Joint final report on the second audit of implementation of provisions of the convention on the protection of the marine environment of the Baltic Sea area (the Helsinki Convention): Pollution from ships in the Baltic Sea 2005

Report ID: 43

In 2004 the Supreme Audit Institutions in Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and
Russia conducted an audit on preparedness to combat pollution from ships in the Baltic Sea. The audit was performed as a performance and compliance audit of the implementation of the articles concerning pollution from ships in the Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area (the Helsinki Convention), including relevant annexes and recommendations. The relevant articles in the Helsinki Convention are:

• Article 8 – Prevention of pollution from ships (including annex IV and the HELCOM Copenhagen Declaration)
• Article 13 – Notification and consultation on pollution incidents
• Article 14 – Cooperation in combating marine pollution (including annex VII)
• Article 16 – Reporting and exchange of information.

The objectives of the audit were to assess whether the national authorities in the respective countries comply with the provisions of these articles, including relevant annexes and recommendations.

Joint final report on the audit of environmental monitoring and fisheries management and control in the Baltic Sea 2009

Report ID: 44

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 audit was divided into two parts: Germany, Latvia, Poland, and Denmark participated in the first part which is about environmental monitoring in the Baltic Sea. Estonia, Finland, Lithuania, Russia, Sweden, and Denmark participated in the second part about fisheries management and control in the Baltic Sea.

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.

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

The audit of EU Regional Fund projects focused on the environment and environmentally friendly energy

Report ID: 45

1. This report concerns a coordinated audit performed by National Audit Office of Denmark (Rigsrevisionen) and the Gdansk Regional Branch of the Supreme Audit Office of the Republic of Poland (NIK) on the EU Regional Funds projects focused on the environment and environmentally friendly energy for the programme period 2007-2013.

2. The report contains information about programmes co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) including their administration, control follow-up, and how they are organised in Denmark and the Pomorskie Voivodship (region). The report is based on information gathered from national audits, the internet and other open sources.

3. In February 2010, Rigsrevisionen and the NIK engaged in a coordinated audit of environmental projects accepted to receive grants from the ERDF. The objective of the cooperation was for both Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) to gain comparable knowledge about the regional fund and find out whether administration and management of regional fund projects focused on the environment and environmentally friendly energy were adequate in the two countries. This was done on the basis of samples from environmental projects
accepted to receive grants from the ERDF in the period 2007-2009.

4. Furthermore, the purpose of conducting the audit as a coordinated audit was to identify examples of ‘good practice’ on the basis of the audit findings to the benefit of both SAIs and the administrations in the two countries.

5. Rigsrevisionen and the NIK have each performed the audit relating to Denmark and the Pomorskie Voivodship, respectively. These audits have been reported separately to the administrations in the two countries.

6. On the basis of these reports, this joint report with examples of “good practice” has been drawn up. The results of the Danish audit, the conclusions of the joint audit and the examples
of ‘good practice’ will form part of Rigsrevisionen’s report to the Danish parliament on
the audit of EU funds for 2009 while the findings of the Polish audit were included in the information
on the audit results published by the NIK.

Audit of the CO2 emissions trading systems

Report ID: 47

The Nordic–Baltic–Polish cooperative audit on emissions trading was performed in 2012 and involved the Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) of Denmark, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland and Sweden.1 The report builds on 13 individual national audit reports.

The aim of the cooperative audit was to assess:

• the effectiveness of the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) in reducing national greenhouse gas emissions or fostering technology development
• the proper functioning of the EU ETS: national registries, greenhouse gas emissions permits and emissions reporting
• the implementation and administration of Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI) programmes.

There are clear indications from the cooperative audit that the emissions limitation targets adopted in the Kyoto Protocol or through the EU Burden Sharing Agreement are likely to be met in all seven countries by the end of the first Kyoto Protocol commitment period (end of 2012). The countries have implemented the EU ETS in line with the current EU legislation and the provisions under the UNFCCC. However, the effectiveness of the system in reducing emissions is a major challenge. For the Nordic countries the EU ETS provided little incentive for long-term reductions in CO2 emissions as allowance prices have been low due to a general surplus of allowances in the system during the period 2008–2012. Taking into account the slower economic
growth than expected, emissions trading did not provide a strong market mechanism that has raised the costs of emissions related to production and given a competitive advantage to cleaner production.

The audits for Latvia, Lithuania and Poland have shown that emissions have increased at a slower pace than economic growth. However, in this audit it has not been possible to measure whether this can be attributed to the effectiveness of the EU ETS.

Source: https://www.nik.gov.pl/plik/id,4464,vp,5704.pdf

Audit of national parks

Report ID: 48

The cooperative audit of national parks was performed in 2013–2014 and involved the Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) of Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, and Ukraine. The report builds on the seven individual national audit reports.

The main objectives of the cooperative audit were:

• to assess if national parks are managed appropriately;
• to address the challenges regarding the conservation and protection of biodiversity in national parks;
• to evaluate whether public funds are being spent in the best way, allowing the goals of national parks to be achieved.

The audit results show that national parks in most of the participating countries are, in general, performing their functions and working towards achieving the goals set by their respective governments. The countries have employed different models of governance to national parks, but they all need an appropriate management plan as a precondition for the administration of each national park; this is in order to have specific guidelines for their work and for the conservation of nature and use of the national parks. The audit shows that not all authorities ensure that their national parks have a management plan. The involvement of local stakeholders in the management of national parks can give the national parks more legitimacy.

There is a potential conflict of interests between the use of national parks and the protection of nature against threats to the national parks. The public authorities are responsible for the management and protection of national parks for future generations.

The audit shows that the majority of funds allocated to national parks come from the state budgets of the respective countries. Some national parks depend on other sources of income as well. Raising additional income may be in conflict with the protection and conservation of nature.