Skip to sidebar Skip to main

Q77.

Is comprehensive data on actual spending on defence published during the budget year?

77a. Proactive publication

Score

SCORE: 75/100

Assessor Explanation

Assessor Sources

77b. Comprehensiveness

Score

SCORE: 75/100

Assessor Explanation

Assessor Sources

77c. Timeliness

Score

SCORE: 50/100

Assessor Explanation

Assessor Sources

77d. Comparison against budget

Score

SCORE: NA/100

Assessor Explanation

Assessor Sources

Compare scores by country

Please view this page on a larger screen for the full stats.

Relevant comparisons

There are annual monitoring reports published at the Ministry of Finance and Economy (MoF) that outline actual spending and compare them with the budget. All tables contain disaggregated data on budget items. In addition to the disaggregated tables, there are comments and recommendations associated with each table which can be used by different actors [1]. However, they remain too broad in parts.

The majority of actual defence spending is disclosed (“Planning, management and administration,” “Official publications,” “Legal medicine,” “The prison system,” “Judicial enforcement service,” “Services for issues of adoption,” “Property restitution and compensation service,” “Prove service”) [1]. Additionally, the MoF specifies when the source of financing for each budget line is internal or external. However, more details could be provided beyond the broad budget line. According to the 2017 Open Budget Survey, the legislature (67 out of 100) and the State Supreme Audit Institution (71 out of 100) of Albania provide adequate budget oversight [2].

Reports on actual spending are published every six months in a timely manner. For instance, the end of year report for 2018 was published December 19, 2018 [1].

At the Ministry of Finance and Economy, for 2018 there was a monitoring report on the Ministry of Defence which compared the planned budget and the factual budget. In the disaggregated tables, there is a final column that indicates the percentage of realization. Through this monitoring report comparisons between budgeted expenditures and factual expenditures is possible but differences are not explained at all [1].

No information could be found that the government publishes data on the actual defence spending during the budget year. A review of the laws and decrees published in the Official Gazette since 2016 showed no evidence that such information is provided to the public (1). As has been outlined in previous questions, the government only provides aggregated figures in the Finance Law (2). (3), (4).

This sub-indicator is scored Not Applicable because no information could be found that the government publishes data on actual defence spending during the budget year in either the Official Gazette (1) or the Finance Laws (2), (3), (4). Thus, the comprehensiveness cannot be assessed.

This sub-indicator is scored Not Applicable because no information could be found that the government publishes data on the actual defence spending during the budget year in either the Official Gazette (1) or the Finance Laws (2), (3), (4). Thus, the timeliness cannot be assessed.

This sub-indicator is scored Not Applicable because no information could be found that the government publishes data on the actual defence spending during the budget year in either the Official Gazette (1) or the Finance Laws (2), (3), (4). Thus, a comparison against the budget cannot be assessed.

The Ministry of Finance publishes the budget online in a disaggregated form (1). The budget is accompanied by an explanation intended for experts; however, despite publishing the Citizen Budget in 2016 (2), Angola failed to do so for 2017 and 2018.

The vast majority of actual spending is fully disclosed. For instance, spending in the 2018 Budget is divided into six sections: business activity, functions, programmes, support to development, investments, and budget unit (1).

According to the 2017 Open Budget Survey, both Angola’s legislature and supreme audit institution provide weak oversight during the budget cycle (score below 41 out of 100) (2).

Details of actual spending are published more than twelve months after the end of the financial year. In fact, at the time of writing Parliament has not yet adopted the Year-End report (Conta Geral do Estado) for FY 2016 (1).

The Year-End report for 2016 (Conta Geral Do Estado) was produced for internal use only (1).

The expenses during the budget year are published in the main official bodies with specific responsibility over those budgets, but only in general cases (not by jurisdiction and details) are they published accompanied by an explanation addressed to the experts. Brief summaries are also not published with a language that is clear to non-experts. The National Budget Office of the Ministry of Finance publishes updated data on its site regarding the execution of the budget of the entire national administration. This body also publishes a quarterly budgetary evaluation aimed at citizens. [1] The purpose of this report is to inform them about the progress in the fulfillment of goals, execution of expenditure, and how that translates into goods and services within the national budget in general. Although the public expenditure inherent in the “Defence and Security Services” are observed therein, it does not contain a detailed breakdown of each jurisdiction, but only provides information on the most relevant programmes. [2] The “Open Budget” platform shows the percentage of the budget executed, and allows users to obtain data on organisations, programmes, purpose, and function. However, it is not possible to access explanations. [3] In turn, the ASAP observatory keeps track of all jurisdictions and the initial and accrued credit by group “good/service” can be observed more dynamically on its site. [4] [5]

The vast majority of actual expenditure executed is published in the official pages mentioned previously. However, there may be exceptions, as is the case of Decree number 125/2018 which declares the contractual operation secret for reasons of security and national defence for the acquisition of war material. [1] There are provisions for the supervision of the entire budget by other appropriate authorities, both at the level of the Ministry of Finance (National Budget Office) and also of the control bodies of the national public system, AGN and SIGEN. [2] However, due to the general absence of auditable processes in real time, it is not clear how effective this supervision is. [3]

The executed expenses are visible in real time (in greater or lesser detail) on the website of the National Budget Office of the Ministry of Finance, [1] the Open Budget portal, [2] and on the pages of civil society organisations such as the ASAP budget observatory. [3]

The difference between the initial budget and the executed budget can be seen on the websites of the aforementioned agencies. However, it is not possible to access a detailed explanation (and thus, specific to each sector: Defence and Security), only broad and general information regarding the entire national administration budget. Analyses such as those carried out by the Argentine Political Economy Center (CEPA) give insight into the execution of the 2018 budget in terms of extensions and reductions of the items, as well as the participation of each of the areas. [1] Likewise, from the Budget Office which operates within Parliament, reports on budget execution are presented for 2018 in January 2019. [2]

The Ministry of Finance (MoF) proactively publishes reports on actual spending for defence and security non classified items in a disaggregated form [1]. Information can be retrieved by downloading the excel file “Expenses (by functional classification)” from the “State Budget Report” on the MoF website. The publication of the budget is accompanied by an explanation intended for experts, as well as concise summaries with clear language for non-experts (“Citizen’s Budget”) [2].

The majority of actual defence spending is disclosed (“military defence”, “research and development”, “foreign military aid”, and “defence – not included in other types of expenditure”) [1, 2].

Details of actual spending are published at the end of each quarter [1]. Furthermore, the government has put in place an online platform (“interactive budget”) that shows the level of actual spending for each ministry in the current year [2].

In 2017, the difference between budget and actual expenditure on the defence budget was negligible (0.7%). Actual expenditure was 99.3% of the revised budget [1, 2]. Variances between the published budget and actual spend are not explained.

Defence releases comprehensive data on actual spending during the budget year in the form of financial statements as part of the Defence Annual Report [1]. The “financial performance” chapter in which these figures are presented begins with a brief, technical summary, which does not go into much detail beyond how well Defence’s performance overall measures up against its cash-based budget [1, p44]. The financial figures presented are disaggregated and placed in easily readable charts. Defence is required to publicly issue these financial statements, along with “a discussion and analysis of the entity’s financial performance during the period” under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Rule 2014 [2]. The Portfolio Additional Estimates Statement [3] provides more detail on budget outlays about halfway through the budget year, but also fails to provide a meaningful summary of spending and, given its timing, does not reflect actual whole-year outlays.

The vast majority of Defence spending appears to be disclosed and is subject to oversight in that external auditors check that the financial reporting on secret items meets auditing standards, though effective oversight cannot be made on policy concerns by Parliament. The financial statements of the Defence Annual Report 2017-18 did not include any secret items [1], which would be indicated by the placeholder “nfp”, or not for publication for national security or commercial in confidence reasons [2]. The Defence Portfolio Budget Statement 2018-19, prepared earlier in the year than the Annual Report, has “nfp” lines for the spending on an Australian Defence Force operation in the Philippines and for “Other Budget Adjustments” [2, p20]. However, the Annual Report explains that the Philippines operation’s budget “could be publicly released but this was not determined in time to incorporate the figures in the published Portfolio Budget Statements 2018-19,” recording the budget at $12.5 million [1, p49]. The not for publication “Other Budget Adjustments” in the Portfolio Budget Statement was not explained, but considering there were no “nfp” lines in the Annual Report, it is presumed that this previously secret figure is included, as well. Oversight of auditing standards applied the entire budget, minor including non-disclosed amount, is undertaken by the Auditor-General, who, together with his or her team at the Australian National Audit Office, is required to audit Defence financial statements annually [3]. However, because the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade – and the constituent Defence Sub Committee – do not have access to classified information (unlike the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security), they do not necessarily have oversight over policy aspects of undisclosed budget items [4]. In addition, Defence spending figures are not nearly as comprehensive as comparable figures released by other similar countries, such as the United States [5].

The Department of Defence (DoD) is required under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 to submit the Defence Annual Report “the 15th day of the fourth month after the end of the reporting period for the entity,” so within 5 months of the end of the financial year, except in exceptional circumstances [1]. The Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Rule 2014 requires DoD to publish their annual financial statement, which contains real spending (see Q77A) within the Defence Annual Report [2]. DoD have kept to this legally required timeline, publishing Annual Reports consistently on 15 October [3].

Variances between the published budget and actual spend are published and disaggregated by Defence outcomes and programs [1], but they are not thoroughly explained in plain language. Defence consistently has very small variances between budget and spend, with the Defence Annual Report 2017-18 reporting a 0.08% variance [1, p44]. However, beyond a brief summary which explains that the variance exists, and that the small variance “demonstrates the close scrutiny the Department [of Defence] has placed on its financial management” [1], there is no explanation in plain language of why specific variances within outcome or program have arisen.

With regards to actual spending, the Ministry of Finance (MoF) publishes reports on the implementation of the state budget at the end of each quarter. However, these one-page long reports only include information for the overall government budget (1). Therefore, reports on actual spending are not made available to the public at all.

Since no information on actual defence spending is publicly available, this indicator has been marked Not Applicable (1).

Since no information on actual defence spending is publicly available, this indicator has been marked Not Applicable (1).

Since no information on actual defence spending is publicly available, this indicator has been marked Not Applicable (1).

There is no data on the actual spend that is available for the public or the Parliament. The budget only contains minimal data such as the aggregate sum of the defence budget but without any details [1, 2, 3]. Based on an extensive online search of the budget files from 2014 to 2018, no precise and detailed amount of spending on the military was located.

Given that there is no information on the actual expenditure of the defence budget, this indicator has been marked ‘Not Applicable’ [1, 2, 3].

Given that there is no information on the actual expenditure of the defence budget, this indicator has been marked ‘Not Applicable’ [1, 2, 3].

Given that there is no information on the actual expenditure of the defence budget, this indicator has been marked ‘Not Applicable’ [1, 2, 3].

The ‘Demands for Grants and Appropriations 2021-22’ for the Ministry of Defence are disclosed, with the expenditure information divided into ‘Economic classification’ (recurring and capital expenditure) and ‘Organisational classification’, which includes major information on the Army, Navy and Air Force, among others [1]. The ‘Consolidated Fund Receipts Detailed Estimates 2021-22’ for the Ministry of Defence are fully disclosed through a 27-page breakdown of items under various organisations of the Ministry [2]. In the ‘Demands for Grants and Appropriations’ for the Ministry of Defence, the actual expenditure amount is shown against the budget allocated. Under ‘Economic classfication’, the recurrent expenditure heads are as follows: Wages and salaries in cash, Administrative expenses, Fees, charges and commissions, Training, Domestic travel and transfer, Petrol, oil and lubricants, Travel and transfer, Agriculture supplies, Medical and surgical supplies, Public order and safety supplies, Food supplies, Printing and stationery, General supplies and materials, Professional services, honorariums and specia [sic], Repairs and maintenance, Public nonfinancial corporations subsidies, Current grants, Capital grants, Social assistance benefits in cash, Employment-related social benefits in cash, Current transfers not elsewhere classified, Current transfers for projects and Reserve [3].

A great deal of actual defence spending is fully disclosed with line items [1]. Some exceptions occur in cases of military intelligence spending. The defence budget is audited by the Defence Audit Directorate, whose findings are placed before Parliament through the annual reports of the CAG [2]. There is a system in place at the Ministry of Defence for reconciling audit objections.

Bangladesh’s fiscal year runs from July 1 to June 30. Actual defence spending is published in the following year through the revised budget, under the expenditure heads in the ‘Economic classification’ section. This revised budget is published during the first week of June. For example, the revised 2019-20 budget for the Ministry of Defence was published during the placing of the 2020-21 budget [1]. Therefore, details of actual spending are published within 12 months of the end of the financial year.

Variances between the published budget and actual spend are not explained at all [1,2].

The data are semi-aggregated (eg. ‘sales of property’ but not which properties). There is no explanation provided beyond the heading of the subcategory which is budgeted. [1] Budgets are set during budget controls and monitored by the FPS Policy and Support (‘Beleid en Ondersteuning’, ‘Stratégie et Appui’).

Questions can be discussed in the Commission of Defence. However, citizens can request disaggregated data through the Law of Freedom of Information (‘Openbaarheid van Bestuur’), which states that everyone has the right to request insight into government information [2]. If the disclosure of information does not entail a security risk, it is indeed likely to be disclosed.

The yearly budget (‘Algemene uitgavenbegroting’) fully discloses Belgian federal defence spending, in semi-aggregated form. Only some elements of intelligence are left out, as these are sensitive in nature [1]. The yearly budget, including defence expenditures, are scrutinized by the Court of Auditors (‘Rekenhof’) [2].

Data of actual spending is published by the audit agency [1]. Additionally, adapted budgets can be found on the website of the Federal Public Service of Policy and Support. These are published within every term [2].

The ‘Adjustements of the Budget of Revenue and Expenditure of the budget year xxxx’ provides yearly explanations on variances between the estimated budget and the actual budget spent [1]. Where applicable, this includes sections on Belgian Defence.

The Ministry of Finance and Treasury of Bosnia and Herzegovina publishes yearly and periodical (3-month, 6-month and 9-month) reports on the execution of the budget of the government institutions and the international obligations of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The legislation ruling the state budget requires the Ministry to publish these reports [1,2,3,4]. The reports are drafted internally for all the institutions that are financed from the state budget, with an overview for each individual institution.

Details of spending for each budgetary line are not fully explained with detailed information on spending of a specific institution. However, explanations are provided for large expenditures and significant projects. There are budgetary explanations for the MoD [5,6].
The MoD BiH publishes their annual report to the Ministry of Finance and Treasury on their website. The reports are comprehensive, and there is a narrative explanation as well as a tabular overview of the expenses [7,8].

According to the government reviewer’s assessment, the report on budget execution contains a comprehensive and detailed overview of the structure of expenditures by types of expenditures. The report contains detailed explanations of consumption by all types of expenditures individually. The report is structured in terms of content so that it provides a clear insight to both experts and non-experts in this field [7].

The spending of the MoD is represented in a table based on the budget, so that spending of every heading in the budget can be followed. Within the report on the execution of the budget of BiH institutions and international obligations, there are details on the MoD expenditures in each budgetary category [1,2,3].

With regards to oversight, the Ministry of Treasury and Finance of BiH is the first provision of oversight. The six-month and annual reports are also submitted to the Council of Ministers of BiH, Parliamentary Assembly of BiH and the Presidency of BiH [1]. The annual reports are subject to audit by the State Audit Institution (which takes place separately to the annual audit of state level instutitions) [1,4].

