Summary of the parallel audit conducted by the Office of the Auditor General of Norway and the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation

Report ID: 284

Unregistered fishing and the illegal harvesting of fish in the Barents Sea and the Norwegian Sea, and the challenges these have set for the fishing authorities’ control work, have been central topics in the discussions of the Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission in recent years.

The Office of the Auditor General (OAG) and the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation conducted a parallel audit of the management of fish resources in the Barents Sea and the Norwegian Sea from 2006 to 2007. The investigation was formally launched after an agreement of intent between the OAG and the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation was signed in January 2006.

The objective of the investigation has been to assess goal achievement and the efficiency and effectiveness of national follow-up and implementation of bilateral agreements between Russia and Norway and decisions taken by the Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries

The audit was performed in parallel in the sense that common general audit questions and audit criteria were defined and the same outline used for the reports. The two audit reports were written separately and on the basis of independent information. A major element in the parallel audit has been reciprocal learning, and emphasis has therefore been placed on detailed descriptions of the organisation and working methods of Norwegian fisheries management.

In the period January – April 2006, common goals, audit questions and general audit criteria were drawn up by means of a written dialogue between the parties. At the meeting in Moscow in May 2006, the parties arrived at common audit questions, and an agreement was signed in June 2006. The working parties met again in September in Norway to go through methodological approach and preliminary findings and to implement joint audit procedures.

In October 2006, the parties reached agreement on a common outline for the two reports. This chapter briefly presents the methods and analytical concepts that have been used to study the various audit questions (topics). The analysis rests largely on three types of source: official documents, statistical material and records of qualitative interviews. The contents of all interview records have been verified by the informants.

A joint memorandum was signed by the Auditors General of the two countries on 18 June 2007.

Umweltschutz im Dreiländereck Ungarn-Österreich und Slowenien

Report ID: 351

Umwelt- und Naturschutz sind entscheidende Faktoren in der modernen Gesellschaft. Da Umweltprobleme nicht an nationalen Grenzen Halt machen, ist eine intensive internationale Zusammenarbeit notwendig, um Umweltverschmutzungen zu verhindern und zu reduzieren. Oberste Rechnungskontrollbehörden (ORKB) haben als unabhängige Organisationen eine besondere Funktion bei der Behandlung dieser Themen.

Mit dem Ziel, zu einem supranationalen Ansatz in Umweltfragen beizutragen, haben die Leiter der ORKB der Republik Ungarn, der Republik Slowenien und der Republik Österreich vereinbart, koordinierte Prüfungen zur Behandlung der häufig identischen Probleme des Umwelt- und Naturschutzes in der Region entlang der gemeinsamen Grenzen der drei Länder durchzuführen. Alle ORKBn hatten bereits Erfahrung mit erfolgreicher bilateraler Prüfungskooperation; diese trilaterale Prüfung stellt einen weiteren Schritt in der Zusammenarbeit und im Austausch von Know-how zwischen den ORKBn der Republik Ungarn, der Republik Slowenien und der Republik Österreich dar.

Angeregt wurde diese trilaterale Kooperation durch die Arbeitsgruppe für Umweltprüfung der Europäischen Organisation der ORKBn (EUROSAI). Die Leiter der drei ORKB sind überzeugt, dass die gewonnenen Erkenntnisse und Die Leiter der drei ORKB sind davon überzeugt, dass die gewonnenen Erkenntnisse und Erfahrungen zur technischen Zusammenarbeit zwischen den ORKB auf dem Gebiet der Umweltprüfung beitragen werden.
Die von den drei ORKBn durchgeführten Umweltprüfungen umfassten die Themen Wasser, Boden und Naturschutz. Das geprüfte Gebiet umfasste die Grenzregion der drei Länder mit Schwerpunkt auf der Region der Grenzflussgebiete Raab/Rába und Mur/Mura sowie Schutzgebiete. Die Audits deckten den Zeitraum 2000-2005 ab, wobei der Schwerpunkt auf den Trends und jüngsten Entwicklungen lag.

Die Hauptziele waren:
- die Qualität von Flüssen, Grundwasser, Boden und natürlichen Lebensräumen
- die Situation der Abwasserentsorgung,
- die Effektivität der behördlichen Maßnahmen zur Förderung des Umwelt- und Naturschutzes sowie der Einsatz der Mittel,
- Defizite und Bedarf an weiteren Maßnahmen.

Bei den Audits wurde besonderer Wert auf die grenzüberschreitende Zusammenarbeit der zuständigen Behörden der drei Länder auf dem Gebiet des Umweltschutzes gelegt.
Die Prüfungen wurden im Sinne einer engen Zusammenarbeit der drei ORKBn durchgeführt. Über die eingehende Abstimmung der Prüfungsergebnisse untereinander hinaus führte jede der drei ORKBn die Prüfung in eigener Zuständigkeit und als Teil ihres jährlichen nationalen Prüfungsprogramms durch. Die Prüfungsergebnisse wurden in separaten nationalen Berichten veröffentlicht und zu dem gemeinsamen Bericht zusammengefasst, der den Anhang zu diesem Kommuniqué bildet und von den drei ORKBn erstellt wurde. 

Quelle: https://www.rechnungshof.gv.at/rh/home/home/Umweltsituation_im_Dreilaendereck_Oesterreich-Ungarn-Slowenien

Pacific Regional Report of the Cooperative Performance Audit: Managing Sustainable Fisheries

Report ID: 237

This report provides a regional overview of the process and outcomes of the third Cooperative Performance Audit in the Pacific region. At the aggregate level, it reports the significant findings about managing sustainable fisheries (in particular the tuna fishery) in the nine Pacific island countries, which were the focus of the audit. The report also records the achievements against Pacific Regional Audit Initiative (PRAI) objectives, including building performance auditing capacity within PASAI.

Nine PASAI member audit offices took part in the audit: PICT 1, the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), Fiji, PICT 2, Palau, Samoa, the Solomon Islands, Tonga and Tuvalu. Owing to confidentiality reasons, the reports of two SAIs are not identified in this regional report, as they have not yet been made public within their jurisdictions. As a result, these Pacific island states are referred to as Pacific Island Country and Territory (PICT) - PICT 1 and 2. Of the SAIs participating in the third cooperative audit, the majority had participated in either the first or the second cooperative audit. The Solomon Islands SAI was new to the cooperative performance audit approach.

Key Findings

The main findings from each of the three lines of enquiry are presented below:

1. The overall finding for the first line of enquiry is that, while government objectives are set out in legislation, these objectives need to be reflected in sector planning arrangements.
2. The overall finding for the second line of enquiry is that, while there have been important sub-regional developments, it is difficult to provide assurance that economic returns to the Pacific island states involved in this audit, are uniformly fair and reasonable.
3. The overall finding for the third line of enquiry is that the accuracy of fishery data collection and analysis procedures as the basis for good decision making are less than optimal.

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.