The Asian Development Bank (ADB) uses financial analysis and evaluation of implementing and executing agencies and projects as tools for the prudent use of its resources. This Technical Guidance Note describes ADB's requirements and good practices for financial analysis and evaluation of sovereign projects, and identifies measures for ensuring that ADB-supported investments are financially viable and sustainable. It also provides a sound analytical framework for assessing if agencies are financially capable of implementing and sustainably operating and maintaining an ADB project so it can achieve the intended development impact over its economic life. Robust financial analysis and evaluation allow ADB and implementing and executing agencies to identify and agree on actions that enhance their financial capacity, strengthening developing member countries' overall governance and institutional capacity—one of ADB's operational priorities in its Strategy 2030.
In the past year, in response to rising levels of private debt, the National Bank of Georgia (NBG) enacted new regulations to curb excessive indebtedness. There were multiple waves of initiatives. Most importantly, in May 20181 commercial banks faced certain limits in issuing the loans with real estate as a collateral, without the analysis of consumers' solvency, while it also limited the loan to value ratio to 50%, among other constraints. On 1 January 2019, new regulation, ratified by the President of the NBG on December 24, came into force2 making full and extensive analysis of borrower's, co-borrower's, guarantor's and collateral owner's income obligatory for lenders, with restricted payments to income and loan-to-value rations. While it was also stipulated that the difference between the debtor's net income and monthly repayment on total obligations must be higher than the subsistence minimum for the working age. The impacts of the implemented regulations are as yet unclear but generally the reaction in the private sector has been negative3. In this newsletter, a brief overview of the possible implications of these lending regulations are presented.
The annual portfolio performance report (APPR) provides the Asian Development Bank (ADB) Board and Management with a strategic overview of the size, composition, and quality of ADB's active portfolio. The report identifies key issues and portfolio trends and makes recommendations at the overall portfolio level. It builds on the project implementation reports and ADB project information databases. The APPR also includes lessons for future ADB interventions. The 2018 APPR covers both the sovereign and nonsovereign portfolio. In 2018, ADB switched sovereign and nonsovereign portfolio reporting from approvals based to commitment based. The sovereign portfolio analyzes loans, grants, technical assistance (TA), guarantees, and equities based on commitments. The nonsovereign portfolio has historically included commitments in the analysis of loans and other debt securities, guarantees, and equities, and hence the approach to reporting remains unchanged.
This paper presents proposals for the Asian Development Bank (ADB) corporate results framework (CRF) for 2019–2024 that is aligned with Strategy 2030. The proposed CRF has been developed based on consultations held from August 2018 to April 2019 with the Board of Directors, Asian Development Fund deputies, officials in ADB member countries, and ADB Management and staff. ADB intends to adopt the Strategy 2030-aligned CRF in 2019 and would use it to assess corporate performance from 2019 until it is amended. ADB's CRF facilitates learning and performance improvement and provides the basis for reporting on ADB's operational and organizational performance, and communication with ADB stakeholders about expected results achievement. Performance against the constituent indicators and targets is reported in the annual Development Effectiveness Review. The CRF brings the highest tier of ADB's results management architecture in line with ADB's new vision and strategic directions, global developments, and the latest thinking on managing for development results.
The annual portfolio performance report (APPR) is a Management report that details the state of the sovereign and nonsovereign portfolios of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) in 2017. It presents a snapshot of ADB's operating performance in 2017, analyzes portfolio composition and trends, and identifies key issues. It serves as a key reference for country portfolio reviews, regional department portfolio reviews, and preparation of country partnership strategies. It outlines the composition of and illustrates trends in the two portfolios by approvals, commitments, disbursements, sector, country, and modality. It presents findings and recommendations on measures to sustain and improve quality and effectiveness of the portfolio for delivering results to the clients.
