2003年-世界发展银行全球_Kingdom_of_Morocco___Country_Financial_Accountability_Assessment_80页_1mb

Summary of the Kingdom of Morocco Country Financial Accountability Assessment (CFAA)

Core Content

The Country Financial Accountability Assessment (CFAA) conducted by the World Bank (WB) and the Ministry of Finance of Morocco in June 2003 evaluates the public financial management (PFM) system in Morocco. The assessment highlights both strengths and weaknesses in the system, which is largely modeled after the French system, and outlines recommendations for reform.

Main Points

1. Financial System Overview

• The currency unit is the Moroccan Dirham (MAD), with 1 USD = 9.92 MAD (June 2003).
• The fiscal year runs from January 1 to December 31.
• The PFM system is institutionalized, robust, and highly reliable, with a long tradition of central control and strong oversight.

2. Budget Preparation

• The process is divided into two phases:
  • Phase I: The DPEG (Department of Economic Policy) sets the macroeconomic, financial, and budgetary framework by forecasting public revenue and presenting an overview of the budget in May.
  • Phase II: The Budget Department negotiates with technical ministries to align their requests with the budget guidelines. This phase is being modernized as part of ongoing reforms.
• The budget guidelines (note de cadrage) are a key document for budget preparation.
• The fragmentation of accounts and inadequate presentation of the budget document compromises transparency.

3. Legislative Approval of the Budget

• The procedure for parliamentary approval is fairly systematic and increasingly transparent.
• The Constitution and Organic Budget Law define the procedure, with strict limits on the legislature's ability to amend the budget act.
• The relationship between the government and parliament is improving in terms of financial transparency.

4. Budget Execution

• Budget execution is well managed and sound, with high commitment ratios and adherence to budget limits.
• However, transparency is lacking due to:
  • No publication of fund transfer reports.
  • No supplementary budget acts presented at year-end.
  • Long delays in the presentation of the budget review act (loi de règlement).
• Human resource management is poorly structured, leaving ministries with limited responsibility for managing their staff.
• The budget classification system and investment management tools are reliable, but the investment budget lacks clarity in distinguishing between ongoing and new projects.

5. Financial Relations Between Central and Local Government

• Local government autonomy is limited but transparent, with no major budgetary risk.
• Deconcentration of financial responsibility from central ministries to local branches is inadequate, contributing to slow execution and reduced transparency.
• Reform plans are moving in the right direction, focusing on flexible program budgeting, contractualization, and resource reallocation.

6. Financial Relationship with Public Enterprises

• The framework for monitoring and supervision of public enterprises is well organized and transparent.

7. Budget Execution System

• The system is well-structured and reliable, but cumbersome and slow.
• It includes a two-phase accounting cycle with a priori and a posteriori audits.
• The integrated expenditure management system (GID) is being introduced to eliminate delays and improve efficiency.

8. Cash Flow and Debt Management

• Cash management is professionally handled, with up-to-date forecasting tools and use of financial markets.
• Debt management is professionally conducted, including refinancing operations to reduce borrowing costs.

9. Internal and External Audit

• The audit system is based on a sound legal framework but needs better coordination.
• Internal audit is effective but lacks clear definitions and standardization.
• External audit by the Audit Court (COA) and Parliament is beginning to function well, but procedural improvements and resource allocation are needed.
• Performance audit is being developed in parallel with transaction audit.

10. Overall Risk Assessment

• The current PFM system is reliable and sufficiently transparent, but timing of information is too late, especially regarding final account certification.
• Overall PFM risk is low, though higher risks exist in areas such as:
  • Excessively long payment delays.
  • Inadequate deconcentration of funds to local governments, making it difficult to track fund usage.
• The system does not yet provide sufficient guarantees for sound administration of external assistance in the form of direct budget support.
• For the next few years, the current approach for project financing will remain necessary, requiring a separate financial management system for monitoring and reporting.

Key Recommendations

Conclusion

The CFAA recommends a focus on deconcentration, modernization of the integrated expenditure management system (GID), and clarification of audit responsibilities. These reforms are expected to reduce residual risks and improve transparency in the system, allowing for the initiation of budget support arrangements without major risks.