2012年-世界发展银行全球_Government_of_Republic_of_South_Sudan_Public_Finance_Management_Assessment___Unity_State_55页_531kb

Summary of Public Finance Management Assessment: Unity State

Core Content

This report presents a Public Finance Management (PFM) assessment of Unity State, Republic of South Sudan, conducted in June 2011 using the Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) Framework. Due to security challenges, the assessment team was unable to visit Unity State directly and relied on interviews with state officials and documentation provided by the Ministry of Finance, Trade and Industry (MoFTI), the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning (MoFEP), and other stakeholders in Juba. The assessment also includes data from the 2010 and 2011 budgets, highlighting the state's progress and ongoing challenges in PFM.

Main Points and Key Information

Positive Factors

• Policy Alignment: The budget preparation process aligns with the Government of the Republic of South Sudan (GRSS) framework, showing orderliness and participation in the annual budget process (PI-11).
• Improved Budget Classification: The budget classification system (PI-5) clearly defines the purpose of spending, supporting policy-oriented budgeting.
• Comprehensive Budget Documentation: Budget documents are fairly comprehensive and of good quality (PI-6), and they are publicly accessible through BANTEO FM radio.
• Electronic Payroll System: An electronic payroll system was introduced in 2010, significantly reducing the number of "ghosts" and improving payroll processing efficiency.
• New Ministry of Labor and Public Services: The establishment of this ministry aims to develop a Human Resource Information System (HRIS), which will integrate personnel records with the payroll system.
• Integrated Financial Management Information System (IFMIS): FreeBalance was introduced in late 2010 to support budget execution, reporting, and accounting, though its use is currently limited to a few staff members.
• Legislative Oversight: The State Legislative Assembly has become more assertive in scrutinizing the budget, particularly in the analysis of the draft budget (PI-27).
• Donor Collaboration: The Unity State Government (USG) has improved collaboration with donor partners, leading to more coordinated service delivery and inclusion of donor activities in the 2011 budget.

Key Remaining Challenges

• Lack of Credible Budget Performance Reports: There is no reliable data on actual revenue and expenditure outturns, making it impossible to rate PI-1, PI-2, and PI-3.
• Weak Budget Execution: The state lacks a robust system for monitoring and managing expenditure arrears (PI-4).
• Procurement Issues: Procurement is conducted through single sourcing, which may lead to inefficiencies and higher costs.
• Internal Control Weaknesses: There are gaps in expenditure commitment management, revenue collection, asset management, and petty cash use. Internal audit is limited in effectiveness, and external audit remains underdeveloped.
• Tax Administration Gaps: Taxpayer education services and a unique taxpayer identification number (TIN) system are not in place, hindering efficient revenue administration.
• PFM Legal Framework Incomplete: A PFM law is still pending, despite a draft prepared over three years ago. The state relies on appropriation acts and procedures for PFM governance.
• Limited Financial Transparency: The transparency of intergovernmental fiscal relations (PI-8) and the oversight of fiscal risk (PI-9) are low, affecting accountability and predictability.

Budget Overview (2010–2011)

• 2010 Budget: Financial resources = SDG 160.9 million; Expenditures = SDG 161.4 million.
• 2011 Budget: Financial resources = SDG 182.9 million; Expenditures = SDG 183.4 million.
• Transfers from GRSS: Increased from SDG 113.5 million in 2010 to SDG 142.9 million in 2011.
• Own Revenue: Decreased from SDG 47.4 million in 2010 to SDG 40.0 million in 2011.
• Expenditure by Sector (2011):
  • Accountability and economic development: 22.0 million (13.8%)
  • Education: 20.5 million (12.9%)
  • Health: 17.3 million (10.9%)
  • Natural resource and social development: 15.1 million (9.5%)
  • Physical infrastructure: 21.1 million (13.3%)
  • Public administration and rule of law: 63.2 million (39.7%)

Legal and Institutional Framework

• Legal Basis: The PFM legal framework is based on the Interim Constitution of Southern Sudan (2005) and the Unity State Interim Constitution (2006).
• Institutional Developments:
  • Installation of the FreeBalance system in late 2010.
  • Rollout of the South Sudan Electronic Payroll System.
  • Introduction of planning guidelines, payment procedures, and conditions for grant transfers in 2010 and 2011.
  • Formation of six Budget Sector Working Groups (BSWGs) to support the budget process.
• Decentralization: Resources are transferred to local governments (counties), especially via block transfers for capital expenditure.

PFM Indicators and Scoring

• Methodology: Two scoring methods (M1 and M2) were used, with M1 applying to single-dimensional indicators and M2 to multidimensional ones.

• Overall Ratings:

  • PI-5 (Classification of the budget): B
  • PI-6 (Comprehensiveness of budget documentation): C
  • PI-7 (Unreported operations): A
  • PI-8 (Transparency of fiscal relations): C+
  • PI-11 (Annual budget process): B
  • PI-12 (Multiyear fiscal planning): D
  • PI-13 (Transparency of taxpayer obligations): D+
  • PI-14 (Taxpayer registration and assessment): D
  • PI-15 (Tax collection effectiveness): D
  • PI-16 (Predictability of fund availability): D
  • PI-18 (Payroll controls): B
  • PI-20 (Internal controls for non-salary expenditure): D+
  • PI-21 (Internal audit effectiveness): D
  • PI-27 (Legislative scrutiny of budget law): C+

• NR = Not rated due to insufficient data.

• NA = Not applicable in the current situation.

Conclusion

While Unity State has made progress in certain areas of public financial management, such as budget classification, payroll systems, and legislative oversight, significant challenges remain in budget credibility, revenue administration, internal controls, and the legal framework. The state's reliance on donor support and the lack of a comprehensive PFM law further highlight the need for institutional and legal reforms to ensure accountability, transparency, and effective financial management.