This is the accessible text file for the International Journal of 
Government Auditing, July 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: 

July 2005: 
Volume 32, No. 3: 

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: 

International Tsunami Conference: 

Quality Assurance of Third-Party Information: 

19th Commonwealth Auditors General Conference: 

Audit Profile: United States: 

Reports in Print: 

Inside INTOSAI: 

IDI Update: 

INTOSAI 2005-2006 Events: 

[End of section] 

Editorial: 

Implementing INTOSAI's Strategic Plan: Building On The Past, Creating 
The Future: 

[Editor's note: This editorial of the Journal introduces a new 
feature, "Spotlight on the Strategic Plan," that will focus on the 
actions INTOSAI is taking to implement its strategic plan. In the 8 
months since INTOSAI's strategic plan was unanimously adopted at the 
18th INCOSAI in Budapest, the Governing Board, its Finance and
Administration Committee, and other INTOSAI bodies have led the way in 
implementing the plan.] 

Highlights of the significant progress made in implementing INTOSAI's 
strategic plan since it was adopted in October 2005 include the 
following: 

* The Governing Board met in Budapest immediately after the closing 
plenary session of the congress. It appointed a five-member Finance 
and Administration Committee to begin implementing goal 4 and 
identified a number of financial and other tasks for the committee to 
address that will help make INTOSAI a model organization. The board 
began implementing the new and expanded membership criteria when it 
voted to accept the European Court of Auditors as the first INTOSAI 
member representing a supranational organization. 

* On January 17, 2005, the Finance and Administration Committee, 
represented by all auditors general serving on the committee, met in 
Vienna to deliberate on a wide variety of goal 4 implementation 
strategies. The committee developed options and specific 
recommendations on these issues for review by the Governing Board at 
its meeting 2 months later. 

* At its extraordinary meeting in Budapest on March 18, 2005, the 
Governing Board appointed Denmark as chair of the new Professional 
Standards Committee (goal 1) and Portugal as goal 1 liaison, Morocco 
as chair of the new Capacity Building Committee (goal 2) and the USA 
as goal 2 liaison, and India as goal 3 liaison. In addition, the board 
approved a job description and process for recruiting a director of 
strategic planning, to be seconded by an SAI; the General Secretariat 
announced the position and is accepting applications for this new 
position. The board began weighing options for membership dues for the 
new categories or supranational and associate membership. 

* The SAI of Portugal, in its role as liaison for goal 1, hosted a 
working meeting in Lisbon for goals 1, 2, and 3. Representatives from 
committee chairs and the goal liaisons discussed practical operational 
issues such as the leveraging of technology to enhance communications, 
reporting procedures, and preliminary terms of reference for the 
Professional Standards and Capacity Building Committees. 

* The SAIs of Denmark and Morocco, as chairs of the Professional 
Standards and Capacity Building Committees, respectively, drafted 
terms of reference for the new committees and have begun circulating 
the drafts to SAIs for comment. The draft terms of reference share 
much in common in terms of structure and adherence to INTOSAI's core 
values: independence, integrity, professionalism, credibility, 
inclusiveness, cooperation, and innovation. 

* The SAI of India, in its role as liaison for goal 3/knowledge-
sharing liaison and also as chair of the IT Audit Committee, has begun 
drafting a concept paper on how INTOSAI can leverage technology to 
improve knowledge sharing. Specifically, the paper will explore how 
communication can be most effective and efficient between SAIs; among 
the various INTOSAI committees, working groups, and other programs; 
across INTOSAI's seven regional working groups; and with external 
partners. The paper will also help identify how this Journal can 
facilitate this process. 

* The INTOSAI Development Initiative (IDI) held a strategic planning 
focus group meeting in Oslo, attended by a number of auditors general, 
to help chart IDI's next 5-year program and discuss how IDI can best 
support the INTOSAI strategic plan and the Capacity Building Committee 
under goal 2 of the plan. At the same time, the staff of this Journal 
has begun to explore how to transform the publication into a more 
dynamic, web-based tool for knowledge sharing. 

* Throughout these 9 months of intense activity, INTOSAI President 
Arpad Kovacs and Secretary General Josef Moser, along with many SAI 
heads from all parts of the world, have played active roles in 
facilitating and promoting the strategic plan. Their leadership has 
been and will continue to be essential to the plan's implementation. 

* As this issue of the Journal goes to press, final plans are being 
made for the July 25, 2005, meeting of the Finance and Administration 
Committee. The meeting agenda will include drafting a protocol for a 
more integrated, strategic approach for working with donors, screening 
applications for the director of strategic planning, developing 
recommendations for admission of associate members, and reviewing a 
proposed concept paper on communications and knowledge sharing. The 
Governing Board will consider and vote on the committee's 
recommendations at its November 10-11, 2005, meeting in Vienna. 

[End of section] 

News in Brief: 

Australia: 

New Auditor-General Appointed: 

The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) is pleased to announce the 
appointment of Ian McPhee as Auditor-General for Australia,
effective March 11, 2005. 

[Photograph: Ian McPhee] 

Mr. McPhee began his career with the ANAO in 1971. From August 1995 
until January 2003, he was the Deputy Auditor-General, responsible for 
the delivery of the ANAO's performance and assurance audit programs. 
From January 2003 until his appointment as Auditor-General,
Mr. McPhee was Deputy Secretary in the Department of Finance and 
Administration, where his responsibilities included managing and 
providing policy advice to the Finance Minister on the budget and 
financial management framework; budget and financial reporting and 
analysis for whole-of-government purposes; public sector 
superannuation; and the Office of Evaluation and Audit. 

In 2002, Mr. McPhee was awarded the Public Service Medal for 
outstanding public service to public sector accounting and auditing 
and the development of industry accounting standards. Mr. McPhee is a 
fellow of CPA Australia and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in 
Australia. He is also a member of the Australian and International 
Auditing and Assurance Standards Boards. 

Mr. McPhee is highly committed to the ANAO and the profession of 
auditing, and he enjoys widespread support within and outside the 
Australian public service. He looks forward to participating in 
INTOSAI activities and contributing to the sharing of public sector 
audit knowledge and experience. 

For additional information, contact: ANAO Director of External 
Relations and Publications, 
fax: +61 2 6203 7519; 
e-mail: ag1@anao.gov.au; 
Web site: www.anao.gov.au. 

Bulgaria: 

New President of the National Audit Office: 

On April 7, 2005, Dr. Valeriy Dimitrov was elected president of the 
National Audit Office of the Republic of Bulgaria by the National 
Assembly. He succeeds Dr. Georgi Nikolov, who completed his term of 
office. 

Upon his election, Dr. Dimitrov stated that he will work together with 
his new team to strengthen the National Audit Office's independence 
and the public's confidence in the institution. The guiding principles 
for the office's activity will be impartiality, competence, and a 
constructive and open-minded approach to all government institutions. 

[Photograph: Valeriy Dimitrov] 

Dr. Dimitrov believes that Bulgaria's membership in the European Union 
is the most serious challenge the government is facing, but the 
National Audit Office is prepared to help the government meet this 
challenge, in particular through the successful audit of resources 
received from European funds. 

Born in 1954 in Sofia, Dr. Dimitrov graduated with a degree in law. 
From 1984 until his appointment, he was a lecturer in financial, 
banking, and stock exchange law at the University of National and 
World Economy in Sofia. 

From 1991 to 2001, he was a legal adviser to the Governor and the 
Governing Board of the Bulgarian National Bank (BNB). From 1996 to 
2001 he was a representative of the Bulgarian National Bank on the 
Board of Directors of the Central Depository JSC. As legal adviser of 
the BNB, he played a key role in the formation of the BNB's secondary 
legislation. He has specializations in banking law in Austria, Italy, 
Germany, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Japan. 

Dr. Dimitrov was elected a member of the 39th National Assembly, where 
he chaired the Economic Policy Committee and was a member of the Legal 
Affairs and Budget and Finance Committees. 

He speaks English and Russian and is the author of books, studies, and 
articles in the field of banking, the stock exchange, and financial 
and administrative law. He is married and has two children. 

For additional information, contact: Bulgarian National Audit Office, 
fax: ++359 (2) 981 07 40, 981 19 41, 
e-mail: nao-pres@otel.net, 
Web page: www.bulnao.government.bg. 

Fiji: 

Auditor General Reappointed: 

In January 2005, the Constitutional Offices Commission, pursuant to 
the Fiji Constitution, reappointed Eroni Vatuloka for a second 5-year 
term as the Auditor General of the Republic of Fiji Islands. He is 
committed to enhancing the efficiency of the audit office through 
superior quality audits, professionalism, and staff development. 

Mr. Vatuloka received a bachelor of arts in 1984 from the University 
of the South Pacific and a master of commerce from the Australian 
National University in 1996. He gained provisional membership to the 
Fiji Institute of Accountants in 1988 and was registered as a charted 
accountant in 1989. 

[Photograph: Eroni Vatuloka] 

In 28 years in the civil service, Mr. Vatuloka has held positions in 
various government ministries and departments, rising from assistant 
accountant in 1987 to deputy auditor general in 1997. 

He is a member of the INTOSAI Task Force on International Money 
Laundering and Public Debt Committee. He also chairs the Regional 
Institutional Strengthening Committee of the South Pacific Association 
of Supreme Audit Institutions (SPASAI) and the Advisory Committee of 
the Department of Accounting and Financial Management of the 
University of the South Pacific. Mr. Vatuloka serves on a number of 
national committees and boards. He is the Chairman of the Fiji 
Institute of Accountants Investigations Committee, a member of the 
Board of Governors of the Institute of Internal Auditors, and Chairman 
of the Tax Agents Registration Board. 

