South Sudan 2012

Notes:

Notes:
The deviations (in absolute terms) were 70 percent, 20 percent, and 14 percent in 2008, 2009, and 2010, respectively. An upward pointing arrow is shown as predictability has increased each year. (p. 24)

Notes:

Notes:
The variances in expenditure composition were 24.8 percent, 15.3 percent, and 21.3 percent during all three years. (p. 26)

Notes:
Actual expenditures charged to the contingency vote averaged 0 percent of the original budget (table 3.2). (p. 26)

Notes:

Notes:
Actual domestic revenue was above 116 percent of budgeted domestic revenue in both 2008 and 2010 (table 3.3). (p. 27)

Notes:

Notes:
Pending claims figures (approved but as yet unpaid payment requests) show large amounts pending at the end of 2009 and 2010. Pending claims outstanding on 31 December 2010 comprised 47 percent of the approved 2010 budget. Payments due on unbudgeted 1,738 grain and dura contracts dating back to 2007 were outstanding at the end of 2010, equivalent to SDG 5.7 billion or about 127 percent of the 2010 budget. These are additional to pending claims, so total arrears at the end of 2010 amounted to about 175 percent of the 2010 budget. (p. 32)

Notes:
A list of pending claims provided to the team showed that data is generated on a monthly basis, permitting the identification of an age profile. This list may not include all arrears in terms of pending claims: (i) invoices submitted by suppliers to spending agencies may become overdue before the payment requests are submitted to MoFEP; (ii) payment requests submitted to MoFEP near to the end of the year may not yet have been processed. MoFEP also maintains a list of unpaid contractual obligations that were not budgeted for, such as the food grains contract. These are shown in the 2010 Budget book (though not in the 2011 Budget Book). These are mainly additional to pending claims, as only a small proportion is included in pending claims each year. This list is not generated annually, but through a request to spending agencies for information, which may not be complete. (p. 32)

Notes:

Notes:
As explained in the narrative. The budget classification clearly indicates the purpose of government spending. (p. 34)

Notes:

Notes:
Recent budget documentation fulfils five of the nine relevant information benchmarks (table 3.6). (p. 35)

Notes:

Notes:
The main Extra Budgetary Operation (EBO) is that of the Ministry of SPLA and Veterans’ Affairs. The budget shown in the annual budgets is only a one line item, for security and political reasons, but comprises about 25 percent of total spending agency expenditure. Some spending agencies may be collecting and spending own source tax and nontax revenues without fully reporting the extent of such revenue to MoFEP. The amounts involved may be relatively small, but they are difficult to pinpoint precisely. Unreported EBOs may be even higher due to spending of oil revenues on unbudgeted items before they enter MoFEP’s bank account. The annual financial statements for 2009 and 2010, when ready, would provide the information. (p. 37)

Notes:
The annual donor books published by GRSS provide information on donor projects. Donor aid is all in grant form. Donors are diligent about providing information on spending plans, but less diligent about reporting on actual expenditure. A “B” score is awarded. (An “A” score would require complete information for 90 percent of donor projects.) (p. 37)

Notes:

Notes:
The horizontal allocation of most grants is determined in a transparent and rules-based manner. In the case of the block grants, the formula is simple (10 percent of total block transfers are allocated to each of the 10 states). The allocation of conditional grants is determined mainly by the number of people employed in a given function in a given state). The GRSS budget documentation clearly articulates the purpose of each of the conditional grants and budget sector plans (disaggregating by budget component/chapter) set out the details. The allocation by SSLA of the CDF to the states (for onward allocation to county governments) is not transparent, however. (p. 39)

Notes:
The states receive notification from GRSS indicating the transfers they will receive. States have often started their budget processes before they receive the information on the amount of transfers, but the information is provided in sufficient time to permit significant changes to budget proposals. The amount of time was limited, however, in the context of preparing the 2011 budget, as the notification did not arrive until November. (p. 39)

Notes:
States have not been providing annual reports to GRSS on the use of fiscal transfers, which finance the bulk of expenditure. Monthly reporting to GRSS by states on the use of fiscal transfers began only in early 2011. (p. 39)

