34
10 December 2013 Performance budgeting and decentralized agencies Guidelines
10 December 2013
Performance budgeting and decentralized agencies
Guidelines
10 December 2013
2
PERFORMANCE BUDGETING AND DECENTRALIZED AGENCIES........................................................1
GUIDELINES ......................................................................................................................................1
DRAFT ...............................................................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................3
1. CONCEPT OF PERFORMANCE BUDGETING..............................................................................4
1.1. Activities, programmes, functions ................................................................................6
1.2. Objectives .....................................................................................................................7
1.3. Indicators, milestones and targets ...............................................................................8
1.4. Making performance information work: ....................................................................10
1.5. Implementation steps:................................................................................................11
2. PERFORMANCE BUDGETING IN THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION-A CASE STUDY ...................13
2.1. Activity Based Management .......................................................................................13
2.2. Activity based budgeting.............................................................................................13
2.3. SPP/ABM.....................................................................................................................14
2.4. Challenges in applying ABM in the Commission:........................................................20
3. DECENTRALIZED AGENCIES AND ABB....................................................................................21
CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................25
ANNEX I: GLOSSARY........................................................................................................................26
ANNEX II: AN EXAMPLE OF ACTIVITIES PURSUED BY DG EAC ........................................................29
ANNEX III: ABM CONTACTS: ...........................................................................................................30
ANNEX IV: POLICY AREAS ...............................................................................................................31
ANNEX V: DG ENERGY ....................................................................................................................32
BIBLIOGRAPHY:...............................................................................................................................34
10 December 2013
3
Introduction
In a climate of limited budget resources and increasing scrutiny of EU spending, the EU institutions need to pay more attention to performance in order to ensure that programmes and projects provide results in an efficient manner. "Performance budgeting" aims to link financial resources and measurable results and improve the transparency of goals and priorities.
Although EU decentralised Agencies have an autonomous legal personality, and their budgets are published separately, their governance and budgeting are also under the scrutiny of the EU Budget Authority as most of them receive a subsidy from the EU budget. The current context of budgetary stringency in Member States and pressure to limit EU spending therefore also increases the pressure on Agencies to demonstrate the effectiveness of their spending. Implementation of a results-oriented approach would “emphasize the accountability of the Executive Director for the results, impact and performance of the agency (…)”1. This is very important since it is becoming a common practice for the Governing Board to ask for evidence of concrete results of an agency's activity.
It is important to bear in mind that the application of performance budgeting implies a "learning by doing" process and it will not be introduced overnight. The European Commission, after several years of experience, is still facing a number of challenges in developing and applying result-oriented budgeting.
The structure of the paper is as follows. Firstly, the concept of performance budgeting is explained. Section two describes the main characteristics and tools of performing budgeting in the European Commission. Finally, in section three lessons learned from Commission's experience are used to provide orientation to EU agencies when introducing performance budgeting.
1 Contribution from the EU agencies to the deliberations of the Inter-institutional Working Group on regulatory
Agencies, Helsinki, 05/09/2011, p. 4
10 December 2013
4
1. CONCEPT OF PERFORMANCE BUDGETING
The word "budgeting" can be defined as the allocation and use of financial resources. Traditional budgeting systems focuse generally on allocation of resources amongst priorities and control of inputs, without examining the performance of spending or the outputs2. Nowadays however, increasing attention is paid to the effectiveness and efficiency with which budgetary resources are used.
"Effectiveness refers to the extent to which a service delivers the benefits which it is supposed to deliver to society (…)"3. For instance, an initiative to integrate minorities groups into the labour market is effective if it succeeds in increasing the number of start-ups among Roma entrepreneurs. Thus, effectiveness illustrates the extent to which undertaken actions achieve their outcomes. Efficiency, on the other hand, aims to deliver outcomes at the lowest possible cost without deterioration of quality.
For many years, there was a belief that expenditure allocation in the public sector did not respond flexibly to changing needs and priorities, and that resources were not being effectively used. Over time this has led to efforts to develop budgetary tools and concepts to improve the effectiveness and responsiveness of resource allocation, such as performance budgeting.
The OECD defines performance budgeting as “a form of budgeting that relates funds allocated to measurable results"4. The US General Accounting Office perceives it as “the concept of linking performance information with the budget”5. All definitions reflect an attempt to base the budgets on results rather than on the volume of inputs, or “historical efforts and good intentions"6.
At its simplest, performance budgeting explains what is expected to be accomplished with the available funding7. The purpose is to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of actions undertaken. By connecting funding and results, performance budgeting also encourages the budgetary authority to think about budgeting in broader terms and to take into account how well resources are used when prioritizing expenditure. It also enhances financial accountability to citizens and monitoring bodies, as it allows better management and evaluation.
Different tools are used in order to link the funding to the delivered results. These include performance information (the set of standards helping to determine if performance is adequate and satisfactory such as indicators, milestones, targets8) and/or the classification of expenditures into 2 Performance Budgeting: Managing the Reform Process, J. Diamond, IMF-Fiscal Affairs Department, 2001, p.3
3 Performance-based budgeting, M. Robinson, CLEAR Training Materials, 2007, p.9
4 Does Performance Budgeting work? An Analytical Review of the Empirical Literature-M. Robinson and J.Brumby, IMF Working Paper, 2005, p5
5 Ibid..
6 Operating and Capital Budget Reform in Minnesota: Managing Public Finances Like the Future Matters, Laura King, Government Finance Review, 1995, pp. 7-10.
7 Performance budgeting in OECD countries, Op.cit.
8 Performance-Based Budget Systems - R. D. Young, USC Institute for Public Service and Policy Research, Public Policy and Practice, 2003, p. 19
10 December 2013
5
programmes/activities/functions (budgetary approach/structure). The distinction between inputs and outputs (so-called Performance Information Fundamentals9) is critically important to making effective use of these tools.
Inputs can be defined as resources used in order to deliver the outcomes desired. These resources produce outputs via various processes (activities, programmes, functions, actions, etc.). Therefore, outputs can be perceived as the short-term direct product of the financial intervention. Subsequently, outputs will render benefits to society in medium or long term. These longer term benefits can be called outcomes. The schema below illustrates the interconnection between all mentioned elements.
The Results chain10
Inputs (resources)
Activities (processes)
Outputs
Outcomes
EXAMPLE OF RESULTS CHAIN
For example, the delivery of humanitarian aid (an output) involves the use of various inputs (e.g. staff, transport facilities, etc) as well as a set of activities like strengthening of security, coordination of transport operations, etc. Outputs generated by the use of these inputs and activities produce the intended outcome: victims of natural disasters can be supported.
Inputs and outputs are basic concepts, but to be made operational they must be used in relation to actual performance measures (such as indicators, milestones, targets). Moreover, performance measures can be used of in different ways in budgetary procedures.
