1

:jfutd\;fj{hlgs vr{ tyf ljlQo pQ/bfloTj -

PEFA_M sfof{Gjogsf kIfx?

k|:t'tstf{ M;'/]z k|wfg

;+of]hs -;x dxfn]vf lgoGqs_, k]kmf ;lrjfno, sf7df8f}+kf]v/f, @)^( r}q !%

k|:t'tLsf ljifoj:t' ;fj{hlgs ljlQo Joj:yfkg / o:sf] If]q;fj{hlgs vr{ tyf ljlQo hjfkmb]lxtfsf]

cjwf/0ff -k]kmf_ k]kmfsf] ljsf;qmd -Phases of

Development_g]kfndf k]kmfsf] ljsf;

k]kmf d"NofFsg k|ltj]bg -@))*_, k]kmfsf] ;"rsx? -Indicators_ sfof{Gjog ;+oGq

g]kfndf k]kmf ;"rsx? ;'wf/sf] ;Gbe{df vr{ ug]{ lgsfox?sf] e"ldsf

2

;fj{hlgs ljlQo Joj:yfkg s'g} klg ;/sf/sf] ;du| ljlQo ljifo / If]q -kl/lw_ sf] Joj:yfkg g} ;fj{hlgs ljlQo Joj:yfkg xf] .

L D White " Finance and Administration cannot be divorced. Each administration act has financial implications as inseparable as a man and his shadow. Nothing can be done without the expenditure of money at the very minimum for the composition of the individual or employee who act. Finance is therefore one of the inescapable responsibilities of the government executives."

A good PFM System is prerequisite for GOOD GOVERNANCE.

6

;fj{hlgs ljlQo Joj:yfkgsf] cjojx? gLlt, of]hgf / sfo{qmd

ah]6 k|0ffnL/fh:j jf cGo k|fKtLsf] Joj:yfkgvr{ Joj:yfkglgsf;f, vr{ / vr{ >f]t Joj:yfkgsf]if Joj:yfkg -vftf k|jfx, ;dli6 cfly{s

sf/f]jf/ ;dfj]z_;fj{hlgs vl/b Joj:yfkg,cfGtl/s lgoGq0f, C0fsf] Joj:yfkg

n]vfFsg, k|ltj]bg tyf ljlQo k|ltj]bgclGtd n]vfk/LIf0f, cfGtl/s tyf afXo lgu/fgL

7

PEFA : ConceptPEFA is basically a measurement tool that is PEFA is basically a measurement tool that is

globally designed and accepted Indicators globally designed and accepted Indicators in PFMin PFM It measures the performances of countryIt measures the performances of country’’s PFM s PFM

SystemSystem A mechanism for assessing the quality of A mechanism for assessing the quality of

aggregate financial activities of the countryaggregate financial activities of the country

Aims to Improve the Governance and Aims to Improve the Governance and Accountability : Accountability : through achievement of through achievement of Efficiency, Effectiveness, Transparency and Efficiency, Effectiveness, Transparency and Accountability and minimizing the fiduciary Accountability and minimizing the fiduciary risk in PFMrisk in PFM

8

PEFA : Concept PEFA Program grew out of a realization that in

many developing countries PFM systems remain weak, even after many years of

external assistance, and were not improving sufficiently to support countries'

own development objectives or expectations of donors.

Promotes a coordinated approach to the assessment of the quality of PFM performances

Helps to assess the condition of country public expenditure, procurement and financial accountability systems.

Assists developing practical sequence of actions for PFM reform and capacity building.

PEFA helps to improve country PFM system performance for strengthened economic growth and government service delivery. 9

k]kmfsf] p2]Zox? ;du| ljlQo cg'zf;g kfngf

ug]{ -GDP, Recurrent Expenditure

& Resource Limit etc_ >f]t ;fwgx?sf] /0fgLlts

jfF8kmfF8 >f]tsf] k|of]udf k|efjsfl/tf,

s'zntf, kf/blz{tf / hjfkmb]lxtf kfngf ug]{

;]jf k|jfxdf ;'wf/ ug]{ -gub k|If]k0fLo cj:yf, >f]tsf] clwsf/ k|Tofof]hg cflb_

ljlQo hf]lvd 36fpg] -j]?h', bft[ lgsfosf] /sd cefj, cgfjZos ljlQo bfloTj cflb_ 10

