52001DC0648

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION - Management of Community programmes by networks of national agencies

Table of Contents

Management of Community programmes by networks of national agencies

1. Executive summary

2. Introduction

3. General aspects and definition of the network of national agencies

3.1. General framework and definition

3.2. Cases not covered by the definition

4. Advantages and risks of management by networks of national agencies

4.1. Advantages

4.1.1. Proximity

4.1.2. Complementarity

4.1.3. Flexibility

4.1.4. Refocusing of resources

4.2. Precautions to be taken

4.2.1. Safeguarding the European dimension and visibility

4.2.2. Avoiding cumbersome structures and procedures

4.2.3. Increased need for coordination and control of results to ensure coherence of the scheme

4.2.4. Avoiding conflicting roles

4.2.5. Clear distinction between intermediaries and beneficiaries

5. Rules for management through networks of national agencies

5.1. Criteria

5.1.1. Measures carried out simultaneously at national level with coordinated methodology

5.1.2. Decentralised, broad-based programmes

5.1.3. Financial allocations by country

5.1.4. Cofinancing

5.1.5. Existence of appropriate bodies at national level

5.1.6. Cost-effectiveness

5.2. Tasks

5.3. The legal framework

5.3.1. Legal basis

5.3.2. Definition of the respective responsibilities of the Commission and the NA and formalisation of relations between them

5.4. Controls

6. Areas where management by networks can be considered

6.1. Statistics

6.2. Research

6.3. Innovative measures under the Structural Funds

7. Networks of national agencies and Community implementing agencies

ANNEX 1 The network model in the field of education, training and youth

ANNEX 2 The statistical field

ANNEX 3 A guide to managing Community programmes through networks of national agencies

ANNEX 4 Comparison between Community executive agencies and networks of national agencies for the purposes of managing Community programmes

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION

Management of Community programmes by networks of national agencies

1. Executive summary

Management by networks of national agencies is a form of externalisation based on delegation by the Commission of implementing responsibilities to national entities with a public service mission guaranteed by the State which serve as partners for implementing certain Community policies.

It is based on a network of entities designated by the Member States and responsible for performing certain tasks on behalf of the Commission. The most highly developed model at the present time is that of programmes in the field of education, training and youth, which is based on well-defined and uniform rules and instruments.

Management by networks is particularly appropriate for the implementation of broad-based programmes which require proximity to final beneficiaries and in the case of simultaneous measures at national level using coordinated methodology. With this form of management better use can be made of existing resources in the Member States. The existence of financial allocations for each country within a programme and the cofinancing of measures are factors favouring the use of national agencies. Management by networks of national agencies often offers greater flexibility than direct management and leaves the Commission free to concentrate its resources on its core tasks. It also provides the possibility of improving the quality of monitoring of fragmented or broad-based projects.

This form of externalisation mayalso involve the potential risk of loss of coherence and controle of Community schemes, risks which can, however, be avoided by appropriate precautions and measures. While relieving Commission departments of certain management tasks, at the same time it increases the coordination work and the need for supervision and ex post coordination.

Management by networks of national agencies would first mean defining tasks, respective responsibilities and relations between the Commission, the national agencies and the Member States for which appropriate rules must be laid down. The legal framework must include a regulatory instrument laying down the programme or scheme which provides for the possibility of a network of national agencies as the management method. Further legal instruments will still be required: in particular an agreement between the Commission and the national agency spelling out the role and work of the agency in implementing the programme, and the Commission decision laying down the respective rights and obligations of the Commission and of the Member States, including the sharing of responsibility. Potential for extending management by networks of national agencies could be found in the field of statistics, and innovative measures (Structural Funds).

Given the specific features of this form of management, the range of tasks and powers that the Commission can delegate to national agencies is narrower than what could be delegated to Community executive agencies as proposed by the Commission.

2. Introduction

The December 1999 communication containing general guidelines for a policy of externalising [1] the management of Community programmes and the White Paper on administrative reform [2] outlined a new externalisation policy based on the vision of an administration re-focused on its core tasks and activities.

[1] Guidelines for a policy of externalisation, SEC(1999) 2051/7.

[2] Reforming the Commission, COM(2000) 200.

The Commission mandated a Planning and Coordination Group (PCG) to translate these guidelines into concrete measures. The first field to be tackled was the controlled externalisation of the management of Community programmes and its corollary, the reintegration of the technical assistance offices (TAOs), for which the practical details and the timetable were an integral part of letter of amendment No 1 to the preliminary draft budget for 2001.

