Report of the Coordinated Pacific Region Performance Audit: Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction Strategies and Management

Report ID: 238

The countries of the Pacific are among the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Rising sea levels, cyclones, tsunamis, food security, and coastal erosion are real and daily threats. Pacific governments also face challenges in recovering from natural disasters and extreme weather events.

In response to these threats and challenges, PASAI Auditors-General undertook a Cooperative Performance Audit on climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction strategies and management.

Ten SAIs from eight Pacific Island states participated in the audit: Cook Islands, Federated States of

Micronesia (FSM), the FSM State of Kosrae, the FSM State of Pohnpei, Fiji, Palau, Samoa, Tuvalu and two other Pacific Island Countries and Territories (PICTs). In line with the practice of previous regional overview reports, participating SAIs that have not yet released their audit reports are referred to anonymously — in this instance as PICT 1 and PICT 2.

Key findings

Audit findings from the eight published audit reports clustered around the following key performance themes:

governance arrangements, including legal and policy frameworks, mainstreaming, vulnerability assessments and strategy development, and coordination between responsible agencies

project implementation, including project-level governance—coordination and project management, financing and human resource capacity constraints

monitoring and reporting.

Coastal and Marine Environments in Africa: A Cooperative Audit by the African Organisation of English-Speaking Supreme Audit Institutions (AFROSAI-E)

Report ID: 240

In 2017, AFROSAI-E initiated a cooperative project to audit coastal and marine environments in Africa. Six Supreme Audit Institutions from the region participated. This publication expands on the process followed and the common findings among the participating countries.

AFROSAI-E (African Organisation of English-Speaking Supreme Audit Institutions), with the support of the GIZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit), initiated a project in 2017 to capacitate SAIs of countries with coastal areas, to conduct audits to:

• Assess the state of coastal ecosystems;
• Understand the significant issues and coastal zone management risks for coastal communities;
• Make recommendations for improvement.

The AFROSAI-E region has 16 member countries that are coastal states, two of which are island states. Six SAIs agreed to participate in this cooperative audit using a mix of both performance and compliance audit principles and methodology. The six SAIs are Liberia, Mauritius, Namibia, Seychelles, Sudan and Tanzania.

Findings:

Lack of public awareness of coastal environmental issues: Three of the participating SAIs found that there is limited general awareness and understanding by the public of the importance of the marine environment and related pollution and degradation issues.

Outdated and insufficient legislation/ policies and poor alignment with international commitments: Almost all the participating SAIs found that legislation, policies and plans related to coastal management and protection are outdated and insufficient to address many of the current environmental risks.

Inadequate human and technical resources: Two SAIs found that there are inadequate human and technical resources (satellite surveillance systems, vessel monitoring systems, boats for inspections etc.) to manage and monitor coastlines and marine environments. Human resources also lack the necessary competencies and understanding of marine-related environmental risks and issues. Technical resources and infrastructure essential to the guarding of the coastal zones are scarcely available.

Too many silos and too little coordination: Three of the six SAIs found that the relevant sector (coastal/marine environment) policies are fragmented. Limited or no cooperative arrangements and coordination exist among the various spheres of government and relevant stakeholders, to manage and protect coastal regions and related resources.

Inadequate data, statistics and information systems: Three of the participating SAIs found that national data, statistics and information systems that inform decisions and coastal programmes are inadequate or completely unavailable. For example, statistics on threatened marine species and fishing activities as well as data on the health status of marine environments and the levels of coastal degradation are not available.

Inadequate monitoring of coastal resources and poor enforcement of legislation: All six SAIs found that monitoring of coastal resources and enforcement of legislation are inadequate.

Ineffective performance indicators to monitor progress: Two SAIs found that either no key performance indicators are being implemented to measure progress in achieving objectives on the management and condition of coastal and marine resources, or the indicators used are ineffective.

Insufficient coastal response strategies specific to climate change risks: Almost all the participating SAIs found that climate change response strategies related to coastal environments are insufficient or non-existent.

Are adequate mechanisms in place for the designation and effective management of Marine Protected Areas within the Mediterranean Sea?

Report ID: 241

The cooperative audit identified that the necessary mechanisms for the designation and effective management of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) within the Mediterranean Sea were not always in place to achieve the desired equilibrium between the sustainability of Marine Protected Areas and blue growth.

This cooperative audit based its findings and conclusions on seven individual national audit reports, which were compiled by the Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) of Albania, Cyprus, France, Greece, Malta, Portugal and Slovenia. These national reports considered MPAs to entail a delineated marine site, which may have been already designated or is to be designated as such under international, regional or national legal frameworks and policies. The main objective of a MPA is to conserve and nurture the marine biodiversity while striking a balance with any economic activity permitted in the area. This definition includes, but is not restricted to, Natura 2000 sites, Specially Protected Areas of Mediterranean Importance (SPAMIs) designated under the Protocol concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity of the Barcelona Convention, artificial reefs or designated Marine Parks.