In the annual report to the Ministry of Finance and Treasury, the MoD uses the same methodology and provides a more comprehensive overview of the spending of the MoD, including a narrative explanation for MoD’s spendings in each category [5,6].

According to the legislation, the periodical reports have to be published at the latest 60 days after the report period, with the yearly report having to be published 180 days after the fiscal year [1]. The annual reports for 2018 and 2019 have been published in April the following year, four months after the end of the financial year [2,3]. The periodical three- and six-month reports for 2020 have been published, respectively, in May and August 2020, two months after the end of each quarter [4].

The periodical and annual reports show variances between the budget and the actual spending, and the general explanations can be found in the report on the entire budget execution. Specific variances of the MoD have also been explained; however, the way in which the reports are presented mean that it is difficult to find all explanations for specific spending, thus it is possible that some variances have not been explained. [1,2,3] The government reviewer notes that the budget execution report contains detailed and comprehensive explanations on the differences between the planned budget and the realized spending on all types of expenditures.

Reports of the actual defence spending are not published. What is available are budget figures pronouncements by the Minsitry of Finance [1], and in some instances, the Minsiter of Justice, Security and Defence makes reference to some figures when he thinks there is some malicious reporting [2].

Given that no information on actual spending is made public, this indicator is scored ‘Not Applicable’. Only aggrgated data on defence spending is published during the budget year. A good example is the 2021 budget report. This has been the trend in the history of the BDF. In the initial years, the BDF budget, in terms of actual spending, was more transparent but in the last 15 years, it has continually been less transparent.

Given that no information on actual spending is made public, this indicator is scored ‘Not Applicable’.

Given that no information on actual spending is made public, this indicator is scored ‘Not Applicable’.

The data is disaggregated and offers a high level of detail on spending. However, there are no explanations regarding the motives and the stages of each spend, which has to be searched individually by contracts, and which are not always available [1].

Defence spending is available on the Transparency Portal of the federal government. All purchases are registered and made available on this portal, and the basic information is presented via month/year, superior entity, paying entity, amount of pledged spending, disposed amount, amount already paid and remaining costs. More details are available for each of the purchases, including the identification of the contracted company, and other documents [1].

In January 2020, the assessor found details of spendimg in interactive form from 2017 to 2020. Information about actual spending is published constantly on the Transparency Portal website [1].

Studies on the planned for the budget and what was executed are released by the legislature when preparing the following year’s budget. This is evident from the 2018 study published by the Budget Committee [1]. However, these studies are generally, at the federal level, there are no studies that focus solely on defence institutions.

Details of actual spending are published online in aggregated form.[1] The budget is accompanied by an explanation in a language intended for non-experts (Budget Citoyen).[2] These documents have been retrieved from the Collaborative Africa Budget Reform Initiative (CABRI), due to the Ministry of Finance’s website being inaccessible at the time of writing (August 2018).

The vast majority of actual spending is not disclosed, without there being clear justification for this. For instance, the 2018 spending for the MoD is divided into five sections: training and deployment of forces (Préparation et emploi des forces), equipment (Equipement des forces), support for public security and civil protection (Appui à la sécurité publique et à la protection civile), reinforcement of military-nation relations (Renforcement du lien Armée-Nation), steering and support (Pilotage et soutien).

With regards to the Ministry of Security, the same document provides information on the actual spending for three sections: state security (Sureté de l’Etat), internal security (Sécurité intérieure), management (Pilotage et soutien des services du Ministère de la Sécurité).

According to the 2017 Open Budget Survey, Burkina Faso’s legisalture provides adequate (score 62 out of 100) oversight during the formulation stage of the budget cycle and weak oversight (score 26 out of 100) during the implementation stage. The supreme audit institution (Cour des Comptes) provides weak oversight (score 17 out of 100).[1]

Details of actual spending are published more than twelve months after the end of the financial year. For instance, the last Year-End Report available online refers to the FY 2013 and was published on April 2016.[1]

No information on actual spending for FY 2016 or FY 2017 is publicly available.

The Presidency of the Republic of Cameroon publishes the budget online in aggregated form [1].

Information on actual defence spending is provided in a highly aggregated form. No information is provided beyond the total amount of resources that are allocated to the MoD. For 2018 these amounted to 238,910 million FCFA [1].

Cameroon usually publishes the Year-End Report (Settlement Law) within six months after the end of the financial year [1].

For 2016, the difference between budget and actual expenditure was negligible as actual expenditure stood at 99.07% of the defence budget [1]. Therefore this indicator is marked Not Applicable.

The departmental reports for the three most recent fiscal years [1] [2] [3] [4] publish budgeted and actual revenues and expenses in a largely disaggregated form, for instance, operations costs vs personnel costs vs capital costs, but within the categories there is little disaggregation, so individual operations, or personnel by service, or kinds of capital expenses are not detailed. The explanations are general, rather than highly detailed.

Each departmental report for FY 17-18, [1] FY 16-17, [2] FY 15-16, [3] and FY 18-19 [4] contains “other” expenditures and revenues, but they do not represent a large portion of the funds in total. While the Office of the Auditor General is responsible for and empowered to oversee all spending and activities of the DND (as all government agencies) [5] there is some evidence that recently, the government has not been responsive to critical evaluations of DND activities by the OAG. [6]

For FY 2017-18, [1] 2016-17, [2] and 2015-16 [3] data on actual spending was released within five months of the end of the fiscal year. Information for FY 2018-19 was released on a somewhat delayed schedule, but remains available. [4]

The four most recent reports [1] [2] [3] [4] have notes and, in some cases, annexes explaining discrepancies between budget and actual expenditures, but only for some of the items with discrepancies.

The Ministry of National Defence (MDN), through the Budget Department of the Ministry of Finance (DIPRES) of the Ministry of Finance, publishes monthly reports of budget executions. Reports contain information of sources of income and expenditures by the institutions of the defence sector, desegregated in general items with their associated values in US dollars and pesos [1]. Information in the explanatory notes of the reports is general and superficial. For instance, the item of “reserved expenditures” is mentioned in a footnote and without further explanation of items (at least in generic terms). Interviewed experts have also observed the difficulty of using for oversight budget execution because of its level of aggregation [2, 3].

In the Public Budget Proposal, some items are only mentioned in vague terms, as is the case with “reserved expenditures” in each branch of the armed forces. Likewise, areas of spending that belong to the Restricted Law of Copper are not disclosed in budget execution reports. These resources represent a significant share of the expenditure in investments and maintenance of war potential [1, 2]. The execution of these resources is overseen, in a reserved manner, by the General Comptroller.

The MDN, through the DIPRES of the Ministry of Finance, published reports of budget spending within less than six months of the end of the financial year, in US dollars and pesos [1].

Budget executions of each branch of the armed forces and other institutions of the defence sector are published monthly [1]. Each report contains accounting information in Chilean pesos and US dollars about the initial budget, current budget, and accumulated execution. In some cases, there are minor differences between the assigned budget, the current budget, and the accumulated execution. However, tables have accounting purpose and do not include explanations for the observed differences.

There are no reports on actual spending made available to the public or the legislature during the budget year. China only publishes its annual budget in a highly aggregated form as explained in Q12 (CSIS, 2019)

No actual spending information is made publicly available during the budget year. As such, this indicator is scored ‘Not Applicable’.

No actual spending information is made publicly available during the budget year. As such, this indicator is scored ‘Not Applicable’.

No actual spending information is made publicly available during the budget year. As such, this indicator is scored ‘Not Applicable’.

Information on actual expenditure is available on the Ministry of Defence’s website on a quarterly basis. The last report is that of the third quarter of the year in September 2019. The report does not include the budget of the Industrial and Commercial Enterprises of the State (EICE) since their resources are approved by CONFIS. The budget of the Fund for Military Housing and Police is approved by the Financial Superintendency, and the online report finally does not include the budgets of the autonomous institutions of the defence sector, namely the Military University New Granada, whose budget is allocated through the Ministry of National Education; the Club of Sub-Officers of the Military Forces, COCTEMAR, and Gustavo Matamoros Corporation, whose budgets are approved by each entity since they have their own legal status. [1] As for the details of expenditure, the report does not explain the data, nor does it present brief summaries with clear language for non-experts, so it is difficult to understand the report, even though the document is divided and quantitatively develops the following categories: current appropriation, commitments and obligations, and subcategories. It is published in a brief presentation of the budget implementation, which also does not explain the data. [2] The Ministry of Defence also publishes a Financial Management Bulletin, and entities of the defence sector publish their monthly financial statements to the general public. However, it is not clear how the data relate to each other from these documents and the Budget Execution Report due to the use of different categories and highly technical language. There is also the Economic Transparency Portal, which outlines budget execution by sector and industry entities, under the same categories and subcategories as the written report. [3] This platform also does not explain the data, nor does it present brief summaries with clear language for non-experts, making it difficult to understand the report.

The Ministry of Defence, Military Forces, and Police publish a large portion of the actual defence spending online in accordance with Article 9 of Law No. 1712 of 2014. [1] Article 74 of Law No. 1474 of 2011 defines that disaggregated annual action plans and budgets must be published on 31 July of each year. [2]

According to the Transparency Index of public entities carried out by Transparency by Colombia, the visibility factor that includes the indicator disclosure of budget and financial management, is high for the defence sector, but low in the case of the Army. Out of 100, the scores are: National Police: 98.8; Ministry of Defence, 87.7; Air Force, 87.5; National Navy: 81.3; Army: 62.5. [3] There are exceptions to the disaggregated publication of reserved expenses, which under the Transparency Act is defined as information exempted due to potential harm to the public, including national defence and security and public security. Therefore, the budget execution of reserved items is not contained in the published defence expenditure, and there is only a small mention where it is reported that these resources do not exceed 0.2% of the total resources allocated to the Ministry of National Defence. [4] The General Accounting Office of the Nation has the function of issuing concepts regarding the interpretation of accounting rules and monitoring the financial statements of public entities. [5] All entities in the sector send their accounting and financial statements to this entity. As for the effectiveness of this supervision, there are no reports submitted by the Accounting Officer to the Ministry of Defence about the process of improving or adjusting the report of the financial statements of the sector.

Instruction 001 of 2018 for the General Accounting Office defines the public dates for the financial year ending 31 December 2018, in the following way: (a) public accounting information, filing deadline 15 February 2019 and; (b) evaluation information for internal accounting control, reporting deadline 28 February 2019. [1] The information is reported through the Consolidator System of Finance and Public Information (CHIP), therefore the information is obtained publicly. [2] CHIP identifies the report of the financial and accounting information of the Ministry of Defence closing the budget year 2018. This information is also public on the website of the Ministry of Defence along with the financial and accounting statements on a month-by-month basis. [3] The document published by the Ministry of Defence is from March 2019, within the first six months of the end of the financial year. However, it does contain detailed and disaggregated information, along with notes on the report and explanations of the statements. [4]

The relationship between the budget allocated to the defence and police sector vs. the actual expenditure implemented is published on the Economic Transparency Portal of the Ministry of Finance. [1] In this portal, the following information for the current year, current appropriation, or total amount allocated to the sector is listed: 33.2 billion pesos; and in obligations executed to date worth 19.2 trillion, resulting in an exercise of 57% of the total budget. Values are disaggregated in each of the areas of the defence sector, allowing the same analysis to be carried out across each sector. This relationship between the validity and the obligation is not clearly stated in the implementation reports of the defence sector budget, so the difference between the amount budgeted and the amount spent is not readily available. [2, 3]

The secretary of state in charge for the budget and the state portfolio (Secretariat d’État Auprés du Premier Ministre Chargé du Budget et du Portfeuille de l’État) proactively publishes the budget online in a disaggregated form (1). The publication is accompanied by an explanation intended for experts (2).

The vast majority of actual spending is disclosed. For instance, the 2018 Budget (Loi de Finances Portant Budget de l’État Pour l’Année 2018) is divided into 9 sections: general administration, army, aviation, navy, security and police, military police, republican guard, prisons, civil protection and firefighters (1). According to the 2017 Open Budget Survey, the legislature and the supreme audit institution of Côte d’Ivoire provide a weak oversight (a score below 41 out of 100) during the budget cycle (2).

Details of actual spending are published within twelve months of the end of the financial year (1).

For 2016, no difference was reported between the budget and the actual spending (1). Therefore this indicator has been marked Not Applicable.

Data on actual spending on defence is published in two sources. The defence budget as listed in the Finance Act contains data on spending from the previous year (the financial results). The annual reports of the Ministry of Defence (including Defence Command) contain information on actual spending [1, 2]. The annual reports are comprehensible for non-experts while the defence spending as listed in the Finance Act is more complex. The annual reports contain a report on the juxtaposition between the annual goals and the financial spending used in relation to the specific goals [3]. According to the so-called Openness Arrangement (“Åbenhedsordningen”), the expenses of the minister (for instance entertainment expenses) must be made public every month [4].

The defence budget is disclosed in full. However, only the aggregated budget of the Danish Defence Intelligence Service is stated [1]. As explained in Q12, Q16, Q17 and Q21, there are comprehensive oversight mechanisms in place: internal audit by the Defence Internal Audit Office, external financial audit by the Danish National Audit Office and parliamentary oversight by the Finance Committee, the Public Accounts Committee and the Danish Parliament in general [2, 3, 4, 5]. See Q21 for the oversight mechanisms for the DDIS.

There is evidence that the annual reports of the defence (containing actual spending) are published in March the following year, hence c. three months after the end of the financial year [1]. The financial result of the preceding year as published in the Finance Act is rarely done within six months, but published together with the new years Finance Act [2].

The annual reports of the defence contains some explanations of variances between the published budget and actual spending, but these are made in broad terms and in less detail [1, 2, 3, 4]. However, detailed accounts of the variances between the budget and actual spending are accessible (and accessed) through FOI requests.

According to our sources, the data on the actual spend of the military are never published. In all the published financial data from the government, there are no details of the military expenses on the budget. The data on military spending and its details are considered confidential, and therefore inaccessible (1), (2), (3). The main published national budget document that covers actual public spending is the Closing Account (al hisab al khitami) of the national budget which is usually published on the website of the Ministry of Finance albeit with big delays (4). However, what applies to the national budget (projected spending) also applies to the closing accounts (actual spending) in the sense that only a topline figure is provided with little to no breakdown and disaggregation of the figures. According to the Constitution, the military budget is incorporated as a single figure in the national budget (Art. 203) (5). It is also worth noting that this figure does not constitute all military spending but only the part that is taken from the state treasury, because the military has its large revenue streams from its various economic activities that are even more opaque (6).

This sub-indicator is marked Not Applicable because the Egyptian constitution provides for the secrecy of the armed forces budget by stating that only a topline figure shall be published. Closing accounts, which cover actual spending, follow the same rules and disaggregation and are considered one of the budgetary documents.

This sub-indicator is marked Not Applicable because the Egyptian constitution provides for the secrecy of the armed forces budget by stating that only a topline figure shall be published. Closing accounts, which cover actual spending, follow the same rules and disaggregation and are considered one of the budgetary documents.

This sub-indicator is marked Not Applicable because the Egyptian constitution provides for the secrecy of the armed forces budget by stating that only a topline figure shall be published. Closing accounts, which cover actual spending, follow the same rules and disaggregation and are considered one of the budgetary documents.

