Gregory V. Kisunko (World Bank) Results of the RIFIX Work Group Member Pre-Event Surveys 2013, 2014 and 2016 October 17, 2016 Gregory V. Kisunko (World Bank)

Disclaimer This presentation does not cover all questions asked in the survey. The following charts omit the “other” option from presentation and estimates, unless otherwise specified. The discussion covers only 21 countries that have responded to the survey, e.g. statement “2/3 of all countries” means 14 out of 21 countries responded. Cross period (2013/2014 – 2016) comparisons included only countries that responded to either 2013 (14 countries) or 2014 (14 countries) and 2016 rounds of the survey. Some countries do not have all the institutions the questionnaire is referring to and therefore, percentages given in the presentation are usually taking this into account by reducing the denominator where appropriate and showing relevant numbers in parenthesis.

Existing institutions of control QQ2-3 Existing institutions of control QQ2-3. Do you have the following institutions in your country and when were they established?   Do you have the following institutions in your country Do you have the following institutions in your country: Country external audit internal audit financial inspection ALB Yes ARM BIH No Out in 2014 BUL CRO CZE GEO In in 2014 HUN KAZ KOS KYR MAC In in 2016 MOL MON Out in 2016 RUS ROM TAJ ? TUR UKR UZB Supreme audit (SA) institutions are on average the oldest: 80% (16/20) of respondents established this institution more than 10 years ago; Almost 2/3 of respondents report that financial inspections (FI) were established over 10 year ago; at the same time 25% of responded countries reported that they do not have FIOs (BIH, KOS, KYR, MON, and TAJ). Institutions of internal audit in public sector are the “youngest” on average – only 50% of them established over 10 years ago. Among those countries (14) that have all three institutions, five established them over 10 year ago (ALB, BUL, CRO, CZE, and HUN).

Regulating institutional interactions (summary) QQ. 4, 5, 6 Regulating institutional interactions (summary) QQ. 4, 5, 6. Are there any documents in your country regulating interaction between? Country supreme audit and internal audit financial inspection ALB Yes ARM No BIH BEL BUL CRO CZE GEO HUN KAZ KOS KYR MAC MOL MON RUS ROM TAJ Yes ?? TUR UKR UZB Five countries – Albania, Bulgaria, Kazakhstan, Romania, and Ukraine - have regulatory base for interactions among all institutions; Croatia, Montenegro and Romania do not have any regulatory documents of this nature, although it has all three institutions. Overall, interactions with FI are least regulated, while interactions with SA is best regulated. Regulatory base differs widely: 47% of countries have some sort of regulations for SA&FI, 63% for SA&FI, and 79% for SA&IA interactions, respectively. Green shading suggest that institution was not reported present in previous periods; red - that it was not reported in 2016, while reported in earlier periods.

To the head of institution where it exists Accountability of Internal Audit QQ7.2. Please indicate accountability of internal audit 2014 2016 Country To the Parliament To the Government To MoF To the head of institution where it exists Fully independent ALB   X ARM x BIH BEL BUL CRO CZE GEO HUN KAZ KOS KYR MAC MOL MON RUS ROM TAJ TUR UKR UZB

To the head of institution where it exists Accountability of Financial Inspections QQ7.2. Please indicate accountability of financial inspections   2014 2016 Country To the President To the Parliament To the Government To MoF To the head of institution where it exists ALB X ARM x BIH BEL BUL CRO CZE GEO HUN KAZ KOS KYR MAC MOL MON RUS ROM  x TAJ TUR UKR UZB

Placement of: internal audit QQ8. 2014 2016 Country 1 level budget users 2 level budget users In local govern-ment bodies Other public entities ALB   Mandatory ARM Optional BIH BEL BUL CRO CZE GEO HUN KAZ KOS KYR MAC MOL MON RUS ROM TAJ TUR UKR UZB

Placement of: financial inspections Q9.   2014 2016 By the President By the Govern-ment By the MoF By local govern-ment bodies By ministries By the Ministry of Finance ALB x ARM BEL BIH BUL CRO CZE GEO HUN KAZ KOS KYR MAC MOL MON ROM RUS TAJ TUR UKR UZB

Financial Inspections Coverage by audits and inspections is significant, but not even (comparison of 2014 and 2016) Q.10. Scope of subjects to audits/inspections Supreme Audit Internal Audit Financial Inspections 2014-2016 ARM BiH BUL CRO HUN KAZ KYR MAC MOL MON ROM RUS Operational processes   2 -1 1 Financial operations Financial statements All State budget resources Local budget resources Donor funds Entities budget and budgets of institutions subordinate to an entity All state administration organizations All local administration organizations Institutions subordinate to an entity Structural units of a entity Compliance Efficiency and effectiveness + 6 20 9 4 3 13 - 5 21 11 29 7 10 8 41 = 12 109 111 61

Coverage by audits and inspections is significant, but not even, 2016 Q.10. Scope of subjects to audits/inspections   ALB ARM BEL BIH BUL CRO CZE GEO HUN KAZ KOS KYR MAC MOL MON ROM RUS TAJ TUR UKR UZB Financial operations SA 2 Financial statements IA FI All State budget resources Local budget resources Budgets of entities and its subordinates Donor funds 7 18 10 8 17 11 15 16 12 5 9

Coverage by audits and inspections is significant, but not even, 2016 Q.10. Scope of subjects to audits/inspections   ALB ARM BEL BIH BUL CRO CZE GEO HUN KAZ KOS KYR MAC MOL MON ROM RUS TAJ TUR UKR UZB All state administration organizations SA 2 All local administration organizations Subordinate to an entity Structural units of a entity IA FI Compliance Efficiency and effectiveness Operational processes 8 16 12 9 19 10 14 20 17 3 11

Reforms of oversight institutions Q11 Reforms of oversight institutions Q11. Are there (have there been) any reforms in your country connected with structural changes related to functions of SA, IA, FI? Do they coordinate reforms between them? Country 2016 2014 2013 ALB 3   1 ARM 2 BEL BIH BUL CRO CZE GEO HUN KAZ KOS KYR MAC MOL MON ROM RUS TAJ TUR UKR UZB Country 2016 2014 2013 ALB 3   1 ARM 2 BIH BUL CRO GEO HUN KAZ KYR MAC MOL MON ROM RUS UKR 9 6 5 4 Yes, coordinated Yes, not coordinated No, but planning No and not planning

Duplication of functions between regulation institutions, 2013, 2104 and 2016 Q13. Do you believe there is duplication of functions between …   2016 2014 2013 Country SA & IA IA & FI SA & FI ALB No Yes ARM BEL BIH BUL CRO CZE GEO HUN KAZ KOS KYR MAC MOL MON ROM RUS TAJ TUR UKR UZB 74% 69% 53% 75% 73% 45% 38% 64% 42%   2016 2013 Country SA & IA IA & FI SA & FI ALB No Yes ARM BIH BUL CRO GEO HUN KAZ KYR MOL MON ROM RUS UKR 79% 64% 38% 42%

Clarity of the functional division between regulation institutions, 2013, 2014 and 2016 Q12. How do you evaluate division of functions in your country between …   2016 2014 2013 Country SA & IA IA & FI SA & FI ALB 2 3 ARM 1 BEL BIH BUL CRO CZE GEO HUN KAZ KOS KYR MAC MOL MON ROM RUS TAJ TUR UKR UZB   2016 2013 Country SA & IA IA & FI SA & FI ALB 2 3 ARM 1 BIH BUL CRO GEO HUN KAZ KYR MOL MON ROM RUS UKR 50% 43% 36% 21% 14% Sufficient and clear Insufficiently clear, needs improvement Unclear

Understanding of differences in functions of regulation institutions by heads of budget organizations and SA, IA and FI specialists QQ.19 – 19.1. How do you rate the degree of understanding of differences in functions … by heads of budget organizations and by specialists working for SA, IA and FI Heads Specialists

Understanding of differences in functions of regulation institutions by heads of budget organizations and SA, IA and FI specialists QQ.19 – 19.1. How do you rate the degree of understanding of differences in functions … by heads of budget organizations and by specialists working for SA, IA and FI Heads Specialists

Cooperation between regulation institutions, 2016 and 2013 Q20 Cooperation between regulation institutions, 2016 and 2013 Q20. How do you evaluate cooperation in your country between … SA & IA SA & FI IA & FI

Cooperation between regulation institutions, 2016, 2014 and 2013 Q20 Cooperation between regulation institutions, 2016, 2014 and 2013 Q20. How do you evaluate cooperation in your country between … QQ. 21-23. How is cooperation between institutions implemented …   SA & IA SA & FI IA & FI ALB 2 3 ARM BEL 1 BIH BUL CRO CZE GEO HUN KAZ KOS KYR MAC MOL MON ROM RUS TAJ TUR UKR UZB 9/19 7/16 6/16 47% 44% 38%   SA & IA 2016 2014 2013 Coordination of plans 26% 50% 47% Exchange of reports, other information 74% 75% 60% Participation in commissions, councils, etc 21% 42% Joint control measures 16% 25% 0% Systematic use of reports/ work results 27% SA & FI 31% 45% 23% 56% 82% 38% 36% 15% 19% 18% IA & FI 33% 55% 17% Sufficient and clear Insufficiently clear, needs improvement Rather bad

Access to information QQ. 26-28. Please indicate types of information where mutual access between institutions is ensured. SA & IA, 2016   SA & IA, 2014 SA & FI, 2016 SA & FI, 2014 FI & IA, 2016 FI & IA, 2014 Country Annual plans Strategic plans Summary reports Individual reports Electronic database ARM -1 2 BIH 1 BUL CRO HUN KAZ KYR MAC MOL MON ROM RUS SA<= 33% 50% 25% 17% 0% 18% 27% 9% 45% 36% SA=> 8% <=> 58% 75% 42% 67% 55% 73% 64%

Thank you