EUROPEANCOURTOF AUDITORS

01NO.JANUARY 2015

JournalEuropean Court of Auditors

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

Past editions of the Journal can be found on:ECA’s website: http://eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/Journal.aspxEU bookshop: http://bookshop.europa.eu

PRODUCTION Mise en page, diffusion / Layout, distribution : Direction de la Présidence - Directorate of the Presidency e-mail: eca-journal@eca.europa.eu Photos : Reproduction interdite / Reproduction prohibited

© ECA

1

02 Special Report No 21/2014 EU-funded airport infrastructures: poor value for money Interview with Luc T’Joen, team-leader By Rosmarie Carotti

07 Crisis in the Eurozone periphery: Policy options for Greece By Kamila Lepkowska, team leader, and Ruth Whittaker, trainee 10 Credible communication between public authorities and the public – Mr Alex Brenninkmeijer’s speech at the ‘TiNT’ Dutch terminology day By Ingrid Van Gent, head of unit

PRESENTATION OF THE 2013 ANNUAL REPORT TO NATIONAL AUTHORITIES

12 Presentation of the 2013 Annual Report to the Slovene authorities By Andreja Rovan, private office attachée 14 Presentation of the 2013 Annual Report in Slovakia By Branislav Urbanič, head of private office

15 Presentation of the 2013 Annual Report in Cyprus By Andreas Antoniades, private office attaché 16 Presentation of the 2013 Annual Report in Germany By the private office of Mr Lehne

17 Presentation of the 2013 Annual Report in the Czech Supreme Audit Office By Jan Kinšt, ECA Member

18 The new environmental policy of the ECA By Natalia Krzempek, project manager

20 FOCUS - Special reports Nos 18, 21 et 22/2014 - Meeting with Commissioner Phil Hogan 22 ECA SOCIAL Model European Parliament-41st International session in Luxembourg By Zoi Papadopoulou, assistant in the Private Office of Lazaros S. Lazarou, ECA Member

23 Preparation of programming documents for the EU cohesion policy for the years 2014-2020 in Poland By Beata Blasiak-Nowak, economic advisor in the Public Administration Department of the Supreme Audit Office (NIK) and Marzena Rajczewska, technical advisor in the Public Administration Department of the NIK

02

07

10

12

14

15

16

17

18

23

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

R.C. : The audit focused on twenty EU-funded airports in Estonia, Greece, Spain, Italy and Poland. Why were these countries and projects chosen? Millions of EU funds were spent in other member states as well, let me mention the funds which went to the BER Berlin airport which is almost daily in the press.

Luc T’Joen: Airport infrastructure spending is an important area for EU funding. In total, € 4.5 billion were spent from 2000 to 2013 from the EU budget, next to important EIB spending: € 14 billion of EIB loans were provided to support infrastructures and € 2.3 billion to support fleet renewal for European air carriers.

The selection of the countries for our audit took place using the well-known concept of materiality. ERDF and Cohesion fund spending was by far the most important part of the funding (85%) and with the five countries selected, the audit covered 75% of this funding for the 2000-2013 period. Although the Berlin airport case is famous because of continued press attention, Germany is one of the lowest spenders in this area, consequently our methodology lead to focus on other member states. The Berlin airport has been subject to a different ECA audit and the special report refers to it. .

Special Report No 21/2014EU-funded airport infrastructures: poor value for money

By Rosmarie Carotti

Moreover, this audit was not a typical project audit: we focused more on “airports” as a unit: the number of airports sampled for audit followed the materiality figures per country. Taking into account the resources available and the time plan for producing a report on this audit, we audited eight airports in Spain, five in Italy, three in Greece and two in both Poland and Estonia, using the following methodology: all the airports in the five countries with a Major Project or Cohesion Fund decision were selected “d’office” (as we wanted to assess the possible strengthening of the decision making via passing by Brussels); than we selected five airports on their risks perceived, five more airports were sampled completely randomly and the four remaining ones were the ones with the largest amounts spent (materiality).

R.C. : The audited airports received a total EU-funding of € 666 million during the 2000-2006 and 2007-2013 programming periods through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion fund (CF). Who were the beneficiaries of the European Union funds: state enterprises or private companies? How were the funds channelled?

Interview with Luc T’Joen, team-leader

This report was adopted on 12 November 2014 and published on 16 December 2014. The same day a press conference was held by George Pufan, ECA Member

From left to right: Afonso de Castro Malheiro, Patrick Weldon, Mircea Radulescu, Pietro Puricella, Joel Costantzer, George Pufan, Fernando Pascual Gil, Luc T'Joen, Tomasz Plebanowicz, Lorenzo Pirelli, Erki Must

3

Luc T’Joen: The beneficiaries are state or semi-state entities: they usually own the airport premises and manage the projects. They are called “intermediate bodies” in the EU-jargon. The funds were channelled via the Managing Authorities to these bodies once the proof was provided that the outputs were completed and certification for use of the infrastructures was provided (usually after a final project report).

R.C. : What were the selection criteria for an airport to receive EU funds? Was combined national state aid a condition?

Luc T’Joen: The Managing Authority informed the implementing body that it successfully negotiated a specific amount of EU co-funds to be spent in the next period via an operational programme. As of that moment, the implementing body, which is the one and only beneficiary for this kind of expenditure, checked which projects could take up this funding. They looked at the general eligibility criteria, and proposed projects to spend the allocations through projects which support the overall (very general) objectives of the operational programmes.

R.C. : Nearly half of Europe’s airports, in particular the smaller ones, were loss-making in 2010. Did you quantify the positive impact of the EU funds on the creation of employment at regional level?

Luc T’Joen: Yes, this is one of the aspects which were at the heart of the matter. Airports are vital and needed in many places, especially in remote regions and islands. Although everybody has some ideas of the (direct, indirect and induced) employment potential of an airport, almost nobody of the airport authorities audited really cared about documenting this. While job creation and economic growth are claimed to be good reasons for investing in airports, we found that socio-economic benefits were generally not measured. Only in four out of the twenty airports audited a limited number of newly created permanent jobs could be directly linked to the EU projects audited. We also found studies provided by three other airports indicating generic benefits for a region from the siting of an airport and its operation, but without establishing a link between an improvement in regional GDP figures and EU-funded investments in airport infrastructures.

R.C. : The EU funds were allocated to airport infrastructures. What does the term “infrastructures” include?

Luc T’Joen: We defined infrastructures as being investments on the landside and airside of airports. Landside infrastructure investments include the construction of new terminal buildings, extensions of existing terminals and connections to the road and rail network. Airside infrastructure investments include the construction of runway, taxi-way, exit-way and apron space, air traffic control infrastructure and equipment and safety equipment.

R.C. : Were there problems of shared responsibility between the Commission and the Member States?

Luc T’Joen: In this audit, we did not find much evidence of this. The usual comment of the Commission is that this is shared management and that they don’t see much of what is exactly happening in the field. In fact, in this case, it was true: the Commission had very little view on what was happening. In reality, projects were mostly decided locally.

R.C. : Overall, in nine of the twenty airports audited, one or more of the projects sampled for audit were not needed at all. This represents 28 % or € 129 million of the EU funding to airports examined. Did the Commission not evaluate beforehand the risk of creating overcapacities?

Luc T’Joen: No, the risk of creating overcapacities was not assessed at all, by anybody, neither the Commission, nor the member states. This aspect primarily lies in the hands of the member states, for the reasons of shared management explained above. Only one of the five member states audited (Poland) had a plan for a long term strategic development of its airport infrastructures, even though it was not perfect. The other four countries audited had general and long-term plans encompassing all modes of transport but these had no focus on either air travel or airport development. They were not coordinated with developments in other transport modes which could potentially compete with air traffic, such as high speed rail. For example, in the test visit we made to Valencia airport, we found out that the opening of the High speed rail line between this city and Madrid had a dramatic impact on the air connection to Madrid:

4Special Report No 21/2014EU-funded airport infrastructures: poor value for money continued

less than 10% of the passengers previously taking a plane to the Spanish capital continued taking the plane after the opening of the high speed rail connection. Yet, nobody took this into account when planning further airport infrastructure investments in Valencia airport.

R.C. : Often a strategic long-term airport development plan at national level was missing. Has the Commission a say in that? What prevents the Commission from having a complete picture of all EU investments going to airports?

Luc T’Joen: The Commission has learned the lesson from the seaports audit (made in 2010, special report N°4/2012) that a proper long term strategic planning of transport infrastructures is vital and a MUST. This principle was applied neither to the 2000-2006 spending nor in the 2007-2013 era. The Commission has foreseen this as a principle (the so-called “ex-ante conditionalities”) for the new spending period (2014-2020).

R.C. : An investment decision is made based upon the projected costs and revenues of future operation. How were these calculated?

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

euro

Cost per additional passenger

PLANNED COST PER ADDITIONAL PASSENGER COST PER ADDITIONAL PASSENGER

Luc T’Joen: To assess the risk for the EU of investing in airport infrastructures which are not cost-effective and without being too technical, we calculated an “estimated cost per additional passenger” and compared this with the planned cost included in the forecasts made when the investments were being decided upon. This cost per additional attracted passenger was calculated by dividing the capital investments made in the twenty airports during the audited period by the number of passengers over a notional twenty year period (based on the actual number of passengers up to 2013 and on the latest forecasts made by the airports for the remainder of the period). The outcome was that for half of the airports audited, the cost per additional passenger was many times higher than foreseen. As one can see below, the Spanish airports specifically suffered in this respect, and for two airports (Vigo and Kastoria) this cost could not even be calculated because the investments will not attract any additional passenger within 20 years after completion of the constructions.