The Ministry of Finance (MOF) proactively publishes monthly reports on the execution of the state budget, including for defence spending. [1] While information on actual defence spending is provided in an aggregated form, the publication of the defence budget at the beginning of the financial year is accompanied by an explanation intended for experts as well as non-experts. [2]

Details on actual defence spending are provided in an aggregated form. The reports available on the MOF website only provide information on the overall implementation of the defence budget. No further expanation is provided. The 2018 Ministry of Defence (MOD) budget is divided into “labour costs” (23%), “infrastructure and procurement” (45%) and “other spending” (32%). [1]

Details of actual defence spending are published regularly and in a timely manner. As of December 2018, the MOF has published four reports on the 2018 state budget (February, April, August, September). [1] The end-of-year report for 2017 was published by the MOF on February 2018.

The difference between the published budget and actual spending is published and available for the public in an Excel document format. The differences are shown for each government institution separately. For example, for the MOF the variance between the predicted and the actual spending was 91.6% in 2018. [1] The data is also published on a monthly basis.

There is no explicit explanation of the variances in the budget. The only specification concerning the differences is shown in the changes in investments and foreign funding. [2]

Furthermore, the change in budget compared to the previous year is only very “generally” justified, as pointed out by the State Audit Office in their latest report about the state budget of 2017. [3]

State Treasury publishes monthly a report on the State revenue and expenses. However, every branch of administration is desribed by only an aggregated figure [1]. Financial statement of the Ministry of Defence’s branch of administration is published annually; it consists of activity report, out-turn calculations describing the actualisation of the budget, profit and expense calculations, balance sheet on the date of the financial statement, and explanatory notes [2,3] .

According to a written response provided by the Headquarters of the Defence Forces, the Defence Forces reports on the use of appropriation on a quarterly basis throughout the operating year. In addition, an interim report (so-called deviation report) is provided from the term January 1st – July 31st. [4]

Defence spending is disclosed to the public in an aggregated form, but according to the law. [1] There are effective oversight mechanisms within the Defence Forces and the Ministry of Defence, in state financial institutions and internal and external auditing bodies, within the Government and the Parliament, which have wider access to information. In addition, the media reports on significant expenditure – usually based on the press briefings given by the defence administration. According to a written response provided by the Headquarters of the Defence Forces, the Defence Forces reports on the use of appropriation on a quarterly basis throughout the operating year. In addition, an interim report (so-called deviation report) is provided from the term January 1st – July 31st. [2]

Financial statement of the Ministry of Defence’s branch of administration is published annually approximately 2-3 months after the end of the financial year. It consists of activity report, out-turn calculations describing the actualisation of the budget, profit and expense calculations, balance sheet on the date of the financial statement, and explanatory notes.[1, 2] Details of the actual expenditure and revenue are provided at the accuracy level required by the Act on State Budget and the Decree on State Budget. [3, 4] According to a written response provided by the Headquarters of the Defence Forces, the Defence Forces reports on the use of appropriation on a quarterly basis throughout the operating year. In addition, an interim report (so-called deviation report) is provided from the term January 1st – July 31st. [5]

The financial statement includes comparisons with the budget, but also with the two previous fiscal years. Both potential variances between the budget and budget amendments and the actual spending AND trends from previous years are discussed. [1] [2] According to a written response provided by the Headquarters of the Defence Forces, the Defence Forces reports on the use of appropriation on a quarterly basis throughout the operating year. In addition, an interim report (so-called deviation report) is provided from the term January 1st – July 31st. [3]

The Initial Finance Law sets initial credits for the four areas of expenditure of the Defence Budget for the budget year to come. These spending details are available online. [1] [2] [3] [4] However, these documents are not easy to find and do not use clear language for non-experts.
There is also a “loi de règlement” which translates the validation by the Parliament of the execution of the law of finance. [5] This “loi de règlement” is not identical in its content to the Initial Finance Law: rectifying Finance Laws can be passed, credits can be frozen, revenues collected can be different from the expected revenues, etc.
Details about Initial Finance Laws, rectifying laws and “lois de règlement” are available to anyone, on open access, on the Legifrance website. [6] Detailed versions of the Defence Budget project are accessible on the Ministry of the Armed Forces (MOAF) website. [7] [8] [9] However, one should note the absence of a simplified version, summary, or explanations, available for a wide audience to understand what is at stake.
In addition, the MOAF published an annual document with key budget figures, including summaries, and a narrative explanation of the budget which is accessible for all. [10] When new budget documents are published, the MOAF also publishes graphics and a downloadable document with an explanation of the projected budget and its meaning in practice. [11] However, the information provided is often high-level and not detailed or disaggregated.

General figures accounting for actual defence spending are disclosed in the “loi de règlement”, issued every year for the previous budget year. This act closes and validates the actual spending of each specific mission and program of the State’s budget. [1] [2] The “loi de règlement” is accessible to the public on the official Legifrance website, but does not go into details of areas of actual spending. Though one can assume that secret-défense will be invoked as a reason for the lack of information, no clear justification was found as to why the actual spending on Defence is disclosed in such a general and vague way.
There is provision for oversight of the full budget by the Cour des comptes, though this oversight isn’t exerted on a regular basis. [3] [4] For instance, the latest inventory on the Ministry’s real estate was done by Cour des comptes in 2007. [5]

Details of actual spending are published within twelve months of the end of the financial year:
– the “Loi de règlement” for the 2017 budget was published on July 25, 2018, so within 7 months of the end of the financial year (December 31st) [1]
– the “Loi de règlement” for the 2016 budget was published on July 31, 2017, so within 7 months of the end of the financial year [2]
– the “Loi de règlement” for the 2015 budget was published on July 22, 2016, so within 7 months of the end of the financial year [3]

The “loi de règlement”, in the form accessible to the public on the “Legifrance” wesbite, is very general and gives only the updated general spending figures. [1]
The Defence Statistics Yearbook shows a real effort in terms of making the finance data accessible to the public. [2] It is an annual publication managed by the Defence Economic Observatory, a statistical service of the MOAF, attached to the Directorate of Financial Affairs / Sub-Directorate of Economic, Fiscal and International Affairs. It presents contributions from experts in their field on the latest statistics available. It covers 100 pages of tables and comments. Similarly to the ‘loi de reglement’, it does not contain justifications for variances between actual spend and budgeted amounts [2].
Variances between the published budget and actual spend are explained in the reports to the Assemblée Nationale after parliamentary questioning (for example, source shows an evaluation of variations for 2019). [3] Annual performance reports are published on a dedicated “public performance” website, which compare actual spending against the initial budget assigned. [4] However, it should be noted that these are difficult to find and understand for non-experts.

The actual spending on defence and security is proactively published in detailed, disaggregated form and accompanied by clear explanations for both experts and non-experts [1]. The 2019 Federal Government Budget of the Federal Ministry of Defence (Einzelplan 14) [2] provides, in a 160-page report, all necessary information on actual spending in an easily accessible, transparent way. The Ministry of Finance also provides data on actual defence spending that is accessible to a non-expert audience [3]. The Defence Budget is recorded in Einzelplan 14, a part of the Federal Budget that includes all expenses in the area of responsibility of the Federal Ministry of Defence [4]. Key factors include personnel and pension expenditures, costs of material preservation and investment in the development and procurement of defence equipment.

The majority of actual defence spending is fully disclosed. Although some exceptions are made for legitimate sensitive areas, there is clear and robust oversight of the full budget by other suitable authorities. The defence budget currently consists of 11 chapters with a total of about 300 titles.

The expenses are divided into four categories [1]:

1) Operating expenses: this includes personnel expenses, material maintenance expenses and other operating expenses (for example, property management, supplies, business needs).
2) Operator contracts for the further development of the Bundeswehr: this includes, for example, the expenditures for the private law companies existing in the business division of ​​the BMVg Federal Ministry of Defence. These primarily cover the needs of the German Bundeswehr for mobility (BwFPS GmbH), clothing and personal equipment (BwBM Bundeswehr Bekleidungsmanagement GmbH), repair of land-based material (HILHereeresupplementing Logistics Army Repair Logistics GmbH), as well as information technology (BWI GmbH).
3) Investment expenses: this consists of research, development and testing, military procurement, military equipment and other investments.
4) Care spending: expenditures for former soldiers and civil servants from the business division of the BMVg (Federal Ministry of Defence) as well as their surviving dependants.

Yes, the Federal Ministry of Finance generally publishes the Federal Budget statement in the first half of the year following the closed budget [1].

It seems that the details of actual spending are published within six months of the end of the financial year. However, I cannot find the official publication date of the Federal Budget 2019 (Einzelplan 14). Nevertheless, there is also the document ‘Einzelplan 14/2019 compared to the 2018 budget’ [2,3].

The discrepancies between the budget’s target rates and the actual spending are shown in the Federal Budget accounts under each title.

However, variances between the published budget and actual spending are not always detailed and explained [1], for example, this information is available on pp. 5-7 of the ‘Federal Budget 2019: Einzelplan 14’, but not in very much detail; it is only explained in a broad, general way [2].

The Ministry of Finance publishes the budget online in a disaggregated form (1). The budget is accompanied by an explanation intended for experts as well as a document with clear language for non-experts (Citizens’ Budget) (2). Additionally, the Ministry of Finance provides information on the single MDAs, including the MoD (3).

The budget for the MoD is divided into twelve sections: General Administration, Veterans Association of Ghana, Secretariat, General Headquarters, Army, Navy, Air Force, GAFCSC, MATS, Defence Advisors, Kofi Annan International Peacekeeping Training Centre, Military Hospital (1).

According to the 2017 Open Budget Survey, Ghana’s legislature provides weak (score 39 out of 100) oversight during the budget cycle; while the Audit Service provides limited oversight (score 50 out of 100) (2).

Details of actual spending are usually published within six months of the end of the financial year. However, for FY 2016 and 2017, the End-Year reports have not been published online. The last available online report was published in June of 2016 and concerns the 2015 FY (1).

Actual spending for FY 2015 was slightly over the budget (104%) (1). Details for FY 2016 and FY 2017 are not published online.

Reports on actual spending are not made available to the public at all [1]. The Greek government usually cites national security concerns as a basis for data protection [2]. However, every two to three years the Ministry of Finance may publish some figures about actual defence spending but these are not disaggregated or detailed [2]. This is done only occassionally [3].

Neither the MoD nor the Ministry of Finance publish reports on actual spending on defence and defence-related expenses in a systematic way [1, 2]. The Ministry of Finance has occasionally released some figures but the vast majority is not publicly available.

According to the law 4270/2014, article 167 (Government Gazette A΄ 143/28-6-2014) data for State Budget’s actual spending, and therefore data for Defence Budget’s actual spending, must be submitted for ratification to the Hellenic Parliament by the end of November of the
following year. [1, 2]

The data for State Budget’s actual spending, and therefore the data for Defence Budget’s actual spending, which are submitted for ratification to the Hellenic Parliament (as mentioned at the above paragraph 77C) include details for the variances between budget and actual spending and general information about causes of these variations. [1]

The Hungarian State Treasury, the central budget agency under the direction of the Ministry for National Economy, proactively publishes monthly reports on actual defence spending in a disaggregated form (in Hungarian) [1]. The State Treasury publishes the income and expenditure about every department monthly but without any explanation and in a disaggregated form. However, there is a very detailed analysis and explanation about actual spending provided every year by the government [2]. It is detailed, but it does not contain summaries for non-experts.

The reports published by the Treasury Ministry are divided according to the several Ministry of Defence (MoD) sub-programmes (“Ministry of Defence”, “Hungarian Defence Forces”, “Military National Security Service”, “MH Health Center”, “Military College”, “Other”). With regards to oversight efficiency, the 2017 Open Budget Survey has found that the legislature provides limited (between 40 and 60 out of 100) oversight during the budget cycle while the State Audit Institution provides adequate (scoring 95 out of 100) oversight [1].

Details of actual spending are published every month.

Variance between planned and actual spending for 2019 has been negligible (0.7 percent) [1]. There is no indication that variances are explained [1].

In an IDSA publication, it was stated that, “While budget documents are presented annually to parliament, the data provided by them offer limited opportunity for in-depth research. Annual reports of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) are sanitised documents, often containing less information than provided by newspapers. Available materials on planning and budgeting are individual recollections of authors based on their subjective interpretations or judgements” [1].

Data on budget allocations and defence spending in the year are published in a disaggregated form but without explanations, thus in-depth analysis is not feasible [2][3][4][5][6]. The MoD publishes actual expenditure against budget estimates for each year on its website and in its annual reports. Organisation and sector-wise breakups are given but again, without explanation [7][8].

The Defence Services Estimates serves as the accepted budget but does not always comprehensively capture defence expenditure. In 2018, two Demands for Grants no. 20 and 21 were not included in the DSE [9].

Defence related expenditure data is publicly available on the Union Budget microsite [1]. Though the MoD has an Annual Reports area on its website, it is empty and no data sets are available. The Notes on Demands for Grants documents on the Union Budget microsite are sanitised with one-line particulars in columns that show ‘Actuals’, ‘Budget, ‘Revised’ then current ‘Budget’. Sensitive items are not featured [2][3][4].

The Defence Services Estimates (DSE), conventionally known as India’s defence budget, contains details on manpower, stores, procurement and R&D. Though the document is not available publicly online, it is available in the Indian Parliament Library and the library of a leading think tank in New Delhi [5].

There is clear and robust oversight from CAG, CGDA, PAC and SCoD [6][7][8][9].

Data on actual expenditure is available after two financial years. Under the Indian budgetary system, expenses are accounted for under the Budget Estimate (BE) (for the years the budget is presented), Revised Estimate (RE) for the immediate preceding year and Actual Expenditure for the year before last year [1][2].

As 2019 is an election year, the government has published an interim budget in February [3].

Explanation on variances between the published budget and actual defence spend has not been found. The Budget and Accounts section of the DoD on the MoD’s website states figures on Actuals, BE and RE but provides no explanation [1][2].

Reports on actual spending can be found in the Central Government Financial Report (Laporan Keuangan Pemerintah Pusat/LKPP), which is published by the Ministry of Finance [1] in April or May of the following year [2]. This report is available on the Ministry of Finance website and can be downloaded freely. The report is accompanied by a summary, which contains a comparison of the budget with actual state expenditure and transfers to regional and village funds in aggregate, changes to excess budget balances, balance sheets (detailing the government’s financial position regarding assets, liabilities and equity), operational reports (economic resources that add equity and their usage by the government), a cash flow statement, changes to the equity statement and notes on the financial statements. Judging by the summarised format and language used, this summary is not intended for the consumption of non-experts, but of those who already understand the basics of accounting.

In the LKPP, data on actual spending is presented in aggregate form and organised by ministry and function [1]. There are no specific financial reports issued by defence-related ministries/agencies for public consumption, although the provision of a summarised financial report is mandated by Article 6(d) of Minister of Defence Regulation No. 2/2015 [2]. The state budget audit is conducted by the BPK (Laporan Hasil Pemeriksaan, LHP) in the first half of the following financial year [3]. But the full report is not publicly accessible.

The Central Government Financial Report (LKPP) is published by the Ministry of Finance [1] in April or May of the following year [2].

The LKPP presents comparisons of various budgets with actual spending in aggregate form (central government) and by function (there are 11 functions including defence) for two consecutive years [1]. For example, the actual expenditure of the defence function in 2018 was 106.83 trillion rupiahs, 9.08% lower than the previous year’s expenditure of 117.50 trillion rupiahs. Explanations of how the expenditure was realised (employees, goods, capital), what has increased or decreased and influencing factors are only provided in aggregate form. There is no explanation at a ministerial/institutional level, except in the case of bodies that record specific achievements. For example, it states that the procurement of special material equipment by the National Police contributed to the realisation of capital expenditure.

