/
Conclusions Conclusions

Conclusions - PowerPoint Presentation

pamella-moone
pamella-moone . @pamella-moone
Follow
384 views
Uploaded On 2015-11-24

Conclusions - PPT Presentation

of the 36 th Conference of the Directors of EU Paying Agencies Rome Italy 10 th 12 th November 2014 The 36 th Conference of the Directors of EU Paying Agencies has ID: 204349

agencies efa implementation paying efa agencies paying implementation experience layer error rate legality assurance regularity year workshops elements presentations

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Download Presentation from below link

Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Conclusions" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.


Presentation Transcript

Slide1

Conclusions of the 36th Conference of the Directors of EU Paying Agencies

Rome, Italy10th – 12th November 2014Slide2

The 36

th

Conference of the Directors of EU Paying Agencies

has

been organized by AGEA Coordinating Body.

2

Participants

:

28 UE

Member

States

2

Candidates

Member

States

(

Fyrom

and

Turkey

)

Italian Vice Minister

of agriculture food and forestry

policies

European Court of

Auditors

European

CommissionSlide3

The conference was held at Palazzo della

Farnesina Ministry of Foreign Affairs3where we wereSlide4

Rome

We have also visited Musei Capitolini and Rome by Bus4

where

we

were

Gala dinner in Palazzo BrancaccioSlide5

The Conference activities

14 presentations from:Member StatesEuropean Court of AuditorsEuropean CommissionLearning networkPanta Rhei

5

3 workshops about:

Greening EFA layer implementation

(made

by the Paying Agencies). Opinion of Certification Body on legality and regularity of accounts for EAGF and EAFRDHigher error rate, remedial actions: role, responsabilities

of the Paying Agencies and best practiceSlide6

About the workshops

6

The first workshop was about

greening

EFA layer implementation

(study/

ies made by the Paying Agencies). Presentations:Greek experience Italian experience Polish experience WS facilitated by Mr. Salvatore Carfì Slide7

Greening EFA layer implementation

7TopicReflections/solutionsThe identification system for agricultural parcels shall contain

a reference layer to accommodate ecological focus areas (EFA). Those

elements

shall be

provided in respect of claim year 2018 at the latestStart implementation of the EFA layer as from 2015. Review during the 2nd year of its implementation (in 2016) included controls of Non-stable elements

of EFACalculation of the costs for the implementation of the EFA layer: some paying agencies are calculating the costs for reference parcel, other for numbers of EFA elements digitized within the reference parcel and others for area included in a single map shiftShare, progressively, the costs for the implementation of the EFA layer within the Learning NetworkSimplification aimed at reducing the administrative burdens of the European paying agencies within the context of the EFA layerPut in place a working group within the Learning Network with the

objective to provide proposals for simplification of rules for mapping EFA elementsSlide8

About the workshops

8

The second workshop was about

Opinion of Certification Body on legality and regularity of accounts for EAGF and

EAFRD

Presentations

:UK experience Italian experience WS facilitated by Mr. Simon Helps Slide9

Legality and regularity

9TopicReflections/solutionsAdditional costs needed for integrated teams

A mixed team (Certifying Bodies/Paying Agencies) would be most effective, although not easy to achieve; the CBs may work with PAs to build best practice in obtaining integrated teams. Also, the best way to reduce the cost of controls, without compromising the assurance on legality and regularity, is to improve the controls by the PAs

The assurance on legality and regularity during the first implementation years will not be achieved through a common approach across all 82 Paying Agencies

The Commission may reflect together with the ECA and the Member States, on streamlining the existing assurance model, to arrive at a single audit model and assurance (e.g. by rethinking the conformity and financial clearance).

Simplification (particularly in the context of debtors

audit guidelines) to deliver significant savings while providing strong assuranceThe audit could look at validating year end balances, rather than treating each category of movement as a separate population.Slide10

About the workshops

10

The last one was about

Higher error rate, remedial actions: role,

responsabilities

of the Paying Agencies and best

practice.Presentations:French experience (Area-related schemes) Dutch experience (CMO) Swedish experience (Investment measures of Rural Development) WS facilitated by Mr. Edward Jossa Slide11

Higher error rate, remedial actions

11TopicReflections/solutionsControl of the error rate

A better communication with farmers and simplification of the EU rules are needed, and the group considered that the simpler of the measure the easier it is to control and the lower the risk of error. Need for balance between clarity

and details

Number

of different indicators of

error, depending on the Institution of origin i.e. European Court Auditors, EC and MS.It would be preferable to have a common definition of error rateResidual error rateBilateral flow of information MS/EU

Commission

Further general aims:

For Rural Development measures, threshold of 2% is very low considering the complexity to manage in particular the investment and procurement tender procedures

Full information to the MSs before any changes are envisaged or proposed. It could be useful if the Commission could carry out "preventive on the spot visits” during the first year of the implementation of CAP reform as from 2015 in order to make recommendations (even if not a formal approval) on the control system in place for managing CAP schemes or measuresSlide12

Many

thanks to all of you