5

R.C. : Did the Commission take into account public opinion when granting the EU funds?

Luc T’Joen: As explained above, the funds audited are part of the shared management system, which means that the EU co-financing items have been negotiated long time ago. Practically, funds to be spent during the 2007-2013 period were negotiated in 2006; the ones for the 2000-2006 period in the nineties.

The real result of our performance audits is that we provoke better, more healthy conditions for future infrastructures spending: the Commission now knows how the Court thinks and reports about the risks related to such investments and I am convinced that these “errors of the past” will not be repeated again. We must also give the Commission the time to remedy; therefore I do hope that for the 2014-2020 infrastructure co-financing we will not have such errors anymore.

R.C. : The outcome of the audit was that seven of the twenty audited airports are not financially self-sustainable. Does that mean that the Commission will invest even more into these projects? How can the Commission justify such poor result?

Luc T’Joen: On the sustainability, the situation is indeed worrying. By only taking the initial infrastructure costs (and disregarding all other operational costs, such as costs to maintain the infrastructures and for marketing, police, firefighters, customs and other inspection bodies) only four of the twenty airports were profitable; seven had prospects of breaking even in the medium term while seven others have no prospect at all of ever breaking even. This implies costs in the years ahead to keep these airports open.

I personally think there will be either a ban or a serious limitation on airport infrastructure investments for the coming period. The main problem for the member states is the continuous funding to airports without adequate numbers of passengers. Countries such as Spain and Greece are facing budgetary constraints and need to tackle the delicate question of reducing opening hours or closing down small airports. As such, the Spanish Ministry of Development already took a decision in June 2012 to reduce the maintenance costs of

17 airports having fewer than 500 000 passengers per year by decreasing their weekly operating hours and staff numbers. We also noticed recently that some Greek airport infrastructures are being sold or leased to Fraport, the German owner of the Frankfurt airport.

R.C. : What has been the impact of this special report on the Commission and on the member states? Did the ECA’s audit provide an input to the new guidelines on state aid adopted in February 2014 by the Commission?

Luc T’Joen: The impact of our audit work to the member states and the Commission was already apparent through our debriefing meetings in the countries, and the confirmation of our understanding of the facts and figures. The SR will now inform the “man/woman on the bus” about these issues.

Basically, what we say in our report is that there are too many airports built too close to each other, that they built them too big for what was actually needed, that the “cake is not big enough for all”, and that this results in underused and sometimes empty infrastructure. For our assessment of the area of influence of airports, we used a two hour catchment area criterion and calculated the number of inhabitants having the possibility to take a plane in a neighbouring airport in less than 120 minutes. An alternative assessment was made using a 90 minutes criterion. Both gave the same image: there is a proliferation of airports very close to each other which invested in similar infrastructure and although most airports had significant overlaps, there was very little consideration given to investments in neighbouring airports. Except for five airports, the vast majority of the population living in the catchment area of the airports audited had several other possibilities within a two hour drive to use a neighbouring airport. In other words, we build too many and too big.

DG COMP has similar ideas as the state aid guidelines established since February 2014 and the recent state aid decisions confirm our audit work: subsidies to airport infrastructures which are too close to each other do not contribute to regional accessibility or development and the duplication of unprofitable infrastructure is a waste of taxpayers’ money which distorts competition between

6

airports. We couldn’t have said it better than Vice-President Almunia.

R.C. : To conclude, what shall and can change in the near future?

Luc T’Joen: This is a learning curve that Member States have to go through: the earlier focus was on spending available money before the deadline (so as not to have to give it back to Brussels). They built infrastructures which will not be fully used for a very long time, and in doing so did not consider the overall costs for society (of keeping these new or bigger airports open). While the financial crisis has often been used as an excuse to explain the misuse of the money, we have here a clear case of a wrong decision making. The constructions were simply too big for normal purposes. What the crisis did was put plainly and clearly the limit on where normal spending ended, and where exaggeration started.

The following message comes out loud and clear from this report: plan a long time ahead your airport infrastructure investments, look at what is really needed, assess the “all-in” costs (not only the construction costs, but also the costs for maintenance, personnel etc) versus the (socio-economic) benefits upfront, check the developments in other, competing transport modes (high speed rail) to see what choices travellers have for particular destinations, and liaise with the neighbour airports to see what they already invested in. Only once all indicators are “green”, one should go for an additional investment.

I hope that the responsible entities within the Member States have understood this basic message and that, through the ex-ante conditionalities work, the situation improves, for both the managing authorities (for the future locally approved projects) and for the Commission’s executive agency INEA (for investments supported by the “Connecting Europe Facility” funds). If not, I am confident that the Commission will intervene and block investments, as they learned their lesson too.

Special Report No 21/2014EU-funded airport infrastructures: poor value for money continued

7By Kamila Lepkowska, team leader, and Ruth Whittaker, trainee

Crisis in the Eurozone periphery: Policy options for Greece

The conference and its audit background A leaner state, exports, and investments: these are the key ingredients for the long-term revival of the Greek economy according to Professors Dmitri Vayanos and Nikos Vettas, who held a conference at the European Court of Auditors on November 19th 2014. The well-attended event was organised by both the Training Unit and Milan Martin Cvikl (Dean of Chamber IV), who also chaired the lively discussion following the introductory lecture, “Crisis in the Eurozone periphery: Policy options for Greece”.

Professors Vayanos and Vettas come from the London School of Economics and the Athens University of Economics and Business respectively, and are authors of the forthcoming book Crisis in the Eurozone periphery: Policy options for Greece. Both speakers provided a general overview of the most recent trends in the Greek economy during the conference, and analysed the specific situation pertaining to key policy areas such as the labour market, business environment, financial system, and pensions.

As explained by Milan Martin Cvikl in his introductory remarks, the conference was well-attuned to Chamber IV’s current audit work - namely the audit of the Commission’s intervention in the Greek financial crisis carried out by the Financial and Economic Governance team under

the supervision of ECA Member – Baudilio Tomè Muguruza. The audit strives to present a comprehensive analysis of the Commission’s activities in Greece; in order to do so, the FEG team will address its two ‘faces’. The ‘Troika face’ represents the design, implementation, and monitoring of the Economic Adjustment Programme for Greece1. The ‘Task Force For Greece face’ denotes the support and technical assistance mobilised by the European Commission in order to facilitate implementation of the reforms.

Outside of the general session of November 19th, auditors from the FEG team also had the opportunity to discuss issues directly stemming

1 This monitoring was part of the conditionality for Greece’s financial support

From left to right: Kamila Lepkowska, team leader, Zacharias Kolias, director, Milan Martin Cvikl, Dean of Chamber IV, Professor Dimitrios Vayanos, London School of Economics, Nikolaos Vettas, Professor, Athens University of Economics and Business

8Crisis in the Eurozone periphery: Policy options for Greece continued

from the audit work with the experts. The two workshops took the form of open Q&A sessions, with a primary focus on macroeconomic developments in Greece and their projections by the European Commission. The progress of structural policies was also an important topic of discussion. The workshop sessions further benefited from short Skype conferences with two additional experts; Dr. Platon Tinios of the University of Piraeus discussed the pension reform, and Professor Costas Meghir of Yale University presented an insight into his analysis of the labour market situation in Greece.

The Greek economy: back on track for growth?

Both the conference and workshops were guided by the overarching question: has the Greek economy been put back on the track of sustainable growth? This is also one of the key audit questions, rendering Professor Vettas’s introduction to the conference particularly relevant from an auditing perspective.

Thanks to recent data, one can begin describing economic development in Greece from a positive angle. In the current quarter, Greek GDP is expected to increase for the first time after a six-year recession. In 2015 growth is projected to reach 2.9%. As stated by Professor Vettas, the main driving factors of this development are the increase

on service exports and stabilisation of domestic consumption.

According to Professor Vettas, another success story concerns the fiscal consolidation. The lack of fiscal discipline2 combined with an uncontrolled debt spiral forced Greece to the edge of bankruptcy, and were the immediate reasons for the request for international financial support. Therefore, the restoration of fiscal stability became a primary goal of the programme.

The broadly-designed plan to restore fiscal consolidation has already produced results. Greece has been able to fully cover its operational expenditure since 2013, and the primary government balance is expected to reach 3% in 2015. However, the general government balance (including the costs of debt servicing) still remains in negative territory. As such, no room is left for the reduction of the accumulated debt pile, which amounts to 175% of GDP. Despite a significant reduction in labour costs, the situation with the labour market remains extremely tense. The unemployment level exceeds 27%; more than half of young people cannot find work.

The art of balancing in designing economic policies

Following the general introduction to recent economic trends in Greece during the conference and workshops, the guest speakers focused on an analysis of the progress of reforms to key structural policies. Not surprisingly, the reforms were considered to have produced mixed results. However, if one conclusion should be drawn, it would without doubt be the need to find a genuine balance in designing structural reforms, even under aggressive circumstances. Economic policy is rarely so black and white; it is often the case that policy decisions which appear beneficial on one front prove to be harmful on another. Professors Veyanos and Vettas referred to a number of these ‘Gordian Knots’; a prominent example being the targeted inflation level. Since 2012, Greece has been running inflation levels lower than average in the eurozone, and prices have even been decreasing since 2013. This development is very good for competitiveness and export growth. Before the crisis, the “Greek” euro was overvalued by an estimated 20%-30%.

