unprinted annex to prop. 1 s (2013 2014) how the ministry of ......5 2014. spot checks do not alter...

1

Unprinted annex to

Prop. 1 S (2013–2014)

How the Ministry of Foreign Affairs deals with financial irregularities

2

Table of contents:

I. Introduction

II. Developments

III. Multilateral organisations

IV. Changes in how the zero tolerance policy is implemented

V. Discussion of selected cases

VI. Annexes

1. Closed cases involving documented irregularities, 1 October 2012 to 30

September 2013

2. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ zero-tolerance policy on corruption. How

can it best be put into practice? 2010

3. Guidelines for Dealing with Suspicion of Financial Irregularities, 2011

4. Norad Guidelines for Dealing with Suspicion of Financial Irregularities, 2011

3

I. Introduction

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs will intensify its efforts to prevent, uncover and follow up on

the misuse of funds allocated to the Ministry by the Storting (the Norwegian parliament).

Greater emphasis will also be given to ensuring that funds are used effectively to achieve

adopted goals. The capacity of the Foreign Service Control Unit (FSCU) to monitor all parts

of the foreign service and the use of funds allocated to the Ministry by the Storting will be

strengthened.

In the period from its establishment in 2007 to 1 October 2013, the FSCU registered 496 cases

for examination, and closed 334. Irregularities were documented in 160 of the closed cases.

These figures include cases dealt with by the whistleblowing channels at Norad, FK Norway

and Norfund and reported to the FSCU. EEA funds and funds provided to Norway Grants and

Innovation Norway are not included in the overview.

The FSCU currently comprises five staff and Inspector General who reports directly to the

Secretary General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In March 2011, Norad established a

whistleblowing channel within its Department of Quality Assurance, which reports to

Norad’s Director General and has a corresponding control function in respect of funds

provided to Norad by the Ministry. At present, Norad’s whistleblowing channel consists

of a manager and staff that are drawn on as needed, totalling approximately two full-time

positions. FK Norway and Norfund have both integrated the control function into their

ordinary administrative structures.

The guiding principle for the work of the FSCU is that funds allocated to the Ministry of

Foreign Affairs by the Storting must be used as laid down in budget decisions and

applicable legislation. Where funds are provided under an allocation agreement, the

recipient must use the funds as specified in the agreement. In the case of procurements, the

good or service must accord with the purchase contract. The Ministry’s principle of zero

tolerance for financial irregularities, as defined in the appended memo of 9 June 2010,

specifies that any deviation from applicable legislation or agreements must be addressed,

whether intentional or the result of negligence. In other words, the zero tolerance policy

has a wider scope than the meanings ordinarily given to the terms “irregularities” and

“corruption”. Most cases that have resulted in penalties have involved embezzlement,

theft, accounting irregularities or a combination of these things, although ordinary

breaches of contract also result in steps being taken.

In the event of a deviation, efforts must be made to secure the repayment of misused funds

to the Ministry. Norad, FK Norway and Norfund apply the same principle in seeking the

recovery of funds allocated to them by the Ministry.

4

II. Developments

The diagram below shows that the number of registered irregularities cases grew

steadily in the period 2007–2012, although the figures for the first three quarters of

2013 suggest that the trend may be flattening out.

Development in numbers of new whistleblowing cases and resolved cases per calendar year, 2007 to 30 September

2013. New whistleblowing cases in red; resolved cases in green.

There are strong indications that the rise in the number of cases is linked to the

lowering of the reporting threshold through greater awareness of the zero tolerance

policy and greater familiarity with the Foreign Service Control Unit (FSCU) and

Norad’s whistleblowing channel. One indicator in this regard is that more reports are

being made at an early stage.

The FSCU visited several embassies in 2012 and 2013 as part of following up on a risk

assessment. The embassy visits have resulted in an increase in the number of reports

received. Thus far, visits have been made to the embassies in Afghanistan, Tanzania,

Uganda, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Palestine, South Africa, Malawi, Pakistan and Mozambique.

