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.

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

Auditoría Coordinada sobre Pasivos Ambientales de la OLACEFS

Report ID: 222

La gestión de los residuos sólidos y peligrosos, por ejemplo los mineros, como resultado de las actividades económicas, es de gran relevancia, dados los efectos negativos que su falta de gestión o manejo inadecuado pueden ocasionar en la población, los recursos naturales y los ecosistemas; lo que aumenta el riesgo de producir pasivos ambientales,

En el marco de las actividades de la Comisión Técnica de Medio Ambiente (COMTEMA) de la Organización Latinoamericana y del Caribe de Entidades Fiscalizadoras Superiores (OLACEFS) se  realizó una Auditoría Coordinada sobre Pasivos Ambientales para abordar la referida temática.

Esta auditoría contó con la participación de las Entidades de Fiscalización Superior (EFS) de Brasil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Honduras, México, Paraguay, Perú y República Dominicana; así como de las Entidades de Fiscalización (EF) de las Provincias argentinas de Buenos Aires y Santa Fe; estando la coordinación de la misma  a cargo de las EFS de México y Perú. Además, la auditoría contó con el apoyo de la Cooperación Alemana a través de GIZ

Durante esta auditoría se evaluó la gestión estatal para la prevención y el manejo integral de los pasivos ambientales. La auditoría evaluó las acciones realizadas por las entidades gubernamentales responsables de la gestión (prevención/control y/o restauración) de los pasivos ambientales y su efecto en la en la mitigación de los daños que ocasionan en el ambiente.

Como resultado de esta evaluación, fue posible analizar los resultados de las acciones realizadas por 88 instituciones públicas responsables de los pasivos ambientales en 9 países de América Latina y el Caribe y en 2 Provincias argentinas.

Los hallazgos de la Auditoría Coordinada muestran que la política de atención de pasivos ambientales, diseñada e implementada por las instituciones evaluadas, no está consolidada, lo que ha provocado una contribución limitada a la preservación del ambiente, de las acciones de prevención y control de la generación de pasivos ambientales y la remediación de los existentes.

Fuente: https://olacefs.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/03-Resumen-Ejecutivo-ACPA-11oct16.pdf

Auditoría Coordinada de Áreas Protegidas (1era edición)

Report ID: 226

Las Áreas Protegidas (AP) son creadas considerando las características naturales relevantes de los territorios, con límites geográficos definidos, y como respuesta a la necesidad de conservación de la biodiversidad.

Estas áreas son reconocidas por la Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre Diversidad Biológica (CDB) como una estrategia global para la conservación de la biodiversidad. En este sentido, el compromiso internacional establece metas de protección de áreas terrestres y marinas que deben ser alcanzadas por medio de la implementación de sistemas de áreas protegidas ecológicamente representativas y manejadas efectivamente.

En dicho contexto, en el marco de las actividades de la  Comisión Técnica Especial de Medio Ambiente (COMTEMA) de la Organización Latinoamericana y del Caribe de Entidades Fiscalizadoras Superiores (OLACEFS), las Entidades de Fiscalización Superior (EFS) de  Argentina, Bolivia, Brasil (EFS Coordinadora) Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Honduras, México, Paraguay (EFS Coordinadora), Perú y Venezuela realizaron una auditoría coordinada. Esta auditoría contó con el apoyo de la Cooperación Alemana GIZ.

La referida auditoría evaluó si las áreas protegidas terrestres de América Latina poseen las condiciones institucionales, normativas y operativas necesarias para alcanzar los objetivos para los cuales fueron creadas. Como parte de esta auditoría fue posible evaluar de manera estándar, 1120 áreas protegidas, lo que permitió elaborar un diagnóstico inédito de la política pública de conservación de la biodiversidad en la región.

Para analizar la gobernanza de las áreas protegidas el TCU creó el INDIMAPA, método de Evaluación de la Implementación y de la Gestión de Áreas Protegidas. Esta herramienta georreferenciada utiliza indicadores e índices los cuales son visualizados en mapas, además de permitir clasificar las áreas protegidas en tres rangos: rojo, amarillo y verde, correspondientes respectivamente al nivel bajo, mediano y alto de implementación de la gestión.

De esta manera, a partir de la auditoría coordinada, la sociedad y las Instituciones de Control podrán seguir la evolución en la administración del patrimonio público ambiental representado por las áreas protegidas.

Fuente: https://www.olacefs.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Resumen-ejecutivo-Auditoria-en-Areas-Protegidas-de-America-Latina-web.pdf

* Este informe también está disponible en inglés en el catálogo.

WGEAs global audit on climate change, adaptation to Climate Change, are Governments prepared

Report ID: 12

This cooperative audit is based on eight individual national audit reports from Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Russia and Ukraine, and a factfinding study by the European Court of Auditors. Generally the national audits revealed that the countries assessed in this report are in an early stage in adapting to climate change. So far, adaptation activities are related to identifying risk and vulnerabilities and to some extent policy development. Actions identified in the national audits covered in this report are mainly a response to current challenges and not initiated due to anticipated medium-term and long-term climate change impacts.

The national audits revealed that most countries have prepared risk and vulnerability assessments of sufficient quality. Up to the time of concluding the national audits, only two of the eight countries had developed a comprehensive adaptation strategy.

In most countries, weaknesses in coordination of adaptation are identified. There is also a general lack of cost estimates of impacts of climate change or adaptation measures in policy documents. This increases the risk that climate change and adaptation issues are not being sufficiently addressed in decision-making processes

It is recommended that

• countries use adequate risk and vulnerability assessments for policy-making and consider the impacts of likely climate change scenarios with higher expected temperature increases than the 2-degrees scenario
• adaptation strategies and action plans should be developed and implemented at the government level
• the strategies should clearly specify the time-frame for implementation and the roles and responsibilities of all the parties involved
• governments should ensure coordinated adaptation policy and its implementation
• governments should provide knowledge, to the extent possible and meaningful, of the costs and benefits of climate change impacts and adaptation measures to ensure cost-effective implementation