Abstract

This article provides an overview of performance audits, focusing on the key aspects of public sector auditing conducted by Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs). It explains how SAIs, including SAI Myanmar, help build public trust and ensure the responsible use of public resources by promoting accountability, efficiency, effectiveness, and transparency in governance. This article also explores SAI Myanmar’s experience with performance audits, examining how they evaluate government programs, interventions, and institutions based on the principles of 3Es while identifying areas for improvement. A case study on disaster management activities further illustrates the audit process and its impact. Additionally, the article outlines the methods used for data collection, audit approaches, and key principles from ISAM. Finally, it concludes by summarising the key audit findings, recommendations, and overall impact, emphasising how performance audits foster public sector accountability and help achieve better outcomes.

Introduction

Public sector auditing, as championed by Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs), plays a key role in making a difference to the lives of citizens. When SAIs audit government and public sector organisations, it helps build trust in society. Their audits encourage those managing public resources to use them wisely. Such awareness promotes good values, strengthens accountability, and leads to better decision-making. When SAIs release their audit reports and findings, citizens can ensure public resource managers are held accountable. In this way SAIs promote the efficiency, accountability, effectiveness and transparency of public administration.¹ Among the three main types of public-sector audit (Financial, Performance and Compliance), Performance audit focuses on whether interventions, programmes and institutions are performing in accordance with the principles of economy, efficiency and effectiveness and whether there is room for improvement. Performance audit is examined against suitable criteria, and the causes of deviations from those criteria or other problems are analysed. The aim is to answer key audit questions and to provide recommendations for improvement.²

Performance auditing in the public sector

It is essential for reviewing government programs and ensuring activities are efficient, effective, and cost-effective. By measuring program results against set goals and standards, these audits give stakeholders important insights into the benefits of public spending. Performance auditors set clear goals, scope, and methods to ensure their evaluations are thorough, fair, and meet public sector standards for transparency and accountability. The findings from these audits are highly valuable for policymakers, helping them make better decisions, improve policies, and create new ones that benefit the public. A key part of performance auditing is assessing value for money, which means checking if government programs provide services in a cost-effective and efficient way. This includes reviewing how resources are used, how well processes work, and whether the expected results are achieved. Performance auditors use various methods to collect and analyse data, such as interviews, surveys, data analysis, and comparisons. The findings of performance audits are presented through comprehensive reports that highlight areas of strength, weakness, and opportunities for improvement. These reports are vital for informing policymakers and program managers about how well government programs are working, helping them make decisions and create policies based on solid evidence. By using real-life examples, performance audits show how they can lead to positive changes, improve public sector performance, and ensure accountability to taxpayers and citizens.

Performance Audit Unit in SAI Myanmar

The Performance Audit Unit at SAI Myanmar was established in 2019 and follows the standards outlined in the International Framework for Professional Pronouncements (IFPP). To support this work, the following steps were taken:

(a) Translated ISSAI 300, ISSAI 3000, and related guidelines into the Myanmar language.

(b) Developed and distributed an ISSAI-based Performance Audit Handbook along with guidance on how to follow up on performance audits.

Auditors have participated in both online and in-person workshops and seminars organised by INTOSAI, ASOSAI, ASEANSAI, and other organisations. These sessions covered topics such as performance audits, environmental audits, SDG audits and other related topics. The knowledge and insights gained from these workshops, seminars, and knowledge-sharing sessions with other SAIs have been documented for further study and future reference. While Performance Audits are currently being conducted at the head office, efforts are also underway to expand training, organise workshops, and provide recommendations at the state and regional Auditor General’s offices.

Performance audit conducted by SAI Myanmar

SAI Myanmar's performance audits have mainly focused on the following areas:

(a) Health Sector: Examining medicine procurement and the condition of the National Public Health System.

(b) Transport Sector: Assessing urban transport, its environmental impact, and the progress of railway projects.

(c) Agriculture Sector: Evaluating water resource management and the use of pesticides in farming.

(d) Mining Sector: Reviewing oil well drilling and its environmental effects.

(e) Environmental and Crisis Management: Investigating waste management and its effects on public health and the environment, as well as disaster management during floods.

Among these, the performance audit on disaster management activities will be discussed in detail below.

Audit experiences in disaster management

Myanmar is experiencing noticeable changes in weather, including shifting rainfall patterns and delayed monsoon seasons. Climate change is also making storms in the Bay of Bengal and the Andaman Sea stronger. These storms are now occurring at unusual times and reaching Myanmar’s coast unexpectedly, leading to severe flooding. To better respond to natural disasters, it is important to analyse disasters, improve preparedness, issue early warnings on time, and provide effective support. These efforts will help protect and improve the well-being of affected communities.

Every year, from June to September, heavy rains lead to floods and landslides. As a result, people have to be moved to safer areas. The floods may cause health issues, destroy crop fields, and disrupt transportation, creating difficulties for people from affected areas. Among the various disasters, floods have a severe impact on people. To ensure their well-being and reduce the loss of lives, homes, and property, necessary supplies were purchased for support.

The National Committee, along with 12 working committees, was formed to improve disaster response. For a performance audit on disaster preparedness, 7 of these committees were selected for evaluation.

SAI Myanmar conducted a performance audit focusing on disaster preparedness and flood relief efforts. Flooding is a major annual disaster in Myanmar, causing loss of life, homes, and property. According to the 2019 disaster survey report, Karen State had the highest number of people affected by floods and followed by Mon State.

