PURPOSE: Commissions progress report on\neconomic, social and territorial\ncohesion.
\nCONTENT: cohesion policy is a key delivery mechanism\nfor Europe 2020. This progress report assesses how, in the context\nof cohesion policy, regions and cities can contribute to smart,\nsustainable and inclusive growth of the Europe 2020 strategy. It\nmeasures the distance of cities and regions to the national 2020\ntargets proposed in the national reform programmes. Smart\ngrowth: the convergence regions score poorly on smart\ngrowth with low levels of R&D, low productivity and low\nshares of higher educated. With regard to the latter, only one in\nfive EU regions has reached the target to increase the share of\npeople aged 30-34 with a tertiary degree to 40% by 2020.\n Member States have set themselves targets ranging from 26% to\n60%. The regions eligible under the regional competitiveness and\nemployment (RCE) objective score the best with (1 in 3), the\ntransition regions score average (1 in 4), while the convergence\nregions score poorly (1 in 20).
\nR&D is typically concentrated in core areas such\nas capital and metropolitan regions. In 2008, expenditure exceeded\nthe Europe 2020 target in 24 out of 159 RCE regions, but only in\none out of 84 convergence regions and not in a single transition\nregion. On average R&D expenditure of\nthe convergence regions is only 0.9% of their GDP.
\nSustainable growth: the\nchallenge of sustainable growth is present in all regions. With\nrespect to the need to reduce emissions, the report stresses that\nthe energy efficiency of existing and new buildings must\nincrease everywhere. Regions can play a prominent role in\nfostering energy efficiency and this is particularly true as\nregards buildings, where actions must adapt to the local context\nand climate.
\nThe report also notes that regional characteristics\ndirectly determine the extent to which EU regions can produce\nrenewable energy such as solar and wind energy. Moving\nrenewable energy between regions with a high potential to regions\nwith a high demand will require the development of better and more\nintelligent energy networks. Increasing renewable energy will\nrequire more investment in efficient locations and in the\nnetwork connecting supply with demand.
\nInclusive growth: many\nconvergence regions display low levels of employment and high\nunemployment levels. The employment rate in convergence regions\nin 2010 was only 63% after a decline due to the economic crisis.\nOnly two convergence regions have reached the EU target of 75% in\n2010. If the goal were to reach the 2020 target in all convergence\nregions, 11 million people would have to find a job.
\nThe risk of poverty and exclusion is also higher in\nthe convergence regions.
\nAlthough transition regions and RCE regions score\nbetter on these issues, they also need to improve their performance\nto reach the Europe 2020 targets. The crisis has reduced employment\nin RCE regions and revealed a lack of competitiveness in some of\nthem. Unemployment has risen in more than 100 RCE regions and 36\nhave an unemployment rate above the EU average.
\nThe report notes that cohesion policy programmes\nshould select their investment priorities taking into\naccount the starting position of a region or city in relation to\nthe national 2020 targets and identify the concentrations to\npromote and the ones to fight. Cohesion policy programmes provide\nan opportunity to design strategies in an integrated way —\nfocused on the specific needs of each territory — and reflect\nthe trade-offs and synergies between different types of\ninvestments.
\nPURPOSE: Commissions progress report on\neconomic, social and territorial\ncohesion.
\nCONTENT: cohesion policy is a key delivery mechanism\nfor Europe 2020. This progress report assesses how, in the context\nof cohesion policy, regions and cities can contribute to smart,\nsustainable and inclusive growth of the Europe 2020 strategy. It\nmeasures the distance of cities and regions to the national 2020\ntargets proposed in the national reform programmes. Smart\ngrowth: the convergence regions score poorly on smart\ngrowth with low levels of R&D, low productivity and low\nshares of higher educated. With regard to the latter, only one in\nfive EU regions has reached the target to increase the share of\npeople aged 30-34 with a tertiary degree to 40% by 2020.\n Member States have set themselves targets ranging from 26% to\n60%. The regions eligible under the regional competitiveness and\nemployment (RCE) objective score the best with (1 in 3), the\ntransition regions score average (1 in 4), while the convergence\nregions score poorly (1 in 20).
\nR&D is typically concentrated in core areas such\nas capital and metropolitan regions. In 2008, expenditure exceeded\nthe Europe 2020 target in 24 out of 159 RCE regions, but only in\none out of 84 convergence regions and not in a single transition\nregion. On average R&D expenditure of\nthe convergence regions is only 0.9% of their GDP.
\nSustainable growth: the\nchallenge of sustainable growth is present in all regions. With\nrespect to the need to reduce emissions, the report stresses that\nthe energy efficiency of existing and new buildings must\nincrease everywhere. Regions can play a prominent role in\nfostering energy efficiency and this is particularly true as\nregards buildings, where actions must adapt to the local context\nand climate.
\nThe report also notes that regional characteristics\ndirectly determine the extent to which EU regions can produce\nrenewable energy such as solar and wind energy. Moving\nrenewable energy between regions with a high potential to regions\nwith a high demand will require the development of better and more\nintelligent energy networks. Increasing renewable energy will\nrequire more investment in efficient locations and in the\nnetwork connecting supply with demand.
\nInclusive growth: many\nconvergence regions display low levels of employment and high\nunemployment levels. The employment rate in convergence regions\nin 2010 was only 63% after a decline due to the economic crisis.\nOnly two convergence regions have reached the EU target of 75% in\n2010. If the goal were to reach the 2020 target in all convergence\nregions, 11 million people would have to find a job.
\nThe risk of poverty and exclusion is also higher in\nthe convergence regions.
\nAlthough transition regions and RCE regions score\nbetter on these issues, they also need to improve their performance\nto reach the Europe 2020 targets. The crisis has reduced employment\nin RCE regions and revealed a lack of competitiveness in some of\nthem. Unemployment has risen in more than 100 RCE regions and 36\nhave an unemployment rate above the EU average.
\nThe report notes that cohesion policy programmes\nshould select their investment priorities taking into\naccount the starting position of a region or city in relation to\nthe national 2020 targets and identify the concentrations to\npromote and the ones to fight. Cohesion policy programmes provide\nan opportunity to design strategies in an integrated way —\nfocused on the specific needs of each territory — and reflect\nthe trade-offs and synergies between different types of\ninvestments.
\nPURPOSE: to amend Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 as\nregards certain provisions relating to financial management for\ncertain Member States experiencing or threatened with serious\ndifficulties with respect to their financial stability and to the\ndecommitment rules for certain Member States.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Regulation of the European Parliament and of the\nCouncil.
\nROLE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: the European Parliament decides\nin accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure and on an\nequal footing with the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: in the current situation of sustained financial and\neconomic crisis, ensuring a smooth implementation of cohesion\npolicy programmes is of particular importance for investment in\ngrowth and jobs.
\nThis is particularly the case for those Member States which have\nbeen most affected by the crisis and have received financial\nassistance under an adjustment programme. To date, seven countries\n(Cyprus, Hungary, Romania, Latvia, Portugal, Greece and Ireland)\nhave received financial assistance and have agreed a macro-economic\nadjustment programme with the Commission.
\nTo ensure that these Member States continue to implement\ncohesion policy programmes on the ground, it is necessary to ensure\nthat the Commission is able to make increased payments to these\ncountries for the period they are under the support mechanisms,\nwithout modifying their overall allocation under cohesion policy\nfor the period 2007-2013.
\nMoreover, the European Council, on 8 February 2013, invited the\nCommission to explore practical solutions to reduce the risk of\nautomatic decommitment of funds from the 2007-2013 envelopes for\nRomania and Slovakia. Having examined various solutions to\nreduce the risk of automatic decommitment, it became clear that the\nrisk cannot be substantially reduced without an amendment of the\nGeneral Regulation. Therefore, to implement the agreement reflected\nin the European Council Conclusions, and to facilitate the\nabsorption of the 2007-2013 funds for Romania and Slovakia, it is\nnecessary to extend the decommitment deadline for these two Member\nStates.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: the proposal:
\nThe total financial allocation for the period from the Funds to\nthe countries and the programmes in question will not change.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 177 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the\nEuropean Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: the proposal seeks to amend Council Regulation (EC) No\n1083/2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional\nDevelopment Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund\n(General Regulation) with a view to:
\nBUDGETARY IMPACT: there is no impact on commitment\nappropriations since no modification is proposed to the maximum\namounts of Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund financing provided\nfor in the operational programmes for the 2007-2013 programming\nperiod. For payment appropriations, the proposal relating to the\ntop-up is budget neutral.
\nThe budgetary impact of the proposal to extend the automatic\nde-commitment by one year for Romania and Slovakia does not change\nthe total amount of commitment appropriations. However, it could\nhave a net positive impact on total payment appropriations in\nfuture years linked to the reduced decommitment risk.
\nPURPOSE: to amend Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 as\nregards certain provisions relating to financial management for\ncertain Member States experiencing or threatened with serious\ndifficulties with respect to their financial stability and to the\ndecommitment rules for certain Member States.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Regulation of the European Parliament and of the\nCouncil.
\nROLE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: the European Parliament decides\nin accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure and on an\nequal footing with the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: in the current situation of sustained financial and\neconomic crisis, ensuring a smooth implementation of cohesion\npolicy programmes is of particular importance for investment in\ngrowth and jobs.
\nThis is particularly the case for those Member States which have\nbeen most affected by the crisis and have received financial\nassistance under an adjustment programme. To date, seven countries\n(Cyprus, Hungary, Romania, Latvia, Portugal, Greece and Ireland)\nhave received financial assistance and have agreed a macro-economic\nadjustment programme with the Commission.
\nTo ensure that these Member States continue to implement\ncohesion policy programmes on the ground, it is necessary to ensure\nthat the Commission is able to make increased payments to these\ncountries for the period they are under the support mechanisms,\nwithout modifying their overall allocation under cohesion policy\nfor the period 2007-2013.
\nMoreover, the European Council, on 8 February 2013, invited the\nCommission to explore practical solutions to reduce the risk of\nautomatic decommitment of funds from the 2007-2013 envelopes for\nRomania and Slovakia. Having examined various solutions to\nreduce the risk of automatic decommitment, it became clear that the\nrisk cannot be substantially reduced without an amendment of the\nGeneral Regulation. Therefore, to implement the agreement reflected\nin the European Council Conclusions, and to facilitate the\nabsorption of the 2007-2013 funds for Romania and Slovakia, it is\nnecessary to extend the decommitment deadline for these two Member\nStates.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: the proposal:
\nThe total financial allocation for the period from the Funds to\nthe countries and the programmes in question will not change.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 177 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the\nEuropean Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: the proposal seeks to amend Council Regulation (EC) No\n1083/2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional\nDevelopment Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund\n(General Regulation) with a view to:
\nBUDGETARY IMPACT: there is no impact on commitment\nappropriations since no modification is proposed to the maximum\namounts of Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund financing provided\nfor in the operational programmes for the 2007-2013 programming\nperiod. For payment appropriations, the proposal relating to the\ntop-up is budget neutral.
\nThe budgetary impact of the proposal to extend the automatic\nde-commitment by one year for Romania and Slovakia does not change\nthe total amount of commitment appropriations. However, it could\nhave a net positive impact on total payment appropriations in\nfuture years linked to the reduced decommitment risk.
\nPURPOSE: to present a Bioeconomy Strategy for Europe\nand Action Plan.
\nCONTENT: Europe is confronted with an\nunprecedented and unsustainable exploitation of its natural\nresources, significant and potentially irreversible changes to its\nclimate and a continued loss in biodiversity that threaten the\nstability of the living systems on which it depends. This is\nexacerbated by a world population expected to increase by more than\n30% in the next 40 years, from 7 billion in 2012 to more than 9\nbillion in 2050. Overcoming these complex and inter-connected\nchallenges requires research and innovation in order to achieve\nrapid, concerted and sustained changes in lifestyle and resource\nuse that cut across all levels of society and the\neconomy.
\nThe EU's bioeconomy sectors are worth EUR 2\ntrillion in annual turnover and account for more than 22 million\njobs and approximately 9% of the workforce. However, in order\nto remain competitive and maintain jobs in the light of major\nsocietal challenges and rising markets in the developing world, the\nEuropean bioeconomy sectors need to innovate and further diversify.\nSignificant growth is expected to arise from sustainable primary\nproduction, food processing and industrial biotechnology and\nbiorefineries, which lead to new bio-based industries, transform\nexisting ones, and open new markets for bio-based products. New\nhigh skilled jobs and training options need to be developed to meet\nlabour demands in these industries, as well as in agriculture,\nforestry, fisheries and aquaculture.
\nIt is estimated that direct research funding\nassociated to the Bioeconomy Strategy under Horizon\n2020 could generate about 130 000 jobs and EUR 45 billions in\nvalue added in bioeconomy sectors by 2025. Further growth is\nexpected from other - direct and indirect - public and private\ninvestments in all parts of the bioeconomy. It can be expected that\nbioeconomy sectors will significantly contribute to achieving the\nEurope 2020 objectives.
\nThe Bioeconomy Strategy and its Action Plan aim to\npave the way to a more innovative, resource efficient and\ncompetitive society that reconciles food security with the\nsustainable use of renewable resources for industrial purposes,\nwhile ensuring environmental protection.
\nThey will inform research and innovation agendas in\nbioeconomy sectors and contribute to a more coherent policy\nenvironment, better interrelations between national, EU and\nglobal bioeconomy policies and a more engaged public dialogue. They\nwill seek synergies and respect complementarities with other policy\nareas, instruments and funding sources, which share and address the\nsame objectives, such as the Common Agricultural and Fisheries\nPolicies (CAP and CFP), the Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP),\nenvironmental, industrial, employment, energy and health\npolicies.
\nThe Strategy builds on the Seventh Framework Programme\nfor Research and Technological Development (FP7) and the EU\nFramework Programme for Research and Innovation (Horizon\n2020).
\nThe Bioeconomy Action Plan: the Plan describes the\nCommission's main actions for the implementation of the Bioeconomy\nStrategy objectives. It has three principal\npillars.
\n1. Investments in research, innovation and\nskills
\n\n· \nensure substantial EU and national funding as\nwell as private investment and partnering for bioeconomy research\nand innovation. Develop further JPI and ERANet activities in\norder to strengthen coherence and synergies between public\nprogrammes. Support bioclusters and KICs under the EIT for\npartnering with the private sector. Outline the main research\nand innovation concepts and priorities for food, sustainable\nagriculture and forestry and for marine and maritime\nactivities under Horizon 2020;
\n\n· \nincrease the share of multi-disciplinary and\ncross-sectoral research and innovation and improve the existing\nknowledge-base and developing new technologies;
\n\n· \npromote the uptake and diffusion of innovation\nin bioeconomy sectors and expand support to knowledge networks,\nadvisory and business support services, notably through EIPs and\nbioclusters;
\n\n· \nbuild the human capacity required to support the\ngrowth and further integration of bioeconomy sectors by organising\nuniversity fora for the development of new bioeconomy curricula and\nvocational training schemes.
\n2. Reinforced policy interaction and stakeholder\nengagement
\n\n· \ncreate a \nBioeconomy Panel that will contribute to enhancing synergies\nand coherence between policies, initiatives and economic sectors\nrelated to the bioeconomy at EU level, linking with existing\nmechanisms (by 2012). Organise regular Bioeconomy Stakeholder\nConferences;
\n\n· \nestablish a\nBioeconomy Observatory that allows the Commission to\nregularly assess the progress of the bioeconomy and develop\nforward-looking and modelling tools (by 2012);
\n\n· \nsupport the development of regional and\nnational bioeconomy strategies by providing a mapping of existing\nresearch and innovation activities, competence centres and\ninfrastructures in the EU (by 2015). Support strategic discussions\nwith authorities responsible for rural and coastal development and\ncohesion policy to maximise the impact of existing funding\nmechanisms;
\n\n· \ndevelop international cooperation on\nbioeconomy research and innovation to jointly address global\nchallenges, such as food security and climate change, as well as\nthe issue of sustainable biomass supply (from 2012).
\n3. Enhancement of markets and competitiveness in\nbioeconomy
\n\n· \nprovide the knowledge-base for sustainable\nintensification of primary production. Improve understanding of\navailability and demand of biomass (including agricultural and\nforestry residues and waste) across sectors, taking into account\nadded value, sustainability, soil fertility and climate mitigation\npotential;
\n\n· \npromote the setting up of networks with \nthe required logistics for integrated and diversified\nbiorefineries, demonstration and pilot plants across Europe. Start\nnegotiations to establish a research and innovation PPP for\nbio-based industries at European level (by 2013);
\n\n· \nsupport the expansion of new markets by \ndeveloping standards and standardised sustainability assessment\nmethodologies for bio-based products and food production systems\nand supporting scale-up activities. Facilitate green\nprocurement for biobased products by developing labels, an initial\nEuropean product information list and specific trainings for public\nprocurers;
\n\n· \ndevelop science-based approaches to inform\nconsumers about product properties (e.g. nutritional benefits,\nproduction methods and environment sustainability) and to promote a\nhealthy and sustainable lifestyle.
\nThe Commission goes on to note that the need to\nincrease public funding for bioeconomy research and innovation has\nbeen recognised under Horizon 2020: almost EUR 4.7\nbillion has been proposed for the Challenge “Food\nsecurity, sustainable agriculture, marine and maritime research,\nand the bioeconomy”. There will be further support under\nelements of the Challenges \"Climate action, resource efficiency and\nraw materials\", \"Secure, clean and efficient energy\" and \"Health,\ndemographic changes and wellbeing\".
\nThe European Institute of Innovation and\nTechnology (EIT) with its Knowledge and Innovation Communities\n(KICs) in different areas will address questions related to the\nbioeconomy, in particular under the proposed KIC \"Food4future\".\nThis will be complemented by research and innovation in enabling\nand industrial technologies (e.g. biotechnology, nanotechnology and\nICT) and the promotion of emerging technologies.
\nProviding stakeholders along the entire bioeconomy\nvalue chain with the knowledge base and a toolbox that includes a\nrange of key enabling technologies will also be critical to the\nimplementation of a wide range of bioeconomy-related\npolicies.
\nSeveral Member States have put in place bioeconomy\nresearch programmes and agreed to\nimprove coordination of their research activities through\npublic-public partnering, such as the JPI on \"Healthy and\nProductive Seas and Oceans\". Active collaboration between\nstakeholders is also needed to encourage more private investment\nand entrepreneurship in Europe.
\nPURPOSE: to present a Bioeconomy Strategy for Europe\nand Action Plan.
\nCONTENT: Europe is confronted with an\nunprecedented and unsustainable exploitation of its natural\nresources, significant and potentially irreversible changes to its\nclimate and a continued loss in biodiversity that threaten the\nstability of the living systems on which it depends. This is\nexacerbated by a world population expected to increase by more than\n30% in the next 40 years, from 7 billion in 2012 to more than 9\nbillion in 2050. Overcoming these complex and inter-connected\nchallenges requires research and innovation in order to achieve\nrapid, concerted and sustained changes in lifestyle and resource\nuse that cut across all levels of society and the\neconomy.
