Fisheries management and monitoring of environmental impact on fish resources in the Baltic sea

Report ID: 159

1. In 2008 the Supreme Audit Institutions of Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia, and Sweden conducted an audit of environmental monitoring and fisheries management and control in the Baltic Sea. The Supreme Audit Institutions in Estonia, Finland, Lithuania, Russia, and Sweden did not participate in the audit of the environmental monitoring in the Baltic Sea. The Supreme Audit Institutions of Latvia, Poland and Germany did not participate in the audit of fisheries management and control in the Baltic Sea. The audit was performed as a performance and compliance audit and covered the period 2005-2007.

2. The audit was divided into two parts: The first part was about environmental monitoring in the Baltic Sea and the second part was about fisheries management and control in the Baltic Sea.

3. The overall objective of the first part was to assess whether the signatory states of the Helsinki Convention are complying with the standards of the Cooperative Monitoring in the Baltic Marine Environment (COMBINE) and how the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) will affect national monitoring.

4. The overall objective of the second part was to conduct a review of fisheries management and control in the Baltic Sea.

5. The first and the second part of the audit share the following overall objective: How have the monitoring and fisheries control authorities contributed to preserve the marine environment and protect the fish stock in the Baltic Sea.

6. The relevant national legislation in the EU Member States is supposed to be within the frame set by the EU. However, the monitoring and fisheries management and control strategies may differ significantly among the individual countries, and comparative analyses may provide an overview of what is considered good practice. Furthermore, Russian fisheries legislation is, naturally, not adjusted to the EU-regulations. The Russian Federation’s national fishery legislation takes into consideration the requirements and provisions of nine international conventions and agreements related to fishery issues in the Baltic Sea. Moreover, Russia still adheres to the recommendations of the International Baltic Sea Fisheries Commission (IBSFC) in spite of the fact that it was dissolved in 2004.

7. The audit was planned and conducted as a parallel audit. A parallel audit means that the participating audit institutions audit the same audit objectives in their respective countries and identify relevant audit criteria and audit methods together. However, it is up to the individual supreme audit institution to decide how to conduct the audit and which audit criteria and audit methods to apply in the audit. The Joint Final Report is prepared on the basis of the data provided by the participating supreme audit institutions.

Global climate change audit Coordinated International Implications for Governments and their Auditors (UNFCCC Kyoto Protocol)

Report ID: 161

Worldwide, scientific communities consider climate change to be an important social, economic, and environmental issue that needs to be addressed through reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to the resulting climatic changes, both current and potential. Countries have made important commitments in this regard, through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol, while negotiations on the issue continue internationally. In June 2007, 14 supreme audit institutions (SAIs) embarked on a project to cooperate in the design and undertaking of national audits of our respective governments’ climate change programs and performance. The project involved a diverse group of offices—from Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Indonesia, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States that have varying degrees of experience in auditing governments’ management of climate change.

The governments of all these countries have indicated that climate change is an important issue and have made commitments to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and to addressing adaptation to climate change.

As a result of the social, economic, and environmental implications of government policies and the magnitude of public expenditures related to climate change, the actions governments take in the coming years are likely to have significant and historic implications for generations to come. As advocates of good management, effective governance, and accountability, SAIs are compelled to treat climate change policies, programs, and projects as highly material (pertinent and necessary) audit topics.

We are pleased to present the results of our audit work in this report. We hope the results of the coordinated audit will provide all SAIs—not just the 14 represented in this report—with a summary of common issues to consider as they undertake work to scrutinize their governments’ achievement of climate change commitments and delivery of related policies and programs.

The report highlights areas that SAIs may wish to examine to improve the implementation of their governments’ climate change policies and programs. The results also provide legislatures with a means to assess the progress that governments have made and challenges they face in delivering their programs and targets.

Joint Report of the International Coordinated audit of Chernobyl Shelter Fund

Report ID: 219

On April 26, 1986, the worst accident in the history of civilian nuclear power occurred at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine, where an explosion destroyed the core of reactor Unit 4 containing approximately 200 tons of nuclear fuel. The explosion and heat from the reactor core propelled radioactive material as much as six miles high, where it was then dispersed mainly over 60,000 square miles of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. Smaller amounts of radioactive material spread over Eastern and Western Europe and Scandinavia and were even detected in the United States.

