This is the accessible text file for the International Journal of 
Government Auditing, July 2009 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 2009: 
Vol. 36, No. 3: 

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

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

Editor: Muriel Forster (U.S.A.): 

Assistant Editor: Linda J. Sellevaag (U.S.A.): 

Associate Editors: 
Office of the Auditor General (Canada): 
Sudha Krishnan (ASOSAI-India): 
Luseane Sikalu (PASAI-Tonga): 
CAROSAI Secretariat (St. Lucia): 
EUROSAI General Secretariat (Spain): 
Khemais Hosni (Tunisia): 
Yadira Espinoza Moreno (Venezuela): 
INTOSAI General Secretariat (Austria): 
U.S. Government Accountability Office (U.S.A.): 

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

Members of the Governing Board of INTOSAI: 
Juan M. Portal-Martinez, Auditor General Auditoria Superior de la 
Federation, Mexico, Chairman: 
Terence Nombembe, Auditor-General Office of the Auditor-General South 
Africa, First Vice-Chairman: 
Osama Jaffer Facieeh, President, General Auditing Bureau, Saudi 
Arabia, Second Vice-Chairman: 
Josef Moser, President; Rechnungshof; Austria, Secretary General: 
Liu Jiayi, Auditor General National Audit Office, People's Republic of 
China: 
Paul R.S. Allsworth, Director of Audit, Cook Islands Audit Office: 
Ziriyo Bogui, President, Chambre des Comptes, Cote d'Ivoire: 
Pal Csapodi, Acting President; Allami Sztimvevoszik, Hungary: 
Vinod Rai, Comptroller and Auditor General, India: 
Hwang Sik Kim, Chairman, Board of Audit and Inspection, Korea: 
Ali Al-Hesnawi, Auditor General, General People's Committee of 
Institution for Auditing and Technical Supervision, Libyan Arab 
Jamahiriya: 
Luis A. Montenegro Espinoza, President, Consejo Superior de la 
Contraloria General Nicaragua: 
Jurgen Kosmo, Auditor General, Riksrevisjonen, Norway: 
Sergey Vadimovich Stepashin, Chairman, Accounts Chamber, Russian 
Federation: 
Wesley Galloway, Acting Director of Audit, National Audit Office, St. 
Kitts and Nevis: 
Amyas Morse, Comptroller and Auditor, General National Audit Office, 
United Kingdom: 
Gene Dodaro, Acting Comptroller General, Government Accountability 
Office, United States of America: 
Clodosbaldo Russian Uzcategui, 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: 

SAIs and Independence: 

Reporting Nonfinancial Information: 

Spotlight on the Strategic Plan: 

Inside INTOSAI: 

IDI Update: 

INTOSAI Calendar: 

[End of section] 

Editorial: 

Looking Back and Forward: A View from the Pacific: 

Kevin Brady: 
Controller and Auditor-General of New Zealand: 

[Photograph: Kevin Brady] 

I was honored to be invited to write this editorial. After 38 years 
with the New Zealand Audit Office, the last 7 as Auditor-General, I am 
retiring this July. I am pleased to have this opportunity to pass on 
my views and also to thank the many members of the international 
auditing community who have supported and provided inspiration to my 
office. I have been fortunate to attend a number of international 
conferences, including those hosted by INTOSAI, ASOSAI, PASAI, and the 
Commonwealth. The spirit of cooperation and collaboration at these 
events has always made the inevitably long journey from New Zealand 
worthwhile. 

As with all other supreme audit institutions (SAI), the New Zealand 
SAI has continued to evolve and adapt to changes in our environment. 
We have responded to changes in legislation governing the audited 
entities, developments in accounting and auditing standards, the need 
to keep on top of emerging information technology initiatives, and the 
increasing complexity of the operations of those we audit. We have 
also changed our skill base to respond to the expansion of our mandate 
into performance and environmental auditing. In all my dealings with 
the international auditing community, I have been impressed by the 
caliber of the people employed by SAIs. They are dedicated to doing 
the best for their communities and ensuring that public resources are 
used wisely and in keeping with the wishes of their Parliaments or 
equivalents. The SAIs' success or lack thereof rests totally on the 
caliber of the people they employ; in that regard, SAIs throughout the 
world are fortunate that their role attracts such high quality people. 

In addition to competence, the hallmarks of any SAI are independence 
and credibility. Independence needs to be guaranteed by our mandates, 
but all staff members need to ensure that their own individual 
independence is not compromised through personal or family conflicts 
of interest. Our strength comes from our independence, and it must be 
guarded zealously. The second attribute is credibility. When we speak 
as an SAI, we must be right. We must also be fair. The ability to 
report is an SAI's major strength. However, as was pointed out to me 
early in my career, we are only as good as our last report. 
Credibility that has taken years to develop can be lost in one 
careless moment. Our reports can also affect individual reputations. 
We need to ensure that criticism is not only right but also justified. 

Looking to the future, I have the utmost admiration for the work of 
INTOSAI under the leadership of Dr. Josef Moser. The strategy that 
INTOSAI has developed is excellent and forward-looking. It deserves 
the full support of all INTOSAI members. The work of the 
Communications Strategy Task Force that was established in 2007
is of special interest to us in the Pacific. In particular, the task 
force's work will give smaller SAIs easy access to an incredible range 
of materials. 

For the past 15 years, I have had the pleasure of acting as Secretary-
General for PASAI (previously SPASM). While many Pacific countries are 
small, the auditors-general and their staffs have demonstrated a 
continued commitment to excellence. The adoption of the Pacific 
Regional Audit Initiative, cofunded by the Asian Development Bank and 
the Australian government, is already starting to strengthen the 
Pacific SAIs. I have no doubt that with the establishment of an 
enhanced PASAI secretariat, the aims of the initiative will be 
achieved. 

I believe that we can do better in two areas internationally. The 
first area relates to reporting financial information to the public. I 
am concerned that accounting standards are getting too complex, 
resulting in financial statements also becoming so complex that many 
members of the public (and indeed members of the audited entities) are 
no longer getting information in a format that enables them to hold 
entities to account. The whole purpose of accounting is to convert 
information into a report that enables the public and those involved 
in governance to hold the entity to account. Most members of the 
public do not have an accounting background, so unless we find a way 
to make accounting more user friendly, then we are not accomplishing 
our purpose. 

The second area relates to reporting nonfinancial information. Most 
public sector agencies (other than those that have a corporate basis) 
exist not to make money but to deliver services to the community. 
Reporting financial information is not enough. The real test of a 
public entity's success or lack thereof is whether the entity 
delivered the services expected in an effective and efficient way. To 
judge this, the community needs information that indicates not only 
where the money was spent, but also what was achieved as a result of 
that expenditure. I feel that this area has not received the attention 
it deserves. Until the community's needs for performance information 
are addressed, public entities will not be truly accountable. 

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate my thanks to those who have 
provided support to my SAI I have enjoyed my term as Auditor-General 
immensely, and I have met some amazing people throughout the 
international auditing community. I wish you all the best in your 
future endeavors. 

[End of section] 

News in Brief: 

Australia: 

Audit Report on Green Office Procurement and Sustainable Office 
Management: 

In March 2009, the Australia National Audit Office issued a report 
entitled, Green Office Procurement and Sustainable Office Management 
(No. 25 2008-09). The report is available online on the ANAO Web site.
The Australian Government has indicated that it is seeking to be at 
the forefront of environmental purchasing practices. This report 
showed that as a whole, the Australian Government public sector has 
considerable work to do if it is to achieve this goal and that 
considerable scope remains to reduce the "ecological footprint" of 
agencies. There are many opportunities to implement cost-effective 
measures to improve sustainability, particularly in energy 
conservation and office-based consumption. 

According to the report, the Australian Government spends 
approximately $435 million annually on electricity and natural gas. 
While some capital costs may be involved to implement energy 
efficiency initiatives (for example, costs for lighting upgrades or 
enhanced metering), the resultant savings from such measures will be 
ongoing and assist in offsetting future cost increases. Measures such 
as the automated shutdown of office monitors and computers when not in 
use would involve minimal capital expenditure and provide immediate 
energy and cost reductions. Data centers use a significant amount of 
energy, typically accounting for 15 to 40 percent of tenancy energy 
consumption. Through better design layouts for the centers and 
upgrades to infrastructure, potential energy savings of up to 33 
percent have been identified. 

During the audit, agencies provided numerous examples that illustrated 
the recovery of capital costs in less than 12 months. Recent increases 
in electricity costs experienced by Australian government agencies 
will further reduce payback periods. Overall, the ANAO estimated that 
the Australian government could save $75 million annually from its 
energy budget if all agencies met government energy targets and 
applied these conservation measures to all energy categories. 

The Australian government is a significant consumer of office paper.
The agencies surveyed reported their aggregate internal use at over 
6,500 tons per year. Agencies can reduce their internal paper 
consumption (and simultaneously reduce costs) through double-sided 
printing. Motor vehicles are also an important part of government 
operations. The government fleet, including the Department of Defense 
"white vehicle fleet," has over 13,000 vehicles. The audit highlighted
tensions between costs, preferences for Australian made vehicles, and 
the need to meet the government's goal of reducing greenhouse gases 
and other emissions. According to the report, large vehicles are 35 
percent more expensive than small cars—even taking into account 
available discounts—when considered on a whole-of-life-cycle basis. 