The Multitranche Financing Facility Annual Report 2017 consolidates the key findings on MFF performance that were reported in the annual multitranche financing facility (MFF) progress reports by the five regional departments. As required by the MFF policy paper, 1 these progress reports provide, for all approved MFFs in each country, (i) progress made on each of the physical and nonphysical components; (ii) risks and issues, and actions being taken to mitigate the risks and resolve the issues; (iii) updated design and monitoring frameworks; (iv) the status of compliance with clients' commitments to take or maintain certain undertakings over the term of the MFF; and (v) any changes in circumstance or material facts relating to the investment program or plan.2 The coverage and focus of the MFF annual reports were significantly revised in 2017 and each annual MFF progress report was significantly improved in 2018. This has been done to strictly comply with the reporting requirements of the MFF policy (footnote 1).
The annual portfolio performance report (APPR) is a Management report that details the state of the sovereign and nonsovereign portfolios of the Asian Development Bank (ADB). It presents a snapshot of ADB's operating performance in 2016, analyzes portfolio composition and trends, and identifies key issues. It concludes with agreed actions to improve portfolio performance.
The Asian Development Bank (ADB) introduced the multitranche financing facility (MFF) in 2005 as a new pilot lending modality. The MFF became a regular ADB lending modality in 2008 through the policy paper on Mainstreaming the Multitranche Financing Facility. The MFF policy paper requires ADB's regional departments to prepare a consolidated annual report for all MFFs approved in each country to give the Board of Directors an opportunity to seek early clarification of the performance of each approved MFF. As required by the MFF policy paper, the Multitranche Financing Facility Annual Report, 2016 analyzes MFF performance in terms of (i) the progress made on physical and nonphysical investments, (ii) key implementation risks and issues with mitigative actions undertaken, (iii) the status of compliance with clients' commitments to take or maintain certain undertakings over the term of the MFF, and (iv) key substantive changes to the MFF. The annual report focuses on the MFF performance ratings, and the annual portfolio performance report focuses on general quantitative and comparative analyses on the overall MFF portfolio performance. The information in this annual report is based on the annual MFF progress reports, which provide details on the status of each approved MFF and its individual tranches, prepared by ADB's five regional departments. These progress reports include URLs to each of the project data sheets, which present progress toward outcomes and the delivery of outputs.
1. The provisions set forth in the Board paper establishing the Asia Pacific Disaster Response Fund (APDRF) require a review before replenishment may be sought. Any request for replenishment must be based on such a review, including an assessment of the fund's effectiveness and the appropriateness of its implementation arrangements. 2. The review covers the period from January 2015 to December 2016 in particular detail while also reporting on overall fund performance since its establishment in 2009. An earlier review covering the period April 2009 to December 2014 was circulated to the Asian Development Bank (ADB) Board of Directors in February 2015.2 As of January 2015, a total of eight grants were under implementation or awaiting submission of the audit report. A further eight new grants were approved by the President between January 2015 and December 2016. This review covers fund performance, including fund resources; fund allocations; timeliness; use of funds; liquidation; and auditing. It also assesses the implementation arrangements and grant effectiveness, including the appropriateness of arrangements, the satisfaction of eligibility criteria, the performance of eligibility criteria in targeting resources, the value-added contribution of the grants, and project impact. It concludes with a summary of fund performance and a discussion of opportunities for improvement.
1. The Board of Directors of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) adopted the policy on combating money laundering and the financing of terrorism on 1 April 2003. The policy calls on ADB to (i) assist developing member countries (DMCs) in establishing and implementing effective legal and institutional systems to combat money laundering and the financing of terrorism (ML/FT), (ii) increase collaboration with other international organizations, (iii) strengthen internal controls to safeguard ADB funds, and (iv) upgrade ADB's staff capacity. 2. As required by the policy, a review of its implementation was carried out in 2008, covering activities from April 2003 to March 2008. The ensuing information paper, Review of Enhancing the Asian Development Bank's Role in Combating Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism, was circulated to the Board in April 2008.2 The paper also envisaged a periodic review of ADB's work under the policy, taking into account developments in international law and standards as well as demand from its DMCs. 3. A second review of policy implementation was carried out in 2012, covering activities from April 2008 to September 2012. The ensuing information paper, Second Review of Enhancing the Asian Development Bank's Role in Combating Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism, was circulated to the Board in November 2012.4 The present paper is on the third review, covering ADB's activities under the policy from October 2012 to June 2017.
