2008年-世界发展银行全球_Afghanistan___Public_Financial_Management_Performance_Assessment_74页_4mb

报告摘要

Afghanistan Public Financial Management (PFM) Performance Assessment Summary (June 2008)

Core Content

This document presents the second Public Financial Management (PFM) Performance Assessment for Afghanistan, conducted as of December 2007, two and a half years after the first assessment in June 2005. It evaluates the progress and challenges in the PFM system, donor practices, and provides an international comparison of performance. The assessment is based on 28 PFM performance indicators and three donor performance indicators, with ratings reflecting the country's PFM improvements and remaining weaknesses.

Key Findings

Overall PFM Performance: Significant improvements were noted between June 2005 and December 2007. Of the 28 PFM indicators, 18 improved, two deteriorated (with some 2005 ratings based on limited data), and eight remained unchanged. For donor practices, two indicators deteriorated and one remained unchanged.
International Comparison: Afghanistan's PFM performance is better than the average for other low-income countries and in some areas better than the average for middle-income countries.
Legal Framework: The 2005 Public Finance and Expenditure Management (PFEM) Law, Income Tax Law, and Procurement Law have provided a solid legal foundation for PFM.
Technical Expertise: The Ministry of Finance has improved its technical capacity in several areas, though sustainable staff development remains a challenge.
Credibility: The operating budget is credible due to stable domestic revenue and donor support, but the development budget has a significant gap between planned and actual expenditures.
Comprehensiveness and Transparency: There has been progress in transparency and comprehensiveness, though fiscal risk oversight of SOEs and municipalities is lacking.
Donor Practices: While donor budget support is well managed, most aid is executed outside the national budget and PFM procedures, undermining effective budgeting.
PFM Capacity Outside the Ministry of Finance: Most line ministries lag behind in capacity development, particularly in cash management and internal audit.

Main Points of the PFM Performance Assessment Framework

Fiscal Policy and Budget: A central tool for development objectives, with PFM quality significantly impacting development performance.
PFM Indicators: Divided into three categories:
- A. PFM Out-Turns: Measures the credibility of the budget.
- B. Key Cross-Cutting Issues: Focuses on comprehensiveness and transparency.
- C. Budget Cycle: Includes policy-based budgeting, predictability, and recording/reporting.
Donor Practices: Three indicators assess how donor funding aligns with the national budget and PFM procedures.

Key Areas of Improvement

Budget Credibility: Improved due to strong revenue performance and donor support, though core development expenditure gaps remain.
Transparency and Comprehensiveness: Enhanced with better budget documentation and classification systems, though more work is needed in fiscal risk oversight and public access to audit reports.
Policy-Based Budgeting: Progress was made in multi-year fiscal planning and the integration of the Afghanistan National Development Strategy (ANDS) into the budget process.
Budget Execution Predictability: Improved in both revenue and expenditure areas, particularly with better cash flow forecasts.
Accountability and Reporting: Regular reconciliation of accounts and the use of the computerized AFMIS system have improved, but data on service delivery resources and commitments are lacking.

Areas Requiring Attention

Internal Audit: Needs to meet professional standards, especially in line ministries.
External Audit: Quality of audit reviews of the annual budget and regulatory audits needs improvement.
Fiscal Risk Oversight: Particularly for state-owned enterprises and municipalities, where reporting compliance and quality are low.
Sub-National Level: Despite the centralized nature of the PFM system, sub-national fiscal operations are not well monitored.
Donor Practices: Most aid bypasses the national budget and PFM systems, which hampers fiscal policy and resource allocation.
Linkages Between Investment and Recurrent Expenditures: Weak and require strengthening for long-term fiscal sustainability.

Conclusion

The PFM system in Afghanistan has seen substantial improvements since 2005, but several weaknesses remain. Continued focus on strengthening the legal and institutional frameworks, improving transparency and accountability, and enhancing donor coordination are critical for further progress. The PFM system is a vital enabler for fiscal discipline, strategic resource allocation, and efficient service delivery.