1. GROUP 2 Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Russia, Uzbekistan,

2. Group 2 - Countries
Belarus – joint reviews with the World Bank in 2011 and Ongoing joint fiscal expenditures review, debt service spending review, and social spending review
Kazakhstan – government programs performance reviews, joint reviews with the World Bank
Kyrgyzstan – no spending review methodology in place, there is a methodology for and experience in evaluating program performance
Moldova – in 2018 carried out an IMF-supported review of higher and vocational education, report is currently being finalized
Russia – recurrent reviews as part of the 2024 plan
Uzbekistan – no experience in conducting reviews, currently, joint initiative with the World Bank

3. Summary of Discussions: RUSSIA
QUESTION 1: What would be an ideally designed methodological and organizational system for spending reviews?
Summary of Discussions: RUSSIA
Coverage – a comprehensive approach, all expenditures (100% coverage), there is a 6-year plan broken down by years, during which time full coverage will be achieved
Selection of sectors/topics for review – 6 reviews per year (2+2+2), criteria are defined
Workflow arrangements – proposed by the IMF, government commission adopts the topic, ministries and agencies appoint their representatives to the working group, composition of the groups requires special attention

4. QUESTION 1. Summary of Discussions
Moldova
In 2018, an IMF-supported spending review in higher and vocational education was carried out
A separate government resolution was adopted including a concept note (brief description of objectives, workflow arrangement, substance and methodology, ToR for the Working Group, and a report template)
Workflow arrangement – steering committee, supervisory board, working group (including MOF, Ministry of Education, and other line ministries with industry education establishments)
Objective – reduce and reallocate spending (10%), target was outperformed
Challenge – human resources

5. QUESTION 1. Summary of Discussions
Belarus – joint activity with the World Bank across several areas and sectors in 2011, 2013 and this year; annual reviews are not advisable as the review is a lengthy process and implementation of recommendations takes time
Uzbekistan – no experience in conducting spending reviews, approach elements are in place, currently a joint project with the World Bank – review of capital expenditures, wagebill review, real sector; need to train staff
Kyrgyzstan – no spending review methodology in place, there is a program and performance budgeting methodology, a procedure is in place to measure performance of budget programs
Kazakhstan – joint activity with the World Bank, education and healthcare as part of moving towards capitation financing; review of the transport sector in preparation for introducing toll roads, general spending review, budget program performance review

6. Question 2: How should it be ensured that spending reviews are well integrated and used in budget process?
Russia - policy on spending reviews is consistent with the fiscal calendar and is captured in the MOF schedule, a government resolution is planned
Moldova - integration in the regular budget process is planned based on the current budget calendar

7. An Ideal Spending Review Model
Coverage
Random
Frequency
Same topic should be reviewed every 6 years at most
Principles and procedures for selecting review topics
Suggested by the public, Supreme Audit Institution, and parliament
Topics are adopted by a collegial government body
Frequency of WG meetings and workflow arrangements
Possibly a two-tier WG (at the level of heads of agencies and at the specialist level)
Methodological requirements
Adoption of the general working format, methodological approaches to spending reviews are defined by the WG
Interim reports
Reports are publicly available
Synchronization with the budget process

8. Thank you