I. Credibility of the Budget
Scores by Dimension
Overall Indicator Score
1. Aggregate expenditure out-turn compared to original approved budget
C
Notes:
1.1 The difference between actual primary expenditure and the originally budgeted primary expenditure (i.e. excluding debt service charges, but also excluding externally financed project expenditure)
C
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: In 2011 the expenditure out-turn was more than 15 percent higher than the approved budget. In the other two years the variance was less than 10 percent. Performance change: Strong growth in expenditure, associated with in-year budget increases, resulted in higher deviations during the most recent assessment period compared with the previous assessment. (p. 31)
2. Composition of expenditure out-turn compared to original approved budget
C+
Notes:
2.1 Extent of the variance in expenditure composition during the last three years, excluding contingency items (the methodolodgy to rate this dimension is set out in the footnote of the PFM PMF booklet)
C
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: Variance in expenditure composition was 23.4 percent in 2011 but was less than 10 percent for 2012 and 2013. Performance change: The high variance for industry and construction was also evident towards the end of the previous assessment, but to a lesser extent. (p. 33)
2.2 The average amount of expenditure actually charged to the contingency vote over the last three years
B
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: The average amount charged to the contingency reserve over the three years of the assessment was less than 6 percent of the original budget. Performance change: This component was not part of the assessment criteria in the previous assessment. (p. 33)
3. Aggregate revenue out-turn compared to original approved budget
A
Notes:
3.1 Actual domestic revenue collection compared to domestic revenue in the originally approved budget
A
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: Actual revenue was more than the budgeted revenue in all three years but less than 106 percent of budgeted revenue in 2012 and 2013. Performance change: Aside from the large variance in 2011, the reliability of revenue estimates improved substantially during the most recent assessment period. If the same criteria had been applied in 2008, the score would have been D due to the substantially greater revenue received than estimated in the approved budget. (p. 34)
4. Stock and monitoring of expenditure payment arrears
A
Notes:
4.1 Stock of expenditure payment arrears (as a percentage of actual total expenditure for the corresponding fiscal year) and any recent change in the stock
A
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: There was no stock of arrears on 31 December 2013. Performance change: No change in performance. (p. 35)
4.2 Availability of data for monitoring the stock of expenditure payment arrears
A
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: Reliable and complete data on the stock of arrears was generated in real time in TIMS and routinely monitored as part of daily and monthly checks on payments and commitments. Performance change: The improvement was due to the introduction of TIMS in 2010-2011, which records the age of each arrear. (p. 35)
II. Comprehensiveness and Transparency
Scores by Dimension
Overall Indicator Score
5. Classification of the budget
C
Notes:
5.1 The classification system used for formulation, execution and reporting of the central government's budget
C
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: The functional classification partially conforms to GFS standards and cannot produce consistent documentation according to those standards. Performance change: Performance improved in comparison with 2008 due to improvement in the classification of investments. (p. 37)
6. Comprehensiveness of information included in budget documentation
A
Notes:
6.1 Share of the listed information under PI-6 in the PFM PMF booklet in the budget documentation most recently issued by the central government (in order to count in the assessment, the full specification of the information benchmark must be met)
A
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: Recent budget documentation fulfils 7 of the 9 information benchmarks. Performance change: Information on summarised budget data according to the main classification heads was available in 2014 but not in 2008. (p. 39)
7. Extent of unreported government operations
A
Notes:
7.1 The level of extra-budgetary expenditure (other than donor funded projects) which is unreported i.e. not included in fiscal reports.
