An Approach to CSO's

Although the normative framework establishes institutional mechanisms that govern how the audit process takes place and how audit reports are officially used, evidence shows that formalized external monitoring mechanisms alone are not sufficient to make government bodies accountable. CSOs and other actors of the demand side of accountability (the media, researchers, the private sector) play a critical role in promoting transparency and holding the government to account. Effectiveness of SAIs requires active interaction with all the relevant actors of the accountability system to hold the government and public sector entities accountable.

What is a CSO?

“The term civil society refers to the wide array of nongovernmental and not-for-profit organizations that have presence in public life, expressing the interests and values of their members or others, based on ethical, cultural, political, scientific, religious or philanthropic considerations.”

“CSOs include legal entities that fall outside the public or for-profit sector, such as NGOs, not-for-profit media organizations, charitable organizations, faith-based organizations, professional organizations, labor unions, associations of elected local representatives, foundations, and policy development and research institutes.”

World Bank (2012): “Global Partnership for Social Accountability and Establishment of a Multidonor Trust Fund”.

In summary, CSOs encompass a wide of array of organizations formed voluntarily by citizens to advance shared goals or interests. CSOs can be grouped according to different features: mission, values, and geographical scope, among others. Above all, a sense of collective identity is at the core of CSOs´community.

Any comments? Please notify us here.


TPA Initiative – ACIJ (2011): “Diagnostic Report on Transparency, Citizen Participation and Accountability in Supreme Audit Institutions of Latin America”

TPA Initiative – ACIJ (2013): “Audit Institutions in Latin America. Transparency, Citizen Participation and Accountability Indicators”.

Cornejo, C., Guillan, A. & Lavin, R. (2013): “When Supreme Audit Institutions engage with civil society: Exploring lessons from the Latin American Transparency Participation and Accountability Initiative”, U4 Practice Insight Nº5, Bergen, U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre - Chr. Michelsen Institute.

O´Donnell, Guillermo (2001): “Horizontal. Accountability: The legal institutionalization of mistrust”, Buenos Aires, PostdataN°6, pp. 11-34.

OECD (2013): “Citizen Engagement and Supreme Audit Institutions” (Stocktaking Report: DRAFT).

UN (2013): “Citizen Engagement Practicesby Supreme Audit Institutions”, Compendium of Innovative Practices of Citizen Engagementby Supreme Audit Institutions for Public Accountability.

INTOSAI (2013): “The Value and Benefits of Supreme Audit Institutions – making a difference to the lives of citizens”,ISSAI 12.

INTOSAI (2013): “Beijing Declaration”.

OLACEFS (2013): “The Santiago Declaration”.

INTOSAI (2010):“Principles of transparency and accountability”,ISSAI 20.

INTOSAI (2010):“Principles of Transparency and Accountability - Principles and Good Practices”, ISSAI 21.

INTOSAI (2007): “The Mexico Declaration on SAI Independence“, ISSAI 10.

OLACEFS (2009): “Asuncion Declaration”.

INTOSAI (1977): “Lima Declaration”.

UN (2011): Resolution A/66/209 “Promoting the efficiency, accountability, effectiveness and transparency of public administration bystrengthening supreme audit institutions”.

UN (2003): “United Nations Convention against Corruption”.