3. Use of evidence in strategic planning and budgeting in Haiti

The implementation of a new development logic with the PSDH in 2012

In 2012, with the help of the technical and financial partners (TFPs), the government added further depth to the four main initiatives or building blocks of the PARDH in the Strategic Development Plan for Haiti (PSDH) (Gouvernement de la République d’Haïti, 2012[4]). The Haitian PSDH has thus become Haiti's overall strategic reference framework for planning the country's development. The PSDH is based on four main pillars: strong economic growth, a balanced development framework, social reform to reduce inequalities and improve social cohesion and institutional reform through the in-depth reforml of public institutions and administrations. Box 3.2 provides more information on the development and content of the strategy.

The institutional dimension of the PSDH is linked to the PME-2023, which reflects the current government's goals for modernising the State

In order to revive the momentum for modernising the state apparatus and improving public governance, which had stalled after the failure of two state reform framework plans, the new Haitian government adopted the State Modernisation Programme in 2018 for a period of five years (PME-2023). This programme, supported by the Office of Management and Human Resources (Office de Management et des Ressources Humaines - OMRH), which reports to the Prime Minister, aims to create a dynamic for the transformation of public intervention and to establish a relationship of trust between users and the administration. The PME-2023 has 6 main goals:

• "To improve the quality of services while developing a relationship of trust between users and the administration´;

• "To provide a modern working environment for civil servants by involving them fully in the definition and monitoring of the modernisation project´;

• "To rethink and optimise public spending to achieve better delivery of public services at lower cost´;

• "To improve human resources management by establishing a more attractive and competitive public service that respects equal opportunities, gender equality and equity, the rights of people with disabilities and special needs, ethical and professional principles and the promotion of merit and excellence";

• "To transform the public administration so that it is able to propel the country's development and its emergence by 2030", and

• "To establish structures that prevent, expose and combat corrupt practices in order to develop a culture of good governance".

The PME-2023 has clear public policy goals that can be measured by indicators

The definition of quality public policy goals is a necessary precondition for the implementation of any strategy. The goals indicate the direction of the reforms to be carried out and underpin the actions to be implemented. In principle, a strategic plan should present general goals (broad area of reform) and more specific goals (concrete results on an aspect of the general goal). A goal should be stated in clear language, without jargon or complex phrases, so that it can be understood by all stakeholders and the general public (OECD, 2018[9]) . In general, the quality of a goal can be assessed according to the "SMART" model:

• Specific: a goal must be concrete, describe the results to be achieved, be targeted and contribute to the resolution of the problem;

• Measurable: a goal must be expressed numerically and quantifiably in relation to a predefined benchmark or target;

• Achievable: a goal must be a stimulus for action and improvement of the existing situation, but it must also be achievable to serve as a management tool;

• Realistic: a goal must be realistic in terms of the time available to achieve it and the resources available;

• Timeframe: the period of time for achieving a goal must be specified.

It is the indicators, associated with their targets and reference values, that make a goal measurable and deployable over time. It is necessary to define explicit goals in terms of expected results. The more ambiguous a goal is in terms of its results, the more difficult it will be to associate a relevant indicator with it (Schumann, 2016[10]).

The goals defined in the PME-2023 are thus broken down into three levels: a general level, the "axis", and two more specific levels, the "immediate results" and the "expected results". This tiered approach is supported by a clear logical model, which allows for solid milestones to be set for the implementation of the PME-2023 and its evaluation. Indeed, the different levels of goals in a strategy must follow a logical hierarchy. Developing a causal chain (a theory of change) or logical model helps to understand how an intervention, programme or public policy is expected to bring about a particular change and have an impact. It is accordingly an evidence-based causal analysis that theorises how public policy inputs should lead to intended impacts and goals (Groupe des Nations Unies pour le Développement Durable, 2017[11]). Box 3.3 below explains in more detail how the development of a theory of change or logical model can facilitate the implementation and evaluation of a programme, policy or strategy.

In addition, each "expected result" of the PME-2023 is associated with one or more performance (output) indicators to measure its achievement. However, "intermediate results" are not associated with outcome indicators. The development of such indicators would facilitate the implementation and monitoring and evaluation of the PME-2023 (see section three for more information on monitoring and evaluation of the PME-2023). In addition, for an indicator to provide decision-makers with relevant information on the achievement of the policy goal, it must be accompanied by elements that allow for its correct interpretation (OECD, 2018[9]). These elements include the reference value or baseline of the indicator and the final target values for defining its satisfaction.

