1. Managing an annual cycle of PE work Allister Moon, ECSPE June 17 th, 2002 PREM Learning Week

2. Handling an expanding PE agenda : a few issues Whose agenda ? (Bank, donors, Government, civil society) ‘ownership’ in PE work: supporting Government’s agenda, developing domestic oversight Integrated country strategy / focussed, manageable tasks Work programming : multi year strategy, using the annual budget cycle

3. Tanzania : an annual process for PE work Phase 1 –Support to formulating budget strategy options, developing PEM reform agenda –Central agencies,line ministries (sector working groups) –Government managed Phase 2 – Public annual review of budget strategy & PEM reform program –Validation of donor financing –Open to civil society, catalyst for domestic review capacity

4. Features of the process PER working group : (Government, donors, domestic stakeholders) Annual work program within multi year agenda for all PE work – Govt and donor financed Work program balances monitoring broad agenda and intensive work in selected new areas Bank financed work (PER, CFAA, sector work,etc) coordinated in overall annual program Distinction (as necessary) between Government led work and external review

5. Current issues Process maintained, developed over four cycles Highly complementary to CDF/PRSP/PRSC BUT Severe capacity constraints, need to rationalise coordination instruments, clarify rules on participatory process Role of donors : –Overwhelming an open process? –constraints on contestability? –‘external assessment’ initiatives

6. Building PE work into annual budget process : some advantages –Predictability for all participants, located in annual budget cycle –Sustainability: designed to enhance long term domestic institutions for budget oversight (with or without donor presence) –Efficiency: legitimate donor assessment demands met as a by product of routine budget process –Contextual : focus on incremental reform, ongoing programs, annually updated, room for adaptation in highly ‘sub optimal’ environments –Capacity building and ‘ownership’: leaves the initiative with the executive, but acts as catalyst for domestic oversight