WRITTEN QUESTION E-1510/97 by Joaquim Miranda (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (30 April 1997)

Subject: Budget outturn for structural operations

It is common knowledge that the amounts earmarked for structural operations under the present Community support frameworks are slow to be disbursed and difficult to implement.

Little has been said, however, about the reasons for this situation although there are points in urgent need of proper clarification.

Will the Commission therefore say:

What has been the real trend in the unduly low budget outturn in the various years as regards the individual Funds, objectives, and Member States?

What are the main contributory factors involved in the low outturn in this area?

To what extent does the low outturn stem from restrictive national policies aimed at ensuring compliance with the nominal convergence criteria and from an attempt to cut Community spending in anticipation of future enlargement of the Union?

How far is it due to systematic opposition and delays on the part of the Commission in approving major projects submitted by the Member States with a view to obtaining aid?

Why is the Commission not proposing measures to remedy the difficulties and delays?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (11 June 1997)

Since 1994 the annual reports on the Structural Funds that the Commission presents to Parliament have contained quantified information, broken down by Fund, Objective and Member State, on the trend of the budgetary implementation of structural assistance.

Under-implementation is the result of delays in certain Member States in implementing assistance. These factors are described in the working paper 'The implementation of the budget of the Structural Funds 1989-95', which was sent to Parliament's Committee on Budgets in July 1996, and more briefly in the first Report on Economic and Social Cohesion. Delays arise for a very wide variety of reasons, including administrative or institutional shortcomings, the increased difficulties of providing national matching funds and macroeconomic difficulties of various types.

The Commission is aware that, in certain Member States, there may be a link between efforts to consolidate public expenditure and delays in implementing structural assistance. In this context, it tends, in its contacts with the Member States, to give priority to safeguarding the programmes connected with structural expenditure.

The Commission, in its analysis of applications for assistance part-financed by the Structural Funds submitted by the Member States, takes account of the points listed in Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88, as amended ((OJ L 193, 31.7.1993. )). In this respect, the efforts made by the Commission in its 'Sound and Efficient Management' exercise (SEM 2000) should improve the quality of the financial management of the Structural Funds.

The Commission endeavours to cooperate with the Member States in order to help them achieve the goals defined in Edinburgh. Examples of this cooperation include special agreements on the adjustment of national administrative structures to improve the effectiveness of the management of structural assistance and agreements on the reprogramming of certain structural assistance to take account of actual implementation on the ground without altering the objectives to be achieved.