Government-by-Government Assessments: Suriname
During the review period, the government made its executive budget proposal and enacted budget easily accessible to the public within a reasonable period, but not its end-of-year report. Information on debt obligations was publicly available, including for the sole state-owned enterprise. The budget included major sources of revenue and expenditure. Actual revenue and expenditures corresponded to those in the enacted budget. The government generally followed internationally accepted accounting principles, but it continued to treat loans as revenue. The supreme audit institution met international standards of independence and audited the entire annual executed budget. The government specified in law or regulation the criteria and procedures for awarding natural resource extraction contracts and licenses but did not appear to follow these procedures in the mining sector specifically. Basic information on natural resource extraction awards was not publicly available for mining sector concessions. The sovereign wealth fund had a sound legal framework. There are no funds in it, however, so there were no sources of funding nor general approach to withdrawals to disclose.
Suriname’s fiscal transparency would be improved by:
- Making its end-of-year report publicly available within a reasonable period;
- Fully preparing budget documents according to internationally accepted principles by distinguishing between loans and actual revenues;
- Following laws and regulations for contracting and licensing in natural resource extraction in practice; and
- Making information on natural resource extraction awards publicly available.