Special Report No 19/2012 ‘2011 report on the follow-up of the European Court of Auditors’ special reports’
Date: 2012-12-19
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: European Commission, European Court of Auditors, audit, budgetary control, recommendation (EU)

EUROPEAN
COURT OF AUDITORS

4
3
8
0
-
1
3
8
1
N
S
S

I

2
1
0
2

9
1
o
N
t
r
o
p
e
R

l

a
i
c
e
p
S

2011 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF 
THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS’ 
SPECIAL REPORTS

EN

 
 
 
 
Special Report No 19 

 2012

2011 REPORT  
OF THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE 
EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS' 
SPECIAL REPORTS

(pursuant to Article 287(4), second subparagraph, TFEU)

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS
12, rue Alcide De Gasperi
1615 Luxembourg
LUXEMBOURG

Tel. +352 4398-1
Fax +352 4398-46410
E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu
Internet: http://eca.europa.eu

Special Report No 19 

 2012

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet.
It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu).

Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2012

ISBN 978-92-9237-898-1
doi:10.2865/24087

© European Union, 2012
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed in Luxembourg

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

SCOPE AND APPROACH

COMMISSION’S SYSTEM FOR FOLLOW-UP OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Paragraphs

I–IV 

1–3 

4 

5–8 

9–10 

COMMISSION’S RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S RECOMMENDATIONS

11–20 

SUMMARY OF THE COURT’S FOLLOW-UP REVIEW

21–22 

CONCLUSION

ANNEX I 

— 

 OVERVIEW OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH WERE REVIEWED BY THE COURT

ANNEX II  — 

 AGRICULTURE: LESS-FAVOURED AREAS

ANNEX III  — 

 AGRICULTURE: PRODUCTION AID FOR COTTON

ANNEX IV  — 

 AGRICULTURE: THE SUSTAINABILITY AND THE COMMISSION’S MANAGEMENT OF 
THE LIFE-NATURE PROJECTS

ANNEX V  — 

 ENERGY: INTELLIGENT ENERGY 2003-2006

ANNEX VI  — 

 EXTERNAL ACTIONS: EFFECTIVENESS OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR 
DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

ANNEX VII  — 

 EXTERNAL ACTIONS: NON-STATE ACTORS' INVOLVEMENT IN EC DEVELOPMENT 
COOPERATION

ANNEX VIII  — 

 EXTERNAL ACTIONS: PRE-ACCESSION ASSISTANCE TO TURKEY

ANNEX IX  — 

 FOLLOW-UP OF COURT’S SPECIAL REPORTS 2005–09

ANNEX X  — 

 METHODOLOGY

REPLY OF THE COMMISSION

3

2011 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS' SPECIAL REPORTS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ALA: Asian and Latin American countries

APC: African, Caribbean and Pacific countries

Cisoch: Civil Society Helpdesk

EACI: Executive Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation

GAEC: good agricultural and environmental conditions

IEE: intelligent energy for Europe

IPA: Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance

LFA: less-favoured areas

LIFE: Financial Instrument for the Environment

MIPD: multiannual indicative planning document 

NSA: non-state actors

PADOR: Potential Applicant Data Online Registration

RAD: Recommendations, Actions, Discharge (database)

SMR: statutory management requirements

TC: technical cooperation

4

2011 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS' SPECIAL REPORTSEXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I.
T h i s   re p o r t   re v i e w s   t h e   e x te n t   to   w h i c h   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n   h a s   i m p l e m e n te d   t h e 
recommendations in seven of the Court’s special reports selected from the period 2003–09. 
The special reports followed up were in respect of three budgetary areas: agriculture, energy 
and external actions.

II.
The seven reports contained 51 audit recommendations, of which 45 are still relevant.

III.
While the Commission has a system in place to follow-up all recommendations of the Court 
and the requests of the Parliament and the Council, the Court considers that the follow-up of 
recommendations/requests needs to be strengthened to enable the Commission to respond 
in a timely, efficient and effective manner to the underlying weaknesses uncovered as well 
as to the recommendations/requests of the Court and the discharge authority.

IV.
The  review  has  shown  that  the  Commission  takes  action  to  implement  the  Cour t ’s 
recommendations and 13 (29 %) of the recommendations dealt with in this report are fully 
implemented. A large number are still being implemented, although for a further 22 (49 %) 
of the recommendations the actions already taken by the Commission implement these in 
most respects.

5

2011 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS' SPECIAL REPORTSINTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of the work 
carried out by the Court in 2011/2012 con-
cerning the follow-up of the recommenda-
tions  of  the  Court’s  special  reports  on  per-
formance audit 1. Annex I gives an overview 
of the status of the recommendations which 
were reviewed. Annexes II to VIII present the 
details of the follow-up.

3. 

The follow-up of audit reports is considered 
by  international  auditing  standards  as  the 
 final stage in the performance audit cycle of 
planning, execution and follow-up. The ob-
jective of this follow-up exercise is to assess 
actions taken by the Commission in response 
to the Court’s recommendations.

Seven reports were selected for this follow-up 
exercise from the period 2003–09. The selec-
tion was made firstly on the basis of whether 
more than 2 to 3 years have elapsed for the 
Commission to address the recommendations, 
and secondly, whether the recommendations 
are still relevant. Annex IX presents a listing of 
the Court’s special reports for the period 2005 
to 2009 with details of the Court’s follow-up 
actions for these reports.

1  The content and scope of this work is explained in the section 

on scope and approach.

1. 

2. 

6

2011 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS' SPECIAL REPORTSSCOPE AND APPROACH

4. 

The  Cour t  assessed  the  corrective  actions 
taken by the Commission in response to the 
Court’s recommendations. This work did not 
include an assessment of the effects of these 
actions as this would require separate follow-
up audits.

Details of the approach and methodology used are 
contained  in  Annex  X. The  special  repor ts  men-
tioned in the Table are the subject matter of this 
report:

TABLE

SPECIAL REPORTS FOLLOWED UP IN THIS REPORT

Special report

Budgetary area

Number of audit 
recommendations

4/2003
concerning rural development: support for less-favoured areas1

Agriculture

11

13/2003
concerning production aid for cotton2

11/2009
The sustainability and the Commission’s management of the LIFE-Nature projects3 

7/2008
Intelligent energy 2003-20063

Agriculture

Agriculture

Energy

6/2007
on the effectiveness of technical assistance in the context of capacity development4

External actions

4/2009
The Commission’s management of non-state actors' involvement in  
EC development cooperation3

16/2009
The European Commission’s management of pre-accession assistance to Turkey3

External actions

External actions

Total number of recommendations

6

9

4

8

7

6

51

1  OJ C 151, 27.6.2003.
2  OJ C 298, 9.12.2003.
3  http://eca.europa.eu
4  OJ C 312, 21.12.2007. 

7

2011 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS' SPECIAL REPORTS5. 

6. 

COMMISSION’S SYSTEM FOR FOLLOW-UP  
OF RECOMMENDATIONS

7. 

The RAD database 2 records the recommen-
dations  of  the  Cour t,  the  requests  of  the 
Council and the Parliament and the specific 
actions agreed by the Commission to address 
these recommendations/requests. Such a tool 
serves an important function in ensuring the 
proper and timely management and follow-
up of recommendations/requests of the Court 
and other stakeholders.

In 2011 ten internal audit capabilities repre-
senting  twelve  directorates-general  of  the 
Commission  carried  out  an  internal  audit 
of  the  systems  and  procedures  in  place  for 
the management of RAD. The purpose of the 
audit was to determine the existence of an 
adequate  reply/action  plan  and  to  provide 
assurance that actions, which were reported 
in RAD as completed, were implemented in a 
timely, efficient and effective manner.

In 2009, the Court carried out a pilot review 
of the RAD system, in particular studying in-
formation in this database on recommenda-
tions accepted by the Commission and those 
implemented.

8. 

2  RAD (Recommendations, Actions, Discharge) is a Commission 
(DG Budget) application for inter-service coordination of the 
discharge procedure. It contains recommendations/requests 
to the Commission by the Council, the Parliament and the 
ECA, the Commission’s response and the status of the follow-
up action.

The results of the Commission’s internal  audit 
largely  confirmed  the  conclusions  of  the 
Court’s pilot review. In particular, the intern-
al  audit  found  that  while  the  systems  and 
proced ures in place provide reasonable assur-
ance regarding the management of the imple-
mentation of the recommendations/requests 
issued by the ECA and the discharge author-
ity respectively, there were many instances 
of  an  absence  of  documented  procedures, 
and inadequate supervision and monitoring 
of the implementation of recommendations/
requests.

8

IC (extern) • 12/5/12, 9:02 AM

OK

2011 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS' SPECIAL REPORTSCOMMISSION’S RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S 
RECOMMENDATIONS

10.  This means that the Court could assess the 
status of implementation of 45 recommen-
dations. The Commission fully implemented 
29 %  of  these  45  recommendations,  while 
69 %  are  being  implemented.  The  Figure 
shows  the  state  of  implementation  of  the 
Court’s recommendations.

9. 