Reports on actual spending are not made available to the public at all. The only information available to the public relates to that presented in the budget [1, 2].

This indicator is marked Not Applicable, as reports on actual spending are not made available to the public at all. The only information available to the public relates to that presented in the budget [1, 2].

This indicator is marked Not Applicable, as reports on actual spending are not made available to the public at all. The only information available to the public relates to that presented in the budget [1, 2].

This indicator is marked Not Applicable, as reports on actual spending are not made available to the public at all. The only information available to the public relates to that presented in the budget [1, 2].

Publications on defence spending are scarce; coverage is infrequent, void of explanation, and generally discussed within bigger debates concerning the Federal Budget; from challenges (1) to trends (2). Visits conducted by MoD delegations or members of the parliamentary security and defence committee receive coverage, largely in local and at time international press (3). There is no official record of explicit spending figures available to the public, or law that obliges the government to disclose defence expenditure. Under the MoD’s official website’s ‘Contracts and Tenders’ section, a number of tenders are downloadable and accompanied by procedural guides (4). In spite of the existence of scant coverage, information is shared by media outlets. Publications on the official platforms managed by government security and defence ministries is not proactive.

The vast majority of defence spending is not publicised on any of the government’s official online platforms. In absence of such information, actual MoD spending cannot be subject to public scrutiny. The choice to withhold these figures is explainable under the MoD’s policy of non-disclosure, to protect state secrets (1). No written evidence in support of the latter could be found however.

Another theme that resonates are future trends in Iraq’s defence procurement (1). As a recovering military power, one paper notes that out of Iraq’s 14 army divisions “the federal budget only provides enough funding for six to be converted to fully mechanised units by 2020” (1). Potential visits and defence speculations — positive and unsettling — dominate the headlines more than Iraq’s actual spending on defence. Scant facts perforate the web such the latest contract ($28,812,143) Iraq’s MoD awarded to Florida-based NIC4 Inc for repairs to Iraq’s Aperture’s Terminal (VSAT) for the transmission of information in and around the battle zones. Other expense items have received coverage (2) but coverage is noticeably thin. Sources providing the coverage are interested in defence matters, but the data is not presented by any state department. Broader budget cuts (3) have allegedly lowered the ceiling of defence spending to $1 billion but it is difficult to verify whether actual spending amounts to that figure or falls well below it — in absence of government-approved data and general opacity. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute website features information concerning the country’s defence spending, from arms transfers from Iraq to Syria (4). The wider picture, generally speaking, concerning Iraq’s defences is incomplete, inconsistent and in need of comprehensive explanations.  

It is not clear to say in absence of published data, please refer to the answers above.

Some data on actual spending is released during the budget year. The Accountant General publishes monthly reports on overnment spending that outline sprogress made against the budget. These reports also cover defence, although not in great detail as they are intended to provide an overview of all government expenditure (1). Elsewhere, other figures are also released, however they tend to not be fully complete and there are few explanations provided for variations (2) (3) (4).

Several areas of spending are undisclosed, without a clear justification due to security reasons (1). According to one assessment, the unclassified areas of the 2019 defence budget amounted to just NIS 15.3 billion of a total spend of NIS 72.9 billion, equating to just 21% of the budget. Data on these expenditures is not released publicly. (2) There is provision for oversight of the full budget by other suitable authorities, such as the FADC and joint Financial and FA Committees however, it is not clear how effective this oversight is (2) (3).

Some details of actual spending are published within twelve months by the end of the financial year,(1) including in the Accountant General’s monthly reports for instance (2). Most of the information can be found on the homepage of the Ministry of Finance. Yet, the provided data is mostly aggregated and superficial due to the security situation and the confidential nature of the information (3).

Variances between the published budget and actual spend are to some extent explained within the Knesset, but not to the public (1). If the public is informed about major changes, it takes place only very superficially and not in a detailed and comprehensive way due to security reasons (2) (3). Due to – and depending on – the security situation in Israel and the permanent threat from outside the country, it can happen that the original and actual budget spending differ. Additionally the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) (2019) describes that “Apart from the Ministry of Defence budget, as from 2017, the Ministry of Finance has published in the state budget documents an article entitled “miscellaneous defense expenses.” In the draft budget for 2019 this item stands at NIS 10.2 billion net (2.1 percent of the net state budget) – a significant increase since the 2017 budget. Presumably this item includes at least the budgets of the attached units in the Prime Minister’s Office that deal with national security, such as the Mossad and the Israeli Security Agency. This assessment is based on amendment number 51 to the State Budget Foundations Law of 2016, which defines the budgets of these attached units as an integral part of the state defence budget, along with the Ministry of Defence budget. If so, this figure completes the picture regarding the budget of the security forces in Israel.” (2)

Data on actual spending are published both on the website of the Ministry of Defence [1] and on the website of the competent oversight authority. Data is presented in tabular and disaggregated form, and is also clearly explained in the general report of the State that is presented to the parliament every year [2]. A breakdown of the budget per function is also provided, and it can be intended as explenation for non-expert, although it is not included in the main document.

By reading the report of the accountancy office, one can find that the actual spending of the ministry is fully disclosed and trends are also provided [1]. In addition, for those contracts of the Ministry of Defence that according to article 17 of legislative decree n. 163/2006 [2] are subject to secrecy, the Court of Auditors performs periodic trends analysis on the subject of economic engagement, but does not evaluate the merit of decisions [3]. Nevertheless, equally detailed and disclosed data on spending of security and intelligence services is not available (see questions 13, 26, 27)

Details of actual spending are published in the form of editable open dataset on the website of the general accountancy office within six months of the of the financial year [1].The same data is available also in a more intelligible format, but sometime it is necessary to wait a few days, as it occurred with the publication in July of the integrative note on the 2019 expenses of the Ministry of Defence [2].

The annual economic report and the integrative note to the state budget report present detailed and explained information on foreseen and actual spending of the public administration [1] [2]. The former compares the actual annual spending with the proposed annual budget and with the expenses incurred in the previous year. The latter is a review of the available budget by expense items, that might be integrated with expense residues. When present, variances are explained.

According to the Public Finance Law, the Government must, at least every third month, report to the Diet and the population on the actual spending of the budget, the state of the national treasury, and the condition of government finances in general. [1] Figures for actual spending are therefore proactively published in tables on the website of the Ministry of Finance. In the table for the second quarter of fiscal year 2019 (July – August), Ministry of Defence expenditure is disaggregated into 30 large categories (for example “maintenance of aircraft”). There is about one page of explanation of trends for the General Account Budget, of which Ministry of Defence expenditure is a part. There is, however, no explanation of the content of expenditure by the Ministry of Defence. [2] Deployment of new military equipment is sometimes reported on the website of regional defence bureaus [3] or the Ministry of Defence, [4] but these reports are not linked to reports of actual spending.

The Ministry of Defence (MOD) sends monthly financial statements of income and expenditures to the Ministry of Finance, which aggregates this data into tables covering actual spending over periods of three months. In the table for the full 2018 fiscal year, the main categories of weapons procured are included, but the Defence Intelligence Headquarters (DIH) is not. Intelligence expenditure under other agencies, which have consequences for defence, are sometimes included and sometimes not. Under the Cabinet Secretariat, the intelligence services are not included, although the large expenditure for intelligence satellites is. The spending for the Public Security Intelligence Agency (PSIA) is also included. These tables are made available to the public on the website of the Ministry of Finance, [1] and of the House of Representatives. [2] There is no mention of oversight of the full budget on these two websites. The Board of Audit audits the accounts of the Ministry of Defence after the end of the fiscal year. [3]

Details of actual spending for the fiscal year 2018 were published on the website of the House of Representatives on September 6, 2019. [1] This is within six months of the end of the fiscal year on March 31. It may also be noted that after the end of the fiscal year, Japanese government institutions have until July 31 to finalise financial transactions and bookkeeping for the year. [2]

The variance between the published budget and actual spending is clearly shown in the tables for actual spending during fiscal year 2018. Some reasons for this discrepancy for the budget as a whole have to do with changes in repayment of government bonds, and not with defence policy. Defence spending figures show whether all the budgeted money was used, or, if not, how much will be transferred to the next year and how much will not be used. [1] The Ministry of Defence has posted several budget documents on its website, but none of them have figures for actual spending, nor is there any explanation for the discrepancy between the budget and spending on the website. [2]

It has been established throughout this assessment that Jordan does not make its general defence expenditure public. The official webpage of the House of Representatives in Jordan includes several reports presented to the legislature by the Audit Bureau. These reports, namely the 2015 Financial Accounts, are the only evidence of defence expenditure publicly available, and that only shows a general breakdown of items and expenditures [1]. There is no evidence on the armed forces webpage that suggests that it makes its spending on defence budget public during the year [2]. Other than one annual report available online, there is no information available on actual defence spending during the year [3,4].

This sub-indicator has been marked as Not Applicable as Jordan does not provide information about its actual defence spending, neither does the defence sector make information about its procurement public [1,2,3,4]

This sub-indicator has been marked as Not Applicable as Jordan does not provide information about its actual defence spending, neither does the defence sector make information about its procurement public [1,2,3,4]

This sub-indicator has been marked as Not Applicable as Jordan does not provide information about its actual defence spending, neither does the defence sector make information about its procurement public [1,2,3,4]

Accounting officers of all government ministries including Ministry of Defence (MOD) are required both by the section 226 (1) of the Constitution and section 81 of Public Finance Management Act No 18 of 2012 to document and prepare financial statements at the end of each financial year. [1, 2]

The ministry is further required by the Act to submitt the statements to the Office of Auditor-General (OAG) no later than three months after the end of the financial year and send copies to other agencies including National Treasury and Office of the Controller of Budget (OCOB). The MOD is also required by the Act to publish and publicise the financial statements. However, there is limited evidence to indicate that MOD publicises these statements. In addition, the COB is required by the section 9 Controller of Budget Act No. 26 of 2016 to publish and submit to parliament quarterly and annual financial reports detailing an analysis of expenditures of all government entities including MOD. [3]

Similarly OAG is also required to publish and submit to parliament audited financial accounts of all government institutions and state corporations including MOD. [4] Both OCOB and OAG publishes these reports regularly on its websites. Despite the multiple channels through which spending within the defence sector can be proactively published and accessed, details on actual spending for MOD as well as other national security institutions like Intelligence are often given in a disaggregated and superficial form.

A review of recently submitted reports, to both as budgets as well as actual expenditure as published, The National Treasury and OCOB respectively shows compared to other ministries, both budget estimates and actual spending reports from MOD are generally given in broad and general terms and limited details for experts to evaluate the actual spending will be as well as an explanation of the spending. [5, 6] For instance, some of the expenditure lines in the supplementary recurrent expenditure estimates for MOD in the year 2019/2020 were only marked as ‘other operating expenses’ without an explanation of these estimates, while others were marked as specialised materials and supplies.

Data on Kenya’s Ministry of Defence (MOD) expenditure alongside other government ministries and state corporations is published annually by a number of institutions, among them The National Treasury and Office of the Controller of Budget (OCOB). [1] This data is available to the Public from the National Treasury and OCOB website and is also submitted for review, debate and approval to the National Assembly where also the public can access.

Despite proactive publication of these reports, vast areas of actual spending published are not disclosed within the reports and there is no justifiable reason for withholding the information. SIPRI sometimes augments information from other sources and publishes further details, which are often shared via local media. However, much of its reports also have limited availability to the public. [2,3] However, the effectiveness of Parliament’s oversight on the Ministry of Defence is not guaranteed because the ministry is allowed by law, under Section 40 of the Public Audit Act No. 34 of 2015 to redact information from its audit and budget reports, which may be deemed as crucial for national security. [4]

Section 81 of the Public Finance Management Act No 18 of 2012 requires Ministry of Defence (MOD) to prepare and submit its financial statements to the Office of the Auditor-General (OAG) no later than three months after the end of the financial year and send copies to other agencies including the National Treasury and Office of the Controller of Budget (OCOB). [1] The OCOB is then required under section 9 of Controller of Budget Act No. 26, 2016, to publish submitted details of spending for all government entities, including MOD, to parliament for review and publicise them two weeks after submission.

The OAG also publishes reports of audited accounts for all ministries including the MOD annually within six months after the end of the financial year. [2,3] Both the OAG and OCOB publish reports within the timelines as required by Law implying MOD does submit its financial statements on time. However, it is important to note that unlike both The National Treasury and OCOB reports, OAG reports only contain audit queries from financial statements. Furthermore, while section 81 sub-section 4(b) of Public Finance Management Act requires government institutions including MOD to publicise their financial statements, MOD is not known to publish these statements at all.

Office of the Controller of Budgets (OCOB) and the National Treasury publish both budgets and expenditure financial statements from all government ministries and state corporations including the Ministry of Defence (MOD). [1] OCOB’s latest annual report indicates that on the whole, MOD budgets have normal budget variances and do not have significant variances from what is allocated as gross and net estimates, and the actual spending. [2] In the last two financial years, 2018/2019 and 2019/2020, MOD had 90 per cent expenditure of its gross revised estimates (93.9% and 92% respectively). [3]

The reports however explain these variances in a broad way and do not give a detailed analysis of what accounts for these variances. For example, despite the Office of the Auditor General finding gross irregularities with MOD’s reporting of statements of receipts and payments, OCOB did not publish why MOD recorded a 90% plus expenditure in a non-disclosed block figure. [4, 5]

The information on spending in the defence sector is published in the annual report of the Ministry of Defence, and is accompanied by a summary explanation: overall, the information provided remains superficial. The information given in the annual report is therefore insufficient to provide detailed explanations on defence spending [1].

According to the government reviewer, the Financial Statements for the year ending December 31, 2019 have been prepared according to the International Accounting Standards of the Public Sector of 2017 “Financial reporting according to Accounting based on Petty cash”, and they meet all reporting obligations arising from the Law no. 03/L-048 on Public Financial Management and Responsibilities, supplemented and amended by Law no. 0 /L-221, Law no. 04/L-116, Law no. 04/L-194, Law no. 05/L-063 and Law no. 05/L-007.

The information on spending in the defence sector is published in the annual report of the Ministry of Defence, and is accompanied by a summary explanation: overall, the information provided remains superficial. The information given in the annual report is therefore insufficient to provide detailed explanations on defence spending [1].

According to the government reviewer, the Ministry of Defense has prepared the Financial Statements in accordance with the requirements of Law no. 03/L-048 on Public Financial Management and Responsibilities, as noted in point 77A. In the required tables, details of the initial and final budget allocations are disclosed, as well as the changes that have occurred between the approved budget according to Law no. 06/L-133 on the Budget of the Republic for 2019 and the final budget allocations in the KFMIS for 2019.

The Ministry of Defence report is published annually in December. It covers actual spending during the same financial year [1].

According to the government reviewer, there is an overview of operating costs, capital expenditures allocated to ammunition & parts for armaments, infrastructure, vehicles, equipment and network systems.

Any potential differences between the published budget and actual spending are superficially explained in the annual report of the Ministry of Defence [1].

Figures from the security agencies and other Government bodies for actual spending are published on the Finance Ministry’s website monthly but they are broken down into vaguely worded categories like “expenses and other transactions” (1, 2, 3 and 4).

