Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
for
PUBLIC SECTOR CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM (PSCAP)
Volume I Draft Dated: November 15, 2004
About the Program Implementation Plan (PIP)…… This Program Implementation Plan (PIP) constitutes the overall operational guideline for the management, execution, and review of Ethiopia’s Sector-Wide Approach to its Public Sector Capacity Building Program (PSCAP). As such, the PIP also provides the framework within which (i) subsidiary guidelines, procedures manuals, and actions plans should be elaborated, and (ii) existing procedures (for example, those governing existing public sector capacity building projects) may be modified. Key features of program design including the institutional arrangements, provisions for fiduciary and fiscal management, as well as the monitoring and evaluation framework have been the subject of numerous reviews by the Government as well as independent experts, as well as joint and independent appraisals by members of Ethiopia’s aid consortia. They are therefore in accordance with international norms and aligned with Ethiopian norms. The PIP ultimately is a “live” document that may be further reviewed and refined, as needed, in consultation with relevant stakeholders and in accordance with the legal provisions agreed between the Government and its external financiers. The Program Implementation Plan (PIP) for PSCAP consists of eight sections described below. Section 1 provides an overview of the Public Sector Capacity Building Program (PSCAP) including a brief description of the strategic context within which Ethiopia’s “state transformation” and capacity building efforts were developed, and the rationale for the development of a SWAp for public sector capacity building. The section also explains the Program’s objectives, a summary of salient design features, expected outcomes, and key performance indicators. Section 2 describes the key components of the Program as well as their constituent subprograms. The “positive list” of capacity building activities financed under the Program is described, as well as those activities that constitute the “minimum mandatory” that all regions must complete is also delineated. Section 3 details the institutional arrangements underpinning PSCAP including the roles and responsibilities at the federal, regional, and local levels, as well as inter-ministerial and intergovernmental coordination mechanisms. Joint Government-Donor coordination and review mechanisms are defined. Section 4 explains the fiscal design features of PSCAP, and specifically, how it is aligned with Ethiopia’s resource allocation and management system including its designation as a specific purpose transfer, the rules of allocation and access, and procedures for planning, budgeting, execution, and reallocation. Section 5 provides an overview of financial management under PSCAP including funds flows, pooling arrangements, as well as accounting, financial reporting, auditing, and related assessments. A more detailed financial reporting guideline is attached in Volume II of the PIP. Section 6 lays out the PSCAP procurement management system including the roles and responsibilities at the federal and regional levels, as well as the various policies and regulations governing procurement. Section 7 contains the monitoring and evaluation framework that is required for the Program to track and achieve its expected outcomes. Roles and responsibilities, agreed program-level indicators for outcomes and outputs, as well as M&E “building blocks” (for example, activity-based monitoring and quality assessments) and reporting requirements are described. Section 8 focuses on the Information, Education, and Communication (IEC) strategy and activities underpinning this complex, nation-wide program. Guidance on participation, sensitization, feedback, and disclosure are provided.
Table of Contents Abbreviations and Acronyms................................................................................................. 1 Section 1. Program Overview ............................................................................................... 1 SWAp/Program Development Objectives .................................................................................... 5 Key Performance Indicators ........................................................................................................ 5
Section 2. Program Description ............................................................................................ 6 2.1 Federal and Regional Components......................................................................................... 6 2.2 PSCAP Subprograms: “Building Blocks” for Federal and Regional Components.................. 7 2.3 PSCAP Subprograms: “Building Blocks” for Federal and Regional Components................ 11
Section 3. Institutional Arrangements............................................................................. 12 3.1 Federal Level Institutional Arrangements............................................................................ 12 3.1.2 Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (MOFED) ...............................................14 3.1.3 Federal Subprogram Offices and Executing Agencies .........................................................14 3.1.4 Other Eligible Beneficiary Institutions at the Federal Level.................................................16 3.2 Regional Level Institutional Arrangements .......................................................................... 16 3.2.1 Bureaus of Capacity Building............................................................................................16 3.2.2 Bureaus of Finance and Economic Development (BOFED).................................................17 3.2.3 Other eligible beneficiary institutions at regional and local levels ........................................18 3.3 Joint Government-Donor Coordination and Review Mechanism......................................... 18
Section 4. Resource Allocation and Management ........................................................ 20 4.1 Specific-Purpose Federal Program....................................................................................... 20 4.2 Budget Classification of PSCAP Expenditures ..................................................................... 20 4.2.1 Coding and Classification of the Federal Component ..........................................................20 4.2.2 Coding and Classification of the Regional Component........................................................21 4.3 Rules of Access (Eligibility Criteria)..................................................................................... 21 4.4 Incorporation of Inputs from Various Nation-Wide Reviews ............................................... 21 4.5 Fiscal Framework: Projecting and Dividing PSCAP Resources Over the Medium Term..... 22 4.5.1 Vertical Division of PSCAP Resources Into Five-Year Drawing Rights ...............................22 4.5.2 Horizontal Split of the Regional PSCAP Component Into Five-Year Drawing Rights ...........22 4.6 Rolling Medium-Term Planning for PSCAP........................................................................ 22 4.6.1 Planning PSCAP Activities As Part of Ethiopia’s Public Investment Program......................22 4.6.2 Annualizing Multiyear Drawing Rights to Arrive at the Annual Fiscal Plan..........................23 4.6.3 Arriving at the Annual Fiscal Plan.....................................................................................23 4.7 Budgeting Process ................................................................................................................ 23 4.7.1 Submitting Annual Budgets with Implementation Plans ......................................................23 4.7.2 Appraising Annual Implementation Plans ..........................................................................24 4.7.3 Submitting the Overall PSCAP Annual Budget and Implementation Plan to Cabinet ............24
- ii 4.8 Execution............................................................................................................................. 25 4.9 Reallocation.......................................................................................................................... 25 4.9.1 Reallocation Across Year: Applied Five-Year Drawing Rights ............................................25 4.9.2 Reallocation In-Year: Applied to Annualized Drawing Rights .............................................26 4.10 The Supplemental Budget and High Performers ..................................................................27
Section 5. Financial Management..................................................................................... 30 5.1 Roles and Responsibilities for Financial Management.......................................................... 30 5.2 Accounting Policies and Procedures..................................................................................... 31 5.3 Funding Mechanisms ........................................................................................................... 31 5.3.1 Non-Pooled Resources......................................................................................................31 5.3.2 Pooled Resources.............................................................................................................31 5.3.3 Initial Advance and Replenishment of Forex Accounts from Donors to MoFED...................32 5.3.4 Funds Flow from MOFED to Beneficiaries ........................................................................32 5.4 Financial Performance Assessment. ..................................................................................... 32 5.5 Auditing ............................................................................................................................... 33 5.6 Internal Controls.................................................................................................................. 33
Section 6. Procurement Management............................................................................... 35 6.1 Procurement Management & Operations ............................................................................. 35 6.1.1 Federal Level Procurement Management Responsibilities ...................................................35 6.1.2 Procurement Management Responsibilities at the Regional Level........................................36 6.1.3 Specific Procurement Tasks and Responsibilities...............................................................36 6.2 Procurement Policies............................................................................................................ 36 6.3 Procurement Procedures...................................................................................................... 40 6.3.1 Procurement Planning (Goods and Services) ......................................................................40 6.3.2 Planning for Training Activities ........................................................................................40 6.3.3 Organization of the Supply Side of Training Under PSCAP ................................................41 6.3.4 Procurement Announcements...........................................................................................43 6.3.5 Procedures and Methods (Goods) ......................................................................................43 6.3.6 Procedures for Procuring Goods Using ICB or NCB methods..............................................44 6.3.7 Procedures for Selection of Consultants .............................................................................46 6.3.8 Overview of World Bank Procurement Procedures.............................................................50
Section 7. Monitoring & Evaluation ................................................................................. 51 7.1 Purpose and Objectives of the PSCAP M&E System............................................................ 51 7.2 PSCAP Activities, Outputs and Outcomes............................................................................ 51 7.2.1 Defining “Activities, Outputs, and Outcomes”....................................................................51 7.2.2 Participation and Performance Agreements........................................................................52 7.3 M&E Building Blocks .......................................................................................................... 52 7.4 Institutional Arrangements for M&E................................................................................... 54 7.4 PSCAP Indicators for M&E................................................................................................. 55 7.4.1 Indicators for PSCAP activities and outputs .......................................................................55 7.4.2 Available Data and Strategy for PSCAP M&E Data Collection ...........................................56
- iii 7.5 Challenges and Recommendations for PSCAP M&E........................................................... 57
Section 8. Information, Education, & Communication (IEC)................................. 58 8.1 Purpose of IEC..................................................................................................................... 58 8.2 Guidelines for IEC under PSCAP ........................................................................................ 58 8.3 Roles and Responsibilities at the Federal and Regional Level............................................... 59 8.4 The IEC Cycle —From Issue Identification to Feedback....................................................... 59 8.4.1 Identifying Priority Issues and Selecting Messages.............................................................59 8.4.2 Selecting and Segmenting Audiences.................................................................................60 8.4.3 Deploying Communication Channels with Feedback Mechanisms .......................................60 8.4.4 Identifying Output and Outcome Indicators........................................................................60 8.4.5 Implementing ...................................................................................................................61 8.4.6 Soliciting Feedback and Evaluating Results .......................................................................61
Abbreviations and Acronyms AfDB BCB BOFED CAS CAD CFU CIDA CIF CIP CPR COMESA CSRP DCI DCA DLDP DfID EA EC ECuA EMCP EOI FIRA FMR FPA FTT GDP GPN IAPSO ICB ICT ICTDA IDA IDC IEC IMF JSRP KfW GOE LIG GTZ MABs MCB MDG M&E MFA MOFED MOJ
African Development Bank Regional Bureau of Capacity Building Regional Bureau of Finance and Economic Development Country Assistance Strategy Central Accounts Department Counterpart Funds Unit Canadian International Development Agency Cost, Insurance and Freight Cost, Insurance and Carriage Council of Peoples’ Representatives Community of Eastern and South Africa Civil Service Reform Program Development Corporation of Ireland Development Credit Agreement District Level Decentralization Program Department for International Development Executing Agency European Commission Ethiopian Customs Authority Expenditure Management and Control Activities Expressions of Interest Federal Inland Revenue Authority Financial Monitoring Report Financial Performance Assessment Federal Technical Team Gross Domestic Product General Procurement Notice Inter-Agency Procurement Services Office International Competitive Bidding Information and Communication Technologies Information and Communication Technologies Development Authority International Development Association Indefinite Delivery Contract Information, Education and Communication International Monetary Fund Justice System Reform Program Kreditanstalt fuer Wiederaufbau Government of Ethiopia Proposed Local Investment Grant Program German Technical Cooperation Ministries, Agencies, and Bureaus Ministry of Capacity Building Millennium Development Goals Monitoring and Evaluation Ministry of Federal Affairs Ministry of Finance and Economic Development Ministry of Justice
-2-
MOR MOU NBE NCB NCBP NGO OFAG PPD PRSC PSCAP PEP PIP QBS QCBS ROPE RTT SA SBCQ SDP SDPRP SFB SIDA SIL SOE SSS SWAp TA TOR TD TSRP UMCBP UNDB UNDP USAID WTO
Ministry of Revenue Memorandum of Understanding National Bank of Ethiopia National Competitive Bidding National Capacity Building Program Non-Governmental Organization Office of the Federal Auditor General Planning and Programming Directorate Poverty Reduction Support Credit Public Sector Capacity Building Program Public Expenditure Program Program Implementation Plan Quality Based Selection Quality and Cost Based Selection Results-Oriented Performance Evaluation Regional Technical Team Special Account Selection Based on Consultant’s Qualification Sector Development Program Ethiopia’s Sustainable Development and Poverty Reduction Program Selection on Fixed Budget Swedish International Development Agency Sector Investment Loan Statement of Expenditure Single Source Selection Sector Wide Approach Technical Assistance Terms of Reference Treasury Department Tax Systems Reform Program Urban Management Capacity Building Program United Nations Development Business United Nations Development Program United States Agency for International Development World Trade Organization
Section 1. Program Overview Background Since its transition to multiparty in the early 1990s, Ethiopia has embarked on a long term strategy of “state transformation” characterized by bold attempts to implement multiple reforms in parallel; the massive scale -up of institutional development efforts across tiers of government; and the deliberate expansion of the scope of public sector capacity building initiatives. Spanning nearly a decade, Ethiopia’s transformation agenda has evolved over three phases in response to growing awareness that pervasive deficits in capacity have hampered the ability of the state to secure the fundamentals of poverty reduction and democratic development such as responsive service delivery, citizen empowerment, and good governance. Regionalization and public sector modernization in the mid- to late-1990s. The first phase of the Government’s state transformation strategy, launched in 1995, involved the creation of a federal state structure based on ethnically delineated regional states responsible for a broad range of the country’s political, economic, and social objectives including the delivery of essential public services. In accordance with the 1994 Constitution, the Government formally established an intergovernmental fiscal system and initiated the annual transfer of a formula -driven general purpose grant or subsidy to regions, consistent with its policy of “balanced regional progress.” It also undertook a significant redeployment of civil service staff to newly empowered regional executives. Even as it established a radically new decentralized political and state system, the Government acknowledged the deep institutional constraints on basic functions such as policymaking, service delivery, and regulation. Core public management systems at the federal and regional levels were hampered by outdated civil service legislation and working systems; the absence of a medium-term planning and budgeting framework; ineffective financial and personnel management controls; inadequate civil service wages and inappropriate grading systems; poor capacity for strategic and cabinet-level decision-making; and insufficient focus on modern managerial approaches to service delivery. In recognition of these constraints, the Government embarked on a comprehensive Civil Service Reform Program (CSRP) in 1996. Indicative of Ethiopia’s “first generation” capacity building efforts, the CSRP sought to build a fair, transparent, efficient, effective, and ethical civil service primarily by creating enabling legislation, developing operating systems, and training staff in five areas: (i) Expenditure Control and Management, (ii) Human Resource Management, (iii) Service Delivery, (iv) Top Management Systems, and (v) Ethics. Successful efforts (for example, budgeting, planning, and accounting reforms) at the federal level were intended to provide prototypes for regional authorities. Complementary tax policy and administration reforms were also undertaken in line with the Government’s objectives of improving revenue performance to reduce aid dependency and adequately finance the expanding development agenda. The passage and implementation of a Value-Added Tax, as well as the implementation of a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) system proceeded. Early efforts in the justice system including the strengthening of court administration and the reform of the penal code and family law sought to deepen implementation of the 1994 Constitution. The results of these efforts, implemented over the 1996-2000 period, were mixed. Despite notable achievements in public finance management, these initiatives have had only modest impact in relieving the institutional and capacity constraints within the Ethiopian civil service. There was little evidence of sustained improvement in output performance at the federal or regional levels. Core functions such as medium-term planning, accounting and auditing, and personnel management remain weak. Attempts to develop an affordable, medium-term public sector pay policy were also delayed, and civil servants— despite an across-the-board salary increase in 2001—continued to receive low salaries. Operational efficiency across federal ministries and regional bureaus remained poor. Furthermore, lags in the
-2prototyping phase at the federal level forestalled CSRP implementation in regions and woredas. The considerable opportunity costs in terms of foregone improvements in institutional and service delivery performance at the regional and local levels were widely acknowledged. Weaknesses in the design of reform initiatives such as an overly top-down approach, inexperience with managing national and international consultants, and funding gaps limited the impact of this first phase of transformation. Implementation delays resulted from the inordinate demands that the border conflict placed on the time of senior officials. Nevertheless, the Government’s generally pragmatic approach to implementing an ambitious regionalization and civil service reform agenda established Ethiopia as a serious state reformer by the late 1990s The unfinished agenda in the post-conflict period. By late 1999, Ethiopia’s early public sector reform experience had significantly deepened its leadership’s appreciation of the role of institutional capacity building in securing the economic and political fundamentals of sustainable poverty reduction. Of particularly concerns were factors that hindered public sector efficiency, local empowerment, and accountability. Within the public sector, unpredictable resource flows have undermined the allocative and operational efficiency the public sector at the federal, regional, and local levels in Ethiopia. The incentive framework for personnel also needs to be reformed, given the current needs of the civil service. Anecdotal evidence revealed severe problems in retaining managerial and technical personnel. In ministries, agencies, and bureaus (MABs), the functions, systems, structures, and work practices were not aligned with Government’s medium-term development priorities and resource constraints. With regards to empowerment, woredas or districts enjoyed little fiscal or administrative autonomy to respond to the local needs of their constituencies. Local level planning and prioritization processes— while consultative—were typically short-circuited by zonal officials, who would vet woreda levels plans in line with regional priorities. Project and program implementation were also burdened by overly centralized procedures for procurement of goods and services, and management of frontline personnel. The resulting inefficiencies were further exacerbated by endemic staffing and skills shortages, unclear accountability relationships, and inadequate organizational structures. By 2001, woredas were still deconcentrated units of regions rather than democratic ally elected executives in their own right. In addition, municipal governments were not adequately integrated into the larger legal and accountability framework of regional governance, and therefore, have been limited—in providing essential services to their residents—by their ability to raise own-source revenues. Significant institutional weaknesses and capacity deficits are acknowledged across Ethiopia’s justice system including in areas such as lawmaking, law execution and enforcement, the functioning of courts, and the development of the legal professional. Weaknesses in the vertical and horizontal independence of the judiciary resulted from lack of transparency in the selection of judges, unclear organizational structures in the courts, outdated systems and procedures, shortages in trained judges and support staff, and lack of basic infrastructure and facilities. A lack of adequate budgetary resources has also hindered the emergence of a well-functioning judiciary, particularly in first instance courts in the federal system and woreda courts in the regions. Access to justice continues to be limited by supply -side constraints (for example, increasing representation and legal aid, reducing the costs of access, simplifying court documents, establishing alternative dispute resolution mechanisms), and demand-side constraints (for example, increased awareness of constitutional and legal rights, education of the poor about options for recourse and redress).
-3Ethiopia’s Home -Grown Response of National Capacity Building. In the immediate aftermath of the Ethio-Eritrean conflict, the Government once again took up the unfinished work of broad-based institutional development by launching a comprehensive National Capacity Building Program (NCBP) in order to the capacity building demands of its state and structural transformation agenda. The national capacity building framework envisages as capacity building system that (i) ensures efficiency and sustainability; (ii) supports the comprehensive development of human resources, organizations, systems and processes as a means of achieving the country's development goals; (iii) affords flexible implementation modalities in order to accommodate the dynamics of institutional change. A superministry, the Ministry of Capacity Building, was established in 2001 to provide policy direction, coordination amongst other partner institutions (for example, the Ministries of Finance and Economic Development, Revenue, and Federal Affairs), as well as monitoring and oversight of capacity building efforts. The Ministry, along with its counterpart regional bureaus and woreda offices, is tasked with programming and financing fourteen capacity building subprograms that support the dual SDPRP goals of state and structural transformation (Box 1.1). Box 1.1: Ethiopia’s National Capacity Building Program (NCBP)
§ § § § § § § § § § § § § §
Civil service reform Justice reform Tax reform District-level decentralization Urban management Information and communication technology Cooperatives Private sector Textiles and garments Construction sector Agricultural training of vocational and technical levels Industrial training of vocational and technical levels Higher education Civil Society
Six of these fourteen subprograms directly involve the public sector and comprise (i) a woreda (district level) decentralization program that rapidly transferred delivery responsibilities with substantial fiscal and administrative authority to rural jurisdictions; (ii) municipal reform efforts designed to restructure and empower urban centers; (iii) reformulated civil service reforms focused increasingly on strengthening the public sector fiduciary framework and service delivery results on the ground; (iv) bold nation-wide initiatives to enhance connectivity and develop e-government applications such as the woreda- and school-net projects; (v) efforts to strengthen formal checks and balances and accountability mechanisms through reform of the justice system including the courts, law making and law enforcement institutions, and the legislative process; and (vi) an ongoing tax systems reform program that continues to align tax policy and administration at the federal and regional level with the demands of Ethiopia’s evolving macro-fiscal policies. In FY2002-03 and FY2003-04, the Government—through its Ministry of Capacity Building, Bureaus of Capacity Building, and other lead institutions—advanced the implementation of all six subprograms. Cons iderable domestic resources—ETB 108.4 million in FY2002-03 alone—were mobilized through the federal budget to carry out public sector capacity building activities. Progress-todate is detailed in the first Annual Progress Report on the SDPRP and summarized below along with the Government’s forward looking strategy in each area.
-4Notwithstanding the rapidly expanding scope and scale of its reform program, the Government soon recognized that public sector capacity building efforts through 2003 were still largely supported by fragmented donor projects and financed in an ad hoc manner. In many cases, direct capacity building support provided to regions has been offset in the general-purpose transfers. In addition, concerns related to the degree of transparency in the implementation of capacity building, problems in effectively leveraging global knowledge, as well as the bias towards intensive off-site training activities need to be addressed. Finally, the financing requirements of scaling up each of these above-mentioned subprograms indicated that Treasury resources alone would not suffice; significant external assistance would be required. The 2001-2003 experience with multiple reform efforts undertaken in parallel demonstrated the importance of exploiting the synergies between subprograms described above; using a flexible mechanism of support that could respond to the rapidly evolving needs of various subprograms; empowering regions and local authorities in setting priorities and achieving results; harmonizing donor support around a single design; and improving coordination across branches and tiers of government. Scaling up “State Transformation”: Salient Design Features of the Sector-Wide Approach. In May 2003, the Government announced its intention to rapidly scale up support for the six core public sector reform programs as subprograms under a consolidated five-year federal program called the Public Sector Capacity Building Program or PSCAP. The Government’s vision, reflected in its national program document for the PSCAP, was based on three pillars—(i) simultaneous, nation-wide implementation of six above-mentioned programs (now called “subprograms), sequenced in line with regional and local priorities, (ii) alignment of program support with Ethiopia’s public financial management and intergovernmental system, and (iii) harmonization of the fiscal, fiduciary, and reporting requirements of various donors around a Sector-Wide Approach (SWAP). In the months that followed, several bilateral donors, in close collaboration with IDA, have responded favorably with commitments to support the SWAP approach and the pooling of funds around a single design solution. Salient features of the Government’s program include:
§ § § §
§ § §
Designation of PSCAP as a federal specific purpose transfer program, appropriated at the federal level and therefore not subject to offsets in regional subsidies; Incorporation of donor commitments under PSCAP within the Government’s overall macroeconomic fiscal framework and the overall vertical division of revenues between federal and regional levels; Alignment of donor procedures with Government’s rolling medium-term planning, annual budgeting, and monthly SOE-based disbursement procedures; Explicit identification of rules of the game governing access, allocation, and execution including an established vertical division of resources between federal and regional levels, and a simple formula to horizontal division of time-bound drawing rights to PSCAP resources across regional states, followed by performance-based disbursements as well as mid- and end-year reallocation of a share of drawing rights to performers; Regular bottom-up regional, and eventually woreda and municipal planning of capacity building activities within assigned medium-term and annualized resource envelopes; Pooling of donor resources around a single design under the SWAp, and alignment of non-pooled support with the Governments’ planning, budgeting, and M&E system; Development of “matrix management” structure, in which federal subprograms provide the prototypes, technical advice, quality assurance, and recommendations on approvals of plans, while regions prioritize resources and activities based on a menu of subprogram activities through medium term and annual plans.
