• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Linkedin
Skip to content
Menu
REDD-Monitor
  • Start here
  • About REDD-Monitor
  • REDD: An introduction
  • Contact
REDD-Monitor

Norway’s Office of the Auditor General investigation into Norway’s rainforest billions: “Progress and results delayed, uncertain feasibility and effect, risk of fraud not well managed”

Posted on 18 May 2018

Over the past ten years, Norway has handed out almost US$3 billion (NOK 23.5 billion) on stopping tropical deforestation. On 15 May 2018, the Office of the Auditor General completed its investigation into Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative. The report is critical.

A press statement on the Office of the Auditor General’s website highlights the key findings:

“The Office of the Auditor General’s investigation shows that progress and results are delayed, that current measures have uncertain feasibility and effect, and that the risk of fraud is not well-managed.”

Per-Kristian Foss, National Auditor, comments that, “There is a need to ensure better control of the use and results of these funds.”

Foss adds that,

“International efforts to preserve tropical forest have not found solutions to address these global challenges. There is therefore uncertainty about further implementation and whether the measures give lasting effect.”

The press statement continues:

The Office of the Auditor General refers to cases where the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Climate and Environment have not prevented and followed up the risk of financial fraud. This includes inadequate partner assessments prior to entering into an agreement and a lack of response when collaborative partners have been investigated for possible financial fraud. The administration has not complied with its own guidelines and has taken unnecessary risk of loss and abuse of Norwegian funds.

This is an important report, not just for Norway, but internationally. Norway is by far the largest REDD donor, and the findings are relevant for the international attempt to implement REDD.

Currently the report is only available in Norwegian (the following is based on a Google translate of a summary on the Office of the Auditor General’s website). REDD-Monitor looks forward to seeing an English translation of the full 137-page report.

Key findings of the Office of the Auditor General’s report:

The results of REDD+ so far are delayed and uncertain

  • Conflicts of interest and alternating political priorities in the partner countries prevent and delay measures and results.
  • In five out of eight of the bilateral cooperation cases, payment for emission reductions has been delayed.
  • The weak implementation of REDD+ at the national level and in central tropical forest countries means that stopping logging in one place can still be replaced by logging elsewhere.

The Norwegian contribution to REDD+ has not triggered enough funding from other donors

  • Norway is the largest donor of funds for REDD +. Compared with other major donors, Britain and Germany, Norway accounted for 51 percent of the contributions in the period 2008-2016.

The control of the implementation and results of REDD + does not work well enough

  • There is not good enough follow-up of social and environmental safeguard mechanisms, such as indigenous peoples’ rights, poverty alleviation and conservation of natural forests. The recipient countries have little reporting. The Ministry of Climate and Environment does not compensate sufficiently for this.
  • Measurement, reporting and verification of reductions in emissions due to REDD+ are only partially in place. Progress on this work has been low in Brazil, and elsewhere.

The Ministry of Climate and Environment is not systematic enough in the collection and use of information about the results of Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative

  • The Ministry of Climate and Environment has developed a framework for measuring progress towards milestones and targets. However, a small system of data retrieval and analysis weakens the ministry’s foundation for management and learning from REDD+ testing.

The ministries’ follow-up of risk of fraud is not good enough

  • The survey shows cases where the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Climate and Environment have not prevented, followed up and handled the risk of fraud against Norwegian recipients of Norwegian funds.

The Office of the Auditor General’s report also makes a series of recommendations for the Ministry of the Environment and the Environment:

  • further develop measures to address the need for lasting results in REDD+ through work towards the UN Climate Change Convention and in bilateral cooperation
  • strengthen the Ministry’s information base on the safeguarding of social and environmental security mechanisms in payments for results
  • strengthen the follow-up of the Norwegian contribution to REDD+ through systematic retrieval and processing of information about progress and results in Norway’s Climate and Forest Initiative
  • provide responsible and active follow-up of risk and use of responses to deviations and alerts about possible financial fraud
  •  

1 thought on “Norway’s Office of the Auditor General investigation into Norway’s rainforest billions: “Progress and results delayed, uncertain feasibility and effect, risk of fraud not well managed””

  1. Chris Lang says:
    7 August 2020 at 11:58 am

    An English translation of the report is available here (and here).

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

SUBSCRIBE!

Enter your email address to receive notification of new posts.

Recent themes
Natural Climate Solutions
WWF's conservation scandals
Aviation and offsetting
Conservation Watch

Recent Comments

  • shahid on James Moore sentenced to more than 11 years in prison for his role in the Bar Works scam
  • Kathleen McCroskey on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl
  • Delton Chen on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl
  • Kathleen McCroskey on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl
  • Chris Lang on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl

Recent Posts

  • Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl
  • Papua New Guinea Environmental Alliance letter to Pogio Ghate, Minister for Environment, Conservation and Climate Change
  • Ecomapuá Amazon REDD Project, Brazil: Pública investigation reveals Ecomapuá Conservação is selling “illegal” carbon offsets from land it does not own, without transferring the money to local communities
  • Response from Steve Zwick, Verra: “Verra will ask Kanaka Management Systems to cease and desist any actions that may mislead communities into thinking that Verra has not already rejected the project”
  • Response from Kanaka Management Services: “Please do not conduct legal trail or castigate REDD+ project developers on the website by writing text which shows the project developer in bad light”

Recent Comments

  • shahid on James Moore sentenced to more than 11 years in prison for his role in the Bar Works scam
  • Kathleen McCroskey on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl
  • Delton Chen on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl
  • Kathleen McCroskey on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl
  • Chris Lang on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl

Issues and Organisations

30x30 AB 32 Andes Amazon Boiler rooms California Can REDD save ... ? Carbon accounting Carbon Credits Carbon Offsets CDM Conservation-Watch Conservation International COP21 Paris Deforestation FCPF FERN Financing REDD Forest definition Fossil fuels FPP Friends of the Earth FSC Green Climate Fund Greenpeace Guest post ICAO Illegal logging Indigenous Peoples Natural Climate Solutions NGO statements Plantations Poznan R-M interview REDD and rights REDD in the news Risk RSPO-Watch Safeguards Sengwer The Nature Conservancy UN-REDD UNFCCC World Bank WRM WWF

Countries

Australia Bolivia Brazil Cambodia Cameroon Canada China Colombia Congo Basin region Costa Rica DR Congo Ecuador El Salvador European Union France Germany Guatemala Guyana Honduras India Indonesia Kenya Laos Madagascar Malaysia Mexico Nicaragua Norway Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Republic of Congo Sierra Leone Sweden Tanzania Thailand Uganda UK Uncategorized United Arab Emirates USA Vietnam West Papua
©2022 REDD-Monitor | Powered by WordPress and Superb Themes!