• PEFA as the Program was founded in December 2001 as a multi-donor partnership between: The World Bank, The European Commission, The UK’s Department for

International Development, The Swiss State Secretariat

for Economic Affairs, The French Ministry of

Foreign Affairs, The Royal Norwegian

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and

The International Monetary Fund. 11

The Global PEFA Partners

• Phase I: Development (2001-2005) Formulation of Strengthened Approach

to supporting PFM Reform and Development of PFM Performance

Measurement Framework (PEFA Framework)

•Phase II: Dissemination (2006-2008) Roll-out of the PEFA Framework

Globally Focus on compliance with PEFA

methodology

•Phase III: Integration (2009-2011) Monitoring changes in PFM system

performances over time Enhance dissemination, donor

collaboration, and country ownership.

•Phase IV: Global Public Goods (2012-2017)

Enhance Global relevance of the PEFA Framework

Outreach to all PEFA stakeholder groups

Build the PEFA knowledge platform 12

•Since its introduction in 2005, the PEFA framework has been applied in over 160 countries (Covers 70 % of countries worldwide).

•285 PEFA Assessments have been conducted in more than 135 countries around the globe by April 2012.

•103 Sub-national assessment have been completed by April 2012.

•Through PEFA Framework many countries have been able to reduce fiduciary risks and consolidate impact of financial reforms.

•4th Phase of PEFA Program (1012-17 ) has made PEFA a "Global Public Goods".

PFM Links to Development Goals

13

PFM system performance

Budgetary Outcomes

Fiscal/Exp Policy Goals

Service Delivery Goals

Dev Goals

MDGs, PRSP, Political Manifesto

MDGs, PRSP, Political Manifesto

Budget deficit, Sector allocations, Investment, Debt

ratio, Tax burden etc

Budget deficit, Sector allocations, Investment, Debt

ratio, Tax burden etc

Fiscal discipline, Strategic allocation, Operational

efficiency

Fiscal discipline, Strategic allocation, Operational

efficiency

Other influencing factors

14

NEPALPFM High-Level Performance Indicator Set (PEFA

Indicators)

15

Performance High Level Indicators

Performance Indicators (PI)

28+3Thematic Groups and Indicators Score

A. PFM

OU

TTURN

S

I. CREDIBILITY OF THE BUDGETPI-1 Aggregate expenditure outturn compared to original approved budget B

PI-2 Composition of expenditure outturn compared to original approved budget C

PI-3 Aggregate revenue outturn compared to original approved budget A

PI-4 Stock and monitoring of expenditure payment arrears D+

B. KEY CROSS-CU

TTING

ISSU

ES

II. COMPREHENSIVENESS AND TRANSPARENCYPI-5 Classification of the budget C

PI-6 Comprehensiveness of information included in budget documentation B

PI-7 Extent of unreported government operations C

PI-8 Transparency of inter-governmental fiscal relations C

PI-9 Oversight of aggregate fiscal risk from other public sector entities D+

PI-10 Public access to key fiscal information B

C. BUD

GET

CYCLE III. POLICY- BASED BUDGETING

PI-11 Orderliness and participation in the annual budget process C+

PI-12 Multi-year perspective in fiscal planning, expenditure policy and budgeting C+

16

Performance Indicators

Performance Indicators (PI)

28+3Thematic Groups and Indicators Score

C. B

UD

GE

T C

YC

LE

IV. PREDICTABILITY AND CONTROL IN BUDGET EXECUTION

PI-13 Transparency of taxpayer obligations and liabilities C+

PI-14 Effectiveness of measures for taxpayer registration and tax assessment C

PI-15 Effectiveness in collection of tax payments D+

PI-16 Predictability in the availability of funds for commitment of expenditures C+

PI-17 Recording and management of cash balances, debt and guarantees C+

PI-18 Effectiveness of payroll controls C

PI-19 Competition, value for money and controls in procurement C

PI-20 Effectiveness of internal controls for non-salary expenditure C

PI-21 Effectiveness of internal audit D+

V. ACCOUNTING, RECORDING and REPORTINGPI-22 Timeliness and regularity of accounts reconciliation C+

PI-23 Availability of information on resources received by service delivery units C

