EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

Europaudvalget 2017-18
EUU Alm.del Bilag 330
Offentligt

Journal

JANVIER 2018

Special theme

The ECA Work Programme

Featuring the making of, its contents and presentation of the Work Programme

p. 5

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

PRODUCTION

Rédacteur en chef / Editor in Chief:

Gaston Moonen

Tél. / tel.:

00352 4398 - 45716

E-mail :

[email protected]

Mise en page, diffusion /

Layout, distribution :

Direction de la Présidence -

Directorate of the Presidency

Photos :

Reproduction interdite /

Reproduction prohibited

Past editions of the Journal

can be found on ECA’s website:

http://eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/

Journal.aspx

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

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Editorial

ECA 2018 Work Programme: tying into stakeholders’ needs

Interview with Klaus-Heiner Lehne, ECA President

By Gaston Moonen, Directorate of the Presidency

The main topics covered by the ECA 2018 Work Programme

By Martin Weber, Director of the Presidency

ECA’s programming procedures in a nutshell

By Sandra Diering, Directorate of the Presidency

Policy scans at the ECA: What are they and what is their purpose?

By Dennis Wernerus, Directorate External action, security and justice

Selecting audit topics that matter: audit programming at chamber level

Interview with Wolfgang Stolz

By Gaston Moonen, Directorate of the Presidency

How to become a high priority audit task

Interview with Maria Eulàlia Reverté i Casas

By Gaston Moonen, Directorate of the Presidency

Helping the ECA achieve the highest professional standards

Wilfred Aquilina, Directorate for Audit Quality Control

Monitoring the work programme - ECA shifts to an electronic audit management system

By Torgny Karlsson and Mihaela Pavel, Directorate of the Presidency

The European Parliament’s information needs: making sure our reports have an impact

By Helena Piron Mäki-Korvela, Directorate of the Presidency

Helping the ECA to provide input for well-informed policy decision-making

Interview with Evelyn Waldherr and Stephan Huber of the European Parliament

By Gaston Moonen, Directorate of the Presidency

Comparing audit programmes and processes of EU SAIs to identify good practices and

common audit topics

By Rafal Czarnecki, Directorate of the Presidency

‘Future proofing’ the ECA - Foresight Task Force takes up its work

By Kathrin Bornemeier, Directorate of the Presidency

Assessing large-scale infrastructure investments from a financial and socio-economic point of view

By Luc T’Joen, Directorate Investment for cohesion, growth and inclusion

REACHING OUT

‘United we stand strong’– discussion of the priorities of the Bulgarian Presidency of the Council

By Mihail Stefanov and Mariya Byalkova, Private Office of Iliana Ivanova, ECA Member

ECA President Klaus-Heiner Lehne and ECA Member Danièle Lamarque visit French authorities in Paris

By Gaston Moonen, Directorate of the Presidency

High-level conference 'Shaping our future – Designing the next Multiannual Financial Framework'

By Werner Vlasselaer, Private Office of Jan Gregor, ECA Member

Visit of the Swedish National Audit Office and its Parliamentary Council to the ECA

By Peter Eklund, Private Office of Hans Gustaf Wessberg, ECA Member

Visit of the AFROSAI-GIZ Women Leadership Academy

By Sabine Hiernaux-Fritsch and Beatrix Lesiewicz, Directorate External action, security and justice

Riga Graduate School of Law students visit the ECA

By Dennis Wernerus, Directorate of External action, security and justice

FOCUS

Publications in December 2017

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

Having an

impact starts

with selecting

the right topics

It’s January, and many of you will have made resolutions for the year ahead.

Perhaps you have a list of objectives and dates for their implementation.

You may even have gone further and shared the list with your partner and

other family members. Which means making yourself vulnerable if you do

not live up to your good intentions.

The ECA has been doing all this for several years now, including publishing

its annual work programme on its website. And so much the better!

Transparency keeps the ECA accountable to its institutional stakeholders

and the public at large. After all: who audits the auditor? Publishing a work

programme becomes a commitment to deliver. It means others can count

on the ECA for relevant and timely information and check that the ECA is

keeping its resolutions and promises.

But there is more to a work programme than just accountability towards

others. It is also an important management tool for operational purposes:

to plan the allocation of resources and the timing of ECA reports. Internally,

planning is encoded in an IT system that contains details of auditor weeks,

budgets and timelines, identifying who will produce what, when, and with

what means.

Just as important, if not more so, than the two elements mentioned

above – accountability and the work programme as a management

tool – are the choices made. Faced with a vast array of interesting topics,

the ECA needs to select very carefully which policies, which regulations,

which programmes and which projects it will audit. The impact of the

ECA’s products depends very much on the audit tasks it undertakes.

And fortunately the EU Treaties enable the ECA to make this selection

independently.

But the freedom to choose also brings a huge responsibility. This is why the

ECA’s work programming process has been chosen as the main theme for

this year’s first ECA Journal. Because as compact and concise as the 2018

work programme may appear, there is a lot more to it than meets the eye.

In the following pages we give a range of insights into how the ECA plans

its work. What analysis is there before choices are made (see for example

page 13 on policy scans)? How are audit ideas devised and then whittled

down to a manageable number of most relevant audit tasks (see page

16)? What does it take for an audit to be made a high priority task (see

page 20)? And how does the ECA tap into the needs and suggestions of

institutional stakeholders (see for instance the external perspectives on

page 31)? However, we kick off with ECA President Klaus-Heiner Lehne (see

next page), who describes the ECA’s work programming as a cooperative

process, both internally and with our stakeholders. Because being relevant

also means listening to the needs expressed by others and acknowledging

their expertise.

The relevance of the ECA’s output depends substantially on the quality

of its selection of audit tasks. Implementing them poses quite another

challenge. I wish you every success with your own work programme, both

personal and professional, in 2018 … and good luck with your planning for

2019!

Gaston Moonen

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

Klaus-Heiner Lehne, ECA President

ECA 2018 Work Programme:

tying into stakeholders’ needs

Interview with Klaus-Heiner Lehne, ECA President

By Gaston Moonen, Directorate of the Presidency

Towards a more strategic and consistent approach

Following its decision to review programming procedures in January 2017,

the ECA adopted the Annual Work Programme (AWP) for 2018 which was

published on 18 October 2017. As we embark on next year’s exercise, what

lessons can be learnt from last year?

I believe that this year’s AWP, the first under the new programming

procedure, was a positive experience. It has resulted in a more varied

portfolio of products including briefing papers, landscape reviews and

rapid case reviews. It now also covers a broader range of policies and

programmes. By taking key decisions directly at the level of the ECA

College we have made significant progress towards a more strategic and

consistent approach to the programming of our work . In my view, the

move to a Court-wide approach to programming has been one of the

main success factors in this change.

The ECA 2018 Work

Programme was

produced faster, presents

an extended product

range and takes up

many suggestions

from stakeholders. ECA

President Klaus-Heiner

Lehne explains why, how

it came about and what its

aims are.

“

By taking key decisions

directly at the level of

the ECA College we

have made significant

progress towards a

more strategic and

consistent approach to

the programming of our

work.

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

Interview with Klaus-Heiner Lehne, ECA President

continued

As a by-product of this, the procedure is faster, requires fewer resources,

and limits unnecessary work on ideas which will not make it to the final

cut. Moreover, the ECA decided to give high priority status to twelve

tasks, although I believe that how this prioritisation is reached, can still be

refined in the years to come.

This coming year will be a chance to fine-tune the process, from the

selection of tasks on the basis of substance alone, to the input of

stakeholders, to a further reduction in the duration of tasks. We also need

to be quicker, more reactive and more flexible in allocating staff to audits

tasks.

What do you mean by a 'Court-wide approach' to programming?

I mean a work programme of which the whole ECA, with every single

one of its Members and with every chamber, takes ownership and can

defend in its entirety. In this sense, the reform of our programming is

the prolongation of the ECA’s organisational reform enacted under my

predecessor, President Caldeira, in January 2016. We plan our work not

according to a given structure, but rather by adapting that structure to

the tasks the ECA considers necessary.

To make this happen we need a cooperative process, with regular internal

communication between the chambers and the Presidency. Although

the process has become more centralised, everyone must be able to

have a say. In this way we can combine the specialised knowledge of the

chambers with the wider picture and balance perceived at College level.

Being responsive to stakeholders’ needs

The ECA Strategy for 2018-2020 includes the ambition to be more responsive

to the needs of the ECA’s stakeholders, the European Parliament and Council.

To what extent was this achieved in the current Work Programme?

The ECA decides and executes its work programme in complete

independence. But this does not meant that it works in a vacuum . Nor

does it preclude us from reaching out to our institutional partners to hear

what their information needs are. We are talking about two institutions

with very different structures and cultures, and therefore I believe that

the our approach should be specifically tailored to each one.

Concerning the European Parliament, we have developed a close

relationship with the body which coordinates the work of the

parliamentary committees, the Conference of Committee Chairs (CCC),

in order to receive audit suggestions as early as possible in the planning

process.

It is worth noting that three quarters of the parliamentary committees

provided input last year, with a total of 77 suggestions, and that around

two-thirds of these are now taken up in our work. However, I believe that

this coverage can and must be extended this year, and that was the point

I also made on 16 January of this year when I met them and discussed the

ECA Work Programme. The Parliament’s plenary also regularly addresses

the ECA, for instance as part of the discharge process but also in a variety

of other contexts.

“

Although the process has

become more centralised,

everyone must be able to

have a say.

The ECA decides and

executes its work

programme in complete

independence. But this does

not meant that it works in a

vacuum.

…three quarters of the

parliamentary committees

provided input last

year, with a total of 77

suggestions, and (...) around

two-thirds of these are now

taken up in our work

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

Interview with Klaus-Heiner Lehne, ECA President

continued

Concerning the Council we have received on a number

of occasions specific suggestions which were very useful

to us and which the ECA has acted upon, but I believe we

can deepen our interaction. The ECA is now in a dialogue

with successive Council Presidencies with a view to

structuring this process.

I should add that receiving suggestions and ideas, taking

them up, and completing audits cannot be seen as ends

in themselves. For the ECA’s recommendations to have

an impact on the ground, the Parliament and Council

should bear in mind the content of the recommendations

contained in our special reports when reviewing

legislation or when acting as a budgetary authority. The

impact of our work in practice and on the lives of citizens

and businesses should always be our focus.

Who else should the ECA be listening to in preparing its work programme?

I believe that we also needs to be aware of the priorities of national

parliaments and those of our counterparts in the supreme audit

institutions, think tanks, academia, and the Commission’s own impact

assessments. And last but not least of the expectations of citizens

themselves as to what European Union they want to see in the future.

Last year’s special report on the ‘Commission’s intervention in the Greek

financial crisis’ and the very large echo it received in the media is an

example of such public awareness of our work.

And of course we should actively foster knowledge management of our

own staff, for instance through the so-called Subject Briefs

, and continue

to shift as much staff as possible from support functions to core functions.

Is there not a risk that through interactions with its stakeholders the ECA

creates expectations which will not be fulfilled?

On the contrary, we can only help the Parliament and Council in their

endeavours if we are aware of their needs. It is clear to everyone that with

limited staff we can only carry out a limited number of audits. During the

programming process, many excellent ideas surface and by definition we

must be selective. In addition we sometimes lack staff with the necessary

qualifications in specific new area such as security, and this is one reason

why we decided to set up a

reflection group

to ensure that the Court makes

itself ’future-proof.’

Where further progress could be made is in better explaining which

suggestions the ECA decides to take up and why it does not take up others.

Where a suggestion is ambiguous, it should be clarified directly with its

author. The more focused an audit is, the better. Where an issue is perhaps

too broad to produce a useful result, we should consider whether and how

it could be sequenced in several steps. Narrowing the focus of an audit

and defending this choice sometimes requires courage, but it very often

increases the quality of the end-result substantially.

1 Subject briefs are overviews, mostly created by ECA staff members, to internally share

knowledge on specific policy areas.

“

…we can only help the

Parliament and Council

in their endeavours if

we are aware of their

needs. It is clear to

everyone that with

limited staff we can

only carry out a limited

number of audits.

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

Interview with Klaus-Heiner Lehne, ECA President

continued

At the end of the day, our stakeholders understand well that it is up to

us, in complete independence, to make choices on how to allocate our

resources, and to defend those choices.

ECA input into the legislative process

Does the ECA have any role in the joint programming undertaken by the

Parliament, Council and Commission as part of the Better Lawmaking

Agreement?

Such an involvement would be beyond our mandate and a step into the

law-making arena. However, the content of programming carried out by

the other institutions, separately or jointly, is of course relevant for the

ECA in planning our own work independently.

More generally, in the last two decades we have seen an increasing

emphasis on formalised planning and on the pre-legislative phase in

the European Union institutions, and in particular the Commission. Such

forward-planning is positive, and increases the quality of the output,

so long as the necessary flexibility remains to address unpredictable

developments. It is this relative flexibility which we must also retain in the

ECA throughout our programming process. As the saying goes, “only fools

never change their minds”!

Is the ECA then absent from the pre-legislative phase?

Definitely not, in fact there are multiple opportunities for the ECA in this

phase.

The impact of our audits is multiplied if their timing is right, for instance

if they can feed into an ongoing legislative review. To take only one

example, the European Parliament is keenly looking forward to our audit

on Erasmus+ in order to remedy any shortcomings in time for the new

Multi-annual Financial Framework.

I am also satisfied that for the first time we have managed to include

briefing papers in our work programme, namely on the future of the EU

budget, and on key issues in three of the big policy fields, the Common

Agricultural Policy, cohesion and research and innovation. These briefing

papers will be our contribution to the debates currently taking place,

with the aim to have them published before the Commission issues its

legislative proposals.

