[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 42 (Monday, March 4, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14149-14151]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04914]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8213]


2012 Fiscal Transparency Report

AGENCY: Department of State.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of State hereby presents the findings from the 
2012 Fiscal Transparency review process in its first annual Fiscal 
Transparency Report. 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.

FY 2012 Fiscal Transparency Report

    The Department of State hereby presents the findings from the 2012 
Fiscal Transparency review process in its first annual Fiscal 
Transparency Report. Fiscal transparency is a critical element of 
effective public financial management, helps build market confidence, 
and sets the stage for economic sustainability. Transparency also 
provides a window into government budgets for citizens of any country, 
allowing them to hold their leadership accountable. The International 
Monetary Fund 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.''
    For the United States, 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 
creates a dialogue with governments to improve their fiscal 
performance, leading to greater macroeconomic stability and better 
development outcomes. This year, the Department assessed more than 140 
countries that received or were considered for U.S. foreign assistance 
via their central governments.
    The Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs 
Appropriations Act, 2012 (Div. I, Pub. L. 112-74) (SFOAA) prohibits 
U.S. assistance to the central government of any country that does not 
meet minimum standards of fiscal transparency, unless the Secretary of 
State determines that a waiver is important to the U.S. national 
interest. For countries that did not meet the minimum standards, the 
Department of State 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

    The Department of State assessed fiscal transparency in more than 
140 countries in which central governments were receiving U.S. foreign 
assistance. The Department examines whether countries meet minimum 
standards of fiscal transparency, and whether the country has made 
progress in meeting those standards. Progress on fiscal transparency 
often includes publishing adequate budget documents, improved 
monitoring, or more robust accounting procedures that detail 
expenditures.
    The Department used information from U.S. embassies and consulates 
and international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund 
and multilateral development banks. U.S. diplomatic missions engaged 
with foreign government officials, nongovernmental and international 
organizations, and civil society to obtain information for these 
assessments.
    Using this information, for countries that did not meet the 
standard, U.S. diplomatic missions developed and implemented actions 
plans to work with governments, international organizations, and 
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to improve the availability, 
reliability, and content of budget documentation. Such plans present 
short and long-term actions and goals that the foreign government can 
take, often with assistance from

[[Page 14150]]

multilateral institutions such as the World Bank and IMF already 
engaged in similar efforts, to improve budget transparency. Examples 
include implementing a financial management system to help provide 
internal controls, approving freedom of information legislation, 
funding NGOs to provide training on budget oversight, or coordinating 
with international organizations to monitor budget transparency issues.

Minimum Standards of Fiscal Transparency

    The SFOAA 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 fiscal transparency review process evaluated whether the 
central governments of countries receiving U.S. foreign assistance 
publicly disclosed budget documentation and related data, 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. 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. This picture 
should include, 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 data should be reliable, 
meaning that they are timely and accurate. Actual receipts and 
expenditures should reasonably correlate to the budget plan. 
Significant departures from planned receipts and expenditures should be 
explained in supplementary budget documentation that is publicly 
disclosed in a timely manner.
     Transparent: ``Public disclosure'' is broadly interpreted 
to mean that the information is available on-line, at government 
offices or libraries, on request from the ministry, or for purchase 
(nominal fee) at a government office.
    The Department recognizes that the specific circumstances and 
practices that undermine fiscal transparency differ between countries. 
The review process takes a tailored approach in evaluating countries to 
make a determination of whether or not the central government provides 
an adequate level of budget detail to enable participation, monitoring, 
and feedback from civil society groups.

Conclusions of Review Process

    For fiscal year 2012, the Department reviewed more than 140 
countries where central governments receive U.S. government assistance 
to determine which countries did not meet minimum transparency 
standards. Of those 140 countries, 34 were determined to be non-
transparent; 32 of those non-transparent countries made progress in 
meeting the minimum standards of fiscal transparency.
    The following table lists the 34 countries found non-transparent, 
including information on whether the Department made a determination of 
progress or no progress.

 U.S. Department of State FY 2012 Fiscal Transparency Report Pursuant to
    the Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs
        Appropriations Act, 2012 (Div. I, Pub. L. 112-74) (SFOAA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Countries whose central governments received or
 were considered for  SFOAA assistance assessed    Progress       No
              to be non-transparent                            progress
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afghanistan.....................................          X   ..........
Algeria.........................................          X   ..........
Angola..........................................          X   ..........
Burma...........................................          X   ..........
Cambodia........................................          X   ..........
Cameroon........................................          X   ..........
Central African Republic........................          X   ..........
Chad............................................          X   ..........
Cote d'Ivoire...................................          X   ..........
Dominican Republic..............................          X   ..........
DRC.............................................          X   ..........
Egypt...........................................          X   ..........
Equatorial Guinea...............................          X   ..........
Ethiopia........................................          X   ..........
Gabon...........................................          X   ..........
Guinea..........................................          X   ..........
Guinea Bissau...................................          X   ..........
Haiti...........................................          X   ..........
Kyrgyz Republic.................................          X   ..........
Lebanon.........................................          X   ..........
Libya...........................................          X   ..........
Nicaragua.......................................  ..........          X
Niger...........................................          X   ..........
Saudi Arabia....................................          X   ..........
Somalia.........................................          X   ..........
South Sudan.....................................          X   ..........
Swaziland.......................................          X   ..........
Suriname........................................          X   ..........
Tajikistan......................................          X   ..........

[[Page 14151]]

 
Turkmenistan....................................          X   ..........
Uzbekistan......................................          X   ..........
Vietnam.........................................          X   ..........
Yemen...........................................  ..........          X
Zimbabwe........................................          X   ..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Dated: February 15, 2013.
Thomas R. Nides,
Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources, Department of 
State.
[FR Doc. 2013-04914 Filed 3-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-07-P