Competitiveness and P147775 FY15 TA/EPD Program Innovation P148101 JERP Fodder Production-Animal Nutrition FY15 TA/IAR Agriculture Macroeconomics, Trade and P148109 Migration Policy Advice FY15 TA/IAR Investment P148225 FY14 - Tax Policy Advice to MEBP FY15 TA/IAR Governance Finance, Competitiveness and P148390 Gemloc Kazakhstan FY14 FY15 TA/IAR Innovation Social, Urban, Rural and P148477 Modernization of Housing and Utilities FY15 TA/IAR Resilience Global Practice P149368 Social Safety Net Imprvmnt Study Tour FY15 TA/EPD Social Protection & Labor Annexes CLR Review 34 Independent Evaluation Group Social, Urban, Rural and P149812 JERP Social Modernization Study Tour FY15 TA/EPD Resilience Global Practice Environment & Natural P150421 FY14 JERP Study Tour - IHWMS FY15 TA/EPD Resources P151310 JERP BS on Public Administration Reform FY15 TA/EPD Governance Finance, Competitiveness and P153449 AML/CFT Legislation Amend. Preparation FY15 TA/IAR Innovation Macroeconomics, Trade and P153472 Non-observed Economy JERP FY15 TA/IAR Investment Insolvency System Improvement JERP Finance, Competitiveness and P153623 FY15 TA/IAR FY15 Innovation Social Health Insurance System Devt P153784 FY15 TA/IAR Health, Nutrition & Population JERP Environment & Natural P153891 KZ Climate Change Risks Assessment FY15 TA/IAR Resources P154355 Agriculture Policy Brainstorming Session FY15 TA/EPD Agriculture Macroeconomics, Trade and P154907 Analysis of Effect. of Economy Spprt Msr FY15 TA/IAR Investment Macroeconomics, Trade and P147704 KZ Competitiveness and Ec Diversificatio FY16 TA/IAR Investment Social, Urban, Rural and P148364 Support for Mandatory Insurance Law FY16 TA/IAR Resilience Global Practice Kazakhstan#A057MandatoryCatastropheI Finance, Competitiveness and P150034 FY16 TA/IAR nsur Innovation Pension System Improvement Options P153326 FY16 TA/IAR Social Protection & Labor JERP Finance, Competitiveness and P153351 Catastrophe Insurance FY16 TA/IAR Innovation P153434 Integration of Fiscal Agencies JERP FY16 TA/IAR Governance P153495 Sustainability of Mining Operations JERP FY16 TA/IAR Energy & Extractives P153522 Supporting EITI in KZ JERP FY16 TA/EPD Energy & Extractives P153524 Social Safety Net System Improvement FY16 TA/IAR Social Protection & Labor P153621 Jobs: Sector Specific Analysis JERP FY16 TA/IAR Jobs P153622 Support to Labor Market Institutions FY16 TA/IAR Social Protection & Labor Macroeconomics, Trade and P153624 Innovation Grants SME System Support FY16 TA/IAR Investment KZ Financial Sector Development TA Finance, Competitiveness and P153643 FY16 TA/IAR JERP Innovation P153783 Agriculture Census Preparation JERP FY16 TA/IAR Agriculture Refine Audit System for INTOSAI compl- P153876 FY16 TA/IAR Governance ce P153890 Strengthening Water Management in KZ FY16 TA/IAR Water Macroeconomics, Trade and P153893 Business Regulations Review (RIA) FY16 TA/IAR Investment Infrastructure, PPP's & P154038 Policy and Instit. Mechanisms for PPP FY16 TA/IAR Guarantees P154039 Analysis of Agriculture Support Measures FY16 TA/IAR Agriculture