Methodology & ratings

The EBRD’s evaluation policy requires at least 60% of completed operations to be evaluated. Projects are assessed usually one to two years after full disbursement and the findings are distributed to EBRD bankers, management and the Board of Directors, as well as being posted on the Bank’s web site. To date, over 75%of all Bank projects that are ready for evaluation have been independently evaluated by EvD.

Bank projects are assessed against a number of factors, including the EBRD’s mandate, sound banking principles and effectiveness of project implementation. These are illustrated in the figure below. The fundamental objective of all EBRD investments is to foster the transition from centrally planned to market economies in its countries of operations.

Transition impact rating

When assessing a project's impact on the transition process, EvD looks at its wider influence on the sector and on the economy as a whole. For example, EvD evaluates whether the project promotes privatisation, develops or improves standards of business conduct, encourages greater competition or supports the expansion of the market.

Transition impact is given a high weighting when determining the project’s overall success. Of the 469 projects evaluated by EvD over the past 10 years, 53% have achieved a “good” or “excellent” transition impact rating while a further 23% were assessed as “satisfactory” as detailed in the table below.

Overall performance rating

Environmental performance is another key area evaluated by EvD. The Bank’s founding agreement states that through its activities, the Bank must promote environmentally sound and sustainable development. EvD works closely with the Bank’s Environment Department to assess the impact of EBRD projects on the environment.

Other factors evaluated include the project’s financial performance and the fulfilment of its objectives. EvD also assesses the Bank’s implementation of the project: its investment performance, handling of the project and its ability to complement rather than “crowd out” private sources of finance (additionality).

Of the 469 projects evaluated between 1996 and 2005, 58% achieved a “successful” or “highly successful” rating overall as detailed in the table below.