The report identified significant opportunities to improve the quality 
of environmental controls and imbed environmental considerations into 
core business operations within the Australian government. Only 56 
percent of agencies have instructions or policies in place to minimize 
their environmental impacts. To meet government expectations, agencies 
need an integrated sustainability framework that identifies 
improvement opportunities and investment priorities tailored to their 
business requirements. The audit report highlighted a number of case 
studies that demonstrate energy savings, environmental improvements, 
or other potential benefits can be achieved from a concerted focus on 
better sustainability practices. 

Recent Amendments to the Auditor-General Act 1997: 

In February 2009, a number of amendments were made to the Auditor-
General Act 1997. Some amendments (1) relate to the circumstances in 
which audit information made available to entities and other parties 
while conducting a performance audit may be disclosed and (2) update 
penalty provisions to bring them into line with current criminal law 
policy. 

The amendments most relevant to entities relate to consulting
and reporting arrangements for performance audits. Specifically, the 
act includes a requirement that any comments received on a proposed 
performance audit report be included in full in the final audit 
report. This amendment gives legislative support to the ANAO's 
existing practice. The act also provides that any comments received on 
a performance audit report extract must also be included in full
in the final report. Previously, such comments were taken into account 
when finalizing the audit report but may not have been included. Under 
the amendments, report extracts are now covered by the act's 
confidentiality requirements for persons who are in possession of 
audit information. 

To assist in finalizing reports and ensuring that they remain 
informative and readable, the ANAO will continue to ask that agency 
comments be directly relevant to audit findings and recommendations 
and reasonably succinct. The ANAO will also continue its existing 
practice of requesting that comments be provided in the following 
three parts: (1) formal entity comments (included in full as an 
appendix to the final report), including whether the entity agrees, 
agrees with qualification, or does not agree with each recommendation; 
(2) a short summary of the entity's comments (included in the report 
summary and brochure); and (3) any additional detailed commentary, 
such as those of an editorial nature (included as appropriate in the 
body of the report). 

For additional information, contact the ANAO: 
E-mail: agl@anao.gov.au. 
Web site: www.anao.gov.au. 

Bermuda: 

New Auditor General Named: 

Heather Jacobs Matthews will become the new Auditor General of Bermuda 
in August 2009. She will replace Larry Dennis, who is retiring. 

Mrs. Jacobs Matthews, a Chartered Accountant and a Certified Fraud 
Examiner, graduated from Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, 
in 1976 with a bachelor of commerce degree (with distinction), majoring
in accounting. In 1980, she began a 27-year career with the Bermuda
government. She was Assistant Auditor and then Deputy Auditor for 9 
years, providing senior managerial support to the Government Auditor. 
In 1989, Mrs. Jacobs Matthews was appointed Tax Commissioner. 

From 1994 to 1999, she was Accountant General for the Government and, 
in 1999, was reappointed Tax Commissioner until her retirement from 
the Civil Service in 2007. 

She came out of retirement in 2008 to temporarily fill the new post of 
Director of Internal Audit, which had been transferred from the 
Ministry of Finance to the Cabinet Office. 

Her primary role was to help permanent secretaries and department 
heads develop and maintain effective and efficient processes to 
improve accountability and transparency in the management of public 
funds. In carrying out that function, Mrs. Jacobs Matthews also 
maintained a close working relationship with the Auditor General.
Mrs. Jacobs Matthews is a member of the Institute of Chartered 
Accountants of Bermuda and Nova Scotia, the Association of Certified 
Fraud Examiners, the Institute of Internal Auditors, and the 
Government Finance Officers Association. 

For additional information, contact the Office of the Auditor General: 

E-mail: auditbda@gov.bm. 
Web site: www.oagbermuda.gov.bm. 

Kenya: 

New Controller and Auditor-General Appointed: 

In January 2009, Anthony S.M. Gatumbu was appointed the new Controller 
and Auditor General of Kenya, succeeding Priscilla N. Komora, who has 
retired. Mr. Gatumbu is committed to continuing the ongoing reform 
agenda in the Kenya National Audit Office, enhancing its relationship 
with the National Assembly and other stakeholders, and working with 
the INTOSAI community. 

[Photograph: Anthony S.M. Gatumbu] 

Before his appointment, Mr. Gatumbu had served as Deputy Auditor 
General for 2-1/2 years. He holds a bachelors degree in mathematics
and business and also a diploma in public sector accounting. He has 
also attended numerous local and international workshops and programs
in governance and accountability. For additional information, contact 
the Kenya National Audit Office: 

Fax: ++254 (2) 33 08 29. 
E-mail: cag@kenao.go.ke. 

Latvia: 

Annual Report for 2008: 

The State Audit Office of the Republic of Latvia prepared its annual 
report for 2008 summarizing its activities for that year. According to 
the report, the office continued assessing whether the use of taxpayer 
resources was not only legal but also efficient and effective. In 
2008, the office conducted 61 audits and prepared 74 audit reports on
financial and legality audits. Given the complicated economic
circumstances in Latvia, the State Audit Office believes that it is 
very important to devote increased attention to the efficient and 
effective use of financial resources. The office has always made 
efficient resource management practices and efforts a top priority, 
and its auditors encourage other public administration institutions to 
act accordingly. 

The 2008 annual report of the State Audit Office is available 
electronically on the office's Web site. 

For additional information, contact the State Audit Office: 

E-mail: Irvk@IrvIcgov.lv. 
Web site: www.lryk.gov.lv. 

New Zealand: 

Auditor-General's Annual Plan: 

The New Zealand Auditor-General's Annual Plan for 2009-2010 is now 
available on the office's Web site at the following link: 
www.oag.govt.nz/annualplan/2009-10. 

In presenting the plan, outgoing Controller and Auditor-General Kevin 
Brady noted that this would be the first year under the SAI's new 
strategic plan (Strategy 2009-12) and would also be the year in which 
he completes his term. While Mr. Brady recognized that an incoming 
auditor-general will bring his or her own priorities, he wanted
to ensure that the SAI's strategies, intentions, and risks were 
clearly laid out as a basis for the new SAI head to chart the course 
for his or her own term of office. He expressed his confidence that 
the SAI is moving in the right direction and will be in a good 
position for the transition to the new Auditor-General. 

The New Zealand SAI's Strategy 2009-12 emphasizes the need to generate 
greater insight from its audit work to support the public sector in 
responding to economic challenges while maintaining vital services and 
building the trust of citizens. The plan identifies areas for the SAI 
to focus on in addition to providing service performance information. 
These areas, which cover both central and local government, are 
procurement management, fraud awareness and minimization, and 
stewardship and management of infrastructure assets. 

For additional information, contact the New Zealand SAI: 

E-mail: enquiry@oag.govt.nz. 
Web site: www.oag.govt.nz. 

Poland: 

Supreme Chamber of Control Celebrates Its 90th Anniversary: 

In February 2009, the Supreme Chamber of Control of Poland (NIK) 
celebrated its 90th anniversary. Jacek Jezierski, NIK President, and 
members of the NIK College took part in a special session in the lower 
chamber of the Polish Parliament (the Sejm), which was attended by 
Lech Kaczynski, President of the Republic of Poland and a former NIK 
President himself. Mr. Jezierski stressed the importance of Polish 
history in describing the many changes the NIK has been subject to 
since its founding. He emphasized that remembering the past made us 
realize the magnitude of our predecessors' achievements, the 
importance of the tasks we face today, and the great responsibility 
current NIK staff face. 

On February 7,1919, Marshal Jozef Piisudski, the Chief of the State 
and founder of the 2nd Republic of Poland, issued a decree 
establishing the Supreme Chamber of State Control. This decree laid 
the foundation for the development of an autonomous Polish audit 
institution that reported directly to the Chief of State and was 
responsible for auditing state revenues and expenditures and 
monitoring the management of state assets, industry, institutions, and 
foundations, including municipalities and local government. This 
modern SAI was also equipped with tools for auditing budget execution 
and, from the very beginning, paid attention to the need for 
transparency in public spending. Thus, the NIK motto—taken from an 
1808 quote by Tadeusz Dembowski, the then Polish Minister of Treasury—
is valid to this day: "Each person responsible for spending a penny of 
public money should be prepared to justify its expenditure." 

The organization and functioning of today's NIK is set out in the
Constitution of the Republic of Poland of April 2, 1997, and the Act 
on the NIK of December 23, 1994. The Polish SAI's mandate is based on 
the principle of collegial responsibility, and the institution is 
accountable to the Polish Parliament. 

In memory of the Polish SAI's founder, top NIK management laid flowers
at the monument to Marshal J6zef Pitsudski on the date of the NIK's 
anniversary. Flowers were also laid at the monument to Ignacy Jan 
Paderewski, a world-famous Polish pianist, composer, and statesman who 
became the Polish Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs in 
1919, and on the grave of Jozef Higersberger, the first NIK President. 
Documents and photographs depicting the NIK's 90 year history were 
also displayed at the NIK's headquarters. 