The visits have included training for embassy staff, reviews of cases the embassy

considers to present a high risk of irregularities, and practical follow-up of ongoing

irregularities cases. In addition to these comprehensive follow-up visits, the FSCU has

also visited embassies in, for example, the Philippines, Indonesia, Lebanon, Jordan and

the USA. Further, the FSCU aims to have completed visits to Sudan, South Sudan,

Ethiopia, Zambia and Brazil by the summer of 2014.

In March, the FSCU conducted spot checks on humanitarian projects in Lebanon, Jordan

and Palestine. The checks revealed examples of very good grant administration, examples

of deficient partner reporting on irregularities, and cases now being followed up as

potential irregularities cases. A corresponding round of checks on projects in East Africa

will be completed in 2013. Four corresponding rounds of spot checks are planned for

5

2014.

Spot checks do not alter the obligation of grant recipients to report potential

irregularities. Grant recipients must notify the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or Norad

when suspicions arise that it would be irresponsible not to investigate further.

Generally, loose allegations that are not specified in some way will not fall into this

category. On the other hand, specific allegations that are deemed sufficiently serious to

be investigated by the grant recipient will trigger the reporting duty. It is unacceptable

for the FSCU/Norad’s Fraud Unit not to be notified until an investigation has been

completed. In their allocation agreements, grant recipients assume a reporting duty and

accept that this may result in the freezing of payments.

The purpose of freezing payments is to prevent the misuse of further funds. The Ministry of

Foreign Affairs therefore seeks to restrict freezing orders to the project, sub-project or part of

the organisation involved in the suspected irregularities. This is conditional upon the FSCU

receiving sufficient information, measures being implemented to reduce the risk of

additional deviations, and the FSCU having continued confidence in the grant recipient. Late

reporting is likely to be sufficient to weaken confidence. The Ministry hopes that the positive

dialogue established with many large grant recipients will enable freezing orders to be used

to prevent continued misuse while ensuring that innocent third-party beneficiaries are not

affected.

The FSCU invited the largest Norwegian NGOs to discuss issues of mutual interest

at a meeting in June. Such meetings will now be held every six months. Through

the Norwegian Development Network, the FSCU is engaged in a similar dialogue

with smaller organisations. An important dialogue topic will be the lessons that can

be learned from spot checks and the processing of irregularities cases.

It has also been decided that, starting in 2014, the FSCU will invite large grant recipients to

attend an annual seminar to discuss developments, new challenges and best practice. Selected

multilateral organisations will also be invited.

6

III. Multilateral organisations

The UN agencies, global funds and development banks through which Norway channels its

donations are obliged to check that the funds they receive are used in accordance with their

own guidelines and the relevant allocation agreements. However, this does not mean that the

Ministry of Foreign Affairs has renounced its responsibility to supervise how these

organisations use Norwegian funds. Such follow-up is conducted through the organisations’

governing bodies, through reports to the Ministry on projects and programmes funded by

Norway, and through reports from Norwegian embassies.

Support that international organisations receive in the form of core contributions and

membership fees is regulated solely by board-approved strategic frameworks and the

organisations’ internal guidelines. It is impossible to trace any financial irregularities to the

contributions of individual donors, and Norway thus has no separate right of inspection.

Information that the Ministry receives about irregularities linked to such funds is therefore

not included in the Ministry’s summaries of received reports and irregularities cases. Details

of cases involving financial irregularities are published in the annual reports and on the

websites of oversight bodies. See, for example, the United Nations Development Programme

(www.undp.org), the World Bank (www.worldbank.org), the Asian Development Bank

(www.adb.org), the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GFATM)

(http://www.theglobalfund.org), the GAVI Alliance (GAVI) (www.gavialliance.org) and the

UN Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) (www.un.org/Depts/oios), which conductes

investigations on behalf of UN agencies that do not have their own oversight bodies.

