Environmental Audit Report on the three-border area of Hungary Slovenia and Austria - Follow-up

Report ID: 9

Umweltsituation im Dreiländereck Österreich–Ungarn–Slowenien; Follow–up–Überprüfung

Prüfungsziel

Ziel der Follow–up–Überprüfung der Umweltsituation im Dreiländereck war, die Umsetzung von Empfehlungen und Feststellungen zu beurteilen, die der RH bei der Gebarungsüberprüfung im Jahr 2005 abgegeben hatte und deren Verwirklichung die Länder Burgenland und Steiermark bzw. das BMLFUW zugesagt hatten.

Land Burgenland

Der vom RH aufgezeigte Rückstand bei der Erstellung von Jahresberichten der Gewässeraufsicht konnte abgebaut werden.

Die Empfehlung des RH, auf die rasche Sanierung der Abwasserreinigungsanlage Glasing hinzuwirken, wurde durch die Bewilligung eines Projekts für die Erweiterung und Anpassung an den Stand der Technik umgesetzt.

Vom RH war aufgezeigt worden, dass die Behörden bisher keine wirksamen Schritte zur Herstellung des rechtmäßigen Zustandes gesetzt hatten. Die Bezirkshauptmannschaft in Jennersdorf erteilte im Dezember 2007 für eine betriebliche Abwasserreinigungsanlage die wasserrechtliche Bewilligung einer dritten Ausbaustufe zur Verringerung des Risikos der Schaumbildung auf der Raab; die Fertigstellung der Anlage ist mit Ende 2009 vorgeschrieben.

Land Steiermark

Entsprechend der Empfehlung des RH wurden in der Südoststeiermark die Wasserversorgungsleitungen ausgebaut und die Ortsnetze erweitert, wodurch rd. 8.000 Einwohner zusätzlich mit Trinkwasser versorgt werden können.

Der RH hatte auf die Bedeutung der Grundwasservorkommen für die Trinkwasserversorgung hingewiesen. Zur Verbesserung der Trinkwasserqualität im Leibnitzer Feld wurden die Grundwasserschongebietsverordnungen novelliert. Für das Nördliche Leibnitzer Feld war eine diesbezügliche Anpassung in Arbeit. Eine Stabilisierung der Nitratbelastung lässt sich aus den Konzentrationen im Grundwasser ablesen.

Im Bereich der Fließgewässer konnte die Empfehlung des RH zur Erhöhung der Kontrollfrequenz der Gewässeraufsicht durch den Einsatz von zwei neuen Mitarbeitern umgesetzt werden.

Ab dem Jahr 2006 verstärkte die Gewässeraufsicht gemäß der Empfehlung des RH die Kontrolltätigkeit bezogen auf das Grundwasser erheblich.

Der RH hatte auf Überschreitungen von Emissionsgrenzwerten hingewiesen. Für die betriebliche Abwasserreinigungsanlage in Feldbach erging im November 2007 ein wasserrechtlicher Bescheid, der die Errichtung einer dritten Ausbaustufe bis Ende 2008 vorsah. Damit soll das Schaumbildungspotenzial auf der Raab reduziert werden.

Im Jahr 2007 erließ die Landesregierung die Klärschlammverordnung 2007 und glich entsprechend der Anregung des RH die Schadstoffgrenzwerte an die Kompostverordnung des Bundes an.

Die Empfehlung des RH, die vom Agrarumweltprogramm ÖPUL erfassten Flächen zu erhöhen, konnte nicht umgesetzt werden.

BMLFUW

In teilweiser Umsetzung der Empfehlung des RH erließ das BMLFUW die Qualitätszielverordnung Chemie–Oberfl ächengewässer. Eine Qualitätszielverordnung Ökologie, die Immissionsgrenzwerte vor allem für Nährstoffparameter festlegen soll, steht noch aus.

Eine Harmonisierung der Kontrollfrequenz der Gewässeraufsicht konnte entgegen der Empfehlung des RH noch nicht erzielt werden.

Intra-Community VAT fraud

Report ID: 16

In collaboration with the Dutch SAI (Algemeen Rekenkamer) and the German SAI (Bundesrechnungshof), the Belgian Court examined whether tax authorities are sufficiently resourced to combat VAT carousel fraud. The report to the federal Parliament with the findings for Belgium reveals that the department rightly prioritize fraud prevention and fraud detection. As a matter of fact it is very difficult to collect evaded VAT, VAT arrears and penalties when fraud carousels are involved. As far as prevention is concerned, the tax department performs an adequate review before assigning a VAT number. Tax authorities are insufficiently resourced to prevent malafide persons from infiltrating existing companies. The opportunities for international information exchanges are not used in an optimal way. The Eurocanet network created by Belgium allows for quick and targeted information exchanges between specialized tax authorities, but loses some of its impact because not all European Member States participate equally.

EUROSAI Audit on Climate Change

Report ID: 22

The aim of the audit was to assess the actions taken in the States of the Cooperating SAIs to implement the provisions of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol to this Convention, Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and the requirements of the national legislation, in the scope of:

• the performance of observations on climate change and its effects,
• actions taken to mitigate climate change,
• forecasts and assessments of the actual anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission and absorption levels,
• reporting on the scope of the actions taken and planned to be taken in order to mitigate climate change and the achieved effects of these actions.

The audit demonstrated that in the period 2006 – 2008 in all the States of the Cooperating SAIs climate change observations were performed, covering climate variables and including analysis and interpretation of the research results. The scope and frequency of the research carried out in the individual States was different, but in all of them the basic climate variables were tested. The observation results were published in the reports of government agencies and statistical reports and they were also placed on the websites of the competent government institutions or meteorological services. All the States were involved in international cooperation in the scope of research and an exchange of observation data, e.g. through their participation in international networks and research projects, their work at the technical commissions of the World Meteorological Organisation and training courses. Climate change observations were funded with financial resources from the state budget, national, other than budget resources and international funds.