2 For instance: the budget deficit reached -15% of GDP in 2009

Professor Dimitrios Vayanos, London School of Economics,

Nikolaos Vettas, Professor, Athens University of Economics and Business,

9

Low inflation - or even deflation - helps Greek companies to be more competitive on the international market. On the other hand, deflation also means that the debt pile accumulated by Greece (over 175% of GDP) is becoming heavier and the repayment of debt more burdensome. Healthy inflation would “consume” some of the debt without a formal recourse to a haircut3. The speakers’ conclusion was that this situation can only be solved by northern European countries, which should run inflation levels higher than the southern countries (and the ECB target).

Another set of conflicting policy choices concerning the pension system and fiscal consolidation was presented. With a view to the much-needed fiscal savings, the reform programme set ambitious targets for exits from public administration. This was partly achieved by encouraging early retirement. The effective retirement age remains significantly below the OECD-level average across the entire Greek economy; raising the retirement age is a baseline condition of a financially viable pension system in the ageing Greek society. Yet, in the very short term it makes public administration savings more difficult to achieve, and might impact the effectiveness of certain labour market instruments.

These examples illustrate not only academic dilemmas, but also the main challenges of the audit. As auditors, we have to provide a fair assessment of the policies by taking into consideration not only immediate results, but also the long-term impacts. In maintaining a different perspective to academics, we cannot automatically adopt their conclusions. However, participation in lively scientific exchange can certainly inspire our way of analysing the realities of the financial situation in Greece, as well as other countries.

Training that addresses auditors’ needs

The events organised in December (made possible by the noteworthy efforts of the Training Unit) represent a relatively new type of professional development at the ECA. Personally, we believe that a mix of a conferences and workshops proves very insightful from an auditing perspective. The auditors involved can secure answers on very specific topics related to ongoing audit work. For the broader ECA audience, it offers the opportunity

3 A partial (percentage) reduction of debt

of rapid updates on key topics related to EU policies. Moreover, a mix of seminars and Skype conferences gave the audience easy access to specific expertise from the world’s top universities, whilst simultaneously maintaining direct contact and a thoroughly interactive discussion.

10Credible communication between public authorities and the public – Alex Brenninkmeijer’s speech at the ‘TiNT’ Dutch terminology day By Ingrid Van Gent, head of unit

Alex Brenninkmeijer, ECA Member

On 14 November 2014 the annual TiNT day was held in The Hague, Netherlands, at the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It was well attended by some 120 professionals with various backgrounds: translators, interpreters, representatives of public authorities. TiNT days (an acronym for “Terminology in the Dutch-speaking region”) are organised every year by NL-Term, the Organisation for Dutch Terminology, around a certain theme and aimed at Dutch-speaking users and practitioners of terminology. This year’s theme being “Terminology in communication between public authorities and the public”, Alex Brenninkmeijer was asked to contribute to this event as a keynote speaker. The programme also included other speakers representing the Dutch Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND), the tax administration (Belastingdienst) and the Dutch Language Union (NTU), who discussed the link between terminology and communication from their respective perspectives.

Two questions

During his captivating speech, Alex Brenninkmeijer analysed the role of the language and terminology used by public authorities in their communication. He explored two questions: “Is it actually possible for public authorities to use clear language – even while using the necessary terminology or even jargon – in order to actually reach the public at the receiving end of this communication, and on what conditions is this communication credible and trustworthy to them?” and “What does it take to do so?” Alex Brenninkmeijer answered these questions from the perspective of his previous functions as

a judge, ombudsman and academic, and on the basis of his recent experience as a member of the ECA. The first question – regarding the possibility of clear communication by public authorities – was answered with an unreserved ‘yes’: it is possible and even necessary. The second question, concerning what it takes to communicate clearly, was answered by looking at the ‘sender-message-recipient’ model for communication.

The central idea was that public authorities should not be communicating ‘inside out’, but should consider what type of communication is relevant to the public, and communicate accordingly. In many respects, the general public is dependent upon public authorities, but at the same time the public’s interest is the sole reason these authorities exist. The critical citizen is quite demanding where communication by public authorities is concerned. For communication to be adequate, it needs to be precise and credible. In their communication, public authorities need to faithfully represent policy and legislation, and to convince at the same time. Their credibility depends not only on ‘logos’ (laws, rules and regulations, budgets), but also, in our over-rationalised times, on ‘pathos’ (feelings, for instance, insecurity) and ‘ethos’ (what do public authorities stand for: reliability, integrity, moderation?).

Clear language and justice

Alex Brenninkmeijer’s experience as a judge showed that clear language is key to the good administration of justice. Although a judge often applies complex laws and regulations, and handles terminology meticulously, clear communication in court and in judgments is possible and even necessary. Fair administration of justice is closely linked to understandable communication, but the need to communicate clearly is not always obvious to the judge. Better contacts and timely, effective communication between parties and lawyers can result in fewer lawsuits, solving conflicts which may escalate due to complicated language.

In his role as the Dutch national ombudsman, Alex Brenninkmeijer was presented with a book on ‘officialese’ and its consequences. It tends to keep members of the public at a distance and can lead to difficult communication. He conducted a number of projects in order to improve communication, including one concerning CAK (a

11

body which implements a special medical expenses insurance law), following complaints that letters which complied with the applicable legislative framework were not necessarily conveying a clear message. The national ombudsman formulated four principles for clear communication: it needs to be recognizable, personal, compact and straightforward (avoiding difficult concepts and jargon, using short sentences in the active voice, with proper use of headings and a clear structure). Where special terminology is used, complicated terms should be avoided or explained. Furthermore, communication should consist of two layers: a short letter should be accompanied by calculations and explanations, which can also be found in folders or on the website. These principles were elaborated into guidelines for all Dutch public authorities. The advantage of this approach is that communication improves, and in addition, complaints against public authorities can be avoided, thus saving them considerable cost (public money) and effort. In this respect, the participation of members of the public and their involvement in this process by public authorities are essential to find solutions. Given the trend towards digitalising public services, we have to consider attitudes towards language in the digital world. In a digital environment, language needs to be even clearer.

Plain language for the auditor

Alex Brenninkmeijer discovered yet another perspective on the issue of plain language in his capacity as member of the ECA. In his current function, he realized that – even more so than lawyers – auditors seem to use technical terms and jargon. When he was introduced to the European Parliament as a nominee for membership of the ECA, he argued that ECA’s annual report was almost unreadable.( An illustrative example was the message that the most likely error rate was 4.8 %; he argued that ‘error rate’ was a term implying that financial management was inadequate but journalists tended to deduce from this that € 7 billion of EU money were wasted.) In order to put his words into action, Alex Brenninkmeijer organised a seminar on ‘plain language’ – incidentally on Dutch liberation day (May 5th) – featuring an experienced Dutch journalist for European affairs and Martin Cutts, the author of the Oxford Guide to Plain English. In the English-speaking world, plain language is a big issue, but

in French-speaking regions (except for Québec), little attention is being paid to plain language; this seems to be a matter of cultural differences. In his speech, Alex Brenninkmeijer quoted Cambridge economist Han-Joon Chang, according to whom economic knowledge is mostly (95 %) based on common sense, but is complicated by the use of jargon and mathematics. The same could be said of auditors’ language and terminology: by using jargon and unrecognisable terminology, auditors tend to create a big gap between themselves and otherwise interested stakeholders. As a member, he made successful attempts to remedy this by having the information note on the 2013 annual report redrafted in plain language; a striking example of this exercice is a passage from this note: “Payments for 2013 are materially affected by error. The ECA therefore gives an adverse opinion on their legality and regularity”. In this context, he commented on the term “materiality”, which could be better described as the level at which irregular payments become a concern and require improved management.

Communication and credibility

In conclusion, Alex Brenninkmeijer argued that use of plain language by public authorities is possible and increases their credibility. To this end, they need to be aware of the language which they use and of the importance of language as a means of communication. Complicated language and an excessive use of terminology can impair public authorities’ communication with the general public, who - being sense-makers - try to understand what is going on using the information at their disposal. If they are treated fairly by public authorities, this legitimises the latter and makes it easier for members of the public to accept even negative decisions. Public authorities’ credibility does not only depend on ‘logos’, but also on ‘pathos’ and ‘ethos’. The latter two, however, are more difficult to express in writing and may sometimes necessitate personal contact. When all of these factors are taken into account, plain language contributes to the quality of public authorities’ communication and hence their credibility, even if they need to use terminology and jargon.

12PRESENTATION OF THE 2013 ANNUAL REPORT TO NATIONAL AUTHORITIES

In November Milan Martin Cvikl visited Slovenia to present the Court’s Annual Report for 2013. That was his fourth presentation in Ljubljana and the first to the new Slovene Government and Parliament. Though the findings relate to the implementation in the previous year, the new bodies took the main messages and recommendations of the European Court of Auditors very seriously with the aim to undertake the necessary improvements in the management of the European funds.

At the beginning of the visit, Milan Martin Cvikl individually met the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Food and the Minister of Development, Strategic Projects and Cohesion (the responsible managing authorities) in order to highlight issues or reports of relevance to their areas of activity when implementing the European budget. Some felt that they could make use of the Court’s work in their decision making process – it was useful for them to see examples of ‘best practice’, as well as examples of weak systems and processes. The Ministers were interested to know more about our Annual and Special Reports, in particular SR 5/2014 on European Banking Authority (EBA) and SR 11/2013 on the quality of the Gross National Income data. Special interest was put on the just published ECA opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation on the system of the European Communities’ own resources, as this legislation increased budget uncertainty of the Member States right before the end of the financial year. There was also an exchange of views with the

Presentation of the 2013 Annual Report to the Slovene authoritiesBy Andreja Rovan, private office attachée

Governor of the Bank of Slovenia as regards the EBA Special Report, stress tests performed over 2011-14 period, and forthcoming SSM audit in line with our first Landscape Review.