In the special reports reviewed, the Court pre-
sented 51 recommendations. Approximately 
two thirds of these related to effectiveness 
issues (e.g. the setting of strategic objectives, 
the preparation of project proposals, the de-
sign  of  projects,  project  per formance,  and 
monitoring and evaluation), with the remain-
ing recommendations dealing with economy 
and efficiency issues (e.g. the occurrence of 
overpayments and the quality and timeliness 
of project selection methods). Out of the 51 
recommendations, six are not covered by the 
Figure. Of those six recommendations, two 
were not applicable under the current frame-
work, and in four other cases it was not pos-
sible to obtain evidence of actions taken due 
to the scope of the follow-up exercise.

FIGURE

STATE OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS

State of implementation of 45 relevant recommendations

Fully (29  %)

In most respects (49  %)

In some respects
(20  %)

Being Implemented (69  %)

0  %

20  %

40  %

60  %

80  %

Not at
all
(2  %)

100  %

9

2011 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS' SPECIAL REPORTS                  
SUMMARY OF THE COURT’S FOLLOW-UP REVIEW

15. 

11.  The review has shown that the Commission 
has fully implemented 13 of the Court’s rec-
ommendations  from  the  repor ts  selected. 
Older recommendations tend to have a high-
er implementation rate whereas the most re-
cent ones are still being implemented. Apart 
from  the  fully  implemented  recommenda-
tions, 22 recommendations are met in most 
respects but the Commission needs to take 
some  fur ther  steps  to  fully  address  them. 
These are indicated in Annex I.

Improvements in the selection procedures for 
projects leading to better quality and more 
timely  projects  were  noted.  For  example, 
measures  taken  by  the  Commission/Turk-
ish authorities contributed to the improved 
quality of the project design and application 
processes in 2010–11 (external actions)5. The 
Commission agreed to review the selection 
procedure  for  LIFE-Nature  projects,  to  give 
a higher priority to the sustainability crite -
rion for the nature and biodiversity compo-
nent and to shorten the selection procedure 
(agriculture)6.

12.  The Court’s follow-up exercise indicates that, 
as  a  result  of  the  Court’s  audit  reports,  im-
provements  in  financial  management  have 
taken place in a  number of areas of the  EU 
budget.  However,  important  opportunities 
still remain to improve management practices 
in areas directly managed by the Commission 
(external  actions)  and  those  implemented 
 under  shared  management  arrangements 
(agriculture).  Some  examples  of  such  im-
provements  and  opportunities  reviewed  in 
the follow-up exercise are presented below.

16.  The Commission also took various initiatives 
to strengthen non-state actors’ involvement 
in EU external cooperation through contracts 
to implement EU development aid. A key ini-
tiative was the development of the ‘structured 
dialogue’ between the main stakeholders in 
European development policy, which contrib-
uted to proposals for improvements in project 
selection methods, for faster and better-tar-
geted aid (external actions)7.

5  See Annex VIII on the follow-up of Special Report No 16/2009 
— The European Commission’s management of pre-accession 
assistance to Turkey.

6  See Annex IV on the follow-up of Special Report No 11/2009 
— The sustainability and the Commission’s management of the 
LIFE-Nature projects.

7  See Annex VII on the follow-up of Special Report No 4/2009 — 
The Commission’s management of non-state actors' involvement 
in EC development cooperation.

13.  A  strategic  improvement  to  the  economic 
use of EU funding was noted in the Commis-
sion’s reform of the cotton support scheme. 
As a result of the reform to the scheme, EU aid 
for cotton is no longer linked to production 
levels, but responds instead to the market de-
mand (agriculture)3.

14.  At an operational level however, poor man-
agement practices can lead to the  wasting 
of resources. For example, overpayments of 
EU aid result in poor economy being achieved 
in the pursuit of objectives. There remains a 
need to strengthen management systems for 
ensuring  the  accuracy  of  payment  calcula-
tions in the Member States (agriculture)4.

3  See Annex III on the follow-up of Special Report No 13/2003 

concerning production aid for cotton.

4  See Annex II on the follow-up of Special Report No 4/2003 
concerning rural development: support for less-favoured areas.

10

2011 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS' SPECIAL REPORTS17. 

I f   g o o d   a n d   e f fe c t i v e   r e s u l t s   a r e   t o   b e 
achieved with EU funds, it is important in the 
first  instance  to  identify  the  needs  which 
a programme or measure intends to address. 
Secondly, good project design and proper 
implementation  procedures  increase  the 
likelihood of achieving value for money. Ini-
tiatives leading to such improvements were 
taken by the Commission regarding compul-
sory needs assessments and better schedul-
ing of contracting (external actions) 8. How-
ever, better-defined criteria for assessing the 
sustainability of proposed projects still need 
to be introduced (agriculture)9.

19.  The  monitoring and evaluation of the im-
plementation of programmes and actions is 
important, not only in matters of legality and 
regularity, but also in the delivery of planned 
outcomes.  While  improvements  have  oc-
curred in the monitoring of programmes’ re-
sults, e.g. measures taken by the Commission 
to enhance the monitoring system in Turkey 
(external actions), and in administrative costs 
(energy), further improvements are needed, 
specifically in monitoring the application of 
controls  as  regards  financial  and  environ-
mental  requirements  (agriculture) 11  and  in 
the reporting of individual project outcomes 
(external actions)12. 

18.  Good  management information increases 
the likelihood of better decision-making. Op-
portunities continue to exist for the Commis-
sion to increase the potential effectiveness of 
funding through better prioritisation of ac-
tions and by matching project costs with their 
expected outputs and impacts (energy)10. The 
Commission proposes that the next LIFE regu-
lation should contain a comprehensive set of 
per formance  indicators  to  facilitate  better 
planning and programming.

8  See Annex VIII on the follow-up of Special Report No 16/2009 
— The European Commission’s management of pre-accession 
assistance to Turkey.

9  See Annex IV on the follow-up of Special Report No 11/2009 
— The sustainability and the Commission’s management of the 
LIFE-Nature projects.

10  See Annex V on the follow-up of Special Report No 7/2008 — 

Intelligent energy 2003-2006.

20.  A  brief  summary  of  the  audits,  recommen-
dations, the subsequent action taken by the 
Commission and performance issues which 
remain to be addressed are contained in An-
nexes II to VIII to this report.

11  See Annex III on the follow-up of Special Report No 13/2003 

concerning production aid for cotton.

12  See Annex VIII on the follow-up of Special Report No 16/2009 
— The European Commission’s management of pre-accession 
assistance to Turkey.

11

2011 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS' SPECIAL REPORTSCONCLUSION

21.  The  Commission  has  a  system  in  place  to 
follow-up all recommendations of the Court 
and the requests of the Parliament and the 
Council. The Court considers that the follow-
up  of  recommendations/requests  needs  to 
be strengthened to enable the Commission 
to respond in a timely, efficient and effective 
manner to the recommendations/requests of 
the Court and the discharge authority.

22.  The review has shown that the Commission 
takes  action  to  implement  the  Court’s  rec-
ommendations and 13 (29 %) of the recom-
mendations dealt with in this report are fully 
implemented. A large number are still being 
implemented, although for a further 22 (49 %) 
of the recommendations the actions already 
taken by the Commission implement these in 
most respects.

This Report was adopted by Chamber CEAD, headed by Mr Igors LUDBORŽS, Member of the Court of 
Auditors, in Luxembourg at its meeting of 16 October 2012.

For the Court of Auditors

Vítor Manuel da SILVA CALDEIRA
President

12

2011 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS' SPECIAL REPORTS 
 
 
ANNEX I

OVERVIEW OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH WERE 
REVIEWED BY THE COURT

Per audit

Fully 
implemented

Being implemented

In most  
respects

In some  
respects

Not 
implemented

N/A under 
the current 
framework

Insufficient 
evidence

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

2

3

4

SR 4/2003
Rural development: 
support for less-
favoured areas  
(Annex II)

SR 13/2003
Production aid for cotton 
(Annex III)

SR 11/2009
The sustainability 
and the Commission’s 
management of the 
LIFE-Nature projects 
(Annex IV)

SR 7/2008
Intelligent energy   
2003-2006   
(Annex V)

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

13

2011 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS' SPECIAL REPORTSANNEX I

OVERVIEW OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH WERE 
REVIEWED BY THE COURT

Per audit

Fully 
implemented

Being implemented

In most  
respects

In some  
respects

Not 
implemented

N/A under 
the current 
framework

Insufficient 
evidence

x

x

x

x

SR 6/2007
Effectiveness of 
technical assistance in 
the context of capacity 
development   
(Annex VI)

SR 4/2009
Non-state actors' 
involvement in 
EC development 
cooperation 
(Annex VII)

SR 16/2009
Pre-accession assistance 
to Turkey   
(Annex VIII)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

TOTAL

51

13

22

9

1

2

4

14

2011 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS' SPECIAL REPORTSANNEX II

AGRICULTURE: LESS-FAVOURED AREAS

The Court also recommended that the Commission 
should: 

(6)  develop an inventory of existing regional/local 
practices in relation to specific farming conditions 
(implemented in most respects);

(7)  give full guidance to Member States on the require-
ments of an effective control system (not relevant 
under current framework);

(8)  ensure that the checks performed are effective (in-

sufficient evidence1);

(9)  ensure that the Member States comply with the 
generally accepted accounting principles (insuf-
ficient evidence2), 

(10)  ensure that the Member States comply with the 
obligation to present complete data in good time 
(implemented in most respects); and 

(11)  define relI thiI thinkevant indicators in order to 
ensure that it can be monitored (insufficient evi-
dence2).

