annual activity report annexes - european commission · eac_aar_2013_annexes_final page 1 of 75...
Post on 26-Jun-2020
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 1 of 75
2013
Annual Activity Report
Annexes
DG Education and Culture
27 March 2014
Ref. Ares(2014)978408 - 28/03/2014
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 2 of 75
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ANNEX 1: STATEMENT OF THE RESOURCES DIRECTOR.................................................................................... 3
ANNEX 2: HUMAN AND FINANCIAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................ 4
ANNEX 3: ANNUAL ACCOUNTS AND FINANCIAL REPORTS ................................................................................ 8
ANNEX 4: MATERIALITY CRITERIA ............................................................................................................ 27
ANNEX 5: INTERNAL CONTROL TEMPLATE(S) FOR BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION (ICTS) ......................................... 29
ANNEX 6: IMPLEMENTATION THROUGH NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC-SECTOR BODIES AND
BODIES GOVERNED BY PRIVATE LAW WITH A PUBLIC SECTOR MISSION ................................................ 59
ANNEX 7: AARS OF EXECUTIVE AGENCIES................................................................................................. 65
ANNEX 8: DECENTRALISED AGENCIES........................................................................................................ 66
ANNEX 9: PERFORMANCE INFORMATION INCLUDED IN EVALUATIONS.............................................................. 67
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 3 of 75
ANNEX 1: Statement of the Resources Director
I declare that in accordance with the Commission’s communication on clarification of the
responsibilities of the key actors in the domain of internal audit and internal control in
the Commission1, I have reported my advice and recommendations to the Director-
General on the overall state of internal control in the DG.
I hereby certify that the information provided in Parts 2 and 3 of the present AAR and in
its annexes is, to the best of my knowledge, accurate and exhaustive.
Brussels, 28 March 2014
[signed]
Arturo CABALLERO BASSEDAS
1 SEC(2003)59 of 21.01.2003.
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 4 of 75
ANNEX 2: Human and Financial resources
Table 1: Human Resources by ABB activity
Establishment Plan posts External Personnel Total Code ABB
Activity ABB Activity AMP AAR AMP AAR AMP AAR
15 02 Lifelong learning, including multilingualism 233 230 36 45 269 275
15 04 Developing cultural and audiovisual cooperation in Europe 55 51 8 9 63 60
15 05 Encouraging and promoting cooperation in the field of youth and sports 39 40 6 9 45 49
15 07 People — Programme for the mobility of researchers 22 22 13 7 35 29
15 AWBL-01 81 (*) 75 9 16 90 91
15 AWBL-01 Central Library 53 54 12 12 65 66
15 AWBL-01 Traineeship Unit
Administrative support for the Directorate-General for Education and Culture
15 13 2 2 17 15
15 AWBL-02 Policy strategy and coordination for the Directorate-General for Education and Culture 48 (*) 57 4 5 52 62
Total 546 542 90 105 636 647
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 5 of 75
Establishment Plan posts *15 AWBL-01 The decrease in the number of posts under this budget line reflects the DG's concerted effort in recent years to increase the proportion of front-line operational staff and decrease the proportion of administrative support staff.
*15 AWBL-02 The increase in the number of posts under this budget line is determined by the need to return posts to DG HR representing taxation and contributions to the central redeployment pool in 2014. As these posts are kept in reserve at Director-General level, they are counted under the same budget line as the Director-General.
External Personnel The methodology for calculating the external staff figures is different for AMP and AAR: - in the AMP, the external staff has to match the final HR allocation as decided by the Commission; - in the AAR, the figure is calculated based on a Sysper2 snapshot on 31 December 2013. Therefore, no relevant comparison of the two figures can be carried out. As reference, on 01/01/2013, there were 104 external staff compared to 105 on 31/12/2013 (AAR), while the AMP figure is 90.
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 6 of 75
Table 2: Financial Resources by ABB activity (EUR) implementation of Commitment Appropriations (CA)
Administrative expenditure Code
ABB Activity
ABB Activity Operational expenditure
(1) (2) Total
15 02 Lifelong learning incl. multilingualism
1 678 159 235 1 292 040 34 629 070 1 714 080 345
15 04 Cultural cooperation and Media
193 188 101 533 283 15 320 173 209 041 557
15 05 Cooperation in youth and sport 218 363 011 408 951 4 424 880 223 196 842
15 07 People 1 072 136 300 3 074 092
1 075 210 392
15 AWBL- 15 AWBL-01 2 489 627 10 534 034
13 023 661
15 AWBL- 15 AWBL-02 139 547 139 547
Total 3 161 846 647 72 845 697 3 234 692 344
(1) Heading 5 appropriations managed by the DG (global envelope) XX 01 02 (2) BA lines (XX 01 04) and, when relevant XX 01 05 and XX 01 06.
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 7 of 75
Table 3: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GLOBAL ENVELOPE - BUDGET LINES CONCERNED: 15 01 02 11 00 01 TO 15 01 02 11 00 06 (based on information received from BUDG services following the 2015 Budget circular)
(IN EUROS) APPROPRIATIONS 2013 (C1) APPROPRIATIONS carried over (C8)
BUDGET LINE* BUDGET LINE DESCRIPTION
AVAILABLE APPROPRIATIONS
2013
COMMITMENTS
2013
PAYMENTS
2013
AMOUNTS OF APPROPRIATIONS
CARRIED OVER FROM 2012
% IMPLEMENTATION ON APPROPRIATIONS CARRIED OVER FROM
2012
15.010211.00 2,701,309.00 (*)52,673.03
15.010211.00.01.10 Mission expenses 820,000.00 755,258.00 78,112.50 94.96
15.010211.00.01.30 Representation expenses 5,000.00 1,889.00 0.00 0
15.010211.00.02.20 Meeting costs 1,170,000.00 1,169,787.00 379.48 100
15.010211.00.02.40 Conference costs 281,816.00 144,537.00 97,704.79 100
15.010211.00.03 Meetings of committees 110,000.00 108,101.00 8,253.95 100
15.010211.00.04 Studies and consultations 219,912.00 34,547.00 430,391.97 100
15.010211.00.05 Development of management and information systems
94,581.00 43,143.00 140,705.62 100
15.010211.00.06 Further training and management training
149,146.00 149,146.00 46,547.00 125,236.14 78.97
TOTAL 2,850,455.00 2,850,455.00 2,304,078.00 933,457.48 91.11
(*) € 52,673.03 have been decommitted
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 8 of 75
ANNEX 3: Annual accounts and financial reports
Annex 3 Financial Reports - DG EAC - Financial Year 2013
Table 1 : Commitments
Table 2 : Payments
Table 3 : Commitments to be settled
Table 4 : Balance Sheet
Table 5 : Economic Outturn Account
Table 6 : Average Payment Times
Table 7 : Income
Table 8 : Recovery of undue Payments
Table 9 : Ageing Balance of Recovery Orders
Table 10 : Waivers of Recovery Orders
Table 11 : Negotiated Procedures (excluding Building Contracts)
Table 12 : Summary of Contracts (excluding Building Contracts)
Table 13 : Building Contracts
Table 14 : Contracts declared Secret
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 9 of 75
Additional comments
1) Article 128 FR Transparency The average time to grant according to Article 128 FR is respected by DG EAC. The average period of 6 months in Article 128 (2a) FR is at 2,6 months at DG EAC and the average of 3 months in Article 128 (2b)FR is at 1,7 months at DG EAC. 2) The current receivables presented in Table 4 and Table 9 have a difference in balance of € 100.479,29. This difference between SAP and the data warehouse is related to transactions recorded on different profit centers for technical accounting reasons. DG BUDG is informed and consulted, but not able to solve this issue. The receivable amount presented in Table 9 is the correct one and at Commission level the difference is balanced.
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 10 of 75
TABLE 1: OUTTURN ON COMMITMENT APPROPRIATIONS IN 2013(in Mio €)
Commitment appropriations
authorised
Commitments made %
1 2 3=2/1
Title 15 Education and culture
15 15 01 Administrative expenditure of the `Education and culture- policy area 76,40 72,85 95,35 %
15 02 Lifelong learning, including multilingualism 1508,00 1429,53 94,80 %
15 04 Developing cultural and audiovisual cooperation in Europe 11,22 10,64 94,79 %
15 05 Encouraging and promoting cooperation in the field of youth and sports 225,92 193,51 85,65 %
15 07 People - Programme for the mobility of researchers 1,48 0,41 27,94 %
Total Title 15 1823,02 1706,93 93,63%
Total DG EAC 1823,02 1706,93 93,63 %
* Commitment appropriations authorised include, in addition to the budget voted by the legislative authority, appropriations carried over from the previous exercise, budget amendments as well as miscellaneous commitment appropriations for the period (e.g. internal and external assigned revenue).
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 11 of 75
TABLE 2: OUTTURN ON PAYMENT APPROPRIATIONS IN 2013 (in Mio €)
Chapter Payment
appropriations authorised *
Payments made %
1 2 3=2/1
Title 15 Education and culture
15 15 01 Administrative expenditure of the `Education and culture- policy area 87,51 69,95 79,93 %
15 02 Lifelong learning, including multilingualism 1463,29 1397,65 95,51 %
15 04 Developing cultural and audiovisual cooperation in Europe 7,80 7,75 99,42 %
15 05 Encouraging and promoting cooperation in the field of youth and sports 205,16 177,77 86,65 %
15 07 People - Programme for the mobility of researchers 2,88 1,38 47,82 %
Total Title 15 1766,65 1654,50 93,65%
Total DG EAC 1766,65 1654,50 93,65 %
* Payment appropriations authorised include, in addition to the budget voted by the legislative authority, appropriations carried over from the previous exercise, budget amendments as well as miscellaneous payment appropriations for the period (e.g. internal and external assigned revenue).
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 12 of 75
TABLE 3 : BREAKDOWN OF COMMITMENTS TO BE SETTLED AT 31/12/2013 (in Mio €)
2013 Commitments to be settled Commitments to be
settled from
Total of commitments to be settled at end
Total of commitments to be settled at end
Chapter Commitments 2013 Payments 2013 RAL 2013 % to be settled financial years previous
to 2013
of financial year 2013(incl corrections)
of financial year 2012(incl. corrections)
1 2 3=1-2 4=1-2/1 5 6=3+5 7
Title 15 : Education and culture
15 15 01
Administrative expenditure of the `Education and culture- policy area
72,82 60,04 12,77 17,54 % 0,22 12,99 11,21
15 02 Lifelong learning, including multilingualism
1429,53 1222,24 207,28 14,50 % 39,06 246,35 221,71
15 04
Developing cultural and audiovisual cooperation in Europe
10,64 6,11 4,53 42,58 % 1,52 6,04 3,35
15 05
Encouraging and promoting cooperation in the field of youth and sports
193,51 158,85 34,66 17,91 % 12,03 46,69 40,29
15 07
People - Programme for the mobility of researchers
0,41 0,00 0,41 100,00 % 1,27 1,69 2,65
Total Title 15 1706,90 1447,24 259,66 15,21% 54,10 313,76 279,21
Total DG EAC 1706,90 1447,24 259,66 15,21 % 54,10 313,76 279,21
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 13 of 75
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 14 of 75
TABLE 4 : BALANCE SHEET
BALANCE SHEET 2013 2012
A.I. NON CURRENT ASSETS 132142667,8 160513166,9
A.I.1. Intangible Assets 2805998,57 1.570.312,46
A.I.5. LT Pre-Financing 129336669,3 158.942.854,46
A.II. CURRENT ASSETS 1001946838 956646166,8
A.II.2. Short-term Pre-Financing 984208551,5 929.885.120,04
A.II.3.2. Current Receivables and Recoveries 17738286,08 26.761.046,72
A.II.5. Cash and Cash Equivalents 0,00
ASSETS 1134089505 1117159334
P.III. CURRENT LIABILITIES -26097721,22 -9239166,74
P.III.4. Accounts Payable -26097721,22 -9.239.166,74
LIABILITIES -26097721,22 -9239166,74
NET ASSETS (ASSETS less LIABILITIES) 1107991784 1.107.920.166,94
P.I.2. Accumulated Surplus / Deficit 11291191 0
Non-allocated central (surplus)/deficit* -1119282975 -1107920167
TOTAL 0,00 0,00
It should be noted that the balance sheet and economic outturn account presented in Annex 3 to this Annual Activity Report, represent only the (contingent) assets, (contingent) liabilities, expenses and revenues that are under the control of this Directorate General. Significant amounts such as own resource revenues and cash held in Commission bank accounts are not included in this Directorate General's accounts since they are managed centrally by DG Budget, on whose balance sheet and economic outturn account they appear. Furthermore, since the accumulated result of the Commission is not split amongst the various Directorates General, it can be seen that the balance sheet presented here is not in equilibrium. Additionally, the figures included in tables 4 and 5 are provisional since they are, at this date, still subject to audit by the Court of Auditors. It is thus possible that amounts included in these tables may have to be adjusted following this audit.