A
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: All extra-budgetary expenditure (other than project funds) are included in fiscal reports. Performance change: The quality and availability of information has improved since the previous assessment. (p. 41)
7.2 Income/expenditure information on donor-funded projects which is included in fiscal reports.
A
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: Complete income/expenditure information for all donor projects is included in fiscal reports except for inputs provided in-kind. Performance change: The quality and availability of information has improved since the previous assessment. (p. 41)
8. Transparency of inter-governmental fiscal relations
NA
Notes:
8.1 Transparent and rules based systems in the horizontal allocation among SN governments of unconditional and conditional transfers from central government (both budgeted and actual allocations);
NA
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: The amounts transferred to municipalities are immaterial and hence this dimension is not applicable. Performance change: Comparison not possible because the dimension was considered not applicable in 2014. (p. 43)
8.2 Timeliness of reliable information to SN governments on their allocations from central government for the coming year;
NA
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: The amounts transferred to municipalities are immaterial and hence this dimension is not applicable. Performance change: Comparison not possible because the dimension was considered not applicable in 2014. (p. 43)
8.3 Extent to which consolidated fiscal data (at least on revenue and expenditure) is collected and reported for general government according to sectoral categories.
NA
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: The amounts transferred to municipalities are immaterial and hence this dimension is not applicable. Performance change: Comparison not possible because the dimension was considered not applicable in 2014. (p. 43)
9. Oversight of aggregate fiscal risk from other public sector entities.
A
Notes:
9.1 Extent of central government monitoring of AGAs and PEs.
A
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: All major PEs submit fiscal reports to central government quarterly and audited accounts annually. Central government consolidates fiscal risk issues into a report on an annual basis. Performance change: There is improvement in the score and in performance. A consolidated fiscal risk report is prepared, which appears not to have been the case for the 2008 PEFA assessment. (p. 45)
9.2 Extent of central government monitoring of SN government's fiscal position
NA
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: As for PI-8, this dimension does not apply because SNG entities do not provide any services and they represent an extremely low amount of public spending. Performance change: The absence of a score in 2014 means that the change is not assessed. (p. 45)
10. Public access to key fiscal information
A
Notes:
10.1 Number of the above listed elements of public access to information that is fulfilled (in order to count in the assessment, the full specification of the information benchmark must be met)
A
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: The public has access to 5 of the 6 elements of essential fiscal information. Performance change: Two additional elements of essential information have been made available to the public since the 2008 assessment. (p. 46)
III. Policy-Based Budgeting
Scores by Dimension
Overall Indicator Score
11. Orderliness and participation in the annual budget process
A
Notes:
11.1 Existence of and adherence to a fixed budget calendar;
A
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: A comprehensive and clear annual budget calendar exists and is followed. It allows MDAs at least eight weeks from receipt of the budget circular to complete their detailed estimates. Performance change: No change in performance. (p. 50)
11.2 Clarity/comprehensiveness of and political involvement in the guidance on the preparation of budget submissions (budget circular or equivalent);
A
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: A comprehensive and clear budget circular was issued to MDAs, which reflected ceilings approved by CoM prior to the circular’s distribution. Performance change: Improvement in performance due essentially to the adoption and enforcement of new legislation (Presidential Decree 239, 17 March 2010. (p. 50)
11.3 Timely budget approval by the legislature or similarly mandated body (within the last three years);
A
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: The legislature approved the budget before the start of the fiscal year for all years covered by the assessment. Performance change: No change in performance. (p. 50)
12. Multi-year perspective in fiscal planning, expenditure policy and budgeting
C+
Notes:
12.1 Preparation of multi -year fiscal forecasts and functional allocations
C
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: Forecasts of fiscal aggregates, on the basis of the main categories of economic and functional classification, are prepared for 4 years on a rolling annual basis. There is no clear link between multi-year estimates and subsequent settings of annual budget ceilings. Performance change: There is improvement in performance due to more accurate macroeconomic forecasts. (p. 53)
12.2 Scope and frequency of debt sustainability analysis
B
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: Debt sustainability analysis for external and domestic debt was undertaken twice in the period 2011-2013. Performance change: The dimension was not scored in 2008 because public debt was not material in the three-year period 2005-2007. (p. 53)
12.3 Existence of sector strategies with multi-year costing of recurrent and investment expenditure;
D
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: Sector strategies are prepared for all sectors. None of the strategies are fully costed for recurrent and capital expenditures for the duration of the strategy, although detailed costing of recurrent expenditures are prepared in some sectors, notably education, health and social protection. Performance change: There is an improvement in performance due to more widespread costing of capital and recurrent expenditures. (p. 53)
