Post on 08-Jan-2016
description
Selected Issues in PRSP Implementation
The World Bank and The IMF
ThessalonikiMay 28, 2005
Context
• PRS approach now in place five years– Country-owned; designed in participatory fashion– Comprehensive in approach– Based on medium- to long-term perspective– Results oriented (indicators and monitoring)
• Framework to define policies, programs and resources needed to achieve the MDGs at the country level
• Several progress reports and independent evaluations
Independent Evaluations of PRS Initiative
PRS Initiative has begun to orient stakeholders toward: - Focus on poverty reduction - Attention to results - Overarching framework for aid management
But, weaknesses remain in: - Foster better customization
- Assist in exploring wider range of policy options- Pay more attention to growth- Define clearer partnership frameworks with accountabilities
Independent Evaluations of PRS Initiative
Significant potential: strategic road map for policyTo realize this potential:• Encourage greater flexibility in implementation• Enhance results orientation to allow countries to define—
in a manner open to public scrutiny—their own benchmarks and objectives
• Provide clear, candid assessment of progress• Clarify framework to elaborate macro frameworks and
catalyze donor support
Key Issues for 2005 Review
Five themes central to effectiveness of PRS approach
– Strengthening the medium-term orientation of PRS
– Using the PRS as mutual accountability framework
– Sustaining meaningful participation
– Enhancing links between PRS and Plans/MTEFs/Budgets
– Adapting PRS approach to conflict-affected and fragile states
Strengthening medium-term orientation
• Customizing MDGs/[EU accession requirements]
• Setting stage for increased aid– Balancing realism and aspiration– Implications of more aid
• Encouraging evidence-based policy decisions – Relevant PRS targets and indicators– Monitoring and evaluation systems– Underlying analysis (PSIA, pro-poor growth)
Using the PRS as a mutual
accountability framework
• Using the PRS approach to prioritize and sequence:– capacity building
– analytic input
• Improving aid alignment and harmonization, types of aid, conditionality, volume
• Using the PRS as framework for donor coordination
Sustaining meaningfulparticipation
• Involving key stakeholders – local governments, line ministries,
parliaments
• Sustaining participation– formulation, implementation and monitoring
• Opening up space for policy dialogue• Considering influence on PRS content and
implementation
Linking the PRS with plans, MTEFs,and budgets
• Integrating PRS with existing strategies and plans and with medium-term expenditure framework and budget– Using PRS to define, cost and prioritize public actions
for poverty reduction
– Defining financing plans, including contingency planning
• Building capacity for fiscal management
Tailoring approach
to conflict-affected and fragile states
• How to apply PRS principles in fragile states?
• Are there ways for donor assistance to be provided in ways that reinforce underlying principles of PRS approach?
Expected Findings from 2005 Review
• What are the key lessons and good practices for enhancing effectiveness of the approach?
• What needs to happen to strengthen specific aspects of the country-driven development model?
• Are specific changes to the approach needed?
• How should results from the PRS approach be measured?
Outputs
• Paper for consideration at the World Bank and IMF fall annual meeting
• Going forward– Intensive follow-up on key
recommendations– Dissemination of good practices and
lessons
Some EarlyFeedback
From some PRS countries: – Pay more attention to growth and productive sectors– Political economy key; still often treated as technocratic– Need to better treat capacity issues and institutional reforms– Too many different strategies/initiatives – Value of countries sharing experiences with each other
From others:– Don’t forget the “middle-group” of countries– Better to have a few key recommendations that are actively
pursued– Need to focus on results
Changes to PRS“Architecture”
• Return to original intent– Reduce “paper” culture– Focus on underlying process in the country– Embed in domestic processes/prevent parallel processes– Encourage country specificity– Reduce perception: Washington “signs-off”
• Annual Progress Reports
• Joint Staff Advisory Note
PRS documents and WB/IMF-operations
• The Executive Boards of the World Bank and the IMF no longer formally endorse the PRS documents as a satisfactory basis for Fund and Bank concessional financial assistance.
• JSANs for APRs will be normally be issued to the Boards for information rather than for discussion by the Boards.
• For PRGF and HIPC Initiative operations, PRS documents must have been issued to the Board of the IMF within 18 months.
APR #1 Process and ProceduresPrepared by member countries in years between full PRSPs; updates
the PRSP and discusses its implementation; is distributed to the Boards of the Bank and the Fund for information
There is room to improve...
• integration of APRs with existing processes (annual budget, poverty and/or development reports)
• synchronization of APR-process with national reporting and decision making processes
• discussion of progress in PRS implementation in member countries
APR #2 Content and Focus• Nature and focus of APR can vary from year to year
– New analysis on growth, poverty, PSIA?
– Institutional developments (improved PEM, TA needs)
• Key features should be:
– Performance against targets, budget implementation
– Highlight PRSP measures implemented/not-implemented
– Reasons for successes and failures and measures to improve effectiveness
– Priorities for coming year
– Status of monitoring and evaluation systems
APR #3Changes to the PRSIn case of important changes to PRS, APR should
explain changes based on:
• Implementation experience to date
• Weaknesses and gaps in original strategy
• Changes in exogenous factors (e.g. oil prices)
• New data and analysis on determinants of growth and poverty
APR #4A communication deviceAPRs can be used to inform and/or involve domestic
stakeholders and donors regarding implementation and to build support for the PRS:
• Parliament and civil society can be engaged in monitoring and reporting
• APR can be disseminated to the public and to donor fora
• Underlying data can be made publicly available
• APR as a vehicle to harmonize donor assistance
Content of a JSAN for an APR
• Fund and Bank staff assess, based on APR and other sources:
– Performance relative to benchmarks (for monitoring and evaluation)
– Priorities for the next year as reflected, for example, in the budget
– Progress made in addressing short-comings identified in past JSANs
– Extent to which progress reporting is being used to provide transparent information on implementation progress to key domestic and external stakeholders
Content of a JSAN for a PRSP
• Advice rather than overall assessment• Priorities for strengthening over coming
year– Process and content– Consistent with starting point, capacity and support
• Serious weaknesses– Inconsistencies between PRS and its policy framework and
existing analytic work– Analytic work insufficient to support policy framework
• Attention to links to domestic processes
Thank You
dwww.worldbank.org/prspreviewConcept note for 2005 PRS reviewReferences Country documents Bibliography of evaluations, progress reports, case
studies
Links to other events