# CE2004084EN.01058801.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/588 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/588

---

(2004/C 84 E/0664)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0426/04

by Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) and Mikko Pesälä (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject:   Timetable for processing rural development projects

Subject:

The official processing of rural development and enterprise projects often takes a very long time, in some cases more than a year. This causes considerable problems to project coordinators. If the processing of project applications and payment applications takes several months, projects become very difficult to manage and at the same time substantial financial losses are incurred. The flow of project ideas from the grass roots also tends to dry up because project planning is felt to be too slow and bureaucratic. If the processing of business projects takes more than a year it is possible that an entire project may become pointless.

This issue concerns horizontal rural development projects and projects in Objective 1 regions. The question is, has the Commission set a time limit for the period between submission of an application concerning a rural development project and a decision on the project? Project coordinators are set deadlines, but do any apply to the authorities? Is the Commission aware of differences in the speed with which projects are processed in different countries? It would be useful to know in order to ascertain whether speed of processing affects the results achieved in projects.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2004)

(19 March 2004)

The Commission is aware of the long processing times of the Finnish rural development projects via the annual implementation reports of the programmes, evaluation reports and the work of the monitoring committees.

For example, in the mid-term evaluations carried out for Objective 1 programmes, the following criticisms were presented:

| — | The administration of the Structural Funds programmes in Finland has been rather heavy throughout the membership period and it has received a lot of criticism. Although new (national) legislation on Structural Funds has in many cases clarified competence relationships between different authorities, the heavy administrative pattern still creates unreasonable delays in starting the projects and in payment procedures. |
| --- | --- |

—

The administration of the Structural Funds programmes in Finland has been rather heavy throughout the membership period and it has received a lot of criticism. Although new (national) legislation on Structural Funds has in many cases clarified competence relationships between different authorities, the heavy administrative pattern still creates unreasonable delays in starting the projects and in payment procedures.

| — | These problems are mainly related to programme structure, that is to say, variously, to different preparation processes of national and regional co-financers (EED-Centre, Provincial governments, County governments), to the decision making timetable and to different interpretation and application of the norms that guide the activities. Financial envelopes per county that hinder the optimal focusing of resources (confer different regional demand and supply that currently do not match properly) bring additional complexity. |
| --- | --- |

—

These problems are mainly related to programme structure, that is to say, variously, to different preparation processes of national and regional co-financers (EED-Centre, Provincial governments, County governments), to the decision making timetable and to different interpretation and application of the norms that guide the activities. Financial envelopes per county that hinder the optimal focusing of resources (confer different regional demand and supply that currently do not match properly) bring additional complexity.

| — | Similar criticism was also presented in the context of mid-term evaluations of the mini Regional Development Programme and Leader+ programme. |
| --- | --- |

—

Similar criticism was also presented in the context of mid-term evaluations of the mini Regional Development Programme and Leader+ programme.

| — | The delays in processing times of applications have been discussed in various monitoring committees, as well as at the initiative of the Commission representatives, but no actual decisions to correct the situation have been made. The responsibility lies with the monitoring committees, members of which represent different authorities and economic and social partners. |
| --- | --- |

—

The delays in processing times of applications have been discussed in various monitoring committees, as well as at the initiative of the Commission representatives, but no actual decisions to correct the situation have been made. The responsibility lies with the monitoring committees, members of which represent different authorities and economic and social partners.

| — | The annual implementation reports of the Structural Fund programmes to be submitted to the Commission should include a summary of any significant problems encountered in managing the assistance and any measures taken. On the basis of these reports the Commission and the management authority shall review the activities and main outcomes of the previous year. For example, in the context of 2002 annual review meeting of the Leader+ programme, the Commission drew the attention to the need to reduce delays in processing and payment times and the situation has somewhat improved. |
| --- | --- |

—

The annual implementation reports of the Structural Fund programmes to be submitted to the Commission should include a summary of any significant problems encountered in managing the assistance and any measures taken. On the basis of these reports the Commission and the management authority shall review the activities and main outcomes of the previous year. For example, in the context of 2002 annual review meeting of the Leader+ programme, the Commission drew the attention to the need to reduce delays in processing and payment times and the situation has somewhat improved.

| — | On the basis of the above, the Commission refers to the fact that the delays in processing of the applications are mainly due to fragmented national administration systems and that the main responsibility lies with the managing authorities of the Member State and with the monitoring committees of the programmes. |
| --- | --- |

—

On the basis of the above, the Commission refers to the fact that the delays in processing of the applications are mainly due to fragmented national administration systems and that the main responsibility lies with the managing authorities of the Member State and with the monitoring committees of the programmes.

| — | There are no explicit rules for the national processing times of the applications or payment requests in the Community legislation concerning Structural Funds or rural development although, Article 32 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (1) stipulates that the national paying authority shall ensure that final beneficiaries receive payment of their contribution from the Funds as quickly as possible and in full. |
| --- | --- |

—

There are no explicit rules for the national processing times of the applications or payment requests in the Community legislation concerning Structural Funds or rural development although, Article 32 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (1) stipulates that the national paying authority shall ensure that final beneficiaries receive payment of their contribution from the Funds as quickly as possible and in full.

1

| — | Article 3 5 of the above-mentioned Regulation stipulates that the Monitoring Committee shall satisfy itself as to the effectiveness and quality of the implementation of assistance. It may, in any event, propose to the managing authority any adjustment or review of the assistance likely to improve the management of the assistance, including in respect of financial management. The representatives of the Commission are participating in the work of the Monitoring Committees in an advisory capacity. |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 3 5 of the above-mentioned Regulation stipulates that the Monitoring Committee shall satisfy itself as to the effectiveness and quality of the implementation of assistance. It may, in any event, propose to the managing authority any adjustment or review of the assistance likely to improve the management of the assistance, including in respect of financial management. The representatives of the Commission are participating in the work of the Monitoring Committees in an advisory capacity.

| — | Although the Commission refers that the long processing time of the applications is mainly due to national administration systems and that the main responsibility to remedy the situation lies with the managing authorities of the Member State and with the monitoring committees of the programmes, it is the intention of the Commission to bring the issue up in the next annual review meetings between the Commission and the Member State, at the meetings of the respective monitoring committees as well as at other occasions. |
| --- | --- |

—

Although the Commission refers that the long processing time of the applications is mainly due to national administration systems and that the main responsibility to remedy the situation lies with the managing authorities of the Member State and with the monitoring committees of the programmes, it is the intention of the Commission to bring the issue up in the next annual review meetings between the Commission and the Member State, at the meetings of the respective monitoring committees as well as at other occasions.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

1

---