-5SWAp/Program Development Objectives The objective of the SWAp is to improve the scale, efficiency, and responsiveness of public service delivery at the federal, regional, local level services; to empower citizens to participate more effectively in shaping their own development; and to promote good governance and accountability. This objective will be achieved by scaling up Ethiopia’s ongoing capacity building and institutional transformation efforts in six priority areas—(i) Civil Service and Expenditure Management Reform; (ii) District-Level Decentralization; (iii) Urban Management; (iv) Tax Systems Reform; (v) Justice Systems Reform; and (vi) Information and Communications Technology. Key Performance Indicators While specific outputs and outcome indicators across PSCAP subprograms are provided in Annex 1, key performance indicators of the expected impact of the program are provided below along with the contributing subprograms. Expected impact on “institutional quality” 1. Increased predi ctability and adequacy of financial resources flows (in-year and across years) § Reduced budget variance § Reduced federal-regional and regional-local fiscal gaps 2. Greater inclusiveness and transparency of planning and prioritization processes § Established practice of participatory budgeting and public reporting on budgets and performance at all levels § Regular involvement of civil society in planning and policymaking, budgeting, and review processes 3. Enhanced revenue performance and fiscal autonomy § Increased own revenues and unconditional transfers as a share of total expenditures at sub-national levels § Increased tax effort at all levels 4. Enhanced incentive environment for public servants (gender disaggregated) § Increased average civil service salary as percentage of living wage § Private-public wage comparison § Wage decompression ratios 5. Improved quality and efficiency of operations § Improved service levels in terms of access, responsiveness and cost efficiency in priority sectors § Reduced unit costs and processing time for essential rural, urban, social, and legal services in priority sectors 6. Improved transparency and accountability § Reduced incidence of corruption and arbitrariness in rule enforcement (as judged by economic agents) § Increased access to justice, recourse and redress § Enhanced independence of the judiciary § Increased access to government information
Contributing PSCAP Subprograms Civil Service Reform Tax Systems Reform
Civil Service Reform District-Level Decentralization Urban Management Capacity Building Tax Systems Reform District-Level Decentralization Urban Management Capacity Building Tax Systems Reform ICT
Civil Service Reform District-Level Decentralization Urban Management Capacity Building
All Subprograms
All Subprograms
Section 2. Program Description 2.1 Federal and Regional Components The PSCAP scale -up will be supported through two components—(i) federal PSCAP, and (ii) regional consolidated PSCAP. Activities in both components are drawn from a menu of eligible expenditures in each of the six PSCAP subprograms or “building blocks” and one mandatory program support activity described below. For each component, medium term rolling plans and annual implementation plans are based on a prioritization and sequencing of activities across the six subprograms. Both medium term and annual plans are revised against implementation progress on a semi-annual and annual basis in line with the rules governing reallocation (described later in Section 4). Provide below is a description of the federal and regional components, as well as their constituent building blocks, that is, the six subprograms and mandatory program support (Figure 2.1).
§
Component 1—Federal PSCAP: This component supports federal level activities across each of the six subprograms including strengthening of strategic and implementation management functions to ensure effective coordination at the subprogram and program levels. The component also includes capacity building activities for which there are scale and network economies that justify natio nal level prototyping (for example, the customization of particular information systems). It is envisaged that resources would be shifted year-to-year and in-year from poor performing to higher performing subprogram activities at the federal level.
§
Component 2—Regional PSCAP: The regional component constitutes the bulk of PSCAP and is designed to empower regions to adapt and implement national capacity building priorities envisaged under PSCAP’s six subprograms in a performance oriented and sustainable manner. Under this component, all participating regions will be required to complete a “minimum mandatory” set of capacity building activities drawn from each of the six subprograms and basic program support (Table 2.1). These “minimum mandatory” capacity building activities constitute the first in a sequence of capacity building activities across the six subprograms that each region will need to be complete before more sophisticated capacity building activities can be undertaken. Provided that the minimum mandatory are completed, participating regional governments have flexibility to prioritize other capacity building activities between subprograms in line with their particular regional needs in any given year, (for example, a greater emphasis on urban management as opposed to ICT) and also sequence capacity building activities within subprograms in line with “good practice” approaches prescribed by subprogram directors (for example, adopting regional prototype legislation for municipalities before restructuring them).
A Note on “Minimum Mandatory” Activities for Regions. Under this component, a region’s ability to emphasis specific subprograms over others is limited to ensure the progress across all subprograms in accordance with national policy prioritie s. The minimum mandatory constitute the first in a sequence of capacity building activities across the six subprograms that each region will need to be complete before more sophisticated capacity building activities can be undertaken. Substantively, the “minimum mandatory” constitutes the essential or basic elements of PSCAP and are therefore protected from the semi-annual and annual reallocation procedures described in Section 4. Some regions may complete the minimum mandatory within a year, while others may take two years to complete them. There is no specific time requirement for completion of the minimum mandatory. However, those regions that complete these activities earlier will be able to utilize their drawing rights to the PSCAP fund faster.
-7-
SSuubbpprrooggrraam m 22.. DDiissttrriicctt LLeevveell DDeecceennttrraalliizzaattiioonn SSuubbpprroo gg rr aa m m 33 .. U U rr bb aa nn M M gg tt C C aa pp aa cc ii tt yy BB uu ii ll dd ii nn gg SSuubbpprrooggrraam m 44. . TTaaxx SSyysstteemmss RReeffoorrmm SSuubbpprrooggrraam m 55. . JJuusstti iccee SSyysstteemmss RReeffoorrmm SSuubbpprrooggrraam m 66.. IICCTT PPrrooggrraam m SSuuppppoorrtt
Component 2. Regional PSCAP
SSuubbpprrooggrraam m 11.. CCiivviill SSeerrvviiccee RReeffoorrm m
Component 1. Federal PSCAP
Figure 2.1: PSCAP Components are Drawn from Activity Menus across the Six Subprograms
2.2 PSCAP Subprograms: “Building Blocks” for Federal and Regional Components The objectives and specific menus of activities that fall within each subprogram of PSCAP are explained below. Selected and planned on an annual basis, these menus of capacity building activities (comprising combinations of technical assistance and consultancy services, goods and equipment, and training) provide the basic building blocks for the federal and regional components. Those subprogram activities that are essentially federal in their orientation will not be carried out under the regional component.
§
Subprogram 1—Civil service reform. This subprogram aims to promote the development of an efficient, effective, transparent, accountable, and ethical civil service. Subprogram activities comprise (i) strengthening Civil Service Reform Program coordinating structures; (ii) improving expenditure management and control through drafting of financial regulations and directives, rollout of budgeting and accounts reforms, implementation of procurement reforms, development of medium-term planning systems, strengthening of internal and external audit, modernization of cash management, and the roll-out of financial management information systems; (iii) improving the governance of human resource management including the development of prototype policies on human resource development, time management, and remuneration, the implementation of the results-oriented appraisal system, the development of payroll and human resource information systems, and support for subsidiary regulations such as the code of ethics; (iv) improving performance and public service delivery through the roll-out of the Performance and Service Delivery Improvement Program (PSIP) in ministries, agencies, and bureaus; (v) improving accountability and transparency through parliamentary oversight and anti-corruption activities, and strengthening systems for monitoring fiscal and output performance including expenditure tracking surveys, cost efficiency studies, service delivery report cards; (vi) strengthening top management systems through training of senior managers and officials in strategic planning, performance measurement, top management development, and value for money management; and (vii) building the policy and institutional capacities of emerging regions through the development of basic civil service structures and systems. Linkages with the district-level decentralization, urban management, ICT, and tax systems reform subprograms should be reflected in federal and regional plans and coordinated during implementation.
-8-
Table 2.1: “Minimum Mandatory” Capacity Building Activities for Regions PSCAP Subprograms
CSRP
DLDP
JSRP
Minimum Mandatory Or the First in a Sequence of Activities to be Carried By Regions Across The Six Subprograms § Elimination of backlog accounts at regional and local levels § Installation and training in medium term expenditure management procedures manual, BIS, and BDA3 systems in all regional and woreda institutions § Completion of training in and adoption of result oriented performance evaluation (ROPE) system in all regional bureaus and woredas. § The following PSIP-related activities launched in 75% of regional bureaus: - Completion of client score cards - Initiation of business process re-engineering. § Completion of top management training in Strategic Planning and Management, Change Management, Performance Management, and Leadership Development for agency heads of 75% of bureaus § Completion of review and preparation of decentralization legal framework, functional assignments, and structures § Completion of assessments for: - human resource and training needs for woredas - the required office infrastructure and equipment for woredas § Review for adoption of region’s decentralization strategy document § Finalization of strategy and action plan for gender sensitized community participation § Technical assistance for implementation of region’s woreda decentralization strategy and policy development, benchmarking and review of plans § Review for adoption for prototype minimum service standards § § § § § §
UMCBP
TSRP
§ §
Development and adoption of region’s urban development policy and strategy Development and adaptation for implementation of personnel management manuals for local government authorities Development and adoption of urban land legislation and the municipal proclamation Completion of one round of bulk generic training to all relevant regional and municipal staff
§ § § §
Adoption of proclamations, regulations, and directives for income and TOT Completion of 50% coverage for computerized tax payers identification number (TIN) Completion of annual turnover survey Completion of training on laws for tax administrators at regional and city administration levels
§ § §
Establishment and strengthening of Regional Data Centers Completion of technical training on network management and system administration for the Regional Date Center staff Initiate basic training (computing) for designated ICT focal persons from all woredas
§ §
Preparation and dissemination of basic IEC materials on PSCAP Completion of training in PIP, procurement, financial management, and M&E
ICT
Program Support
Installation of court case management and case recording & transcribing systems in all regional supreme & high courts Installation of color coded filing system in all woreda courts Establishment of information counters in all regional high courts and woreda courts Initiation of in-service training and professional development of all judges, lawyers and court clerks
-9-
§
Subprogram 2—District-level decentralization. The objective of the subprogram is to deepen the devolution of power to the lower tiers of regional government, to institutionalize decisionmaking processes at the grassroots level with a view to enhance local participation, to promote good governance, and to improve decentralized service delivery. Subprogram activities include support for (i) woreda manning and training including human resource policies, procedures, and plans as well as bulk training in areas critical to local government; (ii) technical assistance and training for grassroots participation including the development of guidelines and monitoring mechanisms, and the strengthening of civil society involvement at the local level; (iii) woreda institutional and organization development including assessment of functional assignments and enabling legislation, assistance in establishing structures and restructuring existing arrangements including local level accountability relationships; (iv) capacity building for policy and program development including technical assistance for woreda decentralization strategy and policy development, benchmarking and review of plans; (v) development of woreda fiscal transfer mechanisms and revenue mobilization capacities through the review and design of various intergovernmental fiscal instruments; (vi) strengthening of the planning system & financial management at the woreda level; and (vii) the development of minimum service standards in priority sectors. Linkages with the civil service reform, urban management, and tax systems reform subprograms should be reflected in federal and regional plans and coordinated during implementation.
§
Subprogram 3—Justice systems reform. This subprogram, currently a work-in-progress, is designed to promote the rule of law as well as the efficient and effective functions of the justice system as part of Ethiopia’s broader democratization and private sector development processes. Subprogram activities include (i) strengthening the Justice Systems Reform Program Office and regional equivalents; (ii) strengthening the courts by providing in-service training of judges and court clerks, court administration reform, development of records and case load management systems, and identification of measures to enhance access to justice; (iii) support for law reform including the development of systems and procedures for declaring income and property, identification of new areas for law development, compiling and preparation of laws and regulations, and drafting of stock exchange and other laws; (iv) strengthening of legislative process including training, technical advisory services, and acquisition of equipment for staff of federal and regional standing committees on legislative drafting and analysis of legislative process and management, as well as training for members of standing committees on principles of federal grant and intergovernmental fiscal framework, monitoring and impact assessment, HIV/AIDS and gender issues, accountability and participation; (v) law enforcement organ capacity enhancement through establishment of community policing system, upgrading existing national forensic laboratory; development of a national crime prevention strategy; development of a program of continuous relevant training for prosecutors, police officers, penitentiary staff, installation of IT systems and acquisition of equipment and others; and (vi) support to strengthen capacity of the members of parliament and its staff through training and workshops, provision of assistance related to the revision of existing laws and enacting new legal provisions where required, implementation of various studies on reform the law reform agenda, development, compilation, consolidation, publication and distribution of legislative proceedings and other relevant materials. Linkages with the civil service reform, urban management, ICT, and tax systems reform subprograms should be reflected in federal and regional plans and coordinated during implementation.
§
Subprogram 4—Urban management capacity building. This subprogram aims to enhance the capacity of municipalities in the delivery of services and enable urban centers to play a more effective role in social and economic development. The major activities envisaged under this subprogram include (i) technical assistance for the development of federal and regional policies
- 10 related to urban development, housing, urban land, municipal structures, the formation of municipal associations; (ii) technical assistance for the deepening of municipal decentralization through the preparation of manuals governing resource management, review and organization of training and human resource needs, establishment of regional planning units, and development of fiscal transfer and revenue mobilization mechanisms; (iii) support for local government restructuring and capacity building including restructuring of water and sanitation, urban land, and other services, development and roll-out of financial, human resource, and land systems, and organizational and related reviews, as well as bulk training for municipal officials and staff. Linkages with the civil service reform, district-level decentralization, ICT, and tax systems reform subprograms should be reflected in federal and regional plans and coordinated during implementation.
§
Subprogram 5—Tax systems reform. The subprogram aims to encourage capital investment and development, increase tax revenues (through improved compliance and efficiency of collection), and ensure equity and fairness in the tax system through a comprehensive overall of the current legislation and tax administration system. These objectives are to be achieved through the following subprogram activities: (i) continued development of tax policy and legislation including amending the current income tax legislation to reflect the current business and investment environment, implementing presumptive and value-added taxes, strengthening enforcement powers of tax collection bodies, and sensitization of taxpayers inter alia through establishment of a Taxpayer office; (ii) roll-out of the computerized Tax Payers’ Identification Number (TIN) system in 74 regional centers, improving information sharing between the Federal Inland Revenue Authority (FIRA), Ethiopia Customs Authority (ECuA), as well as regional and city administrations; (iii) customs reform and modernization including the review of legal framework, review and implementation of customs procedures in line with COMESA, deepening of ongoing implementation of performance improvement in ECuA, establishment of a customs laboratory and training center, roll-out of management and core staff training in areas such as human resource development, IT management, WTO valuation system, commodity classification, and application of international conventions on simplification of customs procedures. Linkages with the civil service reform (for examples, performance activities in ECuA), justice, ICT, and tax systems reform subprograms should be reflected in federal and regional plans, and coordinated during implementation. The tax systems reform program should be coordinated with plans to develop sub-national taxes as envisaged under the district level decentralization and urban management subprograms.
§
Subprogram 6—Information & communications technologies (ICTs). The objective of this subprogram is to harness ICTs for the development of human resources, democratization, service delivery, and good governance. Several programs under PSCAP including CSRP, DLDP, Urban Management, and Tax Sector Reform are seeking to use ICTs in this manner. Successful implementation of ICT-based solutions across government will require support for (i) human resource development through the development of an ICT human resource strategy, ICT curricula for schools, vocational training centers, and universities, as well as the training of trainers, the establishment of distance learning centers, and the financing of research on the use of ICTs; (ii) ICT use for public service and good governance through the development of information systems strategies, development of service delivery applications, establishment of data centers and government portals, WAN and LANs, as well as the procurement of required hardware and software; and (iii) ICT for sector development including the installation of applications in the social and infrastructure sectors; and (iv) community-based ICT systems and services through the development of strategies, applications, and local content for community information centers to facilitate specific developmental activities. While the development of public sector applications such as financial, human resource, and land management systems will be procured under
- 11 respective reform programs (for example, CSRP, UMCBP, TSRP), sector-specific applications(for example, agriculture) will be financed under the ICT subprogram. Plans for these applications will be coordinated between subprograms, regions, and ICTDA.
§
Program support. As a required activity at both the federal and regional level, program support is designed to ensure speedy implementation of the six subprograms in a holistic manner. It will finance incremental costs associated with operating requirements of Planning and Programming Departments or equivalents in regions, the Budget and Finance Directorate in the MCB, related subprogram offices that serve members of the federal and regional Technical Teams, and relevant offices in the Ministry and Bureaus of Finance and Economic Development. Specific support activities include the costs of program coordination and planning, training management, IEC activities, monitoring and evaluation, basic training, auditing, office supplies, equipment operation, transport, travel, and per diems.
2.3 PSCAP Subprograms: “Building Blocks” for Federal and Regional Components The overall program cost is estimated to be USD 397.8 million over the course of five years. The required financing will be leveraged from domestic and external sources through a Sector-Wide Approach. Provided below is an estimated breakdown of program costs and funding sources. It is expected that these will be adjusted annually with projected improvements in bilateral donor support as well as mobilization of domestic resources. More detailed breakdown of program budget by region and subprogram are provided in the federally proclaimed annual budget and corresponding regional budgets. In addition, annual breakdown of estimated costs by expenditure categories (for example, training, consultancies, goods and equipment) are provided in the procurement plan(s), which is attached to the PIP and available upon request from the Planning and Program Directorate of the Ministry of Capacity Building, Addis Ababa. Table 2.2: Estimated Cost of Program Compone nts Component 1. Federal PSCAP 2. Regional PSCAP
Sector
Indicative Costs (US$M)
Multi-sectoral Multi-sectoral Total Program Cost
% of Total
Bankfinancing (US$M)
% of Bankfinancing
80.0
20%
20.0
25%
317.8 397.8
80% 100%
80.0 100.0
25% 25%
PROGRAM FINANCING PLAN (US$m) Source Government
Local 137.5
Foreign -
Total 137.5
IDA
65.4
34.6
100.0
CIDA
25.3
13.4
38.8
SIDA
5.6
3.0
8.6
73.2
39.8
113.0
307.0
90.8
397.8
Other Donors Total:
Section 3. Institutional Arrangements The scale, complexity, and uniqueness of this program places a premium on four overriding implementation priorities—(i) coordination across tiers and branches of government, (ii) enforcement with clearly defined rules of the game (for example, for allocation and reallocation); (iii) information sharing and peer review (for example, on matters of performance) within the public sector and with the public at large; and (iv) extensive support to implementing agencies in the design, execution, and quality assurance of reform activities. Described below are institutional arrangements for effective implementation including the roles and responsibilities of federal, regional, local, and donor actors. Illustrated in Figure 3.1, these arrangements are designed to address the Government’s desire to rapidly scale up capacity building activities while effectively management the full array of implementation risks. 3.1 Federal Level Institutional Arrangements 3.1.1 Ministry of Capacity Building As the head of a “super-ministry,” the Minister of Capacity Building (MCB) and specifically, the State Minister of Capacity Building is responsible for the overall coordination of PSCAP, serves as co-chair of the Joint Government-Donor PSCAP Working Group; and coordinates Government participation in regular formal reviews of implementation progress. Among other things, MCB will be responsible for:
§ § § § §
managing Ethiopia’s national capacity building efforts such as PSCAP on a macro level; establishing policies, designing national strategies and ensuring their integration with sectoral strategies; developing guidelines for programming capacity building; providing technical support to regions; and evaluating ongoing program implementation.
For purposes of day-to-day management of PSCAP, the Ministry coordinates an inter-ministerial Federal Technical Team (FTT), and houses a Planning and Programming Directorate (PPD) as well as a Budget and Finance Directorate (BFD). Roles and responsibilities are described below. Federal Technical Team (FTT). The FTT is led by the Director of MCB’s Planning and Programming Directorate and includes all PSCAP’s six subprogram directors, as well as representatives from key directorates of the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (MOFED) including the Regional Affairs Directorate, Central Accounts Department, and Counterpart Funds Unit, and relevant officials of the Ministry of Federal Affairs. As the apex technical body managing PSCAP, the Federal Techincal Team (FTT) is responsible for:
§
§ §
reviewing, appraising, and recommending approval of annual plans submitted by federal executing institutions and regions in line with technical criteria delineated in the PIP (for example, completion of the “mandatory minimum” capacity building activities, sequencing of reform activities, provision of regional financing for upfront civil works and ongoing recurrent costs of IT investments); reviewing in-year and annual performance and recommending re-allocations of five-year drawing rights between non-performing and performing regions; supporting the development of content of reform programs during implementation with the support of the PPD and BFD;
- 13 -
§ § § §
supporting, providing quality control and reviewing outputs produced by consultants prior to approving payment; defining equipment specification and undertaking acceptance tests of equipment procured; developing communication and change management strategies; and ensuring the quality and consistency of reform efforts and, if needed, recruiting additional technical expertise on a temporary basis to assist in appraising applications of a specialized nature (for example, those under the ICT component).
Planning and Programming Directorate (PPD). A Planning and Programming Directorate (PPD), housed in MCB, serves as the secretariat for the Program, and specifically for the State Minister responsible for PSCAP and the Federal Technical Team. Under its Director, the PPD will house four teams focused on Policy Study and Program Design; Program Coordination; Planning and Budgeting; and Monitoring and Evaluation. Included in the PPD is a training coordinator responsible for bulking and managing similar training activities across subprograms. Among other things, the PPD will be responsible for:
§ § § § § § § §
issuing and enforcing operating guidelines; assisting the FTT in the vetting of annual plans for quality and completeness; ensuring participatory planning processes are undertaken; facilitating coordination between members of the federal and regional technical teams; assist in consolidating, managing, and organizing the tendering of training across six subprograms among pre-qualified supply institutions; helping the FTT provide detail follow-up and quality assurance during implementation; implementing communication and change management strategies; and consolidating quarterly, semi-annual, and annual progress reports.
The PPD also serves as the counterpart institution to the Joint Government-Donor PSCAP Working Group and shall therefore facilitate review and supervision missions, as well as information sharing such as disclosure of annual and other related reports, survey data, and other occasional papers. Budget and Finance Directorate (BFD). The budget and finance directorate (BFD) of the MCB is responsible for overall monitoring of procurement under the Program. It is also tasked with procurement and financial management of the three federal level subprograms that fall within the Ministry’s mandate—namely CSRP (except “expenditure management and control” activities), DLDP, and JSRP (except “strengthening the judiciary’ activities). The directorate will commit to service standards in terms of efficiency and timeliness of financial management and procurement activities. These service standards will be determined and agreed during the project launch workshop and will become part of this PIP. Among other things, the directorate will be responsible for:
§ §
carrying out international competitive procurement of goods under the Program supported by a full complement of local procurement specialists and international advisers; vetting and finalizing Terms of Reference (TORs), preparing equipment specification, processing technical evaluation, drafting and negotiating contracts, and managing contracts in close collaboration with subprogram directors and staff in the CSRP, DLDP and JSRP Offices in the MCB; and
- 14 -
§
working with regions and other executing institutions for international competitive procurement of goods.
3.1.2 Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (MOFED) The Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (MOFED) is responsible for:
§ § § §
enforcing the rules of allocation and access for PSCAP as an intergovernmental transfer; effecting vertical and horizontal divisions (specifically, the Regional Affairs Department) of PSCAP resources in collaboration with the MCB; issuing formula -based medium-term drawing rights or notional envelopes to govern medium-term planning and annual budgeting; and recommending mid-year and annual reallocations of five-year drawing rights.
Within MOFED, the Central Accounts Department (CAD) and Counterpart Funds Unit (CFU) are responsible for the overall financial management under the Program. While the CFU manages the various special accounts (including requesting replenishments), the CAD will focus on closing of local currency accounts and the consolidation of financial reports. Opening and closing the special account, transfer of funds to the local currency accounts, and the replenishment of funds are the responsibility of the Treasury Department (TD). 3.1.3 Federal Subprogram Offices and Executing Agencies The mandate for supporting the implementation of the six subprograms of PSCAP rests with subprogram offices as Executing Agencies (EAs). Overall, the role of executing agencies responsible for subprograms at the federal level is to ensure that this large constituency of eligible institutions are informed and consulted in the preparation of medium-term and annual plans. Specifically, the MCB houses the subprogram offices responsible for the Civil Service Reform. District-Level Decentralization, and Justice Systems Reform Subprograms. The newly created ICT Development Authority holds the mandate for the ICT Subprogram. For purposes of day-today management, the Expenditure Management and Control Program (EMCP) Coordinating Office within MOFED is responsible for “expenditure management and control” activities under the CSRP. The Ministry of Revenue manages the Tax Systems Reform Program, and the Ministry of Federal Affairs’ Urban Development and Capacity Building Office (UDCBO) has the responsibility for the Urban Management Capacity Building Program. Finally, the Supreme Court is responsible for day-to-day management of federal PSCAP activities related to “strengthening the judiciary.” As Executing Agencies, these subprogram and coordinating offices as well as the Supreme Court are delegated the financial management and procurement autonomy to carry out activities relevant to their reform mandates. In addition, the Ministry of Federal Affairs has established a taskforce to provide additional technical support to emerging regions such as Afar, Benishangul-Gumuz, Gambella, and Somali to carry out PSCAP-related activities. The roles and responsibilities of these Executing Agencies at the federal levels are detailed below. Ministry of Revenue . The Tax System Reform Program Office at the MOR will be responsible for implementing the Tax System Reform subprogram at the federal level. The office will hire or designate a procurement officer to support the implementation. The offic e will:
§ §
prepare federal action plans for Tax Systems Reform subprogram; advise regions on tax reform related activities;
- 15 -
§ § § § § §
conduct training, workshops and seminars; manage procurement for the tax system reform initiative at federal level except the international procurement of goods; monitor the implementation of agreed activities; submit physical progress reports to PPD; submit financial report to MOFED for replenishment of funds; and serve as a member of the FTT.
