Support to Improving Aid Coordination in Moldova Round Table Discussion

1
(No Transcript)
2
Support to Improving Aid Coordination in
MoldovaRound Table Discussion

• Ands Ubelis
• Inta Geiba
• Ministry of Finance of Republic of Latvia
• Chisinau, 22 May, 2006

3
Content

• 1. Programming
• 2. Project Registration
• 3. Monitoring
• 4. Institutional and Legal Issues
• 5. Opportunities and Risks
• 6. Questions for Discussion

4
1. Programming

• Findings
• Risk of conflicting / overlapping strategies
  (economic growth, EU integration)
• Missing link between strategy (EGPRSP, EU-MAP)
  and project how to make strategies operational
• Programming external aid versus programming of
  State Budget
• Uncoordinated requests of the foreign aid

5
1. Programming

• Latvian Experience

1995 - 2004
2004 - today
NP for Integration into EU EIB, MoFA
National Develop. Plan MoRDLG Gov. Office
Donors Strategies Donors MoF (NCU)
Strategy and Programmes for EU funds MoF (NCU)
EC
Projects Donors MoF (NCU)
Projects MoF (NCU) Ministries
6
Programming

• Recommendations
• Programming Document
• Programming Document MTEF - starting from 2010
• Single communication channel for aid requests
  through NCU
• Build NCU project selection capacity in
  partnership with donors

EGPRSP

• Programming
• Document
• 07-10
• Sectoral structure
• Activities, results,
• resources
• Task Force
• GovO MoE, MoFEI,
• MoF

Projects
EU-MAP
Donor Strategies
Gov. Progr.
Sectoral Programmes
7
2. Project Registration

• Findings
• Lack of single register of foreign aid projects
• Missing procedure
• Missing unified approach to tax exemptions

8
2. Project Registration

• Latvian Experience
• Register in the MoF
• Registration by beneficiary on voluntary basis
• Register serves for statistical purposes
• Only project data in the register, no progress
  data, no controls by MoF over projects
• Tax exemptions procedure based on data in
  register

9
2. Project Registration

• Recommendations
• Establish single definition for foreign aid
  project
• Establish register in the MoF
• Link procedure of register and procedure of tax
  exemptions
• Further budgetisation of foreign aid better
  overview

10
3. Monitoring

• Findings
• No clear definition of the mission/purpose for
  the monitoring carried out by NCU
• No strategy/programme monitoring
• Parallel monitoring exercises by the Government
  and donors
• Evaluation of impact of investments does not take
  place

11
3. Monitoring

• Situation in Latvia
• Monitoring system based on donors procedures and
  practices (no national system)
• Sector based monitoring
• Recently evolving evaluation capacity

12
3. Monitoring

• Recommendations
• Introducing strategy/programme monitoring
• Coordination with monitoring of EGPRSP and EU-MAP
• Establish post of Senior Officer of the Sector
• Monitoring of physical and financial progress at
  ministry level
• Establish sector monitoring committees lead by
  NCU
• Partnership with donors in monitoring
• Partnership with donors in establishing
  evaluation capacity

Strategic Monitoring Progress versus
Programming Document Task Force GovO MoE,
MoFEI, MoF National Committee
Sectoral Monitoring Progress versus sectoral
chapters of Programming Doc. Task Force GovO
MoE, MoFEI, MoF ministries Sectoral
Sub-Committees
Project Monitoring Physical and financial
progress of individual projects Sectoral
ministries Sectoral Sub-Committees
13
4. Institutional and Legal Issues

• Findings
• Overlapping competences between institutions in
  aid coordination
• Overlaping / clashing norms in the legislation on
  aid coordination
• No permanent coordination mechanisms between
  policy making institutions (MoFAEI, MoE) and fund
  managers (MoE as NCU, MoF)
• Lack of procedural regulation there are
  provisions on what to do and who should do but
  no regulation how to do

14
4. Institutional and Legal Issues

• Latvian situation
• Aid coordination function concentrated
  exclusively in the MoF
• Regulatory framework agreements with donors,
  specific regulation for management of EU funding
• Regulated partnership arrangements between MoF as
  NCU and policy drivers MoFA, European
  Integration Bureau, MoReg. Development and Local
  Gov., Prime Ministers Office
• MoF as NCU leads overall and sectoral monitoring
• MoF has constantly benefited from direct and
  indirect support from donors to ensure aid
  coordination function

15
4. Institutional and Legal Issues

• Recommendations
• Clear definition of roles and functions in the
  aid coordination for GovO/National Committee and
  MoE as NCU
• GovO/National Committee - strategic programming,
  monitoring, evaluation
• MoE as NCU coordination of programming,
  mointoring at sectoral and project level,
  information and publicity
• Establishment of Task Force for Aid Coordination
  supporting National Committee expert level
  group GovO MoE, MoFAEI, MoF
• Revision of Government regulations on
  aid-coordination abolishing overlapping articles
• Approach donors to ensure permanent assistance to
  the implementation of aid coordination functions

16
4. Institutional and Legal Issues

• Recommendations Institutional Set-Up

National Committee for Aid Coordination First
Deputy Prime Minster
Task Froce GovO MoE, MoFAEI, MoF
Sectoral Monitoring Committee MoE sectoral
ministry (SOS)
Sectoral Ministry Senior Officer of the
Sector (SOS)
17
4. Institutional and Legal Issues

• Recommendation Institutional Evolution

2006 2010

• Stage 1.
• Coordination of policy
• agendas and resources
• Elaboration of
• Programming Document
• Setting up National
• Committee and Task
• Force

• Stage 2.
• monitor policies and
• fund allocation at the
• level of GovO
• Budget foreign aid,
• establish f. aid register
• In MoF
• Link MTEF and
• policy planing

• Stage 3.
• Integrate function of
• coordination,
• programming,
• monitoring, evaluation
• of f. aid and
• national budget
• Functions and adm.
• resources
• concentrated in MoF

18
5. Opportunities and Risks

• Opportunities
• matching EU integration and economic growth
  agendas resources
• unique possibility to establish clear link
  between national budget and foreign aid
• Risks
• Central coordinator may become a bottle neck
• Human resources insufficient quantity and
  capacity
• Coordination and working in partnership is
  extremely time and resources consuming

19
6. Questions for Discussion

• Government
• Is it possible to integrate in single programming
  document EGPRSP and EU-MAP?
• Is there precedent of establishing a task force
  type of institution?
• Are there potential obstacles of merging policy
  planning, programming of foreign aid and MTEF?
• Would it be possible to use same management,
  monitoring and evaluation practices for national
  budget and foreign aid in future?
• Donors
• What are the possibilities to work in partnership
  or delegate to the Government programming,
  project selection, monitoring functions?
• What are possibilities to provide permanent
  support to the aid coordination function in the
  Government?