1  The present follow-up exercise did not include visits to Member States.

2  See footnote 1.

1.
Special Report 4/2003 concerned rural development 
support for less-favoured areas.

‘The support scheme for less-favoured areas (LFAs) grants 
aid to 55,8 % of the EU's agricultural holdings. The aid is 
granted per hectare and is designed to compensate for 
existing handicaps, e.g. agricultural holdings in agricul-
tural areas with poor productivity where the accelerated 
decline in activity may jeopardise the viability of the area. 
The annual cost of this aid is some 2 000 million euro, of 
which roughly 50 % is financed from EU funds’. 

(Source: Information Note ECA/03/11)

2.
The Court examined whether the implementation of 
the  scheme  was  legal  and  regular;  whether  it  was 
being appropriately monitored; whether relevant in-
formation on its impact was available; and whether 
timely action was being undertaken to correct any 
deficiencies.

3.
The Court recommended that:

(1) 

(2) 

a complete and in-depth review of the existing 
classification of all LFAs be performed (fully imple-
mented); and

that the Commission should develop, in close col-
laboration with the Member States, a more appro-
priate set of indicators for identifying LFAs (imple-
mented in some respects). 

The Court stressed that: 

(3) 

(4) 

sound information on the impact of the scheme 
should be available (fully implemented);

all cases of systematic overcompensation should 
be identified, corrective measures taken (imple-
mented in some respects); and 

(5) 

‘good agricultural practices’ be defined clearly and 
verifiably (not relevant under current framework). 

15

2011 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS' SPECIAL REPORTSANNEX II

OVERCOMPENSATION / DEFINITION OF REGIONS

8.
The recommendation to examine how possible over-
compensation payments can be identified and pre-
vented was only addressed in some respects. There 
remains no obligation on Member States to ensure 
that appropriate expertise is provided by bodies or 
services functionally independent from those calcu-
lating the payments, in order to confirm the accuracy 
of the payments, as is obligatory for other rural de-
velopment measures.

9.
In October 2011 the Commission presented its legal 
proposal  for  the  new  rural  development  program-
ming period 2014–20 which contains a new definition 
of LFAs based on biophysical criteria and an obliga-
tion to ensure that appropriate expertise is provided 
by bodies or services functionally independent from 
those calculating the payments.

GOOD AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES

10.
Concerning the definition of ‘good agricultural prac-
tices4’, Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 no longer makes 
reference  to  this  requirement  as  an  obligation  for 
farmers. Instead, following the 2003 CAP reform, farm-
ers have to respect the cross-compliance obligations, 
entailing the statutory management requirements 
(SMR) and the good agricultural and environmental 
conditions  (GAEC). These  represent  the  minimum 
requirements for receiving LFA payments under the 
current framework.

11.
Furthermore, within its annual financial audit activi-
ties related to the DAS, the Court identified repeat-
edly that LFA payments (‘natural handicap’ payments 
under current measures 211 and 212) were prone to 
errors. Member States’ controls systems are also the 
subject of the Court’s DAS activities, in which LFA-
related shortcomings have been regularly identified.

4  The cross compliance framework (GAEC plus SMR) is in general 
  comparable with the good agricultural practices.

4.
The Court’s recommendations were fully addressed 
in two cases (1 and 3), addressed in most respects 
in two cases (6 and 10) and addressed in some re-
spects  in  two  cases  (2,  4). Two  cases  were  not  ap-
plicable under the current revised framework (5 and 
7) and in three cases (8, 9, and 11) the Commission 
has provided insufficient evidence or there was no 
final assessment from the Court’s auditors due to the 
limitations in the scope of the audit. See Annex I for 
implementation.

5.
The following paragraphs focus on the main points 
from the Court’s follow-up.

CLASSIFICATION OF LFAS 

6.
The Court´s special report on LFAs was published in 
2003 and identified that Member States used a wide 
range of indicators to determine whether areas are 
less favoured, which may have led to disparities in the 
treatment of beneficiaries. 

7.
Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 on support for 
rural development by the European Agricultural Fund 
for Rural Development3 provided a stricter definition 
for the classification of LFAs. However, as this defin-
ition did not enter into force, the Council decided to 
maintain the previous LFA system and called for the 
Commission to follow-up the review process with the 
plan to introduce an new system in 2010. However, 
in 2010 no new system was introduced therefore the 
determination of LFAs is still affected by the short-
comings identified by the Court in 2003.

3  OJ L 277, 21.10.2005, p. 1.

16

2011 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS' SPECIAL REPORTSANNEX III

AGRICULTURE: PRODUCTION AID FOR COTTON

(4)  examine the effectiveness of the incentive offered 
to improve the quality of the cotton produced (im-
plemented in most respects);

(5)  obtain data on the negative impact of cotton pro-
duction on the environment (implemented in most 
respects); and

(6)  ensure that the controls are transparent, well-
founded and applied consistently (implemented 
in most respects). 

4.
The Court’s follow-up found that the Commission had 
implemented all six recommendations, the first three 
fully and the second three in most respects. See An-
nex I for implementation. 

5.
The following paragraphs focus on the main points 
from the Court’s follow-up.

1.
Special Report 13/2003 concerned production aid 
for cotton.

‘Within the EU cotton is grown almost exclusively in 
Greece and Spain. After harvesting, the fibres are separat-
ed from the seeds and waste material by a process known 
as ginning. The EU produces about 1,6 million tonnes of 
unginned cotton which provides a yield of about 0,5 mil-
lion tonnes of fibres (ginned cotton). This level of produc-
tion meets about 47 % of internal needs. The balance is 
made good by imports which enter the Community duty 
free and levy free’.

(Source: Information Note ECA/03/020)

2.
In its special report, the Court assessed the monitor-
ing of the operation of the scheme in the Member 
States; whether the scheme was an efficient and ef-
fective means of providing support to cotton pro-
ducers;  the  impact  of  the  scheme  on  production, 
the quality of the cotton produced, alternative crop 
production  and  the  environment;  the  reliability  of 
the internal control system operating in the Member 
States; and the legality and regularity of payments 
made under the regime.

THE COURT'S RECOMMENDATIONS

3.
The Court recommended that the Commission take 
the opportunity of the proposed reform to address 
weaknesses in the regime, in particular that it: 

(1)  have regard to the relative attractiveness of the aid 
for cotton and the effect of the aid on quantities 
produced (fully implemented);

(2) 

(3) 

consider the incorporation of a mechanism which 
ensures budget neutrality (fully implemented);

review the financial arrangements for the ginners 
(fully implemented);

17

2011 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS' SPECIAL REPORTSTHE REFORM OF THE SCHEME

6.
Since the  Court’s special report on  production aid 
in 2003, the EU cotton aid has been reformed sub-
stantially, and the reforms have introduced import-
ant changes to the cotton support scheme, notably 
its  partial  inclusion  in  the  single  payment  scheme 
(SPS) and the introduction of restructuring aid for the 
ginning industry. At the time of the Court's previous 
audit, the support was paid to ginners so that cotton 
growers benefited only indirectly. In 2006 the produc-
tion aid was abolished and cotton growers received 
SPS payment entitlements corresponding to 65 % of 
the former support. In addition, a new crop-specific 
payment was introduced whereby 35 % of the original 
support is paid to each farmer growing cotton. Since 
2008, national restructuring programmes are funded 
from the EU budget to facilitate restructuring in the 
cotton ginning industry and to enhance the quality 
and marketing of the cotton produced.

ANNEX III

7.
Although the Commission has addressed most of the 
issues there is still a need for it to:

 ο further monitor the restructuring of the ginning indus-
tries in the principal producing states (Spain, Greece) — 
see recommendation 3 above,

 ο monitor the effectiveness of the quality measure intro-
duced after the reform, based on Article 69 of Regulation 
(EC) No 1782/20031 (Spain) — see recommendation 4 
above,

 ο follow-up fulfilment of environmental requirements — 

see recommendation 5 above, 

 ο ensure the monitoring of the correct application of 
controls, concerning also the cotton production in the 
framework of the reformed cotton aid scheme (cotton 
area aid and the SPS) in the Member States. ) — see rec-
ommendation 6 above.

1  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1782/2003  of  29  September  2003  
  establishing  common  rules  for  direct  support  schemes  under 
the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support  
schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93,  
(EC)  No 1452/2001,  (EC)  No 1453/2001,  (EC)  No 1454/2001,  (EC)  
  No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000,  
(EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 1).

18

2011 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS' SPECIAL REPORTS 
 
 
 
ANNEX IV

AGRICULTURE: THE SUSTAINABILITY AND THE COMMISSION’S 
MANAGEMENT OF THE LIFE-NATURE PROJECTS

1.
Special Report 11/2009 concerned the sustainabil-
ity and the Commission’s management of the LIFE-
Nature projects.

‘In this special report the European Court of Auditors as-
sesses the effectiveness of the European Commission’s 
management of the grants paid to LIFE-Nature projects 
in terms of the sustainability of their results. LIFE-Nature, 
a component of LIFE, co-finances projects in the Member 
States, mainly in relation to Natura 2000 sites, in favour of 
the conservation of species and habitats’.

