This is the accessible text file for the International Journal of 
Government Auditing, April 2005 edition. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

INTOSAI International Journal Of Government Auditing: 

April 2005: 
Volume 32, No. 2: 

Board of Editors: 
Josef Moser, President, Rechnungshof, Austria: 
Sheila Fraser, Auditor General, Canada: 
Faiza Kefi, First President, Cour des Comptes, Tunisia: 
David M. Walker, Comptroller General, United States of America: 
Clodosbaldo Russian Uzcategui, Comptroller General, Venezuela: 

President: Helen H. Hsing (U.S.A.): 

Editor: Donald R. Drach (U.S.A.): 

Assistant Editors: 
Linda J. Sellevaag (U.S.A.): 
Christopher Lyons (U.S.A.): 

Associate Editors: 
Office of the Auditor General (Canada): 
Sudha Krishnan (ASOSAI-India): 
Luseane Sikalu (PASAI-Tonga): 
Michael C.G. Paynter (CAROSAI-Trinidad and Tobago): 
EUROSAI General Secretariat (Spain): 
Yadira Espinoza Moreno (Venezuela): 
INTOSAI General Secretariat (Austria): 
U.S. Government Accountability Office (U.S.A.): 

Administration: 
Sebrina Chase (U.S.A.): 

Members of the Governing Board of INTOSAI: 
Arpád Kovács, President, Allami Számvevöszék, Hungary, Chairman: 
Arturo González de Aragón, Auditor General, Auditoría Superior de la 
Federación, Mexico, First Vice-Chairman: 
Osama Jaffer Faquih, President, General Auditing Bureau, Saudi Arabia, 
Second Vice-Chairman: 
Josef Moser, President, Rechnungshof, Austria, Secretary General: 
Leopold A.J. Quedraogo, Inspector General, Inspecteur Général d’Etat, 
Burkina Faso: 
Paul R.S. Allsworth, Director of Audit, Cook Islands Audit Office: 
Vijayendra Nath Kaul, Comptroller and Auditor General, India: 
Nobuaki Morishita, President, Board of Audit, Japan: 
Yun-Churl Jeon, Chairman, Board of Audit and Inspection, Korea: 
Juan Gutiérrez Herrera, President, Consejo Superior de la 
Contraloría General, Nicaragua: 
Bjarne Mørk-Eidem, Auditor General, Riksrevisjonen, Norway: 
Alfredo José de Sousa, President, Tribunal de Contas, Portugal: 
Albert Edwards, Director of Audit, National Audit Office, St. Kitts 
and Nevis: 
Faiza Kefi, First President, Cour des Comptes, Tunisia: 
Sir John Bourn, Comptroller and Auditor General, National Audit 
Office, United Kingdom: 
David M. Walker, Comptroller General, Government Accountability 
Office, United States of America: 
Guillermo Ramírez, President, Tribunal de Cuentas de la República, 
Uruguay: 
Clodosbaldo Russián Uzcátegui, Comptroller General, Venezuela: 

The International Journal of Government Auditing is published 
quarterly (January, April, July, October) in Arabic, English, French, 
German, and Spanish on behalf of INTOSAI (International Organization 
of Supreme Audit Institutions). The Journal, which is the official 
organ of INTOSAI, is dedicated to the advancement of government 
auditing procedures and techniques. Opinions and beliefs expressed are 
those of editors or individual contributors and do not necessarily 
reflect the views or policies of the organization. 

The editors invite submissions of articles, special reports, and news 
items, which should be sent to the editorial offices at: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
Room 7814, 441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 
U.S.A. 
(phone: 202-512-4707; 
fax: 202-512-4021; 
e-mail: intosaijournal@gao.gov) 

Given the Journal's use as a teaching tool, articles most likely to be 
accepted are those that deal with pragmatic aspects of public sector 
auditing. These include case studies, ideas on new audit 
methodologies, or details on audit training programs. Articles that 
deal primarily with theory would not be appropriate. 

The Journal is distributed to INTOSAI members and other interested 
parties at no cost. It is also available electronically at 
http://www.intosaijournal.org or http://wwwintosa.org and by 
contacting the Journal at spel@gao.gov. 

Articles in the Journal are indexed in the Accountants' Index 
published by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants 
and included in Management Contents. Selected articles are included in 
abstracts published by Anbar Management Services, Wembley, England, 
and University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A. 

Contents: 

Editorial: 

News in Brief: 
Guidelines on Audit Quality: 

Harmonization in Overseas Audit Practices: 

Auditing Peru's Cultural Heritage Assets: 

Audit Profile: Cambodia: 

Reports in Print: 

Inside INTOSAI: 

IDI Update: 

INTOSAI 2005-2006 Events: 

[End of section] 

Editorial: 

New Information and Communication Technologies: Challenges Facing SAIs: 

[Photograph: Faiza Kefi, First President, Court Of Audit Of Tunisia, And
Secretary General Of ARABOSAI: 

As a result of unprecedented technological and economic progress, the 
world today is experiencing perhaps one of the most significant eras 
in human history The accelerated development of new information and 
communication technologies, particularly the Internet, has generated a 
metamorphosis in all spheres of life, including the dissemination of 
knowledge, economic and financial management, commercial practices, 
education, and health. 

These new technologies constitute a formidable tool for development, 
inextricably linking fundamental research and the development of 
applications, programs, and databases. They are creating a global 
interdependence that requires us to radically revisit our ways of life 
and the fundamentals of organizational governance. Moreover, these new 
technologies provide a significant means that can be used to modernize 
the state and, in a wider sense, government services. 

They also, however, impose constraints and pose challenges. In a world 
of perpetual change, we are obliged to keep pace with the frantic 
rhythm of development or risk being left behind and increasingly 
unable to catch up. The stakes are high: it is a question of avoiding 
the digital divide or even a digital gap. 

Clearly, supreme audit institutions (SAI) are deeply concerned about 
the rapid pace of change. They must keep track of the trends and adapt 
their modes of operation accordingly. They will have to cope with 
successive developments in management methods, the presentation of 
enormous masses of information, and new technologies. 

However, the results of the work at INTOSAI's 18th congress, held in 
Budapest in October 2004, inspire confidence in the future of our 
SAIs. Indeed, the adoption of a strategic plan for 2005-2010 comes at 
exactly the right time and sets forth a blueprint for concerted action 
that is adapted to the priorities of our times. The plan aims to 
achieve four main goals: 

* Promote strong, independent, and multidisciplinary SAIs by (1) 
encouraging SAIs to lead by example and (2) contributing to the 
development and adoption of appropriate and effective professional 
standards. 

* Build the capabilities and professional capacities of SAIs through 
training, technical assistance, and other development activities. 

* Encourage SAI cooperation, collaboration, and continuous improvement 
through knowledge sharing, including providing benchmarks, conducting 
best practice studies, and performing research on issues of mutual 
interest and concern. 

* Organize and govern INTOSAI in ways that promote economical, 
efficient, and effective working practices, timely decision-making, 
and effective governance practices, while maintaining due regard for 
regional balance and the different models and approaches of member 
SAIs. 

This strategic plan will help to upgrade SAI programs and it 
incorporates legitimate ambitions. Nevertheless, its success will 
depend on how strongly members contribute to INTOSAI and commit 
themselves to the goal of achieving these ambitions. 

The new information and communication technologies provide a valuable 
opportunity that SAIs should grasp in order to improve themselves and 
to become high-performance organizations that offer the optimal 
auditing services that the community needs. 

The Tunisian Court of Audit, as an active member of INTOSAI, has 
worked consistently to obtain the physical and human resources it 
needs to be in step with the new information and communication 
technologies. Like other SAIs, it has never hesitated to share its 
know-how with partner countries. Moreover, it has always tried to 
collaborate with others in its constant quest for progress and has 
monitored what is happening in the world in order to obtain maximum 
benefit. 

We cannot talk of the new information and communication technologies 
without mentioning the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), 
a historic, global event first held in Geneva, Switzerland, in 
December 2003. Tunisia will have the honor and privilege of hosting 
the second WSIS from November 16-18, 2005. 

Participants in the first summit concluded unanimously that access to 
the new information and communication technologies is a key to 
sustainable development (another pressing and topical theme) and that 
there is a flagrant imbalance in this area-91 percent of persons with 
access to the Internet represent only 19 percent of the world's 
population. 

The goal of the Tunis summit is to find practical solutions that will 
reduce the digital divide between countries of the North and South in 
order to develop a balanced information society that is accessible to 
everyone. 

The summit will also table the issue of financing projects to reduce 
the digital divide. If funds are not available, the countries of the 
South—whose primary problems still center on accessing basic services 
(such as water, electricity, and health care)—face the risk of 
remaining permanently on the sidelines of the formidable progress that 
the new information and communication technologies are bringing in the 
form of innovation, knowledge sharing, growth, and sustainable 
development. 

The challenge is building a collective awareness of and commitment to 
promoting the principles of solidarity between peoples and dialogue 
between civilizations, and also making the new information and 
communication technologies a strategic instrument for balanced 
development where no one is excluded. 

Due to the successive changes in the environment in which they 
operate, our SAIs continually face new challenges. They will 
undoubtedly succeed in confronting the current challenges as their 
actions are guided by the essential values defined in INTOSAI's 
strategic plan. 

Every SAI must, of course, first ensure that it is structured, 
organized, and equipped in order to succeed in its activities. 
Furthermore, it must upgrade its members' professionalism by means of 
internal training and internships. In addition, as members of INTOSAI, 
we have the obligation to consolidate our cooperation and solidarity 
to better share our knowledge and experiences. 

In conclusion, it is clear that our assets as SAIs—-our 
professionalism, our command of the new information and communication 
technologies, the pertinence of our observations and recommendations, 
and our capacity to convince-—will enable us to achieve our long-
standing mission. As partners of government managers, we have the 
privilege of helping to ensure good governance that addresses the 
needs of economy, efficiency, and effectiveness. 

