moving from aid management to public investment
DESCRIPTION
Moving from Aid Management to Public Investment. State Committee on Investments and State Property Management of the Republic of Tajikistan UNDP/DFID Project “Support to Effective National Aid Coordination and Monitoring” Nairobi , 21-23 January 2014. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Moving from Aid Management to Public Investment
State Committee on Investments and State Property Management of the Republic of Tajikistan
UNDP/DFID Project “Support to Effective National Aid Coordination and Monitoring”Nairobi, 21-23 January 2014
SCISPM Aid Information Management System (AIMS)
In 2013 information against 446 projects was updated, including 139 incomplete projects and 324 current projects including 153 new projects. External cooperation process involves 77 development partners, including 22 bilateral, 21 multilateral, 32 non-governmental and 3 other international organizations.
SCISPM annual publications
Foreign Aid Trends
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20120
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
230,845
275,543
326,538 321,536297,244
416,823
563,455576,865
579,052550,003
464,421
229,015 212,959
271,706262,383
187,442
412,373
544,667 577,093
522,552
486,249
388,176
Commitment Disbursement
USD
thou
sand
In 2009 foreign aid reached its peak at US$ 577 mln. Over the last three years annual volume of foreign aid reduced to 33%.
Foreign aid trends per capita and share of foreign aid in GDP
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20120.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Fore
ign
Aid
per c
apita
, USD
/per
son
Fore
ign
Aid
shar
e to
GDP
, %%
Over a period 2002-2012 foreign aid per capita increased from US$ 35,9 to US$ 49,8, while share of foreign aid in GDP decreased from 19% to 5%.
Foreign Aid per capitaForeign Aid share to GDP
Foreign aid trends by loans and grants
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20120
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
171,926166,640 165,746148,065
110,108 129,140 189,763
284,076
281,571
268,621
250,297
57,089
46,319 105,960 114,31877,334
283,233
354,904
293,017
240,980
217,628
137,879
229,015 212,959
271,706262,383
187,442
412,373
544,667 577,093522,552
486,249
388,176
Grants Loans Total
USD
thou
sand
Foreign aid tends to decrease both in terms of loans and grants, while loan share falls more rapidly.
Donor countries assistance in 2012
In 2012 Germany provided US$ 35 mln. (25%), China – US$ 28 (20%), Japan – US$ 22 mln. (16%), Saudi Arabia – US$ 15 mln. (11%), Switzerland – US$ 14 mln. (10%), UK – US$ 11 mln. (8%), USA – US$ 6 mln. (4%), etc.
GermanyChina
Japan
Saudi Arabia
Switzeland
United Kingdom USAKuwait
Norway Iran0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,00035,318
27,624
21,679
14,95513,567
11,119
5,6383,524 2,992
900
тыс.
долл
. СШ
А
Foreign aid trends by group of international organizations
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20120
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
78,19263,860 75,841 78,815
60,528
280,485
365 940
287,651
241,814
243,300
141,499134,293 126,603 175,789
173,732111,540 113,521
166,338
271,954
263,463
227,672232,818
16,530 22,496 20,076 9,835 15,374 18,367 14,959 17,487 17,274 15,27713,858
229,015 212,959
271,706262,359
187,442
412,373
544,667 577,093
522,552
486,249
388,176
Bilateral Multilateral NGO Total
USD
thou
sand
Assistance from multilateral organizations over the period 2002-2009 tended to grow, but over the next few years, aid provided by the said organizations reduced and in 2012 amounted US$ 233 mln.
Disbursement structure by groups of international organizations and implementing agencies in 2012
141.499 $
thou-sand
232.818 $
thou-sand
13.858 $ thousand
BilaterialMultilateralNGO
Foreign Aid by group of international organizations
Aid disbursements by implementing agencies
In 2012, the highest amount received from multilateral organizations totaled $ 233 million or 60% of the total aid received in 2012. Bilateral organizations’ share amounted US $ 141 million, or 36%, NGOs - $ 14 million, or 4%.
The highest aid amount was disbursed PIUs totaling US$ 138 million or 36%. Ministries and departments have disbursed 109 million (28%), local NGOs - US$ 3 million (0.8%), local governments - US$ 1 million (0.3%).
31 $ mln. (8%)
58 $ mln.(15%)
42 $ mln. (11%)
109 $ mln. (28%)
1 $ mln.