For additional information, contact: Office of the Auditor General, 
fax: ++(679) 330 4434; 
e-mail: pnavuku@connect.com.fj; 
Web site: www.oag.gov.fj. 

Malaysia: 

Twinning Program between National Audit Department of Malaysia and 
Nepal Audit Office: 

[Photograph: Participants in the twinning program between the SAIs of 
Malaysia and Nepal] 

From November 25-December 17, 2004, the National Audit Department 
(NAD) of Malaysia and the Nepal Audit Office held a twinning program 
at the Auditor General's Office in Malaysia. This program was part of 
an arrangement between the two audit offices under the Public Audit 
Reform and Capacity Building Project of the Office of the Auditor 
General of Nepal. The program's objective was to train officers of the 
Nepal Audit Office in the NAD's revenue and public works audits. 
Thirteen officers from the Nepal Audit Office participated in the 
program. The topics included Malaysia's federal government accounting 
system and federal revenue collection, revenue audits of the Inland 
Revenue and Road Transport Departments, and public works auditing. The 
participants also visited the Kiang River Basin Environmental 
Improvement and Flood Mitigation Project of the Drainage and 
Irrigation Department. 

Establishment of New Malaysian Audit Institutions: 

In 2003, the National Audit Department of Malaysia began establishing 
the Auditors Board of Malaysia and the Auditors Institute of Malaysia. 
The Cabinet approved a memorandum spelling out the objectives of the 
board and institute on October 27, 2004. The NAD solicited feedback 
from Malaysian professional bodies on a draft of the bill setting up 
these two bodies and their organization. The Parliament is expected to 
pass the bill before the end of 2005. 

National Audit Department Senior Officers Conference 2005: 

The NAD Senior Officers Conference 2005 was held February 17-18, 2005. 
Its theme was "Audit Contribution Towards National Aspiration," and it 
was attended by 96 senior NAD officers. Conference participants 
discussed the 2005 NAD audit plan; in addition, they received updates 
on developments affecting the audit profession and the current 
national development policy. 

During the conference, the Auditor-General of Malaysia launched the 
NAD flag and Web site and released NAD guidelines on environmental 
audit, local authorities, land office management, and federal 
statutory bodies. Two guest speakers also delivered talks on 
biotechnology in Malaysia and investment in Islamic financial 
instruments by companies linked to the government. 

For additional information, contact: National Audit Department of 
Malaysia, fax: +6 03 8888 9701; 
e-mail: jbaudit@audit.gov.my; 
Web site: http://www.audit.gov.my (Malay), 
http://www.audit.gov.my/audit/Eng/frame_eng.htm (English). 

Nicaragua: 

New President and Vice President of Superior Council Named: 

On February 15, 2005, the National Assembly elected the new members of 
the Superior Council of the General Audit Office of the Republic of 
Nicaragua. The members will serve for 5 years. On February 16, 2005, 
the Superior Council unanimously elected Dr. Jose Pasos Marciacq to be 
its new President and Dr. Guillermo Arguello Poessy to be Vice 
President. Both will serve 1-year terms. The other members of the 
council are Luis Angel Montenegro, Fulvio Enrique Palma Mora, and Lino 
Hernandez Trigueros. Alternate members are Vicente Chavez Fajardo, 
Christian Pichardo Ramirez, and Francisco Guerra Cardenal. 

For additional information, contact: General Audit Office, 
fax: +(505) 2652075; 
email: dri@cgr.gob.ni; 
Web site: www.cgr.gob.ni. 

United States: 

International Peer Review Team Gives GAO's Quality Assurance System a 
Clean Opinion: 

In April 2005, an international peer review team gave the U.S. 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) quality assurance system a 
clean opinion. GAO's quality assurance system encompasses its 
organizational structure and the policies and procedures established 
to provide it with reasonable assurance of complying with Government 
Auditing Standards in conducting its performance audit practice.
The year-long peer review, under the auspices of the Global Working 
Group of national audit institutions, was led by the Office of the 
Auditor General of Canada, with team members drawn from counterpart 
SAIs in Australia, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, and 
Sweden. In 2004, Canada's Office of the Auditor General was the first 
national audit institution to undergo a peer review by a multinational 
team; Canada's review involved a similar international team led by the 
National Audit Office of the United Kingdom. 

The peer review team interviewed GAO staff ranging from Comptroller 
General David M. Walker to recently hired professionals to gauge their 
knowledge and application of GAO's quality assurance procedures. They 
also attended senior executive meetings and met with experts and 
specialists to understand their role in GAO's quality framework. 
Selected team members also observed GAO's agencywide annual internal 
inspection program—which is designed to provide the Comptroller 
General with an assessment of compliance with government auditing 
standards and GAO policies. 

The peer review team found that although GAO does the vast majority of 
its work at the request of congressional committees, it has sufficient 
mechanisms in place to ensure that its work is independent and 
objective. The team also found several global better practices at GAO 
that exceed requirements of government auditing standards, including 
its strategic planning process, which ensures that GAO focuses on the 
most significant issues facing the country, serious management 
challenges, and programs most at risk. The team also identified the 
following noteworthy practices: 

* GAO's audit risk assessment process, which determines the level of 
product review and executive involvement throughout the audit 
engagement; 

* GAO's agency protocols, which provide clearly defined and 
transparent policies and practices on how GAO will interact with 
audited agencies; 

* GAO's use of experts and specialists to provide multidisciplinary 
audit teams with advice and assistance on methodological and technical 
issues—expanding GAO's capacity to apply innovative approaches to 
analyze complex situations; 

* GAO's electronic audit assistance tool, which guides GAO staff 
through the engagement management process and helps them apply 
applicable professional standards, GAO policies, and guidance; and; 

* GAO's reporting format, which makes its products useful and 
accessible to readers with different interests. 

Recognizing that GAO's work meets all applicable professional 
standards, the team made suggestions to GAO to further enhance its 
products, including additional disclosure of sources of critical 
information and the impact of scope and methodological choices. The 
team also suggested that GAO reexamine its total set of requirements 
to identify potential opportunities for efficiency through greater use 
of risk-based principles in its quality framework. Comptroller General 
Walker said GAO is forming an internal team to review the 
recommendations. 

The peer review report is available on the GAO Web site, www.gao.gov. 
For additional information, contact: GAO, 
fax: ++(202) 512-4021; 
e-mail: spel@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

International Conference on Promoting Financial Accountability in 
Managing Funds Related to Tsunami, Conflict, and Other Disasters: 

By Dwita Pradana, Audit Board of Indonesia: 

From April 25-27, 2005, the Audit Board of Indonesia (BPK) and the 
Asian Development Bank (ADB) convened an international conference on 
enhancing financial accountability and transparency in managing funds 
related to the tsunami, conflicts, and other disasters. The conference 
was held at the Bank of Indonesia in Jakarta and included a 1-day 
visit to areas affected by the tsunami in Banda Aceh to witness 
firsthand the magnitude of loss and damage. 

The conference provided a unique opportunity for countries affected by 
the tsunami, donor countries and agencies, as well as international 
organizations to meet, share, and learn from one another. The 
approximately 140 delegates represented the leadership of INTOSAI; 
SAIs of donor nations (Austria, Australia, Canada, China, France, 
Germany, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Norway, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, 
Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States); SAIs of other 
countries affected by the tsunami (Bangladesh, India, Malaysia, the 
Maldives, Sri Lanka, and Thailand); development assistance entities; 
the World Bank; the United Nations; the Red Cross; the implementing 
agencies of Indonesia; and others. 

The conference began with an address from the President of Indonesia, 
His Excellency Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. He welcomed the delegates, 
stating, "The Indonesian government has a special interest in the 
theme of the conference, and it is seriously determined to approach 
the management of disaster relief, reconstruction, and rehabilitation 
funds in a responsible manner." He reiterated a zero tolerance for 
corruption as part of the national anticorruption movement he declared 
in December 2004. 

[Photograph: Heads of delegations gather with His Excellency Susilo 
Bambang Yudhoyono, President of Indonesia, at the opening of the 
conference] 

Clearly, the immediate challenge for implementing agencies, donors, 
and nongovernmental organizations was to quickly deliver relief aid to 
intended recipients and to reconstruct quality roads, bridges, and 
other elements of the life-sustaining infrastructure. The longer term 
challenge is to build the capacity of governments to provide the 
appropriate incentives for good governance and to deliver assistance 
consistent with the key principles of transparency and accountability. 
The role of the global accountability community, including supreme 
audit institutions (SAI), is to ensure financial accountability so 
that relief and reconstruction funds are spent effectively and 
efficiently and donor confidence is maintained. 

Objectives of the Conference: 

The BPK and the ADB established a simple objective for conferees: 
develop an organizing framework and specific strategies for promoting 
financial accountability of funds related to the tsunami, conflicts, 
and other disasters. 

During the conference, five workshops were convened with specific 
mandates to do the following: 

* identify best practices in oversight of relief efforts, 

* develop strategies to maximize the success and minimize the 
possibility of abuse in connection with tsunami-related rehabilitation 
and reconstruction funding and related activity, 

* identify methods to coordinate donor nation audit efforts and 
outputs, and, 

* create capacity to ensure the installation of legal and regulatory 
systems and internal controls for procurements in light of multiple 
donor guidelines and the potential for conflicting roles and 
duplicative effort. 