KZ Renewable Energy Market P154256 FY16 TA/IAR Energy & Extractives Development Macroeconomics, Trade and P154268 KZ Services Sector Gap Analysis JERP FY16 TA/IAR Investment Annexes CLR Review 35 Independent Evaluation Group P154386 District Heating and HCS Modernization FY16 TA/IAR Energy & Extractives P154815 Impl Support to Public Sector Inst. Ref. FY16 TA/IAR Governance Finance, Competitiveness and P157707 Personal Insolvency System JERP FY16 FY16 TA/IAR Innovation P157995 Higher Education Sector Briefing FY16 TA/IAR Education Macroeconomics, Trade and P158642 Enhancement of Fiscal Sustainability FY16 TA/IAR Investment Social Health Insurance Development P158793 FY16 TA/IAR Health, Nutrition & Population JERP JERP-TA on SOEs structure and P158814 FY16 TA/IAR Governance Governance P159098 Expert Support to Revenue Code Drafting FY16 TA/IAR Governance P159740 TA in Drafting KZ Strategic Plan 2025 FY16 TA/IAR Governance P159881 Advice on the new Budget Code devt FY16 TA/IAR Governance P153116 Education Quality Improvement JERP FY17 TA/IAR Education P153577 Implementing Basic Principles of RBB FY17 TA/IAR Governance P153608 KZ Towards a Jobs Strategy FY17 TA/IAR Jobs P154116 Irrigation and Drainage Efficiency Imprv FY17 TA/IAR Water KZ Roadmap for Urban Agglomerations Social, Urban, Rural and P154312 FY17 TA/IAR JERP Resilience Global Practice P158663 Social Safety Net System Improvement FY17 TA/IAR Social Protection & Labor P159197 Kazakhstan Competition Policy Support FY17 TA/IAR Other P159783 Analytical Support for Digital KZ FY17 TA/IAR Transport Source: WB Business Intelligence 02/11/2019 Annexes CLR Review 36 Independent Evaluation Group Annex Table 4: Kazakhstan, Grants and Trust Funds Active in FY12-17 ($, millions) Project Approval Closing Approved Project name TF ID ID FY FY Amount Kazakhstan: Southeast Europe and Central Asia P152230 TF A1934 2016 2020 5.0 Catastrophe Risk Insurance Facility P127966 Kazakhstan - Youth Corps program TF 14174 2015 2021 21.8 P130013 Kazakhstan Energy Efficiency Project TF 14185 2014 2019 21.8 TF 54598 2006 2008 0.6 P151527 Capacity Building for Public Sector Accounting Reform TF 17724 2015 2016 0.2 Enhancing Demand-Side Governance of the Road P144880 TF 14526 2014 2017 0.3 Administration P114830 Hazardous and POPs Waste Management Project TF 98891 2011 2018 0.2 P127083 Capacity Building for Public Sector Accounting Reform TF 99938 2012 2013 0.2 P116606 IDF for Building Capacity in the Procurement Audit Agency TF 94539 2011 2014 0.5 P116536 Public Sector Audit Capacity Building IDF TF 94540 2010 2013 0.5 Enhancement of M&E System in the Roads P114732 TF 93848 2010 2013 0.4 Administration P087485 FOREST PROTECTION & REFORESTATION TF 55731 2007 2014 5.0 Total 56.3 Source: Client Connection as of 02/11/2019 ** IEG Validates RETF that are 5M and above Annex Table 5: IEG Project Ratings for Kazakhstan, FY12-17 ($, millions) Total Exit Proj ID Project name Evaluate IEG Outcome IEG Risk to DO FY d AGRIC 2012 P049721 14.61 MODERATELY UNSATISFACTORY SIGNIFICANT COMPETITIVENESS AG POST