The Chernobyl Shelter Fund (CSF) was founded at European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) in 1997 aimed at financing Shelter Implementation Plant (SIP).The Fund is guided by the set of rules regarding its resource management. Contributor Governments, mainly of G-7 and European Union, contribute to the Fund. The Assembly of Contributors supervises SIP implementation progress.

The Initial SIP costs were estimated at about USD 758 million (about EUR 585 million 4) in 1997. In 2003 and 2004 technical uncertainties and delays in the SIP fulfilment became apparent, especially with the construction of NSC, which resulted in cost escalation to EUR 840 million. The causes of those cost increases and the resulting need for additional steps to control cost and time overruns were discussed at all level including the Assemblies of Contributors. All G-85 Governments agreed to increase the scale of CSF.

Such increase was tied to the requirements to be fulfilled by Ukraine, including improvement of management, removal of procedural obstacles and timely delivery of Ukraine’s contributions. Thus, as of January 2006 estimated total costs were EUR 955 million and term for SIP completion was extended from 2005 to 2010.

Due to failure in timely realization of SIP, in 2006, the Special Subgroup on the Audit of Natural, Man-caused Disasters Consequences and Radioactive Wastes Elimination of the EUROSAI Working Group on Environmental Auditing decided to conduct an international coordinated audit of the Chernobyl Shelter Fund.

The aim of the audit was the establishment of actual state of affairs regarding legal, organizational and financial support of decommissioning the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant (CNPP) and transforming destroyed CNPP Unit 4 into an environmentally safe system by fulfilling the Shelter Implementation Plan.

Source: http://old.ac-rada.gov.ua/img/files/auditeurosai1.pdf

INFORME INTERNACIONAL DE LA AUDITORÍA EN COOPERACIÓN AL PLAN COLOMBO PERUANO PARA EL DESARROLLO INTEGRAL DE LA CUENCA DEL RÍO PUTUMAYO 1998-2008

Report ID: 285

En el marco de las actividades de la COMTEMA OLACEFS,, las EFS de: Perú y Colombia realizaron una auditoría coordinada a las Entidades Públicas de cada país encargadas de la ejecución del Plan Colombo - Peruano para el
Desarrollo Integral de la Cuenca del río Putumayo",

El objetivo de la auditoría fue evaluar la gestión ambiental de las entidades públicas de cada país, encargadas de la ejecución del Plan Colombo Peruano para el Desarrollo Integral de la Cuenca del Río Putumayo – PPCP y emitir pronunciamiento acerca de su efectividad en la promoción del desarrollo sostenible regional y en el mejoramiento de la calidad de vida de las poblaciones peruanas y colombianas asentadas en el territorio.

La Auditoría Coordinada comprendió la evaluación selectiva de las instituciones públicas de cada país encargadas de la ejecución del Plan Colombo —Peruano, que surge como acuerdo Binacional, en el marco del Tratado de Cooperación Amazónico Colombo - Peruano, como una propuesta técnica encaminada a orientar acciones conjuntas que contribuyan al desarrollo sostenido y de conservación del medio ambiente y la biodiversidad de la región, así como a mejorar la calidad de vida de la población mediante la generación de actividades productivas y la adecuación de infraestructura física y social básica.

En tal sentido, en el Perú se auditó la gestión ambiental del instituto Nacional de Desarrollo - INADE a través del Proyecto Especial Desarrollo integral de la Cuenca del Río Putumayo - PEDICP, así como al Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de Perú. Por parte de Colombia, al Instituto Amazónico de Investigaciones Científicas - SINCHI (entidad colombiana encargada de la ejecución del PPCP), la Corporación para el Desarrollo Sostenible del Sur de l Amazonía - Corpoamazonía y al Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de Colombia.

La conclusión final del informe conjunto es que no existe mucha diferencia entre las realidades fronterizas de Perú y Colombia en el Putumayo, y que no obstante el tiempo de vigencia del Plan Colombo Peruano, aún es limitada la presencia del Estado en esa zona, situación que conlleva a una condición que surge como efecto de un problema estructural, en el que intervienen además de las variables ambientales las de orden social y económico, conjuntamente con la voluntad política que se puede designar para propender a la solución de la problemática.

Fuente. https://www.environmental-auditing.org/media/4604/colombia_peru_08_f_eng_ppcp.pdf