As the United Nations seeks to convert the more than US$3 billion in 
pledges from words into cash, and from cash into action, new alliances 
will be essential to achieving lasting and positive results and to 
better leverage the very generous and significant, but not unlimited, 
donations. The INTOSAI community provides a vast and as yet untapped 
global network of expertise for strategic oversight of the 
multinational response to a disaster of such devastating regional 
magnitude. SAIs' missions and authorities to audit and evaluate 
government functions are grounded in legal and regulatory oversight 
structures of national governments. There have been significant 
returns on investment for nations where SAIs have engaged in the 
oversight of relief and reconstruction efforts after national 
disasters. 

Recommendations from the Conference: 

The Jakarta conferees agreed that the tsunami presented an opportunity 
for the INTOSAI community to leverage its collective experience and 
expertise to maximize the value of oversight as a means of reducing 
the risk of fraud, waste, and abuse of donor dollars. As a result of 
deliberations by the conferees, significant recommendations were 
developed. These included the following: 

* Strengthen internal controls and governance: 
An assessment of current risks and vulnerabilities of the financial 
management systems of recipient national governments should be 
completed, and assurance should be provided that internal control 
systems are in place to ensure that relief and reconstruction funds 
are properly segregated from normal budget accounts and disbursed 
efficiently, effectively, and economically for the purposes intended. 
In addition, ongoing risk assessments should be carried out to monitor 
and test various activities. 

* Increase transparency: 
An online system should be developed for tracking, reporting, and 
monitoring assistance fund balances as well as the status or progress 
of programs. The information contained in this system, including 
multidonor trust funds, should be made available for public scrutiny 
to further enhance accountability and transparency. A "geographic 
approach" should be explored to facilitate the plotting of all tsunami 
aid efforts by using geographic coordinates, maps, and satellite 
images among all parties concerned and to help eliminate overlap or 
duplication of efforts and gaps. 

* Assure accountability: 
The SAIs of donor and recipient countries should join forces to ensure 
that the tsunami funds are properly safeguarded and used. In addition, 
a strategy should be developed to coordinate audits among auditors of 
donor countries and local governments to enhance audit efficiency, 
facilitate technology transfer, and help build institutional audit 
capacity. 

* Enhance and sustain capacity: 

An independent coordinating or advisory body (consisting, for example, 
of representatives of SAIs of donor countries and the broader INTOSAI 
membership) should be established to assist the Audit Board of 
Indonesia. Through this body, matters such as coordinated audits could 
be mapped out to ensure adequate audit coverage, eliminate duplication 
of audit efforts, maximize audit efficiency, and minimize audit costs 
and the burden on recipient governments. 

* Enhance public reporting: 
A Web site should be created to inform the public and provide an 
overview of the status of tsunami fund utilization and other relevant 
information. The related audit reports should provide the total 
picture at the country level, while the Web site of INTOSAI should 
report the total picture at the global level. 

Supreme audit institutions from both donor and recipient countries 
have an important role to play in ensuring that tsunami funds are 
spent as intended for relief and sustainable reconstruction. Donors 
have high expectations. The continued willingness of people around the 
world to open their hearts and their wallets depends on what happens 
to the money they have already given for tsunami relief and 
reconstruction. The economical, efficient, and effective distribution 
of tsunami aid money is the best way to affirm the world's trust. 
Through partnership, the common objective of transparency and 
accountability in the use of assistance funds can be achieved. 

In his closing address at the conference, Dr. Anwar Nasution, the 
Chairman of the BPK, stated, "During the last few days, we have 
listened to and benefited from so many eminent speakers who generously 
shared with us their wealth of knowledge and experience in the plenary 
and the working group discussion sessions.... Through this conference, 
we have established a connection among so many proficient auditors and 
audit institutions, which will pave the way for further collaboration 
in our efforts to promote financial accountability and transparency." 

For further information, visit the conference Web site, which includes 
the proceedings, at http://webaceh.bpk.go.id, or contact: Audit Board 
of Indonesia, 
fax: ++62 (21) 572-0944; 
email: sekretariat1@bpk.go.id; 
Web site: www.bpk.go.id. 

[End of section] 

Quality Assurance of Third-party Information: 

By Erik Israel and Ferrie Pot, Netherlands Court of Audit: 

Since the 1990s, the demand for information on the societal effects of 
government policy has increased. Politicians and the public no longer 
take for granted that the government needs to be accountable only in 
terms of money and associated business processes. As a result, in 
recent years government bodies have increasingly tried to provide 
politicians and the public with information on the societal outcomes 
of government policy. Much of the policy information used for these 
purposes comes from outside sources, referred to as "third-party 
information." It is very important that this information be of good 
quality. 

The need to ensure the reliability of third-party information has been 
neglected in every area of government, including rules and regulations 
as well as practice. This article discusses why it is so important to 
ensure the quality of policy information, with an emphasis on third-
party information. It also sets forth an approach designed to ensure 
the reliability of this information by classifying it according to 
risk. This theoretical framework is illustrated with examples from the 
Dutch experience. Finally, the article relates the risk-based 
classification to measures to ensure reliability. 

The Importance of Third-party Information and Quality Assurance: 

Good policy information is essential to gain a clear understanding of 
whether each ministry has achieved its policy goals, what it has done 
to achieve these goals, and what this has cost. However, it is not 
only public accountability that stands or falls with the quality of 
the information used: good quality information is also needed to 
establish internal measures and adjust policies appropriately in a 
timely manner. 

Much policy information takes the form of third-party information. In 
a recent Dutch survey, about three-quarters of the policy information 
studied came from outside sources.[Footnote 1] The proportion is 
likely to be substantial in other countries as well. Given the amount 
of third-party information used by the average government body and the 
importance of this information, ensuring data reliability is an 
important link in the whole quality assurance chain related to the 
policy process. Ensuring the quality of third-party information 
scarcely figures, however, in the statutory frameworks of many central 
and local governments. For example, the Dutch central government has a 
ministerial Order on Performance Data and Evaluations in Central 
Government, which provides the framework for ensuring the quality of 
nonfinancial policy information. Remarkably, the order does not 
explicitly mention third-party information; indeed, it omits the 
concept completely!
Also, the attention paid to quality assurance of third-party 
information in practice is far from adequate. A recent survey by the 
Netherlands Court of Audit, for instance, revealed that no steps had 
been taken to ensure the quality of over a quarter of the third-party 
information under consideration.[Footnote 2] 

Categories of Third-party Information: 
Third-party information can come from a wide range of sources. Figure 
1 shows just how wide-ranging these sources can be from the point of 
view of a Dutch ministry. 

Figure 1: Sources of Third-party Information: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Central government (Ministry X): 

Receives third-party information from the following: 

* Independent administrative bodies: 
e.g., data to the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment on 
services to job seekers supplied by the independent administrative body
responsible for helping them to find work. 

* Public research organizations: 
e.g., data on innovation supplied by Statistics Netherlands to the 
Ministry of Economic Affairs. 

* Municipalities: 
e.g., data on city policy supplied to the Ministry of the Interior and 
Kingdom Relations. 

* Provinces: 
e.g., information on urban renewal supplied to the Ministry of 
Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment. 

* Commercial/semi-commercial research agencies: 
e.g., data on the added value of regional cooperation between the 
Drecht towns supplied by the Berenschot commercial agency to the 
Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations. 

* Private actors: 
e.g., data on "safe nightlife" covenants supplied by the Dutch 
catering federation to the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom 
Relations. 

* Supranational bodies: 
e.g., data on poverty alleviation supplied by the United Nations to the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 

* Central government (Ministry Y): 
e.g., data supplied by the Inland Revenue (part of the Ministry of 
Finance) to the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the 
Environment for the administration of rent rebates. 

* Subsidized organizations: 
e.g., data on the number of organic farms supplied by SKAL (the body 
that supervises organic farming in the Netherlands) to the Ministry of 
Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality. 

* Universities: 
e.g., data on the housing market supplied to the Ministry of Housing, 
Spatial Planning and the Environment by Utrecht University. 

* Public-sector limited companies: 
e.g., data on punctuality supplied by Netherlands Railways to the 
Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management. 

Source: Netherlands Court of Audit. 

[End of figure] 

Government bodies using information from third-party sources for 
budgeting, accounting, and/or policy purposes should ensure that it is 
reliable, irrespective of its origin. Given the amount of information 
and the multiplicity of sources involved, this is no easy task. The 
multiplicity of sources can, however, be structured by classifying 
them according to the reliability risk associated with the third-party 
information. Based on this risk criterion, we have identified four 
categories of sources: 

* organizations with a statutory duty to provide information, 

* organizations required to be accountable to the user of the 
information, 

* other organizations with an interest in the content of the 
information, and, 

* other organizations without an interest in the content of the 
information. 

Organizations with a Statutory Duty to Provide Information: 

The first category is information from sources that have a statutory 
duty to collect, process, and present information. Many countries have 
these types of organizations—for example, a central bureau of 
statistics. The risk associated with the quality of third-party 
information from sources in fulfillment of their statutory duty can be 
estimated as low, based on the presumption that the law already 
contains provisions to ensure the quality of the information.[Footnote 
3] 

Accountable Organizations: 

The second category is information from sources that are required to 
account for the government money they have spent along with the 
information supplied. These include administering bodies, local 
governments (social security benefits), and organizations that receive 
government subsidies. We gauge the risk associated with information 
from this category as high, as these organizations have an interest in 
the information supplied. 

Quality Risk Adequately Covered: The Case of Fishing and Mineral 
Consumption: 

The Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality is sent data on 
the quantity of fish caught by fishing companies and on net amounts of 
minerals used in the farming industry. These data, which we classify 
as high risk, come from sources that are accountable to the ministry. 
The ministry is aware of this risk and tries to ensure quality by 
carrying out its own measurements of such things as quantities of 
shellfish in coastal waters. It also enters into annual working 
agreements with the General Inspectorate on the inspection of catches 
reported by fishermen at ports. The reports on amounts of minerals 
used in the farming industry are checked against administrative data. 

