[Type a quote from the document or the summary of an interesting point. You can position the text box anywhere in the document. Use the Text Box Tools tab to change the formatting of the pull quote text box.][Type a quote from the document or the summary of an interesting point. You can position the text box anywhere in the document. Use the Text Box Tools tab to change the formatting of the pull quote text box.][Type a quote from the document or the summary of an interesting point. You can position the text box anywhere in the document. Use the Text Box Tools tab to change the formatting of the pull quote text box.][Type a quote from the document or the summary of an interesting point. You can position the text box anywhere in the document. Use the Text Box Tools tab to change the formatting of the pull quote text box.][Type a quote from the document or the summary of an interesting point. You can position the text box anywhere in the document. Use the Text Box Tools tab to change the formatting of the pull quote text box.][Type a quote from the document or the summary of an interesting point. You can position the text box anywhere in the document. Use the Text Box Tools tab to change the formatting of the pull quote text box.][Type a quote from the document or the summary of an interesting point. You can position the text box anywhere in the document. Use the Text Box Tools tab to change the formatting of the pull quote text box.]

RomaniaFINANCIAL REPORTING BY THE GOVERNMENT OF ROMANIATHE WAY AHEAD ACCORDING TO IPSAS

Final Report

July 2011

The World Bank Europe and Central Asia Region

Document of the World Bank

69259

©2011 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank1818 H Street NWWashington DC 20433Telephone: 202-473-1000Internet: www.worldbank.orgE-mail: feedback@worldbank.org

All rights reserved

This volume is a product of the staff of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this volume do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of The World Bank or the governments they represent.

The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries.

Rights and PermissionsThe material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without permission may be a violation of applicable law. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission to reproduce portions of the work promptly.

For permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a request with complete information to the Copyright Clearance Center Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA; telephone: 978-750-8400; fax: 978-750-4470; Internet: www.copyright.com.

All other queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to the Office of the Publisher, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2422; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS(June 24, 2011)

Currency Unit = New Romanian Leu (RON) US$ = 2.9523 RON

FISCAL YEARJanuary 1 – December 31

Vice President : Philippe H. Le HouerouCountry Director : Peter Harrold

Sector DirectorCountry Manager

::

Gerard A. ByamFrancois Rantrua

Sector Manager : A. Moustapha NdiayeTeam Leader : Bogdan Constantinescu

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..1

INTRODUCTION ..4

I. ACCOUNTING VERSUS STATISTICAL REPORTING ..4

II. BACKGROUND ..4

III. ASSESMENT OF IPSAS ADOPTION IN ROMANIA ..5A. Recommendations on improved compliance with adopted IPSAS standards

..8

IV. CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ..8A. Reporting entity………

..9B. Scope of consolidation

..9Control through the power to appoint members of the governing board

....................................................................................................................................10

The purpose of consolidated financial statements....................................................................................................................................10

The reporting boundary - why is it important to identify controlled entities?....................................................................................................................................11

Materiality limits in deciding which entities should be consolidated....................................................................................................................................11

C. Identification of controlled entities12

The concept of control for financial reporting purposes....................................................................................................................................12

Control requires both power and benefits....................................................................................................................................12

The ‘Power’ element....................................................................................................................................13

The ‘Benefit’ element....................................................................................................................................16

Dissimilar activities....................................................................................................................................16

Budget-dependency....................................................................................................................................16

D. Determine whether central government controls local government17

E. Difference in scope of consolidation of IPSAS and ESA9517

F. Recommendations on consolidation18

V. PRESENTATION OF BUDGET INFORMATION IN FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 19A. Comparable basis…..

19B. Four rules…………….

20C. Recommendations on budget information in financial statements

21

VI. IPSAS IMPLEMENTATION IN ROMANIA, MEASURED AGAINST OTHER COUNTRIES22

A. Recommendations based on experiences in other countries25

VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 25

VIII. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN OF RECOMMENDATIONS26

IX. COMMUNICATION 26

Appendices

Appendix 1. Power Conditions and Indicators29

Appendix 2. Benefits Conditions and Indicators31

Appendix 3. Background material on reporting entity and consolidation32

Appendix 4. Status of IPSAS adoption and recommendations33

Appendix 5. Timeline for implementation of IPSAS recommendations34

Acronyms

CFAA Country Financial Accountability AssessmentCoAESA

Court of Accounts (Supreme Audit Institution)European System of Accounts

GAAP Generally Accepted Accounting PrinciplesGBE Government Business Enterprise (IPSAS terminology)GoR Government of RomaniaIFRS International Financial Reporting StandardsIPSAS International Public Sector Accounting StandardsIPSASB International Public Sector Accounting Standards BoardMoPF Ministry of Public FinancePEFA Public Expenditure Financial AccountabilityPFM Public Financial ManagementSOE State-Owned Enterprise (GFSM2001 terminology)

PREFACE

The overall objective of this technical assistance is to support the Government of Romania’s efforts to improve the level of transparency, accountability, efficiency and effectiveness in public finances. This objective will be achieved through assistance to the Ministry of Public Finance (MoPF) to continue and strengthen the adoption and implementation of IPSAS.

The report was prepared by a core team led by Bogdan Constantinescu, Senior Financial Management Specialist and comprising Prof. Dr. Frans van Schaik, an international consultant with extensive experience in IPSAS implementation, Doina Ilie and Georgeta Alecu from the public accounting methodology directorate of MoPF, and Anneliese Viorela Voinea, Financial Management Consultant. Camelia Gusescu, Program Assistant provided logistical support.

The team would like to express its gratitude to government officials of the MoPF for their constructive collaboration. The team would like to thank Minister Gheorghe Ialomitianu, as well as State Secretary Gheorghe Gherghina, MoPF, for their effective leadership.

The team worked under the guidance of Mr. Ahmadou Moustapha Ndiaye (Manager, Financial Management, ECSO3) and benefited from invaluable support from Mr. Peter Harrold (Country Director, ECCU5), Mr. Francois Rantrua (Country Manager, Romania), Mr. Marius Koen (Lead Financial Management Specialist, ECSO3) and Mr. Rajeev Swami (Sr Financial Management Specialist, ECSO3). The report was peer reviewed by Olav Rex Christensen (Senior Public Finance Specialist, HDNED), and Sanjay N. Vani (Lead Financial Management Specialist, OPCFM).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Recognizing the need for a sound and internationally recognized accounting and financial reporting framework for Romania, the Government of Romania is in the process of adopting IPSAS, the International Public Sector Accounting Standards. This is a welcome step in line with the recommendations by international agencies including World Bank and IMF to prepare financial statements in accordance with IPSAS. This report discusses the current accounting and reporting framework of Romania, identifies areas in need of strengthening, and provides several recommendations.

Accounting versus statistical reporting

Accounting (IPSAS) and statistical bases (most notably ESA95) for reporting financial information have different objectives, focus on different reporting entities and treat some transactions and events differently. However, they also have many similarities in treatment, deal with similar transactions and events and in some cases have a similar type of report structure. The IPSASB, IMF and the European Commission have recognized the importance of convergence of accounting and statistical bases for governments and have worked to identify and gradually reduce the main differences between IPSAS, GFSM 2001, and the European System of Accounts (ESA95). For an in-depth analysis of the difference between accounting and statistical reporting (IPSAS and ESA95) we refer to the Research Report called ‘IPSASs and Statistical Bases of Financial Reporting: An Analysis of Differences and Recommendations for Convergence’, issued by IPSASB and available on www.ipsasb.org.

Financial statements (whole of government)

The financial statements currently produced by the Government of Romania for the whole of government meet some of the requirements of the IPSAS, with a number of major omissions. The team identified the following major gaps:

Primary financial statements do not reconcile Accounting policies and notes are missing in the financial statements Transfers between government entities (inter-entity transactions) are not eliminated State-owned enterprises are not included No explanation is provided of material differences between budget and actual amounts Pension liabilities are not shown.

Although the government produces all required primary financial statements under IPSAS, they do not represent a comprehensive set of financial statements, since they do not reconcile. The required primary financial statements are the following: a statement of financial position, a statement of financial performance, a statement of changes in net assets/equity, cash flow statements, a budget execution statement. The team identified the following areas where these statements do not reconcile:

1

Borrowings raised according to the cash flow statement amounts to LEI 11 billion, but according to the statement of financial position the loans increased by LEI 67 billion (from 41 to 108).

Cash at year end amounts to LEI 17 billion according to the cash flow statement, but according to the statement of financial position LEI 30 billion

Accrual accounting surplus for the year amounted to LEI 60 billion, while the accumulated surplus according to the statement of changes in net assets/equity decreased by LEI 20 billion (from 49 to 29) during the year.

Both the accounting policies and most explanatory notes are missing from GoR’s financial statements causing a lack of clarity about the exact nature of the financial information presented and a lack of detail on many amounts. For example, the statement of financial performance presents one aggregated amount ‘revenues from taxation, fees and fines’ without any breakdown. A complete set of financial statements comprises primary financial statements, accounting policies and explanatory notes. The primary financial statements should be a concise summary of the major assets, liabilities, revenues, expenses and cash flows. The primary financial statements should preferably be one page and should not extend beyond two pages. They are meant to quickly provide headline information to the user of the financial statements. Details should be relegated to note-disclosures, which should be linked to the primary financial statements. Notes should be presented in a systematic manner. Each item on the face of the primary should be cross-referenced to any related information in the notes.