During the first presentation, Milan Martin Cvikl introduced the Annual Report to the Ministers, State Secretaries and the core leading team of top technocrats covering budget, revenues, accounting, financial control and internal audit departments of the Slovene Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry for Development, Strategic Projects and Cohesion, and the Ministry of Economic Development and Technology. Key messages of Annual Report were thoroughly discussed, especially findings in relations to rural development and structural funds. In connection with the finding regarding the project financed by the European Fund for Regional Development (Box 5.4 of AR 2013) they asked for further details of the Court findings and the EU case law on definition of SME. They were interested to know how the Court cooperates with the OLAF and who would bear the consequences in case that the company in question which does not agree with the finding would succeed at the national court. In addition there was a discussion how Slovenia shall organise and prepare for its first own national declaration in line with the Lisbon Treaty requirements on the role and responsibility of the Member States in the programming, managing and controlling of the EU funds.

In line with the practice established by the previous Government, the new Government of the Republic of Slovenia invited Milan Martin Cvikl to present the main findings and recommendations of the Annual Report at its regular session. Following presentation, there was a brief exchange during which the Prime Minister welcomed the presentation as the improvement of the management of the European funds is high on the Government’s Agenda. The Government was also interested in the new type of product of the Court: the Landscape Review of the risks to the financial management of the EU budget, as well as the one on the EU accountability and public audit arrangements. It was proposed that once responsible Ministers would review the just published Landscape Review, a follow-up presentation and discussion on lessons learned could be organised. Milan Martin Cvikl met Prime

Milan Martin Cvikl, ECA Member, handing over the ECA 2013 Annual Report to Dr Milan Brglez, Speaker of the National Assembly

13

had been informed about the 2013 ECA Annual Report. The entire meeting was web streamed and broadcasted on the national television channel of the Parliament.

Milan Martin Cvikl in line with Protocol 1 to the Lisbon Treaty also handed over our Annual Report to the President of the National Council – the second or upper chamber of the Slovene Parliament. The President of the National Council, Mr. Bervar was very open to the main messages of the Court being aware that politicians need to take responsibility and be accountable for their work, connected to the national and the EU funds. The formal presentation to the plenary session of the Council will take place at the beginning of the next year.

Milan Martin Cvikl had a meeting with the President of the Slovene Court of Audit, Tomaž Vesel. They discussed matters of mutual interest. Tomaž Vesel presented the horizontal audit of the European funds. On future work he pointed out that there have been many additional requests for new audits in new audit areas (i.e. audit of Slovene resolution authority), and that due to the limited resources there is a need to reflect on the priorities of the work of the Court.

During the visit there was also some interest from the media. Milan Martin Cvikl had an interview for the Slovene Press Agency. In the interview he spoke about the role of the European Court of Auditors, findings of the Annual Report 2013 and recently issued Special Reports and Landscape Reviews. The journalist reported about these issues, as well as some other issues such as relations between Slovenia and the EU budget, the need for better management of the European funds, and the need to ensure accountability for the use of these funds.

Presentation to officials at the Ministry of Finance

Minister tête-à-tête to discuss key issues of what can be done by national authorities to identify irregularities and thus to reduce error rate.

In the continuation of the visit, Milan Martin Cvikl handed over the 2013 Annual Report to the President of the National Assembly, which is the legislative chamber of Parliament. In this context he formally presented him with the ECA Annual Report recommendations and supporting documents. The President of the National Assembly, Dr Brglez, was interested how the high error rate of the EU expenditure could be lowered. They also touched upon the way in which the ECA Annual Report and other reports should be discussed in the Parliament in order to enhance better cooperation with the Conference of Community and European Affairs Committees of Parliaments of the European Union (COSAC) in line with Article 10 of Protocol 1 to Lisbon Treaty. The media covered the event and the summary was published later on the National Assembly website.

This year there was the first joint formal meeting of the three committees of the National Assembly convened for the presentation of the ECA Annual Report – an indication that they had reflected on the implications of the Lisbon Treaty. At this joint meeting of the Budget Control Committee, the EU Affairs Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee, other key stakeholders also attended – such as the responsible Minister and other representatives from the Government as well as the First Deputy President of the Slovenian Court of Audit. During the question and answer session the main topics were the national management declarations, difficulties in implementation of small rural development projects (pointed out also in the SR 5/2010 – Implementation of the Leader approach for rural development), the need to reduce the level of error in cohesion projects and agricultural spending etc. In this context, both our Landscape Reviews were welcomed. It was agreed to hold a separate session on the Landscape Review on the risks to the financial management. In addition, Milan Martin Cvikl offered to present the trends described in the latest report on agriculture and cohesion spending on the previous financial perspective after the document being available in the Slovene language. At the end of the meeting a formal decision was adopted that three Committees

14

The presentation of the European Court of Auditors’ Annual Reports 2013, with the focus on the Annual Report on the implementation of the EU budget, took place in Bratislava from 27 November to 1 December 2014.

On 27 November, Ladislav Balko together with the Head of his private office Branislav Urbanič, presented the 2013 Annual Report on the implementation of the EU budget at a formal meeting of the Committee on European Affairs of the National Council of the Slovak Republic (the Parliament). Along with providing an overview of the main findings and conclusions of the Annual Report, Ladislav Balko stressed the need to place more emphasis on achieving results with the EU money rather than to simply spending it (“use it or lose it”), and the yet again increased amount to be funded from future budgets (322 billion euro at the end of 2013). He also underlined that, for a large proportion of the errors found, national authorities had sufficient information to correct many errors before claiming reimbursement from the Commission, which would have reduced the Most Likely Error rate for example for Chapter 5 dealing with Cohesion by 3 percentage points, that is, from 6,9% to 3,9%. During the subsequent exchange of views with the Members of the Committee, Ladislav Balko answered their questions concerning inter alia the differences between error rates and error frequencies, the Court’s views on the legislation concerning the new programming period 2014-2020, the increased focus on performance, the low

Presentation of the 2013 Annual Report in SlovakiaBy Branislav Urbanič, head of private office

EU funds absorption in some Member States, or the corrective actions taken by the Member States and the Commission. The Members of the Committee appreciated the interesting presentation and discussion, and the Committee adopted a resolution taking note of the Annual Report.

On 27 November, Ladislav Balko visited the Supreme Audit Office of the Slovak Republic (SAO), and delivered a presentation at a meeting chaired by the SAO President Ján Jasovský and followed by staff either directly at the SAO headquarters in Bratislava or following the presentation through videoconference in SAO regional offices. Ladislav Balko presented the main findings and conclusions for each of the specific assessments, and pointed to the instances where the Annual Report mentions Slovakia, for example in connection with the low disbursement rates for Financial Engineering Instruments. In the course of the interesting discussion which ensued, Ladislav Balko and Branislav Urbanič answered the participants’ questions concerning inter alia simplification, the new legislation concerning the 2014-2020 programming period and especially the corrective mechanisms thereunder, the Financial Engineering Instruments, the Commission’s guidance to Member States, and the Court’s cooperation with national SAIs. Finally, on 1 December 2014, Ladislav Balko presented the 2013 Annual Report to the Minister of Finance of the Slovak Republic Peter Kažimír.

Presentation of the Annual Reports 2013 by Ladislav Balko, ECA Member

15By Andreas Antoniades, private office attaché

Presentation of the 2013 Annual Report in Cyprus

On 18 November 2014, Lazaros S. Lazarou met with Nicos Anastasiades, President of the Republic of Cyprus, and presented the annual report, briefing the President on the main messages, the challenges ahead for the ECA and its contribution to the success of the European project. He also conveyed to the President his best wishes for success and a speedy recovery on a forthcoming medical treatment.

On 18 and 19 November 2014, Lazaros S. Lazarou, ECA Member responsible for the statement of assurance, presented the 2013 ECA annual report in Cyprus

Lazaros S. Lazarou presenting the annual report to Nicos Anastasiades, President of the Republic of Cyprus

Mr Lazarou presenting the annual report to Mr Yiannakis L. Omirou, President of the House of Representatives

On the same day, Lazaros S. Lazarou met with Yiannakis L. Omirou, President of the House of Representatives, and presented the annual report, briefing him on the main messages and on ECA’s cooperation with the European and national Parliaments. In an official statement, President Omirou congratulated the ECA for its effective oversight role in EU financial management and Lazaros S. Lazarou for his contribution in the work of ECA and more specifically on statement of assurance related issues. Following the meeting with President Omirou, Lazaros S. Lazarou presented the annual report in a joint meeting of the Parliamentary Committees on Development Plans and Public Expenditure Control (Public Accounts Audit Committee), on Financial and Budgetary Affairs and on Foreign and European Affairs. The Chairman of the Public Accounts Audit Committee, who chaired the meeting, referred to the Lisbon Treaty and the role the national Parliaments exercise in the public oversight of EU money. He praised the ECA for its work and added that the national Parliaments can contribute in the improvement of the legality and regularity, and sound financial management of EU funds. The joint parliamentary committee meeting was attended by officials including the Auditor General, heads or representatives and staff of national authorities responsible for the management and audit of EU funds, and press reporters. In his speech Lazaros S. Lazarou presented the annual report, an outline of the background document “Agriculture and cohesion: Overview of EU spending 2007-2013”, the contribution of his private office to the ECA work, EU financial management issues concerning Cyprus including the performance audit on public procurement and the challenges ahead for the ECA including its role in achieving better results from the EU budget. The presentation was followed by a discussion with Lazaros S. Lazarou addressing questions from the Members of Parliament.