In all the States of the Cooperating SAIs, measures were taken to mitigate climate change through the limitation of their greenhouse gas emissions and the enhancement of the capacity of the sinks and reservoirs of these gases. Bodies responsible for taking measures to mitigate climate change were established. In 8 States, national and sectoral strategies, programmes or action plans necessary to stabilise and limit greenhouse gas emissions were prepared and in 2 States their preparation began. In 7 States the greenhouse gas emissions were reduced by 30% - 53% with respect to the base year (under the Kyoto Protocol: 1988, 1990, 1995 or 2000, depending on the State) and in 1 State the emissions grew by 85.3%. The per capita levels of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions varied between 5.1 – 16.4 Mg CO2e.

In the EU Member States, the provisions of the Emissions Trading Scheme Directive were implemented. National emission allowance allocation plans were developed, an emission allowance trading scheme was established and the required registries were kept. Among the 6 States of the Cooperating SAIs which were not EU Member States, emission allowances were traded pursuant to the Kyoto Protocol only in 1 country.

6 States of the Cooperating SAIs – Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Denmark, Israel, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Switzerland – were involved in the implementation of Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects, whereas 5 of them – Denmark, Estonia, Poland, Russia and Ukraine – participated in Joint Implementation (JI) projects. The international cooperation in the field of the mitigation of climate change effects also included the implementation of educational projects, support for legislative activities and participation in the working groups of international agencies. The activities within the framework of international cooperation were funded with national resources and those from international financial institutions, such as the World Bank and UNDP.

In all the States of the Cooperating SAIs, the measures to mitigate climate change were monitored.

The required reports were prepared and submitted to the UNFCCC Secretariat and the European Commission. Certain reports were submitted with a delay.

Joint Report: Programmes/measures aimed at increasing the employment of disabled persons

Report ID: 37

Problems connected with the issue of the programs supporting employment of disabled people was the subject of discussion at the VII the EUROSAI Congress in 2008 in Krakow. It inspired the handling of this theme within the parallel audit coordinated by the NIK. It was participated by 12 SAI1. The Common Position on Cooperation was signed at the meeting in Warszawa held on 15. January 2010 and the framework program to be taken into account by all SAI in their audit research was agreed upon.

This audit aimed to assess the performance of selected programs/measures to promote employment of disabled people. The particular SAI had to take into account the specific conditions of their country resulting from the legal definition of disability, a different role of central and local authorities in the support system, different authorization of SAI in the scope of audit and the significance assigned to the programs. However, the challenges faced by the participating SAI were common for most of them. Among others, these were: complexity of the methodology of the implementation of the programs, the difficulty in assessing the attainment of the set objectives and lack of data availability.

Parallel Audit of costs of controls of Structural Funds

Report ID: 84

In 2000, the Contact Committee of the heads of the SAIs of the EU Member States and the ECA (Contact Committee) set up a Working Group to carry out an exploratory survey on EU Structural Funds. In 2008, the Contact Committee of the heads of  SAIs of the EU and the EC mandated the Working Group on Structural Funds to follow up on previous audits of the EU Structural Funds and to carry out an audit on “costs of controls (this could include utilisation of Technical Assistance for the controls of Structural Funds)”.

The aim of the audit was to identify the level of costs incurred by internal control activities in the Member States and to examine whether the costs of controls are appropriate (e. g. relation to expenditures; cost-benefit; output, redundancy).

The Working Group developed and agreed on a common Audit Plan (see Annex) which provided a framework for carrying out the review. Each SAI examined their respective national administration concerning the costs of the internal national controls for the years 2007, 2008 and 2009 prescribed by EU law for the Structural Funds for the 2007-2013 programming period. The costs of controls have been measured using two methods: cost centre accounting and cost unit accounting.

General observation and main conclusions

• The system of implementation of Structural Funds is organized differently in individual Member State. The different ways of implementation can influence the costs of controls.
• The cost unit accounting generally indicates lower costs of controls than the cost centre accounting.

- In relation to three sevenths of the budget5 of the audited operational programmes, the highest costs of controls expressed as a percentage amounted to 4.02 per cent and the lowest to 0.36 per cent. This percentage may be affected by the level of implementation in each Member State. Corrected for wage differences between the Member States the highest costs of controls expressed as a percentage was 2.79 per cent and the lowest 0.41 per cent.
- The average percentage of total costs of controls in relation to three sevenths of the budget of all audited operational programmes amounts to 0.97 per cent.
- In each Member State the costs of controls started out relatively low in 2007, and then increased year after year. A further increase in control activities and thus of their costs can reasonably be expected in the following years.
-The vast majority of all costs of controls made so far in the Member States can be attributed to the managing authorities. The costs of controls for the certifying authority and audit authority are comparatively low because the involvement of these authorities in control activities was limited in the years 2007-2009.

The lack of availability of data in the Member States does not allow for accurate calculating the costs of controls.

- A relatively high amount of controls was outsourced. This entails risks of loss of knowledge for the governmental bodies and higher costs.

- Whereas only some control activities result in monetary outputs, all of them can bring non-monetary benefits

- Some auditees argued that both the purpose of individual controls and the outputs and benefits of individual control activities are predetermined by EU law.

Source: https://www.eca.europa.eu/sites/cc/Lists/CCDocuments/8729516/8729516_EN.PDF