We also have a role to play in scrutinizing the Commission’s legislative

proposals whenever they have a financial impact, but also if we are

asked for an opinion by either Parliament or Council. This happened

most recently concerning the review of the Financial Regulation and the

Regulation on Political Parties and Foundations at European level. This will

be the case in particular from this May onwards when the Commission

will issue its legislative proposals for the main spending programmes for

the post-2020 period.

The legislative process and the quality of legislation can only benefit from

the insights of our audit work. No other body has the possibilities that

we have, under the Treaties, to examine in detail how EU policies and

programmes are implemented across our Union and beyond.

“

… the content of

programming carried out

by the other institutions,

separately or jointly, is of

course relevant for the

ECA in planning our own

work independently.

“

The legislative process

and the quality of

legislation can only

benefit from the insights

of our audit work. No

other body has the

possibilities that we have,

under the Treaties, to

examine in detail how EU

policies and programmes

are implemented across

our Union and beyond.

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

The main topics covered by the ECA 2018

Work Programme

By Martin Weber, Director of the Presidency

More audit tasks planned for 2018

Every year the ECA publishes a work programme to inform other

institutions and EU citizens about the audit tasks it will execute in

the year ahead. Through these audits we aim to address key issues

affecting the EU. These include, but are not limited to, the five

priority areas identified in our 2018-2020 Strategy: the sustainable

use of natural resources, growth and inclusion, migration and global

development, the single market, and an accountable and efficient

European Union.

The 2018 work programme lists 47 audit tasks. This is a significant

increase compared to last year (30 tasks). The programme was

published on 18 October 2017 (a month earlier than last year). This

year we opted for a more concise presentation, reducing the number

of pages by half to a total of seven.

Increased variety by topic and

type of report

The audit tasks vary considerably

in form and content, and more so

than in previous years. Content-

wise they range from concrete

issues like flood prevention,

protection and preparedness to an

examination of the Commission’s

activities overseeing the practical

implementation of EU law.

As to the types of report, there is

also a large variation: our audit

findings will be presented in special

reports and landscape reviews –

as well as newer, more recently

launched products such as briefing

papers and rapid case reviews.

Another new feature is the clear

designation of ‘high priority’ tasks.

Prioritisation of audit tasks in the

work programme

Twelve of the 48 tasks are labelled

‘high priority’: in view of their

relevance and urgency we intend

to complete and publish these in

2018.

The ECA work programme is

obviously an important element

in the institution’s organisation

of its work and its relations with

stakeholders. But what is the

work programme about, and

which audit tasks does it contain

this year?

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

The main topics covered by the ECA’s 2018 Work Programme

continued

Figure 1: ECA’s five priority areas for the 2018-2020 period; high priority audit tasks for 2018

Source: ECA

Figure 1

provides an overview of the ECA’s five priority areas for the 2018-2020 period and the

related high priority tasks for 2018.

Table 1

provides a short summary of the audit objectives for

each of these tasks.

The 2018 work programme is a public document and can be downloaded at:

https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=43189

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

ECA’s programming procedures in a nutshell

By Sandra Diering, Directorate of the Presidency

Introduction

Through its annual work

programme the ECA

selects specific audit

topics, taking account of

its strategic objectives set

out in the ECA 2018-2020

Strategy. Sandra Diering

briefly explains the ECA

programming procedures,

the different steps the

process contains and the

way they build upon each

other.

Our main role as the EU’s independent external auditor is to verify that

EU policies and spending programmes and have achieved the intended

objectives and are implemented in accordance with the relevant rules. By

doing this, we aim at promoting accountability and transparency and thereby

ultimately contribute to the protection of the financial interest of the Union

and all EU citizens.

In order to maximize the impact of our work, it is essential to identify,

select and plan audit tasks which are relevant and come at the right time.

Our programming process helps us to do so. It translates the higher level

objectives of the multiannual strategy into operational objectives in the form

of audit tasks. The final product of this programming process is the Annual

Work Programme (AWP).

The different stages of the programming process

Each year the ECA identifies and selects a number of audit tasks to be

included in its AWP. The programming process consists of several steps:

The ECA strategy for the period 2018-2020 sets the overall framework for

the selection of audit tasks. It defines the general direction and strategic

objectives of our work. It identifies four strategic goals:

- improving the added value of the ECA Statement of Assurance;

- increased focus on the performance aspects of EU action;

- get clear messages across to our audiences; and

- gear our organisation to our products.

In addition the ECA strategy defines five priority areas for the ECA’s work in

the coming years:

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

ECA’s programming procedures in a nutshell

continued

For each priority area policy scans summarize the risks, materiality, recent policy

developments and current or recently finalized work by the ECA or other relevant

actors. Policy scans are updated by the audit chambers on an annual basis.

On the basis of the policy scans we develop audit ideas. Audit ideas state the

potential audit subject and briefly summarize the main reasons for including the

task in the AWP. A certain number of audit ideas are then selected to be further

expanded into Proposed Audit Tasks (PATs).

A PAT is a relatively detailed assessment of the main characteristics and risks of

the audit area and the reasons for carrying out the task. Among the PATs we

subsequently select those which, on the basis of their potential impact and

alignment with the ECA’s priorities, are considered high priority or priority and

should therefore be included in the work programme.

High priority tasks are, by definition, of particular importance and often reply to

key concerns of our stakeholders. These tasks are therefore given priority when

allocating resources so that the result of the work can be published before the

end of the work programme year.

The ECA's AWP outlines all ECA tasks in a given year. For each task it sets out a

more detailed planning in terms of timing as well as resources. An extract of the

AWP, including an overview of all tasks to be published in the year concerned, is

publicly available on the ECA website.

Reaching out to our stakeholders

Our programming procedures aim at addressing the information needs of our

institutional stakeholders, and in particular the European Parliament (EP). We

therefore analyse each year the discharge decisions from both EP and Council. In

addition, we have taken specific steps to encourage all standing committees at

the EP, but also national parliaments, to make suggestions of for possible audit

subjects.

Programming as a cooperative process

The audit work programming at the ECA follows a centralized approach to

ensure a well balanced portfolio for the institution as a whole. At the same time,

the specific knowledge and expertise of the five audit chambers is essential to

make sure the programme can reach its full potential.

Therefore the ECA work programming is a cooperative process in which the

different audit chambers are actively involved at all stages and interact with

each other. And last but not least, to make programming a success story it

needs to be filled with contents by the people who work with it. In the end,

the determining factor for the quality of our programing and our output is the

knowledge and expertise of our staff.

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

Policy scans at the ECA: What are they and

what is their purpose?

By Dennis Wernerus, Directorate External action, security and justice

The ECA’s Strategy for 2018-2020 identifies five priority areas.

Each year auditors conduct and update policy scans covering

many elements in each thematic focus area. Dennis Wernerus,

as the assistant to a director closely involved in the work

programming process, explains what these policy scans entail

and why they are so important.

What are policy scans?

Audit is essentially an activity based on the acquisition and use of

knowledge. What we know ultimately feeds into decisions about

what to do. This has important implications for the way we manage

and share knowledge at the ECA. It is in order to promote a corporate

culture of knowledge-sharing and collective learning that the ECA

launched the ‘Enabling Knowledge for Audit’ initiative (EKA), of which

the creation and dissemination of policy scans is an integral part.

Policy scans provide a brief overview of an EU policy area, covering

objectives, the legal framework, actors, materiality of the underlying

EU instruments and the mode of budgetary implementation. They

also contain information on the latest policy developments (e.g. pre-

legislative process and Commission annual work programmes), a

risk assessment, stakeholder interests, and coverage by previous and

current ECA audits. Within the ECA’s chambers, each audit directorate

develops and updates policy scans on the major policy areas in their

respective thematic focus areas (see

Figure 1).

It achieves this thanks

to dedicated teams of policy experts and reviewers.

The following example from Chamber III shows how a thematic focus

area (in this case ‘External action, security and justice’) is broken down

for drafting policy scans.

•

Development and cooperation, including the European

Development Funds

Humanitarian aid and civil protection

Neighbourhood

Enlargement

Foreign policy, including the Common Security and Defence

Policy

Democracy and human rights

Internal security

Asylum and migration

Justice

Nuclear safety and cooperation

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

Policy scans at the ECA: What are they and what is their purpose?

continued

We also see this thematic breakdown in the other ECA audit chambers.

Figure 1:

Synthesis of the thematic

focus areas by ECA Chamber.

In the 2018 programming exercise, policy scans took over

as the ECA’s new format for policy and risk reviews. They feed directly into the preparation

of audit ideas and proposed audit tasks. Hence, policy scans lie at the very heart of the

ECA’s product lifecycle. For this reason, the review to which they are subject and standard

template used to draw them up are particularly important as they guarantee a certain level

of quality, consistency, and comparability between policy areas and risks. As risks need to be

understood before they can be compared, each policy scan includes a risk assessment too.

Let us take, as an example, the policy scan on the EU’s enlargement policy. This lists the

systemic shortcomings in the Western Balkans and Turkey based on ECA audits and research

work from others. As it is a prerequisite that a risk assessment be up to date, each policy scan

also includes recent developments that impact these risks. The ‘enlargement’ policy scan,

then, looks at developments that are leading some pre-accession assistance beneficiaries to

stray ever further from the Copenhagen criteria, notably on the rule of law.

Importantly in the context of promoting a corporate culture of knowledge-sharing

and collective learning, policy scans provide anyone at the ECA with a succinct, yet

comprehensive overview of EU policies. Indeed, they are an effective tool with which to

acquire a quick handle on a policy area.

Purpose of policy scans

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

Policy scans at the ECA: What are they and what is their purpose?

continued

In a nutshell, then, policy scans address the ECA’s need to have reliable programming tools

and to share knowledge internally among staff.

However, there are challenges attached to the drafting and use of policy scans.

Avoid covering policies through numerous scans

As knowledge never cease to expand and EU policies tend to grow in scope and

complexity, audit directorates face the challenge of developing and maintaining high-

quality policy scansconsistently over time. Furthermore, a balance has to be struck

between the desire for concise, focused policy scans (i.e. on measurable policies and

their instruments) and the need to foster a knowledge-sharing culture. What does this

mean in practice for Chamber III, for example, and its focus on EU external action? If

Chamber III had opted to draw up numerous geographical policy scans covering, say, the

African, Caribbean and Pacific Countries, Asia, Latin America and the Overseas Countries

and Territories, the number of policy scans on development and cooperation would

have proliferated needlessly, thereby fragmenting the information available. Therefore,

Chamber III chose instead to cover the EU’s policy towards developing countries in just

two policy scans: ‘development and cooperation’ and ‘humanitarian aid’.

Making policy scans easy to understand (and keeping them that way!)

When confronted with a complex, multidimensional policy area, it is good practice when

drafting a policy scan to focus on the relevant financing instrument(s). For some policies,

this is relatively straightforward, as is the case, for instance, with the EU’s enlargement

policy and the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance. However, many policies have

multiple instruments applied through complex delivery channels (e.g. blending, sector

budget support and trust funds in external action; financial instruments in cohesion).

Therefore, it probably makes more sense to focus on a family of instruments (and related

risks), rather than to ‘track a policy’.

Updating policy scans

Policy scans contain a wealth of information. As the products of an annual exercise, the

challenge is to keep them up-to-date, paying attention to data consistency within each

policy area, year after year. This challenge must be taken seriously since policy scans are

first in line to feed into the process of generating audit ideas and, eventually, audit tasks.

Encouraging policy scan readers to widen their knowledge

Recent major geopolitical shifts in the EU and around the world – most of which will

potentially impact the EU budget – leave scope for new policy scans. For instance, the

EU has been actively developing its defence, home affairs and migration policies. Last

year saw the set-up of the European Defence Fund. This Fund, together with upcoming

Common Security and Defence Policy missions and the expanded use of other existing

foreign policy instruments, could prompt future purpose-driven policy scanning in

Chamber III.

Policy scans as stepping stone and management tool

Part of the ECA’s streamlined, strategy-driven programming process, policy scans are

stepping stones to new audit ideas and proposed audit tasks. They provide relevant and

straightforward overviews, and allow for a cross-fertilisation of views on EU policies. Within

and across the audit chambers, they also constitute an important management tool with

which to compare policy areas, the related risks and ensuing audit opportunities. Finally,

policy scans are a visible product of the ECA’s endeavour to promote internal knowledge-

sharing and collective learning. All this makes preparing policy scans a challenge; but

given their expected benefits, this is a challenge worth rising to!

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

Selecting audit topics that matter: audit

programming at chamber level

Interview with Wolfgang Stolz

By Gaston Moonen, Directorate of the Presidency

It takes a village to raise

a child, according to the

proverb; likewise, many

different people have a

role to play in drafting a

complex document such

as the ECA’s annual work

programme. Most of the

process takes place within

the ECA’s audit chambers.

We asked Wolfgang Stolz,

a veteran of several work

programmes, to shed

light on how chambers

contribute to the process.

Wolfgang Stolz

Knowing the process inside out

It is clear that Wolfgang knows the ropes when it comes to work programming

in the ECA. Firstly because of his long experience – Wolfgang joined the ECA in

2002, initially doing compliance audit in agriculture, also as a team leader, and

then working in performance in the same area before he joined the Directorate

Regulation of markets and competitive economy

in 2011, where he works closely

with the director. But on top of experience there is something else, call it vision.

