Using New Tools for Conducting Country Procurement Assessments and Reforms Asha Ayoung Lead Procurement Specialist, OPCPR Fiduciary Forum March 24-28, 2008

Country Procurement Assessment Report - CPAR Economic and Sector Work Diagnostic tool to measure the reliability of the national public procurement system and risks posed by the weakness in the procurement system that may result in uneconomic and inefficient procurement of goods, works and serviced procured with public funds It opens a dialogue with the Government on the necessary reforms to improve the system

Is the Instrument still relevant? Consistent with Bank’s Goals Responsive to Clients Needs and Priorities Commitment of the Government Donor Collaboration and Harmonization Involvement of Key National Stakeholders Communication Strategy

CPAR – Objectives Principal Objectives Provide a comprehensive analysis of the country’s public procurement system Undertake a general assessment of the institutional, organizational and other risks associated with the procurement process Assess the competitiveness and performance of the local private sector Develop a prioritized action plan to bring about institutional improvements

CPAR – Expected Outputs Consolidated Reports and Action Plans for Reform Programs Improvements needed for NCB Opinion on the reliability of the system and risks associated with it Document used by all donors Basic information for Capacity Building in Procurement

CPAR - Findings Bank Driven Lack of ownership by the Government Limited or in some cases no involvement of key National Stakeholders and other Donors No common framework for developing and prioritizing the action plan No quantitative tool for measuring the quality or performance of the system

Reforms - Findings Reform Programs are not sustainable Reforms that depend on one Champion is likely fail when that champion leaves Reform programs are not popular and likely to attract much resources Progress of Reforms are not measured against set of monitorable indicators

Strategy for CPAR and Reforms Know the Entry Point for the country. Do not ask the Government to do a CPAR because it is a Bank’s requirement. Needs vary from country to country and diagnostic study should be of relevance to Countries Ensure ownership by the Government by integration in the national development plan and by its political and financial support Foster participation of key national stakeholders in the diagnostic and reform – wide dissemination of information Encourage Harmonization with other donors Integrate action plan and have monitorable set of action for PFM reform

CPAR – Suggested Methodology Methodology in three Stages: First Stage: Agree with the Government on : TOR, Scope, Timing and method of participation of donors and other key national stakeholders Second Stage: Government, with participation from national stakeholders, carry out preliminary assessment. Bank and other donors carry out independent review of the system and discuss results of preliminary assessment Third Stage: Consolidate both set of results to come up with a joint assessment and disseminate information to large group of stakeholders Participatory approach takes time, be prepared to accept pace of country and action plan proposed by country

Conclusion Despite shortcomings, CPAR remains the only tool so far that gives a comprehensive analysis of procurement systems that result in a joint output. There are variations. It is a key assessment for moving towards to UCS The Guidelines need to be updated to: (i) fine tune the strategy ; (ii) improve the methodology to promote a better participatory approach to ensure commitment wherever possible; (iii) require the integration of the action plan into the broader PFM system The OECD/DAC benchmarking tool should be an integral part of the CPAR