## tarea2025023-print-pdf ## Source details **Canonical URL:** [tarea2025023-print-pdf](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/tar/2025/english/tarea2025023-print-pdf.pdf) ## Other formats - [Markdown version](/-/media/files/publications/tar/2025/english/tarea2025023-print-pdf.pdf.md) - [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/publications/tar/2025/english/tarea2025023-print-pdf.pdf.json) --- ### Preface and Executive summary — strategic context and priorities - Mission: FAD capacity development mission visited Banjul from July 25 to August 7, 2024 to undertake a Public Investment Management Assessment (PIMA) and Climate PIMA (C-PIMA). - Team leadership and composition: Led by Bryn Battersby; team included Natalia Salazar Ferro, Ian Hawkesworth, Rehemah Namutebi (FAD), Chathebert Mudhunguyo (IMF Resident Public Financial Management Advisor in The Gambia), Kubai Khasiani and Willie Du Preez (FAD short-term experts); Tchaoussala Haoussiaish (World Bank) joined part of the mission. - National Development Plan (NDP) priorities: sustainable growth and social transformation with significant public infrastructure investments in agriculture, energy, transport, and human capital; notable priorities include renewable energy projects and expansion of the Banjul Port. - Financing gap context: - Optimistic NDP financing need: USD 3.5 billion (159.1 percent of GDP). - Conservative NDP financing need: USD 2.8 billion (127.3 percent of GDP). - Available funding estimated at USD 703.13 million (31.9 percent of GDP) and USD 598 million (27.2 percent of GDP), respectively. - Estimated funding gaps: approximately USD 2.80 billion (127.3 percent of GDP) and USD 2.21 billion (100.5 percent of GDP). ### Recent trends in infrastructure and outcomes - Improvements over past five years noted in: - Number of secondary teachers. - Access to electricity. - Access to basic drinking water services. - Perception of infrastructure quality trended upward since 2007; overall The Gambia still ranks lower than many regional peers. ### Institutional design improvements since 2019 - Key legal and institutional developments: - Cabinet Memorandum (2020) and guidance establishing the Gambia Strategic Review Board (GSRB). - State-Owned Enterprise (SOE) Act (2023) mandating a new SOE Commission. - Gambia Public Procurement Authority Act (2022) and regulations. - Asset Management Policy driving development of a comprehensive asset register. - Planned new PFM Act intended to address remaining gaps. ### Effectiveness gaps and cross-cutting operational weaknesses - Major operational weaknesses (selected): - Standard methodology not fully applied in project appraisals; risks not systematically examined. - Project selection lacks central review and pipeline of appraised projects for budgeting. - Aid Management Platform no longer operational. - Medium-term capital expenditure outcomes frequently deviate substantially from forecasts. - Breakdown between recurrent and capital expenditure in budget ceilings is no longer provided. - Asset management incomplete: limited asset registers and irregular condition assessments. - Absence of a dedicated PIM oversight team; lack of IT system to track projects; PIM roles across MoFEA directorates not formally specified; staff insufficient. --- ### Project selection (Chapter 10) — institutional assessment and effectiveness - Summary scores and priorities: - Project selection (PIMA): Institutional Strength — MEDIUM. Effectiveness — LOW. Reform priority — High. - Project appraisal: Institutional Strength — MEDIUM. Effectiveness — MEDIUM. - Climate-aware project appraisal (C-PIMA C3): Institutional Strength — LOW. Reform priority — High. - Budgeting and portfolio management (C-PIMA C4): LOW institutional strength; reform priority — High. - Findings on central review and pipeline: - MoFEA reviews projects but lacks standard criteria and structure to maintain a pipeline of appraised projects. - Major projects are not reviewed centrally; no pipeline of appraised projects for budgeting; many parallel selection processes determined by funding source. - The GSRB template enables appraisal but does not provide criteria to rank projects. - Project appraisal weaknesses: - Major projects need rigorous analysis using standard methodology with risk plans, but required supporting documentation is often lagging; no requirement for publication of selected results or independent external review. - Project risks, including climate, are to be identified per guidelines but not systematically assessed. - Budgeting and portfolio management gaps: - Budget documents do not identify climate-related expenditures or projects. - Ex-post reviews of climate outcomes are not required. - Asset management policies do not address climate risks. ### Context and fiscal constraints affecting selection (exact figures) - Real GDP growth in 2023: 5.3 percent. - Public capital stock fell from 130 percent of GDP to 96 percent of GDP between 2014 and 2019; exceeded 100 percent of GDP in 2023. - NDP financing strategy numbers (reiterated): - Total funding required optimistic: USD 3.5 billion (159.1 percent of GDP). - Total funding required conservative: USD 2.8 billion (127.3 percent of GDP). - Available funding: USD 703.13 million (31.9 percent of GDP) and USD 598 million (27.2 percent of GDP). - Funding gaps: approximately USD 2.80 billion (127.3 percent of GDP) and USD 2.21 billion (100.5 percent of GDP). - Public investment composition (2022–2024): Ten sectors account for 94 percent of public investment. Sector shares include: - Energy: 2.8 percent of GDP. - Transport: 2.7 percent of GDP. - Agriculture: 1.3 percent of GDP. - Health: 0.9 percent of GDP. - Education: 0.5 percent of GDP. - Environment: 0.5 percent of GDP. - Financing mix: - From 2008 to 2023, public investment financed with external sources has been close to 80 percent. ### Institutional gaps relevant to selection - No requirement to publish project-level total costs; budgets often present information only at program level. - No multiyear capital expenditure ceilings; multiyear capital estimates published but no multiyear ceilings or total construction cost projections. - No centralized PIMIS and inadequate centralized staffing. - Incomplete asset registers; no requirement for recording asset values or specifying depreciation. ### Recommendations directly related to project selection, prioritization, and climate integration (with timing, responsibility, priority) - Cross-cutting: - Recommendation 1. Design and implement a simple, fit-for-purpose Public Investment Management Information System (PIMIS) (through to 2026, MoFEA). Priority: High. - Recommendation 2. Mandate a centralized unit in MoFEA to coordinate and guide PIM across government (by end-2024, Minister of Finance and Economic Affairs). Priority: High. - Planning and project lists: - Recommendation 3. Extract and publish a list of the priority investment projects as an annex to the NDP 2023-2027 and ensure that all future sectoral strategic plans include a list of projects, estimated costs, and funding sources. (by end-2024, MoFEA). Priority: Medium. - Allocation and selection procedures: - Recommendation 5. Reinstate capital expenditure ceilings in the budget call circular. In the medium term, capital expenditure ceilings should include locally funded and externally financed capital expenditures (by mid-2026, MoFEA). Priority: High. - Recommendation 6. Ensure all ongoing and proposed new projects funded locally and by donors are reviewed before being included in the budget documents for approval by the legislature (by mid-2025, MoFEA). Priority: Medium. - Recommendation 7. Develop operational guidelines describing the selection process and key criteria covering the role of the new MoFEA PIM Unit (by end-2024, Gambia Strategic Review Board, MDAs, and Ministerial Investment Implementation Committee). Priority: High. - Implementation and pipeline/portfolio: - Recommendation 8. Establish a portfolio management function in MoFEA (by end-2025, MoFEA and SOEs). Priority: Medium. - Recommendation 9. Complete the process of preparing a centralized asset register and improve information on maintenance and asset register (by end-2025, Accountant General and MoFEA). Priority: Medium. - Climate integration: - Recommendation 11. Incorporate climate change criteria in the update of the appraisal and selection regulation and in the upcoming Public Private Partnership Act (by mid-2025, MoFEA). Priority: High. - Recommendation 12. Update the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Templates and Guidelines to include climate change requirements (by mid-2025, MECCNAR). Priority: High. - Recommendation 13. Use the geo-location information in the new asset register to initially assess exposure of critical infrastructure to climate risks and produce a plan to mitigate these asset risks (by end-2027, Accountant General). Priority: High. - Recommendation 14. Update the Fiscal Risk Statement to assess climate-related risks to assets, macroeconomic risks, and climate-related risks to SOEs and PPPs (by end-2026, MoFEA). Priority: Medium. - SOE and contingent liabilities: - Recommendation 4. Enforce requirements under the SOE Act for SOEs to submit annual financial statements that include a statement on contingent liabilities (by end-2024, MoFEA). Priority: Low. ### Expected implementation benefits (selected) - A PIMIS and mandated MoFEA PIM unit will: - provide a centralized project pipeline and enable standardized appraisals and selection; - support publication of priority project lists and improve tracking of total project costs. - Capital expenditure ceilings and mandatory pre-budget project reviews will strengthen budgeting framework and legislative oversight. - Portfolio management, centralized asset register with geo-location, and climate criteria will improve implementation, maintenance management, and assessment/mitigation of climate exposure for critical infrastructure. --- ### Project appraisal, allocation, and budgeting — detailed findings - Project appraisal: - Appraisal guidelines and regulations require iterative, systematic, rigorous technical, economic, and financial analysis, but no publication or independent review requirement. - Practical alternative project tracks exist that bypass standard methodology (donor-led, bilateral MDA-MoFEA track, PPP track). - Multiyear budgeting and budget comprehensiveness: - Multiyear capital expenditure estimates published in 2024 budget but no multiyear ceilings; Aid Management Platform non-operational since 2020. - On average between 2020 and 2023, public investment management units managed capital spending amounting to 7.3 percent of GDP. - Budgeting for investment — capital budget under-execution (IFMIS reports): - 78 percent under-execution in 2022. - 90 percent under-execution in 2023. - Table (Budgeted Capital Expenditure and Actual Outturn, selected items): - 2021 — Approved Budget (GMB ,000s): 3,284,112 — Actual Outturn (GMB ,000s): 2,537,162 — Difference: 23% - 2022 — Approved Budget (GMB ,000s): 9,470,689 — Actual Outturn (GMB ,000s): 2,116,487 — Difference: 78% - 2023 — Approved Budget (GMB ,000s): 5,720,032 — Actual Outturn (GMB ,000s): 583,976 — Difference: 90% - Maintenance funding — under-execution (selected table): - 2021 Routine Approved: 57,715 — Actual: 42,798 — Deviation: 26% - 2021 Major Approved: 114,549 — Actual: 31,016 — Deviation: 73% - 2022 Routine Approved: 135,608 — Actual: 46,687 — Deviation: 66% - 2022 Major Approved: 69,928 — Actual: 24,668 — Deviation: 68% - 2023 Routine Approved: 68,265 — Actual: 46,464 — Deviation: 64% - 2023 Major Approved: 49,470 — Actual: 22,960 — Deviation: 54% ### Procurement and availability of funding - Procurement: - Regulated by Gambia Public Procurement Act (2022) and Regulations (2019); open or international tendering required for works contracts above GMD 10m (USD 140,000). - Microsoft Excel-based procurement database exists; no e-procurement yet. - Availability of funding: - Cash forecasting errors average -10.7 percent. - Cash allocations provided only one month in advance. - Most GLF capital project invoices not paid on time; stock of arrears unknown. - External project disbursements are dependable per donors’ plans. ### Portfolio management and implementation oversight - Portfolio management: - Design — Low; Effectiveness — Low; Reform Priority — High. - No legal requirement for central monitoring of major projects; monitoring concentrates on financial progress, not physical progress. - Ex-post reviews for government-funded projects are not legally required. - Recommendation 8. Establish a portfolio management function in MoFEA (by end-2025). Priority: Medium. - Recommendation 9. Complete centralized asset register and improve maintenance information (by end-2025). Priority: Medium. - Management of project implementation: - No legal requirement to appoint senior officers for projects or prepare project implementation plans. - Less than 10 percent of projects exposed to external audit. - Contract price adjustments regulated by Public Procurement Authority Regulations (2019) Article 143 but procedure and limits not fully standardized. --- ### Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) — status and Port of Banjul case - PPP activity and scale: - Ten ongoing PPP projects with private participation in construction or operation. - Seven projects in pre-investment stage. - Three completed projects. - Total estimated investment value of identified PPP contracts: approximately USD 110.0 million (5.0 percent of GDP). - Largest PPP: Banjul Terminal Expansion and Development of Deep-Sea Port in Sanyang — estimated investment around USD 80.0 million (7.7 percent of GDP). - Table 4 selected ongoing PPP project values (exact as provided): - Nick TC Scan — 23.1m — 10yrs - SecuriPort — 7.5m — 15yrs - Africard — 1.0m — 15yrs - Comfort Quality — 0.7m — 5yrs - Single Window Platform — 10.7m — 10yrs - Cargo Tracking Note — 53.0m — 10yrs - Rental Income Mobilization System — 5.5m — 3yrs - Revenue Mobilization for Excisable Goods, Refine Fuel, and Telecom Service — 10.0m — 5yrs - Banjul Terminal Expansion and Development of Deep-Sea Port in Sanyang — ~80.0m — 25yrs - Port of Banjul Expansion (Box 1 key numbers): - Container volumes grew by 9.9 percent per year from 2010-2019 to a peak of 137,000 TEU. - Volumes declined to 120,000 TEU in 2021. - Demand forecast: increase to 270,000 TEU in 2030 — average growth rate 9.5 percent. - Pre-feasibility investment estimate: GMD5,680 million (approximately USD 80m) over seven years. - Base-case and scenario NPV results (Table 5, GMD million): Row 1 Base Case (BC) — 47; Row 2 BC+ Full inflation correction on revenues — 2,415 + 2,368; Row 3 BC+ Revenue increase of 20% from 2025 — 1,579 + 1,533; Row 4 BC+ Dev financing — 607 + 560; Row 5 Total — 4,649 4,461. - Preferred bidder (Albayrak of Turkey) selected in late 2023; negotiations ongoing; concession agreement status unclear. - PPP policy and SOE oversight: - PPP Act in draft; PPP Operational Guidelines (2016) do not mention climate change issues. - SOE Act (2023) mandates SOE Commission but secretariat being set up. --- ### Climate PIMA — vulnerability, emissions, and integration into PIM - Climate vulnerability and projected changes: - Projected temperature increases: between 1.1 degrees Celsius and 3.1 degrees Celsius by the 2060s; up to 5.0 degrees Celsius by the 2090s. - Sea level rise under RCP4.5: between 0.12 and 0.41 meters by 2050 (relative to 2000); between 0.24 and 1.07 meters by 2100 (relative to 2000). - Under RCP8.5, meteorological drought duration in West Africa projected to increase from approximately two months historically (1950–2014) to about four months by the end of the century (2050–2100). - The Gambia average elevation: 34 meters above sea level; much of country below 20 meters; Banjul and Greater Banjul area house approximately 1.4 million people, or over 60 percent of the nation's population. - Emissions and NDC: - The Gambia accounts for less than 0.01 percent of global CO2e emissions. - Business-as-usual emissions: expected to increase from 2,840 GgCO2e in 2020 to 3,360 GgCO2e by 2030. - NDC target: 3,327 GgCO2e by 2030 (updated NDC submitted in 2021 sets a 49.7 percent reduction target by 2030 relative to business-as-usual, conditional on support). - NDC Implementation Plan (2021-2030) funding (Table 12 exact values): - Focus Area: Adaptation — Number: 21 — Percent: 78% — Value (USD): $ 579,140,908 - Focus Area: Mitigation — Number: 4 — Percent: 15% — Value (USD): $ 286,754,890 - Focus Area: Cross-cutting — Number: 2 — Percent: 7% — Value (USD): $ 21,429,132 - TOTAL — Number: 27 — Percent: 100% — Value (USD): $ 887,324,930 - Sector: Agriculture — Number: 8 — Percent: 30% — Value (USD): $ 140,418,000 - Sector: Ecosystems — Number: 10 — Percent: 37% — Value (USD): $ 392,112,323 - Sector: Energy — Number: 3 — Percent: 11% — Value (USD): $ 284,756,890 - Sector: Coast — Number: 2 — Percent: 7% — Value (USD): $ 51,122,970 - Sector: Disaster — Number: 2 — Percent: 7% — Value (USD): $ 4,095,000 - Sector: Environment — Number: 1 — Percent: 4% — Value (USD): $ 1,998,000 - Sector: Water — Number: 1 — Percent: 4% — Value (USD): $ 7,119,747 - TOTAL — Number: 27 — Percent: 100% — Value (USD): $ 887,324,930 - Climate PIMA institutional assessments (selected): - C1 Climate-aware planning: Strength — Low; Reform Priority — Medium. - C3 Project appraisal and selection (climate perspective): Strength — Low; Reform Priority — High. - C4 Budgeting and portfolio management (climate perspective): Strength — Low; Reform Priority — High. - Climate-related PIM shortfalls: - Appraisal Guidelines include climate change as a project risk but not comprehensively covered in appraisal, PPP, or selection regulations. - Budget documents do not identify or tag climate-related expenditures. - Land-use and construction regulations outdated; coordination on climate issues insufficient. - Climate-specific recommendations (selected with timing and priority): - Recommendation 11. Incorporate climate change criteria in the appraisal and selection regulation and in the upcoming PPP Act (by mid-2025, MoFEA). Priority: High. - Recommendation 12. Update the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Templates and Guidelines to include analysis of greenhouse gas contributions and resilience measures (by mid-2025, MECCNAR). Priority: High. - Recommendation 13. Use geo-location in asset register to assess exposure and produce mitigation plan (by end-2027, Accountant General). Priority: High. - Recommendation 14. Update Fiscal Risk Statement to assess climate-related macroeconomic risks and climate-related risks to SOEs and PPPs, drawing on Q-CRAFT (by end-2026, MoFEA). Priority: Medium. - Recommendation 10. Include climate-related performance criteria in SOE performance agreements (by end 2024, SOE Commission). Priority: Medium. ### Disaster risk financing and fiscal risk - Ex-ante financing mechanisms: - Access to USD 20 million World Bank facility with Catastrophe Drawdown Option. - Subscription to Africa Risk Capacity with coverage of about USD 3.7 million. - Fiscal risk statement: - Draft fiscal risk statement for MTEFF 2025-2028 developed and awaiting cabinet approval; currently does not include climate-related risks to public infrastructure assets. - Recommended expansions: - Include natural disaster and climate change risks with qualitative and quantitative assessments of public infrastructure impacts; use asset register and hazard maps; assess impacts on SOEs and PPPs; consider IMF Q-CRAFT. --- ### Information Technology, staffing, and capacity constraints - IT and PIMIS: - Aid Management Platform collapsed; a simple, fit-for-purpose PIMIS urgently needed. - Recommended PIMIS timeline and actions: - Conduct needs assessment (End 2024, DAC with donor or IMF assistance). - Develop implementation plan (End 2024). - Design and develop PIMIS (End 2025). - Pilot testing (Late 2025). - Train staff (Late 2025). - Roll out and establish monitoring (End 2026). - Explicit recommendation 1: Design and implement a simple, fit-for-purpose PIMIS (by end 2026, MoFEA). Priority: High. - Staffing and institutional arrangements: - Department of Aid Coordination staffing: 6 staff current; proposed complement 26 technical staff. - Explicit recommendation 2: Create a centralized PIM unit at MoFEA (by December 2024, Minister of Finance). Priority: High. - Cross-cutting capacity actions: - Prepare formal assignment of PIM roles (January 2025). - Develop capacity building program in PIM and climate change (End 2025). - Develop a PIM Policy (End 2025). --- ### Asset management, monitoring, and ex-post review practices - Asset registers and depreciation (status as of July 2024): - Asset Management Policy issued: November 2022. - Asset register compilation commenced: July 2024. - Expected completion date for compilation of asset registers: December 2024. - Depreciation formula published: Not yet done. - Comprehensive list of asset life cycle: Not yet done. - Revaluation of asset values: Not yet done. - Condition assessments: Not yet done. - Depreciation rates example (National Water and Energy Corporation Financial Statements 2020): - Buildings: 2 - Plant and Machinery: 4 -10 - Motor vehicles: 20 - Fittings, Furniture and Equipment: 20 - Electricity network: 2.5 - Water and sewage network: 2.5 - Monitoring and ex-post review recommendations: - Institute ex-post reviews as integral part of investment life cycle and publish findings. - Box 4 minimum project progress report items listed for monitoring templates (project number, status, commencement date, contractual completion date, expected completion date, % physical progress on site, % of budget spent, % time lapsed, reasons for cost overruns, risk and mitigation measures, etc.). - Recommendation 8. Establish portfolio management function in MoFEA (by end-2025). Priority: Medium. - Recommendation 9. Complete centralized asset register and improve maintenance information (by end-2025). Priority: Medium. --- *Source: Chapter 10, "Project selection", IMF Technical Report (content unit: tarea2025023-print-pdf).