WRITTEN QUESTION E-3083/00 by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission. PHARE programme.
Date: 2000-10-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Central and Eastern European countries, EU aid, EU programme, aid evaluation

C 174 E/16

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

19.6.2001

of Amsterdam. Acting within its sphere of responsibilities, however, and in particular the 2001 budget
guidelines, the European Parliament has decided to make such funding a budget priority, especially in view
It is
of the fact that implementation of the Amsterdam Treaty has already begun this year, 2000.
surprising, therefore, that while the Commission should take initiatives to implement the Treaties,
it
appears from its answer that it is at the very least indifferent towards a matter of major importance for the
development of certain regions of the EU.

What practical steps will the Council take, on the basis of a specific timetable, to create a legal basis for the
funding of EU island regions pursuant to the provisions of the relevant Treaties?

(1) OJ C 113 E, 18.4.2001, p. 38.

Reply

(8 March 2001)

1.
In its reply to the Honourable Member(cid:146)s Written Question E-1737/00 on the funding of
the European Union island regions, the Council already stated that in the context of economic and social
cohesion, the Structural Funds (cid:129) and in particular the ERDF (cid:129) are, in this connection, an important
instrument for action, having a positive effect on the growth and convergence of the island regions of the
European Union.

the

the

Under

Funds,

Structural

framework of

island regions

the new regulatory

2.
in
the European Union meeting the criteria of eligibility defined in the general Regulation may benefit from
Community financial help under Objective 1 (regions lagging behind in development) or Objective 2 (areas
undergoing social and economic conversion). The total budget of the Structural Funds for the period
2000-2006 amounts to € 195 billion at 1999 prices. More than 81 % of the overall budget is concentrated
on Objectives 1 and 2. Furthermore, the Council would remind the Honourable Member that, as regards
it should be emphasised that under Article 29(3)(a) of
the specific measures to which he refers,
Council Regulation No 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1), where the
regions are located in a Member State covered by the Cohesion Fund, the Community contribution may
rise, in exceptional and duly justified cases, to a maximum of 80 % of the total eligible cost and to a
maximum of 85 % of the total eligible cost for the outermost regions and for the outlying Greek islands
which are under a handicap due to their distant location.

3.
The Council has not to date received any proposal from the Commission along the lines referred to
by the Honourable Member and cannot therefore give a more precise reply to the question. However, it
would remind the Honourable Member that, on the basis of Declaration No 30 annexed to the Amsterdam
Treaty, the Nice European Council confirmed the need for specific measures for the benefit of island
regions, in accordance with Article 158 of the TEC, in view of their structural handicaps, which impair
their economic and social development, within the limits of the budget resources available (point 55 of the
Presidency conclusions).

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2001/C 174 E/016)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3083/00

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(2 October 2000)

Subject: PHARE programme

The PHARE programme was introduced to bring the Central and Eastern European countries closer to the
Union. Negotiations on accession by those countries are entering their final stages; the time consequently
has come to take stock of the impact of PHARE programme support operations.

19.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 174 E/17

In its report on enlargement to the east (PE 286.105), the European Parliament(cid:146)s Committee on Industry
states the following (paragraph 3):
the PHARE programme, partly due to its current
management and priorities, has not yet been an overwhelming success; calls upon the Commission to
submit to the European Parliament a separate progress report (cid:133)(cid:146).

(cid:145)(cid:133) however,

How does the Commission rate the success of the PHARE programme?

Does the Commission share the view of the Committee on Industry that the PHARE programme has not
hitherto been an (cid:145)overwhelming success(cid:146)?

Assuming that the Commission shares that committee(cid:146)s view, what are the reasons for the PHARE
programme(cid:146)s relative lack of success, and what changes are being planned in order to achieve PHARE
objectives?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(7 December 2000)