Wolfgang formulates clearly and decisively when talking about audit selection

and programming. And when talking about Wolfgang’s role in this process, this

clarity continues. ‘Together with the director I manage the whole process and

we set the deadlines to make sure we can deliver on time to the Directorate of

the Presidency, which fulfils a central coordination role in work programming.

Deadlines are quite tight and our main role is to give good guidance to the

colleagues in our chamber so they can prepare the policy scans, audit ideas and

eventually the proposed audit tasks. We review all this to make sure it makes

sense.’ This word

sense

will come back several times throughout our conversation.

Drafting policy scans: what and by whom

When asked what the current work programme process means for his Chamber,

Wolfgang dives into the different aspects of the programming process. ‘The 2018

exercise had a few new elements, which required some improvisation in terms

of the templates we used and how we ran the procedure, but overall, these were

changes we could cope with. First of all, we identify areas for which we need to

produce policy scans and the colleagues capable of writing them.’ Wolfgang’s

“

…our main role is to

give good guidance

to the colleagues

in our chamber so

they can prepare the

policy scans, audit

ideas and eventually

the proposed audit

tasks.

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

Selecting audit topics that matter: audit programming at chamber level

continued

chamber wrote four policy scans: one for the revenue side (customs, trade and

taxes), one for the research area, one for the single market – a relatively new

policy scan - and a policy scan for the Financial and Economic Governance area,

which is, according to Wolfgang, a rather wide area comprising the Economic

and Financial Union.

When it comes to who normally writes the policy scans, Wolfgang is very clear:

‘What you generally need are people who do performance audits, looking at

issues from a performance angle. We ask our performance experts to write the

policy scan and if you are an expert in the field you can do this work normally

within 3 to 5 days. It mostly concerns updates: changes in regulations, recent

or upcoming developments, normally the experts know what is going on since

they are involved on an ongoing basis.’ When it comes to the number of people

involved in these scans Wolfgang specifies that one to three people will work

on such a scan, depending on the subheadings per policy area.

Wolfgang highlights a specific development when comparing policy scans with

his early days in the ECA: ‘Then it was quite common to follow the EU money

related to a Multiannual Financial Framework heading. But increasingly the ECA

moved to areas where little money is involved but a lot of EU impact is given.

For example for the single market there are many directives and regulations

with small budget lines, if any, but potentially a lot of impact. So there we have

to audit the adequacy of regulations, directives, etc. ’ Wolfgang gives another

example: the EU’s role in international trade agreements: ‘Very important and

indirectly, a lot of money is involved, but direct expenditure is close to zero.’ He

then refers to a special report the ECA published some time ago on Preferential

Trade Agreements.

Producing audit ideas: synthesis of bottom-up ideas and top-down

guidance

With the policy scans ready Wolfgang’s directorate then sends them to the

Directorate of the Presidency and to the ECA Members and all staff in his

chamber as main source of information for the preparation of audit ideas.

‘Besides the scans we include information regarding suggestions received

from stakeholders, like for example the list received from the EP Conference of

Committee Chairs. We then request the colleagues to come up with audit ideas

on what topic would be worth auditing and why. So anybody in the chamber

can propose an audit idea.’ Wolfgang found the 2018 work programme exercise

a rather productive but challenging one: ‘We received 65 audit ideas and had

to slim it down to maximum 25 ideas to be submitted to the Directorate of

the Presidency. In the past we used a brainstorm session where participants

could score the ideas presented. Ideas receiving high scorings were carried

forward to the next stage.’ For the 2018 exercise it was decided to do it

differently: ‘Members were requested to indicate preferences, which enabled

us to bring the number down to digestible digits, that is 25 audit ideas. And

it means top-down input in the audit programming process, which already

was a combination of bottom-up ideas and top-down input when requesting

everybody in our chamber to contribute with audit ideas.’

According to Wolfgang the process makes sense and it is logical that many

audit ideas come from auditors themselves. Because that is where the most

detailed knowledge lies. He gives a concrete example of how an idea can

develop: ‘When we finished our audit on the Service Directive we got the

impression that the free movement of professionals and qualifications obtained

“

…increasingly the

ECA moved to areas

where little money is

involved but a lot of

EU impact is given.

“

We received 65

audit ideas and

had to slim it down

to maximum 25

ideas…

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

Selecting audit topics that matter: audit programming at chamber level

continued

in a Member States are quite relevant for the good functioning of this directive.

This notion was subsequently developed into an audit idea and then into an audit

task, so actually the outcome of a finished task.’

Wolfgang subsequently raises a specific issue with which most likely also other

chambers need to cope with: ‘Take the area of research. In our chamber, we are

the experts when it comes to the process: grant procedure, awarding it, expenses,

cost declarations, etc. All very relevant for financial and compliance audits.

But when it comes to performance aspects what you want to know is whether

research expenditure in a certain area was effective. And that is where the

colleagues in my chamber do not necessarily have the knowledge but colleagues

in other policy areas, where the effects of the research projects can be seen, come

in. ’ Wolfgang continues with the example on research: ‘Let’s say a research grant

goes to a project related to energy and climate. Our chamber can still come up

with the audit idea but our staff does not necessarily have the specific knowledge

of the area the grant is used for, but colleagues in other chambers have, in this

case Chamber I

Sustainable use of natural resources.

’ He concludes: ‘We need to

clarify this to our staff and make them realise that they can also come up with

proposals which are not necessarily executed by them or colleagues in our own

chamber.’

Wolfgang believes that from a process point of view, dealing with 65 audit

ideas is burdensome: ‘I think that some changes in the 2019 exercise will help to

improve this. More guidance on focus areas within the policy areas will help to

prevent this. In the new template you are asked to indicate which areas need to

be looked at in more detail. So the specifications for focus areas come in the first

place from the chambers themselves.’ He adds that the ECA will need to find the

right balance in this: these areas need to be specific enough to have focused audit

ideas and flexible enough since you do not want to miss something relevant in an

area not included in your focus specifications.

From audit idea to a proposed audit task

The line-up towards the final work programme continues by transforming audit

ideas into proposed audit tasks. Wolfgang explains: ‘Not all the 25 audit ideas

can be executed. In coordination with the Directorate of the Presidency, who

presented input on what could be interesting tasks, also in view of ideas received

from other chambers, we selected ten ideas to be further developed as proposed

audit tasks.’ He describes how different factors kick in here: ‘You might have many

ideas related to research, but only limited resources and capabilities to do that.

And you want to cover all the four policy areas we had with at least one audit

tasks. And of course you want to make sure that what you bring is relevant. So

it is a mixture of these three elements resulting in proposed audit tasks. You

could actually choose to cover not one area, but you would only do that if the

policy scan concludes that there is nothing new, no developments and nothing

interesting to audit. And this is highly unlikely.’

Wolfgang points out that transforming an audit idea into a potential audit task is

not always easy: ‘To really know what can be done is often only found out when

preparing the audit proposal, so only after inclusion in the work programme. This

is also one of our tasks here in the directorate: try to identify those audit ideas

that have the potential to become a tangible audit task. With 65 audit ideas it is

clear that several auditors have found the time to put their ideas on paper, ideas

which most often develop through a gradual process, not from scratch. And that

certainly helps when finding good arguments to get an audit idea to become an

audit task and to substantiate that task. ’ He explains that not all the proposed

“

Our chamber can

still come up with

the audit idea but

our staff does not

necessarily have the

specific knowledge

of the area the

grant is used for, but

colleagues in other

Chambers have…

“

This is also one of

our tasks here in the

directorate: try to

identify those audit

ideas that have the

potential to become

a tangible audit

task.

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

Selecting audit topics that matter: audit programming at chamber level

continued

audit tasks prepared made it to the 2018 work programme: ‘Also a selection needs

to be made in the potential audit tasks,, which is done in consultation with the

Directorate of the Presidency and largely driven by resource availability. We know

our ongoing audits and we know who will work on these topics and who will come

available when. This has an impact, of course, besides another important selection

criteria which is relevance.’

When discussing some of the audit tasks which made it to the 2018 Work

Programme, we conclude that there is an almost even spread of audit task among

the different audit chambers: about ten tasks per chamber. Wolfgang explains why:

‘One way or the other, there is a kind of specialisation within the chambers, and

this makes sense if you want to produce high quality products. However, it may

also have sometimes an undesired influence on the selection of audit tasks, which

might not be of equal importance and which is something that might be worth

further reflecting upon.’

Making it to a ‘high priority’ task

With the 2018 Work Programme the notion of a ‘high-priority’ task was introduced.

For Wolfgang this makes sense: ‘If a task is considered a high priority, and

therefore urgent to implement and publish a report about it, why not indicate it?

Prioritisation helps to get the most important things done first. ’ Wolfgang points

out that besides relevance, the selection as a high-priority task is also driven by

resource availability and deadline feasibility. He also raises the question whether

there is indeed a need that each chamber has two high priority tasks in a year

where the topics chosen are relevant but may be of limited urgency.

A programming process that makes sense

For the upcoming 2019 work programming process, Wolfgang has high hopes: ‘I

think that we improve our process year by year and it gets more harmonised. And

where there is a choice for chambers on how to do things, I think it would be good

to share experiences between chambers, to exchange good practices among us.

For example, how to select audit tasks from a collection of audit ideas. It would

be good to map how each chamber does it, share this information and see what

options there are for a chamber to choose from.

Having seen many programming exercises Wolfgang reflects: ‘I think the current

process makes sense! We start with a policy analysis, including a risk assessment,

which gives a first indication of possible interesting issues. And then we develop

possible audit ideas on where we can bring concrete added value. It is a logical

procedure.’ Wolfgang highlights an important change with previous exercises:

‘We are quicker now, having streamlined in 2018 discussions on priorities and a

faster process going from policy scans to audit ideas and potential audit tasks.

This enabled the ECA to publish the 2018 Work Programme already in October

2017, thereby facilitating an earlier discussion with stakeholders – like the EP

– and possibly advancing their input for the next exercise. I would say this is a

noteworthy advantage.’

Wolfgang concludes that it is important to regularly have a discussion and

reflection on the ECA’s programming procedure: ‘The relevance of our products

depends very much on the underlying procedure. After all, if we have no good

audit ideas, and subsequently no good audit tasks, then our audits cannot be as

relevant as they could be. Having an impact, certainly as performance auditor,

starts with taking the right topics and sensible programming. And this is what we

keep saying to our auditors.’

“

One way or the

other, there is a kind

of specialisation

within the chambers,

and this makes

sense if you want

to produce high

quality products.

However, it may also

have sometimes an

undesired influence

on the selection of

audit tasks…

“

I think the current

process makes

sense!

Having an

impact, certainly

as performance

auditor, starts with

taking the right

topics and sensible

programming.

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

The ECA’s 2018 Work

Programme included 47

audit tasks of which 12 were

labelled ‘high priority’. But

what exactly are high priority

tasks? What is it that sets

them apart from the rest? It’s

time to speak to Maria Eulàlia

Reverté i Casas, the head of

task of an ongoing audit on

food safety, who is willing to

share a few insights.

Maria Eulàlia Reverté i Casas

How to

become a

high priority

audit task

Interview with Maria

Eulàlia Reverté i Casas

By Gaston Moonen,

Directorate of the Presidency

Inspiration for audit ideas

Maria Eulàlia Reverté i Casas – or just Eulàlia for short – didn’t

hesitate before agreeing to contribute to a journal issue on work

programming. During the interview, it became clear why. She has

substantial experience in successfully putting audit ideas into

practice. Eulàlia has worked at the ECA since 2003, starting with the

European Development Funds before switching in 2008 to work for

Chamber I

Sustainable use of natural resources,

where she has dealt

with many different subjects. She is currently the head of task for

an audit on the EU’s activities on food safety, focusing on chemical

hazards in food. This is the fourth time she has taken on the head

of task role, having previously led audits on organic products, the

integration of water policy with the CAP objectives, and food waste,

for which the report was published in early 2017.

It was Eulàlia who initially came up with the idea behind the last

three completed audits she worked on. She explains: ‘After proposing

the audit topic, I was asked to prepare the audit proposal and to

carry out the subsequent tasks: planning the audit, executing it,

drafting the report and doing all the necessary for its distribution,

ranging from establishing a mailing list to going to conferences. So, I

was involved from the very beginning until the very end.’

“

To come up with ideas

for an audit, apply

common sense where

you see contradictions

and a lack of coherence

between decisions...

When asked where she finds the inspiration for an audit idea, Eulàlia

smiles: ‘There are many aspects to it. You need to be aware of what

is happening in the policy area, read Commission publications, and

keep an open mind as to what might interest an EU citizen; such

elements are important.’ Then she continues: ‘Above all else, though,

common sense is the key ingredient. To come up with ideas for an

audit , apply common sense where you see contradictions and a

lack of coherence between decisions, and imagine what could be

revealed if we were to invest audit time.’

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

Interview with Maria Eulàlia Reverté i Casas

continued

Becoming an audit task

What does it take for Eulàlia to transform an audit idea into an audit

task? Without hesitation, she replies: ‘Besides a topic, you need solid

arguments to get it through. So you need to flesh the topic out well:

study it well, elaborate on it, invest time in the subject matter to see

whether it is worth auditing, feasible, and whether it could produce

something tangible. Only when you yourself are convinced that the

topic is audit worthy can you convince others to invest audit resources .’

