international journal of government auditing · ©2000 international journal of government...

©2000 International Journal of Government Auditing, Inc.

The International Journal of Government Auditing is published quar-terly (January, April, July, October) in Arabic, English, French, Ger-man, and Spanish editions on behalf of INTOSAI (InternationalOrganization of Supreme Audit Institutions). The Journal, whichis the official organ of INTOSAI, is dedicated to the advancement ofgovernment auditing procedures and techniques. Opinions and be-liefs expressed are those of editors or individual contributors and donot necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Organization.

The editors invite submissions of articles, special reports , and newsitems, which should be sent to the editorial offices at U.S. GeneralAccounting Office, Room 7806, 441 G Street, NW, Washington, D.C.20548, U.S.A. (Phone: 202-512-4707. Facsimile:202-512-4021.E-Mail: <[email protected]>).

Given the Journal’s use as a teaching tool, articles most likely to beaccepted are those which deal with pragmatic aspects of public sec-tor auditing. These include case studies, ideas on new audit method-ologies or details on audit training programs. Articles that deal pri-marily with theory would not be appropriate.

The Journal is distributed to the heads of all Supreme Audit Institu-tions throughout the world who participate in the work of INTOSAI.Others may subscribe for US$5 per year. Checks and correspon-dence for all editions should be mailed to the Journal’s administra-tion office, P.O. Box 50009,Washington, D.C. 20004, U.S.A.

Articles in the Journal are indexed in the Accountants’ Index pub-lished by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants andincluded in Management Contents. Selected articles are included inabstracts published by Anbar Management Services, Wembley, En-gland, and University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, Michi-gan, U.S.A.

InternationalJournal

ofGovernment

AuditingJanuary 2000—Vol. 27, No. 1

Board of EditorsFranz Fiedler, President, Court of Audit, AustriaL. Denis Desautels, Auditor General, CanadaEmna Aouij, Premier President, Court of Accounts, TunisiaDavid M. Walker, Comptroller General, United StatesEduardo Roche Lander, Comptroller General, Venezuela

PresidentLinda L. Weeks (U.S.A.)

EditorDonald R. Drach (U.S.A.)

Assistant EditorLinda J. Sellevaag (U.S.A.)

Associate EditorsWilliam Woodley (Canada)Kiyoshi Okamoto (ASOSAI-Japan)Luseane Sikalu (SPASAI-Tonga)Michael C.G. Paynter (CAROSAI-Trinidad and Tobago)EUROSAI General Secretariat (Spain)Khemais Hosni (Tunisia)Cristina Rojas Valery (Venezuela)INTOSAI General Secretariat (Austria)U.S. General Accounting Office (U.S.A.)

Production/AdministrationSebrina Chase (U.S.A.)

FinancesU.S. General Accounting Office (U.S.A.)

Members of the Governing Board of INTOSAIGuillermo Ramirez, President, Court of Accounts, Uruguay, ChairmanJong-Nam Lee, Chairman, Board of Audit and Inspection, Korea,

First Vice-ChairmanTawfik I. Tawfik, State Minister and President, General Audit

Bureau,Saudi Arabia, Second Vice-ChairmanFranz Fiedler, President, Court of Audit, Austria, Secretary GeneralArah Armstrong, Director of Audit, Antigua and BarbudaIram Saraiva, Minister-President, Court of Accounts, BrazilLucy Gwanmesia, Minister Delegate, CameroonL. Denis Desautels, Auditor General, CanadaMohamed Gawdat Ahmed El-Malt, President, Central Auditing

Organization, EgyptHedda Von Wedel, President, Court of Audit, GermanyV. K. Shunglu, Comptroller and Auditor General, IndiaAbdessadeq El Glaoui, President, Court of Accounts, MoroccoBjarne Mork Eidem, Auditor General, NorwayVictor Enrique Caso Lay, Contralor General, PeruAlfredo Jose de Sousa, President, Court of Accounts, PortugalPohiva Tui’i’onetoa, Auditor General, TongaDavid M. Walker, Comptroller General, United States

Contents

1

3

7

11

14

17

19

20

Editorial

News in Brief

17th Commonwealth AG Conference

AFROSAI 8th General Assembly

OLACEFS IX General Assembly

Audit Prof ile: Sierra Leone

Reports in Print

Inside INTOSAI

International Journal of Government Auditing–January 20001

Performance Audits, Evaluations andSupreme Audit InstitutionsBy Inga-Britt Ahlenius, Auditor General of Sweden

The organization and duties of government audit have beendiscussed extensively for some years in Sweden. Specifically,the debate has focused on the Swedish model for publicadministration, in which the supreme audit institution reportsto the government rather than the parliament. A number of theissues in this debate, however, are of a more general andinternational interest. One in particular that I would like todiscuss relates to the distinguishing characteristics betweenthe audit — especially performance audit — and the evaluationfunctions, and how they differ conceptually. The focus of thiseditorial is on performance auditing rather than financial auditbecause the distinctions between financial auditing andevaluation are clear and well-established. As supreme auditinstitutions continue to expand their scope of audit fromfinancial audits to performance audits and evaluations, and asdemands for greater accountability and transparency ingovernment programs increase, I thought colleagues might beinterested in the Swedish experience regarding these twoimportant functions that support public accountability.

Constitutional Role as a DistinguishingFactor

Every democracy has, as an important component of itsdemocratic structure, an institution responsible for theindependent audit of the state. As a rule and consistent withINTOSAI’s requirements specified in the Lima Declarationand other documents, this function is established by law, oftenin the constitution. Independent state audit is, therefore, definedprimarily by a constitutional or legal position or role. Bydefinition, a country can only have one organization responsiblefor the independent state audit.

Thus, audit occupies a fundamentally different positionin the democratic system than evaluations. In mostcountries—but not, however, in Sweden—this position isestablished in the constitution, giving audits a specificallydefined and institutionalized independence. Audits followgenerally accepted auditing standards that, among otherthings, codify the independence of the audit in relation tothe entities being audited. Audits are based on normativeissues: they report on how an activity is actually run andwhether it achieves the results/effects identified in theobjectives and the requirements laid down by parliamentand the government.

Therefore, audit responsibility is an institutionalphenomenon defined by a country’s public administrationstructure, which gives the state audit a uniquely independentposition. In contrast, there are no restrictions on the numberof institutions and organizations that can be established toperform evaluations. In Sweden and other countries, manydifferent entities have resources available to perform studiesand evaluations—the cabinet and ministries, a number ofprivate sector agencies and firms, as well as universitiesand colleges. Furthermore, evaluations are performed in anumber of different areas—medical techniques, pedagogicalmethods, and reforms of various types, to name a few.Additionally, evaluations deal with a different dimension.In intellectual terms, an evaluation is concerned withmethodology: what questions are asked, what methods areused, and who is approached, for example.

In Sweden, audits are carried out in accordance withgovernment ordinances, and the ultimate purpose of theaudit is to promote (1) compliance with government lawsand regulations and (2) efficiency and effectiveness ingovernment undertakings. For example, audits determinewhether government agencies, programs, and activities aremeeting their goals and, based on those findings, the supremeaudit institutions presents proposals for improvement. Inresponse to audits audited organizations as a rule arerequired to submit a report on the measures they have taken,and the results that have been achieved. In Sweden, thisinformation is included in the annual report that thegovernment, as part of the budget process, presents toparliament for decision-making purposes. In countries wherethe supreme audit institution reports directly to parliament,the government is also required by parliament to report onthe measures it has taken.

In summary, then, the responsibilities and position ofgovernment audits are fundamentally different from those

Ms. Inga-Britt Ahlenius

#1


of evaluations. In the private sector, the same distinction canbe found in the responsibilities of those who audit businessesas compared to general evaluations or studies conducted byconsultants.

Differences in Standards, Criteria andContent

By definition, auditors are independent of the entities theyaudit. The international terminology, as codified in INTOSAI’sstandards and guidelines, speaks of “organizational andfunctional independence.” Generally accepted auditingstandards are documented and established and, for governmentaudits, INTOSAI’s standards provide the norm.

The private sector has similar definitions. Furthermore,audit assignments stay within certain borders and followspecific guidelines since they are always based on a norm orstandard as they strive to determine whether the entity isachieving its goals and if regulations are being followed.

An evaluation, on the other hand, need not be based on aspecific issue, and its conclusions do not need to relate to norms(for example, the government’s goals and objectives for acertain program or activity). The staff conducting an evaluationmay or may not be independent of those who implement orrun the program or activities, and they can raise issues notdirectly related to decision-making matters. While “generallyaccepted standards” do not exist, professionalism in carryingout the evaluation is an obvious goal. Further, from the auditperspective, evaluation is one instrument among many that canbe used to conduct audit work, and performance audits andevaluations may use the same methods and approaches.

Differences in ProfessionalQualifications and Experience

An audit institution’s professional expertise grows out ofthe institution’s audit responsibilities. It includes knowledgeof audit methods and examination techniques combined withrelatively in-depth knowledge of the entity and activities beingaudited and the subject matter. Thus, it combines experiencein and knowledge of various evaluation techniques withexperience gained from regular audit work.

In an evaluation organization, professional expertiseconsists of the knowledge available in the organization at anygiven moment. This expertise thus primarily reflects the”market” which the organization focuses on (for example,medical evaluations or assignments commissioned by thegovernment). A university, for example, can create its owndistinctive expertise and reputation in a certain field. Sweden

has a long tradition of evaluation and the Swedish centralgovernment administration has good evaluation resources.

International CooperationIn the evaluation field, international cooperation regarding

methods is well established. The Cour de Comptes in Francehas provided leadership in this area for many years as the chairof the INTOSAI Working Group on Program Evaluation. Untilfairly recently , my office (the Swedish National Audit Office,RRV) was responsible for the secretariat function and held thepost of general secretary for the European Evaluation Society,whose members are drawn from universities, governmentagencies, and audit institutions throughout Europe. As part ofthis responsibility, the RRV organized a conference in March1997 that participants from some 40 countries attended. Theparticipants represented research institutions, internationalorganizations, national governments, and audit institutions.Members of the RRV staff had the main responsibility for, andparticipated in, a number of different sessions onmethodological issues, issues relating to the use of evaluations,the organization of evaluation activities, and the relationshipbetween audit and evaluation activities. Additional informationabout the results of this conference are available from the RRV.