There is no clear and explicit logical framework for the articulation of long and medium term strategic planning instruments

Clearly and explicitly articulating strategic planning instruments enables governments' limited resources to be focused on a few policy priorities, while clarifying how these efforts contribute more broadly to other stated ambitions. In Haiti, the existence of several whole-of-government strategies is not a problem in itself, as they have different time horizons. However, clarifying their relationship through a logical model would ensure their effectiveness.

This means that the articulation between the PME-2023 and the PSDH is an issue. Indeed, the State Modernisation Programme is in line with the PSDH. The PME-2023 states that "the State Modernisation Programme (PME-2023) [...] is consistent with the various projects of the PSDH" (Gouvernement d'Haïti, 2018[12]). The PME-2023 itself states that it "will be aligned with the PSDH to maximise the chances of its successful anchoring on existing implementation arrangements". Indeed, the articulation of the different strategic planning instruments of a country is an important issue in order to concentrate efforts and public resources on a limited number of goals to be achieved.

However, there is currently no explicit logical framework to ensure the articulation and coherence of these two documents. The inclusion of indicators with clear final target values in the PME-2023, as well as in the PSDH, would also help to clarify the articulation between these two instruments.

The operationalisation of the PME-2023 in an action plan and its articulation with the budget remain to be established

International good practice stresses the need to develop action plans in conjunction with strategic planning to define the timetable for implementation, responsibilities and budget for each goal. The PME-2023 requires sector ministries to develop an action plan, assess the cost of implementing the goals assigned to them, and establish an implementation schedule. These action plans were presented at the final seminar of the PME-2023 Operationalisation Mission Phase II held on 23 March 2021.

The use and follow-up of these action plans will be essential to clarify the terms of implementation of the PME-2023, to ensure the articulation of this plan with the budget and to lay the foundations for the monitoring and evaluation system of this plan. Similarly, the gradual introduction of performance-based budget programming will make it possible to improve the linkage of the PME-2023 with the budget and a fortiori its implementation. The next section of this chapter details the precise terms of such an articulation.

The strategic phase of the budget is essential to align the budget with the strategic priorities of governments

The OECD recommendation on budgetary governance (see Box 3.4) states that budgets should be closely aligned with medium-term policy priorities through two main mechanisms:

• Organising and structuring budget allocations to ensure that they are consistent with goals,

• Developing the medium-term dimension of the budget process.

This articulation corresponds to the goal of the strategic phase of the budget, which aims to balance the limited resources available against the government's spending aspirations and arbitrate between the various policy priorities of the government that cannot be achieved simultaneously in a single financial year. While not a strategic plan, the budget is thus a planning tool to achieve the goals set by the government (Long and Welham, 2016[13]).

In an annual budget cycle, the strategic phase of the budget usually begins with the presentation of the budget overview, which expresses a request for policy orientation from the administration. The quality of the data on which the analysis of past fiscal years is based is critical to the credibility of the budget forecasts. From the overview presented, the government clearly communicates the goals and budgetary constraints. The managing sectors and services then establish their costs and forward them to the budgetary authority which ensures these expenditures by individual departments are aligned with the priorities set by the government. The strategic phase ends with the publication of a "budget circular" (circulaire budgétaire) indicating the budget ceilings and including other guidelines for the preparation of the budget for the institutions responsible for expenditure. This is the beginning of the budget preparation phase.

Important reforms in this direction are underway

Improved budgeting and strategic planning are key reforms for public finances in Haiti. One of the main expected results of Axis 8 of the PME-2023, dedicated to the overall budgetary framework is the following: "The main economic and social development sectors have sectoral strategies and multi-year programmes with budget allocations in line with public policies and the resources available to the State” (Gouvernement d'Haïti, 2018, p. 61[12]). Similarly, improving budgetary planning, through a medium-term expenditure framework, and introducing programme-based budgeting are two of the main areas identified by the Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF) in its reform of the public finance strategy.

OECD discussions with the Haitian administration have indicated that the legislative framework has been amended, including by the law of 4 May 2016 on the process of drafting and executing finance laws, to modernise the budget cycle in Haiti and move it from a means-based to a results-based approach. Legislative reforms in the budgetary area have been among the most successful in recent years in Haiti. The Law of 4 May 2016 (République d'Haiti, 2016[15]) establishes a medium-term budgetary framework, with a three-year horizon, in line with the three-year investment programmes (PTIs).The Act also introduced programme-based budgeting and a medium-term expenditure framework.

