This evaluation examines the Caribbean Development Bank’s (CDB) Country Engagement Strategy (CES) for Saint Lucia for the period 2020–23, including activities designed and implemented until December 2024. The evaluation uses a mixed-methods approach, combining document reviews, portfolio analysis, and stakeholder interviews, to inform the next CES. The evaluation process supported participation, reflection, and co-creation. During the inception phase, feedback was collected from CDB staff and Government of Saint Lucia (GOSL) counterparts to refine the focus and ensure evaluation questions would generate insights aligned with both CDB’s strategic needs and GOSL priorities. A Theory of Change workshop was conducted with CDB and GOSL stakeholders to reconstruct the underlying logic of the CES and identify key assumptions and change pathways. This collaboration provided a shared foundation for assessing progress and strategic alignment. Validation of emerging findings was carried out via an online workshop. A hybrid co-creation workshop was held with Saint Lucia-based stakeholders and CDB staff to collaboratively develop recommendations and ensure proposed actions are useful, specific, and actionable, with the aim of increasing the success of the next CES.
External Review of OIE 2017
Strategy and Plans
Complete
CDB
Management Response
Yes
Summary
In December 2011, the Caribbean Development Bank (CDB) agreed a comprehensive Evaluation Policy (December 2011) setting out the aim and objectives and guiding principles for CDB’s evaluation system. The Policy provides for the establishment of the Office of Independent Evaluation (OIE).In line with the Evaluation Cooperation Group’s (ECG) good practice standards, in 2015 CDB’s Oversight and Assurance Committee (OAC) endorsed an external review of CDB’s OIE. The intention is to highlight the factors that help or hinder OIE’s independence and performance in order to identify where improvements could be made.CDB has also taken many, other important steps towards updating management practices in line with other multilateral development banks (MDBs). However, the introduction of several innovations in parallel requires coordination and a shift in working practices and thinking. There is also the need to engage in different types of evaluation; evaluations that take into account cross-cutting themes and different levels of complexity. As such, whilst this Review particularly focused on CDB’s OIE, it recognises that OIE’s work and utility depend to a large degree on the development of other management practices and the degree to which evaluation is able to effectively link into their work. As such, to a limited degree, the Review took into account OIE’s linkage to other management practices.
