HOAP Tanzania PRBS 2004-05. Review of Progress and Emerging Conclusions 9 June 2006 – Dar es Salaam. HOAP Tanzania PRBS 2004-05. Two aspects to the audit: Financial matters Procurement. HOAP Tanzania PRBS 2004-05. Key Findings - Financial Audit: Financial reporting Audit Report
Review of Progress and Emerging Conclusions
9 June 2006 – Dar es Salaam
Two aspects to the audit:
Key Findings - Financial Audit:
Findings and Observations
Findings - Financial Audit
Financial Reporting key findings:
clear audit trail for donor payments to Govt Tanzania
annual accounts are prepared promptly
2004-05 not fully compliant with cash-based IPSAS
OAG Audit key findings(1):
audit undertaken promptly
audit opinion on each Vote supported by Auditor General\'s Report
AG audit not fully compliant with INTOSAI standards
OAG Audit key findings(2):
3% adverse opinion.
What action is being taken to remove these qualifications?
OAG Audit key findings(3):
summarised AG Report for Parliament draws out main issues
PAC takes evidence on AG reports
PRBS Monitoring Key Findings:
mid-year and full-year monitoring
monitoring by joint teams from donors (not just BRBS) and Govt of Tanzania
overall conclusions drawn
action plans preapred
Observations on Financial Audit
Financial Reporting – Observations (1)
The system of cash budgeting and accounting includes items of “commitment” which are not cash expenditures;
200 page accounts obscure accountability
Significant under- and over-spends against budget
Financial Reporting – Observations (2)
Fraud and corruption estimated by the World Bank at 20% of Govt spending = US$300 m a year
AG Report identifies US$35m of irregular payments (plus US$70m “unvouched”)
Denial of risk of fraud.
OAG Audit – Observations (1)
Auditor General identifies four key weaknesses in Public Expenditure:
Conflicts of Interest
Non-compliance with law
How are these being addressed?
OAG Audit – Observations (2)
PEFAR recognises weaknesses in OAG capacity and working methodologies
Audit opinions are not fully compliant with International Standards.
No qualifications due to the four high level matters
Possible qualification from failure to apply IPSAS fully
Some items included as errors are technical, or due to timing differences.
Monitoring - Observations
Data holes – for example in poverty monitoring – not well aligned to MDG reporting in 2010 & 2015
PAF changed between 2004-05 and now moving towards MKUKUTA – not consistent year-on-year