ΕΓΓΡΑΦΟ ΕΡΓΑΣΙΑΣ. EL Eνωμένη στην πολυμορφία EL. Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο

Transcript

1 Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο Επιτροπή Ελέγχου του Προϋπολογισμού ΕΓΓΡΑΦΟ ΕΡΓΑΣΙΑΣ σχετικά με την ειδική έκθεση αριθ. 12/2016 του ΕΕΣ: Χρήση των επιχορηγήσεων από τους οργανισμούς: όχι πάντοτε η ενδεδειγμένη ή αποδεδειγμένα αποτελεσματική επιλογή Επιτροπή Ελέγχου του Προϋπολογισμού Εισηγητής: Dennis de Jong DT\ docx PE v02-00 Eνωμένη στην πολυμορφία

2 Introduction Decentralised agencies play an important role in implementing EU policies, especially tasks of a technical, scientific, operational and/or regulatory nature. The agencies are separate legal entities set up for an indefinite period. Their total 2015 budget amounted to some 2.4 billion euros or about 1.5 % of the 2015 EU general budget. When implementing their mission through third parties, agencies can choose from various funding tools: grant funding, public procurement or other mechanisms like cooperation agreements or outsourcing (through service level agreements). Out of 41 established agencies and other decentralised bodies, 11 use grants to achieve their policy objectives 1. The agencies grant activities are governed by the general financial regulations (FR) 2, the rules of application (RAP) 3 and the framework financial regulation (FFR) 4, unless otherwise provided in the agencies founding regulations (such as EIT and Frontex) or basic acts. The FP7 or Horizon 2020 rules also apply to those agencies involved in funding research activities under these programmes (EIT, GSA). Agency grants are direct financial contributions to beneficiaries (usually specialised Member State institutions/bodies or non-profit organisations). The results of the grant-funded activities remain the property of the beneficiaries. Grants are implemented by agencies through indirect centralised management. Accordingly, the agencies are responsible for the multi-annual and annual programming as well as for the implementation (operational and financial) of their grant actions. In those cases where the Commission delegates the implementation of a specific grant action to an agency, it retains ultimate responsibility for the overall implementation of the grant budget. The agencies effective management of grant activities is therefore crucial for the achievement of Union objectives and policies. At agency level, grant management controls comprise of: - the ex ante and ex post evaluation of the agency s grant actions and projects, - call for proposals procedures and evaluation panels, - ex ante and ex post controls to verify the legality and regularity of the cost statements submitted by the beneficiaries, - monitoring and reporting to measure achievements and results of the funded grant activities based on key performance indicators. 1 EIT, Frontex, EEA, GSA, EFSA, EMCDDA, ECDC, CEPOL, Cedefop, Eurojust, CVPO. 2 Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ L 298, , p. 1). 3 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ L 362, , p. 1). 4 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1271/2013 of 30 September 2013 on the framework financial regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 208 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 328, , p. 42). PE v /8 DT\ docx

3 Audit Scope and Objectives The Court audited five agencies (EIT, Frontex, EEA, EFSA and ECDC) representing 92 % of the total agencies spending on grant activities. The selection of these agencies was based on the type of grant activities funded, the beneficiaries profile, and the volume of payments during the years 2013 to The Court s audit assessed how the agencies managed grants and whether they were implemented in compliance with the rules. The audit focused on the whole grant management process. It did not examine the socioeconomic impact of agencies grants. Court s Findings/observations and Conclusions On the basis of its review, the Court came to the following findings: 1. Agencies did not address all funding options, grants were not always the most appropriate tool and agencies programming documents were not fully aligned with their mandate and strategic objectives A. Inadequate follow-up of ex-ante evaluation contributed to agencies choice of inappropriate funding tools and poor grant design Agencies are required to perform ex ante evaluations of their programmes and activities in order to comply with the principle of sound financial management. Among other things, the ex-ante evaluation should address the added value of the EU involvement, the selection of the most appropriate method of implementation, the cost-effectiveness of the selected method and the lessons learned from similar experiences in the past. The Court found that both EEA and EFSA performed robust ex ante evaluations before launching their respective calls for proposals. EFSA s scientific cooperation roadmap 2014 to 2016 is an example of good practice of an ex ante evaluation. As regards EIT, the 2011 impact assessment of integrating its ex ante evaluation requirements highlighted the importance of putting in place robust monitoring procedures to measure the performance of EIT and the KIC s. According to the Court, the EIT has not yet set up a comprehensive evaluation system to monitor its own activities and those of the KICs as required by its founding regulation, the Horizon 2020 regulation and the Strategic Innovation Agenda of the EIT. The EIT core performance indicators continue to focus on input or output rather than results or impacts. It is thus not possible to assess the innovative impact created by the synergy effects of the knowledge triangle. Agencies choice of different funding tools for the implementation of their specific tasks is limited to grant funding, public procurement or other mechanisms like cooperation agreements or outsourcing through service level agreements. The choice should depend on an analysis of the agency s needs, its resources, the objectives to be achieved, the potential beneficiaries to be targeted, as well as the level of competition necessary to ensure costeffectiveness. The audited agencies have not produced specific guidelines and criteria, as required under the Internal Control Standards, to assist management in deciding upon the most appropriate funding mechanism for the implementation of a specific task or activity. To avoid imposing an unnecessary administrative burden on both agencies and beneficiaries, DT\ docx 3/8 PE v02-00

