## tarea2024028

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [tarea2024028](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/tar/2024/english/tarea2024028.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/publications/tar/2024/english/tarea2024028.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/publications/tar/2024/english/tarea2024028.pdf.json)

---

### Preface — mission mandate, team and acknowledgements
- Mission mandate and timing:
  - Public Investment Management Assessment (PIMA) and Climate PIMA (C-PIMA) requested by Ministry of Finance (MoF) and Ministry of Planning and Economic Development (MPED).
  - Mission dates: September 27 to November 10, 2022.
- Mission leadership and team composition:
  - Team lead: Eivind Tandberg.
  - IMF FAD and LEG participants: Cristian Alonso (remotely), Jacques Charaoui, Tjeerd Tim, Mia Pineda (LEG), Katja Funke (FAD expert), Ed Hearne (FAD expert).
  - World Bank contributors and consultants: Nataliya Biletska, Hosam Hasan, Mohamed El Hafedh Hendah, Mohamed Yehia Abd El Karim, Sara Alnashar, Nazaneen Ismail Ali, Yosra Bedair (consultant), Dina Mohamed Eldemerdash Elkhishin (consultant).
- Senior-level engagement and consultations:
  - Meetings with MPED and MoF senior officials including Mr. Ahmed Kamaly, Mr. Ahmed Kouchouk, and presentation to Dr. Mohamed Maait.
  - Consultations with multiple ministries, agencies, public corporations, regulatory authorities, governorates, and local partners (listed in source).

### 10. Project selection — summary assessment and related PIM dimensions
- Overall project selection (Table 1):
  - Institutional Strength: LOW. "There are no institutional arrangements for the review of project appraisals, the creation of a project pipeline,  or the selection of projects according to defined criteria."
  - Effectiveness: LOW. "Projects are largely selected in an ad-hoc manner during the budget praparation process.t."
  - Reform priority: High
- Related PIM dimensions (selected):
  - Project appraisal: Institutional Strength: LOW. "2022 planning law requires that entities prepare project appraisal documents but there is no standardized methodology for this." Effectiveness: LOW. "There is no evidence of systemative and consistent project appraisal, nor of standardized methodologies for appraisal and risk analysis." Reform priority: High
  - Multi-year budgeting: Institutional Strength: LOW. "There are no medium-term projections or ceilings of capital spending by ministry or sector." Effectiveness: LOW. "Medium-term projections of capital spending are missing and changes in total construction costs are not identified and explained." Reform priority: High
  - Alternative infrastructure financing: Institutional Strength: LOW. "Competitive market strucures are yet to be introduced in key infrastructure markets, and regulators are strongly linked to policy ministries" Effectiveness: LOW. "SOEs play a dominant role in key infrastructure markets, while PPPs have not been used widely for infrastructure financing" Reform priority: High
  - Management of project implementation: Institutional Strength: LOW. "There are no central requirements for project management or project adjustment and there is no provision for publication of ex-post audits." Effectiveness: LOW. "Limited evidence of implementation arrangements prior to approval, adjustment proposals are not documented, audits are not published." Reform priority: High

- Key fiscal and investment context (selected figures and facts):
  - Total investment declined from roughly 25 percent of GDP in 1990 to 12 percent in 2014; public investment dropped from over 20 percent of GDP in the early 1990s to around 5 percent of GDP in the mid-2010s.
  - Public investment increased by 3 percentage points between 2014 and 2021.
  - Population: Egypt added 20 million people during 2011–20 and expects another 20 million during 2021–2030.
  - Projected additional annual public spending required to reach the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030: around 5.4 percent of GDP.
  - General government debt: declined from almost 100 percentage points of GDP in FY 2016/17 to 80.1 by FY 2019/20; reached 89.2 percent of GDP in FY 2021/22.
  - Guarantees for loans to public corporations amounted to 21 percent of GDP as of January 2022.
  - Interest bill for the general government in FY 2021/22: 7.2 percent of GDP.
  - PPP capital stock averaged around 2 percent of GDP over the last 15 years.
  - 2020/21 sectoral investment: Real estate 14 percent of portfolio (0.2 percent of GDP); Transportation 0.8 percent of GDP; Education 0.5 percent of GDP; Health 0.3 percent of GDP.
  - Public investment execution outside the budget: general government ~40 percent; economic authorities and public corporations combined 48 percent.
  - Public corporations' investment: 1.9 percent of GDP in 2010/11 to 1 percent of GDP in 2020/21.
  - Example of "central projects": new administrative capital built by Administrative Capital Company for Urban Development (ACDU), ownership 49 percent by NUCA and 51 percent by the armed forces.

- Summary recommendations (project appraisal, selection, financing — dates and responsibilities preserved):
  - Recommendation 1: Strengthen project appraisal and selection (High)
    - Issue regulation for appraisal, planning and implementation at each stage (2023).
    - Publish project appraisal methodology, including risk analysis (2024 – 25).
    - Establish procedure for project appraisal review and assurance (2024 - 25).
    - Define clear and transparent criteria and process for project selection (2024).
    - Responsible: MPED. MoF, line Ministries
  - Recommendation 2: Enable private sector involvement in public infrastructure provision (High)
    - Further deregulate markets, with fully independent regulators (2023 -).
    - Ensure PPPs integrated with the budget and fiscal implications reflected in headline fiscal indicators (2024).
    - Responsible: MPBS, MPED
  - Recommendation 3: Operationalize PFM law provisions for medium-term budgeting (High)
    - Publish medium-term capital budget and annual public sector investment plan with project-level details (2024).
    - Formalize mechanisms for distribution of resources to sub-national government entities (2023).
    - Improve accuracy of cash needs forecasting (2023 – 25).
    - Responsible: MPED, MoF
  - Recommendation 4: Strengthen asset management and ensure sufficient maintenance (High)
    - Consolidate asset registers (2024).
    - Standardize methodologies for assessment of maintenance needs and funding (2023).
    - Transparent reporting on maintenance spending (2023).
    - Responsible: MoF
  - Recommendation 5: Strengthen procurement, project and portfolio management (High)
    - Develop electronic government procurement system (2024).
    - Standardize project management model (2023).
    - Use ISIPPM to track cost, schedule and benefits (2023 – 25).
    - Undertake ex-post review of major projects (2024 – 25).
    - Mandate ASA to undertake and publish audits of major investment projects (2023).
    - Responsible: MPED, Line Ministries, ASA

### 8. Climate change, electricity, water and infrastructure efficiency
- Electricity and renewables targets and status:
  - Authorities’ renewable targets: reach 20 percent of electricity generation from renewables by 2022; reach 42 percent of electricity generation from renewables by 2035.
  - Renewables share was 11 percent in 2019.
  - Recent projects: Benban solar park; Gabel El Zeit wind farm.
  - Consideration: building a nuclear power plant.
  - Transport policy: promotion of electric and natural gas-powered vehicles; improving public transportation quality and efficiency.
- Water access and planned investments:
  - 99 percent of the population have access to water.
  - Planned water investments: build 47 desalination plants within 5 years; build wastewater treatment plants.
- Infrastructure quality and digital access (selected figures):
  - Internet access (2020-21): 72 percent of Egyptians had access to the internet in 2020.
  - Cellular use: 95 lines per 100 inhabitants.
  - Road network expansion: grew by 19 percent between 2014 and 2019.
- Efficiency of public investment (frontier analysis):
  - Egypt is significantly below the efficiency frontier in converting public capital into infrastructure outputs.
  - Hybrid efficiency indicator: efficiency gap of 38 percent compared to an average of 29 percent around the world and 31 percent in the region and among emerging markets.
  - Efficiency gap for physical infrastructure: 39 percent.
  - Efficiency gap for quality of infrastructure: 28 percent.
  - Implication: higher levels of public service delivery could have been attained with the amount of public investment undertaken.
- MTFF and planning:
  - Egypt does not have formal fiscal targets, rules, or a fully-fledged MTFF prior to the new PFM law.
  - Informal fiscal anchor since 2018/19: primary balance target of 2 percent of GDP.
  - Stock-flow adjustments added 3 percent of GDP each year on average to debt at the general government level between 2016/17 and 2021/22.
  - Budget sector primary balance series (2014/15–2021/22): -3.5, -3.5, -1.8, 0.1, 1.9, 1.8, 1.5, 1.4 (in percent of GDP respectively).
  - Recommendation: adopt an MTFF approved by Cabinet, published, and used to develop medium-term budget ceilings consistent with it.
- National and sectoral planning (strengths and limitations):
  - MSDS planning horizon: five years; includes aggregate estimates for private and public investments and some project-specific costs and output-based indicators.
  - Limitations: targets focus on outputs, not outcomes; sectoral plans do not always connect project outcomes to sector results; published planning and budgetary documents do not discuss significant cost deviations or project performance.
  - Recommendation: publish initial cost estimates, output and outcome estimates, and implementation timelines for sectors and sub-sectors.

### 22. Local government investment and project appraisal practices
- Local government capital spending and budget preparation:
  - All local capital spending decisions are taken through the State Budget.
  - ISIPPM launched by MPED to enter projects from all government entities including LGs.
  - In 2022 no LG sought loans; central government provides funding for major capital projects.
  - Subnational footprint: expenditures at governorate level and below represent less than 4 percent of GDP (around 10 percent of national expenditures); local revenues less than 0.5 percent of GDP (less than 2 percent of national revenues).
  - Governors are appointed by the president.
  - Local Administrative Law budget process is integrated into state budget; Local Popular Councils (LPCs) have limited practical role.
- Contingent liabilities and guarantees:
  - Reporting is highly aggregated, not disaggregated by SNGs, PCs, PPPs.
  - Stock of guarantees at end-December 2021: EGP1,660bn, 21 percent of GDP, of which 8.4 percent are foreign.
  - Sovereign guarantee policy being implemented informally pending Cabinet approval for SGC.
- Project appraisal (Strength—Low; Effectiveness—Low; Reform Priority—High):
  - General requirement for feasibility analysis exists but no regulation defining scope, methodologies, or required steps for appraisal (except for climate-relevant projects).
  - PPPs are an exception: PPP executive regulations require feasibility and studies; PPP Central Unit in MoF reviews appraisals and Supreme Committee approves PPP projects for tendering.
  - Institutional roles: MPED Department for Project Feasibility Studies advises on state budget-funded projects; MPED consolidates Economic Authorities' investment plans only.
  - Reform recommendations: issue PIM regulations and guidelines covering project cycle, define appraisal stages and required analyses, provide methodologies and templates including risk assessment, and strengthen coordination between PPP Central Unit (MoF) and PPP Unit (MPED).

