ࡱ> _ rbjbjJJ .(3b(3b& Rbrrr8;F(n"k :::::::$x=.@:rkk:rrP;$$$rr:$:$$V+@,0eu', ):f;0;,x@@,J,@r0 $:: =:l;@ B : 2017 Discharge to the Commission WRITTEN QUESTIONS TO COMMISSIONER MIMICA Hearing on 8 November 2018 Staff delegation Which costs occurred in 2017 for DG DEVCO staff in delegations concerning: annual leave entitlement the installation allowance taking up duty ticket moving, housing annual travel local conditions allowances weightings coefficients school allowances medical cover accident insurance to family rest leave? Commission's answer:  EMBED Excel.Sheet.12   Management of investment facilities (financial instruments) According to the Internal Audit of the IAS, DG DEVCO does not systematically monitor the International Financial Institutions (IFIs) operational performance and the key aspects of the blending operations. Which reports submitted by the IFIs at the level of the EU Delegations were of unsatisfactory quality? What are the reasons for the varying quality of these reports? Through which actions is the Commission trying to improve/streamline the reporting? Commission's answer: As a first consideration it has to be highlighted that the sampling that the IAS selected for the report contained 16 contracts out of a total population of 96 contracts. The reason for different typologies of reports is mainly due to the fact that the Commission in its contract template with the IFIs does not impose a rigid format/template of reporting but rather imposes contractually the main/key essential elements to be inserted and leaves up to the IFIs to present such reports in a format that complies with their internal procedures for as long as all of the contractually agreed essential elements are described and covered. In the Executive Summary of the report, the IAS acknowledged the evolution since 2015 in the design of DG DEVCO's internal control systems for indirect management, which cover also the blending operations under its responsibility. In particular, the new contract template (called PAGoDA) will enable DG DEVCO to manage and monitor blending operations so that they achieve their objectives. The new improved frameworkonly applies to projects signed after 2015. Therefore, for the projects contracted prior to 2015 (representing a total amount of EUR 371.9 million and around half of DG DEVCO's portfolio of blending activities), the consequences of the inherent limitations of the previous framework still continue to apply. In spite of the above-mentioned acknowledgement,the IAS audit was unable to take into consideration the latest developments introduced in the management of investment facilities, focusing mainly on projects run prior to 2015 (10 out 16 of contracts sampled by the IAS were signed between 2010 and 2014 with older contract templates and less developed guidelines) because the new framework and most related projects are relatively new and have not yet reached a stage of implementation, which would allow a comprehensive assessment of the effective functioning throughout the lifecycle. Since 2015, if adequately implemented by all the parties involved, DG DEVCO has therefore put in place a much more solid and structured framework in terms of report and monitoring but also in terms of Guidelines for both Headquarters and EU Delegations on how to manage Blending Operations.  DG DEVCO clears pre-financing for blending operations at a very late stage due to the unavailability of the declaration of expenses incurred by the IFIs. What are the reasons for this unavailability? Commission's answer: Most of the projects in the sample used by the IAS used a contribution agreement template from before the introduction in 2014 of Indirect Management Delegation Agreement (IMDA) and thereafter of PAGoDA I and PAGoDA II. These initial templates were not very specific regarding elements relevant for the clearing of pre-financing, including the definition of incurred costs. With respect to such contracts from the period before 2014, an instruction note to Authorising Officers by Sub-delegation at EU Delegations and Headquarters has been prepared, inviting them to liaise with the lead Financial Institution (FI) in order to align more the reporting requirements before PAGoDA with those established for PAGoDA, and thus to obtain information needed for clearing, including (i) a narrative report with description of activities implemented, (ii) breakdown of actual costs incurred and paid, (iii) a financial report allowing for comparison between budget and actuals, (iv) copy of the audited financial statements. Since 2014, the reporting requirements in the General Conditions of the contracts include receiving the necessary information on incurred costs, which therefore facilitate a timely clearing of pre-financing. In case Financial Institutions do not respect these contractual obligations regarding reporting on incurred cots, further payments may be suspended. Further rules on pre-financing have been included in the conditions of the Pagoda template. For instance, if at the end of the reporting period eligible costs of the FI related to its staff or otherwise subject to a legal commitment towards a third party are less than 70% of the last payment they received (and 100% of the preceding payments), further pre-financing payment requests may not be paid in full. Other measures include the need for a forecast of the first year budget in annex of the contract, and the release of pre-financing when a loan agreement has been signed. In addition, as part of the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) follow-up, DEVCO is facilitating the proactive monitoring of pre-financing payments.  What was the longest period amounts of pre-financing paid remains unused? Commission's answer: In its findings the IAS mentioned a number of cases where pre-financing was not used for 2 to 4 years. This was linked mostly to delays in the tendering process by the Financial Institutions. These cases related to contracts signed in 2013 or before. For the 2015 project in the IAS sample, the pre financing of EUR 2.7 million (representing 52% of the total project amount) was not used in 2016. Since then the assessment of the maturity of the projects has been strengthened with the enhanced Application Form to better evaluate the maturity of projects, and the contracts require now the inclusion of an estimated budget of the first year. However, delays could still happen in some instances due to the complexity of blending projects and the coordination of actions to be implemented by the co-financiers of the project. In some cases, late use of pre-financing was due to the fact that the related loan agreements between the Financial Institution and beneficiary Government had not been signed at the moment of the Delegation Agreement's signature, and that Government ownership was low. This has been at least partially solved by the requirement of Government endorsement letters for projects involving a sovereign loan. Reservations What is the state of play of the implementation of the action plan that follows the reservation concerning the error rate being above 2% and that was already presented in 2016? Commission's answer: Following the instructions of the central Commission services, an action plan has been set up as per the first time a reservation concerning high error rates has been issued in the Annual Activity Report. These action plans are regularly reviewed and actions that are not yet implemented are carried over to the next action plan. Of the 14 actions in the 2017 action plan (following the reservation in the 2016 Annual Activity Report), seven have been implemented, one was partially implemented, three were implemented, but have a permanent character and three were carried over to the next action plan, issued at the beginning of August 2018. Performance reporting DG DEVCO is attempting to move to reporting for on-going projects instead of the result reporting for complete projects. Could the Commission please provide the Ϸվ with further information on the above-mentioned process, its costs and the already made experiences with the reporting for on-going projects? Commission's answer: In 2018, DG DEVCO revised the EU International Cooperation and Development Results Framework (SWD (2018) 444). Part of the revision is the inclusion of ongoing interventions in results reporting. An exercise to collect data from around 1,300 ongoing and recently completed interventions financed by DG DEVCO and DG NEAR is currently underway (from September to December). The annual cost of the exercise is approximately EUR 1.5 million. The exercise covers EU funded projects worth more than EUR 4 billion. A pilot study conducted in 2017 showed a higher availability of results data in progress reports by implementing partners compared to a similar study in 2014. It also confirmed that results reporting for ongoing interventions tend to become available over the course the interventions lifetime, mostly towards the end. What are the limitations and challenges for this new kind of reporting for your DG? Commission's answer: b. The EU results framework can only provide a snapshot of EU international cooperation, and only captures selected results which can be aggregated. As mentioned above, collecting results earlier in the implementation of an intervention will imply lower figures compared to numbers recorded at completion. In addition, EU financial commitments taken in a given year translate into concrete interventions with a certain time lag. This implies that in some EU priority areas where financial commitments have been only taken recently, significant results will be harvested only in the medium term (2-3 years). What is the timetable for the fully implementation of this change in the reporting system? Commission's answer: The ongoing results reporting is already on-going since September 2018 (Data Collection). Data reporting is expected to become available most likely by second quarter 2019.  