4 the FR and its RAP foresee that grants may be awarded directly without a call for proposals in exceptional cases and encourage the use of simplified cost options to facilitate grant management, particularly with regard to low value grants (less than euros). The audit revealed several cases where the audited agencies grant award procedure led to significant administrative burdens for both the agency and the beneficiaries when these award options were not exercised. The choice of an inappropriate form of grant can also result in considerable inefficiencies in the implementation and monitoring of the grant activities. Agencies can make more use of the simplified cost options. EFSA s simplified cost option for the grant funding of its focal points is an example of good practice for the efficient implementation of low value grants. B. Incomplete annual programming documents did not fully align agencies grant actions with their mandates and strategic objectives Agencies are required to draw up multi-annual and annual work programmes outlining the objectives (SMART), expected results and performance indicators. The grant funded activities should be clearly linked with the objectives in the agencies work programmes. For all audited agencies, the review of the most recent AWPs ( ) showed that SMART objectives were generally missing. In most cases objectives were either broad descriptions of the grant activities or vague output descriptions. The lack of SMART objectives undermined the audited agencies ability to demonstrate that their grant activities were aligned to their strategic objectives and the mandate of their founding regulations. Agencies must adopt a financing decision before launching a call for proposals. In the absence of such a decision, their AWPs must include the objectives, indicative amount and maximum co-financing rate of the planned grant activities and thereby serve as legally compliant financing decisions. In most cases, the audited agencies had not taken separate financing decisions and the AWPs did not include the information necessary to constitute valid financing decisions for their grant actions. 2. Agencies implemented grants in broad compliance with the rules but there were shortcomings in certain grant award, expert selection and internal control procedures A. In specific cases grant selection and award procedures did not fully respect basic principles and potential conflict of interest risks persist Agencies should adhere to the principles of transparency and equal treatment in their award of grants, as well as in the selection of any expert involved in the award procedures. Furthermore they should ensure necessary safeguards against potential conflicts of interest. Agencies that used the grant selection and award procedures of the FR (i.e. EEA, EFSA, ECDC) were in compliance with the principles. Shortcomings were found where agencies applied specific expert selection and grant award procedures based on exemptions in the founding regulation and basic act (i.e. EIT, Frontex). Such procedures do not ensure that agencies safeguard in full the principles of transparency, equal treatment and avoiding potential conflict of interests. B. Agencies generally improved their grant implementation and controls but some weaknesses remain PE v /8 DT\ docx

5 Payments must be subject to ex-ante and ex-post control in order to confirm that they comply with the applicable provisions and that the principle of SFM has been applied. The Court issued qualified opinions on the transactions underlying the accounts of EIT and Frontex for 2012 and 2013 due to the absence of effective ex ante and ex post controls in respect of grant payments. It made similar observations in respect of EEA and ECDC, however in these cases the audit opinion was unqualified. In response, the audited agencies significantly strengthened their verification procedures and have also revised their ex post verification policies and audit strategies. However, while the Court s 2014 audit opinion of all agencies based on the financial and compliance audits were unqualified, continuing weaknesses in the verification procedures for grant payments were observed. 3. Whilst grants generally contributed to the audited agencies policy implementation, agencies failed to set up adequate monitoring systems to measure the overall effectiveness of their grant-funded activities and ex-post evaluations were either lacking or incomplete For each activity, the achievement of objectives has to be monitored by performance indicators. These performance indicators have to be included in the agencies AWPs. Whilst some performance indicators for grant activities were output-related, they have not set RACER (relevant, accepted, credible, easy and robust) key performance indicators on results and impact. Therefore they could not monitor the coherence and effectiveness of their grant activities or measure the results and impact achieved. To improve effectiveness and decision-making, agencies should perform ex-post evaluations of significant activities. The audited agencies have not always performed these evaluations and those that did failed to use the results to improve their monitoring and reporting on grant funded activities. ECA Recommendations Recommendation 1 Before launching grants, agencies should explore if grants are the most effective tool. Simplified cost options and direct award should be used whenever justified. Target implementation date: as soon as possible. Recommendation 2 The agencies work programmes should indicate which activities are to be implemented by grants, the specific objectives and expected results to be achieved by the grant actions, as well as the planned financial and human resources needed to implement the grant actions. Target implementation date: Annual work programmes Recommendation 3 Agencies applying specific grant procedures should establish formal internal procedures respecting the principles of transparency and equal treatment, and safeguarding against potential conflicts of interest. DT\ docx 5/8 PE v02-00

6 Target implementation date: as soon as possible. Recommendation 4 Agencies should strengthen their verification system regarding grant project implementation. Target implementation date: as soon as possible. Recommendation 5 Agencies should set up grant monitoring and reporting systems based on result and impact-oriented key performance indicators as well as ex post evaluation results. Target implementation date: Annual work programme Summary of the Commission and Agencies Replies The Commission and the agencies involved have given a written reply to ECA s report in which they accepted most recommendations. With regard to recommendation 1, EIT and Frontex pointed out that they accepted it only to the extent that it was applicable to them, as their current regulations leave no room for replacing grants by other options. EFSA pointed out that the recommendations made had already been implemented in previous years, in particular through its 6-point guidance scheme to assist management in deciding upon the most appropriate funding mechanism. Concerning recommendation 3, EIT stated that it accepted it only partially, as it should have the possibility to appoint experts directly in duly justified and exceptional cases, whereas EEA, ECDC and EFSA noted that this recommendation is not applicable to their situation. In respect of recommendation 4, EIT pointed out that it is not feasible or reasonable to indicate maximum grant amounts in advance for 7-year Framework Partnership Agreements. Συστάσεις του εισηγητή προς ενδεχόμενη ενσωμάτωσή τους στην έκθεση σχετικά με την απαλλαγή όσον αφορά την εκτέλεση του προϋπολογισμού των οργανισμών της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης για το οικονομικό έτος 2014: επιδόσεις, χρηματοοικονομική διαχείριση και έλεγχος Το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο, 1. εκφράζει την ικανοποίησή του για την έκθεση με θέμα τη χρήση των επιχορηγήσεων από τους οργανισμούς και εκθέτει τις παρατηρήσεις και συστάσεις του κατωτέρω 2. εκφράζει την ικανοποίησή του για τα πορίσματα και τις συστάσεις του Ελεγκτικού Συνεδρίου 3. σημειώνει την απάντηση της Επιτροπής και των οικείων οργανισμών, η οποία, μεταξύ άλλων, περιέχει σημαντικές πληροφορίες σχετικά με τα μέτρα που έχουν ληφθεί αφότου πραγματοποιήθηκαν οι έλεγχοι 4. δηλώνει ότι η αποτελεσματική διαχείριση των επιχορηγούμενων δραστηριοτήτων από τους PE v /8 DT\ docx

