On Tuesday 24 February, the European Court of Auditors published two opinions dealing respectively with the Commission’s proposal for the future Fund for economic, social and territorial cohesion, agriculture and rural, fisheries and maritime, prosperity and security for (‘European Fund’) for the period 2028-2034 and the new framework for monitoring expenditure performance.
This European Fund would bring together funding hitherto provided separately for cohesion policy, the common agricultural policy and fisheries, as well as areas relating to prosperity and security, including certain aspects of migration and justice.
It represents almost 44% of the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2028-2034 (see EUROPE 13682/1), or around €865 billion in current prices.
A change in payment method. According to the Court of Auditors, the proposal changes the payment logic. The current system is based mainly on the reimbursement of certified expenditure.
However, the model envisaged would provide for payments triggered by the achievement of milestones and targets defined in national and regional partnership plans. According to the auditors, this development may simplify certain processes and speed up disbursements, but it presupposes a rigorous upstream method for defining measurable objectives that are comparable between Member States and accompanied by clear verification criteria.
In its opinion, the Court of Auditors points out that the milestones and targets must be formulated in a sufficiently precise manner to make it possible to determine unambiguously whether they have been achieved.
It considers that possible differences in conception and ambition between Member States may have consequences for equal treatment and the comparable assessment of results. Some of the proposed achievement indicators may cover very different situations, with varying levels of requirement, which would make the overall assessment of performance more complex.
In addition, the auditors question the central role of cost estimates prior to implementation. The amount of EU aid would be set on the basis of these estimates and would not be adjusted to reflect the costs actually incurred.
The Court of Auditors considers that the text does not provide a sufficiently detailed framework for the preparation and evaluation of these estimates.
It argues that, without a harmonised methodology, contrary assumptions could lead to very different valuations of comparable measures in different countries, with a risk of overestimation.
On the subject of controls, the Court of Auditors points out that management will continue to be shared between the Commission and the Member States.
It considers that the Commission’s ultimate responsibility cannot be dissociated from the obligation to verify the legality and regularity of expenditure.
The auditors note that the proposed arrangements would place greater reliance on national systems for assurance, whereas their previous work has regularly highlighted control weaknesses. They state that clear audit requirements and financial consequences for non-compliance with EU law and national rules should be provided for.
To see the Court’s opinion: https://aeur.eu/f/kvv
An incomplete performance measure. The second opinion concerns the horizontal framework for monitoring and measuring performance that would accompany the European Fund and more than fifty programmes.
While the Court of Auditors recognises that the harmonisation of indicators can improve the consistency of the information provided, it notes that a quarter of the areas of intervention do not include result indicators and that no impact indicators are planned.
According to the Court of Auditors, this weakness could make it difficult to assess the real effects of the policies financed and would limit the scope of a posteriori evaluations. The auditors consider that there is a risk of measuring mainly the administrative progress of programmes rather than the achievement of the objectives set by the European Union.
With regard to the Common Agricultural Policy, the Court of Auditors notes that certain interventions could continue to be financed on an output basis in order to ensure continuity with existing mechanisms. However, it considers that the regulation should specify which interventions would fall under this logic and which would be subject to the system of milestones and targets in order to avoid interpretations that would not be consistent.
Later that day, the members of the Court of Auditors presented their opinion to the European Parliament’s Committees on Budgets, Regional Development and Agriculture.
According to the Court of Auditors, the debate should make it possible to specify the governance of the future European Fund, the control procedures and the conditions for reliable performance monitoring, in order to guarantee the sound management of European public funds and the reliability of the information communicated to the institutions and citizens.
To see the Court’s second opinion: https://aeur.eu/f/kvw (Original version in French by Nithya Paquiry)