87CHAPTER 5. MULTILATERAL FISCAL SURVEILLANCE FRAMEWORK FOR COMESA (MFSF)

Appendix 1: PEFA – The PMF Performance Measurement Framework

88 FACILITATING MULTILATERAL FISCAL SURVEILLANCE IN MONETARY UNION CONTEXT WITH FOCUS ON COMESA REGION

1. Introduction and background 73

The PFM Performance Measurement Framework is an integrated monitoring framework that allows measure-ment of country PFM performance over time. It has been developed by the PEFA partners, in collaboration with the OECD/DAC Joint Venture on PFM as a tool that would provide reliable information on the performance of PFM systems, processes and institutions over time. The information provided by the framework would also contribute to the government reform process by deter-mining the extent to which reforms are yielding improved performance and by increasing the ability to identify and learn from reform success. It would also facilitate harmonization of the dialogue between government and donors around a common framework measuring PFM performance and therefore contribute to reduce transaction costs for partner governments.

The PFM Performance Measurement Framework is one of the elements of a strengthened approach to supporting PFM reforms. It is designed to measure PFM perform-ance of countries across a wide range of development over time. The Performance Measurement Framework includes a set of high level indicators, which meas-ures and monitors performance of PFM systems, proc-esses and institutions and a PFM Performance Report (PFM-PR) that provides a framework to report on PFM performance as measured by the indicators.

2. Scope and coverage of the framework A good PFM system is essential for the implementation of policies and the achievement of developmental objec-tives by supporting aggregate fiscal discipline, strategic allocation of resources and efficient service delivery. An open and orderly PFM system is one of the enabling elements for those three levels of budgetary outcomes:

Î Effective controls of the budget totals and manage-ment of fiscal risks contribute to maintain aggregate fiscal discipline.

73 The Strengthened Approach has three components (i) a country-led PFM reform strategy and action plan, (ii) a coordinated IFI-donor integrated, multi-year program of PFM work that supports and is aligned with the government’s PFM reform strategy and, (iii) a shared information pool. The Performance Measurement Framework is a tool for achieving the third objective.

PEFA - PFM Performance Measurement Framework, June 2005.

Î Planning and executing the budget in line with gov-ernment priorities contributes to implementation of government’s objectives.

Î Managing the use of budgeted resources contributes to efficient service delivery and value for money.

The Performance Measurement Framework identifies the critical dimensions of performance of an open and orderly PFM system as follows:

1. Credibility of the budget – The budget is realistic and is implemented as intended

2. Comprehensiveness and transparency – The budget and the fiscal risk oversight are comprehen-sive and fiscal and budget information is accessible to the public.

3. Policy-based budgeting – The budget is prepared with due regard to government policy.

4. Predictability and control in budget execution – The budget is implemented in an orderly and predictable manner and there are arrangements for the exercise of control and stewardship in the use of public funds.

5. Accounting, recording and reporting – Adequate records and information are produced, maintained and disseminated to meet decision-making control, management and reporting purposes.

6. External scrutiny and audit – Arrangements for scrutiny of public finances and follow up by execu-tive are operating.

Against the six core dimensions of PFM performance, the set of high-level indicators measures the operational performance of the key elements of the PFM sys-tems, processes and institutions of a country central government, legislature and external audit. In addition, the PFM-PR uses the indicator-based analysis to develop an integrated assessment of the PFM system against the six critical dimensions of PFM performance and evaluate the likely impact of PFM weaknesses on the three levels of budgetary outcomes.

89APPENDIX 1: PEFA – THE PMF PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK

The set of high-level indicators captures the key PFM elements that are recognized as being critical for all countries to achieve sound public financial management. In some countries, the PFM-PR may also include an as-sessment of additional, country specific issues in order to provide a comprehensive picture of PFM performance.