The aim of the cooperative audit was to determine the degree to which countries in the Mediterranean region are effectively conserving marine biodiversity to attain the targets set in national legislation and international protocols. To address this aim, the participating SAIs compiled an audit design matrix based on issues relating to the regulatory framework, strategies, site’ assessments undertaken, management plans drafted and national surveillance efforts. The analysis of these five key areas, led to these main findings:

a. The legal framework regulating MPAs is sufficiently robust and mandates national authorities to ascertain the sustainability of the marine environment. However, it does not provide a common definition of what constitutes a MPA. In addition, overlapping and in some instances conflicting provisions were identified within the national regulatory frameworks.

b. National strategic frameworks, generally, reflected the political will and aimed to outline the relevant outputs as well as outcomes through the designation of MPAs. However, in three of the participating countries no comprehensive sector specific strategies are in place, while all SAIs identified the potential of strengthening national strategic frameworks, so as to optimize their impact.

c. Participating SAIs noted that national authorities have carried out the relevant site assessments to designate MPAs. Nonetheless, the scope of these assessments was not always appropriately broad, either due to resource and technical expertise limitations, or to diplomatic issues when the site assessments concerned joint jurisdictions or the high-seas.

d. While it is recognised that management plans are key to the implementation of measures to ensure the sustainability of MPAs, most participating SAIs reported that site-specific plans are not yet in place. Moreover, other technical and logistical limitations, such as coordination issues and the non-deployment of resources, influenced the degree to which participating countries could implement specific measures to ascertain the conservation of protected species within MPAs.

e. SAIs reported that site-specific management plans, administrative capacity weaknesses and coordination limitations between stakeholders are the key elements that hindered adequate monitoring and enforcement of measures in MPAs. Monitoring and enforcement shortcomings do not guarantee that MPAs and therefore the biodiversity they aim to protect are being managed, as well as utilised, in a sustainable manner.

Governments’ responsibilities in designating, managing and enforcing the regulatory framework concerning MPAs is a complex endeavour. This audit has noted that more needs to be done to find a balance between the protection of the marine environment and the economic activities within. Within this context, site-specific plans and the deployment of the appropriate level of resources are a prerequisite to effective management, regulation and monitoring of Marine Protected Areas.

The equilibrium between marine conservation and blue growth also necessitates cross-border cooperation. To this effect, the strengthening of bi-lateral and multi-lateral frameworks of cooperation in this area between Mediterranean countries is critical to the sustainability of this biodiversity and socio-economic rich sea.

International Coordinated Audit (Control) of Public Funds, Allocated to prevention and Consequences elimination of Disasters and Catastrophes

Report ID: 250

The International Coordinated Audit (Control) of Public Funds, Allocated to Prevention and consequences Elimination of Disasters and Catastrophes was included into the Work Plan of the EUROSAI Task Force on the Audit of Funds Allocated to Disasters and Catastrophes for 2012-2014, and was conducted by the SAIs of 9 participated countries.

The audit (control) objective was to assess legality and utilization efficiency of the public funds
allocated to establishment, functioning and development of the national system for prevention
and response to natural and man-caused disasters and catastrophes.

This audit also allowed to test Good Practice Recommendations for the Audit of Funds Allocated to Disasters and Catastrophes, which were developed by the Accounting Chamber of Ukraine within the framework of the EUROSAI Task Force and were prepared for approval in 2014.

COORDINATED PERFORMANCE AUDIT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE

Report ID: 256

Due to the serious environmental situation and high vulnerability of countries in the region,  the SAIs of Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Paraguay and Peru, members of the OLACEFS Technical Commission on ENVIRONMENT (COMTEMA) agreed in 2009 to perform a coordinated audit on climate change.

The audit had as general bbjective to assess the performance of governmental bodies responsible for implementing the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in the countries of the region.

The specific objectives of the coordinated audit were:

- Examine the compliance with the commitments established in the United Nations Framework  Convention on Climate Change regarding the implementation of governmental policies, plans, programs and actions.

- Determine whether governments have developed appropriate mitigation strategies and plans for complying with the commitments of the Convention and evaluate the progress attained.

- Determine whether governments have developed adaptation strategies and plans related to vulnerability assessment to the impacts of climate change and whether policy instruments have been implemented in response to risks identified.

The audit took place between 2009 and 2011. It followed the guidelines for cooperative audits of the Working Group on Environmental Auditing of the International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions (WGEA-INTOSAI). Hence, there were individual audit teams and individual reports in each SAI, but a common research framework. Main sources of audit criteria come from articles 4 and 12 of UNFCCC and article 12 of Kyoto Protocol.

The findings of the coordinated audit indicate progress in the implementation of UNFCCC commitments and point out aspects to improve, especially in relation to the efforts and measures towards the reduction of vulnerability in natural and anthropogenic systems facing current and potential effects of climate change.