Key Lessons from the Evaluation

 The various related diagnostics should support the client in preparing a single, integrated action plan. The Bank can strengthen the effectiveness of CFAAs and CPARs by supporting client countries in the preparation of an integrated, costed, prioritized, and monitorable set of actions for PFM reform, even when the diagnosis and the actual implementation are undertaken through multiple instruments and activities.

  To be more effective in helping achieve the Bank’s fiduciary goal, CFAAs and CPARs should incorporate an integrated fiduciary risk assessment framework. If these instruments are to effectively influence the design of Bank assistance and achieve their fiduciary goals, they must assess fiduciary risk consistently and comprehensively. The diagnosis could consider the impact of corrupt practices on financial management and procurement systems, if the instruments are to realistically measure risks.

 A strengthened role for the country and greater collaboration with relevant donors in the preparation of CFAAs and CPARs would enhance their impact. The diagnostics are most effective when their findings are integrated into the government’s reform strategies and policies. The process for preparing CFAAs and CPARs would benefit from a clear country-led dissemination strategy that would broaden and deepen the ownership of the analyses, thereby strengthening commitment for reform among a wider range of client stakeholders.

 The diagnostics should help the client track and measure the costs and results of PFM reform. Few diagnostics have provided any indicators to track and measure the results of planned activities (outputs or intermediate outcomes) or to understand the costs of reform (inputs). To improve impact, action plans should include progress-monitoring indicators.

 Finally, the efficiency and effectiveness of CFAAs and CPARs would increase with better internal coordination among the various units responsible for PFM—three operational units lodged in two vice presidencies and three sector boards. Incentives and mechanisms could be created for effective planning and coordination among the three units. In certain contexts, integrated diagnostics may be the answer; in others, flexibility for independent diagnosis is best retained.