Becoming a high priority task

Out of a total of 47 audits and reviews included in the 2018 Work

Programme, the ECA selected the food safety audit as one of the twelve

high priority tasks. It is just one of the three high priority tasks for which

Eulàlia’s directorate is responsible. Eulàlia gives a bit more background

information on the task: ‘Unlike for the last three audits I headed, where

I was involved in every step of the audit, here I was not involved in

coming up with the audit idea itself. I assume that it was because of

my previous experience that I was made head of task for this audit.’ She

continues: ‘Initially the task was rather broad, covering many elements

related to food safety. When I was assigned the task and started looking

into the Commission’s DGs specifically dealing with food safety issues, it

became clear to me that choices had to be made. Criteria for narrowing

the scope were relevance, feasibility, ability to generate interest and

added-value, and the extent to which anyone would be able to identify

with the subject.’ Eulàlia clarifies that the audit scope was narrowed

down to an audit on chemical hazards in food, with the main question:

Is the EU doing enough to ensure food safety regarding chemical

hazards?

Eulàlia then sheds some light on the reasons why the topic was raised

to ‘high priority’ level: ‘The topic is of high relevance since it concerns

all EU citizens. In addition, it concerns all business operators in the food

industry – whether they handle EU-originating products or imported

products. Hopefully this will translate into general interest in the audit

results. What is more, our key stakeholders, the European Parliament

and the Council, expressed an interest in food safety, particularly food

pesticides. This is specifically dealt with in the audit proposals.’ She

goes on to say that the European Parliament has shown an interest

in an audit on the legislative framework of pesticides and, some time

ago, in the comparability of the food safety standards of EU and non-

EU countries. When discussing the recent Fipronil scandal, Eulàlia

underlines that it was included in the audit scope by virtue of being

a chemical, but that the current scandal had not influenced the audit

scope selection.

What does Eulàlia consider to be important ingredients for a high

priority task? She gets straight to the point: ‘If you do a proper analysis

of the area and possible consequences, you can exploit many audit

topics to the maximum. And at the EU level, there are many relevant

topics with a lot of money involved, many interests at stake, or which

are important because they deal with moral principles.’ She stresses

that the way you analyse and present a topic will have an impact on

whether it becomes a high priority task or not . Another factor is what

“

Only when you yourself

are convinced that the

topic is audit worthy can

you convince others to

invest audit resources.

“

...the way you analyse

a topic and present it

will have an impact on

whether it will become a

high priority task or not.

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

Interview with Maria Eulàlia Reverté i Casas

continued

Eulàlia calls ‘the angle you take when you have an audit topic’. She

comes up with an example: ‘When looking at food safety hazards,

one can clearly distinguish between physical, biological and chemical

hazards. This distinction can be understood by the general public

and it presents a new angle to narrow the scope while giving a nice

block.’ Eulàlia summarises: ‘Depth, angle and type of questions will all

influence the likelihood of a task becoming high priority.’

High priority label as enabler…or restrictive?

An important consideration when selecting high priority tasks is the

potential impact of the audit results on society, decision-makers and

the legislative process. Does the food safety decision-making process

put Eulàlia and her team under pressure to present the audit report as

soon as possible? Eulàlia agrees that, ideally, the presentation of the

audit results and the legislative process should be in sync. However,

she also believes that there are often so many things to say on a

topic that the right messages will guarantee relevance, even if their

publication does not fit perfectly with the policy cycle. ‘Sometimes

issues need time to mature. So, you might strike at the right moment

technically, but the idea you are launching may need to mature for a

duration of time which is difficult to predict . I think we should speak

out once we have well-founded messages. My priority is to have

credible, well-founded conclusions and recommendations.’

As a high priority task in the 2018 Work Programme, the food safety

report needs to be published in 2018. Did this time pressure, and

perhaps the limited availability of human resources, lead to a scope

limitation? Working on a high priority task presents several dilemmas

for Eulàlia: ‘This label presents challenges like time limitation and the

label you have to honour; meaning that, even more so than with other

audit tasks, you cannot narrow the scope to something insignificant

or something too parcelled. You need to come up with something

relevant and feasible. The content needs to warrant its label.’

Did the label, then, open doors to more resources, a larger audit team?

Eulàlia is very clear here: ‘As head of task, you have to seek to minimise

risks. These include the size and the position of your team. To have a

committed team, you need to invest energy. Given the restrictions on

the calendar, I cannot allow myself to commit a lot of energy to a large

team.’ Eulàlia explains that she therefore prefers to work with a smaller

team: in the beginning she had only Paivi Piki as deputy head of task,

who has now been joined by two auditors, with active involvement

from the Principal Manger, Michael Bain, and the private office of the

reporting Member, Janusz Wojciechowski. The audit programme was

approved in November 2017 and a number of Member States have

been and will be visited, as will the Commission. In addition, certain

agencies will be consulted, like the Food Safety Authority in Parma

and the World Health Organization.

Eulàlia believes that any ECA audit, whether it is labelled high priority

or otherwise, requires sound audit work to deliver credible findings.

To this end, she believes you have to preserve a nice equilibrium: ‘You

have to analyse what you have and say what you can based on your

findings. But you should not stretch it too far, as doing so risks straying

“

Sometimes issues need

time to mature. So, you

might strike at the right

moment technically, but

the idea you are launching

may need to mature for a

duration of time which is

difficult to predict.

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

Interview with Maria Eulàlia Reverté i Casas

continued

into the scientific or political realm. You have to look at the origins of the

problem and its consequences, without taking part in the discussion;

otherwise you may lose your credibility.’

Eulàlia concludes that she is quite happy with the reflections that are

taking place on work programming at the ECA: ‘We are reflecting on a

common vision and a work plan for all the chambers. This, plus setting

clear priorities in advance, will enable us to hone in on specific subjects

and produce quality proposals, with substantial time invested in

background work and analysis to make for well-based choices for audit

topics. The identification of ECA focus areas in the pipeline for the 2019

work programming exercise is an important step in this direction.’

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

Helping the ECA achieve the highest

professional standards

Wilfred Aquilina, Directorate for Audit Quality Control

Work programming has a rather different nature in support services

that help and facilitate the execution of the core ECA audit tasks.

The Directorate for Audit Quality Control (DQC) provides key

audit support tasks and its planning depends substanially on the

momentum, quality and needs of the audit teams it supports.

Wilfred Aquilina expands on the different elements that steer DQC’s

work programming.

Roleof Audit Quality Control

The Directorate for Audit Quality Control (DQC) helps the ECA achieve

the highest standards of quality and consistency in its professional

output, so ensuring its impact is maximised. The Directorate does so by

providing support to achieve well-conceived and well-planned audits

that use effective methodology to gather robust evidence. We also aim

for audit results to be communicated through readable and attractive

reports, which present clear conclusions and useful recommendations for

improving EU financial management (see

Figure 1).

Figure 1 –

the contribution of Audit Quality Control to the achievement

of the ECA’s objectives and plans

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

Helping the ECA achieve the highest professional standards

continued

DQC works closely with, and for, the ECA’s

Audit Quality Control Committee

(AQCC),

consisting of six ECA Members and led by Danièle Lamarque, the ECA Member for

Audit Quality Control. The Committee is responsible for the ECA’s audit policies,

standards and methodology; the quality control management framework; quality

assurance; audit support and IT audit. AQCC’s work programme for 2018, adopted

in October 2017, reflects the strategic role and nature of DQC’s work, and includes

several key initiatives and actions linked to the achievement of ECA’s strategy for

2018-2020.

Demand-driven, combined with specific projects

A permanent top priority for quality control at the ECA is the review of the quality

of draft audit plans and reports. DQC’s work also includes the review of draft

planning documents and reports of other products such as briefing papers and

landscape reviews planned to be carried out in 2018. The work is demand-driven

and requested at short notice, requiring close coordination and support to audit

chambers during key stages of the audit process (such as for the conduct of issue

analysis, during the drawing conclusions discussions, on the use of data, graphs and

infographics, and for the facilitation of the adversarial procedure). In this respect

DQC’s work programme builds very much on the overall ECA work programme for

2018.

Another main element of the AQCC’s work programme for 2018 are quality

assurance tasks. These will continue to be undertaken in line with our directorate’s

multiannual task plan in order to identify areas where there is scope for

improvement and streamlining of processes. They focus on various quality aspects

including the overall framework in place, the procedures followed during specific

stages of an audit process, matters related to efficiency and possible delays, as well

as the consistency and clarity of messages conveyed through the final reports.

DQC also maintains, and regularly updates in response to new and emerging needs,

the ECA’s manuals, guidelines, checklists and good practice notes. Of significance,

AQCC’s work programme for 2018 includes the launch of a major review and

reformatting of the audit manuals and the development of useful and practical

toolkits for EU auditors. In conjunction with the ECA’s other directorates, work will

be continued on promoting the use of technology for innovation in audit work

(including addressing big data and open data opportunities and challenges).

In addition, as part of its work programme, DQC will continue to actively support

the ECA’s international activities on professional standards within the INTOSAI

community, in particular, the contributions made to the sub-committees on

financial, performance and compliance audits sub-committees, the INTOSAI

Environmental auditing working group and as the vice-chair of the Professional

Standards Committee. The latter is the INTOSAI committee leading the efforts to

provide Supreme Audit Institutions with relevant, professional and clear standards

and guidance.

Embedding quality standards across the institution

To sum up, AQCC and DQC, with its small team of highly experienced and

committed auditors and through its 2018 work programme, will continue in its

mission to help develop and steer the institution towards the achievement of

the highest standards of quality. We aim to embed deeper into the very fabric of

the institution those important elements that are essential for an efficient and

professional delivery and presentation of our outputs and results.

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

Monitoring the work programme – ECA

shifts to a fully electronic audit management

system

By Torgny Karlsson and Mihaela Pavel, Directorate of the Presidency

Agreeing on a work programme is one thing, making sure that audits

are actually implemented as planned is quite another matter. At

the ECA an electronic audit management system (AMS) has been

in place since 2014 to plan key milestones and resources for audits

and to monitor how tasks progress over time. As of 2018 there is no

longer a detailed paper-based programme; instead all planning data

is encoded and followed up in the AMS. Torgny Karlsson and Mihaela

Pavel provide more details about how this tool is used at the ECA.

Moving towards a truly electronic management tool

2018 brings another major change to how programming is done at the ECA.

For the first time, there is no longer a detailed paper-based document setting

out specific milestones, staff resources and deadlines for each task. Instead, the

College of Members approves the selection of tasks and the broad allocation of

resources to tasks, and, in consultation with the five audit chambers, sets specific

end dates for the 12 high-priority tasks which need to be completed by the end

of 2018. For the remaining tasks, the chambers have a large margin of discretion

as to when to start, what resources to assign, etc.

Does this mean there will no longer be any Court-wide overview and monitoring

of how tasks progress over time? Clearly not - in fact, the new programming

rules also require the chambers, from 2018 onwards, to convert the strategic

decisions taken by the College into practice. This is done by means of a more

detailed planning process to designate audit teams (or at least the heads of

task), decide on the necessary staff resources and the most appropriate start

date (as well as the final deadline for publication). All this, from now onwards, is

only documented in our audit management system (AMS). In other words, we

no longer have a detailed work programme in paper form, all information on

what is planned being recorded and followed up electronically.

Main types of reports available in AMS

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

Monitoring the Work Programme - ECA's shift to an electronic Audit

Management System

continued

AMS in the life cycle of an audit…and vice versa

The AMS is managed centrally by the Directorate of the Presidency, which also

decides on the way data is recorded and reported. Besides special audit tasks, which

change from one year to the next, a number of permanent tasks and support and

administrative activities need to be planned. The DOP also determines key milestones

that must be planned and followed up for each audit task, and sets certain standards

for the allocation of resources to horizontal tasks (such as professional training). The

chambers encode data on the work programme on the basis of the decisions taken

by the College and operational planning at chamber level on how those decisions

will be best implemented. As regards timing, the College adopted its proposal for

the 2018 work programme in September 2017, and by December 2017 all necessary

information on the 48 audit tasks was encoded in the AMS.

But this is not the end of the story. The next step in the life cycle of an audit task is the

adoption of the audit planning memorandum (APM) by an audit chamber. APMs are

the detailed planning documents for a task. They define the exact scope of the audit,

the audit questions and criteria and the evidence collection methods. And last but

not least, it is through APMs that the chambers allocate their resources to a task: the

head of task and all other staff, how much time they intend to spend (and on what)

and when the audit is to be completed and the report published. In addition, there

are specific milestones that structure the audit field work (such as visits to Member

States and deadlines for the completion of specific modules or work packages) and its

progress towards report publication. The chambers need to record all this in the AMS

once an APM has been adopted.

As regards work programming, the DOP has a dual responsibility: it coordinates and

supports the work of the audit chambers with a view to its annual planning for the

ECA as a whole, and it is in charge of the central monitoring of audit tasks. Again,

the main tool for this is the AMS. Audit chambers are required to encode actual

outcomes for all milestones and planned data. At the same time, the auditors working

on the task record the actual time spent as the task progresses. This allows for real-

time monitoring of audit tasks. In fact, monitoring reports (at task-level, chamber-

level, etc.) can be extracted from the system at any moment by the audit team, the

reporting Member or the Directorate of the Chamber, or by anybody in the ECA. More

than 30 ‘management reports’ can be called up in this way, plus a ‘dashboard’ showing

whether an audit is progressing on time at each stage. Experienced users can also

design reports to meet their specific needs.

The DOP also makes use of AMS data for timelines and timetables, both to update

the ECA’s external stakeholders on the expected publication date of reports and for

purposes of internal information about the progress of tasks. In addition, we prepare

a consolidated report for the first six months of the year, followed by an annual report,

to inform the College how the Court-wide work programme has been implemented.

This reporting forms the basis for the information presented in the institution’s annual

activity report.

Aiming for efficiency and best possible forecasting

Moving to a single electronic planning system for the ECA as a whole brings a number

of advantages and - at least in the medium term - should mean efficiency gains.

