2012年-世界发展银行全球_Ukraine___Public_Financial_Management_Performance_Report_95页_3mb

Ukraine Public Financial Management Performance Report Summary

Core Content Overview

This report provides an assessment of Ukraine's Public Financial Management (PFM) performance based on the PEFA (Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability) methodology. It evaluates the country's fiscal systems across various dimensions and highlights both achievements and challenges in PFM reforms. The report also outlines prospects for further improvement, emphasizing the need for systemic changes to enhance transparency, accountability, and efficiency.

Main Points and Key Information

1. PFM Performance Trends (2005–2010)

• Overall Performance: PFM improvements over the last decade have enhanced fiscal management and budget discipline, especially during the 2008–2009 crisis.
• Performance Gaps: Despite progress, Ukraine's PFM systems lag behind those of upper middle-income countries in the Europe and Central Asia (ECA) region.
• PEFA Scores: Ukraine's scores on most PFM indicators are above the regional average but below the global average. The report compares Ukraine's performance with ECA and global benchmarks.

2. Key Dimensions of PFM Performance

A. Credibility of the Budget

• Challenges: Budget credibility was weakened by the financial crisis and elections, leading to significant variances in expenditures.
• Reforms: The introduction of the 2010 Budget Code improved the link between policy and budget, introducing sector expenditure ceilings and a medium-term perspective.
• Transparency Issues: The existence of extra-budgetary funds (e.g., social insurance funds) affects transparency and PEFA scores.

B. Comprehensiveness and Transparency

• Good Practice: Budget classification is comprehensive and compliant with international standards (GFS 1986 and GFS 2001).
• Weaknesses: Budget documents do not fully reflect the complexity of the fiscal system, and the Open Budget Index (OBI) gives Ukraine a higher ranking than PEFA methodology.
• Fiscal Risks: State-owned enterprises (SOEs) represent a significant source of fiscal risk due to contingent liabilities and tax write-offs.

C. Budget Cycle

• Policy Based Budgeting: The budget process is well-established, but the 2010 budget code introduced improvements in linking policy to budget planning.
• Capital Budgeting: Weaknesses remain in systematic and objective project evaluation and consideration of recurrent costs.
• Procurement System: The public procurement law has been updated to align with international standards, but implementation is still a challenge.

D. Accounting, Recording, and Reporting

• Treasury Single Account (TSA): The TSA system supports timely and accurate financial reporting and cash management.
• Extra-budgetary Funds: These funds are treated inconsistently in reporting, with some being classified as revenue and others as expenditure, which conflicts with international accounting standards (IAS 18 and IAS 23).
• Compliance and Reporting: While the system has improved, some compliance failures still occur, especially in areas outside central government.

E. External Scrutiny and Audit

• Accounting Chamber of Ukraine (ACU): The ACU conducts annual audits but does not meet international standards due to limited scope and lack of audit opinion on financial position.
• Legislative Oversight: The Parliament lacks a dedicated audit committee and does not systematically follow up on audit findings.
• Internal Audit: Internal audit functions are weak and not aligned with modern standards, leading to a lack of focus on system performance.

F. Donor Practices

• Transparency: Ukraine scores poorly in donor practices, especially in the areas of direct budget support and use of national procedures for aid management.
• Aid Management: Donor financial information is not always aligned with national reporting standards, and there is room for improvement in the proportion of aid managed via national procedures.

3. Donor Practices and External Perceptions

• BEEPS Survey: Indicates poor practices in tax collection and procurement, contributing to negative perceptions of Ukraine as a business environment.
• Corruption Index: Ukraine ranks low in the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), showing a divergent path from other Eastern European and former Soviet states.
• Reforms and Recovery: Despite setbacks, Ukraine has shown a quick recovery in budget credibility and PFM performance.

4. Prospects for Improvement

• Medium-term Budgeting: Strengthening the link between policy and budget is crucial for long-term planning and investment.
• Revenue Collection: Rebalancing the objectives of revenue collection agencies to focus more on taxpayer compliance than revenue targets.
• Procurement Reforms: Implementation and monitoring of the new procurement framework to ensure transparency and efficiency.
• SOE Oversight: Need for a comprehensive SOE registry, improved transparency, and performance measurement aligned with international standards.
• Internal Audit: Developing a modern internal audit function to improve controls and efficiency.
• ACU Mandate: Expanding the ACU's mandate to include revenue audits and extra-budgetary funds, in line with international best practices.
• Parliamentary Role: Enhancing the role of Parliament in scrutinizing and following up on audit findings.

Conclusion

Ukraine has made progress in PFM reforms, particularly in strengthening the Treasury system, improving tax administration, and modernizing the procurement process. However, significant challenges remain, including weak accountability, fragmented fiscal oversight, and inconsistencies in financial reporting. Continued reform efforts are essential to improve the business climate, public service delivery, and control of corruption, while maintaining fiscal discipline.