(Source: Information Note ECA/09/49)

2.
The Court examined whether the revised selection 
process prioritised the projects that offered the high-
est expectation for sustainability; whether the pro-
jects were adequately implemented and monitored; 
whether the Commission ensured that information on 
project results and lessons learnt were appropriately 
disseminated; and whether projects were followed up 
and their results assessed in the long term.

3.
The   Co ur t   rec om m e n de d   t ha t  t he   Comm is sio n 
should:

(1) 

review its selection model (fully implemented);

Concerning communication, the Court recommended 
that the Commission should:

(6) 

(7) 

review its communication strategy, activities and 
tools (fully implemented); and

require beneficiaries to provide more technical de-
tails on the methods used, lessons learnt and best 
practices (fully implemented). 

It also recommended that:

(8)  grant agreements should commit beneficiaries to 
sustaining the project results for a minimum period 
after the project closure (not implemented);

(9) 

the introduction of a follow-up scheme for the 
‘after-LIFE funding’ should be considered by the 
Commission (implemented in some respects).

4.
Five of the nine recommendations were fully imple-
mented (1, and 4–7), including those related to the re-
view of selection models, implementation of projects 
(monitoring, indicators, criteria) and dissemination 
of  results.  One  was  implemented  in  most  respects 
(3), two in some respects (2 and 9) and one was not 
implemented (8). See Annex I for implementation. 

(2)  prioritise LIFE-Nature project proposals via the se-
lection model (implemented in some respects); 
and 

5.
The following paragraphs focus on the main points 
from the Court’s follow-up.

(3) 

consider ways of shortening the selection proced-
ure (implemented in most respects).

It also recommended that the Commission should:

(4) 

improve project monitoring (fully implemented);

(5)  develop appropriate indicators and criteria (fully 

implemented). 

19

2011 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS' SPECIAL REPORTSANNEX IV

SELECTION PROCEDURE

DISSEMINATION OF KNOWLEDGE ACQUIRED

6.
The  Commission  agreed  to  review  the  selection 
procedure in order to shorten it and make the sus-
tainability criterion more visible for the nature and 
biodiversity component. The evaluation guide was 
reformulated and two separate procedures were put 
in place (environment/nature). However, the criterion 
for ‘sustainability’ is still included as a sub-criterion of 
‘contribution to the general objectives of Life+’ with-
out a separate weighting. Therefore the Commission 
has  yet  to  define  a  separate  selection  criterion  for 
sustainability.

IMPLEMENTATION OF PROJECTS

7.
The Commission introduced in the project evaluation 
form a section entitled ‘Project results assessment’ in 
order to improve project monitoring. More stringent 
requirements were also added to the ‘Common provi-
sions and guidelines for applicants’ as regards man-
agement plans. Concerning indicators, the Commis-
sion proposed that the next LIFE regulation would 
include a comprehensive set of indicators.

8.
The future obligation on beneficiaries to network is 
an improvement for the dissemination of project re-
sults. Updated summaries of projects have also been 
placed on the Internet.

LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT OF PROJECT RESULTS 

9.
A  follow-up  scheme  for  the ‘after-LIFE  funding’  is 
being introduced. The Commission created a meth-
odology  for  LIFE  ex post monitoring  for  at  least  15 
LIFE- Nature projects each year. However, the recom-
mendation to commit beneficiaries to sustaining the 
project results (minimum 5 years after project closure) 
has not been addressed, following a negative opinion 
from the legal service of the Commission.

20

2011 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS' SPECIAL REPORTSANNEX V

ENERGY: INTELLIGENT ENERGY 2003-2006

1.
Special Report 7/2008 concerned intelligent energy 
2003-2006.

‘The IEE (intelligent energy for Europe) programme for 
2003-2006 had a budget of 250 million euro to promote 
energy efficiency, the use of renewable energy sources 
and energy diversification. This was used to support near-
ly 450 projects involving more than 1 700 bodies. The pro-
gramme promoted exchanges of experience and know-
how, rather than the development of new technology’.

(Source: Information Note ECA/08/18)

2.
The Court examined how the Commission allocated 
IEE funds; how the Commission monitored and evalu-
ated the programme; what the administrative costs 
of  the  programme  were;  and  what  difference  the 
executive agency made to the management of the 
programme. 

3.
The Court recommended that: 

(1)  programme proposals should be based on an ex-
plicit policy model and reflect the expected link 
between expenditure, output and impact (imple-
mented in most respects);

(2)  monitoring should look beyond individual projects 
and assist in forming a view of a programme as a 
whole (implemented in most respects);

(3)  evaluation of a programme should maximise its 

usefulness (implemented in some respects); and 

(4) 

a more systematic recording and analysis of infor-
mation on the administrative cost of programmes 
should be available (implemented in most re-
spects). 

4.
The review found that three recommendations have 
been implemented in most respects (1, 2 and 4) and 
one in some respects (3). See Annex I for implemen-
tation.

5.
The following paragraphs focus on the main points 
from the Court’s follow-up.

LINKS BETWEEN PROGRAMME EXPENDITURE, 
OUTPUTS AND IMPACTS

6.
In its replies to the special report, the auditee accept-
ed that there was a need for an explicit policy model 
reflecting the link between expenditure, output and 
impact for the IEE. It considered, however, that such 
a policy model existed for each intervention area of 
the Commission and that therefore no additional ac-
tion was necessary. 

7.
The review found however, that the Commission and 
the Executive Agency for Competitiveness and Inno-
vation (EACI) have introduced an improved system 
of  indicators  to  measure  the  overall  impact  of  the 
programme, financed actions are more focused and 
a deeper analysis of needs for key intervention areas 
has also been carried out. However, the prioritisation 
of financed actions requires attention, and the link 
between expenditure, output and impact at the level 
of  IEE  II  key  intervention  areas  remains  difficult  to 
establish.

21

2011 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS' SPECIAL REPORTSANNEX V

IMPROVED MONITORING AND EVALUATION 
ARRANGEMENTS 

SYSTEMATIC MONITORING OF PROGRAMMES’ 
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS

8. 
The Commission undertook to partially implement 
t h i s   r e c o m m e n d a t i o n   c o n c e r n i n g   i m p r o v i n g 
programme monitoring and evaluation and the use of 
the evaluation results when planning future activities. 
Nevertheless, the programme monitoring and evalu-
ation do not facilitate measuring of programme im-
pact: e.g. the annual implementation reports, avail-
able for 2008 to 2010, have not provided information 
in respect of the programme’s (or its projects’) results 
or impact. Programme evaluations have been under-
taken in accordance with regulatory requirements, 
but more use of ‘longitudinal’ evaluations could have 
been made.

9.
The  follow-up  review  indicated  that  the  Commis-
sion had explored ways to reduce the administrative 
burdens for both the implementing agency and the 
bene ficiaries. The  Commission  and  the  EACI  intro-
duced  multiple  simplification  measures  aiming  to 
reduce the administrative costs and especially the 
beneficiaries’ administrative burden. The Court con-
cluded that, while in most cases it would not be pos-
sible to quantify money or time saved, the measures 
are likely to result in efficiencies.

22

2011 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS' SPECIAL REPORTSANNEX VI

EXTERNAL ACTIONS: EFFECTIVENESS OF TECHNICAL 
ASSISTANCE FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

1.
Special Report 6/2007 concerned the effectiveness 
of technical assistance in the context of capacity 
development.

‘Technical assistance is a resource used in many devel-
opment projects and programmes of different types and 
can be defined as “experts contracted for the transfer of 
know-how and skills and the creation and strengthen-
ing of institutions”. In recent years, it has been increas-
ingly used to support capacity development of central 
and local government services in beneficiary countries, 
in areas such as public finance management, health and 
education, among others. This change of focus towards 
the functioning of government services has been the 
result of a growing awareness among donors, including 
the European Union, that a lack of institutional capacity 
is a fundamental obstacle to sustainable development’.  

(Source: Information Note ECA/07/32)

2.
The Court examined how the Commission ensured 
that technical assistance contributed to institutional 
capacity development in beneficiary countries. It did 
this by assessing the Commission's approach towards 
capacity development and the use of technical as-
sistance, and its management of the design and im-
plementation of technical assistance activities within 
capacity development projects. 

3.
The Court recommended that the Commission should: 

(1) 

In its country strategy papers, make a comprehen-
sive and structured analysis of existing institutional 
capacity weaknesses and of capacity development 
needs (insufficient evidence); and

(2)  develop guidelines on technical assistance (fully 

implemented). 

The Court stressed that:

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

the  design  of  capacity  development  projects 
should  be  improved  (implemented  in  some  
respects);

the procedures governing the project preparation 
and start-up phase should be reviewed (imple-
mented in most respects);

the evaluation criteria in technical assistance ten-
ders should be reviewed (implemented in most  
respects);

(6)  more options should be considered regarding pro-

curement (fully implemented). 

