Europaudvalget 2018-19 (1. samling)
EUU Alm.del Bilag 248
Offentligt
1993006_0001.png
Journal
Journal
o
NN
o
1 1 1
|
|
NN O V.DD E C .2 2 0 1 8
O V. E C . 0 1 8
Special theme
I
NT
COO
NATION
R
E
ERAT
P
IN
AL
N
IO
A
U
DI
T
EU
E
T
WOR
N
KS
&
E
YO
N
D
B
“
International cooperation is key
for Europe and likewise for the ECA
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0002.png
Table of contents
NUMBER 11
November/December 2018
10
INTERVIEW
Klaus-Heiner Lehne, ECA Member
15
Mapping EU SAIs: the who, the what and
the how of international cooperation
By Rosa Kotoaro, Private Office of Hannu Takkula,
ECA Member, and Gaston Moonen,
Directorate of the Presidency
Cooperation works best if beneficial
to both parties
04
05
EDITORIAL
The networked Union: experienced
partners in cooperation
By Christoph Klavehn, European Council on
Foreign Relations
beneficial to both parties
Interview with ECA President
Klaus-Heiner Lehne
By Derek Meijers and Gaston Moonen,
Directorate of the Presidency
32
10
Cooperation works best if
The EU Contact Committee Working
Group on EU Structural Funds – a
group which really worked
By Rolf-Dietrich Kammer, former Member of
the
Bundesrechnungshof
(German Federal
Audit Office)
Task Force on European Banking
Union of the EU Contact Committee:
a need to close the audit gaps
By Helmut Kern, Regulation of Markets and
Competitive Economy Directorate
The Audit Compendium – a new
EU Contact Committee product
illustrating the audit work of SAIs
By Rafal Czarnecki, Directorate of the
Presidency
Public Audit in the European Union -
a book in the making
By Derek Meijers, Directorate of
the Presidency
INTOSAI: the global umbrella
organization of supreme audit
institutions with the motto ‘Mutual
experience benefits all’
By Monika González-Koss, INTOSAI General
Secretariat, Austrian Court of Audit
49
Cooperating for results: developing
INTOSAI guidelines to audit disaster-
related aid
By Phyllis Anderson, U.S. Government
Accountability Office
52
How to audit preparedness for natural
disasters: an output of cooperation,
triggering cooperation?
By Arife, Turkish Court of Accounts
The International Organisation of
Supreme Audit Institutions – how
does the ECA contribute?
By Bogna Kuczynska, John Sweeney and Alan
Findlay, Audit Quality Control Committee
Directorate, and Paul Sime, Financing and
Administering the Union Directorate
60
ECA’s ‘personal’ commitment to
developing global audit standards
Interview with Gerard Ross, ECA director
and newly appointment member of the
INTOSAI FIPP
By Gaston Moonen, Directorate of the
Presidency
35
15
Mapping EU SAIs: the who, the what and
the how of international cooperation
By Rosa Kotoaro, Private Office of Hannu
Takkula, ECA Member, and Gaston Moonen,
Directorate of the Presidency
The EU Contact Committee – A
SAI story of the EU, of love and
cooperation
By Daniel Tibor, Directorate of the Presidency
2018 EU Contact Committee meeting
in Croatia: discussing interaction with
EU citizens
By Lidija Pernar, State Audit Office of Croatia
39
56
23
43
27
45
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0003.png
3
77
62
‘Young EUROSAI’ - international cooperation
for and between young European auditors
By Hayo van der Wal, Netherlands Court of Audi
32
The EU Contact Committee Working Group on EU Structural
Funds – a group which really worked
By Rolf-Dietrich Kammer, former Member of the
Bundesrechnungshof
(German Federal Audit Office)
88
INTERVIEW
Kay Scheller, President of the German
Bundesrechnungshof
and Member of the UN Boardof Auditors
Reviewing global cooperation and putting it into
practice: the UN Board of Auditors
62
EUROSAI: The place to be for external
public auditors across Europe
By Karen Ortiz Finnemore, Spanish Court of
Audit/EUROSAI Secretariat
Cooperating with the EUROSAI
Working Group on Environmental
Auditing
By Samo Jereb, ECA Member and Jerneja
Vrabic, Private Office of Samo Jereb
Cooperating and knowledge-sharing
on sensitive issues: the EUROSAI Task
Force on Audit & Ethics
By Helena Abreu Lopes, Member of the
Tribunal de Contas of Portugal
Benchmarking Information
Exchange Project – an innovative
form of exchanging audit results
By Radka Domanská and Štefan Kabátek,
Supreme Audit Office of the Czech Republic
81
67
The Global Audit Leadership Forum
- an idea factory for the public audit
world
By Derek Meijers, Directorate of the
Presidency
DIRECTOR'S CUT
Triggering and enabling
cooperation
Interview with Martin Weber, Director of
the Presidency
By Gaston Moonen, Directorate of the
Presidency
94
Strengthening capacities
– the work of France’s Cour
des comptes with the French-
speaking SAIs
83
71
88
74
77
‘Young EUROSAI’ - international
cooperation for and between young
European auditors
By Hayo van der Wal, Netherlands Court
of Audit
Reviewing global cooperation and
putting it into practice: the UN Board
of Auditors
Interview with Kay Scheller, President of
the German Bundesrechnungshof and
Member of the UN Boardof Auditors
By Gaston Moonen, Directorate of the
Presidency
The OECD’s ‘Auditors Alliance:’ an
innovative forum for international
cooperation among internal and
external public sector auditors
By Jennifer Eddie, Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development
92
By Rémi Frentz and Alban Baric, France’s
Cour des comptes
99 International cooperation
facilitated by a common
language – SAIs in Portuguese-
speaking countries
By José Tavares,
Tribunal de Contas,
Portugal
102 Bilateral cooperation between
the French Court of Audit and
the ECA: further steps discussed
to intensify an already close
relation
By Stéphanie Girard, Private Office of
Danièle Lamarque, ECA Member
105 International cooperation
between SAIs to help develop
capacity in public sector audit –
the Swedish experience
By Isabelle Berglund and Hazim
Sabanovic, Swedish National Audit
Office
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0004.png
Table of contents
128
PRODUCTION
Editor in chief:
Gaston Moonen
4
Tel.: +352 4398 - 45716
E-mail:
[email protected]
108
ECA JOURNAL LONG READ
International collaboration in Water
Management: water as unifying concept
By Professor Emeritus Wim van Vierssen, member
representative of KWR Watercycle Research Institute,
Nieuwegein, the Netherlands and Vice-president at Water
Supply and Sanitation Technology Platform (WssTP),
Brussels, Belgium
Participating in the
IMF’s Public Investment
Management Assessment
of Senegal
By Laura Gores, Private Office of
Oscar Herics, ECA Member
Deputy editor:
Derek Meijers
E-mail:
[email protected]
Layout, distribution:
Directorate of the Presidency
Photos:
Reproduction prohibited
© ECA
© European Union, 2018
Reproduction is authorised
provided the source is
acknowledged
The contents
of the interviews and the articles
are the sole responsibility
of the interviewees and authors
and do not necessarily
reflect the opinion of the
European Court of Auditors
Unless indicated otherwise,
all pictures and graphical visuals
originate from the ECA
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
European Court of Auditors
12, rue Alcide De Gasperi
1615 Luxembourg,
LUXEMBOURG
[email protected]
Past editions of the Journal
can be found on ECA’s website:
eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/Journal.aspx
108 ECA JOURNAL LONG READ
International collaboration in Water
Management: water as unifying
concept
By Professor Emeritus Wim van Vierssen,
member representative of KWR Watercycle
Research Institute, Nieuwegein, the
Netherlands and Vice-president at Water
Supply and Sanitation Technology Platform
(WssTP), Brussels, Belgium
119 Linking national authorities and the
EU – what do national experts take
away from their secondment to the
ECA?
By Richard Moore, Translation, Language
Services and Publication Directorate
122 Foreign exchange – the ECA
cooperating with other SAIs through
staff secondment
By Michael Pyper, Translation, Language
Services and Publication Directorate
128 Participating in the IMF’s Public
Investment Management Assessment
of Senegal
By Laura Gores, Private Office of Oscar Herics,
ECA Member
132 Performance audit and cooperation
ECA performance audit of public-
private partnerships
By Enrico Grassi, Investment for Cohesion,
Growth and Inclusion Directorate
136 REACHING OUT
ECA Training Day 2018: an
opportunity for learning, training
and sharing knowledg
By Veronica Ardelean and Bernadett Soos-
Pétek, Human Resources, Finance and General
Services Directorate
139 Press field days at the EU institutions
in Luxembourg – the ECA presenting
itself to journalists
By Vincent Bourgeais, Directorate of the
Presidency
140 Blockchain in public administration
- opportunities and practical
applications at the ECA
By Barbara Auer, Directorate of the Presidency
142 President and Members of the
Court of Audit of the West African
Economic and Monetary Union visit
the ECA
By Roberto Gabella Carena, Directorate of the
Presidency
144 ECA Member Annemie Turtelboom
speaking at the College of Europe on
the rule of law…and the EU budget
By Dzhelil Ismail, Private Office of Annemie
Turtelboom, ECA Member
146 ECA contributes to EIOPA’s 8th
Annual Conference in Frankfurt
By Victoria Gilson, Private Office of Rimantas
Šadžius, ECA Member
149 2018 ECA Clear Language
event – drafting understandable
and attractive reports
By Derek Meijers, Directorate of the
Presidency
153 Who is auditing the auditors? The
ECA’s third peer review focuses on
progress made in implementing the
2018-2020 strategy
By Daniel Tibor, Directorate of the Presidency
155 FOCUS
ECA Publications in November and
December 2018
159 NEXT EDITION
eca.europa.eu
@EUauditors
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0005.png
Editorial
5
Making sense of cooperation 
When we decided to take international cooperation between supreme
audit institutions (SAIs) as the theme for this Journal, I was afraid we
might not be able to overcome the ‘intrinsic’ bias we, as staff members of
an international organisation, most probably have. After all, working in
an organisation which is a result of international cooperation might blur our
perspective. Cooperation is in our DNA, so to speak. And for me, perhaps
even more so, because I was a student of international affairs, focusing on …
international cooperation. However, since cooperation is such an essential
part of the EU, we should not shy away talking about it, either. Especially not
in an era characterised by rising nationalism and an increasing tendency for
countries to follow their own interests, no matter what.
Cooperation among SAIs is all the more interesting because they are
independent. Independent vis-à-vis their governments, according to the Lima
Declaration – essentially the global charter for SAIs – but also vis-à-vis each
other. How does this impact the way they cooperate? What motivates them
to cooperate and how do they do so?  And, first and foremost, what are the
results? This is the focus of this edition of the ECA Journal.
It turned out that identifying the key facts about cooperation between SAIs,
and the networks established to facilitate it, was also quite a challenge. Not
because of a lack of information; indeed, quite the opposite. The sheer volume
of this Journal is evidence of this: there are many cooperation platforms, and
even more activities.
Besides the many cooperation activities that are evidently undertaken,
this edition of the Journal has become a ‘double’ issue, largely due to
the enthusiasm of our contributors! Many people were willing to do
what is already an essential prerequisite for cooperation: share their
experiences. However, as our ‘Long Read’ article shows, this is not exclusive to
auditors: cooperation in water management is extensive and commonplace,
too, and no doubt there are many other topics that have a similar unifying
effect.
As noted above, the impact of cooperation is not easy to assess, either for
auditors or for anyone else. What is clear, though, is that cooperation among
SAIs has grown in recent decades. From an EU perspective, this is not a
surprise: in an ever-closer Union, with more cooperation and alignment
taking place in many areas, SAIs have to follow suit. Also beyond the
EU level, this trend of increasing cooperation between SAIs seems clear. A sort
of ‘global village’ in public audit, as it were. 
Why do people, including auditors, cooperate? Clearly, in a world that faces
ever more cross-border challenges, solutions also have to cross borders, and so
cooperation makes sense. But cooperation between SAIs is definitely also
essential to satisfy the curiosity auditors have about how others do their work,
and how things can be done better. 
It might make sense, then, to pick and choose from the many articles you
will find in this edition. However, curiosity might prevent you from doing so.
Perhaps the Christmas break will help you to do both!
Gaston Moonen
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0006.png
6
The networked Union: experienced partners
in cooperation
By Christoph Klavehn, European Council on Foreign Relations
Cooperation threads tying the continent together
Often enough the European
Union project is used as a
showcase for the success
of cooperation between
countries…or as example
where cooperation failed
to result in taking decisive
action. But what do we
mean by cooperation? And
what do we expect to obtain
by cooperating with each
other? Christoph Klavehn,
Manager of Pan-European
Data Projects at the European
Council on Foreign Relations
(ECFR), provides an overview
and analysis of the main
findings of ECFR’s recently
published EU Coalition
Explorer, a visualization of
the interaction patterns and
attitudes between national
policy communities in the EU
Member States.
The European Union is a group of countries connected by a myriad of
threads that tie their continent and its people together like no other
region in the world. The level of prosperity flowing from economic,
political, and institutional integration is aspiration to millions of people
in the EU’s immediate neighborhood and billions around the globe.
Despite being so different in culture and geography, the
club’s
members
have seemingly mastered cooperation.
In fact, the EU28’s potential for acting together is far from being fully
used. Just at a time of accelerating shifts in the global order, the EU
Member States’ capacity to act in unison to advance common goals
has been waning, even with the many decades of successful practice in
close interaction. As in the past, the EU of tomorrow will depend on the
commitment of its members to it. From the technical details of crafting
and implementing EU regulations to tackling a growing list of internal,
regional and global headaches, the Union can only be as strong as the
willingness of its member states to find common ground.
Against this backdrop, policymakers in each EU member state are under
pressure to think more creatively about their country’s European EU
partnerships as well as the cooperation formats and coalitions their
governments engage in. Accelerated by the UK’s imminent departure
from the group of 28, some Member States in the EU’s North and West
have already started to rethink their country’s future role in the EU.
They have started by cultivating hitherto neglected relationships and
are keen to re-assess existing ones. They might be surprised how much
there is to explore.
A network of unused potential
To inform this process of reflection about the future of cooperation in the EU, the
European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) has been conducting a bi-annual series
of structured expert interviews with policy professionals in government, politics, and
think tanks from all EU member states. Their views and experiences are the backbone of
a unique mapping of EU28 relations that illustrates the interaction patterns and attitudes
between the member states’ national policy communities, their perceptions of influence
and commitment to deeper integration, as well as their policy priorities and favored
partners for the future. (www.ecfr.eu/eucoalitionexplorer).
ECFR’s EU28 Survey and EU Coalition Explorer
The EU28 Survey is a bi-annual expert poll conducted by ECFR in the 28 Member States of the European
Union. The study surveys the cooperation preferences and attitudes of European policy professionals
working in governments, politics, think tanks, academia, and the media to explore the potential for
coalitions among EU member states. The 2018 edition of the EU28 Survey ran from 24 April to 12 June 2018.
Several hundred respondents completed the questions discussed in this piece. The full results of the survey,
including the detailed data and its interactive visualization, the EU Coalition Explorer, are available online
at www.ecfr.eu/eucoalitionexplorer. The project is part of ECFR’s Rethink: Europe initiative on cohesion and
cooperation in the EU that is funded by Stiftung Mercator.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0007.png
The networked Union: experienced partners in cooperation
continued
7
One of the study’s main finding is the level of unused potential for closer ‘capital-to-capital ’ ties of
Europe’s political establishment. This is illustrated by picturing the EU28 in its form as a network of
bilateral relationships. Our data suggests that from the theoretical total of nearly 400 nodes in this
network, the vast majority of bilateral ties are underdeveloped. This becomes particularly obvious
when looking at EU Member States’ contact frequency, responsiveness, and shared interests – three
central cooperation indicators from our inquiry (see
Figure 1).
Figure 1
Overall, tandems showing strong and
balanced relationships are as rare as
they are familiar: the Czech Republic
and Slovakia, Hungary and Poland,
Spain and Portugal, or, far beyond
the field by any standard, France and
Germany. Remarkably, more than two
thirds of all possible ties do not or only
barely register in the data gathered
from professional respondents in a
process that involved hundreds of online
interviews across all Member States
of the EU over a period of nearly two
months .
There are also only few trilateral
groupings that show strong and
reciprocated intra-group links. Most
prominently, this pattern is visible for the
three Baltic EU members Estonia, Latvia,
and Lithuania, the Nordics, composed of
Denmark, Finland, and Sweden, or the
southern triangle between France, Spain,
and Portugal. Yet all of them have their
internal biases and, on closer inspection
of the data, show a ‘2+1’ pattern, in
which at least one link is generally not
fully reciprocated and therefore lopsided,
e.g. Denmark among the Nordics,
Luxembourg among the Benelux,
Portugal in the southern triangle, Polish-
French ties in the Weimar triangle, or
the Czech Republic and Slovakia in
the Visegrád group that appears to be
dominated by the Polish-Hungarian
tandem.
France, Germany, Coalitions
There is near perfect consensus among EU policy professionals that France and Germany are still
the essential pair of the EU. Both are clearly viewed as the Union’s two most influential members
and are regarded to share the top spot with significant distance to the third placed country in this
ranking, The Netherlands. France and Germany are also widely considered to be most committed
to deeper integration, followed by Belgium in third place. The two are also most often named as
the preferred partners for cooperating on a number of policy projects for which specific proposals
have been part of European policy debates for several years. This includes a common immigration
and asylum policy, a single fiscal policy and better Eurozone governance, as well as completion
of the single market – the top three policy issues for our professional sample from a list of 18
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0008.png
The networked Union: experienced partners in cooperation
continued
8
policy projects included in the study. Across the board of cooperation indicators, France
and Germany almost monopolize the top positions. This, however, is not only the result
of French and German responses in the survey. Rather, it mirrors agreement across the
European Union that both remain indispensable in the long run.
However, the outlook on how to get to the long run with the EU28 as a tightly knit block
is dim. When looking at the top priorities European policy professionals predict their
governments to pursue for the next five years, the strategic consensus appears to be rather
low. Priorities and preferences differ depending on the exposure of individual Member
States to the respective topic. Most countries also risk remaining rather reactive: EU-internal
topics such as immigration and asylum policy and economic issues rank significantly higher
than topics likely to have a much bigger impact on Europe’s long term future such as digital
and climate policy.
Network Connectors
For countries politically close to France and Germany and sharing the tandem’s
commitment to deeper integration all this is no reason for complacency. Rather than
waiting for Paris and Berlin to move, they can move the tandem. Their opportunity lies in
building a likeminded ring of friends around the essential core of the EU28, e.g. nurturing
tri- and quadrilateral relationships and engaging in new policy initiatives independently
of France and Germany. This concept of ‘friends-of-friends’ in turn can bring France and
Germany closer to countries that they otherwise may not engage with as frequently as with
their ‘direct friends’ – whether for political reasons or mere capacity.
According to ECFR’s survey data, countries with the potential to serve as network
connectors and bridge builders in this way include Denmark for linking the Nordics closer
to the Benelux group, Finnish-Estonian links to strengthen Nordic-Baltic ties, Austria,
standing out as a thought-after partner in its Southeastern neighborhood but being locked
in its own preoccupation with Germany, and Spain as a largely pro-European anchor in the
South that still generally punches below its wait. Overall, the Netherlands and Sweden,
widely regarded as influential among the economically powerful EU members, rank among
the best connected in the EU (see
Figure 2).
Overall, in this effort of broadening relationships and addressing gaps in reciprocity,
geography and language appear to remain major hurdles as the relatively small number
of solid bi- and trilateral regional constellations discussed above testifies. This is true not
only for countries in the EU’s periphery but for all . EU governments across the continent
need to work on better mechanisms to increase their day-to-day cooperation beyond their
immediate neighborhoods. A recent example of such an effort, stimulated by ECFR’s study,
is the German Foreign Office’s ‘Like-Minded-Initiative’. Launched in September 2018, it aims
to boost cooperation with specific partners from the EU27 and work with them towards
their shared European interests. Germany’s diplomats identified Ireland, Denmark, Finland,
and Sweden to engage first under their new initiative.
Cooperation Community
A functioning EU has always relied on its members to come together. But the EU28 of today
miss much of their network potential for joint action , since a vast majority of bilateral ties
appear to be underdeveloped. They also lack a sub-group of significant size and readiness
to build a cooperation community to develop the Union further, irrespective of differences
on detail. The old conundrum lies in moving ahead to save the EU without breaking it by
doing so. Yet accepting to remain locked in stalemate and failing to equip the Union for
the future now risks becoming a bigger threat for the EU than building new coalitions to
experiment with.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0009.png
The networked Union: experienced partners in cooperation
continued
9
Figure 2
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0010.png
10
Interview with
ECA President
Klaus-Heiner Lehne
By Gaston Moonen
and Derek Meijers,
Directorate of the Presidency
Interview with J
By Gaston Moonen,
Directorate of the Presidency
Cooperation works best if
beneficial to both parties
Personal contacts are essential for building trust and understanding, and can help solve problems
quickly when they arise. The highest institutional level is no exception to this rule. ECA President
Klaus-Heiner Lehne is well aware of the value of maintaining good relations with his peers, as well as
the benefits of international cooperation in general. Gaston Moonen and Derek Meijers ask him about
his experience and the importance of international cooperation for an institution such as the ECA.
Building the ECA brand
Klaus-Heiner Lehne has been President of the European Court of Auditors
(ECA) for over two years now, and one of the first things he did when he took
up his mandate was to visit the capitals of the EU Member States. There he
met with the ministers of Finance and of European Affairs, other government
officials, parliamentarians, the national press, and representatives of supreme
audit institutions. Klaus-Heiner Lehne: ‘The two main reasons for this
‘roadshow’ were our new 2018-2020 strategy, and our intention to move
further towards performance of value-for-money auditing and to modify
our approach for the Statement of Assurance. This needed to be explained
to our partners in the Member States. Apart from that, the tour has helped
significantly to make the ECA more well-known.’ He explains: ‘We often have
little time to present our reports to our main stakeholders in the European
Parliament and the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN), at least
not enough to convey more complex issues related to our work.’
In this sense, his visits to the EU Member States are not so different from his
other international cooperation activities. Klaus-Heiner Lehne specifically
aims to increase the ‘brand awareness’ in respect of the ECA and raise
awareness of what the ECA does. Because, as Klaus-Heiner Lehne admits
quite frankly: ‘We are a ‘hidden’ institution, not at the forefront of media
attention. Not that many people know us, or are familiar with our work and
products.’ He continues: ‘I think it is time for us to reach out more to the
Member States and citizens. The visit of the president of an EU institution,
“
We are a ‘hidden’ institution,
not at the forefront of media
attention.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0011.png
Interview with ECA President Klaus-Heiner Lehne
continued
11
especially in smaller countries, is still an event that receives a lot of media
attention, bringing the ECA closer to citizens.’
Talking to peers
During his 'roadshow', Klaus-Heiner Lehne also visited most of the EU SAIs,
which, as he explains, are important partners of the ECA: ‘Within each
country, the national SAIs are our main peers and partners. ‘They have a
good understanding of our role and work, as they basically do a similar job
to the one we do. We cooperate with them in the framework of the Contact
Committee of EU SAIs, and on a number of issues we cooperate closely. We
need their support, and they may need ours.’ He adds: ‘When an ECA Member
goes to a national capital, he or she would normally visit the parliament
and often the national SAI as well. This is not only a matter of politeness.
SAIs normally maintain close ties with their national parliament’s budgetary
control committee, which in turn can influence their government.’ And: ‘So
these contacts can help us to convey our message to the Council, and even
the European Parliament (EP), indirectly!’
Klaus-Heiner Lehne: ‘Another topic I discussed with national SAIs was that it is
nearly impossible to carry out an EU-wide audit where we can automatically
take over the information we receive from each other. The reason for this
is that the individual SAIs operate on the basis of different standards,
methodologies, and legal bases.’ He continues: ‘This is problematic, because,
for certain audit topics, public health or security issues for example, it would
be interesting to know precisely what the situation is in all Member States,
rather than only looking at a limited sample, as we usually do in our audits.’
Working in parallel
The ECA President explains that parallel audits are currently the most
useful and effective instruments that are available to EU SAIs if they want to
cooperate in their audit work. ‘During a parallel audit, several SAIs look at the
same issue, after which the participating institutions can set up a permanent
exchange of information. This entails no risk for the independence of the
participating SAIs, but cooperation in audit is helpful to see what the others
are doing and what the situation is in the other Member States.’ Klaus-Heiner
Lehne explains that, on top of that, parallel audits provide SAIs with valuable
information and insights, which in turn could help to create a better, and more
comparable, evidence base for their audit reports. ‘Sharing information and
some form of benchmarking is beneficial for all parties, as good ideas and
lessons learned from our neighbours can help us to improve our own financial
management and policy making.’
Klaus-Heiner Lehne adds that there is a clear interest in, and need for,
such cross-border cooperation within the EU. ‘This year, in the framework
of our cooperation in the Contact Committee, we produced a first audit
compendium on the topic of youth unemployment.’ This compendium
brought together audit reports from several SAIs and compared the
outcomes and recommendations, providing an overview of the situation in
this particular area in the EU. ‘This is a unique product that shows the added
value of a platform like the Contact Committee. I hope that we will be able to
produce a second edition of this audit compendium in 2019.’
“
... it is nearly impossible to
carry out an EU-wide audit
where we can automatically
take over the information we
receive from each other.
“
Sharing information (...)
is beneficial for all parties,
as good ideas and lessons
learned from our neighbours
can help us to improve our
own financial management
and policy making.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0012.png
Interview with ECA President Klaus-Heiner Lehne
continued
12
The mutual benefits of cooperation
For Klaus-Heiner Lehne, the key objective
of any international cooperation activity
should be exchange and interaction. ‘The
aim is to look at an issue from another
perspective. How do the other SAIs work?
What are their problems? Their solutions?
And, very topical for the ECA, how do they deal with change and anticipate
future developments?’ He explains that, because of the nature of SAIs, it is
often easier to discuss these topics in person with other heads of SAIs. ‘We are
all independent institutions, and the other EU institutions are normally either
our auditee or the one we report to, or even both. So being a head of an SAI
myself, apart from my fellow ECA Members my peers at other SAIs are the
go-to people if I want to brainstorm an issue.’ Then, laughing: ‘And hopefully I
fulfil the same role for other heads of SAIs!’
This peer-to-peer exchange is also the rationale behind the meetings of the
Global Audit Leadership Forum - or GALF - of which the last edition took place
at the ECA in Luxemburg last April. These rather informal meetings were set
up to offer heads of SAIs (and their substitutes) from all parts of the world a
forum to discuss topical issues of common interest in a global context with
their peers, who have a deep understanding of each other’s sphere of activity
and the consequences of being an independent institution. Klaus-Heiner
Lehne: ‘For me the most important thing with GALF is that its size means you
can really discuss issues and its format allows and encourages its participants
to bring up topics outside of the agenda. This stimulates the exchange of
views and helps us come up with new ideas.’
Playing your role includes going global
The ECA President continues by explaining that, apart from their ‘function’
as intellectual sparring and discussion partners, the other SAIs also play an
essential role when the ECA needs support in areas where it encounters
difficulties in carrying out its work. Klaus-Heiner Lehne: ‘The best example
is the European Central Bank, where we can see an obvious audit gap in
banking supervision following recent regulatory changes. If we want to fill
that gap, we need the support of our colleagues at the national SAIs to take
this to the level of national ministries and parliaments. ‘And this is exactly
what the Contact Committee has done, most recently in November 2018,
when there was a joint declaration by the heads of all EU SAIs on this matter.’
Such joint initiatives are a highly effective way of addressing problems that
affect all Member States . Klaus-Heiner Lehne: ‘For EU-related matters it is also
much more useful to work with a network, such as the Contact Committee,
where you can discuss directly and in detail with the people that might be
able to help you.’
Compared to the EU Contact Committee, global networks like INTOSAI have
their limitations, even for a relatively big institution like the ECA. Klaus-Heiner
Lehne says: ‘Take, for example, the INTOSAI congress (INCOSAI). Although
those are very interesting meetings as well, they are much more formal and
have a very strict agenda. Which is no surprise, given that there you can easily
have more than a 1 000 people in a room.’ He explains that at such events,
the real discussions take place in bilateral meetings on the sidelines of the
congress.
Nevertheless, it makes perfect sense for the ECA to participate in INTOSAI
activities. ‘If you look at our size and our role within the continental structure,
it is quite logical that we engage at this level. Europe plays a global role, and
that is intentional, because it should play that global role. And then I think the
“
... being a head of an SAI
myself, apart from my
fellow ECA Members my
peers at other SAIs are the
go-to people if I want to
brainstorm an issue.
“
For EU-related matters it
is also much more useful
to work with a network,
such as the Contact
Committee ...
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0013.png
Interview with ECA President Klaus-Heiner Lehne
continued
13
ECA has to do that as well. So I think it is obvious that we should participate
and also that we should try to play a leading role.
Meetings at INTOSAI level also offer an opportunity to meet with
representatives from non-EU countries with sometimes less or non-
democratic structures. International cooperation is key for Europe and
likewise for the ECA. It allows us to raise the flag on issues such as working
methods and independence, which can certainly have an impact in those
countries. And by playing our part there the ECA promotes good governance
and democratic values.’
A missing dimension in international cooperation?
Although the ECA is involved in many different international cooperation
activities, which all cover different areas of the public audit landscape, Klaus-
Heiner Lehne still sees some potential structures that remain to be developed.
‘The regional aspect – and here I mean the regions within Member States – is
still underdeveloped. I think that this is really a deficit, especially for the larger
countries. That is a problem. Not so much for those regional institutions, but
for us in our relations with them.’
He explains: ‘Take for example the country that I know best, Germany. ‘The
money that’s coming from the EU is in most cases not spent by the federal
level, but rather at the regional level of the Länder. As a result, EU funds
are also audited by the regional audit institutions, which are completely
independent. So in the current situation, if we need some information
from these regional bodies, we always have to communicate through the
Bundesrechnungshof,
the German SAI at the federal level, instead of having
direct contact with the regional auditors.’
As a possible solution for this, Klaus-Heiner Lehne suggests including the
ECA as a permanent guest at the conference of regional audit institutions,
or finding a way to integrate the regional audit institutions into the Contact
Committee framework. While he admits that it would be practically
impossible to invite representatives from all the hundreds of regional audit
bodies that exist in the EU Member States, he argues that it would already be
useful to add one regional representative to the delegations of the national
SAIs to the Contact Committee.
He adds: ‘One could even set up a secretariat or a similar structure to liaise
with the regional audit institutions. That would already improve the situation
and I think they would participate, as they face the same problems as we do,
especially when it comes to EU funds, where they play such an important role.
Organising this around a specific team, as is done in the Contact Committee,
may be an option that we could explore’. Concluding, Klaus-Heiner Lehne
adds that having such a framework for the exchange of information would
also help to avoid duplicating audits, and to make sure that public auditors
throughout the EU interpret EU laws in a uniform way.
‘This is necessary, because too often I receive complaints from regional
government officials that their regional audit institution’s interpretation of EU
regulation differs from ours.’ And: ‘Their next question is always whether we
can do something about it, but unfortunately we are not in a position to do
that. The only thing we can do in those cases is to suggest to regional audit
institutions that they ask us for an official opinion on their specific question.’
Laughing: ‘Then of course it would be up to them if they do something with
that or not. But it could be very helpful to develop a common understanding
of EU rules, to avoid conflicting opinions or opposite positions between the
ECA, national SAIs and regional audit institutions. So there I believe that
coordination needs to be improved, as the current situation is not helpful.’
“
The regional aspect – and
here I mean the regions
within Member States – is
still underdeveloped.
I think that this is really a
deficit ...
“
... too often I receive
complaints from regional
government officials
that their regional audit
institution’s interpretation
of EU regulation differs
from ours.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0014.png
Interview with ECA President Klaus-Heiner Lehne
continued
14
Open doors and enthusiasm
Klaus-Heiner Lehne has no doubt that his visits to EU capitals, as well as the
other cooperation activities the ECA is engaged in, are bearing fruit. ‘The
overall response and reactions have been very positive indeed. I have been
preaching to the converted everywhere. Whenever I discussed our reform and
the goals of our 2018-2020 strategy, I have met with support.’ He continues:
‘Over the last two years I have not met a single finance minister or head of SAI
who questioned our intentions. They all say: “This move to more performance
audit, this change that you are making is relevant, it helps us, it gives us better
information.” So the reaction overall has been overwhelmingly positive so far.
But now we also must deliver.’
Adding to this, he says: ‘Cooperation between SAIs as such is of course
enshrined in the Treaty itself, but it has to work in practice as well. A sceptic
might argue that national bodies only cooperate when it is in their own
interest. But that is not my experience at all!’ He adds: ‘And even if that were
the case, the cooperation that works best is characterised by being beneficial
for both parties. So yes, I think that the ECA’s international cooperation
activities are functioning very well. And that is especially true for the
cooperation between the 29 EU SAIs, and more specifically in the framework
of the Contact Committee.’
Klaus-Heiner Lehne concludes: ‘You can also see that cooperation is going
well if you look at the many – and very productive – working groups of
the international organisations in which the ECA is involved. And we are
well placed and qualified to play our part and contribute.’ He refers to ECA
participation in INTOSAI committees or, for example, in its regional European
section, EUROSAI. ‘These are large networks in which SAIs from all over the
world have joined forces to develop standards and methodologies, provide
support to institutions in developing countries, perform peer reviews
of colleague institutions, etc.’ The ECA’s President points out that these
organisations run many working groups on topics such as audit and ethics,
citizen communication, or environmental auditing. ‘In those working groups,
staff members from different institutions discuss audit issues and draft
guidelines, which are then shared with all SAIs in the network. By doing so,
we try to promote globally the fundamental principles of the audit of public
entities and help other SAIs to play their role in providing relevant facts to
their citizens.’
“
“
“
Over the last two years
I have not met a single
finance minister or head
of SAI who questioned our
intentions.
... the cooperation
that works best is
characterised by being
beneficial for both parties.
... we are well placed and
qualified to play our part
and contribute.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0015.png
Mapping EU SAIs: the who, the what and the
how of international cooperation
By Rosa Kotoaro, Private Office of Hannu Takkula, ECA Member, and Gaston Moonen,
Directorate of the Presidency
15
International cooperation revolves around various topics and actors. Zooming
in on public auditing, who are the key players amongst the EU supreme audit
institutions (SAIs) In which field and how do they collaborate with each other?
Rosa Kotoaro and Gaston Moonen dived into responsibilities, numbers and
cooperation platforms to give an overview on the who, the what, and the how.
As the EU’s external auditor, the ECA’s task is to check that EU policies and programmes
meet their objectives and deliver value for money, that EU funds are raised and spent in
accordance with the relevant rules and regulations, and that EU funds are accounted for
correctly. The annual EU budget is about 140 billion euros. To put things in perspective:
this is less than 2% of the overall yearly public expenditure in the 28 Member States, which
amounts, according to Eurostat, to over 6 900 billion euros in 2016 . And it is the supreme
audit institutions (SAIs) in the Member States which audit all – or at least a substantial part -
of this expenditure. But who are these EU SAIs, what do they do and how do they collaborate
with each other and the ECA?
Comparative analysis mostly based on publicly available data
We did some research into these questions, using information mainly available on the
websites of EU Member States’ SAIs and data on issues such as staff and budgets, provided
by various audit institutions. Regarding cooperation activities we used the information
provided on the websites of the three main international and European cooperation
platforms:
•
•
•
INTOSAI – the International Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions;
its European sub-organisation EUROSAI – the European Organisation of Supreme
Audit Institutions;
the Contact Committee of the heads of SAIs of the EU and its Member States,
dealing mainly with EU related issues.
Highest level of public sector external audit
SAIs are countries’ utmost external audit institutions, generally assigned with the task of
overseeing the management of government expenditure. In the EU, there are 29 SAIs in
total: those of the individual Member States and the ECA. By evaluating the consistency,
efficiency, compliance, and reliability of public entities’ policies and financial statements and
assessing policy effectiveness, SAIs promote transparent and accountable governance. They
therefore play a fundamental role in our democratic societies.
Typically, SAIs carry out three different types of audit: financial, compliance, and
performance audit. In financial audit, SAIs examine whether their respective governments’
financial statements are complete and reliable. In other words, financial audit seeks to ensure
that states’ budgets are presented accurately and in accordance with the applicable financial
reporting rules. Compliance audit, in turn, focuses on the adherence to legal and regulatory
standards. That is, when auditing governments’ budgetary compliance, SAIs aim to find out
if governments are following the relevant laws and rules correctly. Finally, performance audit
revolves around added value. Accordingly, when investigating governments’ performance,
SAIs aim to find out whether public policies and programmes achieve their objectives, and
ensure that government funds are used in efficient ways that provide real value for money.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0016.png
Mapping EU SAIs: the who, the what and the how of international cooperation
continued
16
When talking about the role of SAIs in public audit a crucial aspect is the principle of
independence. In order to perform their duties as an objective auditor of public finances,
SAIs must remain impartial. In the European Union all SAIs must be bodies that are
independent from the legislature, executive, and judiciary branches of government. This is
generally enshrined in their countries’ constitutions.
Typically, the most notable tool at SAIs’ disposal, in Europe like elsewhere, is their ‘power of
the pen’. That is, SAIs can publish their audit findings, they can make recommendations, but
they cannot impose any actions upon the auditee. This remains the task of the executive or
legislative branches of the government. In this context, however, it is important to note that
some SAIs do possess a special status as jurisdictional courts. In the EU, this pertains to the
SAIs of Belgium, France, Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain. The jurisdictional mandate allows
these SAIs to initiate legal proceedings against public fund managers and accountants
suspected of being involved in irregularities regarding public assets and expenditure. This
jurisdictional function gives SAIs a tool to publically scrutinize and sanction individuals guilty
of misconduct in government service.
When it comes to staff and the size of their own operational budget, there are considerable
differences between SAIs, not the least due to their countries different size, economic
situation and administrative structure. For instance, the Italian SAI has a budget of 310
million euros and employs 2 658 people, while the Luxembourgish SAI has a budget of 4.5
million euros and employs 34 people in its service. See for more details
Figure 1,
for which
the ECA collected the information in close cooperation with the SAIs covered.
In total, the 28 national audit institutions and the ECA have over 17 000 staff members. The
SAIs of the five biggest Member States - Germany, France, UK, Italy and Spain, representing
close to 330 million people – employ around 7 700 auditors. Almost 9 300 auditors are
employed by the other 23 Member States, with a total population of over 180 million people.
Figure 1: SAIs of the European Union – budget and staff
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0017.png
Mapping EU SAIs: the who, the what and the how of international cooperation
continued
17
For the EU as a whole there is one SAI auditor per 20 000 citizens. East European SAIs tend
to have a higher proportion of female staff and a lower average age than the larger Western
European SAIs. From a budget perspective, in almost all Member States an SAI’s budget
accounts for less than 0,1% of the overall government budget.
In addition to differences in the EU’s SAIs’ budget and staff sizes, deviations in activities exist,
too. While financial, compliance, and performance audit form the corner stones of most of
the EU Member States’ SAIs’ operations, each of the Union’s national audit institutions is free
to structure its activities according to national priorities and administrative resources. For
example, some SAIs invest more in financial and compliance audit, while being less active
in the field of performance audit. Many SAIs also perform additional activities that support
their mission of overseeing the sound management of public expenditure. For instance,
some EU Member States’ SAIs carry out fiscal policy audit and evaluation, while others
perform assessments of election campaigns and political party funding.
International cooperation on multiple levels
The scope of SAIs’ activities has implications for not only their internal operations, but also
for their cooperative efforts. Indeed, while SAIs operate independently, they do not act in
isolation. This is particularly true of the SAIs of the EU and its Member States (see
Box 1).
Also beyond the EU’s legal framework, SAIs sustain close
relations and engage in active dialogue with each other in
various cooperation fora. Typically, such cooperation materialises
around the exchange of knowledge and information of specific
audited fields, as well as practical and logistical support.
INTOSAI
At a global level, the most important collaboration platform
for SAIs is the International Organization of Supreme Audit
Institutions (INTOSAI). Founded in 1953, INTOSAI provides the
world’s audit community with an institutionalised framework
that encourages development of expertise and exchange of
knowledge. By allowing public auditors from across the world to
work on issues of mutual interest while staying informed of novel
developments in the field of external audit, the organisation
strives to foster enhanced audit practices and to increase the
influence of its member SAIs. INTOSAI’s mission as a facilitator of
knowledge sharing is captured in its motto, which affirms that
‘Mutual experience benefits all.’
In its triannual conferences, INTOSAI brings together all of its
195 member SAIs, including the SAIs of EU Member States
and the ECA, as well as representatives of various international
organisations, such as the United Nations and the World Bank.
Through the processes of open dialogue, and exchange of
ideas and expertise, INTOSAI also aims to pass resolutions
and recommendations that improve governments’ financial
management and accountability worldwide, thereby delivering
value to citizens.
Box 1: legal provisions on cooperation
in the Treaty
In the EU, cooperation is explicitly
addressed in Article 4(3) of the Treaty on
the Functioning for the EU: ‘Pursuant to
the principle of sincere cooperation, the
Union and the Member States shall, in
full mutual respect, assist each other in
carrying out tasks which flow from the
Treaties.’ For SAIs, the issue of cooperation
is elaborated further in Article 287(3) of
the same Treaty, where it is stated that
the ECA and the national audit authorities
‘shall cooperate in a spirit of trust while
maintaining their independence.’
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0018.png
Mapping EU SAIs: the who, the what and the how of international cooperation
continued
18
Among the most notable products of INTOSAI are its ‘International Standards for SAIs’
- ISSAIs, which set out government audit principles and guidelines. For many SAIs, this
common frame of reference for public sector auditing forms a key building block for their
operations, and as such constitutes a public audit equivalent of the International Federation
of Accountants’ (IFAC) International Standards on Auditing.
For more information on INTOSAI, see page 45.
EUROSAI
While INTOSAI facilitates the EU’s SAIs’ cooperation with international organisations and
SAIs across the globe, the forum also fosters regional cooperation through its seven
geographically specific sub-organisations. The regional group dedicated to promoting the
goals of INTOSAI at European level is known as the European Organisation of Supreme Audit
Institutions (EUROSAI).
EUROSAI’s membership currently stands at 50 SAIs, consisting of those of 49 European states
and the ECA. Together, the European SAIs pursue initiatives in line with EUROSAI’s mission
of ensuring better public sector auditing and sound financial management across the
continent.
More information on EUROSAI can be found on page 62.
EU Contact Committee
Over the years, increasing European integration has been accompanied by deeper, more
organised, and institutionalised collaboration between the EU Member States’ SAIs and the
ECA. A manifestation of this ever-increasing European interconnectedness in the realm of
public audit is the ‘Contact Committee of the heads of SAIs of the EU and its Member States`.
The Contact Committee is – or at least has the potential to be - the primary collaboration
forum between the 29 SAIs of the EU. There are several reasons for this: first, a considerable
share of public policies in the Member States is framed by regulations which have been
adopted at EU level, by the European Parliament and the Council. Also, the economic cycle
between EU Member States is becoming more and more aligned. Therefore, Member
States increasingly and simultaneously face similar issues relating to the delivery of public
policies. Second, up to 80% of the EU’s budget is spent by national and regional authorities
in the Member States. One could even argue that without close collaboration between the
Member States’ SAIs and the ECA it would be difficult to ensure an effective external audit
and accountability in the EU.
For more information on the EU Contact Committee, see page 23.
Other cooperation platforms
In addition to the global and regional cooperation fora, there are various sub-regional
collaboration platforms for SAIs operating within the EU and beyond. For example, the so-
called NBP (Nordic, Baltic, Poland) forum provides a framework for collaboration between
the national audit offices of the Nordic countries, Baltic states, and Poland. There is also
the ‘Association des institutions supérieures de contrôle’ which gathers INTOSAI members
across the world using the French language in their work, or the Organisation of Supreme
Audit Institutions of the Portuguese Speaking Countries Community, which serves a smilar
purpose for those using the Portuguese language.
For more information on network collaboration, see pages 94 and 99.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0019.png
Mapping EU SAIs: the who, the what and the how of international cooperation
continued
19
Most popular topics for cooperation
While SAIs can organise themselves geographically and linguistically, cooperation can also
take place on the basis of specific topics and objectives. In all the major cooperation fora
discussed in this article - INTOSAI, EUROSAI, and the EU Contact Committee - SAIs have the
opportunity to work with each other on specific topics of interest. The platforms for the
advancement of particular objectives and discussion of specific issue areas are known as
committees, working groups, task forces, and expert networks. The topics covered by these
collaboration groups vary from environmental issues and ethics to technological questions
and big data.
To get an impression of the topics covered by these cooperation platforms, and of the EU
SAIs’ involvement in them, we have gathered information from the websites of the three
cooperation platforms to ‘map’ this information and identify possible focus areas, trends
and patterns. In doing so we drew on information that is available on these websites and
we did not assess the actual cooperation activities SAIs have undertaken in these areas.
In our analysis, we did not allocate greater weight to SAIs serving as chair or rapporteur in
a committee or working group. We realise that such a task might affect the SAIs capacity
for membership of other activities. It is also important to bear in mind that simply being a
member of a committee or a working group does not necessarily mean taking action on
and responsibility for a given topic. Despite these provisions the data gathered show some
interesting outcomes.
Figure 2: EU SAIs participating in cooperation groups – by topic and forum
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0020.png
Mapping EU SAIs: the who, the what and the how of international cooperation
continued
20
The graph above
illustrates the number of EU SAIs participating in cooperation groups
focusing on various topics (see
Figure 2).
When doing this analysis we grouped committees
and working groups covering the same topic under a topic label reflecting the core activities.
The figure – overall reflecting 15 different topics - shows that some of the largest subjects
are dealt with on more than one collaboration platform, attracting substantial participation
by the EU SAIs. The most significant topics are: ‘Environment audit,’ ‘IT and Technology,’ and
‘Fiscal Policy.’
In addition, we see that the topics ‘Value-added tax’ and ‘Audit and Ethics,’ although each
covered by one cooperation platform only, also attract considerable interest, the latter
topic even more so if we also add the SAIs participating in ‘Corruption, Fraud, and Money
Laundering.’ In contrast, relatively few SAIs are participating in INTOSAI’s subcommittees on
financial, compliance, and performance audit.
Which SAIs on what topics
Our analysis also shows that certain subjects are significantly more popular among the EU’s
SAIs than others.
The graph below shows
that every EU SAI, with the exception of the Italian
SAI, is participating in at least one cooperation group dealing with the environment (see
Figure 3).
Out of these 29 SAIs, 25 are participating in groups on ‘IT and Technology’ and 20
in groups on ‘Fiscal Policy.’
Figure 3: Overview of cooperation topics per SAI
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0021.png
Mapping EU SAIs: the who, the what and the how of international cooperation
continued
21
In fact, many SAIs take part in their main topics of interest on more than one cooperation
platform. A case in point is the Lithuanian SAI, which is a member of groups focusing on
environmental, technological, fiscal policy, and public policy matters on two different platforms
at once. Meanwhile, other topics have attracted very limited interest from the EU’s SAIs. For
instance, based on the publically available information on websites, only three EU SAIs are
involved in international cooperation in the field of public procurement.
