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

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

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

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.