2013年-世界发展银行全球_West_Bank_and_Gaza___Public_Expenditure_and_Financial_Accountability_108页_1mb

Summary of the West Bank and Gaza Public Financial Management Performance Report (2013)

Core Content

This report presents a Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) assessment of the Palestinian Authority's (PA) public financial management (PFM) system, conducted in 2013. The assessment was led by the World Bank in collaboration with the European Union, France, and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). It evaluates the PFM system against 25 performance indicators and three donor-related indicators, highlighting both achievements and ongoing challenges.

The report focuses on the PA's efforts to reform its PFM system since 2007, particularly in the context of a fiscal crisis following the 2006 elections and the separation of the West Bank and Gaza. It notes that while progress has been made in areas such as budget credibility, comprehensiveness and transparency, and audit systems, significant systemic weaknesses remain in budget preparation, execution, and accounting/reporting.

Main Points

PFM System Performance

• Budget Credibility (PI-1 to PI-4): A mixed picture is observed. While actual expenditures and revenues remain within acceptable limits, the indicator measuring arrears has worsened from D+ in 2007 to D in 2013. Arrears increased from 3% of the operational budget in 2010 to 17.7% in 2012, reflecting a mismatch between expenditures and actual resources, particularly donor budget support.
• Comprehensiveness and Transparency (PI-5 to PI-10): These have improved, but further efforts are needed. Transparency in budget information and public accessibility have increased, with the introduction of the Integrated Financial Management Information System (IFMIS) and the Treasury Single Account (TSA). However, there are still issues with public disclosure of procurement contracts and debt information.
• Policy-Based and Multiyear Budgeting (PI-11 to PI-12): These require further strengthening. Despite improved IFMIS modalities and orderly exchanges between line ministries and the Ministry of Finance (MoF), the core principles of budgeting are not fully aligned with PEFA standards. The "bottom up" approach is still prevalent, which limits the effectiveness of budget preparation.
• Expenditure Predictability and Control (PI-13 to PI-21): There is a need for significant improvement. While tax administration and procurement systems have started to develop, they remain underperforming. The budget execution process has not adapted to the actual revenue situation, leading to cash rationing and arrears accumulation. Internal controls on non-salary expenditures are weak, contributing to the problem.
• Accounting and Financial Reporting (PI-22 to PI-25): These need to be improved. Although the IFMIS has enhanced financial reporting, it does not fully comply with international standards such as IPSAS. The consolidated financial statements are satisfactory in coverage but delayed in timeliness. The presentation of financial accounts is partially compliant with GFSM 2001, but lacks full transparency on commitments.
• External Scrutiny and Audit (PI-26): External audit has improved, with audits covering 51 budget entities. However, the lack of a functioning legislature limits the assessment of other indicators.

Donor Practices

• Donor practices are a concern as they have not improved significantly. The predictability of direct budget support has increased slightly, but the quality of information for budgeting and reporting foreign aid, and the proportion of aid managed under national procedures, have stagnated.
• The PA has often overestimated budget support in its annual budgets, leading to a financing gap. This is partly due to the tendency of some bilateral donors to disburse support on time and up to pledged amounts, and the PA's continued reliance on donor funding.
• There is a lack of integration between databases used by MoF and MoPAD, which hampers the reporting of donor-funded projects. Additionally, most foreign aid is not managed through national procedures, as it is audited by private auditors rather than the Supreme Audit and Administrative Control Bureau (SAACB).

Key Issues

• Fiscal Crisis: The recent fiscal crisis, driven by political instability and revenue shortfalls, has significantly affected the PFM system. It has hindered the implementation of budget execution reforms and led to an increase in arrears.
• Uncertainty in Funding: The uncertainty surrounding donor budget support and the lack of a predictable medium-term fiscal framework (MTFF) have posed challenges for the PA in setting realistic budget ceilings and managing resources effectively.
• Systemic Weaknesses: The PFM system still lacks a strong focus on commitments and arrears management. This has led to the accumulation of arrears and the reliance on increasing domestic debt to cover fiscal shortfalls.
• Need for Reforms: The report emphasizes the need for further reforms in areas such as budget preparation, execution, and accounting. It also calls for improved coordination between the MoF and MoPAD, and the adoption of a more comprehensive and transparent approach to fiscal management.

Conclusion

The PA has made significant progress in strengthening its PFM system, particularly in the areas of internal audit, budget classification, and the establishment of new institutions. However, systemic weaknesses remain, especially in the areas of budget preparation, execution, and accounting. The report highlights the need for continued reforms and better donor coordination to ensure the sustainability and effectiveness of the PFM system in the West Bank and Gaza.