Ukraine Chernivtsi City GRPFM 2022 /Gender Annex/
Annex 5 PEFA 2022 Ukraine Chernivtsi City Gender Responsive PFM Assessment
The PEFA 2022 Ukraine Chernivtsi City Gender Responsive PFM Report is an Annex to the PEFA 2022 Ukraine Chernivtsi City Sub-national Assessment.
Annex 5.1 Introduction
The purpose of the gender-responsive PFM assessment is to gather information on the budgeting and reporting systems of the City Government of Chernivtsi to assess the extent to which public financial management responds to the needs of gender (male and female) and other vulnerable groups in the city.
This is one of the first pilots of gender-responsive PFM assessment at the sub-national government level. By this pilot, the gender-responsive PFM assessment, together with the present PEFA assessment, will not only provide a basis for aligning the Swiss SECO ELocFin project design with gender-responsive PFM mindset, but it is also expected to offer additional insights, which may be used not only by SECO but also by other development partners and provide them with a better understanding of underlying concepts.
The assessment team used the Supplementary Framework for Assessing Gender-responsive Public Financial Management published by the PEFA Secretariat in January 2020.
The fieldwork was carried out at the same time the main PEFA assessment was conducted; this was so to maximise the use of time and reduce the level of interaction with government staff due to their busy schedule. Furthermore, some of the information gathered during the main PEFA assessment was used to assess the GRPFM; additional data were also gathered where necessary.
The Ministries of Finance, Education and Health are the lead central government agencies promoting gender-responsive budgeting with support from Swiss SECO, UN Women, European Union, and the World Bank. At this stage, very limited effort is exerted by the city government of Chernivtsi in terms of promoting gender-responsive PFM.
The GRPFM report (annexed to the main PEFA report) was subjected to the same PEFA Check requirements in terms of peer review and quality assurance.
The central government of Ukraine is advanced in terms of the promulgation and development of gender equality laws, regulations and procedures/processes. These laws and procedures are equally applicable at the local government level. That said, local governments including the City Government of Chernivtsi have not mainstreamed these procedures and processes into the entire budget cycle. The table below (Table A-5.1) provides a list of legislative instruments and policies adopted by the central government, applicable at the sub-national levels yet to be actualized. At the city government level, it appears there is less political will as well as inadequate technical capacity for gender-responsive budgeting and reporting.
Table A-5.1: Legal and policy framework for gender equality
Annex 5.2 Overview of assessment findings
Chart 1 below summarises graphically the gender-responsive PFM performance. Annex 5.3 below also summarizes the narrative performance of gender-responsive PFM performance.
At this stage, the City Government does not analyse proposed changes in expenditure and revenue policies with information on gender impacts (GRPFM-1 rated ‘D’); this compares with the rating of the main PEFA assessment with regards to the analysis of the fiscal impact of policy proposals – this is not done (PI-14.1 rated ‘D’).
The City Government’s public investment management system has no gender-responsive analysis to determine its impact, even though economic analysis is conducted prior to selection and funding (GRPFM-2 rated ‘D’). Compared with the main PEFA assessment, PI-11 (public investment management) is not applicable because the PEFA definition of major investment projects was not met since none of those projects ’costs were at least 1% of the total city budget.
The City Government’s budget circular issued by the City Finance Department contains information on gender; it requires key spending units to consider gender during budget formulation and preparation (GRPFM-3 rated ‘C’); however, key spending units are yet to actualise this requirement. The main PEFA score which related to GRPFM-3 is PI-17 which has an overall score of ‘C.’
Budget proposal documentation submitted to the City Council contains no specific policy priorities that promote gender equality (GRPFM-4 rated ‘D’); the absence of this information means that the public has no crucial data on measures to ensure gender equality. There is, however, good dissemination (publication on the website) of key fiscal information to the public (PI-9 rated ‘A’); therefore, policy proposals and priorities on gender equality, if available, are likely to be published due to the transparency and accountability framework already in existence.
It is impressive to note the existence of sex-disaggregated performance information on service delivery (both planned and achieved outputs); therefore, GRPFM-5 is rated ‘B.’ This compares favourably well with the main PEFA indicator PI-8 ‘performance information on service delivery,’ which was rated ‘B+.’
The absence of gender-responsive budget proposal documentation implies that tracking of expenditure for gender equality is almost non-existent; this was the assessment finding (GRPFM-6 rated ‘D’). The absence of expenditure tracking for gender equality also led to non-reporting based on gender (GRPFM-7 rated ‘D’).
Specifically, the Education and Culture Departments have taken the lead in evaluating the efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery according to gender. The evaluations provide information on the performance of their programmes (GRPFM-8 rated ‘B’). This also compares with the main PEFA score of PI-8.4, rated ‘B.’
The City Council’s scrutiny of the budget is limited to information contained in the budget documentation; therefore, if there is no information on gender-responsive budgeting, gender equality, sex-disaggregated data, just to mention a few, the Council could only review what is received. At this stage, the City Council does not review the gender impact of budget proposals (GRPFM-9 rated ‘D’). The rating for PI-18 is ‘B+’, considerably higher than the gender score because of the absence of gender information in the budget proposal documentation.
Going forward, the City Government of Chernivtsi intends to push gender-responsive PFM agenda by soliciting support from the state government and development partners to train city government officials on gender-responsive PFM. There is, however, no methodological guideline on GRPFM with specific timelines to accomplish this task.