Evaluation of General Budget Support: Synthesis Report - Belgium

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Evaluation of GBS – Synthesis Report 6. It is beyond the scope of this study to undertake a full PEFA-based analysis (and in any case the PEFA scoring system was not finalised until June 2005). However, in the interests of standardisation and comparability, the PFM analysis of the PGBS study has been oriented towards the PEFA indicator framework as far as possible. We have used a standard matrix to consider PFM issues against the principal dimensions defined by PEFA, drawing on the secondary sources available (these are listed at the end of this Annex). 5 7. We do not attempt a rigorous scoring against the specific calibration prescribed by PEFA, but express our judgement as good, moderate or weak on the basis of available data. Where insufficient information was available, no such judgement is offered. In the future, rigorous assessment and reporting according to the PEFA guidelines should provide a much more robust and transparent basis for assessing the quality of PFM systems than was available during the evaluation period. It will also allow progress in capacity development to be more systematically monitored. 8. The PEFA performance measurement framework identifies the critical dimensions of performance of an open and orderly PFM system as follows: 1. Credibility of the budget – The budget is realistic and is implemented as intended. 2. Comprehensiveness and transparency – The budget and the fiscal risk oversight are comprehensive, and fiscal and budget information is accessible to the public. 3. Policy-based budgeting – The budget is prepared with due regard to government policy. 4. Predictability and control in budget execution – The budget is implemented in an orderly and predictable manner and there are arrangements for the exercise of control and stewardship in the use of public funds. 5. Accounting, recording and reporting – Adequate records and information are produced, maintained and disseminated to meet decision-making control, management and reporting purposes. 6. External scrutiny and audit – Arrangements for scrutiny of public finances and follow up by the executive are operating. Heavily Indebted Poor Countries – Assessment and Action Plan 9. This matrix also shows the HIPC AAP (Assessment and Action Plan) indicators and diagnostic results (although these do not apply in the case of Vietnam 6 ). The AAP studies report on progress in tracking public spending in the context of the enhanced debt relief initiative and on the status of action plans agreed with country authorities to strengthen their public expenditure management systems. 5 Full PEFA analyses for Uganda and Mozambique were conducted during 2005. Our Uganda analysis was informed by the draft PEFA assessment in progress, but the Mozambique assessment was not available until after our Mozambique country report was substantially complete. We understand that, in general, its ratings are somewhat more favourable than previous assessments. 6 Scores shown for Vietnam against the AAP indicators are estimates by the country evaluation team. (44) Annexes
Annex D: PFM Assessments 10. The scale for the HIPC AAP indicators ranges from: A (strong) to B (moderate) and C (weak). The 2001 HIPC AAP assessments were carried out using 15 indicators; a 16 th indicator, on procurement, was added for the 2004 assessments, to give the following set: 1 Composition of the budget entity. 9 Quality of internal audit Effective internal audit function 2 Limitations to use of off-budget 10 Use of expenditure tracking surveys transactions. 3 Reliability of budget as guide to out-turn. 11 Quality of fiscal/banking data reconciliation 4 Data on donor financing. 12 Timeliness of internal budget reports 5 Classification of budget transactions. Functional and/or program information provided 6 Identification of poverty-reducing expenditure 7 Quality of multiyear expenditure projections 13 Classification used for tracking povertyreducing expenditures 14 Timeliness of accounts closure 15 Timeliness of final audited accounts 8 Level of payment arrears 16 Effective procurement Synthesis Table 11. In Table D1, the AAP indicators (identified by the numbers above) have been grouped alongside similar PEFA-type indicators under the broad headings used by the PEFA system. In cases where indicators have been left blank there was insufficient information available to qualify a judgement. Trend Ratings 12. In order to assess trends in PFM performance we have qualified a trend by making use of three symbols, namely (-) negative, (=) stable or (+) positive. In the case of the PEFA indicators, country teams have made trend assessments based on existing studies and findings of country experience. In cases where there was insufficient information available, the trend has been left as a blank. However, these findings are especially tentative, since the 2001 ratings are themselves estimates by the team; they follow the broad PEFA categories but are not based on rigorous application of the PEFA calibration. 13. In cases where full information for 2001 and 2004 was not available for the AAP indicators, the country teams have followed a similar methodology to that used for the PEFA trends indicator – they have made an assessment based on existing studies and findings on those indicators. In cases where insufficient information is available the trend has been left blank. In some cases, for both PEFA ratings and for AAP ratings, the score recorded is the same for each year but a trend is noted – in these cases the identified trend reflects a trend change within a rating. In a few cases, later AAP ratings identified apparent errors in earlier AAP ratings and this may affect the trend recorded. Tentative Observations 14. The Country Report annexes provide detailed commentary on each individual country. Some additional observations based on this synthesis: • Data caveats: The trend towards developing standard and consolidated assessments is welcome. However, both the PEFA indicators (even when applied to full PEFA Annexes (45)
Page 1 and 2:
Evaluation of General Budget Suppor
Page 3:
JOINT EVALUATION OF GENERAL BUDGET
Page 6 and 7:
Evaluation of GBS - Synthesis Repor
Page 8 and 9:
Page 10 and 11:
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
(x) Evaluation of GBS - Synthesis R
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
(S22) Evaluation of GBS - Synthesis
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
(4) Evaluation of GBS - Synthesis R
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Level 0 (Entry conditions) GOVERNME
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
(26) Evaluation of GBS - Synthesis
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Rwa Evaluation of GBS - Synthesis R
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181: Evaluation of GBS - Synthesis Repor
Page 189 and 190: Annex A: Governance Indicators for
Page 199 and 200: Annex B: Summary of Financial Flows
Page 213 and 214: Annex C: Synthesis of Country Repor
Page 229: Evaluation of GBS - Synthesis Repor
Page 233 and 234: Annex D: PFM Assessments and non-su
Page 235 and 236: Annex D: PFM Assessments Table D1:
Page 239 and 240: Annex E: Synthesis of Causality Fin
Page 261 and 262: Annex F: Study Process 9. The evalu
Page 263: JOINT EVALUATION OF GENERAL BUDGET
Page 266 and 267: (ii) Appendix Evaluation of GBS - S
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293:
Page 294 and 295:
Page 296 and 297:
Page 298 and 299:
(32) Appendix Evaluation of GBS - S
Page 300 and 301:
Page 302 and 303:
Page 304 and 305:
Page 306 and 307:
Page 308 and 309:
Page 310 and 311:
Page 312 and 313:
(46) Appendix Evaluation of GBS - S
Page 314 and 315:
Page 316 and 317:
Page 318 and 319:
Page 320 and 321:
Page 322 and 323:
Page 324 and 325:
Page 326 and 327:
Page 328 and 329:
Page 330 and 331:
Page 332 and 333:
Page 334 and 335:
Page 336 and 337:
Page 338 and 339:
Page 340 and 341:
Page 342 and 343:
Page 344 and 345:
Page 346 and 347:
Page 348:
show all

Evaluation of General Budget Support: Synthesis Report - Belgium

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?