## The governments of Serbia and Montenegro have completed the first progress

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [The governments of Serbia and Montenegro have completed the first progress](https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/scr/2006/_cr06139.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/scr/2006/_cr06139.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/scr/2006/_cr06139.pdf.json)

---

### Stakeholder participation in the review process
- Reports and cover letters recognize the role of different stakeholders; government officials and non-government bodies were consulted through various meetings, workshops and conferences.
- Staffs welcome the participatory nature of the review process and encourage maintaining a similar approach to implementation.
- Progress reports should be used to provide information on implementation to key domestic and external stakeholders and as instruments of donor coordination and harmonization of policies.

### Poverty diagnostics — Serbia
- Strong recent economic growth improved average living standards, but impact on poverty reduction remains inconclusive.
- Preliminary Household Budget Survey (HBS) analysis suggests poverty rates stayed in a range of 11–13 percent between 2003 and 2004.
- Possible reasons for limited poverty reduction:
  - No decisive progress in reducing unemployment in line with GDP growth.
  - Much labor market dynamism likely concentrated in the informal sector (panel data for 2002–03).
  - Growing regional disparities; Belgrade increasing its advantage over the rest of the country.
  - Rural areas lag behind urban centers despite agricultural recovery after the 2003 drought.
- Data quality issues:
  - Poor comparability and shortcomings in HBS data weaken assessment of poverty trends over 2002–04.
  - Current HBS format inadequate for assessing broader dimensions of poverty (education, health, social programs).
- Staff recommendations for Serbia:
  - RSO should put in place a survey system that meets essential PRS and MDG monitoring goals.
  - Build capacity of the RSO to undertake basic poverty analysis.
  - Mandate the Working Group for Poverty Measurement (WGPM) to advise on poverty measurement and take a more active role on higher level analytical activities, such as policy impact evaluation.
  - Provide adequate and reliable resources for both RSO and WGPM.
  - Improve public accessibility of HBS and other statistical data via an open data access policy.

### Poverty diagnostics — Montenegro
- Reported poverty reduction from 12.2 percent to 10.9 percent of population, attributed to slow economic growth.
- New data included on marginalized groups and an indicator linking poverty and environment (use of dirty fuels for household heating).
- Data concerns:
  - Report uses ISSP data for 2002–04 that may not be fully comparable over time.
  - Plan to use annual HBS for poverty monitoring starting mid-2006 welcomed; HBS design is identical to Serbia’s.
  - Staffs concur with continuing ISSP panel surveys to bridge HBS shortcomings.
  - Recommend drawing future integrated household survey samples from the 2003 population census and involving MONSTAT in sampling.
- Staff recommendations for Montenegro:
  - Clarify whether MONSTAT will be responsible for poverty diagnostics and updates, beyond HBS collection.
  - Clarify how HBS and ISSP focused surveys will be integrated to provide comparable and consistent poverty data.
  - Improve public accessibility of HBS and statistical data via an open data access policy.

### Cross-cutting poverty monitoring recommendations
- Strengthen analysis of links between economic growth and poverty reduction; conduct more analysis of planned policy reforms and their potential poverty impact.
- Prioritize pro-poor growth policies informed by poverty profile findings and diagnostics.

### Macroeconomic performance
- Serbia:
  - Real GDP growth: 9.3 percent in 2004 and estimated to be close to 5 percent in 2005.
  - Current account deficit: close to 15 percent of GDP in 2004 before narrowing to around 10 percent of GDP in 2005.
  - Inflation: rapidly rising at end-2004, stabilized at about 17-18 percent in 2005.
  - Low level of exports at half of imports reflects slow restructuring.
  - Demand pressures need containment; structural reforms should be accelerated.
- Montenegro:
  - Growth: 3.5 percent in 2005 compared to an average of just 1.5 percent in 2000–04.
  - Inflation remained low in 2005 (around 4 percent).
  - Current account deficit: over 12 percent of GDP, reflecting insufficient competitiveness.
  - Key challenges: containing fiscal imbalances, increasing employment, improving competitiveness.
- Staff macroeconomic guidance:
  - Implement PRS/DPRS within a realistic macroeconomic framework, with more realistic projections and better prioritization of public expenditure.
  - Medium-term outlook should be for solid economic growth (in a 3–5 percent range in the next few years), accompanied by fiscal and monetary policies to contain inflation and domestic demand, continued reduction in overall public spending, and further structural reforms.
  - PRS programs should be better integrated with the budget within a multiyear framework.
  - Macro outlook subject to significant risks and vulnerabilities that may require further macroeconomic adjustment over the medium term.

