[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 122 (Thursday, June 25, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36580-36591]
[FR Doc No: 2015-15677]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
[Public Notice 9175]
2015 Fiscal Transparency Report
AGENCY: Department of State.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of State (``the Department'') hereby presents
the findings from the FY 2015 fiscal transparency review process in its
Fiscal Transparency Report. This report describes the minimum
requirements of fiscal transparency developed, updated, and
strengthened by the Department in consultation with other relevant
federal agencies, reviews those governments that were identified as
anticipated recipients of foreign assistance funds in the FY 2014
Fiscal Transparency Report, assesses those that did not meet the
minimum fiscal transparency requirements, and indicates whether
governments that did not meet the minimum fiscal transparency
requirements made significant progress towards meeting the requirements
during the review period of January 17-December 31, 2014. The report
also provides a brief description of the use of the Fiscal Transparency
Innovation Fund.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Ellis, Financial
Economist, 202-647-9497.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This report is submitted pursuant to section
7031(b)(3) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related
Programs Appropriations Act, 2015 (Div. J, Pub. L. 113-235) (``the
Act'').
Fiscal Transparency
For the purpose of this report, the minimum requirements of fiscal
transparency include having budget documents that are publicly
available, substantially complete, and generally reliable. The review
includes an assessment of the transparency of processes for awarding
government contracts and licenses for natural resource extraction.
Fiscal transparency is a critical element of effective public financial
management, helps in building market confidence, and underpins economic
sustainability. Fiscal transparency fosters greater government
accountability by providing a window into government budgets for
citizens, helping them to hold their leadership accountable, and
facilitating better-informed public debates. The Department's fiscal
transparency review process assesses whether governments meet minimum
requirements of fiscal transparency.
Annual reviews of the fiscal transparency of governments that
receive U.S. assistance helps ensure U.S. taxpayer money is used
appropriately and provides opportunities to dialogue with governments
on the importance of fiscal transparency.
Section 7031(b) of the Act requires the Secretary to develop,
update, and strengthen minimum requirements of fiscal transparency for
each government receiving assistance appropriated by the Act, as
identified in the FY 2014 Fiscal Transparency Report, in consultation
with other relevant federal agencies, and to make or update any
determination of ``significant'' or ``no significant progress'' in
meeting the minimum requirements of fiscal transparency for each
government that did not meet the minimum requirements. Through
authority delegated from the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary of State
for Management and Resources made those determinations for FY 2015.
As a result of the Department updating and strengthening the
minimum requirements of fiscal transparency, more governments fell
short of these requirements than in the FY 2014 assessments, despite in
some cases maintaining or even improving their level of fiscal
transparency. The report includes a description as to how those
governments fell short of the minimum requirements, outlines any
significant progress being made toward meeting the minimum
requirements, and provides specific recommendations of steps such
governments should take to improve fiscal transparency. The report also
outlines the process followed by the Department in completing the
assessments and describes how funds appropriated by the FY 2015 and
earlier appropriations acts are being used to support fiscal
transparency.
While a lack of fiscal transparency can be an enabling factor for
corruption, the report does not assess corruption. A finding that a
government ``does not meet the minimum requirements of fiscal
transparency'' does not necessarily mean there is significant
corruption in the government; a finding
[[Page 36581]]
that a government ``meets the minimum requirements of fiscal
transparency'' does not necessarily reflect a low level of corruption.
Fiscal Transparency Review Process and Criteria
The Department reviewed its minimum requirements of fiscal
transparency in consultation with other relevant federal agencies, and
updated and strengthened those requirements. The Department then
assessed the fiscal transparency of the 140 governments identified,
determined whether the minimum requirements were met, and identified
any measures those governments had implemented to make significant
progress towards meeting the requirements.
In conducting the FY 2015 review, the Department assessed the
fiscal transparency of governments during the period January 17--
December 31, 2014. In reaching a determination, the Department
considered information from U.S. embassies and consulates, other U.S.
government agencies, international organizations, and civil society
organizations. U.S. diplomatic missions consulted with foreign
government officials, international organizations, and civil society to
obtain information for these assessments.
The Department recognizes the specific circumstances and practices
of fiscal transparency differ among governments. The review process
takes a tailored approach in evaluating governments while ensuring
minimum fiscal transparency requirements are met in order to enable
meaningful participation of the public in the budgeting process.
Minimum Requirements of Fiscal Transparency
Subsection 7031(b)(2) of the Act provides that the minimum
requirements of fiscal transparency developed by the Department are
requirements ``consistent with those in subsection [7031](a)(1)'' and
the public disclosure of:
National budget documentation (to include receipts and
expenditures by ministry), and
government contracts and licenses for natural resource
extraction (to include bidding and concession allocation practices).
The FY 2015 fiscal transparency review process evaluated whether
the identified governments publicly discloses budget documents
including expenditures broken down by ministry and revenues broken down
by source and type. The review process also evaluated whether the
government has an independent supreme audit institution or similar
institution that audits the government's annual financial statements
and whether such audits are made publicly available. The review further
assessed whether the process for awarding licenses and contracts for
natural resource extraction is outlined in law or regulation and
followed in practice, and whether basic information on such awards is
publicly available. The Department applied the following criteria in
assessing whether governments met the minimum requirements of fiscal
transparency.
Budget information should be:
Publicly Available: Budget documents should be broadly
available online, at government offices or libraries, upon request from
the ministry, or for purchase at a nominal fee at a government office.
Publicly available budgets should include expenditures broken down by
ministry and revenues broken down by source and type. Information on
government debt obligations should be publicly available.
Substantially Complete: Budget documents, which should
include the proposed budget, the enacted budget, and the end-of-year
report, should provide a substantially full picture of a government's
planned expenditures and revenue streams, including natural resource
revenues. Budgets should include at least one level of detail beyond
the administrative unit (ministry, agency, or department). Budget
documents should detail allocations to and earnings from state-owned
enterprises and, if not, significant state-owned enterprises should
have publicly available, audited financial statements. A published
budget that does not include significant cash or non-cash resources,
including foreign aid, would not be considered substantially complete.
Budget documents should incorporate all special accounts and off-budget
accounts, or if they have a legitimate purpose, they should be audited,
the results made public, and the accounts subjected to oversight.
Budget documents should also include expenditures to support executive
offices or royal families where such expenditures represent a
significant budgetary outlay. The review process recognizes military
and/or intelligence budgets are often not publicly available for
national security reasons. However, military and intelligence
expenditures should be approved by parliament and subject to civilian
oversight.
Reliable: Budget documents and related data are considered
reliable if they are disseminated within a reasonable amount of time
and the information contained therein is credible. ``Reasonable time''
generally corresponds to within one month of the start of the fiscal
year for the budget proposal, within three months of enactment for the
enacted budget, and within 18 months of the end of the fiscal year for
the year-end reports. Significant departures from planned receipts and
expenditures should be explained in supplementary budget documents and
publicly disclosed in a timely manner. Financial statements should use
accounting principles that result in consistent and comparable
statements. The executed budget should be audited by an independent
supreme audit institution, and the results of such audits should be
made public within a reasonable period of time (within 12 months of the
dissemination of the year-end reports).