\nThe EU's bioeconomy sectors are worth EUR 2\ntrillion in annual turnover and account for more than 22 million\njobs and approximately 9% of the workforce. However, in order\nto remain competitive and maintain jobs in the light of major\nsocietal challenges and rising markets in the developing world, the\nEuropean bioeconomy sectors need to innovate and further diversify.\nSignificant growth is expected to arise from sustainable primary\nproduction, food processing and industrial biotechnology and\nbiorefineries, which lead to new bio-based industries, transform\nexisting ones, and open new markets for bio-based products. New\nhigh skilled jobs and training options need to be developed to meet\nlabour demands in these industries, as well as in agriculture,\nforestry, fisheries and aquaculture.
\nIt is estimated that direct research funding\nassociated to the Bioeconomy Strategy under Horizon\n2020 could generate about 130 000 jobs and EUR 45 billions in\nvalue added in bioeconomy sectors by 2025. Further growth is\nexpected from other - direct and indirect - public and private\ninvestments in all parts of the bioeconomy. It can be expected that\nbioeconomy sectors will significantly contribute to achieving the\nEurope 2020 objectives.
\nThe Bioeconomy Strategy and its Action Plan aim to\npave the way to a more innovative, resource efficient and\ncompetitive society that reconciles food security with the\nsustainable use of renewable resources for industrial purposes,\nwhile ensuring environmental protection.
\nThey will inform research and innovation agendas in\nbioeconomy sectors and contribute to a more coherent policy\nenvironment, better interrelations between national, EU and\nglobal bioeconomy policies and a more engaged public dialogue. They\nwill seek synergies and respect complementarities with other policy\nareas, instruments and funding sources, which share and address the\nsame objectives, such as the Common Agricultural and Fisheries\nPolicies (CAP and CFP), the Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP),\nenvironmental, industrial, employment, energy and health\npolicies.
\nThe Strategy builds on the Seventh Framework Programme\nfor Research and Technological Development (FP7) and the EU\nFramework Programme for Research and Innovation (Horizon\n2020).
\nThe Bioeconomy Action Plan: the Plan describes the\nCommission's main actions for the implementation of the Bioeconomy\nStrategy objectives. It has three principal\npillars.
\n1. Investments in research, innovation and\nskills
\n\n· \nensure substantial EU and national funding as\nwell as private investment and partnering for bioeconomy research\nand innovation. Develop further JPI and ERANet activities in\norder to strengthen coherence and synergies between public\nprogrammes. Support bioclusters and KICs under the EIT for\npartnering with the private sector. Outline the main research\nand innovation concepts and priorities for food, sustainable\nagriculture and forestry and for marine and maritime\nactivities under Horizon 2020;
\n\n· \nincrease the share of multi-disciplinary and\ncross-sectoral research and innovation and improve the existing\nknowledge-base and developing new technologies;
\n\n· \npromote the uptake and diffusion of innovation\nin bioeconomy sectors and expand support to knowledge networks,\nadvisory and business support services, notably through EIPs and\nbioclusters;
\n\n· \nbuild the human capacity required to support the\ngrowth and further integration of bioeconomy sectors by organising\nuniversity fora for the development of new bioeconomy curricula and\nvocational training schemes.
\n2. Reinforced policy interaction and stakeholder\nengagement
\n\n· \ncreate a \nBioeconomy Panel that will contribute to enhancing synergies\nand coherence between policies, initiatives and economic sectors\nrelated to the bioeconomy at EU level, linking with existing\nmechanisms (by 2012). Organise regular Bioeconomy Stakeholder\nConferences;
\n\n· \nestablish a\nBioeconomy Observatory that allows the Commission to\nregularly assess the progress of the bioeconomy and develop\nforward-looking and modelling tools (by 2012);
\n\n· \nsupport the development of regional and\nnational bioeconomy strategies by providing a mapping of existing\nresearch and innovation activities, competence centres and\ninfrastructures in the EU (by 2015). Support strategic discussions\nwith authorities responsible for rural and coastal development and\ncohesion policy to maximise the impact of existing funding\nmechanisms;
\n\n· \ndevelop international cooperation on\nbioeconomy research and innovation to jointly address global\nchallenges, such as food security and climate change, as well as\nthe issue of sustainable biomass supply (from 2012).
\n3. Enhancement of markets and competitiveness in\nbioeconomy
\n\n· \nprovide the knowledge-base for sustainable\nintensification of primary production. Improve understanding of\navailability and demand of biomass (including agricultural and\nforestry residues and waste) across sectors, taking into account\nadded value, sustainability, soil fertility and climate mitigation\npotential;
\n\n· \npromote the setting up of networks with \nthe required logistics for integrated and diversified\nbiorefineries, demonstration and pilot plants across Europe. Start\nnegotiations to establish a research and innovation PPP for\nbio-based industries at European level (by 2013);
\n\n· \nsupport the expansion of new markets by \ndeveloping standards and standardised sustainability assessment\nmethodologies for bio-based products and food production systems\nand supporting scale-up activities. Facilitate green\nprocurement for biobased products by developing labels, an initial\nEuropean product information list and specific trainings for public\nprocurers;
\n\n· \ndevelop science-based approaches to inform\nconsumers about product properties (e.g. nutritional benefits,\nproduction methods and environment sustainability) and to promote a\nhealthy and sustainable lifestyle.
\nThe Commission goes on to note that the need to\nincrease public funding for bioeconomy research and innovation has\nbeen recognised under Horizon 2020: almost EUR 4.7\nbillion has been proposed for the Challenge “Food\nsecurity, sustainable agriculture, marine and maritime research,\nand the bioeconomy”. There will be further support under\nelements of the Challenges \"Climate action, resource efficiency and\nraw materials\", \"Secure, clean and efficient energy\" and \"Health,\ndemographic changes and wellbeing\".
\nThe European Institute of Innovation and\nTechnology (EIT) with its Knowledge and Innovation Communities\n(KICs) in different areas will address questions related to the\nbioeconomy, in particular under the proposed KIC \"Food4future\".\nThis will be complemented by research and innovation in enabling\nand industrial technologies (e.g. biotechnology, nanotechnology and\nICT) and the promotion of emerging technologies.
\nProviding stakeholders along the entire bioeconomy\nvalue chain with the knowledge base and a toolbox that includes a\nrange of key enabling technologies will also be critical to the\nimplementation of a wide range of bioeconomy-related\npolicies.
\nSeveral Member States have put in place bioeconomy\nresearch programmes and agreed to\nimprove coordination of their research activities through\npublic-public partnering, such as the JPI on \"Healthy and\nProductive Seas and Oceans\". Active collaboration between\nstakeholders is also needed to encourage more private investment\nand entrepreneurship in Europe.
\nPURPOSE: to present a Bioeconomy Strategy for Europe\nand Action Plan.
\nCONTENT: Europe is confronted with an\nunprecedented and unsustainable exploitation of its natural\nresources, significant and potentially irreversible changes to its\nclimate and a continued loss in biodiversity that threaten the\nstability of the living systems on which it depends. This is\nexacerbated by a world population expected to increase by more than\n30% in the next 40 years, from 7 billion in 2012 to more than 9\nbillion in 2050. Overcoming these complex and inter-connected\nchallenges requires research and innovation in order to achieve\nrapid, concerted and sustained changes in lifestyle and resource\nuse that cut across all levels of society and the\neconomy.
\nThe EU's bioeconomy sectors are worth EUR 2\ntrillion in annual turnover and account for more than 22 million\njobs and approximately 9% of the workforce. However, in order\nto remain competitive and maintain jobs in the light of major\nsocietal challenges and rising markets in the developing world, the\nEuropean bioeconomy sectors need to innovate and further diversify.\nSignificant growth is expected to arise from sustainable primary\nproduction, food processing and industrial biotechnology and\nbiorefineries, which lead to new bio-based industries, transform\nexisting ones, and open new markets for bio-based products. New\nhigh skilled jobs and training options need to be developed to meet\nlabour demands in these industries, as well as in agriculture,\nforestry, fisheries and aquaculture.
\nIt is estimated that direct research funding\nassociated to the Bioeconomy Strategy under Horizon\n2020 could generate about 130 000 jobs and EUR 45 billions in\nvalue added in bioeconomy sectors by 2025. Further growth is\nexpected from other - direct and indirect - public and private\ninvestments in all parts of the bioeconomy. It can be expected that\nbioeconomy sectors will significantly contribute to achieving the\nEurope 2020 objectives.
\nThe Bioeconomy Strategy and its Action Plan aim to\npave the way to a more innovative, resource efficient and\ncompetitive society that reconciles food security with the\nsustainable use of renewable resources for industrial purposes,\nwhile ensuring environmental protection.
\nThey will inform research and innovation agendas in\nbioeconomy sectors and contribute to a more coherent policy\nenvironment, better interrelations between national, EU and\nglobal bioeconomy policies and a more engaged public dialogue. They\nwill seek synergies and respect complementarities with other policy\nareas, instruments and funding sources, which share and address the\nsame objectives, such as the Common Agricultural and Fisheries\nPolicies (CAP and CFP), the Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP),\nenvironmental, industrial, employment, energy and health\npolicies.
\nThe Strategy builds on the Seventh Framework Programme\nfor Research and Technological Development (FP7) and the EU\nFramework Programme for Research and Innovation (Horizon\n2020).
\nThe Bioeconomy Action Plan: the Plan describes the\nCommission's main actions for the implementation of the Bioeconomy\nStrategy objectives. It has three principal\npillars.
\n1. Investments in research, innovation and\nskills
\n\n· \nensure substantial EU and national funding as\nwell as private investment and partnering for bioeconomy research\nand innovation. Develop further JPI and ERANet activities in\norder to strengthen coherence and synergies between public\nprogrammes. Support bioclusters and KICs under the EIT for\npartnering with the private sector. Outline the main research\nand innovation concepts and priorities for food, sustainable\nagriculture and forestry and for marine and maritime\nactivities under Horizon 2020;
\n\n· \nincrease the share of multi-disciplinary and\ncross-sectoral research and innovation and improve the existing\nknowledge-base and developing new technologies;
\n\n· \npromote the uptake and diffusion of innovation\nin bioeconomy sectors and expand support to knowledge networks,\nadvisory and business support services, notably through EIPs and\nbioclusters;
\n\n· \nbuild the human capacity required to support the\ngrowth and further integration of bioeconomy sectors by organising\nuniversity fora for the development of new bioeconomy curricula and\nvocational training schemes.
\n2. Reinforced policy interaction and stakeholder\nengagement
\n\n· \ncreate a \nBioeconomy Panel that will contribute to enhancing synergies\nand coherence between policies, initiatives and economic sectors\nrelated to the bioeconomy at EU level, linking with existing\nmechanisms (by 2012). Organise regular Bioeconomy Stakeholder\nConferences;
\n\n· \nestablish a\nBioeconomy Observatory that allows the Commission to\nregularly assess the progress of the bioeconomy and develop\nforward-looking and modelling tools (by 2012);
\n\n· \nsupport the development of regional and\nnational bioeconomy strategies by providing a mapping of existing\nresearch and innovation activities, competence centres and\ninfrastructures in the EU (by 2015). Support strategic discussions\nwith authorities responsible for rural and coastal development and\ncohesion policy to maximise the impact of existing funding\nmechanisms;
\n\n· \ndevelop international cooperation on\nbioeconomy research and innovation to jointly address global\nchallenges, such as food security and climate change, as well as\nthe issue of sustainable biomass supply (from 2012).
\n3. Enhancement of markets and competitiveness in\nbioeconomy
\n\n· \nprovide the knowledge-base for sustainable\nintensification of primary production. Improve understanding of\navailability and demand of biomass (including agricultural and\nforestry residues and waste) across sectors, taking into account\nadded value, sustainability, soil fertility and climate mitigation\npotential;
\n\n· \npromote the setting up of networks with \nthe required logistics for integrated and diversified\nbiorefineries, demonstration and pilot plants across Europe. Start\nnegotiations to establish a research and innovation PPP for\nbio-based industries at European level (by 2013);
\n\n· \nsupport the expansion of new markets by \ndeveloping standards and standardised sustainability assessment\nmethodologies for bio-based products and food production systems\nand supporting scale-up activities. Facilitate green\nprocurement for biobased products by developing labels, an initial\nEuropean product information list and specific trainings for public\nprocurers;
\n\n· \ndevelop science-based approaches to inform\nconsumers about product properties (e.g. nutritional benefits,\nproduction methods and environment sustainability) and to promote a\nhealthy and sustainable lifestyle.
\nThe Commission goes on to note that the need to\nincrease public funding for bioeconomy research and innovation has\nbeen recognised under Horizon 2020: almost EUR 4.7\nbillion has been proposed for the Challenge “Food\nsecurity, sustainable agriculture, marine and maritime research,\nand the bioeconomy”. There will be further support under\nelements of the Challenges \"Climate action, resource efficiency and\nraw materials\", \"Secure, clean and efficient energy\" and \"Health,\ndemographic changes and wellbeing\".
\nThe European Institute of Innovation and\nTechnology (EIT) with its Knowledge and Innovation Communities\n(KICs) in different areas will address questions related to the\nbioeconomy, in particular under the proposed KIC \"Food4future\".\nThis will be complemented by research and innovation in enabling\nand industrial technologies (e.g. biotechnology, nanotechnology and\nICT) and the promotion of emerging technologies.
\nProviding stakeholders along the entire bioeconomy\nvalue chain with the knowledge base and a toolbox that includes a\nrange of key enabling technologies will also be critical to the\nimplementation of a wide range of bioeconomy-related\npolicies.
\nSeveral Member States have put in place bioeconomy\nresearch programmes and agreed to\nimprove coordination of their research activities through\npublic-public partnering, such as the JPI on \"Healthy and\nProductive Seas and Oceans\". Active collaboration between\nstakeholders is also needed to encourage more private investment\nand entrepreneurship in Europe.
\nPURPOSE: to present a Bioeconomy Strategy for Europe\nand Action Plan.
\nCONTENT: Europe is confronted with an\nunprecedented and unsustainable exploitation of its natural\nresources, significant and potentially irreversible changes to its\nclimate and a continued loss in biodiversity that threaten the\nstability of the living systems on which it depends. This is\nexacerbated by a world population expected to increase by more than\n30% in the next 40 years, from 7 billion in 2012 to more than 9\nbillion in 2050. Overcoming these complex and inter-connected\nchallenges requires research and innovation in order to achieve\nrapid, concerted and sustained changes in lifestyle and resource\nuse that cut across all levels of society and the\neconomy.
\nThe EU's bioeconomy sectors are worth EUR 2\ntrillion in annual turnover and account for more than 22 million\njobs and approximately 9% of the workforce. However, in order\nto remain competitive and maintain jobs in the light of major\nsocietal challenges and rising markets in the developing world, the\nEuropean bioeconomy sectors need to innovate and further diversify.\nSignificant growth is expected to arise from sustainable primary\nproduction, food processing and industrial biotechnology and\nbiorefineries, which lead to new bio-based industries, transform\nexisting ones, and open new markets for bio-based products. New\nhigh skilled jobs and training options need to be developed to meet\nlabour demands in these industries, as well as in agriculture,\nforestry, fisheries and aquaculture.
\nIt is estimated that direct research funding\nassociated to the Bioeconomy Strategy under Horizon\n2020 could generate about 130 000 jobs and EUR 45 billions in\nvalue added in bioeconomy sectors by 2025. Further growth is\nexpected from other - direct and indirect - public and private\ninvestments in all parts of the bioeconomy. It can be expected that\nbioeconomy sectors will significantly contribute to achieving the\nEurope 2020 objectives.
\nThe Bioeconomy Strategy and its Action Plan aim to\npave the way to a more innovative, resource efficient and\ncompetitive society that reconciles food security with the\nsustainable use of renewable resources for industrial purposes,\nwhile ensuring environmental protection.
\nThey will inform research and innovation agendas in\nbioeconomy sectors and contribute to a more coherent policy\nenvironment, better interrelations between national, EU and\nglobal bioeconomy policies and a more engaged public dialogue. They\nwill seek synergies and respect complementarities with other policy\nareas, instruments and funding sources, which share and address the\nsame objectives, such as the Common Agricultural and Fisheries\nPolicies (CAP and CFP), the Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP),\nenvironmental, industrial, employment, energy and health\npolicies.
\nThe Strategy builds on the Seventh Framework Programme\nfor Research and Technological Development (FP7) and the EU\nFramework Programme for Research and Innovation (Horizon\n2020).
\nThe Bioeconomy Action Plan: the Plan describes the\nCommission's main actions for the implementation of the Bioeconomy\nStrategy objectives. It has three principal\npillars.
\n1. Investments in research, innovation and\nskills
\n\n· \nensure substantial EU and national funding as\nwell as private investment and partnering for bioeconomy research\nand innovation. Develop further JPI and ERANet activities in\norder to strengthen coherence and synergies between public\nprogrammes. Support bioclusters and KICs under the EIT for\npartnering with the private sector. Outline the main research\nand innovation concepts and priorities for food, sustainable\nagriculture and forestry and for marine and maritime\nactivities under Horizon 2020;
\n\n· \nincrease the share of multi-disciplinary and\ncross-sectoral research and innovation and improve the existing\nknowledge-base and developing new technologies;
\n\n· \npromote the uptake and diffusion of innovation\nin bioeconomy sectors and expand support to knowledge networks,\nadvisory and business support services, notably through EIPs and\nbioclusters;
\n\n· \nbuild the human capacity required to support the\ngrowth and further integration of bioeconomy sectors by organising\nuniversity fora for the development of new bioeconomy curricula and\nvocational training schemes.
\n2. Reinforced policy interaction and stakeholder\nengagement
\n\n· \ncreate a \nBioeconomy Panel that will contribute to enhancing synergies\nand coherence between policies, initiatives and economic sectors\nrelated to the bioeconomy at EU level, linking with existing\nmechanisms (by 2012). Organise regular Bioeconomy Stakeholder\nConferences;
\n\n· \nestablish a\nBioeconomy Observatory that allows the Commission to\nregularly assess the progress of the bioeconomy and develop\nforward-looking and modelling tools (by 2012);
\n\n· \nsupport the development of regional and\nnational bioeconomy strategies by providing a mapping of existing\nresearch and innovation activities, competence centres and\ninfrastructures in the EU (by 2015). Support strategic discussions\nwith authorities responsible for rural and coastal development and\ncohesion policy to maximise the impact of existing funding\nmechanisms;
\n\n· \ndevelop international cooperation on\nbioeconomy research and innovation to jointly address global\nchallenges, such as food security and climate change, as well as\nthe issue of sustainable biomass supply (from 2012).
