Auditoría Coordinada de Recursos Hidrícos

Report ID: 227

La auditoría se realizó en la modalidad de auditoría coordinada, en el marco de la Comisión Técnica Especial de Medio Ambiente - COMTEMA de la OLACEFS. Contó con la participación de las EFS de Argentina, Brasil, Bolivia, Chile,  Colombia,  Costa Rica, Cuba, Honduras. México, Paraguay, Perú y Venezuela.

El objetivo general fue examinar la gestión en los estados nacionales de la región para garantizar el uso sustentable del recurso hídrico. Para ello, se definieron dos objetivos específicos.

Objetivo específico 1: Examinar si en la gestión del recurso hídrico se cumple con la buena gobernanza (INTOSAI), a saber:

(a) adecuada definición de roles y responsabilidades;

(b) adecuada coordinación de los organismos gubernamentales involucrados;

(c) existencia de mecanismos que garanticen la participación ciudadana de manera amplia;

(d) procesos de toma de decisiones transparentes;

(d) mecanismos de rendición de cuenta efectivos.

Objetivo específico 2: Examinar si los instrumentos de gestión aplicados aseguran la sustentabilidad del recurso hídrico.

Los hallazgos de la auditoría coordinada permitieron identificar las debilidades y oportunidades de mejora de la gobernanza hídrica en la región, representadas por el incompleto desarrollo de las políticas hídricas nacionales, algunos vacíos legales y la compleja trama institucional involucrada en la gestión del recurso.

Asimismo, el examen de la implementación de los instrumentos de gestión derivados de la política hídrica señala las necesidades de fortalecer la planificación estratégica a nivel de cuencas hídricas así como intensificar los sistemas de monitoreo de calidad y cantidad de los recursos hídricos y las acciones de vigilancia y control.

Fuente: https://www.olacefs.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/004.pdf

Pacific regional report on the cooperative performance audit into solid waste management

Report ID: 235

This report provides a regional overview of the process and outcomes of the cooperative performance audit in the Pacific region on solid waste management. The report records the achievements against Pacific Regional Audit Initiative (PRAI) objectives, including building performance auditing capacity within the member audit offices of the Pacific Association of Supreme Audit Institutions (PASAI), and the lessons learned from the first cooperative audit. In addition, the high level findings about solid waste management in the Pacific countries that were part of the audit, are presented.

Ten member audit offices from PASAI participated in the region’s first cooperative performance audit. The audit reports of seven of the ten SAIs – Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), Guam, Marshall Islands, Page 8 the Republic of Palau, Papua New Guinea (PNG), and Tuvalu – are now in the public domain. The remaining three SAIs participated in the cooperative audit but have not yet released their individual country reports. Because of confidentiality issues, these country reports cannot be identified in this regional report. As a result, when cross-country comparisons are made in this report, they will be referred to as PICT 1, PICT 2 and PICT 3.

Pacific Regional Report of Access to Safe Drinking Water Report of the Cooperative Perform Audit: Access to Safe Drinking Water

Report ID: 236

This report provides a regional overview of the process and outcomes of the Cooperative Performance Audit in the Pacific region on access to safe drinking water. The report records the achievements against Pacific Regional Audit Initiative (PRAI) objectives, including building performance auditing capacity within PASAI (see Appendix A), and the lessons learned from the second cooperative audit. In addition the high level findings, about access to safe drinking water in the Pacific island countries/states that were the focus of the audit, are presented.

Ten PASAI member audit offices took part in the audit: Cook Islands, the states of Kosrae and Yap of the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), Fiji, Kiribati, Palau, PICT 1, Samoa, PICT 2 and Tuvalu. Of the SAIs participating in the second cooperative audit, seven had participated in the first cooperative audit and three were new to the cooperative performance audit approach, the states of Kosrae and Yap of FSM and Kiribati.

The audit reports of the following SAIs are now in the public domain: Cook Islands, Fiji, the states of Kosrae and Yap of FSM, Kiribati, Palau, Samoa, and Tuvalu. Two additional SAIs participated in the cooperative audit. However, their reports have not yet been released and because of confidentiality issues the individual country reports cannot be identified in this regional report. As a result, when cross-country comparisons are made in this report, these Pacific island countries will be referred to as PICT 1 and PICT 2.

Key Findings

The main findings from each of the three lines of enquiry are noted below.

• The overall finding on the first line of enquiry is that most of the ten PICTs have legal and policy frameworks in place but not a single, overarching framework.
• The overall finding on the second line of enquiry is that legal and policy frameworks have not been effectively implemented in most of the ten audited countries/states.
• The overall finding on the third line of enquiry is that there are weaknesses in monitoring systems and performance management frameworks.

REPORT OF THE REVIEW OF HIGH QUALITY PERFORMANCE AUDITING IN THE PACIFIC

Report ID: 266

During 2016 PASAI undertook a review of the performance auditing capacity of its members, in particular the capacity building benefit gained through the Cooperative Performance Audit (CPA) program.

The first objective of the review was to follow up and analyse the impact on the SAIs that participated in the first five cooperative performance audits led by PASAI. The benefits had been evaluated since 2010 through PASAI’s after action reporting process. However, a review was required to capture and consolidate this information and to ensure its currency.

Within the CPA Program, PASAI has conducted cooperative performance audits and training for PASAI members since 2009 with the objective of enhancing performance auditing capacity:

CPA 1 Solid Waste Management  2010*

CPA 2 Access to Safe Drinking Water 2011*

CPA 3 Managing Sustainable Fisheries 2012*

CPA 4 Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risks Reduction 2013/14*

CPA 5 Public Debt Management 2015*

For SAIs, the benefits of engaging in cooperative performance audits include facilitating mutual sharing and learning, capacity building, networking, and identifying and adopting good audit practices.  Among other interesting topics, the report addresses the results of the impact evaluation of PASAI Cooperative Performance Audits (CPA).

Source: https://www.pasai.org/review-high-quality-performance-audits-pacific

* This report is available on this virtual catalogue.

JOINT REPORT ON THE RESULTS OF INTERNATIONAL COORDINATED AUDIT ON PROTECTION OF THE BUG RIVER CATCHMENT AREA FROM POLLUTION (FOLLOW-UP AUDIT)

Report ID: 270

In 2006, the Supreme Audit Institutions  of the Republic of Belarus, Republic of Poland and Ukraine conducted international coordinated audit on protection of the Bug River catchment area from pollution in 2006 (in hydrography of Belarus and Ukraine Bug River is called Western Bug River).

Given the importance and urgency of the issue of purity of the Bug River basin waters for people, living on its territory, as well as the necessity to implement the EU Water Framework Directive requirements, the SAIs of Poland and Ukraine in 2014 initiated an international coordinated audit on Protection of the Bug River Catchment Area from Pollution (follow-up audit), subsequently supported by the SAI of Belarus.

To carry out this audit in 2014 the participants agreed on a Common Position on co-operation for coordinated parallel audit , which defined the purpose, object and general matters of the audit, its scope and limitations, methodology, forms as well as cooperation and coordination procedures.

The purpose of the international coordinated follow-up audit was to assess the implementation of the SAIs’ recommendations, which were provided after previous audit, completed in 2006. Also it was supposed to analyze the activities of the responsible authorities of Belarus, Poland and Ukraine on addressing the issues, raised by the previous audit, namely:

Source: https://rp.gov.ua/IntCooperation/IntAudits/?id=58