19 Jul 2019 - 00:00:00

Statement of the Management Board

The Management Board of the Revita Fund positively notes that, in the context of the audit of the Revita Fund, the Court of Auditors (CoA) concluded that several international principles and recommendations applicable to humanitarian aid were observed, providing assistance based on the definition of needs, carried out quickly, and with the involvement of several organisations, articulating the aid in such a way as to avoid duplication of support.

The audit also concluded that the management model integrates the definition of an organizational structure, with division of responsibilities and competences, and that there was articulation and sharing of information between the main entities in the area of support for housing recovery.

In the analysis of the ToC, the equipment of the dwellings was carried out according to the defined strategy, using a database of donated goods, in a procedure that seems unrepaired.

According to the ToC, a high degree of implementation of the support was observed within a reasonable time and it was generally distributed for the intended purposes and in proportion to the needs.

Notwithstanding the conclusions presented, the Management Board considers that the audit includes imprecise observations and incorrect assessments, which should be clarified considering that it is the report of an audit action limited to the Revita Fund in particular, its control systems and use.

1. In fact, since the Court of Auditors is a control and inspection body, the evaluation of the Fund’s activities is carried out on the basis of what the audit team considers could have been established and not on the basis of compliance with what is defined for the Revita Fund.
2. The TcD takes this view to the point of stating that “a good part of the comments are not addressed to the Fund’s managers, but are rather of use to the State”.
3. By contrasting the reality analyzed with an ideal theoretical model, with a level of demand comparable to consolidated institutional systems, the audit does not properly value the emergency circumstances that determined the urgent assembly - in a short time and from scratch - of an apparatus to respond to the social crisis generated by the fires.
4. Although the audit recognises that the Revita Fund is an entity “with little power of authority’, in the absence of a specific administrative support machine, the requirements imposed in the light of the various interventions which the CoC considers the Fund could have developed, had it been otherwise framed, appear disproportionate.
5. The degree of transparency required by the CoC does not adequately value the social emergency circumstances in which the support took place. In addition to the delicate safeguarding of personal data, it is very doubtful that the nominal public disclosure of support, in a context marked by social unrest and a sensationalist media escalation, would not cause considerable adverse effects.
6. As the audit acknowledges, the Revita Fund is not subject to the obligation to publicize the benefits granted. However, it seems incongruous to point to the alleged lack of transparency, when not only is it not mandatory, but it has nevertheless been carried out, with the appropriate safeguards, alongside other measures put in place to ensure that transparency.
7. The choice of the legislator determined the inclusion of local authorities in all stages of the process, taking into account the relevance of the involvement of the local community affected by the fires. Social economy entities have also proposed a representative to the Revita Fund Management Board. The CoC's remark concerning an alleged lack of involvement of the local community is therefore not understood.
8. In terms of articulation with other entities, it is not correct to state that the commitment to define an articulated plan between the donor entities and the Revita Fund has not been fulfilled. In fact, in the Technical Commission, all the relevant partners were involved and promoted their respective articulations, concluding the audit itself that there was articulation and sharing of information between the main entities in the area of support for housing recovery.
9. On the other hand, it cannot be concluded that criteria with little focus on social needs have not been defined. In addition to the criteria relating to permanent housing, social criteria have also been defined relating to the economic situation of the household, the existence of children, persons with disabilities or chronic illnesses and the elderly in that household, as well as the isolation situation and size of the households.
10. Nor can the Management Board agree with the conclusion regarding the design of the criteria not be sufficiently involved and transparent. The criteria applied, contrary to what was stated in the audit, were designed with the intervention of the entities involved in the bodies that make up the Revita Fund and were disclosed to the decision-making entities and the population itself in clarification sessions. The comments on the need to refine criteria, or to consult them publicly, as well as the requirement to prioritize non-permanent housing, devalue the complex dynamics of a process of response to situations of social emergency.
11. As regards agricultural support, since non-conformities in this area were not assessed during the audit, the doubts raised appear to be excessive. The Revita Fund has no administrative means of assessing the validity of the lists submitted by the competent body of the Ministry of Agriculture, which is responsible for monitoring the effective use of the support.
12. On the observation that ethical risk management and fraud and corruption prevention mechanisms were not sufficient, it is important to counter that the audit itself values “a good understanding of the ethical commitments and specific risks associated with each type of activity”.
13. It is not yet clear from the audit whether the support was appropriate to the needs, objectives and priorities. Nevertheless, it appears that all houses were covered and it was still possible to meet needs in terms of equipment and agriculture. In this sense, the conclusion cannot be other than the adjusted and adequate allocation of the available support to the needs. The audit itself states that there was a high degree of implementation of the support in a reasonable time, the support was generally distributed for the intended purpose and in proportion to the needs.
14. The audit also concludes that there are amounts still to be implemented. Considering that these cases are still ongoing, the amounts to be applied can only occur after the respective proceedings have been concluded. Worrying would be their attribution without assessing the access requirements, which could lead to undue attributions of support, which should naturally be avoided.

2019.07.19 The Management Board