Furthermore, our analysis illustrates that the size of a SAI does not necessarily correlate with
the number of topics the SAI is involved in through the cooperation platforms. For example,
besides the French, German and Romanian SAIs, as well as the ECA, the considerably smaller
Finnish, Hungarian and Lithuanian SAIs are involved in at least 10 topics and sometimes on
a number of platforms. For example, the SAI of Hungary is member of 13 working groups on
12 different topics. The Lithuanian SAI is involved in four different topics in which it works on
more than one cooperation platform. In contrast, the Spanish SAI collaborates internationally
in only a few areas. There are also considerable differences in interest between SAIs of countries
of comparable size, such as the SAIs of Luxembourg and Malta. The latter is a member of eight
working groups on seven different topics, while the Luxembourg SAIs is a member of two.
Without further analysis it is clearly not possible to assess why there are these differences in
the SAIs’ participation, other than to say that this may reflect their national priorities or those of
their own organisation and management.
Active on which platform?
Finally, it is interesting to consider which cooperation platforms are the most frequent ones for
the EU’s SAIs: INTOSAI, EUROSAI, or the Contact Committee. This is reflected in the graph below
(see
Figure 4).
Figure 4: Cooperation platforms in which SAIs are active
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0022.png
Mapping EU SAIs: the who, the what and the how of international cooperation
continued
22
Our analysis clearly shows that interest in regional cooperation takes precedence over global
cooperation. For all EU SAIs, with the exception of the SAIs of the UK and Austria (which hosts
the INTOSAI secretariat), cooperation mostly takes place at European level, despite INTOSAI
being the largest one of the three collaboration fora. Indeed, some of the EU’s SAIs—those
of Croatia, Ireland and Luxembourg—have no presence in any of the cooperation groups of
INTOSAI dealing with the topics represented in
Figures 2 and 3.
Meanwhile, every EU SAI
cooperates in both EUROSAI and the Contact Committee.
Again, it is difficult to say anything conclusive about the reasons behind these findings.
However, it seems plausible to suggest that perhaps the EU SAIs prefer working with like-
minded European SAIs. After all, despite their diversity, it is likely that the EU’s SAIs have more
in common with each other than they do with, say, the SAIs of East Asia or Africa. Furthermore,
the EU countries’ geographical as well as political proximity means that many issues, such as
those related to environment and technology, are experienced in a more or less similar way in
the entire region. It therefore makes sense for the EU’s SAIs to share knowledge and expertise
with each other in order to find solutions that can benefit the entire Union and the region.
In addition, there is the logistical perspective: cooperative efforts through conferences and
meetings may simply be easier to arrange with SAIs located in the same region.
From a legal responsibility into a practical necessity
INTOSAI, EUROSAI, and the EU Contact Committee are constantly evolving. As the world
changes, out-dated committees and working groups are combed out and new ones are
established to address pressing matters.
Indeed, over the years, the EU’s SAIs have been impacted greatly by the constantly evolving
global and European context. Issues from trade and financial instability to climate change and
political volatility are posing unprecedented challenges for governments across the world,
spurring national authorities to deeper collaboration than ever before. In the increasingly
interconnected societies of Europe, fewer and fewer issues can be described as strictly
‘national’ and, correspondingly, an increasing number of them span and go beyond countries’
borders. Examples of such cross-border questions include migration, security, technology,
and the environment—all topical matters in current political discussions. Recently, it has
become clear to policy-makers that such subjects of mutual interest to various countries and
regions cannot be dealt with in isolation. In other words, cooperation between the national
SAIs, their respective governments, the EU, and the rest of the world, has evolved from a legal
responsibility into a practical necessity.
In order to remain relevant in a continuously changing global environment, SAIs must adjust
their ways of working according to the evolving context. To do this, increasing flexibility will
be required from the international and regional cooperation fora, including INTOSAI, EUROSAI,
and the EU Contact Committee. If the variety of their committees, working groups, etc. reflect
the interest of the EU’s SAIs in the current ‘hot’ topics from an audit perspective, then clearly
the environment, technology, and fiscal policy stand out as topics of interest - and on which
cooperation is desired. And, for the EU SAIs, most often with sister organisations in the region.
Figure 3
displaying which SAIs are interested in which topic, shows some common and
perhaps ‘expected’ threads but also some surprises, with some smaller SAIs punching ‘above
their weight,’ or at least showing the intention to do so. Although the data we have collected
are subject to a number of provisos and, consequently, limitations to what we can conclude,
it might be interesting to do such a ‘mapping’ exercise beyond the 29 SAIs we have selected
here.
While the 21
st
century has seen an array of new challenges for SAIs and their cooperation,
it has also brought about significant opportunities. In particular, the availability of internet
and social media together with technological innovations, and improved availability of and
access to information and data, have the potential to open new doors for more effective
collaboration between SAIs. At a time when international cooperation is being challenged
from left and right, it is more critical than ever that SAIs do not suffer paralysis amidst the
challenges they are confronted with, but instead embrace the opportunities they face.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0023.png
23
The EU Contact Committee – A SAI story of
the EU, of love and cooperation
By Daniel Tibor, Directorate of the Presidency
The EU Contact Committee is the EU platform that was set up to facilitate and
enhance cooperation between Member States’ SAIs and the ECA. What makes the
cooperation between the Contact Committee members different from other fora?
And how do the various partners live up to their commitments? Daniel Tibor is
currently seconded from Germany’s Bundesrechnungshof to the ECA. He makes a
compelling case for what the Contact Committee and … love … have in common.
What’s love got to do with it?
‘Love is as unproblematic as a vehicle. The only problems are the
drivers, the passengers and the road.’
I once read that all good stories need a hook, or an interesting
angle early in the story. Mine shall be ‘love’. Not because most
songs or poems deal with it, but mostly because love is … Well,
see yourself. At least, it isn’t really an obvious theme when writing
about cooperation between EU supreme audit institutions (SAIs).
Anyway, I imagine that most of you – maybe after shortly pausing
for introspection and attempting to verify the proposition – would
nod in agreement with this famous quote attributed to Franz
Kafka. Even if you do agree, you might still wonder what it says
about the Contact Committee of EU SAIs. For the time being, allow
me to leave you pondering this question, which I will come back to
below. If you’re still with me, I assume that you’re likely to read on...
The chicken or the egg ?
Historians tend to believe that history – and thus
the existence of the egg and (then?) the chicken
– can be explained by analysing the sequence of
events to determine its inherent logic. For example,
in 1951 – or, to be more precise, on 18 April 1951
– a group of wise men decided that it was about
time to turn the page and to promote peace by
sowing the seeds of a new European spirit. They
signed a treaty founding the European Coal and
Steel Community, which would set the ball rolling
and bring peace and wealth to the continent of
Europe in the decades that followed. Ever since,
what is now the EU has oscillated between further
integration and some type of intergovernmental
cooperation, admittedly with persistent tensions
between the national and supranational levels.
However, no one would doubt that the European
project, even with all its trials and tribulations, has
provided the best answer to the essential question
of how to bring peace to our continent.
Source: EP Multimedia Service
Paul van Zeeland (B), Joseph Bech (L), Joseph Meurice (B),
le comte Carlo Sforza (I), Robert Schuman (F), Konrad Adenauer (GFR),
Dirk Stikker (NL) et Johannes van den Brink (NL) pose after the signature
of the Paris Treaty creating the European Coal and Steel Community
(ECSC)
Source: Pixabay
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0024.png
The EU Contact Committee – A SAI story of the EU, of love and cooperation
continued
24
Using the historian’s toolkit, there must therefore be a series of events that led to a question
(or set of questions) to which the EU Contact Committee aims to be the answer. How about
the following? SAIs are, to say the least, a very special kind of public institution – i.e. one per
state, independent and with no others alike at national level (except maybe for some federal
states) – that were set up to scrutinise and assess public expenditure and performance in
order to help parliaments hold governments accountable. With the European ball rolling,
cooperation between Member States became a
sine qua non
for developing the bloc further.
National administrations also started to change, which made professional cooperation and
dialogue between SAI heads an advisable – if not a necessary – activity to deal with national
challenges and requirements more effectively.
Who could the heads of SAIs turn to if they wanted
to discuss their mandates, methodologies and
experiences? Who could best understand how the
events set in motion in 1951, leading to the European
Economic Community (EEC) and EURATOM in 1957,
influenced national auditees and stakeholders? At
national level, there was no one, and the International
Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI),
still in its infancy, was quite far away, not to mention
the European Organisation of Supreme Audit
Institutions (EUROSAI), which would be founded only
30 years later. So, in 1960, the heads of SAIs of the then
six Member States of the EEC first met as the Contact
Committee to discuss matters of common interest.
The nature of the beast
Structure of the EU Contact Committee
•
The Heads of SAIs make up the Contact Committee’s
decision-making body, which provides strategic
orientation and decides on common activities and
positions.
•
The Liaison Officers constitute a network of
representatives of all Contact Committee members
and help to ensure smooth and effective cooperation
on a daily basis by preparing meetings and common
positions.
•
Working Groups and Task Forces are established to
support activities in a specific, EU-related area that
requires continuous cooperation, such as the Working
Group on Value Added Tax or the Task Force on Banking
Union.
•
Networks are established to monitor specific areas, such
as the Network on Europe 2020 Strategy Audit or on
Fiscal Policy Audit, and to exchange best practices in the
relevant field.
If you’ve looked at the EU Contact Committee’s
website, you might have come across its mission
statement. This describes the Contact Committee
as ‘an
autonomous, independent and non-political
assembly of the heads of SAIs of EU Member States and
the European Court of Auditors,’
which is committed to
enhancing cooperation between its members and to contributing to effective external audit
and accountability for the benefit of EU citizens. Unlike INTOSAI or EUROSAI, the Contact
Committee is not an organisation but rather a platform for facilitating cooperation and
professional exchange. It is based on its members’ voluntary contributions and individual
engagement. Like any other type of international cooperation, this means that activities in
the framework of the Contact Committee must compete with the SAIs’ daily work for scarce
resources and specific competences (not to mention language skills), and sometimes even
getting staff to work in their spare time.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0025.png
The EU Contact Committee – A SAI story of the EU, of love and cooperation
continued
25
The audit of EU funds is an explicit responsibility of the European
Court of Auditors (ECA), as enshrined in Article 287 of the Treaty
on the Functioning of the EU. At the same time, more than 80%
of EU funds are spent by national and regional authorities in the
Member States, with overall political decisions being taken at EU
level.
However, Article 287 also calls for cooperation between Member
States’ SAIs and the ECA
‘in a spirit of trust while maintaining their
independence.’
Otherwise, there is no legal obligation for EU SAIs
to work together. However, as the EU and its Member States
are closely intertwined, action is eventually needed between
Member States, and between Member States and the EU. With
an ever closer and larger Union, trans-border challenges such as
climate change, security and capital flows cannot be handled by
individual national administrations, but require well-coordinated
and concerted action to provide an appropriate response. If
SAIs want to remain relevant, they must mirror these structural
changes and adapt in their daily work to find appropriate
solutions. Thus, you could call the Contact Committee a bridge,
a rational imperative to bridge audit gaps by facilitating
cooperation in order to respond to challenges that cross national
borders.
The beast in action
The handover of the ‘baton’ of the Chair from
the ECA to the SAI of Croatia at the end of the
2017 EU Contact Committee meeting.
A good example of such cooperation is the audit activities of the
EU Contact Committee’s task force on the Banking Union. This
cooperation recently led to a common report and statement urging EU and national legislators
to close the audit gaps in EU banking supervision. What had happened? The Single Supervisory
Mechanism (SSM), which had been established in response to the financial crisis and became
operational in November 2014, entailed a fundamental change in the architecture of EU banking
supervision. Almost 130 ‘significant’ banks came under the direct supervision of the European
Central Bank (ECB), with a total asset value of €21 trillion, i.e. 80% of the total asset value of banks
in the euro area. Several thousand ‘less significant’ (i.e. medium-sized and small) banks remain
under direct national supervision, albeit under the ECB’s responsibility.
This had a direct impact in terms of audit responsibilities for EU banking supervision. SAIs of
euro-area countries that previously had a comprehensive mandate to audit the supervision of
banks are no longer able to perform this role for ‘significant’ banks. At the same time, the ECA’s
mandate does not explicitly include the right to audit the ECB’s supervisory mechanism for
‘significant’ banks. This gave rise to a paradoxical situation where audit powers over banking
supervision are now more limited overall than before the SSM was introduced. Consequently,
the Contact Committee set up its task force to identify and eventually help to close any audit
gaps which put at risk the proper use of public funds. After finalising its work on the SSM with
the aforementioned report (2017) and statement (2018), the Task Force is now looking into the
functioning and impact of the second pillar of the banking union, i.e. banking resolution (the
Single Resolution Mechanism, or SRM). For more information, see page 35.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0026.png
The EU Contact Committee – A SAI story of the EU, of love and cooperation
continued
26
A love story?
Still interested, but wondering what love has to do with all this? Generally speaking, one
could say that both love and cooperation (never take one for the other!) require willing
and responsive partners in order to successfully realise them, i.e. individual capacity
and commitment. On this account, your eternal bond and the Contact Committee do
not differ too largely. But while love is a concept that works regardless of the objective
characteristics of the partner - it actually rather helps to bear them - and does not aim at
a specific result other than its realisation, cooperation tends to take place only because of
the partners’ qualities, specific interests and expected outcomes. This makes cooperation
nearly – you may have guessed already - as unproblematic as love
– the only problems
being the ‘drivers, the passengers and the road.’
The fact that there are 29 independent supreme audit institutions in the EU and its
Member States, all with different mandates, structures and resources, does not make it
always easy to define common fields of action. In a demanding environment such as the
EU, and with the global developments we are witnessing today, it is always a challenge
to use scarce resources for international cooperation, especially for smaller institutions,
without compromising the fulfilment of statutory tasks and (legal) obligations.
Despite all challenges and limitations, the EU Contact Committee has cooperated
surprisingly well during a period which has seen the EU expand from six to 28 Member
States. The Contact Committee’s track record of common achievements speaks for itself,
to name but a few: the continuous cooperation with SAIs of candidate countries and
potential candidates, the work performed by its Working Group on Value-Added Tax (in its
current form since 2002) or by the Working Group on Structural Funds over a period of 17
years (see article on page 32), the regularly updated guidance on procurement audits, or
the establishment of the Board of Auditors of the European Stability Mechanism.
During all these years, the EU SAIs have remained committed to make external audit
and accountability more effective for the benefit of EU citizens. But as in any long-term
relationship, you might sometimes wonder whether it is still worthwhile continuing when
faced with difficulties. Personally and professionally, as one who has worked both for a
Member State SAI and the ECA, I would always say 'Yes!' After all, who would give up on
love only because of some holes in a rocky road?
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0027.png
27
2018 EU Contact Committee meeting in
Croatia: discussing interaction with EU citizens
By Lidija Pernar, State Audit Office of Croatia
Each year, the heads of the supreme audit institutions
(SAIs) of the EU Member States meet to discuss issues of
common interest. The 2018 meeting was hosted by the
State Audit Office of Croatia and took place in Dubrovnik
on 11 and 12 October 2018. Lidija Pernar, the Croatian
SAI’s Assistant Auditor General and liaison officer in the EU
Contact Committee network, was very much involved in
the preparations for and proceedings of this year’s meeting.
Below, she reports on the set-up of the meeting and the
main issues raised.
Main topics of the 2018 meeting
This year, the annual meeting of the EU Contact Committee of the
heads of the supreme audit institutions (SAIs) of the EU member states
and the ECA was hosted by the Croatian State Audit Office in Dubrovnik
on 11 and 12 October 2018. Ivan Klesic, Auditor General of Croatia
and chair of the 2018 Contact Committee meeting, welcomed the
participants.
The 2018 meeting was organised around four parts. Part I was a seminar
discussing the main theme of the 2018 meeting: SAIs’ interaction with
EU citizens. For part II, the SAI Heads gathered to exchange views
on subjects of common interest, while the liaison officers discussed
ongoing Contact Committee activities and corresponding follow-
up actions. Part III focused on decision-making and reporting (more
details further below and on page 39). Part IV contained discussions of
EU-related audits carried out by members of the Contact Committee.
Furthermore, a number of bilateral meetings were held in parallel or
between these meetings.
The meeting was attended by the Heads (or their deputies) and
delegations from the SAIs of the EU member states and from the
ECA, as well as from the SAIs of the Candidate Countries (Albania,
Montenegro, Serbia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and
Turkey) and SIGMA as active observers.
What is the EU Contact
Committee?
The EU Contact Committee is
an independent, non-political
assembly of the 29 heads of the
member states' supreme audit
institutions, and of the ECA.
It provides a forum to discuss
matters of common interest
relating to the EU. In this context,
the EU Contact Committee
commits itself to fostering
dialogue and cooperation in
audit and audit-related activities.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0028.png
2018 EU Contact Committee meeting in Croatia: discussing interaction with
EU citizens
continued
28
The participants of the EU Contact Committee in Dubrovnik in October 2018
Relating to EU citizens’ concerns
An important reason for the choice of seminar theme was that, currently, EU member states
and EU institutions are facing several national and international challenges, such as Brexit,
migration and climate change. These issues include many aspects that, despite being
relevant to citizens’ live, are not usually covered by auditors when assessing government
accounts or administrative performance. While auditors are inclined to think that the new
Multiannual Financial Framework, results-oriented budgeting, accounting standards or the
Banking Union are of the utmost importance, ordinary EU citizens are often not interested in
these topics because they do not believe they an impact on their daily lives. And the same
may often be true of their representatives.
Key questions in this regard are: how do citizens actually view the challenges currently
facing the EU? Do they perceive such issues as national or international challenges? Should
SAIs endeavour to respond to EU citizens’ needs and concerns in relation to such issues and
are they equipped to do so? And: how can increased interaction with citizens benefit the
SAIs themselves and how can this be achieved? 
Issues raised by speakers
After the welcome and opening of the meeting by Auditor General Ivan Klesic, Tomaz Vesel,
President of the Slovenian SAI and moderator of the seminar, invited participants to share
best practices and innovative ideas on how to improve SAIs’ interaction with citizens and
their representatives.
Source: State Audit Office of Croatia
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0029.png
2018 EU Contact Committee meeting in Croatia: discussing interaction with
EU citizens
continued
29
In his keynote speech, Ivica Tolic MEP recalled a number of the EU’s main achievements
in recent years and the challenges it has faced. He highlighted the growing economy and
the increasing number of people finding work, albeit that the level of youth employment
remains unsatisfactory. He also discussed the EU’s position as a trading power and the
world’s biggest single market. However, he reminded the participants of the increasing
concerns related to climate change, together with the need for environment protection.
Another point he raised was the persistent need to fight fraud and corruption, and how
the EU is facing a challenge often identified as ‘division’. He gave some example of this
‘division’ in the EU, starting with what is, in his view, currently the biggest: Brexit. He
stressed that in the case of Brexit – but also several other challenges in the EU, such as
the Schengen area, internal borders, a divided migration policy and EU expansion – EU
citizens want solutions that will keep them safe and safeguard their good quality of life. He
concluded that, since these issues are important and relevant for citizens, they need to be
considered as audit themes, at both EU and national level.
Karen Hill, Head of the
SIGMA Programme
run by the Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD), stated that, based on the SIGMA (Support for
Improvement in Governance and Management) experience, it is extremely important
to think about who our stakeholders might be and how to actively involve them. While
civil society organisations have invested time and effort in public consultation – through
written procedures, focus groups, the provision of data, etc. – there is often little evidence
that they have actually influenced outcomes. Therefore, the consultation process also
needs to include giving feedback to those who have been involved and who have
provided input. By taking this approach even further, however, SAIs can benefit and
increase their impact. To this end, it is important to move from writing to actually meeting
with and talking to citizens, since they generally prefer to receive information face to face.
Finally, Karen Hill said that the European Commission is increasingly interested in relations
between institutions and citizens, as a critical part of the engagement process. She
expects this to become an important area in the coming years.
The first part of the seminar concluded with a presentation by Laetitia Veriter, from
Citizens
for Europe.
She stated that delivering outcomes is not enough to build legitimacy, so
involving civil society organisations in the process is valuable since they bring different
point of view and act as catalyst for citizens’ concerns and demands. In her engaging
speech, Laetitia Veriter reflected upon the creativity resulting from renewing democratic
practices and inventing new forms of engagement and participation. She also referred
to gaps in interaction between civil society and public institutions, and touched upon
ways
Citizens for Europe
tries to reverse that trend. She brought up some examples of
participation projects aimed at inspiring future cooperation between CSOs and SAIs.
She concluded that, at a time when relationships between institutions, government and
citizens are at breaking point, reconnecting with citizens by opening up channels to allow
their participation is crucial, and SAIs can play very significant role in this process
This was followed by a panel discussion to discuss challenges, risks and benefits of SAIs
interacting with citizens. The three panel members raised a number of issues, which are
summarised below.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0030.png
2018 EU Contact Committee meeting in Croatia: discussing interaction with
EU citizens
continued
30
Panel discussion during the 2018
EU Contact Committee meeting
Source: State Audit Office of Croatia
From left to right:
Kay Scheller, President of the German
Bundesrechnungshof,
Charles Deguara, Auditor General of Malta,
Klaus-Heiner Lehne, ECA President,
Karen Hill, Head of the
Sigma Programme
in the OECD,
Laetitia Veriter from
Citizens for Europe,
and
Tomaz Vesel, President of the Court of Audit
of Slovenia
Charles Deguara, Auditor General of Malta, discussed how SAIs need to strike a balance
between visionary interaction with citizens and preserving their own independence
– goals which are sometimes in conflict. He pointed out that, when issuing their new
strategies, SAIs should also take into citizens’ suggestions. However, at the same time,
citizens must be aware what powers and responsibilities SAIs actually have so that they
do not have false expectations. For example, they need to be aware that most SAIs cannot
implement corrective measures themselves. In this respect, he explained it is important
that SAIs have an effective follow-up measurement mechanism in order to provide citizens
with assurance that measures have been taken. He said that interaction with citizens can
also be a useful source of audit evidence, but stressed the need for caution due to different
special interests and pressure groups. He added that the need to safeguard a SAI’s
independence should not be abused to avoid communicating or engaging with citizens.
Kay Scheller, President of the
Bundesrechnungshof
(the German SAI), stated that many
citizens in EU member states feel they are not adequately represented. It is therefore
important to make clear to citizens that their concerns have been taken into account.
SAIs need to have an open ear to citizens’ problems and take their information seriously,
while always differentiating between an individual interest and the general interest. An
important question for them in this respect is: which citizens or civil society organisations
promote the general interest? They need to ask themselves this because well-financed and
professional pressure groups often participate in public debates but may voice opinions
and interests that run contrary to the public interest as a whole. Kay Scheller provided
more specific examples illustrating how these principles influence the German SAI’s work
in practice but, to a certain extent, limit its scope for interaction.
The third panel member, Klaus-Heiner Lehne, President of ECA, briefly outlined the ECA’s
understanding of its role as the independent guardian of the interests of the EU citizens
in order to explain what his institution has done so far on the topic of interaction with
citizens, and why. At the same time, he acknowledged the challenges of incorporating
interaction with citizens into an audit institution’s work. In his view, audit work should
reflect the concerns, both present and future, of the ECA’s ultimate stakeholders – EU
citizens, which is why the Court invites citizens to make proposals.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0031.png
2018 EU Contact Committee meeting in Croatia: discussing interaction with
EU citizens
continued
31
Taking advice is not at odds with an SAI’s independence, he explained, as long as the
institution retains control of the decision-making process. He pointed out that, in order
to improve interaction with EU citizens, the ECA has introduced several new tools, such as
background papers based on information gathered in the course of preparing an audit,
or social media surveys of citizens’ views on certain topics. Klaus-Heiner Lehne concluded
by saying that SAIs are a bulwark against populism and fake news because their work is
based on facts and professional judgement. He added that a very important task for the
ECA is re-establishing trust in the EU and national institutions, and that SAIs – like all public
institutions – should always be realistic about what they can deliver.
On the whole, via both oral and video presentations, the discussions on SAIs interaction
with EU citizens identified good practices and encouraging positive examples.
Other issues discussed
Several other topics were discussed in parts II, III and IV of the meeting. These included
a discussion on the yearly activities of the Contact Committee. The Contact Committee
took note of the work carried out by its working groups, task forces and networks, e.g. by
the Europe 2020 Strategy and the Fiscal Policy Audit networks. Moreover, it approved the
update of the Public Procurement Audit Toolkit and thanked the ECA and other contributors
for the successful publication of the first Audit Compendium (published in 28 June 2018),
which was recognised as a useful and valuable tool for Contact Committee communication.
The next Contact Committee meeting will be held in Poland in June 2019.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0032.png
32
The EU Contact Committee Working Group on EU
Structural Funds – a group which really worked
By Rolf-Dietrich Kammer, former Member of the
Bundesrechnungshof
(German Federal Audit Office)
Setting up a working group
of several EU supreme audit
institutions (SAIs) on auditing
issues related to the EU
structural funds is one thing.
Making it actually work and
come up with tangible results
is another one. Rolf-Dietrich
Kammer, has led many of
the meetings the Working
Group on EU Structural Funds,
established by the EU Contact
Committee of the Heads of
SAIs. Having retired in July
2018 as Member and Director
in the Bundesrechnungshof,
he looks back at the origins,
set-up, modus operandi and
results of this group, sharing
some personal analysis and
reflections.
Meeting of the Working Group on Structural Funds at the ECA in Luxembourg
18-19 November 2015
An odd idea
In 1999, the liaison officers of the supreme audit institutions (SAIs) of the EU Member States and the
ECA, working together in the EU Contact Committee, had an odd, and perhaps even an ‘impossible’
idea. In search of new ways how to improve, deepen and strengthen the technical cooperation
between the Member States’ SAIs, they discussed, among others, the creation of a joint working
group at their meeting at the UK
National Audit Office
(NAO) in London. This working group would
be assigned to do what SAI working groups, task forces, networks or whatever name the efforts
undertaken had received, had not been able to do properly until then. To carry out joint audits
– ‘real’ audits - on subjects of EU wide interest, in close and continuous contact and cooperation
between all participating SAIS. These joint audits should bring together the findings, consolidate
them and form the basis for a joint audit report highlighting the substantial results of the audit.
The field of EU Structural Funds and how these investment programmes were managed and
overseen by the EU Member States was chosen since it seemed to best fit with these objectives.
But there remained some serious questions. Would an audit project of this kind be feasible? Who
could or should be the recipients of the reports? And, above all, would there be a sufficient number
of SAIs willing not only to support the proposal, but also actively invest own resources in favour of
nothing but a rough idea of audit cooperation with an uncertain ending?
First steps undertaken
After the EU Contact Committee of the Heads of SAIs had approved the project and decided that
the working group should be set up, the formal kick-off meeting took place in November 2000 at
the French
Cour des comptes
(CdC) in Paris. This meeting was the first one in the WG affairs that I
attended. After the meeting in London, the
Bundesrechnungshof’s
(BRH) liaison officer had asked me
if I would consider representing the BRH in this group. In his view I was ‘qualified’ for the job thanks
to my many years of experience in auditing social services at the national level, together with my
interest and some experience in international cooperation. In the end, and with the consent of the
president of the
BRH,
I agreed and so I was off to Paris for the first Working Group (WG) meeting.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0033.png
International collaboration in Water Management: water as unifying concept
continued
33
In Paris, representatives from some of the largest SAIs were present, including the French
Cdc,
the UK
NAO,
the Dutch
Algemene Rekenkamer,
the Italian
Corte dei Conti,
the Spanish
Tribunal de Cuentas,
the Danish
Rigsrevisionen,
and the
BRH.
The participants discussed the most suitable topics and
agreed, as a first step, to mostly focus on procedural and methodological aspect related to audits in
the Structural Funds area. This approach seemed to be most promising in view of ensuring a
broad
participation of SAIs. The participants also expressed their firm will to begin the active work as soon
as possible.
Finally, an organizational frame had to be found because it was clear that the WG would need a
sort of ‘administration’ for rendering services such as editing of reports, preparing and sending
invitations, hosting meetings, and maintaining the overall communication among the group
members. Though not volunteering for this burdensome honor, the
BRH
was nominated as chair of
the WG. With that the
BRH
was charged with the above-mentioned tasks and thus had to keep the
WG’s heart beating and make the WG run. In fact, the
BRH
has remained the chair of the WG until
2017 when the WG was dissolved. However, we received invaluable support from the co-chairs,
being the
Algemene Rekenkamer
and - in the first years - the UK
NAO.
Leap in the dark
The WG actually managed – after a lot of preliminary work - to meet in spring 2001 at the
Rigsrevisionen
in Copenhagen to plan and approve their first tangible audit project. Around a dozen
SAIs (a number which was maintained during the WG’s lifetime) debated and approved the first audit
plan. Such plan contained all necessary data such as grounds and objectives of the first audit, facts
and other data to collect, ways how to do so, audit approach and methodology, reporting standards,
time and venue of one intermediary and one final meeting of the WG, and the time line.
As it had no real best practice example to build on the WG thought it best to perform its first audit
as an ‘orientation’ or ‘exploratory survey’ to underline the trial character and thereby keep leeway
for all options, depending on the results of the ‘orientation.’ It submitted its first report on substance
in 2002. The Contact Committee welcomed the report and gave the WG green light to continue its
work. The WG had ventured – and succeeded.
Experience and consolidation
In the following years – from 2002 to 2017 – the WG’s work was featuring steadiness and
perseverance, diligence and dedication to its mandate, growing experience and knowledge of the
audit area. The most valuable item, however, was the extraordinary mutual understanding and trust
among the members of the group. No matter if they belonged to the ‘movers and shakers’ or were
more those remaining ‘in the background,’ all of them made important contributions to the audits
undertaken by the WG. The results were in form and substance ‘presentable,’ and the production of
a total of eight reports – one every two years – is the best evidence for the hard work it had done.
These reports were generally submitted to the EU Contact Committee, and in some cases also to the
European Commission. The ‘national’ results were sometimes also presented to the stakeholders in
the respective Member States.
The box below gives an overview of the topics covered in the successive reports presented by the
Working Group.
In total, the Working Group on Structural Funds presented eight reports:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Procedures implemented in the Member States to manage and control the Structural Funds
(2002);
Arrangements for ensuring an adequate audit trail, including the 5% check (2004);
Processes for identifying, reporting and following up on irregularities (2006);
Performance (output/effectiveness) of the Structural Funds programmes in the areas of
employment and/or environment (2008);
Cost of controls, including the use of technical assistance for the controls of Structural Funds
(2011);
Simplification of the regulations for Structural Funds (2013);
Analysis of the errors in public procurement within the Structural Funds programmes (2015)
Contribution of the Structural Funds to the Europe 2020 strategy
in the areas of education and/
or employment (2017).
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0034.png
International collaboration in Water Management: water as unifying concept
continued
34
Readers who would like to know more about the Working Group’s output can find more
information on the website of the EU Contact Committee under the tab ‘Closed Working Groups,’
where the reports are available in English, French and German.
Challenges and highlights
With the start of every ‘new’ WG task, the deck of cards was or actually had to be reshuffled. The
recurring main question was whether there would remain sufficient members to keep and make
the WG’s efforts and output worthwhile. As a rule of thumb, the ‘chair group’ around Germany,
the Netherlands and the UK deemed a number of at least ten SAIs to be necessary, a threshold
which was always reached (sometimes also enabled by admitting ‘active observers’). Also,
when members of the previous WG task decided not to participate in the following one, new
members came in, or those who had ‘paused’ for a period or more re-entered. Sometimes these
fluctuations brought some unrest into the WG. Not easy, either, was the question which SAI
would be willing to host the group meetings. Normally this entailed an organizing a kick-off, an
intermediary and an exit meeting.
Of course, hosting such meetings involved not little costs to the host, both in terms of money
and organizational capacity. To distribute the burden more evenly, the WG, already in its early
days, agreed that one of the meetings should be hosted by the chair or co-chair, the other
ones by one of the participating members. This agreement worked out really well. We came
together and worked together at various places and in SAIs all over in the EU, bringing together
professional and personal experiences which, I believe, the attendees will not easily forget.
Finding the ‘right’ audit subjects was often a major challenge. Every time the WG ‘solved’ this
issue by recalling its overarching working principle, or one could say its
ratio essendi:
Being
inclusive was the aim and at the same time the resource the WG was living on. With this in mind,
the WG managed, often after discussions which were difficult and vivid, yet committed and
fruitful, to agree on subjects which not only met the indispensable criteria of inclusiveness, but
were also ‘feasible’ and could be done in practice. I think most of my WG colleagues will agree
that the happiest moment for all was when the WG members in their exit meeting raised their
hands…for approving the final report.
Ingredients for success
The WG has had a lifespan of 18 years. Over all these years 20 out of the current 28 Member
State SAIs and the ECA came together in the WG, and quite a few of them during all the time
of the WG’s existence. In my view, the WG could ‘survive’ such long time because some decisive
factors came together. First and foremost, the enthusiasm and cohesion of a group of auditors
; their conviction of the common usefulness of the European audit ‘project;’ their willingness to
sacrifice time, also private time, for the project; their ability to find the ‘appropriate’ subjects and
concentrate on them; the atmosphere of trust and friendship that had been built up among the
members; and their professional abilities. Last but not least: the willingness of the involved SAIs
to support the WG project with the necessary means.
Many good memories come to my mind when I think back about the meetings and
conversations I had with my colleagues from -in alphabetical order, hoping I haven’t forgotten
no one - Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Italy,
Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands (let me mention here my dear friend and highly estimated
colleague Peter van Roozendaal to whom the WG owed so much), Poland, Portugal, Romania,
Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (the
NAO
regrettably withdrew
after some years of excellent work, which meant a severe loss to it). To all these colleagues I say:
thank you all so much that I could get to know you, work with you and learn from you. It was a
success, and it was a pleasure!
Coincidently or not, at the time that the European project is said to be in crisis, real or alleged,
the WG activities came to an end. However, there is no reason to be sorry about that. I have no
doubt that at some point in time another working group with a similar ‘mission’ will arise.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0035.png
35
Task Force on European Banking Union of the
EU Contact Committee: a need to close the
audit gaps
By Helmut Kern, Regulation of Markets and Competitive Economy Directorate
Cooperation between audit institutions can be triggered by interest in capacity
building, efficiency, for reasons of comparison, efficiency gains or simply to obtain
a wider coverage of the audit field. But sometimes such cooperation between
EU SAIs is a real necessity in order to close audit gaps that may occur when EU
regulations (or changes to them) are adopted. This was the case when the EU set
up its single supervisory system (SSM) in 2014. Helmut Kern, expert in the ECA
regarding the European Banking Union, provides insights on why the Task Force
had been established, how it operates, and the concrete results of the cooperation
thus far.
Challenges of the European Banking Union
The outbreak of the 2008 financial crisis brought attention to an inadequate institutional
supervision of the financial sector within the Member States, in particular regarding large
banks. As a response, the European Council decided in 2012 to set up a European Banking
Union, forming a single rulebook for all the EU Member States. The first one of the three
pillars of the Banking Union is the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM), introduced in 2014,
ensuring the soundness of supervision on financial institutions through a harmonised set of
rules and harmonised management. The SSM puts the European Central Bank (ECB) as the
central supervisor of financial institutions in the euro area (and in non-euro EU countries that
choose to opt into the SSM). While the national supervisors continue to monitor the medium
and small sized banks (the Less Significant Institutions, LSIs), the ECB received the mandate
to monitor the large and Significant Institutions (SIs) - covering about 80 percent of all the
bank assets in EU. Consequently, the national SAIs audit scope of the SIs became part of the
ECAs mandate to supervise the ECB’s activities.
The transfer of mandate created new challenges for transparency, accountability and
adequate public audit as the SAIs concluded that the transfer of their mandate to audit
banking supervision could not be compensated by the ECA’s more limited mandate to audit
the ECB. The emerging audit gap resulted in a statement in 2015 on banking supervision
and the importance of fully auditable, accountable and effective banking supervision
arrangement by the EU Contact Committee of the heads of the of Supreme Audit Institutions
of the EU.
Establishment of the Task Force and the parallel audit mandate
Besides the statement, the Contact Committee also established a
Task Force on European
Banking Union
with the mandate to start planning and conducting a collaborative audit of
the supervision of individual Less Significant Institutions (LSIs), comprising medium-sized
and small banks, in selected EU countries.
The SAIs of Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Germany and the Netherlands participated in the parallel
audit and carried out audit work in accordance with their national practices. Background
information about banking supervision in their own countries was also provided by 11 other
SAIs. The ECA provided assistance as a sounding board for the Task Force.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0036.png
Task Force on European Banking Union of the EU Contact Committee: a need to close
the audit gaps
continued
36
The objective of the parallel audit was to twofold:
•
•
First, to gain insight into the situation and potential differences among
Member States in the regulations of banking supervision in the SSM system
and the national SAIs execution of prudential supervision of LSIs, and
Second, to collect evidence about possible audit gaps that may have emerged
because of the SSM. The purpose was to identify problems that the SAIs
confronted in auditing supervision of LSIs in their countries.
1
Joint report on findings of the Task Force
The result of the parallel audit was disclosed in a final report by the Task Force, which was
adopted by the Contact Committee and published on 14 December 2017. This report is
based on individual country audit reports that the SAIs carried out in their own countries,
following a common audit plan and approach. As the countries had to complete the audit
work according to their own national practices, the procedures were, however, not always
fully compatible. For instance, the SAI of Finland lacked the mandate to audit banking
supervision while the other four SAIs had full mandate to do this in their country. The
relation between the national supervisory authorities and the ECB also affected the audit
work of the Task Force.
The report of the Task Force identified mainly two concerns. The first is regarding
the existing differences in regulatory transposition, design and practice of banking
supervision between Member States. EU rules are transposed in different ways into
the national laws. Within one supervisory system, there might be different national
regulations, which is not prohibited. There is also a difference in the institutional design
of the prudential supervision, where in some countries the prudential supervisor is a
separate institution from the national central bank, while in other countries the central
banks is the prudential supervisor, or as in Austria and Germany, the responsibilities are
shared between a separate institution and the national central bank.
Furthermore, supervisory practices differ between the countries in the Task Force. For
instance, different methods are used for categorizing banks and assessing risks, and
the proportionality of the annual assessment in the Supervisory Review and Evaluation
Process differ. Another difference is the intervention methodology by the national
authorities. While some countries use quantitative interventions such as imposing capital
add-ons, other countries mainly use qualitative interventions such as requesting the
removal of business deficiencies.
Arguably, the most significant conclusion of the report was that there indeed is an audit
gap, and even more concerning is that the gap is increasing. The SAIs that do have a full
mandate to audit the supervision of medium-sized and small banks have difficulties in
accessing the relevant information because an increasing number of LSIs are subject
to ECB rules and standards. The ECA faced similar difficulties of obtaining necessary
information from ECB in its audits.
Current focus of the Task Force
The next step for the Task Force was to shift its focus to the second pillar of the banking
union, the Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM), responsible of the efficient resolution
of failing financial institutions. The EU Contact Committee gave the mandate to the
Task Force in October 2017 to follow up on audit gaps in the banking supervision and
to ‘prepare a mapping survey of arrangement in Members States concerning banking
1 Report of the Task Force on European Banking Union to the Contact Committee of Supreme Audit
Institutions of the European Union and the European Court of Auditors, 14/12/2017.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0037.png
Task Force on European Banking Union of the EU Contact Committee: a need to close
the audit gaps
continued
37
resolution, in view of relevant audit work to be carried out in the future.’ Depending on the
results of the Mapping Survey the Task Force also received mandate to prepare a proposal to
start a new parallel audit on banking resolution in EU Member States.
The table below presents the task-sharing between supervisors and resolution authorities
In December 2017, the ECA published its report 23/2017 on the Single Resolution Board (SRB),
which is a part of the SRM and deals mainly with the resolution of significant banks of the euro
area. The report set out a starting point for the work of the Task Force. In March 2018 the ECA
organised a training session on the SRM, relevant for the Task Force and the Member States’
SAI’s. The practice sharing session was well received and used by the Task Force to plan ahead.
The Mapping Survey was conducted from May to August 2018 and found a wide diversity
in the way the National Resolution Authorities (NRAs) have been set up. Many NRAs were
established just three years ago and are faced with new and complex tasks. Even though the
commitment had been to complete all resolution plans by 2020, only a few resolution plans
have been completed so far. The Mapping Survey also showed that many SAIs have a mandate
to audit their NRAs but only a few SAIs have exercised this mandate, while some plan to start
doing it in 2019.
Against this background, the Task Force recommended coordinated audit activities in euro
area countries on the SRM for medium-sized and small banks. The aim of the new parallel
audit is to provide insight into the European SRM and to identify whether SAIs are able to
exercise their audit mandates with full access to the required documents. In other words, do
the audit gaps identified in banking supervision extend to the second pillar of the Banking
Union? The coordinated audit activities will be carried out by the SAIs in their own countries
within their audit mandate in 2019, and a joint output is expected by 2020. The ECA will carry
out its audit at the SRB
2
and audit activities for this task are foreseen to start in January 2019.
2 Decision Proposal by Bundesrechnungshof (SAI of Germany) and Algemene Rekenkamer (SAI of the Netherlands)
on behalf of Contact Committee Task Force on European Banking Union, 2018; Strategic Planning Memorandum:
Possible coordinated audit activities on bank resolution, 2018.
Source: ECA, adapted from the ECB
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0038.png
Task Force on European Banking Union of the EU Contact Committee: a need to close
the audit gaps
continued
38
Heads of EU SAIs urge closing the audit gap, based on Task Force results
On 13 november, the EU Contact Committee issued a communication. In this the heads
of SAIs jointly call on national governments and parliaments, as well as the European
Parliament, the Council and the Commission, to address a number of deficiencies in the
accountability and audit arrangements for EU banking supervision (add weblink).
In particular, they propose to align the ECA’s mandate to audit the ECB’s supervisory
mechanism with its audit mandate in respect of the other EU institutions, and to ensure
that the ECA has full access to all information relevant for its audit work. Secondly, they
insist that those national SAIs in the euro area, that have a mandate to supervise less
significant banks, must be allowed to access all relevant information, including from the
ECB. And thirdly, they call for the extension, where necessary and feasible, of the audit
mandates of those national SAIs in the euro area that have no or only limited powers
to supervise less significant banks, to encompass the audit of national supervisory
authorities .
Assessing, mitigating and containing potential risks of a banking crisis easier if done
together
The Task Force activities, and particularly its results, already show that the sum of the
work of the individual SAIs in the Task Force leads to substantial added-value. The results
provide food for thought for SAIs themselves, giving some interesting comparative
perspectives, but also for the legislator on what the strengths and weaknesses are in the
current set-up of banking supervision in the EU and where additional action is required,
both for the first and the second pillar of the Banking Union.
The work of the Task Force is by far not finished. The communication of 13 November 2018
calling for action is an important result but not a final one. It is up to the legislators to
make the necessary regulatory changes, which would allow closing the audit gap in the
EU’s nascent Banking Union. For SAIs having an audit mandate covering Banking Union
topics will be a major step. A subsequent, and even more telling step would be to use the
mandate, which, as experiences have shown, was not always easy.
Now it is time for the Task Force to coordinate the parallel audit providing insight into
the SRM and related audit mandates. However, one aspect cannot be stressed enough:
bringing audit expertise together is very important. Doing this in combination with
parallel audits which can help auditors to identify inconsistencies in design, in approach
and application of certain provisions by either the ECB, the SRB or national authorities,
really contributes to insights how future risks for a banking crisis can be assessed,
mitigated and contained. And getting better at avoiding such risks is, after all, why the
Banking Union was created in the first place.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0039.png
39
The Audit Compendium – a new EU Contact
Committee product illustrating the audit work
of SAIs
By Rafal Czarnecki, Directorate of the Presidency
In a European Union which is getting increasingly integrated, national policy makers often deal
with similar societal problems occurring simultaneously in all Member States. And this is also
reflected in the work of the EU’s supreme audit institutions (SAIs). Unemployment among younger
people is just one of many examples for such problems which have affected all (or most) Member
States in recent years. In 2017, the EU Contact Committee decided that it was time for stepping up
cooperation and to present the audit findings by the EU and national SAIs on how to address such
common problems in a single report. Rafal Czarnecki, project manager for the first Audit Compendium
on youth employment, zooms in on this new product and the prospects for a follow-up.
Bundling the power of the pen
As a general rule, supreme audit institutions (SAIs) want to add value by providing their
citizens and decision-makers with new and timely insight into relevant policy issues. And
despite all technological changes and information overload in recent years, the auditors’
strongest weapon is still the power of their words.
At the October 2017 meeting of the EU Contact Committee, the heads of the SAIs of the
EU and its Member States discussed their institutions’ possible contribution to restoring
EU citizens’ trust in national and EU institutions. Among other proposals, they considered
introducing new audit products, which could help make the results of SAIs’ work more
widely available to European Union citizens.
First edition of the Compendium focussing on youth employment
The Audit Compendium of the EU Contact Committee is the first tangible result of these
discussions, and its first edition focusses on youth employment and the integration of
young people into the labour market. A highly topical issue which stands at the top of the
agendas of many, if not all, of the EU Member States and the EU Institutions.
This first audit compendium is based on an overview of 14 selected audit reports
published by EU SAIs and the ECA since 2010. It offers a general introduction to what is
meant by youth employment, how it is measured and explains the actions taken by the EU
and the Member States in this policy field.
Origins of the Compendium dating back to 2017
The concept of the Audit Compendium was developed by the ECA at the beginning
of 2017. We observed that many SAIs published audit reports on fairly similar topics,
which were also of common interest to EU citizens and policy makers. Yet, despite the
fact that the problems analysed were common to all of us, the SAIs communicated their
audit findings mainly, if not exclusively, to a domestic audience. At the same time, many
problems identified in one Member State are also relevant for others, or even for the EU
as a whole. This is why we decided to suggest producing a summary of available audit
reports, where common issues could be presented in a form accessible for interested
readers, and translated in all languages.
Drafting process led by ECA
The compendium consists of three main parts:
-
background information on the issue of youth unemployment;
-
an analysis and overview of the type of audits carried out by the SAIs on this issue,
and
-
a summary of each audit report.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0040.png
The Audit Compendium – a new EU Contact Committee product illustrating the audit
work of SAIs
continued
40
The ECA took the lead in the producing the Compendium, and drafted the first two parts of the
publication. The first part was drafted by our experts on employment policy in the Audit chamber in
charge of ‘Investment for cohesion, growth and inclusion’, and in particular Michele Zagordo who had
been head of task for a recent special report on this topic. The Directorate of the Presidency was in
charge of preparing the analysis and overview in the second part, on the basis of standardised audit
report descriptions, submitted by the participating SAIs, in their own languages.
In total, 13 EU SAIs participated in this project with their audit reports. Indeed, it was a truly European
project, as its starting point was a patchwork of various inputs, in many EU languages. The role of
each participating SAI was however not limited only to submitting their reports and filling out a pre-
defined form.