* ### Preface ____________________________________________________________________________ 7 ### Preface ### Mission and participants - At the request of Hon. Seedy Keita, Minister for Finance and Economic Affairs of The Gambia, a Fiscal Affairs Department (FAD) capacity development mission visited Banjul from July 25 to August 7, 2024, to undertake a Public Investment Management Assessment (PIMA) and Climate PIMA (C-PIMA). - Mission leadership and composition: - Led by Bryn Battersby. - Team: Natalia Salazar Ferro, Ian Hawkesworth, Rehemah Namutebi (all FAD), Chathebert Mudhunguyo (IMF Resident Public Financial Management Advisor in The Gambia), Kubai Khasiani and Willie Du Preez (both FAD short-term experts). - Tchaoussala Haoussiaish (World Bank) joined part of the mission. - Meetings and presentations: - Met with the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs (MoFEA), Mr. Baboucarr Jobe, and senior MoFEA officials including Mrs. Juldeh Ceesay; Mrs. Clara Saine; Mr. Mustapha Samateh; Mrs. Mariama Saine; Mr. Papalie Puye; Mrs. Isatou F. Camara; and Mrs. Chilil Ceesay. - Met other senior officials: Mr. Ebrima Sillah; Mr. Matar Ceesay; Mr. Lamin Dampha; Mr. Lamin Camara; Mr. Bubacarr Zaidi Jallow; Mr. Momodou Taal; Mr. Phoday M. Jaiteh; Mr. Ousman Jobarteh; Mr. Gallo Saidy; Mr. Omar Gaye; Mr. Yusupha M. Jobe; Mr. Sanna Dahaba; Mr. Pa Majagne Ndow; Mr. Abdou Aziz Gaye; and Mr. Sulayman Sumareh Janneh. - Presented findings at a meeting of development partners chaired by the IMF Resident Representative. - Acknowledgements: - The mission expressed appreciation to the Gambian authorities for cooperation and constructive discussions. - Special thanks to Mrs. Mariam Saine and colleagues from MoFEA’s Aid Coordination Directorate for coordinating meetings and logistical support. ### Executive summary — strategic context and public investment priorities - The Gambia’s National Development Plan (NDP) prioritizes sustainable growth and social transformation and includes significant public infrastructure investments in agriculture, energy, transport, and human capital. - Notable investment priorities: - Renewable energy projects. - Expansion of the Banjul Port to support trade and economic activity. - Funding gaps in the NDP are substantial, making effective public investment management crucial to ensure efficient resource use and delivery of intended development outcomes. ### Executive summary — recent trends in infrastructure and outcomes - Infrastructure quality and access have improved over the past five years; perceptions of infrastructure quality have trended upward since 2007. - Key indicators with improvements: - Number of secondary teachers. - Access to electricity. - Access to basic drinking water services. - The Gambia’s performance in these indicators exceeds regional and comparator averages in some areas, but overall it still ranks lower than many countries in the region. ### Institutional design improvements since 2019 - Notable legal, regulatory, and institutional developments: - Adoption of the Cabinet Memorandum (2020) and guidance establishing the Gambia Strategic Review Board. - Introduction of the 2023 State-Owned Enterprise (SOE) Act mandating the new SOE Commission with central monitoring of SOEs. - Enactment of the Gambia Public Procurement Authority Act (2022) and regulations upgrading procurement definitions and procedures. - A new Asset Management Policy driving development of a comprehensive asset register. - A planned new PFM Act intended to address remaining gaps (implementation will determine effectiveness). ### Effectiveness gaps and operational weaknesses - Despite design improvements, effectiveness has lagged or weakened in some areas: - The standard methodology is not fully applied in project appraisals; risks are not systematically examined. - Project selection lacks central review; no pipeline of appraised projects for budgeting; many parallel project selection processes often determined by funding source. - The Aid Management Platform is no longer operational, creating gaps in centralized tracking and management of donor-funded project costs and progress. - Medium-term capital expenditure outcomes frequently deviate substantially from forecasts. - Breakdown between recurrent and capital expenditure in budget ceilings is no longer provided, complicating project cost management. - Asset management and oversight remain incomplete: limited asset registers and irregular condition assessments. - Cross-cutting operational constraints: - Absence of a dedicated team with a clear mandate for overseeing and enforcing public investment management (PIM) practices. - Lack of an IT system for tracking public projects from inception to completion. - Public investment management roles across MoFEA directorates and budget agencies are not formally specified and staff are insufficient to fulfill key functions. ### Climate vulnerability and shortcomings in climate-aware PIM - Climate risks: - The Gambia is increasingly vulnerable to climate impacts, with significant risk from rising sea levels, particularly for Banjul and the Greater Banjul area. - Projected temperature increases: between 1.1 degrees Celsius and 3.1 degrees Celsius by the 2060s and up to 5.0 degrees Celsius by the 2090s. - Shortfalls in integrating climate into PIM: - Climate-aware planning is not fully integrated with national public investment strategies. - Land-use and construction regulations are outdated and do not adequately address climate risks. - Coordination between entities on climate issues is insufficient. - Project appraisal and selection processes do not comprehensively cover climate-related risks. - Climate-related investments and expenditure are not readily identifiable in budget documents. - Recommended directions to enhance climate resilience (high-level from Executive Summary): - Incorporate climate change criteria into appraisal and selection regulations. - Improve identification and tagging of climate-related investments in budget documentation. - Strengthen institutional coordination and update land-use and construction regulations to address climate risks. *IMF | Technical Report — Preface and Executive Summary as provided in the source content.* ### 10. Project selection ### 10. Project selection ### Key findings on project selection and PIM effectiveness - Project selection (PIMA): Institutional Strength — MEDIUM. Effectiveness — LOW. Reform priority — High. - MoFEA reviews projects but: - lacks standard criteria and a structure to maintain a pipeline of appraised projects. - Major projects are not reviewed centrally, no standard selection criteria, and no pipeline of appraised projects for budgeting. - Project appraisal: Institutional Strength — MEDIUM. Effectiveness — MEDIUM. Major projects need rigorous analysis using standard methodology with risk plans, but no publication requirement or central support. - Climate-aware project appraisal (C-PIMA C3): LOW institutional strength; reform priority — High. Climate change is included in project risks in the Appraisal Guidelines but is not comprehensively covered in appraisal, PPP, or selection regulations; no selection criteria exist, though climate change is noted for prioritization and selection. - Budgeting and portfolio management (PIMA items relevant to selection): Budget documents do not identify climate-related expenditures or projects; ex-post reviews of climate outcomes are not required; asset management policies do not address climate risks (C-PIMA C4 — LOW; reform priority — High). ### Context and fiscal constraints affecting project selection - Economic context: - Real GDP growth in 2023: 5.3 percent. - Public capital stock fell from 130 percent of GDP to 96 percent of GDP between 2014 and 2019; exceeded 100 percent of GDP in 2023. - National Development Plan financing needs and gaps (NDP financing strategy): - Total funding required under optimistic scenario: USD 3.5 billion (159.1 percent of GDP). - Total funding required under conservative scenario: USD 2.8 billion (127.3 percent of GDP). - Available funding estimated at USD 703.13 million (31.9 percent of GDP) and USD 598 million (27.2 percent of GDP), respectively. - Estimated funding gaps: approximately USD 2.80 billion (127.3 percent of GDP) and USD 2.21 billion (100.5 percent of GDP). - Public investment composition (2022–2024): Ten sectors account for 94 percent of public investment. Sector shares include: - Energy: 2.8 percent of GDP. - Transport: 2.7 percent of GDP. - Agriculture: 1.3 percent of GDP. - Health: 0.9 percent of GDP. - Education: 0.5 percent of GDP. - Environment: 0.5 percent of GDP. - Financing mix: - On average, from 2008 to 2023, public investment financed with external sources has been close to 80 percent. - There is a relatively equitable distribution between grants and loans in investment financing, but grant revenue has been volatile. ### Institutional gaps affecting project selection and prioritization - No requirement for publishing project-level total costs; budgets often present information only at the program level, making tracking costs difficult. - No multiyear capital expenditure ceilings; multiyear capital estimates published but no multiyear ceilings or total construction cost projections. - No centralized PIMIS and inadequate centralized staffing to coordinate and guide PIM across government. - Incomplete asset registers and limited asset valuation and condition assessments; asset management is regulated but incomplete, with no requirement for recording asset values or specifying depreciation. ### Recommendations directly related to project selection, prioritization, and climate integration - Cross-cutting: - 1. Design and implement a simple, fit-for-purpose Public Investment Management Information System (PIMIS) (through to 2026, MoFEA). Priority: High. - 2. Mandate a centralized unit in MoFEA to coordinate and guide PIM across government (by end-2024, Minister of Finance and Economic Affairs). Priority: High. - Planning and project lists: - 3. Extract and publish a list of the priority investment projects as an annex to the NDP 2023-2027 and ensure that all future sectoral strategic plans include a list of projects, estimated costs, and funding sources. (by end-2024, MoFEA). Priority: Medium. - Allocation and selection procedures: - 5. Reinstate capital expenditure ceilings in the budget call circular. In the medium term, capital expenditure ceilings should include locally funded and externally financed capital expenditures (by mid-2026, MoFEA). Priority: High. - 6. Ensure all ongoing and proposed new projects funded locally and by donors are reviewed before being included in the budget documents for approval by the legislature (by mid-2025, MoFEA). Priority: Medium. - 7. Develop operational guidelines describing the selection process and key criteria covering the role of the new MoFEA PIM Unit (Recommendation 2), (by end-2024, Gambia Strategic Review Board, MDAs, and Ministerial Investment Implementation Committee). Priority: High. - Implementation and pipeline/portfolio: - 8. Establish a portfolio management function in MoFEA (by end-2025, MoFEA and SOEs). Priority: Medium. - 9. Complete the process of preparing a centralized asset register and improve information on maintenance and asset register (by end-2025, Accountant General and MoFEA). Priority: Medium. - Climate integration in appraisal and selection: - 11. Incorporate climate change criteria in the update of the appraisal and selection regulation and in the upcoming Public Private Partnership Act (by mid-2025, MoFEA). Priority: High. - 12. Update the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Templates and Guidelines to include climate change requirements (by mid-2025, MECCNAR). Priority: High. - 13. Use the geo-location information in the new asset register (Recommendation 9) to initially assess exposure of critical infrastructure to climate risks (such as sea level rise) and produce a plan to mitigate these asset risks (by end-2027, Accountant General). Priority: High. - 14. Update the Fiscal Risk Statement to assess climate-related risks to assets, macroeconomic risks, and climate-related risks to SOEs and Public-Private Partnerships (by end-2026, MoFEA). Priority: Medium. - SOE and contingent liability transparency (relevance for project selection where SOEs implement projects): - 4. Enforce requirements under the SOE Act for SOEs to submit annual financial statements that include a statement on contingent liabilities (by end-2024, MoFEA). Priority: Low. - Operational guidance and review: - 6 (reiterated). Ensure all ongoing and proposed new projects funded locally and by donors are reviewed before being included in the budget documents for approval by the legislature (by mid-2025, MoFEA). Priority: Medium. ### Expected implementation benefits from recommended reforms - A simple, fit-for-purpose PIMIS and a mandated MoFEA central PIM unit will: - provide a centralized project pipeline and enable standardized appraisals and selection. - support publication of priority project lists and improve tracking of total project costs. - Capital expenditure ceilings and mandatory pre-budget project reviews will: - strengthen the budgeting framework for public investment management and legislative oversight. - Portfolio management, a complete centralized asset register with geo-location, and climate criteria in appraisal/selection will: - improve implementation and maintenance management and help assess and mitigate climate exposure for critical infrastructure. *Source: Chapter 10, "Project selection", IMF Technical Report (content unit: tarea2025023-print-pdf).* ### 7. The development of public-p rivate partnerships (PPPs) in The Gambia is still at an early ### 7. The development of public-private partnerships (PPPs) in The Gambia is still at an early stage ### Summary of PPP activity and scale - Government actions: introduced a new PPP Act, updated PPP guidelines, and entered into partnerships for infrastructure and service operation. - Project counts: - Ten ongoing PPP projects with private participation in construction or operation. - Seven projects in the pre-investment stage. - Three completed projects. - Sector coverage: mainly transport, energy, communication, water, and waste. - Total estimated investment value of identified PPP contracts: approximately USD 110.0 million (5.0 percent of GDP). - Largest PPP: Banjul Terminal Expansion and Development of Deep-Sea Port in Sanyang with estimated investment value of around USD 80 million (7.7 percent of GDP). ### Table 4 — Ongoing, new, and completed PPP projects (selected entries and exact values) - Ongoing Projects (Value (USD) — Duration) - Nick TC Scan — 23.1m — 10yrs - SecuriPort — 7.5m — 15yrs - Africard — 1.0m — 15yrs - Comfort Quality — 0.7m — 5yrs - Weigh Bridge — (missing value) — 5yrs - Single Window Platform — 10.7m — 10yrs - Cargo Tracking Note — 53.0m — 10yrs - Rental Income Mobilization System — 5.5m — 3yrs - Revenue Mobilization for Excisable Goods, Refine Fuel, and Telecom Service — 10.0m — 5yrs - Banjul Terminal Expansion and Development of Deep-Sea Port in Sanyang — ~80.0m — 25yrs - Projects in pre-investment phase (Durations shown where available) - Agricultural Mixed Farming Centers — (missing value) — 12yrs - Gamtel Broadband Network Project — (missing value) — 5yrs - National Identification Document System and Digital ID System — (missing value) — 7yrs - Sir Dawda Kairaba Jawara International Conference Centre — (missing value) - Government Office Complex — (missing value) - Digital Gambia Limited — (missing value) - Banjul International Airport — (missing value) - Completed/terminated projects - Semlex — 50.2m — 5yrs - Spacewide — 35.0m — 10yrs - Agua — (missing value) - Note: Missing values are unknown at the time of compilation. ### Box 1 — The Port of Banjul Expansion (key findings and financials) - Performance and demand: - Container volumes grew by 9.9 percent per year from 2010-2019 to a peak of 137,000 TEU. - Volumes declined to 120,000 TEU in 2021 due to severe congestion. - Demand forecast: increase to 270,000 TEU in 2030 — corresponding to an average growth rate of 9.5 percent. - Investment needs: - Pre-feasibility study estimates investment needs at GMD5,680 million (approximately USD 80m) over seven years. - Ownership preference and governance concern: - Gambian Port Authority wishes to own 20 percent of the terminal operating company for strategic reasons, although this may raise conflict of interest concerns. - Base-case and scenario NPV results (Table 5, GMD million): - Row 1 Base Case (BC) — 47 - Row 2 BC+ Full inflation correction on revenues — 2,415 + 2,368 - Row 3 BC+ Revenue increase of 20% from 2025 — 1,579 + 1,533 - Row 4 BC+ Dev financing — 607 + 560 - Row 5 Total — 4,649 4,461 - Interpretation: - Base business case shows financial feasibility but with a very limited margin for concession fees at GMD 47 million. - Adjustments (inflation correction, tariff increases, development financing) raise project NPV to GMD 4.6bn, increasing scope for concession fees. - Expected port-efficiency improvements represent cost savings of several hundreds of Euros per TEU for shipping lines, supporting the recommended tariff increase. - Risk allocation and IMF guidance: - The key issue is who will carry what risks. - IMF recommends use of the PFRAM tool to help identify, rate and potentially mitigate risks from concession and PPP arrangements. - Procurement status: - A preferred bidder (Albayrak of Turkey) was selected in late 2023 and negotiations have been ongoing. - It is unclear whether a concession agreement has been signed, the terms and guarantees required, what investments are to take place, and the size of the concession fee to the Gambian Port Authority. ### Source of Port study data - Source: Gambia Ports Authority, Pre-Feasibility Report for Banjul Container Terminal Concession, 2022. --- ### II. The Efficiency of Public Investment ### Recent performance and indicators - Infrastructure quality and access: - Perceptions of infrastructure quality (notably transport via the World Bank Logistics Performance Index) have shown a recent upward trend but The Gambia still ranks lower than other countries in the region. - Improvements noted in: number of secondary teachers per 1000 people, access to electricity, and access to basic drinking water services. - The Gambia's performance in these access indicators exceeds both regional and comparator averages. - Movement toward efficiency frontier: - The Gambia has moved slightly closer to the public investment efficiency frontier since the 2019 PIMA. - This movement reflects a