Comment circule l'aide extérieure

The Borrower proposes the project, aligned with its own development priorities and the Bank's Country Partnership Framework for that country.

The Borrower, with Bank support, works out design, cost and implementation arrangements, including required safeguard instruments.

The Borrower and the Bank jointly review the work from Identification and Preparation before finalising legal and financial terms.

Loan/credit terms are negotiated, then the finalized document goes to the Bank's Board of Executive Directors for approval.

The Borrower executes the project; Bank staff provide implementation support rather than run it directly.

A completion report is compiled with Borrower input; the Bank's Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) conducts separate validation on a sample of projects.

The member country requests Fund support, typically after informal staff-level consultation on the likely program shape.

IMF staff and the authorities agree the policy package. It covers fiscal, monetary, exchange-rate and structural measures the country will commit to.

IMF staff and the authorities reach agreement, subject to IMF Management and Executive Board approval. This is a public signal before the formal decision.

The Fund's 24-member Executive Board approves the arrangement and the size/access of the facility.

Funds are released in installments (purchases/drawings), each gated by policy conditions rather than a single approval.

Periodic (often quarterly) reviews check whether conditions were met; passing a review unlocks the next tranche.

At the arrangement's end, and independently for larger or exceptional-access programs, the Fund's own evaluators assess outcomes.

A Mission sets its multi-year strategic direction for a country, typically a five-year horizon.

Defines how a group of Activities will jointly achieve a Development Objective from the CDCS, with an evidence base and a learning/evaluation plan built in from the start.

Individual Activities implementing the Project are designed and competed for award.

Activities are executed by awarded implementing partners under continuous Collaborating, Learning and Adapting (CLA). Adjustment is based on evidence, not just end-of-project review.

Periodic Mission-level review of how the Project portfolio as a whole is tracking against the CDCS.

Performance and, for larger or higher-risk activities, impact evaluations assess results against the AMELP.

An initial problem definition and options screen is scaled to the size of the intervention. The smallest programmes may skip straight to a single combined Business Case.

The core appraisal document, built on the Treasury Green Book's Five Case Model: Strategic, Economic, Commercial, Financial and Management cases.

Sign-off authority scales with programme value, from delegated country-office approval up to Ministerial or Treasury approval for the largest programmes.

Delivery, usually through commercial suppliers or multilateral partners rather than direct FCDO delivery.

A yearly formal check on performance against the Business Case, scoring progress and risk.

A closing assessment once delivery ends, feeding FCDO's corporate results reporting.

The Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) reviews FCDO programmes and the operating framework itself, outside FCDO's own management line.

IFC investment staff identify a prospective client and opportunity aligned with its strategic priorities.

A first internal screen of the deal, IFC's proposed role, expected development impact and any foreseeable deal-breakers, before authorizing full appraisal.

The investment team assesses business, financial, environmental and social risk in depth, including site visits.

Post-due-diligence internal review of the deal and negotiation of financing terms.

The project is disclosed publicly for a fixed period before going to IFC's Board.

IFC's Board approves the investment on economic, financial and development-value grounds.

Legal agreements are signed; funds are typically disbursed in stages tied to conditions in the loan agreement rather than as one payment.

Ongoing monitoring of financial, social and environmental performance against the loan agreement through the life of the investment, through to closing.

Is the intervention doing the right thing? Alignment with beneficiary needs, country priorities, and partner/donor policies.

How well does it fit with other interventions in a country, sector or institution? This criterion was added in the 2019 revision to capture interactions other criteria missed.

Did the intervention achieve, or is it expected to achieve, its objectives, including for different groups?

Did it deliver results economically and on time, relative to the resources used.

The higher-level effects the intervention produced or contributed to, intended and unintended.

Whether the benefits are likely to continue after the intervention ends.