PRIV 2012 P058015 6.52 HIGHLY UNSATISFACTORY SIGNIFICANT ASSIST (APL #2) 2012 P095155 N-S ELEC TRANSM 98.08 SATISFACTORY MODERATE MOINAK ELECTRICITY 2013 P114766 44.73 SATISFACTORY NEGLIGIBLE TO LOW TRANS PROJECT 2015 P078301 FORESTRY 29.17 MODERATELY SATISFACTORY SIGNIFICANT ALMA TRANSMISSION 2015 P116919 71.36 SATISFACTORY MODERATE PROJECT KZ Tech 2016 P090695 11.35 MODERATELY SATISFACTORY MODERATE Commercialization 2016 P096998 CUSTOMS DEVT 7.35 MODERATELY UNSATISFACTORY LOW 2016 P102177 TVEM 29.08 MODERATELY SATISFACTORY MODERATE UST-KAMENOGORSK 2017 P078342 5.45 MODERATELY UNSATISFACTORY SIGNIFICANT ENV REMED 2017 P101928 HLTH SEC TECH (JERP) 112.55 MODERATELY SATISFACTORY # 2017 P120985 KAZSTAT 19.95 SATISFACTORY MODERATE Kazakhstan 2017 P154702 1,000.00 MODERATELY SATISFACTORY SIGNIFICANT Programmatic DPO Total 1,450.20 Source: AO Key IEG Ratings as of 02/11/2019 Annexes CLR Review 37 Independent Evaluation Group Annex Table 6: IEG Project Ratings for Kazakhstan and Comparators, FY12-17 RDO % RDO % Total Total Outcome Outcome Moderate or Moderate or Region Evaluated Evaluated % Sat ($) % Sat (No) Lower Lower ($M) (No) Sat ($) Sat (No) Kazakhstan 1,450.2 13 98 69 21 50 Europe and Cent 25,896.1 256 92 79 63 57 World 143,223.7 1,627 83 72 55 44 Source: WB AO as of 02/11/2019; *IEG Calculation Note: Annex Table 7: Portfolio Status for Kazakhstan and Comparators, FY13-17 Fiscal year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Ave FY11-17 Kazakhstan # Proj 15 14 13 16 18 18 13 15 # Proj At Risk 3 3 3 3 5 7 3 4 % Proj At Risk 20% 21% 23% 19% 28% 39% 23% 25% Net Comm Amt ($M) 2,666 3,594 3,649 3,679 3,813 5,838 3,772 3,859 Comm At Risk ($M) 67 73 160 205 174 383 179 177 % Commit at Risk 2.5 2.0 4.4 5.6 4.6 6.6 4.7 4.3 ECA # Proj 290 256 246 280 290 279 292 276.1428571 # Proj At Risk 40 47 47 37 36 47 37 42 % Proj At Risk 14% 18% 19% 13% 12% 17% 13% 15% Net Comm Amt ($M) 22,650 23,092 24,700 26,928 26,544 27,637 25,808 25,337 Comm At Risk ($M) 2,117 2,668 3,844 2,635 3,534 4,350 5,466 3,516 % Commit at Risk 9.3 11.6 15.6 9.8 13.3 15.7 21.2 13.8 World # Proj 2,059 2,029 1,964 2,048 2,022 1,975 2,071 2,024 # Proj At Risk 382 387 414 412 444 422 449 416 % Proj At Risk 19% 19% 21% 20% 22% 21% 22% 21% Net Comm Amt ($M) 171,755 173,706 176,203 192,610 201,045 220,332 224,420 194,296 Comm At Risk ($M) 23,850 24,465 40,806 40,934 45,988 44,245 52,549 38,977 % Commit at Risk 13.9 14.1 23.2 21.3 22.9 20.1 23.4 19.8 Source: WB BI as of 02/11/2019 Agreement type: IBRD/IDA Only Annexes CLR Review 38 Independent Evaluation Group Annex Table 8: Disbursement Ratio for Kazakhstan, FY12-17 Overall Fiscal Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Result Kazakhstan Disbursement Ratio 22.90 16.30 22.43 20.13 12.20 13.85 18.32 Inv Disb in FY ($M) 485.59 437.16 525.84 372.55 206.44 215.54 2,243.13 Inv Tot Undisb 2,120.11 2,682.39 2,344.85 1,851.01 1,692.16 1,556.34 12,246.86 Begin FY ($M) ECA Disbursement Ratio 25.92 24.15 22.79 23.49 17.47 20.75 22.38 Inv Disb in FY ($M) 3,499.19 2,926.55 2,613.61 2,664.88 2,276.29 2,858.67 