Botswana�s budget lacks transparency � Survey
Isaac Pinielo | Friday March 11, 2016 13:48
The Open Budget Index is the world’s only independent and comparative measure of budget transparency.
Botswana’s score of 47 out of 100 on the 2015 Open Budget Index is a little higher than the global average score of 45 and is largely the same as its score in 2012.
According to the 2015 index, government provides the public with limited budget information, adding that the government is weak in providing the public with opportunities to engage in the budget process.
The Open Budget Survey draws on internationally accepted criteria developed by multilateral organisations and uses 109 indicators to measure budget transparency.
These indicators are used to assess whether the central government makes eight key budget documents available to the public in a timely manner and whether the data contained in these documents are comprehensive and useful. Each country is given a score out of 100, which determines its ranking on the Open Budget Index.
According to the index, since 2012 the government increased the availability of budget information by improving the comprehensiveness of the Enacted Budget, Citizens Budget and Year-End Report.
However, it says the government decreased the availability of budget information by reducing the comprehensiveness of the Executive’s Budget Proposal as well as the Pre-Budget Statement. Moreover, the index asserts that the government failed to make progress in making the In-Year Reports and Mid-Year Review available to the public.
“Evidence suggests that transparency alone is insufficient for improving governance, and public participation in budgeting can maximise the positive outcomes associated with greater budget transparency,” reads the index in part.
To measure public participation, the Open Budget Survey assesses the degree to which the government provides opportunities for the public to engage in budget processes.
“Such opportunities should be provided throughout the budget cycle by the executive, the legislature, and the supreme audit institution,” it says.
When assessing Botswana in regional comparison on elements of public participation, the index says Botswana’s score of 19 out of 100 indicates that the provision of opportunities for the public to engage in the budget process is weak. This is lower than the global average score of 25, it says.
Examining the extent to which legislatures and supreme audit institutions are able to provide effective oversight of the budget, the index notes that the legislature provides limited oversight during the planning stage of the budget cycle and adequate oversight during the implementation stage of the budget cycle.
It states that the legislature does not have a specialised budget research office, adding that a pre-budget debate by the legislature does not take place.
The index further says that regular consultations on budget matters between the executive and the legislature do not take place.
On oversight by the supreme audit institution, the index says the institution provides adequate budget oversight, adding that under the law, it has full discretion to undertake audits as it sees fit. Moreover, the index observes that the head of the supreme audit institution cannot be removed without legislative or judicial approval, which bolsters its independence.
It also says the supreme audit institution is provided with sufficient resources to fulfill its mandate and has an adequate quality assurance system in place.
Against this backdrop, the Open Budget Index recommended that, in order to improve budget transparency, Botswana should prioritise publishing In-Year Reports and a Mid-Year Review.
It suggested that the government should also increase the comprehensiveness of the executive’s budget proposal by presenting the classification of expenditures for future years and the classification of revenues for future years.
It says the comprehensiveness of the Year-End Report by presenting information on planned versus actual macroeconomic forecasts and information on planned versus actual performance should be increased.
The index also suggests that to improve budget participation, Botswana should prioritise providing detailed feedback on how public perspectives have been captured and taken into account.
It says there should be legislative hearings on the budgets of specific ministries, departments, and agencies as well as on audit reports at which testimony from the public is heard.
The government also has to establish formal mechanisms for the public to assist the supreme audit institution to formulate its audit programme. On strengthening budget oversight, the index suggests that Botswana should prioritise establishing a specialised budget research office for the legislature.
It says the government should also ensure that the legislature holds a pre-budget debate and the outcome is reflected in the Enacted Budget, as well as establishing regular consultations on budget matters between the executive and the legislature.