We can usefully distinguish three different ways in which performance information on the results of spending might be used11:
9 Performance-based Budgeting, M.Robinson, p.20
10 Based on schema presented by M.Robinson, Performance-based Budgeting, M.Robinson, p. 20
10 December 2013
6
• presentational performance budgeting - performance information is presented in budget documents but it is not used in decision making process
• performance-informed budgeting - performance information is taken into account in the decision-making process but does not necessarily determine the amount of resources allocated.
• direct performance budgeting - resources are allocated on the basis of results achieved
In principle, performance budgeting should be fully integrated into the resource allocation process and become part of the management culture of an organization. However, it is important to bear in mind that there is no one size fits all model of performance budgeting. Each institution needs to adapt the performance budgeting approach to its capacities, cultures and priorities12. Experience in implementing performance budgeting by other institutions can be always used as a point of reference. The EU experience with this approach is discussed in Section 2 of this paper.
1.1. Activities, programmes, functions
Performance budgeting can only be efficient and effective if an appropriate budget structure is defined. A global budget envelope must be split into different blocks in order to attribute financial allocations to agreed priorities. Activities, programmes or functions are very often used as these building blocks for allocation purposes13.
The Commission budget is broken down into activity areas. This approach involves linking actions to performance outcomes within the framework of a defined field of activity. In the USA, on the other hand, a number of state and local governments have Program-Based Performance Budgeting. In other words, expected performance is defined across a broad program. And in Poland for instance, all actions are structured around functions.
There are also other approaches to structuring budgets but the rationale behind them is always the same, notably an estimation of performance around narrow areas covering actions in a particular field.
In order to determine the effectiveness of each activity (programme or function), the following elements need to be present: objectives, indicators, and milestones or targets.
1.2. Objectives
"An objective is a statement of what one is trying to achieve"14.
What should objectives relate to?
• Objectives are extremely important as they are the base for performance indicators and targets.
11 Performance budgeting-A User's guide, OECD, March 2008, p. 2
12 Ibid.
13 Activity Based Budgeting-European Commission Communication, p. 5 http://www.cc.cec/budg/bud/proc/abb/_doc/_pdf/communication-en.pdf,
14 Performance-based Budgeting, M.Robinson, p.25
10 December 2013
7
• They should describe the outcome that the activity/programme as a whole seeks to achieve15
Objectives should reflect the desired outcome. It is therefore essential to define objectives as clearly and as precisely as possible in order to enable verification of whether or not they have been achieved. The Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (as well as the Financial Regulation for the bodies having legal personality16) states that:
"Specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and timed (SMART) objectives shall be set for all sectors of activity covered by the budget. Achievement of those objectives shall be monitored by performance indicators for each activity and information shall be provided by the spending authorities to the budgetary authority"17.
The two examples below – one bad and one good - help illustrate what is meant by "SMART"
Bad example: "Promote innovation and conformity with Europe 2020 strategy”
This objective is not specific about what is to be achieved. No measurement criteria are provided that enable us to determine whether the objective is reached or not. There is no time line provided. This objective is not SMART.
Good example: “Improve integration of minorities by increasing the employment rate of legally residing Roma people to 33 % by 2013.”
This objective is specific about what is to be achieved, who is affected, how performance can be assessed, and by what date the outcome is expected to be achieved. This objective is SMART.
15 Setting objectives and indicators guidelines, Brussels, September 2010, p. 10
http://www.cc.cec/home/dgserv/sg/i/spp/index.cfm?lang=en&page=guide_objectives
16 Commission Regulation (EC, EURATOM) No 2343/2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities
17 Financial regulation and implementing rules applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, article 27
10 December 2013
8
Hints and tips:
• Avoid formulating too many objectives. An overdose of objectives can signify inadequate prioritization and an unclear vision of the entity's priorities;
• Objectives must be measurable and verifiable as the progress made on them is normally reported every year (in the European Commission, for instance, under the form of Annual Activity Reports18);
• Objectives should be stable over time. Avoid rephrasing every year. Some continuity in objectives is required if performance is to be assessed against them.
• Objectives should be clearly aligned to the organization's strategic plan to ensure coherence, and ensure adequate resources are allocated to achieve them.
According to different academic sources, there are some useful general rules are that can facilitate the process of setting objectives:
(1) define the target population - the people who will benefit from policy intervention
(2) analyse customers' needs – clearly define the problem that we want to solve and the rationale for intervention.
(3) investigate how the target population will benefit from it.
Let's see it in practice with an example of women unable to enter the labour market due to lack of childcare facilities for their children. Our target population is a group of women searching for kindergartens as without finding proper care for their kids, they cannot return to work. EU intervention (via different means, e.g. European Social Fund, employment and equality policy, etc.) should aim to provide them with these facilities (in a support of national efforts). After having defined target population, its needs and benefits, we obtain an objective:
"Reinforce effective partnerships with national and pan-European stakeholders in creating childcare infrastructure facilitating women return to work after the maternity leave".
1.3. Indicators, milestones and targets
An indicator provides quantitative or qualitative information on the effectiveness and efficiency of programmes or activities.
Both quantitative and qualitative information can illustrate the progress in meeting objectives and achieving desired outcomes. These performance measures, or indicators, can be very helpful in performance budgeting if they meet specific criteria (so called RACER criteria).
Table 1. RACER criteria
RACER criteria Definition
18 Financial regulation article 60.3
10 December 2013
9
Relevant Is there a clear link between the indicator and the objective to be reached?
Accepted Have they been discussed with staff and their shortcomings and interpretation agreed?
Credible Are they credible for reporting purposes? Easy to interpret?
Easy Is data/info cheaply available and easy to monitor?
Robust Are indicators safe against manipulation?
Hints and tips:
• indicators are an integral part of any performance-based system as they enable the assessment of progress towards objectives;
• using a few, well defined indicators will be more useful than several badly defined or low quality indicators ;
• they must be reliable as they will influence the follow-up decisions if results suggest that objectives might not be met;
• the indicator set should be fairly stable over time. It is not advisable to come up with new indicators every year. There should be some consistency in assessing progress overtime;
• special emphasis should be put on measurability (use figures and timelines).
Different types of indicators can be found in the literature. Starting from quantity measures such as number of students benefiting from Erasmus grants, to quality indicators such as level of Member States compliance (high, medium, low) and finally, indicators of efficiency e.g. cost per IT system application. It is advisable to use quantitative indicators as much as possible.
It is also useful to make use of targets and milestones. Milestones are usually used as an action 'checkpoint' in order to verify how the project is progressing and revalidate work if needed. They tell us where we should be at a certain point, if we are to meet our overall objective within the time available.
10 December 2013
10
For instance, one of the targets of the Europe 2020 strategy is to reach 3% of GDP invested in R&D by 2020. According to the graph below (graph 1), in order to be on track to meet this goal the EU should achieve about 2% share of GDP invested in R&D in 2013 and 2,5% in 2016. These milestones help to assess if the EU is heading in the right direction in meeting its R&D investment goals.