Concluding ThoughtsThe present debate about the role of the performance audit

and its methods – in Sweden and in other countries – issometimes characterized by uncertainties in definitions ofconcepts and in confusion over objectives and methods in anexpenditure program. When working with a performance audit,it is essential to establish and make clear to others that thescope of the audit is limited to checking the degree to whichthe objectives of a program have been met, and to analyzingthe means that have been used to reach these objectives. Theaudit never questions the objectives. In an evaluation situation,you may choose also to question the objectives as a part ofyour study. The constitutional position of the state auditnecessitates that the limitation in this regard be evident – theobjectives are set by the political bodies – but also that it bemade clear externally, for the benefit of the political decisionmakers, the media and the general public.

It is to be hoped that the observations we have made inSweden concerning these questions may also be of use in othercountries, and prove valuable in similar debates about the roleof the performance audit and the limitations of its goals.

For more information, contact the author at: National AuditOffice of Sweden (RRV), Drottninggatan 89, S-10430Stockholm, Sweden (tel. 46-8-690-4000; fax: 46-8-690-4123;e-mail: [email protected]). n


News in Brief

Bangladesh

New Comptroller and AuditorGeneral

Mr. Syed Yusuf Hossain wasappointed as the Comptroller andAuditor General of Bangladesh onAugust 8, 1999. Prior to that he wasSecretary, Ministry of Defense. Hecomes to this position following adistinguished career that included seniorpositions in the public and the privatesectors. Prior to his appointment to headBangladesh’s national audit office,Mr. Hossain was Secretary, Ministry ofCultural Affairs, and before that hadserved as Additional Secretary, Ministryof Industries.

Mr. Syed Yusuf Hossain

#2

For much of his career he held toppositions in the industrial and energysectors. Mr. Hossain was chairman anda member of the Board of Directors ofvarious industrial enterprise boards andmulti-national companies including:British American Tobacco CompanyLtd.; Liver Brothers Bangladesh Ltd.;and, International Joint VentureCompanies. In addition, he was amember of the Board of Directors ofIndustrial Development Bank ofBangladesh.

Mr. Hossain brings considerableinternational experience to this new

position, having led severalgovernmental delegations abroad onIndustrial Investment and HumanResources Development. Additionally,he studied in a number of countriesincluding the United States, Germany,and Australia. Outside his professionalcareer, he is actively associated with theworld of sports in Bangladesh at thenational level. He is President ofBangladesh Table Tennis Federation,Executive Committee Member ofNational Sports Council, and Chairmanof the National Sports Council, SportsAward Committee. He was ExecutiveCommittee Member of BangladeshOlympic Association. He has been twiceawarded as the nation’s best sportsorganizer by the Bangladesh sportswriters association and Bangladeshsports journalists association.

For more information, contact:Office of the Comptroller and AuditorGeneral, 43 Kakrail Road, Dhaka –1000, Bangladesh (tel.: 880-2-841-447;fax: 880-2-831-2690; e-mail: [email protected]).

Canada

Annual Report: “Two Cheers”for the Nineties

“Public administration here andelsewhere has experienced profoundreforms in the 1990s, but the job is notyet over,” Auditor General DenisDesautels said in his Report tabled in theHouse of Commons on November 30,1999.

“Matters of Special Importance” isthe chapter in which the Auditor Generalhighlights particularly significant issuesarising from his Office’s work during theyear and matters from previous years thatcontinue to be of special importance.This year, he reviewed recentdevelopments in the federal budgetaryprocess, departmental management and

reporting practices, new governancemechanisms for the delivery of federalprograms, and public service renewal.He says that while significant progresswas made during the 1990s in all of theseareas, shortcomings remain.

These shortcoming include thefollowing: the budgetary process is notsufficiently forward-looking, the focuson short-term surplus targets is toonarrow and there is no mechanism inplace to encourage ongoing review ofprograms; departmental reporting andmanagement remain excessivelyoriented toward activities rather thanresults; accountability provisions in newgovernance arrangements are weak,risking a loss of Parliament’s ability toscrutinize federal public policy asreliance on such arrangements grows;and, in the public service, gaps createdby years of downsizing and restructuringremain, people management practicesneed to be modernized, and an agingwork force implies immense staffingneeds in the years ahead.

This year’s report also discussessustainable development efforts in thefederal government; managing Atlanticshellfish in a sustainable manner; userfees, grants and contributions programs;national health surveillance; and, theYear 2000 computer problem.

“The 1990s have been a decade oftransition in government,” said theAuditor General. “As we enter a newdecade, we must aim to consolidate ourachievements and continue movingforward. Building on the foundations ofthe past decade, we can succeed inpassing on to posterity a strongerCanada.”

For more information, contact:Office of the Auditor General, 240Sparks Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1AOG6, Canada (tel. 613-952-0213 ext6292; fax: 613-957-4023; e-mail:[email protected]; web page:www.oag-bvg.gc.ca).


Egypt

New SAI President AppointedThe President of the Arab Republic

of Egypt issued Presidential Decree No.324 of 1999, appointing counsellorDr. Mohamed Gawdat Ahmed El–Maltas president of the Central AuditingOrganization (CAO) effective October10, 1999.

Dr. El-Malt is a distinguished juristwith many years’ experience at seniorlevels of government, for which thePresident of the Republic granted him aFirst Class Medal of the Republic.

He earned a license of Law fromAlexandria University in 1956; thefollowing year he earned a Diploma inPublic Law from Cairo University, and,in 1958, Dr. El-Malt was awarded aDiploma in political economy fromCairo University. In 1967, he earned aPh.D. in public law with highest honorsin from Cairo University. He hasmaintained his academic ties over theyears by participating in many doctoralresearch projects at Cairo, Ein–Shams,and Tanta Universities.

He joined the judicial corps of theState Council in 1956. He was secondedto the United Arab Emirates in 1972, asa Legal Counsellor for the Emirate ofAbu Dahabi Crown Prince Bureau for12 years.

Dr. Gawdat El-Malt

#3

Prior to his appointment as head ofEgypt’s supreme audit institution, Dr. El-Malt held the following posts in the StateCouncil: Chairman of the AdvisoryOpinion Department for the Presidencyof the Republic, the Cabinet and the

Governorates; President of theDisciplinary Court for SeniorAdministrative Staff; President of theJudicial Investigation; President of theSupreme Administrative Court;President of the Political Parties Court;Deputy of the State Council in 1986; andin 1998, President of the State Council.Dr. El-Malt was the President of theState Council Club for three consecutiveyears and was also elected as honorarylifetime president of the club.

He is the author of severalpublications such as “The DisciplinaryAccountability of the Public Servant”and many legal articles published inspecialized circulars. He prepared thefirst encyclopedia of legislation for laws,protocols, systems and decisions (1965-1980, and participated in preparing andformulating several federal and locallaws.

For more information, contact:Central Auditing Organization, MadinetNassr, P.O. Box 11789, Cairo, Egypt(tel.: 20-2-401-8301; fax: 20-2-261-5813).

Germany

Annual Report IssuedOn October 12, 1999, the

Bundesrechnungshof presented its 1999annual report to the federal legislativebodies and the government. The reportreflects a portion of the approximately600 management letters issued by thesupreme audit institution of Germany inthe course of its annual audit andadvisory work. It contains commentsabout federal appropriations and capitalaccounts for financial year 1998 andsome 100 contributions on specific auditfindings, most of which address highlytopical issues.

The cases highlighted in the reporthave a one-time savings potential of overa billion deutschmarks and a recurringsavings potential amounting to severalhundreds of millions of deutschmarks.Apart from that the report presents auditfindings regarding tax losses totaling abillion deutschmarks.

The key features of the latest reportare the general financial relationship and

funding practice between the two levelsof federal administration and federalstate administration. The majorproblems found are shortcomings in thecollection of tax revenues and excessiveor unjustified federal funding providedtowards federal state projects andprograms. Another major topic isfederal subsidies. In addition, the reportdiscusses major shortcomings in thedefense sector such as excessinventories, and inefficient procurementand sale procedures. As in previousyears, the report looks at the high levelof public debt, which is another issue ofconcern.

The abridged versions of the annualreport (in German and English) areavailable at no cost by writing to:Bundesrechnungshof, Referat Pr/Int, D-60284 Frankfurt, Germany. The longform report in German is also availableat the above address. In addition, it isavailable on the Bundesrechnungshof’sweb site: (http://www.bundesrchnungshof. de).

Hungary

10th Anniversary

The 10th anniversary of the re-establishment of the State Audit Office(SAO) of the Hungarian Republic wascelebrated on October 28-29, 1999. Theevent featured training and professionaldevelopment activities and guest lecturesby international experts. Dr. ArpadKovacs, President of the Hungarian StateAudit Office, welcomed the presidentsof the SAIs of the Czech Republic,Croatia, Poland, Italy, Slovakia andRomania and other distinguished visitorsto the two-day celebration. Dr. Kovacsopened the two-day event by noting theimportance of the re-establishment of theState Audit Office. He said that amongthe former socialist countries Hungarywas the first to re-establish anindependent national audit office as anessential element of the new democraticgovernment after forty years.

The first day of the celebrationconsisted of a series of professionaldevelopment activities at the State AuditOffice’s Training and Methodological


Center in Velence. Guest speakersincluded Richard Maggs representingSir John Bourn, Comptroller andAuditor General of the United Kingdom;Mr. James Bonnell, regional inspectorgeneral of the U.S. Agency forInternational Development; and,Mr. Patrick Everard, member of theEuropean Court of Auditors.

The lectures prompted a livelydiscussion among participants whoincluded SAO staff and other Hungariangovernment officials.

On the second day, Dr. Kovacsreviewed the most important workperformed by the SAO in the last 10years, and outlined the tasks andchallenges facing his office in the earlyyears of the 21st century. A lecture wasdelivered by Dr. Franz Fiedler, SecretaryGeneral of the INTOSAI, in which hedescribed INTOSAI’s many programsand activities, and emphasizedINTOSAI’s role as a vehicle for sharingknowledge and experience among itsmembers and thus promoting theirinstitutional development. In recognitionof the continuous support given by theAustrian Court of Audit and INTOSAI,Hungarian President Dr. Arpad Gonezconferred a high state decoration onDr. Franz Fiedler.

Joining President Gonez in greetingparticipants and in congratulating theSAO on its accomplishments were theVice-speaker of the Parliament and theChairman of the Constitutional Court.At the conclusion of the event, Dr. ArpadKovacs together with Dr. Franz Fiedlerlaid flowers on the grave of Dr. IstvanHagelmayer, the first President of theState Audit Office.

