Europaudvalget 2016-17
EUU Alm.del Bilag 439
Offentligt
1729372_0001.png
European Court of Auditors
J
ournal
N
o
03
March 2017
 EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 439: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret marts 2017
1729372_0002.png
PRODUCTION
Rédacteur en chef / Editor in Chief:
Rosmarie Carotti
Tél. / tel.:
00352 4398 - 45506
E-mail :
[email protected]
Mise en page, diffusion /
Layout, distribution :
Direction de la Présidence -
Directorate of the Presidency
Photos :
Reproduction interdite /
Reproduction prohibited
© ECA
Past editions of the Journal
can be found on ECA’s website:
http://eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/
Journal.aspx
© European Union, 2017
Reproduction autorisée à
condition de mentionner
la source/ Reproduction is
authorised provided the source is
acknowledged
The contents of the interviews
and the articles are the sole
responsibility of the interviewees
and authors and do not
necessarily reflect the opinion of
the European Court of Auditors
FOR MORE INFORMATION
AND PAPER COPIES :
European Court of Auditors
12, rue Alcide De Gasperi
1615 Luxembourg, LUXEMBOURG
[email protected]
eca.europa.eu
@EUAuditors
EUAuditorsECA
 EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 439: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret marts 2017
1729372_0003.png
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
04
ECA Seminar on auditing energy and climate – Challenges and
opportunities for Supreme Audit Institutions
By Katharina Bryan, private office of Phil Wynn Owen, ECA Member
07
ACCA President’s debate «Accounting for Public Goods: the Social and Natural
Capital Imperatives»
Key note speaker: Phil Hogan EU Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development
By Rosmarie Carotti
11
L’audit du contrôle interne de l’État en France
Par Stéphanie Girard, attaché de cabinet  de Mme Lamarque, Membre de la Cour
15
Fiscal Councils – exchange of views on EU fiscal and economic coordination
process
By Jacques Sciberras, Chamber IV directorate – Regulation of markets and competitive economy
17
Trust based on insight and values
The ECA’s Strategy Working Group (SWG) designs the 2018-2020 strategy to be adopted
by the ECA in June 2017
By the Strategy Working Group
22
Transforming challenges into opportunities: visit by the Finnish Auditor General
Ms Yli-Viikari
By Turo Hentila, head of private office of Ville Itälä, ECA Member
23
Visit to Poland by an official delegation led by President Klaus-Heiner Lehne and
Janusz Wojciechowski
By Kinga Wisniewska-Danek, head of private office of Janusz Wojciechowski, ECA Member
FOCUS
25
26
27
- 25 March 2017 marks the 60th anniversary of the signing of the Treaties of Rome
By Rosmarie Carotti
- Special reports Nos 1/2017 & 35/2016
A historical look back
Interview with Jan Pieter Lingen, head of private office of Maarten B. Engwirda
By Rosmarie Carotti
 EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 439: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret marts 2017
1729372_0004.png
ECA Seminar on auditing energy and climate –
Challenges and opportunities for Supreme Audit
Institutions
By Katharina Bryan, private office of Phil Wynn Owen, ECA Member
4
Auditors from 19 EU/EEA Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) and the ECA came together
to discuss the challenges they face in auditing energy and climate and identify potential
opportunities for our audit profession in this field. The seminar on 19 and 20 January,
was organised under the auspices of the private office of Phil Wynn Owen, ECA Member,
in the framework of the ECA’s Landscape Review of EU Energy and Climate. It had been
announced at the Contact Committee meeting in Bratislava
1
.
Mechthild Wörsdörfer, DG ENER
Artur Runge-Metzger, DG Clima
Why did we organise a seminar on this topic?
Having a seminar with workshops enabled us to discuss with colleagues our emerging findings in
the landscape review, test some ideas and collect feedback. EU SAIs have contributed directly or
indirectly to the landscape review via a collection of audit reports written over the past five years,
a survey and presentations to the Contact Committee. The seminar aimed to develop further our
discussions about the challenges and opportunities for SAls in auditing cross-cutting energy and
climate issues.
At the same time ECA auditors working in the field of energy and climate were invited actively
to participate and were able to draw from the SAIs experiences for current and future audits.
Workshops featured presentations from six SAIs, two ECA audits and a climate and energy
economist.
1 See ECA Journal 12/2016, More cooperation needed to audit energy and climate policies effectively, by Radek Majer.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 439: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret marts 2017
1729372_0005.png
ECA Seminar on auditing energy and climate – Challenges and
opportunities for Supreme Audit Institutions
continued
What is the policy context in EU Energy and Climate post-Paris?
The first day of the plenary, moderated by
ECA Member Phil Wynn Owen,
was used to set the
scene and gain first-hand information by two experienced Commission directors.
Mechthild Wörsdörfer, DG ENER,
presented the Commission’s Clean Energy for all Europeans
Package, released in November 2016. Next to the updates on renewable energy and energy
efficiencies, she explained the Energy Union governance proposal included in the package.
This governance system would include for Member States to draw up integrated Energy and
Climate plans.
5
Source: European Commission
Artur Runge-Metzger, DG Clima,
spoke about the way forward for the climate agenda post Paris
agreement, pointing out that Paris Agreement was a major success in mobilising international
climate action, and that its implementation is now key. On a European level, he highlighted the
existing gap that needed to be filled between the current policy pathway and the EU’s 2050
roadmap target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050.
Source: European Commission
 EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 439: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret marts 2017
1729372_0006.png
ECA Seminar on auditing energy and climate – Challenges and
opportunities for Supreme Audit Institutions
continued
The second day plenary session, chaired by
ECA Member Samo Jereb,
was used to report back on
the outcome of the workshops. Both SAI and ECA auditors working on energy and climate were
represented.
Here are some of the workshops’ results.
What are the main risks and challenges in (auditing) energy and climate?
Katharina Bryan, moderator of the workshop on main risks and challenges:
Stepping out from our
traditional auditor’s role we asked the participants to identify the main risk and challenges for the
EU in energy and climate:
Governance in Energy and Climate, low price of allowances in the EU Emission
Trading System, policy conflicts, importance of consumer behaviour and the adaptation challenge
were
among the top five issues raised.
Olivier Prigent, Head of Task of the Landscape Review:
The discussions we had in the workshop matched
what we found during our work on the landscape review. During the workshop, challenges identified
by SAIs in
auditing
the area come from both outside their institutions and inside. We discussed, for
example, the limited financial weight of environmental sectors leading to lower prioritisation, or the
challenge to audit policies not in isolation but to consider them within the energy and/or climate
framework.
Should auditors get excited about auditing monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas
emissions?
Stefan den Engelsen, moderator of a workshop on auditing monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas
emissions:
Our discussions showed that this is an area where awareness and knowledge is at a basic
level, but the participants were excited to learn more. Talking about the potential role of auditors in
the monitoring, reporting and verifying of greenhouse gas emission and the EU Emission Trading
System, we found that there are some potential opportunities for us as auditors. It could also be a
fruitful field for future cooperation.
6
Auditing the numbers : Measuring, reporting
and Verification (MRV) of greenhouse gas
emissions and budgetary data
How to take into account the societal and longer term impacts when auditing the funds
devoted to energy and climate change?