Notes:

Notes:
GRSS does not have any Public Enterprises or Autonomous Government Agencies. GRSS does have electricity and water corporations, but they are fully on-budget and not autonomous. (p. 40)

Notes:
The state governments cannot currently borrow, although there is potential for fiscal liabilities to build up in terms of arrears, as actually happened in 2008, leading to establishment by GRSS of a SDG 20 million bail-out fund in 2009. Some annual tracking of the states’ budget performance is evident, particularly in the case of the recently started system for monitoring the use of conditional grants, but it does not include comprehensive information for each of the 10 states nor is it consolidated for the purpose of fiscal oversight. The text under PI-8, dimension (iii) also implies a D rating. (p. 40)

Notes:

Notes:
The government makes available to the public one of the six listed types of information (table 3.7). (p. 40)

Notes:

Notes:
Budget preparation takes place in two phases: strategic and detailed estimation. The Guidelines for Drafting BSP contain a clear timetable for preparation. Five weeks are allowed, from mid-June to mid-July. The BCC issued in October guides the preparation of the draft budget estimates. The date of approval by CoM of the spending ceilings contained in the BCC may vary each year according to the availability of ministers, thus impacting on the amount of time available to prepare budget submissions. The deadline for submission of the 2011 estimates provided one week for preparation of the estimates (based on the date stamp at the end of the BCC); two weeks were allowed for the preparation of the 2010 estimates. Much of the work is in effect carried out during the strategic phase, so two to three weeks to prepare the detailed estimates may be sufficient. (p. 44)

Notes:
The BCC issued for the 2011 budget process appears comprehensive and clear and reflects ceilings approved by the CoM prior to distribution to spending agencies. (p. 44)

Notes:
The 2011 budget was approved with more than two months delay (largely because of the referendum). Dates budgets approved by the SSLA: • 2008 budget: December 20, 2008 • 2009 budget: January 23, 2009 • 2010 budget: February 3, 2010 • 2011 budget: early April 2011. (p. 44)

Notes:

Notes:
No forward estimates of fiscal aggregates are undertaken. (p. 45)

Notes:
Article 193 of ICSS allows GRSS to borrow, but it has not done so yet. This dimension is therefore not yet relevant. (p. 45)

Notes:
Some multiyear “sector” strategies are in place (Ministry of Transport and Roads 2006-11, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, 2007-11, together comprising about 10 percent of total expenditure). The strategic plans (unrealistic) of the Ministries of Health and Education expired in 2010 and new plans are being drafted. Since 2007, each of the 10 sectors has drafted BSPs. Though comprehensive, they do not as yet have a multiyear perspective, though objectives and priorities are cast within a rolling three-year perspective. (p. 45)

Notes:
Proposed investments are related to sector strategies to an extent. The future recurrent costs implied by investments are not estimated as yet. MoFEP and the Ministry of Investment are jointly preparing a framework for estimating future recurrent costs implied by ongoing and committed capital projects. (p. 45)

Notes:

Notes:
With the exception of personal income taxes, GRSS administered taxes, such as business and excise taxes, require regulations, which if in existence would address the issue of discretionary powers. Tax regulations are currently being drafted. This rating applies to the situation in April 2011, not the situation in September 2011, where GRSS has taken over all GoNU tax administration responsibilities, but without a legal framework (revised Taxation Act) yet in place. (p. 51)

Notes:
The Taxation Directorate has printed and disseminated brochures on taxpayer registration procedures. No other brochures covering different tax liabilities and administration procedures have as yet been disseminated to taxpayers, nor has any taxpayer training being conducted. The Taxation Act is not yet gazetted and thus is not easily available to the public. (p. 51)

Notes:
Though the tax appeal system is established in the law, the Tax Appeal Board is not yet established. (p. 51)

Notes:

Notes:
According to the Taxation Act, all taxpayers and persons who withhold taxes should be registered. The registration process has commenced. At the time of this assessment, about 1,000 taxpayers—mainly based in Juba—had been registered and issued with TINs and registration certificates. The registration is limited to small and medium businesses and NGOs. Personal income taxpayers’ registration has not yet started, but employers withhold PIT on the salaries of their employees. The only linkage with other government systems is through the public procurement process. (p. 53)

Notes:
The tax audit function is still being established. Employment and training of staff have commenced. Tax audit plans are expected to be developed in the near future, with help from a USAID-funded TA project. (p. 53)

Notes:
Penalties according to the Taxation Act are comprehensive and sufficient in scale to enforce the law. Capacity constraints and lack of an operational tax audit function (dimension iii) impede the enforcement of the law. (p. 53)

Notes:

Notes:
Data on tax arrears are not collected. (p. 54)

Notes:
The Taxation Directorate does not have its own bank account for the purpose of collecting taxes. All taxes collected, either through other banks or directly to MoFEP, are supposed to be deposited into the bank accounts of MoFEP. In principle, such deposits should take place at least weekly, but some taxes appear to be lost due to theft/accident and issues concerning the receipting system. (p. 54)

Notes:
This follows from the NR for dimension (i). In addition, there are problems of reconciliation between the Taxation Directorate and Accounts Department. Losses through theft/accident add to the reconciliation issues. (p. 54)

Notes:

Notes:
Expenditure commitment decisions are inked only to the approved budget. In principle, spending agencies can enter into commitments up to the limits of their budgets all in one go at the beginning of the year, regardless of the actual resources available for spending. (p. 58)

Notes:
As explained in narrative. D ratings would apply to 2008 and 2009 and a C rating for 2010. The rating applies to the last completed financial year, so a C rating is provided. (p. 58)

Notes:
Though the TOR of the CMC requires the Planning and Budgeting Directorate of MoFEP to prepare monthly and quarterly cash flow forecasts, in practice this is not done. (p. 58)

Notes:

Notes:
Not rated, as GRSS has no debt. (p. 60)

Notes:
The available cash balance in the MoFEP-controlled bank accounts is known by MoFEP on a daily basis; the CMC uses this information to prioritize payment requests submitted by spending agencies. However, balances of bank accounts under the control of spending agencies (and also donor agency accounts held under the auspices of spending agencies) are not known by MoFEP and it is not possible for it to know what the overall consolidated cash position is of GRSS. (p. 60)

Notes:
GRSS may borrow with the approval of SSLA but has not borrowed so far. The criteria for borrowing are laid out in Article 193 of ICSS but are stated in general terms. A PFM Act, which could stipulate explicit criteria, is not yet in place. (p. 60)

Notes:

Notes:
Payroll for classified employees prepared by SAs is based on personnel records held in each spending agency (SA), and is manually integrated with the HRMIS at MoLPS, which contains the nominal roll, also based on personnel records held in each SA. The payroll for unclassified personnel is processed at ministries and checked against the personnel records held at each SA. Monthly payrolls are subject to review by the establishment officer in each SA for correctness against the personnel records. An A rating would require a direct link between the payroll and nominal roll. (p. 64)

Notes:
Changes in personnel records (such as for new employment and salary changes) are updated within a month both at the level of SAs (for unclassified staff) and at the level of MoLPS (for classified staff). The dissemination of information to MoLPS/MoFEP by SAs on resigned and terminated staff, particularly unclassified staff, may be delayed, as the system does not provide for timely dissemination. The proportion of such staff to total staff is low. (p. 64)

Notes:
The audit trail is reflected in the multiple signatures required for the monthly pay sheets and the letters sent by Directorate of Administration and Finance (for unclassified employees) or by MoLPS as applicable. Changes to payroll records are required to be supported by official letters. The staff person in charge of maintaining personnel records is separate from the staff persons preparing payroll sheets and effecting payments. Access to the payroll system is password protected and only establishment officers have access to HRIS. (p. 64)

Notes:
Internal auditors are assigned in 15 ministries. Some of these (MoTR for example) are performing payroll audits. External auditors also conduct payroll audit as part of their financial audit in the sampled ministries. Head counts at national level have been conducted by the MoE. (p. 64)

