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/

AFROSAI-e _Collaborative Audit for Integrating Environmental Risks in an Audit at Local Government

Report ID: 263

During the 2015,  AFROSAI-E Governing Board and Technical Update Meetings, the role of SAIs in addressing critical environmental challenges through their day-day audit activities was discussed. They decided to design a simplistic way to use SAIs’ existing financial and human resources to identify possible areas of improvement supported by solution-driven  planning towards environmental focus and decide to conduct an Environmental Risk Project.

The SAIs of South Africa, Nigeria, Ghana, Botswana, Sierra Leone, Rwanda and Tanzania decided to participate in the program, which comprised, among others, the development of an e-learning programme, in collaboration with the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), the execution of parallel audits and the development of a joint publication.

Find attached (in a merged file) the joint publication explaining the project methodology, as well as the  AUDIT REPORT ON MANAGEMENT OF SOLID WASTE IN HUYE DISTRICT – 2016 preparared by SAI Ruanda, as a result of the audit conducted in the framework of the Project.

Source: https://afrosai-e.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Integrating-Environmental-Audit-Risks-in-Audit-at-LG-level-Brochure1_00.pdf

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

COMPENDIUM CAROSAI PROGRAME ON COOPERATIVE AUDITS OF REVENUE DEPARTMENT

Report ID: 308

From 2013 to 2015, the SAIs of Bahamas, Barbados, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica y St. Lucia conducted a parallel audit of revenues,aimed to improve SAI’s professional staff and organisational capacity to conduct and report on audit of revenues / revenue departments (AIM). This audit took place under the framework of a CAROSAI Programme on Cooperative Audits of Revenue Department supported by the INTOSAI Development Initiative (IDI), the INTOSAI Capacity Building Committee (CBC).

The audit objective was to assess the effectiveness of the management of taxes (such as VAT, income tax, business tax) in the participating countries by examining key aspects of the revenue collection process: 1. Registration; 2. Collection; 3. Compliance and enforcement; and 4. Monitoring and Reporting.

A general conclusion was tbat current management performance reporting mechanisms across the agencies audited did not enable management to exercise sufficient ongoing control over the debt collection function. In some instances high level revenue targets were set related to a predetermined value as opposed to an accurate assessment of total obligations.

This impacts governments’ revenue base. The development of a monitoring strategy would provide immediate business benefits by ensuring that where ineffective processes in the debt collections function are identified, they are reported to management promptly so that remedial action can be taken.

Over the longer term, regular management reporting based on monitoring the performance of the debt collection activities (with Key Performance Indicators assigned) would support management’s responsibility to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of its collections business operations.

Source: https://www.eurosai.org/handle404?exporturi=/export/sites/eurosai/.content/documents/CAROSAI-Compendium.pdf

Rapport de la task force sur l'union bancaire européenne au comité de contact des présidents des institutions supérieures de contrôle des États membres de l'Union européenne et de la Cour des comptes européenne

Report ID: 317

En 2008, l'Europe a été frappée par une crise financière et une crise de la dette souveraine qui a suivi. De nombreux gouvernements ont soutenu des institutions financières en faillite avec des fonds publics s'élevant à des centaines de milliards d'euros. En réaction, les pays de la zone euro ont mis en place l'Union bancaire européenne, qui comprend un mécanisme de surveillance unique.  Dans le cadre de ce mécanisme, la Banque centrale européenne est directement responsable de la surveillance prudentielle de toutes les "institutions importantes". Les autorités nationales compétentes sont directement responsables de la surveillance des "institutions moins importantes", sur la base des orientations de la Banque centrale européenne.

Les institutions supérieures de contrôle de l'Autriche, de Chypre, de la Finlande, de l'Allemagne et des Pays-Bas ont effectué un audit parallèle pour examiner le contrôle bancaire au niveau national. Les objectifs de l'audit parallèle étaient les suivants:

1) de mieux comprendre les différences entre les États membres de l'UE dans la manière dont les autorités de surveillance ont mis en place et exercent le contrôle prudentiel des INS, et

2) de recueillir des éléments probants sur les éventuelles "lacunes en matière d'audit" qui ont pu apparaître à la suite de l'introduction du mécanisme de contrôle unique.

L'une des conclusions était qu'un mandat d'audit complet évaluant le processus des contrôle et d'évaluation du contrôle bancaire n'est pas garanti dans le cadre du mécanisme de surveillance unique (MSS) et qu'avant novembre 2014, le champ d'audit des institutions nationales supérieures de contrôle des finances publiques allait bien au-delà de ce que la CCE est en mesure d'exercer aujourd'hui vis-à-vis de la BCE.

Fonte: https://www.eca.europa.eu/sites/cc/Lists/CCDocuments/Task_Force_EBU/Task_Force_EBU_FR.pdf