Pacific Regional report on the Cooperative Performance Audit on Public Debt Management

Report ID: 239

This Cooperative Performance Audit on Public Debt Management is the fifth regional cooperative audit conducted by the Pacific Association of Supreme Audit Institutions (PASAI). Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) from eight Pacific Island Countries and Territories conducted individual audits on Public Debt Management within their jurisdictions. The SAIs that chose to participate in this audit are: Cook Islands; Fiji; Federated States of Micronesia – National; Federated States of Micronesia — Kosrae; the Federated States of Micronesia — Pohnpei; Guam; Republic of the Marshall Islands and Samoa.

This report synthesizes the findings from the eight individual audits and identifies common findings in the management of public debt in the Pacific. Other jurisdictions may learn from both the individual audit reports as well as from this regional report. The outcomes of this report will also be shared with the INTOSAI Regional Working Committee on Public Debt.

Consolidated findings

Based on the four key concepts of good public debt management detailed in ISSAI 54221, the audit issues identified by all participating SAIs can be summarised under two cross-cutting: governance and monitoring and reporting.

Governance: Four of the eight participating SAIs identified lack of a legal framework and a weak organisational structure for agencies involved in public debt management as being of concern. Common issues were lack of a procedures manual to guide and inform decision makers, lack of defined roles and responsibilities and a lack of coordination and monitoring across key government agencies. Critical operational risks related to weak internal controls of government agencies responsible for public debt management were also identified.

Monitoring and reporting: Six of the eight participating SAIs highlighted a lack of available information or documentation and weak or nonexistent debt management strategies and loan repayment schedules. These issues can be partially attributed to the limited knowledge and experience of staff responsible for debt management activities. Another issue identified was the lack of regular and complete reporting due to sub-optimal use debt management software.

This lack of information brings uncertainty to whether the reported financial condition of a government is complete and accurate.

Key message for Pacific SAIs: Through public sector audits, SAIs can develop a sound appreciation of the issues faced by government agencies that are responsible for public debt management. SAIs can have a positive impact on trust in society because audit scrutiny focuses the minds of custodians of public resources on how well they use those resources, includingmanaging public debt levels.

Practical Advice for Auditors of Foreign Aid Projects in the Pacific: First Co-Operative Financial Audit

Report ID: 242

The regional co-operative audit of funds provided by foreign aid was the first pilot for a co-operative financial audit conducted by the Pacific Association of Supreme Audit Institutions (PASAI) under its co-operative audit program. Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) in six Pacific Island Countries (PICs) conducted individual audits. This report summarises the findings across the six individual audits conducted and identifies some of the common weaknesses in the audit of foreign aid projects. Furthermore this pilot program resulted in multiple observations and lessons learned which will assist SAIs in the conduct of financial audits of foreign aid projects in the future.

It is expected that both SAIs and development partners in the Pacific Region may learn valuable lessons from individual SAI reports as well as from this regional report to improve and enhance the quality of the audits of funds provided by foreign aid.

Six SAIs participated (Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Samoa, Tonga and Tuvalu), with 12 participants attending the planning meeting and 10 participants attending the final reporting meeting.

The conduct of a financial audit does not include any scope for the auditor to comment on the efficiency or progress of the project itself or the effectiveness of the foreign aid received by government. This scope falls under the audit requirements of a performance audit. On this basis, the audit reports provided an audit opinion on compliance with the funding agreement.

The audit findings that resulted from the audits are summarised as follows:

1. non –compliance with the funding agreement in relation to procurement processes and reporting requirements

2. weak controls over the disbursement of payments

3. poor record management systems

4. lack of asset management processes in place (no fixed assets register)

5. budget reports were not sufficiently comprehensive and were sometimes not prepared according to funding agreements (or project operational manuals)

6. untimely budget reporting which limits their usefulness

7. lack of evidence of governance arrangements such as no signing of minutes of steering committees and no sign off by review panelists to engage contractors

The management responses received from the auditees were positive and in support of the audit recommendations raised by the SAIs.

Overall the foreign aid for these projects was generally managed effectively and as a result the findings were not pervasive and the audit opinions issued were therefore unmodified. However, these audit findings are repeated year after year and usually the auditors do not follow up on the implementation of recommendations until the next annual audit. If these audit issues are not addressed by the implementing agency when the auditors raise them, this increases the opportunity in the future of risk of theft, fraud and misappropriation of funds or assets.

