ASOIF's second governance review was released last April, following the first review carried out in 2015.

IFs were claimed to have demonstrated progress over the two reviews, but it was agreed much work remained to address "huge variations" in IF governance.

The 33 IFs assessed were scored out of a maximum total of 200, based on their answers.

Scores ranged from a lowly 46 up to 177, with six achieving more than 150 whereas 12 scored under 100.

The mean score rose from 104 to 121 for ASOIF's full members, while the score was 113 when including associate members.

Both reviews saw IFs complete a self-assessment questionnaire, based on five key principles of transparency, integrity, democracy, development/solidarity and control mechanisms.

ASOIF have warned IFs they will need to explore providing more transparency about the results, with federations' scores having previously been anonymous.

The body says the drive for greater transparency comes amid growing pressure from the public, public authorities and the media.

ASOIF said it was exploring ways to outline achieving a more compliance-based model, acknowledging the differences federations have in their resources and staff.

“We have a lot of pressure coming from the public authorities,” said Francesco Ricci Bitti, ASOIF President.

“They are very keen about what we are doing, but they do not appreciate our anonymous exercise.

“What we consider now is that the third round is the end of the assisted process, where we assist them to be better and helping them, not with the sense of compliance.

“The time is to go to a more compliance concept.

“We are studying the concept.”

ASOIF has outlined the objective of seeing at least 26 of the 28 full ASOIF members achieving a score of 120 by April 2020, using the 2019-2020 questionnaire.

The five associate members have been given a target of 100 or more.

The questionnaire is expected to be sent to IFs in November, with the deadline for completion coming in January.

Results are expected to be revealed at the ASOIF General Assembly next year, where federations could be named with their scores.

ASOIF hope in the long term to move to a compliance-based model, which could see public authorities involved in the process.

ASOIF executive director Andrew Ryan said the body itself could not be involved in a compliance process.

“We are not the police, we are an association,” he said.

“We have taken them step by step and have received their confidence and cooperation.

“Now we feel confident in what they are doing.

“We have given the warning that next time we will start to put names to the graphics.

“After the third phase, we might have further independence where people from Governments come into our bodies to switch over eventually to a compliance thing.

“We can never do the compliance as we are not the police.”

ASOIF also reiterated that its Governance Support and Monitoring Unit is now operational.

The unit is intended to provide support and advice to IFs, including on issues related to election processes, financial rules and term limits.

A series of governance and best practice “quick wins” have also been outlined for IFs, which could be adopted without approval from their Congresses.