Norway is working actively within governing bodies to strengthen the independence and

capacity of internal oversight bodies. One result is the strengthening of UNICEF’s

investigations unit in two consecutive board-approved budgets. In addition, an allocation of

NOK 5 million to the OIOS investigations unit has been proposed to enable it to recruit

additional investigators. It is envisaged that this support will be maintained for four years in

total. A Norwegian junior expert with an audit background will be seconded to UNDP’s

internal audit department for the period 2014–2016, and consideration is being given to

making special allocations to the oversight units of other organisations. In the past year, the

Foreign Service Control Unit (FSCU) provided resources for investigations organised by the

oversight units of UNDP, UNOPS and the African Development Bank – three oversight

units with which the FSCU has established close cooperation.

Whistleblowers are an important means by which oversight bodies become aware of

irregularities. Norway is working actively to ensure that multilateral organisations make

whistleblowing posters easily available and that whistleblowers are protected.

As regards earmarked contributions by Norway, its agreements with multilateral

organisations provide that suspicions of financial irregularities must be reported to the

Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Such agreements generally contain a repayment clause, although

in many cases so many exceptions are specified that the exception becomes the rule. In the

approaching negotiations on new framework agreements, Norway will request improved

reporting on the use of Norwegian funds and on repayment, so that the requirements become

more consistent with those applicable to other grant recipients.

To make it easier for multilateral organisations to inform the Ministry of irregularities in

programmes and projects supported by Norway, the FSCU has concluded memorandums of

understanding (MoUs) with the oversight bodies of the World Bank, UNDP and UNOPS.

The MoUs supplement the reporting duty these organisations have assumed under

7

framework and/or project agreements. They also contain procedures for exchanging and

handling confidential information, and facilitate closer cooperation on investigations. It has

been decided that Norway will request corresponding MoUs between the FSCU and the

oversight units of all multilateral organisations that receive material amounts of support from

Norway.

Improved organisational reporting cannot replace close Norwegian follow-up. Following up

on the work done by multilateral organisations at country level is a constant challenge for the

foreign service, but experience shows that embassies that actively monitor the local work of

multilateral organisations do uncover irregularities linked to projects and programmes

supported by Norway and run by the organisations. Accordingly, certain embassies will be

temporarily reinforced to support monitoring of multilateral organisations’ use of Norwegian

funds. The first such position will be established in 2014.

On Norway’s initiative, the Nordic countries have developed a framework for assessing the

implementation of the zero tolerance policy in multilateral organisations. The first report

focuses on UNICEF, and is currently being finalised. The next organisation to be reviewed

is the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East

(UNRWA).

Thorough risk assessments are an important instrument for preventing irregularities. The

FSCU has contacted the World Bank to propose the exchange of information about and

cooperation on analysing the risk of irregularities in development projects in particular

countries and/or sectors of mutual interest. The aim is to prepare joint analyses. Other

countries and organisations may also be invited to join this collaboration.

Together with Iceland and Liechtenstein, Norway funds projects in central and southern

European countries through the EEA financial mechanism. The mechanism is administered

by the Financial Mechanism Office (FMO) in Brussels (part of the EFTA Secretariat)

(http://www.eeagrants.org/). The FMO also administers funds for projects in these countries

that are provided solely by Norway (the Norwegian financial mechanism, Norway Grants).

Separate administrative procedure rules have been developed for the FMO, which publishes

its own summary of irregularities cases it has closed. Similarly, Innovation Norway (IN)

(http://www.innovasjonnorge.no/) publishes a list of closed irregularities cases connected to

the cooperation programmes with Bulgaria and Romania that IN administers for the Ministry

of Foreign Affairs.

8

IV. Changes in how the zero tolerance policy is implemented

The zero tolerance policy memo of 2010, which guides implementation of the policy by the

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, will be revised in 2014. Although the zero tolerance policy will

continue to apply, experience gained since 2010 shows that certain adjustments can be made

to make the policy more effective.

The requirements the Ministry imposes on grant recipients will be reviewed with the aim of

improving the Ministry’s ability to monitor the use of grant funds and results achievement.