12.4 Linkages between investment budgets and forward expenditure estimates.
B
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: The majority of important investments are selected on the basis of relevant sector strategies and recurrent cost implications. In accordance with sector allocations they are included in forward budget estimates for the sector. (p. 53) Performance change: There is a clear improvement in performance (refer new Presidential Degree 329, 17 March 2010). The latter requires both institutions, MoF and MEI, to interact during the budget process. (p. 53)
IV. Predictability and Control in Budget Execution
Scores by Dimension
Overall Indicator Score
13. Transparency of taxpayer obligations and liabilities
B+
Notes:
13.1 Clarity and comprehensiveness of tax liabilities
B
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: The legislation and procedures for all major taxes are comprehensive and clear with well-defined and limited discretionary powers that are not always clear to the public. Performance change: No substantial change. (p. 57)
13.2 Taxpayer access to information on tax liabilities and administrative procedures.
A
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: Taxpayers have easy access to comprehensive, user friendly and current information on tax liabilities and administrative procedures for all major taxes through various sources. There are active taxpayer education campaigns and personal advice options through service centers across the country. Performance change: New service and call centers have been introduced to provide better information and access to advice for taxpayers. (p. 57)
13.3 Existence and functioning of a tax appeals mechanism.
B
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: There is a centralised appeals framework, founded in legislation, which is fully functional. However, the effectiveness and fairness of this arrangement could not be assessed and there is no independent body other than the court system to process appeals. Performance change: No substantial change. (p. 57)
14. Effectiveness of measures for taxpayer registration and tax assessment
B+
Notes:
14.1 Controls in the taxpayer registration system.
A
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: Taxpayer registration arrangements are effective. The registration database is comprehensive and has direct links to other relevant government databases. Performance change: Registration arrangements have been strengthened since the last assessment. (p. 61)
14.3 Planning and monitoring of tax audit and fraud investigation programs.
A
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: Tax audits and fraud investigations are managed and reported according to a comprehensive and documented audit plan, with clear risk assessment criteria for all major taxes that apply self-assessment. Performance change: Improvements in audit planning and risk assessment methodology have been made since the last assessment. (p. 61)
14.2 Effectiveness of penalties for non-compliance with registration and declaration obligations
C
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: Penalties for non-compliance exist but substantial changes to their structure, levels or administration are needed to give them a real impact on compliance. Performance change: It is not clear if there has been a significant change in performance. However evidence is stronger in the current assessment on the existence and application of penalties, allowing a more definite basis for the score. (p. 61)
15. Effectiveness in collection of tax payments
A
Notes:
15.1 Collection ratio for gross tax arrears, being the percentage of tax arrears at the beginning of a fiscal year, which was collected during that fiscal year (average of the last two fiscal years).
A
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: Average tax debt collection ratio for the most recent two years exceeded 90 percent. Performance change: Collection of arrears improved significantly between the two assessments. (p. 63)
15.2 Effectiveness of transfer of tax collections to the Treasury by the revenue administration.
A
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: All tax revenue is paid directly into accounts controlled by Treasury. Performance change: No change. (p. 63)
15.3 Frequency of complete accounts reconciliation between tax assessments, collections, arrears records and receipts by the Treasury.
A
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: Complete reconciliation of revenue collection, tax assessments, arrears and transfers to Treasury occurs at least monthly, within one month of the end of the period. Performance change: Improved information systems in tax authorities and Treasury have resulted in faster and more frequent reconciliation of accounts. (p. 63)
16. Predictability in the availability of funds for commitment of expenditures
A
Notes:
16.2 Reliability and horizon of periodic in-year information to MDAs on ceilings for expenditure commitments
A
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: The MDA’s are able to plan and commit expenditure for at least six months in advance in accordance with the budgeted appropriations. Performance change: No change in performance. (p. 65)
16.3 Frequency and transparency of adjustments to budget allocations, which are decided above the level of management of MDAs.