Natural resource extraction contracting and licensing procedures
should be:
Transparent: The criteria and procedures for the
contracting and licensing of natural resource extraction should be
publicly available and codified in law or regulation. Procedures used
to award contracts and licenses in practice should be consistent with
the government's legal requirements. The basic parameters of
concessions and contracts should be made publicly available after the
decision. Such information should include the geographic area covered
by the contract or license, the resource being developed, the duration
of the contract, and the company to which the contract or license is
awarded.
Significant Progress or No Significant Progress
A determination of ``significant progress'' indicates that during
the review period, a government has addressed deficiencies in meeting
the Department's minimum requirements.
Fiscal Transparency Innovation Fund
Section 7031(b)(4) of the Act requires funds appropriated under
Title III of the Act be made available for programs and activities to
improve budget transparency and to support civil society organizations
that promote fiscal transparency. Since FY 2012, Congress has called
for such funds to be made available for that purpose. The Department
and USAID created the Fiscal Transparency Innovation Fund (FTIF) in FY
2012. FTIF supports programs and activities that assist governments to
improve their public financial management and fiscal transparency
standards, and civil
[[Page 36582]]
society organizations that promote budget transparency. The
Department's Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs and USAID's Bureau
for Economic Growth, Education, and the Environment solicit proposals
and award funds in accordance with established guidelines. In FY 2015,
the Department and USAID intend to provide $5 million for FTIF.
The Department and USAID are using $7 million in FY 2014 funds to
support 10 projects in the following countries: Burma, Cambodia, Chad,
the Republic of Congo, Guinea, Madagascar, Malawi, Nicaragua, Senegal,
and Ukraine. The projects furthered efforts by government and civil
society to improve fiscal transparency and public financial management
practices and to improve public awareness and involvement in the
expenditure of public resources. Examples of projects include $100,000
to increase citizen awareness of and participation in the budget
process in Chad, and $800,000 to improve the fiscal transparency of the
energy sector in Ukraine.
The Department intends to use FY 2015 FTIF funds to support
projects to enhance: (1) Governments' capacity to develop and execute
comprehensive, reliable, and transparent budgets; (2) citizens'
visibility into state expenditure and revenue programs; and (3)
citizens' ability to advocate for specific issues related to government
budgets and budget processes.
Conclusions of Review Process
The Department concluded, of the 140 governments evaluated pursuant
to the Act, 60 did not meet the minimum requirements of fiscal
transparency. However, of these, nine governments made significant
progress toward meeting the minimum requirements of fiscal
transparency.
The Department assessed the following governments as meeting the
minimum requirements of fiscal transparency for FY 2015: Albania,
Armenia, Argentina, The Bahamas, Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Chile, Colombia,
Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Croatia, Czech Republic, Ecuador, El
Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Georgia, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana,
Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Israel, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya,
Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lesotho, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malaysia,
Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia, Moldova,
Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Namibia, Nepal, Panama, Papua New
Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda,
Samoa, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia,
South Africa, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad
and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uruguay, Vietnam, and Zambia.
The following table lists those governments that were found not to
meet the minimum requirements of fiscal transparency and identifies
whether the governments made significant progress toward meeting those
requirements:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Governments assessed pursuant to the
Act as not meeting minimum Significant No significant
requirements of fiscal transparency progress progress
for FY 2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afghanistan........................... ............... X
Algeria............................... ............... X
Angola................................ X ...............
Azerbaijan............................ ............... X
Bahrain............................... ............... X
Bangladesh............................ ............... X
Benin................................. ............... X
Burma................................. ............... X
Burundi............................... ............... X
Cambodia.............................. ............... X
Cameroon.............................. ............... X
Central African Republic.............. ............... X
Chad.................................. X ...............
China................................. ............... X
Comoros............................... X ...............
Congo, Democratic Republic of the..... X ...............
Congo, Republic of the................ ............... X
Djibouti.............................. ............... X
Dominican Republic.................... ............... X
Egypt................................. ............... X
Ethiopia.............................. ............... X
Gabon................................. ............... X
Gambia, The........................... ............... X
Guinea................................ ............... X
Guinea-Bissau......................... ............... X
Haiti................................. ............... X
Iraq.................................. ............... X
Kazakhstan............................ X ...............
Laos.................................. ............... X
Lebanon............................... ............... X
Liberia............................... X ...............
Libya................................. ............... X
Madagascar............................ ............... X
Malawi................................ ............... X
Maldives.............................. ............... X
Mali.................................. ............... X
Mauritania............................ ............... X
Mozambique............................ ............... X
Nicaragua............................. ............... X
Niger................................. X ...............
Nigeria............................... ............... X
[[Page 36583]]
Oman.................................. ............... X
Pakistan.............................. ............... X
Palestinian Authority................. ............... X
Sao Tome and Principe................. ............... X
Saudi Arabia.......................... ............... X
Seychelles............................ ............... X
Somalia............................... ............... X
South Sudan........................... ............... X
Sudan................................. ............... X
Suriname.............................. ............... X
Swaziland............................. ............... X
Tajikistan............................ ............... X
Tanzania.............................. X ...............
Turkmenistan.......................... ............... X
Uganda................................ ............... X
Ukraine............................... X ...............
Uzbekistan............................ ............... X
Yemen................................. ............... X
Zimbabwe.............................. ............... X
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Government-by-Government Assessments
This section describes areas where governments fell short of the
Department's minimum requirements of fiscal transparency and includes
specific recommendations of steps such governments should take to
improve fiscal transparency. For those governments found to have made
significant progress toward meeting the minimum requirements, the
section also includes a brief description of such progress.
Afghanistan: While the budget is publicly available, it does not
include allocations to and earnings from state-owned enterprises and
state-owned enterprises do not have audited accounts. Despite
improvements in recent years, revenue and expenditure data is
unreliable. The supreme audit institution does not carry out a
verification of the government's annual financial statements. The
process for awarding natural resource extraction licenses and contracts
is outlined in law or regulations and basic information on the awards
is publicly available. Afghanistan's fiscal transparency would be
improved by including all revenue and expenditure data in the budget,
identifying financial transfers to and from state-owned enterprises in
the budget, and carrying out and publishing an audit of the
government's financial statements by the supreme audit institution
within a reasonable period of time.
Algeria: The budget is publicly available but does not include
adequate detail on expenditures and revenues. The government also
maintains off-budget accounts not subject to audit or oversight. The
government's year-end report is not made publicly available within a
reasonable period of time. The supreme audit institution audits the
government's financial statements but its audit reports are not made
publicly available within a reasonable period of time. The process for
awarding natural resource extraction licenses and contracts is outlined
in law or regulation and basic information on the awards is publicly
available. Algeria's fiscal transparency would be improved by providing
additional detail in its budget, subjecting off-budget accounts to
audit and oversight, and making budget documents, such as the year-end
report and the supreme audit institution's audit of the government's
financial statements, publicly available within a reasonable period of
time.