In practice, however, these instruments are not yet operational. In a pilot experiment, the budget programmes of two ministries have been introduced and presented in the Finance Bill 2018-2019. In regard to the progress of a medium-term budgetary framework, overall financial projections are not yet available. In the OECD questionnaire administered to the Haitian authorities in the context of this Review (hereinafter "the OECD questionnaire"), the Office of the Prime Minister states that there are no institutional mechanisms in place to ensure the harmonisation of strategic planning and resource allocation in the annual or medium-term budgetary goals. This is not a new problem: it was pointed out in the latest available report on Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) regarding1 alignment with the document National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty (Stratégie nationale pour la croissance et la réduction de la pauvreté - DSNCRP) (Morachiello and Lopke, 2012[16]) and more recently in a World Bank report (2016[17]).This is primarily due to a lack of capacity and resources. In addition, there are no institutional incentives in Haiti to ensure compliance with spending limits, as recommended by the OECD (OECD, 2015[14]).

The interviews revealed that the programming and study units (Unité d’Étude et de Programmation - UEP) still lack capacity in budgeting and strategic planning. The sectoral strategic plans are not sufficiently developed. In the budget preparation phase, these plans should include cost reports. However, the latest available PEFA report indicates that cost reports, where they exist, cover only a small portion of the Haitian government's expenditure (Morachiello and Lopke, 2012[16]). In addition, multi-annual cost reports are one of the foundations of the medium-term budgetary framework. These are almost non-existent in Haiti (Morachiello and Lopke, 2012[16]). On the other hand, public policy goals, in line with the priorities defined by the government, which are themselves aligned with the PSDH, are rarely associated with the determination of expenditures (Morachiello and Lopke, 2012[16]). This is primarily due to the lack of human resources in the UEPs: many of them are not functional. In response to this difficulty, the Ministry of Planning and External Cooperation (Ministère de la Planification et Coopération Externe - MPCE), the central actor in strategic planning, centralises and coordinates strategic budgeting through the Unit Coordinators' Forum. It holds regular working sessions with UEPs to discuss technical issues and strategic priorities. The MPCE is accordingly involved in strategic budgeting through an informal coordination mechanism.

Similarly, there is a lack of resources to identify and carry out public investments. The World Bank (2016[17]) report shows that preliminary analyses of investment projects are not sufficiently developed. Financial and strategic documentation for many investment projects is lacking, making it impossible to establish an adequate link to strategic planning. In addition, some projects are abandoned midway or transformed, creating a deviation from the strategic plans. For this reason, the IMF (Fonds Monétaire International, 2019[18]) calls for an investment plan that would facilitate medium-term budgeting. For Fiscal Year (FY) 2017-18, the MPCE, which is in charge of most of the capital expenditure, is thus the department with the lowest budget performance rate for FY 2017-18 (Commission économique pour l'Amérique latine et les Caraïbes, 2019[19]).

Macroeconomic and macro-fiscal forecasts are also essential to ensure the credibility of a medium-term fiscal framework. These are still new in Haiti and need to be further developed. A team dedicated to macroeconomic and macrofiscal forecasting was created in 2013. A multi-year macroeconomic framework was prepared for the first time in FY 2018-19 (Commission économique pour l'Amérique latine et les Caraïbes, 2019[19]). The absence of a number of data, including national accounts data since end-2018 (Fonds Monétaire International, 2020[20]), and the lack of sophistication of the forecasting model used - highlighted during the OECD fact-finding mission - suggest that the macroeconomic forecasting work needs further refinement. The macro-budgetary aspect is just beginning to be introduced. Only the tax revenue projections were inserted in the preparation for the 2018-2019 financial year. Projections of government expenditure and overall budget balances are planned for the coming years.

Treasury management efforts in Haiti must not be relaxed

Treasury management in Haiti is a long-standing weakness, identified in the latest available PEFA report (Morachiello and Lopke, 2012[16]), a World Bank report (Groupe de la Banque Mondiale, 2016[17]) and a recent IMF report (Fonds Monétaire International, 2019[18]). Its importance is recognised in the PME-2023 plan: For example, "ensuring the consolidation of the single treasury account" is one of the goals of Axis 9 on treasury and public accounting (Gouvernement d'Haïti, 2018, p. 62[12]). This is also a clear goal of the MEF in its reform of public finance strategy.

Much work has already been done with the assistance of the IMF to consolidate the government's account balances in the Single Treasury Account (Fonds Monétaire International, 2019[18]). The continued existence of several dozen accounts with the Bank of the Republic of Haiti, however, complicates cash management planning. Traditionally, this persistence is often due to the refusal of some managing services to lose control of their account. There are many reasons for this: among others, the lack of confidence in centralised management of financial funds or the desire to preserve a form of opacity in the use of public funds by avoiding the administrative controls of the budgetary authority. A single cash account is an effective mechanism for planning, managing and monitoring budget implementation. Such an account streamlines payments and reduces the backlog of new expenditures. It would also reduce the cost of financing the government by the Central Bank and improve financial transparency.