\n3. Enhancement of markets and competitiveness in\nbioeconomy
\n\n· \nprovide the knowledge-base for sustainable\nintensification of primary production. Improve understanding of\navailability and demand of biomass (including agricultural and\nforestry residues and waste) across sectors, taking into account\nadded value, sustainability, soil fertility and climate mitigation\npotential;
\n\n· \npromote the setting up of networks with \nthe required logistics for integrated and diversified\nbiorefineries, demonstration and pilot plants across Europe. Start\nnegotiations to establish a research and innovation PPP for\nbio-based industries at European level (by 2013);
\n\n· \nsupport the expansion of new markets by \ndeveloping standards and standardised sustainability assessment\nmethodologies for bio-based products and food production systems\nand supporting scale-up activities. Facilitate green\nprocurement for biobased products by developing labels, an initial\nEuropean product information list and specific trainings for public\nprocurers;
\n\n· \ndevelop science-based approaches to inform\nconsumers about product properties (e.g. nutritional benefits,\nproduction methods and environment sustainability) and to promote a\nhealthy and sustainable lifestyle.
\nThe Commission goes on to note that the need to\nincrease public funding for bioeconomy research and innovation has\nbeen recognised under Horizon 2020: almost EUR 4.7\nbillion has been proposed for the Challenge “Food\nsecurity, sustainable agriculture, marine and maritime research,\nand the bioeconomy”. There will be further support under\nelements of the Challenges \"Climate action, resource efficiency and\nraw materials\", \"Secure, clean and efficient energy\" and \"Health,\ndemographic changes and wellbeing\".
\nThe European Institute of Innovation and\nTechnology (EIT) with its Knowledge and Innovation Communities\n(KICs) in different areas will address questions related to the\nbioeconomy, in particular under the proposed KIC \"Food4future\".\nThis will be complemented by research and innovation in enabling\nand industrial technologies (e.g. biotechnology, nanotechnology and\nICT) and the promotion of emerging technologies.
\nProviding stakeholders along the entire bioeconomy\nvalue chain with the knowledge base and a toolbox that includes a\nrange of key enabling technologies will also be critical to the\nimplementation of a wide range of bioeconomy-related\npolicies.
\nSeveral Member States have put in place bioeconomy\nresearch programmes and agreed to\nimprove coordination of their research activities through\npublic-public partnering, such as the JPI on \"Healthy and\nProductive Seas and Oceans\". Active collaboration between\nstakeholders is also needed to encourage more private investment\nand entrepreneurship in Europe.
\nPURPOSE: the drawing up of a Special Report (No\n12/2012) of the Court of Auditors on the capacities of the\nCommission and Eurostat to improve the process for producing\nreliable and credible European statistics.
\nCONTENT: reliable and credible statistics are\nessential for the proper functioning of the European\nUnion.
\nStatistics are needed, in almost all areas\nfor:
\nStatistical indicators are increasingly used as a\ntrigger for European policy decisions or\nsanctions.
\nConclusions of the Court of Auditors’\naudit: the Court’s audit found\nthat the Commission and Eurostat have not yet achieved the full\nimplementation of the European Statistics Code of Practice. The\nCode sets demanding standards but lacks strong verification and\nenforcement tools to ensure adherence to the standards throughout\nthe European statistical system (ESS)
\nThe Commission’s recent initiatives to give new\nmomentum to achieving full compliance with the Code go in the right\ndirection, but are not sufficient to address all concerns.\nAmbiguity on which elements of the Code are legally binding\npersists, making verification and enforcement more\ndifficult.
\nAs to the European statistical programme (2008 to\n2012), the audit found that Eurostat had not designed it as an\neffective planning, monitoring and accountability tool.\nReprioritisation of statistical activities towards new challenges\nwas behind schedule. Regarding the financial management of the\nprogramme, the audit found that Eurostat’s grant management\nimproved, but weaknesses in procurement persisted. The draft\nprogramme (2013-2017) provides an opportunity to reengineer the ESS\nin order to make it more efficient and flexible provided that it is\nsupplemented by precise targets and milestones.
\nCourt recommendations: the Court presents a series of recommendations with a\nview to improving the situation:
\nPURPOSE: the drawing up of a Special Report (No\n12/2012) of the Court of Auditors on the capacities of the\nCommission and Eurostat to improve the process for producing\nreliable and credible European statistics.
\nCONTENT: reliable and credible statistics are\nessential for the proper functioning of the European\nUnion.
\nStatistics are needed, in almost all areas\nfor:
\nStatistical indicators are increasingly used as a\ntrigger for European policy decisions or\nsanctions.
\nConclusions of the Court of Auditors’\naudit: the Court’s audit found\nthat the Commission and Eurostat have not yet achieved the full\nimplementation of the European Statistics Code of Practice. The\nCode sets demanding standards but lacks strong verification and\nenforcement tools to ensure adherence to the standards throughout\nthe European statistical system (ESS)
\nThe Commission’s recent initiatives to give new\nmomentum to achieving full compliance with the Code go in the right\ndirection, but are not sufficient to address all concerns.\nAmbiguity on which elements of the Code are legally binding\npersists, making verification and enforcement more\ndifficult.
\nAs to the European statistical programme (2008 to\n2012), the audit found that Eurostat had not designed it as an\neffective planning, monitoring and accountability tool.\nReprioritisation of statistical activities towards new challenges\nwas behind schedule. Regarding the financial management of the\nprogramme, the audit found that Eurostat’s grant management\nimproved, but weaknesses in procurement persisted. The draft\nprogramme (2013-2017) provides an opportunity to reengineer the ESS\nin order to make it more efficient and flexible provided that it is\nsupplemented by precise targets and milestones.
\nCourt recommendations: the Court presents a series of recommendations with a\nview to improving the situation:
\nPURPOSE: the drawing up of a Special Report (No\n12/2012) of the Court of Auditors on the capacities of the\nCommission and Eurostat to improve the process for producing\nreliable and credible European statistics.
\nCONTENT: reliable and credible statistics are\nessential for the proper functioning of the European\nUnion.
\nStatistics are needed, in almost all areas\nfor:
\nStatistical indicators are increasingly used as a\ntrigger for European policy decisions or\nsanctions.
\nConclusions of the Court of Auditors’\naudit: the Court’s audit found\nthat the Commission and Eurostat have not yet achieved the full\nimplementation of the European Statistics Code of Practice. The\nCode sets demanding standards but lacks strong verification and\nenforcement tools to ensure adherence to the standards throughout\nthe European statistical system (ESS)
\nThe Commission’s recent initiatives to give new\nmomentum to achieving full compliance with the Code go in the right\ndirection, but are not sufficient to address all concerns.\nAmbiguity on which elements of the Code are legally binding\npersists, making verification and enforcement more\ndifficult.
\nAs to the European statistical programme (2008 to\n2012), the audit found that Eurostat had not designed it as an\neffective planning, monitoring and accountability tool.\nReprioritisation of statistical activities towards new challenges\nwas behind schedule. Regarding the financial management of the\nprogramme, the audit found that Eurostat’s grant management\nimproved, but weaknesses in procurement persisted. The draft\nprogramme (2013-2017) provides an opportunity to reengineer the ESS\nin order to make it more efficient and flexible provided that it is\nsupplemented by precise targets and milestones.
\nCourt recommendations: the Court presents a series of recommendations with a\nview to improving the situation:
\nPURPOSE: the drawing up of a Special Report (No\n12/2012) of the Court of Auditors on the capacities of the\nCommission and Eurostat to improve the process for producing\nreliable and credible European statistics.
\nCONTENT: reliable and credible statistics are\nessential for the proper functioning of the European\nUnion.
\nStatistics are needed, in almost all areas\nfor:
\nStatistical indicators are increasingly used as a\ntrigger for European policy decisions or\nsanctions.
\nConclusions of the Court of Auditors’\naudit: the Court’s audit found\nthat the Commission and Eurostat have not yet achieved the full\nimplementation of the European Statistics Code of Practice. The\nCode sets demanding standards but lacks strong verification and\nenforcement tools to ensure adherence to the standards throughout\nthe European statistical system (ESS)
\nThe Commission’s recent initiatives to give new\nmomentum to achieving full compliance with the Code go in the right\ndirection, but are not sufficient to address all concerns.\nAmbiguity on which elements of the Code are legally binding\npersists, making verification and enforcement more\ndifficult.
\nAs to the European statistical programme (2008 to\n2012), the audit found that Eurostat had not designed it as an\neffective planning, monitoring and accountability tool.\nReprioritisation of statistical activities towards new challenges\nwas behind schedule. Regarding the financial management of the\nprogramme, the audit found that Eurostat’s grant management\nimproved, but weaknesses in procurement persisted. The draft\nprogramme (2013-2017) provides an opportunity to reengineer the ESS\nin order to make it more efficient and flexible provided that it is\nsupplemented by precise targets and milestones.
\nCourt recommendations: the Court presents a series of recommendations with a\nview to improving the situation:
\nPURPOSE: the drawing up of a Special Report (No\n12/2012) of the Court of Auditors on the capacities of the\nCommission and Eurostat to improve the process for producing\nreliable and credible European statistics.
\nCONTENT: reliable and credible statistics are\nessential for the proper functioning of the European\nUnion.
\nStatistics are needed, in almost all areas\nfor:
\nStatistical indicators are increasingly used as a\ntrigger for European policy decisions or\nsanctions.
\nConclusions of the Court of Auditors’\naudit: the Court’s audit found\nthat the Commission and Eurostat have not yet achieved the full\nimplementation of the European Statistics Code of Practice. The\nCode sets demanding standards but lacks strong verification and\nenforcement tools to ensure adherence to the standards throughout\nthe European statistical system (ESS)
\nThe Commission’s recent initiatives to give new\nmomentum to achieving full compliance with the Code go in the right\ndirection, but are not sufficient to address all concerns.\nAmbiguity on which elements of the Code are legally binding\npersists, making verification and enforcement more\ndifficult.
\nAs to the European statistical programme (2008 to\n2012), the audit found that Eurostat had not designed it as an\neffective planning, monitoring and accountability tool.\nReprioritisation of statistical activities towards new challenges\nwas behind schedule. Regarding the financial management of the\nprogramme, the audit found that Eurostat’s grant management\nimproved, but weaknesses in procurement persisted. The draft\nprogramme (2013-2017) provides an opportunity to reengineer the ESS\nin order to make it more efficient and flexible provided that it is\nsupplemented by precise targets and milestones.
\nCourt recommendations: the Court presents a series of recommendations with a\nview to improving the situation:
\nPURPOSE: the drawing up of a Special Report (No\n12/2012) of the Court of Auditors on the capacities of the\nCommission and Eurostat to improve the process for producing\nreliable and credible European statistics.
\nCONTENT: reliable and credible statistics are\nessential for the proper functioning of the European\nUnion.
\nStatistics are needed, in almost all areas\nfor:
\nStatistical indicators are increasingly used as a\ntrigger for European policy decisions or\nsanctions.
\nConclusions of the Court of Auditors’\naudit: the Court’s audit found\nthat the Commission and Eurostat have not yet achieved the full\nimplementation of the European Statistics Code of Practice. The\nCode sets demanding standards but lacks strong verification and\nenforcement tools to ensure adherence to the standards throughout\nthe European statistical system (ESS)
\nThe Commission’s recent initiatives to give new\nmomentum to achieving full compliance with the Code go in the right\ndirection, but are not sufficient to address all concerns.\nAmbiguity on which elements of the Code are legally binding\npersists, making verification and enforcement more\ndifficult.
\nAs to the European statistical programme (2008 to\n2012), the audit found that Eurostat had not designed it as an\neffective planning, monitoring and accountability tool.\nReprioritisation of statistical activities towards new challenges\nwas behind schedule. Regarding the financial management of the\nprogramme, the audit found that Eurostat’s grant management\nimproved, but weaknesses in procurement persisted. The draft\nprogramme (2013-2017) provides an opportunity to reengineer the ESS\nin order to make it more efficient and flexible provided that it is\nsupplemented by precise targets and milestones.
\nCourt recommendations: the Court presents a series of recommendations with a\nview to improving the situation:
\nPURPOSE: presentation by the Commission of the\nconsolidated annual accounts of the European Union for the\nfinancial year 2011, as part of the 2011 discharge\nprocedure.
\nAnalysis of the accounts of\nthe EU Institutions: Council and European\nCouncil.
\nLegal reminder: the\nconsolidated annual accounts of the European Union for the year\n2011 have been prepared on the basis of the information presented\nby the institutions and bodies under Article 129.2 of the Financial\nRegulation applicable to the general budget of the European Union.\nThey were prepared in accordance with Title VII of this Financial\nRegulation and with the accounting principles, rules and methods\nset out in the notes to the financial statements.
\nThe objective of the financial statements is to\nprovide information about the financial position, performance and\ncashflows of an entity that is useful to a wide range of users. The\nobjective is to provide information useful for decision making, and\nto demonstrate the accountability of the entity for the resources\nentrusted to it.
\n1) Purpose: the document\nhelps to bring insight into the EU budget mechanism and the way\nin which the budget has been managed and spent in 2011. It\nrecalls that the European Union's operational expenditure covers\nthe various headings of the financial framework and takes different\nforms, depending on how the money is paid out and managed. In\naccordance with the Financial Regulation, the Commission implements\nthe general budget using the following methods: direct or indirect\ncentralised management (by means of bodies or agencies of public\nlaw or other); decentralised management where the Commission\ndelegates certain tasks for the implementation of the budget to\nthird countries; and, thirdly, shared management where budget\nimplementation tasks are delegated to Member States, in areas such\nas agricultural expenditure and structural actions.
\nThe document also presents the different financial\nactors involved in the budget process (accounting officers,\ninternal officers and authorising officers) and recalls their\nrespective roles in the context of the tasks of sound financial\nmanagement.
\nAmongst the other legal elements relating to the\nimplementation of the EU budget presented in this document, the\npaper focuses on the following issues:
\nTo recap, the final control is the discharge of the\nbudget for a given financial year. The discharge represents\nthe political aspect of the external control of budget\nimplementation and is the decision by which the European\nParliament, acting on a Council recommendation, \"releases\" the\nCommission from its responsibility for management of a given budget\nby marking the end of that budget's existence. When granting the\ndischarge, Parliament may highlight some observations that it\nconsiders important, often by recommending that the Commission\ntakes action on the aspects in question.
\nThe document also details specific expenditure of the\ninstitutions, in particular: i) pensions of former Members and\nfunctionaries of institutions; ii) joint sickness insurance scheme\nand iii) buildings.
\nLastly, the document presents a series of tables and\ndetailed technical indicators on (i) the balance sheet; (ii) the\neconomic outturn account; (iii) cashflow tables; (iv) technical\nannexes concerning the financial statements.
\n2) Implementation of appropriations under Section II\nof the budget for the financial year 2011: the document comprises a series of detailed tables,\nthe most important concerning the implementation of the budget.\nConcerning the Council's expenditure, the table on the financial\nand budgetary implementation of this institution is presented as\nfollows (information drawn from the Financial\nActivity Report 2011 (Section II - European Council and\nCouncil).
\nBudget 2011: the\nEuropean Council and Council budget 2011 was established at EUR\n563.3 million. At the end of the financial year 2011 an amount\nof EUR 506.8 million was committed (corresponding to an\nimplementation rate of 90 %).
\nThe main reasons for the under spending of EUR 56.4\nmillion are:
\nN.B.: the 2011 budget for the European Council and\nCouncil was drawn up with the goal of not increasing payments in\nreal terms, with the exception of preparing for the accession of\nCroatia. The Secretary General of the Council has not introduced\nany demands for new staff, except for the Cabinet of the\nPresident of the European Council. This position indicates that\nnew initiatives and the need for supplementary resources will be\ncovered by reductions in other areas.
\nAppropriations carried over: the implementation of amounts carried over from 2010\nto 2011 totalled EUR 40.2 million out of EUR 49.8 million. The\nobjective remains to further increase the implementation of the\ncarried over amounts.
\nRevenue: The General\nSecretariat of the Council (GSC)'s revenue operations in 2011\namounted to EUR 128.6 million. From this amount EUR 117.5 million\nwas recovered during the financial year while the rest will be\nrecovered in 2012. More than half (EUR 62.4 million, or 53 %) of\nthese recovered revenues are related to the Community taxes, levies\nand dues which were collected from the GSC's staff in\n2011.
\n3) Budgetary implementation - conclusions: the main\ncharacteristics of the Council’s budgetary implementation for\nthe financial year 2011 was chiefly marked by:
\nOBJECTIVE: presentation of the Report of the Court of\nAuditors on the 2011 budget (section II – European\nCouncil).
\nCONTENT: the Court of Auditors published its\n35th Annual Report on the implementation\nof the EU budget for the 2011 financial\nyear.
\nIn accordance with the tasks and objectives conferred\non the Court of Auditors by the Treaty on the Functioning of the\nEuropean Union, it provides under the discharge procedure, for both\nthe European Parliament and European Council, a statement of\nassurance (“DAS”) about the reliability of the accounts\nand the legality and regularity of the transactions of each\ninstitution, body or agency of the EU, based on an independent\nexternal audit.
\nThe audit also focused on the budget implementation of\nthe European Council.
\nOn the basis of its audit work, the Court considers\nthat payments for “Administrative and other expenditure”\npolicy are, overall, significantly error-free. The\nestimated error rate is 0.1 %.
\nThe Court, however, draws attention to the errors and\nweaknesses which did not affect the Court’s conclusion. The\nCourt examined a sample of procurement procedures and noted\nseveral weaknesses in the application of selection and award\ncriteria, some of which had an impact on the results of the\nprocedure. Other weaknesses relate to the organisation of cross\nborder competition, to the management of automatic award procedures\nand to the respect of provisions as regards the drafting and filing\nof tendering documents.
\nThe Court therefore recommended that the institutions\nand bodies of the EU took steps ensure that authorising officers\nimprove the design, coordination and performance of procurement\nprocedures through appropriate checks and better\nguidance.
\nThe Court also made a number of comments specific to\neach institution or body of the European Union. These observations\ndo not affect the positive overall appraisal given that they do not\nsignificantly affect overall administrative expenditure.
\nIn the specific case of the audit of the European\nCouncil, the Court noted in particular the following\npoints:
\n\n· \nprocurement: five procurement procedures were examined. In two\ncases relating to cleaning services and to the purchase of service\nclothing and shoes, if tenderers did not propose a price for\ncertain items of the tender, tender specifications enabled the\nEuropean Council to estimate a price based on the average price\nsubmitted for this item by the other tenderers. The European\nCouncil thus modifies the value of the tender in a way which is not\nlaid down in the Financial Regulation.