Our main focus at this stage is to ensure that the data quality is sufficient and that

management decisions are entered promptly in the AMS. Data encoding should take

place as soon as possible, and updating the AMS must become a well-established

procedure in the chambers. In the long run, having an IT system with good quality

data should also open new possibilities for projecting and simulating the progress of

audit tasks. Finally, the AMS could be integrated even more fully with other IT systems.

This would also help to improve data quality and reduce the chambers’ administrative

workload, since at present most data is still encoded manually.

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

Monitoring the Work Programme - ECA's shift to an electronic Audit

Management System

continued

Exemple of screenshot presenting

AMS dashboard info

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

Exchanges of views between the Conference of Committee Chairs (CCC) of the European Parliament and the ECA President

Each year the Conference of Committee Chairs (CCC) of the

European Parliament invites the ECA President for an exchange of

views on matters of common interest. This provides an opportunity

to meet the chairs of all the 25 parliamentary committees and

to listen to their ideas for possible audit priorities that could be

addressed in our work programme. Helena Piron Mäki-Korvela,

the ECA’s institutional liaison officer, provides details on this

consultation process, including the meeting of 16 January 2018

in Strasbourg at which MEP Cecilia Wikström (Chair of the CCC)

welcomed ECA President Klaus-Heiner Lehne.

The European

Parliament’s

information

needs: making

sure our

reports have

an impact

By Helena Piron Mäki-Korvela,

Directorate of the Presidency

Matching needs and possibilities

By 2018, the exchanges of views between the Conference of

Committee Chairs (CCC) of the European Parliament and the ECA

President have become a tradition. Since June 2015, when former

ECA President Vitor Caldeira was first invited, the suggestions

of possible audit topics have increasingly made their way into

our work programmes: Examples are our performance audits

on Import procedures, Public Private Partnerships, the CAP's

greening measures, Erasmus+ or EFSI which all had been suggested

at previous CCC meetings by the chairs of the EP's standing

committees for our work programme.

By now, the consultation process for our work programme is well

established, and since 2017 formalised through an exchange of

letters whereby the EP provides a list of suggestions which is then

analysed by the ECA audit chambers. Last year 16 EP Committees

made altogether 77 audit priority suggestions for our 2018 Work

Programme of which around two thirds could be taken on board.

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

Information needs of the European Parliament: making sure that our

reports have an impact

continued

At the same time the deadlines have been brought much forward and a better

coordination between different EP Committees avoids duplications in the EP's

suggestions. EP colleagues at various levels are also more aware of our 'product

portfolio' and increasingly discover the potential usefulness of our reports for their

work.

This does not mean that there is no room for further improvements. For example,

to have an even better mutual understanding of each other’s working methods

and priorities. One of the challenges for us is to plan and carry out performance

audits so as to deliver input in time for the legislative work of these committees.

In practice, this is not always possible, not only given resource constraints at the

ECA but also because of the situation on the ground. On occasions Members of

the European Parliament (MEPs), when discussing our reports, would also wish to

receive further information on issues that were not included in our audit scope,

such as for instance receive details on specific Member States that were not visited

in the course of the audit. Explaining how we work and what kind of information

we can provide will therefore remain a priority for us.

The ECA aims to provide support to all EP Committees, not the least because of

our increasing focus on performance audits. These reports, which examine the

effectiveness, efficiency and economy of EU policies and spending programmes,

are quite naturally more relevant for those committees which also are in charge of

debating the Commission's legislative proposals in those fields.

Presenting audit results to EP specialized committees

Several of them regularly invite our reporting Members to their public meetings

or working groups to discuss our findings and recommendations of recent reports

that are relevant to their work. To mention a few who did this: the Committee on

Transport and Tourism, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development,

the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, the Committee on Internal

Market and Consumer Protection, the Committee on Regional Development,

the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on

Development . Our reports help them in the scrutiny of the implementation of EU

policies and programmes. This is also illustrated by the lively debates when our

reports are discussed in standing committees and the positive feedback by many

committee chairs at the recent CCC meeting. At the same time, the Committee on

Budgetary Control (CONT) remains our key partner at the EP, and in particular for

all aspects related to financial management and the annual discharge procedure.

From discussions with MEPs we know that many of them are looking forward

to our contributions to the debate on the post-2020 Multi-annual Financial

Framework (MFF), such as our forthcoming briefing paper on the Future of EU

Finances and the assessment of the Commission’s legal proposal, as well as our

briefing papers on the Future of the Common Agricultural Policy, Simplification in

cohesion policy and the Horizon 2020 programme.

Programming beyond EP elections

From our side, we are now looking forward to receiving suggestions for audit

topics from as many interested EP committees for the preparation of our 2019

work programme. It will be a special year since the time to present our reports

at the EP will be constrained. The next Parliament will be elected in May 2019.

This implies that most of our reports which will be published during the next

year are to be discussed by the new Parliament and the then elected MEPs. But,

our common objective to improve the design and delivery of EU policies and

programmes goes beyond parliamentary terms.

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

Helping the ECA to provide input for

well-informed policy decision-making

Interview with Evelyn Waldherr and Stephan Huber of the European Parliament

By Gaston Moonen, Directorate of the Presidency

The procedure to obtain suggestions from the European Parliament for the ECA

work programming is formalised and well on track. But how is this process organised

among committees in the European Parliament? Two insiders, being Evelyn Waldherr

of the CONT secretariat and Stephan Huber of the Legislative Coordination unit

(COORDLEG) in the European Parliament, provide interesting insights.

Knowing who does what

Speaking with the two EP colleagues to tell us more about how they perceive

the exchanges with the ECA as far as the ECA work programming is concerned

it is enchanting to see how much they practice what they preach: to speak with

colleagues in other institutions to share and break down, as Stephan Huber

calls it ‘Invisible barriers to not only knowing who the other person is but also

on what they are doing. ’ While clearly speaking on a personal title the two

heads of unit of the European Parliament I interviewed - Evelyn Waldherr of the

secretariat of the Budgetary Control Committee (CONT) and Stephan Huber of

the EP’s Legislative Coordination and Programming Unit (COORDLEG) - were

very open and responsive to increase, as they put it, ‘mutual understanding and

information to the public at large.’

In her day to day work Evelyn is there to ensure a good functioning of the

CONT secretariat and liaise with the CONT chair, the CONT members and the

political coordinators as such to maximise the secretariat’s administrative

support to the political work of the CONT members. Stephan, who like Evelyn

started his current duties in 2017, explains that his unit accompanies and

supports the work of the parliamentary committees and their secretariats,

providing guidance in any horizontal questions they may have, supports the

committees on institutional, legislative and organisational questions and, most

importantly, provides the secretariat of the Conference of Committee Chairs

(CCC). On 16 January, ECA President Klaus-Heiner Lehne had an exchange with

the Committee Chairs on ECA’s 2018 Work Programme: ‘In preparation of that

meeting ECA Director Martin Weber presented to the heads of the committee

secretariats how the ECA programming is working. This gave them a good

impression of what the ECA is able to do and how the ECA prioritises topics.’ He

further explains that the CCC, meeting monthly in Strasbourg, provides political

guidance on various issues and is the place for debate and decision making on

horizontal issues among Committee Chairs.

Streamlining EP suggestions for the ECA Work Programme

Both Evelyn and Stephan underline that regarding EP input for the ECA Work

Programme their secretariats’ role is limited to providing administrative

support. As Evelyn explains: ‘Proposals are made in the first place by the

politicians and not the secretariat. When working with the MEPs we sometimes

spot issues like timeliness, overlap, etc., but the core input is left to the

politicians.’ She continues that the coordinators, representing each a political

group, make proposals and send them to the CONT secretariat. ‘We then make

a screening to ensure that topics have not already been listed in the ECA Work

Programme. After that a list is presented to the coordinators for approval

and subsequent endorsement by the full CONT committee. The final list of

approved proposals is then forwarded to COORDLEG.’ And here Stephan’s unit

Stephan Huber

“

Proposals are

made in the first

place by the

politicians and not

the secretariat.

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

Helping the ECA to provide input for well-informed policy decision-making

continued

comes into play: ‘We explain

the process and organise

the collection of the input

of all the EP committees. We

‘streamline’ this information

for the EP as an institution

and our CCC chair, Cecilia

Wikström, forwards it to the

ECA so that the ECA can

take these suggestions into

account.’

As to the basis for the

suggestions Evelyn indicates

that this can come from many

sources: ‘One source can be

the discussions held during

the Discharge exercise, since

also performance reports are

discussed during the Discharge process. But there are many sources for inspiration

for possible audit topics.’ Overall the two EP colleagues find the current exercise

rather successful. Evelyn underlines how many EP suggestions have been taken

up: ‘Last year 25 topics were proposed and 75% found a positive response from

the ECA. A substantive change is the formalisation of the EP input towards the

ECA. In the CONT this is considered very positive because it addresses its wish

to pay more attention to evaluating performance of EU policies.’ Evelyn gives a

specific example: ‘I think the CONT was flattered that its suggestion to work on

transparency for NGO funding was taken up in the ECA work Programme as a high

priority task.’

Stephan confirms this from a more horizontal perspective: ‘There is more and

more take up by the specialised committees in this process. Until some time

ago the ECA work was mainly known by the CONT MEPs.’ He highlights how the

specialised committees get more and more interested in the ECA work done in

their specialised area: ‘They discuss it, base their decision on it or at least keep it as

background information for possible future steps. This increasing appetite for ECA

input was also reflected in the debate with President Lehne on 16 January.’

Finding new ways to get ECA findings to EP committees

Stephan is quite positive on how this last CCC meeting went: ‘There was a very

lively discussion between the ECA President and a wide range of Committee

chairs. I think the initiative of Klaus-Heiner Lehne to come to the CCC for the

preparation of its work programme is very much welcomed. But also the idea

and increasing practice to have the ECA present some of its special reports in the

committees is appreciated. There is clearly a readiness to take the ECA work as an

important source of information for committee work.’

Evelyn also touches upon this development of presenting ECA reports to

specialised committees: ‘Parliament’s Rules of Procedure task CONT to examine

all the ECA Special reports: it is the only committee giving in a formalised way a

follow-up: all the recommendations CONT makes regarding ECA special reports

are annexed to the Discharge resolution regarding the Commission. But with

more than 30 reports per year it is difficult to find enough time slots. Therefore the

CONT welcomed the procedure suggested by Klaus-Heiner Lehne to first have a

short presentation to the CONT before the ECA addresses specialised committees.

This reflects also the special relationship between CONT and the ECA. The CONT

then subsequently decides whether a topic needs to be further dealt with, either

Evelyn Waldherr (7

person from

the left) with her colleagues of

the CONT secretariat

“

A substantive change

is the formalisation of

the EP input towards

the ECA. In the CONT

this is considered very

positive because it

addresses its wish to

pay more attention

to evaluating

performance of EU

policies.

“

There is clearly a

readiness to take

the ECA work as an

important source

of information for

committee work.

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

Helping the ECA to provide input for well-informed policy decision-making

continued

by an in depth debate, possibly also with other specialised committees or by a

workshop, a report of initiative or by raising the topic in plenary.

Stephan expects that increasingly special reports will be an important element

for the debate in committees: ‘The work of the committees is at the heart of the

work of the EP, and committee work is focussing more and more on issues of

evaluation. I think it is important for MEPs to make an informed choice. The ECA

nor the secretariats are there to prescribe a choice but to provide elements for

the MEPs to make the best possible informed choice, to have elements to assess

the efficiency and the implementation of legislation and policies.

Product differentiation to address different needs

When speaking about the differentiation in products the ECA has started to

present – besides special reports landscape reviews, briefing papers, rapid case

reviews – Evelyn thinks there is a well-justified reason creating them: ‘Although

I did not receive official feedback within the CONT, I think that through for

example the briefings a timely input to legislation in the making, like on the

Financial Regulation, can be given. And policy area overviews providing a more

global perspective can be very useful for policy makers.’

Stephan underlines that it will always be a challenge to match the results you can

produce with the need to have them at the right moment: ‘The different formats

of the ECA products will help the ECA to adapt more to needs, for example

through a landscape review giving insight on the impact across policy areas.’ In

his view one must calibrate the detail of information. He explains: ‘It remains a

challenge to be relevant for the political decision-making process. You have to

have the right content, the right length, the right format and also deliver it at the

appropriate moment.’ Evelyn brings a legal concern on the different formats: ‘The

only product mentioned in Article 319 of the TFEU, besides the Annual Report,

are the special reports, which the CONT all includes in the Discharge procedure.

For ECA products not labelled special reports this might not be the case.’

Current ECA programming process makes sense

When asked about expectations for the next work programming exercise both

Evelyn and Stephan show great satisfaction with the current set-up. Evelyn

explains: ‘It is a rather new process which deserves to be tested. Now it is

necessary to provide input to the CCC for the 2019 ECA work programme and we

will get the CONT members’ suggestions. The whole process is streamlined in a

way which makes it perfectly feasible for the CONT secretariat to help selecting

topics which are pertinent for both sides: for the ECA and for its stakeholders.’

She concludes: ‘The way the ECA organises its work programming - multi-layered

and a carefully thought-out process – makes sense, with in the end, as we saw for

the 2018 exercise, a fruitful and convincing outcome.’

Stephan also thinks that it is important to let the current process have its course

for some time: ‘Give it space to breath and develop itself. After all, we are only in

the second exercise with the current format.’ He does have a suggestion though:

‘Thinking out loud it might be interesting for the committees to have ECA reports

which also cover best practices observed by the ECA during the audit. The

reports could also indicate more clearly what has been delivered and achieved

through EU action and its added value. This would give to MEPs additional

elements to convince people about the European project.’ He concludes with

saying: ‘In the EP we have made the experience now that, also after the reform

of the ECA, we have a good information source and a reliable partner in the

ECA, providing valuable findings and recommendations to improve European

policies!’