The work on the Compendium was divided into several steps and after completion of each stage,
the SAIs were requested to provide comments and suggest amendments. This entailed a numerous
consultations, exchange of e-mails and discussion. It could be said that the communication activity
within the project was every bit as important as the work on the substance.
Figure 1
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0041.png
The Audit Compendium – a new EU Contact Committee product illustrating the audit
work of SAIs
continued
Figure 2
Figure 3
41
Publication and dissemination
The Audit Compendium was finally published on 28 June 2018, approximately 8 months after the
launch of the project (see
Figure 4).
The ECA presented the Compendium to the European Parliament, the European Commission and the
Council, through its Stakeholder Management System, and issued a press note. The national audit
institutions using their own communication channels, informing national authorities and, where
possible, the wider public in their own countries.
In addition, the Compendium was posted on the
EU Contact Committee home page.
Prospects for the future
Four months after publication, we are now in a position to draw some initial conclusions:
-
first, there was a general agreement among EU SAIs that the Audit Compendium is a good
showcase product for the EU Contact Committee, which brings together the SAIs’ audit
findings on a topic which is relevant across the Union. This also illustrates the SAIs capacity to
work together as equals;
second, the Compendium represents an innovative product where the EU SAIs are able to
speak as one group and jointly present their work to all EU citizens. The fact that so many SAIs
had done work on this issue also underlined the importance of fighting youth unemployment
and integrating young people in the labour market. As such, the Compendium represents
more than the sum of individual audit reports;
third, publishing the Compendium provided an additional opportunity for each participating
SAI to make a contribution to the discussion on this very topical issue, on the basis of work
already done previously; and
finally, the informal, and often spontaneous, reactions by readers and participating SAIs to
this new product of the EU Contact Committee were very positive. Many considered the
Compendium to provide a helpful overview on how public auditors in the EU contribute to
addressing the issue of youth unemployment.
-
-
-
In view of this positive outcome, the EU Contact Committee agreed in October 2018 to start preparing
for the next edition. Three new topics are currently under discussion: food safety, public health and
cybersecurity. As a matter of fact, for each of these themes there are already a great number of EU SAIs
willing to share their reports, and thus, scores of reports to be analysed. And given this encouraging
support, we have good hopes for an equally successful second edition of the Audit Compendium.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0042.png
The Audit Compendium – a new EU Contact Committee product illustrating the audit
work of SAIs
continued
Figure 4
42
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0043.png
43
Public Audit in the European Union - a book
in the making
By Derek Meijers, Directorate of the Presidency
In January 2019, the ECA will publish a handbook on the 29 supreme audit institutions (SAIs) in the
European Union (EU) and its Member States. Derek Meijers, project manager for this handbook, explains
the rationale behind the initiative, what the handbook is about and how the publication will evolve in
future years.
A handbook on the 29 SAIs in the EU and its Member States
The ECA will publish a new handbook on the 29 EU supreme
audit institutions (SAIs) in early 2019. Entitled
Public Audit in the
European Union,
it will contain detailed information on the status,
power, organisation, work and output of the SAIs, and illustrate the
differences and similarities between these 29 audit institutions.
The aim of
Public Audit in the European Union
is to provide public
auditors, academics and other interested readers with a practical
repository on public audit in the EU, at both the Union and national
levels. By comparing comprehensive information on the work of SAIs
in the EU and their role in the accountability process, the ECA hopes
to contribute to important ongoing research in this field.
Why do we need a handbook on EU SAIs?
SAIs are essential institutions, particularly in the EU, where the
existence of an independent external public audit body is a
prerequisite for joining. SAIs are a key aspect of modern societies’
checks and balances to ensure the efficient, effective and economic
use of public resources. They operate autonomously in a highly
political context and are prerequisites for a properly functioning
democracy. The simple fact that they assess government action can already
positively influence good governance. Moreover, by helping parliaments to
control governments and their country’s government, or EU executive institutions
to improve policy-making and financial management, SAIs act as both service
providers and independent guardians of citizens’ interests. In addition to
promoting accountability and transparency on the national level, EU SAIs also
actively support the capacity-building of public audit bodies in third countries.
Many of the 29 SAIs covered in
Public Audit in the European Union
can be proud
of a long and rich history. They are the modern embodiment of a public audit
function which, in some countries, dates back as far as the 14th century. And
although the individual structures, mandates and working methods of most SAIs
have evolved over time – sometimes as a result of political change or the reform
of public administration, – their core function remains the same: to scrutinise the
finances and policies of governments and build trust.
Example of the ECA and Member State SAIs cooperating well
Article 287(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union calls upon
the ECA to cooperate with the SAIs of all EU Member States ‘in a spirit of trust
while maintaining our independence’. It is this principle which underpins projects
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0044.png
Public Audit in the European Union - a book in the making
continued
44
such as the publication of
Public Audit in the European Union.
Furthermore, it was
an additional argument to compile this handbook in close cooperation with
representatives from the different SAIs.
Creating the handbook – an ambitious project that took over one year to
complete
We drew inspiration for this handbook from an earlier publication: the UK
National Audit Office’s 2005 edition of
State Audit in the European Union.
We
are especially thankful to our UK colleagues for entrusting us to continue their
initiative. They had no objections to our proposal to release a handbook on the
SAIs of the EU and its Member States. We also sought the consent of all other EU
SAIs in the framework of the EU Contact Committee.
Following this, the first step in the project was to decide on the book’s structure
and contents, and which details should or should not be included. We then began
to gather together information that was readily available, for example on the
websites of the individual SAIs, or in think tank reports and other studies.
We used this information to compile fact sheets on the individual SAIs regarding
their legal basis, structure, resources, audit remit and working methods, as well
as their output and cooperation activities. At this and all other stages, we mainly
focused on the comprehensiveness and comparability of the content.
The next step was to have the content validated and the draft text approved by
the SAIs themselves. This was by no means an easy task, as the way in which we
chose to present information did not necessarily match the way they would have
done so in their own publications.
Paired with the independent nature of SAIs, this diversity sometimes led to
some elaborate and interesting discussions. Tackling certain points, such as an
institution’s audit remit or year of establishment, turned out to be more difficult
than expected.
Overall, it took us more than one year to complete the project, and we can
proudly say that the result speaks for itself: it was worth the effort! In the end, we
succeeded in presenting information on all the SAIs in a succinct and comparable
way; clearly one of the key merits of publishing this handbook.
Contributing to research on public audit in the EU
This handbook illustrates that the EU SAIs consider it important to be transparent
about their work and to provide our citizens with simple, accessible comparable
information. In this sense, we hope that our publication deepens the knowledge
on EU SAIs and will encourage these institutions to cooperate and learn from one
another.
Finally yet importantly, academics and researchers dealing with public audit in
the EU and its Member States may find this handbook interesting. The book, and
the research it may inspire, will hopefully offer guidance to auditors, policymakers
and legislators across the EU and beyond.
In view of this, we also intend to publish the handbook online, in the 23 official
languages of the EU, and to update it regularly.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0045.png
45
INTOSAI: the global umbrella organization
of supreme audit institutions with the
motto ‘Mutual experience benefits all’
By Monika González-Koss, INTOSAI General Secretariat, Austrian Court of Audit
For audit institutions across the world, the International
Organisation of supreme Audit Institutions – INTOSAI – is what
the United Nations is for theircountries: the global cooperation
platform for sharing experience, developing audit standards
and guidelines, and promoting capacity building for audit
institutions. Its overarching objective: the promotion of good
governance and improving citizens’ lives across the globe.
Monika González-Koss has worked in the INTOSAI General
Secretariat in Vienna since 1991 and has been its director for
several years . In view of these many years of experience, she is
well placed to provide insights into INTOSAI, its organisation,
its activities, and its perspectives on the future, including the
changes regarding the ‘INTOSAI standards.’
Contributing to good governance and trust in the interest of citizens
It was in November 1953 when 34 supreme audit institutions (SAIs) and the United Nations met in , Havana,
Cuba, for their first Congress, to create the International Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions
(INTOSAI). Among those 34 founding participants were representatives from South America, Europe, Africa as
well as – curiously enough – the Vatican State.
At present INTOSAI counts 200 members – 194 full members, 5 associate members and 1 affiliate member,
most of them members of one of the seven regional organisations, which assist the member SAIs on a
regional basis. The headquarter of INTOSAI is in Vienna in the Austrian Court of Audit (ACA), and the President
of the ACA is also INTOSAI’s Secretary General.
In keeping with its motto ‘Mutual experience benefits all’ (or ‘Experientia mutual omnibus prodest’), INTOSAI
acts as the permanent, autonomous, independent and non-political professional organisation of the world’s
external government audit institutions and of the UN specialized agencies, and represents them as their
recognized international umbrella organisation.
Meeting at the
24th UN INTOSAI
Symposium in 2017
at the UN in New York
Source: INTOSAI Secretariat
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0046.png
Cooperating with the EUROSAI Working Group on Environmental Auditing
continued
46
Through the preparation of professional standards, institutional capacity building and knowledge
sharing and knowledge services, INTOSAI makes a vital contribution to promoting good governance,
enhancing transparency and accountability and fighting corruption. This also contributes to
maintaining the credibility of public governance and strengthening confidence in it, which, in turn,
makes a beneficial difference to the lives of its member states citizens.
INTOSAI and the United Nations
INTOSAI’s recognition has grown steadily in the last 65 years owing to its diverse activities, and the
UN General Assembly Resolutions A/66/209 of December 2011 and A/69/228 of December 2014 have
certainly marked the high point of this recognition to date.
In these resolutions, the UN General Assembly took note with appreciation of the work of INTOSAI
in promoting greater efficiency, accountability, effectiveness, transparency and the efficient and
effective use of public resources for the benefit of citizens. At the same time, the UN General
Assembly also recognized the principles of independence laid down in the INTOSAI Declarations
of Lima and Mexico and encouraged its member states to apply the principles specified in those
declarations in compliance with their national institutional structures.
For nearly 50 years, INTOSAI has cooperated closely with the United Nations. Since 1998, INTOSAI
has enjoyed Special Consultative Status to the United Nations. Since 1971, the INTOSAI General
Secretariat has regularly organized high-ranking capacity building symposia, the UN/INTOSAI
Symposia, with the United Nations Department for Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) in Vienna,
Austria.
INTOSAI has already held 24 UN/INTOSAI Symposia on a large number of themes of interest to SAIs.
These included environmental auditing, the value and benefits of SAIs, sustainable development and
SAIs’ contributions, IT audits, accountability, audit and advisory activities and citizens engagement,
E-Government, SAI independence, the audit of health care, and - in 2017 – ‘Digitalization, open data
and data mining: relevance and implications for SAIs’ audit work and for enhancing their contributions
to the follow-up and review of the SDGs’ – where SDG stands for Sustainable Development Goals.
INTOSAI has also launched numerous initiatives to support SAIs in making an essential contribution
to the success of the UN 2030 Agenda and the SDGs. The role of SAIs with regard to reviewing and
monitoring the implementation of the SDGs was, for example, one of the two focal themes taking
center stage at the XXII International Congress of Supreme Audit Institutions – also called INCOSAI
XXII - in Abu Dhabi in 2016. The Congress confirmed the interest of SAIs in carrying out audits and
reviews with regard to the SDGs via the following four approaches:
–
–
–
–
assessing the preparedness of national governments to implement the SDGs;,
undertaking performance audits in the context of the SDGs;
contributing to the implementation of SDG 16, which envisages effective, accountable and
transparent institutions;
the possibilities for SAIs to act as models of transparency and accountability in their own
operations.
Since INCOSAI XXII, more than 100 member SAIs have already shown concrete interest in carrying
out SDG-related audits and are doing so at present and quite a number of SDGS related international
audit reports have been published on the INTOSAI website .
INTOSAI as successful organisation
There are a number of other milestones that illustrate the success story of INTOSAI as an independent
international platform, which serves the exchange of knowledge and experience and acts as the
worldwide voice of Supreme Audit Institutions in the international community.
These milestones encompass the development – to date – of three Strategic Plans featuring four
strategic goals – ‘Professional Standards, Capacity Development,’ ‘Knowledge Sharing and Knowledge
Services,’ and ‘Maximize the Value of INTOSAI as an international organisation.’ All the all activities
of the Goal Committees, Sub-Committees, Working Groups, Task Forces and Project Groups are
geared towards these goals (see
figure 1
for the INTOSAI organisation chart). This also includes the
preparation of a communication strategy that is to safeguard a consistent level of information and
development in the INTOSAI community in a spirit of equality and inclusiveness.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0047.png
Cooperating with the EUROSAI Working Group on Environmental Auditing
continued
47
Figure 1:
INTOSAI Organisation Chart
Source: INTOSAI Secretariat
INTOSAI and all its organs, namely the INCOSAI, the Governing Board, the General Secretariat in Vienna,
the Goal Committees, the Supervisory Committee on Emerging Issues, the International Journal of
Government Auditing, the INTOSAI Development Initiative and the seven regional organisations' have
committed themselves to active and effective implementation of the organisation’s strategic goals and
its five cross-cutting priorities:
–
–
–
–
–
SAI independence;
SAI follow-up and review of the SDGs;
development and coordination of standard-setting, capacity development, and knowledge sharing;
creating an agile and strategic INTOSAI;
leveraging the Regional Organisations - established to enhance accountability, transparency and
good governance and to safeguard the credibility of SAIs for the benefit of citizens around the
globe.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0048.png
Cooperating with the EUROSAI Working Group on Environmental Auditing
continued
48
The future of INTOSAI
In the future INTOSAI aims to remain the global umbrella organisation for SAIs regarding
professional standards, institutional capacity building and knowledge sharing. This will require
vigilance and foresight in respect of the needs of its members and continual development of
relevant content, and organizing and presenting it to members and others. Some examples of
developments with great importance for the professional future of INTOSAI and its member SAIs
are the following:
INTOSAI Framework of Professional Pronouncements (IFPP)
This new framework is a major step into an even more professional future for INTOSAI. The
purpose of the IFPP, which should be concluded by the end of 2019, is to improve the credibility
of INTOSAI’s Professional Pronouncements, helping to make them an authoritative framework for
public sector auditing and to enhance their technical quality.
The IFPP includes the overarching INTOSAI Principles (INTOSAI - P), the International Standards
of Supreme Audit Institutions (ISSAIs) and the supporting INTOSAI Guidance (GUID). The ISSAI
brand will be retained and ISSAIs will remain an integral part of the IFPP. Only documents that
set out requirements to support ISSAI 100 and are consistent with ISSAI 100 are designated as
ISSAIs. The IFPP is designed to clarify what SAIs need to do be able to claim ISSAI compliance. The
IFPP provides for the development in the future of an INTOSAI competency framework for public
sector auditing as well as other pronouncements that may facilitate ISSAI implementation. The
INTOSAI-GOVs category has not retained as a separate category but merged with the ‘Guidelines
on specific subjects’ to form a new category designated as GUIDs.
Framework for Regional Professionalism
An INTOSAI Framework for Regional Professionalism has been established alongside the INTOSAI
strategic cross-cutting priority n° 5 to leverage the seven INTOSAI regional organisations. As
autonomous entities, established for the purpose of promoting professional and technical
cooperation between its members, INTOSAI’s regional organisations aim to create maximum
value for their member SAIs by supporting their members’needs.
The purpose of this framework is to assist the regional organisations into attaining the highest
levels of professionalism by providing a reference guide that they can use as the foundation for
their strategic planning. The framework identifies the following four strategic dimensions:
- institutional support for the SAIS;
- professionalisation and methodology support;
- advocacy and influence;
- governance, organisation and sustainability.
Mutual experience benefits alI
INTOSAI strives and has always strived to respond to the needs and concerns of each member,
to safeguard and promote a free and comprehensive flow of information and experience and to
bundle the global knowledge and know-how gained in practical external audit experience. This
focus on a practical and member-oriented way of working is well reflected in the themes of the
22 international Congresses held to date and in the pivotal decisions that were taken at those
INCOSAIs.
For the future, INTOSAI aims to continue to serve its members and the global public audit
community through cooperation, because cooperation between SAIs is essential in order to
learn and improve, as reflected in the INTOSAI motto, ‘Mutual experience benefits all.‘
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0049.png
49
Cooperating for results: developing INTOSAI
guidelines to audit disaster-related aid
Mount Merapi, Yogyakarta, Indonesia at the 6
th
Meeting of the Working Group for the Audit and Accountability
for Disaster Aid, 2011
Auditors use standards and guidance for their audit work. The International
Standards for Supreme Audit Institutions – ISSAIs – are essential in this
respect. How do they get started, who is involved and how is the work
organised? Phyllis Anderson, Assistant Director in the U.S. Government
Accountability Office, representing her SAI in the development of ISSAIs for
auditing disaster-related aid, identifies some key ingredients to get to results
through cooperation.
By Phyllis Anderson, U.S. Government Accountability Office
Starting point: tracking aid given in response to the 2004 tsunami
Our working group’s charge: to develop guidelines for enhancing the transparency and
accountability of funds which countries use to address the aftermath of catastrophic natural
disasters. The International Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI), through
its Task Force on the Audit and Accountability of Disaster Aid, examined the response to the
catastrophic December 2004 tsunami in South East Asia.
The Task Force concluded that it was not possible to create an audit trail of the billions of
dollars that governments, multilateral and non-governmental organisations, and the public
provided in response. More information was needed and further work was required to
help ensure the transparency and accountability of disaster relief funding. INTOSAI created
the Working Group for the Audit of and Accountability for Disaster Aid (WG) in 2007. My
experience participating in this WG, representing the U.S. Government Accountability Office
(GAO), has led me to conclude that the WG’s successful results would not have been possible
without the extraordinary level of cooperation demonstrated by its members.
Source: U.S. GAO
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0050.png
Cooperating for results: developing INTOSAI guidelines to audit disaster-related aid
continued
50
U.S. GAO committed to cooperation
GAO is an independent, nonpartisan agency that examines how taxpayer dollars are
spent, and provides Congress and federal agencies with objective, reliable information to
help the government work more efficiently and save money. The agency sets the auditing
standards for U.S. government audits. Currently, GAO demonstrates its commitment
to cooperation by serving on the Governing Board of INTOSAI and participates in
several INTOSAI working groups, committees and task forces. In addition, through
its international auditor fellowship program, GAO provides training for SAIs to help
strengthen their audit capacity.
Key ingredients for getting to results
The WG’s mandate was to develop standards to assist SAIs in auditing aid donated to
governments for disasters and formulating best practices and recommendations to
improve the transparency and accountability of disaster-related aid. Its membership
ranged between 18 and 23 SAIs, and in 2013, included the following SAIs: Austria, Chile,
China, the European Court of Auditors (chair and secretariat), France, Georgia, India,
Indonesia, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Korea (Republic of ), the Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan,
Peru, the Philippines, Romania, the Russian Federation, Sri Lanka, Turkey, Ukraine and the
United States of America.
The WG’s relatively constant membership through its existence, from 2007 through 2013,
contributed to the continuity and progression of its work and highlighted its members’
steadfast commitment. Those members represented a balance of donor and potential
aid recipient countries. Several had experienced catastrophic natural disasters and the
lessons learned in the aftermath of these disasters were crucial to the WG. Members
saw the need for enhancements worldwide in the accountability and transparency of
disaster-response funds.
The WG members possessed a diversity of disciplinary expertise, which, combined with
the ranges in experience, differences in culture, and multiple perspectives, contributed to
the successful outcome of the work. Of course, at times, members of the WG expressed
differences of opinions and in perspectives, and raised difficult issues. Yet from beneath
these differences arose a spirit of cooperation, respect and goodwill. Of significance is
that the WG did not shy away from addressing challenging issues directly, and members
worked towards consensus and a successful outcome.
We met once a year as a group, graciously hosted by members in different regions.
These annual, substantive meetings focused on member progress updates and on
resolving outstanding issues, including through intensive discussions. In some cases, a
host country had experienced a catastrophic natural disaster, and members visited local
affected areas. For example, at the 6
th
Annual INTOSAI Meeting of the Working Group
cordially hosted by the Audit Board of the Republic of Indonesia in Jogjakarta, Indonesia,
we met with local officials, observed the effects of a volcanic eruption, and examined
efforts to rebuild homes, schools and community centers—hearing firsthand the
challenges, concerns and constructive benefits of disaster funding.
In some cases, our formal work programme called for members to partner on assigned
objectives. Using a standardized format, each member provided periodic progress
reports on the approach, progress to date and outcomes. We shared summaries with
each member, and discussed them at annual meetings. Publishing periodic progress
reports within the WG empowered members to strive to achieve their objectives. The
need to prepare periodic reports also offered incentives for members to prioritize their
work in the context of their full-time SAI responsibilities.
In addition, members reviewed documents electronically and scheduled numerous
conference calls—sometimes at strange hours, to accommodate time-zone differences.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0051.png
Cooperating for results: developing INTOSAI guidelines to audit disaster-related aid
continued
51
I and other members found these phone meetings helpful in personalizing our interactions.
The calls enhanced the spirit of cooperation with which we approached our work and made
it easy to express and understand differences in our perspectives.
Zooming in on two of the six outputs
Two areas of my focus for the WG entailed working with members to develop standards
for conducting audits of disaster aid, and to formulate good-governance practices for
stakeholders to improve transparency and accountability. The first area resulted in an ISSAI
5520
The Audit Of Disaster-Related Aid,
which
provides audit guidance and covers both
emergency activities that begin immediately after a natural disaster, and the longer-term
activities of rebuilding communities and restoring normal life.
Given that SAIs have different constitutional mandates that govern their audit efforts, ISSAI
5520 is a starting point for auditors charged with auditing disaster aid within the context
of their jurisdiction and mandate. ISSAI 5520 also provides various SAI’s experiences with
segments of the audit process, such as: cooperation between auditors; information and data
gathering; financial, performance and compliance auditing of disaster aid; and reporting.
The appendices provide examples of the results of SAIs conducting audits of aid for disasters
in their respective countries such as:
•
•
financial audits of the emergency response after the earthquake in Pisco, Peru, and
the recovery and reconstruction after the Wenchuan earthquake in China; and
performance audits of recovery and reconstruction after the Great East Japan
Earthquake, the European Commission response after the South East Asia tsunami,
and after hurricane Katrina in the US.
The other area of focus produced a good-governance document, INTOSAI GOV 9250
The Integrated Financial Accountability Framework
(the IFAF), a framework within which
providers and recipients of humanitarian aid report financial and in-kind transfers of aid in
standardised tables. The IFAF tables would then be audited and published on the Internet
as open data, according to the standard that data should be published once and used
often. Volunteer donor and recipient countries and large international non-government
organisations tested the standardised tables, which led to information that was feasible and
easy to understand. The idea was that with the use of these tables, there would be a single
audit financial report for the aid, donors would not require their own bilateral reports as a
prerequisite of providing aid, costs could be reduced and transparency would be enhanced.
Outcomes enhancing accountability
The work from the members of the WG had a very substantial outcome, producing six audit
guidelines. The guidelines were endorsed in 2013 by the INTOSAI Congress and are currently
up for their first review. These guidelines provide auditors with necessary knowledge and
build further capacity, equipping them with information to audit disaster-related funds, in
order to enhance accountability.
The work also enhanced members’ knowledge of each SAI’s constitutional and organisation
structures, a variety of SAI perspectives on the use of auditing standards, better
understanding of regional and cultural differences, and the positive and productive results
that come from working collaboratively and cooperatively in an international setting.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0052.png
52
How to audit preparedness for natural
disasters: an output of cooperation, triggering
cooperation?
By Arife, Turkish Court of Accounts
When it comes to drafting International Standards for Supreme Audit Institutions
– ISSAIs – practical audit experiences, preferably from several supreme audit
institutions (SAIs) serve as essential input. Arife Coşkun is Audit Manager at the
Turkish Court of Accounts and was the main draftswoman for the ISSAI 5510
guidelines on auditing disaster risk reduction. She explains why cooperation is
essential to this type of job and related parallel/coordinated audits.
INTOSAI working group on the Audit of Disaster-related Aid
The International Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI) set up the INTOSAI
Working Group on Accountability for and the Audit of Disaster-related Aid (WG AADA) at
the XIX INTOSAI Congress (INCOSAI) in Mexico in 2007. One of the aims of this working
group was to study and to explore how SAIs are auditing disaster preparedness, and to set
out guidelines for such audits.
WG AADA held its first meeting in Luxembourg in July 2008, hosted by the chair of the
working group, the ECA, to arrange the task sharing. Within the working group, the Turkish
Court of Accounts (TCA) took on the task of preparing the guidelines on auditing disaster
preparedness for SAIs within WG AADA. Until then, we had produced two performance
audit reports
1
relating to disaster issues in the TCA and I considered my knowledge and
experience rather limited. Undoubtedly, this was not enough for preparing guidelines on
auditing disaster preparedness for SAIs. For that reason, we decided to gather other SAIs’
experiences and studies.
This was possible thanks to the contribution and cooperation of other SAIs and
international organisations such as UN organisations, the World Bank and NGOs, and,
mainly, the ECA’s support at every stage of the work.
Cooperation to gather input
A first step was to carry out document analysis in order to obtain background information
about the subject and this task, including reviewing articles and studies concerning
disaster management to understand the overall environment of disaster preparedness.
This study showed us that the concept of ‘disaster preparedness’ covers a small part of the
activities relating to disaster risk reduction. In addition, we collected the experiences of
SAIs in the area of disaster management and particularly disaster preparedness. It quickly
became clear that only a limited numbers of SAIs had published reports concerning
disaster management. Moreover, there were far fewer reports relating to the disaster
preparedness phase than reports concerning the rehabilitation/reconstruction and
emergency response stages.
1 “Activities of the Ministry of Public Works and Settlement in the Aftermath of Marmara and Duzce
Earthquakes”
https://www.sayistay.gov.tr/En/Upload/files/MarmaraEarthquake(1).pdf;
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0053.png
How to audit preparedness for natural disasters: an output of cooperation, triggering
cooperation?
continued
53
To overcome the shortage of information about the views and experiences of SAIs
concerning disaster preparedness, we prepared a survey in order to note SAIs’ approaches
to these matters and benefit from their experiences. Thirty-five INTOSAI members replied to
the survey and thereby contributed to the drafting process of ISSAI 5510. In addition, many
external stakeholders of SAIs made an important contribution to the drafting process for the
standard.
During the different drafting stages of the ISSAI 5510, we received many comments and
contributions from SAIs - mostly from those who had supported the initiative from the
outset, but also from the OECD and the World Bank. Also very relevant and valuable was the
input received from the UN office for disaster risk reduction (UNISDR). Their opinions and
comments enriched the content of ISSAI 5510 and clearly contributed to its improvement.
In fact, our initial task changed and underwent a transformation. For example, the title of
ISSAI 5510 was changed to ‘Audit of disaster risk reduction’ with the aim of bringing it into
conformity with the terminology more often used in the field of disaster management. The
scope of the guidelines expanded to cover all issues concerning pre-disaster stages and
reducing disaster risks.
After a challenging process, under the leadership of the ECA, we completed the uphill task
successfully and prepared the ISSAI 5510 – one of the six INTOSAI documents in this policy
area. It was adopted in 2013.
Collecting and testing guidelines in a parallel/coordinated audit of SAIs
While drafting ISSAI 5510 within the INTOSAI WW-AADA, the TCA organised and led a
parallel/ coordinated audit on the same subject called Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR). The
main aim here was testing the initial ISSAI 5510 guidelines we had drafted and improving
their content.
The parallel/coordinated audit on DRR was carried out with the
participation of the SAIs of Azerbaijan, Chile, India, Indonesia, the
Netherlands (observer), Pakistan, Philippines, Romania, Ukraine and
Turkey, mostly countries that had faced several devastating disasters.
The results of the parallel/coordinated audit were summarised in a
joint report.
2
During this audit, interviews were held with the responsible
authorities and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and the
other bodies concerned, to get their opinion and to specify their
needs in this area. This parallel/coordinated audit was based on
audit questions and criteria, building on the participating SAIs’ input,
assembled in a so-called ‘audit matrix’. As the project manager for
this common task, I found that all participants made great efforts to
contribute to the audit. However, most of the participating SAIs could
not perform all the elements as laid out in the audit matrix, due to a
lack of corporate capacity or audit mandate. For that reason, many
SAIs recommended that the selected auditors should receive more
training on how to implement this type of audit, and assess countries' capacities to manage
this field.
2 Joint Report, Audit of Disaster Risk Reduction,
https://www.sayistay.gov.tr/En/Upload/files/Joint%20Report%20
Audit%20of%20Disaster%20Risk%20Reduction%20WEB%20PDF%20SON.pdf,
November 2018.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0054.png
How to audit preparedness for natural disasters: an output of cooperation, triggering
cooperation?
continued
54
As a result, combining forces through the parallel/coordinated audit allowed the
participating SAIs to take a broader view of the subject, to compare their own audit
capacities with the others', and to benchmark best practices. Clearly, this joint initiative
added value to the collective experiences relating to DRR, relevant for both governments
and SAIs.
Source: Turkish Court of Accounts
Contribution to the global efforts in
the policy area – disseminating the
ISSAI 5510
Before and after the endorsement of
ISSAI 5510 on the audit of DRR and
the publication of the joint report, I
presented them at different international
platforms. The first one was the Global
Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction in
Geneva in May 2013, where ECA Member
Gijs de Vries, as chair of the WG AADA,
also gave a presentation. After presenting
the ISSAI 5510 on this platform, UNISDR
invited me to contribute to the global
effort to assess the global progress and
development of new policies in this field.
In this context, I prepared a paper, which
scrutinised the accountability framework
and the SAIs' contribution for the Global
Arife Coşkun presenting the results, as moderator, of the session covering the
Assessment Report on Disaster Risk
audit of disaster-related aid and the related ISSAI 5500 series at the Xth EUROSAI
Reduction 2015.
3
Congress in Istanbul on 22-25 May 2017
Subsequently, I shared my views and
experiences at workshops and conferences. These included the workshop entitled ‘Learning
from crises and fostering the continuous improvement of risk governance and management,’
which was organised by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD) in Oslo in September 2014; the 5th OECD High Level Risk Forum, held in Washington,
D.C. in December 2015; and the European Forum For Disaster Risk Reduction (EFDRR),
organised in Istanbul in March 2017.
At all these platforms I tried to share the experiences of SAIs and my experiences obtained
from the audit work undertaken within the WG AADA framework. I highlighted the need to
assess the sufficiency of the existing accountability framework for disaster risk reduction,
also drawing the international community’s attention to the role of SAIs in the field of DRR.
In doing so, I also underscored the need for a new accountability framework for DRR.
Main take-aways from working in the INTOSAI context
My assignments within the INTOSAI WG AADA gave me personally a great opportunity to
learn about DRR in general and about the audit activities of SAIs in particular. It was a very
enriching experience – both in content and in process - to gather SAIs’ outputs in this area
and learn the views and expectations of SAIs and stakeholders. When we finalised both
‘projects’ - the ISSAI 5510 and the parallel/coordinated audit - I realised how little I knew
about auditing DRR at the start.
3 Arife Coşkun, ‘The expansion of the accountability framework and the contribution of supreme audit
institutions,’ https://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/publications/49709, November 2018.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0055.png
How to audit preparedness for natural disasters: an output of cooperation, triggering
cooperation?
continued
55
It is essential in cooperation to share your knowledge and experience. I tried to do
so, reflecting my knowledge and experience when drafting ISSAI 5510 and the joint
report resulting from the parallel/coordinated audit. Additionally, I used the collective
experiences of SAIs and my knowledge to contribute to the global efforts relating to
DRR. The more I did so, including working with SAIs, international organisations and non-
governmental organisations, the more I realised that the concept of accountability is not
perceived to have the same meaning in different countries and cultures.
The needs of all stakeholders brought issues such as enhancing accountability and
governance to the forefront. Conducting both projects, we noticed that many SAIs’
corporate capacities were not sufficient to meet the expectations of all the stakeholders
involved in the activities concerning disaster risk reduction. Besides, international policies
relating to DRR have been changing decade after decade, in parallel with disaster risks
Towards the future: making good use of the guidance when auditing DRR
More and more people – be they experts, politicians or citizens – realise that the diversity
and frequency of disasters are increasing, not least because of climate change. To mitigate
the effects, societies have to focus - and act - on disaster risks in the future. It is clear that
the SAIs have a role to play in these efforts. In view of the numerous cross-border risks,
but also for the purpose of benchmarking and learning, SAIs should consider carrying
out parallel or coordinated audits. Whether undertaken alone or in cooperation, the audit
guidelines presented in ISSAI 5510 will provide a good basis for such audit efforts.
Moreover, I believe that ISSAI 5510 is particularly well suited to audits carried out in
cooperation among SAIs, firstly because it builds on similar cooperation experiences
gathered during the drafting process. I would like to take this opportunity to express
my thanks and appreciation to all the contributors and participating SAIs for their great
support. And secondly, because it addresses - due to the consultations we held with
many stakeholders - the expectations of all the major stakeholders active in this area. One
could even argue that the expectations of the stakeholders, including those operating at
international level, oblige SAIs to take new auditing approaches that require collaboration,
team work, best practice sharing and cross-border impact assessment.
All in all, I believe that ISSAI 5510 - which is actually an output of collective effort by the
SAIs - and the aforementioned joint report will form a good basis for cooperation between
SAIs. A cooperation that will most likely include capacity building and knowledge sharing,
but, I hope, go beyond that, extending to audit cooperation itself, leading to powerful,
convincing recommendations supported by several SAIs, triggering policy decision makers
to address DRR properly.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0056.png
56
The International Organisation of Supreme
Audit Institutions – how does the ECA contribute?
By Bogna Kuczynska, John Sweeney and Alan Findlay, Audit Quality Control Committee
Directorate, and Paul Sime, Financing and Administering the Union Directorate
Within the International Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI), there are several
committees and working groups actively working on audit standards and guidelines. But how is
this work carried out in practice? To get an idea of the topics and how cooperation takes place, we
asked four colleagues in the ECA to explain what they are currently working on and how the work
is organised. Bogna Kuczynska and John Sweeney, principal managers, and Alan Findlay and Paul
Sime, respectively principal auditor and assistant to a director, give some insights into the world of
INTOSAI and why this work matters for the ECA.
Bogna Kuczynska - INTOSAI FAAS and ISSAI 200
Looking at the fundamentals for financial audit
INTOSAI plays a fundamental role in setting the standards applicable to public audit
around the world, including financial audit. This is why we, as the EU’s external auditor,
need to be actively involved.
The INTOSAI Financial Audit and Accounting Sub-committee (FAAS) has 21 members,
representing 15 Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs). AFROSAI-E and INTOSAI Development
Initiative representatives attend as observers. FAAS is currently chaired by the SAI of the
United Arab Emirates.
We meet once a year to discuss in particular the state of play of the projects FAAS is
involved in, as well as to have an exchange with the deputy directors of the International
Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB), and the International Public Sector
Accounting Standards Board (IPSASB), on the latest developments in the ISAs and the
International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS). Between meetings, we use the
FAAS Discussion Forum as a regular virtual communication platform.
One of the high priority tasks of the FAAS in accordance with the 2017-2019 Strategic
development plan (SDP) for the INTOSAI framework of professional pronouncements
(the INTOSAI framework) is the revision of the International Standard of Supreme Audit
Institutions (ISSAI) 200, entitled ‘Fundamental principles of financial auditing.’ The ISSAI
200 project team is led by the ECA, with the support of the State Audit Bureau (SAB) of
Kuwait. The ECA team is composed of Paul Sime and myself, with the involvement of
Geoffrey Simpson.
ISSAI 200 provides the principles for an audit of financial statements prepared in
accordance with a financial reporting framework, and an overview of the nature, elements
and principles of the audit of financial statements by Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs).
The aim of the ongoing revision, in line with the SDP, is to redraft the standard, so as to
ensure it:
•
•
•
•
•
fits well into the revised INTOSAI framework;
is principle-based, thus allowing a reduced level of detail compared to the current
text;
is robust enough to accommodate present and future changes in the International
Standards on Auditing (ISAs) and the corresponding ISSAIs;
contains the objectives of the relevant principles that are aligned and coherent
with the ISSAIs (2200-2810); and
is in line, and consistent with, the corresponding performance and compliance
audit principle documents (ISSAI 300 and ISSAI 400), in particular in terms of
structure, level of detail and, where applicable, basic concepts.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0057.png
The International Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions – how does the ECA
contribute?
continued
57
John Sweeney – Performance audit: INTOSAI as a platform for best practice sharing.
From drafting standards to disseminating them
Further developing our performance audit practice is one of the goals of the ECA’s strategy
for 2018-2020. And again INTOSAI plays a role both as standard setter and as a platform for
exchanging ‘good practices’.
The performance audit sub-committee (PAS) of the professional standards committee
(PSC) of INTOSAI, of which the ECA is a member, was established back in 2005. Its goal is
to develop standards and guidelines for performance auditing; promote and disseminate
best practices; monitor and assess their use in the public sector, identify need for additional
guidance, and assess the possible impact of new theories, methods, evaluations and
changing contexts for performance audit.
Having completed its work on drafting performance auditing standards and principles in
2016, the committee, chaired by the SAI of Norway, turned its attention to disseminating
best audit practices and assessing new challenges and opportunities for performance
audits. One area where some SAIs have developed their audit practice is in the use of
machine learning, artificial intelligence, and
Big Data.
At the last annual committee meeting
in April 2018 , the SAIs of Brazil, the UK, and the Netherlands presented their innovations
in data science practices and specific opportunities and challenges they faced in this area.
This included establishing the evidential value of data (i.e., its reliability and relevance),
changing organisational culture, obtaining management buy-in, and developing or
acquiring technical capacity and competencies needed to advance.
Of course, an additional challenge is the risk that the ISSAI 1000-series of standards may
become outdated in the face of new technologically advanced audit practices, and that
the quality gap widens between SAIs that possess or lack the necessary resources and
knowledge to engage with this new technology. To address these risks the committee
proposes working closely with standard setters in the private sector (IAASB and IFAC – the
International Federation of Accountants) and collaborating with international organisations
(e.g. the UN and the INTOSAI Development Initiative), to support SAIs in tackling the new
technological reality. The secretariat of the committee will also facilitate the exchange of
program coding between SAIs, create a ‘lessons-learned’ forum to assist SAIs, and liaise with
the INTOSAI IT Working Group on this subject.
Audit and evaluation – not completely the same
As SAIs strive to increase their efficiency and impact through innovation, they are also
exploring new activities and ways of reporting, compatible with their mandates. One such
activity, which the PAS committee recently reviewed, was ‘evaluation of public policies.’ As
we know, the purpose of audit is to support accountability and facilitate improvements
in financial management and governance. However, these objectives could equally be
applied to evaluation. With this in mind, the committee invited the Chair of the Working
Group on Evaluation of Public Policies and Programmes (WGEPPP), Mr Brunner of the
French
Cour des comptes,
to discuss the relationship between evaluation and performance
audit, and to tease out in discussions, some of the differences between the ISSAI on
evaluation, INTOSAI GOV 9400, and that on performance audit, ISSAI 300.
Firstly, audit is an independent, objective assurance activity designed to add value and
improve an organisation’s operations. Public policy evaluation, on the other hand, is not
an assurance engagement, but rather assesses the utility of a policy, through a systematic
examination of its objectives, implementation, outputs, outcomes and impacts. According
to Mr Brunner, it is this latter focus of assessing ‘impact’ that most distinguishes public
policy evaluation from performance audit. For example, an evaluator does not assess
compliance with regulations, but whether the regulation is appropriate for implementing
the policy. Secondly, he stressed how evaluation emphasizes the needs of stakeholders, by
giving them and beneficiaries a pivotal role, in the design and reporting of the evaluation.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0058.png
The International Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions – how does the ECA
contribute?
continued
58
Given that there is already some overlapping memberships between the PAS committee
and the WGEPPP, the committee intends to establish a closer dialogue between the
parties to improve consistency between the ISSAI 3000 series and the INTOSAI GOV 9400,
to share information and experiences between the groups, and to consider coordinating
work plans.
It is clear that there is a strong appetite among SAIs for sharing innovative practices across
the INTOSAI community. The PAS committee, through its leadership and coordination
role, is providing an important platform and forum, not only for exchanging of ideas, but
also for exchanging technical and information resources, needed to ensure the continued
relevance and impact of our work in a changing and increasingly complex environment.
Alan Findlay – Working as vice chair of the INTOSAI Professional Standards
Committee
Increasing collaboration between chairs within INTOSAI
The European Court of Auditors currently holds the vice chair of the INTOSAI Professional
Standards Committee (PSC), and is proud to work alongside the Brazilian SAI as Chair.
The PSC’s mandate for 2017to 2019 is based on the INTOSAI Strategic Plan 2017-2022.
We promote standards for public sector auditing and provide a global forum for external
auditors to keep abreast of developments in auditing and professional standards.
Crosscutting priority 3 of the Strategic Plan requires coordination between standard
setting, capacity development and knowledge sharing activities. The PSC along with the
other strategic goal chairs, the Capacity Building Committee (CBC – lead by the SAIs of
South Africa and Sweden) and the Knowledge Sharing Committee (KSC - lead by the SAI
of India) have worked closely together during the last year on key initiatives to implement
INTOSAI’s strategies.
Governance of the Forum for INTOSAI Professional Pronouncements (FIPP) is an important
responsibility of the goal chair collaboration. Together we govern many aspects of the
organisation and functioning of the FIPP. These tasks are defined in the FIPP´s Terms of
Reference (ToR). During 2018, we identified the need to adjust the ToR to increase the
number of FIPP members from 15 to 16, to clarify the need for support to the member
from their respective employing SAIs, and to remove from FIPP the responsibility of
providing answers to questions on the status and interpretation of the ISSAIs. Together
the PSC, CBC, KSC and FIPP Chairs and Vice Chairs developed a new version of the ToR,
which was approved at the latest PSC-Steering Committee meeting in May 2018.
Based on the revised ToR the Goal Chairs are jointly responsible for selecting FIPP
members. Following closely the INTOSAI Due Process for Professional Pronouncements
and the FIPP´s own ToR, the PSC, CBC and KSC Goal Chairs developed a robust selection
process to fill three vacancies. We launched an open call for applications to all SAIs and
INTOSAI bodies. Fifteen application forms were received, and the PSC, CBC and KSC chairs
are in the process of selecting the most suitable candidates in order to start work at the
beginning of 2019.
Efforts to align activities
In 2017 the INTOSAI Governing Board decided to support the establishment of a single
platform for INTOSAI bodies and regional organisations to coordinate and align joint
efforts, explore synergies and share knowledge. The result was the INTOSAI-Regions
Coordination Platform (IRCP). The first meeting of the IRCP was held in Oslo in June this
year. The CBC and the INTOSAI Development Initiative (IDI) facilitated the meeting, and
the PSC and KSC were closely involved in the planning of the agenda and participated
throughout. The goal chairs will also join forces in respect of a number of follow-up
actions that have arisen from the IRCP meeting, notably on capacity strengthening
initiatives and information systems.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0059.png
The International Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions – how does the ECA
contribute?
continued
59
One of the joint initiatives of the Chairs of INTOSAI’s Strategic Goals 1, 2 and 3 was to address
the concerns on the absence of a quality assurance mechanism for documents produced
outside the INTOSAI Framework for Professional Pronouncements. Normally, all documents
intended for the framework go through a strenuous quality-control process governed by
Due Process, before being adopted. Other documents produced by INTOSAI bodies are not
subject to such controls, but as they carry the INTOSAI name, any sub-standard document
could damage the INTOSAI brand. To address this risk, the Goal Chairs prepared a paper on a
quality assurance mechanism for non-IFPP documents. The paper was approved in the 70
th
INTOSAI Governing Board meeting in December 2017. To put in to practice the principles
in the joint paper, the Goal chairs have designed quality assurance certificates, to be signed
by the Goal Chairs and Chairs of the Working Groups / Subcommittees which produced the
document.
International cooperation can also involve organisations outside the INTOSAI family,
for example, in the preparation of the next Strategic Development Plan for Professional
Pronouncements (SDP), which covers the period 2020-2025. The PSC Steering Committee
with the consent of the chairs of the CBC and KSC, organised the planning process and the
broad content of next SDP, based on proposals formulated by FIPP and after an extensive
scanning exercise. To complete the plan, the Goal Chairs invited SAIs, INTOSAI Bodies,
external stakeholders and advisory bodies to make proposals for new projects or ideas to
improve the IFPP.
Paul Sime – INTOSAI providing guidance for compliance audits
Providing practical guidance on planning, execution and reporting
The compliance audit does not benefit from the same amount of guidance available
as compared to the financial audit, for which standards and supporting documents are
produced and regularly updated by other bodies, such as the IAASB as described above.
Therefore, the mandate of CAS includes developing INTOSAI guidelines for compliance
audit, giving practical guidance on how compliance audit should be planned, executed
and reported on, and providing an overview of the different mandates SAIs have regarding
compliance audit.
Insights into a meeting of the Compliance audit sub-committee
On 9 and 10 October 2018, the ECA hosted the 15th annual meeting of the INTOSAI
Compliance audit sub-committee (CAS). Delegates from 15 countries attended the meeting,
chaired by the SAI of India. The main topics for discussion for this meeting included the
clarification of the term propriety in the context of compliance audit, providing guidance on
combined audit engagements, and identifying future strategic areas of interest.
A large part of the meeting focused on the two ongoing CAS projects ‘Guidance on
authorities to be considered while examining regularity and propriety aspects in the
compliance audit‘ and ‘Using ISSAIs in accordance with the SAI’s mandate and carrying out
combined audits.’ The SAIs of Norway and Romania, who are leading the work on these
projects, presented the progress achieved so far and the way forward until the adoption of
the of the guidance documents.
The participants received presentations from a number of CAS members, highlighting
developments related to their audit engagement or audit methodology. The ECA,
represented by Mariusz Pomienski, director, and myself, made a short presentation of the
ECA’s 2017 Annual Report, published in September 2018 and containing the ECA’s opinion
on the compliance of EU transactions underlying the EU accounts.
During the meeting, the CAS members also suggested potential themes for future
developments plans, focusing on issues related to audit in general, such as the use of data
analytics, and also issues concerning the public sector audit engagements - consistency
between financial, compliance and performance audit standards, quality control.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0060.png
60
Interview with
Gerard Ross, ECA
director and newly
appointment member
of the INTOSAI FIPP
By Gaston Moonen,
Directorate of the
Presidency
The ECA’s ‘personal’ commitment
to developing global audit
standards
On 15 November 2018
Gerhard Ross, director at
the ECA, was appointed
member of the Forum
for INTOSAI Professional
Pronouncements (FIPP).
FIPP is a relatively new
permanent body, which
was only set up in 2016
by the last congress
of the International
Organisation of Supreme
Audit Institutions
(INTOSAI) - all the more
reason to find out from
the new member, freshly
appointed on behalf of
the ECA, what the forum
does and why he applied
to become a member
of it.
