JANUARY 2015
EUROPEAN
COURT
OF AUDITORS
Journal
European Court of Auditors
NO.
01
Past editions of the Journal can be found on:
ECA’s website: http://eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/Journal.aspx
EU bookshop: http://bookshop.europa.eu
PRODUCTION
Mise en page, diffusion / Layout, distribution : Direction de la Présidence - Directorate of the Presidency
e-mail: eca-journal@eca.europa.eu
Photos : Reproduction interdite / Reproduction prohibited
© ECA
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
TABLE OF CONTENTS
02
07
02 Special Report No 21/2014
EU-funded airport infrastructures: poor value for money
Interview with Luc T’Joen, team-leader
By Rosmarie Carotti
07
10
Crisis in the Eurozone periphery: Policy options for Greece
By Kamila Lepkowska, team leader, and Ruth Whittaker, trainee
1
Credible communication between public authorities and the public –
Mr Alex Brenninkmeijer’s speech at the ‘TiNT’ Dutch terminology day
By Ingrid Van Gent, head of unit
PRESENTATION OF THE 2013 ANNUAL REPORT TO NATIONAL AUTHORITIES
10
12
14
15
12
14
Presentation of the 2013 Annual Report to the Slovene authorities
By Andreja Rovan, private office attachée
15
16 Presentation of the 2013 Annual Report in Cyprus
By Andreas Antoniades, private office attaché
Presentation of the 2013 Annual Report in Slovakia
By Branislav Urbanič, head of private office
Presentation of the 2013 Annual Report in Germany
By the private office of Mr Lehne
17 Presentation of the 2013 Annual Report in the Czech Supreme Audit Office
By Jan Kinšt, ECA Member
18
The new environmental policy of the ECA
By Natalia Krzempek, project manager
20
22
FOCUS
- Special reports Nos 18, 21 et 22/2014
- Meeting with Commissioner Phil Hogan
ECA SOCIAL
Model European Parliament-41st International session in Luxembourg
By Zoi Papadopoulou, assistant in the Private Office of Lazaros S. Lazarou,
ECA Member
23
Preparation of programming documents for the EU cohesion policy for the years
2014-2020 in Poland
By Beata Blasiak-Nowak, economic advisor in the Public Administration Department of the Supreme Audit Office (NIK) and Marzena Rajczewska, technical advisor in the Public Administration Department of the NIK
16
17
18
23
Special Report No 21/2014
EU-funded airport infrastructures:
poor value for money
2
Interview with Luc T’Joen, team-leader
By Rosmarie Carotti
This report was adopted on 12 November 2014 and published on 16 December 2014.
The same day a press conference was held by George Pufan, ECA Member
From left to right: Afonso de Castro Malheiro, Patrick Weldon, Mircea Radulescu, Pietro Puricella, Joel Costantzer, George Pufan,
Fernando Pascual Gil, Luc T'Joen, Tomasz Plebanowicz, Lorenzo Pirelli, Erki Must
R.C. : The audit focused on twenty EU-funded
airports in Estonia, Greece, Spain, Italy and
Poland. Why were these countries and projects
chosen? Millions of EU funds were spent in other
member states as well, let me mention the funds
which went to the BER Berlin airport which is
almost daily in the press.
Luc T’Joen: Airport infrastructure spending is an
important area for EU funding. In total, € 4.5 billion
were spent from 2000 to 2013 from the EU budget,
next to important EIB spending: € 14 billion of EIB
loans were provided to support infrastructures and
€ 2.3 billion to support fleet renewal for European
air carriers.
The selection of the countries for our audit took
place using the well-known concept of materiality.
ERDF and Cohesion fund spending was by far the
most important part of the funding (85%) and
with the five countries selected, the audit covered
75% of this funding for the 2000-2013 period.
Although the Berlin airport case is famous because
of continued press attention, Germany is one of
the lowest spenders in this area, consequently our
methodology lead to focus on other member states.
The Berlin airport has been subject to a different
ECA audit and the special report refers to it. .
Moreover, this audit was not a typical project
audit: we focused more on “airports” as a unit: the
number of airports sampled for audit followed the
materiality figures per country. Taking into account
the resources available and the time plan for
producing a report on this audit, we audited eight
airports in Spain, five in Italy, three in Greece and
two in both Poland and Estonia, using the following
methodology: all the airports in the five countries
with a Major Project or Cohesion Fund decision
were selected “d’office” (as we wanted to assess
the possible strengthening of the decision making
via passing by Brussels); than we selected five
airports on their risks perceived, five more airports
were sampled completely randomly and the four
remaining ones were the ones with the largest
amounts spent (materiality).
R.C. : The audited airports received a total EUfunding of € 666 million during the 2000-2006
and 2007-2013 programming periods through
the European Regional Development Fund
(ERDF) and the Cohesion fund (CF). Who were
the beneficiaries of the European Union funds:
state enterprises or private companies? How
were the funds channelled?
3
Luc T’Joen: The beneficiaries are state or semi-state
entities: they usually own the airport premises and
manage the projects. They are called “intermediate
bodies” in the EU-jargon. The funds were channelled
via the Managing Authorities to these bodies
once the proof was provided that the outputs
were completed and certification for use of the
infrastructures was provided (usually after a final
project report).
R.C. : What were the selection criteria for an
airport to receive EU funds? Was combined
national state aid a condition?
Luc T’Joen: The Managing Authority informed the
implementing body that it successfully negotiated
a specific amount of EU co-funds to be spent in
the next period via an operational programme.
As of that moment, the implementing body,
which is the one and only beneficiary for this kind
of expenditure, checked which projects could
take up this funding. They looked at the general
eligibility criteria, and proposed projects to spend
the allocations through projects which support the
overall (very general) objectives of the operational
programmes.
R.C. : Nearly half of Europe’s airports, in
particular the smaller ones, were loss-making
in 2010. Did you quantify the positive impact of
the EU funds on the creation of employment at
regional level?
Luc T’Joen: Yes, this is one of the aspects which
were at the heart of the matter. Airports are vital
and needed in many places, especially in remote
regions and islands. Although everybody has
some ideas of the (direct, indirect and induced)
employment potential of an airport, almost nobody
of the airport authorities audited really cared about
documenting this. While job creation and economic
growth are claimed to be good reasons for investing
in airports, we found that socio-economic benefits
were generally not measured. Only in four out of
the twenty airports audited a limited number of
newly created permanent jobs could be directly
linked to the EU projects audited. We also found
studies provided by three other airports indicating
generic benefits for a region from the siting of an
airport and its operation, but without establishing
a link between an improvement in regional GDP
figures and EU-funded investments in airport
infrastructures.
R.C. : The EU funds were allocated to
airport infrastructures. What does the term
“infrastructures” include?
Luc T’Joen: We defined infrastructures as being
investments on the landside and airside of airports.
Landside infrastructure investments include the
construction of new terminal buildings, extensions
of existing terminals and connections to the
road and rail network. Airside infrastructure
investments include the construction of runway,
taxi-way, exit-way and apron space, air traffic
control infrastructure and equipment and safety
equipment.
R.C. : Were there problems of shared
responsibility between the Commission and the
Member States?
Luc T’Joen: In this audit, we did not find much
evidence of this. The usual comment of the
Commission is that this is shared management
and that they don’t see much of what is exactly
happening in the field. In fact, in this case, it was
true: the Commission had very little view on what
was happening. In reality, projects were mostly
decided locally.
R.C. : Overall, in nine of the twenty airports
audited, one or more of the projects sampled
for audit were not needed at all. This represents
28 % or € 129 million of the EU funding to
airports examined. Did the Commission not
evaluate beforehand the risk of creating
overcapacities?
Luc T’Joen: No, the risk of creating overcapacities
was not assessed at all, by anybody, neither
the Commission, nor the member states. This
aspect primarily lies in the hands of the member
states, for the reasons of shared management
explained above. Only one of the five member
states audited (Poland) had a plan for a long term
strategic development of its airport infrastructures,
even though it was not perfect. The other four
countries audited had general and long-term plans
encompassing all modes of transport but these had
no focus on either air travel or airport development.
They were not coordinated with developments
in other transport modes which could potentially
compete with air traffic, such as high speed rail.
For example, in the test visit we made to Valencia
airport, we found out that the opening of the High
speed rail line between this city and Madrid had a
dramatic impact on the air connection to Madrid:
4
Special Report No 21/2014
EU-funded airport infrastructures: poor value
for money continued
less than 10% of the passengers previously taking
a plane to the Spanish capital continued taking
the plane after the opening of the high speed rail
connection. Yet, nobody took this into account
when planning further airport infrastructure
investments in Valencia airport.
R.C. : Often a strategic long-term airport
development plan at national level was missing.
Has the Commission a say in that? What prevents
the Commission from having a complete picture
of all EU investments going to airports?
Luc T’Joen: The Commission has learned the lesson
from the seaports audit (made in 2010, special
report N°4/2012) that a proper long term strategic
planning of transport infrastructures is vital and
a MUST. This principle was applied neither to the
2000-2006 spending nor in the 2007-2013 era. The
Commission has foreseen this as a principle (the
so-called “ex-ante conditionalities”) for the new
spending period (2014-2020).
R.C. : An investment decision is made based
upon the projected costs and revenues of future
operation. How were these calculated?
Luc T’Joen: To assess the risk for the EU of
investing in airport infrastructures which are not
cost-effective and without being too technical,
we calculated an “estimated cost per additional
passenger” and compared this with the planned
cost included in the forecasts made when the
investments were being decided upon. This cost
per additional attracted passenger was calculated
by dividing the capital investments made in the
twenty airports during the audited period by the
number of passengers over a notional twenty year
period (based on the actual number of passengers
up to 2013 and on the latest forecasts made by
the airports for the remainder of the period). The
outcome was that for half of the airports audited,
the cost per additional passenger was many
times higher than foreseen. As one can see below,
the Spanish airports specifically suffered in this
respect, and for two airports (Vigo and Kastoria)
this cost could not even be calculated because
the investments will not attract any additional
passenger within 20 years after completion of the
constructions.