[End of section] 

News in Brief: 

Albania: 

New Chairman of the State Supreme Audit Institution Named: 

On October 28, 2004, the Albanian Parliament named Robert Ceku the new 
chairman of the State Supreme Audit Institution. 

[Photograph: Mr. Robert Ceku] 

Mr. Ceku has extensive experience in government administration. He 
served as an economist on the Executive Committee in Tirana and held 
several positions in the taxes and duties department in the Ministry 
of Finance, including vice minister of finance and director general of 
taxes and duties. He was the chief financial officer in a state 
enterprise, the state secretary for tourism, and an adviser
to the SAI of Albania. He was also a Member of Parliament from 1996 
through 1997 and 2001 through 2004. He was the primary author of
Albania's first fiscal legislation and has written many studies on 
economics that have been published in Albania and abroad. He is a 1974 
graduate of the Faculty of Economy (Finance) of Fan Noli University in 
Korga, Albania. 

For additional information, contact: State Supreme Audit Institution, 
fax: ++355 (42) 324 91; 
e-mail: klsh@adn.net.al; 
Web site: http://www.klsh.org.al. 

Australia: 

Report on Public Sector Agencies Issued: 

The Auditor-General's Office of Victoria (Australia) released its 
report on public sector agencies in August 2004. In its section on 
performance audits, the report asserts that providing robust advice to 
enable governments to make informed decisions on public policy issues 
is one of the public sector's most important responsibilities. In 
addition, the report states that the public sector is responsible for 
ensuring that advice provided to the government is unbiased and 
independent. The report contends that while a good process does not 
always guarantee that sound policy will be developed, poor processes 
will increase the risk of unsatisfactory policy development. 

The auditor general's report considered the ways in which government 
departments developed well-researched, comprehensive policy briefs for 
government by reviewing eight policy development projects in three 
government departments. The report is available online at 
http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/reports_mp_psa/psa0903.html#3a. 

For additional information, contact: Victorian Auditor-General's 
Office, fax: ++(61 3) 8601 7010; 
e-mail: comments@audit.vic.gov.au; 
Web site: www.audit.vic.gov.au. 

Bhutan: 

International Anti-Corruption Day Commemorated: 

The Royal Audit Authority, the SAI of Bhutan, commemorated the 
nation's first International Anti-Corruption Day on December 9, 2004, 
the 1-year anniversary of the signing in Merida, Mexico, of the United 
Nations' Convention against Corruption. 

[Photograph: The prime minister of Bhutan, Lyonpo Yeshey Zimba, at the 
International Anti-Corruption Day ceremony] 

His Excellency Lyonpo Yeshey Zimba, the prime minister of Bhutan, was 
the chief guest for the occasion, which was also attended by 
international dignitaries and senior government officials. The prime 
minister stated that the problem of corruption must be dealt with at 
all levels—from the individual to the country to the world. "It is the 
duty of every loyal citizen to fight corruption in all its 
manifestations," he affirmed. 

To mark the event, the prime minister launched the fraud alert system 
that the Royal Audit Authority designed and placed on its Web site. 
The Royal Audit Authority had also organized an essay competition on 
the topic "Combating Corruption—A Collective Responsibility.' The 
prime minister awarded prizes for the three best essays in two 
categories, and two of the winning essays were read aloud to the 
guests. 

On the same day, the Royal Audit Authority sponsored a workshop, 
ASOSAI Guidelines for Dealing with Fraud and Corruption. The workshop 
was attended by senior officers from the Royal Audit Authority and 
internal auditors and lawyers from various government agencies, 
corporations, and the armed forces. The workshop's objective was to 
make agencies aware of the guidelines and give them the opportunity to 
make recommendations or amendments to the guidelines so that they can 
be used to deal with fraud and corruption in Bhutan. 

For additional information, contact: Royal Audit Authority, fax: ++975 
2 32 34 91; 
e-mail: raa@druknet.net.bt; 
Web site: http://www.bhutanaudit.gov.bt. 

Canada: 

Government Response to Auditor General's Report: 

The auditor general of Canada's November 2003 report to Parliament, 
tabled in February 2004, included the results of a governmentwide 
audit of sponsorship, advertising, and public opinion research. This
report generated unprecedented attention for Canada's national audit 
office, and its impact continued to be felt over a year later.
Sponsorships were arrangements in which the government of Canada 
provided organizations with financial resources to support cultural 
and community events. In exchange, the organizations agreed to provide 
visibility at their events and on promotional material to encourage a 
positive perception of the government. In summary, the audit found 
that: 

* the sponsorship program had been run in a way that showed little 
regard for Parliament, the Financial Administration Act, contracting 
rules and regulations, transparency, and value for money; 

* contracting rules in the management of the sponsorship program had 
been broken at every stage of the process; and; 

* public servants had also broken the rules in selecting 
communications agencies for the government's advertising activities. 

The government agreed with the audit findings. 

Once the report was made public, the new prime minister, Paul Martin, 
and some senior ministers announced numerous measures to address 
issues that it raised. In addition to quickly constituting the Public 
Accounts Committee to hold hearings, the prime minister
launched a Commission of Inquiry, appointed a special counsel for 
financial recovery, and launched reviews of the Financial 
Administration Act, Crown corporation governance, and the 
responsibilities and accountabilities of ministers and public servants. 

The public hearings by the Public Accounts Committee began shortly 
after the report was tabled and lasted several months. The auditor 
general testified several times before the committee. The public 
hearings by the Commission of Inquiry began in September 2004. The 
auditor general and her team were the first to testify before the 
commission. 

The report is available online at http://www.oag-
bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/htm1/03menu_e.html. 

For additional information, contact: Office of the Auditor General, 
fax: ++1 (613) 957-0474; 
e-mail: frasers@oagbvg.gc.ca; 
Web site: http://www.oagbvg.gc.ca. 

European Court of Auditors: 

New President Elected: 

In January 2005, the members of the European Court of Auditors elected 
Hubert Weber as the 10th president of the court. Mr Weber's 3-year 
term of office as president started on January 16, 2005. 

[Photograph: Mr. Hubert Weber] 

Mr. Weber, of Austrian nationality, has been a member of the Court of 
Auditors since March 1995. He served as dean of the audit group on 
external actions and was responsible for the audit sector dealing with 
cooperation with developing and third countries; he was also dean of 
the group responsible for the court's audit development and reports. 
Before joining the court, Mr. Weber had served with the Austrian Court 
of Audit since 1971. He was director general of the public enterprise 
audit division at (1990-1995), head of personnel (1981-1989), and head 
of the organizational unit of the INTOSAI secretariat general (1975-
1980). 

The president's role in the Court of Auditors is that of primus inter 
pares (first among equals). He is responsible for the effective and 
sound management of the Court's activities. He also represents the 
institution in its external relations, in particular with the other 
institutions of the European Union and the SAIs of the member states. 

For Mr. Weber's detailed curriculum vitae and photographs, see 
http://www.eca.eu.int/eca/organisation/eca_organisation_president.htm. 
For additional information, contact: European Court of Auditors, 
External Relations Department, fax: ++(352) 4398-46430; 
e-mail: press@eca.eu.int; 
Web site: www.eca.eu.int. 

Indonesia: 

New Chairman of the Audit Board Appointed: 

Anwar Nasution has been appointed chairman of the Audit Board of the 
Republic of Indonesia for the 20042009 period, replacing Satrio 
Budihardjo Joedono. The chairman and members of the seven-person board 
are elected by Parliament, appointed by presidential decree, and sworn 
in by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. 

[Photograph: Mr. Anwar Nasution] 

Before his appointment, Anwar Nasution was the senior deputy governor 
of Bank Indonesia, the nation's central bank. He has been a consultant 
to the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the Asian 
Development Bank. He has published works on such issues as applied 
macro-economics, public finance, and management of capital inflows to 
emerging economies. He was a professor of economics and dean of the 
faculty of Economics at the University of Indonesia in Jakarta. From 
1995 through 1996, he was a visiting professor at the World Institute 
for Development Economic Research of the United Nations University in 
Helsinki. He obtained a PhD in Economics from Tufts University in the 
United States and a master's degree from the Kennedy School of 
Government, Harvard University. 

For more information, contact: Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan, fax: ++62-
21572-0944; 
e-mail: asosai@bpk.go.id. 

Iran: 

New President of the Supreme Audit Court Appointed: 

Dr. Mohammad Reza Rahimi was officially appointed the new
president of the Supreme Audit Court of Iran on November 1, 2004. Born 
in Ghorveh, Iran, in 1954, he studied law and obtained a PhD degree. 
He has extensive experience in a variety of governmental spheres. 

Dr. Rahimi held a number of municipal posts in the cities of Ghorveh 
and Sanandadj, including those of public prosecutor and chairman of 
the city council, and was the governor of Kurdistan province. He 
served in Iran's Parliament, where he was a member of the board of 
governors of various committees and head of the Greece and Iran 
collaboration group. 

In addition, Dr. Rahimi was president of the Iranian Athletics 
Federation, a member of the board of governors of the National 
Olympics Committee, and a member of the Asian Athletics Technical 
Committee. He was also counselor to the head of the Iranian judiciary 
and head of the Tehran Azad Law faculty. 

For additional information, contact: Supreme Audit Court, fax: ++98 
(21) 888 99 30; 
e-mail: pria@dmk.ir; 
Web site: http://www.dmk.ir. 

Kazakhstan: 

Government Auditing Standards Approved: 

The Accounts Committee for Control over Execution of the Republican 
Budget, the SAI of the Republic of Kazakhstan, has developed and 
approved government auditing standards. The Kazakhstani standards were 
developed in accordance with INTOSAI's auditing standards. 