For additional information, contact the NIK: 

E-mail: wsm@nik.gov.pl. 
Web site: www.nik.gov.pl. 

Trinidad and Tobago: 

85th Anniversary of Auditor General's Department: 

In March 2008, the Auditor General's Department of the Republic of 
Trinidad and Tobago celebrated the 85th anniversary of the 
department's local funding. In March 1923, Mr. A.G. Bidden was 
appointed as Director of Audit in Trinidad. Before that time, the 
Colonial Overseas Audit Office of Great Britain sent auditors to 
Trinidad. From 1923 until 1963, certain senior personnel continued to 
be drawn from the Colonial Overseas Audit Office, whose functions 
included auditing the country's accounts. 

The theme of the anniversary celebration was "New Beginnings," and it 
included an inter-religious thanksgiving service, a 5K walk/ run, and 
a dinner. The service took place on March 14 at Queen's Hall and was 
attended by the President of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, His 
Excellency Professor George Maxwell Richards; several dignitaries; 
government officials; and staff members from the department. The 
service was conducted by the Inter-Religious Organisation of Trinidad 
and Tobago and members of different faiths offered prayers and 
readings. His Lordship the Bishop of Trinidad and Tobago, the Right 
Reverend Calvin Best, delivered the sermon. At the end of the service, 
the Auditor General presented monetary donations from staff members to 
representatives of the Cyril Ross Home for children with HIV/AIDS and 
to DRETCHI, an association for the hearing impaired. Group pictures of 
staff members dating back to 1948 were displayed in the lobby of 
Queen's Hall. 

On March 15, a 5K run/walk around the Queen's Park Savannah in Port of
Spain and through the streets of St. Clair attracted more than 300 
members of the staff and public. Her Excellency Dr. Jean Ramjohn-
Richards, First Lady of Trinidad and Tobago, participated in the 
event. The First Lady and the President also attended the anniversary 
dinner on March 29 at which the President delivered an address 
challenging the department to remain vigilant in guarding the nation's 
treasury and promoting accountability by protecting the public purse. 
He also urged the department to maintain high standards by training 
and retraining its staff. In her address, Sharman Ottley, the Auditor 
General, gave a history of the department's progress in which she 
thanked successive administrations for upholding the department's 
independence and also thanked current and former staff members for 
their contributions to the department's work. Thanks were also
expressed to client auditee bodies and central agencies for their 
assistance in facilitating the department's work. 

For additional information, contact the Auditor General's Department: 

E-mail: sottley@auditorgeneralgov.tt. 
Web site: www.auditorgeneralgovit. 

Ukraine: 

Accounting Chamber Appointed as the New OSCE External Auditor: 

In April 2009, 56 member states of the Organization for Security and 
Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) unanimously accepted the government of 
Ukraine's offer and appointed the Accounting Chamber of Ukraine as
the OSCE external auditor for 2009. This is the first time in OSCE 
history that a country from Eastern Europe has assumed this position. 
Previously, the OSCE's external audit responsibilities were executed 
in turn by Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and 
Norway. The appointment highlights the Accounting Chamber's compliance 
with international audit standards and professionalism. 

According to OSCE rules, the external auditor is entrusted with 
auditing the OSCE administrative and financial system and making 
recommendations for improvement. The external auditor's 1-year term 
can be extended for the next 2 years. 

For additional information, contact the Accounting Chamber: 

E-mail: rp@ac-rada.gov.ua. 
Web site: www.ac-rada.gov.ua. 

European Court of Auditors: 

International Peer Review Report Issued: 

In December 2008, a report of an international peer review of the 
European Court of Auditors (ECA) was published. The report is 
available online at http://www.eca.europa.eu/products/PeerReview. This 
report represents a major milestone in the ongoing reform of the ECA, 
which is the independent audit institution of the European Union (EU). 
As such, the ECA has a unique role in contributing to the improvement 
of EU financial management and promoting accountability and 
transparency. 

In recent years, enlargement of the EU has brought with it an influx 
of fresh ideas and opportunities for EU institutions but also 
significant challenges. Since 2004, the ECA budget and personnel have 
grown rapidly. In addition, there have been important changes in the 
ECA's audit environment. To better meet its treaty obligations and 
fulfill its mission in a professional manner comparable to other SAIs 
around the world, the ECA recognized that it should adapt to a 
changing audit environment and reform itself. 

In 2006, the ECA initiated a reform process that began with a self 
assessment of the way it was organized and operated and incorporated 
an action plan for improvement in many areas. 

To implement this action plan, the ECA developed and published a 
statement of its mission, vision, and strategic objectives; produced 
its first annual activity report for 2007; updated its communication 
policy; and further developed its relations with stakeholders. 

In December 2008, the ECA adopted an audit strategy for 2009-2012.
This strategy brings together the various measures arising from the 
self assessment and action plan and is designed around two priority 
goals that will guide the ECA's work programs during that period: 
maximizing the overall impact from its audits and increasing 
efficiency by making the best use of resources. 

The peer review of the ECA was carried out by a team of experienced 
financial and performance auditors from the SAIs of Canada, Norway, 
Austria, and Portugal. Its objective was to assess the design and 
operation of the ECA's audit management framework, which encompasses 
audit planning and examination processes for financial and performance 
audits, reporting on audit results, and the services that provide 
support and help the ECA achieve its objectives. 

The peer review team acknowledged that the ECA is an organization in 
transition and concluded that it is moving in the right direction. The 
team concluded that the ECA audit framework is suitably designed in 
accordance with the international auditing standards and good 
practices of SAIs. The team also observed that (1) the ECA conducts 
its work with independence and objectivity, (2) the audit reports 
examined during the review were based on sufficient and appropriate 
audit evidence, as required by international auditing standards,
and (3) the stakeholders interviewed have a high level of confidence 
in the ECA reports and generally consider them to be fair, factual, 
and objective. 

The peer review report also identified challenges and opportunities 
for improvement. These included the need to (1) develop a culture that 
emphasizes the ECA as a single audit institution, (2) enhance quality
assurance and quality control activities, (3) ensure that the 
interpretation and application of its audit policies and practices are 
consistent; and (4) develop risk-based audit strategies to optimize 
the use of resources to meet the diverse needs of stakeholders.
As the peer report recognized, most of the recommendations had been 
anticipated in the framework of the action plan developed before the 
review. The ECA will integrate the rest of the peer review's 
recommendations into its audit strategy for 2009-2012 and endeavor to 
implement them during that period. 

For additional information, please contact the ECA: 

E-mail: euraud@eca.europa.eu. 
Web site: www.eca.europa.eu. 

United Nations: 

U.N. Committee Recognizes Importance of SAI Independence: 

The United Nations (U.N.) Committee of Experts on Public 
Administration publicly recognized for the first time the importance 
of SAI independence at its eighth meeting at U.N. headquarters in New 
York March 30-April 3, 2009. The expert committee is responsible for 
supporting U.N. Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) work in promoting 
and developing public administration and governance among member 
states. 

The meeting agenda dealt with accountability, transparency, and 
citizen trust in government, and INTOSAI had once again been invited 
to attend the meeting as an observer. The General Secretariat took 
this opportunity to represent the interests of INTOSAI and its members 
and express the concerns of government auditing in the debate on 
administrative reforms. 

In light of INTOSAI's 2009 priority program to promote SAI 
independence, the representatives of the General Secretariat raised 
the issue of independence and emphasized the role of SAIs in ensuring 
transparency and accountability in the management of public funds. 
Through independent audits and publication of their audit findings, 
SAIs provide a good foundation to support public trust. They also 
promote good governance and contribute substantially to the 
implementation of international development objectives, including the 
U.N. Millennium Development Goals. 

The experts agreed with INTOSAI that SAIs could perform their tasks 
objectively and effectively only if their constitutions endow them 
with the required organizational independence and if they enjoy free 
and unlimited access to information. 

The expert committee's final report to ECOSOC specially recognized the
importance of SAI independence and its relevance to public trust and 
trust-building mechanisms. 

At the initiative of the General Secretariat, the expert committee 
created the necessary framework to examine the independence of 
external government audit in greater depth at its next meeting in 2010.
The General Secretariat took a further step in significantly advancing 
INTOSAI's initiative to embody the independence of external government 
auditing—and thus the Declarations of Lima and Mexico—in a U.N. 
resolution, as had been decided at INTOSAI's 58th Governing Board 
meeting. 

For additional information, contact the INTOSAI Secretariat: 

E-mail: intosai@rechnungshofgv.at. 
Web site: www.intosai.org. 

[End of section] 

Editor's note: 
The October issue of the Journal will focus on independence. We are 
publishing the following article because of its findings on 
independence and invite our readers to respond to it with their own 
insights, recommendations, and ideas. Send your responses to 
Intosaijournal@gao.gov. 

