Aid through budget support (RiR 2007:31)

Report ID: 205

The Riksdag (Swedish Parliament) adopted a new Policy for Global Development in 2003. This policy established a new objective for development cooperation: to contribute to an environment supportive of poor people’s own efforts to improve their quality of life. At the same time, the Riksdag decided that development aid should amount to 1 per cent of the Swedish gross national income. The growing importance of budget support can be seen against this background. In addition, this development is also a result of international agreements to the effect that aid should increasingly be given in more general forms and that the handling of aid should be harmonised among donor countries.

Budget support is financial support provided to the national budget of a poor country in order to support poverty reduction in that country. The choice of this type of support is based on the assumption that aid will be more effective if it is governed to a greater extent by the recipient country’s own priorities rather than by requirements imposed by donors.

From the perspective of recipient countries, it is important that budget support is predictable. This requires that decisions on budget support be based on long-term positions which, in turn, must build on careful analysis.

The effectiveness of budget support depends on two factors: first, the extent of political will in the recipient country to implement measures to reduce poverty and, second, the effectiveness of economic policy and public financial management in that country. For budget support to be an appropriate type of aid, certain basic conditions with regard to the economic policy and public financial management of the recipient country must be met. In addition, the recipient country must have a poverty-reduction strategy whose content is deemed to be credible and relevant.

The Riksdag has emphasised that the Government should create conditions ensuring that decisions on budget support can be based on a solid foundation, given that budget support constitutes support to the overall policy of the recipient country. The Government has authorised Sida (Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency) to prepare matters, enter into agreements and make disbursements in the field of budget support. This delegation of responsibility makes heavy demands on the ability of the Government Offices (i.e. ministries) and Sida to determine whether the conditions for the provision of budget support are met.

Administration in Structural Funds projects (RiR 2012:22) (Swedish contribution to the report) Simplification of the Regulations in Structural Funds (Report published by the EU Contact Committee)

Report ID: 207

Audit background

Motive: The purpose of European Cohesion Policy is to reduce economic and social disparities within the EU. The policy is also intended to contribute to the achievement of the Europe 2020 targets, which relate to making the EU more competitive. Within the framework of Cohesion Policy, Sweden is receiving approximately SEK 15 billion from the Structural Funds – the European Social Fund (ESF) and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) – in the programming period 2007–2013. The resources from the Structural Funds are matched by national public co-financing of about the same amount as the EU funds.

The objectives of the Structural Funds in Sweden are, among other things, to strengthen skills development, increase labour supply and foster innovative environments and entrepreneurship. Structural Funds resources finance projects that, for example, aim to provide support to jobseekers and to create new jobs. In total, it is estimated that just over 2000 national projects with at least 315,000 participants will receive support from the ESF during the programming period 2007–2013. About 1400 projects have been granted funds from the ERDF since 2007.

At present, negotiations are in progress on the EU budget and the Structural Funds Regulations for the programming period 2014–2020. In these negotiations, Sweden has pursued a more restrictive EU long-term budget and a realignment of priorities. In this context, Sweden is also acting for simplification of the rules for Cohesion Policy.

If the objectives of the Structural Funds in Sweden are to be achieved, it is important that the resources are used efficiently. The Riksdag has also expressed that it is of interest that Structural Funds resources going to Swedish projects shall be used in as efficient a manner as possible. Both at the national and the EU level, it has been established that there is a need for simplification in order to reduce the administrative burden and the risk of errors. According to the Swedish NAO, simplifying the administration in Structural Funds projects is an important precondition for an efficient use of Structural Funds resources in Sweden. It should be pointed out that a reduction of the administration should take place while maintaining sound financial reporting and control.

Parallel Audit on the processes for identifying reporting and following up on Irregularities by the Working Group on Structural Funds II

Report ID: 33

The 2004 Contact Committee gave the Working Group on Structural Funds a mandate to continue its reviews of Structural Funds issues and specifically; to carry out a review of the processes in place for identifying, reporting and following up on irregularities. Irregularities are defined by EU Council Regulation 2988/1995 as “any infringement of a provision of Community law resulting from an act or omission, intentional or not, by an economic operator, which has, or would have, the effect of prejudicing the general budget of the Communities".

In order to undertake this review the Working Group developed an Audit Plan to be used by the participating Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) in carrying out their respective national audits. The audit plan covered six specific Key Areas:

1. Guidance
2. Identification and recording of potential irregularities
3. Examination and decision making on recorded irregularities
4. Reporting to the Commission
5. Follow up/investigation of the reported irregularities
6. Financial Corrections

The Working Group, as guided by the Core Group of Germany (Chair), the Netherlands, Poland and the United Kingdom, summarised the key findings and recommendations from those country reports, and produced the consolidated report which includes good practices. The findings are presented in the report for every Key Area.

The objective of the work  was to capture the SAIs judgements in identifying examples of both good practice and weaknesses in the systems and procedures in place within Member States. This was the first parallel audit involving the full participation of some of the new EU Member States.

Source:https://www.eca.europa.eu/sites/cc/Lists/CCDocuments/1959834/1959834_EN.PDF

On the Results of the Parallel Audit Examining Activity of the State Institutions of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Latvia in the Field of Import Regulation of Latvian Food Products into the Russian Federation

Report ID: 97

On  June 30th 2009   the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation and the State Audit Office of the Republic of Latvia decided to conduct a parallel audit.

The objectives of the audit were:

2.1. To determine effectiveness of international agreement documents on external trade of food products, legal enactments of the Russian Federation with respect to the State regulatory framework, importing Latvian food products into the Russian Federation and legal enactments of the Republic of Latvia with respect to the State regulatory framework on export of Latvian food products to the Russian Federation.

2.2. To clarify problematic issues within legal framework and application thereof with regard to import of Latvian food products into the Russian Federation, and to draw up proposals for improvement of legal framework.

2.3. To identify factors, which have negative impact on import of Latvian food products into the Russian Federation, and to draw up respective proposals.

Among others, a common conclusion, regarding the assessment of the Regulatory framework of the Russian Federation with regard to import of Latvian products and the activity of institutions responsible for export promotion of Latvian products to the Russian Federation, It was concluded that measures conducted in 2007-2008 overall comply with the legal framework of both countries; at the same time during the audit opportunities for improvement of cooperation were identified, in order to improve trade relations between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Latvia.

Source: https://www.lrvk.gov.lv/en/audit-summaries/audit-summaries/on-the-results-of-the-parallel-audit-examining-activity-of-the-state-institutions-of-the-russian-federation-and-the-republic-of-latvia-in-the-field-of-import-regulation-of-latvian-food-products-into-the-russian-federation

Activities of the Responsible Institutions of Latvia and the Russian Federation in the Fulfilment of the Obligations Arising from the Agreement of their Governments on the status of Latvian and Russian Gravesites on their territories

Report ID: 104

In April  2011  the State Audit Office and the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation decided to carry out a compliance parallel audit regarding the activities of the responsible institutions of the Republic of Latvia and the Russian Federation the fulfilment of the obligations arising from the Agreement of the government of the Republic of Latvia and the government of the Russian Federation on the status of Latvian gravesites on the territory of the Russian Federation and the status of Russian gravesites on the territory of the Republic of Latvia.

The objective of the audit was to determine whether the responsible authorities of  Latvia and the Russian Federation have ensured the fulfilment of the obligations arising from the Agreement of 18 December 2007 between their goverments on the status of Latvian gravesites on the territory of the Russian Federation and the status of Russian gravesites on the territory of Latvia.

Source: https://bit.ly/2TC9B28