Although the six executive agencies created by the European Commission to implement the Union’s spending programmes offer the best provision of services, the Court of Auditors criticises the stark, pragmatic motivation behind the Commission’s creation, follow-up and evaluation of their performance.

Published on 20 November ⁽¹⁾, the court’s audit demonstrates that the creation of these six executive agencies in 2003, which are responsible for managing a financial envelope of around €32 billion for the period till 2013, was driven by the need to compensate for staff shortages at the Commission rather than being part of a general reform of governance. Furthermore, the report criticises the cost-benefit analysis (CBA) required under the regulation for not taking much account of non-financial aspects and the failure to consider some important factors on the side of costs. Finally, the court terms their contribution to the decision making process rather limited. The tasks assigned to the agencies were generally lacking goals linked to specific targets and the follow-up was often too focused on the method in which they were working as opposed to concentrating on the results obtained. Reporting was usually limited to budgetary data, the court noted.

In terms of benefits achieved, clear cost savings stem from the prevalence of lower paid contract staff at the agencies, the audit underlines, although there was a distinct lack of reliable information on the ex ante situation at the Commission. In terms of service delivery, the court found that, as a result of their specialisation in well-defined tasks, the executive agencies are providing better service than the Commission did before. They conclude contracts, make payments and approve technical and financial reports on the projects more quickly. The court also noted an improvement in increased external communication and dissemination of results to a wider public, which also enhance the visibility of EU actions.

The Court of Auditors recommended that the Commission be encouraged to review its procedures to determine the possibilities for and creating of agencies and to establish a system where the cost-benefit analysis contributes to the decision making process. As for the evaluation of benefits, the Commission should give assurances that it has reliable and pertinent data on the workload and execution of tasks handed out before and after outsourcing. Finally, the court called on the institution to carry out monitoring of the agencies on the basis of these results and to outline a more coherent timescale of work programmes each year.