What Does The National Audit Office Say On The Functioning Of SENASA?
<p style="line-height: 20.8px;"><span style="line-height: 1.6em;">From the analysis of a loan the BID provided to increase the competitiveness of the agricultural and agro-industrial sector, the AGN detected products for 3 million dollars which are almost due, anti-foot and mouth disease without vaccination control and increases in construction costs for delays and unforeseen reformulations. Lack of organization among the service areas was observed.</span></p> <div> </div>
Anti-pest products worth 3 million that were not used, vaccination disease out of control and works that reached almost double in size due to lack of prevention. This is the picture that the General Audit Office (AGN, for its acronym in Spanish) noted in its evaluation to the Program Management Food Safety and Quality (PROSENASA).
The Watchdog examined the management of the loan that the Inter-American Development Bank (BID) granted to the program to increase national and international competitiveness of the agricultural and agro-industrial sector.
The BID loan represents 70% of the total contribution to the program and was for 100 million dollars. The remaining 30% was paid locally. The job deadline was five years, so that "by April 2013 PROSENASA should have completed its work."
But "there were significant delays" that generated higher payouts for price changes, interest and credit commissions activities extended to April 2015. In fact, the report notes that PROSENASA in December 2012 recorded a significant underspending of funds loan: only 50% had been used.
The phytosanitary control is under the aegis of the National Directorate of Plant Protection (DGPV) which has, in turn, two programs: the Suppression of Carpocaspa (NCSP) and the Control and Eradication of the Fly Frutos (PROCEM).
The latter aims to eradicate this pest which affects the fruit and vegetable sector in general and in particular, the citrus sector. It can be found in Patagonia and in the south of Mendoza, where "detection traps were deployed," and in the Entre Rios and Corrientes where "the strategy was oriented towards chemical control."
The BID loan "to finance the acquisition of chemoattractant low environmental impact," based on studies conducted by the team of the AGN, is the "right" treatment but "for various reasons did not have the expected efficacy."
The climatic problems made "in the last campaign almost 300,000 liters of agrochemicals, worth $3 million, were not applied." The report noted that "they are stored in warehouses of private producers but with risks of loss, theft or environmental risks for an occasional break from the containers." To this, it is added that "it’s close to its due date."
In addition, the Program for the Suppression of Carpocaspa or codling moth, "achieved a gradual replacement of the most aggressive pest control techniques by others more environmentally friendly."
Interestingly, moth "damages the fruit, especially pears, apples and quince, and decreases placing them on the market."
On pests in general, the AGN said that "there are no records in the system." Moreover, "there is partial information on some of them."
With regard to the Health National Register of Agricultural Producers, which is the plant information "it is incomplete because there are only records of exporters."
Cattle
The program also funded various activities in order to consolidate the system of Animal Health from the acquisition and provision of anti-foot and mouth disease vaccines and emergency management.
There is now a high-Epidemiological Surveillance comprising the border with Bolivia, Paraguay and Brazil. There SENASA "is responsible for acquiring and providing the vaccine at no cost to farmers."
However, auditors found that this process is "slow" and "does not ensure that it arrives at the required time." Furthermore, "the mechanism of immunization does not provide a system to distinguish between vaccinated cattle and those who ar not."
The vaccination process "is documented by an Act of vaccination which includes data such as date, producer information and the establishment, the number and type of animals immunized" among other issues. All information should be dumped after the SIGSA system but "not all regional centers have sufficient administrative staff to do it."
Modernization
The report, which evaluated October 2012 to August 2013, states that to build regional centers, laboratories and performing all necessary repairs and the computer system, the PROSENASA had allocated a budget of almost 23 million dollars.
But at this point the AGN detected significant delays between the opening of the performance and the award of the work, "topping the times suggested by the BID". Long periods "between the request for spending and the allocation of work" that led to "significant changes in the costs of work," were also recorded.
Indeed, in four of the six cases observed "there were significant changes as compared to the initially planned surfaces." The most striking is the case that "the inclusion of a laboratory surface expanded by 75%." The report notes that "although it is conceivable adjustments, the magnitude of these reveal an incorrect dimension of what was needed."
Economically this work "began being worth $ 4 million but by the comings and goings the costs grew by 133%, it was built and finished with 9.3 million."
On the other hand, to establish a regulatory reorganization it was developed a sub project within the BID financing and was assigned $202,000.
However, once the magnetic file standards were applied the AGN noted that "it has shortcomings in the systematization of content and difficulty in consultation and updating." The auditors detailing that "there is no security to be consulting the latest version of the data."
Getting Technical
SENASA has the power to create execution units and under this authority founded the Program Management Unit (PMU) that has under its orbit environmental issues, scheduling and tracking of procurement and, in turn, is responsible for the coordination of substantive program areas.
The latter has a Technical Advisory Program that, in the words of the auditors, "has not fulfilled its role of institutional coordination Committee." During field work "it could not confirm that it has met or that the decisions taken have been formalized," for example through Acts.
The Environmental Management Unit "is not structured according to preset parameters" and this point was designated as a "weakness" because "it is one of the most important areas of the program."
As internal control, "there are weaknesses at the lack of segregation of duties". The AGN said that there are two levels of hierarchy coordination "under the control of single overloading official duties".
Over time, the report notes that "from the date of opening of a file to the issuance of the purchase order, 35% of cases exceeded 360 days." This exposes a process of "slow" acquisition despite recurrent consumer goods.
Regarding the payment circuit, the auditors saw that "from the date of opening the file to payment, in 81% of the sample, management takes less than 60 days."