16,839.20 Inv Tot Undisb 13,499.78 12,117.00 11,469.99 11,342.98 13,032.33 13,778.81 75,240.89 Begin FY ($M) World Disbursement Ratio 20.79 20.60 20.79 21.78 19.48 20.46 20.63 Inv Disb in FY ($M) 21,049.00 20,511.44 20,759.31 21,854.10 21,153.61 22,127.96 127,455.42 Inv Tot Undisb 101,238.32 99,591.56 99,856.86 100,345.77 108,603.70 108,150.65 617,786.87 Begin FY ($M) * Calculated as IBRD/IDA Disbursements in FY / Opening Undisbursed Amount at FY. Restricted to Lending Instrument Type = Investment. Source: AO disbursement ratio table as of 2/11/2019 Annex Table 9: Net Disbursement and Charges for Kazakhstan, FY12-17 ($, millions) Period Disb. Amt. Repay Amt. Net Amt. Charges Fees Net Transfer FY13 437.1 50.0 387.1 21.9 0.1 365.2 FY14 525.8 153.2 372.7 17.4 2.7 352.6 FY15 372.5 200.4 172.1 17.5 0.4 154.2 FY16 1,206.3 211.1 995.2 25.0 3.3 966.9 Report Total 2,541.8 614.6 1,927.1 81.8 6.5 1,838.8 Source: World Bank Client Connection 02/11/2019 Annexes CLR Review 39 Independent Evaluation Group Annex Table 10: Total Net Disbursements of Official Development Assistance and Official Aid for Kazakhstan ($, millions) Development Partners 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 All Donors, Total 131.86 90.76 92.8 82.5 63.58 59.14 DAC Countries, Total 35.72 10.69 18.98 8.46 3.97 7.6 Australia .. 0.14 .. .. .. .. Austria 0.79 0.89 1.23 1.76 2.05 2.6 Belgium .. 0.01 .. 0.01 0 .. Canada 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.1 0.11 0.16 Czech Republic 0.34 0.3 0.04 0.04 0.11 0.03 Finland 0.36 0.18 0.08 0.05 0.01 .. France 3.28 4.08 4.82 5.24 4.18 4.29 Germany 13.98 -25.32 12.87 12.38 13.86 16.68 Greece 0.15 0.05 0.05 0.05 0 0 Hungary 0.03 0.29 0.16 0.4 0.61 0.63 Ireland 0.04 .. .. .. .. .. Italy .. 0.04 0.15 0.06 0.06 0.04 Japan -15.93 -6.32 -36.75 -33.23 -35.88 -38.98 Korea 0.35 -0.21 0.12 -7.15 2.71 1.88 Luxembourg .. .. .. .. 0.03 0.04 Netherlands 0.44 0.54 0.59 0.44 0.5 0.46 Norway 2.37 1.86 0.62 0.09 .. 0.02 Poland 1.62 1.42 1.22 1.08 0.85 1.71 Portugal .. .. .. 0.01 .. 0.01 Slovak Republic 0.04 0.09 0.02 0.01 .. 0.01 Slovenia .. .. .. 0 0 0.11 Spain .. 0.02 0.01 0.01 -3.65 -3.65 Sweden 0.05 0.04 0.07 0.02 0.08 0.13 Switzerland 0.22 0.27 0.18 0.12 0.09 .. United Kingdom 5.22 2.8 2.93 8.29 4.7 1.53 United States 22.31 29.46 30.47 18.67 13.53 19.92 Multilaterals, Total 43.89 40 32.86 49.67 29.31 31.24 EU Institutions 11.96 14.21 12.21 14.24 10.36 12.07 Regional Development Banks, Total 0.36 -1.14 -1.26 -0.9 1.39 -1.62 Asian Development Bank, Total -0.21 0.29 -0.06 0.61 1.8 0.98 Asian Development Bank [AsDB] -0.21 0.29 -0.06 0.61 1.8 0.98 Islamic Development Bank [IsDB] 0.57 -1.43 -1.2 -1.51 -0.41 -2.6 United Nations, Total 3.28 5.38 3.72 4.29 4.12 5.42 Food and Agriculture Organisation [FAO] .. 0.11 .. .. .. .. International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] 0.54 0.62 0.52 0.32 0.34 0.36 Annexes CLR Review 40 Independent Evaluation Group Development Partners 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 International Labour Organisation [ILO] 0.21 0.16 0.09 0.08 0.11 0.07 UNAIDS 0.69 0.63 0.59 0.72 0.79 0.65 UNDP 0.51 0.41 0.39 0.37 0.28 0.15 UNECE .. .. 