Other Interested Sources: 

The remaining information suppliers can be divided into those with and 
without an interest in the content of the information. Organizations 
can have substantive or financial interests. The interest may be 
substantive if the information affects the public's perception of the 
organization (e.g., passenger numbers in the case of a national 
airport). Or the interest may be financial in cases such as a 
commercial research agency, where there may be a link between the 
information supplied and possible future contracts. We gauge the risk 
associated with information from this category as medium-high. 

Quality Risk Not Adequately Covered: The Case of Domestic Refuse: 

In order to monitor the effects of its waste policy, the Ministry of 
Housing, Planning and the Environment is sent statistics on 
collections of domestic wastes by the Waste Management Council. Some 
of the basic data on domestic refuse are supplied directly by waste 
processing companies or industry associations without being validated 
by independent outsiders. This information comes from interested 
information suppliers, with which we associate a medium-high risk. 
Additional measures would seem to be needed to ensure the quality of 
these data. The ministry has not taken any special steps to ensure 
that these risks are covered, e.g., by having the data validated by 
independent outsiders. 

Other Sources without an Interest: 

The fourth category is information from sources that have collected 
the information on their own initiative and have no interest in how 
the government uses it. Examples from this category are some 
scientific university publications and monitoring information from 
supranational government bodies. It is not possible to give a blanket 
assessment of the risks associated with information from this 
category, as the quality of the information can differ from one 
supplier to another and one product to another. The risks will need to 
be assessed individually for each information flow. We gauge the risk 
associated with information from this category as medium-low. 

Measures to Ensure Reliability: 

Under ideal conditions, if a government uses certain third-party 
information, it would know how reliable that information is. In many 
cases, however, the government does not have adequate power over the 
information source to guarantee reliability by intervening in the 
source's production of the information. Nor is it desirable, for 
reasons of cost, for the government to check the reliability of all 
third-party information. In many cases, the government would not be in 
a position to ascertain reliability, as doing so would require access 
to the supplier's research files at the very least; here again, the 
government has no power over the organization collecting the 
information. 

We nevertheless believe that government bodies can do something to 
ensure the quality of third-party information. In some cases, they can 
check the information by carrying out research of their own—for 
example, trend analyses, probability tests based on comparisons with 
other research, and data verification based on comparisons with public 
sources. If the government body is the principal, it has a broader 
arsenal of measures it can take. Examples include the following: 

* requiring the organization carrying out the research to meet certain 
standards of professionalism; 

* setting up a steering committee or a group to act as a sounding 
board; 

* agreeing on the definitions of reliability, validity, and topicality 
to be used by the organization carrying out the research; 

* requiring that an auditor's report be provided with the information 
supplied; 

* establishing administrative requirements for the information 
supplier to meet (e.g., the existence of administrative 
organization/quality manuals); 

* testing the contractor's research methods; and; 

* including in the contract a clause to the effect that an external 
audit of the research files may be conducted. 

According to administrative organization theory, the way measures are 
used must be balanced with the perceived risk to reliability. This 
correlates with the classification of third-party information in the 
preceding section. If the information comes from an organization that 
has collected it in fulfillment of a statutory duty, there would seem 
to be no need for the government body to take further substantial 
measures to guarantee its reliability. 

However, a government body can be expected to take (1) substantial 
measures when it uses information from organizations that are 
accountable to it and (2) some additional measures to guarantee the 
reliability of information from other interested organizations. 

Figure 2 shows the relationship between the classification of third-
party information and the use of measures to guarantee reliability. 

Figure 2: Classification and Risk Profile of Third-party Information 
and Related Measures Needed to Guarantee Reliability: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Third-party information: 

Suppliers: 
Information from suppliers in fulfillment of a statutory core duty to 
conduct research or supply information; 
Example: Statistics Netherlands; 
Risk profile: Low. 

Suppliers: 
Information from suppliers without interest; 
Example: Scientific research (not under contract); 
Risk profile: Medium-low. 

Suppliers: 
Information not covered by a statutory core duty from interested
suppliers that are not accountable to the ministry; 
Example: Commercial research agencies; 
Risk profile: Medium-high. 

Suppliers: 
Information from suppliers that are accountable to the ministry; 
Example: Administering bodies, subsidized organizations, local 
authorities (special purpose funding). 
Risk profile: High 

Actions: 
* Providing quality safeguards; 
* Checking that the safeguards have... 

Source: Netherlands Court of Audit. 

[End of figure] 

Conclusion: 

Society is increasingly demanding that government be transparent about 
the effects of its policies, and this is a trend that cannot be 
reversed. To meet this demand, governments need to provide the right 
policy information and ensure its quality. Since much of this 
information—referred to here as third-party information—comes from 
outside organizations, the government is often not in a position to 
check its quality because it has no powers over the sources of the 
information and because of the high costs of auditing. However, 
government bodies could do more than they do at present. We believe 
that a risk-based approach is a useful aid to deciding on appropriate 
measures to take. This approach is based on classifying information 
sources according to their risk level. Appropriate measures can then 
be taken based on the risk level. Using this approach, adequate 
certainty that the third-party information is reliable can be obtained 
at a relatively low cost. 

For additional information, contact the authors at: 
f.israel@rekenkamer.nl and f.pot@rekenkamer.nl. 

Footnotes: 

[1] Skutt van de beleidsinformatie 2004 [Policy information report 
2004]. Lower House, 2003-2004 session, 29550, Nos. 1-2. 

[2] Lower House, 2003-2004 session, 29 550, Nos. 1-2, p. 35. 

[3] These information sources also engage in activities outside their 
statutory duty, performed under contract. These activities have the 
same risk profile as the "other interested sources" category. 

[End of section] 

19th Commonwealth Auditors General Conference: 

By Alberta E. Ellison, Assistant Editor, International Journal of 
Government Auditing, and Hayden Everett, Office of the Controller and 
Auditor-General, New Zealand: 

From January 30-February 2, 2005, auditors general from Commonwealth 
countries met in Wellington, New Zealand, for their 19th conference. 
The delegates represented Australia, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Botswana, 
Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Cayman Islands, Cook Islands, Cyprus, Fiji, 
Gambia, Ghana, India, Kenya, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Malaysia, 
Maldives, Mauritius, Montserrat, Mozambique, Namibia, New Zealand, 
Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, 
Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Tonga, Uganda, 
United Kingdom, Vanuatu, and Zambia. Other conference participants 
included observers from the INTOSAI Secretariat (Austria) and this 
Journal. 

Opening Ceremony: 

Delegates received a traditional Maori welcome (called a powhiri) to 
the Parliament buildings (the conference venue). The powhiri began 
with a wero (challenge) and included a karanga (chant) of welcome and 
waiata (songs). The Right Honorable Jonathan Hunt, Speaker of the 
House of Representatives, then welcomed the delegates to Wellington 
and the Parliament. 

[Photograph: Delegates to the Commonwealth Auditors General Conference 
gather on the steps of the New Zealand Parliament] 

The Controller and Auditor-General of New Zealand, Mr. Kevin Brady, 
officially opened the conference on Monday morning. In his address, he 
stated that he "hoped that this conference can help us each 
individually, and within our offices, to feel better equipped to meet 
the challenges we face. While some of those challenges are common, we 
each have our own unique issues. Nevertheless, learning about some of 
those issues during this conference may assist others of us with 
slightly different issues or when your issue becomes our issue 
tomorrow." 

Following the opening address, the Secretary-General of INTOSAI, Dr. 
Josef Moser, delivered a keynote statement in which he informed 
delegates of the implications of the recently adopted INTOSAI 
strategic plan for supreme audit institutions (SAI). 

A message from the Commonwealth Secretary-General, the Right Honorable 
Donald McKinnon, was then read to the delegates. Mr. McKinnon's 
message noted that the Commonwealth Auditors-General Conference was 
taking place 1 year after Commonwealth leaders met in Abuja, Nigeria, 
and committed themselves to strengthening core democratic 
institutions, including the Office of Auditor-General. 

The Deputy Controller and Auditor-General of New Zealand, Mr. Kevin 
Simpkins, then delivered an address introducing the theme of the 
conference—raising public sector auditing to the next level. 

Discussion of Conference Subthemes: 

Discussions at the conference focused on three subthemes that 
addressed major areas of government audit and identified strategies 
and techniques to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of SAIs and 
deliver better service to the public. 

Subtheme I: Delivering a Better Service: 

This subtheme focused on the expectations of parliamentarians, the 
public, and other entities. The Right Honorable Helen Clark, Prime 
Minister, and Gerry Brownlee, Deputy Leader of the Opposition, gave 
presentations on what governments and oppositions expect of auditors 
general in 2005. The presentations were intended to enable the 
participants to consider the nature of others' expectations and how 
audit offices should respond so that they can provide an even better 
service to the public, parliaments, and other stakeholders. 

A panel continued with a discussion on auditors general's perspectives 
on changing parliamentary expectations. Sir John Bourn (Comptroller 
and Auditor General of the United Kingdom and Wales), Muhammad Yunis 
Khan (Auditor General of Pakistan), and Richard Smith (Assistant 
Auditor General of Canada) spoke from the perspectives of their 
respective countries and audit offices. 

The Right Honorable Sir Geoffrey Palmer, former Prime Minister, and 
Garry Wilson, Chief Executive of the Accident Compensation 
Corporation, concluded the discussion of subtheme I with presentations 
on what the public and audited agencies expect of auditors general. 