Information, Communication and Technology Development Authority (ICTDA). The Project Management Unit that is established to implement World Bank-financed project at the Information, Communication and Technology Authority (ICTA) will be responsible for implementing the ICT subprogram at the federal level. The Unit will hire or designate a procurement officer to support the implementation of PSCAP. The responsibilities of the Unit under PSCAP are to:
§ § § § § § § § §
prepare federal action plans for ICT subprogram; advise regions as well as federal executing agencies on ICT related activities; conduct training, workshops and seminars; manage procurement for ICT subprogram at federal level except the international procurement of goods; monitor the implementation of agreed activities; coordinate the implementation of ICT sub programs both at federal and regional levels submit physical progress reports to PPD; submit financial report to MOFED for replenishment of funds; and serve as a member of the FTT.
Ministry of Federal Affairs (MFA). The Ministry of Federal Affairs has organized three units to support the implementation of of PSCAP namely: (i) the Urban Development Capacity Building Office; (ii) the Rural Development Department; and (iii) the Pastoral Department. The Urban Development Capacity Building Office (UDCBO) of Ministry of Federal Affairs will be responsible for implementing the Urban Management Capacity Building subprogram at the federal level. The office will hire or designate a procurement officer to support the implementation. The UDCBO will:
§ § § § § § § §
prepare federal action plans for the UMCB subprogram; advise regions on urban development related activities; conduct training, workshops and seminars; manage procurement for the UMCB sub-program at federal level except the international procurement of goods; monitor the implementation of agreed activities; submit physical progress reports to PPD; submit financial report to MOFED for replenishment of funds; and serve as a member of the FTT.
In addition, MFA’s Rural Development Department will provide technic al support to Benishangul Gumuz and Gambella where gaps exist. The Pastoral Department of MFA will provide the same type of support to Afar and Somali regions. Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (MOFED). The Expenditure Management and Control Office will be responsible for implementing the governance of Expenditure
- 16 Management and Control (EMC) sub-activity of the Civil Service Reform (CSR) subprogram at the federal level. The Office will hire or designate one additional procurement officer to support implementation, and will:
§ § § § § § § §
prepare federal action plans for the EMC sub-activity of the CSR subprogram; advise regions on expenditure and control related activities; conduct training, workshops and seminars; manage procurement for the EMC sub-activity of CSR subprogram at the federal level except those that involve international procurement of goods; monitor the implementation of agreed activities; submit physical progress reports to PPD; and submit financial reports to MOFED for replenishment of funds; support the CSRP Director on the FTT, as the need arises.
Federal Supreme Court. The Federal Supreme Court will be responsible for implementing the Court Reform activities under the JRSP at the federal level. The Office in the Supreme Court will hire or designate a procurement officer to support the implementation and is responsible :
§ § § § § § § §
prepare federal action plans for Court Reform subprogram; advise regions on court reform related activities; conduct training, workshops and seminars; manage procurement for the court reform initiative at federal level except the international procurement of goods; monitor the implementation of agreed activities; submit physical progress reports to PPD; submit financial report to MOFED for replenishment of funds; and serve as a member of the federal technical team.
3.1.4 Other Eligible Beneficiary Institutions at the Federal Level Several other federal institutions are eligible to receive support—in-kind including through asset transfer—under PSCAP and its six subprograms. These include sector ministries (for example, for health, education, and infrastructure), authorities and agencies (for example, the Environmental Protection Agency), and other offices within the executive branch; public sector training institutio ns such as the Ethiopian Civil Service College; the judiciary or the courts; as well as supreme audit bodies such as the Office of the Federal Auditor General and legislative oversight institutions such as the Public Accounts committee. 3.2 Regional Level Institutional Arrangements 3.2.1 Bureaus of Capacity Building In each of Ethiopia’s eleven regions (including Addis Ababa and Dire Dawa), the Bureaus of Capacity Building (BCBs) are responsible for program coordination. For purposes of day-to-day management of PSCAP, the BCBs coordinate Regional Technical Teams (RTTs), and house Planning and Program Directorates (PPDs) or equivalents including Procurement Desks. Roles and responsibilities for each are described below. Regional Technical Teams (RTT). In each region, an RTT comprising inter alia the director of the regional Planning and Programming Directorate as well as subprogram directors from
- 17 executing institutions such as the Bureau of Finance and Economic Development, the Bureau of Trade, Industry, and Urban Development, the Bureau of Capacity Building, and the Bureau of Justice serves as the quality assurance and coordination body for PSCAP. Among other things, it will.
§
§ § § § §
ensure the consolidated regional plans meet eligibility, appraisal, and other criteria prior to their endorsement by regional cabinets and submission to the FTT (if needed, with the assistance of an additional technical expert who may be recruited on a temporary basis in appraising applications of a specialized nature, for example, those under the ICT component); support the development of content of reform programs during implementation with the support of PPDs; provide quality control on outputs produced by consultants prior to approving payment; define equipment specification and undertaking acceptance tests of equipment procured; develop communication and change management strategies; and ensure the quality and consistency of reform efforts.
Planning and Programming Directorates (PPD) or Equivalents. Planning and programming directorates (PPDs) or equivalents, housed in BCBs, will serve as secretariats for PSCAP in regions and it will maintain close links with the federal PPD. Each regional PPD will be responsible for :
§ § § § § § § § §
enforce overall PSCAP operating guidelines and relevant regional guidelines; assist the RTT in the vetting of annual plans for quality and completeness; ensure participatory planning processes are undertaken; facilitate coordination between members of the RTT; assist in consolidating, managing, and organizing the tendering of training across six subprograms among pre-qualified supply institutions; help the RTT provide detail follow-up and quality assurance during implementation; implement communication and change management strategies; consolidate quarterly, semi-annual, and annual progress reports; and facilitate regional involvement in supervision and review missions.
Procurement Desks. Procurement desks, established within regional BCBs, are tasked with carrying out all relevant regional procurement activities for PSCAP. The desks are supported by at least two local procurement specialists and work closely with the beneficiary institutions. They shall:
§ § § §
vet and finalize TORs; undertake preparation of technical specification and evaluation; draft and negotiate contracts; and manage contracts.
3.2.2 Bureaus of Finance and Economic Development (BOFED) In each region, the Bureau of Finance and Economic Development (BOFED) is responsible for all relevant financial management activities required under the Program. It will:
§ §
manage funds flows through Channel 1; ensure monthly consolidation of Statement of Expenses;
- 18 -
§ §
ensure the accuracy and timeliness of financial reporting; and effect payments on local and foreign contracts in line with the recommendations of the regional PPD.
3.2.3 Other eligible beneficiary institutions at regional and local levels Several regional institutions are eligible to receive support—in-kind including through asset transfer—under PSCAP and its six subprograms. These include sector bureaus (for example, for health, education, and infrastructure) as well as authorities and agencies within the executive branch; public sector training institutions such as Regional Management Institutes; the regional and local judiciary or the courts; audit and oversight bodies; and woredas and municipalities. The actual transfer of PSCAP resources from regions to woredas and municipalities is not currently envisaged at this stage, the bulk of PSCAP support is expected to be delivered in-kind at the local level. In order to ensure a close match between regionally managed activities and woreda and municipal level needs, the PSCAP planning process is expected to incorporate a sample of woreda and municipal development plans. Woredas and municipalities are expected to be informed about eligible expenditures under PSCAP so that capacity building activities (for example, accounts and budget reform roll out or bulk and hands-on training) are appropriately reflected in development plans. The introduction of PSCAP transfers from regions to woredas and municipalities will be considered at a more advanced stage of program implementation. 3.3 Joint Government-Donor Coordination and Review Mechanism A Joint Government-Donor PSCAP Working Group is established to support information sharing on capacity building, as well as joint preparation, appraisal, and supervision activities. On the Government’s, MCB and MOFED are primarily involved in supporting this harmonization agenda. From the donors’ side, members include AfDB, CIDA, DCI, DfID, EC, Finland, France, Germany, IDA, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, SIDA, UNDP, and USAID. The Group, co-chaired by the Government and IDA, will be instrumental in supporting a Sector Wide Approach with pooling of funds and when necessary through non-pooling provision of special technical assistance. It is envisaged that the donor chair will rotate. A more detailed Terms of Reference for the Working Group is attached in Annex 3. During implementation, participating donors will jointly undertake the review of annual plans during Annual Review Meetings as well as monitoring and supervision activities. Specific financial and procurement management requirements such as prior and post review will be carried out by pooling donors in line with IDA’s rules, as per the global guidelines on SWAPs. An Memorandum of Understanding detailing these arrangements will define the modalities for management of donor resources for PSCAP. Attached in Annex 4, the MOU inter alia details mechanisms for utilization of funds consistent with the pooling arrangements described in the financial section of the PIP. The Joint Government-Donor PSCAP Working Group will convene quarterly meetings to share information and identify issues for the two formalized supervision missions – one of which will coincide with the Annual Review Meeting. The formalized supervision missions and the annual reviews will take stock of progress made against targeted plans.
- 19 -
Figure 3.1: Institutional Arrangements for PSCAP at the Federal, Regional, and Local Levels
M i n i s t e r o f C a p a c i t y B u i l d i n g (A c c o u n t a b l e t o C o u n c i l o f M i n i s t e r s )
Ministry of Finance and Economic Development • Divides PSCAP resources vertically and horizontally, issues f o r m u l a -b a s e d d r a w i n g r i g h t s • Manages special and pooled Birr account, closes Birr subprogram and regional accounts • Releases funds across federal and regional bodies against SOEs
• • • • •
E n s u r e s r u l e -b a s e d a l l o c a t i o n a n d r e -a l l o c a t i o n , p l a n a p p r o v a l , a n d e x e c u t i o n Coordinates across lead cabinet ministries and across regions Approves PSCAP plans and budgets for federal and regional components A p p r o v e s m i d -y e a r a n d a n n u a l r e a l l o c a t i o n o f P S C A P “ r i g h t s” R e p o r t s o n a c h i e v e m e n t o f a g r e e d s e m i-a n n u a l a n d a n n u a l o u t p u t s f o r P S C A P
Federal PPD and BFD • Issues and enforces guidelines • Support FTT in planning, implementation • Consolidates progress reports • Procures for CSRP, DLDP, JSRP and ICB for goods for PSCAP overall
Federal Lead and Eligible Institutions
Federal Technical Team • Evaluate applications and recommend approval of plans and budgets including (re)allocation by region, subprogram • Undertake quality assurance, M&E during implementation
Regional Capacity Building Bureau Heads Accountable to Regional Cabinets for:
• Subprogram and related offices in MCB, MFA, MOFED, and MOR • Sector institutions, courts, and parliamentary institutions
Regional PPD w/Procurement Desk Bureaus of Finance and Economic Development • Issues budgets to lead institutions in consultation with BCB • Seeks replenishment of based on monthly consolidated SOE submissions to MOFED
• Issues and enforces guidelines • Support RTT in planning, implementation • Consolidates progress reports • Undertakes regional procurement for all six subprograms
• Endorses plans and budgets • Ensures appropriation of regional contributions for infrastructure and recurrent costs • R e p o r t s o n a c h i e v e m e n t o f a g r e e d s e m i-a n n u a l a n d annual outputs and results for the Region’ s P S C A P
Regional Technical Team • Evaluate applications and recommend approval of plans and budgets including (re)allocation by region, subprogram • Undertake quality assurance, M&E during implementation
• Effects payments on contracts based on BCB approval • Submits timely financial reports
Regional Lead and Eligible Institutions, Woredas , M u n i c i p a l i t i e s , a n d S u b- r e g i o n a l Eligible Institutions Regional Lead Institutions •S u b p r o g r a m o f f i c e s i n e l i g i b l e b u r e a u s coordinate planning process • Monitor and supervise implementation Woreda and Municipal Lead Institutions • Capacity building offices coordinate participatory planning • Monitor and supervise implementation
Plans and progress reports Indicative resource envelopes or approvals A c t u a l f u n d s f l o w s o r i n- k i n d t r a n s f e r s
Section 4. Resource Allocation and Management This section describes the fiscal design feature of the Program, specifically, how the resource allocation and management system underpinning PSCAP aligns with the Ethiopian fiscal system. Provided bellows are the rules of access and allocation for drawing rights; its appraisal criteria for plans from federal and regional institutions; its planning, budget, and execution system with the Government’s public financial management (including the chart of accounts and financial calendar); and finally, PSCAP’s performance-oriented execution and reallocation guidelines. A summary of the planning, budgeting, and execution cycle, in accordance with the financial calendar, is provided in Table 4.1. 4.1 Specific-Purpose Federal Program As a specific -purpose federal program, PSCAP serves as a pillar of Ethiopia’s evolving intergovernmental fiscal system. The Program allocates five-year drawing rights to additional federal resources across federal and regional beneficiary institutions. Failure to utilize these time-bound rights results in their reallocation from poor performers to high performers within a given fiscal year and across fiscal years. These performance-oriented features of PSCAP represent an important innovation in terms of the design of fiscal transfers within the Ethiopian public finance system. At the same time, the basic planning, budgeting, and execution system of Program is fully with the requirements of the Government’s public financial management as well as its SDPRP monitoring systems. Federal and regional institutions participating in PSCAP use the Government’s chart of accounts for financial reporting, comply with the financial calendar for issuance of resource ceilings, prepare rolling medium-term and annual plans in line with established procedures, disburse funds on a reimbursable basis against SOE submissions, and finally, submit financial and physical progress reports. Alignment with the Government’s system is designed to ensure that the planning and execution of capacity building activities is undertaken in a flexible manner in line with the changing demands on the ground. It is also intended to improve the accountability framework within which public sector capacity building activities at the federal, regional and local government levels are financed and implemented in GOE’s state transformation process. 4.2 Budget Classification of PSCAP Expenditures The Government of Ethiopia’s Chart of Accounts will be utilized to plan, budget, and report on PSCAP expenditures. Specifically, Cabinet will proclaim PSCAP annually in the GOE budget as a program under the MCB, which is designated as a public body. Allocations to the 6 eligible federal institutions and the 11 regions will be proclaimed under PSCAP subject to mid-year reallocations based on performance. 4.2.1 Coding and Classification of the Federal Component PSCAP budget coding and classification for the federal level allocation will be structured as follows: (a) Public Body codes will be designated as “Ministry of Capacity Building”; (b) Program code will be designated as “Public Sector Capacity Building”; (c) Sub-Agency codes will only be designated for the CSRP, DLDP and JSRP as “Planning and Programming Directorate; (d) Subprogram codes will be designated as Ministry of Revenue; Ministry of Federal Affairs; Ministry of Finance and Economic Development; Information, Communication Technology Development Authority and Federal Supreme Court; and (e) Project code will be
- 21 designated for each subprogram (i.e. Urban Management and Reform Project, Tax Systems Reform Project, Information & Communications Technology Reform Project, Civil Service Reform Project, District Level Decentralization Reform Project, Justice Systems Reform Project, and Program Support Project). 4.2.2 Coding and Classification of the Regional Component PSCAP budget coding and classification for the regional level allocation will be structured as follows: (a) Public Body code will be designated as “Ministry of Capacity Building”; (b) Program code will be designated as “Public Sector Capacity Building”; (c) Sub-Agency code will be designated; (d) Subprogram code will designated for each region (i.e. Tigray Public Sector Capacity Building, Afar Public Sector Capacity Building, Amhara Public Sector Capacity Building, etc.); and (e) Project Code will be designated for each regional subprogram (i.e. Civil Service Reform Project, Justice System Reform Project, Tax Systems Reform Project, Urban Management Reform Project, Information & Communications Technology Reform Project, District Level Decentralization Reform Project, and Program Support Project). 4.3 Rules of Access (Eligibility Criteria) PSCAP is envisaged as a nation-wide program, designed to help remedy the severe public sector capacity constraints at the federal, regional, and local levels. To ensure the consistency of PSCAP activities undertaken by a wide array of beneficiaries with national policies and priorities, the Government has established clear rules of access. These access rules or eligibility criteria are detailed below and should be met by federal executing institutions as well as regions before their annual implementation plans can be considered for financing under the Program:
§ § § § §
submission of signed “Participation and Performance Agreement” by the relevant minister responsible for federal subprogram or relevant cabinet member for region (sample participation and performance agreements are included in Volu me 2 of this PIP); Establishment of appropriate governance and implementation arrangements; completion of relevant capacity assessments across all participating sectors and levels of participating institutions, especially in the case of woreda and municipa l strengthening; timely submission of endorsed costed medium-term rolling plans, as well as technically sound, feasible annual implementation/procurement plans in line with financial calendar; explicit provision for evaluation of annual performance including dissemination to the public of such evaluations, satisfaction score cards, etc, as part of the consultative planning process.
4.4 Incorporation of Inputs from Various Nation-Wide Reviews As key inputs to the PSCAP planning, budgeting, and execution process, several review processes should be underway at the close of any given fiscal year. Specifically, the Government is responsible for consolidation of PSCAP outturn data (based on Statements of Expenditures) for the previous year by subprogram and region. These data are compiled in the form of a consolidated physical and financial report by the Planning and Programming Directorate and submitted as an input to the Joint Annual Performance Review Mission (ARM) no later than September 30. The ARM for PSCAP is held not later than October 1 each year and its findings—widely distributed—should serve as inputs to the SDPRP Annual Progress Report (to be issued in late October each year) as well as the annual multi-year planning exercise for PSCAP (see below).
- 22 -
4.5 Fiscal Framework: Projecting and Dividing PSCAP Resources Over the Medium Term Each year, during the Government’s multi-year planning exercise, the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (MOFED)—in close consultation with the Ministry of Capacity Building (MCB)—will ensure the medium-term projections of available PSCAP resources from external and Government resources—estimated in Year 0, February 2004, to be approximately Birr 3.3 billion over the 5 year planning period—are appropriately reflected in the Macro-Economic and Fiscal Framework (MEFF), which is prepared no later than October 26. Once the overall available pool of resources available over the medium-term has been established, both Ministries will initiate a formal dialogue with Executing Agencies and other relevant PSCAP stakeholders on the vertical and horizontal division of resources and issue revised medium-term indicative planning figures for federal subprogram and regions no later than November 10. Guidelines for the vertical and horizontal split are described below and should provide the basis for joint Government-donor review: 4.5.1 Vertical Division of PSCAP Resources Into Five -Year Drawing Rights During program preparation, an original 80-20 percent vertical division of PSCAP resources (drawn from domestic and donor sources) over five years was effected between regional and federal levels of government respectively. Each year, the actual allocations for federal and regional components of PSCAP should be revised on changes in resource projections. Changes in the proportions between federal and regional allocations (i.e., the 80-20 split) should be undertaken in a transparent manner, in dialogue with federal and regional authorities, no more frequently than once a year, and on the basis of clear criteria such as the previous year’s performance as well as existing multi-year commitments at federal and regional level. 4.5.2 Horizontal Split of the Regional PSCAP Component Into Five-Year Drawing Rights Once the vertical split has been reviewed each year, a horizontal split of the regional component is undertaken on the basis of the established formula for the federal-regional subsidy as well as re-pooled drawing rights which high performers could draw down. The formula consists of three factors—the region’s population, its level of development gap, and its previous years’ own revenue performance—weighted at 65%, 25%, and 10% respectively. During program preparation, the above-mentioned formula was applied and five-year drawing rights were assigned to each region. In future years, the formula will be reviewed and revised as necessary and any changes or modifications will be made on the basis of extensive consultations, and widely publicized to all regions and related beneficiaries. 4.6 Rolling Medium-Term Planning for PSCAP 4.6.1 Planning PSCAP Activities As Part of Ethiopia’s Public Investment Program As one of the Federal Government’s major capital spending initiatives, PSCAP is reflected within the Government’s Public Investment Program. PSCAP planning is therefore integrated and aligned with the Public Investment Program preparation timetable, as laid out in the financial calendar. Accordingly, following the issuance of revised indicative medium-term planning figures, federal EAs and regions (under the guidance of their Regional Technical Teams)
- 23 undertake and submit to the PSCAP Federal PPD their revised and appropriately costed rolling five-year PSCAP Action Plans no later than December 25. As noted in the eligibility criteria, the revisions of these plans should be undertaken in a participatory manner involving consultations with various regional and local stakeholders. Furthermore, revised PSCAP Action Plans should reflect the public sector capacity building priorit ies identified in woreda and municipal development plans. A sample of these local level development plans should be submitted to RTTs and the FTT as a basis for verifying, over time, that national capacity building priorities are being systematically fitted to local priorities. 4.6.2 Annualizing Multiyear Drawing Rights to Arrive at the Annual Fiscal Plan Revised PSCAP Action Plans should also include proposals from EAs, especially regions, on how they intend to annualize five-year drawing rights (or remaining drawing rights in subsequent years of program implementation). Annualization of drawing rights in any given year shall clearly defined rules to ensure that utilization of PSCAP resources follows overall projected disbursement rates over the five-year life of the Program. These are as follows:
§
§ §
the overall annual disbursement profile (as percentage of commitments) agreed with the largest donor (in this case, IDA) in any given year shall serve a standard minimum percentage that each region applies to its remaining drawing rights to arrive at an annual proposed budget for that year (For example, in year 1, IDA’s first year disbursement profile of approximately 10% will be the minimum percentage that each region can propose for utilization of its five-year drawing right in year 1. The proposed budget for any participating region can therefore be no less than 10% of its five-year formula -driven resource envelope for PSCAP); regions may propose to utilize more than the minimum standard percentage of their drawing rights in any given year, but should do so after considering the capacity required to execute the Program and utilize allocate resources at an accelerated pace; the proposed annual utilization rate for a region’s drawing rights shall provide the basis for the region’s annual disbursement profile, its cash flow projection, and therefore, the benchmark against which mid-year and annual reallocation procedures will be applied.
4.6.3 Arriving at the Annual Fiscal Plan The Federal Technical Team (FTT), MCB, and MOFED review and finalize revised mediumterm consolidated PSCAP Action Plans (by federal and regional components) no later than February 8. As part of this exercise, on the recommendation of the FTT, both ministries finalize the Annual Fiscal Plan for PSCAP part of the Government’s overall fiscal plan) no later than January 24. 4.7 Budgeting Process 4.7.1 Submitting Annual Budgets with Implementation Plans Based on the Annual Fiscal Plan (i.e., the annualized drawing rights), federal EAs will prepare their PSCAP budgets along with annual procurement plans no later than March 1. These are submitted to the FTT via the Planning and Programming Directorate (PPD) for appraisal and review. Similarly, regions submit their annual budgets with imple mentation plans (i.e.,
- 24 elaborated procurement plans) to the Federal PPD no later than February 22 so that their Regional Technical Teams can pre-appraise, review, endorse, and submit their plans to the FTT no later than March 1. Regional Technical Teams, under the guidance of respective BCBs, are expected to have prepared their matching budgets for PSCAP activities (for example, for civil works and O&M) at the same time. 4.7.2 Appraising Annual Implementation Plans The FTT then reviews and appraises annual implementation plans under the federal and regional components against the following appraisal criteria established within and across subprograms:
§ § §
§
§ §
relevance of planned activities given existing assessments is established, as well as provisions for additional assessment where required are included; inclusion of the “minimum mandatory” capacity building—especially with regard to financial management, procurement, and related program support activities—is established as a necessary precursor to any more advanced activities; demonstration that civil works required to house any goods (e.g. especially ICT) are in place, and that budgetary provisions have been made for additional upfront civil works and ongoing recurrent as well as operations and maintenance requirements of goods procurement; evidence that annual plans are based on consultation with key stakeholders including local governments, regional bureaus, communities, and other stake holders, and that this consultative planning process becomes increasingly “bottom up” in each successive year as evidenced by steadily increasing numbers of woreda and municipal action plans, formal public consultations, participation of reference and focus groups in the planning process; sector-specific criteria such as sequencing, the previous year’s performance, and the submission of relevant TORs; and explicit focus on issues related to gender and HIV/AIDS mitigation.