### Alternative infrastructure financing and market structure
- Market and regulatory constraints:
  - Key infrastructure markets not fully liberalized; regulators subordinated to sectoral ministers who chair their boards.
  - PPP law (Law no. 67 from 2010, amendments through Prime Ministerial Decree no. 3217 of 2022) provides a legal basis but excludes concessions for public utilities and natural resources.
  - PPP process largely outside PIM and budget process; no cap on total PPP financing and limited Minister of Finance powers to stop unaffordable PPPs.
  - Extrabudgetary entities, PCs, and EAs undertake substantial infrastructure investment with limited formal central coordination.
- Market specifics:
  - Telecommunications: Telecom Egypt 80 percent government-owned; government owns 45 percent of Vodafone Egypt; three private providers licensed.
  - Electricity: private investment allowed in generation and distribution; Egyptian Electricity Transmission Company is single off taker and only seller to distributors; private distribution to end-users ~2 percent of volume.
  - Gas: E-Gas 100 percent publicly owned and only supplier; owns 70 percent of Gas Co (transmission operator).
  - Water/wastewater: fully operated by public sector; private participation limited; one PPP in New Cairo wastewater; planned PPPs for desalination.
- Reform priorities:
  - Strengthen independence of regulators; unbundle services; empower regulators to regulate prices in monopolistic markets; enable competitive structures post-regulatory strengthening.

### Investment allocation — Multi-year budgeting (Strength—Low; Effectiveness—Low; Reform Priority—High)
- Current status:
  - No medium-term budgeting arrangements; budget relates to current year only.
  - Capital spending is not forecasted multi-year; no multi-year ceilings for ministries or sectors.
  - Projections of total construction cost for major capital projects are not systematically published.

### 34. Disclosure of major-project costs, medium-term planning and maintenance funding
- Disclosure and citizen engagement:
  - Aggregate information on major projects disclosed in official communications/media, not systematically published.
  - Sharek 2030 mobile application launched where citizens can track projects and submit ideas.
- Reported project cost examples (as presented):
  - New Administrative Capital: USD 45 bn
  - Hayah Karima initiative: EGP 700 bn over 3 years
  - Expansion of the Suez Canal: USD 8.5bn
  - Establishment of desalination plants: EGP 435 bn
  - Ain Sokhna-New Alamein electric rail: EGP 360 bn
- Medium-term budget framework steps:
  - New PFM law envisages MTBF covering three fiscal years plus the budget year with ceilings at ministry/entity level.
  - Recommended next steps: enact executive regulations for sequenced medium-term budget process (starting with MTFF), provide training and resources to line ministries, publish medium-term cost forecasts for major projects.
- Budget comprehensiveness and AESDP:
  - AESDP includes most major investments and is ratified by Parliament; includes sectoral allocations and regional distribution by governorate.
  - Gaps: projects not described uniformly; little project-level funding information; ambiguity regarding "National Projects"; recurrent expenditure of EAs and PBS not integrated with capital budgets.
  - Recommendation: prepare a targeted annual capital budget document disclosing for all major projects total cost, allocation for upcoming years, financing source, and delivery entity.
- Maintenance funding and adequacy (selected figures):
  - No standardized methodology for assessing maintenance needs; reporting incomplete.
  - Between budget years 2018/2019 and 2021/22: capital expenditure increased by 240 percent; maintenance increased by 27 percent.
  - Table 4. Budget Expenditure for Maintenance (EGP million):
    - Maintenance: 8,045 (2018/2019); 9,807 (2019/2020); 10,629 (2020/2021); 10,243 (2021-2022); 15,111 (2022/2023)
    - Total expenditure: 1,369,870 (2018/2019); 1,434,723 (2019/2020); 1,578,774 (2020/2021); 1,837,723 (2021-2022); 2,070,872 (2022/2023)
    - Capital expenditure: 143,342 (2018/2019); 191,643 (2019/2020); 249,372 (2020/2021); 343,352 (2021-2022); 376,429 (2022/2023)
    - Maintenance in percent of capital expenditure: 5.6% (2018/2019); 5.1% (2019/2020); 4.3% (2020/2021); 3.0% (2021/2022); 4.0% (2022/2023)
  - Recommendation (high priority): develop standard methodologies for maintenance requirements, adopt top-down capital budgeting protecting minimum maintenance funding, use updated asset register to determine steady-state maintenance needs.

### 55. Procurement, availability of funding, portfolio oversight and ISIPPM
- Availability of funding (Strength—Medium; Effectiveness—Medium; Reform Priority—Medium):
  - Cash management arrangements: cash flow forecasts, commitment control, cash management unit, TSA and centralized payment systems. Article 35 of Unified PFM Law no. 6 of 2022 restricts commitments without MoF approval.
  - MoF circular no. 14 for 2022 requires monthly cash flow forecasts from entities to the Financing Department.
  - External financing: held at the central bank but not always part of TSA; external financing can be held in commercial bank accounts per donor agreements and council approvals.
  - Exceptions: Ministry of Defense and National Security Authority operate some accounts outside TSA (article 51 of Law no 6 of 2022). Special accounts approved by Minister of Finance for some donor/loan-funded projects.
  - Practical performance: no evidence of arrears or payment delays impacting capital spending; government uses overdraft facility with CBE for temporary shortfalls.
  - External funding represents less than 3 percent of capital projects; donor payments channeled through the CBE.
  - Recommendations: MoF should compile quarterly reports on outstanding commitments and orders to pay, identify overdue payments as payment arrears, and engage larger entities to improve forecast accuracy.
- Portfolio management and ISIPPM (Strength—Medium; Effectiveness—Medium; Reform Priority—Medium):
  - Monitoring: desk-based oversight for all projects; field-based monitoring by National Investment Bank for complex projects.
  - ISIPPM facts:
    - Developed by MPED over five years; covers over 10,000 projects.
    - Portfolio estimated capital delivery cost: EGP 3.8 trillion.
    - Forecast outlay: over EGP 800 billion in fiscal year 2022/2023.
    - Linked to GFMIS and has modules: Social and Development Plan Preparation; Investment Funds Reallocation; Monitoring and Evaluation.
    - Training has focused on feasibility studies; National Investment Bank to support monitoring and evaluation.
  - Monitoring limitations: concentrated on individual projects; lacks aggregate portfolio trend analysis.
  - Recommendations: full roll-out of ISIPPM for regular monitoring of cost, schedule and benefits across the portfolio; make post-project reviews standard; use ISIPPM to identify portfolio-level risks.
- Management of project implementation (Strength—Low; Effectiveness—Low; Reform Priority—High):
  - Gaps: no legal/regulatory requirement to identify responsible project owners/managers or implementation plans prior to approval; no formal requirement for ex-post review publication.
  - Sector exception: Energy sector has standard project management guidelines and accountable managers.
  - ASA: law provides for ex-post reviews but no explicit publication arrangements; ASA monitoring prioritized loan-funded projects but reports are not published.
  - Recommendations: require appointment of Senior Responsible Owners (SROs) and implementation plans prior to approval; set procedures for triggering project reviews and adjustments; mandate ASA to undertake ex-post audits and publish findings.

### 71. Central oversight of asset registers — legal, IT and capacity findings; recommendations and action plan
- Legal framework findings:
  - New PFM and State planning laws distribute responsibilities between MoF and MPED; functions of investment planning assigned to MPED and other expenditure planning to MoF.
  - Division of labor described as "somewhat superficial"; economic authorities may be excluded from statutory coverage.
  - Key legal provisions are in annual budget laws or secondary legislation; many planning committees created by governmental decisions are mostly unpublished.
  - Executive regulations and technical guidance (including on maintenance methodologies) are largely absent.
- IT systems and data management:
  - GFMIS (Oracle) connects public government agencies across PFM functions.
  - TSA/e-Payment system mirrors a treasury ledger with virtual accounts reconciled to bank data; electronic links to GFMIS and CBE.
  - ISIPPM developed by MPED has three modules (social and development plan preparation; investment funds reallocation; monitoring and evaluation) and an interface to GFMIS.
  - ISIPPM limitations: requires full cost and requested next fiscal year budget but not estimated budgets for outer years, undermining MTBF effectiveness.
  - No centralized asset register exists to include asset condition and support balance sheets.
- Capacity findings and gaps:
  - Capacity relatively strong at MoF and MPED but heterogeneous across line ministries and other budget entities.
  - Core capacity needs: project preparation and assessment, costing/selection/budgeting for major projects, project management/execution control/ex-post review.
  - Suggested activities: guidelines, standardized practices across project cycle, use of external experts for technical support and in-house capacity building.
  - MFPU needs strengthening to produce and publish MTFF; skill development needed in macro-fiscal forecasting, error analysis, and report writing; better coordination between Budget Department and MFPU and between MoF and MPED; training for line ministries in new framework.
- Recommendations (issues and policy actions — preserved wording and responsibilities):
  - Issue 1 (Project appraisal and approval): Issue executive regulation; publish appraisal methodology and risk analysis; establish appraisal review and assurance; define selection criteria.
  - Issue 2 (Alternative infrastructure finance): Further deregulate markets; make regulators independent; integrate PPPs with budget and headline fiscal indicators.
  - Issue 3 (Budgeting for investment): Publish medium-term capital budget and annual public sector investment plan; formalize mechanisms for distribution to SNGs; improve cash needs forecasting.
  - Issue 4 (Asset protection): Consolidate asset registers; establish standardized maintenance methodologies; transparent reporting on maintenance spending.
  - Issue 5 (Implementation and monitoring): Develop e-procurement and MAPS deployment; establish standardized project management model; use ISIPPM for portfolio monitoring; undertake ex-post reviews and mandate ASA to publish audits.
- Appendix 1. Action plan — selected actions, timing and responsibilities (high-level extract):
  - Recommendation 1 (Strengthen project appraisal and selection — Priority: High): Issue Executive Regulation to planning law; develop and publish appraisal methodologies across 2023–2025; separate central project review from budget process; define selection criteria and create project pipeline. Responsible: MPED; MoF; line ministries. TA: USAID, World Bank as noted.
  - Recommendation 2 (Facilitate private sector involvement — Priority: Medium): liberalize/deregulate markets and make regulators independent; integrate PPPs with budget. Responsible: MPED, MoF, MPSB, line ministries. TA: World Bank.
  - Recommendation 3 (Operationalize MTBF — Priority: High): publish medium-term capital budget and public sector investment plan; enact Executive Regulations to operationalize MTBF and MTFF; formalize SNG financing rules; improve cash forecasting. Responsible: MPED, MoF. TA: IMF.
  - Recommendation 4 (Asset management — Priority: Medium): consolidate asset registers; develop maintenance methodologies; transparent reporting on maintenance. Responsible: MoF, MPED, EAs, Line Ministries. TA: USAID.
  - Recommendation 5 (Procurement, project and portfolio management — Priority: High): develop e-GP; establish project management model; use ISIPPM for portfolio monitoring; mandate ex-post reviews and ASA publication of audits. Responsible: MPED, MoF, ASA. TA: World Bank.