Subtheme II: Enhancing Our Skills: 

Roy Tiffin, President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of New 
Zealand, led the presentation on sub-theme II with a talk on 
challenges facing auditors general in 2005. He concentrated on the 
business of auditing and explored challenges in auditing the public 
sector. Discussions explored new developments and challenges, 
including the SAI's role in relation to sustainability reporting, new 
developments and issues in performance auditing, and the impact of new 
auditing standards in the years ahead. Participants concluded that 
SAIs need to continually enhance their skills to be able to respond to 
expectations and their environment. 

Subtheme II concluded with concurrent workshops on (1) the role of 
auditors in sustainability reporting (the SAI of Australia), (2) the 
impact of new auditing standards on public sector auditors (the SAI of 
South Africa), and (3) current trends, developments, and challenges in 
performance auditing (the SAI of Malaysia). 

Subtheme Ill: Excelling at Managing Ourselves: 

Subtheme III was introduced with papers on measuring and reporting the 
performance of SAIs. These were presented by Prabhat Acharya, 
Principal Director (international relations) of India, and Richard 
Smith, Assistant Auditor-General of Canada. 

The papers were followed by concurrent workshops on the same issue. In 
the workshops, papers were presented by Asif Ali, Comptroller and 
Auditor-General of Bangladesh; Rajan Jugurnath, Director of Audit of 
Mauritius; and Kaveni Takalevu, Deputy Auditor-General of Fiji, and 
Radhika Reddy, Audit Manager of Fiji. 

[Photograph: Delegates gather to talk during a break from the working 
sessions] 

Following the workshops, delegates reconvened to hear a presentation 
by Martin Sinclair, Assistant Auditor-General, National Audit Office, 
United Kingdom, on knowledge management. Following the presentation, 
the delegates discussed their experiences of knowledge management in 
their respective SAIs and ways to ensure that the benefits of 
knowledge management are realized. 

Conclusions: 

The Deputy Controller and Auditor General of New Zealand closed the 
conference by summarizing key issues related to the three sub-themes 
and highlighting remarks from each of the speakers. He emphasized that 
participants had heard throughout the conference from many different 
customers and from other SAIs with their own personal perspectives on 
expectations and needs. He suggested that all SAIs need to remember 
why they exist (their purpose); protect who they are (their position); 
and regularly adapt and shape their services (their products and 
services) to be relevant to their clients. He concluded, our "success 
or failure will be determined by what we do when we go back to our 
audit offices." 

Closing comments and words of thanks were delivered by the Controller 
and Auditor-General of New Zealand and the Comptroller and Auditor 
General of the United Kingdom and Wales. 

For more information about the conference, contact: the Office of the 
Controller and Auditor General of New Zealand, Level 5, Hitachi Data 
Systems House, 48 Mulgrave Street, Thorndon, Wellington 1, New Zealand; 
tel: +64-4 917 1500, 
fax: +64-4 917 1549; 
e-mail: Info@oag.govt.nz; 
Web site: www.oag.govt.nz. 

[End of section] 

Audit Profile: Government Accountability Office of the United States: 

By the Honorable David M. Walker, Comptroller General of the United 
States: 

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an independent 
agency in the legislative branch of the U.S. government. Commonly 
known as the "investigative arm of Congress" or the "congressional 
watchdog," GAO's mission is to help improve the performance and ensure 
the accountability of the federal government for the benefit of the 
American people. To that end, GAO examines how taxpayer dollars are 
spent and advises lawmakers and agency heads on ways to make the 
federal government work better. GAO provides its congressional clients 
with timely information that is professional, objective, fact based, 
nonpartisan, nonideological, fair, and balanced. GAO also makes 
recommendations to improve government programs and policies. 

Agency History: 

In response to the mounting debt from World War I, the U.S. Congress 
passed the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. This legislation imposed 
greater control over federal spending by requiring the President to 
issue an annual federal budget with the help of a new Bureau of the 
Budget (now the Office of Management and Budget). The legislation also 
established the General Accounting Office (GAO's original name) within 
the legislative branch to examine how federal dollars were being spent. 

In its early years, GAO mainly did voucher auditing. Audit clerks 
scrutinized stacks of paperwork documenting payments and purchases at 
various federal agencies. After World War II, GAO began to do broader 
auditing work that examined the economy and the efficiency of 
government operations. 

By the 1960s, GAO began to get into the type of work it is most known 
for today: program evaluation, which examines how well federal 
activities are meeting their objectives. In more recent years, GAO has 
become more involved in policy analyses and broader and longer range 
transformation challenges. For example, GAO has spoken out about 
America's growing fiscal imbalance, worked to modernize government 
financial and broader business management, and drawn attention to a 
range of "high-risk" programs, policies, functions, and activities in 
the federal government. The agency changed its name from the General 
Accounting Office to the Government Accountability Office in 2004 to 
better reflect its current role and mission. 

Types of Work: 

GAO carries out a wide range of engagements, including financial and 
performance audits, program reviews, investigations, legal support, 
and policy analyses. This work provides oversight, insight, and 
foresight for the benefit of the Congress and the public on a wide 
range of current and emerging issues. The Comptroller General, who 
heads GAO, also sets government auditing and internal control 
standards. 

Most GAO work is done at the request of congressional committees or is 
mandated by public laws and committee reports. Under the authority of 
the Comptroller General, GAO also undertakes its own reviews. GAO 
supports congressional oversight by: 

* reporting on how well government programs and policies are working; 

* auditing agency operations to determine whether taxpayer dollars are 
being spent efficiently and effectively; 

* investigating allegations of illegal and improper activities; 

* issuing legal decisions and opinions on the use of federal funds and 
other matters and reports on major agency rules; and; 

* resolving bid protests of government contract awards. 

In addition to reporting on day-to-day government operations, GAO 
seeks to alert policymakers and the public to various high-risk areas 
in government as well as current and emerging challenges facing the 
nation. For example, GAO continues to closely monitor developments 
affecting a wide range of areas, such as national defense, homeland 
security, Social Security, education, the environment, health care, 
human capital, the postal service, and the nation's private pension 
system. GAO also informs policymakers about long-term challenges 
facing the nation, such as the government's fiscal outlook, new 
security threats in a post-Cold War world, the aging of America and 
its impact on our health care and retirement systems, changing 
economic conditions, and the increasing demands on U.S. 
infrastructure, from highways to water systems. 

GAO has adopted a set of core values to help define the agency's 
beliefs and guide its efforts. GAO's core values—accountability, 
integrity, and reliability—are intended to supplement the requirements 
of the law and applicable professional standards. 

Audit Planning: 

GAO's strategic plan for serving the Congress defines the agency's 
mission, lays out key public policy-related trends and themes that GAO 
will focus on, and outlines the agency's goals and objectives. GAO 
issued its first strategic plan in 2000, and the agency has updated it 
every 2 years with each new Congress to reflect changing national 
needs and priorities. GAO's goals are to provide Congress and the 
American people with timely, quality, and reliable information on a 
range of federal policies, programs, and activities; to help 
government transform itself to meet the demands of the 21st century; 
and to become a model for the rest of the federal government and 
professional services organizations. 

GAO's strategic plan guides all of the agency's key budgeting and 
spending decisions. Resources—people, dollars, and technologies—are 
deployed with an eye toward achieving the agency's goals and 
objectives. GAO's strategic plan framework, which lists current 
strategic goals, is shown in figure 1. 

Figure 1: GAO Strategic Plan Framework: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Serving The Congress And The Nation: 

GAO's Strategic Plan Framework Mission: 

GAO exists to support the Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and ensure the 
accountability of the federal government for the benefit of the 
American people. 

Themes: 

* Changing Security Threats;
* Sustainability Concerns;
* Economic Growth & Competitiveness;
* Global Interdependency;
* Societal Change;
* Quality of Life;
* Science & Technology. 

Goals and Objectives: 

Provide Timely, Quality Service to the Congress and the Federal 
Government to Address Current and Emerging Challenges to the Well-being 
and Financial Security of the American People related to:
* Health care needs;
* Lifelong learning;
* Work benefits and protection;
* Financial security;
* Effective system of justice;
* Viable communities;
* Natural resources use and environmental protection;
* Physical infrastructure. 

Respond to Changing Security Threats and the Challenges of Global 
Interdependence involving:
* Homeland security;
* Military capabilities and readiness;
* Advancement of U.S. interests;
* Global market forces. 

Help Transform the Federal Government's Role and How It Does Business 
to Meet Twenty-first Century Challenges by assessing:
* Roles in achieving federal objectives;
* Government transformation;
* Key management challenges and program risks;
* Fiscal position and financing of the government. 

Maximize the Value of GAO by Being a Model Federal Agency and a World- 
Class Professional Services Organization in the areas of:
* Client and customer satisfaction;
* Strategic leadership;
* Institutional knowledge and experience;
* Process improvement
* Employer of choice. 

Core Values: 

* Accountability;
* Integrity;
* Reliability. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

Accounting for results is essential. Since 2000, GAO has issued annual 
reports that inform policymakers and the public about GAO's 
accomplishments and how it plans to continue working on their behalf 
in the future. For example, in fiscal year 2004, GAO met or exceeded 
all but one of its key performance measures and set all-time records 
for most of them. In 2004, financial benefits from GAO work totaled a 
record $44 billion—a $95 return on every dollar invested in GAO. GAO 
also issued nearly 1,000 reports and testimonies and made more than 
2,700 recommendations to improve government operations. The agency 
makes it a point to track the status of open recommendations. GAO 
found that more than four out of five of its recommendations have been 
implemented since 2000. 