fall in the capital stock between 2015 and 2019 rather than an overall improvement in the hybrid efficiency indicator. ### PIMA methodology and implications - PIMA (Public Investment Management Assessment) framework: - Uses 15 "institutions" across planning, allocation, and delivery stages to assess public investment management quality. - For each institution, three indicators are scored on institutional design and effectiveness (high / medium / low). - Reform priority is discussed for each institution. - Hybrid indicator: - The IMF hybrid indicator compares a composite quality indicator and access indicators to public capital stock. --- ### III. Public Investment Management Institutions — Overall assessment ### Aggregate findings - Design vs effectiveness: - The Gambia compares well against peers on some measures of institutional design but lags in effectiveness. - Stronger areas: national and sectoral planning, project appraisal, alternative infrastructure financing, and procurement. - Weaker areas: multiyear budgeting, budgeting for investment, several implementation institutions (portfolio management, management of project implementation, monitoring of public assets). - Gap causes: - Absence of a dedicated team with clear mandate to oversee and enforce PIM practices. - Lack of an IT system for tracking public projects from pipeline to completion. - Unspecified roles across MoFEA directorates and budget agencies and insufficient staffing. ### Changes since 2019 PIMA (Table 6 summary of changes; institutional strength and effectiveness) - Notable institutional design improvements: - Regular preparation of the Medium-Term Expenditure and Fiscal Framework (MTEFF). - Updated regulation covering appraisal and selection anchored in the Gambia Strategic Review Board (GSRB). - New 2023 SOE Law mandating centralized monitoring of SOEs. - Chart of Accounts (introduced in 2019) enables easier identification of routine and major maintenance items in the budget. - Effectiveness gaps and deteriorations: - Investment budgeting effectiveness weakened: absence of project costs in budget documents and removal of capital ceilings for MDAs. - Portfolio management and oversight effectiveness remains weak or worsening. - Selected entries from Table 6 (Phase/Institution — Institutional Strength — Effectiveness — Explanation): - A. Planning - 1 Fiscal targets and rules — LOW TO MEDIUM — LOW — The MTEFF is being regularly prepared. - 2 National and sectoral planning — MEDIUM — MEDIUM — No change in score. - 4 Project appraisal — LOW TO MEDIUM — MEDIUM — Regulation covering appraisal and selection anchored in the GSRB has been updated and codified. - 5 Alternative infrastructure financing — LOW TO MEDIUM — LOW — The new 2023 SOE Law mandates the SOE Commission with monitoring SOEs centrally. - B. Allocation - 6 Multiyear budgeting — LOW TO MEDIUM — LOW — Medium-term capital expenditure estimates are now published in the budget document. - 8 Budgeting for investment — LOW TO MEDIUM — MEDIUM TO LOW — Requirement to prioritize funding to ongoing projects over new projects exists, but total project costs are not provided. - 9 Maintenance funding — LOW TO MEDIUM — LOW — Chart of Accounts introduced in 2019 allows easier identification of maintenance items. - 10 Project selection — MEDIUM — LOW — No change in score. - C. Implementation - 11 Procurement — MEDIUM — MEDIUM — No change in score. - 12 Availability of funding — LOW TO MEDIUM — MEDIUM — Regulations require cash flow forecasts at least for a quarter ahead. - 13 Portfolio management and oversight — LOW — MEDIUM TO LOW — No evidence that effective funds reallocation is taking place and accelerating projects. - 14 Management of project implementation — LOW — LOW — No change in score. - 15 Monitoring of public assets — LOW — LOW — No change in score. --- ### C. Investment Planning — Fiscal Targets and Rules (Institution 1) - Strength — Medium; Effectiveness — Low; Reform Priority — Low. - Current framework and gaps: - Public Finance Act (2014) and Financial Regulations (2016) guide management and budgeting but do not contain quantitative fiscal limits or rules on fiscal aggregates. - Successive IMF programs have imposed fiscal targets to reduce high public debt levels. - ECOWAS fiscal convergence criteria (since 2001): - Central government’s fiscal deficit cannot exceed three percent of GDP. - Public sector debt-to-GDP ratio should not surpass 70 percent of GDP. - The Public Finance Act (2014) assigns MoFEA responsibility to develop a macro-fiscal policy and MTEFF annually. - Financial Regulations (2016) require MoFEA to submit the MTEFF to the Cabinet for approval by April. - Compliance and anchoring: - Supranational rule and IMF program limits have not always been adhered to; debt-to-GDP ratio has remained high. - IMF program target to bring public debt-to-GDP ratio to 65 percent by end-2022 was adjusted due to shocks. - Ceilings on net domestic borrowing were exceeded in three of six quarterly program reviews. - ECOWAS deficit criterion has not been met in five of the past six years; the government has not complied with the debt-to-GDP criterion in the same period, although the debt/GDP ratio is falling and is closer to the ECOWAS limit. - MTEFF presents expenditure forecasts but does not identify the space for ongoing and new projects; in practice it is unclear if MTEFF is discussed or incorporated during budget preparation. *Source: MoFEA, Gambia Ports Authority, IMF staff estimates, and staff calculations from the IMF Technical Report.* ### 19. Institutional design has strengthened since 2019, and the adoption of the draft Public ### 19. Institutional design has strengthened since 2019, and the adoption of the draft Public Finance Management (PFM) Act would further enhance this, but effectiveness remains low. ### Institutional design and MTEFF - The regular preparation of the MTEFF was identified as a reform in the 2019 PIMA to strengthen institutional design and effectiveness. - While the MTEFF has been regularly prepared, its adoption and consideration early in the budget process do not appear to be happening, and it is not providing an anchor for budget preparation. - The government has prepared and sent to the Cabinet a draft new PFM Act which, if adopted, will: - establish a clear quantitative fiscal rule for the central government; - enforce fiscal policy principles; and - mandate the preparation and adherence to a Fiscal Strategy Document. - These measures will reinforce the macro-fiscal policy framework and could help to ensure better alignment of the MTEFF with the budget process. *Source: World Economic Outlook (April 2024) and staff estimates (figures referenced in source).* ### 2. National and Sectoral Planning (Strength— Medium; Effectiveness— Medium; Reform Priority—Medium) - National and sectoral public investment should be based on: - clear goals and objectives; - cost estimates; and - measurable targets to track progress and impact. - Sectoral plans and the NDP should be published and cover all projects regardless of financing source, include costing of individual major investment projects within an overall financial constraint, and provide measurable output and outcome targets. - Status of plans: - NDP (2023-27) identifies programs and projects with costings, and outputs and outcomes for programs, but mapping to projects is unclear and complex. - Across 22 sectors: nine sectoral plans are active, eight are being drafted, and five are outdated. - The NDP Financing Strategy: - includes estimates of costs of national development programs across the government, including large projects; - identifies potential funding modalities, including external finance and PPPs; - offers optimistic and conservative set of cost estimates to scale expenditure based on resource availability. - Metadata for the NDP (2023-27) and previous NDP establish outcomes and outputs for programs; sector strategies include measurable targets for outputs and outcomes. - Challenges in linking plans to budget: - Programs in national and strategic plans are included in the budget, but it is difficult to track relationships with planned costs because information is largely at the program level. - Neither the NDP, sectoral plans, nor budget provides a list of new and ongoing projects. - A complex mapping from programs to projects in a spreadsheet maintained by the Planning Department is relied upon to identify the largest projects. - Performance assessments are undertaken irregularly and not with sufficient time to ensure corrective action. - Institutional change since 2019 PIMA: - No significant changes in institutional design or effectiveness of planning institutions since 2019 PIMA. - Priority actions: - draw out a list of sector-specific and costed investment projects from programs and identify them in both the NDP and sector strategies to create a prioritized project pipeline (planned for in the draft PFM Act and recommended in later parts of this PIMA); - sector strategies should profile priority projects, include estimates of total cost by year for the duration of the strategy, and specify expected outputs and outcomes (both currently missing); - strengthen program-based budgeting to establish a stronger relationship between planning and budgeting and create a uniform structure of programs, targets, and indicators. Box 2. The Recovery Focused National Development Plan 2023-27 — key financing figures and examples - Financing scenarios and gaps: - Optimistic scenario: total estimated cost USD 3.5 billion; available funding USD 703.1m; resulting gap USD 2.80 billion. - Conservative scenario: total estimated cost USD 2.8 billion; available funding USD 598 million; resulting gap USD 2.21 billion. - The optimistic scenario assumes full financing for all planned actions; the conservative scenario focuses on top priorities. - Examples of NDP flagship projects and budgets (selected): - Climate Smart Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Development Project, Greater Banjul Area Water Supply Project, Water Production, Transmission, and Distribution, provision of safe drinking water — $94,031,388. - Construction of 24KM connecting roads between Farafenni-Senoba — $90,900,000. - Road and infrastructure projects (Niumi Hakalang Road Project, North Bank Roads (Lots 1 and 2), Kiang West Roads (Phases 1 and 2), Presidential Lounge) — $62,873,382. - Banjul Roads Drainage and Sewerage Project — $45,716,488. - Solar PVC project 10mw — $25,000,000. - Sir Dawda Kairaba Jawara Mausoleum (New Government Offices Complex) — $25,000,000. - Second Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence for Development Project — $12,000,000. *Source: Recover Focused National Development Plan 2023-27 and staff estimates.* ### 3. Coordination Between Entities (Strength— Medium; Effectiveness— Medium; Reform Priority—Low) - Importance: - Coordination of investment plans between national and sub-national entities ensures infrastructure is delivered in the right areas, with appropriate funding, exploiting complementarities and avoiding duplication. - Sub-national entities deliver many important services and may represent a significant share of total public investment; they depend largely on government transfers and need certainty about available resources. - SOEs and PPPs can represent major sources of fiscal risk and should be disclosed and monitored. - Current institutional arrangements and gaps: - No institutional requirement for systematic sharing of local government investment plans. - Legal and procedural position: - Local Government Act (2002), Public Finance Act (2014), and the budget call circular from MoFEA contain no requirement for local government investment plans to be shared with the central government. - Local Government Act (2002) states “the Central Government shall provide 25 percent of the Local Government Areas development budget”. - SOE Act (2022) requires SOEs to comply with International Financial Reporting Standards, which implicitly require reporting of contingent liabilities in annual financial statements. - No requirement for local governments to report contingent liabilities, nor for PPP contingent liabilities to be reported. - Operational coordination: - Most local government capital investments are coordinated through the Ministry of Land, Regional Government, and Religious Affairs with a finance and advisory committee that engages regional offices through annual formal consultations early in planning and budgeting. - The Gambian Agency for the Management of Public Works coordinates project proposals from local governments and prioritization/implementation. - Transfer mechanism in Local Government Act (2002) has never been institutionalized, but the budget allocates and transfers GMD 2 million to each rural and urban council through the Ministry of Land, Regional Development, and Religious Affairs. - Reporting gaps: - No reporting of SOE or local government contingent liabilities to the central government. - No formal process for collecting, assessing, and publishing PPP-related contingent liabilities. - Changes since 2019 PIMA and priorities: - Introduction of new SOE Act requiring reporting of contingent liabilities (implicitly) is the most substantial change. - Few changes to coordination mechanisms with local governments. - Remaining priorities: - implement SOE Act (2022) requirements related to contingent liability reporting; - finalize the draft PPP Act to require reporting of contingent liabilities arising from PPPs to the central government; - use work underway in MoFEA to analyze and manage fiscal risks and the anticipated annual fiscal risk statement as an outlet for consolidated analysis and publication of contingent liabilities. ### 4. Project Appraisal (Strength— Medium; Effectiveness— Medium; Reform Priority— High) - Purpose: - Rigorous project appraisal ensures all relevant costs, benefits, and risks are assessed before deciding to develop or fund projects. - Appraisal stages include concept, pre-feasibility, and feasibility; complexity determines required depth. - Standardized methodologies, risk assessment, and mitigation approaches are necessary. - Current guidance and practice: - Appraisal guidelines and regulations stipulate iterative, systematic, rigorous, technical, economic, and financial analysis for all projects irrespective of financing source (domestic, donor, or PPP). - No requirement for publication of selected results or independent external review. - The Aid Coordination Directorate of MoFEA receives project concept proposal templates and prepares assessments for submission to the GSRB, but there is no explicit mandate to provide centralized support to MDAs. - Project and general risks, including climate change risk and mitigation plans, are to be identified per guidelines. - Gaps in application: - Major projects often subject to multilateral development bank appraisal mechanisms; the government’s standard methodology is not fully applied and mandated supporting documentation (feasibility and pre-feasibility studies) are often lagging. - The standard methodology has limited impact; risk assessments prescribed in regulation are not systematically used and are largely procedural in templates. - Three practical alternative project tracks exist: 1. Ignore the GSRB process and proceed to donor funding discussions led by the MDA (often for urgency or funding opportunity). 2. Proceed with a bilateral process between MDAs and MoFEA as part of the ordinary budget process. 3. Undertake PPP appraisal and selection using a separate track mandated in the PPP policy and guidelines. - Institutional progress and remaining needs: - Institutional design has improved since the 2019 PIMA through adoption of the Cabinet Memorandum (2020) and accompanying guidance (2021). - The draft PFM Act addresses the need for a single public investment program linked to the budget process and empowers the Minister of Finance to set PIM rules. - Critical gap: no dedicated unit in MoFEA to oversee the entire PIM cycle and ensure all projects (donor-funded, PPP, and on-budget) follow government processes. - Urgent needs: - establish a single process with a strong appraisal methodology; - create dedicated organizational capacity in MoFEA to oversee the PIM cycle; - adopt clear selection guidelines. *Notes: Formal basis for appraisal process includes the Cabinet Memorandum on the Amendment of the Gambia Strategic Review Board (GSRB) Terms of Reference CP11 (2020) 20, detailed Terms of Reference for the GSRB, Appraisal Guidelines 16/03 2021, and the New Project Proposal template for Project Submission and Evaluation (2021).* ### 5. Alternative Infrastructure Financing (Strength— Medium; Effectiveness— Low; Reform Priority— Medium) - Rationale: - Private sector, PPPs, and public corporations can develop infrastructure efficiently and contain burden on public finances if a stable environment and regulatory certainty exist and users have capacity/willingness to pay. - PPPs must be structured to ensure fair allocation of risk and reward; public corporation performance depends on procedures to coordinate investments and allocate resources efficiently. - Current market and institutional arrangements: - Infrastructure services market is open in major markets; some markets are restricted to SOEs: - port operations restricted to the Gambia Ports Authority (SOE); - water and sanitation services restricted to the National Energy and Water Corporation (SOE). - One independent regulator: Public Utilities Regulatory Commission (multisector regulator covering energy, water, and telecommunications). - Government updated PPP policies and guidance address eligible markets, risk-sharing principles, suitability of PPP contracts, project preparation, assessments, implementation, review and approval processes, and roles/responsibilities. - Draft PPP Act remains in consultation phase. - SOE Act (2023) mandates the SOE Commission to: - review, monitor, and coordinate SOEs’ statements of intent, business plans, and financial and non-financial performance on an annual basis; - scrutinize activities, plans, investments, financial performance, and asset management; - publish an annual performance report for all state-owned enterprises. *Source attribution: IMF | Technical Report (content unit).