In December 2000 the Commission presented to Parliament and the Council a communication [3] on externalisation of the management of Community programmes, including a proposal for a Council framework regulation for a new type of executive agency, the most innovative instrument in the Commission's externalisation strategy.

[3] Externalisation of the management of Community programmes, including presentation of a framework regulation for a new type of executive agency, COM(2000)788 final, 13.12.2000.

The December 2000 communication on externalisation highlights among the externalisation instruments the decentralisation of executive responsibilities to external national public-law bodies or bodies with a public-service mission guaranteed by the State (= "national agencies") to act as partners in implementing some Community policies.

Using as a basis a number of instances where the Commission has already acquired experience of management by networks of national agencies, this communication outlines an approach, the practical details and a set of standardised tools for this form of management.

3. General aspects and definition of the network of national agencies

3.1. General framework and definition

Management by networks of national agencies is defined in the communication on the externalisation of the management of Community programmes [4] as the decentralisation of executive responsibilities to external bodies under national law, either public or with a public service mission guaranteed by the State (= "national agencies") to act as partners in implementing some Community policies. A national agency (NA) is not necessarily an entity created from scratch for the purpose of decentralising the programme. NA status can be conferred on existing entities with their own mission; it can also be conferred on regional or cross-border entities provided they can guarantee proper performance.

[4] COM(2000)788 final.

A network of national agencies is a structured set of communicating organisations in which each of the members assumes some responsibility in achieving shared objectives. It is made up of entities designated by the States to perform certain tasks on behalf of the Commission. These entities may be involved in the management of the funds of a Community programme for which they are responsible (e.g. Leonardo programme) as they have a public-service mission. The Commission runs and coordinates the network and ensures that the scheme has Community value added and that every use is made of synergy.

A model of the network of national agencies is the one set up to implement programmes in the field of education, training and youth (see Annex 1). The use of management by networking allows Commission departments to retain political control of the programme. It is based on a clear and balanced definition of the financial and operational responsibilities of the Commission, the States and the NA. The main aim of this is to make the States responsible for the designation and performance of the relevant NA, while leaving the possibility for strong Community-level intervention to ensure the uniform implementation of the programme throughout the Union.

The instrument of delegation must contain appropriate provisions for ensuring the transparency of operations conducted and compliance with the standards of sound financial management and control compatible and comparable with those applying to Commission departments. The Commission is also bound to arrange for the periodic supervision, evaluation and control of the performance of the tasks delegated to the NA.

3.2. Cases not covered by the definition

The proposal for the recasting of the Financial Regulation adopted by the Commission in July 2000 distinguishes, for the purposes of budget implementation, between centralised management, shared management and decentralised management:

* in shared management (e.g. structural operations and agricultural policy) and decentralised management (e.g. programmes for countries applying for accession) the Commission entrusts to States responsibility for performing budget implementation operations themselves; these forms of management are not concerned by this communication;

* in centralised management, the Commission can either implement the budget in its own departments (direct management) or delegate implementation to Community executive agencies or to national bodies, either public or with a public-service mission guaranteed by the State (indirect management). This document does not deal directly with Community executive agencies on which a separate communication has been presented. [5]

[5] COM(2000)788 final, see footnote Error! Bookmark not defined..

Likewise, the existence of networks of beneficiaries should not be confused with management by networks of national agencies. In the first case, the (individual) beneficiaries of a Community programme or scheme can group themselves together in a (transnational) partnership with a view to carrying out an operational project which they often cofinance. Appropriations are not distributed on a geographical basis but by reference to sectoral/thematic operational objectives. Areas in which this form of partnership is to be found include research and statistics. [6]

[6] See Annex 2.

4. Advantages and risks of management by networks of national agencies

Management by networks of decentralised national agencies offers both advantages and certain disadvantages which can however be controlled by appropriate precautions and measures

4.1. Advantages

4.1.1. Proximity

Using a national entity to make it possible to get very close to beneficiaries, in particular on matters with special impact at local level. In the area of education, training and youth for example national agencies are an important vehicle for information to potential benificiaries and dissemination of results. It is far more difficult for the Commission or even a Community agency to get as close as this, as by definition they have a centralised structure.