The FTT, through the PPD, shall provide comments and suggest revisions in federal and regional plans as a basis for finalizing annual implementation and procurement plans. Once revised, the plans should be submitted to IDA for no objection no later than March 15. The FTT finalizes these plans for the federal and regional components no later than March 22 for review by the State Minister and Minister of Capacity Building. Any proposed adjustments to the final FTT recommendations will be communicated to members of the donor community through the regular joint review mechanisms. 4.7.3 Submitting the Overall PSCAP Annual Budget and Implementation Plan to Cabinet The Minister of Capacity Building will submit PSCAP’s annual plan for the Year Y+1 along with the overall budget to the Council of Ministers no later than May 22. Matching requirements in regional budgets (for civil works and recurrent costs) will be submitted to regional cabinets at the same time. The Cabinets should recommend the federal and regional budgets inclusive of PSCAP budgets no later than June 2. Approval and adoption by federal and regional legislatures will be undertaken roughly between June 8 and July 2, in anticipation of the coming fiscal year.
- 25 -
4.8 Execution Once proclaimed and allocated, execution of PSCAP budgets begin at the start of the FY on July 8. Following an initial release to cover implementation-financing requirements for up to the first quarter, funds are released to federal and regional EAs for monthly reimbursement against consolidated SOEs. Detailed procedures for submission of replenishment requests are provided in the following section. 4.9 Reallocation The performance oriented features of this federal specific program are enshrined in its unique reallocation procedures that will be apply to under-utilized five year drawing rights 4.9.1 Reallocation Across Year: Applied Five -Year Drawing Rights At the end of each year, up to 50% of the five-year drawing rights of individual regions will be subject annual reallocation from poor performers to high performers. Reallocation recommendations by the PSCAP Federal Technical Team will comply with the following rules and be clearly communicated to all stakeholders:
§ § §
§
a cut-off point of fund utilization (as evidenced by SOE replenishment requests), 75% in both cases, will be established. Regions performing above this cut-off point are not subject to reallocation. a minimum entitlement equivalent to 25% of the approved annual plan in any given year will be established for all regions to ensure that under-performers continue to have incentives and resources to establish a the minimum statutory level of capacity. at end-year, poor performers or those with 25% or less of fund utilization (as evidenced by SOE replenishment requests) will have 50% of their remaining five-year drawing rights re-pooled and reallocated to high performers purely on the basis of performance ranking; reallocation decisions shall be published and communicated to all stakeholders in a transparent manner and shall be reflected as adjustments to overall five-year drawing rights.
Annual reallocation decisions will be effected in the content with the planning and annual budgeting cycles described above and will therefore comply with the timetables and other relevant procedures appertaining thereto.
- 26 -
Box 4.1: Measuring Execution In-Year and Across Years for the Purposes of Reallocation Over the course of program preparation, a broad range of measures was developed to track financial and physical performance and their proximate impact of on institutional quality outcomes. An M&E framework was developed based on these discussions and is presented in Section 7. For the purposes of reallocation in-year and across years, however, Ethiopia’s own experience with Sector Development Programs and that of other countries implementing large-scale intergovernmental transfer programs suggests that PSCAP requires an easily understood measure of execution for the purposes of making objective reallocation decisions within and across fiscal years. The Government therefore plans to use replenishment requests for Statements of Expenditures (SOEs) by Executing Agencies at the federal and regional level is the simplest indicator of fund utilization against planned expenditures, and providing summary information on actual implementation activity (for example, specific types of training, completion of consultancies, purchase of goods). It is important to note that this measure cannot replace a full-fledged financial and physical monitoring system. Nor can it replace much more in-depth supervision and evaluation of activities, outputs, and outcomes. The mechanisms for M&E more broadly are discussed in Section 7.
4.9.2 Reallocation In-Year: Applied to Annualized Drawing Rights PSCAP also envisages mid-year reallocation of annualized drawing rights, i.e., a re-appropriation between regions within a federal budget line. Key performance criteria used as a basis for these in-year adjustments are SOE submissions and activity-based progress reports. Accordingly, federal executing institutions and regions submit their consolidated reports on year-to-date SOE submissions and activity-based performance, as well as projected budget utilization through the end of year Y to the Federal Technical Team (FTT) no later than January 22. The FTT will recommend in-year reallocations across regions on the basis of the following rules (similar to those applicable for annual reallocation), which are to be clearly reiterated to all regions and federal institutions at the start of each year:
§ § § § §
a cut-off point of fund utilization (as evidenced by SOE replenishment requests), 75% of projected a given year’s cash flows in both cases, will be established. Regions performing above this cut-off point are not subject to reallocation; a minimum entitlement equivalent to 25% of the approved annual plan in any given year will be established for all regions to ensure that under-performers continue to have incentives and resources to establish basic levels of capacity; at mid-year, poor performers or those with 25% or less of fund utilization (as evidenced by SOE replenishment requests) will have 50% of their remaining annualized drawing rights re-pooled and reallocated to high performers; in-year reallocations will be reflected in readjustments to the annual and five-year envelopes; access rules for high performers seeking to draw down on re-pooled drawing rights are the submission of revised plans (with revised projections for utilization through endyear), compliance with financial and physical reporting requirements, and satisfactory achievement of the in-year cut-off point.
- 27 The FTT will hold discussions with regions on its review and recommendations for in-year reallocation between regions within annualized budgets no later than February 8. Following these discussions, the reallocation proposal will be submitted for no objection by IDA on February 15, and then MCB and MOFED issue in-year reallocations between regions and federal institutions no later than February 22. 4.10 The Supplemental Budget and High Performers In the case in-year reallocations prove insufficient for high performers, MCB may seek to draw down on future years’ annualized drawing rights or allocations. In such cases, high performers should demonstrate nearly full (over 85%) utilization of annual drawing rights and realistic projections for utilization that exceed available resources from in-year reallocation. Once reviewed by the Federal Technical Team, the proposed use of future annualized drawing rights (financed in part of fully through IDA support) through the Government’s supplemental budget mechanism should be submitted to IDA for no objection. Following IDA’s no objection and finalization by the MCB, allocations within the supplemental budget for high performers will be finalized and communicated to the EAs in question as well as all other stakeholders involved in PSCAP.
Table 4.1: PSCAP’s Alignment with the Financial Calendar—the Planning, Budgeting, and Execution Cycle Dates
Cycle/Stage
Government Actions
Consolidation of budget and outturns
1. Consolidation of PSCAP outturn data by subprogram and region for Year Y-1 2. Preparation of consolidated report on physical and financial performance as input to Joint Annual Performance Review Mission no later than 30 Sept
Multi-Donor Actions
I. PLANNING July 8- Sept 30
Oct 1 Oct 30
July 8- Nov 10
Nov 11 – Feb 8
Joint Annual Review Mission SDPRP Annual Progress Report
Multi-year planning including findings of annual performance reviews for PSCAP
Public Investment Program preparation, inclusive of PSCAP
Findings submitted for multi-year planning and SDPRP Annual Progress Report no later than 1Nov 1. APR published and widely distributed including inputs from Annual Performance Review Mission on PSCAP 1. Joint Annual Performance Review Mission findings and data collection on PSCAP indicators no later than Sept 30 2. Preparation and approval of MEFF inclusive of available PSCAP resources for Y+1, Y+2, Y+3, etc. no later than 26 Oct 3. Regional and Federal dialogue on vertical and horizontal division of PSCAP resources including Federal Technical Team’s recommendation on reallocation of five-year drawing rights, and issuance of revised medium-term indicative planning figures for federal subprograms and regions no later that Nov 10 1. Federal executing institutions and regions undertake and submit revisions of rolling five-year plans within revised medium-term envelopes no later than Dec 25 2. Federal Technical Teams, MCB, and MOFED review and finalize revised medium-term plans no later than Feb 8 3. Annual Fiscal Plan for PSCAP (as part of overall fiscal plan) finalized by MOFED and MCB no later than Jan 24
Participate in ARM for PSCAP
1. Federal executing institutions submit their PSCAP budgets including preparation of first year procurement plan within annualized drawing rights no later than Mar 1 2. Regional Technical Teams review, finalize, and endorse annual budget submissions to Federal Technical Team no later than Mar 1 3. Federal Technical Team reviews, finalizes, and recommends overall annual budget for PSCAP no later than Mar 22
Review and no objection by IDA on annual procurement plan(s)
Review and verify methodology for vertical and horizontal split
Review of annual fiscal plan for PSCAP with other Direct Budget Support Donors
III. BUDGETING A. Budget Preparation
Feb 8- Mar 22
Submission of PSCAP annual budget requests
Dates
Cycle/Stage
Government Actions
Mar 23-May 22
Preparation of Recommended Federal Budget and Matching Regional Budgets
May 23 – Jun 2
Budget Recommendation
1. Overall budget recommendation to Council of Ministers inclusive of PSCAP is made at the federal level 2. Matching requirements in regional budgets (i.e., for civil works and ongoing recurrent expenditure implications of PSCAP) recommended to cabinets 1. Council of Ministers reviews recommended budget inclusive of PSCAP and approves no later than Jun 2 2. Regional cabinets review and recommend matching budget requirements for PSCAP and approves no later than Jun 2
Multi-Donor Actions
B. Legislative Adoption and Appropriations 1. Approval by Federal and Regional legislatures of recommended budget inclusive of PSCAP
Jun 8 – Jul 2
C. Budget Implementation and Mid-year Reallocation of PSCAP funds 1. Notification of proclaimed federal and regional budgets
Jul 8 – Jul 14 Jul 8 – Aug 15 Jul 8 – Jul 6 Mid-year reallocation process for PSCAP
Jan 8 – Feb 8
1. Allocation of proclaimed federal and regional budgets 1. Execution of proclaimed budget 1. Federal executing institutions and Regional Technical Teams submit consolidated report on in-year SOE and activity-based performance and projected utilization through end of year Y to Federal Technical Team no later than Jan 15 2. Federal Technical Team dialogues with regions on its review and recommendations for in-year reallocation between regions within annualized budgets for year Y no later than Feb 8 3. MCB and MOFED finalize and issue in-year reallocation between regions and federal executing institutions no later than Feb 22 4. Proposals for use of supplemental budget by high performers should be submitted to IDA for no objection, and finalized by MCB in line with relevant financial management regulations
Review and no objection by IDA of in-year reallocation proposals
- 30 -
Section 5. Financial Management The financial management section provides an overall guidance for the financial management and disbursement. Detailed instructions for all aspects of the financial management including commitments, disbursements and all other financial transactions such as funds transfers and advances, asset management, accounting, internal controls and auditing are provided in the more detailed Financial Reporting Guidelines, attached as Annex 1. 5.1 Roles and Responsibilities for Financial Management The overall coordinator of the program at national level is the Ministry of Capacity Development (MCB). The Bureaux of Capacity Building in regions are the coordinators of the program in their respective regions. The Ministry of Finance & Economic Development (MoFED) is responsible for the overall financial management aspect of the program. It opens accounts for the program, receives funds from the donors, release funds to beneficiaries, collect reports from the beneficiaries and consolidate and report on the use of funds to donors, government and other stakeholders. At regional level, Bureaus of Finance & Economic Development (BOFEDs) perform the same activity. Table 5.1: Delegation of M ajor Responsibilities Activity The agreed proportion of the government’s budget for PSCAP is transferred to the Pooled Birr Account. FOREX accounts for the IDA and other donor contributions are opened at the National Bank of Ethiopia Withdrawal application for the initial deposit to the FOREX accounts is prepared Actual contributions from IDA and Donors are received Agreed proportion of donors’ contributions are transferred to the Pooled Birr Account Project Accounts are opened
Agreed proportions from the Pooled Birr Account are transferred to various project accounts at federal and regional level Closing of Accounts
Responsible Body MOFED based on instructions by MCB Budget & Directorate
MOFED
MOFED Counterpart Fund Unit (CFU) in consultation with PPD
MOFED will receive in the appropriate Bank accounts on behalf of GOE MOFED CFU will effect in consultation with MCB •
MCB Budget & Finance Directorate for Civil Service Reform, District-Level Decentralization and Justice Reform Subprograms • Information & Communication Technology Development Authority (ICTDA) PMU for the Information & Communications Technology Reform (ICTR) subprogram • MOFED for the Expenditure Management and Control Coordinating Office • Ministry of Revenue Tax Systems Reform Program Office for the Tax Systems Reform subprogram • Ministry of Federal Affairs UDCB Office for the Urban Development Capacity Building subprogram • Federal Supreme Court for the Court Reform • Bureaus of Capacity Building (BCBs) in each region MOFED CFU upon instructions by PPD
MOFED Central Accounts
- 31 -
5.2 Accounting Policies and Procedures PSCAP financial management will be aligned with the general principles of the Sector-Wide Approach whereby the program will align resource allocation, planning, budgeting, and execution practices and procedures with those established under Ethiopia’s public financial management regulations. The federal and regional institutions participating in the Program shall use Government’s Chart of Accounts for financial reporting with few additio nal codes described in the Financial Reporting Guidelines; comply the financial calendar for issuance of resource ceilings, prepare rolling medium-term and annual plans in line with established government procedures, disburse funds on a reimbursable basis against SOE submissions, and finally, submit financial and physical progress reports. The Financial Reporting Guidelines provide detailed instruction on the accounting policies and procedures, Chart of Accounts, financial reporting and auditing arrangements. 5.3 Funding Mechanisms PSCAP resources will flow to federal and regional beneficiaries through Channel 1 method as a single flow specific purpose grant through MOFED. Under the Channel 1 procedure, each beneficiary controls the release of funds and reports upward on their utilization. The same principles apply to both recurrent and capital budgets. Pooling of resources has been agreed as the main modality for PSCAP. However, the funds from IDA have been allocated in two ways: (a) Pooled Category: and (b) Non-Pooled Category. The latter has been setup in order to allow the government to use IDA funds immediately even prior to the finalization of the agreements with other Donors on Pooling. 5.3.1 Non-Pooled Resources The IDA non-pooled category will be disbursed on the basis the traditional disbursement method for disbursing IDA funds, that is, based on Special Account, SOE procedures and direct payment procedures. To ensure that parallel and differing SOE and disbursement procedures are not introduced under the Program, the government and the Bank will ensure that disbursement from the Non-Pooled Funds category will cease, and remaining funds reallocated to the Pooled Funds category once utilization of the pooling arrangements is initiated. 5.3.2 Pooled Resources As a basis for disbursing IDA funds from the Pooled Funds category, the government, the World Bank, and relevant pooled donors (or cooperating partners) will need to (i) execute an MOU as well as annual Side Agreements governing the proportion of expenditures to be replenished by respective cooperating partners, and (ii) SOE format with sufficient detail indicated in the Financial Guideline will be used to replenish the Special Account for pooled fund. Accordingly, for each donor, including IDA, MOFED will open a Special Account (SA) in US Dollars at the National Bank of Ethiopia. In addition, MOFED will open one Birr account—the “pooled account”—for which money from the SAs and the government contribution will be deposited. The Birr account will serve as a consolidated fund for all donors and the government. MOFED will be responsible for the day-to-day management of the SAs and the pooled Birr account. Funds will be moved from the Foreign Exchange Special Accounts in the National Bank of Ethiopia to the Pooled PSCAP Account, and forwarded to the beneficiaries, based on the approved budget and agreed disbursement plan. Thus, released funds of one donor can be
- 32 replenished from another donor on the basis of claims made. Although donor funds will be allowed to be kept in SAs in foreign currency, they will be transferred into Birr as soon as they are to be used and sent to the regions to cover anticipated expenditures. Part of the donor funds, however, will be kept in foreign exchange to be disbursed at the request of MCB and the regional capacity building bureaus through their regional finance bureaus. These funds will be drawn from the particular region’s allocation and be used to cover the costs of imported goods. 5.3.3 Initial Advance and Replenishment of Forex Accounts from Donors to MoFED In the case of IDA funds, the initial advance to the FOREX Account (Special Account) will be based on a proportion of the estimated expenditures shown in the Annual Work Plan and Budget. Subsequent replenishments to the FOREX Account will be made on the basis of Statement of Expenditures (SOEs) that will be compiled, consolidated and submitted by the CFU to the donors. 5.3.4 Funds Flow from MOFED to Beneficiaries The starting point for the funds flow process is the final approval of the detailed annual plans and budget for the fiscal year around June of each year (the planning and budgeting cycle is explained in the previous section). The approved annual plans with the corresponding budget envelopes will be circulated to all concerned. At the regional level, the consolidated plan and budget will be monitored by the Regional Bureaus of Capacity Building (BCBs) while the consolidated plan and budget at the Federal level will be monitored by the Planning and Programming Directorate (PPD). The latter will continuously coordinate and guide the BCBs in monitoring these budgets. Bureaus of Finance and Economic Development (BoFEDs) will receive funds based on the annual program and budget provided by MOFED in the same way as they currently receive budgets for salaries. MOFED will disburse funds through BoFEDs. At the Federal Level, relevant federal executing agencies (i.e. MOFED, MCB, ICTDA, MFA, MOR and Federal Supreme Court) will also receive funds directly from MOFED. The initial amount that will be released to the relevant institutions by MOFED will be equivalent to the first quarter’s requirements as indicated in the approved PSCAP annual action plan. Funds will be moved from the Pooled Birr Account and forwarded to the executing agencies at the federal level and BOFEDs who will effect the payments based on the approved budget and agreed procurement plan. Subsequent replenishments will be released monthly by MOFED to implementing agencies after the submission by the latter of a Disbursement Request approved and cleared by MCB accompanied by the monthly reports according to the format presented in the Financial Reporting Guidelines. 5.4 Financial Performance Assessment. A Financial Performance Assessment (FPA) should be conducted in May/June and November/December each year. The FPA can be part of the semi-annual review process. The FPA will be used to: (a) determine whether there is continuing sufficient accounting capacity across federal and regional beneficiaries; (b) verify expenditures using relevant supporting documentation; (c) conduct physical inspection of investments; (d) review the status of audits; (e) review cash-flow forecasts; (f) review reports of transfers of funds from PSCAP; and (g) assess compliance by with program objectives.
- 33 -
5.5 Auditing The Office of the Auditor General (OFAG) is the independent External Auditor for all program expenditures from donors and Government budgets – national and regional. The scope of the audit by OFAG will be based on the sample TOR attached to Volume 2 of PIP. Audits are conducted at the end of every fiscal year of program activity and will cover all PSCAP expenditures including those from federal and regional budgets, those provided in the form of commodities and personnel, and Figure 5.1: Funds Flow and Reporting Arrangements under PSCAP IDA Credit Account Washington, DC
Government of Ethiopia Contribution
IDA Special Account in USD USD aatt N B E E (MOFED D))
One One Special Special Account Account in in USD USD for for each each other other pooling pooling donor donor aatt N B E E (MOFED D))
Reporting on expenditures
PPSSCCAAPP Pooled PooledLocal Local Currency Currency Account Account aat tNNBBEE/ C / CBB( M ( MOOFFEEDD) )
Local Local Currency Currency Accounts Accounts (Regional (Regional B BO OF E D s) s)
Local Local Current Current Accounts Accounts (Lead (Lead federal federal institutions) institutions)
Flow of funds
those passing through sector ministries. The financial year of PSCAP is that of the Government, from July 8 to July 7. The accounts are closed on the last day of the financial year, Sene 30 (July 7) of every calendar year. 5.6 Internal Controls At all levels, wherever expenditures are made or committed, there needs to be put in placer an effective internal control system. An audit can identify problems after they have occurred, while an internal control system prevents the problems from occurring in the first place. The general principles for effective internal control mechanisms are as follows: First, the control environment consists of the actions, policies and procedures that reflect the overall attitude and awareness of the senior management regarding the importance of control. The control environment includes: (a) the organizational structure of project management; (b) methods of assigning authority and responsibility; (c) management supervision and methods for monitoring performance; (d) the internal audit function; (e) personnel policies and practices; and (f) external influences, such as regulatory bodies. Second, it is important to ensure that the Program is run with financial efficiency and integrity. These steps constitute the internal controls for the project and will comprise of policies and procedures
- 34 adopted by management to assist it in achieving its objectives of ensuring, as far as possible, the orderly and efficient conduct of its operations, including: (a) adherence to management policies, laws and regulations; (b) safeguarding of assets; (c) prevention and detection of fraud and error; (d) promoting orderly, economic, efficient and effective operations; (e) accuracy/completeness of records; and (f) timely preparation of financial information. Third, systems of internal control for the Program should ensure that: (a) every transaction that should have been entered into the accounting system is recorded; (b) no unauthorized transactions are recorded; (c) those transactions that are entered are analyzed and posted correctly; (d) source programs, which control the operation of the accounting system (original entry and subsequent analysis and postings), cannot be tampered with; (e) unauthorized access is denied; (f) assets of the entity are neither misappropriated nor used in an uneconomical or inefficient fashion; (g) management policies (in budgets, long-range forecasts, etc.) are complied with; (h) deviations from plans are noted, investigated and timely responses made; (i) financial information is communicated in the most effective way so that those entitled to it may maximize their use of it; and (j) the financial statements show a true and fair view.
- 35 -
Section 6. Procurement Management This section lays out the roles and responsibilities at the federal and regional levels, as well as the various policies and regulations governing procurement management under the Program. Detailed instructions on the policies and procedures governing procurement, particularly those related to IDA rules, are provided in Annex 2 of Volume I of the PIP. 6.1 Procurement Management & Operations 6.1.1 Federal Level Procurement Management Responsibilities Ministry of Capacity Building. Budget and Finance Directorate will be responsible for the overall procurement monitoring and international procurement of goods under the program. In addition, the Directorate will provide procurement support to the three federal level sub-programs housed in MCB, namely the civil service reform (CSRP), justice system reform (JSRP) and district level decentralization (DLDP). It will work closely with CSRP, DLDP and JSRP Offices in finalizing the TORs and specifications, technical evaluation and drafting of contracts. Two (2) local procurement specialists and one (1) international procurement adviser will support the Department. The BFD shall:
§ § § § §
§
coordinate and monitor procurement implementation across the federal and regional levels; facilitate procurement training for implementing agencies through the international procurement specialist housed in MCB; provide regions and federal implementing units with standard procurement specifications of goods, consultants and sample generic TORs; carry out international procurement of goods (all ICB contracts will be financed by IDA) through appropriate bodies and/or contracting the procurement to private agencies; act as the procurement unit for the CSRP, DLDP and JSRP subprograms from preparation of bidding documents and RFPs, until award of contract. The contracts for procurement of goods would be signed by MCB. The contracts for the selection of consultants may be signed by MCB or the respective program directors as required; and consolidate procurement reports for PSCAP.
The MCB will also organize a Tender Evaluation Committee that will comprise a procurement specialist and designated representatives of the subprogram for the procurement is being made. If MCB requires expertise to carry out the evaluation, it could hire an independent consultant to assist the evaluation committee. Federal Executing Agencies. Federal Executing Agencies (EAs) that will be involved in undertaking procurement for PSCAP include: (a) Ministry of Federal Affairs; (b) Ministry of Finance and Economic Development; (c) Information and Communication Technology Development Authority; (d) Urban Development Capacity Building Office; (e) Ministry of Revenue; and (f) Federal Supreme Court. These EAs will be involved in undertaking procurement of local goods and all consultancy services and shall:
§ § § §
carry out procurement tasks in an effective manner using the most economic and efficient methods and in accordance with the guidelines described in this PIP; contract out management and supervision responsibilities to procurement consultants, if needed prepare timely procurement reports for submission to MCB work closely with relevant bureaus, offices and agencies on all procurement matters.