Angola: The budget is publicly available and details expenditures
and revenues; it includes allocations to and earnings from state-owned
enterprises, and debt obligations. State-owned enterprises submit
annual financial statements and the oil and gas state-owned enterprise,
Sonangol, publishes independently audited annual financial statements.
The information in budget documents is considered generally credible.
Although there is a supreme audit institution, its reports are not
publicly available. The process for awarding natural resource
extraction licenses and contracts is outlined in law or regulation and
basic information on such awards is publicly available. Angola made
significant progress by completing financial reconciliation for
government accounts and publishing year-end budget reports; improving
the transparency of information about transfers from the national oil
company, Sonangol, to the Ministry of Finance; and including Sonangol's
quasi-fiscal activities in the budget. Angola's fiscal transparency
would be improved by ensuring its supreme audit institution audits the
government's annual financial accounts and makes public its findings
within a reasonable period of time.
Azerbaijan: Budget documents are publicly available and provide a
substantially complete picture of the government's revenues, including
natural resources. However, budget documents do not contain sufficient
detail for expenditures and do not identify allocations to or earnings
from state-owned enterprises. Many state-owned enterprises also do not
have publicly available audited accounts. It is unclear whether the
supreme audit institution verifies government financial statements, and
its reports are not publicly available. The process by which the
government awards natural resource contracts or licenses is generally
opaque and only partially specified in law, regulation, or public
documents. However, once a contract or license is awarded, the
government makes basic information on awards publicly available.
Azerbaijan's fiscal transparency would be improved by including more
detail in publicly available budget documents including allocations to
and earnings from state-owned enterprises; making supreme audit
institution audit reports publicly available; and fully specifying in
law or regulation the process for awarding natural resource extraction
contracts or licenses and following that process in practice.
Bahrain: The budget is publicly available but does not include
expenditures for the royal family or allocations to state-owned
enterprises. The information in the budget is considered credible. The
supreme audit
[[Page 36584]]
institution audits the year-end report annually and the report is
published once in newspapers. The process for awarding natural resource
extraction licenses and contracts is outlined in law or regulation and
basic information on such awards is publicly available. Bahrain's
fiscal transparency would be improved by publicly disclosing royal
family expenditures in its budget, detailing allocations to state-owned
enterprises, and publishing supreme audit institution audits online.
Benin: The budget is publicly available and includes, but does not
identify, revenue from natural resources or allocations to and earnings
from state-owned enterprises. State-owned enterprises have audited
financial statements but such statements are not made publicly
available. The supreme audit institution has completed audits of the
government's annual financial statements but the reports were not made
publicly available within a reasonable period of time. The process for
awarding natural resource extraction licenses and contracts is outlined
in law or regulation and basic information on the awards is publicly
available. Benin's fiscal transparency would be improved by providing a
comprehensive public accounting of all revenues and expenditures,
including from state-owned enterprises and the relatively nominal
revenues from natural resources, and ensuring its supreme audit
institution audits are made publicly available within a reasonable
period of time.
Bangladesh: While the budget is publicly available and breaks down
expenditures and revenues, financial allocations to and earnings from
state-owned enterprises are included only in the aggregate. Information
on earnings from state-owned enterprises is included in supplementary
budget documents; however, information on allocations to state-owned
enterprises is not available. The budget does not include expenditures
to support executive offices; it is unclear whether these represent a
significant outlay. Further, the supreme audit institution has not
produced and made publicly available verifications of the government's
annual financial statements within a reasonable period of time. The
process for awarding natural resource extraction licenses and contracts
is outlined in law or regulation and basic information on the awards is
publicly available. Bangladesh's fiscal transparency would be improved
by including in the budget more detail on allocations to and earnings
from state-owned enterprises and expenditures to support executive
offices and publishing an audit of the government's financial
statements by the supreme audit institution within a reasonable period
of time.
Burma: The enacted budget is publicly available, but the budget
proposal, year-end report, and debt obligations are not. The enacted
budget does not include details such as earnings from state-owned
enterprises. While state-owned enterprises are subject to audit, audits
are not done regularly or made publicly available. The government
maintains off-budget accounts that do not appear to be subject to audit
and oversight. There was no widely available information as to whether
there was civilian oversight of the military and intelligence budgets.
The supreme audit institution reportedly produces an audit of the
government's financial statements, but its reports are not publicly
available. The process for awarding natural resource extraction
licenses and contracts is not outlined in law or regulation, nor is
basic information on the awards publicly available. Burma's fiscal
transparency would be improved by producing and making public detailed,
comprehensive budget documents; making state-owned enterprise audited
accounts and supreme audit institution reports publicly available;
subjecting off-budget accounts and military/intelligence budgets to
audit and oversight; and specifying in law or regulation the processes
for awarding natural resource extraction contracts and licenses and
making basic information on such awards publicly available.
Burundi: While the budget is publicly available, it is not
substantially complete. The government appears to maintain some off-
budget accounts. Budget documents are made publicly available within a
reasonable period of time. The process for awarding natural resource
extraction licenses and contracts is outlined in law or regulation and
basic information on the awards is publicly available. Burundi's fiscal
transparency would be improved by ensuring all revenues and
expenditures are included in the budget and by including accurate
reporting of mining revenues.
Cambodia: While the government publishes enacted and year-end
budget documents, proposed budgets are not publicly available. Budget
documents are substantially complete. The supreme audit institution is
authorized to audit government accounts but it does not make its
reports (with the exception of 2006 and 2007 reports) publicly
available. The government began implementing a new budget
classification that complies with international accounting standards.
The process for awarding natural resource extraction licenses and
contracts is not outlined in law or regulation and basic information on
such awards is not publicly available. Cambodia's fiscal transparency
would be improved by making publicly available proposed budgets and
supreme audit institution reports, and specifying in law or regulation
the processes by which the government awards natural resource contracts
or licenses and making basic information on such awards publicly
available.
Cameroon: The budget is publicly available but does not include all
expenditures and revenues, including allocations to and earnings from
state-owned enterprises. Less than a third of state-owned enterprises
produce financial statements. The supreme audit institution does not
audit the entire budget annually, nor are its reports publicly
available. The process for awarding natural resource extraction
licenses and contracts is outlined in law or regulation and basic
information on the awards is publicly available. Cameroon's fiscal
transparency would be improved by including all revenues and
expenditures in the budget, auditing all significant state-owned
enterprises, and carrying out and making publicly available within a
reasonable period of time an audit of the government's annual financial
statements by the supreme audit institution.
Central African Republic: In a period of significant political
unrest, the government budget process did not function according to
established procedures. The process by which the government awards
natural resource contracts or licenses is not specified in law,
regulation, or other public document nor is basic information about
such awards made publicly available. The Central Africa Republic's
fiscal transparency would be improved by resuming normal budgeting
procedures, specifying in law or regulation the process for awarding
natural resource extraction contracts or licenses, and making basic
information about such awards publicly available.