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 15 of 75
TABLE 5 : ECONOMIC OUTTURN ACCOUNT
ECONOMIC OUTTURN ACCOUNT 2013 2012
II.1 SURPLUS/ DEF. FROM OPERATING ACTIVT 1409518440 1239045681
II.1.1. OPERATING REVENUES -164227691,5 -154265559
II.1.1.1. Own resource and contributions -23.908.897,00 -22.983.427,00
II.1.1.2. Other operating revenue -140.318.794,48 -131.282.132,00
II.1.2. OPERATING EXPENSES 1573746131 1393311240
II.1.2.1. Administrative Expenses 62.096.038,65 61.922.242,66
II.1.2.2. Operating Expenses 1.511.650.092,69 1.331.388.997,35
II.2. SURPLUS/DEF. NON OPERATING ACTIVIT -4738891,16 -5791541,74
II.2.1. FINANCIAL OPERATIONS -4738891,16 -5791541,74
II.2.1.1. Financial revenue -4.752.696,78 -5.794.621,51
II.2.1.2. Financial expenses 13.805,62 3.079,77
ECONOMIC OUTTURN ACCOUNT 1.404.779.548,70 1.233.254.139,27
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 16 of 75
TABLE 6: AVERAGE PAYMENT TIMES FOR 2013 - DG EAC
Legal Times
Maximum Payment
Time (Days)
Total Number of Payments
Nbr of Payments
within Time Limit
Percentage Average
Payment Times (Days)
Nbr of Late Payments Percentage
Average Payment Times
(Days)
20 75 68 90,67 % 9,68 7 9,33 % 21,14
21 65 62 95,38 % 13,74 3 4,62 % 22,67
29 74 74 100,00 % 8,43
30 1389 1324 95,32 % 16,13 65 4,68 % 38,89
44 1 1 100,00 % 50
45 8177 8152 99,69 % 10,38 25 0,31 % 80,08
50 9 9 100,00 % 16
60 1256 1255 99,92 % 17,23 1 0,08 % 68
75 3 3 100,00 % 18
90 16 16 100,00 % 32,88
105 1 1 100,00 % 16
Total Number of Payments
11066 10964 99,08 % 102 0,92 %
Average Payment Time
12,23 11,90 47,69
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 17 of 75
Target Times
Target Payment
Time (Days)
Total Number of Payments
Nbr of Payments
within Target Time
Percentage Average
Payment Times (Days)
Nbr of Late Payments Percentage
Average Payment Times
(Days)
20 392 313 79,85 % 13,59 79 20,15 % 27,96
21 65 62 95,38 % 13,74 3 4,62 % 22,67
29 74 74 100,00 % 8,43
30 10420 10282 98,68 % 11,54 138 1,32 % 45,17
45 1 1 100,00 % 56
50 6 6 100,00 % 15
60 5 5 100,00 % 16,6
75 13 12 92,31 % 27,42 1 7,69 % 85
90 1 1 100,00 % 16
Total Number of Payments
10977 10755 97,98 % 222 2,02 %
Average Payment Time
12,17 11,62 38,97
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 18 of 75
Suspensions
Average Report
Approval Suspension
Days
Average Payment
Suspension Days
Number of Suspended Payments
% of Total Number
Total Number of Payments
Amount of Suspended Payments
% of Total Amount
Total Paid Amount
6 96 472 4,27 % 11066 48.985.561,70 2,97 % 1.648.450.549,09
Late Interest paid in 2013
DG GL Account Description Amount (Eur)
EAC 65010000 Interest expense on late payment of charges 0,00
EAC 65010100 Interest on late payment of charges New FR 13 805,62
13 805,62
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 19 of 75
TABLE 7 : SITUATION ON REVENUE AND INCOME IN 2013 Revenue and income recognized Revenue and income cashed from Outstanding
Chapter Current year RO Carried over RO Total Current Year RO Carried over RO Total balance
1 2 3=1+2 4 5 6=4+5 7=3-6
52 REVENUE FROM INVESTMENTS OR LOANS GRANTED, BANK AND OTHER INTEREST 5964028,27 1112369,13 7076397,4 5742375,44 1102334,36 6844709,8 231687,6
57 OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS AND REFUNDS IN CONNECTION WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE OPERATION OF THE INSTITUTION
981595,32 60053,48 1041648,8 981595,32 3293,48 984888,8 56760
59 OTHER REVENUE ARISING FROM ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT 653494,88 0 653494,88 653494,88 0 653494,88 0
60 CONTRIBUTIONS TO UNION PROGRAMMES 167696056,2 31680,24 167727736,4 167696056,2 31680,24 167727736,4 0
66 OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS AND REFUNDS 64712401,58 19283403,3 83995804,88 54175074,01 18073146,21 72248220,22 11747584,66
70 INTEREST ON LATE PAYMENTS 2416,71 347,72 2764,43 2273,12 347,72 2620,84 143,59
Total DG EAC 240009992,9 20487853,87 260497846,8 229250869 19210802,01 248461671 12036175,85
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 20 of 75
TABLE 8 : RECOVERY OF UNDUE PAYMENTS (Number of Recovery Contexts and corresponding Transaction Amount)
INCOME BUDGET RECOVERY ORDERS ISSUED IN 2013 Error Irregularity TOTAL Qualified TOTAL RC(incl. non-qualified) % Qualified/Total RC
Year of Origin (commitment) Nbr RO Amount Nbr RO Amount Nbr RO Amount Nbr RO Amount Nbr RO Amount
2001 1 7.486,51 1 7.486,51 2 39.041,56 50,00% 19,18%
2005 2 2.443,61 2 2.443,61 24 434.844,76 8,33% 0,56%
2006 1 973,91 1 973,91 34 316.215,03 2,94% 0,31%
2007 1 5.872,13 11 1.845.141,96 12 1.851.014,09 56 5.166.900,88 21,43% 35,82%
2008 1 16.182,39 6 329.061,95 7 345.244,34 93 15.249.062,15 7,53% 2,26%
2009 1 1.510,04 1 1.510,04 120 39.965.987,11 0,83% 0,00%
2010 1 40.000,00 1 40.000,00 39 3.374.945,62 2,56% 1,19%
2011 2 51.767,28 2 51.767,28 92 1.219.181,78 2,17% 4,25%
2012 2 39.074,29 2 39.074,29 76 912.543,63 2,63% 4,28%
No Link 1 9.553,64 1 9.553,64 9 29.541,80 11,11% 32,34%
Sub-Total 2 22.054,52 28 2.327.013,19 30 2.349.067,71 620 68.259.577,63 4,84% 3,44%
EXPENSES BUDGET Error Irregularity OLAF Notified TOTAL Qualified TOTAL RC(incl. non-qualified) % Qualified/Total RC
Nbr Amount Nbr Amount Nbr Amount Nbr Amount Nbr Amount Nbr Amount
INCOME LINES IN INVOICES
NON ELIGIBLE IN COST CLAIMS 7 49809,31 28 4063459,3 35 4113268,61 40 4.222.810,56 87,50% 97,41%
CREDIT NOTES 15 365760,34 15 236658,05 30 602418,39 239 896.866,38 12,55% 67,17%
Sub-Total 22 415569,65 43 4300117,35 65 4715687 279 5119676,94 23,30% 92,11%
GRAND TOTAL 24 437624,17 71 6627130,54 95 7064754,71 899 73379254,57 10,57% 6,43%
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 21 of 75
TABLE 9: AGEING BALANCE OF RECOVERY ORDERS AT 31/12/2013 FOR EAC
Number at 01/01/2013
Number at 31/12/2013 Evolution
Open Amount (Eur) at
01/01/2013
Open Amount (Eur) at
31/12/2013 Evolution
1999 1 1 0,00 % 8.000,00 8.000,00 0,00 %
2002 3 2 -33,33 % 136.900,51 118.079,19 -13,75 %
2003 2 2 0,00 % 38.667,00 38.667,00 0,00 %
2004 2 2 0,00 % 19.500,00 19.500,00 0,00 %
2005 9 9 0,00 % 109.757,47 109.757,47 0,00 %
2006 1 -100,00 % 10.061,96 -100,00 %
2007 1 1 0,00 % 79.532,80 79.532,80 0,00 %
2008 5 4 -20,00 % 597.659,39 97.659,39 -83,66 %
2009 7 2 -71,43 % 180.164,56 20.706,16 -88,51 %
2010 3 2 -33,33 % 692.265,00 663.934,76 -4,09 %
2011 1 1 0,00 % 8.329,31 8.329,31 0,00 %
2012 43 2 -95,35 % 18.607.015,87 112.885,78 -99,39 %
2013 24 10.759.123,99
78 52 -33,33 % 20.487.853,87 12.036.175,85 -41,25 %
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 22 of 75
TABLE 10 : RECOVERY ORDER WAIVERS IN 2013 >= EUR 100.000
Waiver Central Key
Linked RO Central Key
RO Accepted Amount
(Eur)
LE Account Group
Commission Decision Comments
Total DG
Number of RO waivers
DG EAC has no recovery order waivers above € 100.000 in 2013.
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 23 of 75
TABLE 11 : CENSUS OF NEGOTIATED PROCEDURES - DG EAC - 2013
Procurement > EUR 60,000
Negotiated Procedure
Legal base Number of Procedures Amount (€)
Art. 134.1(b) 2 832.339,89
Total 2 832.339,89
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 24 of 75
TABLE 12 : SUMMARY OF PROCEDURES OF DG EAC EXCLUDING BUILDING CONTRACTS
Internal Procedures > € 60,000
Procedure Type Count Amount (€)
Internal Procedures > € 60,000
Exceptional Negotiated Procedure without publication of a contract notice (Art. 134 RAP)
2 832.339,89
Open Procedure (Art. 122.2 IR) 3 19.089.900,00
Open Procedure (Art. 127.2 RAP) 5 1.219.494,00
TOTAL 10 21.141.733,89
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 25 of 75
TABLE 13 : BUILDING CONTRACTS
Total number of contracts :
Total amount :
Legal base Contract Number Contractor Name Description Amount (€)
No data to be reported
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 26 of 75
TABLE 14 : CONTRACTS DECLARED SECRET
Total Number of Contracts :
Total amount :
Legal base
Contract Number Contractor Name Type of
contract Description Amount (€)
No data to be reported
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 27 of 75
ANNEX 4: Materiality criteria
In line with Commission guidelines, the deficiencies leading to reservations should fall within the scope of the declaration of assurance. The following types of possible deficiencies can be relevant in DG EAC’s context:
• Significant repetitive errors detected during ex post controls or supervision exercises. The frequency and duration of the errors will be the determining factor to judge their significance.
• Significant weakness in one of the control systems identified by auditors, in supervision exercises, or in the assessment of the implementation of the internal control standards. A particularly relevant case for DG EAC would be identified weaknesses in the control chain of National Agencies.