Graph nr 1.
Share of GDP invested in R&D-EU all sectors
0,00%
0,50%
1,00%
1,50%
2,00%
2,50%
3,00%
3,50%
1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013 2016 2020
Source: Draft General Budget of the European Commission for the Financial Year 2011, Working Document Part I, Activity Statements of operational expenditure
Targets, in principle, set a goal to be reached by a specific date. In contrast to objectives, they define specific quantitative thresholds that must be achieved. Table below shows the difference between all discussed elements: objectives, indicators and targets (table 2).
Table 2 Objectives, indicators, targets-example
Example: Transport
Objective Improve integration of minorities by increasing the employment rate of legally residing Roma people to 33 % by 2013
Indicator Employment rate of legally residing Roma population
Target Increase the employment rates achieved in 2012-move towards 33%
1.4. Making performance information work:
In order to make maximum use of available information on programme/activity performance, all these elements (objectives, indicators, milestones, targets) should be integrated into the budget and management processes. The assessment and measurement of performance should be considered early on in the budget cycle during the initial consideration of the expenditure priorities.
10 December 2013
11
These performance elements are also useful in an expenditure review process. The analysis of indicators (together with inputs and activity processes) can give a full picture of the performance for programmes/activities. Thus, they help to identify areas that in the next budgetary and management cycle can be cut back, or even eliminated, as well as those that might be expanded.
Nevertheless, performance efforts should not concentrate only on the budget procedure. Performance information is also relevant in a broader context: It is a more general approach that needs to be applied on a continuous basis underpining a management culture "(…) which covers not only the allocation of budgetary resources, but more importantly the management activities"19.
1.5. Implementation steps:
It should be emphasized again that performance budgeting is a continuous process because it entails a change in the management culture. The experience of the European Commission and some Member States shows that this method is usually introduced gradually. It evolves as improvements are made in setting objectives and indicators and the reporting of performance. Each entity decides the most appropriate timing when introducing its performance reform.
The following are key steps in implementing performance budgeting:
(1) establish the budget structure- different approaches can be taken to develop performance budgets. It may be an activity based budget (the case of the European Commission-see an example, table 3) or other forms such as programmes or functions.
Table 3. Activity-based budgeting20
Activity: Internal Market Policy
Objectives: Indicators:
Promote choice and opportunity for businesses and citizens by providing them with information on how to exercise their single market rights
• Average "transposition deficit" for DG MARKT Directives; • Respect of Commission benchmarks for speed of handling
infringement cases; • Level of Commission decisions on formal infringement cases, • Use of Your Europe website by the Commission and networks
and number of external visits • Number of pages on Your Europe in the Citizens section
19 Activity Based Budgeting, Op. cit., p.17
20 Draft General Budget of the European Commission for the financial Year 2012, Working Document Part I, Activity Statements of operational expenditure
10 December 2013
12
(2) attribute resources to these activities(programmes, functions)- the global budget amounts should be split between activities, programmes or functions on the basis of stated priorities and estimated needs.
(3) gain commitment to performance principles from staff at all levels but in particular from the top of the organization - the effectiveness and efficiency of the performance process depends on the information provided21. Moreover, only systematic, reliable, timely and consistent information during the budget preparation process can guarantee performance-based budget decisions.
(4) establish an implementation plan and timetable - the implementation plan should identify potential obstacles as well as clear responsibilities and actions to be taken. It should be accompanied by a timetable to monitor implementation. In developing such a plan, it may be helpful to consult with the bodies that experienced a similar process of implementing performance budgeting. The initial investment of time as well as efforts may be substantial.
(5) provide training to introduce the concepts of performance measurement, to explain the benefits, process and mechanisms of developing performance measures.
(6) finally, once all steps are undertaken performance information should be introduced into the budgetary process
The next section will describe the implementation of performance budgeting in the European Commission, by way of illustration.
21 Performance Budgeting: Managing the Reform Process, J. Diamond, IMF-Fiscal Affairs Department, 2001, p.3
10 December 2013
13
2. PERFORMANCE BUDGETING IN THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION-A CASE STUDY
In 2000 the EU has launched far-reaching reforms in the field of management and budgeting. A Committee of Independent Experts (set up by the European Parliament to conduct an inquiry on Commission management irregularities) presented a set of recommendations aimed at improving EU financial planning and management. These recommendations were then reflected in the Commission White Paper in 2000 – "Reforming the Commission" where a new approach to priority setting and resource use was introduced. This section describes the Commission's approach.
2.1. Activity Based Management
Under the new approach all resources are allocated by activity, rather than according to the organization's model such as human resources, accounting, etc. This is Activity Based Management, " which (…) aims at taking decisions about policy priorities and the corresponding resources together, at every level in the organisation. This allows the resources to be allocated to policy priorities and, conversely, decisions about policy priorities to be fully informed by the related resources requirements"22.
Although this sounds like a "(…) radical departure from the traditional model of administration it does not imply structural organizational changes, but rather a change in perspective"23. The departmental organization of the European Commission did not in fact change. The Commission's work was instead grouped into coherent areas of actions aiming at similar goals or activities, closely inspired on the organisational structure of the Commission.
An example of the activities pursued by Directorate General for Education and Culture can be found in annex II.
When defining activities, some principles were established in order to standardise the process. It may happen that actions, programmes or projects are difficult to classify as they cover different areas (e.g. an environmental action can involve transport, energy, job creation, etc.). However, an action must be allocated to only a single activity so that double counting of actions is avoided. Otherwise there will be no possibility to estimate the costs of discussed activity. On the other hand, mainstreaming of cross-cutting policies into several programmes with diverse objectives would be difficult.
In this context, the concept of the centre of gravity concept should be applied. This means that actions are allocated to the main objective pursued by the action in question (environment in our case). The same rules apply to all policy areas.
2.2. Activity based budgeting
ABB-Activity Based Budgeting is the budgetary component of ABM. Before the reform, the EU budget was divided into two parts. Part A (administrative and staff expenditure) and Part B (operational expenditure). This structure was established at the time when the EU budget consisted of mainly administrative expenditure. Over time, new responsibilities for operational programmes fell under
22 Implementing Activity Based Management in the Commission, Communication from the President in
agreement with Mr Kinnock and Mrs Schreyer to the Commission, SEC (2001) 1197
23 The Activity Based Approach in the European Commission, M. Amici, College of Europe, 2007, p. 16
10 December 2013
14
EU competences. Since the operational part of the budget had become predominant, a new budget structure was necessary.
With the reform, a new nomenclature was introduced. Nowadays, the EU budget is composed of some 275 activities grouped under 32 Policy Areas or "Titles" (see annex IV) which in turn can be linked to the Commission’s Directorates-General (e.g. Title 03 Competition - DG COMP, Title 15 Education and culture - DG EAC, Title 12 Internal Market - DG MARKT). This structure allows the costs of each activity to be compared with the objectives pursued and results achieved.
