2009年-世界发展银行全球_Debt_Management_Performance_Assessment___Sierra_Leone_36页_8mb

Debt Management Performance Assessment (DeMPA) Summary: Sierra Leone

Executive Summary

In July 2009, a World Bank team conducted a Debt Management Performance Assessment (DeMPA) to evaluate Sierra Leone's government debt management capacity and institutions. The DeMPA tool is a comprehensive framework based on 15 performance indicators (DPIs) that assess the full range of debt management functions. The assessment revealed that seven indicators scored C or better, indicating compliance with minimum requirements, while eight indicators did not meet the minimum standards. The mission noted that ongoing reforms by the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (MOFED) and the Bank of Sierra Leone (BSL) are expected to improve several of these indicators over time.

Core Content and Key Findings

1. Assessment Methodology and Scoring

• The DeMPA tool evaluates 15 debt performance indicators (DPIs) across various aspects of debt management.
• Each DPI is assessed based on specific dimensions, and scores are assigned as A, B, C, or D.
• A score of C indicates compliance with minimum requirements.
• A score of D means the minimum requirements are not met.
• An N/R (Not Rated) score is assigned when a dimension cannot be assessed.

2. Country Background

• After the war, Sierra Leone experienced a rebound in economic growth, reaching 27% in 2002, 9% in 2003, and 7% for 2004–2007.
• In 2008, economic growth slowed due to global demand decline and falling export prices, particularly for diamonds and bauxite.
• Real GDP growth was estimated at 5.5% in 2008, below the projected 6.4%.
• Inflation remained high at 14.8% in 2008, but declined to 12.2% by year-end due to falling import prices.
• The economy faced challenges from fiscal imbalances, global economic downturn, and rising import costs.
• External debt management shifted from seeking relief to securing developmental financing while maintaining sustainability.
• Public debt decreased from $1.8 billion in 2001 to $1.0 billion in 2008 (48% of GDP).
• The share of external debt dropped from 81% to 75%, and domestic debt increased from 19% to 25%.

3. Performance Indicator Assessment Summary

Main Points and Observations

3.1 Governance and Strategy Development

• DPI-1 Legal Framework: Score D. The legal framework, including the 1991 Constitution and the 2005 Government Budget and Accountability Act (GBAA), provides some authorization but lacks clarity and specificity for effective debt management.
• DPI-2 Managerial Structure: Score C. Responsibilities are shared between MOFED and BSL, with some coordination mechanisms in place, though not fully formalized.
• DPI-3 Debt Management Strategy: Score C+. A medium-term strategy exists covering at least 90% of total debt, with some formal input and approval, but lacks specific risk targets.
• DPI-4 Evaluation of Debt Management Operations: Score C. The evaluation process is in place but not fully comprehensive.
• DPI-5 Audit: Score D. The audit process is not robust and lacks effective oversight mechanisms.

3.2 Coordination with Macroeconomic Policies

• DPI-6 Coordination with Fiscal Policy: Score C. There is some coordination between debt management and fiscal policy, but it is not fully integrated.
• DPI-7 Coordination with Monetary Policy: Score D+. The coordination is weak, and the role of the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) is not clearly defined in relation to debt management.

3.3 Borrowing and Related Financing Activities

• DPI-8 Domestic Borrowing: Score C. Domestic borrowing is managed, but with limited market development and coordination.
• DPI-9 External Borrowing: Score C. External borrowing is managed, though with limited transparency and strategic direction.
• DPI-10 Loan Guarantees, On-Lending, and Derivatives: Score D. There are no outstanding guarantees or on-lending activities, and the process lacks formalization.

3.4 Cash Flow Forecasting and Cash Balance Management

• DPI-11 Cash Flow Forecasting and Cash Balance Management: Score D. The process is not well developed and lacks formal mechanisms.

3.5 Operational Risk Management

• DPI-12 Debt Administration and Data Security: Score C+. There is some level of data security and administration in place.
• DPI-13 Segregation of Duties, Staff Capacity, and Business Continuity: Score D. The segregation of duties is weak, and there are concerns regarding staff capacity and continuity.

3.6 Debt Records and Reporting

• DPI-14 Debt Records: Score C+. Debt records are maintained, though not in a fully comprehensive manner.
• DPI-15 Debt Reporting: Score D+. The reporting process is not fully developed, and there is room for improvement in transparency and frequency.

Key Information

• The DeMPA assessment highlighted the need for institutional reforms and capacity building in several areas.
• MOFED and BSL are implementing reforms, including the development of a new Debt Management Law, reorganization of the Debt Management Unit, and improving coordination between institutions.
• The current legal and institutional framework is insufficient to meet the minimum requirements for several indicators.
• There is a need for more formalization of the debt management process, including clearer roles and responsibilities, improved coordination, and enhanced transparency in reporting and risk management.
• The government is moving towards greater reliance on domestic financing and developing the domestic debt market.