Erki Must, moderator of the workshop on cost-effectiveness in the area of energy and climate:
Our
discussions showed that certain SAIs had already done considerable auditing of cost-effectiveness
of energy programmes. Some considered more short-time cost issues, whereas others found
longer term-impacts, for example stranded assets. We found that one of the challenges in auditing
cost-effectiveness and its impacts is to set the right frame for the audit, establishing a long-term
perspective and consider a systemic view of the issues.
Thank you to the many SAIs and ECA colleagues which contributed to the organisation and
implementation of this seminar!
 EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 439: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret marts 2017
1729372_0007.png
ACCA President’s debate «Accounting for Public
Goods: the Social and Natural Capital Imperatives»
Brussels, 8 February 2017
By Rosmarie Carotti
7
Key note speaker: Phil Hogan EU Commissioner for Agriculture and
Rural Development
ACCA was represented by its President Brian McEnery and the panel
discussion moderated by Maggie McGhee, ACCA Director,
Professional insights.
Other participants were:
•
Corrado Pirzio-Biroli, CEO of the RISE Foundation
•
Eva Mayerhofer, Lead Environment and Biodiversity
Specialist, European Investment Bank
•
Michel Bande, Senior Executive Vice-President, Solvay
•
Humberto Delgado Rosa, Director, DG ENVI, European Commission
Introduction
ACCA, which is the largest global accounting body, aimed with this debate to foster effective
engagement among policymakers, investors, landowners, landmanagers, businesses, natural
capital specialists and accountancy professionals.
ACCA President Brian McEnery underlined that all businesses, either directly or indirectly
depend upon natural capital. Yet there is an unprecedented erosion of natural resources.
Policy makers have been warning the world for decades.
In September 2015, the UN Sustainable Development Goals were adopted around the world.
They were born with the objective to produce a set of universal goals that meet the urgent,
environmental, political and economic challenges facing our world.
Business managers are called on to consider the effects of their decisions not only on
finance but also on social systems and natural capital. A part of the answer to address the
world’s natural capital crisis lies with the accounting profession. A little over a year ago
ACCA conducted research into the role that accountants are playing in the development
of thinking, practice and frameworks for accounting for and reporting on natural capital by
businesses.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 439: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret marts 2017
1729372_0008.png
ACCA President’s debate «Accounting for Public Goods: the
Social and Natural Capital Imperatives»
continued
8
While natural capital has just reached the periphery of traditional financial reporting
standards, President Brian McEnery is convinced that there will come a time when material
impacts on natural capital are considered in mainstream corporate reporting and in
mainstream corporate decision-making.
Traditional professional accounting skills have proven useful in the development of natural
capital frameworks and standards. This has required the gathering and analysis of data, a
consideration of materiality, the management of risk, evaluation of assets and liabilities
and an understanding of corporate reporting. Also research found that the participation of
the accounting profession at this early stage has been immensely valuable.
But while the development of a framework or standard for natural capital reporting is
important, the need of the final user shall not be forgotten. Over the past decade, financial
and corporate reporting has been steadily growing broader but has also led to a disclosure
overload. Materiality is more important than ever, however different perspectives need to
be considered before it is possible to reach a single conclusion on the way how to report
and account for natural capital.
The role of the Commission
Commissioner Phil Hogan focused on how policy can support the provision of public
goods. Farmers are central to the debate in relation to how to ensure the adequate
provision of public goods for the whole society.
Europe’s Common Agricultural Policy has evolved. In
addition to ensuring the provision of affordable, safe and
good quality food products, the CAP now has an increased
focus on meeting other societal needs. Agriculture
contributes to food security, economic growth, social
cohesion, sustainability and geo-political stability.
Policy can intervene in three ways: regulation,
compensation, and facilitation. The CAP has undergone
several waves of reforms, with the latest reform decided in
2013 and implemented in 2015. Some key note figures from
the speech underline that what the CAP already delivers is
real and measurable:
About € 43.8 billion of the total European Agricultural
Fund for Rural Development budget has been allocated to
Priority 4 (restoring, preserving and enhancing ecosystems
related to agriculture and forestry).
Together with the € 7.6 billion for priority 5 (resource
efficiency and climate action) the total allocation to the two
priorities accounts for 51.8% of the total EU budget for rural
development.
These funds will trigger € 2.7 billion of public and private
investments for projects aimed at reducing greenhouse gas
(GHG) and ammonia emissions.
In addition, about 18% of agricultural land and 3.8% of
forest land is under management contracts supporting
biodiversity and/or landscapes.
From left to right: Lazaros S. Lazarou, ECA Member;
Phil Hogan, EU Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural
Development; Brian McEnery, ACCA President
 EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 439: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret marts 2017
1729372_0009.png
ACCA President’s debate «Accounting for Public Goods: the
Social and Natural Capital Imperatives»
continued
9
The EU has signed up to new international commitments, especially those concerning
climate change, through the Conference of Parties COP 21, and broad aspects of
sustainable development through the UN's Sustainable Development Goals. Currently,
the
Commission is also conducting a comprehensive public consultation on the simplification
and modernisation of the CAP.
The results of this consultation process will be published and
communicated in a public conference in July 2017.
“Professional accountants – the future”
ACCA recently published under this title an ambitious report and an important piece of
research on the future of professional accounting with which it drives a change to 2025. It is
mainly about ACCA’s corporate reporting becoming more holistic, less focused on numbers
and covering more strong narrative stories.
It is time to have a discussion to concretely address challenges and define the next steps to
further embed natural capital and social considerations in business decision making.
Modernisation seen by the Rise foundation
The Rural Investment Support for Europe (RISE) Foundation is an independent foundation
which strives to support a sustainable and internationally competitive rural economy
across Europe, looking for ways to preserve the European countryside, its environment and
biodiversity, and its cultural heritage and traditions.
Globally food systems are responsible for 60% of global biodiversity loss, around 24% of the
global greenhouse emissions and 33% of degraded soils. Recent studies on the economics
of the ecosystems suggest that the welfare loss is of the order of € 50 billion a year close to
1% of GDP a year. In this context, accounting of public goods is of the essence to save the
environment.
While European agriculture played a positive role, notably as regards, food, soil, carbon
emissions and renewable energies, the Rise Foundation feels it continues to cause
environmental damage in respect to soil degradation, water consumption and gas
extraction. The next CAP reform must take into account the international commitments of
the sustainable development goals and COP 21 on climate change as well as other recently
introduced commitments enhancing the delivery of public goods.
The current food production is unsustainable and absorbs a substantial amount of public
support. It is imperative to enhance, better integrate and streamline the role of the
landmanagers. Policy action is needed to strengthen the ability of new farmers. They run
their often small businesses, sandwiched between the immense market power upstream of
input suppliers and that of downstream processors and retailers. Also the pursued further
liberalisation of agricultural trade could have a massive impact on farming income in
Europe. Many farmers feel already today that there is too little return on their work; their
primary objective is to stay in business rather than innovate. Their economic sustainability
cannot be ignored.
The Rise foundation also questions whether it is still acceptable that the trade and
consumers do not as yet contribute to internalise into food prices the cost of the
environmental damage caused by the production of food that they are purchasing.
