for official use only public disclosure authorized cpscr...
TRANSCRIPT
For Official Use Only
CPSCR Reviewed by: Peer Reviewed by: CPSCR Review Coordinator
Florence Charlier Senior Economist, IEGCC
Shoghik Hovhannisyan Consultant, IEGCC
Jaime Jaramillo-Vallejo Lead Economist, IEGCC
Igor Artemiev Consultant, IEGCC
Xiaolun Sun Senior Evaluation Officer, IEGCC
CPSCR Review Independent Evaluation Group
2. Executive Summary
i. This review examines the implementation of the FY05-FY11 Kazakhstan Country Partnership Strategy (CPS) of FY05 and the CPS Progress Report (CPSPR) of FY08, and evaluates the CPSCR. The strategy was joint between IBRD and IFC and this review covers the joint program of the two institutions.
ii. The WBG sought to support Kazakhstan’s efforts organizing its objectives around four pillars that revolved around the central issue of improving its competitiveness. Under Pillar1, the WBG’s support aimed at reducing losses in competitiveness through prudent management of the oil revenues and increased public sector efficiency. Under Pillar 2, the WBG strategy focused on buttressing efforts to promote competitiveness by strengthening the government’s capacity to identify and reduce barriers to businesses and private investors. Under Pillar 3, the WBG supported building the foundation for future competitiveness by investing in human capital and basic infrastructure. Under Pillar 4, the WBG support aimed at supporting Kazakhstan in ensuring future growth will not harm the environment and past liabilities are mitigated. These objectives were reaffirmed at the time of the CPSPR.
iii. IEG rates overall outcome of the WBG’s strategy as moderately unsatisfactory. Kazakhstan saved part of its oil revenues in the National Fund of the Republic of Kazakhstan (NFRK) through the CPS period, and introduced a medium term expenditure framework in 2009. Progress in complying with the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) has been slower than expected, and the NFRK has mixed ratings within the sovereign wealth funds. Macroeconomic policy was thwarted by failures in macro-prudential regulations of the banking system and bank supervision. Kazakhstan’s efforts to decentralize to lower levels of government through legal changes have yet to overcome the culture of strong centralization in decision making. Similarly, Kazakhstan’s moves to improve governance, including through better customs and tax administration, have had little effect. Kazakhstan has slowed its accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) path by entering into trade agreements inconsistent with WTO principles. Similarly, the country has made scant progress in technology transfer, and innovative production has declined as a share of GDP. The share of SMEs in GDP seems to have declined, reflecting the contradictory policy framework that they face regarding competition on the one hand, and import substitution and government support schemes on the other. The share of agriculture in GDP and in total exports also declined, and there is no information on the effectiveness of the changes in agricultural quality and safety standards. Kazakhstan high coverage of education remains challenged by its quality, with students performing below OECD standards. Health indicators show the country making progress, backed in part by a large increase in public expenditure in health. In the provision of basic services, Kazakhstan has improved the electric grid, and provides its people with ample improved water. The quality of electric service, however, remains weak. Kazakhstan’s progress in improving basic services has been slowed by the regulatory framework, which discourages investments in electricity generation and water treatment. Kazakhstan improved its road infrastructure, but remains challenged by their maintenance. Kazakhstan’s efforts to move towards environmentally sustainable growth, as demonstrated by new
1. CPS Data
Country: Kazakhstan
CPS Year: FY05 CPS Period: FY05 – FY11
CPSCR Review Period: FY05- FY11 Date of this review: April 25, 2012
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
For Official Use Only 2
CPSCR Review Independent Evaluation Group
legislation and higher expenditures, have yet to yield results despite having been in place for five years. The circumscribed interventions of the WBG in helping Kazakhstan address regional development issues have been mostly positive, but have failed to bring about their scaling up or replication in the country.
iv. IEG stresses five findings. First, full country ownership of an advisory agenda does not guarantee its effectiveness. While being a necessary condition, it is by no means a sufficient one as the Kazakhstan example shows. Second, a flexible approach such as the one embodied in the JERP calls for effective and regular monitoring of the two factors that were identified in the FY05 CPS as central to the relevance of the interventions, namely the contribution of these interventions in terms of results (value added) and the progress being made in the policy framework. Third, WBG’s flexible approaches with middle income countries need to be coupled with results frameworks that allow valuable and operative monitoring and evaluation of the strategy and its implementation throughout its period. In the absence of monitoring, WBG efforts may turn out to be ineffective from a development perspective. Fourth, the CPSPR is the stage where the objectives of the strategies can be adjusted to what is feasible and to the WBG contributions. The Kazakhstan strategy could have been seen in a better light under a more realistic set of objectives. Fifth, careful constant monitoring of the macroeconomic conditions, including the financial sector, and a persuasive policy dialogue with the government about them would allow the WBG to be a more effective and opportune development partner. A more compelling early engagement by the WBG in dealing with the core issues may have lessened the effects and duration of the domestic banking crisis of Kazakhstan.
3. WBG Strategy Summary
Overview of CPS Relevance:
Country Context:
1. Over 2000-2005, Kazakhstan grew rapidly at around 10% driven mostly by its hydrocarbon and metal extraction industries, and GDP per capita reached US$7,800 (PPP). During this period, the country saved some of the revenue stemming from its extractive industries in the National Fund of the Republic of Kazakhstan (NFRK), which was created in 2000 and is administered by the Central Bank. Kazakhstan’s fast pace of growth continued through 2007, but slowed considerably with the global financial crisis. Kazakhstan’s banking sector was particularly hardly hit by weak funding practices before the crisis, and remains weak. At the heart of the weakness of the domestic banks lies their overleveraging using foreign financial sources (over 140 percent of domestic deposits at its peak in 2007), which dropped considerably with the global financial crisis. Accordingly, the ratio of non-performing loans of the financial sector rose sharply to over 25 percent, as domestic banks tried to adjust their balance sheets to the lower levels of financing available from abroad. Nevertheless, GDP growth rebounded in 2010, aided by favorable commodity prices, an accommodative monetary policy and the use of US$17 billion of NFRK resources to support banks and a fiscal expansion. Meanwhile, poverty declined from 46.7 percent in 2001 to 6.5 percent in 2010, but is twice as high in rural areas as compared to urban areas. On the operational side, Kazakhstan had created, together with IBRD, a Joint Economic Research Program (JERP) in 2006, which was cofinanced and served as to frame IBRD’s contributions to the country through analytic and advisory activities (AAA). Under this framework, the yearly AAA program was defined based on Kazakhstan’s demand for services.
2. The Kazakhstan Government’s vision for the country’s development was initially laid out in 1997 “Prosperity, Security and Ever Growing Welfare of All the Kazakhstanis,” which was further updated in a Presidential Address in 2007. The updated Strategy’s main priorities include (i) the successful integration of Kazakhstan in the world economy through existing and new competitive advantages; (ii) the management of growth and sustainability through diversification, infrastructure development and the development of hi-tech industry; (iii) providing education and professional training at international standards; (iv) the adoption of a modern social policy in housing, healthcare
For Official Use Only 3
CPSCR Review Independent Evaluation Group
and pensions; (v) strengthening the foundation of the political system; and (vi) facing the new regional and geopolitical responsibilities of Kazakhstan.
Objectives of the WBG Strategy:
3. The WBG sought to support Kazakhstan’s efforts organizing its objectives around four pillars that revolved around the central issue of improving its competitiveness. Under Pillar1, the WBG’s support aimed at reducing losses in competitiveness through prudent management of the oil revenues and increased public sector efficiency. Under Pillar 2, the WBG strategy focused on buttressing efforts to promote competitiveness by strengthening the government’s capacity to identify and reduce barriers to businesses and private investors. Under Pillar 3, the WBG supported building the foundation for future competitiveness by investing in human capital and basic infrastructure. Under Pillar 4, the WBG support aimed at supporting Kazakhstan in ensuring future growth will not harm the environment and past liabilities are mitigated. These objectives were reaffirmed at the time of the CPSPR.
Relevance of the WBG Strategy: 4. Congruence with Country Context and Program. The WBG strategy was broadly aligned with Kazakhstan’s country context and own vision. Nevertheless, the WBG strategy was selective and mostly focused on the competitiveness aspects of macroeconomic management, private sector development, human capital, infrastructure and environmental sustainability. The CPSPR did not elaborate on how the strategy would be adjusted to support Kazakhstan’s efforts to face the domestic banking system crisis, which had by then emerged.
5. Relevance of Design: The design of the strategy derived relevance from the fact that the main set of interventions of the WBG, analytical and advisory activities, was driven by the yearly agreements with Kazakhstan on the JERP. To enhance the relevance of these interventions, the FY05 CPS stated that relevance would “be assessed against three criteria : (i) the demand for Bank’s services, (ii) the value added of the development process and (iii) Kazakhstan’s overall policy environment.” Moreover, the CPS identified a set of indicators and related regional and world benchmarks that would guide the assessment, particularly as regards to progress in economic management, poverty abatement, and improvements in competitiveness and governance. The conditions and indicators for relevance were downplayed in the FY08 CPSPR and were not reported in the CPSCR. As anticipated in the FY05 CPS, the relevance of these interventions weakens when judged against the effective value added to the country and the progress (or lack of) in the policy framework, as appears to be the case in Kazakhstan. While country ownership is a necessary condition for relevance, it is certainly not a sufficient condition.
6. Relevance of Response to Market: Until 2007 IFC fostered private-sector-led growth focusing on non-extractive sectors and on the frontier regions of the country. These interventions responded to the country’s market conditions, and covered the financial sector (mostly larger banks) as well as targeted investments in manufacturing and services, construction and construction materials, hotels, retail trade and leasing. Providing financing to overleveraged financial institutions at the time of the bubble was not sound from a macroeconomic standpoint and went against the objectives of the WBG strategy. After 2007, when the banking system went into a crisis because of the withdrawal of foreign financing to domestic banks, IFC adjusted its approach. IFC raised total country commitments more than five times focusing mostly on supporting ailing banks, providing them with equity, quasi-equity, senior debt and trade finance. IFC focused mostly on mid-cap and smaller niche banks, which had larger share of SME loans in their portfolio. In contrast with the pre-crisis interventions, these were relevant in that they helped palliate the rapid decline in foreign financing faced by domestic banks, while aiding financing flows to SMEs.
7. Risk Identification and Mitigation: The strategy identified as main risks the macroeconomic factors as well as the government’s lack of commitment to policy reform. The CPS also recognized
For Official Use Only 4
CPSCR Review Independent Evaluation Group
the risk associated with the change in business model, as defined by the JERP. The WBG did not identify as a major risk, however, the foreign leveraging of Kazakhstan’s banking system, which reached over 140 percent of domestic deposits in 2007. Moreover, the strategy was not adjusted at the time of the CPSPR to take this crisis into account.
Overview of CAS/CPS Implementation: Lending and Investments: 8. IBRD approved financing for US$ 3.7 billion through 15 operations (investment and policy based lending) during the CPS. Under Pillar 1, which focused on managing the oil windfall and increasing public sector efficiency, IBRD delivered three projects, including Customs Development (CDP, FY08), Tax Administration Reform (TARP, FY10), Strengthening the National Statistical System (NSSP, FY11), as well as the Kazakhstan Development Policy Loan (KZ-DPL, FY10). Under Pillar 2, which focused on the business environment, IBRD delivered three projects, including Agricultural Post-Privatization Assistance APL 2 (APL2, FY05), Agricultural Competitiveness (ACP, FY05), and Technology Commercialization (TCP, FY08). Under Pillar 3, which aimed at supporting human capital and basic infrastructure, IBRD delivered six projects, including North-South Electricity Transmission (NSET, FY06), Health Sector Technology Transfer and Institutional Reform (HSTTP, FY08), South-West Roads: Western Europe-Western China International Transit Corridor (CARECP, FY09), Moinak Electricity Transmission (METP, FY10), Technical & Vocational Education Modernization (TVEMP, FY11), and Alma Transmission (ATP, FY11). Finally, under Pillar 4 on environment, IBRD delivered two projects, including Ust-Kamenogorsk Environmental Remediation (UKERP, FY06) and Forest Protection and Reforestation (FPRP, FY06). In addition, IBRD continued implementing seven projects that had been approved under the previous CPS.