In the absence of a single, comprehensive cash account, the release of cash based on liquid funds rather than on budget could persist, which is a constraint to strategic budgeting. Government agencies have little reason to pursue the strategic phase of the budget if the funds they can receive do not match their budget proposals. The certainty required by the administrative sectors is also based on credible macroeconomic and fiscal forecasts.

Transparency of public finances must be increased

The Review of past budget years at the beginning of the strategic phase should be based on financial and accounting reports. The seventh principle of the OECD Recommendation on Budgetary Governance states that "these reports play a fundamental role in transparency and can, if well designed, provide useful messages on performance and value for money to inform future budget allocations" (OECD, 2015[14]).

The coverage and quality of financial accounts should be improved to facilitate the monitoring of public finances. The government's financial transactions table (FTT), published monthly, has some weaknesses, including limited coverage, a high level of aggregation and inaccurate classification (Fonds Monétaire International, 2019[18]). The creation of some institutions by decree, such as OMRH, is an obstacle to their inclusion in the budget. Similarly, better disclosure of certain budgetary expenditures, as well as the accounts of autonomous agencies and public enterprises, would improve transparency (Fonds Monétaire International, 2019[18]).

Budgetary control and performance need to be improved

Effective parliamentary oversight of the budget is one of the goals of Axis 10 on external oversight and transparency of the PME-2023 (Gouvernement d'Haïti, 2018[12]). The involvement of the legislature in the development of the budget is essential. It must be able to discuss policy priorities and contribute to the arbitration of the resources available to the State to implement these priorities. The Haitian statutory framework institutes a fixed budgetary calendar (Table 3.1) but the budget is rarely ratified by Parliament (Morachiello and Lopke, 2012[16]) (Fonds Monétaire International, 2019[18]), as Parliament is seldom sitting. When this is the case, it is either incomplete or submitted too late in the fiscal year. This means that since the year 2016, only one finance law has been approved by Parliament. In the absence of such approval, the State must renew the last budget ratified by Parliament.

The use of letters of transfer (lettres de virement) to pay for government expenditures should be reduced. The increase in the use of this exceptional expenditure procedure in recent years, which circumvents internal expenditure control, undermines budgetary transparency and accountability.

Budget performance in Haiti is still a significant challenge (Commission économique pour l'Amérique latine et les Caraïbes, 2019[19]; Groupe de la Banque Mondiale, 2016[17]). Poor budget management control is traditionally associated with higher levels of expenditure arrears, but also with a lack of budget credibility and poor quality of budget preparation. The implementation rate of capital expenditure in Haiti is particularly low. Indeed, between 2013 and 2018, this rate was about 41% (Commission économique pour l'Amérique latine et les Caraïbes, 2019[19]). These difficulties reflect the lack of resources needed to identify and implement public investments, as discussed above (Fonds Monétaire International, 2019[18]).

Articulating the timing of strategic planning and budget preparation

The medium-term budgetary framework is theoretically prepared between July and November of each year by the MEF (Commission économique pour l'Amérique latine et les Caraïbes, 2019[19]). After its presentation to the Council of Ministers and approval, it is transmitted to the sectors so that they can in turn prepare their medium-term budgetary framework.

In preparing the budget, the indicative expenditure envelopes contained in the circular of 15 October requesting ministries and agencies to submit their budget proposals must be broken down by sector. The latest available PEFA report suggests (Morachiello and Lopke, 2012[16]) that this is not the case in practice and that it is not envisaged in the budget preparation procedures manual.

In the past, managing departments and agencies have had limited time to develop their budget proposals (Morachiello and Lopke, 2012[16]).It is crucial that these entities have sufficient time to develop expenditure estimates. Managing departments and agencies must feel fully involved in and accountable for the budget process, including its contribution to strategic planning. This then affects the credibility of the budget and its implementation. This involvement is also crucial to the success of a programmatic structure (Box 3.6).

The fact-finding mission also revealed that the macroeconomic framework for budget planning was carried out between March and June, in parallel with the preparation of the budget. However, these macroeconomic and budgetary forecasts form the basis for a medium-term budgetary framework, which is normally prepared between July and November. This lack of consistency over time does not allow for a credible medium-term budgetary framework. This work by the Economic Studies Directorate must accordingly be carried out further ahead of the budgetary calendar.

