2015年-世界发展银行全球_Serbia_Public_Expenditure_and_Financial_Accountability_Performance_Report___Repeat_Assessment_168页_4mb

Summary of the 2014 PEFA Performance Report for Serbia

Core Content

This document presents the results of a repeat Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) assessment conducted in the Republic of Serbia between November 2014 and May 2015. The assessment was led by the World Bank and supported by the Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO) and the European Union Delegation to Serbia. It evaluates the performance of Serbia’s public financial management (PFM) system, focusing on several key areas including budget credibility, comprehensiveness and transparency, policy-based budgeting, predictability and control in budget execution, accounting and reporting, external scrutiny and audit, and donor practices.

The assessment period was 2011-2013, a time marked by macroeconomic challenges following the global economic recession. Despite these challenges, there were notable improvements in several PFM areas, such as the strengthening of the legislative framework, budget classification, multi-year fiscal planning, procurement, and external audit. However, other areas still require significant reform to enhance PFM performance.

Main Points

1. Budget Credibility

• PI-1 (Aggregate Expenditure Out-Turn): Maintained a consistent performance level, rated B in 2014, with no significant variances between actual and budgeted figures.
• PI-2 (Expenditure Composition): Improved from A in 2010 to D+ in 2014, indicating a decline in the accuracy of expenditure composition compared to the original approved budget.
• PI-3 (Aggregate Revenue Out-Turn): Remained stable at C in both 2010 and 2014, showing limited improvement in revenue collection.
• PI-4 (Expenditure Payment Arrears): Deteriorated from B in 2010 to D+ in 2014, with significant arrears in the health sector, local self-government, and road maintenance.

2. Comprehensiveness and Transparency

• PI-5 (Budget Classification): Improved from B to A in 2014, aligning with the international standard of Classification of the Functions of Government (CoFoG).
• PI-6 (Comprehensiveness of Budget Documentation): Deteriorated from B to C in 2014, with a lack of information on prior year's budget out-turn and execution.
• PI-7 (Unreported Government Operations): Improved from B+ to NR in 2014, suggesting that the extent of unreported operations was not fully quantified.
• PI-8 (Transparency of Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations): Maintained a stable rating of B in 2014, with some improvements in transparency.
• PI-9 (Fiscal Risk Oversight): Remained at D+ in 2014, indicating ongoing challenges in monitoring fiscal risks from other public sector entities.
• PI-10 (Public Access to Fiscal Information): Deteriorated from A to B in 2014, showing reduced access to key fiscal information.

3. Budget Cycle

• PI-11 (Orderliness and Participation in Annual Budget Process): Improved from A to B+ in 2014, indicating a slight decline in orderliness and participation.
• PI-12 (Multi-Year Perspective in Fiscal Planning): Improved from C to C+ in 2014, with some progress in multi-year fiscal planning.

4. Predictability and Control in Budget Execution

• PI-13 (Transparency of Taxpayer Obligations): Deteriorated from B+ to C+ in 2014, indicating reduced transparency in taxpayer obligations.
• PI-14 (Effectiveness of Taxpayer Registration and Assessment): Deteriorated from B to C+ in 2014, showing a decline in effectiveness.
• PI-15 (Effectiveness of Tax Collection): Maintained at D+ in 2014, with continued challenges in tax collection.
• PI-16 (Predictability of Funds Availability): Deteriorated from C+ to D+ in 2014, indicating less predictability in fund availability.
• PI-17 (Cash Balances, Debt, and Guarantees): Maintained at A in 2014, showing good management of financial assets.
• PI-18 (Payroll Controls): Improved from C+ to A in 2014, indicating stronger controls.
• PI-19 (Procurement Controls): Improved from B to B+ in 2014, with better competition and value for money practices.
• PI-20 (Internal Controls for Non-Salary Expenditure): Maintained at C+ in 2014, showing limited improvement.
• PI-21 (Internal Audit Effectiveness): Deteriorated from B to C+ in 2014, indicating reduced effectiveness.

5. Accounting, Recording, and Reporting

• PI-22 (Accounts Reconciliation): Maintained at A in 2014, showing consistent and timely reconciliation.
• PI-23 (Resources Received by Service Delivery Units): Maintained at A in 2014, with good availability of information.
• PI-24 (In-Year Budget Reports): Deteriorated from A to C+ in 2014, indicating reduced quality and timeliness.
• PI-25 (Annual Financial Statements): Deteriorated from A to D+ in 2014, with a significant decline in the quality and timeliness of financial reporting.

6. External Scrutiny and Audit

• PI-26 (External Audit Scope and Follow-Up): Improved from C to B+ in 2014, indicating better external audit practices.
• PI-27 (Legislative Scrutiny of Annual Budget Law): Maintained at C+ in 2014, with some improvements.
• PI-28 (Legislative Scrutiny of External Audit Reports): Deteriorated from D+ to D in 2014, showing a decline in legislative scrutiny.

7. Donor Practices

• D-1 (Predictability of Direct Budget Support): Maintained at D in 2014, indicating continued challenges in predictability.
• D-2 (Financial Information from Donors): Maintained at D in 2014, with limited support for budgeting and reporting.
• D-3 (Use of National Procedures for Aid Management): Improved from D to NR in 2014, indicating that the use of national procedures was not consistently tracked.

Key Information

• The assessment highlights the need for better coordination and transparency in budgeting and fiscal planning.
• The Budget System Law (BSL) and its amendments were key legal instruments in shaping the PFM framework.
• The implementation of the Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) was challenged by inaccurate macroeconomic forecasts and lack of coordination in setting expenditure ceilings.
• The Ministry of Finance played a central role in coordinating the assessment and reform efforts.
• There were notable improvements in certain areas such as payroll controls and external audit, but significant gaps remained in others like budget composition and tax collection.
• The assessment underscores the importance of improving the comprehensiveness of budget documentation and enhancing the legislative scrutiny of fiscal processes.