(0,3%)
138 $ mln. (36%)
3 $ mln(0,8%)
5 $ mln. (1%)
Bilaterial
Multilateral
NGO
Ministries and De-partments
Local Authority
Project Implementation Units (PIU)
Local NGO
Intl. Consulting Firm
State investment projects
54,4%
20,7%
9,0%
4,9%4,1%
3,4% 2,70% 0,6% 0,04% Transport
Energy
Agriculture & Irrigation
Water, Sanitation & HMS
Education
Health
050,000
100,000150,000200,000250,000300,000350,000400,000450,000
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Grabts 10,183 9,039 16,355 8,594 15,688 27,190 45,501 93,422 55,062 91,539 81,015
Loans 54,253 42,543 97,594 75,934 76,599 282,49 354,90 252,81 180,65 197,53 97,699
Total 64,436 51,583 113,94 84,528 92,287 309,68 400,40 346,23 235,71 289,07 178,71
USD
thou
sand
Investment projects portfolio structure
Investment funds disbursement for 2002-2012
Total joint investment projects portfolio amounted US$ 2.1 billion, where US$ 1.9 billion (90.8%) was external resources, US $ 182 million (8.8 %) - Government contribution and US $ 8 million (0.4%) - other funding.
For the period 2002-2012, the volume of investment funds disbursements amounted to US $ 2.3 billion or 73% of the total investment funds, considered by agreements.
ADB and WB investment projects portfolio funds disbursement as of 30 June 2013
10 mln $; (5%)19 mln $;
(9%)40 mln $;
(18%)
149 mln$; (68%)
AgricultureEnvironmentEnergyTransport
Asian Development Bank
55 $ mln. (46%)
0,2 $ mln. (0,2%)
29 $mln. (24%)
20 $ mln. (16%)
14 $mln. (11%)
3 $ mln. (2%)
1 $ mln. (1%)
Agriculture and Irrigation
Environment
Energy
Water & sanitation & HMS
Education
Health
Social welfare and labour
World Bank
Foreign aid by regions
In 2012 highest foreign aid rates were used to implement nationwide projects, share of which made 38,8%. 25,4% of total foreign aid was directed to Khatlon region, 14,4% - to Sughd, 10,9% to RRS, 5,4% to Dushanbe and 5,1% to GBAO.
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000171,418
129,357
69,482
39,370 33,348
150,781
98,711
55,787
42,163
21,084
Commitment Disbursement
US$
thou
sand
Foreign aid per capita by regions
GBAO accounts for the lowest share of foreign aid which is only 5,1% of total aid provided to Tajikistan in 2012.
However, calculation of foreign aid per capita in GBAO shows US$ 94,4 which is much higher than similar measurements in other country regions.
GBAO Khatlon oblast Dushanbe Sugd oblast RRS0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
10094.4
35.8
28.224.4 23.7Us
d th
ousa
nd/p
erso
n
Aid by Expenditure Categories in 2012
In 2012 aid structure by expenditure categories shows that the largest disbursement were made under the category of “Works”– US$158 mln. (41%) The “Other” category amounted US$114 mln. (29%), “Goods” – US$64 mln (17%) and “Services” – US$ 52 mln. (13%). The “Other” disbursements category included more than 73% of Sub-loan/on-lending and operational costs
US$ 158 mln. (41%)
US$ 64 mln. (17%)
US$ 52 mln. (13%)
US$ 114 mln. (29%)
WorksGoodsServicesOther
Foreign Aid by Sector
In 2012 more than ⅓ of all aid was directed to two priority infrastructure sectors: Transport (24.3%) and Energy (9.8%). About ⅓ of foreign aid used for the development of social sectors.
TransportHealth
Agriculture and Irrigation
Government AdministrationEnergy
Education
Water supply, Sanitation & HMS
Social Welfare and Labor
Multisector
Environment
Privet Sector & Industry0
20
40
60
80
100
120106
75
6154
4137
21 20 18 16 13
94
51
42
52
3833
19 19 1712 11
Commitment Disbursement
USD
mill
ion
Foreign aid trends in social sphere sectors
Over the last three years volume of foreign aid throughout all sectors tended to fall, apart from three sectors in social sphere.