“

The ECA nor the

secretariats are

there to prescribe a

choice but to provide

elements for the MEPs

to make the best

possible informed

choice...

“

The whole process

is streamlined in a

way which makes it

perfectly feasible for

the CONT secretariat

to help selecting

topics which are

pertinent for both

sides...

... we have a good

information source

and a reliable partner

in the ECA, providing

valuable findings and

recommendation to

improve European

policies!

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

Comparing audit programmes and

processes of EU SAIs to identify good

practices and common audit topics

By Rafal Czarnecki, Directorate of the Presidency

Knowledge-sharing on programming

In late 2017 the ECA

initiated a project to

analyze and compare audit

programming of Supreme

Audit Institutions (SAIs)

in the EU. Rafal Czarnecki,

the ECA project manager

on this issue, shares not

only the background and

outlook of the project

but also some of the first

results, due to the swift

and enthusiastic response

received.

Planning requires key decisions on priorities and resource allocation.

The preparation of a work programme engages many of our audit staff,

mobilizing the expertise of the auditors and combining it with the

strategic views of the top management.

To get a better idea how other SAIs are dealing with programming and

how the ECA can further improve its work programming our directorate

has initiated in December 2017 a project to analyze work planning

activates carried out by other Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) in the EU.

We assumed that the preparation of a work programme is a strategically

important process for our peer institutions, so comparisons may provide

us with a very useful reference overview and a good opportunity for

learning.

Objectives of the analysis

Since the project started only recently we cannot present here any

conclusions yet. Nonetheless, from the outset, the initiative was

welcomed with a great interest. We requested all 28 SAIs, which are

members of the EU Contact Committee of SAIs, to provide us with details

of their planning process and the most recent examples of their work

programmes. In two weeks’ time we received a feedback from 22 of them,

substantiated with several documents in 18 different languages as a

starting point for the analysis.

The purpose of all this is simple. We will strive to map and compare audit

planning procedures of participating SAIs. This should include those key

factors which can possibly impact the planning process as such and its

efficiency. In particular we will try to identify and analyze the following:

overall logic of the planning procedures and its cycle;

criteria for selecting audit topics and sources of ideas;

main internal actors and external stakeholders;

timing of the process and to the possible extent, resources

engaged; and

outcomes of the planning and associated controls and approval

measures.

On the basis of this initial analysis we plan to prepare a brief survey

which will help us to collect more accurate and quantitative data from all

interested EU Contact Committee members. The evidence gathered will

be used to produce a comparative report on the planning process in the

EU SAIs.

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

Comparing audit programmes and processes of EU SAIs to identify good

practices and common audit topics

continued

Some preliminary results

The project just has started but even at this very early stage we can discern some

interesting planning patterns.

Almost all SAIs work on the basis of a strategic plan which sets global priorities

for the period of three to five years. Most institutions prepare an annual work

programme, which translates global priorities into a list of specific audit topics to

be undertaken. The annual programme, as it is also the case for the ECA, allocates

available resources and sets deadlines. The process of preparation of the annual

programme takes typically from 2 to 6 months, also depending on the size of

the SAI, extent of engagement of external stakeholders and overall set up of the

institution.

However, some SAIs decided to abandon annual planning for the sake of an on-

rolling planning. With this approach SAIs aim to be more agile and to be able to

react quicker to unexpected changes and needs of their stakeholders. The on-

rolling audit plan is presented to the top management for the endorsement every

three to six months.

Another interesting aspect is accountability of SAIs for what they plan to audit

and what they actually do audit. As a matter of fact, not for all EU SAIs the annual

work plan is made public.

Feedback received so far

Understandably, it is too early to present the outcome of this project. It is however

already obvious from the positive response by our peers that this initiative

comes at the right time. There are a number of possible benefits from a better

mutual understanding of the approach to the planning activity we all apply. This

knowledge may, on one hand, be used by each SAI to further improve its own

planning process and to make it more efficient by learning from others. On the

other hand there may also be possible synergies and areas of common practice

which could be exploited in view of a better coordination of and cooperation in

audit tasks between SAIs.

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

‘Future proofing’ the ECA - Foresight Task

Force takes up its work

By Kathrin Bornemeier, Directorate of the Presidency

The ECA Work Programme covers 2018 and the 2018-2020

Strategy the ECA’s medium perspectives. However, the ECA

recently decided to create a task force to focus on the long term

perspective to map long term future develepments relevant for

the institution. Kathrin Bornemeier provides more details.

Foresight Task Force to look beyond 2020

In January 2018, the ECA’s newly set-up

Foresight Task Force

has started its work. This

Task Force was created by the College to stimulate that our Institution is well-prepared

for future challenges and developments. While the ECA’s current strategic plan for the

period 2018-2020 and its annual work programmes are useful tools to steer the ECA’s

work in the medium run, the work of the Foresight Task Force goes beyond that. It aims

at identifying long-term trends and developments and how these may affect the ECA.

The Foresight Task Force consists of the ECA Members (From left to right ):

Juhan Parts (chair), Leo Brincat, João Figueiredo, Mihail Kozlovs and Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz

The group’s secretariat is provided by the Directorate of the Presidency of the ECA

Identifying long term challenges and opportunities for the ECA

The task force will reflect on what might be the most relevant issues for EU public audit

in five to ten years from now and assess how the ECA could anticipate these issues. The

task force’s work may include, but is not limited to, thematic trend mapping, the ECA’s

positioning among the EU institutions and bodies, trends in the audit profession and

how the ECA should respond to these developments. In order to assess such points,

the Foresight Task Force will consult internal and external experts as well as gathering

input from and exchanging ideas with other EU bodies, supreme audit institutions

and international organisations. In addition, it is tasked with assessing the need for a

permanent future foresight capacity at the ECA in a constantly changing environment.

The insights provided by the group will provide input for various areas of work at

the ECA, including the drafting of the next strategy and upcoming annual work

programmes. Moreover, by highlighting areas of work that will be increasingly

important in the future, the group’s output will also be very useful for a future-proof

knowledge and skills management at the ECA. Ultimately, the group's work should

ensure that the ECA will focus on the right issues in the years to come and is well-

prepared to actively cope with the challenges and capitalise on the opportunities the

future will bring.

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

Assessing large-scale infrastructure

investments from a financial and

socio-economic point of view

By Luc T’Joen, Directorate Investment for cohesion, growth and inclusion

The ECA regularly organises ‘practice-sharing sessions’ so that

staff can share knowledge and receive updates on recent

developments in specific fields.

Luc T’Joen fills us in on what was discussed at a recent practice-

sharing session on the quality and reliability of social-economic

benefit assessments. Here ECA auditors heard from Professor

Michaël Dooms, an expert in evaluating large-scale infrastructure

projects and in stakeholder management.

Providing expert advice

Professor Michaël Dooms, who holds a PhD in Applied Economics and

teaches at the Solvay Brussels School of Economics and Management,

is no stranger to the ECA. He was consulted as a technical expert for

the audit on maritime transport (Special Report 23/2016) regarding the

analysis of real port capacity, and will again offer his expertise in the ECA’s

ongoing audit of high-speed rail infrastructure investments. In this audit,

he will share particularly valuable insights on economic demand analysis,

investments’ socio-economic effects, and the parameters used in cost-

benefit analyses.

On Monday 11 December 2017, Michaël Dooms visited the ECA. In the

morning he met with the high-speed rail performance audit team to

assess the different cost-benefit analyses which had been used to justify

the (sometimes very costly) audited co-funded investments. Discussions

covered the methodology followed, the methodological challenges

observed, the criteria used, a template for the horizontal screening of

the various documents (which the ECA could use in future cost-benefit

analyses), and the attempt to to derive a series of standards from the

work for use with future investments.

The key messages to emerge from the session were:

•

cost-benefit analysis are only one of several tools to justify an

infrastructure investment, and so should be used as a decision-

making aid and not the key document;

looking at the parameters and values applied, cost-benefit analysis

is often used as a means to justify a decision already taken at the

political level.

Michaël Dooms

•

In its upcoming report, the ECA will aim to not only present detailed

assessments but also provide insights and conclusions allowing for the

making of sound recommendations for future investments in high-speed

rail infrastructure.

Key issues in cost/benefit analyses

In the afternoon Oskar Herics - the reporting ECA Member for the audits

on maritime transport and high-speed rail infrastructure investments -

opened a practice-sharing session, open to all ECA staff, on 'The quality

and reliability of socio-economic benefit assessments.'

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

How to assess large scale infrastructure investments from a financial and

socio-economic point of view?

continued

Michaël Dooms and

Oskar Herics, ECA Member

The session answered questions like: Why are socio-economic benefits usually

difficult to assess? What aspects need to be taken into account? Why do project

owners consider an investment to be sustainable, even if the figures speak loudly

to the contrary? Which parameters are particularly interesting for an auditor to

assess ex-post?

While giving a historical overview of the process in many countries, Michaël

Dooms informed the some 60 auditors present of the many differences between

the various instruments used in socio-economic benefit assessments. To illustrate

his points, he drew upon a wealth of practical examples from his vast experience

in large-scale transport infrastructure management projects, particularly ports,

railways and air transport

ECA conference room,

11 December 2017

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

How to assess large scale infrastructure investments from a financial and

socio-economic point of view?

continued

The following key lessons were noted.

•

There are various evaluation instruments; these differ in terms of the number of

perspectives/actors involved and the number of criteria applied. Accordingly,

the characteristics and differences between the following instruments were

explained, accompanied by real-life examples of their application:

(i) private cost-benefit analysis

(ii) cost-effectiveness analysis

(iii) economic effect analysis

(iv) social cost-benefit analysis

(v) multi-criteria decision analysis – the most complex.

•

Generally, there is a lot of confusion between cost-benefit analyses and other

socio-economic evaluation methods, such as economic impact assessments

which consider, in particular, employment and added value, for example.

Infrastructure management and development should involve ‘less planning,

more vision’, and also calls for ‘adaptability/flexibility’, leaving a margin for

manoeuvre if circumstances require.

It is very important to include all stakeholders in the decision-making process

from the outset. The project owner/beneficiary should work with them as early

as possible, rather than shut them out of the process, and use transparent

calculations based on standard methodologies and guidelines. Stakeholders

are to be viewed as potential resources – not as threats. They are sources of

knowledge and information, which can help improve decision-making, as well

as sources of societal support.

Sensitivity analysis is very important, but one should avoid going too far, as too

much technical complexity can lead to further contestation of results. Limit this

analysis to some sound key parameters.

Conducting an ex-post analysis assessing and comparing the real construction

versus the expected/anticipated result can be a really useful learning

experience. Although seldom used, this is a useful tool which sheds interesting

insights on the reasons for a project’s success or failure and points to potential

methodological improvements.

•

This was a fascinating presentation on a topic which certainly merits further study

given its financial and economic importance for many Member States. The lessons

we drew from it will undoubtedly have an impact on future audit work at the ECA.

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

Reaching out

‘United we stand

strong’– discussion of

the priorities of the

Bulgarian Presidency

of the Council

By Mihail Stefanov and Mariya

Byalkova, Private Office of Iliana

Ivanova, ECA Member

Rimantas Šadžius, ECA Member responsible for institutional relations; Lilyana Pavlova, Minister

for the Bulgarian Presidency of the Council of the EU; Klaus-Heiner Lehne, ECA President;

Iliana Ivanova, ECA Member

Bulgaria’s four priority areas for the Union

Lilyana Pavlova noted that the EU in the year 2018 is at the doorstep of key

decisions and that reforms are needed to make the Union stronger, more united

and more democratic. Bulgaria's Presidency has four priority areas, which reflect

these reforms:

economic and social cohesion with a focus on the next EU Multiannual

Financial Framework (MFF), future Cohesion and Common Agricultural

Policy (CAP), and a deeper Economic and Monetary Union;

stability and security of Europe: common decisions on more security on the

EU's external borders, more efficient migration management, and laying the

foundations of a Defence Union;

European prospects and connectivity of the Western Balkans: Bulgaria

pursues making the best use of its regional expertise, without creating any

false expectations, to support EU accession-related reforms in the Western

Balkan states and put them high on the EU agenda in view of the peace and

stability in that region; and

a digital economy and skills for the future: with a focus of completing the

EU digital single market and development of digital economy and skills. This

file includes the cyber security package, the copyright directive, the free

flow of non-personal data, the e-communications code, e-privacy etc.

Lilyana Pavlova,

Minister for the

Bulgarian Presidency of

the Council of the EU,

paid a visit to the ECA

on 18 January 2018. She

discussed the priorities

and the programme

of the 2018 Bulgarian

presidency for the first

half of the year with

the Members of the

ECA. This presidency –

which is the first of this

Member State since its

accession to the Union

in 2007 - stands under

the motto ‘United we

stand strong.’

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

‘United we stand strong’– discussion of the priorities of the Bulgarian

Presidency of the Council of the EU for the first half of 2018 with Minister

Lilyana Pavlova

continued

Bulgarian Presidency reaching out to EU institutions

The Minister stressed the importance given by the Bulgarian Presidency to reach out to

all EU Institutions, including the ECA. She also referred to the close cooperation with the

Estonian and Austrian Presidencies, an essential aspect to ensure that legislative proposals

can be dealt with seamlessly, and set out the programme of events planned until June 2018.

