Agriculture Public Expenditure Workshop Module 4

STRENGTHENING NATIONAL COMPREHENSIVE AGRICULTURAL PUBLIC EXPENDITURE IN SUB-SAHARAN

AFRICA

Agricultural Public Expenditure Training WorkshopAccra, Ghana

(April 13 -14, 2011)

MODULE 4SPECIALIZED STUDIES:

PUBLIC EXPENDITURE TRACKING SURVEYS(PETS)

CONTENTS

I) BACKGROUND

II) OBJECTIVE/SCOPE

III) METHODOLOGY

IV) DATA SOURCES

V) PROCESS

VI) TA TEAM

VII) TIMELINE

I) BACKGROUND

• A problem arises when public funds do not reach frontline service providers, or when they do, that they are used inefficiently.

• Limited information on quality of services undermines accountability and effective use of scarce public resources.

• A specialized study – PETS - can be conducted to complement the Basic Agric Diagnostic analysis to assess this type of problem.

• PETS focus on outputs of public programmes.

• The template TOR for PETS (A4.1) draw on various sources

(A4.2, A4.3, for example of PETS in Uganda, see A4.4):

– Practitioner’s Toolkit for AgPERs (WB/DFID, 2010)

– Public Expenditure Management Handbook (World Bank, 1998)

– Other reports (especially “PETS-QSDS in SSA: A Stocktaking Study”)

Background Objective/Scope Methdology Data Sources Process TA Team Timeline

II) OBJECTIVES AND SCOPEObjectives: • Assist selected governments in SSA to assess whether public

resources budgeted for key agriculture sector programmes are effectively reaching the intended programmes and beneficiaries, and in a cost-effective manner.

• Provide evidence-based insights into service delivery problems to high level policy and decision makers.

• Carry out a field survey to track resources through focusing on administrative and procedural steps of budget execution.

• Pinpoint bottlenecks, inefficiencies or deviations from the intended purposes, and to provide recommended corrective actions.

• Provide a diagnostic tool which will identify sources and extent of inefficiency or leakage of public services, and as an analytical tool to discover the causes of poor service delivery.


Scope:PETS focus on examining the effectiveness of agric expenditures with respect to the outputs of key services (see Chart) rather than outcomes and impact.

(1) Key Activities: covers a range of activities.

(2) Survey Focus: on agric exp. where there are concerns about inefficiencies (and/or high unit costs) in resource use (e.g., agric extension services) or high costs (e.g., fertilizer support).

(3) Country Selection: Various prerequisites: adequate level of PEM; completed recent AgPER; evidence of concerns about delivery of services of substantial expenditure items.

(4) Institutional Scope: Choice of area as focus of PETS will determine responsible and collaborating ministry(ies)/related agencies.


Chart - Output indicators: Coverage and Utilization of Ag. Services

Investment /Intervention

OutputsProvision /

Coverage (e.g.)

OutcomesUtilization (e.g.)

Disaggregation

Research Number of technologies dev’d

Area under technology

Commodity, gender, space

Extension Extension-farmer ratio

Number of visits received per year

Gender, space

Irrigation Capacity of irrigation (irrigable area)

Area under irrigation Commodity, gender, space

Farm support Quantity of support Area under input Commodity, gender, space

Feeder roads Length or density of roads

Space

Market Distance to nearest market

Share of output sold Commodity, gender, space

Post harvest Capacity of storage Capacity utilized Commodity, gender, space

… Background Objective/Scope Methdology Data Sources Process TA Team Timeline

Relationships of I-O-O is Key for PETS (example from Uganda AgPER/PETS analysis)


III) METHODOLOGY

Overview:• Scale and complexity of PETS will vary greatly from

country to country, based on various factors:– Complexity of service or expenditure program– Adequacy and reliability of data– Time and cost required

• Difficult to propose a “standard methodology• “Simple” vs. “Complex” survey/PETS (see Table)


Simple vs. Complex PETSSimple Survey Complex Survey

Survey Focus • Small country• Comparatively new service or programme• Largely undifferentiated population with respect to topic• Centrally managed

• Large country• Large-scale, long-term service• Need for careful stratification of sample• Many administrative layers• Decentralised responsibilities

Data Availability • Good M&E system in place• Baseline undertaken• Target and non-target population data available

• Poor or non-existent M&E system• No baseline data available• Data do not address survey issues

Data Gathering • TA team• Small counterpart team

• TA team• Counterparts• Interviewers/enumerators

Additional Costs • Small – can be accommodated within existing budget

• Substantial costs for hiring and mobilizing interviewers and enumerators


Steps for a PETS1) Preparatory Stage:

– Identify focus area (prior to engaging TA Team)– Understand Focus area setting, involving resource flows,

role of key actors in the delivery “chain”– Assess data availability and collection capacity

2) Sampling and Questionnaire Design: unlikely survey instruments can be standardized

– Design sample survey: stratified random sample– Prepare draft questionnaire: Establish key hypotheses

and tailor questionnaire to various administrative levels (central, regional, district government; service providers)