Ensuring quality means… work
When asked to explain what the Forum for INTOSAI Professional Announcement (FIPP) actually does it quickly
becomes clear how familiar Gerhard Ross is already with the subject matter. ‘What INTOSAI – and in particular
the three so-called ‘INTOSAI Goal Chairs’ – wanted to create is a single entry point into the ISSAI framework. A
forum of technical experts to address standard setting issues relating to the ISSAI framework. It should ensure
a more uniform approval process for standards, guidelines, etc. to better ensure quality and consistency.’
He explains that standards are produced by different working groups and committees – the Professional
Standards Committee (PSC), Capacity Building Committee (CBC) or Knowledge Sharing Committee (KSC)
– are responsible for the allocation of resources and the timeliness of these projects. ‘When a working
group has completed their work the chair of the PSC, CBC or KSC refers projects to FIPP for approval. FIPP is
consulted at different stages of the process.’
‘FIPP needs to approve project proposals. The same
goes for the development of the exposure draft, as FIPP
needs to approve this draft before it is “exposed.” And
also during the stages when comments are coming in
and an endorsement version needs to be made, which
FIPP needs to approve.’ This means rather intensive
involvement and a procedure that is rather different,
at least, from the one applied before 2014. Gerhard
links this to a greater awareness within INTOSAI of
the necessity of assuring consistently high quality for
professional standards: ‘I think that within what are
known as the ‘INTOSAI Goal Committees’ they saw
differences in terms of quality, structure and drafting.’
Forum for INTOSAI Professional
Pronouncements – FIPP
In 2016, INTOSAI created FIPP as a permanent forum
for professional standards, after it had been operating
for two years on a temporary basis. Main task of the
forum are is to develop the ISSAI framework, with
INTOSAI’s audit standards and guidelines, further by
providing:
•
clearer distinction between auditing
standards, other standards, guidelines, best
practice documents, etc.;
•
clearer directions on format and quality
requirements for these different categories
of documents.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0061.png
Interview with Gerard Ross, director at the ECA and newly appointment member of the
INTOSAI FIPP
continued
Such intensive involvement in the different stages can indeed mean substantial
work for FIPP members. With some restraint, Gerhard confirms this: ‘There are two to
three meetings per year but most of the work goes into reading, telephoning, video
conferencing, etc. During the meetings you will go through different documents and
discuss with other members, because if you put forward your ‘okay’ as FIPP member
regarding the standard proposed, other FIPP members should have time to read and
see for themselves. Some of this work inevitably will need to be done in my own time,
some of it, for example the travel, during work time.’ Meetings can be held anywhere in
the world. ‘I think for next year one is scheduled in Bhutan and another one in Riga. So it
requires a personal commitment, but also a commitment from the ECA to enable me to
do this. And I made sure of that commitment before I applied.’
An institutional and personal interest for high quality audit standards
For the ECA to have a staff member in FIPP is an honour, but not only that, according
to Gerhard. ‘I think it reflects our commitment as a European public audit institution
to being part of INTOSAI’s international standard setting.’ He believes the selection
criteria for FIPP members relate to background and experience in this kind of work. ‘And
probably also geographical balance and gender balance play a role, I guess. But I was
just a candidate, and not a member of the selection board.’ He explains that Neil Usher,
a now retired ECA director, is still a member of FIPP and will be until the end of 2018. ‘So
the institutional interest was already there before me.’
Besides this institutional interest in FIPP, it is also clear that Gerhard has a personal
‘ingrained’ interest in drafting standards. ‘My personal motivation to become a candidate
also originated in what I did at the ECA for a long time, well before I became a director in
audit. My first job, when I came to the ECA, was developing audit manuals for the ECA.
This already dates back twenty years. Together with Neil Usher and Bertrand Albugues,
I was involved in developing the ECA’s audit manual and we provided relevant training
to all staff.’
For Gerhard it is logical to combine his practical knowledge of audit with the theoretical
framework that underpins this work. ‘I think this is useful, and working for so many
years in audit has created an interest in it which I want to pursue further. And I know
what Neil was doing as a member, so I have an idea of what to expect. But before I put
in my candidacy I consulted with several people, and I sought the approval of the ECA
Members - within the audit chamber I work in, from the ECA Member most involved in
methodology work, Ms Lamarque, and the President.’
One of the tasks the ECA has within INTOSAI is being the vice-chair of the INTOSAI
Professional Standards Committee (PSC). Gerhard does not see an overlap with that role.
‘The PSC is in charge of making sure the pronouncements are drafted and put forward.
The FIPP’s role is to check the quality. It will be important to keep a clear separation in
terms of roles.’
Cooperation to ensure quality for global purposes
In Gerhard’s view, FIPP is an important exponent of international cooperation to ensure
quality in audit standards. ‘I have not worked in FIPP yet, that will only start next year.
But I have worked in many international meetings where it became clear that people
have different takes on different things, also because of different backgrounds and
different cultures. We see this to a minor extent within the ECA. And this can also be
the case in a FIPP with up to 15 members from all over the world.’ However, in his view
FIPP has already shown its potential through its involvement in improving the INTOSAI
Framework of Professional Pronouncements, one of INTOSAI’s strategic goals (see also
page 45).
Gerhard points out that FIPP has developed its own references, its own working
procedures and drafting conventions to ensure consistency throughout the review role.
‘All for the sake of quality. It is all about making sure that there are no contradictions
between different elements, that it is consistent, that it is understandable. And if INTOSAI
truly wants to develop international audit standards that work globally … you need
to discuss them in a global setting. And I am looking forward to contributing to that
process through FIPP.’
61
“
“
... it requires
a personal
commitment,
but also a
commitment
from the ECA to
enable me to do ...
... it reflects our
commitment as a
European public
audit institution
to being part
of INTOSAI’s
international
standard setting.
“
It is all about
making sure
that there are no
contradictions
between different
elements, that it is
consistent, that it is
understandable.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0062.png
62
EUROSAI: The place to be for external public
auditors across Europe
By Karen Ortiz Finnemore, Spanish Court of Audit/EUROSAI Secretariat
The European Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions
(EUROSAI) is the regional branch of INTOSAI in the wider
European region. With 50 SAIs as members it offers an
important cooperation platform for audit institutions.
Karen Ortiz Finnemore is the Head of International
Relations of the Spanish Court of Audit, which hosts
EUROSAI’s Secretariat. As Director of the same, she has
a privileged overview of what is going on in this far-
reaching community of SAIs that come together to learn
from each other’s experience. Below she offers a glimpse
into EUROSAI and its current initiatives, aiming to provide
auditors with useful information on how to make the most
of all that this network has to offer.
EUROSAI’s raison d'être
The European Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions (EUROSAI) was founded in 1990.
Over these past 28 years, its membership has increased up to the current 50 members - who
joined it in order to exchange experiences, information and good practices: the supreme
audit institutions (SAIs) of 49 European States and the European Court of Auditors.
These 50 European SAIs share the common ultimate aim of strengthening accountability,
transparency and integrity in the public sector, and have come to realize how the
combination of efforts and mutual support can be instrumental for producing audits of the
highest quality that contribute to this goal. EUROSAI promotes the afore-said professional
cooperation in the field of public sector audit, building a sturdy framework that facilitates
the effective exchange of knowledge among SAIs across the European region. There is an
African proverb, which says “If
you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together”.
Cooperation is, indeed, behind most success stories.
Within INTOSAI, EUROSAI is the second largest regional organization within INTOSAI,
after AFROSAI with 54 members. But why come together under the EUROSAI umbrella,
when we already have INTOSAI? Although EUROSAI encompasses SAIS with a wide variety
of organisational models, mandates, needs and priorities, its diversity is, however, less
pronounced than that found at the global level and geographical distances are also less
overwhelming!
Thus, we can easily comprehend why cooperation undertaken at regional level not only
complements that carried out at the global level, but it can also be more effective and
efficient in many aspects. SAIs in the same region usually face similar challenges. So regional
initiatives can be better tailored to meet their specific needs, thus increasing their added
value, while at the same time reducing the travel costs associated to activities such as
training and knowledge-sharing events.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0063.png
EUROSAI: The place to be for external public auditors across Europe
continued
63
Values at the heart of EUROSAI and the key to its success
The core values that guide cooperation within EUROSAI are independence, professionalism,
inclusiveness, innovation and responsiveness to the emerging issues in the region. The
backbone of this cooperation is the
voluntary commitment
of all players: SAIs freely initiate
and join initiatives of their interest, combining efforts through in-kind contributions. This is
the core of EUROSAI’s activity, from which the Organisation derives its strength, and is in fact
the key to its success.
Members’ needs and expectations were also the baseline used for drawing up EUROSAI’s
Strategic Plan 2017-2023, which revolves around two main goals:
- supporting effective, innovative and relevant audits by
promoting and brokering professional
cooperation;
- helping SAIs deal with new opportunities and challenges by
supporting and facilitating their
institutional capacity development.
EUROSAI’s structure and modus operandi in a nutshell
EUROSAI’s organizational structure is simple, as can be seen below, the focus of the
organisation being placed on professional and technical cooperation. The latter is carried
out mainly through its Working Groups and Task Forces, as well as its different project
groups and other short-term initiatives.
Source: EUROSAI Secretariat
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0064.png
EUROSAI: The place to be for external public auditors across Europe
continued
64
The Working Groups and Task Forces play a crucial role within EUROSAI, facilitating the
exchange of expertise in their respective fields. The current strategy also fosters the use of
short-term agile project groups. But how do these actually come to be? It is actually a very
clear-cut process. Any member SAI can launch a project group or initiative in order to target
a specific short-term objective or product that is in line with EUROSAI’s values and goals. This
arrangement encourages members to engage on issues of specific interest without having
to commit resources on a long-term basis and its simplicity enables EUROSAI to respond in a
more agile way to emerging issues and members’ needs.
So far, the following short-term project groups and initiatives have sprouted from the input
of different member SAIs, but the number and variety of such projects is continuously
growing as a result of the complex and dynamic context in which SAIs operate, forcing them
to constantly enhance and optimize their performance:
Source: EUROSAI Secretariat
The Spanish Court of Audit, a central pillar throughout EUROSAI’s journey
One of EUROSAI’s strongest cornerstones is the Spanish Court of Audit’s unwavering
commitment with the Organisation. For almost 30 years now, Spain has hosted the
Secretariat, becoming the permanent contact point for all EUROSAI members and a
reliable source when searching for information about this community of SAIs.
In its role as Secretariat, the Spanish Court of Audit keeps members in touch and informs
them about relevant news, providing them guidance and support for the launching of
EUROSAI initiatives and the organization of its events. It is also in charge of the constant
update of EUROSAI’s website and the publication of its annual Magazine. Additionally,
it acts as main liaison with INTOSAI and its regional organisations and takes care of
EUROSAI’s financial management. Never a dull moment for the Secretariat staff!
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0065.png
EUROSAI: The place to be for external public auditors across Europe
continued
65
EUROSAI: What’s in it for the auditors?
The range of projects, initiatives, training and knowledge-sharing events is too broad to be
covered adequately in this brief summary, but below is a glimpse of what is on offer.
If you are interested in learning how other colleagues have addressed a certain audit topic,
you can consult and filter through more than 1.700 EUROSAI members’ audit reports in the
database of audit reports.
There are also databases that contain comparative
information
about other SAIs,
collected through surveys, and a selection of around 440 pieces of
materials and products
on public audit-related topics. In addition, the Benchmarking
Information Exchange Project (BEIP) recently launched (see for more details page 74),
enables the sharing and, thus, the comparison of data and information in areas such as roads
and motorways, digital education, drinking water or military equipment.
The existing Working Groups and Task Forces offer auditors the perfect framework for
exchanging best practices and experiences in the fields of environmental (see for more
details page 67), information technologies (IT) and municipality audits, as well as in those
related to the audit of funds allocated to disasters and catastrophes and the complex issue of
how to audit ethics management in the public sector (see for more details page 71).
Audit methodologies are shared therein, workshops and training events organized and
cooperative audits launched, thus offering auditors with little or no experience in a
certain audit field the chance to develop their skills hand in hand with more practiced
colleagues. Having such a marketplace for the exchange of audit skills and expertise is of
special importance when embarking on new ‘state of the art’ audits, as those in the field
of the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals, advanced data analytics,
cybersecurity or Artificial Intelligence (AI).
We also have an energetic community of young auditors who have so far celebrated three
Congresses, the so-called Young EUROSAI Congress or YES Congress, which had as main
themes
Innovation, SAI& I
and
Updates Available,
respectively. They have plans to meet up
again in London for the 4
th
edition in September 2019.
Young EUROSAI auditors meeting at a EUROSAI Congress.
Source: EUROSAI Secretariat
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0066.png
EUROSAI: The place to be for external public auditors across Europe
continued
66
EUROSAI: What’s in it for the SAIs?
EUROSAI also coordinates and facilitates institutional capacity development initiatives for
its member SAIs. Apart from those focused on audit skills, there are projects that address
institutional matters such as the implementation of INTOSAI’s Framework of Professional
Pronouncements, independence, integrity, leadership, operational management, innovation,
communication and stakeholder management, aspects which constitute the solid anchor
of a model SAI. In this regard, we can highlight the work done in the field of independence
(through benchmarking surveys and seminars); the compilation of good practices in
capacity building gathered from members’ experiences; or the continued attention paid to
innovation.
SAIs are constantly looking for ways to do things
better.
The innovations resulting from this
aspiration cover not only audit issues, but also management aspects and new and more
effective ways to engage with citizens and external partners. In order to bring to light all
these innovative approaches, for the benefit of other peers, those across the SAI community
in the European region who have embarked on innovative projects have generously
shared their experience. So far, four booklets have been issued, containing more than
100 innovations, and this project will soon be carried forward in the form of an electronic
quarterly newsletter.
No man is an island, and neither is EUROSAI.
EUROSAI is in permanent contact and coordination with INTOSAI’s initiatives, as well as with
other INTOSAI regional organizations, mostly by means of the
Regional Forum for Capacity
Development -
as a Forum to share information among regions and to address regional
development issues - and the
Regions Coordination Platform -
where INTOSAI bodies and
related entities can find common ground and identify areas for a better coordination of
efforts.
In addition, EUROSAI has bilateral agreements and cooperation with
INTOSAI’s regional organisations OLACEFS, ARABOSAI and ASOSAI, with
whom conferences on topics of mutual interest are organized from
time to time. The next joint event will be in March 2019, in Israel, where
EUROSAI and ASOSAI will get together to discuss how SAIs in those
two regions are tackling the audit of emerging issues and emergency
situations. Cooperation with AFROSAI, specifically in the area of training,
is also being promoted, a joint seminar on SDGs being planned for
November 2019. Coordination with the Contact Committee of the SAIs of
the EU and its Member States has also been addressed, mainly in the area
of the aforementioned database of audits.
But contacts with external partners are not limited to communities of
SAIs. EUROSAI also cooperates with international organisations such
as the Council of Europe, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD), the European Organisation of Regional Audit
Institutions (EURORAI) or the European Confederation of Institutes of
Internal Audit (ECIIA), with whom a project on integrated reporting is
soon to be launched.
Looking into the future
SAIs operate in a complex and ever-changing context, to which they need to respond and
adapt in a timely manner if they wish to remain relevant. EUROSAI aims to assist them in this
endeavor by raising awareness and highlighting emerging issues in their path. Following the
web-based dialogue on emerging issues and forward thinking mentioned in the October
2018 issue of the ECA Journal a workshop was organized at the end of November 2018
to broaden the understanding of emerging issues that affect the work of SAIs, with the
participation of 13 SAIs. This topic will continue being at the forefront of EUROSAI’s agenda:
this year’s issue of its Magazine will delve into it, and so will the next above-mentioned joint
event with ASOSAI, as well as a workshop planned for the coming EUROSAI Congress in 2020.
You can find out all about EUROSAI
and its projects in the
EUROSAI
website,
which is complemented
by the following sites:
Operational Plan and projects
Working Group on Information
Technologies
Working Group on Environmental
Auditing
Working Group on the Audit of
Funds Allocated to Disasters and
Catastrophes
Task Force Audit & Ethics
Task Force on Municipality Audit
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0067.png
67
Cooperating with the EUROSAI Working
Group on Environmental Auditing
By Samo Jereb, ECA Member and Jerneja Vrabic, Private Office of Samo Jereb
Only looking at the sheer number of members for working groups of supreme
audit institutions (SAIs) cooperating on policy areas, the area that tends to be
most popular by far is ‘environmental auditing.’ Started within the International
Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI) in 1992, the INTOSAI
working group in this area currently has 72 members. INTOSAI’s regional branch
in Europe, EUROSAI, shows similar levels of interest. Samo Jereb, ECA Member,
who acted as rapporteur for several reports related to environmental issues and
represented the ECA in several EUROSAI meetings on this topic, and Jerneja
Vrabic, working in his Private Office, provide insights on the main activities of
the EUROSAI Working Group on Environmental Auditing (WGEA) and the way
European SAIs cooperate in this area.
The EUROSAI WGEA …
...is a source of inspiration
...is a forum for cooperation and experience sharing
...provides updated information and knowledge from experts
EUROSAI WGEA at a glance
The Working Group on Environmental Auditing (WGEA) of the European Organisation of
Supreme Audit Institutions (EUROSAI) functions as a regional branch under the umbrella
of INTOSAI Working Group on Environmental Auditing (INTOSAI WGEA). Established almost
twenty years ago, in 1999, the EUROSAI WGEA is a network of European environmental
auditors working in 42 SAIs. It is lead by a
steering committee,
whose purpose is to provide
strategic direction and operational support to the work of the EWGEA. Currently, the Steering
Committee consists of nine member SAIs (Cyprus, Estonia, the European Court of Auditors,
Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Slovenia and Ukraine) and is chaired by the SAI of
Estonia.
The EUROSAI WGEA has adopted the vision of the equivalent at global level, the I WGEA of
the International Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions. The EUROSAI WGEA and its
members share a commitment to use the power of public sector audits to leave a positive
legacy for future generations by improving the management of natural resources and
the environment, and the health and prosperity of the people of Europe. According to
the Working plan for the period 2017 – 2020, the EUROSAI WGEA aims to encourage and
support cooperation among and outside the SAI community, and facilitate knowledge and
experience sharing on common environmental auditing topics, tools and methods. To do so
the working group has formulated two the main strategic goals: to encourage and support
professional cooperation and to facilitate knowledge and experience sharing.
The EUROSAI WGEA follows global matters, such as sustainable development, climate change
and environmental health, while focusing its activities on regionally relevant environmental
auditing issues, as identified by its members.The group promotes cooperation within its
members, in wider SAI community (e.g. EUROSAI, INTOSAI, regional working groups), as well
as with external partners (e.g. different European Union institutions). The major possibilities
to cooperate through sharing experience at annual meetings, seminars and trainings, by
contributing to the newsletter and to cooperative audits.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0068.png
Cooperating with the EUROSAI Working Group on Environmental Auditing
continued
68
Annual meetings, spring sessions, training seminars …
… usually cover the topics identified based on members’ feedback and agreed by the
Steering Committee. Through the years, these seminars have covered a long series of
environmental topics, such as climate change, land use and development, market based
instruments in environmental protection, industrial waste and chemicals, biodiversity,
sustainable land use and sustainable development. The methodological and cross-cutting
issues of recent annual meetings were, among other things:
-
-
-
-
-
-
how to increase the impact of environmental audit;
introducing greening activities to the SAIs;
implementing ISSAIs on environmental auditing;
how to reach the stakeholders;
conducting surveys and data analysis;
assessing validity and reliability in quantitative and qualitative analyses.
At these meetings and seminars, invited external speakers usually present the theoretical
part of the topics, whereas participants from SAIs present and share their experience on
auditing these issues. Usually, the main topics are divided further to cover more specific
issues through separate sessions and working in groups, offering participants additional
opportunities to discuss issues more in depth.
Participants of the 16
th
meeting of EUROSAI WGEA in Bratislava, September 2018.
Each year the ECA actively participate at meetings and seminars, both by presenting its
work and leading the discussions on selected topics. At the 2018 the annual meeting in
Bratislava, Robert Markus, principal manager at the ECA, gave a presentation on ‘Auditing
climate change at European Union level - ECA's perspective.’
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0069.png
Cooperating with the EUROSAI Working Group on Environmental Auditing
continued
69
Robert Marcus during presentation at the training seminar on auditing climate change in
Bratislava, September 2018.
The Working Group’s ‘Spring Sessions’ are thematic seminars generally held in April
for sharing experience on common auditing issues. In the past five years the topics
of the spring sessions were the auditing of different aspects of water quality and
management, recycling, energy efficiency, energy savings and renewable energy,
sustainable forest and fisheries management. The 2018 spring session, organized in
Helsinki, covered environmental governance, both at the state and European level.
A particular focus of the seminar was the concept of good governance, with the
environment as its specific point of reference.
ECA colleague Vivi Niemenmaa contributed to the seminar by leading discussion
sessions on how to conduct an audit in relation to the Sustainable Development Goals.
Conducting Cooperative audits…
… can further enhance members’ abilities to conduct environmental audits through
sharing good audit practices and adding value to national findings by putting them
into broader international context. Cooperative audits are valuable for SAIs to address
important environmental and climate subjects, especially where international
commitments are involved. One difficulty when conducting cooperative audits that
might slow down their execution is that SAIs have different mandates, procedures and
timeframes for performing their audits. In the period 2017 – 2020 the members of the
Working Group have conducted three cooperative audits:
- Energy Efficiency in Public Buildings.This
audit was co-led by the SAIs of Estonia, Latvia
and Lithuania, the resulting joint report was published in September 2018;
- Multilateral Environmental Agreements on Air Pollution.
Cco-led by the SAIs of the
Netherlands and Poland, publication of the joint report is foreseen in December 2018;
- Mediterranean Marine Protected Areas.
The audit is co-led by the SAIs of Cyprus and
The ECA participated in a cooperative audit on air pollution involving 15 other SAIs.
We find such cooperation very fruitful, as the ECA’s audit findings on activities of EU
Institutions and selected Member States werebe complemented with the findings of
other participating SAIs in the cooperative audit.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0070.png
Cooperating with the EUROSAI Working Group on Environmental Auditing
continued
70
The WGEA Newsletter…
…is another way of sharing important information on environmental activities among
the members of the WGEA. It is published biannually, usually presenting an emerging
environmental topic and bringing the information about the Working Group’s past and
future activities and information about published environmental audit reports and other
environmental activities. The ECA actively contributes to this newsletter by preparing
short articles about its published environmental audits. For the next edition of the
WGEA Newsletter, ECA has contributed through an article about its environmental audit
activities, presenting the audits we published, the environmental seminar for auditors
held at the ECA at the end of September 2018, and its views on conducting further
cooperative audits.
Further Cooperation with the EUROSAI WGEA
We consider the ongoing cooperation with the EUROSAI WGEA to be very positive and
fruitful for the parties involved. The ECA can gain experience from international experts
in environmental auditing and can share valuable audit experience with other national
SAIs. With this in mind, the ECA will host an annual WGEA meeting next autumn. The
main topic will be auditing biodiversity, an area on which we also focus in our current
audit programme. As ECA we have well established contacts with other EU institutions
operating on environmental policies. We hope that this will help us to engage high
profile external speakers and make for an interesting and stimulating meeting next year
here in Luxembourg.
A possible venue for further cooperation with and within the EUROSAI WGEA could be
to develop ways of conducting cooperative audits with greater impact. By combining
and complementing findings on auditing national environmental policies from
SAIs - especially those from EU Member States - , with ECA’s findings on activities of
the European Commission, we can cover more cross-border issues, present more
comprehensive case studies and therefore provide more relevant recommendations.
Another way might be promoting specific audit activities under a specific theme, for
example how countries deliver on their commitments under certain International
Agreements, or by developing common audit questions and a common approach.
As the result of audits focusing at the national dimension, the EUROSAI WGEA could
produce several snapshots bringing together emerging issues from the SAI’s work,
perhaps even reporting them in a common format.
As the current work with the EUROSAI WGEA showed the benefits for the ECA’s work,
we expect further cooperation to enhance the current mutual benefits and to develop
new ways for exchanging knowledge and expertise and conducting cooperative audits,
cooperation all aimed at improving the impact of environmental policies and actions.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0071.png
71
Cooperating and knowledge-sharing on
sensitive issues: the EUROSAI Task Force on
Audit & Ethics
By Helena Abreu Lopes, Member of the
Tribunal de Contas
of Portugal
With more and more attention given to issues
of good governance – also triggered by reports
from supreme audit institutions (SAIs) - SAIs are
increasingly expected to assess public sector
systems and policies to prevent corrupt and
fraudulent practices. The European Organisation
of Supreme Audit Institutions (EUROSAI) created
a Task Force on Audit & Ethics to study and
promote the relevance of ethical conduct in SAIs
and integrate it into SAIs’ audit work on public
organisations. Helena Abreu Lopes is a Member
of the
Tribunal de Contas
of Portugal, chairing this
EUROSAI Task Force . She explains why ethical
conduct is at the core of SAIs’ activities and
describes the activities undertaken by EUROSAI to
enhance cooperation and knowledge on this topic.
Source: EUROSAI Task Force on Audit & Ethics
Promoting the relevance of ethical conduct
Monique Seefried stated that ethics deals with what lies between law and free choice. She
quotes Lord Moulton, a 19
th
century British jurist, for whom ethics was obedience to the
unenforceable canons of a culture, its core values, its abiding principles and commonly
held attitudes and conventions that lie outside of the law.
The European Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions (EUROSAI) has offered a timely
acknowledgement that public sector audit, using the criteria set by laws, regulations,
standards and objectives of sound financial management, also needs to consider the
ethical principles and culture that public institutions should act upon. In fact, ethics and
ethical behaviour by public sector entities and their representatives are fundamental in
order for citizens to trust them.
So, in 2011, EUROSAI established a
Task Force on Audit
& Ethics
(TFA&E) as a means of, among other aspects,
supporting European supreme audit institutions (SAIs)
in promoting the relevance of ethical conduct. The SAI
of Portugal,
Tribunal de Contas,
has since then been the
proud facilitator of the work done by this team, which
so far has benefited from the participation of up to 30
European SAIs.
Source:
EUROSAI Task Force on Audit & Ethics
Promoting ethical conduct externally…and internally
The TFA&E realised from the beginning that it needed to work in two interrelated
directions: look into how SAIs could promote ethical conduct in public sector
organisations and, since SAIs can only do so by being a role model themselves, look also
into how SAIs manage ethics in their own organisations and whether there was room for
improvement there.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0072.png
Cooperating and knowledge-sharing on sensitive issues: the EUROSAI Task Force on
Audit & Ethics
continued
72
Extensive work was done in these two main streams. The TFA&E identified SAIs’ practices
both in managing ethics and auditing for integrity, analysed them against international
standards and recommendations (including ones coming from the Organisation for
Economic Cooperation and Development), produced papers listing good practice
examples and organised and participated in seminars, workshops and conferences in
different fora and regions. The TFA&E also promoted the preparation of videos about
ethics in audit and explored the importance of ethics leadership. The TFA&E website
includes information on all those activities and their results.
ISSAI 30 review as opportunity
SAIs abide by ISSAIs, the International Standards of Supreme Audit Institutions. Many
of them include ethics-related provisions, although ISSAI 30 is the fundamental one,
establishing the
INTOSAI Code of Ethics.
Being aware that ISSAI 30 was about to be
reviewed, the TFA&E considered that its knowledge and expertise could be useful and
decided to be proactive in the process. It contributed by means of several activities and
reflections on the scope for review and participated actively in the ISSAI 30 review team,
led by the SAI of Poland, through several active members. One may say that the TFA&E’s
thoughts significantly influenced the changes introduced.
The revised ISSAI 30 was approved in December 2016, at the International Congress of
Supreme Audit Institutions in Abu Dhabi. Major changes were introduced to the previous
version. Among them, the review of core values, the focus on an institutional perspective,
the establishment of ethical responsibilities for SAIs, the concept and requirement to
build an ethics control system and an environment conducive to integrity and the clear
differentiation between ethical requirements and guidance on how to implement them.
Guidelines for putting ethics into practice
Once the new version of ISSAI 30 had been approved, and knowing how demanding
it would be for SAIs, and that several of them wished to have further guidance on how
to put it into practice, the TFA&E decided to prepare guidelines to support SAIs in
implementing this important standard. These guidelines were approved in the X EUROSAI
Congress in Istanbul in May 2017.
The EUROSAI guideline on
How to implement ISSAI 30
is intended to provide SAIs with practical guidance on
how to build the various elements of an ethics control
system. This guidance is based on good practices of
SAIs and other organisations and includes suggestions
for tools to be used. Ethics guidance, management
Source: EUROSAI Task Force on Audit & Ethics
and control depend a lot on environment and culture
and SAIs must, therefore, adapt those suggestions and tools to their own situations. The
guideline was prepared using a strongly collaborative approach and with inputs from
various workshops organised in several SAIs and at international events. The project was
led by the European Court of Auditors.
Auditing ethics
Within the various TFA&E activities to strengthen the role of SAIs in promoting an ethical
culture in the public sector, we must highlight the
Guidelines for Audit of Ethics in Public
Sector Organisations,
also presented and approved by the 2017 EUROSAI Congress. This
guideline explains why SAIs should audit ethics, why this is included in their mandate,
how this type of audit relates to other types, the various approaches which SAIs can adopt
to include ethics in their audit activities, how to design an audit of ethics (approach,
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0073.png
Cooperating and knowledge-sharing on sensitive issues: the EUROSAI Task Force on
Audit & Ethics
continued
73
selection of topics, audit objectives, scope, questions, framework, criteria and methods)
and how to report. It lists the key distinctive features of auditing ethics and it includes
examples and multiple reference suggestions.
An audit of ethics needs to consider and address specific challenges. One of the main ones
is the holistic approach, demanding that the audit goes beyond rules, compliance and
processes, considering also cultural dimensions, attitudes and impacts. Another challenge
is the fact that ethical culture and behaviour are sensitive and emotional, meaning that
stakeholders’ management and involvement and the audit communication are key
factors.
The guideline was prepared through in-depth cooperative work within the TFA&E, under
the coordination of the SAIs of Croatia and the Netherlands in different phases of the
project. To achieve this product, cooperation with relevant partners and experience they
identified was key: SAIs from other Regions (Brazil, Costa Rica and AFROSAI-E), IDI, ECIIA,
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and experts from the Council
of Europe, from the University of Leuven or from national integrity projects (Hungary and
Turkey).
Perspective: ethics impacting trust in the public sector
We are quite happy to see that several European SAIs have enhanced their ethical
frameworks or developed ethics-related audits or initiatives driven by the inspiration and
work of the TFA&E.
Until 2020, and under the mandate given by the EUROSAI Congress, the TFA&E will
continue its dissemination and development role. It will conduct workshops in SAIs and it
will monitor SAIs’ ethics-related practices. It will conclude some ongoing projects, such as
further research and guidance on ethics training and the implementation of ethics pilot
e-courses. It will support the roll-out of IntoSAINT in Europe, under the initiative of the SAI
of Netherlands. It will undertake other initiatives to promote integrity in the public sector
in liaison with the project group initiative of the SAI of Hungary. It will also pursue its
cooperation with other partners, notably the INTOSAI Development Initiative, with regard
to their programme on SAIs fighting corruption. Likewise, it will work with the OECD,
on indicators to assess the implementation of their recommendation on Public Sector
Integrity, and with other INTOSAI regions, on integrity-related initiatives.
In ancient Athens, Aristotle taught
that the study of ethics was
necessary in order to improve our
private and public lives. In modern
times, Václav Havel often said that a
democratic legal order must always
Source: EUROSAI Task Force on Audit & Ethics
be coupled with a robust moral
order, an ever-evolving set of civic virtues that tie the individual to his community. Trust in
public sector organisations is not improving and is strongly related to a need to maintain
public interest in public conduct and decision-making. Ethics, therefore, tends to be a
timeless and permanent imperative that SAIs must consider more and more. Cooperating
on such a sensitive but key issue will help them to live by the ethical principles that they
expect from the audited public sector entities, thereby leading by example .
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0074.png
74
Benchmarking Information
Exchange Project – an innovative
form of exchanging audit results
By Radka Domanská and Štefan Kabátek,
Supreme Audit Office of the Czech Republic
The Benchmarking Information Exchange
Project (BIEP) is a project initiated by the
Czech Supreme Audit Office (SAO) to
promote cooperation between supreme
audit institutions, particularly in the areas
of communication and comparison. Radka
Domanská, auditor and BIEP coordinator,
and Štefan Kabátek, Director at the SAO,
explain below what BIEP is, how it stimulates
comparison of audit results between different
audit institutions and can thereby enhance
information on audit criteria and best practice.
Source of visuals in this article : Supreme Audit Office of the Czech Republic
The
Benchmarking Information Exchange Project
(BIEP)
is a project initiated by the Supreme Audit Office (SAO)
of the Czech Republic with the aim of promoting
effective cooperation among supreme audit institutions
(SAIs) in line with the 3C principles - communication,
cooperation and comparison.  The project members are
the SAIs of Slovakia, Poland, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Slovenia, Switzerland, Finland, Portugal, the United
Kingdom and the ECA, all members of EUROSAI.
Identifying best practices in various policy areas
The 3C principles are an integral part of the vision for the next
EUROSAI Congress, to be held in the Czech Republic in 2020, and
the subsequent EUROSAI Presidency. BIEP facilitates the easy
exchange of information and data among audit institutions, produces
methodological materials for use in audit, and allows us to identify
good practice in different areas. BIEP is based on a benchmarking
approach and contributes to the use of this method in auditing
activities. In particular, topics are compared at system level and at the
level of key performance indicators.
By November 2018, first analyses and comparisons had already been
carried out within BIEP. The outputs
of BIEP cooperation are, for
example, methodological guides that provide information on what
was compared and how this was done, and give examples of first
results of this benchmarking. So far, such guidance material has been
prepared for benchmarking
social housing, centralised procurement
and real estate.
All the material is available in English. This will help
other SAIs to make use of this output, for example, to set audit
criteria and add country-specific information from their work to the
benchmarking.Currently,
additional benchmarks are being established
ECA supporting the BIEP project
In May 2018, Jan Kinšt, Member
of the SAO Board (and former ECA
Member), and Štefan Kabátek,
Performance Audit Director at
the Czech SAI, presented the
BIEP project in Luxembourg. The
ECA agreed to contribute to the
project, the aim of which is long-
term cooperation with other SAIs.
The need to develop new SAI
capabilities and a readiness for new
challenges was also mentioned
by ECA President, Klaus-Heiner
Lehne, on his visit to Prague on
the 25th anniversary of the SAO
on 2 October 2018. In his speech,
he also supported the SAO's
initiative to promote international
benchmarking of audit results
between SAIs.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0075.png
Benchmarking Information Exchange Project – an innovative form of exchanging
audit results
continued
75
in the fields of road and motorway construction, military equipment,
WiFi on trains and applying more information and communication
technology (ICT) in the classroom. The SAI of Slovakia is also conducting
a comparison of the implementation of sustainable development goals
(SDG). Furthermore, the SAO plans to discuss the possibility of using Key
National Indicators within BIEP.
Benchmarking the social housing system
For social housing, the Czech SAO compared, for instance, whether and how social
housing is legally regulated and defined, who ensures provision of social housing
and how is it provided, who finances it and for whom is it intended. Different forms of
support were identified in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria and Germany. There is
a complete comparison in the ‘Methodological guide to benchmarking social housing
systems,’ which is available for BIEP members on its Extranet (information sharing
platform).
Thanks to this international benchmarking the SAO recommended in its Audit
Conclusion from Audit No 17/02, ‘Support
for Social Housing as a Part of Social Inclusion
Policy’,
that the way in which support for social housing is provided in the Czech
Republic should be changed. In particular, the various types of support should be
interlinked and funding should be increased to provide more affordable housing. As a
result of BIEP cooperation, Slovakia has published an analytical study on social housing.
Excise tax management example
The close cooperation of the
Czech Republic and Slovakia in the
field of excise tax management
has allowed us to identify
differences that significantly
affect the efficiency of excise tax
administration. The collaboration
has also generated examples of
good practice in reducing tax fraud
and has allowed a comparison
of the cost-effectiveness of each
administration. The SAO, in its
Audit Conclusion No 15/33, ‘Excise
Administration’,
also suggested
introducing full computerisation
of the administration of excise tax
returns.
Benchmarking centralised public procurement
The benchmarking of centralised public procurement was based
on information from the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria, Finland,
Hungary and Portugal. Areas compared were, for instance, what
kind of centralised public procurement system was used, which
entities purchased commodities centrally, which commodities were
purchased centrally, whether the benefits of centralised procurement
were monitored and evaluated. There is a complete comparison
in the ‘Methodological guide to benchmarking centralised public
procurement,’ which is available to BIEP members on the Extranet.
Thanks to BIEP, a different way of monitoring and evaluating centralised public
procurement benefits was found. In the Czech Republic, the savings achieved via
centralised public procurement were calculated for every single contract. One of
the audit findings in the Czech Republic was that the method of collecting data
represented an administrative burden for the contracting authority. Moreover, the
savings computed were distorted and could not be used to evaluate centralised public
procurement. In contrast, in Austria and Portugal the savings were not quantified at the
level of individual contracts, but the overall benefits were assessed. The SAO, in its Audit
Conclusion from Audit No 17/24, ’Public
Purchases in the Field of State Administration
and the Use of Centralised Procurement’,
stated that attention should be paid to reducing
administrative costs and evaluating non-financial benefits.
Radka Domanska presenting the a BIEP report to
Vitor Caldeira, President of the Portuguese SAI, 
the Tribunal de Contas
Benchmarking real estate information
Another case study provides insight on how governments manage real estate. Our examination has shown that the
prerequisite for increasing the efficiency of the operation and use of real estate is not only the identification of needs
and measurable goals but also conceptual decision-making. The United Kingdom succeeded in developing tools and
measures to optimise real estate management. Therefore, in the Audit Conclusion of Audit No 16/26, ‘Expenditure
on the operation and use of immovable property, including expenditure on providing information support related to
the management, operation and maintenance of immovable property,’
the SAO recommended the competences and
responsibilities of the decision-makers that participate in deciding on real estate management should be precisely
defined and clear goals for strategic and conceptual decision-making should be set.
Apart from information regarding the Czech Republic and the United Kingdom, the comparison also contains information from
Slovakia and Hungary. There is a complete comparison in the ‘Methodological guide to benchmarking the operation and use of
immovable property’, available to BIEP members on the Extranet. In the methodological guide the SAO also suggests the use of nine
key performance indicators and compared the application of three of them in the Czech Republic and the United Kingdom.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0076.png
76
Benchmarking Information Exchange Project – an innovative form of exchanging
audit results
continued
The ECA has joined the BIEP project with its ongoing audit of real estate use by EU institutions. The results of
this audit are due to be published by the end of this year. By sharing the methodology applied in its audit on
the use of office space, the ECA is allowing other project members to benefit from its insights and compare
them with their own benchmarking approach .
Presenting more topics for benchmarking
The BIEP project is open to any SAI which can contribute to a
topic, propose a new topic, or use the methodologies already
developed and outputs for their audit work. In the initial
phase, it is not necessary to develop a specific benchmarking
methodology for a given area. The first step is very simple: to
open a discussion about a given topic on the BIEP Extranet and
to share data, indicators and audit outputs that can be used for
national and international comparisons. There are no limitations
on the range of themes; it is the usefulness of the information
which we consider to be BIEP’s number one priority.
Do you have an appropriate topic for
benchmarking? Do you have trouble
obtaining relevant information from other
countries? Do you want to share your
experience and outputs from audit work? Our
BIEP team very much welcomes participation
by other SAIs in this international project for
exchanging data and information which are
suitable for benchmarking. It is easy to obtain
access to the BEIP Extranet and simple to
share experience and information with other
SAIs. Publication of each project’s output is
subject only to consent by the participating
SAIs. For more information on the BIEP
project, visit
www.nku.cz/biep.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0077.png
‘Young EUROSAI’ - international cooperation
for and between young European auditors
By Hayo van der Wal, Netherlands Court of Audit
77
In 2019 the National Audit Office of the United Kingdom will host the fourth
‘Young EUROSAI,’ or ‘YES’ conference. Young staff from all over Europe will gather
in London to discuss and work on recent and future trends and developments
in the work of Supreme Audit Institutions (SAI). Hayo van der Wal, Senior
International Advisor in the Dutch
Algemene Rekenkamer
(Netherlands Court
of Audit) has been behind this ‘Young EUROSAI’ initiative since its inception
ten years ago. He looks back at the results and the impact of the conference for
international cooperation of SAIs in Europe.
Why, how, what
During the 2008 congress of the European Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions
(EUROSAI) in Krakow, Poland in 2008 a small group of five young people got together,
foremost because they were the only young people there. The congress seemed to them
primarily an event for ‘old grey men in grey suits’. With all the taskforces and working
groups being set up or having their mandate renewed the young group joked that they
would set up their own ‘young’ dynamic task force. In Krakow the Netherlands Court of
Audit (NCA) also announced its candidacy to host the 2014 EUROSAI Congress. This is
when the small seed of that tongue-in-cheek young taskforce started to grow. I, as one of
the five youngsters, saw the opportunity to take this idea further and, with the support of
my institution and our President Saskia J. Stuiveling in particular, we initiated the ‘Young
EUROSAI.’
The
raison d’etre
of Young EUROSAI was primarily to collect and distribute new ideas and
solutions for SAI challenges from SAI staff relatively new in the office. The idea of this being
that with a fresh outsider’s view these youngsters would still wonder about ways of working
that their colleagues might not consider anymore or might not know yet. These new young
people did not necessarily have to be auditors: a good idea can come from anywhere in the
organization! So if, for example, the facility services staff of your office has a good idea take
it seriously and listen. They are just as much a representative of your work as an auditor.
Secondly, organising Young EUROSAI as a separate conference would give young people
an opportunity to create a network of their own. Until then, many EUROSAI events were
mainly attended by more senior auditors and it was hard to push your way in, even if you
had a good idea, if you were a young, new member of staff in the organisation . By setting
an age limit of 35 we tried to ensure that those who still wondered about SAI’s operations
and procedures would attend. And over a hundred people did.
Let’s create tomorrow’s innovation today
was the motto of the first YES conference and
innovation was indeed part of the DNA of the meeting. The Shipping and Transport College
in Rotterdam provided an excellent inspiring learning environment. The programme
included inspirational speakers and dance, massive brainstorm sessions, workshops and
an innovative cooking session as part of the social programme. A social programme,
in advance of the official programme, ensured that people get to know each other, it
provided teambuilding and a common purpose of the meeting and it made sharing needs
and doubts much easier. New was that most workshops were given by the participants
themselves. The NCA organising team coached each workshop leader in advance to
ensure a high standard and to encourage an active participation format. Involving the
participants in the contents of the YES conference made them co-owners of the success of
the conference.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0078.png
‘Young EUROSAI’ - international cooperation for and between young European auditors
continued
78
By investing in support of the EUROSAI Governing Board
and ensuring high-level backing and promotion, the
participants had the opportunity to report back to their senior
management with new and inspiring ideas. This made them
ambassadors of innovation in their own institutions, one
participant from Lithuania reported back: ‘I am working step
by step to employ all good ideas I have brought from YES and
I have no intention to stop whatsoever!’ Some participants
mentioned though that their management was not so
Source: Dutch
Algemene Rekenkamer
enthusiastic: ‘When I returned from YES I came to my office
and my boss told me: “So, did you have fun? Good, now back to work!” At this moment
only the International Relations Unit, my friends and me know about YES.’ The ideas and
solutions were reported back to the 2014 EUROSAI Congress, thus holding up a mirror to SAI
presidents and senior management and providing them with an outlook for the future from
a young and fresh perspective.
Identified challenges
As a result of the workshops, the continuing buzz in the hallway during breaks and a massive
brainstorm session with the 100+ participants the group identified and prioritised main
challenges for SAIs in the next ten years and came up with possible solutions as well, see
Figure 1,
2013 YES mindmap. Challenges included:
•
innovation, both in the public sector and in SAIs. Innovation means thinking-out of the
box and to taking risks and that is not a mindset that comes natural to SAIs. Zero-error
culture is a dominant feature in many SAIs and without making mistakes it is almost
impossible to learn;
•
do more with less. The economic situation, but also the increasing complexity of the
organisation of government, demands that SAIs more and more choose what they can and
will do and what not. This also creates opportunities for new ways of working, introducing
new techniques and to rethink your position in society;
•
creating impact. A changing environment forces an organisation to rethink it’s strategic
choices and demands that repositioning yourself so that you create the best possible
impact for society with your audits;
•
the independent position of SAIs, that have to operate in, or sometimes are made part of,
a political environment. If SAIs deliver continuous quality and credibility their reputation
and also their independence will be safeguarded;
•
globalisation means that SAIs have to share their knowledge and work together with
international partners, both SAIs and non-SAI organisations;
•
communication. SAIs have to keep up with new means of communication and also
make sure that they demonstrate the value of their work to the general public by being
accessible and by trying to meet realistic expectations;
•
data. SAIs need to jump the riding train of technological developments before it is too
late. The rapid development of data systems means SAIs need to invest in training and IT
resources.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0079.png
‘Young EUROSAI’ - international cooperation for and between young European auditors
continued
79
Impact
Rotterdam 2013 was followed in 2015 by the second YES conference named
SAI & I
in
Jerusalem, Israel. The third conference,
Updates Available,
took place in 2017 in Tallinn,
Estonia. YES has now turned into a movement, with young people standing up, passionately
advocating for the continuation of the initiative. Both Tallinn and London were proposed
and decided by the YES conference participants themselves, this is important as it keeps the
ownership with the YES community itself.
Many people from the Young EUROSAI conferences are still in touch with each other,
both professionally and personally. The network that they have started to build with the
conferences provides them with easy international peer-to-peer access and gives them the
opportunity to check their opinions or ask questions, which enhances the quality of their
day-to-day work. It also helps them and subsequently their SAIs identifying international
emerging issues both in audit topics, SAI organisation processes and positions.
Some SAIS now set up a competition, fitting with the theme of the YES conference, to select
their delegation. They now also use Young EUROSAI as a way to identify talent within their
young workforce. In their selection of representatives to send to other EUROSAI events
(trainings, working group meetings, joint audits) SAIs take their young auditors more into
account as well. My own SAI has, for example, also provided opportunities for international
secondments. Inspired by Young EUROSAI, the INTOSAI Development Initiative launched
the SAI Young Leaders Programme. The programme aims to produce ‘Changed SAI Young
Leaders contributing to positive change in SAIs.’ The first class of the programme graduates
at the end of 2018.
Outlook
I cannot say what the challenges for SAIs are for the next ten years from a Young EUROSAI
perspective. I am over forty years old now and have undoubtedly developed the same blind
spots which those five young staff witnessed with the ‘grey men in grey suits’ at the EUROSAI
Congress in Krakow 2008. However, I do believe that the challenges identified in 2013 are
still relevant today, although in a different order, or rather as different facets of the same
diamond. YES shows SAIs that the young workforce in Europe shares many ideas about the
development of the audit profession and it would certainly be a waste not to take advantage
of such a diverse future-oriented sounding board .
