GROUP 2 - STRATEGY GOAL/IMPACT AND OUTCOME; OUTPUT OBJECTIVE 4 ГРУППА 2 - СТРАТЕГИЧЕСКАЯ ЦЕЛЬ / ВОЗДЕЙСТВИЕ И РЕЗУЛЬТАТ; КОНЕЧНАЯ ЦЕЛЬ 4 (РУССКАЯ / АНГЛИЙСКАЯ группа) (RUSSIAN/ENGLISH group)

Strategic Goal / Impact Q: what is demanded from donors? Donors: There is a need for a product, justifying value of PEMPAL at policy level, to start discussion of continuing support within their agencies There is a need to satisfy different stakeholders and needs in capturing results: collecting numbers, success stories, examples, etc. Categorizing on various dimensions: what are the public goods, globally and for ECA region How to show the link between strengthening individual country capacity and impact: some countries attend events and learn about issues, but reforms are not progressing Individual benefit -> institutional benefit Conclusions: 1st Recommendation ->high priority Use of different methodologies for capturing results is important and results needs to be measured on various dimensions: Success stories, figures, examples, survey results, “value detectives” method To monitor chain of results: Individual development –> dissemination of knowledge -> institutional development MTR Report will have extract: summery of results- keeping in mind targeted audience 2nd Recommendation-> to be removed

Outcome Discussions about recommendation 3 World Bank implementation team: There is a feeling, not all opportunities are explored and targeting the needs of countries can be done better Donors: Assessment of outcomes at county level is a challenge for PEMPAL PEMPAL might benefit from continuing looking into approaches of other networks COPs: Working groups are a good way to target better country needs, they prove to be effective to address concrete technical questions and find working solutions to specific issues Results are easier to capture under working groups rather than under PEMPAL in general

Outcome Conclusions: In 3rd Recommendation - to be removed 1st bullet point Working in small groups and small topics proves to be efficient but we need to monitor results of working groups; Exploring approaches of other networks;

Output Objective 4 Discussions about recommendation 26, 27, 28 COPs: Formal network will involve huge bureaucracy and we’d rather keep it informal PEMPAL has value for technical level professionals and we would like to keep this platform primarily for technical level Donors: Exchange of political level government under PEMPAL will be useful, at least once a year, would be beneficial for PEMPAL work World Bank implementation team: Initially consciously decided to focus on awareness on political level rather than involvement (There is plenty of evidence to demonstrate good progress on raising awareness); Under Strategy development there was a discussion it would not be feasible to count on gathering ministers for separate event, but we discussed option of having a session under annual meetings. This idea can be revisited. Formalizing it really complicated from the legal point and from the point of participation

Output Objective 4 Conclusions: PEMPAL will not invest resources to establish a formal network of national PFM institutions PEMPAL will aim to have a special event for political level whether during the World Bank spring meeting or annual meeting; PEMPAL can explore promoting its agenda under G20 (Russian MoF can help with it), OGP – Open Government Partnership; 26th and 28th Recommendations- to be removed

Thank you/Спасибо