### 2. National and Sectoral Planning — indicator scores and cross-cutting issues
- Planning indicator scores (Institutional Design, Effectiveness) — excerpt:
  - 1.a. 1, 1
  - 1.b. 1, 1
  - 1.c. 1, 1
  - 2.a. 3, 2
  - 2.b. 2, 2
  - 2.c. 2, 2
  - 3.a. 1, 3
  - 3.b. 2, 1
  - 3.c. 1, 2
  - 4.a. 1, 1
  - 4.b. 1, 1
  - 4.c. 1, 1
  - 5.a. 1, 1
  - 5.b. 2, 2
  - 5.c. 1, 1
  - 6.a. 1, 1
  - 6.b. 1, 1
  - 6.c. 2, 1
- Allocation indicators (excerpt):
  - 7.a. 2, 2
  - 7.b. 2, 2
  - 7.c. 2, 2
  - 8.a. 1, 1
  - 8.b. 3, 3
  - 8.c. 1, 1
  - 9.a. 1, 1
  - 9.b. 1, 1
  - 9.c. 2, 1
  - 10.a. 1, 1
  - 10.b. 1, 1
  - 10.c. 1, 1
- Implementation indicators (excerpt):
  - 11.a. 2, 1
  - 11.b. 2, 1
  - 11.c. 3, 2
  - 12.a. 2, 2
  - 12.b. 2, 2
  - 12.c. 3, 3
  - 13.a. 2, 1
  - 13.b. 3, 2
  - 13.c. 1, 2
  - 14.a. 1, 1
  - 14.b. 2, 1
  - 14.c. 1, 1
  - 15.a. 2, 1
  - 15.b. 2, 1
  - 15.c. 1, 1
- Cross-cutting issues noted:
  - IT support: need for comprehensive computerized information system for public investment decision making and monitoring.
  - Legal framework: need for legal and regulatory framework supporting PIM institutions, coverage, procedures, standards and accountability.
  - Staff capacity: need for adequate numbers, skills, and clarity of roles to support effective PIM.

*IMF | Technical Report – Egypt PIMA | content unit: tarea2024028 (excerpted from supplied PDF).*

### Preface ................................................................................................................

### Preface

### Mission mandate and timing
- The Public Investment Management Assessment (PIMA) and Climate PIMA (C-PIMA) were undertaken in response to a request by the Ministry of Finance (MoF) and the Ministry of Planning and Economic Development (MPED).
- The mission took place during September 27 to November 10, 2022.

### Mission leadership and team composition
- The mission team was led by Eivind Tandberg.
- IMF Fiscal Affairs Department (FAD) and Legal Department (LEG) participants:
  - Cristian Alonso (remotely)
  - Jacques Charaoui
  - Tjeerd Tim
  - Mia Pineda (LEG)
  - Katja Funke (FAD expert)
  - Ed Hearne (FAD expert)
- World Bank contributors and consultants:
  - Nataliya Biletska
  - Hosam Hasan
  - Mohamed El Hafedh Hendah
  - Mohamed Yehia Abd El Karim
  - Sara Alnashar
  - Nazaneen Ismail Ali (all World Bank)
  - Yosra Bedair (World Bank consultant)
  - Dina Mohamed Eldemerdash Elkhishin (World Bank consultant)

### Senior-level engagement and briefings
- The team was received by:
  - Mr. Ahmed Kamaly, Deputy Minister for Planning Affairs, MPED
  - Mr. Ahmed Kouchouk, Vice-Minister for Fiscal Policies, MoF
- The mission presented preliminary conclusions at the end of the mission to the above officials and to Dr. Mohamed Maait, Minister of Finance, and provided them with a copy of the draft mission report.

### Institutional meetings and consultations
- Within the Ministry of Finance (MoF), the mission met with:
  - Macro-Fiscal Policy Unit (MFPU)
  - General Budget Department
  - Economic Authorities and Units Budget Department
  - Financing Department
  - Debt Management Unit
  - Accounts and Financial Directorates Department
  - Final Accounts Department
  - PPP Central Unit
- Within the Ministry of Planning and Economic Development (MPED), the mission met with:
  - Mr. Gameel Helmy, Minister Assistant for monitoring affairs
  - Planning Affairs Feasibility Studies
  - Regional Planning Department
  - Plan Preparation and Monitoring Department
  - PPPs Unit
- The mission also met with senior representatives from:
  - Ministry of Agriculture
  - Ministry of Environment
  - Ministry of International Cooperation
  - Ministry of Transport
  - Ministry of Housing, Utilities and Urban Communities
  - Ministry of Health
  - Ministry of Education
  - Ministry of Petroleum and Mineral Resources
  - Egyptian General Petroleum Corporation
  - Egyptian Natural Gas Holding Company
  - Accountability State Authority (ASA)
  - National Investment Bank (NIB)
  - New Urban Communities Authority (NUCA)
  - National Telecom Regulatory Authority
  - Egyptian Water and Wastewater Regulatory Agency
  - Egyptian Electricity Utility and Consumer Protection Agency
  - Gas Regulatory Authority
  - National Centre for Planning State Land Uses (NCPSLU)
  - General Authority for Government Services
  - Cairo Governorate
  - Ismailia Governorate
- The mission engaged local technical and financial partners at the end of the mission to discuss the assessment and identify future avenues for cooperation.

### Acknowledgements
- The mission team thanked the Egyptian authorities for cooperation and participation in constructive discussions.
- Special thanks were given to MPED staff, in particular Mr. Ismail Yousef; and MoF staff, Mr. Alaa Abdel Rahman, for support in organizing the mission, setting up meetings and providing documentation.
- Thanks were extended to Mr. Said Bakhache, Senior Resident Representative of the IMF in Egypt, and Mr. Karim Badr, local economist, for support during the remote mission.
- The team also thanked the interpreters for their linguistic support during the mission.

*IMF | Technical Report – Egypt PIMA | Preface*

### 10. Project selection

### 10. Project selection

### Summary assessment of project selection and related PIM dimensions
- Project selection (Table 1)
  - Institutional Strength: LOW. "There are no institutional arrangements for the review of project appraisals, the creation of a project pipeline,  or the selection of projects according to defined criteria."
  - Effectiveness: LOW. "Projects are largely selected in an ad-hoc manner during the budget praparation process.t."
  - Reform priority: High
- Related PIM dimensions with direct relevance to project selection (selected entries from Table 1)
  - Project appraisal
    - Institutional Strength: LOW. "2022 planning law requires that entities prepare project appraisal documents but there is no standardized methodology for this."
    - Effectiveness: LOW. "There is no evidence of systemative and consistent project appraisal, nor of standardized methodologies for appraisal and risk analysis."
    - Reform priority: High
  - Multi-year budgeting
    - Institutional Strength: LOW. "There are no medium-term projections or ceilings of capital spending by ministry or sector."
    - Effectiveness: LOW. "Medium-term projections of capital spending are missing and changes in total construction costs are not identified and explained."
    - Reform priority: High
  - Alternative infrastructure financing
    - Institutional Strength: LOW. "Competitive market strucures are yet to be introduced in key infrastructure markets, and regulators are strongly linked to policy ministries"
    - Effectiveness: LOW. "SOEs play a dominant role in key infrastructure markets, while PPPs have not been used widely for infrastructure financing"
    - Reform priority: High
  - Management of project implementation
    - Institutional Strength: LOW. "There are no central requirements for project management or project adjustment and there is no provision for publication of ex-post audits."
    - Effectiveness: LOW. "Limited evidence of implementation arrangements prior to approval, adjustment proposals are not documented, audits are not published."
    - Reform priority: High