9. IBRD’s share of commitments at risk fluctuated during the strategy period, starting from nil, reaching 16.5 percent in 2007 and falling to 2.5 percent in 2011. About one fifth of the projects by number were at risk in 2011. While the share of commitments at risk is low by ECA standards, the share of operations by number is as high as the rest of the World Bank. Of seven projects exited during the CPS period and evaluated by IEG, six received a rating of satisfactory and one of moderately satisfactory.
10. IFC invested in 18 new projects, four of which closed during the CPS period. In addition, it saw 18 other projects from before exit during the CPS period. Out of the 18 new projects, 10 were green field projects and in the remaining ones were in existing enterprises. Total IFC commitments in Kazakhstan reached approximately US$ 750 million in 2011, three times as much as all pre-2005 commitments. For the most part due to the domestic banking crisis, 85 percent of these financings have been in the financial sector. The remaining 15 percent were in the manufacturing and services sectors. During FY05-FY11, IFC’s net commitment activity in equity participations was 16 percent of the total with loans accounting for the remaining part. In contrast with the past, no new IFC investment commitment went to the oil, gas, mining, metal and steel industries.
11. On the IFC side, all four investments evaluated by IEG received a positive development outcomes rating. However, IFC did not seem to give enough attention to monitoring and evaluation in Kazakhstan. Out of 41 investment projects active during the review period, only 11 had Development Outcome Tracking System (DOTS) forms completed with seven evaluated internally as successful in their overall development outcome. In addition, one project was rated as mostly successful and another one as mostly unsuccessful on development outcomes. A number of projects were not subjected to DOTS exercise at all.
For Official Use Only 5
CPSCR Review Independent Evaluation Group
Analytic and Advisory Activities and Services
12. IBRD provided Kazakhstan with 129 pieces of AAA through the Joint Economic Research Program (JERP), covering issues in all four pillars of the strategy. A portion of the cost of the JERP is covered by Kazakhstan; that share stood at 30 percent at the beginning of the CPS period and increased gradually to an estimated 85 percent this fiscal year.
13. IFC had five advisory services (US$4 million) during the CPS period, two of which predated the CPS. Advisory activities covered corporate governance improvement closer to international standards in their corporate practices (including the national legal and regulatory framework), as well developing access to finance to MSMEs located near a restructured iron and still mill. Other smaller advisory services focused on facilitating SME certification and quality improvement, equipment leasing, and evaluation of a regional co-generation company’s investment program. The advisory service on primary mortgage institutional support project was rated by IEG as unsuccessful in development effectiveness due to a weak project design, insufficient supervision, and understaffing.
Partnerships and Development Partner Coordination 14. IBRD worked jointly with the IMF in preparing an FSAP, and with the OECD in a Higher Education Report. The WBG also worked in collaboration with the European Commission (EC), USAID, the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), and several United Nations agencies.
Safeguards and Fiduciary Issues 15. There was one safeguard issue related to the South-West Roads project brought to the Inspection Panel’s attention in June 2011. The issue related to loss of assets and livelihood from land acquisition for the project and potential adverse environmental impacts with regard to works on different sections of the road. In October 2011, the Panel concluded that IBRD was taking actions to resolve these concerns and did not recommend further action on its part. IEG is not aware of any INT investigations on Kazakhstan over the CPS period, but INT has opened an information item on the Kazak East West Highway.
Overview of Achievement by Objective: Pillar 1: Reducing losses in competitiveness through prudent management of the oil revenues and increased public sector efficiency. 16. Under this pillar, the WBG strategy aimed at helping Kazakhstan in managing the oil revenues (including their transparency) and the government’s medium term expenditure framework (MTEF), developing the local and central government capacity to implement public spending, and address corruption.
17. Managing the oil revenues and the government’s MTEF. During the CPS period, Kazakhstan saved some of the revenue stemming from its extractive industries, including oil, in the National Fund of the Republic of Kazakhstan (NFRK), which was created in 2000 and is administered by the Central Bank. Accumulated savings, which amounted to US$38 billion in 2011, were drawn down to face the impact of the global financial crisis, as noted above. Oil revenues are substantial, accounting for about 50 percent of total government revenue. Kazakhstan has yet to participate in the International Forum of Sovereign Wealth Funds (IFSWF) and adopt the so-called Santiago Principles that are followed by 21 other sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) since October 2008. The NFRK scores an 8 (out of a possible10) in the Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute’s Transparency rating, higher than
For Official Use Only 6
CPSCR Review Independent Evaluation Group
some countries in the region and at the benchmark rating of 8 that reflects adequate transparency arrangements. Nevertheless, the Peterson Institute for International Economics, which also rates SWFs, gave a rating of 65 over 100 to the NFRK in August 2011, lower than Chile, Azerbaijan, Trinidad and Tobago and Timor Leste. As for the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), Kazakhstan endorsed the principles in 2005 and was admitted as an EITI Candidate country on 27 September 2009, after having received a special price for its efforts to raise awareness of the EITI across the country. On 14 December 2010, the EITI Board designated Kazakhstan, as an EITI Candidate country that is “Close to Compliant.” The initial six-month grace period has been extended and now goes until August 2013. The Board granted the extension with the expectation that Kazakhstan will increase the coverage of material payments and revenues in its EITI reports.
18. On fiscal policy and the government’s MTEF, the government approved a three year budget based on strategic plan at the national and regional level in 2009. However, the IMF has noted that the fiscal framework remains weak because of the sizeable quasi-fiscal and off-budget items. Indeed, the budget does not include all public and quasi-public enterprises, which remain involved in many off budget deficit transactions and have built-up external debt outside of the government’s tally. Nevertheless, the government avoided a wholesale bailout approach in the wake of financial crisis, increasing instead public wages, pensions and public works. The effectiveness of this expenditure reallocation has yet to be assessed.
19. IBRD provided support through the Kazakhstan Development Policy Loan (KZ-DPL, FY10), the Strengthening the National Statistical System Project (NSSP, FY11), and several pieces of AAA. The KZ-DPL focused on the rules to access the NFRK and the reallocation of expenditures towards social spending. The improvements in the statistical system were expected to help, among other things, in public expenditure management. Chief among the AAA was the work in helping Kazakhstan with the extension of the grace period of the EITI, and the dialogue on Kazakhstan macroeconomic response to the global financial crisis and its own banking system crisis. A 2005 report made recommendations to strengthen the government’s economic policy and contain overheating and preserve competitiveness during the boom years. IBRD also provided technical assistance on managing public investments and through a policy note on the financial sector, and an FSAP prepared jointly with the IMF. The FSAP and the policy note played a role in alerting the government about some of the causes of the crisis in domestic banks, but robust foreign leveraging limits were addressed clearly only in July 2011, in the wake of the domestic crisis and despite having been identified clearly in an IBRD policy note of 2004.
20. Developing the local and central government capacity to implement public spending. Kazakhstan has a three level government structure (central, regional and local). Budget relations between these levels as defined in the Budget Code were revised in 2008. The 2008 amendment decentralized spending further and introduced elements of strategic and results-oriented budgeting at all levels of government. However implementation remains a challenge. Although some delegation and improved oversight is taking place within the central government, the strong centralization in decision making limits the degree to which subnational units can be held accountable for results. The link between the performance of subnational units and budget transfers is, thus, weak.
21. IBRD provided analytical support through the 2006 report on intergovernmental fiscal relations and the 2010 public financial management review of the system of budgetary relations and management of local budget expenditure for education and social protection. The CPSCR doesn’t report on the implementation of the recommendations stemming from these reports.
22. Addressing corruption. As reported by the World Economic Forum (WEF), Kazakhstan made little progress in increasing the transparency of its public sector, and corruption remains the most problematic factor for doing business, according to the latest Global Competitiveness Report (GCR). The Wastefulness of Government Spending index improved marginally from 3.4 over 7.0 in 2006-2007 to 3.5 in 2011-2012. However, the index on the Diversion of Public Funds to Companies and Individuals or Groups due to Corruption worsened from 3.9 over 7.0 to 2.8, while that on the Favoritism in Decisions of Government Officials when Deciding upon Policies and Contracts
For Official Use Only 7
CPSCR Review Independent Evaluation Group
deteriorated somewhat from 3.1 over 7 to 2.6, and that on Institutions deteriorated slightly from 3.6 to 3.5 over the same period. The lack of progress is also reflected in the corruption indicators reported by different sources. Two of these sources show insignificant change. For the period 2005-11, the Corruption Perception index of the International Property Right Index changed from 2.6 over 10.0 to 2.7, while the indicator on Control of Corruption of the World Bank Governance Indicators in terms of percentiles deteriorated slightly from 15.6 to 15.3. In 2008 Kazakhstan adopted changes to its procurement law, strengthening the submission processes and the free standing complaint mechanisms, while introducing e-procurement. However, there is limited evidence on the effectiveness of this new law with e-procurement just beginning (0.07 percent of current expenditures). Efforts to improve customs and the customs union lowered the percentage of physical inspections from 70.0 percent in 2007 to 18.6 percent in 2009, but Kazakhstan ranks poorly on the GCR’s indicator related to the burden of customs procedures (102 out of 142 in the 2011/12), particularly the large number of documents required for exporting or importing as well as the long time needed to export or import. As for tax efficiency, the IMF reports in its 2011 Article IV Consultation that non oil tax revenues remain below the pre-crisis level.
23. IBRD supported Kazakhstan through two projects whose central objective was to reduce corruption in customs and tax administration-- Customs Development Project (CDP, FY08) and Tax Administration Reform (TARP, FY10). In addition, the Kazakhstan Development Policy Loan (KZ-DPL, FY10) included actions to strengthen public financial management, based on a Public Finance Management Assessment (PEFA-based) report undertaken by IBRD in 2008.
24. IEG rates the achievement of the WBG strategy under pillar 1 as moderately unsatisfactory. Kazakhstan saved part of its oil revenues in the National Fund of the Republic of Kazakhstan (NFRK) through the CPS period, and introduced a medium term expenditure framework in 2009. Progress in complying with the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) has been slower than expected, and the NFRK, albeit being ranked as transparent by some, does not rank well within the sovereign wealth funds in other ratings. Macroeconomic policy was thwarted by failures in macro-prudential regulations of the banking system and bank supervision. Kazakhstan’s efforts to decentralize to lower levels of government through legal changes have yet to overcome the culture of strong centralization in decision making. Similarly, Kazakhstan’s moves to improve governance, including through better customs and tax administration, have had little effect.
Pillar 2: Promoting competitiveness by strengthening the government’s capacity to identify and reduce barriers to businesses and private investors. 25. Under this pillar, the WBG strategy aimed at supporting Kazakhstan’s efforts to (i) make progress in WTO accession and bilateral trade agreements; (ii) fostering technology transfer and commercialization of research and development; (iii) developing SMEs, including their linkages to the rest of the economy; and (iv) developing agricultural support policies, including quality and safety standards.
26. WTO accession and bilateral trade agreements. Kazakhstan has yet to complete its accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO). Accession, which was foreseen for 2009, was delayed because the country entered into a customs union with Belarus and raised its tariffs by an average of five percentage points. The customs union, which was formalized in 2010, led to an increase in physical controls at borders, except for those with Russia that were eliminated in July 2011 when Russia joined the customs union. Kazakhstan also embarked on a pilot program on joint customs control with China and Kyrgyz Republic in the context of the trade facilitation program under the Central Asian Regional Economic Cooperation Program (CAREC).
27. IBRD supported work in this area through two pieces of AAA.
28. Technology transfer and commercialization of research and development. Despite being a priority for the government, there has been scant progress in transferring technology and commercializing research and development. The share of innovative production in GDP decreased
For Official Use Only 8
CPSCR Review Independent Evaluation Group
from 1.27 percent in 2004 to 0.66 percent in 2010, according to the Statistical Agency of Kazakhstan. In addition, the country’s expenses in research and development declined from 0.25 percent in 2004 to 0.16 percent in 2011. Moreover, the WEF index for innovation rated Kazakhstan with a 2.6 over 7.0 in 2011/12. Actual diversification towards non extractive tradables has been relatively limited. The economy remains highly resource dependent with agriculture accounting for 5 percent and manufacturing for 11 percent of GDP. Nevertheless, the number of organizations conducting research and development increased from 295 in 2004 to 412 in 2010.
29. IBRD provided support through the Technology Commercialization Project (TCP, FY08), as well as three pieces of AAA. The project has been delayed considerably in its implementation, starting operations three years after Board approval.
