12 Evaluation of rural development expenditure
| (35744)
—
—
| Court of Auditors Special Report No. 12/2013: Can the Commission and Member States show that the EU budget allocated to the rural development policy is well spent?
|
| Legal base | —
|
| Document originated | —
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 23 January 2014
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 5 February 2014
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| Discussion in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
12.1 The EU's strategic guidelines for rural development
in the programming period 2007-13 are set out in Council Decision
2006/144/EC, and are based on three thematic axes, which aim respectively
to improve agricultural competitiveness, to improve the environment
and countryside, and to improve the quality of life and degree
of economic diversification in rural areas. In addition, a fourth
(Leader) axis aims to achieve the same objectives through community-led
local development strategies.
12.2 Although the overall priorities are set at EU
level, more specific programmes are adopted by Member States at
national or regional levels, and, during the period in question,
the EU has allocated nearly €100 billion[40]
to achieve rural development objectives, with Member States having
in addition committed €58 billion of their own resources
to co-finance measures. In order to help establish whether these
funds are well spent, a new Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework
(CMEF) was established in 2007, with common indicators intended
to track progress towards rural development objectives in a way
which allows each of the programmes to be compared, and the data
to be aggregated: and the CMEF also requires an ex-ante
evaluation for each programme, a mid-term evaluation in 2010,
and an ex-post evaluation in 2015.
The current document
12.3 The Court of Auditors regards monitoring and
evaluation as a key element in the operation of the programme,
and it has produced a number of reports in recent years looking
at the way in which this has been applied to certain aspects of
it. It also saw the commencement of a new programming period for
2014-20 as a timely moment to examine whether the relevant EU
budget allocation has been well spent, and it therefore carried
out an audit in 2013, in which it looked at 12 Member State regional
development programmes,[41]
which together represent just over 50% of total expenditure in
this area. In particular, the Court sought to establish:
· whether there are clear statements on
what the expenditure is intended to achieve;
· whether reliable information has been
published showing what the expenditure has achieved, and how efficiently
it has done so; and
· whether monitoring and evaluation information
has been used to improve the effectiveness of efficiency of the
expenditure.
12.4 The Court's conclusion is that the Commission
and Member States have not sufficiently shown what has been achieved
in relation to rural policy objectives, and that there is a lack
of assurance that the EU budget has been spent well. More specifically,
the Court found that:
· the objectives set were not sufficiently
clear;
· there was insufficient information on,
and reporting of, the results achieved to demonstrate the extent
to which the objectives set have been met, and that the EU budget
has been spent effectively and efficiently; and
· the available monitoring and evaluation
information has not sufficiently been used to improve the efficiency
and effectiveness of rural development expenditure.
12.5 The Court says that improvements to monitoring
and evaluation can, and should, be made for the remainder of the
current programming period (for which expenditure will be concluded
in 2015), and that, in the forthcoming 2014-20 period, the Commission
and Member States should take the opportunity to make the effectiveness
and efficiency of expenditure much more central to the design
of measures and to programming decisions relating to the operations
and projects to be financed.
12.6 The Court therefore recommends that:
· Member States and the Commission should
make use of monitoring and evaluation to increase their focus
on achieving results for the remainder of the current programming
period;
· they should take action now to ensure
that good quality, comparable information can be obtained for
the ex-post evaluations in 2015 of the 2007-13 programming
period;
· for the 2014-20 programming period, the
Commission should improve the CME design to produce more timely,
relevant, reliable and comparable information, particularly on
the effectiveness and efficiency of the measures in achieving
results;
· Member States and the Commission should
ensure that 2014-20 rural development programmes provide a better
foundation for sound financial management, with specific, measurable
objectives and plans for monitoring and evaluation of the efficiency
and effectiveness of the programmes;
· Member States should design effectiveness
and efficiency into their implementation systems for 2014-20,
with the information gathered for the application, selection and
payment processes being reused for monitoring and evaluation;
and
· Member States and the Commission should
improve their reporting on the results achieved with the EU budget
to enhance accountability, including more systematic follow-up
of evaluation findings.
12.7 The Court's report indicates that the Commission
has broadly accepted its recommendations, and has set out clear
actions to address them. These include looking in more detail
at the progress made against outcome and output targets for the
current programme, and preparing ex-post evaluations, whilst for
the 2014-20 programme, it has proposed a new CMEF with a broader
framework in which to assess the impact of rural development programmes.
The Government's view
12.8 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 5 February
2014, the Parliamentary Under- Secretary at the Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice) comments
that his department had provided an input to the Court's report,
which had highlighted a number of examples of good practice in
England. He goes on to note that the new CMEF has been agreed
by all Member States, and says that the UK broadly welcomes the
new approach which the Commission has put in place to refine and
improve target setting and evaluation. The Government also believes
that this will help to demonstrate that the EU budget for rural
development is well spent in the various parts of the UK, where
the different administrations will be putting in place their own
arrangements.
Conclusion
12.9 Although the Court's observations are not
untypical of those found in audit reports of this kind, we think
it right — given the scale of both past and future expenditure
in this area — to draw them to the attention of the House.
Having said that, they do not seem to us to require further consideration,
and we are therefore content to clear the document.
40 The new Multiannual Framework includes a further
provision of just under €85 billion for the period 2014-20. Back
41
Including that in England. Back
| 