• Situation where a major critical issue that is of relevance to the declaration has been identified by the European Court of Auditors, the Internal Audit Service or the Internal Audit Capability.
• Situation where the DG knows that it does not have sufficient evidence from internal control systems or audit coverage.
• Situation where the DG has evidence that a significant risk remain unmitigated. • A significant risk for the reputation of the Commission.
When significant weaknesses are identified, a quantification of the amount at risk should be carried out when possible.
As the DG implements its budget through three very different implementation modes (see section 2.1-2.2), which have different risk profiles and which each have their own control and supervision arrangements, it is considered that observed quantified weaknesses should be assessed against the part of the budget spent in each specific implementation mode. As the Directors of the executive agencies are Authorising Officers by Delegation for the parts of the programmes delegated to them, they take responsibility for this spending in their declaration of assurance in the AARs of the executive agencies. Consequently, the operational spending through executive agencies is not part of the declaration of assurance of the Director General of the parent DGs, only the subsidy for the EA's operating budget. The following diagram gives an overview of the discussed basis for assessing materiality for the two other implementation modes.
Overview of basis for assessing materiality
LLP 15.02
Culture 15.04
MEDIA 15.04
Youth 15.05
People 15.07
Indirect management through NAs
Direct management by
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 28 of 75
DG EAC
In order to better capture the multi-annual nature of programmes and control activities, a multi-annual approach to the calculation of error rates has been introduced as from AAR 2012. The detected error rate calculated in the 2013 AAR is based on audits carried out over the prior 3 years. Cashed recoveries related to the audit findings (no extension of audit findings is possible in the context of DG EAC’s beneficiary population) are deducted to arrive at the residual error rate. If the amount at risk surpasses 2% of the budget for a specific implementation mode during the multiannual reporting period, a reservation should be considered.
In order to quantify the weaknesses, a detected error rate is obtained through random ex post audits for each implementation mode.
Where the deficiency consists of an observed serious weakness in the control system, it will not always be possible to quantify the amount at risk based on observed errors. This can be in particular relevant for the indirect management through National Agencies, where, in the framework of the single audit model, the DG's assurance is mainly based on a verification of the functioning of the control system. In such a case, the following steps are taken to calculate the percentage of the budget at risk:
• Analyse the effectiveness of the control system of each NA/NAU combination and conclude, based on all available information (audits, visits, Declarations of Assurance, reporting…), if the system gives acceptable, partial or no assurance.
• Identify the part of the budget that has been executed through systems with acceptable, partial and no assurance.
• Deduct any relevant suspensions of payments and any financial corrections to obtain the maximum open exposure.
• As an approximation for the potential exposure, consider that 20% of the calculated maximum open exposure is at risk for NA/NAUs with no assurance; 5% of the exposure for NA/NAUs with partial assurance; the observed error rate in random testing for NA/NAUs with acceptable assurance.
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 29 of 75
ANNEX 5: Internal Control Template(s) for budget implementation (ICTs)
Procurement management
Stage 1: Programming, evaluation and selection of tenders
A - Preparation, adoption and publication of the Annual Work Programme and Calls for tender and other procurement procedures
Main control objectives: Ensuring that the tenders submitted meet the objectives, priorities and needs set by DG EAC; Compliance. Main risks It may happen (again) that… Mitigating controls How to determine coverage,
frequency and depth How to estimate the costs and benefits of controls Control indicators
Risk that the annual work programme and the subsequent calls for tender or other procurement procedures do not adequately reflect the objectives and priorities or are not consistent with DG EAC legal bases. Risk that the needs are not well defined (operationally and economically) and that the procedure to procure was inappropriate.
Definition of needs and procedures to be launched in the Work program or other planning tools. Tenders discussed during directorial management meetings and sometimes at the level of the Directors Board. Planning of procedures and monitoring at the level of central financial unit, collaboration with Service Support to Directors (SuDs) and Operating Units (OU).
Coverage / Frequency: 100% of procurement procedures (nature of checks may differ for specific contracts under non-competitive Framework Contracts) Depth: In-depth analysis of procedures maybe differentiated depending on the type of procedure
Risk of high quality offers not being submitted due to the choice of the procedure and/or the specifications
Regular preparatory meetings between central financial unit and OU before launching the procedures
Coverage / Frequency: 100% of procurement procedures (nature of checks may differ for specific contracts under non-
Costs: Cost of staff involved in procurement planning Benefits: Qualitative benefits: Comprehensive Work Programme and planning give assurance that procedures meet DG EAC objectives, priorities and needs and that the procedures are appropriate to the needs.
Effectiveness: % of number of calls and other procurement procedures launched / number of calls and other procurement procedures planned in WP or other planning tools Efficiency: Cost-Effectiveness:
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 30 of 75
Main risks It may happen (again) that… Mitigating controls How to determine coverage,
frequency and depth How to estimate the costs and benefits of controls Control indicators
Financial circuit : Central Financial Unit validation and AOS approval on specifications
competitive Framework Contracts) Depth: In-depth analysis of the procedures maybe differentiated depending on the type of procedure
B - Selecting and awarding: Evaluation, ranking and selection of tenders Main control objectives: Ensuring that the tenders submitted meet the objectives, priorities and needs set by DG EAC; Compliance; Prevention of fraud.
Main risks It may happen (again) that… Mitigating controls How to determine coverage,
frequency and depth How to estimate the costs and benefits of controls Control indicators
Risk of most advantageous offer not being selected, due to a deficiencies in the selection/evaluation process
Documented procedures available for OU together with templates on intranet (Based on Business Process Management analysis) Appointment of the evaluation committee members who might be assisted for important calls by independent experts Validation by the AO of the evaluation stage In addition, if applicable: opinion of advisory bodies
Coverage / Frequency: 100% of procurement procedures (nature of checks may differ for specific contracts under non-competitive Framework Contracts) Depth: In-depth analysis of procedures maybe differentiated depending on the type of procedure
Costs: Cost of staff involved in the selection/evaluation of calls. If applicable, cost of the external experts Benefits: A robustselection/evaluation process allows the DG to cover its needs in an efficient way and limits the possible litigations High quality services provided
Effectiveness: % of number of evaluated tenders / total number of tenders received Efficiency: Cost-Effectiveness:
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 31 of 75
Main risks It may happen (again) that… Mitigating controls How to determine coverage,
frequency and depth How to estimate the costs and benefits of controls Control indicators
Training sessions on new regulatory provisions for procurement given to staff involved in contracts management. Systematic checks on operational and legal aspects performed before signature of the contract.
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 32 of 75
Stage 2: Contracting and monitoring the execution
Main control objectives: : Ensuring that the tenders submitted meet the objectives, priorities and needs set by DG EAC. Ensuring that the operational results (deliverables) are of good value and meet the objectives and conditions; ensuring that the related financial operations comply with regulatory and contractual provisions; prevention of fraud; ensuring appropriate accounting of the operations; compliance.
Main risks It may happen (again) that… Mitigating controls How to determine coverage,
frequency and depth How to estimate the costs and benefits of controls Control indicators
Risk of payments which are not in accordance with the applicable contractual and regulatory provisions. Risk of non-implementation of the contract (the tasks foreseen are not, totally or partially carried out in accordance with the technical description and requirements foreseen in the contract) Risk of inadequate quality or not reaching policy objectives
Effective external communication and guidance to the tenderers. Preparatory meetings for sensitive and high risk contracts. Operational and financial checks in accordance with the financial circuits and the provisions of the contractual documents in order to ensure that each stage (including amendment) of the procedure/work programme is correctly and fully implemented. Monitoring measures are put in place also at the moment of interim reports. Supervision and authorisation by the AO during the procedure/work programme implementation
Coverage / Frequency: 100% of procurement procedures Depth: In case of doubts at the time of payment, more in-depth controls are put in place
Costs: Cost of staff involved in this phase Benefits: Qualitative and quantitative benefits : Detection of errors before payment, sound financial management and respect of contractual provisions Reduction of the committed amounts for contracts and more efficient use of funds due to risk detection.. Reduction of the error rate Operational results are of good value and meet the objectives and conditions
Effectiveness: Number of suspended or refused reports/total number of reports Efficiency: Cost-Effectiveness:
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 33 of 75
Stage 3: Ex-post controls
A - Reviews, audits and monitoring Main control objectives: Measuring the level of error in the population after ex-ante controls have been undertaken; detect and correct any error or fraud remaining undetected after the implementation ex-ante controls; identifying possible systemic weaknesses in the ex-ante controls, or weaknesses in the rules
Main risks It may happen (again) that… Mitigating controls How to determine coverage,
frequency and depth How to estimate the costs and benefits of controls Control indicators
Risk of not detecting by ex-ante controls errors, non-compliance with specifications or potential frauds The ex-post controls focus on the detection of external errors (e.g. made by beneficiaries and contractors), which is the main driver of the error rate.
At intervals carry out ex-post controls and external audits of a representative sample of operations to measure the level of error in the population after ex-ante controls have been performed Additional sample if necessary to address specific risks At intervals IAC audits carried out on DG EAC procedures Ex-post controls and audit planning and monitoring of the action plan implementation. In case of systemic error being detected, extrapolation to all similar non-audited procedures.
MUS and random Selection
Audit programme of approximately 10 MUS and 10 randomly selected items per year on procurement, with a coverage of 3%, and a 100% depth of testing.
Period checks of procurement transactions in the context of the regular accounting control process
Costs: Cost of staff involved in the coordination and execution of the ex-post controls and audits. Benefits: Reduction in the number and budget value of the errors detected by the auditors. Improvement of ex-ante controls or risk approach in ex-ante controls by feeding back findings from audits. Improvement in rules and guidance from feedback from audits.
Effectiveness:
Consistent error rate data for the AAR.
Efficiency:
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 34 of 75
Grants direct management
Stage 1: Programming, evaluation and selection of proposals
A - Preparation, adoption and publication of the Annual Work Programme and Calls for proposals and other grants procedures
Main control objectives: Ensuring that the proposals submitted meet the objectives and priorities set by DG EAC; Compliance; Prevention of fraud
Main risks It may happen (again) that… Mitigating controls How to determine coverage,
frequency and depth How to estimate the costs and benefits of controls Control indicators
The annual work programme and the subsequent calls for proposals or other grant procedures do not adequately reflect the objectives and priorities, are incoherent and/or the essential eligibility, selection and award criteria are not adequate to ensure the evaluation of the proposals. The annual work programmes are not consistent with DG EAC legal bases.
Hierarchical validation within the authorising department Inter-service consultation, including all relevant DGs; adoption by the Commission Explicit allocation of responsibility. Validation of calls or other grant procedures by the central financial unit before launching the procedure
Coverage / Frequency: 100% Depth: All work programmes and calls or other grant procedures are thoroughly reviewed at all levels, including for operational and legal aspects. In-depth controls are put in place for riskier grant procedures.
Costs: estimation of cost of staff involved in the preparation and validation of the annual work programmes and calls or other grant procedures. Benefits: Qualitative benefits. A good Work Programme and well prepared calls or other grant procedures give assurance that applications meet DG EAC objectives and priorities. Clear planning/programming ensure simplification of procedures Quantitative benefits: number of applications or number of work program objectives met.
Effectiveness: % of number of calls or other grant procedures launched / number of calls or other grant procedures planned in WP Efficiency: Cost-Effectiveness:
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 35 of 75
Main risks It may happen (again) that… Mitigating controls How to determine coverage,
frequency and depth How to estimate the costs and benefits of controls Control indicators
In the preparation of simplified form of grants, the categories of eligible costs are not clearly identified in advance
Methodologies on calculating simplified form of grants have been prepared. Commission decisions were taken on their use. The method for determining lump sums, unit costs or flat-rate financing is based on either adequate statistical data, certified historical data or usual accounting practices of the beneficiary. Regular meetings between central financial unit and Operational Unit (OU) were organised to discuss the methodologies and to harmonize the use of this form of grants at the lever of the DG Regular monitoring/follow-up of their implementation in DG EAC.