30. SMEs development, including their linkages to the rest of the economy. The state continues to dominate the non-oil economy and large state companies have squeezed the SME sector. According to the Statistical Agency of Kazakhstan, the share of SMEs in GDP declined from 40.5 percent in 2005 to 31.2 percent in 2008 (latest data; the methodology has been revised and the new data is not consistent), while the share of SMEs in total employment increased marginally from 22.8 percent in 2005 to 32.4 percent in 2010 (latest data). IBRD reports that a steady decline in total factor productivity has subtracted 1.5 percentage points per annum from growth, with the decline being most noticeable in mining, construction and the processing industries. Despite efforts to improve competition legislation and ease public private partnerships (PPPs) in 2010, Kazakhstan continues to pursue policies on import substitution and local content requirements, as well as government support schemes which hinder productivity.
31. IBRD provided support through one piece of AAA. IFC had an enterprise restructuring project that focused on financing employees of large enterprises willing to receive student loans for retraining and start their own business. The outcomes of this intervention are not known at this stage. In addition, IFC provided assistance on leasing, corporate governance and SME development, including to those serving the oil and gas sector. There is no independent evaluation of development effectiveness of SME-support programs sponsored by IFC (e.g., number of SMEs created, amount of financing provided to MSMEs, number of loans extended to MSMEs, sustainability of MSMEs supported by these programs, etc.) A flagship advisory and investment project aimed at creating a fund to facilitate access to credit for SME-input suppliers resulted in a modest number of loans (only six active accounts out of 16 committed), poor performance of the fund after the largest borrower defaulted on its obligations in the midst of the crisis, and an impairment in the fund’s capacity to repay at maturity the full loan to IFC.
32. Agricultural support policies, including quality and safety standards. The agriculture share in GDP declined from 6.8 percent in 2005 to 4.8 percent in 2010 and the agricultural raw materials exports as a percentage of exported merchandises decreased from 1 percent in 2004 to 0.2 percent in 2009. The agricultural sector’s access to and usage of credit remains very limited. Kazakhstan introduced some regulations on quality and safety standards, but the extent of their implementation and its impact are not known at this stage.
33. IBRD supported Kazakhstan’s efforts through two projects, the Agricultural Post-Privatization Assistance APL 2 (APL2, FY05) and the Agricultural Competitiveness Project (ACP, FY05). The ACP has experienced delays in its implementation. Additional support came from components in a pilot GEF project, the Drylands Management Project (GEF FY03, closed FY10). IBRD also delivered one piece of AAA.
34. IEG rates the achievements of outcomes under Pillar 2 as unsatisfactory. Kazakhstan has slowed its accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) path by entering into trade agreements inconsistent with WTO principles. Similarly, the country has made scant progress in technology transfer, and innovative production has declined as a share of GDP. The share of SMEs in GDP seems to have declined, reflecting the contradictory policy framework that they face regarding competition on the one hand, and import substitution and government support schemes on the other.
For Official Use Only 9
CPSCR Review Independent Evaluation Group
The share of agriculture in GDP and in total exports also declined, and there is no information on the effectiveness of changes in agricultural quality and safety standards.
Pillar 3: Building the foundation for future competitiveness by investing in human capital and basic infrastructure.
35. Under this pillar, the WBG strategy sought to support the government in improving (i) health; (ii) education; (iii) basic services; and (iv) transport.
36. Improving education. The 2011 UNESCO report shows Kazakhstan achieving universal primary education (99.1 percent), adult literacy (99.7 percent); gender parity (99.3 percent); and survival rate to grade 5 (99.5 percent). These figures show a slight improvement over those of 2007, which were also high. By contrast, the PISA 2009 results show that 59% of students score below the basic competency level in mathematics, 58% in reading and 55% in sciences, which are significantly below the OECD average. At the same time, the WEF indicator Quality of the Education System declined from 3.8 over 7.0 in 2006-2007 to 3.0 in 2011-2012. In higher education sector, the government has established a national accreditation center and joined the Bologna process in 2010.
37. IBRD support was through the Technical & Vocational Education Modernization Project (TVEMP, FY11) and six pieces of AAA.
38. Improving health. Reflecting economic development and increases in public expenditure on health, Kazakhstan has seen improvements in key health indicators such as life expectancy (68.4 years in 2009 from 66.0 in 2005), under five mortality (39.4 per 1000 live births in 2004 to 33.2 in 2010) and tuberculosis incidence (223 in 2004 to 151 for 100000 in 2010). Maternal mortality remains high (36.9 per 100000 births). Non communicable diseases such as cardiovascular and cancers, other tobacco and alcohol related diseases remain the major cause of adult mortality.
39. IBRD provided support through the Health Sector Technology Transfer and Institutional Reform Project (HSTTP, FY08) and five pieces of AAA. As of FY11, IFC started to venture into regional health insurance on a small scale basis.
40. Improving basic services. While Kazakhstan has made strong progress in electricity transmission, but regressed in water supply and the quality of electricity service. In the electric grid the country refurbished transmission substations and modernized the dispatch control system, reducing the average deviation of system frequency from 500 mHz in 2005 to 20 mHz in 2009. Kazakhstan also increased the volume of electricity transferred from the northern to the southern parts of the country from 650 MW in 2005 to 1,350 MW in 2010. Transmission losses on the North-South interconnector declined from 8.8 percent in 2005 to 5.5 percent in 2011. However, the WEF’s index on quality of electricity supply declined from 4.3 over 7.0 in 2006-2007 to 3.9 in 2011-2012. Moreover, the 2009 enterprise survey reported a higher number of power outages in a typical month (5) and higher value lost due to power outages (3.5% of sales) than in the ECA region or in upper middle income countries. In addition, the share of Kazakhstan’s population with access to improved water declined from 96.0 percent in 2005 to 95.0 percent in 2008.
41. Kazakhstan’s progress in improving basic services has been slowed by the regulatory framework. Strong competition among the electricity generation companies in the wholesale market has resulted in relatively low prices and lack of sufficient resources to finance investments in new capacity. In addition, the government has set the retail tariff at a level that does not ensure the full recovery of expenses, leading companies to rely on obsolete technology and plants. In the water sector, the National Agency for Natural Monopolies enforces low tariffs which are among the lowest in the world (roughly 3-4 times below affordability level).
42. IBRD provided support to the electricity sector through three projects, the North-South Electricity Transmission Project (NSET, FY06), the Moinak Electricity Transmission (METP, FY10), and the Alma Transmission (ATP, FY11). In the water sector IBRD provided support through the Nura
For Official Use Only 10
CPSCR Review Independent Evaluation Group
River Clean-up Project (NRCP, FY03), which closed in FY11. In addition, IBRD delivered ten pieces of AAA. In 2009 – 2010 IFC had a due diligence advisory project to assess the investment needs of a generation/heating company servicing regions in northeast Kazakhstan.
43. Improving transport. According to the WEF, the indicator on road quality of the Global Competitiveness Index improved slightly from 2.3 over 7.0 in 2006-2007 to 2.5 in 2011-2012. The total road network increased from 90,018km in 2004 to 93,612km in 2008, while the percentage of paved roads declined from 93.4 in 2004 to 88.5 in 2009. The WEF also reports that the indicator on the Quality of Railroad Infrastructure improved from 2.6 in 2006-2007 to 3.9 in 2010-2011. While major rehabilitation road works are carried out by private contractors, routine maintenance is still carried out by a state owned enterprise. Studies highlight that Kazakhstan’s expenditures in roads have an imbalance between expenditures on maintenance and new construction (the latter being too high), and face corruption and high cost of civil works.
44. IBRD supported Kazakhstan’s efforts through the South-West Roads: Western Europe-Western China International Transit Corridor Project (CARECP, FY09), as well as through the completion of the Road Transport Restructuring Project (FY99), which closed in 2007. IBRD also produced three pieces of AAA.
45. IEG rates the achievement of outcomes of the WBG strategy under pillar 3 as moderately satisfactory. Kazakhstan high coverage of education remains challenged by its quality, with students performing below OECD standards. Health indicators show the country making progress, backed in part by a large increase in public expenditure in health. In the provision of basic services, Kazakhstan has improved the electric grid, and provides its people with ample improved water. The quality of electric service, however, remains weak. Kazakhstan’s progress in improving basic services has been slowed by the regulatory framework, which discourages investments in electricity generation and water treatment. Kazakhstan improved its road infrastructure, but remains challenged by their maintenance.
Pillar 4: Ensuring future growth will not harm the environment and past liabilities are mitigated.
46. Under this pillar, the WBG strategy aimed at supporting Kazakhstan in (i) dealing with the consequences of growth on the environment; and (ii) addressing regional development issues.
47. Dealing with the consequences of growth on the environment. According to the Statistical Agency of Kazakhstan, the government’s expenses on environment protection tripled from US$ 209 million in 2004 to US$ 682 million in 2010, while the air emissions from stationary sources declined from 3.0 million tons in 2004 to 2.3 million in 2011.. Policy-wise, the government adopted a new environmental code in 2007. At the same time, however, the CO2 emissions increased from 172,158 kt in 2004 to 236,954 kt in 2008. Also, combustible renewables and waste increased from 44 metric tons of oil equivalent in 2004 to 157 in 2009. The higher expenses and regulatory changes have yet to yield results.
48. IBRD provided support in this area through the Ust-Kamenogorsk Environmental Remediation (UKERP, FY06) which included a component on water quality monitoring. In addition there were two pre-CPS projects that were active. One was the Drylands Management Project (GEF, FY03, closed in FY10) and the other one the Uzen Oil Field Rehabilitation Project (FY97, closed in FY07). IBRD also provided one AAA.
49. Addressing regional development issues. IBRD provided support on a limited scale on reducing the salinity of the Aral Sea, dry lands management, forest protection, reforestation, recovery of some lands polluted by heavy metals, rehabilitating an oil field, and cleaning a river. In the absence of a clear definition of this objective, IEG interprets it by the general thrust of the WBG interventions. All the six projects have a local focus, and four of them received moderately satisfactory ratings or better in internal evaluations. Two of them, however, were rated moderately unsatisfactory in internal
For Official Use Only 11
CPSCR Review Independent Evaluation Group
evaluations. These projects are the Syr Darya Control and Northern Aral Sea Phase I project (FY01, closed FY11), the Drylands Management Project (GEF FY03, closed FY10), the Forest Protection and Reforestation Project (FY06, still active), the Ust Kamenogorsk Environmental Remediation Project (FY06, still active), the Uzen Oil Field Rehabilitation Project (FY97, closed FY07), and the Nura River Clean Up Project (FY03, closed FY11).
50. IEG rates the strategy’s outcome under Pillar 4 as moderately unsatisfactory. Kazakhstan’s efforts to move towards environmentally sustainable growth, as demonstrated by new legislation and higher expenditures, have yet to yield results despite having been in place for five years. The circumscribed interventions of the WBG in helping Kazakhstan address regional development issues have been mostly positive, but have been slow in bringing about their scaling up or replication in the country.
Achievement of CPS Objectives
Objectives IEG Rating
Pillar 1: Reducing losses in competitiveness through prudent management of the oil windfall and increased public sector efficiency
Moderately Unsatisfactory
Pillar 2: Promoting competitiveness by strengthening the government’s capacity to identify and reduce barriers to businesses and private investors
Unsatisfactory
Pillar 3: Building the foundation for future competitiveness by investing in human capital and basic infrastructure
Moderately Satisfactory
Pillar 4: Ensuring future growth will not harm the environment and past liabilities are mitigated
Moderately Unsatisfactory
4. Overall IEG Assessment
Overall Outcome: Moderately Unsatisfactory
IBRD/IDA Performance: Moderately Unsatisfactory
IFC Performance: Moderately Satisfactory
Overall outcome:
51. IEG rates overall outcome of the WBG’s strategy as moderately unsatisfactory. Kazakhstan saved part of its oil revenues in the National Fund of the Republic of Kazakhstan (NFRK) through the CPS period, and introduced a medium term expenditure framework in 2009. Progress in complying with the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) has been slower than expected, and the NFRK has mixed ratings within the sovereign wealth funds. Macroeconomic policy was thwarted by failures in macro-prudential regulations of the banking system and bank supervision. Kazakhstan’s efforts to decentralize to lower levels of government through legal changes have yet to overcome the culture of strong centralization in decision making. Similarly, Kazakhstan’s moves to improve governance, including through better customs and tax administration, have had little effect. Kazakhstan has slowed its accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) path by entering into trade agreements inconsistent with WTO principles. Similarly, the country has made scant progress in technology transfer, and innovative production has declined as a share of GDP. The share of SMEs in GDP seems to have declined, reflecting the contradictory policy framework that they face regarding competition on the one hand, and import substitution and government support schemes on
For Official Use Only 12
CPSCR Review Independent Evaluation Group
the other. The share of agriculture in GDP and in total exports also declined, and there is no information on the effectiveness of the changes in agricultural quality and safety standards. Kazakhstan high coverage of education remains challenged by its quality, with students performing below OECD standards. Health indicators show the country making progress, backed in part by a large increase in public expenditure in health. In the provision of basic services, Kazakhstan has improved the electric grid, and provides its people with ample improved water. The quality of electric service, however, remains weak. Kazakhstan’s progress in improving basic services has been slowed by the regulatory framework, which discourages investments in electricity generation and water treatment. Kazakhstan improved its road infrastructure, but remains challenged by their maintenance. Kazakhstan’s efforts to move towards environmentally sustainable growth, as demonstrated by new legislation and higher expenditures, have yet to yield results despite having been in place for five years. The circumscribed interventions of the WBG in helping Kazakhstan address regional development issues have been mostly positive, but have failed to bring about their scaling up or replication in the country.