New agreements will ensure the repayment of funds that are not used as envisaged, introduce

a stricter reporting duty, and require grant recipients to share all relevant information about

cases with the Foreign Service Control Unit (FSCU). Failure to report or to share information

about irregularities and corresponding breaches of trust will be regarded as a gross breach of

agreement that may result in a claim for repayment of the full grant amount.

Prop. 1 S provides that the FSCU is to assist NGOs to a greater extent than at present in the conduct of special audits, although this will not alter the responsibility of the NGOs. This will give the FSCU more information about such cases, including through the formulation of the audit mandate and insight into the audit process while it is ongoing. The latter means, for example, that the audit mandate may be expanded if other matters are discovered along the way that may indicate irregularities but that do not fall within the ambit of the ongoing investigation. This will also lighten the burden on the NGOs. Special audits are often expensive and demanding in terms of both planning and follow-up. The plan is to triple the FSCU’s budget for special audits and similar services. A substantial proportion of the increase will be used to assist grant recipients that inform the FSCU of potential irregularities shortly after suspicions arise and that request professional and financial support from the FSCU for the investigation.

9

V. Discussion of selected cases

The following four cases illustrate the problems dealt with by the Foreign Service

Control Unit (FSCU). They have been selected from the 160 cases in which irregularities

have been documented.

Risk analyses

In 2010, Norwegian Church Aid (KN) informed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of potential

financial irregularities involving an organisation with which KN was cooperating in Kosovo.

One of the organisation’s employees was dismissed for borrowing funds from the

organisation’s bank account. In 2011, the Ministry was told by KN that an audit report and

accounts relating to two of the partner’s KN-funded projects were deemed deficient and would

not be approved. KN engaged an international audit firm to conduct an external audit. The

auditors concluded that they could not make a statement on the local partner’s accounts due to a

lack of documentation.

Despite the fact that the projects appeared to have been completed, KN repaid the full amount

of support received from the Ministry for the projects administered by the partner organisation

in Kosovo.

Through the allocation agreement, KN had accepted responsibility for the administration of

the funds. Given that KN had permitted its local partner to administer almost all of the grant

funds in accordance with the agreement, it was responsible for the amount for which local

partner could not account.

As part of its dialogue with NGOs, the Ministry will provide them with information intended

to boost the quality of their risk and partner assessments.

At the strategic level, the Ministry has contacted the World Bank to propose cooperation on

risk assessments at country/sector level.

The need for independent controls

The Norwegian embassy in Lilongwe has collaborated with the National Audit Office in

Malawi since 2002. The funds provided by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs are separate from

the National Audit Office’s professional cooperation with the Office of the Auditor General

of Norway, which is funded by the latter. Various other donors, including DFID and the

World Bank, are also involved in funding the National Audit Office in Malawi.

In 2011, the Ministry was notified of suspicions of weak financial management and deviations

in the administration of Norwegian funds. The Office of the Auditor General of Norway and

the Norwegian embassy suspended their cooperation with the National Audit Office in

Malawi, and a special audit of the organisation was conducted in collaboration with DFID in

2012. The special audit revealed deficient internal control procedures, misuse of travel

allowances and the use of Norwegian funds for other purposes than agreed.

The National Audit Office in Malawi repaid the misused amount and implemented a range of risk-reducing measures, including new financial management and accounting procedures.

10

Following implementation of the risk-reducing measures and receipt of the repayment, Norway announced that it was prepared to discuss renewed cooperation with the National Audit Office.

This case demonstrates that even the central oversight body in a partner country can have

weak financial management. This calls for alternative control mechanisms. The Ministry of

Foreign Affairs has on several occasions requested permission to engage international audit

firms to review the accounts of ministries that receive support. Some countries have

consented to this. Cooperation between donor countries

Until 2011, Norway and several other donor countries funded a programme to promote peace,

stability and development in the northern part of Uganda, which has been severely impacted

by civil war.

In the autumn of 2012, the Office of the Auditor General of Uganda discovered that project

funds had been siphoned off by disloyal officials, including some connected to the Office of

the Prime Minister.

Norway reacted by freezing all aid to Uganda and demanding repayment of the embezzled

funds, which totalled approximately NOK 25 million. The Ugandan authorities repaid the

money in February 2013.

