1 / 22

“Train the trainers”

Explore the statistical evaluation of irregularities in the 2008 PIF report, including trends, types, and impact of reported irregularities. Learn about recovery rates and conclusions for various funds and objectives. Discover important links and useful information.

arohr
Download Presentation

“Train the trainers”

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Irregularities statistics from draft 280 Annual Fight Against Fraud Report for 2008Maria NTZIOUNI-DOUMASOLAF “Train the trainers” European Commission seminar for managing and certifying authorities 9 June 2009

  2. CONTENT OF THE PRESENTATION Statistical evaluation of irregularities for the PIF report • Useful links • Purpose • Methodology • Content

  3. USEFUL LINKS • Main page • http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/reports/anti-fraud_en.html • Main Report • http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/reports/commission/2007/en.pdf • First Annex • http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/reports/commission/2007/inventaire_en.pdf • Statistical Annex • http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/reports/commission/2007/statistics_en.pdf

  4. PURPOSE OF THE REPORT • Art. 280§5 TEC • “The Commission, in cooperation with Member States, shall each year submit to the European Parliament and to the Council a report on the measures taken for the implementation of this Article.” • Measures adopted by the MS • Measures adopted by the EC • Results (Reported Irregularities) • Information to the public – European taxpayers

  5. STRUCTURE OF THE ANNEX • Introduction – Key facts • Two parts: • Revenues (1 chapter: TOR); • Expenditure (5 chapters: Agriculture, EFF, SF, PA, DE) • SF chapter is divided in five parts: • Reporting discipline • General trends (amounts involved, impact on budget, method of detection, type of irregularity, suspected frauds) • Specific analysis (Programming period 2000-2006) • Recovery • Conclusions • Annexes

  6. DEFINITIONS irregular amounts payments (from the EC to MS) • Irregularity rate = • Fraud rate = irregular amounts (linked to suspicions of fraud) payments (from the EC to MS)

  7. REPORTING DISCIPLINE

  8. GENERAL TRENDS

  9. IRREGULARITIES REPORTED BY MS 1998-2008 • N° of irregularities: +7% • Irregular financial amounts: -27%

  10. IRREGULARITIES BY FUND TREND BY FUND 1998-2008 YEAR 2008

  11. IRREGULARITIES BY MS: 2007-2008

  12. DETECTION METHODS AND TYPES OF IRREGULARITY

  13. CASES OF SUSPECTED FRAUD

  14. SPECIFIC ANALYSIS: PP2000-2006

  15. Trend still increasing for reported irregularities; decrease for amounts • Irregularity rate still increasing

  16. SITUATION BY FUND • ERDF has the highest number of irregularities, irregular amounts and irregularity rate • ESF is second

  17. SITUATION BY OBJECTIVE • Objective 2 programmes have the highest irregularity rate though the by number of irregularities it is only third after Obj. 1 and 3 • Objective 1 irregular amounts’ share is in balance with payments’ share (72% each)

  18. ESTIMATED IMPACT OF SUSPECTED FRAUDS BY FUND AND OBJECTIVE • Objective 1 and ERDF financed programmes have the highest “fraud” rates (0.22% and 0.21% respectively) • Fraud rate is calculated on the payments not on the audited expenditure

  19. RECOVERY RATE

  20. COHESION FUND

  21. CONCLUSIONS (1) • Improved compliance of MS thanks to the efforts from OLAF and the EC also in view of the introduction of the new reporting system IMS • ERDF is the fund with the highest number of irregularities and irregular amounts (increasing trend) • Cases of suspected fraud present a decreasing trend

  22. CONCLUSIONS (2) • Programming period 2000-2006: • Irregularity rate (IR) increasing • Objective 2 programmes have highest IR • Objective 1 programmes have highest fraud rate (FR) • ERDF has highest IR and FR • 25% of the amounts are recovered within few months following detection • Further 25% in the following 5-6 years • Irregularities linked to the Cohesion Fund are still of very low quality to allow any real conclusion to be drawn

More Related