2011年-世界发展银行全球_Swaziland___Country_Integrated_Fiduciary_Assessment_89页_940kb

Swaziland Country Integrated Fiduciary Assessment (CIFA) Summary

Core Content

This report presents the results of the Swaziland Country Integrated Fiduciary Assessment (CIFA), conducted by a team of World Bank officials and consultants. It evaluates the Public Financial Management (PFM) system in Swaziland, focusing on its credibility, transparency, policy-based budgeting, predictability, accountability, and donor practices. The assessment was completed in May 2010 and published in September 2011.

The report highlights the need for reform to ensure fiscal sustainability and address key fiduciary risks, especially in the context of economic uncertainty and a significant increase in the budget deficit. The findings are based on the PEFA (Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability) framework, using 31 PFM performance indicators. The assessment compares results with the 2007 PEFA evaluation to identify progress and areas of concern.

Main Points

1. PFM System Overview

• The PFM system in Swaziland has shown some improvements compared to the 2007 assessment.
• The budget is now approved by Parliament before the start of the fiscal year.
• Supplementary budgets have been reduced in frequency.
• Procurement regulations have been introduced, and some improvements have been made in procurement practices.

2. Budget Credibility

• The aggregate budget credibility has been maintained, with actual spending close to budgeted amounts.
• However, individual budget heads show misalignment, with recurrent expenditures often overspent and capital expenditures underspent.
• This misalignment is attributed to weak project implementation, capacity limitations, and lack of commitment system implementation.
• Arrears recording and monitoring mechanisms are not in place, which negatively affects budgeting and cash flow forecasting.

3. Transparency and Comprehensiveness

• The budget classification follows GFS and COFOG standards, showing some improvement in comprehensiveness and transparency.
• The Parliament is provided with 8 out of 9 required budget documents, and the public has access to 3 out of 6 recommended fiscal information.
• Concerns remain regarding the reconciliation of donor-financed project data and the consolidation of fiscal risks related to public enterprises and sub-national governments.

4. Policy-Based Budgeting

• While there is an annual budget calendar, the time between budget ceiling finalization and ministry budget proposal submission is minimal.
• The multi-year budget process lacks a clear link between objectives, priorities, and annual budgets.
• Long-term investments and recurrent costs are not well costed, indicating a lack of strategic planning.

5. Predictability and Control in Budget Execution

• Taxpayer obligations and liabilities are transparent, but there is no legal requirement for tax registration.
• Tax registration systems are not integrated, and there is no information on tax arrears.
• The process of tax registration, assessment, and enforcement is weak.
• Debt and guarantees are managed under the Public Debt Policy, but there is no recent debt sustainability assessment.
• The commitment system is not fully implemented, and the Treasury lacks a system to reconcile information on loans and guarantees.

6. Accounting, Recording, and Reporting

• Accounting records are unreliable, with bank reconciliations conducted only annually.
• Ministries do not maintain sufficient information on resources received by service delivery units.
• Quarterly expenditure reports are prepared, but there is no consolidated financial position.
• Financial statements are submitted for audit 8 months after year-end, which is behind good practice.
• No formal accounting standards are used for preparing financial statements.

7. External Scrutiny and Audit

• The Auditor-General performs audits on central government financial statements and ministry transactions, but not on public enterprises or sub-national governments.
• The audit scope is limited due to capacity constraints, and the AG does not apply recognized auditing standards.
• Audited reports are submitted to Parliament 11 months after year-end, reducing the effectiveness of audit findings.
• The PAC reviews Auditor-General reports but lacks the technical expertise, resources, and legal authority to enforce recommendations.

8. Donor Practices

• Donor practices were not scored in this assessment.
• It is recommended that the report be used to initiate dialogue between the Government and development partners regarding budget support and integration of donor assistance into national planning and budgeting.

Key PFM Risks and Mitigation Actions

The report identifies several key PFM risks:

• Over-expenditure due to weak expenditure controls.
• High expenditure arrears due to lack of a full commitment system.
• Weak accountability due to inadequate financial reporting, internal audit, and legal frameworks.
• Weak payroll systems.
• Fiscal shortfalls due to lack of a sound fiscal planning framework and ineffective tax institutions.

Proposed mitigation actions include:

• Containing the wage bill.
• Implementing the expenditure commitment system effectively.
• Rescheduling or finding alternative financing for capital expenditures in non-priority sectors.
• Strengthening in-year monitoring systems for revenue and expenditure.
• Promulgating and implementing the PFM Bill with stronger accountability mechanisms.

Government Reform Process

• The Government has started to define and implement key elements of a PFM reform action plan.
• These include the preparation of new bills for Public Finance Management and Procurement, review of the Local Government Act, budget cuts in 2010, recognition of an unsustainable wage bill, and the establishment of a new Swaziland Revenue Authority.
• The Government has emphasized the need for bold reforms and a "Fiscal Adjustment Roadmap" to address fiscal challenges and improve accountability.

Prospects for Reform

• Progress in reform has been slow, due to lack of clear leadership, weak implementation capacity, poor coordination, and inadequate change management.
• The report recommends that the Government embrace a reform program based on the following critical success factors:
  • Visible political and top management support.
  • Government ownership of the reform process.
  • Careful sequencing of reforms.
  • Change management towards new methods and systems.
  • Technical assistance as needed.
  • Sufficient human and physical resources.

Conclusion

This assessment highlights the importance of improving PFM practices in Swaziland to ensure fiscal sustainability and accountability. The Government is urged to take immediate and strategic actions to address the identified risks and implement a comprehensive reform plan. The findings and recommendations are intended to support future budget support from development partners and to strengthen the overall PFM system.