The outcome of the PEFA assessment was generally seen as What was (individual) DP’s view satisfactory, although there was concern that some of the of the PEFA assessment, including descriptions didn’t relate to the ratings. quality of the process, team, product, There was concern expressed at the initial fiduciary approach to appropriateness of the results the assessment, leading to tensions with the government who reportedly felt audited. The desire to avoid this approach in future and to ensure appropriate engagement with the government in future exercises has led to specific changes in the TORs for the 2008 exercise. As indicated above, a joint assessment was undertaken, involving Describe level of (relevant) DP both the EC and the World Bank. involvement in assessment process – who was involved, who led the process (involvement in management of process), how were they involved In general, the joint nature of the assessment was appreciated. DP assessment of quality/strength of level of DP involvement (pre, – during, post assessment), including the level of DP-DP co-operation during the PEFA exercise As indicated above, there was a desire to reduce the number of DP motivations for PFM diagnostic assessments, as well as to have a basis for supporting/leading PEFA assessment sustained joint dialogue and to justify on-going reforms and DP support programmes (including budget support). Government use of PEFA post-assessment Copies of the PEFA were provided mainly to those government Circulation of PEFA and DP stakeholders involved with the assessment. There is not a culture of making such documents public. The PEFA has been discussed in the context of preparing the Discussion of PEFA MAP and the PAPs. As indicated the PEFA framework is cited in the MAP. Citations of PEFA post-assessment Carried out: None yet What, if any, direct follow-ups to Planned: TORs have been circulated for a follow-up PEFA, the PEFA have been carried out or are scheduled for January 2008, will involve the same team as planned (e.g. follow up PEFAs), carried out the 2006 PEFA assessment. This will help provide additional analyses, etc. What were the progress on one of the monitoring indicators in the MAP reasons for undertaking these. (specifically, the number of scores). ‘A’
What was (individual) DP’s view of the PEFA assessment, including quality of the process, team, product, appropriateness of the results The outcome of the PEFA assessment was generally seen as satisfactory, although there was concern that some of the descriptions didn’t relate to the ratings. There was concern expressed at the initial fiduciary approach to the assessment, leading to tensions with the government who reportedly felt audited. The desire to avoid this approach in future and to ensure appropriate engagement with the government in future exercises has led to specific changes in the TORs for the 2008 exercise. Describe level of (relevant) DP involvement in assessment process – who was involved, who led the process (involvement in management of process), how were they involved As indicated above, a joint assessment was undertaken, involving both the EC and the World Bank. DP assessment of quality/strength of level of DP involvement – (pre, during, post assessment), including the level of DP-DP co-operation during the PEFA exercise In general, the joint nature of the assessment was appreciated. DP motivations for supporting/leading PEFA assessment As indicated above, there was a desire to reduce the number of PFM diagnostic assessments, as well as to have a basis for sustained joint dialogue and to justify on-going reforms and DP support programmes (including budget support). Government use of PEFA post-assessment Circulation of PEFA Copies of the PEFA were provided mainly to those government and DP stakeholders involved with the assessment. There is not a culture of making such documents public. Discussion of PEFA The PEFA has been discussed in the context of preparing the MAP and the PAPs. Citations of PEFA post-assessment As indicated the PEFA framework is cited in the MAP. What, if any, direct follow-ups to the PEFA have been carried out or are planned (e.g. follow up PEFAs), additional analyses, etc. What were the reasons for undertaking these. Carried out: None yet Planned: TORs have been circulated for a follow-up PEFA, scheduled for January 2008, will involve the same team as carried out the 2006 PEFA assessment. This will help provide progress on one of the monitoring indicators in the MAP (specifically, the number of ‘A’ scores).
PEFAImpactStudyFinalReport-VolumeIICountryImpactNotes.docx