WRITTEN QUESTION No. 4082/96 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. The Structural Funds
Date: 1997-01-17
Institutions: AMADEO, European Parliament
Subjects: EU Member State, EU expenditure, EU financing, EU initiative, European Social Fund, budget appropriation, budgetary control, financial management, implementation of the budget, operational programme













EUR-Lex - 91996E4082 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E4082

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 4082/96 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. The Structural Funds  


Official Journal C 367 , 04/12/1997 P. 0002 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-4082/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (17 January 1997)Subject: The Structural FundsIn its 1995 report, the Court of Auditors noted a substantial discrepancy between payment appropriations and the rates of utilization of those appropriations, chiefly owing to co-financing problems resulting from the national authorities being faced with too much work and the fact that little impact was felt at economic level. In the case of the European Social Fund (ESF), only 37% of the 850 operational programmes for the period 1990-1993 were closed at the start of 1996. The situation appears to be even more serious as far as the new Community initiatives are concerned - only 15% of the 190 projects were completed. ECU 1 billion worth of funds in the Social Fund were frozen in February 1996.The Commission also appears to be experiencing serious difficulties in closing delayed projects (ECU 900 million worth of blocked projects for 1995 alone). In the case of the Leader initiative, the delays make it doubtful whether certain actions are properly matched to the objectives of the initiative. Clearly, if this proves to be the case, EU citizens may well have the impression that the European Union is wasting their money.Can the Commission therefore lay down clearer rules on eligibility, and can it ensure that it is able to recover sums unduly granted to individuals? Moreover, can it carry out stricter controls to ensure that such delays in projects under the Structural Funds do not give the impression of total inefficiency or, worse still, total lack of usefulness on the part of the Community organizations?Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (18 April 1997)In the first instance, the Commission would point out to the Honourable Member that the reference to 37% in the Court of Auditors report on the closure of the European Social Fund (ESF) for 1990-1993 refers to the final closure of accounts and not to actual budget executions. The position in regard to execution is set out in paragraph 6.20 of the report.Nevertheless, the Commission responded to the underutilization of ESF appropriations in 1995 by making a special effort to obtain more reliable financial execution forecasts from the Member States. Starting on 26 January 1996 with a letter addressed to the Member States from the Commissioner responsible for the Social Fund, an extensive action plan was followed throughout 1996. An outline of the action plan is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.Financial execution of the ESF for 1996 amounted to virtually 100%. Where Italy is concerned, although substantial efforts have been made, improvements are still needed. A table showing the financial position of Italy for the period 1990-1993 is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that, under the first subparagraph of Article 23(1) of Council Regulation No 4253/88 ((OJ L 374, 31.12.1988. )), as amended by Council Regulation No 2082/93 ((OJ L 193, 31.7.1993. )), it has the power to recover funds unduly paid to the Member State, which is liable in the alternative.In the context of partnership and the monitoring committees, the Commission and the Member State monitor measures financed by the European Social Fund in order, where necessary, to make changes to the programming in order to ensure optimum use of Community finance.No particular difficulties were encountered with the financial implementation of the Community Leader initiative in 1995. As regards any mismatch between certain measures and the objectives of the initiative, the Commission, even if it approves each of the programmes proposed under Leader and then verifies that the proposed measures comply with the spirit of the initiative, i.e. introduction of innovative model arrangements in the area of rural development whilst ensuring optimum integration between measures relating to different sectors, it does not approve the individual projects.An ex-post evaluation of Leader I is now in progress, on the basis of which it will be possible to make an appraisal of the implementation of this initiative by the end of 1997. Nonetheless, various evaluation studies carried out by the AEIDL (European Association for Information on Local Development) network steering group as well as a survey of the 'network effect' carried out on expiry of Leader I substantiate the claim that the Leader initiative has genuinely contributed to the emergence and implementation of local development activities, some of which have played a decisive role in the regeneration of certain areas.To improve the financial management of the operations part-financed by the Structural Funds, the Commission, in agreement with the Member States, has adopted a series of measures under phase III of the SEM 2000 programme. As regards the eligibility of expenditure, the deliberations begun in September 1994 were stepped up in 1996 and a set of 22 data sheets on the eligibility of expenditure was presented first to the group of personal representatives of the Ministers of Finance set up under SEM 2000. These 22 data sheets were then discussed in depth by the committees of the Structural Funds. A process of real partnership has thus been established and a large number of observations and requests for clarification made by the delegations at the various committee meetings have been analysed by the Commission. This process has made it possible to adapt the sheets and make them into a genuine instrument for improving the management of the Structural Funds. Once the fund committees have taken their final vote in March, the sheets will be the subject of a Commission decision to incorporate them into the standard clauses appended to the Community Support Frameworks and Single Programming Documents. As regards the effectiveness of controls, negotiations have been held with a view to extending the cooperation protocols concluded between the Commission and the national authorities to all the Member States. In this connection, further impetus has been provided for the coordination of controls programmes between the Commission and the national authorities so as to produce synergetic effects between national and Community checks.