In some cases proximity ensures not only that projects are of higher quality but also that better use is made of the results and they are distributed more widely.

4.1.2. Complementarity

Management by networking can be an attractive option where there are sound infrastructures and well-developed means of communication at national level which are worth using with the assistance and commitment of the States. It promotes the exchange of experience and knowledge in programme management between the Commission and the States but also involves a sharing of tasks and responsibilities.

Partnership and dialogue with national counterparts can significantly improve the quality of decisions provided that the partners (Commission, NA, States) have a balanced share of responsibilities.

What is more, there are benefits to be derived from using existing networks of national agencies when they can be delegated additional but complementary tasks in order to tap existing know-how and not to have to incur all the costs involved in putting in place alternative solutions.

When a major and urgent problem of public interest arises, there can also be a lot to be gained by implementing emergency programmes by means of concerted application of all national and European capabilities at short notice and under collective management.

While the Commission remains in control of all that is essential and the tasks are performed in accordance with provisions and rules laid down at Community level, through NA networks the Commission can secure additional guarantees in management because the national authorities assume responsibility for supervision, control and monitoring of NAs without impinging on the Commission's prerogatives.

4.1.3. Flexibility

Management by networks can offer greater flexibility than direct management by the Commission or through the establishment of a Community executive agency, as it is easier to adapt it to the specific needs and resources of each (financing) programme and local situations.

4.1.4. Refocusing of resources

Contract management is a job in itself, involving fairly general, cross-cutting and therefore interchangeable tasks, regardless of the sector involved. Management by networks would enable the Commission to save on human resources in the performance of broad-based operations or in direct involvement in monitoring projects with many participants from different countries. Although this is not necessarily a "net" saving for the consolidated system, it does ease the burden of financial and administrative management of projects and enables Commission departments to focus on core activities (policy formulation, political drive, control and evaluation) for which the institution has a clear comparative advantage and can provide added value.

4.2. Precautions to be taken

Any construction which places additional structures between management of the policy and implementation also involves certain disadvantages calling for special attention from Commissions' departments when turning to this form of externalisation.

4.2.1. Safeguarding the European dimension and visibility

The presence of a national intermediary may reduce the visibility of the Union in the eyes of beneficiaries. To ensure that the Community nature of the scheme is not compromised, the agreements linking the NA to the Commission should expressly provide for the obligation to keep the Community nature of projects visible.

4.2.2. Avoiding cumbersome structures and procedures

The existence of an additional intermediate operational layer may complicate management and increase the need for ad hoc procedures, with the attendant risk of higher costs. The relations between the services of the Commission and the NA, including the related procedures, must be established to avoid any impediment to an efficient and effective implementation of programmes and schemes.

4.2.3. Increased need for coordination and control of results to ensure coherence of the scheme

The presence of a large number of intermediaries means that the Commission must make greater efforts to keep the scheme coherent. Likewise delegating tasks to outside entities remote from the Commission will entail additional efforts for the monitoring, control and ex post evaluation of projects and of these entities.

4.2.4. Avoiding conflicting roles

While it may generally offer more flexible management, management by networks may come up against difficulties if, for instance, the NA are reluctant to accept changes in priorities set at Community level or tend to try to assume the Commission's political responsibilities. In addition, especially if Member States are involved in certain decisions, the large number of parties involved may result in conflicts. Accordingly the range of tasks must be duly confined.

4.2.5. Clear distinction between intermediaries and beneficiaries

The NA must not be allowed to be both intermediary and beneficiary under the same programme.

5. Rules for management through networks of national agencies

5.1. Criteria

A number of criteria can be used to identify Community programmes or schemes suitable for management by networks of national agencies. They take the form of a checklist of questions to be asked should this formula be considered by Commission departments. They are intended to be general, seeking to cover the broadest possible scope.

Given the specific nature of Community programmes or schemes, the criteria listed below do not all need to be fulfilled together or to the same degree. However, with the exception of financial allocations by country and cofinancing, all the other criteria seem to be relevant for all Community programmes or schemes. What is more, as with any form of externalisation, management by networks of national agencies must be seen to be more cost-effective than other solutions.

5.1.1. Measures carried out simultaneously at national level using coordinated methodology

Management by networks would be a good thing when implementation of a programme requires measures which are carried out simultaneously at national level using coordinated methodology. It need not necessarily cover an entire programme, but may be confined to specific measures within a programme.

