Joint Report of the International Coordinated audit of Chernobyl Shelter Fund
Report ID: 219

On April 26, 1986, the worst accident in the history of civilian nuclear power occurred at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine, where an explosion destroyed the core of reactor Unit 4 containing approximately 200 tons of nuclear fuel. The explosion and heat from the reactor core propelled radioactive material as much as six miles high, where it was then dispersed mainly over 60,000 square miles of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. Smaller amounts of radioactive material spread over Eastern and Western Europe and Scandinavia and were even detected in the United States.

The Chernobyl Shelter Fund (CSF) was founded at European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) in 1997 aimed at financing Shelter Implementation Plant (SIP).The Fund is guided by the set of rules regarding its resource management. Contributor Governments, mainly of G-7 and European Union, contribute to the Fund. The Assembly of Contributors supervises SIP implementation progress.

The Initial SIP costs were estimated at about USD 758 million (about EUR 585 million 4) in 1997. In 2003 and 2004 technical uncertainties and delays in the SIP fulfilment became apparent, especially with the construction of NSC, which resulted in cost escalation to EUR 840 million. The causes of those cost increases and the resulting need for additional steps to control cost and time overruns were discussed at all level including the Assemblies of Contributors. All G-85 Governments agreed to increase the scale of CSF.

Such increase was tied to the requirements to be fulfilled by Ukraine, including improvement of management, removal of procedural obstacles and timely delivery of Ukraine’s contributions. Thus, as of January 2006 estimated total costs were EUR 955 million and term for SIP completion was extended from 2005 to 2010.

Due to failure in timely realization of SIP, in 2006, the Special Subgroup on the Audit of Natural, Man-caused Disasters Consequences and Radioactive Wastes Elimination of the EUROSAI Working Group on Environmental Auditing decided to conduct an international coordinated audit of the Chernobyl Shelter Fund.

The aim of the audit was the establishment of actual state of affairs regarding legal, organizational and financial support of decommissioning the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant (CNPP) and transforming destroyed CNPP Unit 4 into an environmentally safe system by fulfilling the Shelter Implementation Plan.


Energy efficiency of Public Sector Buildings
Report ID: 244

The supreme audit institutions of the Flanders region of Belgium, Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal and Slovakia have conducted a cooperative audit on the energy efficiency of public sector buildings. The cooperative audit was conducted within the framework of the Working Group for Environmental Auditing of the European Organization for Supreme Audit Institutions (EUROSAI WGEA). The aim of the audit was to determine how well the participating countries have implemented the respective requirements of the European Union Energy Performance of Buildings Directive and the Energy Efficiency Directive. Audited countries have mostly done well in transposing the concrete targets of the directives into national law.

For example, most countries have put in place the 3% renovation or energy saving target for public sector buildings, devised necessary financial instruments, as well as established requirements for nearly zero-energy buildings and for public sector buildings to have and display energy performance certificates. Likewise, the systems for monitoring and control have been developed. Nevertheless, implementation has remained a challenge. Looking more closely into how the targets, requirements and systems have been implemented, the national audits found that funding has mostly been incoherent, and the effectiveness of the financial support system has not been analysed in all but one country. And only one country could report that the funds spent for fulfilling the 3% target are being monitored. Though both the 3% target and the deadline for nearly zero-energy buildings have been set in national legislation, proper planning and measuring for achieving the targets are lacking in some countries.

Furthermore, monitoring and control systems tend not to fulfil their purpose. National audits have discovered that checking the quality and proper placement of energy performance certificates has been infrequent and, in some cases, checks have not been conducted in practice. Though countries have been keen to use the options listed in the EED by choosing narrower definitions and smaller renovation and savings targets of central government buildings, over half of the participating countries are still struggling to meet the 3% target.

According to the SAI’s this was mainly due to a lack of planning or a poor implementation of existing plans. Inadequate funding and the poor quality of data on renovations or energy saved, were also pointed out by participating SAIs. In their national audit reports, participating SAIs have recommended to undertake systematic and improved planning, as well as comprehensive strategies to enhance the energy performance of public sector buildings.