Items on the face of the primary financial statements should be cross-referenced to any related information in the notes and the amounts should reconcile between primary financial statements and notes. The team received note-disclosures for property, plant and equipment. The team identified the following areas where these notes do not reconcile with the primary financial statements:

Revaluation of the property, plant and equipment according to the note-disclosure amounts to LEI 58 billion, while the increase in the revaluation reserves only amounts to LEI 4 billion.

In the GoR’s financial statements, the inter-entity transactions have not been eliminated, in particular transfers between government entities. The statement of financial performance presents LEI 109 billion in revenues from transfers from other governments and LEI 119 billion in expenses transfers to other government entities. The majority of these amounts should be eliminated; otherwise the statement of financial performance grants overstates both revenues and expenses. Furthermore, the current accounts between government entities should be reconciled and eliminated. Currently, the financial statements of the government entities are aggregated (i.e., added). To provide information more useful to the user of the financial statements, the financial statements of the government entities should be consolidated (i.e. added and inter-entity flows and stocks eliminated). The preparation of financial statements at whole of government level requires the elimination of all inter-entity transactions. IPSAS requires that when financial statements are prepared at the government level, the transactions within all government entities included in the consolidation are eliminated. The current accounts need to be reconciled and any unexplained differences need to be sorted out.

IPSAS requires one cash flow statement. Currently, the financial statements include two separate cash flow statements. We recommend presenting one cash flow statement in accordance with IPSAS

2

2 Cash flow statements, and show a breakdown of the line-items ‘receipts’ and ‘payments’ by nature of the amounts.

The GoR financial statements do not include the state-owned enterprises, neither on a consolidated basis, nor as a note disclosure. For financial reporting purposes, IPSAS requires consolidation of all entities controlled by the GoR. Control of another entity is defined as the power to govern the financial and operating policies of another entity so as to benefit from its activities. Notably missing from GoR’s financial statements are all state-owned enterprises (SOEs). Although the Government of Romania and its state-owned enterprises prepare their own financial statements, individually those statements provide only a partial view of the overall activities of the government. Without consolidated financial statements, it is impossible to get a complete picture of the Government’s overall activity, whether for decision making purposes or for demonstrating accountability for the resources provided by, and managed on behalf of, the resource providers. In order to comply with the reporting entity definition in IPSAS, the GoR needs to extend the reporting entity by including state-owned enterprises. The team recommends adopting IPSAS 6 Consolidated and Separate Financial Statements, IPSAS 7 Investments in Associates, IPSAS 8 Interests in Joint Ventures and IPSAS 22 Disclosure of Financial Information About the General Government Sector.

The SOEs prepare accrual accounting financial statements in accordance with either IFRS or Romanian GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, which are in accordance with European Directives). These financial statements can be used to produce the government consolidated financial statements under IPSAS. SOEs are required to produce financial statements within 120 days after year end. The GoR is required to produce separate financial statements (i.e. for government entities only) within 50 days after year end. Consolidated financial statements could therefore be produced after 120 days after year end.

The financial statements do not include an explanation of material differences between the budget and actual amounts. Such explanation is also not included in other public documents issued in conjunction with the financial statements. IPSAS requires such an explanation.

IPSAS requires a comparison of budget and actual amounts. In compliance with IPSAS, GoR presents a comparison of the budget amounts and actual amounts as a column in the statement of revenue, financing and expenditure. This statement includes the original and final budget amounts and the actual amounts on a comparable basis. However, the reconciliation between budget deficit and accrual deficit is missing. The team recommends fully adopting IPSAS 24 Presentation of budget information in the financial statements.

The team supports the authorities in their intention to adopt and implement some additional IPSAS standards, and in addition, recommends adopting and implementing the standard on employee benefits. The statement of financial position of the government currently paints a rather rosy picture: net assets/equity amount to LEI 442 billion. In fact, however, liabilities including the pension liabilities of civil servants far exceed assets. Showing the full extent of the government’s liabilities towards its employees provokes a better informed discussion about retirement age, level of pension premium, pension payments and funding of state pensions. Ignoring the government pension liability stimulates borrowing from future generations.

3

INTRODUCTION

Recognizing the need for a sound and internationally recognized accounting and financial reporting framework, the Government of Romania is in the process of adopting IPSAS, the International Public Sector Accounting Standards. This is a welcome step in line with the recommendations by international agencies including World Bank and IMF to prepare financial statements in accordance with IPSAS. This report discusses the current accounting and reporting framework of Romania, identifies areas in need of strengthening, and provides several recommendations, based on the 2009 financial statements of the Government of Romania.

I. ACCOUNTING VERSUS STATISTICAL REPORTING

Accounting (IPSAS) and statistical bases (most notably ESA95) for reporting financial information have different objectives, focus on different reporting entities and treat some transactions and events differently. However, they also have many similarities in treatment, deal with similar transactions and events and in some cases have a similar type of report structure. The IPSASB, IMF and the European Commission have recognized the importance of convergence of accounting and statistical bases for governments and have worked to identify and gradually reduce the main differences between IPSAS, GFSM 2001, and the European System of Accounts (ESA95).

The objectives of IPSAS financial statements and ESA95 financial information are different. The objectives of IPSAS financial statements are to provide information useful for decision making, and to demonstrate the accountability of the entity for the resources which it controls. The purpose of ESA95 financial information is to provide information suitable for analyzing and evaluating fiscal policy, especially the performance of the general government sector (GGS) and the broader public sector.

II. BACKGROUND

The Government of Romania (GOR) has continued to make good progress in the Public Financial Management (PFM) reform areas since the first Country Financial Accountability Assessment (CFAA) was prepared in 2003, which deemed the overall PFM risk as moderate, and highlighted several strong PFM dimensions, including: the progress on program budgeting, the reliable cash management and distribution facilities provided by the Treasury system, and the Court of Accounts (CoA - Supreme Audit Institution) capacity. The Government has taken action to improve coordination and management of PFM reform and strengthen internal control, financial reporting and internal auditing systems. An Inter-Ministerial Committee, headed by a State Secretary of the Ministry of Public Finance endorsed a PFM Strategic Development Plan (SDP) in 2005 and has since monitored its implementation. A large number of the CFAA recommendations have been addressed by the Government, including in the areas of treasury management, harmonization of public accounting standards and practices, decentralization and rationalization of ex-ante financial control and strengthening of internal audit functions. The organization and effectiveness of the Court of Accounts has further improved. Overall, steady progress has been made in the development of PFM systems and institutions. As a result of these efforts, the quality of financial control and oversight in the country has improved substantially.

4

The GoR made the transition to the accruals basis of accounting in 2006 by adopting a number of IPSAS standards, listed in Appendix 4. A major fixed assets valuation exercise was carried out in 2006 as part of the opening balance sheet preparation. The objective of this cash to accrual transition was to improve the quality of financial information and financial statements and to provide relevant, credible and comparable information. Additional information on the adoption of IPSAS to date and public sector accounting regulations are posted on the MoPF website.

Since 2007, when Romania became member of the European Union, little progress has been made in introducing additional IPSAS standards and currently no time bound action plan is in place to adopt additional IPSAS standards. GoR does not have a strategy to ultimately achieve full compliance with IPSAS.

The adoption of IPSAS has been a very complex process, as it involved the development of detailed methodological norms and training sessions for the users. This has been further affected by the recent constraints on the public sector payroll, with a severe limitation of hiring in the MoPF public accounting methodology directorate, which had been already understaffed before the austerity measures.

The Functional Review of the Public Finance Sector (report dated October 15, 2010) acknowledges the progress made to date on IPSAS adoption and recommends the adoption and implementation of the remaining standards. In the current context of debt stress in several European countries, the GoR acknowledges the importance of developing robust accounting and reporting procedures and systems to present in a comprehensive and transparent manner the financial performance and results, as well the execution of the budget revenues and expenses.

III. ASSESSMENT OF IPSAS ADOPTION IN ROMANIA

This section provides an assessment of the IPSAS implementation in Romania to date.

The financial statements currently produced by the Government of Romania for the whole of government meet some of the requirements of the IPSAS, with a number of major omissions. The team identified the following major gaps.

Primary financial statements do not reconcile; Accounting policies and explanatory notes are missing in the financial statements; Inter-entity transactions have not been eliminated, in particular transfers between government

entities; IPSAS requires one cash flow statement; GoR’s financial statements would be more understandable by presenting information in

millions of LEI; Pension liabilities are not shown.

The following sections provide an explanation of these deviations, including a reference to the applicable IPSAS standard.

5

This list is not exhaustive. A detailed comparison of the norms and IPSAS may reveal more deviations. The norms are issued in Romanian and IPSAS 1-26 have been translated into Romanian. Also, an audit of compliance of the financial statements with the norms may reveal more instances of a lack of compliance. The team did not carry out such an audit. This audit is within the remit of the internal audit departments of the ministries and the Court of Accounts. The internal audit departments and the Court of Accounts therefore need a thorough knowledge of both the norms and the IPSAS standards on which they are based. The team recommends such training for the internal audit departments of the ministries as well as the Court of Accounts.