Coverage / Frequency: 100% of procedures concerned by simplified forms of grants Depth: in-depth analysis for categories of costs with high degree of complexity and risk
Costs: estimation of cost of staff involved in the preparation and implementation of simplified form of grant Benefits: Qualitative benefits refer to simplification of grants procedures and consequent ease of application.
Effectiveness: % number of grant procedures concerned by simplified forms of grants/total number of grant procedures Efficiency: Cost-Effectiveness:
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 36 of 75
B - Selecting and awarding: Evaluation, ranking and selection of proposals Main control objectives: Ensuring that the proposals submitted meet the objectives and priorities set by DG EAC; Compliance; Prevention of fraud
Main risks It may happen (again) that… Mitigating controls How to determine coverage,
frequency and depth How to estimate the costs and benefits of controls Control indicators
The evaluation, ranking and selection of proposals is not carried out in accordance with the established procedures, the objectives and priorities and the eligibility, selection and award criteria defined in the annual work programme and subsequent calls for proposals and/or invitations to submit proposals.
Documented procedures available to operational staff with relevant guidance documents such as templates e.g., via the intranet (based on Business Process Management analysis) Appointment of the evaluation committee members who might be assisted for important calls by independent experts Evaluation committee members are selected for their technical expertise and independence (e.g. sworn declaration for conflicts of interests) Validation by the AO of the evaluation stage In addition, if applicable: opinion of advisory bodies; comitology where appropriate Training sessions on new
100% of individual or spontaneous applications are evaluated. More in depth analysis can be carried out depending on the type of grants
Costs: estimation of cost of staff involved in the evaluation process. If applicable, cost of the external experts Benefits: a robust evaluation process contributes to assurance on the good implementation of the WP
Effectiveness: % of number of evaluated applications / total number of applications received Efficiency: Cost-Effectiveness:
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 37 of 75
Main risks It may happen (again) that… Mitigating controls How to determine coverage,
frequency and depth How to estimate the costs and benefits of controls Control indicators
regulatory provisions for grants given to staff involved in grant management to improve performance Systematic checks on operational and legal aspects performed before signature of the grant agreement or decision.
Stage 2: Contracting
Main control objectives: : Ensuring that the proposals accepted meet the objectives and priorities set by DG EAC; Compliance Main risks It may happen (again) that… Mitigating controls How to determine coverage,
frequency and depth How to estimate the costs and benefits of controls Control indicators
Procedures do not comply with the regulatory framework.
Documented procedures available to operational staff with relevant guidance documents such as templates e.g., via the intranet(based on Business Process Management process analysis) Project Officers implement evaluators' recommendations in contracting with applicants
100 % of proposals are checked by financial initiators and verifiers before commitment Depth may be differentiated depending on the nature of the grant or beneficiary
Costs: estimation of cost of staff involved in the contracting process. Benefits: Qualitative benefits: The mitigating controls put in place to ensure the respect of rules and procedures contribute to avoiingd possible errors at the stage of contracting.
Effectiveness: % of errors or challenges to contractual procedures Efficiency: Cost-Effectiveness:
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 38 of 75
Main risks It may happen (again) that… Mitigating controls How to determine coverage,
frequency and depth How to estimate the costs and benefits of controls Control indicators
Hierarchical validation of proposed adjustments. Ex-ante verification of the proposed budget Signature of the grant agreement or decision by the AO.
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 39 of 75
Stage 3: Monitoring the execution
Main control objectives: ensuring that the operational results (deliverables) from the projects are of good value and meet the objectives and conditions; ensuring that the related financial operations comply with regulatory and contractual provisions; prevention of fraud; ensuring appropriate accounting of the operations
Main risks It may happen (again) that… Mitigating controls How to determine coverage,
frequency and depth How to estimate the costs and benefits of controls Control indicators
The actions foreseen are not, totally or partially carried out in accordance with the technical description and requirements foreseen in the grant agreements or decisions and/or the amounts paid exceed what is due in accordance with the applicable contractual and regulatory provisions.
Kick-off meetings (if applicable) and "launch events" involving the beneficiaries in order to avoid beneficiary reporting errors. Effective external communication about guidance to the beneficiaries. Operational and financial checks in accordance with the financial circuits and the provisions of the contractual documents in order to ensure that each stage (including amendment) of the action/work programme is correctly and fully implemented. Supervision and authorisation by the AO during the action/work programme implementation.
100% of the projects are controlled each time a payment is made or an amendment is issued. In case of doubts at the moment of the payment, more in-depth controls are put in place.
Costs: estimation of cost of staff involved in this phase. Benefits: any reduction of the committed amounts for grants due to risk materialization. (data not available so far) Reduction of the error rate. Operational results from the projects are of good value and meet the objectives and conditions
Effectiveness: % of errors detected at an operational or financial level Efficiency: Cost-Effectiveness:
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 40 of 75
Main risks It may happen (again) that… Mitigating controls How to determine coverage,
frequency and depth How to estimate the costs and benefits of controls Control indicators
Audit certificates for final payments required in compliance with FR.
Non-detection of grants with high risk of non-implementation when no bank guarantee is requested.
Methodology on evaluation of pre-financing risks and guidelines on pre-financing payments are in place in conformity with FR Training sessions on new regulatory provisions for grants given to staff involved in grants management Workshops on risk assessment for staff concerned Verification at the stage of payments
100% of grants for which a pre-financing is foreseen are subject to a risk analysis An in-depth evaluation of risks is carried out for each grant concerned by a pre-financing, based on a set of criteria (value, duration, type of grant, subject, financial capacity, type of payments).
Cost: estimation of cost of staff involved in risk analysis Benefits: assurance that riskier actions are identified and mitigating measures (e.g. guarantees) are taken in order to preserve EU financial interests.
Effectiveness: % number risk analysis/number of grants concerned by pre-financing payment Efficiency: Cost-Effectiveness:
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 41 of 75
Stage 4: Ex-post controls
A - Reviews, audits and monitoring Main control objectives: Measuring the level of error in the population after ex-ante controls have been undertaken; detect and correct any error or fraud remaining undetected after the implementation ex-ante controls; identifying possible systemic weaknesses in the ex-ante controls, or weaknesses in the rules
Main risks It may happen (again) that… Mitigating controls How to determine coverage,
frequency and depth How to estimate the costs and benefits of controls Control indicators
Risk of not detecting by ex-ante controls errors or non-compliance with specifications or frauds The ex-post controls focus on the detection of external errors (e.g. made by beneficiaries , which is the main driver of the error rate.
At intervals carry out ex-post controls and external audits of a representative sample of operations to measure the level of error in the population after ex-ante controls have been performed. Additional sample to address specific risks, where appropriate. At intervals IAC audits carried out on DG EAC procedures Ex-post controls and audit planning and monitoring of the action plan implementation. In case of systemic error detected extrapolation to all the non-audited similar procedures.
MUS Selection
Audit programme of approximately 10 externally contracted audits per year on projects, with a coverage of 10%, and a 100% depth of testing.
Period checks of grant transactions in the context of the AAR and the regular accounting control process
Costs: Cost of staff involved in the coordination and execution of the ex-post controls and audits. Benefits: Reduction in the number and budget value of the errors detected by the auditors. Improvement of ex-ante controls or risk approach in ex-ante controls by feeding back findings from audits. Improvement in rules and guidance from feedback from audits.
Effectiveness:
Consistent error rate data for the AAR.
Efficiency:
Cost-Effectiveness:
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 42 of 75
B - Implementing results from ex-post audits/controls Main control objectives: Ensuring that the (audit) results from the ex-post controls are implemented.
Main risks It may happen (again) that… Mitigating controls How to determine coverage,
frequency and depth How to estimate the costs and benefits of controls Control indicators
Risk of non-implementing of action plans for correcting errors, irregularities and cases of fraud detected
Ex-post supervision strategy, performed by external auditors, AOSD decision based on the recommendation of the auditors and proper follow up of recoveries.
100% of results are implemented
Costs: Cost of staff involved in the implementation of the audit results. Benefits: Budget value of the errors, detected by ex-post controls/audits, which have actually been corrected
Effectiveness:
Recovery of ineligible amounts
Efficiency Indicators:
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 43 of 75
Indirect management – National Agencies
Stage 1 – Establishment (or prolongation) of the mandate to the entrusted entity.
Main control objectives: Ensuring that the legal framework for the management of the relevant funds is fully compliant and regular (legality & regularity), delegated to an appropriate entity (best value for public money, economy, efficiency), without any conflicts of interests (anti-fraud strategy).
Main risks It may happen (again) that… Mitigating controls How to determine coverage
frequency and depth How to estimate the costs
and benefits of controls Possible control indicators
The establishment (or prolongation) of the mandate of the National Agency is affected by legal issues, which would undermine the legal basis for the management of the related decentralised EU funds (via that particular National Agency).
For the period 2007-2013, the Member States/participating countries provide the Commission with the preliminary assurances (ex-ante declaration of assurance) that the minimum conditions established by the legal bases are fulfilled by the National Agencies
Before the Commission signs a contract with the National Agency, DG EAC a) reviews the ex-ante declaration/ex-ante compliance assessment b) approves the work programme of the National Agency.
After each year of programme implementation, the National Authorities provide an ex-post
Coverage/Frequency: 100%
Depth: Checklist includes a list of the requirements of the regulatory provisions to be complied with.
If risk materialises, funds delegated during the year(s) to the entrusted entity may be subject to error and irregularity
Costs: estimation of cost of staff involved in the preparation, adoption and selection work.
Benefits: The potential error which could affect the budget amount entrusted to the National Agency, if significant (legal) errors would otherwise be detected.
Effectiveness: Smooth transition to next programme;
Efficiency: Timely conclusion of process.
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 44 of 75
Main risks It may happen (again) that… Mitigating controls How to determine coverage
frequency and depth How to estimate the costs
and benefits of controls Possible control indicators
declaration of assurance on the proper management of the funds by the NAs, on the functioning of their control system and on the probity of the accounts presented in the NAs yearly reports.
DG EAC has set minimum standards of control and procedures for the NAs (Guide for National Agencies, updated annually) and issued Guidelines for National Authorities.
For the period 2014-2020 the same preliminary assurance is provided through the handover and ex-ante Compliance Process.
Negotiation of legal base with the Legislative Authority, following which the designation of the National Authority, National Agency and Independent Audit Body.
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 45 of 75
Stage 2 – Ex-ante (re)assessment of the entrusted entity’s financial and control framework (towards “budget autonomy”; “financial rules”).
Main control objectives: Ensuring that the entrusted entity is fully prepared to start/continue implementing the delegated funds autonomously while respecting all 5 ICOs.
Main risks It may happen (again) that… Mitigating controls
How to determine coverage, frequency
and depth
How to estimate the costs and benefits of controls Possible control indicators
The financial and control framework deployed by the National Agency is not fully mature to guarantee achieving all 5 ICOs (legality and regularity, sound financial management, true and fair view reporting, safeguarding assets and information, anti-fraud strategy).
For the Erasmus+ programme (2014-2020):
- Ex-ante Compliance Assessments for the new National Agencies are of poor quality
LLP/YiA (programmes 2007-2013):
- DG EAC has set minimum standards of control and procedures for the NAs (Guide for National Agencies, updated annually) and issued Guidelines for National Authorities.
Erasmus+ Programme (2014-2020):
Guidance documents on the designation of National Agencies under E+, on the ex-ante Compliance Assessments and on the transition/handover between National Agencies
Ex-ante assessment, conditional to sign a Delegation Agreement with the new National Agency
Guidance to Independent Audit Bodies
Hierarchical validation by the AOSD of Directorate B
Coverage/frequency: 100% of National Agencies
Depth : all ex-ante assessment are analysed with the same depth, independently of the level of decentralised funds that will be entrusted to the National Agency
Costs: estimation of cost of staff involved in the ex-ante assessment process (which includes missions).
