Cpia 2006
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 19

CPIA 2006 PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 78 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.

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