PI-24 Quality and timeliness of in-year budget reports C+

PI-25 Quality and timeliness of annual financial statements C+

VI. EXTERNAL SCRUTINY AND AUDITPI-26 Scope, nature and follow-up of external audit D+

PI-27 Legislative scrutiny of the annual budget law D+

PI-28 Legislative scrutiny of external audit reports D+

D. D

ON

OR

PRACTICES

DONOR PRACTICESPI-29 Predictability of Direct Budget Support D

PI-30 Financial information provided by donors for budgeting and reporting on project and program aid D

PI-31 Proportion of aid that is managed by use of national procedures D

PEFA in Nepal: PEFA Assessment

Initiated reform through establishing the PFM bench mark after conducting Country Financial Accountability Assessment (CFAA) in 2002 (updated in 2005)

PEFA assessment started in August 2005 jointly by Government of Nepal and the World Bank

Publication of PEFA Report ( in February 2008) : An Assessment of the PFM Performance Measurement Framework (based on FY 2005/06)

17

PEFA and NepalPEFA Assessment was conducted in 2007-08 and

Report published in 2008 with 31 performance indicators (of which 3 are Donors related) which are recognised globally,

Based on PFM strategy, Development Action Plan (DAP) has been formulated identifying 147 immediate and intermediate activities to be performed,

PEFA Steering Committee (14 Member Chaired by Finance Secretary) and Working Committee ( 11 Member Chaired by PEFA Coordinator) formed in 2009,

PEFA Secretariat established in 2009 which is led by a Coordinator with 7 professional staff,

PEFA Implementation Units (PIUs) formed both at Centre (16) and Local Level (54) till current date,

The Secretariat is accountable to the PEFA Steering Committee. 18

Nepal : Assessment of PFMThe assessment of Nepal’s performance in PFM suggests the Existence of a system that is well-designed but unevenly

implemented. Budget has become a credible policy tool, clearly linked to policies

in some sectors, with solid control of aggregate outturns and a reasonable control framework at the transaction level (notably for

payroll). Many gaps in :

the control frameworkSignificant implementation constraints, and large fiscal activities remain outside the scope of the central

budget. Several weaknesses originate in the weak demand (from both

Government and external stakeholders) for better budget information (financial and physical) and management .

19

20

Committee/Units

Chairperson Member Member Secretary

PEFA Steering Committee

Secretary , MoF

Financial Comptroller General Secretary ; NPC, MFALD, MPPW,

MHP, MoE, PPMO Deputy Auditor General, OAG Joint Secretary, FACD / MoF Joint Secretary, Budget Division /

MoF President, FNCCI President Transparency

International

Coordinator, PEFA Secretariat

PEFA Working Committee

Coordinator, PEFA SC

Representative; JS-MoFALD, OAG, MoF, NPC, PPMO, MoE, MoHP, MPPW

DFCG/ Member Secretary of PEFA Sc

PEFA Implementation Units (PIUs)

Coordinator:Head of the Planning Division

Head of the planning section Head of the Administration

Section Head of the M&E Section

Head of the Finance Section

District PEFA Implementation Units (DPIUs)

Coordinator: DTCO Chief

Planning and Admin Officer, DDC

Engineer (nominated by the Coordinator)

Representative, Dist. Admin Office Representative, FNCCI Representative, Civil Society

Officer,(Nominated by the Coordinator)

Implementation Mechanism

21

PEFA Implementation Flow

GoN/MoF

Steering Committee

Public Account

Committee (PAC)

Other Agencies• OAG• PPMO• CIAA• NVC• Local PFM

Donor Forum• ICAN• ASB• CSOs

Working Committee

PIUs

DPIUs

Line Ministries

and Departments

Line Agencies

and

Paying Offices

FCGO

DTCOs

PEFA Secretariat

National Planning Commission (NPC)

g]kfndf k]kmf ;"rsx?

;'wf/sf] ;Gbe{df vr{ ug]

{ lgsfox?sf] e"ldsf tyf of]ubfg ug'{kg]

{ kIfx?22

Policy-Based Budgetingk]k

mf ;'rs

gDj/

k]kmfsf] ;Gbe{df b]lvPsf] sdhf]/Lx?

vr{ ug]{ lgsfox?sf] e"ldsf tyf sfo{x?