In its recently released (cid:145)Phare 2000 Review (cid:129) Strengthening Preparations for membership(cid:146) (1),
the
Commission recognised that Phare(cid:146)s performance can still be improved in certain areas but that its basic
orientations as introduced in 1997 and updated in 1999 continue to address the main needs of the
applicant countries. Beneficial results arising from these orientations include: Phare programming has been
fully re-oriented towards the accession priorities of the accession partnership and the annual regular
reports; strengthening administrative capacities is now a key priority, with 200 Member States(cid:146) civil
servants in place advising their applicant country counterparts on priority acquis issues; new Phare
management structures are operational
in all ten candidate countries based on national funds, central
financing and contracting units (CFCUs) and implementing agencies; the joint monitoring commitees are
entering operation; and lastly, more responsibility has been deconcentrated to Commission delegations.
Phare programmes focusing on promoting economic and social cohesion are being financed in 2000 on
the basis of draft national development plans. Phare contracting rates are improving. The five worst
performing countries in 1997 have shown substantial improvements in 1998. The average time between
the financing memorandum and contracting is decreasing. Average contract size is increasing by between
two and four times, depending on country. Phare(cid:146)s reforms sought to raise impact and, as a result, the
number of Phare programmes rated as satisfactory or above in the Commission(cid:146)s assessment has increased
from 39 % in 1999 to 56 % in 2000.

Despite the advances above, the Commission agrees with the committee(cid:146)s view that there is still substantial
room for improvement on Phare (see communication section 2 and annex 1 for more detail).

As highlighted also in various reports by the Court of auditors, past problems have included: the
disruption caused to candidate countries by introducing too many changes at the same time, some of
which had not been sufficiently worked out in advance; the need for continued improvements in project
design; certain problems regarding twinning and the lack of an effective Phare management information
system.

All these problems are addressed in this communication. In summary, the communication identifies two
additional broad challenges for Phare that must be tackled in the period 2000-2006 to achieve Phare(cid:146)s
objectives better and deliver on the past reforms. There should be a period of relative stability to
consolidate the past reforms and to ensure their full benefit is obtained. In addition, some of the 1997
reforms must be refined to respond to the constructive criticisms of the Court of auditors and Parliament.
Lastly, efforts to raise impact and absorption capacity in the applicant countries must be further
emphasised.

The objective of Phare in the structural funds area is to prepare for the implementation of structural funds
in candidate countries by putting in place the necessary administrative and budgetary structures, and to
allow these countries to benefit from a first generation of integrated regional development programmes of
an objective 1 type contributing to their economic and social cohesion.

C 174 E/18

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

19.6.2001

A new series of country evaluations under the Phare programme is at an early planning stage.

(1) C-2000-3103-2.

(2001/C 174 E/017)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3093/00

by Ioannis Averoff (PPE-DE)
and Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 October 2000)

Subject: Funding for Greece for reafforestation and flood prevention schemes

Although the Commission has been asked repeatedly in the past about the number of flood prevention
and reafforestation schemes it has funded in Greece, it has hitherto failed to give clear answers as to the
precise programmes which have received funding, the exact amounts made available, and the results of
those programmes. Following the summer fires, which affected almost the whole of Greece, both Attica
and many regions of provincial Greece, particularly Epirus and the Peloponnese, are threatened by
flooding.

Can the Commission state specifically:

1. how many flood prevention schemes it has funded in Greece, exactly which projects are involved, the

amount of finance per project, and whether the projects have been fully completed,

2. where exactly reafforestation has been carried out in Greece; whether the frequently announced

reafforestation of Pendeli in Attica, for example, has been completed, and

3. what measures the Greek Government has taken to use up Community funds in response to this year(cid:146)s

disasters, and how the Commission responded to the Greek Government(cid:146)s requests?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 2000)

In future, the new (cid:145)management information system(cid:146)

There is currently no computerised and standardised information system making it possible to rapidly
identify flood control projects and their main features. However, working together with the regional
authorities in the three regions to which the Honourable Members refer particularly, namely Attica, the
Peloponnese and Epirus, the Commission has compiled a detailed list of projects which can be made
available if desired.
(MIS) should ensure better
transparency of implementation. As regards the flood control projects part-financed so far in Greece
under the above three regional programmes in the Community support framework that is now nearing
completion (CSF II), a total number of 102 projects to combat flooding have been part-funded by the
European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). The volumes committed and payments made so far are set
out in the following table. Under the subsidiarity principle, the selection of individual schemes falls to the
national government. It is worth noting that eligible expenditure under CSF II can still be made by final
recipients up to 31 December 2001.

Region

Attica

Peloponnese

Epirus

Number
of projects

Committed
amounts

Take-up
amounts

(In million euro)

26

(cid:129)

76

Total

102

25,0

0

4,3

29,3

24,0

0

3,9

27,9