7 οργανισμούς είναι καίριας σημασίας για την επίτευξη των στόχων και την υλοποίηση των πολιτικών της Ένωσης 5. σημειώνει ότι το Ελεγκτικό Συνέδριο κατέληξε στο συμπέρασμα ότι, κατά γενικό κανόνα, οι ελεγχθέντες οργανισμοί χορηγούσαν και κατέβαλλαν τις επιχορηγήσεις σύμφωνα με τους εφαρμοστέους κανόνες 6. αναφέρει, ωστόσο, ότι το Ελεγκτικό Συνέδριο εντόπισε ορισμένες ελλείψεις όσον αφορά τις εναλλακτικές επιλογές χρηματοδότησης, τις διαδικασίες χορήγησης, τα συστήματα ελέγχου και τη μέτρηση των επιδόσεων και εξέδωσε πέντε συστάσεις για την αντιμετώπιση αυτών των ελλείψεων 7. σημειώνει ότι η στρατηγική αιτιολόγηση και επιλογή ενός χρηματοδοτικού μέσου από την πλευρά ενός οργανισμού θα μπορούσε να ενισχύσει την αποτελεσματικότητα και την αποδοτικότητα του μέσου και, κατά συνέπεια, την εκτέλεση των αντίστοιχων καθηκόντων 8. ενθαρρύνει όλους τους οργανισμούς να διαθέτουν συγκεκριμένες κατευθυντήριες γραμμές και κριτήρια που θα βοηθούν στην επιλογή συγκεκριμένου χρηματοδοτικού μέσου, με βάση μια ανάλυση των αναγκών του οργανισμού, των πόρων του, των επιδιωκόμενων στόχων, των δυνητικών δικαιούχων καθώς και του αναγκαίου επιπέδου ανταγωνισμού και των διδαγμάτων που έχουν αντληθεί από προηγούμενες επιλογές 9. σημειώνει την παρατήρηση του Ελεγκτικού Συνεδρίου ότι οι διαδικασίες χορήγησης επιχορηγήσεων χρησιμοποιούν πιο περιοριστικά κριτήρια επιλεξιμότητας και λιγότερο αυστηρά οικονομικά κριτήρια σε σύγκριση με τις διαδικασίες σύναψης δημόσιων συμβάσεων και, ως εκ τούτου, δεν θα πρέπει να αποτελούν την προεπιλεγμένη μέθοδο χρηματοδότησης προσθέτει, ωστόσο, ότι θα πρέπει να διατηρηθεί μια λεπτή ισορροπία, καθώς από τη μία πλευρά υπάρχουν οι αδυναμίες των διαδικασιών επιχορήγησης και από την άλλη το διοικητικό κόστος των διαδικασιών δημοσίων συμβάσεων και, κατά συνέπεια, δεν συμφωνεί με την παρατήρηση του Ελεγκτικού Συνεδρίου ότι οι δημόσιες συμβάσεις πρέπει να αποτελούν την προεπιλεγμένη μέθοδο επισημαίνει, επιπλέον, ότι το κανονιστικό πλαίσιο ορισμένων οργανισμών τούς υποχρεώνει να χρησιμοποιούν διαδικασίες επιχορήγησης 10. εκφράζει την ανησυχία του για την παρατήρηση του Ελεγκτικού Συνεδρίου ότι οι ελεγχθέντες οργανισμοί δεν ανέπτυξαν κατάλληλα συστήματα παρακολούθησης και εκ των υστέρων αξιολογήσεις 11. τονίζει ότι η παρακολούθηση των επιδόσεων και η αξιολόγηση των αποτελεσμάτων είναι ουσιαστικής σημασίας για τη δημόσια λογοδοσία και για την ολοκληρωμένη ενημέρωση των φορέων χάραξης πολιτικής τονίζει ότι αυτό ισχύει ακόμη περισσότερο για τους οργανισμούς λόγω του αποκεντρωμένου τους χαρακτήρα 12. καλεί το δίκτυο οργανισμών να βοηθήσει τους οργανισμούς να βελτιώσουν τις διαδικασίες χρηματοδότησης και, ειδικότερα, τις διαδικασίες παρακολούθησης επιδόσεων, στο πλαίσιο αυτό 13. επισημαίνει ιδίως τα πορίσματα του Ελεγκτικού Συνεδρίου όσον αφορά τις διαδικασίες επιχορήγησης και την ανάγκη για διαφάνεια, ίση μεταχείριση και αποφυγή πιθανών συγκρούσεων συμφερόντων καλεί τους οικείους οργανισμούς να εφαρμόσουν τη σύσταση του Ελεγκτικού Συνεδρίου το συντομότερο δυνατόν DT\ docx 7/8 PE v02-00

8 14. καλεί την Επιτροπή και τους οργανισμούς που υποβλήθηκαν σε ελέγχους στο πλαίσιο της εν λόγω ειδικής έκθεσης να ενημερώνουν το Κοινοβούλιο σχετικά με την εφαρμογή των συστάσεων. PE v /8 DT\ docx