Talousarvion valvontavaliokunta

Transkriptio

1 Euroopan parlamentti Talousarvion valvontavaliokunta TYÖASIAKIRJA tilintarkastustuomioistuimen erityiskertomuksesta nro 21/2015: EU:n kehitysyhteistyötoimia koskevaan tulosperusteiseen lähestymistapaan liittyvien riskien arviointi (vastuuvapaus 2015) Talousarvion valvontavaliokunta Esittelijä: Bart Staes DT\ doc PE v02-00 Moninaisuudessaan yhtenäinen

2 Introduction Substantial resources are devoted to assisting the development of the world s poorest countries. While emphasising the fact that there is no single source of data on development finance, the Commission estimated in July 2014 that the cumulative resources available to developing countries over the ten-year period from 2002 were in the region of billion USD, including domestic and international public and private finance. As part of the commitment to attain the internationally agreed Official Development Assistance (ODA) target of an ODA/GNI ratio of 0.7 %, in 2013, collective EU (including Member State) net ODA spending was 56.5 billion euro, which is equivalent to an ODA/GNI ratio of 0.43 % of the EU s collective GNI. The amounts scheduled to be made available for development and cooperation over the period are million euros through the EU general budget, and million euros for ACP countries through the European Development Fund. Furthermore, to establish the credibility of development assistance, particularly as regards the instruments used, aid delivery methods and the funds concerned, it is essential that the results achieved with this support can be demonstrated. Recently, there has been renewed interest on the part of the European Parliament and the Council in shifting the focus of EU development and cooperation policies from activities to results. Public accountability is also an important issue. In a report published in January 2014, the European Parliament pointed out that activity-based budgeting [was] still the fundamental principle when drafting the budget of the Union, and regretted that some of the proposals for the programming period remained fundamentally input-based (expenditure oriented) and, therefore, still focused on compliance with the rules rather than on performance. The Parliament also pointed out that the performance framework used by the Commission for the Multi-Annual Financial Framework should encompass the following three main elements (i) achievement of programme objectives (results), (ii) sound programme management by the Commission and the Member States, (iii) the contribution of programme results and sound management to the Union s main objectives. The Commission also defined its new results framework in two Staff Working Documents issued in 2013 and Besides the development of the framework of EU development and cooperation, the results policy and regulatory background was also progressively refined with the emergence of consensus among donors and partner s countries around key principles such as aid effectiveness, the partner country ownership of development results, the reliance on partner s countries frameworks, the harmonisation of donors monitoring and reporting. With regard to regularity, the accountability for results is based on several provisions included in 1 The Commission issued a first Staff Working Document in December 2013 on Paving the way for an EU Development and Cooperation Results Framework. In March 2015, the Commission presented the framework by issuing another Staff Working Document on Launching the EU International Cooperation and Development Results framework, the latter defining the results framework with the following mains purposes (i) an accountability tool to inform stakeholders of the results achieved and a management tool to provide performance data as a basis for management decisions and (ii) to reinforce the annual report as of 2015 in order to demonstrate how funds spent contribute to the achievement of the policy objectives. PE v /2 DT\ doc

3 the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union 1 and the Financial regulation 2. Audit Scope and Objectives The Court analysis aimed to provide in a single document an overview of what the Court considers to be the main risk areas related to a results approach for EU development and cooperation action. It also illustrates the risks concerned on the basis of experience acquired by the Court through its audits in the field of external actions. It is particularly relevant in the context of current discussions related to the Commission s performance framework and the implementation of a results framework for EU international cooperation and development action. The Court review was guided by the following question: did the Commission adequately address the key risks entailed by a results approach for EU development and cooperation measures? The Court carried out its review work between October 2014 and January It consisted of a desk review of documentation from EU institutions and other major multilateral and bilateral aid donors, as well as interviews with EU Commission staff, including from the EU delegation in Cambodia, and officials from two international organisations and several implementing bodies. A screening of ECA special reports published in recent years was also carried out in order to illustrate the key risk areas identified with specific examples. The timescale of development actions is such that these examples sometimes relate to actions undertaken several years ago. Court's Findings and Observations On the basis of its review, the Court identified nine key risk areas related to a results-oriented approach for EU development and cooperation action: Formulation of objectives and indicators and establishment of the results chain The Court stated that the use of inconsistent results-related terminology or failure to establish a clear logical chain between action, outputs, outcome and impact can be a source of confusion and undermine the assessment of what has been achieved while also considered the definition of SMART i.e. realistic objectives with pre-defined clear and measurable indicators as to be further improved. The Court recalled that, in previous audits, it was found that, in some cases, the initial objective was met by partner countries but without producing significant results in term of development. It was also noted by the Court that it was sometimes difficult to assess which part of the results was attributable to the EU funding or to other donors interventions, this situation relating in fine to the political question of results ownership. Increased complexity due to the integration of cross-cutting issues The Court observed that increased complexity due to the integration of cross-cutting issues in 1 Article evaluation report by the Commission on the Union s finances based on results achieved and article submission of observations by the Court of Auditors particularly through special reports. 2 Article 30.3 monitoring by performance indicators for each activity, article30.4 ex ante and ex post evaluations of all programmes and activities entailing significant spending. DT\ doc 3/3 PE v02-00