The standards include general standards (independence, proficiency, 
publicity, and confidentiality), working standards (planning, 
supervision, evidence, and documentation), reporting standards, and 
management and quality control standards. 

The standards are binding for government audit entities, internal 
audit units, contracted employees of other government entities, 
private auditing companies, and experts involved in audits. 

To implement the standards and develop methodological materials in 
accordance with the budget code approved in April 2004 and the 
Accounts Committee's mandate, rules for external auditing and 
performance evaluation of government programs are being developed. 
Methodological recommendations on performance auditing have been 
developed and approved. 

In addition, in 2005, the Accounts Committee plans to develop several 
methodological materials on important audit issues, testing them 
through pilot audits and presenting them to government audit entities. 

For additional information, contact: Accounts Committee for Control 
over Execution of the Republican Budget, fax: ++7 (3172) 32 38 93; 
e-mail: esep_k@kazai.kz. 

Latvia: 

New Auditor General Elected: 

The end of 2004 brought great changes to the State Audit Office (SAO) 
of the Republic of Latvia. Amendments to the State Audit Office law 
that took effect on December 20 shorten the auditor general's term of 
office from 7 to 4 years and stipulate that the same person may be 
elected to the post for two terms only. On December 22, 2004, the 
Saeima (Parliament) of the Republic of Latvia elected Inguna Sudraba 
as the auditor general for a 4-year term. 

Ms. Sudraba is a graduate from the State University of Latvia, 
Department of Economics, and qualified as an economist in 1988. She 
received additional training at a number of international venues, 
including the Pew Economic Freedom Fellows Program at Georgetown 
University and the seminars on Fiscal Policy Management and Public 
Expenditures Analysis and Management at the Joint Vienna Institute. 

[Photograph: Ms. Inguna Sudraba] 

Ms. Sudraba has extensive experience in the system of state 
administration and commercial banking sector. Before being elected 
auditor general, she worked in the Ministry of Finance for more than 
10 years, where she helped to draft economic regulations and manage
the national budget process. Before Latvia's accession to the European 
Union (EU), Ms. Sudraba made a significant contribution to
coordinating negotiations, including work on the budget control 
system, auditing the use of prestructural and structural funds, 
controlling resources, and protecting the EU's financial interests. In 
addition, as an administrator of the EU's SAPARD program, she worked 
on the accreditation and certification of the Rural Support Service 
and supervised this process in cooperation with international auditing 
companies. 

The new auditor general's objective is to transform the SAO into a 
modern and efficient supreme audit institution that enjoys the 
confidence of society and international institutions. Since Latvia 
became an EU member state on May 1, 2004, the SAO, as the state's 
supreme external auditing institution, has had the responsibility to 
respond to significant changes in the audit environment. To ensure 
international recognition of its work, the SAO must be able to perform 
audits in accordance with international auditing standards and 
strengthen its quality control system. According to Ms. Sudraba, the 
SAO must progress more rapidly than other state institutions in these 
areas. Its first tasks will include creating a strong professional 
team and developing an efficient SAI structure. One of its audit 
priorities will be analyzing the expenditure of EU financial resources. 

For additional information, contact: State Audit Office, fax: ++371 
7017673; 
e-mail: Irvk@lryk.gov.lv; 
Web site: www.lryk.goviv. 

Nepal: 

Submission of Annual Report and International Activities: 

In August 2004, Gehendra Nath Adhikary, the auditor of the Kingdom of 
Nepal, submitted the 41st annual audit report to the king of Nepal, as 
required by the constitution. The report was later tabled in 
Parliament. 

The report addresses the audit of government offices, the court, the 
Royal Nepal Army, and the Nepal Police; the findings of performance 
audits; the reports of autonomous and corporate bodies; the certified 
financial statements; and the reports of local autonomous bodies. 

The auditor general participated in several international audit 
activities in late 2004. In August, he attended an auditors general 
conference in Bangladesh organized jointly by the Office of the 
Comptroller and Auditor General of Bangladesh and the World Bank. The 
conference theme was harmonizing institutional efforts to promote 
accountability, and the event provided an opportunity to share 
experiences among SAIs and enhance performance, mutual understanding, 
and cooperation. In September, the auditor general led a four-member 
delegation on a visit to the National Audit Office of the People's 
Republic of China. During the visit, the team studied audit practices 
of the public and revenue sectors, the relationship of the audit 
office with the government and the Parliament, and experiences in 
environmental auditing. The visit strengthened cooperation and the 
exchange of ideas between the two SAIs. 

For additional information, contact: Office of the Auditor General, 
fax: ++977-1-2262798; 
e-mail: oagnep@ntc.net.np. 

Romania: 

Strengthening Cooperation between SAIs: 

During 2003 and 2004, the Romanian Court of Accounts increased its 
international activities in an effort to strengthen its collaborative 
relationships with other partner institutions. The court's senior 
management has always considered the exchange of experiences and 
opinions among SAIs to be extremely important and has made 
strengthening bilateral relationships a high priority. 

In response to an invitation from Mr. Li Jinhua, auditor general of 
the China National Audit Office, a delegation from the Romanian Court 
of Accounts visited the People's Republic of China in September 
2004.The visit was extremely fruitful and provided an excellent 
opportunity to build upon the discussions held between the two 
institutions in April 2004 when a delegation from the Chinese SAI, 
headed by the vice president Dong Dasheng, visited the Romanian Court 
of Accounts. 

In Beijing, the presidents of the Chinese and Romanian SAIs discussed 
topics of mutual interest as well as opportunities for future 
cooperation and signed an agreement on cooperation on September 6, 
2004. Mr. Viorel Isticioaia Budura, the Romanian ambassador to China 
was present when the agreement was signed. 

[Photograph: President Dr. Dan Drosu Saguna of Romania with Chinese 
Auditor General Li Jinhua shortly after signing the agreement on 
cooperation] 

For additional information, contact: Court of Accounts, fax: ++40 (21) 
307 88 75; e-mail: rei@rc.ro; 
Web site: http://www.rcc.ro. 

United States of America: 

Performance and Accountability Report Issued: 

The Government Accountability Office's (GAO) Performance and 
Accountability Report for fiscal year 2004, issued in November 2004, 
reports that GAO had a very successful year by almost any measure. "I 
believe that those who read this report will agree that the taxpayers 
received an excellent return on their investment in GAO," Comptroller 
General David Walker said in his introductory message. 

GAO met or exceeded all but one of its key performance measures and 
exceeded or equaled all-time records for six of the seven key 
indicators. GAO's work led to financial benefits of $44 billion—a 
return of $95 for every dollar spent—as well as over 1,000 cases of 
improvements without a price tag that enhanced the quality of life for 
millions of Americans. 

In addition to data on GAO's overall performance, the report 
highlights progress in meeting each of GAO's strategic goals. It also 
includes GAO's fiscal year 2004 financial statements, which received 
an unqualified opinion from its independent auditor, the 18th such 
opinion. 

The report includes an overview of GAO's organization and management, 
summaries of key work performed by each team, significant financial 
and other accomplishments, and information about human capital and 
information technology initiatives. 

The report is available online at www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GA0-05-
62SP. To obtain a copy of the report, contact GAO, 441 G Street, NW, 
Room LM, Washington, D.C. 20548; fax: ++(202) 512-6061. 

Asian Development Bank: 

New President Elected: 

In November 2004, Haruhiko Kuroda, Japan's former vice minister of 
finance for international affairs, was unanimously elected president 
of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) by its board of governors.
Mr. Kuroda took over as ADB president on February 1, 2005, succeeding 
Tadao Chino, who announced his resignation in August 2004. 

[Photograph: Mr. Haruhiko Kuroda] 

"It is a great honor to be elected president of ADB," said Mr. Kuroda. 
"I am determined that the bank should remain flexible in its approach 
to the many challenges facing its developing member countries. ADB 
must also continue to strive for greater effectiveness in its 
operations." 

ADB is a multilateral development finance institution dedicated to 
reducing poverty in Asia and the Pacific. Established in 1966, it is 
owned by 63 members, mostly from the region, and has its headquarters 
in Manila. 

In a career spanning nearly four decades, Mr. Kuroda represented 
Japan's Ministry of Finance in numerous senior positions. During his 
terms as director-general of the international bureau and as vice 
minister of finance from 1997 through 2003, Mr. Kuroda helped design 
and implement the US$30 billion Miyazawa Initiative—Japan's response 
to Asian economies hit by the 1997-1998 financial crisis. Under his 
leadership, Japan helped Asian nations establish a network of currency 
swap agreements (the Chiang Mai Initiative) to avert another crisis. 
As vice minister of finance for international affairs, Mr. Kuroda was 
responsible for policy planning, international coordination, and 
external representation. After retiring from the ministry in 2003, Mr. 
Kuroda was appointed special adviser to the cabinet of Prime Minister 
Koizumi on international monetary issues. He was also a professor at 
the graduate school of economics at Hitotsubashi University in Tokyo. 

Mr. Kuroda holds a BA in law from the University of Tokyo and a master 
of philosophy in economics from Oxford University. He has authored 
several books on monetary policy, exchange rates, international 
finance policy coordination, international taxation, and international 
negotiations. 

For additional information, contact: Asian Development Bank, fax: (63-
2) 636-2444; 
e-mail: information@adb.org; 
Web site: www.adb.org. 

International Federation of Accountants: 

New Public Member of International Auditing and Assurance Standards 
Board: 

In January 2005, Ms. Inga-Britt Ahlenius, auditor general of Kosovo 
and former auditor general of Sweden, was appointed to a 3-year term 
as one of the three public members of the International Auditing and 
Assurance Standards Board (IAASB). The IAASB is a standard-setting 
body designated by, and operating under the auspices of, the 
International Federation of Accountants (IFAC). Its objective is to
serve the public interest by setting high-quality auditing, assurance, 
quality control, and related services standards, and by facilitating 
the convergence of national and international standards to enhance the 
quality and uniformity of practice throughout the world and strengthen 
public confidence in the global auditing and assurance profession. 
Public members represent the public interest and contribute to the 
development of international auditing standards in general. Ms. 
Ahlenius will also provide specific public sector perspectives to 
auditing and assurance. 