Steps for a PETS (cont.)3) Implementation

– Identify enumerators/interviewers

– Field Test the draft questionnaire on pilot basis

– Collect Data after survey is finalized, and ensure monitoring and supervision to ensure data reliability

– Enter and clean data to control for data errors

4) Data Analysis, Reporting and Dissemination

– Data Analysis by TA team, using graphical method

– Reporting by TA team, focusing on summary of data analysis

– Dissemination to key actors, using workshop(s), in collaboration with MOA/agency concerned


Types of Conclusions and Recommendations

• Emerging from the analysis of survey data

• Arising beyond the scope of the PETS:

– Whether specific norms for the delivery of a service shouldbe set, and what they might be

– The extent to which budget reallocations should be made that would enhance effectiveness or “value for money”

– The need for improved accounting systems to enhance transparency in budget allocations and accountability

– The need to build capacity at different levels in order to enhance service delivery or operations

– Introduction of incentives to make the delivery system more client-driven at all levels


IV) SOURCES OF DATA AND INFORMATION

• A PETS focuses on generating new data• Also, a useful PETS starts with sound grasp of the

sector, Ag. PE and areas of service delivery. Key information sources will include:– Official sources– Studies and “Grey” sources– Sources for reviewing sector outputs and

outcomes


V) PROCESS(a) Participatory Process

• Establish working partnership with key actors• Ensure TA team has active counterparts

(b) Key Phases (3): to be carried out by the TA team, guided by Steering Group (SG)

• Preparatory Phase– Stakeholder Briefing– Inception Workshop– Setting up SG

• Implementation Phase– Survey Implementation

– Technical Workshop– Data Analysis

• Reporting Phase: draft diagnostic report; draft summary diagnostic report workshop (after 4 months); Full Analytical Report (reflect relevant comments; within 5 months of start)


Implementation Process/Arrangements– A Steering Group (SG) of key stakeholders to

provide oversight of the exercise and link to high level decision-makers

– Timing and length of survey will depend on its focus and extent it has seasonal characteristics• Simple PETS: about 5 months• Complex PETS: 9 months or longer

– TA team to carry out the PETs (with local counterparts)• International Expert: methodological & cross-

country expertise• Local Expert: country/sector knowledge

– Important to engage the donor working groupBackground Objective/Scope Methdology Data Sources Process TA Team Timeline

VI) TA TEAM: Key Tasks and Outputs

• Help refine focus area for survey• Desig the survey and make preparations for the survey• Monitor and supervision of data collection• Carry out data analysis

• Prepare a summary diagnostic report

• Prepare a full analytical report

• Design/manage inception, technical & report workshops• Liaising with the DWG• Identify capacity building needs

• Formulate recommendations for enhancing service delivery and the effectiveness of targeted expenditures

• Ensure that all data utilised is assembled online


TA Team: Key Reports and Data BaseKey Reports• Inception report: within two weeks, identifies issues & scope of

survey • Summary diagnostic report: upon completion of the initial data

analysis, presents the main results of the survey• Full analytical report: within one month of the completion of the

initial analysis, presents main results and recommendations• Final report: within five months, incorporating the relevant feedback

to the results and recommendationsDatabase• During the assignment, TA team, in collaboration with MoA and MoF,

will establish a database including background documents and sources, evaluation methodology, data sampling frame and questionnaires, survey data, working papers & analyses to be online

• This database will be used for capacity building purposes as part of a joint learning activity


VII) TIMELINE About 5 months (plus 3+ months for complex PETS)

Resources Required:• TA Consultant Team (1 international + 1 local

consultant)• MOA and/or other relevant agency to provide one

full-time counterpart or team equivalent for each consultant

• Think tanks, universities and other local participants will not be remunerated

• For complex PETS, additional funds may need to be mobilized from other sources (e.g. donor working group)


KEY REFERENCES/DOCUMENTS(See Annex 4 for selected items/excerpts)

A4.1: Template TOR for Public Expenditure Tracking Survey (June, 2010)

A4.2: Survey Tools for Assessing Performance in Service Delivery (1 page overview, excerpt from: Impact of Economic Policies on Poverty and Income Distribution: Evaluation Techniques and Tools, by F. Bourguignon and L. da Silva, Editors, WB, 2008)

A4.3: PETS-QSDS in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Stocktaking Study, by Gauthier, World Bank, September 2006 (excerpt)

A4.4: Uganda PETS Assessment (excerpt from Uganda, Ag. PER (Feb., 2010)

A4.5: Analyzing the Incidence of Public Spending: Overview of Key Concepts (1 page overview, excerpt from: Impact of Economic Policies on Poverty and Income Distribution: Evaluation Techniques and Tools, by F. Bourguignon and L. da Silva, Editors, WB, 2008)

Relevant Website references include: web.worldbank.org/apea and

www.worldbank.org/afr/agperprogram

Agriculture Public Expenditure Workshop Module 4

Education

Transcript of Agriculture Public Expenditure Workshop Module 4