3. PEFA Update• Conclusion/Recommendations:

– Comment clearly in repeat assessments on changes in performance– No adjusting of earlier scores even when grounds for doing so– Refrain from annual PEFA, better 3-5 years to demonstrate change– PEFA indicators as disbursement triggers should be discouraged, but

some pressure in this direction– No PEFA-like assessments as they undermine the brand ‘PEFA’ – EC position on any PEFA+ assessments: yes, as long as core PEFA

tool is applied– For decentralised settings utilise PEFA e.g. for regions, city

government

• Future work:– DAC PFM Task Force to work on reform sequencing by– DFID to work on how/whether to integrate Sector PFM issues;– IMF/NORAD to lead on tax administration tool;– PEFA Secretariat to explore on-line self assessment tool

3. PFM Reporting• Conclusions/Recommendations

– DAS 2006 and 2007: introduce baseline requirements and minimum standards; and stronger analysis of eligibility grounded in evidence and clearly documented

– EC committed to CoA: (i) strengthen initial baseline assessments of PFM at formulation and (ii) revise the PFM Annual Monitoring Report Include an explicit risk assessment in initial programme

– New format not yet endorsed by Asia, Latin America, etc.– Delegations to wait with annual PFM report until new format is

finalised by (hopefully) April 2010– Revised guidance: more clearly specified baselines and explicit reform

expectations; and use of other performance information in a clearly structured way to present a more complete picture

– Frequency of reporting: 12 months; if there are significant changes during the year Del to provide an update (1-3 paragraphs sufficient)

– Timing of reporting: to be aligned with budget cycle and/or other important reviews/reports

3. Success of PFM Reforms• Conclusion that success of PFM reforms is assessed

by their progress in implementation.• No concrete conclusion on how/whether to include (i)

assessment of less corruption cases vs. more exposure/ follow up of corruption cases; and (ii) improved service delivery (poverty reduction?)

• Conclusion that success depends on: – Organisation of DPs around PFM Reform Programmes (including

financing modalities)– DPs work with Govt (“Lesson givers” vs “participatory processors”)– Carefully phrase PFM reform requirement in FA (progress in PFM

reforms vs successful implementation of specific actions/components)

– Lack of a single voice on DP side in assessing PFM reforms– Commitment by Govt and DPs

3. Fighting Corruption• Conclusions/Recommendations

– Mushrooming of international indices, which rank countries very differently because of different approaches/focus; even trends over time can be different across indices

– Del should unpack component questions / indicators when using international indices

– Be specific (e.g. Uganda indicators/actions on specific corruption cases; specific procurement/PFM reforms, etc.)

– Complement international indices with country own research/data

– Measure ‘opposite’ of corruption, i.e. resistance to corruption (e.g. NIS, CPAR, PEFA)

– Mainstream anti-corruption measures in projects and programmes (including BS operations) to build institutional capacities

3. Domestic Accountability• Conclusions/Recommendations

– Include checks and balances in budget support operations --> involve civil and political society (NSA, Parliament)

– CoA and European Parliament call for increase in cooperation with control bodies and oversight mechanisms

– Areas for involvement: budget allocation and M&E of budget execution at local level

– Constraints due to capacity and limited agenda of some NSA; even if information and space for involvement is provided, NSA not as active as possible (e.g. Uganda)

– Support links and alliances between various actors + support media