State Funds Spent on the Enhancement of Purity of Water in the Oder Watershed

Report ID: 30

On October 23, 2001 in Seoul, representatives of the Supreme Chamber of Control of the Republic of Poland, the Supreme Audit Office of the Slovak Republic and the Supreme Audit Office of the Czech Republic (the participating parties) signed a joint standpoint on cooperation in the sphere of carrying out parallel audits of implementation of tasks related to protection of water against pollution in the Baltic Sea Area.

The parties carried out a jointly prepared audit related to the activities organized by state authorities of each of the parties and affecting the quality of water flowing into the Baltic Sea. A summary 'was drown up of financial means of the individual countries, employed to improve water management in the relevant areas.  The results of monitoring water quality were evaluated.

The SAI of Poland, in accord with its competence required that the state authorities implement recommendations connected to audit findings. It also evaluated the fulfilling of tasks following from the previous audit. The audit emphasized activities carried out on trans-boundary waters in the Oder watershed since 1997.

The SAI of the Slovak Republic audited implementation of measures connected to protection of water against pollution in the Dunajec and Poprad Rivers, which waters drain into the Baltic Sea through the other watercourses. Audits were carried out of purposeful and economically effective use of the means of the state budget and stole funds for investments, monitoring and other activities in the period since 1998. No serious inadequacies were found in these areas.

The SAI of the Czech Republic carried out audits of measures implemented since 1996 in the entire watershed of Oder in the territory of the Czech Republic and evaluated the results of monitoring in selected monitoring points in this territory. It summarized the means employed and audited selected recipients of state funds to ascertain whether they complied with the conditions under which this assistance was allocated. Trends in important water pollutants were evaluated and the ecological benefits of subsidies from the State Environmental Fund CR in the Oder watershed were evaluated.

AII the audit authorities were concerned with compliance with international agreements in the given area and stated that these agreements had been fulfilled. The Supreme Chamber of Control of the Republic of Poland pointed out difficulties occurring Since 1998 in connection with absence of the representative of the Government of the Republic of Poland in the frame work of the agreement between the Government of the People's Republic of Poland and the Government of the Czechoslovak Republic on water management on trans-boundary waters on March 21, 1958.

In relation to water quality, it was stated that this has improved over the lost approx. 5 years. This improvement is the result, amongst other things, of substantial l investments and other measures implemented in the individual countries.

Source: https://www.nku.cz/assets/publications-documents/other-publications/state-funds-spent-on-the-enhancement-of-purity-of-water-in-oder-watershed.pdf

Report on auditing the flood control preparedness in the Upper Tisza region

Report ID: 73

The area of the basin of the Upper Tisza is one of Europe’s wettest regions, at high risk from floods. The fundamental cause of the frequent and sizeable floods characteristic of the region, is the hydrometeorological and sinoptic situation, as well as the special location and structure of the beds of mountain rivers, soils and mountain rocks. Floods cause major damage to Ukraine and Hungary alike, and this determines to a large extent the parties’ cooperation in preventing the damaging effects of water and averting the consequences of floods.

The execution of a parallel audit covering the flood control preparedness in the Upper Tisza Region was preceded by an agreement signed in Budapest, on 4 March 2004, by the Presidents of the State Audit Office of Hungary and the Accounting Chamber of Ukraine aimed to monitor the implementation of the contents of the Transboundary Water Agreement signed between their respective countries in 1999, which serves as international legal basis for the cooperation between Hungary and Ukraine in respect of transboundary waters.

The parallel audit was integrated, in case of the Hungarian State Audit Office, in the performance audit task entitled “Audit of Preparations for the Prevention of Natural Disasters”, while in the case of the Accounting Chamber of Ukraine it was a part of the task entitled “Analysis and Audit of the Execution of the State Programme Covering the Complex Flood Control Preparedness of the Catchment Area of the Tisza River and the Sub-Carpathian Region for the Period 2002 to 2006 and the Forecast until 2015”. The audit offices submitted their respective reports to the legislative bodies of their countries.

The joint report presents the summary of the findings made on the Hungarian and Ukrainian sides, as well as the details of the joint conclusions concerning the fields of cooperation, which cover the transboundary waters.

SOURCE: https://rp.gov.ua/IntCooperation/IntAudits/?id=47&lang=eng

Auditoría Coordinada de Recursos Hidrícos

Report ID: 227

La auditoría se realizó en la modalidad de auditoría coordinada, en el marco de la Comisión Técnica Especial de Medio Ambiente - COMTEMA de la OLACEFS. Contó con la participación de las EFS de Argentina, Brasil, Bolivia, Chile,  Colombia,  Costa Rica, Cuba, Honduras. México, Paraguay, Perú y Venezuela.

