1 / 14

Presentation on the GoR-Budget support donors Partnership Framework proposal

Dive into the background and structure of the new Partnership Framework proposal by Christian Shingiro from the External Finance Unit. Explore key content areas, questions for discussion, and donor feedback, highlighting improvements and challenges. The presentation outlines the evolution, features, and objectives of the proposed framework for enhanced collaboration and efficiency in budget support partnerships.

iderby
Download Presentation

Presentation on the GoR-Budget support donors Partnership Framework proposal

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Presentation on the GoR-Budget support donors Partnership Framework proposal Christian Shingiro External Finance Unit

  2. Outline of the presentation • Background on the elaboration of the new PF • Structure • Content of the PF 4. Questions to guide discussions 5. Donor Feedback on the DPAF

  3. Background Good reasons/consensus for revisiting the former PF signed in 2003: • Changes and reforms at policy level: aid Policy, EDPRS • Ongoing work on mutual accountability that shaped the elaboration of the CPAF and DPAF • New actors (Germany, Netherlands and new sector budget donors)

  4. Background • We took time to review other countries PFs (Tanzania, Mozambique, Zambia etc) and decided to redraft our own PF to better adapt the framework to the Rwandan context. • A number of ideas and elements have benefited from the DPR discussions :BSHG group discussions: • Who should participate in the BSHG and how should this be organized? • Should there be a formal procedure/criteria to include observers? Or, should BSGH membership be limited to only donors that meet a given threshold of budget support as a percentage of total ODA.

  5. Structure • The PF takes the form of a standard MoU (i.e. not a legal binding document and components: commitments, dispute resolution); • It follows the budget cycle (planning-programming-budget execution-Monitoring-evaluation and audit-reporting) to ensure coherence and ease the reading of the document.

  6. Content • Clear and obvious focus on the poverty reduction overarching objective ; • Partnership is at the centre of the document: successful implementation of the EDPRS requires full commitment from both sides; • Reference to aid effectiveness agenda: article 7 and 31 (alignment and use of GoR systems-art 31:coordination of analytical work).

  7. Content New features • Inclusion of Sector Budget support to make this PF as comprehensive as possible. • 2 major documents (absent in the former PF): CPAF and DPAF • Clarification of the participation to the BSHG

  8. Questions to guide discussions General terms • Do we agree on the principles formulated in this new PF? (art 50: dynamic document) • Are we comfortable with the format?

  9. Questions to guide discussions Specific areas of discussions: • Welcome reactions and comments on donor commitments specified in the PF (i.e. predictability and timeliness of disbursement) • Composition of the BSHG (i.e.. Status of the observers, threshold..) • Withdrawal regulations and dispute resolution: we adopted a gradual approach to the dispute resolution mechanisms.

  10. Questions to guide discussions Way forward: • How do we move forward (small team to be formed for this purpose or gather comments to be compiled by the co chair?) • Agreement on the timeline? To be finalized and signed at the next BSHG?

  11. DPAF The comments received recognize: • That the matrix is a strong basis for the assessment of donor performance; • The importance of having all donors on board.

  12. DPAF Feedback on indicators: • Indicator A1-3: On budget ODA analysis for individual donor is less relevant/meaningless. Proposal to undertake multiple regression (to be considered). There is scope for tracing individual performance and this is PD indicator • Indicator C1-6: Multi year binding agreement. 2 distinct features of the indicators C1 (existence of a multi year agreement) C2 (providing indication of future aid)

  13. DPAF • Indicator D5: respect of GoR silent period (coverage to be limited to MINECOFIN-Budget?) • Indicator G1-6: Providing firm commitments for next year budget (timing of the release of the draft budget and discussions with BS donors)

  14. THE END Thank you for your attention

More Related