For more information, contact: StateAudit Office, Apaczai Csere Janos U.10, H-1052 Budapest, Hungary (tel: 36-1-318-8799; fax: 36-1-338-4710).

Japan

New President AppointedMr. Akira Kaneko, one of three

commissioners of the Board of Audit ofJapan, was appointed President of theBoard of Audit on December 7, 1999.

He succeeds Mr. Shuro Hikita who hadretired on October 26, 1999.

Until his appointment asCommissioner of the Board in August1997, Mr. Kaneko was a professor of lawat Keio University specializing in theanti-trust field. He had also held manypositions on various governmentadvisory boards.

In a related move, Mr. NobuakiMorishita was appointed aCommissioner of the Board onDecember 3, 1999. Mr. Morishitajoined the Board of Audit in 1966 andserved in many important positionswithin the Board. Prior to hisappointment as a Commissioner, he wasthe Secretary General of the Board.

A commissioner serves for a termof seven years or until reaching themandatory retirement age of 65 yearsold. The President of the Board isappointed by the Cabinet on the basisof peer election among threecommissioners.

Korea

New SAI ChairmanDr. Jong-Nam Lee was appointed

Chairman of the Board of Audit andInspection of Korea in September 1999.A lawyer and certified accountant bytraining and profession, Dr. Lee bringsto his new position a wealth ofexperience that includes service in theprivate and public sectors and academicworld.

His distinguished legal careerincluded service as Minister of Justice

(1990—1991); Vice-Minister of Justice(1985—1987); Prosecutor General(1987—1988); and, Public Prosecutor,Senior Public Prosecutor, and ChiefPublic Prosecutor (1961—1985). Dr.Lee earned law degrees from the KoreaUniversity in Seoul (LL.B. in 1961) andfrom Konkook University in Seoul(LL.D. in 1975). From 1989 –90, hewas a visiting scholar at HarvardUniversity. Immediately prior to hisappointment, from 1995—1999, Dr. Leewas a representative partner with the lawfirm of Shin and Kim.

Dr. Lee, a certified publicaccountant as well as a lawyer, also hasbeen a national leader in the accountingand financial management field. From1992-96 he served as President of theKorean Institute of Certified PublicAccountants, and from 1991-92 he wasChairman of the International FiscalAssociation of Korea.

In assuming his new duties asChairman of Korea’s Board of Audit andInspection, Dr. Lee also has become amember of Governing Board ofASOSAI (Asian Organization ofSupreme Audit Institutions) and FirstVice-Chairman of INTOSAI (Inter-national Organization of Supreme AuditInstitutions. In this capacity, he will hostthe XVII International Congress ofSupreme Audit Institutions in Seoul in2001.

For more information, contact:Board of Audit and Inspection, 25-23,Samchung-dong, Chongro-ku, Seoul110-706, Republic of Korea (tel: 82-2-72-19-290; fax: 82-2-72-19-276; e-mail:[email protected]).

Dr. Jong-Nam Lee

#5

Mr. Akira Kaneko

#4


Seychelles

1998 Annual Report IssuedThe Annual Report of the Auditor

General for the year 1998 was tabled inthe National Assembly in earlyDecember 1999, as required by thenational Constitution. The reportcontains significant observations madeduring the audits of various ministries,departments and some statutory bodies,which were earlier conveyed toorganizations concerned throughmanagement letters. Part I of the reportdeals with comments on annual financialstatements of the Republic, and Part IIincludes observations on ministries,departments and capital projectsreviewed during the year.

Management letters issued duringthe year, the report notes, have receivedan encouraging response fromorganizations audited. A number ofaudit observations included in the lastreport have been satisfactorily dealt withby the authorities. Nevertheless, thereare still some areas where organizationsconcerned are yet to implementcorrective action.

For more information, contact:Department of Audit, P.O.Box 49,Victoria, Seychelles (e-mail: [email protected]).

United States of America

SAI CooperationSenior audit officials from four

European countries - Belgium,Denmark, Norway, and the Netherlands– joined counterparts from the U.S.General Accounting Office and U.S.Department of Defense (DOD) officialsand defense industry representatives forthe annual conference on theinternational F-16 aircraft co-productionprogram in Washington, September 16– 17, 1999.

The two day meeting centered ondiscussions of each countries’contractual actions for aircraft purchasesand upgrades and DOD efforts toreengineer the foreign military salesprograms to address the conferees’concerns about the lack of transparency

in contract negotiations and the slowpace of contract closeouts. For its part,GAO briefed participants on DOD’sresponse to actions GAO recommendedin its 1996 report on mid-life updatecontract pricing issues (GAO/NSIAD-96-232, September 24, 1996).

In 1977, the four governmentsentered into an agreement with theUnited States to undertake the co-production of 998 F-16 lightweightmultipurpose fighter aircraft. Theobjective of the multibillion-dollar dealwas to aid in the standardization ofNATO weapon systems, provide a low-cost fighter, and increase industrialactivity of the participating nations. Aspart of the pact, the supreme auditinstitutions of the participating nationsagreed to meet annually to shareexperiences related to the F-16 programand jointly audit specific issues.

For more information on the F-16SAI Cooperation Group, contact:Dr. A.J.E. Havermans, NetherlandsCourt of Audit, P.O. Box 20015, 2500WAS, The Hague, Netherlands (tel: 31-70-342-4173; fax: 31-70-342-4130).

Updated Standards for InternalControl

GAO’s newly revised Standards forInternal Control in the FederalGovernment is a tool for goodgovernment, according to ComptrollerGeneral Walker.

#6

Participants in the F-16 SAI Conference take time out of their Septembermeeting in Washington to pose for a group photo. Conference chairmanA.J.E. Havermans, Netherlands (front row, fourth from left), and meetinghost David M. Walker, U.S.A. (front row, fifth from left) are joined byrepresentatives from Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway and theU.S.A.

“Federal policymakers and programmanagers are continually seeking waysto better achieve agencies’ missions andprogram results. A key factor in helpingachieve such outcomes and minimizeoperational problems is to implementappropriate internal control. Effectiveinternal control also helps in managingchange to cope with shiftingenvironments and evolving demands andpriorities,” Mr. Walker said in theforeword to the standards (GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1, November 1999).

Issued in compliance with theFederal Managers’ Financial IntegrityAct of 1982, the internal controlstandards provide an overall frameworkfor establishing and maintaining internalcontrol and for identifying andaddressing major performance andmanagement challenges and areas atgreatest risk of fraud, waste, abuse, andmismanagement. Internal controls canalso assist managers in achieving theobjectives of the Results Act, the CFOAct, and the Federal FinancialManagement Improvement Act.

The 1999 revision also reflects theincreased role of information technologyin government operations, theimportance of human capital, andrecently issued internal control guidancefor private sector entities.

For more information, contact: U.S.GAO, Room 7806, Washington, D.C.20548 USA (tel.: 202-512-4707; fax:202-512-4021; e-mail: [email protected]). n


From October 10-13, 1999, auditors general fromCommonwealth countries met in Sun City, South Africa fordiscussions on Auditing in the Next Century. Delegatesincluded representatives from Antigua and Barbuda, Australia,Bermuda, Botswana, British Virgin Islands, BruneiDarussalam, Cameroon, Canada, Cayman Islands, CookIslands, Cyprus, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, India, Jamaica, Kenya,Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Malaysia, Mauritius, Montserrat,Mozambique, Namibia, New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, PapuaNew Guinea, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka,St. Kitts-Nevis, Swaziland, Tanzania, Tonga, Uganda, UnitedKingdom, Vanuatu, Zambia, and Zimbabwe, and observersfrom the INTOSAI Secretariat (Austria) and INTOSAI’sInternational Journal of Government Auditing (USA).

Opening CeremonyMr. Henri Kluever, Auditor General of South Africa,

officially opened the conference on Sunday evening.Addressing the delegates and accompanying persons, Mr.Kluever pointed out that auditing and accountability areessential to democratic governments which are based onprinciples of fairness and justice. He emphasized that a strongsystem of accountability is essential to an effective democracyregardless of the local customs, cultures, or laws.

This theme was echoed in remarks from other speakersaddressing the group. The Deputy President of the Republicof South Africa, Mr. Jacob Zuma, noted that failure to exerciseprudent oversight can be the biggest threat to democracy andcan lead to political disasters. Mr. Trevor Manuel, Minister ofFinance, continued this thought as he discussed the importanceof an independent auditor general in actively promotingdemocracy, and, when he spoke of the balance between freedomand responsibility, he observed that auditors general play akey role in preserving this balance by ensuring accountabilityand improving public services. He concluded his remarks bysaying that while the auditor general must be independent,“independence from government does not mean a distantrelationship with government,” and he urged delegates toconsider their roles as key players in public sector managementand reform.

Theme DiscussionsIn introducing the discussion sessions, Mr. Kluever

observed that the conference theme, Auditing in the NextCentury, had in fact encouraged participants to look back andtake stock of where they had been as they prepared for wherethey were going. Reflecting on the remarks at the openingceremony, he commented that it was clear that governmentshad high expectations for audit offices in the future, and he

expressed hope that the discussions during the conferencewould prepare everyone to meet those expectations. Mr.Reinhard Rath, delivering remarks on behalf of INTOSAI’sSecretary General, Dr. Franz Fielder, carried this notion forwardby observing that, as the traditional roles and functions of thestate change, supreme audit institutions must also be preparedto accept dramatic changes in their positions and functions.

As discussions evolved, it was clear that the delegates hadtaken these words to heart, and the Sun City Declaration,adopted at the close of the conference, reflects the delegatescommitment to preparing themselves and their SAIs to meetthe challenges of the next century. The Preamble to theDeclaration emphasizes that:

• Auditing must evolve in line with a rapidly changingenvironment.

• A better-informed public expects more from its publicsector and hence also from its public sector auditor.

• SAls are increasingly under pressure to add value to theaudit product in order to remain relevant and credible inthe next century.

• Public accountability, the facilitation of which is theessential function of SAls, can be effectively promotedwhere the audit mandate is broad and enables the SAI toconduct all forms of auditing of government (includingpublic enterprises for which the legislature has oversightresponsibility on behalf of its people).

• Management is primarily responsible to ensure that ef-fective structures of internal control are in place and moni-tored and reviewed regularly as a means of promotinggood governance and accountability.

