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. 21/2015 (Απαλλαγή 2015) του Ελεγκτικού Συνεδρίου με τίτλο «Επισκόπηση των κινδύνων που συνεπάγεται η εφαρμογή μιας προσανατολισμένης στα αποτελέσματα προσέγγισης της δράσης της ΕΕ στους τομείς της ανάπτυξης και της συνεργασίας» Επιτροπή Ελέγχου του Προϋπολογισμού Συντάκτης γνωμοδότησης: Bart Staes DT\ doc PE v02-00 Eνωμένη στην πολυμορφία

2 Introduction Substantial resources are devoted to assisting the development of the world s poorest countries. While emphasising the fact that there is no single source of data on development finance, the Commission estimated in July 2014 that the cumulative resources available to developing countries over the ten-year period from 2002 were in the region of billion USD, including domestic and international public and private finance. As part of the commitment to attain the internationally agreed Official Development Assistance (ODA) target of an ODA/GNI ratio of 0.7 %, in 2013, collective EU (including Member State) net ODA spending was 56.5 billion euro, which is equivalent to an ODA/GNI ratio of 0.43 % of the EU s collective GNI. The amounts scheduled to be made available for development and cooperation over the period are million euros through the EU general budget, and million euros for ACP countries through the European Development Fund. Furthermore, to establish the credibility of development assistance, particularly as regards the instruments used, aid delivery methods and the funds concerned, it is essential that the results achieved with this support can be demonstrated. Recently, there has been renewed interest on the part of the European Parliament and the Council in shifting the focus of EU development and cooperation policies from activities to results. Public accountability is also an important issue. In a report published in January 2014, the European Parliament pointed out that activity-based budgeting [was] still the fundamental principle when drafting the budget of the Union, and regretted that some of the proposals for the programming period remained fundamentally input-based (expenditure oriented) and, therefore, still focused on compliance with the rules rather than on performance. The Parliament also pointed out that the performance framework used by the Commission for the Multi-Annual Financial Framework should encompass the following three main elements (i) achievement of programme objectives (results), (ii) sound programme management by the Commission and the Member States, (iii) the contribution of programme results and sound management to the Union s main objectives. The Commission also defined its new results framework in two Staff Working Documents issued in 2013 and Besides the development of the framework of EU development and cooperation, the results policy and regulatory background was also progressively refined with the emergence of consensus among donors and partner s countries around key principles such as aid effectiveness, the partner country ownership of development results, the reliance on partner s countries frameworks, the harmonisation of donors monitoring and reporting. With regard to regularity, the accountability for results is based on several provisions included in 1 The Commission issued a first Staff Working Document in December 2013 on Paving the way for an EU Development and Cooperation Results Framework. In March 2015, the Commission presented the framework by issuing another Staff Working Document on Launching the EU International Cooperation and Development Results framework, the latter defining the results framework with the following mains purposes (i) an accountability tool to inform stakeholders of the results achieved and a management tool to provide performance data as a basis for management decisions and (ii) to reinforce the annual report as of 2015 in order to demonstrate how funds spent contribute to the achievement of the policy objectives. PE v /2 DT\ doc

3 the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union 1 and the Financial regulation 2. Audit Scope and Objectives The Court analysis aimed to provide in a single document an overview of what the Court considers to be the main risk areas related to a results approach for EU development and cooperation action. It also illustrates the risks concerned on the basis of experience acquired by the Court through its audits in the field of external actions. It is particularly relevant in the context of current discussions related to the Commission s performance framework and the implementation of a results framework for EU international cooperation and development action. The Court review was guided by the following question: did the Commission adequately address the key risks entailed by a results approach for EU development and cooperation measures? The Court carried out its review work between October 2014 and January It consisted of a desk review of documentation from EU institutions and other major multilateral and bilateral aid donors, as well as interviews with EU Commission staff, including from the EU delegation in Cambodia, and officials from two international organisations and several implementing bodies. A screening of ECA special reports published in recent years was also carried out in order to illustrate the key risk areas identified with specific examples. The timescale of development actions is such that these examples sometimes relate to actions undertaken several years ago. Court's Findings and Observations On the basis of its review, the Court identified nine key risk areas related to a results-oriented approach for EU development and cooperation action: Formulation of objectives and indicators and establishment of the results chain The Court stated that the use of inconsistent results-related terminology or failure to establish a clear logical chain between action, outputs, outcome and impact can be a source of confusion and undermine the assessment of what has been achieved while also considered the definition of SMART i.e. realistic objectives with pre-defined clear and measurable indicators as to be further improved. The Court recalled that, in previous audits, it was found that, in some cases, the initial objective was met by partner countries but without producing significant results in term of development. It was also noted by the Court that it was sometimes difficult to assess which part of the results was attributable to the EU funding or to other donors interventions, this situation relating in fine to the political question of results ownership. Increased complexity due to the integration of cross-cutting issues The Court observed that increased complexity due to the integration of cross-cutting issues in 1 Article evaluation report by the Commission on the Union s finances based on results achieved and article submission of observations by the Court of Auditors particularly through special reports. 2 Article 30.3 monitoring by performance indicators for each activity, article30.4 ex ante and ex post evaluations of all programmes and activities entailing significant spending. DT\ doc 3/3 PE v02-00

4 EU programmes represents a supplementary risk for the achievement and reporting of results. Harmonisation between development partners instruments and frameworks The audit review showed that the lack of harmonisation between development partners aid delivery instruments, results framework and accountability structures can generate inefficiencies and accountability gaps. The Court noted that when partner countries were facing several types of reporting obligations and payment conditions from different international donors, it was triggering to a negative effect on aid effectiveness and efficiency. The same type of consequence could also be made when various existing accountability structures were coexisting either in terms of governance, results framework or external audits requirements. Weaknesses in evaluation and results reporting Weaknesses were identified by the Court in the evaluation and results reporting that can prevent the feedback of relevant knowledge and lessons-learnt into reporting and decisionmaking processes. In previous audit reports, the Court had found that, in some cases, the achievement of projects could not be evaluated before their complete finalisation thus undermining any periodic review of the results achieved as well as delays in the timely delivery of evaluations, postponements or cancellations, the latter disserving the appropriate management process of interventions. Data consolidation and reporting The Court reported a lack of consolidated reports on or an overview of results achieved by EU aid that can impair decision making and accountability. Collecting results-related data is considered as an issue to be further rationalised and developed. Data quality In addition to the data consolidation, the Court considered that there was a lack of sufficient, relevant, reliable and up-to-date data which significantly weaken the quality and reliability of reported results. Budgetary outturn With regard to the budget implementation, the Court stated that focusing on budgetary outturn as the sole management objective can be detrimental to the principle of sound financial management and the achievement of results. Changes in EU actions context In its previous audit reports, the Court showed that sometimes the choice of an aid implementation modality was not founded on a sufficient preliminary risks analysis entailed with regard to the expected capacity to deliver results in a given context and expected advantages or benefits. The Court furthermore noted that significant changes (political, economic or natural disasters) in the context of actions can undermine the achievement or sustainability of results, and make it difficult to assess the results achieved. Summary of the Commission Replies PE v /4 DT\ doc

5 The Commission estimated that the nature of the Court s review was such that it included examples which sometimes related to actions undertaken several years ago. This is in particular true in relation to the examples relating to budget support, for which a number of risks have been addressed through the adoption of revised budget support guidelines in 2012, as well as for the examples relating to multi-annual programming documents (strategy papers or indicative programmes), for which the Commission would like to point out that it has systematically included indicators in the programming documents for the period Court's recommendations The Court review showed that globally these risk areas had been correctly identified by the Commission in a wide range of documents. It also showed the interest for the actions that are being undertaken by the Commission to launch an EU development and cooperation results framework. Nevertheless, further actions remain to be taken in order to harness the full potential of the Commission s initiatives for improved EU development and cooperation results. In this context, the Court makes five recommendations in order to mitigate the risks identified: 1. The Commission should improve its guidelines to ensure the consistent use of terminology regarding results (outputs, outcomes, impacts) and, where relevant, to formulate SMART objectives and clear indicators for its interventions at all levels; 2. Through its internal guidelines, practical tools, project formulation and monitoring processes, the Commission should ensure that a clear link is established between actions and expected results, including cross-cutting issues; 3. The Commission should improve its information system in order to be able to effectively consolidate and report on the results of its interventions. This should be complemented by measures enabling the Commission s evaluation activities to identify useful lessons for subsequent legislation, programming or action design in the areas concerned; 4. In all its interventions, the Commission should assess data availability and quality, and strive to have sufficient, relevant, reliable and up-to-date data on results achieved. This should be reflected in its systems and guidelines; 5. Before committing its financial resources, and when considering the expected results, the Commission should also assess the risks inherent to its choice of a particular implementation modality. Συστάσεις του εισηγητή για πιθανή ένταξη στην ετήσια έκθεση απαλλαγής της Επιτροπής [Το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο] 6. εκφράζει ικανοποίηση για την ειδική έκθεση σχετικά με την επισκόπηση των κινδύνων που συνεπάγεται η εφαρμογή μιας προσανατολισμένης στα αποτελέσματα προσέγγισης της δράσης της ΕΕ στους τομείς της ανάπτυξης και της συνεργασίας και θέτει τις παρατηρήσεις και τις συστάσεις του κατωτέρω DT\ doc 5/5 PE v02-00