\nPURPOSE: presentation by the Commission of the\nconsolidated annual accounts of the European Union for the\nfinancial year 2011, as part of the 2011 discharge\nprocedure.
\nAnalysis of the accounts of\nthe EU Institutions: Council and European\nCouncil.
\nLegal reminder: the\nconsolidated annual accounts of the European Union for the year\n2011 have been prepared on the basis of the information presented\nby the institutions and bodies under Article 129.2 of the Financial\nRegulation applicable to the general budget of the European Union.\nThey were prepared in accordance with Title VII of this Financial\nRegulation and with the accounting principles, rules and methods\nset out in the notes to the financial statements.
\nThe objective of the financial statements is to\nprovide information about the financial position, performance and\ncashflows of an entity that is useful to a wide range of users. The\nobjective is to provide information useful for decision making, and\nto demonstrate the accountability of the entity for the resources\nentrusted to it.
\n1) Purpose: the document\nhelps to bring insight into the EU budget mechanism and the way\nin which the budget has been managed and spent in 2011. It\nrecalls that the European Union's operational expenditure covers\nthe various headings of the financial framework and takes different\nforms, depending on how the money is paid out and managed. In\naccordance with the Financial Regulation, the Commission implements\nthe general budget using the following methods: direct or indirect\ncentralised management (by means of bodies or agencies of public\nlaw or other); decentralised management where the Commission\ndelegates certain tasks for the implementation of the budget to\nthird countries; and, thirdly, shared management where budget\nimplementation tasks are delegated to Member States, in areas such\nas agricultural expenditure and structural actions.
\nThe document also presents the different financial\nactors involved in the budget process (accounting officers,\ninternal officers and authorising officers) and recalls their\nrespective roles in the context of the tasks of sound financial\nmanagement.
\nAmongst the other legal elements relating to the\nimplementation of the EU budget presented in this document, the\npaper focuses on the following issues:
\nTo recap, the final control is the discharge of the\nbudget for a given financial year. The discharge represents\nthe political aspect of the external control of budget\nimplementation and is the decision by which the European\nParliament, acting on a Council recommendation, \"releases\" the\nCommission from its responsibility for management of a given budget\nby marking the end of that budget's existence. When granting the\ndischarge, Parliament may highlight some observations that it\nconsiders important, often by recommending that the Commission\ntakes action on the aspects in question.
\nThe document also details specific expenditure of the\ninstitutions, in particular: i) pensions of former Members and\nfunctionaries of institutions; ii) joint sickness insurance scheme\nand iii) buildings.
\nLastly, the document presents a series of tables and\ndetailed technical indicators on (i) the balance sheet; (ii) the\neconomic outturn account; (iii) cashflow tables; (iv) technical\nannexes concerning the financial statements.
\n2) Implementation of appropriations under Section II\nof the budget for the financial year 2011: the document comprises a series of detailed tables,\nthe most important concerning the implementation of the budget.\nConcerning the Council's expenditure, the table on the financial\nand budgetary implementation of this institution is presented as\nfollows (information drawn from the Financial\nActivity Report 2011 (Section II - European Council and\nCouncil).
\nBudget 2011: the\nEuropean Council and Council budget 2011 was established at EUR\n563.3 million. At the end of the financial year 2011 an amount\nof EUR 506.8 million was committed (corresponding to an\nimplementation rate of 90 %).
\nThe main reasons for the under spending of EUR 56.4\nmillion are:
\nN.B.: the 2011 budget for the European Council and\nCouncil was drawn up with the goal of not increasing payments in\nreal terms, with the exception of preparing for the accession of\nCroatia. The Secretary General of the Council has not introduced\nany demands for new staff, except for the Cabinet of the\nPresident of the European Council. This position indicates that\nnew initiatives and the need for supplementary resources will be\ncovered by reductions in other areas.
\nAppropriations carried over: the implementation of amounts carried over from 2010\nto 2011 totalled EUR 40.2 million out of EUR 49.8 million. The\nobjective remains to further increase the implementation of the\ncarried over amounts.
\nRevenue: The General\nSecretariat of the Council (GSC)'s revenue operations in 2011\namounted to EUR 128.6 million. From this amount EUR 117.5 million\nwas recovered during the financial year while the rest will be\nrecovered in 2012. More than half (EUR 62.4 million, or 53 %) of\nthese recovered revenues are related to the Community taxes, levies\nand dues which were collected from the GSC's staff in\n2011.
\n3) Budgetary implementation - conclusions: the main\ncharacteristics of the Council’s budgetary implementation for\nthe financial year 2011 was chiefly marked by:
\nPURPOSE: presentation by the Commission of the\nconsolidated annual accounts of the European Union for the\nfinancial year 2011, as part of the 2011 discharge\nprocedure.
\nAnalysis of the accounts of\nthe EU Institutions: Council and European\nCouncil.
\nLegal reminder: the\nconsolidated annual accounts of the European Union for the year\n2011 have been prepared on the basis of the information presented\nby the institutions and bodies under Article 129.2 of the Financial\nRegulation applicable to the general budget of the European Union.\nThey were prepared in accordance with Title VII of this Financial\nRegulation and with the accounting principles, rules and methods\nset out in the notes to the financial statements.
\nThe objective of the financial statements is to\nprovide information about the financial position, performance and\ncashflows of an entity that is useful to a wide range of users. The\nobjective is to provide information useful for decision making, and\nto demonstrate the accountability of the entity for the resources\nentrusted to it.
\n1) Purpose: the document\nhelps to bring insight into the EU budget mechanism and the way\nin which the budget has been managed and spent in 2011. It\nrecalls that the European Union's operational expenditure covers\nthe various headings of the financial framework and takes different\nforms, depending on how the money is paid out and managed. In\naccordance with the Financial Regulation, the Commission implements\nthe general budget using the following methods: direct or indirect\ncentralised management (by means of bodies or agencies of public\nlaw or other); decentralised management where the Commission\ndelegates certain tasks for the implementation of the budget to\nthird countries; and, thirdly, shared management where budget\nimplementation tasks are delegated to Member States, in areas such\nas agricultural expenditure and structural actions.
\nThe document also presents the different financial\nactors involved in the budget process (accounting officers,\ninternal officers and authorising officers) and recalls their\nrespective roles in the context of the tasks of sound financial\nmanagement.
\nAmongst the other legal elements relating to the\nimplementation of the EU budget presented in this document, the\npaper focuses on the following issues:
\nTo recap, the final control is the discharge of the\nbudget for a given financial year. The discharge represents\nthe political aspect of the external control of budget\nimplementation and is the decision by which the European\nParliament, acting on a Council recommendation, \"releases\" the\nCommission from its responsibility for management of a given budget\nby marking the end of that budget's existence. When granting the\ndischarge, Parliament may highlight some observations that it\nconsiders important, often by recommending that the Commission\ntakes action on the aspects in question.
\nThe document also details specific expenditure of the\ninstitutions, in particular: i) pensions of former Members and\nfunctionaries of institutions; ii) joint sickness insurance scheme\nand iii) buildings.
\nLastly, the document presents a series of tables and\ndetailed technical indicators on (i) the balance sheet; (ii) the\neconomic outturn account; (iii) cashflow tables; (iv) technical\nannexes concerning the financial statements.
\n2) Implementation of appropriations under Section II\nof the budget for the financial year 2011: the document comprises a series of detailed tables,\nthe most important concerning the implementation of the budget.\nConcerning the Council's expenditure, the table on the financial\nand budgetary implementation of this institution is presented as\nfollows (information drawn from the Financial\nActivity Report 2011 (Section II - European Council and\nCouncil).
\nBudget 2011: the\nEuropean Council and Council budget 2011 was established at EUR\n563.3 million. At the end of the financial year 2011 an amount\nof EUR 506.8 million was committed (corresponding to an\nimplementation rate of 90 %).
\nThe main reasons for the under spending of EUR 56.4\nmillion are:
\nN.B.: the 2011 budget for the European Council and\nCouncil was drawn up with the goal of not increasing payments in\nreal terms, with the exception of preparing for the accession of\nCroatia. The Secretary General of the Council has not introduced\nany demands for new staff, except for the Cabinet of the\nPresident of the European Council. This position indicates that\nnew initiatives and the need for supplementary resources will be\ncovered by reductions in other areas.
\nAppropriations carried over: the implementation of amounts carried over from 2010\nto 2011 totalled EUR 40.2 million out of EUR 49.8 million. The\nobjective remains to further increase the implementation of the\ncarried over amounts.
\nRevenue: The General\nSecretariat of the Council (GSC)'s revenue operations in 2011\namounted to EUR 128.6 million. From this amount EUR 117.5 million\nwas recovered during the financial year while the rest will be\nrecovered in 2012. More than half (EUR 62.4 million, or 53 %) of\nthese recovered revenues are related to the Community taxes, levies\nand dues which were collected from the GSC's staff in\n2011.
\n3) Budgetary implementation - conclusions: the main\ncharacteristics of the Council’s budgetary implementation for\nthe financial year 2011 was chiefly marked by:
\nOBJECTIVE: presentation of the Report of the Court of\nAuditors on the 2011 budget (section II – European\nCouncil).
\nCONTENT: the Court of Auditors published its\n35th Annual Report on the implementation\nof the EU budget for the 2011 financial\nyear.
\nIn accordance with the tasks and objectives conferred\non the Court of Auditors by the Treaty on the Functioning of the\nEuropean Union, it provides under the discharge procedure, for both\nthe European Parliament and European Council, a statement of\nassurance (“DAS”) about the reliability of the accounts\nand the legality and regularity of the transactions of each\ninstitution, body or agency of the EU, based on an independent\nexternal audit.
\nThe audit also focused on the budget implementation of\nthe European Council.
\nOn the basis of its audit work, the Court considers\nthat payments for “Administrative and other expenditure”\npolicy are, overall, significantly error-free. The\nestimated error rate is 0.1 %.
\nThe Court, however, draws attention to the errors and\nweaknesses which did not affect the Court’s conclusion. The\nCourt examined a sample of procurement procedures and noted\nseveral weaknesses in the application of selection and award\ncriteria, some of which had an impact on the results of the\nprocedure. Other weaknesses relate to the organisation of cross\nborder competition, to the management of automatic award procedures\nand to the respect of provisions as regards the drafting and filing\nof tendering documents.
\nThe Court therefore recommended that the institutions\nand bodies of the EU took steps ensure that authorising officers\nimprove the design, coordination and performance of procurement\nprocedures through appropriate checks and better\nguidance.
\nThe Court also made a number of comments specific to\neach institution or body of the European Union. These observations\ndo not affect the positive overall appraisal given that they do not\nsignificantly affect overall administrative expenditure.
\nIn the specific case of the audit of the European\nCouncil, the Court noted in particular the following\npoints:
\n\n· \nprocurement: five procurement procedures were examined. In two\ncases relating to cleaning services and to the purchase of service\nclothing and shoes, if tenderers did not propose a price for\ncertain items of the tender, tender specifications enabled the\nEuropean Council to estimate a price based on the average price\nsubmitted for this item by the other tenderers. The European\nCouncil thus modifies the value of the tender in a way which is not\nlaid down in the Financial Regulation.
\nPURPOSE: presentation by the Commission of the\nconsolidated annual accounts of the European Union for the\nfinancial year 2011, as part of the 2011 discharge\nprocedure.
\nAnalysis of the accounts of\nthe EU Institutions: Council and European\nCouncil.
\nLegal reminder: the\nconsolidated annual accounts of the European Union for the year\n2011 have been prepared on the basis of the information presented\nby the institutions and bodies under Article 129.2 of the Financial\nRegulation applicable to the general budget of the European Union.\nThey were prepared in accordance with Title VII of this Financial\nRegulation and with the accounting principles, rules and methods\nset out in the notes to the financial statements.
\nThe objective of the financial statements is to\nprovide information about the financial position, performance and\ncashflows of an entity that is useful to a wide range of users. The\nobjective is to provide information useful for decision making, and\nto demonstrate the accountability of the entity for the resources\nentrusted to it.
\n1) Purpose: the document\nhelps to bring insight into the EU budget mechanism and the way\nin which the budget has been managed and spent in 2011. It\nrecalls that the European Union's operational expenditure covers\nthe various headings of the financial framework and takes different\nforms, depending on how the money is paid out and managed. In\naccordance with the Financial Regulation, the Commission implements\nthe general budget using the following methods: direct or indirect\ncentralised management (by means of bodies or agencies of public\nlaw or other); decentralised management where the Commission\ndelegates certain tasks for the implementation of the budget to\nthird countries; and, thirdly, shared management where budget\nimplementation tasks are delegated to Member States, in areas such\nas agricultural expenditure and structural actions.
\nThe document also presents the different financial\nactors involved in the budget process (accounting officers,\ninternal officers and authorising officers) and recalls their\nrespective roles in the context of the tasks of sound financial\nmanagement.
\nAmongst the other legal elements relating to the\nimplementation of the EU budget presented in this document, the\npaper focuses on the following issues:
\nTo recap, the final control is the discharge of the\nbudget for a given financial year. The discharge represents\nthe political aspect of the external control of budget\nimplementation and is the decision by which the European\nParliament, acting on a Council recommendation, \"releases\" the\nCommission from its responsibility for management of a given budget\nby marking the end of that budget's existence. When granting the\ndischarge, Parliament may highlight some observations that it\nconsiders important, often by recommending that the Commission\ntakes action on the aspects in question.
\nThe document also details specific expenditure of the\ninstitutions, in particular: i) pensions of former Members and\nfunctionaries of institutions; ii) joint sickness insurance scheme\nand iii) buildings.
\nLastly, the document presents a series of tables and\ndetailed technical indicators on (i) the balance sheet; (ii) the\neconomic outturn account; (iii) cashflow tables; (iv) technical\nannexes concerning the financial statements.
\n2) Implementation of appropriations under Section II\nof the budget for the financial year 2011: the document comprises a series of detailed tables,\nthe most important concerning the implementation of the budget.\nConcerning the Council's expenditure, the table on the financial\nand budgetary implementation of this institution is presented as\nfollows (information drawn from the Financial\nActivity Report 2011 (Section II - European Council and\nCouncil).
\nBudget 2011: the\nEuropean Council and Council budget 2011 was established at EUR\n563.3 million. At the end of the financial year 2011 an amount\nof EUR 506.8 million was committed (corresponding to an\nimplementation rate of 90 %).
\nThe main reasons for the under spending of EUR 56.4\nmillion are:
\nN.B.: the 2011 budget for the European Council and\nCouncil was drawn up with the goal of not increasing payments in\nreal terms, with the exception of preparing for the accession of\nCroatia. The Secretary General of the Council has not introduced\nany demands for new staff, except for the Cabinet of the\nPresident of the European Council. This position indicates that\nnew initiatives and the need for supplementary resources will be\ncovered by reductions in other areas.
\nAppropriations carried over: the implementation of amounts carried over from 2010\nto 2011 totalled EUR 40.2 million out of EUR 49.8 million. The\nobjective remains to further increase the implementation of the\ncarried over amounts.
\nRevenue: The General\nSecretariat of the Council (GSC)'s revenue operations in 2011\namounted to EUR 128.6 million. From this amount EUR 117.5 million\nwas recovered during the financial year while the rest will be\nrecovered in 2012. More than half (EUR 62.4 million, or 53 %) of\nthese recovered revenues are related to the Community taxes, levies\nand dues which were collected from the GSC's staff in\n2011.
\n3) Budgetary implementation - conclusions: the main\ncharacteristics of the Council’s budgetary implementation for\nthe financial year 2011 was chiefly marked by:
\nPURPOSE: presentation by the Commission of the\nconsolidated annual accounts of the European Union for the\nfinancial year 2011, as part of the 2011 discharge\nprocedure.
\nAnalysis of the accounts of the EU Institutions:\nSection X – European External Action Service -\nEEAS.
\nLegal reminder: the\nconsolidated annual accounts of the European Union for the year\n2011 have been prepared on the basis of the information presented\nby the institutions and bodies under Article 129.2 of the Financial\nRegulation applicable to the general budget of the European Union.\nThey were prepared in accordance with Title VII of this Financial\nRegulation and with the accounting principles, rules and methods\nset out in the notes to the financial statements.
\nThe objective of the financial statements is to\nprovide information about the financial position, performance and\ncashflow of an entity that is useful to a wide range of users. The\nobjective is to provide information useful for decision making, and\nto demonstrate the accountability of the entity for the resources\nentrusted to it.
\n1) Purpose: the document\nhelps to bring insight into the EU budget mechanism and the way\nin which the budget has been managed and spent in 2011. It\nrecalls that the European Union's operational expenditure covers\nthe various headings of the financial framework and takes different\nforms, depending on how the money is paid out and managed. In\naccordance with the Financial Regulation, the Commission implements\nthe general budget using the following methods: direct or indirect\ncentralised management (by means of bodies or agencies of public\nlaw or other); decentralised management where the Commission\ndelegates certain tasks for the implementation of the budget to\nthird countries; and, thirdly, shared management where budget\nimplementation tasks are delegated to Member States, in areas such\nas agricultural expenditure and structural actions.
\nThe document also presents the different financial\nactors involved in the budget process (accounting officers,\ninternal officers and authorising officers) and recalls their\nrespective roles in the context of the tasks of sound financial\nmanagement.
\nAmongst the other legal elements relating to the\nimplementation of the EU budget presented in this document, the\npaper focuses on the following issues:
\nTo recap, the final control is the discharge of the\nbudget for a given financial year. The discharge represents\nthe political aspect of the external control of budget\nimplementation and is the decision by which the European\nParliament, acting on a Council recommendation, \"releases\" the\nCommission from its responsibility for management of a given budget\nby marking the end of that budget's existence. When granting the\ndischarge, Parliament may highlight some observations that it\nconsiders important, often by recommending that the Commission\ntakes action on the aspects in question.
\nThe document also details specific expenditure of the\ninstitutions, in particular: i) pensions of former Members and\nofficials of institutions; ii) joint sickness insurance scheme and\niii) buildings.
\nLastly, the document presents a series of tables and\ndetailed technical indicators on (i) the balance sheet; (ii) the\neconomic outturn account; (iii) cashflow tables; (iv) technical\nannexes concerning the financial statements.
\n2) Implementation of appropriations under Section X of\nthe budget for the financial year 2011: the document comprises a series of detailed tables,\nthe most important concerning the implementation of the budget.\nConcerning the EEAS’s expenditure, the table on the financial\nand budgetary implementation of this institution is presented as\nfollows (information drawn from the EEAS\nReport on budgetary and financial management for the year\n2011).
\nBudget 2011: the\nEEAS’s 2011 budget presents itself as follows:
\nNote: an additional sum of EUR 28.3 million was also\nspent in 2011 from heading 5 of the Commission’s budget (ex-BA\nlines).