Linking budget documentation to strategic planning

A functional classification of expenditures in the budget nomenclature promotes consistency between the budget cycle and strategic planning by measuring progress against strategic goals. It also promotes transparency vis-à-vis Parliament, citizens and the technical and financial partners.

In 2011, a functional classification was not yet in place in Haiti (Morachiello and Lopke, 2012[16]). The budgetary nomenclature included only an administrative classification and an economic classification. A functional classification has since been established (Groupe de la Banque Mondiale, 2016[22]). This classification is similar to the 12-category Classification of the Functions of Government (COFOG) developed by the OECD.

For budgeting to have a real strategic dimension, a functional classification must allow for the analysis of past budget years and the determination of budgetary perspectives for future years. This classification is present in the last two available schedules of the Finance Acts, i.e., those for financial years 2017-18 and 2020-21. It is also included in the latest available schedules to the Finance Bill, which are for the year 2017-18. However, in order to encourage budgetary accountability and transparency, this functional classification of performed expenditures should be made public on a regular basis. This is not the case today: only a very aggregated classification by nature is available. Discussions have revealed that efforts are underway to improve the fiscal nomenclature, in partnership with the IMF.

Strengthening institutional coordination

Developing sectoral strategic plans

During the fact-finding mission, the Haitian administration has indicated that the budget cycle is aligned with the long-term strategic planning, i.e. the PSDH. However, the PSDH is too vague to facilitate the allocation of budgetary resources and the selection of investment projects. One obstacle is the lack of prioritisation in terms of importance and feasibility. Sectoral strategic plans, with strategic goals, should accordingly play a key role in budget planning. The OECD fact-finding mission to the Haitian administration revealed that efforts are underway to harmonise sectoral policies and strategies. It should be noted that some managing services are more advanced than others in developing multi-year strategic plans. These include the Department of Education and the Department of Public Health and Population.

In addition to contributing to a medium-term budget and expenditure framework, sectoral strategic plans can serve as an anchor for programme budgeting (Downes, Gay and Kraan, 2018[27]).Indeed, in many countries, programmes are selected in the context of a policy "cascade", starting from high-level strategic and development goals that feed into specific medium-term outcome goals, which in turn feed into ministerial or sectoral goals and associated outcome targets. International experience also indicates that reclassification of the budget on a programmatic basis is best achieved with well explained multi-year budget estimates, preferably formulated in terms of results. Once a medium-term, programme-based sector strategy is developed, countries can assign clear organisational and managerial responsibilities for achieving the selected plans and goals. Haiti can draw on the experience of East Timor, where medium-term planning is a precondition for the introduction of programme budgeting (Box 3.6).

The development of programme-based budgeting, and subsequently performance-based budgeting, are clear goals for the Haitian administration. But the road to achieving these goals is long. This chapter has detailed some of the aspects of a modern budget architecture, relating to the link between budgeting and strategic planning, that need to be understood in order to move forward on this path.

Monitoring and evaluation are two distinct practices

Monitoring and evaluation are two distinct practices, with different methods and goals. This means that monitoring aims to facilitate strategic planning and inform public decision-making by measuring the performance of reforms and identifying stress points and bottlenecks. It also strengthens the accountability of public decision-makers and public information on the proper use of resources (OECD, 2019[28]). Unlike evaluation, monitoring is accordingly characterised by routine and continuous data collection processes (Table 3.2).While policy evaluation aims to show the extent to which the observed outcome can be attributed to the policy intervention, monitoring provides descriptive information without establishing a causal link between a policy intervention and the observed outcomes.

Conversely, the specific goal of evaluation is to inform decision-makers about the success or otherwise of a public policy and to determine whether there is a causal link between the observed results and the policy in question. In this respect, assessment is an episodic process, tailored to a specific problem, with actions and resources targeted and personalised according to the assessment (OECD, 2020[29]). Evaluation, however, shares common goals with monitoring, namely to determine whether government efforts are achieving the intended results, whether value for money is being achieved, and for communication with citizens and other stakeholders.

Monitoring and evaluation have complementary goals

A robust policy monitoring system provides policymakers with the tools and evidence needed to detect bottlenecks in policy implementation, adjust policy performance, and communicate policy outcomes to citizens. For example, OECD and non-OECD countries have developed their policy monitoring practices with a view towards accountability and performance management, but also to communicate with citizens and improve the achievement of development goals (see Box 3.7).

Similarly, the evaluation of public policies is an essential governance tool to ensure that reforms carried out contribute to the improvement of public services and the well-being of citizens. For this purpose, evaluations aim to objectively measure the extent to which the results observed are attributable to the public policies implemented. In this way, the evaluation contributes to the dissemination of a culture of results within the administration, to the accountability of public decision-makers and to the achievement of long-term government goals (OECD, 2020[29]).

