Completion and Learning Review Validation - The Kingdom of Bhutan FY21-FY24 Country Partnership Framework - April 14, 2025

Jul 19, 2026

Upload by Patrick

Completion and Learning Review Validation assesses the World Bank Group’s Completion and Learning Review (CLR) for the Kingdom of Bhutan covering the FY21–FY24 Country Partnership Framework period. The evaluation finds the development outcome rated Unsatisfactory, with no verifiable results for Focus Area I (Human Capital) and only modest progress for Focus Area II (Resilience). World Bank Group performance is rated Fair due to design gaps, weaknesses in the results framework, and insufficient integration of job creation and stronger reform actions.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages26

Reading Time1 h 6 min

Executive Summary

Ratings and Overall Conclusions

Strategic Alignment and Program Delivery

World Bank Group Performance Assessment

Additional Lesson Provided

Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Completion and Learning Review Validation The Kingdom of Bhutan FY21-FY24 Country Partnership Framework April 14, 2025 Ratings | Indicator | CLR Rating | CLRV (IEG) Rating | | --- | --- | --- | | Development Outcome | Unsatisfactory | Unsatisfactory | | World Bank Group Performance | Fair | Fair | Note: CLR = Completion and Learning Review; CLRV = Completion and Learning Review Validation; IEG = Independent Evaluation Group I. Executive Summary i. This validation of the World Bank Group’s (WBG) Completion and Learning Review (CLR) for the Kingdom of Bhutan covers the period of the Country Partnership Framework (CPF), fiscal years (FY)21-24 . ii. The CPF was aligned with Bhutan’s 12th Five-Year Plan and addressed the key constraints identified in the Systematic Country Diagnostic (SCD). The CPF program was aligned with the 12th Five Year Plan (FYP), which aimed to support progress towards a just, harmonious, and sustainable society through enhanced decentralization by promoting economic diversification, reducing poverty and inequality, strengthening governance, and ensuring environmental sustainability. The CPF was also aligned with the WBG twin goals of reducing poverty and boosting shared prosperity through a Performance for Results (PforR) operation focused on building and protecting human capital as well as a series of Development Policy Credits (DPCs) to strengthen economic resilience and environmental sustainability, while enhancing programs to address the economic, social, and health impact of COVID-19. Gender equality was covered under Objectives 1 and 2, and climate change under Objective 3. No Performance and Learning Review (PLR) was prepared to adjust the program and results framework. iii. IEG rates the CPF development outcome as Unsatisfactory. The CPF delivered no results on Focus Area I (Human Capital) and modest results under Focus Area II (Resilience) . Two objectives were rated as Partially Achieved, and the third as Not Verified. Notably: a. None of the indicators under Focus Area were achieved or could be verified. The COVID- 19 response support was delivered through projects that were approved during the previous Country Partnership Strategy (CPS) FY15-19 period (which was not extended and created a gap in FY20) mainly the COVID-19 Emergency Response (FY20) and the DPC with Catastrophe Deferred Drawdown Option (Cat-DDO, FY20) and one trust fund supporting the latter project. Sound recommendations were provided through Advisory Services and Analytics (ASAs). There was positive initial work on preparing a maternal and child program, which was approved, but implementation was delayed beyond the CPF period; and b. There was modest progress under Focus Area II, and its two objectives were rated as Partially Achieved. An IFC Advisory Service activity supported expanding loans to cottage and small industries (CSIs) but reached only one-fourth of the target. While there were no new private investments in high-value agribusiness, the number of entities reporting to the Credit Information Bureau exceeded its target. The increase in non-hydropower revenue (as a percentage of GDP) fell short of its target. Support for improving financial sector regulations was positive, such as working to expand micro, small and medium enterprises (MSME) financing. A climate fund was not established. iv. World Bank Group performance was Fair. The Focus Areas and Objectives were consistent with the priorities of the government and those identified in the SCD, but program design had gaps, particularly regarding the overarching priority of job creation. Several ASA products were relevant to the program, but DPCs could have been used more strategically, as prior actions were relatively minor policy adjustments and guidelines rather than more substantive reforms, for example, through the approval of laws and their implementation. The Results Framework had wea

FAQs

How are the development outcome and World Bank Group performance rated in the validation?

The CLR development outcome is rated Unsatisfactory, and World Bank Group performance is rated Fair, based on the lack of verified results and identified design weaknesses.

Why were indicators under Focus Area I not achieved or verified?

No indicators under Focus Area I (Human Capital) were achieved or could be verified, and COVID-19 response support relied largely on projects approved in the prior CPS period rather than new CPF-delivered results.

What key gaps affected the quality of the program design and results framework?

The program design had gaps related to overarching job creation, and the results framework included indicators not linked to WBG activity, lacked baseline/target dates, and used some outputs instead of outcomes.

Jul 19, 2026

Upload by Patrick