It is expected that the repeated application of the indica-tor tool will provide information on the extent to which country PFM performance is improving or not. In addition, the PFM-PR recognizes the efforts made by government to reform its PFM system by describing recent and on-going reform measures, which may not have yet impacted PFM performance. The report does not, however, include any recommendations for reforms or assumptions as to the potential impact of ongoing reforms on PFM performance.

The focus of the PFM performance indicator set is the public financial management at central gov-ernment level, including the related institutions of oversight. Central government comprises a central group of ministries and departments (and in some cases de-concentrated units such as provincial administra-tions) that make up a single institutional unit. In many countries, other units are operating under the authority of the central government with a separate legal entity and substantial autonomy in its operations (in this document referred to as autonomous government agencies) and also constitute a part of central government operations. Such units would be used for the purpose of implement-ing central government policy and may include non-profit institutions, which are controlled and mainly financed by central government.

Operations of other levels of general government and of public enterprises are considered in the PFM per-formance indicator set only to the extent they impact the performance of the national PFM system and its linkages to national fiscal policy, formulated and monitored by central government (refer to PI-8, PI-9 and PI-23). Other parts of general government include lower levels with separate accountability mechanisms and their own PFM systems (e.g. budgets and accounting systems). Such sub-national governments may include state, provincial, and regional government at a higher level and local government (including e.g. districts and municipalities) at a lower level. In addition to general

government, the public sector includes public corpora-tions or enterprises, created for the purpose of providing goods and services for a market, and controlled by and accountable to government units. Public corporations can be non-financial or financial, the latter including mon-etary corporations such as the central bank. Additional information on other levels of government and public enterprises may be included in the section on country specific issues of the PFM-PR.

The focus of the indicator set is on revenues and expenditures undertaken through the central govern-ment budget. However, activities of central government implemented outside the budget are covered in part by the indicators PI-7, PI-9, PI-26 and D-2. Typically, this includes expenditure executed by central government units and financed from earmarked revenue sources (whether domestic or external, the latter often being only nominally on-budget), and by autonomous government agencies.

The Performance Measurement Framework does not measure the factors impacting performance, such as the legal framework or existing capacities in the govern-ment. In particular, the set of high-level indicators focuses on the operational performance of the key elements of the PFM system rather than on the inputs than enable the PFM system to reach a certain level of performance.

The Performance Measurement Framework does not involve fiscal or expenditure policy analysis, which would determine whether fiscal policy is sustainable, whether expenditures incurred through the budget have their desired effect on reducing poverty or achieving other policy objectives, or whether there is value for money achieved in service delivery. This would require detailed data analysis or utilization of country-specific indicators. The framework rather focuses on assessing the extent to which the PFM system is an enabling factor for achieving such outcomes (transparency, and budget credibility).

91APPENDIX 1: PEFA – THE PMF PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK

Appendix 2

92 FACILITATING MULTILATERAL FISCAL SURVEILLANCE IN MONETARY UNION CONTEXT WITH FOCUS ON COMESA REGION

Table 1 – Regional Trade Opening (RITO) Indices for COMESA, EAC AND SADCRegional trade opening (RITO) * for COMESA

Country 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2000-2009

Burundi 3.8% 3.2% 5.4% 7.6% 8.5% 8.0% 8.3% 8.8% 7.4% 6.8% 6.8%

Comoros 6.4% 5.3% 3.9% 4.1% 4.0% 4.1% 4.5% 4.4% 4.0% 3.2% 4.4%

Congo DR 6.4% 5.3% 3.9% 4.1% 4.0% 4.1% 4.5% 4.4% 4.0% 3.2% 4.4%

Djibouti 15.3% 33.0% 20.4% 31.5% 14.3% 17.8% 20.8% 8.3% 7.0% 5.7% 17.4%

Egypt 0.4% 3.5% 4.3% 6.5% 4.3% 4.7% 4.8% 1.8% 1.4% 1.0% 3.3%

Ethiopia 1.2% 1.7% 1.5% 1.6% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.9%