Finally,  in  line  with  the  Paris  declaration  commit-
ments, the Court recommended  that the Commis-
sion should: 

(7) 

increase its use of technical assistance through 
coordinated programmes (implemented in most 
respects), which (8) should be assessed systemati-
cally (implemented in some respects). 

4.
The Commission implemented two recommendations 
fully (2 and 6), three in most respects (4, 5 and 7) and 
two in some respects (3 and 8). In one case (recom-
mendation 1, related to a need for a comprehensive 
and structured analysis), evidence was insufficient 
to conclude on its implementation. See Annex I  for 
implementation. 

5.
The following paragraphs focus on the main points 
from the Court’s follow-up.

23

2011 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS' SPECIAL REPORTSANNEX VI

CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT 

6.
Subsequent to the publication of SR 6/2007 the Com-
mission made major efforts to reform its approach to 
technical cooperation ( TC 1) by adopting and imple-
menting the ‘backbone strategy’. This strategy is part 
of wider EU action to implement the Paris Declaration 
on Aid Effectiveness and aims to improve the effec-
tiveness of EU aid with respect to capacity develop-
ment. The strategy has addressed and incorporated 
the majority of the Court’s recommendations. 

7.
At the strategy level, the Commission informed the 
Court that new programming guidelines for EU exter-
nal actions for the period 2014–20 are currently being 
prepared, which will highlight the issue of capacity 
development. The issue is also to be addressed in the 
future guidelines on budget support.

8.
At the intervention level, the reform has introduced 
a  number of guiding principles and detailed guide-
lines  and  tools  relating  to  the  provision  of  techni-
cal cooperation, including quality criteria which are 
also to be used for the monitoring and evaluation of 
activities.

9.
Analysis by the Commission of available data regard-
ing the first year and a half of implementation of these 
guidelines  shows  that  two  out  of  three  operations 
which are assessed for TC relevance are considered 
to be in line with TC reform quality criteria. However, 
for some 20 % of projects the TC component is not 
assessed, and the TC quality assessment grid is only 
used for one out of every two TC relevant projects. 
This therefore leaves room for improvement regard-
ing the actual level of implementiation of the various 
tools, guidelines and the quality criteria and regard-
ing the level of reporting thereon, in particular at the 
country level.

SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF TECHNICAL 
ASSISTANCE

10.
Although the Commission considers that performance 
assessment of technical assistance experts and com-
panies  could  be  useful  for  informing  tender  evalu-
ations, difficulties arising from the need to  protect 
personal  data  have  led  the  Commission  to  decide 
against  establishing  a  systematic  evaluation  of  the 
individual performance of consultants. Therefore, the 
Court concluded that a well-informed evaluation and 
selection of technical assistance remains difficult.

1  While technical cooperation (TC) refers to a variety of actions aimed 
  at strengthening individual and organisational capacity, technical  
  assistance (TA) refers to the personnel involved in the implementation 
  and management of TC services.

24

2011 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS' SPECIAL REPORTSANNEX VII

EXTERNAL ACTIONS: NON-STATE ACTORS' INVOLVEMENT IN 
EC DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION

(6)  develop a strategy for capacity development of 
NSAs in Asian and Latin American (ALA) coun-
tries and reconsider the disparity in approach as 
between African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) and 
ALA countries (implemented in most respects), and

(7)  examine additional ways of delivering the capacity-
development policy aims such as use of partner-
ship agreements, multi-donor funding, and cas-
cading grants in order to better reach grass-roots 
organisations (implemented in most respects).

4.
The Commission has fully implemented the first rec-
ommendation to make further efforts to strengthen 
the involvement of the relevant NSAs and implement-
ed all other six recommendations in most respects. 
See Annex I for implementation.

5.
The following paragraphs focus on the main points 
from the Court’s follow-up.

GUIDANCE ON INVOLVING NSAS IN COOPERATION 
PROCESS

6.
Since the publication of the special report, the Com-
mission has taken various initiatives to strengthen 
the  NSAs’  involvement  in  EU  external  cooperation 
through  contracts  to  implement  EU  development 
aid. A key initiative was the organisation, from March 
2010 to May 2011, of the ‘structured dialogue’ bring-
ing together the main stakeholders in European de-
velopment policy.

1.
Special Report 4/2009 concerned non-state actors' 
involvement in EC development cooperation.

‘Non-state actors are increasingly important in devel-
opment cooperation. The term non-state actors (NSAs) 
covers all aspects of society that do not form part of the 
private sector or the state. In the field of development 
cooperation, non-state actors include non-governmental 
organisations (NGOs) and also community-based organ-
isations, farmers' associations, business or professional 
associations, environmental groups, universities, trade 
unions, chambers of commerce, and foundations as well 
as churches or faith groups. The term “non-state actors” 
is often used as a synonym of civil society organisations, 
and it is in that sense that it is used in the report’.  

(Source: Information Note ECA/09/23)

2.
The  Court  assessed  whether  the  Commission  ade-
quately ensured that NSAs were effectively involved 
in the development cooperation process; whether 
it had efficient management systems to ensure that 
activities implemented by NSAs were relevant and 
likely to produce the intended results; and whether 
it adequately ensured the provision of capacity de-
velopment to NSAs. 

3.
The   Co ur t   rec om m e n de d   t ha t  t he   Comm is sio n 
should: 

(1) 

(2) 

strengthen and provide more guidance on its pro-
cedures for involving NSAs in the development co-
operation process (fully implemented);

continue measures already in train to improve the 
call for proposals procedure (implemented in most 
respects);

(3)  enhance the targeting of monitoring and support 

by delegations (implemented in most respects), 

(4)  ensure sufficient guidance for both Delegation and 
NSA staff on performance indicators (implemented 
in most respects)

(5) 

 improve sustainability (consider using a mix of in-
struments and not only projects) when working 
with NSAs (implemented in most respects),

25

2011 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS' SPECIAL REPORTSANNEX VII

GUIDANCE ON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

10.
Using indicators introduced in the external assistance 
management  reports  (EAMR)  submitted  by  the  EU 
dele gations, the Commission began in 2011 to collect 
data on the number of NSAs’ activities, reflecting their 
participation in the planning and implementation of 
EU aid. The Commission intends in this way to start 
a regular quantitative and qualitative follow-up of the 
NSAs’ involvement in the partner countries.

11.
In addition, following the introduction of the struc-
tured dialogue managed at Commission headquarters, 
a similar process is now put in place at the delega-
tions.

CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT OF NSAS

12.
The Commission has recently taken action to improve 
financial and operational management of the EU as-
sistance provided to NSAs. However, the Commission 
needs to further reflect on strategies to involve the 
NSAs in the general and sector budget instruments. 
Based on systematic analysis of external assistance 
management report data, new strategies should be 
defined to improve the geographical programmes that 
must remain the key source of support to civil society 
in the partner countries.

13.
However, the full involvement of NSAs in EU develop-
ment policy remains a medium to long-term object-
ive, whose achievement largely depends on the local 
context. Even if some milestones have already been 
achieved, improvements and new steps are needed to 
consolidate the progress made.

7.
At the same time as the dialogue, the Commission set 
up the Civil Society Helpdesk (Cisoch) as a central ac-
cess point for civil society acting in development aid. 
Through Cisoch, an e-learning tool is now accessible 
for NSAs and EU staff.

IMPROVED CALL FOR PROPOSALS PROCEDURE

8.
Since 2009, the Commission has further developed 
the  Potential  Applicant  Data  Online  Registration 
(PADOR) database containing potential applicants to 
calls for proposals. Non-state actors and public ad-
ministrations, including local authorities, now regis-
ter themselves and update their own data. The ‘struc-
tured dialogue’ resulted notably in 12 suggestions to 
make the call for proposals system more effective or 
to introduce alternative selection methods where ap-
propriate, with the primary objective of faster and 
better-targeted aid. However, the new approach re-
quires additional efforts in terms of training, com-
munication, coordination, surveys of the NSAs and 
guidance.

MONITORING AND SUPPORT BY EU DELEGATIONS

9.
The Commission has extended the use by EU delega-
tions of surveys focusing on civil society actors. At 
the time of this follow-up (December 2011), the Com-
mission was developing guidelines and methodolo-
gies to provide support to the delegations through 
Cisoch. However, in partner countries, where the po-
litical situation allows, the EU delegations need to 
further develop their surveys of civil society actors. 
Further efforts are also required to include more small 
and grass-roots organisations implementing projects 
in the scope of the monitoring system.

26

2011 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS' SPECIAL REPORTSANNEX VII

PLANNING AND STRATEGY

16.
The Commission has taken appropriate initiatives to 
tailor its range of financial instruments to the diversity 
and complexity of the situations encountered in the 
recipient countries. The proposed amendments go in 
the right direction, but the Commission still needs to 
ensure their effective implementation.

14.
Additional efforts and initiatives are now needed to 
implement effectively these strategies, in particular 
in Asian and Latin American countries.

IMPROVEMENT OF SUSTAINABILITY USING A MIX 
OF INSTRUMENTS

15.
To operate a new 'mix' of instruments, the reform of 
the call for proposals system has still to be finalised. 
The Commission has also to further extend the re -
view of closed projects through the result-oriented 
monitoring system.

