10. Court of Auditors’ Special Report: Structural Funds (budgetary implementa-
tion)
A5-0359/2000
European Parliament resolution on Court of Auditors Special Reports Nos 6/1999, 7/1999, 3/2000
and 7/2000 on budgetary implementation of the Structural Funds, together with the Commission’s
replies (C5-0240/2000, C5-0241/2000, C5-0242/2000, C5-0243/2000 Odash 2000/2129(COS))
The European Parliament,
Idash having regard to Special Reports Nos 6/1999, 7/1999, 3/2000 and 7/2000 (C5-0240/2000)(1),
C5-0241/2000 (2), C5-0242/2000 (3), C5-0243/2000) (4),
Idash having regard to the Council Regulations of 21 June 1999 on the Structural Funds (5),
Idash having regard to Article 248(4), second subparagraph, of the EC Treaty,
Idash having regard to Rule 47(1) of its Rules of Procedure,Idash having regard to its resolution of 12 April 2000 on the additionality principle in Structural Fund
appropriations (
6),
Idash having regard to the proposal for a Council Regulation on Community financial contributions to the
International Fund for Ireland (COM(1999) 549 Idash C5-0285/1999 Idash 1999/0221(CNS)), which wasapproved by the European Parliament on 17 December 1999 (
7),
Idash having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee
on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (A5-0359/2000),
A. whereas it is largely the Member States which are responsible for the utilisation of the Community
structural funds,
Special Report No 6/1999
1. Points out that the additionality principle means that European funds are intended not to finance, but
to cofinance, operations, and must not take the place of public expenditure by national authorities;
2. Emphasises that, together with partnership, concentration and programming, additionality is one of
the basic principles underpinning the operation of the Structural Funds, and enables those funds to have agenuine impact in eligible regions;
3. Notes the remarks made by the Court Idash the validity of which is acknowledged by the Commission Idash
about the difficulties involved in verifying this principle, owing mainly to methodological problems;
4. Welcomes the fact that the new Structural Fund rules Idash with particular reference to Article 11 of
Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, covering the verification of additionality Idash should simplify matters;
5. Considers nonetheless that a major effort should be made by the Commission and national and
regional authorities to improve national and regional statistics;
(1) OJ C 68, 9.3.2000, p. 1.
(2) OJ C 68, 9.3.2000, p. 24.
(3) OJ C 100, 7.4.2000.
(4) OJ C 146, 25.5.2000.
(5) Regulation (EC) Nos 1260/1999, 1261/1999 (ERDF), 1262/1999 (ESF).
(6) ‘Texts Adopted’, Item 1.
(7) OJ C 296, 18.10.2000, p. 380.18.9.2001 EN C 262/65 Official Journal of the European Communities
Tuesday 16 January 2001
6. Calls on the Council and Commission to formulate a clear and objective definition of the principle of
additionality, to enable penalties to be considered where necessary in cases of failure by the Member Statesto comply with that principle, but also connection with measures to protect the Community’s financialinterests in accordance with Article 280 of the EC Treaty;
7. Urges the Commission and the Member States to ensure, under the partnership arrangements, that
the transmission of information is coordinated more effectively while administrative formalities arereduced;
8. Calls on the Commission not to make verification of the additionality principle a separate exercise,
but to include it in an overall report drawn up for each programming period;
9. Stresses the importance of respect for both the spirit and the letter of the principle of additionality in
order to ensure that Structural Funds are not used as a replacement for national public or equivalentexpenditure; underlines the duty of the Member States and regional authorities in this regard in providingaccurate and timely data to the Commission;
10. Calls however on the Commission to establish effective procedures for verification and provide the
tools necessary for meaningful analysis and comparison of the data; considers furthermore that theseguidelines should be clearly laid down in the implementation provisions of the CSFs and SPDs when theyare being drawn up, enabling the principle to be better integrated into the programming framework;requests from the Commission a precise evaluation report on additionality in the second triennial reporton cohesion which it is shortly to submit;
11. Considers that the verification exercise will only become meaningful if the results of the Commis-
sion’s analyses are published and sanctions (or other legal consequences) applied in cases of non-compli-ance; recalls however that penalties must be based on reliable data and subject to precise and clear criteria;
12. Is convinced that greater transparency in the application of the principle is required from all part-
ners and that national and regional authorities should also be involved in the assessment of additionality ata regional level in conformity with the programming and planning processes which determine the alloca-tion of public expenditure;
13. Considers that the verification of the principle of additionality is currently regarded as an isolated
task and should rather be integrated within the framework of the monitoring or evaluation procedures;
Special Report No 7/1999
14. Notes that, in respect of the period 1994-1999, quite considerable ERDF financial packages are
earmarked for industrial sites (development, totally new areas, redevelopment) and that the Commissiondoes not know where the money actually goes; notes that a portion of the funds has been used to financemeasures including projects other than the redevelopment of industrial sites;
15. Calls on the Commission to ensure that the references to detailed objectives, physical indicators and
impact in terms of business created or established and of jobs created or saved, are not confined to theinitial phase of development programmes for industrial sites but cover the whole of the programme; callson the Commission and the Member States to develop the tools to analyse and follow up the implementa-tion of the programmes, particularly as regards their impact on unemployment;
16. Calls on the Member States and the Commission to improve the supply of accounting and financial
information on the utilisation of ERDF funding; to that end, calls for information contained in aid files tobe incorporated in the database of the Sincom computerised accounting systems;
17. Calls on the Member States and the Commission to introduce a genuine Community restructuring
policy, covering the determination of requirements, criteria for the selection of projects and an assessmentof the results achieved, with a view to ensuring active management of regional development; calls further-more on the Member States and the Commission to lay emphasis on the conditions for the regional devel-C 262/66 EN 18.9.2001 Official Journal of the European Communities