### Key findings from Sections I–II relevant to project selection and financing
- Trends in public investment and fiscal context
  - Total investment declined from roughly 25 percent of GDP in 1990 to 12 percent in 2014; public investment dropped from over 20 percent of GDP in the early 1990s to around 5 percent of GDP in the mid-2010s.
  - Public investment increased by 3 percentage points between 2014 and 2021.
  - Egypt added 20 million people during 2011–20 and expects another 20 million during 2021–2030.
  - Projected additional annual public spending required to reach the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030: around 5.4 percent of GDP.
  - General government debt:
    - Declined from almost 100 percentage points of GDP in FY 2016/17 to 80.1 by FY 2019/20.
    - Reached 89.2 percent of GDP in FY 2021/22.
    - Guarantees for loans to public corporations amounted to 21 percent of GDP as of January 2022.
  - Interest bill for the general government in FY 2021/22: 7.2 percent of GDP (more than half of tax revenues).
  - PPP capital stock averaged around 2 percent of GDP over the last 15 years.
- Composition and execution of public investment
  - In 2020/21:
    - Real estate accounted for 14 percent of the investment portfolio (0.2 percent of GDP).
    - Transportation investment reached 0.8 percent of GDP.
    - Education investment: 0.5 percent of GDP.
    - Health investment: 0.3 percent of GDP.
  - Most public investment executed outside the budget:
    - General government contributed approximately 40 percent of public investments over the last decade.
    - Economic authorities and public corporations combined contributed 48 percent.
    - Public corporations' investment dropped from 1.9 percent of GDP in 2010/11 to 1 percent of GDP in 2020/21.
    - "Central projects" emerged in FY 2017/18 and became a major contributor (example: new administrative capital built by the Administrative Capital Company for Urban Development (ACDU), ownership: 49 percent by NUCA and 51 percent by the armed forces).
- Infrastructure access and social-sector reforms
  - Education access (secondary teachers per 1,000 persons) is above the regional average but lags other emerging markets; Education 2.0 reform underway.
  - Health infrastructure is on par with regional peers but below other emerging markets; roll-out of the new universal health insurance scheme (UHIS) is ongoing.
  - UHIS pilot in Port Said: provided 2.5 million services to a population of 700,000 with a satisfaction level of 96 percent among users.
  - Screening: 70 million people screened over 7 months for Hepatitis C.
  - Polio vaccination campaign in early 2021 reached 15 million children in a week.

### Summary recommendations (focused on project appraisal, selection, and related bottlenecks)
- Recommendation 1: Strengthen project appraisal and selection processes (High)
  - Issue regulation to set the requirements for appraisal, planning and implementation at each stage of public investment projects (2023).
  - Publish project appraisal methodology, including risk analysis (2024 – 25).
  - Establish procedure for project appraisal review and assurance as part of approval process (2024 - 25).
  - Define clear and transparent criteria and process for project selection (2024).
  - Responsible: MPED. MoF, line Ministries
- Recommendation 2: Enable private sector involvement in public infrastructure provision (High)
  - Further deregulate markets, with fully independent regulators (2023 -).
  - Ensure that all PPPs are consistently integrated with the budget and their fiscal implications reflected in headline fiscal indicators (2024).
  - Responsible: MPBS, MPED
- Recommendation 3: Operationalize PFM law provisions for medium-term budgeting (High)
  - Publish medium-term capital budget and annual public sector investment plan with detail on project costs, funding and responsible delivery agency (2024).
  - Formalize mechanisms for distribution of resources to sub-national government entities (2023).
  - Work with spending entities to improve accuracy of cash needs forecasting (2023 – 25).
  - Responsible: MPED, MoF
- Recommendation 4: Strengthen asset management and ensure sufficient maintenance (High)
  - Consolidate asset registers for government entities (2024).
  - Establish standardized methodologies for assessment of maintenance needs and funding (2023).
  - Provide transparent reporting on maintenance spending in budgets and accounts (2023).
  - Responsible: MoF
- Recommendation 5: Strengthen procurement, project and portfolio management (High)
  - Develop an electronic government procurement system (2024).
  - Establish a standardized project management model for government investment projects (2023).
  - Use the ISIPPM to track key developments in cost, schedule and benefits and identify risks and opportunities across the portfolio (2023 – 25).
  - Undertake ex-post review of major projects as standard (2024 – 25).
  - Mandate ASA to undertake and publish audits of major investment projects (2023).
  - Responsible: MPED, Line Ministries, ASA

*Source: 10. Project selection — IMF Technical Report – Egypt PIMA (excerpt).*

### 8. Climate change raises investment needs in renewable energy and water. Egypt’s production

### 8. Climate change raises investment needs in renewable energy and water. Egypt’s production

### Electricity production and renewable energy targets
- Egypt’s production of electricity has increased significantly over the last decade and the country became a net exporter, but production remains relatively low compared to peers.
- Authorities’ renewable targets:
  - Reach 20 percent of electricity generation from renewables by 2022.
  - Reach 42 percent of electricity generation from renewables by 2035.
  - Renewables share was 11 percent in 2019.
- Recent projects demonstrating potential and private sector interest:
  - Benban solar park.
  - Gabel El Zeit wind farm.
- Authorities are considering building a nuclear power plant.
- Transportation investments aim at reducing emissions through:
  - Promotion of electric and natural gas-powered vehicles.
  - Improving quality and efficiency of public transportation.

### Water access and climate threats; planned investments
- Water access:
  - 99 percent of the population have access to water.
- Climate change threatens water security despite high access.
- Authorities’ planned water investments:
  - Build 47 desalination plants within 5 years.
  - Build wastewater treatment plants.

### Infrastructure quality and digital infrastructure access
- Perception of infrastructure quality:
  - Egypt’s perceptions of infrastructure quality in 2019 are slightly ahead of regional peers and substantially ahead of other emerging markets.
  - Infrastructure quality gap remains significant relative to best performing emerging markets and advanced economies.
- Digital infrastructure (2020-21):
  - 72 percent of Egyptians had access to the internet in 2020.
  - Cellular use reached 95 lines per 100 inhabitants.
  - Internet access level is in line with emerging markets and slightly ahead of regional peers; cellular use is below comparators but still very high.
- Road network expansion:
  - Expansion of the road network grew by 19 percent between 2014 and 2019.

### Efficiency of public investment and service delivery
- Cross-country frontier analysis findings:
  - Egypt is significantly below the efficiency frontier in converting public capital into infrastructure outputs (both perception/quality and physical indicators).
  - Egypt is at the low-end of the hybrid efficiency indicator with:
    - An efficiency gap of 38 percent compared to an average of 29 percent around the world and 31 percent in the region and among emerging markets.
  - Efficiency gap for physical infrastructure: 39 percent (similar to the average and median for the world and emerging markets; better than regional peers).
  - Efficiency gap for quality of infrastructure: 28 percent (worse than the global average; indicator may be outdated and may not reflect improvements over the last 4 years).
- Implication:
  - Higher levels of public service delivery could have been attained with the amount of public investment undertaken.

### Public investment management: MTFF, planning, and coordination
- Fiscal principles and rules (assessment):
  - Strength—Low; Effectiveness—Low; Reform Priority—Medium.
- Medium-term fiscal framework (MTFF) status:
  - Egypt does not have formal fiscal targets, rules, or a fully-fledged MTFF.
  - Until the recent approval of the new Public Financial Management (PFM) law, there was no legal basis for an MTFF.
  - Authorities prepare medium-term projections of major macro-fiscal aggregates and usually report projected debt, but:
    - These projections are not binding.
    - They are not formally adopted by Cabinet.
    - Deviations are not monitored and explained.
    - Disaggregated projections are not published.
- Informal fiscal anchor:
  - Since 2018/19 Egypt has had an informal target of a primary balance of 2 percent of GDP.
  - Deviations from this target have been relatively minor.
  - Repayment of arrears to public sector corporations recorded “below-the-line” were a major source of debt creation.
  - Between 2016/17 and 2021/22, stock-flow adjustments added 3 percent of GDP each year on average to debt at the general government level.
- Budget sector primary balance (series shown for 2014/15–2021/22):
  - -3.5, -3.5, -1.8, 0.1, 1.9, 1.8, 1.5, 1.4 (in percent of GDP for 2014/15 through 2021/22 respectively).
- Recommendation and opportunity:
  - Adopting a MTFF is a medium reform priority to enhance credibility and ensure public investment is adequate, predictable, and sustainable.
  - Implementation of the new PFM law offers an opportunity to introduce medium-term budgeting; the MTFF should be approved by Cabinet and published and used to develop medium-term budget ceilings consistent with it.

### National and sectoral plans (assessment)
- Strength—Medium; Effectiveness—Medium; Reform Priority—Low.
- National and sectoral planning framework:
  - General Planning Law no. 18 of 2022 defines planning documents requiring approval by the Supreme Council of Development and Urban Planning before Parliament.
  - Key documents: Egypt’s Sustainable Development Strategy: Vision 2030 (SDS); Egypt’s Medium-Term Sustainable Development Strategy (MSDS); sectoral plans developed by ministries.
  - MSDS planning horizon: five years; includes aggregate estimates for private and public investments and some project-specific costs and output-based indicators.
- Limitations:
  - Targets mostly focus on outputs, not outcomes.
  - Sectoral plans do not always connect investment project outcomes to desired sector results.
  - Published planning and budgetary documents do not discuss significant cost deviations or project performance; they do not enable meaningful comparison of initial cost estimates, budgeted amounts, and actual spending.
- Recommendation:
  - More concise specification and publication of initial cost estimates, output and outcome estimates, and implementation timelines for all sectors and sub-sectors to support planning, monitoring, and ex-post assessments.

