Review of EC Review of EC Investment Support FacilitiesInvestment Support Facilities

Craig DaviesPPC Executive Secretary

Priority Environmental Investment Programme Regional MeetingBrussels, 26 November 2007

Background to the evaluationBackground to the evaluation EC has increasingly used ISFs as vehicles for its

support for environmental infrastructure

The DABLAS Task Force asked for a forward-looking review of ISFs

Funding provided by the UK (DFID)

Review managed by the PPC Secretariat

Review implemented by COWI A/S (Denmark)

Evaluation methodologyEvaluation methodology Issues to be addressed:

i. General characteristics of ISFs

ii. Impact of ISFs on environmental investments

iii. Sustainability of the contribution made by ISFs

iv. Catalysing effect on investment by IFIs

v. Other impacts

Three sources of data

i. Review of documentation

ii. Stakeholder survey

iii. Telephone interviews

ISFs: timescale and scopeISFs: timescale and scope

DISF BSIF WISF EPPF

Facility duration Jan 04 – Jun 06 May 04 – Oct 06 Jun 05 – Dec 07 Oct 06 – Oct 08

Geographical scope (ToR)

AlbaniaBosnia-Herzegovina

CroatiaFYR Macedonia

Serbia & Montenegro

GeorgiaMoldovaRussiaUkraine

ArmeniaAzerbaijan

GeorgiaKyrgyzstan

MoldovaTajikistan

Uzbekistan

AlbaniaBosnia-

HerzegovinaCroatia

FYR MacedoniaMontenegro

Serbia

Geographical scope (actual)

Bosnia-HerzegovinaCroatia

Montenegro

GeorgiaMoldovaUkraine

ArmeniaAzerbaijan

GeorgiaUzbekistan

Bosnia- Herzegovina

ISFs: sectors coveredISFs: sectors covered

DISF BSIF WISF EPPF

Sector focus (ToR)

Water supplyWaste water and

sewage

WaterSolid wasteAgriculture Industrial

Water supply and sanitation

Integrated Water Resource

Management

Municipal infrastructure

(water, waste water, solid waste and air

pollution)

Sector focus (actual)

Water and sanitation (majority of projects

focused on wastewater)

Water supply Waste water

Waste management e.g. manure processing,

infrastructure modernisation

Water supply and sanitation

Water resource management

Water management

ISFs: funding and managementISFs: funding and management

DISF BSIF WISF EPPF

Funding EC/Cards Programme EC/TACIS programme

EC/TACIS programme

EC/ Cards Programme

Number of project related

studies

10 13 8 2

IFIs participating ERBD, EIB EBRD,EIB, BSTDB ADB, EBRD, WB EIB, EBRD

Consortium BCEOM (F)JacobsGIBBS (UK)

Thalès Engineering and Consulting (F)

Sogreah (F)GKW Consult (D)

Arcadis-Euroconsult (NL)

BCEOM (F)Mazars (F)

Jacobs UK Ltd (UK)JacobsGIBBS Ltd

(UK)Oikon Ltd (Cr)

Project Manager Michel Albientz Bernard Froelicher George McDonnell Sohail Hassan

ISFs: budgets and activitiesISFs: budgets and activities

DISF BSIF WISF EPPF

Facility budget (MEUR) 3.6 2.9 2.7 1.8

Number of project related studies

10 13 8 2

Typical cost of study (EUR) 200,000-300,000 150,000-250,000 337,500 200,000-300,000

Average cost of study (EUR) 364,000 157,651 337,500 269,000

Number of man days per study 170-300 200-300 250-500 200-300

ISFs: impacts on investmentsISFs: impacts on investments

DISF BSIF WISF EPPF

Total expected project costs (MEUR)

205 N/A 575 N/A

Total loan commitments (MEUR)

42 44 340 38

Loan disbursements (MEUR)

5 21 0 0

Total project costs / facility budget 56.3 N/A 213.0 N/A

Total loan commitments / facility budget

11.5 15.2 125.9 70.6

Total loan disbursements / facility budget

1.4 7.3 0.0 0.0

How well have ISFs met stakeholder needs?How well have ISFs met stakeholder needs?

Needs of EC

Needs of partner countries

Needs of IFIs

Performance

ImportanceHigh

Low

LowHigh

How have ISFs supported IFI operations?How have ISFs supported IFI operations?

What are the main advantages of an ISF?What are the main advantages of an ISF?

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Reduce

d t

ime

lapse

Quic

k p

roje

ctpre

para

tion

Pro

ject

pre

para

tion

Pro

ject

imple

menta

tion

Abili

ty t

ooverc

om

e I

MF

const

rain

ts

Co-fi

nanci

ng

support

Skill

s tr

ansf

er

Capaci

tybuild

ing

Oth

er

Share of respondents

How have ISFs provided opportunities for How have ISFs provided opportunities for skills transfer?skills transfer?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Involvementof local

consultants

Co-operationwith publicauthoritiesand utilities

Trainingcourses

Trainingworkshops

Other

Share of respondents

Key findingsKey findings ISFs have made important contributions to promoting IFI

investment in environmental infrastructure

Rapid, high-quality project preparation support is most valued by stakeholders

Other activities (capacity building, matchmaking etc) are considered less important

IFIs have led on project selection

IFIs are not usually involved in signing off consultants’ work

Management could be strengthened – Steering Committees

Recommendations: future ISFs should….Recommendations: future ISFs should…. focus on their core strength – high quality project

preparation support

be more tightly focused on specific countries and sectors

have a duration of 3-5 years, reflecting a typical project cycle

involve IFIs in preparation of ToRs, tendering and sign-off of consultancy services

have improved management, transparency and visibility

Discussion point: options for future ISFsDiscussion point: options for future ISFs

Future ISFs (if agreed) will be funded through the IPA and ENPI instruments

How can the lessons learned from past ISFs be reflected in the design and implementation of IPA/ENPI programmes?