2010年-世界发展银行全球_The_Republic_of_Sierra_Leone___Public_Financial_Management_Performance_Assessment_Report_115页_1mb

Public Financial Management (PFM) Performance Assessment Report of the Republic of Sierra Leone (2010)

Core Content

This report presents the Public Financial Management (PFM) Performance Assessment for the Republic of Sierra Leone, conducted using the PEFA PFM Performance Measurement Framework. It evaluates the performance of the central government's PFM system based on 31 indicators and assesses the impact of PFM weaknesses on budget goals.

Main Points

1. PFM Regulatory Framework

• The PFM regulatory framework has seen positive transformation through the adoption of new laws.
• The Government of Sierra Leone has enhanced the framework by establishing new institutions, such as the National Revenue Authority (NRA) and internal audit units, and implementing procedural innovations like the Medium-term Expenditure Framework (MTEF), sector strategies, budget oversight committees, and Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys (PETS).
• The Ministry of Finance, the Accountant General's Department (AGD), and the Office of the Auditor-General have improved staff capacity and quality.

2. PFM Performance Overview

A. Budget Credibility

• Aggregate financial discipline has been steady, but there are concerns about over-estimating revenues and non-transparent discretionary exemptions.
• Donor budget support is unpredictable, leading to inconsistencies in expenditure planning and execution.
• The MTEF is not fully operational, and the budget is treated as an annual one rather than a medium-term plan.
• The Budget Bureau issues the Budget Call Circular in summer, awaiting IMF revisions, which delays the budget approval process.
• The use of a Single Treasury Account (Consolidated Revenue Fund) is in place, but many departmental accounts are not consolidated, limiting the effectiveness of cash management.

B. Comprehensiveness and Transparency

• The classification system is compliant with GFS/COFOG standards, but not with GSF 2001.
• A poverty-related expenditure code has been introduced, which could be extended to include functional categories.
• The Local Governments Equitable Grants Distribution Formulae provides clear and timely information to local councils.
• Public access to key fiscal information is improving, but still needs enhancement.
• The budget execution reporting process takes six weeks, longer than the ideal four weeks.
• Legislative scrutiny of audit reports has improved, but delays persist and reforms need to be sustained.

C. Policy-Based Budgeting

• There is a calendar for the MTEF and budget preparation, but it lacks a detailed macroeconomic scenario as a precursor.
• The budget formulation process is weak and requires a complete overhaul to link policy and planning to expenditures.

D. Predictability and Control in Budget Execution

• The MTEF is not robust and is not coherently linked to policy or plans.
• Expenditures are categorized by economic and sectoral categories, but not costed.
• The Debt Sustainability Analysis (DSA) is now conducted annually and covers both external and domestic debt.
• Quarterly cash flow forecasts are prepared, and MDAs are notified of quarterly ceilings based on procurement plans.
• Payroll is managed centrally by the AGD, and the IFMIS payroll module has improved controls and reporting.
• Payroll amendments are processed on a standard form, but delays in processing are still an issue.
• The Procurement Act 2004 and Public Procurement Regulations 2006 are in place, but implementation is inconsistent.
• The National Public Procurement Agency (NPPA) has extended its scrutiny to more procurement entities, but the process is not yet comprehensive.
• The Act promotes open competition and avoids non-competitive practices, but capacity building and perceived independence are needed for effective implementation.

E. Accounting, Recording, and Reporting

• The Financial Administration Regulations were updated in 2007 and are comprehensive.
• The AGD - Other Charges Unit provides central scrutiny and ad hoc training.
• Reconciliations have been carried out regularly since 2007, and the IFMIS reconciliation module has improved the bank reconciliation process.

F. External Scrutiny and Audit

• The concept of internal audit is new in Sierra Leone.
• As of August 2010, 26 Internal Audit Department (IAD) units have been established with 130 auditors.
• These IADs function independently from the finance department and report directly to Vote Controllers.
• Some IADs are more established than others, but the internal audit system is not yet strong.
• Management responses to audit reports are slow and inadequate in addressing issues raised.

Key Changes from 2007 to 2010

• The introduction of the Integrated Financial Management and Information System (IFMIS) has improved budget control and reporting.
• The NRA has made progress in improving the taxation system and taxpayer culture.
• The budget formulation process has been improved but still lacks coherence and robustness.
• The internal audit system has been established and is growing in capacity.

Targets for Reform

• Improve budget credibility and predictability.
• Enhance transparency and comprehensiveness in government operations.
• Strengthen the MTEF and ensure it is fully integrated with the budget process.
• Ensure all MDAs and procurement entities are subject to thorough and comprehensive scrutiny.
• Improve the management of payroll and ensure timely processing of amendments.
• Consolidate all departmental accounts into the Single Treasury Account system.
• Develop and implement a comprehensive and independent internal audit system.
• Improve public access to key fiscal information.
• Strengthen the capacity of the PFM system to link policy and planning to expenditures.

Conclusion

The PFM system in Sierra Leone has made measurable improvements since 2007, particularly in the areas of institutional development, procedural innovation, and transparency. However, significant challenges remain in terms of budget credibility, predictability, and comprehensive oversight. Continued reform efforts and institutional strengthening are necessary to ensure that the PFM system is capable of directing resources effectively to priority areas and achieving high-quality expenditure outcomes.