ANNEX
of road constructed, megawatts installed, schools built, etc.), whereas often their use was not reported, leading to significant data gaps for intermediary outcome indica- tors such as beneficiaries reached (e.g. students enrolled, patients treated, road users, etc.). COUNTING ACROSS DIFFERENT BENEFIT TYPES As results data does not distinguish the identities of bene- ficiaries, 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, reported beneficiaries of these services would be counted separately even if each person benefited from all three. The same applies to the cross-cutting indicator of “women benefited by economic empowerment initia- tives”, 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 empowerment. The total number of beneficiaries across categories 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 gen- der-disaggregated data: Only 6 of 16 MSME loan projects recorded data on women-owned MSME beneficiaries, and only 10 of the 16 projects targeting farmers disag- gregated benefiting farmers by gender. • Similarly, the number of jobs supported was not consist- ently documented: Only 20 of all projects recorded jobs data, even though the actual number of projects creating or sustaining employment is assumed to be much higher.
• Since no data on the number of patients treated was available for most healthcare projects completed during the analysis period, the indicator of benefited population corresponds to the population in the health- care facilities’ area of influence, with such population considered to have access to improved healthcare due to the improvement or construction of healthcare facilities. • The indicator of MSMEs financed presents methodolog- ical challenges. Information is not consistently reported by the various projects, particularly by operations in the financial sector. Some clients and project types re- ported the disbursed sub-loans (such as projects in the agriculture sector also financing MSMEs), while others report the total outstanding MSME portfolio (and the MSME clients therein). If available, results indicators re- ported reflect the disbursed MSME sub-loans reported as financed with OPEC Fund loan proceeds. If this infor- mation is not available, the increase in MSME clients in banks’ outstanding portfolios is used. Both approaches have advantages and drawbacks. While reporting the increase in the number of MSME clients in the outstand- ing portfolio allows for a better understanding of the extent to which OPEC Fund loans might have contrib- uted to improving MSME access to finance more gener- ally (which is the development impact the OPEC Fund is ultimately interested in), it is usually less directly at- tributable to the OPEC Fund loan itself. On the other hand, the reporting of the MSMEs financed specifically with OPEC Funds loan proceeds allows for better attri- bution yet provides no information as to whether ac- cess to finance for MSMEs has indeed increased (the MSME portfolio could have contracted). As the OPEC Fund continues to standardize reporting requirements for financial intermediaries, results reporting will evolve accordingly.
81
Powered by FlippingBook