Theme 1—Adding Value to the Audit Product:The Role and Responsibilities of SAI’s in thisRegard (Presenters: United Kingdom and Fiji;Chairpersons: India and Zimbabwe; Rapporteurs:Australia and Ghana)

This discussion topic had been divided into two areas forpreparation of the principal papers, and countries were invitedto prepare country papers on Forensic Auditing and onComprehensive Audits. Summary discussion papers weredelivered on each topic, and discussions during the conferencetreated each area separately. In both areas, there were livelydebates related to defining or describing the role of the SAI inconducting these types of audits, and SAIs exchangedinformation about their experiences in conducting theseassignments. In the Sun City Declaration, each topic was givenattention:

COMMONWEALTHAUDITORS-GENERAL CONFERENCE


Part 1—Forensic Audit• Forensic audit methodologies are not only limited toinvestigations of fraud and are not the sole preserve ofauditors, but also part of the controls (including inter-nal audit) available to management in order to assess andmanage the risks and the adequacy of controls that ad-dress such risks.

• While existing mandates of SAls and the auditing stan-dards applied by them are in most cases adequate to con-duct forensic audits, audit methodologies need to be de-veloped to encourage the establishment of pro-active andreactive controls by management to prevent and detectfraud. These controls could include the following:

• Control risk assessment techniques

• Declarations on the state of internal controls

• Overarching guidelines for appropriate behaviorin the public sector

• Related codes of conduct for public servants

• Whistle-blowing facilities (e.g. hotlines)

• Information technologies

• Techniques such as data-mining, data-matchingand CAATS

#7

Delegates and observers gathered together for the traditional group photo taken at the Sun City Hotel, one of the four hotel complexes whichserved as locations for conference activities.

• Audit Committees

• Proper audit procedures should be put in place to en-sure compliance with legislation that protects sensitivedata required for forensic audit purposes.

• Forensic audit methodologies can be utilized in thestatutory audit to identify the principal risk areas for theaudit opinion and as the basis for directing the audit ex-amination.

• The pro-active role of forensic audit can add value tothe traditional audit role and includes:

• Carrying out high level reviews of risk areas

• Raising risk awareness

• Ensuring that identified risks are adequatelymanaged

• The re-active role of forensic audit can contribute tothe identification and investigation of fraud and include:

• Collecting appropriate evidence

• Using such evidence to prove or disproveallegations

• Working with other investigative bodies andjudicial processes in general


• Reporting publicly

• Forensic audit skills should increasingly be used in apro-active rather than simply in a re-active way.

• Forensic audit techniques can help SAls mitigate theexpectation gap which often exists between what auditorsactually do in relation to fraud and corruption, and whatpeople think they do.

• The auditor has to design appropriate audit proceduresto have a reasonable expectation of detecting misstate-ments arising from fraud or error which are material tothe financial statements.

are shared and that the SAls become more adeptat spotting fraud and corruption

• Enforcement of financially sound procedures andadequate follow-up on audit reports

• Audit reports should be technically correct and com-municated in a clear, easily understandable manner.

Mr. Henri Kleuver, Auditor General of the Republic of South Africa,served as the conference host.

#8

Part 2—Comprehensive Audit• Auditors-General play an important role in helping pre-serve and strengthen democracy. In turn, the democraticinstitutions of governance need to provide the maximumindependence for Auditors-General.

• Adding value will be most effective if the audit productsare in concert with the general reform directions and gov-ernance processes of the country.

• The most evident audit products are the reports gener-ated for the use of the public and Parliament (the clients).

• Day-to-day interactions between the auditors and cli-ents are crucial to the value-added nature of auditing.

• SAls should be characterized by independence from theorganizations they audit, and an extended scope of au-dits and reporting to stakeholders.

• Criteria for a strong audit institution include:

• Proper independence and accountability of auditfunctions

• Enhancing the effectiveness of SAls through theappointment of competent professional staff

• Liaison with enforcement officials in other gov-ernment agencies to ensure skills and insights

New applications for technology were used extensively during thisconference. In addition to the hard copies of the papers, all delegatesreceived a CD-ROM disk with the principal, country and summarypapers. During the concluding sessions, delegates worked “on screen”to draft the Sun City Declaration. As shown here, a draft of thedocument was projected onto the screen and, as delegates madesuggestions for revisions, the changes were made “in real time” -- inthis way, a final copy of the Declaration was produced in record settingtime.

#9

Theme 2—Environmental Audit: The FutureImportance and Role of SAI’s to Encouragethis Practice (Presenters: Canada and NewZealand; Chairpersons: Nambia and Fiji;Rapporteurs: Zambia and Pakistan)

Noting that environmental auditing is a relatively new butessential field, delegates agreed that SAIs must give attentionto the issues raised during the discussions in order to meettheir current and future responsibilities to the public. As notedin the Sun City Declaration, delegates agreed that:

• SAIs recognize the expectations on the part of stake-holders and the public that they should audit and reporton environmental issues.

• SAIs regard external studies and audits of environmen-tal and sustainable development issues, as an importantaspect in encouraging public accountability with regardto the environment and sustainable development.

• SAIs can contribute to creating an awareness of theneed to address environmental issues and policies at alllevels.

• Environmental auditing can typically be accommodatedwithin the regularity and performance audit mandate ofSAIs.


• Environmental auditing undertaken by SAIs can pro-vide assurance to stakeholders on compliance with na-tional environmental policy and legislation as well as withinternational environmental accords.

• SAIs should consider commencing with environmentalaudits within their existing capabilities and develop astrategy to build resources over a period of time.

• INTOSAI has been active in researching and develop-ing guidance on environmental auditing.CommonwealthSAIs should take note of these guidelines where applicableand should consider participating in their respective re-gions.

• Commonwealth SAIs express support for INTOSAI infurthering research into environmental auditing and rec-ommend the establishment of a dedicated fund for re-search and training in this regard.

• Commonwealth SAIs recognize the need to support oneanother with regard to environmental auditing in suchareas as capacity building, training, research and practi-cal experience. Joint or coordinate environmental auditsmay be considered with regard to environmental mattersof mutual interest.

• SAIs may find it appropriate to recognize and promotevarious environmental initiatives by a wide spectrum ofrole-players. Important environmental issues in this re-gard may include the following:

• Public awareness programs

• Environmental management systems

• Natural resource accounting

• Environmental reporting

• Development of accounting and disclosurestandards

• Environmental auditing policies and guidelines

Theme 3—Computer Auditing ( Presenters:India and Zimbabwe; Chairpersons: Canada andNew Zealand; Rapporteurs: Antigua and Barbudaand South Africa)

As governments become increasingly involved in theelectronic “e” world (email, e-commerce, electronic tax filing,electronic transfers of payments, etc.) SAIs must continue toexpand their capacity to audit in this new and rapidly changingenvironment. A true sense of cooperation and a commitmentto working together clearly emerged during the discussionsabout the SAI’s role in assessing Y2K readiness, issues relatedto evaluating internal controls in an EDP environment, andstrategies for addressing training needs and updating staffcompetencies. In the conference Declaration, delegates agreedthat:

• Rapid and continuing changes in the field of informa-tion technology have far reaching effects on the way or-

ganizations (including our clients/auditees) work and con-duct their business. These changes should be recognizedby SAls to enable them to:

• focus computer auditing on the risk of irregulari-ties and fraud;

• utilize computers in the auditing process for regu-larity, value-for-money (performance), environmen-tal and forensic audits;

• develop strategic plans and approaches for com-puter audits for the new millennium, which includerecognizing the impact’ of electronic commerce ongovernment and assessing how well governmentsmanage the introduction of new computer systemsand the audit ability of these new systems;

• evaluate information system security and controlsincluding internet security where appropriate;

• ensure maximum access to information and pre-mises of private sector providers of computing ser-vices;

• Commonwealth SAIs should note that the objectives ofauditing do not change in a computerized environmentbut audit techniques undergo a change. For example dur-ing the planning phase, knowledge of the auditee’s busi-ness and its IT system is essential.

• SAIs should target the recruitment, training and reten-tion of computer literate audit staff as part of a long-termstrategy, particularly as the current limitations on theavailability of sufficient trained and experienced computerauditors requires prioritization of IT audit tasks.

Conference ConclusionDelegates agreed that the Sun City Declaration contained

many important concepts which should be recognized by abroader audience. They decided a delegation headed by SouthAfrica and including Namibia and Lesotho should present theDeclaration at the next scheduled meeting of theCommonwealth Heads of Government. They also agreed thateach participant would present a copy of the Declaration totheir national representatives who would be attending thisHeads of Government meeting.

In his closing remarks, Mr. Kluever noted that thetransparency in government which results from work of theSAIs represents the backbone of democracies. He expressedhis appreciation to the delegates for their commitment anddedication to ensuring the success of the conference, and heobserved that the Sun City Declaration reflects the challengesfacing SAIs and also sets forth an agenda and agreements thatwill support SAIs as they work to add value to theirgovernments in the 21st century.

For additional information about the conference, contactthe Office of the Auditor General, 271 Veale Street, NewMuckleneuk, Pretoria, South Africa. n


Representatives from the supreme audit institutions (SAIs)of Algeria, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, CapeVerde, Cote d’Ivoire, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana,Guinea Bisseau, Lesotho, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco,Nigeria, Senegal, Sudan, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda and Zambiaattended the AFROSAI 8th General Assembly. The meetingwas held in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, from October 2 – 9,1999, and also in attendance were observers from the Officeof the Auditor General of Canada and Norway representingIDI; the INTOSAI Secretariat; the Cour des Comptes of Francerepresenting EUROSAI, and this Journal.

Opening ProgramThe Prime Minster and Head of Government, his

Excellency Kadre Desire Ouedraogo, formally opened the 8th

General Assembly. In his remarks to the delegates he said“AFROSAI has now come of age with ideals aimed atestablishing the principles of transparency, efficiency andeffectiveness. The culture of excellence you have establishedhelps put into practice the principles of good governance whichare essential for the success of economic development policiesin our countries.”

The Prime Minister’s remarks highlighted the issue ofintegrated development of African countries in the context ofglobalization that would be discussed further and reinforcedduring the 8th General Assembly.

In concluding the opening program, Leopold A. J.Ouedraogo, Inspecteur General d’Etat of Burkina Faso andhost of the 8th General Assembly, introduced the three topicsthat would be addressed during the meetings. He alsoreinforced the group’s need to continue to work together andto share information.