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20120
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
1458 1743 4173
131637332
5711
16377 1608816566
22076
19102
10530 1553618998
26384
21199
26015 26574 26374 28388
34861
33082
36495
1774020965
14229
22176 25683
38102
33520
4984951602
51134
Water and sanitation and HMS Education Health
Aid structure by sectors for 2010-2012
Government admin-istration12.2%
Agriculture and irri-gation8.9%
Environment3.0%
Energy14.9%
Transport29.1,%
Water, sanitation and HMS
4.1%Education
6.9%Health10.9%Social welfare and
Labor 4.9%
Private sector and industry
2.4%
Multisector2.9%
For the period of 2010-2012 the largest assistance was provided to the transport sector in the amount of US$ 406,726 thousand or 29.1% of the total aid received by the country.The smallest amount of aid was provided to the private sector and industry – US$ 33,630 thousand or 2.4 %.
Commitments and disbursement in the Private sector during 2002-2012
In 2005, the aid to private sector has reached its maximum value in the amount of US$ 15 004 thousand. In 2006-2007, the aid volumes fell sharply. In subsequent years, the trend of aid growth has been observed.
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20120
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
4,432
13,522
17,213
19,00319,005
3,487
6,019
7,204
12,008
15,749
12,612
3,611
4,744
14,166
15,004
6,2762,943
5,205
6,482
10,863
11,915
10,852
Commitments Disbursements
USD
thou
sand
Disbursements by aid modality (loans and grants) in the Private sector during 2002-2012
For 2003-2008, the nature of aid volume in the private sector and industry is determined by the changes in the volume of loans in this sector. Since 2009, the aid to the private sector comes solely in the form of grants.
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20120
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
3,276
4,428
6,9705,620
1,766
1,8003,005
6,482
10,863
11,915
10,852
336 316
7,196
9,384
4,510
1,1432,200
3,6114,744
14,166
15,004
6,276
2,943
5,205
6,482
10,863
11,915
10,852
Grants Loans Total
USD
thou
sand
Disbursements in the Private sector by groups of international organization during 2002-2012
In recent years, an increase of aid from bilateral organizations is observed, the amount of payments of which in 2012 reached US$ 7,272 thousand, and reduction of aid from multilateral organizations, the payments of which amounted to US$ 3,345 thousand in 2012.
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20120
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
3,267
1,820
4,053
5,403
1,417 1,339 1,855
3,883 4,787
7,394
7,272
344682
7,826
9,481
4,659
1,432
3,177
1,484
5,251
4,364
3,3452,242 2,287
120 200 172 172 1,115
825
157 235
3,611
4,744
14,16615,004
6,276
2,943
5,205
6,482
10,863
11,915
10,852
Bilaterial Multilateral NGO Total
USD
thou
sand
Number of projects in the Private sector by duration and total cost during 2002-2012
The Projects with a duration of up to 1 year account for 31.3% of the total number of projects. The Projects with a duration of 2 to 3 years account for 42.9%, 4 to 5 years duration projects - 16.3 %, and projects with a duration of more than 5 years - 9.5%.
The largest share was projects worth up to US$ 50 thousand - 38.1% of the total number of projects implemented in the sector. Next projects with cost of between 50 and 500 thousand US$ - 35.4%, projects costing from 1,000 to 10,000 - 16.3%, and projects up to US$ 500-1,000 thousand - 9.5%.
Projects up to 1 year
Projects 2-3 years
Projects 4-5 years
Projects more than 5 years
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
46 projects (31,3%)
63 projects (42,9%)
24 projects (16,3%)
14 projects (9,5%)
up to 50
50 - 500
500 - 1,000
1,000 - 10,000
more than 10,000
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
56 projects (38,1%)
52 projects (35,4%)
14 projects (9,5%)
24 projects (16,3%)
1 project (0,7%)
Projects by cost:
USD
thou
sand
Aid structure by sub-sectors of the Private sector
For the period of 2010-2012, 49% of all assistance to private sector was directed to its support and development, 18.1 % of aid to support the Finance and Banking subsector, 4.3 % of aid to improve the investment climate, 1.3% for tourism development, 1% to support Microfinance.