### Coordination between entities and contingent liabilities
- Coordination assessment:
  - Strength—Low; Effectiveness—Medium; Reform priority—Low.
- Issues:
  - No institutional requirement for systematic sharing and coordination of spending plans.
  - Rules-based transfer system for capital transfers to local governments is not yet implemented.
  - No requirement to report contingent liabilities to the central government.
- Steps taken:
  - 2017 cabinet decision requires ministries to consult with the MoF before negotiating or concluding contracts that could necessitate sovereign guarantees.
- Contingent liabilities as at end-December 2021 (Table 3; in EGP bn; percent column and amounts as presented):
  - Egyptian General Petroleum Corporation (EGPC): 33 (percent)
  - Other*: 20
  - New Urban Communities Authority (NUCA): 19
  - Egyptian Electricity Holding Company (EEHC): 14
  - National Expenditure Authorities Egypt: 6
  - Egyptian Electricity Transmission Co. (EETC): 3
  - Railway Authority: 3
  - The New and Renewable Energy Authority (NREA): 1
  - Middle east oil refinery (Midor) Egypt: 1
  - Aviation Holding Company: 0
  - TOTAL: 100 1,660
  - Note: (*) There are no details on what “Other” includes.

*Italic: IMF | Technical Report – Egypt PIMA | Chapter 8 content unit (tarea2024028) from the supplied PDF content.*

### 22. In practice, investment plans of LGs are managed by central government, and there is

### 22. In practice, investment plans of LGs are managed by central government, and there is

### Local government capital spending and budget preparation
- All local capital spending decisions in Egypt are taken through the State Budget.
- MPED has launched an Integrated System for Investment Plan Preparation and Monitoring (ISIPPM) where all government entities, including LGs, are asked to enter their projects (see section IV.B).
- In 2022, no LG has sought loans as government provides funding for major capital projects.
- Egypt’s government structure and subnational fiscal footprint:
  - Four levels of authorities: central authorities; governorates; districts; and local units (towns, villages, neighborhoods).
  - Expenditures at the governorate level and below represent less than 4 percent of GDP (equivalent to around 10 percent of national expenditures).
  - Local revenues represent less than 0.5 percent of GDP (i.e., less than 2 percent of national revenues).
  - Governors are appointed by the president.
- Local budget process:
  - Local Administration Law requires governorates to prepare a draft budget including affiliated line ministry directorates and districts/cities/neighborhoods/villages; these are integrated into the state budget.
  - Heads of service directorates at governorate level develop budget proposals and have full control over development and implementation of their own budget within parent ministry strategies.
  - After local executive council approval, each governorate submits its draft budget to the Ministry of Local Development, MoF, and the MPED (for capital spending).
  - Local Popular Councils (LPCs) have the legal right to approve/disapprove local budgets, but in practice LPCs play a limited role and most influence rests with executive officials, particularly the governor.
  - The 2014 Constitution grants local units the right to "independent financial budgets" (Article 178) and requires local councils to develop their own budget and final accounts (Article 182); local councils are to be elected for a term of four years (Article 180). Local councils were dissolved in 2011 and municipal elections are pending the promulgation of a new local administration law.

### Contingent liabilities and government guarantees
- Government guarantees and on-lending to Economic Authorities (EAs) and public corporations (PCs) represent major contingent liabilities.
- Reporting and disclosure:
  - Contingent liabilities are reported and disclosed at a highly aggregated level in budget documents (not reported by category i.e., SNGs, PCs, and PPPs).
  - Formal mechanisms for central government control over and coordination with these entities are limited.
- Stock of guarantees:
  - At the end of December 2021, government guarantees amounted to EGP1,660bn, 21 percent of GDP out of which 8.4 percent are foreign.
- Policy and institutions:
  - A sovereign guarantee policy is being implemented informally, whilst awaiting approval from the Cabinet for the establishment of the SGC.
  - Efforts to improve comprehensiveness of contingent liabilities monitoring and reporting should continue to ensure fiscal risks are properly managed.
  - Recommendation: Continue including all LG projects in the ISIPPM and progressively coordinate LG capital spending plans with central government while respecting constitutionally mandated LG autonomy.

### Project appraisal (Strength—Low; Effectiveness—Low; Reform Priority—High)
- Purpose and stages:
  - Project appraisal aims to ensure all relevant project costs, benefits and risks from social, economic and financial perspectives are fully assessed and inform decisions on project selection and funding.
  - Typical stages: project concept, pre-feasibility, feasibility; methodologies vary by project type and size.
- Current requirements and gaps:
  - General requirement exists to conduct feasibility analysis for new public investment projects (Circulars by MPED and MoF) but there is no regulation defining scope, methodologies, or required steps for appraisal (except for identifying climate-relevant projects).
  - PPPs are an exception: PPP executive regulations require feasibility and other studies; PPP Central Unit in the MoF reviews appraisals and Supreme Committee for Public Private Partnership Affairs approves PPP projects for tendering based on PPP Central Unit recommendations.
  - Required PPP appraisal components include a feasibility study with cost-benefit analysis and calculation of internal rate of return; no explicit requirement to take into account risks in PPP appraisals.
- Institutional practice:
  - Department for Project Feasibility Studies in the MPED provides advisory support for projects funded from the state budget; focuses on review and approval of investment plans submitted by sectoral ministries for state budget entities.
  - MPED receives investment plans from Economic Authorities for consolidation purposes only.
  - PPP Central Unit in the MoF supports appraisal of PPP projects per Article 4 of the PPP Law 2010, but some PPP appraisals are carried out by sectoral entities without PPP Central Unit support.
- Reform recommendations:
  - Put in place Public Investment Management (PIM) regulations and guidelines covering all key stages of the project cycle, including project appraisal.
  - PIM regulations should define appraisal scope, stages (project concept, preliminary appraisal, detailed appraisal), and required analyses/studies by project size/type.
  - PIM guidelines should provide methodologies and templates for analyses, including risk assessment.
  - Strengthen coordination between the PPP Central Unit in the MoF and the PPP Unit in the MPED to develop a pipeline of PPP projects.

### Alternative infrastructure financing (Strength—Low; Effectiveness—Low; Reform Priority—High)
- Rationale:
  - Private sector participation in infrastructure financing can address infrastructure needs and contain burden on government finances if private firms can achieve a fair return on long-term investment.
- Regulatory and market environment:
  - Key economic infrastructure markets have not been fully liberalized and unbundling of utility markets is pending.
  - Regulators for telecom, electricity, gas, and water/sewage are subordinated to sectoral ministers who also chair their boards, limiting regulator independence.
  - The PPP law (Law no. 67 from 2010, amendments through Prime Ministerial Decree no. 3217 of 2022) provides a legal basis for PPPs across sectors but excludes concessions for public utilities and natural resources.
  - The PPP process largely operates outside the PIM and budget process, does not cap total PPP financing, and does not give the Minister of Finance powers to stop unaffordable PPP projects, limiting MoF’s ability to contain fiscal costs/risks from PPPs.
  - Extrabudgetary entities (EBEs), PCs and EAs undertake substantial public investment in infrastructure but formal mechanisms for central control/coordination are limited; government control is mostly through government officials’ participation in entities’ boards and no formal requirement for PCs to coordinate business and investment plans with the government.
- Market specifics (Box 4 highlights):
  - Telecommunications: Telecom Egypt (80 percent government-owned) owns legacy cable network and dominant position; government owns 45 percent of Vodafone Egypt; three private providers licensed.
  - Electricity: Private investment allowed in generation and distribution, but Egyptian Electricity Transmission Company is the single off taker and only seller to distributors; private distribution to end-users about 2 percent of volume.
  - Gas: E-Gas is 100 percent publicly owned and the only supplier; owns 70 percent of Gas Co (transmission operator); private sector limited to local distribution and commission-based supplier roles.
  - Water/wastewater: Fully operated by public sector; private participation limited (one PPP in New Cairo wastewater); planned PPPs for desalination.
- Current private participation and obstacles:
  - Private sector involvement in key infrastructure remains very limited; government (via direct controls and via PCs/EAs) remains dominant.
  - The government has signed a limited number of PPPs (four) since 2010; complexity and time requirements of PPP legal framework are cited as obstacles.
- Reform priorities:
  - Strengthen independence of regulators and unbundle services in key economic infrastructure markets.
  - Empower regulators to regulate prices in monopolistic markets to enable competitive market structures.
  - Follow regulatory strengthening by unbundling the service chain to allow public and private firms to compete on a level playing field in production and distribution.

### Investment allocation — Multi-year budgeting (Strength—Low; Effectiveness—Low; Reform Priority—High)
- Purpose:
  - Multi-year budgeting ensures resources to fund ongoing and new projects and supports medium-term planning to prevent project starts without future funding, which lead to delays and cost overruns.
- Current status in Egypt:
  - Egypt does not have medium term budgeting arrangements in place.
  - The budget process and resulting allocations relate to the current year only.
  - Capital spending is not forecasted over a multi-year horizon and no multi-year ceilings are provided to ministries or sectors.
  - Projections of the total construction cost of major capital projects are not published systematically.

