# CE2004078EN.01049601.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/496 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/496

---

(2004/C 78 E/0517)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3230/03

by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(31 October 2003)

Subject:   Allocation of subsidies under the Interreg and Urban programmes

Subject:

The projects funded with help from the Interreg and Urban programmes are generally held in high esteem. They are often innovative and the mere requirement that the partners/bodies working together must come from several different countries generates positive synergy which can help to create Community value.

Unfortunately, reports of problems have also come to my attention, problems which, in some cases, are so serious as to undermine the positive impact of programmes and projects. In many cases, these problems lead to disillusionment and a reluctance to submit fresh proposals.

Above all, the complaints concern the administration of the programmes:

| — | The administrative arrangements are complex, anything but transparent and require the investment of an unreasonable amount of time, money and effort. |
| --- | --- |

—

The administrative arrangements are complex, anything but transparent and require the investment of an unreasonable amount of time, money and effort.

| — | In the case of smaller bodies, the administrative burden has become an insurmountable obstacle and the percentage of funding granted to cover overheads is too low. Unfortunately, this also applies to many bodies from the applicant countries. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the case of smaller bodies, the administrative burden has become an insurmountable obstacle and the percentage of funding granted to cover overheads is too low. Unfortunately, this also applies to many bodies from the applicant countries.

| — | In some cases, additional information is requested at the very last moment before a time-limit runs out. This results in enormous delays in processing applications and making payments. |
| --- | --- |

—

In some cases, additional information is requested at the very last moment before a time-limit runs out. This results in enormous delays in processing applications and making payments.

| — | Proposals for projects seem to be assessed in an arbitrary manner. High quality in terms of substance and presentation does not necessarily lead to approval, whereas low quality does not always result in rejection. |
| --- | --- |

—

Proposals for projects seem to be assessed in an arbitrary manner. High quality in terms of substance and presentation does not necessarily lead to approval, whereas low quality does not always result in rejection.

Naturally enough, I realise that meticulous procedures are needed in order to prevent fraud and the misuse of Community funds.

Nevertheless, I should like to put the following questions:

| 1. | Does the Commission acknowledge the problems outlined above? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the Commission acknowledge the problems outlined above?

| 2. | Have its relevant departments set up procedures for dealing with reports of problems? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Have its relevant departments set up procedures for dealing with reports of problems?

| 3. | What measures have the relevant Commission departments taken with a view to improving and/or simplifying administrative procedures? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What measures have the relevant Commission departments taken with a view to improving and/or simplifying administrative procedures?

| 4. | What measures does the Commission plan to take? |
| --- | --- |

4.

What measures does the Commission plan to take?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(13 January 2004)

(13 January 2004)

The Commission welcomes the positive remarks of the Honourable Member concerning projects funded by the Interreg and URBAN Community Initiatives, in particular their innovative nature. There is a high level of interest in both initiatives, demonstrated by the large number of project applications and competition for funding.

As the Community Initiatives form part of the Structural Funds, they operate according to the same rules. This means that the administration of the individual programmes, including calls for projects and the selection procedures are the responsibility of the Member State(s) participating in the programme.

As a result of this decentralisation responsibilities, the procedures and administrative systems for the programmes differ from Member State to Member State. The Commission has encouraged all Member States to simplify the rules regarding the management of the programmes as much as possible. The Commission has also taken other steps in an effort to encourage improvement in implementation.

In response to information received, the Commission can raise matters of concern on management issues informally with the managing authority or secretariat for individual programmes or, more formally in a meeting of the programme's monitoring committee. The Commission's experience is that the authorities in the Member States have responded positively to constructive criticism. The promotion of good practices and exchanges of experience are possible under Interact and Urbact.

The Commission has made significant efforts to simplify programme implementation in the current period. In particular, the Commission adopted a Communication on the Simplification, clarification, co-ordination and flexible management of the structural policies 2000-2006 (1) which introduced a range of actions to streamline programme modification, reporting and monitoring.

1

The existing legal framework will remain in force until 31 December 2006. In the period beginning in 2007, the Commission intends to bring forward additional proposals for a simplified management of European programmes while respecting the principles of sound and efficient management.

---

(1)  C(2003) 1255 of 25.4.2003.

1

---