annexes to the final report of the intosai … report - annexes.pdf · during its fourth meeting on...
TRANSCRIPT
ANNEXES
to the FINAL REPORT of the
INTOSAI Working Group
on
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR AND AUDIT OF
DISASTER-RELATED AID
2
ANNEX 1
INTOSAI Working Group Accountability for and Audit of Disaster-related Aid (AADA)
INTOSAI Working Group AADA: Work Programme 2011-2013
INTOSAI WG AADA WORK PROGRAMME 2011 – 2013
Procedure for the adoption of the Work Programme
During its fourth meeting on 26 November 2010 in South Africa the Chairman of the INTOSAI
Working Group on Accountability for and Audit of Disaster-related Aid (AADA) presented a
number of suggestions for the Work Programme 2011-2013 (see also the letter of the Chairman
sent to the Working Group members, dated 8 November 2010). Stock was taken of what had
been planned and achieved so far, particularly based on the Work Programme 2008-2010 that
had been adopted in 2008.
The Members agreed with the proposed procedure and the timeline for the adoption of the
Work Programme, i.e. further consultation would take place by e-mail and/or conference calls,
leading to the adoption of the Work Programme by the Spring of 2011. Consultations by the new
Working Group Chairman started in February 2011, including inviting all those Working Group
members with a (possible) specific responsibility for a task to comment on the draft fiche
covering that task. During May 2011 a round of consultation with all the Working Group
members regarding all the draft fiches was held. At the end of June 2011 the latest comments
were received. After reception of the current version of the draft Work Programme the Working
Group Members had five working days to provide comments in writing, by e-mail. The final
version has been sent to all Members and has been been posted on the Working Group’s website
(http://eca.europa.eu/intosai-aada).
3
Focal points of the Work Programme
In line with the two work packages included in the first Work Programme (2008-2010) the
Working Group will continue to have two main overall objectives:
A) The development of guidance and good practice in the area of audit by Supreme Audit
Institutions. This covers all steps in the audit cycle: preparation and planning,
implementation, and reporting. Additionally, the audit of disaster-preparedness of
governments and the auditors’ awareness of risks of fraud and corruption are also addressed.
B) To establish guidance and good practice in the area of accountability. Accountability
includes the provision of clear, transparent and standardised information, i.e. an integrated
financial reporting framework available to all stakeholders. This is an essential pre-condition
for accounting for disaster-related aid. The Working Group has directed its activities towards
important stakeholders (international organisations, aid organisations, governments) in this
respect.
To realise these objectives the Working Group will seek to cooperate with international standard
setting bodies active among the various stakeholders. Several relevant initiatives have been
taken by various bodies in recent years, on which the Working Group can build further. It has
made efforts to develop audit guidance for SAIs and to promote accountability amongst the main
actors in disaster-related aid by approaching international standard setting bodies. The audit
guidance material is intended to be helpful to SAIs in auditing of disaster-preparedness or
disaster-related/humanitarian aid. This guidance does not yet have official status, however. The
Working Group’s objective is to have a set of tested audit guidelines approved by the next
INTOSAI Congress in 2013.
In the coming two years up to the 2013 Congress, the Working Group will be finalising the
guidelines and testing them in practice. In addition the integrated financial accountability
framework still requires promotional work. Obtaining feedback on the practical implementation
of this framework is also needed. The Working Group has noted that these challenges in
accountability and audit are common to the humanitarian aid field as a whole.
The success of the Working Group’s proposed integrated financial accountability model depends
on the extent to which it is accepted and adopted by all actors in the field. Getting the largest
donors on board will represent an important advance in improving accountability of disaster-
related aid.
For the Work Programme 2011-2013 the two aforementioned overall objectives lead to the
following activities:
4
A) On audit guidance:
1 Elaborating the current guidance documents. It would be desirable that the SAIs
responsible for the tasks to this date continue to do so;
2 Obtaining comments from experienced parties on and if feasible testing of the model
audit programmes which are part of the guidance for auditing disaster-preparedness and
the guidance for auditing disaster-related aid. This can be done by identifying:
- SAIs that have performed such audit work recently or are currently conducting such
work and offering them the audit guidance material developed so far for their comments;
and
- what audits on disaster-related aid have been planned for the next two years and offer
to the SAIs concerned the audit guidance material developed so far.
Volunteer SAIs take responsibility to take stock of the audit results and the usefulness of
the guidance material and/or to test the guidance material in the audit foreseen. Through
their comments these volunteer SAIs help to ensure that the lessons learned are fed into
the process for further developing the audit guidance;
3 Integrating the guidance material into one common document.
On guidance and good practice in the area of accountability 1 Regarding donors: stimulate donors to enhance harmonised financial reporting or
agreement on the basic principles that would be used in financial reporting, where
possible based on the Integrated Financial Accountability Framework (IFAF) model;
2 Regarding NGOs: assist the Humanitarian Accountability Partnership in developing an
updated Guide which will be a tool for aid agencies for implementing accountability
standards, including an internal control component;
3 Regarding the UN: organising support from SAIs to introduce harmonised financial
reporting or agreement on the basic principles that would be used in financial reporting,
internal control guidance and audit arrangements.
5
Overview of the fiches with separate tasks in the Work Programme
The above activities have been translated into a list of 13 fiches, each with a separate task and an
indication of the SAI(s) responsible. An overview of these tasks is attached.
Draft Time Schedule
For discussion on progress in the implementation of the Work Programme 2011-2013 the WG
needs to schedule its meetings for the coming two years, leading to a final report by the WG to
the XXIst INCOSAI in China in November 2013. The aim is that by then all tasks will be achieved
and the Working Group could subsequently be dissolved.
Members of the Working Group
A detailed overview of the contact details of all the members of the Working Group has been
provided by the Chair in May 2011.
6
Overview of tasks in the 2011-2013 Work Programme
Fiche no.
Description Standard setting body Responsible SAI (underlined is the lead SAI
1 Lessons learned from experiences with the International Aid Transparency Initiative
UN OCHA
IATI
Global humanitarian assistance
Transparent Aid
Korea
2 Harmonisation of accountability standards for aid organisations: development of HAP Guide as a tool
HAP international ECA
3 Harmonisation of accountability standards, financial reporting/agreement on basic principles for financial reporting and promotion of single audit addressed to donors
OECD/DAC and GHD
ECA/Norway
4 Auditing guidelines for private auditors of aid organisations
IAASB
IFAC
INTOSAI
OECD/DAC
HAP
To be decided during the 5
th Working Group
meeting in October 2011
5 Introduction harmonised reporting and auditing in UN
RIAS ECA
6 Elaboration of guidance for auditing disaster-related aid
INTOSAI Indonesia/Peru
7 Organisation and coordination of a parallel audit and/or audit feedback on disaster-related aid
INTOSAI Indonesia
8 Elaboration of the guidance for auditing disaster-preparedness
INTOSAI Turkey/Austria/Kenya
9 Organisation and coordination of a parallel audit and/or audit feedback on disaster-preparedness
INTOSAI Turkey
10 Note to ISSAI 1240 on Awareness of fraud and corruption during audits of disaster-related aid
INTOSAI
IFAC
ECA
11 Integration of the audit guidance documents into one and possibility of ISSAI(s)
INTOSAI ECA
12 Use of GIS as an audit tool INTOSAI Netherlands
13 Financial Accountability Information Requirements
Major private donors
USA
7
8
ANNEX 2
Turkish Court of Accounts
Summary report for the parallel audit on disaster preparedness
Within the INTOSAI Working Group on Accountability for and Audit of Disaster-related Aid(AADA), the Turkish Court of Accounts (TCA) is responsible for two tasks closely linked to each other: the preparation of ISSAI 5510, and the organisation and coordination of a parallel/coordinated audit on disaster preparedness, on the basis of the draft ISSAI 5510.
Objective: The main objective of this parallel/coordinated audit is to test the draft audit guidelines and improve its contents.
Participating SAIs: The SAIs of Azerbaijan, Chile, India, Indonesia, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Philippines, Romania, Ukraine, and Turkey (lead SAI) volunteered to participate in the parallel/coordinated audit.
Scope of the parallel audit: The participating SAIs decided to adopt a broad audit scope and perspective in carrying out the parallel audit. This would facilitate the achievement of the objective of using the draft ISSAI 5510, testing it and improving its contents, and also it is more convenient for fulfilling the new perspective brought by the UN/ INTOSAI 21st ―Effective practices of cooperation between SAIs and citizens to enhance public accountability‖.
Methodology used in the parallel/coordinated audit: Carrying out the parallel/coordinated audit, organising meetings and carrying out a survey were the main tools used. Within the parallel/coordinated audit, TCA organised three meetings with the aim of providing and exchanging information among participating SAIs and discussing important issues. Two surveys were conducted among the participating SAIs for collecting comparable information on the participating SAIs‘ audit studies. Most communication was through e-mail.
Progress:
The first step of the parallel/coordinated audit on disaster preparedness was the kick off meeting. It was held on October 26th, 2011 in Antalya/Turkey, after the 5th meeting of WG AADA. In this meeting, a basis and the next steps of parallel/coordinated audit were formed and discussed. For the parallel/coordinated audit, planning, implementing and reporting stages as milestones were specified. After the first meeting, TCA prepared a study proposal which it shared with the participating SAIs.
The second meeting of parallel/coordinated audit on disaster preparedness was held on April 25-26, 2012 in Ankara/Turkey. In the meeting:
• Attention was focused on making the concept of disaster-preparedness clearly in line with the revised draft Guidelines and on reaching a common understanding that auditing disaster-preparedness should be handled in a broad frame covering risk assessment and disaster prevention and mitigation. This means that in this
9
parallel/coordinated audit, the concept of disaster-preparedness was used in place of disaster risk reduction.
• Other issues discussed concerning the parallel/coordinated audit included how to design and conduct the audit, which audit perspectives and types should be implemented, etc.
Meanwhile, the first survey was made to take the participating SAIs‘ opinion about some subjects such as:
• designing and implementing the parallel/coordinated audit,
• specifying how to conduct the parallel/coordinated audit with common questions and criteria or different questions and criteria,
• cooperation and the basis for sharing information among SAIs,
• presenting the results of the parallel/coordinated audit,
• taking the opinion of participating SAIs about the previous version of draft ISSAI 5510.
After the second meeting and in the light of the survey results, TCA prepared a draft common audit design matrix including main questions, sub-questions, criteria and methodology and shared with the participating SAIs with the aim of forming a comparable basis for the joint report in light of the first survey‘s results. Taking the participating SAIs‘ opinions on the draft into account, TCA gave and share the final form of audit design matrix.
Before the third meeting, the second survey was sent to participating SAIs to form a common basis for presentations which would be made in the third meeting, and also to collect data which the participating SAIs would provide directly. With this survey:
• some data such as audit findings/conclusions and recommendations, audit objectives, audit approach/scope, risks, good practice examples concerning the audit studies of the participating SAIs was collected,
• some information about the subjects in the audit programme which take place within the scope of the exposure draft of ISSAI 5510 was obtained,
• the assessment of the participating SAIs about the policy gap, improving international and regional collaboration and promoting efficiency of the SAIs in the field of auditing disaster-preparedness was taken.
The third meeting of parallel/coordinated audit on disaster-preparedness was held in Istanbul, 07-08 February 2013. In the last meeting, the individual audit studies were presented by the participating SAIs, and also the structure of joint report was discussed. As of the end of March 2013, TCA has been working with participating SAIs on information which will be included in the draft joint report. It is expected that the joint report will have been published before the end of 2013.
Within the scope of the parallel/coordinated audit, The SAIs of Azerbaijan, Chile, India, Pakistan, Romania (flood), and Turkey fulfilled performance audit studies with common questions and criteria. The SAI of Indonesia and Romania (earthquake) used different questions and criteria. The SAIs of Philippines and Ukraine carried out the mixed/compliance audits in different timetable. The SAI of the Netherlands has just commenced an audit.
10
Results obtained:
The most important result of the parallel/coordinated audit was having ten SAIs successfully collaborate. Each member of this joint initiative has tried to pull its own weight within their respective legal and institutional constraints. The other results are as follows:
• Publishing a joint report: In the parallel/coordinated audit, the participating SAIs are decided that a joint report will be prepared. Nowadays, the TCA has been conducting the data analyses process constituting the basis for the joint report. It is anticipated that a joint report will have been published before the end of 2013.
• Preparing some training materials: Within the scope of the parallel/coordinated audit, each SAI followed its own audit methodology. Some of them are unusual and distinguishing techniques. For example, verification list which Romania SAI used for the assessment of GIS risks and controls in their earthquake study. The auditors are not acquainted with GIS as it is relatively a new technology. For that reason, further information will be helpful for all auditors. Before and after analyses was made by the Turkish SAI in VAN, where in 2011 an earthquake stroke.