Cost per additional passenger
120
100
euro
80
60
40
20
0
PLANNED COST PER ADDITIONAL PASSENGER
COST PER ADDITIONAL PASSENGER
5
R.C. : Did the Commission take into account
public opinion when granting the EU funds?
Luc T’Joen: As explained above, the funds audited
are part of the shared management system, which
means that the EU co-financing items have been
negotiated long time ago. Practically, funds to be
spent during the 2007-2013 period were negotiated
in 2006; the ones for the 2000-2006 period in the
nineties.
The real result of our performance audits is that
we provoke better, more healthy conditions for
future infrastructures spending: the Commission
now knows how the Court thinks and reports about
the risks related to such investments and I am
convinced that these “errors of the past” will not be
repeated again. We must also give the Commission
the time to remedy; therefore I do hope that for the
2014-2020 infrastructure co-financing we will not
have such errors anymore.
R.C. : The outcome of the audit was that seven of
the twenty audited airports are not financially
self-sustainable. Does that mean that the
Commission will invest even more into these
projects? How can the Commission justify such
poor result?
Luc T’Joen: On the sustainability, the situation
is indeed worrying. By only taking the initial
infrastructure costs (and disregarding all other
operational costs, such as costs to maintain
the infrastructures and for marketing, police,
firefighters, customs and other inspection bodies)
only four of the twenty airports were profitable;
seven had prospects of breaking even in the
medium term while seven others have no prospect
at all of ever breaking even. This implies costs in the
years ahead to keep these airports open.
I personally think there will be either a ban or
a serious limitation on airport infrastructure
investments for the coming period. The main
problem for the member states is the continuous
funding to airports without adequate numbers of
passengers. Countries such as Spain and Greece are
facing budgetary constraints and need to tackle
the delicate question of reducing opening hours or
closing down small airports. As such, the Spanish
Ministry of Development already took a decision
in June 2012 to reduce the maintenance costs of
17 airports having fewer than 500 000 passengers
per year by decreasing their weekly operating
hours and staff numbers. We also noticed recently
that some Greek airport infrastructures are being
sold or leased to Fraport, the German owner of the
Frankfurt airport.
R.C. : What has been the impact of this special
report on the Commission and on the member
states? Did the ECA’s audit provide an input
to the new guidelines on state aid adopted in
February 2014 by the Commission?
Luc T’Joen: The impact of our audit work to the
member states and the Commission was already
apparent through our debriefing meetings
in the countries, and the confirmation of our
understanding of the facts and figures. The SR will
now inform the “man/woman on the bus” about
these issues.
Basically, what we say in our report is that there
are too many airports built too close to each other,
that they built them too big for what was actually
needed, that the “cake is not big enough for all”,
and that this results in underused and sometimes
empty infrastructure. For our assessment of the
area of influence of airports, we used a two hour
catchment area criterion and calculated the number
of inhabitants having the possibility to take a plane
in a neighbouring airport in less than 120 minutes.
An alternative assessment was made using a 90
minutes criterion. Both gave the same image: there
is a proliferation of airports very close to each
other which invested in similar infrastructure and
although most airports had significant overlaps,
there was very little consideration given to
investments in neighbouring airports. Except for
five airports, the vast majority of the population
living in the catchment area of the airports audited
had several other possibilities within a two hour
drive to use a neighbouring airport. In other words,
we build too many and too big.
DG COMP has similar ideas as the state aid
guidelines established since February 2014 and the
recent state aid decisions confirm our audit work:
subsidies to airport infrastructures which are too
close to each other do not contribute to regional
accessibility or development and the duplication of
unprofitable infrastructure is a waste of taxpayers’
money which distorts competition between
Special Report No 21/2014
EU-funded airport infrastructures: poor value
for money continued
airports. We couldn’t have said it better than VicePresident Almunia.
R.C. : To conclude, what shall and can change in
the near future?
Luc T’Joen: This is a learning curve that Member
States have to go through: the earlier focus was on
spending available money before the deadline (so
as not to have to give it back to Brussels). They built
infrastructures which will not be fully used for a
very long time, and in doing so did not consider the
overall costs for society (of keeping these new or
bigger airports open). While the financial crisis has
often been used as an excuse to explain the misuse
of the money, we have here a clear case of a wrong
decision making. The constructions were simply
too big for normal purposes. What the crisis did was
put plainly and clearly the limit on where normal
spending ended, and where exaggeration started.
The following message comes out loud and clear
from this report: plan a long time ahead your
airport infrastructure investments, look at what
is really needed, assess the “all-in” costs (not
only the construction costs, but also the costs
for maintenance, personnel etc) versus the
(socio-economic) benefits upfront, check the
developments in other, competing transport
modes (high speed rail) to see what choices
travellers have for particular destinations, and
liaise with the neighbour airports to see what they
already invested in. Only once all indicators are
“green”, one should go for an additional investment.
I hope that the responsible entities within the
Member States have understood this basic message
and that, through the ex-ante conditionalities work,
the situation improves, for both the managing
authorities (for the future locally approved projects)
and for the Commission’s executive agency INEA
(for investments supported by the “Connecting
Europe Facility” funds). If not, I am confident
that the Commission will intervene and block
investments, as they learned their lesson too.
6
Crisis in the Eurozone periphery: Policy options
for Greece
7
By Kamila Lepkowska, team leader, and Ruth Whittaker, trainee
The conference and its audit background
A leaner state, exports, and investments: these are the key ingredients for the long-term revival of the Greek
economy according to Professors Dmitri Vayanos and Nikos Vettas, who held a conference at the European
Court of Auditors on November 19th 2014. The well-attended event was organised by both the Training Unit
and Milan Martin Cvikl (Dean of Chamber IV), who also chaired the lively discussion following the introductory
lecture, “Crisis in the Eurozone periphery: Policy options for Greece”.
From left to right: Kamila Lepkowska, team leader, Zacharias Kolias, director, Milan Martin
Cvikl, Dean of Chamber IV, Professor Dimitrios Vayanos, London School of Economics,
Nikolaos Vettas, Professor, Athens University of Economics and Business
Professors Vayanos and Vettas come from the
London School of Economics and the Athens
University of Economics and Business respectively,
and are authors of the forthcoming book Crisis in
the Eurozone periphery: Policy options for Greece.
Both speakers provided a general overview of the
most recent trends in the Greek economy during
the conference, and analysed the specific situation
pertaining to key policy areas such as the labour
market, business environment, financial system, and
pensions.
the supervision of ECA Member – Baudilio
Tomè Muguruza. The audit strives to present
a comprehensive analysis of the Commission’s
activities in Greece; in order to do so, the FEG
team will address its two ‘faces’. The ‘Troika
face’ represents the design, implementation,
and monitoring of the Economic Adjustment
Programme for Greece1. The ‘Task Force For Greece
face’ denotes the support and technical assistance
mobilised by the European Commission in order to
facilitate implementation of the reforms.
As explained by Milan Martin Cvikl in his
introductory remarks, the conference was wellattuned to Chamber IV’s current audit work namely the audit of the Commission’s intervention
in the Greek financial crisis carried out by the
Financial and Economic Governance team under
Outside of the general session of November
19th, auditors from the FEG team also had the
opportunity to discuss issues directly stemming
1 This monitoring was part of the conditionality for Greece’s
financial support
Crisis in the Eurozone periphery: Policy options for Greece
continued
Nikolaos Vettas,
Professor, Athens
University of
Economics and
Business,
Professor Dimitrios
Vayanos, London
School of Economics,
from the audit work with the experts. The two
workshops took the form of open Q&A sessions,
with a primary focus on macroeconomic
developments in Greece and their projections
by the European Commission. The progress of
structural policies was also an important topic of
discussion. The workshop sessions further benefited
from short Skype conferences with two additional
experts; Dr. Platon Tinios of the University of Piraeus
discussed the pension reform, and Professor Costas
Meghir of Yale University presented an insight into
his analysis of the labour market situation in Greece.
The Greek economy: back on track for growth?
Both the conference and workshops were guided
by the overarching question: has the Greek
economy been put back on the track of sustainable
growth? This is also one of the key audit questions,
rendering Professor Vettas’s introduction to the
conference particularly relevant from an auditing
perspective.
Thanks to recent data, one can begin describing
economic development in Greece from a positive
angle. In the current quarter, Greek GDP is
expected to increase for the first time after a sixyear recession. In 2015 growth is projected to
reach 2.9%. As stated by Professor Vettas, the main
driving factors of this development are the increase
8
on service exports and stabilisation of domestic
consumption.
According to Professor Vettas, another success story
concerns the fiscal consolidation. The lack of fiscal
discipline2 combined with an uncontrolled debt
spiral forced Greece to the edge of bankruptcy,
and were the immediate reasons for the request
for international financial support. Therefore, the
restoration of fiscal stability became a primary goal
of the programme.
The broadly-designed plan to restore fiscal
consolidation has already produced results.
Greece has been able to fully cover its operational
expenditure since 2013, and the primary
government balance is expected to reach 3% in
2015. However, the general government balance
(including the costs of debt servicing) still remains
in negative territory. As such, no room is left for
the reduction of the accumulated debt pile, which
amounts to 175% of GDP. Despite a significant
reduction in labour costs, the situation with the
labour market remains extremely tense. The
unemployment level exceeds 27%; more than half
of young people cannot find work.
The art of balancing in designing economic
policies
Following the general introduction to recent
economic trends in Greece during the conference
and workshops, the guest speakers focused on
an analysis of the progress of reforms to key
structural policies. Not surprisingly, the reforms
were considered to have produced mixed results.
However, if one conclusion should be drawn, it
would without doubt be the need to find a genuine
balance in designing structural reforms, even under
aggressive circumstances. Economic policy is rarely
so black and white; it is often the case that policy
decisions which appear beneficial on one front
prove to be harmful on another. Professors Veyanos
and Vettas referred to a number of these ‘Gordian
Knots’; a prominent example being the targeted
inflation level. Since 2012, Greece has been running
inflation levels lower than average in the eurozone,
and prices have even been decreasing since 2013.
This development is very good for competitiveness
and export growth. Before the crisis, the “Greek”
euro was overvalued by an estimated 20%-30%.