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Error rates ECA found that the methodology behind the DEVCO RER study foresees a very limited number of on-the-spot checks. In addition, the study envisages a limited scope for examination of procurement procedures. Therefore, ECA had to adjust the result of the RER study with proportions of error on compliance with public procurement rules. How does the Commission take into account the Court's observation? Commission's answer: The Residual Error Rate Study methodology is not fully comparable with the Courts approach (differences in scope and sampling techniques, on-going vs. closed contracts). Nevertheless, the Court wrote in its 2014 Annual EDF report: The RER study is based on an appropriate methodology and provides useful information, which allows DG DEVCO to identify where the implementation of control systems should be improved. Since then, the methodology on-the-spot checks and the analysis of procurement has not changed since then. This should be regarded as a strength as this has led to a better comparability of results over time. In its 2017 AAR, DG DEVCO has removed the section drawing attention to the limitation of the RER study on the scope of examination of procurement procedures, even though the limitation remains. How do you justify the removal of the section? Commission's answer: The removal of the limitation was the result of a different interpretation between the Court and the Commission. DG DEVCO accepted the Courts interpretation and intends to disclose again in the next Annual Activity Report the limitations of the RER study as interpreted by the Court.  For most of the RER transactions sampled by the Court, ECA concluded that the full reliance had been placed on previous control work incorrectly or without proper justification. Furthermore, the errors identified by previous control work were not extrapolated to the untested population, and therefore the study assumes that the untested population is free of error. In the Commission's reply to the Court's criticism we read that the Commission will consider evolving the methodology towards reliance on previous audit work in more than exceptional circumstances. Are you fully convinced that this will be a step in the right direction? Commission's answer: The Commission holds the view that the contractor implemented the methodology, which is not mechanical and in some aspects can be subject to different interpretations. The findings of the Court do not necessarily request a change in the methodology. Nonetheless, the Commission accepted to look into the question. It will follow-up closely on the number of full reliance cases and extrapolation decisions in several stages of the study. Does the Commission plan to improve monitoring the work carried out by the RER contractor? Commission's answer: The number of full reliance cases is now closely monitored at each step of the study. The Commission also has an eye on the communication with EU Delegations and Beneficiaries in case the information flow is slower than expected.  The reservation included in the declaration of assurance in the 2017 AAR only includes grants in direct management. This reservation is based on the results of the RER study. According to the Court, had the RER study followed the same prudent approach of previous years, the outcome of the study, and therefore the declaration of assurance, would probably have been different. Was it justified to lift the other reservation (indirect management)? Commission's answer: The indicative error rate for indirect management was below 2%. In addition to the indicative error rate, there are a series of elements taken into consideration as explained in the Annual Activity Report: ex-ante controls, audits and verifications (3.94% of the total amount audited in the area of indirect management with Beneficiary countries was identified as non-eligible, only 0.51% of the 2017 expenditure in the area of indirect management with International Organisations and Development Agencies was identified as non-eligible by ex-ante controls). Even if not covered by a reservation in the 2017 report, the other spending areas previously identified as higher risk areas are still monitored. Also, the action plan also covers areas for which a reservation was issued in previous Annual Activity Reports. The contractor carrying out the Residual Error Rate Study followed the Residual Error Rate Study methodology, which also includes the necessity to apply professional judgement. It is not possible to say how the outcome would have been with a different interpretation of the methodology.  The error rate regarding the management of funds by DEVCO is decreasing whilst the error rate concerning the EDF management is increasing. Why? Commission's answer: There is a difference in coverage: the DG DEVCO residual error rate relates to all DG DEVCO activities, not only the EDF. In addition, the European Court of Auditors analysis mainly looks at transactions from ongoing contracts, for which there may be corrections at a later stage. The Residual Error Rate Study only analyses transactions from closed contracts, for which all controls and checks have been applied. Due to the possibility to correct errors before closure of a contract (corrective capacity), the resulting European Court of Auditors error rate can therefore be higher than the Residual Error Rate. In its annual activity report the DG has issued a residual error rate. What is the error rate at payment as to the funds managed by DG DEVCO in 2017? Commission's answer: This rate can be found in the table Estimated overall amount at Risk at payment and at closure on page 60 of DEVCOs 2017 Annual Activity Report: 1.33%.  ECA annual report ECA annual report 2017 gives an example of currency exchange-rate losses linked to the payment of staff salaries charged to the projects budget through the payroll system. These costs were found ineligible by the ECA. What was the follow-up of the Commission? Commission's answer: The recovery order for the ineligible costs is being prepared.  ECA's tests on transactions revealed some control weaknesses in the Commissions systems concerning second level procurement procedures (procurement procedures carried out by beneficiaries). In two projects, ECA found that the beneficiaries had not respected the principles of transparency and fair competition when contracting services. In one of the cases they did not provide evidence justifying the use of a direct award. In the other, they could not justify that all bidders were treated equally. How do you go about these control weaknesses? Commission's answer: The number of cases related to second level procurement in which the Court had findings is limited. In one case a crisis situation had been declared in the country concerned, justifying flexible procedures. Nonetheless, the importance of supporting documents has been well noted and highlighted to the parties concerned. In another case the contract dates back to 2010. Since then various actions have been taken under DEVCOs action plans addressing i.a. this type of weakness which should therefore lead to a reduction of such errors. The following measures are aimed at addressing control weaknesses such as the ones identified by the Court: - Increasing the number of controls performed by the Commission. In particular, an instruction note was issued in April 2018 relating to additional controls to be based on randomly selected expenditure transactions reported under requests for payment and their verification. In this context, supporting documents such as relevant contracts, invoices, payslips, timesheets, proof of payments and procurement documents ( e.g. : publication, evaluation reports, offers, etc.) are reviewed. - Maintaining awareness through for instance information sessions organised by EU Delegations, presentations and discussions at relevant meetings and focus meetings with National Authorising Officers to strengthen their capacity in financial and document management. - Cooperation on ongoing control exercises such as verification missions, the Residual Error Rate Study and the Declaration of Assurance was stepped-up with International Organisations through regular coordination meetings (including by Video- and Teleconferences). In addition, there were working groups with and missions to notably with the United Nations. - The Financial Management Toolkit for recipients of EU Funds for External Actions contains a specific module on procurement. This section contains all key information, stressing the importance of complying with procurement rules to avoid ineligibility of the project expenditure. It also includes information on minimal contractual conditions, a what could go wrong with key control measures and basic hints to support the procurement process in an optimal way. - Simplifying and clarifying procedures and contractual conditions. Corrective measures include identification and recovery of ineligible expenditure, which also have an educational effect.  Could you inform us where the cases described in Box 9.5 of the ECA annual report (transport costs higher than the value of the supplies themselves, bridge construction completed in 64 months instead of 32 months) happened? Commission's answer: The bridge in question is the Zelzelj bridge in Serbia, the construction of which was indeed slowed due to unexpected delays in a parallel project implemented by the local authorities. Currently, all the activities related to construction of the Zezelj bridge financed by the EU have been completed. The railway traffic over the bridge has started in March 2018, while the road traffic began on 1 September 2018.  