[Grab your reader’s attention with a great quote from the document or use this space to
emphasize a key point. To place this text box anywhere on the page, just drag it.]
A video report of YES 2013 can be found here:
http://www.eurosai2014.nl/yes-2013.
A video
report of Yes 2.0 (Israel) can be found on YouTube and the 2017 (Estonia) video report can be
found here:
https://yes2017.riigikontroll.ee/
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0080.png
‘Young EUROSAI’ - international cooperation for and between young European auditors
continued
80
Figure 1
- 2013 YES mindmap
Source: Dutch
Algemene Rekenkamer
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0081.png
81
The Global Audit Leadership Forum - an idea
factory for the public audit world
By Derek Meijers, Directorate of the Presidency
Many international cooperation
activities take place at the ‘shop
floor level’, where colleagues from
different institutions temporarily
join forces to exchange working
methods and experiences. The aim
is a mutual learning opportunity
that offers both sides a different
perspective on similar issues. This
type of exchange often emerges
from a similar interaction between
top-level decision makers from the
highest institutional levels. For the
public audit world, this interaction
takes place during the Global
Audit Leadership Forum, or GALF.
Derek Meijers gives the ins and
outs of this annual summit, which
in 2018 was hosted by the ECA.
5
th
GALF meeting
A forum for a frank and open exchange
Supreme audit institutions (SAIs) worldwide operate in
similar environments and thus often encounter issues that
are of relevance for SAIs globally. The GALF was set up to
offer heads of SAIs (and their substitutes) from all parts
of the world a forum to discuss topical issues of common
interest in a global context with their peers, who have a
deep understanding of each other’s sphere of activity and
the consequences of being an independent institution. The
topics selected relate to the challenges and opportunities
faced by modern SAIs, and are discussed in an informal
setting. In view of its set-up and participants, the GALF is
sometimes labelled the ‘G20 in public audit.’
Informal and non-binding
GALF 2018 – Key data on the 5
th
edition
of the GALF
Dates:
26 and 27 April 2018
Hosting SAI:
European Court of Auditors
Participants:
20 SAIs plus one guest SAI
Moderation:
President and Vice-President of the
Swiss Federal Audit Office
GALF membership:
Heads of SAIs or their
substitute. The number of participating SAIs is
limited and any new membership requires the
consent of all members.
GALF 2018 topics:
Day 1:
Carrying out
performance audits in a political context: what
are the limitations?
Day 2:
Communicating
audit findings in a digital world: challenges and
opportunities.
An important feature of the GALF is that every host enjoys
complete freedom in organising the event in terms of
content and structure. The informal setting and the fact
that the number of participants is limited allow for an
open discussion about different practices and experiences. Moreover, the forum does
not conclude with any binding or even non-binding resolutions, to ensure that the
participants feel free to keep thinking and talking without being excessively constrained.
After all, the GALF is meant as an innovation factory where new ideas can be created on
how to solve the important issues SAIs are facing or will face in future. Participants take
ideas back home and then implement them in their SAI in the way and to the extent they
deem necessary and useful.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0082.png
The Global Audit Leadership Forum - an idea factory for the public audit world
continued
82
After all, reaching the broader public is not the main objective of a GALF meeting. What
might attract the public’s attention in the end is the changes in the respective SAI’s work
subsequent to the GALF meeting.
History of the GALF
The roots of GALF date back to 2000, contrary to what one might think given that the
fifth meeting was this year. Eighteen years ago, David Walker, former Comptroller-General
of the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), established the informal forum,
which was called ‘Global Working Group’ in its initial years. Then, in 2013, the participants
in the Global Working Group decided to sign an agreement to create the ‘Global Audit
Leadership Forum,’ which took place for the first time in 2014.
While the topics and locations of the GALF meetings have changed over time, many other
things have remained similar. In one way or another, all meetings deal with the central
question of how SAIs can provide most added value for governments, parliaments and the
public to address the problems our societies are facing. During their thought-provoking
discussions, the participants try to answer questions such as what information and analysis
can be provided to shed light on current affairs, how we could prevent today’s problems
from recurring in the future, and how to communicate with stakeholders.
Future of the GALF
Auditors do not work in a vacuum. The audit community must share ideas and concerns
to remain future-proof and continue adding value through its work on behalf of citizens.
During the last edition of the GALF, the common feeling was that the forum has great
potential. The participating SAIs gain from it and return home with new ideas and
increased understanding. As the world changes at an ever-faster pace, it is likely that these
exchanges will become even more helpful in the future.
Would you like to know more about this year’s GALF meeting? Read the May 2018 edition
of the ECA Journal, which you can find
here.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0083.png
83
Triggering
and enabling
cooperation
Interview with Martin Weber,
Director of the Presidency
DIRECTOR’S CUT
By Gaston Moonen,
Directorate of the Presidency
When it comes to international cooperation with other audit institutions, the Directorate of the
Presidency fulfils a pivotal role at the ECA. Martin Weber has been its director since 2016 and
gladly shares his take on this type of cooperation, the role of the ECA and his team, and his view
about how the ECA could further develop its cooperation with other public auditors in the future.
Vítor Caldeira
Serving as ECA’s external window
When it comes to the role of the Directorate of the Presidency (DOP)regarding international
cooperation, Martin Weber is very explicit. ‘Our Directorate is, in a way, the ECA’s window
to the outside. We are responsible for communications, through press and social media
relations, and for contact with other institutions (mainly the European Parliament and the
Council) and with other EU agencies and bodies. And, of course, we maintain relations with
other supreme audit institutions – the SAIs.’ For Martin, it is quite logical that these different
tasks are brought together in DOP: ‘Obviously, these things are related and work together.
We are speaking – as an institution – with one voice. Our job is to bring this all together and
make our voice heard to the outside world.’
Martin explains that DOP is a relatively small department.
Overall, around 30 people work in DOP. ‘Around 15 work in
communication, then another seven in inter-institutional
relations, including those working with SAIs. The remainder work
primarily on strategy development, work programming, and
reporting.’
Creating connections between the various areas is very
important for him. ‘For an institution the size of the ECA, ensuring
that things remain connected is ever more important. For
example, we have our strategy and our work programming. DOP
may receive suggestions from outside, notably the Parliament,
but also from other parties interested in the work we do. We then
need to assess to what extend this can be included in our work
programme for the coming year. DOP acts as the entry point
for this.’ He continues that new audit ideas may also come from
information about reports published by other SAIs. ‘We look
at what they do, and sometimes this brings to light interesting
topics that we would also consider for our own audits. He gives
the example of high-speed rail, on which the ECA published
a report earlier this year. ‘A similar audit was done by France’s
Cour des comptes. Another example is the audit we will start
on sustainability reporting. This was also inspired by work done
Main activities and tasks of the Directorate
of the Presidency (DOP) of the ECA
Corporate strategy, planning and
performance management
DOP is responsible for the ECA’s strategic
planning and follow-up, yearly programming
and implementation reporting, performance
measurement, management reporting, and
peer reviews.
Communication and media relations
DOP maintains contacts with the press and
manages the ECA’s social media channels.
Institutional liaison
DOP coordinates, supervises and follows up
the ECA’s bilateral and multilateral relations
with EU institutions and national parliaments,
and liaises with the supreme audit
institutions of the Member States, candidate
countries and third countries, as well as with
international audit organisations.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0084.png
Interview with Martin Weber, Director of the Presidency
continued
84
by others.’ The way an issue is tackled can also be picked up from others. ‘Take
the idea of rapid case reviews, where our auditors report facts but do not draw
conclusions or make recommendations. Here we have been drawing on things
done in the UK, where these type of engagements are called investigations.’
For Martin, learning from others and adopting good practices from elsewhere
is one of the key benefits of cooperation. He explains that, with this in mind, he
created a project in DOP this year to look at programming. ‘This is a topic that is
often permanently under discussion, both in our institution and in other SAIs.
So we launched a project to see how our sister institutions programme and plan
their audit work. The aim is to see how programming is done and what we – and
others – can draw from this.’
Cooperation in audits
Cooperating with other SAIs through parallel audits, for example, is something
Martin is familiar with from his previous assignment as director of the audit
chamber dealing with investments for cohesion, growth and inclusion. ‘Doing
a parallel, coordinated or even a joint audit does not necessarily make the
audit task easier or speedier to implement. But if there is a good understanding
between participating SAIs of why they want to do this, and a strong
commitment to doing so, it can be a very enriching experience. And most of all,
it can make a report stronger, provided that the audit ambitions are not watered
down for the sake of the cooperation itself.’
Martin mentions that SAIs may draw some inspiration from the way the audit
authorities for EU funds in all Member States – which act as an internal audit
function within their government structures – work together. ‘In some respects,
their cooperation was more centrally organised as a result of the role played by
the European Commission in supervising and guiding their work. In my view,
when it comes to the management of EU funds, cooperation between and
across countries along these lines has gained in importance in recent years.’
He identifies this as peer cooperation, often triggered to work within a certain
policy or regulatory framework, and often related to the EU. ‘There are several
similarities with cooperation between SAIs, but there are also differences. The
biggest ones are that they don’t have the independence SAIs do and, as a
general rule, they work mostly in one domain, such as cohesion or agriculture.’
The ECA’s special role in facilitating cooperation between EU SAIs
This issue of independence is, in Martin’s view, also an overarching aspect of
cooperation between SAIs, not only in the EU but also beyond. ‘Independence
is often the starting point for any discussion on cooperation. This is because you
need to organise cooperation between institutions that have a strong sense of
independence: both from their own government and even more so from any
other organisation outside their country.’ Martin adds a comment about the
ECA’s specific role in the EU context: ‘The ECA has a special mandate when it
comes to cooperation. We are explicitly asked to work together with Member
States’ SAIs. For us, this is not just a choice, since Article 287 of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the EU requires us to cooperate with the national audit bodies in
a spirit of trust, while maintaining our independence.’
For Martin, the ECA’s commitment to cooperation goes beyond a mere treaty
requirement. ‘There is simply a strong common interest for external auditors
across the Union to work together, due to the fact that EU regulations apply
across countries, more or less the same way, and lead to similar challenges.’ He
points out that EU integration leads to an alignment of challenges in delivering
public policy. ‘Increasingly, we are facing similar problems in our countries, and
at the same time. Business cycles are more closely aligned, and the structural
issues are similar. An important explanation for this is our common policy and
legal framework. Plus, there are external challenges that affect all Member
States, such as migration.’
“
Doing a parallel,
coordinated or even a
joint audit (...) can make
a report stronger ...
“
Independence is often
the starting point for
any discussion on
cooperation.
“
Increasingly, we are facing
similar problems in our
countries, and at the same
time. (...) An important
explanation for this is our
common policy and legal
framework.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0085.png
Interview with Martin Weber, Director of the Presidency
continued
85
Given this, Martin thinks it is natural that SAIs would also benefit from working
more closely together to address these issues in a coordinated way. ‘And here
the ECA can bring something to the table that many others cannot. First of
all, the ECA is one of the bigger SAIs in the EU, and we have the capacity and
expertise to undertake bigger cooperation projects. Then, by virtue of our set-
up as an EU institution, we work in several languages, which is always a plus
for cooperation. But most importantly, we know the situation in the Member
States rather well: our staff come from there, we work together with many
institutions in the Member States, and we audit on the spot. This means we
have a good understanding of the issues at stake, and can compare problems.’
In his view, this puts the ECA in a privileged position. ‘Because of this, we
have a role to play in facilitating exchanges and bringing people together.
And I think this role is likely to increase. Ultimately, we may even see that a
group of SAIs agrees to align their work programmes and carry out audits in a
coordinated way.’
Another reason why Martin believes this might happen is that on specific
issues the ECA has audit rights where national auditors do not. ‘For example,
take the exchange of information on social security issues between Member
States. Here, the ECA might have access to certain information at EU level,
and a national SAI might have access to other information at national level.
So there is a complementary challenge here, which can be addressed by
cooperation. And the need for such cooperation, both in intensity and
frequency, will only increase because more and more areas of life that really
matter to citizens are regulated by EU law, albeit transposed.’ Furthermore,
he points out that this type of cooperation also boosts the ECA’s profile:
‘Participating in a parallel or joint audit helps us to be visible on the ground, in
the Member States, and at international level.’
To do so in a setting like the EU, he stresses that the ECA is needed. ‘Obviously,
very often this cooperation works best through and with us. I’ll give you an
example. Take the big cross-border infrastructure projects, like the Fehmarn
Belt, creating another connection between Denmark and Germany. Here,
obviously, the Danish and German SAIs could work together on auditing this.
But then one dimension would still be lacking, i.e. the European dimension,
looking at EU funding and the EU policy to be implemented.’ He stresses that
this applies to many areas. ‘We are in the middle and can act as a lynchpin in a
way that no other SAI in the EU can, simply because of how we are positioned.’
Lastly, Martin gives another reason for the ECA to be active in its cooperation
efforts: strengthening independent audit in the EU Member States. ‘We can
only be a successful external auditor if our sister organisations are equally
successful, and vice versa.’ In his view, it is the overall picture that counts. ‘The
added value – if not the goal – of our cooperation, is that it helps to position
audit institutions at the right level, with the right level of independence,
expertise, and capacity. And with a real impact, meaning, through the SAIs’
work, making a difference to citizens.’
Cooperation networks in the EU and beyond
Unsurprisingly, Martin identifies the Contact Committee of EU SAIs as the
one where the ECA is most active. ‘It is a network that meets regularly and
has intensive contacts throughout the year, also through its working groups
and task forces.’ As an example, he gives the Contact Committee’s Task
Force on the Banking Union. ‘This is a very important area when it comes to
cooperation between SAIs, and with good results.’ He refers to the statement
by the Contact Committee last November on the audit gaps identified in this
area. ‘The 29 SAI heads called upon legislators to make the necessary changes
to address this. This is very important for the ECA, also in view of our access
“
... the ECA can bring
something to the table
that many others
cannot. (...) we know
the situation in the
Member States rather
well (...) we have a
good understanding
of the issues at stake,
and can compare
problems.
“
“
We are in the middle
and can act as a
lynchpin in a way that
no other SAI in the EU
can, simply because of
how we are positioned.
We can only be a
successful external
auditor if our sister
organisations are
equally successful, and
vice versa.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0086.png
Interview with Martin Weber, Director of the Presidency
continued
86
problems vis-à-vis the European Central Bank. It is a highly relevant topic, and
deficiencies in banking supervision may entail significant risks for the EU and
its citizens. So this is a very tangible output of cooperation within the Contact
Committee.’ See for more details page 35.
According to Martin, there are several more examples in which the Contact
Committee has played an important role in producing concrete outputs, thereby
delivering cooperation results. ‘This was achieved by doing tasks together, like the
working group chaired by Germany’s
Bundesrechnungshof
in the area of structural
funds. But other examples include the Audit Compendium on youth employment,
which was first published this year. We are now working towards a second edition,
on a different topic, most likely on issues related to public health. The idea is to
bring additional visibility to the audits done by all EU SAIs in certain areas.’
The annual Contact Committee conferences are an important venue for presenting
these results and launching new initiatives. This often entails considerable work for
his directorate. ‘Every third year, the ECA hosts this annual conference. We hosted
the 2017 event, which coincided with the ECA’s 40th anniversary. Our next turn will
be the 2020 conference. Making these conferences a stimulating and enriching
event for all heads of SAIs is a very demanding but rewarding task’.
Also beyond the EU level, Martin stresses that the ECA has to play its role in
promoting cooperation between SAIs, through the International Organisation of
Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI) and its regional branch in Europe, EUROSAI.
‘INTOSAI, in particular, is of great relevance for us because of the standard-setting
role it plays. So we are actively contributing, for example as vice-chair of the
Professional Standards Committee.’ Another example he gives also concerns
audit standards. ‘Just last month one of my fellow directors was appointed to an
important INTOSAI forum that reviews audit standards; I think it is very valuable
for us to have him there’ (see page 56). Besides the big three networks – the
Contact Committee, INTOSAI and EUROSAI – Martin highly values the many
bilateral contacts in which his directorate often plays a role. ‘We recently increased
our cooperation with the U.S. Government Accountability Office in particular.
We had several field visits there, touching upon areas like air traffic control, but
also covering more horizontal topics like foresight and audit, financial audit
methodologies and better regulation.’
He refers to another cooperation project: ‘As part of our audit on high-speed rail,
we cooperated with the Japanese SAI, the Board of Audit, and organised a field
visit for the audit team in Japan.’ With a note of satisfaction, he adds: ‘We initiated
this through our contacts here in Luxembourg with the representative of the
Japanese Board of Audit.’ He gives several other examples, such as cooperation
with the Court of Audit of the West African Economic and Monetary Union, whose
senior management visited the ECA last November. ‘As one of the very few audit
institutions with an institutional setting comparable to ours, it was very interesting
to share experiences with them.’
International trends and cooperation
Cooperation is often associated with openness and a willingness to share. At the
same time, some countries tend to seek more confrontation, thus closing windows
for cooperation. When asked whether he sees similar trends in cooperation among
audit institutions, Martin refers to some fundamentals relating to the EU and to
SAIs in general. ‘Firstly, Europe is not a zero-sum game. I think that – by definition
– Europe should be more, as that is the EU’s
raison d’être.
Secondly, openness is in
the EU’s DNA: it is a key feature of the Union and of our societies.’
Martin stresses that open societies and independent external auditors go together.
“
... bring additional
visibility to the audits
done by all EU SAIs in
certain areas.
“
INTOSAI, in particular,
is of great relevance
for us because of the
standard-setting role it
plays.
“
... openness is in the EU’s
DNA: it is a key feature
of the Union and of our
societies.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0087.png
Interview with Martin Weber, Director of the Presidency
continued
87
‘The role of an auditor is to ensure transparency in what is going on: to provide
a critical external view and bring that objective information to the public. If EU
societies were no longer open, and if their SAIs were no longer independent, that
would be a major concern.’ He believes that such development would go against
the fundamentals of the treaty-based arrangements between the Member States.
‘Transparency and objective information are something typical of SAIs and
can only really flourish in an open society. I don’t think one can go without the
other.’ Relating this to cooperation, he identifies some differences between the
cooperation networks SAIs have. ‘In the Contact Committee we can be sure – and
we need to be – that SAIs can work independently. In EUROSAI and INTOSAI,
different political models come into play. This is sometimes a limitation for these
two networks, and also guides the approach we take to the different networks as
far as intensity and direction are concerned.’
Coming back to transparency, Martin stresses that the ECA makes a real effort
to practice what it preaches. ‘Transparency must be the ECA’s trademark. We are
promoting transparency, but we also want to be transparent. To do so, we have
increased the level of information we provide about what we do, and how we
do it.’ He refers to several products which provide more information about these
aspects. ‘We publish our work programme, we issue audit previews that provide
background information on recently started audit tasks, we include more (and
different) information in the ECA activity report, and we are more present in social
media. But the editorial changes we made to the ECA Journal last year are also
part of this initiative. We encourage more cooperation with academics and think-
tanks … all of which illustrates our greater and significant efforts to open up our
institution to whoever is interested in cooperating with us.’ He concludes that
the ECA tries to bring transparency to the forefront, obviously within the legal
and professional constraints it has and vis-à-vis its auditees, so as to ensure that
certain information remains confidential.
Cooperation horizon
Martin believes that the ECA’s role has evolved considerably since it was created
in the late 1970s. ‘An important trigger for this was the development of the Union
itself. The Union has been growing in terms of its number of Member States, with
more citizens and a larger economy. In addition, more and more things are now
dealt with at the European level. And finally, despite what doomsayers may say,
we are becoming an ever closer Union, not least because of the effectiveness of
our regulatory framework and the success of the single market.’
When speaking about the future for cooperation between SAIs, Martin first looks
back. ‘SAIs are probably not the most innovative public bodies, and perhaps other
players in society pick up trends faster than we public auditors do. One such trend
is the increasing internationalisation of our societies.’ He observes that the ECA
is naturally better positioned than others to respond to this trend. ‘By definition,
the ECA is international, or at least European. International cooperation is part of
what we are as an institution.’
When asked about a key success factor for cooperation at an individual level,
both now and in the future, Martin quickly identifies curiosity. ‘This may sound
surprising, but in my view curiosity is a very – and possibly even the most –
important driver of cooperation because cooperation requires individuals to
work together. If you want cooperation between auditors to happen, you need
individuals who are interested in making it happen, otherwise it becomes
difficult.’ He adds with a laugh: ‘You can construct whatever cooperation you
want, but individuals remain the key.’ Martin is quite optimistic about cooperation
in this respect: ‘Auditors are, by definition, curious people. That certainly helps –
now and in the future.’
“
Transparency and
objective information
are something typical
of SAIs and can only
really flourish in an
open society. I don’t
think one can go
without the other.
“
Transparency must be
the ECA’s trademark.
“
... we are becoming
an ever closer Union,
not least because
of the effectiveness
of our regulatory
framework and the
success of the single
market.
“
International
cooperation is part
of what we are as an
institution.
“
You can construct
whatever cooperation
you want, but
individuals remain
the key.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0088.png
88
Reviewing global
cooperation and
putting it into
practice:
the UN Board
of Auditors
By Gaston Moonen,
Directorate of the Presidency
Interview with Kay Scheller, President of the German
Bundesrechnungshof
and Member
of the UN Boardof Auditors
By Gaston Moonen,
Directorate of the Presidency
The United Nations (UN) is often identified with international
cooperation. The supreme audit institutions (SAIs) also cooperate at
the UN, particularly the three that make up the UN Board of Auditors,
which serves as the UN’s external auditor. Kay Scheller, President of the
German SAI, the Bundesrechnungshof, is one of the three members of
the UN Board of Auditors. Clearly inspired by the work and its multiple
dimensions, he explains what the mandate entails and why it is necessary.
Embarking on a big audit task
Apart from his function as President of the German Bundesrechnungshof, a role
he has held since 2014, Kay Scheller is one of the three Board Members of the
UN Board of Auditors (UN BoA), together with the heads of the supreme audit
institutions (SAIs) of India and Chile. When he took on the task in 2016, it was a
very conscious choice. ‘We knew from the start it would be a big and challenging
project for us. But I was highly committed to taking on the task. UN programmes
and projects are financed by taxpayers’ money from all over the world. UN
funds come from national budgets. Germany, as many EU Member States, pays
a substantial part of the UN costs so we have a high interest that the funds are
used to achieve best value for money. The funds need to be used properly and
efficiently, just like at the national level. The key objective of our UN BoA mission
is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of UN actions through our audit
results and recommendations ’.
“
We knew from the start
it would be a big and
challenging project
for us. But I was highly
committed to taking on
the task.
Source: German
Bundesrechnungshof
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0089.png
89
Interview with Kay Scheller, President of the German Bundesrechnungshof and Member
of the UN Boardof Auditors
continued
UN essentials
Budget
Number of staff employed
Number of member states
Main UN organs
UN Funds and Programmes
Specialised organisations and agencies
include
Approx. $5.4 billion for 2018-2019 biennium
Approx. 38 000 (Dec 2017)
193
General Assembly, Security Council, Economic and Social
Council, International Court of Justice and Secretariat
UNDP, UNHCR, WFP, UNFPA, UNEP, UNICEF and UN-habitat
FAO, ICAO, IFAD, ILO, IMF, IMO, WHO, UNESCO, World Bank,
ICAO
UN Board of auditors
Members
Coverage
Three members appointed for 6 years: currently heads of the SAIs of
India, Chile and Germany
The Board of Auditors is responsible for the audit of United Nations
entities or projects.
23 UN organizations are currently audited in the portfolio.
Structure
Currently, the assignment includes 4 special projects.
The General Assembly appoints Board Members. The Board allocates
and rotates the audit work among its members. The UN provides the
Board with a full-time secretariat headed by an Executive Secretary
Type of audit
Reporting
who supports the Board and its Audit Operations Committee.
Currently, the assignment includes 4 special projects
Annual reports and special reports
Kay Scheller is very enthusiastic about his work at the UN: ‘It was a very unique
opportunity for our members and auditors and also for me personally to embark on
this work.’ Clearly not taking his work lightly, he explains: ‘We built up one department
with six teams, in charge of auditing peacekeeping, refugee organisation, development
programmes, and several other topics. In Bonnoffice, we also have the climate secretariat
(UNFCCC) and the organisation to combat desertification (UNCCD). And we have a back
office supporting the teams. Overall 50 to 60 auditors are working on these audit tasks.’
To deploy so many staff, the German SAI had to recruit new people. Kay Scheller explains:
‘Many of our auditors involved in ‘UN audits’ come from the audit fields we cover at
national level. At the same time it was a good chance for us to design a recruitment
programme to get young people – we have now a good combination of senior and junior
staff for our UN audit work.’ Building what was basically a new department for this was
also a challenge for the German SAI: ‘For the auditors involved it means a lot of travelling
all around the world, it is a tough job, not a picnic. For example, we do a lot of field
missions in Africa, going to refugee camps, looking how management runs them, how
procurement is done, etc.’
The skills required to meet this challenge appear to be very diverse. Kay Scheller is clearly
proud of the different capacities created in his institution: ‘In our audit units we have
lawyers, engineers, experts coming from the military of Germany, people specialised in
International Public Sector Accounting Standards and the many financial regulations
the UN has in place. Getting this expertise is also very important for our ‘domestic’ audit
activities because they bring in new skills and rejuvenate our workforce. We bring a lot
to the UN but we also get a lot back!’ He also refers to some similarities with work back
home. ‘If you take procurement: we cover this issue both in Germany and at the UN. The
management of procurement is not that much different, and the same is true for technical
assistance issues.’
On this topic, he also brings up another international aspect: ‘Apart from the skills and
experience we gain through our work on the UNBoA, we also gain more insights on how
other SAIs work.’ He points out that this will be beneficial for other international activities
of the German Bundesrechnungshof. ‘It will be good for our audit work as a whole,
for example also for our activities in the International Organisation of Supreme Audit
Institutions (INTOSAI).’
“
... it was a good
chance for us
to design a
recruitment
programme to get
young people ...
“
... through our work
on the UNBoA, we
also gain more
insights on how
other SAIs work.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0090.png
Interview with Kay Scheller, President of the German Bundesrechnungshof and Member
of the UN Boardof Auditors
continued
90
Board organisation and dynamics
When it comes to cooperation with
the other members onf the UN BoA,
Source: German Bundesrechnungshof
Kay Scheller is quite clear : ‘Working
together with India and Chile is an enriching experience for us, offering us new
approaches. We often learn a lot when doing cross-cultural teamwork. In addition, the
UN itself is a very complex organisation of 193 countries and cultures. This also adds to
our experience. Of course, we've already had previous contacts with our partner SAIs
and I find the cooperation very enriching .’
Kay Scheller explains that the Board has a collective responsibility for the work: ‘We
discuss audit findings in the Board. Each audit institution has its own reporting but we
get together, and our directors in New York City before us, to discuss the reports and
work together on them. Then the audit findings are published in the respective reports.
In last year's report on the UN peacekeeping operations we had a special chapter on
aircraft capacity for troops. Here we focused on management and its performance.’
Kay Scheller underlines the fact that the Board is external and independent: ‘There
are of course many bodies and agencies within the UN structure giving advice on for
example programming and implementation. But our role is different, and we address
our findings to the UN General Assembly, after we have met its financial committee
and the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ).’
Kay Scheller continues by saying that the UN Secretary-General is highly committed
to reforming the organisation and improving management in the UN. ‘Here the Board
provides recommendations, and also advice, and I am proud that we found our ideas
on this topic in the General Secretariat’s report on financial management. This shows
that our efforts are taken up and are sustainable.’
Another example Kay Scheller covers
is providing input on how to prevent
misspending, including fraud and corruption:
‘This year we published a report on the
management of risks of fraud. We are not a
policing agency but look at how organisations
in the UN family prevent corruption and fraud.
There needs to be a proper monitoring in place.
We reviewed how these organisations have built
a risk strategy and mitigating measures. Proper
implementation of these strategies is vital.’ He
points out that there is room for improvement:
‘One of our added values is that we look at the
system as a whole, and identify possible gaps
that organisations need to address.’
“
We often learn a lot
when doing cross-
cultural teamwork.
“
... our efforts are
taken up and are
sustainable.
When speaking about performance audits in the
field Kay Scheller brings up a mind-set that he
finds very important: ‘The UN organisations we
The ‘matchbox,’ building of the UN General Secretariat in New York
audit can benefit from our work. For them we
are not a "burden," or some kind of "opponent,"
but support and advice they can rely on. They
also want to learn from our audits.
[ UN organisations]
A healthy attitude to stimulate improvement.’
want to learn from
Within the UN framework, Kay Scheller is also a member of the UN Panel of External
our audits. A healthy
Auditors. He explains: ‘Here all the external auditors of UN organisations provide input.
attitude to stimulate
We met just a few weeks ago. We discuss audit methodology, developments regarding
improvement.
rules and regulations, in order to improve the quality of the external assurance process.
We meet once a year; we have a total of 11 panel members covering a wide range of
UN organisations as external auditor. This format is very useful to share thoughts and
experiences and obtain a ‘whole UN’ view.’
“
Source: Pixabay
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0091.png
Interview with Kay Scheller, President of the German Bundesrechnungshof and Member
of the UN Boardof Auditors
continued
91
SDGs – relevant for the UN, for its member states and…the INTOSAI community
One topic that has high priority on the UN agenda is the Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs). ‘This is a major topic for the world, encompassing many cross-border
issues. Many UN members support the SDGs, nationally and internationally. It is very
important to make them part of the UN actions. So it's a major project for us, with an
enormous cross-cutting dimension. We provide some interesting insights on this in
our latest audit report, available on the internet.’ For Kay Scheller it is important that
the UN organisations adhere to the 17 SDGs formulated: ‘No doubt that, as external
auditors, we can provide valuable advice here, inspiring the heads of administration
to think in SDG terms.’
Kay Scheller quickly relates the SDGs to other international platforms he is working
with, relates themparticularly referring to SAIs: ‘For INTOSAI SDGs will be a major
topic for the years to come, as became also clear during the last INTOSAI Congress in
Abu Dhabi. They will be important for EUROSAI, the regional INTOSAI organisation in
Europe, and for the Contact Committee of EU SAIs.’ In his opinion, it will be crucial to
take appropriate action at every level: ‘At the different levels below the global one,
below INTOSAI, we need to collect the lessons learnt by SAIs in regions, countries,
regional cooperation levels such as EUROSAI and the Contact Committee. We need
to discuss it there and pass on the results to the INTOSAI level. A global snapshot
of these developments would be very beneficial. We already started this work in
Germany, discussing it particularly with the regional audit institutions. More audit
work on SDG implementation progress needs to be made, it will be crucial to have a
proper and comprehensive follow-up on the SDGs, in a bottom-up process.’
UNBoA ensuring UN added value for citizens
For Kay Scheller the added value for the UN is a fact, particularly in a world where
international confrontation is increasingly competing with international cooperation.
‘Many problems in UN member states are the problems of the world. Our national
governments and organisation – we live in a globalised world and problems have to
be addressed by engaging countries from all continents. The issue of climate change
poses enormous challenges. It is only logical to get together to address this issue…
together. And we are closer together than 50 years ago!’
As a member of the UN BoA, he sees an important role for auditors, including as
external auditor of the UN: ‘Our job is to bring more transparency to the UN. It is
important for our citizens that this is done, so they can back up the UN. The UN needs
to further improve and develop and we contribute to that. Citizens need to know
that all these efforts help provide better value for money and that the UN is working
efficiently and effectively. After all, the UN is the major global instrument to do so.’
Kay Scheller sees clear support for the work the UNBoA is doing: ‘The UN General
Assembly supported our work, for example regarding the SDGs. They made a
resolution on this, underlining their support. They want us, the Board, to do a good
job.’ And Kay Scheller also reports on his experiences back home: ‘I also share our
audit findings with the Public Accounts Committee in Germany. It is good for them to
know, and they provide feedback. And we need this feedback, it is motivating for our
auditors active in many places around the globe. ’
Looking back, Kay Scheller concludes: ‘When I started on the UN BoA I did not really
know how things were run. Now I know so much more about the UN and appreciate
much more the work done and the interest in the work of the UN BoA - interest
coming from the administration of the UN and elsewhere. It is very important to
get proper feedback on what we recommend because we want our audit findings
to be used, to be implemented worldwide. In our audit reports, we cover many
aspects, from strategic issues to the use of resources, SDGs, refugee camps, logistical
aspects, procurement, airplane fields in South Sudan, etc. We see many things. And
they matter to people, to many people. It is a great privilege for us to help make a
difference.’
“
“
[on SDGs] ... as
external auditors,
we can provide
valuable advice
here, inspiring
the heads of
administration to
think in SDG terms.
... it will be crucial
to have a proper
and comprehensive
follow-up on the
SDGs, in a bottom-
up process.
“
Our job is to bring
more transparency
to the UN.
“
Now I know so much
more about the UN
and appreciate much
more the work done ...
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0092.png
92
The OECD’s ‘Auditors
Alliance:’ an innovative
forum for international
cooperation among
internal and external
public sector auditors
By Jennifer Eddie, Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development
Engaging with international colleagues helps
auditors to keep pace in a rapidly changing
world, establish networks to enable targeted
cooperation and knowledge sharing, and
increase the effectiveness and efficiency
of their work. Jennifer Eddie is the Project
Manager for the Auditors Alliance within
the Public Sector Integrity Division at the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD). Jennifer Eddie
is on secondment from the Australian
National Audit Office and has worked in the
performance audit sphere for over ten years.
A cooperation platform open to internal and external auditors
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) launched the
‘Auditors Alliance’ in March 2018. The Auditors Alliance’s mission is to provide a forum for
public sector auditors to share insights and expertise on their audit practices, with the
aim to facilitate further international engagement and knowledge sharing. What makes
the Auditors Alliance different from other forms of international cooperation is that it is
for both internal and external auditors and for auditors from all levels of the public sector:
international, national and sub-national. It gives auditors a platform for engaging and
cooperating with colleagues from across the globe and for sharing better practices and
innovations. Engaging with international colleagues helps auditors to keep pace in a rapidly
changing world, establish networks to enable targeted cooperation, and increase the
effectiveness and efficiency of their work.
More than 500 auditors joined during the first year
By November, or little more than half a year after its establishment, already over 500
auditors from more than 70 countries have joined the Alliance, with more auditors signing
up each week. The OECD facilitates the platform, underlining that it is an Alliance for, and
by, auditors. Marcos Bonturi, OECD Director for Public Governance, encouraged auditors
at the 2018 launch meeting to take the reins and shape the form and directions of the
Alliance: ‘The alliance is for you. You own this network’. Some key topics raised during the
launch meeting were the challenges facing public sector auditors and the need to build
the technical expertise of auditors. The Comptroller General of Chile, Mr. Jorge Bermudez,
spoke about how technology can be leveraged to advance public sector audit, a point which
was highlighted again during the session on audit innovation. The OECD considered these
points, along with feedback from the Alliance community survey in April 2018 to determine
the next steps and the theme of the second annual meeting.
Second Annual Auditors Alliance meeting – focusing
on ‘Auditors and technology’
The second annual meeting of the Auditors Alliance will
be held on 22 March 2019 at the OECD headquarters in
Paris, as part of the OECD Integrity Week. Each year this
event attracts over 1500 participants and brings together
leaders and experts from government, business and civil
society on a broad range of issues related to integrity
and anti-corruption, such as trade, foreign bribery,
infrastructure, sports, education, behavioural insights,
competition, accountability and good governance.
Source: OECD
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0093.png
The OECD’s ‘Auditors Alliance:’ an innovative forum for international cooperation
among internal and external public sector auditors
continued
93
The 2019 meeting of the Auditors Alliance will focus on the theme “Auditors and Technology”
and will explore the opportunities, challenges and innovations that technology presents to
the public sector auditing community.
The OECD Integrity Week includes the annual OECD Global Anti-Corruption & Integrity
Forum (which will take place on 20-21 March 2019, i.e. just before the Auditors Alliance
meeting. This meeting will focus on the risks and opportunities of new technologies for
combating fraud and-corruption, this complementing nicely the theme for the Auditors
Alliance meeting.
Registration for both the Auditors Alliance meeting
and the OECD Integrity Forum will open in early
December 2018 on the
OECD website.
There are
no entry or registration fees for either event, but
participants are responsible for their own travel and
accommodation expenses.
International engagement and future directions
Since the launch meeting in March, members of the
Auditors Alliance community have been engaging
with each other via the
Auditors Alliance Linkedin
Group
and have arranged bilateral cooperation on
a variety of topics. The OECD has also facilitated
a project, in cooperation with the the
MENA-
OECD Governance Programme,
where an Auditors
Alliance member from France worked closely with
public sector auditors in Tunisia between July
and November 2018 on a range of subjects from
performance audit and risk management to report
writing and communication.
Jennifer Eddie at the 2018 edition of the OECD Integrity Week
In early 2019, the OECD will facilitate a self-assessment questionnaire on how auditors
and audit entities are using technology and will share the overall results with the Auditors
Alliance community. The OECD encourages public sector auditors to participate and share
their insights and experiences—particularly on how their entity is using technology in
innovative ways. Further details will be available on the
OECD website.
Being part of the Auditors Alliance community
The OECD Auditors Alliance welcomes auditors from across the public sector auditing
profession, including from: internal audit bodies; internal audit organisations; supreme audit
institutions (SAIs); international organisations; and sub-national audit entities. The Alliance
has a particular focus on performance, value-for-money, and compliance auditing and the
auditing of internal control and risk management systems.
There are no fees or obligations associated with joining. If you are a public sector auditor, the
OECD encourages you to sign-up via the
OECD website
to be part of the Auditors Alliance
community. The Alliance is inclusive—open to all public sector auditors from the most
senior to the most junior, creating a platform for knowledge sharing and cooperation to
increase auditors’ efficiency, effectiveness and impact for better governance, accountability
and policy implementation.
Source: OECD
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0094.png
94
Participants at the AISCCUF “TOP congress” in Abidjan on June 2018, hosted by the SAI of Ivory Coast.
Strengthening capacities – the work of France’s
Cour des comptes with the French-speaking SAIs
By Rémi Frentz and Alban Baric, France’s Cour des comptes
Cooperation between organisations that share similarities differs from cooperation
in other forums. The Association of Supreme Audit Institutions (AISCCUF), which
brings together supreme audit institutions having the use of French in common, is
one example of this. However, language may not be their only common feature: quite
often, they also have similar mandates, organisation and methodology. Many AISCCUF
members also share one important feature: they have jurisdictional powers, enabling
them to sanction managers of public funds. Rémi Frentz, the Director of International
Relations at France’s Cour des comptes, and Alban Baric, staff member in the same
department, highlight AISCCUF’s main activities, focusing on the jurisdictional powers
shared by several of its members.
An association with 42 members
France’s
Cour des comptes
(Court of Accounts) hosts the General Secretariat of the Association
of Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) having the use of French in common (AISCCUF). Since
the association was created in 1994, its main objective has been to help strengthen the rule
of law by contributing to capacity-building at French-speaking supreme audit institutions. In
fact, AISCCUF is one of the 15 institutional networks of the
Francophonie.
AISCCUF’s specific
aim is to facilitate professional exchanges between SAIs and, since 2008, to promote the
values of the International Organisation of the Francophonie (OIF), which represents 88
countries and regions where French is a customary language.
Today, in addition to France’s
Cour des comptes,
the association has 42 members from four
zones: European (Belgium, Switzerland and Luxembourg), American (Canada and Haiti),
Arab (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Mauritania and Lebanon) and African (French-speaking
sub-Saharan Africa). For more than 20 years, AISCCUF has been forging partnerships: it is an
associate member of the International Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI)
and contributes in particular to the work of the INTOSAI Development Initiative (IDI).
AISCUFF’s eighth General Assembly, which was held on 21 and 22 November 2018 in Niamey,
Niger, was an opportunity for the Association to reaffirm its dynamism. The President of Côte
d’Ivoire’s
Cour des comptes,
Kanvaly Diomandé, was elected President of the Association
for the next three years. Didier Migaud, First President of France’s
Cour des comptes,
is its
permanent Secretary-General, and Philippe Roland, First President of Belgium’s
Cour des
comptes,
is its Treasurer.
Source: French
Cour des comptes
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0095.png
Strengthening capacities – the work of France’s Cour des comptes with the French-
speaking SAIs
continued
95
Many of the SAIs that are members of AISCCUF share the French jurisdictional model as
‘courts of accounts’. For this reason, the Association is particularly involved in this issue,
both internally by offering several training courses on the subject and externally by
promoting jurisdictional activities on an international scale.
Activities to support capacity building
Since it was founded, AISCCUF has organised many multilateral meetings with the
aim of providing continuous training for its members and encouraging them to share
experiences, as well as to encourage dialogue and disseminate best practices. These
events are held each year in one of the Association’s member countries.
For instance, in May 2016, France’s
Cour des comptes,
with the help of its Moroccan
counterpart, organised a training course in Rabat that was attended by nearly 90
officials from 22 member SAIs. The four-day event, which was supported by the UNDP
Dakar Public Finance and Strategy Cluster, focused on the transposition of public-
finance transparency directives that had been adopted by the members of UEMOA,
the West African Economic and Monetary Union (see page xx), and CEMAC, the Central
African Economic and Monetary Community.
The themes of SAI independence, communication and capacity building served as the
basis for good-practice workshops, round tables and experience-sharing sessions. The
participants issued two statements containing:
•
a declaration aiming at political advocacy to stress out the needs of the SAIs of
the AISCCUF. This document was aimed to be disseminated to local authorities
and international bodies
five recommendations on how to combat irregularities and mismanagement, a
subject that is of primary concern to AISCUFF’s (jurisdictional) SAIs.
•
An essential part of the organisational DNA of the French-speaking SAI community
is striving to make correct and efficient use of INTOSAI professional standards. To this
end, France’s
Cour des comptes,
as Secretary-General of AISCCUF, organised a seminar in
June 2017 on the challenges of the new ISSAIs. The event, which was hosted in Dakar
by Senegal’s
Cour des comptes,
was attended by more than 50 participants from 19
AISCCUF countries.
The course focused on those standards that concern core business, i.e. ethics (ISSAI 30),
compliance audit (ISSAI 4000) and performance audit (ISSAI 3000). It also addressed
the issue of combining ISSAIs for management control, and guidelines for evaluating
public policies.
AISCCUF recently convened in Niamey on 21 and 22 November 2018, when it held
its 8th General Assembly. The event enabled those present to discuss the audit of
public-private partnerships and to adopt a work programme for the next three years.
The new programme includes four new seminars on following up recommendations,
auditing public debt and auditing sustainable development objectives, as well as a
new meeting of the TOP Congress (see below) on SAI communication, the aim being to
build on the momentum gained in Abidjan by bringing together young SAI auditors.
Youth at the forefront of the Francophone network
When I look at young people, I realise that they will be tomorrow what I am
today.
Kanvaly Diomandé, President of Côte d’Ivoire's
Cour des comptes.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0096.png
Strengthening capacities – the work of France’s Cour des comptes with the French-
speaking SAIs
continued
96
AISCCUF sees particular value in training young auditors from French-speaking SAIs so
that they can take concrete, effective action in the long term. In this spirit, France’s and
Côte d’Ivoire’s
Cours des comptes,
with assistance from Portugal’s
Tribunal de Contas,
organised the first edition of AISCCUF’s ‘TOP Congress’ (TOP stands for
tonic, operational
and performant),
which was held in Abidjan in June 2018. This event, which was inspired
by the European ‘Yes Congress,’ brought together 48 people under the age of 45 with less
than five years’ seniority in their respective institutions (i.e. 22 different SAIs).
The congress also provided an opportunity to debate four major themes of particular
importance to SAIs:
•
Communication: the objective was to bring SAIs closer to the public, physically
and through the media or digital communication. Some of the ideas put forward
were systematic open days, effective digital communication, targeting the public,
and audit topic thoughtfully;
Ethics: the workshop dealt with gifts from auditees, auditors’ relatives as auditees,
and discretion of the SAI members in personal communication beyond work.
Suggestions put forward included systematically sounding out senior members of
the organisation;
Relations with Parliament: some of the pitfalls discussed were reports that are
too technical or no longer relevant. Proposed solutions were to strengthen links
between institutions and to organise training for MPs on the use of the SAIs' work;
Innovation: proposals emerged in three areas: programming, control procedures
and work monitoring. Implementing the digital transition ideas that were
proposed would involve audit planning that was closer to citizens and better
communication on audit reports, e.g. in the form of videos .
•
•
•
The congress featured inclusive workshops and role-playing
exercises, where auditors provided real-life case-studies so
that participants could discuss all four themes.
Feedback from participants showed that the first ‘TOP
Congress’ was a resounding success. Delphine Silué, an
official from Côte d’Ivoire’s
Cour des comptes,
said: 'As young
people, we were able to see the extent of the responsibility
that lies before us.' In her view the seminar encouraged
young auditors to learn from our predecessors who will soon
be retiring. (…) We need to ensure that, as their successors,
we will be up to the job.'
Kanvaly Diomandé, AISCUFF’s President , closed the TOP
congress on an optimistic note 'Youth is the source of all
hope, dynamism and innovation. You are our future, and we
have faith in you.' By developing a network of young people,
through congresses but also through its website and social
media presence, AISCCUF is striving to be a forward-looking
association that aims to strengthen its members’ capacities by
using a variety of resources and media.
Delphine Silué, Young member of the
Ivory Coast Court of Account AISCCUF Top
Congress - Abidjan – July 2018
France’s
Cour des comptes,
as Secretary-General of AISCCUF, designs, prepares and
organises, the conferences and seminars cited above, contributing significantly to capacity
building for French-speaking SAIs. In addition, it invites young auditors from member SAIs
to the twice-yearly welcome and training sessions it holds for its own new recruits.
Source: French
Cour des comptes
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0097.png
Strengthening capacities – the work of France’s Cour des comptes with the French-
speaking SAIs
continued
97
Cooperation between SAIs with a jurisdictional role
AISCUFF’s capacity-building work specifically includes a broad component dedicated to
the SAIs’ jurisdictional work. This topic is rarely addressed by INTOSAI, even though it is a
prerogative for the majority of French-speaking SAIs .
Historically, SAIs in the form of courts of accounts with jurisdictional powers have mainly
been found in continental Europe. This model is still active in France, Belgium, Italy, Spain,
Portugal and Greece. However, it is not limited to French-speaking countries, as evidenced
by the courts of accounts in North African and Sub-Saharan countries, and in Lebanon. The
model is widespread in Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking countries, and in some countries
in the Middle East (e.g. Turkey and Iran). AISCCUF also has important non-jurisdictional
members (e.g. Canada, Switzerland, Romania and Vietnam).
A feature common to SAIs with jurisdictional powers is that they
are themselves empowered to sanction managers of public
funds. These SAIs can hold managers of public or similar funds –
be it accountants, authorising officers or anyone, legitimate or
not, handling those funds – individually liable for irregularities.
This power, if used properly, acts both as a deterrent and as a
form of sanction.
The use of such a power meets the growing expectations of civil
society and of citizens, who are increasingly dissatisfied with the
vague observations and recommendations contained in many
audit reports. Indeed, they expect specific consequences for
wrongdoers.