16

On the left, Klaus-Heiner Lehne, ECA Member

Presentation of the 2013 Annual Report in GermanyBy the private office of Klaus-Heiner Lehne, ECA Member

On 5 December, Klaus-Heiner Lehne presented theECA 2013 annual report to the Budget Control Committee of the German Parliament. Klaus-Heiner Lehne gave a short overview of the Court’s findings concerning the different policy areas and described the development of the error rate over the last years. He also highlighted the fact that most errors occurred in the field of shared management and stressed the responsibility of Member States in that regard. Finally, Klaus-Heiner Lehne referred to the ongoing reforms in the Court which aim at strengthening ECA’s efficiency and impact and emphasized the importance of performance audits. The presentation was followed by a lively discussion.

TV studio – “ANT1 NEWS”, main news broadcast on 18 November 2014

The main points of the discussion included the challenge to achieve better results from the EU budget including youth employment, the role of the ECA in combating fraud, the absorption capacity in EU funds of Cyprus in the main policy areas and the recent GNI adjustment affecting Cyprus.

Following the conclusion of the meeting, the Chairman of the Public Accounts Audit Committee and Lazaros S. Lazarou were invited and gave a press briefing.

The presentation of the 2013 ECA annual report received extensive media coverage in the Cyprus national news agency, the press and television, and radio stations. Lazaros S. Lazarou was invited to be a guest on the main news broadcast of one of the most popular TV stations in Cyprus (ANT1 TV), where he presented the role and the work of the ECA, issues on EU financial management and issues relating to Cyprus.

Presentation of the 2013 Annual Report in Cyprus continued

17

As every year, Jan Kinšt, ECA Member, presented the key outcomes of the ECA’s financial and compliance audit for the year 2013 to the management of the Czech Republic´s Supreme Audit Office (NKÚ) on 2 December 2014. Jan Kinšt mentioned the key messages of the Annual report 2013 and focused on the issues in the areas of shared management, which are also often the subjects of the NKÚ´s own audits. Presentation of annual results, error rates and problems in management and control in 2013 was then followed by the introduction of the Court´s overview report on cohesion and agriculture spending in 2007-2013.

In the second part of the presentation, Milan Šmíd, Chamber II team leader, presented several case studies regarding the errors detected in public procurement in the Czech Republic in recent Court audits. As in many EU states, this area is very prone to errors in the structural funds´ execution in the Czech Republic. There was a very useful exchange of views with the auditors from the NKÚ about the application of relevant law in these cases. In general, such meetings with the national audit experts provide always a good opportunity to hold a very fruitful discussion coming sometimes to very technical aspects and details.

By Jan Kinšt, ECA Member

Presentation of the 2013 Annual Report in the Czech Supreme Audit Office

Jan Kinšt, ECA Member, and Miroslav Kala, President of the Czech Supreme Audit Office

Milan Šmíd, team leader Chamber II

Both Court´s representatives were invited by the President of NKÚ, Miloslav Kala, to attend the management seminar of NKÚ on the following day. A number of interesting recent developments and future policies was discussed there, notably from the areas of compliance risk detection, broadening the NKU´s legal mandate, audit task programming, internal and external communication and cooperation with other SAIs.

18

Environmental issues first emerged on the European Union’s political scene in the 1960s and soon became a principal topic in all areas of public discussion.

The scale of the environmental problems we are currently facing

and the increased public interest in these issues have greatly influenced management decisions at the Court. As a result, the Court now wants to show that not only are its values and its mission in keeping with the principles of sound environmental management but so too are the way it works and its day-to-day decisions.

In 2013, the administrative services of the Court launched the EMAS project, as laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1221/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the voluntary participation by organisations in a Community eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS), with the objective of obtaining EMAS certification by the end of 2016.

Formal adoption of an environmental policy forms part of the EMAS project.

In January 2013, the Secretary-General and the Director of Finance and Support signed a document setting out environmental aims for the Court’s administrative services and establishing, for the first time, our level of environmental responsibility.

An official environmental policy document was adopted by the Court and signed by the President and the Secretary-General on 28 November 2014. It includes a commitment to continuously improve the Court’s environmental performance, to prevent pollution and to comply with all relevant legal requirements.

The new environmental policy of the ECABy Natalia Krzempek, project manager

“Whether we like it or not, we are now entering a century of the environment.” – Ernst Ulrich von Weizäcker, German scientist and politician

This new document provides a framework for the Court’s environmental objectives and activities (see table on next page for some examples), against which all the Court’s future actions will be judged. It will be made available to the general public in due course.

Setting up an environmental management system and adopting an environmental policy with a view to obtaining independent certification will enable the Court to deliver tangible results and to demonstrate the quality of its work. This approach sits very well within the wider strategy and area of activity in that it will help to make buildings functional, economical and comfortable for their occupants, thus strengthening the ECA’s image as a modern and environmentally conscious public body.

Natalia Krzempek, project manager

19

Table

Environmental policy commitments Key activities

- introducing measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions

The carbon footprint exercise and implementation of the greenhouse gas protocol methodology is scheduled for the third trimester of 2015.

- promoting the efficient use of energy and taking steps to reduce consumption of electricity, water and paper

Progress has already been made in this area: - gradual replacement of fluorescent tubes with LEDs and

upgrading of video-conferencing equipment;- implementation of the printing policy;- use of 100% recycled paper and electricity that comes

100% from renewable sources.

- including environmental criteria in its public procurement procedures

We have started including environmental criteria in recent invitations to tender, aimed at awarding contracts to contractors who provide an environmentally friendly service.

- introducing best waste management practices

The Court was awarded a quality label for exemplary waste management (Superdreckskëscht).We launched the “ECA donation programme” in order to increase reuse of IT equipment.

- encouraging all staff to act sustainably and contribute actively to achieving the targets of this policy.

The Court is convinced that each member of staff can make a contribution to improving the Court’s environmental performance. We therefore promote best practices throughout the organisation by means of various environmental campaigns, events and seminars, such as Mobility Week, the “Green IT” seminar, a presentation on the printing policy, the “Take the stairs” campaign, Earth Hour, and eco-consciousness training for newcomers.

20FocusEFOCUS

A

The Court audited 20 airports in five Member States and found that EU funding is in many cases provided to airports in close proximity to each other: for 13 airports, significant overlaps exist with the catchment areas of neighbouring airports. This produced poor value for money and resulted in oversizing of the EU-funded infrastructures and in overcapacity. The Court also observes that the EU-funding was not cost-effective and that seven of the airports examined are not profitable: these may need to be closed unless they receive continuous public financial support. The EU funding of airports is not well co-ordinated at national level and, in particular as regards Major Projects and Cohesion fund Projects, insufficiently supervised by the Commission which generally does not know which airports receive funding, and how much they receive (see pages from 2 to 6). This report was published on 16 December 2014.

Evaluation and results oriented monitoring (ROM) are part of EuropeAid’s results accountability framework. The Court found that EuropeAid’s evaluation and ROM systems are not sufficiently reliable. Overall, evaluation and ROM functions are well organised. However, some weaknesses in the design and implementation of the systems reduce EuropeAid’s capacity to assess and report on EU’s policy achievements. This report was published on 11 December 2014.

Special Report N°21/2014

Special Report N° 18/2014

Member States implement a large part of the EU’s rural development policy by providing grants towards the costs of investments and other projects undertaken by farmers, rural businesses, associations and local authorities. The Court found that some Member States had poorly-designed systems for checking that the costs of these grants were reasonable. Workable and cost-effective approaches existed but were not widely followed. The Court outlines good practices found in the course of its audit, and concludes that there is considerable scope for making real savings in rural development project grants in the 2014-2020 period by applying these good practices. This report was published on 15 December 2014.

Special Report N°22/2014

EU-funded airport infrastructures:poor value for money

EuropeAid’s evaluation and results-orientedmonitoring systems

Achieving economy: keeping the costs of EU-financed ruraldevelopment project grants under control

21

In January 2015 the Court says:

Hello to:

BODE MarcelCORRADI MarcoERSHAMMAR SamuelGUSEK SibylleLARSEN Hege

Goodbye to:

ADAMCZYK AgnieszkaBREIVIENE VeronikaCACHIA ZAMMIT RaymondCOMPAGNONI SilviaCZARNECKI RafalDOMOK AdriennFAJERTAG GiuseppeFRAYSSE NicoleOSETE FrancoisMASSI Marie-AngeSCHLEIDER JosyVERSCHAFFEL VeroniqueWESTER Stephanie

FocusEFOCUS

A

On November 26, the new Member of the Commission responsible for Agriculture and Rural Development, together with the Director-General of DG AGRI (the Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development) visited the Court and met members of Chamber 1. The Dean, Rasa Budbergytė, and the other Members introduced the Chamber’s activities and priorities while Phil Hogan presented his direction and priorities for the implementation of the new CAP: a focus on performance, as well as contributing to jobs and growth, climate change, simplification, subsidiarity and new markets. The meeting set a solid foundation for further cooperation between the Court and the Commission.

