CPIA 2006 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Cpia 2006
Download
1 / 19

  • 100 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

CPIA 2006. Q13: Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management BBL Ivor Beazley/Steve Knack, 6 December 2006. Objectives. Raise awareness of CPIA Q13 and FM’s role Improve the quality of Q13 ratings Provide information on process and resources Address issues and concerns. Context.

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.

Download Presentation

CPIA 2006

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Cpia 2006

CPIA 2006

Q13: Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management

BBL

Ivor Beazley/Steve Knack, 6 December 2006


Objectives

Objectives

  • Raise awareness of CPIA Q13 and FM’s role

  • Improve the quality of Q13 ratings

  • Provide information on process and resources

  • Address issues and concerns


Context

Context

  • Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA)

  • Overall CPIA scores help determine shares of IDA allocation given to each country

  • Annual scoring process

  • 16 indicators, No 13 and 16 cover financial management and accountability

  • Disclosure for IDA countries (scores only)


How to rate q13 principles

How to rate Q13 - principles

  • Ratings are based on actual policies and performance, not on promises or intentions

  • Improvement is measured against benchmark criteria,

  • Score will not change on the basis that Government has started a reform initiative

  • Objective criteria have been clearly set out for assessing performance on Q13


Data requirements

Data Requirements

  • Substantial work is involved to collect data.

  • Q 13 assessment comprises:

  • 3 sub-questions. Each sub-questions is made up of a number of “dimensions” or lower level question

  • = total of 13 separate pieces of data

  • 3 Sub-questions deal with at the quality of:

    a) Budget process

    b) Control over expenditure

    c) Accounting, reporting and auditing


Scoring system

Scoring system

  • Countries are scored from 1- 6 on each sub-question. For Q13 there is a two stage aggregation process:

  • Stage 1

    • Rate each dimension on the 1-6 scale

    • Work out the average of the dimensions, rounding up or down to the nearest half point

  • Stage 2

    • Simple average of the 3 sub-questions (rounded to the nearest half point) gives overall Q13 score.


Example sub question a budget link to policy priorities

Example:Sub-question a) “budget link to policy priorities”

  • This sub-question covers 5 issues/dimensions:

    • (i) budget-policy link;

    • (ii) forward look in budget;

    • (iii) consultation with spending ministries in budget formulation;

    • (iv) budget classification; and

    • (v) budget comprehensiveness


Tools

Tools

  • A simple worksheet is available to help score each dimension on a consistent basis

  • A write up template is provided to set out the write up on each sub-question


Worksheet for sub question a budget links to policy priorities

Worksheet for sub-question a) Budget links to policy priorities


Timetable

Timetable

  • Benchmarking exercise

    complete by end Nov

  • Mid-Jan deadline for regional submissions

  • Scores finalized by OPCS end March


Issues to be aware of

Issues to be aware of

  • “Known unknowns”, for example on, extent of operations outside the budget and arrears :

  • PREM or FM, or both?

  • Upward pressure on ratings

    • Not a reward for good intentions

    • Need demonstrable progress


Issues quality of write ups

Issues - Quality of write ups

  • Insufficient evidence in may write-ups

  • Not addressing the specific dimensions which are used to measure performance

  • 8 out of 20 benchmark countries initially rated “un-graded” on basis of poor write ups

  • Particular weakness on points b) and c)


Information sources

Information sources

  • Not just CFAA

  • Internal sources

    • CFAA, IFA etc.

    • PE(I)R

    • Recent DPL and PRSC documents (updates)

  • External sources

    • PEFA Assessments (EC, DFID etc.)

    • IMF Fiscal Transparency ROSC (IMF Website)

    • IMF - PRSC Joint Staff Advisory Notes, Art IV

  • Direct from Government (MoF)


Issues going forward

Issues going forward

  • Consistency with PEFA indicators (PEFA Secretariat will do a study)

  • Consistency over time – changes in basis of rating from year to year

    • Decentralization

    • Procurement?


Anchor review role

Anchor Review Role

  • OPCFM and PRMPS review ratings for:

    • Quality of write up, including evidential support

    • Cross check with other available information

    • Carefully scrutiny of all changes in ratings

    • Do a comparison across countries


Cpia 2006

  • Anchor is also there to provide support and advice

  • Good luck!


  • Login