EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 797: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret juli/august 2017

Europaudvalget 2016-17
EUU Alm.del Bilag 797
Offentligt

OURNAL

European Court of Auditors

07- 08

July-August 2017

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 797: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret juli/august 2017

PRODUCTION

Rédacteur en chef / Editor in Chief:

Gaston Moonen

Tél. / tel.:

00352 4398 - 45716

E-mail :

[email protected]

Mise en page, difusion /

Layout, distribution :

Direction de la Présidence -

Directorate of the Presidency

Photos :

Reproduction interdite /

Reproduction prohibited

Past editions of the Journal

can be found on ECA’s website:

http://eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/

Journal.aspx

Reproduction autorisée à

condition de mentionner

la source/ Reproduction is

authorised provided the source is

acknowledged

The contents of the interviews

and the articles are the sole

responsibility of the interviewees

and authors and do not

necessarily relect the opinion of

the European Court of Auditors

FOR MORE INFORMATION

AND PAPER COPIES :

European Court of Auditors

12, rue Alcide De Gasperi

1615 Luxembourg, LUXEMBOURG

[email protected]

eca.europa.eu

@EUAuditors

EUAuditorsECA

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 797: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret juli/august 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Editorial

ECA Award for Research into Public Sector Auditing 2016 : paying tribute to Henrik Otbo

By Gaston Moonen

Interview with Mr Henrik Otbo, as published in the ECA Journal April 2012 edition

By Rosmarie Carotti

The ‘improper payments’ approach of the United States

By Andreas Bolkart, Directorate of the Presidency, ECA

Renforcer nos connaissances respectives: réunion d’échange entre la Cour des

comptes européenne et la Cour des comptes française

Par Stéphanie Girard, cabinet de Mme Danièle Lamarque

Reform and eicient use of the EU budget: a too diicult conversation?

By Prof. Dr Alex Brenninkmeijer, ECA Member

ECA goes Brazil: ECA team co-chairs the INTOSAI Professional Standards Committee

By the ECA PSC Secretariat Team

FOCUS

Alexander Italianer meets ECA Members

Special reports Nos 9 & 10/2017

Looking for synergies with the European Parliamentary Research Service

By Fabrice Mercade, Directorate of the Presidency

Going back to school: obtaining a Master’s at the University of Lorraine

By Gaston Moonen

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 797: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret juli/august 2017

Thinking beyond accounting

Accounting is often depicted as a boring occupation, providing information on past

events when decisions for the future have already been taken. But not everybody

holds this view, and it is not only the accountants themselves who disagree with it.

In his book ‘The Reckoning: Financial Accountability and the Making and Breaking

of Nations’ the historian Jacob Soll describes the ability to have proper accounts as a

‘making or breaking’ condition for a nation’s rise to power…and ability to hold on to

it. According to Mr Soll societies that managed to harness accounting as part of their

general cultures lourished, those who did not languished.

How exciting, then, is accruals accounting? Many eyebrows become question marks

on hearing those terms. Accruals accounting was clearly exciting enough to win the

2016 ECA Award for Research into Public Sector Auditing. This edition was issued

in honour of the late Henrik Otbo, who died while serving as an ECA Member and

who left an impressive legacy. The winner turned out to be Dr Andreas Glöckner. He

pled to further harmonize public sector audits and wrote his PhD thesis to present a

normative accounting model for public sector accruals accounting. This model aims

at combining inter-generational fairness with inancial sustainability - precisely the

two aspects that politicians try to come to grips with nowadays and which were also

touched upon from an auditor’s perspective during the award ceremony by the two

keynote speakers.

Inter-generational fairness and inancial sustainability were also discussed during the

symposium on the future of the European Union’s inances, held in Speyer, Germany.

In his contribution ECA Member Alex Brenninkmeijer urged Member States to focus

their discussions for the next Multi-annual Financial Framework on what we wish to

achieve with a common EU budget instead of mainly on what will be in it for them.

Common approaches in public sector audits across Europe were discussed during the

meeting of the French Cour des Comptes with the ECA. Moreover, during last month

an ECA delegation visited the US Government Accountability Oice to see how they

dealt with ‘improper payments’ in the United States .

Public sector audit, and learning as much as possible about it, is also the focal point

of the interview with Anna Fiteni, a colleague and student in a Master’s degree

programme in Public Administration.

All in all, these activities illustrate that the ECA is not only looking at what happens

in the past but also how public sector auditing can be relevant for the future and

engaged to foster accountability and improvement.

Gaston Moonen

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 797: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret juli/august 2017

ECA Award for Research into Public Sector

Auditing 2016 : paying tribute to Henrik Otbo

By Gaston Moonen

As the EU’s external auditor the ECA tries to stimulate research into public sector

auditing. For this purpose the ECA created the ECA Award, and its fourth edition was

issued, in memory of the late Henrik Otbo (2049-2015), to Dr Andreas Glöckner for his

thesis on accrual accounting in the public sector. The ceremony for the 2016 Award was

held at the ECA on 31 May 2017, with presentations honouring Mr Otbo, insights in

the selection and contents of the prize-winning research of Mr Glöckner, and keynote

speeches presented by Mr Vitor Caldeira, President of the Portugese Tribunal de Contas

and former ECA President, and Mr Alar Karis, Auditor General of Estonia.

From left to right: Prof- Dr. Josef, Bonnic; Alar Karis, Auditor General

of Estonia; Bettina Jakobsen, ECA Member; Klaus-Heiner Lehne, ECA

President; Vitor Caldeira, President of the Tribunal de Contas, Portugal;

Dr Andreas Glöckner, Award winner 2016

Honouring Henrik Otbo

The award ceremony was organised around three parts and the irst part zoomed in on the man the

2016 Award was dedicated to: Henrik Otbo, who served, among other things, as the Auditor General

of Denmark for 16 years, subsequently becoming ECA Member in 2012. For more details on his career

see the box with a short biography. In the presence of the Mr Otbo’s family (his wife, his son and

daughter-in-law) ECA President Lehne opened the ceremony, followed by a speech from Ms Bettina

Jakobsen, ECA Member and colleague of Mr Otbo in the Danish National Audit Oice for over 20

years.

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 797: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret juli/august 2017

ECA Award for Research into Public Sector Auditing 2016 : paying tribute

to Henrik Otbo

continued

In her speech Ms Jakobsen highlighted the importance of what seems to be a technical issue,

accruals accounting, but is at the very heart of what auditing of spending in the public sector implies.

Accrual accounting shows a much more accurate picture of inancial performance than cash-based

accounting and can lay a foundation from which eiciency gains are more easily measurable. She

highlighted the importance Henrik Otbo attached to the introduction of accruals accounting in

Denmark in 2003, halfway of his term as Auditor General. As he said it: ‘…we get, for the irst time, real

accounts that show what things actually costs. It can sometimes be diicult to understand how we

could have been without for so many years.’

Ms Jakobsen also focused on his work as chairman of the INTOSAI Professional Standards Committee

and how proud Henrik Otbo had been on the accomplishments of the EU, which he believed in and to

be a big success, albeit with realism and with an eye where the EU can further improve. She and also

several other speakers praised Henrik Otbo as an eminent public auditor, with profound professional

competence and irm commitment, convincing auditees and stakeholders through solid evidence,

analytical thinking and knowledge. But what was referred to most by them was his kindness and the

consideration he showed to others, inding quality time for his family and always wanting to achieve

the best for his staf and the public. As Ms Jakobsen put it: ‘Everybody knew Henrik and he knew

everybody. His legacy continues to live on’. Henrik Otbo’s son, Thomas, also spoke to express the

thanks and gratefulness that the ECA Award was made in memory of his father and congratulated

the winner of the Award. Included in this Journal is a reprint of the interview made with Henrik

Otbo when he started as new ECA Member, and which was published in the April 2012 edition of the

Journal.

Choosing the Award winner: considerations of the Selection Panel

The Award Selection Panel’s choice was introduced by Prof. Dr Bonnici, former ECA Member. He

highlighted the importance of academic institutions for public institutions, indispensable as qualiied

observers and critical scrutinizers of the activities of institutions. According to Panel the thesis of Mr

Glöckner, which is already available as a book, ofers a comprehensive and innovative analysis aimed

at proposing a conceptual foundation for public sector accruals accounting. His research is not only

descriptive but contains a clear normative value. The stand-alone accounting model developed by

Mr Glöckner could be applied in many public sector entities. The Panel appreciated the research also

because of its potential role for the harmonization of public sector audit across Europe. The thesis is a

timely and important study that meets all the Panel selection’s criteria: originality, innovative nature,

signiicance and overall quality.

Andreas Glöckner’s thesis on public sector accrual accounting

After receiving the medal and the Award certiicate Mr Glöckner elaborated on his thesis, underlining

the need for trustworthy information for the legislator and discharge authorities, and their interest in

good quality checks of accounting standards, also because it is in the public interest to avoid mistakes

ex-ante instead of marking and correcting them ex-post. Therefore, in his view, auditing on the one

hand and developing accounting standards on the other hand, are highly related.

The title of his thesis is, ‘Conceptual

foundations of public sector accrual accounting – Conlicts

of interests, objectives and principles derived’

(in German:

Konzeptionelle Fundamente der Neuen

Öfentlichen Rechnungslegung – Interessenkonlikte, Zweckkonzeption und daraus abgeleitete Prinzipien).

It has as main research question: what should public sector accounting look like at its best, given

certain public sector premises. According to Mr Glöckner there is no single accounting theory

considered to be fully compatible with all the information needs of the diferent public sector

stakeholders. Often public sector accounting is an adaptation of private sector accounting. Therefore

the focus of the thesis is on particular public sector premises and needs in accounting. The core idea

was to develop a stand-alone accounting concept from scratch that could be applied in all kinds of

public sector entities abroad and at all levels. Also the author admits: this is quite ambitious!

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 797: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret juli/august 2017

ECA Award for Research into Public Sector Auditing 2016 : paying tribute

to Henrik Otbo

continued

The thesis contains a deductive point of view, since its conceptional foundation is derived from

speciic conditions of the legal, social-economic and political environment of public sector entities.

It has a strong comparative component with diverse reference models (like IFRS and IPSAS) and

furthermore uses literature research to substantiate indings. Mr Glöckner indicated that the general

wisdom that you can only understand the present and shape the future if you are familiar with the

past, also applies to accounting. From his research he has tried to draw a contemporary conclusion in

century discussions on accounting theory that its the public sector context in the EU.

Some of his key indings in the thesis are:

•

the importance to have clear deinitions and explanations;

there are many more stakeholder groups than the potential users of accounting information;

policy decision-makers should care about current and future generation interests to reconcile

diferent interests of the stakeholder groups;

the conceptional foundation he puts forward is based on two postulates of inter-generational

fairness and inancial sustainability;

how to provide protection to current and future generation interests;

the need for a principles-based approach to put the conceptional foundation he developed into

practice, this also to obtain a general understanding how to solve accounting problems without

knowing the speciic rules in place, which is particularly relevant when there are regulatory gaps

and the preparer of the accounts has no other guidelines. In this respect the principle-based

approach can guide both the standard setters and the preparers of accounts;

inally Mr Glöckner’s thesis summarizes the speciics of public sector accounting he established

when working doing his research.

•

Mr Glöckner expressed his hope that his thesis contributes to an open discussion on what public

sector accounting should look like, also in the present IPSAS and EPSAS discussions on accounting

standards, raising also some questions to what extent Member States can be convinced to go from

ISPAS to EPSAS and was pleading to bring clarity on what the E of EPSAS can mean.

From left to right: Alar Karis, Auditor General of Estonia; Prof- Dr. Josef, Bonnic; Dr Andreas Glöckner, Award

winner 2016; Bettina Jakobsen, ECA Member; Klaus-Heiner Lehne, ECA President

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 797: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret juli/august 2017

ECA Award for Research into Public Sector Auditing 2016 : paying tribute

to Henrik Otbo

continued

Current trends and perspectives in public sector auditing in Europe

In their key note addresses Mr Caldeira and Mr Karis present their perspectives on how the changing

environment will require new ways of working in the public sector and also for public sector auditing.

They underlined that if Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) wish to remain relevant they will have to

address issues that matter regarding accountability, transparency and policy outcomes while using

modern audit techniques and capabilities.

Mr Caldeira paid tribute to Mr Otbo’s achievements, including the establishment of professional audit

standards. Applying these standards in the EU and beyond is in his view a major challenge for auditors

nowadays. With the global economy and the inancial markets highly interconnected and a public

sector facing ongoing spending constraints, public auditors will need the ability to identify what is

changing and how to address risks and challenges brought by these changes. In his view important

issues for auditors will be the following.

How to deal with big data,

the massive amounts of data available through open sources and other

sources? Analysing these data with modern high-powered analytics ofers an opportunity to public

sector auditors to remain relevant by performing as trusted sources of insight and information to their

stakeholders, and more and more in ‘near real time’ ways than predominantly ex-post. However, this

will require developing speciic audit skills and capabilities;

How to tap into new ways of working in the public sector?

In a period of inancial constraints and

lack of trusts of citizens new instruments for inancing public policies and new ways for delivering

public services emerged. Public sector reforms focusing on institutional arrangements - networks

and partnerships, also caught under the name ‘jointed-up governance’ - and administrative values

(public service and social inclusion) emerged. These partnerships developed between diferent levels

of government (think about EU and Member States), at Member State level (through devolution

and empowerment of local authorities), between diferent state agencies or departments (sharing

support services or pooling of resources) but also between public, private and voluntary bodies (to

deliver public services or inance public infrastructures). These shifts were also triggered by a growing

sensitivity towards issues like security and the threat of terrorism, climate change, migration and

ageing populations. For many of these issues citizens will seek answers from the state rather than the

markets and with concerns about equity rather than eiciency. In such a new environment of ‘joined-

up governance’ public sector auditors are increasingly expected to assess the public sector ethical

framework and the application of integrity policies. In this context Mr Caldeira spoke about two new

e’s, namely environment and equity, besides the three traditional ones.

Is public sector audit in Europe adding value, is it addressing what matters?

With this question

Mr Caldeira asked attention for the strategic outlook of SAIs on:

how to audit complex cross-border and cross-cutting issues (like climate change, migration

and security);

how to sustain their own legitimacy when trust in public institutions is going declining, and

what their role can be to restore public trust in the public sector.

Moreover, EU public sector auditors need to anticipate the impact of other particular developments,

of which Mr Caldeira highlighted four: global instability; climate change; demography; and Brexit.

In his view regaining citizens’ trust was probably the major challenge to be faced, identifying

accountability, transparency and trust as the ‘golden triangle’ to foster the impact of public sector

audit work.

Mr Caldeira concluded saying that in order to remain relevant in a fast changing environment, public

sector auditors need to facilitate accountability and ensure transparency by: a) performing as trusted

sources of insight and expertise; b) supporting parliament’s oversight function; c) providing reports

on what matters for stakeholders and citizens. In this way, Mr Caldeira expressed, public auditors

would help to restore the trust of citizens and taxpayers alike.

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 797: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret juli/august 2017

ECA Award for Research into Public Sector Auditing 2016 : paying tribute

to Henrik Otbo

continued

Mr Karis remembered Mr Otbo as a critical and valued professional whose comments were always

directed towards development and improvement. He relected on 40 years of development of

independent external audit, in which Mr Otbo also had played an important role. Now, 40 years after

the ECA was created and the signing of the Lima declaration on independence for SAIs, Mr Karis

underlined, there are still threats to the autonomy of SAIs and more than ever issues that are bigger

than just one country or one government. Government is literally everywhere while accountability

is becoming more and more difused. Private and national information systems turn out to be

vulnerable and exploiting that vulnerability can be a danger to stability in societies, according to Mr

Karis.

Are SAIs part of the problem or part of the solution,

and with this question Mr Karis went into

some self-relection. Looking at the latest activities of INTOSAI and EUROSAI regarding their strategic

long term goals, the ever-greater involvement of SAIs in auditing government activities indicates, in

mr Karis’ view, that SAIs do not want to be left on the sidelines. This is easily said but how can SAIs

really deliver? With this question Mr Karis probed into the efects that the thousands of reports SAIs

have produced actually trigered. He stated that SAIs are struggling to remain relevant in a system of

governance which is changing too.

E-governance as a driving force behind changes in governance:

with this view Mr Karis

highlighted the impact of open data, the diiculties in following tax money, certainly in the case of

e-money, where the question of who is responsible may be more diicult to answer. SAIs work will

increasingly focus, according to Mr Karis, on ICT-related audits in their audit programmes because of

the changes in the audit environment. He referred to the numerous IT related audits that have been

done by European SAIs. These experiences should be consolidated into meaningful audit practices

that provide added value for citizens and to those developing new systems that minimise risks as

breaches of data security, lack of transparency, sophisticated corruption and new fraud schemes. He

gave examples of the dependency of tax authorities in Estonia and Chile from the diferent databases

available, or the correct processing of health services on the correct processing of data.

Looking at the future of public sector auditing,

Mr Karis indicated that certainly in Estonia

accounting is more and more done electronically. Therefore, instead of mainly checking the technical

parameters of transaction in accounts, auditors need to understand IT systems themselves (settings,

internal operations) since the risks of mistakes or fraud are there. So for Mr Karis the question arises

whether in 2050 auditors are still needed, or information systems performing online controls have

taken over from auditors. This could mean that a SAI in 2050 might be more like an IT organisation

than a classic audit organisation.

‘One big question will remain: who is accountable?’

With this statement Mr Karis highlighted

that in his view, in whatever IT environment, when human beings are involved there will always be

somebody who holds responsibility. Making decisions for others will most likely remain a task of

humans in the future. The rules for automated processes will be created by humans, so auditors will

need to look at them. Mr Karis underlined that he was pleased to ind in Mr Glöckner’s study the

points made that the value created or expected in doing inancial audit must determine the set-up of

the accounting and auditing system, and not the other way around.

Future audits’ dependency on human capital

was another issue highlighted by Mr Karis. In his

view the ability of people to adopt behavioural patterns will be key to the success of embracing

new auditing challenges. He presented examples of cooperation with a university on courses in

environmental auditing, and organising a young auditors’ conference in Talinn in autumn this year. In

both cases they had a very international outlook, stimulating interaction between the next generation

of auditors.

Mr Karis concluded with underlining the interaction and intellectual eforts of practitioners and

scientists working in the ield of auditing as a means to be better equipped to handle the unknown

future challenges, welcoming the ECA awards to stimulate such work. In his view auditing in the

future will be very diferent to the practice known today.

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 797: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret juli/august 2017

ECA Award for Research into Public Sector Auditing 2016 : paying tribute

to Henrik Otbo

continued

Biography of Henrik Otbo

Henrik Otbo was born on 14 November 1949 in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Following his Master’s degree in economics in 1976 from the University of Copenhagen, he dedicated his entire

career to public audit.

From 1976-1984 he was head of section at the Danish National Audit Oice after which he carried out his irst term

at the European Court of Auditors, irst as attaché, from 1984-1985, and then as Head of Private Oice, from 1985-

1988, for the Danish Member of the Court.

In 1988 he returned to the Danish National Audit Oice where he, in 1989, was promoted to Director, and, in 1995,

to Auditor-General. In this role, his contribution to the continuous development of Danish governance and inancial

management was signiicant.

During his 16 years as Auditor General of Denmark, the National Audit Oice participated in numerous peer reviews

of other countries' Supreme Audit Institutions and in the Global Audit Leadership Forum - a group of the foremost

National Audit Oices in the world. He was Chairman of the INTOSAI Professional Standards Committee from 2004-

2012.

He returned to the European Court of Auditors in 2012, now as the Danish Member, until his sudden death in

Luxembourg on 1 February 2015.

As a Member of the former CEAD-Chamber, he found a platform from which he was able to continue to be a

champion of getting results and encouraging sound inancial management – always with the incentive to make the

best use of taxpayer’s money.

In his youth, Henrik Otbo was an elite volleyball player, and he continued to be an active sportsman throughout his

life. He was married and had two children as well as grandchildren.

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 797: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret juli/august 2017

Many Member States would welcome the

ECA coming forward

Interview with Mr Henrik Otbo, as published in the ECA Journal April 2012 edition

By Rosmarie Carotti

Rosmarie Carotti, former Editor-in-chief and Henrik

Otbo, former ECA Member (1/3/2012 - 1/2/2015)

R.C. : Let me welcome you as the new Member from Denmark. Between 1984-1988, you

served in the European Court of Auditors in the Cabinet of Mr Brixtofte. Today you come to the

ECA as President of the National Audit Oice of Denmark.

Henrik Otbo:

I am not the irst former President of a National Audit Oice who was nominated for the

ECA. I remember, Mrs Hedda von Wedel, from Germany, and Mr Jørgen Mohr from Denmark. Today I

share this experience with Mrs Rasa Budgergytė from Lithuania.

R. C.: What made you accept this nomination?

Henrik Otbo:

I have always had the desire to go back to the ECA, so I am very pleased and very

proud to be here. It is an excellent opportunity for me to have new challenges. I am very much looking

forward to work for and support the ECA in its continuing development.

R. C.:

When did your government nominate you?

Henrik Otbo:

I have known for some time, but the government was not involved. In Denmark it is up

to Parliament, to the political parties, you could say. The leading parties in government also supported

my nomination, but it was not a government decision.

In Denmark one says that the Auditor General, the Audit Oice, work on behalf of the government. We

report to the public accounts committee in Parliament. Following that line of thinking, in Denmark, it

is Parliament which puts forward the name of a new candidate. They all agreed and supported me in

my wish to go here.

R. C.: You also have a lot of experience in working with INTOSAI. How do you intend to

continue this cooperation?

Henrik Otbo:

Six or eight years ago, INTOSAI decided on a strategic plan. Following that strategic

plan, since 2004, INTOSAI became much more eicient. I chaired, on behalf of Denmark, the

professional standards committee. The task was to produce a full comprehensive set of auditing

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 797: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret juli/august 2017

Many Member States would welcome the ECA coming forward

continued

standards difering in a number of aspects from the private sector standards. For the irst time ever,

decided upon in the Congress of INCOSAI, in South Africa in 2010, the Supreme Audit Institutions

(SAIs) throughout the world, including the ECA, today have access to full public sector auditing

standards. That is a huge step forward.

I will make it my business in the ECA to see that the Court considers how to use these standards.

An example could be how the DAS methodology goes together with the INTOSAI standards. More

important than speciically applying these standards now is to understand why we do it slightly

diferently.

The ISSAIS, are the INCOSAI or INTOSAI public sector standards accepted by all audit oices

throughout the world. They are not compulsory, but it is important that all supreme audit oices,

including the ECA, consider how to use them.

With great pleasure, I have seen that World Bank, UN and other representatives have acknowledged

the huge step forward made with the INTOSAI standards. But the work has not yet been inalised. It is

a living thing.

R. C.: You mentioned the DAS. What is your opinion on it? What are the strengths and

weaknesses of the DAS?

Henrik Otbo:

No matter if it is the DAS or other products the Court or other institutions

develop, we need to continue the development. We also have to modernize and develop our DAS

methodology.

It is diicult to bring a revolution to the DAS in a short span of years. I’ll be working on setting some

development targets for 2 - 5 years and see the amount of resources needed. I just arrived two weeks

ago, and I will need to work with my colleagues. But I do not think we will have to ight for a consensus

to develop things, and we will convince staf of the rationale of this development in the delivering

part.

I see many good signs of development in the Court. The chapter on performance in the annual report

is highly appreciated by the Supreme Audit Institutions in the Member States and by the European

Parliament. It is a good sign to develop further.

Internally, the Chambers introduced some years ago are also a good thing. 27 Members are too many

people to discuss reporting in detail. Seen from the outside, the Court has been in a consistent and

positive process of development. We just need to continue.

R. C.: If you had to be critical instead, where would you see room for action?

Henrik Otbo:

I think the Court should open more up to national audit institutions in the Union.

Many of them would like the ECA to come forward, to take the lead.

As I see, the strategic considerations in the Court are touching on this subject. Take for instance the

economic and inancial crisis in Europe. Many initiatives are similar or much alike in the Member

States. We should do some audit together and put issues like bank packages and support schemes

before Parliament. The Court can and should play a bigger role in this area.

R. C.: There is really an evolution. Recently, the ECA got one Member on the Board of audit of

the European Stability Mechanism and one could also consider checking the quality of data

submitted for statistics.

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 797: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret juli/august 2017

Many Member States would welcome the ECA coming forward

continued

Henrik Otbo:

Also that. The Contact Committee meeting here in Luxembourg in October,

touched upon these issues and so the direction is there, the willingness is there, but I think that it

should materialize in more work. And I also see Parliament asking for that. There are a lot of good

opportunities we should explore to a greater extent.

R. C.: This requires relying on the work of others, i.e. “single audit”.

Henrik Otbo:

Of course, we should rely on the work done by other colleagues. It is impossible for the

ECA to duplicate. We have to rely, not blindfolded, of course. I am convinced that we can rely in quite

many programmes, and support schemes in Member States.

I welcome the development in the inancial regulation where the Member States are being asked to

be more accountable, to come up with Member States’ declarations signed by Ministers of Finance.

This is a good opportunity for Member States’ Audit Oices to audit more speciically the EU accounts.

That would facilitate and support the work of the Court.

I think that in all countries you rely upon work of other auditors. In auditing companies throughout

Europe, you work together with other auditors, but as I said, if you rely on other auditors’ work, you

must have the right to go through their working papers.

National Parliaments, European Parliament want us to work together more. It might not be possible

to do it the same way in all Member States, but I do not see that as a problem, I see it as a challenge.

We should look around for the good opportunities to be explored and many Member States would

welcome the ECA coming forward and say what can be done.

R. C.:

Public opinion calls more than ever for the ECA to take a stand.

Henrik Otbo:

I think that the Court has produced many impressive opinions which have

inluenced the development in a good way, enhancing accountability, improving controls and audit

arrangements over the years.

On the opinion side, the ECA is playing quite an impressive role and should continue doing that. When

I talk about improvement, it is about reporting and cooperation with Member States.

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 797: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret juli/august 2017

The ‘improper payments’ approach of the

United States

By Andreas Bolkart, Directorate of the Presidency, ECA

On 19 and 20 June, an ECA delegation visited the Government Accountability Oice

(GAO), the Oice of Management and Budget (OMB) to get irst hand insights into

the ‘improper payments’ approach in the United States. The visit was undertaken

in the context of the ECA’s current relection on the approach for the Statement of

Assurance (SoA) for the year 2018 and onwards.

From left to right: Andreas Bolkart, Senior Auditor, ECA; Lazaros S. Lazarou,

Member and Dean, ECA; Gene Dodaro, Comptroller General of the US;

Head of the GAO; Eduardo Ruiz Garcia, Secretary General, ECA; Martin Weber,

Director, ECA

What are ‘improper payments’?

The meetings at the GAO and the OMB provided the ECA representatives with a good

understanding of how the US administration deals with ‘improper

payments’

, a concept

similar to payments afected by error in the ECA’s context.

Improper payments (IP) are payments that should not have been made or were made in an

incorrect amount (including overpayments and underpayments). They include duplicate

payments, payments to ineligible recipients and incorrect amounts paid. Payments for which

insuicient or no documentation was found are also considered improper payments.

Improper payments are assessed based on various legal acts and the OMB, a part of the

White House, has a supervisory function and provides guidance. According to these laws

and guidance documents, US federal agencies must perform a risk review of its programs

and activities and identify the ones that may be susceptible to signiicant improper

payments. Programs and activities must be reviewed once every three iscal years.

For each program or activity identiied as susceptible to signiicant improper payments,

the head of each agency must produce either a statistically valid estimate of the program’s

improper payments or an estimate that is otherwise appropriate using a methodology

approved by OMB (alternative methodology). Estimates must be included in the agencies’

annual inancial reports.

Agencies are required to report certain information regarding the improper payment

estimation process and eforts to recover improper payments, including:

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 797: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret juli/august 2017

The ‘improper payments’ approach of the United States

continued

•

Gross estimates of the annual amount of improper payments

made in the program and a description of the methodology used

to derive those estimates;

Discussion of the root causes of improper payments identiied,

actions planned or taken to correct those causes, and planned

or actual completion date of those actions, and the results of the

actions taken; and

Discussion of the amount of actual improper payments that

the agency expects to recover and how these payments will be

recovered.

•

The government-wide reported estimate of improper payments has

increased each year since iscal year 2013 (see chart). In 2016, this resulted

in an

IP rate of 5.1%

of the corresponding programme outlays.

Selected features of interest about the US improper payments programme

•

The US improper payment system is

entirely run by the government.

The GAO itself

does not estimate any error rates. However, it reviews the estimates on a case-by-

case basis and also assesses the IP framework annually from a systems perspective.

The GAO takes IP reporting into account for its overall opinion on the accounts of the

government, but not in the form of a single aggregated quantitative indicator.

The US legislation intends to

limit unnecessary burden

through the IP programme

by requiring the federal agencies to assess the risk level of the programmes they

run. An expected improper payments rate of under 1.5 % is considered low risk. The

agencies have to statistically estimate the IP rate only for those programmes that are

assessed as risky.

Inspectors general

of the agencies, a function similar to internal audit, play a key

role in providing independent scrutiny over the agencies’ IP risk assessment and

estimates.

Improper payments rates vary considerably between programmes,

some of

them can go up to 75%. Agencies that report an IP rate of more than 10 % for a

given programme for more than three consecutive years, need to ask Congress to

re-authorise the program or make statutory changes that bring the programme into

compliance.

Not all risk-susceptible programmes report estimates,

so the overall IP rate might

be understated. On the other hand many low risk programmes are not required to

report an IP rate. If they were to estimate an IP rate, they may reduce the overall

IP rate. The overall IP rate is therefore an aggregate of all progammes that report

an estimate and not a representative indicator for compliance in overall federal

expenditure.

•

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 797: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret juli/august 2017

The ‘improper payments’ approach of the United States

continued

•

The

IP rate is a ‘inal’ error rate,

meaning that corrective measures would not

reduce the rate after the estimate is made.

Some federal agencies

outsource the IP estimate work

to private sector audit irms.

The visit also gave insights of other interesting practices followed by the GAO:

•

The GAO uses a

high risk list

to promote certain programmes or issues in its

communication with the auditees and Congress. These programmes or issues can

be sectoral or cross-cutting. The GAO groups any relevant audit work and open

recommendations under a given high risk and address them prominently to the

auditees and Congress. A key moment for this communication is the beginning of a

new Congress session (every two years after the House/Senate elections).

The risk list creates more attention for the respective area and therefore more

pressure on the auditee to bring the risk level down and eventually make the GAO

remove the item from the high risk list. The criteria for removal from the risk list are

demonstrated top leadership commitment and support, the capacity to resolve the

risk(s), a corrective action plan, monitoring and demonstrated progress.

Every year some are added and some are removed from the list. Currently there are

34 high risks on the list. Examples for high risks are ‘managing federal land property’,

‘Department of Defence supply chain management’ and ‘National Flood Insurance

Program’.

•

The high risk list is also used to

follow-up on open GAO recommendations.

Open

recommendations are grouped by high risk area and prioritised. The most important

recommendations are addressed in annual letters by the Comptroller General to the

responsible Ministers or Heads of Agencies.

The GAO uses ‘inancial

beneit’ as a performance indicator.

After each audit, the

audit team asks the auditee to assess the net inancial beneit of all implemented

recommendations. This can be savings, but also socio-economic beneits from

moving funds to a more value added activity. In 2016 the GAO estimated inancial

beneits of $ 64.3 bn, with a large share stemming from defence spending. The GAO

centrally monitors the quality of these estimates. For a majority of audits a serious

estimate of inancial beneit is not possible. The actual inancial beneit is therefore

expected to be many times higher than the igure reported.

•

In case of questions on any of these issues the ECA delegation is happy to provide further

information, document references or establish a contact with the respective interlocutors in

Washington. The key reference for improper payments is “OMB circular No. 123, Appendix C:

Requirements for Efective Estimation and Remediation of Improper Payments”.

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 797: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret juli/august 2017

Renforcer nos connaissances respectives:

réunion d’échange entre la Cour des comptes

européenne et la Cour des comptes française

Par Stéphanie Girard, cabinet de Mme Danièle Lamarque

Dans la continuité des deux rencontres qui avaient eu lieu en 2014 à Luxembourg et l’année

dernière à Paris entre des représentants de la Cour des comptes française et de la Cour des comptes

européenne, une nouvelle réunion d’échange s’est tenue le 15 Juin dernier dans nos locaux,

à Luxembourg. Elle avait pour objet d’identiier les domaines pour lesquels une coopération

(notamment des échanges d’information) entre les deux institutions pourrait être bénéique.

Phil Wynn Owen, Membre; Danièle Lamarque, Membre; Martine Weber, Directeur; Klaus-Heiner Lehne, Président; Henri Paul, Rapporteur général

Cinq thématiques abordées

Durant les diférents échanges qui ont eu lieu, ont été discutés les programmes d’audit des

deux institutions ainsi que leurs priorités stratégiques pour l’avenir dans cinq principaux

domaines : la gouvernance économique et inancière, les enjeux en matière de transport

ferroviaire, l’emploi, l’immigration et la croissance durable. Pour chacun de ces thèmes, une

table ronde a été organisée.

La délégation de la Cour des comptes française se composait de Henri Paul, président

de chambre, rapporteur général du comité du rapport public et des programmes, des

conseillers maîtres François Monier, rapporteur général du Haut conseil des inances

publiques, Jacques Ténier, Hélène Gadriot-Renard, Antoine Guéroult, Olivier Ortiz et Bernard

Lejeune, et de Quitterie Martin-Vidal, chargée de mission auprès du rapporteur général.

La réunion a été ouverte par notre Président, Klaus-Heiner Lehne, et présidée par Danièle

Lamarque. M. Lehne a rappelé tout l’intérêt de ce type d’échanges, nos travaux étant

interconnectés. Henri Grethen, Iliana Ivanova et Phil Wynn Owen ont également assisté à

cette réunion ainsi qu’un certain nombre de nos collègues de la Cour.

M. Paul a noté que les programmes de travail des deux institutions se rejoignent de plus en

plus, grâce notamment au développement d’une programmation plus stratégique par la

Cour des comptes européenne, et s’est félicité de la période à laquelle cette réunion était

organisée, la Cour des comptes française étant en train d’élaborer son programme de travail

pluriannuel. Les conclusions des diférentes tables rondes ont été partagées lors d’une

session plénière de clôture.

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 797: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret juli/august 2017

Renforcer nos connaissances respectives: réunion d’échange entre la Cour

des comptes européenne et la Cour des comptes française

continued

Table ronde: Gouvernance économique et inancière

La Cour des comptes européenne a présenté la coordination des politiques économiques

de l’Union dans le cadre du semestre européen ainsi que les audits déjà conduits ou en

cours dans ce domaine: la procédure pour déicit excessif

, la procédure concernant les

déséquilibres macroéconomiques (le rapport doit être publié in 2017) et le volet préventif

du Pacte de Stabilité et de Croissance et la Stratégie 2020 (audit(s) dont la publication est

prévue in 2017/début 2018).

La procédure concernant les déséquilibres macroéconomiques n’a pas d’équivalent au

niveau national : le rôle de la Cour des comptes européenne n’en est que plus important.

Elle pourrait cependant proiter de l’expertise développée par la Cour des comptes française

dans les domaines des inances publiques et de l’évaluation des politiques structurelles. Un

échange de bonnes pratiques dans ces domaines est donc à envisager. Les échanges ont

aussi porté sur la méconnaissance du Semestre Européen et des procédures qu’il comporte,

ce qui nuit à leur eicacité et ne favorise pas l’appropriation par les États Membres des

recommandations qui leur sont adressées par la Commission. L’expérience de la Cour des

comptes française en matière de communication pourrait être très bénéique pour la Cour

des comptes européenne dans ce contexte.

Enin, lors de discussions liées à notre projet d’audit de la Directive 2011/85/EU sur les

exigences applicables aux cadres budgétaires des États membres, il a été convenu qu’un

échange d’information précoce entre les deux institutions ainsi qu’avec le Haut Conseil des

Finances Publiques pourrait être très bénéique.

Table ronde : Enjeux en matière de transport ferroviaire

Les audits récents, en-cours et prévus des deux institutions ont été discutés : méthodologie,

limitations, calendriers et résultats. La base de données développée par la Cour des comptes

européenne recensant les travaux d’audit de performance des institutions supérieures de

contrôles pourrait être utile à nos collègues français. Cette table ronde a aussi permis aux

deux institutions de discuter une possible collaboration rapprochée dans le futur sur certains

thèmes particuliers, comme les audits de performance de méga projets tels que la ligne

Lyon-Turin ou Seine-Scheldt.

Les échanges ont aussi porté sur l’ouverture à la concurrence des transports ferroviaires,

un sujet au cœur des futurs travaux de la Cour des comptes française et qui a fait l’objet de

diférents audits à la Cour des comptes européenne. Ont été discutés un certain nombre de

points techniques et leur impact sur les citoyens (comme le rôle des diférents intervenants,

la ixation des coûts d’accès aux réseaux ferroviaires, la qualité du service ou la valeur ajoutée

des investissements inancés par l’UE).

Table ronde : Emploi

Cette table ronde a échangé notamment sur les audits liés à la garantie européenne pour les

jeunes. Les diférents risques identiiés sur ce sujet par les deux Institutions ont été discutés,

1 Rapport spécial 10/2016 : « De nouvelles améliorations sont nécessaires pour assurer une mise en œuvre

eicace de la procédure concernant les déicits excessifs ». La Cour des comptes française a repris certaines des

conclusions de ce rapport dans son rapport sur « la situation et les perspectives des inances publiques » de juin

2016, dans un chapitre V « Les nouvelles règles européennes relatives à la gouvernance des inances publiques :

un premier bilan », pp.131 à 171.

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 797: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret juli/august 2017

Renforcer nos connaissances respectives: réunion d’échange entre la Cour

des comptes européenne et la Cour des comptes française

continued

en particulier ceux liés à l’absence d’analyse des besoins, à des objectifs aichés irréalistes,

à l’absence ou au manque de comparabilité des indicateurs, à la pluralité des acteurs

et des programmes rendant la coordination diicile ou encore au manque de moyens

administratifs etc.. . Les travaux planiiés par les deux institutions ont également été abordés.

La complémentarité des deux institutions pourrait être renforcée par exemple si la Cour des

comptes européenne faisait un audit comparé entre les régions ultrapériphériques des États

membres, telles que par exemple les Açores, Madère, les Iles Canaries ou la Guyane. Une

telle enquête pourrait mettre en évidence la diversité des méthodes et procédures utilisées

dans la mise en œuvres des fonds européens, d’identiier des bonnes pratiques et de mieux

comprendre ce qui ne fonctionne pas. La Cour française a en efet programmé un ambitieux

contrôle sur l’utilisation des fonds structurels dans les départements et territoires d’outre-

mer, avec l’appui des chambres territorialement compétentes. Cette enquête sera ensuite

poursuivie sur le territoire métropolitain.

Table ronde : Immigration et réfugiés

Un certain nombre d’audits récents réalisés par les deux institutions ont été discutés. Nous

avons également informé nos collègues français qu’un audit sur l’intégration des réfugiés

en Europe était en préparation. Il inclura certainement le FAMI (Fond Asile Migration

Intégration) mais également d’autres fonds européens dans le but d’analyser la coordination

de l’ensemble de ces inancements. La question relative à la diiculté d’identiication des

bénéiciaires de ces fonds a été abordée ainsi que l’incidence de la décentralisation en

France. La Cour des comptes française quant à elle, a lancé un audit portant spéciiquement

sur le FAMI. Dans ce contexte elle a été intéressée par le travail efectué récemment pas

nos collègues travaillant sur la déclaration d’assurance. Il a été convenu que des contacts

supplémentaires allaient être organisés entre les deux institutions pour discuter notamment

des calendriers respectifs des deux institutions et voir comment les connaissances de

chacun pourraient être échangées au mieux. Les connaissances de la Cour des comptes

française relatives aux institutions du pays, à l’utilisation des fonds ainsi qu’à l’articulation

des politiques nationales et européennes (par exemple dans les territoires d’outre-mer)

pourraient également être très utiles.

Table ronde : Croissance durable

Les responsabilités et diférentes tâches ont été discutées lors de cette table ronde. Ceci

a permis d’identiier des rapports de la Cour des comptes française publiés ou non et qui

seront analysés par nos collègues de la Chambre I dans le contexte de l’audit prévu portant

sur la prévention des inondations. Les principales observations de ces rapports ont été

discutées.

Les questions relatives à l’énergie, qui font partie des responsabilités de la Chambre I au

sein de la cour des comptes européenne au même titre que celles liées au transport, à

l’environnement et à l’agriculture sont traitées dans une chambre diférente à la Cour des

comptes française. Il a été convenu de faire un point intermédiaire avant 2018 dans ce

domaine. Les magistrats français ont marqué un vif intérêt pour le colloque qui sera consacré

à Bruxelles en octobre à l’étude panoramique sur l’énergie et le changement climatique.

Les discussions ont aussi abordé la façon dont la Cour des comptes européenne sélectionne

et conçoit ses audits (analyse de risques mais aussi prise en compte des développements

récents, de l’intérêt du public…). Les conclusions et recommandations des audits de la

Cour des comptes européenne dans le domaine de l’agriculture ont été discutées et mises

en perspective avec les travaux en cours à la Cour des comptes française portant sur le

développement rural. Les discussions sur les travaux de la Cour des comptes française ont

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 797: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret juli/august 2017

Renforcer nos connaissances respectives: réunion d’échange entre la Cour

des comptes européenne et la Cour des comptes française

continued

permis à nos collègues de la Chambre I d’apprendre qu’une Agence pour la biodiversité,

chargée de centraliser la gestion des parcs nationaux avait été récemment créée en France.

Les collègues des deux institutions ont aussi décidé d’échanger leurs programmes de travail

détaillés respectifs. L’organisation de réunions bilatérales entre les chefs de tâches des deux

institutions notamment dans les domaines de l’agriculture et de l’environnement a aussi été

évoquée.

Accroitre nos échanges sur un certain nombre de points

Enin, de manière plus transversale, la Cour française nous a indiqué être prête à nous faire

bénéicier de son centre de ressources documentaire, très riche et eicace. Cela pourrait

nous permettre d’identiier et de consulter en amont de nos propres audits leurs éventuelles

analyses et expertises dans les domaines d’intérêt. La réciproque devrait également être

envisagée, ain notamment de faire bénéicier nos collègues français de nos contacts avec

des institutions sœurs, et de notre accès privilégié à une documentation multilingue.

Pour certains domaines, comme le transport ferroviaire par exemple, il a été convenu que

les échanges déjà fréquents entre les auditeurs des deux institutions pourraient s’ampliier

en associant d’autres Institutions supérieures de contrôle, selon le sujet et sous une forme

souple. La Cour des comptes européenne a proposé son aide pour faciliter de type de

rencontres.

Il ressort de cette journée dense que dans beaucoup de domaines, notre coopération se

renforce et va se poursuivre au-delà de ces rencontres annuelles.

Salle de réunion des Membres de la Cour des comptes européenne

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 797: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret juli/august 2017

Reform and eicient use of the EU budget:

a too diicult conversation?

By Prof. Dr Alex Brenninkmeijer, ECA Member

How can the European Union deal with new

political challenges? How can it maintain a

lexible budget and how can the European

Union achieve European added value

with less public spending? These where

questions brought up at the symposium on

the future of the European Union’s inances,

organized by the German Research Institute

for Public Administration, in cooperation

with the German Federal Ministry of Finance

in Speyer, Germany, on Tuesday 16 May

2017. Alex Brenninkmeijer, ECA Member

and Honorary Professor at the University

of Utrecht, stirred up the discussion by

exploring, in his contribution below to the

symposium, what is really important for the

discussion on EU inances, and… what is not.

Introduction

The future of EU’s budget is for many reasons a trendy topic. I mention some reasons

why this is the case: the inancial consequences of Brexit; the upcoming negotiations on

the new multiannual framework (MFF); the relationship between Germany and France

after the 2017 elections; the rising populism and nationalism and the call for restauration

of the sovereignty of nation-states, which undermines Member States’ willingness to

allocate budget for the EU. Furthermore the efects of incidents like the inancial crisis, the

migration crisis and the unstable geopolitical situation also call for a more lexible and

responsive way of spending the EU budget. These challenges are just some of the most

urgent issues. In the meantime, the EU citizens wonder why ‘Brussels’ is not able to solve

these problems.

The European Court of Auditors is not satisied with the inancial controls over the

diferent MFF headings. Some are complex in their regulation, some are prone to errors.

Overall we can observe that if it comes to the performance of EU budget, it is often

questionable whether this budget creates signiicant EU added value and supports the

achievement of common EU objectives. For instance, in our audits, we have observed

many underused harbours and airport facilities that are built with money from the EU

budget. Waterways that do not suiciently connect across borders. The sky above Europe

is used ineiciently for air traic. The railway network is not efective enough to stimulate

more environmentally friendly transports by train. From the ECA’s perspective there are

many reasons to review the MFF.

It is obvious that due to EU’s imperfect institutional and political structure there is no

mechanism in place to lead the negotiation process on the MFF in a good direction.

For that reason the status quo traditionally gets strong support. Just digest the impact

on the budget caused by Brexit and move on. When reading comments of experts and

think tanks on the future of EU’s budget, it’s quite easy to list the ten important and

sensible improvements for EU’s budget. This list will show hot topics like own resources,

reconsideration of the agricultural and cohesion policies and more budget lexibility in

order to cope with crises. However there is a profound tension between the decisions

which are needed for a sound EU budget and the predictable outcome of the upcoming

fuzzy negotiation process on the new MFF.

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 797: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret juli/august 2017

Reform and eicient use of the EU budget: a too diicult conversation?

continued

What we can see is that due to the impact on the budget caused by Brexit, all other

Member States will reconsider their position in the MFF negotiations. Sweden, for instance,

takes, like other countries, the position of ‘no more money to Europe’, The Netherlands

sees 1 billon as a stronghold in the negotiations, meaning that The Hague’s net payer’s

‘rebate’ - the correction from Brussels to compensate The Hague for its annual contribution

to the EU budget - should annually not be less than 1 billion euro for the next MFF. And

in fact the Finanztag discussions held in Speyer may inspire the German government

to make some important choices as starting points for the upcoming negotiations.

Unfortunately this MFF negotiation process is strongly inluenced by the often very

complex dynamics of the national political process in the currently 28 but for the future

most likely 27 Member States. Stimulating discussion on the new MFF might be considered

as a ‘diicult conversation’ and maybe it is a too diicult conversation. The highly political

negotiation process will narrow down its outcome in a zero sum game for 27 participants.

It is predictable that the lengthy preparations and negotiations will end up being

presented somewhere in the middle of the night or early in the morning with a fast selling

compromise. A compromise that risks being too weak to live up to the challenges that the

EU citizens are faced with today. With this observation the circle is round: Because citizens

distrust EU, Member States are unwilling to invest in the European cooperation. For that

reason improvement of EU cooperation and innovation of the budget is not on the agenda.

Having said this, I conclude that the multifaceted crisis in the Union asks for a new

approach. If we repeat what we have done in the past we will get the same results. Results

that are not convincing for EU citizens. European cooperation will not be perceived as a

solution of our urgent problems, but will be perceived as a problem on its own. In my view

a very disruptive problem.

The context

When it comes to the EU’s decision making on this issue two documents are relevant. Firstly

the Commission’s White Paper on the future of Europe and secondly the Monti report on

EU’s own resources. The White Paper ofers relections and scenarios for the EU27 by 2025.

And there are ive of them, covering more or less the whole range from doing nothing

to stronger integration. The Commission’s white paper is intended to be an invitation for

a honest and wide range debate on how the EU should evolve in the years to come. The

future of EU’s inances is identiied as one of the six urgent topics. The document also

touches upon the budgetary implications of the ive scenarios of EU development.

The Monti ‘papers’ are hot stuf in the sense that the High Level Group presented some

alternatives for the current mostly GNI-based contributions by Member States. An

approach strongly supported by the Member States as a benchmark for fair burden-

sharing. However, the report argues in favour of new own resources, making the EU

inances less dependent of Member States’ contributions. The main reason is that they

pave the way towards realising necessary policy objectives such as economic, social and

environmental sustainability. In the meantime good functioning EU budget elements

should be kept and others should be abandoned. In that sense the Monti report opens the

discussion on highly controversial issues related with the vested rights of Member States

and the conservative power of the status quo. As a possible opening for future debates

focused on solutions, the Monti report ofers some suggestions for own resources related

with the Single Market and iscal coordination on the one hand, and those related with

the Energy Union, environment, climate and transport policies on the other hand. The EU’s

way forward might be a diferentiated one, where a coalition of the willing takes the fore

front in the further development of the EU. In fact, the EU’s 60 years history shows that the

start was made by a small group of six member states, growing up to 28 members and now

facing a downsize to 27. While countries like Norway and Switzerland have chosen their

own position.

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 797: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret juli/august 2017

Reform and eicient use of the EU budget: a too diicult conversation?

continued

Norway is an interesting example when it comes to measuring the EU added value.

Under Horizon 2020 they are net payer. However, they are willing to be a net payer as

they recognize the importance of being part of the EU research and knowledge network.

Also many British scholars see the dramatic efects of leaving the research union as it

was illustrated in a Financial Times interview (see FT 23/08/2016) after the Brexit. When

it comes to measuring EU added value we often risk not seeing the wood for the trees.

Although the European cooperation is one of the most remarkable and successful

developments in Western history, in many Member States the sentiment is the opposite.

EU Euroscepticism is sometimes a handy tool for the media and the political parties to

attract the attention of the public and to move diicult issues away from the national

spotlight.

This brings me to the heart of the matter. Euroscepticism risks becoming a tool for

national political parties in their search for power. The political choice for a referendum

on ‘leave’ and the resulting Brexit debate illustrates this. For the citizen, there is a diferent

picture, however. In our complex and globalising world citizens need a clear perspective

towards a reliable and sustainable future. On their own Member States are not able to

ofer this perspective. Closing the borders is no solution. However, it is presented by many

politicians as a panacea to end the complexity of our world.

The divide in society between globalists and nationalists and between those who can

keep up with the pace of change in our modern society and those who feel threatened by

uncertainties, strains the debate on EU’s future. In our modern society it is urgent that this

divide should be bridged by integration of the diferent views on our future. In the same

way it is urgent that the views on the future of the EU budget should be integrated into a

constructive step forward and not into a fruitless battle with no winners at the end.

Indeed, there are many views on the future of EU’s budget. However the great diversity

in views should be seen as a source of enrichment of the debate instead of a hindrance

for inding a sound solution. The most important question is therefore how we can shape

the negotiations in a way that we can ind common grounds and shared interests. Equally

important is the direct communication we shall have with EU citizens, for them to not

feel distracted from the EU, from Brussels and its bureaucracy. This is the right moment

to seek for improvement of communication with citizens. It’s not without reason that the

Commission’s White Paper intends to open a debate with the citizens.

In this debate with citizens it will be important to avoid not seeing the wood for the trees.

Citizens are lost in micro-management plans, for example in the Commission as a whole

there are some 1000 objectives and 3000 indicators. The big picture shows that 60 years

of European cooperation has brought a huge prosperous internal market and that the

former communist satellites could join this development. Indeed Europe is challenged

by the inancial crises which weakened the perspective of the Euro. And with this the

national economies of some countries were extremely weakened. The migration pressure

did raise the urgency to protect our external borders. The geopolitical developments ask

for more joined eforts of European countries with regard to safety, not only physically, but

also in the virtual world. Energy, natural resources and the climate change ask for another

European-wide efort.

Not seeing the wood for the trees

The big picture can only been seen when in the debate on the future of the MFF we make

a diference between micro, meso and macro issues. The macro issues should lead the

debate. The macro issue is how the EU can play a signiicant role in solving the problems

that Members States cannot solve on their own. How can the EU draft relevant policies

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 797: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret juli/august 2017

Reform and eicient use of the EU budget: a too diicult conversation?

continued

and what kind of decision making process is needed for this. How can EU citizens get

involved and how can they be convinced that European cooperation not only makes

sense, but is needed and can also be conducted in an efective way. On the meso level

the question comes up how the MFF should be drafted. How much money do we need

in order to cope with the challenges ahead and how should we collect the money. It

is evident that in one way or the other EU should have direct access to own resources.

Member states should look beyond the highly political question of whether countries are

‘net payers’ or not, and instead focus on what we wish to achieve with a common budget

and how to do that in practice. In the light of the growing need for European cooperation

this is apparently the more important question to relect on. After all, the calculation of

individual contributions from Member States based on GNI and the totalling of these

contributions is rather a technical exercise. On the micro level we have to deal with the

efectiveness and eiciency of the diferent EU programs such as agriculture, cohesion and

research and innovation in the actual MFF. The need for controls should be balanced with

the risks of having a too burdensome bureaucracy or even red tape.

What we can observe in the EU is that in the debate on the future of the MFF these

tree levels - macro, meso, micro - are easily mixed up. Some countries are in favour of

consolidation of the CAP, others are reluctant to increase the budget as such. Others see

budget for results and performance based budgeting as an outcome. The main questions,

however, is: why EU cooperation? And what choices can reasonably be explained to EU

citizens. If we look for the foundations of European cooperation, what is the ‘wood’ and

what are the trees.

Two issues cannot be ignored. Firstly the connection with EU citizens. It is not an easy

task involving them, but the EU starts and ends with defending the citizens’ interests.

Due to fast and comprehensive information low and the sometimes disruptive nature of

the political and public debate, the relation between those who govern and those who

are governed changes quickly. We have to ind ways to connect with citizens wherever

possible in our societies, in our countries. Quintessential is that citizens need information

and that they are empowered to make their own judgement on how EU cooperation

makes sense. This is the basis of trust in society. At the end of the day citizens are ‘sense

makers’.

Secondly, the process of integrating the very complex and at times conlicting interests of

de 27 Member States is a sensitive but extremely crucial process. The traditional method

in the European Union has shown to be little efective. The conservative power of the

status quo has often a paralyzing efect. Moreover, seeking for compromises as next

best solution is not always the optimal approach and ofers the risk of watering down

the efectiveness of EU policies. Indeed, in an EU with 27 Member States and many more

regions and cities there are many diferent interests. That makes EU decision-making

process hard to implement. But diiculty should not withhold the participants in this

decision making process from making choices that are in the best interests of the EU

citizens.

This negotiation process to integrate the various interests of the EU stakeholders can be

supported by drafting some principles. Principles of how good European cooperation

could take shape seem to me a irst step towards achieving better outcomes. The second

step is to agree on principles of a sound and fair budget distribution. With these principles,

we may give direction to our future MFF and move forward with the conversation.

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 797: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret juli/august 2017

ECA goes Brazil: ECA team co-chairs the

INTOSAI Professional Standards Committee

By the ECA PSC Secretariat Team

As indicated in a previous edition of the Journal the ECA decided to increase its focus on work

directly related to developing and implementing public sector audit standards. No time was

wasted to put this ambition into practice: the ECA took up its new role as vice-chair of the

INTOSAI Professional Standards Committee (PSC) at the end of last year and, on 8th and 9th June,

was in Brasilia to participate in the 2017 meeting of the Steering Committee of the INTOSAI PSC),

for the irst time under the joint chairmanship of the Tribunal de Contas da União (TCU - the SAI

of Brazil) and the ECA. The ECA delegation was led by Mrs Danièle Lamarque, ECA Member, and

consisted further of Neil Usher, Geofrey Simpson and Alan Findlay.

Instituto Serzedello Corrêa

Escola Superior do Tribunal de Contas da União

PSC strategic goal

The PSC has as its strategic goal to “promote

strong, independent and multidisciplinary SAIs

and to encourage good governance by: (1) providing and maintaining international standards

of supreme audit institutions (ISSAIs); and (2) contributing to the development and adoption of

appropriate and efective professional standards”

. Signiicant changes were made at the 2016

Congress to the way in which INTOSAI sets its standards and much of the meeting was given

over to putting the new structures and procedures into place.

Important issues covered included further extending and strengthening INTOSAI’s

consultation with external stakeholders in the standard-setting processes, improving the

planning for and quality assurance of those processes and deepening the relations between

the various INTOSAI bodies so as to achieve mutual support and greater synergies. The

meeting also provided an opportunity to relect on the working of the standard setting

process – taking stock of the revised structures and processes - and provided some good

ideas on how to further optimize the approach. As a result of the meeting, the joint TCU/

E£CA secretariat team will be presenting a number of papers to the INTOSAI Governing

Board when it meets in Austria later this year.

1 INTOSAI Strategic Plan 2017 – 2022, page 21

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 797: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret juli/august 2017

ECA goes Brazil: ECA team co-chairs the INTOSAI Professional

Standards Committee

continued

Consultation with external stakeholders

In strengthening its consultation with external stakeholders, the PSC is relecting a

signiicant development in standard-setting more widely. For example, the International

Public Sector Accounting Standards Board (IPSASB) has recently established a Consultative

Advisory Group (CAG) as part of its strengthened governance arrangements. In the case

of the PSC, external stakeholders will be represented in two ways. Firstly, the World Bank,

the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) and the Institute of Internal Auditors

(IIA) - the three key stakeholders - will become “advisory partners” and participate as active

observers in the work of the PSC. A second, larger, group of “consultative partners” will

also be established. This group, which may include bodies such as the OECD, the Inter-

Parliamentary Union and the United Nations Evaluation Group, will be consulted every

three years as part of the process to plan INTOSAI’s standard-setting programme. On a

case-by-case basis, these bodies might also be consulted by project groups drawing up

individual pronouncements.

Cross-cutting priorities and internal PSC coordination

In addition to achieving its strategic goal, the PSC is also expected to contribute to the

achievement of INTOSAI’s ive “cross-cutting priorities”, which include advocating for and

supporting the independence of SAIs and contributing to the follow-up and review of the

UN’s strategic development goals (SDGs).

The PSC Steering Committee meeting was preceded by a technical meeting between

the PSC secretariat and the chairs of its four subcommittees (the Financial Audit and

Accounting, Performance Audit, Compliance Audit and Internal Controls Standards

Subcommittees). This was again jointly chaired by the TCU and the ECAt and focused

on the work that the subcommittees are doing to restructure INTOSAI’s framework of

professional pronouncements

as well as the ways in which the subcommittees might

support INTOSAI’s work on the SDGs.

Relation building between the PSC chair and vice-chair secretariats

Both meetings were well prepared, ran smoothly and eiciently and dealt efectively with

the charged agendas. The technical quality of the papers discussed, and of the discussions

themselves, relect the good work that is being done by the PSC secretariat here in

Luxembourg and in Brasilía, and the good working relationship that the two teams have

built up.

The meetings were held in the Instituto Serzedello Corrêa (ISC – see picture) which is a

purpose built training centre for the TCU focussing on corporate education, organizational

knowledge management and documentary management. The ICS is named after

Innocêncio Serzedello Corrêa who was Brazilian minister of inance in the 1890s and was

responsible for the regulation and functioning of the TCU.

The next meeting of the PSC Steering Committee will take place here at the ECA on 30

and 31

May 2018.

2 For a description of this restructuring, see the July-August 2016 edition of the Journal, pages 13 – 17.

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 797: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret juli/august 2017

FOCUS

Focus

Alexander Italianer meets ECA Members

Eduardo Ruiz García, ECA Secretary-General; Alexander Italianer, Secretary-

General of the European Commission; Klaus-Heiner Lehne, ECA President;

Ms Aldea Busquets, Deputy Director-General of the Commission’s DG

Budget; Alex Brenninkmeijer, ECA Member, Manfred Kraf, Director-General

of the Commission’s Internal Audit Service

Alexander Italianer, Secretary-General of the European Commission, had an

informal working lunch with the College of the European Court of Auditors.

He visited the Court on 14 June, accompanied by the Director-General

of the Commission’s Internal Audit Service, Mr Manfred Kraf, and the

acting Deputy Director-General of the Commission’s DG Budget, Ms Aldea

Busquets.

Mr Italianer is since September 2015 the Commission’s Secretary General.

Before that he worked in several private oicies of Commissioners and

Commission presidents and, before his current position, as Director-General

of DG Competition. During his meeting at the Court Mr Italianer provided

information on the Commission’s White Paper on the future of Europe,

presented in March, and particularly on subsequent Commission relection

papers, like the one presented in early June on the future of European

defence, or the relection papers on the deepening of the economic and

monetary union, or the one on the social dimension of Europe. These

papers may prelude possible future legislative proposals.

Other topics discussed were the EU budget and, related to that, the possible

consequences of Brexit. Another subject covered was the adversarial

procedure between the Commission and the Court and relations between

the two institutions in general.

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 797: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret juli/august 2017

FOCUS

Focus

Special

Report

N°09/2017

EU support to ight human traicking in South/South-East Asia

Human traicking has been identiied as a key threat to the EU which has committed itself to

combat it, both within and beyond its borders. The audit examined the comprehensiveness of

EU’s approach to ighting human traicking and whether EU projects contributed efectively to

the ight against human traicking in South/South-East Asia. Eradicating human traicking is

necessarily a long term process which demands addressing root causes and disrupting criminal

networks. Given this, we found that the EU was partially efective in supporting the ight against

human traicking in South/South-East Asia. We make recommendations to further develop the

human traicking strategic framework and to optimise the impact of projects by integrating

them into a comprehensive framework.

Click here for our full Special Report

Published on

20 June 2017

Special

Report

N°10/2017

EU support to young farmers should be better targeted to foster

efective generational renewal

The number of young farmers fell from 3.3 mln in 2005 to 2.3 mln in 2013. The EU allocated 9.6

billion euro to young farmers in 2007-2020 to foster generational renewal in agriculture. The

Court found that this aid is often poorly-deined, with no expected result and impact speciied.

For Pillar 1 (direct payments), the aid is provided in a standardized form not matching young

farmers’ needs other than additional income. For Pillar 2 (rural development), the aid better

addresses young farmers’ needs and prompts speciic actions (e.g. introducing organic farming,

water- or energy-saving initiatives), however the managing authorities did not always apply

selection procedures to prioritise the best projects. The Court recommends to better deine the

objectives and target the EU support in order to foster efective generational renewal.

Published on

29 June 2017

Click here for our full Special Report

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 797: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret juli/august 2017

Study visit of the European Parliamentary

Research Service at the ECA

By Fabrice Mercade, Directorate of the Presidency

The European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) visited the Court on Monday 19

June for a working meeting with the Directorate of the Presidency (DOP) and audit

directors. Since its operational start in 2014, the EPRS has endeavoured to provide

focused research on, and analysis of, EU policy issues. This makes it an interesting

source for ECA auditors to familiarise themselves with speciic policy issues, research

methods used and existing assessments on policy outcomes.

Thomas Arntz, Head of private oice of the President; Phil Wynn Owen, ECA

Member; Fabrice Mercade, Principal Manager of the Presidency; Anthony

Tesdale, Director-General European Parliamentary Research Service;

Stéphane Reynolds, Assistant to the Director-General

Plugging into the parliamentary work

The work of the EPRS covers a wide range of activities such as direct research and analysis

services on EU policies at the request of MEPs, management of the EP library and responding

to citizen’s enquiries, as well as impact assessments and studies on European added value.

The latter two are of particular interest for the ECA. One of the products stemming from that

work is the so called “rolling checklist” that presents a comprehensive overview of the ECA

Special Reports, concentrating on those relevant for the ongoing EU discharge procedure.

This checklist is useful as it relates all the topics covered in the special reports to the relevant

debates and positions within the European Parliament, including the working documents of

the Committee on Budgetary Control and the work of specialised parliamentary committees

as well as MEP’s written and oral questions.

Potential synergies and exchanging good practices

Since 2015 the DOP has established direct working contacts with the EPRS Directorate for

impact assessment and European added value, aiming at identifying potential synergies

and exchanging good practices. On 19 June the ECA welcomed Anthony Teasdeale, Director

General of the EPRS as well as the entire EPRS management team.

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 797: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret juli/august 2017

Looking for synergies with the European Parliamentary Research Service

continued

Based on the ECA’s work programme, we have established a list of matching EPRS studies

and reports, where every ongoing or to be started audit task is reviewed per Chamber

and matched with the relevant work of the EPRS. This allows us to quickly identify issues

of common interests. More importantly is the established list of bilateral direct contacts

between audit Chambers and EPRS services allowing for exchange of information. This is

perceived as helpful for our work on preliminary studies, risk assessments and future work

planning (potential audit tasks).

For the EPRS our reports are providing helpful input for EPRS studies and ongoing work.

Moreover our audit reports generally contain only part of the information gathered and

analysed during our audits. This information remains relevant and constitutes useful material

for the preparation of future audit work, as well as for potential future derivatives of our

reports that could be tailored for key stakeholder groups. But it can also be relevant for the

EPRS when conducting its own research. Exchange of information on these issues with the

EPRS has proven very useful for both sides and could be further developed.

During our meeting with the EPRS we presented the ECA’s work programme methodology,

reviewed the updated matching items list in detail per audit Chamber and discussed further

developments of our cooperation as described above. In early May this year, two of our ECA

colleagues gave a training course on performance audit methodology to EPRS colleagues

and considering the success and interest, more will probably follow. Similarly a course will be

proposed to ECA colleagues on the methodology used by the EPRS when conducting their

work.

Working together for a learning government

This was the third yearly meeting between EPRS and ECA. Our cooperation has evolved

increasingly and the established channels for exchange of information will continue to function

and intensify. Both the EPRS and ECA have identiied many issues for potential synergies and

will continue to work together in full respect of each other’s prerogatives and independence,

while contributing to a learning public sector.

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 797: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret juli/august 2017

Going back to school: obtaining a Master’s

at the University of Lorraine

By Gaston Moonen

Many ECA staf members, either being in audit or in another job, follow courses, presentations

and speciic training throughout the year. In a quickly changing society where life-long learning is

becoming the standard, this is only a good thing. Some of the ECA colleagues take it even further

and have embarked on a speciic academic programme where ECA-auditors can participate in,

called the Master’s degree in Public Administration: ‘Management of public organisation’. The ECA

joined this programme in 2016 which is run by the University of Lorraine (Metz-Nancy) and 12 ECA

colleagues enrolled. To get feedback on the programme I interviewed one of the irst year participants

in the programme, Anna Fiteni, who was willing to share her own hands-on-experience. With the

programme soon entering into its third year time it is a good moment to get a personal impression.

Anna greets me with her ever-lasting smile when she receives me to talk

about her current experiences as a student. She immediately agreed to have

the interview because after all, sharing experiences is a crucial element in

the world of learning. Anna has been with the Court since 2005, having

started in the Maltese translation section . Her academic qualiications are in

accountancy and audit and she had worked for private audit irms in Malta,

her proile its the picture. In 2009 she passed an audit competition and then

she went again into audit. She worked irst in audit quality review, then in

the directorate of Chamber II, and during 2015 and 2016 she worked in the

private oice of the Maltese ECA Member. Since October 2016 she works

again in the directorate of Chamber II.

What does the Master programme entail?

Anna sets out that the programme consists of two parts: a post graduate

university diploma and a Master’s degree in Public Administration. The

postgraduate diploma requires participation and examination in ive

modules in ‘Audit of public organisations and policies’. If this is completed

successfully one may pass on to the Master’s degree which comprises a viva

voce examination (‘grand oral’) and the completion of a thesis. The grand

oral is a thirty minute interview with the university professors on a speciic

topic, which you select blindly from the three topics presented to you. Then

you get 30 minutes to prepare, followed by thirty minutes to present your

thoughts and discuss with the professors. The thesis consists of substantial

research work on a speciic topic and presenting the results.’ In order to enrol

for the programme one had to write a motivation letter and a cv. Then the

professors decide on which candidates to select, and if selected the ECA will

pay the tuition costs.

So why taking this step of ‘going back to school’?

Anna points out that, after having inished her bachelor’s degree, she has

always felt that she still wanted to do a master’s degree. ‘However, practical

constraints always prevented me from enrolling into a master’s degree: I

have two small children and also with the workload it is not that easy to

start an academic study.’ When this ECA/University of Lorraine master degree

programme was presented she was immediately interested: interesting

content, modules given at the ECA premises during working hours, no need

to travel, and doing research at your own pace. Anna: ‘I did realise from the

start that it would still require a lot of personal time, sometimes at the cost

Anna Fiteni, auditor

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 797: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret juli/august 2017

Going back to school: obtaining a Master’s at the University of Lorraine

continued

of family time: studying in my own time, my work still needs to be inished in time, and

the deadlines in the postgraduate programme are strict. The main drive to pursue further

studies was to be exposed to new things, new sources of knowledge.’ While working in the

Maltese private oice her colleague Jacques Sciberras gave her some new and stimulating

perspectives, and through this study she found a way to ind new insights, to discover

and discuss, to ind enrichment in knowledge and ideas. Anna: ‘Moreover, when I was at

university a focus on public sector administration was not that present in the curriculum,

and I felt the need to enhance my focus on that aspect.’ While not being the initial reason

to start the study she also feels that the study work done enables her to better connect to

daily aspects of her work too.

While work and the family kept her away from starting a new study the conditions

ofered by the master’s programme were ideal to realise her academic conditions. Anna

indicates that if this programme would not have been ofered she most likely would not

have started a study somewhere else. ‘I feel that the ECA certainly has decreased the

practical barriers to embark on a study like the one ofered.’ She also has a lot of praise for

the support given by the ECA professional training department: despite being in a pilot

phase of the programme many things were well organised. For example, the training

department ensured that study material, work assignments, homework, etc. that was

originally available in French – mostly for the classes provided by the university professors

- got translated into English and they also enabled smooth communication with the

professors on for example additional guidance.

So what did you learn, what is the content of the programme?

Anna chuckles while thinking back at her irst assignments: ‘One of the things I quickly

learned was better planning of my time for doing the assignments. It then became quite

clear to me that some serious work and also planning of time was required. With the

next assignments I think I quickly got into a habit of proper time planning and focus.’

Contents wise she inds it also very rewarding. Anna: ‘For example, for the irst module I

had to choose an organisation and study its strategy and the environment it was working

in. Issues like a SWOT and PESTLE analysis, customers’ and competitors’ proile and

recommendations for improvement of the strategy, were expected to be developed by

me.’ Anna experienced to take such a diferent perspective as a relief, not taking strictly a

particular audit perspective but more management perspective: ‘I felt that by this I was

breathing something diferent, something new.’

Some modules had topics quite familiar with her work, focusing on performance audit

or on standards like IPSAS etc., including modules provided by ECA colleagues. These

presented less new elements for her. So depending on your background some modules

would have some overlap with what you had done already. One topic e focused on impact

assessment, while others provided insights on how to derive information from statistics

or how to measure social-well-being. According to Anna the programme contains both a

policy orientation and an auditor’s perspective.

The set-up of the courses was that two out of ive were group assignments, project

oriented, the remaining three individual. Assignments were graded in detail. Anna gives

the example of module 5 where during three speciic sessions lasting in total three

days, the group had to develop an audit plan for a certain topic. Many of the 11 other

colleagues participating in the programme had a wide experience in the Court and there

was a good spirit of cooperation, sharing ideas and helping each other out. Most of the

participants are on their way to inish the master’s programme.

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 797: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret juli/august 2017

Going back to school: obtaining a Master’s at the University of Lorraine

continued

How do you feel it went for you personally, did you ‘manage’ it?

Anna feels that the programme certainly fulils her academic aspirations: ‘After having

gotten into a certain pace I felt inspired to perform well, to make a good efort and take the

necessary measures to well prepare in advance, organising my study work in such a way

to ind the right balance and fulilling work, family and study commitments’. Anna has just

done her oral examination, for which she felt it was diicult to prepare. The topic she had

to discuss had a very wide scope: discuss the issue of trust and management. Anna is now

eager to receive the results of her oral examination. At the same time she is preparing her

thesis topic. Anna: ‘Due to personal constraints I might not inish that in autumn this year

but I hope for early next 2018. Initially the thesis came across as a big hurdle but now I have

igured out which topic to take I got many new ideas. Now I have to grapple with inding

time to work on it, sometimes also inding long enough periods of time to dig well into it’.

The topic Anna wants to covers is related to working with open data.

The forward looking auditor’s question: what do you think can be improved in the

programme?

While being quite satisied with the contents and the set-up of the programme Anna

also conveys some advice for the future editions. In doing so she is clearly aware of her

year being the irst year, the pilot phase of the programme. In her view enhancing the

programme modules with more elements to which the participants would not have in-

house access would be desirable. This could enable to open up to new perspectives and

insights, with new angles. Anna: ‘Another item to consider would be to receive more timely

information from university professors such as on the speciics for the thesis in order to

enable a wider-spread time management. Most probably this is an item that has already

been improved for the second and third year that the programme is ofered.’

When I saw the programme announcement myself last year I thought: this is very

interesting, perhaps I should pursue this myself. Would you advice colleagues to enrol?

Anna’s reply to this is quite irm: she would certainly advice other colleagues to consider

doing the programme. Anna: ‘Of course your decision may depend on where you stand,

what you have already done: Depending on your experience obtained within or outside the

ECA, the relevance of some module elements will difer but it certainly enables you to learn

several new things, obtain new angles towards issues and ofer new sources to tap into.’

Finally. has the study given you the enrichment you were hoping for?

Anna is quite positive about the enrichment the programme gave. Some modules turned

out to be very motivating for her to read further on topics, to dig further, particularly for

issues you would not look into, as an auditor, during your daily routine. Obtaining new

points of view, often revealing also a certain background of the participants during the

discussions, turned out to be very enriching. The same goes for getting to know new

colleagues.. At the same time the programme covered certain topics where the learning

curve turned out to be less steep than she had hoped for. Anna is happy that she enrolled

and has to laugh when asked whether her family shares this view: ‘My husband was very

supportive in this and thanks to his help with the kids it was all manageable, and with

the knowledge I have now I would certainly do it again. If you want to do a master’s while

working at the ECA this is deinitely worth looking into.’

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 797: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret juli/august 2017

ISSN 1831-449X

EDITION HIGHLIGHTS

ECA Award for Research into Public Sector

Auditing 2016 : paying tribute to Henrik Otbo

Reform and eicient use of the EU budget: a

too diicult conversation?

Going back to school: obtaining a Master’s at

the University of Lorraine

Cover:

- ECA Award for Research into Public Sector Auditing 2016 : paying tribute to Henrik Otbo

QJ-AD-17-007-2A-N