Benefits: The potential error in the (average annual) total budget avoided.
Effectiveness: Positive performance of stakeholders achieved
Efficiency Indicators: Timeliness of process (guidance is clear and properly applied by stakeholders)
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 46 of 75
Stage 3 – Operations: monitoring, supervision, reporting (“representation” / “control around the entity”).
Main control objectives: Ensuring that the Commission is fully and timely informed of any relevant management issues encountered by the entrusted entity, in order to possibly mitigate any potential financial and/or reputational impacts (legality & regularity, sound financial management, true and fair view reporting, anti-fraud strategy).
Main risks It may happen (again) that… Mitigating controls How to determine coverage,
frequency and depth How to estimate the costs
and benefits of controls Possible control indicators
Due to weak "modalities of cooperation, supervision & reporting", the Commission is not (promptly) informed of relevant management issues encountered by the National Agency, and/or does not (promptly) react upon notified issues by mitigating them or by making a critical observation and recommendation for them – which may reflect negatively on the Commission’s governance reputation and quality of accountability reporting.
The Commission – National Agency Agreement (for LLP/YiA) or Delegation Agreement (Erasmus+) specifying the control, accounting, audit, publication, etc related requirements – incl. the modalities on reporting back relevant and reliable control results
Analysis of yearly Declarations of Assurance prepared by National Authorities on its secondary controls (controls on systems of NAs, in particular on the operation of primary controls)
Analysis of audit reports commissioned by National Authorities under its secondary controls
Analysis of yearly NA reports which are certified by the National Authorities (yearly
Coverage: 100% of the National Agencies and Authorities are monitored/supervised. Frequency: annually
In case of operational and/or financial issues, measures are being reinforced.
The depth is the same for all National Agencies.
Costs:
- estimation of cost of staff involved in the actual (regular or reinforced) monitoring and supervising the National Agencies (which includes missions)
- cost of externalised financial audits of COM-NA Agreements of National Agencies
Benefits: Assurance on the budget amount entrusted to the National Agency.
Effectiveness: Conclusions reached on the basis of annual reports are confirmed by monitoring visits, audits and other supervisory activities.
Efficiency Indicators: Timeliness of delivery of annual reports
Cost effectiveness : Long term resource monitoring
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 47 of 75
Main risks It may happen (again) that… Mitigating controls How to determine coverage,
frequency and depth How to estimate the costs
and benefits of controls Possible control indicators
Declaration of Assurance)
Risk-based supervisory visits to National Agencies and National Authorities
Financial audits on yearly sampled National Agencies
Regular reporting to Senior Management and in AAR of the supervision results.
Regular NA meetings, training of NA staff
Information seminars for National Authorities and regular updates and improvements of guidelines for them
If appropriate/needed:
- monitoring visits to National Agencies to support and provide advice
- individual targeted follow-up of critical recommendations
- precautionary measures
- intervention, e.g. via own audits on-the-spot,
- referral to OLAF
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 48 of 75
Stage 4 – Commission contribution: payment or suspension/interruption.
Main control objectives: Ensuring that the Commission fully assesses the management situation at the entrusted entity, before either paying out the (next) contribution for the operational and/or operating budget of the entity, or deciding to suspend/interrupt the (next) contribution (legality & regularity, sound financial management, anti-fraud strategy).
Main risks It may happen (again) that… Mitigating controls How to determine coverage,
frequency and depth How to estimate the costs
and benefits of controls Possible control indicators
The Commission pays out the (next) contribution to the National Agency, while not being aware of the management issues that may lead to financial and/or reputational damage.
The Commission – National Agency Agreement (for LLP/YiA) or Delegation Agreement (Erasmus+) specifying the control, accounting, audit, publication, etc related requirements
Management review of the supervision results.
Ex-ante Operational Verification and Financial Verification, ‘in-depth’ as required
Hierarchical validation of contribution payment of operating grant and funds for decentralised actions and recovery of non-used funds for decentralised actions
If appropriate/needed: suspension or interruption of payments
Coverage: 100% of the contribution payments. Frequency: usually annually
The depth is the same for all National Agencies.
Costs: estimation of cost of staff involved in the (in-depth) OV and FV of the contribution payments/recoveries to/from the National Agencies.
Benefits: The potential error in the (average annual) total budget avoided.
Benefits in case of recovery or suspension/interruption: the amount and % value of budget recovered or not paid out
Effectiveness: Appropriate information available to support payment or suspension decision.
Efficiency Indicators: Timeliness of information and action when issues are noted
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 49 of 75
Stage 5 – Audit and evaluation, Discharge for decentralised agencies
Main control objectives: Ensuring that assurance building information on the entrusted entity’s activities is being provided through independent sources as well, which may confirm or contradict the management reporting received from the entrusted entity itself (on the 5 ICOs).
Main risks It may happen (again) that… Mitigating controls How to determine coverage,
frequency and depth How to estimate the costs
and benefits of controls Possible control indicators
The Commission has not sufficient information from independent sources on the National Agencies' management achievements, which prevents conclusions being correctly drawn on the assurance for the budget entrusted to the entity – which may reflect negatively on the Commission’s governance reputation and quality of accountability reporting.
The Commission – National Agency Agreement (for LLP/YiA) or Delegation Agreement (Erasmus+) specifying the control, accounting, audit, publication, etc related requirements – incl. independent audit function and cooperation with IAS and ECA
Assessment of ex-post yearly Declarations of Assurance provided by National Authorities on its secondary controls.
NAs include in their yearly reports the results of primary controls (controls carried out by or under the responsibility of the National Agency on the actions that it manages). Types and minimum requirements for controls are set out by DG EAC and are legally binding for the National Agencies.
Coverage: sample as needed ( random for financial audits, value-targeted, risk-based for supervisory visits). Frequency: multiannual planning for financial audits; no pre-determined frequency for supervisory visits
The depth for financial audits is the same for all National Agencies. For supervisory visits, the depth is adapted to identified risks..
Costs: estimation of cost of staff involved in the coordination and execution of supervisory visits. Cost of the appointment of audit firms for the outsourced financial audits.
Benefits: The potential error in the (average annual) total budget avoided
Benefits: budget value of the errors with the beneficiaries detected and subsequently corrected.
Effectiveness: Assurance being provided via yearly Declarations of Assurance and corroborated by other supervision data.
Efficiency: Timeliness and administrative cost of process.
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 50 of 75
Main risks It may happen (again) that… Mitigating controls How to determine coverage,
frequency and depth How to estimate the costs
and benefits of controls Possible control indicators
Own supervisory visits of National Agencies and/or National Authorities
Yearly sample of selected National Agencies for financial audit
- referral to OLAF
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 51 of 75
Indirect management – EACEA, REA, Cedefop, ETF and EIT
Stage 1 – Establishment (or prolongation) of the mandate to the entrusted entity (“establishment act” and “delegation act”).
Main control objectives: Ensuring that the legal framework for the management of the relevant funds is fully compliant and regular (legality & regularity), delegated to an appropriate entity (best value for public money, economy, efficiency), without any conflicts of interests (anti-fraud strategy).
Main risks Mitigating controls How to determine coverage
frequency and depth How to estimate the costs
and benefits of controls Possible control indicators
The establishment (or prolongation) of the mandate of the entrusted entity is affected by legal issues, which would undermine the legal basis for the management of the related EU funds (via that particular entity).
The mandate is not finalised in time to allow programme implementation to proceed by the Agency/ entity.
Existing and long established general legal bases (since 2003 for EAs), multiple mandate extensions in the past
Cost-benefit analysis carried out by external consultant and adjustments thereafter ensure value for money
Standard template provided by central services and standard wording
Hierarchical validation within the authorising department
Inter-service consultation, including all relevant DGs
Opinion of Council (Committee on Executive Agencies) and Parliament
Adoption by the Commission
Possibility to make necessary
Coverage/Frequency: 100%/once
Depth: Standard templates include all requirements of the regulatory provisions to be complied with.
If extreme challenge to the legality of the establishment and delegation materialises, regularity of funds delegated during the year(s) to the entrusted entity could be questioned.
Impact of late adoption would affect effectiveness and efficiency.
Costs: cost of staff involved in the preparation, adoption and selection work: this is a largely unavoidable cost and arises infrequently.
Benefits: Reputational risk of parent DGs intact.
Avoidance of possible additional costs which might result from delays.
Effectiveness: Quality of the legal work (basic act, LFS and delegation act, etc): number of control failures; number of initially negative CIS opinions and timeliness.
No litigation cases. No OLAF inquiries. No ECA criticism.
Efficiency: Ease of application – timeliness.
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 52 of 75
Main risks Mitigating controls How to determine coverage
frequency and depth How to estimate the costs
and benefits of controls Possible control indicators
clarifications to the text in the context of revision of the Delegation Act
Specific Financial Regulation
Common approach endorsed by EP, Council and Commission (July 2012) and Road map on decentralised Agencies
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 53 of 75
Stage 2 – Ex-ante (re)assessment of the entrusted entity’s financial and control framework (towards “budget autonomy”; “financial rules”).
Main control objectives: Ensuring that the entrusted entity is fully prepared to start/continue implementing the delegated funds autonomously with respect of all 5 ICOs.
Main risks Mitigating controls How to determine coverage,
frequency and depth How to estimate the costs
and benefits of controls Possible control indicators
The financial and control framework deployed by the entrusted entity is not fully mature to guarantee achieving all 5 ICOs (legality and regularity, sound financial management, true and fair view reporting, safeguarding assets and information, anti-fraud strategy).
Verification of the equivalence and guaranty of the system of internal control
As EACEA and REA are well established, the mitigating controls regarding a serious breakdown in the control framework can be regarded as at “cruising speed”.
The supervision arrangements constitute the principle control mechanism to ensure the high quality of EACEA’s and REA’s control structures are maintained.
The above situation applies by analogy to the Decentralised Agencies, which are even longer established and have a greater financial autonomy (including separate budgetary and discharge
Coverage/frequency: DG EAC does not carry out direct controls on the underlying transactions (except for EIT’s reinforced supervision by DG EAC), but uses the supervision mechanisms in place to ensure ICOs are being achieved.
Depth : if there was a (hypothetical) particularly serious issue, the parent DGs of the Agency can perform in-depth checks under Article 22 of the Delegation Act of EAs, or action via the steering committees for EAS or governing boards for Traditional Agencies.
Costs: not applicable, no ex-ante assessment process required.
Benefits: Reputational risk of parent DGs intact.
Effectiveness: Potential requirement for parent DGs to increase supervision due to deterioration in “Stage 3” indicators
Efficiency Indicators: Deterioration in “Stage 3” indicators of time-to-pay, etc.
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 54 of 75
Main risks Mitigating controls How to determine coverage,
frequency and depth How to estimate the costs
and benefits of controls Possible control indicators
process)
For EIT, full financial autonomy will be granted only after a positive ex-ante assessment of the management environment
Requiring prior approval for the riskier transactions (contracts above EUR 60 000 and grants)
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 55 of 75
Stage 3 – Operations: monitoring, supervision, reporting (“representation” / “control with the entity”).
Main control objectives: Ensuring that the Commission is fully and timely informed of any relevant management issues encountered by the entrusted entity, in order to possibly mitigate any potential financial and/or reputational impacts (legality & regularity, sound financial management, true and fair view reporting, anti-fraud strategy).
Main risks Mitigating controls How to determine coverage,
frequency and depth How to estimate the costs
and benefits of controls Possible control indicators
Due to weak "modalities of cooperation, supervision & reporting", the Commission is not aware of relevant management issues encountered by the entrusted entity, and/or does not react on a timely basis to issues notified by mitigating them or by making a reservation for them – which may reflect negatively on the Commission’s governance effectiveness and quality of accountability reporting.