• Testing and enriching the content of the ISSAI 5510: During fulfilling of the parallel/coordinated audit, the SAIs mostly used the exposure draft of ISSAI 5510 and its previous versions. By this way, the adequacy of the ISSAI 5510 was mostly tested and its content partly improved step by step. Moreover, information that will be obtained during analysing data and preparing the joint report will likely help improving the content of ISSAI 5510.
• Lessons learned: An assessment paper, reflecting the experience and covering the conclusions drawn and recommendations will be prepared. We believe that this paper will provide feedback and make contribution to the other works of INTOSAI, more particularly ISSAI 5000 Principles for Best Audit Arrangements for International Institutions and Guide for Cooperative Audit programs Between Supreme Audit Institutions.
How the outcome of the work can be used by SAIs:
First of all, the parallel/coordinated audit was designed the broadest scope with regard to disaster risk reduction. Therefore, any SAI intend to fulfil an audit on any part of disaster risk reduction will be able to find directing information.
In this frame, SAIs can benefit the outcome of the work while:
• specifying their own questions and criteria. In this study, common questions and criteria were specified with a participatory understanding. It means that all of participating SAIs reflected their own knowledge and experiences and as a result, comprehensive examples were provided for SAIs.
• taking decisions on which types and scopes of audit are more suitable in their audit field. In the scope of this joint initiative, besides the parallel/coordinated audit in accordance performance audit methodology and in the framework common questions and criteria, different types of audit studies (mixed/compliance) was carried out. Followed different types of methodologies will facilitate the SAIs‘ decision which types and scopes of audit it must conduct.
• designing, conducting and reporting the succeeding studies in the field of disaster risk reduction that this parallel/coordinated audit will provide a basis.
In addition, this study will set an example to compare the SAIs‘ own audit studies in this field.
11
ANNEX 3
Audit Board of Indonesia
REPORT ON THE PARALLEL AUDIT
ON REHABILITATION AND RECONSTRUCTION PHASE
A. Background
In terms of disaster relief activities, Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) have a legal and/or social responsibility to ensure that the disaster-related aid received has been used as intended and managed effectively, efficiently, and economically. SAIs have to uphold and promote public accountability. This is why as independent and non political organizations, SAIs should share their expertise, knowledge, and experience to enhance the accountability and transparency of disaster-related aid.
Within the framework of INTOSAI Working Group on Accountability for and Audit of Disaster-related Aid (WG AADA) Work Program 2008 – 2010, BPK- RI, with the support from SAI Peru, has developed draft Audit of Disaster-related Aid: Guidance for Supreme Audit Institutions (ISSAI 5520). To improve and develop a comprehensive set of audit guidance on disaster-related aid, the INTOSAI WG AADA Work Program 2011 – 2013 has included a task to launch, organise and coordinate a parallel audit on disaster-related aid, on the basis of audit design matrix in the draft audit guidance. BPK has taken up the task to organize and coordinate this initiative in 2013.
B. Objectives
The objectives of the parallel audit are:
1. To test and provide feedback on the draft ISSAI 5520, including the use of audit design matrix;
2. To share knowledge and experience in audit on rehabilitation and reconstruction phase;
3. To develop a compendium audit report, including lessons learned.
C. Participating SAIs
SAI of Indonesia, SAI of Pakistan, SAI of Turkey, and SAI of India are participating in the parallel audit. Meanwhile SAI of Ukraine committed to be an observer.
D. Revised Time Schedule
No Events Time Venue (Expected) Output
1 Kick off June 2012 Yogyakarta, SAI‘s agreement
12
No Events Time Venue (Expected) Output
meeting Indonesia
2 2nd meeting November 2012
Bali, Indonesia
1. Audit Design Matrix
2. Audit Timeline
3. Audit Plan
3 Intermediary meeting
February 2013
Istanbul, Turkey
SAI‘s agreement on:
1. Audit timeline
2. Online platform
4 Field audit* February – June 2013
Participating SAIs
1. Finding sheets
2. Draft national audit report
3. Proposed joint audit report
5 3rd meeting** July TBD 1. Design and develop joint audit report
2. Lessons learned
*) Still on progress
**) To be discussed during field audit
E. Audit Type and Scope
BPK-RI proposes a performance audit, but it is possible for participants to propose other audit types based on their audit objectives, needs and mandate. It is recommended that the proposed audit type will be compatible with the implementation of audit design matrix. The SAIs of Indonesia, India, and Turkey will apply a performance audit approach, while the SAI of Pakistan will apply a comprehensive audit approach (combining performance, financial, and compliance approaches).
The audit scope may cover all proposed topics or be limited to selected topics, which are action plans for Disaster Recovery, damage and need assessment, housing recovery, infrastructure and government building reconstruction. Risks and objectives related to each topic are shown in the audit design matrix attached.
F. The utilization of parallel audit outcome
The outcome of parallel audit on rehabilitation and reconstruction should be utilised as follow:
1. A joint audit report will benefit SAIs who are not participating in the parallel audit, for example to get to know the audit process and results
2. The lessons learned obtained from the parallel audit will be used to review ISSAI 5520 for its first revision so that the guidance will be more comprehensive and easier to apply.
13
APPENDIX 1
POINTS OF AGREEMENT
KICK OFF MEETING PARALLEL AUDIT ON REHABILITATION AND RECONSTRUCTION
No Point(s) Agreement(s)
1. Participating SAIs SAIs of Indonesia, India, Pakistan, and Turkey
2. Type of audit BPK recommends performance audit, but participating SAIs are permitted to choose other types of audit
3. Audit objectives The primary objectives of the parallel audit is to share knowledge and experience and to test out guidance. If possible, the audit will provide a consolidated report when BPK finds similar topics or issues
4. Audit methodology The more detailed audit methodology will be provided by BPK and communicated to all interested SAIs. Each interested SAI is also expected to share their opinion to the methodology through secured online communication
14
APPENDIX 2
Audit Design Matrix INTOSAI WGAADA – PARALLEL AUDIT ON REHABILITATION AND
RECONSTRUCTION PHASE
Audit Topic: Preparation of Action Plan for Post Disaster Recovery/RR
Audit risk: Inadequate action plan can be misleading
Audit Objective: To evaluate the adequacy of action plan used as a platform in RR program implementation
Researchable questions Criteria & information required Information sources Evidence gathering and
data analysis methods
Limitations of
audit and analysis
Expected
conclusions
1. Are there effective and feasible plans in place for post disaster rehabilitation and reconstruction?
Criteria:
- DMA’s guidelines
- Best practices
Information:
- Practicable plans for post disaster rehabilitation and reconstruction should be in place.
- Plans and reports of the entity in charge
- Internal and external correspondences
- Legislation
- The previous audit reports
- Practices of other countries
2. Does the Disaster Management Agency (DMA) specify RR program and activities in action plan based on accurate damage figures?
Criteria:
- DALA Handbook from ECLAC
- DMA’s guidelines
- Best practice
Information:
- Recovery/ RR activities are classified into some important sectors
- The conformity of recovery activities in each sector with the damage assessment
- DMA sets priorities based on the urgency and recovery time frame
- DMA sets schedule or time line for recovery activities and assigns institutions in charge for each activity;
- DMA and related institutions sign an MoU or joint agreement/commitment about their responsibilities.
- DaLA report
- RR Action Plan which consists of prioritised recovery activities and their schedules, programs/activities in each sector and in early recovery and long term recovery
- Minutes or other documentation of coordination meeting among related parties
- MOU or joint commitment among involved parties in RR program;
- Progress report of RR implementation;
- Key personnel in preparing action plan
- -
3. Does DMA prepare a comprehensive financing plan supported with reliable commitment of all parties involved?
Criteria:
- Government Regulation on international grants
- DMA’s guidlines
- Action Plans for post disaster RR
Information:
- Action plan which consists of recovery funds needed, financing resources and plan
- Policy/assumption to estimate RR fund
- Any documentation that shows the establishment of
- - -
15
- The need for recovery funds in action plan is in line with the damage and need assessment;
- A set of consistent policies or assumptions used to estimate the need of recovery funds is disclosed in the action plan
- A comprehensive financing plan, containing the information of budget allocation and resources availability (budgets provided by DMA/central government, other related government institutions, and by local government)
- Financing resources specified in the action plan take account of both national and international grants
- Grants specified in action plan has been made by donors or available in Government Account;
- If the grants are not yet available, a reliable commitment from donors is needed to ensure their contribution.
- DMA and related institutions sign an MoU or joint agreement/commitment about budget availability.
assumptions used for need assessment formulation
- Minutes or other documentation of coordination meeting for determining the budget allocation provided by each institution, including local government;
- Government bank accounts used to keep grants received from donors or
- Any commitment from donors to contribute certain amount of money or in kind aid
Audit Topic: Damage and Needs Assessment (focusing on damage data collecting)
Audit risk: Unreliable quantitative data of damagecan lead to inaccurate needs assessment
Audit Objective: To evaluate the reliability of quantitative data of damage used for assessing recovery needs
Researchable
questions
Criteria & information
required
Information sources Evidence
gathering and
data analysis
methods
Limitations
of audit and
analysis
Expected
conclusions
4. Are there measures taken to ensure timeliness, effectiveness, transparency and accountability of damage assessment, determination of eligibility and distribution of emergency supplies?
Criteria:
- DMA’s guidelines
Best practices
Information:
- Damage assessment and determination of eligibility should be done by specialized and experienced personnel based on predefined criteria.
- Damage assessment, determination of eligibility and distribution of
- Personnel files - Officials, experts and
academicians. - Training programs; - Sources of criteria, if
any.
- Documents and reports of the entity in charge
- Instructions and directives related to implementation;
- Case study; - Victims of disaster
and assigned personnel.
16
emergency supplies should be done in a fair, reliable and timely manner.
- The collection as well as distribution of emergency supplies should be carried out in a manner to ensure transparency and accountability.
- Files kept by entities; - Internal controls; - Victims of disaster
and key officials.
5. Does Disaster Management Agency apply reliable method in collecting damage data in order to generate an accurate recovery needs assessment?
Criteria:
- DALA Handbook from ECLAC
- DMA’s guidlines
Information:
- The quantitative data of damages and casualties is obtained through direct observation and quantification of direct damage and casualties in affected areas timely.
- DMA verifies and validates quantitative data of damage using satellite images for generating accurate samples
- Validated data is documented appropriately and accessible.
- Detailed damage data documentation (DaLA report), including damage level categorization andjudgmentin estimating the damage and losses
- Guidlines for categorizing damage level
- Any documentation showing verification and validation process, including judgment in selecting samples of affected areas to visit
- Satellite images of affected areas
- Key personnel involved in damage and needs assessment
Audit Topic: Housing Recovery
Audit risk: Housing recovery does not target damaged houses nor meet build back better principle
Audit Objective/s: To evaluate whether the housing recovery targets the damaged houses and meets build back
better principle
Researchable
questions
Criteria & information
required
Information sources Evidence
gathering
and Data
analysis
methods
Limitations
of audit and
analysis
Expected
conclusions
6. Does housing recovery target damaged houses?
Criteria:
- DMA’s guidelines - Best practice Information
- DMA sets priorities for
- Priority list of damaged houses to be reconstructed;
- List of actual beneficiaries of cash aid;
17
permanent housing reconstruction based on damagelevels and urgency;
- DMA verifies victims that will be granted cash aid to rebuild houseswith damaged houses data used for establishing the Action planbefore distributing direct subsidy;
- DMAverifies to ensure that beneficiaries have not been granted any subsidy/aid regarding house recovery and prioritizes those who have not.
- Detailed damaged houses data used for establishing action plan;
- Any documentation that shows the beneficiaries verification process.
7. Does permanent housing reconstruction comply with the build back better principal and does site selection of permanent housing represent a safe site or site with acceptable level of hazardrisk?
Criteria
- Guidelines for earthquake resistant construction
- DMA’s guidelines for housing in West Sumatera Province.
Information
- Building codes for earthquake resistant housing arein place.
- DMA socilizes the building codes to displaced victims targeted to rebuild their houses.
- Relocation plan is enforced when victims’/community’s existing location is not a safe site.
- Victims/community are provided with construction training before rebuilding their houses.
- Victims/community are provided with building tools needed to rebuild their houses.
- Technical assistance is provided to help victims/community plan and build their houses.
- Technical assistants are skilled in building construction codes
- DMA monitors and evaluates the building process for improvement.
