1 / 8

Optimizing EU Funds Management through Internal Control Arrangements: Best Practices and Cooperation

This article explores good practices and cooperation among Member States to optimize internal control arrangements for the management of EU funds. It analyzes challenges, maps possible cooperation, and emphasizes the importance of utilizing available expertise to elevate the effectiveness of internal control systems. The article also discusses the linkage to the 8 Principles of Public Internal Control (PIC) and potential good practices to address challenges.

henryc
Download Presentation

Optimizing EU Funds Management through Internal Control Arrangements: Best Practices and Cooperation

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. Good practice within Member States to optimise Internal Control arrangements for the management of EU funds Edit Nemeth Deputy Head of Public Finance Policy Unit

  2. Objectives • Analysis of challenges • Mapping of possible cooperation between national Internal Control experts and national EU fund actors • Utilise available expertise • Elevating effectiveness of internal control system of both – national and EU budget management • Lower error rate

  3. Linkage to 8 Principles of PIC • Principle number 1: - Good public governance in the public interest is the context, the purpose and the driver of PIC. • Principle number 3 - PIC is based on COSO and INTOSAI. • Principle number 7: PIC is harmonised at an appropriate level. • Principle number 8: PIC adopts a continuous improvement perspective.

  4. Challenges • The silo effect • Management not feeling able to intervene effectively • Management has different view on the system and the findings of external actors • Long term approach vs. Annual audit findings • Role of internal auditors

  5. Potential good practices • A clear and comprehensive mapping of the role and scope of the involvement of the national internal control contact point • Transversal overview • International support • Increased role of Internal Audit in the management of European Structural and Investment funds

  6. [1] MA – Managing Authority; CA – Certifying Authority; AA – Audit Authority. Mapping of Hungarianpractice Possible areas of involvement: • Regulation of internal control system • Coordination between MA, CA and AA • Responding to audit reports • Improvement of management and control system of MA, CA and AA • Training • Other

  7. Questions for discussion • To what extent is there a role for the national Internal Control contact point to help to ensure that proper action is taken to remedy any on-going high error rates, within their national administration? • Should any such role be formalised or remain informal? • What could be the role of the national Internal Control contact point in the response process to ECA and/or European Commission reports? • Could the national Internal Control contact point usefully get involved in harmonisation between Audit Authorities, if there were more than one such body within a Member State? What other structures could exist to ensure coordination between them?

  8. THANK YOU FOR YOUR KIND ATTENTION!

More Related