Did the revised terms of reference for expenditure verifications adopted in March contribute to improved performance of ex-ante checks? What is your experience so far? Commission's answer: The revised terms of reference for expenditure verifications are used for expenditure verifications contracted by beneficiaries of grant contracts, by contractors under service contracts and for expenditure verifications of grants and programme estimates under DG DEVCOs annual audit and verification plans. Having replaced three different sets of documents with one single and simplified set of documents, these new terms of reference shift the focus from the concept of "audit" to that of "expenditure verification". These bring the focus towards more factual elements as opposed to interpretations, which was the case before. The new reports will document the link between the identified risks and the selected sample and this information will simplify the reconciliation between reported amounts and the amounts recorded in accounting systems. As a result of this simplification exercise, we expect positive effects on the performance of the overall control system and a corresponding decrease of the errors rate. Effects stemming from expenditure verifications contracted by grant beneficiaries and service contractors will materialise over time, because the terms of reference are an integral part of the signed contracts. They will only be used under contracts signed following their integration in the contract templates. Expenditure verification reports based on the new terms of reference are expected to be received shortly.  African Peace facility EU financial support for the African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA) has had a poor effect and needs refocusing, according to a new special report from the European Court of Auditors. "The EU did not set clear priorities for its support to the APSA and the EUs strategy lacked a long-term vision", say the auditors. "During the audited period, the EU did not focus sufficiently on the transition away from paying salaries and towards capacity-building." The auditors found that implementation of EU support was affected by delays, incoherent use of financing instruments and insufficient information on results achieved. Could you provide us with a state of play concerning the follow-up actions the Commission is taking in order to improve the situation? Commission's answer: In a complex and difficult context as the African crises, the Commission is of the opinion that its aid has been instrumental in improving peace and security in Africa through its support to the African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA). In 2016, 75% of interventions by APSA actors in the context of violent conflicts across Africa were assessed as successful or partially successful in either de-escalating or preventing conflict. That same year, 86% of such interventions by APSA actors were considered to be of high or medium quality. Both figures come from the APSA Impact Report 2016 published by the Institute for Peace and Security Studies of the Addis Ababa University on 26 October 2017. All APSA pillars are operational. Since 2004, with the support of the African Union Commission, the African Union Peace and Security Council has taken over 500 decisions on a growing number of peace, security and governance issues. The Panel of the Wise regularly meets and fulfils his mandate related to conflict prevention. The Continental Early Warning System is in place and informs discussions of the AU Peace and Security Council. The African Standby Force strategic framework has been established and trainings have been delivered on that basis. As of May 2018, African Union Member States have contributed over USD 45.5 million to the Peace Fund the largest amount ever contributed since its establishment in 1993. These concrete impacts have also recently been confirmed by the external mid-term review of the APSA Support Programme III. The EU did set specific priorities for its support to the APSA. It is agreed by the Commission, the European External Action Service and the EU Member States that it is in the EU's specific interest to support African solutions to African peace and security problems in order to stabilise Africa. This is the core business of the APSA, which the EU is supporting. It is a long-term endeavour, for which results cannot be measured immediately. Operationally, the EU objective is to be reached through a clearly formulated strategy: the 2016-2020 APSA Roadmap. The implementation of this Roadmap is directly supported through a set of programmes, especially the ongoing third phase of the APSA Support Programme. Most of the contracting delays and retroactive financing are very often due to belated requests and insufficient information from the Organizations implementing EU's aid. Specific measures have already been put in place by the European Commission, including an increase of available human resources to manage programmes under the African Peace Facility. The African Union Commission has also taken measures in this regard by reinforcing in 2018 its Peace and Security Department's Programme Management Team, which is in charge of managing EU-funded capacity building programmes. Moreover, delays in contracting did not prevent the achievement of the main outputs in most of the cases. In parallel a particular effort has been made to increase coordination and complementarities between the African Peace Facility and the Regional Indicative Programmes. Moreover, the roles of the different instruments are well defined in their respective basic acts as well as in the guidance notes. The Commission would like to stress that the monitoring systems in place provided valuable qualitative information which already improved capacity building programme design, as recognized by the 2017 external evaluation of the African Peace Facility and the 2018 external mid-term review of APSA Support Programme III. The specific conclusions and recommendations on APSA-related matters contained in these evaluations will be taken into account for the drafting of the 2019-2020 Action Programme of the African Peace Facility and the formulation of the APSA IV programme. In the view of the Commission, the Special Report of the Court of Auditors insufficiently acknowledges the complex environment in which the APSA and the EUs support operate. However, it formulates recommendations which are already being implemented by the Commission. The first recommendation is to foster the African Union ownership of the APSA and to refocus EU support away from operational costs. The EU is supporting the African Union plan to achieve financial sustainability (Kaberuka plan), which has allowed the African Union Commission to increase its own resources. As a result, The African Union Member States share over the financing of African Union Commission operational costs has increased from 30% in 2016 to about 70% currently. Furthermore, in 2018 the EU support to the salaries of African Union Commission staff working on peace and security has decreased as compared to previous years. Although some salaries and other operational costs might still be financed under certain conditions, this trend will continue in 2019 with a view of phasing out the majority of EU's financing to basic operational costs by the end of 2020. The second recommendation of the Court is to make EU interventions more consistently results-based. The African Peace Facility Action Programme 2019-2020 that the Commission is preparing will take this into account. In particular, the Commission is currently identifying together with the African Union the next phase of the African Peace Facility APSA support programme, which will come on stream in the second half of 2019. Ongoing work is focusing on the identification of key results and appropriate indicators that will measure the achievements of the programme. The implementation of the programme will be subject to strengthened monitoring by both the Commission and the African Union Commission, including annual joint reviews.  Reservation regarding the African Union Commission (AUC) The AUC managed funds are involving a significant level of procurement during year 2017The funds concerned come from the Development Cooperation Instrument and the EDF. Payments made by DEVCO in 2017 in the context of the APF (EDF) and the PANAFRICAN Programme (DCI) in indirect management with the AUC correspond to EUR 7.2 million. DG DEVCO re-launched in 2015 an Institutional Assessment (pillar assessment) of the Implementing organisation. It concluded that three pillars (accounting, procurement and sub-delegation) out of the six assessed were not compliant. What is the problem at stake? Commission's answer: A reservation on the African Peace Facility was introduced by DG DEVCO in the 2015 Annual Activity Report following (1) the failed institutional assessment of the African Union Commission in 2015, (2) the fact that African Peace Facility allocations that mostly transit through the African Union Commission had doubled over a period of 10 years, and (3) an Internal Audit Service audit of the African Peace Facility which concluded that the control system put in place by DG DEVCO was not sufficient. The reservation was renewed in the 2016 Annual Activity Report due to the lack of substantial progress achieved by the African Union Commission. In 2017, the Commission made substantial progress in addressing the Internal Audit Services recommendations. It reinforced the monitoring of the African Union financial management systems, which resulted in a considerable reduction of the financial risks. 