For EAs, Delegation Act specifying the control, accounting, audit, publication, etc. related requirements including reporting of error rates and the reservations in the context of the Annual Activity Report.
For Traditional Agencies, monitoring via the governing board and the discharge process.
Monitoring or supervision of the entrusted entity (e.g. ‘regular’ monitoring meetings at operational level; review of reported control results and any underlying mngt/audit reports; representation and intervention in the Steering Committee, scrutiny of the Annual Activity Report, etc).
Management review of the supervision results.
Coverage: 100% of the entities are monitored/supervised. Frequency: monthly budget reports, quarterly coordination and Steering Committee meetings, etc.
For EAs, in case of operational and/or financial issues, measures can be reinforced under Article 22 of the Delegation Act to any depth that is deemed appropriate.
Costs: estimation of cost of staff involved in the actual (regular or reinforced) monitoring of the entrusted entities.
Benefits: The potential error in the (average annual) total budget avoided.
Effectiveness: Relevance and reliability of the overall performance of the supervision arrangements, and their coherence with the conclusions provided by external sources (evaiations, IAS, ECA, OLAF, complaints, etc.)
Efficiency Indicators: Timeliness of provision of information resource monitoring of administrative cost.
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 56 of 75
Main risks Mitigating controls How to determine coverage,
frequency and depth How to estimate the costs
and benefits of controls Possible control indicators
If appropriate/needed:
- reinforced monitoring of operational and/or financial aspects of the entity
- intervention, e.g. via own audits on-the-spot, by IAC or IAS
- potential escalation of any major governance-related issues with entrusted entities
- referral to OLAF
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 57 of 75
Stage 4 – Commission contribution: payment or suspension/interruption.
Main control objectives: Ensuring that the Commission fully assesses the management situation at the entrusted entity, before either paying out the (next) contribution for the operational and/or operating budget of the entity, or deciding to suspend/interrupt the (next) contribution (legality & regularity, sound financial management, anti-fraud strategy).
Main risks Mitigating controls How to determine coverage,
frequency and depth How to estimate the costs
and benefits of controls Possible control indicators
The Commission pays out the (next) contribution to the entrusted entity, while not being aware of the management issues that may lead to financial and/or reputational damage.
Reliance on “Stage 3” controls above, plus compliance with budget adopted by the Steering Committee/ governing board.
If appropriate/needed: suspension or interruption of payments
Coverage: 100% of the contribution payments. Frequency: twice yearly as specified in the Memorandum of Understanding
Depth covers the compliance and verification stages of the financial circuit.
Costs: estimation of cost of staff involved in the financial circuit of the contribution payments/recoveries to/from the entrusted entities.
Benefits: The potential error in the (average annual) total budget avoided.
Benefits in case of recovery or suspension/interruption: the amount and % value of budget recovered or not paid out due to identified irregularities.
Effectiveness: Number of queries regarding budgets or payments.
Efficiency Indicators: Time-to-pay/recover.
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 58 of 75
Stage 5 – Audit and evaluation, Discharge for decentralised agencies
Main control objectives: Ensuring that assurance building information on the entrusted entity’s activities is being provided through independent sources as well, which may confirm or contradict the management reporting received from the entrusted entity itself (on the 5 ICOs).
Main risks It may happen (again) that… Mitigating controls How to determine coverage,
frequency and depth How to estimate the costs
and benefits of controls Possible control indicators
The Commission does not have sufficient information from independent sources on the entrusted entity’s management performance, which prevents conclusions being drawn on the assurance for the budget entrusted to the entity – which may reflect negatively on the Commission’s governance effectiveness and quality of accountability reporting.
Close review within the discharge and internal audit process of IAC, IAS and ECA findings and the entity’s response.
If appropriate/needed:
- own ex-post audit(s) on-the-spot, by the Parent DG, of the entity and/or its beneficiaries, normally only in the context of a serious breakdown in the control framework.
- potential escalation of any major governance-related issues with entrusted entities
- referral to OLAF
Coverage: Entity’s yearly audit sample of beneficiaries and multi-annual strategy. Sample as per the audit strategies of the IAC, IAS and ECA
Frequency: Entity’s IAC will perform multiple audits per year, ECA once a year, IAS less frequently.
Normally, the sample will be statistically representative to enable drawing valid management conclusions about the entire population during the programme’s lifecycle.
For EAs, the depth can be reinforced under Article 22 of the Delegation Act to any depth that is deemed appropriate.
Costs: estimation of cost of staff involved in the coordination and execution of the own audits and outsourced audits (if any).
Benefits: The potential error in the (average annual) total budget avoided.
Benefits: budget value of the errors with the entity’s beneficiaries detected by the own auditors, and subsequently corrected. Reputational benefits of clean audit opinion.
Effectiveness: Assurance being provided); consistent and credible error rate, residual error rate below tolerable threshold.
ECA opinion on the account and legality and regularity of the underlying transactions
Discharge granted
Efficiency: Resource monitoring, estimation of benefits.
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 59 of 75
ANNEX 6: Implementation through national or international public-sector bodies and bodies governed by private law with a public sector mission
1. Programmes concerned: Lifelong Learning and Youth in action (2007-2013); Socrates, Leonardo da Vinci and Youth (2000-2006)
2. Annual budgetary amount entrusted to these bodies in 2013: € 1,401.8 million (see table for breakdown by programme/agency)
3. Duration of the delegation : 2007-2013
4. Justification of recourse to indirect centralised management and justification of the selection of the bodies: the recourse to national agencies and their appointment by the Member States/participant countries are set in the legal bases of the programmes at
i. Article 8.(6)(b) of the Decision No 1719/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2006 establishing the Youth in Action programme
ii. Article 6(2)(b) of the Decision No 1720/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2006 establishing an action programme in the field of lifelong learning
5. Synthetic description of the implementing tasks entrusted to these bodies
i. Management of the project life cycle of the decentralised actions of the Programme: Information and publicity at national level on the Programme and, where applicable, the calls for proposals; Information and counselling of potential applicants; Receipt and evaluation of grant applications; Establishment and supervision of evaluation committees; Decision on the award of grants; Publication of information on supported projects; Commitment of funds for projects and signing of contracts with project beneficiaries; Pre-financing payments to beneficiaries; Monitoring projects, including visits to projects and thematic monitoring meetings; Analysis and control of final activity and final financial reports; Balance payments and recovery of funds; On-the-spot checks on projects; Reporting to the Commission and to the National authority.
ii. Monitoring and evaluating the decentralised actions of the Programme: Organisation of national thematic monitoring meetings between projects and of national participation in European thematic monitoring meetings; Organisation of national valorisation meetings bringing together project coordinators and potential users and of national participation in European valorisation events; Reporting on the impact of the Programme actions at national level; Studies, analyses and surveys on the Programme actions at national level; Contribution to national reports on implementation of the Programme and to evaluation of the Programme; Contribution to achieving synergies at national level with other Community programmes.
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 60 of 75
iii. Continuation and winding up of the actions from the Socrates (2000-06), Leonardo da Vinci (2000-06) and Youth (2000-06) programmes
LIST OF NATIONAL AGENCIES AND 2013 BUDGET BREAKDOWN
Country National Agency LLP 2013 Annual budgetary amount2 (€)
National Agency Youth in action
2013 Annual budgetary amount3 (€)
België EPOS vzw - Europese Programma's voor Onderwijs, Opleiding en Samenwerking - Agentschap
15.275.010 JINT v.z.w 2.634.836
Belgien Agentur für Europäische Bildungsprogramme VoG 744.190
Jugendbüro der Deutschsprachigen Gemeinschaft
282.180
Belgique Agence francophone pour l’éducation et la formation tout au long de la vie - AEF-Europe
10.835.925 Bureau international Jeunesse 1.793.460
Balgaria Human Resource Development Centre - HRDC 18.698.205
National Center "European youth programmmes and initiatives"
4.146.877
Ceska Republika DŮM ZAHRANIČNI SPOLUPRÁCE 26.837.137
Narodni institut deti a mladeze
4.566.761
Danemark The Danish Agency for Higher Education 15.695.547
The Danish Agency for Higher Education
3.519.646
Deutschland Nationale Agentur Bildung für Europa (BIBB) 53.160.880 JUGEND für Europa (JfE) 17.511.533
Deutschland
Nationale Agentur für EU-Hochschulzusammenarbeit, Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst e.V. (DAAD)
59.464.945
Deutschland
Nationale Agentur für EU-Programme im Schulbereich, Pädagogischer Austauschdienst (PAD) der Kultusministerkonferenz
19.421.175
Eire/Ireland Léargas The Exchange Bureau 8.202.484 Léargas The Exchange Bureau 3.430.012
Eire/Ireland Higher Education Authority 6.530.600
2 Decentralised funds and operating costs 3 Decentralised funds (including funds for Eastern Partnership Youth Window) and operating costs
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 61 of 75
Eesti Centre for Educational Programmes, Archimedes Foundation
8.425.353 Archimedes Foundation – Euroopa Noored Eesti Büro
2.764.386
Ellas Greek State Scholarship's Foundation (IKY) 30.089.027
Hellenic National Agency for the E.U. Programme YiA and Eurodesk
Youth and Lifelong Learning Foundation
4.682.128
España Organismo Autonoma Programas Educativos Europeos 105.310.414
Agencia Nacional Española del programa Juventud en Acción
11.562.136
France Agence Europe Education Formation France 114.487.000
Agence Française du Programme Européen Jeunesse en Action (AFPEJA)
Institut National de la Jeunesse et de l'Education Populaire (INJEP)
15.388.761
Italia Agenzia Nazionale LLP - Programma Settoriale Leonardo da Vinci - ISFOL
32.863.868 Agenzia nazionale per i giovani 12.665.936
Italia
Agenzia Nazionale LLP - Programmi settoriali Comenius, Erasmus, Grundtvig e Visite di Studio - AS Agenzia Scuola
70.665.059
Kypros Foundation for the Management of European Lifelong Learning Programmes
5.257.991 Youth Board of Cyprus 2.659.036
Latvija VIAA - State Education Development Agency) 11.310.888 Agency for International
Programs for Youth 2.969.156
Lietuva Education Exchanges support Foundation 16.400.569 Agency of International
youth co-operation 3.286437
Luxembourg
Anefore asbl - Agence Nationale pour le programme européen d'éducation et de formation tout au long de la vie
3.031.143 Service National de la Jeunesse 1.964.357
Magyarorszag Tempus Public Foundation 24.932.297
NCSSZI - Fiatalok Lendületben Programiroda NIFSP - Youth in Action Programme Office
4.563.866
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 62 of 75
Malta European Union Programmes Agency - EUPA 3.068.570 EUPA – European Union
Programmes Agency 1.948.195
Nederland Nederlands Nationaal Agentschap voor het Leven Lang Leren programma
40.023.094 Nederlands Jeugdinstituut (NJi) 5.839.101
Österreich
Österreichischer Austauschdienst - Agentur für Internationale Bildungs- und Wissenschaftskooperation (OeAD-GmbH)
22.087.947
Interkulturelles Zentrum Österreichische Nationalagentur "Jugend in Aktion"
4.102.086
Polska Foundation for the Development of Education System - FRSE 93.129.070
Polish National Agency of the Youth in Action
Programme - Foundation for the Development
of the Education System
11.632.141
Portugal Agência Nacional para a Gestão do Programa Aprendizagem ao Longo da Vida
28.641.597 Agência National para a gestao do programa Juventude em Acçao
4.901.038
Romania National Agency for Community Programmes in the Field of Education and Vocational Training
41.352.876
National Agency for Community Programmes in the Field of Education and Vocational Training
7.924.389
Slovenija
Centre of the Republic of Slovenia for mobility and European Educational and Training Programmes - CMEPIUS
9.948.926
Zavod MOVIT NA MLADINA
2.822.231
Slovensko SAAIC - National Agency of the Lifelong Learning Programme 17.018.234 IUVENTA – Slovak Youth
Institute 3.728.830
Suomi-Finland Centre for International Mobility CIMO (Kansainvälisen liikkuvuuden ja yhteistyön keskus )
20.735.236 Centre for International Mobility CIMO 3.591.275
Sverige National Agency by Swedish Council for Higher Education 23.398.030 Swedish Board for Youth
Affairs 4.483.798
United Kingdom British Council 64.644.480 British Council 15.572.294
United Kingdom
UK National Agency - Leonardo, Grundtvig & Transversal Programmes - Ecorys
36.635.660
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 63 of 75
Island
Landskrifstofa Menntaáætlunar Evrópusambandsins
National Agency for the Lifelong Learning Programme
4.054.379
Icelandic Youth Association (Ungmennafélag Íslands, UMFÍ)
1.951.413
Norge
Norwegian Centre for International Cooperation in Education - Senter for Internasjonalisering av utdanning - SIU
14.767.271 Barne-, ungdoms- og familiedirektoratet (BUFDIR)
3.458.949
Liechtenstein Agentur für Internationale Bildungsangelegenheiten 959.262 "Aha" Tipps und Infos für
Junge Leute 503.004
Turkye The Centre for EU Education and Youth Programmes 107.631.571
Turkish National Agency for LLP and YIA Programmes
13.950.432
Suisse ch Foundation for Confederal Co-operation 13.872.642
Ch Stiftung für eidgenössische Zusammenarbeit
1.558.239
Croatie Agencija za mobilnost i programme Euopske unije (AMPEU) 9.174.751
Agencija za mobilnost i programe Europske unije / Agency for Mobility and EU Programmes
2.609.172
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
National Agency for European Educational Programmes and Mobility
1.413.251
National Agency for European Educational Programmes and Mobility
586.476;5
TOTAL LLP 1.210.196.554
TOTAL YiA 191.554.567,5
OVERALL TOTAL 1.401.751.121,5
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 64 of 75
LIST OF OTHER DELEGATED BODIES AND 2013 BUDGET BREAKDOWN
1. Programme concerned: Media 2007 2. Annual budgetary amount entrusted to these bodies in 2013: € 1,000,000 (see table
for breakdown by body) was committed and paid. 3. Duration of the delegation : 2010-2013 4. Justification of recourse to indirect management and justification of the selection of
the bodies: the recourse to third party bodies is set in the legal basis of the programme: Article 4 and annexe of the Decision No 1718/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2006 concerning the implementation of a programme of support for the European audiovisual sector (MEDIA 2007) - OJ L 327 of 24/11/2006. Thanks to the leveraging effect provided by delegated bodies, it is envisaged that the Fund will be able to guarantee a total amount of credits up to € 100-150 million during its lifespan on the basis of a 4 year budget of € 8 million. This action is implemented via indirect management according to Article 54(2)(c) of the Financial Regulation. It is managed by third party bodies on behalf of the European Commission. The selection of the following delegated bodies was the result of call for expressions of interest (n° O.J. 2010 / S 1-000123 of 02.01.2010). Delegated bodies are financial institutions with appropriate registration according to the rules applicable in their home country. They were selected among candidate national or international public-sector bodies or bodies governed by private law with a public-service mission established in one of the territories covered by the MEDIA Programme and providing adequate financial guarantees and adequate technical capacity.
