Conclusions and recommendations

• Author: Michie, Rona; Wishlade, Fiona; Mendez, Carlos
• Pages: 39-39

Fact-finding studyon the GBERtransparency re quirement

39

5.CONCLUSIONSANDRECOMMENDATIONS

There are wide differences in approaches to the transparency requirements. However, the data

currently available do not enable an accurate assessment of compliance with the requirements to

be made. As such, it is not possible to conclude that a particular model is more effective than

others.

From the data available it is possible to analyse the timeliness of reporting, but it is not possible to

know the scale of awards that were not reported at all. A more accurate assessment of

compliance might be gleaned from requiring Member States to report the actual number of

awards under SARI, as well as expenditure; the number of awards anticipatedmight also be

made an obligatory entry under SANI2. Neither of these proposals would provide a complete

solution, but over time would enhance the capacity accurately to identify likely instances of

transgression.

Although the scale of failureto report is unknown, detailed data on delayedreporting is available.

Analysis of this data shows that the timeliness or otherwise of reporting is essentially driven by

the behaviour of a very small number of awarding bodies in each Member State. A radical

improvement in the timeliness of reportingcould be achieved by targeting and training those

few organisations that report belatedly.

It cannot necessarily be concludedthat the same organisations responsible for delayed reporting

are also responsible for failures to report since this is not possible to detect. However, it may be

that awarding bodies failing to report at alldo so due to low levels of awareness of the obligations

and few instances (particularly in the case of non-GBER aid). Alongside targeted training, the

adoption of a single harmonised t ext on transparencymight raise the profile of the obligation

and improve levels of compliance.