Lack of engagement of the political leadership on the MTEF and budget preparation;

ah]6 / dWosflng vr{ ;+/rgfsf] ;Gbe{df /fhgLlts g]t[Tjsf] ;+nUgtf a9fpg k|oTg ug'{ kg]{

Inadequate engagement or understanding of the MTEF among middle and lower-level government officials;

dWosflng vr{ ;+/rgfsf] hfgsf/L ;a} sfof{no k|d'v jf sfof{Gjog ug]{ kbflwsf/Lx?n] cBfjlws 1fg xfl;n ug'{ kg]{

Uneven linkages between annual budgets and MTEFs; and

ah]6 agfpbf ah]6 / dWosflng vr{ ;+/rgf aLrsf] ;DaGw :ki6 ug]{

Incomplete sectoral “business plans” (in need of stronger monitoring of outputs).

;a} sfof{nox?n] If]qut Joj;flos of]hgf tof/ ug]{ - cfof]hgf, sfo{qmd / sfof{nosf] p2]Zo, nIo cg';f/ _

23

Predictability and Control in Budget Execution

k]kmf ;'

rs gDj/

k]kmfsf] ;Gbe{df b]lvPsf]

sdhf]/Lx?

vr{ ug]{ lgsfox?sf] e"ldsf tyf sfo{x?

Guaranteed cash releases for high priority (“P1”) projects But implementation is not satisfactory).

k|fyldstf k|fKt cfof]hgfdf /sdsf] cefj x'g glbg ;a} cfof]hgfx? gu/L If]qut dGqfnox?n] jf:tljstfsf] cfwf/df k|fyldlss/0fsf] sfo{ ug'{ kg]{

The Public Procurement Act (2007) is aligned with best international practice

;fj{hlgs vl/b P]g @)^# / lgodfjnL @)^$ cg';f/ vl/bsf] sf/jfxL eP gePsf] hfFr k/LIf0f u/L ;f] sfg"g Jojxf/df ptfg'{ kg]{

Payroll controls are also well developed.

tna eQfsf] lgoGq0f /fd|f] /x]sf] ePtf klg ;a} sd{rf/Lx?sf] tna eQf a}+s dfkm{t e'StfgL ug]{ Joj:yf ;a} sfof{nox?n] k|efjsf/L agfpg' kg]{

Internal audit is not effective and does not comply with international standards.

;a} sfof{nox?n] cfGtl/s lgoGq0f k|0ffnL k|efjsf/L agfO{ cfGtl/s n]vf k/LIf0fsf] sfo{ k|efjsf/L agfpg]

No commitment control. ah]6af6 cgfjZos ;/sf/L bfloTj l;h{gf gug]{ / vr{sf] k|ltj4tf - ;Demf}tf jf vl/b cfb]z_ kl5 clen]v ug]{ , lgsf;f sfod ubf{ Wofg lbg] / ah]6 / sfo{qmd agfpFbf Wofg lbg]

24

Predictability and Control in Budget Execution

k]kmf ;'rs gDj/ k]kmfsf] ;Gbe{df

b]lvPsf] sdhf]/Lx? vr{ ug]{ lgsfox?sf] e"ldsf tyf

sfo{x?

Little monitoring of actual expenditures and outputs

jf:tljs vr{sf] hfgsf/L / k|ltkmnsf] af/]df cg'udgsf] sfo{ sfof{nox?n] ug]{ sfo{df ;hu x'g]

Much progress remains to be made toward better accounting of revenues and services to taxpayers.

k|To]s sfof{non] /fh:jsf] - ljz]if u/L /fh:j cfh{g;+u ;DaGwL sfof{nox?_ lx;fj lstfj /fVg] ;dfof]hg ug]{ / k|ltj]bg ug]{ sfo{df ljz]if Wofg lbg' kg]{

Capital expenditure, which has tended to remain below the budgeted levels.

Joj;flos / vl/b of]hgf tyf ah]6 / sfo{qmdsf] :jLs[tLnfO{ dWogh/ /fvL k"FhLut vr{df ljz]if Wofg lbg' kg]{

Lack of or delays in preparing annual work plans

Joj;flos sfo{ of]hgfsf] cfwf/df jflif{s sfo{ of]hgf tof/ ug]{ sfo{df Wofg lbg' kg]{

Uncertainties related to donor funds.

cfkm\gf] sfo{qmd jf cfof]hgf;+u ;DaGwLt bft[ lgsfosf] ah]6 /sd cfly{s sfo{ljlw cg';f/ ah]6dfclgjfo{ ;dfj]z ug]{ / jftf{df o; s'/fdf ljz]if Wofg lbg]

25

Predictability and Control in Budget Execution

k]kmf ;'rs gDj/ k]kmfsf] ;Gbe{df

b]lvPsf] sdhf]/Lx?

vr{ ug]{ lgsfox?sf] e"ldsf tyf sfo{x?

