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

Joint Report on the parallel audit "Protection of the waters in the Bug River catchment area from pollution"

Report ID: 269

In 2006, the Supreme Audit Institutions of the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Poland and Ukraine conducted a parallel audit “Protection of the Bug river drainage basin waters against pollution”. The audit was conducted based on cooperation agreements signed  among the three participating SAIs.

Before audit commencement, in February 2006, SAI – audit members agreed and signed “Joint position on the scope of parallel audit regarding protection of the Bug river drainage basin waters from pollution” and methodology (goal, scope, audit criteria, procedures, etc).

The parallel audit objective was to analyze and assess:

− The international cooperation as regards pollution protection of cross-border drainage basin waters of the Bug river, implementation of assumptions and leading recommendations of the pilot project regarding the implementation and assessment the pollution of cross-border drainage basin waters of the Bug river, in accordance with the provisions of Convention of the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes,

− Investment activities undertaken in order to improve the purity of the Bug river drainage basin waters as well as effectiveness of utilization of financial funds allocated for such activities.

The audit covered the period of 2003 – 2005 and 2006.

Source: https://rp.gov.ua/upload-files/IntCooperation/IntAudits/31-12-2008%2010-00-00/Zvit_Protection_Bug.pdf

Report on the Results of the Parallel Audit of the Administration of Value Added Tax in the Czech Republic and in the Federal Republic of Germany

Report ID: 275

Based on an agreement between the SAIs of Czech Republic and Germany, both SAIs conducted a parallel audit on the administration of value added tax (VAT). Besides the main point – exchange of information based on the Council Regulation (EC) No 1798/2003 and the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1925/2004 – the audit covered other topics as for instance the registration of taxpayers,

VAT returns and recapitulative statements that are closely linked with it. Additionally, the legal situation in terms of international bus transportation of passengers and the comparison of certain statistical data were part of the audit.

In Czech Republic, the objective of the audit was to review the procedure used by financial authorities in administrating value added tax following integration of the Czech Republic into the common internal market of the European Community (hereinafter “EC”), connected with free movement of goods and services, and to review the use of the VIES1, particularly monitoring the exercise of the right to exempt intra- Community deliveries from value added tax.

In Germany, the objective of the audit was to review the system of intra- Community VAT control with a special focus on administrative cooperation in the field of VAT according to the above mentioned regulations. As a result of this, weaknesses should be reported and recommendations be developed to address the problems stated.

Source: https://www.nku.cz/en/audit/coordinated-audits/

INFORME INTERNACIONAL DE LA AUDITORÍA EN COOPERACIÓN AL PLAN COLOMBO PERUANO PARA EL DESARROLLO INTEGRAL DE LA CUENCA DEL RÍO PUTUMAYO 1998-2008

Report ID: 285

En el marco de las actividades de la COMTEMA OLACEFS,, las EFS de: Perú y Colombia realizaron una auditoría coordinada a las Entidades Públicas de cada país encargadas de la ejecución del Plan Colombo - Peruano para el
Desarrollo Integral de la Cuenca del río Putumayo",

El objetivo de la auditoría fue evaluar la gestión ambiental de las entidades públicas de cada país, encargadas de la ejecución del Plan Colombo Peruano para el Desarrollo Integral de la Cuenca del Río Putumayo – PPCP y emitir pronunciamiento acerca de su efectividad en la promoción del desarrollo sostenible regional y en el mejoramiento de la calidad de vida de las poblaciones peruanas y colombianas asentadas en el territorio.

La Auditoría Coordinada comprendió la evaluación selectiva de las instituciones públicas de cada país encargadas de la ejecución del Plan Colombo —Peruano, que surge como acuerdo Binacional, en el marco del Tratado de Cooperación Amazónico Colombo - Peruano, como una propuesta técnica encaminada a orientar acciones conjuntas que contribuyan al desarrollo sostenido y de conservación del medio ambiente y la biodiversidad de la región, así como a mejorar la calidad de vida de la población mediante la generación de actividades productivas y la adecuación de infraestructura física y social básica.