5. Synthetic description of the implementing tasks entrusted to these bodies
The MEDIA Production Guarantee Fund set up in the framework of the MEDIA 2007 programme is aimed at facilitating the access of European audiovisual companies to private sources of financing. Delegated bodies share the financial risk related to the loans granted by banks to European independent audiovisual producers, by guaranteeing to cover a certain percentage of the loss in case of failure by the producer to reimburse the loan, thus encouraging local banks to grant credits to film producers.
Programme Delegated Body 2013 Annual Budgetary amount (€)
MEDIA 2007/ Production Guarantee Fund
IFCIC (Institut pour le Financement du Cinéma et des Industries turelles) - France
1,000,000
MEDIA 2007/ Production Guarantee Fund
Audiovisual SGR (Sociedades de Garantía Recíproca) - Spain
0
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 65 of 75
ANNEX 7: AARs of Executive Agencies
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 66 of 75
ANNEX 8: Decentralised agencies
Annual budgetary amount entrusted in 2013 by DG EAC
Decentralised Agencies Policy area Operational expenditure (€)
Administrative expenditure (€)
Total (€)
European Centre for the Development of Vocational 5 303 143
CEDEFOP
Training
Education and Training
12 430 000 17 733 143
ETF European Training Foundation
Education and Training 5 062 000 15 081 500 20 143 500
EIT
European Institute for Innovation and Technology
Innovation 121 612 400 4 898 533 126 510 933
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 67 of 75
ANNEX 9: Performance information included in evaluations
This Annex provides information on evaluations4 which have been finalised5 in 2013.
Europass 2nd evaluation (2008-2012)
ABB activity: 15.02 Type of evaluation: Regulatory instrument (R)
Summary of performance related findings and recommendations:
Europass is the framework for the transparency of qualifications and competences established by Decision 2241/2004/EC with the overall objective to increase the mobility of people in Europe for education and employment purposes. The purpose of the evaluation was to analyse the current role and tasks of Europass and its different documents within the current European policy framework and to suggest future Europass developments in synergy with related European initiatives and policies. The Europass initiative is highly successful overall. All the related European transparency and mobility tools and initiatives are complementary and coherent with Europass, although full synergies with EQF, ECVET and ESCO are still to be achieved. Europass is also instrumental in fighting unemployment: it contributes to helping people change their job or location and to gain further learning opportunities such as admission to educational institutions. However low qualified unemployed people especially often lacked information about Europass tools or found them too complex or confusing. A strong progress was observed, evidenced by a sharp rise in the awareness, usage and appreciation of Europass documents (particularly of Europass CV). This strong increase in usage was possible due to stable levels of funding. Despite great advances in using all Europass documents, the Europass Diploma Supplement and Certificate Supplement were still unknown by a large proportion of their intended users. Monitoring of Europass is not properly resourced and more systematic use of quantified targets could be pursued. The ways of accessing, developing and using Europass documents for disadvantaged groups (predominantly those with low levels of computer literacy, low qualified unemployed and immigrants) should be strengthened. Given its significant European added value, i.e. the creation of international, recognised and uniform tools for transparency of qualifications and skills and for mobility at European level, Europass should be maintained as a European policy
4 Surveys, rolling reviews, data collection, public consultations, legal implementation reports or other types of studies do not qualify as evaluations and are not part of this Annex.
5 Final Evaluation Report approved
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 68 of 75
initiative.
Availability of the report on Europa:
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/more_info/evaluations/index_en.htm
Evaluation of the Open Method of Coordination and the Structured Dialogue, as the Agenda for Culture's implementing tools at European Union level
ABB activity: 15.04 Type of evaluation: Other (O)
Summary of performance related findings and recommendations:
The Open Method of Coordination (OMC) and the Structured Dialogue process (SD) are the implementing tools of the European Union’s European Agenda for Culture intended to help bring together the various actors at EU and Member State (MS) level to take action in pursuit of shared objectives and to address cultural challenges of a European dimension. The OMC process is relevant to the Agenda for Culture’s policy objectives and the Work Plan for Culture 2011-2014 provides an improved and more integrated guiding framework and better defined objectives, compared with the previous generation of the process (2008-2010). Changes made under the second generation of OMC working groups have provided clearer direction, better quality outputs and have helped to focus activity better, although there remains potential for further improvements in outputs, for example through an evidence-based approach. Benefits and impacts mainly concern mutual learning, best practice exchange and the building of knowledge networks, rather than any far-reaching effects on national policies. There is potential to achieve greater impacts, through stronger connectivity and dissemination channels between OMC participants and key decision-makers at national level.
The SD objectives set have been achieved in relation to bringing the sector closer together, increasing the capacity to undertake advocacy work at EU level, and opening up new opportunities for exchanges between civil society and the Commission. The benefits of the SD process started to reduce after the first phase, especially in relation to the dialogue with the Commission. The work of the Platforms would have benefited from better alignment with the Council Work Plan for Culture and the OMC groups. European Culture Forums have played a valuable role in increasing awareness of European culture policies and in improving cooperation among sector organisations.
Availability of the report on Europa:
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/more_info/evaluations/index_en.htm
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 69 of 75
Evaluation of implementation of the European Quality Assurance Reference Framework for Vocational Education and Training (EQAVET) ABB activity: 15.02 Type of evaluation: Regulatory instrument (R)
Summary of performance related findings and recommendations:
The European Quality Assurance Reference Framework for Vocational Education and Training (EQAVET) is a European instrument to support development of national systems for quality assurance in vocational education and training. It was adopted in 2009 in form of a Recommendation of the European Parliament and the Council. The focus of the evaluation was to understand whether and how EQAVET influences national quality assurance (QA) systems and measures. EQAVET objectives remain relevant in the context of European priorities and policies in the field of education and training and beyond. In the context of national developments, the theme of quality assurance in VET remains of relevance as well. In principle EQAVET is complementary with other European instruments in the area of qualifications (EQF, ECVET), but in practice the complementarities need to be articulated more clearly, e.g. while the school-based aspects of QA in VET are well covered by EQAVET, the framework does not provide specific guidance for QA of work-based learning. The EU-level cooperation between EQAVET and European initiatives in quality assurance in other sectors of education is not systematic. The fact that EQAVET was adopted in form of a Recommendation strengthened the participation of countries in EQAVET and helped to formalise the role of National Reference Points (NRP). Directly or indirectly, EQAVET supported changes in quality assurance systems and measures in two thirds of countries analysed. However, there is currently very little evidence that EQAVET is contributing to the objective of making VET systems more transparent. The EQAVET Recommendation is vague on what constitutes an ‘approach aimed at improving quality assurance systems at national level’. This evaluation shows that a majority of EU countries have such approaches but these were not necessarily triggered by the existence of EQAVET. The content of the EQAVET Recommendation on quality cycle, criteria and descriptors does not lend itself easily for making national quality assurance systems transparent. The EQAVET governance structure is considered to be efficient. The expertise of the EQAVET secretariat is welcomed. The governance would benefit in greater involvement of representatives of stakeholders and representatives of organisations which have an interest in strengthening transparency of national quality assurance measures. The sustainability of changes induced by EQAVET is not yet clear. On one hand some countries are changing QA systems mainstreaming certain features of EQAVET. On the other hand EQAVET does not currently have a clear lever to trigger sustainable change of provider-level approaches to QA.
Availability of the report on Europa:
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/more_info/evaluations/index_en.htm
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 70 of 75
Evaluation of the European Commission and Council of Europe Youth Partnership Agreements 2007-2011/12
ABB activity: 15.05 Type of evaluation: Other (O)
Summary of performance related findings and recommendations:
The EC-CoE Youth Partnership provides a framework for the joint development of cooperation and coherent strategy in the field of youth in Europe. It aims at creating better opportunities and improving access for young people, promoting active citizenship and fostering solidarity. The evaluation assessed the Partnership’s activities between 2007 and 2011/12. Overall, the Partnership’s objectives and activities are relevant to the needs of the target groups, but the approach needs to be articulated more clearly in terms of multiplier effects and the extent to which individual young people and/or organisations and policy-makers should be targeted. There is scope to rationalise the current framework to develop a clearer causal link between the specific and operational objectives. The robustness of the Youth Partnership’s framework of objectives and activities would be complemented and enhanced by the development of a complete logic for intervention that specifies types and numbers of intended outputs and results. This would help to develop clear goals for the Partnership. The general objective to establish a framework for cooperation has been achieved; the framework has fostered synergies and achieved complementarity with related programmes and policies across a range of institutions and organisations. The specific objectives are very broad and it is therefore difficult to assess the tangible contribution that Youth Partnership activity has made to each one. This suggests that the scope of the Youth Partnership’s activities may be too wide, risking over-stretch, with resources spreading too thinly. An effective area of joint cooperation has been the promotion of knowledge-based youth policy research. However, some of the methods used are not equipped to ensure that information stays up-to-date. The Partnership has also been effective in supporting youth work and building youth workers' capacity. The geographical focus of the Partnership is seen by sector stakeholders as effective, with strong linkages developed with partners in third countries. There is scope to improve the annual reporting in order to offer better information about the effectiveness of the Partnership's activities. There is evidence that the Youth Partnership model is not as efficient as it could be, and the operational effectiveness of the management and monitoring systems is not optimised. Operational efficiency may sometimes be constrained by the Partnership having to address two sets of organisational administrative cultures. The lack of a robust monitoring and evaluation system and the absence of agreed targets or expectations linked to the activities and outputs is a significant weakness; since this makes the impact of the activity very difficult to evaluate. Activities such as events were provided at a reasonable cost and unit costs did not appear excessive. There is potential to simplify and streamline procedures to improve operational efficiency, thereby making more resources available for key strategic tasks including systematic monitoring and evaluation.
