We recently had the opportunity in the context of the seminar on the ‘Country Strategy Paper – Mauritius’, presented by the African Development Bank, to listen to the arguments of the Financial Secretary (FS) on the Economic and Social Transformation Plan (ESTP). It was in reply to the few wellchosen barbs of his earlier mentor, Mr R.Sithanen, with respect to the present state of policy paralysis, the absence of any meaningful reforms and the lack of development of opportunities for new sectors. The FS failed to convince us. After having held the country to ransom for seven years with its shortterm incoherent and uncoordinated policies and undermining all attempts to set up an independent full-fledged planning unit, it is not the last-minute elbowing to pull out a summarily concocted 10-year plan -- the famous ESTP -- that will convince us that the Ministry of Finance (MOF) can carry out high level thinking, innovative policy making and planning. 

The ESTP is a non-starter. Different reports were already giving us an inkling that all was not so well with strategic planning at MOF, limited as it is by its overly budgetary and narrow short-term focus. The Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) noted that “strategic planning capacity in MOFED and ministries remains limited. This is particularly apparent on capital side of the budget, where significant capacity constraints have emerged (…) Strategic planning capacity in government remains limited and the links between macroeconomic projections, fiscal strategy, ministry-level strategic plans, and the budget process require strengthening.” Not surprisingly we have scored a “C” in relation with PEFA’s “Multiyear perspective in fiscal planning, expenditure policy, and budgeting” dimension. 

The Draft Technical Overview Note, August 2011 (World Bank), was more critical: “The merger of MEPD, which used to develop the National Strategic Plan for 5 years, with the Ministry of Finance in 2003 resulted in a loss of strategic planning capacity within the Government at the national level. This has created a challenge for Ministries in developing their strategic plans – as the link between sectoral and national objectives is not explicit. Sector planning capacity needs to be developed in order for the proper costing (…). Capacity of the Ministry of Finance to undertake sectoral analysis is limited… The Ministry of Economic Development has developed capacity for sectoral analysis but remains underutilised. The Ministry of Economic Development was the agency that has capacity for sectoral analysis.” 

Both the Collaborative African Budget and Reform Initiative (CABRI) and the National Audit Office (NAO) had called for the alignment of planning and budgeting and recommended “revamping the planning function and… ensuring that issues are raised and discussed at the technical levels in advance in order to facilitate the work of policy-making”.

In the preparation of the ESTP, which is a mere assemblage of inputs, ministries were asked to identify measurable outcomes for the next 10 years for each of the programmes in the Programme Based Budget (PBB). Trying to prepare a plan within a 10-year fiscal framework, by forecasting sector expenditure on an incremental basis, is a futile exercise. Catching up on development planning after wasting so many years chasing short-term goals, the MOF started on a wrong note. Budgeting, a financing exercise, cannot drive planning. The PBB approach may be appropriate for a 3-year planning period but not for a long-term plan. The PBB is an operational plan, not a strategic plan. With the PBB as reference, ministries are extrapolating current problems/issues over a 10-year period. When Ministries identify their measurable outcomes along their PBB programmes, they do this in isolation. There is no analysis of how these outcomes taken together will impact at the national level. Land for example is a cross-sector issue. What is the sustainable level of land that the country can afford to put for development? Can it cater for the different demands for land by the Ministry of Tourism, Public Infrastructure,

IRS projects, etc.? This level of coherence is not present in the approach adopted by the MOF.

The identification of outcomes is but one part of the planning exercise. A good plan consists of evidence-based policies that are analysed comprehensively on a thematic or sector-wise basis for the whole economy. Previous planning exercises have seen, first of all, a host of preliminary studies and analytical work. Preliminary data and relevant information have to be collected scientifically. The MOF does not have the capacity to make evidencebased policies at present despite its huge staff comprising some 35 analysts at PAS level -- and it intends promoting some 15 more.

Various stakeholders (development partners, private sector, etc), including the PMO, are now convinced that we need a well-staffed, full-fledged Planning Unit to chart out f a proper development strategy that will enable the government to achieve its medium- and long-term objectives. There is at present a general consensus to take stock and prepare a new National Long Term Perspective Study (NLTPS) for a better future – one that will shape a vision of Mauritius for the next 20 years, the likely course of events, the main constraints and opportunities that will emerge, the linkages between sectors, resource availability and the key choices that have to be made.

A GOOD PLAN CONSISTS OF EVIDENCE-BASED POLICIES THAT ARE ANALYSED COMPREHENSIVELY.