Control, final module in a
partnership
Hearing, EP Committee on
Budgetary Control
Brussels, 3 June 2008
Louis Vervloet, director
Agenda
•
•
•
•
1
2
3
4
Shared management
Preconditions
The Flemish ESF pathway
Cost Benefit
Shared management
• Shared responsibilities = Shared Accountability
• Partnership with shared burdens
• Regulation created cycle of control thru 3
independent authorities in MS:
– MA controls projects
– CA controls MA payments, system and bookkeeping
– AA controls system, full audit plus sampling
• From Europe with …,
– desk and audit from EC, Court of Auditors EP
Preconditions
• Don’t write the history of day before
yesterday, the day after tomorrow
• Commission regulation implementing the
Counsel/EP regulations was ready after
the start of operational programmes (OP)
• Interpretation thru Guidance notes, is
being discussed in Cocof while MA is
operationalizing the OP
Preconditions (2)
• Don’t take back with your left hand what
your right hand has been given
• Administrative simplification
– Pre-checks
– Indirect costs
– Use of public procurement
– More reports and more detail then ever before
Preconditions (3)
• Respect the “soul” or specificity of each
fund
– regulation is written, discussed and
interpreted from the point of view of regional
policy
– ERDF = investments, big projects (hard ware)
– ESF = working with ngo’s and disadvantaged
target groups (soft ware)
– Costs are completely different
Preconditions (4)
• No partnership without Trust
• Trust is something every partner has got to
earn, every day again
• Trust is something one has to give and get
• Control needs to be the closing module of
the circle as well as a new startup of the
circle
• Control is absolutely necessary but needs
to be in balance with policy goals
The Flemish ESF
pathway:promoter
• Quality labelling as precondition as proof of
ability to run a project with result
• Call contains all criteria, contracts are legal
documents with mutual consent
• On going coaching of promoters on
administrative, technical and financial issues
• Checking 100% of reports (content and finance)
on desk
– We check the report not the invoice
The Flemish pathway: promoter
• On the spot checks after risk analyses and
sampling
– We check supporting documents for content
and finance
Flemish ESF pathway: MA
• Certifying authority checks (re)payment
request on basis of MA info
• Audit authority performs system audits and
on the spot checks
• European desk performs checks of
documents
The Flemish pathway:MA and
promoter
• European audit performs audits and
controls of system and projects
– Should be check of audit authority
• Court of auditors checks European
Commission, …
Cost Benefit
• MA’s case 2008: audit from EC, AA, CA,
Belgian CoA
• we spend more time on being “audited”
then on realizing policy goals
• “With a bit of bad luck” a project promoter
needs to spend more then 20 days on
control, before during and after a project
– Only during is paid for in the project
Cost Benefit
• Reasonable assurance
• Possible solutions:
– Accept reality and specificity of each fund
– Simplify delivery and define clear rules in
advance
– Introduce fixed prices and result-based
financing in grants
– Evaluate results in partnership