Meeting with Commissioner Phil Hogan and Director-General Jerzy Bogdan Plewa

Commissioner Phil Hogan

In memoriamNous avons le regret d’ annoncer le décès de notre collègue Josef Gössl survenu le 16 décembre 2014 à Luxembourg.

22ECA Social ESOCIAL

A

Model European Parliament-41st International session in Luxembourg By Zoi Papadopoulou, assistant in the Private Office of Lazaros S. Lazarou, ECA Member

The Model European Parliament programme for young delegates was initiated in 1994 with the aim to foster better understanding and awareness of European issues. The 41st International session of the Model European Parliament was hosted by the Lycée Aline Mayrisch during 8-15 November 2014, under the auspices of Xavier Bettel, Prime Minister of Luxembourg. The 175 delegates (high school students) from the 28 Member States and the candidate countries exchanged views and debated on current European issues in ten thematic committees, delivering relevant resolutions.

The opening ceremony on 10 November, took place at the Conservatoire of Luxembourg in the presence of H.R.H. the Grand - Duchess Maria Teresa of Luxembourg who delivered the keynote speech and Xavier Bettel, Prime Minister of Luxembourg who also delivered a speech. It was attended by the Ambassadors in Luxembourg of the national delegations and, following an invitation from the host school, by Lazaros S. Lazarou, ECA Member.

The MEP Luxembourg opening ceremony with H.R.H. Grand-Duchess Maria Teresa of Luxembourg delivering the keynote speech which impressed and touched the delegates and participants.

Lazaros S. Lazarou welcomed the MEP delegation from Cyprus (five high school students from the Lyceum Acropolis accompanied by Ms Maria Iacovidou, deputy headteacher) upon their arrival in Luxembourg and on 10 November he welcomed them at the ECA in a dinner reception where they had the opportunity to become acquainted with the ECA and its work and exchange views on current European issues.

Lazaros S. Lazarou welcoming at the ECA the MEP delegation from Cyprus accompanied by Maria Iacovidou, deputy headteacher at the Lyceum Acropolis of Cyprus

23

Introduction

Poland looks set to receive a total of € 82.5 billion from the EU budget under the EU's structural policies during the period 2014-2020. To make full use of the funding available, Poland's public administration has taken steps to draw up the necessary programming documents, including a partnership agreement and operational programmes.

A partnership agreement is a document which sets out the strategy for how EU funding will be used in Poland under three EU policies i.e. Cohesion Policy, Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy during the new financing period of 2014-2020. A partnership agreement forms a reference point which outlines in detail the content of the operational programmes. Operational programmes are detailed implementing documents which specify the method for implementing Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund in a given area. The partnership agreement negotiated with the European Commission, together with the operational programmes, provide the basis on which the new financial perspective will be implemented in Poland.

The Supreme Audit Office of Poland audited the preparation of the system for implementing the structural policy for the years 2014-20201. The

1 Information on the audit results: Przygotowanie systemu wdrażania polityki strukturalnej na lata 2014-2020 (Preparing the System for Implementing Structural Policy for the years 2014-2020). NIK, August 2014.

Preparation of programming documents for the EU cohesion policy for the years 2014-2020 in PolandBy Beata Blasiak-Nowakeconomic advisor in the Public Administration Department of the Supreme Audit Office (NIK)and Marzena Rajczewska technical advisor in the Public Administration Department of the NIK

Supreme Audit Office carried out this audit to verify whether the action taken by the Minister for Infrastructure and Development and the 16 Voivodship Boards (executive authorities of all the Polish regions) as part of the preparation of the partnership agreement and the national and regional operational programmes was correct and effective. A panel of experts was set up during the preparation for this audit, bringing together scientists, representatives of local, regional and central administration, NGOs and a Member of the European Parliament. The audit approach adopted was somewhat atypical in the sense that the audit was carried out at the same time that the programming documents for the years 2014-2020 were actually being prepared. The audit covered the period up to the end of April 2014. Given the steady progress made regarding the work, the level of preparation changed dynamically during the course of the audit.

The audit carried out by NIK established, among others, that the Minister for Infrastructure and Development organised and conducted the process of preparing the basic documents in an appropriate manner. Poland submitted its draft partnership agreement to the European Commission on 10 January 2014 and was the first Member State to do so. Following negotiations, the partnership agreement was approved by the European Commission in May 2014. Only two other Member States - Denmark and Germany - signed their partnership agreements with the Commission before Poland. The draft versions of the operational programmes were also drawn up and sent on time to the European Commission for negotiation and approval. The work on preparing the partnership agreement and the operational programmes was carried out simultaneously, which meant it was possible to speed up work on the documents at both national and regional level.

The European Commission has the power to issue implementing acts and delegated acts. The NIK audit revealed that the Commission had yet to issue many of the acts in question. In addition, at the time when the audit was carried out, the Commission still needed to establish guidelines for many aspects relating to the implementation of the funds under the new financial perspective. This

Marzena Rajczewska and Beata Blaziak-Nowak

24

had a significant impact on the organisation and progress of the preparatory work under way in the ministry and at regional level.

New programming rules for the 2014-2020 financial perspective

The European system for the programming and execution of the EU budget has significantly changed for the 2014-2020 financing period. The most fundamental change from the current financial perspective concerns the introduction of common provisions for all financial instruments under Cohesion Policy, the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy, involving the introduction of mechanisms for the joint planning, programming, monitoring and evaluation as well as a common approach regarding the concentration of thematic objectives, which are results oriented 2. The new provisions of the Regulation on Structural and Cohesion Funds for 2014-2020 aim to ensure the closer coordination of policies and a more focused approach towards policy programming and implementation. Accordingly, the national system for implementing these funds needs to take account of these changes.

To help the Member States with their preparations for the next programming period, the European Commission presented the Common Strategic Framework in March 20123, setting out the main objectives in terms of programming the use of resources under the Structural and Cohesion Funds for ensuring sectorial and territorial coordination. The Member States were required to use this document as a basis for the preparation of their draft partnership agreements with the European Commission.

2 More details: P. Russel, Ewolucja wieloletnich ram finansowych Unii Europejskiej (Evolution of EU multi-annual financial framework) BAS study No 3/1012. Wielkie pieniądze z ograniczeniami (Big money with limitations) Polityka spójności po 2013 r. (Cohesion policy after 2013) in „Perspektywy Europejskie” No 3/2012. Dobrzycka, M., Grudecka A.: Fundusze europejskie na lata 2014-2020 (European funds for 2014-2020) „Prawo Europejskie” No 9/2013.3 European Commission working document of 14 March 2012 Elements for a Common Strategic Framework 2014-2020: the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, Part I and II (SWD(2012)61final), http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/what/future/index_pl.cfm#12.

On 26 September 2012, the European Commission published an internal document entitled Position of the European Commission services on the preparation of the partnership agreement and programmes in Poland for 2014-20204. In this document, the European Commission set out the main conditions and key areas for action under the structural and cohesion funds for the period 2014-2020. The Commission also identified the key challenges for Poland and outlined Poland's main funding priorities in terms of public spending to stimulate economic growth. In the Commission's opinion, future EU expenditure should focus on priority areas in order to get the best possible results rather than diluting the funding available across many areas.

EU law on the preparation of programming documents

Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/20065 (Regulation No 1303/2013) was published in the Official Journal of the EU on 20 December 2013 and differs substantially from subsequent proposals from the European Commission and the European Parliament6.

4 http://www.MIR.gov.pl/fundusze/fundusze_europejskie_2014_2020/programowanie_2014_2020/strony/glowna.aspx5 See: OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 320 as amended6 More information about the solutions put forward by the European Commission in draft Regulation No 1303/2013: M. Szymański, Kontrola projektów w ramach polityki spójności oraz propozycje na okres programowania 2014-2020 (Monitoring projects under cohesion policy and proposals for the 2014-2020 programming period). Kontrola Państwowa, No 3/2012

Preparation of programming documents for the EU cohesion policy for the years 2014-2020 in Poland continued

25

According to the definition contained in Article 2 (20) of Regulation No 1303/2013, a partnership agreement is a document prepared by a Member State with the involvement of partners in line with the multi-level governance approach, which sets out that Member State's strategy, priorities and arrangements for using the ESI Funds in an effective and efficient way so as to pursue the Union strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, and which is approved by the Commission following assessment and dialogue with the Member State concerned. The preparation of partnership agreements is regulated by Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1303/2013. In accordance with Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1303/2013, each Member State prepares its draft partnership agreement and submits it to the European Commission by 22 April 2014.

In accordance with Article 26(3) of Regulation No 1303/2013, funds are implemented through programmes in accordance with the Partnership Agreement. Each programme covers the period from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2020. The programmes are prepared by the Member States or by any other institution appointed by them for this purpose. Programmes are submitted to the European Commission within a period of three months of the presentation of the partnership agreement.

The detailed rules for the implementation of Structural Funds and of the Cohesion Fund for the period 2014-2020 and which apply to the preparation of programming documents are set out in:

1) Regulation (EU) No 1301/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the European Regional Development Fund and on specific provisions concerning the Investment for growth and jobs goal and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1080/20067,

2) Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the European Social Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1081/20068,

7 See: OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p.289.8 See: OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p.470.

3) Regulation (EU) No 1300/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the Cohesion Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1084/20069.

In accordance with the provisions of Article 149(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1303/2013, the power to adopt delegated acts was conferred on the European Commission. Some of these acts are of key importance for programming. They should be prepared as quickly as possible by the European Commission and adopted immediately after the adoption of the legislative package for cohesion policy for 2014-2020.