In Haiti, there is no definition of monitoring or evaluation that is shared by the different components of government

According to data collected by the OECD, (OECD, 2020[29]) the majority of OECD countries (23 out of 25) have one (11 countries) or more (12 countries) official definitions of policy evaluation (see Figure 3.1). In some countries, this definition is anchored in a statutory or regulatory framework. This is the case in Japan, where the government law on the evaluation of public policies, provides a definition of evaluation (Law No. 86 of 2001), while in Argentina, Decree 292/2018, designates the players responsible for developing the evaluation of social policies and programmes (Ministerio de Planificación Nacional y Política Económica, 2018[33]). Other countries define evaluation in methodological guides, as is the case in Colombia.

Figure 3.1. Countries with a formal definition of evaluation

Note: n = 41 These are responses to the question "Has your government adopted a formal definition of public policy evaluation?", Source: OECD Public Policy Evaluation Survey (2018).

In Haiti, there is no such shared definition. However, the adoption of a clear and precise definition is an important step in the institutionalisation of evaluation. Indeed, this enables a common understanding of the issues, goals and tools to be mobilised to implement the evaluation, not only within the public sector, but also between all the players of the system, such as the TFPs and civil society organisations (CSO).

For example, while the content of evaluation definitions could vary from country to country, a few key concepts are found in most of the definitions analysed by the OECD (OECD, 2020[29]), namely

• Evaluation criteria (impact, effectiveness, efficiency, etc.),

• The type of public policies involved (projects, programmes, plans, etc.),

• The characteristics of the evaluation, which include the quality criteria of the evaluation, the type of measures expected, the method of conduct and the players involved.

Haiti's monitoring and evaluation system forms part of a clear institutional landscape that primarily involves the MPCE and sector ministries

The Decree of 17 May 2005 on the organisation of the central government administration sets out the general regulatory framework for the national system for monitoring and evaluating public policies. Several players at the level of the centre of government (CoG) thus play an important coordinating and promotional role in this area. These are:

• The Office of Human Resources Management (OMRH) is responsible, in particular, for "ensuring the performance of the public service system through regulation and evaluation". This responsibility is entrusted to it by Article 113 of the 2005 Decree. However, it is limited to the monitoring and evaluation of measures related to the public service.

• The Public Policy Coordination and Monitoring Unit (cellule de coordination et de suivi des politiques publiques - CCSPP), which "monitors and evaluates government action and contributes to the preparation of strategic reflection files, primarily on issues relating to good governance". This unit, attached to the Prime Minister, was nevertheless disbanded in 2016 due to potential duplication with the MPCE mandate.

• The Ministry of Planning and External Cooperation (Ministère de la Planification et de la Coopération Externe - MPCE) is responsible for "monitoring and evaluating the plans and programmes developed by the Ministry". This planning coordination role is confirmed by the Decree of 2 February 2016 organising the MPCE (Gouvernement d'Haiti, 2016[34]). The MPCE is accordingly the main actor for coordinating and promoting monitoring and evaluation within government.

In addition to these new players at the centre of government, line ministries are responsible for monitoring and evaluating sectoral public policies, through the study and programming units (UEP) (Article 63 of the 2005 Decree). The box below (Box 3.8) provides more information on how UEPs work.

Finally, in Haiti, the TFPs play an important role in the monitoring and evaluation of public policies. However, the initiatives carried out by the TFPs in this area do not seem to contribute to the Haitian national system of M&E and accordingly, ultimately, to the improvement of the use of evidence in national policy-making.

There is a separate monitoring system for the PME-2023

In Haiti, in addition to the mandates of these players, there are specific systems for monitoring the government's priority policies, formalised in the PSDH and the PME-2023. This means that a specific governance is created to ensure the monitoring and evaluation of the PME-2023, composed of the following players

• A strategic steering committee chaired by the Prime Minister and composed of the sectoral ministries and the OMRH, which ensures the steering of the PME-2023 at the highest political level;

• An operational steering committee, chaired by the OMRH, and composed of the sectoral and sub-sectoral committees of the ministries, which develops the monitoring processes in the ministries and evaluates the results of the implementation;

• Sectoral committees in each department, composed of Directors General and UEPs, which develop a monitoring plan and communicate internally and externally on progress.