Chad: The budget is publicly available but does not include all
revenues and expenditures. The budget does not include foreign aid or
earnings from state-owned enterprises and significant state-owned
enterprises do not have audited accounts. The government maintains off-
budget accounts not subject to audit or oversight. The new supreme
audit institution has yet to produce publicly
[[Page 36585]]
available reports. The process used to award natural resource
extraction contracts is not always consistent with the procedural
requirements set by law or regulation. Chad made significant progress
by producing timely, publicly available quarterly budget execution
reports and establishing a supreme audit institution. Chad's fiscal
transparency would be improved by including all revenues and
expenditures in the budget, auditing significant state-owned
enterprises' accounts, making supreme audit institution reports
publicly available, eliminating off-budget accounts or subjecting them
to audit and oversight, and adhering to the process for awarding
natural resource extraction contracts and licenses as set out in
applicable laws.
China: While the government publishes annual budget documents, it
does not make budget documents available within a reasonable period of
time. For example, the budget proposal is not made publicly available
before the budget is enacted. Budget documents do not identify
financial allocations to state-owned enterprises. The supreme audit
institution audits all national government entities, including
ministries and state-owned enterprises. The process for awarding
natural resource extraction licenses and contracts is outlined in law
or regulation and basic information on the awards is publicly
available. China's fiscal transparency would be improved by detailing
financial allocations to and earnings from state-owned enterprises in
the budget by company type, and publishing the proposed budget ahead of
the budget's enactment.
Comoros: While the enacted budget and year-end report are publicly
available, the executive's budget proposal is not. The budget is
considered substantially complete. The supreme audit institution does
not make its yearly audit publicly available. The process for awarding
natural resource extraction licenses and contracts is outlined in law
or regulation and basic information on the awards is publicly
available. Comoros made significant progress during the review period
by providing some budget documents on the ministry of finance's Web
site. Comoros' fiscal transparency would be improved by making the
proposed budget publicly available, and ensuring the supreme audit
institution conducts audits of the government's annual financial
statements and makes its reports publicly available within a reasonable
period of time.
Congo, Democratic Republic of the: The budget is publicly available
and includes, but does not specifically identify allocations to state-
owned enterprises. All state-owned enterprises, including the state-
owned mining company, are required to have publicly available audited
financial statements, but not all are published within a reasonable
period of time. The government reportedly maintains accounts not
subject to audit or oversight. Military and intelligence budgets do not
appear to be subject to civilian oversight. Budget execution varies
considerably from the enacted budget. The supreme audit institution
audits the government's annual financial statements and made
significant progress by making these audit reports publicly available
within a reasonable time period. The process for awarding natural
resource contracts and licenses is specified in law; no awards were
made during the reporting period. The Democratic Republic of the
Congo's fiscal transparency would be improved by including all revenues
and expenditures in the budget at an appropriate level of detail;
specifically identifying allocations to state-owned enterprises and
making state-owned enterprises' audited financial statements publicly
available within a reasonable period of time; making information public
on any off-budget accounts and subjecting off-budget accounts and
military/intelligence budgets to audit and oversight; and making public
within a reasonable period of time all budget documents including
revised estimates.
Congo, Republic of the: The budget is publicly available but does
not include details on expenditures, revenues, and debt obligations.
The government has off-budget accounts not subject to audit and
oversight. There are discrepancies between the enacted budget and
budget execution with no explanation of the discrepancies. The
government does not make available year-end or executed budget
information to the supreme audit institution. The process for awarding
natural resource extraction licenses and contracts is outlined in law
or regulation; but there are reports of inconsistent application of
applicable regulations. The Republic of the Congo's fiscal transparency
would be improved by enhancing the completeness of its budget
reporting; producing and making public year-end and executed budget
information; disclosing details of debt obligations; subjecting off-
budget accounts to audit and oversight; producing and publishing
supreme audit institution audits of the annual executed budget within a
reasonable period of time; and increasing transparency in natural
resource extraction awards.
Djibouti: While some budget documents are publicly available, the
government does not make publicly available its year-end budget report,
or information on all debt obligations. The government maintains off-
budget accounts that are not audited. Budget data is not considered
credible, and although the supreme audit institution audits the budget
annually, its reports are not publicly available. The government is in
the process of revising the applicable laws governing the process for
awarding natural resource extraction contracts or licenses; basic
information on natural resource extraction awards is publicly
available. Djibouti's fiscal transparency would be improved by
including all revenues and expenditures in the budget, producing
credible, and reasonably accurate budget data, and making its year-end
budget and supreme audit institution audit reports publicly available
within a reasonable period of time.
Dominican Republic: Although the budget is publicly available, it
lacks detail in certain areas such as the large budget allocation for
the presidency, which represents nine percent of the total budget. It
appears the intelligence budget is not subject to civilian oversight in
practice. The supreme audit institution conducts an audit of the
government's annual financial statements made publicly available within
a reasonable period of time. The process for awarding natural resource
extraction licenses and contracts is outlined in law and basic
information on the awards is publicly available. Overall budget
reliability has improved with new systems and better forecasting, and
the government has a five-year plan to adopt international accounting
standards. The Dominican Republic's fiscal transparency would be
improved by increasing the transparency of the budget of the presidency
and establishing civilian oversight over the intelligence budget.
Egypt: Budget documents are publicly available and generally
complete, but lack detail in some areas. For example, the budget does
not include allocations to or earnings from military state-owned
enterprises. While the government has eliminated a substantial number
of off-budget accounts, there are still accounts not publicly disclosed
or subject to audit. Also, the government did not release its budget
proposal within a reasonable period of time. The supreme audit
institution reviews the government's accounts but its reports are not
publicly available. The process for awarding natural resource
extraction
[[Page 36586]]
licenses and contracts is outlined in law, but basic information on
awards is not publicly available. The government made progress by
publishing for the first time a citizens' budget that met international
standards and a mid-year review. Egypt's fiscal transparency would be
improved by making publicly available a proposed budget within a
reasonable period of time; including all revenues and expenditures in
the budget, including allocations to and earnings from military state-
owned enterprises; subjecting off-budget accounts to audit and
oversight, and making supreme audit institution reports and the basic
terms of natural resource extraction licenses and contracts publicly
available.
Ethiopia: While the government makes enacted budgets publicly
available, budget proposals and execution reports are not available and
year-end reports are not published within a reasonable period of time.
Budget documents do not identify allocations to or earnings from state-
owned enterprises and not all significant state-owned enterprises have
publicly available, audited financial statements. The process for
awarding natural resource extraction licenses and contracts is outlined
in law or regulation, but basic information on such awards is not
always publicly available. Ethiopia's fiscal transparency would be
improved by making proposed budgets, budget execution reports, and
year-end reports publicly available within a reasonable period of time;
identifying allocations to and earnings from state-owned enterprises in
the budget; and making basic information about natural resource
licenses and contracts awards publicly available.
