EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 81: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november 2016

Europaudvalget 2016-17
EUU Alm.del Bilag 81
Offentligt

NOVEMBER 2016

N°

Journal

European Court of Auditors

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 81: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november 2016

Past editions of the Journal can be found on:

ECA’s website: http://eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/Journal.aspx

PRODUCTION

Rédacteur en chef / Editor in Chief : Rosmarie Carotti

Tél. / tel.: 00352 4398 - 45506 - e-mail : [email protected]

Mise en page, diffusion / Layout, distribution : Direction de la Présidence - Directorate of the Presidency

Photos : Reproduction interdite / Reproduction prohibited

The contents of the interviews and the articles are the sole responsibility of the interviewees and

authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Court of Auditors

Cover photos:

- Annual Report: Martina Dlabajová, Vice Chair of the European Parliament CONT committee;

Klaus-Heiner Lehne, ECA President; Lazaros S. Lazarou, ECA Member

- Kersti Kaljulaid, leaving ECA Member

- Leo Brincat, new ECA Member

- Jeroen Dijsselbloem, Eurogroup President and Alex Brenninkmeijer, ECA Member

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 81: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Membership of EU and NATO are serious security guarantees for our nation

Questions to Kersti Kaljulaid, leaving ECA Member

The former ECA Member was elected President of Estonia on 3 October 2016

By Rosmarie Carotti

We should not only be proactive but also seen to be proactive

Interview with Leo Brincat, new ECA Member

By Rosmarie Carotti

Our 2015 Annual Report

By Lazaros S. Lazarou, ECA Member for the Annual Report

Developing the economic and monetary union

Eurogroup President Jeroen Dijsselbloem at the ECA on 10 October 2010 at the invitation

of Alex Brenninkmeijer, ECA Member

By Rosmarie Carotti

Special Report 21/2016: “EU pre-accession assistance for strengthening administrative

capacity in the Western Balkans: A meta-audit”

By Dennis Wernerus, senior auditor and head of task

Performance Budgeting: A Discourse on EU Added Value

2nd annual EU Budget Focused on Results Conference

By Alex Brenninkmeijer

FOCUS

- 2016 European Court of Award Henrik Otbo

- Special reports Nos 24, 25, 26, 27/ 2016

The European Consumer Organisation: Evaluating TTIP and other EU policies

for consumers

Lecture by Monique Goyens, BEUC Director General, to ECA staff on 23 September 2016

By Rosmarie Carotti

2016 Clear Language Event

By Veronica Ardelean, Principal Manager, Translation and Language Services Directorate

The Bridge Forum Dialogue:

Recovering from the crisis macroeconomic versus real economy and social dimensions

Under the chairmanship of Dr Werner Hoyer, President of the European Investment

Bank, Professor Euclid Tsakalotos, Minister of Finance of the Hellenic Republic, gave a

lecture on 28 September 2016 at the EIB in Luxembourg.

By Rosmarie Carotti

- Finance minister Euclid Tsakalotos at the ECA

By Kamila Lepkowska, head of task

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 81: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november 2016

Membership of EU and NATO are serious

security guarantees for our nation

Questions to Kersti Kaljulaid, leaving ECA Member

Ms Kaljulaid was elected President of Estonia on 3 October 2016

By Rosmarie Carotti

report to match stakeholder needs. What are

your suggestions?

Kersti Kaljulaid:

I wish President Lehne all the best

and continuous success in developing the ECA. I

think it is not appropriate for me to make technical

suggestions though. I am sure the ECA will develop

the annual report in the interest of the stakeholders

as it has always done.

R. C.: What has changed for Estonia since it

joined the EU and NATO and has it always been

for the better?

Kersti Kaljulaid, leaving ECA Member

R. C.: Ms Kaljulaid you are the President elect of

Estonia, due to take office on 10 October 2019.

Please describe the nomination procedure for

President in your country, what makes you known

there and how you kept links with Estonia while

being ECA Member since May 2004.

Kersti Kaljulaid:

I have always seen Estonia as the

place I love and Luxembourg the place I work in. I

think Estonian people sensed this in my attitude for

all 12 years. I was also Chairman of the Board of our

oldest university, Tartu University (world ranked 347

in 2016). I was active in explaining European issues to

our people.

My nomination for Presidency was made by

Members of Parliament. You need 21 votes to be set

up (I had 90) and 68 to be elected (I got 81). Estonia

is a parliamentary democracy, which is why the

Parliament elects the President.

R. C.: As President of Estonia you will be the

highest representative of State in international

affairs. Will you be able to use the experience you

acquired at the ECA when Estonia will take the

Presidency of the EU in July 2017?

Kersti Kaljulaid:

I am certainly able to use my

accumulated European knowledge, but Estonia is

represented by a Prime Minister in the European

Council. My formal European role is within

the Arraialos group, where all Presidents not

participating in the Council gather.

R. C.: ECA President Lehne recently said that the

ECA needs to focus on reforming its products,

in particular it needs to better tailor the annual

Kersti Kaljulaid:

Yes. Membership of EU and NATO

are serious security guarantees for our nation. We

may have technical disagreements over individual

developments in the EU, but the essence remains.

There can be no better Europe than Europe with

the EU. Nothing can and will change this for Estonia.

We intend to participate proactively in shaping

European Union's future so that it retains its

importance.

R. C.: There are different ethnical groups in

Estonia. Will you be able to make a positive

contribution to keeping the unity of the

country?

Kersti Kaljulaid:

Estonia has a population of very

varied origins. But only one official language. So we

all communicate in Estonian, but speak happily our

native languages at home. We also have the state-

funded schools for Russian-speaking community,

which is very rare in Europe - most states only

provide free education in official language or

languages. We are not defined by our origin, but by

our common goals and objectives.

R. C.: Ms Kaljulaid, you will be the first female

President of Estonia. How will you be able to

combine your family life with children with your

new position?

Kersti Kaljulaid:

I hope this question will never

be asked again - and I have told so to the Estonian

press. All children have mothers and fathers, all

people have family obligations. It is not in any way

special for women in the 21st century.

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 81: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november 2016

We should not only be proactive but also

seen to be proactive

Interview with Leo Brincat, new ECA Member

By Rosmarie Carotti

In my new role, which I took over just two weeks

ago, I committed myself a priori to master my brief

to the best of my ability. I feel that the revenue

dossier has to be looked at in a multifaceted

manner: from the GNI aspect, where we depend

on the statistics collected from the member states

and which systems need to be kept under constant

review; the VAT component, which unless effectively

monitored can prove to be both problematic and

open to abuse; as well as in the light of a possible

Brexit. I personally feel that we have to look at its

potential impact even as of now.

Leo Brincat, new ECA Member

R. C: Mr Brincat, as Minister of Finance, and

more recently as Minister for Sustainable

Development you were in politics but you are

also qualified as an Associate and Fellow of the

Chartered Institute of Bankers London. How do

you see this helping your role as ECA Member

and what tasks have you been assigned here in

the ECA?

Leo Brincat:

What really struck me in the few days

that I have been here is the diversity of the ECA

Members. They come from ministries, national

audit offices, from Government Cabinet posts and

parliaments both national and European. The fact

that we come from different backgrounds offers

us an opportunity to tackle the challenges ahead

with a spirit of unity in diversity. It leads to better

complementarity. In my case, I had worked in

banking since 1966 until I retired ten years ago,

and had been in Parliament for over 34 years. I

nevertheless never ever found myself in a situation

where I had any conflict of interest, even when I had

also worked in the corporate sector.

Here in the ECA I have been assigned a very

challenging task: as reporting Member of the

Annual Report chapter on Revenue in Chamber V.

Revenue is likely to gain added importance because

of the dynamics of the sector as well as the future

developments that could be linked to Brexit. As

the UK is considered a net contributor this will

imply big challenges for the EU in allocating its

own resources. What will happen? Less spending or

more money collected from the member states?

R. C.: Until April 2016 you were Minister for

Sustainable Development, the Environment and

Climate Change in Malta. The EU has played an

important role in shaping the 2030 Agenda for

Sustainable Development. What contribution

could the ECA, and other SAIs, make to the

achievement of the sustainable development

goals?

Leo Brincat:

Sustainable Development does not

just mean the environment. One of the biggest

problems Europe is facing today is that even in

countries which are experiencing economic growth,

social inequality is creating new problems. Rising

social inequality is the main reason for populism in

certain EU countries as well as for emerging anti-

globalisation trends.

I was very pleased to see that the upcoming

INCOSAI places a lot of emphasis on the role of the

SAIs as far as sustainable development is concerned.

Sustainability has to be addressed in many sectors

as there is much public sector spending which can

impact on sustainability.

The ECA has a new focus on social economic

governance and not just on financial management.

For this reason, I think we should focus more on

sustainable development. It is worth recalling that

the ECA had already identified this as a priority for

2016.

We must respect the national imperatives and

the national needs on sustainable development

but we also have to think globally and regionally.

Sustainable development has one ultimate

objective: the enhancement of the quality of life. In

fact, the biggest challenge for member states and

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 81: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november 2016

I am here as a nominee and not as representative of the

Maltese government

continued

EU institutions will be to effectively benchmark the

progress itself.

R. C.: Under your term of office as Minister for

Finance and Commerce, the National Audit

Office of Malta assumed its full independence by

becoming part of the Office of the Parliament of

Malta. How do you see the ECA’s independence?

How should its relationship with the European

Parliament be and how do you intend to shape

your relations with it?

Leo Brincat:

In Malta, until 1997, the audit office

fell under the responsibility of the Ministry for

Finance, and thus did not have full autonomy.

When I legislated in Parliament in 1997 on the

establishment of this office I had the support

of all the political forces in Malta. Since then,

the necessary changes have been set up and

the National Audit Office is answerable to the

parliament. The Auditor General, the Ombudsman

and key Officials have to be approved by the whole

Parliament with a two-thirds majority.

Concerning the ECA, I consider its independence

to be unquestioned. However, interinstitutional

synergy is a must. Since the ECA was created as an

idea of the European Parliament, one expects that

there should be the most proactive relationship

possible with CONT and other Committees. If the

ECA does not give due consideration to what

these Committees might be saying, it could end up

operating in a vacuum.

Personally, I look forward to a fruitful and close

interinstitutional cooperation within the area that

has been entrusted to me, the revenue side. This is

linked to the financing and administration of the

Union, particularly through the EU’s budgetary own

resources.

R. C.: What would be your wish in terms of ECA

cooperation with the Council?

Leo Brincat:

There definitely needs to be a more

proactive approach. We have to convince the

Council, as the key decision-maker, that it is in our

mutual interest to have the strongest relations

possible. The same obviously applies to the

Commission.

I am quite sure that under our new Presidency

we will be committed to enhancing our relations

further with all key stakeholder Institutions.

When people hear about “EU structures” they

do not necessarily realise where the powers of

individual institutions begin and end. Let us cite

the ECA as an example. We are not a court of law.

We purely recommend what needs to be done.

Being the “financial conscience” of the European

Union, I think we can achieve better results if there

is closer synergy with all the European institutions,

particularly since it is in their own interest to receive

a clean bill of health.

R. C.: It is very difficult to quantify the added

value of the ECA’s work. You have often stressed

the importance for the citizens of value for

money. The ECA says that more efforts have to

be put into looking at results.

Leo Brincat:

The biggest quantum leap the ECA has

made in recent years was to broaden its perspective

from financial issues to economic governance.

But European institutions are still perceived to be

detached from the ordinary citizen and this is one

of the reasons why populism is presently gaining

ground.

Today people look at how effectively money is

spent because you can still spend money correctly

but not effectively. I would also link this with the

high interest which ordinary citizens and taxpayers

have in issues like fraud and irregularity detection.

Technically, fraud does not fall under our domain

but I believe that this is an area where the ECA can

be more proactive. The expectations of the public

in general and of the stakeholders on vigilance

of fraudulent behaviour are likely to rise. In

highlighting irregularities at an early stage, the ECA

will not only address their concerns but also be able

to add even more value to its work.