Primary financial statements do not reconcile. Although the government produces all required primary financial statements under IPSAS, they do not represent a comprehensive set of financial statements, since they do not reconcile. This is a deviation from IPSAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements. The required primary financial statements are the following: a statement of financial position, a statement of financial performance, a statement of changes in net assets/equity, cash flow statements, a budget execution statement. The team identified the following areas where these statements do not reconcile:

Borrowings raised according to the cash flow statement amounts to LEI 11 billion, but according to the statement of financial position the loans increased by LEI 67 billion (from 41 to 108);

Cash at year end amounts to LEI 17 billion according to the cash flow statement, but according to the statement of financial position LEI 30 billion

Accrual accounting surplus for the year amounted to LEI 60 billion, while the accumulated surplus according to the statement of changes in net assets/equity decreased by LEI 20 billion (from 49 to 29) during the year.

Accounting policies and explanatory notes are missing in the financial statements causing a lack of clarity about the exact nature of the financial information presented and a lack of detail on many amounts. This is a deviation from IPSAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements. A complete set of financial statements comprises primary financial statements, accounting policies and explanatory notes. The primary financial statements should be a concise summary of the major assets, liabilities, revenues, expenses and cash flows. The primary financial statements should preferably be one page and should not extend beyond two pages. They are meant to quickly provide headline information to the user of the financial statements. Details should be relegated to note-disclosures, which should be linked to the primary financial statements. Notes should be presented in a systematic manner. Each item on the face of the primary should be cross-referenced to any related information in the notes. Items on the face of the primary financial statements should be cross-referenced to any related information in the notes and the amounts should reconcile between primary financial statements and notes.

The team received note-disclosures for property, plant and equipment. The team identified the following areas where these notes do not reconcile with the primary financial statements:

Revaluation of the property, plant and equipment according to the note-disclosure amounts to LEI 58 billion, while the increase in the revaluation reserves only amounts to LEI 4 billion.

This is a deviation from IPSAS 17 Property, Plant and Equipment. Other deviations from IPSAS 17 are caused by Ordinance No. 81/2003. This ordinance forbids depreciation of all military equipment

6

and a large group of other property, plant and equipment, irrespective of their useful life, while IPSAS requires capitalization of these assets and depreciation over the expected useful life. Changing an ordinance requires approval of the government and the parliament.

One example of a missing note disclosure is revenues from taxation, fees and fines. The statement of financial performance presents one aggregated amount ‘revenues from taxation, fees and fines’ without any breakdown. This is a deviation from IPSAS 23 Revenue from Non-Exchange Transactions (Taxes and Transfers) which requires disclosure either on the face of, or in the notes to, the financial statements of the amount of revenue from non-exchange transactions recognized during the period by major classes showing separately major classes of taxes.

A similar note disclosure is missing for revenues from the sales of goods and services. This is a deviation from IPSAS 9 Revenue from Exchange Transactions, which requires disclosure of the amount of each significant category of revenue recognized during the period, including revenue arising from the rendering of services and the sale of goods.

Another example of a missing note disclosure is inventories. This is a deviation from IPSAS 12 Inventories which requires disclosure of the accounting policies adopted in measuring inventories, including the cost formula used, the carrying amount in classifications appropriate to the entity and the amount of inventories recognized as an expense during the period.

Other missing note disclosure relate to IPSAS 4 The Effects of Changes in Foreign Exchange Rates, IPSAS 19 Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets and IPSAS 5 Borrowings Costs. A note disclosure about borrowing costs should explain whether borrowings costs are expensed immediately or capitalized if borrowing costs are directly attributable to the acquisition, construction, or production of a qualifying asset.

Inter-entity transactions have not been eliminated, in particular transfers between government entities such as ministries and local government. This is a deviation from IPSAS 6 Consolidated and separate financial statements. The statement of financial performance presents LEI 109 billion in revenues from transfers from other governments and LEI 119 billion in expenses transfers to other government entities. The majority of these amounts should be eliminated; otherwise the statement of financial performance grants overstates both revenues and expenses. Furthermore, the current accounts between government entities should be reconciled and eliminated. Currently, the financial statements of the government entities are aggregated (i.e., added). To provide information more useful to the user of the financial statements, the financial statements of the government entities should be consolidated (i.e. added and inter-entity flows and stocks eliminated). The preparation of financial statements of financial statements at whole of government level requires the elimination of all inter-entity transactions. IPSAS requires that when financial statements are prepared at the government level, the transactions within all government entities included in the consolidation are eliminated. The current accounts need to be reconciled and any unexplained differences need to be sorted out.

IPSAS requires one cash flow statement. Currently, the financial statements include two separate cash flow statements. This is a deviation from IPSAS 2 Cash flow statements. We recommend

7

presenting one cash flow statement, and showing a breakdown of the line-items ‘receipts’ and ‘payments’ by nature of the amounts.

GoR’s financial statements would be more understandable by presenting information in millions of LEI. This is a deviation from IPSAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements. The amounts presented in LEI are too detailed and are not helpful for the user of the financial statements. IPSAS allows presentation in millions as long as the level of rounding in presentation is disclosed and material information is not omitted.

The process of financial statements preparation might be improved by so-called soft close. This involves a number of preparatory tasks, such as the reconciliations mentioned above, to be carried out well ahead of year-end, e.g. by 30 September, as a practicing round for the year-end (the hard close). This allows the entities to sort out discrepancies among each other between 30 September and 31 December. According to IPSAS, an entity should be in a position to issue its financial statements within six months of the reporting date, although a timeframe of no more than three months is strongly encouraged. The usefulness of the financial statements are impaired if they are not made available to users within a reasonable period after the reporting date. Currently, the GoR is required to produce financial statements for government entities within 50 days after year end, recently reduced from 60 days after year end. Although timely submission is closely monitored and in general achieved on time, such a short timeframe may jeopardize reliability of the information produced. Good timing is important, but it should not be considered an end in itself. In order to achieve this ambitious timeframe the team encourages the Ministry of Public Finance to organize a soft close.

The team recommends developing checklists to be filled in by the preparers of the financial statements before submitting the financial statements to the Ministry of Public Finance. These checklists should aim to certify that the figures have been verified, cross referenced and they reconcile. This would ensure that the ministry of public finance receives reliable figures from the line ministries

A. Recommendations on improved compliance with adopted IPSAS standards

Make primary financial statements reconcile Include accounting policies and explanatory notes in the financial statements Eliminate inter-entity transactions, in particular transfers between government entities Include one cash flow statement rather than two in the financial statements Presenting information in millions of LEI in GoR’s financial statements Organize a so-called soft close as part of the process of financial statements preparation Developing checklists to be filled in by the preparers of the financial statements.

IV. CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

State-owned enterprises are not included in the GoR financial statements, neither on a consolidated basis, neither as a note disclosure. This is a deviation from IPSAS 6 Consolidated and separate financial statements. For financial reporting purposes, IPSAS requires consolidation of all entities controlled by the GoR. Control of another entity is defined as the power to govern the financial and operating policies of another entity so as to benefit from its activities. Notably missing from GoR’s financial statements are all state-owned enterprises (SOEs). Although the Government of

8

Romania and its state-owned enterprises prepare their own financial statements, individually those statements provide only a partial view of the overall activities of the government. Without consolidated financial statements, it is impossible to get a complete picture of the Government’s overall activity, whether for decision making purposes or for demonstrating accountability for the resources provided by, and managed on behalf of, the resource providers. In order to comply with the reporting entity definition in IPSAS, the GoR needs to extend the reporting entity by including state-owned enterprises. The team recommends adopting IPSAS 6 Consolidated and Separate Financial Statements, IPSAS 7 Investments in Associates, IPSAS 8 Interests in Joint Ventures and IPSAS 22 Disclosure of Financial Information about the General Government Sector.

The SOEs prepare accrual accounting financial statements in accordance with either IFRS or Romanian GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, which are in accordance with European Directives). These financial statements can be used to produce the government consolidated financial statements under IPSAS. SOEs are required to produce financial statements within 120 days after year end. The GoR is required to produce separate financial statements (i.e. for government entities only) within 50 days after year end. Consolidated financial statements could therefore be produced after 120 days after year end.

A. Reporting entity

For financial reporting purposes, IPSAS requires recognition of all cash receipts, cash payments and cash balances controlled by the GoR. Control of another entity is defined as the power to govern the financial and operating policies of another entity so as to benefit from its activities (IPSAS 6 Consolidated and Separate Financial Statements).

In order to comply with the reporting entity definition in IPSAS, the Romanian Government needs to extend the reporting entity.

These agencies generally prepare accrual accounting financial statements, including cash flow information, which can be used to produce the government consolidated financial statements under IPSAS.

The preparation of consolidated financial statements requires the elimination of all inter-entity transactions. IPSAS 6 requires that when accounts are prepared at the government level, the transactions within departments of the government included in the consolidation are eliminated. The current accounts need to be reconciled and any unexplained differences need to be sorted out.

