Workshop Session II: Public Expenditure Financial Accountability (PEFA) Assessment Frans Ronsholt, Head, PEFA Secretariat and Franck Bessette, PFM Expert PEFA Secretariat The second session looks at the potential for use of PFM assessments based on the PEFA Framework for reform formulation, country comparison and monitoring of reform results over time. Each session will be completed with a small case study for participants to work.

1. Use of PEFA assessments ICGFM Conference Miami – May 21, 2009 PEFA Secretariat

5. Implement PFM reforms Recommend PFM reform measures Identify main PFM weaknesses High level performance overview Coverage of PFM Performance Report in the PFM Reform Cycle Investigate underlying causes Formulate PFM reform program Identify main PFM weaknesses Recommend PFM reform measures PFM-PR

7. Purposes of Standard Diagnostic Tools

18. Reporting on Progress Made Indicator Score 2005 Score 2007 Performance change Other factors PI-1 C B Performance appears improved based on 2005: last deviations 6%, 11%, 18% 2007: 5%, 11%, 6% Not clear if all external project funds were excluded from data for 2005 assessment but probably insignificant issue. PI-4 (i) A C Performance change is uncertain, despite reported arrears increase from 1% in 2005 to 6% in 2007. 2005 assessment used data on pending payment orders only, not overdue invoices.

21. Thank you for your attention