Kenya 5.2% 6.2% 6.6% 6.4% 7.0% 6.5% 5.8% 5.8% 6.3% 5.1% 6.1%

Libya 0.3% 0.3% 0.6% 0.7% 0.4% 0.6% 0.5% 0.6% 1.2% 2.0% 0.7%

Madagascar 0.9% 2.0% 1.8% 2.2% 2.8% 2.2% 2.3% 2.2% 1.9% 2.2% 2.1%

Malawi 3.6% 1.5% 3.4% 2.5% 4.4% 4.0% 4.3% 3.4% 3.0% 2.9% 3.3%

Mauritius 3.3% 4.1% 4.0% 4.3% 3.4% 3.5% 3.7% 3.8% 2.8% 2.6% 3.6%

Rwanda 4.4% 3.8% 5.2% 6.7% 6.3% 6.3% 6.1% 7.4% 12.7% 10.0% 6.9%

Seychelles 0.3% 0.4% 0.6% 0.3% 0.5% 0.6% 1.0% 1.0% 1.1% 1.0% 0.7%

Sudan 0.9% 1.2% 1.1% 1.6% 1.8% 2.2% 2.1% 1.7% 2.3% 2.1% 1.7%

Uganda 6.3% 6.6% 6.8% 7.7% 7.6% 8.6% 7.2% 8.7% 8.8% 7.1% 7.5%

Zambia 1.9% 2.0% 1.8% 2.9% 3.2% 2.7% 3.0% 3.4% 3.2% 3.0% 2.7%

Zimbabwe 3.0% 1.6% 1.5% 1.8% 5.4% 22.3% 24.9% 11.7% 15.7% 12.3% 10.0%

COMESA 1.4% 3.1% 3.8% 4.8% 3.7% 4.1% 3.9% 2.7% 2.7% 2.4% 3.3%

*Defined as the country’s trade with other members of the REC to the country’s GDP;

Regional trade opening (RITO) * for EAC

Country 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Burundi 3.8% 3.2% 5.4% 7.6% 8.5% 8.0% 8.3% 8.8% 7.4% 6.8% 6.8%

