2013年-世界发展银行全球_Republic_of_Honduras___Tegucigalpa_Municipality_PEFA_82页_809kb

Summary of the PEFA Assessment for the Municipality of the Central District of Tegucigalpa (AMDC)

Core Content

The Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) assessment evaluates the public financial management (PFM) systems of the Municipality of the Central District of Tegucigalpa (AMDC) in Honduras. The assessment is based on 28 performance indicators (PIs) grouped into six core dimensions: budget credibility, comprehensiveness and transparency, policy-based budgeting, predictability and control in budget execution, accounting, recording and reporting, and external scrutiny and audit. The study was conducted by the World Bank in collaboration with AMDC and funded by the PPIAF Trust Fund's Sub-National Technical Assistance (SNTA) program, with the aim of supporting the IFC's efforts to improve access to financing for basic infrastructure services.

Main Findings

The assessment results are summarized in Figure 1, which shows the ratings for each indicator. A rating indicates that the PFM system is performing at international standard level, while lower ratings suggest performance below international standards.

Key Strengths

• PI-5: Budget classification meets international standards.
• PI-17: Effective recording and management of cash balances, debt, and guarantees.
• PI-18: Payroll controls are effective.
• PI-22: Timely and regular accounts reconciliation.
• PI-24: Quality and timeliness of in-year budget reports.

Key Weaknesses

• PI-1: Aggregate expenditure out-turn is significantly below approved budget.
• PI-3: Aggregate revenue out-turn is well below approved budget.
• PI-6: Budget documentation lacks comprehensiveness.
• PI-12: Fiscal planning lacks a multi-year perspective.
• PI-19: Procurement processes lack competition and value for money.
• PI-20: Internal controls for non-salary expenditure are ineffective.
• PI-21: Internal audit is not effective.
• PI-25: Annual financial statements lack credibility.
• PI-26: External audit scope and follow-up are limited.

Main Views and Key Information

Budget Credibility (PI-1 to PI-4)

• Budgets are not credible, as actual revenues and expenditures significantly deviate from approved budgets.
• In 2009 and 2010, revenues fell short of projections by 30%.
• Expenditure budgets have increased, leading to arrears due to insufficient cash availability.
• Budget performance reports are presented on an economic classification basis, not administrative or functional, limiting managers' ability to make informed decisions.

Comprehensiveness and Transparency (PI-5 to PI-10)

• The budget classification system is sound but not used for budget reports, reducing transparency.
• Budget documentation lacks comprehensive information, which limits accountability.
• Public access to key fiscal information is limited.
• The audit reports, although compliant with legal requirements, lack depth and follow-up on internal control weaknesses.

Policy-Based Budgeting (PI-11 to PI-12)

• Budgets are not prepared with a clear policy orientation, as no budgetary policies are issued.
• The City Plan provides a medium-term vision, but it lacks cost data.
• Budget preparation is centralized and lacks a participatory approach, leading to misalignment between allocated resources and operational needs.

Predictability and Control in Budget Execution (PI-13 to PI-21)

• Cash flow is inadequate, leading to delays in payments and budget execution.
• Budget execution is based on a cash rationing system, which allows for discretionary decisions.
• Internal controls for non-salary expenditure are weak, and procurement lacks transparency and competition.
• Tax collection effectiveness is limited, especially in 2011, with only a moderate rate of collection.

Accounting, Recording and Reporting (PI-22 to PI-25)

• In-year budget reports are of moderate quality.
• Annual financial statements lack credibility due to unclear and inconsistent reporting from previous years.

External Scrutiny and Audit (PI-26 to PI-28)

• External audit findings are not well followed up by the audited institutions.
• Legislative scrutiny of budget laws and audit reports is limited.

Central Government Practices (HLG-1)

• Central government transfers to AMDC are unpredictable and not timely, which affects budget execution.

Prospects for Reform

A new political-administrative organization scheme, outlined in the CVNP document, aims to transfer some functions from the central government to the municipal sector. This has prompted AMDC to develop an integrated short and medium-term development plan. The process is supported by the current municipal administration and the conditions of AMDC's syndicated loan, which established a formal operational framework for budget preparation and execution.

Summary of Scores

Conclusion

The assessment highlights the need for significant improvements in budget credibility, comprehensiveness, and transparency. It also emphasizes the importance of strengthening internal controls, enhancing tax collection, and improving the quality of financial reporting. The current PFM system is not fully aligned with international best practices and requires reform to ensure efficient and accountable use of public resources.