1. 1 Mutual Accountability & Donor Performance Assessment The Case of Mozambique Pedro Couto, Vice-Minister of Finance Hanoi, February 2007 Pedro Couto, Vice-Minister of Finance Hanoi, February 2007

2. 2 Introduction Mozambique has been at the forefront of developments in the area of mutual accountablity and donor performance assessment. A system of mutual accountability based on clear targets for government and for Programmatic Aid Partners (PAPs) has been jointly developed. This system is embodied in the “Performance Assessment Frameworks” (PAF and PAPs PAF) PAF (government) performance is assessed during an annual review process involving government, donor and civil society representatives. PAPs PAF (donor) performance is assessed by an independent consultant.

3. 3 Donor Performance Assessment There are now 18 “Programmatic Aid Partners” (PAPs), who will disburse around $600M in GBS and sector programme aid in 2007. An MoU between PAPs and the government was signed in 2004. Evaluation of donor progress on Harmonization and Alignment and Aid Effectiveness issues is a key element of this MoU.

4. 4 Mutual Accountability and the Annual Review Process There are two annual review processes related to general budget support. These are important moments in the mutual accountability system: At the Joint Review in March/April government and donor performance is evaluated relative to agreed targets for the previous year. 4 weeks after the Joint Review, donors make commitments for GBS for the following year. At the Mid Year Review in September targets for the following year are jointly agreed, for both government and donors. Targets for government cover all priority poverty-reduction areas as well as public financial management issues, and are coordinated around the PARPA II. Targets for donors are based on MoU commitments on alignment, aid effectiveness and coordination.

5. 5 PAPs PAF – Methodology The PAPs PAF is a matrix of indicators based on MoU and aid effectiveness commitments. Aid effectiveness targets are increasingly aligned with Paris Declaration commitments, although adapted to the Mozambican context where appropriate. From 2006, targets were disaggregated by donor as well as being measured for the group as a whole. This is not to identify “good” or “bad” donors, but to enable donor peer review and to counteract the impact of a few large donors on the average score. Indicators are given a weighting for calculation of the final score, based on government priority.

6. 6 PAPs PAF – Structure Average and individual targets are jointly agreed for the following categories: Portfolio Composition (25% of total points) Budget Support Programme Aid Predictability (35% of total points) Budget Support Commitments Budget Support Disbursements All Aid on Budget Harmonization and Alignment (35% of total points) Reduction of Conditionality Use of Government Systems Capacity Building (5% of total points) PIU´s Technical Assistance

7. 7 Extract from of “PAPs PAF” - I ObjectivesActivitiesIndicators Target Points Portfolio Composition (25% of total points) GBS % of GBS in total PAPs aid flows disbursed to the GoM. 40%5 Program Aid % of program aid in total PAPs aid disbursed to the GoM. 70%5 Predictability (35% of total points) Commitment of funds % of PAPs with multi-year agreements of not less than 3 years. 100%4 Commitments of GBS for year n+1 within 4 weeks of the JR in year n 100%4 Disbursement Disbursement of confirmed GBS commitment in the fiscal year for which it was scheduled, according to precise quarterly disbursement schedule agreed with GoM 100%6

8. 8 Donor Evaluation – Extract from of “PAPs PAF” - II ObjectivesActivitiesIndicators TargetPoints Harmonization and Alignment (35% of total points) Consolidation and harmonization of conditionality PAPs adhere strictly to GBS common conditionality. 95%2 (a)number of PAPs not having Annex 10 exceptions; (b)number of PAPs significantly reducing annex 10 exceptions with a view to eliminating such exceptions. 7(a) 13 7(b) 2 2 Strict harmonization between all new bilateral agreements and MoU 100%2 Utilization of government systems and reporting % of PAPs aid flows to the government reported to the budget 80%2 % of PAPs aid flows to the government included in the Treasury payment system 45%1 % of PAPs aid flows to government using public procurement systems 45%1

9. 9 Donor Performance Assessment – Methodology Evaluation of donor performace relative to PAPs PAF targets forms one of the inputs for the joint review. The evaluation is carried out by an independent consultant, managed by a joint government-donor team and includes: A survey of donor practices Interviews with donor and government officials Analysis of commitments and actual disbursements A score allocated to each donor for each indicator in the PAPs PAF. The evaluation report is distributed widely across government and civil society and is publicly available.

10. 10 Donor Evaluation – Lessons Learnt Lessons Learnt from the “PAPs PAF” process: Need for clear government position, in order to define targets, and their weight in overall score. The importance of individual donor evaluation as well as treating the group as a whole – a few large donors can significantly affect the average score. The need for clear definitions (where possible based on those defined for OECD-DAC questionnaire). Clear agreement on scoring systems (e.g. A simple binary “met”/”not met” or a scale of achievement?) Need to adapt international targets to the local context. Need to be sufficiently flexible to allow for different donor systems, while maintaining the aim of harmonization. The need for good government records to cross check data.

11. 11 Conclusion Donor Performance Assessment is: A tool for government in setting the aid effectiveness agenda. Guidance for donors in development of country strategies and discussions with HQ. An input to donor peer review. An ongoing process – methodology is improving, lessons learnt. A time consuming process – requires significant amount of high level government involvement to have significant impact.

12. 12 Thank You for your Attention. Presentation to the Third International Roundtable on Managing for Development Results Hanoi, Vietnam, February 7th 2007