Relatively limited impact is the Limited effective donor – Seen as external exercise, PEFA exercise useful to government in perception that donors don’t work in practice. Some as was preparation of highlighting PFM strengths/weaknesses in a particularly well together on the ground in DPs continuing to follow reform programme. Not single document the region. Some DPs continue to operate their own procedures, necessarily reflecting Initial motivation for assessment was in separately in accordance with their own agendas. In region, there is government’s own response to DP requirement. agendas. dispersal of DP initiatives priorities and reforms Whilst the PFM challenges were the PEFA even those funded by same internal pressures in analysis added to the pressure on different parts Agreement on Joint Principles for government (e.g. AusAid as play. of government to act (e.g. agencies of external Application of the PEFA Performance separate from RAMSI and scrutiny). Helped push the momentum along. Measurement Framework (Sydney as separate from Australian Both Government and DP stakeholders indicated Principles) have led to more joint Government Departments that the PEFA analysis had an indirect effect; participation in PEFA evaluations in the (e.g. Treasury and Finance/ one estimated that the impact (in of direct region, but has not yet led to co-ordinated Administration) attribution) of the PEFA assessment on activities on the ground. Co-ordination government was between 10-30%. Others appears to be more in intention than Agreement on Sydney indicated that it was difficult to quantify. practice. Principles are first step and appear to have had most Preparation of Action Plan was seen as DP EC planning an update of the PEFA impact on encouraging joint requirement and carried out by a consultant. assessment in 2009. PEFA missions Government indicated that its reforms in practice operate in line with its own priorities. Despite attempts, no institutional On DP side, this is interpreted as donors mechanism for Government-DP dialogue in appearing to impose reforms. place; no mechanism for common decisions. PFM-PR report available on EC website. Donors are continuing to do their own Circulated widely to stakeholders, including country strategy reviews, etc. civil society. Has helped them to criticise the SWAp have separate financing agreements government (additional pressure on for different donors leads to greater – government). transaction costs.
PEFA exercise useful to government in highlighting PFM strengths/weaknesses in a single document Initial motivation for assessment was in response to DP requirement. Whilst the PFM challenges were the PEFA analysis added to the pressure on different parts of government to act (e.g. agencies of external scrutiny). Helped push the momentum along. Both Government and DP stakeholders indicated that the PEFA analysis had an indirect effect; one estimated that the impact (in of direct attribution) of the PEFA assessment on government was between 10-30%. Others indicated that it was difficult to quantify. Preparation of Action Plan was seen as DP requirement and carried out by a consultant. Government indicated that its reforms in practice operate in line with its own priorities. On DP side, this is interpreted as donors appearing to impose reforms. PFM-PR report available on EC website. Circulated widely to stakeholders, including civil society. Has helped them to criticise the government (additional pressure on government). Relatively limited impact – is the perception that donors don’t work particularly well together on the ground in the region. Some DPs continue to operate separately in accordance with their own agendas. Agreement on Joint Principles for Application of the PEFA Performance Measurement Framework (Sydney Principles) have led to more joint participation in PEFA evaluations in the region, but has not yet led to co-ordinated activities on the ground. Co-ordination appears to be more in intention than practice. EC planning an update of the PEFA assessment in 2009. Despite attempts, no institutional mechanism for Government-DP dialogue in place; no mechanism for common decisions. Donors are continuing to do their own country strategy reviews, etc. SWAp have separate financing agreements for different donors – leads to greater transaction costs. Seen as external exercise, as was preparation of reform programme. Not necessarily reflecting government’s own priorities and reforms internal pressures in play. Limited effective donor in practice. Some DPs continuing to follow their own procedures, agendas. In region, there is dispersal of DP initiatives even those funded by same government (e.g. AusAid as separate from RAMSI and as separate from Australian Government Departments (e.g. Treasury and Finance/ Administration) Agreement on Sydney Principles are first step and appear to have had most impact on encouraging joint PEFA missions