Swearing ceremony - France's Cour des comptes
Although the jurisdictional role provides a framework for many
January 2017
SAIs’ activities, such a role is not yet formalised by INTOSAI, and
capacity-building programmes often overlook it. This is why
France’s
Cour des comptes
supports two multilateral cooperation bodies to fill this gap:
- Action through INTOSAI:
For all ‘jurisdictional’ SAIs, it has launched an INTOSAI Forum
with the support of Chile’s
Contraloria General,
under the aegis of the Knowledge
Sharing Committee (KSC) and the working group on ‘Value and Benefits of SAIs.’
This ‘Jurisdictional Forum’, which has been active since 2015, has 34 members and
observers. In 2015 , it started by collecting and comparing information and data about
the jurisdictional powers and activities of every member SAI. Since 2017, the Forum
has been preparing a professional statement of the fundamental principles common
to jurisdictional SAIs, which it will present at the next INTOSAI Congress in Moscow in
September 2019. The Forum also promoted clarification of jurisdictional powers in the
plan for professionalising auditors that is led by South Africa’s SAI;
- Action through AISCCUF:
For AISCCUF SAIs, much multilateral and bilateral work covers
this field. In 2016, a training session was held in Rabat on deterring mismanagement. In
2017, following a proposal by Senegal’s
Cour des comptes,
a course on Budgetary and
Financial Discipline was held in Paris, with participants from nine different SAIs. The
course covered jurisdictional powers in terms of sanctioning authorising officers/public
managers in the event of irregularities involving public funds. Within the UEMOA zone
(West Africa), AISCCUF finances the participation of an expert from France’s
Cour des
comptes
to help draft, disseminate and update guides on jurisdictional activity.
The initiatives taken by both of these multilateral forums have converged successfully.
Following several pilot evaluations on French-speaking SAIs, the SAI performance
measurement framework (SAI PMF) developed by the IDI, appeared to take into account
poorly (or wrongly) the jurisdictional dimension of SAIs.
Source: French Cour des comptes
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0098.png
Strengthening capacities – the work of France’s Cour des comptes with the French-
speaking SAIs
continued
98
Accordingly, following action by an AISCCUF working group of jurisdictional SAIs, a Franco-
Lusophone position on this issue was submitted to AISCCUF’s members and the INTOSAI
jurisdictional forum in early 2016, garnering support from the SAIs of Portugal, Italy,
Canada, Romania, Turkey and Spain. A meeting with the IDI in March 2016 allowed the SAI
PMF to take into account the specific features of jurisdictional SAIs by introducing specific
treatment of jurisdictional activities in performance indicators and by proposing that SAIs’
independence should be measured both in relation to executive and legislative powers.
The SAI PMF, which included these amendments, was adopted at the INTOSAI Congress in
December 2016.
Language as an ingredient of cooperation
To conclude: AISCCUF is a cooperation platform for a large range of topics of interest to SAIs
operating in French. Many examples involve professional guidance and capacity building,
particularly for young auditors. However, this is not confined to Francophone multilateral
bodies with French-speaking jurisdictional SAIs. For example, AISCCUF has scheduled a
seminar dealing with the follow-up to SAIs' recommendations, which is not a jurisdictional
matter. By contrast, the draft jurisdictional standard that will be presented to the next
INTOSAI Congress by the INTOSAI Jurisdictional Forum owes a lot to contributions by the
Portuguese, Latin American and Italian SAIs.
Cooperation transcends many barriers, including those of language. However, as AISCCUF’s
activities show, language can also be a vehicle for stimulating cooperation and thus
promoting accountability and good government at many levels, both nationally and
internationally.
Meeting of the Forum of Jurisdictional SAIs
July 2018 - Santiago of Chile - Source : Contraloria general of Chile
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0099.png
99
International cooperation facilitated by a
common language – SAIs in Portuguese-
speaking countries
By José Tavares,
Tribunal de Contas,
Portugal
Although language can sometimes be a barrier to cooperation, it can just as often
be a valuable common denominator. One good example of this is the OISC/CPLP,
a cooperation network set up by the world’s Portuguese-speaking supreme audit
institutions. José Tavares, Director-General at the Portuguese
Tribunal de Contas
and also its liaison officer, describes the network’s objectives and organisational
structure and reflects on some of the main aspects of its work in recent years.
Members and organisational set-up
The Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions of the Community of Portuguese-Speaking
Countries (OISC/CPLP) is an autonomous and independent association of eight SAIs — those
of Angola, Brazil, Cape Verde, Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique, Portugal, São Tomé and Principe,
and East Timor. It also has three members with observer status: Macau, Brazil’s Instituto Rui
Barbosa and the Association of the Members of the Brazilian Courts of Auditors (ATRICON).
It was established in 1995 through a memorandum of understanding signed by seven SAIs
(Angola, Brazil, Cape Verde, Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique, Portugal, São Tomé and Principe),
on the basis of existing bilateral cooperation agreements, in order to exchange cooperation
and good practices. Since 2010 it has also been an associate member of
INTOSAI.
The objective of the OISC/CPLP is to help its member institutions develop and increase their
effectiveness. It does this by promoting technical, scientific and cultural cooperation in the
field of public audit.
The OISC/CPLP consists of four bodies:
- the
General Assembly,
the organisation’s supreme organ, comprising representatives of all
the member institutions. The General Assembly normally meets every second year, each
time in a different country, and is chaired by the president of the hosting SAI;
- the
Governing Board,
composed of the institution holding the presidency, which is the
institution where the next General Assembly will be held, as well as the institution hosting
the
General Secretariat
and the institution hosting the
Study and Training Centre.
The Board
usually meets once a year;
- the
General Secretariat,
which has been based since 1995 at the Federal Court of Accounts
of Brazil;
- the
Study and Training Centre
(CST), which works alongside the General Secretariat to
promote research, training courses and the production of publications of common
interest (access to them
here).
Since its inception at the first OISC/CPLP meeting in 1995,
and as confirmed in 2001 through the approval of the organisation’s statutes, the CST has
been based at the Portuguese SAI — the
Tribunal de Contas.
In this capacity the
Tribunal
de Contas
frequently hosts staff from the other members for training and traineeships.
Mission and strategic plan
The OISC/CPLP’s mission is to promote its members’ development through cooperation and
capacity-building in the field of external control of public finances. Besides strengthening
its members’ professional and institutional capacities, the OISC/CPLP aims to promote good
governance. In its
Strategic Plan
for 2017-2022, the organisation has set itself the following
two goals:
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0100.png
International cooperation facilitated by a common language – SAIs in Portuguese-
speaking countries
continued
100
- capacity-building
and knowledge-sharing,
through the execution of projects and
activities under the following headings: professional capacity-building; institutional
capacity-building; knowledge-sharing.
-
strengthening and improving the OISC/CPLP,
through the execution of projects and
activities under the following headings: result and impact-oriented management;
increased visibility; strategic partnerships.
Each year the OISC/CPLP prepares a work plan to further develop and execute its Strategic
Plan.
Main activities
The most recent General Assembly (the 10th) was hosted by the SAI of East Timor in
September 2018. The main theme was ‘The impact of collaboration between public and
private institutions on improving SAIs’ work’. The Assembly approved the ‘Dili Declaration’,
a summary of the event’s main conclusions and decisions through which the SAIs
undertook to:
-
Prepare model cooperation protocols
to be concluded with internal control bodies,
universities, professional associations and international organisations, notably in
areas such as the exchange of information and streamlining of procedures, the
sharing of knowledge and good practices, and professional training;
Establish a communication channel between SAIs and citizens,
so as to improve
financial control and other state services by sharing good practices.
-
Organise awareness-raising actions
with technical and financial partners, including sister
organisations, by disseminating information on the OISC/CPLP (at congresses of
INTOSAI
and its regional branches
EUROSAI, AFROSAI
and
OLACEFS)
and inviting representatives of
those organisations to the OISC/CPLP’s seminars and General Assembly meetings;
Strengthen cooperation
with
AFROSAI-E, GIZ
(a German state enterprise active in the field
of international cooperation) and
Pro-PALOP
(a project promoting the management of
public finances in Portuguese-speaking ACP countries) with a view to monitoring the
implementation of the United Nations’
Sustainable Development Goals.
OISC/CPLP 10
th
General Assembly in East Timor, September 2018
Source: Portuguese
Tribunal de Contas
OISC/CPLP seminar in Funchal, September 2017
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0101.png
International cooperation facilitated by a common language – SAIs in Portuguese-
speaking countries
continued
101
The liaison officers from each participating SAI meet once a year to discuss the impact of
that year’s work plan and prepare the next one, which is then presented to the Governing
Board and the General Assembly for approval. In addition, an annual seminar is held
to discuss topics of interest for all SAIs. The most recent seminar, which took place in
September 2017 in Funchal (Portugal), focused on the theme: ‘The 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development – what role should SAIs play in its implementation?'
In 2013, the OISC/CPLP applied to the INTOSAI Global Call for Proposals programme for
donor funding to train and develop the capacities of auditors from its member SAIs. In
December of the same year, the EU Delegation and the United Nations Development
Programme country office in Cape Verde signed an agreement launching the Pro-PALOP-
TL project to strengthen the technical and functional skills of SAIs, national parliaments
and civil society for the control of public finances in the PALOP countries (Angola, Cape
Verde, Guinea Bissau, Mozambique, São Tomé and Principe) and East Timor.
Ongoing cooperation
The OISC/CPLP promotes cooperation and tailors its capacity-building activities for
member SAIs to their level of development. A recent example of this was the lengthy
period of audit training offered to more than 30 young people from the East Timor SAI,
which was supported by Pro-PALOP and the Portuguese
Tribunal de Contas.
Another
example is the training course on the SAI Performance Management Framework
assessment tool, with in-kind support for all OISC/CPLP members from the Brazilian SAI
and Pro-PALOP.
The OISC/CPLP’s cooperation with INTOSAI is mainly organised through the three-yearly
International Congress of Supreme Audit Institutions (INCOSAI), which it attends as an
observer; it has made efforts to obtain simultaneous interpretation of key events such as
INCOSAI into Portuguese.
Cooperation among the OISC/CPLP members is set to continue. Plans include a
coordinated audit on the scope of Sustainable Development Goal 15 (Life on land), as well
as collaboration with the GIZ to assess the performance of public financial management in
relation to SDG 16 (Peace, justice and strong institutions).
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0102.png
102
Bilateral cooperation between the French Court
of Audit and the ECA: further steps discussed to
intensify an already close relation
The delegations of the French Cour des comptes and the ECA meeting on 11 October 2018.
From left to right: Mihails Kozlovs, Iliana Ivanova, Danièle Lamarque and Henri Grethen, ECA Members, Didier Migaud,
Premier président of the French Cdc, Gilles Johanet, Procureur général, Roch-Oliveir Maistre, Président de Chambre
et Rapporteur Général, Pascal Duchadeuil, Président maintenu à la 2ème chambre, François Kruger, Premier avocat
général and Nicolas Hauptmann, adjoint du Rapporteur général.
By Stéphanie Girard, Private Office of Danièle Lamarque, ECA Member
The French Court of Audit and the ECA have held high level annual
meetings since 2014. On 11 October 2018 the two institutions met
again in Paris to identify areas where cooperation should be intensified
to further expand the sharing of approaches and working methods.
But what was actually discussed and how does it tie in to the concrete
audit work? Stéphanie Girard, working in the Private Office of Danièle
Lamarque, followed the discussions and provides insights.
Identifying synergies around four themes
For several years the French Cour des comptes (Cdc) and the ECA held bilateral
meetings at the top management level. Through these meetings the two
institutions aim to identify synergies between the Cdc and ECA’ work, get a better
understanding of the impact of each institution’s work and see how this can be
reinforced by more cooperation.
Didier Migaud, the First President of the French Cdc, chaired the debates at the
opening plenary session and Gilles Johanet, the General Prosecutor, chaired the
closing session at which the results of the work of each round table were shared.
Roch-Olivier Maistre, President of one of the Cdc’s chambers and Rapporteur
for the Public Reporting and Programmes Committee, and François Kruger, the
First Advocate-General, also took part in the discussions, as did around thirty
magistrates and rapporteurs from the French Cdc and the chambers' permanent
European and international liaison officers.The European Court of Auditors’
delegation was composed of Henri Grethen, Iliana Ivanova, Danièle Lamarque
and Mihail Kozlovs, ECA Members, and several ECA staff members.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0103.png
Bilateral cooperation between the French Court of Audit and the ECA: further steps
discussed to intensify an already close relation
continued
103
After an opening plenary session, the delegates took part in one of four round
tables on the themes of taxation and public finance, agriculture, food & the
environment, immigration and integration, and structural and investment funds.
The discussions were productive and comprehensive, covering areas such as
audit programmes, strategic priorities and potential synergies, and were followed
by a closing plenary session.
Round table: Public finance and taxation
The ongoing and future audit topics in this area raised the issue of new ways
of managing public policy in an ever-changing context (e.g. the so-called
‘Juncker Plan,’ including the European Fund for Strategic Investments). This raised
methodological questions for the ECA and the Cdc, both of which were naturally
keen to discuss the other's audit planning and implementation.
The discussions showed that the ECA is currently more inclined to carry out
assessments early after new policies are introduced, whereas the Cdc tends to
wait for policies to reach a certain stage of implementation before it plans an
audit task (e.g. the audit of automatic tax information exchange systems). The
delegates also discussed the problems experienced by their auditors with a lack
of cooperation by some auditees. The two institutions therefore decided that
it would be useful to continue discussions also during the year, particularly on
methodological issues.
Round table: Agriculture, food and the environment
Both institutions' audit work frequently converges in this area. It would clearly
be in both parties' interests to discuss the results of their work on a regular basis
over the year, in particular for work that has the potential to be complementary.
For example, the Cdc will be auditing household waste while the ECA intends to
look into the issue of plastic waste. The results of the Cdc’s work, particularly its
assessment of the ECOPHYTO II national plan, could therefore be very useful for
the ECA.
The two institutions also shared similar concerns about agriculture, e.g. a lack of
information for identifying farmers' needs and thus gauging the appropriateness
of fund allocation, or about the ever increasing complexity of the EU Common
Agricultural Policy, which favours the largest farms.
Round table: Immigration and integration
This is a thematic priority for both the Cdc and the ECA, which therefore
discussed their ongoing and future audit work in this area. During the
discussions, it became clear that both institutions faced the same constraints. In
the case of integration, for example, it was very difficult to establish criteria for
assessing whether the integration process was successful, to isolate the policy
in order to measure its effects, and to determine exactly when the integration
process was complete. That was one reason why the ECA had opted to publish
the results of its review in June 2018 as a briefing paper rather than a special
audit – which would have been the standard publication form of a performance
audit . Faced with the same constraints, the Cdc had decided to carry out a
feasibility study first, and then focus its efforts on the agencies dealing with
migration and the integration of migrants.
Round table: Structural and investment funds
During this round table, it was also clear that both institutions were faced with
the same questions and concerns. One issue was the type of audit carried out on
these funds. Compliance audits were often carried out where there was actually
a real need for performance audits. These could potentially add value, as they
could analyse the usefulness, effectiveness and efficiency of the operations
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0104.png
Bilateral cooperation between the French Court of Audit and the ECA: further steps
discussed to intensify an already close relation
continued
104
financed by the Structural and Investment Funds. The Cdc and the ECA also identified
issues meriting closer analysis, such as the matter of administrative and management
costs of these funds, or reserves constituted by certain operators to cover potential
irregularities.
EU legislation affecting national public finances: a case for increased
cooperation between SAIs
It was clear from the discussions that both parties considered it useful increasing
cooperation. In his opening remarks, the First President of the Cdc pointed out that
EU legislation was increasingly affecting national public finances. This also explains
why there are obvious synergies between the two institutions’ work. Discussions
between the two institutions are becoming even more essential for two reasons:
-
-
they ensure that greater account is taken of European issues at national level,
via the Cdc’s work; and
they provide the ECA with a better understanding of the impact of EU policies
at national level. In this connection, Roch-Olivier Maistre stressed that taking
account of EU policies at national level was one of the priorities that the Cdc
had selected for its 2019-2021 programme.
ECA Member Danièle Lamarque added that the EU dimension of a number of policies
is likely to increase in the years to come, also because of their complexity. She pointed
out that certain policies, such as immigration policy and climate change, could not
effectively be dealt with at national level alone. If the SAIs wanted to fulfil citizens’
expectations of them, they would have to work together even more closely in the
future. In this context, she also referred to the frequent contacts and discussions that
took place throughout the year between the two institutions, particularly in the field
of transport.
Participants from both sides noted the particularly constructive and open discussions
during the afternoon sessions, the upshot being that conclusions could be drawn and
promising avenues of cooperation opened up for both institutions. The Cdc’s General
Prosecutor, who chaired the summing-up session, welcomed this convergence of
interests and the prospects for future cooperation. Similar bilateral discussions could
also be held with other EU SAIs on a regular basis and would undoubtedly help to
enhance the quality and impact of the institutions’ respective messages.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0105.png
105
International cooperation between SAIs to
help develop capacity in public sector audit –
the Swedish experience
By Isabelle Berglund and Hazim Sabanovic, Swedish National Audit Office
International development cooperation is an
integral part of the mandate of the Swedish
National Audit Office (Swedish NAO). In
Sweden, Parliament has granted the NAO an
appropriation for the capacity development of
supreme audit institutions (SAIs) in developing
countries, so the Swedish NAO is engaged
in bilateral and regional support projects in
Africa, Asia and the Western Balkans. Isabelle
Berglund, Project Manager, and Hazim
Sabanovic, Liaison Officer for the Western
Balkans, present some of their experiences and
lessons learnt from this type of project.
Leadership commitment
Based on years of experience
and continuous evaluation of
international capacity development
projects, the Swedish National Audit
Office (Swedish NAO) understands
the importance of a committed
leadership, strategic dialogue with
different stakeholders, and a balance
between planning and continuity
on the one hand and flexibility on
the other, just to mention a few key
success factors.
All these factors can lead to positive
synergies throughout the life cycle of a cooperation project. Some are more tangible
in bilateral cooperation projects, others in multilateral or regional work. In this article, I
illustrate this through examples from the bilateral and regional partnerships the Swedish
NAO has built in the Western Balkans. SAIs are knowledge-based organisations. Auditors
General and audit managers play a central role in linking employees’ skills into a coherent
organisational capacity. This requires leadership that not only believes in the need for
development, but also has a vision of where they want this development to lead.
Since taking office in 2016, the Auditor General of Kosovo, Besnik Osmani, has shown
strong ownership of his office’s development processes. He has a clear vision of how he
wants his office to develop and has secured partners who support this goal. In working
with international partners, such as the Swedish NAO, the National Audit Office’s (KNAO's)
management continuously show that they own their development process and, at
times, say ‘no’ to proposals from their partners. Their ability to decline unwanted support
emphasizes their commitment to development in line with their vision. This contributes to
the sustainability of the office’s development – with or without the support of international
partners.
Engaging the whole SAI
Experience has shown that it is important to consider
the whole organization in a change process. Even when
engaging in the development of specific aspects of an
organization, such as performance audit capacity, we
have found that sustainability is significantly improved
if a broader approach to the SAI’s capacity is used. As
a new field for many SAIs in the Western Balkans, the
development of performance audit must be internally
driven, with a strong will to produce performance audit
reports with impact.
The bilateral project between the SAIs of Bosnia-
Herzegovina and Sweden included training for audit
staff with different levels of experience, with the aim of
producing good robust audit reports. Training was also
offered to managers and to staff in the methodology and
quality assurance departments to enable them to support
Kosovo’s management group working on strategic
planning during a workshop in Stockholm, from left to
right Ilir Salihu, Imri Smetishti and Emine Falizu.
Source: Swedish National Audit Office
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0106.png
International cooperation between SAIs to help develop capacity in public sector audit
– the Swedish experience
continued
106
an effective audit process. The Swedish NAO also promoted performance audit in relation
to parliaments, academia and the media. This comprehensive approach has proved
successful. After the first pilot audits were published in 2008, it was only a few years before
the department was publishing around 15 to 20 performance audit reports annually.
A similar result may be seen in Kosovo, where the SAI plans to publish 13 performance
audit reports this year. When the Swedish NAO first started cooperating with the Kosovo
NAO, the project was limited to performance audit. Over time, the partnership has evolved
into a full-scale institutional capacity development project. As part of the cooperation, a
leadership program is now offered to all top- and mid-level managers – including support
functions. This has proven valuable not only because it creates management networks,
but also because it ensures that all managers have a common understanding of how to
lead change and speak the same language.
Continuity and flexibility – advantages and challenges
Capacity development takes time, regardless of its scope. A long-term commitment allows
time to build trust and a better understanding of the context of the partner SAI. The long-
term aim of the Swedish NAO’s international development cooperation is that the partner
organisation will be able to work in accordance with international auditing standards,
conduct high quality activities and continuously adapt to a changing environment.
The Swedish NAO has been involved in a bilateral project with Bosnia-Herzegovina since
the introduction of external public sector audit. Between the start of the cooperation,
in the year 2000, and its conclusion in 2016, this cooperation went through different
phases of development. The partnership now continues under the umbrella of regional
cooperation.
This partnership has shown that cooperation can – and should – be a long-term
commitment, to ensure that methods and processes are sufficiently adapted to the
development pace and context of the partner organisation. One challenge is working to
promote sustainability in operations from the start and to plan for a positive end to the
cooperation. It is difficult to maintain the same drive for effective change over many years.
As part of managing this risk, the Swedish NAO normally works with project periods of no
more than three years at a time and monitors and regularly evaluates results.
Capacity development projects are unpredictable, requiring adaptation and
responsiveness to new conditions. The Swedish NAO’s designated appropriation from
Parliament to engage in international development cooperation enables us to be both a
long-term and flexible partner. The appropriation allows us to make changes in a project
to address changed preconditions or priorities for the SAI.
This has been the case with the Western Balkans' Parallel Performance Audit (PPA) project,
which included six different SAIs. For more details, see the September 2018 issue of the
ECA Journal, page 44. Adapting to participants’ needs, the number of workshops in the
project was adjusted, and an optional workshop was tailored to each participating SAI.
We – colleagues from the European Court of Auditors and the Swedish NAO – also wrote
a synthesis report, based on the conclusions from the national reports. These adjustments
presented a challenge initially but turned the PPA project from a straightforward regional
training process into a major regional performance audit product, which received
attention from mass media in the region.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0107.png
International cooperation between SAIs to help develop capacity in public sector audit
– the Swedish experience
continued
107
Multilateral cooperation contributes to learning
Regional cooperation provides conditions for learning and exchange, which supplement
bilateral cooperation. Shared cultural heritage in the Western Balkans, similar challenges
linked to a shared context and a similar bureaucratic history all provide an efficient
platform for learning from each other, stimulating new approaches and solutions to
common problems. During the PPA project, all participating SAIs worked together towards
the same goal. The audit teams benefited from cooperating and sharing experiences from
their own audit environments. This has created a strong professional network, which is
alive and functions well, both inside and outside the project.
Driving forces and stakeholder coordination
Each capacity development project takes place within the context of a changing
environment, often with multiple donors or partners involved in the SAI and in the public
financial management context in the country. At the same time, organizations at an early
stage of development may not have a clear vision of their change process. In countries
with an SAI trying to position itself in the accountability chain, the level of success in
the coordination between different stakeholders may significantly aid or hinder the
development of the SAI.
In Kosovo, there is a process of legislative change related to the Civil Service Law, which,
if passed in its current form, could jeopardize the independence of the SAI. The Swedish
NAO is working with international organizations, including the EU Delegation in Kosovo,
to ensure that legislative changes comply with the principles of SAI independence in
the Lima Declaration. Bosnia-Herzegovina and other countries in the region have similar
historical experiences.
Capacity building to find symbiosis between rules and practice
In the Balkans and other parts of Eastern Europe, the EU plays a central role in driving
development forward, since EU support is often linked to certain reform requirements for
candidate countries. One risk is that the EU requirements bring about formal decisions,
structures and processes in accordance with EU legislation, but the capacity to act
according to these decisions, structures and processes is lacking. EU requirements could
also help support the SAIs' independence and strengthen their role in the country. As
capacity development partners, we play a role in supporting this development.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0108.png
108
ECA Journal Long Read
International collaboration in water
management: water as unifying concept
By Professor Emeritus Wim van Vierssen, member representative of KWR Watercycle Research
Institute, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands and Vice-president at Water Supply and Sanitation
Technology Platform (WssTP), Brussels, Belgium
Cooperation in the field of public audit is the main theme of this ECA Journal. But how does
cooperation look like in other areas? What is the approach to cooperation in another area that is
clearly vital for everybody: water? Professor Wim van Vierssen, previously CEO of KWR Watercycle
Research Institute and current vice-president of the Water Supply and Sanitation Technology
Platform, has worked almost his whole life with issues related to water. In this ECA Journal Long
Read, he presents specificities of the water sector at large and how such a cross border issue as
water, often organised locally, has led to multiple cooperation efforts, with success. And he also
makes the link with the role of the EU and of public sector audits in this area.
Water is vital
Water plays a fundamental role in society because we, as
humans, are directly dependent on healthy and safe water
for our health and survival. We also wish to live in a safe
and secure environment in which we are well protected
from floods, for example, but in which we are also able
to take effective action against water shortages in times
of extended drought. Such shortages could threaten the
water supply for drinking water production, industry,
agriculture and energy (cooling water). In short, water
management has been inextricably connected to human
welfare since time immemorial.
With all these connections, it is clear that good water
management needs to be accompanied by efficient
collaboration at multiple levels: local, regional, national
and international. To understand Europe’s role and how
we have given institutional form to our water sector it
would be useful to review a number of its features. This
will show that Europe, at the EU level, plays an important
coordinating role.
Ancient Mesopotamia, around 3000 BC, provides a useful
historical milestone to mark the beginning of water
management. It had a system in which urban development
and relatively advanced agricultural irrigation and
wastewater management went hand in hand. But the first
real treatment of wastewater was only instituted in the
18th century. It then developed rapidly after the industrial
revolution and the resulting urbanisation.
ECA Journal short read
Municipal water utilities remain the norm
- the rise
of large professional organisations has contributed to
growth in the water sector. However, small and local
water utilities remain the norm.
Cooperation at multiple levels
- water management
requires collaboration at multiple levels. At
international level cooperation concerns the basic
technical-scientific principles upon which good water
management has to be founded.
Public supervision is crucial
- water infrastructure
is mostly financed publicly or by private stakeholders
and managed under tight government supervision.
Supreme audit institutions, including the ECA,
play an important role in ensuring standards and
compliance.
Good governance as the unifying concept
- the
water sector is connected with a numerous other
sectors. And water does not respect frontiers. Good
governance is key to the water sector and vital to
addresssing water’s many uses.
EU as a global innovation engine
- the EU has acted
as a stimulus to the water innovation landscape with
programmes such as Horizon 2020 and its Framework
Programmes, inspiring partnerships, network
development and knowledge sharing.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0109.png
International collaboration in water management: water as unifying concept
continued
109
But it was not until the mid-19th century that we began to fully comprehend how
untreated wastewater could cause massive mortality. The observational acuity of
John Snow – a ‘physician-researcher’ we would say today – played a central role in
this discovery. He suspected that there was a link between people’s use of a water
pump on Board Street in London and a raging cholera epidemic. The pump, which
was connected to a water source contaminated by the cholera bacteria, was the
local contamination source and its users spread the infection .
We now know that from a historical perspective access to safe drinking water has
been central to ensuring a healthy population – and actually more so than the
availability of antibiotics, for instance. Healthy water is therefore a key element in
human welfare.
Water: think globally, act locally!
The history of water management reveals two of its main dimensions: the global
and the local. The global – and thus the international – concerns the basic technical-
scientific principles upon which good water management has to be founded. The
second, local, dimension is the one within which the technical provisions have to be
shaped. In the water sector this always involves issues concerning, on the one hand,
water availability (too much, too little, sufficient) and, on the other, water quality
(clean or dirty, more or less calcareous, more or less arsenical, etc.). After all, there
are very different requirements concerning water quality, depending on the large
number of different users -humans, nature, industry, agriculture, etc.
Since the International Conference on Water and the Environment (1992, Dublin),
the water sector has also considered water management in terms of Integrated
Water Resources Management (IWRM). Such management is defined as ‘a process
which promotes the coordinated development and management of water, land and
related resources, in order to maximize the resultant economic and social welfare in
an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems.’
The concept is based on three main principles: social equity (equal access for all
users), economic efficiency (benefit optimisation) and ecological sustainability
(acknowledgement of aquatic ecosystems as water users).
One of the key international players helping to disseminate this concept is
the Global Water Partnership (GWP), a worldwide network of more than 3000
organisations in more than 180 countries. All of these organisations are engaged
in promoting and facilitating the implementation of IWRM. Over the last 50 years,
this conceptual development has led many users to organise themselves – locally,
nationally and internationally – around the theme of water, as a central factor in
society. In this context we frequently distinguish between the so-called ‘large’ and
‘small’ watercycle.
By the large watercycle we mean the hydrological cycle that water follows in its
natural course from evaporation from the sea, to precipitation, and to its return to
the sea via a river, surface runoff or subsurface runoff. In the world of this watercycle
we need to ensure, through the construction of infrastructure (river embankments,
dams, weirs and dikes), our constant access to sufficient water supplies, but also
our protection against any threat of flooding. It also provides the framework within
which we act to prevent the desiccation of nature and to supply the water that
agriculture needs.
Figure 1
illustrates the case of the Netherlands, which has a water shortage in
summer although it has an annual water surplus. In an increasing number of cases
Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) bridges the supply gap. In most cases, it is the
national governments that bear an important responsibility in providing enough
water year round.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0110.png
International collaboration in water management: water as unifying concept
continued
110
Figure 1:
Annual mismatch between water supply (precipitation) and demand in Rotterdam,
the Netherlands
Source: KWR Watercycle Research Institute
By the small watercycle we mean the technical cycle in which water, via a number of
treatment steps, is prepared for human and industrial use, and is transported to the
customer through distribution networks. But it also encompasses the subsequent steps, in
which the used water is retreated, recycled or returned to nature. This is the interconnected
world of the drinking water utilities and of wastewater management.
Against the background of these two interwoven watercycles, a large number of applied
science fields, such as hydrology and ecology, but also civil engineering, have experienced
extremely rapid development over the last 75 years.
Developments in the water sector since WWII
The water sector has grown steadily since World War II. Of course, the need to repair war
damages provided a major impetus, but so did the need to develop new water infrastructure
for a Europe that was industrialising with an expanding population; a population that has
over the decades increasingly settled in urban environments with central drinking and (a
little later) wastewater provisions.
Interestingly, the scale to which the water sector has grown mirrors the above
developments. As we will see, despite the emergence of large professional international
organisations, the water sector itself is essentially characterised by its small scale and local
nature. Many European member states – with the exception of a number of their large cities
– still have predominantly small, local drinking water or wastewater utilities. Moreover, they
are still often in public ownership. The municipal water utility in fact remains the norm.
Germany, for instance, has about 6000 water utilities -
Wasserwerke,
the majority of which
are municipal and public, although there are also public-private ones. In this regard, cities
like Berlin and Hamburg are renowned for their large and very innovative public, municipal
utilities. But, on average, large countries such as Germany still have very many small utilities.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0111.png
International collaboration in water management: water as unifying concept
continued
111
One can define drinking water provision as ‘local’ when the needs of 13,500 residents are
met by a single drinking water plant.
In contrast, a small country like the Netherlands, as a delta metropolis, has experienced a
major sectoral consolidation in which the more than 200 water utilities that existed shortly
after the war were reduced to today’s 10 (for a population of more than 17 million). One
could say that Dutch drinking water production is actually regional rather than local in
nature. However, although drinking water provision in many European member states may
sometimes be organised regionally, much more often, it is still organised locally. This is not
so surprising in view of the geographical diversity (for instance dry vs. wet, lowlands vs.
highlands), and the fact that preferences for public and/or private ownership frequently
depend on political factors. The situation with regard to wastewater management is not that
different.
The formulation of the IWRM principles means that the quest for cohesion in water
management is being pursued everywhere and more intensively than ever. This is not a
simple challenge, in light of the fact that we in Europe already have tens of thousands of
entities whose activities focus on the small watercycle. And it calls for cohesion and tailored
governance. This is not unique to Europe. The situation in the United States with regard to
dimensions is not very different. There is good reason that an organisation like the National
Rural Water Association (NRWA) has attracted a membership of over 30,000 non-city water
utilities and small utilities, offering them advice and support.
Supervision and Control
In all of this, public supervision is crucial. Much of the water infrastructure, and therefore the
associated management, is either publicly financed or financed by private stakeholders, who
conduct their water-related activities under tight government supervision, passing on the
costs to the customer (on the basis of tightly regulated rates). Of course, this raises questions
of both effectiveness – Is the service provision up to standard? – and of compliance – Are the
agreed financial terms respected? Here national audit offices often play a key role. The same
naturally applies at the EU level, where this function is performed by the ECA.
This auditing role is clearly illustrated in a number of examples taken from both the large
and small watercycles. In the United Kingdom, the National Audit Office assessed the
privatised water sector in a 2015 report entitled: ‘The Economic Regulation of the Water
Sector’. In general terms, the water sector in England and Wales, which was privatised in
1989, functions under the supervision of the Department for Environment, Food & Rural
Affairs. More specifically, with regard to the rates system, supervision is carried out by the
Water Services Regulation Authority (Ofwat), which is also responsible for monitoring the
performance of the privatised companies.
This monitoring role is of extreme importance, particularly in a situation in which the
traditional public tasks, such as water provision and water safety, are transferred to private
hands. The private performance of these tasks does after all frequently elicit public debate
and sometimes even unease. In such cases, an independent, non-politically-motivated
supervision of the agreements often provides an objective framework and is useful for an
orderly debate.
A good example from the large watercycle is the recent (2017) audit of the Netherlands
Court of Audit regarding the expenditure of what is known as the Delta Fund. This national
fund finances the measures that need to be taken in the Netherlands, as a low-lying delta
metropolis, with regard to water safety (problem: flooding) and the supply of freshwater
(problem: water scarcity). In 2017, this amounted to expenditure of almost € 1 billion. Such
a huge amount means that the parliament and the public would like to be kept informed of
the investments.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0112.png
International collaboration in water management: water as unifying concept
continued
112
Such supervision is provided for, and very openly carried out, at EU level as well. In the case
of the water sector and its societal function, the ECA plays an important role in monitoring
spending, for instance, on the implementation of the Drinking Water Directive. One example
is ECA special report 12/2017, which was produced ‘to determine whether or not all of
the Drinking Water Directive’s parametric values are being complied with’ by Hungary (EU
accession in 2004), Romania and Bulgaria (EU accession for both in 2007). This is hugely
important for EU citizens, but certainly also for the EU water sector. After all, by international
standards, the bar is set very high for this sector. Preserving high-level water provision is
therefore not only important for the citizen and for the water sector itself, but also for the
associated business community which has to confront the challenge of innovation.
Another example illustrates the control of the way in which policies in different areas, such as
water and agriculture, are harmonised at the level of the EU. We know that, worldwide, about
70% of water-use is related to agriculture. In Europe this figure, above 30%, is also significant.
Moreover, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) will probably account for almost 40 % of
future EU’s budgets - all good reasons for examining the consistency of measures taken in
these two important policy areas: water (health) and agriculture (food). In this regard, ECA
special report 4/2014 on the theme of ‘the integration of EU water policy objectives with the
CAP’ is enlightening: there is room for improvement.
Water as a complex organisational challenge
It has therefore become clear over the last decades that water is an important binding
element in society. Not only because people themselves need healthy water for a healthy
life, but also because water is an important factor of production in the agricultural, energy,
transport and industrial sectors. Furthermore, in many societies the water sector has
developed to become a very high-quality technological
system.
This involves not only water-
related infrastructure, but also the associated governance: from small water utilities to
regional, national and even international river basin management organisations.
A good example of the latter is the International Association of Water Works in the Rhine
Basin (IAWR), a collaboration
of Austrian, German, Swiss, Dutch, French and Liechtenstein
water utilities set up in 1970 encompassing the entire Rhine basin – in effect, the entity was
established to safeguard the basin as a healthy source of water for the drinking water sector.
In 1994, with a view to supporting this kind of organisation in their shared objectives, the
International Network of Basin Organizations (INBO) was established. The specific objective
was to bring about the collaboration of basin organisations in different countries.
One sees such organisational ‘stacking’ in many sectors, but primarily in the water sector,
because water does not respect frontiers and the healthy-water theme is something that
connects humans worldwide. National water umbrella organisations are also increasingly
organising themselves in international contexts, forming umbrella organisations for
umbrella organisations. EurEau offers a good example. Established in 1975 as the European
Federation of National Water Services, it represents national drinking and wastewater service
providers from 29 countries, from both the private and the public sectors.
The growing prominence of water as a societal factor has also been at the origin of a number
of global cooperation initiatives, transcending the national and regional. They are not
the result of the bundling of national initiatives, but constitute international initiatives in
themselves. They have been shaped from four different perspectives with regard to water.
Four kinds of water perspective
The
technical-scientific
perspective: in 1999, the International Water Association (IWA) was
established, an organisation with a focus on all aspects of the watercycles and the product
of the fusion of a number of international water organisations set up in the decade following
World War II. Today, the IWA numbers 10,000 individual members besides a large group of
institutional members from both the private and public sectors.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0113.png
International collaboration in water management: water as unifying concept
continued
113
The
sectoral
perspective: the World Water Council (WWC), which was set up as a thinktank
and institutional action group by private initiative in 1996, constitutes an important multi-
stakeholder platform for the international water community. One key WWC instrument is the
World Water Forum, which has been organised somewhere in the world every three years
since the first in 1997 in Marrakech (Morocco).
The Forum has grown to become a mega-event, typically attracting tens of thousands and
sometimes more than one hundred thousand visitors (Forum+Fair+Expo). It is the most
comprehensive gathering in the field of water, boasting a wide variety of participants. It
is used as a podium by small grassroots organisations, SMEs, but also by multi-utilities,
multinationals, governments and politicians (in the form of the ministerial water conference).
One European, annual variant to this is the Stockholm International Water Week (SIWW),
which is smaller in scale, and more oriented towards science than the public. It has a science
committee which sets out its annual themes.
The
societal
perspective: water has been attracting more and more attention from this
perspective. For example, in the eight Millennium United Nations Development Goals
(MDGs) of 2000, water still had a relatively modest presence as part of MDG 7 (Ensure
Environmental Sustainability). By 2015, in the UN’s 2030 Agenda, with its 17 Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs), water had become a prominent, explicit component: SDG 6 is
entitled ‘Clean Water and Sanitation’. Water is also an inseparable part of, and sometimes a
prerequisite for, a great number of other SDGs, such as those concerning Sustainable Cities
and Communities, Responsible Production and Consumption, Climate Action, but also Life
under Water, to mention the most obvious ones.
The
economic
perspective: water is an important factor of production. In the programme of
the European Management Forum, established in 1971, and the later World Economic Forum
(WEF, the name was changed in 1987), concern for the environment played practically no
role at first. The main impulse was to improve the quality of European business management
and to better anchor businesses in society.
Since the Forum became formally recognised as an international organisation in 2015, it
can be seen as a global platform for public-private economic collaboration. Moreover, WEF’s
Global Water Initiative (GWI) has made water the focus of much attention. Importantly, a
number of leading large companies – for example, Grundfos, Nestlé and Coca-Cola – but also
organisations such as the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida)
have committed themselves to the global water agenda. The question of course is whether
this initiative will manage to connect with the many other initiatives such as those described
in this article.
Water Technology trade fairs
The Water Technology trade fairs must also be mentioned within the economic perspective.
They are frequently a mirror of developments in policy: new norms and standards often
immediately result in new technological solutions and products. In this regard, the
Singapore International Water Week (SIWW) stands out. The SIWW only began in 2008,
but it has evolved extremely fast and made Singapore a global water hub. The process has
been driven in particular by Singapore’s huge water challenges which, combined with its
creditworthiness and determination, have resulted in the creation of a superb practical
space for experimentation. This context has attracted many innovative companies from the
global water sector, which, in a blink of an eye, have produced a compelling mix of research,
development and market.
Does Europe have a response to this mix? Absolutely, when it comes to water technology.
Aquatech (water technology, Amsterdam, the Netherlands) and IFAT (environmental
technology, Munich, Germany) are European trade-fair showpieces in the environmental
area. And one can see that these trade fairs are acquiring a policy and political bent. T Dutch
Aquatech fair has now established a partnership with the Amsterdam International Water
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0114.png
International collaboration in water management: water as unifying concept
continued
114
Week (AIWW), which, for example, also has the global water challenges related to the SDGs
on its agenda.
Despite all this, what is really lacking in Europe is that golden operational mix of societal
need, R&D and implementation capacity. In terms of power of implementation and
perseverance, Europe can’t hold a candle to the city-state of Singapore. We like to keep
business at arm’s length from politics, and are not interested in such a close interweaving of
the two as in Singapore. This, at a time when global demand for innovative water solutions
is huge and Europe still holds the lead in R&D. But there is a relative lack of experimental
space at the European level. An experimental space with ambition and determination and,
importantly, a pact between government and business to provide the practical means to
fulfil such ambition.
Unifying concept
The question then becomes: what is the overarching concept that can set all these initiatives
in context, that can even unify them?
Actually, as the water community, we are in general agreement about this: the unifying
element is
good governance.
Good governance is the key factor, because water has become
a unifying societal subject, a subject that affects all sorts of societal issues and the associated
problems and actors. It therefore came as no surprise that this conclusion was among the
most important outcomes of the World Water Forum in 2012 (Marseille). A very significant
conclusion, when you consider that the water sector is highly fragmented and connected
with numerous other sectors, such as agriculture, health, safety, industrial development,
energy and spatial development. In addition, water does not respect frontiers and the sector
is characterised by its many multi-level governance issues.
In 2013, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development launched the Water
Governance Initiative (WGI), which in 2015 led to the formulation of a number of Principles
on Water Governance. The WGI has three important objectives: efficiency, effectiveness and
trust & engagement, and twelve principles which support the formulation of tailor-made
water solutions for each situation. For the time being, this initiative is an important milestone
in a process that has been evolving since the establishment of the WWC in 1996.
The European Union as a global innovation engine
Naturally, European players have contributed to all these developments, either individually
or within their international umbrella organisations as described above. But there has
also been an associated EU effort nested, as it were, within the ensemble of international
developments. EU programmes, such as Horizon 2020 and its predecessor Framework
Programmes for Research and Technological Development (FPs) in particular, have helped
shape and structure the water innovation landscape.
It is striking in this context to observe how since 1984 (the first FP) the number and variety
of the participating organisations has surged (Figure
2).
A total of almost 7 800 individual
water-related organisations have taken part since FP1. In FP1 there were 198 participants, a
figure that rose to over 1300 in FP7.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0115.png
International collaboration in water management: water as unifying concept
continued
115
Figure 2:
Share of type of participants in EU research and development programmes
based on their water related contributions and scientific output
Source: Pieter Heringa, 2015
A breakdown of the participants by category (Consultancy, Education, Government,
Industry, Non-profit, Other, Research) shows that the joint share of the dominant
categories of Education and Research (over 75% in FP1) dropped to under 50% in little
more than 30 years. In this regard, water-related projects contrast with FP projects
generally, in which these categories’ dominance has persisted. For water-related projects,
the participation of Industry over the same period doubled from about 15% to 30%, while
the Government category remained stable (5%), as did the categories Non-profit and
Consultancy (<5%).
In a general sense, one can say an FP water network is small in scale and has a relatively
high degree of network clustering. The latter is a measure of the probability that if, for
example, stakeholder A works with stakeholders B and C, these last two will also work
together in another setting. Although the European water sector may be small-scale and
fragmented, the Framework Programmes have clearly stimulated coalition formation,
network development and knowledge sharing. This is a closely-knit sector in which
people tend to know each other well. The European Commission’s Directorate General
Environment has also made a major contribution to knowledge sharing and network
formation through the creation of the European Innovation Partnership (EIP) Water. This is
done by facilitating Action Groups, which today number about 29. Their task is ‘to develop,
test, scale up, disseminate and stimulate the uptake by the market of innovative solutions
to water-related challenges.’
A significant number of stakeholders that are active both in the Framework Programmes
and in EIP Water are also members of the Water Supply and Sanitation Technology
Platform (WssTP), one of the EU Technology Platforms. Established by the Commission in
2004, WssTP became an independent foundation in 2007. Its principal objectives include
innovative water technology, a competitive water sector, a European response to global
water problems, and a contribution to the challenges in the ambit of IWRM.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0116.png
International collaboration in water management: water as unifying concept
continued
116
With just under 200 institutional members, the platform is currently concentrating, through
working groups and clusters, on elaborating the European water challenges through the
WssTP Vision and Strategic Innovation and Research Agenda (SIRA), and also on advancing
the position of European companies in the global water market.
Through three annual outreach activities (Water Market Europe, Water Innovation Water
and Water Knowledge Europe), WssTP also supports the water sector in the fields of
Market Development and Innovation Management, and in shaping Knowledge Coalitions,
within the Framework Programmes for instance. And, more recently, WssTP has also
begun facilitating relations between the European Union and third countries through its
International Water Dialogues. The aim is to enrich these relations with substantive sector
knowledge and skills from the field of water technology. One example is the China Europe
Water Platform (CEWP).
The way forward
It is fair to ask what all this has given the EU. In any event, a home-market of over 500
million citizens who all benefit from water services that are properly monitored and
tightly regulated, in terms of quality and price. But also a water sector that develops top-
quality technology. The water sector is, as a whole, a highly performing technological
system whose utility actually extends beyond the provision of water services. It is, after
all, a system in which a large number of companies are active and, together, represent an
enormous innovation capacity. What lessons can we now draw from this with regard to our
organisational capability when it comes, for instance, to the opportunities present in the
global water market for the European business community?
In broad outline, we see the following European instances of collaborations placed on
different rungs of the Technology Readiness Ladder (TRL), which is a means of positioning
different types of knowledge products in terms of their distance from the market (the levels
range from 1 to 9, with basic research placed at level 1 and market uptake at level 9):
•
at levels 1-3: Joint Programming Initiatives (JPIs) of European basic research. There is a
specific Water JPI, ‘Water Challenges for a Changing World’, aimed at reinforcing national
research efforts with European programme funding;
at levels 4-8: Clustering of R&D in Regional Innovation Centres. WssTP (see above)
desires, as an EU institutional umbrella organisation for water, to support regional
knowledge centres in the development of which many of WssTP members are involved.
The ambition of all of these entities is to become leading regional innovation centres.