Kenya 5.2% 6.2% 6.6% 6.4% 7.0% 6.5% 5.8% 5.8% 6.3% 5.1% 6.1%

Rwanda 4.4% 3.8% 5.2% 6.7% 6.3% 6.3% 6.1% 7.4% 12.7% 10.0% 6.9%

Tanzania 3.0% 2.3% 5.9% 6.3% 5.4% 5.3% 6.4% 6.7% 3.6% 0.4% 4.5%

Uganda 6.3% 6.6% 6.8% 7.7% 7.6% 8.6% 7.2% 8.7% 8.8% 7.1% 7.5%

EAC 4.1% 5.7% 6.2% 6.3% 6.5% 6.7% 6.5% 6.0% 5.4% 5.1% 5.9%

93APPENDIX 2: TABLE 1 – REGIONAL TRADE OPENING (RITO) INDICES FOR COMESA, EAC AND SADC

Regional trade opening (RITO) * for SADC

Country 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2000-2009

Angola 15.6% 9.7% 11.6% 11.0% 7.6% 7.3% 6.7% 6.6% 4.7% 4.2% 8.5%

Botswana

Comoros 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Lesotho

Madagascar 0.9% 2.0% 1.8% 2.2% 2.8% 2.2% 2.3% 2.2% 1.9% 2.2% 2.1%

Malawi 3.6% 1.5% 3.4% 2.5% 4.4% 4.0% 4.3% 3.4% 3.0% 2.9% 3.3%

Mauritius 3.3% 4.1% 4.0% 4.3% 3.4% 3.5% 3.7% 3.8% 2.8% 2.6% 3.6%

Namibia

Seychelles 0.3% 0.4% 0.6% 0.3% 0.5% 0.6% 1.0% 1.0% 1.1% 1.0% 0.7%

South Africa 2.6% 2.7% 2.9% 2.4% 2.2% 2.4% 2.5% 3.2% 4.5% 3.2% 2.9%

Tanzania 3.0% 2.3% 5.9% 6.3% 5.4% 5.3% 6.4% 6.7% 3.6% 0.4% 4.5%

Zambia 1.9% 2.0% 1.8% 2.9% 3.2% 2.7% 3.0% 3.4% 3.2% 3.0% 2.7%

Zimbabwe 3.0% 1.6% 1.5% 1.8% 5.4% 22.3% 24.9% 11.7% 15.7% 12.3% 10.0%

SADC 2.6% 2.9% 3.2% 2.7% 2.5% 2.7% 2.8% 3.0% 3.4% 2.8% 2.9%

*Defined as the ratio of the country’s trade with other members of the REC to the country’s GDP

Table 2 – Degree of Regional Trade Integration in COMESA, EAC and SADCDegree of Regional Trade Integration in COMESA