Details of the audit scope, including what constitutes a risk-based approach to financial auditing and audit findings can be found in Section 1 and Section 2 of this report.

Efficiency of measures/activities determined by strategic documents/programs for tourism development

Report ID: 249

The Republic of Croatia, Republic of Macedonia and Hungary are countries where tourism is a major economic sector and they all have adopted strategic documents related to further tourism development.

In 2015, the three SAIs signed agreements on mutual cooperation in the field of tourism, in order to assess whether the objectives related to the development of tourism are achieved. The subject of the agreements was to perform coordinated audit on the efficiency of measures / activities determined by strategic documents / programs for tourism development.

The objective of the coordinated audit was to provide exchange of knowledge, experience and good practice, as well as conclusions and recommendations for promoting tourism development.

The participating SAIs developed a framework of audit areas to be addressed in their national audits. Five audit areas and corresponding audit questions were identified: Legal, strategic and institutional framework for tourism development, Implementation of strategic measures and other activities defined in strategic documents / programs for development of tourism, Monitoring and reporting on the achievement of strategic objectives and the measure impact, Implementation of the Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Macedonia and the Government of the Republic Croatia on cooperation in the field of tourism and Implementation of the Agreement of the Government of Hungary and the Government of the Republic Croatia on cooperation in the field of tourism. 

Report of the Task Force on European Banking Union on prudential supervision of medium-sized and small (“less significant”) institutions in the European Union after the introduction of the Single Supervisory Mechanism

Report ID: 259

As from 2008, Europe was hit by a financial crisis and a subsequent sovereign debt crisis. Many governments supported failing financial institutions with public funds amounting to hundreds of billions of euros. In response, the countries of the euro area introduced the European Banking Union, including a Single Supervisory Mechanism. In this Mechanism, the European Central Bank is directly responsible for prudential supervision of all ‘Significant Institutions’. National Competent Authorities are directly responsible for supervising the ‘Less Significant Institutions’, based on guidance of the European Central Bank.

The Supreme Audit Institutions of Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Germany and the Netherlands carried out a parallel audit to examine banking supervision at national level. The objectives of the parallel audit were:

1) to gain insight into differences among EU Member States in the way supervisors have set up and carry out prudential supervision for LSIs, and

2) to collect evidence about possible ‘audit gaps’ that may have emerged as a result of the introduction of the Single Supervisory Mechanism.

One of the findings was that a comprehensive audit mandate assessing the supervisory review and  evaluation process of banking supervision is no guaranteed in the Single Supervisory Mechanism(SSM) and that before November 2014, National Supreme Audit Institutions audit scope went far beyond what the ECA is able to exercise today vis-à-vis the ECB.

EUROSAI website:  https://www.eurosai.org/en/databases/audits/Report-of-the-Task-Force-on-European-Banking-Union-on-prudential-supervision-of-medium-sized-and-small-less-significant-institutions-in-the-European-Union-after-the-introduction-of-the-Single-Supervisory-Mechanism/

Synthesis Report on the coordinated audit on Joint Assistance to Support Projects in European Regions (JASPERS)

Report ID: 265

About Jaspers In 2005, the European Commission decided to engage in a new initiative together with the European Investment Bank (EIB), known as ‘Joint Assistance to Support Projects in European Regions’ (JASPERS), to provide the Member States that joined the EU in 2004 or later with independent technical advice.

The aim of the JASPERS initiative was to help the Member States, free of charge, to prepare high-quality proposals for large investment projects for funding through the EU’s Cohesion and European Regional Development Funds.

In march 2016, the SAIs of Croatia, the Supreme Audit Office of Poland as well as the European Court of Auditors (ECA)  agreed to carry out a coordinated audit. It was a performance audit of the effectiveness of the JASPERS initiative in the field of shared management in Structural/Cohesion funds.

The audits covered the period from when JASPERS began operations in 2006 until the end of 2016. Within the respective audit mandates of the three SAIs, the main audit topics and audit criteria were established in a coordinated way between the three audit teams. 

Source: http://www.revizija.hr/datastore/filestore/82/SYNTHESIS_REPORT_ON_THE_COORDINATED_AUDIT_ON_JOINT_ASSISTANCE_TO_SUPPORT_PROJECTS_IN_EUROPEAN_REGIONS_JASPERS.pdf