GAO's Workforce, Organization, and Independence: 

GAO is headed by the Comptroller General of the United States, who is 
appointed to a 15-year term by the U.S. President from candidates 
proposed by Congress. As the current Comptroller General, I took 
office in November1998, and my term expires in 2013. The long tenure 
of this office gives GAO a continuity in leadership that is rare 
within government and helps ensure its independence. It also enables 
the Comptroller General to take on more complex and controversial 
issues that may take years to effectively address. 

GAO's independence is further safeguarded by laws guaranteeing it 
access to government records; a budget that is set by Congress, not by 
the President; and a workforce of nearly 3,300 employees who are 
career civil servants. GAO's staff represents such diverse disciplines 
as public policy, health care, economics, accounting, and information 
management; and a large majority have advanced degrees. 

GAO's audit staff is organized into 13 teams that focus on specific 
subject areas, such as national defense, international affairs and 
trade, natural resources and the environment, health care, and 
homeland security. These teams are supported by various staff and 
administrative offices. GAO is headquartered in Washington, D.C., and 
has 11 additional offices across the country. 

Human Capital Management: 

GAO considers its employees to be its most valuable asset. The agency 
has undertaken numerous human capital initiatives to help it better 
support Congress and the country. The 2004 GAO Human Capital Reform 
Act gave the agency new personnel flexibilities to help it recruit and 
retain a first-rate workforce. Among other things, GAO is moving to a 
more market-based and performance-oriented compensation system. GAO 
also recently completed its first formal strategic plan for human 
capital, which outlines its efforts to become a model professional 
services organization. (The strategic plan is available on GAO's Web 
site at www.gao.gov.) 

GAO has made it a priority to hire individuals whose knowledge, 
skills, and abilities will help the agency better meet the needs of 
its congressional clients and who share GAO's values and goals. As 
part of its workforce planning efforts, GAO actively recruits at top 
colleges and universities and offers internships to outstanding 
students. 

GAO also seeks to invest in its employees, and the agency makes it a 
point to reward performance. GAO's Center for Performance and Learning 
offers a competency-driven training curriculum with hundreds of on-
line training classes, and the center recently introduced a leadership 
development program to assist new supervisors. The agency has also 
introduced a competency-based performance management system that 
clearly links employee performance and the achievement of the agency's 
mission and strategic objectives consistent with its core values. GAO 
seeks to lead by example, and it has pioneered the use of innovative 
practices, such as technology upgrades and teleworking to help its 
staff do its work more efficiently and effectively. 

Future Challenges: 

GAO's most critical challenge is how best to meet the changing and 
increasing needs of Congress and the American people in the coming 
years in light of constrained budgets. For example, because of the 
aging of the population and rising health care costs, the federal 
government faces a large and growing structural deficit. This will put 
increasing pressure on the budgets of a wide range of federal 
agencies, including GAO. Elected officials will need to make difficult 
choices about the role and mission of government and how it should be 
financed. GAO continues to speak out on these and other complex issues 
and stands ready to provide Congress with the best information 
available with which to make related choices. 

To get results and meet the needs of its congressional clients, GAO 
recognizes the importance of maintaining a high quality and empowered 
workforce with the right mix of technical expertise and general 
analytical skills. Physical and information security will also be of 
increasing concern at GAO in the years ahead. 

For additional information, contact: GAO, 
fax: +(202) 512-4021; 
e-mail: spel@gao.gov; 
Web site: www.gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Reports in Print: 

In February 2005, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
issued a special report that draws attention to the growing fiscal 
imbalance in the United States and points out a need for a top-to-
bottom reexamination of what government does. The report, 21st Century 
Challenges: Reexamining the Base of the Federal Government, recognizes 
that Congress faces the daunting challenge of bringing the government 
and its programs in line with 21st century realities. This challenge 
includes deciding on the appropriate role and size of the federal 
government—and how to finance that government—and bringing the panoply 
of federal activities into line with today's world. Ultimately, this 
reexamination will entail a national discussion about what Americans 
want from their government, how much they are willing to pay for those 
things, and how the government should conduct its business for the 
21st century. 

In the report, GAO presents more than 200 illustrative 21st century 
questions drawn from its work for Congress in 12 broad areas. These 
questions reflect functional areas in the federal budget as well as 
governmentwide issues and the revenue side of the budget. The process 
of reexamining the base of government reverses the focus in 
incremental reviews, where disproportionate scrutiny is given to 
proposals for new programs or activities but little or no scrutiny is 
given to those that are already in the base. 

The report concludes that the size of the fiscal challenge and the
significance of societal and economic changes worldwide mean that this 
kind of examination and the hard choices necessary to restore a 
sustainable fiscal path and modernize government may take a generation 
to address. Beginning the reexamination and review process now would 
enable decision makers to be more strategic and selective in choosing 
areas for review over a period of years. 

To download a copy of the report, visit GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). 
For additional information, contact: GAO, 
fax: ++(202) 512-4021; 
e-mail: spel@gao.gov. 

Journal readers may be interested in learning more about the use of 
computer assisted audit techniques (CAATs). As reported in the April 
2005 (21) issue of IntoIT (the INTOSAI information technology 
journal), many SAIs are using various types of CAATs to help them 
carry out their auditing duties and responsibilities. CAATs can be any 
software or application used to identify trends, errors, or any other 
criteria set by the auditor. CAATs software can be developed in-house 
or purchased commercially. 

CAATs assist the auditor by doing away with labor-intensive manual 
searches such as examining paper reports. In the case of financial 
audits, CAATs have been used to automate data reviews, fraud 
detection, and reviews of security controls over systems. For 
nonfinancial audits, CAATs can be any tool used to assess or appraise 
the audited entity, including spreadsheets to review financial or cost 
data, cost models, tools to conduct risk analysis, or even tools to 
assist in reviewing survey data. 

IntoIT presents the findings from its study of 13 SAIs' experiences 
with CAATs for their performance and value-for-money audits. The 
findings include specific materials based on their experiences and 
case studies. The 13 SAIs highlighted in the study are Austria, 
Bhutan, Canada, China, India, Israel, Japan, Lithuania, Oman, Poland, 
Slovakia, Sweden, and the USA. 

To obtain a copy of this report, contact: Editor, IntoIT, National 
Audit Office, 157-Buckingham Palace Road, London SWIW 95P, United 
Kingdom; Web site: www.intosaiitaudit.org. 

The International Consortium on Government Financial Management 
(ICGFM) has issued the results of its 2005 worldwide survey entitled 
Resisting Corruption in the Public Sector. In the survey, which was 
conducted in collaboration with Grant Thornton's Public Sector group,
government executives were interviewed on their opinions concerning 
public sector corruption in government operations. Specifically, the 
survey explored the executives' perception of the severity, causes, 
and consequences of public sector corruption and offered 
recommendations on ways in which government institutions could reduce 
and resist corruption in their activities. Effective anticorruption 
initiatives need to be multifaceted, addressing cultural, political, 
and social causes of corruption. 

The results of the ICGFM survey recommended the following actions for 
governments to take to reduce corruption: (1) attack corruption by 
reducing opportunities for bribes, extortion, and graft, (2) curtail 
corruption in revenue collection through centralized collections and 
periodic staff rotations, (3) cure corruption-prone procurement by 
centralizing purchases, (4) protect people who report corruption, 
especially public servants, (5) reform civil service laws to reduce 
nepotism or the hiring of cronies, (6) institute independent 
anticorruption boards and commissions, (7) institute public education 
campaigns to resist corruption, and (8) strengthen internal controls 
and audit procedures to detect and prevent fraud and abuse. 

For more information about the survey, or to obtain a copy of the 
results, contact: ICGFM, 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 234, 
Washington, D.C. 20001; 
telephone: ++(202) 6248461; 
Web site: www.icgfm.org. 

[End of section] 

Inside INTOSAI: 

Auditing Standards Committee: Development of Financial Audit 
Guidelines: 

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). 

Meetings of Financial Audit Guidelines Working Group in Lima, Peru
The ASC's Working Group on Financial Audit Guidelines met March 2-4, 
2005, in Lima, Peru. The Peruvian audit office hosted the meeting, 
which was chaired by the Swedish National Audit Office. 
Representatives from the SAIs of Canada, Namibia, Norway, the United 
Kingdom, and the United States attended the meeting. The working group 
was pleased to welcome to the meeting one member of the IAASB 
technical staff and two IAASB public members. 

The attendees to the meeting dealt with such issues as drafting (1) a 
practice note for ISA 240, Fraud and Corruption, and (2) working group 
comments on the IAASB exposure drafts of ISA 320, Audit Materiality, 
and ISA 540, Audit of Accounting Estimates. The working group also 
discussed the gaps identified between the INTOSAI auditing standards 
and IFAC's ISAs and actions needed to close those gaps to provide as 
complete financial audit guidelines as possible for INTOSAI members.
The working group set goals it plans to achieve by the 2007 INCOSAI in 
Mexico City. These goals include drafting practice notes for a number 
of existing (already revised) ISAs and general considerations for 
applying all ISAs in public sector audits. 

The IAASB held a full board meeting in Lima following the working 
group meeting. This meeting was attended by several members of the 
Working Group on Financial Audit Guidelines and experts from the 
reference panel who participate in the task forces for the ISAs that 
were being discussed. These ISAs include the following: 

* ISA 260 — Communications with Those Charged with Governance 
(approval of proposed exposure draft). 

* ISA 800 — The Independent Auditor's Report on Other Historical 
Financial Information and Summarized Audited Historical Financial 
Information (approval of proposed exposure draft). 

* ISA 701 — Modifications to the Opinion in the Independent Auditor's 
Report (approval of proposed exposure draft). 

