Committee on Budgetary Control 22 January 2008 DAS 2006 European Court of Auditors.
-
Upload
jessie-jordan -
Category
Documents
-
view
212 -
download
0
Transcript of Committee on Budgetary Control 22 January 2008 DAS 2006 European Court of Auditors.
Committee on Budgetary Control22 January 2008
DAS 2006DAS 2006
European Court of European Court of AuditorsAuditors
Specific assessments of the 2006 Annual Report
Functioning of supervisory and control systems
Error range
Own Resources
Common Agricultural Policy
IACS Overall for CAP
IACS
non-IACS non-IACS
Structural operations
Internal policies
External actionsHeadquarters and Delegations
Implementing organisations
Pre-accession strategy
Phare/ ISPA
SAPARD
Administrative expenditure
DAS 2006 - Specific assessments concerning legality and DAS 2006 - Specific assessments concerning legality and regularity of underlying transactionsregularity of underlying transactions
Satisfactory
Functioning of supervisory and control systems
Partially satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Less than 2% (below materiality threshold)
Error range
Between 2% and 5%
Greater than 5%
Functioning of supervisory and control systems
SatisfactoryPartially satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Erro
r rang
e
Less than 2%
(not material)
Between 2% - 5%
More than 5%
Agriculture IACSAgriculture IACS
RevenueRevenue
AdministrationAdministration
Pre-accessionPre-accessionPHARE/ISPAPHARE/ISPA
External Actions ECExternal Actions EC
AgricultureAgriculture non-IACSnon-IACS
External ActionsExternal ActionsImpl. org.Impl. org.
Pre-accessionPre-accessionSAPARDSAPARD
Structural Structural ActionsActions
AgricultureAgriculture
DAS 2006 – Legality and regularity of underlying DAS 2006 – Legality and regularity of underlying transactionstransactions
What can the Commission do to improve the What can the Commission do to improve the situation?situation?
• ensure that supervisory and control systems address the risks effectively, both at the level of the Commission and of the Member States;
• strengthen in particular the Commission’s ability to mitigate the risk that the control systems in the Member States fail to prevent reimbursement of overstated or ineligible expenditure;
• improve mechanisms for recoveries;
• improve the quality of DGs’ Activity Reports and the Commission’s Synthesis Report; address the detected deficiencies adequately and ensure continuity in the way information is presented;
What can the Commission do to improve the What can the Commission do to improve the situation?situation?
• implement the Commission’s Action Plan;
• ensure suitable indicators assisting the management and helping to gauge improvements over time;
• ensure that rules and regulations are clear and sufficient enough to meet Community objectives, while avoiding
unnecessary complexity.
””80% of EU-funds in shared management: 80% of EU-funds in shared management: what can Member States do to improve the what can Member States do to improve the
situation?”situation?”
Structural FundsStructural Funds:
• improvement of the day to day management and implementation of sound closure procedures for the programming period 2000 –
2006;
• implementation of the legal framework with respect to the new programming period 2007 – 2013.
CAP expenditureCAP expenditure:
• specific attention to Cross Compliance requirements;
• due consideration to the pertinence of eligibility conditions with the objective of reducing the error rate in the field of Rural
Development .
• The Court’s revised DAS approach provides clear recognition of improvements in supervisory and control systems. As these improve, more of the assurance is derived from them.
• The new definition and treatment of errors updates the methodology so as to take into consideration the latest developments in the legal framework (cross compliance, financial corrections).
• The Court’s conclusions and audit results have become more robust and provide a clearer assessment of where weaknesses exist and what is contributing to any error found.
The Court’s contributionThe Court’s contribution
Conclusion:Conclusion:
What will make the crucial difference is whether the management’s control mechanisms will be shown to have improved sufficiently and rules simplified enough to bring about a reduction in errors found.