2 For instance: the budget deficit reached -15% of GDP in 2009
9
Low inflation - or even deflation - helps Greek
companies to be more competitive on the
international market. On the other hand, deflation
also means that the debt pile accumulated by
Greece (over 175% of GDP) is becoming heavier
and the repayment of debt more burdensome.
Healthy inflation would “consume” some of the
debt without a formal recourse to a haircut3. The
speakers’ conclusion was that this situation can only
be solved by northern European countries, which
should run inflation levels higher than the southern
countries (and the ECB target).
Another set of conflicting policy choices concerning
the pension system and fiscal consolidation was
presented. With a view to the much-needed fiscal
savings, the reform programme set ambitious
targets for exits from public administration. This was
partly achieved by encouraging early retirement.
The effective retirement age remains significantly
below the OECD-level average across the entire
Greek economy; raising the retirement age is a
baseline condition of a financially viable pension
system in the ageing Greek society. Yet, in the very
short term it makes public administration savings
more difficult to achieve, and might impact the
effectiveness of certain labour market instruments.
These examples illustrate not only academic
dilemmas, but also the main challenges of the audit.
As auditors, we have to provide a fair assessment of
the policies by taking into consideration not only
immediate results, but also the long-term impacts.
In maintaining a different perspective to academics,
we cannot automatically adopt their conclusions.
However, participation in lively scientific exchange
can certainly inspire our way of analysing the
realities of the financial situation in Greece, as well
as other countries.
Training that addresses auditors’ needs
The events organised in December (made possible
by the noteworthy efforts of the Training Unit)
represent a relatively new type of professional
development at the ECA. Personally, we believe
that a mix of a conferences and workshops proves
very insightful from an auditing perspective. The
auditors involved can secure answers on very
specific topics related to ongoing audit work. For
the broader ECA audience, it offers the opportunity
3 A partial (percentage) reduction of debt
of rapid updates on key topics related to EU
policies. Moreover, a mix of seminars and
Skype conferences gave the audience easy
access to specific expertise from the world’s top
universities, whilst simultaneously maintaining
direct contact and a thoroughly interactive
discussion.
Credible communication between public
authorities and the public – Alex Brenninkmeijer’s
speech at the ‘TiNT’ Dutch terminology day
10
By Ingrid Van Gent, head of unit
a judge, ombudsman and academic, and on the
basis of his recent experience as a member of the
ECA. The first question – regarding the possibility
of clear communication by public authorities – was
answered with an unreserved ‘yes’: it is possible and
even necessary. The second question, concerning
what it takes to communicate clearly, was answered
by looking at the ‘sender-message-recipient’ model
for communication.
Alex Brenninkmeijer, ECA Member
On 14 November 2014 the annual TiNT day was
held in The Hague, Netherlands, at the Dutch
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It was well attended by
some 120 professionals with various backgrounds:
translators, interpreters, representatives of public
authorities. TiNT days (an acronym for “Terminology
in the Dutch-speaking region”) are organised
every year by NL‑Term, the Organisation for Dutch
Terminology, around a certain theme and aimed
at Dutch-speaking users and practitioners of
terminology. This year’s theme being “Terminology
in communication between public authorities
and the public”, Alex Brenninkmeijer was asked
to contribute to this event as a keynote speaker.
The programme also included other speakers
representing the Dutch Immigration and
Naturalisation Service (IND), the tax administration
(Belastingdienst) and the Dutch Language Union
(NTU), who discussed the link between terminology
and communication from their respective
perspectives.
Two questions
During his captivating speech, Alex Brenninkmeijer
analysed the role of the language and terminology
used by public authorities in their communication.
He explored two questions: “Is it actually possible
for public authorities to use clear language – even
while using the necessary terminology or even
jargon – in order to actually reach the public at the
receiving end of this communication, and on what
conditions is this communication credible and
trustworthy to them?” and “What does it take to do
so?” Alex Brenninkmeijer answered these questions
from the perspective of his previous functions as
The central idea was that public authorities should
not be communicating ‘inside out’, but should
consider what type of communication is relevant
to the public, and communicate accordingly. In
many respects, the general public is dependent
upon public authorities, but at the same time the
public’s interest is the sole reason these authorities
exist. The critical citizen is quite demanding where
communication by public authorities is concerned.
For communication to be adequate, it needs to be
precise and credible. In their communication, public
authorities need to faithfully represent policy and
legislation, and to convince at the same time. Their
credibility depends not only on ‘logos’ (laws, rules
and regulations, budgets), but also, in our overrationalised times, on ‘pathos’ (feelings, for instance,
insecurity) and ‘ethos’ (what do public authorities
stand for: reliability, integrity, moderation?).
Clear language and justice
Alex Brenninkmeijer’s experience as a judge
showed that clear language is key to the good
administration of justice. Although a judge often
applies complex laws and regulations, and handles
terminology meticulously, clear communication
in court and in judgments is possible and even
necessary. Fair administration of justice is closely
linked to understandable communication, but the
need to communicate clearly is not always obvious
to the judge. Better contacts and timely, effective
communication between parties and lawyers can
result in fewer lawsuits, solving conflicts which may
escalate due to complicated language.
In his role as the Dutch national ombudsman,
Alex Brenninkmeijer was presented with a book
on ‘officialese’ and its consequences. It tends to
keep members of the public at a distance and can
lead to difficult communication. He conducted
a number of projects in order to improve
communication, including one concerning CAK (a
11
body which implements a special medical expenses
insurance law), following complaints that letters
which complied with the applicable legislative
framework were not necessarily conveying a clear
message. The national ombudsman formulated
four principles for clear communication: it needs
to be recognizable, personal, compact and
straightforward (avoiding difficult concepts and
jargon, using short sentences in the active voice,
with proper use of headings and a clear structure).
Where special terminology is used, complicated
terms should be avoided or explained. Furthermore,
communication should consist of two layers: a short
letter should be accompanied by calculations and
explanations, which can also be found in folders or
on the website. These principles were elaborated
into guidelines for all Dutch public authorities. The
advantage of this approach is that communication
improves, and in addition, complaints against
public authorities can be avoided, thus saving them
considerable cost (public money) and effort. In this
respect, the participation of members of the public
and their involvement in this process by public
authorities are essential to find solutions. Given
the trend towards digitalising public services, we
have to consider attitudes towards language in the
digital world. In a digital environment, language
needs to be even clearer.
Plain language for the auditor
Alex Brenninkmeijer discovered yet another
perspective on the issue of plain language in his
capacity as member of the ECA. In his current
function, he realized that – even more so than
lawyers – auditors seem to use technical terms and
jargon. When he was introduced to the European
Parliament as a nominee for membership of the
ECA, he argued that ECA’s annual report was
almost unreadable.( An illustrative example was the
message that the most likely error rate was
4.8 %; he argued that ‘error rate’ was a term implying
that financial management was inadequate but
journalists tended to deduce from this that
€ 7 billion of EU money were wasted.) In order to
put his words into action, Alex Brenninkmeijer
organised a seminar on ‘plain language’ –
incidentally on Dutch liberation day (May 5th)
– featuring an experienced Dutch journalist for
European affairs and Martin Cutts, the author of
the Oxford Guide to Plain English. In the Englishspeaking world, plain language is a big issue, but
in French-speaking regions (except for Québec),
little attention is being paid to plain language; this
seems to be a matter of cultural differences. In his
speech, Alex Brenninkmeijer quoted Cambridge
economist Han-Joon Chang, according to whom
economic knowledge is mostly (95 %) based on
common sense, but is complicated by the use of
jargon and mathematics. The same could be said
of auditors’ language and terminology: by using
jargon and unrecognisable terminology, auditors
tend to create a big gap between themselves and
otherwise interested stakeholders. As a member,
he made successful attempts to remedy this by
having the information note on the 2013 annual
report redrafted in plain language; a striking
example of this exercice is a passage from this
note: “Payments for 2013 are materially affected by
error. The ECA therefore gives an adverse opinion
on their legality and regularity”. In this context, he
commented on the term “materiality”, which could
be better described as the level at which irregular
payments become a concern and require improved
management.
Communication and credibility
In conclusion, Alex Brenninkmeijer argued that use
of plain language by public authorities is possible
and increases their credibility. To this end, they
need to be aware of the language which they use
and of the importance of language as a means of
communication. Complicated language and an
excessive use of terminology can impair public
authorities’ communication with the general public,
who - being sense-makers - try to understand what
is going on using the information at their disposal.
If they are treated fairly by public authorities,
this legitimises the latter and makes it easier for
members of the public to accept even negative
decisions. Public authorities’ credibility does not
only depend on ‘logos’, but also on ‘pathos’ and
‘ethos’. The latter two, however, are more difficult to
express in writing and may sometimes necessitate
personal contact. When all of these factors are
taken into account, plain language contributes to
the quality of public authorities’ communication
and hence their credibility, even if they need to use
terminology and jargon.
PRESENTATION OF THE 2013 ANNUAL REPORT
TO NATIONAL AUTHORITIES
Presentation of the 2013 Annual Report to the
Slovene authorities
12
By Andreja Rovan, private office attachée
Governor of the Bank of Slovenia as regards the EBA
Special Report, stress tests performed over 2011-14
period, and forthcoming SSM audit in line with our
first Landscape Review.
Milan Martin Cvikl, ECA Member, handing over the ECA 2013
Annual Report to Dr Milan Brglez, Speaker of the National
Assembly
In November Milan Martin Cvikl visited Slovenia to
present the Court’s Annual Report for 2013. That
was his fourth presentation in Ljubljana and the first
to the new Slovene Government and Parliament.
Though the findings relate to the implementation
in the previous year, the new bodies took the main
messages and recommendations of the European
Court of Auditors very seriously with the aim to
undertake the necessary improvements in the
management of the European funds.