70% of African Peace Facility funds disbursed in 2017 concerned payments to troop contributing countries under the African Union Mission in Somalia, with only 1% of ineligible expenditures. The remaining problems are related to the adequacy of the procurement process managed by the African Union both under the African Peace Facility and the Pan-African programme. DG DEVCO therefore shifted the reservation from the overall African Peace Facility to African Union Commission-managed programmes that involve a significant level of procurement. This reduces considerably the funds potentially at risk which have been estimated at EUR 5.5 million, down from EUR 10.5 million in 2016. Progress has also continued in 2018. A preliminary external review concluded in March 2018 that the African Union Commission has put in place the reforms needed before a new institutional assessment could be launched. The Commission intends to launch the assessment in 2019.  ECA special report 4/2018 Myanmar/Burma In its Special Report No 4/2018 EU Assistance to Myanmar/Burma ECA identified shortcomings in the Commissions assessment o needs and in the implementation of EU assistance. In terms of needs assessment, the Commission did not sufficiently assess the geographical priorities within the country", the auditors say. Such prioritisation could have increased the impact of EU support. "Raising domestic government revenue did not figure in the priorities, although it is a key factor for the countrys development. Commission's answer: In line with the programming instructions, the 2014-2020 Multi-annual Indicative Programme allows for flexibility to address unforeseen needs of the most vulnerable communities in a context of a fragile state and situations of conflict and crisis, as in Myanmar/Burma. A peace process cannot be predicted and therefore, the Commission was not in a position to establish a geographical prioritisation in 2013-2014 for the entire programming period 2014-2020. This decision is taken on an annual basis, during the identification and formulation of Annual Action Plans, in order to accompany the dynamics of the peace process. To ensure cost effectiveness, the Commission makes use of relevant studies. There were earlier studies on the needs in Rakhine State, commissioned by either the EU or other donors which have been taken into account during the programming exercise. Overall, 10% of funding during the reporting period was allocated to Rakhine State, a reflexion of the clear and recognised geographical priority. Moreover, the choice of the peace process as one focal sector already implied a geographical prioritisation on conflict areas. Domestic revenue mobilisation was and is addressed in coordination with other donors through the multi-donor Public Financial Management Trust Fund administered by the World Bank, policy dialogue, support to Myanmar/Burma's participation in the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), and steps in the area of Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT).  Only half of the audited projects delivered the planned outputs, mainly because of implementation delays. Weaknesses were also noted in the quality of project indicators and project monitoring." Could the Commissioner give us more explanation about the causes of such situation and an update regarding the remedial actions taken? Commission's answer: While half of the projects audited have fully delivered the planned outputs, another 40% have partially achieved them, being still under implementation at the time of the audit. In the meantime several have recorded improvements on the achievement of results. The Commission is carrying out a strategic country evaluation on EU development cooperation in Myanmar/Burma in 2018 that will look into outcomes and sustainability. The Commission is giving higher attention to the monitoring of outputs and outcomes, and on communication and visibility. The Commission will remain very active in improving project management, regularly assessing the status of implementation and insisting on corrective action when needed. Towards a new policy of migration: general objective 2 of the AAR of DG DEVCO: To which extent the external dimension of the migration policy finds its origin in a defensive way to envisage the migration policy? Commission's answer: The external dimension of the EU migration policy is not based on a defensive approach. It is intertwined with the internal aspects of migration and an important part of the European Union external action. The EU has put in place a balanced and comprehensive migration policy based on the principles of solidarity and partnership. The European Agenda on Migration rests on a set of mutually reinforcing objectives which together offer a stable long-term framework to address both migration challenges and opportunities resulting from migration. There is a strong focus on saving lives, protecting asylum rights and protecting migrants along the route, dismantling smuggling and trafficking networks, fostering mobility through visa and border policies, enhanced and tailored cooperation with partner countries on legal migration, supporting legal pathways as well as addressing root causes of irregular migration. The EU has also stepped up cooperation with regional and international organisations in the spirit of effective multilateralism. Improved common migration and mobility management is to the benefit of all and contributes to overall stability and sustainable development.  To which extent the development policy could really has an impact on the migration phenomenon? Commission's answer: Development cooperation under the Commissions comprehensive approach to migration and displacement helps seize development opportunities and address challenges across the full range of these phenomena. The following examples illustrate results from EU and Member State activities under the EU Trust Fund for Africa. More information is available in the Trust Funds annual report. Since April 2017, the UN Migration Agency (IOM) and government authorities in Niger, notably the Direction Gnrale de la Protection Civile, have saved lives of more than 2 700 migrants through Search and Rescue operations in the desert funded by the EUTF. With the joint support of the EU and the IOM, more than 13 000 vulnerable and stranded migrants have been provided adequate protection measures and with a range of services such as food and temporary accommodation, health and psychosocial assistance, access to information, counselling and family tracing. In addition, to the 8 800 stranded migrants returned from Libya, more than 4 500 individuals could safely return to their home country from Niger since May 2017 and received post arrival assistance and reintegration upon their return. The EUR 50 million RE-INTEG: Enhancing Somalia's responsiveness to the management and reintegration of mixed migration flows programme assists Somali refugees returning home after years of exile in neighbouring Kenya. To support the most vulnerable and promote peaceful co-existence among beneficiaries, Internally Displaced Persons and members of the host communities are also benefitting from the programme which is implemented by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Thanks to RE-INTEG, over 73 000 Somali refugees have been able to fulfil their dream of returning home from Kenya. Addressing thus root causes of migration, development programmes also help build perspectives in partner countries. As an example, under the EUTF 13 400 people will be assisted in Mali to develop income generating activities and small agribusinesses through an innovative social business model approach called the OYE model. In Burkina Faso, the Ethical Fashion Initiative was launched in the outskirts of Ouagadougou with the opening of Pissy II, a newly renovated cotton weaving facility improving the quality of cotton thread and textile material produced by some 5 000 providers and allowing their social enterprise GABES to reinforce their commercial position with the international garment and textile market and the fashion industry. To which extent focussing the development policy on this reactive or defensive approach will deviate the development policy from its own purposes? Commission's answer: As set out above, the Commission pursues a comprehensive approach to migration and displacement. Development funding of operations in the area of migration is thus not a diversion from development goals. In the new European Consensus on Development, the EU Institutions and the Member States agreed to take a more coordinated, holistic and structured approach to migration, maximising the synergies and applying the necessary leverage by using all relevant EU policies, instruments and tools, including development and trade. This is in line with the UN 2030 Agenda and specifically target 10.7 of Sustainable Development Goal 10, namely to "facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through the implementation of planned and well-managed migration policies", and target 16.A of Sustainable Development Goal 16, namely to "Strengthen relevant national institutions, including through international cooperation, for building capacity at all levels, in particular in developing countries, to prevent violence and combat terrorism and crime."  