That’s why ecosystem accounting is so important and in its recent study on sustainable
intensification the RISE foundation stresses that sustainability improvement depends on
the availability of appropriate indicators.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 439: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret marts 2017
1729372_0010.png
ACCA President’s debate «Accounting for Public Goods: the
Social and Natural Capital Imperatives»
continued
10
“You can’t manage if you can’t measure”
The EIB feels there is a need to move forward in terms of evaluation of biodiversity and
introspection in order to be able to mainstream biodiversity in all the activities and
sectors. A strong powerful signal that creates that demand is needed together with direct
regulation so that investors especially in the private sector feel comfortable to invest.
In terms of accounting the public good the EIB aims to look beyond the financial data. It
has revised and improved the existing carbon footprint assessment methodology; and is
strengthening its standards on biodiversity. The EIB together with other key institutions
like the Development Bank is also looking into environmental projects for businesses.
This contributes to a better understanding of the trade-off between investment and
biodiversity.
Together with the environmental agency of the World Bank Environment Agency and
IFAC the EIB is considering suitable evaluations and methodologies. Streamlining them
is a must, although there cannot be just one methodology. Major challenges remain: the
availability of data, their reliability and the collaboration with the stakeholders.
Ecological instability
The ecological instability is not only an environmental issue. The quest for sustainability
is a challenge for accountants, too. At EU level, the Commission and DG ENV have started
working on accounting at national level together with Eurostat. Now they want to extend
this into capturing ecosystem accounts in services and values. The deadline set by the
Commission to contribute to the UN experimental standards on ecosystem accounting
is 2020. These systems of accounts shall be integrated alongside the usual system of
national accounts. The Commission is also working with the private sector, to define non-
financial disclosure and non-binding guidelines for companies to implement the non-
financial reporting directive. DG ENV is also working together with businesses in the EU
Business and Biodiversity Platform.
The corporate view
Accountants will not save the world because they are far away from having the right
procedures, the right standards and the right approach to convince the investors.
From the corporate perspective, the role of a company is to convince the investor that
thanks to a sustainable policy value a sustainable business is created. A chemical company
like Solvay loves to measure everything scientifically. Thanks to regulation, or because of
it, it is transparent and publishes an incredible amount of data. Disclosure is mandatory.
Many people calculate, measure or release substances.
The problem lies in a certain lack of measurement of the impact. How to consolidate is
Solvay’s problem. This is the only way to convince an investor. The most difficult part is the
social one where different standards need to be aligned.
Conclusion
Environmental audits are one of the most suitable areas for Supreme Audit Institutions’
(SAI) cooperation, because environmental issues (climate change, water and air pollution,
waste management, etc ) do not recognise state borders set by governments.
Also the ECA is addressing the challenge of environmental auditing and sees the potential
for taking part in more of this type of work.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 439: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret marts 2017
1729372_0011.png
L’audit du contrôle interne de l’État en France
Par Stéphanie Girard, attaché de cabinet  de Mme Lamarque, Membre de la Cour
11
Monsieur Emmanuel Belluteau, conseiller maître, rapporteur général de la certification
des comptes de l’État a été invité le 14 février dernier par Mme Danièle Lamarque,
Membre de la Cour, chargée du contrôle qualité de l'audit pour donner une conférence
sur l’audit du contrôle interne de l’État en France.
Emmanuel Belluteau, conseiller maître,
rapporteur général de la certification
des comptes de l’État; Danièle Lamarque
Membre de la Cour
En ouverture de session, Madame Lamarque a rappelé à quel point ce partage d’expérience
avec les États membres était intéressant. Concernant ce sujet particulier, ceci l’est encore
plus compte tenu de la réflexion engagée par la Cour des comptes européenne sur le futur
de la déclaration d’assurance.
Lors de cette conférence, les points clés suivants ont été abordés :
Pourquoi la Cour des comptes française prend-elle en compte les travaux de l’audit
interne de l’État ?
L’audit interne, en sa qualité de service indépendant et objectif, a pour missions principales
de vérifier l’efficacité du contrôle interne mis en place et de prodiguer des conseils en vue
de son amélioration.
L’une des missions de la Cour des comptes, en tant qu’auditeur externe, consiste à certifier
la régularité, la sincérité et la fidélité des comptes de l’État français
1
. Pour ce faire, et en
accord avec les normes professionnelles établies par la Fédération Internationale des
Comptables (IFAC)
2
et par l’Organisation Internationale des Institutions Supérieures de
Contrôle des Finances Publiques (INTOSAI), la Cour prend en compte les travaux de l’audit
interne ainsi que leur potentielle incidence sur les procédures d’audit externe.
1 Article 58-5° de la loi organique relative aux lois de finances (LOLF)
2 Norme Internationale d’Audit (ISA) 610 « Utilisation des travaux des auditeurs internes » applicables pour les
audits financiers
 EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 439: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret marts 2017
1729372_0012.png
L’audit du contrôle interne de l’État en France
continued
12
Au-delà du respect des normes professionnelles, la prise en compte de ces travaux
comporte des avantages à ne pas négliger selon Monsieur Belluteau, tels que le transfert
de compétences ou l’identification des complémentarités entre les travaux de l’auditeur
interne et ceux de l’auditeur externe. Ce dernier point a pour but principal de permettre
à la Cour de proportionner ses diligences en fonction de son évaluation de l’audit interne
tout en évitant de surcharger les services audités par une succession d’audits portant sur
les mêmes sujets.
Comment l’évaluation de l’audit interne est-elle menée par la Cour des
comptes française?
L’évaluation faite par la Cour des comptes française est réalisée en conformité avec
la norme ISA 610. Cette dernière stipule que lorsque l’auditeur externe prévoit de
s’appuyer sur les travaux de la fonction d’audit interne, il doit déterminer la pertinence de
l’utilisation des travaux de la fonction d’audit interne, des secteurs de l’audit concernés et
de l’étendue des travaux.
Concrètement elle est donc articulée par la Cour autour d’un certain nombre de critères
portant à la fois sur la fonction, l’organisation, la méthodologie appliquée mais aussi
sur les travaux, y compris les conclusions et recommandations formulées par l’auditeur
interne. Un faisceau d’indices est recherché par la Cour des comptes française dans le but
d’obtenir une assurance raisonnable sur le fait que chaque critère est bien rempli.
Les principaux critères d’évaluation de l’audit interne utilisés par la Cour des comptes
française portent sur:
- son statut (est-ce une fonction indépendante ? objective ? compétente pour
communiquer avec l’auditeur externe ?)
- ses compétences professionnelles (les auditeurs internes reçoivent-ils des formations
adaptées ? ont-ils déjà une expérience en tant qu’auditeur interne ? ont-ils des
connaissances sur les spécificités de leur environnement ?)
- son référentiel normatif et méthodologique (est-il explicite ? formalisé ?)
- son indépendance (est-il établis que l’audit interne n’a pas conçu le système de contrôle
interne qu’il est censé auditer ?)
- son système de programmation des audits (est-il fondé sur une analyse des risques ?
cette analyse est-elle documentée ?)
- l’organisation du suivi régulier de ses conclusions (est-il effectué ? est-il formalisé dans un
plan d’action ?)
- la nature et l’étendue de ses travaux (des ressources adaptées sont-elles allouées ? les
conclusions sont-elles fondées sur des éléments probants suffisants et appropriés ?).
