RESULTS
such as beneficiaries reached (e.g. students enrolled, patients treated, road users, etc.).
- Similarly, the number of jobs supported was not consist- ently documented: Only 18 of all projects recorded jobs data, even though the actual number of projects creating or sus- taining employment is assumed to be much higher. - The indicator of MSMEs financed presented methodolog- ical challenges. In an effort to increase the meaningfulness of its results reporting and given the fungibility of money, the OPEC Fund has started to focus the overall increase in MSMEs financed by its financial institutions clients typ- ically measured as the increase in MSME clients in banks’ outstanding portfolios. This allows for a better understand- ing of the extent to which OPEC Fund loans help improve MSMEs’ access to finance. For the results presented under the “MSMEs financed” indicator in this report, reported data on MSMEs receiving loans was used in public sector projects in the agriculture sector, where these services clearly consti- tuted an increase in access to finance by MSME beneficiaries. For private sector projects through financial institutions the increase in the number of MSME loans in the outstanding portfolio was used as a proxy for additional MSMEs financed. However, data for this indicator was not consistently availa- ble for all MSME lending projects. In case of missing data, the analysis used the best possible alternative data point that was available (such as MSMEs reported to be financed with OPEC Fund proceeds).
COUNTING ACROSS DIFFERENT BENEFIT TYPES. As re- sults data does not distinguish the identities of beneficiaries, they are counted in each category of development benefit received. If, for instance, a multi-sector project targeted rural dwellers with education, health and farming services, report- ed beneficiaries of these services would be counted sepa- rately even if each person benefited from all three. The same applies to the cross-cutting indicator of “women benefited by economic empowerment initiatives”, wherein, for instance, female farmers who benefited through agricultural economic empowerment initiatives would be counted both as farmers who benefited and as women benefiting from economic em- powerment. The total number of beneficiaries across catego- ries may thus add up to more than the total population in the area of influence. DATA LIMITATIONS. The quality and comprehensiveness of completion reports was variable, posing challenges for the collection of results data. Some examples for data limitations are as follows: - OPEC Fund projects have to date included limited gender-disaggregated data: Only 6 of 16 MSME loan projects recorded data on women-owned MSME benefi- ciaries, and only 10 of the 16 projects targeting farmers disaggregated benefiting farmers by gender.
63
Powered by FlippingBook