* ### 34. There is strong participation of the private sector in two infrastructure markets, PPPs ### 34. There is strong participation of the private sector in two infrastructure markets, PPPs represent a small part of total investment, and the new SOE Commission does not yet scrutinize investment plans ### Private sector participation and PPPs - The authorities estimate the private sector has between 25 to 75 percent of the market share in transport. - Bus and air transport are 100 percent private sector. - Waterways and telecommunications are around 90 percent private sector. - Over the last three years the PPP investment flow is estimated to represent less than 5 percent of total investment. - There is a lack of comprehensive and up-to-date data on the private sector’s share of infrastructure service markets. - The annual report on SOEs from 2022: - Covers the largest 12 SOEs. - Discusses their financial performance, fiscal risks (using the IMF SOE Health Check tool) and, in some cases, investment. - The SOE Act was passed in 2023; SOE reports are yet to cover the past three years. - The SOE Commission is in the process of setting up its secretariat and implementing its legislation. ### Institutional design, SOE Act, and PPP framework - Institutional design has improved somewhat since the 2019 PIMA with the adoption of the new SOE Act (2023), but effectiveness remains a concern. - Immediate reform priorities: - Systematically implement the provisions of the SOE Act (2023). - Finalize and pass the new PPP Act. - Establish an empowered secretariat for the SOE Commission. - Adapt the annual SOE report to include a discussion of the SOE investment program. - Strengthen PPP regulations in line with IMF advice and the anticipated PPP Act. ### Recommendations on Planning Phase - Issue: It is difficult to identify projects in planning documents, which undermines an effective project pipeline process. - Recommendation 3. Extract and publish a list of the priority investment projects as an annex to the NDP 2023-2027 and ensure that all future sectoral strategic plans include a list of projects and estimated cost and funding sources (by end-2024, MoFEA) (Medium priority). - Issue: Data on the contingent liabilities of PPPs, SOEs, and local government projects are not systematically collected or assessed. - Recommendation 4. Enforce requirements under the SOE Act for SOEs to submit annual financial statements that include a statement on contingent liabilities and begin systematically collecting contingent liability information on PPPs (ahead of the PPP Act, which will legally require this) and local governments (by end-2024, MoFEA, Low priority). - See recommendations under 10. Selection regarding upgrading the appraisal process. ### Multiyear Budgeting (Strength—Medium; Effectiveness—Low; Reform Priority—High) - Purpose and importance: - Provides line ministries forward visibility of resource availability and longer-term funding requirements for investment projects. - Necessary to include total costs of major projects in budget documents to ensure proper budgeting, align annual appropriations with long-term needs, and monitor projects that take time to implement. - Recent developments: - Multiyear capital expenditure estimates by ministry were published in the 2024 budget, but there are no longer multiyear ceilings for capital expenditure, and there are no projections of total construction costs for major projects. - The enacted budget for 2024 presents multiyear estimates for total, recurrent, and investment expenditures by sector and identifies the source of funds. - Under the Financial Regulations (2016), the budget call circular requests line ministries submit three-year estimates of total, recurrent, and capital expenditure investments, but only within the constraint of an aggregate ceiling. - The Aid Management Platform has not operated since 2020, undermining efforts to present project costs. - Problems and consequences: - Absence of clear project costs in development and strategic plans makes it difficult to track and assess progress in critical projects from a budgeting perspective. - Leaving externally funded investment outside ceilings makes it more difficult to prioritize investment projects across sectors. - Suggested immediate steps for 2025 budget: - Reinstate capital expenditure ceilings in the budget call circular. - Incorporate externally financed capital expenditures into those ceilings (more complex). - Prepare a list of flagship investment projects and present annual estimates of project costs; this list could be annexed to the budget documentation. ### Budget comprehensiveness and unity (Strength—Medium; Effectiveness—Medium; Reform priority: Low) - Legal and regulatory framework: - Requires all recurrent and capital expenditures, regardless of financing source, to be clearly reflected in the budget. - The Act requires budgets of all extrabudgetary units be submitted together with the Appropriation Bill; budgets of sub vented units are submitted separately to the national assembly. - The Act provides that the appropriation bill should contain all revenue and expenditures broken down into a recurrent and development budget, but requirements for the capital line are not detailed. - The Act does not require capital investment plans by PPPs and SOEs to be presented in the budget for information or approval except where transfers are to be made by the government. - Observed coverage: - On average, between 2020 and 2023, public investment management units managed capital spending amounting to 7.3 percent of GDP. - Most capital spending is executed outside the IFMIS. - Detailed information on sub vented capital expenditure is not available. - Some bilateral donor-funded capital projects are not approved through the budget due to fragmented aid coordination. - Capital expenditure plans of PPPs and SOEs are frequently missing. - Program classification is now Government Fiscal Statistics Manual (2014) compliant, allowing identification by economic classification, but individual projects are still not identified in the budget. - Recommended improvement: - Provide a list of major projects that captures capital projects by PPPs, extra-budgetary units, and SOEs. - The draft PFM Act proposes requiring the Minister to annually prepare and present in the budget all public investment projects (including ongoing and new PPPs). ### Budgeting for Investment (Strength—Medium; Effectiveness— Low; Reform priority: Medium) - Principles: - Appropriate on an annual basis and commit for the entire duration of major projects. - Protect funding for ongoing projects and finance projects as approved by legislatures. - Appropriations for investment projects should be used only for capital spending and not transferred to recurrent expenditures. - Current practices and issues: - No requirement that total project costs be published with the budget. - Virements from capital to current spending are allowed and approved by the Minister for Finance and Economic Affairs, but ongoing projects are protected. - Section 29 of the Public Finance Act (2014) allows the Minister to approve virements including from capital to recurrent spending. - A 2018 budget call circular subsequently prohibited reallocations from capital to recurrent spending for the budget year. - The 2024 budget call circular requires MDAs to give priority to ongoing projects over new ones in their annual budget submission. - MDAs do not include project costs in a comprehensive list of either ongoing or projected projects; MoFEA cannot determine future sustainability and protect the portfolio of ongoing projects if there is no fiscal space. - Integrated Financial Management Information System (upgrade from Epicor 9 to Epicor 10) included a project contract commitments module expected to reflect project contract balances, but this is yet to be activated. - Projects have been commenced without regard to their impact on existing projects; Ministry of Transport, Works, and Infrastructure reported expenditure arrears partly attributed to design changes and cost escalations, commencement of new projects, and cash rationing by MoFEA. - Capital budget under-execution (IFMIS reports): - 78 percent under-execution in 2022. - 90 percent under-execution in 2023. - Table 8. Budgeted Capital Expenditure and Actual Outturn - Year — Approved Budget (GMB ,000s) — Actual Outturn (GMB ,000s) — Difference - 2021 — 3,284,112 — 2,537,162 — 23% - 2022 — 9,470,689 — 2,116,487 — 78% - 2023 — 5,720,032 — 583,976 — 90% - Note: As the budget does not contain projects, the figures represent a selected number of line items that have been used to proxy public investment projects. - Proposed legal and institutional improvements: - The drafted new PFM Act would require the Minister for Finance to submit to the legislature the public investment program with detailed project information, including total costs. - The new act would permanently prohibit virements from capital to recurrent spending without legislative approval. - Development of a public investment plan, introduction of dedicated staff to oversee and manage this plan and PIM process, and re-establishing the Aid Management Platform are critical priorities. ### Maintenance Funding (Institutional Strength—Medium; Effectiveness—Low; Reform Priority: High) - Importance: - Adequate maintenance preserves infrastructure quality and ensures services through intended useful life. - Requires regular asset condition assessments, methodologies to translate condition and other factors into routine maintenance and major improvement requirements, and cost estimates reflected in budget and planning. - Current state and practices: - No standard assessment methodology for major or routine maintenance costs of infrastructure assets. - Maintenance expenditure is properly identified in the budget classification. - MDAs are responsible for maintaining assets under their direct use. - A Road Fund, financed primarily by a levy on petroleum and managed by the National Roads Authority, was established in 2015. - The National Water and Energy Corporation applies rigorous methods to estimate routine maintenance needs of their generators and other plant and equipment. - The budget classification identifies proposed spending on both routine and capital maintenance; improved definitions were introduced in late 2019 with the Government Fiscal Statistics 2014-compliant chart of accounts. - Gaps and outcomes: - Annual budget estimates of routine and capital maintenance are not informed by a calculation of requirements. - MDAs tend to undertake incremental budgeting or allocate residual budgets to routine and capital maintenance; procedures for assessing needs do not exist in most sectors. - Underspending in routine and capital maintenance budgets has been as high as 73 percent. - Table 9. Outturn for Major and Routine Maintenance Budgets (2021 to 2023) - Year — Type — Approved (000s) — Actual (000s) — Deviation - 2021 — Routine — 57,715 — 42,798 — 26% - 2021 — Major — 114,549 — 31,016 — 73% - 2022 — Routine — 135,608 — 46,687 — 66% - 2022 — Major — 69,928 — 24,668 — 68% - 2023 — Routine — 68,265 — 46,464 — 64% - 2023 — Major — 49,470 — 22,960 — 54% - Implication: - There is no evidence of analysis or decisions based on maintenance spending data, and budget documents do not include analysis identifying needed adjustments in maintenance funding. *IMF | Technical Report (excerpt)* ### 51. There has been a small improvement in maintenance budgeting since the 2019 PIMA, but ### Project selection and Investment Implementation (Institutions 10–13) ### Maintenance budgeting - Small improvement in maintenance budgeting since the 2019 PIMA, but: - Absence of standard methodologies and very weak overall effectiveness is a critical concern. - Budget classification now identifies proposed spending on both routine and capital maintenance following the upgrade of the Integrated Financial Management Information System to EPICOR 10 and the development of a new chart of accounts. - Draft National Buildings and Facilities Policy (2018–2027) has been developed into a Bill and is awaiting enactment by the legislature. - Tracking maintenance expenditure remains a challenge due to generic identification of projects; it is currently not possible to associate reported maintenance expenditures with specific projects. - Detailed and reliable project maintenance expenditures will only be available once budget agencies commence populating the Integrated Financial Management Information System contract commitment module, which has the necessary features to track project expenditures and would allow reliable recording and aggregation of maintenance budgets and expenditures across MDAs. ### 10. Project selection (Design—Medium, Effectiveness—Low, Reform Priority: High) Findings - Project selection should choose projects from a pool of appraised projects considering economic, social, environmental, and other objectives; it is a separate process from appraisal. - A central review of project proposals should ensure consistent analysis and build a pipeline of the most efficient project options; selection criteria should be well-defined and transparent. - MoFEA is required to undertake a central review of projects using a standard information template, but: - There are no published standard selection criteria, no specification of how selection should take place, and no process for independent review. - The Cabinet Memorandum sets out an iterated central review process for all major projects irrespective of financing source; Aid Coordination Directorate of MoFEA reviews mandated documentation and the GSRB should approve, reject, or return each project, creating a pipeline of appraised projects. - The template enables appraisal but does not provide criteria to rank projects against each other. - No medium-term planning perspective is required in the selection process. - GSRB is chaired by the Permanent Secretary of MoFEA, consists of high-level officials and two external experts, and the Cabinet Memorandum calls for the GSRB to create a prioritized public investment program for final approval by the Ministerial Investment Implementation Committee; however, detailed guidance for the selection process is lacking. Statistics and process gaps - 15 projects went through the GSRB in 2023: 13 approved and 2 rejected; the vast majority were programs with a limited investment component. - In 2023 another 14 projects were accepted for potential donor funding by MoFEA without going through the GSRB. - MoFEA’s indicative pipeline for 2024 consists of 14 projects: - 2 projects appear to be programs with limited asset creation, - 2 appear to be technical analysis necessary for asset creation, - 10 appear to be traditional infrastructure projects (four in transport). - None of the 2024 indicative pipeline projects appear on the 2023 lists. - The indicative pipeline does not seem to be known outside MoFEA; the Aid Management Platform previously used to track projects with donor funding is no longer in operation. - Given fragmentation and incomplete processes, most major infrastructure projects bypass the GSRB and there isn’t a functioning central process that reviews major projects before inclusion in the budget. - Selection is broadly a function of donor interest; the government does not maintain a pipeline of appraised projects for budgeting. Assessment and reform priority - Effectiveness of project selection has weakened slightly since the 2019 PIMA; reforms are urgently needed. - The Cabinet Memorandum strengthening the role of the GSRB enhances appraisal and sets scaffolding for upgrading selection. - Draft PFM Act requires the finance minister to annually prepare and submit a public investment program as part of the Appropriation Bill, including all ongoing and new projects, including PPP projects (Final Draft Public Financial Management Act 2023 Art 32). - The Act gives the minister mandate to set procedures, criteria, methodologies, and specific information required to qualify a project for inclusion in the Government budget and other requirements for screening, evaluation, and implementation; it refers to the PPP Act (still in draft) for PPP project procedures. ### Recommendations on Allocation Phase (selected) - Issue: Absence of capital ceilings makes it difficult to prioritize large projects. - Recommendation 5. Reinstate capital expenditure ceilings in the budget call circular. In the medium term, capital expenditure ceilings should include GLF and externally financed capital expenditures (by mid-2026, MoFEA) (High priority). - Issue: No reliable database of approved projects without the Aid Management Platform and public investment program; some projects submitted for legislative approval without MoFEA review, risking fiscal sustainability. - Recommendation 6. Ensure all ongoing and proposed new projects funded by GLF and donors are reviewed before inclusion in the budget documents for approval by the legislature. This requires implementing actions under cross-cutting recommendations related to IT and the establishment of a PIM Unit (by mid-2025, MoFEA) (Medium priority). - Issue: No detailed selection process or selection criteria. - Recommendation 7. Building on the Cabinet Memorandum on the Amendment of the Gambia Strategic Review Board, the Ministry of Finance should develop operational guidelines describing the selection process and key criteria covering the role of the new MoFEA PIM Unit, GSRB, MDAs and Ministerial Investment Implementation Committee. (by end-2024, MoFEA) (High priority). ### 11. Procurement (Strength—Medium; Effectiveness—Medium; Reform Priority—Low) Findings - Public procurement legislation and regulations specify competitive procurement methods, an independent review board, require a comprehensive procurement database, and mandate publication of procurement activities. - Procurement is regulated by the Gambia Public Procurement Act (2022) and the Gambia Public Procurement Authority Regulations (2019); there are 12 allowable methods of procurement. - The regulations require open or international tendering for works contracts above GMD 10m (USD 140,000). - The Act requires publication of all contracts, open and transparent bidding, forbids collusion and provides for blacklisting. - A Microsoft Excel-based database and monitoring system is in place, though no reports are prepared. - Gambia is in discussion with the Rwandan government about incorporating an e-procurement module in the EPICOR IFMIS. - The Act and Regulation require a review board independent of the authority with well-defined procedures and timeframes, but there is no requirement to publish review outcomes. Effectiveness - Most major projects are externally funded and procured using open and transparent methods; however, systems for monitoring domestically funded procurement and reviewing procurement complaints are moderately effective. - Procurement statistics indicate open and fair procurement was not conducted till the end of 2019; restricted tendering continues to dominate domestically funded projects. - The procurement database covers all domestically funded procurement transactions for the past three years and includes statistical analysis (procurement as a percentage of approved amount, frequency of procurement methods, percentage of procurement frequency). - Complaints review board is functional but no data is available regarding the number of complaints addressed; anecdotal evidence suggests complaints are dealt with expediently. Legal and systems improvements since 2019 - New Gambian Public Procurement Act (2022) and Regulations (2019) enhance definitions and procedures. - No e-procurement system yet to link with IFMIS and generate data for a detailed Annual Procurement Report; once implemented, Annual Procurement Reports and complaints review board reports should be published on the Gambian Public Procurement Authority website. ### 12. Availability of Funding (Institutional Strength: Medium; Effectiveness: Medium; Reform Priority: High) Findings - MDAs need certainty that funds will be available for timely payments to allow contractors to progress projects as planned. - Financial Regulations (2016) and Terms of Reference of the Cash Management Unit (2020) require MoFEA to prepare an aggregate annual cash plan and line ministries to update quarterly cash plans; commitment ceilings are only provided a month in advance. - Regulations provide for preparation of cash plans but are silent about prioritization of payments; regulations state cash allocations should be limited to cash availability, implying that timely payment of capital project invoices is not guaranteed. - Financial Regulations (2016) require that external financing accounts be held at the central bank, and where possible project accounts should be part of main government accounts; this leaves room for project accounts to be outside government accounts. Key statistics and issues - Cash forecasting errors are high, averaging -10.7 percent. - Cash allocations are given only for one month ahead, affecting capital expenditure planning. - Cash outlays relative to cash allocations are often inconsistent (Figure 28 shows capital cash outlay to cash allocated ratios over time; dotted line represents expected ratio of 100 percent). - Most GLF capital projects' invoices are not paid on time, resulting in delayed implementation and accumulation of arrears; the stock of arrears is unknown and has not been independently verified. - Disbursement for externally funded projects is dependable and based on planned activities agreed with donors. Developments since 2019 and reform focus - Cash forecasting processes have improved with approval of terms of reference for the Cash Forecasting Committee, which commenced annual cash forecasts and monthly updates. - Forecast errors have increased, and capital expenditure arrears are not currently available for independent verification. - Recommended reforms: reduce cash forecasting errors, better align allocations and outlays, improve sequencing and prioritization of payments, undertake a stock take of arrears, and develop an arrears clearance strategy. ### 13. Portfolio management and oversight (Design—Low, Effectiveness—Low, Reform Priority: High) Findings - Portfolio management (the sum of all approved capital projects) is essential to determine if projects are on time, within budget, and to identify risks requiring high-level intervention; it also helps optimize funds by assigning them to best-performing projects. - There are no legal or regulatory requirements for central monitoring of major projects; major projects are subject to monitoring and funds can be re-allocated, but ex-post reviews are not required. - Projects are monitored quarterly at a sector level, but monitoring reports concentrate on financial progress and do not monitor physical progress. - Article 19 of the Financial Regulations (2016) provides for transfer of appropriations with a limit of 75 percent with approval of the Minister of Finance; there is no requirement for legislative approval. - Ex-post reviews are not legally required for government-funded projects (though usually required by donors). Operational gaps - Sector Steering Committees monitor sector projects, but there is no information on cost overruns, Project Managers Forum reports contain no forward-looking data, and there is no central monitoring mechanism. - Reallocation of funds occurs in some cases but is not fully controlled by MoFEA and there is no evidence it accelerates projects. - No ex-post reviews are conducted for government-funded projects; donor-funded projects generally undergo ex-post reviews per donors' requirements. Assessment and priority - Little change in institutional framework since 2019 PIMA, but effectiveness has deteriorated. - High priority to develop a portfolio monitoring function to: - Identify re-allocated funding and assess whether re-allocation met requirements and expedited completion. - Institute ex-post reviews as an intrinsic part of the investment life cycle and use findings to enhance investment governance. - Produce a detailed summary table of all major projects including critical information for top management to identify critical projects, act on risks, and prevent delays and additional costs. - Box 4 indicates minimum requirements for a monitoring template; Annex 5 provides information on the S-Curve as an early detection tool. *IMF | Technical Report (extracts provided above).