\n3) Budgetary implementation –\nconclusions: in more general and\npolitical terms, the EEAS’s budgetary implementation for the\nfinancial year 2011 was chiefly marked by the technical and\nadministrative establishment of the Service. Transitional\narrangements were set in place to authorise and implement certain\nexpenditures and structure human resources according to a new and\ncomplex plan.
\nAs a separate institution, the EEAS became truly\nindependent in 2011 for its own budget for the Service is now\nentirely responsible.
\nOBJECTIVE: presentation of the Report of the Court of\nAuditors on the 2011 budget (section X – European External\nAction Service (EEAS)).
\nCONTENT: the Court of Auditors published its\n35th Annual Report on the implementation\nof the EU budget for the 2011 financial\nyear.
\nIn accordance with the tasks and objectives conferred\non the Court of Auditors by the Treaty on the Functioning of the\nEuropean Union, it provides under the discharge procedure, for both\nthe European Parliament and Council, a statement of assurance\n(“DAS”) about the reliability of the accounts and the\nlegality and regularity of the transactions of each institution,\nbody or agency of the EU, based on an independent external\naudit.
\nThe audit also focused on the budget implementation of\nthe EEAS.
\nOn the basis of its audit work, the Court considers\nthat payments for “Administrative and other expenditure”\npolicy are, overall, significantly error-free. The estimated\nerror rate is 0.1 %.
\nThe Court, however, draws attention to the errors and\nweaknesses which did not affect the Court’s conclusion. The\nCourt examined a sample of procurement procedures and noted\nseveral weaknesses in the application of selection and award\ncriteria, some of which had an impact on the results of the\nprocedure. Other weaknesses relate to the organisation of\ncross-border competition, to the management of automatic award\nprocedures and to the respect of provisions as regards the drafting\nand filing of tendering documents.
\nThe Court also detected weaknesses when it reviewed a\nsample of calculations and payments of social allowances, as well\nas a sample of employment contracts concluded with temporary\nagents.
\nThe Court therefore recommends that the institutions\nand bodies of the EU:
\n\n· \ntake steps to ensure that staff deliver, at\nappropriate intervals, documents confirming their personal\nsituation and implement a system for the timely monitoring of\nthese documents;
\n\n· \nimprove the IT systems used to manage these\npayments to ensure that the allowances paid by national authorities\nare updated automatically;
\n\n· \ntake steps to ensure that the provisions of the\nrelevant regulations are applied when concluding, extending or\nmodifying employment contracts with non-permanent staff;
\n\n· \nensure that authorising officers improve the\ndesign, coordination and performance of procurement procedures\nthrough appropriate checks and better guidance.
\nThe Court also made a number of comments specific to\neach institution or body of the European Union. These observations\ndo not affect the positive overall appraisal given that they do not\nsignificantly affect overall administrative expenditure.
\nIn the specific case of the EEAS, the Court notes the\nfollowing points:
\n\n· \npayment of social allowances and benefits to\nstaff members: in six cases out of 17\naudited, information available to the services of the European\nExternal Action Service (EEAS) on the personal and family situation\nof the staff members, was not up-to-date. In three of these cases,\nit led to incorrect payments because the amounts deducted did not\nreflect the latest applicable value of benefits paid by national\nauthorities;
\n\n· \nconclusion of contracts with temporary\nstaff: the analysis of the salary\npaid to three temporary staff, out of a sample of eight audited,\nshowed that contracts of employment were signed by both parties\nbetween three and seven months after the staff members had taken up\ntheir duties. This practice creates a situation of legal\nuncertainty for both parties;
\n\n· \nmanagement of a contract for the provision of\nsecurity services: the invoice\nrelated to the monthly payment of EUR 5 340 for the provision of\nsecurity services to the Delegation to Venezuela was wrongly\nendorsed as “certified correct” whereas these services\nhad not yet been provided. This practice is contrary to the rules\nof the Financial Regulation. In addition, the related security\ncontract has been in force for 24 years without modification. The\naudit also noted that the delegation had only obtained informal\nexemption from paying VAT, although the VAT recovery legislation\nhas been in force in Venezuela since the year 2000. It has not\ncalculated the amount of VAT unrecovered over this\nperiod.
\n\n· \nprocurement: of\nfive restricted procurement procedures audited, three relating to\nthe provision of security services displayed weaknesses. In one of\nthese cases, the evaluation committee chose to reject without\nfurther analysis an offer which included an abnormally low bid\nalthough the tenderer confirmed that this resulted from a clerical\nerror. In two other procedures related to the provision of facility\nmanagement services (contract value of EUR 285 000 over four years)\nand the rental of offices (contract value of EUR 9 000 000 over 10\nyears), key documentation related to the performance of some steps\nof the procedures could not be provided to the Court.
\nIn view of the observations made in the Court of\nAuditor's report, the Council calls on the European Parliament\nto grant discharge to all of the Union’s institutions in\nregard to the implementation of their respective budgets for the\nfinancial year 2011.
\nOverall, the Council’s remarks are positive in\nregard to the expenditure of the institutions since it notes that,\nagain in 2011, the administrative expenditure of EU institutions\nand bodies remained free from material error and that their\nsupervisory and control systems continued to comply with the\nrequirements of the Financial Regulation.
\nNevertheless, the Council regrets that in some\ninstitutions weaknesses were still detected in the payment of\nsocial allowances to staff members, in the employment contracts\nfor non-permanent staff and in procurement procedures.
\nIt welcomes the measures already taken and encourages\nthe institutions concerned to address the remaining weaknesses\npointed out by the Court.
\nThe Council notes the Court's recommendations that the\ninstitutions concerned should ensure that staff regularly deliver\ndocuments on their personal situation, that the relevant provisions\nare applied when concluding, extending or modifying employment\ncontracts with non-permanent staff, and that the authorising\nofficers further improve guidance and appropriate checks concerning\nprocurement procedures.
\nThe Committee on\nBudgetary Control adopted the report by Andrea\nČEŠKOVÁ (ECR, CZ) in which it calls on the European\nParliament to grant the High Representative of the Union for\nForeign Affairs and Security Policy discharge in respect of the\nimplementation of the European External Action Service's budget for\nthe financial year 2011.
\nMembers welcome the\nfact that, on the basis of its audit work, the Court of Auditors\nconcluded that the payments as a whole for the year ended on 31\nDecember 2011 for administrative and other expenditure of the\ninstitutions and bodies were free from material error.
\nThey note, however,\nthat while 2011 was the first financial year for the EEAS, it is,\nhowever, fully responsible for the financial year 2011 and has to\nensure strict compliance with the legislation. They urge the EEAS\nto examine what lessons can be learned from the first year of\noperation. They request that the EEAS, in the context of the 2012\ndischarge procedure, informs Parliament of the results.
\nMembers note that\nat the end of 2011, the final budget for EEAS headquarters was EUR\n188 million, with a execution rate of 91% and was EUR 276.1\nmillion for the delegations, with a lower execution rate of around\n89%. They are concerned that after an amending budget and some\ntransfers from the Commission and within services in 2011,\nunderspending and carrying over of appropriations continues to be\nquite high. Therefore, they suggest the development of key\nperformance indicators to monitor the most critical areas in\norder to improve the budget execution over the coming years.
\nOther issues are\nhighighted such as procurement, building policy, recruitment and\nthe management of staff and chronic absenteeism in the\ndelegations. In general, Members call for improvements to the\nquality of the financial and administrative management of Union\ndelegations as well as certain services in the headquarters.
\nLastly, Members\nurge the EEAS to maximise the benefits of economies of scale by\ncreating new synergies within the EEAS headquarters and delegations\nas well as in cooperation with Member States and national\ndiplomatic services, in the spirit of a true Union external policy\nand services. They emphasise the need for the Union to have a\ndelegation in Panama.
\nThe European Parliament adopted by 558 votes to 108\nwith 5 abstentions, a decision granting the High Representative of\nthe Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy discharge in\nrespect of the implementation of the European External Action\nService's budget for the financial year 2011.
\nIn its resolution accompanying the decision for\ndischarge, Parliament notes that the Court of Auditors concluded\nthat the payments as a whole for the year ended on 31 December 2011\nfor administrative and other expenditure of the institutions and\nbodies were free from material error. It notes, however, that while\n2011 was the first financial year for the EEAS, the latter is fully\nresponsible for the financial year 2011 and it requires the EEAS to\nimprove on all issues queried by the Court. Parliament requests that the EEAS, in the context of\nthe 2012 discharge procedure, informs Parliament of the\nresults.
\nAt the same time, Members note that at the end of\n2011, the final budget for EEAS headquarters was EUR\n188 million, with an execution rate of 91% and was EUR 276.1\nmillion for the delegations, with a lower execution rate of around\n89%. They are concerned that after an amending budget and some\ntransfers from the Commission and within services in 2011,\nunderspending and carrying over of appropriations continues to be\nquite high. Therefore, Parliament suggests developing key\nperformance indicators to monitor the most critical areas\nin order to improve the budget execution over the coming\nyears.
\nParliament also discusses certain problems in\nbuildings and procurement policy.
\nPersonnel policy: Parliament highlights issues relating to the\nrecruitment and the management of staff and chronic\nabsenteeism in the delegations. In general, Members call for\nimprovements to the quality of the financial and administrative\nmanagement of the EEAS and a reduction in top-heavy administration. It\nnotes in particular:
\nIt reiterates its wish to see, as soon as\npossible, the establishment of a human resources policy that\nreflects the political priorities of the Union and the actual\nrequirements on the ground.
\nParliament takes the view that the\ninefficiency of the current situation risks seriously impairing the\nreputation of the EEAS.
\nDelegations: in general,\nParliament wants to see improvements in administrative and\nfinancial management of delegations as well as in certain services\nin headquarters. It urges the EEAS to maximise the benefits of\neconomies of scale by creating new synergies within the EEAS\nheadquarters and delegations as well as in cooperation with Member\nStates and national diplomatic services, in the spirit of a true\nUnion external policy and services. It emphasises the need, in that\nrespect, to seek, as much as possible, the co-location of\nservices in third countries, for the sake of enhanced exchange\nof information and savings. Parliament expresses concern about the administrative\nshortcomings in the Union delegations in Afghanistan, Djibouti,\nGuyana, Solomon Islands and Zambia. It asks for a report on the\nstate of play about those shortcomings including security\ncontracts. It also expects a report on the situation about internal\ncontrol standards in the Union delegations in Liberia and Iraq and\nasks for a state of play about compliance rates of the Union\ndelegations in Egypt and Malawi and for an update on security\ncontracts in the Union delegations in the West Bank, Haiti,\nSaudi-Arabia, Pakistan, Sri-Lanka, Libya and Lebanon. In an\namendment adopted in plenary, Parliament asks for clarification as\nto why a security company under contract with the Union delegation\nto Afghanistan, subject to OLAF investigation, has recently been\nawarded a new contract of about EUR 50 million in the same\ndelegation.
\nLastly, Parliament emphasises the need for the Union to have\na delegation in Panama, and insists on an explanation for the\nrecall of the Union ambassador to Libya.
\nOBJECTIVE: presentation of the Report of the Court of\nAuditors on the 2011 budget (section X – European External\nAction Service (EEAS)).
\nCONTENT: the Court of Auditors published its\n35th Annual Report on the implementation\nof the EU budget for the 2011 financial\nyear.
\nIn accordance with the tasks and objectives conferred\non the Court of Auditors by the Treaty on the Functioning of the\nEuropean Union, it provides under the discharge procedure, for both\nthe European Parliament and Council, a statement of assurance\n(“DAS”) about the reliability of the accounts and the\nlegality and regularity of the transactions of each institution,\nbody or agency of the EU, based on an independent external\naudit.
\nThe audit also focused on the budget implementation of\nthe EEAS.
\nOn the basis of its audit work, the Court considers\nthat payments for “Administrative and other expenditure”\npolicy are, overall, significantly error-free. The estimated\nerror rate is 0.1 %.
\nThe Court, however, draws attention to the errors and\nweaknesses which did not affect the Court’s conclusion. The\nCourt examined a sample of procurement procedures and noted\nseveral weaknesses in the application of selection and award\ncriteria, some of which had an impact on the results of the\nprocedure. Other weaknesses relate to the organisation of\ncross-border competition, to the management of automatic award\nprocedures and to the respect of provisions as regards the drafting\nand filing of tendering documents.
\nThe Court also detected weaknesses when it reviewed a\nsample of calculations and payments of social allowances, as well\nas a sample of employment contracts concluded with temporary\nagents.
\nThe Court therefore recommends that the institutions\nand bodies of the EU:
\n\n· \ntake steps to ensure that staff deliver, at\nappropriate intervals, documents confirming their personal\nsituation and implement a system for the timely monitoring of\nthese documents;
\n\n· \nimprove the IT systems used to manage these\npayments to ensure that the allowances paid by national authorities\nare updated automatically;
\n\n· \ntake steps to ensure that the provisions of the\nrelevant regulations are applied when concluding, extending or\nmodifying employment contracts with non-permanent staff;
\n\n· \nensure that authorising officers improve the\ndesign, coordination and performance of procurement procedures\nthrough appropriate checks and better guidance.
\nThe Court also made a number of comments specific to\neach institution or body of the European Union. These observations\ndo not affect the positive overall appraisal given that they do not\nsignificantly affect overall administrative expenditure.
\nIn the specific case of the EEAS, the Court notes the\nfollowing points:
\n\n· \npayment of social allowances and benefits to\nstaff members: in six cases out of 17\naudited, information available to the services of the European\nExternal Action Service (EEAS) on the personal and family situation\nof the staff members, was not up-to-date. In three of these cases,\nit led to incorrect payments because the amounts deducted did not\nreflect the latest applicable value of benefits paid by national\nauthorities;
\n\n· \nconclusion of contracts with temporary\nstaff: the analysis of the salary\npaid to three temporary staff, out of a sample of eight audited,\nshowed that contracts of employment were signed by both parties\nbetween three and seven months after the staff members had taken up\ntheir duties. This practice creates a situation of legal\nuncertainty for both parties;
\n\n· \nmanagement of a contract for the provision of\nsecurity services: the invoice\nrelated to the monthly payment of EUR 5 340 for the provision of\nsecurity services to the Delegation to Venezuela was wrongly\nendorsed as “certified correct” whereas these services\nhad not yet been provided. This practice is contrary to the rules\nof the Financial Regulation. In addition, the related security\ncontract has been in force for 24 years without modification. The\naudit also noted that the delegation had only obtained informal\nexemption from paying VAT, although the VAT recovery legislation\nhas been in force in Venezuela since the year 2000. It has not\ncalculated the amount of VAT unrecovered over this\nperiod.
\n\n· \nprocurement: of\nfive restricted procurement procedures audited, three relating to\nthe provision of security services displayed weaknesses. In one of\nthese cases, the evaluation committee chose to reject without\nfurther analysis an offer which included an abnormally low bid\nalthough the tenderer confirmed that this resulted from a clerical\nerror. In two other procedures related to the provision of facility\nmanagement services (contract value of EUR 285 000 over four years)\nand the rental of offices (contract value of EUR 9 000 000 over 10\nyears), key documentation related to the performance of some steps\nof the procedures could not be provided to the Court.
\nPURPOSE: presentation by the Commission of the\nconsolidated annual accounts of the European Union for the\nfinancial year 2011, as part of the 2011 discharge\nprocedure.
\nAnalysis of the accounts of the EU Institutions:\nSection X – European External Action Service -\nEEAS.
\nLegal reminder: the\nconsolidated annual accounts of the European Union for the year\n2011 have been prepared on the basis of the information presented\nby the institutions and bodies under Article 129.2 of the Financial\nRegulation applicable to the general budget of the European Union.\nThey were prepared in accordance with Title VII of this Financial\nRegulation and with the accounting principles, rules and methods\nset out in the notes to the financial statements.
\nThe objective of the financial statements is to\nprovide information about the financial position, performance and\ncashflow of an entity that is useful to a wide range of users. The\nobjective is to provide information useful for decision making, and\nto demonstrate the accountability of the entity for the resources\nentrusted to it.
\n1) Purpose: the document\nhelps to bring insight into the EU budget mechanism and the way\nin which the budget has been managed and spent in 2011. It\nrecalls that the European Union's operational expenditure covers\nthe various headings of the financial framework and takes different\nforms, depending on how the money is paid out and managed. In\naccordance with the Financial Regulation, the Commission implements\nthe general budget using the following methods: direct or indirect\ncentralised management (by means of bodies or agencies of public\nlaw or other); decentralised management where the Commission\ndelegates certain tasks for the implementation of the budget to\nthird countries; and, thirdly, shared management where budget\nimplementation tasks are delegated to Member States, in areas such\nas agricultural expenditure and structural actions.
\nThe document also presents the different financial\nactors involved in the budget process (accounting officers,\ninternal officers and authorising officers) and recalls their\nrespective roles in the context of the tasks of sound financial\nmanagement.
\nAmongst the other legal elements relating to the\nimplementation of the EU budget presented in this document, the\npaper focuses on the following issues:
\nTo recap, the final control is the discharge of the\nbudget for a given financial year. The discharge represents\nthe political aspect of the external control of budget\nimplementation and is the decision by which the European\nParliament, acting on a Council recommendation, \"releases\" the\nCommission from its responsibility for management of a given budget\nby marking the end of that budget's existence. When granting the\ndischarge, Parliament may highlight some observations that it\nconsiders important, often by recommending that the Commission\ntakes action on the aspects in question.
\nThe document also details specific expenditure of the\ninstitutions, in particular: i) pensions of former Members and\nofficials of institutions; ii) joint sickness insurance scheme and\niii) buildings.
\nLastly, the document presents a series of tables and\ndetailed technical indicators on (i) the balance sheet; (ii) the\neconomic outturn account; (iii) cashflow tables; (iv) technical\nannexes concerning the financial statements.
\n2) Implementation of appropriations under Section X of\nthe budget for the financial year 2011: the document comprises a series of detailed tables,\nthe most important concerning the implementation of the budget.\nConcerning the EEAS’s expenditure, the table on the financial\nand budgetary implementation of this institution is presented as\nfollows (information drawn from the EEAS\nReport on budgetary and financial management for the year\n2011).
\nBudget 2011: the\nEEAS’s 2011 budget presents itself as follows:
\nNote: an additional sum of EUR 28.3 million was also\nspent in 2011 from heading 5 of the Commission’s budget (ex-BA\nlines).
\n3) Budgetary implementation –\nconclusions: in more general and\npolitical terms, the EEAS’s budgetary implementation for the\nfinancial year 2011 was chiefly marked by the technical and\nadministrative establishment of the Service. Transitional\narrangements were set in place to authorise and implement certain\nexpenditures and structure human resources according to a new and\ncomplex plan.
\nAs a separate institution, the EEAS became truly\nindependent in 2011 for its own budget for the Service is now\nentirely responsible.