At the beginning of the visit, Milan Martin Cvikl
individually met the Minister of Finance, the
Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Food and the
Minister of Development, Strategic Projects and
Cohesion (the responsible managing authorities)
in order to highlight issues or reports of relevance
to their areas of activity when implementing the
European budget. Some felt that they could make
use of the Court’s work in their decision making
process – it was useful for them to see examples of
‘best practice’, as well as examples of weak systems
and processes. The Ministers were interested to
know more about our Annual and Special Reports,
in particular SR 5/2014 on European Banking
Authority (EBA) and SR 11/2013 on the quality of
the Gross National Income data. Special interest
was put on the just published ECA opinion on the
proposal for a Council Regulation on the system
of the European Communities’ own resources, as
this legislation increased budget uncertainty of the
Member States right before the end of the financial
year. There was also an exchange of views with the
During the first presentation, Milan Martin Cvikl
introduced the Annual Report to the Ministers,
State Secretaries and the core leading team of top
technocrats covering budget, revenues, accounting,
financial control and internal audit departments
of the Slovene Ministry of Finance, the Ministry
of Agriculture, the Ministry for Development,
Strategic Projects and Cohesion, and the Ministry
of Economic Development and Technology. Key
messages of Annual Report were thoroughly
discussed, especially findings in relations to rural
development and structural funds. In connection
with the finding regarding the project financed by
the European Fund for Regional Development (Box
5.4 of AR 2013) they asked for further details of the
Court findings and the EU case law on definition
of SME. They were interested to know how the
Court cooperates with the OLAF and who would
bear the consequences in case that the company
in question which does not agree with the finding
would succeed at the national court. In addition
there was a discussion how Slovenia shall organise
and prepare for its first own national declaration
in line with the Lisbon Treaty requirements on the
role and responsibility of the Member States in the
programming, managing and controlling of the EU
funds.
In line with the practice established by the previous
Government, the new Government of the Republic
of Slovenia invited Milan Martin Cvikl to present the
main findings and recommendations of the Annual
Report at its regular session. Following presentation,
there was a brief exchange during which the
Prime Minister welcomed the presentation as the
improvement of the management of the European
funds is high on the Government’s Agenda. The
Government was also interested in the new type
of product of the Court: the Landscape Review of
the risks to the financial management of the EU
budget, as well as the one on the EU accountability
and public audit arrangements. It was proposed
that once responsible Ministers would review the
just published Landscape Review, a follow-up
presentation and discussion on lessons learned
could be organised. Milan Martin Cvikl met Prime
13
Minister tête-à-tête to discuss key issues of what
can be done by national authorities to identify
irregularities and thus to reduce error rate.
In the continuation of the visit, Milan Martin
Cvikl handed over the 2013 Annual Report to the
President of the National Assembly, which is the
legislative chamber of Parliament. In this context he
formally presented him with the ECA Annual Report
recommendations and supporting documents.
The President of the National Assembly, Dr Brglez,
was interested how the high error rate of the EU
expenditure could be lowered. They also touched
upon the way in which the ECA Annual Report and
other reports should be discussed in the Parliament
in order to enhance better cooperation with the
Conference of Community and European Affairs
Committees of Parliaments of the European Union
(COSAC) in line with Article 10 of Protocol 1 to
Lisbon Treaty. The media covered the event and
the summary was published later on the National
Assembly website.
This year there was the first joint formal meeting
of the three committees of the National Assembly
convened for the presentation of the ECA Annual
Report – an indication that they had reflected
on the implications of the Lisbon Treaty. At this
joint meeting of the Budget Control Committee,
the EU Affairs Committee and the Foreign Affairs
Committee, other key stakeholders also attended
– such as the responsible Minister and other
representatives from the Government as well as
the First Deputy President of the Slovenian Court
of Audit. During the question and answer session
the main topics were the national management
declarations, difficulties in implementation of small
rural development projects (pointed out also in
the SR 5/2010 – Implementation of the Leader
approach for rural development), the need to
reduce the level of error in cohesion projects and
agricultural spending etc. In this context, both
our Landscape Reviews were welcomed. It was
agreed to hold a separate session on the Landscape
Review on the risks to the financial management. In
addition, Milan Martin Cvikl offered to present the
trends described in the latest report on agriculture
and cohesion spending on the previous financial
perspective after the document being available in
the Slovene language. At the end of the meeting a
formal decision was adopted that three Committees
had been informed about the 2013 ECA Annual
Report. The entire meeting was web streamed and
broadcasted on the national television channel of
the Parliament.
Milan Martin Cvikl in line with Protocol 1 to
the Lisbon Treaty also handed over our Annual
Report to the President of the National Council
– the second or upper chamber of the Slovene
Parliament. The President of the National Council,
Mr. Bervar was very open to the main messages of
the Court being aware that politicians need to take
responsibility and be accountable for their work,
connected to the national and the EU funds. The
formal presentation to the plenary session of the
Council will take place at the beginning of the next
year.
Milan Martin Cvikl had a meeting with the President
of the Slovene Court of Audit, Tomaž Vesel. They
discussed matters of mutual interest. Tomaž Vesel
presented the horizontal audit of the European
funds. On future work he pointed out that there
have been many additional requests for new audits
in new audit areas (i.e. audit of Slovene resolution
authority), and that due to the limited resources
there is a need to reflect on the priorities of the
work of the Court.
During the visit there was also some interest from
the media. Milan Martin Cvikl had an interview for
the Slovene Press Agency. In the interview he spoke
about the role of the European Court of Auditors,
findings of the Annual Report 2013 and recently
issued Special Reports and Landscape Reviews.
The journalist reported about these issues, as well
as some other issues such as relations between
Slovenia and the EU budget, the need for better
management of the European funds, and the need
to ensure accountability for the use of these funds.
Presentation to officials at the Ministry of Finance
Presentation of the 2013 Annual Report
in Slovakia
14
By Branislav Urbanič, head of private office
EU funds absorption in some Member States, or the
corrective actions taken by the Member States and
the Commission. The Members of the Committee
appreciated the interesting presentation and
discussion, and the Committee adopted a
resolution taking note of the Annual Report.
Presentation of the Annual Reports 2013 by Ladislav Balko,
ECA Member
The presentation of the European Court of Auditors’
Annual Reports 2013, with the focus on the Annual
Report on the implementation of the EU budget,
took place in Bratislava from 27 November to
1 December 2014.
On 27 November, Ladislav Balko together with
the Head of his private office Branislav Urbanič,
presented the 2013 Annual Report on the
implementation of the EU budget at a formal
meeting of the Committee on European Affairs of
the National Council of the Slovak Republic (the
Parliament). Along with providing an overview of
the main findings and conclusions of the Annual
Report, Ladislav Balko stressed the need to place
more emphasis on achieving results with the EU
money rather than to simply spending it (“use it or
lose it”), and the yet again increased amount to be
funded from future budgets (322 billion euro at the
end of 2013). He also underlined that, for a large
proportion of the errors found, national authorities
had sufficient information to correct many
errors before claiming reimbursement from the
Commission, which would have reduced the Most
Likely Error rate for example for Chapter 5 dealing
with Cohesion by 3 percentage points, that is, from
6,9% to 3,9%. During the subsequent exchange of
views with the Members of the Committee, Ladislav
Balko answered their questions concerning inter
alia the differences between error rates and error
frequencies, the Court’s views on the legislation
concerning the new programming period 20142020, the increased focus on performance, the low
On 27 November, Ladislav Balko visited the
Supreme Audit Office of the Slovak Republic (SAO),
and delivered a presentation at a meeting chaired
by the SAO President Ján Jasovský and followed
by staff either directly at the SAO headquarters in
Bratislava or following the presentation through
videoconference in SAO regional offices. Ladislav
Balko presented the main findings and conclusions
for each of the specific assessments, and pointed to
the instances where the Annual Report mentions
Slovakia, for example in connection with the low
disbursement rates for Financial Engineering
Instruments. In the course of the interesting
discussion which ensued, Ladislav Balko and
Branislav Urbanič answered the participants’
questions concerning inter alia simplification,
the new legislation concerning the 2014-2020
programming period and especially the corrective
mechanisms thereunder, the Financial Engineering
Instruments, the Commission’s guidance to Member
States, and the Court’s cooperation with national
SAIs.
Finally, on 1 December 2014, Ladislav Balko
presented the 2013 Annual Report to the Minister
of Finance of the Slovak Republic Peter Kažimír.
Presentation of the 2013 Annual Report
in Cyprus
15
By Andreas Antoniades, private office attaché
On 18 and 19 November 2014, Lazaros S. Lazarou, ECA Member responsible for the statement of
assurance, presented the 2013 ECA annual report in Cyprus
On the same day, Lazaros S. Lazarou met with
Yiannakis L. Omirou, President of the House of
Representatives, and presented the annual report,
briefing him on the main messages and on ECA’s
cooperation with the European and national
Parliaments. In an official statement, President
Omirou congratulated the ECA for its effective
oversight role in EU financial management and
Lazaros S. Lazarou for his contribution in the work
of ECA and more specifically on statement of
assurance related issues.
Lazaros S. Lazarou presenting the annual report to Nicos
Anastasiades, President of the Republic of Cyprus
On 18 November 2014, Lazaros S. Lazarou met with
Nicos Anastasiades, President of the Republic
of Cyprus, and presented the annual report,
briefing the President on the main messages, the
challenges ahead for the ECA and its contribution
to the success of the European project. He also
conveyed to the President his best wishes for
success and a speedy recovery on a forthcoming
medical treatment.
Following the meeting with President Omirou,
Lazaros S. Lazarou presented the annual report in a
joint meeting of the Parliamentary Committees on
Development Plans and Public Expenditure Control
(Public Accounts Audit Committee), on Financial
and Budgetary Affairs and on Foreign and European
Affairs. The Chairman of the Public Accounts Audit
Committee, who chaired the meeting, referred
to the Lisbon Treaty and the role the national
Parliaments exercise in the public oversight of EU
money. He praised the ECA for its work and added
that the national Parliaments can contribute in the
improvement of the legality and regularity, and
sound financial management of EU funds.
The joint parliamentary committee meeting was
attended by officials including the Auditor General,
heads or representatives and staff of national
authorities responsible for the management and
audit of EU funds, and press reporters.
Mr Lazarou presenting the annual report to Mr Yiannakis L.
Omirou, President of the House of Representatives
In his speech Lazaros S. Lazarou presented the
annual report, an outline of the background
document “Agriculture and cohesion: Overview
of EU spending 2007-2013”, the contribution of
his private office to the ECA work, EU financial
management issues concerning Cyprus including
the performance audit on public procurement and
the challenges ahead for the ECA including its role
in achieving better results from the EU budget. The
presentation was followed by a discussion with
Lazaros S. Lazarou addressing questions from the
Members of Parliament.
