2012年-世界发展银行全球_Province_of_Santa_Fe_Republic_of_Argentina___Public_Financial_Management_Assessment_42页_749kb

Public Financial Management Assessment of Santa Fe Province, Argentina

Core Content

This report is a Public Financial Management Assessment (PFMA) of Santa Fe Province, Argentina, conducted jointly by the Provincial Government and the World Bank. It is part of a broader initiative to evaluate the PFM systems of four Argentine provinces: Buenos Aires, Córdoba, Santa Fe, and San Juan. The assessment is based on a subset of 19 PEFA indicators and aims to strengthen PFM systems, identify fiduciary issues, and support the World Bank's operations in the region.

Main Achievements and Challenges in PFM Reforms

Recent Achievements

• Legal Reforms: The provincial Law of Administration, Efficiency, and Control of the State (LAECE), enacted in 2005, provides a comprehensive legal framework for budgeting, accounting, debt management, procurement, and oversight.
• Integrated Financial Administration System (SIPAF): Introduced gradually from 2002, SIPAF offers online access to budget and execution reports, treasury, and accounting data, supporting the harmonization of budget execution processes.

Key Strengths

• Budget Comprehensiveness and Transparency: Santa Fe uses detailed revenue and expenditure classifications, improved budget documentation, and consolidated fiscal reports. Fiscal information is publicly accessible in real time.
• Accounting and Reporting: The province has significantly improved the quality and timeliness of its in-year budget reports. Consolidated financial statements are submitted to the Court of Accounts within six months of the fiscal year's end.
• Budget Preparation Process: A structured process is followed, involving preliminary budget submissions by ministries and departments, followed by analysis and setting of financial ceilings by the Ministry of Finance.

Challenges and Opportunities

• Budget Credibility: Budget resources are often underestimated, leading to discrepancies between budgeted and actual expenditures. In 2006–2008, 8.4% of resources remained unused, and primary expenditures deviated by about 17% from the original budget.
• Cash Flow Predictability: Due to reliance on the national government for about two-thirds of its revenue, cash flow predictability remains a challenge. However, forecasting instruments help manage available cash.
• Policy-Based Budgeting: While multi-year projections were included in the 2006 and 2007 budgets, they were not present in 2008, and there is no evidence that they were used for subsequent budget planning.
• Internal Audit: The Internal Audit Agency (SIGEP) is still under development, focusing on training rather than conducting audits. No audits were carried out during 2006–2008.
• Control Framework: The control framework lacks internal audit mechanisms, which affects the overall effectiveness of fiscal oversight.

Assessment of PFM Systems, Processes, and Institutions

Budget Credibility (PI-1)

• Score: D
• The budget often underestimates available resources, leading to credibility issues. Actual expenditures exceeded budgeted amounts in most years, while capital expenditures were consistently under-executed.

Expenditure Payment Arrears (PI-4)

• Stock of arrears: C
• Availability of data for monitoring: A
• The province effectively monitors arrears, but the stock remains a concern.

Budget Classification (PI-5)

• Score: A
• The budget is well-classified, ensuring clarity and comprehensiveness.

Budget Documentation (PI-6)

• Score: A
• Budget documentation is comprehensive and well-structured, enhancing transparency and accountability.

Unreported Government Operations (PI-7)

• Score: A
• There is minimal unreported expenditure, indicating strong internal control.

Oversight of Fiscal Risk (PI-9)

• Score: A
• The province actively monitors fiscal risks from other public entities, ensuring fiscal discipline.

Public Access to Fiscal Information (PI-10)

• Score: B
• Public access to key fiscal information is good, but not fully comprehensive.

Annual Budget Process (PI-11)

• Score: B
• The budget process is orderly, but the fixed budget calendar is not fully adhered to.

Multi-Year Fiscal Planning (PI-12)

• Score: C
• Multi-year fiscal planning is not well developed, with limited forecasts and functional allocations.

Fund Availability and Predictability (PI-16)

• Score: C+
• Fund availability is predictable, with regular monitoring of cash flows.

Accounts Reconciliation (PI-22)

• Score: A+
• Reconciliation processes are timely and regular, ensuring accuracy in financial reporting.

Information on Resources for Service Delivery (PI-23)

• Score: C
• Information on resources received by service delivery units is available but not fully comprehensive.

In-Year Budget Reports (PI-24)

• Score: A+
• Budget reports are of high quality and timely, facilitating performance tracking.

Annual Financial Statements (PI-25)

• Score: C+
• Financial statements are complete and timely submitted, but the accounting standards used are not optimal.

External Audit (PI-26)

• Score: C+
• External audits are conducted, but follow-up on recommendations is limited.

Key Information

• Currency: Argentine Peso (AR$), with 1 US$ = 4.49 AR$.
• Fiscal Year: January 1st to December 31st.
• Main Entities: The provincial PFM system includes the General Administration (GA), Social Security Institutions (SSI), and Decentralized Entities (CDEs).
• Key Institutions:
  • Ministry of Finance (MOF): Coordinates PFM.
  • SIGEP: Internal Audit Agency.
  • Court of Accounts (COA): Provides external audit.
• Legal Framework: Governed by federal laws (Tax-Sharing Law, Fiscal Responsibility Law) and provincial regulations (LAECE, Court of Accounts Organic Law).
• Economic Context: Santa Fe is one of Argentina's largest and most economically developed provinces, with a strong focus on agriculture, cattle rearing, and soy production.
• Fiscal Challenges: Budget underestimation, lack of multi-year planning, and limited internal audit capabilities.
• PFMA Team: Led by Alexandre Arrobbio and Mamadou Deme, with contributions from various experts and officials.
• Peer Review: Ensured by Rajeev Swami, Joseph Kisito Mubiru, and Pedro Arizti.

Conclusion

The assessment highlights both the strengths and weaknesses of Santa Fe's PFM system. While the province has made progress in budgeting, accounting, and reporting, it still faces significant challenges in budget credibility, policy-based budgeting, and internal audit effectiveness. The findings are intended to support the development of more sustainable PFM systems at the sub-national level in Argentina, aligning with the World Bank's fiduciary management goals.