UK ACCOUNTING standards-setting is changing. Mary Keegan is soon to depart as chairman of the Accounting Standards Board (ASB) after three years in the hot seat. Keegan's move follows hard on the heels of the retirement of the ASB's long-serving technical director Allan Cook.

Of course, those of you who once looked to the ASB for portents in accounting standards should by now have turned your attention to the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). The real power in standard setting has already moved from the national to the international stage. This doesn't have to mean you'll have less influence on the way in which you're required to report. But it does mean that your influence has to be exerted differently.

The success of the ASB can be judged by Keegan's new job. She's going to join the Treasury as MD of financial management, reporting and auditing. She'll also act as the Treasury's FD. It's an important post and it's a good sign that they've appointed an accountant. For too long government has lectured others about good financial management, but hasn't practiced what it preached.

But her move begs the question: what next for the ASB? The board's sponsoring body, the Financial Reporting Council (FRC), is con?vinced that things are going to change. For a start, the role of the chairman is turning from a full-time post into a three day a week job. Why? "The nature of the role is changing," said Sir Bryan Nicholson, chairman of the FRC. "When David Tweedie did it, he was brought in on a full time basis to reform the crises of the late eighties. That work is behind us. The work going forward is not quite the same."

True, there isn't the same air of crisis about UK accounting nowa?days. But the FRC was eager to point out that the budget and resources of the ASB will remain the same. It's still involved in very important domestic projects, such as an investigation into life assurance accounting and work on the operating and financial review (OFR).

These are two good examples of the sort of work that national standard-setters will do under the international regime. Both are mat?ters of public interest and no little controversy. The work on the OFR – a statement first created by the ASB – has been moved on by the government's decision to make it a legal requirement in the annual report. But the government needs the ASB to make sure it works for you as preparers, as well as for users.

The project on insurance is a good example of the government and an industry getting themselves into a mess – in this case over the near collapse of Equitable Life. Financial secretary Ruth Kelly told MPs that she had asked the ASB to initiate a study into the accounting for with profits business by life insurers. According to Kelly: "The study will have particular emphasis on identifying ways of improving the transparency of reporting." So the ASB has formed a heavyweight advisory panel to tackle the issue.

Beyond these projects, the ASB has two key tasks. First, influencing the international debate and working with the IASB to ensure that UK financial reporting converges with emerging international practice. This is vital if we're going to ensure that the UK's capital markets – and the companies quoted on them – are still well regarded in terms of trans?parency and thoroughness.

Second, the ASB has an ongoing role in helping the IASB shape its standards, carry out the research and work jointly on projects with other national standard setters. More importantly, it has a vital role as a two-way communication mechanism. It can represent the views of the standard-setters to you, the preparers – and your views back to the IASB.

So while the next chairman of the ASB has to be comfortable talk?ing technical details, it's more important that he or she feels at home wheeling and dealing on the international stage. They need to open proactive and frank discussions with FDs over the future of financial reporting. And they must hold their own with politicians and financial regulators across the world. It's a job for an able and persuasive diplomat – shrinking violets need not apply.

We're all a little nervous in the run-up to the adoption of IAS. But I'm confident it will not be the seis?mic change some of my colleagues first feared. Some of the standards we'll be using will produce different answers from the ones we use now. But those answers may well be bet?ter. And as I've noted before, those of you in quoted companies will have to chart this territory first and make your mistakes so the rest of us can learn from them. Like the changes at the top of the ASB, this is evolution not revolution.