Korea has experienced a long-lasting surplus in its current account since the Asian financial crisis in 1998. Recently the surplus has grown wider, with Korea recording a current account surplus of 7.7 percent of GDP in 2015 and 7.0 percent of GDP in 2016. Such a persistent and massive current account surplus in one economy becomes a cause for country-level debates, and accordingly, Korea has been one of the countries suspected as a currency manipulator by the U.S. Treasury Department. The recent empirical studies such as Han and Shin (2016), however, argue that the current account surplus in Korea reflects the consequences of rapid demographical changes in Korea. The surplus is expected to disappear within 25 years as Korea will become one of the most aged economies in the world. Here, we investigate what factors determine the current account balance and the recent current account surplus in Korea.
This report was prepared by Investment Climate Facility (ICF) international with direction from World Bank's Montreal protocol unit and the project team. While Montreal protocol has achieved remarkable success in reducing production and consumption of ozone depleting substances (ODS) worldwide, a significant amount of ODS still remains in equipments, products, and stockpiles. This report finds that significant opportunity exists for destroying ODS through the voluntary carbon market. The high global warming potential (GWP) of ODS means that their destruction has the ability to generate significant volumes of carbon credits, which could then be sold in the voluntary carbon market. Using the voluntary market is likely a win-win opportunity; incentives are created for the recovery and destruction of ODS through the carbon credits that can be earned, and the buyers pay for real and verifiable emission reductions from the destruction of ODS that would have otherwise been emitted.
Not Available ; The land resource inventory of Gopanhalli-1 Microwatershed was conducted using village cadastral maps and IRS satellite imagery on 1:7920 scale. The false colour composites of IRS imagery were interpreted for physiography and the physiographic delineations were used as base for mapping soils. The soils were studied in several transects and a soil map was prepared with phases of soil series as mapping units. Random checks were made all over the area outside the transects to confirm and validate the soil map unit boundaries. The soil map shows the geographic distribution and extent, characteristics, classification behavior and use potentials of the soils in the microwatershed. The present study covers an area of 459 ha in Sedam taluk of Gulbarga district, Karnataka. The climate is semiarid and categorized as drought-prone with an average annual rainfall of 839 mm, of which about 639 mm is received during south-west monsoon, 109 mm during north-east and the remaining 91 mm during the rest of the year. An area of 446 ha (97%) in the microwatershed is covered by soils and about 13 ha (3%) by others (habitation and water bodies). The salient findings from the land resource inventory are summarized briefly below. The soils belong to 3 soil series and 6 soil phases (management units) and 2 land use classes. The length of crop growing period is about 120-150 days starting from 2nd week of June to 3rd week of October. From the master soil map, several interpretative and thematic maps like land capability, soil depth, surface soil texture, soil gravelliness, available water capacity, soil slope and soil erosion were generated. Soil fertility status maps for macro and micronutrients were generated based on the surface soil samples collected at every 250 m grid interval. Land suitability for growing major agricultural and horticultural crops was assessed and maps showing the degree of suitability along with constraints were generated. Entire area in the microwatershed is suitable for agriculture. About 97 per cent area of the microwatershed has soils that are deep (100-150 cm) to very deep (>150 cm) and 200 mm/m) in available water capacity and 0.75%) in soil organic carbon content. About 40 per cent of the area is low (57 kg/ha) in available phosphorus. About 19 per cent soils are medium (145-337 kg/ha) and 79 per cent is high (>337 kg/ha) in available potassium. Available sulphur is low (4.5 ppm) in 30 per cent area and deficient (0.6 ppm) in 21 per cent of