WRITTEN QUESTION E-4128/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 January 2001)

Subject: Registration of ESF projects

At the beginning of next year a new registration system for ESF projects will be coming into force. Applications for subsidies will automatically be treated as public contracts.

According to those working in this field, the practical implementation of ESF policy often conflicts with the Commission's overly dirigiste approach. Regions and Member States find they have little room for mapping out an autonomous ESF policy. There are evidently arguments over the registration of projects. A structural solution to the distribution of tasks between Member States (or regions) and the Commission is the only real answer. And at the moment local ESF promoters do not have a contact point at the Commission, despite the fact that they are subject to Commission scrutiny.

1. What criteria will the Commission be using from 1 January 2001 for the registration of ESF projects?

2. What scope will Member States and regions be receiving for recognising local ESF promoters?

3. Will the Commission recognise what are known as social profit organisations if they submit applications for ESF subsidies?

4. Is the Commission considering setting up a contact point for local ESF promoters? If not, how will the Commission be aiming to strike a balance between scrutiny and the right to information?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 2001)

1. Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999, laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1) says in article 8.3 that, in application of the principle of subsidiarity, the implementation of assistance shall be the responsibility of the Member States, at the appropriate territorial level according to the arrangements specific to each Member State, and without prejudice to the powers vested in the Commission, notably for implementing the general budget of the European Communities. This means that, while the Commission adopts the strategies and the priorities that are to govern the programming and the implementing of arrangements, the Member States are responsible for the implementation and monitoring of the assistance.

In the case of Flanders, for example, one of the five areas in Belgium where an Objective 3 programme will be implemented during the 2000-2006 period, the authorities have decided to use a competitive tendering system to select European Social Fund (ESF) projects. During the negotiation of the Single Programming Document (SPD) for Flanders, the Commission gave its agreement to this procedure. It is therefore the responsibility of the Flemish authorities to implement this tender and to arrive at a list of ESF projects. The Commission does not interfere with this process and consequently is not responsible for the criteria used for the registration of these ESF projects.

2. It is clear from the above that the Member States and the regions have maximum scope for involving local ESF promoters. In addition, the Commission implemented last year a consultative and awareness-raising campaign entitled Acting Locally for Employment. Its purpose was to better involve local and regional players in the European Employment Strategy (EES) that the ESF supports.

3. Article 3(d) of Regulation (EC) No 1784/1999 of the Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 1999, on the European Social Fund(2) includes among activities eligible for support from the European Social Fund the development of new sources of employment, including in the social economy (Third System). In addition, Article 4(2) stipulates the following: The programming of Fund interventions shall provide that a reasonable amount of the Fund appropriations made available for the intervention within Objectives 1 and 3 shall be available, in conformity with Article 27 of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, in the form of small grants, with special arrangements for access by non-governmental organisations and local partnerships. Member States may choose to implement this paragraph in accordance with financing arrangements set out in Article 29(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999.

The texts adopted at European level thus allow for ESF support to social profit organisations but from point 1 it is also clear that it is not for the Commission to decide whether to admit social profit organisations when they apply for ESF funds. However, from the policy point of view, it is important to note that, through the SPD for Flanders, the Commission agreed that the Flemish Social Profit Action Plan will be reinforced via the ESF.

4. Member States shall co-operate with the Commission to ensure that Community funds are used in accordance with the principles of sound financial management: the managing authority (as defined in Article 9(n) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999) shall be responsible, inter alia, for the efficiency and correctness of management and implementation, and in particular for ensuring the correctness of operations financed under the assistance. Financial resources for technical assistance are put at the disposal of the Member States for monitoring, managing and controlling ESF operations.

The Commission is responsible for the implementation of the general budget of the Communities and has therefore the obligation to control the operations co-financed by the Structural Funds. The results of these controls are always communicated to the national authorities and individual promoters have the possibility to convey their remarks, via the managing authority, to the Commission.

The Commission does not however limit its interventions to controlling local promoters. It also informs them. Information is made available to them via different channels including information and communication technologies (ICT) (web site, electronic information bulletin), and publications. Indirect transmission is ensured by information multipliers like Representations in Members States, and for specific information on ESF by information officers who belong to a co-ordinating network established as a subgroup of the ESF Committee.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2) OJ L 213, 13.8.1999.