REPORT on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2014, Section X – European External Action Service
12.4.2016 - (2015/2163(DEC))
Committee on Budgetary Control
Rapporteur: Ryszard Czarnecki
1. PROPOSAL FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT DECISION
on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2014, Section X – European External Action Service
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2014[1],
– having regard to the consolidated annual accounts of the European Union for the financial year 2014 (COM(2015)0377 – C8‑0208/2015)[2],
– having regard to the Court of Auditors’ annual report on the implementation of the budget concerning the financial year 2014, together with the institutions’ replies[3],
– having regard to the statement of assurance[4] as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2014, pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
– having regard to Article 314(10) and Articles 317, 318 and 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
– having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002[5], and in particular Articles 55, 99 and 164 to 167 thereof,
– having regard to Rule 94 of and Annex V to its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A8-0136/2016),
1. Grants the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European External Action Service for the financial year 2014;
2. Sets out its observations in the resolution below;
3. Instructs its President to forward this decision and the resolution forming an integral part of it to the European External Action Service, the European Council, the Council, the Commission, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Court of Auditors, the European Ombudsman and the European Data Protection Supervisor and to arrange for their publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series).
2. MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION
with observations forming an integral part of the decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2014, Section X – European External Action Service
The European Parliament,
– having regard to its decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2014, Section X – European External Action Service,
– having regard to Rule 94 of and Annex V of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A8-0136/2016),
1. Welcomes the fact that the European External Action Service (EEAS) has continued to implement its budget without being affected by major errors and that the overall level of error in the administrative budget has been estimated by the Court of Auditors at 0,5 %;
2. Notes that the Court of Auditors has not identified any significant weaknesses in the selected systems and annual activity report;
3. Calls on the EEAS to improve its monitoring systems for the timely updating of the personal situation of staffs members, which may have an impact on the calculation of family allowances; is concerned by the fact that staff allowances were already a point of concern and were subject to errors in previous years; requests that more rigorous controls on this matter be performed on behalf of the EEAS by the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements;
4. Invites the EEAS to continue its efforts to support and monitor the implementation of procurement rules and procedures in the delegations through access to advice, training and guidance from headquarters, especially for the procurement of security services;
5. Acknowledges the efforts to better structure the ex-ante and ex-post controls of operations within the EEAS; calls on the EEAS in that context to reduce the rate of errors found on commitments and payments under verification, currently estimated at 18 %;
6. Notes that the final budget for the year 2014 for the EEAS headquarters was EUR 518,6 million, representing a 1,9 % increase compared to the preceding financial year, with the budget being split as follows: EUR 212,9 million for EEAS headquarters and EUR 305,7 million for Union delegations; notes that, in addition to the EEAS' own budget, the Commission contributed EUR 271 million in compensation for the management of Commission staff in the network of delegations;
7. Takes note that, at the EEAS headquarters, 65 % of the budget is intended for the payment of salaries and other entitlements of statutory and external staff (i.e. EUR 138,2 million) and 14 % (or EUR 29,9 million) for buildings and associated costs and computer systems, (including classified information systems and equipment for 12,7% (i.e. EUR 27,1 million));
8. Notes that for the Union delegations, EUR 305,7 million was divided between EUR 103,4 million (33,7 %) relating to the remuneration and entitlements of statutory staff, EUR 59,8 million (19,6 %) for external staff and outside services, EUR 19 million (6,2 %) for other expenditure related to staff, EUR 103,1 million (33,8%) for buildings and EUR 20,4 million (6,7 %) for other administrative expenditure;
