[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 58 (Wednesday, March 26, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16852-16854]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06694]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
[Public Notice 8673]
FY 2013 Fiscal Transparency Report Pursuant to Section 7031(B) of
the Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs
Appropriations Act, 2012 (Div. I, Pub. L. 112-74), as Carried Forward
by the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (Div. F, Pub. L.
113-6); 2013 Fiscal Transparency Report
AGENCY: Department of State.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of State hereby presents the findings from the
FY 2013 fiscal transparency review process in its second annual Fiscal
Transparency Report. This report describes the minimum standards of
fiscal transparency developed by the Department of State, identifies
countries that did not meet these standards, and indicates whether
those countries made progress towards meeting these standards.
Fiscal Transparency
Fiscal transparency is a critical element of effective public
financial management, helps in building market confidence, and sets the
stage for economic sustainability. Transparency also provides a window
into government budgets for citizens of any country, helping them to
hold their leadership accountable. The International Monetary Fund
(IMF) defines fiscal transparency as ``the clarity, reliability,
frequency, timeliness, and relevance of public fiscal reporting and the
openness to the public of the government's fiscal policy-making
process.''
Annual reviews of the fiscal transparency of countries that receive
U.S. assistance via their central governments help to ensure that U.S.
taxpayer money is used appropriately and to sustain a dialogue with
governments to improve their fiscal performance, leading to greater
macroeconomic stability and better development outcomes.
Section 7031(b)(1) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations,
and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2012 (Div. I, Pub. L. 112-74)
(SFOAA), as carried forward by the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations
Act, 2013 (Div. F, Pub. L. 113-6) (CR), restricts U.S. assistance to
the central government of any country that does not meet the
Department's minimum standards of fiscal transparency, unless the
Secretary of State, or his designee, determines that a waiver is
important to
[[Page 16853]]
the U.S. national interest. The Deputy Secretary of State made those
determinations for FY2013. For countries that did not meet the minimum
standards, the Deputy Secretary also determined whether those
governments made progress toward meeting those standards.
This report describes the minimum standards of fiscal transparency
developed by the Department of State, identifies the countries that did
not meet the standard, and indicates whether those countries made
progress toward meeting the standard.
Fiscal Transparency Review Process
In FY 2013, the Department of State assessed fiscal transparency in
49 countries that were potential beneficiaries of FY 2013 foreign
assistance funds via their central governments, determined whether the
minimum standards were met, and identified measures those countries had
implemented to make progress towards meeting the standards. Progress on
fiscal transparency can mean publishing adequate budget documents,
adopting more robust accounting procedures to verify expenditures, or
other measures to improve public financial management.
The Department considered information from U.S. embassies and
consulates, international organizations such as the IMF and
multilateral development banks, and from civil society organizations.
U.S. diplomatic missions engaged with foreign government officials,
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), international organizations, and
civil society to obtain information for these assessments.
When a country does not meet the minimum standards of fiscal
transparency, U.S. diplomatic missions, with input and assistance from
USAID, develop and implement action plans to work with governments,
international organizations, and NGOs to improve the availability,
reliability, and content of a country's budget documents. Such plans
present short and long-term actions that the foreign government can
take, often with assistance from multilateral institutions such as the
World Bank and IMF, to improve budget transparency. Examples of actions
from previous plans include implementing a financial management system
to assist in improving internal controls; approving freedom of
information legislation; funding NGOs to provide training on budget
oversight; and coordinating with international organizations to monitor
budget transparency issues.
Minimum Standards of Fiscal Transparency
The SFOAA, as carried forward by the CR, provides that the minimum
standards of fiscal transparency developed by the Department shall
include standards for the public disclosure of budget documentation,
including:
Receipts and expenditures by ministry.
Government contracts and licenses for natural resource
extraction, to include bidding and concession allocation practices.
The FY 2013 fiscal transparency review process evaluated whether
the central governments of countries receiving U.S. foreign assistance
publicly disclosed budget documents including receipts and expenditures
by ministry. The review also assessed the existence and public
disclosure of standards for government contracts and licenses for
natural resource extraction, including bidding and concession
allocation practices. In addition, to meet the minimum standards of
fiscal transparency, budget data generally should be:
Substantially Complete: Budget documents should provide a
substantially full picture of a country's revenue streams, including
natural resource revenues, and planned expenditures. Therefore, a
published budget that does not include significant cash or non-cash
resources, including foreign aid or the balances of special accounts or
off-budget accounts, would not be considered transparent. Budget
documents also should disclose, in some fashion, financial results of
state-owned enterprises. The review process recognizes that military
and/or intelligence budgets are often not publicly available for
national security reasons.
Reliable: Budget documents and related data are considered
reliable if they are accurate and disseminated on time. Actual receipts
and expenditures should be reasonably correlated to the budget plan,
and significant departures from planned activities should be explained
in supplementary budget documents and publicly disclosed in a timely
manner.
Transparent: Budgets fulfill the ``public disclosure''
criteria if they are broadly available on-line, at government offices
or libraries, on request from the ministry, or for purchase at a
nominal fee at a government office.
The Department recognizes that the specific circumstances and
practices of fiscal transparency differ between countries. The review
process takes a tailored approach in evaluating countries to make a
determination of whether the central government provides an adequate
level of budget detail to enable participation, monitoring, and
feedback from civil society groups.
Conclusions of Review Process
In FY 2013, the Department reviewed 49 countries that were
potential beneficiaries of FY 2013 U.S. foreign assistance via their
central governments, assessed whether they met the Department's minimum
standards of fiscal transparency and identified measures those
countries had implemented to make progress towards meeting the minimum
standards. The Department concluded that 34 of the 49 countries did not
meet the minimum standards of fiscal transparency, and that 27 non-
transparent countries made progress in meeting the minimum standards of
fiscal transparency.
The following table lists the 34 countries that were found to be
non-transparent and whether they made progress toward meeting the
minimum standards:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Countries whose central governments received
or were considered for assistance assessed Progress No progress
to be non-transparent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afghanistan................................. X ............
Algeria..................................... X ............
Burma....................................... X ............
Cambodia.................................... X ............
Cameroon.................................... X ............
Central African Republic.................... ............ X
Chad........................................ X ............
Dominican Republic.......................... X ............
DRC......................................... X ............
Egypt....................................... X ............
Ethiopia.................................... X ............
Fiji........................................ X ............
Gabon....................................... ............ X
Gambia...................................... X ............
Guinea...................................... X ............
Haiti....................................... X ............
Lebanon..................................... X ............
Libya....................................... X ............
Madagascar.................................. ............ X
Nicaragua................................... X ............
Niger....................................... X ............
Nigeria..................................... X ............
Republic of Congo........................... ............ X
Saudi Arabia................................ X ............
Somalia..................................... X ............
South Sudan................................. X ............
Suriname.................................... X ............
Swaziland................................... X ............
Tajikistan.................................. X ............
Turkmenistan................................ ............ X
Ukraine..................................... X ............
[[Page 16854]]
Uzbekistan.................................. ............ X
Yemen....................................... ............ X
Zimbabwe.................................... X ............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: March 14, 2014.
Heather Higginbottom,
Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2014-06694 Filed 3-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-07-P