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

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.

Abstract of the Joint Audit Report on Quality review in higher education in the Netherlands and in Belgium

Report ID: 277

The important implications of the Bologna Process, which aims to create a European Higher Education Area, have been highlighted by the Court of Auditors and the European Court of Auditors.

Court of Auditors to undertake a joint review of the operation of the system of quality assurance in higher education. The quality of higher education is important for the development of the knowledge economy and thus for the international economic position of the Netherlands and Flanders.

The aim of this research was to contribute to the good functioning of quality assurance in higher education in the Netherlands and Flanders

The audit questions addressed were:

- Is there a system of internal quality assurance that is aimed at measuring, improving and thus maintaining the quality of the higher level education as found in the accreditation process?

- How does external quality assurance work and does it lead to well-founded quality assurance accreditations?

- Do the institutions involved in the accreditation have an insight into the costs of quality assurance?

- Does the Minister supervise internal and external quality assurance?

35 study programmes were selected for this study: 18 in the Netherlands and 17 in Flanders, each divided between three universities and three colleges.

Source: https://www.ccrek.be/EN/Publications/Fiche.html?id=72338820-a787-4361-8eeb-e87adf02c5e8

Joint information on the results of transboundary movement of waste between Ukraine, the Republic of Slovakia and the Republic of Poland, 2004 - 2007, in the light of the Basel Convention

Report ID: 342

In  2007, the Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) of Poland, Ukraine and Slovakia carried out a cooperative audit on transboundary movement of waste between their countries. The audit was aimed to evaluate the degree of implementation by Ukraine, the Slovak Republic and the Republic of Poland of the provisions of the Basel Convention,  relevant regulation of the European Union and National Legislation in particular:

• Regularity of delivering the decisions permitting for transboundary movement of wastes and regularity and effectiveness of checks in this field.
• Regularity and effectiveness of control activities aiming at detection of incidents of illegal transboundary movements of waste.

The audit was a common initiative of the Supreme  Audit Institutions of  Poland, Slovakia and Ukreine within the framework of the activities of EUROSAI environmental working group. The audit  was launched on the basis of cooperative agreement among the three SAIs.

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

Bericht über die parallele Prüfung der Leistung der Strukturfondsprogramme der EU in den Bereichen Beschäftigung und Umwelt

Report ID: 343

2006 erteilte der Kontaktausschuss der Arbeitsgruppe "Strukturfonds" das Mandat, ihre Überprüfungen von Strukturfondsfragen fortzusetzen und insbesondere eine gezielte Überprüfung der "Leistung (Output/Effektivität) der Strukturfondsprogramme in den Bereichen Beschäftigung und/oder Umwelt″ durchzuführen. Die Arbeitsgruppe einigte sich auf einen Prüfungsplan, der einen Rahmen für die Durchführung der Überprüfung bot. Jede ORKB untersuchte die Arbeit ihrer jeweiligen nationalen Verwaltung bei der Planung, Begleitung und Bewertung von Projekten, Maßnahmen, Unterprogrammen oder Programmen (je nach Fall), die von den Strukturfonds kofinanziert werden.

Die ORKBn von Österreich, Finnland, Deutschland, Ungarn, Italien, Lettland, Malta, den Niederlanden, Polen, Portugal, der Slowakischen Republik, Slowenien, Spanien und dem Vereinigten Königreich nahmen an der Prüfung teil. Die ORKB von Bulgarien, der Tschechischen Republik und Litauen sowie der Europäische Rechnungshof waren Beobachter. Ziel war es, Verbesserungsmöglichkeiten bei den Strukturfondsprogrammen zu identifizieren, insbesondere bei der Planung und der administrativen Abwicklung.

Die Überprüfung bezog jede ORKB in eine Untersuchung der Strukturfonds (Ziele 1 und 2) in den Bereichen Beschäftigung und/oder Umwelt ein und kam zu folgenden Ergebnissen

- ob und wie die nationalen Behörden den nachhaltigen Erfolg der geförderten Maßnahmen kontrollierten;

- inwieweit die Fördermaßnahmen (Teilprogramme, Großprojekte und sonstige Projekte) einen wirksamen und nachhaltigen Beitrag zu den strategischen Zielen der Strukturfonds leisteten.

Der Prüfungsgegenstand war ein wichtiges Thema, das sowohl für die Strukturfondsprogramme 2000-2006 als auch 2007- 2013 von Bedeutung war. Die Prüfung bezog sich auf die beiden Schlüsselbereiche der strategischen Planung und der Bewertung von Fördermaßnahmen. Auf der Grundlage der Prüfung von Maßnahmen aus dem Zeitraum 2000-2006 wollte jede der ORKBn zu dem Schluss kommen, inwieweit die Mitgliedstaaten zur Verwirklichung der strategischen Ziele des jeweiligen OPs beigetragen haben. Da die Ziele der Strukturfonds von der Periode 2000-2006 in die Programmperiode 2007-2013 übergegangen sind, wurden die Erkenntnisse aus der Prüfung der Maßnahmen aus der Periode 2000- 2006 genutzt, um die Empfehlungen für die Verbesserung der neuen Periode 2007-2013 zu untermauern.

Der Bericht enthält die von den einzelnen ORKB ermittelten bewährten Praktiken, die für beide Programmzeiträume 2000-2006 und 2007-2013 relevant sind. Als allgemeine gute Praxis wurden viele der aus dem Programmzeitraum 2000-2006 gezogenen Lehren in die Verwaltungsvereinbarungen der Mitgliedstaaten für 2007-2013 aufgenommen.

Quelle: https://www.eca.europa.eu/sites/cc/Lists/CCDocuments/1959901/1959901_DE.PDF