The Uganda Country Integrated FiduciaryAssessment (CIFA) consolidates (in five volumes) theresults, and recommendations of various diagnosticprocesses, including the Public Expenditure Review (PER),the Country Financial Accountability Assessment (CFAA), theCountry Procurement Assessment report (CPAR), the TrackingPoverty, Reducing Spending Assessment, and the LocalGovernment Integrated Fiduciary Assessment (LGIFA). Thisintegrated approach is designed to address comprehensivelythe budgetary, financial accountability, and transparencychallenges that Uganda is facing. CIFA marks a first steptoward adopting a single standard assessment ofUganda's public financial management (PFM) systems forall levels of government. The report provides the Governmentof Uganda (GoU), its development partners (DPs), and otherstakeholders with a candid review of the public sectorchallenges, and an assessment of the key fiduciary risks,and opportunities for corrupt practices. Fiduciary risk isdefined as the risk that expenditure is not properlyaccounted for, that it is not used for its intendedpurposes, and that it does not represent value for money(VFM). The assessment shows that in the last four years theGoU has made significant progress in strengthening, andupdating the legal framework, and regulatory environment forPFM, thus reducing the risk associated with a lack of clearrules and regulations. In addition, the GoU has reduced thefiduciary risks associated with poor budget formulation, andpreparation through the PER process. The quality ofinformation provided in the annual accounts also hasimproved. Notwithstanding, there remains high fiduciaryrisk, associated with: the enforcement of procurement, andpayroll rules and procedures; the incompleteness of data ondebt and contingent liabilities; weak independent oversight;and, the timeliness and effectiveness of legislative andpublic scrutiny. The Local Government Integrated FiduciaryAssessment (LGIFA) highlights the considerable progress madeover the last decade in providing services at the locallevel; from this base, however, it notes with concern thatthe budgeting and planning processes at LGs are poor atarticulating specific local needs within overall nationalobjectives, and policies. The assessment also raisesconcerns over the ability, desire, and willingness of localresidents, and politicians to hold their administrations toaccount for their performance.
PDF
download
878987797
028-85220240
