Transcript Mutual Accountability & Donor Performance Assessment The Case of Mozambique Pedro Couto, Vice-Minister of Finance Hanoi, February 2007

Mutual Accountability & Donor
Performance Assessment
The Case of Mozambique
Pedro Couto, Vice-Minister of Finance
Hanoi, February 2007
1
Introduction





Mozambique has been at the forefront of developments in
the area of mutual accountablity and donor performance
assessment.
A system of mutual accountability based on clear targets
for government and for Programmatic Aid Partners (PAPs)
has been jointly developed.
This system is embodied in the “Performance Assessment
Frameworks” (PAF and PAPs PAF)
PAF (government) performance is assessed during an
annual review process involving government, donor and
civil society representatives.
PAPs PAF (donor) performance is assessed by an
independent consultant.
2
Donor Performance Assessment



There are now 18 “Programmatic Aid Partners”
(PAPs), who will disburse around $600M in
GBS and sector programme aid in 2007.
An MoU between PAPs and the government
was signed in 2004.
Evaluation of donor progress on Harmonization
and Alignment and Aid Effectiveness issues is
a key element of this MoU.
3
Mutual Accountability and the Annual
Review Process





There are two annual review processes related to general
budget support. These are important moments in the mutual
accountability system:
At the Joint Review in March/April government and donor
performance is evaluated relative to agreed targets for the
previous year.
 4 weeks after the Joint Review, donors make commitments
for GBS for the following year.
At the Mid Year Review in September targets for the following
year are jointly agreed, for both government and donors.
Targets for government cover all priority poverty-reduction areas
as well as public financial management issues, and are
coordinated around the PARPA II.
Targets for donors are based on MoU commitments on
alignment, aid effectiveness and coordination.
4
PAPs PAF – Methodology




The PAPs PAF is a matrix of indicators based on MoU
and aid effectiveness commitments.
Aid effectiveness targets are increasingly aligned with
Paris Declaration commitments, although adapted to
the Mozambican context where appropriate.
From 2006, targets were disaggregated by donor as
well as being measured for the group as a whole.
This is not to identify “good” or “bad” donors, but to
enable donor peer review and to counteract the
impact of a few large donors on the average score.
Indicators are given a weighting for calculation of the
final score, based on government priority.
5
PAPs PAF – Structure

Average and individual targets are jointly agreed for the
following categories:

Portfolio Composition (25% of total points)



Predictability (35% of total points)




Budget Support Commitments
Budget Support Disbursements
All Aid on Budget
Harmonization and Alignment (35% of total points)



Budget Support
Programme Aid
Reduction of Conditionality
Use of Government Systems
Capacity Building (5% of total points)


PIU´s
Technical Assistance
6
Extract from of “PAPs PAF” - I
Objectives
Portfolio
Composition
(25% of total
points)
Activities
Indicators
Target
Points
GBS
% of GBS in total PAPs aid
flows disbursed to the GoM.
40%
5
Program Aid
% of program aid in total PAPs
aid disbursed to the GoM.
70%
5
% of PAPs with multi-year
agreements of not less than 3
years.
100%
4
Commitments of GBS for year
n+1 within 4 weeks of the JR in
year n
100%
4
Disbursement of confirmed
GBS commitment in the fiscal
year for which it was
scheduled, according to
precise quarterly disbursement
schedule agreed with GoM
100%
6
Commitment of
funds
Predictability
(35% of total
points)
Disbursement
7
Donor Evaluation – Extract from of “PAPs
PAF” - II
Objectives
Harmonization
and Alignment
(35% of total
points)
Activities
Consolidation
and
harmonization
of conditionality
Utilization of
government
systems and
reporting
Indicators
Target
Points
PAPs adhere strictly to GBS common
conditionality.
95%
2
(a)number of PAPs not having Annex 10
exceptions;
(b)number of PAPs significantly reducing
annex 10 exceptions with a view to eliminating
such exceptions.
7(a)
13
7(b) 2
2
Strict harmonization between all new bilateral
agreements and MoU
100%
2
% of PAPs aid flows to the government
reported to the budget
80%
2
% of PAPs aid flows to the government
included in the Treasury payment system
45%
1
% of PAPs aid flows to government using
public procurement systems
45%
1
8
Donor Performance Assessment –
Methodology


Evaluation of donor performace relative to PAPs PAF
targets forms one of the inputs for the joint review.
The evaluation is carried out by an independent
consultant, managed by a joint government-donor
team and includes:





A survey of donor practices
Interviews with donor and government officials
Analysis of commitments and actual disbursements
A score allocated to each donor for each indicator in the
PAPs PAF.
The evaluation report is distributed widely across
government and civil society and is publicly available.
9
Donor Evaluation – Lessons Learnt

Lessons Learnt from the “PAPs PAF” process:
 Need for clear government position, in order to define
targets, and their weight in overall score.
 The importance of individual donor evaluation as well as
treating the group as a whole – a few large donors can
significantly affect the average score.
 The need for clear definitions (where possible based on
those defined for OECD-DAC questionnaire).
 Clear agreement on scoring systems (e.g. A simple binary
“met”/”not met” or a scale of achievement?)
 Need to adapt international targets to the local context.
 Need to be sufficiently flexible to allow for different donor
systems, while maintaining the aim of harmonization.
 The need for good government records to cross check
data.
10
Conclusion

Donor Performance Assessment is:
 A tool for government in setting the aid
effectiveness agenda.
 Guidance for donors in development of country
strategies and discussions with HQ.
 An input to donor peer review.
 An ongoing process – methodology is improving,
lessons learnt.
 A time consuming process – requires significant
amount of high level government involvement to
have significant impact.
11
Thank You for your
Attention.
Presentation to the Third International Roundtable on Managing for Development Results
Hanoi, Vietnam, February 7th 2007
12