« F.E.R.M. » - the toolkit for managing fraud and error

1. « F.E.R.M. » - the toolkit for managing fraud and error Administrative Commission - the 329th meeting Warsaw, December 13, 2011

2. Elements of context & antecedents The methodology F.E.R.M. The manual : building & explanations Application FERM to annual reports on Fraud & error The results Added value of F.E.R.M. Evaluation after a « test » period by the Administrative Commission Plan

3. The CONTEXT • The objective of Regulation on coordination is not the fight against fraud and error, but aims to • Ensure the free movement of persons(cf. art.48, TFUE) • contribute to the improvement of living standards and employment conditions of these persons • But there are cases of manifest error and fraud! 1. Context & antecedents

4. LE CONTEXTE • The opportunity BELGIUM isleadingdelegation on Fraud & errors issues 1. Context and antecedents

5. RETROACTES • Decision nr H5 of the A.C. of 18 march 2010<> cooperation on combating fraud and error  • F & E ?Garanteethatcontributions are paid to the right MS and that benefits are not unduly granted or fraudulently obtained • Why ?properimplementation of Regulations • How ? • Closer and more effective cooperation = a key factor !! • The identification of persons • Evaluation ? • Annual Meeting of AC = discussion rapport EM • Point de contact national 1. Context and antecedents

6. Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3 november 2010 • Concept note and philosophy <> Impact Assessment enhancing compliance through I.A. (cf. schéma) 1. Context and antecedents

7. Establishes fraud and error relevance of the policy. Is an IA required? Policy and programme development phase for prospective assessments. Ex- ante assessment. Screening Identifies key F & E issues, establishes ToR, set boundaries. Scoping In-depth impact assessment, afflicted, baseline, prediction, significance, mitigation Appraisal Conclusions and recommendations to remove/mitigate negative impacts or enhance positive actions Reporting Policy implementation phase. Formative evaluation. Monitoring Action to monitor actual impacts to enhance existing evidence base Gathering relevant information on implemented policies – feed-back on IA policy Evaluation Policy evaluation phase. Summative evaluation. Ex-post assessment Ex-post Assessment Gathering input for future policies and strategies

8. Note nr384/10 of the BelgianPresidency of 3 november 2010 • Presentation of case-study by N.I.H.D.I. : « cross border shopping, a case study » 1. Context and antecedents

9. AC meeting of 15-16.12.2010 : mandat given to The Belgian delegation in order to develop the methodology F.E.R.M. 1. Context and antecedents

10. The manual: building • Consultation of sources • Guidelines for managing risk in the western Australian public sector, MINISTRY OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET • Project Environmental & Socio-Economic Impact Assessment, AIOC Chirag Oil • Guidance for assessing Social Impacts within the Commission Impact Assessment system, Ref. Ares(2009)326974 - 17/11/2009 • Review of Methodologies applied for the assessment of employment and social impacts (VC/2008/0303), Ecorys, Research and consulting • Social Impact Assessment of the Draft Nelson City Council Gambling Policy , December 2006, NMDHB Public Health Service and Quigley and Watts Ltd • Social Impact Assessment Methodology, VivekMisra, Knowledge Manager, Centre for Good Governance 2. The methodology FERM

11. Consultation autres sources • Circa : note from M.S., Secretariat, Decisions, etc. • ECJ : case law • Tress : Training and reporting on European Social Security • Développement du manuel : guidelines 2. The methodology FERM

12. Explications du manuel • Overview of the methods : the matrix • Screeninga decision will be taken on whether or not further in depth evaluation • Scoping and frequency define the boundaries of this analysis • Appraisal detailed analysis of the previously • Reporting conclusions will be drawn on the basis of the assessment • Monitoringa tool that provides information indicating if an action or decision is evolving • Evaluation provides relevant information • Mix of methods in practice all methods will be intertwined 2. The methodology FERM:overview of the methods

13. 2. The methodology FERM : the matrix

14. Potentialities of FERMwill provide direction in: • predicting probable impacts / determining impacts of strategies or decisions that will be or have been implemented as to fraud and error • identifying which factors of a decision may lead or are leading to unwanted (fraud and error enhancing) side effects • if possible, isolating those factors and make (re-)evaluation possible (close the gaps, find alternative solutions) • if isolation prior to the decision is impossible, developing mitigation mechanisms to reduce the harmful side effects • evaluating decisions / actions to counter fraud and error in order to learn from experience 2. The methodology FERM - itspotentialities

15. The tasks of the leading delegation on fraud and error, should consist of • Screening of issues mentioned by delegations in their national reports • Is the issue actually posing fraud and error risks? • Is there any quantitative or qualitative information already available or is this a completely new issue? • Is the issue relevant in the sense that it poses problems on regular basis? • Is the issue relevant in the sense that it has a substantial financial impact or undermines a social security system or the EESSI system? 2. The methodology FERM – possible tasks of the leading delegation

16. Determine how selected issues can be treated and by who ? • How ?: which methodology is to be followed out of the FERM toolbox (e.g. Ex ante assessment, monitoring the issue; attention to an already existing analysis , etc.) • Who ? <> optimizingthe existing strengths • experts from the Belgian leading delegation • (on voluntary basis) experts from different MS • the referral to a SED expert group/Conciliation Board 2. The methodology FERM – possible tasks of the leading delegation

17. Put the list of issues with the followed/proposed trajectory at disposal of the AC • Highlight and share best practices developed by MS • Report at least once a year to the AC 2. The methodology FERM – possible tasks of the leading delegation

18. Belgian delegation is prepared to put an electronic workspace that would take the form of a forum between experts… • Why ? To facilate an effective working ! • Limitation/exclusions ? • Only national reports from MS on Fraud and error • Neither personal files; neither personal data • Administration ? E-workspace administrated by Belgian delegation 2. The methodology FERM – a forum between experts

19. The application of FERM to annual reports on Fraud & errors • Voluntary reporting from Member States in 2011 : Finland and Spain (cfdecision H5 of AC) • Informal informations exchangedwith the Netherlands 2. The methodology FERM : towardsimplementation

20. 2. La méthodologie FERM : the results

21. The added value of F.E.R.M. • An integratedapproach to risk management and errors • Highlightthe reports of EM <> encourage all MS in theirreporting in Fraud and Error • Sharebest pratices of MS • Supported by LeadingBelgiandelegationduring 2 years<> No cost for A.C.free !! • Create connections between all the experts and alreadyexisting ad-hoc groups FORUM 3. La plus-value du F.E.R.M.

22. Evaluation of FERM, after a test period of 2 years, by the A.C. 4. Evaluation of FERM