I think there should be more regular, specific

reporting on how we are effectively trying to

protect EU interests and satisfy ourselves about

Commission actions to combat fraud and abuse or

misuse of funds. This way the current expectation

gap between what we are actually doing and what

the stakeholders expect from us can be narrowed.

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 81: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november 2016

R. C.: The ECA’s auditee is the Commission and

not the member states.

Leo Brincat:

I respect the roles of each Institution

but I think that there are many areas where

people expect more action. As external auditors

we should look at whether the institutions

themselves adequately address anti-fraud actions,

and whether the strategies and actions in place

lead to overlapping or lack of coherence. Many

institutions have their own fraud complaint

mechanisms. Further, we have to establish whether

they are appropriate or not, and we have to ensure

their effectiveness and independence. Once you

mentioned the Commission, I think we have to

ensure that its current internal control standards

address fraud risks directly, that risk management

exercises are conducted regularly, and that the

reporting on anti-fraud actions is sufficient to

ensure public accountability.

We should not only be proactive but also be seen to be

proactive.

Today a very important ECA report came out:

Special Report 27/2016 entitled “Governance

the European Commission - best practice?.”

think we nevertheless have to also focus on the

member states because most of the shortcomings

are often the result of shared management of funds.

Ultimately any member state is responsible not only

to its own taxpayers but also to the EU taxpayers.

This is where our role as external auditors of the EU

institutions comes into play.

I see the cooperation between the ECA and the

Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) progressively

increasing. I think that the SAIs themselves are

interested in this linkage; collaborating closer

with the ECA gives them more prestige and more

added value. It is effectively a two-way synergy. But

we should go beyond that and even re-focus on

national declarations, as a number of institutions

are made up of representatives of member states.

Ultimately the focus should also be on the latter.

R. C.: In the European Parliament you also said

that the ECA should highlight more risks and

failures in detecting deficiencies in the national

reporting systems.

Leo Brincat:

At a time when people’s concern about

seeking value added from institutions is increasing,

we have to see what can be done differently. We

cannot allow situations to prevail where people

become cynical or indifferent to what is being done.

We have to carry out a SWAT analysis to see whether

the present systems in place in combating fraud

are effective or not. Today people have had too

much talk and too little action to go by. We have to

benchmark the recommendations that have been

made by the ECA over the years and gauge how

many of them have been implemented.

Where the ECA needs to work differently is in

the projection of its own role. Since the ECA

is funded by EU taxpayers, people should be

aware of its importance through a more effective

communications strategy and higher visibility. In

better publicising our reports we actually help

maximise support for our initiatives

R. C.: How do you intend to improve the

perception of Malta within the EU institutions?

Leo Brincat:

I am here as a nominee and not as a

representative of the Maltese Government. When

I will meet the Parliamentary Committees in Malta

to present the ECA report -as all other members

are doing in their own respective countries- I will

also be meeting the top officials of the National

Audit Office and other institutions. As in the case of

my colleagues, my objective is not to promote my

own country’s interests but to ensure that through

its actions it will safeguard, like all other member

states, the basic principles which the EU expects

from one and all.

Finally, apart from highlighting what the ECA

is doing, I will also be availing myself of the

opportunity to outline the important statement of

the ECA President where he emphasised that we all

have to work harder to ensure that public trust in

the institutions is strengthened further throughout

the Union.

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 81: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november 2016

Our 2015 Annual Report

By Lazaros S. Lazarou, ECA Member for the Annual Report

Martina Dlabajová, Vice Chair of the European Parliament CONT committee; Klaus-Heiner Lehne,

ECA President; Lazaros S. Lazarou, ECA Member for the Annual Report

We presented our 2015 annual report on the

implementing of the EU budget (annual report)

earlier than in previous years allowing the discharge

procedure to start a month in advance. Our annual

report focuses on the work for the statement of

assurance, required by the EU Treaty. For a full

picture on EU spending, work on performance is

highlighted.

Our 2015 statement of assurance has some …

… good news – a clean opinion on the accounts

and …

As for the last years our audit work has shown

that the accounts prepared in accordance with

international standards present, in all material

aspects, a true and fair view.

The 2015 annual report includes for the first time

key audit matters. Key audit matters are those

matters that in our professional judgement were

of most significance in our audit of the financial

statements in the current period. The key audit

matters relate to financial instruments on shared

management, the European Fund for Strategic

Investments (EFSI) and accrued charges.

Main products

EU audit in brief

Our EU audit in brief introduces the 2015 ECA

annual reports. After the President’s introduction

it includes the key findings and messages. It

describes overall results and has a closer look at

revenue and spending areas.

2015 annual reports

ECA publishes, as required, its 2015 annual reports

in the Official Journal. Edition C 375 of 13 October

2016 includes:

(1) the annual report on the implementation of the

budget concerning the financial year 2015; and

(2) the annual report on the activities funded by

the 8

, 9

, 10

and 11

European Development

Funds concerning the financial year 2015

All the information relating to the 2015 annual

report is available on the Court's external site:

http://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/AR2015.aspx

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 81: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november 2016

… revenue …

Overall audit evidence indicates that revenue is not

affected by a material level of error. In particular for

revenue:

we assessed the examined systems as

effective for GNI and VAT based own

resourced;

we assessed the examined systems

as overall effective for traditional own

resources. The key internal controls in

Member States visited are assessed as

partially effective; and

We found no errors in the transactions we

tested.

Diagram 2 from the EU audit in brief

Our opinion on transactions underlying the

accounts

Reimbursement versus entitlement spending

The different risk patterns of reimbursement

schemes (where the EU reimburses eligible costs for

eligible activities on the basis of cost declarations

made by beneficiaries) and entitlement schemes

(where payments are made on meeting conditions

rather than reimbursing costs) have continued to

have a major influence on the level of errors in the

different spending areas. Reimbursement of costs

is linked (orange in the diagram below) is linked to

a much higher level of error (5.2 %) than spending

on an entitlement basis (blue in the diagram below)

(1,9 %)

In our opinion, revenue underlying the accounts of

2015 is legal and regular in all material respects.

… and a continuation of our opinion on

regularity of spending.

In our statement of assurance we provide the

basis for our adverse opinion on the legality and

regularity of payments underlying the accounts. It

states that these are:

materially affected by error;

our estimated level of error is 3.8 %; and

our overall conclusion is driven by the

higher estimated level of error for spending

on reimbursement basis and is corroborated

by the Commission’s analysis of amounts at

risk present in the annual management and

performance report for the EU budget.

Chapter 1 includes several cross sections of our

work. It shows that our 2015 audit results are

broadly similar to recent years. The breakdown

of the overall estimated level of error by type

indicates that ineligible costs included in costs

claims contribute for more than 40 %, followed by

incorrect declarations of area by farmers (19 %)

and ineligible projects/activities by beneficiaries

(16 %). The contribution of serious errors in public

procurement (tendering and implementation) is

down to the fourth place this year.

Diagram 8 from the EU audit in brief

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 81: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november 2016

Our 2015 annual Report

continued

A spin off of the recently published special report

on Commission governance (included in annex

1.2) compares the US and EU approaches to testing

and reporting on improper and irregular payments.

It shows that the EU is not alone in having an

estimated level of error. The US government

reported a level of 4.4 % of improper payments in

2015.

Our 2015 annual report further presents our

findings on:

Budgetary and financial management

Chapter 2 gives an overview of key budgetary and

financial management issues arising in 2015 and

affecting the EU budget and balance sheet. The

chapter analyses outstanding commitments, the

period from initial commitment to acceptance of

spending, the backlogs in the use of European

Structural and Investment (ESI) funds and the first

operations of EFSI and the delay in the Connecting

Europe Facility.

We conclude that the amounts to be paid in the

current and future years remain at a very high level

(€ 339 billion up from €305 billion end of 2014).

However the Commission has not produced a cash

flow forecast covering the next 7 to 10 years. Such

a forecast would enable stakeholders to anticipate

future payments and budgetary priorities.

The increasing use of financial instruments not

directly funded by the EU budget nor audited by

us, poses higher risk for accountability and the

coordination of EU policies and operations.

Chapter 2 provides several graphs

For example on European Structural and Investment

(ESI) funds

Figure 2.7 –Unused commitments of ESI funds at

31 December 2015 as a percentage of 2015 general

government expenditure

Figure 2.8 2007-2013 ESI Funds unused commitments

and 2014-2020 pre-financing at the end of 2015

Romania

Italy

Spain

Poland

Czech Republic

Hungary

Germany

Greece

France

Slovakia

Portugal

United Kingdom

Bulgaria

Lithuania

Croatia

Latvia

Austria

Slovenia

Ireland

Estonia

Sweden

Finland

Belgium

Netherlands

Malta

Denmark

Cyprus

Luxembourg

2.000

4.000

6.000

8.000

Unused commitments of MFF 2007-2013

Unused pre-financing 2014-2020

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 81: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november 2016

Specific assessments of spending areas

Last year’s restructure of the annual report

following the multi-annual financial framework

headings is continued in the 2015 annual report.

Chapter 5 presents our audit findings on

competiveness for growth and jobs. Almost all

errors we found in cost statements in this area

were due to the beneficiaries misinterpreting the

complex eligibility rules or incorrectly calculating

their costs.

Chapter 6 includes our observations on Economic,

social and territorial cohesion. Most errors are due

to ineligible costs declared by beneficiaries.

Chapter 7 provides our view on spending on natural

resources. The nature and patterns of error varies

significantly between EAGF and the other spending

areas under ‘natural resources’. In EAGF, we most

frequently identified over-declaration of agricultural

land surface. In the other areas of natural resources

spending the ineligibility of the beneficiary, activity

or project or expenditure featured highest.

Chapter 8 includes our findings on both spending

on ‘global Europe’ (MFF heading 4) and for the

first time a part on MFF heading 3 ‘security and

citizenship’. In global Europe we found that

the most frequent type of error was ineligible

expenditure claimed by final beneficiaries.

All spending areas, except for administration

(chapter 9; 0.6 %), are affected by a material level of

error. We again found the highest estimated levels

of error in spending under Economic, social and

territorial cohesion (5.2 %) and for Competitiveness

for growth and jobs (4.4 %). Management mode

has a limited impact on level of error. We continue

to find nearly the same estimated level of error

under shared management with the Member States

(4.0 %) and for expenditure managed directly by the

Commission (3.9 %).

Comparison between estimated levels of error

for EU spending areas

All chapters include examples

All chapters include relevant, balanced and

representative examples to help readers understand

our findings. For shared management the example

provide the names of other Member States where

similar findings were found.

We do not examine transactions in every Member

State, beneficiary state and/or region each year.

The examples provided in the annual report are

for illustrative purposes and demonstrate the

most typical errors found. The naming of certain

Member States, beneficiary states and/or regions

does not mean that the examples presented do

not occur elsewhere. The illustrative examples

presented in the annual report do not form a basis

for conclusions to be drawn on the Member States,

beneficiary states and/or regions concerned.

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 81: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november 2016

Our 2015 annual Report

continued

We have made three recommendations

on performance related issues, which the

Commission has accepted

We recommend that the Commission:

1. assess the performance of work

programmes and calls, by translating high-

level objectives set out in the Horizon 2020

legislation into operational objectives at

work programme level;

2. further clarify the links between the Europe

2020 strategy (2010-2020), the multi-annual

financial framework (2014-2020) and the

Commission priorities (2015-2019). The

strategic planning process (2016-2020)

could provide this opportunity; and

3. ensures consistent use of the terms ‘input’,

‘output’, ‘result’ and ‘impact’, in line with its

better regulation guidelines.

Figure 7.14 – Example of a project which

included non-essential items

In Italy (Campania), a municipality renewed a

1-kilometre footpath in a mountainous area

for a cost of €441 000. During the procurement

procedure, the municipality asked interested

companies for proposals to make the investment

more functional and environmentally friendly.

The proposal by the company selected included

additional items costing €80 000, over and above

the cost of the work on the footpath. These

additional items included a mountain bike worth

€4 000 , a panoramic spyglass costing €3 500 and a

€10 000 donation to a local church.

Instead of restricting the contract to the needs of

renovating the footpath, additional items were

added which led to higher costs.