0.01 0 0.05 0.61 UNFPA 0.58 0.65 0.62 0.6 0.41 0.49 UNHCR .. 1.67 .. 0.22 0.49 1.39 UNICEF 0.76 1.12 1.12 1.41 0.87 1.27 World Health Organisation [WHO] .. .. 0.38 0.57 0.78 0.42 Other Multilateral, Total 28.29 21.54 18.18 32.04 13.44 15.38 Climate Investment Funds [CIF] .. .. 0.41 15.29 .. .. Global Environment Facility [GEF] 8.45 9.15 10.17 9.04 6.47 5.73 Global Fund 17.44 9.65 5.22 5.55 4.49 7.46 Global Green Growth Institute [GGGI] .. 0.38 0.11 .. .. .. OPEC Fund for International Development [OFID] .. .. .. .. 0.33 .. OSCE 2.4 2.36 2.27 2.17 2.15 2.18 Non-DAC Countries, Total 52.24 40.07 40.96 24.37 30.3 20.3 Estonia .. .. .. 0 0.01 .. Israel 0.39 0.49 0.38 0.38 0.95 .. Kuwait -0.81 -0.8 -0.8 -0.75 -0.75 -0.66 Latvia .. 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.02 Lithuania 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.03 Romania 0.09 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.04 Russia 1.07 0.08 0.55 0.57 0.32 0.48 Thailand .. .. .. 0 .. 0.01 Turkey 50.17 39.3 40.54 24.44 18.96 20.38 United Arab Emirates 1.3 0.97 0.23 -0.35 7.35 0.01 Source: OECD Stat. DAC2a as of 02/11/2019 * Most Data only available up to FY17 Annexes CLR Review 41 Independent Evaluation Group Annex Table 11: Economic and Social Indicators for Kazakhstan, 2012-2017 Kazakhstan ECA World Series Name 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Average 2012-2017 Growth and Inflation GDP growth (annual %) 4.8 6.0 4.2 1.2 1.1 4.1 3.6 2.7 2.7 GDP per capita growth 3.3 4.5 2.7 (0.3) (0.3) 2.7 2.1 2.2 1.5 (annual %) GNI per capita, PPP (current 19,370.0 21,250.0 22,310.0 23,550.0 22,900.0 23,530.0 22,151.7 19,387.7 15,462.1 international $) GNI per capita, Atlas method 9,940.0 11,840.0 12,090.0 11,420.0 8,800.0 7,960.0 10,343.3 9,283.8 10,591.2 (current $) Inflation, consumer prices 5.2 5.9 6.8 6.7 14.4 7.4 7.7 2.6 2.3 (annual %) Composition of GDP (%) Agriculture, value added (% 4.3 4.5 4.3 4.7 4.6 4.4 4.5 5.0 3.6 of GDP) Industry, value added (% of 36.3 33.7 33.2 30.9 32.0 32.2 33.0 29.0 26.4 GDP) Services, value added (% of 51.4 53.2 54.8 59.3 57.9 57.4 55.7 54.4 64.1 GDP) Gross fixed capital formation 22.8 21.9 21.6 22.9 22.7 21.9 22.3 22.8 23.4 (% of GDP) External Accounts Exports of goods and 44.1 38.6 39.3 28.5 31.8 34.4 36.1 33.2 31.0 services (% of GDP) Imports of goods and 29.6 26.8 25.6 24.5 28.5 26.3 26.9 31.8 30.1 services (% of GDP) Current account balance (% 0.5 0.5 2.8 (2.8) (6.5) (3.3) -1.5 -- of GDP) External debt stocks (% of 75.3 70.8 79.3 88.5 131.7 118.4 94.0 -- GNI) Total debt service (% of GNI) 12.9 14.6 15.7 20.2 16.3 19.3 16.5 7.3 -- Total reserves in months of 3.7 3.3 4.3 5.7 6.5 5.8 4.9 8.5 13.2 imports Annexes CLR Review 42 Independent Evaluation Group Kazakhstan ECA World Series Name 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Average 2012-2017 Fiscal Accounts /1 General government revenue 26.3 24.8 23.7 16.6 16.1 18.8 21.1 (% of GDP) General government total 21.9 19.8 21.3 22.9 21.5 25.2 22.1 expenditure (% of GDP) General government net 4.4 4.9 2.5 (6.3) (5.3) (6.4) -1.0 lending/borrowing (% of GDP) General government gross 12.1 12.6 14.5 21.9 19.7 20.8 16.9 debt (% of GDP) Health Life expectancy at birth, total 69.6 70.5 71.6 72.0 72.3 .. 