All policy areas include a chapter with all related administrative expenditure following a common structure. The bulk of such expenditure corresponds to staff-related costs which are managed by central Human Resources departments, not by operational DGs. The attribution of those resources to operational Policy areas in the Budget therefore does not reflect the responsibilities for the management of those funds. Its purpose is to show the total cost of each Policy Area. The other chapters under each Policy Area include the programmes under the responsibility of the corresponding DG.
In principle, Policy Areas and activities are stable over time. The definition of activities is the first step to making ABM work. However, it may be necessary to adapt the structure following changing political priorities or structural changes. In such a case, modifications can be proposed by DG’s, discussed with DG Budget and Secretariat General in the context of the annual budget process, and endorsed by the college of Commissioners together with the Draft Budget.
It was therefore necessary to introduce a policy cycle to ensure that activities are relevant and provided with sufficient resources on an ongoing basis. A clear framework with defined stages and procedures to follow had to be set up. This framework was labelled Strategic Planning and Programming. In the next section, the main components of this cycle will be described.
2.3. SPP/ABM
In order to ensure coherence between priority definition, budgeting, management and reporting, a Strategic Planning and Programming (SPP) Cycle was set up (see schema 1). The same procedure is followed every year. Together with the establishment of the Draft Budget, the following instruments were introduced, in particular Activity Statements (AS), Management Plans (MP) and Annual Activity Reports (AAR) each one with specific roles in the preparation/reporting phases of the cycle.
The draft budget proposes a specific allocation of resources. The Activity Statements for each Activity accompanying the Draft Budget justify the allocation of operational resources by activity. The draft budget is produced in the first half of the year. For example, the draft budget for 2012 is produced in the first half of 2011. Once the budget procedure has been finalised, toward the end of the year, the Management plan can be drawn up.
The Management Plan explains what is intended across all activities (both financial and non-financial) for the coming year. This is produced towards the end of the year once the budget has been decided, and the resources available for the following year determined. So, for example, the Management plans for 2012 are finalized at the end of 2011.
The Annual Activity Report, on the other hand, "(…) contains an (ex post) overview of the results obtained by each service"24. It is drafted at the beginning of the year following the execution year. 24 Activity Based Budgeting:The reform of the European Union General Budget. Julio Escudero Bustamante,
2007.
10 December 2013
15
For instance, the Annual Activity Report for 2011 is prepared at the beginning of 2012 and reports on 2011 achievements.
It is worth underlining that the policy and management cycle is closely connected with the budgetary procedure by a common structure based on activities. The Management Plans are based on all Commission activities whereas the Draft Budget focuses on Activities covering expenditure.
DG's and services are provided with instructions comprising calendar, templates, guidelines, production of documents support, etc. Also, trainings are offered every year in order to improve staff commitment to the cycle. Moreover, the SPP cycle is a constantly evolving process so trainings and yearly updated instructions are needed in order to integrate improvements to the cycle.
Schema 1. 2112 SPP cycle
Currently, and following a number of simplifications to the original cycle, the following are the main steps:
(1) The starting point is marked by policy orientations as defined by president of the European Commission (Dec n-2)
President’s State of the Union
Interinstitutional dialogue
Budgetary procedure
Reporting 2012
Management Plan 2012
Commission's Work Programme 2012
Budget 2012
Implementation
European Commission's
Preliminary Draft Budget 2012 Mar 2011
Dec 2011
Jan-Dec 2012
Nov 2011
Feb-Mar 2013
Dec 2010
10 December 2013
16
(2) Later on, two procedures are launched in parallel.
(a) After the budget hearings are held between DG Budget and the spending departments (March of year n-1), the European Commission presents the budget proposal (Draft budget) which initiates political negotiations between the Council and the European Parliament. Information on the performance of each activity is attached to the Draft Budget under form of Activity Statements.
(b) The College settles the Commission Working Programme (Nov year n-1) confirming the priorities and initiatives announced by the President. So the role of the Commission is to translate political guidelines into annual and multiannual priorities.
(3) On the basis of the adopted budget and the CWP, DG’s establish Management Plans (Dec year n-1)
(4) The Management plan and budget for year n are implemented. An Annual Activity Reports is made during the following year on each Activity (Feb-Mar of year n +1).
The same process repeats every year. Lessons learned and experiences gained every year are used to improve the year n+1 procedure.
There are various networks assisting in this process. The Secretariat General, for instance, is in charge, inter alia, for the Management Plans and the Annual Activity Reports. Both the Secretariat General and DG Budget seek constant improvements of the process by preparing and reviewing guidance and instructions, as well as by providing advice through informal and formal channels (for more details please check a list of contacts providing support in different fields of SPP cycle-see annex III).
Activity Statements
One of the principal working documents attached to the Draft Budget is the Activity Statement (AS) for operational expenditure. Article 33 of the Financial Regulation states that Activity Statements should contain:
• "(…) information on the achievement of all previously set specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and timed objectives for the various activities as well as new objectives measured by indicators,
• full justification and cost-benefit approach for proposed changes in the level of appropriations,
• clear rationale for intervention at the EU level in keeping, inter alia, with the principle of subsidiarity, year’s activity and implementation rates for the current year"25.
Activity Statements consist of a description of the activity and relevant performance-related information. Its integrated format helps to present together specific objectives, related indicators, targets and outputs together with financial information and human resources relating to the activity. Therefore, we have both-financial and performance information.
There are three main parts of Activity Statements that DGs and Services are asked to fill in:
25 Financial Regulation, Article 33
10 December 2013
17
(1) Resources dedicated to the activity: this part includes an amount of all resources, financial and human, which are needed in order to carry out the activity.
(2) EU added value of the activity: this part aims to prove that presented outcome would not be achieved without the EU intervention
(3) Performance information and proposed appropriations per objective: the third part combines information on objectives, indicators, latest known results and targets as well as rquested level of appropriations, which are provided by budget line and presented together with outputs produced.
DGs prepare activity statements to justify their operational expenditures. They are later discussed during budgetary hearings during the preparation of the draft budget. The quality of information provided and the relevance of budget requests discussed during the hearings may be used to correct level of appropriations (including cuts where appropriate). Activity Statements are also presented to the College of Commissioners for adoption and subsequently sent to the Budgetary Authority (Council and European Parliament) along with the draft budget.
There are common guidelines given to the DGs aiming to highlight what is important while preparing Activity Statements. The following instructions can be found there:
• DGs shall prepare Activity Statements for each operational Activity they manage
• the text should be brief and concise and easily understood by a non-expert
• If possible evaluation and impact assessments should be demonstrated
• EU added value of undertaken action should be clearly presented
• objectives and indicators should be SMART and RACER and expressed in qualitative and quantitative terms26
Starting on the 2014 Budget procedure. Activity Statements will be replaced by Programme Statements. The type of information provided will be exactly the same, though it will focus on the spending programmes, which represent about 95% of the total operational spending. Performance information on Activities without spending will be available in the relevant Management Plans only. The purpose is to simplify and focus on the information which is more relevant to discussions with the Budget Authority, while making o clearer link with the expenditure categories of the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020.