- Building codes for earthquake resistant housing
- Map of disaster affected areas, which then become disaster prone areas
- Relocation master plan
- Site plan of permanent housing;
- House construction plan
- Victims targeted to rebuild their houses;
- Key personnel of DMA;
- Technical assistants;
- Reports of technical assistance;
- DMA’s monitoring and evaluation report
Audit Topic: Infrastructure and Government Buildings Reconstruction
Audit risk: Reconstruction does not target damaged infrastructure and buildings nor meet build back better
principle
Audit Objective/s: To evaluate whether reconstruction targets damaged infrastructures and buildings and meet
build back better principle
Researchable Criteria & information Information sources Evidence Limitations Expected
18
questions required & design strategy gathering
and Data
analysis
methods
of audit and
analysis
conclusions
8. Do reconstructiona ctivities target damaged infrastructures (roads, bridges, utilities) and government buildings and meet the "build back better" principle?
Criteria:
- DMA’s guidlines - Guidlines for earthquake
resistant construction - contract - Best practice
Information:
- Guidance for reconstructing infrastructures and buildings located in hazard areas is in place.
- DMA sets priorities based on damagelevels and urgency
- DMA verifies infrastructures and buildings to be reconstructed with damage data used for establishing the Action plan
- Reconstruction activities are in line with action plan
- DMA verifies that infrastructures and buildings to be recontructed are not yet financed by other parties
- Reconstructions are carried out by competent institutions in charge.
- Technical construction requirements specified in contract are in line with build back better principle
- Reconstructions design and implementation comply with technical requirements specified in contract
- Permanent reconstructions are not repetition of urgent repairs
- There is no double funded items in multi years reconstruction project
- DMA monitors and evaluates reconstruction process for improvement
- Action plan - Priority list of
infrastructure reconstructions
- List of actual reconstruction activities
- Detailed data of damaged infrastructures/ buildings
- Reconstruction contracts of infrastructures
- Invoice and other supporting documents
- Final/progress report of reconstruction activities
- DMA’s monitoring and evaluation report
- Key personnel of DMA and other parties involved in preparing action plan and/or planning reconstruction activities
19
ANNEX 4
European Court of Auditors
Report on aid transparency Initiatives
Background
1 During the first mandate of the Working Group AADA a task was identified to map what kind of accountability information structures were in place in relation to disaster-related aid. Based on the findings of the Tsunami Task Force it was clear that there was no single accountability information structure which would enable the tracking of humanitarian aid.
2 The SAI of Korea, the Board of Audit and Inspection of Korea (BAI), took up this task and find out whether there is a system in place that could form a basis for the harmonisation of accountability standards for donors and aid organisations. The focus was on whether the Financial Tracking Service (FTS) of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN OCHA) could serve as a basis for a single accountability structure. Also other transparency initiatives on aid, like Transparent Aid (TR-AID) of the European Commission (EU) and the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) could be interesting to be considered for that purpose.
Initial findings
3 The BAI reported in 2010 to the Working Group that the attention and interest for single accountability information received a lot of attention, also from donors. The structure of such a system does not have to be based on FTS. A single information structure could build on the work made by UN OCHA but what matters is to improve compatibility, consistency and relevance of disaster-related information, rather than integrating existing disaster-related databases into one central database.
4 Another finding was that at global level there is a lack of responsibility for managing the process of financial tracking for the purpose of ensuring accountability on how much aid had been provided and what actually happened with it. The analysis was that the transparency and financial tracking systems developed were more focusing on which aid had been projected for whom instead of where aid had actually been received.
5 Consequently the Working Group decided to shift the focus of this task during its second mandate to which lessons could be learned from the experiences from IATI and what the possible implications could be for the reporting framework that the Working Group had developed in the meantime, being the Integrated Financial Accountability Framework. For this purpose the Working Group set a task to analyse, with the aid of the BAI and the European Court of Auditors (ECA) IATI and other relevant international aid transparency initiatives, like the World Bank OpenAid Partnership, and to identify
20
potential concerns and possibilities. With this perspective the BAI attended the 4th High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Busan, Korea at the end of 2011.
Joint proposal by IATI and INTOSAI
6 The BAO and the ECA found in their review of IATI material that IATI and INTOSAI share similar objectives, aiming at improving transparency and accountability, both having developed or developing standards for reporting on a global scale, and both addressing similar audiences and stakeholders. There are also some differences, the main ones being in the area of when in the process data are presented (already from the budget process or only audited data) and the type of standards set (standards on how data should be reported in machine readable format or working with a general reporting template). See for more information in the table below.
Data characteristics IFAF IATI
Coverage Humanitarian aid All of development aid, including humanitarian aid
Level of detail Ex-post data on financial flows (cash or in-kind in cash equivalent) from donors to recipients or actions. Focus is accumulated figures at the year end
Full history of financial transactions for each activity. Forward planning data, pledges, commitments and provisional expenditure, including project level detail and information on aid agreements, procedures, etc.)
Prepared by All stakeholders Providers of aid (donors)
Timing Data on past activities that have been audited by an external auditor
Publish timely, unaudited data as soon as it becomes available and update constantly
Status Data audited by the external auditor
Both verified and provisional data
Main focus Improving accountability of humanitarian aid
Enhancing effectiveness of development aid
Primary use Identifying aid flows (using audited data) and holding those responsible for spending humanitarian aid to account
Identifying aid flows (verified and provisional data) and decision-making about aid financing
Level of reporting To level of implementing organisation, including summary report on projects implemented
Detailed information about aid allocations and disbursements at the project level, including documentation about policies and individual projects
Main uses Improving financial reporting by private and public entities: serves accountability towards recipients and donors and provides reliable data for use by performance auditors, etc.
Serves budget decision-making and performance measurement on commitments made and outcomes achieved.
21
Format Standard, simple tables IATI XML schema
Availability Websites of entities preparing tables
Aid provider websites: IATI maintains central registry
Guidance INTOSAI GOV 9250 IATI Standard
7 From the review of the transparency initiatives it became also clear that some other initiatives, like the World Bank OpenAid Partnership, build strongly on IATI, which has seen a large growth in signatories and publishers and covers 75% of official development finance. With this in mind, and in view of IATI lacking still historical and audited data in its IATI standard, INTOSAI focused mostly on IATI for cooperation and integration purposes.
8 In October 2011 the Working Group took note of a draft Common Position Paper of IATI and INTOSAI. The purpose of the paper was: a) to clarify to decision makers the differences and complementariness between IATI and IFAF developed by INTOSAI; b) to investigate how the compatibility between IATI and IFAF reporting formats and templates can be enhanced. It was envisaged that the IATI Steering Committee would also take note of this paper.
9 However, during 2012 and 2013 further discussions between IATI and the Working Group took place which led to a joint proposal of IATI and the Working Group, on behalf of INTOSAI, on producing IFAF tables through IATI. Through this paper IATI and INTOSAI wanted to demonstrate that the two initiatives are complementary and that the production of IFAF tables through IATI will be of benefit to the users of IATI and IFAF information; and propose the incorporation of IFAF data requirements into IATI.
Open data initiatives
10 The last decade, almost simultaneous with the start of the work of the predecessor of the Working Group, the Tsunami Task Force, has seen several transparency initiatives, primarily in the area of development and emergency aid. International aid organisations, governments and transparency organisations increasingly offer data on aid offered and received. Central theme here is ‗publish once, use often.‘ The trend is to go from bilateral reporting lines between donor and recipients to multilateral reporting through means available to most people, that is through internet. For the purpose of exchange and cross analyses of the data presented they preferably fulfil a number of conditions1.
11 To be useful for financial accountability purposes also auditors and organisations to which entities have to report to, need to be able to use these open data. To do so the financial data in these open data initiatives firstly need to meet two conditions: minimum standards of quality (read reliability) and comparability. Only this will enable to link the financial accountability information coming from entities involved in the development aid area. This will require more reliability of the open data currently available; a wider,
1 Important conditions are: originate from the primary data source; be reliable, complete and accessible; free from any users‘ rights; non discriminatory to its users; be available as ‗machine readable‘ data
22
preferable global use, of reporting standards; user-friendly access to open data without overkill with too many data.
12 The IFAF reporting standards and template addresses this need of reliable financial data, presented on same standards to enable comparing and linking them. Required is a format with clear definitions and categories without becoming too complicated. The IATI Standard can contain these definitions for entities producing IFAF tables and make the IFAF data introduced machine-readable so that IFAF tables can be prepared, but also consulted more easily. The widespread use of IATI by many entities will promote the knowledge and use of IFAF as a financial reporting tool and decrease administrative costs for organisations working with the IATI Standard. Therefore cooperation between the two transparency initiatives seems logical and feasible.
ANNEX 5
European Court of Auditors
Report on Harmonisation of accountability standards
for aid organisations
23
Background
1 Within its strategy to address international standards setting bodies the Working Group reviewed also potential standard setters for humanitarian aid organisations. Donors, particularly when it concerns emergency aid, tend to work with those organisations which have a proven record to meet a number of quality standards, not only in the area of getting the job done but also being financial accountable and transparent about it. During its first mandate the Working Group identified only one non governmental organisation that has not only worked out accountability standards, but has also developed a certification scheme, allowing for independent assessment of the compliance of aid agencies to the standard on a regular basis: Humanitarian Accountability Partnership (HAP).
2 HAP was launched in 2003 to promote accountability to disaster survivors. In 2007 it introduced the HAP Standard in Humanitarian and Quality Management, a quality assurance tool for humanitarian organisations. Aid organisations that wish to comply with these standards are assessed by HAP and receive a certificate that proves they are up to standard. The standard was revised in 2009-2010.
3 The Working Group saw this revision as an opportunity to strengthen the financial accountability component in the HAP Standard and thereby promote this element in those organisations using it.
Objective for the Working Group
4 The Working Group aimed to assist HAP in developing an updated version of the HAP Standards and subsequently an updated version of the HAP Guide, most specifically in the area of financial accountability and to create links to financial accountability issues presented in the Integrated Financial Accountability Framework (IFAF).
2010 HAP Standard
5 During 2009 and 2010 the Working Group worked with HAP International in the process of revising its Standard. At the end of 2010 HAP General Assembly approved the new HAP Standard. This standard requires aid organisations to have a reliable internal control system to ensure the proper use of funds; financial and activity summaries to be made public; the format for these summaries and verification of the functioning of the internal control systems would be further specified in the HAP Guide. This HAP Guide would be updated to the 2010 Standard.
6 No reference is made to IFAF in the HAP Standard. According to HAP the Standard‘s overall focus is not on financial accountability and therefore IFAF is not mentioned specifically as a requirement in the HAP Standards.
7 The Working Group also observed one of the certification audits conducted by HAP in 2010, and concluded that the audit procedures used are sufficiently robust to ensure that a certified aid agency does comply with all aspects of the standard.
HAP Guide to the 2010 HAP Standard
24
8 In 2010 the Working Group discussed with HAP on the set up of the new Guide and provided material for it to HAP in May 2011. However, due to scarce resources and changes in staff HAP had to postpone the development of a new Guide. It instead issued a short interim guide which explained the differences between the old and the new standard.
9 During 2011 and 2012 the Working Group liaised with the HAP project manager responsible for the revision of the Guide. The Working Group commented upon the draft version of the new Guide as far as the financial accountability parts were concerned and underlined what the main elements are for an adequate internal control system.
10 The Working Group welcomed the reference made in chapter 3 of the draft Guide, presented in 2012 (with a reference to point 3.2.2 of the 2010 Standard), to the IFAF template for creating and IFAF table as a good practice for sharing financial information and financial reporting to an organisation‘s stakeholders. The IFAF template was included in the Guide.
11 The IFAF templates were tested by HAP certification auditors who concluded that every aid organisation should have this basic information available. The Working Group conducted a trial on an Irish NGO, Concern Worldwide, an aid organisation certified by HAP, and found that all necessary information is available for the production of an IFAF table.
12 The published version of the Guide, presented in 2013, has no longer the example of the IFAF template in its chapter 3. In part IV of the Guide reference is made to the INTOSAI proposal for an Integrated Financial Accountability Framework and the template the Working Group developed for financial reporting. The HAP and INTOSAI relationship is mentioned in both the HAP Standard and the HAP Guide.
Other activities of HAP in relation to the Working Group
12 In September 2011 HAP published the Working Group‘s working paper on IFAF on its own website. HAP furthermore drew attention to the work of the Working Group in its communication with major stakeholders in the humanitarian aid community, like the European Commission (DG ECHO) and the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN OCHA).
13 In 2013 HAP provided comments on the exposure draft of the INTOSAI GOV 9250 on IFAF. HAP welcomed IFAF as a simpler, sharper and standardised reporting and monitoring of humanitarian aid and indicated the reference to IFAF in the HAP Guide as suggested good practice.
25
ANNEX 6
European Court of Auditors
Report on Harmonisation of accountability standards,
financial reporting and promotion of single audit
Background
26
1 During the past years, with the Paris Declaration in 2005, the Accra Agenda for Action in 2008 and the 2011 High Level Forum on Aid Effectivenss donors of humanitarian aid have committed themselves to several principles when providing aid. One of them is the principle of transparency and accountability: donors and partners are accountable for results in development aid. The Working Group has approached both individual donors, but also groups of donors through their organisations.
2 One of the groups approached is the Good Humanitarian Donorship Initiative (GHD), which provides a forum for donors to discuss good practice in humanitarian financing and other shared concerns. By defining principles and standards the GHD provides both a framework to guide humanitarian aid provided by governments and it can create mechanisms for encouraging greater donor accountability. The Working Group also approached the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and in particular its Development Assistance Committee (DAC) to see whether it can promote, through the humanitarian assessment framework that OECD/DAC uses for peer reviews on donor performance elements, good practices in reporting and audit.
Objective for the Working Group
3 Within the wider objective of harmonisation of accountability standards and financial reporting for donors the Working Group focused, after initial analysis of what was available within the GHD and the OECD/DAC, on presenting the Integrated Financial Accountability Framework (IFAF) as a good practice model donors should use for financial reporting in this area. Compliance with IFAF could be assessed by the OECD/DAC peer review system. Furthermore individual donors would be approached to stimulate support for IFAF within the GHD.
Financial reporting guidelines available
4 The Office of the Auditor General of Norway and the European Court of Auditors made an analysis of the extent to which OECD/DAC guidelines Harmonising Donor Practices for Effective Aid Delivery can be used as a basis for a harmonised accountability information structure. The Norwegian SAI also looked at guidelines available in the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the International Organisation for Migration and the Asian Development Bank. Some of the guidelines reviewed constitute a useful framework for good practice on financial reporting.
5 However, the Working Group concluded that none of the guidelines reviewed fully complied with the GHD principle adopted in 2003 to ‗ensure a high degree of accuracy, timeliness, and transparency in donor reporting on official humanitarian assistance spending, and encourage the development of standardised formats for such reporting‘. Therefore the Working Group decided to develop IFAF whose use can be promoted through the GHD and the OECD/DAC.
Promotion of IFAF
6 The Working Group gave a presentation to the GHD on its objectives and proposals, in particular regarding IFAF, which was welcomed by the GHD. Further efforts to approach the GHD to stimulate a further development of the viewpoints of the GHD on the use by the GHD of IFAF for its own reporting and stimulate the production of IFAF tables among aid recipients have not resulted in concrete progress.
27
7 On a bilateral basis the Working Group has approached donors like the Netherlands and the European Union (European Parliament and European Commission), which has led to resolutions adopted by the Parliament referring to INTOSAI and IFAF, commitment of the European Commission in IFAF as an item to put on the GHD agenda in the near future, testing of IFAF by the Netherlands and the European Commission on (parts of) their 2011 expenditure in humanitarian aid. The Working Group has provided support and guidance during the testing.
8 The Working Group has also approached intermediary organisations like UN organisations (see annex 8) and NGOs to become a pilot organisation for the production of IFAF tables. NGOs like CORDAID, Un Techo para Chile and IRC-UK volunteered to participate and received guidance from the SAIs of the Netherlands, Chile and the European Court of Auditors. Results of these pilot tests can be found in appendix 6 of GOV 9250. For information on the testing was done by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs see appendix 1 to this report.
9 The positive feedback received on a bilateral basis and the good results achieved during the tests contributed to the Working Group decision in 2012 to have IFAF developed as a best practice model through the INTOSAI GOV series, this in consultation with the INTOSAI Professional Standards Committee. The information provided in GOV 9250 regarding the concept, its advantages and integration in other open data initiatives should be most helpful in promoting the production of IFAF tables by donors and stimulate both the development of the framework and its dissemination among aid recipients as a condition of receipt of aid.
Audit of IFAF tables
10 An important element that distinguishes IFAF from other transparency initiatives is that IFAF tables should be audited by the entity‘s external auditor. The Working Group has looked into what audit activities the external auditor needs to do to provide the audit statement foreseen. Analysis and comments received from third parties on the exposure draft GOV made the Working Group conclude that the audit work for the IFAF will integrate well with the audit work to be carried out in the context of the audit of the financial statements of the entity concerned: several issues can be solved in a similar and complementary way which will reduce the effort needed for auditing the IFAF table.
11 Within the Working Group the SAI of Chile has designed and tested an audit programme for auditing financial statements and IFAF tables. This guidance, which applies particularly to NGOs who do not have a strong internal audit framework or whose financial audit is not completed at the times of the preparation of the IFAF table can be found at the website of the INTOSAI Knowledge Sharing Committee at www.intosaiksc.org
12 The Working Group has explored ways the production of IFAF tables, and the audit of the IFAF table by the external auditor of the entity producing the IFAF table, can help to collaborate with other auditors or take reliance from the work of other auditors (single audit). Once implemented IFAF data can help auditors assess the possibilities for cooperation and improve the information available for taking such cooperation forward. The idea is similar to open data initiatives (published once, used often): audited once, used often. Before assurance can be taken from the auditor‘s statement on the reliability
28
of the information provided in the IFAF table an auditor may need to follow the procedures required when using the work of other auditors.
13 The SAI of Norway has developed checklists for the work that can be carried out using IFAF tables to seek to rely on the work of other auditors. This material can be
consulted at the KSC website at http://intosaiksc.org/archives.php?syn=1&e=0#0.
14 Besides providing audited information that can be used by auditors in several accountability chains there are several other audit advantages of the IFAF framework expected and identified in GOV 9250 (see appendix 2), like easier construction of audit trails, reliable material for use in performance audits and, for the longer term, fewer bilateral reports to be produced that need to be audited by external auditors. However, there are also costs foreseen, particularly for entities incurring additional costs for auditing IFAF tables.
ANNEX 7
Office of the Comptroller General of Chile
Report on guidance material for the creation and the review of an IFAF table
29
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – AUDIT PILOT GUIDE FOR THE PREPARATION AND REVIEW OF THE IFAF TABLE
According to the planning of the Supreme Audit Institution in order to give full effect to Task N° 4, commissioned by INTOSAI, under the "Working Group on Disaster-Related Aid", it was proceeded to carry out an audit pilot in the NGO Foundation Un Techo Para Chile, as indicated in previous reports, in order to verify the effectiveness of the guidelines prepared by the public-private partnership of Chile, related to Integrated Financial Accountability Framework (IFAF). This audit pilot related to the two aspects developed: "Guide for Drawing Up the IFAF Table" and; "Guide for the Review of the IFAF Table".
1. Pilot Audit Guide for Drawing Up the IFAF Table In this regard, it should be noted that the Foundation presented the guide that had been developed and approved by the working groups (See Appendix N° 1), in order to prepare the IFAF Table. So, in order to get feedback from NGOs on the effectiveness of the guide, a series of questions was posed, the analysis of which is given below: a. Can the IFAF Table be drawn up with the procedures given? Answer: In the first place it was noted that in addition to the difficulties inherent in executing this process for the first time, it must be taken into account that, despite being involved in the whole process of creating the procedures set out in the guide, it was not easy to make the IFAF table, primarily with regard to how to structure the information, the following constituting the main difficulties: The cited NGO did not receive funds in 2011 to support disaster situations, and, given that it has a fundamental role in the eradication of poverty in Chile, the table was applied to all types of donations received, with the aim of similarly testing the procedures developed in this regard. This brought various complications due to the large volume and disparity in the funds received for this concept, and, In addition, in the guide the limits on the amount of donations that should be specified are not cited, so for this reason and in consensus with this SAI, it was decided to include donations in excess of $ 20,000. b. Is it simple to draw up the table? Answer: The NGO argues that once there is clarity on the classification criteria outlined above, it is simple to produce. The only problem that the party drawing up the IFAF table may face is not having the accounting information or reports by project management in detail, a situation which in the first year in which it is applied may be result in a slower process, but with practice it will be easier to get good results. c. Is it necessary to add to or change some of the procedures indicated in the table? If so, which?
30
Answer: It is noted that the classification of the amounts for donations should be defined by the size of the NGO, as the $ 10,000 considered for these effects in the exposure draft of INTOSAI GOV N° 9250 correspond to a very low amount, which could be extended to $ 20,000, an amount that was used by the NGO in the development of the IFAF Table, since, for the particular case of breaking down the amounts over $ 10,000, the amount of donations to be specified expanded a lot.
d. What was your experience in the elaboration of the IFAF Table?
Answer: It was stated that the most challenging part was to define how to structure the information, as no reports are executed on project management, but rather, the NGO carries out a control per cost center2, and not per project being run. Therefore it was necessary to prepare a new opening of the information.
It was added that the procedures delivered to draw up the IFAF Table are not by themselves enough to complete it. There should be a process of socialisation and also a more detailed guideline should be given to facilitate in a more accurate and reliable manner the execution of this Table.
e. Do you think that it will help to standardize the reports on accountability and transparency of donations?
Answer: It was expressed that it is a fundamental contribution towards unifying the processes of accountability and transparency at global level, where each stakeholder will have a clear and consistent information on the donation flow. f. What should be the next steps? Answer: Training is essential for NGOs, as well as the transfer of resources to these organizations so they can implement internal control tools, since in most cases the grants provided, no resources are allocated to alternative tools such as an Enterprise Resource Planning. It is added, that in Chile, most NGOs have limited information about finance and accounting records, as it is not a priority in the function they perform, so there must be a powerful training process and also of awareness of allocation of resources in order to support the management of information, even more so if the fact that generally NGOs do not count with internal audit Units or professionals. 2. Pilot Audit Guide for the review of IFAF Table
2 In this regard it is appropriate to point out that the cost centers correspond to each of the offices that exist nationwide.
31
Answer: The pilot audit was conducted by this Supreme Audit Institution in the NGO Un Techo Para Chile, using the audit procedures developed by the partnership between the public and private sector, with no observations to be made, because it precisely conforms to how the IFAF Table should be reviewed. Please find attached the last table sent, which remained unchanged, see Appendix N° 2.
3. Conclusions
Under the pilot audit outcome, mainly as stated by the NGO in its response to letter d) of item N° 1 of this executive summary, we proceeded to incorporate in the elaborated and reviewed IFAF table, a brief summary for each point detailed in the Table, about how it was developed, so that this may assist other NGOs, who are facing this process for the first time, whereby the process of its completion is illustrated and detailed step by step. This is attached as Appendix 3, in Excel file.
32
APPENDIX 1
Office of the Comptroller General of Chile
GUIDE FOR PRODUCING THE INTEGRATED FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORK (IFAF)
Initial Considerations:
1) The procedures apply for donors and for institutions receiving funds (whether for execution or as intermediaries);
2) The data concerning the amounts must be extracted from the accounting system, working on the basis of cash in hand and not the amount due;
3) The drafting of the IFAF must include one calendar year; and 4) The drafting of the IFAF must be carried out by the staff responsible for the area.
Procedure
Steps for presenting the income that has to be included in the IFAF
1) Identify the final balance of the donations received during the previous year, whether extracted from the IFAF Table concerned or from the corresponding accounting records (according to the previous year‘s rendering of accounts);
2) Present the cash donations received in the year, in local currency, or broken down by donor, specifying the purpose of these;
3) Break down and present the donations in kind, by donor (using the value given by the donor and, if this does not exist, deciding on their market value, with due back-up, on the date when the donation was received).
Steps for presenting the payments that have to be included in the IFAF
1) Present payments in the IFAF separated by operating activity (e.g. emergency in zone XXX, foodstuffs for program YYY, hospital program, etc.);
2) In the case where the institution making out the IFAF is a donor or intermediary, record the funds transferred, identifying the organization receiving the resources; and,
3) Show the administrative and general expenses of the institution (not included as direct expenses of the projects). This does not apply for donor organizations.
Review of the IFAF by the organization
1) Confirm that the information contained in the IFAF coincides with that recorded in the institution‘s accounting system, leaving evidence of this.
2) Check that minimum control procedures are in place to ensure the reliability of the data entered in the IFAF (e.g. that each receipt for income and expenditure contains the corresponding authorizations and has a correlative listing, that the accounting system issues an annual report of the income and expenditure receipts as entered in accounts, etc.)
3) As a result of the review, a document is to be issued containing a statement from the person responsible for the institution, certifying that the information presented in the IFAF table has been checked in the terms stated in points 1 and 2 above, thereby making him/herself answerable for the information provided.