Large Fiscal Activities outside the budget

cfkm\gf] sfof{nosf] ah]6df ;s];Dd ;a} cfly{s lqmofsnfkx? ;dfj]z ug]{

Lack of procurement plans ah]6 tyf sfo{qmd lgdf{0f ubf{ clgjfo{ ?kdf vl/b P]gsf] k|fjwfg / 9fFrf adf]lhd jflif{s tyf u'? vl/b of]hgf tof/ ug]{

Credibility is undermined by significant deviations in terms of expenditure composition (in part due to shortfalls in capital spending)

rfn' / k"FhLut vr{ aLr sfof{Gjogdf km/s kg{ u} s"n vr{df lgs} km/s kg]{ cj:yf cfpg glbg sfo{qmd jf k"FhLut vr{df hf]8 lbg' kg]{

non-PFM implementation constraints (e.g.conflict and security issues, technical capacity);

k|fjlws Ifdtfsf] ljsf; u/L vr{sf] sfo{df tLa|tf lbg] / ljlQo sfo{;+u ;DaGwLt gePsf] t/ sfddf afwf lbg] sfo{df ;dGjofTds ?kdf sfo{ ug]{

26

Comprehensiveness and transparencyk]kmf ;'rs gDj/

k]kmfsf] ;Gbe{df b]lvPsf] sdhf]/Lx?

vr{ ug]{ lgsfox?sf] e"ldsf tyf sfo{x?

budget is based on a good classification system (in need of minor improvements)

ah]6 jlu{s/0f ubf{ vr{sf] ;+s]t tyf jlu{s/0f lgb]{lzsf cg';f/ ug'{ kg]{

Budget is published. cfly{s sfo{ljlw sfg"g cg';f/ ah]6 / vr{ lgoldt ?kdf k|sflzt ug'{ kg]{

Reports on a “consolidated fund”

;/sf/sf] ;+lrt sf]ifsf] lx;fj b'?:t /fVg ;a} /sdx? ah]6df ;dfj]z ug]{ n]vfFsg sfo{ k|efjsf/L agfpg] k|of; ;a}af6 x'g' kg]{

Monitoring of some fiscal risks (notably, the situation of public enterprises).

ljlQo hf]lvdsf If]qx? klxrfg -j]?h', clVtof/L, sfo{qmd cflb_ u/L - ;a} vr{sf ah]6 lzif{s tyf ;+s]tx?df_ ;f] sf] lgoldt cg'udg ug]{

Growing— gap resulted from fiscal activities of many development funds and boards, and local governments.

dftxtsf ljsf; ;ldtL, ljsf; sf]ifx?sf] ljlQo lqmofsnfkx? lgoldt ?kdf lgu/fgL /fVg]

27

Accounting, Recording, and Reporting.k]kmf

;'rs gDj/ k]kmfsf] ;Gbe{df

b]lvPsf] sdhf]/Lx? vr{ ug]{ lgsfox?sf] e"ldsf tyf

sfo{x?

Cash-based accounting practices are generally well-established but accounts reconciliation has some problems in revenue accounts

gubdf cfwf/Lt n]vf eP klg /fh:j n]vfsf] ;dfof]hg tyf n]vfFsg lgoldt gePsf] ;Gbe{df /fh:j n]vf lgoldt tyf cBfjlws ug]{ tkm{ ;a} sfof{nox? ;hu / ;Ifd x'g' kg]{ / ;f] sfo{ ug'{ kg]{

Annual reporting and financial statements are timely and of acceptable quality (some gaps in content)

cGt//fli6o dfgb08 cg';f/ n]vfFsg gLlt tyf gf]6x? ;dfj]z u/L cfly{s ljj/0fx? tof/ ug]{ k|0ffnLnfO{ :yflkt ug{ k|of; ug]{ u/fpg]

Consolidated financial statements issued by FCGO for government use include basic accounting principles and assumptions.