Open Budget Survey Findings on SAIs and Independence: 

by Vivek Ramkumar, Open Budget Initiative, International Budget 
Partnership: 

Eighty percent of the world's governments fail to give their citizens 
the information they need to hold the governments accountable for 
managing their money. This troubling finding comes from an extensive 
new survey of government budget transparency in 85 countries issued in 
February 2009 by the International Budget Partnership (IBP).[Footnote 
1] The survey also found that nearly 50 percent of the 85 countries 
IBP evaluated provide such minimal information that they are able to 
hide unpopular, wasteful, and corrupt spending.[Footnote 2] 

IBP's Open Budget Survey 2008 is an independent and comprehensive 
analysis that evaluates whether central governments give the public 
access to budget information and opportunities to participate in 
budget formulation, implementation, and evaluation processes. The 
survey also examines the ability of legislatures and supreme audit 
institutions (SAI) to hold their governments accountable. 

The survey analyzed the results drawn from a rigorous questionnaire 
that reflects generally accepted good practices related to public 
finance management that international organizations have developed. 
These practices include the International Monetary Fund's Code of Good 
Practices, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's 
Best Practices in Budget Transparency, and INTOSAI's Lima Declaration. 
The survey was managed by IBP and implemented by independent 
researchers with budget expertise from civil society organizations and 
academic institutions established in the 85 countries examined. 

Survey Findings: 

The survey assessed SAIs according to the following key 
characteristics: 

* legal and financial independence from the executive,
* comprehensiveness of audit mandate,
* engagement with the public,
* timeliness in reporting audit results, and, 
* effectiveness of follow-up on audit recommendations. 

Based on these assessments, an average score for SAI strength was 
calculated. The overall average score was 45 out of a possible 100. 

The following sections analyze the key findings related to SAIs from 
the Open Budget Survey 2008. 

Independence: 

Independence from the executive branch is one of the most important 
measures of an SAI's ability to provide effective oversight. Legal and 
financial dependence on the executive may cause the head of an SAI to 
withhold reports that are critical of the executive. 

In 26 of the countries surveyed, the executive can remove the SAI head 
from office without the consent of either the legislature or the 
judiciary. Further, in 38 of the 85 countries, the executive rather 
than the legislature or the judiciary determines the SAI's yearly 
budget allocation. In 24 of these countries, the survey's civil 
society researchers felt that funding for the SAI was below the level 
of resources the SAI needed to fulfill its mandate. 

Further, in 21 countries in which the legislature (rather than the 
executive) determines the SAI's yearly budget allocation, researchers 
felt that SAI budgets were not adequate to meet resource requirements. 

In 31 of the 85 countries included in the survey, the SAI does not 
have full discretion in law to decide which audits it will undertake. 
In 13 of these 31 countries, SAIs have very limited or no discretion 
to decide which audits they will undertake. 

Comprehensiveness: 

In 48 of the 85 surveyed countries, the SAI does not either release 
its audits of extrabudgetary funds (including oil stabilization funds) 
to the public, audit such funds, or release such reports within 24 
months after the end of the fiscal year during which the audits were 
conducted. Although extrabudgetary funds are technically outside the 
budget, they are governmental in nature and thus should be subject to 
the same audit requirements as other government programs. 

In 33 of the 85 countries, the SAI does not either employ designated 
staff assigned to audit security sector expenditures or undertake 
audits of the security sector. Because the public does not receive 
information on such secret programs, it is essential that legislators 
receive this information, including all audit reports on expenditures in
the sector. SAIs should have staff with security clearances that give 
them access to all information related to secret expenditures. 

Public Engagement: 

In 27 of the countries surveyed, audit reports are not made publicly 
available. Six of these countries do not produce audit reports. 

In 44 of the countries,[Footnote 3] the SAI's annual audit report does 
not include an executive summary. Since audit reports can be fairly 
technical documents, an executive summary of the report's findings can 
help make the report more accessible to the media and the public. 

It is, however, heartening that in many of the countries surveyed, the 
SAI has some procedures in place to tap the public as a source of 
information. In 46 countries surveyed, SAIs maintain formal mechanisms 
through which the public can register complaints and suggestions 
regarding the agencies, programs, or projects that citizens believe 
the SAI should audit. However, in 12 of these 46 countries, the SAI 
receives little or no information from the public on potential 
subjects for audit. This may suggest that the mechanisms the SAI 
established for soliciting public recommendations are inadequate or 
inconvenient. 

Timeliness: 

Delays in releasing audit reports reduce the opportunities available 
to civil society and the public to use audit information to advocate 
for improvements in government performance. In 30 countries surveyed, 
the SAI either had not audited any expenditure or had not released 
such reports to the public within 2 years of the end of the fiscal 
year. In an additional 13 countries, the SAI completed its audits 
between 12 and 24 months after the end of the fiscal year. In only 15 
countries surveyed did the SAI release its annual report within 6 
months of the end of the fiscal year, as recommended by international 
good practice. 

Effective Follow-up: 

SAIs' mandates usually prevent them from playing a direct policy or 
political role. As a result, the legislature needs to follow up on an 
SAI findings and recommendations if SAI audits are to have practical 
impact. However, in 17 of the countries surveyed, the legislature did 
not follow up on the work of the SAI at all, while in an additional 20 
countries, legislative follow-up was minimal. 

Further, in 64 countries, the executive did not reveal what steps, if 
any, it had taken to address audit recommendations. In addition, 
neither the SAI nor the legislature reported to the public on actions 
the executive had taken to address audit recommendations in 64 
countries. Failures to publicize actions taken in response to audit 
findings make it easier for governments to ignore audit 
recommendations. 

Conclusion and Recommendations: 

The survey results reveal that in most of the surveyed countries, 
several serious constraints undermined the oversight capacity of SAIs 
(and legislatures). Effective accountability depends not only on 
transparency (and the public's access to budget information) but also 
on the strength of institutions like SAIs and legislatures. 
Unfortunately, the survey found that the countries with the weakest 
SAIs and legislatures were also the countries that had the least 
transparent budget systems. Thus, budget oversight in each of these 
countries was frustrated by both limited access to information and 
weak formal oversight institutions. 

IBP offers two recommendations to assist SAIs in their oversight role. 
First, SAIs could begin to engage more closely with civil society 
organizations (CSO) and with the public. Such collaboration could 
bring more publicity to audit findings, build pressure on the 
executive to follow up on audit recommendations, bring new ideas and 
evidence for audit investigations, and increase the resources 
available for SAIs to use in conducting audits. 

A recent example from Honduras illustrates these points. In 2007, the 
Honduran Tribunal Superior de Cuentas (the national SAI) began a pilot 
program to solicit greater public participation in its audits. Based 
on public input received at a public meeting, the SAI selected eight 
agencies—including hospitals, schools, and municipalities—to audit. 
Subsequently, the SAI sought and received public complaints about the 
functioning of these agencies, investigated these complaints, and 
incorporated its findings into its audit reports. The SAI organized a 
subsequent public meeting to discuss audit reports, and officials from 
the audited entities, who attended the meeting, were asked to respond 
to the audit findings. An assessment of the initiative found that 
public input led to a large number of the audit findings reported from 
these pilot audits—and that many of these findings would not have been 
identified through a regular audit investigation.[Footnote 4] 

Second, the Joint Platform[Footnote 5] established during the XIX 
INCOSAI in Mexico could be used to document good practices in SAI-CSO 
collaboration that enhance oversight of government budgets. INTOSAI 
could then use the platform to encourage SAIs interested in 
replicating such good practices to begin pilot initiatives to 
collaborate with CSOs and assess the results of such collaboration.
IBP's Open Budget Survey provided a broad analysis of SAI practices in 
85 countries. The survey's results provide a baseline of current SAI 
performance, including independence, the timeliness of reports, and 
the level of interaction with the public. 

The results indicate that significant work is needed to ensure that 
SAIs are constituted within the institutional arrangements and perform 
within the standards set forth by the Lima Declaration. SAIs will be 
positioned to effectively hold their governments accountable only if 
they are able to attain these standards. 

For more information on the IBP and on the Open Budget Initiative 
contact Vivek Ramkumar at ramkumar@cbpp.org or go to IBP's Web sites: 
www.internationalbudget.org and www.openbudgetindex.org. 

Footnotes: 

[1] The IBP collaborates with civil society organizations in 
developing countries to analyze, monitor, and influence government 
budget processes, institutions, and outcomes. The partnership's aim is 
to make budget systems more responsive to the needs of poor and low-
income people in society and, accordingly, to make these systems more 
transparent and accountable to the public. 

[2] The following countries were induded in the Open Budget Survey 
2008: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Azerbaijan, 
Bangladesh, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, 
Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Chad, China, Colombia, 
Costa Rica, Croatia, the Czech Republic, the Democratic Republic of 
Congo, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El SAIvador, Equatorial 
Guinea, Fiji, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Honduras, 
India, Indonesia, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, the Kyrgyz Republic, 
Lebanon, Liberia, Macedonia, Malawi, Malaysia, Mexico, Mongolia, 
Morocco, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, 
Norway, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Peru, the Philippines, Poland, 
Romania, Russia, Rwanda, Sao Tome e Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, 
Serbia, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, 
Tanzania, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, the 
United Kingdom, the United States, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yemen, and 
Zambia. 

[3] The 44 countries include the 27 countries where audit reports are 
not publicly available. 