EAMR In accordance with the financial regulation, the EAMR for 2017 (External Assistance and Management Report) must be published in annex of DG DEVCO AAR, with the exception of the confidential information; why does DG DEVCO continue to do the other way around since the EAMR is still transmitted under confidentiality to CONT secretariat? Commission's answer: DG DEVCO transmitted the External Assistance Management Report (EAMR) 2017 to the European Ϸվ and to the Council on 12.04.2018 (ARES (2018)1956828). These reports were transmitted in a transparent procedure without confidentiality constraints. They can be consulted by the Members and officials of the European Ϸվ Secretariat or officials of the Council Secretariat and the Court of Auditors. Nonetheless, the Commission insists that the widespread release of these reports to the press or the public at large could harm the relationship between our Delegations and the Authorities of our Partner Countries, and put implementing partners, or programme participants including those from civil society at risk. For the same reason, these reports are not annexed to the annual Activity Report of DG DEVCO published on the official website of the European Union (Europa). To be noted that in the annex of the DG NEAR AAR a lot of performance information are made public and that could be the basis of new EAMR annexed to the AAR. To which extent the data included in annex 11of the annexes of the DG NEAR AAR could become theskeleton of a new fully public EAMR? Commission's answer: DG DEVCO and DG NEAR AAR (DG NEAR - Annex 11 Analysis of Key Performance Indicators and DG DEVCO - Annex 10 Analysis of DG DEVCO KPIs for 2017) present the analysis of the key performance indicators that are monitored and reported upon at different levels in both DGs (Delegation, Directorate and Directorate-General level). This annex is public. The Key Performance Indicators are included in each EU Delegations External Assistance Management Report (EAMR) and each Authorising Officer by Sub-delegation (AOSD) report of directorates (EAMR-Headquarters reports) and in the AAR of the DG DEVCO and DG NEAR. This annex has as main purpose to give a full picture of the performance of the KPI at all assurance building levels of DG DEVCO and DG NEAR and to serve as a building block for the assurance signed by both Directors-General. The Commission does not see the need for this annex to substitute a future fully public EAMR as it already transmitted the 2017 EAMR reports to Ϸվ and Council under a transparent procedure with no confidential constraints. In this transparent transmission it was indicated that the reports can be consulted by the members or the civil servants of the European Ϸվ or the civil servants of the Council and the Court of Auditors. However, the European Ϸվ was informed that the release of the content of these reports to the press or the public at large could harm the diplomatic relationship between our Delegations and the Authorities of our Partner Countries, or could put implementing partners, or programme participants at risk.  Could you provide CONT committee with a copy of the DG DEVCO residual error rate study? Commission's answer: In pursuance of Annex II 3.2.1 of the inter-institutional Framework Agreement between the European Ϸվ and the European Commission, the Commission is ready to make available the requested documents for the purpose of the discharge procedure for 2017 through secured channels taking into account the protection of commercially sensitive information and the third party consent where required.  AAR 2017/annexes Page 10 and following of the Annexes to the DG DEVCO AAR for 2017 regarding the external communication activities: the presentation is a little bit confusing: only one objective; 2 indicators and within the second indicator a description of the outputs of the communication strategy. Could you provide the Ϸվ with an analysis in terms of impact? Commission's answer: The objective comprises two indicators to make the distinction between the extent to which Europeans see EU development cooperation in a positive light, and the percentage of them who are aware of what EU development cooperation does. The first indicator shows that the vast majority of Europeans continue to view EU development cooperation as worthwhile and beneficial. In a Eurobarometer survey on development aid in April 2017, almost 9 out of 10 respondents across the EU said it was important to help people in developing countries. At least three quarters of respondents in every Member State think this way. These results mirror the previous survey in 2015. It is worth highlighting also that the most recent Eurobarometer in 2018 revealed the same outcome: 9 out of 10 Europeans think that it is important to help people in developing countries. In addition, young people emerged as being particularly interested in development aid. This is especially encouraging. The second indicator is more specific because it involves assessing awareness among EU citizens of what EU development cooperation does. To do this, we need to look at the channels, activities and subject areas that people use and take an interest in and these necessarily tie in with our outputs. That is why outputs feature more prominently under the second indicator. DG DEVCO has nonetheless taken note of the comments by the CONT committee on presentation and will take a fresh look at how the presentation is structured, subject to any presentation constraints in the Annual Activity Report. As regards impact, on several occasions throughout the year DGDEVCOs online and offline communication efforts yielded very positive results. The new European Consensus on Development, the launch of the European External Investment Plan, the launch of the Spotlight Initiative to end violence against women and girls and the annual European Development Days (EDDs) were among the events that enjoyed widespread coverage. The Spotlight Initiative launch at UNGA received broad coverage across international newswires and European media outlets, including a UNTV interview with Commissioner Mimica. A video of the event was posted on the UN and Spotlight websites. Registration figures for the 11th EDDs in June were our highest ever and journalist attendance was up. Reaction was once again overwhelmingly positive, with 94% of respondents rating the event good or excellent. The opening ceremony was viewed live by more than 50000 users. And the event generated 31000 hashtag mentions overall. We made strong progress on digital communications in 2017. More visitors came to DGDEVCOs website, mainly thanks to our regular and engaging social media content. Our social media channels in particular experienced exceptional growth in 2017. The fan base was almost doubled on Facebook (to 216000) and on Twitter (to nearly 44000) and the fan base on Instagram increased by 300% (to nearly 12000). With the positive Eurobarometer results as a backdrop, in 2017 DGDEVCO launched a number of social media outreach campaigns to communicate with audiences and stakeholders. The launch of the new Consensus was the most successful, reaching 2million people, generating over a quarter of a million mentions of campaign hashtags, and attracting 40000 views of our first Facebook Live event with the Director-General. Furthermore, there was a particularly impressive response to DG DEVCO's worldwide Faces2Hearts blogging competition. Almost 500 applications were received, and the main video reached almost 2million people.  Is the annual communication spending of EUR 6,400,000 sufficient for the achievement of the objectives? Commission's answer: DG DEVCO constantly strives to do better and do more with the funds available. The extremely positive results in 2017, outlined in the previous question, certainly indicate a sizeable return on investment in communication spending. Whatever the size of the communication budget allocated, the aim will always be to provide full value for money.  Average payment times for 2017: there is 11, 73% of late payments; how do you evaluate the situation, how can you ameliorate the score? Commission's answer: In 2017, DG DEVCO took several measures to ensure that the contractual payment deadlines are respected. These measures include: (1) the introduction of two Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) on the registration of invoices within 7 calendar days and on the payment time within the contractual deadline (2) definition of reference times for each of the sub-phases of the payment workflow, in order to be able to measure performance and prevent delays for each step (3) the compulsory use by all services of a dedicated online dashboard which allows to identify and prevent late payments (d) the dissemination of clear instructions on how and when payments may be suspended in case some information or supporting documents are missing, incomplete, incorrect or require further clarification, (e) the enhancement of the paper-less procedure for payments. The results of these efforts were already visible during 2017. For the EU Budget operations, at the first quarter of 2017, 82.39% of the invoices were paid within their contractual deadline. At the end of 2017, this figure increased to 88.23%, i.e. above the 85% target. For all DEVCO operations (aggregate figure), in 2017 89.1% of the invoices were paid within the contractual deadlines in line with the Commission average of 89.9%. The respect of the contractual deadlines for payments remains a priority for DG DEVCO in 2018 and continues to be closely monitored in order to ensure that the positive trend in the performance of the DG is maintained.  