*IMF | Technical Report – Egypt PIMA | 23*

### 34. Projections of the total construction cost of major capital projects are not published

### 34. Projections of the total construction cost of major capital projects are not published systematically

### Disclosure of major-project costs and public access
- Aggregate information of major projects is usually disclosed in official communications and statements to the media rather than published systematically.
- Reported project cost examples:
  - New Administrative Capital: USD 45 bn
  - Hayah Karima initiative: EGP 700 bn over 3 years
  - Expansion of the Suez Canal: USD 8.5bn
  - Establishment of desalination plants: EGP 435 bn
  - Ain Sokhna-New Alamein electric rail: EGP 360 bn
- The authorities launched a mobile application (Sharek 2030) where citizens can:
  - track ongoing and completed projects by governorates
  - submit ideas for future projects
- Citizen investment plans (Figure 20) by governorates offer information on major projects, but:
  - changes in total construction costs of major projects are not identified and explained
  - systematically publishing the total construction cost of major capital projects, including a breakdown per year, and identifying changes in cost is recommended for medium-term budgeting

### Medium-term budget framework and planning
- The new PFM law envisages a medium-term budget framework to cover three fiscal years in addition to the year of the budget, with ceilings prepared at the level of ministry or independent entity.
- Next steps recommended:
  - enact executive regulations for a well-sequenced medium-term budget process (starting with the MTFF)
  - offer training and resources to line ministries for transition
  - publish medium-term cost forecasts for major projects across each sector

### Budget comprehensiveness and unity
- Principle: all potential projects (including EBEs) should be evaluated, prioritized and presented together to maximize value for money and coherence with national objectives.
- Legal/regulatory context:
  - Extrabudgetary public investment is allowed but must be disclosed and approved by parliament in the Annual Economic and Social Development Plan (AESDP).
  - AESDP includes most major investments and is ratified by Parliament; aligned with Egypt 2030.
  - State Budget presents integrated capital and recurrent spending decomposed by economic and functional classification, but not for PBS and Economic Authority projects.
- AESDP specific investment-related disclosures include (excerpted):
  - Key outputs and performance against Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for previous years
  - Total allocations for sectoral programs of investment in transport, water, energy, agriculture, health and education
  - Breakdown of the structure of investment by central government, Economic Authority, National Projects and Public Sector Business
  - Major projects to be progressed in the year ahead
  - Regional distribution of investment across Egypt’s Governates, disaggregated by sector
  - Output and outcome indicators for the year ahead
- Observed gaps:
  - Projects are not described uniformly or in sufficient detail in AESDP
  - Little information on funding and financing at the project level, with ambiguity regarding “National Projects”
  - Recurrent expenditure associated with Economic Authorities and PBS not integrated with capital investment budgets
- Recommendation:
  - Prepare a targeted annual capital budget document separate from AESDP that discloses for all major projects: total cost, allocation for the years ahead, financing source, and delivery entity; and present funding across Central Government, Economic Authorities, National Projects and PBS

### Scale and composition of public investment
- Central government investment ranges between 30-40 percent of total public investment.
- AESDP incorporates all public investment (including PPPs, own-resource funded PBS projects, and loan-financed projects).
- The Plan includes detailed investment allocations by delivery entity and sector, but limited project-level funding detail.

### Budgeting for investment and project funding protection
- Institutional rules prohibit virement from capital to current spending without parliamentary approval, but protection of individual investment projects is weak.
- Budget documents are expected to have a feasibility study providing total project cost, but:
  - there is no legal requirement to include feasibility information or progress of financial implementation in budget documents
  - budget outlays are appropriated on an annual basis
  - no requirement to protect ongoing projects over new projects; reallocation among projects within Chapter 6 is frequent
- The capital budget is managed largely in isolation from the current budget (allocation of responsibilities between MoF and MPED), limiting integrated oversight.
- Practices cited:
  - Ministries may start all suggested projects and allocate resources over coming budget years or through reallocation once projects are in implementation
- Recommendation (medium priority):
  - Systematically protect funding for ongoing projects and include in budget documents: (i) the total initial and updated project cost; (ii) the spending undertaken to date for ongoing projects; and (iii) the allocation of medium-term spending projections

### Maintenance funding: assessment and adequacy
- No standardized methodology exists for assessing routine maintenance or major improvement needs; reporting on maintenance costs is incomplete.
- Legal and practice notes:
  - Article 68, 75 and 90 of the Unified Building Law # 119 of 2008 stipulate that maintenance of buildings is mandatory, but no methodology for determining maintenance needs is defined.
  - Minister of Electricity and NUCA mentioned having a standard methodology for maintenance of capital projects, but no document is available.
  - For medical equipment (e.g., MRI equipment), the Ministry of Health signs a three-year maintenance contract when purchased.
  - Only routine maintenance is reported in Chapter 2 of the Budget (Goods and Services); capital maintenance is identified in the ISIPPM but not reported in budget documents.
- Funding adequacy and trends:
  - Maintenance allocation is insufficient relative to capital spending growth
  - Between budget years 2018/2019 and 2021/22:
    - capital expenditure increased by 240 percent
    - maintenance increased by 27 percent
  - No published information on capital maintenance; no analysis comparing maintenance needs to maintenance funding
- Table 4. Budget Expenditure for Maintenance (EGP million)
  - Maintenance: 8,045 (2018/2019); 9,807 (2019/2020); 10,629 (2020/2021); 10,243 (2021-2022); 15,111 (2022/2023)
  - Total expenditure: 1,369,870 (2018/2019); 1,434,723 (2019/2020); 1,578,774 (2020/2021); 1,837,723 (2021-2022); 2,070,872 (2022/2023)
  - Capital expenditure: 143,342 (2018/2019); 191,643 (2019/2020); 249,372 (2020/2021); 343,352 (2021-2022); 376,429 (2022/2023)
  - Maintenance in percent of capital expenditure: 5.6% (2018/2019); 5.1% (2019/2020); 4.3% (2020/2021); 3.0% (2021/2022); 4.0% (2022/2023)
  - Source: The Financial Statement on the State’s General Budget 2022/2023.
- Recommendation (high priority):
  - Develop standard methodologies for maintenance requirements across infrastructure asset types and budget for them
  - Adopt a top-down capital budgeting approach that protects minimum funding for maintenance and increases the share of budget for maintenance and rehabilitation
  - Use a regularly updated register of infrastructure assets to determine steady-state maintenance spending requirements

### Project selection, appraisal, and pipeline
- Current weaknesses:
  - No comprehensive framework for project selection or consistent, comprehensive project appraisals
  - No formal requirements for central review of project appraisals, creating/maintaining a pipeline of appraised projects, or a formal project selection process
  - Projects and appraisal documents are mostly submitted to MPED at the time of budget preparation; no pipeline/pool of appraised projects
  - In absence of selection criteria, projects are selected based on readiness and policy priorities; “mega” projects are pursued through various channels
  - Separate guidance exists for selecting climate-relevant projects (Climate PIMA report)
- Recommendation (high priority):
  - Formalize project selection by ensuring consistent project appraisals and a central review process with clear, objective selection criteria
  - Create and maintain a pipeline of assessed projects to support budget preparation and improve accountability, transparency, coordination, and technical quality of project prioritization

### Procurement and monitoring
- Legislative and institutional framework:
  - Public Procurement Law no. 182 of 2018 and Regulation 692/2019 introduce e-procurement, framework agreements, sustainable procurement, institutional arrangements, code of conduct, conflict-of-interest provisions, and an independent complaints review office (organized by Prime Minister decree # 665/2021)
  - The procurement framework stipulates creation of a public portal managed by the General Authority of Government Services (GAGS) to advertise procurement opportunities, award decisions, and monitor procurement plans
- Implementation gaps:
  - Lack of a well-functioning database to monitor implementation of the law; existing government procurement portal database:
    - does not cover all procurement activities
    - does not differentiate public investments from other procurement activities
    - use by procuring authorities is not recorded nor reported
    - quality and quantity of available data in the portal is weak
  - GAGS does not systematically collect, maintain, and publish procurement information, undermining the procurement system
  - The lack of data prevents verification of the degree of competitive tendering or the effectiveness of the complaints process

*Italic: IMF | Technical Report – Egypt PIMA | Chapter 34 summary from the supplied content.*

### 55. Additional procurement reforms are a medium priority and could support greater

### 55. Additional procurement reforms are a medium priority and could support greater

### Availability of funding (Strength— Medium; Effectiveness—Medium; Reform Priority—Medium)
- Role: Ensures availability of cash when needed to make payments for public investments; commitment should follow reliable cash-flow forecasts to avoid arrears.
- Systems in place:
  - Cash flow forecasts and commitment control systems exist; regulatory requirement for cash management.
  - Cash management unit in the MoF prepares an annual cash plan based on approved budget and annual projections from each government unit.
  - Government units cannot commit expenditures without approval of the MoF financial controller of the unit (Article 35 of the Unified PFM Law no. 6 of 2022).
  - MoF circular no. 14 for 2022 requires all entities to provide the Financing Department of the MoF with their cash flow forecast on a monthly basis; used to process payments though there is no legal provision to ensure timely release of funds.
  - Treasury Single Account (TSA) and centralized payment systems provide controls; TSA required to be held in the CBE by Unified PFM Law no. 6 of 2022; budget entities in TSA cannot open accounts outside TSA without prior MoF approval.
  - MoF exercises ex ante control on all steps of budget execution; all commitments and obligations must be entered in the Government Financial Management Information System (GFMIS).
  - External financing is held at the central bank but is not always part of the TSA; in some cases external financing can be held in commercial bank accounts per donors’ agreements and council of ministers’ approval.
  - The Ministry of Defense, the National Security Authority and their agencies operate some bank accounts outside the TSA in addition to TSA accounts (article 51 of Law no 6 of 2022). The Minister of Finance has approved opening of bank accounts outside the TSA for some donor and loan-funded projects (special accounts).
- Practical performance and risks:
  - Availability of funding does not seem to have negative impacts on capital spending in practice.
  - Ministries receive commitment ceilings for capital projects quarterly; some cases where commitments exceeded cash availability due to exchange rate fluctuation.
  - No evidence of unforeseen budget cuts imposed on government units, arrears, or delays in availability of funds for capital outlays; no evidence of surcharges paid by the government due to payment delays.
  - System efficacy mainly relies on liquidity provided by overdraft facilities at the CBE; government maintains an overdraft facility with the CBE for temporary cash shortfalls.
  - Payment arrears are not considered an issue by the authorities and are not subject to specific monitoring or reporting.
  - External funding represents less than 3 percent of capital projects and all payments from donors' money are timely channeled through the CBE.
- Recommendations:
  - MoF should compile quarterly reports on outstanding commitments and orders to pay, and the effective average delay of payments.
  - Identify overdue payments as payment arrears.
  - Cash management unit should increase engagement with the largest Budget Sector entities and EAs to improve accuracy of forecasts.
  - Consider options to strengthen forecasts of smaller entities with weak forecasting capacity.