9. Notes that the EEAS is now entirely responsible for all administrative costs related to the functioning of the delegations except for the delegations located in African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries ; recalls that an adequate budgeting process and in particular a simplification of the budget structure remains a core challenge in the short term in order to streamline financial circuits and to help the consolidation of the EEAS's functioning;
10. Calls on the EEAS to simplify current budget arrangements and make them less rigid, so as to allow flexible but effective use to be made of delegation staff in the interests of the Union;
11. Takes note of the new organisational chart and the corresponding rationalisation of a formerly top-heavy management structure in favour of fewer hierarchical layers; nevertheless notes with regret that the internal administrative and financial framework of the EEAS is still overly complex and rigid; observes that the current structure does not allow the EEAS to react to crises in a timely manner and that, similarly, the period of time taken to access crucial information is lengthy; calls on the EEAS to prepare in cooperation with the Commission, the Council and Member States a further reform in order to streamline its internal processes and simplify its structure;
12. Remains concerned about continuing imbalances in the staffing profile of the EEAS as regards gender and nationality; welcomes recent progress but notes that gender imbalances, particularly in higher grades and in management, remain considerable; regrets the low percentage of one of the genders in senior management positions in EEAS headquarters (16 %) and in heads of delegation posts (23 %) and expects to see an improvement in the gender balance in future annual reports; reiterates its concerns about the disproportionate number of high-grade posts in the EEAS;
13. Urges the EEAS to revise the staffing formula establishing the balance between staff drawn from Member States and from the Union institutions; insists on the fact that such formula should apply to all levels of the hierarchy, in particular to heads of delegation where Member States' diplomats are strongly overrepresented, with 59 of the 128 heads of delegation coming from Member States (i.e. 46 %) out of which only 20 come from Member States which joined the Union in 2004, 2007 and 2013; considers this overrepresentation to be a wrong signal sent to Member States which joined the Union since 2004; is of the opinion that a better representation between the Member States and the Union institutions and also amongst the Member States is necessary in order to represent and reflect the diversity within the Union;
14. Emphasises that geographical balance, namely the relationship between staff nationality and the size of Member States, should still remain an important element of resources management particularly with respect to the Member States that have acceded to the Union since 2004, who now represent 18 % of EEAS staff at "administrator" (AD) level at headquarters and delegations compared to their population share of 21 %, for which progress is still awaited;
15. Notes that in 2014 the EEAS reduced the number of staff in its headquarters by 17 posts as a result of the implementation of the 5 % staff reduction;
16. Takes note that the statutory target that at least one-third of staff at AD level within the EEAS should be comprised of Member States' diplomats was reached in 2013 and slightly exceeded in 2014, at 33,8 %;
17. Notes, however, the relatively high number of seconded national experts from Member States (407 in 2014 with 350 at headquarters and 57 in delegations) and requests further clarification on their entitlements, the financial costs for the EEAS budget and the potential issue of conflicts of interest; believes that a clear policy related to seconded national experts should be further developed;
18. Encourages the EEAS to carry on with the reflection process taking place within it on the future of the EU special representatives and their relationship with the special envoys and the EEAS;
19. Stresses the importance of taking steps to better integrate the seven EU special representatives more closely into the administrative structure and senior management of the EEAS in order to increase interaction and coordination, exploit synergies and ensure cost-effectiveness; welcomes the efforts made to address the need to better integrate EU special representatives and the information that the EEAS is negotiating with Member States on the issue; asks to be informed about further advancements on this issue;
20. Stresses that transparency and accountability are essential requirements not only for democratic scrutiny but also for the adequate functioning and the credibility of missions carried out under the Union flag; reiterates the importance attached by Parliament to exercising oversight over the different common security and defence policy (CSDP) missions and operations;