Gabon: The government did not publicly release budgets or budget
reports. There is no supreme audit institution. The process of awarding
natural resource extraction licenses and contracts is opaque and basic
terms of contracts for natural resource exploitation are not generally
publicly available. Gabon's fiscal transparency would be improved by
making publicly available a substantially complete proposed budget,
enacted budget, and year-end report; establishing a functioning
independent supreme audit institution; conducting and making public an
audit of the government's annual financial statements; and specifying
in law or regulation the processes by which the government awards
natural resource contracts or licenses, and subsequently making the
basic terms of awarded licenses and contracts publicly available.
The Gambia: The budget is publicly available, but does not break
down revenues. Earnings from and allocations to state-owned
enterprises, revenues from natural resource extraction, and military
and intelligence expenditures are not included in the budget. The
supreme audit institution is responsible for auditing the government's
annual executed budget, but it does not produce timely audits of the
budget. The process by which the government awards natural resource
contracts or licenses is not specified in law nor is basic information
about awards publicly available. The Gambia's fiscal transparency would
be improved by including all revenues and expenditures in the budget,
subjecting off-budget accounts to audit and oversight, and increasing
the capacity of its supreme audit institution to produce timely,
publicly available audits. Transparency would also be improved by
establishing laws or regulations governing the award of natural
resource extraction contracts and licenses, following the law in
practice, and making publicly available information about such awards.
Guinea: The budget is not broadly available and, with the exception
of revenues from the extractive industry, the budget is not
substantially complete. There is no supreme audit institution. The
process for awarding natural resource extraction licenses and contracts
is outlined in law or regulation and basic information on the awards is
publicly available. The seating of the first-ever National Assembly,
which began initial oversight of the budget, may provide a basis for
future progress in fiscal transparency. Guinea's fiscal transparency
would be improved by making its budget publicly available; providing
more detail on revenues and expenditures, including revenues from
state-owned enterprises; and establishing a supreme audit institution
to audit the budget.
Guinea-Bissau: The budget is ostensibly publicly available, but can
be difficult to obtain in practice. The budget breaks down expenditures
by ministry and revenues by type and source, but does not include
revenues from state-owned enterprises. The supreme audit institution
does not audit the budget. The process by which the government awards
natural resource contracts or licenses is specified in law, but not
always followed in practice, and basic information on awarded contracts
is not made publicly available. Guinea-Bissau's fiscal transparency
would be improved by including all sources of expenditures and revenues
in the budget, including state-owned enterprises; having the supreme
audit institution audit the budget, and make publicly available its
findings within a reasonable period of time; and increasing
transparency in natural resource extraction contract and licensing.
Haiti: The budget is publicly available. Natural resource revenues
are included in the budget, but are not identified by origin, source,
or type. Allocations to and earnings from state-owned enterprises are
not clearly identified in the budget. Significant state-owned
enterprises do not have audited accounts that are either provided to an
oversight body or made publicly available. The supreme audit
institution submits annual budget audits to the parliament, but it does
not regularly make these budget audits publicly available. The process
by which the government awards natural resource contracts or licenses
is specified in law, but basic information on natural resources
contracts, once awarded, is not publicly available. Haiti's fiscal
transparency would be improved by clearly identifying natural resource
revenues and allocations to and earnings from state-owned enterprise in
the budget, making supreme audit institution annual audits publicly
available, regularly auditing state-owned enterprise accounts, and
making publicly available basic information on natural resource
contracts and licenses.
Iraq: The government did not pass a national budget and information
on off-budget expenditures was not publicly available. The process for
awarding natural resource extraction licenses and contracts is outlined
in law or regulation; basic information on awards is publicly available
with the exception of contracts between the Kurdistan regional
government and international companies. Iraq's fiscal transparency
would be improved by publishing timely, accurate budgets and making
publicly available budget proposals, year-end reports, supreme audit
institution audit reports and basic information on all natural resource
extraction awards.
Kazakhstan: The budget is publicly available and includes detail on
expenditures and revenues, including transfers to the National Oil
Fund. Kazakhstan made significant progress by including allocations to
and earnings from state-owned enterprises in the budget. The supreme
audit institution reviews the budget, but does not make its full report
publicly available. The process for awarding natural resource
extraction licenses and contracts is outlined in law and basic
information on the awards is publicly available.
[[Page 36587]]
Kazakhstan's fiscal transparency would be improved by having the
supreme audit institution conduct a verification of the government's
annual financial statements and make its report publicly available
within a reasonable period of time.
Laos: Publicly available budget documents do not provide
substantial detail of the government's revenues and expenditures. Areas
lacking detail include allocations to and earnings from state-owned
enterprises; revenues from natural resources; military, intelligence,
and executive office budgets; and any unauthorized provincial
expenditures. The government does not make public its proposed budget,
enacted budget, and year-end reports within a reasonable period of
time. The supreme audit institution does not audit annual budget
execution nor are its reports publicly available. The process by which
the government awards natural resource contracts or licenses is
specified in law or regulation; the government did not make any awards
during the review period. Laos' fiscal transparency would be improved
by detailing revenues and expenditures, and making budget documents and
supreme audit institution audits publicly available within a reasonable
period of time.
Lebanon: The government does not make its budget publicly available
within a reasonable period of time. Budget documents do not provide a
substantially complete view of expenditures and revenues. Details
regarding military and intelligence expenditures are limited and these
accounts are not subject to civilian oversight. The government also
maintains off-budget accounts not subject to scrutiny. The supreme
audit institution does not produce an audit of the government's annual
financial statements. The process by which the national government
expects to award natural resource contracts or licenses is specified in
regulations awaiting approval by the cabinet. Lebanon's fiscal
transparency would be improved by regularly publishing its enacted
budget and year-end reports; including sufficient detail on
expenditures and revenues by ministry and agency; eliminating off-
budget accounts; and producing and publishing a supreme audit
institution audit.
Liberia: Budget documents are publicly available; however, during
the review period, there were significant deficiencies in ensuring all
expenditures or contracts were on budget. The supreme audit institution
audits the government's annual financial statements, but its reports
are not made publicly available within a reasonable period of time. The
process for awarding natural resource extraction licenses and contracts
is outlined in law and basic information on the awards is publicly
available. During the review period, the government made significant
progress by conducting a procurement review with relevant ministries
and beginning to implement reforms concerning contracting and budgeting
procedures. Liberia's fiscal transparency would be improved by ensuring
the budget is substantially complete, eliminating extra-budgetary
expenditures, and making supreme audit institution audit reports
publicly available within a reasonable period of time.