Ms. Ahlenius has extensive experience in both the public and private 
financial sectors. She has a degree in business administration from 
the Stockholm School of Economics and started her career in Sweden's 
largest commercial bank, Svenska Handelsbanken. Within the public 
sector, she held leading positions in the Swedish ministries of 
Commerce and Industry and Finance. From 1993 through 2003, Ms. 
Ahlenius was auditor general of Sweden. She has been auditor general 
of Kosovo since 2003. 

Ms. Kelly Anerud, from the Office of the Auditor General of Norway, 
will serve as technical advisor to Ms. Ahlenius. 

For additional information, see the IAASB Web site: 
http://www.ifac.org/IAASB. 

[End of section] 

Guidelines on Audit Quality: 

By Jacek Mazur, PhD, Supreme Chamber of Control, Poland; Janos Revesz, 
State Audit Office, Hungary; Brian Vella, National Audit Office, 
Malta; and Harry Havens, formerly U.S. Government Accountability 
Office. 

This article discusses newly developed guidelines on audit quality 
that set out specific measures that an SAI should take to ensure high 
quality in its audit work. These guidelines are applicable to all 
types of SAIs and all types of audits. 

Background: 

Recently, concerns have arisen about the reliability of audit activity 
in the private sector. Since an SAIs work is, in many ways, comparable 
to that of a private firm, the heads of the former network of SAIs of 
Central and Eastern European countries, Cyprus, Malta, Turkey, and the 
European Court of Auditors (ECA)[Footnote 1] agreed, at their annual 
meeting in Limassol, Cyprus, in 2001, that quality in the audit 
process should be discussed, studied, and reported upon. 

The liaison officers of Hungary, Malta, and Poland (authors of this 
article) were appointed as an expert group for an initial study to: 

* identify the principles and requisites required in an audit 
institution to ensure that it is adequately organized in order to 
ensure effective audit work and reports of high quality; 

* analyze the situation of participant SAIs vis-à-vis their quality 
control practices and procedures relating to audit planning, 
execution, and reporting; and; 

* identify good practices in an SAI to ensure high quality. 

The expert group circulated a questionnaire in 2002 to obtain 
information about the state of quality management systems in 
participant countries and other advanced SAIs. Based on an analysis of 
replies, a report was completed and presented to the heads of SAIs at 
their Bucharest meeting in December 2002. 

After discussing the report, the heads of SAIs extended the mandate of 
the expert group and requested that it prepare comprehensive and 
detailed guidelines on audit quality. Representatives of the French 
Court of Accounts—-Anne-Marie Boutin and Christophe Perron-—joined the 
expert group and contributed to the elaboration of the guidelines 
during 2003-2004. 

SIGMA[Footnote 2] (http://www.sigmaweb.org) was asked to provide 
technical support during both the preparation of the report and the 
elaboration of the guidelines. In particular, Nick Treen, SIGMAS 
Senior Advisor for Audit and Financial Control 
(Nicolasjohn.treen@oecd.org), made a valuable contribution as 
coordinator of the cooperation. 

The guidelines on audit quality were presented at the last meeting of 
the heads of the former network of SAIs in Riga, Latvia, in April 
2004. This body approved the document and recommended that it be 
forwarded to the Contact Committee of European Union (EU) SAIs and to 
the INTOSAI and EUROSAI general secretariats for their information and 
consideration. The Contact Committee of EU SAIs approved a slightly 
amended version of the guidelines during the annual meeting in 
Luxembourg in December 2004. 

Overview of the Guidelines: 

The guidelines contain four sections: 

* Section 1—Introduction, 

* Section 2—Quality Control, 

* Section 3—Quality Assurance, and, 

* Section 4—Institutional Management. 

The guidelines are intended to apply to all SAIs, both courts and 
offices, and to all audits, both regularity and performance. However, 
the authors are well aware that wide variations exist within these 
categories of SAIs and audits. 

Each guideline is accompanied by explanatory text to help the reader 
understand why that guideline is needed and what it seeks to 
accomplish. 

Quality Control—-"Hot Review:" 

Quality control is a process through which an SAI seeks to ensure that 
all phases of an audit (planning, execution, reporting, and follow-up) 
are carried out in compliance with the SAI's rules, practices, and 
procedures. 

A quality control system should ensure that audits are timely, 
comprehensive, adequately documented, and performed and reviewed by 
qualified staff. In this context, quality takes account of the 
following factors, among others: 

* the significance and value of matters addressed in the audit; 

* the objectivity and fairness of assessments and opinions; 

* the scope and completeness of the planning and performance of the 
audit; 

* the reliability and accuracy of findings, conclusions, and other 
matters presented in the audit report; and; 

* the effectiveness of the audit in terms of results and impacts 
achieved. 

Direction, supervision, and review must be present in each phase of an 
audit to ensure quality. The qualifications and experience of the 
audit team should be considered in deciding the type and extent of 
direction, supervision, or review. 

The selection and timing of audits may depend on: 

* priority, including legal requirements; 

* financial and human resources available; 

* the work of other auditors, such as internal auditors; and; 

* risk and materiality assessments. 

The guidelines then set forth recommended procedures to be followed in 
audit planning, audit execution, audit reporting, and audit follow-up. 
Key points include the following: 

* Audit planning should consider the number and skills of available 
staff; the time, financial and other resources, and external expertise 
available; and the risks that may be encountered. The plan should lay 
out the schedule, tasks, and responsible persons and should be 
reviewed by an experienced auditor. 

* Audit execution should be performed in accordance with the approved 
plan. The individual performing each audit task should document that 
fact and the results. The principal auditor should review that 
documentation. The working papers should be organized to facilitate 
subsequent preparation and review of the audit report. 

* Audit reports should be clear, timely, concise, and objective. All 
findings and conclusions must be supported by adequate, reliable, and 
fair audit evidence in the audit working papers. Proposed reports 
should be reviewed internally by experienced auditors who are 
independent of the audit and by the auditee. Auditee comments should 
receive fair consideration. 

* Some time after a report is issued, the SAI should determine what 
action, if any, the auditee has taken to address problems raised in 
the audit. 

Quality Assurance-—"Cold Review:" 

Quality assurance is an assessment process focusing on the operation 
of the quality control system. It is a review completed after the 
audit by persons who are independent of the audit under review. 

Quality assurance necessarily involves the examination of specific 
audits. However, the purpose of the review is not to criticize 
specific audits. Rather, it is to determine what controls were 
intended to be applied to those audits, how those controls were 
implemented, any gaps in the controls, and other ways of improving the 
audit quality system. 

There are four main types of quality assurance: 

* internal review, 

* external review, 

* peer review, and, 

* feedback from auditees. 

One approach to internal review is establishing a separate office, 
independent from the audit units, reporting directly to either the 
president in an audit office or the relevant collegium in a court of 
audit. Another possible approach is having staff members from 
different structural units, independent from the audit being reviewed, 
conducting reviews. In either case, the reviewer selects a sample of 
audits, examines them in detail, and reports the results along with 
recommendations for improvement. 

In external review, a private audit firm might be asked to review a 
sample of attestation audits. A management consulting firm or academic 
experts could be asked to review selected performance audits. 

Peer review assesses the extent to which an SAI meets international 
standards. Such a review generally involves experienced auditors from 
other SAIs. SIGMA has organized peer reviews of the SAIs in new EU 
member states and in candidate countries. Other peer reviews have 
resulted from agreements between particular SAIs or groups of SAIs. 

The guidelines include checklists to facilitate internal, external, or 
peer reviews and to help ensure the comparability of assessments.
Feedback from auditees can help the SAI understand auditees' needs and 
expectations. 

The guidelines recommend an annual quality assurance report for each 
SAI to sum up general findings and recommendations for improvement. 

Institutional Management: 

The SAI's management is responsible for establishing, operating, 
maintaining, and improving the quality management system to ensure 
that the SAI is competently organized to deliver high-quality work, 
irrespective of the type of SAI and the type of audit it performs. It 
is also responsible for creating an environment conducive to 
consistent high quality and continuous improvement, requiring it to 
give high priority to: 

* managing human resources, 

* managing institutional risks, and, 

* managing external relations. 

Individual auditors and managers play key roles in the performance of 
audits. SAIs should spend time, energy, and budgetary resources on 
managing their human resources. An essential element is a strategy for 
recruiting and selecting new staff members. The SAI should seek 
excellence in the people it employs, anticipate its future needs, and 
recruit staff to fill those needs. 

SAIs should also provide effective training, including: 

* introductory training to help new arrivals adapt to the SAI, 

* technical training to equip auditors with the skills to perform 
audit tasks, 

* managerial training to allow employees to acquire skills to direct 
the work of audit units, and, 

* continuing education to ensure that auditors maintain and enhance 
their capabilities. 

An SAI should also give attention to the career development of its 
personnel through effective performance appraisal systems and 
individual development plans. 

SAI management should allocate resources to minimize institutional 
risks. Not all audits are equally difficult and risky. Inappropriate 
management of those risks can undermine the SAI's credibility. The 
SAI's management should establish a procedure for assessing 
institutional risks that considers: 

* complexity of the audit, 

* audit costs, 

* controversy associated with the audit, and, 

* cooperation or resistance of the auditee. 

To maximize its effectiveness, an SAI should establish good contacts 
and cooperate with Parliament and its committees, the Ministry of 
Finance and other line ministries, the media, and private sector 
auditors, among others. This requires a clear strategy in each case. 

Annexes: 

The annexes include a list of reference documents received from 
international and national organizations. Also included is information 
on quality control for regularity audits by the International 
Federation of Accountants and for performance audits by INTOSAI, as 
well as the audit quality checklists noted previously. 