5.1.2. Decentralised, broad-based programmes

One of the needs which management by networks can satisfy is the implementation of broad-based programmes.

- requiring on-the-spot presence and involving large numbers of small operations which the Commission is not in a position to manage through its departments alone or through an executive agency responsible for all the countries covered by the scheme (e.g. mobility schemes in educational programmes in which thirty countries can participate);

- which ought not to be managed in too centralised a manner but for which the central level must retain adequate operational capacity, e.g. by taking responsibility for the final selection of projects, management of which can then be delegated to the decentralised level.

In this case the choice of management by networks will mainly depend on the vertical leverage or relay effect offering close proximity to beneficiaries and better quality in the implementation and monitoring of projects. Use of NA must, of course, be also justified by a critical mass in terms of funding or the volume of tasks to be performed.

With projects to be managed becoming increasingly fragmented, responsibility shared with Member States can be a good thing in that the monitoring of schemes and projects requires greater efforts and the risk of not being able to recover funds means that partners must be institutions which can stand guarantee.

In addition the experience which Member States have in operating supervisory systems at national level can be extremely useful in fraud prevention and prosecution.

As regards the selection of fragmented projects, the involvement of NA at the preselection stage can usefully reduce the Commission's workload and ensure that the final decision taken by the Commission in the Community interest is transparent, readily accepted and rational.

5.1.3. Financial allocations by country

Management by networks would seem particularly appropriate for the management of geographical financial allocations based on objective criteria, although conversely use of NA should not be automatically ruled out simply because there are no such allocations.

5.1.4. Cofinancing

Management by NA networks generally includes an aspect of cofinancing by the Community and the State. As regards the contribution from the Community budget, the principle is that the work of the national agency is considered to be an integral part of the programme and the cost is charged to the appropriations for the programme or scheme.

Cofinancing of the NA by a nationalauthority, when implementing Community programmes or schemes, would constitute a guarantee for the management of Community funds, in the form of a contribution to the running costs of the NA. In general, this also means that the entity must account for its activities and for the use of its funds in accordance with the national rules in force and that it comes under national supervisory bodies. The Commission should allow for this so that it can confine its supervisory activities to additional aspects not covered by the national regulations.

Experience of education programmes shows that the existence of a multiannual financial framework would substantially facilitate programming and implementation of co-financed schemes.

5.1.5. Existence of appropriate bodies at national level

As a rule the possibility of using this form of externalisation first requires that bodies exist at national level operating in an area close to that of the Community programme or scheme and capable of assuming additional tasks with their own infrastructure and expertise.

5.1.6. Cost-effectiveness

Just as with any other form of externalisation, management by networks of national agencies must satisfy the criterion of sound management and offer greater cost-effectiveness than other solutions, to be shown by an ex-ante analysis.

Once the objectives of the programme/scheme, the tasks to be performed and the necessary resources have all been worked out, an advance analysis of the cost, the effectiveness and the layout of this formula must be conducted, taking into account the overall resources required and the alternative solutions for implementing the programme/scheme. The cost-effectiveness criterion must, however, also take into account the possible improvement in the quality of management of Community programmes.

5.2. Tasks

Application of the criteria specified in the previous section determines the scope of action of the NA. The tasks in question are all performed at a fairly downstream stage in the lifecycle of operations. The role of the NA in management is subject to strict rules and/or applies in a very limited area, with the result that the NA has no margin of discretion on the Community aspects of the decisions that it has to take in implementing the programme or scheme. The implementing tasks entrusted to the NA would in no way alter any choices taken by the Commission involving political judgment.

The scale of delegation is therefore less than in the proposed model of Community executive agency. This is, after all, entirely justified by the fact that even if the NA have a public service mission just like the executive agencies, the Commission would retain over the Community executive agencies a degree of control going well beyond what it can exercise over the NA (see section 7 below).

In practice, tasks which may be covered by management through networks include:

- managing all or some of the phases of the lifecycle of operations, relating to specific projects, in connection with the implementation of the Community programme but excluding decisions on financing, except in specific cases relating to highly decentralised broad-based programmes, where the Community interest lies less in the choice of beneficiaries than in the widespread impact of the initiative. This covers contract management and financial management (including payments), coordination and information and, in the special cases mentioned above, also the selection of final beneficiaries;

- compiling, analysing and sending to the Commission all the information required to guide implementation of the Community programme;

- preparing recommendations for the Commission on the implementation of the Community programme.