The discussion focussed on the different contributions the ECA has planned for the debate

around the next MFF, and in particular the ones on the EU finances, the CAP and cohesion,

and the need for reforms in these areas. The ECA will be invited to be a key participant in two

high level conferences the Bulgarian Presidency will organise in Sofia: one on the next MFF

and another one on the Western Balkans.

Meeting with the ECA's college of Members and Lilyana Pavlova, Minister for the Bulgarian Presidency of the Council of the EU

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

Reaching out

ECA President Klaus-Heiner Lehne and ECA Member Danièle Lamarque

visit French authorities in Paris

By Gaston Moonen, Directorate of the Presidency

On 5 December 2017, ECA President Lehne, together with

Danièle Lamarque, ECA Member, had a full day of meetings

in Paris with officials from the French government, the

National Assembly, the Senate and the French Supreme

Audit Institution, as well as political representatives. Below

some highlights of the visit.

Many policy areas discussed

First on the agenda was a breakfast with Didier Migaud, President

of the French

Cour des Comptes,

to discuss the ECA’s strategy

and work programme, and the two institutions’ cooperation on

audits. Particular potential for parallel work was found to exist in

the areas of transport, and structural funds. European and national

experiences were compared when it came to the scrutiny of public

banks and central bankers.

Next came a meeting with Nathalie Loiseau, the French Minister

for European Affairs. Aside from the ECA's strategy and work, this

discussion also covered initiatives on the future of Europe and

France’s potential interest to the ECA’s Work Programme. During

the subsequent meeting with French Minister for Public Action and

Accounts Gérald Darmanin, the Minister insisted particularly on the

need to simplify the Common Agricultural Policy. The fragmentation

of the EU budget and the need to reverse this trend in the future MFF

were also discussed.

Thereafter, the ECA delegation met with Emmanuel Moulin, Director

in the office of the Minister for the Economy, Bruno Le Maire, who

was taking part in the ECOFIN Council in Brussels at that time.

The positive experience of France with EFSI meant also that the

ECA’s upcoming audit was anticipated with interest. Further topics

included the need to avoid audit gaps, and the upcoming Multi-

annual financial framework.

The day ended with meetings at the French Senate and the National

Assembly, where President Lehne and Danièle Lamarque set out

the ECA’s strategy for 2018-2020 and its 2018 Work Programme and

also discussed initiatives for the future of Europe. At the Senate,

President Lehne and Danièle Lamarque met Jean Bizet (pictured),

President of the European Affairs Committee, along with many

other Committee members and had a full and frank discussion.

The ECA’s recent report on the Commission’s intervention in the

Greek financial crisis had made its mark, and Jean Bizet emphasised

Didier Migaud, President of the French

Cour des

Comptes;

Danièle Lamarque, ECA Member and

Klaus-Heiner Lehne, ECA President

Klaus-Heiner Lehne, ECA President and

Gérald Darmanin, French Minister for Public

Action and Accounts

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

ECA President Klaus-Heiner Lehne and ECA Member Danièle Lamarque

visit French authorities in Paris

continued

the need for ownership on the ground of such programmes.

Several questions were related to the perceived complexity

of agricultural and cohesion rules which led to undue worries

on the part of beneficiaries and the need for simplification.

One senator noted the big risks involved in fixing the large

majority of budgetary choices for such a long period as it is

currently done. A further speaker noted with satisfaction the

ECA’s emphasis on performance audits but stressed the need to

communicate proactively to the public.

The final meeting of the day was with Sabine Thillaye, President

of the National Assembly’s European Affairs Committee who

underlined the European mandate of the new parliamentary

majority following the elections of last year in France. Given that

both sides shared the same mother tongue the last meeting

took place in German.

Red threads throughout the meetings

The discussion partners met in Paris showed a keen awareness

of current issues being dealt with at EU level and a strong will

to play a key role in shaping them. The work of the ECA was

commended on numerous occasions and there was a will to

make exchanges more regular, where this is not already the case.

Another red thread in several meetings was the wish to make EU

rules less complex and burdensome than they are perceived to

be today.

Klaus-Heiner Lehne, ECA President and Jean Bizet,

President of the European Affairs Committee

Sabine Thillaye, President of the National

Assembly’s European Affairs Committee and

Klaus-Heiner Lehne, ECA President

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

Reaching out

High-level conference 'Shaping our future – Designing the next

Multiannual Financial Framework'

By Werner Vlasselaer, Private Office of Jan Gregor, ECA Member

With the end of the current Multiannual Financial

Framework (MFF) getting nearer the debates on

the future financing of the EU get more intense

and frequent. Werner Vlasselaer reports on the

recent High Level conference organised by the

European Political Strategy Centre, the European

Commission’s in house think tank. ECA Member

Jan Gregor contributed to the debate on how to

maximise the economic impact of the EU budget.

Jan Gregor, ECA Member and Karlijn van Bree,

former ECA colleague

Reflection on the Future of EU finances

In September 2017, the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, laid

out his roadmap towards the European Summit in May 2019. In his State of the Union

speech he underlined that the EU needs a budget that matches its ambitions and meets

future challenges. Subsequently, the Commission’s ‘Reflection Paper on the Future of EU

Finances’ has set out a number of options for the way forward. The Commission’s task is

now to look into concrete policy options and to prepare decisions. The legislative proposal

for the next MFF is expected to be issued in May 2018.

The conference 'Shaping our Future' of 8 and 9 January 2018 was convened to discuss the

EU´s budgetary needs for the next MFF. Besides the President of the Commission, keynote

speakers were Günther Oettinger, Commissioner for Budget and Human Resources and

Sigmar Gabriel, Minister of Foreign Affairs (Germany). Different aspects of the next budget

were discussed by high level panellists, including Mário Centeno, Minister of Finance

(Portugal) and future Eurogroup President, Pier Carlo Padoan, Minister for Economy and

Finance (Italy), Nathalie Loiseau, Minister for European Affairs (France) and Lilyana Pavlova,

Minister for the Bulgarian Presidency of the Council.

ECA’s future input for the MFF debates

ECA Member Jan Gregor participated in the discussion panel on “High Economic Impact

with a Limited Budget – Grants, subsidies and innovative financial instruments”, together

with Mateja Vraničar Erman, Minister of Finance (Slovenia), Miglė Tuskienė, Vice-Minister of

Finance (Lithuania) and Alexander Stubb, Vice-President of the European Investment Bank

(EIB).

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

High-level conference “Shaping our future – Designing the next

Multiannual Financial Framework”

continued

During the panel discussion, Jan Gregor announced that the ECA is preparing briefing

papers on the future of EU finances. The first briefing paper (planned for February 2018)

will be a general reflection on the budgetary principles and the second contribution

(planned for June or July 2018) aims at a more detailed assessment of the Commission’s

legislative proposal for the next MFF. The ECA contributions will be based on the results

of past audit work. He also referred to the ongoing tasks concerning the Horizon 2020

simplification measures, the future of the CAP and simplification in cohesion policy.

In addition, the ECA will issue opinions on legislative proposals for the own resources

decision and sectoral legislation for spending programmes as required.

Upholding core principles

Jan Gregor indicated that the size of the budget has to match the EU ambitions, which

include redistribution as a long-term stabilising factor of the EU. The focus should

therefore not be on net balances. Indeed, more attention should be given to the benefits

that each Member State derives from the membership in the EU. There are numerous

other non-pecuniary and indirect benefits gained from EU policies, such as those relating

to the single market, economic integration and trade, not to mention political stability

and security.

He also expressed that the budget should better reflect core budgetary principles, such

as unity, transparency and accountability to ensure full democratic oversight. A strong

mandate is needed for a common approach to an independent external public audit for

all types of financing for EU policies. At the same time, efficiency should be promoted by

simplifying rules and procedures in the areas of revenue, expenditure and audit.

Moreover, there is a need to enhance the EU performance framework. Steps forward

include reducing the number of objectives and indicators as well as ensuring that

performance information provided is of sufficient quality. To finalise, Jan Gregor called

for caution with regard to financial instruments as ECA audits have shown that there

are a number of significant issues that limit their efficiency (see for instance ECA Special

Report 19/2016 on lessons learnt from implementing the EU budget through financial

instruments).

High Level conference organised by the European Political Strategy Centre, the European Commission’s in house think tank

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

Reaching out

Visit of the Swedish National Audit Office and its Parliamentary Council

to the ECA

By Peter Eklund, Private Office of Hans Gustaf Wessberg, ECA Member

From left to right :

Agneta Börjesson, Member Parliamentary Council; Jörgen Hellman, President Parliamentary Council; Anders Colvér, Deputy Liaison Officer, NAO;

Mia Sydow Mölleby, Member Parliamentary Council; Dag Levin Sparr, Liaison Officer, NAO; Stefan Lundgren, Auditor General, NAO;

Klaus-Heiner Lehne, ECA President; David Läng, Member, Parliamentary Council; Ingvan Mattson, Auditor General. NAO; Magnus Lindell, Head of

International Department, NAO; Per-Ingvar Johnsson, Member Parliamentary Council; Göran Pettersson, Vice President Parliamentary Council

Institutional set-up

On Tuesday 16 January, the ECA

welcomed two of the three Auditors

General from the Swedish National

Audit office and its Parliamentary

Council for a two -day visit to

Luxembourg. Peter Eklund fills us in

on the background of the visit and

the meetings held.

The Swedish National Audit Office (NAO) is an independent

agency under the Swedish Parliament. Within the Parliament, a

Parliamentary Council has been set up to facilitate the dialogue and

discharge procedure between the NAO and the Parliament. The

Council monitors the implementation and reporting of the most

important audits in the NAO’s work programme and the Auditor

General appointed in charge of administrative matters will be called

upon to explain the NAO’s budget requirements before the council

prior to the Parliament’s decision.

Among the members of the Swedish delegation were Jörgen

Hellman and Göran Pettersson, respectively President and Vice-

President of the Parliamentary Council, and Ingvan Mattson and

Stefan Lundgren, both Auditor General of the Swedish

Riksrevisionen

(National Audit Office).

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

Visit of the Swedish National Audit Office and its Parliamentary Council

to the ECA

continued

Wide range of topics covered

The Auditors General and the Parliamentary Council had indicated their

interest to look at several topics more closely when visiting the ECA. The

first day included a presentation by ECA colleagues Jacques Sciberras and

Carl Westerberg on the accountability arrangements at EU level and the

challenges this brings in terms of audit gaps and shortcomings in the chains

of responsibility and overlaps. Jacques Sciberras took as a starting point

Professor Mark Bovens’ framework for analysing and assessing accountability

arrangements in the public domain and applied this to the EU context. The

visitors were intrigued to see how complex the arrangements at EU level

had actually become over time as a result of how the EU budget and related

structures continue to evolve. Overall there was a fruitful discussion on the

national parliaments' roles in accountability and auditing within the EU.

Subsequently ECA Member Jan Gregor and his Head of Private Office Werner

Vlasselaer presented ECA’s preparations Brexit as far as audit is concerned. They

focussed on the potential implications Brexit may have on the EU’s financial

accounts and the possible audit tasks for the ECA to perform in this context. The

day was concluded with a meeting with Danièle Lamarque, ECA Member.

ECA colleagues James McQuade and Carl Westerberg started off the second day

with a presentation of the EU budget mechanisms and the ECA’s mandate and

institutional role in this context, looking more specifically at risks connected

with EU’s economic management and also the EU’s financial framework beyond

2020. This was followed by a presentation by ECA Director Martin Weber who

described the main elements of the ECA’s new strategy for the period 2018-

2020. The Swedish visitors showed particular interest in the ECA’s increased

focus on performance and how it plans to further improve the added value of its

Statement of Assurance. ECA colleague John Sweeney concluded the morning

session with a presentation on the ECA’s work with standards in performance

audit and how these are applied in the ECA’s daily work. The ECA’s approach in

communication its products and its activities in the area of social media were

presented by our colleague Fabrice Mercade. Furthermore the delegation met

ECA Member Bettina Jakobsen and ECA Secretary General Eduardo Ruiz Garcia.

Closing meeting with ECA President Klaus-Heiner Lehne

To conclude this two-day visit, the Swedish visitors met with ECA President

Klaus-Heiner Lehne. The Swedish delegation was particularly interested to know

more about how the ECA is able to involve the European Parliament early on in

its programming process. Klaus-Heiner Lehne explained that, while maintaining

its independence, a close dialogue helps to make sure that the ECA reports

presented are useful and in line with the needs that Parliamentarians have.

Overall the feedback received, from both the Swedish delegation and ECA

representatives, was that it was a fruitful visit with a highly interesting exchange

of views and practices.

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

Reaching out

Visit of the AFROSAI-GIZ Women Leadership Academy

By Sabine Hiernaux-Fritsch and Beatrix Lesiewicz, Directorate External action, security and justice

AFROSAI-GIZ Women Leadership Academy; Magdalena Cordero Caldavida, ECA Director (First row, third from left)

For the second time the ECA received a group of female auditors from Africa to cover

various topics related to audit, equal opportunities, training and other topics. Sabine

Hiernaux-Fritsch and Beatrix Lesiewicz share some highlights of the visit.

Training programme for female middle management auditors in Africa

On 8 December 2017 the ECA hosted a group of 19 female auditors in the context of the

AFROSAI-GIZ Women Leadership Academy 2017. The participants originated from 13 African

Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs)

. Our colleagues Magdalena Cordero Valdavida, Fabrice

Mercade, Aglika Ganova, Peggy Vercauteren and Wilfred Aquilina contributed to this meeting

and likewise they provided input for this article.