It is important to note that the scandal was uncovered by the Office of the Auditor General of

Uganda, which has improved its ability to perform its control function through collaboration

with the Office of the Auditor General of Norway.

Fruitful cooperation and the exchange of information between the affected donor countries

helped to secure full insight into the case, and enabled Norway to recover the misused funds.

The case has given new impetus to operational cooperation between different oversight units.

Bilateral contact between the Foreign Service Control Unit and oversight units in non-

Nordic donor countries has become both closer and broader in terms of the number of donor

countries involved.

Agreements with multilateral organisations

In 2010, the embassy in Addis Ababa was informed that an internal audit had revealed the

loss of a substantial amount due to irregularities at the African Union (AU) office in Kinshasa

(DR Congo) in 2009. The funds had been taken from a special AU fund supported by Norway

and various other donor countries. The suspects had been reported to the police, and the

presumed key perpetrator was being sought through INTERPOL. Further Norwegian

donations to the fund were immediately put on hold.

As part of the AU’s own investigation into the irregularities, it engaged an international audit

firm in 2011. The firm’s report was shared with the donor countries in early 2012.

Based on the repayment clause in the allocation agreement, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

requested repayment of a proportion of the lost funds corresponding to Norway’s share of the

contributions received by the fund in 2009. The AU accepted Norway’s claim, and repaid the

funds at the end of 2012.

11

At the local level, some donor countries expressed disapproval of Norway’s repayment claim,

given that it was the only country to make one. Norway encountered greater understanding at

government level in the relevant countries. One country stated that it had not enforced its

repayment clause because the AU had reimbursed the loss using its own operational funds.

This case illustrates the importance of strong agreements that give Norway rights of both

thorough insight and repayment. This is one of relatively few cases in which Norway has

received a refund from a multilateral organisation. Success in this instance was primarily due

to the repayment clause, which is largely identical to the clause used in agreements with other

grant recipients. When negotiating agreements with UN agencies in future, Norway will now

require the inclusion of reporting and repayment clauses that generally correspond to the

requirements imposed on other grant recipients, including the AU.

12

VI. Annexes

1. Closed cases involving documented irregularities, 1 October 2012 to 30

September 2013

2. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ zero-tolerance policy on corruption. How can it

best be put into practice? 2010

3. Guidelines for Dealing with Suspicion of Financial Irregularities, 2011

4. Norad’s Guidelines for Dealing with Suspicion of Financial Irregularities, 2011

Closed cases involving documented irregularities, 1 October 2012 to 30 September 2013

Closed

(month and

year)

Country/

region

Administrator

Repaid

amount

(NOK)

Brief description of the case

Oct. 2012

Uganda

Haukeland University Hospital

17 009

Insufficient documentation of

expenses by local partner.

Oct. 2012

East Timor

The World Bank

0

Embezzlement. The suspect has been

reported to the police. The agreement

with the World Bank does not entitle

Norway to claim repayment.

Nov. 2012

Nigeria

International Institute of

Tropical Agriculture

0

Investment in loss-making project

investigated as fraud. The institute

has been placed under supervision.

The agreement does not entitle


Nov. 2012

The Philippines

Forum for Women and

Development

32 660

Embezzlement involving local

partner. The suspect has been

dismissed and reported to the police.

Nov. 2012

Afghanistan

Norwegian Afghanistan

Committee

0

Discrepancy at local office. The

identified matter has been remedied.

Nov. 2012

Congo

WWF

134 641



reported to the police.

Nov. 2012

Tanzania

WWF

549 777

Various irregularities involving local

partner. The matter has been reported

to the police.

Dec. 2012

Mozambique

Brenthurst

Foundation

0

The project was not delivered as

agreed, and the agreement has been

terminated.

Dec. 2012

Tanzania

WWF

9 986

Various irregularities involving local



Dec. 2012

Namibia

Namibian Association of

Norway

38 000

Various irregularities. A former

employee has been reported to the

police.