21. Notes the creation of shared services centres as a means to improve both centralised logistical, procurement and administrative support to the CSDP civilian missions and to the EU special representatives and the speed of deployment and cost-efficiency of those missions; notes also that a mission support platform is currently being established without, however, creating duplication of functions;
22. Welcomes that co-location projects of Union delegations with Member States continued to be developed in 2014 with the signature of 17 co-location memoranda of understanding, bringing the total number of co-location arrangements to 50; asks the EEAS to continue this trend and to report regularly to Parliament's Committee on Budgetary Control on this issue;
23. Emphasises that Union heads of delegation continue to be overburdened with administrative tasks due to the inflexibility of the financial regulation; states that adequate tools should be provided to the heads of delegations, to effectively manage and oversee the delegations without generating excessive administrative burden; welcomes in this context the discussion on the identification of tasks to be possibly performed remotely and the possibility of establishing regional administrative support centres that will alleviate some of those burdens and may form part of a broader future solution; repeats its call on the Commission and the EEAS to consider all solutions to that issue for the purpose of economies of scale;
24. Encourages the EEAS to enhance coordination and supervision of Local Consular Cooperation among the Union Member States´ Embassies and Consulates and to further consider the possibility of providing consular services through Union delegations; reiterates its call to the EEAS to prepare a detailed analysis of financial implications and cost savings that would be made;
25. Urges the EEAS to establish closer cooperation, coordination and synergies of activities between the Union delegations and Member States´ Embassies abroad;
26. Is concerned about efficiency and efforts of work of the Union delegations abroad; urges the EEAS to regularly pursue its evaluation programme of the delegations and to provide in its annual activity report a synthesis of the main weaknesses and difficulties encountered in the functioning of the Union delegations on the basis of the action plan established for each delegation as a result of the evaluation mission;
27. Takes the view that heads of Union delegations should be regularly reminded of their duties during their recruitment and pre-posting in terms of their management and oversight responsibilities in management assurance related to their delegation portfolio of operations (key management processes, control management, adequate understanding and assessment of the key performance indicators) and not only to focus or concentrate on the political component of their duties;
28. Notes that eight delegations have issued a declaration of assurance with a reservation due to procurement issues, lack of human resources and/or extreme local security constraints;
29. Believes that the heads of Union delegations should be provided with clear guidance in relation to the general operational guidelines on the definition of the reservation and its components, the elements to be considered for the issuance of a reservation such as the level of the financial and reputational risks at stake, the operational weaknesses, internal and external constraints identified and related impact on the management of funding and payments operations; recalls that the potential issuance of a reservation should clearly identify the process encountering recurrent or temporary weaknesses whilst being correlated to the functioning, adequacy and performance of the set of internal control standards (ICS);
30. Welcomes the effective implementation of ICS as the conclusion of the internal survey carried out in 2014 at EEAS headquarters and in delegations, with the exception of the issue of business continuity which still needs swift improvement in management procedures; considers it useful to have a dynamic and holistic approach in the treatment of management information, performance indicators and the ICS as each type of information, based on international good practice to achieve clearly defined policy and operational objectives, contributes to the overall quality and exhaustiveness of the management processes and to the efficiency and effectiveness of the management of Union policies;
31. Calls on the EEAS and EuropeAid to reinforce supervision of the heads of delegations in their capacity as authorising officers by sub-delegation for the Commission with a view to increasing their accountability within the global chain assurance by providing qualitative and exhaustive reporting (with the so-called External Assistance Management Report) in the context of the establishment of the respective EEAS and EuropeAid annual activity reports;
32. Urges the EEAS and EuropeAid to ensure that the Union delegations actively address the shortcomings identified in the external assistance programmes and projects already during the implementation phase, so that ongoing programmes and projects meet their objectives and avoid delays;