Presentation of the 2013 Annual Report in Cyprus
continued
16
The main points of the discussion included the
challenge to achieve better results from the EU
budget including youth employment, the role
of the ECA in combating fraud, the absorption
capacity in EU funds of Cyprus in the main policy
areas and the recent GNI adjustment affecting
Cyprus.
Following the conclusion of the meeting, the
Chairman of the Public Accounts Audit Committee
and Lazaros S. Lazarou were invited and gave a
press briefing.
The presentation of the 2013 ECA annual report
received extensive media coverage in the Cyprus
national news agency, the press and television, and
radio stations. Lazaros S. Lazarou was invited to
be a guest on the main news broadcast of one of
the most popular TV stations in Cyprus (ANT1 TV),
where he presented the role and the work of the
ECA, issues on EU financial management and issues
relating to Cyprus.
TV studio – “ANT1 NEWS”, main news broadcast on
18 November 2014
Presentation of the 2013 Annual Report
in Germany
By the private office of Klaus-Heiner Lehne, ECA Member
On the left, Klaus-Heiner Lehne, ECA Member
On 5 December, Klaus-Heiner Lehne presented the
ECA 2013 annual report to the Budget Control Committee
of the German Parliament. Klaus-Heiner Lehne gave a
short overview of the Court’s findings concerning
the different policy areas and described the
development of the error rate over the last years. He
also highlighted the fact that most errors occurred
in the field of shared management and stressed
the responsibility of Member States in that regard.
Finally, Klaus-Heiner Lehne referred to the ongoing
reforms in the Court which aim at strengthening
ECA’s efficiency and impact and emphasized
the importance of performance audits. The
presentation was followed by a lively discussion.
Presentation of the 2013 Annual Report
in the Czech Supreme Audit Office
17
By Jan Kinšt, ECA Member
Both Court´s representatives were invited by the
President of NKÚ, Miloslav Kala, to attend the
management seminar of NKÚ on the following day.
A number of interesting recent developments and
future policies was discussed there, notably from
the areas of compliance risk detection, broadening
the NKU´s legal mandate, audit task programming,
internal and external communication and
cooperation with other SAIs.
Jan Kinšt, ECA Member, and Miroslav Kala, President of
the Czech Supreme Audit Office
As every year, Jan Kinšt, ECA Member, presented the
key outcomes of the ECA’s financial and compliance
audit for the year 2013 to the management of the
Czech Republic´s Supreme Audit Office (NKÚ) on
2 December 2014. Jan Kinšt mentioned the key
messages of the Annual report 2013 and focused
on the issues in the areas of shared management,
which are also often the subjects of the NKÚ´s
own audits. Presentation of annual results, error
rates and problems in management and control
in 2013 was then followed by the introduction
of the Court´s overview report on cohesion and
agriculture spending in 2007-2013.
In the second part of the presentation, Milan Šmíd,
Chamber II team leader, presented several case
studies regarding the errors detected in public
procurement in the Czech Republic in recent Court
audits. As in many EU states, this area is very prone
to errors in the structural funds´ execution in the
Czech Republic. There was a very useful exchange
of views with the auditors from the NKÚ about
the application of relevant law in these cases. In
general, such meetings with the national audit
experts provide always a good opportunity to hold
a very fruitful discussion coming sometimes to very
technical aspects and details.
Milan Šmíd, team leader Chamber II
18
The new environmental
policy of the ECA
By Natalia Krzempek, project manager
“Whether we like it or not, we are now entering a century of the environment.” –
Ernst Ulrich von Weizäcker, German scientist and politician
Environmental issues
first emerged on the
European Union’s political
scene in the 1960s and
soon became a principal
topic in all areas of public
discussion.
The scale of the
environmental problems
we are currently facing
and the increased public interest in these issues
have greatly influenced management decisions
at the Court. As a result, the Court now wants to
show that not only are its values and its mission in
keeping with the principles of sound environmental
management but so too are the way it works and its
day-to-day decisions.
Natalia Krzempek,
project manager
In 2013, the administrative services of the Court
launched the EMAS project, as laid down in
Regulation (EC) No 1221/2009 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009
on the voluntary participation by organisations in
a Community eco-management and audit scheme
(EMAS), with the objective of obtaining EMAS
certification by the end of 2016.
Formal adoption of an environmental policy forms
part of the EMAS project.
In January 2013, the Secretary-General and the
Director of Finance and Support signed a document
setting out environmental aims for the Court’s
administrative services and establishing, for the first
time, our level of environmental responsibility.
An official environmental policy document was
adopted by the Court and signed by the President
and the Secretary-General on 28 November 2014.
It includes a commitment to continuously improve
the Court’s environmental performance, to prevent
pollution and to comply with all relevant legal
requirements.
This new document provides
a framework for the Court’s
environmental objectives and
activities (see table on next page
for some examples), against which
all the Court’s future actions
will be judged. It will be made
available to the general public in
due course.
Setting up an environmental management system
and adopting an environmental policy with a
view to obtaining independent certification will
enable the Court to deliver tangible results and to
demonstrate the quality of its work. This approach
sits very well within the wider strategy and area
of activity in that it will help to make buildings
functional, economical and comfortable for their
occupants, thus strengthening the ECA’s image as
a modern and environmentally conscious public
body.
19
Table
Environmental policy commitments
-
introducing measures to reduce
carbon dioxide emissions
-
promoting the efficient use
of energy and taking steps
to reduce consumption of
electricity, water and paper
Key activities
The carbon footprint exercise and implementation of the
greenhouse gas protocol methodology is scheduled for
the third trimester of 2015.
Progress has already been made in this area:
-
-
-
gradual replacement of fluorescent tubes with LEDs and
upgrading of video-conferencing equipment;
implementation of the printing policy;
use of 100% recycled paper and electricity that comes
100% from renewable sources.
-
including environmental criteria
in its public procurement
procedures
We have started including environmental criteria in
recent invitations to tender, aimed at awarding contracts
to contractors who provide an environmentally friendly
service.
-
introducing best waste
management practices
The Court was awarded a quality label for exemplary waste
management (Superdreckskëscht).
We launched the “ECA donation programme” in order to
increase reuse of IT equipment.
encouraging all staff to act
sustainably and contribute
actively to achieving the targets
of this policy.
The Court is convinced that each member of staff
can make a contribution to improving the Court’s
environmental performance. We therefore promote best
practices throughout the organisation by means of various
environmental campaigns, events and seminars, such as
Mobility Week, the “Green IT” seminar, a presentation on
the printing policy, the “Take the stairs” campaign, Earth
Hour, and eco-consciousness training for
newcomers.
-
E
FOCUS
A
20
Focus
Special Report N° 18/2014 EuropeAid’s evaluation and results-oriented
monitoring systems
Evaluation and results oriented monitoring (ROM) are part of EuropeAid’s
results accountability framework. The Court found that EuropeAid’s
evaluation and ROM systems are not sufficiently reliable. Overall,
evaluation and ROM functions are well organised. However, some
weaknesses in the design and implementation of the systems reduce
EuropeAid’s capacity to assess and report on EU’s policy achievements.
This report was published on 11 December 2014.
Special Report N°21/2014
EU-funded airport infrastructures:
poor value for money
The Court audited 20 airports in five Member States and found that
EU funding is in many cases provided to airports in close proximity to
each other: for 13 airports, significant overlaps exist with the catchment
areas of neighbouring airports. This produced poor value for money
and resulted in oversizing of the EU-funded infrastructures and in
overcapacity. The Court also observes that the EU-funding was not costeffective and that seven of the airports examined are not profitable: these
may need to be closed unless they receive continuous public financial
support. The EU funding of airports is not well co-ordinated at national
level and, in particular as regards Major Projects and Cohesion fund
Projects, insufficiently supervised by the Commission which generally
does not know which airports receive funding, and how much they
receive (see pages from 2 to 6).
This report was published on 16 December 2014.
Special Report N°22/2014 Achieving economy: keeping the costs of EU-financed rural
development project grants under control
Member States implement a large part of the EU’s rural development
policy by providing grants towards the costs of investments and other
projects undertaken by farmers, rural businesses, associations and local
authorities.
The Court found that some Member States had poorly-designed systems
for checking that the costs of these grants were reasonable. Workable
and cost-effective approaches existed but were not widely followed.
The Court outlines good practices found in the course of its audit, and
concludes that there is considerable scope for making real savings in rural
development project grants in the 2014-2020 period by applying these
good practices.
This report was published on 15 December 2014.
E
FOCUS
A
21
Focus
Meeting with Commissioner Phil Hogan and
Director-General Jerzy Bogdan Plewa
On November 26, the new Member of the
Commission responsible for Agriculture and Rural
Development, together with the Director-General
of DG AGRI (the Directorate-General for Agriculture
and Rural Development) visited the Court and met
members of Chamber 1. The Dean, Rasa Budbergytė,
and the other Members introduced the Chamber’s
activities and priorities while Phil Hogan presented
his direction and priorities for the implementation
of the new CAP: a focus on performance, as well as
contributing to jobs and growth, climate change,
simplification, subsidiarity and new markets.
The meeting set a solid foundation for further
cooperation between the Court and the Commission.
Commissioner Phil Hogan
In January 2015 the Court says:
Hello to:
BODE Marcel
CORRADI Marco
ERSHAMMAR Samuel
GUSEK Sibylle
LARSEN Hege
Goodbye to:
ADAMCZYK Agnieszka
BREIVIENE Veronika
CACHIA ZAMMIT Raymond
COMPAGNONI Silvia
CZARNECKI Rafal
DOMOK Adrienn
FAJERTAG Giuseppe
FRAYSSE Nicole
OSETE Francois
MASSI Marie-Ange
SCHLEIDER Josy
VERSCHAFFEL Veronique
WESTER Stephanie
In memoriam
Nous avons le regret d’ annoncer le décès de notre collègue Josef Gössl survenu le
16 décembre 2014 à Luxembourg.
E
SOCIAL
A
22
ECA Social
Model European Parliament-41st International session in Luxembourg
By Zoi Papadopoulou, assistant in the Private Office of Lazaros S. Lazarou, ECA Member
The Model European Parliament programme for young
delegates was initiated in 1994 with the aim to foster
better understanding and awareness of European
issues. The 41st International session of the Model
European Parliament was hosted by the Lycée Aline
Mayrisch during 8-15 November 2014, under the
auspices of Xavier Bettel, Prime Minister of Luxembourg.
The 175 delegates (high school students) from the 28
Member States and the candidate countries exchanged
views and debated on current European issues in ten
thematic committees, delivering relevant resolutions.
The MEP Luxembourg opening ceremony with
H.R.H. Grand-Duchess Maria Teresa of Luxembourg delivering
the keynote speech which impressed and touched the
delegates and participants.
The opening ceremony on 10 November, took place at
the Conservatoire of Luxembourg in the presence of
H.R.H. the Grand - Duchess Maria Teresa of Luxembourg
who delivered the keynote speech and Xavier Bettel,
Prime Minister of Luxembourg who also delivered
a speech. It was attended by the Ambassadors in
Luxembourg of the national delegations and, following
an invitation from the host school, by Lazaros S. Lazarou,
ECA Member.
Lazaros S. Lazarou welcomed the
MEP delegation from Cyprus (five
high school students from the
Lyceum Acropolis accompanied
by Ms Maria Iacovidou, deputy
headteacher) upon their arrival in
Luxembourg and on
10 November he welcomed them
at the ECA in a dinner reception
where they had the opportunity
to become acquainted with the
ECA and its work and exchange
views on current European issues.
Lazaros S. Lazarou welcoming at the ECA the MEP delegation from Cyprus accompanied by
Maria Iacovidou, deputy headteacher at the Lyceum Acropolis of Cyprus
Preparation of programming documents
for the EU cohesion policy for the years
2014-2020 in Poland
23
By Beata Blasiak-Nowak
economic advisor in the Public Administration Department of the Supreme Audit Office (NIK)
and Marzena Rajczewska
technical advisor in the Public Administration Department of the NIK
Marzena Rajczewska and Beata Blaziak-Nowak
Introduction
Poland looks set to receive a total of € 82.5 billion
from the EU budget under the EU's structural
policies during the period 2014-2020. To make
full use of the funding available, Poland's public
administration has taken steps to draw up the
necessary programming documents, including
a partnership agreement and operational
programmes.
A partnership agreement is a document which sets
out the strategy for how EU funding will be used in
Poland under three EU policies i.e. Cohesion Policy,
Common Agricultural Policy and the Common
Fisheries Policy during the new financing period
of 2014-2020. A partnership agreement forms a
reference point which outlines in detail the content
of the operational programmes. Operational
programmes are detailed implementing documents
which specify the method for implementing
Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund in a given
area. The partnership agreement negotiated with
the European Commission, together with the
operational programmes, provide the basis on which
the new financial perspective will be implemented in
Poland. The Supreme Audit Office of Poland audited the
preparation of the system for implementing the
structural policy for the years 2014-20201. The
1 Information on the audit results: Przygotowanie systemu
wdrażania polityki strukturalnej na lata 2014-2020 (Preparing the
System for Implementing Structural Policy for the years 20142020). NIK, August 2014.
Supreme Audit Office carried out this audit to
verify whether the action taken by the Minister
for Infrastructure and Development and the 16
Voivodship Boards (executive authorities of all
the Polish regions) as part of the preparation of
the partnership agreement and the national and
regional operational programmes was correct and
effective. A panel of experts was set up during
the preparation for this audit, bringing together
scientists, representatives of local, regional and
central administration, NGOs and a Member of
the European Parliament. The audit approach
adopted was somewhat atypical in the sense that
the audit was carried out at the same time that the
programming documents for the years 2014-2020
were actually being prepared. The audit covered the
period up to the end of April 2014. Given the steady
progress made regarding the work, the level of
preparation changed dynamically during the course
of the audit.
The audit carried out by NIK established, among
others, that the Minister for Infrastructure and
Development organised and conducted the
process of preparing the basic documents in
an appropriate manner. Poland submitted its
draft partnership agreement to the European
Commission on 10 January 2014 and was the first
Member State to do so. Following negotiations,
the partnership agreement was approved by the
European Commission in May 2014. Only two other
Member States - Denmark and Germany - signed
their partnership agreements with the Commission
before Poland. The draft versions of the operational
programmes were also drawn up and sent on time
to the European Commission for negotiation and
approval. The work on preparing the partnership
agreement and the operational programmes was
carried out simultaneously, which meant it was
possible to speed up work on the documents at
both national and regional level.
The European Commission has the power to issue
implementing acts and delegated acts. The NIK
audit revealed that the Commission had yet to
issue many of the acts in question. In addition,
at the time when the audit was carried out, the
Commission still needed to establish guidelines for
many aspects relating to the implementation of
the funds under the new financial perspective. This
Preparation of programming documents
for the EU cohesion policy for the years 2014-2020 in Poland
continued
had a significant impact on the organisation and
progress of the preparatory work under way in the
ministry and at regional level.
New programming rules for the 2014-2020
financial perspective
The European system for the programming and
execution of the EU budget has significantly
changed for the 2014-2020 financing period. The
most fundamental change from the current financial
perspective concerns the introduction of common
provisions for all financial instruments under
Cohesion Policy, the Common Agricultural Policy
and the Common Fisheries Policy, involving the
introduction of mechanisms for the joint planning,
programming, monitoring and evaluation as well as
a common approach regarding the concentration
of thematic objectives, which are results oriented 2.
The new provisions of the Regulation on Structural
and Cohesion Funds for 2014-2020 aim to ensure
the closer coordination of policies and a more
focused approach towards policy programming and
implementation. Accordingly, the national system for
implementing these funds needs to take account of
these changes.
To help the Member States with their preparations
for the next programming period, the European
Commission presented the Common Strategic
Framework in March 20123, setting out the main
objectives in terms of programming the use of
resources under the Structural and Cohesion Funds
for ensuring sectorial and territorial coordination.
The Member States were required to use this
document as a basis for the preparation of their
draft partnership agreements with the European
Commission.
24
On 26 September 2012, the European Commission
published an internal document entitled Position of
the European Commission services on the preparation
of the partnership agreement and programmes
in Poland for 2014-20204. In this document, the
European Commission set out the main conditions
and key areas for action under the structural and
cohesion funds for the period 2014-2020. The
Commission also identified the key challenges for
Poland and outlined Poland's main funding priorities
in terms of public spending to stimulate economic
growth. In the Commission's opinion, future EU
expenditure should focus on priority areas in order to
get the best possible results rather than diluting the
funding available across many areas.
EU law on the preparation of programming
documents
Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013
laying down common provisions on the European
Regional Development Fund, the European Social
Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural
Fund for Rural Development and the European
Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down
general provisions on the European Regional
Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the
Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and
Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation
(EC) No 1083/20065 (Regulation No 1303/2013)
was published in the Official Journal of the EU
on 20 December 2013 and differs substantially
from subsequent proposals from the European
Commission and the European Parliament6.
2 More details: P. Russel, Ewolucja wieloletnich ram finansowych
Unii Europejskiej (Evolution of EU multi-annual financial
framework) BAS study No 3/1012. Wielkie pieniądze z
ograniczeniami (Big money with limitations) Polityka spójności po
2013 r. (Cohesion policy after 2013) in „Perspektywy Europejskie”
No 3/2012. Dobrzycka, M., Grudecka A.: Fundusze europejskie
na lata 2014-2020 (European funds for 2014-2020) „Prawo
Europejskie” No 9/2013.
3 European Commission working document of 14 March 2012
Elements for a Common Strategic Framework 2014-2020: the
European Regional Development Fund, the European Social
Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for
Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries
Fund, Part I and II (SWD(2012)61final), http://ec.europa.eu/
regional_policy/what/future/index_pl.cfm#12.
4 http://www.MIR.gov.pl/fundusze/fundusze_
europejskie_2014_2020/programowanie_2014_2020/strony/
glowna.aspx
5 See: OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 320 as amended
6 More information about the solutions put forward by the
European Commission in draft Regulation No 1303/2013:
M. Szymański, Kontrola projektów w ramach polityki spójności
oraz propozycje na okres programowania 2014-2020 (Monitoring
projects under cohesion policy and proposals for the 2014-2020
programming period). Kontrola Państwowa, No 3/2012
25
According to the definition contained in Article 2
(20) of Regulation No 1303/2013, a partnership
agreement is a document prepared by a Member
State with the involvement of partners in line with
the multi-level governance approach, which sets
out that Member State's strategy, priorities and
arrangements for using the ESI Funds in an effective
and efficient way so as to pursue the Union strategy
for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, and
which is approved by the Commission following
assessment and dialogue with the Member
State concerned. The preparation of partnership
agreements is regulated by Article 14 of Regulation
(EC) No 1303/2013. In accordance with Article 14
of Regulation (EC) No 1303/2013, each Member
State prepares its draft partnership agreement and
submits it to the European Commission by 22 April
2014.
In accordance with Article 26(3) of Regulation
No 1303/2013, funds are implemented through
programmes in accordance with the Partnership
Agreement. Each programme covers the period
from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2020. The
programmes are prepared by the Member States
or by any other institution appointed by them for
this purpose. Programmes are submitted to the
European Commission within a period of three
months of the presentation of the partnership
agreement.
The detailed rules for the implementation of
Structural Funds and of the Cohesion Fund for
the period 2014-2020 and which apply to the
preparation of programming documents are set out
in:
1) Regulation (EU) No 1301/2013 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 17 December
2013 on the European Regional Development
Fund and on specific provisions concerning
the Investment for growth and jobs goal and
repealing Regulation (EC) No 1080/20067,
2) Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013 of the
European Parliament and of the Council of
17 December 2013 on the European Social
Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC)
No 1081/20068,
7 See: OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p.289.
8 See: OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p.470.
3) Regulation (EU) No 1300/2013 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 17 December
2013 on the Cohesion Fund and repealing
Council Regulation (EC) No 1084/20069.