33
APPENDIX 2 Office of the Comptroller General of Chile
Example of audit guidance on reviewingIFAF tables,prepared by the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic of Chile *****
To prepare this guide, the SAI of Chile worked with groups of professionals from private auditing firms (Deloitte, Price Waterhouse Coopers, Ernst &
Young, PKF and BDO); NGO “Techo” and Chile’s General Internal Government Auditing Council
*****
GUIDE FOR REVIEWING THE INTEGRATED FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORK (IFAF)
CONTROL ENVIRONMENT
This corresponds to the initial stage of generally getting to know the donor, intermediary or implementing organization.
Nº Procedure
1
Ask questions concerning: a) Experience in managing donated resources (as an amount); b) Years spent working in the area of donations; c) Number of administrative staff: d) Experience in catastrophes; and, e) Existence of legal advisors and reports issued by them.
2 Does the organization have an internal auditing unit?
3 In connection with the previous question, has the internal auditing unit carried out evaluations of the internal control systems related with the reception and delivery of donated resources? Are there any reports on these?
4 If there is no internal auditing unit, is any type of review carried out on the reception and delivery of donated resources, by an independent and competent professional?
5 Which department and/or professional is responsible for producing the IFAF Table? Does that person have the necessary skills?
6 Is the information contained in the IFAF extracted directly from the accounting system and on a cash basis? What procedure does the organization have to validate the soundness of the information contained in the IFAF Table?
7 Is the IFAF Table reviewed and certified by the person responsible for the organization?
34
8 Has the information included in the IFAF been audited (totally or in part) by an External Auditing Firm or an Audit Institution? Find out whether there are any reports on the matter.
9 Does the IFAF Table include all the receipts in the year, both in cash terms and in kind converted into currency? Is the income listed by type of donor?
10 Are the payments included in the IFAF separated by operating activity or by donor?
11 Is the final balance in cash and in kind from the previous year recorded as a starting balance in the IFAF Table for the year under review?
12 Was the IFAF Table from the previous year audited by an external firm and what is its result?
INFORMATION ANALYSIS
This refers to the stage of obtaining and checking the information asked for in the previous control environment phase, in order to validate the information and achieve a preliminary view of how the Institution works.
Nº Aim of the test Procedure
1 To obtain a general knowledge of the institution
Ask for and analyse the information broken down in point one of the Control Environment stage
2
To verify whether internal control evaluations have been carried out on the reception and delivery of resources
Analyse the conclusions of the reports prepared by the internal auditing unit or the independent professionals concerned with internal control.
3 Check the existence of the IFAF Table
Ask for and verify that the IFAF Table has been signed by the person responsible for the organization (Certification Letter)
4 Confirm that the IFAF Table has been reviewed
Check whether there is a report dealing with the IFAF review from internal auditing or from some other professional who is independent of the person who prepared it.
5 Verify the existence of audits on the resources received
Ask for and examine the results of the audits carried out, both by Private Firms and by Supreme Audit Authorities, in relation to the resources received.
6 Analyse the content of the
Confirm that the structure of the IFAF Table includes receipts for each type of donor; that the payments are
35
IFAF Table broken down by operating activity or payee if passed on; and the balances of previous years are recorded separately.
7 Verify the existence of auditing for the previous year‘s IFAF Table
Ask for the report issued for this purpose and assess its impact on the current table.
ACCOUNTABILITY
This is stage of the audit in which the rendering of accounts is asked for, checked and validated, in order to verify that the information included in the IFAF Table originates from the accounting system and is reasonable.
Nº Aim of the test Procedure
RECEIPTS
1 To verify receipts
Carry out the following procedures, selectively, as appropriate:
a) Confirm the receipts with the institutions that provided the resources;
b) Check the agreements of each of the bodies that provided the resources and compare them with those listed in the IFAF Table; and,
c) Check the receipts reflected in the IFAF Table against the banking and accounting records.
2 To confirm receipts per donor
Check that the receipts are broken down correctly in the IFAF Table for each donor,
3 To confirm whether there is income in kind
Check whether there have been contributions in kind, that this is reflected in the IFAF Table, and that they have been correctly valued.
4 To verify other income Verify whether the organization has income of its own (collections, interest, etc.) and whether it has reflected this in the IFAF Table.
5 Verify receipts from previous years.
Confirm that the balances of previous years are reflected in the IFAF Table, reconciling them with the previous year‘s Table and with the accounting records.
36
Nº Aim of the test Procedure
PAYMENTS
1
Ge
ne
ral
pro
ce
du
res
To check that the payments of the project come from the accounting system
Confirm that the payments of the projects included in the IFAF Table are recorded in the accounting system or derive from these.
2 To verify the controls associated with the IFAF Table
Verify the controls existing in the preparation and review of the IFAF Table with regard to payments, to cover the aims of integrity, validity, exactitude and others. If relevant, analyse the work carried out by the internal auditing unit or independent professional on the person who prepares the IFAF Table.
3 To verify administrative and general expenses
Confirm that there are records that enable the institution‘s administrative and general expenses, which are included in the IFAF Table as overheads, to be identified; (i.e. those not included as direct expenses of projects). (Donor bodies are an exception and should not present this item).
4
Pro
ced
ure
s f
or
no
n-a
ud
ite
d p
roje
cts
To carry out a review of expenditure
Verify, on the basis of a sample:
a. That the payments selected were made during the period of the IFAF Table;
b. That the date of the back-up documentation for the renderings of accounts coincides with the period established in the agreement;
c. That there is valid supporting documentation (physical or electronic);
d. That the proof of payment (receipts, invoices or others) is consistent with the nature and purpose of the fund (depending on the operating activity);
e. That both the rendering and each of the back-up documents has appropriate measures to prevent its‘ being re-used; and,
f. That the rendering of accounts is authorised or initialled by the person responsible, according to the terms of the agreement.
5 To verify that there is control of the resources delivered
Check that the delivery of the resources to the beneficiaries, if in order, is recorded in a system that allows these to be effectively controlled.
37
6
To verify outgoings by transfer to intermediary bodies and/or implementers
Carry out the following procedures, selectively, as relevant:
a. Request confirmation of transfers made with bodies receiving resources, indicating whether these were audited;
b. Check the agreements of each transfer made, comparing them with those listed in the IFAF Table;
c. Verify the existence of renderings of accounts by intermediaries and/or implementers for the resources transferred; and,
d. Check existing details of the financial institution with regard to the transfers made.
7
Pro
ced
ure
s f
or
au
dit
ed
pro
jects
Initial considerations
If the funds have been audited, in order not to repeat the audit process, consideration should be given to using the work of other auditors, either public or private. With regard to this, in the case of the former, the International Standards of Supreme Audit Institutions (ISSAI) must be taken into account, and especially ISSAI 1600, 1610 and 1805, and for private firms, the International Standards for Auditing (ISA) Nº 600, 610 and 805.
8 To analyse the work of the other auditors
Analyse the audit(s) carried out in the organization by other external auditors, bearing in mind the purpose and scope of the work carried out, in accordance with the standards quoted above.
38
Ap
pe
nd
ix 3
Off
ice o
f th
e C
om
ptr
olle
r G
en
era
l o
f C
hile
IFA
F t
ab
le
39
IFA
F Ta
ble
: Fu
nd
ació
n U
n T
ech
o P
ara
Ch
ile
Term
th
e T
able
co
mp
rise
s: f
rom
01
/01
/20
11
to
31
/12
/20
11
$
Init
ial B
ala
nce
last
ye
ar
$ 2
29
81
1 3
40
$ 0
Tota
l in
ital
bal
ance
last
ye
ar…
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
….
$ 2
29
81
1 3
40
TOTA
L R
EVEN
UE
FRO
M J
AN
UA
RY
01
TO
DEC
EMB
ER
31
20
11
TER
M6
60
5 4
73
74
6,0
0
Pri
vate
co
mp
any
do
nat
ion
s h
igh
er
than
US$
20
.00
0$
50
1 1
50
00
0
Ban
co S
anta
nd
er$
24
5 0
00
00
0
Sod
imac
S.A
.$
71
50
0 0
00
Un
iver
sid
ad P
edro
de
Val
div
ia$
75
00
0 0
00
ENA
EX S
.A.
$ 1
0 6
00
00
0
Tele
fon
ica
Ch
ile S
.A.
$ 1
2 5
00
00
0
Co
mp
añía
Ge
ne
ral d
e E
lectr
icid
ad
S.A
.$
60
65
0 0
00
Soci
edad
Ben
efic
a La
Rio
ja$
25
90
0 0
00
Do
nat
ion
s w
ith
sp
eci
fic
ob
ject
ive
s$
3 8
97
60
7 7
55
Solid
arit
y an
d S
oci
al I
nves
tmen
t P
roje
ct: "
Entr
epre
neu
rsh
ip C
ente
r"$
27
06
0 0
00
Solid
arit
y an
d S
oci
al I
nves
tmen
t P
roje
ct: "
O'H
iggi
ns
Reg
ion
"$
50
00
0 0
00
Inte
r-A
mer
ican
Dev
elo
pm
ent
Ban
k, P
roje
ct: "
Reg
ion
al A
gree
men
t"$
70
28
3 7
82
Inte
r-A
mer
ican
Dev
elo
pm
ent
Ban
k, P
roje
ct: "
Ha
iti A
gree
men
t"$
25
3 8
95
47
8
NG
O H
oga
r d
e C
rist
o, L
ead
ers
Co
rpo
rati
on
Pro
ject
$ 2
1 0
00
00
0
NG
O C
om
pañ
ía d
e Je
sús,
Vo
lun
tary
ETA
S P
roje
ct$
15
00
0 0
00
Min
era
Nev
ada
Co
mp
any,
Pro
ject
: Ata
cam
a R
egio
n$
1 3
94
11
2 4
59
SQM
Nit
rato
s S.
A.,
Pro
ject
: O'H
iggi
ns
Reg
ion
$ 2
30
81
9 4
72
SQM
Sal
ar S
.A.,
Pro
ject
: O'H
iggi
ns
Reg
ion
$ 2
21
67
4 7
00
Do
ña
Ines
de
Co
llah
uas
i SC
M M
inin
g C
om
pan
y, P
roje
ct: I
quiq
ue
Pro
vin
ce$
49
2 9
08
64
0
Cel
ulo
sa A
rau
co y
Co
nst
itu
ció
n S
.A.,
Ara
uco
Pro
vin
ce P
roje
ct$
21
80
0 0
00
An
glo
Am
eric
an P
LC, M
etro
po
litan
Reg
ion
Pro
ject
$ 4
12
01
5 2
95
Min
era
Los
Pel
amb
res,
Co
qu
imb
o R
egio
n P
roje
ct$
27
7 1
61
86
5
DA
KA
R, L
atin
Am
eric
a O
ffic
e$
94
13
7 6
35
ENEL
Gre
en
Po
wer
, Cen
tral
Lat
in A
mer
ica
Off
ice
$ 1
3 4
50
05
2
Ban
k O
f A
mer
ica,
Lat
in A
mer
ica
Cen
tral
Off
ice
$ 2
88
11
1 5
77
Ord
erin
g In
stit
uci
on
-Nam
e &
Ad
dr
/ D
igic
el, C
entr
al L
atin
Am
eric
a O
ffic
e$
14
17
6 8
00
Do
nat
ion
s in
feri
or
to U
S$ 2
0.0
00
$ 1
78
9 3
06
67
7
Ow
n R
eve
nu
e, f
rom
Te
chn
ical
an
d S
oci
al A
ssis
tan
ce S
ub
sid
ies
$ 4
17
40
9 3
14
TOTA
L O
UTC
OM
E F
RO
M J
AN
UA
RY
01
TO
DEC
EMB
ER
31
20
11
TER
M(6
55
2 9
97
49
4)
Pay
me
nts
mad
e o
n d
on
atio
ns
to s
pe
cifi
c p
roje
cts
(2 2
88
45
0 0
35
)
Co
mp
añía
Min
era
Nev
ada,
Pro
yect
o: A
taca
ma
Reg
ion
(24
1 2
42
11
4)
Soci
edad
Qu
imic
a y
Min
era
de
Ch
ile,
Pro
yect
o: O
'Hig
gin
s R
egio
n(1
09
55
5 8
95
)
Co
mp
ania
Min
era
Do
ña
Ines
de
Co
llah
uas
i SC
M, P
roje
ct: I
quiq
ue
Pro
vin
ce(1
96
12
7 3
10
)
Cel
ulo
sa A
rau
co y
Co
nst
itu
cio
n S
.A.,
Ara
uco
Pro
vin
ce P
roje
ct(1
93
67
4 0
07
)
An
glo
Am
eric
an P
LC, M
etro
po
litan
Reg
ion
Pro
ject
(48
5 5
75
86
4)
Min
era
Los
Pel
amb
res,
Co
qu
imb
o R
egio
n P
roje
ct(3
03
77
2 9
18
)
Inte
r-A
mer
ican
Dev
elo
pm
ent
Ban
k, P
roje
ct: "
Co
nve
nio
Ha
iti"
(25
3 3
95
47
8)
Inte
r-A
mer
ican
Dev
elo
pm
ent
Ban
k, P
roje
ct: "
Co
nve
nio
Reg
ion
al"
(70
28
3 7
82
)
NG
O H
oga
r d
e C
rist
o, P
roye
cto
Co
rpo
raci
ón
Dir
igen
tes
(15
6 8
12
98
4)
Rec
on
stru
ccio
n T
erre
mo
to a
ño
20
10
(17
4 3
11
53
4)
Solid
arit
y an
d S
oci
al I
nves
tmen
t P
roje
ct:
Cen
tro
de
Emp
ren
dim
ien
to(1
51
0 2
32
)
NG
O C
om
pan
ia d
e Je
sus,
ETA
S V
olu
nta
ry P
roje
ct(8
8 0
11
11
7)
Solid
arit
y an
d S
oci
al I
nves
tmen
t P
roje
ct: "
Reg
ión
de
O'H
iggi
ns"
0
Dig
icel
, Lat
ino
amer
ican
Cen
tral
Off
ice
Pro
ject
(14
17
6 8
00
)
Tran
sfe
rs t
o T
ech
o L
atin
oam
eri
ca(1
19
6 9
66
86
2)
Arg
enti
na
(31
77
1 9
05
)
Bo
livia
(6
3 1
81
23
6)
Co
lom
bia
(36
43
3 1
95
)
Co
sta
Ric
a(6
1 2
70
80
5)
Ecu
ado
r
(1
02
64
8 3
84
)
El S
alva
do
r(1
84
90
6 1
08
)
Ha
iti
(2
54
30
1 0
48
)
Ho
nd
ura
s
(3
89
9 9
27
)
Mex
ico
(1
78
98
2 9
68
)
Nic
arag
ua
(47
68
2 1
23
)
Pan
ama
(3
51
0 0
75
)
Par
agu
ay
(5
9 1
05
07
2)
Per
u
(1
14
49
4 8
31
)
Do
min
ican
Rep
ub
lic
(2
9 7
16
16
1)
Uru
guay
(25
06
3 0
24
)
Pay
me
nts
mad
e o
n g
en
era
l pro
ject
s(2
31
2 9
67
38
8)
Per
man
ent
Ho
usi
ng
Cen
tral
Off
ice
(43
66
3 7
91
)
Soci
al E
mp
ow
erm
ent
Cen
tral
Off
ice
(17
8 8
64
68
1)
TEC
HO
LA
TAM
Cen
tral
Off
ice
(34
8 9
41
58
8)
Exp
en
dit
ure
s o
n T
ran
sve
rsal
Pro
ject
s in
Ari
ca a
nd
Par
inac
ota
Re
gio
ns
(28
79
7 7
16
)
Exp
en
dit
ure
s o
n T
ran
sve
rsal
Pro
ject
s in
An
tofa
gast
a R
egi
on
(26
6 4
21
24
4)
Exp
en
dit
ure
s o
n T
ran
sve
rsal
Pro
ject
s in
Val
par
aiso
Pro
vin
ce(2
81
51
4 0
94
)
Exp
en
dit
ure
s o
n T
ran
sve
rsal
Pro
ject
s in
Me
tro
po
lita
n R
egi
on
(48
5 5
75
86
4)
Exp
en
dit
ure
s o
n T
ran
sve
rsal
Pro
ject
s in
Bio
Bio
Pro
vin
ce(4
61
92
6 0
56
)
Exp
en
dit
ure
s o
n T
ran
sve
rsal
Pro
ject
s in
Ara
uca
nia
Pro
vin
ce(5
1 7
65
08
4)
Exp
en
dit
ure
s o
n T
ran
sve
rsal
Pro
ject
s in
Lo
s R
íos
Pro
vin
ce(8
2 5
01
47
5)
Exp
en
dit
ure
s o
n T
ran
sve
rsal
Pro
ject
s in
Lo
s La
gos
Pro
vin
ce(8
2 9
95
79
4)
Pay
me
nts
mad
e o
n A
dm
inis
trat
ive
an
d G
en
era
l Sp
en
din
g(7
54
61
3 2
10
)
De
fici
t o
f re
ven
ue
ove
r p
aym
en
ts…
……
……
……
……
……
……
.5
2 4
76
25
2,0
0
Fin
al T
erm
Ba
lan
ce…
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
…..
$ 2
82
28
7 5
92
TEC
HO
isa
no
rgan
izat
ion
that
isp
rese
nt
all
thro
ugh
ou
tLa
tin
Am
eric
aan
dth
eC
arib
bea
n.
Itse
eks
too
verc
om
eth
ep
ove
rty
situ
atio
n
that
tho
usa
nd
so
fp
eop
lein
mak
esh
ift
sett
lem
ents
live
in,
thro
ugh
join
tac
tio
nfr
om
its
inh
abit
ants
and
volu
nte
ers
.It
sm
ain
ob
ject
ives
are:
(1)
The
pro
mo
tio
n o
f co
mm
un
ity
dev
elo
pm
ent
(2)
The
pro
mo
tio
n o
f so
cial
act
ion
an
d c
on
scie
nce
(3)
Po
litic
al in
cid
ence
Cu
rren
tly
inC
hile
,TE
CH
Ow
ork
sin
mak
esh
ift
sett
lem
ents
,n
eigh
bo
rho
od
san
db
lock
s.Th
ejo
int
acti
on
of
its
inh
abit
ants
and
you
ng
volu
nte
ers
isa
nes
sen
tial
pill
ar.
Als
o,
itm
oti
vate
sco
nti
nu
ou
sw
ork
fro
mth
eco
mm
un
ity,
com
mu
nit
yo
rgan
izat
ion
bei
ng
the
tran
sver
sal
axis
of
all i
nte
rven
tio
n.
The
mai
n a
xis
of
wo
rk w
ith
th
e co
mm
un
ity
are:
Ed
uca
tio
n, W
ork
, an
d H
ou
sin
g.
a)
En
efe
ctiv
o…
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
.
b)
En
esp
eci
es…
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
Ab
rie
f su
mm
ary
on
wh
at is
"T
ech
o"
was
inco
rpo
rate
d.
A v
alu
ed
bal
ance
was
se
t on
sp
eci
es
that
this
NG
O h
ad, w
hic
h
bas
ical
ly c
orr
esp
on
ds
to b
uil
din
g e
me
rge
ncy
ho
usi
ng,w
hic
h to
the
d
ate
was
of $
0.
At
this
po
int,
it is
imp
ort
ant t
o
no
te, t
hat
sin
ce th
e w
ork
is
be
ing
carr
ied
ou
t on
a c
ash
bas
is,
it m
ust
be
co
nsi
de
red
that
the
am
ou
nts
to b
e t
ake
n fr
om
th
e
ban
ks, c
orr
esp
on
d to
the
ban
k m
on
thly
sta
tem
en
ts o
r co
nfi
rmat
ion
s, n
ot t
o th
e s
har
e
cap
ital
, th
ere
fore
, in
man
y in
stan
ces
the
bal
ance
s in
the
ac
cou
nts
co
nsi
de
red
con
tain
ch
eck
s is
sue
d a
nd
no
t pai
d,
amo
ng
oth
er i
tem
s th
at a
re n
ot
flo
w a
nd
sh
ou
ld n
ot b
e ta
ken
for
fill
ing
the
IFA
F Ta
ble
.
Re
ven
ue
sco
nsi
der
ed in
this
se
ctio
n a
re re
late
d to
the
fo
llo
win
g:1)
That
it r
eve
nu
e is
no
t ge
ne
rate
d b
y th
e N
GO
;2)
Th
at t
he
y ar
e n
ot
do
nat
ion
s w
ith
sp
eci
fic
ob
ject
ives
; an
d,
3) T
hat
re
ven
ue
is h
igh
er t
han
U
SD 2
0.00
0In
this
rega
rd, t
he
NG
O f
irst
m
ade
a s
pre
adsh
ee
t wit
h a
ll it
s re
ven
ue
, sh
ow
n in
the
acc
ou
nts
o
f th
e te
rm a
nd
we
re fi
t wit
h th
e
actu
al o
r re
al re
ven
ue
fro
m
mo
nth
ly s
tate
me
nts
. Lat
er,
co
mp
any
reve
nu
es
we
re d
eta
iled
acco
rdin
g to
th
e th
ree
cri
teri
a li
ste
d a
bo
ve.
In t
his
rega
rd, i
t mu
st b
e
rem
em
be
red
that
this
NG
O a
cts
as a
n e
xecu
tor a
nd
als
o a
s an
in
term
ed
iary
, th
e la
tte
r re
fers
to
w
he
n it
tran
sfe
rs re
sou
rce
s t
o
oth
er N
GO
s co
nce
rne
d w
ith
o
the
r Lat
in A
me
rica
n
Fou
nd
atio
ns.
The
bal
ance
is t
he
su
m o
f al
l in
com
e in
the
201
1 p
eri
od
, by
Fun
dac
ion
Un
Te
cho
Par
a C
hil
e,
wh
ich
can
be
bro
ken
do
wn
into
: d
on
atio
ns
by
pri
vate
firm
s e
xce
ed
ing
$ 20
,000
; d
on
atio
ns
wit
h s
pe
cifi
c ta
rge
ts; t
he
Fu
nd
acio
n's
ow
n in
com
e,a
nd
d
on
atio
ns
of l
ess
than
$ 2
0,00
0.
He
re th
e re
ven
ue
s f
rom
d
on
atio
ns
fro
m p
riva
te
com
pan
ies
and
go
vern
me
nt
de
par
tme
nts
are
em
bo
die
d,
wh
ich
hav
e s
pe
cifi
c d
est
inat
ion
s in
the
imp
lem
enta
tio
n ag
ree
me
nt.
Th
ere
fore
, th
ese
co
sts
are
to b
e e
xecu
ted
at th
e
agre
ed
targ
et,
wh
ich
, giv
en
the
ge
ogr
aph
ical
nat
ure
of C
hil
e,
con
sist
bas
ical
ly o
f do
nat
ion
s ta
rge
ted
by
the
co
mp
anie
s to
sp
eci
fic
regi
on
s o
r pro
vin
ces
(usu
ally
do
nat
ion
s ar
e d
eli
vere
d
to t
he
pla
ces
wh
ere
the
co
mp
any
is s
itu
ate
d).
At
this
po
int,
all
reve
nu
e th
at
do
es
no
t me
et t
he
sp
eci
fica
tio
ns
po
inte
d o
ut a
bo
ve is
ag
glu
tin
ate
d
Ap
pli
es
to th
e re
ven
ue
gen
era
ted
by
the
org
aniz
atio
n
itse
lf, b
ein
g b
roke
n d
ow
n in
this
se
ctio
n. T
hu
s, a
s n
ote
d a
bo
ve,
on
e o
f th
e c
orn
ers
ton
es
of t
his
N
GO
is h
ou
sin
g, a
nd
so
in a
n
eff
ort
to s
up
po
rt p
eo
ple
it h
as
be
com
e a
So
cial
Ho
usi
ng
Man
age
me
nt A
sso
ciat
ion
(EG
IS),
w
hic
h h
as t
he
mis
sio
n, b
y ag
ree
me
nt w
ith
the
Min
istr
y o
f H
ou
sin
g, to
ad
vise
fam
ilie
s o
n
all a
spe
cts
req
uir
ed
(te
chn
ical
an
d s
oci
al) t
hat
all
ow
the
m to
ac
cess
ho
usi
ng
be
ne
fit.
It is
for
this
reas
on
that
all
the
ir in
com
e
fro
m th
is s
ou
rce
are
co
nsi
de
red
an
d a
re g
ive
n b
y ag
ree
me
nt a
nd
ar
e c
lear
ly id
en
tifi
ed
in th
e
acco
un
ts u
nd
er t
he
co
nce
pt o
f ca
sh.
The
se p
aym
en
ts a
re tr
ansf
ers
to
oth
er N
GO
s re
late
d to
Fo
un
dat
ion
Un
Te
cho
par
a C
hil
e,
that
we
re c
reat
ed
in o
the
r Lat
in
Am
eri
can
co
un
trie
s, o
n th
e s
ame
co
nce
pt.