Renewal of the Reference Panel: 

The working group is very pleased to report on the renewal of the 
reference panel and would like to recognize the contributions of the 
SAIs who have volunteered the time and expertise of their very best 
audit experts. The reference panel now consists of 96 experts and back-
office experts from 61 SAIs, who represent all INTOSAI regional 
groups, official INTOSAI language groups, and audit systems. 

Work in Progress on ISAs: 

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 expected 
in June 2006. 

ISA 705 — Modifications to the Opinion in the Independent Auditor's 
Report, and ISA 706 — Emphasis of Matter Paragraphs and Other Matters 
Paragraphs in the Independent 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 expected 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 March 2006 and Practice Note expected in 
December 2006. 

ISA 800 — The Independent Auditor's Report on Other Historical 
Financial Information, and a proposed ISA 810—The Independent 
Auditor's Report on Summarized Audited Historical Financial 
Information: 
* Expert: Mr. Jonas Hillstrom, Sweden; 
* Back-office experts: Mr. Demsash Betemariam, Ethiopia; Mr. Martin 
Dees, the Netherlands; and Mr. Robert Cox, New Zealand; 
* Final version expected in March 2006 and Practice Note expected in 
December 2006. 

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; 
* Final version expected in June 2006 and Practice Note expected in 
February 2007. 

ISA 580 — Management Representation: 
* Expert: Ms. Vijaya Moorthy, India; 
* Back-office experts: Mr. Martin Garrido, Chile; Mr. Ennio Colasanti, 
Italy; 
* Final version expected in September 2006 and Practice Note expected 
in May 2007. 

ISA 620 — Using the Work of an Expert: 
* Expert: Ms. Claudio Branco, Brazil; 
* Back-office experts: The project secretariat is in the process of 
nominating back-office experts; 
* Final version expected in December 2006 and Practice Note expected 
in September 2007. 

The working group is also charged with developing practice notes for 
each ISA to provide additional guidance that auditors in the public 
sector may need to apply to the ISA. The practice notes will be based 
on the contributions of the audit experts from the reference panel. 

Work in Progress on Practice Notes: 

Practice notes will also be developed for ISAs already approved at the 
time of the creation of the reference panel and where no expert has 
participated in the IAASB task force. The project secretariat is now 
forming task forces with experts and back-office experts from the 
reference panel to develop practice notes for these ISAs. 

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 February 2005. 

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

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 website: 
www.ifac.org. 

For further information, please contact the Project Secretarial or the 
Chair of the Working Group: projectsecretariat@riksrevisionen.se. 

Task Force to Fight against International Money Laundering Meets in 
Peru: 

The task force was established in 2002 and is chaired by the SAI of 
Peru. Its purpose is to (1) promote international cooperation among 
SAIs and with other international organizations in the fight against 
money laundering, (2) identify and share policies and strategies 
within SAIs' competencies and authorities for combating money 
laundering, and (3) design and promote policies, strategies, and 
actions for SAIs within the national and international anti-money 
laundering legal framework.
	
[Photograph: Members of the task force at the March 2005 meeting in 
Lima: 

The SAI of Peru hosted the task force's fourth meeting in March 2005 
in Lima. Task force members from Fiji, Lesotho, the Russian 
Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States attended. At the 
meeting, the SAI of Peru demonstrated the Web site it created to track 
task force activities and post information about anti-money-laundering 
activities that task force members submit. The task force reaffirmed 
its three objectives and assigned responsibilities to task force 
members for carrying out tasks under each objective. The task force 
plans to submit a report to the Governing Board in advance of its 
meeting in the fall of 2005. 

For additional information, contact the task force chair: Contralorfa 
General de la Reptiblica, fax: ++51 (1) 330 32 80; 
e-mail: contraloria@contraloria.gob.pe; 
Web site: www.contraloria.gob.pe/task_force/index.htm. 

INTOSAI Task Force on the Audit of International Institutions Begins 
Its Work: 

The Task Force on the Audit of International Institutions, established 
at the 18th INCOSAI in Budapest, began its work by holding its first 
meeting in Copenhagen, Denmark, in April 2005. The task force's 
mandate is to: 

* coordinate and assist in identifying international institutions that 
should have SAIs as their external auditors and that need to develop 
auditing arrangements in line with best audit arrangements, 

* cooperate with concerned SAIs in promoting to relevant international 
institutions and authorities the principles approved at the 18th 
INCOSAI with the aim of changing the audit arrangements, and, 

* promote SAIs as external auditors and assist interested SAIs in 
preparing for such assignments. 

The work of the task force is to be carried out in cooperation with 
the INTOSAI regions and other stakeholders and may involve such 
activities as seminars for SAIs and direct contact with relevant 
international institutions. Because the mandate is based on persuasion 
rather than delegated power, the work of the task force is dependent 
on the goodwill of the institutions involved. 

At its initial meeting in Copenhagen, task force members discussed 
draft terms of reference, including a set of strategic goals to be 
presented to the Governing Board at its regular meeting in Vienna in 
November 2005. The members agreed on approaching a number of 
international institutions to gather information on their audit 
arrangements. Each member of the task force will deal with one or two 
of the institutions and report on the needs and possibilities for 
change at that institution. After this fact-finding mission is 
completed, the task force will meet again in the autumn of 2005 to 
choose, based on the reports, a smaller number of pilot institutions 
that can be approached to initiate a debate on their audit 
arrangements. The task force expects to complete its work before the 
19th INCOSAI in Mexico City in 2007 and report on its work at that 
time. 

The National Audit Office of Denmark chairs the task force. Its 
members are the SAIs of Austria, Denmark, Hungary, India, Japan, South 
Korea, Nepal, Norway, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sweden, Tuvalu, the 
United Kingdom, and Venezuela. 

The task force was established based on the work of an ad hoc working 
group created at the 17th INCOSAI in Seoul, where one of the themes 
was the audit of international institutions. 

The working group, which was dissolved at the 18th INCOSAI, elaborated 
a set of principles for the audit of international institutions, which 
were adopted at the Congress. These principles are the following: 

To be effective, the audit arrangements for international institutions 
should ensure that: 

1. all international institutions financed with or supported by public 
money are subject to audit by supreme audit institutions to promote 
better governance, transparency, and accountability; 

and that the external auditor: 

2. is fully independent in the conduct of the audit; 

3. has sufficient authority to carry out the audit in a manner that 
meets best practice in the audit of public money; 

4. has adequate resources to carry out the audit; 

5. has the right and obligation to report on the results of the audit 
to the member states concerned through the governing body(ies); 

6. meets relevant professional and ethical standards; and; 

7. is appointed in an open, fair, and transparent manner. 

Other SAIs who would like to join the task force are most welcome.
For additional information on the task force, contact the chairman: 
fax: ++45 33 14 38 28; 
e-mail: Rigsrevisionen@rigsrevisionen.dk. 

Working Group on Environmental Auditing (WGEA): 

From Head and Heart: Insights into Environmental Auditing at 18th 
INCOSAI: 

The scene was set. More than 150 people from 80 supreme audit 
institutions (SAI)—-most of them auditors general—-gathered in the 
conference hall at the 18th INCOSAI in Budapest in October 2004. The 
standing-room-only crowd was buzzing with friendly chatter and 
laughter. But as the proceedings began in earnest, the room fell 
silent and all eyes were fixed on the speakers. 

"We have an obligation to cultivate and care for our planet—it must be 
our common duty. Our environmental failures and successes are not only 
ours—they affect people in other countries." (Mr. Miroslaw Sekula, 
President of the Supreme Chamber of Control of Poland) 

"Our audits help to improve government's management of environmental 
issues and in the long run improve social prosperity and economic 
development in each and every one of our countries." (Dr. Genaro 
Matute Mejfa, Comptroller General of the Republic of Peru) 

Hold on a minute ... were these hard-nosed auditors or radical 
environmentalists? Speaker after speaker emphasized the need to 
protect the quality of our natural environment and resources while 
pursuing the goal of sustainable development. The travel-weary, jet-
lagged crowd might have thought that they were in the wrong room, 
perhaps having accidentally stumbled into a Greenpeace revival. But no—
this was the right place: The Heads of SAIs Forum: Experiences in 
Environmental Auditing, hosted by Canada's Auditor General, Sheila 
Fraser, and Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable 
Development, Johanne Gelinas. Following months of preparation by the 
Working Group on Environmental Auditing (WGEA) Secretariat, 
participants were listening to five of their auditor general 
colleagues (Mr. Miroslaw Sekula, Dr. Genaro Matute Mejfa, Mr. Liu 
Jiayi, Mr. Shauket A. Fakie, and Mr. Sarath Chandrasiri Mayadunne) 
share their insights on environmental auditing. One by one they 
described, in their own words, why environmental auditing is important 
to their institutions. 

[Photograph: Auditors general address the INCOSAI forum on 
environmental auditing] 

"Our country attaches great importance to the environment and 
sustainable development in its budget and its activities. 
Environmental auditing is one of the most important parts of my 
office's 5-year strategic plan." (Mr. Liu Jiayi, Deputy Auditor 
General of the National Audit Office of the People's Republic of China) 

The purpose of the event, as John Reed from Canada explained, was to 
build awareness and confidence among the leaders of SAIs. "For many 
SAIs, environmental auditing is a mature and mainstream area of 
practice. Other SAIs are in the early stages of building their 
practice and others still want to get started but aren't sure how. We 
know from our experience with the WGEA that SAIs still have many 
questions and all have perspectives to share and something to learn." 

As the event progressed, the conviction of each auditor general became 
evident. They were not reading scripted speeches; rather, they were 
speaking from the heart. One common theme that emerged was that while 
their institutions place a high priority on environmental matters, the 
reasoning is all about business. Environmental auditing is an integral 
part of their legislative, fiduciary, and moral auditing mandate and 
duty. 