Comment les travaux de l’audit interne sont-ils ensuite utilisés par la Cour des
comptes française?
Si les critères d’évaluation mentionnés ci-dessus sont jugés remplis de manière
satisfaisante par la Cour des comptes française, cela lui permet de s’appuyer sur les
constats de l’audit interne et de reprendre à son compte, le cas échéant, les conclusions et
recommandations formulées par ce dernier.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 439: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret marts 2017
1729372_0013.png
L’audit du contrôle interne de l’État en France
continued
13
Dans les ministères où la Cour des comptes française a évalué positivement l’audit interne
et décidé de s’appuyer sur ses constats, les relations entre les deux auditeurs s’organisent
autour d’un cadre formalisé : des protocoles sont conclus avec les auditeurs internes des
ministères
3
précisant par exemple l’organisation et la fréquence des réunions conjointes
de programmation, les modalités de communication des rapports d’audit, ou les suites
données aux recommandations.
Comment se déroulent concrètement les vérifications de la Cour des comptes
française ?
En accord avec la norme ISA 300 – Planification d’un audit d’états financiers, la Cour
applique une approche par les enjeux et les risques : tous les ans elle identifie les
risques susceptibles d’avoir une incidence significative sur les comptes. Elle adapte alors
l’intensité de ses travaux en fonction de ces risques.
Ensuite, elle examine l’ensemble des procédures mises en place en amont de la
production des états financiers. Cet examen doit, entre autres, permettre à la Cour de
s’assurer que les services concernés ont mis en place une véritable démarche formalisée
de maîtrise des risques, laquelle comprend la mise en place de contrôle internes efficaces,
et l’évaluation par les auditeurs internes de l’efficacité de ces derniers. Pour ce faire, la Cour
examine la gouvernance et le pilotage au niveau global mais aussi au niveau de chaque
ministère et effectue des tests d’efficacité des contrôles mis en place, pour apprécier si
ces derniers permettent effectivement de prévenir, détecter et/ou corriger les erreurs
éventuelles.
Quel est le résultat de ces travaux sur la certification des comptes de l’État français
4
Une fois que la Cour a procédé à son examen final des comptes eux-mêmes, elle
forme alors son opinion sur les comptes de l’État. Si ces derniers sont certifiés, la Cour
a néanmoins émis 5 réserves substantielles sur l’exercice 2015, dont une concerne
directement le contrôle interne et l’audit interne ministériels. Cette réserve est
principalement motivée par le fait que les processus de gestion significatifs sont
insuffisamment décrits et documentés, que les cartes des risques ne sont pas toujours
exhaustives et hiérarchisées, que des lacunes ont été identifiées sur l’audit interne, que le
contrôle interne et l’audit interne n’étaient pas toujours efficaces, limitant ainsi l’étendue
des vérifications de la Cour et générant des incertitudes sur la fiabilité des comptes de
l’État. La Cour française a émis des recommandations destinées à pallier les faiblesses
détectées.
3 On en dénombre 10 à ce jour
4 Pour plus d’information, voir: http://www.ccomptes.fr/Publications/Publications/Certification-des-comptes-
de-l-Etat-pour-l-exercice-2015
 EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 439: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret marts 2017
1729372_0014.png
L’audit du contrôle interne de l’État en France
continued
14
Lorsque la Cour forme son opinion, celle-ci est basée non seulement sur des éléments
quantitatifs mais surtout sur des éléments qualitatifs. Par ailleurs, la Cour se situe dans une
démarche d’accompagnement de l’audité et tient donc également compte du contexte
dans lequel travaille l’audité. L’utilisation de ces trois éléments pour fonder une opinion
d’audit est d’ailleurs en accord avec les normes professionnelles.
Expérience de la Cour française : sur quels points être vigilant lors de l’appréciation
du contrôle et de l’audit internes ?
L’évaluation du contrôle interne par la Cour française se fait à l’aide de grilles de notation,
lesquelles sont complétées par des guides « d’aide à l’auditeur » comportant des
critères d’évaluation précis et des indications concrètes pour l’attribution des notes. Ceci
permet entre autres d’identifier les bonnes pratiques, les progrès réalisés, et les pistes
d’améliorations.
L’expérience de la Cour des comptes française montre néanmoins que l’outil utilisé
comporte quelques limitations portant par exemple sur l’harmonisation des cotations
d’une chambre de la Cour à l’autre
5
ou d’un auditeur à l’autre. Enfin, le dialogue avec les
entités audités suite à cette évaluation peut se fixer uniquement sur les notes attribuées et
moins sur les améliorations à apporter.
5 La Cour française comporte 7 chambres à compétences sectorielles
 EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 439: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret marts 2017
1729372_0015.png
Fiscal Councils – exchange of views on EU fiscal
and economic coordination process
15
By Jacques Sciberras, Chamber IV directorate – Regulation of markets and competitive economy
From left to right: Teodora Cardoso, Chair of the Senior Board of the Portuguese Public Finance Council; Marko Männikkö, Deputy
Auditor General in the Finnish National Audit Office; Panagiotis Liargovas, Director of the Greek parliamentary budget office; Polyvios
Eliofotou, Senior Economist in the European Fiscal Board Secretariat at the European Commission;
Georgios Karakatsanis, head of private office of Neven Mates; Zacharias Kolias, Director, Lucio Pench, Deputy Director in DG ECFIN;
Boris Grozdanov, Chair of the Bulgarian Fiscal Council; Lyubomir Datsov, Member of the Bulgarian Fiscal Council;
Neven Mates, reporting Member for the audits of the European Semester and the MIP, opened the seminar
On 9 February the team responsible for Financial and Economic Governance related audits
organised a seminar at the Court on the topic “Fiscal Councils – exchange of views on EU
fiscal and economic coordination process”.
The aim of the seminar was to exchange views with participants from five National
Fiscal Councils, the secretariat of the recently established European Fiscal Board and
representatives of DG ECFIN from the Commission. 
Neven Mates, reporting Member for the audits of the European Semester and the
macroeconomic imbalance procedure (MIP), opened the seminar. He invited participants
to share their views on how the work being done by Fiscal Councils, particularly in relation
to their assessment of fiscal and budgetary planning, complements the EU’s coordination
of the Stability and Growth Pact through the European Semester process, and to suggest
how this could be improved and made more effective.
Five fiscal councils presented a number of reflections. The panel of speakers included
Boris Grozdanov, Chair of the Bulgarian Fiscal Council; Lyubomir Datsov, Member of the
Bulgarian Fiscal Council; Teodora Cardoso, Chair of the Senior Board of the Portuguese
Public Finance Council; María Fernández Irizar, Advisor to the Spanish Independent
Authority for Fiscal Responsibility; Panagiotis Liargovas, Director of the Greek
parliamentary budget office; and Marko Männikkö, Deputy Auditor General in the Finnish
National Audit Office.
Some of the points discussed included the status of implementation of national fiscal
institutions in Member States in relation to the requirements of Regulation 473/2013, their
current work and opinions on fiscal forecasts, and key challenges and opportunities for
fulfilling their mandates.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 439: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret marts 2017
1729372_0016.png
Fiscal Councils – exchange of views on EU fiscal
and economic coordination process
continued
16
Fiscal Councils pointed out that although fiscal rules are necessary, a model mainly based
on strict EU rules and close EU surveillance of compliance with those rules has proven
itself to be insufficient either to prevent a severe fiscal crisis or to promote sound public
finances. More flexibility is required at different stages of implementing those rules, with
a shift from annual targets to medium term targets, allowing for expenditure measures
which deliver structural reform in the medium term.