;a} sfof{nox?n] jflif{s cfly{s ljj/0fdf n]vfsf l;4fGt tyf cg'dfg -gLLtx?_ ;dfj]z u/L tof/ ug]{ kl/kf6Lsf] ljsf; ug]{

Incomplete computerization for the timeliness and quality of accounting.

sDKo'6/sf] dfWodaf6 n]vf /fVG] - Computerised Government Accounting System_ k|0ffnL Jojxf/df nfu" ug]{

28

Accounting, Recording, and Reporting.k]kmf

;'rs gDj/ k]kmfsf] ;Gbe{df b]lvPsf]

sdhf]/Lx? vr{ ug]{ lgsfox?sf] e"ldsf

tyf sfo{x?

Within-year reporting is weak and is not publicized.

cfly{s jif{ aLr aLrdf ah]6 vr{ tyf sfo{qmdx?sf] k|ltj]bg ug]{ / k|sflzt ug]{ k|0ffnL ljsf; ug]{

No National Public Sector Accounting Standard

g]kfn n]vfdfg nfu" eP kl5 ;f] cg';f/ k|ltj]bg / n]vf /fVg] k|0ffnL ljsf; ug'{ kg]{

The audited consolidated financial statements (revenues and expenditure) do not include accounting policies and explanatory notes as required by IPSAS

n]vf k/LIf0f ePsf] jflif{s ljlQo k|ltj]bgdf n]vfFsg gLLt tyf v'nf;f ;dfj]z ug]{ kl/kf6L gePsf]n] n]vfdfg nfu" u/]kl5 ;f] cg';f/ ljj/0f tof/ ug'{ kg]{

The financial statements prepared by the line ministries, FCGO and OAG do not reconcile since the accounting system does not allow recording non-cash transactions (direct payments and commodity grant or aid or turnkey projects)

;f]em} e'StfgL, j:t'ut ;xfotf jf 6g{ sL cfof]hgfx?sf] ah]6 tyf vr{sf] n]vfFsg tyf k|ltj]bgsf] sfo{ ;DaGwLt C0f jf ;xfotf ;Demf}tf cg';f/ k|df0f ;+nUg u/L n]vfFsg ug]{ sf]n]lgsfx?df dfl;s ?kdf k|ltj]bg ug]{ tyf sf]n]lgsfx?n] TSA-DECS df k|fKt x'g;fy} k|ljli6 ug]{ ug'{ kg]{

29

External Scrutiny and Auditk]kmf ;'rs gDj

/

k]kmfsf] ;Gbe{df b]lvPsf] sdhf]/Lx?

vr{ ug]{ lgsfox?sf] e"ldsf tyf sfo{x?

Little evidence of follow-up for clearing “irregularities” identified by the Auditor General.

sfof{nox?n] k|f/lDes k|ltj]bgsf] hjfkm #% lbg jf Dofb yk]sf] eP ;f] cjlw leq lbg] ;fy} cGo cfly{s lqmofsnfk h:t} lgoldt ug]{ / c;"n ug]{ j]?h'nfO{ ;f] cg';f/ ug{ cg'udg ug]{

The annual audit reports, follow-up activities and external scrutiny focus more on “irregularities” as opposed to correcting systemic issues.

sfof{nox?n] ljlQo Joj:yfkgsf] j]?h' dfqdf ;Lldt g/xL Joj:yfkgsf] k|0ffnLut ;'wf/sf] nflu k|To]s sfof{non] sfo{ ug'{ kg]{

Lack of public access to information (including accounts of local governments; contracts),

vr{ tyf vl/b;DaGwL lqmofsnfkx?df ;s];Dd kf/blz{tf sfod ug]{ Joj:yf :yflkt ug'{ kg]{

Weak process to engage the legislature in discussing the MTEF and in scrutinizing the budget

;s];Dd ;+;bnfO{ dWosflng vr{ ;+/rgfsf] 5nkmndf ;dfj]z ug]{ k|s[ofdf ;'wf/ ug]{

30

PEFA: Problems and Challenges

31

Inadequate awareness of PEFA framework and processes Weak capacity development of all concerned on PEFA/PFM Political and bureaucratic commitment is not very encouraging

to promote the PEFA Process. Poor ownership and accountability towards PEFA by the sectors Poor focus to implement PEFA / DAP (Development Action Plan-

147) Report of Nepal No attention on Sub-nation PFM issues and measurement by the

PEFA-I Poor Coordination (mismatch) of efforts both by the government

and the development partners to enhance PEFA processes. Weak knowledge and skills to measure the performances of the

PEFA indicators Ever increasing fiduciary risk both in center and at local level .

32

wGojfb\