SAIs around the world are supported and organised through regional bodies, normally grouped according to either language or geography. A separate regional survey collected responses from ten INTOSAI regional and sub-regional bodies, notably AFROSAI, AFROSAI-E, ARABOSAI, ASEANSAI, ASOSAI, CAROSAI, CREFIAF, EUROSAI, OLACEFS and PASAI.³³ They support and represent SAIs in different ways, in accordance with their unique mandates, member composition and context.

This chapter is based on analysis of the regional responses. The survey sought information about the governance structure of these organisations, and about their practices benchmarked against the principles outlined in the INTOSAI Capacity Building Committee (CBC) Regional Professionalisation Framework. The framework identifies values added by regional organisations through four strategic dimensions.

These are (1) Governance, Organisation and Sustainability, (2) Strategic Management, (3) Advocacy and Communications, and (4) Capacity Development support. Each dimension is regarded as important, but the emphasis may vary depending on the circumstances in the region. The chapter aims to summarise what role regional bodies in INTOSAI currently have, and to identify where there are opportunities to explore more.

All INTOSAI regions have Strategic Plans, and across the regions, main strategic priorities include professionalisation of auditors and improving audit practices. Similarly, the technical support offered by regions to their members aligns with these strategic priorities and is focused on developing audit capacity. Regional Secretariats are small and quite diverse, yet all the organisations facilitate or provide technical support related to audits.

Most often they lead in implementation and adaptation of INTOSAI standards in their region. Regional strategic priorities appear to have been established on the needs expressed, and input provided by their member SAIs. The responses to the regional survey also show that the majority of regions rely on external financial support in addition to their membership fees, to finance capacity development to its members. Further, they often partner with other INTOSAI bodies or technical partner to provide support to their members.

It should also be noted that a large majority of regions indicate support for SAI independence and strategic management as strategic priorities.

Only half of the regions indicate that gender is a strategic priority. In their response, EUROSAI also state that rather than identifying specific priorities, their strategic goals are defined in a broader manner which covers both professional development and supporting institutional capacity development.

In CAROSAI and PASAI they don’t only use member's input to inform their plan, but also to a greater extent link the plan to their member SAIs’ Strategic Plans. Almost all regions report to have carried out needs assessment of members’ needs, surveying members and holding discussions to inform the development of Strategic Plans. Half of the regions also indicate that they have used SAI members’ own performance data to inform the planning.

Only three regions, CAROSAI, CREFIAF and PASAI, used gender analyses to inform their Strategic Plan.

When it comes to monitoring and reporting, there is more variation, but the tendency is that regions are focusing more on these aspects for internal reporting purposes. Nine out of ten regions report having mechanisms to monitor the Strategic Plan as well as the Operational Plans, but two regions also point out the need for monitoring and evaluation resources to better monitor performance against the Strategic Plan.

PASAI is the region reporting to have practices most in line with the principles identified by the CBC professional regions framework. PASAI reports that it has fully carried out resource planning for both human and financial resources for all activities, having projected and monitored costs for its strategy and using a cost-monitoring system that allows for reporting to stakeholders, in addition to comply largely with good practices in reporting. Overall, regions use information systems for their performance data to a limited extent, and only two regions have established a risk register.

For evaluating and reporting, practices are varied and there seems to be potential for more transparency. Regions report using internal assessments, surveys to and dialogue with members to inform the implementation of their strategic and annual plan. Eight of the ten regions who responded say that they have conducted a formal assessment of their performance, and consistent with the evaluation approach, only three regions used external assessors to evaluate their plan.

While almost all regions report to have published some type of financial and accountability report annually, only one has developed a performance report that integrates those of all operational entities of the region. Only one region, PASAI, publishes results from peer reviews and independent external assessments.

Low use and dissemination of performance information not only affects the strategic management of the regions, but more specifically limits the potential for good knowledge management, feeding existing information into related processes, and making existing knowledge useful in various projects.

Responses from the survey show that the most common type of support provided by regions is technical tools and materials. Half of regions say they regularly provide support on needs assessment and strategic planning.

Partnering with other global INTOSAI bodies seem to be important to facilitate the delivery of capacity development support. This can include working with IDI with targeted support or using technical experts from INTOSAI committees (such as PSC and its sub-committees) and can add value to work on relevant audit disciplines.

The survey shows that of only two regions who indicate to regularly provide on-the-job training, both indicate to do so in collaboration with an INTOSAI body.³⁴ Four regions regularly provide on-site specific support, three of them in collaboration with an INTOSAI body. This is not the case for those providing occasional support, suggesting that partnering is a necessity to establish more regular direct support to members. Three out of ten regions regularly provide leadership training, however, none in collaboration with INTOSAI global bodies, reflecting the lack of focus on leadership training within INTOSAI, which was also seen for SAIs responding to the SAI survey.

This is closely followed by ensuring that the project is linked to the region's strategic priorities and having clear project objectives. Regions also indicate that it helps to have a good link between the region's own priorities and donor priorities, echoing the need for external collaboration to provide regular support to members. Amongst the reasons provided on factors leading to failures, the most common factor for failure indicated is lack of human resources. This experience also resonates with the small staff numbers in regions, together with most regions' dependency on in-kind support.

When it comes to the regional organisations' role as supporters for SAIs in obtaining bilateral financial and technical support, only two regions report that they regularly support development of proposals for support, while three regions regularly broker solutions in response to a SAI's request to apply to support.

It's noteworthy that almost no regions provide support through e-learning or provide support on software application (2/10 on both). This suggests that electronic modalities for capacity development support are still lagging behind. This could be explained by the fact that few regional bodies have staff with specific ICT competencies, as suggested by staff reporting in section 1. Also, support on gender training either directed at the organisational level or for integration in audit work is very irregular.

For audit professionalisation, the majority of regional organisations take on a role of providing support on application of ISSAIs (7 of 10) and support that is adapted to the region (8 of 10). They also provide technical updates (7 of 10) and respond to technical queries (7 of 10).

While six out of ten regions say they have established collaboration with standard-setters, less than half state they added to INTOSAI competency framework or provided input to INTOSAI development of methodology, conducted research and only two have established advisory boards with members outside INTOSAI, such as academia.

This reporting aligns well with the responses on topical areas where regions have offered support during 2017-2019. The majority of regional bodies have provided support in the three main audit disciplines, Performance, Compliance and Financial Audit, as well as methodology for quality management.

Six regions offered support on SDGs, and five on digital governance. Again, support to gender audit was only offered by one region.

Regions were also asked to indicate which activities they have carried out to support institutional strengthening and professionalisation and methodology, in SAIs. For supporting institutional strengthening, regions seem to be playing a role of initiator, coordinator and promoter. Seven out of ten regional organisations helped implement mechanisms to identify SAI needs, such as SAI PMF, and similarly coordinated sharing of resources based on SAIs’ needs. Six regions report to have promoted the principles of ethics and integrity within SAIs Only two have supported strategic planning. Four regions report to have supported or advised on strengthening of legal frameworks and independence.

Support on communications with external stakeholders was reported as a top five strategic priority across regional bodies. Still, only five of ten has offered capacity development on communications in the last three years.

While support to human resources and leadership isn’t extensively covered in the CBC framework, it is usually considered as a part of organisational strengthening. When asked about topics offered pertaining to organisational capacities such as human resources and leadership skills, this was less often supported through regional initiatives.