* ### Box 3. Good Practice in Ex-Post Project Reviews and Acting on Findings ### Box 3. Good Practice in Ex-Post Project Reviews and Acting on Findings ### Good practice examples and required information - Many countries have formal requirements for ex-post review of major projects; this is considered a core phase of the investment life cycle. - Infrastructure Australia (example): detailed requirements for post completion review. Required information includes: - forecast and outturn data on cost, schedule and benefits; - key findings from interviews with the project delivery team; - the approach and timing for communicating findings and recommendations for future projects. - United Kingdom (example): The Green Book documents requirements for ex-post evaluation, covering both process evaluation and impact evaluation. - The Infrastructure and Projects Authority undertakes periodic reviews of completed projects to distil lessons learned and improve future project delivery. - In 2019 the Infrastructure and Projects Authority documented 24 lessons from close review of four transport megaprojects with application for major public projects in all sectors of public investment. - Ireland (example): a review of problems in the construction of the National Children’s Hospital recommended reforms of the governance process for public investment projects. - This directly informed changes to the Public Spending Code – the requirements for evaluation, planning and management of public investment. - Adjustments included new arrangements for project governance, risk management and cost forecasting. *Sources as listed in the original box.* --- ### Box 4. Minimum Requirements for Project Progress Reports ### Minimum information required for project progress and status analysis - Project number - Project description - Project status – preliminary design, detailed design, or execution - Project commencement date - Contractual project completion date - Expected completion date - Project ahead of schedule - Project behind schedule - Original budget of the project - Revised budget of the project to date - Project cost adjustments to date - % physical progress on site - % of budget spent - % time lapsed - Are further cost overruns expected. - Reasons for possible further cost overruns. - Risk in upcoming period and possible mitigation measures. *Source: Staff.* --- ### Management of Project Implementation — Key findings (Assessment: Strength—Low; Effectiveness—Low; Reform priority: Medium) - Effective project implementation requires management of time, money, and quality; regular and independent audits provide oversight and identify common problems and solutions. - No legal requirement to appoint senior officers for projects; some ex-post audits are conducted and guidelines for cost adjustment exist. - No legal or regulatory requirement to appoint a senior officer or to prepare a project implementation plan. - Contract price adjustment is regulated by the Public Procurement Authority Regulations (2019) Article 143; price adjustments are based on procurement contract requirements and not a standardized rule. - There is no limit set for cost adjustment, the procedure for cost adjustments is not defined, and there is no fundamental review required during the cost adjustment phase. - Ex-post audits are required under the National Audit Act (2015). The mandate of the Auditor General is described under section 160 of the Constitution. - Article 22 of the National Audit Act states the Auditor General may carry out special audits and that audit reports must be submitted to the National Assembly and may be published. - Some project management arrangements exist; ex-post audits are occasionally conducted, but project adjustments occur without a legal framework and review. - Most major projects have project monitoring officials during implementation, particularly for donor-funded projects (most large projects are donor-funded). - Monthly progress reports are compiled for projects under the Ministry of Transport, Works and Infrastructure and GAMWORKs. - National audit reports find project management is not always executed diligently. - The Ministry of Transport and the Minister of Education have project implementation units in place. - Performance audits have only been conducted since 2019, and compliance audits on infrastructure projects commenced during 2024. - Less than 10 percent of projects are exposed to an external audit. - Audits that were conducted found a number of deficiencies and incorrect procedures. - Cost adjustments are conducted but are not documented nor regularly analyzed for GLF projects. - Project management process is negatively affected mainly by upstream issues; National Audit Office highlighted the need for adequate training for project managers. - Project implementation plans (Box 5) are not always produced; effective contract management arrangements are not always in place. - The Financial Regulations (2016) could be updated to ensure a senior official is appointed to oversee any major project irrespective of funding source, and that project implementation plans be prepared for all large projects. --- ### Box 5. Project Implementation Plans ### Purpose and benefits - A well-structured Project Implementation Plan offers: - a comprehensive roadmap with clarity on project activities, milestones, and responsibilities; - efficient coordination, collaboration, and resource allocation; - risk assessments, mitigation plans, project schedules, and budget allocations to support proactive management and financial efficiency; - adherence to quality standards, facilitation of timely execution, and a resource for post-project analysis; - contribution to successful outcomes, stakeholder satisfaction, and continuous improvement in future projects. *Figure source: Asian Development Bank and the Republic of Tajikistan: Reconnection to the Central Asian Power System Project.* --- ### Monitoring of Public Assets — Key findings (Assessment: Strength—Low; Effectiveness— Low; Reform priority: High) ### Importance and current regulatory framework - Maintaining an up-to-date picture of non-financial assets and their condition is essential for effective public sector asset portfolio management. - Effective management requires a comprehensive asset register updated regularly; asset values and types should be incorporated in the government’s balance sheet as a basis for net worth and depreciation charged as an indication of asset condition. - Asset management is regulated but incomplete: - No requirement for recording non-financial asset values in financial accounts. - No clear specification of depreciation methods. - An asset management policy was introduced in 2024 guiding development of a comprehensive asset register, though the policy is not legally enforceable. - The Public Finance Act (2014) requires MoFEA to issue instruments for regulating improvement, maintenance, and disposal of immovable public assets to all budget agencies. - The Financial Regulations (2016) requires heads of budget agencies to maintain documents and records, including asset registers, but: - No requirement specifies regular surveys and condition assessments of assets. - The Financial Regulations (2016) do not require that non-financial assets be recorded in public accounts and do not specify depreciation rates or percentages or asset life spans for depreciation purposes (though described in the recent Asset Management Policy). ### Current status (as of July 2024) - Limited asset registers in place; revaluations not done; with the exception of some SOEs, condition assessments are not carried out. - Compilation of asset registers commenced in July 2024; government does not yet have a consolidated asset register. - Condition assessments are not conducted regularly; revaluations currently not conducted; depreciation of assets is not done for all assets. - The State-Owned Enterprises Operational and Financial report compiled by the Directorate of SOE's at MoFEA indicates asset values of most SOEs and records depreciation values. - SOEs have adopted International Accounting Standards for Asset Management and derived depreciation rates for their assets. ### Depreciation rates example (National Water and Energy Corporation Financial Statements 2020) - Buildings: 2 - Plant and Machinery: 4 -10 - Motor vehicles: 20 - Fittings, Furniture and Equipment: 20 - Electricity network: 2.5 - Water and sewage network: 2.5 ### Box 6. Status of Asset Registers in Gambia in July 2024 - Asset Management Policy issued: November 2022. - Asset register compilation: Commenced in July 2024. - Expected completion date for compilation of asset registers: December 2024. - Depreciation formula published: Not yet done. - Comprehensive list of asset life cycle: Not yet done. - Revaluation of asset values: Not yet done. - Condition assessments: Not yet done. *Source: Staff.* ### Priority and suggested reform measures - The introduction of a new asset management policy has strengthened the area since the 2019 PIMA, but completing a comprehensive asset register should be a high priority. - Reform measures that can help include: - defining depreciation methodology by asset type; - completing an exhaustive useful life list of assets; - updating the inventory system. --- ### Recommendations on Implementation Phase ### Identified issues and recommendations - Issue: Portfolio management of major projects at the central government level does not exist; no project performance data available to determine financial and physical progress or identify risks. - Recommendation 8. Establish a portfolio management function in MoFEA. This could be a function under a new PIM Unit (see Recommendation 2) or a new standalone function in the Department of Aid Coordination (by end-2025, MoFEA and SOEs) (Medium priority). - Issue: No comprehensive asset registers and no standardized methods for assessing maintenance needs and costs. - Recommendation 9. Complete the process of preparing a centralized asset register and improve information on maintenance and asset register (by end-2025, Accountant General and MoFEA) (Medium priority). --- ### IV. The Climate PIMA — Climate change and public infrastructure (selected findings) ### Vulnerability and projected climate changes - The Gambia is increasingly vulnerable to climate change as a low-lying coastal country. - Temperatures in The Gambia are expected to rise: - between 1.1 degrees Celsius and 3.1 degrees Celsius by the 2060s; - up to 5.0 degrees Celsius by the 2090s; - interior regions are expected to experience more rapid warming than coastal areas. - Under a moderate warming scenario with current policies (Representative Concentration Pathway 4.5), average sea level is expected to rise: - between 0.12 and 0.41 meters by 2050, relative to 2000 levels; - between 0.24 and 1.07 meters by 2100, relative to 2000 levels. - Under an especially high-emission scenario (Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5), duration of meteorological droughts in West Africa is projected to increase: - from approximately two months in the historical period (1950–2014) to about four months by the end of the century (2050–2100). ### Impacts and sectoral risks - Sea level rise poses one of the most significant climate-related risks to infrastructure; The Gambia has an average elevation of only 34 meters above sea level and much of the country lies below 20 meters. - The capital city, Banjul, and the Greater Banjul area—which houses approximately 1.4 million people, or over 60 percent of the nation's population—is situated at sea level. - Increased frequency of extreme weather events (storms, flooding) threatens coastal infrastructure, tourism facilities, and urban centers. - Agriculture, heavily reliant on rain-fed farming, is particularly vulnerable to changes in rainfall patterns and increased temperatures; region expected to experience a drier climate with longer drought periods. - Climatic events have substantial macroeconomic and fiscal implications: - Over 400,000 people were affected by the 2011 Sahel Drought, which led to a 62 percent decrease in crop production compared to 2010. - Increased incidence of natural disasters is expected to strain public finances through increased costs of emergency response and infrastructure repair. - Strengthening climate resilience via investment in climate-resilient infrastructure and enhancing public investment management is crucial. ### Emissions and targets - The Gambia accounts for less than 0.01 percent of global CO2e emissions. - Greenhouse gas emissions trajectory: - expected to increase from 2,840 GgCO2e in 2020 to 3,360 GgCO2e by 2030 under a business-as-usual scenario. - The Gambia targets 3,327 GgCO2e by 2030, indicating little additional action planned to reduce emissions below the business-as-usual path. - Sectors covered in emissions figures include Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use, Energy, Waste, and Industrial Processes. *Italic source attribution: IMF | Technical Report 51 (content extracted from the specified content unit).* ### 82. The Gambia's Second Nationally Determined Contribution outlines both unconditional and ### The Gambia's Second Nationally Determined Contribution outlines both unconditional and conditional mitigation measures ### NDC target and IMF business-as-usual comparison - The updated NDC, submitted in 2021, sets a target to reduce emissions by 49.7 percent by 2030, relative to business-as-usual levels, contingent on receiving international support. - IMF business-as-usual emissions estimates differ from those submitted by authorities. - The IMF business-as-usual scenario projects an emission path that will be only slightly above the absolute emission target established in the updated NDC. - NDC target: 3.32MtCO2e (as shown in Figure 34). ### Adaptation, sectoral focus, and specific measures - The Gambia is advancing climate adaptation strategies focused on coastal protection, water resource management, and disaster risk reduction. - Key sectors targeted: energy, waste management, and forestry. - Specific measures mentioned: expanding solar energy capacity and enhancing forest conservation efforts. - The initiatives aim to maintain low emissions and improve resilience against climate-related impacts. ### IMF Climate Policy Diagnostic: recommendations and institutional analysis - The recent IMF Climate Policy Diagnostic provides recommendations and analysis to support fiscal policies for The Gambia’s climate goals. - The diagnostic presents comprehensive analysis of adaptation and mitigation challenges and recommends adaptation and mitigation policy and institutional reforms needed to support the climate change agenda. - Key institutional recommendations from the July 2024 Climate Policy Diagnostic (Box 7) include: - Develop a National Adaptation Plan. - Strengthen disaster related budget request, execution and reporting through the development of guidelines and in-depth disaster budget analysis. - Establish long-term climate scenarios and hazard vulnerability maps and disseminate them to line ministries to improve public sector planning. - Incorporate The Gambia 2050 Climate Vision and the Long-Term Climate-Neutral Development Strategy 2050 into up-coming National 2050 Vision and other long-term national plans. - Complete the development and adoption of the National Land Policy. - Allocate roles and responsibilities for climate change management clearly among actors and legitimize the institutional structure, responsibilities, and targets through legislation (e.g., a Climate Change Bill or National Environmental Management Act update). - Mainstream adaptation and mitigation into all updated sectoral plans and regulatory frameworks including mainstreaming climate change management into the core functions of MoFEA. ### NDC Implementation Plan (Box 8) — actions, sectoral coverage, and financing - The Government launched the NDC Implementation Plan (2021-2030) to operationalize its NDC, prioritizing and costing 20 outcomes (7 adaptation, 13 mitigation). - The Implementation Plan sets out 27 actions to reduce emissions, and these actions are almost all conditional on support. - Table 12 — Focus Areas and Sectors under the NDC Implementation Plan with Projected Funding: - Focus Area: Adaptation — Number: 21 — Percent: 78% — Value (USD): $ 579,140,908 - Focus Area: Mitigation — Number: 4 — Percent: 15% — Value (USD): $ 286,754,890 - Focus Area: Cross-cutting — Number: 2 — Percent: 7% — Value (USD): $ 21,429,132 - Focus Area: TOTAL — Number: 27 — Percent: 100% — Value (USD): $ 887,324,930 - Sector: Agriculture — Number: 8 — Percent: 30% — Value (USD): $ 140,418,000 - Sector: Ecosystems — Number: 10 — Percent: 37% — Value (USD): $ 392,112,323 - Sector: Energy — Number: 3 — Percent: 11% — Value (USD): $ 284,756,890 - Sector: Coast — Number: 2 — Percent: 7% — Value (USD): $ 51,122,970 - Sector: Disaster — Number: 2 — Percent: 7% — Value (USD): $ 4,095,000 - Sector: Environment — Number: 1 — Percent: 4% — Value (USD): $ 1,998,000 - Sector: Water — Number: 1 — Percent: 4% — Value (USD): $ 7,119,747 - Sector: TOTAL — Number: 27 — Percent: 100% — Value (USD): $ 887,324,930 ### National strategies, plans, and institutional arrangements - Chronology and highlights from Table 11 (selected entries): - 2016 The National Climate Change Policy — mainstream climate change into national planning, budgeting, decision-making by 2025; envisages new institutions and a Gambian Climate Change Fund — Leadership: MECCNAR. - 2017 Strategic Program for Climate Resilience — adds "Infrastructure and waste management" priority; provides cost estimates for financing — Leadership: MECCNAR. - 2017 Low Emission Climate Resilient Development Strategy — complements the NDC and Strategic Program for Climate Resilience — Leadership: MECCNAR and support from MOFEA. - 2021 The Gambia 2050 Climate Vision — political aspiration to achieve net zero emissions by 2050; four strategic axes — Leadership: MECCNAR with support from MOFEA. - 2021 The Gambia’s second Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC2) — greenhouse gas reduction target of 49.7 percent by 2030; covered sectors: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use, Industrial Processes and Product Use, Energy, Transport and Waste — Leadership: MECCNAR. - 2022 Long-Term Climate-Neutral Development Strategy 2050 — plan for net zero by 