Conclusion: 
Audit quality is an increasingly important issue and should be a 
useful area of exchange of national experiences. The authors hope that 
the guidelines on audit quality will facilitate future discussions of 
this issue.[Footnote 3] 

The guidelines are available in electronic format. For more 
information, contact the authors: reveszj@asz.hu, 
Jacek_Mazur@nik.gov.pl, brian.vella@gov.mt, or havensh@aol.com. 

[Footnotes: 

[1] These 15 SAIs (Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech 
Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, 
Slovakia, Slovenia, and Turkey) and the ECA formed a cooperative 
network in 1998 to assist with accession to the European Union. The 
network no longer exists in this form since 10 of these countries had 
joined the EU as of May 1, 2004. 

[2] SIGMA is a joint initiative of the Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development and the European Union, financed principally 
by the European Union. SIGMA participants included Nick Treen, Harry 
Havens, Bo Sandberg, Joop Vrolijk, and Jens Piontek. 

[3] For example, the 7th ASOSAI Research Project, Audit Quality 
Management System, which started in 2004 (see the ASOSAI Web page for 
details). 

[End of section] 

Harmonization in Overseas Audit Practices: A Joint Audit Approach to 
the Expenditure of Development Cooperation Funds: 

By Jeroen van Wingerde and Willem Voogd, Netherlands Court of Audit: 

In 2000, a group of like-minded European donors[Footnote 1] committed 
themselves to working together to help eradicate global poverty by 
harmonizing and coordinating their aid programs. One of their main 
goals was easing the reporting burden on their partners in developing 
countries. In conjunction with this initiative, the SAIs of the same 
European donor countries started to discuss how they might harmonize 
their audit approach in situations where harmonized donor arrangements 
were in place. They called their project HOAP (Harmonization in 
Overseas Audit Practices). 

By 2003, the donors, referred to as the Nordic+ group, had agreed upon 
a common framework for providing sectoral support, known as the 
harmonization in practice (HIP) approach, and Zambia was chosen as a 
pilot country. The HOAP SAIs[Footnote 2] issued several 
recommendations to further develop the audit structure within the HIP 
framework. They also decided to link up with the Nordic+ pilot by 
developing and testing, in cooperation with the Zambian SAI, a common 
audit approach to one sector of harmonized aid funding. The SAIs of 
Norway, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom took the lead in this 
pilot joint review and, with the support of the Zambian SAI, 
successfully tested it in November 2004. 

Harmonization in Practice: 

In the HIP action plan, the Nordic+ group embraced the use of joint 
agreements between multiple donor countries and the recipient country 
to promote complementary and operational harmonization of development 
cooperation. These joint agreements result in diverse aid systems that 
depend upon the developing country's strength of governance, 
accounting and auditing systems, and record in managing its public 
finances. Direct sector support—known as the sector-wide approach 
(SWAP)—and direct budget support (DBS) have been identified as the 
preferred aid modalities. 

With the growing tendency to use SWAPs and DBS, it is important that 
donor ministries obtain evidence of how the funds they have provided 
to recipient countries have been used. The donor ministry accounts 
must fairly present the flows of funds to recipient countries. If 
joint agreements are made between donor and developing countries using 
a common set of rules, audits on the expenditure of this money 
obviously also need to be harmonized. 

The Role of the Local SAIs: 

SAIs are generally regarded as important elements in a country's 
accountability and good governance chain. Donor SAIs have 
traditionally placed great reliance on the local SAI's audit report in 
forming their opinions on whether donor ministries have obtained 
adequate evidence of the use of funds from donor countries. This is 
even more critical in cases of sectoral and direct budget support by 
donors when the funds of any individual country can no longer be 
tracked in the form of a specific project. It is therefore important 
to the donor countries that the local SAI's report, and the audit work 
supporting it, be adequate to meet the expectations of the parliaments 
of both the recipient and donor countries. 

If donor countries want to rely on the work of local SAIs, these SAIs 
need to be involved in the development of the joint agreements as part 
of the auditing structure. This has not always been the case. Some 
former joint agreements have included audit assignments for local SAIs 
without their concurrence or even their knowledge. Being obligated to 
carry out audits on donor funding infringes upon the local SAIs' 
independence. It may even result in directing efforts away from 
important audits of locally financed activities or entities, as the 
total audits that can be carried out are dependent upon the SAI's 
available resources. Therefore, the local SAI must have a prominent 
role in the accountability and good governance chain of donor-funded 
initiatives. 

Harmonization in Overseas Audit Practices: 

The HOAP initiative grew out of the recognition that coordination can 
reduce the audit burden and improve the accountability for public 
funds in both recipient and donor countries. For recipient countries, 
it offers a potentially less time-consuming alternative to multiple 
donor reviews of the same evidence. For donor countries and especially 
the donor SAIs, the approach offers a more effective and efficient way 
of satisfying their audit objectives in relation to the accounts of 
the donor ministries. 

The basic idea behind the HOAP approach is that one team carries out 
an audit on behalf of all the concerned donor SAIs. This team can be 
composed of one or several SAIs. For such a single audit approach to 
work, the donor SAIs need to agree upon a common audit standard and, 
most importantly, the recipient country SAI must agree to cooperate. 
For the past few years, the HOAP SAIs have been working on such a 
common audit approach. Representatives of the Zambian SAI, the World 
Bank, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 
(OECD) have participated in meetings as observers. 

Figure 1 summarizes the framework within which the HOAP approach is to 
be carried out. 

Figure 1: Framework for Harmonization in Overseas Audit Practices 
(HOAP): 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

1. Donor countries make a joint arrangement with a partner developing 
country and make payments. 

2. Donor countries monitor the execution of the joint agreement. 

3. The local SAI carries out a regularity audit on the expenditure of 
development cooperation money in the spending ministries. 

4. The selected donor SAI team reviews the work of the local SAI and 
judges the monitoring activities of the donor countries. 

5. The selected donor SAI team reports its observations and audit 
conclusion back to the other donor SAIs and the recipient SAI. 

6. The other donor SAIs decide if they can rely on the audit report or 
if they need additional evidence from other sources. If they can rely 
on the local SAI’s audit work, they can use the report for their own 
regularity audits and send the report to their development cooperation
ministries and parliaments. 

Source: Netherlands Court of Audit. 

[End of figure] 

The approach developed and tested by HOAP can be summarized as follows: 

1. Review of the donor files. 

The donor SAI team reviews the donor files and discusses them with the 
ministry or local embassy staff. This provides the reviewing SAI team 
with valuable information on, for example, the purpose of the DBS or 
SWAP, the authorization and amounts paid by the donor, monitoring 
reports demonstrating that agreed-upon activities have been 
undertaken, and action taken on local SAI audit reports. 

2. Review of the financial statements. 

The donor SAI team reviews the financial statements that the recipient 
country has prepared to understand the accounting principles used and 
the financial and nonfinancial information disclosed. 

3. Examination of the local SAI's work. 

The donor SAI team examines the audit report by the local SAI (or 
another independent auditor) covering income and expenditure under the 
DBS or SWAP. To form an opinion on whether the audit report has been 
properly prepared so that reliance can be placed upon it, the team 
uses a questionnaire based on the International Federation of 
Accountants' International Auditing Standard "Using the Work of 
Another Auditor." The local SAI fills in the questionnaire, and the 
results are discussed with the donor SAI team. There is no need to 
duplicate the audit the local SAI has already completed. Although 
donors and their SAIs do not have a right to access the local SAI's 
working papers, the local SAI may be willing to discuss its audit 
approach with the review team and give insight into its working papers. 

4. Discussion with aid recipients. 

In addition to reviewing the monitoring reports, the financial 
statements, the local SAI's audit report, and information on any 
actions the ministry has taken on the issues raised by the local SAI, 
the donor SAI team may want to gather more information from key aid 
recipients. A representative of the local SAI and the embassy should 
be invited to attend any meetings held to gather this information. 

5. Forming an opinion and reporting. 

The review team reports its observations and audit conclusions to the 
other donor SAIs and sends a copy of the report to the local SAI. In 
the report, the donor SAI team gives an opinion on whether there is 
sufficient relevant information to confirm that grants made by partner 
organizations under a DBS or SWAP arrangement have been used for the 
agreed-upon purposes. If necessary, the long version of the report may 
include observations and recommendations on the ministry accounts, the 
work of the local SAI, or donor monitoring. 

All the donor SAIs are encouraged to share the opinion with their 
donor organizations. However, each donor SAI is free to determine 
whether there is sufficient evidence, within the context of its own 
country's auditing and reporting requirements, to provide assurance to 
its parliament. It is theoretically possible that donors may disagree 
about whether there was sufficient evidence that grants have been 
properly spent. 

Lessons Learned in the Zambia Pilot Review: 

In 2003, seven donor countries and the Zambian government agreed on a 
SWAP arrangement for the education sector. For this reason—and because 
there was a history of good cooperation between the Office of the 
Auditor General of Zambia (OAGZ) and several HOAP group members—Zambia 
was chosen as a pilot for the HOAP approach. In November 2004, a joint 
team drawn from the audit offices of the Netherlands, the United 
Kingdom, and Norway performed the audit. The goals of the audit were 
to: 

* test the HOAP approach, 

* express an audit opinion on the education SWAP 2003 (a regularity 
audit of actual expenditure), and, 

* advise the NORDIC+ group so that its members could refine and adjust 
their aid program in Zambia. 

From the outset, the work in Zambia was recognized as both 
groundbreaking and innovative. The pilot showed that the HOAP approach 
is workable and that a group of independently minded SAIs can work 
together to produce a common audit report. The enthusiastic support 
and input of the OAGZ and personal commitment of the auditor general 
were critical elements in the review's success. Local representatives 
from donor organizations and the Ministry of Education also provided 
significant support and backup for the review. 

