Report on the parallel audit on the Performance of the Structural Funds programmes of the EU in the areas of employment and or environment

Report ID: 70

In 2006 the Contact Committee gave a mandate to the Working Group on Structural Funds to continue its reviews of Structural Funds issues and specifically to carry out a focused review on “Performance (output/effectiveness) of the Structural Funds programmes in the areas of employment and/or environment″. The Working Group agreed an Audit Plan which provided a framework for carrying out the review. Each SAI examined their respective national administration’s work on the planning, monitoring and evaluation of projects, measures, sub programmes or programmes (as appropriate) co-financed by the Structural Funds.

The SAIs of Austria, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Malta, The Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republik, Slovenia, Spain and the United Kingdom participated in the audit. The SAIs of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Lithuania and the ECA were observers. The aim was to identify potential improvements in the Structural Funds’ programmes, especially in their planning and in their administrative management.

The review involved each SAI in an examination of the Structural Funds (objectives 1 and 2) in the areas of employment and/or environment, and concluding on the following:

• if and how national authorities monitored the sustainable success of the funded measures;

• to what extent aid measures (sub programmes, major projects and other projects) provided an effective and sustainable contribution to the strategic goals of the Structural Funds.

The subject of the audit was an important topic of relevance to both the 2000-2006 and 2007- 2013 Structural Funds’ programmes. The audit was concerned with the two Key Areas of the strategic planning and the evaluation of aid measures. Based on the examination of measures from the period 2000-2006 each of the SAIs aimed to conclude on the extent to which Member States have contributed to the realisation of the respective OP’s strategic goals. As the goals of the Structural Funds have continued from the 2000-2006 period to the programme period 2007-2013, the findings from the audit of measures from the period 2000- 2006 have been used to inform the recommendations for the improvement of the new period 2007-2013.

The report sets out good practice identified by individual SAIs, relevant for both programme periods 2000-2006 and 2007-2013. As a general matter of good practice, many of the lessons learned from the 2000-2006 programme period have been incorporated into Member States’ administrative arrangements for 2007-2013.

Source:https://www.eca.europa.eu/sites/cc/Lists/CCDocuments/1959901/1959901_EN.PDF

Parallel Audit of costs of controls of Structural Funds

Report ID: 84

In 2000, the Contact Committee of the heads of the SAIs of the EU Member States and the ECA (Contact Committee) set up a Working Group to carry out an exploratory survey on EU Structural Funds. In 2008, the Contact Committee of the heads of  SAIs of the EU and the EC mandated the Working Group on Structural Funds to follow up on previous audits of the EU Structural Funds and to carry out an audit on “costs of controls (this could include utilisation of Technical Assistance for the controls of Structural Funds)”.

The aim of the audit was to identify the level of costs incurred by internal control activities in the Member States and to examine whether the costs of controls are appropriate (e. g. relation to expenditures; cost-benefit; output, redundancy).

The Working Group developed and agreed on a common Audit Plan (see Annex) which provided a framework for carrying out the review. Each SAI examined their respective national administration concerning the costs of the internal national controls for the years 2007, 2008 and 2009 prescribed by EU law for the Structural Funds for the 2007-2013 programming period. The costs of controls have been measured using two methods: cost centre accounting and cost unit accounting.

General observation and main conclusions

• The system of implementation of Structural Funds is organized differently in individual Member State. The different ways of implementation can influence the costs of controls.
• The cost unit accounting generally indicates lower costs of controls than the cost centre accounting.

- In relation to three sevenths of the budget5 of the audited operational programmes, the highest costs of controls expressed as a percentage amounted to 4.02 per cent and the lowest to 0.36 per cent. This percentage may be affected by the level of implementation in each Member State. Corrected for wage differences between the Member States the highest costs of controls expressed as a percentage was 2.79 per cent and the lowest 0.41 per cent.
- The average percentage of total costs of controls in relation to three sevenths of the budget of all audited operational programmes amounts to 0.97 per cent.
- In each Member State the costs of controls started out relatively low in 2007, and then increased year after year. A further increase in control activities and thus of their costs can reasonably be expected in the following years.
-The vast majority of all costs of controls made so far in the Member States can be attributed to the managing authorities. The costs of controls for the certifying authority and audit authority are comparatively low because the involvement of these authorities in control activities was limited in the years 2007-2009.

The lack of availability of data in the Member States does not allow for accurate calculating the costs of controls.

- A relatively high amount of controls was outsourced. This entails risks of loss of knowledge for the governmental bodies and higher costs.

- Whereas only some control activities result in monetary outputs, all of them can bring non-monetary benefits

- Some auditees argued that both the purpose of individual controls and the outputs and benefits of individual control activities are predetermined by EU law.

Source: https://www.eca.europa.eu/sites/cc/Lists/CCDocuments/8729516/8729516_EN.PDF

Parallel Audit of Assurance of Epizootic Safety in the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Lithuania and the Slovak Republic after Accession to the Schengen Area

Report ID: 117

Once Lithuania, Poland and Slovakia entered the Schengen Area, their eastern borders became the external border of the European Union and, simultaneously, the first stage of the transfer of animals from the east to the Community. The three states are obliged to protect their borders properly also with regard to epizootic safety, defined as the prevention of and protection against hazards caused by infectious animal diseases transmissible to humans.

The national border protection system has been adapted to EU requirements in terms of legal and operational regulations for border services, including for preventing epizootic hazards from spreading across the EU. These responsibilities result from the EU Treaty and the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement.

Since epizootic safety is an issue of high importance, in 2010 the NIK and the SAIs of Lithuania and Slovakia decided to check whether the borders of their countries were protected appropriately through a parallel audit. The audit was conducted between 1st April 2010 and 15th September 2010, and covered the period between 1st January 2007 and 31st December 2009.

The agreement to conduct such joint audit was made pursuant to the exchange of Letters of Intent among the heads of the three SAIs as well as previous bilateral agreements signed among them.

The audit topics covered included the following areas:

- whether national legislation had been adapted to EU regulations in the audited area,

 - whether the recommendations issued following the audit conducted by the Food and Veterinary Office, Directorate General of Health and Consumer Affairs (DG SANCO), European Commission had been implemented in national regulations, within the audited areas,

- whether the applicable procedures had been adapted to current epizootic risks and for the event of emergency situations, including those related to controlled, uncontrolled or illegal movement of animals from non-EU countries,

 - whether the institutions responsible for epizootic safety were able to cope with emergency on the local and national levels,

 - whether the epizootic safety system has been adapted to make information on epizootic hazard available to the public, on the national and local levels.

Source: https://www.nik.gov.pl/plik/id,2240,vp,2790.pdf

National parks in Polish-Slovak border area Audit Report

Report ID: 145

In 2005, the Supreme Chamber of Control of the Republic of Poland (NIK) and the Supreme Audit Office of the Slovak Republic (NKU),  performed a parallel audit of the functioning of national parks with regard to preservation, sustainable use and restoration of natural resources.

The audit was carried in accordance with the agreement on cooperation concluded between the NIK and the NKU on 9 February 1998 on the basis of the INTOSAI auditing standards. The total area of the audited national parks located in the borderland between Poland and Slovakia was 46,340 hectares on the Polish side, and 107,355 hectares on the Slovak side.

The objective of the audit was to assess:

• the effectiveness of the tasks performed with a view to conserve natural resources in selected national parks as well as to examine whether the resources and funds of the parks had been used in an economical and efficient manner,

• the impact of the binding legal regulations on ensuring appropriate protection of ecosystems of national parks,

• the effectiveness of the activities taken by wildlife conservation bodies.

Source: https://www.nku.gov.sk/documents/10272/1542112/2007+-+National+parks.pdf

Parallel Audit on railway construction Zalalovo Bajansenye - Hodo Murska Sobota

Report ID: 189

The Hungarian-Slovenian railway link - between the Hungarian Zalalövő and the Slovenian Muraszombat (Murska Sobota) - was built between 1999 and 2001 as part of the V. European transit corridor.

Since the two countries adopted an agreement on co-operation when planning and realising the investment, in 2001 the Supreme Audit institutions of Slovenia and Hungary decided to carry out a parallel audit of the investment.

Both supreme audit institutions reviewed apart from regularity of planning the investment public procurement process and financing the investment, also the ecological aspect of railway construction and other impacts of the investment.

The joint report presents the activities referred to railway construction undertaken by both countries and it will show some comparable audit results (data on railway construction costs and the answer to the question: which country was more cost efficient), and present an assessment of effectiveness of the investment referred to achievement of planned objectives.

Source: https://docplayer.hu/10411470-Audit-report-on-railway-construction-zalalovo-bajansenye-hodos-murska-sobota.html