Country 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2000-2009

Burundi 13.9% 12.1% 20.9% 23.4% 25.2% 19.7% 15.6% 22.7% 18.1% 18.6% 19.0%

Comoros 15.1% 9.6% 7.9% 8.4% 9.7% 11.0% 9.8% 10.6% 8.4% 8.1% 9.9%

Congo DR 4.6% 11.9% 6.6% 8.3% 12.5% 13.9% 16.1% 20.1% 16.0% 19.0% 12.9%

Djibouti 11.1% 19.9% 13.9% 17.8% 8.3% 8.6% 8.3% 3.0% 2.4% 2.3% 9.6%

Egypt 1.3% 19.9% 13.9% 17.8% 8.3% 8.6% 8.3% 3.0% 2.4% 2.3% 8.6%

Ethiopia 7.1% 9.9% 8.3% 9.6% 5.1% 5.7% 6.6% 4.6% 5.0% 3.6% 6.5%

Kenya 12.8% 14.6% 15.9% 15.5% 15.3% 11.7% 10.2% 10.0% 10.4% 10.4% 12.7%

Libya 0.7% 0.6% 0.8% 0.9% 0.5% 0.7% 0.6% 0.7% 1.4% 2.2% 0.9%

Madagascar 2.4% 5.1% 6.4% 5.4% 4.1% 4.0% 2.8% 4.2% 3.2% 3.4% 4.1%

Malawi 14.6% 8.1% 14.8% 12.4% 15.2% 14.6% 17.1% 15.0% 13.8% 12.2% 13.8%

Mauritius 4.3% 5.3% 4.9% 5.8% 4.6% 4.2% 4.2% 4.9% 4.0% 4.1% 4.6%

Rwanda 21.8% 16.2% 19.5% 23.7% 16.0% 23.6% 23.1% 26.5% 38.6% 40.1% 24.9%

Seychelles 3.3% 2.6% 4.6% 2.3% 3.6% 3.2% 5.2% 5.2% 5.8% 6.5% 4.2%

Sudan 3.6% 4.4% 3.9% 5.3% 5.0% 5.3% 5.5% 4.6% 6.0% 7.7% 5.1%

Uganda 28.8% 26.4% 27.6% 26.8% 25.2% 27.7% 20.3% 21.5% 20.5% 23.4% 24.8%

Zambia 9.7% 9.4% 9.6% 13.7% 12.0% 10.1% 8.4% 8.6% 10.7% 11.8% 10.4%

Zimbabwe 4.4% 4.3% 7.7% 3.4% 6.4% 30.6% 30.7% 10.5% 10.6% 12.6% 12.1%

COMESA 3.7% 9.6% 9.1% 10.2% 6.8% 7.2% 6.6% 4.6% 4.5% 5.1% 6.7%

94 FACILITATING MULTILATERAL FISCAL SURVEILLANCE IN MONETARY UNION CONTEXT WITH FOCUS ON COMESA REGION

Degree of Regional Trade Integration for EAC

Country 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2000-2009

Burundi 13.9% 12.1% 20.9% 23.4% 25.2% 19.7% 15.6% 22.7% 18.1% 18.6% 19.0%

Kenya 12.8% 14.6% 15.9% 15.5% 15.3% 11.7% 10.2% 10.0% 10.4% 10.4% 12.7%

Rwanda 21.8% 16.2% 19.5% 23.7% 16.0% 23.6% 23.1% 26.5% 38.6% 40.1% 24.9%

Tanzania 12.1% 9.4% 18.7% 18.2% 14.4% 13.0% 12.7% 12.1% 8.8% 1.5% 12.1%

Uganda 28.8% 26.4% 27.6% 26.8% 25.2% 27.7% 20.3% 21.5% 20.5% 23.4% 24.8%

EAC 14.6% 19.0% 19.4% 18.2% 17.1% 15.7% 13.8% 11.9% 11.3% 14.1% 15.5%

Regional trade opening (RITO)* for SADC

Country 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2000-2009

Angola 15.6% 9.7% 11.6% 11.0% 7.6% 7.3% 6.7% 6.6% 4.7% 4.2% 8.5%

Botswana

Comoros 15.1% 9.6% 7.9% 8.4% 9.7% 11.0% 9.8% 10.6% 8.4% 8.1% 9.9%

Lesotho

Madagascar 2.4% 5.1% 6.4% 5.4% 4.1% 4.0% 2.8% 4.2% 3.2% 3.4% 4.1%

Malawi 14.6% 8.1% 14.8% 12.4% 15.2% 14.6% 17.1% 15.0% 13.8% 12.2% 13.8%

Mauritius 4.3% 5.3% 4.9% 5.8% 4.6% 4.2% 4.2% 4.9% 4.0% 4.1% 4.6%

Namibia

Seychelles 3.3% 2.6% 4.6% 2.3% 3.6% 3.2% 5.2% 5.2% 5.8% 6.5% 4.2%

South Africa 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 5.7% 5.3% 5.6% 5.3% 6.2% 7.7% 7.5% 6.1%

Tanzania 12.1% 9.4% 18.7% 18.2% 14.4% 13.0% 12.7% 12.1% 8.8% 1.5% 12.1%

Zambia 9.7% 9.4% 9.6% 13.7% 12.0% 10.1% 8.4% 8.6% 10.7% 11.8% 10.4%

Zimbabwe 4.4% 4.3% 7.7% 3.4% 6.4% 30.6% 30.7% 10.5% 10.6% 12.6% 12.1%

SADC 5.4% 5.7% 6.1% 5.6% 5.1% 5.5% 5.1% 5.1% 5.2% 5.5% 5.4%

* Defined as the ratio of the country’s trade with other members of the REC to the country’s GDP

95APPENDIX 2: TABLE 1 – REGIONAL TRADE OPENING (RITO) INDICES FOR COMESA, EAC AND SADC

Table 3 – Relative integration of each country vis-à-vis other members (REIN) for COMESA, EAC and SADCRelative integration of each country vis-à-vis other members (REIN)* for COMESA

Country 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2000-2009

Burundi 1.0% 0.3% 0.5% 0.5% 0.7% 0.6% 0.7% 0.9% 0.7% 0.8% 0.7%

Comoros 0.5% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%

Congo DR 3.0% 3.5% 2.2% 1.9% 4.2% 4.3% 5.3% 10.2% 9.7% 9.7% 5.4%

Djibouti 3.1% 3.1% 1.8% 2.2% 1.3% 1.3% 1.4% 0.7% 0.6% 0.5% 1.6%

Egypt 13.6% 54.5% 55.1% 59.6% 44.4% 41.9% 43.6% 23.8% 18.9% 17.4% 37.3%

Ethiopia 3.5% 2.2% 1.7% 1.5% 0.9% 0.8% 0.8% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 1.3%