The Women Leadership Academy is a twelve months training programme targeting female

middle management auditors in African SAIs. The programme is implemented by the

African

Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions

(AFROSAI) and Deutsche

Gesellschaft für Internationale

Zusammenarbeit’s

(GIZ) Good Financial Governance in Africa programme and GIZ’s Academy for

International Cooperation. It was first launched in 2016 . In line with Sustainable Development

Goal (SDG) 5, Gender Equality, the programme forms part of the implementation of AFROSAI’s

gender strategy. The objective of the programme is to strengthen the participants’ skills in

strategic thinking and change management so as to increase visibility of their leadership skills.

Relevance of ECA products to citizens and auditing the gender equality principle

The working day was opened by a welcome address by Bettina Jakobsen, ECA Member, who

made a presentation on how the ECA ensures that its products are relevant to its stakeholders. To

illustrate this, she spoke about applying the International Standard of Supreme Audit Institutions

1 Botswana, Cape Verde, Cameroon, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Madagascar, Niger, Senegal,

Sierra Leone, South Africa, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

Visit of the AFROSAI-GIZ Women Leadership Academy

continued

(ISSAI) 12 (The Value and Benefits of -SAIs – making a difference to the lives of citizens). She used

the ECA reports on Food Waste and Passenger Rights as examples of reports with a citizen angle.

She also touched on the gender perspective from an audit angle and concluded that SAIs are in a

position to audit the application of the gender equality principle. Lastly, she addressed the issue

of being a woman in an audit institution and quoted the former US Secretary of State Madeleine

Albright who once said: ’There is a special place in hell for women who do not help each other.’

Organisation of the ECA’s audit work

Sabine Hiernaux-Fritsch and Beatrix Lesiewicz, gave a presentation on the organisation of

the ECA’s audit work, with a particular focus on audit activities in the area of the European

Development Funds and the heading 'Global Europe' of the EU General Budget. The participants

raised many questions on the ECA’s work programming, the selection of audit topics, the

composition/gender balance of the audit teams and the follow-up of our audit conclusions and

recommendations. The participants stressed the difficulties of not only being a woman in audit

but also of a lack of recognition and parliamentarian support, as well as of limited IT tools and

connections.

Sustainable Development Goals

Wilfred Aquilina from the Directorate for Audit Quality Control offered an insight into ECA’s

contribution to INTOSAI’s support for the United Nation’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable

Development. He presented the model, which the ECA has developed with the

Algemene

Rekenkamer

(Netherlands Court of Audit), for SAIs to assess the extent to which national

governments are preparing for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Participants

discussed the role that SAIs can play over time as the implementation of the SDGs advances.

Discussing female leadership and gender balance at the ECA

The

ECA Joint Committee of Equal Opportunities

(COPEC) was invited to participate in the debate

on female leadership and gender balance at the ECA. The ECA panel, led by Magdalena Cordero

Valdavida, Director Information, Workplace and Innovation, included Aglika Ganova of the

Directorate

Human Resources, Finance and General Services

and Peggy Vercauteren, Valeria Rota

and Patricia Costa Salgado from COPEC. Personal experiences about being a woman in an

audit institution were brought forward, the ability to appear comfortable in a high-pressure

environment, empathy, ability to overcome challenges, perfectionism, work-life balance, reduced

working time, and partners’ role in women’s careers. The participants raised questions regarding

auditor’s performance evaluation, the existence of ECA guidelines for gender balance, and the

use of parental leave.

Aglika Ganova presented the Human Resources developments at the ECA, in particular the new

recruitment and onboarding scheme for permanent official auditors, ASPIRE, some aspects

of career development and training opportunities offered by the ECA. The participants were

especially interested in the measures encouraging work-life balance at the ECA, as well as the

actions promoting equal opportunities.

ECA’s communication and stakeholder strategy

Fabrice Mercade of the Directorate of the Presidency presented the ECA’s communication

and stakeholder strategy and implementation. He provided an overview of the most recent

developments in media relations, publications and new approaches aiming at increasing the

impact of the ECA’s work since 2015.

The group very much welcomed the working day in the ECA, during which they also selected

several ECA facilities to view work spaces, the ECA innovation room, team areas, and the library.

It helped the African auditors to learn from theirs peers and to get an insight into the situation of

female leaders in the institution.

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

Reaching out

Riga Graduate School of Law students visit the ECA

By Dennis Wernerus, Directorate of External action, security and justice

Visiting group from the Riga Graduate School of Law in the ECA on 15 December 2017,

together with Mihails Kozlovs, ECA Member (second from the right), and ECA staff.

Coming back again…

The ECA regularly opens

its doors to student groups

from EU Member States and

beyond. Often universities

come back year after year to

introduce their students to

EU accountability issues and

the ECA’s work to improve

EU financial management.

Such visits allow ECA staff

to stay in touch with what

enthuses young academics.

Dennis Wernerus reports

on the visit by a group of

students from a Latvian

university programme which

now returns year after year.

The ECA regularly attracts the interest of students and graduates in the

fields of business administration, international relations and European

law. On 15 December 2017, Mihails Kozlovs, ECA Member, welcomed

participants on the Riga Graduate School of Law’s (RGSL) Advanced

Programme in European Law and Economics for the fifth year in a row,.

The programme is delivered to working professionals by lecturers from

RGSL, the Latvian Institute of International Affairs, the Stockholm School of

Economics in Riga and the University of Latvia. As part of the programme,

the participants receive training at Latvian public institutions and embark

on a study visit to the EU institutions in Brussels and Luxembourg. This

accredited programme awards participants with internationally recognised

academic credit points under the European Credit Transfer System.

Offering a tailor-made programme

Participants visiting the ECA’s premises were given the opportunity to learn

more about the institution’s mission and activities. The RGSL’s graduates

tend to work in non-governmental organisations, academia and public

administration, and mostly come from the EU’s wider neighbourhood (e.g.

the Western Balkans, the Caucasus, Moldova, Ukraine and Central Asia).

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

Group from the Riga Graduate School of Law visits the ECA

continued

This explains their keen interest in the ECA’s work on EU funding for external

action, security and justice in particular. With this in mind, the half-day

programme at the ECA was tailored accordingly, offering:

1. a presentation of the ECA as an institution by Mihails Kozlovs,

covering the ECA’s mission, tasks, structure and different types of audit

products;

2. a presentation of the ECA’s audits outside EU Member States by Dennis

Wernerus, including several case studies shedding light on good

practices and recurring weaknesses in programme implementation.

Thought-provoking questions keeping the ECA sharp

Our guests had ample time for a Q&A session. The questions our visitors

asked served as a welcome reminder of the interest in our work as the

guardians of EU’s finances and auditors of EU-funded activities. Many of

their questions were highly relevant, thought-provoking and often touched

upon fundamental issues, going beyond the observations made in the ECA’s

annual and special reports. To give you a flavour of the style of question

raised, here are a few put forward at last month’s visit:

•

How does the ECA ensure that its recommendations are

implemented?

What are the Court’s audit rights with respect to the European

Investment Bank?

What is the purpose of EU budget support?

What can the ECA do to address corruption and fraud in a specific

country?

No doubt the ECA will receive a further stream of pertinent questions from

the next group of graduates!

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

FOCUS

Publications in December 2017

Opinion

No 5/2017

Opinion No 5/2017

Concerning the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council

amending Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1141/2014 of the European Parliament and the

Council of 22 October 2014 on the statute and funding of European political parties and

European political foundations

Published on

5 December 2017

Click here for our report

Special report

N° 20/2017

EU-funded loan guarantee instruments: positive results but

better targeting of beneficiaries and coordination with national

schemes needed

This report examines whether EU loan guarantees have supported smaller businesses’

growth and innovation by enabling them to access finance. We found that the Loan

Guarantee Facility has helped beneficiary companies grow more in terms of total

assets, sales, wage bills and productivity. However, the InnovFin SME Guarantee Facility

lacked focus on companies carrying out innovation activities with a high potential

for excellence. In addition, for both many businesses were not actually in need of a

guarantee. Although evaluation activities have improved, several weaknesses remain.

We make a number of recommendations to the European Commission to improve

targeting the guarantees on viable businesses lacking access to finance and on more

innovative businesses. We also emphasise the importance of cost-effectiveness, since

similar instruments already exist in the Member States.

Click here for our full Special Report

Published on

7 December 2017

Special report

N° 21/2017

Greening: a more complex income support scheme, not yet

environmentally effective

Agriculture, in particular intensive farming, exerts a negative impact on the environment

and climate. Greening - a direct payment rewarding farmers for farming practices

beneficial for soil quality, carbon sequestration and biodiversity – was introduced in

2015, as a means to enhance the environmental and climate performance of the EU’s

Common Agricultural Policy. We found that greening, as currently implemented, is

unlikely to meet this objective, mainly due the low level of requirements, which largely

reflect the normal farming practice. We estimate that greening has led to a change

in farming practice on only around 5 % of all EU farmland. We made a number of

recommendations on how to design more effective environmental instruments for the

Common Agricultural Policy post 2020.

Click here for our full Special Report

Published on

12 December 2017

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

FOCUS

Publications in December 2017

Special report

N° 22/2017

Election Observation Missions – efforts made to follow up

recommendations but better monitoring needed

The EU observes elections all over the world as a means of promoting democracy,

human rights and the rule of law. Approximately two months after Election Day,

the missions make recommendations to the host country for electoral framework

improvements. We assessed the support provided for the implementation of such

recommendations in four countries: Ghana, Jordan, Nigeria and Sri Lanka.

Published on

13 December 2017

We found that the European External Action Service and the European Commission had

made reasonable efforts to support the implementation of the recommendations using

the tools at their disposal. Nevertheless, more consultation is needed on the ground

and follow-up missions could be deployed more often. Lastly, there is neither a central

overview of the recommendations nor a systematic assessment of their implementation

status. The Court makes a number of recommendations for further improving these

aspects.

Click here for our full Special Report

Background

paper

The ECA’s modified approach to the Statement of Assurance

audits in Cohesion

In our 2018-2020 strategy the European Court of Auditors (ECA) decided to take a fresh

look at how we audit the EU budget and to increase the added value of our Statement

of Assurance (SoA). We in particular wanted to make better use of the work of other

auditors and the information provided by our auditee on the legality and regularity of

spending. This ECA background paper provides some information on the first pilot of

such a modified approach.

Published on

14 December 2017

For the financial year 2017, we will test the accuracy of the information provided by the

European Commission on the legality and regularity of Cohesion spending. In practice,

we will scrutinise the checks already carried out by the European Commission and

by the audit authorities in Members States, through a review of audit files and the re-

performance of audit work carried out at beneficiary level. On this basis, we expect to

be able to conclude whether the information on the legality and regularity of Cohesion

spending reported by the Commission, and in particular the residual total error rates of

the programmes examined, is reliable or not. This work will also provide an input to our

overall opinion on the legality and regularity of EU spending.

The audit work is currently ongoing and its results will be reported in our next annual

report in 2018.

Click here for our report

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

FOCUS

Publications in December 2017

Special report

N° 19/2017

Import procedures: shortcomings in the legal framework and an

ineffective implementation impact the financial interests of the EU

Goods entering the EU from outside the European Union are subject to customs

controls by Member States before they are released for free circulation within the EU. We

examined whether the European Commission and the Member States ensure that import

procedures protect the EU’s financial interests.

Published on

15 December 2017

We found important weaknesses and loopholes which indicate that the controls are

not applied effectively. This has an adverse effect on EU finances. We make a number of

recommendations to the Commission and to the Member States to improve the design

and implementation of the control.

Click here for our full Special Report

Special report

N° 23/2017

Single Resolution Board: Work on a challenging Banking Union

task started, but still a long way to go

The Single Resolution Board (SRB) is based in Brussels and was established in 2014 as

part of the policy response to the financial crisis. Its mission is the resolution of any of

the banks within its remit which are failing. At present, there are about 140 banks in

the euro area under its remit. This audit assessed the quality of the SRB’s overall rules

and guidance, resolution planning for individual banks, and whether the SRB is staffed

adequately. We found shortcomings in all of these areas, although the set-up of the

SRB from scratch was a very significant challenge and any weaknesses must be seen

in this context. We make a number of recommendations relating to the preparation of

resolution plans and completing its rules and guidance. We also recommend that the

SRB improves its staffing levels and HR procedures.

Click here for our full Special Report

Published on

19 December 2017

Report pursuant

to Article 92 (4)

Report pursuant to Article 92 (4) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014

relating to the Single Resolution Mechanism

This report, required by Regulation (EU) No. 806/204 on the Single Resolution

Mechanism, focusses on contingent liabilities arising as a result of the performance of

the Single Resolution Board, the Council and the Commission of their tasks under this

Regulation.

Published on

21 December 2017

Click here for our full Special Report

Rapid case

review

Rapid case review on the implementation of the 5 % reduction of

staff posts

The Court reviewed how the European Union institutions, bodies and agencies

implemented the commitment made in the Interinstitutional Agreement of 2 December

2013 to cut 5 % of the staff in their establishment plans during the period 2013-2017.

Click here for our full Special Report

Published on

21 December 2017

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 330: Rapport fra den Europæiske Revisionsret januar 2018

ISSN 1831-449X

ECA 2018 Work Programme: tying into stakeholders’

needs

Policy scans at the ECA: What are they and what is their

purpose?

Selecting audit topics that matter: audit programming

at chamber level

How to become a high priority audit task

Helping the ECA to provide input for well-informed policy

decision-making

HIGHLIGHTS

EDITION

COVER:

European Parliament Conference of Committee Chairs meeting in Strasbourg

on 16 January 2018 having an exchange of views with ECA President Klaus-Heiner Lehne

on the ECA 2018 Work Programme

QJ-AD-18-001-2A-N