\nPURPOSE: presentation by the Commission of the\nconsolidated annual accounts of the European Union for the\nfinancial year 2011, as part of the 2011 discharge\nprocedure.
\nAnalysis of the accounts of the EU Institutions:\nSection X – European External Action Service -\nEEAS.
\nLegal reminder: the\nconsolidated annual accounts of the European Union for the year\n2011 have been prepared on the basis of the information presented\nby the institutions and bodies under Article 129.2 of the Financial\nRegulation applicable to the general budget of the European Union.\nThey were prepared in accordance with Title VII of this Financial\nRegulation and with the accounting principles, rules and methods\nset out in the notes to the financial statements.
\nThe objective of the financial statements is to\nprovide information about the financial position, performance and\ncashflow of an entity that is useful to a wide range of users. The\nobjective is to provide information useful for decision making, and\nto demonstrate the accountability of the entity for the resources\nentrusted to it.
\n1) Purpose: the document\nhelps to bring insight into the EU budget mechanism and the way\nin which the budget has been managed and spent in 2011. It\nrecalls that the European Union's operational expenditure covers\nthe various headings of the financial framework and takes different\nforms, depending on how the money is paid out and managed. In\naccordance with the Financial Regulation, the Commission implements\nthe general budget using the following methods: direct or indirect\ncentralised management (by means of bodies or agencies of public\nlaw or other); decentralised management where the Commission\ndelegates certain tasks for the implementation of the budget to\nthird countries; and, thirdly, shared management where budget\nimplementation tasks are delegated to Member States, in areas such\nas agricultural expenditure and structural actions.
\nThe document also presents the different financial\nactors involved in the budget process (accounting officers,\ninternal officers and authorising officers) and recalls their\nrespective roles in the context of the tasks of sound financial\nmanagement.
\nAmongst the other legal elements relating to the\nimplementation of the EU budget presented in this document, the\npaper focuses on the following issues:
\nTo recap, the final control is the discharge of the\nbudget for a given financial year. The discharge represents\nthe political aspect of the external control of budget\nimplementation and is the decision by which the European\nParliament, acting on a Council recommendation, \"releases\" the\nCommission from its responsibility for management of a given budget\nby marking the end of that budget's existence. When granting the\ndischarge, Parliament may highlight some observations that it\nconsiders important, often by recommending that the Commission\ntakes action on the aspects in question.
\nThe document also details specific expenditure of the\ninstitutions, in particular: i) pensions of former Members and\nofficials of institutions; ii) joint sickness insurance scheme and\niii) buildings.
\nLastly, the document presents a series of tables and\ndetailed technical indicators on (i) the balance sheet; (ii) the\neconomic outturn account; (iii) cashflow tables; (iv) technical\nannexes concerning the financial statements.
\n2) Implementation of appropriations under Section X of\nthe budget for the financial year 2011: the document comprises a series of detailed tables,\nthe most important concerning the implementation of the budget.\nConcerning the EEAS’s expenditure, the table on the financial\nand budgetary implementation of this institution is presented as\nfollows (information drawn from the EEAS\nReport on budgetary and financial management for the year\n2011).
\nBudget 2011: the\nEEAS’s 2011 budget presents itself as follows:
\nNote: an additional sum of EUR 28.3 million was also\nspent in 2011 from heading 5 of the Commission’s budget (ex-BA\nlines).
\n3) Budgetary implementation –\nconclusions: in more general and\npolitical terms, the EEAS’s budgetary implementation for the\nfinancial year 2011 was chiefly marked by the technical and\nadministrative establishment of the Service. Transitional\narrangements were set in place to authorise and implement certain\nexpenditures and structure human resources according to a new and\ncomplex plan.
\nAs a separate institution, the EEAS became truly\nindependent in 2011 for its own budget for the Service is now\nentirely responsible.
\nThe Committee on\nBudgetary Control adopted the report by Andrea\nČEŠKOVÁ (ECR, CZ) in which it calls on the\nEuropean Parliament to grant the High Representative of the Union\nfor Foreign Affairs and Security Policy discharge in respect of the\nimplementation of the European External Action Service's budget for\nthe financial year 2011.
\nMembers welcome the\nfact that, on the basis of its audit work, the Court of Auditors\nconcluded that the payments as a whole for the year ended on 31\nDecember 2011 for administrative and other expenditure of the\ninstitutions and bodies were free from material error.
\nThey note, however,\nthat while 2011 was the first financial year for the EEAS, it is,\nhowever, fully responsible for the financial year 2011 and has to\nensure strict compliance with the legislation. They urge the EEAS\nto examine what lessons can be learned from the first year of\noperation. They request that the EEAS, in the context of the 2012\ndischarge procedure, informs Parliament of the results.
\nMembers note that\nat the end of 2011, the final budget for EEAS headquarters was EUR\n188 million, with a execution rate of 91% and was EUR 276.1\nmillion for the delegations, with a lower execution rate of around\n89%. They are concerned that after an amending budget and some\ntransfers from the Commission and within services in 2011,\nunderspending and carrying over of appropriations continues to be\nquite high. Therefore, they suggest the development of key\nperformance indicators to monitor the most critical areas in\norder to improve the budget execution over the coming years.
\nOther issues are\nhighighted such as procurement, building policy, recruitment and\nthe management of staff and chronic absenteeism in the\ndelegations. In general, Members call for improvements to the\nquality of the financial and administrative management of Union\ndelegations as well as certain services in the headquarters.
\nLastly, Members\nurge the EEAS to maximise the benefits of economies of scale by\ncreating new synergies within the EEAS headquarters and delegations\nas well as in cooperation with Member States and national\ndiplomatic services, in the spirit of a true Union external policy\nand services. They emphasise the need for the Union to have a\ndelegation in Panama.
\nPURPOSE: presentation by the Commission of the\nconsolidated annual accounts of the European Union for the\nfinancial year 2011, as part of the 2011 discharge\nprocedure.
\nAnalysis of the accounts of the EU Institutions:\nSection X – European External Action Service -\nEEAS.
\nLegal reminder: the\nconsolidated annual accounts of the European Union for the year\n2011 have been prepared on the basis of the information presented\nby the institutions and bodies under Article 129.2 of the Financial\nRegulation applicable to the general budget of the European Union.\nThey were prepared in accordance with Title VII of this Financial\nRegulation and with the accounting principles, rules and methods\nset out in the notes to the financial statements.
\nThe objective of the financial statements is to\nprovide information about the financial position, performance and\ncashflow of an entity that is useful to a wide range of users. The\nobjective is to provide information useful for decision making, and\nto demonstrate the accountability of the entity for the resources\nentrusted to it.
\n1) Purpose: the document\nhelps to bring insight into the EU budget mechanism and the way\nin which the budget has been managed and spent in 2011. It\nrecalls that the European Union's operational expenditure covers\nthe various headings of the financial framework and takes different\nforms, depending on how the money is paid out and managed. In\naccordance with the Financial Regulation, the Commission implements\nthe general budget using the following methods: direct or indirect\ncentralised management (by means of bodies or agencies of public\nlaw or other); decentralised management where the Commission\ndelegates certain tasks for the implementation of the budget to\nthird countries; and, thirdly, shared management where budget\nimplementation tasks are delegated to Member States, in areas such\nas agricultural expenditure and structural actions.
\nThe document also presents the different financial\nactors involved in the budget process (accounting officers,\ninternal officers and authorising officers) and recalls their\nrespective roles in the context of the tasks of sound financial\nmanagement.
\nAmongst the other legal elements relating to the\nimplementation of the EU budget presented in this document, the\npaper focuses on the following issues:
\nTo recap, the final control is the discharge of the\nbudget for a given financial year. The discharge represents\nthe political aspect of the external control of budget\nimplementation and is the decision by which the European\nParliament, acting on a Council recommendation, \"releases\" the\nCommission from its responsibility for management of a given budget\nby marking the end of that budget's existence. When granting the\ndischarge, Parliament may highlight some observations that it\nconsiders important, often by recommending that the Commission\ntakes action on the aspects in question.
\nThe document also details specific expenditure of the\ninstitutions, in particular: i) pensions of former Members and\nofficials of institutions; ii) joint sickness insurance scheme and\niii) buildings.
\nLastly, the document presents a series of tables and\ndetailed technical indicators on (i) the balance sheet; (ii) the\neconomic outturn account; (iii) cashflow tables; (iv) technical\nannexes concerning the financial statements.
\n2) Implementation of appropriations under Section X of\nthe budget for the financial year 2011: the document comprises a series of detailed tables,\nthe most important concerning the implementation of the budget.\nConcerning the EEAS’s expenditure, the table on the financial\nand budgetary implementation of this institution is presented as\nfollows (information drawn from the EEAS\nReport on budgetary and financial management for the year\n2011).
\nBudget 2011: the\nEEAS’s 2011 budget presents itself as follows:
\nNote: an additional sum of EUR 28.3 million was also\nspent in 2011 from heading 5 of the Commission’s budget (ex-BA\nlines).
\n3) Budgetary implementation –\nconclusions: in more general and\npolitical terms, the EEAS’s budgetary implementation for the\nfinancial year 2011 was chiefly marked by the technical and\nadministrative establishment of the Service. Transitional\narrangements were set in place to authorise and implement certain\nexpenditures and structure human resources according to a new and\ncomplex plan.
\nAs a separate institution, the EEAS became truly\nindependent in 2011 for its own budget for the Service is now\nentirely responsible.
\nPURPOSE: presentation by the Commission of the\nconsolidated annual accounts of the European Union for the\nfinancial year 2011, as part of the 2011 discharge\nprocedure.
\nAnalysis of the accounts of the EU Institutions:\nSection X – European External Action Service -\nEEAS.
\nLegal reminder: the\nconsolidated annual accounts of the European Union for the year\n2011 have been prepared on the basis of the information presented\nby the institutions and bodies under Article 129.2 of the Financial\nRegulation applicable to the general budget of the European Union.\nThey were prepared in accordance with Title VII of this Financial\nRegulation and with the accounting principles, rules and methods\nset out in the notes to the financial statements.
\nThe objective of the financial statements is to\nprovide information about the financial position, performance and\ncashflow of an entity that is useful to a wide range of users. The\nobjective is to provide information useful for decision making, and\nto demonstrate the accountability of the entity for the resources\nentrusted to it.
\n1) Purpose: the document\nhelps to bring insight into the EU budget mechanism and the way\nin which the budget has been managed and spent in 2011. It\nrecalls that the European Union's operational expenditure covers\nthe various headings of the financial framework and takes different\nforms, depending on how the money is paid out and managed. In\naccordance with the Financial Regulation, the Commission implements\nthe general budget using the following methods: direct or indirect\ncentralised management (by means of bodies or agencies of public\nlaw or other); decentralised management where the Commission\ndelegates certain tasks for the implementation of the budget to\nthird countries; and, thirdly, shared management where budget\nimplementation tasks are delegated to Member States, in areas such\nas agricultural expenditure and structural actions.
\nThe document also presents the different financial\nactors involved in the budget process (accounting officers,\ninternal officers and authorising officers) and recalls their\nrespective roles in the context of the tasks of sound financial\nmanagement.
\nAmongst the other legal elements relating to the\nimplementation of the EU budget presented in this document, the\npaper focuses on the following issues:
\nTo recap, the final control is the discharge of the\nbudget for a given financial year. The discharge represents\nthe political aspect of the external control of budget\nimplementation and is the decision by which the European\nParliament, acting on a Council recommendation, \"releases\" the\nCommission from its responsibility for management of a given budget\nby marking the end of that budget's existence. When granting the\ndischarge, Parliament may highlight some observations that it\nconsiders important, often by recommending that the Commission\ntakes action on the aspects in question.
\nThe document also details specific expenditure of the\ninstitutions, in particular: i) pensions of former Members and\nofficials of institutions; ii) joint sickness insurance scheme and\niii) buildings.
\nLastly, the document presents a series of tables and\ndetailed technical indicators on (i) the balance sheet; (ii) the\neconomic outturn account; (iii) cashflow tables; (iv) technical\nannexes concerning the financial statements.
\n2) Implementation of appropriations under Section X of\nthe budget for the financial year 2011: the document comprises a series of detailed tables,\nthe most important concerning the implementation of the budget.\nConcerning the EEAS’s expenditure, the table on the financial\nand budgetary implementation of this institution is presented as\nfollows (information drawn from the EEAS\nReport on budgetary and financial management for the year\n2011).
\nBudget 2011: the\nEEAS’s 2011 budget presents itself as follows:
\nNote: an additional sum of EUR 28.3 million was also\nspent in 2011 from heading 5 of the Commission’s budget (ex-BA\nlines).
\n3) Budgetary implementation –\nconclusions: in more general and\npolitical terms, the EEAS’s budgetary implementation for the\nfinancial year 2011 was chiefly marked by the technical and\nadministrative establishment of the Service. Transitional\narrangements were set in place to authorise and implement certain\nexpenditures and structure human resources according to a new and\ncomplex plan.
\nAs a separate institution, the EEAS became truly\nindependent in 2011 for its own budget for the Service is now\nentirely responsible.
\nOBJECTIVE: presentation of the Report of the Court of\nAuditors on the 2011 budget (section X – European External\nAction Service (EEAS)).
\nCONTENT: the Court of Auditors published its\n35th Annual Report on the implementation\nof the EU budget for the 2011 financial\nyear.
\nIn accordance with the tasks and objectives conferred\non the Court of Auditors by the Treaty on the Functioning of the\nEuropean Union, it provides under the discharge procedure, for both\nthe European Parliament and Council, a statement of assurance\n(“DAS”) about the reliability of the accounts and the\nlegality and regularity of the transactions of each institution,\nbody or agency of the EU, based on an independent external\naudit.
\nThe audit also focused on the budget implementation of\nthe EEAS.
\nOn the basis of its audit work, the Court considers\nthat payments for “Administrative and other expenditure”\npolicy are, overall, significantly error-free. The estimated\nerror rate is 0.1 %.
\nThe Court, however, draws attention to the errors and\nweaknesses which did not affect the Court’s conclusion. The\nCourt examined a sample of procurement procedures and noted\nseveral weaknesses in the application of selection and award\ncriteria, some of which had an impact on the results of the\nprocedure. Other weaknesses relate to the organisation of\ncross-border competition, to the management of automatic award\nprocedures and to the respect of provisions as regards the drafting\nand filing of tendering documents.
\nThe Court also detected weaknesses when it reviewed a\nsample of calculations and payments of social allowances, as well\nas a sample of employment contracts concluded with temporary\nagents.
\nThe Court therefore recommends that the institutions\nand bodies of the EU:
\n\n· \ntake steps to ensure that staff deliver, at\nappropriate intervals, documents confirming their personal\nsituation and implement a system for the timely monitoring of\nthese documents;
\n\n· \nimprove the IT systems used to manage these\npayments to ensure that the allowances paid by national authorities\nare updated automatically;
\n\n· \ntake steps to ensure that the provisions of the\nrelevant regulations are applied when concluding, extending or\nmodifying employment contracts with non-permanent staff;
\n\n· \nensure that authorising officers improve the\ndesign, coordination and performance of procurement procedures\nthrough appropriate checks and better guidance.
\nThe Court also made a number of comments specific to\neach institution or body of the European Union. These observations\ndo not affect the positive overall appraisal given that they do not\nsignificantly affect overall administrative expenditure.
\nIn the specific case of the EEAS, the Court notes the\nfollowing points:
\n\n· \npayment of social allowances and benefits to\nstaff members: in six cases out of 17\naudited, information available to the services of the European\nExternal Action Service (EEAS) on the personal and family situation\nof the staff members, was not up-to-date. In three of these cases,\nit led to incorrect payments because the amounts deducted did not\nreflect the latest applicable value of benefits paid by national\nauthorities;
\n\n· \nconclusion of contracts with temporary\nstaff: the analysis of the salary\npaid to three temporary staff, out of a sample of eight audited,\nshowed that contracts of employment were signed by both parties\nbetween three and seven months after the staff members had taken up\ntheir duties. This practice creates a situation of legal\nuncertainty for both parties;
\n\n· \nmanagement of a contract for the provision of\nsecurity services: the invoice\nrelated to the monthly payment of EUR 5 340 for the provision of\nsecurity services to the Delegation to Venezuela was wrongly\nendorsed as “certified correct” whereas these services\nhad not yet been provided. This practice is contrary to the rules\nof the Financial Regulation. In addition, the related security\ncontract has been in force for 24 years without modification. The\naudit also noted that the delegation had only obtained informal\nexemption from paying VAT, although the VAT recovery legislation\nhas been in force in Venezuela since the year 2000. It has not\ncalculated the amount of VAT unrecovered over this\nperiod.
\n\n· \nprocurement: of\nfive restricted procurement procedures audited, three relating to\nthe provision of security services displayed weaknesses. In one of\nthese cases, the evaluation committee chose to reject without\nfurther analysis an offer which included an abnormally low bid\nalthough the tenderer confirmed that this resulted from a clerical\nerror. In two other procedures related to the provision of facility\nmanagement services (contract value of EUR 285 000 over four years)\nand the rental of offices (contract value of EUR 9 000 000 over 10\nyears), key documentation related to the performance of some steps\nof the procedures could not be provided to the Court.
\nOBJECTIVE: presentation of the Report of the Court of\nAuditors on the 2011 budget (section X – European External\nAction Service (EEAS)).
\nCONTENT: the Court of Auditors published its\n35th Annual Report on the implementation\nof the EU budget for the 2011 financial\nyear.
\nIn accordance with the tasks and objectives conferred\non the Court of Auditors by the Treaty on the Functioning of the\nEuropean Union, it provides under the discharge procedure, for both\nthe European Parliament and Council, a statement of assurance\n(“DAS”) about the reliability of the accounts and the\nlegality and regularity of the transactions of each institution,\nbody or agency of the EU, based on an independent external\naudit.
\nThe audit also focused on the budget implementation of\nthe EEAS.
\nOn the basis of its audit work, the Court considers\nthat payments for “Administrative and other expenditure”\npolicy are, overall, significantly error-free. The estimated\nerror rate is 0.1 %.
\nThe Court, however, draws attention to the errors and\nweaknesses which did not affect the Court’s conclusion. The\nCourt examined a sample of procurement procedures and noted\nseveral weaknesses in the application of selection and award\ncriteria, some of which had an impact on the results of the\nprocedure. Other weaknesses relate to the organisation of\ncross-border competition, to the management of automatic award\nprocedures and to the respect of provisions as regards the drafting\nand filing of tendering documents.
\nThe Court also detected weaknesses when it reviewed a\nsample of calculations and payments of social allowances, as well\nas a sample of employment contracts concluded with temporary\nagents.