Libya: During a period of significant internal political conflict,
the government did not implement its budget processes. The budget and
information on debt obligations and its sovereign wealth fund, the
Libyan Investment Authority, are not publicly available. Revenues from
state-owned enterprises are not included in the budget. Significant
state-owned enterprises have audited accounts, but audit reports are
not publicly available and it is unclear if audits were conducted. The
supreme audit institution is required by law to audit the budget, but
its reports are not consistently made publicly available and it is
unclear if audits were conducted. The process for awarding natural
resource extraction licenses and contracts is outlined in law or
regulation, but basic information on the awards is not publicly
available. Libya's fiscal transparency would be improved by making
publicly available its budget, information on its sovereign wealth
fund, state-owned enterprise audit reports, budget execution reports,
government financial audit reports, and basic information on natural
resource extraction awards; subjecting military and intelligence
budgets to civilian oversight; and ensuring the supreme audit
institution audits are carried out.
Madagascar: Budget documents are publicly available, but contain
gaps, including some natural resource revenues and transfers to and
from state-owned enterprises. The government did not publish year-end
reports within a reasonable period of time. The government indicates
the annual executed budget is audited, but audit reports are not
publicly available. The process for awarding natural resource
extraction licenses and contracts is outlined in law. However, the
government is revising the laws that govern the awards of petroleum and
mining licenses and there is currently a freeze on new mining licenses.
The government makes the basic terms of awards publicly available.
Madagascar's fiscal transparency would be improved by increasing budget
completeness and reliability; including allocations to and revenues
from state-owned enterprises and revenues from natural resources in the
budget; ensuring an independent supreme audit agency carries out audits
of the government's annual financial statements and makes its reports
publicly available within a reasonable period of time. Fiscal
transparency would be further improved by completing a review of the
laws specifying the process by which the government awards natural
resource contracts or licenses.
Malawi: Budget documents are publicly available and substantially
complete. The government does not provide financial statements to the
supreme audit institution within a reasonable period of time and, as a
result, the supreme audit institution's audit of the government's
annual financial accounts is delayed. While the process by which the
national government awards natural resource contracts is specified in
law, the process actually used to award contracts does not always
appear to be consistent with law or regulation nor is basic information
about such awards made publicly available. Malawi's fiscal transparency
would be improved by providing government year-end financial statements
to the supreme audit institution within a reasonable period of time;
making supreme audit institution reports publicly available within a
reasonable period of time; adhering to the process for awarding natural
resource extraction contracts and licenses as set out in applicable
laws, and by making public basic information on natural resource
extraction awards.
Maldives: While the budget is publicly available and breaks down
expenditures by ministry or government agency and revenues by source
and type, only limited data on debt obligations is available.
Information in the budget documents is not always reliable. The supreme
audit institution does not conduct and make public an audit of the
government's annual financial statements. Maldives' fiscal transparency
would be improved by making publicly available substantially complete
and reliable budget documents, including debt obligations. Fiscal
transparency would also be improved by having the supreme audit
institution conduct and make publicly available in a timely manner
audits of the government's annual financial
[[Page 36588]]
statements. Maldives does not have a natural resource extraction
sector.
Mali: The budget is publicly available and contains information on
debt obligations. The budget includes, but does not break down, natural
resource revenues and allocations to and earnings from state-owned
enterprises. The government also had off-budget accounts not subject to
audit or oversight. The supreme audit institution audits the annual
executed budget, but public release of its most recent report has been
delayed. The process for awarding natural resource extraction licenses
and contracts is outlined in law or regulation and basic information on
the awards is publicly available. Mali's fiscal transparency would be
improved by including more detail on revenues and expenditures in
budget documents, ensuring the timely public release of supreme audit
institution reports, and subjecting all off-budget accounts to audit
and oversight.
Mauritania: The budget is publicly available and substantially
complete, including natural resource revenues and allocations to and
earnings from state-owned enterprises. The supreme audit institution
audits the financial statements of significant state-owned enterprises
and the government's entire executed budget annually; its reports are
made publicly available within a reasonable period of time. The process
by which the government awards natural resource contracts or licenses
is specified in law or regulations, but there are reports of
inconsistent application of applicable regulations. Once awarded, basic
information on such contracts or licenses is publicly available.
Mauritania's fiscal transparency would be improved by making the
process used to award natural resource extraction contracts and
licenses consistent with the procedural requirements set by law or
regulation.
Mozambique: While budget documents are publicly available, the
government does not publish sufficient data about debt obligations and
enterprises partially or wholly owned by the government. The government
maintains an off-budget account for revenues obtained from large
capital gain taxes, and this account is not subject to the same
auditing and oversight as the rest of the budget. Additionally, the
supreme audit institution does not audit the annual executed budget.
The process for awarding natural resource extraction licenses and
contracts is outlined in law and basic information on the awards is
publicly available. Mozambique's fiscal transparency would be improved
by reporting on debt obligations and enterprises which have government
ownership, subjecting off-budget accounts to auditing and oversight,
and publicly issuing a supreme audit institution audit of the
government's annual financial statements.
Nicaragua: While the budget is publicly available and information
on budgeted expenditures and revenues is considered credible, budget
documents do not provide a substantially complete picture of revenues
and expenditures. The government does not publicly account for the
expenditure of significant off-budget assistance from Venezuela and
this assistance is not subject to audit or legislative oversight.
Allocations to and earnings from state-owned enterprises are included
in the budget, but most state-owned enterprises are not audited. The
supreme audit institution also does not audit the government's full
financial statements. The process for allocating licenses and contracts
for natural resource extraction is outlined in law and basic
information on awards is publicly available. Nicaragua's fiscal
transparency would be improved by including all off-budget revenue and
expenditure in the budget, auditing state-owned enterprises, and
conducting a full audit of the government's annual financial statements
and making audit reports publicly available within a reasonable period
of time.
Niger: Budget documents are publicly available, but do not detail
all revenues and expenditures, such as allocations to and earnings from
state-owned enterprises, revenues from natural resources, or debt
associated with natural resources. While the process for awarding
natural resource contracts or licenses is specified in law, in
practice, the process used to award contracts and licenses is not
always consistent with those procedural requirements. Once awarded,
basic information on such contracts or licenses is publicly available.
Niger made significant progress by publishing the annual budget online
for the first time and eliminating delays in releasing budget execution
reports. Niger's fiscal transparency would be improved by including all
revenues and expenditures in the budget and adhering to the process for
awarding natural resource extraction contracts and licenses as set out
in applicable laws.
Nigeria: The budget and information on debt obligations are
publicly available. However, significant expenditures related to
refined fuel subsidies were funded off-budget. The supreme audit
institution did not produce a comprehensive audit of the annual
executed budget. The government also did not publish comprehensive
audited financial statements of systemically important state-owned
enterprises, including the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation.
Finally, the procedures surrounding the awarding of oil and gas
licenses often are opaque, and basic information on awarded government
exploration licenses in the oil sector is not publicly available.
Nigeria's fiscal transparency would be improved by bringing all
spending on budget, publishing comprehensive audits of systemically
important state-owned enterprises, making the process for awarding oil
and gas licenses more transparent, and making basic information on
natural resource extraction awards publicly available.