soils in the microwatershed. The land suitability for 19 major crops grown in the microwatershed were assessed and the areas that are highly suitable (S1) and moderately suitable (S2) are given below. It is however to be noted that a given soil may be suitable for various crops but what specific crop to be grown may be decided by the farmer looking to his capacity to invest on various inputs, marketing infrastructure, market price and finally the demand and supply position. Land suitability for various crops in the Microwatershed Crop Suitability Area in ha (%) Crop Suitability Area in ha (%) Highly suitable (S1) Moderately suitable (S2) Highly suitable (S1) Moderately suitable (S2) Sorghum 429(93) 16(3) Sapota - - Maize - - Jackfruit - - Redgram - 445(97) Jamun - 445(97) Sunflower 429(93) 16(3) Musambi 429(93) 16(3) Cotton 429(93) 16(3) Lime 429(93) 16(3) Sugarcane - - Cashew - - Soybean 429(93) 16(3) Custard apple 429(93) 16(3) Bengal gram 429(93) 18(4) Amla 429(93) 16(3) Guava - - Tamarind - 445(97) Mango - - Apart from the individual crop suitability, a proposed crop plan has been prepared for the identified LUCs by considering only the highly and moderately suitable lands for different crops and cropping systems with food, fodder, fiber and horticulture crops. Maintaining soil-health is vital to crop production and conserve soil and land resource base for maintaining ecological balance and to mitigate climate change. For this, several ameliorative measures have been suggested to these problematic soils like saline/alkali, highly eroded, sandy soils etc., Soil and water conservation treatment plan has been prepared that would help in identifying the sites to be treated and also the type of structures required. As part of the greening programme, several tree species have been suggested to be planted in marginal and submarginal lands, field bunds and also in the hillocks, mounds and ridges. This would help in not only supplementing the farm income but also provide fodder and fuel, generate lot of biomass which would help in maintaining an ecological balance and also help in mitigating the climate change. Baseline socioeconomic characterisation is prerequisite to prepare action plan for program implementation and to assess the project performance before making any changes in the watershed development program. The baseline provides appropriate policy direction for enhancing productivity and sustainability in agriculture. Methodology: Gopanhalli 1 micro-watershed (Mudhol sub-watershed, Sedam taluk, Gulbarga district) is located in between 1702' – 1704' North latitudes and 76021' – 76022' East longitudes, covering an area of about 459.40 ha, bounded by Gopanpalli, Bidharcheda, Jilladapalli and Kadacharana villages with length of growing period (LGP) 120-150 days. We used soil resource map as basis for sampling farm households to test the hypothesis that soil quality influence crop selection, and conservation investment of farm households. The level of technology adoption and productivity gaps and livelihood patterns were analyses. The cost of soil degradation and eco system services were quantified. Results: The socio-economic outputs for the Gopanhalli-1 Micro-watershed (Mudhol sub-watershed, Sedam taluk, Gulbarga district) are presented here. Social Indicators; Male and female ratio is 55.3 to 44.6 Per cent to the total sample population. Younger age 18 to 50 years group of population is 55.2 around per cent to the total population. Literacy population is around 76.6 per cent. Social groups belong to other backward caste (OBC) 60 percent and general caste around 40 percent. Fire wood is the source of energy for a cooking among 90 per cent. About 40.0 per cent of households have a yashaswini health card. Farm households are having MGNREGA card only 10 per cent for rural employment. Dependence on ration cards for food grains through public distribution system among all the farm households. Swach bharath program providing closed toilet facilities around 10 per cent of sample households Women participation in decisions making is among all the households were found. 