The conditions, criteria, parameters and detailed arrangements that the NA must comply with in performing the above tasks and the control procedures applied by the Commission departments responsible for the Community programmes which the NA are helping to manage are spelt out by the Commission in the instrument of delegation (see section 5.3.2 below).

Coordination of the network is a key aspect and in principle this role will be played by the Commission, which will be all the better equipped for it as its resources will not be required for the purely executive tasks delegated to the NA under the arrangements for management by networks (new type of Community intervention in programme management).

It is quite possible that in States where more than one NA exists, one of them may assume a coordinating and organising role recognised at national level, getting participants in the project to cooperate together. At all events, regardless of the legal constraints which may exist at national level, for example, as regards the confidentiality of statistics, the "coordinator-member" of the NA network could never entirely replace the Commission, because of the obligations on the Commission under Community law.

5.3. The legal framework

5.3.1. Legal basis

The possibility of using the management by network method must be given recognition in legislation. [7] This recognition could basically be in one of two forms:

[7] This recognition would ensure transparency of the management method proposed by the Commission for the Community programme in question and would give the entire planned legal structure a foundation in rules with primary status, hence the soundness of the arrangement. However, it should be added that even without such a reference in rules, the Commission might still in theory make use of this method of management in certain circumstances.

* The regulatory instrument laying down the programme or scheme provides, as method of management, for the use of a network of national agencies on the basis of legal instruments to be drawn up subsequently;

* A specific framework regulation on management by networks lays down, in general terms, the principles, practical details and instruments for this method of management.

However, it seems difficult to produce a framework regulation which can cover all possible scenarios and which at the same time lays down sufficiently detailed common rules. It is also debatable whether in practice there are sufficient concrete cases to justify the investment in terms of administrative work and negotiation which would be required for the adoption of a framework regulation.

It would therefore be preferable for the regulatory instrument laying down the programme or scheme to provide, as the management method, for the possibility of using a network of national agencies. Other legal instruments would be added subsequently to the legal structure (see next section).

As regards any schemes which have no legal basis or for which the legal basis does not explicitly provide for making use of NA, it might be possible to incorporate such schemes in existing or new programmes for which the legal basis provides for NA.

5.3.2. Definition of the respective responsibilities of the Commission and the NA and formalisation of relations between them

In the highly developed model which exists in the field of education, training and youth (see Annex 1), relations still have to be formalised through operating agreements and decentralised measures for funds to be provided to the NA. Experience in this connection suggests that formalisation of the provisions on the respective responsibilities of the Commission and States in the operation of the NA represent one of the main steps forward which came with the entry into force of the new programmes; where management is by networks there is now a clear definition of the responsibilities of the State in the operation of the agency it has designated.

In this connection, if States have an unduly large proportion of responsibilities, they could stand as a barrier between the Commission and the NA, thereby making Community control difficult.

There must therefore be a balanced distribution of roles, which would enable the Commission to supervise and monitor programmes in real time: the NA must report directly to the Commission on their work on implementing the programmes. Appropriate reporting arrangements must therefore be incorporated so that information on the management of the programme can be consolidated at Community level.

In addition to the reference in the legal basis the legal instruments must include:

* A Commission decision adopting the provisions concerning the responsibilities of the Commission and the States as regards the national agencies in the general guidelines for implementing the programme.

* An operating agreement between the Commission and the national agency on an annual or multiannual work programme. The agreement will determine the role and work of the NA, the Community financial contribution to the running costs of the NA, and the Commission's guidelines on information activities and the programme's profile.

* An agreement on decentralised measures relating to the management of funds earmarked for projects, which will enter into force after the operating agreement, laying down the arrangements for the transfer of operational funds for implementing decentralised schemes, the administrative and financial rules for managing Union funds and the control procedures and stipulating that the funds managed are intended exclusively for project beneficiaries.

The table in Annex 3 serves as a practical users' guide for the various stages of implementation. This guide spells out the role of the three main actors, i.e. the Commission, the NA and the States, working on the basis of the model already applied in the field of education. The model will, of course, have to be adapted to take account of any specific features of the areas concerned.

5.4. Controls

The Commission decision (see section 5.3.2 above) must contain provisions concerning the responsibilities of the Commission and the States as regards NA within the general guidelines for implementing the programme. The decision lays down the guidelines for the internal controls to be performed by the NA and on the principle of the right of access of national authorities, the competent services of the Commission and the Court of Auditors to the documents of the NA concerning its administrative and financial management of Community funds.