### Progress in sectoral and policy reforms
- Business environment and public administration:
  - Improvements: streamlined registration process, reduced administrative barriers, decreased waiting time, and built institutional capacity for new regulatory frameworks.
  - Initiated comprehensive public administration reforms: rationalization of state administration structure and reform of incentive systems; beginning to address governance and corruption.
  - Staffs note priorities remain unclear and call for clearer prioritization and more accurate description of ongoing reforms (e.g., pay reform, Human Resource Management Agency role).
- Social sectors (health, education, social protection):
  - Health:
    - Reforms focus on legal framework, sector organization, financing system, and rationalization of service provision.
    - Insufficient attention to impacts on accessibility for the poor and vulnerable, and to inequalities in delivery.
    - Need better understanding of impact of out-of-pocket payments (formal and informal) and measures to reduce informal payments.
    - Greater attention needed to Roma and growing elderly population.
  - Education:
    - Serbia: plan to introduce a year of free and compulsory pre-schooling with a nine-year primary education program; progress in teacher training, curricula changes, and better coverage.
    - Montenegro: goals to increase enrollment rates not accompanied by discussion of curricula, teacher training, or evaluation programs; ambitious infrastructure plans lack cost calculations; education budget high at above 6 percent of GDP.
    - Staffs recommend better use of student performance assessments to target interventions, improve budget process, and strengthen capacity for sound investment decisions.
  - Social protection:
    - Commend efforts to improve targeting and access to the main social assistance program (MOP).
    - Identification of potential beneficiaries and assessment of poverty impact remain weak; reliance mainly on administrative data and limited use of available survey data.
    - Governments should invest effort in identifying potential beneficiaries among Roma, IDPs, and the rural poor; evaluate existing social protection and employment programs and the program mix.
    - Caution on decentralization: without adequate financial and administrative institutions, decentralization risks undermining equity as poorest municipalities may be least able to finance benefits and services.
    - Continue with pension and disability insurance reforms.
- Rural development and environment:
  - Serbia: important steps in agricultural and some non-farm rural development; successful pilot projects should be expanded and replicated.
  - Montenegro: need to improve basic rural infrastructure, set strategic rural development goals, and improve legal and regulatory framework.
  - Environment: Serbia adopted new environmental laws; Montenegro plans key legislation. High standards pose implementation and monitoring challenges.

### Monitoring and evaluation of the strategies
- Both progress reports present detailed analyses of achievements and constraints but recognize limited accomplishments in aligning PRS/DPRS with annual budgets and identifying specific pro-poor policies.
- Staffs recommend:
  - Better prioritization of expenditure and greater focus on pro-poor spending.
  - Integration of PRS programs with budgets in a multiyear framework.
  - Improved prioritization of sectoral strategies according to poverty profile findings.
  - Strengthened capacity for monitoring and evaluation, and improved data quality and public accessibility to enable deeper analysis and debate.

### Monitoring and evaluation: current weaknesses and needs
- Monitoring and evaluation of the PRS and DPRS are weak; the Serbian progress report recognizes that the absence of an adequate monitoring system of the PRS limits the assessment of achievements.
- The Montenegrin report often:
  - does not indicate what policies have actually been implemented since the DPRS was finalized;
  - reports progress in terms of processes or broad generalities.
- Gender is overlooked entirely; themes such as poverty and discrimination of marginalized groups are not treated as cross-cutting.
- Impression created: actions and sectoral priorities in the DPRS reflect objectives and current needs of different line ministries rather than a well-defined poverty reduction strategy.

### Recommended improvements to monitoring and evaluation
- Include an evaluation of the impact of existing or proposed policies and programs on poverty outcomes.
- Use policy and program impact studies (e.g., Poverty and Social Impact Assessments, PSIA) to:
  - contribute to prioritization of policy actions;
  - increase efficiency and transparency of decision making.
- Strengthen use of survey data to inform policies; current use remains limited despite clear progress in collection and use.
- Examples of government programs and policies that could benefit from rigorous evaluation:
  - active labor market programs;
  - loans to small and medium-sized enterprises;
  - pension and disability insurance reforms;
  - electricity price reforms.
- Pay particular attention to rural anti-poverty programs and their evaluation because poverty is largely a rural phenomenon.
- Strengthen mechanisms for tracking poverty-reducing expenditure, including by introducing specific codes in the budgetary classification system.
- Increase attention to ethnicity in poverty monitoring and program evaluation in light of Serbia and Montenegro’s commitment to the Decade of Roma Inclusion which aims at making measurable improvements in the living conditions of Roma through 2015.
- The PRS and DPRS are the main mechanism for measuring progress on Roma inclusion and must pay more attention to ethnicity in monitoring and evaluation.