"It is all good and well for a country to have high ideals and policy 
directives, but without implementation this means nothing. The 
question now is whether political role players and local authorities 
have been called to account with regard to the deterioration of the 
environment. My role, as the Auditor General, includes informing the 
public not only about the government's financial stewardship but also 
its environmental performance." (Mr. Shauket A. Fakie, Auditor General 
of the Republic of South Africa) 

In her opening remarks, Johanne Gelinas explained that the WGEA exists 
to help SAIs build capacity to do environmental audits. 'All of the 
things we do—including our guidance documents, the Web site, the WGEA-
IDI training program, and our major meetings—are meant to help SAIs." 

Picking up on this theme, all of the speakers stressed the importance 
of sharing information and experiences among SAIs and the key role 
that the WGEA has played in supporting their efforts. 

"We are still new to the area of environmental auditing. The WGEA gave 
us a big hand to stand up and get started. Sharing experiences is a 
very meaningful step and one way to do this is through on-the-job 
training with more experienced SAIs. We have learned that our audits 
are beneficial to the betterment of future generations." (Mr. Sarath 
Chandrasiri Mayadunne, Auditor General of Sri Lanka) 

Judging by the crowd's reaction during the proceedings, the auditors 
general's messages were well received. For example, Pieter Zevenbergen 
from the Netherlands said afterwards, "It was a great pleasure to hear 
the worldwide unconditional support for environmental issues .... 
Environmental audit is [here] to stay." 

After the formal portion of the event, participants shared their 
reactions and thoughts informally over light refreshments. The 
speakers had indeed stimulated some energetic exchanges-—some as 
interesting as the talks themselves! 

Sheila Fraser declared the event a great success. "Paying attention to 
the environment is one of my key priorities. Leading the WGEA gives us 
the chance to learn from, and also help, other SAIs. And we always 
need to keep the momentum going forward." 

Fourth WGEA Steering Committee Meeting Held in Prague: 

The WGEA's Fourth Steering Committee meeting was held in Prague, April 
4-7, 2005. It was hosted by Mr. Dugan Tegnar and the staff of the 
Supreme Audit Office of the Czech Republic. The Steering Committee, 
which includes 20 SAIs, is the working body of the WGEA. 

The main purpose of this meeting was to implement the 2005-2007 work 
plan. The Steering Committee agreed on lead roles, timetables, 
information collection methods, and scope for each of the following 
projects: 

* Moving towards auditing biodiversity (Lead SAIs—Brazil and Canada)
This paper will provide auditors with a general orientation on how to 
plan and carry out audits on biodiversity. 

* Implementation of the WGEA communications plan (Lead SAI—United 
States) The implementation of this plan will improve communications 
among WGEA members and between the WGEA and other key target audiences. 

* Evolution and trends of environmental auditing (Lead SAI—Canada)
This paper will describe the difference SAIs have made in managing 
natural resources and protecting the environment. It will provide 
insights on the current and future practice of environmental audits. 

* Cooperation between SAIs: tips and examples (Lead SAIs—the 
Netherlands and Poland) This paper will share experiences on 
cooperation (primarily with environmental audits) between SAIs within 
the INTOSAI community—particularly in preparing, performing, and 
reporting audits. 

* Fifth survey on environmental auditing (Lead SAI— Canada)
This survey will analyze environmental auditing trends of INTOSAI 
members. It is an important tool for gathering data on SAIs' 
environmental auditing needs and will help to shape the next WGEA work 
plan (2008-2010). 

* Reviewing the implementation of World Summit on Sustainable 
Development (WSSD) commitments (Lead SAI—United Kingdom) 
This paper will compare SAIs' reviews of their countries' progress to 
the WSSD commitments and share their experiences with other SAIs. 

* Waste and Water Alive (Lead SAIs—Norway and the Netherlands)
This project will identify appropriate ways to promote the ongoing 
exchange of experiences between SAIs on water and waste audits and 
actively encourage and support audits in the areas of water management 
and waste management. 

Upcoming 10th Meeting of the WGEA in Moscow: 

Recently, Sheila Fraser, Auditor General of Canada and Chair of the 
WGEA, invited all SAIs to attend the 10th meeting of the WGEA, which 
will be held in Moscow, the Russian Federation, from October 27 to 
November 1, 2005. "This is the preeminent event for environmental 
audit practitioners in our community, and I would strongly encourage 
SAIs to attend and benefit—-there won't be another one like it again 
until 2007." 

The Steering Committee set the agenda for the meeting, which will 
include guest speakers from the United Nations Environment Programme 
(UNEP) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 
Secretariat. The meeting will feature small working group discussions 
on topics of interest and seminar workshops with presentations by SAIs 
on the following topics: 

* Auditing biological diversity: presentations on the protection of 
national parks, rivers and lakes, ecosystems, forestry, and endangered 
species. 

* Auditing climate change: presentations on the Kyoto Protocol 
implementation, measures for adaptation, energy efficiency, 
international commitments, transportation, and greenhouse gases. 

* Increasing the impact of environmental audits: presentations on 
techniques used in auditing, including the following: 
- making effective recommendations,
- using experts,
- formulating audit questions,
- deciding the scope of issues, and
- communicating results. 

* Environmental auditing: facing the challenges: presentations on 
challenges encountered when undertaking a first environmental audit, 
creating a long-term strategy for the SAI, recruiting and training 
staff, and conducting environmental audits. 

For more information, contact: WGEA Secretariat, fax: ++(613) 941-8286; 
e-mail: environmental.auditing@oag-bvg.gc.ca; 
Web site: www.environmental-auditing.org.
[End of section] 

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

INTOSAI IDI Strategic Planning Focus Group: 

IDI's current strategic plan expires at the end of 2006, and 
preparations are under way to consult stakeholders on the development 
of a new strategic plan. IDI recently conducted separate meetings with 
its board members and its staff to try to develop a vision statement, 
a mission statement, and core values. The next important stage will be 
a 2-day focus group meeting in Norway at the end of June 2005. Twelve 
auditors general from around the world have accepted personal 
invitations to attend the focus group, which will aim to highlight the 
challenges facing SAIs and IDI in the future. The focus group's inputs 
will be used to develop a questionnaire that will be sent to SAIs in 
developing and emerging countries and will, in turn, lead to the 
development of goals and objectives for the IDI's strategic plan for 
2007 onwards. 

IDI and ASOSAI Agreement on Capacity Building in the Audit of Fraud 
and Corruption: 

IDI and ASOSAI recently entered into a new cooperative agreement for 
2005-2006. An Audit of Fraud and Corruption program, fully sponsored 
by IDI, will begin with a design and development meeting in July 2005 
in China, with six ASOSAI training specialists and subject matter 
experts participating. The expected outputs of this meeting are 
comprehensive courseware on the audit of fraud and corruption, 
including toolkits for auditors, and a follow-up plan to take the 
training beyond the classroom to the workplace. This will be followed 
by a 1-week workshop for ASOSAI auditors in Pakistan in December 2005. 

OLACEFS E-learning Project Takes Shape: 

The first IDI-sponsored e-learning project will take place with the 
delivery of a performance auditing workshop later in 2005. The project 
is funded by IDI, with regional partners taking responsibility for key 
roles during the preparation and delivery phases. The seven OLACEFS 
training specialists who will act as online tutors met with the 
academic coordinator and subject matter expert (both from the SAI of 
Venezuela) and IDI project managers in Venezuela for 2 days in June 
2005. The seven online tutors come from the SAIs of Argentina, Chile, 
Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, and Panama. The 
meeting was used to strengthen team building and to plan the testing 
and delivery of the new e-learning course. Further information on this 
e-learning program will be provided in later IDI Updates. 

A Second Pool of OLACEFS Training Specialists: 

As reported in the last IDI Update, a Course Design and Instructional 
Techniques Workshop (CDITW) took place in Ecuador in February and 
March 2005. Thirty participants completed the workshop and are 
expected to graduate as IDI training specialists later this year. 
Seven of these training specialists and a subject matter expert from 
Colombia took part in a redesign meeting in Costa Rica in June and 
July 2005. Course materials on the audit of public services were 
initially designed during the CDITW and will be redesigned for the 
delivery of a 2-week workshop later in 2005. 

Liaison with the INTOSAI Public Debt Committee: 

IDI representatives attended the INTOSAI Public Debt Committee meeting 
held in Sofia, Bulgaria, June 2-3, 2005. The committee was informed 
about developments in OLACEFS, the ASOSAI Public Debt Workshop, and 
the forthcoming IDI-EUROSAI public debt program in Russia. The 
committee was also informed about the results of the IDI global survey 
in the area of public debt audit. 

Contacting IDI: 

If you would like to discuss any of the issues in this edition of IDI 
Update, please contact: IDI, telephone: ++47 21 54 08 10; 
e-mail: idi@idi.no. 

[End of section] 

INTOSI 2005-2006 Calendar: 

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

July 25: 
Finance and Administrative Committee, Washington, D.C. 

September 5: 
Working Group on Financial Audit Guidelines, Oslo, Norway. 

September 6: 
Working Group on Compliance Auditing, Oslo, Norway; 

September 7-8: 
Professional Standards Committee, Oslo, Norway. 

September 12-14: 
Working Group on Privatization, Brasilia, Brazil. 
	
October 27-November 1: 
Working Group on Environmental Auditing, Moscow, Russia. 

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

May 23-26: 
Committee on IT Audit, Brasilia, Brazil.	 

June 20: 
International Tsunami/Disaster Relief Event, 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 July 2005 Journal]