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

Rapport sur le contrôle coordonné des subventions fiscales

Report ID: 113

Le VIe Congrès de l'EUROSAI, qui s'est tenu à Bonn du 30 mai au 2 juin 2005, a traité du contrôle des recettes publiques par les Institutions supérieures de contrôle (ISC). L'analyse des documents nationaux soumis par les membres de l'EUROSAI avant le congrès a montré, entre autres, que les connaissances sur l'efficacité des subventions fiscales sont encore insuffisantes, a noté l'étendue et la complexité de la législation fiscale qui peut conduire à des insuffisances et à des exceptions fiscales et a conclu que les ISC devraient élaborer des conclusions plus fiables sur le volume et la réalisation des objectifs de ces subventions fiscales.

Le Congrès a donc préconisé la réalisation d'un audit coordonné des subventions fiscales, ouvert à tous les membres de l'EUROSAI. A cet effet, un groupe de travail a été créé afin de coordonner la planification de l'audit et d'en établir le contenu et les rubriques. Les Institutions supérieures de contrôle d'Allemagne, de Chypre, du Danemark, de France, de Finlande, de Hongrie, d'Islande, d'Italie, de Lettonie, de Lituanie, de Pologne, de Roumanie, de la Fédération de Russie, de Suède, de Suisse, de la République slovaque, du Royaume-Uni et des Pays-Bas (observateur) ont participé à l'audit.

Les objectifs de l'audit coordonné étaient les suivants
- Améliorer le partage des connaissances,
- Améliorer la communication entre les membres de l'EUROSAI dans des domaines d'intérêt particulier,
- Obtenir des informations sur les meilleures pratiques,
- Renforcer les réseaux informels,

Afin d'obtenir des résultats comparables, une liste de contrôle a été rédigée, portant sur toutes les étapes d'une subvention fiscale, depuis la législation jusqu'au rapport, en passant par la mise en œuvre. En même temps, cette liste de contrôle a constitué le cadre non contraignant d'un audit de la transparence et des rapports. En outre, trois sous-groupes de travail ont été créés pour traiter des subventions fiscales spécifiques : l'impôt sur le revenu des sociétés, la taxe sur la valeur ajoutée et le rapport sur la transparence et les subventions.

A l'issue des travaux d'audit, le groupe de travail est arrivé à la conclusion que, concernant les subventions fiscales, des améliorations étaient nécessaires dans les domaines de la législation, de l'évaluation et de l'établissement de rapports dans tous les Etats participants, afin de créer la transparence globale qu'il juge nécessaire tant pour le législateur que pour le grand public.

Source:https://www.eurosai.org/en/working-groups/historic-working-groups-committees/coordinated-audit-on-tax-subsidies-working-group/index.html

Fisheries management and monitoring of environmental impact on fish resources in the Baltic sea

Report ID: 159

1. In 2008 the Supreme Audit Institutions of Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia, and Sweden conducted an audit of environmental monitoring and fisheries management and control in the Baltic Sea. The Supreme Audit Institutions in Estonia, Finland, Lithuania, Russia, and Sweden did not participate in the audit of the environmental monitoring in the Baltic Sea. The Supreme Audit Institutions of Latvia, Poland and Germany did not participate in the audit of fisheries management and control in the Baltic Sea. The audit was performed as a performance and compliance audit and covered the period 2005-2007.

2. The audit was divided into two parts: The first part was about environmental monitoring in the Baltic Sea and the second part was about fisheries management and control in the Baltic Sea.

3. The overall objective of the first part was to assess whether the signatory states of the Helsinki Convention are complying with the standards of the Cooperative Monitoring in the Baltic Marine Environment (COMBINE) and how the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) will affect national monitoring.

4. The overall objective of the second part was to conduct a review of fisheries management and control in the Baltic Sea.

5. The first and the second part of the audit share the following overall objective: How have the monitoring and fisheries control authorities contributed to preserve the marine environment and protect the fish stock in the Baltic Sea.

6. The relevant national legislation in the EU Member States is supposed to be within the frame set by the EU. However, the monitoring and fisheries management and control strategies may differ significantly among the individual countries, and comparative analyses may provide an overview of what is considered good practice. Furthermore, Russian fisheries legislation is, naturally, not adjusted to the EU-regulations. The Russian Federation’s national fishery legislation takes into consideration the requirements and provisions of nine international conventions and agreements related to fishery issues in the Baltic Sea. Moreover, Russia still adheres to the recommendations of the International Baltic Sea Fisheries Commission (IBSFC) in spite of the fact that it was dissolved in 2004.

7. The audit was planned and conducted as a parallel audit. A parallel audit means that the participating audit institutions audit the same audit objectives in their respective countries and identify relevant audit criteria and audit methods together. However, it is up to the individual supreme audit institution to decide how to conduct the audit and which audit criteria and audit methods to apply in the audit. The Joint Final Report is prepared on the basis of the data provided by the participating supreme audit institutions.