B. Scope of consolidation

This guidance interprets the guidance in the IPSAS 6 relating to the reporting entity and applies it to a Romania setting. The standard was reviewed to see its application by firstly using theoretical examples and then through applying the guidance to the Romanian government with authorities with which the government has links.

This section provides guidance, including illustrative examples, on applying IPSAS’s definition of ‘control’ to relationships between the Government of Romania and its related parties in order to determine whether or not control exists for reporting purposes.

9

Appendix 4 lists background material that is relevant to the subject; the users of this guidance might refer to this appendix for a list of relevant literature.

The Government of Romania is preparing to adopt IPSAS as its financial reporting standards. This report aims to provide guidance to the Government of Romania on what related or linked organizations should be consolidated into the financial statements of its own.

IPSAS defines control as:

‘the power to govern the financial and operating policies of another entity so as to benefit from its activities’.

IPSAS provides guidance on what factors are demonstrative of the power to govern the financial and operational policies of another entity and the benefits that can accrue from the relationship with the other entity.

Control through the power to appoint members of the governing board

This analysis shows that the boundaries between control under an IPSAS definition, and the absence of control, in many instances comes down to the power of the GoR to be able to appoint or remove the majority of the governing board of another entity; it is this power which allows the government to align the strategy of another entity towards its own purposes that is demonstrative of control. The term governing board has been used throughout this guidance. However, it is a generic term to use to note those charged with governance of the organization. Those charged with the governance of the organization could also be known as a governing body, executive council or board of directors.

While the government may not obtain any financial benefits from the other entity, it does benefit from its ability to direct the other entity to work with it to achieve its objectives; it is therefore the following question which is decisive:

‘is the government able to (even if it actually does not) direct the other entity to co-operate with it in achieving its objectives’

It is the potential to control the other entity rather than actual control of the other entity that is critical.

The purpose of consolidated financial statements

Although the Government of Romania, its state-owned enterprises (such as government commercial companies, commercial statutory authorities and majority owned companies) and other related authorities prepare their own financial statements, individually those statements provide only a partial view of the overall activities of the government. Without consolidated financial statements, it is impossible to get a complete picture of the Government’s overall activity, whether for decision making purposes or for demonstrating accountability for the resources provided by, and managed on behalf of, the resource providers.

Consolidated financial statements provide an accounting of the full nature and extent of the financial affairs and resources of the government, including those of its controlled entities. Consolidated financial statements are a key element of financial reporting by the Government of Romania because they serve to report on how it managed its affairs and resources at a consolidated level. Consolidated financial statements recognize that, even though the government and its controlled entities may be separate legal or organizational entities, together they make up a single economic entity. Providing consolidated information helps users gain an overall understanding of the government’s assets and liabilities, revenues and expenses and cash flows.

10

The reporting boundary - why is it important to identify controlled entities?

The issue of what should be included when a government prepares its consolidated financial statements is critical because choosing to include or exclude certain organizations can have an enormous impact on the financial statements and the picture they provide about an organization’s finances. IPSAS refers to the purpose and general objectives of financial statements in the public sector. No issue has a greater impact on a public sector entity’s financial reporting than establishing the boundaries of its financial statements.

Consolidated financial statements are supposed to tell users what the financial position and results are for the reporting entity (the entity that issues financial statements), as a whole. And so the rules for deciding what is part of a reporting entity – what a reporting entity is responsible for and what it is not – need to be clear.

IPSAS 6 helps to draw a circle around the activities an organization should report in its consolidated financial statements. The standard looks at the substance of the relationship between the government and other organizations to determine what organizations should be included in the financial statements. Having clear boundaries for including or excluding organizations helps users understand and assess the magnitude of the financial affairs and resources entrusted to an organization. It also helps the leadership of that organization realize the extent of the financial affairs and resources for which they are responsible.

For a government issuing consolidated financial statements, determining whether another entity is a controlled entity, is important because it determines which accounting treatment the government should use.

Materiality limits in deciding which entities should be consolidated

IPSAS makes it mandatory for any entity (the government) to be a controlling entity to establish consolidated financial statements based on the concept of economic entity. The identification of the consolidation perimeter requires an inventory of the entirety of entities (such as organizations, funds, programs, alliances, initiatives and partnerships) and to evaluate case by case if the control criteria are met. The nature of relations with these entities needs to be evaluated in terms of power and benefits.

When the government looks at the consolidation requirements in the IPSAS it is recommendable to consult representatives from various departments such as finance, legal, budget, planning and operations. The information required to reach a conclusion might be found in the governing structure of the entity, its statutes, by-laws, a resolution, a memorandum of understanding, or other agreements. Understanding the governance of each organization is vital in identifying controlled entities. It must also be noted that the decision to consolidate or not consolidate an entity must be reviewed during each accounting period to ensure that circumstances have not changed which may lead to a change in those entities which may need to be consolidated.

The primary aim of producing consolidated accounts is so that stakeholders can see in a transparent way how their funds have been utilized to meet the outcomes planned. This raises the question of whether some entities may be so small that the consolidation of their financial position may be considered immaterial by the users of the financial statements and that their inclusion adds no value. Whilst this guidance acknowledges the extra work burden that the consolidation may result in, this guidance also acknowledges that materiality will mean different things to different stakeholders.

IPSAS requires that all controlled entities should be consolidated, however the decision on whether an entity should consolidate another entity can only be taken by the government.

11

Although ultimately the decision on whether to consolidate an entity or not is a decision for the controlling entity (the government), this guidance advises that where uncertainty exists, consensus should be sought between the government and the management of the potentially controlled entities. It may be the case that legal advice will need to be sought to determine the legal framework and relationships between the government and the other entities. In most cases finance, legal, budget, planning and operations as well as the management of the potentially controlled entity will need to determine the legal framework and relationships between them and the government and to discuss the conclusions with and to obtain the agreement of any governing bodies as appropriate.

C. Identification of controlled entities

The concept of control for financial reporting purposes

One of the key features of IPSAS is the element of control. IPSAS adopts the concept of control to determine the boundaries of the reporting entity. Under this approach the controlling entity includes in its financial statements all those entities which it controls.

Whether an entity controls another entity for financial reporting purposes is a matter of judgment based on the definition of control in IPSAS and the particular circumstances of each specific situation. IPSAS defines control as:

‘the power to govern the financial and operating policies of another entity so as to benefit from its activities’.

This means that consideration must be given to the specific nature and substance of the relationship between the identified entities.

The definition implies strategic control and it is at the level of being able to decide the strategy of another organization that is essential for control rather than having control over the routine daily processes through which a strategy is implemented.

Control requires both power and benefits

Both the power aspect and the benefit aspect are required to be present for control to exist. The controlling entity must be able to govern the decision making of the controlled entity so as to be able to benefit from its activities, e.g. by obliging, if it wishes, the other entity to operate with it in pursuing its objectives.

Power element: The power to appoint or dismiss a majority of voting members in the governing board.

Benefit element: The reporting entity may benefit from the activities of the other entity in terms of distribution of its surpluses and is exposed to the risk (negative benefit) of a potential loss. In other situations, the reporting entity may not obtain any financial benefits from the reporting entity, but may benefit from its ability to direct the other entity to work with it to achieve its objectives.

The ‘Power’ element

Power to govern financial and operating policiesFinancial and operating policies are principles and practices that determine how an organization carries out its activities to meet its strategic aims. The ability to govern these policies is an important element of control because, together, these policies establish the fundamental basis for how the

12

organization operates and achieves its mission and mandate. The financial and operating policies may be governed in different ways, e.g.:

The government may establish the other entity’s fundamental purpose and, by predetermining its financial and operating policies, eliminate or significantly limit the ability of the other entity to make future decisions.

The government may direct the other entity’s financial and operating policies on an ongoing basis.

The government may veto, overrule or modify the other entity’s financial and operating policies. The government does not need to manage the other entity’s activities on a day-to-day basis to control it. It is the government’s authority to determine the policies governing those activities that is important.

Power must be ‘presently exercisable’The power to govern must be presently exercisable. In other words, the entity must already have had its power conferred upon it by either legislation or some formal agreement. Whether the entity is likely or unlikely to actually exercise control is not relevant to the determination of whether the power to govern exists. The power to govern is not presently exercisable if it requires changing legislation or renegotiating agreements in order to be effective. This should be distinguished from the fact that the existence of the power to govern another entity is not dependent upon the probability or likelihood of that power being exercised.

‘Existence of power’, not the ‘exercise of power’In the context of the Government of Romania it will often be the ability to appoint or influence the governing board of another entity that is the key criterion of power. Without the ability to appoint the majority of voting board members it will typically not be possible to have control. An exception may be if the entity has the power to cast a majority of the votes at a meeting of the other entity, e.g. by virtue of an agreement.

The government can have control over another entity, without actually exercising that control. Control exists because the power to control is sufficient even though the controlling entity may choose not to exercise that power. Decisive is whether the government has power to govern the financial and operating policies of another entity to direct its strategy so as to benefit from its activities.

Whether the government actually uses this power is irrelevant. If the government has granted the other entity a financial and operational authority, that entity must operate within the parameters established by the government and, as long as the other entity is doing what it is supposed to, there is no need for intervention by the government. If the other does not operate within the parameters established by the government, however, the government has the power to re-direct the operations of the other entity.