Polish law and organising the preparation of programming documents

The general principles for the programming, use, management and monitoring of funds under the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund in Poland are set out in the Act on the Principles of Development Policy of 6 December 2006 10, which – alongside the EU regulations – provides the legal basis for the implementation of Structural Funds and of the Cohesion Fund in Poland.   This Act stipulates the principles for the implementation of the regional policy, the entities which execute this policy and the forms of cooperation among them including, among others, the principles for establishing and implementing operational programmes and the responsibilities and tasks of the individual institutions within the management and control system of these programmes.

At its meeting of 15 October 2013, Poland's Council of Ministers adopted a draft proposal to amend the Act on the Principles of Development Policy and certain other acts (the so-called bridge act)11. Poland's parliament, the Sejm, adopted the amendments to this Act on 24 January 2014 and the amendments became effective on 8 April 2014. The amended Act on the Principles of Development Policy establishes a legal framework - taking into account the regulations of EU law - for the process of programming the budgetary perspective for 2014-2020 and, among others, extends the powers of the Minister responsible for regional policy

9 See: OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 281.10 See: 2009 Journal of Laws of Poland, No 84, Item 712 as amended.11 See: Journal of Laws of Poland, No. 2014, Item 379).

26Preparation of programming documents for the EU cohesion policy for the years 2014-2020 in Poland continued

(Minister for Infrastructure and Development) in the area of coordination. According to the Act, the Minister’s task is to initiate, draw up and negotiate programming documents (Art. 3a 1a and 1c of the above Act, as amended). The Act on the Principles of Development Policy defines what is understood by the term programming documents i.e. the partnership agreement and the programmes for its implementation (Art.5 points 1a, 7a and 9a of the above Act as amended) and sets out the procedure for drawing up and adopting such documents (these measures are coordinated by the Minister responsible for regional development, assisted by the Partnership Agreement Committee) - Article 14e, Article 14g - 14l of the Act, as amended).

In accordance with Article 14e (1) of the Act on the Principles of Development Policymaking, as amended, the draft partnership agreement is drawn up by the Minister responsible for regional development. In accordance with Article 14e (4) of the amended Act, the draft partnership agreement is approved by Poland's Council of Ministers in the form of a resolution. In accordance with Article 14e (5) of the amended Act, the Minister responsible for regional development negotiates the draft partnership agreement, as approved by Poland's Council of Ministers, with the European Commission.

In May 2012, Poland's Council of Ministers adopted a document entitled Sposób organizacji prac nad dokumentami programowymi związanymi z perspektywą finansową UE 2014-2020 (Methods for the organisation of work on the programme documents relating to the EU's 2014-2020 financial perspective)12, in which the Prime Minister of Poland conferred on the Minister for Regional Development (whose duties have been carried out by the Minister for Infrastructure and Development since 27 November 2013) the responsibility for coordinating the preparation of programming documents as well as implementation and institutional measures, and also established a timetable for the work on the preparation and negotiation of individual documents. Given the progress made regarding the negotiations on the draft EU regulations, the above timetable was revised and sent to Poland's Council of Ministers for their information on 8 February 2013. As part of his work on the operational

12 http://www.MIR.gov.pl/fundusze/fundusze_europejskie_2014_2020/programowanie_2014_2020/strony/glowna.aspx

programmes, the Minister for Infrastructure and Development was required to assess the extent to which these programmes complied with the draft partnership agreement.

In accordance with Article 14g (1) (1) of the amended Act on the Principles of Regional Development Policy, the minister responsible for regional development is responsible for coordinating the process of drafting and negotiation of the programming documents for the EU's programming periods. Accordingly, the Ministry of Infrastructure and Development, which is the institution responsible for coordinating Poland's national and regional operational programmes, has taken part in the process of preparing the national and regional operational programmes for the period 2014-2020.

The Interdepartmental Team on the Use of EU Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund, which was set up under Resolution No 48 of the Prime Minister of Poland of 28 April 2008,13 was involved in the process of preparing the programming documents, including outlining the objectives of the partnership agreement, with a view to coordinating the action taken in this area. The team is made up of the under-secretaries of state of the ministries involved in implementing EU funding and the marshals of Poland's voivodships (heads of the regional government). The work of the team is led by the minister for regional development. Specific working groups may be set up within this team, based on a decision by the above members. In addition, as part of this preparatory work, a document was drawn up by the Ministry of Regional Development, entitled Programming for the 2014-2020 financial perspective – strategic conditions14 which was subsequently submitted to the ministries concerned and to the Voivodship Boards (executive authorities of the Polish regional administration).

13 Resolution No 48 of the Prime Minister of Poland of 28 April 2008 on the appointment of an Interdepartmental Team on the Use of EU Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund amended by Resolution No 19 of the Prime Minister of Poland of 26 March 2012 amending the Resolution on the appointment of an Interdepartmental Team on the Use of EU Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund.14 http://www.MIR.gov.pl/fundusze/fundusze_europejskie_2014_2020/programowanie_2014_2020/strony/glowna.aspx

27

The objectives of the partnership agreement were adopted by Poland's Council of Ministers on 15 January 201315. This document provided the basis on which work could begin on drawing up Poland's draft national and regional operational programmes. The draft partnership agreement was adopted by Poland's Council of Ministers on 8 January 201416. This document set out, among others, the investment objectives and priorities thematically and by region, together with the key indicators, the structure of the operational programmes and an outline of the financing and implementation system.

Partnership agreement and draft operational programmes for the years 2014-2020

The partnership agreement is the most important document outlining the strategy for the investment of European funds under the Cohesion Policy, the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy. In accordance with the partnership agreement, EU funding will be invested in those areas which can make the biggest contribution towards boosting Poland's development. These include: enhancing the economy's competitiveness, improving social and territorial cohesion in Poland, and making the country more efficient and effective. The largest amounts available for investment will be in transport infrastructure (road and rail). The greatest increase in expenditure will be on innovation and support for businesses. Thanks to a wider range of repayable financial instruments (including loans and guarantees), more projects carried out by small and medium-sized enterprises will receive support. Investments in environmental protection and energy will also receive funding along with projects in areas such as culture, employment, education or combating social exclusion. Local government authorities will manage a larger pool of EU funding than ever before, representing almost 40% of the total available. This change primarily involves the transfer to regional level of funding for businesses together with two-thirds of the funding available under the European Social Fund. Investments will

15 http://www.MIR.gov.pl/fundusze/fundusze_europejskie_2014_2020/programowanie_2014_2020/strony/glowna.aspx16 http://www.mir.gov.pl/FUNDUSZE/FUNDUSZE_EUROPEJSKIE_2014_2020/PROGRAMOWANIE _2014 _2020/ UMOWA_PARTNERSTWA/Strony/glowna.aspx

be carried out in urban areas and support will be given to projects on comprehensive revitalisation (including in the social sphere), green urban transport and the low-emission economy. These revitalisation measures will cover social issues (action to help people who are socially excluded, improve access to services and provide support for the poor), economic issues (supporting businesses and self-employment, the social economy and worker mobility) as well as spatial planning issues (optimal land management and management of environmental resources). In addition, the capital cities of Poland's voivodships will carry out a number of joint projects with their surrounding municipalities in areas such as communication access.

The partnership agreement for 2014-2020 will be delivered via six national programmes, including one supra-regional programme for the regions of Eastern Poland, as well as through 16 regional operational programmes. The main emphasis will be placed on measures aimed at enhancing the innovation and competitiveness of an economy based on knowledge, intellectual capital and the results of digital change. In total, over EUR 18 billion will be allocated to innovation, research and development work, information and communication technologies and enhancing the competitiveness of businesses. The completion of the negotiations on Poland's partnership agreement and its approval by the European Commission on 23 May 2014 opened the door for the negotiation and approval of the national and regional operational programmes. Together, they will form a system of strategic and programming documents for the 2014-2020 financial perspective.

The partnership agreement, the key document which outlines the areas that will receive support under the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund in 2014-2020, was drawn up in accordance with the Partnership Agreement Objectives for 2014-2020, as prepared by the Ministry of Infrastructure and Development and adopted by Poland's Council of Ministers. This agreement was submitted to the European Commission by the deadline set out in Regulation No 1303/2013. The Minister submitted the draft partnership agreement to the European Commission on 10 January 2014 and Poland was

28Preparation of programming documents for the EU cohesion policy for the years 2014-2020 in Poland continued

the first Member State to do so17. The partnership agreement was approved by the European Commission on 23 May 2014. Only two other Member States - Denmark and Germany - signed their partnership agreements with the Commission before Poland.18 The final version of the partnership agreement, approved by the European Commission on 23 May 2014, differs in certain aspects from the draft agreement, which means it was necessary to adjust some of the provisions of the draft operational programmes in line with the approved version of the partnership agreement.

A total of six national programmes and 16 regional programmes will be implemented as part of the European Union's new financial perspective for 2014-2020.

Infrastructure and Environment Operational Programme – its aim will be to promote an economy that makes efficient use of its resources, is environmentally friendly and fosters territorial and social cohesion. The most important beneficiaries under the programme will include organisations from both the public sector (including the regional government) and the private sector - businesses. The programme will promote cities in particular by allocating them a special pool of resources for transport and improved energy efficiency.