4 EU programmes represents a supplementary risk for the achievement and reporting of results. Harmonisation between development partners instruments and frameworks The audit review showed that the lack of harmonisation between development partners aid delivery instruments, results framework and accountability structures can generate inefficiencies and accountability gaps. The Court noted that when partner countries were facing several types of reporting obligations and payment conditions from different international donors, it was triggering to a negative effect on aid effectiveness and efficiency. The same type of consequence could also be made when various existing accountability structures were coexisting either in terms of governance, results framework or external audits requirements. Weaknesses in evaluation and results reporting Weaknesses were identified by the Court in the evaluation and results reporting that can prevent the feedback of relevant knowledge and lessons-learnt into reporting and decisionmaking processes. In previous audit reports, the Court had found that, in some cases, the achievement of projects could not be evaluated before their complete finalisation thus undermining any periodic review of the results achieved as well as delays in the timely delivery of evaluations, postponements or cancellations, the latter disserving the appropriate management process of interventions. Data consolidation and reporting The Court reported a lack of consolidated reports on or an overview of results achieved by EU aid that can impair decision making and accountability. Collecting results-related data is considered as an issue to be further rationalised and developed. Data quality In addition to the data consolidation, the Court considered that there was a lack of sufficient, relevant, reliable and up-to-date data which significantly weaken the quality and reliability of reported results. Budgetary outturn With regard to the budget implementation, the Court stated that focusing on budgetary outturn as the sole management objective can be detrimental to the principle of sound financial management and the achievement of results. Changes in EU actions context In its previous audit reports, the Court showed that sometimes the choice of an aid implementation modality was not founded on a sufficient preliminary risks analysis entailed with regard to the expected capacity to deliver results in a given context and expected advantages or benefits. The Court furthermore noted that significant changes (political, economic or natural disasters) in the context of actions can undermine the achievement or sustainability of results, and make it difficult to assess the results achieved. Summary of the Commission Replies PE v /4 DT\ doc

5 The Commission estimated that the nature of the Court s review was such that it included examples which sometimes related to actions undertaken several years ago. This is in particular true in relation to the examples relating to budget support, for which a number of risks have been addressed through the adoption of revised budget support guidelines in 2012, as well as for the examples relating to multi-annual programming documents (strategy papers or indicative programmes), for which the Commission would like to point out that it has systematically included indicators in the programming documents for the period Court's recommendations The Court review showed that globally these risk areas had been correctly identified by the Commission in a wide range of documents. It also showed the interest for the actions that are being undertaken by the Commission to launch an EU development and cooperation results framework. Nevertheless, further actions remain to be taken in order to harness the full potential of the Commission s initiatives for improved EU development and cooperation results. In this context, the Court makes five recommendations in order to mitigate the risks identified: 1. The Commission should improve its guidelines to ensure the consistent use of terminology regarding results (outputs, outcomes, impacts) and, where relevant, to formulate SMART objectives and clear indicators for its interventions at all levels; 2. Through its internal guidelines, practical tools, project formulation and monitoring processes, the Commission should ensure that a clear link is established between actions and expected results, including cross-cutting issues; 3. The Commission should improve its information system in order to be able to effectively consolidate and report on the results of its interventions. This should be complemented by measures enabling the Commission s evaluation activities to identify useful lessons for subsequent legislation, programming or action design in the areas concerned; 4. In all its interventions, the Commission should assess data availability and quality, and strive to have sufficient, relevant, reliable and up-to-date data on results achieved. This should be reflected in its systems and guidelines; 5. Before committing its financial resources, and when considering the expected results, the Commission should also assess the risks inherent to its choice of a particular implementation modality. Esittelijän suositukset mahdollisesti sisällytettäväksi vuotuiseen mietintöön vastuuvapauden myöntämisestä komissiolle [Euroopan parlamentti, joka] 6. suhtautuu myönteisesti EU:n kehitysyhteistyötoimia koskevaan tulosperusteiseen lähestymistapaan liittyvien riskien arviointia koskevaan erityiskertomukseen ja esittää jäljempänä huomioitaan ja suosituksiaan; DT\ doc 5/5 PE v02-00