Also, the finance ministry says that it these reports are not entirely because “some” bodies do not present their monthly reports on time (1). Officials, including one from the interior ministry, said the security agencies are among the bodies that are frequently late (4, 5, 6, 7 and 8).

Both the monthly reports and the annual reports do not include explanations for the spending decisions.

The language used tends to be too complicated for non-experts. They, for instance, could have graphs on “current liabilities — amounts deducted from types of budget spending.”

It is important to note that the monthly reports of the 2016/2017 financial years were not released (9). The reason for that remains unclear.

Most of the budget is disclosed to the public, CSOs and the media but it does not come with a detailed breakdown of the expenses, explaining where the money went. Significant areas like arms procurement, cost of training and maintenance of equipment are not detailed on their own. They are often lumped together into one or two vaguely described categories like “expenses and other transactions” (1, 2 and 3).

The monthly and annual reports on budgets and spending do not include any justification for this. Neither do officials and the media (4,5, 6 and 7) . As previously discussed, auditing and oversight authorities do have access to the full budget even though much of military/security spending may be presented in highly aggregated form. The authorities do have the general power to demand more information but they are often unsuccessful in these attempts due to political interference and loopholes in the laws that regulate their work.

As discussed earlier, most details of actual spending are published in summary form without clear categories within a month of the actual spending decisions, sometimes eleven months before the end of the financial year (1). But even the Finance Ministry acknowledges in these reports that they do not accurately reflect all expenditures because the ministries are often late in their reporting. It is unclear how late they usually are but there is reason to believe that duration can be anywhere between a month or two to several years, officials said (2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7).

Variances between the published budget and actual spending are never explained (1, 2, 3 and 4).

Detailed data on the actual budget is published every year according to the Law on Budget and finance management [3]. Each legislative act is supported by annotation (14th paragraph). [1] According to the Law, all information should be presented in language undestandable for non-experts and all misnistries have to provide explanatory notes on the budgetary items and publish them on the their home pages. [2]

The vast majority of defence spending is disclosed according to the Law on Budget [1,3] and parliamentary oversight is ensured by the Defense, Internal Affairs and Corruption Prevention Committee. Parliamentary debates on the annual budget also cover the defence and security sector. However, secret items are debated only within the Committee. [2]

Details of actual spending are published within six months of the end of the financial year – by 1st June. Information is published on the home page of the respective institutions. The MOD has the obligation to report to the Ministry of Finance on defence spending in the 6th, 9th, and 12th months of the year. If the Cabinet of Ministers has specific requests, the MOD provides detailed information. [1]

Variances between the published budget and actual spend are provided by MOD, and are detailed. [1] Variances are explained to and debated by the Defence Committee. [2]

There are no reports published on actual defence spending, specifically (1). The Ministry of Finance (MoF) publishes irregularly a “Public Finance Annual Review” that indicates current expenditures including the actual annual “Salaries, Wages, and Related Benefits” expenditure for the LAF personnel (2). The MoF also publishes a monghtly reports, solely for the cost of personnel with the, including the military (3). However, the reports are not published in a timely manner. For example since 2015, MoF published the annual review for 2015 and 2017 but not for 2016 and 2018. (3)

The “Public Annual Finance Review,” when published, does not disclose the majority of the defence budget’s actual expenditure (1). Under the “Breakdown of Salaries, Wages, and Related Benefits” section, both the Annual Review and the Cost of Personnel reports cover salaries and wages, employment benefits, allowances, and “other”- “payments for maternity and sickness, marriage, birth, death, hospital, education, medical and various social allowances, and provided to military personnel only” (2) (3).

The published reviews are not presented to the public promptly. For example, the annual review for 2016 and 2018 are not published on the MoF’s website (1).

The annual reviews do not mention the expected expenditures present in the budget. The reviews present the actual expenditure for a set year and compare it with one to two years before. For example, the 2017 review included a summary of Lebanon’s fiscal performance for 2017 compared to 2016 and 2015 (1). The 2015 review compares the year with 2014 and 2013 as well (2). The reviews do not offer a comparison between the budget’s expected expenditure and the actual expenditure.

The Ministry of National Defence proactively publishes annual budget reports as well as consolidated quarterly reports [1]. Details on actual defence spending are published in disaggregated form together with an explanation intended for experts.

The vast majority of actual defence spending is fully disclosed (publicly available, source is given in column L, (2)) and there is clear and robust oversight of the full budget by other suitable authorities. The oversight is performed by a number of different authorities, first and foremost reports are sent to the Ministry of Finance in accordance and expenditures are to be explained in accordance with the budgetary allocations. The Ministry of Finance is also responsible for making sure that budgetary allocations are used efficiently and effectively. The reporting of different ministries, including Ministry of Defence, on measuring such efficiency and plans for the future has been made public [1].

Details of actual defence spending are published within six months of the end of the financial year. The End-of-Year report for 2017 was published on March 2018 [1].

Variance between planned and actual defence spending for 2019 was negligible: execution of budget was 99.6 percent [1]. Nevertheless, variances between the published budget and actual spend are detailed and explained [2].

The Defence Budget is presented to Parliament without detailing or itemising specific spending. Spending is never published for public consumption but is subject to the Auditor General’s Office annual auditing processes. [1] [2] [3]

No information on actual spending is publicly available, as such this indicator is scored Not Applicable. Defence spending is considered restricted information. [1] The government has procedures for the classification of all restricted documents. [2]

No information on actual spending is publicly available, as such this indicator is scored Not Applicable. It is not normal practice for the Malaysian government to have details of budget spending. Even Members of Parliament are not fully informed about the details of defence spending. [1]

No information on actual spending is publicly available, as such this indicator is scored Not Applicable. Information on variances between the published budget and actual spending is only available for internal ministerial personnel and for the Attorney General’s audits. It is never made public. [1] [2]

The Ministry of Economy and Finance of Mali proactively publishes the budget online in disaggregated form.¹ Details of actual spending on defence and security are accompanied by an explanation intended for experts.² Mali also publishes the Citizens’ Budget, a simpler and less technical version of the government’s Executive Budget, designed to convey information to the public.³

The vast majority of actual spending is disclosed. For instance, the 2018 budget for the MoD is divided into 5 sections: administration, military operations, army inspections, education, telecommunications.¹ However, according to the 2017 Open Budget Survey, the legislature overall provides a weak oversight in Mali (score below 41 out of 100). In particular, the debate on the budget occurs only after the publication of the Executive’s Budget Proposal, the legislative committees do not examine or publish the reports of their analyses of the Executive’s Budget Proposal online, and the legislature is not consulted during the implementation stage.² The supreme audit institution provides a better oversight (scoring 50 out of 100) and is considered to have autonomy of action and to be independent from the executive, but it is under-resourced and understaffed.

Despite publishing the In-Year Reports, which provide detailed information on the execution of the budget,¹ Mali does not make the Year-End reports publicly available.

The In-Year reports provide information on the execution rate of the budget for the defence and security sectors, which as of 31 March 2018 stood at 24 and 17 percent respectively. However, as the End-Year report is not made publicly available, it is not possible to assess the difference between budget and actual spending.

The Federal Government proactively publishes the spending exerted by each federal government institution through the SHCyP. In this Public Account, it can be seen whether the entity resorted to an over-exercise or under-exercise of the expense. [1]

Expenditure is broken down by direction, by object of expenditure, by programmatic functionality, etc., and also contains a general analysis of the fiscal year, although superficially. [2] [3]

The SHCP publishes the information related to the planning and exercise of public resources by dependency through the Budget Transparency platform. [1] However, the information that is published regarding actual defence spending is not detailed.

Journalistic investigations show that information is omitted in defence spending or that the figures are not always the real ones, for example, in arms spending. [2]

The Congress receives and annually reviews the Public Account of the Federal Government, through the Superior Audit of the Federation. It receives it no later than 30 April of each year. [1] [2]

The details of public spending, including one line on the total spending on defence, are published on the website of Public Accounts by 30 April of the following year. [3]

In the Public Statement it is possible to find information by dependency on the differences between the published and the actual budget. [1] [2] An analysis of the expenditure budget is even incorporated, in which this difference is pointed out and explained in general terms. [3] [4]

Reports on actual spending are not made available to the public at all. [1] Instead, information about expenditures are provided as part of the Government’s report on all expenditures from the budget, submitted to the Parliament usually 10 months after the end of the fiscal year. [2][3][4]

According to the MOD, the defence budget is transparent with clearly stated expenditure items. It is provided in a timely manner to legislative institutions. Details of actual spending are proactively published. The Parliament adopts the budget and the Final budget account and publishes them.

Reports on actual spending are not made available to the public at all. [1] As such, this indicator is scored Not Applicable.

Reports on actual spending are not made available to the public at all. [1] As such, this indicator is scored Not Applicable.

Reports on actual spending are not made available to the public at all. [1] As such, this indicator is scored Not Applicable.

No evidence was found in online research, offline research and interviews to suggest that reports on actual spending were made available to the public. Neither government nor non-governmental sources such as the media (foreign and local) and NGOs (foreign and local) mentioned that this information was available through other means such as face-to-face consultation. The interviewees stated that reports on actual spending were not disclosed to the public or to counter-powers such as Parliament (including members of the defence commission) (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9). This lack of transparency represents an increased risk of corruption.

No information on actual spend is publicly available, therefore this sub-indicator is marked as Not Applicable.

No information on actual spend is publicly available, therefore this sub-indicator is marked as Not Applicable.

No information on actual spend is publicly available, therefore this sub-indicator is marked as Not Applicable.

There is an audit mechanism but it is only an internal mechanism used by the Account Department [1]. Myanmar’s military has its own audit and the Office of the Auditor General does not have the power to scrutinise defence spending. The Ministry of Defence provides explanations of its expenditures to Parliament often. MPs have criticised the fact that they cannot scrutinise Myanmar military’s budget or defence procurement effectively. They also criticised the fact that the Office of the Auditor General’s annual report lacks transparency [2]. No information is published on specific defence spending or even given to Parliament [2].

This indicator is marked ‘Not Applicable’ as no information is published on specific defence spending or even given to Parliament [1].

This indicator is marked ‘Not Applicable’ as no information is published on specific defence spending or even given to Parliament [1].

This indicator is marked ‘Not Applicable’ as no information is published on specific defence spending or even given to Parliament [1].

Actual spending on defence and security is detailed in the defence annual report [1]. The figures are divided according to policy and non-policy items (e.g. ‘Contributions to NATO’, ‘Improvement of MK48 torpedo’) and are presented in a simple table format [1]. The document in its entirety goes into significant detail, but there is a short, simple table at the beginning of the document showing a summarised version of actual spending, disaggregated by the branches of the defence force (e.g. Army, Navy, Air Force, Defence Materiel Organisation) [1].

Just over 15 million euros (0.13%) of the 11.6-billion-euro defence budget is secret expenditure [1,2]. Article 7.20 of the Government Accounts Act 2016 stipulates that the board of the Court of Audit is given full information on secret items in order for checks and balances to occur [3].

The annual report is released in May following the year in question (five months after the end of the financial year) [1].

In the annual report, special attention is given to ‘overruns’ and ‘undershoots’, i.e. where the budgeted figures and the actual spending do not match [1]. The Central Government Audit Service assists with this accountability measure. This is presented in a table format whereby, for each item, the budget, the actual expenditure and the difference are positioned side by side. The reason for the difference is explained [1]. As an example, the actual spending for the operation ‘Resolute Support’ (Afghanistan) was more than 10 million euros over what was budgeted. This is explained by the need to construct a new camp for the German Special Operations Advisory Team (SOAT) and the purchase of six armoured vehicles required for the SOAT [1].

The Treasury publishes monthly and annual financial statements, which contain general data and explanation on actual expenses [1, 2]. Detailed information are published in annual MoD and NZDF reports. [3, 4].
Moreover, all Estimates are presented in a Government-wide standard format with explanations. While these meet New Zealand auditing and accounting practices, they could be better disaggregated for non-experts. On the other hand, it may be said that anyone seeking clarification may do so through an OIA request or from further research into Estimates reports, previous years’ annual reports and reviews, and, in particular, the Auditor-General’s briefing of the Votes to the FADTC [3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10].

Oversight of all budgetary data is comprehensive, with adequate material available for public scrutiny [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14]. No exceptions could be identified, though if there were, these would undergo the same level of oversight by the OAG and the auditors appointed by that office.

Under the Public Finance Act 1989, the NZDF and MoD are required to report on its operations at the end of the financial year. The annual report must be completed and audited within three months of the end of the financial year and then presented to the House of Representatives and published. [6].
The Treasury publishes monthly and annual financial statements [1, 2]. The Budget process is divided into a number of phases: the Strategic Phase, which lasts from June-December; the Decision Phase from January-April; the Budget Production Phase; the Legislative Phase; and the Implementation phase [3]. According to the Treasury, “decisions taken during the Strategic Phase are reflected in the Government’s Budget Policy Statement (BPS) which is required to be tabled in Parliament by no later than 31 March. The BPS is usually published alongside the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update in December” [3]. Completing the process, the Implementation Phase sees additional “spending authorised by Parliament before the end of the financial year, via the Appropriation (Supplementary Estimates) Bill. In the interim, authority for additional spending is provided by an Imprest Supply Act” [3]. For example, the first Imprest Supply Bill for 2020 was introduced to Parliament on 23 June where it had its First Reading on the same day, its Second Reading on 24 June, and attained Royal Ascent on 29 June [3, 4, 5].

Budget comparisons, to include budgeted, actual spending, and forecasts, are published annually and alongside the Supplementary Estimates and Additions to Supplementary Estimates [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. Explanations are also provided in annual reports as well in the submissions and advice to FADTC, including during the visual coverage as part of their annual review process [6, 7, 8, 9].

The Ministry of Finance proactively publishes the annual budget on its website in an aggregated form (1). For 2018, Niger adopted a Citizen Budget but did not make it publicly available online (2).

The vast majority of actual spending is not disclosed. For instance, in the 2018 Budget 127 620 531 550 francs CFA was allocated to the MoD under only three vague expenditure categories: management and administration, security, and peacekeeping (1).
According to the 2017 Open Budget Survey, Niger’s legislature provides limited oversight in the formulation stage (score of 57 out 100) and a weak oversight in the implementation stage (score of 7 out of 100); according to the same survey, the supreme audit institution provides limited budget oversight (score of 45 out of 100) (2).

Details of actual spending are published more than twelve months after the end of the financial year (FY). For instance, the End-Year Report for 2015 has been adopted by the legislature in May 2017 and published online only in October 2017 (effectively 22 months after the end of the FY) (1).

Niger publishes the End-Year Report with considerable delay. Also, despite being updated on the Ministry of Finance website, the document for the FY 2015 is not accessible (1). For FY 2014, the End-Year Report did not show the difference between budget and the actual spending (2). For 2018, Niger published the In-Year report, which provides information on the budget’s execution rate for the Ministry of Defence as of 31 March 2018 (3).

The Budget Office of the Federal Republic of Nigeria proactively publishes the budget online in a disaggregated form (1). The budget is accompanied by an explanation intended for experts (2) as well as two documents intended for non-experts (Citizens Guide to Understanding the FGNs’ 2018 Budget of Consolidation and Countryman’s Guide to the 2018 Approved Budget) (3), (4).

TThe vast majority of actual spending is fully disclosed. For instance, the 2018 Budget provides detailed information on all the expenditure items, including spending on management and administration, procurement of military equipment, training, military operations, personnel (1).

