2016年-世界发展银行全球_Bhutan_Public_Financial_Management_Performance_Report___Based_on_Public_Expenditure_and_Financial_Accountability_2016_Framework_200页_1mb

报告摘要

Summary of Bhutan Public Financial Management Performance Report (2016)

Core Content

This report presents the findings of the 2016 Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) assessment of the Royal Government of Bhutan (RGoB) Public Financial Management (PFM) system. It evaluates the performance of the PFM system against the 2016 PEFA Framework, highlighting strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement.

Main Points

PFM Performance Assessment

The assessment was conducted by a team comprising RGoB officials, World Bank staff, consultants, and the IMF's Regional PFM Advisor.
The assessment was based on self-assessment by RGoB and technical support from the World Bank and IMF.
The assessment used the 2016 PEFA Framework, with 31 indicators covering seven pillars of PFM performance.

Key Pillars and Their Performance

Pillar	Description	Performance
Pillar I: Budget Reliability	Focuses on the accuracy and reliability of budget execution and revenue performance.	Significantly impacted by PI-3 (revenue reliability), which is low due to unreliable donor grants.
Pillar II: Transparency of Public Finances	Evaluates the transparency of government operations and fiscal information.	Relatively lower scores, with PI-2 (expenditure composition) and PI-7 (unreported operations) showing decline.
Pillar III: Management of Assets and Liabilities	Assesses the management of government assets and liabilities.	Relatively stronger, with good cash balance and debt management.
Pillar IV: Policy-Based Fiscal Strategy and Budgeting	Reviews the alignment of fiscal policy with national development goals.	Not assessed in the 2016 framework, but strong planning and budgeting systems are in place.
Pillar V: Predictability and Control in Budget Execution	Examines the predictability and control in executing the budget.	PI-16 (predictability of fund availability) shows improvement.
Pillar VI: Accounting and Reporting	Focuses on the quality and timeliness of financial reporting.	Relatively lower scores, with PI-23 (access to resources by service delivery units) and PI-24 (in-year budget reports) showing decline.
Pillar VII: External Scrutiny and Audit	Evaluates the effectiveness of external audit and legislative oversight.	Relatively stronger, with improvements in external audit and legislative scrutiny.

PFM Reforms Since 2010

Implementation of web-based Multi-Year Rolling Budget (MYRB) and Revenue Administration Management Information System (RAMIS) has strengthened aggregate expenditure and domestic revenue out-turn.
COFOG classification of expenditure has been adopted.
A formula-based system for fiscal transfers to local governments has been introduced.
Strengthened monitoring of fiscal risk over public enterprises.
More active Tax Appeals Board.
Formal cash flow forecasting system.
Improved internal audit effectiveness.
Formal in-year budget execution reporting.
Establishment of a Finance Committee for legislative scrutiny.
More active Public Accounts Committee (PAC) for audit report scrutiny.

PFM Strengths and Weaknesses

Strengths:
- Comprehensive coverage of the Public Expenditure Management System (PEMS).
- Orderly execution of the budget.
- Good control over expenditure commitments and fiscal risks.
- Timely and reliable financial reporting.
- Continued improvements in external audit and legislative scrutiny.
Weaknesses:
- Low public transparency in budget and account classification.
- Limited economic appraisal of projects before budget inclusion.
- Weak controls over payroll.
- Expenditure arrears.
- Limited public access to key fiscal information.
- Inadequate transparency of inter-governmental fiscal relations.

Impact of Donor Grants

Donor grants significantly influence PFM performance.
They may help meet PEFA requirements, but also have adverse impacts when aid is forecasted but not disbursed or delayed due to unmet conditionality requirements.

PFM Performance Changes Since 2010

The report includes a comparison of scores from 2009 to 2016 using the 2005 PEFA Framework.
Several indicators have improved, such as PI-5 (budget classification), PI-10 (public access to fiscal information), and PI-9 (fiscal risk oversight).
Some indicators have declined, including PI-2 (expenditure composition), PI-11 (budget process participation), and PI-28 (legislative scrutiny of audit reports).

Key Information

Currency: Bhutanese Ngultrum (Nu or BTN)
Exchange Rate (as of May 31, 2016):
- 1.00 Nu = 0.014686 USD
- 1.00 USD = 67.17 Nu
Government Fiscal Year: July 1 – June 30
PEFA CHECK: The report received a 'PEFA CHECK' due to meeting the quality assurance standards.
Assessment Coverage:
- All 10 ministries of RGoB.
- Oversight institutions (e.g., RAA, PAC).
- Autonomous agencies.
- Local government bodies (dzongkhags, gewogs, thromdes), treated as deconcentrated units.

Conclusion

The PFM system in Bhutan has made significant progress since the 2010 assessment, particularly in budget reliability, external scrutiny, and revenue administration. However, there are still challenges in transparency, public access to information, and payroll controls. The PFM performance is influenced by donor grants, which can both support and undermine the system depending on their reliability and timely disbursement. The report provides a common source of information for stakeholders to guide future PFM reforms.