Commission reply:

The project in question, supported under the

forestry measure 227 ‘Non-productive investments’,

is under investigation by the Region. The Regional

Managing Authority has not paid the final balance

of the project yet and intends to make a reduction

as a result of the control carried out.

Getting results from the EU budget

An increasing part of our annual report has

been reserved to report on our observations on

performance of the EU budget on the question

whether spending delivers value for money.

In chapter 3 we followed up on our analysis in the

2014 annual report with a focus on Horizon 2020

(research spending). We found that in Horizon 2020

although there have been improvements when

compared to the Seventh Framework Programme,

the Commission is still limited in its ability to

monitor and report on the performance of the

programme. The links between the Commission’s

10 new political priorities and Europe 2020/Horizon

2020’s strategic framework need further clarification.

The lack of clarity may also be affecting other EU

activities.

Chapter 6 and 7, our shared management chapters,

include in the respective second parts the results of

some performance related issues. Whereas chapter

3 has taken a high level view on performance,

these parts are based on expanded work during

our transaction testing. In cohesion we found that

for a majority of projects both output and results

indicators were defined. In case we could assess the

output and results (not all projects were completed

at the time of our audit) 68 % fully achieved and

28 % partially achieved the indicators set out for

these projects.

For the 59 investment projects assessed as part of

rural development transaction testing we found the

following main performance issues:

Insufficient evidence that costs are

reasonable;

Deficiencies in targeting measures and

selecting projects including weak links to

Europe 2020 targets.

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 81: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november 2016

Concluding

Our 2015 annual report provides important input

for the discussion by the discharge authorities. The

reporting Members of the chapters will present

their findings in the coming weeks to the budgetary

control committee. The President and I present

our annual report to ECOFIN Council meeting

on 8 November and our Directors will assist the

Council budget committee in preparation of their

recommendation on the discharge.

The annual report provides an overall view on the

accounts, the regularity of transactions underlying

the accounts and increasingly a view on the

performance of EU spending.

Lazaros S. Lazarou

Member for the Annual Report

Dean of Chamber V

The ECA introduced the ‘Member for the

annual report’ as part of its implementation

of the ECA reform in 2016. ECA’s internal rules

provide that the Member for the annual report

ensures consistency and adherence to the ECA’s

methodology of the underlying audit work for the

statement of assurance.

Lazaros S. Lazarou was also elected Dean

of the newly created Chamber V. Chamber

V is the coordinating chamber for the annual

report, taking over the tasks of the former CEAD

Chamber in examining audit planning and draft

chapters for the annual report.

The thematic focus of Chamber V ‘financing and

administrating the Union’ further combines some

tasks previously performed by Chamber IV.

Chamber V contributes to ECA’s annual report by

performing the audit work included in:

- chapter 1 – statement of assurance

- chapter 2 – budgetary and financial

management

- chapter 3 – getting results from the EU budget

- chapter 4 – revenue

- chapter 9 – administration

Chambers I to IV audit and report on:

I. natural resources (chapter 7) and security and

citizenship (chapter 8 – part 2)

II. cohesion (chapter 6)

III. global Europe (chapter 8 – part 1)

IV. competitiveness (chapter 5)

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 81: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november 2016

Developing the economic and monetary

union

By Rosmarie Carotti

Eurogroup President Jeroen Dijsselbloem at the ECA on 10 October 2010

at the invitation of Alex Brenninkmeijer, ECA Member

Jeroen Dijsselbloem was elected Eurogroup President in 2013 and re-elected for a second term

in 2015. Dijsselbloem is also currently Minister for Finance of the Netherlands and in the ECOFIN.

Since February 2013 he has also served as Chair of the Board of Governors of the European Stability

Mechanism.

hand, is an intergovernmental body, an informal

meeting of the Ministers of Finance of the euro

countries. Major decisions were taken during

the crisis in informal meetings. The Eurogroup

ministers are also Governors of the ESM which is

an effective institution in supporting countries

and financing their needs. One day the Eurogroup

and the ESM might well become full European

institutions. Although Europe was built with a mix

of intergovernmentalism and European institution-

building.

Is the euro to blame?

Alex Brenninkmeijer, ECA Member; Jeroen Dijsselbloem,

Eurogroup President

On 10th October 2016, Jeroen Dijsselbloem,

President of the Eurogroup joined Alex

Brenninkmeijer, ECA Member on stage at the

ECA for a debate and audience Q&A session.

Austerity has been the most debated and criticised

element in the Eurogroup but the strategy has

always been multiple: the monetary policy, the

banking union, setting up a capital market, fiscal

policy, and austerity.

Having built up so much private and public debt

and having to save the banks which heavily

increased sovereign debt, many countries did not

have a choice in their fiscal policy. Those countries

which were in real trouble were helped by the

European institutions. Those countries which were

still able to finance themselves were given time to

reach the fiscal targets. And Europe has been very

flexible on the rules.

Jeroen Dijsselbloem does not agree with the

negative view of Joseph Stiglitz on the future of the

euro, whose key argument is that the Eurozone has

done very badly compared to the US since the start

of the crisis, and therefore the euro is to blame.

Dijsselbloem counters that when looking at the GDP

per capita; the Eurozone has done as good or as bad

as the US. Second, to fully understand the economic

problems in the Eurozone one has to go back to the

years before the crisis. In many European countries

the debt was building up; there was over-crediting

in real estate and there were no buffers in the

economies; the markets were closed and inflexible

and the banks in a terrible state.

Stamina led by optimism

This is the challenge Jeroen Dijsselbloem sees for

Europe. Europe recently set up a banking union and

is still taking historical steps in institution building.

The progress made is sometimes difficult or slow

but extremely valuable for the economic stability

and the lives of people.

Nations are always built by building institutions. The

same goes for Europe and the Eurozone. Compared

to the US, Europe is much faster in building its

institutions. But doing it faster also brings a lot of

risks. Europe found that out at a quite high price

when it got into the financial crisis.

If the European project is to be successful, it needs

strong institutions. All elements of legislation are

decided in ECOFIN, the Economic and Financial

Affairs Council. The Eurogroup, on the other

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 81: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november 2016

The euro is only partly to blame. Due to the

euro, markets no longer differentiated between

countries, so interest rates were low and money

cheap everywhere. This was a dangerous situation

and there is the same risk now. The difference is that

in that period there were no European frameworks.

But we still need to do more structural reforms.

At European level, the banking union needs

to be finalised, the capital market set up. The

banking union means similar rules for the banks,

one supervisor, one single resolution framework

and fund. The capital market union requires the

change of some regulations on the capital market

instruments. One of the key issues of creating more

growth in the European countries is about getting

the finance to those companies that have good

plans.

Stiglitz makes the point that in a monetary union

no single country can devaluate its currency. This is

of course true. The question is whether devaluating

is a sound long-term policy. Other instruments will

have to be used better. These instruments are about

structural reforms, open markets, capital markets

union.

Dijsselbloem’s dream about Europe

Dijsselbloem is aware of the fact that Europe has

disappointed people in the last few years, for

example on security: job security, income security,

terrorism, migration.

The whole issue of security needs to be the core

issue for all of us in Europe. That means of course

economic security but also managing borders and

migration, as well as fighting terrorism. People need

to feel that European cooperation has again added

value for their everyday life security.

The most important hurdle at the moment is a

political hurdle. If the European countries are too

scared of populism Europe will become paralysed.

That is Dijsselbloem’s greatest concern. Rise of

populism was also his fear when the Netherlands

had the presidency of the Council in the first half

of this year and he tried to push an agenda to

complete the banking union, which of course

requires national governments and institutions

to give up again a part of their sovereignty to

European institutions. If Europe does not take the

next steps, it will not be able to deliver the results in

economic terms.

New convergence

Europe has managed to converge many of the new

Member States economically and socially to the

rest of Europe. But this process of convergence has

stopped because of the crisis. That requires the

Juncker Plan and the EFSI, as well as in the coming

years, the setting up of a banking insurance system,

so that all citizens in Europe can trust their banks.

Steps in the longer term could be a monetary union

by considering a fiscal capacity to the Eurozone.

Dijsselbloem is very much aware that populism also

is about social injustice. The fear of unemployment.

Benefits which go to international companies.

These all push the critics of globalisation. That’s

why Europe needs to become more competitive,

educate its people better and innovate.

The tax issue will become more and more

international and European. That does not

mean that all the taxes should be designed and

implemented from the European level, but more

international standards and frameworks for

multinationals are needed to stop tax avoidance

and tax fraud.

The role of the institutions and the ECA in

accountability

Jeroen Dijsselbloem feels that sometimes, to make

progress in European cooperation, it makes sense to

act intergovernmentally or individually in European

institutions.

Major European institutions are already in place,

and the ECA is one of them. Everywhere the

margins of the budget are the most important

subject. And Dijsselbloem considers it a sound

approach to strengthen the cooperation between

the ECA and ECOFIN.

The ECA is very valuable when it comes to finding

out if Europe is getting value for money. The

Eurogroup has regular debates on the quality of

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 81: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november 2016

Developing the economic and monetary union

continued

public spending and the ECA can add precious

experience through its reports.

It is important that the ECA establishes how the

money is spent and if it is spent correctly. This may

lead to an error rate, but the only people that use

that now are the euro sceptics. More transparency

would allow to know where misspending has taken

place, why, and what to do about it.

In response to the question how the ECA can

acquire a bigger role in promoting transparency

and accountability the intergovernmental part of

European governance which it is not allowed to

audit, Dijsselbloem answers that the added value

for the ECA is at the moment very much in creating

more relevance through transparency, a more in

depth-look under the error rate and a look at the

actual outcomes for society.

On 10th October 2016, Jeroen Dijsselbloem, President of the Eurogroup joined Alex Brenninkmeijer,

ECA Member on stage at the ECA for a debate and audience Q&A session.

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 81: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november 2016

Special Report 21/2016: “EU pre-accession

assistance for strengthening administrative

capacity in the Western Balkans: A meta-audit”

By Dennis Wernerus, senior auditor and head of task

Western Balkan countries. The IPA is also the only EU

donor instrument preparing the Western Balkans to

adopt the

acquis communautaire

and for the shock

of absorbing billions of European Structural and

Investment Funds (ESIF) that become available once

EU accession becomes reality.

What is the

acquis communautaire?

Existing EU principles, policies, laws,

practices, obligations and objectives are

often referred to in the EU institutions as

the

acquis communautaire

acquis.

At the

heart of accession negotiations, the

acquis

consists of 35 different accession chapters

to be negotiated between the EU and each

candidate country. For instance, chapter

number 23 covers judiciary and fundamental

rights and chapter number 24 covers justice,

freedom and security.

What is a “meta-audit”? Definition, audit scope

and criteria

Since 2007, the European Court of Auditors has

accumulated a longstanding audit experience

in the Western Balkans

, hence the ECA’s wish to

deliver a new audit product setting that experience

in a broader, regional perspective. At the crossroads

of a landscape review on a specific topic, the meta-

audit led us to examine:

•

ECA Special Reports, as well as numerous

Commission audit, evaluation, expert and

monitoring reports;

52 national projects and three regional

programmes, including an assessment of

their results.

Dennis Wernerus

Introduction

All aspiring to join the EU, Albania, Bosnia and

Herzegovina, Kosovo

, the former Yugoslav

Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia

shape the Western Balkans, a region that inherited

a bitter legacy of conflict, organised crime and

corruption. In spite of its location between EU

Member States, Western Balkan democracies

are weak and their transition economies are still

undergoing a slow transformation process.

•

From reading the Commission’s Progress Reports,

it is clear that many obstacles hinder their way

towards EU accession. Whilst one of them is a weak

administrative capacity, strengthening this capacity

remains a necessary condition to ensure better

adherence to the rule of law and good governance.

Against this background, the Instrument for

Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) is the EU’s sole

instrument for structural assistance to the six

1 This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and

is in line with UNSCR 1244 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo

Declaration of Independence.

We first examined existing audit and evaluation

work and then proceeded with additional audit

work to fill the remaining gaps in the audit scope

(e.g. Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the judiciary).