Oman: The government makes publicly available its enacted budget
and its year-end report, but does not publish a budget proposal.
Publicly available budget documents lack sufficient detail and do not
include allocations to the royal family. The government also maintains
several off-budget accounts not subject to audit or oversight. The
supreme audit institution does not audit the government's annual
financial statements. The process for awarding natural resource
extraction licenses and contracts is outlined in law and basic
information on the awards is publicly available. Oman's fiscal
transparency would be improved by publishing a proposed budget; adding
more detail to the budget, such as detailing allocations to and
earnings from state-owned enterprises; including expenditures for the
royal family in the budget; subjecting off-budget accounts to audit and
oversight and making information on such accounts publicly available;
and having the supreme audit institution audit the budget annually and
make public audit reports.
Pakistan: While budget documents are publicly available and provide
a substantially complete picture of most revenues and expenditures, the
budget of the intelligence agencies is not subject to parliamentary or
other civilian oversight. The supreme audit institution is
constitutionally mandated to audit expenditures, but not revenues, and
does not produce audits of the government's annual financial
statements. The process for awarding natural resource extraction
licenses and contracts is outlined in law and basic information on the
awards is publicly available. Pakistan's fiscal transparency would be
improved by subjecting the intelligence agencies' budget to
parliamentary or other civilian oversight. Pakistan's fiscal
transparency would also be improved by expanding
[[Page 36589]]
the constitutional mandate of the supreme audit institution to include
revenues, and to produce and make publicly available the supreme audit
institution's audit of the government's annual financial statements
within a reasonable period of time.
Palestinian Authority: While information in the annual and monthly
budget data is considered substantially complete, the budget
preparation process is often delayed. The supreme audit institution's
audits of the government's annual financial statements are not
completed or made publicly available within a reasonable period of
time. The Palestinian Authority's fiscal transparency would be improved
by providing annual fiscal data to the supreme audit institution within
a reasonable period of time and increasing its independence.
Sao Tome and Principe: The enacted budget, quarterly budget
execution reports, and information on debt obligations are publicly
available. However, the government does not make publicly available the
proposed budget or an annual year-end budget report. The information in
the budget is considered generally credible and the supreme audit
institution audits the annual executed budget, but its reports are not
published within a reasonable period of time. The process for awarding
natural resource extraction licenses and contracts is outlined in law
or regulation and basic information on the awards is publicly
available. Sao Tome and Principe's fiscal transparency would be
improved by making the proposed budget, year-end budget report, and
supreme audit institution audits publicly available within a reasonable
period of time.
Saudi Arabia: The government does not make a detailed budget
publicly available. The limited data available in its annual budget
statement do not break down expenditures by ministry or agency.
Available budget documents do not include allocations to the Council of
Ministers or to the royal family. In addition, there are often
significant departures from planned budget receipts and expenditures
that are not disclosed until the year-end statement. Saudi Arabia's
supreme audit institution reports are not publicly available. Rules and
regulations for up-stream oil are not publicly available. However, once
awarded, basic information on such contracts or licenses is publicly
available. Saudi Arabia's fiscal transparency would be improved by
making publicly available detailed budgets that include all
expenditures, supreme audit institution audit reports, and rules and
regulations for upstream oil extraction contracting and licensing.
Seychelles: The government's budget summary in the form of a budget
speech is publicly available, but the enacted and executed budgets are
not. Some information on debt obligations is publicly available.
Significant state-owned enterprises have audited accounts provided to
an oversight body and are publicly available. Seychelles' supreme audit
institution audits the government's annual financial statements and its
report is made publicly available. The process for awarding natural
resource extraction licenses and contracts is outlined in law or
regulation and basic information on the awards is publicly available.
Seychelles' fiscal transparency would be improved by providing more
complete and detailed information on expenditures and debt obligations
and making the proposed budget, enacted budget, and year-end report
publicly available within a reasonable period of time.
Somalia: The budget and full information on debt obligations are
not publicly available. The government published a mid-year budget
execution report. The government does not produce revised budget
estimates. The new supreme audit institution conducted an audit for
2012, which was not made public. The government does not follow
consistent procedures in awarding natural resource extraction contracts
and licenses. Somalia's fiscal transparency would be improved by
resuming publication of budget documents, improving budget reliability,
and producing and making publicly available audit reports. Fiscal
transparency would also be improved by making natural resource
extraction awards consistent with law or regulation, and making basic
information on such awards publicly available.
South Sudan: While budget documents are publicly available and
detailed, they do not include all natural resource revenues or security
expenditures and the government reportedly maintains off-budget
accounts not subject to audit or oversight. Budget execution also
deviated significantly from plan and the government did not issue a
revised budget. The supreme audit institution audits the budget
annually, but its reports are not made publicly available within a
reasonable period of time. The process for awarding natural resource
extraction licenses and contracts is not outlined in law or regulation.
South Sudan's fiscal transparency would be improved by including all
revenues and expenditures in the budget; subjecting any off-budget
accounts to audit and oversight; issuing revised budget estimates when
execution deviates significantly from plan; making supreme audit
institution audit reports publicly available in a reasonable timeframe;
and establishing laws or regulations governing the award of natural
resource extraction contracts and licenses.
Sudan: While the budget is publicly available, there are reports
the budget significantly underreports expenditures and revenues,
including the military and intelligence budgets. Also, several state-
owned enterprises do not have audited financial statements and are not
subject to oversight. There is no supreme audit institution. The
process by which the government awards natural resource contracts and
licenses is specified in law. However, the process actually used to
award contracts is not always consistent with the procedural
requirements set by law or regulation nor is basic information on
awards publicly available. Sudan's fiscal transparency would be
improved by including all expenditures and revenues in its budget,
eliminating off-budget accounts or subjecting them to full audit and
oversight, auditing all significant state-owned enterprises, developing
a supreme audit institution that audits the budget annually and makes
public its reports, adhering to the process for awarding natural
resource extraction contracts and licenses as set out in applicable
laws, and making publicly available basic information on natural
resource extraction awards.
Suriname: The budget is publicly available and substantially
complete with the exception of state-owned enterprises. Not all
allocations to and earnings from state-owned enterprises are included
in the budget, nor are all state-owned enterprise financial results
audited, publicly available, or provided to an oversight body. Interim
reports on budget execution and revised budget projections are not
publicly available. The budget is considered generally credible, but
the supreme audit institution has not audited government financial
statements in recent years. While concession practices for petroleum
production are outlined in law, the government does not have an
established system specified in law or regulation for awarding mining
contracts or licenses. The government does not regularly make basic
information on mining awards publicly available. Suriname's fiscal
transparency would be improved by detailing allocations to and earnings
from state-owned enterprises in the budget, completing audits of the
[[Page 36590]]
government's annual financial statements and publishing these audits
within a reasonable period of time, improving the public availability
of budget information, establishing and following a system for granting
mining contracts, and making publicly available basic information on
all awarded natural resource licenses and contracts.
