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.

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.

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.

INTOSAI WGEA Coordinated audit of climate change

Report ID: 290

In June 2007, the INTOSAI Working Group on Environmental Audit embarked on a coordinated audit of climate change programs. The project involved 14 SAIs: Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Indonesia, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

For this project, from 2007 to 2010, 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. As a result, a joint summary report—Coordinated International Audit on Climate Change: Key Implications for Governments and their Auditors was issued.

In addition, considering that the cooperative audit was the first of its kind for the WGEA and for several of the participating SAIs, as well as their diverse experience in auditing climate change programs, the mix of audit mandates, practices and ideas on how to audit such programs, a  Process Chronicle and Lessons Learned report was prepared by the SAI of Canada (Project Leader).

The purpose of the report is to capture the process used and the lessons learned in executing the coordinated international audit on climate change.

It is divided into three sections:

• a chronicle of the process used to plan and guide the project

• lessons learned from the perspectives of the individual participant

• perspectives of the Project Leader

Source: https://www.environmental-auditing.org/media/2509/15220-e_wgea-coordinated-international-audit-on-climate-change-lessons-learned.pdf