The audit assessed the effectiveness of preparedness measures and their reliability for the public. Key areas of focus included establishing an early warning system, evaluating environmental damage, and implementing preventive measures.

When this performance audit evaluated on the effectiveness of disaster preparedness and recovery efforts, it was focused on the activities of the relevant Departments and its working committees, particularly in minimising the loss of human lives, homes, and possessions due to natural disasters. The audit also examined how well the government supported people affected by floods. Audit objectives were to assess how well the government was prepared for disasters and to evaluate the effectiveness of recovery efforts after a disaster. In audit scope, subject matter was disaster preparedness activities and support provided for the welfare of people affected by floods. The Audit Period is from 2018 to 2021.

Audit Methodology

In this audit, several methods were used to gather information. We analysed documents, sent questionnaires to staff at the Relevant Department (Head Office) and flood victims in Mon and Kayin States, and conducted interviews with relevant officials. We also obtained written confirmations to support our findings. We applied the Problem-Oriented and System-Oriented Approaches and followed key principles from IDI’s SDG Audit Models-ISAM, such as the Whole of Government Approach (WOGA), Multi-Stakeholder Engagement, and Leave No One Behind (LNOB). For this audit, we used various methods to collect data:

(a) Document Review: examining relevant documents related to disaster management and preparedness.

(b) Surveys: sending questionnaires to staff at the relevant Departments and flood victims in Mon and Kayin States to gather their views.

(c) Interviews: interviewing key officials to gain deeper insights into disaster management practices.

(d) Written Confirmations: obtaining written confirmations from involved parties to verify our findings.

Key Audit Finding and Recommendation

These methods provided a range of data to assess the effectiveness of disaster management efforts. Key Findings are as follows:

(a) Some weaknesses of preparing the action plan after analysing the causes and impacts of flooding

(b) Some weaknesses in providing relevant facts and figures for the National Indicator Framework (NIF)

(c) Some weaknesses in the provision for disaster relief support at a reasonable rate, and the unavailability of disaster relief support and equipment on time

(d) Some weaknesses in the arrangement for the appointment or allocation of qualified/ proficient staff, and preparation and responses in line with their responsibilities

(e) Weaknesses in conducting sufficient research on disaster mitigation and the requirement for disaster information sharing

(f) Weakness in disaster-related training, workshop, seminar, and demonstration activities for disaster mitigation as per the plan

Key Audit Recommendations are as follows:

(a) Identify potential disaster risks across the country in advance.

(b) Approve technical recommendations for factories, workshops, buildings, streets, and bridges that may pose risks.

(c) Review recommendations in field inspection reports and ensure necessary actions are taken.

(d) Develop disaster response plans based on local needs to prevent gaps in preparedness before, during and after disasters.

(e) Analyse the causes and impacts of water-related disasters and include the findings in their annual work plans. These results should be submitted to the Ministry for coordination and implementation.

(f) Reassessing the distribution of food and support to affected communities to ensure their well-being.

(g) Preparedness and response plans should be developed using flood analysis data, including weather satellite information, flood-affected areas, rainfall patterns, and recorded rainfall levels.

General Audit Impact

As a result of the audit, the audited entities have taken several actions to enhance disaster preparedness and response:

(a) Flood Victim Data Collection and Reporting: Directed regional responsible persons to compile data on flood-affected individuals, categorised by gender and age. Ensured related regional departments provide flood victim data for NIF Indicator 4.3.I.

(b) Disaster Response and Support: Issued instructions for timely disaster support. Strengthened coordination between the regional and the National Committee. Planned to increase support rates for victims. Conducted training at the ASEAN level.

(c) Infrastructure and Environmental Protection: Planned to cultivate mangrove and watershed plantations in selected townships. Implemented watershed conservation in multipurpose dams and reservoirs. Issued technical recommendations for disaster-resilient infrastructure, including buildings, roads, and bridges.

(d) Capacity Building and Collaboration: Enhanced awareness programs and strengthened coordination among ministries, regional governments, and disaster management teams. Advanced planning and budgeting for essential equipment.

The performance audit highlighted that strong coordination among disaster management committees helped mitigate the impact of Cyclone MOCHA, which struck on May 14, 2023.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this article highlights the objective of performance audits and their essential role in strengthening public sector accountability. Through a case study, it illustrates the scope of audit coverage and how it helps public sector entities improve cooperation, fulfil responsibilities, and achieve intended outcomes. This article also emphasises the impact of well-structured audit reports in enhancing transparency, accountability, and decision-making, ultimately contributing to better governance. It underscores the importance of clearly defining objectives, goals, laws, and regulations to ensure effective implementation at every stage of the process. Additionally, performance audits are shown to play a key role in improving collaboration and task management, leading to significant benefits for audited entities. Lastly, the article highlights the importance of follow-up audits in assessing whether management has taken action on audit recommendations and whether meaningful progress has been made. By providing a practical example, it reinforces how Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) contribute to fostering accountability and improving public sector performance.

References

1. INTOSAI. 2019 . INTOSAI- P 12, The Value and Benefits of Supreme Audit Institutions–making a difference to the lives of citizens

2. INTOSAI. 2019. ISSAI 100, Fundamental Principles of Public-Sector Auditing