According to the 2017 Open Budget Survey, Nigeria’s legislature provides a limited oversight (score of 53 out 100) in both the planning and the implementation stages of the budget cycle; according to the same survey, the Auditor-General for the Federation provides adequate budget oversight (score of 61 out of 100), in so far it has significant autonomy of action and independence but it is insufficiently resourced (2).

According to Section 30 and 50 of the Fiscal Responsibility Act (2007), the Budget Office is required to prepare and submit periodic Budget Implementation Reports to the Joint Finance Committee of the National Assembly and the Fiscal Responsibility Council no later than 30 days after the end of each quarter (1). The Fourth Quarter and Consolidated Budget Implementation Report (BIR) provides information on the allocation and spending of resources by Government Agencies during the fourth quarter, as well as the entire fiscal year. As of October 2019, all the BIRs for 2018 – including the Fourth Quarter and Consolidated BIR for 2018 had been published by the Ministry of Budget and National Plannning.

Actual spending for the 2016 FY was slighlty lower than the budget (95.93%) (1). Variances are explained in the budget.

The Ministry of Defence proactively publishes annual reports on the execution of the budget in a detailed format [1]. However, information is organised in a confusing way, divided between each of the five Ministry of Defence accounts. This makes the retrieval of information more difficult.

Most details of defence spending are disclosed, including the destination of this spending (including administration, army, peace and humanitarian operations, properties and services, military academies, promoting defence and security or public administration reforms). Information also includes details on spending for the Ministry of Defence sub-programmes such as the infrastructure spending and integration into the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. According to the 2017 Open Budget Index, the legislative powers and the supreme audit institution in Macedonia provide limited oversight over the budget [1].

Details of defence spending are published within six months of the end of each financial year. For instance, the 2017 annual reports was published in February 2018 [1].

Variances between the published budget and actual spending amounts are are not publicly explained [1].

The Government submits the annual fiscal account report to Parliament in April [1]. The accompanying explanation is intended both for experts and non-experts. The report then goes to the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs before Parliament votes on it and approves in plenum, usually in the first part of June. In addition, the Armed Forces publish the Defence Annual Report with details concerning actual spending on defence and security. The Defence Annual Report is available to the general public [2]. It includes a detailed breakdown of defence expenditures, including figures for personnel (salaries and allowances), administrative expenses, procurement/acquisitions, disposal of assets and maintenance. Within these categories, detailed line-item descriptions can be found. The Defence Annual Report is accompanied by illustrative figures and concise summaries with clear language for non-experts. Moreover, during the budget year, the Government Agency for Financial Management publishes disaggregated figures for the central Government revenue and expenditure on a monthly basis [3].

The Government’s annual fiscal account report and the Defence Annual Report provide details of the vast majority of actual defence spending with exceptions being made for the intelligence service and the special forces, where only the overall budgets are disclosed [1, 2]. The annual fiscal account report, including secret items, is scrutinised by the Office of the Auditor General of Norway [3]. Apart from fiscal audit, the Office of the Auditor General of Norway controls also public taxes and procurement regulations [4].

The Government’s annual fiscal account report is published in April, i.e. within less than 6 months of the end of the fiscal year. Parliament votes on it and approves it during a plenary session which is usually held in the first half of June [1]. The Defence Annual Report is usually published in April the following year. The most recent report concerning the 2018 budget was published in April 2019 [1].

The annual fiscal account report prepared by the Ministry of Finance includes a report from the Ministry of Defence highlighting and explaining variances between the enacted budget and the actual expenditure [1].

The government and the MoD do no release any reports on spending and expenditures on the military. It is considered confidential data and not accessible to the public (1), (2). The website of the MoD does not include any reports on defence expenditure (3), (4). No media reports were found breaking down defence spending. The only public information available is the defence budget, published through royal decree (5). All information detailing defence procurement was found on foreign websites (6), (7).

This indicator has been marked Not Applicable because no reports are released to thepublic on actual spending.

Oman does not provide any information about its actual defence spending, and neither does the defence sector make information about its procurement public. However, there are some figures available from external sources. The government provides the annual budget of the MoD without any details (1), (2).

This sub-indicator has been marked as Not Applicable, as Oman does not provide information about its actual defence spending, and neither does the defence sector make information about its procurement public. There are no published financial reports to answer this question (1), (2).

This sub-indicator has been marked as Not Applicable, as Oman does not provide information about its actual defence spending, and neither does the defence sector make information about its procurement public. There are no published financial reports to answer this question (1), (2).

Up to 2016, it was possible to read published reports on the total spending of the military and security apparatuses in the West Bank. In 2017, the reports were taken down (researcher observation in 2016), they started to upload them again in 2019. However, Alaa Tartit, a Palestinian researcher, has published some articles on the security sector in which he argues that the military and security consume more than 30% of the PA budget. Other news outlets (in resources) have mentioned these figures. In general, the publication of the budget and actual spending is minimal (1). Aman discussed the general budget in 2016, and some data comes from their reports (2).

According to several AMAN reports and their officials, there is no detailed and comprehensive budget and spendings of the defence expenditures (1). There are reports available online at the MoF website that show total spending and the total income monthly, but nothing is disaggregated or explained in detail (2).

There is no defined date or a routine of publishing the budget or reports. According to several sources, there is a need for routine publication of data related to the budget, considering public consultations to discuss the budget and expenses (1). Quarterly reports about the PA’s finances used to be published on time, which was indeed a good practice; however, they did not include sufficient information on the security forces (2).

Any new budget includes a section that explains the variations between the actual and the budget amount for the year before (1). However, this narrative summarizes the general budget for the PA, and not the security or defence sector. Furthermore, some economic think tanks such as the Palestine Economic Policy Research Institute-MAS, as well as the IMF, keep track of such differences of the overall budget, but not on the defence and security sector per se.

Details of defence expenditure are proactively published via the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) website in disaggregated form with some explantion provided, although this may be unclear to non-experts [1].

With the exception of intelligence spending, a big portion of defence expenditure is fully disclosed and publicly available [1]. According to an interviewed legislator, data on actual spending is generally presented to legislators but, when it comes to intelligence funds, only the objectives are shared [2]. While the Commission on Audit has the authority to look into confidential funds, its capability to scrutinise is limited [3].

Details of actual spending are published within 12 months of the end of the financial year [1].

Variances between the published budget and actual spend are not explained at all [1].

The Ministry of Finance proactively publishes monthly and annual reports on the implementation of the state budget, including defence-related issues [1]. The publication is accompanied by an explanation intended for experts.

The MoD budget is broken down by chapters (“Public administration”, “National defence”, “Social security schemes”, “Administration of Justice”, “Academic education”, “Health care”, “Culture”) [1]. However, with regards to actual spending, information is provided in aggregated form.
According to the 2017 Open Budget Index, the legislature and supreme audit institution in Poland provide adequate oversight of the budget (82 out of 100) [2].

The annual report on the implementation of the state budget, including for defence, is published within six months of the end of the financial year. For instance, the 2017 annual report was published in June 2018 [1].

Reports on state budget implementation, including the defence sector, released by the Finance Ministry, do not explain differences between the planned and actual spendings. [1]
Annual financial reports of the defence ministry do not provide such clarifications, too. [2]

Actual spending is proactively published as the State General Account [1], and it includes the defence sector [2, 3, 4, 5]. Less detailed quarterly data is also published proactively [6], as are oversight reports [7, 8]. Quarterly data and oversight reports are not disaggregated; State General Accounts are disaggregated. None of these documents has non-expert versions, nor do they have summaries for non-experts.

The State General Account report alluded to in Q77A is comprehensive, but oversight reports suggest accounting and expenditure tracking errors with regards to the defence sector [1, 2, 3, 4]. In-year reports provide aggregate spending data. The State General Account is not redacted for security reasons; data related to defence spending is comprehensive.

The State General Account report is required by law to be submitted to Parliament and the Tribunal de Contas (CA) within six months [1], and Parliament records show it has been published according to legally established timelines [2, 3, 4, 5].

The State General Account audit report registers variance between the published defence budget and actual spending [1, 2, 3, 4]. Explanatory notes on the budget also discuss variance [5, 6, 7, 8, 9].

Qatar does not make reports on defence spending available to the public [1]. The Qatar defence budget and expenditures that are made available to the public do not include any breakdown and consist of top-line round figures rather than actual spending reports [2]. There is no comprehensive information available in relation to the defence budget and expenditure. There is a total lack of transparency in relation to information about defence in Qatar [3,4].

This sub-indicator has been marked as Not Applicable as Qatar does not provide information about its defence spending, and the defence sector does not make information about its procurement public [1,2].

This sub-indicator has been marked as Not Applicable as Qatar does not provide information about its defence spending, and the defence sector does not make information about its procurement public [1,2].

This sub-indicator has been marked as Not Applicable as Qatar does not provide information about its defence spending, and the defence sector does not make information about its procurement public [1,2].

None of the MoD financial or audit departments provide any information about MoD spending [1]. Only the Accounts Chamber’s annual report on the implementation of the federal budget provides some information about aggregated spending on defence [2]. Page 104 of the report on the 2017 budget presents the changes in the defence budget approved by the federal budget amendment laws [3], while page 115 provides a few remarks about the defence budget’s compliance with the goals and audit regulations [3]. For example, page 240 of the report says that it lacks reference to the laws that regulate the MoD spending of over 337,000 million rubles [3].

So, although there is a report on defence spending showing the planned and actual aggregated sums of defence spending, it cannot be considered a source of information about defence spending. Everything seems to be classified.

This indicator is marked ‘Not Applicable’ because there is no information about actual defence expenditure.

This indicator is marked ‘Not Applicable’ because there is no information about actual defence expenditure.

This indicator is marked ‘Not Applicable’ because there is no information about actual defence expenditure.

The Saudi government has never published reports on actual defence spending, only minimal details on projected defence budgets.

As Saudi Arabia does not publish figures on actual defence spend, this sub-indicator is marked not applicable.

As Saudi Arabia does not publish figures on actual defence spend, this sub-indicator is marked not applicable.

As Saudi Arabia does not publish figures on actual defence spend, this sub-indicator is marked not applicable.

The MoD publishes data on actual spending during the budget year, in format which corresponds to the budget, i.e. the data are disaggregated by budgetary programmes, projects and items. (1) However, the MoD does not publish any accompanying explanations which would, for instance, account for the differences between budgeted and executed costs or point to the relevant Minister’s or the Government’s decisions on reallocations. According to Serbian legislation, budgetary beneficiaries such as ministries can make minor modifications to their budget without an external approval, whereas the Government has to decide about significant modifications and any allocation of additional funding from budgetary reserves to particular beneficiaries in the course of the fiscal year. (2)

The reports which are published in the course of the fiscal year (1) do account for the entire defence expenditures, but they provide little information about what exactly has been bought with the money. The budget items to which the expenditures are disaggregated are in line with Serbian rules on budgetary classification. Thus, they are generic (e.g. “salaries”, “contracted services”, “machines and equipment”) and, while they can help calculate how much money was spent on personnel, maintenance or equipment, they do not reveal, for example, what equipment was paid for or which services have been contracted. The MoD does publish quarterly public procurement reports (2), but those cannot be directly linked to expenditures reports.

Serbia introduced programme budgeting in 2015 (3). The MoD’s budget does to certain extent provide an overview of the ongoing projects, so that it is possible to learn about specific project expenditures. However, the budget does not list all the projects and major known arms purchases (such as Mi-35 and Mi-17 helicopters bought in 2018 (4)) are not presented as separate projects. In 2018, 45% of MoD’s expenditures for “machines and equipment” were presented under the very general programme titled “Functioning of the MoD and SAF”. (5) The MoD’s expenditures are subject to audit by State Audit Institution, but audits are not carried out regularly (please refer to Subindicator 17A for more information).

Details of actual spending are published within six months of the end of the financial year. For the 2018 FY a mid-year report was published on 20 July 2018 [1,2].

In 2018, the MoD spent around 15 billion dinars (around 127 million euros) more than it was assigned in the budgetary law for that year, having overdrawn its official budget by over 20%. (1,2) Any allocation of additional funding to a budgetary beneficiary could be implemented either through amendments to the budgetary law (so-called rebalance) or by a government’s decision. (3) However, the National Assembly did not pass any budget amendments in 2018 and an overview of the official gazette (Serbian: Sluzbeni glasnik) issues for that year shows no government decision on budgetary reallocation in favour of the MoD. (4) Therefore, the influx of money towards the MoD in the course of 2018 occurred in a highly informal and utterly non-transparent way. No public official has addressed this discrepancy.

Figures for actual defence spending, have consistently been published and compared with earlier projections during the annual parliamentary budget debate, but expenditure is not disaggregated, and there is no explanation on what the various spending activities comprise of [1].

Significant areas of defence expenditure are undisclosed without clear justification. For example, “Military expenditure” accounted for the majority of spending for the revised 2018 Financial Year figure (S$14.1 billion out of a total spend of S$14.7 billion); there is no explanation of what this line item encompasses [1]. There appears to be provision for oversight of the full budget by suitable authorities such as the Government Parliamentary Committee for Defence and Foreign Affairs (GPC-DFA) and the Auditor-General’s Office (AGO), but it is not clear how effective this oversight is [2, 3].

Details of actual spending are published within twelve months of the end of the Financial Year, which commences on 1 April of every calendar year and ends on 31 March of the next calendar year. For example, the 2018 expenditures had been released during the Finance Minister’s Budget statement on 18 February 2019 [1].

The annual defence expenditure estimates provide a brief overview on the increase/decrease in projected and actual spending between preceding years along with broad explanations for these changes, but variances between the published budget and actual spend are not explained [1].

The Department of Defence (DoD) publishes an Annual Report each financial year with a detailed breakdown of spending by service and type for the preceding financial year, dated 1 April to 31 March. These are usually accompanied by detailed explanations and executive summaries [1]. This is augmented by the publishing of the full intended budget vote per department in February each year [2], along with an amended estimate of the year’s spending in the Medium Term Budget Policy Statements of October [3].

All defence spending is disclosed by programme, sub-programme, and type in the DoD Annual Report, usually with substantial detail [1]. Allocations for armament acquisitions and covert operations are specified in terms of their total size, but not their internal contents and purpose [2]. While Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Defence has oversight over the DoD’s budget and compiles an annual Budget Review and Recommendations Report [3], in practice, its members are prevented from viewing details deemed ‘sensitive’ outside of a closed hearing, yet no such closed hearing has been scheduled by the chairperson in recent years [4].

The DoD’s Annual Report is typically presented to Parliament in October or November of each year [1]. The South African fiscal year runs from 1 April to 31 March [2].

The financial statements in the Annual Report contain detailed information, along with accompanying explanations for each divergence between the budgeted amount announced in the annual appropriation vote and the actual amount spent over the entire year for each line item, referred to as virements [1].

