GROUP 2 Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Russia, Uzbekistan,

Group 2 - Countries Belarus – joint reviews with the World Bank in 2011 and 2013. Ongoing joint fiscal expenditures review, debt service spending review, and social spending review Kazakhstan – government programs performance reviews, joint reviews with the World Bank Kyrgyzstan – no spending review methodology in place, there is a methodology for and experience in evaluating program performance Moldova – in 2018 carried out an IMF-supported review of higher and vocational education, report is currently being finalized Russia – recurrent reviews as part of the 2024 plan Uzbekistan – no experience in conducting reviews, currently, joint initiative with the World Bank

Summary of Discussions: RUSSIA QUESTION 1: What would be an ideally designed methodological and organizational system for spending reviews? Summary of Discussions: RUSSIA Coverage – a comprehensive approach, all expenditures (100% coverage), there is a 6-year plan broken down by years, during which time full coverage will be achieved Selection of sectors/topics for review – 6 reviews per year (2+2+2), criteria are defined Workflow arrangements – proposed by the IMF, government commission adopts the topic, ministries and agencies appoint their representatives to the working group, composition of the groups requires special attention

QUESTION 1. Summary of Discussions Moldova In 2018, an IMF-supported spending review in higher and vocational education was carried out A separate government resolution was adopted including a concept note (brief description of objectives, workflow arrangement, substance and methodology, ToR for the Working Group, and a report template) Workflow arrangement – steering committee, supervisory board, working group (including MOF, Ministry of Education, and other line ministries with industry education establishments) Objective – reduce and reallocate spending (10%), target was outperformed Challenge – human resources

QUESTION 1. Summary of Discussions Belarus – joint activity with the World Bank across several areas and sectors in 2011, 2013 and this year; annual reviews are not advisable as the review is a lengthy process and implementation of recommendations takes time Uzbekistan – no experience in conducting spending reviews, approach elements are in place, currently a joint project with the World Bank – review of capital expenditures, wagebill review, real sector; need to train staff Kyrgyzstan – no spending review methodology in place, there is a program and performance budgeting methodology, a procedure is in place to measure performance of budget programs Kazakhstan – joint activity with the World Bank, education and healthcare as part of moving towards capitation financing; review of the transport sector in preparation for introducing toll roads, general spending review, budget program performance review

Question 2: How should it be ensured that spending reviews are well integrated and used in budget process? Russia - policy on spending reviews is consistent with the fiscal calendar and is captured in the MOF schedule, a government resolution is planned Moldova - integration in the regular budget process is planned based on the current budget calendar

An Ideal Spending Review Model Coverage Random Frequency Same topic should be reviewed every 6 years at most Principles and procedures for selecting review topics Suggested by the public, Supreme Audit Institution, and parliament Topics are adopted by a collegial government body Frequency of WG meetings and workflow arrangements Possibly a two-tier WG (at the level of heads of agencies and at the specialist level) Methodological requirements Adoption of the general working format, methodological approaches to spending reviews are defined by the WG Interim reports Reports are publicly available Synchronization with the budget process

Thank you