[Photograph: The pilot review team with Zambian colleagues in Lusaka, 
Zambia] 

The review team identified the following key elements in the success 
of the methodology used in the pilot audit: 

* The pilot team and the OAGZ agreed upon a common approach to the 
review. 

* Working with the OAGZ provided opportunities for the review team and 
OAGZ to discuss audit experiences and practices. 

* The HOAP approach was a good basis for the audit opinion, and the 
other donor SAIs agreed with the audit report's conclusions and 
observations. 

* Individual members of the NORDIC+ group welcomed the observations to 
refine and adjust their aid program for Zambia. 

Next Steps in HOAP: 

The next challenge for the HOAP group is to test the methodology in 
other countries and extend the audit to cover multi-donor DBS 
arrangements—where evidence of the use of DBS grants will inevitably 
be more complex to assess. In the future, the HOAP group's experience 
in auditing SWAPS and DBS could help to support the design of
new funding agreements that anticipate and, wherever possible, avoid 
potential problems related to providing evidence on the use of grants. 
In this respect, the separation of roles between the donor ministries 
and the SAIs of donor countries must be maintained. 

In their recent meeting in Copenhagen in February 2005, the HOAP group 
agreed to carry out a second review in a new country. If the next 
review is as successful as the review in Zambia, the next step would 
be to institutionalize the approach within INTOSAI so that it can be 
applied by SAIs worldwide. Recent developments, such as the proposed 
cooperation between SAIs on the audit of funds linked to the tsunami 
relief efforts, could also benefit from such a common methodology. 

As members of the HOAP group, we are enthusiastic about the 
developments to date and hope that others will join us in this 
groundbreaking initiative. Let us work together to develop efficient 
and sound audit methodologies of mutual benefit to all concerned. 

For more information, please contact the author: Jeroen van Wingerde, 
Netherlands Court of Audit (j.vanwingerde@rekenkamer.nl). 

The next meeting of the HOAP group is planned for September 2005 in 
the United Kingdom. The U.K. National Audit Office has agreed to 
provide the secretariat for this meeting. Please contact Robin Ball 
(robin.ball@nao.gsi.gov.uk) for additional meeting information. 

Footnotes: 

[1] Initially, the Ministers for Development Cooperation of Germany, 
Norway, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom comprised this group. 
They were later joined by ministers from Denmark and Sweden. 

[2] The HOAP group now includes the SAIs of Belgium, Canada, Denmark, 
Finland, Germany, Ireland, Norway, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the 
United Kingdom, as well as the European Court of Auditors. 

[End of section] 

Auditing Peru's Cultural Heritage Assets: 

By Luis Arriola Acufia and Ana Teresa Pantoja Urizar-Garffas, Office 
of the Comptroller General of the Republic of Peru: 

Peru is a country rich not only in the diversity of its natural 
resources, but also in the multicultural heritage represented by its 
paleontological, archaeological and historical artifacts. Its heritage 
is also reflected in its living contemporary culture—expressed through 
dance, music, languages, and culinary arts—and the manifestations of 
identity, culture, experiences, and customs found in the country's 
different regions and ecological zones: the desert, the Andes 
Mountains, and the rainforests of Amazonia. 

Peru's National Institute for Culture has defined our country's 
cultural heritage as the tangible and intangible assets that our 
ancestors have left to us over the centuries. These assets help us 
forge an identity as a nation and enable us to know who we are and 
where we have come from, thus allowing us to strengthen our personal 
and societal development. The state has a special responsibility to 
protect these assets so that they can be admired, valued, and used in 
a sustainable way by today's citizens and maintained for future 
generations. 

According to UNESCO, culture and development cannot be separated, 
either in terms of economic growth or as a means of access to a 
satisfactory intellectual, affective, moral, and spiritual existence. 
Development involves the capabilities that allow groups, communities, 
and nations to plan their futures in an integral and integrated way. 
Thus, culture can be seen as a cross-cutting factor in economic, 
social, and environmental development. 

The illegal trade in cultural assets is an ever present enemy of 
Peru's cultural heritage. It includes the buying and selling of 
archaeological, artistic, or historical artifacts and objects (most of 
them stolen from archaeological sites, churches, and temples in towns 
such as Cuzco, Puno, and Huancayo), even though such trade is 
prohibited by law. The principal offenses connected with this illicit 
trade in cultural objects are black-market trading and taking goods 
out of the country without authorization. As many experts have 
observed, this illegal trade would not exist if there were not a 
market for the goods, primarily composed of unscrupulous wealthy 
collectors in Peru and abroad. 

In this context, the Peruvian Congress passed a law giving the 
comptroller general of the Republic of Peru the authority to carry out 
audits of the environment, natural resources, and cultural heritage 
assets. In order to carry out these audits, the government's cultural 
policy must be explained and specific tools must be developed to 
enable government institutions to implement the policy at the 
national, regional, and local levels in accordance with the powers 
granted by law. However, there is an inherent risk that these policies 
will not be viable for the public institutions responsible for 
cultural affairs because of the limited financial resources assigned 
to strengthening their management capabilities and promoting effective 
action. 

Inventory, Registration, and Cataloging: 

Cultural heritage audits evaluate the way in which the public sector 
manages three operations fundamental to preserving the assets that 
constitute the cultural heritage: inventory, registration, and 
cataloging. These three operations are phases of a dynamic, 
specialized, technical process that makes it possible to clearly 
identify the features, condition, and location of a specific cultural 
heritage asset. This process contributes to the knowledge of each 
asset's origin and history and any changes it has undergone, helps 
prevent its loss, and, where necessary, helps facilitate its recovery, 
even on an international level. These three operations are applicable 
to our archaeological, historical, and contemporary cultural heritage. 

Because of decentralization in Peru, regional governments and local 
municipal authorities have now assumed many functions relating to the 
preservation of cultural heritage assets. This adds to the complexity 
of the audits since numerous participants are involved. 

Cultural Heritage Audit in the Lake Titicaca Area: 

In 2002, the SAI of Peru began to incorporate the cultural heritage 
variable when planning its environmental audits, giving rise to the 
environmental and cultural heritage audit. This effort was prompted by 
current legislation and the presence of many archaeological sites and 
cultural manifestations linked to the country's cultural heritage. The 
first of these audits was in the area of Lake Titicaca, the world's 
highest navigable lake (situated at 3,800 meters-12,500 feet—above sea 
level) and the cradle of the Inca and earlier Tiahuanaco 
civilizations. Several population centers and communities in the area 
have preserved their centuries-old culture. 

Based on its initial experience, the SAI of Peru determined that these 
audits should be similar to management audits, linked to the three 
"Es"–efficiency, economy, and effectiveness–with a minimum of 
regularity auditing procedures, which would allow the SAI to assess 
the degree of compliance with legislation. Table 1 summarizes the 
results of this initial audit effort. 

Table 1: Environmental and Cultural Heritage Audits in the Lake 
Titicaca Area: 

Audit title: Audit of Environmental and Cultural Heritage Management 
in the Lake Titicaca Basin (Peru); 
Audits undertaken/reports issued: 
* Five environmental audits and one cultural heritage audit; 
* Six individual reports and one general report consolidating the 
environmental and cultural heritage situation in the Lake Titicaca 
basin; 
Principal observations/outcomes: 
* Updating the inventory and cataloging the cultural heritage of the 
city of Puno; 
* Strengthening intersectoral coordination; 
* Explaining the institutional environmental policy; 
* Treatment of wastewater discharged directly into the lake. 

[End of table] 

Cultural Heritage Audits in 2003: 

In 2003, the SAI of Peru carried out environmental and cultural 
heritage audits in three environmental and cultural areas: the Chan 
Chan Archaeological Zone, the historic sanctuary of Machu Picchu, and 
the Rio Abiseo National Park. This effort encompassed 14 audits of 
government institutions. 

Chan Chan, the capital of the Chimii (pre-Inca) kingdom, reached its 
zenith in the 15th century and was the largest city in pre-Columbian 
Latin America. It was also the largest adobe city in Latin America, 
and its layout reflects a political and social strategy marked by the 
city's division into nine citadels or palaces forming autonomous 
units. It meets the cultural criteria of a UNESCO World Heritage site 
and provides exceptional testimony of a vanished civilization. 

The historic sanctuary of Machu Picchu is one of the two World 
Heritage sites in Peru that meet both the cultural and natural 
selection criteria. It is situated at an altitude of 2,430 meters 
(7,972 feet) above sea level in surroundings of outstanding natural 
beauty. In relation to the cultural criteria, this archaeological site 
was founded by the Tawantinsuyu (Incas) and is thought to have been a 
royal residence. It is considered a masterpiece of human creative 
genius and the most splendid urban creation of the Tawantinsuyu. As a 
natural asset, it is an outstanding example of the evolution and 
development of terrestrial, freshwater, coastal, and marine ecosystems 
and their animal and plant communities. 

The Rio Abiseo National Park is the second location UNESCO declared a 
World Heritage site on natural and cultural grounds. The park is 
designed to protect a representative sample of the cloud forests and 
high rainforests, conserve the cultural resources—in particular, the 
Gran Pajaten and Los Pinchudos archaeological complex—and preserve its 
scenic beauty and the species of flora and fauna in their natural 
state. 

A summary of these audits is shown in table 2. 

Table 2: 2003 Environmental and Cultural Heritage Audits: 

Audit title: Audit of Environmental and Cultural Heritage Management 
of the Chan Chan Archaeological Zone (La Libertad—Peru)
Audits undertaken/reports issued: 
* Five environmental audits and one cultural heritage audit; 
* Six reports on six entities and one general report consolidating the 
environmental and cultural aspects of the archaeological zone; 
Principal observations/outcomes: 
* Strengthening control and supervision of activities related to the 
protection and conservation of the archaeological zone; 
* Control and monitoring of underground and surface waters and the 
dangerous elevation of the water table for the adobe construction; 
* Strengthening the organizational structure and intersectoral 
coordination; 
* Implementing an institutional environmental and cultural heritage 
policy. 