Bericht über die Abgestimmte Prüfung von Steuersubventionen

Report ID: 169

Der VI. EUROSAI-Kongress, der vom 30. Mai bis 2. Juni 2005 in Bonn stattfand, befasste sich mit der Prüfung der öffentlichen Einnahmen durch die Obersten Rechnungskontrollbehörden (ORKB). Die Analyse der von den EUROSAI-Mitgliedern im Vorfeld des Kongresses eingereichten Länderpapiere zeigte u.a., dass das Wissen über die Wirksamkeit von Steuersubventionen noch unzureichend ist, wies auf den Umfang und die Komplexität der Steuergesetzgebung hin, die zu Steuerausfällen und Steuerausnahmen führen können, und kam zu dem Schluss, dass die ORKB verlässlichere Erkenntnisse über den Umfang und die Zielerreichung solcher Steuersubventionen erarbeiten sollten.

Der Kongress sprach sich daher für die Durchführung einer koordinierten Prüfung von Steuersubventionen aus, die allen EUROSAI-Mitgliedern offen steht. Zu diesem Zweck wurde eine Arbeitsgruppe eingerichtet, die die Planung der Prüfung koordiniert und deren Inhalte und Rubriken festlegt.

Die Obersten Rechnungskontrollbehörden Deutschlands, Zyperns, Dänemarks, Frankreichs, Finnlands, Ungarns, Islands, Italiens, Lettlands, Litauens, Polens, Rumäniens, der Russischen Föderation, Schwedens, der Schweiz, der Slowakischen Republik, des Vereinigten Königreichs und der Niederlande (Beobachter) nahmen an der Prüfung teil.

Die Ziele des koordinierten Audits waren:

- Verbesserung des Wissensaustauschs,

- Verbesserung der Kommunikation zwischen den EUROSAI-Mitgliedern in Bereichen von besonderem Interesse,

- Gewinnung von Informationen über bewährte Praktiken,

- Stärkung der informellen Netzwerke,

Um vergleichbare Ergebnisse zu erzielen, wurde eine Checkliste erstellt, die alle Phasen einer Steuervergünstigung von der Gesetzgebung über die Umsetzung bis hin zur Berichterstattung behandelt. Gleichzeitig bildete diese Checkliste den unverbindlichen Rahmen für eine Prüfung der Transparenz und Berichterstattung. Darüber hinaus wurden drei Arbeitsuntergruppen eingerichtet, die sich mit spezifischen Steuersubventionen befassen: Körperschaftssteuer, Mehrwertsteuer und Transparenz- und Subventionsbericht.

Nach Abschluss der Prüfungsarbeiten kam die Arbeitsgruppe zu dem Schluss, dass in Bezug auf Steuersubventionen in allen Teilnehmerstaaten Verbesserungen in den Bereichen Gesetzgebung, Bewertung und Berichterstattung erforderlich sind, um die allgemeine Transparenz zu schaffen, die sie sowohl für den Gesetzgeber als auch für die Öffentlichkeit für notwendig hält.

QUELLE: https://www.eurosai.org/es/working-groups/historic-working-groups-committees/coordinated-audit-on-tax-subsidies-working-group/

Joint Report of the International Coordinated audit of Chernobyl Shelter Fund

Report ID: 219

On April 26, 1986, the worst accident in the history of civilian nuclear power occurred at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine, where an explosion destroyed the core of reactor Unit 4 containing approximately 200 tons of nuclear fuel. The explosion and heat from the reactor core propelled radioactive material as much as six miles high, where it was then dispersed mainly over 60,000 square miles of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. Smaller amounts of radioactive material spread over Eastern and Western Europe and Scandinavia and were even detected in the United States.

The Chernobyl Shelter Fund (CSF) was founded at European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) in 1997 aimed at financing Shelter Implementation Plant (SIP).The Fund is guided by the set of rules regarding its resource management. Contributor Governments, mainly of G-7 and European Union, contribute to the Fund. The Assembly of Contributors supervises SIP implementation progress.

The Initial SIP costs were estimated at about USD 758 million (about EUR 585 million 4) in 1997. In 2003 and 2004 technical uncertainties and delays in the SIP fulfilment became apparent, especially with the construction of NSC, which resulted in cost escalation to EUR 840 million. The causes of those cost increases and the resulting need for additional steps to control cost and time overruns were discussed at all level including the Assemblies of Contributors. All G-85 Governments agreed to increase the scale of CSF.

Such increase was tied to the requirements to be fulfilled by Ukraine, including improvement of management, removal of procedural obstacles and timely delivery of Ukraine’s contributions. Thus, as of January 2006 estimated total costs were EUR 955 million and term for SIP completion was extended from 2005 to 2010.

Due to failure in timely realization of SIP, in 2006, the Special Subgroup on the Audit of Natural, Man-caused Disasters Consequences and Radioactive Wastes Elimination of the EUROSAI Working Group on Environmental Auditing decided to conduct an international coordinated audit of the Chernobyl Shelter Fund.

The aim of the audit was the establishment of actual state of affairs regarding legal, organizational and financial support of decommissioning the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant (CNPP) and transforming destroyed CNPP Unit 4 into an environmentally safe system by fulfilling the Shelter Implementation Plan.

Source: http://old.ac-rada.gov.ua/img/files/auditeurosai1.pdf