2016年-IMF国际货币组织全球_Republic_of_Kosovo_Technical_Assistance_Report_56页_1mb

报告摘要

Public Investment Management Assessment of the Republic of Kosovo

Core Content

This Technical Assistance Report (TAR) from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) evaluates the public investment management system in the Republic of Kosovo, focusing on efficiency, institutional strength, and implementation practices. The report was prepared in February 2016, following a mission led by Johann Seiwald and colleagues that visited Kosovo in December 2015.

Main Views

Public Investment Trends

Since 2008, Kosovo has implemented a counter-cyclical fiscal policy that prioritized public investment in infrastructure to support economic growth.
Public investment peaked at 11% of GDP in 2012 due to the construction of the new highway to Albania (Route 7), which accounted for 40% of total capital spending in 2012 and 2013.
In 2014, public investment reverted to 2008 levels (around 8% of GDP) due to fiscal measures aimed at preserving sustainability.
The capital stock averaged 50% of GDP from 2008 to 2013, slightly below the regional average of 60%.
Public investment has been relatively high compared to neighboring countries, but the capital stock remains below the average for Emerging and Developing Europe (EDE) countries.

Efficiency and Impact

Kosovo's public investment efficiency is significantly lower than comparator countries, with an efficiency gap of 45% compared to a regional average of 30% and EME average of 40%.
Infrastructure access in education, public health, and roads is substantially lower than in comparator countries, while electricity and water access is in line with regional standards.
There is a tendency to over-invest in new capital stock and under-invest in maintenance, which affects the long-term effectiveness of public investment.
Political pressures often lead to spending in non-urgent areas, which may crowd out investments in health, education, and other critical sectors.

Key Information

Institutional Strength and Effectiveness

Planning Institutions:
- Have a strong fiscal rule (debt since 2009, deficit since 2014 with an escape clause and investment clause).
- A National Development Strategy (NDS) is in preparation, with 80 sectoral strategies published but lacking comprehensive costings and coordination.
- Central and municipal investment plans are consolidated, but there is no rule-based system for capital transfers to municipalities.
- PPPs are guided by a strategy and legal framework, but not included in the multi-year budget framework or budget documentation.
- Infrastructure state-owned enterprises (POEs) are regulated by independent bodies, but financial oversight and fiscal risk assessment are weak.
Allocation Institutions:
- The rolling medium-term expenditure framework (MTEF) includes indicative ceilings for capital spending but lacks binding multi-annual commitments.
- There are significant discrepancies between MTEF ceilings and actual budget allocations (22% for n+2 years).
- The budget includes loans and co-financed donor funding but excludes externally financed grants and PPPs.
- Capital spending is reported in line with GFSM 2001 standards, but 5% was misclassified in 2014.
- Project appraisal is comprehensive in methodology but lacks publication and thorough risk analysis.
Implementation Institutions:
- Capital spending is allocated annually with limited carryover and virement flexibility, which affects project execution.
- The average under-execution of the capital budget was 10% in recent years, slightly below the EME average of 26%.
- In 2014, under-execution reached 23%, mainly due to increased current spending.
- Procurement procedures are competitive and transparent, but not always systematically implemented.
- Ex post audits and project reviews are rare, especially for projects under litigation.
- Asset accounting is in place, but data quality is poor, with a 33% mismatch between capital spending and capital stock.

Recommendations

The report outlines eight recommendations to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of public investment management:

Implement and publish the National Development Strategy, and consolidate sector strategies with comprehensive costings.
Increase transparency by including an annex for PPP and POE investments and a statement of contingent liabilities in the budget.
Include multi-annual commitments and total project costs in the budget.
Plan for operation and maintenance costs in capital project proposals and sector strategies.
Strengthen the role of the Ministry of Finance (MoF) and Budget Organizations (BOs) in project appraisal and selection through legislation.
Streamline institutional arrangements for decision-making on eligible projects.
Establish quality control checks for data entered by BOs in the Public Investment Program (PIP) system.
Initiate a dialogue on the conditions under which the Auditor General may audit projects under litigation to enable early and risk-based audits.

Summary Heatmap

Phase / Institution	Institutional Strength	Effectiveness	Rec.
A. Planning
1. Fiscal rules	Strong: Debt rule since 2009, deficit rule since 2014 with an investment clause and automatic adjustment mechanism.	Medium: In 2014, the deficit exceeded the ceiling by 0.4% of GDP.	5,6
2. National and sectoral planning	Good: National development strategy under preparation; 80 sectoral strategies with some performance measures.	Low: Lack of coordination and incomplete costing.	1,4
3. Central-local coordination	Medium: Debt limits constrain municipalities; timely information; no rule-based capital transfer.	Medium: Optimistic revenue projections led to under-execution of capital spending for municipalities.
4. Public-private partnerships	Good: PPPs guided by strategy within a strong institutional and legal framework.	High: Existing PPPs account for 1.2% of GDP, but several projects are planned.	2
5. Regulation of infrastructure companies	Good: Regulatory framework supports competition; prices set by independent regulators.	Medium: Challenges to regulators' independence; fiscal risks of POEs not assessed.	2
B. Allocation
6. Multi-year budgeting	Good: Multi-year ceilings published based on non-binding projections.	Low: Large discrepancies between MTEF ceilings and budget allocations (22% for n+2).	1,3
7. Budget comprehensiveness	Medium: Budget includes loans and co-financed donor funding.	High: Less than 3% of capital spending is externally financed.	2
8. Budget unity	Good: Capital and current spending reported in a single document.	Low: 5% of capital spending was misclassified in 2014.	4
9. Project appraisal	Medium: Comprehensive methodology; results not published.	Medium: MoF and BOs lack resources for analysis.	5
10. Project selection	Medium: Mainly done by BOs in line with PIP Manual.	Low: Weak and fragmented decision-making contributes to 45% efficiency gap.	5,6
C. Implementation
11. Protection of investment	Low: Annual appropriation only; limited carryover and virement flexibility.	Medium: Average under-execution of 10%, similar to regional average.	3
12. Availability of funding	Good: Cash flows planned quarterly and generally released on time.	Medium: 1.1% of capital spending in arrears, total arrears 2% of GDP.
13. Transparency of execution	Medium: Procurement law in line with internet standards; quarterly monitoring; limited ex post audit.	Low: Court proceedings limit ex post audits to donor-funded projects.	8
14. Project management	Medium: Major projects have project managers; adjustment rules in place.	Medium: Around 25% of projects had delays in 2012 and 2013.	7
15. Assets accounting	Good: Nonfinancial assets regularly surveyed, depreciated, and reported annually.	Medium: Poor data quality, with a 33% mismatch between capital spending and stocks.