Audit title: Audit of Environmental and Cultural Heritage Management 
of the Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu (Cuzco—Peru)	
Audits undertaken/reports issued: 
* Five environmental audits and one cultural heritage audit; 
* Six reports on six entities and one general report consolidating the 
environmental and cultural aspects of the sanctuary; 
Principal observations/outcomes: 
* Drawing up the master management plan for the site, incorporating 
geological and drainage aspects; 
* Formulating the intervention plan for critical areas; 
* Drawing up a legal and technical report on recovering archaeological 
goods; 
* Updating the master plan for the historic sanctuary of Machu Picchu; 
* Completing the legal and physical repair of Machu Picchu; 
* Drawing up the public use plan for tourism; 
* Implementing measures to avoid the introduction of nonnative species. 

Audit title: Audit of Environmental and Cultural Heritage Management 
in the Rio Abiseo National Park (Moyobamba-Peru); 
Audits undertaken/reports issued: 
* One environmental audit and one cultural heritage audit	
* Two reports on two entitles and one general report consolidating the 
environmental and cultural issues affecting the park; 
Principal observations/outcomes: 
* Drawing up an integral plan to identify factors causing 
deterioration and work to be undertaken on research, preservation, 
conservation, valuation, and dissemination of the cultural and 
archaeological heritage; 
* Formulation, approval, and development of strategic alliances. 

[End of table] 

The SAI of Peru has been developing systematic guidance to implement 
cultural heritage management audits. As demonstrated in the reports, 
the audits have made it possible to implement recommendations 
improving the management of those government institutions charged with 
overseeing the nation's environmental and cultural heritage work. 
These audits are being replicated in urban and rural areas where 
cultural assets are being removed and plundered and also in areas that 
are critical because of potential environmental pollution. All these 
efforts are designed to defend and protect biodiversity and the 
nation's cultural heritage while promoting the general welfare of the 
population through economic, social, environmental, and cultural 
development. In the end, this will also advance the necessary 
sustainable development of the country. 

For more information, contact the authors at 
contraloria@contraloria.gob.pe. 

[End of section] 

Audit Profile: National Audit Authority of Cambodia: 

By Chan Tani, Secretary-General of Cambodia: 

In 1996, the Asian Development Bank funded a technical assistance 
project to help draft Cambodia's Law on Audit, which was subsequently 
approved by the National Assembly in March 2000. The National Audit 
Authority (NAA) began operations in early 2002 and, since that time, 
has continued to receive significant assistance from the Asian 
Development Bank. In April 2003, the Federal Republic of Germany 
assigned an audit consultant to work with the NAA for 2 years, and in 
2004 the World Bank sponsored the participation of two NAA auditors in 
the 2004 International Auditor Fellowship Program organized by the 
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). These efforts, along with 
other overseas professional training courses, greatly contributed to 
capacity building in the NAA and enhanced its ability to perform its 
audit work effectively. NAA became a member of INTOSAI in December 
2002 and a member of ASOSAI in March 2004. 

Legal Authority and Independence: 

Under article 18 of the Law on Audit of the Kingdom of Cambodia, the 
auditor-general and the two deputy auditors-general are to be 
appointed by royal decree on the recommendation of the royal 
government and approved by a two-thirds majority of members of the 
National Assembly. 

The auditor-general and deputy auditors-general are appointed for 5-
year terms and may be reappointed for an additional term. If the 
auditor-general or a deputy auditor-general dies, resigns, becomes 
disabled, or commits a serious mistake, a new auditor-general or 
deputy auditor-general will be appointed under the terms and 
conditions stated in the Law on Audit of the Kingdom of Cambodia. 

The NAA is an independent public entity with its own separate budget 
provided from the national budget. Its revenues and expenditures are 
governed by the financial system of law. The NAA reports directly to 
the National Assembly, Senate, and royal government for information 
purposes. 

Organization: 

The auditor-general and two deputy auditors-general govern the NAA, 
which consists of the Secretariat General, the Administration and 
Finance Department, the Technical Department, and three audit 
departments. 

The Secretariat-General is responsible for (1) planning, coordinating, 
and monitoring the work of the departments and preparing final audit 
reports, (2) defining policies, objectives, and goals and following up 
on implementation, (3) proposing staff promotions and determining 
salaries, fringe benefits, payments and bonuses, and (4) coordinating 
with national and international institutions. 

The Administration and Finance Department is responsible for handling
administrative work, personnel, protocols, security, logistics, and 
payroll. 

The Technical Department is responsible for research and development, 
litigation, the library, information technology, and training. 

The three audit departments are responsible for auditing ministries; 
institutions; agencies; authorities; the national bank; state 
financial institutions; state and private sector joint-venture 
financial institutions; public enterprises; public establishments; 
municipal, provincial, and local government offices; contractors; 
suppliers of goods and services to the government under contracts; and 
other organizations receiving financial assistance and concessions 
from the government. 

Mandate: 

Under the Law on Audit of the Kingdom of Cambodia, the NAA has 
authority to audit all the ministries, institutions, and entities 
mentioned in the preceding paragraph. In performing its work, the NAA 
conducts compliance, financial, and performance audits at its own 
initiative or at the request of the Finance and Banking Commission of 
the National Assembly, the National Assembly, the Senate, ministries, 
and institutions or authorities. The auditor-general may conduct 
special request audits at his/her discretion. 

Under the Law on Audit, auditors have full and free access to 
documents, reports, or properties belonging to audited entities. Any 
authorized official who obtains information directly or indirectly 
during the fulfillment of his/her work must not disclose, divulge, or 
leak that information to the public. 

Reporting: 

At the completion of each audit assignment, the auditor-general sends 
a draft audit report to the head of the audited entity. Reports 
address any irregularities found in the accounting records, monetary 
or public assets, and financial management of the entity. If the head 
of the audited entity responds in writing to the auditor-general 
within 28 days of receiving the draft report, the auditor-general 
considers the comments before preparing a final audit report. 
Otherwise, the draft audit report is considered final. This audit 
report is submitted to the National Assembly, the Senate, the Council 
of Ministers, and the Ministry of Economy and Finance. 

The auditor-general reports regularly to the National Assembly and the 
Senate on any problem arising from the conduct of his/her audit duties. 

Staff: 

In order to achieve its mission and attain a high level of output, the 
NAA has devoted considerable attention to staffing. Currently, 153 out 
of 196 employees are auditors recruited from various ministries and 
universities. Auditors must hold at least a bachelor's degree. 

In addition, the NAA is currently receiving technical assistance from 
two external consultants, one from Germany and the other from the 
Asian Development Bank. 

Future Prospects: 

The NAA has placed a priority on capacity building for its staff and 
strengthening the quality of its audit work. Its strategic plan for 
the coming years focuses on: 

* conducting professional training for the audit staff; 

* establishing auditing standards, audit manuals, and audit 
guidelines; and; 

* standardizing audit processes and procedures. 

For more information, contact the National Audit Authority, #16, 
Street 240, Sangkat Chak Tomuk, Khan Daun Penh, Phnom Penh, Cambodia; 
tel/fax: ++(855-23) 215 320; e-mail: ctani@naa.gov.kh. 

[End of section] 

Reports in Print: 

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has recently issued 
its 2005 High-Risk Series: An Update report (GAO-05-207). GAO's audits 
and evaluations identify federal programs and operations that, in some 
cases, are high risk due to their greater vulnerabilities to fraud, 
waste, abuse, and mismanagement. Since 1990, GAO has periodically 
reported on government operations that it has designated as "high 
risk." This 2005 update presents the status of previously identified 
high-risk areas and four new areas warranting attention by the U.S. 
Congress and administration. Lasting solutions to high-risk problems 
offer the potential to save billions of dollars, dramatically improve 
services to the public, strengthen confidence and trust in the 
performance and accountability of the government, and ensure the 
ability of government to deliver on its promises. The report is 
available online at www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GA0-05-207. For a copy 
of the printed report, contact: GAO, 441 G Street, NW, Room LM, 
Washington, D.C. 20548, USA; fax: ++(202) 512-6061; Web site: 
www.gao.gov. 

The Antifraud Programs and Controls Task Force of the American 
Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) recently issued new 
guidance for audit committee oversight. The guidance, Management 
Override of Internal Controls: The Achilles' Heel of Fraud Prevention—
The Audit Committee and Oversight of Financial Reporting, offers 
assistance to audit committees in addressing the risk of fraud through 
management override of internal control over financial reporting. By 
effectively overseeing management and addressing the risk of 
management override, audit committees increase the likelihood of 
preventing, deterring, and detecting fraudulent financial reporting. 

The guidance is organized into three major components (Management
Override and the Audit Committee's Responsibilities, Actions to 
Address the Risk of Management Override of Internal Controls, and 
Suggested Audit Committee Procedures: Strengthening Knowledge of the 
Business and Related Financial Statement Risks). It includes direction 
for audit committees on: 

* maintaining an appropriate level of skepticism; 

* strengthening committee understanding of business; 

* brainstorming to identify fraud risks; 

* using the code of conduct to assess the financial reporting culture; 

* cultivating a vigorous whistleblower program; and; 

* developing a broad information and feedback network including 
communications with internal auditors, independent auditors, the 
compensation committee, and key employees. 

The guidance document can be downloaded from the AICPA's Web site, 
www.aicpa.org/audcommctr/spotlight/achilles_heel.htm. 