Conducted from March 2015 until June 2016, the

meta-audit addressed two main questions:

2 These reports can all be found on

www.eca.europa.eu:

CARDS

(Special Report 5/2007), Western Balkans justice and home affairs

(Special Report 12/2009), Croatia (Special Report 14/2011), Rule

of law in Kosovo (Special Report 18/2012), Serbia (Special Report

19/2014), the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Special

Report 11/2016) and Montenegro (Special Report 20/2016).

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 81: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november 2016

Special Report 21/2016: “EU pre-accession assistance for

strengthening administrative capacity in the Western Balkans: A

meta-audit”

continued

Did the Commission manage well the IPA

in the Western Balkans?

Did the IPA strengthen administrative

capacity in the Western Balkans?

We targeted both the Commission and the Western

Balkan beneficiaries and covered the sectors of the

rule of law (fundamental rights, justice and home

affairs) and public administration reform during the

2007-2013 programming period (IPA I), taking into

account the beginning of the 2014-2020 period (IPA II).

In the sector of the

rule of law,

we selected projects

in the field of law enforcement, the fight against

corruption and organised crime, as well as assistance

to public prosecution, courts and civil society. In the

public administration reform

sector, we selected

technical assistance, training and public finance

management projects, including tax collection,

budgeting, procurement, public internal financial

control, external audit and statistics.

The meta-audit applied INTOSAI’s ISSAI 3000 and

included criteria derived from the IPA regulations,

international law (for instance, with respect to

donor coordination), as well as sound financial

management (evaluation of project sustainability).

Strengths and weaknesses of the IPA in the

Western Balkans: The main messages of report

We elaborated the conclusions and

recommendations in our report in detail. Translated

in terms of strengths and weaknesses, these were

our key messages for the Commission:

STRENGTHS

STRATEGY, MANAGEMENT

Specific and measurable regional objectives

WEAKNESSES

Objectives not always specific and measurable

Indirect management: Absorption hampered

OUTPUTS AND RESULTS

Delivered intended outputs

Public administration reform: Managed to convert most

project outputs into sustainable results

Rule of law: Failed to convert most project outputs into

sustainable results

No track record of successful judiciary cases

Little funding for key rule of law areas: Public prosecution,

fight against corruption, media freedom

CONDITIONALITY, MONITORING AND EVALUATION

Effective in monitoring and evaluating

Did not systematically apply strict conditions and follow up

on them

Did not encourage the beneficiaries to use IPA as a learning

tool in other parts of their administration

DONOR COORDINATION, REGIONAL COOPERATION, DIALOGUE

Played a positive role in donor coordination

Regional cooperation: Positive impact of the Western

Balkans Investment Framework

Some progress in the dialogue for public administration

reform

No significant impact of Regional Cooperation Council and

Regional School for Public Administration

Limited progress in the dialogue for the rule of law

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 81: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november 2016

It should be stressed that project sustainability

was first and foremost affected by the beneficiary

countries’ lack of political will to reform institutions,

insufficient budget and staffing, as well as poor

coordination.

The IPA scattering effect and the Commission’s

sector-based approach

Under IPA I (2007-2013) and IPA II (2014-2020), the

EU budget authority allocated to the Western Balkan

countries more than five billion euro per seven-year

period. This may sound like a lot, but needs to be put

into the right context. In a similar fashion as Member

States receiving ESIF funding, the IPA is distributed

between, on the one hand, six countries, and on the

other, regional EU programmes.

Nevertheless, we observed that the Commission’s

sector-based approach mitigated this risk. Since

2012, in order to better target resources, the

Commission developed a sector-based approach,

albeit its implementation for IPA was slow. This

enhanced the “fundamentals first” approach. Under

such an approach, accession negotiations should

start and end with the so-called fundamental

chapters, notably the “rule of law” chapters 23 and

24, as is currently the case of Montenegro and

Serbia.

Impact of the meta-audit on planning of future

EU assistance

The meta-audit has contributed to the

Commission’s 2017 mid-term evaluation of IPA

IPA I allocations to the Western Balkans (2007-2013)

Note:

Percentages rounded up.

Source:

European Commission, 31 December 2015.

However, by comparison with the ESIF, the IPA

has a much wider scope of assistance. Apart from

agricultural development, as well as sectors that

could be co-financed by the ESIF in any EU Member

States (e.g. employment, energy, environment,

transport), the IPA also financed reforms in

justice and home affairs. Hence, the risk of an IPA

scattering effect is inherently higher than in the

ESIF.

II and will hopefully stir some discussions and

changes among the IPA beneficiaries. By taking a

regional approach and focussing on the rule of law

and public administration reform, we reinforced

the importance of these areas of assistance. We

also reinforced the messages conveyed by the

ECA’s previous performance audits conducted in

the region. However, to reflect the full impact of

the report, one should wait until its discussion at

the CONT committee and the Council (foreseen in

December).

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 81: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november 2016

Special Report 21/2016: “EU pre-accession assistance for

strengthening administrative capacity in the Western Balkans: A

meta-audit”

continued

Promoting the meta-audit

Our report received a good press coverage. Mr.

Istvan Szabolcs Fazakas, the reporting member,

disseminated the main audit messages to a wide

audience in or nearby the Western Balkan region.

As one of the first performance audits to have used

the ECA’s new stakeholder management system

(SMS), the report was quickly distributed to a large

number of stakeholders, including MEPs, various

press outlets and think-tanks. The following list is

a snapshot of communication activities with the

purpose to promote the audit to stakeholders:

15 September.

During the “Danube Macro

Region Business Week 2016” in Vienna, the report

was presented during the conference topic

“Juncker Invest vs. Finance, Competitiveness

Danube Region, SME Finance, Global

Connectivity”.

16 September.

At the inter-parliamentary

Conference “Oversight of IPA funds: Success

and challenges”, organised in Belgrade by the

European Parliament and the National Assembly

of the Republic of Serbia, the report, introduced

by Derek Vaughan (MEP), Vice-Chair of the

CONT committee, was presented under the item

“Parliamentary oversight of External Instruments,

in particular IPA”. The conference was attended

by lawmakers from the Western Balkans and

MEPs from the European Parliament’s AFET,

CONT and REGI committees.

23 September.

The EU-Serbia Stabilisation and

Association Parliamentary Committee (SAPC)

meeting in Belgrade, co-chaired by Eduard

Kukan (MEP) and the Speaker of the National

Assembly of the Republic of Serbia, Vladimir

Orlić, organised a working session. During that

session, Igor Šoltes (MEP), Vice-Chair of the

CONT committee and Radoslav Sretenović,

Serbia’s Auditor General, commended the report

to MEPs and Serbian lawmakers.

26 September.

At the 12

conference of

European Regions and Cities (IRE) in Salzburg,

the report was presented during the conference

topic “Sustainability in Europe’s regions and

cities”.

12 October.

As a special item of the 30

Board

meeting of the Regional Cooperation Council

(RCC) in Sarajevo, the report was presented

to and discussed by senior officials of this

international organisation. The meeting was

attended by representatives from the EEAS,

EU Member States, Turkey and the six Western

Balkan countries. The same day, at the OHR,

Szabolcs

Fazakas met the High Representative,

Valentin Inzko and the Principal Deputy High

Representative, Bruce G. Berton, to discuss the

meta-audit’s observations about Bosnia and

Herzegovina.

13 October.

At the EU delegation in Sarajevo,

Szabolcs

Fazakas and the EU Ambassador and EU

Special Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina,

Lars-Gunnar Wigemark, issued media statements

on the meta-audit and, beyond the report, the

Ambassador emphasised the attachment of the

EU to the rule of law. These statements were

followed by presentations by the reporting Member

and Dennis Wernerus, the head of task, to EU

Member State diplomats, staff from international

organisations, civil society representatives and

journalists, as well as representatives of Bosnia and

Herzegovina’s public administration. Many took the

opportunity to ask questions during a dedicated

Q&A session

Mr. Fazakas presenting the IPA meta-audit

on the Western Balkans to the media at the

EU delegation in Sarajevo, 13 October 2016.

©European Court of Auditors

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 81: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november 2016

When the ECA meets the invitation of interested

parties to participate in this kind of communication

events, it can only contribute to strengthening the

ECA’s image and facilitate the dissemination of

audit conclusions and recommendations to a wider

audience.

Presentation of the IPA meta-audit at the EU delegation in Sarajevo. From left to right: Dennis Wernerus, Head of

Task; Istvan Szabolcs Fazakas, ECA Reporting Member, H.E. Lars-Gunnar Wigemark, Head of the Delegation of the

European Union to Bosnia and Herzegovina and European Union Special Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina,

Melvin Asin, Head of Cooperation at the EU delegation.

©European External Action Service

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 81: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november 2016

2nd annual EU Budget Focused on Results Conference

27 September 2016

Performance Budgeting: A Discourse on EU Added Value

The background article of the speech of Alex Brenninkmeijer at the EU Budget Focused on

Results Conference - Performance of the EU Budget and Implications for European Added

Value

By Alex Brenninkmeijer

“Finally, we can participate in the global market!”

This was the thought of many milk producers in

the Netherlands after the quota was abolished in

April, 2016. New farms were built, more cows were

harvested, and milk production rose with 20%. But

the market was not quite ready, to say the least.

China resisted the additional imports, Russia was

boycotted, and production was amped up in other

countries as well. In response to the quails, qualms,

and public outcries of milk-induced starvation, the

European Union offered the Dutch dairy farmers

23 million euro (500 million for the entirety of the

EU). This amount was then doubled by the Dutch

government. This is not a one-off for the EU: it has

subsidised the European dairy farms for over half

a century. Nevertheless, the dairy sector keeps

tumbling from one crisis into another. The question

arises how effective the subsidies are in the first

place and how they are being used by the farmers.

One answer lies in the perverse incentives of the

subsidies. The private sector, famous for its striving

towards profitability and “natural” incentive towards

viable production, did not feel the urge to innovate

in order to survive thanks to the free money of the

(European) government (FD, 2016).

“From reading the entries, it is clear that the UK

has overnight become less attractive as a place

to do science.” On a whole other level but no less

important, a brain-drain of foreign workers from the

United Kingdom is starting to take place. The fear

of an actual exit out of the EU creates several risks

for these, mainly, scientists. They are afraid of losing

the necessary EU research funds from Horizon 2020,

more difficult regulations to get around caused by

Many thanks to Gerben Muskee, who was a tremendous help

while preparing for the presentation

their non-English passport, and a fall in the pound

makes it less attractive to earn income based on

the British Pound. Not to mention the increased

costs this creates for the research organisations,

trying to attract foreign talent, import equipment

from overseas, and the before-mentioned loss of EU

funds, which amount to one billion pound per year.

And we haven’t even mentioned all the restrictions

in trade and falls of income this will imply for the

British population as a whole (Financial Times,

2016).

These examples show how a limited perspective

on performance of the European budget can affect

the state of the European Union. It also shows that

it has increasingly become more important to be

able to clearly show what and how the EU does to

improve the situation in the Member States. A more

absolute view of performance-based budgeting

could have helped define the utility of such a dairy

farm program. It could have clearly stated what

the benefits and disadvantages are from being a

member of the European Union. To counter this

rather limited perspective, I propose the micro-

meso-macro model for the performance-based

budgeting structure.

In order to make feedback systems optimal,

one cannot use a “one size fits all” approach. We

therefore make a distinction in three levels of

feedback: the aforementioned micro, meso and

macro levels. Going from a micro to macro level,

performance is more difficult to measure and to

account for because the relationship between

cause and effect becomes ever more complex.

This obviously makes result-based accounting

or performance budgeting difficult. From the

European perspective, these levels cover the

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 81: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november 2016

following concepts. The micro-level amounts to

performance-based budgeting and performance

audits for single projects in the EU. Here we can

think of cases like VAT-fraud or rail freight transport.