In accordance with the provisions of Article 149(2)
(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1303/2013, the power
to adopt delegated acts was conferred on the
European Commission. Some of these acts are of
key importance for programming. They should be
prepared as quickly as possible by the European
Commission and adopted immediately after the
adoption of the legislative package for cohesion
policy for 2014-2020.
Polish law and organising the preparation of
programming documents
The general principles for the programming, use,
management and monitoring of funds under
the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund in
Poland are set out in the Act on the Principles of
Development Policy of 6 December 2006 10, which
– alongside the EU regulations – provides the legal
basis for the implementation of Structural Funds
and of the Cohesion Fund in Poland. This Act
stipulates the principles for the implementation
of the regional policy, the entities which execute
this policy and the forms of cooperation among
them including, among others, the principles
for establishing and implementing operational
programmes and the responsibilities and tasks of
the individual institutions within the management
and control system of these programmes.
At its meeting of 15 October 2013, Poland's
Council of Ministers adopted a draft proposal to
amend the Act on the Principles of Development
Policy and certain other acts (the so-called bridge
act)11. Poland's parliament, the Sejm, adopted the
amendments to this Act on 24 January 2014 and
the amendments became effective on 8 April 2014.
The amended Act on the Principles of Development
Policy establishes a legal framework - taking into
account the regulations of EU law - for the process
of programming the budgetary perspective for
2014-2020 and, among others, extends the powers
of the Minister responsible for regional policy
9 See: OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 281.
10 See: 2009 Journal of Laws of Poland, No 84, Item 712 as
amended.
11 See: Journal of Laws of Poland, No. 2014, Item 379).
Preparation of programming documents
for the EU cohesion policy for the years 2014-2020 in Poland
continued
(Minister for Infrastructure and Development) in
the area of coordination. According to the Act, the
Minister’s task is to initiate, draw up and negotiate
programming documents (Art. 3a 1a and 1c of the
above Act, as amended). The Act on the Principles
of Development Policy defines what is understood
by the term programming documents i.e. the
partnership agreement and the programmes for its
implementation (Art.5 points 1a, 7a and 9a of the
above Act as amended) and sets out the procedure
for drawing up and adopting such documents
(these measures are coordinated by the Minister
responsible for regional development, assisted by
the Partnership Agreement Committee) - Article
14e, Article 14g - 14l of the Act, as amended).
In accordance with Article 14e (1) of the Act on
the Principles of Development Policymaking, as
amended, the draft partnership agreement is
drawn up by the Minister responsible for regional
development. In accordance with Article 14e (4) of
the amended Act, the draft partnership agreement
is approved by Poland's Council of Ministers in
the form of a resolution. In accordance with
Article 14e (5) of the amended Act, the Minister
responsible for regional development negotiates
the draft partnership agreement, as approved by
Poland's Council of Ministers, with the European
Commission.
In May 2012, Poland's Council of Ministers adopted
a document entitled Sposób organizacji prac
nad dokumentami programowymi związanymi z
perspektywą finansową UE 2014-2020 (Methods for the
organisation of work on the programme documents
relating to the EU's 2014-2020 financial perspective)12,
in which the Prime Minister of Poland conferred
on the Minister for Regional Development (whose
duties have been carried out by the Minister for
Infrastructure and Development since 27 November
2013) the responsibility for coordinating the
preparation of programming documents as well
as implementation and institutional measures,
and also established a timetable for the work on
the preparation and negotiation of individual
documents. Given the progress made regarding the
negotiations on the draft EU regulations, the above
timetable was revised and sent to Poland's Council
of Ministers for their information on 8 February
2013. As part of his work on the operational
12 http://www.MIR.gov.pl/fundusze/fundusze_
europejskie_2014_2020/programowanie_2014_2020/strony/
glowna.aspx
26
programmes, the Minister for Infrastructure and
Development was required to assess the extent to
which these programmes complied with the draft
partnership agreement.
In accordance with Article 14g (1) (1) of the
amended Act on the Principles of Regional
Development Policy, the minister responsible
for regional development is responsible for
coordinating the process of drafting and
negotiation of the programming documents for
the EU's programming periods. Accordingly, the
Ministry of Infrastructure and Development, which
is the institution responsible for coordinating
Poland's national and regional operational
programmes, has taken part in the process of
preparing the national and regional operational
programmes for the period 2014-2020.
The Interdepartmental Team on the Use of EU
Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund, which
was set up under Resolution No 48 of the Prime
Minister of Poland of 28 April 2008,13 was involved
in the process of preparing the programming
documents, including outlining the objectives
of the partnership agreement, with a view to
coordinating the action taken in this area. The team
is made up of the under-secretaries of state of the
ministries involved in implementing EU funding
and the marshals of Poland's voivodships (heads of
the regional government). The work of the team
is led by the minister for regional development.
Specific working groups may be set up within
this team, based on a decision by the above
members. In addition, as part of this preparatory
work, a document was drawn up by the Ministry of
Regional Development, entitled Programming for the
2014-2020 financial perspective – strategic conditions14
which was subsequently submitted to the ministries
concerned and to the Voivodship Boards (executive
authorities of the Polish regional administration).
13 Resolution No 48 of the Prime Minister of Poland of 28 April
2008 on the appointment of an Interdepartmental Team on the
Use of EU Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund amended
by Resolution No 19 of the Prime Minister of Poland of 26
March 2012 amending the Resolution on the appointment of an
Interdepartmental Team on the Use of EU Structural Funds and the
Cohesion Fund.
14 http://www.MIR.gov.pl/fundusze/fundusze_
europejskie_2014_2020/programowanie_2014_2020/strony/
glowna.aspx
27
The objectives of the partnership agreement
were adopted by Poland's Council of Ministers on
15 January 201315. This document provided the
basis on which work could begin on drawing up
Poland's draft national and regional operational
programmes. The draft partnership agreement
was adopted by Poland's Council of Ministers on
8 January 201416. This document set out, among
others, the investment objectives and priorities
thematically and by region, together with the
key indicators, the structure of the operational
programmes and an outline of the financing and
implementation system.
Partnership agreement and draft operational
programmes for the years 2014-2020
The partnership agreement is the most important
document outlining the strategy for the investment
of European funds under the Cohesion Policy, the
Common Agricultural Policy and the Common
Fisheries Policy. In accordance with the partnership
agreement, EU funding will be invested in those
areas which can make the biggest contribution
towards boosting Poland's development. These
include: enhancing the economy's competitiveness,
improving social and territorial cohesion in
Poland, and making the country more efficient
and effective. The largest amounts available for
investment will be in transport infrastructure (road
and rail). The greatest increase in expenditure
will be on innovation and support for businesses.
Thanks to a wider range of repayable financial
instruments (including loans and guarantees),
more projects carried out by small and mediumsized enterprises will receive support. Investments
in environmental protection and energy will also
receive funding along with projects in areas such
as culture, employment, education or combating
social exclusion. Local government authorities
will manage a larger pool of EU funding than
ever before, representing almost 40% of the total
available. This change primarily involves the
transfer to regional level of funding for businesses
together with two-thirds of the funding available
under the European Social Fund. Investments will
15 http://www.MIR.gov.pl/fundusze/fundusze_
europejskie_2014_2020/programowanie_2014_2020/strony/
glowna.aspx
16 http://www.mir.gov.pl/FUNDUSZE/FUNDUSZE_
EUROPEJSKIE_2014_2020/PROGRAMOWANIE _2014 _2020/
UMOWA_PARTNERSTWA/Strony/glowna.aspx
be carried out in urban areas and support will be
given to projects on comprehensive revitalisation
(including in the social sphere), green urban
transport and the low-emission economy. These
revitalisation measures will cover social issues
(action to help people who are socially excluded,
improve access to services and provide support for
the poor), economic issues (supporting businesses
and self-employment, the social economy and
worker mobility) as well as spatial planning issues
(optimal land management and management of
environmental resources). In addition, the capital
cities of Poland's voivodships will carry out a
number of joint projects with their surrounding
municipalities in areas such as communication
access.
The partnership agreement for 2014-2020
will be delivered via six national programmes,
including one supra-regional programme for
the regions of Eastern Poland, as well as through
16 regional operational programmes. The main
emphasis will be placed on measures aimed at
enhancing the innovation and competitiveness
of an economy based on knowledge, intellectual
capital and the results of digital change. In total,
over EUR 18 billion will be allocated to innovation,
research and development work, information and
communication technologies and enhancing the
competitiveness of businesses. The completion
of the negotiations on Poland's partnership
agreement and its approval by the European
Commission on 23 May 2014 opened the door for
the negotiation and approval of the national and
regional operational programmes. Together, they
will form a system of strategic and programming
documents for the 2014-2020 financial perspective.
The partnership agreement, the key document
which outlines the areas that will receive support
under the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund
in 2014-2020, was drawn up in accordance with
the Partnership Agreement Objectives for 2014-2020,
as prepared by the Ministry of Infrastructure and
Development and adopted by Poland's Council of
Ministers. This agreement was submitted to the
European Commission by the deadline set out in
Regulation No 1303/2013. The Minister submitted
the draft partnership agreement to the European
Commission on 10 January 2014 and Poland was
Preparation of programming documents
for the EU cohesion policy for the years 2014-2020 in Poland
continued
the first Member State to do so17. The partnership
agreement was approved by the European
Commission on 23 May 2014. Only two other
Member States - Denmark and Germany - signed
their partnership agreements with the Commission
before Poland.18 The final version of the partnership
agreement, approved by the European Commission
on 23 May 2014, differs in certain aspects from the
draft agreement, which means it was necessary
to adjust some of the provisions of the draft
operational programmes in line with the approved
version of the partnership agreement.
A total of six national programmes and 16 regional
programmes will be implemented as part of the
European Union's new financial perspective for
2014-2020.
Infrastructure and Environment Operational
Programme – its aim will be to promote an
economy that makes efficient use of its resources, is
environmentally friendly and fosters territorial and
social cohesion. The most important beneficiaries
under the programme will include organisations
from both the public sector (including the regional
government) and the private sector - businesses.
The programme will promote cities in particular
by allocating them a special pool of resources for
transport and improved energy efficiency.