Technical ProgramThe technical program focused on principal and country

papers prepared by the SAIs before the Congress. During thediscussion sessions, the rapporteurs presented summaries ofthe papers and guided discussions on the topics. The threetopics discussed are summarized below.

Topic 1: Review of Public Health Services(Chairperson—Nigeria; Rapporteur—Libya;Secretariat—Zambia)

The lead papers discussed a topic of concern to all auditinstitutions in AFROSAI: the review of public health services.

AFROSAI 8th General Assembly Heldin Burkina FasoBy Alberta E. Ellison, U.S. General Accounting Office

Delegates noted that public health is a vital factor because it isa sector that involves a major part of state funds, and the auditof these funds is instrumental in maintaining a healthy public.

Delegates concurred that public health is important becausethere is awareness that public health projects directly relate tothe well-being of the people. One delegate stated “at one time,emphasis was placed on material wealth but now it is becomingapparent that public health is important—it is the way topolitical and economic stability.” Delegates emphasized thatnational health systems are considered an indicator of the socialand economic development in each country.

His Excellency Kadre Desire Ouedraogo, The Prime Minister and Headof Government, officially opening the 8th General Assembly meeting.

#10

The delegates proposed the following recommendationsin the area of auditing public health institutions:

1. Promote better organization of public health establish-ments through establishing adequate means for soundmanagement of equipment and drugs, and by creating databanks to measure the quality of their services.

2. Work toward establishing and strengthening internalcontrol systems by encouraging the development of auditstandards and criteria, which guarantee objective and rel-evant appraisals by management.

3. Encourage SAIs to use experts in the areas audited toensure the development of standards and criteria of evalu-ation.

4. Promote exchanges of information between SAIs andconsider a training seminar on the audit of public healthestablishments as a priority.


Topic 2: Review of Public Works (Chairperson—Cameroon; Rapporteur—Egypt; Secretariat—Lesotho)

Delegates agreed that public works play an important rolein the economies of all developing countries. Public worksabsorb a major portion of public resources, and theinfrastructures financed by the government are essential forthe economic development of a country. In view of the natureand extent of public works, the role of SAIs in auditing them ischallenging and difficult.

The audit of public works projects is an important elementfor helping to ensure that these projects are managedeconomically, efficiently and effectively, and in compliancewith sound financial management principles. In that context,the delegates proposed the following recommendations in thearea of auditing public works:

1. Work towards improving the regulation of public con-tracts to ensure the application and strict compliance withthe rules of competition in order to avoid fraud and cor-ruption.

2. Ensure the existence of financing to guarantee imple-mentation within fixed deadlines and to avoid cost over-runs caused by extension of deadlines.

3. Plan the implementation of public works projects aspart of sustainable development in order to ensure effec-tive social usefulness.

4. Reinforce effective and permanent internal controlmechanisms within public works.

5. The SAIs working in the area of public works shouldbe allowed to obtain external experts when needed.

Topic 3: Review of Technical Assistance Projects(Chairperson—Senegal; Rapporteur—Morocco;Secretariat—Ghana)

Technical assistance helps create and transfer knowledgeand experience, strengthen human resource development, andmodernize public agencies involved in project execution.

These projects occupy an important place in the policies andprograms designed to help developing countries in numeroussectors. Therefore, technical assistance is a means and methodwhich international organizations use in order to providedeveloping countries with expertise and experience.

Technical assistance projects involve large sums of moneyfrom international organizations, and these donors should beprovided with assurance that the recipient has a capacity tomonitor the proper use of these funds. The audit of technicalassistance projects serves as a commitment to ensuring thesuccess of the project because the audit will provide assurancesthat the funds have been used efficiently and reliably.

The delegates proposed the following recommendationsin the area of technical assistance:

1. Facilitate the SAIs’ access to technical assistanceprojects by removing all forms of contractual, adminis-trative and legislative obstacles.

2. Strengthen operational capacities of SAIs to enablethem to fulfill their audit mission.

3. Help promote links of cooperation and exchange be-tween AFROSAI member states, sister agencies, and otherinternational organizations.

4. Provide SAIs with copies of signed agreements and en-trust to them the audit and evaluation of projects—(bilat-eral ones as well as those relating to actions undertakenby specialized international or regional organizations).

5. Consider the necessity of preserving the ecosystem bal-ance in countries when technical assistance agreementsare being prepared.

AFROSAI Business MeetingDuring the 8th General Assembly, a day was set aside for

conducting the ongoing business of AFROSAI. The reportissued by the President, Mrs. Gwanmesia, Cameroon,summarized AFROSAI’s recent activities: 10 IDI workshopswere held; the Board of Governors met twice with the Trainingand Scientific Research Committee; a delegation met withrepresentatives of Southern African SAIs in Namibia toexchange viewpoints and to encourage their participation inAFROSAI; and, a facsimile machine was procured in an effortto enhance communication between all member states andexternal organizations.

The General Assembly also received applications fromGuinea Bisseau and the Central African Empire requestingadmission into AFROSAI. Both countries were admitted asmembers.

AFROSAI’s auditors, the SAIs of Lesotho and Coted’Ivoire, presented their audit report on the financial statements.Discussions followed the presentation, and the budget wasaccepted after several revisions and clarifications were addedto the final report.

Formal photo of delegates attending 8th General Assembly.

#11


The General Assembly announced that Togo will remainas Secretary General; Cameroon and Morocco will continueto represent AFROSAI on the INTOSAI Governing Board;and the 2002 AFROSAI General Assembly meeting with behosted by the General People’s Committee for Popular Controlin Libya.

The meeting concluded with remarks from the SecretaryGeneral who expressed his sincere thanks and appreciation tothe audit office of Burkina Faso for hosting this meeting. Heexpressed his appreciation for their willingness to work togethertoward AFROSAI’s common goals.

For more information regarding the AFROSAI GeneralAssembly please contact: Mr. Leopold A. J. Ouedraogo,Inspecteur General d’Etat, 01 B.P. 617, Ouagadougou 10,Burkina Faso (tel: 226-113-12598; fax: 226-113-11980). n

Delegates discuss topics during the 8th General Assembly meeting.

#12


The Organization of Latin American and CaribbeanSupreme Audit Institutions (OLACEFS) held its IX GeneralAssembly in Asuncion, Paraguay, from October 4—8, 1999.Over 100 delegates from 26 countries attended the conference,including 11 heads of SAIs, two deputy comptrollers general,eight representatives of heads of SAIs, and 76 accompanyingofficials. Also participating were representatives from theINTOSAI General Secretariat, the INTOSAI DevelopmentInitiative (IDI), the World Bank, the Inter-AmericanDevelopment Bank (IDB), The United States Agency forInternational Development (USAID), the European Court ofAuditors, and this Journal. Also in attendance were membersof Paraguay’s Supreme Court, the Minister of the Treasury,and other senior Parauguayan government officials.

During the conference’s inaugural ceremony, Mr. JuanErnesto Villamayor, General Secretary to Paraguay’s President,welcomed the conferences’ delegates and other invited gueststo Paraguay. He embraced the conference’s general theme ofanti-corruption by urging ethical and accountable behavior forall government officials and, in particular, by calling on theheads of SAIs to lead by example.

Dr. Daniel Fretes Ventre, Comptroller General of Paraguayand conference host, also spoke on the theme of corruption atthe conference’s inauguration. In his speech, Dr. Fretes Ventresaid that Paraguay had two dimensions. One is “formal”,characterized by institutional corruption, and the seconddimension was “real”, as exemplified in “citizens in civilsociety” who enjoy good moral health. He emphasized thatthe “formal” dimension — the government and business areas— was where corruption took place.

Dr. Fretes Ventre also said that international developmentand financial organizations had been accomplices to Paraguay’sofficial corruption, as different government administrations hadbenefited from foreign assistance more than the public. Inaddition, he said that the international organizations had failedto put in place the necessary checks to ensure that the assistancewas used as intended.

Mr. Victor Caso Lay, President of OLACEFS andComptroller General of Peru, also spoke during the inauguralceremony, and called for more international cooperationregarding the prevention and detection of fraud. He also calledfor international cooperation in the area of environmentalaudits, as well as in audits of public resources and entitiesclosely connected to the banking systems. At the conclusionof the inaugural speeches, Asuncion’s Municipal ChamberOrchestra presented a concert.

OLACEFS Celebrates IX GeneralAssembly in ParaguayBy Venecia Rojas Kenah, U.S. General Accounting Office

Keynote Speech on Public EthicsAn address on public ethics by Mr. Hiram Morales Lugo,

Executive Director, Office of Governmental Ethics of PuertoRico, opened the technical part of the conference, and helpedset the stage for the theme discussions. In his address,Mr. Hiram remarked that the effects of corruption aredevastating for the stability of democratic systems. However,he noted that the democratic expansion throughout the LatinAmerican continent had created the conditions for greatertransparency. He went on to say that the role of control andoversight was not exclusive to government institutions. Equallyimportant, he said, was citizen participation followingempowerment, and he emphasized that the mature democraciesenjoyed strong public support. Mr. Morales Lugo further notedthat social pressure was fundamental and decisive in helpingdetermine the public agenda, and indeed was essential inreaching and maintaining high ethical standards.

Technical Theme DiscussionsThe technical discussion sessions took place from October

4 - 6, with three themes presented and debated: (1) publicethics and government oversight as fundamental to thedemocratic system; (2) environmental auditing; and ( 3)globalization and the challenges it poses to SAIs. These themeswere discussed and analyzed by the working groups formedfor that purpose. Conclusions and recommendations arrivedat were presented to the General Assembly on the last day of

Heads of delegations and other official delegates to the IX GeneralAssembly of OLACEFS pose for formal photo during a break from thetechnical sessions in Asuncion, Paraguay.

#13


the conference, October 8, where they were unanimouslyapproved. A summary of theme conclusions follows; for acomplete text of the recommendations, please contactOLACEFS General Secretariat, c/o Contraloria de laRepublica, Jr. Camilo Carrillo No. 114, Jesus Maria, Lima,Peru (fax: 51-1-330-3280; e-mail: [email protected]; website: ekeko.rcp.net/pe/CONTRALORIA/).

Theme I – Public Ethics and GovernmentOversight as Fundamental to the DemocraticSystem

Of concern throughout the presentations and debate oftheme I, presided over by Venezuela, was the need for strongethical standards and effective oversight throughoutgovernment. Delegates agreed that this is fundamental to ademocracy. In addition, cooperation among the institutionsof the different countries was viewed as essential. For example,close cooperation with the judicial system is seen as necessaryin order to establish and implement effective strategies for theprevention and detection of fraud. Such strategies will lead toan open and concerted struggle against administrativecorruption, and will contribute to making everyone ingovernment accountable.

A series of concluding recommendations on this themewere directed at OLACEFS as a regional body, as well as atindividual member SAIs as government institutions. Examplesof recommendations for OLACEFS included developing aPublic Code of Ethics which would serve as paradigm for acode in each one of the member countries; and, creating atraining course on ethics and democracy where trainees couldbe any government official including those from the SAIs.Regarding recommendation for SAIs themselves, delegatesstressed the importance of SAIs preserving their completefunctional and technical independence and autonomy, andmaintaining an adequate level of human and economicresources, so that together with the tools provided by thejudicial system, SAIs can be an important player in the struggleagainst corruption.

Theme II - Environmental AuditingThe second theme, chaired by Paraguay, focused on

environmental auditing. This is a relatively new area of auditwhich is nonetheless recognized as very important work in orderto ensure compliance with environmental protection programs.Delegates noted that this is an audit area which SAIs haveslowly been adopting as part of their work, and that SAIs areviewing performance auditing as a useful tool for conductingaudits environmental programs. In this regard, OLACEFShas formed a Special Technical Commission to study the scope,nature and methodology of environmental performanceauditing.

As a result of the discussions in Asuncsion, delegatesconcluded that the environment constitutes a public resourcewhich must be managed following the criteria of legality,efficiency, effectiveness and economy. For SAIs, they agreedthat it is appropriate to adopt the characteristics defined in1995 by XV INTOSAI which defined the environmentalauditing as follows: “Environmental auditing does not differin any significant way from the usual audit carried out by theSAIs, as it encompasses all of the types of audits: financial,compliance, and performance. With respect to performanceaudits, these include the ‘3 Es’ – economy, efficiency andeffectiveness. The adoption of the ‘4th E’ - environment -depends in great measure on the legal mandate of the SAI andthe corresponding administrations’ environmental policies.

Theme III—Globalization and the challenges itposes to SAIs

The third theme, chaired by Mexico, dealt with thechallenges which globalization presents to the SAIs. Thepresenters discussed methodologies that would enable SAIsto audit the public revenue systems within their respectivecountries, and to audit the use of public resources to rescueand capitalize banking systems, most of which are now globalin nature.

In this regard, delegates concluded that the ever increasingdemands of the global economy have made it necessary for allthe SAIs of the region to exchange experiences andmethodologies. Citing the financial sector again, delegatesagreed that such cooperation will help prevent inadequatemanagement of financial resources, especially those aimed atbanking rescue and capitalization measures which, whilenecessary to guarantee the functioning of the financial system,can also hinder the ability of governments to develop prioritysocial sectors such as health, housing, and education.

Strategic Planning and GeneralBusiness Issues Also Addressed

During the General Assembly, SAI members alsoparticipated in a workshop to develop a strategic plan forOLACEFS. The objectives of the workshop were to 1) definethe principal challenges (internal and external) that the SAImembers of OLACEFS will face within the next 10 years,

Observers attending the OLACEFS General Assembly representedthe INTOSAI General Secretariat, IDI, this Journal, as well as theEuropean Court of Auditors and other bodies.

#14


including the role which OLACEFS can play to address thosechallenges; and, 2) to identify OLACEFS’ principal clients.SAI members divided into small working groups in order toanswer those questions and later reported on them and debatedthem in plenary. A strategic plan for OLACEFS should becompleted in early 2000 and presented to the next OLACEFSGeneral Assembly for its consideration and approval. ThatGeneral Assembly is scheduled to be held in Brasilia, Brazil,in October, 2000.

New Board of Directors members were elected during theconference, and the OLACEFS’ Board now consists of thefollowing countries: Peru, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Paraguay, andBrazil.

Other ActivitiesIn addition to the busy technical and business program,

the conferees enjoyed an evening reception hosted by the cityof Asuncion in a restored colonial part of the city, withperformances of folkloric music and dances of Paraguayperformed by local dancers and musicians. The ComptrollerGenerals’s Office of Paraguay also hosted two eveningreceptions as well as a field trip to the hydro-electric plant ofItaipu, on the Parana River, which constitutes the borderbetween Brazil and Paraguay. The Itaipu plant is jointly ownedand operated by Paraguay and Brazil. The heads of delegationsand special invited guests also visited with the President ofParaguay, Dr. Luis Angel Gonzalez Macchi, at the Presidentialpalace.

To commemorate the closing of the IX OLACEFS GeneralAssembly, the delegates and distinguished visitors were treatedto an enactment of a campaign created by Paraguay’s SAI andperformed by a group of children with the theme “For a MoreTransparent World.” The overall goal of the campaign is toenhance and publicize the importance of transparency as a toolto prevent corruption.

For more information about the OLACEFS GeneralAssembly, including the complete text of themerecommendations, contact the OLACEFS General Secretariat,c/o Contraloria de la Republica, Jr. Camilo Carrillo No. 114,Jesus Maria, Lima, Peru (fax: 51-1-330-3280; e-mail:[email protected]; web site: ekeko.rcp.net/pe/CONTRALORIA/). nParticipants enjoyed an educational visit to the hydro-electric plant of

Itaipu on the Parana River at the border between Paraguay and Brazil.

#15


Audit Prof ile:The Auditor GeneralDepartment, Sierra Leone

Sierra Leone is a diamond-shaped country on the western“bulge” of the African coast. It is bordered by the Republicof Guinea on the north, the Republic of Liberia on the south,and the Atlantic Ocean on the west.

History of the Supreme AuditInstitution

The Audit Act of 1962 established Sierra Leone’s AuditorGeneral Department shortly after the nation gained itsindependence in 1961. The department replaced the ColonialAudit Service. Since that time, the department has increasedin size, and additional legislation has been enacted to enable itto meet governmental needs. The Auditor General’s currentlegislative authority and responsibilities are derived from the1978 constitution, as amended by the 1991 constitution; thePublic Budgeting and Accounting Act of 1992; and the recentlyenacted Audit Service Act of 1998.

Mission of the SAIIn accordance with section 119 (1—4) of the 1991

constitution of the Republic of Sierra Leone and section 63 -69 of the Public Budgeting and Accounting Act of 1992, theAuditor General’s mission is to audit all government financialactivities and operations in an independent manner and tosubmit timely reports to the auditees and to Parliament.Monitoring bodies, including the President’s office and theMinistry of Finance, are also informed so that they can takeappropriate action. Cases of deliberate negligence andmisappropriation of government property are referred to theJustice Department.

Because the government spends a significant amount ofmoney each year to purchase goods and services, the AuditorGeneral Department has a moral obligation to assure the publicthat monies allotted to the government have been spent in themost judicious manner and to give assurances and report onthe effectiveness and adequacies of controls.

Legal Framework and IndependenceUnder section 119 of the 1991 constitution of Sierra Leone,

the Auditor General holds office from the date of appointmentuntil age 65, when he/she retires from office. Since the AuditorGeneral’s position is a statutory one, he/she can only be

By Abdul Aziz, Auditor and Division Head

removed from office by the president on the grounds of provenmisconduct or inability to carry out official duties. The decisionof the President must be ratified by a two-thirds majority ofmembers of Parliament. Section 119 (6) of the 1991constitution states that the Auditor General shall not be subjectto the direction and control of any person or authority in theexercise of his/her functions. To further strengthen the AuditorGeneral’s independence, a new act was passed in 1998 settingup an Audit Service. (Under the new Act, the Office is referredto as the Audit Service. Before the Audit Service Act of 1998—it was called the Audit Department.) Although the AuditDepartment is a public office, it is not part of the public civilservice and is supervised by an audit service board.

Organization of the Audit DepartmentThe Audit Department comprises about 150 staff, 80

percent of whom work as auditors of government departmentsand ministries and agencies funded by government.

In addition to the headquarters office, there are eightdivisional branches in the western area of the country and threeregional offices in the provincial headquarters. The AuditorGeneral is the head of the department. Four deputiesresponsible for Finance and Administration, Pensions,Parastatal (same as corporations), and Training and Researchassist her. Principal auditors head the branch offices under thedeputies and senior auditors head the three regional offices.Other staff includes auditors, examiners, and clerical staff.

The Work of the Audit DepartmentThe Auditor General’s mandate is delineated in Section

134 of the 1978 constitution, section 119 of the 1991constitution, and the Public Budgeting and Accounting Act of1992. The department is required to audit the public accountsof Sierra Leone and all public offices. This includes the courts;central and local governments; universities and other similarpublic institutions; and any corporation, company or otherorganization established by an act of parliament, statutorymandate or otherwise set up partly or wholly out of publicfunds.

The department’s main task is helping the legislaturemonitor and assess the implementation of government policiesby determining how taxpayers’ monies are being spent andreporting to the public through Parliament.


ReportingAs a quality control mechanism, all reports issued by

various divisional branches are reviewed by the trainingdivision before being finalized. The Audit Department issuesreports first to the auditees, and all unanswered questions arethen submitted in the annual report to Parliament. A secondvolume of the annual report presents comments, views, andcertification on the country’s Annual Statement of Accountsas presented by the Accountant General.

The Audit Department has developed its own auditingstandards, which have proved to be a useful and practicalreference document providing professional guidance to staffmembers. INTOSAI Auditing Standards formed a valuablereference document in preparing this document. In line withthe auditing standards, divisional work programs and progresscharts are also prepared and form the basis of the overalldepartmental program and progress chart.

As the department develops its expertise in economy andefficiency auditing, it will need to develop similar auditingstandards for these audits. It is planning to develop thesestandards in the near future.

Future ProspectsStrategic planning has become a vital task for the Audit

Department as it plans for the future. The department faces thefollowing challenges:

• providing for full administrative, financial and organi-zational independence,

• developing adequate logistical support,

• obtaining an additional mandate to do economy and ef-ficiency audits and setting standards for this work,

• training and general staff development,

• improving cooperation with the public accounts com-mittee,

• developing awareness and public trust for the service,

• combating fraud and corruption, and

• improving its information technology setup.

