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.

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

Parallel Audit of Assurance of Epizootic Safety in the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Lithuania and the Slovak Republic after Accession to the Schengen Area

Report ID: 117

Once Lithuania, Poland and Slovakia entered the Schengen Area, their eastern borders became the external border of the European Union and, simultaneously, the first stage of the transfer of animals from the east to the Community. The three states are obliged to protect their borders properly also with regard to epizootic safety, defined as the prevention of and protection against hazards caused by infectious animal diseases transmissible to humans.

The national border protection system has been adapted to EU requirements in terms of legal and operational regulations for border services, including for preventing epizootic hazards from spreading across the EU. These responsibilities result from the EU Treaty and the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement.

Since epizootic safety is an issue of high importance, in 2010 the NIK and the SAIs of Lithuania and Slovakia decided to check whether the borders of their countries were protected appropriately through a parallel audit. The audit was conducted between 1st April 2010 and 15th September 2010, and covered the period between 1st January 2007 and 31st December 2009.

The agreement to conduct such joint audit was made pursuant to the exchange of Letters of Intent among the heads of the three SAIs as well as previous bilateral agreements signed among them.

The audit topics covered included the following areas:

- whether national legislation had been adapted to EU regulations in the audited area,

 - whether the recommendations issued following the audit conducted by the Food and Veterinary Office, Directorate General of Health and Consumer Affairs (DG SANCO), European Commission had been implemented in national regulations, within the audited areas,

- whether the applicable procedures had been adapted to current epizootic risks and for the event of emergency situations, including those related to controlled, uncontrolled or illegal movement of animals from non-EU countries,

 - whether the institutions responsible for epizootic safety were able to cope with emergency on the local and national levels,

 - whether the epizootic safety system has been adapted to make information on epizootic hazard available to the public, on the national and local levels.

Source: https://www.nik.gov.pl/plik/id,2240,vp,2790.pdf

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