2.7%5.1% 1.5%
1,0%
58.2%
31.4% Finance & Bankiing
Investment climate improve-ment and business services support and development Tourism DevelopmentMicrofinancePrivate Sector support and development Others - Private Sector and Industry
NDS• Definition of strategic
priorities
PRS• Definition of measures and
financing gap
JCPS• Mechanism for
alignment; Action Plan
Foreign Aid and Strategic Documents
Common Space
Poverty Reducation
Strategy
Joint Country Partnership
Startegy
Development Forum Action
Plan
Common space for linking M&E framework with financing mechanisms
One Strategy
One Coordintion Mechanism
One Monitoring & Evaluation Framework
• Guidelines on Foreign Aid Mobilization, Management, Coordination and Monitoring in the Republic of Tajikistan;
• Improvement of transparency of procurement processes;
• Inserting changes to SCISPM Regulation, new structure.
Improving Regulatory Framework
PRS implementation in 2010-2012
Year
Number of projects Number of agreements Number of PRS measures
Disbursements (USD thousand)
Total Under PRS % Total Under
PRS % TotalFunded by DP
% Total Under PRS %
2010 560 221 39% 803 301 37%
514
163 32% 522 552 289 813 55%
2011 466 202 43% 691 290 42% 167 32% 486 249 332 925 68%
2012 446 202 45% 616 278 45% 152 30% 388 176 225 321 58%
Total 837 336 40% 1 279 508 40% 205 40% 1 396 976 848 059 61%
Over the period 2010-2012 total 837 foreign aid projects have been implemented, including 336 projects or 40% of which were implemented under the PRS. During this period foreign aid volume amounted US$ 1,4 bln., 61% of which was used in accordance with PRS.
Support to sectors under the PRS 2010-2012
There is a significant difference between the total aid and the aid provided under the PRS. Especially with regard to such sectors as Government administration, where aid provided under the PRS made only 13% of total aid to this sector; Private sector and Industry - 14%, Social welfare and labour - 36%.
TransportEnergy
Agriculture and IrrigationHealth
Education
Water supply, Sanitation & HMS
Social Welfare and Labor
Government Administration
Environment
Privet Sector & Industry0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400 376
195
125153
96
58 68
171
42 34
318
166
10176 65
4925 22 18 5
Total disbursement PRS disbursement
USD
mill
ion
Overall aid indicators and PRS figures for 2010-2012
Private sector№
Indicators Indicators on TA
PRS Indicators
% (column4/ column 3)
А 1 2 3 4
1 Disbursements (US$ 000s) 33.630 4.577 13,6%2 Number of projects 57 18 31,6%3 Number of agreements 76 22 28,9%4 Number of sources of financing 26 9 34,6%5 Number of development partners 23 12 52,2%
Total disbursements volume and disbursements under PRS in the Private sector for 2010-2012
2010 2011 20120
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
10,863
11,915
10,852
1,657 1,8041,116
Total Disbursements Disbursements by PRS
US$
thou
sand
Indicators of the Living Standards Improvement Strategy of Tajikistan for 2013-2015 (LSIS)
Name Number of measures Measures contained in the LSIS Action Matrix, total 327
Including:
Measures with undefined needs 168
Measures with defined needs 159
Including:
Measures funded solely by GoRT 48
Measures with anticipated funding from development partners
18
Measures with anticipated co-funding from the Government and development parnters
35
Measures with undefined funding source 51
Measures funded from direct foreign investments 7
Results of the discussion between the Government and DPs
• Volume of aid over the last few years tends to reduce;• During the reporting period share of grants exceeded that of loans;• Share of aid provided by bilateral organizations keeps reducing, consequently,
share of aid from multilateral organizations grows;• Majority of aid is being implemented by the national players (PIUs, ministries and
departments, local authories and NGOs);• There is a gap in implementation of great amount of commitments in a number of
sectors;• 205 measures of PRS actions matrix for 2010-2012 were implemented under 336
foreign aid projects;• More than 60% of aid is aligned with PRS priority measures for 2010-2012;• Insufficient assistance, under PRS, to such priority sectors as: Government
Administration, Private Sector and Industry and Social Welfare and Labour.
Recommendations
• Activities on sector and regional aid coordination development • Capacity building of SCISPM and regional structures in aid coordination
sphere • Further development of cooperation with development partners,
including under SPC.• Participation in international Global Partnership Monitoring process • Complex works on AIMS expansion and its effective use.