IBRD Performance
52. IEG rates IBRD’s performance as moderately unsatisfactory. The JERP provided a flexible framework for IBRD’s AAA activities in Kazakhstan, and ensured the country’s ownership of that program. IBRD also reacted in a timely manner to provide financial support to Kazakhstan at the time of the global financial crisis. However, the relevance of IBRD’s approach to Kazakhstan waned due to the weak contributions of the interventions in terms of results (value added) and the policy framework. These two points, which were foreseen in the original CPS of FY05 and were intended to be monitored throughout the strategy period, were not followed in the CPSPR and in the CPSCR. The results framework of the strategy was ill defined and did not allow IBRD to have a working monitoring and evaluation of the strategy and its implementation. The opportunity to adjust the objectives at the time of the CPSPR was missed. Nevertheless, the supervision of the portfolio was in line with that of the rest of IBRD. Coordination with other development partners was included the IMF, the EC, USAID, ADB, EBRD, some UN agencies, and a report with OECD. Attention to safeguard and fiduciary issues was adequate.
IFC Performance:
53. IEG rates IFC performance as moderately satisfactory. IFC reacted quickly to changing country conditions and provided support to a number of domestic banks when their foreign sources dried up. IFC also did a good job in implementing its interventions, and made an effort to contribute to the SME sector using different approaches. However, the investments and the financing of financial institutions before 2008, at a time when these institutions were overleveraged abroad was not sound from a macroeconomic standpoint and was counter to the objective of the WBG strategy of maintaining a stable macroeconomic environment.
5. Assessment of CAS/CPS Completion Report
54. The CPSCR provides a description of the WBG strategy implementation, including the finding and lessons learned. An important shortcoming is that the CPSCR deviated from the objectives set out under the CPS and the CPSCR, and chose instead to report on selected Government’s core development goals. Reporting on CPS objectives and result would have been more effective if the 2008 CPSPR had redefined more specific objectives under each pillar to limit their scope, identify measurable outcomes and elaborate an M&E framework. While the need for a flexible, demand-driven strategy is understandable, that fact does not deter from the need to monitor and evaluate the strategy and its implementation. The CPSCR also failed to report on the conditions and indicators for relevance set out in the original strategy, which were central to evaluate the effectiveness of the business model used by the WBG in Kazakhstan.
For Official Use Only 13
CPSCR Review Independent Evaluation Group
6. Findings and Lessons
55. IEG stresses five findings. First, full country ownership of an advisory agenda does not guarantee its effectiveness. While being a necessary condition, it is by no means a sufficient one as the Kazakhstan example shows. Second, a flexible approach such as the one embodied in the JERP calls for effective and regular monitoring of the two factors that were identified in the FY05 CPS as central to the relevance of the interventions, namely the contribution of these interventions in terms of results (value added) and the progress being made in the policy framework. Third, WBG’s flexible approaches with middle income countries need to be coupled with results frameworks that allow valuable and operative monitoring and evaluation of the strategy and its implementation throughout its period. In the absence of monitoring, WBG efforts may turn out to be ineffective from a development perspective. Fourth, the CPSPR is the stage where the objectives of the strategies can be adjusted to what is feasible and to the WBG contributions. The Kazakhstan strategy could have been seen in a better light under a more realistic set of objectives. Fifth, careful constant monitoring of the macroeconomic conditions, including the financial sector, and a persuasive policy dialogue with the government about them would allow the WBG to be a more effective and opportune development partner. A more compelling early engagement by the WBG in dealing with the core issues may have lessened the effects and duration of the domestic banking crisis of Kazakhstan.
Annexes
15
CPSCR Review Independent Evaluation Group
Annex Table 1: Planned and Actual Lending, FY05-11
Annex Table 1.a: Planned and Actual Lending, FY05-11
Annex Table 1.b: Trust Funds, FY05-11
Annex Table 2: Planned and Actual Analytical and Advisory Work, FY05-11
Annex Table 3a: IEG Project Ratings for Kazakhstan, FY05-FY11
Annex Table 3b: IEG Project Ratings for Kazakhstan and Comparators, FY05-11
Annex Table 4: Portfolio Status for Kazakhstan and Comparators, FY05-11
Annex Table 5: IBRD/IDA Net Disbursements and Charges Summary Report for Kazakhstan (in US$ million)
Annex Table 6: Total Net Disbursements of Official Development Assistance and Official Aid, 2005- 2010 (in US$ million)
Annex Table 7: Economic and Social Indicators for Kazakhstan and Comparators, 2005- 2010
Annex Table 8: Kazakhstan - Millennium Development Goals
Annex Table 9: List of IFC's investments in Kazakhstan that were active during FY05-11
Annex Table 10: List of IFC's Large Advisory Services in Kazakhstan, FY05-11
Annex Table 11: Summary of Achievements of the CAS Objectives
Annexes
17
CPSCR Review Independent Evaluation Group
Annex Table 1.a: Planned and Actual Lending, FY05-111 Project
ID Project
Proposed FY
Approval FY
Proposed Amount
Approved Amount
Planned
P058015 Agricultural Post-Privatization Assistance 2 Project (APL Phase 2) 2005 2005
35
P049721 Agricultural Competitiveness Project 2005 2005
24
P078301 Forest Protection & Reforestation Project 2006 2006
30
P078342 Ust-Kamenogorsk Environmental Remediation Project 2005 2006
24.3
P096998 Customs Development Project
2008
18.5
P090695 Technology Commercialization Project
2008
13.4
P099270 South-West Roads: Western Europe-Western China International Transit Corridor (CAREC 1B & 6B)
2009
2125
P102177 Technical & Vocational Education Modernization (TVEM) 2009 2011
29.2
Syr Darya Control & Northern Aral Sea (SYNAS-2) 2009 Pipeline
Territorial Development 2009 Dropped
Irrigation and Drainage Phase 2 2006 Pipeline
Municipal Water Supply Project
Dropped
Modernization of government institutions
Dropped
Railways Program Implementation Support
Dropped
Road Management Modernization
Dropped
PCBs and persistent organic pollutants 2009 Dropped Total programmed projects 2,299.4
Non planned
P095155 North-South Electricity Transmission Project
2006
100
P101928 Health Sector Technology Transfer and Institutional Reform
2008
117.7
P119856 Kazakhstan Development Policy Loan
2010
1000
P116696 Kazakhstan - Tax Administration Reform Project
2010
17
P114766 Kazakhstan Moinak Electricity Transmission Project
2010
48
P116919 Alma Transmission Project
2011
78
P120985 Kazakhstan: Strengthening the National Statistical System of Kazakhstan
2011
20
Total non-programmed projects 1380.7
Total projects CPS FY05-11 3,680.2
Ongoing projects
Project ID
Project Approval
FY Closed FY
Approved Amount
P008510 Irrigation & Drainage Project
1996 2005 80
P008507 Uzen Oil Field Rehabilitation Project
1997 2007 109
P008500 Atyrau Pilot Water Supply & Sanitation Project
1999 2005 16.5
P008499 Road Transport Restructuring Project
1999 2008 100
P065414 Electricity Transmission Rehabilitation Project
2000 2009 140
P046045 Syr Darya Control & Northern Aral Sea Phase I Project (SYNAS-1)
2001 2011 64.5
P059803 Nura River Clean-Up Project 2003 2011 40.4
Total ongoing projects CAS FY05-11 550.4
Source: Kazakhstan FY 05-11 CPS/CPSPR and WB Business Warehouse Table 2a.1, 2a.4 and 2a.7 as of 03/12/2012.
1 Overall breakdown by planned and non-planned activities is conditional since projects had been planned on annual basis, and not for CPS period.
Annexes
18
CPSCR Review Independent Evaluation Group
Annex Table 1.b: Trust Funds, FY05-11
Project ID
Project TF ID Approval
FY Closing
FY Approved Amount
P049721 Agricultural Competitiveness Project TF 26444 2001 2005 623,600.00
P071525 Drylands Management GEF Project TF 52161 2003 2010 5,270,000.00
P078342 Ust-Kamenogorsk Environmental Remediation Project TF 58070 2004 2011 3,430,000.00
P078342 Ust-Kamenogorsk Environmental Remediation Project TF 51352 2004 2007 860,700.00
P078301 Forest Protection & Reforestation Project TF 51351 2004 2007 410,600.00
P058015 Agricultural Post-Privatization Assistance 2 Project (APL Phase 2) TF 51894 2004 2005 680,050.00
P086592 Second Irrigation and Drainage Improvement Project TF 54598 2006 2008 600,000.00
P087485 Forest Protection & Reforestation TF 55731 2007 Active 5,000,000.00
P093825 Syr Darya Control and Northern Aral Sea Project - Phase II TF 56573 2007 2009 800,000.00
P046045 Syr Darya Control & Northern Aral Sea Phase I Project TF 56801 2008 Active 1,902,285.00
P116536 Public Sector Audit Capacity Building IDF TF 94540 2010 Active 455,000.00
P114732 Enhancement of M&E System in the Roads Administration TF 93848 2010 Active 413,000.00
P116606 IDF for Building Capacity in the Procurement Audit Agency TF 94539 2011 Active 450,000.00
Total FY05-11 20,895,235.00
Source: Kazakhstan FY05-11 CPS/CPSPR and WB Business Warehouse Table 2a.1, 2a.4 and 2a.7 as of 03/09/2012
Annexes
19
CPSCR Review Independent Evaluation Group
Annex Table 2: Planned and Actual Analytical and Advisory Work, FY05-112
Project
ID Proposed
FY
Delivered to Client
FY Output Type
Economic and Sector Work
Planned (CPS FY05-11) Agriculture sector competitiveness and productivity
2009 Dropped
Programmatic Country Economic Memorandum (CEM) P078926
FY05 Report
Health Sector Reform P093099
FY05 Report
Water-Energy consortium P090550
FY05 Institutional Development Plan
Transport Sector Strategy P088643
FY05 Report
Programmatic Public Expenditure and Institutional Review (PEIR) P088990
FY06 Report
Education Sector Reform P097536
FY07 "How-To" Guidance
Survey of the quality of Health and Education services P111933 2009 FY08 "How-To" Guidance
Analysis and forecasting of macroeconomic and financial sector risks P113888 2009 FY09 Report
Poverty Assessment P112991 2009 FY10 Policy Note
PFMR (1&2) P107737 2009 FY10 Report
Non-planned Livestock Study P078300
FY05 Report
Fisheries Sector Study P083363
FY05 Report
Tech & Competitiveness P092343
FY05 Policy Note
Financial Sector Reform P092483
FY05 Policy Note
Soe Corp Governance Pol Note P094894
FY05 Policy Note
Pension Pol Note P080299
FY05 Policy Note
Fin Systems Enhancement P096661
FY06 Policy Note
ROSC P094972
FY06 Report
E-Govt P097614
FY06 Report
Agriculture Policy Assessment P092877
FY07 Report
Tax Policy P096940
FY07 Policy Note
Educ And Innov Dev P104563
FY07 Report
Pension Study P102198
FY07 Policy Note
Utilities Tariff Reform P106271
FY07 Report
FSAP Update Kazakhstan P110451
FY08 Report
Investment Climate Assessment (ICA) P113823
FY10 Report
KER 3 P119347
FY11 Report
DeMPA Assessment - P122536
FY11 Report
Economic Report 4 P126209
FY11 Report
Dev. Of Fair Competition P123561
FY11 Report
PFMR 3 P119346
FY11 Report
Improvements In Social Safety Net P119511
FY11 Policy Note
Technical Assistance
Planned (CAS FY05-11) Technical Assistance on WTO Accession P083571
FY05 Institutional Development Plan
Environmental Control and Strategic Assessment P085460
FY06 Report
Territorial Development Program P090555
FY07 Institutional Development Plan
Technical Assistance on WTO Accession P104202
FY08 Institutional Development Plan
Markets with limited competition P109614 2009 FY08 Client Document Review
Revision of the Tax and Budget Codes P114164 2009 FY09 "How-To" Guidance
Survey of the quality of government services P111702 2009 FY09 "How-To" Guidance
Reform of utility tariffs P115189 2009 FY09 "How-To" Guidance
2 Overall breakdown by planned and non-planned activities is conditional since the AAA activities had been planned on annual basis, and not for CPS period.