2050 requiring USD 4 billion financing support — Leadership: MECCNAR and support from MOFEA. - 2023 National Development Plan 2023-2027 — climate resilience as a pillar with seven program priorities — Leadership: MOFEA. - Institutional bodies established in 2019 (selected): - National Climate Change Council — principal body for climate decision-making and policy formulation — Members: MECCNAR, various ministers (MoFEA, Education, Heath, Agriculture, Energy), local government representatives and other stakeholders. - Climate Change Secretariat — supports integration of climate change into national and sub-national plans, capacity building, tracking adaptation and mitigation progress — Members: MECCNAR, Office of the President, MoFEA, United Nations agencies and International Partners. - Inter-Ministerial Climate Change Committee — promotes integration of climate impacts into sectoral strategies and sets short and medium-term goals; meets every three months — Members: PS MECCNAR, PS MOFEA, Line Ministries' Directors. ### Climate PIMA framework and assessment focus - The Climate PIMA assesses five public investment management practices from a climate perspective and extends the existing PIMA framework. - Key C-PIMA dimensions covered: - C1. Climate-aware planning: Is public investment planned from a climate change perspective? - C2. Coordination across public sector: Is there effective coordination of decision making on climate change-related public investment across the public sector? - C3. Project appraisal and selection: Do appraisal and selection include climate-related analysis and criteria? - C4. Budgeting and Portfolio management: Is climate-related investment spending clearly identified in the budget and actively managed? - C5. Risk management: Are fiscal risks relating to climate change and infrastructure incorporated in budgets and fiscal risk analysis? ### Detailed assessment — Climate-aware planning (C1) - Strength: Low; Reform Priority: Medium. - Observations: - The Gambia has an NDC Implementation Plan with projects for mitigation and adaptation, but further steps are needed to fully integrate it within national public investment strategies, plans, and processes. - The NDC Implementation Plan sets out 27 actions; these actions are almost all conditional on support and span energy, water, agriculture, forestry, transport, industry, waste, and construction. - The Long-Term Climate-Neutral Development Strategy 2050 complements the Green Recovery-focused National Development Plan (2023 - 2027). - Sectoral public investment strategies and plans need to reflect national climate commitments. - MECCNAR participated in formulation of strategies but its involvement in implementation has been limited. - Alignment of sectoral and local strategies with national objectives has advanced slowly; in some sectors (e.g., agriculture, oil and energy) climate change has been included in strategies without MECCNAR support. - Slow progress is partly due to low institutional and human capacity of MECCNAR and lack of clarity in roles and responsibilities, with overlaps between the Secretariat and the Inter-ministerial Committee. ### Planning, land-use regulation, and capacity gaps - Regulations on spatial and urban planning and construction are significantly outdated and do not address climate-related risks and impacts on public investment. - Physical Planning and Development Act (1991) and Land Acquisition and Compensation Act (1991) leave competencies on land use not completely clear. - There is not a national unified land use policy; municipal-level policies are outdated. - First comprehensive plans date from 1984; they expired in 2000 and have not been revised. - Resources for land management agencies are insufficient to train or retain qualified staff or acquire equipment for surveying, mapping, and planning. - Land information jurisdictions have not been systematically collected, digitized, maintained, or analyzed. - Absence of land use regulations means criteria and requirements for investment projects have not been established; environmental impact assessment compliance is the only stated requirement for investment projects. ### Guidance, standards, and implementation recommendations - No centralized guidance exists for government agencies on preparation and costing of climate-aware public investment strategies. - Externally financed investment projects (more than 80 percent of total public investment) generally follow high climate change standards for design, appraisal, and implementation. - Example of alignment: Expansion of Banjul’s Port — design aligned with Gambia’s NDCs and The Gambia 2050 Climate Vision to prioritize climate-resilient infrastructure and reduction of carbon emissions. - Recommended short-term priorities: - MECCNAR should increase efforts to ensure sectoral and local development strategies align with national objectives and contain measurable interventions and output indicators. - Issue a unified national regulation on land use to allow subnational governments to update master plans, given vulnerability and coastal concentration of population and activity. *Source: IMF (2024), Climate Policy Diagnostic.* ### 91. The Gambia has some permanent institutional arrangements for coordinating policy ### 91. The Gambia has some permanent institutional arrangements for coordinating policy ### Institutional framework and national coordination - The institutional framework primarily involves line ministries and development partners, guided by national policies that aim to integrate climate considerations into governmental functions for long-term impact. - The National Climate Change Council is responsible for decision-making and policy formulation related to climate change. - The Inter-ministerial Climate Committee, composed of key ministry officials, collaborates with the Council to promote sector-specific integration of climate impacts into strategic planning. - The existing structures provide a foundation for aligning public investment projects with climate objectives, but it is not yet clear that this institutional framework fully supports effective coordination for climate-aware investment. ### Local government coordination and implementation capacity - There is no legal or formal requirement for the coordination of local government’s capital spending from a climate change perspective. - A formal process exists to discuss local government investments under the coordination of the Ministry of Land, Regional Government, and Religious Affairs through the Local Government finance and advisory committee, but there is no evidence of formal central-government guidance to local governments on considering climate change during public investment decisions. - MECCNAR acknowledges its mandate and readiness to extend capacity with clear instructions on how Local Government Development Plans and actions should be climate sensitive. - The semi-autonomous Gambian Agency for the Management of Public Works (established in 1993) can consider climate-change perspectives in its project implementation model and plays a useful role in implementing small capital infrastructure projects aligned to local councils and regions. - Historical investment implemented by the Agency: approximately USD 200 million of capital investment in small to medium-sized public works projects, approximately USD 8 million per annum on average over the last 25 years. ### Oversight of SOEs and PPPs and investment needs - The SOE Commission does not set performance criteria for SOEs that relate to national climate change objectives. - The current legal and institutional framework does not require private PPP partners to perform climate change impact assessments or climate vulnerability assessments. - The Strategic Program for Climate Resilience expects projects requiring USD 315 million. - The Long-Term Climate-Neutral Development Strategy to reach vision 2050 is costed at USD 4 billion. - The plans note the government will not be able to implement all envisaged measures from the budget and that private sector investment is required, creating potential for PPPs. - Aligning the regulatory and oversight framework for SOEs to ensure climate-related investments are consistent with national climate policies and guidelines would improve coordination. ### C3. Project Appraisal and Selection (Strength: Low; Reform Priority: High) - Appraisal and regulatory coverage - Climate mitigation issues are not mentioned in the Appraisal Guidelines (2021), but climate adaptation risks are included as an issue that should be identified and addressed. - MDAs must state in project documentation whether there are climate change risks that can affect project success and include plans to mitigate them. - The Cabinet Memorandum (2020) mentions environmental sustainability, climate-resilient communities, and responsible land use as issues to be analyzed in the appraisal process, but this is not further developed from a climate perspective. - The Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations (2014), under the National Environmental Management Act (1994), provide a framework for evaluating potential environmental effects, but there is no formal requirement to assess key climate-related impacts on projects, their alignment with national climate change objectives (such as emissions), or the project’s resilience to climate change. - PPP framework and opportunities - The PPP Policy (2023) and PPP Operational Guidelines (2016) do not mention climate change issues. - The preparation of the new PPP Act is an opportunity to integrate climate mitigation and adaptation issues across the infrastructure cycle. - PPPs and similar infrastructure contracts typically commit the government to long-term obligations, typically 20-30 years (Box 9), making climate risks (adaptation and mitigation) likely to arise. - Example: Port of Banjul concession selection included a study on ‘Climate Adaptation and Resilience Investment Options’ as part of the feasibility study; key port hazards accounting for the largest percentage of total economic risk value include sea level rise, extreme temperature, and extreme precipitation. Findings were incorporated by adding a climate reserve to the financial base case requirements on the design of the new terminal. - Selection criteria and early screening - There are currently no formal selection criteria or guidelines that integrate climate change, but climate issues are noted as relevant for prioritization and selection. - The New Project Proposal Template (project concept note) could be expanded to include climate-related questions for early screening. - Table 13 (Project Concept Note references) suggests including explicit references to: relation to Nationally Determined Contributions; expected climate-related impacts; vulnerabilities to be considered and mitigated; provisional estimate for climate resilience in estimated total capital cost; and climate-focused implementation risk analysis. - Example selection weighting (from Rwanda) — Table 14 - National Sector Priority: 20 (0.2) - Sector Ministry’s own Project Priority: 10 (0.1) - Project Efficiency: 20 (0.2) - Effects on the Climate: 15 (0.15) - Resilience to the Effects of climate change: 15 (0.15) - Degree of Gender Balance: 5 (0.05) - Compliance with other requirements: 5 (0.05) - Number and Type of Jobs Created: 5 (0.05) - Distribution of Benefits: 5 (0.05) - Total: 100 (1) - Recommended regulatory updates - Urgent need to update appraisal, selection, and PPP regulation with climate change issues (including mirroring updates in the Environmental Impact Assessment Guidance (2014) under NEMA (1994)). - Require a climate change impact assessment and a climate vulnerability assessment for large projects to determine impacts and resilience (including resilience to sea level rises and anticipated greenhouse gas emissions). - Suggested analytical tools: hazard analysis, risk mapping, loss and damage estimation, vulnerability analysis, risk scenarios, staged implementation to handle climate uncertainty, “no regrets” elements, real options. - Climate mitigation incorporation: estimate business-as-usual greenhouse gas emissions; gross and net greenhouse gas impacts of alternative technologies; estimation of marginal abatement cost curves; use of parameters such as the social cost of carbon, shadow price of carbon, appropriate long-term discount rates. - Important to provide guidelines, tools, and dedicated support to MDAs and central agencies for implementation and enable iterative project adjustment based on findings. ### C4. Budgeting and Portfolio Management (Strength: Low; Reform Priority: High) - Current budgeting and tagging - Budget documents do not identify climate-related investment expenditures; there is currently no definition of what constitutes climate-related spending. - The budget structure includes program classification, allowing sectors to prepare budget plans with key objectives and indicators aligned with program spending plans over the medium term. - At the project level, budget agencies provide information on sources of financing and how the project contributes to outputs and outcomes, allowing potential incorporation of climate-related expenditures. - Expenditures for activities such as environmental health and sanitation and environmental impact assessments in the 2024 budget could potentially be identified as climate related, but they are not tagged for tracking and monitoring. - The government plans to improve climate coding in the budget process, as proposed in a concept note from the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change and Natural Aligned Resources. - The Accountant General's Department confirmed the Chart of Accounts could accommodate a tagging code, with an analytical segment usable to identify and track expenditure in priority areas such as climate, gender, and child nutrition-related expenditure. - Other countries in the region have introduced climate change expenditure tagging; Kenya’s proposal is noted as an example (Box 10 reference). - Ex-post review and audit gaps - Ex-post reviews or audits of the climate change mitigation and adaptation outcomes of public investments are not required under the Public Finance Act (2014), the Financial Regulations (2016), nor the new Policy on Asset Management. - The government undertakes project-specific ex-post reviews or audits when required under agreements with development partners, but as discussed under Institution 13 of the PIMA, no ex-post reviews have been published to date. - There have been no ex-post audits of the climate change mitigation or adaptation outcomes of investment projects. - The Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations (2014) under NEMA provide a framework for environmental evaluation but do not require assessment of key climate-related impacts, alignment with national climate objectives, or project resilience; consequently, there is no structured comparison of actual vs. anticipated climate mitigation or adaptation outcomes of investment projects. *IMF | Technical Report* ### 101. The government's asset portfolio management policies and practices, including the ### tarea2025023-print-pdf - 101. The government's asset portfolio management policies and practices, including the ### Asset portfolio management and climate exposure - Findings: - The government's asset portfolio management policies and practices, including the maintenance of assets, do not address climate-related risks. - Infrastructure assets in The Gambia face climate-related threats, including rising sea levels and flooding. - An evaluation by a consultancy commissioned by MECCNAR found that 25.5 km of paved roadway in Greater Banjul is at risk of submersion during high tides. - In some donor-funded projects, provisions for addressing climate-related risks are included in the agreements. - Ongoing initiatives provide opportunities to incorporate climate-related risk management provisions, including: - the upcoming PFM Act, - the 2022 Government of The Gambia Asset Management Policy, - the Ministry of Transport, Works, and Infrastructure's National Buildings and Facilities Policy (2018–2027). ### Incorporating climate sensitivity into budgeting and portfolio management - Suggested measures: - Link the asset management policy and the new asset register with hazard maps to identify infrastructure assets located in high-risk areas (e.g., coastal regions exposed to sea level rises). - Prioritize critical assets and develop an asset risk mitigation strategy to ensure efficient resource allocation to protect vulnerable infrastructure. - Tag climate-related expenditures to enhance tracking and monitoring, while recognizing complexity and competing priorities in budgeting and public investment management reforms identified in the PIMA. - Incorporate climate-related risks into ex-post reviews and audits of public investments, providing structured comparisons of climate mitigation and adaptation outcomes against anticipated results, particularly if the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment is strengthened (see C-PIMA Institution C4). - Update legal and regulatory frameworks to mandate these ex-post reviews, ensuring climate considerations are integrated into all stages of project planning and implementation. ### Example approach to budget tagging (Box 10: Kenya) - Kenya proposal highlights (illustrative example): - Track and report climate-related expenditures by identifying and defining objectives and outcomes of climate-related activities in the budget. - Differentiate between climate mitigation and adaptation initiatives and determine climate co-benefits. - Use the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (Rio DAC) markers, a three-tiered scoring system (principal, significant, not applicable/no cause to be tracked). - Proposed an eighth segment of the government’s chart of accounts with a new four-digit analytical segment to capture coding of climate-related expenditure and allow Rio DAC coding and other analytical coding (e.g., gender or nutrition). ### Disaster risk management and ex-ante financing (C5: Risk Management) - Institutional and planning findings: - The National Disaster Management Act (2008) established multi-level disaster risk management institutions: National Disaster Management Council (chaired by the Vice President) and the National Disaster Management Agency as secretariat, with committees at regional, district, and village levels. - The Gambia Strategic Programme on Climate Resilience (2017) highlights risks to water supply and sanitation, waste management, roads and drainage, and energy infrastructure but lacks full detail on government mitigation and response plans. - The Gambia National Contingency Plan covers five major hazards: floods, bushfires, oil spills, disease outbreaks, and population movements. - The National Disaster Management Agency has facilitated seven regional contingency plans, 18 community action plans, a health contingency plan, and an oil spill contingency plan. - The National Disaster Management Policy is being updated to incorporate disaster risk financing, social protection, and alignment with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. - Multi-hazard analysis shows infrastructure risks from windstorms and floods are significant, affecting buildings, roads, and other critical infrastructure across regions. - The disaster management strategy lacks comprehensive quantification of risks to infrastructure and specific government plans for mitigation and response to climate-related disaster impacts on infrastructure. - Ex-ante financing mechanisms and concerns: - National budget includes a centralized services vote acting as an unallocated reserve; a contingency fund accessible by the president for urgent needs as specified in Section 154 of the Constitution. - MoFEA manages the National Disaster Fund, though it has not been adequately funded in recent years. - The Public Finance Act (2014) permits budget reallocations within and across agencies during emergencies with Minister of Finance approval. - External contingent financing: - Access to a USD 20 million facility under the World Bank's Development Policy with a Catastrophe Drawdown Option. - Subscription to Africa Risk Capacity covering drought and floods with coverage of about USD 3.7 million (triggered by satellite imagery-based