Annex 8. Comments of Cofinanciers and Other Partners/Stakeholders
MAP OF NIGER
1 The PFM platform approach is a strategy designed to package and sequence reform measures (platforms) which, taken together, progressively aim to produce a higher level of PFM competence.
2 At the time of appraisal, there were a number of donors engaged in supporting the MEF capacity as well as PFM reform more largely in Niger, including inter alia, the European Commission through its Development Fund (Fond Européen de Développent); the French Embassy through its French Cooperation Unit (Coopération Française) as well as the French Development Agency (Agence Française de Développement); the United Nations Development Program (UNDP); the African Development Bank (ADB), the German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ); as well as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the US Treasury.
3 Specifically, the PEMFAR Action Plan formulated ten main recommendations: (i) strengthen links between budget allocations and government priorities defined in PRSP and sector strategies; (ii) identify alternative mechanisms for financing the Treasury (e.g. treasury bills) and the government budget; (iii) improve budget execution, reduce disparities between voted and executed budgets, protect priority expenditures; (iv) simplify and rationalize the chain of expenditure; (v) prepare for a decentralization process through deconcentration; (vi) improve transparency and information systems, and prepare for delegation of commitment authority to line ministries; (vii) gradually integrate externally-financed expenditures into the chain of expenditures; (viii) modernize and restructure the Treasury; (ix) improve accounting practices to provide an accurate picture of government financial and non-financial assets; and (x) strengthen and improve procedures for closing accounts and preparing final government accounts.
4 Other PDES objectives include: (i) Food security and sustainable agricultural development; (ii) Competitive and diversified economy for accelerated, inclusive growth; and (iii) Promotion of social development.
5 For instance, the results framework notes that credibility will be supported by sub-objectives 1-3; however, it is not clear why, for instance, “adequate controls of non-salary expenditures” (outcome 1-B) would have been included in the results chain for “improved credibility”, while it could have been more appropriately linked to the second outcome of “improved control”. Likewise, “timely generation of budget and financial reports as mandated by existing regulations” (outcome 2-A), was included as a sub-objective for “improved control” whereas this outcome area is more closely related to the PEFA outcome of improved accounting, recording, and reporting.
6 N.B. While the PEFA score for this indicators remained at D, the intermediate result target was met, since the PEFA exercise took place six months prior to the ICR.
8 The observed discrepancy between Actual/Latest Estimate shown here and the final disbursement position shown in table (b) is due to currency fluctuations, and incomplete reporting within the Project. The Actual/Latest Estimate in Table (b) of USD 9.06 million accurately reflects the Project’s actual expenditures.
10 Voir le cadre de suivi-reportage et d’évaluation de la mise en œuvre du PRGFP, proposé au point « Conclusions et recommandations ».
Download 456.35 Kb.
Share with your friends:
The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2020