2013年-世界发展银行全球_Afghanistan___Public_Financial_Management_and_Accountability_Assessment_119页_1mb

Summary of Public Financial Management and Accountability Assessment in Afghanistan (August 2013)

Core Content

This report presents a Public Financial Management (PFM) performance assessment of the Government of Afghanistan (GoA) based on the Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) approach. It evaluates the PFM system across various dimensions, including budget credibility, comprehensiveness and transparency, policy-based budgeting, predictability and control in budget execution, accounting and reporting, external scrutiny and audit, and donor practices. The assessment covers the fiscal years SY1389 (2010/11), SY1390 (2011/12), and SY1391 (2012).

Main Points

1. Budget Credibility (PI-1 to PI-4)

• Performance: Improved since 2008, with a score moving from D to C for aggregate expenditure predictability.
• Key Factors: Deviations from the original budget were under 15% for all three years, primarily due to low execution of the Development Budget.
• Composition of Expenditure: Exceeded 15% in two of the last three years due to the use of contingency funds.
• Revenue Predictability: Deteriorated due to the inclusion of both revenue overruns and shortfalls in the PEFA criteria. Revenue exceeded budget in two of the three years, but the overall score for revenue predictability was lower than the average for Low-Income Countries (LICs).

2. Comprehensiveness and Transparency (PI-5 to PI-10)

• Transparency: Strong overall, with several indicators rated A.
• Extra-budgetary Expenditure: Not rated due to lack of data on the Telecommunications Development Fund (TDF) and its fiscal reporting.
• Donor-Funded Operations: Information on income and expenditure data is rated A.
• Horizontal Allocations: Not rated as Afghanistan lacks an inter-governmental fiscal transfer system.
• Consolidation of Fiscal Data: Rated A for major municipalities.
• Information in Budget Documents: Rated C in the most recent fiscal year (SY1391), down from B in 2008, due to fulfilling only four of nine information benchmarks.
• Fiscal Risk Oversight: Limited, especially regarding state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and state corporations.

3. Policy-Based Budgeting (PI-11 to PI-12)

• Annual Budget Process: Remains orderly with good participation and a clear budget calendar.
• Budget Ceilings: Not clearly defined in the most recent budget circular, leading to a slight deterioration in PI-11.
• Multi-Year Fiscal Planning: Supported by annual debt sustainability analysis and multi-year forecasts, but the linkage to annual budgets is unclear.
• Costing of Sector Strategies: Only a small portion of National Priority Programs (NPPs) had properly costed strategies, which did not align with fiscal forecasts due to inclusion of both secured and non-secured funding.

4. Predictability and Control in Budget Execution (PI-13 to PI-21)

• Overall Performance: Strong, with eight of nine indicators rated C or better.
• Tax Administration: Improved from C to C+ in transparency and effectiveness due to reforms and technical assistance.
• Cash and Debt Management: Good predictability through detailed forecasts, commitment tracking, and transparent budget adjustments.
• Payroll Controls: Manual but integrated and reconciled, with centralized oversight.
• Procurement: Overall rating B+ due to revised methodology, with some improvements in transparency and competition mechanisms.
• Internal Controls: Improved documentation but still excessive non-compliance with rules.
• Internal Audit: Limited progress since 2008, with a focus on the Ministry of Finance (MoF) and a lack of capacity in line ministries.

5. Accounting, Recording, and Reporting (PI-22 to PI-25)

• Accounting Practices: Strong with reliable records and timely reconciliation.
• Resource Availability: Improved for service delivery units, with information on resources used by most healthcare facilities.
• In-Year Reports: Reliable and timely, though commitment reporting is not available for the recurrent budget.
• Annual Financial Statements: Exceptionally complete and timely.
• Accounting Standards: Not fully compliant with International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS) due to lack of consolidation of all entities under the central government.

6. External Scrutiny and Audit (PI-26 to PI-28)

• External Audit: High in international comparisons, but the new Audit Law still has deviations from audit principles on independence.
• Supreme Audit Office (SAO): Applies ISSAI Level 3 principles but not Level 4 standards for more detailed guidelines.

7. Donor Practices (D-1 to D-3)

• Direct Budget Support: Timely forecasts with actual support within 7% of forecast in all three years.
• Project Financing Reporting: Only less than 50% of disbursements are reported.
• ODA Outside the Budget: Still significant, with extensive support outside the GoA's control.

Key Information

• Fiscal Year: December 21 – December 20
• Currency Unit: Afs (Afghani)
• Exchange Rate: US$1 = Afs 55.25 (as of August 26, 2013)
• PFM Performance Indicators: 74 in total, with two not rated (PI-7 (i) and PI-15 (i)), two not applicable (PI-8 (I and ii)), and three affected by methodological changes since 2008.
• Donor Support: On-budget aid is budgeted at US$4 billion, or 60% of total funding, for fiscal year 2013.
• Transition Period: Expected to see an increase in on-budget aid as security forces withdraw in 2014.

Conclusion

Afghanistan has made significant strides in improving its PFM system, particularly in transparency, fiscal discipline, and donor coordination. However, challenges remain in areas such as internal audit, resource allocation, and compliance with international accounting standards. Continued donor support and institutional reforms are essential to sustain and enhance the effectiveness of the PFM system, especially during the transition to national security forces.