Ageing balance of recovery orders at 31/12/2017 for DG AAR: there are recovery orders opened since 1997, 1999-2002, it seems that there is no evolution of the files. Why? What is the problem? Commission's answer: At 31/12/2017 there is one (1) recovery order open since 1997, one (1) since 1999 and one (1) since 2002. These 3 recovery orders have been issued but are still pending (not yet cashed or waived) because there is an ongoing legal procedure regarding the recovery of these amounts.  The performance reported in the 2017 AAR is based on a set of key performance indicators that were established in the Strategic Plan 2016-2020 of DG DEVCO. To which extend are those indicators connected to those used in the statements of operational programmes that we can find in Annex 1 to the Budget? Commission's answer: Key Performance Indicators reported in the AAR relate to the objectives defined in the Strategic Plan 2016-2020 of DG DEVCO in line with the objectives of the Commission. The indicators used in the statements of operational programmes presented in Annex 1 to the Budget are retrieved from the legal bases of the programmes defined in the current Multiannual Financial Framework. These two sets of indicators belong therefore to different performance frameworks but are interconnected. Both frameworks and the underpinning indicators are aligned to the political and operational priorities of Agenda for Changes and its successor European Consensus for Development.  What is the link between the EAMR and the key performance indicators we can find under Annex 11 of the 2017 AAR of DG NEAR? Commission's answer: The key performance indicators (KPIs) under Annex 11 of the 2017 AAR represent a summary of the key performance indicators included in each EU Delegation's EAMR and EAMR HQ reports (i.e. also including key performance indicators concerning funds managed at HQ). The analysis consists of KPI results at global DG NEAR level (Chapter I.1) and detailed level of Directorates (Chapter I.2). It allows the detection of trends and decision making on mitigating actions if required.  Miscellaneous Under the notional approach, when the Commissions and other donors contributions to multi-donor projects are pooled and are not earmarked for specific, identifiable items of expenditure, the Commission assumes that EU eligibility rules have been complied with as long as the total pooled amount includes sufficient eligible expenditure to cover the EUs contribution. Don't you think this approach is too flexible? Commission's answer: The notional approach has been developed to allow the European Union (EU) to participate in multi-donor actions, including Trust Funds. That approach guarantees that the legal requirements applicable to EU funding of external actions are met (by ensuring that, up to the amount of the EU contribution, sufficient expenditure respects the EU cost-eligibility requirements), while spending EU funds in the most efficient way (through donor coordination) and in accordance with the principles of sound financial management and aid effectiveness. Before deciding to participate in a multi-donor action in indirect management, the Commission assesses in advance the accounting, external audit, internal control, procurement, grant, ex post publicity, exclusion and personal data protection procedures of the fund-managing entity. During the implementation of the multi-donor action, the fund-managing entity is obliged to respect a rigorous reporting, both through financial and narrative reports. These reports allow a better monitoring of the action by the Commission. Prior to the 2018 revision of the Financial Regulation (FR)[1], the legal basis for the notional approach was laid down in Article 42(2) of the Rules of Application[2]. In the 2018 FR revision, the co-legislators reinforced the notional approach by the adoption of Article 155(5) FR which stipulates that in multi-donor actions, where the Union contribution reimburses expenditure, the procedure set out in paragraph 4 shall consist in verifying that an amount corresponding to that paid by the Commission for the action concerned has been used by the person or entity in accordance with the conditions laid down in the relevant grant, contribution or financing agreement. Therefore, the co-legislators decided not only to reconfirm the notional approach, but even to allow extending that notion also to grant agreements, while ensuring the respect for the EU cost-eligibility requirements. Beyond these requirements, the 2018 FR envisages even in its Article 125(1)(a) the possibility to determine, in appropriate cases, the EU financing on the basis of the achievement of results, thereby de-linking the EU financing from the costs incurred altogether.  In your view, do the legal provisions provide a broad scope for interpretation regarding the conditions governing budget-support payments to partner countries? Commission's answer: In the 2018 revision of the Financial Regulation (FR), the co-legislators reconfirmed the criteria for the use of budget support, by adopting Article 236(1), which allows to provide budget support where the following conditions are met: (a) the third countrys management of public finances is sufficiently transparent, reliable and effective; (b) the third country has put in place sufficiently credible and relevant sectoral or national policies; (c) the third country has put in place stability-oriented macroeconomic policies; (d) the third country has put in place sufficient and timely access to comprehensive and sound budgetary information. In pursuance of Article 236(4) FR, budget support is implemented in the form of contracts concluded between the EU and the beneficiary third Partner Country which include provision of funds, policy dialogue and technical assistance to partner countries in exchange for tangible development results and reforms and meeting specific targets and benchmarks. Within the framework of such financing agreements, budget support payments are disbursed only when disbursement conditions have been fulfilled. Budget support performance is strictly monitored on a regular basis on the level of individual operations as well as on country/global level. Regular reports provide information on the results achieved and depict the evolution of main indicators. EU Delegation and Headquarters verify each time and in a very rigorous manner if all eligibility criteria for payment are met before processing the payment. The assessment covers the relevant national policy, public finance reform (including domestic revenue mobilisation), macro-economic stability as well as transparency and oversight of the budget. The assessment of the eligibility criteria is based on the dynamic approach, looking at past and recent performance benchmarked against reform commitments, but allowing for shocks and corrective measures and refining objectives and targets if justified. As a result the Commission deems necessary to maintain the broad scope for analysis as a basis for the determination of satisfactory progress in each of the four eligibility criteria. This approach has demonstrated to offer a strong leverage for the Commission in the policy dialogue. In addition to the four eligibility criteria, a variable tranche is normally part of budget support programs to encourage the achievement of certain specific targets. Variable tranche indicators are assessed quantitatively and the analysis provides a percentage of the variable tranche which can be paid, depending on performance. The information for the assessment of payments is, on the one side, taken from the country's performance assessment framework (PAF) using country frameworks and country indicators. On the other side, assessments also require standard data, notably for public financial management, domestic revenue mobilisation and macro-economic assessments, which are listed in the guidelines for budget support. The aim is to have a complete and comprehensive picture of the situation, adapted to the country's circumstances, allowing rigorous analyses. The Commission produces yearly internal analyses on the trends and results of the budget support portfolio. This document is published under:  HYPERLINK "https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/budget-support-trends-and-results_en" https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/budget-support-trends-and-results_en and is sent to the European Ϸվ every year. The review of key results across EU budget support countries confirms that this group of countries overall continues broadly on the right track in terms of poverty reduction, as well as macroeconomic and fiscal management. A review of data comparing budget support with other developing countries shows a clear trend of faster poverty reduction, lower inequality, higher and less volatile economic growth, lower fiscal deficits and debt levels, higher levels of investments, stronger public financial management systems, more budgetary transparency, and a better control of corruption, which nevertheless remains a challenge. DG DEVCO is in the process of developing a new IT tool that will include modules for monitoring and reporting results and for supporting action appraisal and financing decision processes. The system should link projects to strategic planning. At what stage are you with the development of this new tool? Commission's answer: The new IT tool called OPSYS is intended to provide a unified system for handling data about actions, contracts and monitoring connecting projects data with strategic planning documents (MIPs and Action Documents) all along the project cycle. The IT tool is under development since mid-2017 in partnership with the Directorate-General for informatics (DIGIT), the Directorate-General for Neighbourhood and Enlargement (NEAR) and the Foreign Policy Instrument (FPI). The core tracks of the OPSYS programme are 1) Results & Monitoring, 2) Contracts & Procurement, 3) Programming, Actions & Decisions. Under Results & Monitoring, a first release on results encoding is already up and running since July 2018. By mid-2019, the IT tool also should cover the action appraisal activities and inject data to the existing decision making tools (namely VISTA/DECIDE for interservice consultation, comitology and commission decision) and link actions to ongoing programming documents. By mid-2020, OPSYS should fully replace the existing IT tools for the management of contracting modalities.  