A
second message
was that numerical rules are important but not sufficient. Strong
national institutions are equally important and a prerequisite for effective fiscal policy. In
this respect, the different presentations showed a landscape of councils at different stages
of maturity. Some are relatively new and still on a learning curve, whilst others have been
part of the national budgetary framework for many years and to that extent have a more
important bearing in the budget process.
A
third message
was the importance of “comprehensive” fiscal frameworks at national
level encompassing adequate budgetary information, good budgetary procedures and
practices, a more medium-term approach underpinned by numerical rules or adequate
arrangements between different levels of public administration. Progress on these points
is uneven across countries and topics.
A
fourth message
is that the basics of the EU legal framework and the Fiscal Compact
continue to be overly complicated. They are based on complex analytical tools,
procedures and interpretation agreements. Concepts such as the MTO, sustainability
risks, the output gap, significant deviation or one-offs, are not easily understandable for
national parliaments nor the general public. They are also concepts were even experts find
it hard to reach any common agreement on.
Also discussed was the current state-of-play in establishing the European Fiscal Board – a
proposal which originated in the Five Presidents Report of 2015, and was subsequently
established by a Commission Decision (2015/1937) in October 2015. Polyvios Eliofotou,
Senior Economist in the European Fiscal Board Secretariat at the European Commission,
presented the role of the EFB and status of development. Amongst others the EFB
has the mandate to coordinate the network of national fiscal councils, provide advice
and economic judgement on the appropriate fiscal stance at Eurozone level to the
Commission, and opinions on the implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact and
the related assessments of Stability Programmes and Draft Budget Plans submitted by
Member States. The EFB is still in its initial phases of establishment and so far has not
published any opinions on these matters.
Lucio Pench, Deputy Director in DG ECFIN, gave a reaction to the various presentations
and made a reflection on the need for the Commission on the one hand to implement and
enforce the existing EU fiscal framework, and on the other to reflect on the adequacy of
the rules in terms of effectiveness, when considering proposals for future improvement.
He pointed out that whilst the national fiscal councils have been created to reinforce the
EU level surveillance, it created a parallel structure, a more complex system of surveillance
which operates under both the Fiscal Compact (TSCG) and the EU legislation under the
SGP.
The seminar was chaired by Zacharias Kolias and attended by Members of the audits
teams working on the European Semester, MIP and Greek programme audits.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 439: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret marts 2017
1729372_0017.png
Trust based on insight and values
17
The ECA’s Strategy Working Group (SWG) designs the 2018-2020 strategy to be adopted
by the ECA in June 2017
By the Strategy Working Group -> -> -> -> ->
From binoculars...
Why a strategy
Where are we and where do we want to go? How can the ECA stay relevant or increase
its relevance? Questions which are predominant in a strategy discussion. As a person you
may reflect from time to time whether what you do is in line with what you would like
to achieve. You stand back and reflect on whether you do the right thing in view of your
objectives, be it physically, intellectually, family-wise, professionally, etc. Your environment
may influence perhaps your objectives but most likely the way you would like to achieve
them. Organisations often do the same. An organisation formulates a mission on what it
would like to be and a strategy on how it would like to arrive at what it likes to be.
The European Court of Auditors is no exception to that. It has a mission and since
several years, also in view of public accountability on what is aims to do and how to
get to that, a multi-annual strategy. This strategy is publicly available and serves as its
guidance for choices…to do the right thing. The right thing in the sense of achieving its
mission: to contribute to improving EU financial management, promote accountability
and transparency and act as the independent guardian of the financial interests of the
citizens of the Union. The ECA strategy serves as overall plan on how to get there and the
ECA work programme is the next layer of planned output to realise…its mission. So the
strategy serves as the linking pin between mission and output.
Changing environment
Several priorities the ECA has formulated in its 2013-2017 strategy are still relevant today.
At the same time the external environment of the ECA has changed substantially. The way
society and its government is organised is changing rapidly, particularly at EU level. This
also in response to the aftermath of the financial crisis, external pressure on EU borders,
the international security situation and the problems of climate change. The way the EU is
governed is also on the move, with delegation of responsibilities to several organisations
at national, intergovernmental and supranational level. How EU public services are
organised and funded is becoming increasingly diffuse and complex. This makes it more
difficult to trace the impact of a certain action and therefore to provide an opinion on the
standard of the public service delivered.
Nowadays political developments show that citizens’ trust in national governments and
the EU to address common challenges is diminishing. Many citizens disengage and no
longer trust the democratic institutions to improve their lives. The perceived distance
between EU citizens and institutions has been looming large for a long time and can be
seen as an existential threat for the EU. For many EU citizens the EU fails to demonstrate
that results are achieved with EU money and administrative action.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 439: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret marts 2017
1729372_0018.png
Trust based on insight and values
continued
18
Contribute to trust
To (re)gain citizens’ trust is a key challenge for the EU. Even an institution with a rather
technical mandate like the ECA cannot ignore this situation. As ECA we always try to be
very rational, which is an important element for our authority. However, to be relevant the
ECA also has to relate to the values that concern our ultimate stakeholder, the European
citizen, today and for the future. In the end the EU is about citizens, not figures. The ECA
will need to provide information to these citizens and their representatives on how far they
can trust EU institutions to address today’s challenges. Therefore the ECA needs to provide
new insights in an understandable and clear way that relate to citizens’ current concerns.
If the ECA wants to provide added-value and deliver input that is relevant for the political
decision-making process, it will need to produce reports that provide valuable insight to
the worries EU citizens have.
Roadmap to the ECA’s 2018-2020 strategy
The starting point for the ECA’s new strategy was made in May 2016, when the ECA
decided that the 2016 Members’ seminar should focus on this theme, with as central
question: what should the ECA be reporting on by the end of 2020? During the Members’
seminar, held in September 2016, the Members discussed the main options and areas for
action to be undertaken under a new strategic plan. With the goal in mind of contributing
to citizens’ trust in EU policies and institutions the Members decided that strategic change
should be sought in three key areas:
i)
ii)
iii)
Improve the annual report;
Improve ECA’s performance products;
Better communicate the ECA messages.
In October 2016 the ECA decided to set up a strategy working group, the SWG, to prepare
the ECA’s new strategy. The SWG consists of the following members: President Lehne, Alex
Brenninkmeijer (chair), Danièle Lamarque, ECA Member, Eduardo Ruiz Garcia, Secretary-
General. Following the practice established in preparation of the 2016 seminar the SWG
committed itself to an consultation process, both internally, with Members and staff
members, and externally, with ECA’s main stakeholders: the European Parliament, the
Council, the Commission and others, where deemed useful. The main aim is to have the
ECA adopt a final strategy document before summer 2017. This should enable to take full
account of the 2018-2020 strategy when preparing the 2018 ECA work programme.
