Joint report on parallel audit of Procurement of public building and corruption prevention

Report ID: 41

In January 2011, the Supreme Audit Office of the Czech Republic (Czech SAI - NKÚ) and the Bundesrechnungshof of Germany (German SAI - BRH) agreed to conduct parallel audits both of the EU-wide awarding of building contracts and of corruption prevention.

The audit focused on the application of EU procurement law as transposed into national law and corruption prevention of contracts for building construction and road construction and/or transport infrastructure. The audit also covered contract awards below the EU thresholds with a view to corruption prevention.

The working groups of the two SAIs compared the legal frameworks and administrative regulations in the Czech Republic and in Germany and the results of their parallel audits which they conducted specifically in the fields of building construction and road construction.

The two SAIs´ audit findings are summarised in the joint report.

SOURCE: https://www.nku.cz/en/publications-ocuments/other-publications/procurement-of-public-building-and-corruption-prevention---joint-report-on-parallel-audit-nku-and-brh-id6067/

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

WGEAs global audit on climate change, adaptation to Climate Change, are Governments prepared

Report ID: 12

This cooperative audit is based on eight individual national audit reports from Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Russia and Ukraine, and a factfinding study by the European Court of Auditors. Generally the national audits revealed that the countries assessed in this report are in an early stage in adapting to climate change. So far, adaptation activities are related to identifying risk and vulnerabilities and to some extent policy development. Actions identified in the national audits covered in this report are mainly a response to current challenges and not initiated due to anticipated medium-term and long-term climate change impacts.

The national audits revealed that most countries have prepared risk and vulnerability assessments of sufficient quality. Up to the time of concluding the national audits, only two of the eight countries had developed a comprehensive adaptation strategy.

In most countries, weaknesses in coordination of adaptation are identified. There is also a general lack of cost estimates of impacts of climate change or adaptation measures in policy documents. This increases the risk that climate change and adaptation issues are not being sufficiently addressed in decision-making processes

It is recommended that

• countries use adequate risk and vulnerability assessments for policy-making and consider the impacts of likely climate change scenarios with higher expected temperature increases than the 2-degrees scenario
• adaptation strategies and action plans should be developed and implemented at the government level
• the strategies should clearly specify the time-frame for implementation and the roles and responsibilities of all the parties involved
• governments should ensure coordinated adaptation policy and its implementation
• governments should provide knowledge, to the extent possible and meaningful, of the costs and benefits of climate change impacts and adaptation measures to ensure cost-effective implementation

Bericht über die parallele Prüfung zur Vereinfachung der Regelungen in den Strukturfonds

Report ID: 349

Im Jahr 2011 beauftragte der Kontaktausschuss der Leiter der Obersten Rechnungskontrollbehörden (ORKB) der Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen Union (EU) und des Europäischen Rechnungshofs (ERH) die Arbeitsgruppe "Strukturfonds" mit der Fortsetzung ihrer Prüfung von Fragen im Zusammenhang mit den Strukturfonds, genauer gesagt mit der Durchführung einer Parallelprüfung zur "Vereinfachung der Verordnungen in den Strukturfonds".

Die Arbeitsgruppe bestand aus 12 ORKB der EU-Mitgliedstaaten und prüfte die Auswirkungen von neun Vereinfachungsmaßnahmen. Im Folgenden werden die wichtigsten Schlussfolgerungen dargestellt:

Im Allgemeinen wurden die Vereinfachungsmaßnahmen nur selten angewandt und betrafen nur einen kleinen Teil aller Projekte, was größtenteils auf eine Reihe von Faktoren zurückzuführen ist, die mit der Verwaltung der Strukturfonds auf nationaler und supranationaler Ebene zusammenhängen, darunter:

- Einführung zu einem späten Zeitpunkt durch Änderungsverordnungen;

- Nicht alle Maßnahmen waren für alle Operationellen Programme (OP) und/oder Projekte geeignet;

- Beschränkungen in Bezug auf die für die Umsetzung der Maßnahmen erforderlichen Ressourcen; und

- Ein Mangel an Klarheit und Rechtssicherheit bei den nationalen Behörden.