Examples include initiatives in Aragon (Spain), Friesland (the Netherlands), Centre-Val de
Loire region (France), Puglia (Italy), Central Denmark, South Western Finland, the Swedish
North Baltic water district, the Basque region (Spain), the Hydro Nation (Scotland) and
the region of Malta. Given their wide variety, the different centres provide a nice palette
of multiple kinds of problems and solutions;
at level 9 and beyond (market). At this level we have to make a distinction between the
experimental space that has been created primarily by public end-users in Europe, and
the space that is directed at the private market;
creation of Public Communities of Practice. Among the most recent (2012) developments
is for instance the creation of the Watershare collaboration model (see
Figure 3
and text
box), in which mainly public, knowledge-oriented end-users share their practical water-
innovation experience within Communities of Practice.
•
•
•
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0117.png
International collaboration in water management: water as unifying concept
continued
117
Figure 3:
An example of water network building with Europe as home-base
Source: Watershare
•
creation of platforms for the commercial
Watershare (www.watershare.eu) consists of world-leading, mainly
replication of innovations. Bringing
public water organisations teaming up in a member community
innovations to the market is difficult. The
to set standards and share best practices. Watershare involves a
‘valley of death’ concept in the start-up world
number of large stakeholders, such as the Public Utility Board (PUB)
is all about this: research that succeeds but
of Singapore, Aysa, the water utility of Buenos Aires (Argentina),
innovations that are not taken up by the
Diam, the Public Authority for Electricity & Water (Oman), and the
market. In a number of the above-mentioned
Japanese Water Research Center (JWRC), to mention only a few
regional European knowledge clusters,
(see Figure 3 for all members). Naturally, the European members
a great deal of energy and enthusiasm
draw on many of the Horizon 2020 research outcomes in their
is of course directed at generating new
participation. A good example is SubSol, the subsurface water
commercial activities. Wetsus (Friesland, the
solutions project (2015-2018, 15 partners), which forms the core of
Netherlands) for example is a centre that is
the set of tools that the Watershare’s Subsurface Water Solutions
wholly dedicated to this objective, working
CoP implements.
closely with a dozen or so universities all over
Europe. Another example is Allied Waters
(www.alliedwaters.com), an organisation in
which a small number of stakeholders has, for example, succeeded in taking Subsurface
Water Solutions – partly on the basis of the Horizon 2020 project referred to – to the
heights of global market acceptance under the name
SALutions.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0118.png
International collaboration in water management: water as unifying concept
continued
118
Cooperation on water as model?
The water sector has been following with great interest the developments surrounding
the new FP Horizon Europe, which has ‘mission-orientation’ as its governing theme. Based
on the above, it should be clear that the water sector believes that there is every reason
to designate water as a ‘mission area’. Societal considerations also point in this direction.
Moreover, the combined top-down and bottom-up manner in which the global water
agenda has been implemented over the years offers a good model for a possible successful
cooperation approach. In this manner, Europe would at the same time send an important
message to the global water technology market, which amounts to almost € 650 billion and
is growing at an annual rate of almost 4%.
What would help us gain an objective view of how things stand in our sector is an
independent study of the relation between our water R&D effort and our success on the
world market. National preferences and ambitions naturally play a part in the formation of
national opinion about the role and utility of the EU conquering the world water market. It
is therefore an area in which the ability to regard matters objectively can have a beneficial
influence on framing an informed dialogue and letting the facts speak for themselves. Public
audit institutions, in view of their independence and increasing focus on performance issues,
are ideally positioned to contribute to that. Here the ECA - probably in cooperation with
national audit institutions - could play a positive and productive role.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0119.png
119
Linking national authorities and the EU –
what do national experts take away from
their secondment to the ECA?
By Richard Moore, Translation, Language Services and Publication Directorate
Knowledge exchange is an essential element of international cooperation, and
one that comes in many forms. The main objectives of knowledge exchange are
sharing good practices and strengthening links between peers. Staff secondment
programmes between SAIs are a good example of this in practice. The ECA
benefits greatly from colleagues from national SAIs or public administrations
coming to work in Luxembourg. Richard Moore spoke to some of the national
experts who are seconded to the ECA.
SNEs
Many roads can lead to the Court. For many ECA staff, our road began
with an EPSO competition, a job application for a temporary post, or an
internship. But there is another way. For some people working at the ECA,
the journey to Luxembourg started rather differently, from the starting
point of a position in a national or regional government in a Member
State. These are the ECA’s seconded national experts, or SNEs, working
as auditors or support staff in Luxembourg. They are administratively
attached, or ‘seconded,’ to the ECA, but still employed by a Member State
authority. In most cases, SNEs stay for two years before returning to their
home institutions.
At any time, there are about 15 of these experts employed throughout the
ECA. They come from a mix of Member States, and they are employed in
various different areas of the ECA’s business.
From auditee to auditor
Manja Ernst is one of these SNEs. Manja is an official at the Thüringer
Aufbaubank in Germany, a public bank which acts under contract for the
audit authority for the ERDF in Thüringen, Germany. She has acted as an
external auditor for projects funded under the ERF and the ESF since 2005.
Manja’s work at the ECA is similar to what she’s used to from back home,
where she carried out project, systems, and accounts audits – all of which
have analogies in the ECA’s work. Even the international atmosphere at the
ECA is not quite new to Manja: before she arrived, Manja was a member of
an international working group of auditors working on auditing projects in
central Europe.
So what made Manja apply for a secondment at the ECA? ‘Actually,’ she
says, ‘I had come across the ECA before, but as an auditee, and I got a very
good impression of the ECA colleagues that I met during that audit. Later,
when I was looking for a change in my working environment, I went to an
international careers fair organised by the German foreign ministry, and
there was a delegation from the ECA present to explain how to join the
ECA.’ She applied successfully, moved to Luxembourg, and started working
at the ECA just a few months ago.
Manja says that there is a risk that EU programmes may begin to attract
less attention at national level. ‘When interest rates are low,’ she explains,
‘there’s less interest in taking part in EU-funded programmes, because
beneficiaries can just go to a bank and get a cheap loan without filling in
all of the EU forms, and without having to demonstrate that their projects
Manja Ernst
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0120.png
Linking national authorities and the EU – what do national experts take away from their
secondment to the ECA?
continued
120
will actually provide benefits in terms of jobs created, and that sort of thing.’ In the face
of this, Manja is convinced that the knowledge she will gain from working at the ECA will
help her own institution to maintain its connection with the EU institutions. She also hopes
to act as a conduit, allowing her employer to keep abreast of changes in EU policies and
procedures through her experience.
Benefits for participants and both institutions
Serving as an SNE brings personal advantages to the participants, but
it is also beneficial for both the sending institution and the ECA. David
Boothby is a British SNE who had been working at the UK National Audit
Office (NAO) for ten years before arriving at the Court in September 2016.
He sees parallels and differences between the way his home institution and
the ECA work. ‘The reporting process at the ECA takes much longer than it
does back home,’ he says. But many of the audit procedures which David is
involved with at the ECA are familiar from earlier in his career. David has led
performance audits at the NAO, for example, but under the name of
value-
for-money studies.
The NAO also carries out what the ECA knows as
rapid
case reviews
– but under a different name,
investigations,
which David has
also led.
David also had experience of auditing at international level before
joining the ECA. For two years, he represented the UK NAO on a rotating
board of supreme audit institutions that audit UN bodies: the UN High
Commissioner for Refugees and the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, for
example. ‘The latter involved auditing projects aimed at combating the
production of illegal drugs,’ says David. ‘That international experience was
very helpful in beginning to tackle my work at the ECA. The audits were
structured similarly to the ones we carry out at the ECA: we performed
missions, wrote clearing letters, and dealt with supranational bodies .’
David is now coming towards the end of his ECA secondment. He will take home valuable
experience and insight into how things work at EU level and hopes that, by sharing his
experience of how things are done at the NAO, he has made a lasting contribution to the
ECA’s work as well.
From the regional to the EU perspective
Thierry Lavigne is a French civil servant; his road to the ECA was a long
and varied one. Before becoming an auditor, he was a language and
communications teacher, working in Croatia and Egypt for extended
periods. He particularly enjoys the investigative aspects of the work of an
auditor: if things had turned out differently, he says, he might instead have
applied to become a police officer .
Before coming to Luxembourg, Thierry was working at a regional court
of auditors near Paris. His work there was different from his current
duties at the ECA, especially when it comes to performance audits: work
at the regional court of auditors was focused on checking financial
accounts, and finding weaknesses in them. Thierry sees many differences
between his work at the regional court of auditors in France and the
European Court of Auditors in Luxembourg. ‘The ECA makes much more
positive recommendations,’ he says. ‘At the regional court of auditors,
recommendations tend mainly to be a list of irregularities.’ At the ECA,
Thierry enjoys being able to go straight to the source of the information,
rather than just examining accounts. That having been said, French audit
officials have a significant advantage which is unavailable to their ECA
colleagues: they have the status of a judge, and all of the powers and
autonomy that that entails.
David Boothby
Thierry Lavigne
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0121.png
Linking national authorities and the EU – what do national experts take away from their
secondment to the ECA?
continued
121
Security cooperation
Not all of the SNEs are auditors. There are also a number of seconded national
experts working with the ECA’s security team. One of these is Maria del Pilar
Chacon Moreno, a serving Spanish police officer. Before arriving at the ECA,
Maria had been with the Spanish national police force for thirteen years. She is
a registered firearms instructor, and worked in the Spanish police’s diplomatic
protection unit, helping to protect the Spanish embassy in Brussels. Now,
though, she is four months into a two-year secondment at the ECA.
Isn’t it a little excessive to have trained military and police officers protecting an
institution like the ECA? Maria does not agree. ‘Zero-risk situations don’t exist,’
she says. ‘If something were to happen, it’s important to be prepared.’ But more
importantly, the experts’ presence in the ECA is enriching both for the security
team and for the SNEs themselves.
Staff exchanges bridge gaps
Vivi Niemenmaa has been working at the ECA
since October 2013. She has another year to
go, and then she will be going back to Finland,
Maria del Pilar Chacon Moreno
where she works as a civil servant at the Finnish
national audit office. Vivi has a background in
environmental policy, and this made the opportunity to
spend time at the ECA particularly enriching. ‘In many other
policy fields, such as social policy,’ she says, ‘there isn’t much
of a relation to EU policy-making. But in environmental
protection, there is.’ Vivi has worked on many audits
during her time at the ECA – audits on marine protection,
climate and energy policy, and air pollution. ‘I feel that my
experience in Luxembourg has helped me to understand
the EU’s policies and workings far better.’
Vivi Niemenmaa
A common thread across all of the SNEs is the belief that
secondments help to maintain the link between Member
State authorities and EU institutions. As Vivi puts it: ‘From the perspective of the Member
States, EU policy can sometimes seem very far away. A secondment at the ECA has helped
to bridge that gap on a personal level, but that also benefits the sending institution back
home.’ The EU’s work is often complex, but by exchanging staff and inviting officials to
work directly on auditing EU policy, Member State authorities can ensure that they keep
up-to-date on developments at EU level, helping them to implement and manage EU
programmes more effectively.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0122.png
122
Foreign exchange – the ECA cooperating
with other SAIs through staff secondment
By Michael Pyper, Translation, Language Services and Publication Directorate
ECA auditors can participate in an exchange programme offering them the
opportunity to work at the SAI of an EU Member State. During their stint abroad,
which usually lasts two years, they gain valuable experience and learn about
different working methods and products. Michael Pyper profiles some of the ECA
auditors who have participated or are currently participating in the programme to
find out what motivated them to sign up for this exchange.
Lars Markstroem – Skiing to work
Lars Markstroem, a Swedish auditor in
the External action, Security and Justice
Directorate, had always been satisfied
with life at the ECA and in Luxembourg,
and had never been tempted to return
to his homeland on a permanent basis.
However, in 2015 the opportunity for
a temporary homecoming arose in the
form of secondment to the Swedish
Riksrevisionen: ‘I thought: ‘Yes, why not?’
Our children had gone for university
studies and my wife was accepting to
start a ‘commuting relationship’ since she
did not want to move from Luxembourg.’
Lars started his secondment in 2016,
succeeding fellow interviewee Horst
Fischer, and went to the Swedish SAI
Lars Markstroem in front of the Swedish
Riksrevisionen
expecting a robust organisation with
stable management. What he arrived to,
however, was an organization experiencing a period of upheaval, which had begun during
Horst’s stay. ‘When I started, the EU liaison officer was replaced, the head of HR was vacant,
my head of unit was there on a temporary basis, etc. Rumours about nepotism and lack of
independence were floating around. Over the summer, these allegations were leaked to the
press and it resulted in the almost simultaneous resignation of all three Auditors General.'
‘Friends from the outside asked what I had done, but I had of course nothing to do with
this turmoil!’ However, Lars saw the situation improving during his stay. ‘Due to this crisis,
the Swedish SAI became more interested in how other supreme audit institutions were
working, including the ECA.’ By the beginning of 2017 three new Auditors General were in
office and the organisation was recovering. The new management started off very prudent
with a focus to reassure and respect the professional knowledge of the staff. Back to basic
audit work and value proper civil servant behaviour. ‘Eventually, confidence was coming
back to the institution.’
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0123.png
Foreign exchange – the ECA cooperating with other SAIs through staff secondment
continued
123
Lars was assigned to the financial audit department, where the audit work is focused on the
annual report for around 240 government agencies within Sweden’s highly decentralised
system of public administration. Compared to the ECA, financial audit at the Swedish
Riksrevisionen differs in many ways:
•
•
•
•
its audit work focuses on the financial statements of the audited agency;
it issues annual audit opinions for each of the 240 agencies;
there is no discharge procedure in Sweden, so annual audit opinions do not serve this
purpose;
the Swedish Parliament has a rather restrained role in dealing with the audit reports
from the Swedish SAI, which addresses its financial audit reports primarily to the
government;
compliance audit work is limited and almost no audit work is done at beneficiary level.
•
Around half of Swedish SAI’s staff work in performance audit. Lars did not work on any
performance audit tasks there, but his impression was that the institution’s performance
audits did not differ much from the ECA’s. Another observation concerns the employment
status of its staff: ‘There are no specific statutes for civil servants in Sweden, and it is not
unusual for staff to switch between private and public sector.’
Lars has plenty of good things to say about life in his country of origin, notwithstanding
some extreme weather: ‘Overall, the working environment is very pleasant in Sweden,
and Stockholm is such a beautiful city to live and work in. But you must be able to survive
the dark and cold winter period. One morning when I woke up in early November it had
snowed more than half a metre – I had to put on my skis to get to work! On the other hand,
this summer everyone was looking for a swim in the water to cope with the extreme heat.’
After 18 years working in the EU institutions, Lars was used to hearing complaints about
their shortcomings, democratic deficits and so on. But the opportunity to look at the
EU from the outside allowed him to see many things in its system of managing a public
budget and democratic control as a model worth emulating: “It made me proud to be an
EU official!' Lars returned to Luxemburg and the ECA in the autumn of 2018, highly positive
about his experience.
Loulla Puisais-Jauvin – Working with the elite of the French
public administration
In 2014, the ECA decided to establish an exchange with the French
Cour des comptes. Loulla Puisais-Jauvin was the first ECA official to
be seconded to the Cour des comptes, taking up her duties on 1
March 2015 for an initial period of two years, which was extended
until the end of August 2018. She recalls: ‘I was rather excited to have
the opportunity to work in an institution that recruits the elite of
the French public administration – like the Council of State and the
Loulla Puisais-Jauvin
General Inspectorate of Finance – and is very well regarded.’ Loulla
looked forward to the challenge of working in a new environment, in both institutional and
geographical terms. Her first surprise was the flatter organisational structure: the French
Cour des comptes does not have secretaries, heads of task, principal managers or directors.
‘You just have audit teams, generally of 2-4 people, who report directly to a senior member
of the Court and to the president of the Chamber.’
Loulla was assigned to the 5th Chamber , which deals with social issues such as
employment, professional training and social housing. She worked on new thematic
areas that pose challenges for the EU today and worked on several reports leading to
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0124.png
Foreign exchange – the ECA cooperating with other SAIs through staff secondment
continued
124
publications. She recalls: ‘I was sent with colleagues to several countries (Denmark, the
Netherlands and Switzerland) to perform a benchmark on how the problem of youth
unemployment was dealt with in countries other than France.’ She also worked on fraud
prevention in the area of professional training, which was reflected in the French SAI’s 2017
Annual Public Report. ‘I also worked on several evaluations on the use of European Structural
and Investment Funds in France, with a particular focus on the five outermost regions: La
Réunion, Mayotte, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Guyane. Overall, Loulla found it a really
challenging but rewarding experience and would encourage colleagues to do something
similar. ‘In current times, with the EU and its institutions facing criticism, it is important to
spend some time in the Member States and explain what EU does and what it does not.’
Emese Fesus –Delighted with both her
adopted institution and living in Paris
Emese Fesus, an auditor from Hungary
in the ECA’s Sustainable use of Natural
Resources Directorate, is currently on a
two-year secondment to the French SAI
in Paris, inspired to do so by the very
positive experiences of ECA colleagues
who participated in the secondment
programme before her. ‘A secondment
helps you to expand your network,
which will help to improve cooperation
with other SAIs in the future. Moreover,
I had studied at the Ecole Nationale
d'Administration (ENA) and lived in
France, which meant adapting would
be easier.’ Indeed, it comes across clearly
that Emese is delighted with both her
adopted institution and living in Paris.
Emese Fesus at the French
Cour des comptes
In her 14 years at the ECA, Emese’s work encompassed both performance and financial audits
on areas including agriculture, rural development, climate change, fisheries, environment,
health, and consumer protection. She feels that her experience and knowledge, not least
in auditing EU funds, has enabled her to fit into her new working environment, which
was made even easier by the warm welcome she received from senior management,
including the First President, the President of the 2nd Chamber, the Secretariat General, the
International Department and colleagues upon her arrival in Paris in September 2018. Emese
works in the Chamber devoted to her specialist areas, agriculture and the environment, and
the French Cour des comptes has been keen to tap into her expertise in auditing EU funds.
She has already been invited to give a presentation to her colleagues on the ECA’s working
methods and approach to audit, and attended the annual bilateral meeting between the
two SAIs in Paris on 11 October (see page 102). ‘This was very interesting for me and I hope
to contribute further developing our bilateral technical cooperation.’ She explains that, at
first glance, the French public audit system appears very different from the EU’s audit system.
The most obvious difference is that the French Cour des comptes, set up by Napoleon in
1807, has judicial powers, which the ECA does not. It has a specific organ to publicly judge
and sanction individuals managing public funds. However, as Emese points out, ’both
institutions are based on similar values: independence and a collegial system’. The French
SAI undertakes financial, compliance and performance audits just as the ECA does, based on
regulations, proceedings and methods in accordance with international standards.
The French court has a wide range of publications deriving from its four missions: issuing
rulings (by financial judges) on the accounts of public accounting officers, auditing the
proper use of public funds (legality and regularity, as well as performance), evaluating public
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0125.png
Foreign exchange – the ECA cooperating with other SAIs through staff secondment
continued
125
policies and certifying the accounts of the State (including Parliament’s accounts) and the
social security system. It publishes various types of reports (not only audit reports), given
its role and mission in controlling the government and assisting the Parliament. However,
publication, including direct communication with citizens and the media, is at the core of
its mandate, as explicitly stated in the French Constitution.
Emese has drawn inspiration from the way the French Cour des comptes does things.
One example is the cross-chamber investigation on EU funds in France in which she is
participating. This involves team members drawn from different chambers, including some
delegated from regional chambers, set up as a matrix organisation to produce this report
to the French Parliament.
Another useful element is a means of quality control called a ‘contre-rapporteur,’ which
greatly interests Emese. ‘For this function, a senior member follows the team as an
observer but does not take part in the investigation process, delivering an independent
assessment at each stage of the process to improve the quality of the report.’
Emese is very grateful to have been selected for the secondment programme. During her
secondment, she intends to maintain close contact with Luxembourg and the ECA and
hopes to act as a useful link between the two institutions to further develop cooperation
and exchange between them.
Rafal Gorajski – Customer service mentality
Rafal Gorajski, an auditor at the Investment for Cohesion, Growth and
Inclusion Directorate originating from Poland, has been seconded at the
UK’s National Audit Office (NAO) since January 2018. Having participated
most recently in the performance audit of the Commission’s and EIB’s Joint
Assistance to Support Projects in European Regions (JASPERS) initiative,
among other things, Rafal decided it was time for something a bit different.
That was when the opening at the UK NAO came up, which immediately
interested him.
Going across the Channel was not a culture shock for Rafal. He also
emphasises how friendly and supportive his British colleagues have been.
There were, however, subtle cultural differences between the ECA and the
UK NAO that, he admits, threw him a little off balance initially. For example:
‘In the UK NAO, unlike at the ECA, people don’t say hello or good morning
to each other in the corridor or in the lift, unless it’s someone they work with
directly.’ A colleague then explained to him that this was a British thing, and
particularly a London thing.
Differences also became noticeable due the UK NAO having open-plan
offices. Rafal’s experiences in this regard have been rather positive: ‘It works.’
He finds it a way of working which is more conducive to teamwork and has,
for example, rendered many meetings unnecessary. ‘This created a nice
team dynamic.’
Another difference between the UK NAO and the ECA, and one which has a more direct
impact on the actual audit work, is what Rafal describes as the UK’s ‘customer service
mentality.’ At the NAO, they refer to their auditees – government departments and
executive bodies – as clients and treat them accordingly, placing great emphasis on
maintaining good relations. As nice as this might sound, Rafal explains, it is not necessarily
conducive to open, direct communication in the context of pointing out weaknesses,
which, after all, is often the whole point of the audit. Moreover, it is difficult to demand
information from clients with quite the same urgency as one would from auditees.
Rafal Goranski
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0126.png
Foreign exchange – the ECA cooperating with other SAIs through staff secondment
continued
126
At the UK NAO, Rafal is part of the Central Investigation Team, which coordinates and carries
out ‘investigations.’ These form a different type of audit product similar to the ECA’s rapid
case reviews. Compared to performance audits (or ‘value-for-money audit’) as they do not
present conclusions or recommendations, just the facts. One major advantage of this, he
explains, is that it cuts out the need to debate these conclusions and recommendations
during an adversarial procedure, which saves time. However, this does not diminish the
impact of such investigations: auditors leading investigations undergo hearings before the
Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and, based on the facts presented, the PAC can directly
make recommendations.
In addition, unlike the recommendations arising from a value-for-money audit, such
recommendations made by the PAC are legally binding. Rafal has been leading one such
investigation since July, although he is not yet at liberty to disclose what it is about. In
his early days at the UK NAO, he was also involved in an investigation into the collapse of
Carillion, a major UK government contractor. Rafal is impressed by the dynamic ethos of his
team, with a healthy competition between his colleagues to go above and beyond the call
of duty and volunteer for extra responsibility. ‘Working in the Central Investigation Team is a
pleasure. They are full of ideas and have no problem expressing them.’ As a seconded auditor,
Rafal has also been given plenty of opportunity, in meetings with the leadership team and
the Comptroller & Auditor General, to share his views on how the UK NAO does things, based
on his ECA experience.
Horst Fischer – Taking your work outdoors to enjoy the
sunshine
Horst Fischer of the Audit Quality Control Committee Directorate
and German national, spent two years at the Swedish SAI, from
2014 to 2016. After several years in Luxembourg and at the ECA,
he was eager for the opportunity to really get to know another
European country through the secondment programme.
Sweden was a natural choice for Horst, as he already knew the
language and had spent many summers on the West coast of
Sweden. The Swedish NAO, the Riksrevisionen, is, however, based
in Stockholm – a metropolis by Swedish standards with two
million inhabitants and, on the face of it, a very international
capital city. It turned out that it is one thing to visit a country but
quite another to live there. Horst admits: ’We thought we knew
the country but, once we moved there, we realised that this was
not the case.’
During his secondment, Horst (and his whole family) had an
immersion in a truly Swedish experience. Horst noticed the
effects of this immersion above all at a linguistic level, as he was
thrust into an environment where native Swedish speakers spoke
to other native speakers, and the onus was on him to adapt to
the everyday subtleties of Swedish as spoken among the Swedes:
‘Language was not an issue for anyone but me!’
Horst Fisher in Sweden
Asked about striking cultural differences he encountered in Sweden, Horst emphasises the
egalitarian nature of Swedish society. At a professional level, he says, this egalitarianism is
reflected in the way that, in meetings, everyone is given the chance to say their piece and
each opinion is valued. Moreover, if a meeting was scheduled to last an hour, it lasted no
longer than that, and participants kept their contributions correspondingly short. Once
the hour was up, it was fine to excuse oneself and leave. Furthermore, what mattered was
producing results and meeting deadlines, not where people chose to work. Teleworking was
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0127.png
Foreign exchange – the ECA cooperating with other SAIs through staff secondment
continued
127
very common: ‘Once, a colleague left a note on her door saying she had taken her work out
to the park for the afternoon to enjoy the sunshine. This was perfectly acceptable. It worked!’
At the same time, Horst found that Swedish culture’s emphasis on consensus and avoiding
conflict was sometimes an impediment to efficient decision-making.
In Sweden, Horst worked in quality control in performance audit, in the team examining
the national social security system. He was also involved in the parallel performance audit
of public procurement in the Western Balkans, together with auditors from Riksrevisionen,
the ECA and the SAIs of various Balkan countries. Because quality control at Riksrevisionen
follows international standards, and ISSAI 40 in particular, just as it does at the ECA,
Horst found it easy to adjust to his new role. However, there was one particularly notable
difference, which has its basis in Swedish law: ‘In Sweden, even the working documents
of public authorities are, in principle, considered to be public documents. This means that
any citizen could go into Riksrevisionen and demand to see the working documents for a
particular audit, which makes thorough documentation even more important.’
An obvious difference is the lack of audit visits on the spot – something rather central to life
as an ECA auditor. Horst only rarely had to leave Stockholm to visit auditees. In addition, the
Swedish SAI makes great use of external experts and invites academics to discuss issues,
asking for reviews of particular issues or entire draft reports and using them as experts
during audits.
As much as he initially craved immersion in an entirely national experience, his secondment
made him realise that after 16 years in the EU institutions, his outlook was an incorrigibly
international one. ‘This was something new for me, this national perspective on everything.
For example, I attended a huge conference on the Millennium Development Goals,
organised by the Swedish development agency. I went there with my ‘European’ mind and
was amazed to see how you can approach a problem like development aid from a purely
national perspective.’ In his second year, he started spending half his time working in the SAI’s
international office, which cooperates not only with INTOSAI but also on a bilateral basis with
several other SAIs.
While he learned a lot from his Swedish immersion, he returned, after two years looking at it
from the outside, with a renewed appreciation of the ECA and his colleagues in Luxembourg.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0128.png
128
Participating in the IMF’s Public Investment
Management Assessment of Senegal
By Laura Gores, Private Office of Oscar Herics, ECA Member
From 31 October to 17 November
2018, Laura Gores joined a team of
the International Monetary Fund
(IMF) carrying out a public investment
management assessment (PIMA) in
Senegal. During almost two weeks,
she got a very intensive crash
course in the work the IMF’s does
in this complex and technical, yet
fascinating area.
Despite improvements in the Country’s road
network, Dakar’s street are typically congested with
buoyant business and “ad hoc” transportation means
Clear-cut curiosity
The Public Investment Management
Assesment (PIMA) initiative had attracted my
curiosity ever since Gerd Schwartz, Deputy
Director of the Fiscal Affairs Department
(FAD) of the IMF, presented the methodology
at the ECA in July 2018. The PIMA touches
upon subjects I have experience in, such
as infrastructure and third countries. So
when I heard about the call for applicants, I
immediately knew I wanted to take part and
applied.
Naturally, I was very happy when I was offered
by the IMF the opportunity to participate
in such a cooperation project in Senegal.
Although, I also felt a bit like tumbling down
the rabbit hole when I started preparing for
the mission, trying to get a grasp on the PIMA
methodology and wrapping my head around
public investment policies in Senegal.
Cooperation between the IMF and the ECA
While being rather different in role and set-up, there are several
topics where the two institutions touch the same ground. In
the past, ECA auditors have met IMF experts, for example when
auditing the Commission’s intervention in the Greek financial
crisis (see for instance ECA special report 17/2017), as the IMF had
played a key role in providing assistance. Or when working with
IMF experts, for example Ruben Lamdany of the Independent
Evaluation Office of the IMF, who acted as member of an expert
panel for ECA audits in financial economic governance topics (see
also the
ECA Journal of February 2018).
The IMF cooperates with several international organisations
regarding its Public Investment Management Assessment (PIMA)
initiative, for example, with the World Bank. Since a PIMA provides
an overview of the strengths and weaknesses of a country’s public
investment procedures this is also relevant for the ECA.
In July 2018, following the visit of Gerd Schwartz, Deputy Director
of the IMF’s Fiscal Affairs Department, the ECA decided to have
a few experienced ECA auditors participate in PIMA missions in
Europe, Africa or Asia. On 30 November, Vitor Gaspar, Director
of IMF’s Fiscal Affairs Department, visited the ECA and gave a
presentation on public sector balance sheets as a tool for public
finance management and better fiscal policymaking.
Source: IMF PIMA team
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0129.png
Participating in the IMF’s Public Investment Management Assessment of Senegal
continued
129
Challenging, humbling and enjoyable
My initial fears were taken away when I met the PIMA
team on the spot in Senegal. All team members
are acutely aware of the political context and the
challenges of public administration in Senegal, and
can boast a long-standing experience in public finance
and technical assistance in Sub-Saharan Africa and
the design of the PIMA methodology. Being by far the
most inexperienced team member, I was relieved to
find out that I would get a lot of support from them.
Source: IMF PIMA team
Market halls have been a priority for public investment
to boost small businesses and improve hygiene and
sanitation in public places
How are PIMA missions organised?
Preliminary works:
upon request from the authorities (May 2018 in this case), FAD swiftly
mobilizes resources and experts for the technical assistance (TA) and starts the following
studies:
•
•
a desk-analysis of the efficiency of the country’s public investment management from
a database that covers 100+ countries in the world;
an in-country self-assessment by the government units, possibly under the
supervision of an IMF staff assigned to, and residing in the country.
In-country phase of the assessment:
The IMF carries out its entire PIMA mission in the
beneficiary country. During this two-week visit (November 2018), the assessment team is
busy with: fact-checking the authorities’ self-assessment; designing and discussing an action
plan with the authorities; and producing the – in this case - sixty-page draft report. Handing
out the draft before the team leaves the country is actually a signature of the IMF – no other
international institution does this.
Team organization:
The work was split along the three investment management cycles
(e.g. planning, resource allocation, and implementation of investment projects). Three team
members were each in charge of one cycle-including Laura, responsible for the “planning”
cycle. The fourth team member assessed a predefined set of cross-cutting and sub-questions,
which fed into the three cycles. The mission-head was in charge of managing relations
with the authorities, drafting an analysis of the PIM efficiency, overseeing team works, and
producing the final report.
Work schedule:
Missions are quite long and resource intense: in Laura’s case, the team was
composed of five staff members, who stayed in Senegal for two weeks. They worked every
day, including weekends, except for one day, during which the mission-head produced
the report out of the individual contributions. The PIMA calendar was organised along the
following sequence:
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0130.png
Participating in the IMF’s Public Investment Management Assessment of Senegal
continued
130
May June 2018
Preliminary
Works
•
Desk analysis on PIM efficiency
•
Self assessment by government
officials
November 2018
Thursday
2
-Friday
Week-
2
end
General visits to high-
level authorities
Organizational works,
including task sharing,
and processing
information
Technical meetings
Analytic works and
Discussing mission’s
findings
Workshop
(to discuss action plan)
Report drafting
Wrap-up sessions with
authorities and donors
In-Country
Assessment
•
Raising Awareness
•
Fact checking the self assessment
•
Designing an action plan
•
Delivering a draft report
Week 1
5
Week-
2
end
Monday
1
Tuesday-
3
Thursday
Follow-up
•
Quality control and review
•
Finalizing the report
•
Planning for follow up assistance
Friday
Total
1
12 Working days
December-January 2019
Follow up works:
the draft report undergoes a fully-fledge quality control process, being
reviewed by government officials, and IMF staff, proficient with the country’s policies and the
PIMA methodology. The report is typically finalized within 45 days after the in-country phase
of the mission (January 2019 in this case). Follow-up capacity development may be provided
upon authorities’ request to help implement the PIMA action plan. This technical assistance
(TA) may involve staff and experts hired by the IMF or its Regional Technical Assistance
Center, or trainings delivered by IMF institutes. Most often donors, including the EU, provide
complementary TA to accompany the authorities.
Always having been curious to take on
new projects and to visit new places, new
ideas and new people, I truly enjoyed this
PIMA mission for its many insights. Senegal
is a fascinating country with a motivated
and competent public administration that
is keen to drive its country forward. And
from a professional point of view, for me,
as an auditor, it was very interesting to get
an inkling of the challenges of providing
technical assistance. These insights will
certainly help me when I will have to
look at technical assistance from an audit
perspective.
Insightful experience
With the PIMA, the IMF tries, amongst other
things, to answer questions of public finance.
Examples of these issues are state debt,
treasury management or public accounts.
In addition, the IMF relies quite a bit on its
own macroeconomic datasets, which gave
me a very concise, but definitely interesting
insight into macroeconomic calculations and
data visualisation.
Source: IMF PIMA team
From left: Thomas Kurkdjian, IMF, Laura Gores, ECA, Benoit
Taiclet, Head of Mission, Jean-François Dagues, Ha Vu, all
three IMF.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0131.png
Participating in the IMF’s Public Investment Management Assessment of Senegal
continued
The IMF uses a very structured approach for the PIMA. One could argue, of course, that this
limits the reasoning to a predefined set of questions. I nevertheless found it an impressive
tool, since it makes it possible to produce a complex assessment within a short timeframe.
I definitely liked the approach of testing conclusions, recommendations and an action plan
on the spot with the authorities. A one-day workshop brought together those authorities
most concerned by potential future changes. I found these discussions very valuable,
and they made for recommendations that have actually been validated by those most
concerned.
All elements of this experience were full of lessons. This included reading-up the subject and
preparing for the mission, to the actual assessment in Senegal, to discussing my adventure
with colleagues once back in Luxemburg. I can certainly recommend such an experience to
my colleagues and hope that through the participation in missions like this the cooperation
between the IMF and the ECA will further be intensified.
Cooperation between the IMF and the ECA
While being rather different in role and set-up, there are
several topics where the two institutions touch the same
ground. In the past, ECA auditors have met IMF experts, for
example when auditing the Commission’s intervention in
the Greek financial crisis (see for instance ECA special report
17/2017), as the IMF had played a key role in providing
assistance. Or when working with IMF experts, for example
Ruben Lamdany of the Independent Evaluation Office of
the IMF, who acted as member of an expert panel for ECA
audits in financial economic governance topics (see also
the ECA Journal of February 2018).
The IMF cooperates with several international organisations
regarding its Public Investment Management Assessment
(PIMA) initiative, for example, with the World Bank.
Since a PIMA provides an overview of the strengths and
weaknesses of a country’s public investment procedures
this is also relevant for the ECA. In July 2018, following
the visit of Gerd Schwartz, Deputy Director of the IMF’s
Fiscal Affairs Department, the ECA decided to have a few
experienced ECA auditors participate in PIMA missions
in Europe, Africa or Asia. On 30 November, Vitor Gaspar,
Director of IMF’s Fiscal Affairs Department, visited the ECA
and gave a presentation on public sector balance sheets
as a tool for public finance management and better fiscal
policymaking. Four questions for Vitor Gaspar.
You have worked at the European Commission and at
the ECB. How does your work at the IMF differ from these
two European institutions and where do you feel your
experience at European level is particularly useful in the
IMF?
The IMF is a global institution with 189 member-countries.
For me, working at the IMF, opens a window to the world
beyond Europe to Asia, Africa and the Americas. Take for
example our recent work on public-sector balance sheets,
released in our Fall 2018 Fiscal Monitor. This work highlights
issues that are relevant for all countries, across all income
groups and regions. As for my European experience, I
think it helps in important areas, such as, fiscal-monetary
interactions, and fiscal rules and institutions.
The IMF seeks to cooperate with several institutions,
including by involving their staff in IMF activities. Perhaps
131
the most logical institutions in this respect are the World
Bank, the Financial Stability Board, with government
departments of its 189 members, with the UN, with statistical
experts, etc. What does the IMF seek through its cooperation
with public audit institutions?
The IMF cooperates with many other international
organizations and national institutions. The expertise of staff
from audit institutions—national, regional or international—
is particularly valuable on public financial management
(PFM).
Laura Gores, ECA staff member, was team member of an
IMF mission concerning a public investment management
assessment. How are PIMA team members selected and why
is the ECA – and perhaps particularly the ECA - a possible
source for cooperation efforts on this topic?
The IMF’s Fiscal Affairs Department maintains a roster of
fiscal experts to contribute to our capacity development
activities. These experts are usually selected to complement
the technical expertise of our own staff in specific areas.
The public investment management assessment (PIMA)
mission to Senegal, which Laura Gores joined, reviewed the
country’s infrastructure governance institutions and practice.
Her knowledge on public investment issues, including
investment planning and programming, gained from her
work at ECA, were particularly helpful in this regard. We
believe that the technical skills of ECA’s audit staff are highly
complementary to the technical skills of our own staff.
In which areas do you foresee possibilities for further future
cooperation between the IMF and the ECA?
We see benefits for all stakeholders—our member countries,
ECA staff, and IMF staff—in continuing to strengthen our
technical cooperation in different areas of capacity building
on PFM issues. After a very good start, we intend to
continue to explore the possibility of involving ECA staff in
our various standardized assessment missions (e.g., PIMAs,
Fiscal Transparency Evaluations). It is also possible to cover
other PFM areas to further benefit from complementarities
between the skills of ECA auditors and IMF economists. We
intend to continue to strengthen our cooperation with ECA
on a pragmatic basis.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0132.png
132
Performance audit and cooperation
ECA performance audit of public-private
partnerships
By Enrico Grassi, Investment for Cohesion, Growth and Inclusion Directorate
Cooperation between audit institutions is often a conscious, targeted decision by
one or more participants. Sometimes, however, cooperation develops organically,
for example during an audit or the publication of an audit report.
Enrico Grassi was head of task for the latest ECA performance audit on public-
private partnerships (special report 9/2018 published in March). Here, he shares
his experiences to show how performance audits can foster cooperation and how
cooperation can in turn increase the impact of performance audits.
Audit impact and cooperation: mutual benefit
The ECA’s performance audits often have considerable potential to influence policy-
makers, at least at European level. By cooperating with national and international
organisations, including the SAIs, we can exploit the potential of our observations,
conclusions and recommendations, and explore new ways to maximise the impact of our
audit methodology.
The recent performance audit on public-private partnerships (PPPs) shows how a
performance audit can foster cooperation and how cooperation can increase the impact of
our performance audits.
Main findings of Special Report No 9/2018 on Public-Private Partnerships
As the ECA finalised its performance audit on Public-Private Partnerships, PPPs were regaining
popularity among both public and private investors. Low interest rates led private investors to
look for alternative investment opportunities that could guarantee advantageous returns on
equity. Meanwhile, stagnating economies throughout the EU caused public authorities to look
for ways to offer good investment opportunities despite limited public resources and increased
public debt and deficit levels. The European Commission and the European Investment Bank,
for instance, set up the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI), with the clear aim of
leveraging public funds with private funds in order to increase overall investment.
We analysed a number of PPP projects in four different Member States, together with the
national and EU institutional and legal frameworks, and drew up a comprehensive performance
audit report. The message was very clear: although in theory PPPs can combine the best public
and private expertise, to the benefit of project performance, efficiency and economy, these
potential benefits are very difficult to achieve and the side effects can easily become costly, to
the detriment of the public purse.
We found that most of the PPPs we audited did not result in the expected benefits, especially in
terms of efficiency and economy; on the contrary, they sometimes generated additional delays
and costs. Overall, 1.5 billion euro were spent ineffectively, 0.4 billion euro of which came from
EU funds. This was partly due to inadequate analyses leading to over-optimistic assumptions and
unsuitable approaches – probably caused by inadequate institutional and legal frameworks that
encouraged the use of PPPs without taking into account value for money. As only a few Member
States have consolidated experience and expertise in implementing successful PPP projects,
there is a high risk that PPPs will not contribute as much as expected to the aim of implementing
the majority of EU funds through blended projects (including PPPs).
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0133.png
Performance audit and cooperation ECA performance audit of public-private partnerships
continued
133
Interest during the audit
Even before the special report was published, this audit gave us several
opportunities to cooperate with national SAIs. We arranged meetings with the SAIs
before our audit visits to public authorities and project sites to provide them with
information about the audit and our audit methodology. This also enabled us to
gather information about any audits carried out by the SAI in the same field, and
meet the SAI auditors due to accompany us during the audit, in line with Article
287 of the Treaty.
In Greece, the interest was such that soon after the audit visit we were invited to
explain our methodology as part of a performance audit seminar in Athens. My
interactive introduction to our methodology was also webstreamed in all the local
branches of the Greek Court of Audit.
Interest after publication
Following its publication in March 2018, the special report on PPPs received
considerable attention and substantial media coverage for such a technical topic.
This sparked interest from other national and international institutions, such as the
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Commission
DGs and the United Nations.
The OECD asked me to speak at a seminar on auditing PPPs at the Turkish SAI in
Ankara. Turkey has become a leading country in terms of the number and value
of its PPPs. These included not only the new Istanbul airport - a mega-PPP project
worth tens of billions of euros - but also a wide range of other PPP projects (either
under implementation or in the pipeline), especially in the field of transport.
Together with an auditor from the French Court of Audit, who was present for our
audit visits to France, I explained the methodology used and our observations,
conclusions and recommendations. After the seminar, the Turkish SAI planned to
translate our special report into Turkish for distribution to its staff.
The International Transport Forum at the OECD, meanwhile, invited the audit team
to be part of the panel at an event on PPPs and private investment in transport
infrastructures. The event took place on 22 June 2018 and involved public
and private stakeholders, and speakers both from academia and from public
institutions. Speakers at subsequent seminars and events then took up our theme.
The Commission’s Directorate-General for International Cooperation and
Development (DEVCO) also became aware of the report. As many developing
countries aim to finance growth through public-private partnerships, DEVCO
invited us to present the audit findings, conclusions and recommendations at
a seminar with the EU Delegations for Asia and the Pacific. My presentation on
30 May 2018 raised awareness of the potential drawbacks of badly designed or
implemented PPP projects, as PPPs are sometimes treated as a panacea for all ills
and the potential risks are not given sufficient consideration.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0134.png
Performance audit and cooperation ECA performance audit of public-private partnerships
continued
134
Snowball effect
Following the presentation at DEVCO, the EU
Delegation in Kyrgyzstan invited us to present our
audit findings to representatives of the national
government and private and public entities,
including the national SAI. The EU Delegation
translated the special report into Russian for the
seminar, which was organised with the Swiss
embassy in Bishkek on 31 October 2018. I took
the opportunity to meet with the SAI separately
the day before in order to provide them with
information about our audit methodology. I also
told the SAI about the possibility of future online
courses on our performance audit methodology.
The United Nations, for its part, realised that
achieving the Sustainable Development Goals
with public funds alone was unfeasible due to
insufficient sums. It therefore developed the
"People First Public-Private Partnership" concept,
which aims to achieve the SDGs with the help of
private money. The United Nations Conference on
Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the United
Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE)
– the two UN agencies involved in this project -
found that there were important lessons to be
learned from our special report and wanted to
spread the word. They invited me to speak at the
World Investment Forum in Geneva, attended by
delegates from all over the world, on 25 October
2018. In view of this event, I also wrote a blog
for UNCTAD’s website
1
. Our special report was
also quoted several times in a report on extreme
poverty and human rights adopted by the UN
General Assembly on 26 September 2018.
Special report 9/2018 on Public-Private Partnerships generated
a lot of media attention; in China for example.
1
http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/Blog/Index/78
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0135.png
Performance audit and cooperation ECA performance audit of public-private
partnerships
continued
135
Meeting at the UN in Geneva on 25 October 2018
Leveraging audit impact through cooperation
To conclude, experience has shown that our reports can have an impact far beyond the
audited countries or authorities, as they highlight shortcomings that might also occur in
other projects or countries. Similarly, although our recommendations are addressed to
the Commission or specific Member States, they offer valuable input that can be applied
in any country or context. Therefore, cooperating with other national and international
organisations to broadcast the messages of our special reports can increase their visibility
and scope of influence. Furthermore, they have a significant preventive effect that could
help to preclude or mitigate future issues.
Cooperating with the SAIs and sharing our audit methodology can also help to increase the
impact of performance audits, providing the audit authorities with effective tools and input
for impactful audits in complex audit fields such as PPPs. This could increase the number and
effectiveness of performance audits by national SAIs in areas in which the ECA has no audit
mandate. There is therefore potential to achieve a significant impact via the multiplier effect
of the adoption and implementation of our audit methodology by individual countries.
This experience has shown that cooperating effectively with national and international
authorities, including SAIs, can raise awareness of the importance of performance audits and
ensure that they cover a higher proportion of national policies and projects. This may lead
policy-makers and decision-makers at every level to pay greater attention to the proper use
of public resources.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0136.png
136
Reaching out
ECA Training Day 2018: an opportunity for learning, training and
sharing knowledge
By Veronica Ardelean and Bernadett Soos-Pétek, Human Resources, Finance and
General Services Directorate
Training Day: an ECA landmark event
Every year the ECA
organises an annual training
day, which is one of the
many highlights among the
numerous training activities
offered throughout the year.
Keynot speaker at the ECA
Training Day 2018 was Alan
Smith, data visualisation
editor at the Financial
Times. Veronica Ardelean
and Bernadett Soos-Pétek,
respectively principal
manager and course
developer in the ECA’s
Professional Training team,
look back at an intensive
day of ‘learning, training and
sharing.’
Training Day has become a landmark event at the European Court of
Auditors. The event, which takes place every year in autumn, is also a
good illustration of the ECA’s learning and development framework:
‘Learn, Train and Share.’ This stands for: keep learning (in this fast-evolving
world, lifelong learning is of vital importance); train yourself and others
(receiving and giving training will help you and your colleagues acquire new
knowledge); share your knowledge (pass on your knowledge: it will enrich
the institution, and your talent will be recognised and rewarded).
5
th
edition of the Training Day
The fifth edition of the Training Day took place on 18 October 2018: around
450 staff members attended the conference given in the morning by Alan
Smith, data visualisation editor at the Financial Times (see below for further
details), and the 19 workshops organised in the afternoon. The opening
address was given by ECA Member Mihails Kozlovs, who stressed the
importance of training for all staff and during all the stages of a professional
career. The morning session was closed by ECA Secretary-General Eduardo
Ruiz García, who provided details on the workshops offered and thanked all
those involved for organising the event.
As in previous years, colleagues from several Supreme Audit Institutions
shared their experience during the ‘audit fair,’ a recurring feature of an ECA
training day. Representatives from the SAIs of Slovenia, Latvia and the
Netherlands and from the European Council of Foreign Relations, together
with ECA auditors, led four workshops on how to illustrate audit reports.
After the presentation by Alan Smith, the participants joined the workshops
of their choice on topics ranging from change management, mindfulness,
revision techniques, data protection, to social media, an update on the ECA
Statement of Assurance, zero waste, security for our children, and including
the ECALab, where our colleagues explained the latest developments in
new technologies applied to audit.