Dec. 2012

Norway

UN Association of Norway

151 086

Final conviction for embezzlement.

The convicted person has been

dismissed.

Dec. 2012

Congo

African Union

292 597

Embezzlement. The suspect has been


Dec. 2012

Namibia

Namibian Association of

Norway

12 518

Irregularities involving local partner.

Dec. 2012

Malawi

SOS Children’s Villages

15 895

Theft involving local partner. The

suspect has been reported to the

police.

Dec. 2012

Afghanistan

UNDP

0

Various irregularities. Risk-reducing

measures have been implemented.

The agreement does not entitle


Dec. 2012

Mozambique

SOS Children’s Villages

38 253

Embezzlement and fraud involving

local partner. The suspect has been


Dec. 2012

Kenya

WWF

10 872

Embezzlement and forgery involving

local partner. The suspect has been

dismissed. The local prosecuting

authority has been informed.

Dec. 2012

Zambia

UNDP

16 836

Improper use by local partner of

official car.

Dec. 2012

Pakistan

Lok Virsa

73 020

Payments in breach of agreement.

Risk-reducing measures.

Dec. 2012

South Sudan

Norwegian People’s Aid

800 000




Jan. 2013

Palestine


27 602

Corruption involving local partner.

Cooperation with the partner has been

terminated.

Jan. 2013

Zambia

WWF

7 819

Salary payments to a fictitious person

and missing accounts vouchers,

involving local partner. The suspect

has been dismissed/suspended.

Jan. 2013

Zambia

Wildlife Conservation

Society of Zambia

148 616


partner. The suspect has been reported

to the police.

Jan. 2013

Pakistan

Unicef

1 717 530

Over-invoicing, etc. in the

programme. The Pakistani authorities

have been informed.

Jan. 2013

Norway

Nordic Crisis

Management AS

0

Higher expenditure than agreed in the

budget. Repayment claim lost due to

bankruptcy.

Feb. 2013

Serbia

Centre for Monitoring and

Evaluation

0


partner. The suspect is being sought

by the local prosecuting authority.

There is no basis in the agreement for

repayment.

Feb. 2013

Afghanistan

UNDP

0

Irregularities linked to procurements.

The suspect has been dismissed/

suspended. There is no basis in the

agreement for repayment.

Feb. 2013

South Sudan

Norwegian Red Cross

21 152

Irregularities in cooperation project

involving local partner. The suspect

has been reported to the police.

Mar. 2013

Malawi

Ministry of Health

0


expenses. Risk-reducing measures have

been implemented.

Mar. 2013

Rwanda


0

Nepotism/bias involving local partner.

The person responsible has been

dismissed.

Mar. 2013

Malawi

The Development Fund

5 700

Insufficient documentation of expenses

by local partner.

Mar. 2013

Zambia

HEI

6 796


by local partner. Suspected

embezzlement has been reported to the

police. A complaint against the

auditors has been submitted.

Mar. 2013

Zambia

WWF

30 903


suspect has been dismissed and


Mar. 2013

France

Permanent Norwegian

Delegation to the OECD

0

Cheque issued by the delegation stolen

and forged. The matter has been


Mar. 2013

Liberia

UNDP

0

Discrepancies in building construction.

Three employees were warned for not

following internal procedures.

Apr. 2013

South Africa

Robben Island

Museum

845 824


expenses. (Two cases.)

Apr. 2013

Sri Lanka

Anti War Front

0

Identification of defects in the accounts

by external audit after the end of

cooperation. The Ministry of Foreign

Affairs informed Økokrim, which did

not take the matter further. The civil

claim is now time-barred.

Apr. 2013

Norway

Ocean Futures AS

0

Product not delivered as agreed. The

claim has been sent to the Norwegian

National Collection Agency for

collection.

Apr. 2013

Uganda

Caritas Norway

347 034

Embezzlement involving local partner.

The suspect has been dismissed and


May 2013

Tanzania

SOS Children’s

Villages

49 024


The suspect has been dismissed.