assessments). - Risk: Proliferation of funds necessitates careful management to avoid coordination and public financial management risks (fiscal policy soundness, fiscal discipline, transparency). - The Gambia concluded a Disaster Risk Financing Diagnostics as part of AfDB’s African Disaster Risk Financing Programme and is developing a comprehensive Disaster Risk Financing strategy. ### Fiscal risk analysis and climate risks - Current status: - A draft fiscal risk statement to accompany the Medium-Term Economic and Fiscal Framework for 2025-2028 has been developed and awaits cabinet approval. - The draft statement covers macroeconomic, revenue, expenditure, debt sustainability, state-owned enterprises (SOEs), and public-private partnerships (PPPs). - It currently does not include climate-related risks to public infrastructure assets. - Recommended expansions: - Include natural disaster and climate change risks with qualitative and quantitative assessments of impacts on public infrastructure. - Use the new asset register coupled with hazard maps to identify assets located in high-risk areas for floods, droughts, and other climate events. - Assess potential fiscal impacts on SOEs (noting their roles in energy and water sectors) and unexpected risks to PPPs given long-term commitments. - Suggested tools and data include analysis of asset portfolio vulnerability and tools like the IMF’s Q-CRAFT to quantify long-term fiscal risks from climate change. ### Recommended actions to enhance disaster risk management and climate resilience for infrastructure - Short list of recommended actions (from text): - Develop comprehensive mitigation and response plans for climate-related risks to public infrastructure, building on the Gambia Strategic Programme on Climate Resilience and the National Contingency Plan. - Strengthen management and coordination of ex-ante financing mechanisms to ensure effective, coordinated responses to all types of climate-related disaster impacts on infrastructure. - Expand the draft fiscal risk statement to include detailed assessments of climate-related risks, utilizing the new asset register and hazard maps, and covering potential impacts on SOEs and PPPs. ### Specific recommendations and priorities (excerpted) - Recommendation 10: - Include climate-related performance criteria in the performance agreements with SOE (by end 2024, SOE Commission) (Medium priority). - Recommendation 11: - Incorporate climate change criteria in the update of the appraisal and selection regulation and in the upcoming PPP Act (by mid-2025, MoFEA) (High priority). - Recommendation 12: - Update the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Templates and Guidelines to include analysis of both greenhouse gas contributions of projects and measures to ensure the resilience of the project to climate change impacts (during both implementation and operation). (by mid-2025, MECCNAR) (High priority). - Recommendation 13: - Drawing on the PIMA recommendation to complete the asset register, use the geo-location information in this register to initially assess the exposure of critical infrastructure to climate risks (such as sea level rise) and produce a plan to mitigate these asset risks (by end 2027, Accountant General) (High priority). - Recommendation 14: - Update the Fiscal Risk Statement to assess climate-related macroeconomic risks and climate-related risks to SOEs and PPPs. This could draw on findings from the analysis of the vulnerability of the asset portfolio, and on tools like the IMF’s Q-CRAFT, and on analysis of climate-related natural disasters (by end-2026, MoFEA) (Medium priority). ### Legal, regulatory, and IT context relevant to climate mainstreaming - Legal and regulatory: - A draft of the new PFM Act was approved by the Cabinet in late 2023 but is yet to be passed by the legislature; when passed, it will strengthen Public Investment Management and mandates MoFEA to prepare an annual public investment program as part of the Appropriation Bill (includes ongoing and new projects, including PPPs). - The draft PFM Act grants the minister the mandate to set procedures, criteria, methodologies, and information required to qualify a project for inclusion in the Government budget and screening, evaluation, and implementation of projects. - The PPP Act in draft should be passed with priority and aligned with the PFM draft Act; it should include an updated appraisal and selection process and incorporate climate change issues. - Climate adaptation and mitigation measures are largely missing from the legal, regulatory, and policy framework; recommended integration into appraisal and selection regulation and the upcoming PPP Law, and an update to the 2014 Environmental Impact Assessment Guidance under the National Environmental Management Act (1994) to require climate change impact and vulnerability assessments for large projects. - Information Technology: - 2019 PIMA recommendations for integrated IT systems have not been fully realized; isolated development has led to overlaps, gaps, and inefficiencies (example: collapse of the Aid Management Platform). - Epicor 10 Financial Management Information System upgraded from Epicor 9 offers improvements (support for a more comprehensive Chart of Accounts; modules for basic accounting, treasury management, and budgeting). - Contract commitments module is not yet effectively used to track contracts or project balances. - Department of Procurement and Gambia Public Procurement Authority still rely on spreadsheets for procurement tracking. - Gambia Public Procurement Authority is collaborating with Rwanda to develop an e-procurement system, which could enhance procurement efficiency and transparency. *Source: IMF | Technical Report (excerpts from content unit).* ### 112. The fragmentation of current IT systems necessitates duplicate data entry, leading to ### tarea2025023-print-pdf - 112. The fragmentation of current IT systems necessitates duplicate data entry, leading to ### Information technology and Public Investment Management Information System (PIMIS) - Fragmentation of current IT systems necessitates duplicate data entry, leading to inefficiencies and potential inaccuracies. - Lack of a centralized database for public investment projects complicates alignment with national priorities and budget constraints. - The Aid Management Platform had served the central monitoring role but has fallen into disuse; a simple, fit-for-purpose replacement is urgently needed. - A well-designed, context-appropriate PIMIS should: - Integrate all stages of the public investment lifecycle: project submission, review, approval, execution, and monitoring. - Consolidate data on project funding sources, including loans, for better coordination and more accurate reporting. - Provide a supporting toolkit to a MoFEA unit mandated to track projects from inception to completion. - Characteristics recommended for The Gambia’s PIMIS: - Practical, user-friendly, and easy to maintain without requiring expensive support. - Provide a consolidated overview of all public investment projects to facilitate decision-making and resource allocation, especially for climate-sensitive investments. - Recommended timelines and actions (Cross-Cutting Issues — Information Technology Systems): - Conduct a needs assessment (End 2024, DAC with donor or IMF assistance). - Develop a detailed implementation plan (End 2024, DAC with donor or IMF assistance). - Design and develop the PIMIS (End 2025, DAC or new PIMU with donor or IMF assistance). - Conduct pilot testing with a few key ministries and agencies (Late 2025, DAC or new PIMU). - Train staff on use and maintenance (Late 2025, DAC or new PIMU). - Roll out the PIMIS and establish monitoring and evaluation mechanisms (End 2026, DAC or new PIMU). - Provide continuous support and training (Ongoing, DAC or new PIMU). - Explicit recommendation: - Recommendation 1: Design and implement a simple, fit-for-purpose Public Investment Management Information System (PIMIS) to support effective public investment management (by end 2026, MoFEA) (High priority). ### Capacity constraints and institutional arrangements - Limited capacity has constrained public investment management in The Gambia: - Gaps at MoFEA and within budget agencies impact development and implementation of the regulatory framework, policies, procedures, systems, and skills for effective PIM. - Inadequate staff numbers and capacity to implement the updated PIM institutional framework. - The GSRB is composed of only two external experts. - Specific staffing shortfalls: - The Department of Aid Coordination has only six staff: two principal economists, two senior economists (one of whom is on study leave), one economist, and one data clerk. - Proposed staff complement for the Department of Aid Coordination is twenty-six technical staff; current staffing is described as grossly insufficient. - At MDAs, donors have created project implementation units operating in parallel with line function staff who are either in short supply or lack PIM skills. - Operational gaps: - MoFEA directorates involved in PIM lack adequate staff numbers and guidance on roles throughout the PIM cycle. - Roles of various directorates at MoFEA and budget agencies in PIM are not formally specified. - The GSRB has a cabinet mandate to ensure fiscal sustainability of new projects, but mechanisms and data to inform assessments are not available and assessments are not undertaken in advance of parliamentary approval and appropriation. - Ministerial Investment Implementation Committees, tasked with confirming national interest and debt sustainability of new projects, are not active. - Recommendation and actions: - MoFEA should establish a dedicated PIM unit that is staffed and trained to undertake capacity-building in project preparation, data collection, appraisal, selection, procurement and contracting, and better utilization of IT systems. - The Government should implement a broad-based capacity development program including formal training supported by development partners, expansion of curricula to include PIM-specific and climate-related training, regional peer learning, and quick wins such as attaching line function officials to project implementation units. - Immediate task: assign PIM responsibility to a dedicated team, either as part of the Department of Aid Coordination or as a stand-alone unit, with specific and clear terms of reference and an action plan with prioritized deliverables (including drafting basic guidelines and creating coordination mechanisms). - Explicit recommendation: - Recommendation 2: The Minister for Finance should create a centralized unit with the mandate to coordinate and guide PIM across government, focusing on building capacity (by December 2024, Minister of Finance) (High priority). - Cross-cutting Capacity actions and timing: - Create a Centralized PIM Coordination Unit at MoFEA (End 2024, MoFEA). - Prepare and Issue Formal Assignment of PIM Related Roles (January 2025, MoFEA). - Develop a Capacity Building Program in PIM and Climate Change (End 2025, New PIMU). - Develop a PIM Policy to guide the PIM Unit and PIM process (End 2025, MoFEA). ### Staffing, roles, and PIM cycle responsibilities - PIM cycle components: project identification, appraisal, independent review, selection, approval, implementation, evaluation. - Need to distinguish and formally assign institutional responsibility for PIM roles and develop clear coordination mechanisms. - Action priorities: - Develop operational guidelines describing the selection process and key criteria covering the role of the new MoFEA PIM Unit, GSRB, MDAs and Ministerial Investment Implementation Committee (High priority; MoFEA and MDAs; End 2024). - Reinstate capital expenditure ceilings in the budget call circular and, in the medium term, include GLF and external funded investment in capital expenditure ceilings (High priority; MoFEA; June 2025 and June 2026 respectively). - Ensure all ongoing and proposed new projects funded by GLF and donors are reviewed before inclusion in budget documents for legislative approval (Medium priority; MoFEA; June 2025). - Establish portfolio management function in MoFEA (Medium priority; could be under new PIM Unit or standalone in Department of Aid Coordination) with actions to: - Establish quarterly portfolio monitoring on an approved reporting template. - Establish a database of all major project performance data and identified risks, inclusive of GLF funded projects. - Implement ex-post reviews on all major projects, inclusive of donor and GLF funded projects (End 2025). ### Climate change integration in PIM - Climate change coordination challenges: - MECCNAR provides centralized coordination with three dedicated staff, but climate considerations are not effectively streamlined into policy and budgeting due to novelty of reform, lack of trained staff, and absence of formal guidelines. - Sector-specific technical staff from MDAs lack guidelines and training to identify and incorporate climate change considerations in policies and budgets. - Recommended climate-related actions: - Add climate mitigation and adaptation criteria to three phases of the PIM process (initial screening, prefeasibility, full technical feasibility) and align with updated Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Templates and Guidelines (High priority; MoFEA; March 2025). - Update appraisal, selection, and PPP regulation to reflect climate change impacts and include climate criteria in the upcoming PPP Act (High priority; MECCNAR; March 2025). - Include climate-related performance criteria in performance agreements with SOEs (Medium priority; MECCNAR and SOE Commission; End 2024 and End 2025). - Use geo-location information from the asset register to assess exposure of critical infrastructure to climate risks (High priority; AGO, Environmental, Ministry of Transport, GAMWORKS, MDAs and SOEs; End 2025 to End 2027 across steps). - Update the Fiscal Risk Statement to assess climate-related macroeconomic risks and climate-related risks to SOEs and PPPs, drawing on tools like the IMF’s Q-CRAFT (Medium priority; MoFEA; June 2025 and End 2026 timings for related assessments). - Specific tool note: - Q-CRAFT: The Quantitative Climate Change Risk Assessment Fiscal Tool (Q-CRAFT) quantifies long-term fiscal risks from climate change by examining impacts of climate scenarios on the macroeconomy and preparing a long-term fiscal sustainability model. ### Asset management and fiscal risk - Asset register and maintenance: - There are no comprehensive asset registers and no standardized methods for assessing maintenance needs and costs. - Actions include completing a centralized asset register, implementing depreciation methodology, defining useful life, developing standard methodologies for assessing maintenance needs and costs, compiling condition assessments, and developing asset registers that capture analysis of vulnerability to climate change (various actions with End 2025, End 2026, End 2027 deadlines; institutions: AG, MoFEA, MDAs). - Fiscal risk assessment: - Data gaps and lack of tracking of projects risk fiscal sustainability. - Update Fiscal Risk Statement to include climate-related macroeconomic risks and risks to SOEs and PPPs, leveraging asset vulnerability analysis and Q-CRAFT (MoFEA; June 2025 and End 2026). *Source: tarea2025023-print-pdf - pages 112–119 (IMF | Technical Report).* ### Annex 2. PIMA Questionnaire ### Annex 2. PIMA Questionnaire ### A. Planning Sustainable Levels of Public Investment - Indicator - Scoring - 1 = To no or a lesser extent 2 = To some extent 3 = To a greater extent 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? - 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? - 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? - 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. 2. National and Sectoral Planning: Are investment allocation decisions based on sectoral and inter-sectoral strategies? - 2.a. Does the government prepare national and sectoral strategies for public investment? - National or sectoral public investment strategies or plans are prepared, covering only some projects found in the budget. - National or sectoral public investment strategies or plans are published covering projects funded through the budget. - Both national and sectoral public investment strategies or plans are published and cover all projects funded through the budget regardless of financing source (e.g., donor, public corporation (PC), or PPP financing). - 2.b. Are the government’s national and sectoral strategies or plans for public investment costed? - The government’s investment strategies or plans include no cost information on planned public investment. - The government’s investment strategies include broad estimates of aggregate and sectoral investment plans. - The government’s investment strategies include costing of individual, major investment projects within an overall financial constraint. - 2.c. Do sector strategies include measurable targets for the outputs and outcomes of investment projects? - Sector strategies do not include measurable targets for outputs or outcomes. - Sector strategies include measurable targets for outputs (e.g., miles of roads constructed). - Sector strategies include measurable targets for both outputs and outcomes (e.g., reduction in traffic congestion). 3. Coordination between Entities: Is there effective coordination of the investment plans of central and other government entities? - 3.a. Is capital spending by SNGs, coordinated with the central government? - Capital spending plans of SNGs are not submitted to, nor discussed with central government. - Major SNG capital spending plans are published alongside central government investments, but there are no formal discussions, between the central government and SNGs on investment priorities. - Major SNG capital spending plans are published alongside central government investments, and there are formal discussions between central government and SNGs on investment priorities. - 3.b. Does the central government have a transparent, rule-based system for making capital transfers to SNGs, and for providing timely information on such transfers? - The central government does not have a transparent rule-based system for making capital transfers to SNGs. - The central government uses a transparent rule-based system for making capital transfers to SNGs, but SNGs are notified about expected transfers less than six months before the start of each fiscal year. - The central government uses a transparent rule-based system for making capital transfers to SNGs, and expected transfers are made known to SNGs at least six months before the start of each fiscal year. - 3.c. Are contingent liabilities arising from capital projects of SNGs, PCs, and PPPs reported to the central government? - Contingent liabilities arising from major projects of SNGs, PCs, and PPPs are not reported to the central government. - Contingent liabilities arising from major projects of SNGs, PCs, and PPPs are reported to the central government, but are generally not presented in the central government’s budget documents. - Contingent liabilities arising from major projects of SNGs, PCs, and PPPs are reported to the central government, and are presented in full in the central government’s budget documents. 4. Project Appraisal: Are project proposals subject to systematic project appraisal? - 4.a. Are major capital projects subject to rigorous technical, economic, and financial analysis? - Major capital projects are not systematically subject to rigorous, technical, economic, and financial analysis. - Major projects are systematically subject to rigorous technical, economic, and financial analysis. - Major projects are systematically subject to rigorous technical, economic, and financial analysis, and selected results of this analysis are published or undergo independent external review. - 4.b. Is there a standard methodology and central support for the appraisal of projects? - There is no standard methodology or central support for project appraisal. - There is either a standard methodology or central support for project appraisal. - There is both a standard methodology and central support for project appraisal. - 4.c. Are risks taken into account in conducting project appraisals? - Risks are not systematically assessed as part of the project appraisal. - A risk assessment covering a range of potential risks is included in the project appraisal. - A risk assessment covering a range of potential risks is included in the project appraisal, and plans are prepared to mitigate these risks. 