For more information, please contact the Auditor GeneralDepartment, Freetown, Sierra Leone; telephone: 011-232-22-242148; facsimile: 011-232-22-242148. n


Reports in Print

Issues concerning fraud, accountability, transparencies andglobalization continue to be of interest to the INTOSAIcommunity, and several publications examining these areasmay be of interest to Journal readers. Expanding beyondfinancial management issues, The International Consortiumon Governmental Financial Management’s (ICGFM) Summer1999 Public Fund Digest offers several articles onglobalization, combating Corruption, and ethics in the publicsector. To obtain copies of the ICGFM’s Public Fund Digest,available in English only USD$10 for members and USD$15for non-members, contact: The ICGFM, P.O. Box 8665,Silver Spring, MD 20907, U.S.A. (tel++(301)681-3836,fax++(301)681-8620; email <[email protected]>.)

* * * * *The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) has

published a booklet on the Programme for Accountability andTransparency (PACT) describing its work in Bratislava andthe activities of the office since its establishment in 1997.Financed by contributions from donor governments to promotetransparency, accountability and effective management throughsupport to SAIs and related national financial control andmanagement institutions, the UNDP/PACT is one part of abroader UNDP program for Democracy, Governance andParticipation (DGP) helping the countries of Eastern andCentral Europe and the CIS in their move towards democraticinstitutions and free-market economics. To obtain copies ofthe PACT publication, available in English only, contact theRBEC Regional Support Centre UNDP Grosslingova 35,811 09 Bratislava, Slovak Republic (tel++(421-7)59337-432,-421; fax++(421-7)59337 450).

* * * * *The International Monetary Fund (IMF) Survey has

published a Working Paper entitled“Is Corruption Inbred inthe Kleptocratic State?” Corruption is widely viewed asindividual acts that undermine the efficient functioning of asociety, but the authors, Joshua Charap of the IMF AfricanDepartment and Christian Harm of the University of Munster,challenge this view. Their paper argues that corruption is anintegral part of the political system from which it springs.Their study focuses on the organization and activities of thestate and examines the role of the bureaucracy and corruptionin the state. Copies of the IMF Working Paper No. 99/91,Institutionalized Corruption and the Kletocratic State, areavailable for USD$7.00 from IMF Publication Services. 70019th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20431, USA (tel++(202)643-7430; fax ++(202) 623-7201).

* * * * *Several new publications by the U. S. General Accounting

Office (GAO) may be of interest to Journal readers. In July1999, the GAO issued the second amendment to the 1994

edition of the Government Auditing Standards (commonlyreferred to as the “yellow book”). This second amendment,Amendment No. 2, Auditor Communication (GAO/A-GAGAS-2), adds a field work standard and amends a reporting standardfor financial statement audits to improve auditorcommunication concerning the auditor’s work on compliancewith laws and regulations and internal control over financialreporting. In November 1999, the GAO published Standardsfor Internal Control in the Federal Government (GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1) which gives greater recognition to the increasinguse of information technology to carry out critical governmentoperations, recognizes the importance of human capital, andincorporates, as appropriate, the relevant updated internalcontrol guidance developed in the private sector. AlthoughGAO’s report on INFORMATION SECURITY RISKASSESSMENT: Practices of Leading Organizations (GAO/AIMD-99-139) does not present specific suggestions foragencies to determine how to secure systems from cyber-attacks, it identifies seven critical factors of a successfulongoing security risk-assessment program, including definingand documenting procedures and results. The report alsoincludes diagrams detailing the risk-assessment process for eachorganization and a description of how they made their decisions.Printed copies of these three GAO publications, in Englishonly, are available through the U. S. General AccountingOffice, Office of International Liaison-Room 7806, 441 GStreet NW, Washington, DC 20548, USA (fax:++202-512-4021; email [email protected]; <www.gao.gov>).

* * * * *Spain’s Tribunal De Cuentas publishes a journal, Revista

Espanola De Control Externo, and the May 1999 edition ofthis periodic publication offers a variety of articles onPrivatization issues, external auditing of internationalorganizations, public administration of the European Systemof Accounts and public funds and accounting liability. Copiesof this publication, in Spanish (with abstracts in English), canbe ordered from the Tribunal de Cuentas, Fuencarral, 81.28004 Madrid, Spain (tel++91 447 87 01- extension:576y128, or fax:++91 446 41 31.)

* * * * *The Canadian Comprehensive Auditing Foundation’s

(CCAF) current publications and products can now be orderedthrough the Internet. The CCAF offer a wide array ofpublications in three general categories—Governance,Management, and Audit Assurance. All publications areavailable in English and French, and two publications areavailable in Spanish. Contact CCAF at 55 Murray Street-Suite 210, Ottawa, Ontario KIN 5M3, CANADA(telephone: ++613-241-6713, fax: ++613-236-2150,<www.ccaf-fcvi.com>). nn


Inside INTOSAI

Privatization Working Group Meets inWarsaw

The sixth meeting of INTOSAI’s Working Group on theAudit of Privatization met in Warsaw on October 5–6, 1999,to follow up on recommendations made at the last INTOSAICongress in Montevideo. Mr. Janusz Wojciechowski, Presidentof the Supreme Chamber of Control of Poland, welcomedrepresentatives from 20 of the 29 SAIs who are members ofthe Working Group, as well as observers from four othernational audit offices. Sir John Bourn, Comptroller andAuditor General of the United Kingdom and Chairman of theWorking Group, responding to the President’s welcome, notedthat since Montevideo, seven SAIs had joined the Group. Thisunderlined, he said, the continuing importance of privatizationto SAIs in their work.

A special feature of the meeting was a valuable presentationon the role of parliament in the privatization process byMr. Tomasz Wojcik, Chairman of the Privatization Committeeof the Lower House of the Polish Parliament. Mr. Wojcikstressed the importance of ensuring parliamentary oversightof these important privatization transactions which have suchprofound implications for the future direction of the economy.He underlined the role that SAls can play in encouraging theexecutive to act responsibly, in the interests of the state, takinga broad and well-informed view of value for money.

Following up on Congress RecommendationsINCOSAI XVI invited the Group to undertake three

activities in the years leading up to the next Congress in Seoulin 2001: (1) monitor the effectiveness of the comprehensiveguidelines on best practice for the audit of privatizationsadopted in Montevideo; (2) facilitate the further exchange ofinformation between SAls about privatizations and their audit;and, (3) to develop audit guidance in two areas of particularimportance for the development of public services and theprotection of the consumer, namely, public/private partnershipsand concessions, and economic regulation.

Using the Privatization GuidelinesThe Working Group took stock of the extent to which the

privatization audit guidelines are being used and whether anygaps or inadequacies exist. Many members had reported thatthe guidelines are helpful because they offer a structuredapproach to planning and conducting audits. As a result ofusing the guidelines as a check against audit plans, SAls areidentifying a number of important issues on a series of sales

which should also help the audited entities to improve the waythey handle sales negotiations in future. With this in mind,many SAIs are sharing the guidelines with those responsiblefor carrying out sales, and report that practitioners see them asa helpful way of disseminating lessons of good practice. Onthe other hand, as the introduction to the guidelines said, theywere concerned with the sale process which is only one aspectof privatization. While SAIs do not intervene in policy, thereare issues relating to the choice and timing of sales and thepost-sale performance of privatized companies that areamenable to evaluation. These could be addressed in the furtherguidance being developed by the Group and in furtherexchanges of information on actual cases.

Further Exchange of Information Among SAIsIn considering how to address questions arising on

privatizations, SAls find it very helpful to draw on theexperience of other audit offices carrying out similar studies,and so the Group also reviewed arrangements for the exchangeof information on completed privatization audits betweenmembers of INTOSAI. They encouraged members to provideinformation on lessons from their audits for inclusion on theGroup’s website on the Internet: <http://www.open.gov.uk/nao/intosai/home.htm>.

Public/Private and Concessionary FinanceThe Group reviewed the role of public/private and

concessionary finance in the provision of public services. Inall regions, governments are increasingly turning to the privatesector to supply public services, often related to the provisionof a major asset such as a road or a hospital or a computersystem, for which the private sector partner is reimbursed eitherby the taxpayer or customers (e.g., toll bridges) over a periodof years. And in many countries governments are grantingconcessions to private sector companies to operate state-ownedassets such as factories or hotels. The Group noted that anumber of members are already carrying out appraisals of suchcontracts and reporting on the outcome of these examinationsto parliament and the public.

In that regard, the Group agreed to refine the draft auditguidelines on private, public and concessionary finance forconsideration at their next meeting, scheduled for Buenos Aires,September 18–19, 2000. Following that meeting, they will besubmitted to the INTOSAI membership for comment, and afinal text submitted to the subsequent Group Meeting(Hungary, June 12–13, 2001 ) with a view to the guidelinesbeing offered for adoption by XVII INCOSAI in Seoul laterthat year.


Economic RegulationAs regards economic regulation, the Group considered a

draft report on the survey of economic regulation and its audit.Sixty-seven SAIs had replied to the questionnaire producedby the Group, so that the report gives the most comprehensiveaccount so far of the work of SAls in relation to the operationof a wide range of economic regulatory bodies across theworld. It sets out details of how the regulators operate, to whomthey are accountable, how they are funded, what they areseeking to achieve, what have been the results for consumersand industries, and the role played by SAIs in examining theireffectiveness. It is clear from the report that developingeconomic regulation is a feature in a growing number ofcountries, with SAIs making notable contributions to theassessment of the effects of regulation. The Group approvedthe report for circulation to all SAIs for information.

The Group decided to take the results of the survey intoaccount in developing audit guidelines on key issues relatingto economic regulation and to aim to produce draft guidelinesfor consideration by the Group at its Buenos Aires meeting.

Link to 2001 Congress ThemeThe Group noted that its remit is of particular relevance to

one of the two themes to be examined at XVII INCOSAI(Seoul, November 2001), namely the contribution of SAIs toadministrative and government reforms. The issues facingSAIs in seeking to respond to these far-reaching reforms wereaddressed in a keynote presentation by Mr. Pat Barrett, Auditor-General for Australia, on Accountability and Audit - PostPrivatisation. Mr. Barrett underlined the major changes takingplace in the way public services are delivered, and thechallenges these changes pose for auditors. Privatization andits offshoots are a key element in these reforms, and the Warsawmeeting was important in identifying what questions theWorking Group are aiming to cover and what products torecommend to INTOSAI in the period leading up to the XVIICongress.

For more information, contact: INTOSAI PrivatizationWorking Group, c/o National Audit Office, 157-197Buckingham Palace Road, Victoria, London SW1W 9SP,United Kingdom (tel: 44-1-71-798-7000; fax: 44-1-71-798-7466; e-mail: [email protected]).