- 36 The Federal EAs will also organize Tender Evaluation Committees, which should include a procurement specialist. If any EA requires expertise to carry out the evaluation, it could hire an independent consultant to assist the Evaluation Committee. 6.1.2 Procurement Management Responsibilities at the Regional Level Bureaus of Capacity Building. Procurement Desks housed in BCBs will be responsible for procurement management at the regional level except for international procurement of goods. Budget and Finance Directorate of MCB will handle the latter. Two (2) local procurement specialists will support the Desk. The procurement desk will:
§
§ § § §
Act as the procurement unit for executing sector bureaus from preparation of bidding documents and RFPs, until award of contract. The contracts for procurement of goods would be signed by BCB. The contracts for the selection of consultants may be signed by BCB or the respective executing sector bureaus as required. The executing sector bureaus would actively participate in the preparation of Specifications and Terms of References and technical evaluation of bids and proposal; Carry out its procurement tasks in an effective manner using the most economic and efficient methods and in accordance with the guidelines described in this PIP; Contract out management and supervision responsibilities to procurement consultants, if needed Prepare timely procurement reports for submission to MCB Work closely with relevant bureaus, offices and agencies on all procurement matters.
BCBs will also organize Tender Evaluation Committees that should consist of no more than five individuals. These should include a procurement specialist and designated representatives of bureaus for which the procurement is being made (for example, the Bureau of Urban Development for UMCBP activities). If BCB requires expertise to carry out the evaluation, it could hire an independent consultant to assist the evaluation committee. 6.1.3 Specific Procurement Tasks and Responsibilities The procurement responsibilities for PSCAP are summarized in Table 6.1. However, all internatio nal procurement will be handled by MCB’s Budget and Finance Directorate. 6.2 Procurement Policies PSCAP funds will not be utilized for procurement of works. The Government is planning to develop new standard bidding documents for the procurement of goods, works and services. In the meantime, procurement for PSCAP will be guided by World Bank guidelines. For goods procurement will be in accordance with the Guidelines: Procurement under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits of January 1995, last revised in January 1999. Bank Standard Bidding Documents for Goods, the Standard Pre-Qualification Document (if Applicable) and the Standard Evaluation Forms shall be used. Consultants will be selected in accordance with the Guidelines: Selection and Employment of Consultants by World Bank Borrower of January 1997 lastly revised in May 2002. IDA’s Standard Request for Proposals (SRFP), the Forms of Contracts as needed (lump Sum, time based and or simplified contracts for short-term assignments and individual consultants) as well as the Sample Form of Evaluation Report for Selection of Consultants shall be used for all consulting assignments. These standard formats will be provided separately by MCB.
- 37 -
Table 6.1: Responsibilities For Effective Management of the Procurement Cycle Steps in the Procurement Cycle
Responsible Body
PROCUREMENT PLANNING Preparation of procurement plans
•
Consolidation and review of procurement plans
• • • • • • • •
Civil Service Reform, District-Level Decentralization and Justice Reform Subprogram Offices for corresponding subprograms ICT Development Authority (ICTDA) PMU for ICT MOFED’s Expenditure Management and Control Coordinating Office for EMC aspects of CSRP Ministry of Revenue’s Tax System Reform Office Ministry of Federal Affairs’ UDCBO Federal Supreme Court for court reform aspects of JSRP Executing Agencies (including beneficiary agencies) and consolidated by BCBs for all regions MFA’s Rural and Pastoral Development Directorates, on request from emerging regions MCB’s Budget & Finance Directorate
PROCUREMENT IMPLEMENTATION OF GOODS Preparation of Specifications
• • • • • • •
Civil Service Reform, District-Level Decentralization and Justice Reform Subprogram Directors ICTDA-PMU MOFED Expenditure Management and Control Coordinating Office Ministry of Revenue Tax System Reform Office Ministry of Federal Affairs UDCBO for the Urban Management Capacity Building subprogram Federal Supreme Court Executing Agencies (BOFED and BCBs with beneficiary agencies) for all regions
Preparation of Bid Documents
•
Advertising Public Bid Opening Bid Evaluation Bid Award Contract Management
• • • • • • • • • • •
MCB Finance & Budget Directorate for Civil Service Reform, District-Level Decentralization and Justice Reform Subprogram ICTDA-PMU for ICT subprogram MOFED Expenditure Management and Control Coordinating Office Ministry of Revenue Tax System Reform Office Ministry of1 Federal Affairs UDCBO for the Urban Management Capacity Building subprogram Federal Supreme Court Bureaus of Capacity Building all regions Same as above Same as above Same as above Same as above Same as above
- 38 -
Steps in the Procurement Cycle
Responsible Body
PROCUREMENT IMPLEMENTATION OF CONSULTANTS
Preparation of TORs
Preparation of Requests for Proposals (RFP)
• • • • • • • • •
Advertising Receiving proposals Evaluating proposals
Approval of the Evaluation results
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Civil Service Reform, District-Level Decentralization and Justice Reform Subprogram Directors ICTDA-PMU MOFED’s Expenditure Management and Control Coordinating Office Ministry of Revenue’s Tax System Reform Office Ministry of Federal Affairs’ UDCBO Federal Supreme Court Executing Agencies (including beneficiary institutions) with BCBs and BOFEDs for all regions MCB Finance & Budget Directorate for Civil Service Reform, District-Level Decentralization and Justice Reform Subprogram Information & Communication Technology Development Authority (ICTDA) PMU for the ICT subprogram MOFED Expenditure Management and Control Coordinating Office Ministry of Revenue Tax System Reform Office Ministry of1 Federal Affairs UDCBO for the Urban Management Capacity Building subprogram Federal Supreme Court Bureaus of Capacity Building all regions Same as above Same as above Civil Service Reform, District-Level Decentralization and Justice Reform Subprogram Directors Information & Communication Technology Development Authority (ICTDA) PMU for the ICT subprogram MOFED Expenditure Management and Control Coordinating Office Ministry of Revenue Tax System Reform Office Ministry of Federal Affairs UDCBO for the Urban Management Capacity Building subprogram Federal Supreme Court Executing sector Bureaus for all regions to provide technical inputs only on the technical evaluation MCB Finance & Budget Directorate for Civil Service Reform, District-Level Decentralization and Justice Reform Subprogram ICTDA-PMU for the ICT subprogram MOFED Expenditure Management and Control Coordinating Office Ministry of Revenue Tax System Reform Office Ministry of1 Federal Affairs UDCBO for the Urban Management Capacity Building subprogram Federal Supreme Court Bureaus of Capacity Building all regions
- 39 -
Steps in the Procurement Cycle Contract Negotiation & Management
Responsible Body • • • • • • • •
Civil Service Reform, District-Level Decentralization and Justice Reform Subprogram Offices ICT Development Authority (ICTDA) PMU MOFED’s Expenditure Management and Control Coordinating Office Ministry of Revenue’s Tax System Reform Office Ministry of Federal Affairs’ UDCBO Federal Supreme Court Executing Agencies (including beneficiary agencies) and consolidated by BCBs for all regions MFA’s Rural and Pastoral Development Directorates, on request from emerging regions
- 40 6.3 Procurement Procedures 6.3.1 Procurement Planning (Goods and Services) Procurement implementation can only be carried out with the appropriate procurement plans already well articulated and fully developed. Therefore, a comprehensive procurement plan with appropriate timetables needs to be prepared well in advance and before actual implementation because completion of various activities hinges on the ability of the procurement staff to engage services or deliver goods ahead of time. The procurement plans for procurement of goods and consultant services are attached in Section 4 of the PIP. The detailed procurement plan defines the work to be carried out, provides cost estimates of the proposed activity, lay out a logical sequence of the procurement steps (i.e. preparation of documents, clearances, evaluations, etc.) and identifies the responsible body for the procedural and technical, monitoring and evaluation aspect of the process. An ideal plan should provide the following information:
§ § § § § §
the types of procurement to be carried out (i.e. goods, services, etc.); the methods of procurement to be utilized (i.e. ICB, NCB, shopping, comparison of CVs, etc.) the time required for the entire process taking into account delivery & completion dates; the stakeholders involved in the process; the human skills required when procuring these items; the most economic and efficient way of procuring these items
The procurement plan should be developed on the basis of the approved detailed annual plan and will cover 18 months. The specific procedures and guidelines on procurement processes and steps to help the planning process are laid out in the following paragraphs. 6.3.2 Planning for Training Activities Implementation of training activities is slightly different from the conventional procurement planning process for goods and services. This is due to the manner in which its costs are classified. Training costs should normally be associated with expenses associated with: (a) tuition/registration fees; (b) cost of transport, meals, accommodation and other allowances; (c) rental of facilities; and (d) cost of production of training materials, etc. In cases where bulk training is contracted to a firm or group of consultants and the training requires development and organization of customized training , the fees paid will be classified as consultancy expenditure. In general terms, the methods used for planning training will de pend on the nature of the training activity. A sample training-planning template is attached in Volume II of the PIP. The planning process for training should comply with the following requirements:
§ § § § §
the training activity is included in the annual plan; the proposed timing and duration has been indicated; the beneficiaries have been identified; the objective of the training is specified and linked with the subprogram objectives; and the cost has been properly estimated.
Training itself shall be carried in the following manner:
§ § §
individuals to undergo training acquire certificates, diplomas, etc.; large group of individuals to undergo in-house or external training; stakeholders attending meetings/seminars/workshop/consultations; and
- 41 -
§
individuals and/or groups to undergo local and overseas study tours.
6.3.3 Organization of the Supply Side of Training Under PSCAP In additional to the general provisions noted above, there are specific requirements for PSCAP related to leveraging economies of scale in the packaging training activities at the federal and regional levels, and more systematically organizing the supply of training to ensure efficiency and effectiveness. Based on these considerations, Executing Agencies involved in PSCAP should make full use of local public sector as well as private and autonomous suppliers, and international suppliers in the delivery of training depending on the nature of the activity. The Government has identified three types of training activities—“in house,” “generic” and specialized training activities—and developed corresponding delivery modalities for each. These are discussed below and illustrated in Figure 6.1. Procurement procedures for each type of training delivery modality are detailed as well. There is a critical role to be played by public sector suppliers such as the Civil Service College and Regional Management Institutes in the provision of “in-house” skills development as well as sensitization with Government policies. These types of training initiative can be financed from the program on a unit cost basis, i.e., covering the actual cost of the training sessions rather than the overhead or salaries of personnel in these public institutions. With respect to highly specialized forms of training such as development of skills for the maintenance of IS/IT networks or best practice land management systems, will be financed on the basis of competitive tendering. The appropriate method of selection is QBS (described later in this section). For “generic” training, PSCAP will use two stage approach such as: (a) pre-qualification of public autonomous, private, university, and nonprofit suppliers; and (b) competition using QCBS method. This approach is an ideal way of organizing and increasing supply response to capacity building demands generated under PSCAP. Figure 6. 1 A three-pronged approach to delivering training Specialized
cos t ba sis
Generic
• Pr e -q ual •T ific end atio erin n g on a le ast
Tender
Unit Cost
In-house
These procedures for the above-mentioned approach to organizing the supply of training is provided below. In-house skills development: These are usually related to sensitization workshops on new government policies and implementation procedures. These type of training activities can be handled by public sector training institutions such as the civil service college, and management institutes. The user will identify the in-house training, the institution that will conduct the training, the duration and the cost. These information will be included in the procurement plan for approval by IDA/Donors. In house training will be financed on a unit
- 42 cost basis i.e., covering the actual cost of the training sessio ns. These include workshop venue rental, transportation, refreshment and per-diem for the trainees and other direct costs of the training. Overhead or salaries of personnel in the public institutions providing the training will not be covered by IDA/donors. § consolidate in-house training activities (subject, duration, no. of participants) from the annual implementation plan; § identify the public institution that is best to provide the training and include it in the procurement plan; § notify the institution; § undertake the training; § carry out delivery evaluation from the trainees; § carry out impact assessment of the training at workplace. Specialized Training: These are areas where a highly specialized knowledge is required from the firms that will provide the training such as development of skills for the maintenance of IT networks, best practice land management etc. These type of trainings will be financed on the basis of competitive tendering like any other consultancy firm. The training service will be advertised to get expressions of interest and short-listed firms will be asked to prepare their technical and financial proposals. IDA’s/Donors no objection will be sought for the TOR, RFP and draft contract when the training activity costs US$ 100,000 or more. The following are the key steps to implement specialized training
§ § § § § § § § § § § §
prepare Terms of Reference for the specific specialized training; advertise for the specific specialized training; short-list from the firms expressing interest; send the Request for Proposal to the short-listed firms; evaluate the technical proposal; evaluate the financial proposal; prepare a combined (technical and financial) report; notify the winner; prepare and undertake contract negotiations; carry out the training; carry out delivery evaluation from the trainees; carry out impact assessment of the training at workplace.
Generic Training: “Generic” training covers areas such as strategic management, financial management, leadership development, communication, computers skills, M&E, etc. For these activities, training activities of similar nature will be bulked by each region and at the federal level. Private, non-profit organizations and autonomous public bodies will be prequalified based on clearly defined criteria and the n will be asked to compete on a least cost basis for these bulked contracts. IDA’s no objection will be sought for the pre-qualification and for the specific training that costs US$ 100,000 or more. The following are the key steps to implement “generic” training.
§ § § § § § § § § §
consolidate generic training activities of a similar nature from implementation plans; advertise once a year (see the Expressions of Interest to prequalify); pre-qualify suppliers based on the criteria matrix (see the prequalification matrix); request financial proposal for a specific training from the pre-qualified suppliers; evaluate the financial proposal; notify the winner; undertake contract negotiations; carryout the training; carryout delivery evaluation from the trainees; carry out impact assessment of the training at workplace.
- 43 -
6.3.4 Procurement Announcements General Procurement Notice (GPN). Prior to receipt of funds from the donors, especially the World Bank, a General Procurement Notice (GPN) is required to be published in the United Nations Development Business (UNDB). This is a publication of wide circulation published by the UN to inform the public of development projects across the world. Placement of announcements at the UNDB is free of charge. Typically, the GPN describes the objective of the program, the scope of procurement, and the name and address of the person to be contacted for additional information regarding the announcement. A sample GPN is shown in Section IV of the PIP. It is also advisable to send copies of the GPN to Embassies and trade representatives established in Addis Ababa. MCB is responsible for publishing and updating the GPN yearly. Specific Procurement Notice (SPN). Specific Procurement Notices also need to be published for high value contracts (thresholds are explained later in this section) for solicitation of bids for specific activities. The SPN generally contains the following details:
§ § § § § § § §
name of procurement agency; tender number; detailed description of the items or services being procured; price of the tender/bid document; bid/performance bond as a percent of the bid value; place, final or closing date, and time of bid submission; opening day of the bid; and address details, telephone, fax, email and others.
The Executing Agency responsible for the procurement for which SPN is required is responsible for publishing the SPN. Announcements for Small Value Procurement Packages. For relatively small value items, the announcements can be done through the local newspapers posted at places where potential contractors and suppliers exist. These notices can also be posted at regional and zonal, and even on some woreda notice boards. 6.3.5 Procedures and Methods (Goods) Procurement of goods can be done in any one of the following methods:
§ § §
International Competitive Bidding Procedures (ICB)1; National Competitive Bidding Procedures (NCB); and National or International Shopping Procedures (NIS)
The most economic and efficient way to procure goods is through international competitive bidding (ICB) procedures. ICB procedures require that all prospective bidders be notified through the announcement of the procurement in an international publication of wide circulation (see paragraph above on GPN) for about 4 to 6 weeks. Goods estimated to cost more than USD 150,000 should be procured under ICB procedures using World Bank’s Standard Bidding Documents. However, when the procurement is of relatively lower value (i.e. less than USD 150,000 equivalent), National Competitive Bidding procedures can be used. NCB requires that the announcement must be published in a national publication of wide circulation for not less than 3 weeks. For goods that are available off-the-shelf and/or 1
All ICB procurement will be financed by IDA.
- 44 items of very small value (i.e. less than USD 50,000 equivalent), its procurement can be done through national and international shopping (NIS). NIS is done through comparison of at least three quotations from reputable suppliers in or outside the country. Another method of procuring goods of relatively small value (i.e. not more than USD 100,000) is procurement through UN Agencies (IAPSO or the Inter -Agency Procurement Services Office). Solicitations for national and International shopping will:
§
be issued in writing to at least three reputable suppliers (it may be better to approach five or six suppliers because not all three suppliers may respond, so that at least three competitive quotations are received.); § include specifications, and if goods are not immediately available, the delivery time; § give the estimated cost, including cost of inland transportation and insurance; § be opened at the same time for evaluation (to avoid abuse), and § in the case of International Shopping quotations, be solicited from at least three suppliers in two different countries. 6.3.6 Procedures for Procuring Goods Using ICB or NCB methods Preparation of Bid Documents . The first step in the procurement of goods is the preparation of the bid documents that will include the specification of the goods, contractual conditions and the instructions to bidders. The volume of the bid documents can vary according to the type and size of the contract. The responsible procurement staff must ensure that if standardized documents are not used that the documents are clear and comprehensive and the goods and services to be supplied are described with sufficient details to enable bidders to compete in a very competitive manner. The bid documents include:
§ § § § § § §
instruction to bidders; general conditions of contract; special conditions of contract; technical specifications; forms of bids and bid security/bid bond; forms for performance bond; evaluation criteria and data sheet.
It is essential that the inputs of the appropriate procurement specialist and technical experts be obtained during the preparation of the specifications. Standard bidding documents should be used as much as possible. Bid Notification and Advertising . After the bidding documents are prepared, advertisements should be issued in the appropriate English and Amharic media. The announcements need to be floated within a sufficient period of not less than 3 weeks and up to 6-12 weeks for large procurement of goods especially those will are subject to international competition. National Competitive Bidding (NCB) can be advertised between three to eight weeks. As stated earlier, procurement of large value goods can also be advertised in the United Nations Development Business (UNDB) with the help of the World Bank Country Office in Addis Ababa. Sale of Bid Documents. Costs related to production of bidding documents and placement of advertisements can be recovered through the sale of the bidding documents. A complete set of bidding documents are sold to interested bidders upon submission of a written application and upon payment of a non-refundable fee as specified in the specific procurement notice. Bid Opening Procedure . The most common method used for procurement of goods is the one-envelope system that involves the opening of all the bids all at one. The date and time of the bid opening should always be the same as the one stated in the bid document. The following are the key procedures to be followed:
- 45 -
§ § § § §
bids should be opened in public (i.e. in the presence of bidders or their representatives who choose to attend, and all members of the procurement committee); the bidders or their legal representatives should sign a register to confirm their attendance; the bidders’ names, total amount of bid, modification, bid withdrawals and the presence or absence of the required bid security and such other details, fi the procuring agency finds it necessary, should be announced at the opening; bids received after the closing date and time indicated, and also those not opened and read out at the bid opening shall not be considered for evaluation; and except for bids submitted late, no bids should be rejected before the opening, and a bidder present at the bid opening should not be permitted to discuss any matter relating to any bid.
A tabulation of bids read out should be prepared at the bid opening and be signed by the person who opened and read the bids and any other member of the bid evaluation committee who attend the bid opening. The opened bids, including the envelopes, should remain in a locked box or cabinet, until the evaluation process begins. Bid Evaluation. The evaluation of competitive tenders passes through several stages: 1st Stage - Preliminary Examination. During this stage, a preliminary evaluation of bids is undertaken to verify their overall responsiveness in terms of:
§ § § § § §
Completeness Proper signatures and seals, if necessary Arithmetical correction Compliance to all requirements specified in the bid document Proper provision of bid/performance bonds Adhering to instructions by the bidders
The checking process serves as a preliminary screening me chanism for the subsequent evaluation exercises. Only those bids that meet the criteria specified in the bidding documents will be further evaluated. The reason for rejecting bids in this preliminary examination should be clearly recorded. 2nd Stage - Detailed Evaluation of Bids. This stage is the time when bids will be evaluated based on the price offered and other relevant specifications noted in the bidding document. The bid price read out at the bid opening has been adjusted to correct for any arit hmetical errors at the prices used for the evaluation. Evaluation and comparison of bids could be based on prices of (a) CIF (Cost Insurance and Freight), or (b) CIP (Cost Insurance and Carriage), when multi modular transportation is used. This usually applies to supply of imported goods. EXW (ex-works prices) is used for goods offered from within the country together with the costs for required services such as installation, training and commissioning, where such services are relevant. CIF is normally used for pricing imported goods to be shipped by sea or land transportation. 3rd Stage - Bid Evaluation. The tender/bid evaluation/procurement committee should conduct bid evaluations. The procurement officer should keep a record of the evaluation proceedings and provide the following documents to the committee:
§ §
Copies of bidding documents as issued to bidders, including the information to bidders (IFB); Minutes of the bid opening, signed by the committee members;
- 46 -
§ § §
Tabulation of bids read out, signed by the committee members; Preliminary bid examination and report with reasons for bid rejections; and Protests raised by bidders, if any.
The committee evaluating the bids should consider all complete, valid and substantially responsive bids at the time of preliminary examination. The Committee’s evaluation should at all times comply with the criteria indicated in the bidding document. No new criteria should be introduced during the bid evaluation. Typical evaluation criteria as specified in the technical specifications and should be met include: (a) delivery and installation time; and (b) availability of after sales service and spare parts. All evaluation criteria must be quantifiable and should be assessed on an objective manner. Evaluation should be completed as quickly as possible and the winning bidder should be promptly notified and then awarded the contract. If the winning bidder fails to respond to the award, its bid can be rejected. The committee, then, considers the next lowest evaluated bidder for the contract, and so on. 4th Stage - Post Evaluation Considerations . In the absence of pre qualification, the purchaser will determine to his/her satisfaction whether the bidder selected as having submitted the lowest offer is qualified to satisfactorily perform the contract. This evaluation process will take into account the bidder’s financial, technical and production capabilities. The committee can use information from the bid document and other substantiated information available to it, or it could secure the information from banks or other organizations, as a basis for post evaluation assessment. 5th Stage - Award of Contract. The contract should be awarded to the successful bidder within the period of validity of the bid. The successful bidder should be notified in writing through registered letter, cable, and telex as convenient. At the time of notification, the purchaser will send to the bidder the completed Contract Form incorporating all agreements between the parties. Within 14 days of receipt of the Contract Form for local contracts and 30 days for international contracts, the successful bidder needs to sign and date the contract, and return it to the purchaser. Within 14 days of receipt of notification of award from the purchaser, the successful bidder should furnish a performance security in accordance with the conditions of contract. Following the furnishing of the required bid security by the successful bidder, the purchaser will notify the unsuccessful bidders and will discharge their bid securities. Contract Administration. For goods, inspection is generally difficult especially when it involves procurement of large number of items procured internationally. In these instances, it might be advisable for the purchaser to inspect the goods prior to shipment or it may use a pre-shipment agent. Final acceptance must also be made upon arrival at the place of final destination. Contracts for standardized items, such as office equipment, computers, etc., need to be accompanied by cle ar performance and warranty clauses and an effective system of inspection at arrival. Payment for imported goods is usually made through a letter of credit on shipment, with the balance due upon delivery of the items to the final destination. There is usually a penalty for late delivery. It is therefore, important to have a good system of followup on the performance of each supplier so that penalties can be imposed, if needed. 6.3.7 Procedures for Selection of Consultants A major portion of PSCAP funds will be utilized for the recruitment of consultants. For this purpose, a separate manual has been prepared entitled “Procedures for the Selection of Consultants” that provides information on the detailed steps for selecting/recruiting consultants including the types of contracts to be used. This manual is available upon request
- 47 from MCB. The following paragraphs will, therefore, only deal with the consultant selection methods and standard forms to be used when engaging consultants. The first step in the selection process of consultants is the preparation of Terms of Reference (TOR). Sample TORs are also provided in Volume 2 this PIP. The samples are not exhaustive but are useful as a basis for drawing up the recommended scope and details of an activity. TORs should include the following information:
§ § § § § § § §
Background information about the agency seeking the consultancy service; Objective of the consultancy; Scope/details of the work to be done; Preferred methodology, if there is any; Manner of presenting proposals—financial/technical; Key steps in the consultancy; Indicators for the work to be done; and Time to be allocated to the assignment.
