1. 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)

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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;

5. 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

6. 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

7. Thank you/Спасибо