El objetivo general fue examinar la gestión en los estados nacionales de la región para garantizar el uso sustentable del recurso hídrico. Para ello, se definieron dos objetivos específicos.

Objetivo específico 1: Examinar si en la gestión del recurso hídrico se cumple con la buena gobernanza (INTOSAI), a saber:

(a) adecuada definición de roles y responsabilidades;

(b) adecuada coordinación de los organismos gubernamentales involucrados;

(c) existencia de mecanismos que garanticen la participación ciudadana de manera amplia;

(d) procesos de toma de decisiones transparentes;

(d) mecanismos de rendición de cuenta efectivos.

Objetivo específico 2: Examinar si los instrumentos de gestión aplicados aseguran la sustentabilidad del recurso hídrico.

Los hallazgos de la auditoría coordinada permitieron identificar las debilidades y oportunidades de mejora de la gobernanza hídrica en la región, representadas por el incompleto desarrollo de las políticas hídricas nacionales, algunos vacíos legales y la compleja trama institucional involucrada en la gestión del recurso.

Asimismo, el examen de la implementación de los instrumentos de gestión derivados de la política hídrica señala las necesidades de fortalecer la planificación estratégica a nivel de cuencas hídricas así como intensificar los sistemas de monitoreo de calidad y cantidad de los recursos hídricos y las acciones de vigilancia y control.

Fuente: https://www.olacefs.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/004.pdf

Pacific regional report on the cooperative performance audit into solid waste management

Report ID: 235

This report provides a regional overview of the process and outcomes of the cooperative performance audit in the Pacific region on solid waste management. The report records the achievements against Pacific Regional Audit Initiative (PRAI) objectives, including building performance auditing capacity within the member audit offices of the Pacific Association of Supreme Audit Institutions (PASAI), and the lessons learned from the first cooperative audit. In addition, the high level findings about solid waste management in the Pacific countries that were part of the audit, are presented.

Ten member audit offices from PASAI participated in the region’s first cooperative performance audit. The audit reports of seven of the ten SAIs – Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), Guam, Marshall Islands, Page 8 the Republic of Palau, Papua New Guinea (PNG), and Tuvalu – are now in the public domain. The remaining three SAIs participated in the cooperative audit but have not yet released their individual country reports. Because of confidentiality issues, these country reports cannot be identified in this regional report. As a result, when cross-country comparisons are made in this report, they will be referred to as PICT 1, PICT 2 and PICT 3.

Pacific Regional Report of Access to Safe Drinking Water Report of the Cooperative Perform Audit: Access to Safe Drinking Water

Report ID: 236

This report provides a regional overview of the process and outcomes of the Cooperative Performance Audit in the Pacific region on access to safe drinking water. The report records the achievements against Pacific Regional Audit Initiative (PRAI) objectives, including building performance auditing capacity within PASAI (see Appendix A), and the lessons learned from the second cooperative audit. In addition the high level findings, about access to safe drinking water in the Pacific island countries/states that were the focus of the audit, are presented.

Ten PASAI member audit offices took part in the audit: Cook Islands, the states of Kosrae and Yap of the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), Fiji, Kiribati, Palau, PICT 1, Samoa, PICT 2 and Tuvalu. Of the SAIs participating in the second cooperative audit, seven had participated in the first cooperative audit and three were new to the cooperative performance audit approach, the states of Kosrae and Yap of FSM and Kiribati.

The audit reports of the following SAIs are now in the public domain: Cook Islands, Fiji, the states of Kosrae and Yap of FSM, Kiribati, Palau, Samoa, and Tuvalu. Two additional SAIs participated in the cooperative audit. However, their reports have not yet been released and because of confidentiality issues the individual country reports cannot be identified in this regional report. As a result, when cross-country comparisons are made in this report, these Pacific island countries will be referred to as PICT 1 and PICT 2.

Key Findings

The main findings from each of the three lines of enquiry are noted below.

• The overall finding on the first line of enquiry is that most of the ten PICTs have legal and policy frameworks in place but not a single, overarching framework.
• The overall finding on the second line of enquiry is that legal and policy frameworks have not been effectively implemented in most of the ten audited countries/states.
• The overall finding on the third line of enquiry is that there are weaknesses in monitoring systems and performance management frameworks.