\nThe Court therefore recommends that the institutions\nand bodies of the EU:
\n\n· \ntake steps to ensure that staff deliver, at\nappropriate intervals, documents confirming their personal\nsituation and implement a system for the timely monitoring of\nthese documents;
\n\n· \nimprove the IT systems used to manage these\npayments to ensure that the allowances paid by national authorities\nare updated automatically;
\n\n· \ntake steps to ensure that the provisions of the\nrelevant regulations are applied when concluding, extending or\nmodifying employment contracts with non-permanent staff;
\n\n· \nensure that authorising officers improve the\ndesign, coordination and performance of procurement procedures\nthrough appropriate checks and better guidance.
\nThe Court also made a number of comments specific to\neach institution or body of the European Union. These observations\ndo not affect the positive overall appraisal given that they do not\nsignificantly affect overall administrative expenditure.
\nIn the specific case of the EEAS, the Court notes the\nfollowing points:
\n\n· \npayment of social allowances and benefits to\nstaff members: in six cases out of 17\naudited, information available to the services of the European\nExternal Action Service (EEAS) on the personal and family situation\nof the staff members, was not up-to-date. In three of these cases,\nit led to incorrect payments because the amounts deducted did not\nreflect the latest applicable value of benefits paid by national\nauthorities;
\n\n· \nconclusion of contracts with temporary\nstaff: the analysis of the salary\npaid to three temporary staff, out of a sample of eight audited,\nshowed that contracts of employment were signed by both parties\nbetween three and seven months after the staff members had taken up\ntheir duties. This practice creates a situation of legal\nuncertainty for both parties;
\n\n· \nmanagement of a contract for the provision of\nsecurity services: the invoice\nrelated to the monthly payment of EUR 5 340 for the provision of\nsecurity services to the Delegation to Venezuela was wrongly\nendorsed as “certified correct” whereas these services\nhad not yet been provided. This practice is contrary to the rules\nof the Financial Regulation. In addition, the related security\ncontract has been in force for 24 years without modification. The\naudit also noted that the delegation had only obtained informal\nexemption from paying VAT, although the VAT recovery legislation\nhas been in force in Venezuela since the year 2000. It has not\ncalculated the amount of VAT unrecovered over this\nperiod.
\n\n· \nprocurement: of\nfive restricted procurement procedures audited, three relating to\nthe provision of security services displayed weaknesses. In one of\nthese cases, the evaluation committee chose to reject without\nfurther analysis an offer which included an abnormally low bid\nalthough the tenderer confirmed that this resulted from a clerical\nerror. In two other procedures related to the provision of facility\nmanagement services (contract value of EUR 285 000 over four years)\nand the rental of offices (contract value of EUR 9 000 000 over 10\nyears), key documentation related to the performance of some steps\nof the procedures could not be provided to the Court.
\nThe Committee on\nBudgetary Control adopted the report by Andrea\nČEŠKOVÁ (ECR, CZ) in which it calls on the\nEuropean Parliament to grant the High Representative of the Union\nfor Foreign Affairs and Security Policy discharge in respect of the\nimplementation of the European External Action Service's budget for\nthe financial year 2011.
\nMembers welcome the\nfact that, on the basis of its audit work, the Court of Auditors\nconcluded that the payments as a whole for the year ended on 31\nDecember 2011 for administrative and other expenditure of the\ninstitutions and bodies were free from material error.
\nThey note, however,\nthat while 2011 was the first financial year for the EEAS, it is,\nhowever, fully responsible for the financial year 2011 and has to\nensure strict compliance with the legislation. They urge the EEAS\nto examine what lessons can be learned from the first year of\noperation. They request that the EEAS, in the context of the 2012\ndischarge procedure, informs Parliament of the results.
\nMembers note that\nat the end of 2011, the final budget for EEAS headquarters was EUR\n188 million, with a execution rate of 91% and was EUR 276.1\nmillion for the delegations, with a lower execution rate of around\n89%. They are concerned that after an amending budget and some\ntransfers from the Commission and within services in 2011,\nunderspending and carrying over of appropriations continues to be\nquite high. Therefore, they suggest the development of key\nperformance indicators to monitor the most critical areas in\norder to improve the budget execution over the coming years.
\nOther issues are\nhighighted such as procurement, building policy, recruitment and\nthe management of staff and chronic absenteeism in the\ndelegations. In general, Members call for improvements to the\nquality of the financial and administrative management of Union\ndelegations as well as certain services in the headquarters.
\nLastly, Members\nurge the EEAS to maximise the benefits of economies of scale by\ncreating new synergies within the EEAS headquarters and delegations\nas well as in cooperation with Member States and national\ndiplomatic services, in the spirit of a true Union external policy\nand services. They emphasise the need for the Union to have a\ndelegation in Panama.
\nThe Committee on\nBudgetary Control adopted the report by Andrea\nČEŠKOVÁ (ECR, CZ) in which it calls on the European\nParliament to grant the High Representative of the Union for\nForeign Affairs and Security Policy discharge in respect of the\nimplementation of the European External Action Service's budget for\nthe financial year 2011.
\nMembers welcome the\nfact that, on the basis of its audit work, the Court of Auditors\nconcluded that the payments as a whole for the year ended on 31\nDecember 2011 for administrative and other expenditure of the\ninstitutions and bodies were free from material error.
\nThey note, however,\nthat while 2011 was the first financial year for the EEAS, it is,\nhowever, fully responsible for the financial year 2011 and has to\nensure strict compliance with the legislation. They urge the EEAS\nto examine what lessons can be learned from the first year of\noperation. They request that the EEAS, in the context of the 2012\ndischarge procedure, informs Parliament of the results.
\nMembers note that\nat the end of 2011, the final budget for EEAS headquarters was EUR\n188 million, with a execution rate of 91% and was EUR 276.1\nmillion for the delegations, with a lower execution rate of around\n89%. They are concerned that after an amending budget and some\ntransfers from the Commission and within services in 2011,\nunderspending and carrying over of appropriations continues to be\nquite high. Therefore, they suggest the development of key\nperformance indicators to monitor the most critical areas in\norder to improve the budget execution over the coming years.
\nOther issues are\nhighighted such as procurement, building policy, recruitment and\nthe management of staff and chronic absenteeism in the\ndelegations. In general, Members call for improvements to the\nquality of the financial and administrative management of Union\ndelegations as well as certain services in the headquarters.
\nLastly, Members\nurge the EEAS to maximise the benefits of economies of scale by\ncreating new synergies within the EEAS headquarters and delegations\nas well as in cooperation with Member States and national\ndiplomatic services, in the spirit of a true Union external policy\nand services. They emphasise the need for the Union to have a\ndelegation in Panama.
\nIn view of the observations made in the Court of\nAuditor's report, the Council calls on the European Parliament\nto grant discharge to all of the Union’s institutions in\nregard to the implementation of their respective budgets for the\nfinancial year 2011.
\nOverall, the Council’s remarks are positive in\nregard to the expenditure of the institutions since it notes that,\nagain in 2011, the administrative expenditure of EU institutions\nand bodies remained free from material error and that their\nsupervisory and control systems continued to comply with the\nrequirements of the Financial Regulation.
\nNevertheless, the Council regrets that in some\ninstitutions weaknesses were still detected in the payment of\nsocial allowances to staff members, in the employment contracts\nfor non-permanent staff and in procurement procedures.
\nIt welcomes the measures already taken and encourages\nthe institutions concerned to address the remaining weaknesses\npointed out by the Court.
\nThe Council notes the Court's recommendations that the\ninstitutions concerned should ensure that staff regularly deliver\ndocuments on their personal situation, that the relevant provisions\nare applied when concluding, extending or modifying employment\ncontracts with non-permanent staff, and that the authorising\nofficers further improve guidance and appropriate checks concerning\nprocurement procedures.
\nPURPOSE: presentation by the Commission of the\nconsolidated annual accounts of the European Union for the\nfinancial year 2011, as part of the 2011 discharge\nprocedure.
\nAnalysis of the accounts of the EU Institutions:\nSection X – European External Action Service -\nEEAS.
\nLegal reminder: the\nconsolidated annual accounts of the European Union for the year\n2011 have been prepared on the basis of the information presented\nby the institutions and bodies under Article 129.2 of the Financial\nRegulation applicable to the general budget of the European Union.\nThey were prepared in accordance with Title VII of this Financial\nRegulation and with the accounting principles, rules and methods\nset out in the notes to the financial statements.
\nThe objective of the financial statements is to\nprovide information about the financial position, performance and\ncashflow of an entity that is useful to a wide range of users. The\nobjective is to provide information useful for decision making, and\nto demonstrate the accountability of the entity for the resources\nentrusted to it.
\n1) Purpose: the document\nhelps to bring insight into the EU budget mechanism and the way\nin which the budget has been managed and spent in 2011. It\nrecalls that the European Union's operational expenditure covers\nthe various headings of the financial framework and takes different\nforms, depending on how the money is paid out and managed. In\naccordance with the Financial Regulation, the Commission implements\nthe general budget using the following methods: direct or indirect\ncentralised management (by means of bodies or agencies of public\nlaw or other); decentralised management where the Commission\ndelegates certain tasks for the implementation of the budget to\nthird countries; and, thirdly, shared management where budget\nimplementation tasks are delegated to Member States, in areas such\nas agricultural expenditure and structural actions.
\nThe document also presents the different financial\nactors involved in the budget process (accounting officers,\ninternal officers and authorising officers) and recalls their\nrespective roles in the context of the tasks of sound financial\nmanagement.
\nAmongst the other legal elements relating to the\nimplementation of the EU budget presented in this document, the\npaper focuses on the following issues:
\nTo recap, the final control is the discharge of the\nbudget for a given financial year. The discharge represents\nthe political aspect of the external control of budget\nimplementation and is the decision by which the European\nParliament, acting on a Council recommendation, \"releases\" the\nCommission from its responsibility for management of a given budget\nby marking the end of that budget's existence. When granting the\ndischarge, Parliament may highlight some observations that it\nconsiders important, often by recommending that the Commission\ntakes action on the aspects in question.
\nThe document also details specific expenditure of the\ninstitutions, in particular: i) pensions of former Members and\nofficials of institutions; ii) joint sickness insurance scheme and\niii) buildings.
\nLastly, the document presents a series of tables and\ndetailed technical indicators on (i) the balance sheet; (ii) the\neconomic outturn account; (iii) cashflow tables; (iv) technical\nannexes concerning the financial statements.
\n2) Implementation of appropriations under Section X of\nthe budget for the financial year 2011: the document comprises a series of detailed tables,\nthe most important concerning the implementation of the budget.\nConcerning the EEAS’s expenditure, the table on the financial\nand budgetary implementation of this institution is presented as\nfollows (information drawn from the EEAS\nReport on budgetary and financial management for the year\n2011).
\nBudget 2011: the\nEEAS’s 2011 budget presents itself as follows:
\nNote: an additional sum of EUR 28.3 million was also\nspent in 2011 from heading 5 of the Commission’s budget (ex-BA\nlines).
\n3) Budgetary implementation –\nconclusions: in more general and\npolitical terms, the EEAS’s budgetary implementation for the\nfinancial year 2011 was chiefly marked by the technical and\nadministrative establishment of the Service. Transitional\narrangements were set in place to authorise and implement certain\nexpenditures and structure human resources according to a new and\ncomplex plan.
\nAs a separate institution, the EEAS became truly\nindependent in 2011 for its own budget for the Service is now\nentirely responsible.
\nThe European Parliament adopted by 558 votes to 108\nwith 5 abstentions, a decision granting the High Representative of\nthe Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy discharge in\nrespect of the implementation of the European External Action\nService's budget for the financial year 2011.
\nIn its resolution accompanying the decision for\ndischarge, Parliament notes that the Court of Auditors concluded\nthat the payments as a whole for the year ended on 31 December 2011\nfor administrative and other expenditure of the institutions and\nbodies were free from material error. It notes, however, that while\n2011 was the first financial year for the EEAS, the latter is fully\nresponsible for the financial year 2011 and it requires the EEAS to\nimprove on all issues queried by the Court. Parliament requests that the EEAS, in the context of\nthe 2012 discharge procedure, informs Parliament of the\nresults.
\nAt the same time, Members note that at the end of\n2011, the final budget for EEAS headquarters was EUR\n188 million, with an execution rate of 91% and was EUR 276.1\nmillion for the delegations, with a lower execution rate of around\n89%. They are concerned that after an amending budget and some\ntransfers from the Commission and within services in 2011,\nunderspending and carrying over of appropriations continues to be\nquite high. Therefore, Parliament suggests developing key\nperformance indicators to monitor the most critical areas\nin order to improve the budget execution over the coming\nyears.
\nParliament also discusses certain problems in\nbuildings and procurement policy.
\nPersonnel policy: Parliament highlights issues relating to the\nrecruitment and the management of staff and chronic\nabsenteeism in the delegations. In general, Members call for\nimprovements to the quality of the financial and administrative\nmanagement of the EEAS and a reduction in top-heavy administration. It\nnotes in particular:
\nIt reiterates its wish to see, as soon as\npossible, the establishment of a human resources policy that\nreflects the political priorities of the Union and the actual\nrequirements on the ground.
\nParliament takes the view that the\ninefficiency of the current situation risks seriously impairing the\nreputation of the EEAS.
\nDelegations: in general,\nParliament wants to see improvements in administrative and\nfinancial management of delegations as well as in certain services\nin headquarters. It urges the EEAS to maximise the benefits of\neconomies of scale by creating new synergies within the EEAS\nheadquarters and delegations as well as in cooperation with Member\nStates and national diplomatic services, in the spirit of a true\nUnion external policy and services. It emphasises the need, in that\nrespect, to seek, as much as possible, the co-location of\nservices in third countries, for the sake of enhanced exchange\nof information and savings. Parliament expresses concern about the administrative\nshortcomings in the Union delegations in Afghanistan, Djibouti,\nGuyana, Solomon Islands and Zambia. It asks for a report on the\nstate of play about those shortcomings including security\ncontracts. It also expects a report on the situation about internal\ncontrol standards in the Union delegations in Liberia and Iraq and\nasks for a state of play about compliance rates of the Union\ndelegations in Egypt and Malawi and for an update on security\ncontracts in the Union delegations in the West Bank, Haiti,\nSaudi-Arabia, Pakistan, Sri-Lanka, Libya and Lebanon. In an\namendment adopted in plenary, Parliament asks for clarification as\nto why a security company under contract with the Union delegation\nto Afghanistan, subject to OLAF investigation, has recently been\nawarded a new contract of about EUR 50 million in the same\ndelegation.
\nLastly, Parliament emphasises the need for the Union to have\na delegation in Panama, and insists on an explanation for the\nrecall of the Union ambassador to Libya.
\nPURPOSE: presentation by the Commission of the\nconsolidated annual accounts of the European Union for the\nfinancial year 2011, as part of the 2011 discharge\nprocedure.
\nAnalysis of the accounts of the EU Institutions:\nSection IX – European Data Protection Supervisor -\nEDPS
\nLegal reminder: the\nconsolidated annual accounts of the European Union for the year\n2011 have been prepared on the basis of the information presented\nby the institutions and bodies under Article 129.2 of the Financial\nRegulation applicable to the general budget of the European Union.\nThey were prepared in accordance with Title VII of this Financial\nRegulation and with the accounting principles, rules and methods\nset out in the notes to the financial statements.
\nThe objective of the financial statements is to\nprovide information about the financial position, performance and\ncashflow of an entity that is useful to a wide range of users. The\nobjective is to provide information useful for decision making, and\nto demonstrate the accountability of the entity for the resources\nentrusted to it.
\n1) Purpose: the document\nhelps to bring insight into the EU budget mechanism and the way\nin which the budget has been managed and spent in 2011. It\nrecalls that the European Union's operational expenditure covers\nthe various headings of the financial framework and takes different\nforms, depending on how the money is paid out and managed. In\naccordance with the Financial Regulation, the Commission implements\nthe general budget using the following methods: direct or indirect\ncentralised management (by means of bodies or agencies of public\nlaw or other); decentralised management where the Commission\ndelegates certain tasks for the implementation of the budget to\nthird countries; and, thirdly, shared management where budget\nimplementation tasks are delegated to Member States, in areas such\nas agricultural expenditure and structural actions.
\nThe document also presents the different financial\nactors involved in the budget process (accounting officers,\ninternal officers and authorising officers) and recalls their\nrespective roles in the context of the tasks of sound financial\nmanagement.
\nAmongst the other legal elements relating to the\nimplementation of the EU budget presented in this document, the\npaper focuses on the following issues:
\nTo recap, the final control is the discharge of the\nbudget for a given financial year. The discharge represents\nthe political aspect of the external control of budget\nimplementation and is the decision by which the European\nParliament, acting on a Council recommendation, \"releases\" the\nCommission from its responsibility for management of a given budget\nby marking the end of that budget's existence. When granting the\ndischarge, Parliament may highlight some observations that it\nconsiders important, often by recommending that the Commission\ntakes action on the aspects in question.
\nThe document also details specific expenditure of the\ninstitutions, in particular: i) pensions of former Members and\nofficials of institutions; ii) joint sickness insurance scheme and\niii) buildings.
\nLastly, the document presents a series of tables and\ndetailed technical indicators on (i) the balance sheet; (ii) the\neconomic outturn account; (iii) cashflow tables; (iv) technical\nannexes concerning the financial statements.
\n2) Implementation of appropriations under Section IX\nof the budget for the financial year 2011: the document comprises a series of detailed tables,\nthe most important concerning the implementation of the budget.\nConcerning the EDPS’s expenditure, the table on the financial\nand budgetary implementation of this institution is presented as\nfollows (information drawn from the Budget\nand Financial Management Report for the 2011 financial\nyear):
\nBudget 2011: the\nEDPS’s 2011 budget presents itself as follows:
\n3) Budgetary implementation –\nconclusions: in more general and\npolitical terms, the EDPS’s budgetary implementation for the\nfinancial year 2011 was chiefly marked by the following\nactivities:
\nOBJECTIVE: presentation of the Report of the Court of\nAuditors on the 2011 budget (section IX – European Data\nProtection Supervisor).
\nCONTENT: the Court of Auditors published its\n35th Annual Report on the implementation\nof the EU budget for the 2011 financial\nyear.
\nIn accordance with the tasks and objectives conferred\non the Court of Auditors by the Treaty on the Functioning of the\nEuropean Union, it provides under the discharge procedure, for both\nthe European Parliament and Council, a statement of assurance\n(“DAS”) about the reliability of the accounts and the\nlegality and regularity of the transactions of each institution,\nbody or agency of the EU, based on an independent external\naudit.
\nThe audit also focuses on the budget implementation of\nthe Committee of the Regions.
\nOn the basis of its audit work, the Court considers\nthat payments for “Administrative and other expenditure”\npolicy are, overall, significantly error-free. The estimated\nerror rate is 0.1 %.