Consultant Selection Methods . Methods to be used for selection of consultants include:
§ § § § §
Quality and Cost Based Selection (QCBS); Quality Based Selection (QBS); Least Cost Selection (LC); Selection Based on Consultants Qualifications (SBCQ) Single Source Selection (SSS);
Individual Consultants. There will also be selection of individual consultants under PSCAP. Suc h selection process is less complex than recruitment of consulting firms. Selection of individual consultants primarily entail using more simplified procedures. The process includes preparation of terms of reference, advertising, short listing, intervie wing, negotiating and awarding the contract. Individual consultants may be selected in accordance with Section V of the World Bank’s Guidelines. Quality and Cost Based Selection (QCBS). QCBS is a method based on the quality of the proposals and the cost of the services to be provided. It is the method that would be frequently used to select consultants under the program and when the:
§ §
scope of work of the assignment can be precisely defined and the TOR is well specified; and the Executing Agency and the consultants can estimate with reasonable precision the staff time as well as the other inputs and costs required of the consultants.
The Request for Proposal (RFP) under QCBS would indicate the expected staff time estimated by the implementing agency to carry out the assignment. However, this estimate would not bind the consultants and they could propose the level of inputs that they consider appropriate. Under QCBS the technical and financial proposals are submitted at the same time in separate sealed envelopes (two-envelope system). Proposals received after the submission deadline would be rejected. Evaluation of proposals is carried out in two stages: first quality, and then cost. The technical envelopes are opened by the Evaluation Committee immediately after the closing time for submission of proposals; the financial proposals will remain sealed until the technical evaluation and the evaluation report are completed, approved by the IDA, and the
- 48 technical scores are disclosed publicly. The financia l envelopes of those consultants who submitted responsive technical proposals meeting the minimum qualifying mark are opened in the presence of the consultants or their representatives. The proposals are then evaluated. Once the financial proposals are eva luated, a combined evaluation of the technical and financial proposals is carried out by weighting and adding the quality and the cost scores. The consultant obtaining the highest combined score is invited for negotiations. Since price is a factor of selection, staff rates and other unit rates will not be negotiated. Since with QCBS, consultants are required to compete on the basis of price besides quality, discussion of the proposed remuneration rates for staff-months and for reimbursable expenses during contract negotiations will not be permitted even if those costs turn out to be above expectations, except for exceptional reasons. As a general rule consultant services will be selected though the Quality and Cost Based Selection (QCBS) method. For contracts estimated to cost less than the equivalent of US$ 200,000 per contract, the shortlist may be made up entirely of national consultants in accordance with section 2.7 of “World Bank Guidelines for Selection of Consultants” (copy of the guidelines can be requested from the Resident Mission in Addis Ababa), provided that foreign consultants who wish to participate are not excluded from consideration. Indefinite Delivery Contract (IDC) procured by using QCBS method may be used for large contracts involving technical assistance taking into consideration the capacity limitation of Regional Offices. Quality Based Selection (QBS). QBS is based on an evaluation of the quality of the proposals and the subsequent negotiation of the financial proposal and the contract with the consultant who submitted the highest ranked technical proposal. QBS will be used when:
§ § § §
Downstream impact of the assignment is so large that the quality of the services becomes of overriding importance for the outcome of the project; Scope of work of the assignment and TOR are difficult to define because of the novelty or complexity of the assignment, or the need to select among innovative solutions, or due to particular physical, social, or political conditions; Assignment can be carried out in substantially different ways, such that cost proposals may not easily be comparable; and Introduction of cost as a factor of selection renders competition unfair.
QBS are used for assignments such as strategic studies in new fields of policy and reforms and assignments in which traditional consultants, NGOs and/or UN Agencies can compete. Under QBS, the implementing agency may request submission of the technical proposals only. After evaluation of the technical proposal, the consultant with the highest-ranking technical proposal will be invited to present its financial proposal. At the discretion of the implementing agency, it may also request that the financial proposals to be submitted at the same time as the technical proposals but in separate envelopes (two-envelope system). In that case, the financial proposals should be kept safely until the full technical evaluation is completed and approved by the relevant authorities. Only the financial proposal of the winning consultant is opened; the others are returned unopened after negotiations with the winning firm are successfully concluded. The RFP generally provides the staff-months only as an estimate. The staff effort indicated by the consultants may differ considerably from such estimate, depending on the particular methodology adopted by the consultant. Since the TOR of assignments under QBS is generally less defined and relatively more complex than under QCBS, contract negotiations with the winning consultants could be lengthy and complicated. In this case, the implementing agency may decide to hire individual advisers to assist in the most critical aspects of the technical evaluation, e.g., discussion of the
- 49 plan of work, staff rates and reimbursable expenses, and the definition of the consultants’ staff-months. Selection Based on Consultant’s Qualifications (SBCQ). The SBCQ method applies to very small assignments for which the cost of a full-fledged selection process would not be justified. Under SBCQ the technical specialists will first prepare the TOR; then requests expressions of interest and qualification information on the consultants’ experience and competence relevant to the assignment; establish a shortlist; and selects the consultant with the best qualifications and references. The selected consultant will be asked to submit a combined technical and financial proposal and is then invited to negotiate the contract if the technical proposal proves to be acceptable. The SBCQ method aims at reducing the cost and time needed to hire a consultant. This approach does not, however, disregard quality, since some very small assignments are very important (e.g., highly specialized advisory services with a limited scope and duration, or assignments that, although small, require consultants with the best possible qualific ations). SBCQ will be considered for assignments such as:
§ § § §
Brief evaluation studies at critical decision points of projects (e.g., review of alternative solutions with large downstream effects); Executive assessment of strategic plans; High level, short term, legal expertise; and Participation in project review expert panels.
Consulting assignments costing less than US$ 100,000 may procured by using Selection Based on Consultants Qualifications (SBCQ) by comparing the qualification of consultants who have expressed an interest in the job or who have been identified. Least-Cost Selection Method. Services for audit and other similar services may be procured under contracts awarded using least-cost selection method in accordance with the provisions of clauses 3.1 and 3.6 of the World Bank’s Consultant Guidelines. Single Source Selection (SSS). Under SSS, the normal procedure is to ask a specific consultant to prepare technical and financial proposals, which are then negotiated. Since there is no competition, this method will be proposed only in exceptional cases and would be made on the basis of strong and convincing justifications where it offers clear advantages over the competition. The justification should indicate whether:
§ § § §
the assignment represents a natural or direct continuation of a previous one awarded competitively, and the performance of the incumbent consultant has been satisfactory; or a quick selection of the consultant is essential, e.g., in emergency operations; or the contract is very small in value; or only one consulting organization has the qualifications or has experience of exceptional worth to carry out the assignment.
When single sourcing is used for continuation of an assignment, the implementing agency will ask the consultant to prepare technical and financial proposals on the basis of the TOR prepared by the technical specialist or by an independent adviser with no relation to the incumbent. This will be the basis for negotiating a continuation contract. In the case of consulting assignments, members of the evaluation committee will not be allowed to have any communication with shortlisted firms from the date of their appointment to the date on which the contract is awarded. The evaluation committee will submit its report and
- 50 recommendation to the designated decision making authority for review and transmission to IDA for no-objection if the contract is subject to its prior review, or for review and award for contracts subject to post review. 6.3.8 Overview of World Bank Procurement Procedures The following paragraphs provide additional general information pertaining to procurement using World Bank procedures as it pertains to the relevant provisions of the Legal Agreement. For example, specific procurement arrangements such as use of standard documents, thresholds and methods of procurement are explained in this section of the PIP. Prior Review Thresholds. All goods contracts estimated to cost USD 150,000 or more and the first contract under NCB will be subject to IDA review of bidding documents prior to inviting for bids and bid evaluation reports prior to contract award. Single source selection irrespective of value will be subject to IDA prior review. Consultancy contracts with firms with estimated value of USD 100,000 or more, and consultancy contracts with individuals estimated value of USD 50,000 or more and the first contract will be subject to prior review by the Bank in accordance with the procedures in Appendix I of the Consultants Gu idelines. Terms of References for all consultancy services will be subject to prior review. Contracts, which are not subject to prior review, will be selectively reviewed by the Bank during program implementation and will be governed by the procedures set forth in paragraph 4 of Appendix I to the relevant Guidelines. Eligible Expenditure Categories. The following paragraphs describe the various eligible expenditure categories for funding by the IDA credit proceeds for PSCAP.
§
Goods and Equipment. Procurement of goods is expected to include office equipment, production of manuals and guides, printing training materials, etc.
§
Consultancy Services. Recruitment of consultants will be mainly for assignments pertaining to planning and budgeting, sectoral planning and management, national assessments, technical assistance for capacity building, and production of training materials for use by the federal and regional authorities.
§
Training, Workshops and Seminars. Training activities are expected to comprise developing training materials and conducting training, support for training activities through task forces and other in-house or external providers. Training is also expected to cover activities that involve local and foreign workshops, seminars, attachments and study tours across subprograms at the federal and regional level;
§
Audits. It is expected that several audits will be carried out during the life of the program for the audit of Special and Project Accounts under PSCAP. Cost of audit is eligible for funding when the Office of the Auditor General (OAG) engages private external auditors to audit PSCAP related accounts.
§
Incremental Operating Costs. Incremental operating costs comprise operating costs associated with the implementation of national assessments, lobbying of line ministries, orientation activities, sundries, vehicle and equipment operation and maintenance, and program utility costs.
- 51 -
Section 7. Monitoring & Evaluation 7.1 Purpose and Objectives of the PSCAP M&E System The flexible framework and performance-orientation (as opposed to an unconditional entitlement to subsidies), enshrined in the PSCAP design places premium on timely availability, use and publication of public sector performance monitoring and evaluation information. The purpose of PSCAP’s M&E system is therefore to:
§ Provide information for timely decision-making at all levels; § Ensure that subprogram and PSCAP outputs are being achieved timely and in a robust manner, and contributing towards achieving PSCAP outcomes; § Improve the overall institutional quality and enhance continuous institutional learning for all stakeholders of PSCAP; § Promote accountability and transparency of PSCAP to stakeholders; and § Develop professional and institutional capacity for M&E. In developing an M&E framework that achieves these ends, the Government plans to build upon existing systems and capacities for data collection, reporting and analysis; and has been envisaged as a phased development process, with deployment of intermediary instruments for data collection and development of M&E capacities, over the program period. 7.2 PSCAP Activities, Outputs and Outcomes 7.2.1 Defining “Activities, Outputs, and Outcomes” For the purposes of monitoring progress and evaluating the results of the Program, three types of indicators have been identified from the Government’s SDPRP matrix. These indicators are capacity building activities, outputs , and outcomes , and are further explained below. Activities. Activities in PSCAP are a set of restructuring and capacity building tasks to achieve subprogram level and PSCAP outputs. Examples of activities in PSCAP are: the conduct of assessment exercises, data collection and studies; drafting/development of documents, those pertaining to setting up new systems and procedures; training and capacity building, and management actions such as six-monthly and annual performance reviews and reallocation, and monitoring and evaluation, etc. Outputs. PSCAP ultimately seeks to achieved a series of policy and institutional reforms across tiers of government and sectors. These outputs can be (i) one-time decisions taken, (ii) events denoting a result or reaching a state or stage (e.g. proclamation of a law, organization restructured), or (iii) other time bound, verifiable change processes (e.g. performance based management being practiced by majority of institutions, or increasing tax collection or reducing staff turnover). Outputs are a cumulative result of a set of activities implemented although completing of those activities itself may not necessarily result in the output being produced. Therefore, it will be important that institutions at all levels focus on achieving outputs as the end product of capacity building activities. Outputs, defined above, are to achieved by subprograms at the federal and regional level. These immediate subprogram level outputs from are indicated in the respective subprogram action plans. Examples are adoption or implementation or roll out of a particular system that has been developed; important proclamations made, public decisions or approval accorded; completed establishment of new or restructuring of existing institutions. Whereas each of the subprograms may have such specific outputs, all the subprograms need to individually and jointly, strive for the achievement of program level or PSCAP level policy and institutional
- 52 reforms at the federal, regional and local levels. Therefore a subset of subprogram level outputs have been identified as overall program level outputs and are reflected in the PSCAP logframe which is attached as Annex 2. Specifically, these program level outputs which cut across the six subprograms can be organized as follows.
§ § § § § § §
strengthened legal and policy framework restructuring and performance improvements reforms of expenditure management systems reforms improved personnel management systems intergovernmental fiscal and revenue mobilization mechanisms in place vertical accountability mechanisms established horizontal accountability mechanisms (or checks and balances) established
Outcomes. PSCAP outcomes are defined as the improvements in the quality of public institutions that should result from achievement of the above PSCAP outputs. These PSCAP outcomes are the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) reflected in Section 1 of this PIP and represent the actual qualitative and quantitative improvements that are expected from this Program.
§ § § § § §
increased predictability and adequacy of financial resources flows (in-year, across years); greater inclusiveness and transparency of planning and prioritization processes; enhanced fiscal autonomy and improved revenue administration at all levels; enhanced incentive environment for public servants (gender disaggregated); improved quality and efficiency of operations of the public sector; and improved transparency and accountability.
7.2.2 Participation and Performance Agreements Under the PSCAP system, federal and regional Executing Agencies (EAs) would make formal annual and semi-annual commitments to achieve capacity building outputs through the mechanism of annual Participation and Performance Agreements (PPAs). Activities to be carried out in a given year by a region or a federal EA would be driven by the outputs or results committed in the form of the PPAs. A Sample Agreement, which include matrices detailing annual and semi-annual output commitments, are included in Volume 2 of this PIP. Commitments made in PPAs should be approved by both the cabinets at the regional and federal level and submitted to respective legislatures with approved budgets. 7.3 M&E Building Blocks Measuring progress along the lines described above requires a variety of instruments that should form building blocks within the overall M&E system for PSCAP. Program Activity Monitoring: seeks to track ongoing progress of activities and thereby help program management at each level take immediate corrective steps so that activities are timely and are able to achieve the planned outputs. The monitoring function will be an integral part of management information systems (MIS) at each level, and shall rapidly resolve issues that may constrain the timely achievement of outputs. Activity information will be periodically combined with financial and procurement information available from SOEs and FMRs (as explained in Section 5 of this document, and the accompanying Financial Reporting Guidelines). Quality Assessments : Quality Assessments will periodically confirm the achievement of outputs (for example, the achievement of a critical state/stage of institutional reforms) and measure the degree to which certain significant change processes have been accomplished against output commitments. The additional subjects of assessments will be whether the process of achieving
- 53 the outputs followed a robust procedure (hence “Quality” Assessments), the emerging results and learning, and treatment of cross cutting issues. Periodic summaries of financial management and procurement information will be also be reviewed and linked with the achievement of outputs. Quality Assessments will be conducted periodically for all regions (at least annually) as also for federal subprograms (initially very six-months and reduced frequency and scope over PSCAP). Organised by Federal PPD M&E Team, under the guidance of (and participation) of the Federal Technical Team, and comprising representatives of regional and subprogram personnel, consultants, academic/research institutions and NGOs, the Quality Assessment visits will analyse monitoring information, conduct discussions with and assess progress with implementing agencies, and consult institutional and primary stakeholders. Where feasible, assessments should be consolidated and streamlined. An important streamlined mechanism that will serve the purposes of Quality Assessments as well as evaluation reports is the woreda and municipal benchmarking survey, which surveys public officials at the local level on various aspects of public management. The survey will be repeated on a regular basis and should serve as a key pillar for outputs and outcome evaluation under PSCAP. They will summarize and record the actual performance of the region or the subprogram against those committed to by them, in their respective Participation and Performance Agreements with the MCB, and provide the rating of performance (which will in turn form the basis for mid-year and across -year reallocation of drawing rights for regions). The scope and timing of Quality Assessments will be timed and structured to serve as the MCB’s quality assurance mechanism and will feed into the agreed Joint Review Semi-Annual and Annual Review Missions. Figure 7.1 : PSCAP M&E Framework: Building Blocks
QUALITY ASSESSMENT Periodic collection and analysis of data on achievement of outputs at federal, regional, and local levels
ACTIVITY MONITORING Collect, analyze activity data and use for program management at federal, regional, local levels à Early information for planning & management à Analyze and use at the level collected à Share summary of achievements with PSCAP program support agencies à Program support agencies provide feedback to agencies
• Periodic Assessments in Regions and local levels • Periodic Review Missions at Federal Level • Special Studies to collect data on outputs à Confirms achievement of Performance Agreement commitments à Informs mid and across- year resource allocations àShare summary with parliaments and public à FTT/RTT feedback to implementing agencies
EVALUATION & LEARNING Periodic Evaluations and Special Studies to carry out output to PSCAP outcome measurements • Planned Evaluations in years 3 and 5 à Informs strategic level planning and management corrections àShare summary with parliaments at all levels, public and partners § Evaluation & Knowledge Creation through special studies § Lesson learning and sharing forums for learning about PSCAP impacts
Specially Commissioned Studies: Special studies and surveys will be commissioned to examine specific themes and achievements as also supplement information requirements for Quality Assessments. This will be a method of closely weaving learning into implementation and since
- 54 many if not most of these commissioned studies will have some evaluative import as well, they shall serve learning and knowledge development needs (see Evaluation and Learning below). Finally, these studies will capture information on and highlight the achievements of PSCAP early in its implementation and lend credibility to PSCAP. A number of studies have already been initiated or planned as a part of PSCAP including benchmarking and tracking surveys (e.g. those being carried out for CSRP and DLDP); surveys of and group discussions with public officials, private firms and enterprises; participatory exercises with community groups in rural and urban areas; Citizens’ Report Card Surveys, and other thematic and specialized institutional studies. A number of other initiatives are also underway (e.g. Report Card Study by EEA/EEPRI), which will be reviewed and wherever possible, linkages made with PSCAP M&E. A set of such studies has been recommended whereas others will be decided during six-monthly and annual reviews. Evaluation and Learning: Activities will systematically and objectively assess progress towards and the achievement of the program output-to-outcome linkages and the underlying (constraining and accelerating) factors. Learning events like workshops and meetings with public officials and primary consultations with communities will be utilised initially to help clarify PSCAP, later document the emerging lessons from PSCAP and help in improving the program strategies and management mechanisms including the M&E system. Periodic evaluation exercises will produce evaluative learning and feedback for program management at the strategic and operational levels, as also provide the basis for sharing of lessons between regions, across levels, and potentially across other programs under the SDPRP. Apart from annual learning workshops, a mid-Term Evaluation will be conducted in year 3, and an Impact Assessment Study in year 5 (end of the program). Subprograms and Regions will commission their own evaluations to assess achievement of outputs and outcomes, and learn lessons. Other MCB and donor-supported studies and exercises are also proposed for strategic learning and knowledge creation about public sector transformation. Development of the M&E System. Since the current systems and capacities for M&E are not fully developed and variable across regions, the above building blocks will depend on a mix of review and supervision team visits, institution of new or development of existing data collection and reporting systems during PSCAP, consultancy assistance, specially commissioned monitoring and evaluation studies, and public-official and community-based exercises to develop and adapt the tool-kit and systems of M&E at local levels. In the federal subprograms and advanced regions thus, the initial years will witness the consolidation, building on their existing systems for collecting and analysing data on activities and outputs whereas in the emerging regions, the initial period will witness the institution of simple M&E systems and ensuring their compliance and functionality, and further development of content and sophistication in later years. The exact mix of in-house administrative systems of data collection and analysis, and in -sourced resources (consultants, academic and management institutions, NGOs, etc.) will be reviewed annually. 7.4 Institutional Arrangements for M&E The inst itutional arrangements for M&E of PSCAP will follow the arrangements established for the implementation of PSCAP, as presented in Section III of this document. At each level, the effort is on collecting and utilizing monitoring and evaluation information at the respective levels. It will be important that, key findings of the M&E system, and the follow -up action proposed are regularly communicated to stakeholders and the public, to promote accountability of the program and mobilize popular support for ins titutional transformations. At the Woreda/ ULGA/ Kebele levels, the development of structured participatory M&E processes will need early attention. This may be accomplished early under the DLDP subprogram (say, as a part of preparing sample Woreda pla ns). Over time, it is envisaged that these participatory processes will form the core of the PSCAP M&E system at the local levels. In the
- 55 interim, Quality Assessment Missions and commissioned studies will be key instruments for M&E data collection. Due to the nature of the subprograms, the Federal and Regional PPDs will need to work closely with DLDP and UMCB, to ensuring the development of M&E methods, capacity and systems at the local levels. Reporting and information flows have been proposed in keeping with the above institutional arrangements. The first category of M&E information collected and shared is for operational management of the program – this is in turn made up of vertical and horizontal sharing of information, and feedback information and action received in return. The use of information for periodic re-allocations is a contribution to program management. The second category of information is summarized and disseminated to elected bodies and the public at large. 7.4 PSCAP Indicators for M&E Development of indicators of PSCAP outputs and outcomes, draws heavily upon the work done during the preparation of Ethiopia’s SDPRP 2002, followed by preparatory steps for PSCAP involving iterations of action planning for the subprograms and regions that detailed the subprogram objectives and outputs; and the specification and scheduling of subprogram components and activities planned to achieve the above outputs. The design of the M&E System for PSCAP, attempted to draw out the linkages between ac hievement of subprogram and PSCAP outputs and their impacting the PSCAP outcomes or KPIs; and set out measures and indicators to measure activity-output-outcome linkages. 7.4.1 Indicators for PSCAP activities and outputs Activity indicators have been detailed in the regional and subprogram action plans, and are simple and robust for use. These indicators need to be tracked regularly by executing agencies as a part of their routine management systems, although at differing levels of detail. Output indicators will measure the extent and quality of reaching an important stage (result indicators), including say, the extent of complying with a system or a law, or institutionalisation of certain policies and practices. The other set of (process) indicators will measure the extent of “making a significant process change”. The methods of tracking indicators will use simple measures like coverage or institutionalisation, count, percentage, etc. and must be tracked by the subprogram agencies at the relevant lo cal levels of implementation. Output indicators will also have an aggregative character in that federal offices may concern themselves more with the summary of progress on outputs achieved at local and regional levels. When measuring outputs, additional dimensions to measure are quality in terms of a) whether a due process was followed in reaching the output; and b) what factors are constraining or supporting the output in improving the institution’s ability (emerging results i.e.) to manage its physical, human, financial and knowledge resources. These cannot be objective quantitative measurements but will depend initially on qualitative measures and a mix of assessment methods. Finally, whereas each of the subprograms may have such specific outputs as above, all the subprograms will need to individually and jointly, seek to strive for the achievement of the specified wider set of policy and institutional reforms at the federal, regional and local levels . These reforms cut across and go beyond individual subprogram outputs and hence are the outputs that PSCAP seeks to achieve. Therefore, there are two sets of outputs and relevant indicators: subprogram outputs and indicators, as well as program level or PSCAP level outputs and indicators, as presente d in Annex 1a and 1b respectively. Methods of data collection are also proposed along with suggestions on process, and improvements where appropriate.
- 56 -
Box 7.1: Choice of indicators Experience of M&E experts and practitioners in public sector reform as well as other areas suggests that the following criteria should be used for selecting indicators for PSCAP.
§ § § § § §
Validity: Does the indicator accurately measure what is to be measured? Objectivity and lack of ambiguity: Does the indicator measure one dimension fully is there any ambiguity about its interpretation? Reliability: Does the measurement of the indicator suffer from problems of data collection methodology (in relation to the robustness required for the use that the findings will be put to)? Comprehensiveness: Do the group of indicators together provide a complete picture? Credibility: Does the indicator suffer from incentives of the collecting/reporting agency wanting to influence the data? Economy and Practicability including the following considerations: - Whether the indicators change across the time-period they are meant to be tracked? - Are the indicators simple and easy to understand by stakeholders (including institutions, collecting agencies and users of the information including the public at large)? - Are the indicators economical and value-for-money to collect? - Is partial data on indicators easily available from existing administrative sources? - Will the indicators be comparable across regions and subprograms? - Will collection of disaggregated data (by region, sex, etc.) result in a better appreciation of dimensions of institutional change?
