"Analysis of opportunities on the use of KNI for international comparisons in the context of sustainable development" Dr. Gyula Pulay Supervisory manager

The purpose of the subproject The purpose of the subproject is to test the applicability of the internationally accepted sustainable development indicators (which can be considered as key national indicators as well) during the audits conducted by supreme audit institutions (SAIs).

General principles of the work of the subgroup Each member of the subgroup carries out an audit in one of the indicated themes using one or a set of indicators selected from the internationally accepted sustainable development indicators. The coordinator SAI (State Audit Office of Hungary) is responsible for the preparation of a summary of the audit experience (comparative analysis). The subgroup shall inform the Working Group about the activity and findings of the subgroup. The coordinator and subgroup members would report on the experience of the relevant audits at the meeting of the Working Group.

The organisation of the subproject The subproject was implemented by those members of the Working Group who volunteered for this task. Each member of the subgroup selects his own topic(s) in which the SAI intends to test the application of sustainable development indicators and selects the indicators too. The coordinator develops an audit framework and sends it to the members.

Members of the subgroup The following SAIs undertook to conduct a pilot audit: –Austrian SAI, –Bulgarian SAI, –Kazakh SAI, –Russian SAI.

Questions to the members of the subproject What were the actual audits launched by your SAI wherein sustainable development indicators were included? Exactly which sustainable development indicators were used (World Bank, EU, OECD, etc.)? Please give us –a short description of the audit, –the duration of the audit Please explain –how the key indicators worked within the audit, –available results of the audit.

Selection of the audit theme Austrian SAI: demographic changes: public finance sustainability; Bulgarian SAI: social protection of vulnerable groups. Kazakh SAI: the evaluation of progress of the project implementation of «the Road-map of employment-2020» Program in the Ministry of Labor and Social security of the Republic of Kazakhstan

Selection of the audit theme by the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation Scrutiny of the draft state programs. Based on the findings of the supervison of each individual state program, an opinion of the Accounts Chamber was presented to the Government. Audit of the draft state programs and audit of their realization - also including on-site audits Monitoring of process of realization of state programs is being carried out.

Selection of the audit indicators Austrian SAI: retirement age; Bulgarian SAI: risk of poverty; Russian SAI: state program indicators, including –macro-characteristics of the economy and human well-being (e. g. position of the Russian Federation in the Ease of Doing Business index, life expectancy at birth –specific characteristics of certain domains of socio- economic development (e. g; nursery enrollment for ages between 2 months and 3 years, workforce productivity in certain branches of industry

Indicators for the Kazakh audit broadness of child welfare system number of labor law violations exposed and remedied by the State labor inspection service; number of occupational injuries (prevalence of accidents; per thousand people); proportion of population with incomes below minimum living wage; combined ratio of the population receiving income replaced by pension payment; number of population affected by special social services; proportion of the realized individual programs on rehabilitation of disabled people; level of satisfaction with quality of public services; «Level of unemployment, including female and youth» indicator was considered during the evaluation too

The duration of the Russian activities Scrutiny of 38 draft state programs were carried out between February and April A summed up analytical report of the system of state programs was compiled and presented to the Parliament in May 2014; Audits of the draft programs were carried out between May and August A report summary on the development and realization of the system of state programs has been prepared. It was presented to the President of the Russian Federation on September 1, 2014; The time span of the monitoring activities is from May 2014 to May 2015.

Short description of the Russian audit Methods used in particular were: –monitoring the coherence of indicators used for the state program compared with other strategic planning documents. presence of relevant strategic planning indicators in the state program; use of the same definitions and values of indicators in the strategic planning document and the state program. –audit of compliance of the state program indicators with MED guidelines. –performance audit of the state program as realized by the Gov. contrasted to the indicators.

Results of the Russian activities audits carried out in 2014 revealed several cases of minor non-compliance between the state program indicators and the MED guidelines and also some differences in the use of indicators within strategic planning documents.

Short description of the Kazakh audit 1. evaluation was carried out in 2 months, assessing the implementation of the financing plan, the realization/execution of relevant program objectives. indicators were re-considered over time, according to the changes in policy objectives.

Short description of the Kazakh audit 2. The Strategic Plan of the Ministry determined the objectives, has foreseen the financing and also set the specific activities and the period of realization. the activities implemented and objectives achived were evaluated by using indicators gained from comprehensive calculations of statistical data and the reports of public bodies.

Results of the Kazakh audit Applying the abovementioned indicators allowed to evaluate the results of control activities and to confirm the achievement of Program’s goals.

Questions to be answered: Whether the applied indicators were specific enough to create a direct link between the indicator and the audited theme? How could the different scales – on the one hand macro indicators on the other the audits carried out at the level of sectors or institutions be reconciled. Were the applied indicators supported by the country’s national statistics? Whether the methodology of the selection of the indicators was correct?

Thank you for your attention!