Management Plans
Management Plans (MP) translate the Commission's political priorities into concrete operations. In principle, a Management Plan consists of:
• A personal message from the Director General identifying challenges to face;
• Mission Statement – clarifying “what purpose are we here to serve”;
26 Activity Statements guidelines, http://www.cc.cec/budg/i/circular/_doc/budgetary-circular-2012/block-II-3-
activity-statements.pdf,
10 December 2013
18
• General Objectives – answering the question: “What long-term benefits to EU society as a whole are we setting out to achieve?”. Each objective should be then accompanied by at least one indicator to measure this long-term change;
• Specific Objectives-structured around activities, contributing towards the general objectives and addressing the question: “What difference do we want to make to those directly affected by our actions”. Again, each specific objective should be accompanied by result indicator and additionally also by a description of the EU added value
MPs are organised around activities. For each activity general and specific objectives are established. As very often they have a multi-annual dimension, they do not differ significantly from one year to another. Consistency in both general and specific objectives is important as they are used for monitoring purposes27.
All DG's apply identical instructions regarding Management Plans, but there is scope to complete it according to particular DG context28. Information demanded from DGs and Services is limited to the necessary minimum so each Directorate General can use different management tools, reflecting their particular features (Management Plans of each DG can be found on www.ec.europa.eu website).
The structure of General and Specific objectives as well as activities in Management Plans is in principle identical to that of Activity Statements.
Management Plans aim:
• "(…) to enable DG's and services to define their own strategy in line with the Commission's strategic objectives (Europe 2020, State of the Union Speech, Commission Working Programme)
• to plan and manage the DG's and Services' activities towards the achievement of objectives and an efficient use of resources
• to allow the monitoring of progress during the year by means of quantitative and qualitative indicators
• to set up the base to report on results in the Annual Activity Reports
• to draw lessons for subsequent planning and programming cycle"29
Annual Activity Report
The Annual Activity Report (AAR) is a tool that each DG uses to report on their performance over the previous year. It outlines DG's achievements and resources used. The AAR should provide the mirror image of the Management Plan. It helps to identify the achievements and shortcomings of undertaken actions on the basis of the objectives and indicators set out in the MP (Annual Activity Reports of each DG can be found on www.ec.europa.eu website)
27 for MPs standing instructions see http://www.cc.cec/home/dgserv/sg/i/spp/index.cfm?lang=en&page=amp,
28 Study on the state of implementation, of Activity Based Management in the European Commission, Ecorys, 28/04/2008, p. 13
29 Study on the state of implementation, Op. cit. p.36-37
10 December 2013
19
All these tools (AS, AAR and MP) are strongly interconnected. The structure of general and specific objectives in Annual Activity Reports should be in principle identical to that of Management Plans and Activity Statements.
A practical example on how DG ENERGY has used the SPP/ABM process to define and implement its objectives can be found in annex V.
2.4. Challenges in applying ABM in the Commission:
The introduction of new performance elements transformed the Commission management system into a more result-oriented one. Nevertheless, in implementing these changes, the Commission faced a number of challenges, and much has been learnt in the process.
First of all, a gradual process had to be applied as introducing ABM implied a change in the management culture. At the beginning, DGs considered these new management instruments as additional workload. Moreover for some DGs e.g. (dealing with structural funds or agriculture subsidies) management is shared between the European Commission and Member States, so programme delivery is partly out of their hands. Thus a certain degree of reluctance could be observed from line DGs to committing to the delivery of specific results which can be assessed overtime and for which they can be held accountable. Also, numerous objections were raised due to the fact that the bulk of expenditure is predecided for a 7 year period in the European context, in the form of a multi-annual financial framework. This means that there are limits to the degree to which performance information can be used to amend budgets, which is turn tends to undermine the motivation to preparing high-quality analysis of performance.
Nevertheless, the use of a performance based approach today shows that these challenges can be overcome. The quality of performance information can be improved over time. Further incentives can be provided to operational departments to continue their management performance efforts, and a culture of 'continuous improvement' culture should be promoted. This can be achieved by, inter alia, guidelines review, further clarification of concepts and brainstorm sessions searching for ways for improvement. Active participation in implementation and exercise of performance budgeting at all levels is essential. Otherwise the exercise will take a form of 'following instructions' activity which will not result in any cultural change. Last but not least, political pressure and support from the top management of the institution should be gained in order to initiate, accelerate and improve the whole process30.
30 Activity Based Budgeting: The reform of the European Union General Budget, J. Escudero Bustamante,
27/11/2007, p.19
10 December 2013
20
3. DECENTRALIZED AGENCIES AND ABB
An agency is defined as "(…) a body set up by the national governments and which have own legal personality and which (at least partially) employs or is managed by civil servants and is at least partially financed from the public budget"31. This definition raises two important issues: 'accountability' and 'autonomy'. Decentralised agencies are autonomous regarding the management of their tasks and resources and at the same time they must be accountable for managing public funds efficiently and effectively. By managing public money, they must be able to justify their actions to the public (input and output legitimacy32) in a transparent way. This legitimacy is needed as more and more questions are raised about the added value of EU agencies.
At the moment, there are 32 decentralised agencies which have different approaches to implement its model of budgeting as they adapt it to their own circumstances, cultures and priorities. Most decentralised agencies are funded entirely by EU budget subsidies. However, some agencies are partially self-financed (e.g. European Aviation Safety Agency), fully self-financed (Office for the Harmonization in the Internal Market-OHIM) or benefit from other forms of co-financing (e.g. European Banking Authority-co-financed by national public authorities). Regardless of their financial structure, they all hold a public mission so they have a duty to report on their activities.
Decentralised agencies' tasks cover different activities such as:
• Adopting binding rules, decisions with direct effect (e.g. OHIM), giving authorisation based on technical assessment, managing complex processes such as IT systems
• Providing assistance to the Commission in the form of technical or scientific opinions (e.g. European Food Safety Authority)
• Networking, gathering, exchanging and comparing information and good practices (e.g. European Network and Information Security Agency)
As stipulated in the "IWG fiches"33, decentralized agencies aim to introduce better performance management systems, as at present an inputs based approach still prevails in their budgeting planning and management. Budgeting effectively and efficiently is becoming a priority in light of potentially decreasing contributions from the EU budget.
