2013年-世界发展银行全球_Georgia___Public_Expenditure_and_Financial_Accountability_Assessment_2012_116页_2mb

Georgia Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) Assessment 2012 Summary

Core Content Overview

The 2012 PEFA assessment of Georgia provides a comprehensive evaluation of the country's public financial management (PFM) system, highlighting significant improvements since the 2008 assessment, while also identifying areas that still require attention. The assessment is based on a set of performance indicators (PIs) that measure various aspects of PFM, including budget credibility, comprehensiveness and transparency, policy-based budgeting, budget execution predictability and control, accounting and reporting, external scrutiny and audit, donor practice, and the impact of PFM weaknesses on budgetary outcomes.

Key Indicators and Their Performance

A. Budget Credibility

• PI-1: Aggregate expenditure out-turn compared to original approved budget – A (2012) / D (2008)
• PI-2: Composition of expenditure out-turn compared to original approved budget – B+ / C
• PI-3: Aggregate revenue out-turn compared to original approved budget – B / A
• PI-4: Stock and monitoring of expenditure payment arrears – A / B+

Summary: Georgia has improved its budget credibility, with three indicators showing progress and one slightly downgraded. The country has made strides in managing fiscal targets and maintaining low levels of expenditure arrears. However, oversight of state-owned enterprises and legal entities of public law remains a concern.

B. Comprehensiveness and Transparency

• PI-5: Classification of the budget – A / B
• PI-6: Comprehensiveness of information in budget documentation – A / A
• PI-7: Extent of unreported government operations – A / B+
• PI-8: Transparency of inter-governmental fiscal relations – A / B
• PI-9: Oversight of aggregate fiscal risk from other public sector entities – C+ / C+
• PI-10: Public access to key fiscal information – A / B

Summary: Georgia has made considerable progress in budget classification and transparency of inter-governmental fiscal relations. The introduction of program-based budgeting and electronic procurement has enhanced the comprehensiveness of budget documentation and public access to fiscal data. However, the lack of consolidated financial reporting for certain entities remains a challenge.

C. Budget Cycle

C(i) Policy Based Budgeting

• PI-11: Orderliness and participation in the annual budget process – A / A
• PI-12: Multi-year perspective in fiscal planning – B+ / C+

C(ii) Predictability and Control in Budget Execution

• PI-13: Transparency of taxpayer obligations and liabilities – A / C+
• PI-14: Effectiveness of taxpayer registration and tax assessment – A / B
• PI-15: Effectiveness in collection of tax payments – D+ / D+
• PI-16: Predictability in fund availability for expenditures – A / B+
• PI-17: Recording and management of cash balances, debt and guarantees – A / B+
• PI-18: Effectiveness of payroll controls – D+ / NA
• PI-19: Competition, value for money and procurement controls – A / D+
• PI-20: Internal controls for non-salary expenditure and assets management – A / C+
• PI-21: Effectiveness of internal audit – C+ / D+

Summary: The budget cycle has seen substantial improvements, particularly in policy-based budgeting and procurement systems. The introduction of the E-Treasury system and E-GP (electronic procurement) has improved efficiency and transparency. However, internal audit and payroll controls remain underdeveloped, posing potential risks.

D. Relations with Donors

• D-1: Predictability of direct budget support – C+ / C+
• D-2: Financial information provided by donors – C / C
• D-3: Proportion of aid managed through national procedures – D / D

Summary: Donor practices remain largely unchanged. While donor funding has supported post-conflict recovery and reconstruction, the management of aid through national procedures is still limited. Most aid is managed under donor-specific procedures, especially in procurement and reporting.

E. Accounting, Recording and Reporting

• PI-22: Timeliness and regularity of accounts reconciliation – B+ / A
• PI-23: Availability of information on resources received by service delivery units – B / D
• PI-24: Quality and timeliness of in-year budget reports – A / B+
• PI-25: Quality and timeliness of annual financial statements – C+ / D+

Summary: Improvements have been made in accounting and reporting, with better timeliness and coverage of in-year reports. However, the quality of annual financial statements and the availability of detailed information on resources received by service delivery units still require enhancement.

F. External Scrutiny and Audit

• PI-26: Scope, nature and follow-up of external audit – B+ / D+
• PI-27: Legislative scrutiny of annual budget law – A / B+
• PI-28: Legislative scrutiny of external audit reports – D+ / C+

Summary: External audit has improved significantly, with the State Audit Office (SAOG) implementing better standards and methodologies. Legislative scrutiny of the annual budget law is strong, but scrutiny of audit reports has weakened, with limited formal responses to audit findings.

G. Donor Practice

• D-1: Predictability of direct budget support – C+ / C+
• D-2: Financial information from donors – C / C
• D-3: Proportion of aid managed via national procedures – D / D

Summary: Donor practices have remained consistent, with significant financial support provided for post-conflict recovery. However, the management of aid through national procedures is still limited, and most projects and programs follow donor-specific guidelines.

H. Impact of PFM Weaknesses on Budgetary Outcomes

• PI-9: Oversight of fiscal risk from other public sector entities – C+ / C+
• PI-28: Legislative scrutiny of audit reports – D+ / C+

Summary: Despite improvements in PFM, weaknesses in external oversight and internal audit may impact service delivery efficiency. The lack of consolidated fiscal risk reporting and inadequate follow-up on audit recommendations could hinder future fiscal discipline and performance.

Main Points and Reforms

• Georgia has significantly advanced its PFM systems, including the implementation of a centralized payment system, improved accounting and reporting, and the introduction of electronic procurement.
• The country has adopted program-based budgeting, which has enhanced the focus on results and strategic planning.
• The introduction of the E-Treasury system and the Real-time Gross Settlement (RTGS) system has improved transparency and efficiency in financial operations.
• Donor support has been crucial in supporting Georgia's post-conflict recovery, but most aid is managed under donor-specific procedures.
• The legislative framework has been strengthened, but the effectiveness of legislative scrutiny of audit reports remains a concern.
• The State Audit Office has improved its audit standards and methodologies, but internal audit capacity is still limited.
• Public access to fiscal information has improved, but consolidated financial reports are not yet fully public.

Key Challenges

• Oversight of state-owned enterprises and legal entities of public law is still lacking.
• Internal audit and payroll controls remain underdeveloped.
• Consolidated financial reporting is not yet comprehensive.
• Legislative scrutiny of audit reports is inadequate.
• Tax collection effectiveness remains low due to unresolved arrears.

Conclusion

The 2012 PEFA assessment highlights Georgia's progress in strengthening its public financial management systems, particularly in areas such as budget planning, execution, and transparency. However, the country still needs to address key challenges, including improving internal audit, enhancing consolidated reporting, and ensuring more effective oversight of public entities. Continued reforms and investments in PFM are essential for achieving greater fiscal discipline and efficient service delivery.