6 7. αναγνωρίζει ότι η Επιτροπή έχει εντάξει στη διαχείριση των εξωτερικών της επιχειρήσεων το ζήτημα των κινδύνων, το οποίο χαρακτηρίζεται από ένα σύνθετο και εύθραυστο περιβάλλον με πολλά είδη κινδύνων, καθώς το επίπεδο ανάπτυξης και τα πλαίσια διακυβέρνησης διαφέρουν στις χώρες εταίρους 8. εκφράζει ιδιαίτερη ικανοποίηση για τη σύσταση του Συνεδρίου προς την Επιτροπή όσον αφορά τη βελτίωση της χρήσης ορολογίας σχετικά με τα μακροπρόθεσμα αποτελέσματα (τις εκροές, τα επακόλουθα και τον αντίκτυπο) και τονίζει τη σημασία του ορισμού πραγματικών στόχων SMART πριν από τη λήψη οιασδήποτε απόφασης για τη χρηματοδότηση διάφορων έργων 9. υπογραμμίζει την ανάγκη να δοθεί περισσότερη προσοχή στον ορισμό εφικτών και ρεαλιστικών στόχων για να αποφεύγονται οι περιπτώσεις όπου οι αρχικοί στόχοι επιτυγχάνονται από τις χώρες εταίρους αλλά χωρίς σημαντικά αποτελέσματα όσον αφορά την ανάπτυξη 10. θεωρεί ότι πρέπει να αποφεύγεται η εστίαση στο αποτέλεσμα της εκτέλεσης του προϋπολογισμού ως μοναδικός στόχος της διαχείρισης, καθώς αυτό μπορεί να είναι επιζήμιο για τη χρηστή δημοσιονομική διαχείριση και την επίτευξη αποτελεσμάτων 11. υπενθυμίζει ότι η τακτική παρακολούθηση και χαρτογράφηση των παραγόντων υψηλού κινδύνου (εξωτερικών, οικονομικών και λειτουργικών) και της ποσοτικοποίησής τους, από τη φάση του εντοπισμού έως τη φάση της εκτέλεσης, αποτελεί προϋπόθεση όχι μόνο για τη χρηστή δημοσιονομική διαχείριση και τις ποιοτικές δαπάνες, αλλά και για να διασφαλίζεται η αξιοπιστία, η βιωσιμότητα και η φήμη των παρεμβάσεων της Ένωσης θεωρεί ότι η δημιουργία δραστηριοτήτων και προφίλ κινδύνου ανά χώρα διευκολύνει επίσης τον σχεδιασμό στρατηγικής για ταχύ μετριασμό του κινδύνου σε περίπτωση επιδείνωσης της κατάστασης σε χώρα εταίρο 12. υπογραμμίζει ότι το περιβάλλον ελέγχου και οι λειτουργίες διαχείρισης κινδύνου πρέπει να προσαρμόζονται τακτικά ώστε να λαμβάνεται υπόψη η εμφάνιση νέων μορφών μέσων και δομών βοήθειας, όπως είναι η μεικτή χρηματοδότηση, τα καταπιστευματικά ταμεία και οι χρηματοοικονομικές εταιρικές σχέσεις με άλλους διεθνείς οργανισμούς 13. επαναλαμβάνει την άποψη ότι απαιτείται μια νέα ισορροπία μεταξύ της απορρόφησης, της συμμόρφωσης και των επιδόσεων και ότι η ισορροπία αυτή θα πρέπει να αντανακλάται στη διαχείριση των πράξεων 14. πιστεύει ότι η ανάπτυξη της οικοδόμησης ικανοτήτων, πλαισίων διακυβέρνησης και της ανάληψης ευθύνης στις χώρες εταίρους αποτελεί επίσης έναν πολύ σημαντικό τρόπο για να μετριαστούν οι συστημικοί κίνδυνοι, ούτως ώστε να ευνοηθεί η ανάπτυξη πρόσφορου περιβάλλοντος το οποίο θα επιτρέπει την εκπλήρωση των στόχων των ταμείων και την εκπλήρωση των αρχών της οικονομίας, της αποτελεσματικότητας και της αποδοτικότητας 15. θεωρεί επίσης ότι απαιτείται ενίσχυση του πολιτικού διαλόγου και του διαλόγου σχετικά με τις πολιτικές, των προϋποθέσεων για τη χορήγηση βοήθειας και του πλαισίου της λογικής αλυσίδας, ούτως ώστε να διασφαλιστεί τόσο η συνοχή μεταξύ απόφασης και προϋποθέσεων σε πληρωμές ή εκταμιεύσεις στις συμφωνίες χρηματοδότησης μέσω της σαφούς σύνδεσης των πληρωμών με την επίτευξη δράσεων και αποτελεσμάτων, όσο και PE v /6 DT\ doc

7 η συνάφεια των επιλεγμένων στόχων και δεικτών 16. ειδικότερα στην περίπτωση συγχρηματοδοτούμενων πρωτοβουλιών με πολλαπλούς δωρητές, ενθαρρύνει τους διεθνείς οργανισμούς: - να αξιολογούν και να προγραμματίζουν τα μελλοντικά οφέλη των έργων, καθώς και τον τρόπο με τον οποίο κάθε εταίρος συμβάλλει στο τελικό αποτέλεσμα και τον ευρύτερο αντίκτυπο, ούτως ώστε να αποφεύγονται τα ζητήματα σχετικά με την ανάληψη της ίδιας ευθύνης των αποτελεσμάτων, δηλ. ποιο τμήμα των αποτελεσμάτων αποδίδεται στη χρηματοδότηση της ΕΕ ή στις παρεμβάσεις άλλων δωρητών - να συνδυάζουν τα πλαίσια διακυβέρνησής τους με το πλαίσιο της ΕΕ, ιδίως μέσω της βελτίωσης των μεθόδων διαχείρισης κινδύνων που χρησιμοποιούν θεωρεί ότι η υποκαταστασιμότητα των πόρων θα πρέπει να παρακολουθείται στενά λόγω του υψηλού πιστωτικού κινδύνου που ενέχεται 17. ζητεί να διασφαλιστεί ότι η σύνδεση μεταξύ των αξιολογήσεων και της διαμόρφωσης πολιτικής είναι αποτελεσματική εφόσον συνυπολογίζονται όλα τα διδάγματα που αποκομίζονται κατά τη διαδικασία λήψης αποφάσεων 18. υπενθυμίζει ότι η υπονόμευση της παρακολούθησης των επιδόσεων και της αξιολόγησης των αποτελεσμάτων είναι επιζήμια για τη δημόσια λογοδοσία και για την ολοκληρωμένη ενημέρωση των φορέων χάραξης πολιτικής DT\ doc 7/7 PE v02-00