Example: Control through the power to appoint the majority of Board members

Facts: The government appoints 3 out of 5 members of the board of the other entity. The government appoints professors from university as members of the board of the other entity. The government does not give clear instructions to these 3 board members on how to vote in the other entity’s board.

Analysis: The government has the power to appoint a majority of the members of the board of directors of the other entity and therefore one of the power conditions is present. Giving instructions on how to vote is not relevant for meeting this condition. The existence of this power condition, as well as the other factors described in IPSAS 6, are considered and it is determined that the government controls the other entity.

13

Power conditions and indicatorsIn investigating the relationship between the government and the other entity, control for financial reporting purposes is presumed to exist when at least one of the identified power conditions in appendix 1 and at least one of the identified benefits conditions in appendix 2 exists, unless there is clear evidence of control being held by another entity. These power and benefit conditions serve as presumptions, which may be rebutted but in the absence of any evidence to the contrary will indicate the existence of control. Also, even where a given situation does not apparently match one or more of the presumptions, both a power indicator in appendix 1 and a benefits indicator in appendix 2 may be sufficient to establish the existence of control.

For each identified indicator that applies in a particular circumstance, the degree of influence by the government on the other entity would determine its importance as evidence of control. In weighing the evidence to conclude on the existence of control over the other entity, it would be necessary to consider the indicators collectively as well as individually. The degree of importance of the indicators of control further depends on the particular circumstances in each case. In some situations, a particular indicator may provide a high degree of evidence of control whereas, in other situations, the importance of the same indicator may not be as significant.

Whether the government controls another entity requires professional judgment based on the definition of control and the substance of the relationship in each case. This guidance should also be applied in the context of the definition of control and the particular circumstances of each case. It is the preponderance of evidence that should be considered in assessing whether a government controls another entity.

In some circumstances, it will be easy to determine the existence of control. For example, whether the government has the power to appoint a majority of the other entity’s governing board is generally a question of fact – it either exists or it does not.

Example: Control through majority shareholding

Facts: Entity A (the government) is the sole shareholder of B Limited (the other entity). A appoints all B’s three directors.

Analysis: The government has the power to appoint a majority of the members of the board of directors of the other entity and therefore one of the power conditions is met. The existence of this power condition, as well as the other factors described in IPSAS 6, are considered and it is determined that the government controls the other entity.

Example: Inability to elect majority of the Board means that control is not present

Facts: The government A elects 18 members of the 36-member executive board of entity C (the other entity). Entity B also elects 18 members.

Analysis: The government A does not have the power to appoint or dismiss a majority of voting members in B’s executive board. Assuming none of the other power conditions and none of the power indicators is present, the government does not have control over the other entity, i.e. the government does not have the power to govern the financial and operating policies of that other entity so as to benefit from its activities.

In other cases, it will be more difficult to determine the existence of control and the degree of professional judgment required will be higher.

14

Financial dependence does not constitute controlAnother entity’s financial dependence on the government, in and of itself, does not constitute control. While financial dependence would usually give rise to a relationship based on influence, it is unlikely that financial dependence alone would enable the government to control the other entity. Also shared office locations alone are not an indicator of control.

Example: The ability to reject another entities funding means it is not controlled

Facts: An entity receives funding from the government. The entity is required to demonstrate compliance with the imposed terms and conditions of that funding. The governing body of the other entity retains its discretion as to whether it will take funding from, or do business with, the government.

Analysis: The government requires the other entity to submit reports to account for compliance with the terms and conditions of funding. The issued reports of the other entity are not considered to evidence the existence of control of the reporting entity over the other entity, because the government’s interest in the other entity is limited to the funding of the operations of the other entity. The governing body of the other entity has the power to govern its own financial and operating policies. Assuming no other power conditions are satisfied, the government does not have control over the other entity.

Having established the other entity does not mean the government has controlThe government may establish another entity and subsequently transfer the control over that other entity to third parties. From the moment that the government has effectively transferred the control over the other entity to third parties, the other entity is not a controlled entity of the government anymore.

Example: Transfer of control means loss of control

Facts: The government’s constitution states that the government) may establish other institutions as it may consider desirable. The government decided to establish another entity B ‘which shall carry on its functions in accordance with the provisions of its statute.’ According to this statute, entity B’s governing board will be composed of a selection of its members. Amendments to B’s statute will come into force when adopted by B’s governing board by a two-thirds majority of its members. The statute grants all power to govern its financial and operating policies to B’s governing board.

Analysis: Since the government transferred the power to govern B’s financial and operating policies to B’s governing board and the government cannot revert to that decision, the government does not have control over B.

The ‘Benefit’ element

Benefit conditions and indicators

IPSAS requires that control comes from the power to gain benefits. It provides two benefit conditions which are financial and relate to the ability to receive economic benefits or to be liable for obligations during the life of an organization or at dissolution. The combination of a power and a benefit condition leads to the presumption of control. In the absence of the combination of either one, or both, power and benefit conditions, IPSAS deals with situations where power and benefit indicators can be used to assess whether there is an indication of, rather than a presumption, of control.

15

Whilst IPSAS tends to focus on benefit being of a financial nature it also reflects the possibility that benefit could be of an operational nature. The standard provides four benefit indicators of which three are financial and one is non-financial. The non-financial benefit indicator states, ‘The entity is able to direct the other entity to cooperate with it in achieving its objectives’. Hence, in a Romanian government context benefit will often mean the delivery of services; for example, the government may create another entity to carry out an activity on its behalf; while the government which created the other entity may not benefit financially from the arrangement it does benefit from the delivery of a service performed by the other entity. The financial conditions and indicators may be less relevant for the government.

Example: Ability to direct the strategy of another entity indicates control

Facts: The government has the power to appoint and remove a majority of the members of the board of directors of the other entity. The government is not able to extract distributions from the other entity and is not liable for the other entity’s obligations. The government is not able to obtain the residual economic benefits and does not have to bear any obligations in case the other entity is dissolved. The government is able to direct the other entity to co-operate with it in achieving its objectives.

Analysis: The government has the power to appoint a majority of the members of the board of directors of the other entity and therefore one of the power conditions is met. None of the benefits conditions is present. However, one of the benefit indicators is present. The existence of this benefit indicator, as well as the other factors described in IPSAS, are considered and it is determined that the reporting entity controls the other entity.

While often the government benefits from having similar objectives to a related entity, it is the ability to direct that entity to co-operate that is the key benefit factor that indicates control; it is not simply the fact that the entity shares similar objectives.

It is for this reason that the power and benefit are linked; the power to appoint the majority of the Board gives the government the ability to benefit from the other organization by directing the other entity to strategically co-operate with it in achieving its objectives.

Dissimilar activities

Even if its activities are dissimilar to those of other entities within the economic entity, an entity can still be classified as a controlled entity. Where reporting entities encompass dissimilar activities, the nature of these activities can be conveyed in the financial statements by providing disaggregated information about the various lines of activity, including segment reporting.

Budget-dependencyThe boundaries of the reporting entity under IPSAS are wider than the budget sector: not all entities controlled by the government are dependent on the budget. Examples are self-financing agencies such as a road and motor vehicle regulator that receives revenues from fees and licensing. Such an agency may not be included in the government budget, but should be included in the consolidated financial statements according to IPSAS if the government appoints the management and requires that agency to execute government policies and thus has control over that agency.

16

D. Determine whether central government controls local government

Review the relationship between central government and local government. Currently, the central government financial statements include all of local government, even though central government does not control local government.

Municipalities in Romania are dependent on central government for the majority of their revenues. The municipality is allowed to spend these funds at its discretion. Another part of the revenues of municipalities is provided by central government in the form of earmarked subsidies. The municipality has to spend these resources in a specific area, for example public transport. Municipalities also levy and collect local taxes.

The municipal council is the authoritative body in a municipality. Mayor and city council are chosen by the local citizenry in local elections. This local council determines local government’s financial and operating policies, including the decision-making about the budget.

For the Romanian municipalities, the circumstances of power (table 1) do not exist: the majority of the municipal council and the municipal executive are not appointed by central government. It may be argued that municipalities do not fall within the scope of consolidation of central government under the control principle, because the local councils have a large mandate to make decisions at their discretion. The fact that the municipal operations are mainly paid from the budget of the central government, irrelevant in determining whether municipalities should be included in the scope of consolidation of the central government.

E. Difference in scope of consolidation of IPSAS and ESA95

There is a difference in scope of consolidation under IPSAS and ESA95. ESA95 defines GGS as consisting of (a) all resident central, state, and local government units, (b) social security funds at each level of government, and (c) nonmarket nonprofit institutions controlled by government units. Under ESA95, the GGS encompasses the central operations of government, and typically includes all those resident nonmarket nonprofit entities that have their operations funded primarily by the government and government entities. These entities are funded primarily from appropriation or allocation of the government’s taxes, dividends from state-owned enterprises, other revenues, and borrowings. IPSAS, however, requires consolidation of all entities controlled by the reporting entity.

GoR does not control its local administration and therefore should not include local administration in its IPSAS financial statements, although they are included in the ESA95 financial information. GoR controls its state-owned entities and should therefore include these state-owned entities in its IPSAS financial statements, although not all of them are included in the ESA95 financial information.