71.2 72.7 71.7 (years) Immunization, DPT (% of 99.0 98.0 95.0 98.0 82.0 99.0 95.2 92.8 84.8 children ages 12-23 months) People using safely managed .. .. .. .. .. .. 38.1 sanitation services (% of pop) People using at least basic drinking water services (% of 90.3 90.7 90.9 91.1 .. .. 90.8 95.8 87.8 pop) Mortality rate, infant (per 14.6 13.1 11.8 10.7 9.7 8.9 11.5 12.6 31.8 1,000 live births) Education School enrollment, 109.4 110.9 111.5 110.7 109.0 107.9 109.9 100.7 103.8 preprimary (% gross) School enrollment, primary 53.5 57.1 57.1 60.0 59.0 54.1 56.8 58.5 47.0 (% gross) School enrollment, secondary 101.3 102.0 105.8 109.4 112.4 113.1 107.3 97.6 75.9 (% gross) School enrollment, tertiary (% 51.0 49.8 48.2 45.8 46.1 49.6 48.4 64.5 35.5 gross) pop population, total 16,792,089.0 17,035,550.0 17,288,285.0 17,542,806.0 17,794,055.0 18,037,646.0 17,415,071.8 451,741,201.7 7,314,682,491.8 Annexes CLR Review 43 Independent Evaluation Group Kazakhstan ECA World Series Name 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Average 2012-2017 population growth (annual %) 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 0.5 1.2 Urban population (% of total) 57.0 57.0 57.1 57.2 57.3 57.3 57.2 65.7 53.7 Rural population (% of total 43.0 43.0 42.9 42.8 42.7 42.7 42.8 34.3 46.3 pop) Poverty Poverty headcount ratio at $1.90 a day (2011 PPP) (% of - - - - .. .. 0.0 .. .. pop) Poverty headcount ratio at national poverty lines (% of 3.8 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.5 2.5 .. .. 2.9 pop) Rural poverty headcount ratio at national poverty lines (% of 6.1 4.9 4.7 4.4 .. .. 5.0 .. .. rural pop) Urban poverty headcount ratio at national poverty lines 1.9 1.3 1.3 1.3 .. .. 1.5 .. .. (% of urban pop) GINI index (World Bank 28.1 27.1 27.0 26.9 .. .. 27.3 estimate) Source: WB World Development Indicators DataBank 2/11/19 *International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database, February 2019 Annexes CLR Review 44 Independent Evaluation Group Annex Table 12: List of IFC Investments in Kazakhstan ($, millions) Investments Committed in FY12-17 Project Cmt Project Project Net Net Primary Sector Name Net Comm ID FY Status Size Loan Equity 35747 2017 Active Finance & Insurance 44.0 44.0 - 44.0 37442 2016 Closed Finance & Insurance 2.5 0.1 - 0.1 34328 2015 Closed Finance & Insurance 5.0 5.0 - 5.0 35294 2015 Closed Finance & Insurance 0.8 0.1 - 0.1 35533 2015 Closed Finance & Insurance 1.0 0.3 - 0.3 35534 2015 Active Food & Beverages 30.0 30.0 - 30.0 35691 2015 Active Food & Beverages 20.5 20.5 - 20.5 33323 2014 Closed Finance & Insurance 0.2 0.2 - 0.2 Transportation and 30975 2013 Active 164.9 50.0 19.8 49.8 Warehousing 31830 2013 Closed Finance & Insurance 70.0 70.0 - 70.0 32892 2013 Closed Finance & Insurance 0.0 - - - 32923 2013 Closed Finance & Insurance 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 32924 2013 Closed Finance & Insurance 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 33105 2013 Closed Finance & Insurance 0.1 0.1 - 0.1 Nonmetallic Mineral 31760 2012 Active 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Product Manufacturing 31868 2012 Closed Finance & Insurance 3.0 3.0 - 3.0 31948 2012 Active Finance & Insurance 30.0 21.9 - 21.9 Sub-Total 377.0 250.1 24.8 249.9 Investments Committed pre-FY12 but active during FY12-17 Project CMT Project Project Net Net Primary Sector Name Net Comm ID FY Status Size Loan Equity Nonmetallic Mineral 30719 2011 Active 185.0 185.0 86.1 171.1 Product Manufacturing 28071 2010 Active Finance & Insurance 245.0 65.0 14.3 64.3 Nonmetallic Mineral 26891 2009 Active - - - - Product Manufacturing Sub-Total 430.0 250.0 100.5 235.5 TOTAL 807.0 500.1 125.2 485.4 Source: IFC-MIS Extract as of 10/30/18 Annexes CLR Review 45 Independent Evaluation Group Annex Table 13: List of IFC Advisory Services in Kazakhstan ($, millions) Advisory Services Approved in FY12-17 Project Impl Impl Project Primary Total Funds Project Name ID Start FY End FY Status Business Line Managed by IFC 601569 IFC and EBRD Strategic Partnership 2018 2019 ACTIVE CAS 2.31 Kazakhstan Energy Efficiency 601944 2018 2019 TERMINATED EFI 0.71 Standards and Labeling 600642 Almaty University Hospital 2015 2016 TERMINATED CAS 0.39 596947 KZ_MFTP 2014 2018 ACTIVE FIG 0.17 599448 Kazakhstan cold storage 2014 2015 TERMINATED PPP 0.56 Central Asia and Caucasus Energy 599545 2014 2018 ACTIVE INR 4.15 Infrastructure Program 593827 Almaty ring road 2013 2018 CLOSED CAS 4.21 Sub-Total 12.50 Advisory Services Approved pre-FY12 but active during FY12-17 Project Impl Impl Primary Total Funds Project Name Project Status ID Start FY End FY Business Line Managed by IFC 28028 Almaty Parking 2010 2012 TERMINATED PPP - TOTAL 12.5 Source: IFC AS Portal Data as of 11/30/18 Annex Table 14: IFC net commitment activity in Kazakhstan, FY12 - FY17 ($, millions) 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total Long-term Investment Commitment Financial Markets 3.0 70.1 0.2 6.8 2.5 40.2 122.8 Agribusiness & Forestry (0.1) (0.9) (13.4) 50.1 (0.0) 0.4 36.1 Manufacturing 5.0 - - - (0.0) - 4.9 Infrastructure - 50.0 - (0.2) - - 49.8 Total IFC Long Term 7.9 119.2 (13.2) 56.6 2.4 40.6 213.6 Investment Commitment Total Short-term Finance/Trade Finance / Average Outsanding 30.7 13.0 - 0.0 (0.0) - 43.7 Balance (GTFP) Source: IFC MIS as of 12/18/18 Note: IFC began reporting average outstanding short-term commitments (not total commitments) in FY15 and no longer aggregates short-term commitments with long-term commitments. IEG uses net commitment number for IFC's long-term investment. For trade finance guarantees under GTFP, average commitment numbers have been used. Annex Table 15: List of MIGA Projects Active in Kazakhstan, FY12-17 ($, millions) Max Gross Contract Enterprise Project Status Sector Issuance NO Active MIGA Projects Total - Source: MIGA 2/7/19 w/ Project Briefs