The meso-level is the one entailing cohesion

funds and regional policies, like the agriculture

subsidies and regional development policies. Not

surprisingly, policy effectiveness and therefore

effective spending of EU funds can be expected

to be greatest when alignment exists between

policy goals of European, national and regional

governments. Policies or policy objectives need to

be evaluated on a meso-level in order to counter

contradicting objectives. A good example of ex-

ante contradicting objectives on a purely national

level in the Netherlands is the aim to reduce CO2

emissions; while at the same time high-speed zones

of 130 km an hour were allowed by parliament. The

macro-level is all about the EU-added value. In the

books of the European Institutions, one can find

several different definitions of EU added value, but

we simply define it as the progress made it in the

country due to being a member of the European

Union.

Preparatory to going deeper into the theory and

practice of this model, it can be useful to quickly

go over the reasons why performance-based

budgeting was invented in the first place. Before the

revolution of performance-based budgeting rolled

across most of the civilised countries of the EU

Member States, several problems with the classical

way of budgeting had been identified. The budget

was mainly characterised as opaque and unclear.

This was all the more evident when outsiders got

the idea into their head that it would be a good

idea to read such a budget report. Besides this, the

budget focused purely on the amount of money

spent. It did not present anything about the results,

and as financial efficiency is not the same as policy

performance, the effectiveness of policies was

judged only on meeting financial targets. The third

problem with the traditional model of budgeting

was the medium-term view. Budgets normally run

from year to year, and thus barely have any overlap

for policies which take several years to deploy.

Meanwhile, there were no assessments on the

short-term, which could have been helpful in case

interim interventions were required.

In the late 1990s, after the first wave of New Public

Management had died down, voices were raised

that the budgeting system was in desperate need

for further improvement. These voices converged

in the performance-based budgeting system we

have come to know today. The performance-based

(or results-based) budgeting system is intended to

give more clarity in the budget process by focusing

on the outcome of policies. It necessitates more

than only financial information (by the usage of

key performance indicators), and looks both at the

entire lifespan of a policy as well as allowing for

short-term interventions.

Performance-based budgeting

Recent years have seen rise to a lot of backlash on

the performance of performance-based budgeting.

One of the problems was that key-performance

indicators (KPI’s) were used in large quantities,

causing the audited organisations to revert to

compliance behaviour, the polar opposite of what

the performance-based budget (PBB) tries to

achieve. These limitations will be further discussed

in the following Micro section, after which an

explanation of the problems and opportunities in

the meso and macro section will follow.

Micro

At the micro level of evaluation, we focus on

the performance-based budgeting system. This

evaluation system was supposed to be the ultimate

answer to the one of the most vital questions of

public service providers: how to optimally allocate

the resources by the government? The budget

staff understandably welcomes a tool that enables

them to distinguish between rewarding a powerful

budget claim from just rewarding a powerful

claimant. Politicians have also discovered the appeal

of PBB as a way of promising more value for money

to taxpayers or as a way to curtail public spending

to find funds for their priorities. Last but not least,

external stakeholders have exercised increasing

pressure on the government to be accountable for

results.

Classical budgeting

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 81: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november 2016

2nd annual EU Budget Focused on Results Conference

continued

Austria is one example of a country in which a

PBB system has been implemented as part of a

comprehensive package of ambitious budget

reforms. It uses a legally binding medium-term

expenditure framework. In such a framework the

flexibility for ministries is guaranteed by giving

them the freedom to use the left-over cash from the

current budget year in the following years. In other

words, there is no earmarking taking place over

the reserves. This is in contrast to what is currently

happening in the EU. Member States use all the

money they are assigned, because otherwise they

will receive less from the budget in subsequent

years. This causes the well-known phenomenon that

money is looking for projects instead of projects

competing for the money. In Austria, the use of

this framework had very positive results: the so-

called “December-fever” (spending the entire left-

over budget at the end of the year) deemed to be

contained.

However, several problems arose in the initial

stage of the implementation of PBB. Maarten de

Jong (2016) stated a top-down approach using

uniform KPI matrices usually results in a framework

resembling a prison with many empty cells. Even

worse, it reinforces a compliance mentality leading

to indicators of little relevance or even outright

ridiculous ones. Many international implementations

illustrate these dynamics of having indicators

present for the sake of having indicators. Besides this,

useful indicators for ministry “A” do not constitute

meaningful indicators for ministry “B”. In Austria,

too, these and other issues were detected. The

challenges during the implementation phase were

the cultural shift towards results among politicians

and administration employees, and the lack of focus

on key issues (too many performance indicators).

The performance indicators also were not sufficiently

verifiable, comparable over time, and consistent

between and within ministries. In the Netherlands,

the above described issues seem to have been

addressed in the recent years. A more selective use

of performance indicators was implemented, where

the number has been cut by 50%. Besides this, there

is no longer a “one-size-fits-all” approach to the

indicators; ministries now make use of different kind

of indicators.

The Commission says the following about

performance indicators: “While

there will always be

scope for improvement, indicators are themselves

subject to considerations of cost efficiency as there

is a cost to establishing and monitoring indicators.

Indicators which are retained in a common system must

be operational, i.e. data must be realistically available.”

(ECA, 2015). In other words, the performance

indicators must be realistic and the ECA requesting

more information from the Commission by the hand

of more and more common KPI’s does not always

result in better information exchange and more

efficient use of this information. It might also result

in more compliance than efficiency thinking, as was

the case in the Netherlands before. The advice from

De Jong (2016) is that KPI’s should clearly be meant

for indicating success-or-failure, so that the question

is if a certain policy is successful or an intervention is

required, can be quickly assessed.

Another important aspect of PBB which is subject

to compliance focused audits is the use of non-

financial information. Non-financial information has

a different nature and cannot be audited in a similar

way as financial information. A performance budget

structure is impossible when the performance

information is still subject to compliance criteria, as

this creates an environment where the people who

provide the non-financial information feel like they

need to tick all the necessary information boxes.

Already in 2004, the IOFEZ (the financial top of all

the Dutch ministries) stated that there should be no

official audit on the quality of the policy information.

In the Netherlands, this problem has been

recognised and is being dealt with. Maarten de Jong,

in his latest presentation to the Commission, stated

that in order to end up with reliable information that

is useful for critical performance assessment, there

is a need to be pragmatic. This means we need to

allow methodological flexibility and make use of the

already-available information.

Meso

At the meso-level of evaluation, we question the

effectivity of the regional funds. Cohesion policy

is implemented through programmes which run

for the duration of the EU seven-year budget cycle.

Before funds are disbursed, programmes need to

meet several performance framework conditions.

Progress of these funds will be measured against

certain performance criteria, and further funds are

contingent on the results on these performance

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 81: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november 2016

criteria (so-called performance reserves). The

performance reserves are meant to function as

an incentive for the funds to behave well, and are

about 6% of the total allocation. Programs which

underperform do not get an incentive, but they

will still have used 94% of the allocated funds (or

parts of it) in an incorrect way, which means a

non-efficient use of taxpayer’s money. This makes

the performance reserve more of a Band-Aid

than a means to eradicate the source of the lack

of performance. This could be achieved by not

just using performance assessments as a financial

incentive but also by using critical (and preferably

publicly available) assessment as leverage for

demanding aggressive improvement plans if

necessary.

In the 2014 Annual Report of the ECA more criticism

on the performance reserves can be found. They

state that the Commission is unable to reallocate

money in between Member States, only within

Member States. Funding for the most efficient

projects is thus limited by national boundaries.

Second, the Commission only reallocated funding

due to the money not being spent instead of bad

performances of projects. Indicators were often not

performance indicators, but more like input and

output indicators. In Latvia, for example, funding

was released in order to stimulate employment

and growth. 46 indicators were identified, of

which 16 were input indicators and 30 were

output indicators. Third, financial corrections by

the Commission are mainly based on compliance

and legality issues, not so much on performance

indicators.

The goals of the Commission for the Horizon

2020 program are judged to be too broad and

unclear. This means it will be difficult to evaluate

if EU spending has contributed to fulfilling these

objectives or if the objectives have been reached at

all. As the Commission noted last year in its fourth

evaluation report, for the 2007-2013 programming

period

‘it is not possible to single out what has

been the exact contribution of each of the financial

programmes in achieving Europe 2020 targets’.

The Commission published its sixth evaluation

report in June 2016 (on the financial year 2015).

This includes more information on Europe 2020

than its predecessor: for example, it provides a

summary account of progress towards Europe 2020

targets. The report also includes several references

regarding the individual programmes’ contribution

to the achievement of Europe 2020. These

references, however, are limited. Besides this, the

report explains too little why certain things exactly

went wrong, why they went wrong, and how this

can be improved in the future. The only solution

noted is to increase spending in the areas which

are not working well. They also provide too little

context for the use of certain KPI’s, which anyway

mainly measure the quantity of inputs (number of

students) instead of the quality of outcomes (level

of education or the education resulting in better

chances at the job market).

The main issue, however, is something which has

already been stated in the 2012 Annual Report of

the ECA: it is a challenge to obtain good qualitative

results from schemes where funds are pre-allocated

among Member States and where absorption of

these funds is an implicit objective. The focus in

evaluating budget spending still lays on inputs.

For example, the amount of resources agreed to

be spent in a particular Member State for the MFF

remains fixed. The absorption rate of the funds is

the main priority and the outcome of the spending

is less relevant.

Macro

When looking at EU added-value on macro-level,

one does not have to go into all the details of what

every policy adds to the current state of a specific

nation. We suggest that the EU added-value can

simply be defined as the progress made in countries

since the day these countries entered the European

Union. This progress can be measured by looking at

their state of public administration and economic

progress. A quick look at Norway, a country which

is paying in order to get access to all the necessary

markets, would suggest that being a member of the

EU is beneficial, even if one needs to pay for this.

However, we are not here looking for quick answers,

but we are in this for the long haul. We thus took

a small sample of three countries, differing in

a variety of variables: Poland, Greece, and the

Netherlands; a fairly recent joiner, an apparent

improvement-resistant country, and one of the

founding members.

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 81: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november 2016

2nd annual EU Budget Focused on Results Conference

continued

The quality of governance is an important factor

of long-term economic growth (Aubyn, 2007).

Good governance is defined as the

“political

and institutional processes and outcomes that

are deemed necessary to achieve the goals of

development”

(United Nations, 2014). Effective

governance requires clear missions, shared goals,

well-coordinated collective action and measures,

and it evaluates processes and results (Perry and

Christensen, 2015).

increase their government performance. The bad

performance of Greece (and others like Italy and

Portugal) can be explained, according to Galanti

(2011), by looking at their public structures.

A crucial dimension for the quality of bureaucracy

is its accountability, understood as mechanisms

that hold bureaucrats responsible for their work.

Empirical research in both developing and

developed countries has shown the importance of

transparency and accountability for the predictable

and correct functioning of public administration,

with particular emphasis being placed on the

professional ethics of civil servants (Matheson et

al., 2007). The existence of systems of performance

evaluation and of specific incentives to induce a

responsible attitude among civil servants is also a

sign of bureaucratic quality (Galanti, 2011).

In Greece, the progress in the public administration

is lacking due to the struggle to introduce

performance-based management, partially due to

the absence of precise data, and reform strategies

lacking a strong evidence base which would justify,

support – and quantify – effective and efficient

policy decisions. Important reforms of the kind

necessary to turn around economic performance

and strengthen society need to be anchored in

evidence. Ex ante impact assessments, whilst now

compulsory in principle, are mostly of very poor

quality, or not done at all. Ex post assessments,

which would be instrumental in the monitoring

and evaluation of regulatory initiatives, are virtually

non-existent.

The graph above shows the change in the public

governance situation in all EU countries (and

a few others). Greece is the worst-performing

Southern European country, mainly because of

the very limited control of corruption. Corruption

is one of the strongest dangers to the credibility

and functioning of governments. The Hertie

study (2015) on public integrity has shown that

organising effective independent feedback

systems, such as the judiciary and audit bodies,

form the basis of a successful strategy against

corruption. Auditors add transparency to the

system by auditing the legality and regularity of

public finance and, ideally, reporting on the value

for money gained by public investments.

Other aspects such as accountability and political

stability also score rather poorly in Greece.

