Mozambique: Is the PRSP Process Effective

1
Mozambique Is the PRSP Process Effective?

• National Directorate of the Budget
• Cabinet of Studies
• Ministry of Finance

2
Structure of the Presentation

• Background
• Policy Formulation
• Actors Ownership, Political Leadership,
  Accountability and Capacity
• Lessons Learned and Best Practices of PRSP II
• Conclusions

3
I. Background
Priorities defined in the Government Program

• Balance economic and social development
• Reduce absolute poverty
• Consolidate peace, national Unity and democracy
• Apply he rule of law in all areas
• Improve education and health services
• Strenghen International Cooperation

4
I. Background
Instruments of Planning (Linkages)
BUDGET STATE
5
II. Policy Formulation
PQG, PARPA II, CFMP, PES e OE

• Appointment Book 2025
• To Create a national vision of long period
• To Prepare a National Strategy of Development

6
II. Policy Formulation
PQG, PARPA II, CFMP, PES e OE

• Government Program (five years)
• Guides government action during the tenure period
  (2005-2009)
• Was formulated in coordination with several line
  ministries
• Reflects the main ambitions of Country.

7
II. Policy Formulation
PARPA II

• Three aspects became PARPA the effective process
• (1) Instrument of Operacionalization
• (2) Strategic Instrument
• (3) Paternship development instrument

8
II. Policy Formulation
PARPA II

• PARPA II 2006-2009
• - Links specific priorities and resource
  allocation
• - Coordination across sector policies
• - Defines specific targets
• - Outlines a vision about medium-term priorities
• - Accepted by cooperating partners (donors) as a
  basis for budget support and concessional finance
• - Likely to survive political changes
• Methodology of PARPA II
• Protagonists Government institutions civil
  society and donors

9
II. Policy Formulation
Methodology of PARPA II
10
II. Policy Formulation

• Stages of preparation of PARPA
• Stage I Elaboration of PARPA II
• 3nd Poverty Observatory
• Pillars Governing, Human Capital and Economic
  Development
• (ii) Stage II Work Groups
• Preparation of documents (Operational Matrix and
  Strategic Matrizes)
• Elaboration of preliminar version of PARPA II

11
II. Policy Formulation
PARPA II versus MTEF

• CFMP Medium Term Strategic Document
• Linkage between CFMP and PARPA II Pillars
• Assumptions GDP growth, inflation rate and
  exchange rate
• Resources allocated through the CFMP reflect the
  actions and activities defined in PARPA II

12
II. Policy Formulation
PARPA versus PES and OE

• PES and OE are annual slices of the PARPA
• Methodology of PES and OE
• Ceilings are provided to spending units at the
  31st of May
• Spending units (ministries, provincial
  directorates) submit their proposals to MF e MPD
  until 31 of July
• Analysis and aggregation of proposals by MPD and
  MF August
• Proposals of PES and OE to Economic Council 15
  of September
• Proposals of PES and OE to Economic Council 19
  of September
• Proposals of PES and OE to Parliamento 30 of
  September

13
II. Policy Formulation
Translating Political Priorities into Sound
Policy Proposals

• Define general and specifics objectives
• Delineate effective and realistic strategies
• Define temporal horizon and areas which are key
  to the objective to reduce poverty from 54 in
  2003 to less of 45 in 2010
• Stakeholders Government, Civil Society and
  advice by Donors
• Results can be monitored and measured
• Prepared within the expected resources envelope
  (not a wish list, not the tabulation of needs)

14
II. Policy Formulation
Challenges Found in Preparation of Solid
Proposals on Formulation Policy

• Available financial resources
• Duplication of activities
• Multiplicity of planning instruments

15
II. Policy Formulation
Evaluation Phase, Policy Adjustments and the Role
of Donors

• Commitments of Government are monitored through
  the PES implementation report (Balanço do PES),
  
• Integration of indicators of the Performance
  Assessment Framework (PAF) in other planning
  instruments like the PES improved.
• Responsible for monitoring Ministry of Planning
  and Development - MPD
• Audit of Resources Use General Inspectorate of
  Finance and Audit Court

16
II. Policy Formulation
Evaluation Phase, Policy Adjustments and the Role
of Donors

• PES Implementation Report
• Identify the weaknesses of inter-sectorial
  approach
• Provide responses in terms of descentralisation
  of and participation in monitoring
• Results and changes communicated to actors within
  the same proces
• Role of the Donors degree and volume of funds
  affect the objectives and the results that can be
  achieved

17
II. Policy Formulation
Evaluation Phase, Policy Adjustments and the Role
of Donors

• Five Fundamentals Principles
• Integration
• Indicators of Outcomes versus indicators of
  Output
• Combination of monitoring of quantitative and
  qualitative aspects
• Monitoring of PARPA
• Participative Approach

18
II. Policy Formulation
Efficacy of Instruments of Planning versus
Governance

• Traditional Model of Decision Making

Preparation of Calendar (Goals of long, medium
and short run) Research, Discussion and
Presentation of Proposals Study/ Ponderousneoss
of Costs and Benefits of each proposal Decision
Making Implementation of Action Plan Evaluation
19
III. Actors - Ownership, Political Leadership,
Accountability and Capacity

• Perspectives and Interest Government, Civil
  Society and Donors Harmonisation
• Assembly of the Republic Substance Legislate
  require Ministries Accountability
• Council of Ministers Design and follow-up
  strategies

20
III. Actors- Ownership, Political Leadership,
Accountability and Capacity

• Line Ministries rational use of public resource
  and execution in 100 of programs activities
• Distrits Identify potentials for acceleration of
  economic growth
• Civil Society advise the Government in the
  process of defining public policies
• Donors Assume realistic commitment and disburse
  according to agreed schedules.

21
IV. Lessons Learned and Best Practices of PARPA
POSITIVE FACTORS

• Both PARPA I e PARPA II were quite participative
  processes.
• Defining strategies together with those who
  benefit from them and who who live the reality
  improves policy design.
• Positive Results so far Poverty fell from 69.4
  to 54,1 between 1996/7 and 2002/3
• Expansion of basic public services in priority
  areas

22
IV. Lessons Learned and Best Practices of PARPA
Negative Factors

• Monitoring instruments still need to be improved
  considerably (PES/BdPES)
• Impact assessments of policy changes (PSIAs) has
  not been applied enough so far.
• Alignment of decentralisation process with
  requirements for participation Poverty
  Observatories at national and provincial level

23
Conclusion

• 1. PARPA II is well aligned with the other
  instruments, and adds value through
• Emphasis on complementarities
• Long-term vision
• More specific on objectives and targets than
  other instruments
• 2. Participation has led to country ownership
• Likely to survive changes of government and
  ministers,
• Accepted by donors as business basis.
• 3. Weaknesses
• Objectives and targets were not really costed
• Objectives sometimes formulated too vaguely to
  cost them.
• 4. Absence of regional Dimension
• Average, national targets are not broken down by
  province
• No minimum coverage per district defined

24

• Thank You