[4] Source: International Budget Partnership. See 
www.internationalbudgetorgfresourcednewsletter44.htm#Honduras. 

[5] At the XIX Congress in Mexico in 2007, INTOSAI established a joint 
platform with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social 
Affairs (UNDESA) and the International Budget Partnership to examine 
how SAIs can foster collaborative practices that will increase civil 
society participation in the audit process. More information on the 
Joint Platform is available in this Journal at 
http://www.intosaijournaLorg/pdfljan2008.pdf p.22. 

[End of section] 

Reporting on Nonfinancial Information: 

by Michel Admiraal, Royal Nivra, and Rudi Turksema, Netherlands Court 
of Audit: 

The past few years have seen a growing focus on social responsibility 
and policy results in the public sector. Governors, politicians, 
controllers, and government audit offices have become more interested 
in performance information in budgets and reports. Much of the 
information on social performance and effects is of a nonfinancial 
nature. It does not concern uniform measurable monetary units but 
rather numbers or processes and systems. Public sector users are 
especially interested in nonfinancial information, which reflects the 
results and effects of government policy. Therefore, the reliability 
and relevance of this information are highly important. Auditors can 
play an important role in providing assurance on the reliability of 
nonfinancial information. 

Unlike reporting on financial information, reporting of nonfinancial 
effects is still comparatively new, and no generally accepted 
principles are yet available. Moreover, the data are very diverse; the 
more qualitative the data are, the more difficult they are to measure 
and assess. Also, the audit of nonfinancial information is a new audit
subject for many auditors. For this reason, Royal Nivra (the Dutch 
organization for the accounting profession) initiated a project that 
resulted in the Nivra guide Nonfinancial information in progress, a 
guide to the reporting and assurance of nonfinancial information in 
the public sector. The guide aims to help develop a universal basis 
for reporting and providing assurance on nonfinancial information. It 
is the result of the work of representatives from different sections 
and disciplines in the Dutch public sector, including the Netherlands 
Court of Audit, the Dutch SAI. 

This article presents the main findings reported in the guide, 
including a number of recommendations and an agenda for the future 
audit of nonfinancial information. 

Need for Guidance on Nonfinancial Information: 

For financial information, comprehensive registration systems and 
generally accepted principles for presenting information have been in 
existence for a considerable time. However, this is not the case for 
nonfinancial information, where there are fewer safeguards for 
reliability and the quality requirements for the information are not
yet standardized. Because suitable criteria and a frame of reference 
for nonfinancial information are not available, it is not always 
possible or desirable to provide assurance, especially in regard to 
measuring policy effects. A theatrical performance may be performed 
perfectly and meet all kinds of objective quality standards, but the 
audience determines whether they consider the performance a success. 
Nonfinancial information, therefore, requires special diligence in 
terms of its definition, frame of reference. and reporting. 

In the guide, we use the following definition for nonfinancial 
information: 

Nonfinancial information comprises all quantitative and qualitative 
data on the policy pursued, the business operations, and the results 
of this policy in terms of output or outcome, without a direct link 
with a financial registration system. 

Auditors are increasingly being asked to provide assurance on 
nonfinancial information on a standalone basis or in conjunction with 
financial statements. However, auditors can only provide assurance if 
they have a clear framework for assessing the information. Currently, 
there is no generally accepted system for administering and reporting 
nonfinancial information, which concerns quantitative data such as 
numbers as well as policy effects that are difficult to measure 
because of the heterogeneity of the information and the divergent 
needs of users. This can give rise to debates on the interpretation or 
origin of the information. In sum, there is a need for more 
structuring, standardization and guidance. 

This topic is, of course, not new There have been various developments 
and initiatives with regard to nonfinancial information in the public 
sector. In some cases, a report on the process of preparing the 
information will suffice, while in others explicit assurance on the 
information itself is required. At an international level, INTOSAI has 
issued INTOSAI Guidance on Good Governance (INTOSAI GOV) 9220, 
Accounting Standards Framework Implementation Guide for SAIs: 
Management Discussion and Analysis of Financial, Performance and Other 
Information. This guideline identifies performance and governance 
information—which are of a nonfinancial nature—in addition to 
financial information. In the private sector, examples include 
corporate social responsibility reports, the involvement of the 
auditor with in-control statements, and privacy audits. The guide 
incorporates these ideas and initiatives. 

Reporting: 

Information is always reported in conformity with a specific frame of 
reference that presents the criteria or standards for the valuation, 
classification, and presentation of the information. Insofar as this 
framework relates to the presentation of information in a report, it 
is referred to as accounting principles. Financial reporting has gone 
through a long period of development, and generally accepted 
accounting principles are available for it. Examples include national 
standards issued by the Dutch Accounting Standards Board and 
international standards, such as International Financial Reporting 
Standards (private sector) or International Public Sector Accounting 
Standards (public sector). 

With nonfinancial information, the quality requirements for the 
information and the way in which it is presented are not uniform. Only 
limited professional rules of conduct for auditors in this information 
field have been developed. The debate on reporting and providing 
assurance on the information is in its early stages. In terms of 
standardization, corporate social responsibility reporting is at the 
forefront. The Global Reporting Initiative issues international 
sustainability reporting guidelines whose application is voluntary. 
Although Royal Nivra published Dutch standard COS 3410N (Assurance 
Engagements Relating to Sustainability Reports) in 2007, little
experience has been acquired with it in practice as yet. 

Management Cycle: 

To understand the reporting of nonfinancial information, it is 
instructive to consider public governance and the management cycle in 
public organizations. Reporting comprises the financial and 
nonfinancial information by which a public organization renders an 
account on its actions to its stakeholders. This information does not 
exist in a vacuum but forms part of a continuous cycle of planning, 
designing, implementing, measuring, and adjustment. 

As shown in figure 1, public governance requires an adequate 
distribution of responsibilities among the governing body and 
management, policy departments, the controller, the internal auditor, 
the external auditor, and the supervisor. The quality of the 
management cycle of nonfinancial information can only be safeguarded 
if it is integrated or embedded in the governance of the organization. 

Figure 1: Management Cycle for Public Governance: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Governing body and management; 
Policy departments; 
Public controller; 
Internal auditor. 

Phase 1: Formulating and adjusting mission, strategy, and policy 
objectives; 

Phase 2: Designing structure and information system 
(operationalization); 

Phase 3: Executing processes and registering outcomes in systems 
(implementation); (External Auditor); 

Phase 4: Rendering account via information and in conformity with an 
established frame of reference; (Supervisor); continue cycle at Phase 
1. 

Users: 

[End of figure] 

Auditors and Assurance: 

The auditor comes into play when users or providers of information 
want reliable information. His expertise and knowledge of 
organizations and information systems enable him to play a part in 
assessing nonfinancial information. The contents of this assessment 
are determined by the type of information, the method of rendering 
account, and the needs of the user. In this regard, it is important to 
distinguish between assurance and nonassurance. 

For an assurance engagement, the auditor provides an assurance report 
that gives a predetermined degree of assurance on the reliability of 
an account or another subject matter. This requires that a number of 
specific conditions be met. For a nonassurance engagement, factual 
findings are reported without expressing a conclusion or opinion or 
providing advice. Every type of engagement has its own rules and 
reports, as figure 2 illustrates in regard to International Federation 
of Accountants (IFAC) standards. 

Figure 2: International Framework of Assurance Engagements: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Auditor's engagements — IFAC Code of Ethics: 

Assurance engagements: 

Audit and review of historical financial information: 
Financial statements; 
Other financial reports; 
ISA 200 - 2999. 

Other assurance engagements; 
ISAE 3000 - 3999. 

Nonassurance engagements: 

Agreed-upon procedures: 
ISRS 4400. 

Other engagements. 

Legend: 
ISA = International Standards on Auditing. 

ISAE — International Standards on Assurance Engagements. 

ISRS = International Standards on Related Services. 

[End of figure] 

The client and user must decide upon the role of the auditor. With 
respect to nonfinancial information, the auditor can have one of three 
following roles: 

* Advisor on the design and improvement of nonfinancial information 
systems and processes in the organization by issuing advice. Only the 
code of ethics applies. 

* Reporter of factual findings on the process of preparing 
nonfinancial information without providing assurance on it. In this 
case, users draw their own conclusions based on the auditor's factual 
findings. The code of ethics and International Standard on Related 
Services (ISRS) 4400 provide the primary basis for this. 

* Assurance provider on the process of preparation or on the 
information itself as an outcome of this process. The auditor provides 
assurance on the reliability of the process or the information by 
providing an assurance report. The code of ethics, the International 
Framework of Assurance Engagements, and ISAE 3000 provide the primary 
basis for this. 

Other experts can be involved in the examination, such as electronic 
data processing auditors, management consultants, or social scientists. 

Recommendations: 

The reporting of nonfinancial information is more than an externally 
directed process with the auditor as assurance provider. It must also 
be part of the governance structure and focus on users' wishes. The 
guide groups propositions into three categories linked with the 
various phases in the management cycle of nonfinancial information. 
They are formulated so that they are relevant to both the public and 
private sectors. 

Strategy and policy: 

* An expectation gap on nonfinancial information can be avoided by the 
participation of and communication with all parties involved, in 
particular the users of the information. 

* The foundation for the reporting and assurance of nonfinancial 
information is at the governance level; accordingly, strategy and 
policy have to be formulated as specifically as possible. 

* An adequate system of nonfinancial information requires unambiguous, 
consistent, and transparent terms and definitions. 

* The reporting on nonfinancial information must focus a limited 
number of relevant policy priorities. 

* In view of the constantly changing social and political environment, 
the design of a nonfinancial information system must always allow for 
flexibility. 

Organization and Implementation: 

* Reporting and providing assurance on nonfinancial information must 
be an integral part of the governance and management control structure 
of an organization. 

* Providing assurance on nonfinancial information is only possible if 
the reporting is embedded in a system of planning and control. 

Reporting and Assurance: 

* Scope for flexibility is also necessary for the assurance of 
nonfinancial information; assurance must be a means to an end. 

* A clear choice must be made in advance regarding the subject matter 
and role of the auditor. 

* The further nonfinancial information is removed from financial 
information, the more desirable it is to work together in 
multidisciplinary teams with other experts. 

Agenda for the Future: 

The guide provides only a snapshot. Developments are continuing, 
especially in the field of information technology and public 
governance. Information is increasingly being provided in digitized 
form, and publication of information via the Internet is becoming the 
norm. The professional rules of auditors are also changing. The agenda 
for the future presents four recommendations for further initiatives 
in the field of the reporting and providing assurance on nonfinancial 
information. Every agenda item is intended for a specific target group 
and lays down a challenge for further action. 

Agenda for Governing Bodies: 

Nonfinancial information must have an explicit place within 
governance. Extensive communication on relevance and reliability is 
required with all parties involved. The accountancy profession can 
play a coordinating role in this context. 

Agenda for Accounting Institutions: 

Accounting institutions need to give auditors more guidance regarding 
examining and providing assurance on nonfinancial information. 

Agenda for Auditors: 

Auditors have a societal role and must also be willing to formulate an 
opinion that is clear to the users on nonfinancial information. 

Agenda for Technical Experts: 

New accounting and audit methods are needed to facilitate reporting 
and providing assurance on nonfinancial information. This is a task 
for controllers and internal and external auditors. 

Since there are many parallels between the public and private sectors, 
the guide's recommendations and agenda items are also applicable to 
the private sector. Governance attention at the highest level of 
organizations is an important condition for increased reporting and 
providing assurance on nonfinancial information. Governance and the 
management cycle of information are the foundations for reporting and 
providing assurance on nonfinancial information. 

More information on this project can be found on the Royal Nivra Web 
site: www.nivra.nl. The guide can be downloaded free of charge from 
the Nivra Web site at: 
www.nivra.nl/Sites/Files/0000024233_EnglishversionNFI.pdf. 

For additional information contact the authors: Michel Admiraal, 
project manager at Royal Nivra, at m.admiraal@nivra.nl and Rudi 
Turksema, performance audit expert at the Netherlands Court of Audit, 
at r.turksema@rekenkamer.nl. 

[End of section] 

The Strategic Plan: 

by Kirsten Astrup, INTOSAI Director of Strategic Planning: 

[Photograph: Kirsten Astrup] 

The importance of knowledge sharing cannot be stressed often enough. 
Sharing with and learning from each other directly mirrors the INTOSAI 
motto, "Mutual Experience Benefits All." As I have participated in the 
steering committee and subcommittee meetings of INTOSAI's strategic 
goal committees over the past 2 years, I have been able to observe a 
genuine team spirit and knowledge sharing in action. This team spirit 
has been reflected in the cooperation displayed while developing
the strategic plan and the way in which draft products are exposed and 
open for comments. Because I come from a work culture where 
cooperation is highly valued and respected, this type of information 
and knowledge sharing is not new to me—it is the cornerstone of 
teamwork manifested in three key principles: a cooperative team 
spirit, openness, and respect for others. These principles help us 
perform tasks in an efficient and uniform manner. 

In the last issue of the Journal, I promised to write about knowledge 
sharing in this issue as the inaugural meeting of the Knowledge 
Sharing Steering Committee for INTOSAI's strategic goal 3 was coming 
up as I was finishing my column. I greatly enjoyed participating in 
the meeting, which Vinod Rai, Comptroller and Auditor General of India 
chaired in an efficient and orderly manner. 

Knowledge Sharing is a concept we probably interpret in various ways, 
and before I went to the New Delhi meeting, I took some time to think 
about it. We share knowledge all the time. In our youth, our teachers 
share their knowledge about subjects such as mathematics, geography, 
or history. When we read a novel, the author brings us into his or her 
imaginary world, and we often put ourselves in the place of one or 
more of the characters, sharing their knowledge and feelings. However, 
this is not what we have in mind when we talk about the overarching 
issue of knowledge sharing in connection with INTOSAI's strategic 
plan. As stated in the plan, INTOSAI's aim is to "encourage SAI 
cooperation, collaboration, and continuous improvement through 
knowledge sharing." 

The structure of the Knowledge Sharing Committee is now similar to 
that of the committees under the two other operational goals in the 
strategic plan. However, this committee is by far the biggest, with 
104 participants under its umbrella. To give the reader some 
indication of the work areas under this goal, its nine working groups 
and the countries chairing them are listed below: 

* Audit of Public Debt, Mexico; 
* Information Technology Audit, India; 
* Environmental Auditing, Estonia; 
* Privatization, Economic Regulation, and Public-Private Partnerships, 
United Kingdom; 
* Program Evaluation, France; 
* Fight Against International Money Laundering and Corruption, Egypt 
(as of June 2009); 
* Accountability for and Audit of Disaster Related Aid, European Court 
of Audit; 
* Key National Indicators, Russian Federation; 
* Value and Benefits of SAIs, South Africa. 

In addition to the nine working groups, there are two task forces: 
INTOSAI Communication Strategy, chaired by the INTOSAI General 
Secretariat, and the Global Financial Crisis, chaired by the United 
States of America. This Journal is also part of INTOSAI strategic goal 
3. 

At the New Delhi meeting, the goal 3 working groups and task forces 
reported on their progress (see the "Inside INTOSAI" section of the 
April 2009 Journal for more information on their reports). I was happy 
to observe that the strategic plan continues to be implemented with 
great efficiency and broad-based support. The work of the working 
groups and task forces is very impressive, and the topics are important
for both INTOSAI as a whole and individual SAIs. The work includes 
conducting best practice studies, producing audit guidance material, 
and performing research on issues of mutual interest and concern. It 
also covers tools for benchmarks and communication that encourage 
knowledge sharing among SAIs. 

The meetings included many good discussions about the work ahead and 
what has been achieved. Much of the creative work within these working 
groups and task forces involves capturing and collecting the knowledge 
within the group and making it visible and accessible to others. 
Magnus Borge, the Director General of the INTOSAI Development 
Initiative (IDI), stated that when IDI was preparing its strategic 
plan for 2007-2012, its focus changed from information sharing to 
knowledge sharing as a result of a growing understanding of the 
distinction between the two. IDI views information as patterns 
extracted from a data set, while knowledge is actionable information 
or the capacity to act. IDI determined that knowledge sharing is only 
one of the four components of knowledge management—the others being 
creating, capturing, and applying knowledge. 

I believe it is important to keep all the different components of 
knowledge management in mind. Understandably, we have to create and 
capture knowledge before we can share it. Also, we need to concentrate 
on the fourth component—applying knowledge—and avoid the tendency to 
substitute knowledge for information and carry on as if they were the 
same thing. As I see it, the challenge for INTOSAI and individual SAls 
is making shared knowledge part of our own knowledge base and applying 
it productively to improve our individual and organizational 
performance and achieve our organizational goal of becoming a model 
international organization. 

In the October issue of the Journal, I plan to write about some 
aspects of SAI capacity building, goal 2 of the strategic plan. 

Please feel free to contact me at astrup@rechnungshof.gv.at if you 
have comments or would like to give feedback on issues related to the 
implementation of INTOSAI's strategic plan. 

[End of section] 

Inside INTOSI: 

Financial Audit Guidelines Subcommittee: 

Schedule for Exposure of Practice Notes: 

Practice notes for the following International Standards on Auditing 
(ISA) are scheduled for exposure from May through July 2009: 

* ISA 402—Audit Considerations relating to an Entity Using a Service 
Organization. 

* ISA 530—Audit Sampling. 

* ISA 501—Audit Evidence Regarding Specific Financial Statement 
Account Balances and Disclosures. 

* ISA 510—Initial Audit Engagements—Opening Balances. 

* ISA 520—Analytical Procedures. 

* ISA 540—Auditing Accounting Estimates, including Fair Value 
Accounting Estimates, and Related Disclosures. 

Practice notes for the following ISAs are scheduled for exposure from 
June through August 2009: 

* ISA 265—Communicating Deficiencies in Internal Control to Those 
Charged with Governance. 

* ISA 320—Materiality in Planning and Performing an Audit (re-
exposure). 

* ISA 620—Using the Work of an Auditor's Expert. 

In addition to these practice notes, the following two general 
International Standards of Supreme Audit Institutions (ISSAI) are 
planned for exposure from July through October 2009 after being 
approved at the PSC Steering Committee meeting in June: 

* ISSAI 1000—General Introduction to the INTOSAI Financial Audit 
Guidelines. 

* ISSAI 1003—Glossary of Terms to the INTOSAI Financial Audit 
Guidelines. 

Subcommittee Meetings: 

In April 2009, the European Court of Auditors hosted a Financial Audit 
Guidelines Subcommittee (FAS) meeting in Luxembourg. During the 
meeting, seven practice notes were approved for exposure and nine 
practice notes received final approval. 

In October 2009, FAS will hold its last meeting before the INTOSAI 
Governing Board meeting, where 36 ISSAIs will be presented for 
approval. 

Communication of ISSAIs: 

FAS has begun work on how to present the ISSAIs at INCOSAI XX in South 
Africa in 2010. It is hoped that the INTOSAI Financial Audit 
Guidelines will already be familiar to SAIs by that time and that all 
SAIs will want to implement the ISSAIs in their daily work. 

For additional information, please contact the FAS Secretariat: 

E-mail: projectsecretariat@riksrevisionen.se. 
Web site: http://psc.rigsrevisionen.dk/fas. 

First Meeting of the INTOSAI Working Group on the Value and Benefits 
of SAIs: 

The first meeting of the Working Group on the Value and Benefits of 
SAIs took place in Sun City, South Africa, March 9-11, 2009. The 
working group consists of 14 members representing almost all of 
INTOSAI's regional groups and different audit systems. 

[Photograph: Members of the Working Group on the Value and Benefits of 
SAIs at its initial meeting in South Africa in March 2009] 

During the meeting, the working group participants agreed that the 
value and benefits of SAIs relate to two key areas: SAIs are to be: 

* model independent organizations and; 

* institutions that make a difference in the lives of citizens. 

The participants then identified the fundamental requirements and 
related guiding principles that support each area. Taking into 
consideration the related work that INTOSAI has already done regarding 
fundamental requirements, the participants documented eight 
fundamental principles for the first area and five for the second. 

The following are the fundamental guiding principles for the first 
area, SAIs as model independent organizations. 

* the independence of SAIs,
* the transparency and accountability of SAIs,
* service excellence and quality considerations in all aspects of SAI 
functioning,
* good governance arrangements within SAIs,
* the ability of SAIs to be responsive to changing environments and 
stakeholder expectations without compromising independence,
* the application of a code of ethics by SAIs,
* knowledge sharing by SAIs, and, 
* enhancing the reputation of SAIs. 

The following are the fundamental guiding principles for the second 
area, SAIs as institutions that make a difference in the lives of 
citizens. 

* SAI contribute to improving the lives of citizens by enhancing 
accountability and transparency so that government is held accountable 
for using resources: 
- legally and responsibly;
- for the purposes intended; and, 
- economically, efficiently and effectively. 

* SAIs serve as a credible source of independent insight and guidance 
to facilitate continuous improvements in government. 

* SAIs empower the public to hold government accountable and 
responsive through: 
- objective information,
- the simplicity and clarity of their messages, and, 
- convenient access to audit reports and messages in relevant 
languages. 

* SAIs enable the legislature, one of its commissions, or those 
charged with governance to discharge their responsibilities to respond 
to audit findings and recommendations and take appropriate corrective 
action. 

* SAIs follow up on audit findings and recommendations and provide 
assurance on the implementation of recommendations. 

The working group anticipates that these requirements, guiding 
principles, and references to INTOSAI guidance and SAI practices will 
provide a framework for increasing the value and benefits of SAIs. 
Members of the working group are currently researching the 13 
requirements they identified in order to compile key questions that 
will form the basis for soliciting further input from SAIs. The 
framework and evaluation questions will be consolidated into a 
principal paper, which will be translated into the official INTOSAI 
languages and distributed to all SAls in September 2009. SAI responses 
to the principal paper will be used to compile a discussion paper for 
theme I of the XX INCOSAI to be held in South Africa in 2010. 

The discussion paper will be the focus of the working group's next 
meeting, which will be hosted by the SAI of the Accounts Chamber of 
the Russian Federation in March 2010. 

For additional information, contact the South African SAI: 

E-mail: namhlam@agsa.co.za. 
Web site: www.agsa.co.za. 

Task Force on the Global Financial Crisis: 

[Sidebar: In response to the current financial crisis and downturn in 
global economies, the INTOSAI Governing Board established the Task 
Force on the Global Financial Crisis at its 58th meeting in Vienna in 
November 2008. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) was 
asked to chair this effort. The first meeting of the task force was 
conducted by teleconference in late February 2009. The meeting held 
this June in Washington was the first in-person meeting of the task 
force. The United States chaired and hosted the meeting. Auditors 
general from Canada, Cyprus, Indonesia, Netherlands, Morocco, Saudi 
Arabia, Sweden, and Venezuela attended the meeting, along with 
representatives from Austria, Chile, China, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, 
Hungary, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Russia, Slovakia, and 
the United Kingdom. End of sidebar] 

What Role Do SAIs Have in the Global Financial Crisis? 

This question was the driving force behind a meeting of the INTOSAI 
Task Force on the Global Financial Crisis that was held in Washington 
June 29—July 1, 2009. 

Representatives from 24 of the 25 member SAIs on the task force met to 
exchange views on this critical subject and to hear from distinguished 
experts in the fields of finance, economics, public policy, 
international development, and public sector audit and accounting. 
Over the coming years, task force members will continue to consider 
the vital role of SAIs in addressing the current global financial 
crisis. 

[Photograph: Participants in the meeting of the Task Force on the 
Global Financial Crisis in Washington] 

The meeting was organized around four principal themes that 
encompassed the objectives from the task force terms of reference. The 
four themes were: 

* lessons learned and the genesis of the financial crisis;
* initial government responses to avert or minimize the crisis and the 
real economy;
* reforms, transparency, and accountability; and; 
* challenges to SAIs and international engagement. 

The agenda included presentations on the globalization of mortgage 
finance, the impact of accounting standards on financial statements 
and international standard-setting activities, economic recovery, and 
challenges to SAIs. Task force members shared a variety of insightful 
points of view regarding the following significant themes that 
recurred throughout the discussions and presentations. 

Ethics and Institutional Arrogance: 

This crisis may be demonstrating that ethics, accountability, 
transparency, and risk management are all highly interrelated. The 
causes of the current financial crisis include the role that corporate 
ethics and institutional "arrogance" may have played as well as a 
system of incentives that avoided consideration of longer term risks 
and instead focused on short-term gains and transactional fees. 
Participants discussed how societies can protect themselves from 
actions that while not criminal, are ultimately harmful. 

The Financial Crisis and the Real Economy: 

The financial sector's crisis has spilled over into the real economy. 
Even if financial markets and banks are stabilized, the current crisis 
may be prolonged if the real economy does not recover. One presenter 
suggested that in considering the effectiveness of government 
responses, we may have to consider moving beyond conventional economic 
remedies—such as large stimulus packages—since the economies of high-
income countries currently have massive excess capacity. This would 
require finding government stimulus programs that can unclog the 
"bottlenecks of growth" with innovative projects that can drive short-
term job creation and long-term growth. In such a case, the growth of 
the economy pays for the stimulus projects, instead of future taxes or 
inflation. 

Credibility and Transparency: 

The credibility and transparency of financial information, financial 
accounts, and financial instruments (securities, derivatives, etc.) 
are critical and essential factors in helping to reduce the risk of 
future crises. SAIs must be independent and can play an important role 
in addressing the actions of decision makers through best practices, 
lessons learned, professional standards, and ethics. 

Next Steps: 

The task force is working to organize itself to help the INTOSAI 
membership address the many challenges that this crisis presents. It 
is considering dividing its 25 members into smaller subgroups, each of 
which would focus on one of the following areas: 

* the causes of the financial crisis and possible actions to minimize 
future crises, 

* actions governments are taking to address the real economy and 
stabilize financial markets, and, 

* challenges facing SAIs. 

Communication tools are also being considered to ensure the sharing of 
knowledge and best practices among task force members and to 
facilitate collaboration within and across regions. 

For additional information, please contact GAO at spel@gao.gov. 

Pacific Association of Supreme Audit Institutions: 

Transitional Working Group Meeting Held in Wellington: 

The Pacific Association of Supreme Audit Institutions (PASAI) 
Transitional Working Group (TWG) met in Wellington, New Zealand, March 
23-25, 2009, to finalize the PASAI Charter, review program funding and 
staff resource arrangements, discuss a framework for a capacity 
development program, and develop a proposal for mobilizing a 
cooperative performance audit. PASAI, formerly known as SPASM, is 
changing its organizational structure and the TWG has been set up to 
oversee the implementation arrangements. 

Paul Allsworth, TWG Committee Chairperson and Auditor General of the 
Cook Islands, commented that the meeting successfully met its 
objectives, with substantive inputs from auditors general and partner 
agencies that allowed for good progress on design, planning, and 
resource allocation for the various initiatives planned under the 
Pacific Regional Audit Initiative (PRAT). 

Kevin Brady, Secretary General of PASAI and Controller and Auditor-
General of New Zealand, noted that the initiatives would be managed by 
the strengthened PASAI Secretariat, once it is established. In the 
interim, Eroni Vatuloka, formerly Auditor-General of Fiji, has been 
appointed to be Program Coordinator and will manage preparatory 
initiatives. 

The TWG comprises the auditors-general from the Cook Islands, New 
Zealand, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, and Tuvalu. Representatives 
from the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the Australian Agency for 
International Development (AusAID), the INTOSAI Development Initiative 
(IDI), the New Zealand International Aid and Development Agency 
(NZAID), the World Bank, and the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat 
also attended the Wellington meeting. 

Improving Public Auditing in Kiribati, Nauru and Tuvalu: 

As part of a new PASAI initiatives, auditors general from Kiribati, 
Nauru, and Tuvalu signed a memorandum of understanding in March 2009 
initiating the Subregional Audit Support (SAS) Program under the 
overall framework of the Pacific Regional Audit Initiative (PRAT). The 
PRAT was developed through an extensive 18-month consultative process 
guided by PASAI, with support from ADB and AusAID, under the Pacific 
Islands Forum Secretariat's coordination. The forum comprises 16 
independent and self-governing Pacific states and is the region's 
premier political and economic policy organization. 

Isaako Kine, SAS Program Committee Chairperson and Auditor General of 
Tuvalu, said the SAS Program's objective is to enable the public 
accounts of Kiribati, Nauru, and Tuvalu to be audited in a timely 
manner in accordance with uniformly high standards. He stated, "The 
SAS Program in turn will contribute to good governance through 
improved accountability and efficiency in providing audit scrutiny and 
oversight over the use of public resources in Kiribati, Nauru and 
Tuvalu....The SAS Program will also strengthen in-country financial 
management capacity and enhance accountability mechanisms." 

Barry Reid, the ADB's Senior Financial Management Specialist, remarked 
that the program has the unanimous support of PASAI members and 
Pacific Islands Forum leaders and economic ministers. Under the SAS 
program, a team will work with the three participating countries to 
conduct financial audits and, at a later point, performance audits. 
"SAS team members will be seconded from the Kiribati National Audit 
Office, the Nauru Audit Department, and the Office of the Auditor 
General of Tuvalu and will be led by external audit staff with 
practical auditing and training experience," explained Mr Reid. "The 
initial program period will be 2008-2012, at which point the program 
will be evaluated." 

Mr. Kine noted that the program will be managed by the strengthened 
PASAI Secretariat, once it is established, under the oversight of an 
SAS Program Committee. In the interim, the program will be established 
and managed by the SAS Program Coordinator under the SAS Program 
Committee's oversight. 

Tuiloma Neroni Slade, Secretary General of the Pacific Islands Forum 
Secretariat, said forum leaders and forum economic ministers have 
identified the audit initiative as an important regional undertaking. 
He stated that PRAT progress is an excellent demonstration of regional 
cooperation that pools scarce resources to support improved 
transparency and accountability in the management and use of public 
resources. Although more work remains to be done, the good progress 
reflects the commitment of all relevant stakeholders—national SAIs, 
which support the initiative; PASAI, which provides leadership and 
guidance; and the ADB, AusAID, and IDI, which provide financial and 
technical support. 

The SAS Program Committee, which was established to implement the SAS 
Program, met in Wellington, New Zealand, March 19-20 to make 
transition arrangements to mobilize staff resources so that 
cooperative audits can be undertaken in the three participating 
jurisdictions starting in the third quarter of 2009. The working group 
comprises the auditors-general from Kiribati, Nauru, and Tuvalu. 
Representatives from the ADB, AusAID, INTOSAI, and the Pacific Islands 
Forum Secretariat also attended the meeting. 

For additional information, contact PASAI: 

E-mail: perca@auditoffice.gov.ck; enquiry@oag.govt.nz. 
Web site: www.pasai.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. 

IDI Transregional Program on Public Debt Audit: 

In 2008, IDI launched the Transregional Capacity Building Program on 
Public Debt Audit. This program is designed to enhance the 
professional and organizational capacity of participating SAIs in 
public debt audit. Given the diversity of experience and development 
in this area, the program will address both the financial/compliance 
and performance audit approaches to public debt audit. It will be 
delivered in cooperation with the Debt Management Program (DMFAS) of 
the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the 
United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) and the 
INTOSAI Working Group on Public Debt. The program will run until 2011 
and will include online training in public debt audit, adaptation of 
INTOSAI guidance at the SAI level, and pilot audits of public debt. It 
will also enable SAIs to adapt public debt audit manuals so that they 
are aligned with international best practices. Twenty-eight SAIs from 
AFROSAI-E (English-speaking), AFROSAI-F/CREFIAF (French-speaking), 
ARABOSAI, ASOSAI, CAROSAI, EUROSAI and PASAI have been selected to 
take part in the program, which will be delivered in French and 
English. In April 2009, IDI representatives and a group of experts 
from SAIs, DMFAS, UNITAR, and the World Bank met in Tunisia to 
determine the curriculum, content, and design of the 8-week E-learning 
Course on Public Debt Audit, which will be delivered to all 
participating SAIs in October and November 2009. 

IDI Needs Assessment Guide Review Meeting: 

In April 2009, IDI program and institutional strengthening managers 
responsible for the delivery of needs assessment programs throughout 
INTOSAI's regions met in Oslo, Norway. The objective of this meeting 
was to capitalize on the lessons learned during these programs, review 
the IDI needs assessment framework and toolkit, and write a needs 
assessment handbook. The handbook will be published and made available 
to the INTOSAI community in the second half of 2009. 

IDI/ASOSAI Blended Train-the-Trainer Program: 

IDI and ASOSAI launched a blended train-the-trainer program in 2008 to 
strengthen the regional training network and train a new group of IDI-
certified training specialists. After completing the Course Design and 
Development Workshop and the online practicum phase, the 37 
participants reconvened in China in May 2009 for the program's last 
activity—a 3-week Instructional Techniques Workshop. During the 
workshop, the participants were trained in instructional skills and 
also learned to facilitate other capacity-building activities. 

IDI/OLACEFS Needs Assessment Program: 

In 2008, IDI and OLACEFS launched a capacity-building needs assessment 
program in the region. Because of the great interest in this program, 
it was delivered twice during 2008 and 2009. In June 2009, needs 
assessment teams from the second group of eight SAIs convened in 
Ecuador for the Needs Assessment Workshop. Following this workshop, 
the teams will conduct institutional needs assessments in their SAIs 
before reconvening to receive feedback on their reports at a review 
meeting at the end of 2009. 

IDI/CAROSAI Quality Assurance Program for Financial Audits: 

A group of instructors and IDI staff met in Antigua in June 2009 to 
design and develop an 8-day workshop that will be the next step of the 
IDI/CAROSAI Quality Assurance Program for Financial Audits. The 
workshop is to be delivered in 2009. 

IDI/OLACEFS Blended Train-the-Trainer Program: 

IDI staff and regional instructors met in Ecuador in June 2009 to plan 
for the upcoming blended train-the-trainer program, which is scheduled 
to be delivered in 2010. 

IDI/ARABOSAI Workshop on Facilitation Skills: 

IDI staff and experts from the region gathered in Syria in June 2009 
to design and develop courseware for the IDI/ARABOSAI Workshop on 
Facilitation Skills, which will be delivered later in 2009. 

IDI and Liaison with the INTOSAI Community: 

IDI representatives have attended and reported at the following events 
in recent months: AFROSAI-E Governing Board meeting (Zambia), meeting 
of the INTOSAI Working Group on IT Audit (Qatar), VI OLACEFS/EUROSAI 
Conference (Venezuela), and the steering committee meeting of the 
INTOSAI Professional Standards Committee (Brazil). 

Contacting IDI: 

For additional information, contact IDI: 
E-mail: idi@idi.no. 
Web site: www.idi.no. 

[End of section] 

INTOSAI Events: 

14-16: 
Meeting of the Working Group on the Fight against International Money 
Laundering and Corruption, Jakarta, Indonesia. 

July 20-24: 
PASAI Congress, Palau. 

August 3-6: 
8th Meeting of the Working Group on Environmental Auditing Steering 
Committee, Bali, Indonesia 

August 17-18: 
Meeting Ad-hoc Group Audit Quality Control, London, England. 

September TBD: 
1st Meeting of the Committee on Knowledge Sharing and Knowledge 
Services, Seoul, Korea. 

October 4-10: 
XIX General Assembly of OLACEFS, Asuncion, Paraguay. 

October 12-14: 
XI ASOSAI Assembly, Islamabad, Pakistan. 

October 12-14: 
Financial Audit Guidelines Subcommittee meeting, London, England. 

October 28-29: 
Professional Standards Committee/EUROSAI ISSAI Awareness-raising 
Seminar, Warsaw, Poland. 

November: 16-18: 
59th INTOSAI Governing Board, Cape Town, South Africa. 

TBD = To be determined. 

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 regionwide 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.