1. Rwanda Aid on Budget Working Session
CABRI Annual Seminar
April 2009

2. CABRI AoB Working Sessions
Follow-up on CABRI/SPA Aid on Budget study
Applies study approach at country level
Identify which phase / which issue most important, urgent to address
Research to investigate issues
Working session(s) to identify strategies
On request from CABRI member states
Input from other countries
3 phases: scoping, research, working session
Benefits are
transfer of network expertise
African/developing country perspective

3. AoB focus in Rwanda
CABRI/GOR scoping exercise identified two obstacles to bringing more aid on budget
Lack of clarify on how to treat different sources, types and uses of aid
Process weaknesses in the management of aid information
Aim not only reflection of aid on budget, but integration
Focus on non-budget support aid in ‘on plan’ and ‘on budget’ phases, with implications for ‘on account’
Objective was to resolve
What the rules will be in Rwanda for integrating aid on budget / on parliament / neither on parliament nor on budget?
How quality integration of aid on budget can be achieved?
Joint CABRI / MINECOFIN research team
Multi-stakeholder working session, including input from other SBOs

4. Research Key research questions Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
When and why are aid flows on budget?
When not and why not? What are inconsistencies?
When and why should aid flows be on budget?
Phase 1
Compare 2007 comprehensive reports with 2007 budget and aid flow data (DAD)
Identify gaps and overlaps
Investigate reasons for gaps
Phase 2
Choose a number of projects/programmes and track information flows
Identify what helps and what hinders quality information for budget management purposes
Phase 3
Write up and consultation

5. Research Results 2 levels Key quantitative results
Quantitative results on comprehensiveness and quality of aid coverage on budget
No of projects / quality of information
Qualitative results on processes to manage aid information for budgeting purposes
Key quantitative results
Only 46 projects in all 3, 175 in only one document
Only 32% of projects on budget and on account
Even for the projects that are on all three the bases, there is a difference in the amounts reported
Under and over budgeting

6. Comparison of aid coverage
Note that
Only 46 or 16% of projects are shared
That only 90 or 32% of total appear on both the budget and the accounts
175 projects in only one document
177 not on budget

7. Why discrepancies? Rules and definitions
No commonly understood clear rules for when aid should be on budget / on parliament / not on either
No clear definition of a project / programme for budgeting purposes
Reflecting recurrent and capital/investment expenditure, internally/externally financed on budget
How should aid for sub-national governments and public entities be reflected?
Timing of programme start-up
Cutting of projections in MINECOFIN

8. Why discrepancies? Process
Lack of MINECOFIN involvement / poor flow of information in MINECOFIN
Multiplicity of data collection exercises, databases and definitions
Lack of unique project identification number
Lack of validation of donor data
Small projects left off too easily
These within control of GoR, but poor donor processes and constraints due to rules and regulations

9. Rwanda Working Session
Rwanda-specific and appropriate criteria for putting aid on budget
The purpose for which the aid is used
The recipient of the aid
The timeliness of the information / its integration in the planning/budgeting process
The degree of government control in planning, using and accounting for aid funds
Criteria sequenced

10. Criteria to decide on treatment of aid projects/programmes
IF PROJECTS AND PROGRAMMES ARE:
ODA to the government sector (excludes funds to CSOs where they are not third party
Signed by GoR (refine GoR)
Are in plans/budget submissions of Line Ministries (therefore in time)
AND
Under control of Government
BUT
Not under control of Government
AND used by central government
BUT used by districts, autonomous entities
NOT ON PARLIAMENT BUT ON BUDGET
ON PARLIAMENT

11. Rwanda Working Session
Criteria continued
Project / programme under government control if all of the following criteria satisfied:
Responsible budget agency active in allocation
Chief Budget Manager approves disbursements
Project accounts submitted to budget agency
Supporting documents kept by budget agency
If third party implementing, contract signed between budget agency, implementing partner and MINECOFIN.

12. Rwanda Working Session
Process resolutions
Unique entry point in MINECOFIN for all aid information
Coordinating / streamlining databases and assigning unique project identification numbers
MINECOFIN involved in signing off on all aid projects
MINECOFIN triangulate aid information in the budget
Unrealistic ‘cutting’ of aid projects and amounts to be resolved
Donor aid information in chart of accounts formats

13. Follow up MINECOFIN Senior Management approved recommendations
Budget Unit tasked to prepare reform roadmap
Four step process
Upgrade budgeting database, pilot reform (done)
Agree implementation of recommendations with budget managers (done)
Discuss with JBS donors (forthcoming)
Process review of internal MINECOFIN process

14. Reflection Value for CABRI as network But some lessons
CABRI/GOR work demonstrated
Aid on plan and on budget important first concern – determine quality of management of aid through fiduciary systems
Risk for developing country important factor
Importance of country-driven definitions, criteria and rules for treating aid in budget process
Importance of coordinated, functional interface between management of aid and management of budget
Adds to network expertise
But some lessons
Mechanisms for input by other SBOs
Research ownership
Working session format