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.

Bericht über die Abgestimmte Prüfung von Steuersubventionen

Report ID: 169

Der VI. EUROSAI-Kongress, der vom 30. Mai bis 2. Juni 2005 in Bonn stattfand, befasste sich mit der Prüfung der öffentlichen Einnahmen durch die Obersten Rechnungskontrollbehörden (ORKB). Die Analyse der von den EUROSAI-Mitgliedern im Vorfeld des Kongresses eingereichten Länderpapiere zeigte u.a., dass das Wissen über die Wirksamkeit von Steuersubventionen noch unzureichend ist, wies auf den Umfang und die Komplexität der Steuergesetzgebung hin, die zu Steuerausfällen und Steuerausnahmen führen können, und kam zu dem Schluss, dass die ORKB verlässlichere Erkenntnisse über den Umfang und die Zielerreichung solcher Steuersubventionen erarbeiten sollten.

Der Kongress sprach sich daher für die Durchführung einer koordinierten Prüfung von Steuersubventionen aus, die allen EUROSAI-Mitgliedern offen steht. Zu diesem Zweck wurde eine Arbeitsgruppe eingerichtet, die die Planung der Prüfung koordiniert und deren Inhalte und Rubriken festlegt.

Die Obersten Rechnungskontrollbehörden Deutschlands, Zyperns, Dänemarks, Frankreichs, Finnlands, Ungarns, Islands, Italiens, Lettlands, Litauens, Polens, Rumäniens, der Russischen Föderation, Schwedens, der Schweiz, der Slowakischen Republik, des Vereinigten Königreichs und der Niederlande (Beobachter) nahmen an der Prüfung teil.

Die Ziele des koordinierten Audits waren:

- Verbesserung des Wissensaustauschs,

- Verbesserung der Kommunikation zwischen den EUROSAI-Mitgliedern in Bereichen von besonderem Interesse,

- Gewinnung von Informationen über bewährte Praktiken,

- Stärkung der informellen Netzwerke,

Um vergleichbare Ergebnisse zu erzielen, wurde eine Checkliste erstellt, die alle Phasen einer Steuervergünstigung von der Gesetzgebung über die Umsetzung bis hin zur Berichterstattung behandelt. Gleichzeitig bildete diese Checkliste den unverbindlichen Rahmen für eine Prüfung der Transparenz und Berichterstattung. Darüber hinaus wurden drei Arbeitsuntergruppen eingerichtet, die sich mit spezifischen Steuersubventionen befassen: Körperschaftssteuer, Mehrwertsteuer und Transparenz- und Subventionsbericht.

Nach Abschluss der Prüfungsarbeiten kam die Arbeitsgruppe zu dem Schluss, dass in Bezug auf Steuersubventionen in allen Teilnehmerstaaten Verbesserungen in den Bereichen Gesetzgebung, Bewertung und Berichterstattung erforderlich sind, um die allgemeine Transparenz zu schaffen, die sie sowohl für den Gesetzgeber als auch für die Öffentlichkeit für notwendig hält.

QUELLE: https://www.eurosai.org/es/working-groups/historic-working-groups-committees/coordinated-audit-on-tax-subsidies-working-group/

Special Report Management of a Cross-Border Broadband Initiative: the Bytel Project

Report ID: 280

This report is the result of a co-ordinated examination between the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Northern Ireland Audit Office to the Bytel project. The project was aimed to provide high-speed broadband connectivity linking Belfast, Craigavon, Armagh, Dundalk and Dublin It was supported by the European Union (EU) Interreg III programme, which ran from 2000 to 2006.

Due to the nature of the issues to be examined and that Bytel was located in Northern Ireland, the detailed work in relation to the grant payments was carried out by the NIAO. The NIAO's report is also attached as an appendix of the report. The report examines the role of the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources in the management of the project.

Source: https://www.audit.gov.ie/en/Find-Report/Publications/Special%20Reports/Special-Report-90-Management-of-Cross-Border-Initiative-the-Bytel-Project.html

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