A
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: There were no significant in-year adjustments to budget allocations in 2013. Routine administrative changes were not significant and were undertaken in a transparent and predictable way. Performance change: No change in performance. (p. 65)
16.1 Extent to which cash flows are forecast and monitored
A
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: A cash flow forecast is prepared for the fiscal year, and is updated at least monthly on the basis of actual cash inflows and outflows. Performance change: No change in performance. (p. 65)
17. Recording and management of cash balances, debt and guarantees
B+
Notes:
17.1 Quality of debt data recording and reporting
B
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: Information on debt was complete, current and reconciled quarterly. Reports on public debt are provided twice per year to Milli Majlis and state bodies. Performance change: The methodology for this dimension was clarified by the PEFA Secretariat in 2012, which altered the interpretation of reconciliation used in 2014 compared with 2008, and data on the MoF website has not been updated since 2011. (p. 68)
17.2 Extent of consolidation of the government’s cash balances
B
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: Cash balances within TSA are calculated daily and consolidated but multilateral financing is not included in the daily calculations. Performance change: No change. (p. 68)
17.3 Systems for contracting loans and issuance of guarantees.
A
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: Central government contracting, loans and guarantee issuance are made in accordance with fiscal targets and have a clear single approving authority (CoM). Performance change: No change. (p. 68)
18. Effectiveness of payroll controls
C+
Notes:
18.1 Degree of integration and reconciliation between personnel records and payroll data.
B
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: There is no fully automated link between personnel data and payroll, but the payroll is fully supported by documentation for all changes to personnel records and every change is updated promptly to be applied within each month. Performance change: No change. (p. 72)
18.2 Timeliness of changes to personnel records and the payroll
A
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: Payroll updates for personnel changes are performed within 3 days of occurrence and at least monthly. No retroactive adjustments were made. Performance change: No change. (p. 72)
18.3 Internal controls of changes to personnel records and the payroll.
A
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: Authority to change records and payroll is restricted and results in an audit trail. Performance change: The nature and extent of internal control has increased significantly since the 2008 assessment. (p. 72)
18.4 Existence of payroll audits to identify control weaknesses and/or ghost workers.
C
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: Payroll audit is conducted in central government agencies in stages, which involves both CoA and SFCS. However the scope of these audits did not constitute a comprehensive payroll audit of all central government entities during the period of assessment. Performance change: Audit coverage improved significantly since the last assessment but did not achieve a complete payroll audit for central government entities, even in stages, during the last three years. (p. 72)
19. Transparency, competition and complaints mechanisms in procurement
B
Notes:
19.1 Transparency, comprehensiveness and competition in the legal and regulatory framework
B
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: The RoA delivers four of the six features considered essential for a public procurement system Performance change: Not comparable. (p. 77)
19.2 Use of competitive procurement methods
A
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: All non-competitive public procurement contract awards comply with legal and procedural requirements. Performance change: Not comparable. (p. 77)
19.3 Public access to complete, reliable and timely procurement information
B
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: Information is available to the public on government procurement plans, bidding opportunities and contract awards for more than 75 percent of procurement operations but no information is accessible on the resolution of procurement complaints. Performance change: Not comparable. (p. 77)
19.4 Existence of an independent administrative procurement complaints system
D
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: There is no independent procurement complaints body. All other characteristics of complaint mechanisms identified in the checklist are met. Performance change: Not comparable. (p. 77)
20. Effectiveness of internal controls for non-salary expenditure
B+
Notes:
20.1 Effectiveness of expenditure commitment controls.
A
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: The commitment controls in place are comprehensive and effectively limit commitments to approved budget allocations. Performance change: Commitment controls remain strong. (p. 80)
20.2 Comprehensiveness, relevance and understanding of other internal control rules/ procedures
B
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: There is a set of effective internal control rules and procedures that are clearly understood, although some controls across many levels may not add value. Performance change: The improvement since the 2008 assessment relates to the evidence of a comprehensive framework of internal controls. (p. 80)
20.3 Degree of compliance with rules for processing and recording transactions
A
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: There is high compliance with rules. No instances of errors or rejections have been identified and there has been no evidence of misuse of simplified and emergency procedures during this assessment. Performance change: Improvement in internal controls since 2008. (p. 80)
21. Effectiveness of internal audit
C+
Notes:
