2011年-世界发展银行全球_Debt_Management_Performance_Assessment___Kazakhstan_29页_772kb

Debt Management Performance Assessment (DeMPA) Summary - Kazakhstan

Executive Summary

A World Bank mission conducted a comprehensive assessment of Kazakhstan's debt management operations in July 2010 using the Debt Management Performance Assessment (DeMPA) tool. The assessment highlighted that Kazakhstan's debt management framework exhibits strengths in several areas, including legal structure, governance, operational risk management, and coordination with fiscal and monetary policies. However, many performance indicators (DPIs) showed relatively low scores, indicating a need for reform and improvement, particularly in the development of a formal debt management strategy.

Kazakhstan's economy is heavily reliant on oil, with around 60% of export earnings and 40% of government revenues coming from the sector. The country's fiscal position is strong due to high oil prices and production, and the National Fund of the Republic of Kazakhstan plays a central role in managing oil revenues. Despite this, the country faces challenges in developing a medium-term debt strategy and improving transparency and reporting in debt management operations.

Core Content

Kazakhstan's debt management is evaluated based on 15 DPIs, focusing on governance, strategy development, coordination with macroeconomic policies, borrowing activities, and operational risk management. The DeMPA tool assigns scores from "A" (sound practice) to "D" (below minimum requirements) and "N/R" (not rated) to assess performance.

The country has a relatively low level of government debt, with external government and government-guaranteed debt at around 2% of GDP and domestic government debt at 8% of GDP. However, it has significant implicit contingent liabilities, including quasi-government debt from State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) and pension fund obligations.

Main Points and Key Information

1. Legal and Institutional Framework

• DPI-1 Legal Framework: Score "C"

  • The legal framework is detailed and covers debt management, but lacks a formal debt management strategy.
  • The Budget Code (2008) and related resolutions define the roles and responsibilities of government entities in debt management.

• DPI-2 Managerial Structure: Score "C" for the first dimension and "A" for the second

  • The Ministry of Economic Development and Trade (MEDT) and Ministry of Finance (MoF) are involved in debt management.
  • The State Borrowing Department (SBD) is the main responsible unit, and its structure is well-defined.
  • The SBD handles all guarantee-related activities, contributing to a score of "A" in that dimension.

• DPI-3 Debt Management Strategy: Score "D" for the first dimension and "N/R" for the second

  • No formal debt management strategy exists, and the current policy is not based on cost-risk analysis.
  • The strategy is implicitly defined in the medium-term fiscal plans, managed by MEDT.

2. Coordination with Macroeconomic Policies

• DPI-6 Coordination with Fiscal Policy: Score "A"

  • The government provides detailed debt-service forecasts and maintains good quality information on macroeconomic variables and Debt Sustainability Analysis (DSA).

• DPI-7 Coordination with Monetary Policy: Score "C"

  • There is a clear separation between debt management and monetary policy, with regular information sharing.
  • Limited access to central bank financing is a strength, scoring "A".

3. Borrowing and Financing Activities

• DPI-8 Domestic Borrowing: Score "D"

  • Domestic borrowing lacks a formal strategy and is not aligned with cost-risk analysis.
  • The SBD prepares annual borrowing plans, but the process is not fully developed.

• DPI-9 External Borrowing: Score "D"

  • The government does not have a formal borrowing plan or documented procedures for external borrowing.
  • Legal advisers are involved in external borrowing, scoring "A".

• DPI-10 Loan Guarantees, On-lending, and Derivatives: Score "B" for loan guarantees, "N/R" for the others

  • There are documented policies and procedures for loan guarantees.
  • On-lending and derivatives are not well-documented, hence "N/R".

4. Cash Flow Forecasting and Cash Balance Management

• DPI-11 Cash Flow Forecasting and Cash Balance Management: Score "C" and "D"
  • Cash flow forecasting is adequate, but cash balance management is weak.

5. Operational Risk Management

• DPI-12 Debt Administration and Data Security: Score "C" and "B"

  • There are documented procedures for debt service and data recording, but data security is only partially addressed.

• DPI-13 Segregation of Duties, Staff Capacity, and Business Continuity: Score "C", "C", and "D"

  • Segregation of duties and staff capacity are adequate, but business continuity and disaster recovery plans are weak.

6. Debt Records and Reporting

• DPI-14 Debt Records: Score "B"

  • Debt records are complete and timely, but the registry system is not fully developed.

• DPI-15 Debt Reporting: Score "A", "D", and "D"

  • Central government debt data is reported in a statutory manner, but public sector debt data and the debt statistical bulletin are not well-developed.

Conclusion

The DeMPA assessment indicates that while Kazakhstan has a strong legal and institutional framework for debt management, there are significant gaps in strategy development, transparency, and reporting. The lack of a formal debt management strategy and the need for better coordination with macroeconomic policies and more robust operational risk management practices are key areas for improvement. The country's economic outlook remains positive, but strengthening its debt management framework will be essential for long-term fiscal sustainability and market development.