The Commission of Audit (CA) has released the performance audit report “Relocation and interior works of the Environment Council”, in which it pointed out the Environment Council (EC) was too hasty in the relocation of its premises, in 2005. Without knowing when it would be restructured into the meanwhile established Environmental Protection Bureau, without any significative changing to its duties and with the same number of staff, around 24, EC hurriedly relocated from a free space of around 7 000 sqf. to an area over 26 000 sqf., rent paying and with an area increment of almost three times. For this space, the EC had subsequently paid a total of 9,8 million patacas of rent and condominium expenses for the 4 years from 2005 to 2008.

CA also found the EC wasn’t prudent enough by the site selection, since it has no conditions for storing chemicals or for setting up a chemistry laboratory, which impeded the Environment Council to fully discharge its duties. The organization of the space followed no criteria and was ineffective; the usage rate of the multipurpose room for conferences and exhibitions was low — only 11 events were staged in it, occupying merely 42 days within a period of two and a half years.

CA judges the follow up of the renting process performed by EC negligent; the design preparation inefficient as it took more than 10 months to conclude; and, the monitoring of the execution of the interior works too slack failing to fix the standards on environment friendly construction materials, which caused delays and constant modifications to the works. The final cost of the remodelation project reached 15 110 728,00 patacas, including an additional work of 2 120 520,00 patacas, which represents an excess of 16% over the initial price of 12 975 467,00 patacas. On the additional work, EC declared it was out of its control. On the whole, EC wasn’t much dedicated to the relocation and, as user of the premises, slack in monitoring.

The lack of official written guidelines regulating the construction and modification of administrative buildings and spaces, as CA found it, has permitted EC to be subjective in the site selection process, in the designing process and in the selection and acquisition of building materials, which caused waste of public money. CA suggests that objective rules should be drawn up to standardize the modification, relocation and construction of office installations for the Public Administration as well as related guidelines and control mechanisms; also, requirements, guide¬lines and control mechanisms for green construction should be established following the principles of prudence and functionality. The competent authorities should also assess the allocation of office installations in an integrate approach in order to achieve an equilibrium between rented and self owned properties, reducing this way the risks posed by a volatile rental market and possible losses.

In its comment on the report, the Environmental Protection Bureau, which succeeded the Environment Council, referred that, in general, it agreed with the suggestions presented by CA and said it would optimize the usage of the available floor area and was already seeing to the improvement of the Environmental Infrastructures Management Centre’s laboratory on Taipa island.