The Netherlands have decreased slightly, but

maintained their position in the top performing

countries, while Poland has been able to

Another issue is that a combination of factors – a

weak Centre of Government, the absence of basic

data, the lack of evidence-based policy making

and an undeveloped HR strategy – has created an

environment conducive to rent seeking (OECD,

2012). In the Greek context, the framework

conditions in the public administration provide

especially ample opportunities for rent seeking,

in which resources of the public administration

are appropriated for political, economic or social

advantage, without generating any added value.

Legal formalism, for example, whilst originally

intended to protect the administration against

political interference and to secure its integrity,

has become excessive to the point that it renders

administrative/political processes opaque and

complex, providing a screen for individual

behaviours that undermine the common good.

In economical aspect, membership of the EU has

brought nothing but good according to the Dutch

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 81: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november 2016

Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis. They state

that membership tot the EU in general leads to

an increase in trade between two of its member

states with about 34%. EU membership may

also contribute to trade by inducing countries

to improve the quality of their institutions. Trade

increases by another 22% if institutions improve,

yielding a total trade increase of 56%. Improved

openness increases income by 37.5% according

to their estimates. Adding a small direct effect

of improved institutions on income, the total

income effect of EU membership is 39% for the ten

members who joined in 2004. This implies that EU

membership, or its effect on trade and institutions,

could lead to large economic gains for new member

states (see also table below).

of the opportunities offered by EU membership.

They owe this to their mobilisation and effective

internal policy, but most of all to the initiative of

Polish entrepreneurs who have made good use

of Poland’s presence on the single market. Other

positive effects are the successful integration with

EU markets, the effective use of EU funds and

the significant decrease in unemployment and

poverty rates. On the other hand, the effects of

migration and the sometimes uneven distribution

of benefits among citizens do not seem

favourable. According to most Poles, however, the

net result of EU membership is certainly positive.

Public opinion polls confirm that the situation is

far better than most Polish citizens expected in

2003.

The Dutch Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis

also calculated that the internal market and the

membership of the EU of the past 65 years resulted

in an extra month salary (about 1.500 to 2.200 euro).

A quarter of which originates from accession to

the Euro. This increase in income can be explained

by a growth in trade, competition, specialisation,

innovation, and economies of scale. Besides this,

about 4 to 6 percent of GDP in the Netherlands

can be ascribed to the current stage of internal

market integration. In the table below, one can find

the percentage increases for the Netherlands due

to access to the internal market for imports and

exports, separated by goods, services, and Foreign

Direct Investments.

The Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs wrote a report

for their 10-year anniversary of being part of the

EU. In this they look into the question how Poland

changed thank to their EU membership. They find

that, compared with other countries that joined the

EU in 2004 and 2007, Poland has made the best use

Conclusion

In short, there are three aspects at the micro-level

which limit the successful implementation of the

PBB: no earmarking, an abundance of KPIs, and

the lack of use of non-financial information. The

fundamental issue at the meso-level is the rigid

budget structure, dominated by national borders.

EU funds will never be used most effectively if

every Member State insists on receiving at least

“their” part of the EU budget. This is partly inspired

by the lack of earmarking, and partly by the lack of

overarching European cohesion in the so ironically

named Cohesion funds. Member States are afraid to

receive less of the budget when they not use their

full absorption rate and thus performance suffers.

On macro-level, a lack of a performance budget-

structure in Greece can be found, among other

institutional weaknesses, as one of the causes for a

slightly underperforming government. While on the

other hand, Poland and the Netherlands seem to

be profiting immensely from the open boundaries

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 81: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november 2016

2nd annual EU Budget Focused on Results Conference

continued

and the subsequent, new business opportunities

membership of the EU has to offer.

From this, we can conclude that in order to offer

full transparency about full EU-added value, we

need to broaden our scope of performance-based

budgeting. A more complete use of performance-

based budgeting includes breaking national

boundaries when it comes to EU funding, spending

in order to obtain results instead of fulfilling

national absorption rates, and less of a compliance-

oriented auditing structure which makes use of

non-financial information to learn and improve and

does not strive for a “one size fits all” KPI structure.

Brexit-voters would have a clear view of the

situation they are in now, dairy milk farmers would

possibly not receive as much of the funds as they

did. While this might benefit their own enterprise

spirit, giving an incentive to innovate, this would

have been an improvement for the EU citizens as

well. They would see funding go to programmes

which are making most of their money.

A more flexible, clever EU budget delivers more EU

Added Value. The problem is that no one is able to

present a clear, undisputed definition of EU Added

Value. The meaning does not only change from year

to year, but there are also many differing views. EU

Added Value should be seen as a concept without

a clear definition. It is something which changes

throughout time, liable to the environment in

which it stands. Like the circumstances continue

to change, the discourse on what constitutes EU

Added Value should continue to be held. Such an

ongoing discourse would present the citizens of the

European Union with a better, clearer story on what

the raison d'être of the EU is, what the reason is why

certain policies or projects are being made. It also

makes clear that there is a strong need for more

flexible use of the budget, as a changing definition

of EU Added Value means a change in priorities

in the budget. This enhanced need for flexibility

can be achieved with a better use of performance-

based budgeting.

References

Aubyn, M. (2007). Modernising public administration and

economic growth. In:

Good practices in

Slovene public administration 2007,

Cookson, C. (2016, August 23). Brexit: An experiment full of risk

for British science. Financial

Times.

Retrieved September 29,

2016, from

https://www.ft.com/content/1f0d22c2-6619-11e6-

8310-ecf0bddad227

CPB (2008). The

internal market and the Dutch economy:

Implications for trade and economic growth.

The Hague: CPB

Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.

De Jong, M. (2016, January 14). Why

Agencies Budget For

Results.

Erasmus University Rotterdam. Retrieved from

http://

hdl.handle.net/1765/79334

European Commission,. (2016). 2015

Annual Management and

Performance Report for the EU Budget.

European Court of Auditors,. (2016). Annual

report on

the implementation of the budget.

European Court of

Auditors. Retrieved from http://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/

ECADocuments/annualreports-2014/annualreports-2014-EN.

pdf

Galanti, Maria Tullia (2011). Is Italian Bureaucracy Exceptional?

Comparing the Quality of Southern European Public

Administrations.

Bulletin of Italian Politics.

Hertie School (2015), Research report “Public integrity and

trust in Europe”.

Henk, F., & Jeltsje, van. der Meer-Kooistra (2016, August 23).

Houders van melkvee moeten weer gaan innoveren. Retrieved

September 29, 2016, from Het Financieele Dagblad,

https://

fd.nl/opinie/1164496/houders-van-melkvee-moeten-weer-

gaan-innoveren

Interdepartmentaal Overlegorgaan Financieel Economische

Zaken (IOFEZ), (2004).Eindrapport

VBTB-evaluatie.

Lejour, A. M., Solanic, V., & Tang, P. J. G. (2006). EU

accession and

income growth an empirical approach.

The Hague: CPB.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of Poland (2014).

10 years

of Poland’s EU membership.

OECD (2012). Greece:

Review of the central administration.

Paris:

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development

(OECD).

Perry, James L., and Robert K. Christensen (2015). Effective

governance, effective administrators. In: Paul A. Volcker (ed.),

Handbook of public administration.

Sociaal & Cultureel Planbureau,. (2015). Public

sector

achievement in 36 countries.

United Nations (2014). Website: http://www.ohchr.

org/en/Issues/Development/GoodGovernance/Pages/

GoodGovernanceIndex.aspx accessed on 4 March 2013.

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 81: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november 2016

FOCUS

Focus

2016 European Court of Auditors Award Henrik Otbo

Presentation

In accordance with its mission and values, the

European Court of Auditors (ECA) is committed

to being at the forefront in developing public

sector auditing, both in the EU and worldwide. The

ECA has already been the subject of a number of

publications of an empirical or scientific nature and

it is keen to develop further active links with the

scientific community.

For this reason the ECA has established in 2010 the

“European Court of Auditors Award” for academic

research linked to public audit and to the ECA’s

mission and values, in order to provide an incentive

and recognition for research on public audit related

issues.

Each edition will pay tribute to a person who has

contributed through their work and example to the

reputation of the ECA as a European institution.

The fourth edition of the ECA Award will pay tribute

to the memory of Henrik Otbo, former Member of

the ECA. Henrik Otbo was born on 14 November

1949 and was of Danish nationality. He dedicated

his entire career to audit, and was Auditor General

of Denmark from 1995 to 2012. He was Chairman

of the INTOSAI Professional Standards Committee

from 2004-2012, where he made a big contribution

on developing professional audit standards

for supreme audit institutions. He became a

Member of the European Court of Auditors on

1 March 2012 and was a Member of the CEAD

Chamber "Coordination, evaluation, assurance

and development", primarily responsible for Audit

Development and Review. He made an important

contribution in encouraging professional standards

and good communication with stakeholders, both

in his capacity as Auditor General and as a Member

of the Court of Auditors. Henrik Otbo unexpectedly

passed away on 1 February 2015.

The 2016 “European Court of Auditors Award –

Henrik Otbo” will be governed by the following

rules:

1. Subject

The award is addressed to European academics

for their theses in the fields of theoretical and/or

empirical studies related to public sector auditing,

in particular within a European Union context.

This covers, for example: audit methods and

standards; financial, compliance and performance

audit; audit of the EU finances; reporting methods;

organizational and management aspects;

internal audit and control; public accountability;

single audit; audit ethics; evaluation and impact

assessment; relations between the SAIs and

national parliaments or EU governance.

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 81: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november 2016

2016 European Court of Auditors Award Henrik Otbo

continued

2. Eligibility

The award is open to all postgraduates, who have

written a Master’s thesis or a PhD thesis. The viva

examination must have taken place on or after 1st

January 2012. Candidates eligible for applying for

this ECA Award are to be nationals of the European

Union or to have completed a thesis at a university

of the European Union. The Master’s or PhD thesis

should not have been submitted for any previous

edition of the ECA Awards.

3. Applications

Candidates shall submit by email in PDF format:

a) A copy of their thesis;

b) A short summary ( maximum 5000 words) of the

thesis;

c) A justification of why they consider the thesis to be

relevant for the award (maximum 1000 words);

d) A brief letter of recommendation from a professor

at the university to which the thesis was

submitted. This reference should set out, in not

more than 2000 words, the relevance of the thesis

submitted for the award;

e) Their curriculum vitae.

The thesis itself (a) may be in any of the official

languages of the European Union, but all other

supporting documentation referred to above (b to e)

should be submitted in either English or French.

In addition to the documents presented with the

application, the selection panel may request further

information from applicants.

By submitting the thesis, the applicant gives the

ECA the right to publish the thesis on its website in

the event of the thesis being selected for the award.

For all other purposes, the copyright remains with

successful applicant.

4. Selection process

The ECA will submit the applications to a selection

panel.

The selection panel will be composed of three

experts from public audit organisations, current

or former Members of the ECA and/or university

professors from EU Member States.

The selection panel will independently assess the

applications, identify the thesis, which is considered

to merit the award and provide a brief justification of

their choice.

The selection panel may propose not to confer the

award if the submitted thesis does not meet an

outstanding level of quality. It may also confer the

award jointly and

ex aequo

to two applicants.

On a proposal of the selection panel, the Court may

recognise the special merits of certain applicants.

The decision of the selection panel on the award

winner shall be final and may not be challenged in

the courts.

The ECA will provide the secretariat of the selection

panel. The President of ECA may chair the selection

panel’s meeting without the right of vote.

5. Criteria

The fundamental criteria used in the assessment

process shall be the originality, the innovative

qualities, the significance and the overall quality of

the applicant’s contribution to the respective theme

at the current time.

6. Award ceremony

Following a formal decision by the Court taking

note of the selection panel’s decision, the winner(s)

will be invited to a public ceremony at the ECA to

receive the award and to deliver a lecture of up

to 30 minutes. This will take place in Luxembourg

in spring of 2017, on a date to be established by

the ECA. The travel expenses of the winner will be

covered by ECA.

By accepting the award, the winner(s) agree(s)

that all future publication of the thesis or of any

part of the thesis shall make reference to the “2016

European Court of Auditors Award – Henrik Otbo”.

7. Award’s prize

The winner(s) will receive from the ECA a medal, an

award certificate and a prize of 5.000 euros.

8. Deadline

Applications shall be submitted with all

documentation referred to under 3 by 15 December

2016 and shall be addressed to:

[email protected]

Applications arriving after this date at the ECA will

not be admitted for the award selection procedure.

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 81: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november 2016

FOCUS

Focus

More efforts needed to raise awareness of and enforce compliance

with State aid rules in cohesion policy

Over the past several years the Court of Auditors found a significant level of non-

compliance with State aid rules in cohesion policy. The Court of Auditors and the

Commission detected infringements of State aid rules at a far higher rate than the

Member States, pointing to a need for more awareness and continued Commission

support. For the 2007-2013 programme period, the Commission’s databases

did not allow a proper analysis of State aid errors nor did its monitoring result in

significant recovery of State aid.

The Commission has taken actions to simplify the applicable State aid legislation

and to promote Member States’ administrative capacity. Responsibility for

implementation of State aid measures has been shifted to the Member States in

the 2014-2020 programme period, which risks an increase in State aid errors.

This report was published on 4 October 2016 and is available on our website

www.eca.europa.eu.

Special report

N°24/2016

Special Report

N°25/2016

The Land Parcel Identification System: a useful tool to determine

the eligibility of agricultural land – but its management could be

further improved

A Land Parcel Identification System (LPIS) is an IT system based on photographs of

agricultural parcels used to check payments made under the Common Agricultural

Policy (CAP) of approximately 45.5 billion euro in 2015. We concluded that the

LPIS is a useful tool for determining the eligibility of agricultural land but its

management could be further improved. We identified some weaknesses in LPIS

processes affecting the Member States’ ability to reliably check the eligibility of

land. We found that Member States had made progress in upgrading their LPISs

to meet the 2014-2020 CAP requirements. However, LPISs had not yet been

completely adapted for greening. The Commission’s LPIS monitoring improved but

did not focus enough on LPIS performance.

This report was published on 25 October 2016 and is available on our website

www.eca.europa.eu.

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 81: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november 2016

FOCUS

Focus

Special Report

N°26/2016

Making cross-compliance more effective and achieving simplification

remains challenging

Cross-compliance links EU farm subsidies of around 47 billion euro to farmers’

compliance with basic rules in important areas (e.g. the environment and food

safety). We examined whether the cross-compliance management and control

system was effective and whether it can be further simplified. The report concludes

that the information available did not allow the European Commission to

adequately assess the effectiveness of cross-compliance, and that the system can

still be further simplified. We make recommendations for improving the system.

This report was published on 27 October 2016 and is available on our website

www.eca.europa.eu.

Special report

N°27/2016

Governance comprises the arrangements put in place to ensure that the

intended outcomes for stakeholders are defined and achieved.

Governance comprises the arrangements put in place to ensure that the intended

outcomes for stakeholders are defined and achieved. Good governance is not just

about relationships, it is about achieving results, and providing decision-makers

with tools to do their job. In several areas, the Commission diverges from, or does

not meet in full best practice set out in standards or put in place by the international

and public bodies we selected as benchmarks. To continue to address the key risks

the Commission will need further to strengthen the governance structure across the

institution.

This report was published on 18 October 2016 and is available on our website

www.eca.europa.eu.

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 81: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november 2016

The European Consumer Organisation:

Evaluating TTIP and other EU policies

for consumers

By Rosmarie Carotti

Lecture by Monique Goyens, BEUC Director General, to ECA staff on 23 September 2016

at the level of Commission, Council and Parliament.

It also tries to influence the way Member States

implement their policies and has an enforcement

role by taking the complaints to the responsible

Commission DGs.

The largest element of the BEUC's resources are the

membership fees of its consumer organisations, and

the income from subscriptions and paid services.

BEUC fights for consumers' rights, be it safety

instructions, nutrition information, legal guarantee,

roaming costs or consumer redress (as in the recent

Volkswagen case).

BEUC also considers that Google is abusing its

dominant position in the search market. Open

source is the principle of access to information and

communication and it is important that the internet

remains neutral.

In the digital area, the protection of personal data

becomes even more important through big data

and the digitalisation of all products. Commercial

privacy is a huge topic as there is a tendency

towards dynamic prizing. That means that on the

basis of the profile of the client the product will be

offered at a different price. And there is the risk of a

link between commercial data and national security.

Models have changed but copyright rules are still

from the last century. Geo-blocking in e-commerce

is a common practice. Why should it not be possible

to have access to a service just because it is offered

beyond the border?

In the area of energy, there are new challenges.

There is a new generation of prosumers: consumers

who produce their own energy be it by wind or

solar energy. This seems to have the best potential

for increasing energy security. But for the moment

there is no welcome culture for prosumers. In

several countries they have to pay high fees to

feed into the grid. At the same time, new smart

appliances will be needed as consumers are asked

more and more to cut their energy consumption.

A lot has been achieved in Europe in terms of

financial services but a lot remains to be dones, for

BEUC acts as the umbrella group in Brussels for

Member State consumer associations. Its main

task is to represent them at European level and

defend the interests of all European consumers.

BEUC is listed in the transparency register set up

by the European Commission and the European

Parliament for interest representatives, to ensure

that the European Union is “open to public scrutiny”.

The EU budget 2014-2019 includes a budget line

that allocates

EU operational grants to European

consumer organisations.

The BEUC receives a

grant (applied on a yearly basis) of €1,400,000. This

grant is justified by the need to provide EU decision

makers with a balanced feedback from various

interest groups, and to fill the gap between the

representation of interest groups linked to business

and trade on the one hand, and not-for-profit

organisations on the other.

Monique Goyens, BEUC Director General, explained

the mission of BEUC. Firstly the BEUC provides

intelligence to its member consumer associations,

informing them what is going on in Brussels. The

second mission is to try to influence European

policy from a consumer perspective. Consumer

policy is cross-cutting and the BEUC talks to the

Commission about transport, food, digital agenda,

financial services, sustainability and energy. Energy,

in particular, will become crucial for consumers in

the years to come, as digitalisation will completely

change the energy market. And this change will

have to be smart.

To sum up, BEUC provides intelligence to its

members and tries to influence the policy-making

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 81: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november 2016

The European Consumer Organisation: Evaluating TTIP and

other EU policies for consumers

continued

example, on cross-border payments and credit cards.

This year’s topic is contact-less payment. Also, saving

for retirement has been so far neglected, but people

will have to count more and more on their own

savings. As the risks often are not correctly disclosed,

the Commission has launched a consultation on the

matter to which the BEUC has responded.

The BEUC is also very active on eco-design

requirements and supports the European

Commission in pushing the most environment-

friendly solutions. BEUC also works on health-care

and pharmaco-vigilance, medical devices and access

to medicine. BEUC looks at all issues from the lens

of the consumer and refrains from actively engaging

in cases where the consumer consensus is weak,

for example, in the case of genetically modified

organisms (GMOs). It is the consumer who makes the

choice and BEUC does not patronise them. The BEUC

wants to be evidence-based and provide solutions.

Monique Goyens then referred to trade policy, in

particular the Transatlantic Trade and Investment

Partnership (TTIP) currently being negotiated

between the EU and the US. From the consumer’s

perspective, trade is good because it creates

competitive pressure. BEUC is therefore in favour of

trade, but of TTIP it remains to be seen. The term TTIP

is misleading, she says, as it is not a trade agreement

per se but an agreement which has chapters that

include trade. Other chapters, and those are the

worrying ones, create a regulatory framework for a

transatlantic single market.

To conclude with the words of Monique Goyens: we

need a new model of economic governance but not

according to trade rules.

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 81: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november 2016

2016 Clear Language Event

By Veronica Ardelean, Principal Manager, Translation and Language Services Directorate

From left to right: Maria Eulàlia Reverté i Casas, Dominiek Braet, Eduardo Ruiz-García,

Alex Brenninkmeijer, James McCabe, Gailė Dagilienė, James Verity

The attention span of an average person today is

about 8 seconds.

Question: How do we attract and retain somebody’s

attention?

Answer: By telling a story (i.e. empathy, suspense and

surprise).

For some time now, the ECA has been reflecting on

how to improve the way it communicates with the

outside world, how to get closer to its readers and

how to increase their interest in its activities.

In this context, writing in simple, clear language

is very important. The ECA has therefore made a

considerable effort to introduce and promote clear

drafting by organising conferences, training courses

and tailor-made workshops, producing guidelines

on report-writing and instructions for auditors and

translators, and distributing promotional material

on the subject.

Against this backdrop, ECA Member Alex

Brenninkmeijer, the Translation and Language

Services Directorate and the Directorate of the

Presidency organised the third edition of the Clear

Language Event. This consisted of a conference on

“Storytelling: How to connect what you write”,

which took place on 5 October, and a workshop on

“Applying the fundamentals of storytelling to

audit reporting”,

which took place the following

day.

The Slovak presidency, which began in July this

year, established better communication with

the European public as one of its objectives. The

Bratislava Declaration published after the informal

summit of Heads of State and Government that

took place on 16 September reads:

“We need to improve communication with each

other – among Member States, with EU institutions,

but most importantly, with our citizens.

should inject

more clarity

into our decisions.

Use

clear and honest language.

”

It is generally acknowledged that we need to do

more to raise awareness about the EU. The reasons

for this are clear: for several years now, the EU has

been in a state of crisis. Confidence in the EU’s

ability to improve people’s lives is diminishing, as is

any sense of solidarity or cohesion.

So what can we do to restore trust in the EU and its

institutions? What should our reporting priorities

be in the future? And how should we present our

findings so that they are clearly understood?

While the ECA’s reports are no doubt instructive

for specialist readers, more needs to be done

to inform and engage a broader public, from

MEPs to MPs, journalists and EU citizens. The way

we communicate should be more relevant and

we should make a greater effort to use plainer

language and a more approachable style.

The main question for the 2016 Clear Language

Event was therefore:

How could we improve the

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 81: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november 2016

2016 Clear Language Event

continued

complement each other. Therefore, Dr McCabe tells

us, the ECA does not need to change what it does,

but merely enrich it! We should use stories to attract

attention and, once we have it, move on to data and

rhetoric.

There are three questions we should ask when

crafting a story: how tellable is what we write?

How eventful is it? But most of all, how relatable is

our content? Stories not only have to be shareable,

but must also make readers feel involved and

possess the element of empathy mentioned

above. It would seem that we score fairly low on

involvement (we are not designed for dialogue). We

are good at

making

sense, but less at

sharing

sense.

So, what could the ECA do to overcome this

obstacle? Dr McCabe mentioned several

possibilities: go visual, go audio, request reaction,

connect, link and share! As we are living in an era of

technological change, organisations have to create

story visions, narrative blueprints and media geared

to a digital world. Our thinking should be designed

for communication.

Dominiek Braet, the second guest speaker, is a

content strategist at Euroclear, a world-leading

provider of post-trade services (B2B finance)

headquartered in Brussels, holding assets of 27.5

trillion euro for financial institutions and employing

3 500 people. With over 20 years’ experience in

making written communications effective and easy

to read, he devised “Euroclear tone of voice” - a set

of writing standards combining a move to plain

language with other communication rules that

make it easier for people to absorb information and

increase client-friendliness.

After introducing us to the stories of auditor

and reader, Dominiek Braet gave an impressive

demonstration of how to transform a text in order

to make it not only clearer but also more visually

attractive. As we saw above, today’s readers do not

have enough time to “digest” the huge quantities

of information available to them. They do not

read

texts any more, but

go through

them: only if they

find them interesting will they pause for thought.

We should therefore design our content in such

a way that the main messages stand out and

immediately grab the reader’s attention.

Supporting Dr McCabe’s theory about the need for

empathy, Dominiek Braet pointed out a simple but

obvious fact: our texts may be well documented

and informed, and contain thorough and relevant

analysis, but they lack empathy. The impression we

way we connect with our readers?

