[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-detail-110649-en":3,"doc-seo-110649-105":29,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":89},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",{"doc_id":7,"user_id":8,"nickname":9,"user_avatar":10,"doc_module":4,"category_id":11,"category_name":12,"doc_title":13,"doc_description":14,"doc_content":15,"file_id":16,"file_url":17,"file_type":18,"file_size":19,"view_count":4,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":20,"is_downloadable":20,"audit_status":20,"page_count":21,"language":22,"language_code":23,"site_id":24,"html_lang":23,"table_of_contents":25,"faqs":26,"seo_title":13,"seo_description":14,"update_tm":27,"read_time":28},110649,13056703019404,"Miles","https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_29158cc5080c5b710cf443261637dec0",8,"Research & Report","IFC’s and MIGA’s Support for Private Investment in Fragile and Conflict-Affected Situations (FY10–21) - An Independent Evaluation - Report to the Board from the Committee on Development Effectiveness","Report to the Board from the Committee on Development Effectiveness presents an independent evaluation of IFC’s and MIGA’s support for private investment in fragile and conflict-affected situations over FY10–21. The Committee reviews the evaluation’s relevance for IDA20 replenishment and FCV strategy implementation, assesses progress in risk management, project development, and target setting, and discusses implications for risk appetite, credit rating, and non-financial risks. It highlights the need for measurable approaches, stronger World Bank Group collaboration, and continued support for countries graduating but remaining fragile.","Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized  \nIFC’s and MIGA’s Support for Private Investment in Fragile and  \nConflict-Affected Situations (FY10–21)  \nAn Independent Evaluation  \nReport to the Board from the  \nCommittee on Development Effectiveness ∗  \nMeeting of October 7, 2021  \nThe Committee on Development Effectiveness met to consider the IEG’s report IFC’s and MIGA’s Support for Private Investment in Fragile and Conflict-Affected Situations (FY10–21). An Independent Evaluation (CODE2021-0058) and Draft IFC/MIGA Management Response (CODE2021-0060) .  \nThe Committee welcomed the evaluation, noting its relevance and timeliness to inform the upcoming IDA20 replenishment discussions and the implementation of the FCV strategy. Members stressed the relevant role that IFC and MIGA play in achieving the twin goals and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by increasing support for Private Sector Development (PSD) and private investment in Fragile and Conflict-Affected Situations (FCS) . Members were pleased to learn that IFC and MIGA have been able to maintain the relative share of their business volumes in a context of declining FDI flows to FCS countries; have gradually deployed new approaches and instruments in FCS; and that they are moving in the right direction for scaling up and meeting their goals in FCS. Nonetheless, Members recognized that further improvement is needed to achieve the FCS targets committed under the capital increase package and appreciated the report’s findings and recommendations to improve results and scale up private sector interventions in FCS countries.  \nWhile some members noted their agreement with the report’s recommendation that IFC’s and MIGA’s risk management frameworks and capacities should be fully operational and continuously adapted to changing circumstances and operations (recommendation one), some asked for clarification on whether changes in the risk framework would affect IFC’s and MIGA’s risk appetite and IFC’s credit rating. They recognized that investing or providing investment guarantees in high-risk countries involves tradeoffs with IFC and MIGA’s overall risk and financial results and that there was a need for Board to have more candid conversations on risk-taking, including on the range of non-financial risks that can be particularly acute in FCS contexts. They also asked Management to comment on the robustness of their risk management frameworks to increased fragility in countries where IFC and MIGA are pursuing investments and guarantees or have already secured commitments.  \nMembers noted Management’s clarifications that developing a more intentional and measurable approach to developing bankable projects in FCS was at the heart ofIFC 3.0 strategy and MIGA’s Strategy and Business Outlook: FY21-23 (recommendation two) . While acknowledging the array of approaches and initiatives already developed by IFC and MIGA, members highlighted the need to sustain focus on WBG upstream engagement, indicating that recalibration of their business models, client engagements, and instruments as IFC and MIGA expand their work in FCS countries should be seen as “business as usual”. Members called for stronger collaboration amongst the World Bank Group institutions to address regulatory constraints and for the development of more intentional and measurable approaches to developing bankable projects in FCS.  \nMembers recognized the operational challenges cited by IFC and MIGA regarding the recommendation to identify and agreeing to FCS-specific targets in IFC/MIGA corporate scorecards to focus their efforts and track progress in implementing the Bank Group FCV strategy for the private sector (recommendation three) . However, many members saw value added in pursuing the evaluation’s recommended approach and asked Management to reflect on maintaining the existing targets internally  \n∗ This report is not an approved record.  \nwhile setting additional FCS-specific targets to help tar","cbCaidPapbi0L8WO","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaidPapbi0L8WO","pdf",173220,1,2,"English","en",105,"# Meeting of October 7, 2021\n## Purpose of the Committee review\n## Key observations on progress and scaling up\n## Risk management, risk appetite, and non-financial risks\n## Bankable projects approach and collaboration needs\n## FCS-specific targets in scorecards and metrics\n## Organizational decisions and areas of divergent views","[{\"question\":\"Why was the independent evaluation considered relevant for the Committee’s upcoming discussions?