The World Bank publishes an annual report on world development that 
provides a guide to the economic, social, and environmental state of 
the world today. Each report provides an in-depth analysis of a 
specific aspect of development. The 2005 report is entitled World 
Development Report 2005: A Better Investment Climate for Everyone. It 
argues that improving the investment climate of society should be a 
top priority for governments and focuses on what governments can do to 
improve the investment climates of their societies to increase growth 
and reduce poverty. Drawing on surveys of nearly 30,000 companies in 
53 countries, country case studies, and other new research, the report 
explores questions such as the following: 

* What are the key features of a good investment climate, and how do 
they influence growth and poverty? 

* What can governments do to improve their investment climates, and 
how can they go about tackling such a broad agenda? 

* What has been learned about good practices in the main areas of 
investment climate? 

* What role might selective interventions and international 
arrangements play in improving the investment climate? 

* What can the international community do to help developing countries 
improve the investment climates of their societies? 

In addition to detailed chapters exploring these and related issues, 
the report contains selected data from the World Bank's new program of 
investment climate surveys, the Bank's Doing Business database, and 
world development indicators—an appendix of economic and social data 
from over 200 countries. The 2005 report and previous reports are 
available online at http://econ.worldbank.org/wdr/. To order a copy of 
the report, contact: The World Bank, P.O. Box 960, Herndon, VA 20172-
0960, U.S.A.; email: books@worldbank.org. 

[End of section] 

Inside INTOSAI: 

Auditing Standards Committee: 

Through the Journal, the INTOSAI Auditing Standards Committee (ASC) 
regularly updates the INTOSAI community on progress being made in the 
development of financial audit guidelines. The work is carried out in 
close cooperation with the International Federation of Accountants' 
(IFAC) International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) 
with the aim of including public sector considerations in the 
International Standards on Auditing (ISA). 

For more detailed and regularly updated information regarding this 
work or the standards, please visit the INTOSAI Auditing Standards 
Committee's Web site: www.rigsrevisionen.dk/asc or the IFAC Web site: 
www.ifac.org. Draft ISAs are regularly published on the IFAC Web site 
for an exposure period, and all parties are welcome to comment on the 
drafts. 

Work in Progress on ISAs: 

Currently, work is in progress on the following ISAs where INTOSAI 
experts are involved: 

ISA 230 — Documentation
* Expert: Ms. Kelly Anerud, Norway
* Back-office experts: Mr. John Fretwell, United States; Mr. Inge 
Danielsson, Sweden
* Final version expected in September 2005 and Practice Note due in 
June 2006. 

ISA 701 — Modifications to the Auditor's Report: 
* Expert: Ms. Bettina Jacobsen, Denmark; 
* Back-office experts: Ms. Mary Radford, United Kingdom; Ms. Marcia 
Buchanan, United States; 
* Final version expected in March 2006 and Practice Note due in 
December 2006. 

ISA 260 — Communications with Those Charged with Governance: 
* Expert: Ms. Tove Myklebust, Norway; 
* Back-office experts: Mr. Filip Cassel, Sweden; Mr. John Fretwell, 
United States; 
* Final version expected in December 2005 and Practice Note due in 
September 2006. 

ISA 800 — Auditor's Report on Special Purpose Audit Engagements: 
* Expert: Mr. Jonas Hallstrom, Sweden; 
* Back-office experts: Mr. Demsash Betemariam, Ethiopia; Mr. Martin 
Dees, the Netherlands; and Mr. Robert Cox, New Zealand. 

ISA 550 — Related Parties: 
* Expert: Mr. John Thorpe, United Kingdom; 
* Back-office experts: Ms. Zainun Taib, Malaysia; Mr. Uwe Schreiner, 
Germany; and Ms. Goranka Kiralj, Slovenia. 

ISA 580 — Management Representation: 
* Expert: Ms. Vijaya Moorthy, India; 
* Back-office experts: Mr. Martin Garrido, Chile; Mr. Ennio Colasanti, 
Italy. 

Work in Progress on Practice Notes: 

ISA 240 — The Auditor's Responsibility to Consider Fraud and Error in 
an Audit of Financial Statements: Mr. Leif Egil Berland, Norway.
Exposure Draft of Practice Note 240 to the INTOSAI community for 
comments, expected in March 2005. 

ISA 500 — Audit Evidence: Mr. Henrik Soderhielm, Sweden. 

Work in Progress on New ISA Projects: 

ISA 620 — Using the Work of an Expert - IAASB approved a project to 
revise ISA 620 at its meeting in December 2004. The project 
secretariat is in the process of nominating an expert and back-office 
experts for this project. 

For further information, please contact the project secretariat or the 
chair of the ASC's Working Group on Financial Audit Guidelines: 
projectsecretariat@riksrevisionen.se. 

IDI Update: 
IDI Update keeps you informed of developments in the work and programs 
of the INTOSM Development Initiative. To find out more about IDI and 
keep up to date between editions of the Journal, visit the IDI 
website: http://www.idi.no. 

IDI Welcomes New International Staff Members: 

IDI staff includes secondees from SAIs around the world. During 2005, 
two of the current secondees—Kiyoshi Okamoto (Japan) and Patrick 
Callaghan (United Kingdom)—will end their time with IDI, following in 
the footsteps of Karin Kuller (Estonia), who left at the end of 2004. 
In January and February 2005, IDI welcomed the latest secondees. 
Abdelhakim Ben Lazre, from the SAI of Tunisia, will be program manager 
for ARABOSAI and French-speaking Africa. Archana P. Shirsat and Pritom 
Phookun, from the SAI of India, will also be program managers. Ms. 
Shirsat will oversee developments in AFROSAI-E, CAROSAI, and EUROSAI 
and will manage IDI's e-learning program. Mr. Phookun will manage 
programs in ASOSAI and SPASM. 

Increasing the Pools of Regional Training Specialists: 

As reported in the January 2005 edition of the Journal, both OLACEFS 
and Sub-Saharan Francophone African SAIs are partnering with IDI to 
increase their regional pools of training specialists. Toward this 
end, a comprehensive 7-week Course Design and Instructional Techniques 
Workshop (CDITW), funded by IDI, took place in Ecuador in February-
March 2005 for OLACEFS participants. The main course design theme for 
the workshop was the audit of public works. The CDITW for Sub-Saharan 
Francophone African SAIs will be held in Benin in May-June 2005, and 
the principle design theme in that workshop will be performance 
auditing. 

Completion of the EUROSAI Long Term Training Program (LTTP) Phase 2: 

The EUROSAI LTTP Phase 2 was completed on March 18, 2005, at the 
conclusion of a Regional Audit Workshop (RAW) in Latvia. Russian and 
English sessions of the
RAW were conducted simultaneously, with 32 participants in the Russian-
language workshop and 24 in the English-language workshop. Each 
workshop was split into two parts, with 8 training days devoted to an 
introductory course on performance auditing and 2 days on fraud 
awareness. Instructors for both workshops came from SAIs in Eastern 
Europe and Central Asia and were supported by subject matter experts 
from Russia and the United Kingdom. All the elements of the EUROSAI 
LTTP Phase 2, including the train-the-trainers workshops, were 
delivered simultaneously in English and Russian. 

IDI Strategic Planning: 

IDI's current strategic plan expires at the end of 2006, and 
development of a new plan began in Hungary in March 2005. As part of 
its annual meeting, the IDI Board—the owners of the new plan—discussed 
IDI's mission and vision and agreed on the process for developing a 
new plan. Further information on the new strategic plan will be
provided in future editions of the Journal. 

Liaison with the INTOSAI Standing Committee on IT Auditing: 
At the end of April 2005, IDI will attend the annual meeting of the 
INTOSAI Standing Committee on IT Auditing in Bhutan. IDI and the 
committee will discuss ways they can cooperate to meet the demand 
within INTOSAI for training and capacity-building activities in IT and 
IT auditing. In 2004, IDI surveyed SAIs in developing and emerging 
countries on four subjects covered by INTOSAI standing committees and 
working groups. The results of the survey clearly indicated a strong 
demand for IT-related training. 

Collaborative Environmental Audit: 

Building on the success of the IDI Environmental Auditing Workshop 
(Kenya, February 2004), five members of AFROSAI-E (Ethiopia, Ghana, 
Kenya, Mauritius, and South Africa) and one member of SPASM (Fiji) are 
conducting a pilot collaborative audit on waste management. Regional 
experts from South Africa and the chair of the INTOSAI Working Group 
on Environmental Auditing are providing subject matter expertise. The 
audit report will be presented at the inauguration of AFROSAI-E in 
April 2005, with local reports expected to be published later this 
year. 

Contacting IDI: 

All IDI telephone and fax numbers changed effective March 1, 2005. The 
new office telephone number is +47 21 54 08 10, and the new fax number 
is +47 21 54 08 50. New personal numbers for IDI staff are available 
online at the IDI Web site: www.idi.no. 

To discuss any of the issues raised in this edition of IDI Update, 
please contact IDI by telephone at +47 21 54 08 10 or e-mail at 
idi@idi.no. 

[End of section] 

INTOSAI 2005-2006 Events: 

April 4-7: 
Environmental Audit Committee meeting, Czech Republic. 

April 14-15: 
Task Force on the Audit of International Institutions, Denmark. 

April 27-29: 
14th meeting of the INTOSAI Standing Committee on IT, Bhutan. 

May 2-June 17: 
IDI/CREFIAF Course Design and Instructional Techniques Workshop, Benin. 

May 30-June 2: 
EUROSAI Congress, Bonn, Germany. 

June TBD: 
Public Debt Committee Moscow, Russia. 

July 25-29: 
AFROSAI Congress, Cote d'Ivoire. 

September, TBD: 
Working Group Financial Audit Guidelines, Norway. 

September, TBD: 
Working Group on Compliance Auditing, Norway. 

September, TBD: 
Audit Standards Committee, Norway. 

October, TBD: 
SPASAI Congress, New Caledonia. 

November 10-11: 
INTOSAI Governing Board Annual Meeting, Vienna, Austria. 

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

[End of April 2005 Journal]