The Commission carries out ex post checks that expenditure by NA is consistent with legal provisions. Furthermore, it can carry out field visits before/after and during execution to the states, NA or beneficiaries to inspect projects and management and control systems. The Commission informs the national authority of the findings of inspections and audits and of any measures taken.

The legal instruments used for implementing programmes, in particular the specific contracts and the model contracts, must contain appropriate provisions for the protection of the Communities' financial interests.

The national supervisory authorities verify management and control systems, without prejudice to the Commission's responsibility for implementing the general budget of the Union. They inform the Commission of the findings of their inspections and audits and of action taken at national level.

The Court of Auditors is empowered to check the documents of the NA relating to expenditure on behalf of the Communities. The national supervisory authorities or, if they do not have the necessary powers, the appropriate national departments provide the Court of Auditors, at its request, with all the information they have relating to operations financed or co-financed by the Communities and to the management and control of these operations.

6. Areas where management by networks can be considered

Management by networks of national agencies has a certain potential for development and extension in areas other than education, training and youth. The following non-exhaustive list gives some practical illustrations.

6.1. Statistics

In the field of statistics the role of national agency should in principle be played by the national statistical institutes (NSI) which would be responsible for managing implementation of statistical tasks at national level. Within a methodological framework determined at European level, with common standards and timetables, the NSI, in a network coordinated by the Commission, would form a single entry point per country for the Commission. This would make it easier to identify the tasks linked to Community programmes and would improve the coherence and quality of the statistics produced by the various national agents. It is, however, important that the Commission retain control of the final result and of compliance with European standards, while at the same time generating synergy with national measures.

6.2. Research

In connection with management of the next research framework programme, the use of networks of national agencies could be envisaged for the management of some of the operations planned under the future programmes, in particular where there is a concern for proximity and where there is no conflict as regards the supervisory body. But it must be borne in mind that no section of these programmes provides for a financial allocation by participating country. Should a network of national agencies be used, account would also have to be taken of certain important features of the management of these programmes, in particular the question of confidentiality which surrounds the handling of research projects and difficulties which may arise in finding structures which guarantee that there will be no conflict of interest between beneficiaries and delegatees.

6.3. Innovative measures under the Structural Funds

For the innovative measures it may prove useful to transfer certain activities to public or semi-public regional bodies which would be responsible for the proper management of the measures. In this case, the Commission will sign a financial agreement laying down the rights and obligations of each of the contracting parties.

7. Networks of national agencies and Community implementing agencies

Compared with national agencies, the Community executive agency model provides a number of additional features of control by the Commission: it is the Commission which appoints the director and designates the members of the steering committee; the administrative budget comes entirely from the Community.

In addition the secondment of Commission officials and the application to staff of the rules applicable to officials and other servants of the European Communities are features of the executive agency.

Given the specific features of management by networks of national agencies, the range of tasks and powers that the Commission may delegate to them is narrower than could be delegated to the Community executive agencies proposed by the Commission. In other words, the greater the control the Commission has over the bodies to which it "externalises" some of its management tasks, the greater the decision-making power and range of tasks which may be delegated (and the lesser the degree of detail required in defining the tasks). Conversely, the more remote the control over the delegatee body, the more limited the decision-making power and the narrower the range of tasks that the Commission can entrust to it (and the higher the degree of detail concerning the tasks of the NA and their specific field of action).

Annex 4 gives a more detailed comparison of the two methods of management.

ANNEX 1 The network model in the field of education, training and youth

The model developed in the field of education, training and youth is based on the following.

Legal basis

To allow the Commission to delegate programme implementation to a network of agencies, this management method is specified in the regulatory instrument setting up the programme.

A clear definition of responsibilities

* A Commission decision sets out the respective responsibilities of the Commission and the States, which designate the relevant agencies. [8] The decision specifies in particular the minimum conditions for setting up an NA, the tasks of the NA, the monitoring and management responsibilities of the NA, the arrangements for selecting projects, the rules for supervising and auditing the NA and the projects, and the financial responsibility of the NA, particularly regarding the agreements it concludes with the final beneficiaries. The Member States designate the relevant agencies and stand guarantor for the financial viability of management by the national agencies. The decision is notified to each State [9] in accordance with Article 254 of the EC Treaty.