There is no inter-ministerial legal or policy framework for monitoring and evaluation in Haiti

A majority of the countries surveyed by the OECD (29 countries, including 23 OECD countries) have developed a legal framework for whole-of-government evaluation. The fact that more than two-thirds of the countries surveyed have developed such a legal framework shows the importance attached to systematising this practice. However, OECD countries have anchored evaluation at several levels in the hierarchy of standards. The OECD (2018) survey indeed shows that evaluation can be recognised at the highest level of the hierarchy of norms, in a law or even in the constitution, but it is not a necessity.

In France, for example, the practice of public policy evaluation is affirmed at the constitutional (Article 47-2 on the mandate of the Court of Auditors), legal and regulatory levels (see Box 3.9).

Similarly, several OECD countries have developed a transversal statutory or regulatory framework to organise performance monitoring. This is the case in the United States under the Government Performance and Results Modernisation Act.

In Haiti, there is no coherent statutory framework underpinning the system of evaluation and monitoring of public policies across government2. In addition, as the example of the CPPCC shows, some of the public administration decrees that anchor the institutional mandate of monitoring and evaluation players are not up to date.

There is no general or specific guidance for conducting monitoring or evaluation

Other countries have chosen to place these practices within a policy framework. A policy framework is generally a document or set of documents that provide strategic direction, principles and a plan of action for government on a specific sector or issue. Public policy frameworks could or could not include legislative acts, as well as ministerial acts in the form of guidelines, for example (OECD, 2020[29]). The existence of such a policy framework demonstrates the importance that governments attach to these practices as vehicles for improving public policy and, ultimately, development. These policy frameworks make it possible, above all, to define the goals and concrete methods for implementing monitoring or evaluation: who are the players, what policies are to be evaluated or monitored, and what is the timetable for implementing M&E.

Therefore, like half of the countries surveyed by the OECD (21 in total, including 17 OECD member countries), Benin has developed such a public policy framework for whole-of-government evaluation. The following box (Box 3.10) provides more information on this framework.

The latest PSDH implementation report indicates that the Haitian government intended to develop "methodological documents [on] the results framework for monitoring the PSDH and public policies and the ODD". However, these initiatives have not been successful due to the economic and social difficulties faced by the country in recent years (Gouvernement d'Haïti, 2020[3]). There is a Manual of Procedures on the Management of Public Investments (Government of Haiti, 2014), which applies exclusively to public investment projects and focuses on a summary monitoring of the financial and physical implementation of projects.

The terms (players, methodology and sequencing) and tools for monitoring are still unclear, which can significantly constrain the effectiveness of performance monitoring. There is no methodological document organising whole-of-government monitoring. This means that if the governance of the monitoring of the PME-2023 is explained in this document, its exact methodology and all the players involved are not specified. Indeed, if the committees presented above are mandated to validate the monitoring reports (called "evaluation" in the PME-2023, but more likely monitoring reports) and to take concerted decisions on the way forward, they do not seem to be involved as such in several key stages of the monitoring value chain: data collection and updating of indicators, consolidation of progress scorecards and proposal of scenarios concerning the way forward In the event of implementation difficulties. In other words, they are decision-making bodies, which are an indispensable part of a performance monitoring system, but which cannot function without their operational or administrative counterparts.

Providing a statutory framework and general guidance for the conduct of the evaluation

The Haitian government could benefit from the adoption of a law defining a framework for the implementation of monitoring and evaluation throughout the government, in order to build political consensus, beyond electoral cycles, on the importance of M&E for the country (OECD, 2020[29]). The relevance of this law is heightened in a period of electoral transition.

In addition, the Haitian government could benefit from the adoption of a directive or methodological guide to clarify the role of players in M&E, as well as to provide guidance at the global level on "by whom, when and how" monitoring and evaluation of public policies should be carried out. This type of guidance is useful for ensuring that departmental resources are focused on monitoring and evaluating high-stakes social and economic policies, as well as for planning the human and financial resources that will be devoted to the M&E.

Streamlining the functioning of the players and strengthening the role of the centre of government in evaluation

In the majority of countries surveyed by the OECD, the centre of government3 (CdG) has a major role to play in coordinating the evaluation practices of ministries. Indeed, the various structures of the centre of government are strategically positioned to disseminate a culture of evaluation throughout the administration, as well as to coordinate the action of the various ministries, agencies and sectoral institutions (OECD, 2020[29]). In addition, the coordination capacities of the CdG are all the more important as governments will have to assess the impact of economic aid and health policies (Figure 3.2).

Figure 3.2. An institution within the executive branch with governmental competences in the field of public policy evaluation

Note: These are the country responses to the question "Which executive branch institutions have governmental competencies in evaluation? ".

Source: OECD (2018), Survey of Public Policy Evaluation.