### Institutional arrangements and coordination
- Both governments have established institutional mechanisms for sustainable implementation of poverty reduction activities, but coordination should be strengthened further.
- Serbia:
  - PRS Implementation Focal Point (IFP) in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is responsible for coordinating and monitoring PRS activities, affirming government commitment.
- Montenegro:
  - Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare (and within it the DPRS Monitoring and Evaluation Unit) appointed to coordinate and monitor DPRS implementation.
  - Coordination and meaningful participation need to be strengthened further.
- Staffs recommend Montenegro consider anchoring the poverty reduction dialogue at a higher level and locating the central DPRS Unit closer to the Prime Minister’s office to:
  - demonstrate stronger government commitment;
  - ensure greater capacity to coordinate further implementation.
- Concern: multiple strategic documents in Montenegro (Economic Reform Agenda, DPRS, Sustainable Development) have led to different agencies and donors having varying interests and commitment; the DPRS Unit has tended to be marginalized.
- Implementation capacity remains a major weakness and concern.

### Government plans to revise the PRSP / DPRS
- Serbia:
  - The staffs welcome Serbia’s plan to review its PRS and encourage consultation with stakeholders and building on analytical work.
  - By end-2006 or early 2007, the government of Serbia intends to develop a new forward-looking PRS policy update.
  - Expected continuing priorities: Employment, education, health care, and social welfare in implementation; economy and education as main strategic areas over the long run.
  - Staffs urge the new strategy be better prioritized, supported by a strong monitoring and evaluation system, and made fully consistent with the macroeconomic and fiscal framework.
- Montenegro:
  - Staffs encourage Montenegro to review the DPRS to improve prioritization within a multiyear framework that would facilitate better linkages to the budget process.
  - Staffs recommend future reports be more focused, reviewing only policies, actions, and strategies clearly outlined as priorities.
  - Strategy should be made fully consistent with the macroeconomic and fiscal frameworks and the budget process.

### Conclusions: progress, challenges, and reporting recommendations
- Commendation:
  - Staffs commend the governments for addressing recommendations made in the JSA.
  - Both Serbia and Montenegro are implementing significant fiscal consolidation, public administration reform, privatization and business climate reform, and social sector reforms.
- Major near-term challenges identified by staffs:
  - (i) sustaining economic growth, expanding the private sector, and generating employment opportunities;
  - (ii) implementing the PRS in the context of a realistic macroeconomic framework and further fiscal consolidation that will require better policy prioritization within a multiyear expenditure framework;
  - (iii) improving poverty monitoring, program evaluation, and policy analysis;
  - (iv) increasing the focus on, and support for, the most vulnerable through design and implementation of pro-poor policies.
- Reporting and budget alignment recommendations:
  - Future PRS and DPRS progress reports should be better aligned with governments’ internal planning processes and calendars.
  - Align reporting with the budget cycle and other national planning processes to save time and improve sustainability.
  - Staffs welcome the intention to adopt programmatic budgets to enable a more precise presentation of budgetary resources directed at achieving PRS and DPRS goals, but urge adoption of a realistic timetable for implementation, preceded by significant strengthening of public expenditure management systems.
  - Next progress reports should be more succinct and build on different policy documents and strategies adopted by the governments.
  - Progress reports should be a synthesis of implementation progress in key policy areas and include:
    - an evaluation of performance and analysis of outturns relative to benchmarks;
    - an overview of the coming year’s policy intentions and their poverty impact;
    - a discussion of how specific shortcomings identified in past JSANs/JSAs have been addressed.