[8] "Provisions setting out the responsibilities of the States and the Commission concerning national agencies in the context of the general guidelines for implementing the programme".

[9] and to any non-member country involved in the programme.

* An agreement between the Commission and the NA then sets out the role and activities of the NA in implementing the programme, together with the Community contribution to the NA's running costs, determined on the basis of a work programme that is usually annual. The Commission thus co-finances with the Member States the administrative budget of the NAs.

* Agreements on decentralised measures (in practice, several per year, according to the various decentralised parts of the programme which the NA is helping to manage) are then concluded between the Commission and each NA, under which the Community funds that the agency is to manage for the benefit of the nationals of its Member State will be made available to it. Under these agreements, the Commission transfers to the NA the operational funds for the implementation of the programme's decentralised measures.

Two types of procedure govern the setting of the budget allocations made available to the NA in this way: traditionally, management by network applied to the mobility sections of the programmes; with the entry into force of the second phase of the Leonardo programme, management by network is also applied to the funding of pilot projects.

In the first case (usually mobility), the programme decisions set criteria (such as the size of the target population, distances between capitals, differences in the cost of living), on the basis of which the Commission sets the global grant allocated to each NA for distribution to the final beneficiaries of the programme in accordance with the programme guidelines. In the second case, pilot projects, the Commission is directly involved in the selection of funded projects: selection takes place at Community level (Community call for proposals, even if it is publicised at national level, submission of projects to the Commission, assessment by independent experts appointed by the Commission, selection of projects by the Commission, following the opinion of the programme Committee) and the subsequent global allocation to each NA corresponds to the precise amount of the grants it will be managing, determined by reference to the projects selected that were submitted by contractors in that State.

Management by network allows the Commission departments to retain political control of the programme. In addition, the Commission is very involved in programme implementation: the financial agreements concluded between the NA and the final beneficiary (the contractor coordinating the partnership which is carrying out the project) follow models produced by the Commission.

The provisions of the agreement between the Commission and each NA stipulate control arrangements (including on-the-spot audits) which the NA must apply to final beneficiaries. If the NA defaults, the Member State is liable. This implies that Member States may have an interest in becoming involved in supervision themselves, by verifying management and control systems so as to ensure that Community funds are used efficiently and legitimately by the NA, without prejudice to the Commission's responsibility.

The NA responsible for programmes in the field of education, training and youth must have their accounts audited. Since they are legal persons under national law, they are subject, for example, to national accounting standards.

ANNEX 2 The statistical field

Networks in the statistical field

A de facto network exists in the statistical field, made up of the national bodies responsible for statistics in the various areas, which, under the coordination of Eurostat, supply the statistics needed by the European Union. Although in most cases there is a Community statistical programme, they supply the Commission with statistics derived from national surveys. However, this network does not constitute a network of national agencies as a management instrument for the implementation of a Community programme.

On the basis of Community standards and in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the work of collecting and pre-processing statistical data is done by the States, and the results are collected, analysed and published by the Commission. Relations between the Community administration and the national authorities are so close that a strategy for operating by network becomes possible, also thanks to new technologies. None the less, these types of network have more to do with the operational implementation of programmes or projects by the beneficiaries (NSI) than with the Commission's management responsibilities. Besides the "traditional" coordinated activities, a number of work forms more typical of operating by network have either become established or are under experimentation. These include:

- LEG (Leadership Groups): where the Commission's role as Community public authority is not called into question, groups of NSI take on the preparation (cataloguing existing work, methodological study, etc.) of Community projects. They produce the documents, organise meetings and draw up reports. They receive support from Eurostat, which acts more as an adviser than a leader.

- The Partnership Group (PG): the Statistical Programme Committee (SPC), comprised of the Directors-General of the NSI, has set up a sub-group within the Committee, whose members automatically rotate in accordance with the Council Presidency. It is chaired by a national Director-General elected by the SPC. Eurostat takes part and provides the Secretariat. The PG prepares the agendas for plenary meetings, with the emphasis on strategic subjects, entering items on the agenda, consideration of the ripeness of items for discussion and any other matters for coordination. Eurostat still has authority as regards any matter relating to committee procedure.

- Electronic forums: between the circulation of meeting papers and the meeting itself, NSI exchange their summary positions via an electronic forum organised by Eurostat. They thus arrive at the meeting aware of their partners' positions and the meeting can focus on outstanding problems.