27

2011 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS' SPECIAL REPORTSANNEX VIII

EXTERNAL ACTIONS: PRE-ACCESSION ASSISTANCE TO TURKEY

In addition, the Commission should: 

(6) 

launch an evaluation of the entire programme of 
pre-accession assistance to Turkey (implemented 
in most respects).

4.
The Commission has implemented four recommenda-
tions in most respects (3, 4, 5 and 6) and two recom-
mendations (1 and 2) in some respects. See Annex I 
for implementation.

5.
The following paragraphs focus on the main points 
from the Court’s follow-up.

DETERMINING PRIORITY STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES

6.
As the accession partnership does not provide suf-
ficient clarity on the priorities to follow, the multian-
nual indicative planning document (MIPD) is now the 
main strategic document to guide IPA (Instrument 
for Pre-Accession Assistance) financial assistance. The 
2011–13 MIPD is an improvement on the 2007 version 
audited in that it focuses on a subset of priorities to 
be financed by limited IPA resources. However, the 
MIPD has further potential to better direct EU fund-
ing. The level of aggregation still limits how funding 
priorities are defined. The intervention logic still does 
not ensure that EU assistance is directed to the pro-
jects that add most value in achieving the priorities.

1.
Special Report 16/2009 concerned pre-accession as-
sistance to Turkey.

‘The European Court of Auditors has assessed how well 
the European Commission has managed pre-accession fi-
nancial assistance to Turkey. Pre-accession assistance pro-
vides funding for the implementation of projects aimed 
at supporting Turkey in its efforts to meet the conditions 
required for accession to the European Union’.

(Source: Information Note ECA/10/02)

2.
The Court examined whether the European Commis-
sion ensured that: EU assistance was directed to the 
projects that add most value in achieving the EU’s 
accession partnership priorities; that the decentral-
ised implementation system resulted in timely and 
successful achievement of project outputs and ob-
jectives; and that there was an effective  system of 
performance monitoring and evaluation.

3.
The Court made the following recommendations for 
corrective measures, that the Commission should: 

(1) 

improve the programming (implemented in some 
respects);

(2)  determine the strategic objectives for which the 
EU financial assistance would add most value (im-
plemented in some respects);

(3)  develop more realistic timescales for the objectives 

(implemented in most respects);

(4) 

improve project design and implementation (im-
plemented in most respects); and 

(5)  ensure that the outcomes of individual projects are 
monitored, based on clear objectives and appro-
priate indicators, in order that their contribution to 
achieving the strategic objectives can be demon-
strated (implemented in most respects). 

28

2011 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS' SPECIAL REPORTSANNEX VIII

10.
There had been no system of ex post evaluation of 
individual projects nor of the effectiveness of the pro-
gramme as a whole, in terms of meeting the acces-
sion partnership priorities and of progressing Turkey 
towards EU accession. The Commission carried out an 
interim evaluation of the assistance to Turkey from 
2005 to 2008 and an ex post evaluation assessing the 
impact and sustainability of the pre-IPA assistance 
from 2002–06 will be launched in 2013, once all relat-
ed projects have been completed and closed in 2012. 

IMPROVING PROJECT DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION

7.
The Commission continued with initiatives to improve 
project design and implementation by the Turkish 
institutions  of  the  EU’s  decentralised  implementa-
tion  system.  Measures  included  the  Commission's 
continuous quality monitoring of the programming 
documents and project proposals at different stages 
of the process, as well as the Ministry of European Un-
ion Affairs’ greater involvement in the quality control 
of project proposals. Needs assessments were made 
compulsory and contract scheduling was improved. 
However, despite the positive trend in the quality of 
project forms, shortcomings remain in project design 
(i.e. the definition of project purpose; results, activi-
ties, indicators, and conditions).

MONITORING INDIVIDUAL PROJECT OUTCOMES

8.
Immediately after the audit, the Commission started 
implementing the Court’s recommendations on pro-
ject performance. Measures taken in 2008–09 includ-
ed the systematic following up of implementation 
and spot checks with a specific checklist. In 2011 the 
Commission initiated its reform to enhance the moni-
toring system in Turkey. Nevertheless, the monitoring 
system has not been improved satisfactorily in that 
basic elements of the recommendations — such as 
a final report at the end of a project — have still not 
been implemented. 

9.
Remaining weaknesses include not using indicators 
set  out  in  the  project  application  form  to  demon-
strate  the  achievement  of  the  project  objectives. 
Similarly, project outcomes (results and impacts) are 
still not systematically reported at the end of each 
project  and  at  appropriate  inter vals  thereafter  in 
 order to provide performance information to inform 
future planning.

29

2011 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS' SPECIAL REPORTSANNEX IX  
FOLLOW-UP OF COURT’S SPECIAL REPORTS 2005–09

PRESERVATION AND MANAGEMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

NUMBER AND TITLE

FOLLOW-UP ACTION

Special Report No 3/2005 
concerning the rural development: the verification of agri-environment expenditure 

Followed up in SR 7/2011

Special Report No 7/2006   
concerning rural development investments: do they effectively address the problems of rural 
areas? 

Special Report No 8/2006   
Growing success? The effectiveness of the European Union support for fruit and vegetable 
producers' operational programmes

Special Report No 4/2007   
on physical and substitution checks on export refund consignments

Special Report No 7/2007   
on the control, inspection and sanction systems relating to the rules on conservation of 
Community fisheries resources

Special Report No 4/2008   
concerning the implementation of milk quotas in the Member States which joined the 
European Union on 1 May 2004

Special Report No 8/2008   
Is cross compliance an effective policy?

Special Report No 11/2008   
The management of the European Union support for the public storage operations of cereals

Special Report No 6/2009   
European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means 
and the methods employed 

Special Report No 10/2009  
Information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products

Followed up in SR 12/2011

Special Report No 11/2009   
The sustainability and the Commission’s management of the LIFE-Nature projects 

Followed up in the present report

Special Report No 14/2009  
Have the management instruments applied to the market in milk and milk products achieved 
their main objectives?

30

2011 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS' SPECIAL REPORTSANNEX IX

STRUCTURAL POLICIES, TRANSPORT AND ENERGY

NUMBER AND TITLE

FOLLOW-UP ACTION

Special Report No 1/2006 
on the contribution of the European Social Fund in combating early school leaving

Special Report No 10/2006   
on ex post evaluations of Objectives 1 and 3 programmes 1994-1999 (Structural Funds)

Special Report No 1/2007   
concerning the implementation of the mid-term processes Structural Funds 2000-2006

Special Report No 1/2008   
concerning the procedures for the preliminary examination and evaluation of major 
investment projects for the 1994-1999 and 2000-2006 programming periods

Special Report No 3/2008   
The European Union Solidarity Fund: how rapid efficient and flexible is it?

Followed up in AR 2010

Followed up in AR 2010

Special Report No 7/2008  
Intelligent energy 2003-2006

Followed up in the present report

Special Report No 12/2008   
Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-accession (ISPA), 2000-2006

Special Report No 3/2009   
The effectiveness of structural measures spending on waste water treatment for   
the 1994-1999 and 2000-2006 programme periods

Special Report No 7/2009   
The management of the Galileo programme's development and validation phase

Special Report No 17/2009   
concerning vocational training actions for women co-financed by the European Social Fund

Followed up in AR 2010

31

2011 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS' SPECIAL REPORTSANNEX IX

EXTERNAL ACTIONS

NUMBER AND TITLE

FOLLOW-UP ACTION

Special Report No 2/2005  
concerning EDF budget aid to ACP countries: the Commission's management of the public 
finance reform aspect

Followed up in SR 11/2010

Special Report No 4/2005  
concerning the Commission's management of economic cooperation in Asia

Special Report 3/2006   
concerning the humanitarian aid response to the tsunami 

Special Report No 4/2006   
concerning PHARE investment projects in Bulgaria and Romania

Special Report No 5/2006   
concerning the MEDA programme

Special Report No 6/2006   
concerning the environmental aspects of the Commission's development cooperation

Special Report No 5/2007   
on the Commission's management of the CARDS programme

Followed up in AR 2009

Followed up in AR 2008

Followed up in AR 2009

Followed up in SR 12/2009

Special Report No 6/2007   
on the effectiveness of technical assistance in the context of capacity development 

Followed up in the present report

Special Report No 6/2008   
concerning European Commission rehabilitation aid following the tsunami and hurricane Mitch

Special Report No 9/2008  
The effectiveness of EU support in the area of freedom, security and justice for Belarus, 
Moldova and Ukraine

Special Report No 10/2008  
EC development assistance to health services in sub-Saharan Africa

Followed up in AR 2010

Followed up in AR 2010

Special Report No 4/2009  
The Commission’s management of non-state actors' involvement in EC development cooperation

Followed up in the present report

Special Report No 12/2009  
The effectiveness of the Commission's projects in the area of justice and home affairs for the 
western Balkans

Special Report No 15/2009  
EU assistance implemented through United Nations organisations: decision-making and 
monitoring

Folllowed up in SR 3/2011

Special Report No 16/2009   
The European Commission’s management of pre-accession assistance to Turkey 

Followed up in the present report

Special Report No 18/2009   
Effectiveness of EDF support for regional economic integration in east Africa and west Africa

32

2011 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS' SPECIAL REPORTSANNEX IX

REVENUE, RESEARCH AND INTERNAL POLICIES, AND BODIES 
OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

NUMBER AND TITLE

FOLLOW-UP ACTION

Special Report No 1/2005   
concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) 

Followed up in SR 2/2011

Special Report No 5/2005   
Interpretation expenditure incurred by the Parliament, the Commission and the Council

Special Report No 9/2006   
concerning translation expenditure incurred by the Commission, the Parliament and the Council

Special Report No 11/2006   
on the Community transit system

Special Report No 2/2007   
concerning the institutions' expenditure on buildings

Special Report No 3/2007   
concerning the management of the European Refugee Fund (2000-2004)

Special Report No 8/2007   
concerning administrative cooperation in the field of value added tax

Special Report No 9/2007   
concerning ‘evaluating the EU research and technological development (RTD) framework 
programmes - could the Commission's approach be improved?’

