```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 58 (Wednesday, March 26, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16852-16854]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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
```