Key note speaker Alan Smith - Learning to love statistics through data
visualization
Alan Smith, data visualization editor at the Financial Times and holder of the
Royal Statistical Society’s Award for Excellence in Official Statistics, gave a
presentation entitled ‘Learning to love statistics through data visualization.’
He discussed the challenge of making data available to a wide audience in a
way that allows people to understand and retain the underlying message.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0137.png
ECA Training Day 2018: an opportunity for learning, training and sharing knowledge
continued
137
Alan Smith
Data visualization is emerging as a new international language to a global audience. Alan
Smith described briefly the history of data visualization at the Financial Times, which
underwent various stages of development:
1999 – Overeager visualisation
1888 – No visualisation
1999 – Overeager visualisation
In his view, the secret to successful data
visualization is to be aware of the target audience:
‘When we broadcast information, we do not
broadcast to a blank piece of paper.’ Readers already
have their own biases in their own systems of
thinking. The role of presenters of information is to
try to provide a new perspective that allows readers
to become aware of their biases and refine their
view of the world. To get our message across, our
communication should be:
•
•
•
Visual – because graphics are more
memorable than words,
Personal – because the reader needs to relate
to the information presented, and
Social – because our data should trigger
debate and serve as food for thought.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0138.png
ECA Training Day 2018: an opportunity for learning, training and sharing knowledge
continued
138
Alan Smith explained that many people have the false belief that the role of graphics is to have impact.
This leads designers to include too much graphical detail in their charts (as in the picture from 1999
above), which draws attention away from the content. Good design can create impact with the data,
not the decoration around it, if the content is enough to inform the debate. To achieve this, charts
should have a depth of data and story in them. Ideally, a few well-selected and self-contained charts,
each with a distinct purpose, can convey our message most effectively.
Consequently, a chart only merits publication if it reveals something, if it can enlighten readers about
an issue. Alan Smith presented the following two charts, using the same data, with a completely
different result. According to the figures, boys and girls do not have equal access to education in some
countries. While this story remains hidden in the first chart, it is made very explicit in the second one:
Chart 1 – Story hidden
Alan Smith indicated that successful data
visualization requires some effort from the readers
as well. Nobody is born knowing how to read a pie
chart or a bar chart; most people acquire this skill in
primary school with the result that they only learn
about the most elementary types of charts (bar, pie
and line). As useful as those charts are, there are
significant limitations to what they can illustrate.
Graphic designers should inform the readers
about other, more complex types of charts (e.g.
scatterplots) that are much more informative with
particular types of data.
As a last note, Alan Smith mentioned a number of
useful tools for graphical design, with the advice
that we should not get fixated on any one of
them. Becoming comfortable with several tools is
important because it enhances our creativity, which
is ultimately the most important tool in our arsenal.
Graphical resources:
Essential collection of 273 tools
http://www.visualisingdata.com/resources/
FT Visual Vocabulary
https://github.com/ft-interactive/chart-doctor/tree/master/
visual-vocabulary
Flourish
https://flourish.studio/
RAWGraphs
https://rawgraphs.io/
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0139.png
139
Reaching out
Representatives of the
ECA – Members and staff
– regularly meet the press.
But this usually happens in
Brussels, Strasbourg or the
Member States. Once a year,
however, journalists come
to Luxembourg to get to
know the EU institutions
based in the Grand-Duchy.
Vincent Bourgeais, ECA
communications officer,
reports on the ECA’s 2018
press open days for EU
correspondents and other
journalists.
President Klaus-Heiner Lehne and Member Danièle Lamarque welcomed
EU correspondents in the Court’s meeting room
Press field days at the EU institutions in
Luxembourg – the ECA presenting itself
to journalists
By Vincent Bourgeais, Directorate of the Presidency
Welcoming EU correspondents
On 22 and 23 October, some 50 Brussels-based journalists - EU correspondents - came to Luxembourg to
learn more about the EU institutions based in Luxembourg. Along with the ECA, this ‘tour
de table ’
included
the European Court of Justice, the European Investment Bank, the European Stability Mechanism and
Eurostat.
The visit was a good opportunity for us at the ECA to showcase our work and further strengthen our relations
with the established EU correspondents who frequently cover our reports. The event also helped us develop
new contacts with those journalists who are less acquainted with our work and whom we now hope to
welcome as regular partners.
Working with journalists from Member States
We need to reach out beyond the ‘Brussels bubble’ if we are to bring our audits and related messages to the
attention of EU citizens. We therefore organised a similar event on 27 November. But this time with a group
of some 40 journalists from 20 different Member States.
At the November event, we presented our role and mission and discussed how we can best strengthen our
cooperation with national media outlets to communicate more clearly to the general public. The visiting
journalists were also given an overview of a Member’s typical working day: the long build-up culminating in
the presentation of a report. For many in the group, this was a very fruitful and instructive session, as it was
their first opportunity to be introduced to the ECA and meet the Members.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0140.png
140
Reaching out
Blockchain in public administration - opportunities and
practical applications at the ECA
By Barbara Auer, Directorate of the Presidency
Blockchain - far more than Bitcoin
On 8 November 2018, the ECA held a conference on the
opportunities that blockchain technology provides for
the EU institutions, including the ECA, and the Member
States. At the conference, Mirko Iaconisi , our expert
from the ECALab (the ECA’s innovation laboratory),
and Denis Avrilionis, the founder of Compellio Registry,
presented a case study on the potential usage of
blockchain for audit. Below, Barbara Auer provides
more details on this case study, which was carried out
at the ECA.
It is almost impossible to avoid hearing
about the innovative blockchain technology
or avoid the fuss about cryptocurrencies.
Nevertheless, this potentially disruptive
technology is still a mystery to many. People
do not need to know how blockchain works
in detail, but they should understand how
and where it brings value, beyond digital
money. This was an important starting point
for the conference.
Blockchain can be seen as a sort of spreadsheet, or database, containing information about data exchanges
(transactions) between peers. It is an ever-growing chain of data that is duplicated across a network of
computers, referred to as nodes. The nodes validate newly created transactions, update the database and
continuously synchronise their copy of the chain with the other nodes in the network. A new transaction is
added to the chain only if the majority of the nodes deem it valid. Once approved, the transaction becomes
permanent and is cryptographically protected from any further attempt at modification. This way, the system
builds a durable repository of information that cannot be corrupted or tampered with. Blockchain is therefore
considered a highly secure and transparent technological design that has the potential to be beneficial in
various fields.
Potential and challenges of blockchain in the EU institutions
At the ECA conference on blockchain, Dimitrios Psarrakis, Economic and
Policy Advisor at the European Parliament, presented his institution’s
view on blockchain and its added value, deriving primarily from the
disintermediation made possible when using blockchain at an EU
institution. Reduction of transaction costs, limiting operational friction
through increased liquidity, lower operational costs, lower entry barriers
for small firms into capital-intensive markets, and automation of
transaction and verification mechanisms through smart contracts were
just some of the benefits discussed. However, in addition to the need
for fundamental structural market changes, the technology presents
several other challenges.
One of those challenges was discussed at the conference by Giovanni
Sartor, Professor at the European University Institute, who presented
Source: Pixabay
the legal issues of smart contracts. A smart contract is a set of rules,
coded on a blockchain, that will automatically execute transactions
when some pre-defined clauses (conditions) are met. The execution of a smart contract is “inevitable”, as it
happens through programmed computations. This opens up the possibility of, for instance, disintermediating
and automating performance, thus reducing costs, while providing greater certainty. On the other hand,
a contract based on blockchain, while offering certainty, is also irreversible. If mistakes are made or the
computed contract contains illegal aspects, it will still be automatically enforced. While smart contracts offer
great potential, there are still some issues that have to be solved.
Presentations were also given by Tadej Slapnik, Chairman of the Advisory Board for the European Blockchain
Hub, and Helen Köpman, Deputy Head of Unit for Digital Innovation and Blockchain at the European
Commission. They focused respectively on blockchain for the Sustainable Development Goals and on the
‘European Blockchain Services Infrastructure’.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0141.png
Blockchain in public administration - opportunities and practical applications at the ECA
continued
141
Potential uses of blockchain for auditors
Over the last few years, the ECA has paid increasing attention to blockchain technology,
its potential and its possible impact. Activities at the ECA have ranged from publishing
articles, raising awareness internally and evaluating the possibility of auditing blockchain
projects in the future. In March 2018, the ECA launched the project ´ECA Registry - Proof
of Concept´ in order to explore practical applications of blockchain within its innovation
laboratory – ECALab. Given the fast-developing nature of this technology, the project had
to provide quick, concrete results. The ECALab therefore partnered with Compellio and
developed the ECA Registry.
At the conference, Mirko Iaconisi explained how blockchain can be used as a notarisation
service by recording document hashes. Hashes are unique digital footprints generated
based on the content of a document and offer a powerful verification mechanism. Even a
minor change in a document would result in a completely different hash. Comparing the
previous and the new hash makes it possible to quickly verify whether the document has
been altered. Once added to a blockchain, the hash of a document becomes a permanent,
trusted reference for all future verifications. Comparing the hash of a document with
what was previously registered on the blockchain allows an auditor to detect whether
the document has been manipulated since its registration date and, therefore, whether or
not it can be trusted. In cooperation with Compellio, the ECA Registry was developed and
tested in an audit of an EU beneficiary.
ECA Registry as portal to digital audits
Denis Avrilionis, the founder of the Compellio Registry, together
with Mirko Laconisi and Angelos Iatridis, the CEO of the Alpha
Estate winery, talked about introducing and using blockchain for
the registration (notarisation) and verification of documents related
to EU budget spending. The ECA Registry functions through the
auditee registering their own documents in the registry and then
granting access to the ECA. Auditors can browse the registry for the
documents they need and register additional evidence. The ECA
registry has the potential to lead to a reduced administrative burden
for auditees and guaranteed integrity of the registered documents,
including verification of the time they were published. Since the
registry relies on public blockchains, there is room for greater
transparency in the EU public administration. The ECA could also
notarise its own publications through the registry. This would enable
anyone receiving an ECA publication from a third party to verify its
authenticity.
The ECA registry in its current state is a working prototype but, if
widely used by EU institutions and beneficiaries of EU funds, it would
become a powerful tool to support the audit process. Having all
digital documents notarised through the registry would allow the
ECA to perform fully digital audits.
Dennis Avrillionis, Compellio Registry
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0142.png
142
Reaching out
On 8 and 9 November
2018, the ECA welcomed
the President and
Members of the Court of
Audit of the West African
Economic and Monetary
Union (UEMOA), an
organisation of eight,
mainly French-speaking,
West African states.
Roberto Gabella Carena
reports on the main
issues discussed.
ECA Member Bettina Jakobsen with the delegation of the Court of Audit of the UEMOA (from left to
right Mbaye Diene, Head of control, Malick Kamara Ndiaye, President, Sègnon Yves-Marie Adissin and
Kwame Meyisso, Members)
President and Members of the Court of Audit of the
West African Economic and Monetary Union
visit the ECA
By Roberto Gabella Carena, Directorate of the Presidency
The ECA as model and inspiration
The West African Economic and Monetary Union (in French,
Union économique et monétaire ouest-africaine
or
UEMOA)
is
composed of eight countries (see
text
box
). It has a similar
structure to that of the European Union, with bodies such
as the Conference of Heads of State and Government, the
Council of Ministers, the Commission, the Court of Justice
and the Court of Audit.
The UEOMA Court of Audit was established in 1998. It is a
member of AFROSAI and an associate member of INTOSAI.
As President Malick Kamara Ndiaye put it, the ECA therefore
constitutes a model and source of inspiration for the
UEOMA Court of Audit, as the only other supranational
audit body organised in a similar way.
The West African Economic and Monetary Union is not to
be confused with the Economic Community of West African
States, also known as ECOWAS, a 15-member regional
group which also includes the eight countries of the West
African Economic and Monetary Union.
The West African Economic and Monetary
Union (UEMOA): Eight countries, a common
destiny
The West African Monetary and Economic
Union (UEMOA) was established in Dakar on
10 January 1994. Its main objective is to build
an integrated, coherent economic area in West
Africa to ensure complete freedom of movement
of persons, capital, goods, services and factors
of production, and the right of establishment of
self-employed persons throughout the area.
The UEMOA comprises eight coastal and Saharan
states with a shared currency (the CFA Franc) and
shared cultural traditions. These countries are
Benin, Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast, Guinea-Bissau,
Mali, Niger, Senegal and Togo. The UEMOA
covers an area of 3 506 126 km2 with some
120.2 million inhabitants. Its headquarters are in
Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso).
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0143.png
President and Members of the Court of Audit of the West African Economic and Monetary
Union visit the ECA
continued
143
Discussions on a wide range of topics
This was the second time that the UEMOA delegation had visited the ECA. Bettina
Jakobsen, ECA Member and Dean of the Audit Chamber dealing with external action,
security and justice, welcomed the delegates. She presented the ECA strategy for
2018-2020 and the challenges that the ECA would have to face during this period. ECA
Member Danièle Lamarque hosted a working lunch and touched upon the role of the
ECA in INTOSAI.
During the one and a half day meeting organised by the Directorate of the Presidency,
colleagues from the Presidency, audit chambers, the Directorate of Quality Control
and the Secretariat-General gave presentations and exchanged views on a multitude
of subjects. These included, among others: the role and mandate of the ECA
and its activities in the field of external action, the ECA’s strategy, programming,
communication and relations with stakeholders, EU financial management, and
international cooperation.
The delegates also asked to go deeper into specific issues such as our tools for
managing audit documentation and for programming and reporting on audit tasks.
They were also very interested in the possibility of taking advantage of the ECA’s
training courses, and in particular the recently introduced online modules. This will be
the main way forward in order to strengthen cooperation between the two institutions.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0144.png
144
Reaching out
ECA Member Annemie Turtelboom speaking at the College of
Europe on the rule of law…and the EU budget
By Dzhelil Ismail, Private Office of Annemie Turtelboom, ECA Member
How does the rule of law principle relate to the EU budget? In a lecture for students
of the College of Europe in Bruges, ECA Member Annemie Turtelboom elaborated
on the European Commission’s proposals to better link EU funding to the rule of
law, while also presenting the ECA opinion reviewing these proposals. Dzhelil Ismail
attended the lecture and shares his impressions:
ECA and the rule of law
On 14 November 2018 Annemie Turtelboom, who joined the ECA as the Member for Belgium
in May 2018, delivered a lecture at the College of Europe in Bruges. She elaborated on why
the rule of law matters in the European Union, with a focus on why it should matter to the EU
budget. A vital component of her lecture was ECA Opinion 1/2018 on the European Commission’s
proposal of 2 May 2018 for a draft regulation on the protection of the Union’s budget in case of
generalized deficiencies with respect to the rule of law in the Member States, for which Annemie
Turtelboom is rapporteur.
ECA Opinion 1/2018 regarding the European Commission’s proposal on the protection of the Union’s
budget in case of generalised deficiencies as regards the rule of law in the Member States.
On 2 May 2018, the Commission proposed a set of measures to protect the Union's budget in case of
generalised deficiencies as regards the rule of law in Member States (such as insufficient independence
of the judiciary or a failure to prevent, correct and sanction unlawful decisions by public authorities). This
proposal was part of a package of 51 legislative proposals for the next Multi-annual Financial Framework
(MFF), running from 2021 to 2027.
In our opinion, we welcome the Commission proposal since the proposed mechanism is more specific in
its objective, scope and measures than the existing system and faster to apply. However, we consider that
the proposal lacks clear and specific criteria for defining what constitutes a generalised deficiency. We also
see a need for additional clarification on the procedure as well as the extent of the measures. Finally, we
advocate providing safeguards for beneficiaries of EU programmes to avoid that the proposed measures
affect them negatively.
To an audience of interested students from various Member States and beyond, Annemie
Turtelboom explained the role and responsibilities of the ECA as the EU’s independent external
auditor, and the link between its work and the rule of law principle. She stressed the relevance
and topicality of the issue, referring to the ongoing dispute between the Hungarian government
and the Commission, as well as the recent case against the Polish government at the European
Court of Justice (ECJ). She pointed out that, regardless of the particular situation of certain
Member States, the rule of law remains one of the fundamental values of the European Union,
which therefore requires all Member States to adhere to it.
Democracy and the rule of law
Annemie Turtelboom provided quotes from Rousseau and Margaret Thatcher’s interpretations
of democracy to introduce the political perspective on the rule of law. Democracy is about the
ballot box and will of the majority. But without the rule of law, democracy is not complete. In
a liberal democracy the government, like any other institution of the state, will have to rule
according to the law and be limited by the law when making decisions. In this respect, she
also referred to the ECA’s Landscape Review issued in September 2018, which looked into the
oversight role of the European Commission when it comes to the Member States’ application of
EU law.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0145.png
ECA Member Annemie Turtelboom speaking at the College of Europe on the rule of law…
and the EU budget
continued
145
Against a background flaunting some spectacular baroque paintings from the Groening
Museum in Bruges, she illustrated her lecture with historical examples. The ECA Member took
her audience back to the Dutch Golden Age and underlined that cities like Bruges, Antwerp
or Amsterdam flourished during the 17
th
century thanks to the liberty they had attained and
the civil freedoms their citizens enjoyed.
Interaction with EU institutions and…future decision-makers
In her lecture, Annemie Turtelboom extensively touched upon
ECA opinion 1/2018, which was adopted in July 2018. She put the
Commission’s proposal in a wider context, while also shedding light
on the interaction between the different European institutions: The
European Parliament, in a joint sitting of the Committee on Budgets
(BUDG) and Committee on Budgetary Control (CONT), completed
the first reading of its own report in October. After adoption of the
EP’s position, the draft proposal will be forwarded to the Council
where it will be deliberated along with other legislative packages
for the new Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2021-2027.
Annemie Turtelboom with students
of the College of Europe.
Second from the left: Jörg Monar,
Rector of the College of Europe.
Fourth from the right :
Annemie Turtelboom, ECA Member
Source: College of Europe
Jörg Monar, Rector of the College of Europe, thanked Annemie Turtelboom for her speech
and her efforts in bringing the ECA and the College of Bruges closer together. Annemie
Turtelboom stressed the importance of ECA Members communicating key messages in
their reports to the public in Member States. Addressing the students of the College of
Europe was a natural choice, as these students will become economists, diplomats, lawyers,
administrators and auditors, i.e. future European decision-makers.
In this context, she concluded her speech by drawing the students’ attention to the
partnership agreement between the ECA and the College of Europe, which was signed in
July 2018. This agreement includes a prize for the best thesis by graduating students in areas
related to the work of the ECA as the independent external auditor of the Union, which will
further strengthen the ties between both institutions.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0146.png
146
Reaching out
ECA contributes to EIOPA’s 8th Annual Conference in Frankfurt
By Victoria Gilson, Private Office of Rimantas Šadžius, ECA Member
The single market in insurance can
only function properly if there is
strong and consistent supervision
in place in all Member States. This is
one of the key messages of the ECA’s
recent special report 29/2018 on the
European Insurance and Occupational
Pensions Authority (EIOPA). It was to
share this that ECA Member Rimantas
Šadžius took part in EIOPA’s 8th
Annual Conference in Frankfurt on
20 November 2018. Victoria Gilson,
secretary in Rimantas Šadžius’ private
office, reports on the event, which
brought together over 400 people
from the financial services industry,
academia, consumer organisations, the
media, international organisations, EU
bodies and national authorities.
From left: Melinda Crane (Chief Political Correspondent, Deutsche Welle), Rimantas
Šadžius, (ECA Member), Henk Becquaert (Member of the Board Committee, Belgian
Financial Services and Markets Authority), Monique Goyens (Director General, BEUC
– the European Consumer Organisation), Philippe Poiget (Chief Executive Officer,
French Insurance Federation), Kevin Thompson (Chief Executive Officer, Insurance
Ireland) and Patrick Hoedjes (Head of Oversight Department, EIOPA).
Financial services and supervison
The insurance sector fulfils an important role in the economy. With assets worth more
than two thirds of the EU’s GDP, insurance is a significant element of the financial
sector, contributing to economic growth and financial stability by taking on risks
and mobilising savings. By allowing businesses and individuals to transfer the risk
of uncertainty and costly financial outcomes, insurance companies help the real
economy to function effectively. The failure of an insurance company can disrupt the
provision of financial services, the financial sector and the real economy at large, and
can negatively affect policyholders and consumers.
The 2008 financial crisis revealed considerable shortcomings in terms of cooperation,
coordination and consistency between national supervisors and others in the
insurance field when applying the EU legal framework. To improve financial
supervision at EU level, three European supervisory authorities (ESAs) were established
on 1 January 2011: one each for the banking sector (the European Banking Authority
– EBA), the securities sector (the European Securities and Markets Authority – ESMA),
and the insurance and occupational pensions sector (EIOPA), as well as the European
Systemic Risk Board (ESRB), which has a broader remit for the financial system as a
whole.
EIOPA’s responsibilities come under four broad and interrelated categories: regulation,
supervision and supervisory convergence, financial stability, and consumer protection.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0147.png
ECA contributes to EIOPA’s 8th Annual Conference in Frankfurt
continued
147
ECA audits of financial supervision
In the past few years, the ECA has worked extensively on various aspects of economic
governance and financial supervision, such as the ESAs, the Banking Union (Single
Supervisory Mechanism and Single Resolution Mechanism) and the implementation of the
Stability and Growth Pact. In our recent audit on EIOPA we examined whether the Authority
has contributed effectively to supervision and financial stability in the European insurance
sector. The focus of the audit reflected the recent shift in EIOPA’s priorities from regulation
to supervision.
In our special report, we concluded that EIOPA has made good use of a wide range of tools,
although improvements are needed to the design of those tools and follow-up action.
We found a number of systemic challenges with regard to the supervision of cross-border
businesses and internal models. These issues need to be addressed by EIOPA itself, by
national supervisors and by legislators, particularly in the context of the ongoing review of
the ESAs.
Main conclusions of ECA special report 29/2018 on EIOPA
EIOPA’s actions to ensure consistent supervision among national authorities were based on sound
analysis, and the Authority identified significant flaws in the quality of supervisory practices across
Member States. However, it has not been systematic in following up its recommendations. In its
supervision of cross-border insurance business, EIOPA encounters systemic weaknesses. Current
legislation and practice do not ensure the same level of supervision, transparency and protection
for all EU consumers, and there are significant differences in the strictness of national authority
supervision of the internal models used by insurance companies to calculate their risks. EIOPA
has responded to these issues, but in many cases limited access to information has considerably
hampered its efforts to improve consistency.
The 2016 EU-wide Insurance Stress Test was well organised, and the accompanying data validation
and aggregation process was appropriate and accurate. Scenarios were effective in addressing
the main risks identified for the sector, but there were shortcomings in the way the scenarios were
calibrated and justified. Moreover, the recommendations EIOPA issued after the stress test were
too general. Finally, there are problems in EIOPA’s governance and resources. Its actions rely to a
significant extent on national authorities conducting insurance supervision in the Member States,
which do not always provide sufficient support. Moreover, the national authorities play a decisive
role in EIOPA’s main governing body, which may compromise EIOPA’s independence. Ultimately, the
number of supervisory staff appears too limited.
On the basis of these conclusions, the ECA made recommendations relating to EIOPA’s supervisory
tools, the supervision of cross-border companies and access to information, EIOPA’s stress tests and
an increase in the number of staff for supervisory tasks.
Current negotiations on that review, as well as the forthcoming negotiations on the Solvency
II
1
review relating to capital requirements, provide the co-legislators with an opportunity to
discuss how the legislative framework could be strengthened. The aim would be to ensure
that sound supervisory responses are possible both nationally and at EU level, as we stressed
in our recent report. This year’s EIOPA conference also neatly contributed to that debate.
EIOPA’s 8th Annual Conference
As in previous years, the conference addressed the most topical issues facing the European
(re)insurance and pensions sector. Under the title “Insurance and Pensions: Securing
the Future”, it first asked have the lessons learned from the crisis been implemented in
1 The EU’s Solvency II Directive came into effect in 2016 and put solvency risk at the heart of a harmonised
regulatory framework for all insurance companies in Europe.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0148.png
ECA contributes to EIOPA’s 8th Annual Conference in Frankfurt
continued
148
supervision of cross-border business, secondly it discussed on a long-term relationship
between insurance, pensions and sustainable finance and then on cyber risk and cyber
insurance. In discussing these questions, the speakers focused on global trends in risk-
based supervision and the challenges linked to the implementation of global standards.
In his opening speech Gabriele Bernardino, Chairman of EIOPA, emphasised that
supervisory convergence is a key priority for EIOPA and acknowledged the need for his
organisation to develop further. He underlined the relevance of the ECA’s special report
for improving the quality and consistency of supervision in the European insurance sector.
As the day’s second speaker, ECA Member Rimantas Šadžius began
by describing the ECA’s work in the field of financial governance. He
stressed that our comprehensive performance audits can contribute
to closing the accountability gap in a very technical area where
supervisory experts exercise a good deal of discretion. Further, our
audits identify not only weaknesses in the functioning of organisations,
but also systemic limitations and external factors affecting their
efficiency.
Mr Šadžius continued with a short but detailed impulse statement
addressing the importance of the audit function and sharing some
specific insight from the audit report on EIOPA. Well in line with
the main topics of the conference, our report focused on EIOPA’s
contribution to supervision and stability in the insurance sector.
Mr Šadžius then demonstrated the systemic nature of the problems
affecting the supervision of cross-border insurance business, echoing
the ECA report. While EIOPA had made an important contribution to
uniform, fair and adequate supervision in Europe, the supervisory
approaches of national competent authorities (NCAs) still vary. A
key problem with the current framework is that the supervisory
arrangements for cross-border business depend on the insurance
provider’s legal structure rather than the nature or scope of its activities.
This leads to a situation where NCAs supervise business in other Member
States although they have no vested interests there. He pointed out that
this situation and the fragmentary nature of policyholder protection has a
knock-on effect for consumers.
ECA Member Rimantas Šadžius at
the EIOPA conference
The ensuing panel discussion grappled specifically with the topic
Supervision of cross-
border business: have the lessons learnt from the crisis been implemented?
While the
panellists’ varied perspectives ensured a lively discussion, they all agreed with the
main lines of the recommendations in our special report, which Rimantas Šadžius had
highlighted in his presentation. The overall opinion was that strong and, most importantly,
consistent supervision is necessary for fair competition in the market and adequate
consumer protection. Challenges were identified that still need to be addressed by EIOPA,
legislators and NCAs.
There were two other panel discussions, on
Insurance, pensions and sustainable finance: a
long-term relationship
and
Cyber risk and cyber insurance: a new risk or a new opportunity?
The final keynote speaker was Jens Weidman, President of the Deutsche Bundesbank, who
discussed developments in monetary policy, which are another current challenge for the
insurance business. Fausto Parente, EIOPA’s Executive Director, closed the conference with
a short speech in which he referred to the ECA’s special report as guidance for changes in
insurance supervision.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0149.png
149
Reaching out
2018 ECA Clear Language event – drafting understandable
and attractive reports
By Derek Meijers, Directorate of the Presidency
Words are the ECA’s business, so we pay a lot of attention to clear and precise
language. Apart from frequent training for staff tasked with writing reports,
the ECA organises an annual event to highlight the importance of clear
communication. The main goal is to raise awareness of this topic and stimulate
drafters to write understandable and attractive reports. The day culminates with
an award ceremony for the best ECA reports published during the previous year.
The 2018 edition of the Clear Language event took place on 22 November.
Derek Meijers provides further details.
Advocating the use of clear language
In 2014, ECA Member Alex Brenninkmeijer and the Translation, Language Services and
Publications Directorate introduced the Clear Language event as a means to stress the
importance of clear and precise language and to improve the writing skills of staff drafting
reports. The event promotes the use of clear messages, which we need to bring to the
outside world in an understandable format.
From left: Eduardo Ruiz García, ECA Secretary-General; Siegfried Mureșan MEP; Alex Brenninkmeijer, ECA
Member; Gailė Daglienė, ECA Director; Michele Chang, College of Europe; Dominiek Braet, Euroclear.
Another recurrent aspect of the clear language event are drafting and communication
workshops, led by experts from the private sector and universities, which give staff the
opportunity to practice writing techniques, among other things.
Celebrating the best audit reports
In 2017, in addition to the event, the ECA launched its Clear Language Awards for well-
written special reports published during the previous year. The aim of the awards is to
show appreciation for authors and stimulate clear and accessible communication. Prizes
are awarded in four categories: best title, best visuals, best executive summary, and best
conclusions and recommendations. This year a new award was given for the special report
with the best aggregate score across all four categories.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0150.png
2018 ECA Clear Language event – drafting understandable and attractive reports
continued
150
A jury of three external experts assessed the shortlisted reports for clarity, readability and impact:
•
Siegfried Mureșan MEP
is Vice-Chair of the European Parliament Committee on Budgets, a
member of the Special Committee on Financial Crimes, Tax Evasion and Tax Avoidance and a
substitute member of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs;
Michele Chang
is a professor at the College of Europe. Holder of a PhD from the University
of California, San Diego, she has worked for Boston University, the Centre for European Policy
Studies, Cornell University and Colgate University;
Dominiek Braet
is a content strategist at Euroclear, a world-leading financial services company
headquartered in Brussels. With over 20 years of experience in making written communications
effective and easy to read, he has won several awards for excellence in report-writing.
•
•
Promoting best practice
The ECA takes advantage of the Clear Language event to analyse its entire reporting process, from
the first drafting stages to communicating audit findings and recommendations to its stakeholders.
The main rules for a good report in this area[, and the criteria used by the jury,] are:
•
•
•
•
•
a catchy and interesting title is a good start;
a clear and concise summary is essential to provide the reader with a quick and complete
overview of the report;
using a standardised structure in reports – where possible – helps to create a corporate image
and makes it easier for the reader to understand a new report on a different topic;
visuals should provide additional, accurate and serious information and help the reader to
better understand the content of the report; and
in the conclusion, clear and logical recommendations are fundamental elements for decision-
makers.
And the winners are…
For the five award categories the 2018 winners were:
Award
Best title
Best executive summary
Best conclusions and
recommendations
Best visuals
Best special report all
around
Report title
Single European Sky: a changed culture but not a
single sky
The Commission’s intervention in the Greek financial
crisis
The Bekou EU trust fund for the Central African
Republic
A single European rail traffic management system
Single Resolution Board: Work on a challenging
Banking Union task started, but still a long way to go.
Report
number
SR 18/2017
SR 17/2017
SR 11/2017
SR 13/2017
SR 23/2017
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0151.png
2018 ECA Clear Language event – drafting understandable and attractive reports
continued
151
Winners of the Clear Language Awards 2018
Back row from left: Laura Gores, Nóirín O’Grady, Michael Pyper, Nils Odins, Fernando Pascual Gil,
Afonso Malheiro, Luis de la Fuente Layos (all ECA); Dominiek Braet (Euroclear)
Front row from left: ECA Member Alex Brenninkmeijer; Michele Chang (College of Europe);
Helmut Kern, Kamila Lepkowska (both ECA)
Interview with Siegfied Mureşan, Member of the
European Parliament and jury member for the 2018
ECA Clear Language Awards
ECA Journal:
You were a member of the jury selecting
the best reports. What was your impression of this
event and why did you agree to contribute?
Siegfied Mureşan: I decided to accept to be a part
of the jury because I heard very positive feedback
about this event from my colleagues, and because
I believe that the ECA’s work is essential for me as
a decision-maker. Such reports deal, among other
things, with the manner in which public money
is spent at the European level, so they need to be
accessible and understandable for EU citizens. The
EU institutions have the obligation to communicate
about their work in the clearest possible way, and
events like this promote this idea, which I fully
support. Therefore I was happy to contribute to this
award ceremony.
ECA Journal:
What is the role of clear language and the ECA reports in your work?
Siegfied Mureşan: In general, the quality of the ECA reports is very good and they are
Siegfied Mureşan
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0152.png
2018 ECA Clear Language event – drafting understandable and attractive reports
continued
152
very helpful to us at the European Parliament. They provide useful information
about where money is needed, or where we need to take action. ECA reports can
influence the EP’s decisions, and that is the main reason why the ECA needs to use
clear and precise language in its reports.
Furthermore, a well-written report with a catchy title, a good summary and a
clear conclusion is more interesting and appealing to read overall. Not only for
me as an expert, but also for the wider public, the non-expert readers. We, as
parliamentarians, need to explain our choices and decisions to the public, as they
are our ultimate stakeholders. So they need to be able to understand the reports
we base those decisions on.
ECA Journal:
One of the categories of the ECA Clear language awards is ‘best visual’.
Why is the visual presentation of information so important?
Siegfied Mureşan: Although I would of course like everyone to read every report
from cover to cover, we should not be naïve. This is not happening, it will never
happen, and it is not necessary. Good, interactive visual presentation of data
can convey complex information literally in the blink of an eye. People inform
themselves in different ways and we need to keep pace, particularly with younger
citizens. The world is changing and so is the need for visuals. We need to make
sure we reach as many people as possible, and to do so we have to spread our
messages in different ways.
ECA Journal:
The special theme of this ECA Journal is international cooperation in
the public audit domain. You have been actively involved in international cooperation
and relations with non-EU countries; do you recall a situation in which clear language
really made a difference?
Siegfied Mureşan: Absolutely! Clear language and serious, reliable information can
help to counter fake news. Particularly in international cooperation, particularly in
countries outside the EU, it is very important to communicate to the beneficiary,
to the people in those countries very clearly and in an understandable way what
the EU is doing for them.
In the Republic of Moldova for example, the EU has allocated more than 700
million euros for the years 2014 to 2020. Yet, very often, Moldavian citizens do
not know this, or they might even think Russia is helping them. All because of
misinformation.
The EU should inform those people about the support it is giving to concrete
projects, and clearly explain we do this to help the people in those countries. It is
important to do good things through international cooperation, but we should
talk about the achievements more and in clearer language about the good things
we are doing in countries surrounding Europe.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0153.png
153
Reaching out
Who is auditing the auditors? The ECA’s third peer review focuses on
progress made in implementing the 2018-2020 strategy
Daniel Tibor, Directorate of the Presidency
Peer reviews are a special form
of cooperation between SAIs.
In 2019, the ECA will undergo
its third review. Led by the
Estonian SAI, the SAIs of the USA,
Denmark and the Netherlands
will examine the progress made
in implementing the 2018-2020
strategic goals. Daniel Tibor,
project manager for the review,
has more information.
From left: Don Brown, Ton Kok, Peeter Lätti, Sarah Veale, Joost Aerts,
Niels Sørensen, Ines Metsalu-Nurminen, Søren Skyum, Jüri Kurss, Urmet Lee
Peer reviews - a special form of cooperation between SAIs
Peer reviews provide an independent, transparent
assessment of an institution’s current capabilities and
capacities in different areas. They are instrumental in
learning from the experiences of other comparable
institutions and can thus help to identify new or
additional areas for improvement. Undergoing a
peer review is therefore good practice for a modern
supreme audit institution (SAI). They are specifically
recommended by the International Organisation of
Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI), which has also
developed specific ‘Peer Review Guidelines’ (ISSAI
5600) on the subject.
Third peer review in 10 years
The ECA has already undergone two peer reviews in the past 10 years and has
contributed to several peer reviews of other SAIs. In 2008, the ECA’s first peer
review covered the whole organisation, including both financial/compliance
and performance audit as well as support functions. This first review was carried
out by representatives from the SAIs of Canada (as lead), Norway, Austria and
Portugal. The second review, in 2013, assessed the ECA’s practice in performance
audit against the latest standards and best practices. Our peers –from the SAIs
of Germany (as lead), France and Sweden – also followed up the progress made
in implementing the recommendations of the first peer review. For us, regularly
carrying out such exercises is not only desirable, but also necessary in order to
stay up to date in a rapidly changing professional environment .
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0154.png
Who is auditing the auditors? The ECA’s third peer review focuses on progress made in
implementing the 2018-2020 strategy
continued
154
Taking stock of 2018-2020 strategy implementation: the half-way mark
We are now preparing for a third review, in which our peers will scrutinise the
progress we have made in implementing our 2018-2020 strategy and whether
the actions carried out are likely to achieve the desired effects. It will also act as an
independent mid-term review.
For this review, we called on the SAIs of Estonia (as lead), Denmark, the
Netherlands and the United States of America. Our peers will focus in particular
on three aspects: the modified Statement of Assurance approach (Strategic Goal
1), performance aspects in the ECA’s work (Strategic Goal 2), and stakeholder
communication (Strategic Goal 3).
The initial intermediary results are expected by September 2019. Our peers will be
invited to the annual ECA seminar to present their preliminary verdict and discuss
it with the College. The peer report should be completed in December 2019. The
final report will also be published by the ECA
Peer review in 2019 – a crucial time for the EU and the ECA
This peer review comes at a crucial time for the European Union (EU) in general,
and the ECA in particular. 2019 will not only see a new European Parliament,
but also a new Commission. The negotiations for the next Multiannual Financial
Framework will be ongoing and are due to be concluded during the year. At the
same time, the EU will continue to face a series of challenges such as the likely
withdrawal of the United Kingdom, the unresolved migration issue, and the
differing interpretations between the EU and some of its Member States as to
what the rule of law entails.
Whatever the outcome of these challenges, the ECA, as the EU’s external auditor,
will not remain unaffected. This is therefore an excellent opportunity to find out
from our peers whether the actions we have taken are appropriate to achieve the
strategic objectives of our 2018-2020 strategy. Over and above this stocktaking,
the peer review will also form the basis for an initial reflection on our post-2020
strategy.
Kick-off meeting for 2019 peer review in November 2018
To prepare for the fieldwork starting in 2019, our peers came to Luxembourg
for a kick-off workshop on 26 November 2018 to draft the peer review plan
and subsequently have some preliminary discussions with ECA members and
directors. This allowed the representatives of the four SAIs carrying out the peer
review to get to know each other and gain a better understanding of various
aspects relating to the three strategic goals that need to be assessed.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0155.png
155
E
FOCUS
A
ECA publications in November/December 2018
Opinion N° 6/2018
Opinion of the European Court of Auditors on the Commission's
proposal of 29 May 2018 on the Common Provisions Regulation
New plans for how EU cohesion funds are spent are simpler and more flexible, according
to an Opinion published by the European Court of Auditors. Nevertheless, the auditors
make a number of suggestions on how to make sure that Member State spending has a
real impact and complies with the rules.
Click here for our report
Published on 31 October 2018
Special report 28/2018
The majority of simplification measures brought into Horizon
2020 have made life easier for beneficiaries, but opportunities to
improve still exist
The administrative burden on those applying for and managing research grants under
the EU’s Horizon 2020 programme has been reduced, according to a new report from
the European Court of Auditors. Most of the simplification measures introduced by the
European Commission have been effective, say the auditors, although there is still room
for improvement.
Click here for our report
Published on 6 November 2018
Opinion N° 7/2018
The Commission proposals for regulations relating to the
Common Agricultural Policy for the post-2020 period
The proposed reform of the Common Agricultural Policy after 2020 falls short of the EU’s
ambitions for a greener and more robust performance-based approach, according to an
Opinion published by the European Court of Auditors. The auditors identify a number of
other issues with the proposal, notably in terms of accountability.
Click here for our report
Published on 7 November 2018
Special report
N° 30/2018
EU passenger rights are comprehensive but passengers still need
to fight for them
The EU system of passenger rights is well developed, but passengers need to fight hard
in order to benefit from them, according to a new report from the European Court of
Auditors. Passengers are often not aware of their rights and lack practical information
on how to obtain them, say the auditors. They make a number of recommendations for
improvement, including automatic compensation for delays in certain situations, so that
passengers do not have to claim for themselves. They also provide ten tips to help make
all passengers’ travel experiences better.
Click here for our report
Published on 8 November 2018
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0156.png
156
E
FOCUS
A
ECA publications in November/December 2018
Special report no
27/2018
The Facility for Refugees in Turkey: helpful support, but
improvements needed to deliver more value for money
The Facility for Refugees in Turkey, which supports refugees and their Turkish hosting
communities, has provided a swift response to the crisis in challenging circumstances,
according to a new report from the European Court of Auditors. The humanitarian
projects have helped refugees to address their basic needs but have not always
delivered the expected value for money, say the auditors.
Published on 13 November 2018
Click here for our report
Special Report
N° 31/2018
EU action on animal welfare: close the gap between ambitious
goals and implementation on the ground
EU action on animal welfare has been successful in important aspects, but weaknesses
persist in relation to farm animals, according to a new report from the European
Court of Auditors. Guidelines on how animals are to be transported and slaughtered
and on the welfare of pigs have been issued by the Commission, but there are still
issues on how they are implemented on the ground. Member States generally act on
recommendations from the European Commission, say the auditors, but can take a long
time to do so.
Click here for our report
Published on 14 November2018
Special Report
N° 29/2018
EIOPA made an important contribution to supervision and
stability in the insurance sector, but significant challenges remain
The European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) has made an
important contribution to a common supervisory culture and financial stability in the
insurance sector, according to a new report from the European Court of Auditors. But
a number of significant challenges still need to be addressed by the Authority itself,
by national supervisors and by legislators, say the auditors. These include more robust
oversight of cross-border insurance businesses, supervision of the internal models used
by insurance companies and EIOPA’s own governance.
Click here for our report
Published on 15 November 2018
Special Report
N° 25/2018
EU Floods Directive 2007 had positive effects overall, but
planning and implementation now need improvements
The EU Directive of 2007 led to progress in assessing the risks of floods, but the planning
and implementation of flood protection should now be improved, according to a new
report from the European Court of Auditors. The auditors warn that major challenges
remain in the much fuller integration of climate change, flood insurance and spatial
planning into flood risk management. They are critical of weaknesses in allocating
funding.
Published on 20 November 2018
Click here for our report
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0157.png
157
E
FOCUS
A
Opinion N° 8/2018
ECA publications in November/December 2018
EU Anti-fraud proposals not going far enough
The proposed changes of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) will not be sufficient to
make its investigations significantly more effective, according to an Opinion published
today by the European Court of Auditors. In addition, while the proposal reflects well the
principles of co-operation between OLAF and the future European Public Prosecutor’s
Office (EPPO), certain issues could hamper effective collaboration, say the auditors. An
Opinion on the EU anti-fraud programme for 2021-2027 is also being published.
Published on 22 November 2018
Click here for our report
Opinion N° 9/2018
The proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of
the Council establishing the EU Anti-Fraud Programme
The Commission’s proposal on the EU Anti-Fraud Programme for the 2021-2027
programming period includes a set of measures to help the Member States and the
Union in preventing and fighting fraud affecting the Union’s financial interests, and in
supporting mutual administrative assistance and cooperation in customs and agriculture
matters. Although the Commission tried to streamline the budgetary management, there
is a risk of overlaps and lack of synergies with actions funding similar or the same actions.
This calls into question the value added of the programme.
Published on 29 November 2018
Click here for our report
Rapid case review
VAT reimbursement in Cohesion spending is problematic
The reimbursement of value-added tax (VAT), an important cost element in EU Cohesion
spending, is prone to error and does not always represent the best use of EU funds,
according to a rapid case review by the European Court of Auditors. The auditors
consider that public bodies should no longer be reimbursed for the VAT related to
Cohesion spending in the post-2020 period.
Published on 29 November 2018
Click here for our report
Special Report
N° 32/2018
EU action on animal welfare: close the gap between ambitious
goals and implementation on the ground
The European Union Emergency trust fund for stability and addressing root causes of
irregular migration and displaced persons in Africa (the ‘EUTF for Africa’) is aimed at
fostering stability and helping to better manage migration by addressing the root causes
of destabilisation, forced displacement and irregular migration. It supports activities in
26 countries across three regions of Africa: the Sahel and Lake Chad, the Horn of Africa
and North of Africa. Our audit examined whether the EUTF for Africa is well-designed and
well-implemented. We conclude that the EUTF for Africa is a flexible tool, but considering
the unprecedented challenges that it faces, its design should have been more focused.
Click here for our report
Published on 5 December 2018
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0158.png
158
E
FOCUS
A
Landscape review
ECA publications in November/December 2018
EU transport sector: a cornerstone for European integration, but
investments lagging behind
Improving mobility and transport is a cornerstone of European integration, but reduced
investment in transport infrastructure has held back the modernisation of the EU’s
transport network, according to a new landscape review by the European Court of
Auditors. The auditors found the EU had made progress in infrastructure development
and the opening of the internal transport market, but they warn the EU needs to address
six key challenges on the road towards improved mobility within the Union. These
include matching objectives and priorities with resources, better planning, infrastructure
maintenance, effective enforcement, shifting goods traffic off roads and ensuring EU
added value. The review also provides an overview of and key facts on the transport
sector in the EU, investment needs and availability of funds, as well as the state of play for
the five main transport modes: road, rail, air, inland waterways and maritime.
Click here for our report
Published on 6 December 2018
Special report
N° 34/2018
Auditors ask EU institutions to improve management of buildings
The EU institutions manage their spending on office accommodation efficiently overall,
according to a new report by the European Court of Auditors. However, most large
projects suffer delays, say the auditors, which leads to additional costs. Furthermore, their
financing is often unnecessarily complex and not always transparent from the budgetary
point of view. The auditors make a number of recommendations for improvement.
Published on 13 December 2018
Click here for our report
Opinion N° 10/2018
EU development aid money must focus on results
The European Commission’s proposal to merge several external action programmes
into a new broad EU development aid instrument is expected to simplify the legislative
framework, reduce red tape, and provide for a more flexible response to unforeseen
challenges and crises, according to a new opinion by the European Court of Auditors
(ECA). However, this should not be at the expense of accountability, and the entire
instrument should be focused on results, say the auditors.
Published on 17 December 2018
Click here for our report
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0159.png
159
NEXT EDITION
On the move - take a trip to 2019!
One area where the need for international cooperation is obvious is mobility.
Good connectivity is one of the main conditions for an ever closer Union, and it
is an essential element to stimulate smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. So it
should not come as a surprise that the topic of transport can be linked to almost
every target of the Europe 2020 strategy.
The European Union spends vast amounts of money and facilitates many
programmes to improve transport links both within and between the EU Member
States. The next edition of the ECA Journal will cover the different aspects of road,
air, rail, and maritime transport, plus other mobility related aspects, and look into
the ECA’s audit work over the past few years. All aboard!
Source: Pixabay
 EUU, Alm.del - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 248: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november/december 2018
1993006_0160.png
160
ISSN 1831-449X
10
15
32
Cooperation works best if beneficial to both parties
Mapping EU SAIs: the who, the what and the how of
international cooperation
The EU Contact Committee Working Group on EU
Structural Funds – a group which really worked
‘Young EUROSAI’ - international cooperation for and
between young European auditors
Reviewing global cooperation and putting it into
practice: the UN Board of Auditors
EDITION
HIGHLIGHTS
77
88
108
International collaboration in water management:
water as unifying concept
128
Participating in the IMF’s Public Investment
Management Assessment of Senegal
COVER:
Source: Pixabay
Inside view of a clockwork
QJ-AD-18-009-2A-N