5. Alternative Infrastructure Financing: Is there a favorable climate for the private sector, PPPs, and PCs to finance in infrastructure? - 5.a. Does the regulatory framework support competition in contestable markets for economic infrastructure (e.g., power, water, telecoms, and transport)? - Provision of economic infrastructure is restricted to domestic monopolies, or there are few established economic regulators. - There is competition in some economic infrastructure markets, and a few economic regulators have been established. - There is competition in major economic infrastructure markets, and economic regulators are independent and well established. - 5.b. Has the government published a strategy/policy for PPPs, and a legal/regulatory framework which guides the preparation, selection, and management of PPP projects? - There is no published strategy/policy framework for PPPs, and the legal/regulatory framework is weak. - A PPP strategy/policy has been published, but the legal/regulatory framework is weak. - A PPP strategy/policy has been published, and there is a strong legal/regulatory framework that guides the preparation, selection, and management of PPP projects. - 5.c. Does the government oversee the investment plans of public corporations (PCs) and monitor their financial performance? - The government does not systematically review the investment plans of PCs. - The government reviews the investment plans of PCs but does not publish a consolidated report on these plans or the financial performance of PCs. - The government reviews and publishes a consolidated report on the investment plans and financial performance of PCs. ### B. Ensuring Public Investment is Allocated to the Right Sectors and Projects - Indicator - Scoring - 1 = To no or a lesser extent 2 = To some extent 3 = To a greater extent 6. Multiyear Budgeting: Does the government prepare medium-term projections of capital spending on a full cost basis? - 6.a. Is capital spending by ministry or sector forecasted over a multiyear horizon? - No projections of capital spending are published beyond the budget year. - Projections of total capital spending are published over a three to five-year horizon. - Projections of capital spending disaggregated by ministry or sector are published over a three to five-year horizon. - 6.b Are there multiyear ceilings on capital expenditure by ministry, sector, or program? - There are no multiyear ceilings on capital expenditure by ministry, sector, or program. - There are indicative multiyear ceilings on capital expenditure by ministry, sector, or program. - There are binding multiyear ceilings on capital expenditure by ministry, sector, or program. - 6.c. Are projections of the total construction cost of major capital projects published? - Projections of the total construction cost of major capital projects are not published. - Projections of the total construction cost of major capital projects are published. - Projections of the total construction cost of major capital projects are published, together with the annual breakdown of these cost over a three-five-year horizon. 7. Budget Comprehensiveness and Unity: To what extent is capital spending, and related recurrent spending, undertaken through the budget process? - 7.a. Is capital spending mostly undertaken through the budget? - Significant capital spending is undertaken by extra-budgetary entities with no legislative authorization or disclosure in the budget documentation. - Significant capital spending is undertaken by extra-budgetary entities, but with legislative authorization and disclosure in the budget documentation. - Little or no capital spending is undertaken by extra-budgetary entities. - 7.b. Are all capital projects, regardless of financing source, shown in the budget documentation? - Capital projects are not comprehensively presented in the budget documentation, including PPPs, externally financed, and PCs’ projects. - Most capital projects are included in the budget documentation, but either PPPs, externally financed, or PCs’ projects are not shown. - All capital projects, regardless of financing sources, are included in the budget documentation. - 7.c. Are capital and recurrent budgets prepared and presented together in the budget? - Capital and recurrent budgets are prepared by separate ministries, and/or presented in separate budget documents. - Capital and recurrent budgets are prepared by a single ministry and presented together in the budget documents, but without using a program or functional classification. - Capital and recurrent budgets are prepared by a single ministry and presented together in the budget documents, using a program or functional classification. 8. Budgeting for Investment: Are investment projects protected during budget implementation? - 8.a. Are total project outlays appropriated by the legislature at the time of a project’s commencement? - Outlays are appropriated on an annual basis, but information on total project costs is not included in the budget documentation. - Outlays are appropriated on an annual basis, and information on total project costs is included in the budget documentation. - Outlays are appropriated on an annual basis and information on total project costs, and multiyear commitments is included in the budget documentation. - 8.b. Are in-year transfers of appropriations (virement) from capital to current spending prevented? - There are no limitations on virement from capital to current spending. - The finance ministry may approve virement from capital to current spending. - Virement from capital to current spending requires the approval of the legislature. - 8.c Is the completion of ongoing projects given priority over starting new projects? - There is no mechanism in place to protect funding of ongoing projects. - There is a mechanism to protect funding for ongoing projects in the annual budget. - There is a mechanism to protect funding for ongoing projects in the annual budget and over the medium term. 9. Maintenance Funding: Are routine maintenance and major improvements receiving adequate funding? - 9.a. Is there a standard methodology for estimating routine maintenance needs and budget funding? - There is no standard methodology for determining the needs for routine maintenance. - There is a standard methodology for determining the needs for routine maintenance and its cost. - There is a standard methodology for determining the needs for routine maintenance and its cost, and the appropriate amounts are generally allocated in the budget. - 9.b. Is there a standard methodology for determining major improvements (e.g., renovations, reconstructions, enlargements) to existing assets, and are they included in national and sectoral investment plans? - There is no standard methodology for determining major improvements, and they are not included in national or sectoral plans. - There is a standard methodology for determining major improvements, but they are not included in national or sectoral plans. - There is a standard methodology for determining major improvements, and they are included in national or sectoral plans. - 9.c. Can expenditures relating to routine maintenance and major improvements be identified in the budget? - Routine maintenance and major improvements are not systematically identified in the budget. - Routine maintenance and major improvements are systematically identified in the budget. - Routine maintenance and major improvements are systematically identified in the budget and are reported. 10. Project Selection: Are there institutions and procedures in place to guide project selection? - 10.a. Does the government undertake a central review of major project appraisals before decisions are taken to include projects in the budget? - Major projects (including donor- or PPP-funded) are not reviewed by a central ministry prior to inclusion in the budget. - Major projects (including donor- or PPP-funded) are reviewed by a central ministry prior to inclusion in the budget. - All major projects (including donor- or PPP-funded) are scrutinized by a central ministry, with input from an independent agency or experts prior to inclusion in the budget. - 10.b. Does the government publish and adhere to standard criteria, and stipulate a required process for project selection? - There are no published criteria or a required process for project selection. - There are published criteria for project selection, but projects can be selected without going through the required process. - There are published criteria for project selection, and generally projects are selected through the required process. - 10.c. Does the government maintain a pipeline of appraised investment projects for inclusion in the annual budget? - The government does not maintain a pipeline of appraised investment projects. - The government maintains a pipeline of appraised investment projects, but other projects may be selected for financing through the annual budget. - The government maintains a comprehensive pipeline of appraised investment projects, which is used for selecting projects for inclusion in the annual budget, and over the medium term. ### C. Delivering Productive and Durable Public Assets - Indicator - Scoring - 1 = To no or a lesser extent 2 = To some extent 3 = To a greater extent 11. Procurement - 11.a. Is the procurement process for major capital projects open and transparent? - Few major projects are tendered in a competitive process, and the public has limited access to procurement information. - Many major projects are tendered in a competitive process, but the public has only limited access to procurement information. - Most major projects are tendered in a competitive process, and the public has access to complete, reliable, and timely procurement information. - 11.b Is there a system in place to ensure that procurement is monitored adequately? - There is no procurement database, or the information is incomplete or not timely for most phases of the procurement process. - There is a procurement database with reasonably complete information, but no standard analytical reports are produced from the database. - There is a procurement database with reasonably complete information, and standard analytical reports are produced to support a formal monitoring system. - 11.c Are procurement complaints review process conducted in a fair and timely manner? - Procurement complaints are not reviewed by an independent body. - Procurement complaints are reviewed by an independent body, but the recommendations of this body are not produced on a timely basis, nor published, nor rigorously enforced. - Procurement complaints are reviewed by an independent body whose recommendations are timely, published, and rigorously enforced. 12. Availability of Funding: Is financing for capital spending made available in a timely manner? - 12.a. Are ministries/agencies able to plan and commit expenditure on capital projects in advance on the basis of reliable cash-flow forecasts? - Cash-flow forecasts are not prepared or updated regularly, and ministries/agencies are not provided with commitment ceilings in a timely manner. - Cash-flow forecasts are prepared or updated quarterly, and ministries/agencies are provided with commitment ceilings at least a quarter in advance. - Cash-flow forecasts are prepared or updated monthly, and ministries/agencies are provided with commitment ceilings for the full fiscal year. - 12.b Is cash for project outlays released in a timely manner? - The financing of project outlays is frequently subject to cash rationing. - Cash for project outlays is sometimes released with delays. - Cash for project outlays is normally released in a timely manner, based on the appropriation. - 12.c Is external (donor) funding of capital projects fully integrated into the main government bank account structure? - External financing is largely held in commercial bank accounts outside the central bank. - External financing is held at the central bank but is not part of the main government bank account structure. - External financing is fully integrated into the main government bank account structure. 13. Portfolio Management and Oversight: Is adequate oversight exercised over implementation of the entire public investment portfolio - 13.a Are major capital projects subject to monitoring during project implementation? - Most major capital projects are not monitored during project implementation. - For most major projects, annual project costs, as well as physical progress, are monitored during project implementation. - For all major projects, total project costs, as well as physical progress, are centrally monitored during project implementation. - 13.b Can funds be re-allocated between investment projects during implementation? - Funds cannot be re-allocated between projects during implementation. - Funds can be reallocated between projects during implementation, but not using systematic monitoring and transparent procedures. - Funds can be re-allocated between projects during implementation, using systematic monitoring and transparent procedures. - 13.c Does the government adjust project implementation policies and procedures by systematically conducting ex post reviews of projects that have completed their construction phase? - Ex post reviews of major projects are neither systematically required, nor frequently conducted. - Ex post reviews of major projects, focusing on project costs, deliverables, and outputs, are sometimes conducted. - Ex post reviews of major projects focusing on project costs, deliverables, and outputs are conducted regularly by an independent entity or experts and are used to adjust project implementation policies and procedures. *Annex 2. PIMA Questionnaire (from the source content provided).* ### 14. Management of Project Implementation: Are capital projects well managed and controlled during the execution stage? ### 14. Management of Project Implementation: Are capital projects well managed and controlled during the execution stage? ### 14.a Do ministries/agencies have effective project management arrangements in place? - Scoring options: - "Ministries/agencies do not systematically identify senior responsible officers for major investment projects, and implementation plans are not prepared prior to budget approval." - "Ministries/agencies systematically identify senior responsible officers for major investment projects, but implementation plans are not prepared prior to budget approval." - "Ministries/agencies systematically identify senior responsible officers for major investment projects, and implementation plans are prepared prior to budget approval." ### 14.b Has the government issued rules, procedures and guidelines for project adjustments that are applied systematically across all major projects? - Scoring options: - "There are no standardized rules and procedures for project adjustments." - "For major projects, there are standardized rules and procedures for project adjustments, but do not include, if required, a fundamental review and reappraisal of a project’s rationale, costs, and expected outputs." - "For all projects, there are standardized rules and procedures for project adjustments and, if required, include a fundamental review of the project’s rationale, costs, and expected outputs." ### 14.c Are ex post audits of capital projects routinely undertaken? - Scoring options: - "Major capital projects are usually not subject to ex post external audits." - "Some major capital projects are subject to ex post external audit, information on which is published by the external auditor." - "Most major capital projects are subject to ex post external audit information on which is regularly published and scrutinized by the legislature." ### 15. Monitoring of Public Assets: Is the value of assets properly accounted for and reported in financial statements? ### 15.a Are asset registers updated by surveys of the stocks, values, and conditions of public assets regularly? - Scoring options: - "Asset registers are neither comprehensive nor updated regularly." - "Asset registers are either comprehensive or updated regularly at reasonable intervals." - "Asset registers are comprehensive and updated regularly at reasonable intervals." ### 15.b Are nonfinancial asset values recorded in the government financial accounts? - Scoring options: - "Government financial accounts do not include the value of non- financial assets." - "Government financial accounts include the value of some non- financial assets, which are revalued irregularly." - "Government financial accounts include the value of most nonfinancial assets, which are revalued regularly." ### 15.c Is the depreciation of fixed assets captured in the government’s operating statements? - Scoring options: - "The depreciation of fixed assets is not recorded in operating statements." - "The depreciation of fixed assets is recorded in operating statements, based on statistical estimates." - "The depreciation of fixed assets is recorded in operating expenditures, based on asset-specific assumptions." ### Cross-cutting issues (applies to PIM and Monitoring) - 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 institutions?" ### Annex highlights ### Annex 5. The Californian S-Curve - Purpose: "The S-Curve below is an early detection tool, to determine the course of a project." - Key explanation points (verbatim descriptions): - "The percentage progress versus the percentage time lapsed on any given date, is indicate in the S-Curve. The green line indicates the upper limit of expenditure, and the red line indicates the lower limit of expenditure of the project." - "The purple line indicates the actual expenditure versus time of the project, at any timeframe." - "A project that follows the blue line, within the envelop is a well-managed and resourced project." - Risk guidance: "Once a project follows the direction of the purple line, below the green and red envelope, it is an indication that the project runs a severe risk of cost and time overrun. Urgent action steps are then required to bring the purple line back into the envelope. Once the purple line continues to stay below the envelope, a management decision is required to request a method statement from the Contractor on how he/she envisages to rectify the under- performance." ### Annex 6. Contract Management Arrangements in Mozambique - Required contents of the Contract Management Plan (verbatim items): - "Project management teams Frequent review of the contract" - "Protocols for handover and commissioned equipment" - "Regular dialogue with the Contractor" - "Use of correct quality standards" - "Management of payments/ claims" - "Complaint procedures" - "Control remedies specified in the Contract." - "Performance security is held for defects/ corrections." - The Contract Management Plan must include: - "Names of the officers" - "Contracting Authority responsible for the management of the contract" - "The supervising qualified resident engineer" - "Number and categories of assisting personnel available to the officer for contract management purposes." - "External recruited technical experts" - "A time schedule or a project plan Gantt chart" - "Diagrams on contract management activities covering the duration of the contract." ### Annex 7. Legal and Regulatory Acts (selected entries from table) - Example entries (verbatim rows as presented): - "Annual Report on Public-Private Partnerships (Draft) 2023 No" - "Asset Management Policy 2022 Yes" - "Accounting Procedures Manual (APM) 2017 Yes" - "Budget Circulars for FYs 2022 and 2023 2022 Yes" - "Budget Estimates for FY2019, FY2020, and FY2021 2019 Yes" - "Project Appraisal Guidelines. Ministry of Finance 16/03 2021 Yes" - "Public Finance Act 2014 2014 Yes" - "Public Procurement Authority Regulations 2019 Yes" - "National Development Plan 2023-2027 2023 Yes" - "State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) Act 2023 Yes" *Source: 14. Management of Project Implementation; 15. Monitoring of Public Assets; Annexes 3–8, IMF Technical Report (excerpt).* --- _Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/tar/2025/english/tarea2025023-print-pdf.pdf_