Swaziland: The budget and related documents are publicly available
and provide a general picture of government revenues and expenditures.
However, revenues and expenditures related to natural resources are not
included in the budget. Expenditures to support the royal family,
military, police, and correctional services are included in the budget,
but are not subject to the same oversight as the rest of the budget.
The supreme audit institution audits yearly government financial
accounts and produces publicly available reports. While the process for
awarding natural resource extraction licenses and contracts is outlined
in law, there is inconsistent application of applicable regulations and
basic information on such awards is not publicly available. Fiscal
transparency in Swaziland would be improved by including all
expenditures and revenues in the budget; subjecting the entire budget
to audit and oversight; consistently applying legal procedures in the
awarding of natural resource extraction contracts and licenses; and
making basic information on natural resource awards publicly available.
Tajikistan: Publicly available budget documents do not provide a
full picture of the government's expenditures and revenues. Financial
allocations to and revenues from state-owned enterprises are not
included in the budget. The supreme audit institution does not make
publicly available its audit of the government's annual financial
statements. The process by which the national government awards natural
resource contracts or licenses is specified in law, regulation, or
other public document, but the process actually used to award contracts
is not always consistent with the procedural requirements set by law or
regulation. Once a contract or license is awarded, the basic terms of
the contracts are not publicly available. Tajikistan's fiscal
transparency would be improved by detailing expenditures by ministry or
government agency, revenues by source and type, and producing yearly
and publicly available audits of the budget by the supreme audit
institution. Fiscal transparency would further be improved by adhering
to the process for awarding natural resource extraction contracts and
licenses, as set out in applicable laws or regulations, and making
publicly available basic information on such awards.
Tanzania: While an abridged version of the budget is available
online, the complete budget is only available in the Parliamentary
Library in Dodoma, which is not easily accessible by most Tanzanians.
The abridged budget does not clearly break down expenditures by
ministry or government agency or revenues by source and type. The
budget does not clearly identify allocations to and earnings from
state-owned enterprises. The process for awarding natural resource
extraction licenses and contracts is outlined in law or regulation and
basic information on the awards is made public. Tanzania made
significant progress by publishing online basic information on mining
awards. Tanzania's fiscal transparency would be improved by making
budget documents accessible to the public; providing more detail on
revenues and expenditures in the budget including allocations to and
earnings from state-owned enterprises; and increasing transparency in
the hydrocarbon extraction award process.
Turkmenistan: The government makes only aggregate information on
expenditures and revenues publicly available. Allocations to and
revenues from state-owned enterprises are not disclosed, and the
supreme audit institution does not make its audits publicly available.
The process by which the national government awards natural resource
concessions is specified in law or regulation and basic information on
the awards is publicly available. Turkmenistan's fiscal transparency
would be improved by making publicly available a budget that breaks
down expenditures by ministry and revenues by source and type with a
significant level of detail, and includes allocations to and revenues
from state-owned enterprises. Turkmenistan's fiscal transparency would
be further improved by producing and publishing audits of the
government's financial statements by the supreme audit institution, and
disclosing proceeds from the sale of oil and natural gas, which
constitute the majority of the government's revenues.
Uganda: While the budget is publicly available, including online,
it does not break down expenditures beyond sector line items. There is
no public information on reported off-budget accounts. The supreme
audit institution reviews the annual executed budget and makes its
reports publicly available. The process for awarding natural resource
extraction licenses and contracts is outlined in law or regulation.
Once a contract or license is awarded, the government announces the
basic terms of the contracts at press conferences, but does not
otherwise make information publicly available. Uganda's fiscal
transparency would be improved by including more detail in the budget,
making information on off-budget accounts available to the public,
subjecting these accounts to audit and oversight, limiting the
classification or similar restrictions on the availability of the
budget, subjecting classified budgets to audit and oversight, and
making basic information on natural resource extraction awards publicly
available.
Ukraine: The budget and information on debt obligations is publicly
available and generally complete. However, four large social insurance
funds are not included in the budget; revenue from state-owned natural
resource producers is underreported; and increases in allocations to
state-owned enterprises such as Naftogaz are common and substantial,
affecting the reliability of the adopted budget. Naftogaz and several
other significant state-owned enterprises, including UkrEximBank and
Oschadbank, have publicly available audited financial statements but
this is not the case for all state-owned enterprises. The supreme audit
institution audits government expenditures annually but not revenues.
The process for awarding natural resource extraction licenses and
contracts is outlined in law. The government made significant progress
by making public the criteria for awarding natural resource tenders and
basic information on such awards. Ukraine's fiscal transparency would
be improved by including all expenditures and revenues in the budget,
increasing the reliability of budget data, making publicly available
more state-owned enterprise audit reports, and expanding supreme audit
institution audits to cover revenues.
Uzbekistan: Only a general overview of the budget is publicly
available, and a supreme audit institution does not exist. The process
by which the government awards natural resource contracts or licenses
is not specified in law or regulation and basic information about
contracts is not publicly available. Uzbekistan's fiscal transparency
would be improved by including in the budget a breakdown of
expenditures by ministry or government agency and revenues by source
and type; information on debt obligations; and financial allocations to
and earnings from state-owned enterprises. Uzbekistan's fiscal
transparency would be further improved by establishing an independent
supreme audit institution
[[Page 36591]]
to produce and make publicly available audits of the government's
financial statements; and establishing laws or regulations governing
the award of natural resource extraction contracts and licenses,
following the law in practice, and making publicly available
information about such awards and contracts.
Yemen: During a period of significant internal political conflict,
the government did not fully implement its budget processes. The budget
was publicly available, including online, and contained sufficient
detail. The supreme audit institution conducted an audit of the
government's annual financial statements but its report was not
publicly available. The process by which the government awards natural
resource contracts or licenses is specified in law, but there are
reports of inconsistent application of applicable regulations; basic
information on such awards is publicly available. Yemen's fiscal
transparency would be improved making publicly available supreme audit
institution audits and making the process used to award natural
resource extraction contracts and licenses consistent with the
procedural requirements set by law or regulation.
Zimbabwe: The budget is publicly available but does not clearly
detail natural resource revenues or the large allocation to the office
of the president and cabinet. The budget does not include earnings from
state-owned enterprises. The supreme audit institution audits the
budget but its reports are not publicly available within a reasonable
period of time. The process by which the government awards natural
resource contracts or licenses is not specified in law or regulation
nor is basic information about mining concessions publicly available.
Zimbabwe's fiscal transparency would be improved by detailing revenues
and expenditures including allocations to the office of the president
and cabinet, and revenues from state-owned enterprises and natural
resources; and making supreme audit institution reports publicly
available within a reasonable period of time. Zimbabwe's fiscal
transparency would also be improved by establishing laws and
regulations governing natural resource extraction contracts and
licensing, following the law in practice, and making basic information
about such awards and contracts publicly available.
Dated: June 17, 2015.
Heather Higginbottom,
Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2015-15677 Filed 6-24-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-07-P