Since GoR prepares financial information in accordance with ESA95, the disclosure of information about the GGS in financial statements will form a useful link between the IPSAS financial statements and the ESA95 financial information. This will assist users in reconciling information presented in IPSAS financial statements to ESA95 financial information. IPSAS 22 Disclosure of financial information about the general government sector provides guidance for governments which elect to disclose information about the GGS and prepare IPSAS financial statements. The disclosures required by this IPSAS 22 provide a useful bridge between IPSAS and ESA95 financial information.

The following diagram depicts the entities that are included and excluded by IPSAS and ESA95.

17

F. Recommendations on consolidation

This guidance suggests the Government of Romania reviews all related parties in order to evaluate whether they are controlled by the government. The government should decide which entities to include in its whole of government consolidated financial statements.

Looking at which organizations are currently consolidated in the whole of government financial statements of the Government of Romania might not provide an accurate representation of the entities that should be consolidated under IPSAS. Currently none of the state-owned enterprises included in the scope of the whole of government financial statements, while they apparently are controlled by the government. Furthermore, some statutory authorities may not be included in the scope of the government financial statements, while they may be controlled by the government. Apparently, all autonomous institutions are controlled entities and should therefore be included in the scope of consolidation.

In preparation of the elimination of all inter-entity transactions, necessary for consolidated financial statements, we recommend to reconcile all inter-entity current accounts and sort out any unexplained differences.

18

Identify all government-controlled entities and analyze them as to whether they belong to the General Government Sector or are State-Owned Enterprises, and include all General Government Sector-entities in the consolidated financial statements.

V. PRESENTATION OF BUDGET INFORMATION IN FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Accounting standards that provide rules for including budget information in the financial statements are rare. The International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS) include such rules because the budget plays such a prominent role in the planning and oversight of public sector organisations. We will now explain the rules stated in IPSAS 24 Presentation of Budget Information in the Financial Statements and discuss their applicability to the GoR.

Presentation of the budget is a specific feature of public sector reporting. A public sector budget is a parliamentary mandate, and also a report to the public at large. The budget thus plays an important role in terms of governance in government.

IPSAS 24 Presentation of Budget Information in Financial Statements is meant for entities that prepare their financial statements according to IPSAS and disclose their budgets, either voluntarily or pursuant to statutory or other rules. The IPSAS Board requires an entity that prepares financial statements according to IPSAS and discloses the budget, to include certain budget information in the financial statements. The IPSAS Board does not impose any obligations on the government regarding preparation of the budget itself.

GoR prepares a budget for the cash flow statement and not for the statement of financial performance. Some other public sector entities prepare a budget for the cash flow statement, the statement of financial performance and the statement of financial position. This is recommended if a government pursues policies relating to certain balance sheet items, such as a government policy which may limit government debt to a percentage of its gross national product.

A. Comparable basis

Rules for including budget information in the financial statements are not simple if government entities do not prepare their budgets and financial statements on a comparable basis, i.e. either both based on cash accounting or both based on accrual accounting, and they do not apply to the same entity, period and classification. In practice a comparable basis does not typically happen, as is the case with GoR. IPSAS stipulates that a comparison between budget and actual figures must only be made when the basis is comparable. The notes to IPSAS financial statements must disclose whether the budget has been prepared on the basis of cash accounting or accrual accounting.

Preparing financial statements on accrual accounting and budgets on cash accounting is quite common in the public sector. This usually concerns entities that previously prepared both financial statements and budget on cash accounting and have implemented accrual accounting for the financial statements only. In that case, implementation of accrual accounting for the budget is postponed to a moment ‘to be determined later’. GoR applies accrual accounting (IPSAS similar) for their financial statements, while maintaining cash accounting for the budget for the time being. GoR does not have plans to change the budget from a cash budget to accrual budget.

19

Certain advantages of the accrual accounting over cash accounting will thus not become apparent. One example of this is a possible improvement of the management control that arises when applying the statement of financial performance instead of the cash flow statement to compare the actual figures with the budget.

The fact that GoR’s budget and financial statements cannot be compared is also due to differences in entity and classification. Differences in period do not arise.

Differences in entity can arise when the budget does not include certain activities and cash flows that are included in the IPSAS financial statements. IPSAS requires consolidation when the reporting entity exercises control over another entity. GoR prepares its budget making different choices the scope of consolidation.

Differences in classification arise when a different layout is applied for preparing the budget than for preparing IPSAS financial statements. GoR prepares its budget and its accrual accounting financial statements using a different classification.

Differences in period arise when the period over which the budget is prepared differs from that of the financial statements. GoR prepares both budget and accrual accounting financial statements for a one year period, so timing differences do not arise.

B. Four rules

First rule: comparing actual figures to the original and revised budget

The first rule in IPSAS 24 ‘Presentation of Budget Information in the Financial Statements’ states that IPSAS financial statements must include a comparison of the actual figures with the original budget and the revised budget. This comparison must be made according to the same basis (cash accounting or accrual accounting) as the basis applied to prepare the budget, even if the financial statements have been prepared according to another basis. Therefore, when an entity prepares the budget according to cash accounting and the financial statements based on accrual accounting, the comparison of the actual figures with the budget figures must be provided according to cash accounting. IPSAS 24 offers two alternatives for disclosing the comparison between the actual figures and the budget: either a separate statement (‘statement of comparison between budget and actual figures’), or an additional column in the financial statements. The latter alternative is only allowed when budget and financial statements have been prepared on a comparable basis. GoR complies with this rule by preparing a separate statement (‘statement of comparison between budget and actual figures’).

Second rule: disclosure of material differences between actual and budget figures

The second rule states that the entity must disclose material differences between the actual figures and the budget in the financial statements, unless such disclosure is included in another document that is disclosed in combination with the financial statements, and the notes to the financial statements refer to such document.

20

Under IPSAS, such disclosure can be included in the notes to the financial statements or in another document that is disclosed at the same time as, or in combination with, the financial statements. In that case, the notes to the financial statements must refer to that other document. GoR substantially complies with this requirement by presenting the differences between actual and budget figures in a separate document that is disclosed at the same time as the financial statements, although the notes to the financial statements do not refer to that document.

Third rule: disclosure of reasons for differences between original and final budgets

The third rule stipulates that the entity must disclose the differences between the original and the final budget and state whether they are caused by reclassifications within the budget or by other factors. Without the third rule the required statement of differences between actual figures and budget (second rule) could be limited if the entity has revised the budget by the end of the budget year, to largely align it with the estimates of the actual figures. This disclosure must be included in the financial statements, unless such a statement is included in a report that is disclosed prior to, at the same time as, or in conjunction with the financial statements, and the notes to the financial statements refer to such report. GoR only partially complies with this requirement. This is a partial deviation from IPSAS 24 Presentation of Budget Information in Financial Statements.

Fourth rule: reconciling cash budgets to accruals financial statements

The fourth rule solely applies to entities that prepare financial statements on accrual accounting budgets on cash accounting, which is the case for Romania. GoR must include in the financial statements the reconciliation between the actual figures according on cash accounting and the actual figures on accrual accounting, as presented in the financial statements.

Hence, the GoR, when applying this IPSAS standard, should provide the reconciliation between the actual figures on accrual accounting and the actual figures on cash accounting. The difference between these two is solely due to basis differences, since there are no timing differences (for both the reporting period is the calendar year) and no entity differences. GoR does not comply with this requirement. This is a deviation from IPSAS 24 Presentation of Budget Information in Financial Statements.

C. Recommendations on budget information in financial statements

GoR complies with some, but not all IPSAS 24 rules. The team recommends fully adopting IPSAS 24 Presentation of budget information in the financial statements.

The note to the differences between the original budget and the revised budget is missing. Lack of such a note means that anyone reading the financial statements must derive the grounds for the budget revisions from the minutes of various meetings. This is because a reference to the proposal to revise the budget or to the minutes of the meeting, in which the budget revision has been adopted, is missing. More importantly, the financial statements should include the reconciliation between the actual budget figures according to cash accounting and the actual figures on accrual accounting, as presented in the financial statements.

21

The financial statements do not include an explanation of material differences between the budget and actual amounts. Such explanation is also not included in other public documents issued in conjunction with the financial statements. IPSAS requires such an explanation. IPSAS requires a comparison of budget and actual amounts. In compliance with IPSAS, GoR presents a comparison of the budget amounts and actual amounts in the budgetary execution account. This account includes the original and final budget amounts and the actual amounts on a comparable basis.

Finally, the reconciliation between budget deficit and accrual deficit is missing.

VI. IPSAS IMPLEMENTATION IN ROMANIA, MEASURED AGAINST OTHER COUNTRIES

In this section we highlight the main features of IPSAS implementation in Romania, measured against experiences from other countries in the adoption and implementation of IPSAS.

Double-entry bookkeeping is mandatory for all government entities in Romania. In some other countries, e.g. Italy, government entities may derive their statement of financial position, statement of financial performance from their cash-based statements through a complex system of year-end adjustments. Within the Italian legal framework, Italian government entities have to choose between two alternative accounting systems. Under one alternative, government entities do not introduce accrual accounting and derive their statement of financial position, statement of financial performance from their cash-based statements at year-end. Under the other alternative, government entities record their transactions using double-entry bookkeeping, thus producing a statement of financial position, statement of financial performance and cash flow statement directly from the system. Romania’s choice has been beneficial in that there is no need to translate cash and commitment-based data into accruals at year-end, allowing for a short period (50 days) of producing financial statements.