Actual spending of the defence budget is published in disaggregated form and made public online via Bill Information, a website run by the National Assembly. The report on the settlement of accounts includes information on salaries, military pension, food and clothing, maintenance of military institutions, and training and administrative expenses. This is accompanied by comments, but some parts lack detail. For instance, it is not clear what spending on “soldiers’ health and welfare” covers based on the report released in 2018. [1] [2]

Overall defence spending is fully disclosed through the parliamentary website on an annual basis (see Q77A). The National Defence Committee at the National Assembly is responsible for reviewing spending on the defence budget. [1] [2] However, there is information missing, such as a “special activity fund”, referring to expenses for investigating and gathering information that requires a high level of confidentiality. The special activity fund is allocated to the MND and exempt from parliamentary scrutiny. [3]

After reviewing the annual report on the settlement of accounts for the MND, it appears that it is published within six months of the end of the financial year. In 2018, the report for a previous year submitted by the government was uploaded in May 2018. [1]

The report on the settlement of accounts published in 2018 includes variances between the published budget and actual spending in detail. The report contains the total budget and expenditure, as well as the amount not used. For instance, expenditure on military personnel salaries for the past 4 years is explained alongside the published budget with comments. [1]

Financial audits are not available to the public. In general, the last time the audits of government business were made available was in 2008. [1] To date, no audits of government business have been made public, in direct violation of the Constitution.

Financial audits or budgets are not available to the public; as such, this indicator is marked ‘Not Applicable’. In general, the last time the audits of government business were made available was in 2008. [1] To date, no audits of government business have been made public, in direct violation of the Constitution. [2]

Financial audits or budgets are not available to the public; as such, this indicator is marked ‘Not Applicable’. In general, the last time the audits of government business were made available was in 2008. [1] To date, no audits of government business have been made public, in direct violation of the Constitution. [2]

Financial audits or budgets are not available to the public; as such, this indicator is marked ‘Not Applicable’. In general, the last time the audits of government business were made available was in 2008. [1] To date, no audits of government business have been made public, in direct violation of the Constitution. [2]

Article 135 of General Budgetary Law 47/2003 establishes that the General Intervention of the State Administration (IGAE) will publish regular reports on the execution of the budget [1]. It has a monthly report updated on the IGAE website [4]. There is a publication that contains superficial information on the payments made monthly, as well as at an accumulated level, from the beginning of the year and until the end of the period to which it refers [2].
Additionally, Parliament and its committees can request from the government the information they deem appropriate regarding budgetary execution, including defence and other military budgets [3].

General Budgetary Law 47/2003 establishes in Article 37.2 [1] that the draft General State Budgets Law will be accompanied by complementary documentation with an advance of the liquidation of the current year, and the liquidation of the budgets of the previous year will also be accompanied as complementary documentation. However, as explained previously, it is usually the absence of relevant parts of the budget that are included in other ministries or added into the executed budget at the end of the year. Authorities such as the General Intervention of the State Administration have oversight due to the establishment of measures that reinforce its supervision, as stated by article 144 of the aforementioned General Budgetary Law 47/2003.

Article 135 of the General Budgetary Law 47/2003 [1] establishes that the General Intervention of the State Administration (IGAE) will make information on the execution of budgets available to the Parliament monthly. To comply with this order, a monthly publication on its website is available [2].

There are several publications on the execution of the overall budget that includes defence. All of them contain monthly, annual, and information on payments and about accumulated level from the beginning of the year and until the end of the period to which it refers, but the explanations are broad [1].

Reports of actual defence and security spending are not available to the public. The Ministries of Defence and Interior lack visibility on actual defence sector revenue and spending, since individual elements are not required to verify how they spend funds, including expenditure of independently generated revenues from foreign entities and private businesses in which the respective military elements are engaged. Any actual spending reports that government officials claim to offer with respect to defence and security spending will therefore be inaccurate. Publications of overall government spending (beyond the defence sector) have been very delayed in past years. The information that is released is usually very cumulative, not detailed, and lacks any information whatsoever about defence and security spending. A report prepared by researcher Roberto Martinez B. Kukutschka for Transparency International emphasises that ‘according to the International Budget Partnership, only one of eight key budget documents are made available online within a timeframe consistent with international standards’ [1]. The International Budget Partnership’s 2019 Open Budget Survey for Sudan scored Sudan’s transparency 2 out of 100, noting that ‘Sudan provides the public with scant budget inflormation’. Enacted budgets, year-end reports and audit reports for 2019 were published late, not published online or produced for internal use only [2].

This indicator is marked Not Applicable as no information on actual spending is publicly available. According to the International Budget Partnership, only one of eight key budget documents are made available online within a timeframe consistent with international standards [1].

In 2017 and 2019, the International Budget Partnership’s Open Budget Survey for Sudan found that only a pre-budget statement was made available to the public; year-end reports on spending were not available – although one was made available in 2015 [1]. This indicator is therefore marked Not Applicable.

According to the International Budget Partnership, only one of eight key budget documents are made available online within a timeframe consistent with international standards [1]. Since there is no reliable information available about either the full budget or expenditure for the defence sector, it is impossible to track variances between the two. This indicator is therefore marked Not Applicable.

Details of actual spending on defence and security are proactively published in disaggregated form in the Swedish Armed Forces (SAF) annual reports [1] [2] [3] [4]. Budget posts are in many cases accompanied by a general comment or explanation, but these are not always clear nor necessarily intended for non-experts.

The vast majority of actual defence spending is fully disclosed. There is provision for oversight of the full budget by the Swedish National Audit Office (NAO) [1]. However, it is unclear how effective this oversight is in practice since there have been recurring reports of cost over-runs related to e.g. the ongoing fighter aircraft [2] and submarine R&D [3] projects.

The SAF annual reports [1] [2] [3] [4], which include the details of actual spending, are published within six months of the end of the financial year.

Variances between the published budget and actual spend are detailed and explained in the SAF annual reports [1] [2] [3] [4].

The actual spending is reported at the end of the year State Financial Statement (Staatsrechnung) [1]. It contains overall numbers for income, personnel, administration and armament. It follows the framework (“Zahlungsrahmen”) given by the budget: Subdivided into several specific credits including financing of current effectiveness and needs, Equipment and Renewal (AEB), Projects, Testing and Procurement preparation (PEB), Ammunition (AMB), and the property plan [2, 3]. Discrepancies are highlighted, and short explanations are added, while some selected projects are explained more in detail. Overall, the granularity of the information and the level of detail is limited. There are two yearly projections (“Hochrechnungen”) that are submitted to the Finance Committee of the Parliament. They have to be submitted on 30 June and 30 September of each year (Article 142.1.c ParlA) [4, 5].

The actual full spending is reported at the end of the year State Financial Statement (Staatsrechnung) [1]. It contains overall numbers for income, personnel, administration and procurements. It lists separately the statements for the different departments part of the Federal Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sport (DDPS) including separate statements for Armasuisse, intelligence services, the supervisory entity for the intelligence service, defence (training, IT, administration, etc.). The defence section, in turn, differentiates credits following the budget: Financing of current effectiveness and needs, Equipment and Renewal (AEB), Projects, Testing and Procurement preparation (PEB), Ammunition (AMB), and the property plan [2, 3]. The budget for the intelligence service is only disclosed generally and not details are provided publicly. There is a sub-committee of the Finance Committee of the Federal Assembly, which is overseeing the DDPS and the Federal Department of Justice and Police (FDJP) in financial matters. It has the same powers as the Security Policy Committee [4, 5].

The Federal Council has to submit the financial statement in the following year at least two months before the session of Parliament when it should be discussed (Article 142.1.c ParlA). There are two yearly projections (“Hochrechnungen”) that are also published and passed to the Finance Committee of the Parliament. They have to be submitted on 30 June and 30 September of each year (Article 142.4 ParlA). The Federal Council proposes the legislative financial planning (“Legislaturfinanzplan”) and the Federal Assembly decides on the planning (Article 19.4 FHG and Article 146.4 ParlA) [1, 2] This has in the reporting period for this index always happened in the first half of the year, either for the spring session or a special session in May [3].

The actual spending is reported at the end of the year State Financial Statement (Staatsrechnung) [1]. Every position is compared to the previous year and the budgeted amount. Discrepancies are highlighted, and short explanations added. There are two yearly projections (“Hochrechnungen”) that are submitted to the Finance Committee of the parliament. They have to be submitted on 30 June and 30 September of each year (Article 142.1.c ParlA) [2, 3].

Annual Final Reports are compiled by the National Audit Office and made open to the public [1]. In the Annual Final Reports, figures are categorised and presented in disaggregated forms with limited annotations [2]. During the fiscal year ministries, including Ministry of National Defence, are obligated to compile and publish monthly, quarterly, semi-annual and annual accounting reports, which contains data on actual spendings [3].

The vast majority of actual defence spending is fully disclosed in the Annual Final Reports of the MND, which are compiled into Government’s Annual Final Reports by the National Audit Office (NAO), with the NAO’s oversight and scrutiny [1, 2, 3]. However, there are still exceptions made for legitimate sensitive areas, which are regulated by “The Classified National Security Information Protection Act”, being kept in secrecy [4, 5].

The government’s Annual Final Reports, audited by National Audit Office, are announced and disclosed during the third quarter of each year for the previous year [1, 2].
During the fiscal year ministries, including Ministry of National Defence, are obligated to compile and publish monthly, quarterly, semi-annual and annual accounting reports, which contains data on actual spendings [3].
The annual 2020 accounting report was published by MND on its website on Apr, 24, 2021 [4,5].

In general, variations between the approved budget and the actual spend are explained in broad and general terms [1, 2]. Studies suggest that account types of “Military Capital” vary most between the published budget and the actual spend, mostly due to agency problems in the area of public budget execution [3].

In each budgetary session of the parliament, actual spending of previous years in the defence sector are usually proactively published. [1] [2] However, such spending is not given in a disaggregated manner and is usually in PDF format. One source indicates that explanations are provided alongside spending information [3]; however this could not be verified in the public domain.

WIth no disaggregated information, it is difficult to believe that significant areas of spending are fully disclosed during budgetary sessions. While there may be general justifications of national security, no specific justifications are provided. [1] [2]

General expenditure items are usually communicated in the following year. [1] [2] This means that in each budgetary session in parliament, the defence sector would start by tabling its previous year’s expenditures before requesting the new budget.

Some general variances are usually stated. As explained before, the budgetary speech begins by tabling how the previously budget was spent. However, such variances are only explained in general terms and in speeches. [1] [2] [3]

There are the annual budget reports, which were conducted retrospectively in accordance with the Regulations of the Ministry of Defence on Public Financial Accounting 2012 [1]. Each annual report consists of four sections, presenting an overall image of the ministry in terms of the strategic plans, performance of each department, financial and accounting reports and significant operations. The reports were implemented by the Office of Internal Audit under the Royal Thai Armed Forces Headquarters. However, only the reports for the fiscal years 2017, 2018 and 2019 are available. These reports provide information on justification of purchases, lines of responsibility, timelines, mechanisms and outcomes [2,3]. There is also a comparative report on the MoD’s and other ministries’ revenue and expenditure budget between the fiscal years 2018 and fiscal year 2020 available online. These ministries’ revenues and expenditures are comparatively analysed based on the projects and strategies of each year throughout the targeted period. However, the information on the budget for each strategic plan is provided broadly [4]. These reports are accompanied by a summary explanation, but they are overly broad or general in parts.

According to the Regulations of the Ministry of Defence on Internal Audit 2010, the Ministry of Finance allows the MoD to be subject solely to internal audit. Even though the ministry still has to submit an annual report to the State Audit Office, it is not required to publish the report [1]. However, the reports for the MoD’s annual budgets between 2017-2018 were issued by the Royal Thai Armed Forces Headquarters. These reports contain descriptions of the budgets, categorized by strategic plans, expenditure and projects or outputs, as well as graphs showing comparisons with the previous year. The reports also provide information on justification of purchases, lines of responsibility, timelines, mechanisms and outcomes. Nonetheless, the details of huge purchases such as submarines are not provided with clear justification, while expenditure on promoting the royal family seems to be explained out of place as one of the key projects of the army [2].

There are the annual budget reports, which were conducted retrospectively in accordance with the Regulations of the Ministry of Defence on Budget 2012 [1]. However, only the reports for the fiscal years 2017, 2018 and 2019 are publicly available. These reports were posted online within six months of the end of the financial year, with the exception of the report for the fiscal year 2018 [2].

According to the Budgetary Procedures Act 2018, Section 10, annual budget appropriations to be submitted to the National Assembly (or the current government) must at least be accompanied by comparative details of income and expenditure for the past year, the present year and the year for which the appropriations are defined. However, these documents are not required to be publicly published [1]. In 2018, the Parliamentary Budget Office released a comparative analysis report on the published budgets and actual spending of the fiscal year 2017-2018, as well as the proposed annual budget of the fiscal year 2019, which includes the details and explanations of variances between the published budget and the actual spending of the MoD. Nonetheless, the reports for the fiscal year 2015-2016 are missing [2].

According to our sources, there is no public detailed data on the actual military spendings. Although there are efforts to make budgets and financial data available for the public through the MoF, the MoD are still not included in these budgets (1,2).

As there is no publicly available information on actual spend, this sub-indicator should be marked as Not Applicable.

As there is no publicly available information on actual spend, this sub-indicator should be marked as Not Applicable.

As there is no publicly available information on actual spend, this sub-indicator should be marked as Not Applicable.

The CoA is the only oversight body that publishes regular annual performance reports about the Ministry of Defence and the National Intelligence Organization (MIT). As exemplified by the 2019 Performance Reports of the CoA about the Ministry of Defence and the MIT, covering the fiscal year of 2018 [1,2], these reports do not include details on the actual spending and financial activities of defence/security actors, such as the Ministry of Defence, the SSB and the state-owned foundation firms attached to the Turkish Armed Forces Foundation (TSKGV), in the previous year. It should be noted that figures for actual spending are published by the CoA, but there is no explanation provided and/or spending is not disaggregated. This is the primary obstacle causing transperancy problems.

As seen in the performance report cited aboved, significant areas of spending are undisclosed without any clear justification. There is no evidence of any oversight of the full budget by other suitable authorities [1].

CoA reports are generally published roughly within twelve months of the end of the financial year [1].

In the CoA’s annual performance reports, variances between the published budget and actual spending are not explained at all [1].

These are published in the Budget Performance Report and in ministerial policy statements [1] of the Ministry of Defence and Veteran Affairs (MoDVA). There is a section that provides an overview of sector expenditures and sets out the sector’s contribution to the National Development Plan (NDP), its policy objectives, and key performance issues [2]. Even though these documents are public, many people, especially in rural areas, may not have access to them since they do not have internet access. These reports are disaggregated and accompanied by explantions intended for experst . However, it is not intended for non-experts.

According to the Budget Performance Report for the Ministry of Defence, at the beginning of FY 2018/19, the MoDVA was allocated a budget of Shs. 2,005.158bn. In the course of the financial year, the MoDVA sought supplementary funding worth Shs 385.454bn (Shs 380bn for classified and 5.45bn for wages) was appropriated by Parliament to cover the budget shortfalls in the above-mentioned areas. Overall, the MoDVA received a total budget allocation of Shs 2,390.612bn for the FY 2018/19 constituting 9.6% of the National budget[1]. For the FY 2019/2020 [2], during quarter one (1) of FY 2019/20, the MoDVA undertook various activities including infrastructure development, Human Resource Management, processing and payment of terminal benefits, enhancement of professionalism, provision of welfare, policy, planning and support functions among others. For the combat service support (Logistics;) to sustain troops in operations and nonoperational areas, the MoDVA continued to provide logistics to troops across the country. In the period under review, Logistical requirements received a budget funding of Shs 46.5bn. This was used to offset 80% of the domestic arrears, and more procurement was made as follows; a) Textiles and Rubber Products; Procurement of clothing materials worth Shs. 9.4bn was paid for digital uniforms, T-shirts, Ranger and Jungle boots, warm suits and service socks. b) Food UPDF procured foodstuffs for the Forces worth Shs 32bn for troops in operations, training Schools, Patients among others. c) Fuel (Strategic Hqs and Services). In quarter one of the financial year, the MoDVA was engaged in a number of activities, including LDU operations in Kampala Metropolitan and around the
Country and increased training to ensure security. Fuel was also used to facilitate operations, transportation of personnel and logistics, maintenance of equipment and warming of aircraft. The MoDVA procured fuel and Lubricants worth Shs 7.6bn in the categories of AGO, PMS, LUBs, BIK and LPG. d) Maintenance and Repair of Vehicles
Last FY 2018/19, the MoDVA acquired a number of Command vehicles. This increased the transport fleet, thus increasing the demand for spare parts, tyres and routine maintenance.