*Joint staff note prepared by the staffs of the Bank and the Fund, assessing the implementation of the Serbian Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS) and the Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy of Montenegro (DPRS) from early-2004 through mid-2005.*

### 1.      The governments of Serbia and Montenegro have completed the first progress

### The governments of Serbia and Montenegro have completed the first progress

### Stakeholder participation in the review process
- The reports and cover letters recognize the role of different stakeholders; government officials and non-government bodies were consulted through various meetings, workshops and conferences.
- Staffs welcome the participatory nature of the review process and encourage maintaining a similar approach to implementation.
- Progress reports should be used to provide information on implementation to key domestic and external stakeholders and as instruments of donor coordination and harmonization of policies.

### Poverty diagnostics — Serbia
- Strong recent economic growth improved average living standards, but impact on poverty reduction remains inconclusive.
- Preliminary Household Budget Survey (HBS) analysis suggests poverty rates stayed in a range of 11–13 percent between 2003 and 2004.
- Possible reasons for limited poverty reduction:
  - No decisive progress in reducing unemployment in line with GDP growth.
  - Much labor market dynamism likely concentrated in the informal sector (panel data for 2002–03).
  - Growing regional disparities; Belgrade increasing its advantage over the rest of the country.
  - Rural areas lag behind urban centers despite agricultural recovery after the 2003 drought.
- Data quality issues:
  - Poor comparability and shortcomings in HBS data weaken assessment of poverty trends over 2002–04.
  - Current HBS format inadequate for assessing broader dimensions of poverty (education, health, social programs).
- Staff recommendations for Serbia:
  - RSO should put in place a survey system that meets essential PRS and MDG monitoring goals.
  - Build capacity of the RSO to undertake basic poverty analysis.
  - Mandate the Working Group for Poverty Measurement (WGPM) to advise on poverty measurement and take a more active role on higher level analytical activities, such as policy impact evaluation.
  - Provide adequate and reliable resources for both RSO and WGPM.
  - Improve public accessibility of HBS and other statistical data via an open data access policy.

### Poverty diagnostics — Montenegro
- Reported poverty reduction from 12.2 percent to 10.9 percent of population, attributed to slow economic growth.
- New data included on marginalized groups and an indicator linking poverty and environment (use of dirty fuels for household heating).
- Data concerns:
  - Report uses ISSP data for 2002–04 that may not be fully comparable over time.
  - Plan to use annual HBS for poverty monitoring starting mid-2006 welcomed; HBS design is identical to Serbia’s.
  - Staffs concur with continuing ISSP panel surveys to bridge HBS shortcomings.
  - Recommend drawing future integrated household survey samples from the 2003 population census and involving MONSTAT in sampling.
- Staff recommendations for Montenegro:
  - Clarify whether MONSTAT will be responsible for poverty diagnostics and updates, beyond HBS collection.
  - Clarify how HBS and ISSP focused surveys will be integrated to provide comparable and consistent poverty data.
  - Improve public accessibility of HBS and statistical data via an open data access policy.

### Cross-cutting poverty monitoring recommendations
- Strengthen analysis of links between economic growth and poverty reduction; conduct more analysis of planned policy reforms and their potential poverty impact.
- Prioritize pro-poor growth policies informed by poverty profile findings and diagnostics.

### Macroeconomic performance
- Serbia:
  - Real GDP growth: 9.3 percent in 2004 and estimated to be close to 5 percent in 2005.
  - Current account deficit: close to 15 percent of GDP in 2004 before narrowing to around 10 percent of GDP in 2005.
  - Inflation: rapidly rising at end-2004, stabilized at about 17-18 percent in 2005.
  - Low level of exports at half of imports reflects slow restructuring.
  - Demand pressures need containment; structural reforms should be accelerated.
- Montenegro:
  - Growth: 3.5 percent in 2005 compared to an average of just 1.5 percent in 2000–04.
  - Inflation remained low in 2005 (around 4 percent).
  - Current account deficit: over 12 percent of GDP, reflecting insufficient competitiveness.
  - Key challenges: containing fiscal imbalances, increasing employment, improving competitiveness.
- Staff macroeconomic guidance:
  - Implement PRS/DPRS within a realistic macroeconomic framework, with more realistic projections and better prioritization of public expenditure.
  - Medium-term outlook should be for solid economic growth (in a 3–5 percent range in the next few years), accompanied by fiscal and monetary policies to contain inflation and domestic demand, continued reduction in overall public spending, and further structural reforms.
  - PRS programs should be better integrated with the budget within a multiyear framework.
  - Macro outlook subject to significant risks and vulnerabilities that may require further macroeconomic adjustment over the medium term.