First steps for strategic changes: changes in the annual report
Since preparations for producing the ECA annual reports start a long time before the
annual report publication, the ECA considers decision-taking on strategic changes for the
annual report to be the first and most urgent step towards a new strategy. With this in
mind the SWG produced a so-called ‘Orientation Paper for strategic changes for the Annual
Report’ in December 2016. The main observation was that the ECA is at cross roads for
where to go with its work to underpin its Statement of Assurance (SoA). Important stimuli
for changing the annual report were the decreasing added-value of the SoA information
provided in the annual report and to make better use of the more extensive compliance
information produced nowadays by Commission services and others.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 439: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret marts 2017
1729372_0019.png
Trust based on insight and values
continued
19
For years the Court has pleaded that the Commission and Member States should create
and better organise its management systems to ensure compliance. The ECA now intends
to harvest what it has preached by building on what its auditees have created to obtain
assurance on compliance. Such an approach would review and build upon compliance
checks already available, decrease the audit burden for the auditee and in the long run
the audit costs for the ECA. It would also provide deeper and wider insight to why errors
and system failures occur, advise on possible remedies, and take more account of the
corrective capacity of the Commission to limit losses for the EU budget.
In January this year the ECA decided to base its SoA primarily on auditing the legality
and regularity information provided by the auditee from the audit of financial year 2018
onwards. It also decided that for financial year 2017 it would seek a hybrid solution,
seeking – within the framework of international standards, also from 2018 onwards
– assurance from legality and regularity information provided by the auditee where
feasible, complemented by direct transaction testing where necessary, to provide and
audit opinion. To propose and coordinate appropriate action to introduce the new
approach and to lead eventual discussions with the Commission, the ECA set up a
technical working group (TWG), chaired by the Secretary-General.
Furthermore the ECA intends to enrich its annual report with new geographical insights
(for which the Commission’s compliance information can be an important source) and
new performance information, best practice examples and pertinent recommendations.
Engage ECA stakeholders
The ECA has decided that, in view of the developments in EU financial management
during the last decades, substantial shifts are needed in the ECA’s audit approach. The
ECA will take the lead in this, not the auditee and neither its stakeholders. However, to
take ECA stakeholders along in the shift towards a new annual report the ECA will need
to present to them a clear story for the changes that will be introduced, and highlight
the added value of the new elements. The SWG has engaged itself to do so, particularly
through many contacts with representatives of the European Parliament and the Council,
by highlighting i) what the ECA has achieved up until now with its reports, particularly its
annual reports, ii) what further improvements in EU financial management are needed; III)
and how these new elements can contribute to these improvements.
Two other elements of the new Strategy
The roadmap towards the new strategy points also to improving ECA’s performance
products and better communicate the ECA messages. The new strategy will provide more
focus on performance in new and recurrent products. For the EU citizen most often the
first question will be: did this EU action lead to a tangible result and more importantly:
an impact achieved in an efficient way. The new performance paradigm is results, not
procedures, and the ECA reports will have to provide new insight on the achievement
of results. So the focus is on impact instead of mere compliance and output. Also in
this area the ECA should try to build, where available and reliable, on information on
performance provided by auditees. This could include a horizontal assessment of the
quality of the Commission’s performance reporting. Moreover, the aim is to provide
concrete performance information, and assessments of public policy programmes that
will be relevant for decisions to be taken for the new Multi-annual Financial Framework. In
addition the ECA will strive to provide valuable input for the introduction of performance-
based budgeting as intended by the Commission. This all needs to be enabled by a better
 EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 439: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret marts 2017
1729372_0020.png
Trust based on insight and values
continued
20
use of new, innovative audit techniques, enabled by digitalisation and increased access to
(financial) management data of auditees and recipients of EU support. The effect of ECA
conclusions and recommendations, both in compliance and performance issues, will need
to be followed up rigorously…by follow-up audits by the ECA itself.
The success of the ECA bringing added value stands or falls with the quality of
communicating its messages. First of all the ECA reports need to be comprehensive,
readable and accessible through plain language and a clear set-up. This will require a clear
story in our reports to bring the reader along, supported by an evident structure and an
engaging style. This can mean targeted formats for different stakeholder groups. Secondly
the reports need to reach policy-decision makers at the right time at the right level. This
means that the ECA will have to reach out to specialised committees in the European
Parliament and the Council, national stakeholders but also to media and EU citizens
through new techniques and communication channels.
Drawing up the new strategy
Having first focused primarily on swift progress towards a new SoA the SWG is currently
drafting the actual document that will reflect the ECA’s overall strategy for 2018-2020. This
includes an internal and external information and consultation process, the presentation
of a FAQ on options for gathering audit evidence for the SoA, and drafting the first version
of the strategy document itself. The latter should represent an accessible document, put
forward in plain language and supported by visuals. An example is the image below,
representing a ‘keyhole’ picture on the ‘why’ and ‘what’ of the 2018-2020 ECA strategy and
which serves as input for the consultation process with ECA staff to take place in March
2017.
Final word
The ECA has played a key role in the EU accountability process and stimulate a learning
government, both at EU level and, through shared management responsibilities, at
Member States’ level. To continue to do so in an EU that matters will require focus to
provide insight and understanding in complex EU processes. This will help citizens and
their representatives to decide in how far they can trust EU policies and institutions to
address current challenges in society. This strategy aims at helping the ECA to bring such
added-value for EU citizens. The SWG is preparing such a strategy and the College of the
ECA will have the final word on what the new strategy will be when it decides on it, which
is currently foreseen for June 2017.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 439: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret marts 2017
1729372_0021.png
Trust based on insight and values
continued
21
…to a keyhole.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 439: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret marts 2017
1729372_0022.png
Transforming challenges into opportunities:
visit by the Finnish Auditor General Ms Yli-Viikari
By Turo Hentila, head of private office of Ville Itälä, ECA Member
22
Ville Itälä, ECA Member; Tytti Yli-Viikari, Auditor
General of Finnish National Audit Office;
Klaus-HeinerLehne, ECA President
Auditor General of Finnish National Audit Office, Ms Tytti Yli-Viikari visited the ECA
on 25th January. Discussions with President Lehne focussed on the challenges EU
is facing and in particular what the auditors can do to address those challenges.
Rapidly changing policy developments combined with instantly and globally
spreading information mean that the auditors also need to re-think the ways to
carry out the audits, Yli-Viikari stressed.
In order to provide useful information for the political decision-makers, there is a
pressure for the audit observations to become more reactive and available faster.
If and when the auditors can deliver on those challenges the audits will have more
impact and will be more relevant. So, when there are challenges, there are also
possibilities, Yli-Viikari summed up.
Yli-Viikari also met with Neven Mates and Mihails Kozlovs, ECA Members, to
discuss the current issues on the area of economic and financial governance, such
as the challenges facing the audit work in relation to ECB and Single Supervisory
Mechanism, and the on-going mid-term review of the multi-annual financial
framework. In the discussions with Bettina Jakobsen, ECA Member, the topic was
the ECA’s recent special report on food waste. As this is highly interesting subject
in Finland, there will be a presentation to the national parliament and national
audit office in the coming months.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 439: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret marts 2017
1729372_0023.png
Visit to Poland by an official delegation led by
President Klaus-Heiner Lehne and
Janusz Wojciechowski
By Kinga Wisniewska-Danek, head of private office of
Janusz Wojciechowski, ECA Member
23
The ECA’s Delegation was also received by
the Polish President, Andrzej Duda
On 10 February a delegation from the European Court of Auditors, headed by ECA
President Klaus-Heiner Lehne, and accompanied by Janusz Wojciechowski, Polish ECA
Member, visited Poland. During the visit, the delegation met with the President of the
Republic of Poland Andrzej Duda, the Prime Minister’s Plenipotentiary for European Funds
and Regional Development Jerzy Kwieciński, and visited the Polish Supreme Audit Office
(NIK).