21.1 Coverage and quality of the internal audit function.
C
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: Audit work is based on review methodology that is not substantially aligned with international standards. Reviews cover systemic and specific compliance matters, with systemic reviews occupying more than 20 percent of staff time. Performance change: Improvement has been achieved in the planning and implementation of a program for reviews at the institutional level and establishment of an internal audit unit within SFCS. (p. 83)
21.2 Frequency and distribution of reports
B
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: Reports are issued regularly for audited entities, shared with MoF and CoA. Performance change: Since the 2008 assessment, SFCS reports have been issued regularly for audited entities and shared with MoF and available to CoA. (p. 83)
21.3 Extent of management response to internal audit findings.
B
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: Report findings and recommendations are generally implemented promptly. Performance change: Improvement in reporting and implementation of findings and recommendations since 2008. (p. 83)
V. Accounting, Recording and Reporting
Scores by Dimension
Overall Indicator Score
22. Timeliness and regularity of accounts reconciliation
A
Notes:
22.1 Regularity of bank reconciliations
A
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: Reconciliation for all central government accounts takes place daily at aggregate and detailed levels. Performance change: No change in score but TIMS has facilitated improved processes. (p. 85)
22.2 Regularity of reconciliation and clearance of suspense accounts and advances.
A
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: Reconciliation and clearance of suspense and advance accounts takes place at least quarterly. Performance change: No change in score but TIMs has also improved these procedures. (p. 85)
23. Availability of information on resources received by service delivery units
A
Notes:
23.1 Collection and processing of information to demonstrate the resources that were actually received (in cash and kind) by the most common front-line service delivery units (focus on primary schools and primary health clinics) in relation to the overall
A
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: The TIMS provides reliable information on all types of resources received by schools and health clinics across the country in cash and kind. Information is compiled into reports for budget execution at least annually. Performance change: The quality and availability of information for front-line services has improved considerably since the previous PEFA assessment. (p. 86)
24. Quality and timeliness of in-year budget reports
C+
Notes:
24.1 Scope of reports in terms of coverage and compatibility with budget estimates
C
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: Expenditure information is included only at the payment stage. The information is comparable with the original budget. Performance change: The limited information on commitments remains a reason for no increase in the score for this component. (p. 88)
24.2 Timeliness of the issue of reports
A
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: Reports are prepared monthly and quarterly within four weeks of the end of the period. Performance change: Timeliness of reporting continues to be highly rated. (p. 88)
24.3 Quality of information
A
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: There are no material concerns about data accuracy for monthly and quarterly budget execution reports. Performance change: The issue of scope raised in the 2008 assessment is not relevant to central government reports, for which there are no material concerns about accuracy. (p. 88)
25. Quality and timeliness of annual financial statements
C+
Notes:
25.1 Completeness of the financial statements
B
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: A consolidated government financial report is prepared annually, which includes information on revenue, expenditure, debts and guarantees. Most sources of financial assets are reported in the annual report but a few are reported elsewhere. Performance change: The quality and coverage of information included in the annual financial report has improved. (p. 91)
25.2 Timeliness of submission of the financial statements
A
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: The consolidated government report was submitted to CoA within six months of the end of the financial year in each of the years covered by the assessment. Performance change: Timeliness of submission to CoA is consistently within the 6-month limit required for the highest score in this dimension. (p. 91)
25.3 Accounting standards used
C
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: Annual Financial Statements are presented in a consistent format over time but do not fully comply with national or international standards. Performance change: No change in performance. (p. 91)
VI. External Scrutiny and Audit
Scores by Dimension
Overall Indicator Score
26. Scope, nature and follow-up of external audit
D+
Notes:
26.1 Scope/nature of audit performed (incl. adherence to auditing standards).
D
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: Current audit work does not cover at least 50 percent of central government expenditure and the audit performed mainly focuses on compliance and significant issues. Performance change: Improvement in performance evident through adoption and implementation of pilot financial audits using ISSAIs, but not enough to change the rating. (p. 96)