En tal sentido, en el Perú se auditó la gestión ambiental del instituto Nacional de Desarrollo - INADE a través del Proyecto Especial Desarrollo integral de la Cuenca del Río Putumayo - PEDICP, así como al Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de Perú. Por parte de Colombia, al Instituto Amazónico de Investigaciones Científicas - SINCHI (entidad colombiana encargada de la ejecución del PPCP), la Corporación para el Desarrollo Sostenible del Sur de l Amazonía - Corpoamazonía y al Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de Colombia.

La conclusión final del informe conjunto es que no existe mucha diferencia entre las realidades fronterizas de Perú y Colombia en el Putumayo, y que no obstante el tiempo de vigencia del Plan Colombo Peruano, aún es limitada la presencia del Estado en esa zona, situación que conlleva a una condición que surge como efecto de un problema estructural, en el que intervienen además de las variables ambientales las de orden social y económico, conjuntamente con la voluntad política que se puede designar para propender a la solución de la problemática.

Fuente. https://www.environmental-auditing.org/media/4604/colombia_peru_08_f_eng_ppcp.pdf

Rapport contrôle parallèle de la performance des Fonds structurels des programmes de l’UE dans les domaines de l’emploi et/ou de l’environnement par le Groupe de travail sur les Fonds structurels

Report ID: 331

Le Comité de contact a conféré au Groupe de travail1 le mandat de continuer à contrôler les Fonds structurels et particulièrement la « performance (réalisation/efficacité) des programmes des Fonds structurels dans les domaines de l’emploi et/ou de l’environnement ».

 Les ISC des pays suivants : Allemagne, Autriche, Espagne, Finlande, Hongrie, Italie, Lettonie, Malte, Pays-Bas, Pologne, Portugal, Royaume-Uni, Slovaquie et Slovénie. Les ISC de la Bulgarie, de la République Tchèque et de la Lituanie et la CCE ont participé en tant qu’observateurs.

Programme de contrôle

Le sujet de contrôle est crucial pour les contrôles des programmes des Fonds structurels 2000-2006 et 2007-2013. Sur la base du contrôle des mesures et des projets relatifs à la période 2000-2006, chaque ISC a cherché à tirer une conclusion sur la mesure dans laquelle les États membres ont contribué à atteindre les objectifs stratégiques des divers Programmes opérationnels (PO).

Afin de mettre en oeuvre ce contrôle, le Groupe de travail a élaboré un programme de contrôle à utiliser par les institutions supérieures de contrôle (ISC) lors des enquêtes nationales respectives.

Objectif du contrôle

Le Groupe de travail s’engage à identifier des possibilités d’améliorer la programmation et la gestion administrative des programmes des Fonds structurels. Chaque ISC avait la tâche de contrôler les Fonds structurels (objectifs 1 et 2) en matière de l’emploi et/ou de l’environnement et d’en tirer des conclusions concernant :

• la question de savoir si et comment les autorités nationales suivent la durabilité du succès des mesures financées ;

• la question de savoir dans quelle mesure les aides (sous-programmes, grands projets et autres projets) contribuent efficacement et durablement aux objectifs stratégiques des Fonds structurels.

Les résultats de chaque contrôle national ont été résumés dans ce rapport. Le rapport comprend également des recommandations visant à améliorer les programmes et la mise en oeuvre des mesures dans la nouvelle période de programmation des Fonds structurels.

Bonnes pratiques

Le rapport met en relief des bonnes pratiques identifiées par les ISC individuelles dans les deux périodes de programmation 2000-2006 et 2007-2013. En ce qui concerne les bonnes pratiques, une grande partie des enseignements tirés de la période 2000-2006 a été prise en compte dans les dispositions administratives nationaux pour 2007-2013.

Fonte: https://www.eca.europa.eu/sites/cc/Lists/CCDocuments/1959901/1959901_FR.PDF