- Technology exchanges: some Member States have developed software for data collection (which is more of a national matter than a Community one), which they make available to the others. They carry out maintenance and development on behalf of everyone.

- The dissemination network (data shops): the dissemination of Community statistics is shared and carried out by national data shops, which are closer to citizens than the Community bodies. Data shops are also responsible for disseminating national data, thus allowing synergies to develop.

- Various joint projects: publications, organisation of seminars, organisation of task forces, cooperation with third countries, training and statistical research, etc.

Legal structure for the networking of the European Statistical System (ESS)

Five-year statistical programme (EP and Council basic instrument)

This programming instrument will have to stipulate the following:

(1) The creation of a network conferring the status of NA on NSI, description of tasks and the delegation to the Commission of the power to decide the arrangements for implementing the statistical projects to be carried out by the network.

(2) The Member States will take the necessary measures (legislative and administrative) to ensure that the NSI coordinate, manage and monitor the performance of activities under the Statistical Programme entrusted to the NA, and to ensure that the network operates smoothly.

(3) Financial support to be decided on and granted by the Commission for activities related to management, coordination and the implementation of the statistical projects entrusted to the network.

Commission Decision setting up the network of NSI to implement certain statistical projects

(1) This instrument will designate the NSI as national coordinators.

(2) The Commission will coordinate the network (Eurostat).

(3) The management budget will cover the network's running costs. The national coordinator (each NSI) of the network must be able to make the necessary funds available, by means of appropriate agreements submitted for prior approval by the Commission, to the other members of the national network. It will be answerable to the Commission for the management of these funds.

(4) The necessary funds must be made available by way of multi-annual framework agreements with a simple instrument for annual withdrawals within a defined budget allocation. The models produced by the Commission for grants (GMN sub-group in the context of the revision of the Vademecum on grant management) will be used.

(5) The audit arrangements will be laid down in the abovementioned agreements.

However, the increased demands of Community policies can no longer be met by this kind of network and in many areas the approach will have to be replaced by the central concept of Community surveys, with their implementation at national level delegated to a network of NA. Such delegation would mainly cover management and coordination tasks in relation to all national parties involved in the surveys.

Examples of tasks that might be entrusted to the statistical network

(1) European surveys such as the action plan on EMU

(2) Surveys on innovation for Science and Technology

(3) Benchmarking exercises (follow-up to Lisbon Council)

(4) Social policy surveys (follow-up to Extraordinary Luxembourg Council)

(5) Social action plan decided on at Nice.

Such surveys would have the following characteristics:

- central planning at European level;

- common methodology;

- synchronised implementation;

- priorities set according to European standards;

- dissemination timetable decided at Community level.

They would serve the interests of priority European policies.

A GUIDE To MANAGING Community PROGRAMMES

THROUGH networks of NATIONAL AGENCies

Checklist of criteria to be used in identifying Community programmes/schemes suitable for management by networks of national agencies (NA)

1. Measures carried out simultaneously at national level using coordinated methodology.

2. Decentralised programmes, in particular broad-based programmes, where proximity to beneficiaries is a crucial factor.

3. Existence of a critical mass in terms of funding or the volume of tasks to be performed.

4. Presence of national bodies working in a field close to that covered by the Community programme/scheme and able to take on additional tasks while drawing on their own infrastructure and expertise.

5. Individual budget allocations by country.

6. Provision for co-financing.

7. Measures limited in scope - implementation demands technical appraisal but there is virtually no margin of discretion.

8. Quality and/or cost-effectiveness can be improved by using a network.

N.B.:

Since each Community programme or scheme has its own specific characteristics, these criteria do not all have to be met simultaneously and/or to the same degree. However, all the criteria are applicable to all Community programmes or schemes, except for criteria 4 (which need not necessarily apply simultaneously in all States concerned), 5 and 6.

Management by national agency network must, at all events, be more cost-effective than other solutions.

>TABLE POSITION>

>TABLE POSITION>

>TABLE POSITION>

ANNEX 4

comparison BETWEEN Community EXECUTIVE AGENCIES AND NETWORKS OF NATIONAL AGENCIES FOR THE PURPOSES OF MANAGING Community PROGRAMMES

>TABLE POSITION>

>TABLE POSITION>

>TABLE POSITION>