Annexes
20
CPSCR Review Independent Evaluation Group
Project
ID Proposed
FY
Delivered to Client
FY Output Type
PPP P112735 2009 FY10 "How-To" Guidance
Non-planned Oil Revenus Management TA/Pol DLG P095545
FY05 "How-To" Guidance
Water Sector Dialog P091159
FY05 Institutional Development Plan
Health Dialogue P079077
FY06 "How-To" Guidance
Private Public Partnership P099510
FY06 Client Document Review
TA On Private Sector Acct & Audit P094173
FY06 Knowledge-Sharing Forum
Health Dialogue P097855
FY06 Knowledge-Sharing Forum
E-Govt Phase 2 P102001
FY07 "How-To" Guidance
Fodder & Pasture Mgt Stgy P104409
FY07 Client Document Review
Mgmt & Gov Of State Sharehold TA P096848
FY07 Institutional Development Plan
Health Care Qual TA P102271
FY07 Institutional Development Plan
Private Partnership TA 1 P102829
FY07 Institutional Development Plan
Brainstorming KZ Govt P101627
FY07 Knowledge-Sharing Forum
Kazakhstan Customs Peer-Learning Visits P104078
FY07 Knowledge-Sharing Forum
Private Partnership TA 2 P090494
FY08 "How-To" Guidance
Public Investment & Auditing P102360
FY08 "How-To" Guidance
Tax Administration P102815
FY08 "How-To" Guidance
Enhancing Competitiveness P104082
FY08 "How-To" Guidance
Policy Advice On Par & Economic Policy P105979
FY08 "How-To" Guidance
Utilities Tariff Reform 2 P107949
FY08 "How-To" Guidance
Technoparks P108783
FY08 "How-To" Guidance
Pension System Support P108810
FY08 "How-To" Guidance
Supply Chain Development P108938
FY08 "How-To" Guidance
Revision Of The Tax Code P111105
FY08 "How-To" Guidance
Development Of Statistical Master Plan P108530
FY08 Institutional Development Plan
Brainstorming KZ Govt P107474
FY08 Knowledge-Sharing Forum
Implementation of IFPS P107930
FY08 Knowledge-Sharing Forum
Review Of The E-Gov Program P112861
FY09 "How-To" Guidance
Public Administration Reform P113409
FY09 "How-To" Guidance
Competition And Policy Work P113805
FY09 "How-To" Guidance
FSAP Follow Up P113817
FY09 "How-To" Guidance
Higher Education P114472
FY09 "How-To" Guidance
Doing Business Reform in KZ P115729
FY09 "How-To" Guidance
Economic Forum P116297
FY09 "How-To" Guidance
Pension System Support P116757
FY09 "How-To" Guidance
Peer Learning - Study Tour P116813
FY09 "How-To" Guidance
General Budget Transfers P113411
FY09 Client Document Review
Establishment of the Financial Monitoring System AML/CFT System in KZ P115387
FY09 Institutional Development Plan
Internal Audit (IA) Peer Learning Event P112839
FY09 Knowledge-Sharing Forum
Pub Fin Audit Sys P112840
FY09 Knowledge-Sharing Forum
Brainstorming on Fin. Volatility P114772
FY09 Knowledge-Sharing Forum
Kazakhstan Tax Peer-Learning Visit P116691
FY09 Knowledge-Sharing Forum
Brainstorming P117130
FY09 Knowledge-Sharing Forum
Kazakhstan EITI P104941
FY10 "How-To" Guidance
Insolvency And Corporate Restructuring P112504
FY10 "How-To" Guidance
HCS/ Water & Sanitation P118879
FY10 "How-To" Guidance
Fiscal Risk Mgmt In PPPs P118881
FY10 "How-To" Guidance
KZ Doing Business Reform P119266
FY10 "How-To" Guidance
Pension System P119510
FY10 "How-To" Guidance
State Planning System’s Review P119578
FY10 "How-To" Guidance
Improvement Of Nat'L. Fund Mgmt. P119579
FY10 "How-To" Guidance
Annexes
21
CPSCR Review Independent Evaluation Group
Project
ID Proposed
FY
Delivered to Client
FY Output Type
Advisory Support to Ministry Of Justice P119580
FY10 "How-To" Guidance
Kazakhstan EITI P119803
FY10 "How-To" Guidance
Higher Education P120177
FY10 "How-To" Guidance
Competition Policy P120592
FY10 "How-To" Guidance
Secondary Education P120943
FY10 "How-To" Guidance
Water Tariffs Lac Workshops P121978
FY10 "How-To" Guidance
Devel. AML/CFT System In Kazakhstan P119565
FY10 Institutional Development Plan
Strengthening Statistical Capacity P122034
FY10 Institutional Development Plan
KZ Regional Devel. Brainstorming P113843
FY10 Knowledge-Sharing Forum
Brainstorming P118882
FY10 Knowledge-Sharing Forum
KZ 2020 Brainstrmg Sess1 P119582
FY10 Knowledge-Sharing Forum
Development of a New Sample for HBS P119496
FY10 Model/Survey
Options Formalization Self Employment P114771
FY11 "How-To" Guidance
KZ Competition Policy Intership P118069
FY11 "How-To" Guidance
Kazakhstan - #8135 Strength. Catastrop. P118622
FY11 "How-To" Guidance
Kazakhstan Small Business Taxation P121252
FY11 "How-To" Guidance
Kazakhstan EITI (FY11) P122958
FY11 "How-To" Guidance
KZ Technological Innovations P123559
FY11 "How-To" Guidance
KZ Doing Business Reforms P123638
FY11 "How-To" Guidance
KZCompetion Protec & Dev Goods Mkt P123668
FY11 "How-To" Guidance
KZExpansion Of Kz Enterprises In Gvc P123669
FY11 "How-To" Guidance
KZInsolvency System Improvement P123680
FY11 "How-To" Guidance
KZ Mining Strategy Development P124784
FY11 "How-To" Guidance
FY11 - Brainstorming On Decentralization P125614
FY11 "How-To" Guidance
Comparative Analysis SSN P125650
FY11 "How-To" Guidance
KZ FY11-E-Governance Assessment P125839
FY11 "How-To" Guidance
KZ FY11 - Top Civil Service Pay P125840
FY11 "How-To" Guidance
KZ DB Study Tour (Funded By Gvt) P127167
FY11 "How-To" Guidance
KZ Tech. Mod. & Restruct. of Enter P123670
FY11 Client Document Review
Advisory Assistance on the New Financial Initiative In Rk P123735
FY11 Client Document Review
Study Of Int'L Practice Integ Union P123799
FY11 Client Document Review
FY11-Brainstrming: Contingnt Liabil P123800
FY11 Client Document Review
Kazakh SMP Update P121378
FY11 Institutional Development Plan
Further Development Of Kazakh Financial Monitoring System P124686
FY11 Institutional Development Plan
PROST P114645
FY11 Knowledge-Sharing Forum
FY11-3Rd Astana Econ Form (ConFY10) P119581
FY11 Knowledge-Sharing Forum
SSC - Phaze 2 Study Tour P124682
FY11 Knowledge-Sharing Forum
KZ Financial Sector Monitoring P108724 FY11 Model/Survey
Source: Kazakhstan FY 05-11 CPS/CPSPR and WB Business Warehouse Table ESW/TA 8.1.4 as of 03/01/2012.
Annexes
22
CPSCR Review Independent Evaluation Group
Annex Table 3a: IEG Project Ratings for Kazakhstan, FY05-FY11
Project ID Exit FY
Project Name Total
Evaluated (US$M)
IEG Outcome IEG Risk to
Development Outcome*
P008500 2005 Atyrau Pilot Water 11.5 Satisfactory #
P008510 2005 Irrig & Drainage 72.3 Satisfactory #
P008507 2007 Uzen Oil Field Rehab 104.7 Satisfactory Moderate
P008499 2008 Road Transpt Restruct 95.6 Satisfactory Moderate
P065414 2009 Elec Trans Rehab 125.3 Satisfactory Moderate
P071525 2009 Drylands Mgmt (GEF) 0.0 Satisfactory Moderate
P046045 2011 Syr Darya Control N. Aral Sea
59.5 Moderately Satisfactory Moderate
Source: WB Business Warehouse Table 4a.6 as of as of 03/09/2012. * With IEG new methodology for evaluating projects, institutional development impact and sustainability are no longer rated separately.
Annex Table 3b: IEG Project Ratings for Kazakhstan and Comparators, FY05-11
Region
Total Evaluated ($M)
Total Evaluated
(No)
Outcome % Sat ($)
Outcome % Sat (No)
RDO % Moderate or Lower
Sat ($)*
RDO % Moderate or Lower
Sat (No)*
Kazakhstan 468.8 7 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Russian Federation
1,139.0 18 85.0 83.3 64.5 69.2
Ukraine 1,099.4 14 77.9 53.8 39.9 42.9
Uzbekistan 165.2 6 94.4 83.3 0.0 0.0
ECA 14,319.4 321 89.9 83.8 77.4 65.7
World 89,480.3 1,499 84.1 77.3 71.8 61.3
Source: WB Business Warehouse Table 4a.5 as of as of 03/09/2012. * With IEG new methodology for evaluating projects, institutional development impact and sustainability are no longer rated separately.
Annexes
23
CPSCR Review Independent Evaluation Group
Annex Table 4: Portfolio Status for Kazakhstan and Comparators, FY05-11 Fiscal year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Kazakhstan
# Proj 8 10 10 12 11 14 14
# Proj At Risk 0 2 3 2 3 2 3
% At Risk 0 20 30 17 27 14 21
Net Comm Amt 518.2 653.2 568.5 618.1 2,597.8 3,662.8 2,665.5
Comm At Risk 0.0 124.0 94.0 59.0 83.4 48.4 66.6
% Commit at Risk 0.0 19.0 16.5 9.5 3.2 1.3 2.5
Russian Federation
# Proj 22 22 20 18 14 12 10
# Proj At Risk 4 2 0 1 5 2 3
% At Risk 18 9 0 6 36 17 30
Net Comm Amt 1,977.0 1,950.7 1,770.5 1,676.1 1,297.0 1,136.5 987.0
Comm At Risk 379.5 250.0 0.0 80.0 310.0 100.0 110.0
% Commit at Risk 19.2 12.8 0.0 4.8 23.9 8.8 11.1
Ukraine
# Proj 12 12 11 12 12 11 11
# Proj At Risk 5 3 4 6 4 3 0
% At Risk 42 25 36 50 33 27 0
Net Comm Amt 796.1 1,008.6 924.1 1,207.5 1,430.7 1,428.7 1,571.6
Comm At Risk 304.0 260.1 430.5 725.6 346.6 295.3 0.0
% Commit at Risk 38.2 25.8 46.6 60.1 24.2 20.7 0.0
Uzbekistan
# Proj 7 5 6 5 6 8 10
# Proj At Risk 3 3 0 1 1 2 2
% At Risk 43 60 0 20 17 25 20
Net Comm Amt 285.0 237.5 252.3 222.8 250.8 356.5 632.5
Comm At Risk 153.3 141.3 0.0 15.0 40.0 55.0 65.0
% Commit at Risk 53.8 59.5 0.0 6.7 15.9 15.4 10.3
ECA
# Proj 297 315 306 303 287 276 251
# Proj At Risk 26 31 27 38 52 50 40
% At Risk 9 10 9 13 18 18 16
Net Comm Amt 15,882.7 16,513.9 16,687.4 17,966.1 21,383.2 24,340.5 22,535.4
Comm At Risk 1,427.4 1,196.7 1,680.9 2,257.0 3,460.2 4,357.1 2,116.9
% Commit at Risk 9.0 7.2 10.1 12.6 16.2 17.9 9.4
World
# Proj 1,455 1,468 1,485 1,525 1,552 1,590 1,595
# Proj At Risk 233 199 243 276 344 366 337
% At Risk 16 14 16 18 22 23 21
Net Comm Amt 13.3 11.6 15.3 17.3 15.2 17.8 13.7
Comm At Risk 12,697.7 11,000.1 15,354.3 18,428.2 19,929.9 28,186.1 22,978.5
% Commit at Risk 13.3 11.6 15.3 17.3 15.2 17.8 13.7
Source: WB Business Warehouse Table 3a.4 as of 03/09/2012.
Annexes
24
CPSCR Review Independent Evaluation Group
Annex Table 5: IBRD Net Disbursements and Charges Summary Report for Kazakhstan (in US$ million)
FY Disb. Amt. Repay Amt. Net Amt. Charges Fees Net Transfer
2005 42,520,243.16 318,944,239.46 -276,423,996.30 42,039,258.98 5,337,118.78 -323,800,374.06
2006 31,048,865.91 429,567,856.29 -398,518,990.38 35,142,693.28 6,954,388.07 -440,616,071.73
2007 45,467,950.82 159,963,586.60 -114,495,635.78 28,395,993.93 2,472,406.87 -145,364,036.58
2008 57,214,985.63 80,232,539.64 -23,017,554.01 23,763,628.23 1,551,891.75 -48,333,073.99
2009 75,128,188.01 30,905,336.59 44,222,851.42 14,090,978.45 814,038.09 29,317,834.88
2010 168,954,909.29 33,907,027.99 135,047,881.30 5,854,631.15 5,827,104.21 123,366,145.94
2011 1,307,989,008.51 42,416,074.65 1,265,572,933.86 10,153,938.72 2,945,254.93 1,252,473,740.21
Total (2005-2011) 1,728,324,151.33 1,095,936,661.22 632,387,490.11 159,441,122.74 25,902,202.70 447,044,164.67
Source: WB Loan Kiosk, Net Disbursement and Charges Report as of 03/09/2012
Annexes
25
CPSCR Review Independent Evaluation Group
Annex Table 6: Total Net Disbursements of Official Development Assistance and Official Aid, 2005- 2010 (in US$ million)
Development Partners 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2005-2010
Bilaterals
Austria 0.29 0.16 0.34 0.27 0.34 0.31 1.71
Belgium 0.41 .. 0.06 .. 0.05 .. 0.52
Canada 1.18 0.07 0.63 0.18 0.08 0.05 2.19
Denmark 0.18 0.24 0.36 0.01 0.25 0.65 1.69
Finland 0.13 0.1 0.22 0.1 0.05 0.07 0.67
France 2.57 2.96 3.54 3.41 2.92 4.08 19.48
Germany 14.1 11.3 49.58 18.4 17.52 13.57 124.47
Greece 0.22 0.15 0.36 0.53 0.43 0.43 2.12
Ireland 0.03 .. 0.06 .. .. .. 0.09
Italy .. 0.03 .. 0.33 0.04 .. 0.4
Japan 66.17 24.87 43.31 37.9 37.13 -1.82 207.56
Korea 3.68 2.64 2.21 3.45 5.52 3.76 21.26
Luxembourg 0.05 .. 0.15 .. 0.02 0.06 0.28
Netherlands 2.36 0.25 0.37 0.03 0.63 0.43 4.07
Norway 2.33 2.63 2.46 4.88 3.06 4.25 19.61
Portugal .. .. 0.01 .. .. .. 0.01
Spain 1.12 0.54 0.25 0.06 -0.39 0.11 1.69
Sweden 0.8 0.86 0.65 0.34 0.2 0.93 3.78
Switzerland 1.04 0.18 0.13 0.17 0.09 0.01 1.62
United Kingdom 1.65 0.17 0.66 5.42 6.95 0.34 15.19
United States 51.58 51.5 77.65 157.57 97.31 68.07 503.68
DAC Countries, Total 149.89 98.65 183 233.05 172.2 95.3 932.09
Cyprus .. .. .. 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.05
Czech Republic 0.45 0.9 0.41 0.52 2.53 0.88 5.69
Estonia 0.01 0.01 .. .. .. .. 0.02
Hungary .. 0.08 .. 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.21
Israel 1.23 0.85 0.63 0.92 1.18 1.07 5.88
Kuwait 1.84 1.95 0.36 -0.39 -0.8 -0.79 2.17
Lithuania .. .. .. .. 0.02 0.01 0.03
Poland 1.38 1.06 2.51 0.54 2.26 2.17 9.92
Romania .. .. .. .. .. 0.01 0.01
Slovak Republic 0.88 0.34 0.11 0.07 0.01 0.03 1.44
Thailand .. .. 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04
Turkey 46.4 45.34 42.81 61.56 62.53 54.12 312.76
United Arab Emirates 1.41 3.15 5.15 1.69 21.21 9.89 42.5
Non-DAC Countries, Total 53.6 53.68 51.99 64.97 89.04 67.44 380.72
Multilaterals AsDB Special Funds 0.09 -0.95 -49.13 0.42 0.41 -0.19 -49.35
EBRD 2.1 0.71 0.72 0.2 .. .. 3.73
EU Institutions 7.42 12.35 9.43 16.24 13.26 17.39 76.09
GEF 8.55 .. 2.42 .. 6.01 19.15 36.13
Global Fund 2.78 5.43 4.59 14.78 12.64 18.93 59.15
IAEA .. 0.58 0.74 0.35 0.45 0.46 2.58
Isl.Dev Bank -0.55 -0.85 2.76 1.14 0.19 -0.7 1.99
UNAIDS 0.35 0.22 0.22 0.51 0.45 0.51 2.26
UNDP 0.87 1.14 0.68 0.84 0.68 0.83 5.04
UNFPA 0.61 0.56 0.58 0.59 0.6 0.89 3.83
UNHCR 0.86 0.84 0.64 0.97 0.57 0.46 4.34
UNICEF 1.37 1.1 1.14 1.05 1 1.25 6.91
UNTA 0.94 0.84 1.04 0.3 .. .. 3.12
Multilateral, Total 25.39 21.97 -24.17 37.39 36.26 58.98 155.82
All Development Partners Total 228.88 174.3 210.82 335.41 297.5 221.72 1,468.63
Source: OECD DAC Online database, Table 2a. Destination of Official Development Assistance and Official Aid - Disbursements, as of 03/09/2012.
Annexes
26
CPSCR Review Independent Evaluation Group
Annex Table 7: Economic and Social Indicators for Kazakhstan and Comparators, 2005- 2010
Series Name Kazakhstan Kazakhstan Ukraine Uzbekistan Russian ECA World
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Average 2005-2010
Growth and Inflation
GDP growth (annual %) 9.7 10.7 8.9 3.3 1.2 7.3 6.9 1.6 8.2 4.1 1.4 2.3
GDP per capita growth (annual %) 8.7 9.5 7.7 2.0 -0.4 4.7 5.4 2.2 6.7 4.4 1.0 1.1
GNI per capita, PPP (current international $) 7,830.0 8,690.0 9,540.0 9,710.0 10,250.0 10,770.0 9,465.0 6,436.7 2,540.0 16,638.3 22,642.5 10,510.4
GNI, Atlas method (current US mil. $) 44,325.7 59,023.5 76,930.1 96,225.5 108,903.8 123,800.8 84,868.3 116769.5 23,357.1 1,107,785.8 19,097,460.1 56,721,244.9
Inflation, consumer prices (annual %) 7.6 8.6 10.8 17.2 7.3 7.1 9.8 14.3 .. 10.7 .. ..
Composition of GDP (%)
Agriculture, value added (% of GDP) 6.8 5.9 6.1 5.7 6.4 4.8 6.0 8.5 23.1 4.5 2.0 2.9
Industry, value added (% of GDP) 40.1 42.1 40.6 43.3 40.3 42.4 41.5 33.2 30.3 36.4 26.5 27.0
Services, etc., value added (% of GDP) 53.1 52.0 53.3 51.0 53.3 52.8 52.6 58.3 46.6 59.1 71.4 70.1
Gross fixed capital formation (% of GDP) 28.0 30.2 30.0 26.8 27.8 24.1 27.8 22.9 23.1 20.6 19.8 20.7
Gross domestic savings (% of GDP) 38.9 44.1 42.2 47.6 37.6 39.8 41.7 19.7 27.6 32.1 21.6 21.0
External Accounts
Exports of goods and services (% of GDP) 53.5 51.2 49.4 57.2 42.0 44.0 49.6 47.7 37.7 31.4 38.9 27.9
Imports of goods and services (% of GDP) 44.7 40.5 42.8 37.1 33.8 29.2 38.0 51.1 34.1 21.4 37.4 28.0
Current account balance (% of GDP) -1.8 -2.5 -7.9 4.7 -3.5 2.0 -1.5 -2.2 .. 6.9 .. ..
External debt (% of GDP) 84.5 101.3 104.1 94.2 108.4 94.3 97.8 61.9 21.5 28.4 .. ..
Total debt service (% of GNI) 25.6 20.2 29.6 29.3 25.2 36.2 27.7 12.7 3.6 4.6 .. ..
Total reserves in months of imports 2.7 5.2 3.4 3.3 5.2 5.3 4.2 4.8 .. 13.6 5.6 12.3
Fiscal Accounts /1
Revenue (% of GDP) 28.1 27.5 22.9 24.8 21.3 20.6 24.2 29.9 31.7 21.7 .. ..
Total Expenditure (% of GDP) 22.3 20.2 24.6 26.9 24.3 23.2 23.6 33.3 31.1 19.3 .. ..
Overall Balance After Grants (% of GDP) 5.8 7.2 -1.7 -2 -3 -2.5 0.6 -3.3 1.4 2.4 .. ..
Public Sector Gross Debt (% of GDP) .. .. 7.8 8.6 13.5 15.5 11.4 .. .. 9.1 .. ..
Social Indicators
Health
Life expectancy at birth, total (years) 65.9 66.2 66.5 67.0 68.4 66.8 68.3 67.5 67.2 74.8 69.0
Immunization, DPT (% of children ages 12-23 months) 98.0 99.0 93.0 99.0 98.0 99.0 97.7 93.7 97.7 98.0 95.4 83.1
Improved sanitation facilities (% of population with access) 97.0 97.0 97.0 95.0 98.5 87.0 94.0 60.6
Improved water source (% of population with access) 96.0 95.0 95.5 98.0 87.5 96.0 97.9 86.8
Mortality rate, infant (per 1,000 live births) 33.2 32.6 31.6 30.7 29.9 29.1 31.2 12.3 45.9 11.1 13.1 43.0
Population
Population, total (in million) 15.1 15.3 15.5 15.7 15.9 16.3 15.6 46.4 27.1 142.2 881.7 6,686.9
Population growth (annual %) 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.6 2.4 1.4 -0.6 1.4 -0.2 0.4 1.2
Urban population (% of total) 57.1 57.4 57.7 57.9 58.2 58.5 57.8 68.0 36.8 72.9 69.7 50.0
Education
School enrollment, preprimary (% gross) 34.0 35.6 37.9 38.7 38.6 .. 36.9 93.7 26.8 88.8 72.6 46.0
School enrollment, primary (% gross) 104.2 104.5 106.6 111.1 111.7 111.0 108.2 101.2 95.4 97.2 101.5 106.2
School enrollment, secondary (% gross) 95.3 94.9 92.8 91.7 93.9 97.0 94.3 94.0 102.2 85.1 95.8 66.9
1/ IMF. Kazakhstan June 2011 Article IV Consultations and The Economist Intelligence Unit database. Data for Revenue and Total Expenditure for Ukraine is the average of the years 2007 to 2010. Source: WB World Development Indicators for all indicators excluding Fiscal Accounts data.
Annexes
27
CPSCR Review Independent Evaluation Group
Annex Table 8: Kazakhstan - Millennium Development Goals 1990 1995 2000 2009
Goal 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
Employment to population ratio, 15+, total (%) 63 61 60 64
Employment to population ratio, ages 15-24, total (%) 46 44 42 42
Income share held by lowest 20% 9.5 6.7 8.1 8.7
Malnutrition prevalence, weight for age (% of children under 5) .. 6.7 3.8 ..
Poverty gap at $1.25 a day (PPP) (%) 1 1 1 1
Poverty headcount ratio at $1.25 a day (PPP) (% of population) 2 5 2 2
Prevalence of undernourishment (% of population) 5 5 8 5
Vulnerable employment, total (% of total employment) .. .. 40 ..
Goal 2: Achieve universal primary education
Literacy rate, youth female (% of females ages 15-24) 100 .. 100 100
Literacy rate, youth male (% of males ages 15-24) 100 .. 100 100
Persistence to last grade of primary, total (% of cohort) .. .. 96 99
Primary completion rate, total (% of relevant age group) .. 47 94 105
Total enrollment, primary (% net) .. .. 95 99
Goal 3: Promote gender equality and empower women
Proportion of seats held by women in national parliaments (%) .. 13 10 18
Ratio of female to male primary enrollment (%) .. 101 101 100
Ratio of female to male secondary enrollment (%) .. 103 102 98
Ratio of female to male tertiary enrollment (%) .. 125 118 145
Share of women employed in the nonagricultural sector (% of total nonagricultural employment) .. .. 48.4 ..
Goal 4: Reduce child mortality
Immunization, measles (% of children ages 12-23 months) 89 95 99 99
Mortality rate, infant (per 1,000 live births) 51 48 38 26
Mortality rate, under-5 (per 1,000) 60 56 44 29
Goal 5: Improve maternal health
Adolescent fertility rate (births per 1,000 women ages 15-19) .. .. 34 30
Births attended by skilled health staff (% of total) .. 100 99 ..
Contraceptive prevalence (% of women ages 15-49) .. 59 66 ..
Maternal mortality ratio (modeled estimate, per 100,000 live births) 78 76 59 45
Pregnant women receiving prenatal care (%) .. 93 91 ..
Unmet need for contraception (% of married women ages 15-49) .. 16 9 ..
Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases
Children with fever receiving antimalarial drugs (% of children under age 5 with fever) .. .. .. ..
Condom use, population ages 15-24, female (% of females ages 15-24) .. .. 32 ..
Condom use, population ages 15-24, male (% of males ages 15-24) .. .. 50 ..
Incidence of tuberculosis (per 100,000 people) 140 140 200 180
Prevalence of HIV, female (% ages 15-24) .. .. .. 0.1
Prevalence of HIV, male (% ages 15-24) .. .. .. 0
Prevalence of HIV, total (% of population ages 15-49) .. .. 0.1 0.1
Tuberculosis case detection rate (all forms) 48 51 88 85
Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability
CO2 emissions (kg per PPP $ of GDP) 3.6 2.9 1.8 1.3
CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita) 18.0 10.5 8.6 14.7
Forest area (% of land area) 1 1 1 1
Improved sanitation facilities (% of population with access) 96 96 97 97
Improved water source (% of population with access) 96 96 96 95
Marine protected areas (% of total surface area) .. .. .. 0
Terrestrial protected areas (% of total surface area) .. .. .. 2.8
Goal 8: Develop a global partnership for development
Debt service (PPG and IMF only, % of exports, excluding workers' remittances) .. 4 9 0
Internet users (per 100 people) 0.0 0.0 0.7 10.9
Mobile cellular subscriptions (per 100 people) 0 0 1 95
Net ODA received per capita (current US$) 7 4 13 21
Telephone lines (per 100 people) 8 12 12 22
Other
Fertility rate, total (births per woman) 2.7 2.3 1.8 2.6
GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) .. 1,280 1,260 6,920
GNI, Atlas method (current US$) (billions) .. 20.2 18.7 110.0
Gross capital formation (% of GDP) 31.5 19.9 18.5 30.4
Life expectancy at birth, total (years) 68 65 66 66
Literacy rate, adult total (% of people ages 15 and above) 98 .. 100 100
Population, total (millions) 16.3 15.8 14.9 15.9
Trade (% of GDP) 149.3 82.5 105.7 75.8
Source: World Development Indicators database as of 03/09/2012.
Annexes
28
CPSCR Review Independent Evaluation Group
Annex Table 9: List of IFC's investments in Kazakhstan that were active during FY05-11
Project ID
First Cmt FY
Closure FY
Project Status Primary Sector
Project Size
Net Equity
Net Loans
Total Net Commitment
Investments approved pre-FY05, but active during FY05-11
3946 1994 Active Finance & Insurance 2,000 2,000 0 2,000
7287 1997 2007 Closed Finance & Insurance 30,000 0 10,000 10,000
7416 1998 2008 Closed Oil, Gas and Mining 307,825 623 22,300 22,923
7824 2001 2009 Closed Finance & Insurance 2,500 0 2,500 2,500
7837 1998 2007 Closed Primary Metals 132,500 0 19,500 19,500
8074 2000 Active Finance & Insurance 15,000 0 15,000 15,000
8837 1998 Active Finance & Insurance 2,599 2,570 0 2,570
8868 2000 2006 Closed Finance & Insurance 2,500 0 2,500 2,500
8940 1999 2006 Closed Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing 1,150 0 700 700
9098 1999 2007 Closed Primary Metals 238,110 0 11,234 11,234
9271 2000 2010 Closed Wholesale and Retail Trade 35,450 0 11,000 11,000
9862 2001 2008 Closed Accommodation & Tourism Services 7,570 0 2,500 2,500
9867 2000 2005 Closed Utilities 4,700 0 1,000 1,000
9953 2003 2009 Closed Oil, Gas and Mining 590,800 0 75,000 75,000
10056 2001 2006 Closed Oil, Gas and Mining 33,008 0 15,000 15,000
10411 2001 2006 Closed Oil, Gas and Mining 8 8 0 8
10448 2002 Active Collective Investment Vehicles 6,900 127 1,500 1,627
10558 2003 2005 Closed Accommodation & Tourism Services 22,000 0 3,000 3,000
10602 2002 2010 Closed Wholesale and Retail Trade 3,855 0 1,925 1,925
11574 2003 2009 Closed Finance & Insurance 10,000 0 10,000 10,000
20986 2003 2005 Closed Finance & Insurance 25,000 0 25,000 25,000
21332 2003 2006 Closed Oil, Gas and Mining 3,577 3,577 0 3,577
22526 2004 2006 Closed Oil, Gas and Mining 1,711 1,716 0 1,716
Investments approved pre-FY05, but active during FY05-11 Total 1,478,763 10,622 229,659 240,280
Investments approved in FY05-11
11507 2005 Active Finance & Insurance 6,200 1,099 5,000 6,099
23963 2005 Active Finance & Insurance 0 0 10,000 10,000
25659 2008 2010 Closed Wholesale and Retail Trade 30,000 0 0 0
25959 2008 2010 Closed Finance & Insurance 80,000 0 80,000 80,000
26044 2008 Active Finance & Insurance 35,000 0 226,856 226,856
26127 2007 Active Finance & Insurance 10,462 10,462 0 10,462
26672 2009 Active Finance & Insurance 45,000 0 45,000 45,000
26891 2009 Active Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing 245,000 14,343 50,000 64,343
27095 2010 Active Finance & Insurance 60,000 0 60,000 60,000
27217 2009 2011 Closed Accommodation & Tourism Services 17,000 0 0 0
27300 2009 2011 Closed Finance & Insurance 10,000 0 8,225 8,225
27476 2009 Active Construction and Real Estate 163,020 0 45,000 45,000
28071 2010 Active Finance & Insurance 185,000 86,123 85,000 171,123
28112 2010 Active Agriculture and Forestry 26,100 0 2,000 2,000
29356 2011 Active Finance & Insurance 3,000 3,000 0 3,000
30249 2011 Active Pulp & Paper 4,250 0 2,250 2,250
30588 2011 Active Food & Beverages 13,384 0 13,384 13,384
30719 2011 Active Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing 3,000 3,000 0 3,000
Investments approved in FY05-11, Total 936,416 118,028 632,714 750,742
Grand Total 2,415,179 128,650 862,373 991,022
Source: IFC, June 2011
Annexes
29
CPSCR Review Independent Evaluation Group
Annex Table 10: List of IFC's Large Advisory Services in Kazakhstan, FY05-11
Project ID Project Name
Project Status
Approval FY
Primary Business Line
Start Date FY
End Date FY
Total Funds, US$
Advisory Services operations approved pre-FY05, but active during FY05-11
507141 Ispat Karmet SME Resource Closed FY05
Sustainable Business Advisory 2001 2009 182,021
522126
Kazakhstan Leasing Development Project Closed FY05 Access To Finance 2001 2006 324,425
Total 506,446
Advisory Services operations approved in FY05-11
534269
Central Asia Corporate Governance Project Active FY05
Sustainable Business Advisory 2006 2011 2,592,663
547628 CA Mortgage-KZH Closed FY07 Access To Finance 2007 2010 528,037
572850 TsATEK Power Company Closed FY10
Sustainable Business Advisory 2010 2010 200,000
Total 3,320,700
3,827,146
Source: IFC, June 2011
Annexes
30
CPSCR Review Independent Evaluation Group
Annex Table 11: Summary of Achievements of the CPS Objectives CAS 07-11: Pillar 1 Reducing losses in competitiveness through prudent management of the oil windfall and increased public sector efficiency
Objectives 1. Management of the oil windfalls (including transparency in oil revenues) 2. Management of the government’s MTFF 3. Local and central governments capacity to absorb public spending 4. Addressing various levels of corruption
Ongoing pre CPS 05-11 Support NA
New Lending Support P119856 Kazakhstan Development Policy Loan Approved FY10. Closed FY11. Latest IR: Moderately Satisfactory.
P120985 Kazakhstan: Strengthening the National Statistical System of Kazakhstan
Approved FY11. Active. Latest IR: Moderately Satisfactory.
P096998 Customs Development Project
Approved FY08. Active. Latest IR: Satisfactory.
P116696 Kazakhstan - Tax Administration Reform Project
Approved FY10. Active. Latest IR: Moderately Satisfactory.
Non-Lending Support (Grants
and Special Financing Projects)
P116536 Public Sector Audit Capacity Building IDF
Approved FY10. Active.
Planned AAA P078926 Programmatic Country Economic Memorandum (CEM) (ESW)
Delivered to Client FY05
P088990 Programmatic Public Expenditure and Institutional Review (PEIR) (ESW)
Delivered to Client FY06
P107737 PFMR (1&2)* (ESW) Delivered to Client FY10
P114164 Revision of the Tax and Budget Codes (TA)
Delivered to Client FY09
P112735 PPP (TA)
Delivered to Client FY10
P111702 Survey of the quality of government services (TA)
Delivered to Client FY09
Additional AAA P080299 Pension Policy Note (ESW)
Delivered to Client FY05
P094894 SOE Corp Governance Pol Note (ESW)
Delivered to Client FY05
P094972 ROSC (ESW)
Delivered to Client FY06
P097614 E-Govt (ESW)
Delivered to Client FY06
P096940 Tax Policy (ESW) Delivered to Client FY07
P102198 Pension Study (ESW) Delivered to Client FY07
P122536 DeMPA Assessment (ESW) Delivered to Client FY11
P126209 Economic Report 4 (ESW) Delivered to Client FY11
P119346 PFMR 3 (ESW)
Delivered to Client FY11
P095545 Oil Revenus Management TA/Pol DLG (TA)
Delivered to Client FY05
Annexes
31
CPSCR Review Independent Evaluation Group
P099510 Private Public Partnership (TA)
Delivered to Client FY06
P094173 TA On Private Sector Acct & Audit (TA)
Delivered to Client FY06
P102001 E-Govt Phase 2 (TA)
Delivered to Client FY07
P096848 Mgmt & Gov Of State Sharehold (TA)
Delivered to Client FY07
P102829 Private Partnership 1 (TA)
Delivered to Client FY07
P104078 Kazakhstan Customs Peer-Learning Visits (TA)
Delivered to Client FY07
P102360 Public Investment & Auditing (TA)
Delivered to Client FY08
P102815 Tax Administration (TA)
Delivered to Client FY08
P105979 Policy Advice On Par & Economic Policy (TA)
Delivered to Client FY08
P108810 Pension System Support (TA)
Delivered to Client FY08
P111105 Revision Of The Tax Code (TA)
Delivered to Client FY08
P108530 Development Of Statistical Master Plan (TA)
Delivered to Client FY08
P112861 Review Of The E-Gov Program (TA)
Delivered to Client FY09
P113409 Public Administration Reform (TA)
Delivered to Client FY09
P116757 Pension System Support (TA)
Delivered to Client FY09
P113411 General Budget Transfers (TA)
Delivered to Client FY09
P112839 Internal Audit (IA) Peer Learning Event (TA)
Delivered to Client FY09
P112840 Pub Fin Audit Sys (TA)
Delivered to Client FY09
P116691 Kazakhstan Tax Peer-Learning Visit (TA)
Delivered to Client FY09
P117130 Brainstorming (TA)
Delivered to Client FY09
P104941 Kazakhstan EITI (TA)
Delivered to Client FY10
P118881 Fiscal Risk Mgmt In PPPs (TA)
Delivered to Client FY10
P119510 Pension System (TA)
Delivered to Client FY10
P119578 State Planning System’s Review (TA)
Delivered to Client FY10
P119579 Improvement Of Nat'L. Fund Mgmt (TA)
Delivered to Client FY10
P119580 Advisory Support to Ministry Of Justice (TA)
Delivered to Client FY10
P119803 Kazakhstan EITI (TA)
Delivered to Client FY10
P122034 Strengthening Statistical Capacity (TA)
Delivered to Client FY10
P121252 Kazakhstan Small Business Taxation (TA)
Delivered to Client FY11
P122958 Kazakhstan EITI (FY11) (TA) Delivered to Client FY11
Annexes
32
CPSCR Review Independent Evaluation Group
P124784 KZ Mining Strategy Development (TA)
Delivered to Client FY11
P125614 FY11 - Brainstorming On Decentralization (TA)
Delivered to Client FY11
P125839 KZ FY11-E-Governance Assessment (TA)
Delivered to Client FY11
P125840 KZ FY11 - Top Civil Service Pay (TA)
Delivered to Client FY11
P123735 Advisory Assistance on the New Financial Initiative In Rk (TA)
Delivered to Client FY11
P123800 FY11-Brainstrming: Contingnt Liabil (TA)
Delivered to Client FY11
P121378 Kazakh SMP Update (TA) Delivered to Client FY11
P114645 PROST (TA)
Delivered to Client FY11
P119581 FY11-3Rd Astana Econ Form (ConFY10) (TA)
Delivered to Client FY11
P124682 SSC - Phase 2 Study Tour (TA) Delivered to Client FY11
Annexes
33
CPSCR Review Independent Evaluation Group
CPS 07-11: Pillar 2 Promoting competitiveness by strengthening government’s capacity to identify and reduce barriers to business and private investors
Objectives 1. WTO accession and bilateral trade agreements 2. Technology transfer and commercialization of research and development 3. SME development and linkages 4. Agricultural support policies (including quality and safety standards)
Ongoing pre CPS 05-11 Support
P008510 Irrigation & Drainage Project Approved FY96. Closed FY05. IEG rating: Satisfactory.
P046045 Syr Darya Control & Northern Aral Sea Phase I Project (SYNAS-1)
Approved FY01. Closed FY11. IEG rating: Moderately Satisfactory
New Lending Support
P090695 Technology Commercialization Project
Approved FY08. Active. Latest IR: Moderately Unsatisfactory.
P058015 Agricultural Post-Privatization Assistance 2 Project (APL Phase 2)
Approved FY05. Closed FY12. Latest IR: Moderately Unsatisfactory.
P049721 Agricultural Competitiveness Project Approved FY05. Active. Latest IR: Moderately Satisfactory.
P096998 Customs Development Project Approved FY08. Active. Latest IR: Satisfactory.
Non-Lending Support (Grants
and Special Financing Projects)
P071525 Drylands Management GEF Project Approved FY03. Closed FY10. IEG rating: Satisfactory.
Planned AAA P113888 Analysis and forecasting of macroeconomic and financial sector risks (ESW)
Delivered to Client FY09
P083571 Technical Assistance on WTO Accession (TA)
Delivered to Client FY05
P104202 Technical Assistance on WTO Accession (TA)
Delivered to Client FY08
P109614 Markets with limited competition (TA) Delivered to Client FY08
Additional AAA P083363 Fisheries Sector Study (ESW)
Delivered to Client FY05
P092343 Tech & Competitiveness (ESW)
Delivered to Client FY05
P092483 Financial Sector Reform (ESW)
Delivered to Client FY05
P096661 Fin Systems Enhancement (ESW)
Delivered to Client FY06
P092877 Agriculture Policy Assessment (ESW)
Delivered to Client FY07
P110451 FSAP Update Kazakhstan (ESW)
Delivered to Client FY08
P113823 Investment Climate Assessment (ICA) (ESW)
Delivered to Client FY10
P119347 KER 3 (ESW)
Delivered to Client FY11
P126209 Economic Report 4 (ESW)
Delivered to Client FY11
P123561 Dev. Of Fair Competition (ESW)
Delivered to Client FY11
P104409 Fodder & Pasture Mgt Stgy (TA)
Delivered to Client FY07
P104082 Enhancing Competitiveness (TA)
Delivered to Client FY08
P108783 Technoparks (TA)
Delivered to Client FY08
P108938 Supply Chain Development (TA) Delivered to Client FY08
Annexes
34
CPSCR Review Independent Evaluation Group
P107930 Implementation of IFPS (TA)
Delivered to Client FY08
P113805 Competition And Policy Work (TA)
Delivered to Client FY09
P113817 FSAP Follow Up (TA)
Delivered to Client FY09
P115729 Doing Business Reform in KZ (TA)
Delivered to Client FY09
P116297 Economic Forum (TA)
Delivered to Client FY09
P116813 Peer Learning - Study Tour (TA)
Delivered to Client FY09
P115387 Establishment of the Financial Monitoring System AML/CFT System in KZ (TA)
Delivered to Client FY09
P114772 Brainstorming on Fin. Volatility (TA)
Delivered to Client FY09
P112504 Insolvency And Corporate Restructuring (TA)
Delivered to Client FY10
P119266 KZ Doing Business Reform (TA)
Delivered to Client FY10
P120592 Competition Policy (TA)
Delivered to Client FY10
P119565 Devel. AML/CFT System In Kazakhstan (TA)
Delivered to Client FY10
P113843 KZ Regional Devel. Brainstorming (TA)
Delivered to Client FY10
P118069 KZ Competition Policy Intership (TA)
Delivered to Client FY11
P118622 Kazakhstan - #8135 Strength. Catastrop (TA)
Delivered to Client FY11
P121252 Kazakhstan Small Business Taxation (TA)
Delivered to Client FY11
P123559 KZ Technological Innovations (TA)
Delivered to Client FY11
P123638 KZ Doing Business Reforms (TA)
Delivered to Client FY11
P123668 KZ Competion Protec & Dev Goods Mkt (TA)
Delivered to Client FY11
P123669 KZ Expansion Of Kz Enterprises In Gvc (TA)
Delivered to Client FY11
P123680 KZ Insolvency System Improvement (TA)
Delivered to Client FY11
P127167 KZ DB Study Tour (Funded By Gvt) (TA)
Delivered to Client FY11
P123670 KZ Tech. Mod. & Restruct. of Enter (TA)
Delivered to Client FY11
P124686 Further Development Of Kazakh Financial Monitoring System (TA)
Delivered to Client FY11
P108724 KZ Financial Sector Monitoring (TA)
Delivered to Client FY11
Annexes
35
CPSCR Review Independent Evaluation Group
CPS 07-11: Pillar 3 Building the foundation for future competitiveness by investing in human capital and basic infrastructure
Objectives 1. Health (including HIV/AIDS) 2. Education 3. Basic services (water, heat, power) 4. Transport (including roads and railway modernization)
Ongoing pre CPS 05-11 Support
P008499 Road Transport Restructuring Project
Approved FY99. Closed FY08.
IEG rating: Satisfactory.
P065414 Electricity Transmission Rehabilitation Project
Approved FY00. Closed FY09.
IEG rating: Satisfactory.
P059803 Nura River Clean-Up Project
Approved FY03. Closed FY11.
Latest IR: Moderately Satisfactory.
P102177 Technical & Vocational Education Modernization (TVEM)
Approved FY11. Active. Latest IR: Moderately Satisfactory.
New Lending Support P102177 Technical & Vocational Education Modernization (TVEM)
Approved FY11. Active. NA
P101928 Health Sector Technology Transfer and Institutional Reform
Approved FY08. Active. Latest IR: Moderately Satisfactory.
P099270 South-West Roads: Western Europe-Western China International Transit Corridor (CAREC 1B & 6B)
Approved FY09. Active. Latest IR: Satisfactory.
P095155 North-South Electricity Transmission Project
Approved FY06. Closed FY11.
Latest IR: Satisfactory.
P116919 Alma Transmission Project
Approved FY11. Active. Latest IR: Satisfactory.
P114766 Kazakhstan Moinak Electricity Transmission Project
Approved FY10. Active. Latest IR: Moderately Satisfactory.
Non-Lending Support (Grants and Special Financing Projects)
NA
Planned AAA P093099 Health Sector Reform (ESW)
Delivered to Client FY05
P097536 Education Sector Reform (ESW)
Delivered to Client FY07
P112991 Poverty Assessment (ESW)
Delivered to Client FY10
P090550 Water-Energy consortium (ESW)
Delivered to Client FY05
P088643 Transport Sector Strategy (ESW)
Delivered to Client FY05
P111933 Survey of the quality of Health and Education services (ESW)
Delivered to Client FY08
P090555 Territorial Development Program (TA)
Delivered to Client FY07
P111702 Survey of the quality of government services (TA)
Delivered to Client FY09
P115189 Reform of utility tariffs (TA) Delivered to Client FY09
Additional AAA P104563 Educ And Innov Dev (ESW)
Delivered to Client FY07
P106271 Utilities Tariff Reform (ESW) Delivered to Client FY07
P119511 Improvements In Social Safety Net (ESW)
Delivered to Client FY11
Annexes
36
CPSCR Review Independent Evaluation Group
P091159 Water Sector Dialog (TA)
Delivered to Client FY05
P079077 Health Dialogue (TA)
Delivered to Client FY06
P097855 Health Dialogue (TA)
Delivered to Client FY06
P102271 Health Care Qual (TA) Delivered to Client FY07
P090494 Private Partnership 2 (TA)
Delivered to Client FY08
P107949 Utilities Tariff Reform 2 (TA)
Delivered to Client FY08
P114472 Higher Education (TA)
Delivered to Client FY09
P118879 HCS/ Water & Sanitation (TA)
Delivered to Client FY10
P120177 Higher Education (TA)
Delivered to Client FY10
P120943 Secondary Education (TA)
Delivered to Client FY10
P121978 Water Tariffs Lac Workshops (TA)
Delivered to Client FY10
P119496 Development of a New Sample for HBS (TA)
Delivered to Client FY10
P114771 Options Formalization Self Employment (TA)
Delivered to Client FY11
P125650 Comparative Analysis SSN (TA)
Delivered to Client FY11
Annexes
37
CPSCR Review Independent Evaluation Group
CPS 07-11: Pillar 4 Ensuring future growth will not harm the environment and past liabilities are mitigated
Objectives 1. Consequences of growth on the environment 2. Regional environmental issues
Ongoing pre CAS 07-11
Support
P008507 Uzen Oil Field Rehabilitation Project
Approved FY07. Closed FY07. IEG rating: Satisfactory.
P046045 Syr Darya Control & Northern Aral Sea Phase I Project (SYNAS-1)
Approved FY01. Closed FY11. IEG rating: Moderately Satisfactory.
P059803 Nura River Clean-Up Project
Approved FY03. Closed FY11. Latest IR: Moderately Satisfactory
P008500 Atyrau Pilot Water Supply & Sanitation Project
Approved FY99. Closed FY05. IEG rating: Satisfactory
New Lending Support
P078342 Ust-Kamenogorsk Environmental Remediation Project
Approved FY06. Active. Latest IR: Moderately Unsatisfactory.
P078301 Forest Protection & Reforestation Project
Approved FY06. Active. Latest IR: Moderately Unsatisfactory.
Non-Lending Support
(Grants and Special
Financing Projects)
P071525 Drylands Management GEF Project Approved FY03. Closed FY10. IEG rating: Satisfactory.
Planned AAA
P090555 Territorial Development Program (TA)
Delivered to Client FY07
P085460 Environmental Control and Strategic Assessment (TA)
Delivered to Client FY06
Additional AAA NA