Eurosai environmental auditing seminar

Ladies and gentlemen,

It is a pleasure for me to welcome you to Oslo and to this seminar, organised by the Polish Supreme Chamber of Control and the Norwegian Office of the Auditor General.

First, let me congratulate EUROSAI with launching the first seminar of this kind. As a politician, I know how important it is to produce results, and I also know how difficult it can be to trace the results of one’s efforts. Better tools for shortening the distance between political goals and intentions on the one side, and the intended effects on the other, will therefore be welcome. It is my hope that this seminar will contribute to further improve these tools.

During these two days we will learn more about auditing methods and strategies at a general level, and exchange views and experiences based

on each country’s practicing of environmental auditing. With so many different European countries represented, I am convinced that we will have interesting discussions. Let me therefore share with you some views on the environmental challenges we are facing. I will also try to give you some insight into how we work at the government level in Norway to tackle these challenges. I believe we can say that after 30 years of environmental policy making, we are still searching for the best approaches and the most efficient instruments.

As you are all well aware, we face many important environmental issues. Let me mention some areas which are of particular interest to Norway:

• climate change issues
• depletion of the ozone layer
• chemicals and other harmful substances
• biological diversity

These challenges know no borders. National and international measures are needed to meet them . We need to evaluate policies in an international as well as a national context. These issues also illustrate the cross-sectoral nature of environmental problems, which leads to a need for developing new and more integrated policy instruments. I will also point to another aspect of environmental policy, namely the fast-evolving character of environmental problems and issues. New problems frequently appear as a result of scientific progress. Consequently, more and more become involved in environmental policy, either through choice, or as a result of increased sector responsibility. The climate change issue is a good example of this. As you see, in forming environmental policy we are often faced with challenges unknown to traditional sector based areas.

I know that in a seminar of experts, I run the risk of stating the obvious, but for me it is important to emphasize the dynamic character of environmental policy. The target often moves and the instruments at our disposal may be blunt and often unprecise. This makes it a challenging task to evaluate effects of the instruments we use, and to do constructive auditing. I hope that the seminar discussions also will touch upon some of these aspects, and I look forward to learn about your views and conclusions on this.

Now, let me give you an overview of some working methods in Norwegian environmental policy: Norwegian environmental policy is based on the principle that all private and public actors, in all sectors, have an independent responsibility to integrate environmental considerations into their activities. Over the last few years, it has been a main priority for us to build this principle into a coherent management and monitoring system involving fixed goals and responsibilities at all levels.

The environmental authorities are responsible for coordinating the Government’s environmental policy targets at both national and sectoral level. They are also responsible for developing a (result)? monitoring system, that includes reporting on trends in the state of the environment, environmental pressures, and the effects and costs of environmental measures. Sectoral authorities monitor the environmental impacts of activities in their sectors, and they are also responsible for initiating and implementing measures within their spheres of responsibility. The sectoral authorities shall also report on sectoral trends in the state of the environment and on the effects and costs of implemented measures.

Three essential elements have been established or are being developed:

• First, we have establisehed a set of quantitative environmental policy goals with specific time frames, making Norway one of the first countries in Europe to have such goals.
  
• Second, each sector (i.e. each Ministry) is required to draw up a sectoral environmental action plan in which the authorities indicate how they are helping to achieve the national goals. Sectoral goals may be specific, like fixed emission reductions, or they may relate to procedures and working methods.
  
• And last, but not least, an environmental reporting system is being developed to make it easier to evaluate the results of each sector’s work concerning trends in the state of the environment. This reporting system is still in its infancy, but we hope it will turn into the backbone of the Norwegian environment management system.

National goals will focus on the most important environmental problems. These goals will provide the basis for work on environmental issues at national and local levels as well as in individual sectors, and for broad participation in this work. The level of ambition of the national goals will vary depending on the type of environmental resource to which they apply.

Our national goals provide the basis for a cross-sectoral environmental policy. Cross-sectoral instruments such as the CO2 tax help to ensure that environmental policy is implemented effectively. This kind of policy instrument is used to achieve the national goals wherever appropriate. There may, however, be cases where the nature of an environmental problem, goal effectiveness, or other social factors makes cross-sectoral instruments less appropriate. Sometimes they may not be effective enough to reach the goals. In such cases, sector based instruments will be used to achieve national goals.

Sectoral goals are based on national goals. These goals will allow the sectoral authorities a degree of flexibility in the application of environ-mental policy instruments, in order to minimize conflicts with other sector goals.

