2017年-世界发展银行全球_Public_Expenditure_and_Financial_Accountability_Assessment___Greater_Amman_Municipality_The_Hashemite_Kingdom_of_Jordan_102页_1mb

Summary of the Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) Assessment of the Greater Amman Municipality (GAM), Jordan

Core Content of the Assessment

This report presents the findings of the Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) Assessment conducted on the Greater Amman Municipality (GAM) in Jordan, completed in October 2017. The assessment was carried out using the 2016 PEFA Performance Measurement Framework, which evaluates the performance of public financial management (PFM) systems across seven pillars and 31 Performance Indicators (PIs). The main objective of the assessment was to produce a comprehensive "PFM Performance Report" for the GAM, which serves as a baseline for future improvements and reform efforts.

The assessment included fieldwork in October 2016 and a follow-up visit in February 2017. It analyzed the PFM system of the GAM, including budgeting, revenue management, expenditure control, asset management, and external audit processes. The report also outlines the current PFM performance, identifies weaknesses, and highlights areas for reform.

Main Objectives

• To evaluate the current performance of the GAM's PFM system using the 2016 PEFA methodology.
• To provide a basis for developing a technical assistance (TA) plan to improve the efficiency, transparency, and accountability of the city's financial management.
• To establish a baseline for monitoring and evaluating future improvements in the PFM system.

Key Findings and Performance Ratings

PFM Performance Overview

The overall PFM performance of the GAM is satisfactory in most areas, particularly in terms of short-term fiscal discipline and performance information. However, several key weaknesses were identified, especially in the areas of budget classification, multi-year fiscal planning, and external scrutiny.

Pillar I: Budget Reliability

• PI-1 (Aggregate expenditure outturn): Rated B, indicating that overall expenditure is close to the budgeted amount.
• PI-2 (Expenditure composition outturn): Rated D+, showing some variance in the composition of expenditures.
• PI-3 (Revenue outturn): Rated C, suggesting that revenue collection is somewhat reliable but not fully aligned with expectations.

Pillar II: Transparency of Public Finances

• PI-4 (Budget classification): Rated D, indicating poor alignment with international standards.
• PI-5 (Budget documentation): Rated B, showing that documentation is adequate.
• PI-6 (Central government operations outside of fiscal reports): Rated B, indicating some transparency.
• PI-8 (Performance information for service delivery): Rated B+, suggesting effective use of performance data.
• PI-9 (Public access to key fiscal information): Rated D, highlighting limited public access to fiscal data.

Pillar III: Management of Assets and Liabilities

• PI-11 (Public investment management): Rated C+, showing sound practice for investment management.
• PI-12 (Public asset management): Rated D+, indicating poor asset management.
• PI-13 (Debt management): Rated C, suggesting a need for a more robust debt strategy.

Pillar IV: Policy-based fiscal strategy and budgeting

• PI-14 (Macroeconomic and fiscal forecasting): Rated D, showing weak forecasting capabilities.
• PI-15 (Fiscal Strategy): Rated D, indicating lack of strategic fiscal planning.
• PI-16 (Medium-term perspective in expenditure budgeting): Rated D, highlighting the absence of medium-term budgeting.
• PI-17 (Budget preparation process): Rated C, showing some inefficiencies in the preparation process.
• PI-18 (Legislative scrutiny of budgets): Rated C+, indicating that the GAM Council has a reasonable level of oversight.

Pillar V: Predictability and Control in Budget Execution

• PI-19 (Revenue administration): Rated C, showing some weaknesses in revenue collection.
• PI-20 (Accounting for revenues): Rated A, indicating strong revenue accounting practices.
• PI-21 (Predictability of in-year resource allocation): Rated C+, showing moderate predictability.
• PI-22 (Expenditure arrears): Rated C+, indicating that arrears are declining.
• PI-23 (Payroll controls): Rated C+, suggesting that payroll management is reasonably controlled.
• PI-24 (Procurement): Rated B, showing that procurement processes are generally sound.
• PI-25 (Internal controls on nonsalary expenditure): Rated C, indicating some deficiencies in non-salary expenditure controls.
• PI-26 (Internal audit): Rated C+, suggesting that internal audit practices need improvement.
• PI-27 (Financial data integrity): Rated B+, indicating good data integrity in financial reporting.

Pillar VI: Accounting and Reporting

• PI-28 (In-year budget reports): Rated C+, showing that real-time budget reporting is not fully developed.
• PI-29 (Annual financial reports): Rated D+, indicating that annual reporting is not comprehensive or timely.

Pillar VII: External Scrutiny and Audit

• PI-30 (External audit): Rated D, suggesting that external audit is not robust.
• PI-31 (Legislative scrutiny of audit reports): Rated D, indicating that audit reports are not adequately scrutinized by legislative bodies.

Key Issues and Weaknesses

• Lack of multi-year fiscal planning remains a major concern, especially in the context of public-private partnerships (PPPs).
• Weak budget classification (PI-4) is a critical weakness, as it does not align with international standards.
• Absence of a debt management strategy (PI-13.3) poses risks to fiscal discipline.
• Limited public access to fiscal information (PI-9) suggests a need for greater transparency.
• Weak internal controls on non-salary expenditure (PI-25) and inadequate external audit (PI-30) indicate areas for improvement.
• Limited legislative scrutiny of audit reports (PI-31) is another weakness.

Government Reform Process

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs (MoMA) has been working on a reform strategy for 2015–2020, approved by the Council of Ministers. This strategy includes six national objectives, focusing on legislative, financial, and administrative reforms.

• Legislative reforms have been achieved through the enactment of the Municipal Law No. 41 of 2015 and the Decentralization Law No. 49 of 2015, which aim to enhance local governance and public participation.
• Financial reforms include increased government support for municipalities through oil revenue transfers and the allocation of JD 100 million to help municipalities settle debts.
• Administrative reforms involve capacity-building, training programs, and the establishment of new structures to support decentralization.

Conclusion

The GAM's PFM system is generally functioning at a satisfactory level, particularly in terms of short-term fiscal discipline and performance reporting. However, there are several areas that require improvement, including budget classification, debt management, and external audit processes. The assessment also highlights the importance of a stronger legal and institutional framework for PFM to support the city's long-term fiscal and budgetary goals. The findings of this assessment will serve as a baseline for future reforms and the development of a technical assistance plan to strengthen the PFM system in the GAM.