2 Economic Indicators; The average land holding is 1.09 ha indicates that majority of farm households are belong to marginal and small farmers. The dry land is total cultivated land area among the sample farmers. Agriculture is the main occupation among 34.1 per cent and agriculture is the main and agriculture labour is subsidiary occupation for 59.6 per cent of the sample households. The average value of domestic assets is around Rs.13487 per household. Mobile and television are popular media mass communication. The average value of farm assets is around Rs. 306541 per household; about 60 per cent of sample farmers own plough and bullock cart. The average value of livestock is around Rs.27666 per household; about 66.6 per cent of household are having livestock. The average per capita food consumption is around 901 grams (2126 kilo calories) against national institute of nutrition (NIN) recommendation at 827 gram. Around 30 per cent of sample farmers are consuming less than the NIN recommendation. The annual average income is around Rs.94300 per household. About 70.0 per cent of farm households are below poverty line. The per capita average monthly expenditure is around Rs.1671 per household. Environmental Indicators-Ecosystem Services; The value of ecosystem service helps to support investment to decision on soil and water conservation and in promoting sustainable land use. The onsite cost of different soil nutrients lost due to soil erosion is around Rs.688 per ha/year. The total cost of annual soil nutrients is around Rs.306979 per year for the total area of 459 ha. The average value of ecosystem service for food grain production is around Rs. 12922/ ha/year. Per hectare food grain production services is maximum in red gram (Rs. 20656) followed by cotton (Rs. 17607), bengal gram (Rs. 9971) and sorghum (Rs. 3457). The average value of ecosystem service for fodder production is around Rs 937/ ha/year in sorghum. The data on water requirement for producing one quintal of grain is considered for estimating the total value of water required for crop production. The per hectare value of water used and value of water was maximum in bengal gram (Rs.54585) followed by red gram (Rs.54338), cotton (Rs.51153) and sorghum (Rs.40332). 3 Economic Land Evaluation; The major cropping pattern is redgram (56.8 %) followed by bengalgram (18.4 %), cotton (16.4 %) and sorghum (8.2 %). In Gopanhalli-1micro-watershed, major soil series are Dargah series having very deep soil depth covered around 89.2. % of area. major crops are red gram (59.9 %), sorghum (20.4. %) and cotton (40.1 %), Dhoandothi soils series are having deep soil depth covers around 6.2 % of area. on this soil farmers are presently growing redgram (79.3 %), bengal gram (14.4 %) and cotton (6.1 %). The total cost of cultivation and benefit cost ratio (BCR) in study area for cotton ranges between Rs.42299/ha in DDT soil (with BCR of 1.31) and Rs. 30406/ha in DRG soil (with BCR of 1.71). In red gram the cost of cultivation ranges between Rs. 25581/ha in DDT soil (with of 2.07) and Rs. 24113/ha in DRG soil (with BCR of 2.16). In the sorghum the cost of cultivation in DRG soil is Rs. 23007/ha (with BCR of 1.19) and bengal gram the cost of cultivation in DDT soil is Rs.21645/ha (with BCR of 1.46). The land management practices reported by the farmers are crop rotation, tillage practices, fertilizer application and use of farm yard manure (FYM). Due to higher wages farmer are following labour saving strategies is not prating soil and water conservation measures. Less ownership of livestock limiting application of FYM. It was observed soil quality influences on the type and intensity of land use. More fertilizer applications are deeper soil to maximize returns. Suggestions; Involving farmers is watershed planning helps in strengthing institutional participation. The per capita food consumption and monthly income is very low. Diversifying income generation activities from crop and livestock production in order to reduce risk related to drought and market prices. Majority of farmers reported that they are not getting timely support/extension services from the concerned development departments. By strengthing agricultural extension for providing timely advice improved technology there is scope to increase in net income of farm households. By adopting recommended package of practices by following the soil test fertiliser recommendation, there is scope to increase yield in cotton (18.9 to 32.4 %), red gram (5.9 to 18.9 %), sorghum (52.9 %) and bengal gram (46.0 %). ; Watershed Development Department, Government of Karnataka (World Bank Funded) Sujala –III Project