### Progress in sectoral and policy reforms
- Business environment and public administration:
  - Improvements: streamlined registration process, reduced administrative barriers, decreased waiting time, and built institutional capacity for new regulatory frameworks.
  - Initiated comprehensive public administration reforms: rationalization of state administration structure and reform of incentive systems; beginning to address governance and corruption.
  - Staffs note priorities remain unclear and call for clearer prioritization and more accurate description of ongoing reforms (e.g., pay reform, Human Resource Management Agency role).
- Social sectors (health, education, social protection):
  - Health:
    - Reforms focus on legal framework, sector organization, financing system, and rationalization of service provision.
    - Insufficient attention to impacts on accessibility for the poor and vulnerable, and to inequalities in delivery.
    - Need better understanding of impact of out-of-pocket payments (formal and informal) and measures to reduce informal payments.
    - Greater attention needed to Roma and growing elderly population.
  - Education:
    - Serbia: plan to introduce a year of free and compulsory pre-schooling with a nine-year primary education program; progress in teacher training, curricula changes, and better coverage.
    - Montenegro: goals to increase enrollment rates not accompanied by discussion of curricula, teacher training, or evaluation programs; ambitious infrastructure plans lack cost calculations; education budget high at above 6 percent of GDP.
    - Staffs recommend better use of student performance assessments to target interventions, improve budget process, and strengthen capacity for sound investment decisions.
  - Social protection:
    - Commend efforts to improve targeting and access to the main social assistance program (MOP).
    - Identification of potential beneficiaries and assessment of poverty impact remain weak; reliance mainly on administrative data and limited use of available survey data.
    - Governments should invest effort in identifying potential beneficiaries among Roma, IDPs, and the rural poor; evaluate existing social protection and employment programs and the program mix.
    - Caution on decentralization: without adequate financial and administrative institutions, decentralization risks undermining equity as poorest municipalities may be least able to finance benefits and services.
    - Continue with pension and disability insurance reforms.
- Rural development and environment:
  - Serbia: important steps in agricultural and some non-farm rural development; successful pilot projects should be expanded and replicated.
  - Montenegro: need to improve basic rural infrastructure, set strategic rural development goals, and improve legal and regulatory framework.
  - Environment: Serbia adopted new environmental laws; Montenegro plans key legislation. High standards pose implementation and monitoring challenges.

### Monitoring and evaluation of the strategies
- Both progress reports present detailed analyses of achievements and constraints but recognize limited accomplishments in aligning PRS/DPRS with annual budgets and identifying specific pro-poor policies.
- Staffs recommend:
  - Better prioritization of expenditure and greater focus on pro-poor spending.
  - Integration of PRS programs with budgets in a multiyear framework.
  - Improved prioritization of sectoral strategies according to poverty profile findings.
  - Strengthened capacity for monitoring and evaluation, and improved data quality and public accessibility to enable deeper analysis and debate.

*Joint staff note prepared by the staffs of the Bank and the Fund, assessing the implementation of the Serbian Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS) and the Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy of Montenegro (DPRS) from early-2004 through mid-2005.*

### 19.      Monitoring and evaluation of the PRS and DPRS are still weak. The Serbian

### _cr06139 - 19.      Monitoring and evaluation of the PRS and DPRS are still weak. The Serbian

### Monitoring and evaluation: current weaknesses and needs
- Monitoring and evaluation of the PRS and DPRS are weak; the Serbian progress report recognizes that the absence of an adequate monitoring system of the PRS limits the assessment of achievements.
- The Montenegrin report often:
  - does not indicate what policies have actually been implemented since the DPRS was finalized;
  - reports progress in terms of processes or broad generalities.
- Gender is overlooked entirely; themes such as poverty and discrimination of marginalized groups are not treated as cross-cutting.
- Impression created: actions and sectoral priorities in the DPRS reflect objectives and current needs of different line ministries rather than a well-defined poverty reduction strategy.

