Report on the parallel audit on the Management and Control Systems for Assistance Granted under the Structural Funds

Report ID: 68

This was a parallel audit on the application of the Structural Funds regulations, to ensure that all Member States establish appropriate audit trails and implement independent checks on 5% of transactions. The results of the audit will be used by all current and prospective new Member States in developing their own management and control systems.

The main conclusions were:

• In most countries there is a sufficient audit trail as required by regulations, although some weaknesses in the audit trail were noted when examining individual projects, these were not usually systematic weaknesses, but individual project failings.
• The progress reporting of projects was felt to be relatively weak, focusing largely on financial monitoring without providing any link to the outputs and outcomes of the projects.
• In most countries the execution and reporting of the 5% checks complied with Commission Regulation 438/2001. Where this is not the case, the relevant authorities have taken steps in the right direction to ensure that the required checks will be carried out by the end of the programming period.
• The independence of the organizations that carry out the 5% sample checks was guaranteed in all programmes.
• The implementation of the 5% checks across all countries has been relatively slow and has often not been evenly spread over the period to date.
• The way the Structural Fund rules are formulated by the European Commission (Commission) leaves room for ambiguous or even contradictory interpretations.
• Furthermore, some Member States expressed concern about an increasing burden to implement the new provisions for the 2000 - 2006 Programme, with little opportunity to apply a risk-based approach, and associated resource costs that were out of proportion to the funding provided by the European Union.

Source: https://www.eca.europa.eu/sites/cc/Lists/CCDocuments/1959819/1959819_EN.PDFhttps://www.eca.europa.eu/sites/cc/Lists/CCDocuments/1959819/1959819_EN.PDF

Report on parallel audit on the processes of identifying reporting and following-up on irregularities

Report ID: 69

In total the 2000-2006 Structural Funds programme involved an expenditure of 141,5 billion Euro (without Community initiatives, innovative measures and technical assistance) to the nine Member States whose SAIs carried out the parallel audit.

The significance of the value of Structural Funds to all Member States prompted the Contact Committee in 2000 to establish a Working Group to carry out an exploratory survey of EU structural funds. A questionnaire was sent to the SAIs to gain an understanding of how these funds were controlled and managed by the various countries and to identify possible risk areas. Work was planned to coincide with the 2000-2006 funding cycle and revision of the regulations covering the funds.

The Working Group reported its findings from this work to the Contact Committee in November 2002 and recommended to conduct  a parallel audit aimed to identify parts of the controls that need to be improved, and provide an overview of best practice. It was determined that the best way to achieve this was to focus the parallel audit on the application of the regulations, to ensure that all Member States establish appropriate audit trails for transactions and implement independent checks on 5% of transactions. The results of the audit would be used not only for the Member States, but also for the new Member States.

Each SAI produced a Country Report which has been consolidated to provide an overall conclusion, identify good practice, weaknesses and recommendations arising from the work. Issues raised byindividual SAIs are annotated under each Objective where appropriate. The Working Group have then produced the combined report summarising the key findings and recommendations from those Country.

The audit approach was enhanced through the participation of the European Court of Auditors (ECA), in particular, towards the end of the report drafting process the ECA benchmarked the draft report findings and recommendations against those reported by the ECA. The report contains recommendations for  audit trails and 5% checks as well as for  future parallel audits.

Source: https://www.eca.europa.eu/sites/cc/Lists/CCDocuments/1959819/1959819_EN.PDF

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

Bericht über die parallele Prüfung zur Vereinfachung der Regelungen in den Strukturfonds

Report ID: 349

Im Jahr 2011 beauftragte der Kontaktausschuss der Leiter der Obersten Rechnungskontrollbehörden (ORKB) der Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen Union (EU) und des Europäischen Rechnungshofs (ERH) die Arbeitsgruppe "Strukturfonds" mit der Fortsetzung ihrer Prüfung von Fragen im Zusammenhang mit den Strukturfonds, genauer gesagt mit der Durchführung einer Parallelprüfung zur "Vereinfachung der Verordnungen in den Strukturfonds".

Die Arbeitsgruppe bestand aus 12 ORKB der EU-Mitgliedstaaten und prüfte die Auswirkungen von neun Vereinfachungsmaßnahmen. Im Folgenden werden die wichtigsten Schlussfolgerungen dargestellt:

Im Allgemeinen wurden die Vereinfachungsmaßnahmen nur selten angewandt und betrafen nur einen kleinen Teil aller Projekte, was größtenteils auf eine Reihe von Faktoren zurückzuführen ist, die mit der Verwaltung der Strukturfonds auf nationaler und supranationaler Ebene zusammenhängen, darunter:

- Einführung zu einem späten Zeitpunkt durch Änderungsverordnungen;

- Nicht alle Maßnahmen waren für alle Operationellen Programme (OP) und/oder Projekte geeignet;

- Beschränkungen in Bezug auf die für die Umsetzung der Maßnahmen erforderlichen Ressourcen; und

- Ein Mangel an Klarheit und Rechtssicherheit bei den nationalen Behörden.

Wann immer die Maßnahmen eingesetzt wurden, wurden die meisten von ihnen als echte Vereinfachung angesehen. Die Faktoren, die dazu führten, dass die nationalen Behörden die Maßnahmen nicht nutzten, waren sehr unterschiedlich und hingen vom europäischen System1 , dem nationalen Rechtssystem, der Organisation der Strukturfonds in den einzelnen Mitgliedstaaten sowie den spezifischen Merkmalen der einzelnen OP ab. Diese Bedingungen beeinflussten den potenziellen Anwendungsbereich der Maßnahmen und ihren jeweiligen Nutzen.

Die wichtigsten Ergebnisse des Berichts waren die folgenden:

Maßnahmen 1, 2 und 3 (Pauschale für indirekte Kosten, pauschale Kosten auf der Grundlage von Standardeinheitskosten, Pauschalbeträge): Bei den nationalen Behörden führte der Prozess der Festlegung der Methodik im Zusammenhang mit der Anwendung der oben genannten Maßnahmen zu Verwaltungsaufwand und wurde als schwierig und risikobehaftet angesehen; darüber hinaus waren die Entwicklung der Methodik und die Einholung der Genehmigung der Kommission oft langwierige Prozesse. Der Pauschalbetrag wurde als zu niedrig empfunden und das "Alles-oder-Nichts-Prinzip" führte zu einer Zurückhaltung bei der Anwendung der Maßnahme. Wann immer diese drei Maßnahmen eingesetzt wurden, stellten sie eine echte Vereinfachung dar.

Maßnahme 4 (Sachleistungen für finanztechnische Maßnahmen): Dies war die einzige Maßnahme, die in keinem der geprüften OPs in den teilnehmenden Mitgliedstaaten verwendet wurde.

Quelle: https://www.eca.europa.eu/sites/cc/Lists/CCDocuments/Final%20report%20WGSF/FinalReportWGSF_DE.pdf

Englischer Bericht: https://intosai-cooperativeaudits.org/catalog/report/report-on-the-parallel-audit-on-the-simplification-of-regulations-in-structural-funds