The General Audit Office has detected that "the Program of Territorial Survey of Indigenous Communities had a low level of execution during its early years," which did not reach 5% of the total. This was stated in its report adopted in June of this year, which aimed to analyze the work of the National Institute of Indigenous Affairs (INAI, for its acronym In Spanish).

The INAI was founded in 1985 with the purpose of, "through the creation of intercultural channels, implement the rights of indigenous peoples". The organism depends on the Ministry of Social Development and one of the main actions was to "implement the National Land Survey Program (RETECI)" surfaces occupied by each community, with technical assistance from the National University of Lanus.

The plan, whose implementation period was extended until November 23 2013, "has a special fund of $ 10 million a year intended to cover the costs generated by the survey". However, according to the AGN, it had a low level of implementation, of 4.22% in three years."

There are two forms of surveying, which depend on the density of indigenous population: In the provinces with the most native inhabitants decentralized implementation, which is in charge of a Provincial Executive Unit composed of delegates Indigenous Participation Council, representatives promoted provincial executive power and operational Task Force members. There is also the centralized action, which is used in less populated land, and where they participate directly and are dependent on INAI technical equipment and the provinces.

In the last method, as observed by the auditors, the territorial surveying "was negligible", registering an embodiment of 3.87% (56 of 1146 folders communities). In the following tables you can see how was the performance of the target in each province for each type of surveying:

Eleven provinces making program Territorial Survey decentralized receive funds from INAI. Of these, there are six "not held accountable", namely did not substantiate how they spent the money received. The sum not rendered represents 68.59% of the more than $24 million.

Here you can see which provinces yielded, which are not and what percentage of the expenses were supported with documentation.

In this situation, the National Audit Office recommended "applying the necessary control mechanisms to correct delays in accountability on transfers of funds".

What was the relationship with ArgenINTA?

As stated in the report adopted in June of this year, the INAI signed in 2007 an agreement with the National Agricultural Technology Institute (INTA) in order to "promote development in rural indigenous communities, train and generate lines of work for strengthening these societies.” In relation to this agreement, the ArgenINTA "is responsible for managing the funds audited body to hire human, technical and / or professional and for the acquisition of goods". Therefore, the Foundation receives a percentage for "commission for administrative and technical expenses," although "there is no formal legal business between INAI and the institution concerned." It further stated that "there is no substantiated justification of outsourcing service management of funds that belong to the Institute of Indian Affairs for the National Budget."

And with the National University of Lanus?

In 2007 the University signed an agreement with the INAI under which "it was agreed to carry out a project for the implementation of the Territorial Survey of Indigenous Communities" in which the educational agency was responsible for the operation, appointment and recruitment (professional and not) for that purpose. In the beginning, they were transferred to the University more than $5 million in three installments." In 2009 "the execution period was extended and an additional $1.3 million." In 2010 "they returned to extended tasks and almost $ 15.6 million was allocated". AGN noted that "of the more than $11.5 million transferred by the INAI between September 2009 and November 2010, the UNL only had surrendered, until July 2011, $3.2 million."

Moreover, the auditors noted that, through this type of work, "there is no effective compliance with the legal and regulatory rules governing the Public Administration in relation to the issue of recruitment of human resources and property is guaranteed and University services performed."

Management Control

The audit found "very different situations" in terms of the physical targets budgeted and executed by the Institute for 2010. In the table below you can see deviations ranging from 66.67% at least 81% above forecasts. However, in the words of watchdog, "the INAI does not analyze, or justify, nor know the reasons for it."

AGN also noted that the Institute "does not have a system whereby advance degrees or levels of fulfillments achieved" enabling "evaluate management".