### Portfolio Management and Oversight (Strength—Medium; Effectiveness—Medium; Reform Priority—Medium)
- Purpose: Aggregate public investment portfolio oversight supports efficiency, enables identification of systemic issues, facilitates re-allocation, and informs improved execution.
- Current arrangements:
  - Standard arrangements for monitoring project costs and physical progress: desk-based oversight for all projects; field-based monitoring by the National Investment Bank for complex or troubled projects.
  - Integrated System for Investment Plan Preparation and Monitoring (ISIPPM) being developed to support monitoring in future.
  - Legal framework allows reallocation of funds between projects under General Visas for the State Budget; Minister of Planning and Economic Development can authorize increased allocations in certain circumstances.
  - Transfers limited to certain expenditure classes and capped at 10 percent of total appropriation for the agency.
  - No formal requirement for ex-post review of major projects and no system-wide mechanism for capturing lessons-learned from completed projects.
- ISIPPM (Box 6) key facts:
  - Developed by MPED over five years; currently covers over 10,000 projects.
  - Portfolio estimated capital delivery cost: EGP 3.8 trillion.
  - Forecast outlay: over EGP 800 billion in the fiscal year 2022/2023.
  - System is linked to the Government Financial Management Information System maintained by the MoF.
  - ISIPPM modules: 1. Social and Development Plan Preparation; 2. Investment Funds Reallocation; 3. Monitoring and Evaluation.
  - Training programs to date have focused on conducting feasibility studies as part of project preparation.
  - ISIPPM to be supported by the National Investment Bank for future monitoring and evaluation.
- Monitoring limitations and performance:
  - Monitoring concentrated on individual projects; lacks consideration of overall trends at agency, ministerial, or national portfolio level.
  - Planned use of ISIPPM to support aggregate portfolio management in future.
  - Some reallocation activity observed; budget execution as a share of planned investment has averaged over 90 percent over the last five years.
  - Ex-post reviews conducted in some sectors (example: energy sector updated governance procedures including a new commercial assessment due to ex-post review findings).
- Recommendations:
  - Full roll-out of ISIPPM to support regular monitoring of trends in cost, schedule and benefits across the portfolio; use it to identify emerging risks and opportunities.
  - Make post-project reviews an intrinsic part of the investment life cycle; use findings to enhance investment governance.
  - Post-project reviews should assess delivery versus target cost, schedule and benefits, whether processes were followed during preparation and execution, and capture/document lessons learned before project teams disperse.

### Management of project implementation (Strength—Low; Effectiveness—Low; Reform Priority—High)
- Importance: Effective project implementation and clear guidance for project/program management are required to realize public investment benefits; regular independent audit provides oversight and identifies common problems.
- Current gaps:
  - Some central guidance exists but specific procedures for implementation plans, project adjustment, and ex-post audit are lacking.
  - No legal or regulatory requirement to identify responsible project owners/managers or to establish implementation plans prior to approval.
  - Law governing the ASA provides for ex-post project reviews, but no explicit arrangements for publication.
  - Implementation procedures vary sharply by sector; most sectors lack fixed arrangements for documenting implementation plans or designating senior official responsible for delivery before approval.
  - Energy sector is an exception with standard sectoral project management guidelines and accountable project managers generally in place before approval.
  - Between 2019 and 2021 a cross-government committee of senior representatives convened to resolve problems for major projects, but project adjustment proposals are not systematically documented.
  - Line Ministries report project cancellation is considered only in extreme cases.
  - ASA has monitoring and review systems prioritizing loan-funded projects, but reports are not published or publicly scrutinized by parliament and do not constitute ex-post audit.
- Good practice examples:
  - New Zealand guidance differentiates roles: Senior Responsible Owner (SRO), Project Governance Board Chair, Project Governance Board, Project Director, Project Team; establishes delegated decision-making, reporting, risk management, assurance and probity requirements (Box 8).
  - Independent audit example: Audit Scotland audits 227 public bodies and has published audits and distilled results into good practice checklists (Box 9).
- Recommendations:
  - Establish more standardized procedures for project implementation as a high priority.
  - Bolster MPED’s project and program management guidelines with rules requiring appointment of SROs and agreement of specific project implementation plans prior to approval.
  - Establish set procedures for triggering review of major projects and document steps for review/adjustment, including scope change or termination where warranted.
  - ASA should adopt a policy to undertake ex-post audit of major investment projects, publish findings, and follow-up on recommendations and lessons learned.

### Monitoring of public assets (Strength—Medium; Effectiveness—Low; Reform Priority—Medium)
- Rationale: Monitoring assets provides inputs across the PIM cycle; knowledge of existing asset condition is needed for selection of new projects and maintenance decisions.
- Legal/regulatory framework:
  - Entities are directed to disclose financial and nonfinancial information, financial statements, and final accounts.
  - Recording of nonfinancial assets in separate memorandum accounts at actual cost of supplies and works is prescribed.
  - Entities mandated to prepare and periodically update a record of all fixed assets showing value of each asset and stock at fiscal year-end; financial statements and final accounts required to include an annex describing assets and stock.
- Practical weaknesses:
  - Asset monitoring practices are decentralized and uneven; central oversight/guidance inadequate to ensure comprehensiveness, quality and accessibility of asset registers and government financial accounts.
  - Information on nonfinancial assets kept in a widely decentralized network of asset registers with varying practices; many entities (especially local administration) manually update registers at intervals of three years or more.
  - Ministry of Information and Communication is setting up a digital state property management system across government, but completion may take several years to cover numerous entities at all levels.
  - Coverage of nonfinancial assets in publicly available financial accounts is not comprehensive: government's financial reports show only purchase of nonfinancial assets, not the stock.
  - Financial statements of entities outside the budgetary sector include information on value of nonfinancial assets they hold, but it is unclear whether these values are consolidated in the financial accounts.
  - Assessing comparability is infeasible due to uneven practices among dispersed asset registers that, if at all, undertake revaluation irregularly.
  - Unavailability of audit reports of the ASA contributes to difficulty in ascertaining whether nonfinancial assets' value is accurately described in financial accounts.
  - Depreciation typically not recorded in government's operating statements; depreciation sometimes captured where entities follow Egyptian Accounting Standards (EAS), which apply mainly to Public Business Sector Companies (PBSCs).
- Implication: Inadequate monitoring and inconsistent recording practices cast doubt on accounting and reporting of asset value and on ability to plan maintenance and new investment effectively.

*IMF | Technical Report – Egypt PIMA | content unit: 55. Additional procurement reforms are a medium priority and could support greater*

### 71. Priority should be given to strengthening central oversight of asset registers. This is

### tarea2024028 - 71. Priority should be given to strengthening central oversight of asset registers. This is

### A. LEGAL FRAMEWORK — findings
- Newly promulgated laws on PFM and State planning separately distribute responsibilities among the MoF and MPED; functions of planning for investments are assigned to MPED and planning for all other expenditure to MoF.
- Division of labor between MoF and MPED is "somewhat superficial", with a sizeable portion of public investment planned and undertaken by economic authorities that may exercise flexibility due to distinct legal personalities and founding laws.
- PFM and Planning laws do not definitively subject economic authorities to their scope and provide the possibility of exclusion from institutional coverage.
- Coordination between economic authorities, MoF, MPED, and supervising ministries mitigates legal gaps but is not formalized at a statutory level.
- Key legal provisions are contained in annual budget laws or secondary legislation, posing risks to institutional robustness and implementation effectiveness.
- Multiple committees in the planning process are created by governmental decisions that are mostly unpublished; lack of public accessibility increases opacity and complicates identification and streamlining of committees.
- Executive regulations and other guidelines are necessary to implement some provisions of the new PFM and State planning laws.
- Technical guidance on maintenance methodologies for physical assets (example: road infrastructure) appears to be absent, relying on intuition of project managers.

### B. IT SYSTEMS AND DATA MANAGEMENT — findings
- IT systems for PFM consist of two systems managed by MoF: the GFMIS and the TSA/e-Payment.
  - The GFMIS is an electronic system (Oracle) connecting all public government agencies and containing all PFM functions from strategic planning through accounting and reporting.
  - The TSA bank account system is mirrored by a treasury ledger system (e-payment system) with "virtual" accounts for all TSA entities at the level of accounting units; data in the e-payment system is automatically reconciled daily to bank data and has electronic links to both the GFMIS and the CBE.
- The Integrated System for Investment Plan Preparation and Monitoring (ISIPPM) developed by MPED is an online platform for entering capital projects and has three main modules: social and development plan preparation, investment funds reallocation, and monitoring and evaluation (including field and desk monitoring components). A process flow for linking ISIPPM with the GFMIS was prepared with USAID support and an interface has been developed.
- ISIPPM limitations:
  - Requires full cost and requested budget for next fiscal year but does not require estimated budget for outer years (e.g., year 2 to year 5), undermining MTBF effectiveness mandated in the unified PFM Law.
  - No centralized asset register exists to include information on condition of assets to guide maintenance planning and to serve as basis for generating balance sheets as part of financial statements.
- Other PIM modules/applications: Government Program Performance Monitoring System (GPPMS) and Sharek 2030 (mobile application launched in December 2019).

### C. CAPACITY — findings and gaps
- Capacity is relatively strong at MoF and MPED but heterogeneous across line ministries and other budget entities.
- Core areas needing development:
  - Project preparation and assessment by line ministries and for review by MPED.
  - Costing, selection, and budgeting processes for major projects by MPED and MoF.
  - Project management, execution control, and ex-post review by all entities involved (MPED and line ministries).
- Suggested capacity support activities:
  - Establish guidelines for appropriate methodologies and techniques.
  - Adopt standardized practices and procedures across the project cycle.
  - Undertake thorough project appraisals, especially for large, complex projects needing specialist knowledge or innovative financing.
  - Engage external experts/consultants for technical support, quality assurance, and ex post evaluation, with explicit aim to build in-house expertise.
- Transition needs for medium-term budgeting and MoF–MPED coordination:
  - Macro Fiscal Policy Unit (MFPU) needs strengthening to produce and publish a MTFF as basis for MTBF and associated documentation.
  - Required skill development: macro-fiscal forecasting, analysis of forecasting errors, report writing.
  - Stronger coordination between Budget Department and MFPU and broader coordination between MoF and MPED.
  - Training for line ministries in the new framework and development of standardized methodologies.