Smart Growth Operational Programme – action
taken under the programme aims to enhance
the competitiveness and innovation of the Polish
economy, by increasing the amount of private
investment in research and development. This
investment will focus on establishing new ties and
strengthening existing ones between the business
and academic worlds and on developing business
innovation, improving the quality of research and
the position of Poland's research facilities in the
European Research Area. The main beneficiaries of
this support include businesses (in particular SMEs)
as well as research institutes, clusters and business
environment institutions.
17 Więcej euro dla przedsiębiorców (More Euros for businesses)
„Rzeczpospolita” newspaper, 29.04.2014, p. B16. Ruszyły rozmowy
o umowie partnerstwa (Partnership Agreement talks have begun)
„Rzeczpospolita” newspaper, 6.03.2013,p. B2.
18 Będą dominować dotacje (Subsidies will dominate)
„Rzeczpospolita” newspaper, 26.05.2014, p. B16.
28
Knowledge, Education and Development
Operational Programme - this programme will
focus on supporting the quality, effectiveness and
open nature of higher education as an instrument
for developing a knowledge-based economy.
Digital Poland Operational Programme focuses
on the area of information and communication
technologies (ICT), in particular projects involving
the creation of broadband networks (primarily
access network) and the development of e-services
at central level. In addition, alongside the support
provided under other programmes, action will also
be taken to develop digital skills.
Eastern Poland Operational Programme - an
additional instrument of support for this macroregion. The main emphasis will be placed on
enhancing the competitiveness of Eastern
Poland through measures to boost its economic
development, including making its economy more
innovative and developing its labour markets,
located in large urban areas.
Technical Assistance Operational Programme
- Its main aim is to ensure an effective system for
implementing Cohesion Policy funding.
Regional Operational Programmes (ROPs) - their
aim will be to enhance the competitiveness of
the regions and to raise local standard of living
by tapping into the potential of the regions and
eliminating any barriers to development. The
emphasis will primarily be placed on supporting
entrepreneurship, education, employment and
social inclusion, information and communication
technologies, environmental protection
infrastructure, energy and transport. Regional
Operational Programmes will be financed by the
ERDF and the ESF.
The division of structural funds into national and
regional operational programmes for 2014-2020 is
set out in Table 1. 29
Table 1
Allocation of structural funds and the Cohesion Fund among the national and regional
operational programmes for 2014-2020 in Poland.
Allocation for the years 2014-2020 in EUR billion.
30 27,41
25
20
15
10
5
8,61
4,69 3,47
2,87 2,44 2,25 2,25 2,22 2,17 2,11 2,08 2,00 1,90 1,86 1,72 1,59
1,36 1,21 0,94 0,90 0,70
0
Source: based on the partnership agreement for 2014-2020
In accordance with the objectives of the
partnership agreement, the following were
responsible for drawing up the draft operational
programmes: the minister responsible for
regional development (in the case of national
operational programmes) and the executive
authorities of Poland's voivodships (in the case
of regional operational programmes). The above
institutions were responsible for preparing the
draft versions of the programmes, as well as for
carrying out all necessary procedures, such as
ex-ante evaluations19, strategic environmental
impact assessments and social consultations. This
action was carried out in line with the timetable
established by the Ministry of Infrastructure and
Development and set out in the document Methods
for the organisation of work on the programme
documents relating to the EU's 2014-2020 financial
perspective and presented to Poland's Council of
Ministers. During the work on the draft versions
of the operational programmes, a simultaneous
19 An ex ante analysis is an evaluation of an operational
programme that is carried out before it begins. It is closely
linked to the programming process and its main products
are conclusions and recommendations, which take the form
of proposals for changes in the rules of the given operational
programme.
assessment was carried out of their compliance
with the draft partnership agreement while an
ex-ante analysis and strategic environmental
impact assessment were also prepared at the
same time. Following the adoption of the draft
partnership agreement and of the draft operational
programmes by Poland's Council of Ministers, they
were submitted to the European Commission for
negotiation and approval. Due to carrying out the
work on preparing the various documents for 20142020 at the same time, particularly the partnership
agreement and operational programmes, it was
possible to speed up the process of drawing up and
approving the draft versions of these documents at
national and regional level.
In accordance with the partnership agreement,
the minister responsible for regional development
acts as the managing authority for Poland's
national operational programmes, while the
executive authorities of Poland's voivodships
act as the managing authorities for the regional
operational programmes. This document provided
that approximately 60% of ERDF funding and
75% of ESF resources would be allocated to
regional operational programmes, substantially
increasing the level of decentralisation as well
Preparation of programming documents
for the EU cohesion policy for the years 2014-2020 in Poland
continued
as the responsibility of regional government for
implementing regional policy.
The draft versions of the national operational
programmes and regional operational programmes
include a number of simplifications for reducing the
administrative burden involved in implementing
funds during 2014-2020, which the managing
authorities were able to introduce. They concern
both legal and institutional regulations, including
the method used to apply for funding as well as
how beneficiaries implement, and financially report
on, their projects. Among others, there are plans to:
-
reduce the number of documents to be
attached to funding applications;
-
make it possible to correct or include
additional information in funding applications
following the discovery of non-material errors;
-
allow the settlement of indirect costs using flat
rates and the use of lump sum amounts and
unit rates in expenditure statements,
-
simplify invoice descriptions by reducing the
amount of data to be provided;
-
simplify the reporting section in the payment
application.
The negotiations with the European Commission on
the national operational programmes began in the
first week of July 20. The deadline for commencing
the implementation of European funds is
dependent on the speed and efficiency with which
the operational programmes are agreed with the
European Commission. 21.
The Act on the Rules for the Implementation of
Programmes in the area of Cohesion Policy funded
during the 2014-2020 financial perspective, adopted
by the Polish Parliament on 11 July 2014, provides
a legal framework which will represent the basis for
the implementation of the partnership agreement,
including the rules for the implementation of
20 Nowe programy pod lupą Brukseli (Brussels puts new
programmes under the microscope) „Rzeczpospolita” newspaper,
3.07.2014, p. B7.
21 Unijne miliardy dotrą z ogromnym poślizgiem (EU billions will
arrive with a huge delay) „Rzeczpospolita” newspaper, 10.10.2014,
p. B1.
30
Cohesion Policy operational programmes in
the 2014-2020 financial perspective. This Act
introduces a mechanism for coordinating the
implementation of operational programmes by
the minister responsible for regional development,
sets out the rights and obligations of beneficiaries,
identifies the entities involved in the process of
implementing Structural Funds and the Cohesion
Fund, defines the rules for implementation and
the key documents used to implement the funds
in Poland. The Act introduces a number of specific
provisions, specifying in more detail those EU
rules which are imprecise or inadequate, relating
among others to irregularities, systems of financial
corrections and audit 22.
Conclusion
The method and timing of the work relating to
the programming documents at European and
national level was dependent on the timetable
for the adoption and issuing of legal acts at EU
level. In December 2013, the Council of the EU and
the European Parliament adopted a package of
regulations for the 2014-2020 financial perspective.
Regulation No 1303/2013 stipulated that the
European Commission has the exclusive right to
issue implementing and delegated acts setting
out in detail the provisions of this Regulation. At
the time the audit was carried out, the process of
creating an EU framework for the implementation of
funding for 2014-2020 had yet to be completed and
many aspects of the implementation of the financial
perspective still needed to be established by the
European Commission. The above conditions had
a significant impact on the timetable and pace of
the work involved in preparing institutional and
legal measures at the Ministry of Infrastructure
and Development and in the regions. In addition,
the final shape of the procedures and guidelines
of the ROPs is dependent on the Minister of
Infrastructure and Development issuing horizontal
guidelines which, in turn, is subject to the European
Commission issuing legal acts and guidelines.
22 More information about the legal solutions introduced by the
Act of 13 September 2014 on the rules for the implementation
of programmes in the area of Cohesion Policy funded during
the 2014-2020 financial perspective: M. Szymański, System
wdrażania i kontroli projektów Unii Europejskiej (The system
for implementation and control of EU projects). „Kontrola
Państwowa”, No 5/2014.
31
During the NIK audit, the regional governments
identified the most pressing problems which,
in their opinion, could act as an obstacle to
commencing the implementation of the ROPs. The
regional governments considered the following to
represent potential problems:
-
the risk that the initial conditions (the socalled ex ante conditions) which are binding
at national level may not be considered by the
European Commission to have been fully met,
which could lead to the lack of the European
Commission's approval to start implementing
part of the ROP's activities.
-
the risk that the internal procedures of
institutions and the programme guidelines
will not be ready immediately after the ROP's
approval due to a lack of implementing acts
and guidelines from the European Commission
and an absence of horizontal guidelines
from the Ministry of Infrastructure and
Development.
Ensuring the efficient and effective implementation
of cohesion policy is dependent on designing the
measures included in operational programmes in
such a way that they can deliver the objectives of
the partnership agreement and the planned results.
32
Comment vous procurer le Journal de la Cour des comptes européenne?
Publication gratuite disponible sur le site de EU bookshop: http://bookshop.europa.eu
How to obtain the Journal of the European Court of Auditors
Free publication via EU Bookshop: http://bookshop.europa.eu
© European Union, 2014
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged/Reproduction autorisée
à condition de mentionner la source
EUROPEAN
COURT
OF AUDITORS
Cover:
- Audit team special report N° 21/2014
- Professor Dimitrios Vayanos, London School of Economics, Nikolaos Vettas, Professor, Athens University of Economics and Business
ISSN 1831-449X
Main Contents
02 SPECIAL REPORT No 21/2014
EU-FUNDED AIRPORT INFRASTRUCTURES: POOR VALUE FOR MONEY
07
CRISIS IN THE EUROZONE PERIPHERY: POLICY OPTIONS FOR GREECE
10
CREDIBLE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN PUBLIC AUTHORITIES AND THE PUBLIC
12
PRESENTATION OF THE 2013 ANNUAL REPORT TO NATIONAL AUTHORITIES
For more information:
European Court of Auditors
12, rue Alcide De Gasperi
1615 Luxembourg
LUXEMBOURG
eca-journal@eca.europa.eu
eca.europa.eu
@EUAuditorsECA
EUAuditorsECA
QJ-AD-15-001-2A-N