33. Calls on the Commission to strengthen efforts and decrease outstanding commitments (reduce reste à liquider (RALs), RACs and RAPs) and shorten the average period of project implementation;
34. Welcomes that improved and more comprehensive guidelines reinforcing the supervision of the heads of delegations, covering both the accountability and reporting requirements, have been issued in the framework of the External Assistance Management Report (EAMR) exercise covering the year 2015;
35. Acknowledges that the assessments derived from the EAMRs provide only a snapshot of the situation of each project at the end of the year and that the actual impact of the identified difficulties can only be assessed by the end of the project;
36. Welcomes the signature of the administrative arrangement between the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and the EEAS in accordance with the new OLAF regulation which has entered into force;
37. Deplores the fact that the rules and operational guidelines applicable to the status of whistle-blower are not yet finalised under the Common Foreign and Security Policy; urges the EEAS to finalise and adopt the rules and operational guidelines applicable to the status of whistle-blower by the end of 2016;
38. Considers that the EEAS and the Commission should develop support functions to assist with the rapid, efficient and consistent deployment of CSDP missions, providing pre-deployment training for all staff on Union procedures and policies, comprehensive guidelines on operational tasks, making maximum use of the lessons learnt from previous CSDP missions to facilitate knowledge transfer and synergy effects among different missions;
39. Calls on the EEAS to increase the accountability of its main financial instrument in Afghanistan, the Law and Order Trust Fund Afghanistan managed by the United Nations Development Programme (and multi-donor trust funds in other third countries), which is criticised for mismanagement and the lack of transparency; reiterates furthermore the need to use all suitable funding channels for future CSDP missions, including Union trust funds, in an efficient way in order to ensure the achievement of the mission's policy goals and sound financial management;
40. Stresses that some CSDP missions involve extensive security-related costs; emphasises at the same time that a secure working environment is essential in order to implement projects effectively and recruit skilled personnel; calls on the EEAS to consider security-related expenses in the mission budget in order to provide sufficient financial means for the implementation of the actual mission mandate;
41. Invites the Commission and the EEAS to pay particular attention to procurement and human resources procedures in order to ensure that they are responsive to the CSDP's operational needs; points out that the implementation of projects has suffered from cumbersome procurement procedures leading to underperformance;
42. Encourages the EEAS, in order to improve the sustainability of CSDP mission outcomes, to ensure that sustainability aspects are taken into account in the operational planning of all its mission activities by systematically assessing the local needs and capacity to sustain outcomes;
43. Calls on the EEAS and the Commission to coordinate CSDP missions more thoroughly in advance with other Union efforts, bilateral missions and international efforts with similar objectives; calls in this respect for more cooperation and coordination between the Union and its Member States by promoting synergies;
44. Reiterates the need to improve cooperation between Member States in their foreign and security policy in order to achieve cost savings; stresses that this is of crucial importance for Member States to be able to respond decisively to shared security challenges during a period in which such challenges are markedly on the rise;
45. Observes with regret that the EEAS is still missing an overarching strategy and vision for the institution which makes it difficult to react rapidly on unexpected events in the fast developing world; calls on the EEAS to clarify its vision for the future in order to give a direction to its otherwise weakly implemented mission and to provide high-quality support to the Union institutions and Member States in pursuing foreign policy; in this regard calls on the EEAS to develop expertise on global issues such as climate change or energy security;
46. Urges the EEAS and the Commission to implement lessons learnt from the Eulex case in close coordination with Parliament, jointly exploring ways to implement the recommendations contained in the Jacqué report commissioned by the High Representative and Vice-President and to address any outstanding issues;
47. Calls on the Court of Auditors to include in its next annual report a review of the follow-up by the EEAS of Parliament’s recommendations in this resolution.