Smart Growth Operational Programme – action taken under the programme aims to enhance the competitiveness and innovation of the Polish economy, by increasing the amount of private investment in research and development. This investment will focus on establishing new ties and strengthening existing ones between the business and academic worlds and on developing business innovation, improving the quality of research and the position of Poland's research facilities in the European Research Area. The main beneficiaries of this support include businesses (in particular SMEs) as well as research institutes, clusters and business environment institutions.

17 Więcej euro dla przedsiębiorców (More Euros for businesses) „Rzeczpospolita” newspaper, 29.04.2014, p. B16. Ruszyły rozmowy o umowie partnerstwa (Partnership Agreement talks have begun) „Rzeczpospolita” newspaper, 6.03.2013,p. B2.18 Będą dominować dotacje (Subsidies will dominate) „Rzeczpospolita” newspaper, 26.05.2014, p. B16.

Knowledge, Education and Development Operational Programme - this programme will focus on supporting the quality, effectiveness and open nature of higher education as an instrument for developing a knowledge-based economy.

Digital Poland Operational Programme focuses on the area of information and communication technologies (ICT), in particular projects involving the creation of broadband networks (primarily access network) and the development of e-services at central level. In addition, alongside the support provided under other programmes, action will also be taken to develop digital skills.

Eastern Poland Operational Programme - an additional instrument of support for this macro-region. The main emphasis will be placed on enhancing the competitiveness of Eastern Poland through measures to boost its economic development, including making its economy more innovative and developing its labour markets, located in large urban areas.

Technical Assistance Operational Programme - Its main aim is to ensure an effective system for implementing Cohesion Policy funding.

Regional Operational Programmes (ROPs) - their aim will be to enhance the competitiveness of the regions and to raise local standard of living by tapping into the potential of the regions and eliminating any barriers to development. The emphasis will primarily be placed on supporting entrepreneurship, education, employment and social inclusion, information and communication technologies, environmental protection infrastructure, energy and transport. Regional Operational Programmes will be financed by the ERDF and the ESF.

The division of structural funds into national and regional operational programmes for 2014-2020 is set out in Table 1. 

29

27,41

8,614,69 3,47 2,87 2,44 2,25 2,25 2,22 2,17 2,11 2,08 2,00 1,90 1,86 1,72 1,59 1,36 1,21 0,94 0,90 0,70

05

1015202530

Allocation for the years 2014-2020 in EUR billion.

Source: based on the partnership agreement for 2014-2020

Table 1

In accordance with the objectives of the partnership agreement, the following were responsible for drawing up the draft operational programmes: the minister responsible for regional development (in the case of national operational programmes) and the executive authorities of Poland's voivodships (in the case of regional operational programmes). The above institutions were responsible for preparing the draft versions of the programmes, as well as for carrying out all necessary procedures, such as ex-ante evaluations19, strategic environmental impact assessments and social consultations. This action was carried out in line with the timetable established by the Ministry of Infrastructure and Development and set out in the document Methods for the organisation of work on the programme documents relating to the EU's 2014-2020 financial perspective and presented to Poland's Council of Ministers. During the work on the draft versions of the operational programmes, a simultaneous

19 An ex ante analysis is an evaluation of an operational programme that is carried out before it begins. It is closely linked to the programming process and its main products are conclusions and recommendations, which take the form of proposals for changes in the rules of the given operational programme.

assessment was carried out of their compliance with the draft partnership agreement while an ex-ante analysis and strategic environmental impact assessment were also prepared at the same time. Following the adoption of the draft partnership agreement and of the draft operational programmes by Poland's Council of Ministers, they were submitted to the European Commission for negotiation and approval. Due to carrying out the work on preparing the various documents for 2014-2020 at the same time, particularly the partnership agreement and operational programmes, it was possible to speed up the process of drawing up and approving the draft versions of these documents at national and regional level.

In accordance with the partnership agreement, the minister responsible for regional development acts as the managing authority for Poland's national operational programmes, while the executive authorities of Poland's voivodships act as the managing authorities for the regional operational programmes. This document provided that approximately 60% of ERDF funding and 75% of ESF resources would be allocated to regional operational programmes, substantially increasing the level of decentralisation as well

Allocation of structural funds and the Cohesion Fund among the national and regional operational programmes for 2014-2020 in Poland.

30Preparation of programming documents for the EU cohesion policy for the years 2014-2020 in Poland continued

as the responsibility of regional government for implementing regional policy.

The draft versions of the national operational programmes and regional operational programmes include a number of simplifications for reducing the administrative burden involved in implementing funds during 2014-2020, which the managing authorities were able to introduce. They concern both legal and institutional regulations, including the method used to apply for funding as well as how beneficiaries implement, and financially report on, their projects. Among others, there are plans to:

- reduce the number of documents to be attached to funding applications;

- make it possible to correct or include additional information in funding applications following the discovery of non-material errors;

- allow the settlement of indirect costs using flat rates and the use of lump sum amounts and unit rates in expenditure statements,

- simplify invoice descriptions by reducing the amount of data to be provided;

- simplify the reporting section in the payment application.

The negotiations with the European Commission on the national operational programmes began in the first week of July 20. The deadline for commencing the implementation of European funds is dependent on the speed and efficiency with which the operational programmes are agreed with the European Commission. 21.

The Act on the Rules for the Implementation of Programmes in the area of Cohesion Policy funded during the 2014-2020 financial perspective, adopted by the Polish Parliament on 11 July 2014, provides a legal framework which will represent the basis for the implementation of the partnership agreement, including the rules for the implementation of

20 Nowe programy pod lupą Brukseli (Brussels puts new programmes under the microscope) „Rzeczpospolita” newspaper, 3.07.2014, p. B7.21 Unijne miliardy dotrą z ogromnym poślizgiem (EU billions will arrive with a huge delay) „Rzeczpospolita” newspaper, 10.10.2014, p. B1.

Cohesion Policy operational programmes in the 2014-2020 financial perspective. This Act introduces a mechanism for coordinating the implementation of operational programmes by the minister responsible for regional development, sets out the rights and obligations of beneficiaries, identifies the entities involved in the process of implementing Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund, defines the rules for implementation and the key documents used to implement the funds in Poland. The Act introduces a number of specific provisions, specifying in more detail those EU rules which are imprecise or inadequate, relating among others to irregularities, systems of financial corrections and audit 22.

Conclusion

The method and timing of the work relating to the programming documents at European and national level was dependent on the timetable for the adoption and issuing of legal acts at EU level. In December 2013, the Council of the EU and the European Parliament adopted a package of regulations for the 2014-2020 financial perspective. Regulation No 1303/2013 stipulated that the European Commission has the exclusive right to issue implementing and delegated acts setting out in detail the provisions of this Regulation. At the time the audit was carried out, the process of creating an EU framework for the implementation of funding for 2014-2020 had yet to be completed and many aspects of the implementation of the financial perspective still needed to be established by the European Commission. The above conditions had a significant impact on the timetable and pace of the work involved in preparing institutional and legal measures at the Ministry of Infrastructure and Development and in the regions. In addition, the final shape of the procedures and guidelines of the ROPs is dependent on the Minister of Infrastructure and Development issuing horizontal guidelines which, in turn, is subject to the European Commission issuing legal acts and guidelines.

22 More information about the legal solutions introduced by the Act of 13 September 2014 on the rules for the implementation of programmes in the area of Cohesion Policy funded during the 2014-2020 financial perspective: M. Szymański, System wdrażania i kontroli projektów Unii Europejskiej (The system for implementation and control of EU projects). „Kontrola Państwowa”, No 5/2014.

31

During the NIK audit, the regional governments identified the most pressing problems which, in their opinion, could act as an obstacle to commencing the implementation of the ROPs. The regional governments considered the following to represent potential problems:

- the risk that the initial conditions (the so-called ex ante conditions) which are binding at national level may not be considered by the European Commission to have been fully met, which could lead to the lack of the European Commission's approval to start implementing part of the ROP's activities.

- the risk that the internal procedures of institutions and the programme guidelines will not be ready immediately after the ROP's approval due to a lack of implementing acts and guidelines from the European Commission and an absence of horizontal guidelines from the Ministry of Infrastructure and Development.

Ensuring the efficient and effective implementation of cohesion policy is dependent on designing the measures included in operational programmes in such a way that they can deliver the objectives of the partnership agreement and the planned results.

32

Comment vous procurer le Journal de la Cour des comptes européenne?Publication gratuite disponible sur le site de EU bookshop: http://bookshop.europa.euHow to obtain the Journal of the European Court of AuditorsFree publication via EU Bookshop: http://bookshop.europa.eu © European Union, 2014 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged/Reproduction autorisée à condition de mentionner la source

Cover: - Audit team special report N° 21/2014- Professor Dimitrios Vayanos, London School of Economics, Nikolaos Vettas, Professor, Athens University of Economics and Business

EUROPEANCOURTOF AUDITORS

ISSN 1831-449X

For more information:

European Court of Auditors12, rue Alcide De Gasperi1615 LuxembourgLUXEMBOURG eca-journal@eca.europa.eu

eca.europa.eu

EUAuditorsECA

QJ-A

D-15-001-2A-N

Main Contents

02 SPECIAL REPORT No 21/2014 EU-FUNDED AIRPORT INFRASTRUCTURES: POOR VALUE FOR MONEY 07 CRISIS IN THE EUROZONE PERIPHERY: POLICY OPTIONS FOR GREECE

10 CREDIBLE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN PUBLIC AUTHORITIES AND THE PUBLIC

12 PRESENTATION OF THE 2013 ANNUAL REPORT TO NATIONAL AUTHORITIES

@EUAuditorsECA