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

Report on auditing the flood control preparedness in the Upper Tisza region

Report ID: 73

The area of the basin of the Upper Tisza is one of Europe’s wettest regions, at high risk from floods. The fundamental cause of the frequent and sizeable floods characteristic of the region, is the hydrometeorological and sinoptic situation, as well as the special location and structure of the beds of mountain rivers, soils and mountain rocks. Floods cause major damage to Ukraine and Hungary alike, and this determines to a large extent the parties’ cooperation in preventing the damaging effects of water and averting the consequences of floods.

The execution of a parallel audit covering the flood control preparedness in the Upper Tisza Region was preceded by an agreement signed in Budapest, on 4 March 2004, by the Presidents of the State Audit Office of Hungary and the Accounting Chamber of Ukraine aimed to monitor the implementation of the contents of the Transboundary Water Agreement signed between their respective countries in 1999, which serves as international legal basis for the cooperation between Hungary and Ukraine in respect of transboundary waters.

The parallel audit was integrated, in case of the Hungarian State Audit Office, in the performance audit task entitled “Audit of Preparations for the Prevention of Natural Disasters”, while in the case of the Accounting Chamber of Ukraine it was a part of the task entitled “Analysis and Audit of the Execution of the State Programme Covering the Complex Flood Control Preparedness of the Catchment Area of the Tisza River and the Sub-Carpathian Region for the Period 2002 to 2006 and the Forecast until 2015”. The audit offices submitted their respective reports to the legislative bodies of their countries.

The joint report presents the summary of the findings made on the Hungarian and Ukrainian sides, as well as the details of the joint conclusions concerning the fields of cooperation, which cover the transboundary waters.

SOURCE: https://rp.gov.ua/IntCooperation/IntAudits/?id=47&lang=eng

Building of the Litschberg Basic tunnel and the Szekszrd Danube bridge

Report ID: 76

In the summer of 2002, the Swiss Federal Audit Office (SFAO) celebrated the 125th anniversary of its founding. Friendships among the invited foreign guests were strengthened and there was a resolve to
continue the successful cooperation. An agreement was made with Hungary to organise a parallel audit
on investments in the area of transport infrastructure and to focus on the following topics:

• The Szekszárd bridge construction investment within the context of motorway investments in Hungary
• Tunnel construction investments within the context of the New Rail Link through the Alps (NRLA).

Apart from reinforcing and intensifying relations, the joint activities are intended to contribute to enhancing the specialist knowledge of both audit authorities.

In order for this approach to take place, delegations visited Hungary in the summer of 2003 and visited Switzerland in the spring of 2005. The revised work is now published in a joint report which will be released by both audit authorities within the scope of EUROSAI and EU activities.

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 on disaster rehabilitation and reconstruction phase

Report ID: 86

The objective of the parallel audit is to test out the draft ISSAI 5520. Therefore, it is expected to provide a list of feedback to enhance the draft ISSAI 5520 on Audit of Disaster-related Aid: Guidance for Supreme Audit Institutions.

Based on their experiences during the parallel audit program, the participating SAIs found that the following matters might need to be considered so as to help improve ISSAI 5520:

a. Risk evaluation associated with disaster management and disaster-related aid management. Post-disaster management, as described in ISSAI 5520, may need to include planning and housing recovery activities.

b. An audit process should be divided into three main activities, namely, planning, execution, and reporting. Furthermore, the details and expected output of each activity should be explained.

c. An audit design matrix is a very useful audit tool and serves as a platform for the conducting of audit work in the field. It can be applied to both performance and compliance audits.

d. Audit case studies should be updated to include more disaster-related audits.