On November 22-23, 1999, the INTOSAI Secretariat hosted a XVIIINCOSAI planning meeting at the Vienna International Center.Delegates representing the theme and subtheme chairs (Austria,Germany, Hungary, Korea, Norway, and the United States) met todiscuss the logistics related to the congress preparation and officersfor the theme discussion sessions. For more information on plans forthe XVII INCOSAI scheduled for Seoul in 2001, contact: INCOSAISecretariat, Board of Audit and Inspection, 2-26 Samchung-dong,Chongro-ku, Seoul 110-230, Republic of Korea (tel: 82-2-72-19-290;fax: 82-2-72-19-276; e-mail: [email protected]).

#16

In its capacity as chair of INTOSAI’s Internal Control Committee, theState Audit Office of Hungary will host the Second InternationalConference on Internal Control from May 8-11, 2000. To finalize theprogram, a special committee sub-group with representatives fromAustria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Lithuania, the RussianFederation, the United Kingdom, and the United States met in Budapestin November 1999. For more details about the conference, pleasecontact: Dr. Peter Gantner, Allami Szamvevoszek, Apaczai Csere JanosU. 10, H-1052 Budapest V, Hungary (tel: 36-1-318-8799; fax: 36-1-338-4710).

#17

XVII INCOSAI Officers Meet to PlanProgram

Internal Control Committee to HoldInternational Conference


SAI’s E-Mail AddressesIn support of INTOSAI’s communications strategy, each

issue of the Journal will publish the e-mail/internet addressesof SAIs, INTOSAI programs, and related professionalorganizations. Also listed are homepage addresses on theworldwide web (www). SAIs are asked to notify the Journalas they acquire these addresses. The addresses printed inbold type are the new addresses.

INTOSAI General Secretariat:<[email protected]>; and<http://www.intosai.org>

International Journal of Government Auditing:<[email protected]>

INTOSAI Development Initiative: <[email protected]>

INTOSAI Committee on EDP Audit:<[email protected]> and<www.open.gov.uk/nao/intosai_edp/home.htm>Arabic language website:<http://www.sgsa.com/intosai_edp>

INTOSAI Committee on Environmental Auditing:<http://www.rekenkamer/ea>

INTOSAI Committee on Privatization:<http://www.open.gov.uk/nao/intosai/home.htm>

ASOSAI: <[email protected]>

EUROSAI: <[email protected]>

OLACEFS: <[email protected]>

SPASAI: <[email protected]>

SAI of Argentina: <[email protected]>

SAI of Australia: <[email protected]> and<http://www.anao.gov.au>

SAI of Bahrain: <[email protected]>

SAI of Bangladesh: <[email protected]>

SAI of Belgium: <[email protected]> and<http://www.courdescomptes.be>

SAI of Bermuda: <[email protected]> and<http://www.oagbermuda.gov.bm>

SAI of Bolivia: <[email protected]>

SAI of Brazil: <[email protected]> and<http://www. tcu.gov.br>

SAI of Canada: <[email protected]> and<http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca>

SAI of Chile: <[email protected]> and<http://www.contraloria.cl>

SAI of China: <[email protected]>

SAI of Colombia: <[email protected]>and <http://www.contraloriagen.gov.co>SAI of Costa Rica: <[email protected]> and<htttp://www.cgr.go.cr>

SAI of Croatia: <[email protected]>,<[email protected]> and <http://www.revizija.hr>

SAI of Cyprus: <[email protected]>

SAI of Czech Republic:<[email protected]>

SAI of Denmark: <[email protected]> and<http://www.rigsrevisionen.dk>

SAI of El Salvador: <[email protected]>

SAI of Estonia: <[email protected]> and<http://www.sao.ee>

SAI of European Union: <[email protected]> and<http://www.eca.eu.int>

SAI of Fiji: <[email protected]>

SAI of Finland: <[email protected]>

SAI of France: <[email protected]> and<www.ccomptes.fr>

SAI of Georgia: <[email protected]>

SAI of Germany: <[email protected]> and<http://www.Bundesrechnungshof.de>

SAI of Hong Kong: <[email protected]> and<http://www.info.gov.hk/aud/>

SAI of India: <[email protected]>

SAI of Indonesia: <[email protected]> and<http://www.bpk.go.id>

SAI of Ireland: <[email protected]> and<http://www.irlgov.ie/audgen>

SAI of Israel: <www.mevaker.gov.il>

SAI of Italy: <[email protected]>

SAI of Japan: <[email protected]> and<http://www.jbaudit.admix.go.jp>

SAI of Jordan: <[email protected]>

SAI of Korea: <[email protected]> and<http://www.bai.go.kr>

SAI of Kuwait: <[email protected]>

SAI of Kyrghyzstan: <[email protected]>

SAI of Latvia: <http://www.lrvk.gov.lv>

SAI of Lebanon: <[email protected]>

SAI of Lithuania: <[email protected]>


SAI of Luxembourg: <[email protected]>SAI of Macedonia: <[email protected]>

SAI of Malaysia: <[email protected]>

SAI of Mali: <[email protected]>

SAI of Malta: <[email protected]>

SAI of Marshall Islands: <[email protected]>

SAI of Mauritius: <[email protected]>

SAI of Mexico: <[email protected]>

SAI of Micronesia: <[email protected]>

SAI of Nepal: <[email protected]>

SAI of the Netherlands: <[email protected]> and<http://www.rekenkamer.nl>

SAI of New Zealand: <[email protected]> and <http://www.netlink.co.nz/%7e.oag/home.htm>

SAI of Nicaragua: <[email protected]>

SAI of Norway: <[email protected]>

SAI of Oman: <[email protected]>

SAI of Pakistan: <[email protected]>

SAI of Palau: <[email protected]>

SAI of Panama: <[email protected]>

SAI of Papua New Guinea: <[email protected]>

SAI of Paraguay: <[email protected]>

SAI of Peru: <[email protected]> and<http://www.rcp.net.pe/CONTRALORIA>

SAI of Philippines: <[email protected]>

SAI of Poland: <http://www.nik.gov.pl>

SAI of Portugal: <[email protected]>

SAI of Puerto Rico: <[email protected]>

SAI of Qatar: <[email protected]>

SAI of Russia: <[email protected]>

SAI of Saint Lucia: <[email protected]>

SAI of Singapore: <[email protected]>

SAI of Seychelles: <[email protected]>

SAI of Slovakia: <[email protected]>

SAI of Slovenia: <vojko.antoncic@rs-rs-si> and<http://www.sigov.si/racs>

SAI of South Africa: <[email protected]> and<http://www.agsa.co.za>

SAI of Spain: <[email protected]>

SAI of Suriname: <http://www.parbo.com>

SAI of Sweden: <[email protected]> and <http://www.rrv.se>

SAI of Switzerland: <[email protected]>

SAI of Thailand: <[email protected]>

SAI of Trinidad and Tobago: <[email protected]>

SAI of Turkey: <[email protected]> and<http://www.sayistay.gov.tr>

SAI of Ukraine: <[email protected]>

SAI of United Arab Emirates: <[email protected]>

SAI of the United Kingdom:<[email protected]> and<http://www.open.gov.uk/nao/home/htm>

SAI of the United States of America: <[email protected]> and<http://www.gao.gov>

SAI of Uruguay: <[email protected]> and<http://www.tcr.gub.uy>

SAI of Yemen: <[email protected]>

SAI of Venezuela: <[email protected]> and <http://www.cgr.gov.ve>

Canadian Comprehensive Auditing Foundation:<http://www.ccaf-fcvi.com>

Institute of Internal Auditors: <[email protected]> and <http://www.theiia.org>

International Consortium on Governmental FinancialManagement: <http://financenet.gov/icgfm.htm>

International Federation of Accountants: <http://www.ifac.org>


2000 Calendar of INTOSAI Events

January March

Editor’s Note: This calendar is published in support of INTOSAI’s communications strategy and as a way of helping INTOSAImembers plan and coordinate schedules. Included in this regular Journal feature will be INTOSAI-wide events and region-wideevents such as congresses, general assemblies, and Board meetings. Because of limited space, the many training courses andother professional meetings offered by the regions cannot be included. For additional information, contact the SecretaryGeneral of each regional working group.

May June

SeptemberJuly August

FebruaryAuditing Standards Committee MeetingLondon, United KingdomJanuary 17-18

April

October November December

UN/INTOSAI SeminarVienna, AustriaMarch 27-31

ARABOSAI CongressCairo, Egypt(date to be determined)

Internal Control ConferenceBudapest, HungaryMay 8-11

INTOSAI Governing Board MeetingSeoul, KoreaMay 23-25

Privatization Committee MeetingBuenos Aires, ArgentinaSeptember 18-19

Accounting Standards Committee MeetingPort-of-Spain, Trinidad and TobagoJune 15-16

Environmental Auditing Committee MeetingCape Town, South AfricaApril 10-12


Logo of the 17th INTOSAI Congress

The logotype of the 17th INTOSAI Congress visualizes the image of INTOSAI andKorea, the host country, by combining the acronym INCOSAI in a special letteringstyle and Namdaemun (meaning the South Gate of Seoul), a symbol of Korea. In linewith the tradition of the previous congresses, the logo also includes the denominationof the Congress, XVII INCOSAI 2001.

Namdaemun, which is designated as the Korean National Treasure No. 1, haslong symbolized not only Korea but the capital city of Seoul as well. Namdaemun isplaced in the middle of the logo to deliver a message that the host of the 17th INCOSAIwelcomes each and every participant from the member SAIs by fully opening the gateto Korea.

The arc over Namdaemun carries the image of member SAIs taking their seats in a circle. It symbolizes equaland cooperative relationship among member SAIs which facilitates information exchange, among others. Thegradation of the arc expresses the dynamics of the rising sun of the new century, and at the same time denotes thefirst INCOSAI in the new millenium.

Overall, the logo was designed to represent the significance and meaning of the Congress in a balanced visual.

For further information about the XVII INCOSAI, please contact: Secretariat of the XVII INCOSAI 2001,Board of Audit and Inspection, Samchung-dong, Chongro-ku, Seoul 110-707, Korea, Telephone: 82-2-721-9296,Fax: 82-2-721-9297, E-mail: <[email protected]>.

international journal of government auditing · ©2000 international journal of government...

Documents