Military assets are capitalized, but not depreciated in Romania. Ordinance No. 81/2003 treats military assets as ‘assets in the public domain’ and requires them to be valued at historic costs without depreciation until derecognition. The international direction is clearly in favor of their recognition as any other asset and to depreciate them over the expected useful life. The United States have recently decided – as other OECD member countries generally have – that all military property, plant and equipment should be capitalized and depreciated. This change is conceptually correct and assists management in the calculation of the full cost of producing outputs. Valuing military assets at historic costs without depreciation is not considered an appropriate accounting treatment since they are prone to premature destruction either through loss in combat or due to obsolescence if an enemy could develop counter-measures that render them useless. The team therefore recommends to comply with the international best practice, being depreciating them on a normal basis and then to write them off as a loss if they are destroyed or become obsolete early.

Many categories of infrastructure assets are capitalized, but not depreciated in Romania . This includes roads, railroads, waterways, electric power transport networks, telecommunications network, and airport runways. There are examples of other OECD member countries that do not depreciate these assets but rather certify that the assets are being maintained to such an extent that they have infinite life-spans. However, this accounting treatment is not in accordance with international best practice and constitutes a deviation from IPSAS. The selection of valuation methods (fair value, in the case of Romania) has an exceptionally high impact on the book value of these assets. According

22

to Ordinance No. 81/2003, fixed assets ‘revaluation of fixed assets is made with the purpose of establishing fair value, taking into consideration the inflation, utility of goods, their status and the market price’. The revaluation of the government’s property, plant and equipment during 2009 amounted to LEI 58 billion, which is unexpected in a real estate market showing a general downward trend. If the 2010 financial statements will show a similar upward revaluation, the team recommends a high level review of revaluation practices applied.

The Government of Romania’s net assets/equity as presented in the financial statements is large as compared to other countries that adopted accrual accounting. According to the financial statements GoR’s net assets/equity is a whopping LEI 442 billion as per 31 December 2009, up from LEI 377 billion a year before. Most other countries that adopted all accrual accounting standards show negative net assets/equity, i.e. liabilities usually exceed assets. GoR’s positive net assets/equity is due to, inter alia, the revaluations of fixed assets at fair value and the failure to recognize unfunded pension liabilities. In order to achieve a better comparability of Romania’s financial statements with other countries, in particular emerging countries, the team recommends adopting the accounting standards described in section VI – implementation plan of recommendations of this report.

Romania has chosen for the indirect method of adopting IPSAS, i.e. national accounting standards (the so-called norms) are developed, based on IPSAS. Some emerging countries with limited accounting expertise (e.g. Slovak Republic) choose for the direct method of adopting IPSAS, i.e. they adopt IPSAS as is, with limited or no amendments. Other countries choose for the direct method of adopting IPSAS in order to achieve the highest level of credibility (Switzerland). The Government of Romania might likewise choose for the direct method going forward in order to reduce the efforts needed to develop ‘home-made’ accounting standards.

Knowledge about IPSAS is limited to very few people in Romania. The consequence of Romania’s choice for the indirect method of adopting IPSAS standards is that, although many people in the country know the norms, only few people have actually read the IPSAS standards themselves. This is in spite of the IPSAS standards (except for the most recent ones) being available in the Romanian language. Other countries have invested more heavily in training of accountants in government accounting. The Slovak Republic trained approximately 3000 persons in using the new financial reporting framework, and consolidation package. There is a need to improve the skill levels of many accountants in government who have been trained in the norms, but not in wider public sector accounting. This limited knowledge of IPSAS in Romania hampers full compliance with the now only partially implemented standards and adoption of additional standards. The team therefore recommends additional training efforts and capacity building in the area of public sector accounting. A shortage of skilled technical personnel may otherwise impose a constraint on the improvement of government accounting in Romania. The GoR may also achieve major gains by leveraging off IFRS accounting expertise available in the country because of IFRS’s similarity to IPSAS. GoR may consider how to use the pool of accounting skills and expertise available in Romania’s private sector.

IPSAS adoption in Romania follows a centralized approach, different from some other countries that adopted IPSAS similar accounting standards. The New Zealand ministry of finance (the Treasury), for example, did not provide any training for departmental financial managers. Although this was in opposition to strong views held by many that centrally-managed training was necessary to realize the benefits and reduce the risks associated with the new regime. In keeping with the wider reforms, New Zealand’s approach was intended to promote self-reliance among departments. These different approaches reflect cultural differences between governments and both all their merits.

The nature of IPSAS adoption in Romania is eclectic, i.e. a number of requirements are selected from a limited number of standards. Other countries, e.g. the Slovak Republic, generally adopt all

23

IPSAS standards within a shorter timeframe. Given Romania’s selective approach there is a need for transparency and independence in this selection process. Romania’s government accounting standards are effectively set by the Ministry of Public Finance with subsequent approval of government and parliament. Whenever governments adopt accrual accounting it is crucial to determine how the accounting standards are developed and their application monitored (governance). Some countries have a national standard setting board that advises the government (United Kingdom) or even has the mandate to issue accounting standards for the public sector (Canada, Australia, New Zealand). In Romania there might for example be a significant role for the accounting profession as the ‘guardians’ of accounting standards. Without any independent involvement the effect is that the government could be seen as setting its own accounting standards and applying them in a manner that suited the circumstances of the moment. That might damage not only the credibility of the process but in the end might mean that the discipline that accrual accounting is meant to achieve will not be established. Independence of the standards adopted with a critical appraisal process is essential. The team therefore recommends a more open due process of standard-setting in public sector accounting in Romania, involving a wider range of constituents.

IPSAS adoption by the Government of Romania lacks a proper project management structure. The Government did not assign responsibility for the improvement of government reporting to a steering committee, unlike other governments such as the government of the Slovak Republic. The team therefore recommends to set up an inter-departmental IPSAS project steering committee or equivalent body tasked with ensuring that senior management understand the goals and vision driving the transition to IPSAS and obtaining a widespread support from key ministries. The committee should have a multi-year mandate and include staff specialized in accounting and the design and implementation of ERP systems. Working groups should report to the steering committee. In Slovak Republic external consultants from accounting firms played a key role in project management and provided subject-matter expertise as part of the IPSAS implementation project.

Support of Romania’s Court of Accounts in the implementation of IPSAS has been limited as compared to supreme audit institutions in other countries, most notably the NAO (National Audit Office) in the United Kingdom. The countries that first moved to accrual accounting generally cite the need for more and better communications as the single biggest factor that was underestimated during implementation. Close communication with the supreme audit institution is essential. The supreme audit institution should reinforce the reform process and assist entities in implementation. Successful implementation of accrual accounting does depend heavily upon the understanding of and willingness to support the implementation by the supreme audit institution. As accrual accounting requires not only more complex systems but also a range of new judgments (e.g. about asset values and lives, matching issues, prudence, and materiality), the responsibilities and expectations of the auditor increases considerably. Therefore, the Court of Accounts should be involved in the process from the outset. That may require that the organization, career structure and training of auditor staff should be significantly enhanced. Auditors will need a thorough understanding of IPSAS and how those standards can be maintained under the pressure of day-to-day administrative decisions. The team fully supports the efforts that are being made to strengthen the Court of Accounts and recommends an in-depth training program in IPSAS.

Recommendations based on experiences in other countries

Review the policy of not depreciating military assets and many other fixed assets currently recognized on the balance sheet of the government

Review the revaluation method of fixed assets at fair value Recognize unfunded pension liabilities on the GoR’s balance sheet

24

Consider choosing for the direct method of implementing IPSAS standards Provide additional training and capacity building in the area of public sector accounting Implement a more open due process of standard-setting in public sector accounting in Romania,

involving a wider range of constituents. Involve the Romania’s Court of Accounts in the implementation of IPSAS and provide an in-

depth training program in IPSAS to the Court of Accounts.

VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The team supports the authorities in their intention to adopt and implement some additional IPSAS standards, and in addition, recommends adopting and implementing the standard on employee benefits. The statement of financial position of the government currently paints a rather rosy picture: net assets/equity amount to LEI 442 billion. In fact, however, liabilities including the pension liabilities of civil servants far exceed assets. Showing the full extent of the government’s liabilities towards its employees provokes a better informed discussion about retirement age, level of pension premium, pension payments and funding of state pensions. Ignoring the government pension liability stimulates borrowing from future generations.

Appendix 5 contains an overview of the status of IPSAS adoption by the Government of Romania and team recommendations. Appendix 6 presents a timeline for the implementation of the recommendations.

The team furthermore encourages the GoR to request an assessment of Public Financial Management based (PFM) on the Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) methodology. This methodology allows measurement of the government’s PFM performance over time, and provides an important impetus a strengthened approach to PFM reforms. This approach developed jointly by development partners and governments, recognizes the need for strong government ownership of any assessment or reform program. It can also help guide the government in the preparation or revision of its PFM reform strategy and action plan. Accounting, recording and reporting is one of the areas covered by PEFA.