Nowadays, "(…) although all EU agencies publish work programmes and annual reports, they are not subject to a comprehensive contract management with apparent performance indicators. One may consider annual reports or work plans as a kind of contract which may affect the staffing or budgeting process, but there is no relation between target, results and punishments/rewards-which is commonly referred to as a performance contract for agencies at national level"34. Nevertheless, one 31 Best practice in governance of agencies-A comparative study in view of identifying best practice for
governing agencies carrying out activities on behalf of the European Union-EP's Committee on Budgetary Control, 30/01/2008, p. 54
32 The framework for European Regulatory Agencies: A balance between accountability and autonomy, M. Szapiro, 31/08/05
33 Contribution from the EU agencies to the deliberations of the Inter-institutional Working Group on regulatory Agencies
34 Op.cit. p.158
10 December 2013
21
should bear in mind that Financial Regulation for decentralised agencies clearly states that their "(…) budget appropriations shall be used (…) in accordance with the principles of economy, efficiency and effectiveness"35. Moreover:
"(…) Specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and timed objectives shall be set for all sectors of activity covered by the budget. Achievement of those objectives shall be monitored by performance indicators for each activity and information shall be provided to the management board by the director. This information shall be provided annually and at the latest in the documents accompanying the preliminary draft budget"36.
Thus, they have the same performance obligations as other European entities such asthe European Commission (see Financial Regulation37).
A number of EU agencies have already started applying different elements relating to performance measurement. For instance, EUROFOUND (European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions) set up a system allowing to measure progress towards Agency's goals and objectives by using performance indicators. EEA (European Environment Agency), on the other hand, integrated a system enabling to track the progress of the Agency's projects and the use of resources38.
Nevertheless, after having reviewed various documents of selected agencies (chosen on the basis of different criteria such as financing structure, the type of powers exercised, length of time establishment, etc.) many divergences in performance reporting are identified regarding:
• the degree of ABB application (some agencies tempt to apply whole ABB structure: performance indicators, monitoring system, activity based organisational model, etc. whereas others concentrate only on some parts, for instance, on objectives without any evaluation follow up, etc.),
These differences may be caused by several factors:
• Size – large agencies may have achieved further progress when adopting performance than smaller ones because of availability of resources. Nevertheless, it should not discourage small agencies from implementing performance measures as there are examples of small size entities both at national and EU level, which successfully perform result-oriented budgeting;
• Number of stakeholders/financing structure-certain agencies depend to a large extent on financial contributions from stakeholders so they have a duty to report on results to prove that stakeholders' money was spent efficiently and effectively. In some cases, also members of the
35 Commission Regulation (EC, EURATOM) No 2343/2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies
referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities
36 Ibid.
37 Financial regulation, Art. 27, Op.cit.
38 The European Union's Agencies: Getting results, European Court of Auditors, Special Report No 5, 2008, p. 20-21
10 December 2013
22
agencies' support bodies (scientific committee, advisory forum, etc.)39may play an important role in defining agency's programme and objectives;
• Legal bases of decentralised agencies-some agencies are bound by precise procedural rules, or play a well defined role which already outlines some indicators for the performance of their task (e.g. the procedure of licensing pharmaceuticals at EU level states that all applications should be handled within 210 days)40 whereas others have only some general guidelines and have to then draw up corresponding priorities. To sum up, some agencies have very detailed legal basis which can provide them with objectives and sometimes even indicators while others have to find an alternative way to define and monitor performance;
• Exercised powers- some agencies' activities are difficult to measure as they consist on "(…) work through measures of an incentive nature"41 such as giving recommendations, establishing networking, etc. Also agencies are reluctant to use quantitative indicators and they prefer qualitative indicators (such as satisfaction of stakeholders, contribution to the EU policy, etc.)42since there is more flexibility in achieving them;
• Lack of consistency in agencies working documents-"(…) agencies' annual work programmes had not been sufficiently stable to allow comparisons form one year to another"43. Also agencies' documents lack consistency and transparency. In principle, the Agency Annual Report (which according to the financial regulation should be presented by authorising officer every year44), should be structured in the same way as the work programme to which it corresponds. Unfortunately, only few agencies structured their report in this way45.
The case study above on implementation of ABM/SPP in the Commission aimed to identify good practices from which lessons can be learned. Nevertheless, performance budgeting is exercised not only by the Commission but also by number of national agencies of Member States. This experience at national level may also be used as a point of reference. For instance, Swedish agencies have used output-oriented governance mechanisms since the 1980s. Other countries applying performance systems to their agencies are the Netherlands, United Kingdom, Denmark and Finland. The Administrative Boards of Agencies are generally composed of representatives of Member States, who may influence performance measurement of an agency by requesting the same quality of information as is usual in their home country.
As in the case of the European Commission, change will not happen overnight. The Commission reform implied planning milestones for each year so that step by step progress could be achieved.
39 The European Union Agencies, Op.cit. p. 16
40 Best practice in governance of agencies, Op.cit., p. 157
41 The European Union Agencies, Op.cit. p. 7
42Ibid., p. 21
43 Ibid. p. 17
44 Commission Regulation (EC, EURATOM) No 2343/2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, Article 40
45 The European Union Agencies, Op.cit. p. 24
10 December 2013
23
Some lessons can be drawn from Commission's experience of Activity Based Management and Budgeting that can enhance this transition process.
Guidelines on practical implementation, based on the EC experience:
• Commission's performance requirements can serve as performance guidelines for agencies (as instructions on how to set objectives, indicators, management plans, etc. are available). Also, it is highly recommended to cooperate with partner DG in order to exchange ideas about setting objectives, milestones, etc. DGs experience, expertise and internal organisational procedures may be very valuable source of information
• national administration experience can also help to develop performance approaches in the agencies. Agencies interact with Member States in various ways (national representatives are members of agencies' Administrative Boards or/and day-to-day cooperation with national authorities of the country where the agency is based). This interaction may influence the agencies' performance reporting process.
• Agencies' working programmes should be converted into a document which will illustrate performance information. A single document combining both working programme and performance information will facilitate the transition and will help to simplify the agency's document/circulation workflow. Later, this performance information should be progressively used when proposing actions for the next year (as it is the case with Commission's MPs)
• Everyone should play a role in implementing performance mechanisms despite of the size of entity-by exchanging ideas and by having an opportunity to contribute to the process. Thus will facilitate implementation. Performance systems should become part of the management culture, and not be considered purely to be a paper exercise.
• The management bodies should be more proactive in introducing performance oriented approach
• The European Commission's case study proved that implementation of performance budgeting is a very challenging exercise. Mistakes can occur at any point in the process. Thus, it is important to be able to learn from mistakes and to be open to improve year after year.
10 December 2013
24
Conclusion
There is no single approach to performance budgeting that can succeed in all organizations, rather, the general principles need to be adapted to the entity's context and be seen as part of a learning process. However, in any case, successful implementation requires corresponding changes in the agency's management culture.
A performance oriented approach evolves over time, and different challenges may occur at each stage. Firstly, developing objectives, indicators, targets and outputs is the main challenge. Secondly, as the performance system moves forward, other challenges appear - namely how to use performance indicators in the decision-making process, and how to monitor the performance of the system itself. Performance instruments should not be treated as irrelevant administrative burden but as a way to enhance communication between agencies and stakeholders
The main concept and examples of performance budgeting have been presented in this paper. It depends on each agency capacities and nature now how these concepts will be applied. Nevertheless, analysing good practices in by the Commission or national agencies can be beneficial as a learning process which may help an agency define its own way of treating performance.
Those arrangements will increase the transparency of agencies' performance while maintaining their autonomy. It is in the agency's own interest to provide meaningful information about its performance. Agencies' are closely scrutinised by the Budgetary Authority in terms of their budget and staff. Experience shows that efforts of linking costs and performance via ABB improve accountability and transparency, which are the core issues for the Budgetary Authority.
Agnieszka SKORUPINSKA
10 December 2013
25
Annex I: Glossary
Term Definition
Activity-based budgeting (ABB)
Integrated budgeting and financial management based on activities closely linked to the Commission’s priorities and objectives. Resources are allocated and managed according to pre-defined political priorities.
Activity-based management (ABM)
Integrated management methodology covering all aspects of the Commission's work, including the prioritisation of objectives, planning and programming, budgeting, management and reporting. It encompasses prioritisation and resource allocation by the College and general principles and tools for management by departments. It covers all resources managed by the Commission.
Action Work carried out over a certain period of time, consuming resources and producing outputs. Actions are the most detailed level of the management plan’s structure that are politically significant and separately manageable (i.e. objectives must be defined and resources allocated by the head of unit). Each action is related to one activity only.
Activity Coherent area of action, with objectives and resources, corresponding (or equivalent) to the ABB level. Normally, each activity is related to one policy area only.
Activity statement
Document attached to the preliminary draft budget (PDB) containing information on objectives and indicators, to justify the appropriations requested by the Commission.
Annual activity report (AAR)
Reporting tool providing information on outputs, results and impacts, and on the internal control and financial management of a DG/Service for one year
Management plan (MP)
Strategic planning tool defining the DG/Services' objectives and covering all its activities and resources for a year. Its internal part is a management tool to enable management and staff to plan and monitor the actions they intend to carry out to achieve the objectives.
Cross-cutting risk
A risk is cross-cutting if (1) it affects several services and (2) can be evaluated or addressed more effectively by a group of services than by an individual one.
Current situation
Baseline, in previous year(s), against which achievement of/progress towards general and specific objectives will be measured.
Environment Circumstances and conditions interacting with and affecting an organisation. Can include economic, political, cultural and physical conditions inside or outside the organisation.
Evaluation Evaluation is a judgement of interventions according to their results, impacts and needs they aim to satisfy. It is a systematic tool which provides a rigorous
10 December 2013
26
evidence base to inform decision-making and contributing to making Commission activities more effective, coherent, useful, relevant and efficient. .
Expenditure-related outputs
Outputs delivered by the DG/service and requiring a financial intervention (i.e. number of students exchanges, number of kilometres of railroad built…)
Impact More indirect or longer term effect on society (e.g. increase in market integration). This will normally also depend on factors outside the service’s control (environment).
Indicator Characteristic or attribute that can be measured or verified to assess to what extent objectives have been met.
Milestone Intermediate desired situation, expressed in quantitative or qualitative terms, measuring progress towards the achievement of long term, general objectives.
Mission statement
Up-to-date and concise document defining the DG's "raison d'être" developed from the perspective of the DG's customers.
Monitoring systems
Continuous process of examining the functioning of a system, to ascertain whether it delivers the outputs and achieves the goals set.
Objectives Intended/desired effect of an intervention. It may indicate the ultimate socio-economic change aimed at (general objective) or the direct effect on the target population (specific objective).
Output Product (e.g. legislative proposal, Green Paper, number of students exchanges financed…) that is delivered or controlled by the DG/service. Output objectives and indicators may be defined in terms of what should be delivered and at what time.
Policy area Coherent area of activities related to one Community policy or to a horizontal function and carried out by the Commission services.
Reporting systems
Management tool that shows results achieved and resources used in a comprehensive and simple way.
Resources Human, financial and physical resources used to produce an output.
Result Direct and immediate effect on a target group (e.g. farmers, telecom companies…).
SMART Minimum conditions to be fulfilled by objectives and indicators. Specific/precise, Measurable or verifiable, Agreed by the actors involved (or:, Achievable), Realistic (or: Relevant), Timed/with deadline.
SPP Strategic Planning and Programming – continuous and systematic process whereby the Commission translates in a cycle comprising several steps involving its services in strategic decisions on objectives, activities and resources.
10 December 2013
27
Strategic objective
A long-range change that guides Commission’s efforts in moving towards a desired future state.
Target Ultimate desired situation, expressed in quantitative or qualitative terms, measuring the achievement of general and specific objectives.
10 December 2013
28
Annex II: An example of activities pursued by DG EAC
DG EAC mission is "to reinforce and promote lifelong learning, linguistic and cultural diversity, mobility and the engagement of European citizens, in particular the young"46. Various actions were grouped under different activities in order to fulfill this mission. For instance, an activity "Lifelong Learning, including multilingualism covers:
-Erazmus Mundus programme fostering structured cooperation between higher education institutions and academic staff in Europe and third countries, promoting mobility in order for most talented students and academics from third countries to obtain qualifications and/or experience in the Union and for the most talented European students and academics to do the same in third countries, etc.
• cooperation with third countries on education and vocational training
• European Institute of Innovation and Technology
• Lifelong learning programme – Comenius, Erasmus, Leonardo da Vinci, Grundtvig, Jean Monnet, etc.
• European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training
• European Training Foundation
• European Neighborhood Policy-enhance education through scholarships and exchanges
• etc.