33
Monitoring tools of the Global Partnership
SCISPM Aid Information Management System (AIMS)
Contains detailed definitions developed to assist involved countries in collecting the necessary data.
A tool in which the collected data provided by both the national government and development partners.
Contains information on foreign aid flows provided to Tajikistan
34
Data Collection on National Level Indicators
AIMS
Доноры
Country Spreadsheet (preliminary version)
SCISPM – National Coordinator
UNDP/OECD JST
ДонорыDevelopment Partners
Country Spreadsheet (Final Version)
Clarification and validation of AIMS data by partners
Sending the Country Spreadsheet to Development Partners with entered data from AIMS
Dat
a co
llect
ion
from
na
tiona
l par
ticip
ants
- In
dica
tors
6,7
,9b
Ministries and departments,
PIUs
Support Group of the Global Partnership
Monitoring in Tajikistan under SCISPM
Consultative process
35
Global Partnership Monitoring in Tajikistan
• National ownership – SCISPM is National coordinator at the Global Partnership Monitoring in Tajikistan;
• The Country Spreadsheet contains information on development co-operation for 22 countries-partners, including 14 bilateral agencies, European Union, 13 multilateral organizations, 9 UN agencies (information on them is presented in aggregated form);
• 8 national ministries and agencies, 30 PIUs have been involved in the monitoring
• Data on 448 foreign aid projects were covered. • National system of the monitoring of the development cooperation
effectiveness – SCISPM AIMS was used. • Maintained close communication and consultation process with the
UNDP/OECD Joint Support Team;
36
Evaluation of the national level indicators of the Global Partnership Monitoring
Indicators Indicator Evaluation
Indicator 5a: Development co-operation is more predictable (annual predictability) 89,1%
Indicator 5b: Development co-operation is more predictable (medium-term predictability) 37,1%
Indicator 6: Aid is on budgets which are subject to parliamentary scrutiny 91,5%
Indicator 7: Mutual accountability among development co-operation actors is strengthened through inclusive reviews 100%
Indicator 9b: Use of country public financial management and procurement systems 2,8%
Interlinked Cycles
MED&TPlanning Cycle
NDS, PRS, PIP
SCISPMAid Cycle
AIMS, FAR, DPP
MoF Budget Cycle
MTEF, Budget, SBS
Three interlocking circles
NDS, PRS, PIP(planning cycle)
Items financed by State Budget
(budget cycle)Items financed by
foreign aid(foreign aid cycle)
AIMSAIMS
PRS/PIP
Usual Scenario Best Scenario
PRS/PIP
Projects not found in PIP Unfunded or Pipeline ProjectsUnfunded or Pipeline Projects
AIMS – PRS/PIP: Relationship
Project StagesPi
pelin
e Pr
ojec
ts
Clo
sed
Proj
ects
AIMSPIP
Pipeline Projects
Proj
ect I
dent
ified
Fund
ing
Iden
tified
Fact
-find
ing
Miss
ion
Inclu
ded
in P
IP
Term
s of R
efer
ence
Agre
emen
t Sig
ned
Proj
ect M
obiliz
atio
n
Disb
urse
men
t #1
Revi
ew M
issio
n
Disb
urse
men
t #2
Audi
t Rev
iew
Proj
ect C
lose
d
Eval
uatio
n M
issio
n
Milestones
Interface between stakeholders
SCISPM
MED&T MoF MoFA Line Ministrie
s
Development Partners
The Scheme for attracting foreign aid for LSIS needs
LSIS Sector: Improving the investment climate, private sector and entrepreneurship development• Total number of measures - 21• Measures with estimated need - 3 • Measures with need not estimated - 18
WG to support private sector development
SCISPM
Donors
LSIS AM analysis
SCISPMEntrepreneurship Support
Department
The list of projects on LSIS
measures (PS)
LPP LSIS (PS)
AIMSLSIS AM analysis
DCC
Dev
elop
men
t of p
roje
ct p
ropo
sals
Key Challenges
• Improvement of the AIMS data entry quality and timeliness;
• Tracking of implemented changes in AIMS;• Full coverage of the project cycle and better
orientation towards country priorities (PRS/LSIS/PIP);
• Automatisation of document workflow between Ministries and departments in the PIP framework.
AIMS PIP M&E
ResultsResources
Next steps
