According to Government and DP officials, changes to PFM Action Plan were directly related to the PEFA assessment (according to government officials. This is supported by linkage of the PEFA analyses to the updated (following the PEFA assessment) Government’s PFM Action Plan, covering 2006-2009 (known as the S/MTAP). Section on priority and sequencing of the focal areas in the strategy was added in the updated version and is explicitly based on the PEFA areas of weakness. According to MoFEP officials, most of the Quick Wins in the report accompanying the PEFA assessment are planned/being addressed (e.g. budget reporting, transparency of budget process). Reportedly “frequently referred to” by government in budget/ PFM workshops, meetings PFM-PR is published on MoFEP’s website Actively planning PEFA update in 2009, under ERPFM framework Strong donor PFM group (in the form of the MDBS which represents the overwhelming majority of DP support). PEFA assessment was undertaken as part of the wider MDBS Government-donor dialogue umbrella DP activity is linked to the S/MTAP, which itself is explicitly based on the PEFA indicators. The DPs involved in PFM have put together a matrix showing how each of activities relates to the S/MTAP focus areas. MDBS partners have explicitly agreed to use the PEFA assessment/framework for their PFM assessment requirements. Indeed, the PEFA assessment has provided the basis for DPs’ own separate, assessments (e.g. DFID’s FRA) Reportedly “frequently referred to” by DPs in discussions about PFM Strong Government ownership/leadership of exercise through senior official (Deputy Minister) in MoFEP Real/genuine desire for reform – desire to benchmark itself and move forward Strong pre-existing government-donor dialogue around PFM
Found assessment useful as way of benchmarking themselves, way of using international standards for guiding/responding to PFM actions, donor behaviour. Identified internal audit as a need for greater attention. Welcomed the opportunity to share experiences with other countries in region (PEMPAL initiative) Relatively limited direct impact on PFM reform programme the reform programme is, by design, in the form of the umbrella PFM project funded by the World Bank and other donors May have helped to facilitate inter-institutional dialogue on PFM through identifying areas of common institutional concern There are no explicit plans to undertake a PEFA update PFM-PR report available on MoF website and on EC website Provided confirmation of the to be addressed by the PFM project, supported by multiple donors. In the absence of a counterfactual, evidence of the impact on reducing PFM assessments is unclear. Whilst there have been other PFM assessments (e.g. ROSC), the government does not believe that these are a problem for them (relatively limited number of donors on PFM). Initially sceptical but then saw that it could be useful for benchmarking, learning (good instrument) Genuine sense of Genuine desire to benchmark itself But immediate, attribution effects limited because of pre-existing project addressing main weaknesses (PEFA assessment served to confirm weaknesses) Pre-existing project. Limited number of donors operating in PFM Informal agreement to use PEFA analysis as common reference point. Limited numbers of other similar analyses and credibility of exercise helped with this point.
In the context of the G-19, specific attribution of the PEFA assessment to PFM reforms is difficult Part of overall Government-donor pressure for undertaking PFM reforms Indirect impact (“difficult to say direct result”) – as part of the overall (donor and elsewhere) pressure on government. Served to confirm weaknesses that were familiar. PEFA assessment was one of a number of impetuses (broad pressure) on PFM reforms. Reminded government of what it said it would do. Led to joint PFM Action Plan (in response to DP requirement) [status in guiding PFM reforms in practice is unclear] – but “don’t make too much of the Action Plan”, as it is not a PEFA Action Plan. Separate activity/workshop reviewing was seen as valuable PFM-PR report available on EC website and on joint DP website PEFA update currently being undertaken. Donors were seen to be the main constituency for the PEFA assessment. Impact has been greatest on DPs. Appears to have contributed to joint information pool – common reference point Strong PFM donor group in the form of the G-19 group of countries. Basis of strong government-donor co-operation, which preceded the PEFA assessment (e.g. PAP, information on donor disbursements – ODAMoz, etc). Supported by extensive network of sector-level working groups, several taskforces set up to address specific issues, project management units or SWAp arrangements. Results shown in Annual Joint Review mechanism PEFA assessment used for DP own appraisals, e.g. FRA G-19 intended PEFA framework to replace multiple assessment tools (e.g. PERs) – some have questioned to whether or not it has done so. Seems that other analytical products are still valued. Already reforms in PEFA assessment added to the pool of analyses highlighting weaknesses Separate exercise setting out where to go after PEFA assessment was seen to be useful Strong Government-DP dialogue and DP-DP on PFM in the form of the G-19 Agreement to use PEFA assessment as common reference point
Limited – report never finalised (11 months from field mission to date of draft report) PEFA assessment intended to be used as platform for government, but got overtaken by events (caused in part by delay in getting draft out). Thus, no opportunity to discuss with government before government changed. New government reluctant to use analysis undertaken under old government. PFM reforms started before PEFA assessment – reforms carrying on. PEFA analysis reportedly did not have an input into the new reform programme. Had impact on donors working in PFM (in the Budget Support [BS] who agreed to use a single calendar for missions on PFM and use of multi-donor missions. Common information pool: BS taking PEFA matrix as PFM matrix. PEFA results integrated into PAF of BS PEFA framework helping to donors around a common instrument However, donors were frustrated by length of time for PEFA report to be finalised and lack of information on the process. Government changed. No ownership for what previous government did Report took too long to emerge – was overtaken by events (election timing) PEFA assessment met a perceived need for comprehensive statement of status of PFM systems, although in finalisation and (lack of?) release of final report led to frustration amongst DPs Following PEFA assessment, there was agreement by DPs to use a single mission calendar and to co-ordinate PFM missions helped DP-DP co-ordination
Limited government engagement – seen as DP exercise (scoring carried out by DPs as part of sector groups). Until last year, government was reportedly “hardly aware” of exercise. This year, presentation on PEFA framework was made to government stakeholders at the Annual Review Annual updates were in the original design: at beginning (in 2005), DPs agreed to undertake a 3-year of PEFA evaluations (2005 - central government, 2006 - local government, 2007 - parastatals) PFM Reform Programme (PFMRP) III currently being revised (DP-led exercise), using the results from the PEFA exercises. Not yet approved by government so too early to say what will happen. Recent of reform include procurement and external audit. Attribution to the PEFA assessment is difficult. Has had some impact on government – government responding following a 1-year lag (letter from the PS in charge of local government) with a list of actions and measures to address weaknesses. Parastatal exercise was not seen as very successful Strong DP-DP institutional structure for with network of sectoral and sub-groups. PEFA evaluations used as common information pool Has helped to focus PFMRP discussions with government Still doing individual assessments (e.g. FRA) but as desk studies based on PEFA analyses Limited capacities for undertaking reform Not that there was genuine desire/ownership for reform As pressure has grown (DPs raising profile of PEFA framework), this has served to increase attention on it for government Strong pre-existing DP-DP dialogue around PFM Agreement to use PEFA assessment as common reference point