46 http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/mission/index_en.htm,
DG EAC –
15 Education and culture
15 02 Lifelong Learning, including
multilingualism
15 04 Developing Cultural and Audiovisual
cooperation in Europe
15 05 Encouraging and promoting
cooperation in the field of youth and
sports
15 07 People-Programme for the
Mobility of Researches
10 December 2013
29
Annex III: ABM contacts:
ABM ELEMENT CONTACTS
Conception of SPP cycle Pascal LEARDINI (61306)
ABB Nomenclature Julio ESCUDERO (59829)
Management Plan Micaela DEL MONTE (86853) Aline SPRIET (57534)
Julio ESCUDERO (59829)
Sara HECTOR (93766)
Annual Activity Report Tonny MATHIEU (64777)
Margareta OLSON, ff (93947)
Definition of objectives and indicators Micaela DEL MONTE (86853) Max DRAGONI (90501)
Andrew LEADER (80756)
Evaluation Sara HECTOR (93766)
Commission Work Programme Daniela Tidten (51875)
College Agenda Planning Evi TRIGONI (51541) Yiorgos KORKOVELOS (62240)
Internal Control Standards Margareta OLSON, ff (93947) Christelle FONTBONNE (52224)
José PIRAO (65475)
Synthesis Report Tonny MATHIEU (84777)
Margareta OLSON, ff (93947)
10 December 2013
30
Annex IV: Policy areas
Title 01 : Economic and financial affairs
Title 02 : Enterprise
Title 03 : Competition
Title 04 : Employment and social affairs
Title 05: Agriculture and rural development
Title 06 : Mobility and Transport
Title 07 : Environment and Climate Action
Title 08 : Research
Title 09 : Information society and Media
Title 10 : Direct research
Title 11 : Maritime affairs and Fisheries
Title 12 : Internal market
Title 13 : Regional policy
Title 14 : Taxation and customs union
Title 15 : Education and culture
Title 16 : Communication
Title 17 : Health and consumer protection
Title 18 : Area of freedom, security and justice
Title 19 : External relations
Title 20 : Trade
Title 21 : Development and relations with African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States
Title 22 : Enlargement
Title 23 : Humanitarian aid
Title 24 : Fight Against Fraud
Title 26 : Commission’s administration
Title 29 : Production of statistical information
Title 32 : Energy
Title 33 : Justice
10 December 2013
31
Annex V: DG Energy
In 2007 a new energy policy designed to meet the EU energy objectives of sustainability, competitiveness and security of supply was agreed. Accordingly, via the Europe 2020 strategy, EU has committed itself to:
"(…) support the shift towards a resource efficient and low-cost economy that is efficient in the way it uses all resources. The aim is to decouple our economic growth from resource and energy use, reduce
CO2 emissions, enhance competitiveness and promote greater energy security"47.
Also, under the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme, the Intelligent Energy Europe Programme has been established aiming at fostering energy efficiency and the rational use of energy resources, promoting new and renewable energy resources, promoting energy efficiency and the use of new and renewable energy sources in transport.
In this context, one of DG ENER specific objectives advocated in the Activity Statement is
"to promote renewable and to increase the energy efficiency in transport, residential/tertiary and industry, through addressing the non-technological barriers (Intelligent Energy Europe Programme)".
Accordingly, to meet this specific objective, DG ENER proposed the following indicators:
• investment made by European stakeholders in sustainable energy triggered by IEE programme
• cumulative renewable energy production triggered by the actions supported by IEE programme
• cumulative energy savings triggered by the actions supported by IEE programme
• cumulative reductions of greenhouse gas emissions triggered by the actions supported by IEE programme
47 Communication from the Commission, Europe 2020 A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth-
COM (2010) 2020 final
10 December 2013
32
Specific objective: To support projects promoting renewables and increasing energy efficiency in different sectors of the economy including transport, through addressing the non-technological barriers (Intelligent Energy Europe Programme).
Result Indicator Latest known result Target (mid-term result)
Cumulative investment made by European stakeholders in sustainable energy triggered by IEE programme (measurement unit EUR; source; DG Energy C.3 and EACI data)
31/12/2011: EUR 1500 million
23/11/2010: EUR 1500 million
31/10/2009: EUR 22.8 million
31/10/2008: EUR 23.8 million
21/12/2007: EUR21.7 million
31/12/2012: EUR 2 billion
Additional annual renewable energy production triggered by actions supported by IEE programme. (measurement unit toe; DG Energy C.3 and EACI data)
21/12/2011:58000 toe/year
23/11/2010: 100 000
(results for a given year add to figures for previous years)
Increase
Additional annual energy savings triggered by the actions supported by IEE programme (measurement unit toe; DG Energy data C.3 and EACI )
31/12/2011: 88 000 toe/year23/11/2010: 80 000 toe
(results for a given year add to figures for previous years)
Increase
Additional annual reductions of greenhouse gas emissions triggered by the actions supported by IEE programme (measurement unit CO2e; DG Energy C.3 and EACI data)
31/12/2011: 500 000 toe CO2e23/11/2010: 620 000 toe CO2e
(results for a given year add to figures for previous years)
Increase
These objectives and indicators are coherent with the new energy policy or Europe 2020 strategy (as well as with many more energy related legislation and communications not mentioned here). It proves that ABM/SPP tool is efficient in translating general directions into outcomes.
10 December 2013
33
Bibliography:
Activity Based Budgeting-European Commission Communication, http://www.cc.cec/budg/bud/proc/abb/_doc/_pdf/communication-en.pdf,
Activity Based Budgeting: The reform of the European Union General Budget, J. Escudero Bustamante, 27/11/2007,
Activity Statements gudielines: http://www.cc.cec/budg/i/circular/_doc/budgetary-circular-2012/block-II-3-activity-statements.pdf,
Best practice in governance of agencies-A comparative study in view of identifying best practice for governing agencies carrying out activities on behalf of the European Union-EP's Committee on Budgetary Control, 30/01/2008,
Commission Regulation (EC, EURATOM) No 2343/2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities
Contribution from the EU agencies to the deliberations of the Inter-institutional Working Group on regulatory Agencies, Helsinki, 05/09/2011,
Does Performance Budgeting work? An Analytical Review of the Empirical Literature-M. Robinson and J.Brumby, IMF Working Paper, 2005,
Draft General Budget of the European Commission for the financial Year 2012, Working Document Part I, Activity Statements of operational expenditure
Financial regulation and implementing rules applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, article 27
Implementing Activity Based Management in the Commission, Communication from the President in agreement with Mr Kinnock and Mrs Schreyer to the Commission, SEC (2001) 1197
Operating and Capital Budget Reform in Minnesota: Managing Public Finances Like the Future Matters, Laura King, Government Finance Review, 1995,
Performance Budgeting: Managing the Reform Process, J. Diamond, IMF-Fiscal Affairs Department, 2001
Performance budgeting in OECD countries, 17/09/2007
Performance-based budgeting, M. Robinson, CLEAR Training Materials, 2007,
Performance budgeting-A User's guide, OECD, March 2008,
Performance-Based Budget Systems - R. D. Young, USC Institute for Public Service and Policy Research, Public Policy and Practice, 2003,
Performance Budgeting: Managing the Reform Process, J. Diamond, IMF-Fiscal Affairs Department, 2001, p.3
10 December 2013
34
Setting objectives and indicators guidelines, Brussels, September 2010, p. 10 http://www.cc.cec/home/dgserv/sg/i/spp/index.cfm?lang=en&page=guide_objectives
Study on the state of implementation, of Activity Based Management in the European Commission, Ecorys, 28/04/2008, p. 131 for MPs standing instructions see http://www.cc.cec/home/dgserv/sg/i/spp/index.cfm?lang=en&page=amp,
The Activity Based Approach in the European Commission, M. Amici, College of Europe, 2007, p. 16
The framework for European Regulatory Agencies: A balance between accountability and autonomy, M. Szapiro, 31/08/05
The European Union's Agencies: Getting results, European Court of Auditors, Special Report No 5, 2008,