Special Report No 2/2008  
concerning binding tariff information (BTI)

Special Report No 5/2008   
The European Union's agencies: Getting results

Special Report No 1/2009   
Banking measures in the Mediterranean area in the context of the MEDA programme and   
the previous protocols

Special Report No 5/2009   
The Commission's treasury management

Special Report No 8/2009   
'Networks of excellence' and 'Integrated projects' in Community research policy: did they 
achieve their objectives?

Special Report No 9/2009   
The efficiency and effectiveness of the personnel selection activities carried out by the 
European Personnel Selection Office

Special Report No 13/2009   
Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

Followed up in AR 2010

33

2011 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS' SPECIAL REPORTSANNEX X

METHODOLOGY

1.
The main impact of the Court’s work on improving fi-
nancial management is through its published reports. 
The Court’s work also contributes through the audit 
process  itself.  All  audits  result  in  detailed  findings 
 being sent to the auditee to confirm the accuracy of 
the Court’s observations, followed by a ‘contradictory 
procedure’ on the final text of the audit report. When 
publishing the reports, the replies of the auditee — 
mainly  the  Commission  —  are  published  together 
with the reports. In many of these replies the auditee 
recognises the problems identified by the Court in its 
audit findings and proposes actions it intends to take 
to address them.

2.
Special  repor ts  in  general  examine  systems,  pro -
grammes  and  organisations  concerned  with  the 
implementation of the EU budget (or  those of the 
European Development Funds), with regard to one 
or more of the three aspects of sound financial man-
agement: economy, efficiency and effectiveness.

3.
Assessing and measuring the impact of the Court's 
performance audit reports is a necessary element in 
the  cycle  of  accountability. The  recommendations 
made  in  special  reports  should  be  followed  up  in 
order  to  establish  and  assess  the  measures  taken. 
Indeed, the very existence of the follow-up process 
can encourage the effective implementation of report 
recommendations by auditees.

4.
Following up on report recommendations serves four 
main purposes: 

 ο increasing the effectiveness of audit reports — the prime 
reason for following up audit reports is to increase the 
probability that recommendations will be implemented; 

 ο assisting the legislative and budgetary (including dis-
charge) authorities — following up recommendations 
may be valuable in guiding their actions; 

 ο evaluating the Court's performance — following up 
provides a basis for assessing and evaluating the Court's 
performance; and 

 ο creating incentives for learning and development — fol-
lowing up activities may contribute to better knowledge 
and improved practice. 

5.
The reports to be followed up were selected on the 
basis of two criteria: whether more than 2 to 3 years 
had elapsed since the publication of the reports; and 
whether the recommendations were still relevant.

6.
The review was conducted in three stages:

 ο the Commission’s management database (RAD) of fol-
low-up actions was used as a preliminary source of data 
in respect of the audit reports being reviewed;

 ο a documentary review of annual reports, reports of the 
discharge authority, action plans, policy documents, spe-
cific reports and their analysis took place;

 ο oral and written evidence was taken from the relevant 

services of the Commission.

34

2011 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS' SPECIAL REPORTSREPLY OF THE COMMISSION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

III.
The main outcomes of the audits concern the systems and procedures in place at the services level. All 10 IACs were of 
the opinion that the systems and procedures in place provide reasonable assurance regarding the achievement of the 
business objectives set up for the management of the implementation of the recommendations and observations issued 
by the ECA and the discharge authority. Nevertheless, in 9 of the 11 audit reports, the IAC identified weaknesses, mainly 
linked to the availability of fully documented procedures regarding the follow-up of recommendations/requests.

SUMMARY OF THE COURT’S FOLLOW-UP REVIEW

14.
As regards payments to areas with natural handicaps, Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 stipulates that the payment 
has to be based on income loss and additional cost. This provision, however, did not enter into force as the additional 
Council act on less favoured areas foreseen by end of 2009 was not adopted. The same provision is proposed by Commis-
sion in the rural development legal proposal for the period 2014–20.

18.
In the energy field, the Commission and the Executive Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation (EACI) have made 
considerable efforts to improve the prioritisation of actions and to better match project costs with their expected outputs 
and impacts. For example, a common set of impact indicators was introduced in 2009 that has been used in all phases of 
the programme cycle, including a new award criterion on ‘ambition and credibility of the impacts of the proposed action’ 
to ensure that the most cost-effective proposals are selected.

19.
In 2011 the Commission has taken further measures to enhance the monitoring system in Turkey by initiating its reform. 
However, the Commission agrees that further actions are needed as concerns the reporting on project outcomes.

CONCLUSION

21.
The main outcomes of the audits concern the systems and procedures in place at the services level. All 10 IACs were of 
the opinion that the systems and procedures in place provide reasonable assurance regarding the achievement of the 
business objectives set up for the management of the implementation of the recommendations and observations issued 
by the ECA and the discharge authority. Nevertheless, in 9 of the 11 audit reports, the IAC identified weaknesses, mainly 
linked to the availability of fully documented procedures regarding the follow-up of recommendations/requests. 

35

2011 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS' SPECIAL REPORTSREPLY OF THE COMMISSION

REPLIES OF THE COMMISSION TO ANNEX II — AGRICULTURE: LESS-FAVOURED AREAS

7.
As pointed out by the Court, in 2010 no new system was introduced for the determination of LFA. At the time of the 
adoption of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, the Council decided to maintain the present delimitation and 
gave a mandate to the Commission to develop a new system (Council document 10352/05) with its prospective imple -
mentation in 2010. The Commission set up an independent expert panel which developed a new method of classification. 
The expert panel, however, concluded that the classification must be based on Member States' data. The Commission 
formulated the new methodology in its Communication COM(2009) 161 final of 21/4/2009 and the Council agreed to test 
the proposed methodology. The results of that exercise have helped to formulate the legal proposal for 2014–20.

11.
DG Agriculture and Rural Development always adds natural handicap payments in the scope of the audits for Axis II. 
The entire control system is checked as well as the reductions applied, and financial corrections are applied in case of 
deficiencies.

REPLIES OF THE COMMISSION TO ANNEX III — AGRICULTURE: PRODUCTION AID FOR COTTON

7. Second bullet
The final results of the restructuring of the ginning industry, in particular in Spain, will be provided at the closure of the 
restructuring programme in 2018.

7. Third bullet
Since the 2003 Court's audit, the Commission has implemented a number of CAP measures to improve the environmental 
impact of cotton:

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

for environmental reasons, a base area per Member State has been established and the eligible area is restricted to 
those authorised by Member States;

cross compliance makes a link between the payment of support, including direct coupled support for cotton, and the 
respect by the farmer of a list of rules in the area of environment, public, animal and plant health and animal welfare;

cotton is also covered by agro-environmental payments for commitments going beyond the baseline under the RD 
programmes of Spain and Greece ;

integrated cotton production in Greece is financed under the restructuring programme (quality measure) since 
2009/20101.

1  According to the report submitted by the Greek authorities on 15 February 2012, half of the Greek cotton area is grown under the integrated production system. 
  This has resulted in important improvements not only on quality of cotton but also on the environment, thanks to the reduction of water consumption 
(between – 10 and – 50%), nitrogen applications (between – 20 and – 60%), pesticides (– 17%) as well as positive results on ground and soil preservation.

36

2011 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS' SPECIAL REPORTS 
REPLY OF THE COMMISSION

REPLIES OF THE COMMISSION TO ANNEX IV — AGRICULTURE: THE SUSTAINABILITY AND THE COMMISSION’S 
MANAGEMENT OF THE LIFE-NATURE PROJECTS

6.
Once the new legal base 2014–20 will be approved, the Commission will propose to the next LIFE Committee to adopt 
separate dedicated criteria to evaluate projects sustainability.

REPLIES OF THE COMMISSION TO ANNEX V — ENERGY: INTELLIGENT ENERGY 2003-2006

4.
The Commission considers that all four recommendations have been implemented.

7.
The Commission considers that the link between expenditure, output and impact has been made as clear as possible. 
The prioritisation of financed actions has been significantly strengthened and is based on the impact assessments of 
EU energy policies, as well as on the results of implemented projects, the national needs identified by the programme 
committee members and the most recent market and policy developments. The external evaluation of the programme 
confirmed this finding that ‘the funding priorities were relevant to the needs, issues and problems related to energy in 
Europe’. The same evaluation found that the type of actions supported by the programme are by nature amongst the 
most difficult to quantify in terms of impact, something that the energy community is largely aware of.

