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.

EUROSAI WGEA COOPERATIVE AUDIT ON AIR QUALITY

Report ID: 251

With the aim to assess whether the governments of 16 european countries were taking proper action on air quality, the SAIs of the European Court of Auditors, Albania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Israel, Kosovo, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and the Netherlands conducted a cooperative audit.

In order to collect and assess comparable information on national government actions, the 15 SAIs
prepared a common audit framework containing the main audit question, the audit topics and the corresponding secondary questions to be addressed by the national audits. The main audit question was: “What is known about the effectiveness and efficiency of measures taken by national and local governments to improve air quality, and are these measures compliant with international and national legislation?”

Two of the main audit findings were that many European countries are failing to comply with international and European standards on air quality. Moreover, many governments have failed to take effective  action to improve air quality and hence to protect their citizens’ health.

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.

WGEA Coordinated International Audit on Climate Change

Report ID: 257

In June 2007, the INTOSAI Working Group on Environmental Audit embarked on a coordinated audit because of the economic, social, and environmental significance of governments’ work to address climate change challenges. The project involved 14 SAIs—from developed countries, countries with economies in transition, and developing countries—and included Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Indonesia, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

For this project, the SAIs cooperated in the design  and undertaking of national audits of their respective governments’ climate change programs and performance. Each SAI undertook one or more audits (in some cases, studies and reviews) in the fields of greenhouse gas emissions mitigation and/or climate change adaptation to determine whether their governments were doing what they said they would do. During this period, 10 SAIs of the European Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions (EUROSAI), a regional working group of INTOSAI, also undertook joint audit work focused on climate change. The findings of the 33 national audits and the EUROSAI audit work are included in Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively.

The report draws on the findings of the 33 audits of national implementation of climate change programs. It summarizes the key findings from this work and aims to:

• report on whether governments are (or are not) doing what they said they would do;

• encourage governments to take, improve, and/ or strengthen proper and effective actions;

• assist legislatures in holding governments to account;

• inspire other SAIs to undertake audits of climate change and coordinated audits and to help them by raising awareness of appropriate audit techniques; raise awareness of the important role that supreme audit institutions play in bringing accountability to governments that are implementing policies and actions related to greenhouse gas mitigation and climate change adaptation.

Source: WGEA website http://www.environmental‐auditing.org.