Wann immer die Maßnahmen eingesetzt wurden, wurden die meisten von ihnen als echte Vereinfachung angesehen. Die Faktoren, die dazu führten, dass die nationalen Behörden die Maßnahmen nicht nutzten, waren sehr unterschiedlich und hingen vom europäischen System1 , dem nationalen Rechtssystem, der Organisation der Strukturfonds in den einzelnen Mitgliedstaaten sowie den spezifischen Merkmalen der einzelnen OP ab. Diese Bedingungen beeinflussten den potenziellen Anwendungsbereich der Maßnahmen und ihren jeweiligen Nutzen.

Die wichtigsten Ergebnisse des Berichts waren die folgenden:

Maßnahmen 1, 2 und 3 (Pauschale für indirekte Kosten, pauschale Kosten auf der Grundlage von Standardeinheitskosten, Pauschalbeträge): Bei den nationalen Behörden führte der Prozess der Festlegung der Methodik im Zusammenhang mit der Anwendung der oben genannten Maßnahmen zu Verwaltungsaufwand und wurde als schwierig und risikobehaftet angesehen; darüber hinaus waren die Entwicklung der Methodik und die Einholung der Genehmigung der Kommission oft langwierige Prozesse. Der Pauschalbetrag wurde als zu niedrig empfunden und das "Alles-oder-Nichts-Prinzip" führte zu einer Zurückhaltung bei der Anwendung der Maßnahme. Wann immer diese drei Maßnahmen eingesetzt wurden, stellten sie eine echte Vereinfachung dar.

Maßnahme 4 (Sachleistungen für finanztechnische Maßnahmen): Dies war die einzige Maßnahme, die in keinem der geprüften OPs in den teilnehmenden Mitgliedstaaten verwendet wurde.

Quelle: https://www.eca.europa.eu/sites/cc/Lists/CCDocuments/Final%20report%20WGSF/FinalReportWGSF_DE.pdf

Englischer Bericht: https://intosai-cooperativeaudits.org/catalog/report/report-on-the-parallel-audit-on-the-simplification-of-regulations-in-structural-funds

Pacific Regional Report of the Cooperative Performance Audit: Managing Sustainable Fisheries

Report ID: 237

This report provides a regional overview of the process and outcomes of the third Cooperative Performance Audit in the Pacific region. At the aggregate level, it reports the significant findings about managing sustainable fisheries (in particular the tuna fishery) in the nine Pacific island countries, which were the focus of the audit. The report also records the achievements against Pacific Regional Audit Initiative (PRAI) objectives, including building performance auditing capacity within PASAI.

Nine PASAI member audit offices took part in the audit: PICT 1, the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), Fiji, PICT 2, Palau, Samoa, the Solomon Islands, Tonga and Tuvalu. Owing to confidentiality reasons, the reports of two SAIs are not identified in this regional report, as they have not yet been made public within their jurisdictions. As a result, these Pacific island states are referred to as Pacific Island Country and Territory (PICT) - PICT 1 and 2. Of the SAIs participating in the third cooperative audit, the majority had participated in either the first or the second cooperative audit. The Solomon Islands SAI was new to the cooperative performance audit approach.

Key Findings

The main findings from each of the three lines of enquiry are presented below:

1. The overall finding for the first line of enquiry is that, while government objectives are set out in legislation, these objectives need to be reflected in sector planning arrangements.
2. The overall finding for the second line of enquiry is that, while there have been important sub-regional developments, it is difficult to provide assurance that economic returns to the Pacific island states involved in this audit, are uniformly fair and reasonable.
3. The overall finding for the third line of enquiry is that the accuracy of fishery data collection and analysis procedures as the basis for good decision making are less than optimal.