Therefore, the Commission considers that the recommendation has been fully implemented.

8.
Impact has been measured when possible (e.g. for project development assistance activities) but not when impossible 
due to the nature of certain actions (e.g. those feeding energy policy debates).

Therefore, the Commission considers that the recommendation has been fully implemented.

Given the above, programme monitoring and evaluation has been developed to the extent possible and nearly to its cost-
effective limit. Information on results and impacts has been reported in documents such as DG Energy's annual manage-
ment plans; the 2011 IEE II implementation report; and the IEE II performance report (2007–11)2.

Longitudinal evaluations have been carried out when appropriate, taking into account cost implications.

Therefore, the Commission considers that the recommendation has been fully implemented.

2  http://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/files/doc/reports/iee-ii-performance-report-2007-2011-final_en.pdf 

37

2011 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS' SPECIAL REPORTSREPLY OF THE COMMISSION

9.
This finding from the Court is corroborated by the IEE II final evaluation which found that ‘the efforts made by the EACI to 
simplify the management process is appreciated and considered as increasing the effectiveness of the projects’. Further-
more, the evaluation of the EACI performed between November 2010 and March 2011 concluded that ‘the EACI is per-
forming well and is an efficient and effective delivery mechanism for the initiatives for which it has operational responsi-
bility’. It found that ‘management of the IEE programme has been improving under EACI management and feedback from 
key stakeholders and final beneficiaries is positive’.

Therefore, the Commission considers that the recommendation has been fully implemented.

38

2011 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS' SPECIAL REPORTSREPLY OF THE COMMISSION

REPLIES OF THE COMMISSION TO ANNEX VI — EXTERNAL ACTIONS: EFFECTIVENESS OF TECHNICAL 
ASSISTANCE FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

3. (1) 
It is only possible to fully take this recommendation into account in the upcoming generation of programming docu-
ments. The new programming instructions for the DCI and 11th EDF for the period 2014–20 (May 2012) contain a require -
ment to analyse country capacity in Annexes 3 and 4. Similarly the programming instructions for ENI (July 2012) contain 
a requirement to analyse country capacity in Annex 3.

The issue of capacity development will be addressed equally in the guidelines for budget support which are currently 
being finalised.

3. (2)
The Commission agrees with the Court's observation.

3. (3)
The Commission agrees with the Court's observation and stresses once again the major effort in designing and imple-
menting a quality assurance system and a knowledge-sharing website that have contributed to improve the effectiveness 
of its capacity development support. 

3. (6)
The Commission agrees with the Court's observation.

3. (7)
The Court recognised that the backbone strategy is part of wider EC actions to implement the Paris Declaration on Aid 
Effectiveness. The 2011 survey on monitoring the Paris Declaration stated that the European institutions met the targets 
referring to coordinated programmes and the avoidance of parallel implementation structures.

The Commission considers that the recommendation 7 has indeed been implemented.

The Commission agrees with the Court's observation on recommendation 8.

9.
The monitoring of the guidelines' implementation is continuing on a yearly basis. More recent data can be made available 
for the Court's appreciation in early 2013, if needed.

39

2011 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS' SPECIAL REPORTSREPLY OF THE COMMISSION

REPLIES OF THE COMMISSION TO ANNEX VII — EXTERNAL ACTIONS: NON-STATE ACTORS' INVOLVEMENT IN 
EC DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION

3. (2)
The Commission considers that this recommendation has indeed already been followed.

3. (3)
The Commission considers that this recommendation has indeed been followed.

3. (4)
The Commission considers that this recommendation has indeed been followed.

3. (5)
The Commission considers that this recommendation has indeed been followed.

3. (6)
The Commission considers that this recommendation has indeed been followed.

3. (7)
The Commission believes that this recommendation has indeed been followed.

4.
See reply to preceding point 3.

9.
See replies provided in point 3, notably regarding the mapping exercise.

12.
See replies provided in point 3, notably regarding the limitations of the ‘geographical programmes’, due to national 
sovereignty.

40

2011 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS' SPECIAL REPORTSREPLY OF THE COMMISSION

REPLIES OF THE COMMISSION TO ANNEX VIII — EXTERNAL ACTIONS: PRE-ACCESSION ASSISTANCE TO TURKEY

3. (2)
The Court's finding has been taken into account and the Commission introduced the necessary elements into the activity 
statements in order to demonstrate a link between five specific objectives under activity 22 02 (enlargement process and 
strategy), selected sectors and available funding in activity statements for 2013. 

3. (6)
The Commission considers that the Court’s recommendation on programme evaluation has been implemented from 
a conceptual point of view. Results will be delivered from 2013 onwards. 

6.
In this respect IPA II regulation will introduce an even more coherent and strategic approach to pre-accession assistance 
through the replacement of components by policy areas in order to increase consistency of action and make the four IPA 
DGs work more closely together in the definition of a single and joined strategy for each individual country. High-level 
planning documents, i.e. the common strategic framework and the (country or multi-country) strategy papers (that will 
replace MIDP) will increase the emphasis on analysing the needs and identifying priorities for interventions.

7.
The Commission's rigorous approach on the quality of project fiches (of IPA 2010/2011) has allowed the core elements of 
the project fiches (project purpose, results and indicators, etc.) to be more specific and measurable than in previous years. 
This positive trend is part of the lessons learned from previous financial assistance programmes through taking corrective 
actions on the shortcomings. The Commission will continue the quality monitoring of the programming documents at 
different stages in order to ensure the quality of the project's core elements.

9.
The Commission agrees that further actions are needed as concerns the reporting on project outcomes but would like 
to stress that with a new template for progress and monitoring reports (PMR), which was introduced in February 2012, 
the beneficiaries will have to report on the achievement of project overall objective/purpose and results at the end of 
the project.

The Commission will undertake the necessary measures to ensure the systematic reporting on the progress and outcome 
of the project is in line with the requirements set in the template.

10.
The Commission agrees with Court's conclusion that there had been no ex post evaluation launched yet, and would like to 
note that the evaluation that aims at assessing the impact and sustainability of projects covered under pre-IPA assistance 
from 2002–06 could not be launched as a number of related projects under the pre-accession assistance to Turkey ( TPA) 
will be closed only in 2012. The Commission already included in its evaluation plan an ex post evaluation for which the 
tender will be launched by the end of this year and an evaluation will start in 2013.

41

2011 REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS' SPECIAL REPORTSEuropean Court of Auditors

Special Report No 19/2012
2011 report on the follow-up of the European Court of Auditors’ special reports 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union

2012 — 45 pp. — 21 × 29.7 cm

ISBN 978-92-9237-898-1
doi:10.2865/24087

HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS

Free publications:

•	

•	

via	EU	Bookshop	(http://bookshop.europa.eu);

at	the	European	Union’s	representations	or	delegations.	You	can	obtain	their	contact	details 
on the Internet (http://ec.europa.eu) or by sending a fax to +352 2929-42758.

Priced publications:

•	

via	EU	Bookshop	(http://bookshop.europa.eu).

Priced subscriptions (e.g. annual series of the Official Journal of the European Union  
and reports of cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union):

•	

via	one	of	the	sales	agents	of	the	Publications	Office	of	the	European	Union 
(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).

 
 
Q
J
-
A
B
-
1
2
-
0
1
5
-
E
N

-
C

FOLLOWING UP ACTIONS TAKEN BY AUDITEES AS A RESULT OF AUDIT REC-

OMMENDATIONS  IS  A  KEY  ELEMENT  IN THE  CYCLE  OF  ACCOUNTABILIT Y. 

THIS REPORT REVIEWS THE AC TIONS TAKEN BY THE EUROPEAN COMMIS-

SION  AND  ASSESSES THE  EXTENT TO WHICH  IT  HAS  IMPLEMENTED THE 

AUDIT RECOMMENDATIONS IN SEVEN OF THE COURT’S SPECIAL REPORTS 

SELEC TED FROM THE PERIOD 2003–09, WHICH COVER THREE BUDGETARY 

AREAS: AGRICULTURE, ENERGY AND EXTERNAL ACTIONS. THE COURT FOUND 

THAT THE COMMISSION HAD TAKEN ACTION TO IMPLEMENT THE COURT’S 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND THAT OF THE 45 RECOMMENDATIONS REQUIRING  

IMPLEMENTATION, 13 (29 %) HAD BEEN FULLY IMPLEMENTED, ONE (2 %) HAD 

NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED, A FURTHER 22 (49 %) HAD BEEN IMPLEMENTED 

IN  MOST  RESPEC TS  AND  NINE  (20 %)  HAD  BEEN  IMPLEMENTED  IN  SOME 

RESPECTS. ACCORDINGLY, THE COMMISSION NEEDS TO TAKE SOME FURTHER 

STEPS TO FULLY ADDRESS THESE RECOMMENDATIONS.

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS