Simplification of the Regulations in Structural Funds

Report ID: 127

1. The administration and management of funds acquired from the European Union (EU) to support Operational Programmes are governed by cohesion policies (the current one being Cohesion Policy 2007-2013). In this regard, Malta has adopted two Operational Programmes, one for the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and another for the European Social Fund (ESF). The Operational Programme co-financed by ERDF and the Cohesion Fund (CF) is commonly referred to as Operational Programme I (OPI), whereas the Operational Programme co-financed by ESF is referred to as Operational Programme II (OPII). These two programmes, OPI and OPII, were developed according to the strategic priorities identified in the National Strategic Reference Framework. This latter document sets out Malta’s strategic priorities for the Cohesion Policy 2007-2013. In this context, OPI is geared towards investing in competitiveness for a better quality of life, while OPII focuses primarily on employment, education, training and social inclusion.

2. The various roles and responsibilities associated with the implementation of the Cohesion Policy 2007-2013 programme is entrusted to a number of governmental authorities. The Planning and Priorities Co-ordination Division within the Office of the Prime Minister is the designated Managing Authority (MA). The role of Certifying Authority (CA) is fulfilled by the EU Paying Authority Directorate within the then Ministry of Finance, the Economy and Investment, while the duties associated with the Audit Authority (AA) are carried out by the Internal Audit & Investigations Department.

3. The Cohesion Policy is based on a shared management system between the European Commission and Member States, with the principal aim of ensuring that the principles of regularity, legality and sound financial management are complied with. Nonetheless, the regulatory requirements, which govern the use of EU funds across Member States, are often seen as complex and administratively burdensome, prompting regular calls for simplification from the EU and national actors as well as stakeholders. To this effect, amendments were made to the General Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, with the twin objectives of accelerating payments from the Structural and Cohesion Funds, while simultaneously reducing the administrative burdens associated with policy implementation.

4. The simplification measures being reviewed for the purposes of this performance audit are listed hereunder, with the first seven being optional and the rest being non-optional.

a. Indirect costs (declared on a flat-rate basis of up to 20 per cent of direct costs);

b. Flat-rate standard scales of unit cost;

c. Lump sums;

d. Permitted in-kind contributions to be declared as eligible expenditure in relation to financial engineering schemes;

e. Advanced payments;

f. Increased flexibility for major projects;

g. Co-financed repayable assistance;

h. Raising of threshold of revenue generating projects; and

i. Single threshold for major projects.

5. The Contact Committee of the Supreme Audit Institutions mandated the Working Group on Structural Funds to carry out an audit on “Simplification of the regulations in Structural Funds”. In this regard, the National Audit Office (NAO) agreed to undertake a performance audit that evaluated nine simplification measures related to Operational Programmes funded by the EU. This parallel audit was carried out in conjunction with 13 other Member States.

6. The principal objectives of this performance audit were to:

a. Examine whether simplification measures have been implemented in Malta;

b. Elicit feedback from the relevant authorities and beneficiaries on their experiences so far;

c. Determine why certain simplification measures were not implemented (if applicable); and

d. Gather feedback of the involved authorities with regard to future simplification measures.

Audit of EU Regional Funds projects focused on the environment and environmentally friendly energy

Report ID: 162

1. This report concerns a coordinated audit performed by National Audit Office of Denmark (Rigsrevisionen) and the Gdansk Regional Branch of the Supreme Audit Office of the Republic of Poland (NIK) on the EU Regional Funds projects focused on the environment and environmentally friendly energy for the programme period 2007-2013.

2. The report contains information about programmes co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) including their administration, control follow-up, and how they are organised in Denmark and the Pomorskie Voivodship (region). The report is based on information gathered from national audits, the internet and other open sources.

3. In February 2010, Rigsrevisionen and the NIK engaged in a coordinated audit of environmental projects accepted to receive grants from the ERDF. The objective of the cooperation was for both Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) to gain comparable knowledge about the regional fund and find out whether administration and management of regional fund projects focused on the environment and environmentally friendly energy were adequate in the two countries. This was done on the basis of samples from environmental projects accepted to receive grants from the ERDF in the period 2007-2009.

4. Furthermore, the purpose of conducting the audit as a coordinated audit was to identify examples of ‘good practice’ on the basis of the audit findings to the benefit of both SAIs and the administrations in the two countries.

5. Rigsrevisionen and the NIK have each performed the audit relating to Denmark and the Pomorskie Voivodship, respectively. These audits have been reported separately to the administrations in the two countries.

6. On the basis of these reports, this joint report with examples of “good practice” has been drawn up. The results of the Danish audit, the conclusions of the joint audit and the examples of ‘good practice’ will form part of Rigsrevisionen’s report to the Danish parliament on the audit of EU funds for 2009 while the findings of the Polish audit were included in the information on the audit results published by the NIK.

Sweden in the Arctic Council ? effective return from membership (RiR 2013:9)

Report ID: 208

The Swedish National Audit Office has examined whether Sweden receives an effective return from its membership of the Arctic Council.

The Swedish National Audit Office notes that the Arctic Council is an important forum for issues concerning the Arctic and for initiating central research projects on environmental and climate change in the Arctic. However, the Swedish National Audit Office considers that after almost 20 years of Swedish membership of the Arctic Council it is reasonable to also expect an effective process in Sweden for assessing and, where relevant, implementing Arctic Council recommendations.

This is particularly applicable as decisions in the Arctic Council are made in consensus and are, if not legally, then politically binding. It is also reasonable that Sweden’s work in the Council proceeds from transparent priorities for the Arctic.

The Swedish National Audit Office’s overall conclusion is that Sweden does not receive an effective return in all respects from its membership of the Arctic Council. In the opinion of the Swedish National Audit Office there is insufficient transparency in the Government’s priorities for the work of the Arctic Council. It is therefore difficult to assess whether Sweden’s work in the Arctic Council proceeds from stated priorities. The Government has not ensured that recommendations from the Arctic Council are assessed, ranked in priority and, where relevant, implemented in Sweden. Nor has the Government assigned responsibility for such a process. It is not clear whether the Arctic Council’s recommendations have been implemented in Sweden.

International Coordinated Audit (Control) of Public Funds, Allocated to prevention and Consequences elimination of Disasters and Catastrophes

Report ID: 250

The International Coordinated Audit (Control) of Public Funds, Allocated to Prevention and consequences Elimination of Disasters and Catastrophes was included into the Work Plan of the EUROSAI Task Force on the Audit of Funds Allocated to Disasters and Catastrophes for 2012-2014, and was conducted by the SAIs of 9 participated countries.

The audit (control) objective was to assess legality and utilization efficiency of the public funds
allocated to establishment, functioning and development of the national system for prevention
and response to natural and man-caused disasters and catastrophes.

This audit also allowed to test Good Practice Recommendations for the Audit of Funds Allocated to Disasters and Catastrophes, which were developed by the Accounting Chamber of Ukraine within the framework of the EUROSAI Task Force and were prepared for approval in 2014.

Joint Report - Providing safety of tourism and recreation in the mountains

Report ID: 299

In 2013 the Supreme Audit Office of the Republic of Poland (NIK) and the Supreme Audit Office of the Slovak Republic (NKU SR) conducted audits concerning the execution of duties by the entities responsible for the provision of safety conditions in the mountains. The audits were carried out due to an increased probability of accidents on mountain areas and ski slopes, resulting from a growing interest in mountain tourism and skiing on the Polish, as well as on the Slovak side. Therefore, securing safety of persons present in the mountains, including a proper marking of tourist routes, system of information about weather conditions, infrastructure and organising help or rescue of accident victims or persons who are prone to the danger of life or health loss, became of significant importance. Additionally, both SAIs published openly available surveys concerning the subject of safety of tourism and recreation in the mountains on their websites, which enabled to gather the opinions of tourists on the condition of mountain routes. NIK’s audit assessed the way in which safety is provided to persons present in the mountains in touristic and recreational purposes, including the functioning of mountain rescue system and its financing, whereas NKU conducted the audit in order to verify the compliance of the activities of audited entities with the generally applied legal regulations and internal norms, with particular focus on the international cooperation. Both audits resulted in the preparation of two separate reports published by the two SAIs, which were basis for this joint report that contains a comparison of the adopted solutions and joint conclusions and recommendations. Source: