MENA Transition FundFourth Steering Committee Meeting

December 4 - 5, 2013 (Brussels, Belgium)

Meeting Minutes

Key Decisions

1) Cash available on December 5, 2013 was US$25.8 million, including funds from the UK and investment income. Anticipated contributions through December 31, 2013 include a payment of US$10 million from the United States under its signed Contribution Agreement and a potential contribution of about US$1.8 million (DKK 10 million) from Denmark. The following projects were fully approved (green), to be funded with uncommitted cash , for a total of US$23,813,700: Jordan Enhancing Governance and Strengthening the Regulatory and Institutional

Framework for MSME Development for US$3,235,000; Libya Finance and Private Sector Development Technical Assistance for US$3,437,400; Tunisia Enhancing Domestic Resource Mobilisation through Effective Tax System Design and

Improved Transparency and International Cooperation for US$4,401,800; Yemen Accountability Enhancement Project for US$6,480,500; Regional: Promoting Financial Inclusion via Mobile Financial Services (Egypt, Jordan, and

Morocco) for US$2,459,000 Regional: TRANSTARC for Tunisia Activities for US$ 3,800,000

2) The following projects (orange) were approved conditionally upon funding availability (e.g., receipt of sufficient cash contributions from the US and potentially Denmark) through December 31, 2013 and are ranked accordingly for a total of US$10,720,920: Reinforcing the Rule of Law: Developing the Capacities of the Judiciary in Yemen for

US$3,000,000; Regional Affordable Housing Project (Morocco and Tunisia) for US$4,220,920; and Libya Leading the Way Program: Pilot for Developing Leadership Capacity to Support Libya’s

Transition for US$3,500,000

3) The World Bank (along with Jordan, Morocco and Tunisia) were asked to scale back the SME Virtual Market Place project (which ranked last) from the submitted amount of US$5,821,500 to an amount of up to US$3 million. It should however be noted that the exact amount available for the project depends on whether potential Danish funds actually reach the Trustee by December 31, 2013 and whether the amount is sufficient to fund the revised amount. The project can be resubmitted for virtual approval once SC comments have been addressed (see below).

4) The SC agreed to allow funding of project preparation costs and project costs beyond the current six-month timeline for this specific round of approvals (December 5-6) and the previous round, on an exceptional basis (see language in Section 7 below).

5) The SC endorsed the terms of reference and budget for the results framework feasibility assessment for the Transition Fund. An allocation of US$65,000 was set aside for this purpose. The SC requested that the study produce clear options for it to consider at the next SC meeting, planned for May 12, 2014.

6) The lead-time for circulation of project proposals will in future give the SC an additional 5 working days, in order to allow SC members more time to read proposals and provide more specific guidance to transition countries.

7) The progress report template will be amended to include a section on additional funds leveraged, status of indirect costs, and provide an upfront summary of progress for ease of reference this will include a schedule of actual disbursement against planned disbursements. and show the ‘status marking’ (satisfactory / moderately satisfactory etc.).

8) The Annual Report will be updated as of December 31, 2013 for public disclosure in early 2014. ISAs were asked to provide an update as of December 31, 2013 in early January for this purpose.

9) The next SC meeting will take place on May 12 and 13, 2014 (tbc) in Cairo, (as long as there is at least $30m to allocate).

10) The co-Chairmanship of the Transition Fund will be handed over by Jordan and the UK to Canada and Egypt as of January1, 2014.

Summary of Meeting

1) Opening Remarks

The fourth meeting of the Transition Fund SC took place in Brussels, Belgium on December 4 and 5, 2013. A list of meeting participants is presented in Annex 1. The meeting commenced with remarks from the co-Chairs, Jordan and the United Kingdom (UK). The UK Ambassador to Belgium, H.E. Jonathan Brenton, opened the meeting with remarks on behalf of the UK (see Annex 2). Jordan introduced the agenda (enclosed in Annex 3 and outlined some key topics for discussion including mechanism to address project delays; status of new pledges and contributions by donors; and, lessons learned from implementation of Transition Fund (MENA TF) projects by Implementation Support Agencies (ISAs).

2) Trustee Presentation

The Trustee presented the Transition Fund’s current funding status and outlook. The presentation is provided in Annex 4.

Total pledges received to date amount to US$201.4 million. Denmark announced that it is considering making a pledge of approximately US$1.8 million.

An additional cash contribution of £16 million (US$25.4 million equivalent) was received from the UK bringing total cash contributions to US$128.4 million. Six countries have contributed the full amount of their pledges: Canada, France, Kuwait, Qatar, Turkey and the UK.

Funding decisions totaling US$102.9 million have been taken as of Dec 4, 2013, including for both projects and Coordination Unit and Trustee budgets.

Current cash available, net of funding decisions, is US$25.8 million.

A cash payment of US$10 million is expected during the week of Dec 9, 2013, from the United States.

Financial Procedures Agreements (FPAs) with the Arab Monetary Fund and the International Monetary Fund have been signed. All FPAs are now signed.

3) Coordination Unit Presentation

The Executive Secretary also gave a brief presentation outlining the 10 projects (or 15 projects if regional projects are considered by country) that were submitted totaling US$40.4 million. The presentation is provided in Annex 5. The presentation also outlined emerging trends in the Transition Fund portfolio mainly:

the lagging allocations for Libya at 3% and Yemen at 9% compared to an average of 20%+ for other transition countries;

the importance of advanced procurement preparation by the time of project submission, and of knowing the timing of SC meetings at least 4 months ahead of the submission deadline to give sufficient preparation time;

the increase in number of ISA executed activities; and the relatively good progress that has been made in this round on under-represented recipients,

but of which parliaments, CSOs and media are still not sufficiently engaged.

4) Leveraging IFI Investment Financing with Transition Fund Projects

The IFI Coordination Platform indicated that ISAs are well aware of the various limitations in transition countries and trying to work as best as possible within these constraints. ISAs will now focus on working with transition countries to improve implementation speed. The IFI CP also highlighted the importance of ensuring the Transition Fund can play a role in scaling up investment financing for the region. In this regard, presentations were made by Arab Fund for Social and Economic Development, Arab Monetary Fund, European Investment Bank, and Islamic Development Bank on how Transition Fund projects can be catalytic in scaling up funds. The presentations will be shared with SC members separately. Finally, IsDB announced it will be handing over the IFI Coordination Platform to EBRD at the end of December.

5) Project Progress Reports

ISAs updated the SC on project performance. Disbursements from ISAs have been fairly slow with less than 1% of committed funds disbursed to date, but there are a number of mitigating factors: (i) uncertainty about SC decision on funding prevents advanced preparation of procurement aspects; and (ii) technical assistance projects tend to disburse slowly at first as down payments are made to mobilize consultants, but accelerate later as deliverables are met. The CU invited specific comments from donors and transition countries on the annual and progress reports.

Transition country focal points suggested ISAs keep them informed on missions and on project progress on an on-going basis to ensure they are well placed to handle remedial actions if needed. Many donors

indicated that disbursement delays are expected due to unpredictable country environments but more efforts need to be put in place to move projects forward. Donors called on IFIs to strengthen in country management and support to better facilitate effective project implementation and for the TCs to ensure communication of the TF project information across a wide spectrum of national stakeholders; including inclusion of relevant data on appropriate government web sites.

The SC agreed that going forward, more attention will be paid to progress reporting, and adaptive measures for projects that are not moving forward will be considered, including possible cancellation. Project progress, and possible specific actions where projects are not performing, will be considered in depth at the next SC in May 2104.

Donors also suggested that the progress report template be amended to include a section on additional funds leveraged, as well as status of indirect costs and disbursement against plan. The CU agreed to take into account comments received on the progress report template and reformulate it in an appropriate manner including incorporating summary schedules of key progress data to enable better comparison across the whole TF portfolio.

The Steering Committee also asked the CU to update the annual report as of December 31, 2013 for public disclosure in early 2014.

6) Feasibility Assessments for Results Framework

The CU put forward a terms of reference for a results framework feasibility assessment for the MENA Transition Fund as required in paragraph 23 (m) of the Operations Manual. The feasibility assessment will provide recommendations for structuring and implementing a results framework. Clear options, with assessment of costs and benefits, will be presented to the SC in May. Both DFID and Canada (and Denmark) expressed interest to be involved at a technical level with the Study. The CU indicated that the budget for this work will have to be deducted from the contribution in hand ahead of project approvals and requested the SC to keep in mind future budgetary requirements that may be needed to take the work forward. It also indicated the feasibility assessment will include consultations with donors, transition countries and ISAs to ensure all viewpoints are taken into account. The TOR is provided in Annex 6.

The SC expressed support for the feasibility assessment and no objections were received on the TOR. An allocation of US$65,000 was approved for the work. It also encouraged the CU to ensure the assessment is ready ahead of the next SC meeting in mid-May so that a decision on taking the work forward can be made at that time. This is separate from the mid-term review, which would be commissioned in mid-2014.

7) Project Preparation Costs

The Transition Fund rules allow for coverage of project preparation costs, usually limited to those incurred up to six months before Steering Committee approval of the project in question (see Para. 46 of the Operations Manual and Para. 4.3 of the FPA). However, the SC has the discretion to change that period, as both clauses include the qualifying phrase, "unless otherwise approved by the Steering Committee". The CU foresees two circumstances in 2013/2014 when the exercise of this discretion is/will be necessary.

One such circumstance is that any project approved conditionally at the December 5, 2013 Steering Committee meeting would only be actually approved once the cash becomes available to fund it. To address this eventuality the Steering Committee hereby decides that for any Project conditionally approved by the Steering Committee at this meeting on December 5, 2013, expenditures incurred as of six months prior to such conditional approval may be paid retroactively with ISA Funds.

In addition, for any project not yet approved six months after its submission due to delays in holding the Steering Committee meeting or to funding not having been received for those projects conditionally approved, the Coordination Unit will request the transition country and ISA(s) to reconfirm the validity of the submission.

8) Fourth Call Project Approvals

TCs submitted 10 proposals amounting to US$40,356,120. Using a similar “traffic light” approach as used at the May 15, 2013 SC meeting, the SC ranked the proposed projects as illustrated in Annex 7. Cash available on December 5, 2013 was US$25.8 million, including funds from the UK and investment income. Anticipated contributions through December 31, 2013 include a payment of US$10 million from the United States under its signed Contribution Agreement and a potential contribution of about US$1.8 million (DKK 10 million) from Denmark.

The following projects were fully approved (green), to be funded with uncommitted cash for a total of US$23,813,700:

Jordan Enhancing Governance and Strengthening the Regulatory and Institutional Framework for MSME Development for US$3,235,000;

Libya Finance and Private Sector Development Technical Assistance for US$3,437,400; Tunisia Enhancing Domestic Resource Mobilisation through Effective Tax System Design and

Improved Transparency and International Cooperation for US$4,401,800; Yemen Accountability Enhancement Project for US$6,480,500; Regional: Promoting Financial Inclusion via Mobile Financial Services (Egypt, Jordan, and

Morocco) for US$2,459,000 Regional: TRANSTARC for Tunisia Activities for US$ 3,800,000

The following projects (orange) were approved conditionally upon funding availability (e.g., receipt of sufficient cash contributions from the US and potentially Denmark) through December 31, 2013 and are ranked accordingly for a total of US$10,720,920:

Reinforcing the Rule of Law: Developing the Capacities of the Judiciary in Yemen for US$3,000,000;

Regional Affordable Housing Project (Morocco and Tunisia) for US$4,220,920; and Libya Leading the Way Program: Pilot for Developing Leadership Capacity to Support Libya’s

Transition for US$3,500,000

The World Bank (along with Jordan, Morocco and Tunisia) was asked to recast and scale back the SME Virtual Market Place project from US$5,821,500 up to US$3 million, and resubmit it for virtual approval. It should however be noted that the exact amount available for the project depends on whether potential Danish funds actually reach the Trustee by December 31, 2013 and whether the amount is sufficient to fund the revised amount. The project was ranked last by the SC, and the lack of a reform

orientation and the project not being transformational were cited as key reasons by some donors. Addressing those comments will obviously be fundamental to any resubmission.

SC members also requested that the following specific comments be addressed ahead of re-submission: How will export ready SMEs be found and selected? What are the selection criteria? The sustainability of the project is not very clear, i.e. what mechanisms will be used to ensure the selected SMEs stay on board for the duration of the project? What is the scalability of the project, i.e. will other SMEs be able to benefit and if yes, how can they be included? What risk factors/categories will be used to assess success/failure of project? Client ownership of the project is in question and the proposal needs to be strengthened to reflect this. Why is the project focusing only on SMEs and not on improving the accountability environment in transition countries? The project document is also not clear on how the overall level of demand is assessed. Finally, the ITC was also involved in an enhancement of Arab trade capacity project with CIDA, yet there is no mention of this in the proposal. The project could benefit from lessons learned from the CIDA/ITC project and should be looked into.

9) Date of Next SC Meeting and Closing Remarks

The SC decided the next (fifth) meeting will take place on May 12 and 13, 2014 in Cairo (Egypt to reconfirm dates by December 12th). The deadline for project submissions would therefore be April 9, 2014. In addition, the SC indicated that ideally future Transition Fund meetings will take place only if at least US$30 million is available for allocation, and with at least four months’ notice for project planning purposes. The incoming Chairs indicated that they expected to hold a sixth TF SC Meeting in the autumn of 2014.

With this being the last meeting under Jordan and UK co-Chairmanship of the Transition Fund, the co-Chairs expressed appreciation for the teamwork among SC members, the collaboration with the IFI Coordination Platform and ISAs, and the CU and Trustee for their support. As of January 1, 2014, the co-Chairmanship of the Transition Fund will hand over to Canada and Egypt. Mr. Dave Metcalfe, Director General of the Europe and Middle East Bureau in CIDA made some closing remarks outlining Canada’s strategic priorities for the Transition Fund in the coming year: (i) resourcing to US$250m and even beyond in 2014, including seeking new sovereign and non-sovereign contributions; (ii) ensure more time and more predictability on project preparations; (iii) reaching out to new actors in project selection and design; and (iv) focusing on the development of a results framework.

Annex 1: List of Participants

Country/IFI Participants Country/IFI Participants

CANADA Dave Metcalfe AfDB Jacob KolsterMichael Callan AFESD Mondher GargouriGina Watson Fatah Shazili

EGYPT Mohammed Hammam AMF Hafid OubrikFRANCE Cécile Pot EBRD Alan Rousso

Stephane Tabarie Mandeep BainsGERMANY Adriana Kessler Irina KravchenkoJAPAN Yukitomo Usutani EIB Flavia PalanzaJORDAN Saleh Al-Kharabsheh Julien Serre

Zeina Toukan IFC Luke HaggartyKUWAIT Ishaq A. Abdulkarim IMF Bjorn Rother

Rania Al-Salem IsDB Amadou Thierno DialloLIBYA Moraja Buhlaiga OECD Andreas Schaal

Esam Garbaa Nejla SaulaMOROCCO Malika Dhif Said Kechida

Abderrazzak Yassir Miriam AllamRUSSIA Pavel Evseev Martin Forst

Kirill Bogomolov Jocelyn PierreSAUDI ARABIA Fahad Alnowaiser Anders Jonsson

Abdulmuhsen S. Alkhalaf OFID Said AissiTUNISIA Hamzaoui Kalthoum Mahmoud Khene

Najoua Khraief World Bank Sahar NasrTURKEY Muharrem Demirci IFI Coordination

PlatformGhassan Al-Baba

Ekrem Kartal Karim AllaouiUAE Khalid AlBustani UfM Mario Mariani

Reem Alshamsi European Commission

Silvia CrescimbeniUK Helen Winterton Begona Bravo-Hevia

Tim Williams Trustee Veronique BishopCath Duric Coordination Unit Jonathan WaltersChris Moore Yogita MumssenMohammed Al-Saffar Hayat Al-Harazi

US Andy Baukol Denmark Pernille MortensenElizabeth Shortino

YEMEN Mohammed AlhawriAbdallah AlgaithyGhaleb Mohammed Al-Ghweidy

Annex 2: Opening RemarksDeauville Transition Fund Steering Committee Meeting

4th December 2013

Good morning ladies and gentleman, I am very pleased to be with you today to open the fourth Steering Committee Meeting of the Deauville MENA Transition Fund. On behalf of the UK and our Jordanian co-chairs of the Fund, I’d like to thank the World Bank for their work in organising and hosting today’s meeting.

This is a particular occasion in that it will be the last meeting of the Deauville Partnership countries under the UK’s Presidency in 2013. And it has been a particularly eventful year, for the Partnership, as well as for the Middle East and North Africa more broadly.

This time last year, the UK set out the broad priorities we wanted Deauville to deliver under our Presidency, with a view to helping the region create more open societies and inclusive economies. We also wanted to focus on tangible, practical outcomes which would make a real difference in the lives of the people of the region – responding to their demands for jobs and better living standards.

Looking back now, and with the strong cooperation of all countries, I am pleased to be able to point to some successes. The ratification of the EBRD’s mandate to expand into the Southern and eastern Mediterranean will help unlock up to €2.5bn in private sector lending. Investment conferences in Tunis, Cairo and London have helped to promote new markets and opportunities in a region which is ‘open for business’.

With the support of companies from across the G8 and other Deauville partners, we have launched an initiative to mentor 250 small and medium-sized enterprises in transition countries. The formal accession of Yemen to the World Trade Organisation will create new growth opportunities for the private sector. And I am delighted to see gradual progress being made to negotiate Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreements between the EU and Morocco and Tunisia. All of this amounts to more jobs and better lives for people in the region.

Of course, we need to be realistic about how long this process will take before we see the positive effects. The transitions, which began with the Arab uprisings three years ago, are long-term processes. The achievements of the Deauville Partnership I have mentioned are laying some of the foundations of future prosperity. But the real work will be undertaken by the governments and newly empowered citizens of the region over coming years, and even decades.

And this is where the Deauville Transition Fund can make a difference, supporting transition countries in improving the lives of their citizens through strengthening public institutions and fostering growth. This is also why the UK has made it a top priority under our Presidency, doubling our contribution to $50 million.

Thanks to the commitment and cooperation of all Steering Committee members, the Fund has come a long way since it became operational almost one year ago today. The speed at which transition countries, ISAs and donors have worked together to design transformative projects has been impressive, especially given the uncertainties many countries have faced during this period.

As of last month, the Steering Committee had approved 28 projects across all six transition countries, and we have already exceeded our objective of funding $100 million of transformative projects within the first year. These projects cover areas such as support to small enterprises, energy sector reform, access to water, and regional integration through trade and transport. All these reforms will help drive prosperity and growth for everyone, unlocking new investments and underpinning economic stability. It is a real strength that we have the participation of a wide range of international financial institutions, including those that know the region intimately. The Islamic Development Bank’s work in hosting the IFI Coordination Platform has been invaluable, increasing the impact that IFIs are having in the region.

However, the success of the Fund is in large part due to the fantastic demand from transition countries, bringing forward strong country-owned proposals for reform. I hope our partners, both from G8 countries and the Gulf, will join the UK in making new pledges, reinforcing our collective commitment to the MENA region. I would also like to take this opportunity to welcome representatives from Denmark as observers at this meeting – we hope to be able to welcome you as full participants in the Fund at the next steering committee meeting.

Before I finish, I would like to thank the World Bank, whose sterling work over the past year has made the Fund run so smoothly. Going forward, there are real challenges in the region, but also real opportunities for transformational change. I hope you have a successful meeting. Thank you.

Annex 3: AgendaFourth Steering Committee Meeting

December 4-5, 2013 (Brussels, Belgium)

Day 1: December 4

Breakfast 8:30 am – 9:00 am

1. Welcome by Co-chairs (Jordan and United Kingdom)

2. Introduction and adoption of agenda (Executive Secretary)

3. Update by Trustee (Trustee)

4. Update by Coordination Unit (Coordination Unit)

5. Comments on operation of Transition Fund to date (IFI Coordination Platform Secretariat, on behalf of ISAs)

6. Leveraging IFI Investment Financing with Transition Fund Projects (selected ISAs)

Break: Coffee 11:00 am – 11:15 am

7. Progress report presentations by ISAs (with any needed information from transition countries)

8. Reflections on Progress to date (All)

9. Planned feasibility assessment for an overall results framework for the Transition Fund (Coordination Unit)

Lunch 1:00 pm – 2:30 pm (El Verde Restaurant, Rue Du Trone 39, 1050 Ixelles, Brussels) – See attached map

10. Project presentations by transition countries (with any needed information from ISAs)

Break: Coffee 4:00 pm – 4:15 pm

11. Project presentations by transition countries continued (with any needed information from ISAs)

Meeting ends at 5:45 pm

Reception Hosted by the UK: 6:00 pm – 7:30 pm (UK Ambassador’s Residence, Rue Ducale 17,1000 Brussels) – See attached map

Day 2: December 5

Breakfast 8:30 am – 9:00 am

1. Project presentations by transition countries continued if necessary (with any needed information from ISAs)

2. Funding Decisions

Break: Coffee 10:45 am – 11:00 am

3. Selection of 2014 Co-chairs

4. Any other business, including date of next Call for Proposals

5. Recap of decisions made (Executive Secretary)

6. Conclusion by Co-chairs

Meeting ends at 12:30 pm

Annex 4: Trustee Presentation

Annex 5: Coordination Unit Presentation

Annex 6: Terms of ReferenceFeasibility Assessment on Creating a Macro Results Framework

for the Deauville Partnership’s Transition Fund

Introduction to the MENA Transition Fund

The powerful socio-political shift that began in 2010/2011 in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) remains fluid and has touched the entire region, deeply affecting daily life, dampening growth and investments, and increasing the fragility of transition countries. The Deauville Partnership was launched as a response and as a long-term initiative to provide transition countries support to strengthen governance for transparent, accountable governments, and to provide an economic framework for sustainable and inclusive growth. To support the six transition countries through means of grants for technical cooperation/assistance to undertake required reforms over a period of years, the Deauville Partnership set up the MENA Transition Fund. Given the diversity and fluidity of the transition process, and the extent of the potential reforms to be undertaken, the objectives of the Transition Fund were necessarily broad.

The Transition Fund is a partnership between six Transition Countries, eleven Donors and eleven Implementation Support Agencies (ISAs), as listed in the Table below. It is a Financial Intermediary Fund with the World Bank as Trustee and also as Coordination Unit (i.e. secretariat).

Table: The MENA Transition Fund – A Unique Partnership Transition Countries

Donors Implementation Support Agencies

Egypt Canada African Development BankJordan France Arab Fund for Economic and Social DevelopmentLibya Japan Arab Monetary FundMorocco Kuwait European Bank for Reconstruction and DevelopmentTunisia Qatar European Investment BankYemen Russia International Finance Corporation

Saudi Arabia International Monetary FundTurkey Islamic Development BankUnited Arab Emirates Organization for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentUnited Kingdom OPEC Fund for International DevelopmentUnited States World Bank

The Transition Fund became operational on December 11, 2012, and as of November, 2013, had mobilized donor commitments totaling US$202 million. Twenty-eight (28) projects in Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Libya, Tunisia and Yemen had received commitments from the Fund as of November, 2013, totaling just over US$101 million. These 28 projects provide support in the areas of economic governance, inclusion and job creation, sustainable development, and competition and integration – for example, helping develop laws and regulations on access to information; empowering CSOs through awareness raising and international best practice; enhancing opportunities for MSME access to finance; reforming energy sectors; and, developing trade and logistics systems/networks across the Mediterranean region.

Currently, each project must complete a detailed individual results framework (standard template, provided in the Annex to this TOR). These individual results frameworks include annual project development outcome indicators and related targets as well as intermediate outcome indicators and targets. Each individual ISA, working with the respective transition country, is responsible for project results monitoring, collection, and reporting back to the Transition Fund, using their respective systems.

Motivation and Objective for the Feasibility Assessment

When the Transition Fund was established, all partners involved agreed that given the potential complexity and time that could be required in developing an aggregate results framework for the entire Fund, that the initial calls for proposals would proceed, and that the possibility of designing an over-riding results framework would be considered after one year of operation – i.e., after December, 2013:

“after the first year of experience of the functioning of the Transition Fund, the Steering Committee (in consultation with the ISAs) will commission: (i) an assessment of the feasibility of designing an overall results framework for the Transition Fund; and (ii) if judged feasible by the SC at that stage, the design of such a framework, including related institutional dimensions, resource implications, quality aspects, etc. (Operating Manual, paragraph 23(m), January, 2013).”

The objective of this Feasibility Assessment is to carefully study whether it is reasonable and efficient to develop a macro results framework for the MENA Transition Fund. By definition, such a macro results framework would aggregate data across the six countries and all existing and potential projects, setting baselines and targets to be achieved. Those targets would be more than just an aggregation of individual project results: they should reflect the Steering Committee's overall definition of what constitutes success or failure for the Transition Fund. The Feasibility Assessment should also provide options on the nature of results frameworks, with assessments of resources required (costs, time, staffing) to develop and implement the framework proposed under each option.

The Feasibility Assessment will not provide detailed instructions on the development of the results framework. As stated in the Operations Manual (see above), this first stage is an assessment, and therefore is to provide clear and convincing evidence whether a macro results framework would be feasible and if so, relevant implications. This Feasibility Assessment will be presented to the Steering Committee for a Decision Point: whether to go forward, and if so, what option(s) would be preferred. Based on this Decision Point, a separate set of consultants will be procured to design in detail the aggregate results framework. NB: The Consultant hired to undertake the Feasibility Assessment will be precluded from bidding for/participating in the development of any further Results Framework for the Transition Fund (should that be the conclusion) in order to ensure that there is no conflict of interest/influence on the recommendations of the Feasibility Assessment.

Scope of Work

1) Describe, analyze and assess the current project-specific results frameworks being used by the Transition Fund. This will help provide a picture of the differences in articulation of results to be measured, as well as data collection, monitoring and evaluation practices across the different implementing agencies (ISAs) – an important baseline for developing an aggregate macro framework for the Transition Fund:

What are the results that are currently targeted and measured through the Transition Fund? How and when is data collected by the Transition Fund Coordination Unit?

Is there any form of results aggregation currently used by the Transition Fund? Do the annual reports/progress reports provide a picture of results/progress?

How and when is project data collected by individual ISAs? How are indicators defined, and does this vary between ISA? Do definitions vary by country? How do individual ISAs and transition countries use the results data in their respective work programs and strategies? How do the results influence policy decisions/actions?

2) Outline, analyze and assess the motivation and challenges for establishing a macro/aggregate Transition Fund results framework:

Outline and assess the objectives of the Deauville Partnership (which created the Transition Fund). What are the overall objectives? Are there targets set for the DP? Do they vary by stakeholder? How are they being measured? Are they being quantified and analyzed, and if so, how? In short, would it be possible to derive an overall results framework for the Transition Fund from an overall results framework for the DP?

How will the results generated from a macro/aggregate results framework be used? What are the results reporting needs and expectations of various partners? Would the results influence –and how most directly— policy decisions/actions of the Deauville Partnership? Would they influence – and how most directly—the policy decisions/actions of the individual transition countries? Donors? ISAs?

3) Review Funds of similar nature to the MENA Transition Fund to assess options, best practice, challenges, risks: Develop a basic understanding of a handful of similar trust fund-type arrangements and outline

what are the most prevailing options/forms of macro/aggregate results frameworks used, if they are being used. In particular, review the GEF and the CIF/CTF facilities and at least one other. In order to assess value for money, review the size of the funds, and the administrative costs incurred for monitoring and evaluation.

Using best practice experience from similar institutional and policy circumstances, provide rationale and evidence as to why establishing an aggregate macro results framework could be helpful. What are the risks? Main challenges? How is the Transition Fund similar/different?

4) Outline the main steps required for creating a macro/aggregate results framework for the Transition Fund, given the understanding of the existing results/data situation across the ISAs. If relevant, explain any special sequencing/ordering required, and describe how and when consensus (in the SC, and across ISAs from whom the data would be collected) would need to be sought on the specific aspects of results framework design and operations. Topics will include (but not be limited to):

What level of results to be measured (impact, outcome, output)? Are there other types of results that could be measured and aggregated efficiently? (Consider an initial deployment of a quick and simple survey in order to capture the responses of this over-riding question from all the Transition Fund members most consistently.)

Data requirements (baseline, other) Data collection rules and procedures Data consistency and quality requirements/safeguards

Data aggregation across sectors, applicability and possibilities Reporting procedures, systems required Evaluation, analysis and dissemination of results expected Maintenance and monitoring of the system Institutional arrangements/requirements (e.g. where does the results framework “sit” and who

implements/maintains it, and who evaluates it?)

5) If there is more than one feasible option of a macro/aggregate results framework for the Transition Fund, describe the options, and explain how they are different in terms of the parameters described in item 4 above – i.e. data and system requirements, level of reporting, and depth of possible evaluation and analysis etc.

Provide the costs related to each option: to design; to develop and implement; to maintain. Please make explicit if these costs are dependent on the institutional arrangements chosen, and how.

Provide a recommendation on the best one or two options for the MENA Transition Fund

Timeline and Costs for this Feasibility Assessment 1. Draft report covering Scope of Work items #1-4 due to Coordination Unit 8 weeks after award of

Consultant contract.2. Revised report covering Scope of Work items #1-5 due to Coordination Unit 10 weeks after

award of Consultant contract.3. Submission to Steering Committee for review and comments4. Finalization of document responding to SC comments 2 weeks after receipt of comments.5. Decision point by Steering Committee: […]

Costs (to be financed from the Transition Fund):4 Labor: 1-2 senior results experts for a total of 50 man-days (@USD 1000/day) = US$50,0004 Travel: Airfare, hotel and per diem (Washington; Europe; MENA): US$10,000 - 15,0004 Other: ICT, printing/copying: US$5004 Total: US$60,500 - $65,5001

Reporting Procedures and Modus OperandiThe Consultant will be procured by the Transition Fund’s Coordination Unit, housed in the World Bank, and therefore will report directly to the Coordination Unit’s Program Manager. Procurement will follow World Bank rules, and will be initiated once the Steering Committee has agreed on the ToR for this Feasibility Assessment.

The Consultant will be provided with a key focal point in each country and at each ISA with which he/she should communicate for the required information –keeping the Transition Fund Program Manager informed/involved.2

1 Additional funds would need to be allocated to the Coordination Unit to cover these costs.2 Although focal points are already designated for each SC member and ISA in the Transition Fund, these may not be the best point of contact for the Consultant, who will need to be regularly in touch with results monitoring experts within each stakeholder.

Annex 7: Project Approvals

Country # Project Name

Funding Requested

(US$ million) ISA Green Orange

RANK

For Reformulation

and Resubmission

Jordan 1Enhancing Governance and Strengthening the Regulatory and Institutional Framework for MSME Development

3,235,000 WB (with AFESD as partner)

3,235,000

Jordan Total 1 3,235,000 1 Libya Finance and Private Sector Development Technical 3,437,400 WB 3,437,400

2Leading the Way Program: Pilot for Developing Leadership Capacity to Support Libya’s Transition

3,500,000 AfDB 3,500,000 3

Libya Total 2 6,937,400

Tunisia 1Enhancing Domestic Resource Mobilisation through Effective Tax System Design and Improved Transparency and International Cooperation

4,401,800 AfDB/OECD 4,401,800

Tunisia Total 1 4,401,800 1 Accountability Enhancement Project 6,480,500 WB 6,480,500

2Reinforcing the Rule of Law: Developing the Capacities of the Judiciary in Yemen

3,000,000 AFESD/OECD 3,000,000 1

Yemen Total 2 9,480,500

1Development of SMEs Exports Through Virtual Market Places (Jordan, Morocco, and Tunisia)

5,821,500 WB 3,000,000

2 Regional Affordable Housing Project (Morocco and Tunisia) 4,220,920 WB/AMF 4,220,920 2

3Promoting Financial Inclusion via Mobile Financial Services (Egypt, Jordan, and Morocco)

2,459,000 EIB 2,459,000

4 TRANSTARC - Tunisia Activities 3,800,000 EIB 3,800,000 Regional Total 3 16,301,420 GRAND TOTAL 9 1 40,356,120 23,813,700 10,720,920 3,000,000

Libya

Yemen