Notes:

Notes:
As indicated in table 3.9. (p. 68)

Notes:
No records are available as to the value of procurement according to procurement method and on the justification for using less than fully competitive methods. The team was informed that single-source procurement is the main procurement method for procurement above the thresholds. (p. 68)

Notes:
Only one of the four requirements are met, namely the publicizing of tendering opportunities. Public procurement plans, contract awards, and decisions on complaints are not publicized (though, according to the PPU, no complaints have been registered). (p. 68)

Notes:
The PPU is the last port of call for submitting complaints, according to IPPDR. It is not independent, however, as it is involved in the process of procurement. Complaints are submitted only verbally, and appear not to be addressed. (p. 68)

Notes:

Notes:
Commitment control is linked to the level of remaining inappropriate balances (the ceiling for appropriations been governed by the annual Appropriations Act) but is not linked to projected cash availability. As noted under PI-16, cash flow forecasting and related periodic cash spending limits systems have not yet been developed, although Section 7 of the annual Appropriations Acts refers to such limits. Spending agencies (SAs) may therefore enter into commitments without knowledge that the cash will be available for making payments to suppliers. As noted under PI-4, the sum of expenditure commitments have far exceeded the cash available, leading to large pending claims, nearly all of which constitute arrears. (p. 73)

Notes:
Understanding by SAs of the internal control rules is good in terms of payments request procedures, procurement procedures, IT controls, and personnel management. Understanding by SAs of the value of budget execution reports, bank reconciliation, and controls over the use of government owned real assets is not so good. The internal control procedures over real assets are far from comprehensive. (p. 73)

Notes:
The understanding of rules is generally better than the compliance with the rules, hence the lower rating. Compliance is limited in terms of • Proper document control • The procurement regulations (use of less competitive bidding methods with insufficient reasons for urgency) • Monthly submission of accountability reports on the use of petty cash • Preparation of bank reconciliation reports • Use of government property • Reporting of receipt and use of non-tax revenues by line ministries Compliance is good in terms of segregation of duties, payment requests procedures, use of IT, and personnel benefits controls. (p. 73)

Notes:

Notes:
The ex-post systems-oriented internal audit function is still at an early stage of development. Most of the audit activities are still in the form of ex-ante prepayment checks, but the systems-based approach began to get off the ground during 2010, with four spending agencies preparing reports. (p. 76)

Notes:
Only a few reports have been prepared so far and no regular monthly or quarterly reports have been prepared by any of the IA units. The only report whose required frequency is mentioned in the internal audit manual is the annual audit report. The distribution list is explicitly stated in the manual. This excludes the Audit Chamber, which can obtain audit reports on request. (p. 76)

Notes:
With the IA function only in its early stages of development, the number of audit reports prepared is too small to measure the overall response of management, although internal audit recommendations have been followed up on to some extent in the case of the very few audit reports prepared so far. (p. 76)

Notes:

Notes:
MoFEP-controlled bank accounts (17 in total) have not been formally and fully reconciled (no irreconcilable errors) with revenue and expenditure records since December 2009. MoFEP does not have access to information on spending agency bank accounts and does not know whether and how often bank reconciliations take place. (The SSACC seems to be an exception.) (p. 78)

Notes:
The accounting system does not capture advances. Suspense balances are reported for payments and receipts through banks for which no evidence was available. These balances have been carried forwarded for at least two years. (p. 78)

Notes:

Notes:
No comprehensive information has been available to date on resources received by basic service delivery units, which are mainly the responsibility of state governments. This situation is likely to improve, starting in 2011, due to recently announced tougher reporting and accounting requirements under conditional grants under STMC, which effectively finance much of basic service delivery at state level. (p. 79)

Notes:

Notes:
MoFEP prepares monthly financial reports. Reports received by some SAs show comparison to budget by activities and line items according to economic classification. Some of the reports received by other SAs do not show the approved budget for performance analysis purposes. Expenditure commitments (commitments to purchase/procure) are not included. Revenue reports are not on a real-time gross basis, thereby precluding revenue performance analysis. (p. 81)