The visit to NIK was the first official visit of President Klaus-Heiner Lehne in a Supreme
Audit Institution since he took up office on 1 October 2016. The cooperation between the
ECA and NIK is very close and a has long history. NIK auditors take part in ECA audits as
observers during audit missions to Poland. Moreover, ECA and NIK have jointly audited
several areas (animal diseases; functioning of JASPERS instrument, NIK also provided input
to the ECA’s Annual Report 2014, Chapter 3, Getting results from EU budget). Additionally,
numerous trainings and methodical workshops provided to NIK by ECA auditors on
financial, compliance and performance audit methodology have also been an opportunity
for discussion and exchange of knowledge and experience.
During the visit to NIK, meetings with the President of NIK and NIK management were
held to discuss planned future joint initiatives, namely possible cooperation on air quality
and animal welfare audit. The delegation also met the Council for Supporting Measures
aimed at Protection of Animals, the NIK`s consultative body, whose role is to initiate and
support measures aimed at improving animal welfare.
At a press conference at NIK, ECA President Klaus-Heiner Lehne, President of the NIK
Krzysztof Kwiatkowski and ECA Member Janusz Wojciechowski announced that ECA is to
undertake an audit of EU-wide measures against air pollution and revealed first details of
the audit. ECA auditors will work together with fifteen audit institutions from countries in
Europe and beyond on a joint report, while the Polish NIK and the Dutch SAI will be co-
ordinators of the audit.
After visiting NIK, the ECA delegation was received by the President of the Republic of
Poland, Andrzej Duda. President Duda expressed his appreciation of ECA’s work and was
very interested in the planned audit on air quality, since air pollution is a major problem
in Poland. ECA activities in the field of preventing corruption were also discussed during
 EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 439: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret marts 2017
1729372_0024.png
24
Meeting with Prime Minister’s Plenipotentiary
for European Funds and Regional Development
Jerzy Kwieciński
the meeting. Finally, President Duda stressed that all heads of state should meet with the
Presidents of the institutions of the European Union and expressed regret that is not a
common practice in the EU.
The last official meeting during the visit took place in the Ministry of Development.
The Prime Minister’s Plenipotentiary for European Funds and Regional Development
Jerzy Kwieciński provided insight into major difficulties faced by Member States while
managing EU funds. The meeting was inspiring because Polish interlocutors presented a
lot of interesting material that could be useful for planning ECA audits.
Elisabeth Franco ECA Deputy Liaison Officer,
Janusz Wojciechowski Polish ECA Member,
Klaus-Heiner Lehne ECA President, Krzysztof
Kwiatkowski NIK President, Wojciech Kutyła
and Ewa Polkowska NIK Vice-Presidents
 EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 439: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret marts 2017
1729372_0025.png
E
FOCUS
A
Focus
25
25 March 2017 marks the 60th anniversary
of the signing of the Treaties of Rome
By Rosmarie Carotti
© AP , 1957 / Source: EC - Audiovisual Service / Photo: Mario Torrisi
From left to right, signing the Treaties for Belgium, France and Germany, Paul-Henri Spaak,
Jean-Charles Snoy et d’Oppuers, Christian Pineau, Maurice Faure, Konrad Adenauer and Walter Hallstein
The European adventure is the greatest reconciliation process that the
world has ever seen. In the place of century-old rivalries, there was to be
an economic Community that would strengthen the sense of belonging
among the peoples of Europe.
This was how the European Coal and Steel Community, the first step
towards today’s Europe, came to be established in Paris in 1951. It
was followed by the Treaties establishing the European Economic
Community and the European Atomic Energy Community, which
were signed in Rome in 1957. These treaties formed the basis for the
European Community Treaty and, finally, the Treaty on European Union.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 439: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret marts 2017
1729372_0026.png
E
FOCUS
A
Focus
26
Special
Report
N°01/2017
More efforts needed to implement the Natura 2000 network to its full potential
Published on
21 February 2017
The Natura 2000 network is a key element of the EU’s strategy to halt biodiversity
loss. The network includes thousands of sites protecting diverse natural habitats
and species, all over the EU. Our audit recognised the major role played by
Natura 2000 in protecting biodiversity, but found that significant progress is
still needed if the EU’s ambitious goals to protect biodiversity are to be met.
Member States were not managing the network well enough; EU funding was
not well mobilised; and there was a lack of comprehensive information on its
effectiveness. The Court therefore makes a number of recommendations aimed
at fully implementing the network, clarifying the funding framework, and
measuring results.
Click here for our full Special Report
Special
Report
N°35/2016
The use of budget support to improve domestic revenue mobilisation in
sub Saharan Africa
Published on
28 February 2017
The generation of government revenue from tax or non-tax sources is a crucial
factor for sustainable development and as such, is a priority for EU development
policy. By adopting a new approach to budget support in 2012, the Commission
increased the potential of this form of aid to improve domestic revenue
mobilisation. In this report we conclude that, despite recent improvements,
the Commission has not yet effectively used budget support contracts to
support revenue mobilisation in the audited countries. The Commission did not
systematically consider some essential aspects of tax policy and administration
when designing and implementing its budget support operations, and the
number and quality of the disbursement conditions applied in this area were
insufficient. Furthermore, our analysis revealed weaknesses in the reporting
on the use and contribution of budget support to improve domestic revenue
mobilisation.
Click here for our full Special Report
 EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 439: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret marts 2017
1729372_0027.png
A historical look back - Journal March 2004
Interview with Jan Pieter Lingen, head of private office of Maarten B. Engwirda
By Rosmarie Carotti
27
R. C.: Mr Lingen, thank you for this interview. You are Head of
Cabinet of Mr Engwirda who has hosted the meeting. The Russian
Delegation was led by Mr Sergey O. Shokhin Ph. D, Member of the
Collegium of the Russian Chamber of Accounts. Why
has the Cabinet of Mr Engwirda been invited to organise the
workshop?
Jan Pieter LINGEN:
Mr Engwirda is the Member responsible for the
audit of TACIS funds. The volume of the TACIS funds for Russia alone is
about 100-200 millions a year of which 90% is for technical assistance,
mainly in the field of public administration and the public health care
system. Another specific element is nuclear safety. When Mr Stepashin,
President of the Russian Chamber of Accounts asked us to cooperate
in a TACIS audit in the Russian Federation, Mr Fabra Vallés, President of
our Court, handed over the dossier to Mr Engwirda who was invited
to comment on the Audit Programme of the Russian Chamber of
Accounts on the use of these funds in the Russian Federation. In
connection with this, two workshops were to be organised to discuss
audit terminology and methodology, one in Luxembourg on 9-11
February and the second one in Moscow in May or June of this year.