DG DEVCO's annual activity report reports comparative information on the performance of delegations in partner countries. Does this motivate those delegations to perform better? Commission's answer: Annex 10 of DG DEVCO (AAR) provides a detailed analysis of the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) allowing for performance comparison among the different EU Delegations. Since 2014, the overall Delegation performance has constantly improved. Out of a total of 86 delegations, the number of Delegations having more than 60% of green traffic lights for their KPIs has increased from 64 Delegations in 2014 to 82 Delegations in 2017. The improvement of the individual performance of each EU D!*CDJKLTWafgijz{| Ǿ펾zj]jNBNBh_ CJOJQJaJh_ h_ CJOJQJaJh_ 6CJOJQJaJh7lh7l6CJOJQJaJ'h"h7l6CJOJQJaJmH sH h}!h}!5CJ aJ h_ CJ aJ hggCJ aJ hFZhggCJ aJ hm9^5CJ aJ h}!5CJ aJ h_ 5CJ aJ hFZhgg5CJ aJ hgg5CJ aJ h7CJ aJ hPCJ aJ hs\hggCJ aJ !"DLhij{| " 1 M  & Fed^e`gd(~ed^e`gd(~ & Fed^e`gd(~$d^a$gd(~$Bd^B`a$gd(~$a$gd(~M e w mc dgd(~qkd $$Ifl  t0644 lahp yt(~ $$Ifa$gd(~ & Fed^e`gd(~  g p  KLSTlmpCºzvrvnvjcjvnvjv\c hXhi hXh h hNh9lhi hi5>*h_ CJOJQJaJh_ h_ CJOJQJaJh_ h_ 6h_ hXCJOJQJaJ h}hXh}hX>* hu7zhu7zjhs Uj(_ hs UVhu7zjhu7zU hu7z5>* hX5>*h}hX5>*"  }UW $$Ifa$gd(~ & Fd^`gd(~ed^e`gd(~ & Fed^e`gd(~gd(~CD+Z  OPƿ}yrynyyjynynybybyh+'BCJaJhhlh9l hhlhhlh+'B h+'B5>* hX5>*h}hX5>*h_ CJOJQJaJh_ h_ CJOJQJaJh_ hXCJOJQJaJ h}hXh}hX>*h}hi5hUhNh hi hXhi hXh hXh B* phI}%  occcccccc $$Ifa$gd(~ & Fd^`gd(~ dgd(~qkd $$Ifl  t0644 lahp yt(~ Q1GH!xc & Fd^`gd(~ dgd(~qkd $$Ifl  t0644 lahp yt(~ $$Ifa$gd(~ 01FGHAC!!####&######8%ǻ~zvnǻgXh29bh&CJOJQJaJ h&5>*h_ h_ 6h9lhXh4NjB* phI}hXh;B* phI} hXh; hXh4Njh4Nj h4Nj5>* hX5>*h}hX5>*h_ CJOJQJaJh_ h_ CJOJQJaJh_ hXCJOJQJaJ h}hXh}hX>*h}h+'B5hU,!!###&####xq\ & Fed^e`gd(~gd(~ dgd(~qkd. $$Ifl  t0644 lahp yt(~ $$Ifa$gd(~#9%s&t&u&&'mc\G & Fed^e`gd(~gd(~ dgd(~qkd $$Ifl  t0644 lahp yt(~ $$Ifa$gd(~$d$If^a$gd(~8%9%N&r&s&t&u&&'''''''',(<( ) )))R))))++++p+q+++ôuuiuiuuZ˴hbZ[h_YCJOJQJaJhrICJOJQJaJhh_YCJOJQJaJh_YCJOJQJaJ h_Y5>* hX5>*h}hX5>*h_ CJOJQJaJh_ h_ CJOJQJaJh_ h_ 6h_ hXCJOJQJaJ h}hXh}hX>* h29bh&h&h&CJOJQJaJ!'''''+++J@ dgd(~qkdF$$Ifl  t0644 lahp yt(~$ & Fd$Ifa$gd(~ $$Ifa$gd(~ & Fd^`gd(~ ed^egd(~+q+++---Xqkd$$Ifl  t0644 lahp yt(~$d$If^a$gd(~ $$Ifa$gd(~ & Fd^`gd(~+++ ,,,,,,0,:,,,------D.E.Z.[.\....//ެvj`YUQUMUh.phPih2 hX5>*h}hX5>*h_ CJOJQJaJh_ h_ CJOJQJaJh_ hXCJOJQJaJ h}h2h}h25>* h}hXh}hX>*hxfh2CJOJQJaJhTNh2CJOJQJaJhPfCJOJQJaJhDh2CJOJQJaJh2CJOJQJaJ h25>*---E.[.\. / /occcc $$Ifa$gd(~ & Fd^`gd(~ dgd(~qkd^$$Ifl  t0644 lahp yt(~/ / / / /S/o/p/t/|/ 1 11 1!13333444455?5I555555;8O8P8Žٮ|unjnfn_ٮ| h~rBh~rBh7Fh~rB h%|=h~rB h~rB5>*h}hX5>* hOhSo h!5X5>* hX5>* h6,5>*h_ CJOJQJaJh_ h_ CJOJQJaJh]Jh]J6 h]J6h_ hZP h_ h_ h_ hXCJOJQJaJ h}hXh}hX>*h}h25" / / /p/|/ 1 1!13yr]QQQ $$Ifa$gd(~ & Fed^e`gd(~gd(~ h^hgd(~ dgd(~qkd$$Ifl  t0644 lahp yt(~33344455|g[[[[ $$Ifa$gd(~ & Fed^e`gd(~ed^e`gd(~qkdv$$Ifl  t0644 lahp yt(~555;8P8Q8:|g[[[ $$Ifa$gd(~ & Fed^e`gd(~ed^e`gd(~qkd$$Ifl  t0644 lahp yt(~P8Q8:: : :e:z:{:|:a;b;c;d;e;;;$=8=9=g?h?AAAAAB3B4B5BBBBŻŎŻwha]V] h {vhzhz hz5>*h$h]JCJOJQJaJhXCJOJQJaJhSo hSo5>*h]JCJOJQJaJh}h2>*hX hYh]a h6,5>* hX5>*h}hX5>*h_ h_ CJOJQJaJh_ hXCJOJQJaJ h}hXh}hX>* hOhSo h25>*!: : :e:{:|:b;c;|g[[[[ $$Ifa$gd(~ & Fed^e`gd(~ed^e`gd(~qkd$$Ifl  t0644 lahp yt(~c;d;e;$=9=h?j?AA|g[[[[[ $$Ifa$gd(~ & Fed^e`gd(~ed^e`gd(~qkd$$Ifl  t0644 lahp yt(~AAAB4B5BDyaUUU $$Ifa$gd(~$ & Fed^e`a$gd(~$ed^e`a$gd(~qkd$$Ifl  t0644 lahp yt(~B.CPCrCCC3DDDDDDDD6E7ELEMENEEEEEEEEEGGGG.Gοεڌ|m^WP hB%h0Z h0Z5>*h_ h_ CJOJQJaJh_ h]JCJOJQJaJh]Jh_ 6CJOJQJaJh]Jh]J6CJOJQJaJ h&:h&:h&: h&:5>* hX5>*h}hX5>*h$h]JCJOJQJaJh]JCJOJQJaJhXCJOJQJaJ h}hXh}hX>*hz h {vhzDDD7EMENEEEyaUUUU $$Ifa$gd(~$ & Fed^e`a$gd(~$ed^e`a$gd(~qkd2$$Ifl  t0644 lahp yt(~EEEEEGGGZGykkVJJJ $$Ifa$gd(~ & Fed^e`gd(~ d^gd(~$ed^e`a$gd(~qkd$$Ifl  t0644 lahp yt(~.GGGXGYGZG[G\G]GIIIIKKKK@LBLDLFLHLJLPPPPRRHRRSTTX˼{okdok`dohX h4th.Sh4th.SCJOJQJaJh.Sh.Sh.SCJOJQJaJh.Sh.SCJOJQJaJ h.Sh.S h6,5>* h2O5>*h}hX5>*h_ h_ CJOJQJaJh_ hXCJOJQJaJ h}hXh}hX>*h}h0Z5hO>m hB%h0Zh0Z ZG[G\G]GIIIKKp[K$$If^a$gd(~ & Fed^e`gd(~ed^e`gd(~qkdJ$$Ifl  t0644 lahp yt(~ $$Ifa$gd(~KBLFLORTDWX|Y~YYWqkd$$Ifl  t0644 lahp yt(~ $Ifgd(~$d$If[$a$gd(~$$If^a$gd(~ $$Ifa$gd(~ XXzY|Y~YYYZZZZT\U\V\W\X\]]]] ^#^"_u_w__m```PbQbôôpdpXpXpQMQMha hq hQFqha CJOJQJaJhQFqCJOJQJaJhq hQFqCJOJQJaJ h6,5>* hQFq5>*h}hqV5 hahqV hqV5>* hX5>*h}hX5>*h_ h_ CJOJQJaJh_ hXCJOJQJaJ h}hXh}hX>*h}h2O5 h.Sh.Sh.SCJOJQJaJmH sH YYZZZU\V\W\X\]][qkdb$$Ifl  t0644 lahp yt(~ $$Ifa$gd(~ & Fed^e`gd(~ed^e`gd(~ ]]Q^m`bbbbbm_Med^e`gd(~ d^gd(~qkd$$Ifl  t0644 lahp yt(~$d$If^a$gd(~ $$Ifa$gd(~Qbbbbbbbbbeeeee(f6f;ffff hhoouqqrrrrtŸũyj^jyOjyjyjyjyjyjh_ h4WCJOJQJaJhW,CJOJQJaJhwh4WCJOJQJaJh4WCJOJQJaJ h6,5>* h4W5>*h}hX5>*h_ CJOJQJaJh_ h_ CJOJQJaJh_ 6CJOJQJaJh]Jh]J6CJOJQJaJhX6CJOJQJaJ h}hXh}hX>*h}hQFq5 hq hQFqbbccNeOeeeehklnuqrtuZy$d$If^a$gd(~ $$Ifa$gd(~ ed^egd(~d^`gd(~ & Fed^e`gd(~ed^e`gd(~ttZy9|:|;|<|=|}}~~~~~./012Yȼ}qmimbȼN'h]Jh]J6CJOJQJaJmHsH hshsh1"hshsCJOJQJaJ hs5>* hX5>*h}hX5>*h'ACJOJQJaJh3rCJOJQJaJh'Ah'ACJOJQJaJhXCJOJQJaJ h}hXh}hX>* h4Wh4W hGh4WhGh4WCJOJQJaJh4WCJOJQJaJZy:|;|<|=|w|x|!}"}p[pMM ed^egd(~ & Fed^e`gd(~ed^e`gd(~qkdz$$Ifl  t0644 lahp yt(~ $$Ifa$gd(~"}}}9~:~~~~~~p/0$d$If^a$gd(~ $$Ifa$gd(~d^`gd(~ed^e`gd(~ ed^egd(~ 012Z[_uv|nnYMM $$Ifa$gd(~ & Fed^e`gd(~ d^gd(~ed^e`gd(~qkd$$Ifl  t0644 lahp yt(~YZ[ ^_tuvЈۈ܈@AYZƊNJ()lm23Wɺɮ|||||||||||u||||| hhAhFhFCJOJQJaJhhAhFCJOJQJaJ hJ>*h}hJ5h}hJ5>*h_ CJOJQJaJh_ hF;CJOJQJaJh_ h_ CJOJQJaJ$h]Jh]JCJOJQJaJmHsH'h]Jh_ 6CJOJQJaJmHsH,WX jklmnOˏ̏͏Ώ+,ѐҐ»{vg[g[g[hD[bCJOJQJaJhhAhD[bCJOJQJaJ hJ>*h}hJ5 h6,5>*h}hJ5>*h#CJOJQJaJh'Ah_ CJOJQJaJhJCJOJQJaJ h}hJh}hF>*hY,hFCJOJQJaJhFCJOJQJaJhhAhFCJOJQJaJh1BHCJOJQJaJ#vlmn͏ΏygRFF $$Ifa$gd(~ & Fed^e`gd(~ed^e`gd(~qkd$$Ifl  t0644 lahp yt(~$d$If^a$gd(~Ґ01wxΒSst9ʺvvoh\MAh5PJ^JnH tH hXhXPJ^JnH tH hXPJ^JnH tH  hJ5>* h6,5>*h$h$CJOJQJaJhw`CJOJQJaJhn@CJOJQJaJhn@h$6CJOJQJaJh]J6CJOJQJaJhn@h]J6CJOJQJaJhJCJOJQJaJ h}hJh}hD[b>*hD[bCJOJQJaJhhAhD[bCJOJQJaJt+,}}}eYYYYY $$Ifa$gd(~$ & Fed^e`a$gd(~$d^a$gd(~qkd$$Ifl  t0644 lahp yt(~ 9GW*+,-./l48KMPQ0278؟rfWfrfrfWfrfrP h@h}!h=h=PJ^JnH tH h=PJ^JnH tH h]h]PJ^JnH tH  h6,>* hJ5>*h}hJ5>*h$h$CJOJQJaJhw`CJOJQJaJh$hJCJOJQJaJ h}hJh}hJ>*h}hX5hXhXPJnH tH h5PJ^JnH tH hXhXPJ^JnH tH ,-."@yaUUGGG$$Ifa$gd(~ $$Ifa$gd(~$ & Fed^e`a$gd(~$ed^e`a$gd(~qkd$$Ifl  t0644 lahp yt(~؟ *+?@AУӣBOSWNĥjȼ{sgWhn@hn@6CJOJQJaJhJCJOJQJaJh}h8C>*hJ h_h8Chm hh8Ch8C h8C5>* hJ5>*h}hJ5>*h$h$CJOJQJaJhw`CJOJQJaJh$hJCJOJQJaJ h}hJh}h]>*h]h]PJnH tH h@h]PJnH tH  +@AmU$ & Fed^e`a$gd(~$ed^e`a$gd(~qkd6$$Ifl  t0644 lahp yt(~ $$Ifa$gd(~ި}}}eYY $$Ifa$gd(~$ & Fed^e`a$gd(~$d^a$gd(~qkd$$Ifl  t0644 lahp yt(~ħǧ?akݨި©̩ө#?KNWXgsǪfi« Ծ}yryryryryryry hNh$Th5h* hJ5>*h}hJ5>*h#CJOJQJaJh$h$CJOJQJaJhn@CJOJQJaJhn@h$6CJOJQJaJ,jkl mX@$ & Fed^e`a$gd(~$ed^e`a$gd(~qkdN$$Ifl  t0644 lahp yt(~ $$Ifa$gd(~$d$If^a$gd(~ijkl 8[]muvǮ֮׮<?ȼqeqeqeqYqhUCJOJQJaJhypCJOJQJaJhhDxCJOJQJaJ hDx5>* hJ5>*h}hJ5>*h*CJOJQJaJhn@CJOJQJaJhZPCJOJQJaJh$CJOJQJaJh$h$CJOJQJaJh$hJCJOJQJaJ h}hJh}hJ>*h5 hNh$T \qkd$$Ifl  t0644 lahp yt(~$d$If^a$gd(~ $$Ifa$gd(~$ed^ea$gd(~ ͯد +,1>STUʻwkwkwkwkwkwaZS hM5>* hJ5>*h}hJ5>*h*CJOJQJaJhn@CJOJQJaJh$hJCJOJQJaJ h}hJh}hJ>* hDxhDx hhDxhypCJOJQJaJhhDxCJOJQJaJhjICJOJQJaJhhMsiCJOJQJaJhMsiCJOJQJaJhjIhjICJOJQJaJ>TUGqkdf$$Ifl  t0644 lahp yt(~$$Ifa$gd.H $$Ifa$gd(~$ & Fed^e`a$gd(~$ed^e`a$gd(~U)0;[\qrs9@X_*+36ɺ @Aξsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdh4hZcCJOJQJaJhZcCJOJQJaJ hZc5>* hJ5>*h}hJ5>*h'ACJOJQJaJh*h]JCJOJQJaJh]JCJOJQJaJh*h]J6CJOJQJaJhJ6CJOJQJaJ h}hJh}hJ>*h.Hh.HPJh.Hh.HPJnH tH '\rs_AA3$d$If^a$gd(~ $$Ifa$gd(~$ & Fed^e`a$gd(~$d^a$gd(~ d^gd(~AEVYflmy}~¼üQ~ֽ '),>@OZirw1RT'GbcwhE+hZcCJOJQJaJha hZcCJH*OJQJaJh$hZcCJOJQJaJhc]CJOJQJaJh4hZcCJOJQJaJhZcCJOJQJaJC&*@Yvy)XY"(>bmop}uvÿÿøÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿøÿÿìh}hJ>*h}hZc5hc] h{+hZchZc h4hZch4hc]CJOJQJaJhc]CJOJQJaJhZcCJOJQJaJh4hZcCJOJQJaJ>ayaUU@U$d$If^a$gd(~ $$Ifa$gd(~$ & Fed^e`a$gd(~$ed^e`a$gd(~qkd$$Ifl  t0644 lahp yt(~"#HU}),15=@_`abcdžyqžj hDx5>*h}hJ>*h}h{5 h4h{h~nh{h{CJOJQJaJh4h{CJOJQJaJh~nCJOJQJaJ h{5>* hJ5>*h}hJ5>*h]JCJOJQJaJh*h]JCJOJQJaJh*hJCJOJQJaJ h}hJ'abcd[mU@$d$If^a$gd(~$ & Fed^e`a$gd(~$ed^e`a$gd(~qkd~$$Ifl  t0644 lahp yt(~ $$Ifa$gd(~RS#&OY]_8tz$%&Ǹ}xpǸah*h}YCJOJQJaJh}hDx>* hJ\h8hDx\ hDx5>* hJ5>*h}hJ5>*h*h]JCJOJQJaJh]JCJOJQJaJh*hJCJOJQJaJ h}hJh}hJ>*h}hDx5 h8hDxhL6CJOJQJaJh8hDxCJOJQJaJ%[mX@$ & Fed^e`a$gd(~$ed^e`a$gd(~qkd $$Ifl  t0644 lahp yt(~ $$Ifa$gd(~$d$If^a$gd(~{iQ@$ed^ea$gd(~$ & Fed^e`a$gd(~$ )ed^e`a$gd(~qkd$$Ifl  t0644 lahp yt(~ $$Ifa$gd(~%&mX$ed^e`a$gd(~qkd"$$Ifl  t0644 lahp yt(~$d$If^a$gd(~ $$Ifa$gd(~&3>?@UVW23456Dgĵ~z~reUNFh mH sH  hVC5>*h]Jh]J6CJOJQJaJhJ6CJOJQJaJh}h^ X5hUh^ X h^ X5>* hJ5>*h}hJ5>*h_ h]JCJOJQJaJh]JCJOJQJaJh*h]JCJOJQJaJh*hJCJOJQJaJ h}hJh}hJ>*h}hDx5 h~_hDxh~_hDxCJOJQJaJ@VW3456DEj\\\ d^gd(~qkd$$Ifl  t0644 lahp yt(~ $$Ifa$gd(~$ & Fed^e`a$gd(~ E+, $Ifgd(~ $$Ifa$gd(~ & Fed^e`gd(~ gj^Zopqs[\ LXcdpɺymyyayQEh8CJOJQJaJjh8CJOJQJUaJh CJOJQJaJh8CJOJQJaJhkh8CJOJQJaJh*CJOJQJaJ hJ>*h}hJ5h}hJ5>*h_ h]JCJOJQJaJh_ hJCJOJQJaJ h}hJh}hJ>*h}hVC5hVCh 6]mH sH h mH sH huIh H*Zpq^6|g[[FFF$d$If^a$gd(~ $$Ifa$gd(~ & Fed^e`gd(~ed^e`gd(~qkd:$$Ifl  t0644 lahp yt(~6Niyged^e`gd(~qkd$$Ifl  t0644 lahp yt(~$d$If^a$gd(~ p"'嵩qg`YJ>h1ACJOJQJaJhdONh@CJOJQJaJ h@5>* hJ5>*h}hJ5>*h_ h]JCJOJQJaJh_ hJCJOJQJaJ h}hJ h8h8h8CJOJQJaJh*TCJOJQJaJhkh8CJOJQJaJ hU1h80JCJOJQJaJjh8CJOJQJUaJh8CJOJQJaJhkh8CJOJQJaJ$%&'XFed^e`gd(~qkdR $$Ifl  t0644 lahp yt(~$d$If^a$gd(~ $$Ifa$gd(~ & Fed^e`gd(~ :W#$%&'( JQuz~nanananTnTnhuCJOJQJ\aJhcfCJOJQJ\aJh8hG?wCJOJQJ\aJ hG?w5>* hJ5>*h}hJ5>*h_ h]JCJOJQJaJh'ACJOJQJaJh_ hJCJOJQJaJ h}hJh}hJ>* h@h@h@h1A hdONh@hdONh@CJOJQJaJh@CJOJQJaJ'kf\]^Xqkd $$Ifl  t0644 lahp yt(~$d$If^a$gd(~ $$Ifa$gd(~ & Fed^e`gd(~ mt!