Our ambitions with this management system are high, and it will take both administrative skill and political will to manage and finetune it. Success depends on active involvement from all sectors. In many cases extended cooperation and a new way of thinking will be necessary. Allow me therefore to express my hope that the Auditor General will take interest in the implementation and running of the system, and see to that the intentions are being met.

It is my view that the market economy can promote eco-efficiency and sound utilization of resources if environmental costs are also integrated

in economic decision making. Therefore, we will develop economic instruments to help integrate environmental considerations into the economy and to provide financial incentives to act in environmentally-friendly ways. Economic instruments such as tradeable emission quotas, environmental taxes, deposit and return systems and grants are all examples of this.

Environmental policy needs a firm local base. On the principle that local environmental problems should be solved locally, the municipal sector has been given independent responsibilities in many areas, such as land use and waste management. It is the Government’s intention to widen local authorities’ scope for environmental decision making, thus giving a boost to local democracy and responsibility. The state exercises control by setting environmental goals and minimum standards as well as through national legislation.

Many environmental issues have been put on the political agenda as a result of popular initiatives. In Norway, as in other countries, the emergence of environmental protection as a policy area has largely taken place from grass-roots level, through ad hoc groups, NGOs etc. Though popular initiatives in some cases have been at odds with public authorities and government policy, it is my view that such initiatives are basically fruitful and positive. Local Agenda 21 can serve as a useful vehicle to stimulate further local participation and involvement in environmental policy. One important objective of Local Agenda 21 will be to demonstrate the relationship between local action and long-term global consequences. Local Agenda 21 will also play an important role in spreading information and promoting innovative thinking and involvement in these issues.

I would like to say a few words about international cooperation as seen from a Norwegian point of view. Norway, being a small country and a net importer of environmental problems, emphasizes ambitious and legally binding international agreements. These agreements must ensure the widest possible international participation and include effective implementation mechanisms. Reading through the seminar programme,

I especially noticed that you have devoted a thematic bloc to the issue of auditing international conventions. It should be self evident that conventions and treaties provide the basis for international environmental cooperation, and that all countries should put short-sighted self-interest aside for the common good. Difficult as this may be, these tools need special attention. I look forward to the outcome of the discussions under this thematic bloc with great interest.

There has been substantial progress in regional cooperation on environmental issues, for instance through the Nordic cooperation, within the ECE, and through bilateral cooperation. Norway emphasizes assisting the Russian authorities and industry in dealing with the country’s environmental problems, problems which left unresolved, constitute a serious threat to other parts of Europe. Nuclear waste is only one key word here. In my view, environmental cooperation between the rich countries in Europe and our Eastern neighbours is a good example of how international cooperation can benefit both parties.

The OECD’s work on environmental issues provides an important analytical basis for environmental policy in member states. You may be interested to know that as part of OECD’s ongoing Environmental Performance Review programme, Norway will have her environmental policy examined at a meeting in Paris in July. Resembling environmental auditing, and involving important analytical work into environmental indicators, this programme looks into the difficult field of policy implementation, and we look forward to the OECD’s verdict.

Over the years the Norwegian Auditor General has strenghtened his efforts to scrutinize Norwegian environmental policy. A few years ago a compre-hensive work was carried out by the Auditor General to evaluate how the Ministry of Environment implemented the cross sectoral approach in the budget process. During this work, the Ministry received useful input for the further development of cross-sectoral thinking. It is my impression that the guidelines we are following today are very much in line with the recommendations we received as the outcome of the auditing process.

I would also like to mention the Auditor General’s review of Norway’s implementation of the OSPAR-convention for the protection of the Marine Environment in the North-Eastern Atlantic. This case confronted us with a well-known dilemma in modern government: how do we balance national goals and intentions, and even international commitments, and local democracy. In this case, the Auditor General maintained that not enough had been done by the government to ensure that the local authorities’ policy contributed to reaching overriding environmental goals. I shall not go further into this specific case, but I believe it can serve as a useful reminder that implementation of national political goals in a decentralized government system may be a challenging task itself, and that the auditing process should take this into account. As I mentioned earlier, we are making efforts to widen the scope for local decision making, and

I feel confident that local and central authorities will find ways to form a constructive partnership that benefits the environment.

I believe that an auditing process should work as a two-way process, as far as possible, in which both parties can benefit from each others’ viewpoints.

I know that there are different views and also different practices among Supreme Auditing Institutions on what role to play towards their respective governments,and I suppose this issue will be debated during this seminar.

With these words, and with hopes for an interesting and fruitful seminar, I wish you good luck with your discussions here in Oslo.

Thank you for your attention.