\nThe Court, however, draws attention to the errors and\nweaknesses which did not affect the Court’s conclusion. The\nCourt examined a sample of procurement procedures and noted\nseveral weaknesses in the application of selection and award\ncriteria, some of which had an impact on the results of the\nprocedure. Other weaknesses relate to the organisation of cross\nborder competition, to the management of automatic award procedures\nand to the respect of provisions as regards the drafting and filing\nof tendering documents.
\nThe Court also detects weaknesses when it reviewed a\nsample of calculations and payments of social allowances as\nwell as a sample of employment contracts concluded with temporary\nagents.
\nThe Court therefore recommends that the institutions\nand bodies of the EU take steps to: (i) guarantee that staff\ndeliver, at appropriate intervals, documents confirming their\npersonal situation and implement a system for the timely\nmonitoring of these documents; (ii) ensure that authorising\nofficers improve the design, coordination and performance of\nprocurement procedures through appropriate checks and better\nguidance.
\nThe Court also makes a number of comments specific to\neach institution or body of the European Union. These observations\ndo not affect the positive overall appraisal given that they do not\nsignificantly affect overall administrative expenditure. However,\nin the specific case of the audit of the Committee of the Regions,\nthe Court’s audit did not identify any significant\nweakness.
\nFollow-up to the Court of Auditors 2010 Annual\nReport: as regards the payment of\nsocial allowances to staff members, the Court indicated that staff\nshould be requested to deliver, at appropriate intervals, documents\nproving their personal situation. In this regard, the European Data\nProtection Supervisor should improve its system for the timely\nmonitoring and control of these documents.
\nTo this effect, the Supervisor indicates that it has\nimplemented tools for better management of the allowances (formal\ncontacts within the EDPS’s Office and with the Office for\nAdministration and Payment of Individual Entitlements and yearly\ninformation fiche). The Court’s audit showed that these\nmeasures were effective.
\nIn view of the observations made in the Court of\nAuditor's report, the Council calls on the European Parliament\nto grant discharge to all of the Union’s institutions in\nregard to the implementation of their respective budgets for the\nfinancial year 2011.
\nOverall, the Council’s remarks are positive in\nregard to the expenditure of the institutions since it notes that,\nagain in 2011, the administrative expenditure of EU institutions\nand bodies remained free from material error and that their\nsupervisory and control systems continued to comply with the\nrequirements of the Financial Regulation.
\nNevertheless, the Council regrets that in some\ninstitutions weaknesses were still detected in the payment of\nsocial allowances to staff members, in the employment contracts\nfor non-permanent staff and in procurement procedures.
\nIt welcomes the measures already taken and encourages\nthe institutions concerned to address the remaining weaknesses\npointed out by the Court.
\nThe Council notes the Court's recommendations that the\ninstitutions concerned should ensure that staff regularly deliver\ndocuments on their personal situation, that the relevant provisions\nare applied when concluding, extending or modifying employment\ncontracts with non-permanent staff, and that the authorising\nofficers further improve guidance and appropriate checks concerning\nprocurement procedures.
\nThe Committee on Budgetary Control unanimously adopted\nthe report by Andrea ČEŠKOVÁ (ECR, CZ) in which it\ncalls on the European Parliament to grant the European Data\nProtection Supervisor discharge in respect of the implementation of\nits budget for the financial year 2011.
\nMembers welcome the conclusion of the Court of\nAuditors that the payments as a whole for the year ended on 31\nDecember 2011 for administrative and other expenditure of the\nEuropean Data Protection Supervisor were free from material error.\nThey observed that no significant weaknesses had been identified in\nrespect to the audited topics related to the human resources and\nprocurement for the Supervisor.
\nMembers note that, in 2011, the Supervisor had a total\nof EUR 7 564 137 in commitment appropriations and that the\nimplementation rate of those appropriations was 89.31%. They find\nthis a positive development but call for further efforts to improve\nthe implementation rate and for the changes made to be monitored\nand expect engagement to exceed 90% next year.
\nLastly, the report calls on the Supervisor to include\nan exhaustive table of all the human resources at the Supervisor's\ndisposal, broken down by category, grade, sex, participation in\nprofessional training and nationality in the next annual activity\nreport.
\nThe European Parliament adopted by 593 votes to 52\nwith 12 abstentions, a decision granting the European Data\nProtection Supervisor discharge in respect of the implementation of\nits budget for the financial year 2011.
\nIn its resolution accompanying the decision,\nParliament notes the conclusion of the Court of Auditors that the\npayments as a whole for the year ended on 31 December 2011 for\nadministrative and other expenditure were free from material error.\nIt also observes that no significant weaknesses had been identified\nin respect to the audited topics related to the human resources and\nprocurement for the Supervisor.
\nAt the same time, Parliament notes that, in 2011, the\nSupervisor had a total of EUR 7 564 137 in commitment\nappropriations and that the implementation rate of those\nappropriations was 89.31%. It finds this a positive development but\ncalls for this rate to exceed 90% in 2012.
\nMembers call on the Supervisor to include an\nexhaustive table of all the human resources at the Supervisor's\ndisposal, broken down by category, grade, sex, participation in\nprofessional training and nationality in the next annual activity\nreport.
\nVideosurveillance:\nParliament welcomes the Supervisor's inspection report on 13\nBrussels-based Union institutions and bodies verifying that the\npublic is informed about video-surveillance in an effective and\ncomprehensive manner by Union institutions and bodies. It suggests\nthe exchange of that information and best practices with the\nnational data protection authorities.
\nPURPOSE: presentation by the Commission of the\nconsolidated annual accounts of the European Union for the\nfinancial year 2011, as part of the 2011 discharge\nprocedure.
\nAnalysis of the accounts of the EU Institutions:\nSection IX – European Data Protection Supervisor -\nEDPS
\nLegal reminder: the\nconsolidated annual accounts of the European Union for the year\n2011 have been prepared on the basis of the information presented\nby the institutions and bodies under Article 129.2 of the Financial\nRegulation applicable to the general budget of the European Union.\nThey were prepared in accordance with Title VII of this Financial\nRegulation and with the accounting principles, rules and methods\nset out in the notes to the financial statements.
\nThe objective of the financial statements is to\nprovide information about the financial position, performance and\ncashflow of an entity that is useful to a wide range of users. The\nobjective is to provide information useful for decision making, and\nto demonstrate the accountability of the entity for the resources\nentrusted to it.
\n1) Purpose: the document\nhelps to bring insight into the EU budget mechanism and the way\nin which the budget has been managed and spent in 2011. It\nrecalls that the European Union's operational expenditure covers\nthe various headings of the financial framework and takes different\nforms, depending on how the money is paid out and managed. In\naccordance with the Financial Regulation, the Commission implements\nthe general budget using the following methods: direct or indirect\ncentralised management (by means of bodies or agencies of public\nlaw or other); decentralised management where the Commission\ndelegates certain tasks for the implementation of the budget to\nthird countries; and, thirdly, shared management where budget\nimplementation tasks are delegated to Member States, in areas such\nas agricultural expenditure and structural actions.
\nThe document also presents the different financial\nactors involved in the budget process (accounting officers,\ninternal officers and authorising officers) and recalls their\nrespective roles in the context of the tasks of sound financial\nmanagement.
\nAmongst the other legal elements relating to the\nimplementation of the EU budget presented in this document, the\npaper focuses on the following issues:
\nTo recap, the final control is the discharge of the\nbudget for a given financial year. The discharge represents\nthe political aspect of the external control of budget\nimplementation and is the decision by which the European\nParliament, acting on a Council recommendation, \"releases\" the\nCommission from its responsibility for management of a given budget\nby marking the end of that budget's existence. When granting the\ndischarge, Parliament may highlight some observations that it\nconsiders important, often by recommending that the Commission\ntakes action on the aspects in question.
\nThe document also details specific expenditure of the\ninstitutions, in particular: i) pensions of former Members and\nofficials of institutions; ii) joint sickness insurance scheme and\niii) buildings.
\nLastly, the document presents a series of tables and\ndetailed technical indicators on (i) the balance sheet; (ii) the\neconomic outturn account; (iii) cashflow tables; (iv) technical\nannexes concerning the financial statements.
\n2) Implementation of appropriations under Section IX\nof the budget for the financial year 2011: the document comprises a series of detailed tables,\nthe most important concerning the implementation of the budget.\nConcerning the EDPS’s expenditure, the table on the financial\nand budgetary implementation of this institution is presented as\nfollows (information drawn from the Budget\nand Financial Management Report for the 2011 financial\nyear):
\nBudget 2011: the\nEDPS’s 2011 budget presents itself as follows:
\n3) Budgetary implementation –\nconclusions: in more general and\npolitical terms, the EDPS’s budgetary implementation for the\nfinancial year 2011 was chiefly marked by the following\nactivities:
\nThe Committee on Budgetary Control unanimously adopted\nthe report by Andrea ČEŠKOVÁ (ECR, CZ) in which it\ncalls on the European Parliament to grant the European Data\nProtection Supervisor discharge in respect of the implementation of\nits budget for the financial year 2011.
\nMembers welcome the conclusion of the Court of\nAuditors that the payments as a whole for the year ended on 31\nDecember 2011 for administrative and other expenditure of the\nEuropean Data Protection Supervisor were free from material error.\nThey observed that no significant weaknesses had been identified in\nrespect to the audited topics related to the human resources and\nprocurement for the Supervisor.
\nMembers note that, in 2011, the Supervisor had a total\nof EUR 7 564 137 in commitment appropriations and that the\nimplementation rate of those appropriations was 89.31%. They find\nthis a positive development but call for further efforts to improve\nthe implementation rate and for the changes made to be monitored\nand expect engagement to exceed 90% next year.
\nLastly, the report calls on the Supervisor to include\nan exhaustive table of all the human resources at the Supervisor's\ndisposal, broken down by category, grade, sex, participation in\nprofessional training and nationality in the next annual activity\nreport.
\nIn view of the observations made in the Court of\nAuditor's report, the Council calls on the European Parliament\nto grant discharge to all of the Union’s institutions in\nregard to the implementation of their respective budgets for the\nfinancial year 2011.
\nOverall, the Council’s remarks are positive in\nregard to the expenditure of the institutions since it notes that,\nagain in 2011, the administrative expenditure of EU institutions\nand bodies remained free from material error and that their\nsupervisory and control systems continued to comply with the\nrequirements of the Financial Regulation.
\nNevertheless, the Council regrets that in some\ninstitutions weaknesses were still detected in the payment of\nsocial allowances to staff members, in the employment contracts\nfor non-permanent staff and in procurement procedures.
\nIt welcomes the measures already taken and encourages\nthe institutions concerned to address the remaining weaknesses\npointed out by the Court.
\nThe Council notes the Court's recommendations that the\ninstitutions concerned should ensure that staff regularly deliver\ndocuments on their personal situation, that the relevant provisions\nare applied when concluding, extending or modifying employment\ncontracts with non-permanent staff, and that the authorising\nofficers further improve guidance and appropriate checks concerning\nprocurement procedures.
\nThe European Parliament adopted by 593 votes to 52\nwith 12 abstentions, a decision granting the European Data\nProtection Supervisor discharge in respect of the implementation of\nits budget for the financial year 2011.
\nIn its resolution accompanying the decision,\nParliament notes the conclusion of the Court of Auditors that the\npayments as a whole for the year ended on 31 December 2011 for\nadministrative and other expenditure were free from material error.\nIt also observes that no significant weaknesses had been identified\nin respect to the audited topics related to the human resources and\nprocurement for the Supervisor.
\nAt the same time, Parliament notes that, in 2011, the\nSupervisor had a total of EUR 7 564 137 in commitment\nappropriations and that the implementation rate of those\nappropriations was 89.31%. It finds this a positive development but\ncalls for this rate to exceed 90% in 2012.
\nMembers call on the Supervisor to include an\nexhaustive table of all the human resources at the Supervisor's\ndisposal, broken down by category, grade, sex, participation in\nprofessional training and nationality in the next annual activity\nreport.
\nVideosurveillance:\nParliament welcomes the Supervisor's inspection report on 13\nBrussels-based Union institutions and bodies verifying that the\npublic is informed about video-surveillance in an effective and\ncomprehensive manner by Union institutions and bodies. It suggests\nthe exchange of that information and best practices with the\nnational data protection authorities.
\nPURPOSE: presentation by the Commission of the\nconsolidated annual accounts of the European Union for the\nfinancial year 2011, as part of the 2011 discharge\nprocedure.
\nAnalysis of the accounts of the EU Institutions:\nSection IX – European Data Protection Supervisor -\nEDPS
\nLegal reminder: the\nconsolidated annual accounts of the European Union for the year\n2011 have been prepared on the basis of the information presented\nby the institutions and bodies under Article 129.2 of the Financial\nRegulation applicable to the general budget of the European Union.\nThey were prepared in accordance with Title VII of this Financial\nRegulation and with the accounting principles, rules and methods\nset out in the notes to the financial statements.
\nThe objective of the financial statements is to\nprovide information about the financial position, performance and\ncashflow of an entity that is useful to a wide range of users. The\nobjective is to provide information useful for decision making, and\nto demonstrate the accountability of the entity for the resources\nentrusted to it.
\n1) Purpose: the document\nhelps to bring insight into the EU budget mechanism and the way\nin which the budget has been managed and spent in 2011. It\nrecalls that the European Union's operational expenditure covers\nthe various headings of the financial framework and takes different\nforms, depending on how the money is paid out and managed. In\naccordance with the Financial Regulation, the Commission implements\nthe general budget using the following methods: direct or indirect\ncentralised management (by means of bodies or agencies of public\nlaw or other); decentralised management where the Commission\ndelegates certain tasks for the implementation of the budget to\nthird countries; and, thirdly, shared management where budget\nimplementation tasks are delegated to Member States, in areas such\nas agricultural expenditure and structural actions.
\nThe document also presents the different financial\nactors involved in the budget process (accounting officers,\ninternal officers and authorising officers) and recalls their\nrespective roles in the context of the tasks of sound financial\nmanagement.
\nAmongst the other legal elements relating to the\nimplementation of the EU budget presented in this document, the\npaper focuses on the following issues:
\nTo recap, the final control is the discharge of the\nbudget for a given financial year. The discharge represents\nthe political aspect of the external control of budget\nimplementation and is the decision by which the European\nParliament, acting on a Council recommendation, \"releases\" the\nCommission from its responsibility for management of a given budget\nby marking the end of that budget's existence. When granting the\ndischarge, Parliament may highlight some observations that it\nconsiders important, often by recommending that the Commission\ntakes action on the aspects in question.
\nThe document also details specific expenditure of the\ninstitutions, in particular: i) pensions of former Members and\nofficials of institutions; ii) joint sickness insurance scheme and\niii) buildings.
\nLastly, the document presents a series of tables and\ndetailed technical indicators on (i) the balance sheet; (ii) the\neconomic outturn account; (iii) cashflow tables; (iv) technical\nannexes concerning the financial statements.
\n2) Implementation of appropriations under Section IX\nof the budget for the financial year 2011: the document comprises a series of detailed tables,\nthe most important concerning the implementation of the budget.\nConcerning the EDPS’s expenditure, the table on the financial\nand budgetary implementation of this institution is presented as\nfollows (information drawn from the Budget\nand Financial Management Report for the 2011 financial\nyear):
\nBudget 2011: the\nEDPS’s 2011 budget presents itself as follows:
\n3) Budgetary implementation –\nconclusions: in more general and\npolitical terms, the EDPS’s budgetary implementation for the\nfinancial year 2011 was chiefly marked by the following\nactivities:
\nPURPOSE: presentation by the Commission of the\nconsolidated annual accounts of the European Union for the\nfinancial year 2011, as part of the 2011 discharge\nprocedure.
\nAnalysis of the accounts of the EU Institutions:\nSection IX – European Data Protection Supervisor -\nEDPS
\nLegal reminder: the\nconsolidated annual accounts of the European Union for the year\n2011 have been prepared on the basis of the information presented\nby the institutions and bodies under Article 129.2 of the Financial\nRegulation applicable to the general budget of the European Union.\nThey were prepared in accordance with Title VII of this Financial\nRegulation and with the accounting principles, rules and methods\nset out in the notes to the financial statements.
\nThe objective of the financial statements is to\nprovide information about the financial position, performance and\ncashflow of an entity that is useful to a wide range of users. The\nobjective is to provide information useful for decision making, and\nto demonstrate the accountability of the entity for the resources\nentrusted to it.
\n1) Purpose: the document\nhelps to bring insight into the EU budget mechanism and the way\nin which the budget has been managed and spent in 2011. It\nrecalls that the European Union's operational expenditure covers\nthe various headings of the financial framework and takes different\nforms, depending on how the money is paid out and managed. In\naccordance with the Financial Regulation, the Commission implements\nthe general budget using the following methods: direct or indirect\ncentralised management (by means of bodies or agencies of public\nlaw or other); decentralised management where the Commission\ndelegates certain tasks for the implementation of the budget to\nthird countries; and, thirdly, shared management where budget\nimplementation tasks are delegated to Member States, in areas such\nas agricultural expenditure and structural actions.
\nThe document also presents the different financial\nactors involved in the budget process (accounting officers,\ninternal officers and authorising officers) and recalls their\nrespective roles in the context of the tasks of sound financial\nmanagement.
\nAmongst the other legal elements relating to the\nimplementation of the EU budget presented in this document, the\npaper focuses on the following issues:
\nTo recap, the final control is the discharge of the\nbudget for a given financial year. The discharge represents\nthe political aspect of the external control of budget\nimplementation and is the decision by which the European\nParliament, acting on a Council recommendation, \"releases\" the\nCommission from its responsibility for management of a given budget\nby marking the end of that budget's existence. When granting the\ndischarge, Parliament may highlight some observations that it\nconsiders important, often by recommending that the Commission\ntakes action on the aspects in question.
\nThe document also details specific expenditure of the\ninstitutions, in particular: i) pensions of former Members and\nofficials of institutions; ii) joint sickness insurance scheme and\niii) buildings.
\nLastly, the document presents a series of tables and\ndetailed technical indicators on (i) the balance sheet; (ii) the\neconomic outturn account; (iii) cashflow tables; (iv) technical\nannexes concerning the financial statements.
\n2) Implementation of appropriations under Section IX\nof the budget for the financial year 2011: the document comprises a series of detailed tables,\nthe most important concerning the implementation of the budget.\nConcerning the EDPS’s expenditure, the table on the financial\nand budgetary implementation of this institution is presented as\nfollows (information drawn from the Budget\nand Financial Management Report for the 2011 financial\nyear):
\nBudget 2011: the\nEDPS’s 2011 budget presents itself as follows:
\n3) Budgetary implementation –\nconclusions: in more general and\npolitical terms, the EDPS’s budgetary implementation for the\nfinancial year 2011 was chiefly marked by the following\nactivities:
\n