Completion and Learning Review - CLR Review - Independent Evaluation Group - Country Partnership Framework FY17-FY21 - June 21, 2022

Jul 19, 2026

Upload by Eliana

This Completion and Learning Review (CLR) assesses the World Bank Group’s Country Partnership Framework (CPF) for Sri Lanka covering FY17-FY20, updated in the Performance and Learning Review to extend through FY21. The CPF aimed to support Sri Lanka’s transition toward a more competitive, globally integrated, private-sector-led, inclusive, and resilient upper middle-income country, emphasizing an enabling environment for investment and state efficiency, plus resilience to disasters and climate change. IEG rates development outcome as Moderately Unsatisfactory and WBG performance as Fair, citing uneven focus-area results and insufficient achievement in public finance management.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages38

Reading Time1 h 36 min

I. Executive Summary

Review scope and CPF objective

IEG ratings: development outcome and WBG performance

Focus areas and key findings

Implementation progress and lessons

Public Disc losure Authorized CLR Review Independent Evaluation Group Completion and Learning Review Review Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka FY17-FY21 Country Partnership Framework June 21, 2022 Ratings | | CLR Rating | CLRR (IEG) Rating | | --- | --- | --- | | Development Outcome: | Moderately Satisfactory | Moderately Unsatisfactory | | WBG Performance: | Good | Fair | Pub lic Disc losure Authorized I. Executive Summary i. This review of the World Bank Group’s (WBG) Completion and Learning Review (CLR) covers the period of the Country Partnership Framework (CPF) FY17-FY20, including its update in the Performance and Learning Review (PLR) dated March 7, 2019, which extended the CPF period by one year to FY21. ii. The key objective of the CPF was to support Sri Lanka in its transition to a more competitive, globally integrated, private-sector-led, inclusive, and resilient upper middleincome country (UMIC). Therefore, the CPF report proposed refocusing WBG engagement on creating the enabling environment for increased foreign and domestic investment and enhancing the efficiency of the state, with a new strategic area aimed at increasing resilience to natural disasters and climate change. In consequence, the program did not address directly the twin goals (poverty reduction and the lower 40 percent), but with the implied expectation that the expected transition would benefit these two target groups. The CPF program was consistent with the government’s stated priorities and the analysis in the SCD, and reflected lessons learned from the previous country program. The initial design was maintained through the PLR stage, with a number of changes to the results framework. While broadly relevant, the program could have benefited from more attention to macro-fiscal areas including public finance, especially at the PLR stage. iii. IEG rates the CPF development outcome as Moderately Unsatisfactory. Of the nine objectives, one was Achieved, three Mostly Achieved, three Partially Achieved, and two Not Achieved. Focus Area I (Macro-fiscal stability and competitiveness) results were uneven, with | CLR Reviewed by | Peer Reviewed by | CLR Review Coordinator | | --- | --- | --- | some improvements for the enabling environment for private investment and trade, and financial inclusion. However, the goal of improved public finance management (PFM) was not achieved, and macro-fiscal instability has recently (after the end of the CPF period) led to Sri Lanka stopping servicing its large foreign debt. Focus Area II (Inclusion and opportunities for all) showed generally positive results – for education and training systems, health care systems, and inclusive regional development. Focus Area III (Green growth and resilience) showed good results across indicators for strengthening climate resilience and disaster risk management, but did not achieve any results within the CPF period for renewable energy PPP. iv. On balance, IEG rates the WBG performance as Fair. The overall objective – to support Sri Lanka in its transition to a more competitive, globally integrated, private-sector-led, inclusive, and resilient UMIC – was appropriate. It is however not clear whether the WBG had the capacity to deliver on this objective in light of the country context, including domestic implementation weaknesses. The CPF objectives, the lending and ASA helped underpin the overall objective, but linkages between ASA and the program objectives were not always clear. The program activities were well aligned with the Government’s stated preferences, as well as with the development priorities identified in the 2015 SCD, and addressed important issues. With the benefit of hindsight, greater attention to Sri Lanka’s macro-fiscal and public finance challenges would have been warranted. Political, governance, and macroeconomic risks were well identified, both in the CPF and later at the PLR stage, but the overall risk rating may have been un

FAQs

What period and scope does the CLR cover for Sri Lanka?

The CLR covers the CPF period FY17-FY20, including the update in the Performance and Learning Review (PLR) on March 7, 2019 that extended the CPF to FY21.

What were the IEG ratings for the CPF development outcome and WBG performance?

IEG rates the CPF development outcome as Moderately Unsatisfactory and rates WBG performance as Fair.

Which focus areas showed generally positive results, and which targets were not achieved?

Focus Area II (Inclusion and opportunities for all) showed generally positive results for education, training, health care systems, and inclusive regional development. Focus Area III delivered good climate resilience and disaster risk management results, but it did not achieve renewable energy PPP results within the CPF period.

Jul 19, 2026

Upload by Eliana