WRITTEN QUESTION E-3566/00

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 November 2000)

Subject: Progress in implementing the operational programme Education and Initial Vocational Training under the second CSF in Greece

The third evaluation report of the operational programme Education and Initial Vocational Training (EPEAEK) by European Business Group, commissioned by the Ministry of Education, mentions deficient planning, lack of the statistical data needed for drawing up detailed organisational charts, slow progress in implementing measures and a lack of coordination between central and regional management.

Could the Commission say whether it agrees with the above report findings? What is its view of EPEAEK's progress in Greece, given that in the operational programme for the third CSF which has been submitted for the Commission's approval, the Greek Government is continuing to fund the majority of activities which were also chosen in the second CSF? What is the final amount of funding for this programme, and what was the initial amount, i.e. the amount allocated in 1994?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2001)

The findings of the third evaluation report of the Education and Initial Vocational Training Operational Programme under the second Community Support Framework for Greece to which the Honourable Member refers, should be examined carefully and as a whole.

In general terms, the Commission would like to underline the strategic and innovative character of the programme. The Commission can confirm that this programme encountered various difficulties, in particular in its starting phase. These shortcomings were mainly due to the innovative and ambitious nature of the programme for Greece combined with a lack of relevant experience and preparedness at the Ministry for Education at the beginning of the 1994-1999 programming period. It is true that lack of statistical data and use of indicators and quantified targets in the area of human resources and soft actions more generally is a weakness. Implementation of measures was slow, especially in the first two years but accelerated thereafter. This delay was one of the reasons for the scaling down of the programme at the mid-term review. Although some cases of poor co-ordination between central and regional management could be mentioned, this could hardly be cited as one of the weakest points of the programme.

The implementation of the programme took off towards autumn 1998. 100 % of available resources have now been committed in the Community budget for both the European Social Fund (ESF) and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). Payments amount to about 80 % for the ESF and 88 % for the ERDF. The Commission estimates that all available funds will be taken up by the programme before the final date for payments, which is 31 December 2001.

The initial budget of the programme was 1 165 million for the ESF and 221 million for the ERDF. Another 25 million were allocated to the ESF budget through the deflator. At the mid-term review in 1998 the ESF budget was reduced by 190 million and became 1 000 million, while that of the ERDF was increased by 49 million and became 270 million. The Community participation was 75 % for both Funds before the mid-term review and became 80 % for the ESF and 55 % for the ERDF since 1 January 1998.

Overall, the Commission believes that, despite the difficulties encountered, this programme of great strategic importance for Greece will be fully implemented and will adequately achieve a good part of the objectives set. The effort should be adapted and strengthened in the next programming period, if Greece is to reduce the distance separating it in this field from more developed Member States.