In the first quarter, the MoDVA procured spare parts, tyres and maintained vehicles at a cost of Shs 1.5bn. Under Recruitment and Training: a) Recruitment: In the first quarter of the financial year, the MoDVA recruited 13,000 LDUs who are undergoing training in different UPDF training institutions. b) Training abroad: A total of 115 personnel underwent various courses in the region and abroad; c) In-land training: At the beginning of FY 2019/20, the UPDF training program planned for 43 in-land courses at different training centres. By the end of September 2019, eleven courses were completed, and the remaining 32 courses ongoing. While Enhancement of Welfare; a) Salaries and Emoluments
In the first quarter of FY 2019/20, the MoDVA ensured that salaries for soldiers were paid on time. By the end of September 2019, Shs 143.5bn was paid out in salaries.

The details of the actual spending are part of the Budget Performance Report [1], which is published at the beginning of the new financial year. The Budget Performance Report assesses whether or not the budget that was allocated was spent well, as well as its impact and shortfalls. These findings will then inform the various inputs for the budget in the new financial year.

The Budget Performance Report is a detailed report providing the deatils of each government minstry budget for the out going fincail year as they embark on the new finacial year. The report explains in details how much money was allocated to a ministry, how much was spent, the achievements registered as well as the shortfalls, and recommendations on how these challnges should be addressed in the new finacial year. According to the Budget Performance [1], at the beginning of FY 2018/19, the MoDVA was allocated a budget of Shs 2,005,158bn. In the course of the FY, the MoDVA sought supplementary funding worth Shs 475.4bn; however, only Shs 385.454bn (Shs 380bn for classified and 5.45bn for wages) was appropriated by Parliament to cover the budget shortfalls in the above-mentioned areas. Overall, the MoDVA received a total budget allocation of Shs 2,390.612bn for the FY 2018/19 constituting 9.6% of the national budget. There was a variance between what was allocated (Shs 2,390.612bn) and what was spent (Shs 2,390,612bn) due to the supplementary budget and the reasons were given for seeking it. These variances are provided in all the ministerial policy statements for each financial year.

The Ministry of Finance provides monthly and annual reports on the implementation of the budget in an aggregated form [1]. No further explanation or information on how the budget allocated for defence is implemented is made publicly available.

The State Treasury of Ukraine provides detailed reports about the budget spending by years, quarters and months on different positions and institutions. For example, in the report about the spending the state budget of 2019, there is information about MoD with detailed sum of money spent on salaries, food, medical supplies, social expenditures, energy bills, research and development [1]. However, according to the 2017 Open Budget Survey, the legislature and Supreme Audit Institution in Ukraine provide adequate oversight of the budget (83 out of 100) [2].

Details of actual defence spending are published within six months of the end of the financial year. For instance, the annual report for 2017 was published in April 2018 [1].

Variances between the published budget and actual spend are not explained [1].

There is no evidence that military spending and military purchase reports are made public. Data on military purchases is considered confidential and not published (1,2).

As there is no information on actual spending that is publicly accessible, this indicator is marked Not Applicable.

As there is no information on actual spending that is publicly accessible, this indicator is marked Not Applicable.

As there is no information on actual spending that is publicly accessible, this indicator is marked Not Applicable.

The Ministry of Defence Annual Report and Accounts publishes details of actual spending on defence and security proactively and in disaggregated form [1] They are accompanied by an explanation intended for experts, as well as concise summaries with clear language for non-experts [1]. In addition, the MOD also publishes statistical data on departmental resources on an annual basis [2].

Actual defence spending is fully disclosed [1]. There is clear and robust oversight of the full budget by other suitable authorities, such as the National Audit Office [2].

The Ministry of Defence Annual Report and Accounts 2019-20 was published in October 2020, seven months after the end of the financial year, due to exceptional delays resulting from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Previous reports in 2018/19 and 2017/18 were published in July, less than six months after the end of the financial year (March) [2, 3].

The Annual Report and Accounts contains explanations of variances between the out-turn and the monies voted on by Parliament through the Estimates process. The report is highly detailed and the explanations are comprehensive [1].

The DoD publishes an agency-wide financial report for the previous fiscal year, overseen by the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) [1]. The report includes disaggregated and detailed financial statements with accompanying notes and explanations. The reports provided a significant level of detail; the FY 2019 financial report, for example, is 268 pages long [2]. However, given the size of the defence budget (the DoD received total appropriations of $914.2 billion in FY 2020), the detail within the financial reports is ultimately still kept at a very high level of the DoD. All the financial reports can be found on the Comptroller’s website, dating back to 2002 [1].

The annual financial reports do provide significant detail on expenditures, although disaggregated details on specific programmes are not provided. For example, it is not possible to see expenditures relating to acquisitions. Furthermore, as noted above in 77A, given the enormity of the defence budget, it is likely that a lot of documentation is kept at a very high level only. The financial report includes the independent external audit report of the financial statements, although the external auditors have provided a ‘disclaimer of opinion’ for the last few years, so there are questions regarding both the standard of DoD financial reporting and the comprehensiveness of the external oversight [1,2,3]. The DoD Comptroller also publishes an annual report on the balances carried forward by the DoD at the end of each financial year [4].

The fiscal year in the United States begins on 1 October and ends on 30 September. The annual financial reports in 2018, 2019 and 2020 were all published in mid-November, approximately six weeks after the end of the financial year [1,2,3].

The financial report includes a ‘Statement of Changes in Net Position’, meaning the sum of unexpended appropriations provided to the DoD that remain unused at the end of the fiscal year. Some disclosures relating to variances are provided but these do not refer to specific programmes; rather, they are restatements of financial statements from previous fiscal years (see Note 20 in the FY 2019 and FY 2020 reports) [1,2]. Disaggregated data for the entire government budget can be found on the Bureau of Fiscal Service’s website. The data for the DoD and military is clearly outlined however, no accompanying explanation is provided [3].

The Venezuelan constitution establishes a principle of accountability and the right of citizens to be informed about the management of public administration [1]. However, since 2016 the government has not made the budget or fiscal accountability reports public. As such, there is no official information on either the budget or the true expenditure of the defence sector [2, 3].

The latest annual report and account from the Ministry of the People’s Power for Defence (MPPD) showed the data of the implemented budget for the 2015 fiscal year [4]. Since this publication, social organisations have published unofficial estimates for the defence sector’s implemented budget [5, 6].

This indicator is marked ‘Not Applicable’. No information on defence sector expenditure has been made public since 2015. Unofficial information on defence budget implementation is limited in that it shows estimates of total amounts. [1, 2]

Estimates of defense budget expenditure indicate a steady decline in defence spending since 2013 [1]. However, this expenditure remains high compared to expenditure in other sectors [3].

Details of the implemented budget were not included in the lastest MPPD report and account, for the 2015 fiscal year. Rather, total amounts of expenditure were offered for projects, bodies and entities attached to the MPPD and state military enterprises [4].

This indicator is marked ‘Not Applicable’. No information on defence sector expenditure has been made public since 2015. However, prior to the worsening of the country’s political crisis, when the executive branch still remained accountable to the National Assembly (AN), a document was published within the first 60 days of the year showing resource implementation and financial results for the previous year [1].

The executive has performed its January accountability reports in an unconstitutional manner in the years since 2016. This formality has been conducted outside of the constitutional process: in 2016, the report was presented and approved before the Supreme Court [2], and in 2017 and 2018 it was presented to the Constituent National Assembly (ANC) [3, 4]. On none of these occasions has the information been published; presidential speeches provide the only evidence, indicating general objectives that are said to have been fulfilled during the administration.

This indicator is marked ‘Not Applicable’. Since no information on the MPPD budget and accountability reports has been officially published since 2016, it is impossible to determine the difference between resources allocated and resources implemented.

The latest official documents, issued with the 2015 budget and financial statements, showed the total amounts for the allocated and the implemented budget without details or justification of the differences between the two [1].

According to monitoring carried out by social organisations, expenditure at the end of each fiscal year is higher than the attribution in the budget act due to factors including hyperinflation and discretion in the management of resources by the executive [2]. This is also reflected in the amount of additional appropriations that are approved annually, increasing the budget by more than 600% of the prescribed resources [3]. These resource additions are made involving increasing irregularities; they are approved by the judicial branch, though it has no jurisdiction in this, and without publication of the justifications for these appropriations [4].

Details of actual spending are published by the minister of finance through the budget of the following calendar year. The information is not disaggregated, nor is there any explanation for money spent or deficits in the budget [1].

In principle, there is a Defence Forces Commission which must be chaired by the chairperson of the Civil Service Commission, whose responsibility includes the setting of salaries, allowances, and benefits of the defence personnel. They must also ensure good administration of the defence forces seemingly at a basic general policy level and advise the president on these matters [1, 2]. However, in practice, there is no evidence of this extent of oversight happening. There is general access to Ministry of Defence expenditure against appropriation by the auditor general for all the five years under review [3, 4, 5, 6]. The complaint in most of the Office of the Auditor General Zimbabwe’s reports is that there are no returns to support the expenditure lines and the expenditures are not detailed enough to provide enough information on what it was being spent on [7].

At the end of each calendar year, the minister responsible for finance presents consolidated statements of expenditures which make part of his/her presentation of the following year’s fiscal policy statement; it is at this point where spending of all government departments is revealed. This takes place within a cycle of every 12 months [1]. The Office of the Auditor General (OAG) also reviews all public accounts and submits the report to Parliament and the minister responsible for finance [2]. Books belonging to the Ministry of Defence are also scrutinised in this process. The OAG reports are accessible to the public. There is no separate publication of defence spending outside this framework.

Variances between amounts appropriated and the actual spend are outlined in general and not detailed; they are not explained, the variances are only stated at the presentation of the budget of the following calendar year. The OAG also found that expenditures versus appropriations have general disparities from 2016-18. These disparities were published in the report, with recommendations for their correction, some of which were acknowledged as implemented in the following year’s report [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9].

Country Sort by Country 77a. Proactive publication Sort By Subindicator 77b. Comprehensiveness Sort By Subindicator 77c. Timeliness Sort By Subindicator 77d. Comparison against budget Sort By Subindicator
Albania 75 / 100 50 / 100 100 / 100 0 / 100
Algeria 0 / 100 NA NA NA
Angola 50 / 100 50 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Argentina 25 / 100 75 / 100 100 / 100 50 / 100
Armenia 100 / 100 75 / 100 100 / 100 0 / 100
Australia 50 / 100 75 / 100 100 / 100 75 / 100
Azerbaijan 0 / 100 NA NA NA
Bahrain 0 / 100 NA NA NA
Bangladesh 75 / 100 75 / 100 50 / 100 0 / 100
Belgium 75 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100 75 / 100
Bosnia and Herzegovina 75 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100 75 / 100
Botswana 0 / 100 NA NA NA
Brazil 25 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100 50 / 100
Burkina Faso 25 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100 NEI
Cameroon 25 / 100 25 / 100 100 / 100 NA
Canada 75 / 100 75 / 100 100 / 100 50 / 100
Chile 25 / 100 50 / 100 100 / 100 0 / 100
China 0 / 100 NA NA NA
Colombia 50 / 100 75 / 100 100 / 100 50 / 100
Cote d'Ivoire 75 / 100 75 / 100 50 / 100 NA
Denmark 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100 75 / 100
Egypt 0 / 100 NA NA NA
Estonia 75 / 100 50 / 100 100 / 100 25 / 100
Finland 50 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
France 25 / 100 75 / 100 50 / 100 50 / 100
Germany 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100 50 / 100
Ghana 100 / 100 50 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Greece 25 / 100 25 / 100 50 / 100 50 / 100
Hungary 75 / 100 75 / 100 100 / 100 0 / 100
India 25 / 100 50 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Indonesia 75 / 100 50 / 100 100 / 100 50 / 100
Iran 0 / 100 NA NA NA
Iraq 0 / 100 NA NA NA
Israel 50 / 100 50 / 100 50 / 100 50 / 100
Italy 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
Japan 50 / 100 75 / 100 100 / 100 0 / 100
Jordan 0 / 100 NA NA NA
Kenya 50 / 100 50 / 100 100 / 100 50 / 100
Kosovo 50 / 100 25 / 100 100 / 100 50 / 100
Kuwait 25 / 100 50 / 100 50 / 100 0 / 100
Latvia 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
Lebanon 25 / 100 25 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Lithuania 75 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
Malaysia 0 / 100 NA NA NA
Mali 100 / 100 50 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Mexico 50 / 100 25 / 100 50 / 100 50 / 100
Montenegro 0 / 100 NA NA NA
Morocco 0 / 100 NA NA NA
Myanmar 0 / 100 NA NA NA
Netherlands 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
New Zealand 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
Niger 25 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Nigeria 100 / 100 75 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
North Macedonia 25 / 100 75 / 100 100 / 100 0 / 100
Norway 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
Oman 0 / 100 NA NA NA
Palestine 50 / 100 25 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Philippines 50 / 100 50 / 100 50 / 100 0 / 100
Poland 75 / 100 50 / 100 100 / 100 0 / 100
Portugal 50 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
Qatar 0 / 100 NA NA NA
Russia 0 / 100 NA NA NA
Saudi Arabia 0 / 100 NA NA NA
Serbia 25 / 100 50 / 100 100 / 100 0 / 100
Singapore 25 / 100 50 / 100 50 / 100 0 / 100
South Africa 100 / 100 75 / 100 50 / 100 100 / 100
South Korea 75 / 100 75 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
South Sudan 0 / 100 NA NA NA
Spain 50 / 100 50 / 100 100 / 100 50 / 100
Sudan 0 / 100 NA NA NA
Sweden 75 / 100 75 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
Switzerland 50 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
Taiwan 75 / 100 75 / 100 100 / 100 50 / 100
Tanzania 25 / 100 25 / 100 25 / 100 25 / 100
Thailand 75 / 100 50 / 100 50 / 100 75 / 100
Tunisia 0 / 100 NA NA NA
Turkey 25 / 100 25 / 100 50 / 100 0 / 100
Uganda 75 / 100 50 / 100 100 / 100 50 / 100
Ukraine 25 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100 0 / 100
United Arab Emirates 0 / 100 NA NA NA
United Kingdom 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
United States 100 / 100 50 / 100 100 / 100 50 / 100
Venezuela 0 / 100 NA NA NA
Zimbabwe 25 / 100 25 / 100 50 / 100 0 / 100

With thanks for support from the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) and the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs who have contributed to the Government Defence Integrity Index.

Transparency International Defence & Security is a global programme of Transparency International based within Transparency International UK.

Privacy Policy

UK Charity Number 1112842

All rights reserved Transparency International Defence & Security 2023