Kenya 23.2% 13.2% 12.7% 10.8% 14.8% 12.1% 11.1% 16.3% 15.7% 15.4% 14.5%

Libya 4.5% 1.4% 1.8% 1.9% 1.9% 2.6% 2.5% 4.4% 9.0% 11.3% 4.1%

Madagascar 1.3% 1.5% 1.2% 1.4% 1.6% 1.1% 1.1% 1.6% 1.4% 1.7% 1.4%

Malawi 5.0% 1.1% 2.2% 1.5% 2.5% 2.0% 2.0% 2.6% 2.3% 2.3% 2.4%

Mauritius 5.5% 3.0% 2.8% 2.7% 2.8% 2.2% 2.1% 2.9% 2.1% 2.1% 2.8%

Rwanda 2.7% 1.0% 1.3% 1.4% 1.7% 1.6% 1.6% 2.8% 4.9% 4.8% 2.4%

Seychelles 0.5% 0.3% 0.4% 0.2% 0.4% 0.4% 0.5% 0.7% 0.8% 0.8% 0.5%

Sudan 4.0% 2.5% 2.4% 3.2% 5.2% 6.1% 6.4% 8.3% 10.7% 10.5% 5.9%

Uganda 14.1% 6.2% 6.2% 5.7% 7.9% 7.9% 6.1% 10.6% 10.4% 10.2% 8.6%

Zambia 6.5% 3.2% 2.8% 3.8% 5.9% 4.4% 4.9% 7.6% 7.0% 6.8% 5.3%

Zimbabwe 8.1% 2.7% 4.9% 1.5% 3.3% 10.5% 9.8% 5.6% 5.0% 5.0% 5.7%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Relative integration of each country vis-à-vis other members (REIN)* for EAC

Country 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2000-2009

Burundi 1.0% 0.3% 0.5% 0.5% 0.7% 0.6% 0.7% 0.9% 0.7% 0.8% 0.7%

Kenya 23.2% 13.2% 12.7% 10.8% 14.8% 12.1% 11.1% 16.3% 15.7% 15.4% 14.5%

Rwanda 2.7% 1.0% 1.3% 1.4% 1.7% 1.6% 1.6% 2.8% 4.9% 4.8% 2.4%

Tanzania 5.0% 13.1% 13.7% 11.1% 10.1% 9.6% 10.5% 5.7% 0.5% 4.9% 8.4%

Uganda 14.1% 6.2% 6.2% 5.7% 7.9% 7.9% 6.1% 10.6% 10.4% 10.2% 8.6%

96 FACILITATING MULTILATERAL FISCAL SURVEILLANCE IN MONETARY UNION CONTEXT WITH FOCUS ON COMESA REGION

Relative integration of each country vis-à-vis other members (REIN)* for SADC

Country 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2000-2009

Angola 7.3% 6.9% 6.7% 8.0% 7.2% 6.4% 7.1% 6.7% 6.3% 6.0% 6.8%

Botswana

Comoros 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2%

Lesotho

Madagascar 0.8% 1.9% 1.5% 1.9% 1.6% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1% 1.5% 1.4%

Malawi 2.9% 1.4% 2.8% 2.2% 2.6% 2.1% 2.2% 2.0% 1.8% 2.0% 2.2%

Mauritius 3.2% 3.8% 3.6% 3.9% 2.9% 2.3% 2.3% 2.2% 1.7% 1.8% 2.8%

Namibia

Seychelles 0.3% 0.3% 0.5% 0.2% 0.4% 0.4% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.7% 0.5%

South Africa 71.6% 65.1% 61.3% 64.7% 65.7% 62.1% 59.9% 71.5% 78.6% 72.7% 67.3%

Tanzania 5.0% 13.1% 13.7% 11.1% 10.1% 9.6% 10.5% 5.7% 0.5% 4.9% 8.4%

Zambia 3.8% 3.9% 3.5% 5.5% 6.0% 4.7% 5.3% 5.8% 5.4% 5.9% 5.0%

Zimbabwe 4.7% 3.4% 6.3% 2.2% 3.4% 11.1% 10.8% 4.2% 3.9% 4.3% 5.4%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

SADC

* Defined as the ratio of the country’s trade with other members of REC to total intraregional trade.