6 7. panee merkille, että komissio on sisällyttänyt riskejä koskevan kysymyksen ulkoisten toimiensa hallinnointiin, jolle on tyypillistä monimutkainen ja epävarma toimintaympäristö sekä useat erityyppiset riskit kumppanimaiden erilaisten kehitystasojen ja hallintorakenteiden vuoksi; 8. pitää erityisen myönteisenä tilintarkastustuomioistuimen komissiolle esittämää suositusta parantaa pitkän aikavälin tuloksiin (tuotokset, tulokset ja vaikutukset) liittyvän terminologian käyttöä ja korostaa, että ennen hankkeiden rahoittamista koskevien päätösten tekemistä on tärkeää laatia aidot SMART-tavoitteet (täsmälliset, mitattavissa ja saavutettavissa olevat, asiaankuuluvat ja ajallisesti määrätyt tavoitteet); 9. korostaa tarvetta kiinnittää enemmän huomiota saavutettavissa olevien ja realististen tavoitteiden asettamiseen sellaisten tilanteiden välttämiseksi, joissa kumppanimaat saavuttavat alkuperäiset tavoitteet mutta tulokset eivät ole merkittäviä kehityksen kannalta; 10. pitää välttämättömänä pidättyä keskittymästä talousarvion toteutumaan ainoana hallinnollisena tavoitteena, koska se voi olla haitallista moitteettoman varainhoidon ja tulosten saavuttamisen kannalta; 11. palauttaa mieliin, että erittäin riskialttiiden tekijöiden (ulkoiset ja operatiiviset tekijät, rahoitustekijät) säännöllinen seuranta ja kartoitus ja niiden ilmaiseminen määrällisesti hankkeen määrittelyvaiheesta toteutusvaiheeseen saakka on hyvän varainhoidon ja menojen laadun edellytys sekä edellytys sille, että voidaan varmistaa unionin toimien uskottavuus, kestävyys ja maine; katsoo, että toimien ja maiden riskiprofiilien luominen helpottaa myös riskien nopeaa lieventämistä koskevan strategian laatimista, mikäli tilanne kumppanimaassa heikkenee; 12. korostaa tarvetta mukauttaa säännöllisesti valvontaympäristöä ja riskinhallintatoimia, jotta voidaan ottaa huomioon uudenlaisten tukivälineiden ja -järjestelyjen, kuten yhdistelmärahoituksen, erityisrahastojen ja muiden kansainvälisten elinten kanssa toteutettavien rahoituskumppanuuksien, syntyminen; 13. toteaa jälleen, että varojen hyödyntämisen, sääntöjen noudattamisen ja tuloksellisuuden välillä tarvitaan uutta tasapainoa, joka on otettava huomioon toimien hallinnoinnissa; 14. katsoo, että myös kumppanimaiden valmiuksien luomisen, hallintorakenteiden ja omavastuullisuuden kehittäminen on hyvä tapa lieventää järjestelmäriskejä sellaisen ympäristön suosimiseksi, jossa varat päätyvät kohteisiin, joihin ne on tarkoitettu, ja ovat taloudellisuuden, tehokkuuden ja vaikuttavuuden vaatimuksen mukaisia; 15. pitää välttämättömänä myös lujittaa poliittista ja toimintapoliittista vuoropuhelua, avun ehdollisuutta ja loogista viitekehystä, jotta rahoitussopimuksissa voidaan varmistaa johdonmukaisuus maksuja ja maksatusta koskevan päätöksen ja niiden ennakkoehtojen välillä luomalla selvä yhteys maksujen ja toimien toteuttamisen ja tulosten sekä valittujen tavoitteiden ja indikaattoreiden merkityksellisyyden välille; 16. kehottaa kansainvälisiä elimiä varsinkin erityisesti yhteisrahoitettavissa ja usean rahoittajan hankkeissa PE v /6 DT\ doc

7 arvioimaan ja suunnittelemaan hankkeen tulevia etuja sekä tapaa, jolla kukin kumppani osallistuu lopputulosten ja laajemman vaikutuksen aikaansaamiseen, jotta vältetään kysymykset siitä, mikä osa tuloksista oli unionin rahoituksen tai muun rahoittajan toimien ansiota yhdistämään hallintorakenteensa unionin rakenteeseen erityisesti parantamalla riskinhallintakeinojaan; katsoo, että varojen yhdistämistä olisi seurattava tarkasti tähän liittyvän suuren rahoitusriskin vuoksi; 17. kehottaa ottamaan opiksi kaikista päätöksentekoprosessissa saaduista kokemuksista ja siten varmistamaan, että arviointien ja toimintapolitiikan laatimisen välinen yhteys on toimiva; 18. toteaa jälleen, että tuloksellisuuden seurannan ja tulosten arvioinnin heikentäminen on haitaksi julkiselle vastuuvelvollisuudelle ja päätöksentekijöiden kattavalle tiedonsaannille. DT\ doc 7/7 PE v02-00