PRBS HoC meeting
14 November 2007, PRBS Secretariat
Minutes
Attending
Roy Trivedy DFID
Paul Whittingham DFID
Ian Shapiro DFID
Jesper Kammersgaard Danish Embassy
Shireen Mahdi Embassy of Ireland
Makota Ito Japanese Embassy
Yuzuru Ozeki JBIC
Anders Berlin Embassy of Sweden
Angela Tormin Embassy of Germany
John McIntire WB
Hans Hoogeveen WB
Rene Van Nes EC
Kristin Sverdrup Embassy of Norway
Trond Augdal Embassy of Norway
Pieter Dorst Embassy of the Netherlands
Carin Salerno Swiss Cooperation
Martin Saladin Swiss Cooperation
Satu Santala Embassy of Finland
Stephan Potter Canadian High Commission
Oswald Leo PRBS Secretariat (Minutes)
Paulina Mrosso PRBS Secretariat
Agenda
1. Agree Agenda and Minutes of Last Meeting
2. Finalization of the PAF
3. Finalization of the Annual Review report
4. Indications oflikely commitments from each agency
5. Follow-up on the results session of the annual review
1. Agreed and Minutes of the Last Meeting
The agenda was adopted and minutes of the last meeting were endorsed.
2. Finalisation of the PAF
The PRBS Coordination Group met on 12 November to review the latest draft PAF, which had been agreed by GoT Permanent Secretaries. Stevan Lee (DFID) fed back the recommendations made by the CG, outlined in a covering note (attached) – this made 4 general and 12 specific points.
In discussions, HoCs agreed that:
· DPs should push to bring forward proposed target dates which fell in November 2008 (i.e. after the next Annual Review) to the dates agreed in CWGs
· annualised targets should be agreed as soon as possible (latest January 2008) – as recommended by the CG in the covering note. Annualised targets should be based as far as possible on existing GoT targets, rather than creating new PRBS-generated targets.
· The overall number of indicators should be kept to a manageable number. It was pointed out that there were currently only 16 outcome indicators proposed (with a few more to follow) – this is not excessive, especially when compared to other country PAFs.
· Explanatory notes could be removed from the text in the PAF itself to reduce the overall length – but background/ explanatory notes must be recorded to explain what targets mean, how they will be monitored/ analysed.
· Looking forward, DPs should communicate the need for consistency between PSs and CWG members, to address the apparent disconnect between the political and technical levels in GoT. For our part, DPs would also need to address this, including through earlier HoCs involvement in / steer to CWG discussions
· Communications were important – we need to move away from an exchange of papers between GoT and DPs, back to a process of dialogue. The proposed meeting between DPs and PSs was critical to this.
· The PRBS Troika should continue prompt the Government to finalise the work on SSR to better inform sector reviews next year – the work on Satisfactory Sector Review is long overdue
Way forward:
· CWGs to send in final outstanding indicator proposals (including health and environment)by Thursday (15 Nov),
· Agencies to communicate any major gaps in the PAF to the Chair
· Chair toprepare the draft PAF for 2008with a covering note incorporating commentsand explanation by DPsby Friday Morning
· The Secretariat to arrange for an informal meeting with GoT counterparts and to share the revised PAF with inputs from DPs by Friday 16 Nov
· PRBS Chair to prompt GoT toarrange a meeting witha broad group ofGoT PSsfornext weekto finalise the PAF
· PRBS Secretariat to produce a summary of progress against the 2006 PAF, base on CWG progress reports, for inclusion in the final Annual Review report.
3. Finalization of the Annual Review report
Way forward:
· PRBS Chair to communicate to the Government on the need tochase up the Report from the Facilitator andfinalise the report asap - PRBS commitments hinges on finalization of the report
· The PRBS HoCs to discuss and agree final assessment of and commitments from the GBS Annual Review 2007 after receiving the AR report from the facilitator.
4. Indications oflikely commitments from each agency
The Chair outlined some principles which the UK had formulated for its own deliberations, and which the Group could apply when considering funding decisions. These were:
· That DPs should adopt a consistent approach
· That we should seek to protect the PRBS modality – responding to poor performance if necessary but not withholding so much that might undermine the overall instrument and see a major shift back to project funding
· Related to this, we should try to avoid reducing the overall amount of PRBS funding to Tanzania from last year
· Funding decisions should not jeopardize GoT service delivery
· We should be clear that DPs would work with GoT to address any weaknesses/ shortcomings identified at the Annual Review
PRBS HoCs provided some indication on likely disbursements for next year. Indicative planned commitments would be communicated to GoT by 23 November.
It was agreed that we need to agree joint communications messages around final disbursements.
Way forward:
· PRBS Secretariat to follow- upwith GoT on MTEF projections on PRBS commitments for three years 2008/09 to 2009/10. The MTEF projection will be sharedwithPRBS members
· Chair to circulatea template for agencies to make planned disbursement.This will be accompanied by acover notewith guidance on 'planned' disbursements
· PRBSChairto start working on key underlying messages to communicate to the Government in tandem with GBS commitments - to be discussed at next HoC meeting.
5. Follow-up on the results session of the annual review
· HoCs agreed to send a letter to PS-MPEE to follow-up on the results session at the Annual Review. The letter would clarify that this is an issue of concern to GBS and non GBS partners. (See Annex1: Letter by PRBS Chair to PS-MPEE on Results for more details – this has been further revised since the meeting)
PRBS Secretariat
14 Nov 2007
Annex 1: (Revised) Letter by PRBS Chair to PS-MPEE on Results
Dear Ambassador Mutalemwa
Thank you for chairing the session on results at the Budget Support Annual Review. It was good to have the opportunity to discuss this issue which is important to all donors whether giving Budget Support or not. We welcome the various government commitments to rationalise and strengthen data production and reporting systems. The key now will be to implement a robust system that delivers good quality information and analysis which feed into decision-making and demonstrate progress.
I would like to follow up on some points from the discussions. We welcome the Government’s commitments on taking forward the work of the Harmonisation Task Force and we would like to re-iterate the DPs preparedness to use the Government’s reporting system. It would be good to know how development partners might be able to relate to the process, possibly through the PER, with the objective of achieving a reporting system that meets our combined needs. We look forward to hearing from the government on this and hope that our joint understanding can be reflected in the annual review report.
We also welcome the Government’s commitments to strengthen statistics as part of improving the monitoring and evaluation system. Development Partners stand ready to discuss with you how we can support this and what resources might be necessary. In that context, I would like to take this opportunity to request a meeting with you to discuss the restructuring and possible replenishment of the MKUKUTA pooled fund. With the emphasis in our discussions on implementing the government’s Statistical Master Plan led by the National Bureau of Statistics and the new performance reporting proposed in the 2007 Budget Guidelines, there are likely to be implications for how the funding mechanism changes. It may be useful to involve Mr Mgonja in this discussion as well.
Finally, in the preparation for the annual review, I know that government and development partner colleagues worked together to produce background material. The paper produced by the DP Poverty Monitoring Group was circulated at the review and had been discussed with the DPG as well as with Anna Mwasha and other colleagues in MPEE and PO PSM. To the degree that these are not already reflected in the Government commitments from GBS Annual Review 2007, we would very much welcome hearing your reflections on the proposed actions in that paper, in particular the suggestion to set up an independent Tanzanian national evaluation institution. We would be happy to discuss this further with you.
Yours sincerely
Roy Trivedy
Head, DFID and Chair of the PRBS Group
3