1

Click to edit Master title style

WINDING-UP DECLARATION

Practical experience

PORTUGAL

Carlos TrigacheiroInspecção-Geral de Finanças (IGF)

General Inspection of Finance

1

2

What are the news for 2000-2006 period ?• Main rules are known since the begin (Reg.

1260/1999, Reg. 438/2001, Reg. 448/2001)

• Clear definition of responsibilities

• Lessons learned form 1994-1999 period

• Guidelines (sample checks, management verifications, paying authorities, closure)

2

3

Portuguese system audit of EU funds• IGF (winding-up body for all programmes and

funds) – system coordination, system audits and audits on operations when necessary (art. 15º and 16º, Reg. 438)

• Independent (segregated) audit units in line Ministries and in Management Bodies – mainly oriented for operations audits (also systems in some situations) as foreseen by artº 10º, Reg. 438

3

4

The role of IGF• National system coordination:

– Planning, monitoring, report and follow-up– Audit standards and training of the auditors

• Coordination with EU Audit Authorities (vg, contract of confidence with the Commission)

• Responsible for communications to OLAF• Annual control report (artº 13º, Reg. 438)• Winding-up declarations

IGF play a similar role for Cohesion and Agriculture Funds

4

5

IGF audit strategy (three main phases):1. From begin to 2005: system audits

by programme or thematic/horizontal audits (information systems, debtors` ledger, quality

control, intermediate bodies, mechanisms of financial engineering, public procurement)

2. 2004 – 2006: follow-up audits and update of system audits where there are significant changes

5

6

Annual audit of paying authorities (the first one in 2004

payment claims certified till 31Dec2003)• Focus on the declarations of the PA• Allows IGF to have an opinion on the reliability

and quality of each one of PA and programmes• Helps IGF to prepare the annual control report• Helps the preparation for closure – winding-up

declaration6

7

3. Preparation for closure(from 2007 onwards):– Final follow-up of all outstanding issues (specific

audits, monitoring of system information about audits results, audits of programmes with actions plans)

– Technical and methodological preparation for the closure (guidelines, training and meetings with managing and paying authorities – treatment of errors and irregularities)

7

8

Follow-up audit towards the closureCarried out in 2007 - main objectives:

• Have a picture of outstanding problems for each operational programme (OP)

• Identify the next steps:– Audits on-the-spot on the OP with major problems

– Improvements on the treatment of errors / irregularities

– Assessment of the compliance with artº 10 requirements

– Recommendations to correct the weaknesses, if necessary

8

9

Planning the closure• The work done helps, but is not enough• All actors needs time and resources to prepare their

final report / declaration (MA/IB, PA, WuB)• We need a precise time schedule (to be respected…)• We (PT) have the first one – following the meeting

between IGF/WuB and all MA and PA (Dec2007) • The time schedule will be updated (the final one) at

the end of the implementation period (December 2008 – April 2009)

9

10

Treatment of errors and irregularities• Examine and classify the type of errors: systemic,

random and isolated/anomalous errors• Determine the perimeter of systemic errors and

assure that they have been corrected and reported• If the remaining error rate (random) is below 2% -

OK (if artº 10º is well done)• If it is above – we have a problem to solve

(professional judgment): Increase the sample, Stratify the population, Estimate the impact

of errors, …10

11

CONCLUSIONS:1.For 2000-2006 period, rules are more clear

(compared with 1994-1999)

2.The success of the closure exercise depends of the work done during the period

3.The final work will be hard and done by the same people involved on the new period

4.We have general guidelines to treat errors and irregularities, but the concrete application applies the professional judgment

11