To answer

this question, we interviewed three stakeholders

with different mother tongues: Martina Dlabajová,

a Czech Member of the European Parliament and

rapporteur for the CONT Committee (our direct

stakeholder); Cristina Botez, a Romanian university

graduate now working in an embassy (a typical

“EU citizen”); and Dr Arunas Dulkys, Head of

Lithuania’s National Audit Office (one of the Court’s

stakeholders and peers).

All three interviewees noted the expertise and

quality of the ECA’s reports. They also stressed

how important it was for them to be able to read

the reports in their own language. Although they

found the titles rather unwieldy, the conclusions

and, more generally, the message of the ECA’s

reports were praised for their clarity. One important

observation was that our reports lack a positive

tone.

The conference’s guest speakers were Dr James

McCabe and Mr Dominiek Braet. Dr McCabe, also

known as “the story doctor”, has spent the past

20 years working as a speaker and workshop leader

for numerous international companies. He is a

pioneer in the art of applying classical dramatic

skills to complex business tasks, and using them

to send the right messages to reach and captivate

target audiences.

To restore faith in the EU and win the public over,

said Dr McCabe, we need publications that not only

persuade but also influence their readers. Achieving

this requires a narrative vision and dramatic

execution that extends beyond mere rhetoric.

Storytelling as a form of communication predates

writing. By applying narrative skills to corporate

content, today’s communicators can escape

Hermann Ebbinghaus’s “forgetting curve” – which

states that 60% of data consumed is forgotten

within 48 hours – and reconnect with a much wider

community.

In an age of interruption, where the average

attention span has shrunk to about 8 seconds, in a

society where the audience is not captive any more

or – worse still – where there is no audience, how

can we attract and engage the reader? The answer

is: by telling a story.

Storytelling is the art of involvement, while rhetoric

is the art of persuasion. Storytelling involves

three elements: empathy, suspense and surprise,

while rhetoric relies on authority, logic and proof.

However, the two are not mutually exclusive, but

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 81: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november 2016

have is of reading the minutes of a meeting: factual,

accurate and objective, but unable to engage the

reader emotionally. “What is the problem?” you

might ask: audit is not about emotions, but about

facts and figures, objective assessment and solid

conclusions.

However, studies have shown that people are

more inclined to react when they are

emotionally

touched by a story than when faced with an

objective situation.

So, if we want people to feel

involved, we need to create empathy and take them

along on our audit journey.

In order to prove his point, Dominiek Braet took

a passage from a Special Report dealing with

humanitarian aid, and re-wrote it. What struck

him in the ECA’s text was the absence of the word

“people”. Indeed, in a text talking about a major

humanitarian crisis, the word “people” does not

appear even once.

Example of a successful project: Rapid response to movement of populations (RRMP, No 15):

This recurring project is one of the Commission’s main channels to rapidly help large numbers

of people who either:

• fled from armed groups

• returned to their villages but have nothing left

These most vulnerable people live in areas where no other humanitarian organisations are

present. Under the project, people receive shelter, water, NFI (pots and pans, clothes, soap, etc.),

sanitation, and health care. Interventions last up to 3 months.

Over a period of eight months, between May and December 2014:

• about

1.3 million people

received help under the project, mainly in North and South

Kivu, Maniema and Province Orientale

• 35% of interventions started within 30 days of the

movement of population alert

(target 40%)

Our conclusion: even though the target was not fully met, we judged this project as successful

given the high number of people it reached in a difficult context.

Note - Commission’s funding 2011-2015: € 31.5 million

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 81: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november 2016

2016 Clear Language Event

continued

The result was impressive: although the information

was retained, the structure, presentation, focus and

wording of the text changed. The new version was

not only shorter (152 v. 189 words) but also more

focused and easier to follow: as such, it was better

suited to today’s readers.

By way of conclusion, Mr Braet shared a memo

written by Winston Churchill in 1940. The note,

which is self-explanatory, stresses the importance

of clear drafting, a subject which is just as relevant

today.

Memo written by Winston Churchill in 1940

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 81: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november 2016

The Bridge Forum Dialogue:

Recovering from the crisis macroeconomic

versus real economy and social

dimensions

By Rosmarie Carotti

Under the chairmanship of Dr Werner Hoyer, President of the European Investment Bank, Professor

Euclid Tsakalotos, Minister of Finance of the Hellenic Republic, gave a lecture on 28 September 2016

at the EIB in Luxembourg.

The macroeconomic prerequisites

Students used to learn that there was one monetary

policy applied in a monetary union, but perhaps

not a unified fiscal policy. The first is no longer

true. A key characteristic of the post financial crisis

in the euro area is that the single monetary policy

has broken down. It is no longer the case that

financial conditions are the same across the Union.

The variation of interest rates across the euro area

is considerable and country inflation rates are

likewise showing dispersal. Greece this year at last

has positive inflation, but suffered considerably.

Other countries have similarly failed to benefit from

the single market policy. Interest rates – and in

particular the ECB’s refinancing rates – are affected

by the outgrowth of deposits, lack of access to

international markets following fears of stability of

certain financial institutions and rising spread in

sovereign debt.

Uneven transmission of the single market policy

across the euro area

According to Professor Euclid Tsakalotos one reason

for the single market weaknesses are failures in

the design of the is ECB’s policy of quantitative

easing (QE), which includes the purchase of public

and private sector assets along with government

bonds. If the question is QE or not QE, Professor

Euclid Tsakalotos is in favour of QE, but he wonders

if there are other instruments that could be applied.

QE might create asset bubbles, which have a

detrimental effect on the real economy.

Professor Euclid Tsakalotos suggests that northern

countries invest more in infrastructure, and that

funds made available for SMEs should be increased

as they provide the backbone of the economic

activity in the euro area. SMEs are generally

excluded from the corporate bond market, this

is where institutions like the EIB and EBRD have a

clearer role to play.

Thirdly, compared to the FED, the ECB is over-

concerned with risk.

Professor Euclid Tsakalotos, Minister of Finance of the Hellenic

Republic

Introduction

This lecture has to be seen against the background

of two important recent decisions concerning

Greece: the European Stability Mechanism (ESM)

is providing Greece with billions of euros in fresh

money after EU finance ministers agreed that the

country has made progress in bringing its finances

in order. The Greek government will however have

to take a number of further actions in order to get

further disbursements.

Second, on

27 September

2016 the Greek Parliament has approved the

transfer of state assets into a privatisation fund.

EIB President Hoyer stressed in his introduction that

the EIB, in its role as the EU’s bank, has been active

for decades in Greece and maintains a dedicated

investment team there. However investment-led

recovery is weakening in Europe and so is the

philosophical principle of solidarity.

While commercial banks have a tendency to

lend money when times are good and turn their

backs when times are not so good, the EIB has

supported Greece in both the good and bad times,

said Finance minister Euclid Tsakalotos. Greece is

grateful for the EIB’s past help and its long-term

commitment for the future. New projects are being

discussed which hopefully will come to fruition very

quickly.

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 81: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november 2016

The Bridge Forum Dialogue: Recovering from the crisis

macroeconomic versus real economy and social dimensions

continued

Fiscal policy

There is discussion whether fiscal transfer is needed,

or whether Europe should just concentrate on areas

of non-monetary cooperation such as responding

to the refugee crisis.

Professor Euclid Tsakalotos is of the opinion that in a

fixed exchange system, with free capital movement,

fiscal policy works. He objects to those who rely on

capital markets and claim that no fiscal transfers

are needed. He thinks that this misunderstands

the structure of the European economy compared

to the American economy. In Europe there are

a large number of SMEs, and major cultural and

legal differences between countries which hinder

adjustments through the capital markets.

The social issue

If Europe does neither have a large budget nor any

fiscal transfers, and if capital transfers do not work,

there is only one instrument left in the monetary

union and that is wages. It says that the whole

burden of adjustment is paid by workers’ wages. As

a left-wing Greek economist and politician from the

Syriza party, Professor Euclid Tsakalotos finds that

if the Eurozone tells the working people that they

are the shock-absorber, it will be very difficult for

them to believe that the Eurozone will get out of

the crisis.

Europe cannot grow as fast as before the crisis. That

means that it cannot adhere to all the contracts

made before the crisis. But which contract is it

going to break? The contracts with creditors, with

pensioners, with young people or people who need

hospital care? In practice, everybody has to take a

share of the pain. Why should the credit contract be

singled out as the only one that actually holds?

The real economy is central to the whole argument

of getting out of the crisis. Also, as the famous US

economist Larry Summers says, there is currently

a glut of savings. That means that there are now

trillions of funds at zero or negative interest rates

that are not being used proactively. But it is not just

about identifying the financing source, but finding

the right projects.

Greece

Professor Euclid Tsakalotos stressed that the revival

of the real economy is necessary to solve social

problems of the country. Greece is now returning

to growth, which would have been even stronger

if there had not been the many negative political

and economic crises in the rest of the world and

uncertainty regarding the support programmes. As

a result Greece has very few investors yet. In order

to restore their confidence, It is therefore critical for

the Greek economy that it gets a deal on debt.

Finance minister Euclid Tsakalotos believes there

will be growth over the next couple of years, but

his aim is that this growth would be sustained.

Sustainable growth does not mean a return to a

status quo ante. It means taking workers along,

giving confidence to people, and giving them some

access to decision-making process.

Economic development is the key and the Greek

government needs to present its development

strategy in the next few months. It must have clear

priorities and should invest in small projects. Public

administration needs to change. Challenges remain

in the fiscal administration. Up to now rich people

pay taxes on a voluntary basis only, and it is vital

this is changed. Greece is already increasing the

collectability of VAT.

More or less Europe?

The way forward is a better, fairer and more growth-

oriented Europe. But Europe is in danger, warns

Professor Euclid Tsakalotos. Europe has to begin a

proper discussion on fiscal policy in the eurozone,

on social fairness and it needs to develop a model

which assures proper jobs, a sense of belonging and

participation in society.

European Investment Bank, Luxembourg

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 81: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november 2016

Finance minister Euclid Tsakalotos at the ECA

By Kamila Lepkowska, head of task

The day after the Bridge conference, Minister Tsakalotos visited the ECA for a meeting

with our teams working on audits of the EU’s intervention in Greece and other economic

governance topics. The meeting was chaired by Zacharias Kolias – director responsible

for performance audits in the field of economic governance - and attended by auditors

and staff from the private offices of ECA Members Baudilio Tomé Muguruza and Nikolaos

Milionis.

The meeting was an opportunity for the auditors to receive insightful feedback on issues

identified through their work and to talk more generally about the design of EU support

programmes for countries in difficulties. Given his double capacity as a politician and

academic, it was extremely interesting to hear the perspective of Minister Tsakalotos. The

exchange focused on the structural reforms implemented in Greece – both the way they

have been sequenced and their interdependence with the process of fiscal adjustment.

Following the minister’s speech at the EIB, he also discussed in what ways the Greek

Adjustment Programmes impacted on the long-term development prospects of the

country. Furthermore, the Minister shared some observations regarding the granularity

and scope of the programmes and their implications for the Greek legal system.

Vítor Caldeira, former ECA President; Professeur Euclid Tsakalotos, Minister of Finance of the Hellenic Republic

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 81: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november 2016

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged/Reproduction autorisée

à condition de mentionner la source

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 81: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret november 2016

ISSN 1831-449X

Main Contents

KERSTI KALJULAID, ECA MEMBER LEAVES

INTERVIEW WITH LEO BRINCAT, NEW ECA MEMBER

OUR 2015 ANNUAL REPORT

EUROGROUP PRESIDENT JEROEN DIJSSELBLOEM AT THE ECA

SPECIAL REPORT 21/2016: “EU PRE-ACCESSION ASSISTANCE FOR STRENGTHENING ADMINISTRATIVE

CAPACITY IN THE WESTERN BALKANS: A META-AUDIT”

PERFORMANCE BUDGETING: A DISCOURSE ON EU ADDED VALUE

For more information

European Court of Auditors

12, rue Alcide De Gasperi

1615 Luxembourg

LUXEMBOURG

[email protected]

eca.europa.eu

@EUAuditorsECA

EUAuditorsECA

QJ-AD-16-010-2A-N