26.2 Timeliness of submission of audit reports to legislature.
A
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: The CoA provided audit reports within one week of formal receipt of the reports during the assessment period. Performance change: More information was available on the report provided by CoA to Milli Majlis than in 2008. (p. 96)
26.3 Evidence of follow up on audit recommendations
A
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: There is timely and adequate response to CoA audit recommendations and there is evidence of effective follow up by CoA. Performance change: Improved information on follow up from audit findings since 2008. (p. 96)
27. Legislative scrutiny of the annual budget law
B+
Notes:
27.1 Scope of the legislature’s scrutiny.
B
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: The legislature’s review covers fiscal policies and aggregates for the coming year and detailed estimates of expenditure and revenue but not all medium-term details are presented. Performance change: Clearer evidence of review of fiscal policies and aggregates than 2008. (p. 99)
27.2 Extent to which the legislature’s procedures are well-established and respected.
B
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: The procedures for budget review are approved by the Chairman of EPC and comply with the Internal Charter of the Milli Majlis. Arrangements are orderly and respected. Performance change: No change. (p. 99)
27.3 Adequacy of time for the legislature to provide a response to budget proposals both the detailed estimates and, where applicable, for proposals on macro-fiscal aggregates earlier in the budget preparation cycyle (time allowed in practice for all stag
A
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: The Parliament has at least two months to review the budget proposal. Performance change: No change. (p. 99)
27.4 Rules for in-year amendments to the budget without ex-ante approval by the legislature.
A
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: There are clear rules limiting in-year amendments to the budget without prior approval from Milli Majlis. Performance change: No change. (p. 99)
28. Legislative scrutiny of external audit reports
B+
Notes:
28.1 Timeliness of examination of audit reports by the legislature (for reports received within the last three years).
A
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: The Milli Majlis considers audit reports within two months of receiving them. Performance change: No change. (p. 101)
28.2 Extent of hearings on key findings undertaken by the legislature.
A
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: Hearings on the audit findings are held on all reports and representatives of audited entities, CoA and MoF are invited to attend. Performance change: Information available since the previous assessment indicates that review hearings are extensive and include all relevant organizations. (p. 101)
28.3 Issuance of recommended actions by the legislature and implementation by the executive.
B
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: EPC makes recommendations to the Executive, which acts on some of them. Performance change: Information available since the 2008 indicates that recommendations are made and there is evidence of some being implemented. (p. 101)
Donor Practices
Scores by Dimension
Overall Indicator Score
D-1 Predictability of Direct Budget Support
A
Notes:
D-1.1 Annual deviation of actual budget support from the forecast provided by the donor agencies at least six weeks prior to the government submitting its budget proposals to the legislature (or equivalent approving body).
A
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: Disbursement information that was received by the Government more than six weeks before submission of the budget to Milli Majlis was the same as actual disbursements in the 2014 assessment. Performance change: This dimension was not rated in 2008. (p. 103)
D-1.2 In-year timeliness of donor disbursements (compliance with aggregate quarterly estimates)
A
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: There was no deviation between the quarterly disbursement estimates agreed with donors before submission of the budget to Milli Majlis and actual disbursements in the 2014 assessment. Performance change: This dimension was not rated in 2008. (p. 103)
D-2 Financial information provided by donors for budgeting and reporting on project and program aid
D
Notes:
D-2.1 Completeness and timeliness of budget estimates by donors for project support.
D
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: Donors do not provide information on budget estimates because it is not requested by Government. The Government obtains all necessary information from the implementing entities. Performance change: No change in performance. (p. 105)
D-2.2 Frequency and coverage of reporting by donors on actual donor flows for project support.
D
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: The Government does not require reports from donors and consequently they are not provided for more than 50% of externally funded project estimates in the budget. Performance change: Although the score has declined since the last assessment, this is not a fair reflection of the information available to the Government, since it obtains the data needed from implementing entities and does not request it from donors. (p. 105)
D-3 Proportion of aid that is managed by use of national procedures
D
Notes:
D-3.1 Overall proportation of aid funds to central government that are managed through national procedures
D
Notes:
Basis for 2014 score: The majority of donor activities do not use national procedures. Performance change: No change. (p. 105)