Notes:
Expenditure reports are prepared by MoFEP Accounts Department on a monthly basis, using the IFMIS. Some SAs such as MoTR complain that they do not receive such reports, but this may reflect internal dissemination issues. (p. 81)

Notes:
All payments effected by MoFEP are recorded in the IFMIS, though not directly generated by it. The payments are based on well-documented and checked payment requests forms and supporting documents. Nevertheless, some spending agencies claim that monthly performance reports sent to them contain errors. Expenditure out of petty cash advances tends not to be well documented. Revenues are recorded when advice slips are received from banks showing receipts in net terms. Some expenditure deducted at source and not reported on. At times, the bank advice slips are received after the revenues have been deposited, thus monthly revenue statements may inaccurate. (p. 81)

Notes:

Notes:
Full information is not provided on: (1) oil revenues and related expenditures deducted at source; (2) some own revenues of ministries and the spending thereof; (3) expenditures financed out of petty cash advances; (4) donor-funded projects; and (v5 some financial assets, including bank balances of spending agencies, and some financial liabilities. (p. 83)

Notes:
The AFSs for 2009 were submitted to the Audit Chamber in May 2011, 16 months after the end of the financial year. The delay is mainly due to the delay in MoFEP taking over the accounting function from KPMG. (p. 83)

Notes:
Financial statements are presented consistently over time, with some improvement, including comparison of actual outturns against the budget. The AFSs are supposed to be prepared according to the cash-based IPSAS, but in practice they are not. (p. 83)

Notes:

Notes:

Notes:
About 80 percent of GRSS spending agencies have been audited each year (in terms of percentage of their expenditure). The type of audit is mainly financial and compliance and mainly comprises transaction-level testing. Systems audits are still at an early stage of development. INTOSAI standards are followed, as documented in the Audit Manual. Human resource capacity constraints hinder the work of the Chamber. (p. 87)

Notes:
No audit reports have been submitted to the legislature so far, the delay being mainly due to the vacuum created when the first auditor general left office. The audited AFSs for 2005 and 2006 are ready for submission to SSLA; these were submitted to the Chamber in August 2008. Update September 1, 2011: Audited 2005-06 AFS have been ‘shared’ with SSLA. (p. 87)

Notes:

Notes:
The documentation submitted to CEDF consists of detailed draft budget estimates only, and only after these have been finalized. (p. 89)

Notes:
Some procedures exist for the legislature’s budget review, but they are not comprehensive and only partially respected. (p. 89)

Notes:
The ICSS allows up to 45 days for review (as also stipulated in the Code of Conduct). This was the case for the draft budgets for 2009–11. (p. 89)

Notes:
Clear rules are stipulated in the annual Appropriation Acts on the extent of in-year budget amendments without prior SSPA approval. However, these rules have not always been respected. Much of the spending covered under the 2008 Supplementary Appropriations Act had already taken place. There was no act for 2009, despite increased spending for several SAs. The 2010 Supplementary Appropriations Act, which is the relevant one for rating this dimension, contained elements of both ex-ante and ex-post approval. (p. 89)

Notes:

Notes:

Notes:

Notes:

Notes:

Notes:

Notes:

Notes:

Notes:
Much of donor aid, the main known exception being USAID (China may be also a significantly sized exception, but no records are maintained on the size of its planned and actual operations), is channeled through funds, of which MDTF is the largest. The Donor Book,, which includes USAID projections, and the MDTF quarterly monitoring reports provide detailed estimates of aid commitments for the next budget year. The government’s budget classification system is not used. (p. 91)

Notes:
MDTF quarterly monitoring reports are prepared by PriceWaterhouseCoopers, indicating committed and disbursed funds and actual expenditures. The Budget Books show half yearly expenditures, including for USAID, which accounts for about 50 percent of aid, excluding China. The government’s budget classification system is not used. (p. 91)

Notes:

Notes:
Donor-financed projects are not using GRSS’ PFM systems at this time. (p. 91)