Availability of the report on Europa:
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/more_info/evaluations/index_en.htm
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 71 of 75
Evaluation of the European Commission and European Youth Forum Operating Grant Agreements 2007-2011/12
ABB activity: 15.05 Type of evaluation: Other (O)
Summary of performance related findings and recommendations:
The European Youth Forum (YFJ) is a platform at EU level which represents youth organisations vis-à-vis the EU and generates policy inputs from the youth field. The evaluation assessed the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of the YFJ and covered the period between 2007 and 2011/12. The European Youth Forum (YFJ) is a unique organisation at EU level, because of the lobbying work it does. It is a useful instrument for the EC as it provides structured opinions and input on youth-related topics. Organisations in the youth field find the YFJ’s activities and objectives relevant to them, mainly those related to representing youth organisations vis-à-vis the EU and contributing to the development of youth policies. The YFJ achieves, to varying degrees, all of its objectives and works according to the principles that are set in the legal base establishing the Youth in Action Programme. The YFJ has gained an important position in the youth field and has access to key decision makers, stakeholders and influential organisations. Therefore, the evaluators find that the YFJ is the most suitable mechanism at EU level to channel communication on youth-related issues with a broad range of young people in Europe. The YFJ's organisational structure is efficient, and the grant is proportional to the YFJ’s activities and status. However, the YFJ needs to improve the monitoring of its activities, outputs and achievements. The sustainability of the YFJ as such is very much dependent on the financial contribution of the EC.
Availability of the report on Europa:
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/more_info/evaluations/index_en.htm
Evaluation of the implementation of the European Qualification Framework Recommendation
ABB activity: 15.02 Type of evaluation: Regulatory instrument (R)
Summary of performance related findings and recommendations:
The European Qualifications Framework (EQF) was established by the EP and Council Recommendation to facilitate the comparison and recognition of qualifications throughout Europe, and thus to contribute to the wider objectives of promoting lifelong learning and increasing the employability, mobility and social integration of workers and learners in Europe. The evaluation covered the period of 2008-2012. Although only four countries achieved the first EQF milestone, i.e. to relate their national qualifications system to the EQF by the end of 2010, and six countries achieved the second EQF milestone, i.e. to ensure that all new qualification documents refer to the appropriate EQF level by the end of 2012, by the end of May 2013, 20 countries had related their national qualifications system to the EQF. Participating countries are more than ever aiming for qualifications systems
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 72 of 75
that are more transparent and clear and their commitment to the EQF objectives remains strong beyond the target dates set in the EQF Recommendation. The effort towards reaching the two EQF objectives should be intensified and remain a priority, even if the target dates have passed. Support to the EQF implementation – through the EQF advisory group, the EQF NCPs and their activities (including peer learning activities and projects) are more than ever needed. Cooperation with other mobility and transparency tools should be reinforced so as to ensure that the EQF is implemented in coherence with the objectives of these tools and that they all contribute to wider EU objectives of mobility and employability, as part of the EU2020 and ET2020. The EQF is already widely considered a reference tool in Europe and beyond. The main features of the EQF should remain stable so that this influence continues and expands, giving the EQF greater visibility. Data about implementation of the EQF should be continuously collected and analysed, and outcomes and impacts of the EQF Recommendations evaluated again, once the implementation has progressed further.
Availability of the report on Europa:
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/more_info/evaluations/index_en.htm
Evaluation of the European Centre for the Development of vocational Training (CEDEFOP).
ABB activity: 15.01 Type of evaluation: Internal Commission activity (I)
Summary of performance related findings and recommendations:
The evaluation provides information on whether CEDEFOP's activities are well chosen to provide support to the European VET policy agenda and takes into account implementing its objectives, as they had been set in its Founding Regulation and the current policy agenda During the evaluated period from mid-2006 to mid-2012 CEDEFOP was successful in implementing its objectives as they had been set in its Founding Regulation. CEDEFOP was able to embed in its activities the key EU policy developments and to meet the needs of its target groups. CEDEFOPs work did not duplicate the activities of any other actors at European, national or international level. The agency has been able to address promptly the ad hoc requests for support from the Commission. The evaluation recommends that in future the Centre should be focused on
• Fostering policy learning about EU initiatives at national level in the light of the European Semesters and advancing implementation of common EU principles and tools
• Putting focus on activities generating the highest policy impact: As the
balance between open source and policy support poles needs to be maintained, the open source should focus more on the activities under the 2012-2014 medium-term priorities.
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 73 of 75
• Fostering stakeholder relationships and learning among stakeholders:
CEDEFOP should continue and strengthen its networking activities. A systematic approach should be employed in following up the relations of the agency with the stakeholders.
• Collaboration with other agencies: the forthcoming review of the
founding regulations of the agencies should be taken as an opportunity to fine-tune the boundaries of their remits and scope for collaboration on the topics which have proven to create potential for overlap or synergies. This would ease the burden of search for synergies and potential collaboration activities.
• Improving governance and human resources management within
CEDEFOP: The recent CEDEFOP staff survey should be followed-up and its results should be used as a momentum for on-going organisational development and employee involvement.
• Improving performance management and evaluation within CEDEFOP:
The agency should work on strengthening its performance management systems (PMS), through further improvement of PMS and better implementation of activity based budgeting.
Availability of the report on Europa:
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/more_info/evaluations/index_en.htm
Evaluation of FP7- Marie Curie Actions - Interim
ABB activity: 15.07 Type of evaluation: Expenditure programme (E)
Summary of performance related findings and recommendations:
The People Specific Programme was established by Decisions 1982/2006/EC and 2006/973/EC with the aim to strengthen, quantitatively and qualitatively, the human potential in research and technology in Europe, by stimulating people to take up the profession of researcher, encouraging European researchers to stay in Europe, and to attract the best researchers from throughout the world to Europe. The interim evaluation assessed the Marie Curie Actions (MCA) and Researchers’ Night (RN) during the years 2007-2011. The programme remained highly relevant in terms of addressing the most pressing needs and challenges related to the implementation of research and innovation policy, to competitiveness and socio-economic needs of Europe as well as to researchers’ needs, particularly those relating to skills and networking, and especially for early career researchers. The Marie Curie Actions had a high European Added Value in terms of its unique design, scope effects, target groups addressed and the overall mix of instruments used. Researchers’ Night has developed into a prominent communication action. The European label added visibility and credibility to the events, but their belonging to the programme remains to be better communicated. The programme was attractive not only to the top-class universities but also to
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 74 of 75
the innovation leaders from the private sector. By funding almost 6,700 fellowships each year, the MCA were the leading research mobility scheme. Almost all fellows were very satisfied with the training received. Most researchers positively valued other aspects of mobility, such as networking. Most of the fellows who already finished their fellowships found employment (79%) and reported improvements in their career. The MCA enhanced the scope and excellence of academic research, allowed the valuable transfer of knowledge among the participating organisations and researchers, and contributed to commercialisation of research results. The MCA had a well-functioning and efficient overall management and implementation system. Almost all MC fellows were very satisfied with their fellowship experience. The programme had very high additionality: As many as 82% of the organisations whose projects were rejected for MC funding due to budgetary reasons had subsequently abandoned their projects. The majority of MC beneficiaries were likely to continue the research cooperation developed under the programme, but maintaining the same level and intensity of cooperation was difficult without further EU and national or regional funding. The adoption of the European Charter for Researchers and the Code of Conduct in the MCA produced a mixed structuring effect on the participating organisations, depending on the different national contexts and organisational factors.
Availability of the report on Europa:
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/more_info/evaluations/index_en.htm
Evaluation of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA)
ABB activity: 15.01 Type of evaluation: Internal Commission activity (I)
Summary of performance related findings and recommendations:
The Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) was established in 2005 and assumed responsibility for the management of a number of EU programmes in the fields of education and vocational training, culture, audiovisual, citizenship and youth (plus external collaborations in some of these fields). This was the second evaluation of EACEA, covering the period from 1 May 2008 to 31 December 2011. The key analytical element was an assessment of the costs and benefits associated with delegating programme management to EACEA. EACEA has substantially achieved its objectives, with clearest progress against those related to efficient management of programmes and improving services to applicants and beneficiaries. There has been progress against all annual priorities set out in the Agency’s Annual Work Programmes: the strongest evidence of this concerns progress against the objective of streamlining application and selection processes, whereas there is less evidence of progress in terms of improving project implementation and reporting requirements. However, it should be borne in mind that this has been the main recent focus for improvements (with further improvements planned for the next generation of programmes).
eac_aar_2013_annexes_final Page 75 of 75
Outsourcing the management of programmes continues to provide significant cost savings relative to the costs of in-house management by the Commission. This suggests that the potential cost-savings of out-sourcing have in fact been realised as a calculations based on current costs and workload suggest a saving of €93m for 2008-2011 and thus exceeding the forecast by over 100%.
Availability of the report on Europa:
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/more_info/evaluations/index_en.htm
Evaluation of European Capitals of Culture 2012 ABB activity: 15.01 Type of evaluation: Other (O)
Summary of performance related findings and recommendations:
The general objectives of the European Capital of Culture (ECoC) are to highlight the richness and diversity of European cultures and the features they share, as well as to promote greater mutual acquaintance between European citizens. ECoC remains of key importance complementary to other EU initiatives, e.g. the Culture and MEDIA Programmes, the European Agenda for Culture and other fields, such as youth, citizenship, education and training and regional development. The current evaluation covers two European Capitals of Culture in 2012: Maribor and Guimarães. The experience of 2012 shows that hosting a national competition does not (certainly not alone) guarantee a more successful ECoC, other factors such as strong local leadership, effective partnerships and continuity of funding in the development phase are likely to be of critical importance. Although the current monitoring arrangements are a significant improvement on those of previous years, they still do not ensure that cities fulfil all the commitments made at application, and during the monitoring stage. The evaluator suggests considering annual implementation plans or more regular reporting milestones than those set out under the strengthened monitoring procedures within the proposed new legal basis for ECoC. There is a demand for clearer commitments from a range of partners in financial terms: applicants should be encouraged to clearly state what funding is committed and what is ‘hoped for’ in their applications in order to avoid drastic reductions in budget. The experience of Guimarães in 2012 demonstrates the potential of ECoC to be reinforced by and add value to investments made by the ERDF, but also reinforces the importance of planning well in advance of the action year. It is suggested that future ECoC begin international marketing and commercial revenue generation strategies at an early point of the process, in order to maximise the potential wider economic benefits of the action. In both cities, cultural operators have gained valuable skills and experience and there are likely to be moderate effects in terms of enhancing the cities’ cultural offer. Continued impacts on cultural governance appear unlikely however, reinforcing the need for long-term strategy to be incorporated in selection and monitoring processes under the proposed new legal basis for ECoC.
Availability of the report on Europa:
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/more_info/evaluations/index_en.htm
top related