Outcome indicators under PSCAP are those reflected in the Key Performance Indicators in Section 1. A series of legal and policy changes for example is expected to provide the framework of new direction and changes to be in structures and capacities of public sector. The achievement of PSCAP outputs is a necessary but not sufficient condition for achieving the impacts on institutional quality of the public sector. This is because the latter depends on a number of factors outside the control of the program (and government actions), and the relationship between outputs and outcomes is difficult to precisely state. In order to aid the appreciation of the linkages of outputs to outcomes and enable their measurement, the key performance indicators as presented in Section 1 along with the key contributing subprograms and outputs. 7.4.2 Available Data and Strategy for PSCAP M&E Data Collection Ethiopia has a strong base of data collection and analysis systems within the administration although these are not geared yet to measure institutional changes. Therefore, the strategy for PSCAP will be to utilize the limited existing data sources as much as possible, and to develop systems for generating data for measurement of the program outputs and outcomes. The available systems of data collection in institutions at the federal, regional and local levels especially on financial and human resources aspects (typically, data on stocks and flows of resources through the system) will be reviewed to examine what improvements are possible to serve PSCAP M&E requirements. Further, systems to generate new data sets will be developed under PSCAP to monitor performance and progress of organizational (individual agencies) and institutional (whole set of government institutions at each level) transformations, as they are manifest both as indicators of state/stage or rate of internal change, and most importantly of course, the results they bring about on the constituents of the governed including sub-groups of households, communities, and private sector. Trade-offs have had to be made in selecting the indicators since a) data collection systems and information are limited in case of many indicators that are valid; b) capacities and experience with measuring institutional change is nascent; and c) causal links between outputs and
- 57 outcomes are not precisely known. Higher importance has been accorded to validity, reliability, and practical considerations (especially simplicity and ease of data collection, and economy to some extent). These indicators currently score low on the criteria of objectivity, credibility and comprehensiveness. With development of better data collection and M&E capacity within the government as a result of relevant PSCAP activities, and the development/crafting of new methodologies for data collection on institutional benchmarking and change, the choice of indicators will have better rating on the latter criteria. 7.5 Challenges and Recommendations for PSCAP M&E A Strategy and plan for capacity building for M&E teams at the federal and regional subprogram agencies as also the program support agencies, has been detailed in the M&E Report. A number of actions are recommended to grow the existing capacities and systems for M&E including sourcing in of expertise from private sector and academic and research institutions in Ethiopia. A phased development of M&E systems for PSCAP will also imply interim commissioning of studies and periodic reviews of the system itself as also of indicators and commitments of regions and federal subprograms. Regular disclosure of the results of M&E data collection, will be a key mechanism of building credibility of PSCAP amongst the parliament, public at large, public institutions themselves as also donor partners. The opportunity of introducing elements of public service delivery indicators in the survey systems of the Govt. (e.g. WMS and HICE Surveys, as also sectoral data collection mechanisms), may be discussed immediately with relevant departments and agencies whereas additional resources may be deployed and partnerships explored (e.g with AAU and EEA, etc.) to help in developing better systems of data collection and analysis on public sector transformation in Ethiopia. Setting up M&E systems in regions need to be incorporated in minimum mandatory capacity building commitments. Finally, it is recommended that Technical assistance from NGOs and consultants be utilized in developing participatory approaches for involving and consulting community groups for M&E data collection.
- 58 -
Section 8. Information, Education, & Communication (IEC) 8.1 Purpose of IEC The purpose of IEC is to create awareness, share knowledge and information, encourage feedback among the diverse group of implementers and stakeholders involved in PSCAP. among target audiences on PSCAP priority issues. A key cross-cutting objective of IEC is also to target program related risks such as potential loss of political commitment for reform or lack of consensus on resource allocation activities related to the management of this performance oriented transfers. To achieve this immediate goal, sustained approach to message development, dissemination, utilization and monitoring and evaluation is deemed necessary. IEC activities at both the federal and regional levels will consequently focus on creating and sustaining a symmetrical information environment that will enhance the potential for democratic decentralization, good governance, transparency and accountability. In the interest of sustainability, they will seek to build a strategic development partnership between government officials, NGOs, communities and the private sector by empowering the rural and urban populations in their interactions with the institutions that partner with them in the development process in a decentralized environment. The emphasis will be on using IEC to create space for continuin g, non-confrontational negotiations between stakeholders. 8.2 Guidelines for IEC under PSCAP The following guidelines will apply for all IEC activities to be undertaken for PSCAP at the federal, regional, and local levels. They will also provide the basis for monitoring and evaluation of IEC. Targeting Risks. An overarching priority in designing and implementing IEC activities is to target critical risks that can be mitigated through the sharing of information and knowledge and development of effective feedback mechanisms. Key risks that IEC could help mitigate include lack of transparency in the management of the rules of the game for resource allocation and reallocation, lack of knowledge among citizens on anticipated changes in state and society relations. Delegating to Mandated Institutions. The PSCAP IEC activities will follow a delegated approach at the federal level as well as a decentralized approach in regions to ensure that institutions (for example, federal EAs with a mandate for a certain set of reforms take the primary responsibility for prioritizing and sequencing IEC activities). Regions will be responsible for implementing the IEC initiative at their level with the Federal Technical Team playing the role of a clearing house. Scaling Up. While the accommodation of institution/region specific issues is recognized in PSCAP IEC messages/materials development, it is also important to seek economies of scale. Generic materials such as brochures and leaflets will be produced in large cost-effective runs for utilization. In the production of high quality educating and entertaining serial radio or television drama that address common issues of interest to all partners, it will be useful to bring the efforts of PSCAP IEC implementing institution together. The Ministry of Capacity Building will take the overall coordination responsibility. Quality Control and Assurance. In PSCAP, IEC message/material development and production, quality of the output is given great importance because it promotes cost effectiveness. As a basis, quality production of messages/material require operational research, involvement of specialist in the production of messages/materials and pre-testing with relevant audiences before dissemination to
- 59 target audiences. To this effect, institutions implementing PSCAP program will ensure production of quality messages/materials. The Federal Technical Team and Regional Technical Teams will have the role of assuring the quality of materials and serve as clearing houses for all IEC materials before dissemination and PPD will facilitate these communications. Public Disclosure. Public information disclosure promotes broad public understanding of the Government’s overall capacity building agenda. It enhances participation and local ownership of the program for greater effectiveness and better results for the country. To this end, Government will regularly publish and disclose data generated from various survey instruments used under PSCAP so that the public is made aware of the progress and impact of public sector reforms. 8.3 Roles and Responsibilities at the Federal and Regional Level At the federal level, the Ministry of Capacity Building through its Planning and Programming Directorate (PPD) will be the overall coordinator of the PSCAP IEC Strategy implementation. The PPD shall ensure that the Federal Technical Team (FTT) and the Public Relations Office, housed in MCB, endorse the IEC messages; support the recruitment of communication experts (either firms or individuals); and monitor the implementation and impact of IEC activities. At the regional level, roles and responsibilities for the implementation of PSCAP IEC Strategy will replicate the federal setup. The Bureau of Capacity Building (BCB) through the RPPD will be responsible for overall coordination at regional level. The Regional Technical Team (RTT) of BCB will endorse the IEC message; support the recruitment of communication experts (either firms or individuals); and through the PPD will get the approval from the Federal Technical Team before dissemination. Within the context of this strategy, inter-ministerial and inter-bureau coordination at federal and regional levels is essential to ensure effective implementation of PSCAP IEC activities. For maximum impact and quality of outputs, strengthening of networks and collaboration is needed among institutions in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches; representatives of civil society and the private sector; and representatives of communities, as needed. To this effect, media organizations should have a significant role in the development and dissemination PSCAP IEC programmes. 8.4 The IEC Cycle —From Issue Identification to Feedback Given the scale of reforms and capacity building activities envisaged under PSCAP, it is critical that IEC activities follow a realistic sequence of steps to ensure effective outreach, comprehension, and feedback. A typical sequence for IEC that on any given area (for example, performance management under CSRP) should involve: (1) identification of objectives, issues, and messages, (2) selection of target audiences, (3) testing and refinement of messages, (4) deployment of communication channels with feedback mechanisms, (5) identifying indicators, (6) implementation, and (7) solicitation of feedback. These are detailed below and should be undertaken by Executing Agencies in close coordination with the PRO or equivalent, and the PPD or equivalent at federal and regional levels. Annex 3 provides examples of how to develop a full cycle approach to IEC in line with the principles noted above. 8.4.1 Identifying Priority Issues and Selecting Messages IEC interventions shall focus on creating awareness and increasing knowledge of target audiences. Designed messages have to be need based and audience-specific . For instance, for any
- 60 single issue, messages to be addressed to different categories of audiences may vary. Indeed different groups within the same audience category may require different messages. The content around key messages should be identified for critical aspects of capacity building subprograms under the guidance of subprogram directors or their regional equivalents. Figure 8.1: Implementing the IEC Cycle 1. Identifying Priority Issues and Selecting Messages
6. Soliciting Feedback and Evaluating Results 5. Implementing
2. Segmenting Audiences 3. Deploying Communication Channels with Feedback Mechanisms
4. Identifying Output and Outcome Indicators
8.4.2 Selecting and Segmenting Audiences PSCAP IEC interventions shall be design to reach target audiences directly. In segmenting audiences, special focus should be given to women because of their low social and economic and political status and lack of access to information in the society. In the context of IEC for PSCAP, audiences are classified in to four major parts. These are policy makers, implementers, beneficiaries and others. Messages will be customized for various audiences to achieve the desired goal. 8.4.3 Deploying Communication Channels with Feedback Mechanisms A broad range of communication channels will be employed to reach various IEC audiences. Federal and regional EAs should fully exploited a range of modern and traditional media including radio, TV, posters, brochures, leaflets, newspapers, and local cultural vehicles (folk drama, songs, etc.) to disseminate information to communities and stimulate demand for PSCAPrelated services. 8.4.4 Identifying Output and Outcome Indicators Based on identified objectives, experts working on IEC should identify output and outcome indicators for IEC activities in broad consultation with PPDs or equivalents, PROs or equivalents, Techincal Teams, and a sampling of clients.
- 61 -
8.4.5 Implementing Critical to effective implementation is the need not only to use in-house expertise at the federal and regional levels, but also to contract in expertise from the market when required and to partner with a broad array of private, non-profit, traditional and civic institutions to effectively reach diverse audiences. It is worth noting that the IEC requirements of a program this complex typically goes beyond the traditional roles and responsibilities of public relations offices in single ministries or bureaus. A “rapid results” approach should be considered particularly in getting IEC messages out to remote areas and diverse communities. 8.4.6 Soliciting Feedback and Evaluating Results At the heart of PSCAP’s approach is the need to go beyond a purely top-down approach to management or a one-way channel of communication. In establishing lines of communication with implementers, clients, citizens, and providers (for example, of training), responsible bodies should ensure that communication is two-way. A range of IEC mechanisms such as focus groups, client report cards, workshops and seminars shall be held on a regular basis to ensure that stakeholders are able to provide feedback on implementation of PSCAP activities. Such feedback is critical in ensuring that stakeholders can signal potential implementation problems, contribute to learning by doing, and also contribute to the overall credibility of the PSCAP system.
- 62 Annex 1 (a): PSCAP Program Level Outcomes and Outputs (Consolidated from Subprograms) Program Development Objective:
Outcome / Impact Indicators:
1. To improve the scale, efficiency, and 1. 1 Enhanced predictability of financial responsiveness of public service resource flows in-year and across years delivery at the federal, regional, and - Budget variance local level; empower citizens to - Federal-regional fiscal gap; regional-local participate more effectively in shaping fiscal gap their own development; and promote 1.2 Greater inclusiveness and transparency of good governance and accountability, by planning and prioritization processes scaling up ongoing institutional - Established practice of participatory budgeting transformation efforts under the and public reporting on budgets and Government’s Public Sector Capacity performance at all levels Building Program, and specifically in six priority areas: (i) Civil Service - Regular involvement of civil society in Reform; (ii) District-Level planning, policymaking, budgeting, and review Decentralization; (iii) Urban processes Management Capacity Building; (iv) 1.3 Improved quality and efficiency of Tax Systems Reform; (v) Justice government operations in priority sectors Systems Reform; (vi) Information and - Improved service levels in terms of access, Communications Technology. responsiveness, and cost efficiency - Reduced unit costs and processing time
Project reports:
(from Objective to Goal)
1.1.1 Annual Budget Reviews 1.1.2 Intergovernmental Fiduciary Assessments (IFAs) 1.1.3 Annual review mission reports
1. Government sustains focus and continuity of state transformation agenda despite much larger, ambitious SDPRP agenda. 2. Federal and regional level governments effectively use the PSCAP design to coordinate efforts across subprograms and ensure consistency of public sector reform programs across regions. 3. Federal and regional level leadership maintain frontline service delivery focus of PSCAP rather than overemphasizing process. 4. Sufficient demand-side pressures are forthcoming on the part of citizens, civil society, and the private sector for improve public sector performance. 5. Woredas and municipalities access fiscal support for their recurrent and investment needs in order to leverage capacities towards specific service delivery goals.
1.2.1 Annual Budget Reviews 1.2.2 IFAs 1.2.3 Annual review mission reports 1.2.4 Annual Progress Report process
1.3.1 Annual Budget Reviews 1.3.2 IFAs 1.3.3 Annual review mission reports
1.4 Improved incentive environment for public servants (gender disaggregated) - Average civil service salary as percentage of living wage - Private-public wage ratios at each level - Wage decompression at each level
1.4.1 IFAs 1.4.2 Annual review mission reports
1.5 Enhanced revenue performance and fiscal autonomy - Improved tax effort at all levels - Increased own revenues and unconditional transfers as a share of total expenditures at subnational levels 1.6 Improved transparency and accountability - Reduced incidence of corruption and arbitrariness in rule enforcement (as judged by economic agents) - Increased access to justice, recourse and redress - Enhanced independence of the judiciary - Improved access to government information
1.5.1 Annual Budget Reviews 1.5.2 IFAs 1.5.3 Annual review mission reports
1.6.1 Public official and firm level surveys 1.6.2 IFAs 1.6.3 Annual review mission reports
- 63 Output from each Component:
Output Indicators:
Project reports:
1. Legal and policy framework across sectors strengthened
1.1 Law reform and revision undertaken and adopted at federal level 1.2 No. of regions adopting enabling legislation for local authorities 1.3 No. of regions adopting various tax proclamations (income, excise, TOT)
2. Restructuring and performance improvement
2.1 Percentage of MABs (at federal and in each region) initiating restructuring and performance improvement 2.2 Percentage of woredas and municipalities undergoing restructuring 2.3 Percentage of courts at each level initiating performance improvement 2.4 No. of regions adopting sector-specific automated IT solutions 3.1 Percentage of budgetary institutions at each level implementing medium term and strategic planning 3.2 No. of regions adopting new budget structure at all levels 3.3 No. of regions adopting of double entry, modified cash systems at all levels 3.4 Percentage of budgetary institutions each level adopting cash management directives 3.5 Percentage of budgetary institutions at each level rolling out automated financial systems 3.6 Procurement legislation adopted and directives issued 3.7 Accounts and audits backlog reduced at federal, regional levels 3.8 Percentage of budgetary institutions preparing standardized internal audit reports
1.1 Negarit Gazetta and other relevant Government circulars and legislation 1.2 Financial Management Reports 1.3 IFAs 1.4 IGR 1.5 Annual review mission reports 2.1 Quarterly progress reports 2.2 Financial Management Reports (or FMRs) 2.3 IFAs 2.4 IGR 2.5 Annual review mission reports
3. Expenditure management systems reform
3.1 Quarterly progress reports 3.2 Financial Management Reports (or FMRs) 3.3 IFAs 3.4 IGR 3.5 Annual review mission reports
(from Outputs to Objective)
- 64 Project Development Objective:
Outcome / Impact Indicators:
4. Personnel management systems reform and roll-out
4.1 Medium-term remuneration policy developed, adopted at all levels 4.2 Results-Oriented Performance Evaluation rolled out at all levels HR guidelines in woredas and municipalities developed, adopted 4.3 Percentage of budgetary institutions at each level implementing IT based HRM systems 5. Intergovernmental fiscal and revenue 5.1 No. of regions adopting fiscal mobilization mechanisms decentralization strategy including capital funding mechanisms 5.2 No. of regions implementing TIN 5.3 Guidelines developed and implemented for implementing withholding taxes, assessing presumptive tax bases 5.4 Strengthening and performance improvement of FIRA and Customs 6. Vertical accountability mechanisms 6.1 Service standards for urban and other established essential services developed and established at all levels
Project reports: 4.1 Quarterly progress reports 4.2 Financial Management Reports 4.3 IFAs 4.4 IGR 4.5 Annual review mission reports
2.1 Quarterly progress reports 2.2 Financial Management Reports 2.3 IFAs 2.4 IGR 2.5 Annual review mission reports
2.1 Quarterly progress reports 2.2 Financial Management Reports 2.3 IFAs 2.4 IGR 2.5 Annual review mission reports 7. Horizontal accountability mechanisms 7.1 No. of regions implementing guidelines for 2.1 Quarterly progress reports or checks and balances established citizen participation at the woreda and municipal 2.2 Financial Management Reports levels 2.3 IFAs 7.2 Percentage of courts at each level 2.4 IGR undergoing performance improvement 2.5 Legal and judicial assessment 7.3 Enhanced independence and efficiency of 2.6 Annual review mission reports judiciary 7.4 Judges and lawyers trained
(from Objective to Goal)
- 65 Annex 1(b): PSCAP Subprogram Level Output Indicators (To Be Consolidated at Program Level)
No. 1
2
TABLE (x.a): OUTPUT INDICATORS: CIVIL SERVICE REFORM PROGRAM Key Subprogram Output Contributes to PSCAP Output Methods & Tools of Data Indicators Collection Strengthening the 1. CSR Coordinating structures in -NA1. CSRP Reports; Capacity of CSR place and functioning (at federal, 2. CSR Baseline and tracking Coordinating Structures regional and local levels); studies; 2.Structure and software include 3. Quality Assessments gender mainstreaming strategy, gender training, strategies for addressing gender equality at workplace; 3. HIV/Aids strategies and material ready as a part of IEC material Improving Governance 1. Compliance (%) of federal, Expenditure Management Systems 1. MoFED/BoFED Reports; of Financial Resources regional and local institutions with Reform 2. CSRP Reports; Management and new Financial Management 3. Quality Assessments Control Proclamation –medium term & 4. Budget and Audit Reports strategic planning; 5. Financial Management 2. Compliance (%) of regions with Reports (FMR) new budget structure 6. Intergovernmental 3. Compliance (%) of regions with Fiduciary Assessments (IFA) adoption of double entry, modified 7. IGR cash systems 4. Compliance (%) of budgetary institutions at each level adopting cash management directives 5. Compliance (%) of budgetary institutions at each level adopting automated financial systems 6. Procurement legislation adopted and directives issued at federal and regions (%) 7. Accounts and audits backlog reduced at federal, regional levels (% of budgetary institutions) 8. Budgetary institutions (%) preparing standardized internal audit reports 9. Timely publication of budget and standardized internal audit reports 10. Gender disaggregated budgeting Areas/Components
Remarks/Recommendation *Recommend that gender disaggregated baseline studies, issues contributing to the inefficiency of the CS be available, barriers to the mainstreaming of gender in the civil service be identified including setting gender-disaggregated CS milestones, and involvement of civil society organisations working in the area of gender be encouraged. * Baseline studies to establish current situation in respect of all these parameters is required. * Gender budgeting is recommended for piloting and development
- 66 -
No.
3
4
5
TABLE (x.a): OUTPUT INDICATORS: CIVIL SERVICE REFORM PROGRAM Key Subprogram Output Contributes to PSCAP Output Methods & Tools of Data Indicators Collection framework proto-typed Improving Governance 1. Medium-term remuneration Personnel Management Systems 1. CSRP Reports; of Human Resources policy developed, adopted at all Reform 2. Quality Assessments; Management and levels 3. Public officials' Surveys; Control 2. Results-Oriented Performance 4. Tracking in comparison to Evaluation rolled out at all levels baseline surveys; 3. Implementation of HRM policy, 5. IGR studies rules and regulations (work, job grading, remuneration, cadre management, payroll etc 4. HR guidelines in woredas and municipalities developed and adopted 4. Percentage of budgetary institutions at each level implementing IT based HRM systems 5. Proportion of civil servants trained (%) (training in gender, HIV/Aids included) 7. Gender responsive recruitment mechanisms, women friendly working environment created in (%) of agencies at all levels Improving Performance 1. Performance and service delivery Vertical Accountability Mechanisms 1. CSRP Reports; and Public Service baseline and target standards for a) Established 2. Quality Assessments; Delivery core government functions and b) 3. Citizens’ Report Card key services compiled and Surveys; publicised at federal, regional and 4. Tracking in comparison to local levels; baseline surveys 2. Strategic plans for performance and services improvements prepared; 3. Performance appraisal systems developed to link personnel performance to service delivery standards in services institutions 4. Reduced turnaround time for government-citizen interface routine and service delivery functions Improving 1. Annual public audit reporting to Horizontal and Vertical 1. Public Expenditure Areas/Components
Remarks/Recommendation
* Recommended that all program and civil service data collection be disaggregated by sex
* Baseline studies to establish current situation in respect of service delivery parameters too. * Recommended that participatory consultations with stakeholders form the key to determining service standards baseline and service standard studies to supplement. * CSR to identify key govt. functions and service delivery institutions at federal, regional and local levels and plan studies and actions over PSCAP (coordinate with UMCB, DLDP, TSRP, JSRP)
* Identification of critical departments
- 67 -
No.
6
7
TABLE (x.a): OUTPUT INDICATORS: CIVIL SERVICE REFORM PROGRAM Key Subprogram Output Contributes to PSCAP Output Methods & Tools of Data Indicators Collection Accountability and parliaments (% of regions); Accountability Mechanisms tracking surveys; Transparency 2. Annual disclosure of accounting established 2. Studies of cost of service and performance information to delivery public (through OFAG); 3. Citizens’ Report Cards 3. Ethics and anti-corruption law 4. Annual Reports of and systems strengthened at federal participating institutions; and regional levels; 5. Public Audit Reports. 4. Citizens' Charters publicised by institutions; 5. M&E Techniques (for tracking accountability and transparency) developed for federal and regional levels 6. Institute/Board of accountants and auditors established at Federal level Strengthening Top 1. Top Management Systems Restructuring and Performance 1. CSRP Reports; Management Systems curriculum, handbooks and material Improvement; and Personnel 2. Training Reports; prepared (must include gender, Management Systems Reform 3. Annual Agency Reports. HIV/Aids and public accountability training); 2. Proportion of top managers (including public representatives) trained every year (gender disaggregated) Building the Policy and 1. Status and constraints assessed for Legal and policy framework 1. CSRP Reports; Institutional Capacities emerging regions; 2. Governance developed; Restructuring and 2. Quality Assessments; of Emerging Regions improvements identified and Performance Improvement 3. Special studies (such as Afar, Somalia, legislations drafted; commissioned by MFA Benishangul-Gumuz 3. Alternate approaches to Civil (DLDP/UMCB) and Gambella) Service development implemented Areas/Components
Remarks/Recommendation for public audit reports is important so that early on, public credibility of process is established. These could be one of the PSCAP-related departments or identified high-risk departments (this needs to be developed by CSRP in consultation with OFAG)
* Recommend high priority to training on gender, public accountability and HIV/Aids
* Opportunity to introduce public accountability, gender and HIV/Aids related strategies and systems early in policies and institutional development * Mentoring and monitoring of key leaders and officers, recommended.