16.2.2016
OPINION of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
for the Committee on Budgetary Control
on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2014, Section X - European External Action Service
Rapporteur: Cristian Dan Preda
SUGGESTIONS
The Committee on Foreign Affairs calls on the Committee on Budgetary Control, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions into its motion for a resolution:
1. Welcomes the fact that the European External Action Service (EEAS) has continued to implement its budget without being affected by a material level of error and that the overall level of error in the administrative budget has fallen to 0.5%;
2. Remains concerned about continuing imbalances in the staffing profile of the EEAS regarding gender and nationality; welcomes recent progress but notes that gender imbalances, particularly in higher grades and in management, remain considerable; reiterates its concerns about the disproportional number of high-grade posts in the EEAS;
3. Emphasises that the staffing formula establishing the balance between staff drawn from Member States and from the community institutions should apply to all levels of the hierarchy, in particular also to Heads of Delegation where Member States diplomats are strongly overrepresented; also underlines that there is still an overreliance on seconded national experts, which further circumvents the staffing formula; urges the EEAS to work towards reducing this overreliance;
4. Emphasises that EU Heads of Delegation continue to be overburdened with administrative tasks due to the inflexibility of the Financial Regulation; welcomes in this context the discussion on the possible pilot project to establish a regional administrative support centre for Europe that will alleviate some of these burdens and may form part of a broader future solution; repeats its call on the Commission and the EEAS to consider all solutions to this problem, which could also entail possible changes to the financial regulation, while stressing that high standards in terms of the quality of financial management should prevail;
5. Calls on the EEAS to simplify current budget arrangements and make them less rigid, so as to allow flexible but effective use to be made of delegation staff in the interests of the EU;
6. Stresses the importance of taking steps to integrate the EU Special Representatives more closely into the administrative structure of the EEAS to ensure cost effectiveness, exploit synergies and increase coordination;
7. Reiterates the need to improve cooperation between Member States in their foreign and security policy in order to achieve cost savings; stresses that this is of crucial importance for Member States to be able to respond decisively to shared security challenges during a period in which these are markedly on the rise;
8. Notes that the European Court of Auditors emphasised the existence of some continuing weaknesses in the management of family allowances, a comment that has been repeated for several years in a row; urges the EEAS to take measures to address these shortcomings to avoid a reoccurrence in future years;
9. Calls for faster adoption of the operational guidelines on whistle-blowing;
10. Urges the EEAS and the Commission to implement lessons learnt from the Eulex case in close coordination with Parliament, jointly exploring ways to implement the recommendations contained in the Jacqué report commissioned by the High Representative and Vice-President and address any outstanding issues.
RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION
|
Date adopted |
16.2.2016 |
|
|
|
|
|
Result of final vote |
+: –: 0: |
40 8 3 |
|||
|
Members present for the final vote |
Lars Adaktusson, Michèle Alliot-Marie, Francisco Assis, Petras Auštrevičius, Goffredo Maria Bettini, Mario Borghezio, James Carver, Lorenzo Cesa, Javier Couso Permuy, Georgios Epitideios, Eugen Freund, Michael Gahler, Iveta Grigule, Richard Howitt, Tunne Kelam, Afzal Khan, Janusz Korwin-Mikke, Andrey Kovatchev, Ilhan Kyuchyuk, Ryszard Antoni Legutko, Barbara Lochbihler, Sabine Lösing, Ulrike Lunacek, Andrejs Mamikins, Tamás Meszerics, Francisco José Millán Mon, Pier Antonio Panzeri, Demetris Papadakis, Vincent Peillon, Alojz Peterle, Tonino Picula, Kati Piri, Andrej Plenković, Cristian Dan Preda, Jozo Radoš, Sofia Sakorafa, Charles Tannock, Eleni Theocharous, László Tőkés, Ivo Vajgl, Johannes Cornelis van Baalen, Hilde Vautmans |
||||
|
Substitutes present for the final vote |
Angel Dzhambazki, András Gyürk, Takis Hadjigeorgiou, Javi López, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Antonio López-Istúriz White, Urmas Paet, Soraya Post, Traian Ungureanu |
||||
RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE
|
Date adopted |
7.4.2016 |
|
|
|
|
|
Result of final vote |
+: –: 0: |
19 6 0 |
|||
|
Members present for the final vote |
Louis Aliot, Jonathan Arnott, Inés Ayala Sender, Dennis de Jong, Martina Dlabajová, Ingeborg Gräßle, Bogusław Liberadzki, Monica Macovei, Gilles Pargneaux, Georgi Pirinski, Petri Sarvamaa, Claudia Schmidt, Igor Šoltes, Bart Staes, Marco Valli, Derek Vaughan, Anders Primdahl Vistisen, Joachim Zeller |
||||
|
Substitutes present for the final vote |
Richard Ashworth, Andrey Novakov, Markus Pieper, Julia Pitera, Miroslav Poche, Patricija Šulin |
||||
|
Substitutes under Rule 200(2) present for the final vote |
Luke Ming Flanagan, Arne Gericke, Siôn Simon, Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu |
||||