May 2013

South Africa

Norwegian People’s

Aid

20 305


by local partner. Cooperation with the

partner has been terminated.

May 2013

Angola

Norwegian People’s

Aid

16 291

Abuse of position involving local

partner. The person responsible has

been dismissed.

May 2013

Peru

Rainforest Foundation

Norway

24 963


by local partner.

May 2013

Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka Press

Institute

12 977

Deficient accounting for use of funds.

The funds were already repaid by set-

off in 2010.

Jun. 2013

Moldova

SINTEF

283 866

Discrepancies linked to consultancy

assignments and payment for premises.

SINTEF informed Økokrim, which did

not take the matter further.

Jun. 2013

Afghanistan

Norwegian Refugee

Council

57 105

Discrepancies in a procurement

process. Two employees have been

dismissed, and one employee has been

given a written warning. The funds

have been repaid.

Jun. 2013

East Timor

Natural Resources

ministry, East Timor

0

Project funds used for short-term,

private loans and transfers via private

bank accounts. The funds have been

repaid to the project. There is no basis

in the agreement for repayment.

Jun. 2013

Tanzania

TaNo Trust

57 839

Embezzlement and missing accounts

vouchers. The person responsible has

been dismissed. The funds have been

repaid.

Jun. 2013

Norway

Norwegian Association

of Local and Regional

Authorities

20 980

Missing accounts vouchers.

Jun. 2013

Uzbekistan

Atlas

55 505

Over-invoicing involving local partner.

The suspects are no longer employed

by the partner organisation. Risk-

reducing measures.

Jun. 2013

Ethiopia

Digni

18 639



Jul. 2013

Zimbabwe

International

Media Support

0

Probable misuse of car made available

to local partner. The car has been

returned to IMS and cooperation with

the local partner has been terminated.

Jul. 2013

Uganda

Ministry of Finance,

Planning and Economic

Development, Uganda

22 983 304

Embezzlement from development fund

for northern Uganda administered by the

Ugandan prime minister’s office. The

suspect has been reported to the police.

Jul. 2013

Malawi

Office of the Auditor

General, Malawi

857 765

Funds not used as agreed, and

weaknesses in financial management.

Risk-reducing measures.

Jul. 2013

Kosovo

Norwegian Church Aid

1 161 905

Deficient accounting by local partner.

An employee of the local partner has

been dismissed for making unauthorised

loans from the project. The cooperation

has been terminated.

Aug. 2013

Malawi

USAID

95 921

Theft of medicines in project

implemented by USAID Deliver for

UNICEF. The thieves have been


Aug. 2013

Zimbabwe

Norwegian Centre for

International

Cooperation in

Education

185 632

Incomplete accounts reporting and

failure by local partner to repay unused

funds.

Aug. 2013

Uganda

Strømme Foundation

49 930

Fraud involving local partner.

Cooperation with the partner has been

terminated.

Aug. 2013

Tanzania

Norwegian Centre for

International

Cooperation in

Education

25 270

Deficient accounting by local partner.

Aug. 2013

Sri Lanka

Strømme Foundation

37 792

Monetary loans to employees of local

partner. Cooperation with the partner

has been terminated.

Aug. 2013

Sri Lanka

Strømme Foundation

37 946



Sep. 2013

Uganda

Norwegian Refugee

Council

259 739

Irregularities at local office. Risk-

reducing measures.

18

Sep. 2013

Palestine


45 205

Embezzlement and forgery of invoices

involving local partner. The local

prosecuting authority has been

informed.

Sep. 2013

Mozambique

Norwegian Society for

the Conservation of

Nature

9 297


suspect has been reported to the police.

Sep. 2013

Georgia

Ministry of Justice and

Public Security

0

Deficient financial management by a

deputation. New procedures have been

introduced.

Sep. 2013

Indonesia


Norway

9 270

Unauthorised loans from the project. An

employee of the local partner has been

dismissed.

Sep. 2013

Papua New

Guinea


Norway

40 500



unprinted annex to prop. 1 s (2013 2014) how the ministry of ......5 2014. spot checks do not alter...

Documents