SAIs also stated that implementation of energy efficiency programmes could be more efficient and effective. Furthermore, participating SAIs noted that monitoring and control activities should be more systematic. Their results should be analysed and measures should be taken to eliminate any shortcomings. Another important issue SAIs pointed out is the need for improved funding of energy efficiency measures. This includes more information about funding options, as well as more ambition in devising measures.

AuditorĂ­a Coordinada de EnergĂ­as Renovables
Report ID: 245

La Organización Latinoamericana y del Caribe de Entidades Fiscalizadoras Superiores (OLACEFS), por medio del Grupo de Trabajo de Auditoría de Obras Públicas (GTOP), escogió el tema energías renovables en el sector eléctrico para la realización de una auditoría coordinada.

Participaron en los trabajos conjuntos las Entidades Fiscalizadoras Superiores de doce países (Brasil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, México, Paraguay y Venezuela). Ello hizo posible promover un intercambio de informaciones sobre las políticas energéticas adoptadas en cada país y una posterior consolidación de los resultados de la auditoría, con el propósito de contribuir con la mejora de las estrategias dirigidas hacia la expansión de fuentes limpias en la matriz eléctrica.

El objetivo de la auditoría fue realizar un diagnóstico sobre políticas públicas e inversiones relacionadas con la expansión de las energías renovables en el sector eléctrico en los países participantes de la región de América Latina y el Caribe, en especial identificando buenas prácticas y oportunidades de mejora en dichas políticas, de manera que se contribuya al alcance de los compromisos asumidos por medio de los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible (ODS) y del Acuerdo de París.

Los objetivos específicos que abordó la auditoría coordinada fueron:

1) Identificar la situación actual de la matriz eléctrica en cada uno de los países miembros participantes de la OLACEFS;

2) Evaluar si existen políticas públicas establecidas para el alcance de los compromisos nacionales y/o internacionales asumidos para la expansión de las energías renovables en el sector eléctrico, en especial para el logro de los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible y del Acuerdo de París;

3) Analizar las inversiones en infraestructura para la generación de energía eléctrica sostenible (fuentes hídrica, eólica, solar, biomasa, marea, etc.) y eventuales barreras existentes para la  inserción/expansión de esta infraestructura, sobre todo con relación a los aspectos relacionados a los desafíos operacionales, cuestiones regulatorias, políticas de subsidio y de fomento, seguridad energética, precio de la energía, modulación de las tarifas, entre otros.

International Coordinated Audit (Control) of Public Funds, Allocated to prevention and Consequences elimination of Disasters and Catastrophes
Report ID: 250

The International Coordinated Audit (Control) of Public Funds, Allocated to Prevention and consequences Elimination of Disasters and Catastrophes was included into the Work Plan of the EUROSAI Task Force on the Audit of Funds Allocated to Disasters and Catastrophes for 2012-2014, and was conducted by the SAIs of 9 participated countries.

The audit (control) objective was to assess legality and utilization efficiency of the public funds
allocated to establishment, functioning and development of the national system for prevention
and response to natural and man-caused disasters and catastrophes.

This audit also allowed to test Good Practice Recommendations for the Audit of Funds Allocated to Disasters and Catastrophes, which were developed by the Accounting Chamber of Ukraine within the framework of the EUROSAI Task Force and were prepared for approval in 2014.

AFROSAI-E and IDI Cooperative Audit on Extractive Industries
Report ID: 253

Under the framework of the IDI/AFROSAI-E Cooperative Audit Project on Extractive Industries,  a series of parallel performance audits on the topic of National Content in the oil and gas sector took place between 2014 and 2015 with the participation of the SAIs of Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, South Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda.

The original purpose of the project was to help SAIs identify risk areas in the Extractive Industries area and help them formulate an audit approach that they could execute. The ultimate goal was that each SAI should complete an audit on a topic related to public sector management of the extractive industries sector. 

The SAIs  conducted a performance audit to examine, among others, the benefits in terms of increased local employment and use of local suppliers that result from the oil and gas industry. The SAIs drew a distinction between local and national, because in some countries the governments were concerned with benefit accruing to nationals, whereas others had specific aims of seeing benefits accruing to local communities affected by the oil and gas industry. 

The report outlines the methods applied by the project, the results achieved and the experiences for future projects of this type.