\",\"answer\":\"The Committee noted the evaluation’s relevance and timeliness to inform IDA20 replenishment discussions and the implementation of the FCV strategy.\"},{\"question\":\"What clarification did members seek regarding risk management recommendations?\",\"answer\":\"Members asked whether changes to risk frameworks would affect IFC’s and MIGA’s risk appetite and IFC’s credit rating, and they emphasized the need for candid Board discussions on non-financial risks.\"},{\"question\":\"What improvements did members call for regarding targets and measurement in FCS work?\",\"answer\":\"Members recognized operational challenges but saw value in adopting the recommended approach. They encouraged maintaining existing KPIs while adding FCS-specific targets and reflecting on using a wider set of metrics.\"}]",1784486420,5,{"code":4,"msg":30,"data":31},"ok",{"site_id":24,"language":23,"slug":32,"title":13,"keywords":33,"description":14,"schema_data":34,"social_meta":84,"head_meta":86,"extra_data":88,"updated_unix":27},"ifcs-and-migas-support-for-private-investment-in-fragile-and-conflict-affected-situations-fy1021-an-independent-evaluation-report-to-the-board-from-the-committee-on-development-effectiveness","",{"@graph":35,"@context":83},[36,52,66],{"@type":37,"itemListElement":38},"BreadcrumbList",[39,43,46,49],{"item":40,"name":41,"@type":42,"position":20},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":44,"name":45,"@type":42,"position":21},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",{"item":47,"name":12,"@type":42,"position":48},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":50,"name":13,"@type":42,"position":51},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/ifcs-and-migas-support-for-private-investment-in-fragile-and-conflict-affected-situations-fy1021-an-independent-evaluation-report-to-the-board-from-the-committee-on-development-effectiveness/110649/",4,{"url":50,"name":13,"@type":53,"author":54,"headline":13,"publisher":56,"fileFormat":59,"inLanguage":23,"description":14,"dateModified":60,"datePublished":60,"encodingFormat":59,"isAccessibleForFree":61,"interactionStatistic":62},"DigitalDocument",{"name":9,"@type":55},"Person",{"url":40,"name":57,"@type":58},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-07-19",true,{"@type":63,"interactionType":64,"userInteractionCount":4},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":65},"ViewAction",{"@type":67,"mainEntity":68},"FAQPage",[69,75,79],{"name":70,"@type":71,"acceptedAnswer":72},"Why was the independent evaluation considered relevant for the Committee’s upcoming discussions?","Question",{"text":73,"@type":74},"The Committee noted the evaluation’s relevance and timeliness to inform IDA20 replenishment discussions and the implementation of the FCV strategy.","Answer",{"name":76,"@type":71,"acceptedAnswer":77},"What clarification did members seek regarding risk management recommendations?",{"text":78,"@type":74},"Members asked whether changes to risk frameworks would affect IFC’s and MIGA’s risk appetite and IFC’s credit rating, and they emphasized the need for candid Board discussions on non-financial risks.",{"name":80,"@type":71,"acceptedAnswer":81},"What improvements did members call for regarding targets and measurement in FCS work?",{"text":82,"@type":74},"Members recognized operational challenges but saw value in adopting the recommended approach. They encouraged maintaining existing KPIs while adding FCS-specific targets and reflecting on using a wider set of metrics.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":50,"og:type":85,"og:title":13,"og:site_name":57,"og:description":14},"article",{"robots":87,"canonical":50},"index,follow",{"doc_id":7,"site_id":24},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":90},[91,95,99,103,107,112,117,120,125,128,132],{"id":20,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":45,"category_name":92,"show_sort_weight":93,"slug":94},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":21,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":45,"category_name":96,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":98},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":51,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":45,"category_name":100,"show_sort_weight":101,"slug":102},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":28,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":45,"category_name":104,"show_sort_weight":105,"slug":106},"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":108,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":45,"category_name":109,"show_sort_weight":110,"slug":111},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":113,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":45,"category_name":114,"show_sort_weight":115,"slug":116},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":11,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":45,"category_name":12,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":119},30,"research-report",{"id":121,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":45,"category_name":122,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":124},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":45,"category_name":126,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":127},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":129,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":45,"category_name":130,"show_sort_weight":129,"slug":131},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":133,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":45,"category_name":134,"show_sort_weight":28,"slug":135},19,"General","general"]