### RECOMMENDATIONS — issues and policy actions
- Issue 1: Project appraisal and approval processes are ad hoc and inadequate to ensure value for money.
  - Recommendation 1:
    - Issue executive regulation to set requirements for appraisal, planning and implementation at each stage of public investment projects.
    - Publish project appraisal methodology, including risk analysis.
    - Establish procedure for project appraisal review and assurance as part of approval process.
    - Define clear and transparent criteria and process for project selection.
- Issue 2: Alternative infrastructure finance — regulatory structures insufficiently facilitate private sector involvement.
  - Recommendation 2:
    - Further deregulate markets, with fully independent regulators.
    - Ensure all PPPs are consistently integrated with the budget and their fiscal implications reflected in headline fiscal indicators.
- Issue 3: Budgeting for investment — short-term cycle, insufficient detail, ambiguity over sub-national funding, uncertainty on cash availability.
  - Recommendation 3:
    - Publish medium-term capital budget and annual public sector investment plan with detail on project costs, funding and responsible delivery agency.
    - Formalize mechanisms for distribution of resources to sub-national government entities.
    - Work with spending entities to improve accuracy of cash needs forecasting.
- Issue 4: Asset protection — absence of consolidated asset registers and standard maintenance procedures undermines durability.
  - Recommendation 4:
    - Consolidate asset registers for government entities.
    - Establish standardized methodologies for assessment of maintenance needs and funding.
    - Provide transparent reporting on maintenance spending in budgets and accounts.
- Issue 5: Implementation and monitoring — no standard arrangements for project implementation; monitoring concentrated on individual projects.
  - Recommendation 5:
    - Develop an electronic government procurement system; deploy MAPS (Methodology to Assess Procurement System) and publish regular reports.
    - Establish a standardized project management model for government investment projects.
    - Use ISIPPM to track cost, schedule, benefits and identify portfolio risks/opportunities.
    - Undertake ex-post review of major projects as standard; mandate ASA to undertake and publish audits of major investment projects.

### APPENDIX 1. ACTION PLAN — selected actions, timing and responsible agencies
- Recommendation 1: Strengthen project appraisal and selection (Priority: High)
  - Issue regulation to set requirements for appraisal, planning and implementation at each stage.
    - Action: Issue Executive Regulation to planning law specifying approvals process from project concept, appraisal, planning and design, implementation, and ex-post review stages.
    - Responsible: MPED.
  - Develop project appraisal methodology, including risk analysis.
    - Actions across 2023–2025: Initiate development; Publish and apply general methodology; Publish and apply sector-specific methodologies.
    - Responsible: MoF, MPED, line ministries. TA support: USAID.
  - Separate central project review from budget process.
    - Actions: Include separate project review step in planning law executive regulation; Establish project review framework and pilot reviews prior to budget submissions; Institutionalize project gateway reviews at each project stage.
    - Responsible: MoF, MPED. TA support: World Bank.
  - Define clear and transparent criteria and process for project selection.
    - Actions: Include requirements in executive regulations; Define criteria in appraisal methodology; Create project pipeline; Initiate project assurance process.
    - Responsible: MoF, MPED. TA support: World Bank.

- Recommendation 2: Facilitate private sector involvement (Priority: Medium)
  - Further liberalize/deregulate markets and make regulators independent; unbundle utilities.
    - Responsible: MPED, MoF, MPSB, line ministries. TA support: World Bank.
  - Integrate PPPs with budget and reflect fiscal implications in headline indicators.
    - Responsible: MoF, MPED.

- Recommendation 3: Operationalize PFM law provisions for medium-term budgeting (Priority: High)
  - Publish medium-term capital budget and public sector investment plan; enact Executive Regulations to operationalize MTBF and MTFF; set indicative capital ceilings; ensure consistency with ISIPPM.
    - Responsible: MPED, MoF. TA support: IMF.
  - Formalize mechanisms for distribution to SNGs; issue Executive Regulation enacting financing equation; define determinants and timing for expected transfers.
  - Improve cash needs forecasting: compile quarterly reports on outstanding commitments and delays; engage key investment entities; deliver targeted training.
    - Responsible: MoF. TA support: IMF.

- Recommendation 4: Strengthen asset management and maintenance (Priority: Medium)
  - Consolidate asset registers: determine standards for Ministry and EA registers and consolidate into national infrastructure asset register; review and expand coverage including climate change impact.
    - Responsible: MoF, MPED, EAs, Line Ministries. TA support: USAID.
  - Implement methodologies to determine maintenance needs and funding: develop standardized methodologies and test/refine sectoral methodologies.
    - Responsible: MoF, Line Ministries.
  - Provide transparent reporting on maintenance spending: set out routine and capital maintenance in medium-term capital budget and annual capital plan; update annually and reconcile budgets and outturns.
    - Responsible: MoF, Line Ministries.

- Recommendation 5: Strengthen procurement, project and portfolio management (Priority: High)
  - Develop electronic government procurement (e-GP); deploy diagnostic to identify strengths/weaknesses and support targeted reforms.
  - Establish standardized project management model: set PM requirements, criteria to trigger reviews, documentation for review and adjustment, training programs.
    - Responsible: MPED. TA support: World Bank.
  - Use ISIPPM for portfolio monitoring: track cost, schedule, benefits; prepare and publish standard reports; expand coverage to include outturn data on completed projects.
  - Undertake ex-post review of major projects: mandate ex-post review, publish guidance, pilot reviews and use findings to refine procedures.
  - Mandate ASA to undertake and publish audits of major investment projects: update legal framework to provide for ex-post audit based on set criteria; publish reports and use findings to inform appraisal and management procedures.

- Action plan calendar entries: Actions are mapped across 2023, 2024, 2025 with stated responsible agencies as listed above.

### APPENDIX 2. PIMA Questionnaire — excerpt (Planning Sustainable Levels of Public Investment)
- 1. Fiscal targets and rules: Does the government have fiscal institutions to support fiscal sustainability and to facilitate medium-term planning for public investment?
  - 1.a. Is there a target or limit for government to ensure debt sustainability?
    - Options listed: "There is no target or limit to ensure debt sustainability."; "There is at least one target or limit to ensure central government debt sustainability."; "There is at least one target or limit to ensure general government debt sustainability."
  - 1.b. Is fiscal policy guided by one or more permanent fiscal rules?
    - Options listed: "There are no permanent fiscal rules."; "There is at least one permanent fiscal rule applicable to central government."; "There is at least one permanent fiscal rule applicable to central government, and at least one comparable rule applicable to a major additional component of general government, such as subnational government (SNG)."
  - 1.c. Is there a medium-term fiscal framework (MTFF) to align budget preparation with fiscal policy?
    - Options listed: "There is no MTFF prepared prior to budget preparation."; "There is an MTFF prepared prior to budget preparation but it is limited to fiscal aggregates, such as expenditure, revenue, the deficit, or total borrowing."; "There is an MTFF prepared prior to budget preparation, which includes fiscal aggregates and allows distinctions between recurrent and capital spending, and ongoing and new projects."

*IMF | Technical Report – Egypt PIMA | sections 71–1, Section IV (A–C), Recommendations, Appendix 1, Appendix 2*

### 2. National and Sectoral Planning: Are investment allocation decisions based on sectoral and inter-sectoral strategies?

### 2. National and Sectoral Planning: Are investment allocation decisions based on sectoral and inter-sectoral strategies?

### A. Planning
- Indicators and scores (Institutional Design, Effectiveness):
  - 1.a. 1, 1
  - 1.b. 1, 1
  - 1.c. 1, 1
  - 2.a. 3, 2
  - 2.b. 2, 2
  - 2.c. 2, 2
  - 3.a. 1, 3
  - 3.b. 2, 1
  - 3.c. 1, 2
  - 4.a. 1, 1
  - 4.b. 1, 1
  - 4.c. 1, 1
  - 5.a. 1, 1
  - 5.b. 2, 2
  - 5.c. 1, 1
  - 6.a. 1, 1
  - 6.b. 1, 1
  - 6.c. 2, 1

### B. Ensuring Public Investment is Allocated to the Right Sectors and Projects (Allocation)
- Indicators and scores (Institutional Design, Effectiveness):
  - 7.a. 2, 2
  - 7.b. 2, 2
  - 7.c. 2, 2
  - 8.a. 1, 1
  - 8.b. 3, 3
  - 8.c. 1, 1
  - 9.a. 1, 1
  - 9.b. 1, 1
  - 9.c. 2, 1
  - 10.a. 1, 1
  - 10.b. 1, 1
  - 10.c. 1, 1

### C. Delivering Productive and Durable Public Assets (Implementation)
- Indicators and scores (Institutional Design, Effectiveness):
  - 11.a. 2, 1
  - 11.b. 2, 1
  - 11.c. 3, 2
  - 12.a. 2, 2
  - 12.b. 2, 2
  - 12.c. 3, 3
  - 13.a. 2, 1
  - 13.b. 3, 2
  - 13.c. 1, 2
  - 14.a. 1, 1
  - 14.b. 2, 1
  - 14.c. 1, 1
  - 15.a. 2, 1
  - 15.b. 2, 1
  - 15.c. 1, 1

### Cross-cutting issues noted
- A. IT support: Is there a comprehensive computerized information system for public investment projects to support decision making and monitoring?
- B. Legal Framework: Is there a legal and regulatory framework that supports institutional arrangements, mandates, coverage, procedures, standards and accountability for effective PIM?
- C. Staff capacity: Does staff capacity (number of staff and/or their knowledge, skills, and experience) and clarity of roles and responsibilities support effective PIM institutions?

*IMF | Technical Report – Egypt PIMA*

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/tar/2024/english/tarea2024028.pdf_