Th
is c
an o
ccu
r fo
r th
e
foll
ow
ing
reas
on
s:1)
Th
at a
t th
e c
en
tral
leve
l of t
he
N
GO
Fu
nd
acio
n U
n T
ech
o P
ara
Ch
ile
, a d
on
atio
n is
rece
ive
d,
ind
icat
ing
that
par
t o
f it
is
tran
sfe
rre
d to
an
NG
O o
f th
e
Fou
nd
atio
n a
n N
GO
fro
m
ano
the
r co
un
try,
an
d,
2) T
hat
fro
m t
he
ce
ntr
al le
vel
eq
uit
y is
tran
sfe
rre
d to
su
ch
NG
O.
In t
his
rega
rd, i
t sh
ou
ld b
e n
ote
d,
that
in th
is c
ase
th
e ro
le is
as
an
inte
rme
dia
ry, w
ith
the
NG
Os
that
re
ceiv
e th
e re
sou
rce
s b
ein
g re
spo
nsi
ble
for t
he
ren
de
ring
of
such
fu
nd
s.In
th
is c
ase
, th
e tr
ansf
ers
are
co
ntr
oll
ed
thro
ugh
the
ban
k ac
cou
nts
of r
ela
ted
co
mp
anie
s,
and
th
e in
form
atio
n o
f th
e
amo
un
ts w
as ta
ken
fro
m t
he
re.
This
is w
he
re th
e to
tal p
aym
en
ts
mad
e b
y th
e N
GO
in th
e y
ear
20
11 a
re, w
hic
h a
re d
ivid
ed
into
: P
aym
en
ts m
ade
on
do
nat
ion
s to
sp
eci
fic
pro
ject
s; T
ran
sfe
rs t
o
oth
er N
GO
s; P
aym
en
ts m
ade
on
ge
ne
ral p
roje
cts;
an
d P
aym
en
ts
mad
e o
n A
dm
inis
trat
ive
and
G
en
era
l Sp
en
din
g.
Co
rre
spo
nd
s t
op
aym
en
ts m
ade
d
uri
ng
the
ye
ar 2
011,
re
gard
ing
do
nat
ion
s th
at w
ere
mad
e fo
r sp
eci
fic
pro
ject
s, w
het
her
the
y w
ere
mad
e in
the
ye
ar 2
011
or
ear
lie
r. In
th
is w
ay, a
t th
is p
oin
t al
l pay
me
nts
mad
e o
n d
on
atio
ns
so s
pe
cifi
c p
roje
cts
are
co
nsi
de
red
. Acc
ou
nts
are
ke
pt b
y co
st c
en
ters
, in
wh
ich
eac
h
regi
on
of t
he
co
un
try
is a
co
st
cen
ter.
A ta
ble
was
mad
e fo
r e
ach
co
st c
en
ter,
bre
akin
g d
ow
n
mm
ou
nts
sp
en
t on
sp
eci
fic
pro
ject
s, p
laci
ng
said
figu
res
in
de
tail
at t
his
se
ctio
n.
All
pay
me
nts
of d
ive
rse
pro
ject
s th
at d
o n
ot h
ave
a d
on
atio
n to
sp
eci
fic
pro
ject
s an
d a
re c
arri
ed
o
ut
in e
ach
pro
vin
ce o
r re
gio
n
wh
ere
the
Fo
un
dat
ion
is lo
cate
d.
Re
gard
ing
this
, pay
me
nt l
oca
ted
in
the
co
st c
en
ters
of e
ach
regi
on
or
on
a c
en
tral
leve
l an
d d
on
e o
n
tran
sve
rsal
pro
ject
s in
the
regi
on
o
r p
rovi
nce
was
ext
ract
ed
. Th
is
reco
nci
led
wit
h p
aym
ents
to
spe
cifi
c p
roje
cts.
In t
his
se
ctio
n, a
ll th
e
adm
inis
trat
ive
and
ove
rhe
ad
cost
s th
at th
e N
GO
has
fo
r e
ach
o
f it
s o
ffic
es
thro
ugh
ou
t th
e
cou
ntr
y w
ere
inco
rpo
rate
d.
Co
rre
spo
nd
sto
the
dif
fere
nce
b
etw
ee
n th
e to
tal r
eve
nue
in th
e
term
min
ue
s th
e to
tal p
aym
en
ts
mad
e in
sai
d t
erm
.Th
is re
fers
to t
he
fin
al b
alan
ce
flo
w th
at re
mai
ns
at t
he
en
d o
f th
e p
eri
od
, i.e
. un
de
r th
e
foll
ow
ing
eq
uat
ion
:(*
) In
itia
l Bal
ance
(+) I
nco
me
for
the
pe
rio
d (-
) Pay
me
nts
for t
he
p
eri
od
= F
inal
bal
ance
.Th
is is
co
rro
bo
rate
d w
ith
the
ac
tual
fin
al c
ash
bal
ance
, wh
ich
m
ay b
e c
om
po
sed
of t
he
cu
rre
nt
acco
un
t b
alan
ces.
40
41
ANNEX 8
European Court of Auditors
Introduction of harmonised reporting and auditing in the UN
Background
1 In view of the specificity of the UN and the UN agencies that play an important role in humanitarian aid the Working Group decided to target UN organisations separately for the purpose of harmonisation of accountability standards. Most UN agencies have their own arrangements for reporting and audit, although there is a trend towards harmonisation. In 2010 the Secretary General issued a report ‗Towards an accountability system in the United Nations Secretariat‘3 and in 2012 the Secretary-General indicated that the UN should build ‗a shared international commitment to strengthen aid transparency and commitment, including by promoting a global declaration and agenda for humanitarian aid transparency and effectiveness.‘4
2 In 2006 the Independent Audit Advisory Committee of the United Nations was set up. In addition, one of the key players in coordinating internal audit work in the United Nations system is the meeting of Representatives of Internal Audit Services (RIAS) of UN agencies and bodies, which was established already in the late 1960s.In addition to UN agencies and bodies, RIAS membership consists of internal audit services of multilateral financial institutes and other associated international organizations (such as the Global Fund, GAVI, Council of Europe, INTERPOL, etc.) RIAS meetings have covered topics like assurance to donors, auditing humanitarian operations, and single audit. Although RIAS is not a decision-making body it can, through its resolutions, promote a harmonised way of working throughout the UN. Within its strategy to address international standard setting bodies the Working Group selected RIAS as its interlocutor in the UN in its efforts to harmonise financial reporting. In addition, INTOSAI is formally an observer at the RIAS meetings.
Objective of the Working Group
3 The Working Group aimed to build up support of internal auditors in UN humanitarian aid organisation for the introduction of Integrated Financial Accountability Framework (IFAF) for increased transparency, harmonised reporting and audit in the context of the UN.
3 UN General Assembly A/64/640, 29 January 2010
4 Secretary-General‘s five-year action agenda, 25 January 2012
42
Reception of IFAF by RIAS
4 RIAS responded positively to the Working Group‘s request to work together on strengthening accountability and developing more efficient and effective audit arrangements for humanitarian aid. In September 2010 the Working Group made a presentation, which was received favourably by the RIAS meeting. One of the internal audit services of the UN, the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services (UN OIOS), was tasked to liaise with the Working Group on how IFAF could be implemented in the UN context. This was realised in 2011 through collaboration between the Working Group and UN OIOS towards an explanatory document on IFAF, which included testing of IFAF on a specific UN funds (Sudan Common Humanitarian Fund). This testing, although not all-conclusive, proved to be feasible and was a relatively straightforward exercise.
5 During its 2011 meeting RIAS decided to establish a RIAS working group on IFAF, chaired by UN OIOS and with representatives of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) and the European Commission. The mandate of the RIAS working group was to enhance understanding of IFAF among RIAS members and to assess implications and solutions, including the role IA can play in the application of IFAF.
6 The RIAS working group IFAF prepared a report for the 2012 RIAS meeting in which it gave an initial assessment of implications and solutions from potential implementation of IFAF. This included testing of IFAF on a fund5 managed by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and the UNDP country office for Haiti for 2010, thereby not only trying to create (parts of) IFAF tables but also see how the different tables would reconcile. The report also covered the potential roles of internal audit in the application of IFAF.
7 In its resolution the 2012 RIAS meeting reiterated its favourable reception of IFAF and agreement to promote the introduction of IFAF and support its implementation as an international standard in reporting on humanitarian aid. RIAS members were requested to discuss with their internal audit clients the implementation of IFAF and the RIAS working group was tasked with developing an inventory of the work done by RIAS members in this regard. The UNDP representative indicated that, while there were initial difficulties to get the buy-in for the pilot project conducted on UNDP Haiti, the end results showed that it was relevant and feasible and it could help to fend off requests for third party reviews and address donor needs.
RIAS input to INTOSAI GOV 9250
8 In view of the good pilot work done by some UN organisations the Working Group decided to use the test results of IFAF produced as examples in the INTOSAI GOV 9250 concerning IFAF. With the aid of the RIAS working group IFAF and particularly its chair UN OIOS, test results are now presented in appendix 6 of the GOV to highlight the linkage between the IFAF tables and how the IFAF framework may look like, and help to establish where funds was used for what.
5 CERF : Central Emergency Response Fund
43
9 When the GOV was published as exposure draft UN OIOS, in its capacity as chair of the RIAS working group IFAF, was invited to provide comments on the exposure draft. UN OIOS coordinated among the RIAS members the collection of comments and provided a consolidated overview of the RIAS comments in April 2013. In addition, some RIAS members provided their separate comments on the exposure draft. The comments showed a profound understanding of IFAF and have been addressed in the GOV.
10 UN OIOS participated in a meeting of UN organisations, held on 13 March 2013 in Geneva, to establish a UN Transparency Working Group, which took the form of a workshop on transparency issues, open data and the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI). The representative of UN OIOS, also in his capacity as chair of the RAIS working group IFAF, brought the IFAF initiative under the attention of the participants.
44
ANNEX 9
U.S. Government Accountability Office
Report on financial accountability information requirements
Objective of Work Done
The objective for Task 13, as provided in the 2011-2013 AADA WG Work Programme, was to take inventory and analyze the requirements that large private donors or foundations6 give to their partners as regards to financial accountability information. This task was designed to facilitate the Working Group AADA ‘s overall objective of developing good guidance and practices in accountability and auditing for SAIs. Initially, Task 13 focused on identifying and analyzing the financial reporting requirements that large private donors (foundations) specializing in disaster aid and humanitarian assistance require of the recipients who receive their contributions and/or in-kind donations. However, our preliminary work indicated that large, private, U.S. based donor funding for international disaster aid and humanitarian assistance was relatively small compared to the significantly larger amounts contributed by large U.S. based nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)7. We observed that large private U.S. based donors primarily work through NGOs when they participate in such assistance efforts. We presented our observations at the 5th Working Group Meeting in Ankara, Turkey and subsequently discussed them with the leadership of the AADA WG. Based on these discussions, the scope of the work for Task 13 was broadened to include large U.S. based NGOs involved in disaster aid and humanitarian assistance.
To select NGOs for study, we reviewed the activities and financial information of 20 U.S. based NGOs8 and selected four of these NGOs for further detailed study based on their
6 A private foundation derives its money from a family, an individual, or a corporation. An example
of a private foundation is the Ford Foundation. In contrast, a grant-making public charity derives its support from diverse sources, which may include foundations, individuals, and government agencies. In this paper, we refer to grant-making public charities as nongovernmental organizations.
7 A non-governmental organization is any non-profit, voluntary citizens' group which is organized
on a local, national or international level. Task-oriented and driven by people with a common interest, NGOs perform a variety of service and humanitarian functions, bring citizen concerns to Governments, advocate and monitor policies and encourage political participation through provision of information.
8 These NGO were reported to be among the largest in terms of revenue and contributions in
international disasters based on our review of publicly available information. We also reviewed the annual financial reports for fiscal year end 2012 for the NGOs that we selected for our study.
45
fiscal year 2010 annual revenues and contributions to disaster-related and humanitarian assistance. We surveyed the NGOs‘ financial reporting requirements for aid recipients. To do so, we developed a questionnaire that primarily focused on four areas related to financial reporting requirements and good practices of disaster aid and humanitarian assistance:
(1) the tracking and acknowledgement of donations by recipients,
(2) the financial reporting requirements specified by donors for recipients,
(3) the level of audit assurance required by donors for financial reports, and
(4) other information such as performance reporting and the oversight and monitoring of work performed.
We also met with representatives of a national accounting firm that performs external audits for U.S based and European charitable organizations. We obtained information on financial reporting requirements for aid recipients. In our meetings with senior officials at the four NGOs and the accounting firm, we also discussed good practices for streamlining financial reporting and auditing requirements for disaster-aid and humanitarian assistance. In addition, we discussed the feasibility of using a standardised annual financial report that shows the aid contributed by donors and received by recipients.
