On 13th of March 2008 senior advisor director
of audit of the Swedish National Audit Office Tony Angleryd within the framework
of the Twinning project implementation delivered a speech at the seminar for
more than 50 specialists of the MainCRO concerning audit of efficiency (AE),
which is also called administrative audit (AA), performance audit and other
terms.
«Cooperation between the MainCRO and Swedish experts started
8 years ago. Tony Angleryd is one of those advisors and trainers owing to whom
audit of efficiency is at present of prominent value in the activity of the
state control and revision service bodies», as M.Barynina noted in opening
address. «It is even more pleasant that Swedish National Financial Management
Authority works with us within the framework of the Twinning project». The
seminar was attended by specialists of the MainCRO who had been among the first
to learn basics of audit of efficiency, including Liudmyla Gutsaliuk, Volodymyr
Dihtiariov, Maryna Barynina, Volodymyr Leshchenko and many others.
Having expressed gratitude to T.Angleryd and
V.Reutersward (Resident Twinning Advisor) for support of “KRU” and generous
transfer of experience to national inspectors, M.Barynina characterized in
brief the Concept of PIFC Development and Plan of Actions for its
implementation, which will be performed partially within the framework of
Twinning project.
V.Reutersward told about main components of the
Twinning project, directions for development of the MainCRO’s activity during
its implementation and actions planned for the nearest future. V.Reutersward
noted that improvement of methodology and practice of audit of efficiency is
one of tasks of the project.
As T.Angleryd informed, date of AE birth in Sweden is
considered 1921, but only in 1968 it reached the level, at which modern stage
of its development started. Audit in Sweden, as in other countries, started
with financial audit of some operations (check of transactions), gradually extending
the circle of objects and improving methods of audit. Changes in use of AE at
different times were caused by various demands of society, lack of resources,
political views and improvement of governance. Today with the help of AE
outcomes of governmental reforms are evaluated.
T.Angleryd underlined that an important condition for
AE development is creation of proper environment in public governance system,
including public finances management, the elements of which are, in particular,
program-targeted method of budgeting, result-oriented activity, responsibility
and accountability, transparency in activity.
Having assessed positively normative and legal base
of the SCRS bodies on AE and some reports, compiled upon outcomes of audits of
efficiency of budget programs performance and local budgets execution,
T.Angleryd gave recommendations aimed at their improvement. In particular, he
advised to make clear distinctions between standards and guidelines, with
consideration to relevant international analogues, and to pay more attention to
improvement of reports, which are to be written each time in easier and easier
for understanding language and to be more oriented at readers. Ascertaining
that at present funds are almost the sole audit object, carried out by the SCRS
bodies, the expert underscored that following the international standards and
best practice audit of funds is an inconsiderable part of AE. The history
affirms that concentration on resources (their cost-efficient use) is
characteristic of countries with a problematic level of financial and budgetary
discipline or by insufficient budget.
Implementing reforms in public sector, the Government
needs now and with each year will need more and more independent professional
objective assessment not only of budget programs performance and local budgets
execution (their efficiency, cost-efficiency and effectiveness) but of
activity, not related directly to funds or property.
As T. Angleryd assured, AE can be conducted in any
segment of the public sector – from one certain type of activity of one central
executive authority (services, programs, liabilities, tasks, so on) to
comprehensive systemic studies. AE is free to choose the subject and methods of
research, and considering complexity of the public sector and variety of issues
related to this type of activity, AE is comprehensive by its nature.
Having highly assessed the MainCRO as a progressive,
powerful and influential body on the ground of Ukraine, rich in professional
personnel, experience, methodology and up-to-date knowledge T.Angleryd has
predicted that the MainCRO itself will perform in the future the role of
“locomotive” concerning execution of AE for the Government and suggested moving
in this very direction.
These important for the MainCRO issues were discussed
with participation of the Chief of PIFC Harmonization Department Maryna
Barynina, Director of Department of Control in the Sphere of Authorities and
Defence Liudmyla Gutsaliuk, Deputy Director of Department of Control in the
Sphere of Social Protection of Population Vitaliy Hrybovskyi, Chief Auditor of
Department of Organizational Operations Volodymyr Berladyn, specialists of
other structural subdivisions of the MainCRO.