### Recommended improvements to monitoring and evaluation
- Include an evaluation of the impact of existing or proposed policies and programs on poverty outcomes.
- Use policy and program impact studies (e.g., Poverty and Social Impact Assessments, PSIA) to:
  - contribute to prioritization of policy actions;
  - increase efficiency and transparency of decision making.
- Strengthen use of survey data to inform policies; current use remains limited despite clear progress in collection and use.
- Examples of government programs and policies that could benefit from rigorous evaluation:
  - active labor market programs;
  - loans to small and medium-sized enterprises;
  - pension and disability insurance reforms;
  - electricity price reforms.
- Pay particular attention to rural anti-poverty programs and their evaluation because poverty is largely a rural phenomenon.
- Strengthen mechanisms for tracking poverty-reducing expenditure, including by introducing specific codes in the budgetary classification system.
- Increase attention to ethnicity in poverty monitoring and program evaluation in light of Serbia and Montenegro’s commitment to the Decade of Roma Inclusion which aims at making measurable improvements in the living conditions of Roma through 2015.
- The PRS and DPRS are the main mechanism for measuring progress on Roma inclusion and must pay more attention to ethnicity in monitoring and evaluation.

### Institutional arrangements and coordination
- Both governments have established institutional mechanisms for sustainable implementation of poverty reduction activities, but coordination should be strengthened further.
- Serbia:
  - PRS Implementation Focal Point (IFP) in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is responsible for coordinating and monitoring PRS activities, affirming government commitment.
- Montenegro:
  - Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare (and within it the DPRS Monitoring and Evaluation Unit) appointed to coordinate and monitor DPRS implementation.
  - Coordination and meaningful participation need to be strengthened further.
- Staffs recommend Montenegro consider anchoring the poverty reduction dialogue at a higher level and locating the central DPRS Unit closer to the Prime Minister’s office to:
  - demonstrate stronger government commitment;
  - ensure greater capacity to coordinate further implementation.
- Concern: multiple strategic documents in Montenegro (Economic Reform Agenda, DPRS, Sustainable Development) have led to different agencies and donors having varying interests and commitment; the DPRS Unit has tended to be marginalized.
- Implementation capacity remains a major weakness and concern.

### Government plans to revise the PRSP / DPRS
- Serbia:
  - The staffs welcome Serbia’s plan to review its PRS and encourage consultation with stakeholders and building on analytical work.
  - By end-2006 or early 2007, the government of Serbia intends to develop a new forward-looking PRS policy update.
  - Expected continuing priorities: Employment, education, health care, and social welfare in implementation; economy and education as main strategic areas over the long run.
  - Staffs urge the new strategy be better prioritized, supported by a strong monitoring and evaluation system, and made fully consistent with the macroeconomic and fiscal framework.
- Montenegro:
  - Staffs encourage Montenegro to review the DPRS to improve prioritization within a multiyear framework that would facilitate better linkages to the budget process.
  - Staffs recommend future reports be more focused, reviewing only policies, actions, and strategies clearly outlined as priorities.
  - Strategy should be made fully consistent with the macroeconomic and fiscal frameworks and the budget process.

### Conclusions: progress, challenges, and reporting recommendations
- Commendation:
  - Staffs commend the governments for addressing recommendations made in the JSA.
  - Both Serbia and Montenegro are implementing significant fiscal consolidation, public administration reform, privatization and business climate reform, and social sector reforms.
- Major near-term challenges identified by staffs:
  - (i) sustaining economic growth, expanding the private sector, and generating employment opportunities;
  - (ii) implementing the PRS in the context of a realistic macroeconomic framework and further fiscal consolidation that will require better policy prioritization within a multiyear expenditure framework;
  - (iii) improving poverty monitoring, program evaluation, and policy analysis;
  - (iv) increasing the focus on, and support for, the most vulnerable through design and implementation of pro-poor policies.
- Reporting and budget alignment recommendations:
  - Future PRS and DPRS progress reports should be better aligned with governments’ internal planning processes and calendars.
  - Align reporting with the budget cycle and other national planning processes to save time and improve sustainability.
  - Staffs welcome the intention to adopt programmatic budgets to enable a more precise presentation of budgetary resources directed at achieving PRS and DPRS goals, but urge adoption of a realistic timetable for implementation, preceded by significant strengthening of public expenditure management systems.
  - Next progress reports should be more succinct and build on different policy documents and strategies adopted by the governments.
  - Progress reports should be a synthesis of implementation progress in key policy areas and include:
    - an evaluation of performance and analysis of outturns relative to benchmarks;
    - an overview of the coming year’s policy intentions and their poverty impact;
    - a discussion of how specific shortcomings identified in past JSANs/JSAs have been addressed.

*Source: _cr06139 - 19.      Monitoring and evaluation of the PRS and DPRS are still weak. The Serbian*

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/scr/2006/_cr06139.pdf_