Haiti could thu strengthen the centre of government’s evaluation function. Indeed, since the disappearance of the Unit for the coordination and monitoring of public policies, no executive institution has an explicit mandate to require evaluations by sectoral ministries and to coordinate their implementation.

However, in a country like Haiti, the role of the MPCE is still important in coordinating evaluations. The MPCE is responsible for evaluating the contribution of sectoral programmes to Haiti's development. In addition, the MPCE is particularly well placed to coordinate evaluations conducted by the TFPs and to promote their use within the administration. The MCPE's role in promoting evaluations could accordingly be strengthened. For example, the MPCE could be explicitly mandated to encourage sectoral departments (in effect, its network of UEP) to conduct evaluations.

Streamline players and organise a single performance dialogue between the centre of government and line ministries

First, for performance monitoring to be an effective management tool, it must be carried out regularly and frequently enough to enable decision-makers and public officials to adjust their actions or resources in response to implementation difficulties (OECD, 2018[9]). This exercise is accordingly closely linked to the day-to-day management of public policies and their implementation. In addition, it is important to streamline monitoring systems to minimise the additional costs associated with this task (OECD, 2018[9]). Haiti could accordingly set up a single performance dialogue on all its priority policies: PME-2023, PSDH, Sustainable Development Goals. For this purpose, it would be appropriate to:

• Clarify the responsibilities of the different players in the performance dialogue and

• Develop useful tools for decision making.

The respective responsibilities of the different players in the performance dialogue along the monitoring value chain need to be clarified: coordination and promotion of monitoring, data collection, data analysis, reporting and use of data. In Senegal, for example, the Operational Monitoring Office (Bureau opérationnel de suivi - BOS), located at the level of the Presidency of the Republic, is responsible for coordinating the monitoring of the implementation of the Plan Sénégal Émergent 2035 at the intergovernmental level. It is accordingly responsible for steering the Plan before the Presidency, and in particular before the Council of Ministers, which decides on the corrective measures to be adopted. The BOS relies on the steering committees of the sectoral ministries, which are responsible for providing it with data on the implementation of the Plan Sénégal Émergent goals relating to their area of competence. The following box (Box 3.12) provides a detailed view of this system.

Establishing appropriate tools for performance dialogue

In addition, performance dialogue tools must be useful for decision-making. Indeed, performance monitoring should encourage administrations to address implementation issues at their level. This implies that it should make it possible to provide concrete solutions to the difficulties identified: adjustment of the resources dedicated to a programme or policy, decision-making by the Minister or the President, etc. At present, monitoring in Haiti is based on reports that make it possible to report on the implementation of each priority policy document (PME-2023, PSDH, ODD, etc.), but whose format is not conducive to operational decision-making.

In conclusion, Haiti would benefit from a single performance dialogue between the centre of government and line ministries, based on the Senegalese model. Two main functions would be identified: a steering coordination function, which could be carried out by the centre of government, and a data collection, analysis and use function, which would be carried out by the departments. In order to strengthen the strategic steering of the follow-up at the level of the centre of government, a single actor could be responsible for this coordination function, irrespective of the strategic document concerned. This clarification of responsibilities strengthens the coordination role of the centre of government in the post-crisis period of COVID-19 insofar as it implies building a coherent response to the crisis, which takes into account the costs and benefits of recovery strategies, and which steers the implementation efforts of public players as closely as possible, to enable their rapid adjustment.

This performance dialogue could be conducted on a quarterly basis at sector level. If the implementation problem is not overcome after two quarters, it could be placed at the CoG level twice a year. Any implementation issues requiring inter-ministerial coordination and the mobilisation of additional resources could be submitted to the Council of Ministers once a year. It could be based on the information system currently deployed for monitoring the PME-2023 and the PSDH, which assigns to each ministry the responsibility of contributing to the validation and regular updating of the data related to that ministry, according to a pre-established format and mechanism for collecting, validating and aggregating the data.

Communicate on the monitoring of priority policies in a transparent manner

The communication goal related to performance monitoring could be served initially by the publication of readable and synthetic versions of the progress reports of strategic documents. In addition, the Government of Haiti could select key indicators for reporting, which could be published on a single platform. Indeed, greater publicity of monitoring results can increase pressure on decision-makers to implement public policy priorities and follow up on recommendations more systematically. However, the monitoring reports of the PME-2023 and the PSDH are not systematically made public. The first step to improve transparency and public information would accordingly be to put these reports on a platform, preferably a single one, to facilitate access to the information.

For this, Haiti can draw inspiration from the Benin.Opendataafrica.org platform. The following (Box 3.13) gives more information about this platform.