- 68 -
TABLE (x.b): OUTPUT INDICATORS: DISTRICT LEVEL DECENTRALISATION PROGRAM No. Areas/Components
Key Subprogram Output Indicators
Contributes to PSCAP Output
Methods & Tools of Data Collection
Remarks/Recommendation
1
CB on institutional/ organizational Arrangement
1. Legislations promulgated; Legal and Policy Framework 2. Executive orders and manuals for compliance to executive orders implemented; 3. Assignment of expenditure and revenue in Woreda restructuring
1. DLDP Subprogram and Regions’ Report 2. Legislations and manuals; 3. Quality Assessment
2
Manning and training
1. Personnel transferred (% to Restructuring and performance required) and in place at Woredas; improvement; Personnel Management 2. HRD Plans and % training Systems coverage of Woreda staff (men and women)
1. DLDP Subprogram * Recommend that quota for the Report; 2. Regional Reports; minimum participation of women 3. Quality Assessments in decision making at woreda level should be established/strengthened
3
Grass root participation
1. Participatory structures Horizontal Accountability Mechanisms (planning; monitoring, review) in place in pilot woredas; 2. Increased awareness amongst communities (Kebele and subkebele) about PSCAP (resources transfer, changed systems, etc.); 3. Receipt of demands from community groups (especially women and remote groups) for inclusion in Woreda plans; 4. Woreda plans and operations reflect change toward community's demands 5. Quality of process indicators (key participation events specified, inclusion of poorest); 6. Participation level of women in Woreda meetings and other events
1. Quality Assessments; 2. Commissioned Special studies for development of participatory processes; 3. Woreda meeting notes and plans 4. IGR to contribute
* Participation strategy development at Woreda levels recommended to be a participatory exercise (rather than development of "manuals") * Real role and participation (as opposed to physical presence only) of women and special socio-economic groups, will need special strategies to be developed * All Quality Assessments and Evaluation exercises must cover representative spectrum of Woredas * NGOs must be involved in development of participatory framework and implementation at Woredas
4
Program Development
1. Decentralisation strategy documents from regions; 2. Woreda benchmarking tool in use in regions; 3. Training and capacity building measures implemented on administrative and financial decentralization
1. DLDP Subprogram Reports; 2. Quality Assessments 3. Woreda benchmarking studies
* All data collected should be gender disaggregated
Restructuring and performance improvement
- 69 -
TABLE (x.b): OUTPUT INDICATORS: DISTRICT LEVEL DECENTRALISATION PROGRAM No. Areas/Components
Key Subprogram Output Indicators
Contributes to PSCAP Output Intergovernmental fiscal and revenue mobilization mechanisms
Methods & Tools of Data Collection
5
Woreda fiscal transfer and own revenue enhancement
1. Woreda fiscal transfer framework improved in regions; 2. Actual budget allocations demonstrate increases (which is linked to above)
6
Woreda (local) planning and financial control
1. Woreda level exercise on Expenditure Management Systems medium term expenditure Reform, Intergovernmental and fiscal framework; revenue mobilization mechanisms 2. Capital funding becomes more prominent 3. Annual Accounts Published/ displayed at Woreda and Kebeles
1. DLDP Subprogram Provision for gender budgeting to Reports; be made in regional budget 2. Regional Reports allocation laws 3. IGR/Woreda Fin Mgt Assessments to provide key data and analysis for multiyear planning and financial management
7
Minimum standard service performance mechanisms
1. Service delivery and cost * Gender disaggregated data to be studies; collected 2. Citizens Report Cards Surveys 3. Service Charters 4. Woreda Complaints books
8
Office equipment
1. Service delivery study 2. Minimum standards for each service - charters consulted with kebeles and displayed; 3. Cost and performance tracking statistics displayed; 4. Reduced turnaround time for service provision 1. Woreda offices equipped and improved operations
Vertical Accountability Mechanism
1. DLDP Subprogram Reports; 2. Regional budget allocation laws/executive instructions on fiscal transfer
Remarks/Recommendation * Regional budget allocation guidelines to include instructions for gender budgeting at regional and woreda level
- 70 -
TABLE (x.c): OUTPUT INDICATORS: JUSTICE SYSTEMS REFORM PROGRAM No.
Areas/Components
Key Subprogram Output Indicators
Contributes to PSCAP Output
Methods & Tools of Data Collection
Remarks/Recommendation
1
Strengthening the Judiciary
1. Increase in % of men and Horizontal Accountability women judges trained; Mechanisms, Restructuring and 2. Increase in % of supporting performance improvement staff trained; 3. Increase in courts equipped with modern equipments; 4. Modern case management and recording system implemented in courts
1. JSRP Subprogram Report; 2. Training Reports; 3. Court records; 4. Quality assessments
*Recommend a quota for a minimum number of women trainees in the training institutes; and a minimum number of women judges at each court
2
Law Revision and Law Reform
1. Number of laws drafted and enacted (civil, commercial, human rights, etc.); 2. Number of distributed compiled laws; 3. Completion of studies
Strengthened Legal and Policy Framework
1. Copies of draft and final * Recommend systems for laws in public media and to increased legal access for poor and parliament; women e.g. special courts, family 2. Specially commissioned divisions/section within courts, legal and judicial assessment easier rules of access, closed studies; sessions for special cases like rape 3. JSRP Subprogram Report etc. *Recommend role for Women's Affairs Departments and Legal Aid Collectives and NGOs (in carrying out periodic studies)
3
Law Enforcement Organ capacity enhancement
1. Community policing system in place; 2. Crime prevention & prosecution policy in place; 3. Police Institutions Management Systems documented and implemented; 4. Police forensic service improved & new regional centres established; 5.Penitentiary institutions management standards improved; 6. Certain functions of law enforcement organs automated.
Strengthened Legal and Policy Framework, Restructuring and Performance Improvements, Horizontal Accountability Mechanisms
1. JSRP Subprogram * See above also recommend Report; inclusion of training on the gender 2. Specially commissioned aspects of the law as a component legal and judicial assessment of all training to be conducted to studies; law enforcement bodies, role for 3. Citizens’ Report Card NGOs working on women's rights Surveys areas, gender disaggregated data on all crimes of violence committed against women.
4
Legislative organ
1.Increase in the number of trained members of standing committees federal & regional law making bodies; 2. Increase in the number of
Restructuring and Performance Improvements, Horizontal Accountability Mechanisms
1. JSRP Subprogram Report; 2. Proclamations and Executive Orders
- 71 -
TABLE (x.c): OUTPUT INDICATORS: JUSTICE SYSTEMS REFORM PROGRAM No.
Areas/Components
Key Subprogram Output Indicators professional staff of the legislative body trained in legal drafting; 3. New law making procedures introduced; 4. Increase in number of law making organs equipped with modern materials
Contributes to PSCAP Output
Methods & Tools of Data Collection
Remarks/Recommendation
- 72 -
TABLE (x.d): OUTPUT INDICATORS: URBAN MANAGEMENT CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM No.
Areas/Components
Key Subprogram Output Indicators
Contributes to PSCAP Output
Methods & Tools of Data Collection
Remarks/Recommendation
1
Federal and Regional Urban Management Policy
1. Policies and strategies (urban development, housing, land, etc.) drafted; 2. Model Municipal legal framework and code drafted; 3. Regional and National Municipal associations functioning 4. Model Municipal Manuals prepared; 5. Fiscal transfer framework to ULGAs agreed by regions
Strengthened Legal and Policy Framework, Intergovernmental and fiscal revenue mobilization mechanisms
1. Policy documents; 2. Manuals; 3. UMCB Subprogram Reports; 4. Regional Report; 5. Quality Assessments
* Need for prioritisation of strategies, policies and laws (e.g. urban development policy could be the umbrella policy whereas others could be subsidiary legislation); * Participatory consultations must be used for determining policies and strategies * Manual preparation recommended to be based on studies in regions * Laws and manuals to reflect specific provisions for women and socioeconomically disadvantaged groups
2
Deepening the Process of Decentralization
1. Establishing and strengthening urban-related institutions and organisational structure of ULGAs in the regions and CAs; 2. Manuals adapted to regions and CAs and in use by x (of 80) ULGAs; 3. Studies (e.g. revenue collection, financial and human resources management systems) completed; 4. Subsidiary urban laws, procedures and systems in use by ULGAs; 5. Urban information and communication systems established and in use; 6. Public participatory framework developed; 7. Establishing x and strengthening y physical planning units; 8. Provision of bulk training to federal, regional and CA staff
Restructuring and performance improvement, Strengthened Legal and Policy Framework, Horizontal Accountability Mechanisms
1. UMCB and CSRP Reports; Legislation documents; 2. Published policies and strategies; 3. ULGA annual reports; 5. Quality Assessments; 6. Specially commissioned studies; 8. IGR studies to supplement
* See above. Detailed listing, sequencing and prioritisation of activities (hence, outputs and outcomes) will be key to successful implementation (and monitoring). * Studies suggested on public service-citizens interface
3
Local Government 1. New organisational structures in Restructuring and performance 1. ULGA annual reports; Restructuring and ULGAs; improvement, Strengthened Legal and 2. Subprogram reports; Capacity Building 2. Improved service delivery systems Policy Framework, Vertical and 3. Quality Assessments;
* Priority municipal baseline/ benchmarking studies proposed for year 1 may be advanced to
- 73 -
TABLE (x.d): OUTPUT INDICATORS: URBAN MANAGEMENT CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM No.
Areas/Components
Key Subprogram Output Indicators implemented; 3. Specific local ULGA studies completed (master plan, roads, slums, markets, services networks, hazard protection, HIV/AIDS, poverty reduction, gender, etc.); 4. Standard manuals and operational procedures implemented in ULGAs
Contributes to PSCAP Output Horizontal Accountability Mechanisms, Intergovernmental and fiscal revenue mobilization mechanisms
Methods & Tools of Data Collection 4. CSRP reports; 5. Specially commissioned studies e.g. municipal benchmarking; 6. Citizens' report card surveys; 7. Public Officials' surveys
Remarks/Recommendation Q2; * Studies may be commissioned by Regional governments for specific needs, under federal guidance; * Restructuring must include gender, HIV/Aids and public accountability mechanisms
TABLE (x.e): OUTPUT INDICATORS: TAX SYSTEMS REFORM PROGRAM No.
Areas/Components
1
Tax Policy and Legislation
2
Tax Payer Identification Number (TIN)
3
Key Subprogram Output Indicators
Contributes to PSCAP Output
Methods & Tools of Data Collection
1.Issue or adapt/adopt proclamations, regulations and directives (% of regions); 2. Agricultural income tax and land use fee proclamation issued 3. Revenue potential study of Regions and CAs completed (%) 1. TIN Coverage as a proportion of total tax base; at federal and regions; 2. Proportion of computerised TIN; 3. Third-party use of TIN (Customs and Financial Institutions)
Strengthened Legal and Policy Framework, Intergovernmental and fiscal revenue mobilization mechanisms
1. Proclamations and operational directives copies; 2. Increase in revenue and compliance from TSRP Subprogram Reports
Intergovernmental and fiscal revenue mobilization mechanisms, Restructuring and Performance Improvement
1. TIN computerised database; 2. Tax collections by federal and regions; 3. CSR and Citizens' surveys
Presumptive Taxation
1. Profitability rate directive issued; 2. New Tax-payers registered; 3. Increased tax revenue from businesses and hard-to-tax groups
Intergovernmental and fiscal revenue mobilization mechanisms
1. TIN database; 2. TSRP Subprogram Reports 3. Firms’ surveys
4
Value Added Tax (VAT)
1. No of registered VAT payers; 2. Increase in VAT collections
Intergovernmental and fiscal revenue mobilization mechanisms
1. Reports from Audit and Enforcement programs in operation; 2. TSRP Reports
5
Operational Programs Systems, Procedures and Manuals
1. Implementation of manual in tax offices in regions and CAs; 2. Tax file management system introduced 3. Improved tax-payer satisfaction;
Restructuring and Performance 1. TSRP Subprogram Reports; Improvement, Vertical Accountability 2. CSRP Reports; Mechanisms 3. Tax-payers' and firms’ surveys
Remarks/Recommendation * Stakeholder consultations may be planned for drafting key new tax laws and rules * Incidence analysis studies to pre-empt adverse impacts of key socioeconomic groups
* Stakeholder consultations recommended to finalise manual * Service Charter may be considered as a part of manual development
- 74 -
TABLE (x.e): OUTPUT INDICATORS: TAX SYSTEMS REFORM PROGRAM No.
Areas/Components
Key Subprogram Output Indicators 4.Integrated tax system customized & implemented.
6
Organisation and Tax Payers' Education
1. Reduced staff turnover; Restructuring and Performance 2. Reduced corruption; Improvement, Horizontal 3. Reduced collection costs; Accountability Mechanisms 4. Autonomous Tax Authority set up
1. TSRP Subprogram Reports; 2. Collection costs to be computed internally; 3. Corruption, harassment and complaints reportage from tax payers surveys
1
Customs Automation
1. Reduced goods and passenger clearance time
1. TSRP Subprogram Reports * ECuA to be incorporated in 2. Firms’ surveys the TSRP M&E System
2
Customs 1. Reduced operational overheads Organization and costs; 2. Increased employee Management satisfaction
Contributes to PSCAP Output
Restructuring and Performance Improvement
Methods & Tools of Data Collection
Remarks/Recommendation
Restructuring and Performance 1. TSRP Subprogram Reports * ECuA to incorporate Improvement, Personnel Management (employee and customer, and Systems business process) studies in their M&E System
TABLE (x.f): OUTPUT INDICATORS: INFORMATION & COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM No.
Areas/Components
1
ICT Human Resource Development
2
ICT for Public Service Delivery and Good Governance
Key Subprogram Output Indicators 1. No of (men and women) Civil Servants trained in ICT at all levels; 2. Hardware and software installed; 3. Regional training Centres established; 4.Trainng manuals and softwares developed in X no. of Local languages; 5. No of study documents produced 1. Regional Information Centres established and functioning; 2. Information portals launched; 3. Computerised information system for Woredas and ULGAs; 4. No. and type of customized and developed applications; 5. LAN and WAN developed; 6. Regional websites developed
Contributes to PSCAP Output
Methods & Tools of Data Collection
Remarks/Recommendation
Restructuring and Performance Improvement
1. ICT Subprogram reports; * Targets to be determined * 2. Quality assessment; 3. CSRP ICT Offices to help client Reports offices to track computer literacy and usage development amongst civil servants
Restructuring and Performance Improvement, Horizontal Accountability Mechanisms
1. ICT Subprogram reports; 2. Special Studies; 3. CSRP Reports; 4. Quality Assessment
* Targets for computerised service delivery counters to be planned
- 75 -
TABLE (x.f): OUTPUT INDICATORS: INFORMATION & COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM No.
Areas/Components
3
ICT Applications for Sector Development
4
ICT for Community Based Information Systems and Services
Key Subprogram Output Contributes to PSCAP Output Indicators 1. No of sectors with consolidated Restructuring and Performance digital information at regional Improvement information centers; 2. Integrated information systems in x no of sectors and programs 3. public-domain sectoral information available to the public; 4. Inter-operable Local languages and graphic adaptation / development for sectoral information available; 5. All sectoral data disaggregated by gender; 6. No. of sector -specific content and applications developed; 7. No of developed or customized common administrative applications
Methods & Tools of Data Collection 1. ICT Subprogram reports; 2. Special Studies; 3. CSRP Reports; 4. Quality Assessment
1. Development of local Horizontal Accountability communication content/software; Mechanisms 2. Community needs assessment for ICT services; 3. Broadcast through local media (including traditional media e.g. dagu)
1. ICT Subprogram reports; 2. Need Assessment Study Reports 3. Quality Assessments
Remarks/Recommendation * Plan of development and targets to be determined and monitored by M&E of subprogram
* Community Needs assessment of ICT services may be planned * Local media availability to be assessed jointly with PSCAP IEC
- 76 Annex 2. Thinking through the IEC Cycle Is s ues an d Ris k Fact ors
Rele vant IEC O bjecti ve/In dic at ors
Au die nce
Co mmunic atio n Ch an nel
Res pons i ble Ag ency
Reco mme n de d Actio ns
Political commitment to institutional transformation may waver, or Government may not be able to sustain focus on PSCAP because of its ambitious development agenda
Objective: Increase knowledge to: sustain commitment to PSCAP allocate funds and personnel to meet infrastructure and logistics requirements that are not financed by PSCAP help them hold accountable the responsible bodies implementing PSCAP
Policy makers at federal and regional level
Radio TV Brochures Progress report Workshops
Federal PPD
PPD will produce one brochure on PSCAPgeneral to be disseminated to the audience (Timeframe)
The performance-based feature of PSCAP system – that is, the proposed midyear and annual reallocation of drawing rights based on performance – poses an importance resource management challenge for the Government. If it is not managed clearly, fairly and transparently, it may undermine the credibility of the system.
PPD may be too busy to sustain a continuous communication to help
Indicators: No. of regions that have confirmed mechanisms to address the personnel, infrastructure and logistics requirement that are not finance by PSCAP Ministries, bureaus and agencies implementing PSCAP related activities No. of consensus building workshops involving federal and regional policymakers Objective Increase knowledge for: deeper understanding of rules of the game deeper understanding of rights and responsibilities
Federal -Council of Ministers -Parliament Regional -Cabinet members -Regional councillors -Woreda councillors
Coordinators and implementers of PSCAP at Federal and Regional level will be the main audience.
Regional RPPD
PIP Training workshop Newsletter “Capacity”
Federal Only PPD
BCBs ensure that BOFEDs include budgetary provisions for personnel, infrastructure and logistics requirements of PSCAP; and discuss budgetary implications with relevant legislators
Have a section on the PIP that clearly spells out the resource reallocation rules and procedures (Timeframe)
Federal -Federal Technical Team -MoFED staff responsible for PSCAP
Conduct training on the resource reallocation rules and procedures (Timeframe)
Training conducted on the PIP Performance Report on the newsletter “Capacity” Development of website
Regional -RPPD -Regional Technical Team -BoFED staff responsible for PSCAP
Publish performance of regions on the newsletter “capacity” (Time-frame)
Objective
Regional Coordinators and implementers will be the main audience
Indicators
To create continuous communication with
Review Meetings Regional Networks Website
Federal PPD
Institutionalize quarterly meeting with regions on implementation issues-if
- 77 Is s ues an d Ris k Fact ors
Rele vant IEC O bjecti ve/In dic at ors
regions in resolving implementation issues
regions for smooth implementation To share good practices and lessons learned
Au die nce
Co mmunic atio n Ch an nel
Res pons i ble Ag ency
possible preceding the joint government-donor meeting (Time-frame)
Regional -RPPD and lead sector bureaus
Create a PSCAP website where information can readily be available for regions (Time-frame)
Indicators No. of review meeting with regions No. of Networking activities among regions
Primary beneficiaries will have very little knowledge about PSCAP thus can not demand their rights nor contribute to PSCAP.
Objective Create awareness of PSCAP to: inform how the beneficiaries will benefit and also how they can contribute to PSCAP help the beneficiaries hold accountable executing agencies responsible for implementing PSCAP to create a line of communication with beneficiaries to inform them of progress and get feedback on perception of PSCAP
Indicators
Reco mme n de d Actio ns
Create regional network to share good practices and lessons learned (Timeframe)
Beneficiaries at Federal and Regional Level are the main audience. Federal - Sector ministries, agencies and commissions
Workshops Progress Reports Brochures Review Meetings Survey Traditional Media
Federal -PPD and Program Directors' Offices
Directors of each of PSCAP sub-program will produce one brochure on their respective program for dissemination in collaboration with the PPD. (Time -frame).
Regional -RPPD
The Program Directors will conduct regular meeting with the beneficiaries (Time frame)
- Federal public, private and non-governmental training institutions Regional - Sector bureaus, agencies and Commissions at regional level -Woreda-level sector offices -Regional public, private and non-governmental training institutions
PPD and the Program Directors will conduct an awareness creation and consensus building workshop with the public, private and nongovernmental training institutions
- 78 Is s ues an d Ris k Fact ors
Rele vant IEC O bjecti ve/In dic at ors
Au die nce
Co mmunic atio n Ch an nel
Res pons i ble Ag ency
No. of awareness creation workshops Meetings with training institutions on how they contribute to PSCAP Survey results on perception of beneficiaries
Reco mme n de d Actio ns RPPD in collaboration with the relevant sector bureaus will produce one brochure on their respective program for dissemination (Time frame). RPPD in collaboration with the relevant sector bureaus will conduct regular meeting with the beneficiaries at the regional level (Timeframe)
Insufficient expressed demand on the part of citizens, civil society and the private sector for improved public sector performance in terms of service delivery, empowerment and good governance
Objective
Citizens at Federal and Regional level
Create awareness among citizens to: demand improved public sector performance have voice in the development agenda hold accountable the executers of development policy
Federal -civil society organizations -private sector -citizens at large Regional -civil society organizations -private sector -citizens at large
Radio TV Brochures Progress report Discussion Forum Workshops
Federal PPD
Regional RPPD
RPPD and the relevant sector bureaus will conduct an awareness creation and consensus building workshop with the public, private and non-governmental training institutions at the regional level Develop and disseminate messages on radio, TV and print on PSCAP
- 79 Is s ues an d Ris k Fact ors
Rele vant IEC O bjecti ve/In dic at ors
Au die nce
Co mmunic atio n Ch an nel
Regional Coordinators and implementers will be the main audience
Review Meetings Regional Networks Website
Res pons i ble Ag ency
Reco mme n de d Actio ns
Indicators No. of messages on radio, TV and print to create awareness.
PPD may be too busy to sustain a continuous communication to help regions in resolving implementation issues
Objective To create continuous communication with regions for smooth implementation To share good practices and lessons learned
Federal PPD
Regional -RPPD and lead sector bureaus
Indicators
Institutionalize quarterly meeting with regions on implementation issues if possible preceding the joint governmentdonor meeting (Time frame) Create a PSCAP website where information can readily be available for regions (Time-frame)
No. of review meeting with regions No. of Networking activities among regions
Create regional network to share good practices and lessons learned (Time-frame) Primary beneficiaries will have very little knowledge about PSCAP thus can not demand their rights nor contribute to PSCAP.
Objective Create awareness of PSCAP to: inform how the beneficiaries will benefit and also how they can contribute to PSCAP
Beneficiaries at Federal and Regional Level are the main audience. Federal - Sector ministries, agencies and commissions - Federal public, private and
Workshops Progress Reports Brochures Review Meetings Survey Traditional Media
Federal -PPD and Program Directors' Offices
Directors of each of PSCAP sub-program will produce one brochure on their respective program for dissemination in collaboration with the PPD. (Time -frame).
- 80 Is s ues an d Ris k Fact ors
Rele vant IEC O bjecti ve/In dic at ors help the beneficiaries hold accountable executing agencies responsible for implementing PSCAP to create a line of communication with beneficiaries to inform them of progress and get feedback on perception of PSCAP
Au die nce
Co mmunic atio n Ch an nel
Res pons i ble Ag ency
non-governmental training institutions Regional - Sector bureaus, agencies and Commissions at regional level -Woreda-level sector offices -Regional public, private and non-governmental training institutions
Regional -RPPD
Reco mme n de d Actio ns The Program Directors will conduct regular meeting with the beneficiaries (Time frame) PPD and the Program Directors will conduct an awareness creation and consensus building workshop with the public, private and nongovernmental training institutions
Indicators No. of awareness creation workshops Meetings with training institutions on how they contribute to PSCAP Survey results on perception of beneficiaries
RPPD in collaboration with the relevant sector bureaus will produce one brochure on their respective program for dissemination (Time frame). RPPD in collaboration with the relevant sector bureaus will conduct regular meeting with the beneficiaries at the regional level (Timeframe) RPPD and the relevant sector bureaus will conduct an awareness creation and consensus building workshop with the public, private and
- 81 Is s ues an d Ris k Fact ors
Rele vant IEC O bjecti ve/In dic at ors
Au die nce
Co mmunic atio n Ch an nel
Insufficient expressed demand on the part of citizens, civil society and the private sector for improved public sector performance in terms of service delivery, empowerment and good governance
Objective
Citizens at Federal and Regional level
Radio TV Brochures Progress report Discussion Forum Workshops
Create awareness among citizens to: demand improved public sector performance have voice in the development agenda hold accountable the executers of development policy
Indicators No. of messages on radio, TV and print to create awareness.
Federal -civil society organizations -private sector -citizens at large Regional -civil society organizations -private sector -citizens at large
Res pons i ble Ag ency
Federal PPD
Regional RPPD
Reco mme n de d Actio ns non-governmental training institutions at the regional level Develop and disseminate messages on radio, TV and print on PSCAP
- 82 -
