Page 33 - 4. Pre-Course Reading-Training on Forestry Audit 2019

Appendix 1: Forestry Audit Case Studies

1. ILLEGAL USE OF LAND the Area of the Planned Regional Parks Sneznik and
Kocevko Kolpa and in Risnjak National Park”.
(The Court of Audit of the Republic of Slovenia and the State
Title: “Report on Protection of Forests”
(Turkish Court of Accounts, 2004) Audit Office of the Republic of Croatia, 2007)

History
Audit objectives
Croatia and Slovenia are countries with relatively high biodiver-
Objectives of this audit are to ensure:
sity levels; their biodiversity index (NBI) ranks them in the first
1. Identifying legal and administrative regulations preventing quarter of the European countries. Both countries ratified
effective and efficient conduct of forest protection activi- the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1996 and agreed to
ties, together with identifying risk factors that influence the implement its objectives in order to efficiently protect biodiversity.
implementation of those activities. The SAIs of the two neighboring countries decided to contribute
to the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity
2. That the General Directorate of Forestry carries out its acti- by: auditing the establishment or management of the protected
vities in line with realistic and clear aims and objectives.
areas, and by auditing the efficiency of the implementation of
3. Activities lead to more effective protection of forest assets. measures for conserving biodiversity. Because the audit findings
and the conclusions were comparable, the SAIs published a joint
audit report on the protected areas; i.e. Risnjak National Park in 33
Audit Scope Croatia, and planned regional parks Snežnik and Kočevsko Kolpa
in Slovenia.
The implementation of activities to safeguard forests (mainly rela-
ting to the General Directorate of Forestry) in a more effective
and efficient manner, by clearly identifying risks to forests.
Audit objectives
To assess the appropriateness of the institutional framework
Audit Criteria for protecting biodiversity, and testing how efficiently the
management of the protected areas was established.
1. General Directorate of Forestry with the “Law no. 3234 on
Amendment and Adoption of the Decree Law on the Organi-
zation and Functions of the General Directorate of Forests”.
Audit Scope
2. Article 31 of the Law no. 4856 on the Organization and
Functions of the Ministry of Environment and Forestry. 1. Establishment of management of the protected areas.
2. Implementation of measures for protecting the forest large
3. Article 16 of the “Regulation on Forest Survey in accor- carnivores.
dance with the Forest Law no. 6831”

Audit Criteria
Findings
1. Article 119 item 5 of The Nature Protection Act; this regulates
1. In the Milas Forest Management Directorate, 109,747 of the actions and interventions which a legal entity or person must
overall 154,767 hectares of forest area were surveyed. take to prevent damage, and regulates expert methodology
However, no surveys were done in six villages undergoing and provides rules for proceeding with damage assessment
the most intervention due to the prevalence of property and compensation rates.
conflicts and stone pine. Approximately 215 hectares of
the 2,072 hectares excluded from the forest area could be 2. Ordinance of Minister which regulates the compensation
registered with the registry office. A total of 145 cases were calculation criteria.
still processed only by the cadastral court.
2. Within the Maramis Forest Management Directorate, the
number of cases still processed with the cadastral court Findings
was 59 and the number of relevant cases being processed 1. There is cooperation between the two countries in terms of
with the civil court of first instance was 142. Approximately research and individual projects. However, there is less
182 of the 243 hectares of land excluded from the forest cooperation at the institutional level in relation to contribu-
area was within sub-provincial boundaries. ting to defining suitable sustainable development policies.

Source: Turkish Court of Account, 2004. Report on protection of forest. 2. There is cooperation between countries in terms of mana-
[Online]Turkish Court of account. Available at: www.environmental-auditing.org/ ging large carnivores, mainly through scientific and research
activities, and through the carrying out of projects. Currently,
for example, the two countries cooperate in a project for
2. BIODIVERSITY AND monitoring lynx populations in both countries
ECOSYSTEM LOSS 3. However, cooperation between the two countries is not
institutionalized when it comes to conserving and protecting
the forest resources.
Title: “Audit Report of the Court of Audit of Republic
of Slovenia and State Audit Office of the Republic
of Croatia on the Conservation of Biodiversity on