R. C.: In 2002 there has been a proposal by the Secretary General
of the Russian Accounts Chamber to Mr Hervé to conclude a
cooperation agreement. In line with the Court's policy not to
conclude bilateral agreements this proposal could not be accepted
by the Court. All the same, on 6th of May 2003 Mr Stepashin,
Chairman of the Chamber of the Russian Federation sent a letter
to Mr Fabra Vallés, in which he proposed to carry out a joint study
on the effectiveness of TACIS funds in the Russian Federation. Can
you explain the motivation for his request?
Jan Pieter LINGEN:
It is true, the Court decided not to conclude
a cooperation agreement but in the letter to the President of the
Chamber of Accounts it was stated that we are always willing to
cooperate with other external audit institutions, if the cooperation is of
relevance for us as well. Although we have decided not to sign a formal
agreement of cooperation on a bilateral basis, in the reply of Mr Fabra
Vallés to the Russian Chamber of Accounts it was made clear that it
was quite possible for us, as European Court, to cooperate in a specific
audit. Mr Stepashin then proposed to us to cooperate in an audit on
the TACIS programme. We replied that an audit mission of our TACIS
audit team was to visit Moscow at the end of September/ beginning of
October 2004 and that Mr Engwirda could take part in this audit team
to discuss the options for cooperation.
R. C.: The Russian Chamber of Accounts and the European Court
have different powers. How can one really talk about cooperation?
And how can we profit from it?
Jan Pieter LINGEN:
It is true, our powers are different. Why
cooperation? Because the Russian Chamber of Accounts cannot audit
the Commission and the delegation of the Commission in Moscow.
Delegation of the Collegium of the Russian
Chamber of Accounts
 EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 439: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret marts 2017
1729372_0028.png
A historical look back
continued
28
That is something we can do. And we might profit from their powers or
possibilities in an audit of what is the impact of TACIS funded projects in
the Russian Federation at the level of the final beneficiaries.
Our role as an external audit institution in the European Union is to make
sure that the EU funds used for the TACIS programme are useful for the
Russian beneficiaries and fit into the programme which was concluded
between the European Union and the Russian Federation. It is easy for us
to analyse the strategy, the action programme agreed upon between the
Commission and the Russian Federation, it is not even too difficult to see
whether the selected projects fit into this strategy or action plan, but it
is much more difficult to go to a Government institution or to the actual
recipient of technical advice, to see whether they are satifisfied. An overall
opinion on the effectiveness includes also this. Although we cannot be
sure that this will be the outcome of a possible cooperation, we see the
possibility to investigate in this direction.
R. C.: Why do the Russians come to our Court for cooperation?
Jan Pieter LINGEN:
Well, to be honest, there were some
misunderstandings, on terminology but also on the precise division of
responsibilities in the implementation of the TACIS programme. They
had the impression that the TACIS programme was about money handed
over from the Commission to the Russian authorities. That is not the
case. TACIS concerns mainly services. The tendering and contracting
procedures are done by the Commission, decentralised at the moment
to the Delegation of the Commission in Moscow. We could clarify this
and the Russian side adapted its original proposal for an audit in the last
meeting. We then discussed the revised audit proposal.
In the last meeting it was also explained to us that the cooperation the
Russian Chamber of Accounts seeks with the European Court of Auditors
is part of an overall policy to have a link with the major external audit
institutions in the world. We have to keep in mind that the Russian
Chamber of Accounts only exists since 1995. They have, for example, a
cooperation project on money laundering with the General Accounting
Office in the United States and they have concluded a bilateral agreement
with the National Audit Office in the UK. We, on our side, do cooperate,
although perhaps in a lighter form, as well with some audit institutions in
beneficiary countries in Africa, in Asia, in Latin America.
R. C. What is the difference between this "new" cooperation with the
Russian Chamber of Accounts and the contacts which have been so
far within Intosai, Eurosai. In the last meeting the talk was about
methodology and terminology, but this you can do also within the
mentioned organisations.
Jan Pieter LINGEN:
The difference is that the focus now was on a specific
audit the Russian Chamber of Accounts is planning to carry out this year
and which is linked to an audit we are planning to carry out this year or
at the beginning of next year. We have not yet finalised the preliminary
study, but one could conceive an audit on the factors which can make
 EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 439: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret marts 2017
1729372_0029.png
A historical look back
continued
29
a TACIS project in the Russian Federation a success. The Russians want
to get an answer as to whether the Russian final beneficiaries of TACIS
projects have really benefited to the extent foreseen from the technical
advice they have received. Both subjects overlap to a certain extent.
R. C.: Which weaknesses might an audit reveal on the Russian side?
And how can we help them to improve? Which is our role?
Jan Pieter LINGEN:
Their weaknesses might lie in the programming
part, the setting of priorities and the selection of projects at the central
level for which there is no real need at the level of the beneficiaries.
This can end up in very good technical advice and reports but with
limited effectiveness. If this impression is correct, it would lead to
recommendations for the Russian Government to improve their own
capacity to programme, to coordinate, to set the right priorities and to
initiate projects in which the beneficiaries are really interested. We would
cooperate in this audit and give advice to the Chamber of Accounts on
how to set up this audit.
The report they will bring out will certainly be translated into the main
languages of the European Union. The Commission can strengthen its
own negotiation position towards the Russian authorities by just pointing
at this report of the Chamber of Accounts. The selection of projects which
fit the Community policy and for which there is a real need in the Russian
Federation depends in the end on the outcome of a dialogue between
the Commission, the European Union and the Russian Federation.
We, as European Court, do what we always do in sound financial
management audits. We audit a selection of 20-30 projects financed
by TACIS and try to assess how the Commission has managed these
projects, what the results have been, if there have been evaluations. It
leads naturally to a conclusion on the totality of TACIS projects carried
out in the Russian Federation as well as to recommendations for the
Commission on how to improve its management.
R. C.: How real are the chances that Mr Stepashin, Chairman of the
Russian Chamber of Accounts and President of EUROSAI (European
Supreme Audit Institutions) will come to the European Court?
Jan Pieter LINGEN:
Mr Stepashin has been Prime Minister before he was
appointed President of the Chamber of Accounts. Originally he planned
a visit to Luxembourg at the beginning of this year. We thought that this
first workshop could coincide with his visit. However, because of the
overall political situation in Russia, Mr Stepashin has decided to postpone
his visit to Luxembourg.
R. C.: My last question to you. Pravda reported in October 2003 that,
according to Mr Stepashin, Russia is fully integrated into Europe and
into the major European organisations as far as financial control is
concerned. Do you share this point of view?
Jan Pieter LINGEN:
How could I deny it, as Stepashin is the President of
Eurosai?
 EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 439: Rapport fra Den Europæiske Revisionsret marts 2017
1729372_0030.png
ISSN 1831-449X
EDITION HIGHLIGHTS
04
ECA Seminar on auditing energy and climate
– Challenges and opportunities for Supreme
Audit Institutions
The ECA’s Strategy
Trust based on insight and values
Visit to Poland by an official delegation led by
President Klaus-Heiner Lehne and
Janusz Wojciechowski
17
23
Cover:
- Seminar at the Court on the topic “Fiscal Councils – exchange of views on EU fiscal and economic
coordination process”. Neven Mates, reporting Member
QJ-AD-17-003-2A-N