$[\]^_efij)*-JKLNOQRӾ|uq`|q\T\T\Tjh0Uh0 h h OJPJQJnH tH h huIh huIh 0Jh$hJCJOJQJaJhJCJOJQJaJh_ hJCJOJQJaJ h}hJh}hJ>*h}hG?w5huCJOJQJ\aJh8hG?wCJOJQJ\aJUhcfCJOJQJ\aJhUCJOJQJ\aJ elegation is driven by the fact that the Key Performance Indicators are one of the main building blocks supporting the Statement of Assurance signed by each Head of Delegation. The more each Head of Delegation is able to rely on positive Key Performance Indicators, the more he will be in the position to provide a strongly substantiated statement of assurance. A regular monitoring throughout the year of the Key Performance Indicators values via the online tools (Key Performance Indicators Dashboard available on DEVCO intranet) allows each EU Delegation to take timely measures to improve their performance. Lastly, campaigns are regularly launched from Headquarters with the objective to improve the result of specific KPIs (i.e. reduction of the old 'reste liquider', old pre-financings)with an overall aim of performance improvement at all levels.  * * * [1] Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Ϸվ and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 OJ L 193 of 30.07.2018, p.1; [2] Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Ϸվ and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union OJ L 362 of 31.12.2012, p. 1;     PAGE  PAGE 24 ^_`f*JKMNPQSTVW`abnop &`#$gdgggdXXgd $d^a$gd(~$d^a$gd(~ed^e`gd(~RTUWX^_`bcijlmnpqrh$hJCJOJQJaJhs 0JmHnHuh0X h0X0Jjh0X0JUjh0Uh0pqr$d^a$gd(~,1h. A!"#$%  Dd b  c $A? ?3"`?" KE3ZL\ D^@= KE3ZL\dgBP v xXyXUԜIƙg1Qd1ʲi1A /IҤ K"₂l*#$"{.;&˽νi?:rw=7H4q1$ mM}N}]VxԴ;ysuU&ܢilԧ|̅h 2-baiG[z-c>;M)s9g"lr!`a/۸woBfRvo>X2{:|^3zg37QFnY(JNĢ$y'*nAubM FըMXO1 D-Ѻc!Z#=|>ڷycu؋2tSOw( kPsCu U0TP}Y. }yA%g= =_\*FA%T[btSVtU* (σ,Rё4o70-0*\< ߀/Pu( F5H'A_C`(=pGǥDZu0ԡ0nSCTSj;cCυO{UKem4F":&ˇS[#W_ADmku^.c9{VΩPk;Oݷ:ZP|$ WB!:65PآLngsՌB?'cs&$%\2F]רafjoV:ָȋLcԢy9Z,9oՎca/kSW.bD-b +QM?H0.$gk/a SjOٷ.߉ңǑ&Ej\0u4)dX5֟DCIr9mdPO')\dםGfYלAj1$W&`yʣUK#t!W[ qaSABZ!5sf m}?-3>V,H[ 7yz nPrTbF? b !ASjNςx`$1؛wcRhάۉ6&aT:*O:U\0/Tݒd8ڟ?dګ>9Ϫ v=27FeJ2ݥu=0eϫhhTŽ> P Z1`?w7,t\@s^ѣGkydԴ׷54%V_HLJLO> X%F);U XrGwc<}E v_mJsx-H׽zV bä/ g`†9{k1 b"\yc~,>[/}?5VmH}-/.G3#XXK7y$BF^%2(QF'_db]T(-Cċ26E6[-|L7aRw?pq0R[u%R*xnym2]5'sj Öɧ-ci2/{Ț#s\a/Y|c7yfo>׍i\R_~翹*\#;x@m${8=w،)ړkox 6V!YgIr/n wrNb:q ams9p#E7{fGű7N樹rd~W-Ay뜵9! omf?祽ksWiK۟rVXb]3cpM rgoKEL#ByB$MMԚ >!SDr1Oϸ#^O㕿Nf>Wq_THG2}#jw|Sm9iKoxSӆ{B !Xh@$$Ifh!vh#v:V l t065ahp yt(~$$Ifh!vh#v:V l t065ahp yt(~$$Ifh!vh#v:V l t065ahp yt(~$$Ifh!vh#v:V l t065ahp yt(~$$Ifh!vh#v:V l t065ahp yt(~$$Ifh!vh#v:V l t065ahp yt(~$$Ifh!vh#v:V l t065ahp yt(~$$Ifh!vh#v:V l t065ahp yt(~$$Ifh!v  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry  F0huData j!WordDocument .ObjectPool 0eu0hu_16030209770F0eu0euOle :Package2CompObjk  "*F! _1601982296 0FMicrosoft Excel Worksheet ExcelML12Excel.Sheet.129q@ Oh+'0 $ D P \ ht|$2011 Discharge to the CommissionPK!ln~[Content_Types].xml (Un0W?DV@[$x my ߉YTU,B KĞNoQg3J";m$_ƓHժt2Mg W[DA䟥ļJa*,񲹱<*w@J ]7L(o^0hriA5JWkY U5̝0iB]r!9G 9pٱy0Ьjƭ/,}ƒ:=}H9EbAwk}m PK!v&pxl/worksheets/sheet2.xmlMo0 i @m$aӴ{H6$ s&q'c~-eFqrVam3-er~MG @`D>M\0'؁ BW 9e_dZ1IaDkXUZ΀ 'V7ͨkpF)4!6C93j-:iIa|/ ʡ*$A/5L=;Fˆ7ig\焋"+50UΟ/Ѱ,AƇu4U+6|t2}Jyy\WW$RIN*]g-T}#gI:b#!7!jy 䎳 1 A?PK!=7oxl/worksheets/sheet3.xmlMo0 i 1P[4 q4Rh* "$.~ohs>*,Hufhc‰Ӡךgb&TdeÛ43sEEK*xhg} núySUڕP]>n>!ղ޼<.++at)$j'kxֳ>kʙ;a҄X;%C@sr4sV!sPK!%xl/worksheets/sheet1.xmlXm6^Blvzҵ} %$MwEbf{yOF@r7ߗ`д~ʽu|$ضm5l JuYi _ͰjR("E/(<ӟւzpfWMVd/+Ew.o`Pd/}Yw;Ӭ6_<˦\! AmVC5k=/i{"$NǫC jhI(AZu;׻*O[wey_@($Q[7md Qp)paA`JӇ][7Nā8oY78NRYP@|Q1 LglE]8?ʁKŮD*[zX r%v*2'_#il6@eDi(D>x&:ĹǤLᤱY䖩90ײϱ(N1⦆SΜ!ό($;y'ԾL2X^$.Xa 43A-sr<+v;tH׀1@8]D&a7ouVCբ#$tILQ=Fxu"dxk/)r덹h/e_sČfhnn=k*z^~h.e*yWp}¥> l/ Ti'sE1^*NpSYٷn/PK!xl/theme/theme1.xmlYn7;{O,ْcK6qbJ˘\݊X@Ѵ@o=m$@/ӸMѦ@^Cr%ۉlq83ܫd !)ϛQr%B$I3^ZT8`sҌDF6*^W)\(UX_Z1 cy$gC.2H܌--W*Kyr! iDx\I=3Eo!Dz:Ĭ:~#T 46.rS :槜WN,5Eҟ.ZW y\iwSyvjuqeֺkDe+J;WtnZz 5 6_6=Y|}_km۫ހ,~u߽XxJڡn)} r|Rg(it%勱B£|@̓;~ųgܺڳE2ƌܔnp< 0h UN"e$t?Uӂ&HTp 609!۴ {өucCbvxUbL皘~xЊpVbUB[ )z[n|85ZXy aFE/}.)Gz>'MbeF95طX,Nr-Xn⽷ҤٞyItd,GGͨQ_G(E3B .uYwU6OMf3o6aYk {= ס P !6|r.νP38;YnuN2MOu0߬F=[PwoŤm Vy+nF:_*BEJ㮀k5-p= !~P9ge>S J!@K&NV-.+LD9ª'4=B)a d 'V>6[XvkCQ}ksv\?Q[5.+ٗ%@=V>ly /i؇`ҢlRV^F yYNׅ,}Jƞgr^.嵲>8Ƞ-ܹ<\tAaqj\mF|&٥u7-K*F 0!R`aϼoxla-nޥeSKS^ur[BKrn*h!CO@hG;U@ei{itKk4T\GVkk,XOmL&KU[7%fe p!J^!f7;zj4 ,7^fZj="k̊,C2MetͲVA6Fa.dmʉBq!`ٚ2PhFAWl1fPd;˕v χ}ؒM2_PK!bt@ xl/styles.xmlY[o8~_iCJ4  ;@#4;]iVLPkMLf} iJm;[I狔Y$/(䝺"YcMUhwUŘhI t>~!\",bs"!).Nd$y SrBnJpݶb!-Fu82OgX eT,,dQ490Z8^;oT';4yq B$4"wv${$w܆&>g455']ۿ'(Ϝɶâ9;{%⇂ʠlIkGg-0I<8T3N^1ŒNr*%8lrB\.r'9t0Vll y*ﯖ3p 6Zwi^ïtd+%L9dA >!Ĥݥ)&\HZ"&iU Zd7SC=PQjdih~MC8Y]#id?9YW^w!3*K<| ҧy:!yZp 4Vt-Q0ݧr5dz+. C `tyK^NOSlxdNlzm?/cV# źGWOѢ*0nL<~1=M.K/F檍H-@( m:-˔`i`P'xAyEh+x Em-(Ɔo cʉ\g̺^\&2,%/DtD ~F:cH!e &5tf g&pq/قij{gٸnk۰fUU_rWP Nfsޤ;]̆˔Իޒ}/lJSfm%A2|pOlAsNBxxUPK!R7 +'xl/printerSettings/printerSettings1.binO@ǿ]PPxDA%ۦ*!\vҩ.Apo͐/&鲈ğ 37>7"< \I:(SF qSG4afuk\ a`%%:V! .D6)f6[WW9=zև'ŮUǚ;@سGS592^,lb0D BFҘdOØ'u*'7H|&Jk6 , $R"%'H'I*ILخVL F8-߆+2w&T2!CL$%<=;9T JHTOV-fDXN))`E&&˅ZSvH) +L*F˃$ TH֮ZX BPBՓ`)aJ7Ji\*6kRhmF+s!:i,6NJwfb_=Jг8vgzʎ33_uYփv˷fw;^= o[Z38 g'ɉxMzydFL 0&`L 0&p χvCEtXfٓ\hSk )ESDy Z:bmni<{~΋ RlH}^`L 0&G|PK!^EudocProps/app.xml (Mk1EXkDŽb Iɡ;YzEЌ.vmsm4̇EwJVӾ6n_ݗO@RV; ˏ& `,V% +Q)%%Sq} ^:peyHjoŐ״:CF+J]oFG >Eۂ>DC'Y >}VX6"O6DU|,Jc[B8U4Qecm@򇏯 NkYPl0$qg~o6*?Saqo>廐Ⱘ0ÄڷɴbϢj+>P]'ŶUJ/ m6Y>-{2$'PK-!ln~[Content_Types].xmlPK-!U0#L _rels/.relsPK-![ axl/_rels/workbook.xml.relsPK-!u' xl/workbook.xmlPK-!o xl/worksheets/sheet4.xmlPK-!;m2KB# xl/worksheets/_rels/sheet1.xml.relsPK-!v&p xl/worksheets/sheet2.xmlPK-!=7odxl/worksheets/sheet3.xmlPK-!% xl/worksheets/sheet1.xmlPK-!Wxl/theme/theme1.xmlPK-!=XP7xl/sharedStrings.xmlPK-!bt@ xl/styles.xmlPK-! m}%docProps/core.xmlPK-!R7 +'d(xl/printerSettings/printerSettings1.binPK-!^Eu+docProps/app.xmlPK.ObjInfo1Table @SummaryInformation( DocumentSummaryInformation8 d+     !"#$%&'()*h#v:V l t065ahp yt(~$$Ifh!vh#v:V l t065ahp yt(~$$Ifh!vh#v:V l t065ahp yt(~$$Ifh!vh#v:V l t065ahp yt(~$$Ifh!vh#v:V l t065ahp yt(~$$Ifh!vh#v:V l t065ahp yt(~$$Ifh!vh#v:V l t065ahp yt(~$$Ifh!vh#v:V l t065ahp yt(~$$Ifh!vh#v:V l t065ahp yt(~$$Ifh!vh#v:V l t065ahp yt(~$$Ifh!vh#v:V l t065ahp yt(~$$Ifh!vh#v:V l t065ahp yt(~$$Ifh!vh#v:V l t065ahp yt(~$$Ifh!vh#v:V l t065ahp yt(~$$Ifh!vh#v:V l t065ahp yt(~$$Ifh!vh#v:V l t065ahp yt(~$$Ifh!vh#v:V l t065ahp yt(~$$Ifh!vh#v:V l t065ahp yt(~$$Ifh!vh#v:V l t065ahp yt(~$$Ifh!vh#v:V l t065ahp yt(~$$Ifh!vh#v:V l t065ahp yt(~$$Ifh!vh#v:V l t065ahp yt(~$$Ifh!vh#v:V l t065ahp yt(~$$Ifh!vh#v:V l t065ahp yt(~$$Ifh!vh#v:V l t065ahp yt(~$$Ifh!vh#v:V l t065ahp yt(~$$Ifh!vh#v:V l t065ahp yt(~$$Ifh!vh#v:V l t065ahp yt(~$$Ifh!vh#v:V l t065ahp yt(~$$Ifh!vh#v:V l t065ahp yt(~$$Ifh!vh#v:V l t065ahp yt(~$$Ifh!vh#v:V l t065ahp yt(~szammitnormalCONINCKX Catherine3Microsoft Office Word@Ik@F*j@Tu@49u# ՜.+,D՜.+,\ hp  European Ϸվy# !2011 Discharge to the Commission Title 8@ _PID_HLINKSA])Dhttps://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/budget-support-trends-and-results_en   F Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89qs002 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@_HmH nH sH tH @`@ 8tsNormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DA`D Default Paragraph FontRi@R  Table Normal4 l4a (k (No List : @: ggFooter$ 9r a$.)@. gg Page NumberHH $ Balloon TextCJOJQJ^JaJ>@"> i0 Footnote TextCJaJ@&`1@ i0Footnote ReferenceH*L/AL 9$0Footnote Text Char_HmH sH tH :U`Q: 9$ Hyperlink>*B*^Jphj@bj ? List Paragraphd^m$CJOJPJQJ^JaJtH BrB _  No Spacing$a$ PJaJ tH B' B 9lComment ReferenceCJaJ<< 9l Comment TextCJaJ:: 9lComment Text Char@j@ 9lComment Subject5\F/F 9lComment Subject Char5\PK![Content_Types].xmlN0EH-J@%ǎǢ|ș$زULTB l,3;rØJB+$G]7O٭Vc:E3v@P~Ds |w< - %%%( C8%+/P8B.GXQbtYWҐ9؟UA&gpRr}M !#'+- /35:c;ADEZGKY]bZy"}0v, a[E6'^pr~V:X !(!!8@0(  B S  ? _1601982296@mszJPlr\C_C2L9L MMh&hww ’ǒƞҞB-25=,3x +3333333"DK 1F&uq##E&Z& '{' )!)h7j7==??SAAKLaNvNT2TSww+ф;PBCEW /D7KiiKT FFC##Z&Z&{'{'))++,,O0O022z2{2858599993:3:L=L=??AALLvNwNHWIWEpEpyy))55PP)BDDΨΨcc^^?CZZWXX:DDDKK25WZy} 4W~77j- ^`hH. ^`hH. pL^p`LhH. @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PL^P`LhH.h ^`hH.^`CJOJPJQJ^Jo(h pL^p`LhH.h @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PL^P`LhH.h,^,`OJQJo(hH-h^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh ^ `OJQJo(hHh ^ `OJQJo(hHhl^l`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh<^<`OJQJo(hHh ^ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHy} W~77          l       <        @ @ @ @ @@ @5+A$8:]R ;jnaSKf:7 A t87  #_S[%E("+'g0jE1NF326G?8DE9;<g6'Al=ACaBa2{EXGoCHL pL|1Q+R&_ `)EaI&c'dfeKigk6 mNmur#r 'w>,xf|(s=}a`"2"I_T`%.&33Htvis,OXLX&=l52ORjhp8z} _ E Rp u | D ]S t z L U  k$3NdaDx]VZ7l$r* n6?EW.s$t 4 >SV"$$$A9Gs)8O u| u &!25!}!z "#,#$9$G$ d$*z$X}$8%B%4W&'')'(Q(p(J)**=&* x+,6,`:,C-T-9[-//0,0A123l3k(505.K6L6x6{6f7\7`7m7B{78>8[29d9u9 :Z:; ;+;rx;X<1=Y>?V?'AtB+'B~rB8 C8CCRCVCDID1DIDwE2xEF^F1BH(IjIrIIFJNJ:WL_L,~MN2NpNVOPZPl[Pj{P)Q~.QtS.۱yϹ"148ٲ4v3Ѷٱ6@G  7#>7FY#`ycs]3J O:Xl4WWZoE8o=ejF&ZQR;n@Qce1Ax>OTbC?T|{2/JZcLt{U2qkK^v\*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags@|DEFGHI]J]K6@L@PRT@X@(@UnknownG.[x Times New Roman5Symbol3. .Cx Arial7.*{$ Calibri5. .[`)Tahoma?= .Cx Courier New;WingdingsA$BCambria Math"1h3kG3kGOjG#y#y!4## Bq HX ?gg2!xx  2011 Discharge to the CommissionszammitCONINCKX Catherine   CompObj!r