Tuesday 16 January 2001
opment of industrial sites; calls for regional coordination between the various actors to be made a pivotal
element of this policy in order to avoid competition being created between promoters at regional level andthus the aid being dispersed; calls on the Commission to promote the simplification of national and localpurchasing procedures, thus reducing the costs they entail;
18. Calls on the Commission to give careful consideration to cases in which Community subsidies
should be replaced by loans and to investigate to what extent, and how soon, the Commission can phaseout its activities relating to industrial sites, observing the subsidiarity principle;
Special Report No 3/2000
19. Notes that the objectives of the ESF and the EAGGF Guidance Section are not clearly enough
defined, that the ESF target groups are poorly defined and that the delay in the implementation of theEAGGF Guidance Section has rendered potential beneficiaries of setting-up aid ineligible for such aid;
20. Notes the difficulties involved in measuring the impact which such aid has on the target group, and
calls for statistics to take into account the wide range of beneficiaries of this aid and the diversity of theintegration routes to be established;
21. Notes also the difficulty in gauging the effectiveness of the transnationality of the Community initia-
tive Youthstart owing to the lack of common rules on the eligible costs of transnational coordination;recalls that transnationality is a prime objective of this Community initiative;
22. Regrets that the Member States mostly submit very vague action plans, which are nevertheless
accepted by the Commission, and therefore calls on the Member States to submit action plans foundedon objective and measurable criteria;
23. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to take action aimed at improving synergies
among the funds and among the national actions, and to ensure that the resources allocated to the ESF
are more carefully targeted; calls on the Commission and on the Member States to improve coordinationbetween the national and the European funds to ensure that programmes coincide in length; calls on theMember States to improve their financial monitoring of ESF programmes and measures;
24. Calls also in this connection for a simplification of administrative procedures at both Commission
and Member State levels, with a view to preventing late approval of programmes, which renders theminoperable;
Special Report No 7/2000
25. Expresses support for the activities conducted under the International Fund for Ireland (IFI) and the
special peace and reconciliation (P&R) programme, which it acknowledges as an innovative and positivemeans of consolidating the peace process;
26. Notes that the two programmes are different in nature, with the IFI being an international pro-
gramme and thereby more difficult to monitor for the EU, while the P&R programme stems from a Com-munity initiative;
27. Notes, in connection with the IFI, that the Commission failed to carry out the necessary verifica-
tions and on-the-spot checks during the period 1995-1997;
28. Questions the effectiveness of the IFI funding system, which has failed to ensure that EU appropria-
tions are used to best effect, with advance payments being made into the Fund without any assessmentbeing made of its immediate financial needs;
29. Notes the Commission’s undertaking to carry out a detailed audit of the IFI for 1998 and 2000, and
asks to be notified of the outcome of that audit;18.9.2001 EN C 262/67 Official Journal of the European Communities
Tuesday 16 January 2001
30. Points out that it has approved the Council Regulation concerning Community financial contribu-
tions to the International Fund for Ireland for the financial years 2000, 2001 and 2002 and emphasisesthe need for EU contributions to the IFI over the next three years to be allocated to cross-border or cross-community projects, to have a genuine additional impact on the target areas and to be used in accordancewith the additionality principle;
31. Draws attention to the fact that the P&R programme is both innovative and complex, owing to the
wide range of implementing bodies involved;
32. Questions the effectiveness of using a three-year funding system for a five-year programme, since
this leads to delays in implementation of the programmes;
33. Expresses concern, furthermore, about the overlap between these aid programmes and the Struc-
tural Funds, which undermines efficiency and leads to delays in the implementation of other programmes;
34. Calls on the Commission to strengthen its monitoring and evaluation procedures with a view to
making such funding more effective;
35. Notes the innovative nature of the International Fund for Ireland and its role as a first funder of
projects;
36. Recognises that in the audit period it pioneered the joint management of programmes and was
innovative in giving priority to disadvantaged areas;
37. Considers that the rhythm of payments to the IFI should reflect its financial needs;
38. While recognising the difficult environment in which the IFI has operated, urges that uniform cri-
teria for the evaluation of projects be consistently used and that the Commission monitor the appropriate-ness of EU expenditure on IFI projects and ensure that greater transparency in future projects funded bythe IFI should occur;
39. Notes the success of the Peace and Reconciliation Programme’s ‘bottom-up’ approach in building
cross-community participation and dialogue;
40. Urges that the experiences gained in the implementation of the programme be fed into the design
of PEACE II;
41. Considers that project appraisal needs to be strengthened through the use of explicit, written criteria
which would also to serve to strengthen ex-post impact assessment;
42. Calls for increased publicity be given to measures adopted under the Peace and Reconciliation pro-
gramme;
43. Calls for steps be taken to ensure at all levels effective coordination between the International Fund
for Ireland and the PEACE II programme, including a viable and easily understandable system of depriva-tion indices, consistently applied, and more effective targeting and assessment of projects so funded;
44. Calls for the establishment of clear audit lines, cost/benefit analysis and achievable exit strategies to
be implemented in both elements of this report;
45. Recommends that PEACE II projects should also focus in the medium term on the creation of
sustainable jobs and viable economic regeneration;
46. Welcomes the fact that organisations have now been employed to actively promote and publicise
the work of the Peace and Reconciliation Programme;
*
**
47. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the Court of
Auditors.C 262/68 EN 18.9.2001 Official Journal of the European Communities
Tuesday 16 January 2001