Results Obtained
Through our survey and discussions, we identified a number of practices in the financial reporting of disaster-related and humanitarian aid and some concerns that need to be addressed to establish a standardised financial reporting template. Overall, NGO and accounting firm officials felt that efforts to streamline current financial reporting practices were welcomed. In addition, the officials raised concerns about the extent that certain items could be addressed using a standardised reporting format and that donors would need some incentives to adopt these practices. Some of the concerns included such items as standardising the type of audit assurance required, reporting using a single currency, reporting using the same fiscal year end for all donors and aid recipients, and establishing minimum thresholds for reporting donor contributions and uses of aid by recipients. We informed the AADA WG of the results of our work which also included suggestions for incorporating the practices and addressing areas of concern. The results from our work were considered in the development of INTOSAI GOV 9250 - The Integrated Financial Accountability Framework (IFAF): Guidance on Improving Information on Financial Flows of Humanitarian Aid.
How the outcome of the work can be used by SAIs
The goal of the IFAF tables9 is to replace the preparation of a number of unique financial reports with a standardised publicly available format – thereby improving the availability,
9 The IFAF is a framework for preparing and making publically available standardised ex post
financial reports on humanitarian aid flows. These financial reports take the form of IFAF tables prepared by all entities involved in the donation, receipt or implementation of humanitarian aid.
46
reliability, and quality of financial information, as well as reducing costs. It is envisioned that SAIs may ultimately use the IFAF template to review the payment and receipt of humanitarian aid from donor to recipient and construct an overall financial picture of a disaster or crisis.
47
APPENDIX
Background
As part of its work on examining disaster related aid flows related to the 2004 Tsunami, the INTOSAI Tsunami Task Force10 determined, based on a study of 50 humanitarian nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), that each NGO used a different financial reporting model to report aid flows to the respective donor and that the use of different financial reporting models prevents comparability of the information. The Task Force also reported that the lack of comparability of the information hampers the planning, coordination, monitoring and auditing of aid and stands in the way of learning for the future. They also concluded that the reliability of the information was variable and accountability of the donations was inadequate. The Task Force recommended that a single information structure should be in place to facilitate an audit trail of disaster related aid. This single information structure should contain standardised financial and performance accountability information that matches the information needs of the relevant stakeholders and that such a structure would enhance the accountability and transparency of disaster-related aid. To help address these concerns, the AADA11 set out to develop a framework for standardising the financial reports of humanitarian aid flows that are to be completed by donors, recipients, intermediary organizations, and implementing bodies12; specify the type of assurance service to be performed on the financial reports; and make public the financial reports for improved transparency so that the information can be compared.
Objective
The objective of Task 13 was to take an inventory of and analyze the financial reporting requirements that major private donors demand of aid recipients, and implementing bodies to account for disaster related and humanitarian aid.13 Specifically, Task 13 was
10 INTOSAI Task Force on the Accountability for and Audit of Disaster-related Aid: Lessons on
Accountability. Transparency and Audit of Tsunami-related Aid, November 2008.
11For more information on the INTOSAI Disaster Task Force and Working Group see annex I to ISSAI
5500.
12 An implementer collaborates with the appealing organisation to implement projects, usually on a sub-
contract basis. (Implementers can be governmental organisations, national or international NGOs or other
organisations.)
13 Initially, Task 13 focused on identifying and analyzing the financial reporting requirements that large
private donors or foundations specializing in disaster aid and humanitarian assistance require of the
recipients. Generally, a private foundation derives its money from a family, an individual, or a corporation.
Our preliminary work indicated that large U.S. based foundations’ direct funding for international disaster
aid and humanitarian assistance was relatively small. In general, these organizations donate funds to large
48
to provide information on donor financial reporting requirements and practices for consideration in the AADA‘s development of a standardised financial reporting template for disaster related and humanitarian aid. Our work on Task 13 concludes with this report to the AADA.
Methodology
We reviewed the reported activities and financial information for 20 U.S. based NGOs 14
and selected four of the NGOs for more detailed study based on their fiscal year 2010 annual revenues and contributions to disaster-related and humanitarian assistance. We also met with officials from a national accounting firm actively engaged in performing external audits for U.S and European charitable organizations, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and the U.S. Department of State. We developed a questionnaire that we used to interview these officials on the financial reporting requirements and practices relating to the disaster-related and humanitarian aid.
Summary of Results
We identified a number of donor financial reporting requirements and practices regarding disaster-related and humanitarian aid and issues to consider for establishing a standardised financial reporting template. We surveyed several senior officials in nongovernmental organizations and in a national accounting firm. These officials supported efforts to streamline financial reporting requirements from donors and to reduce the number of audited financial reports required by donors. We also spoke with selected U.S. Government officials involved with disaster-related aid. Several of the NGO and U.S. government officials expressed concern that donors would need incentives to require aid recipients to use a standardised financial reporting model rather than to use the donors‘ unique specification requirements for financial reporting and assurance services. Additionally, several of the NGO and accounting officials stated that the standardised financial reporting template should provide direction for resolving reporting issues related to such items as determining the nature of the type of assurance required;
U.S. based NGOs who carry out disaster assistance. NGOs are defined as any non-profit, voluntary citizens'
group which is organized on a local, national or international level. NGOs serve in various roles relating to
disaster aid: donor, intermediary organization, implementer, and recipient. We observed that large private
U.S. based foundations primarily work through NGOs when they participate in such assistance efforts. We
presented our observations at the 5th Working Group Meeting in Ankara, Turkey and discussed them with
the AADA’s leadership. Based on these discussions, the scope of the work for Task 13 was broadened to
include large U.S. based, NGOs involved in disaster aid and humanitarian assistance.
14These NGOs were among the largest in terms of revenue and contributions in international disasters. The
source of information for our review was publicly available sources and consisted of the annual
financial reports that included the financial statements for the fiscal year ended 2010.
,
49
using a single currency denomination; using the same fiscal year end; establishing minimum thresholds for reporting donor contributions and uses of aid by recipients; and developing an approach to systematically code the data to help provide consistency among the reports. We provided the results of our work to the AADA and suggestions for resolving the areas of reporting issues. The AADA considered the results of our work in its development of the INTOSAI GOV 9250 - The Integrated Financial Accountability Framework (IFAF). This report summarizes our work.
Results Obtained
We organized our financial reporting requirements and practices survey questions around five topics and provide the respondents summarized answers below.
Donor Requirements for Reporting Disaster-Related and Humanitarian Aid Donations;
Assurance Services on Disaster-Related and Humanitarian Aid Financial Reports;
Performance Measures and Monitoring Use of Disaster-Related and Humanitarian Aid;
Tracking and Acknowledging Donations for Disaster-Related and Humanitarian Aid; and
Perspectives on the Use of Standardised Financial Templates
Donor Requirements for Reporting Disaster-Related and Humanitarian Aid Donations
Each donor generally requires separate financial reports based on the requirements specified in the grant agreement or contract with the recipient which is signed by the recipient organisation. In general, each financial report that the recipient provides to the donor is not made publicly available. The provisions of the grant agreement or contract commonly include the following:
Type of financial report to be submitted (financial statement or some other type of financial report);
Specific financial information required (funds received, funds disbursed, and funds remaining – for the current period and cumulatively since the beginning of the project);
Accounting standards to be used (e.g., the accounting standards of the recipient country);
Basis of accounting to be used (commonly the cash basis, although the accrual and modified basis are also used);
Reporting currency to be used (commonly either the local currency or the currency in which the funds were initially provided);
Frequency for reporting timeframes for financial reports (quarterly or monthly depending on donor preference); and
Timeframe for final reporting (generally within 90 days of the end of the project; however, specific due dates vary, depending on the requirements of the donor).
50
Assurance Services on Disaster-Related and Humanitarian Aid Financial Reports
Donors specify the type of assurance service such as attestation services which include audits of historical financial statements and internal control over financial reporting; or reviews of historical financial statements—that is required by the recipients‘ auditors. The types of assurance or attestation service requirements vary widely and depend on the needs of the donor, size of the recipient organization, and amounts donated. In some cases, NGOs perform preliminary internal control assessments of recipient organizations prior to the distribution of donations. These assessments may determine whether a formal internal control review is performed and may also be used to determine the audit procedures performed.
Performance and Monitoring Measures for Disaster-Related and Humanitarian Aid
In general, recipients are required to provide to donors with performance reports that identify the accomplishments the recipients have achieved based on their use of the donated resources. They are also to identify future goals. Performance indicators and measures will vary depending on the needs and goals of the individual program and donor requirements. Individual NGOs may also monitor the performance of local recipients through site visits and their own internal audit teams.
Tracking and Acknowledging Donations for Disaster-Related and Humanitarian Aid
To achieve accountability for the funds being provided, NGO officials stated that they require recipient organizations to provide written acknowledgement of receipt of funding. If written acknowledgement is not provided, officials use alternative methods (e.g., cancelled checks or bank records) to verify that the funding was received.
Perspectives on the Use of Standardised Financial Templates
Overall, NGO and accounting firm officials expressed support for the concept of a single standardised financial report as represented in the IFAF framework. Since currently recipients are required to prepare separate reports that follow the unique specifications of each donor, NGO officials stated that any effort to streamline the current financial reporting practice with a standardised format and thus reduce the number of financial reports being prepared would be welcomed.
The officials that we interviewed also identified issues that would need to be examined and resolved relating to the standardised financial reporting template which are discussed below.
The grant agreements and contracts between donors and recipients specify the financial information required for financial reporting purposes and the format of the IFAF template does not provide the level of detail required by some donors. Thus, donors may require that the recipient provide a separate financial report. As a result, the IFAF template may be viewed as additional work and may not reduce the reporting burden for recipients.
The format of the IFAF template may require recipient organizations to reformat how information is collected or to obtain additional detailed information. In many
51
cases, accounting and financial management systems report expenditures by line item rather than by donor. Further, reporting expenditures by individual accounts may be difficult due to the different coding structures used for similar projects and activities by individual accounting systems.
The guidance for using the standardised format should include direction on systematically coding the data to help provide consistency among the reports that are completed by various preparers.
The grant agreements and contracts between donors and recipients specify the currency to be used for reporting purposes. Generally, donors require that the local currency or the currency in which the funds are provided be used for reporting purposes. If a local currency is used, the reported amount may be converted into U.S. dollars using the conversion rate prevalent at the end of the reporting period or the conversion rate may be specified by the donor.
An official with the national accounting firm noted that organizations have different fiscal year ends. For example, some organizations use a fiscal year that ends on December 31 while other organizations have fiscal years that end in June 30 or September 30. Due to the differences in fiscal year ends, intermediary organizations may have to consolidate and verify financial information from a number of recipients with widely different fiscal years. Establishing a standard reporting period for the IFAF template would address this issue; however, an audit (or agreed-upon procedures) for the interim period might need to be performed which would result in additional professional service costs for the organization.
NGO officials in general saw no need to have the data that was in the standardised reports (i.e. the IFAF template) audited. In many cases, the recipient‘s financial statements and internal controls are audited and the data would come from the same systems. NGO officials suggested that a minimum reporting threshold for individual donors be established. Donations to individual charitable organizations may vary significantly with many being comparatively small. Having the numerous small donations audited would be expensive and time consuming for organizations.
NGO and U.S. government officials stated that streamlining the IFAF‘s format and reporting requirements would make the template more usable. For example, requiring that revenue is reported by categories of donors (i.e., by foundations, U.S. agencies, NGOs, and individuals) and establishing a reporting threshold for each category would simplify the reporting process. In addition, requiring that donors contributing more than $500,000 be individually identified and allowing donors contributing less than $500,000 to be reported by category would be one way to streamline donor reporting.
Due to the existing processes for reporting requirements set by donors, NGO officials stated that donor organizations might require incentives to begin using the IFAF template. U.S. government officials stated that achieving the widespread adoption of the IFAF template would require the cooperation and support of the major donors (primarily federal agencies and private foundations) for a donor requirement that NGOs use the template.
52
53
ANNEX 10
European Court of Auditors
Overview of Members’ participation
in the Working Group meeting 2011-13
Member SAI 2011
(Antalya)
2012
(Yogyakarta)
2013
(Valparaiso)
European Court of Auditors (chair) √ √ √
Indonesia (vice chair) √ √ √
Netherlands (vice chair) √ √ √
Austria
Chile √ √ √
China (member since 2012) √ √
France
Georgia
India √ √ √
Jamaica
Japan √ √ √
Kenya √ √
Korea (Republic of) √ √
Norway √ √ √
Pakistan √ √
Peru √
Philippines √ √
Romania (member since 2012) √
Russia (member since 2012) √ √
Sri Lanka
54
Turkey √ √ √
Ukraine √ √ √
USA √ √
Totals 13 13 17