VIII. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN OF RECOMMENDATIONS

The team recommends to apply proven project planning and implementation methodologies, including clearly defined strategic objectives, deliverables, timelines, milestones and monitoring procedures.

Appendix 6 presents a timeline for the implementation of the recommendations. A distinction is made between short term priorities (next 6-9 months), medium term priorities (next 12-18 months) and longer term priorities (next 2-3-4 years).

25

The short term priorities (next 6-9 months) include providing the required disclosures in the financial statements and ensuring reconciliation between amounts in the primary financial statements and the notes.

The medium term priorities (next 12-18 months) include the elimination of all major omissions indicated as deviations from IPSAS in this report (i.e. improvement of the implementation of standards already adopted and adoption of critically needed additional standards. Some of the changes needed for compliance with IPSAS 17 will require approval of the government and the parliament, most notably the Ordinance No. 81/2003, which requires military equipment to be expensed and forbids the depreciation of large groups of property. A realistic timeframe calls for amendment of the Ordinance and completion of these changes within 18 months.

The longer term priorities (next 2-3-4 years) including the implementation of the remaining standards. Some of these standards are currently not relevant and may not require any amendments whatsoever, such as IPSAS 10 Financial Reporting in Hyperinflationary Economies and IPSAS 11 Construction Contracts. Some of the standards, however, that are currently not relevant may become relevant in the short term, e.g. the financial instruments standards IPSAS 28, 29 and 30. The General Directorate Treasury and Public Debt is considering issuing derivative financial instruments.

The authorities are of the opinion that further improvement of the financial reporting by the GoR, including the implementation of the remaining IPSAS standards, requires additional accounting staff at the Ministry of Public Finance (General directorate of public accounting methodology for public institutions) and line ministries (accounting departments), and technical assistance in the coming period.

IX. COMMUNICATION

The team recommends the main recommendations from this report to be communicated with all parties concerned within the Ministry of Public Finance, including:

Minister of Public Finance Secretaries of State General Directorate Accounting Methodology for Public Institutions General Directorate of Budget Synthesis General Directorate of Treasury and Public Accounting General Directorate of Treasury and Public Debt Directorate of Budget and Accounting General Directorate of Information Technology (IT) Internal Audit Department National Agency for Fiscal Administration.

The team recommends communicating awareness on the full adoption of IPSAS to a wider audience through all available means of communication, training and documentation. This can be achieved through personal contact, presentations, and testimonies from persons involved in successful cases outside the Government of Romania, retreats, practical exercises and other training materials comparing present and new accounting policies.

26

27

APPENDICES

Appendices 1 and 2 contain interpretations of IPSAS 6 Consolidated and separate financial statements. For the original text, please refer to the IPSAS Handbook.

28

Appendix 1. Power Conditions and Indicators

Please refer to this guidance for an explanation of the terms, conditions and indicators.

Power Conditions

1.1 Does the government have, directly or indirectly (e.g., through controlled entities), ownership of a majority voting interest in the other entity?

1.2If the answer 1.1 is YESIs the ownership of these voting interests solely allocated to the government and no other entity or organized group has a significant interest in this entity?

1.3

Does the government have the power, either granted by or exercised within existing legislation, to appoint or remove a majority of the members of the board of directors/partners or equivalent governing body and control of the entity is by that board or body?

1.4 Does the government have the power to cast, or regulate the casting of, a majority of the votes that are likely to be cast at a general meeting of the other entity?

1.5Does the government have the power to cast the majority of votes at meetings of the board of directors/partners or equivalent governing body, and control of the entity is by the board or body?

29

Power Indicators

2.1 Does the government have the ability to veto operating and capital budgets of the other entity?

2.2 Does the budget of the other entity have to be approved by the governing body of the government?

2.3 Does the government have the ability to veto, overrule or modify governing body decisions of the other entity?

2.4 Does the government have the ability to approve the hiring, reassignment and removal of key personnel of the other entity?

2.5Is the mandate of the other entity established and limited by e.g., a treaty, a resolution (e.g., Security Council, General Assembly, World Health Assembly) or legislation?

2.6

Does the government hold a superior voting right (‘Golden share’ or equivalent) in the other entity that confers it rights to govern the financial and operating policies of the other entity?

Note: Golden share refers to a class of voting rights (share) that entitles the holder to specified powers or rights generally exceeding those normally associated with the holder’s ownership interest or representation on the governing body (also referred to as super majority voting).

2.7 Does the government have the ability to establish or amend the mission or mandate of the other entity?

2.8 Does the government have the ability to establish borrowing limits or establish investment limits or restrict the other entity’s investments?

2.9 Does the government have the ability to restrict the revenue-generating capacity of the other entity, notably the sources of funding?

2.10If the answer 2.9 is YESCould the other entity stop supporting the aims of the government (without gaining permission from the government)?

30

Appendix 2. Benefits Conditions and Indicators

Benefit Conditions

3.1Does the government have the power to dissolve the other entity and obtain a significant level of the residual economic benefits or bear significant obligations?

3.2 Does the government have the power to extract distributions of assets from the other entity, and/or may be liable for certain obligations of the other entity?

Benefit Indicators

4.1 Does the government hold direct title to the net assets of the other entity with an ongoing right to access these?

4.2 Does the government hold indirect title to the net assets of the other entity with an ongoing right to access these?

4.3 Does the government have a right to a significant level of the net assets in case the other entity is wound up?

4.4 Do the members of the governing body of the government have a right to a significant level of the net assets in case the other entity is wound up?

4.5 No other entity has a right to a significant level of the net assets in case the other entity is wound up?

4.7

Is the government able to direct the other entity to co-operate with it in achieving its objectives?

Note: The ultimate authority to direct is what matters for this question, rather than the ability to direct day-to-day operations.

4.8 Is the government exposed to risks such as residual liabilities?

4.9 Does the government have ongoing access to the assets of the other entity?

4.10 If the answer 4.9 is YESDoes the government have the ability to direct the ongoing use of those assets?

4.11 Does the government have ongoing responsibility for deficits of the other entity?

31

Appendix 3. Background material on reporting entity and consolidation

IPSASB (International Public Sector Accounting Standards Board), Financial Reporting under the Cash Basis of Accounting, Part 1 Requirements, and Part 2 Encouraged additional disclosures. [to be attached as annex]

IFAC PSC (International Federation of Accountants, Public Sector Committee), Study 08 The Government Financial Reporting Entity, July 1996.

IFAC PSC (International Federation of Accountants, Public Sector Committee), Study 14, Transition to the Accrual Basis of Accounting: Guidance for Governments and Government Entities (Second Edition), Chapter 5. Reporting Entity Issues, December 2003.

PSAB (Public Sector Accounting Standards Board). The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA), 20 Questions About the Government Reporting Entity, 2003.

Ian Lienert, Fiscal Affairs Department, IMF. Where Does the Public Sector End and the Private Sector Begin? Working Paper WP/09/122, June 2009.

32

Appendix 4. Status of IPSAS adoption and team recommendations

IPSAS Standard BasisAdopted, although with major omissions. The team recommends to eliminate these omissions as a short term priority (within 12 months):

IPSAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements IAS 1IPSAS 2 Cash Flow Statements IAS 7IPSAS 4 The Effects of Changes in Foreign Exchange Rates IAS 21IPSAS 5 Borrowing Costs IAS 23IPSAS 9 Revenue from Exchange Transactions IAS 18IPSAS 12 Inventories IAS 2IPSAS 17 Property, Plant and Equipment IAS 16IPSAS 19 Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets IAS 37IPSAS 23 Revenue from Non-Exchange Transactions (Taxes and Transfers) N/AIPSAS 24 Presentation of Budget Information in Financial Statements N/A

The team recommends to implement the following standards as a medium term priority (12-24 months):

IPSAS 6 Consolidated and Separate Financial Statements IAS 27IPSAS 7 Investments in Associates IAS 28IPSAS 8 Interests in Joint Ventures IAS 31IPSAS 22 Disclosure of Financial Information About the General Government Sector N/AIPSAS 25 Employee Benefits IAS 19

The team recommends to implement the following standards as a longer term priority (2-4 years):

IPSAS 3 Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors IAS 8IPSAS 10 Financial Reporting in Hyperinflationary Economies IAS 29IPSAS 11 Construction Contracts IAS 11IPSAS 13 Leases IAS 17IPSAS 14 Events After the Reporting Date IAS 10IPSAS 16 Investment Property IAS 40IPSAS 18 Segment Reporting IAS 14IPSAS 20 Related Party Disclosures IAS 24IPSAS 21 Impairment of Non-Cash-Generating Assets IAS 36IPSAS 25 Employee Benefits IAS 19IPSAS 26 Impairment of Cash-Generating Assets IAS 36IPSAS 27 Agriculture IAS 41IPSAS 28 Financial Instruments: Presentation IAS 32IPSAS 29 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement IAS 39IPSAS 30 Financial Instruments: Disclosures IFRS 7IPSAS 31 Intangible Assets IAS 38

33

Appendix 5. Timeline for implementation of IPSAS recommendations

34