WRITTEN QUESTION E-0059/01 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Redistribution of the EU Structural Funds.
Date: 2001-01-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community budget, EU Member State, European Commission, FIFG, Structural Funds, carry-over of appropriations, implementation of the budget, multiannual financial framework

C 235 E/106

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.8.2001

(2001/C 235 E/110)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0059/01

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 January 2001)

Subject: Redistribution of the EU Structural Funds

(cid:145)A Member State can,
In its answer to Questions E-2705/99 and E-2706/99 (1), the Commission states:
within the framework of the regulations on the structural funds, reallocate Community finance from one
programme to another or between funds in a Member State. It can also return the allocation in part or in
whole to the Commission for redistribution to another Member State or for other purposes as appropriate.
One or more of these options has been exercised by many Member States. ((cid:133)) The amount [under the
FIFG] returned by the United Kingdom was not reallocated to another Member State but was used to help
balance the Community budget for 1999.(cid:146)

Can the Commission specify the legal basis enabling a Member State to transfer Community

1.
financing from one fund to another or to return it to the Commission?

Can the Commission specify the legal basis conferring on it the power to decide whether a sum

2.
returned is to be redistributed to another Member State or is to be used for other purposes?

Can the Commission specify what amounts have been returned to date by each of the Member States

3.
under the FIFG for the programming period 1994-1999?

Can the Commission state what was done with those sums after they had been returned, and on the

4.
basis of what criteria?

Can the Commission state what sums were redistributed to which Member States, and explain the

5.
criteria used?

6.
Does the Commission not consider that the amounts returned should be redistributed to those
Member States which need them and which execute, fully and correctly, the Community funding originally
granted to them, thus maintaining the original purpose of the funding concerned?

(1) OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000, p. 42.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2001)

Transfer between Community sources of financing was expressly provided for in Article 25(5) of
1.
Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988 (1), as amended by Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2082/93 of 20 July 1993 amending Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 laying down provisions for
implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different
Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the
other existing financial instruments (2). A change could be made through the partnership between the
Commission and Member States to ensure effective monitoring of Structural Funds assistance and
compliance with the procedure laid down in Article 25(5).

Transfer remains possible under Articles 34(3) and 35(3)(g) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of
21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (3).

The procedures for amending a Community support framework (CSF) are included in each Member State(cid:146)s
CSF published by the Commission.

21.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 235 E/107

The Commission is obliged to ensure optimum utilisation of the financial resources allocated to
2.
implementing the Structural Funds(cid:146) Objectives. In accordance with that efficiency criterion, the Commis-
sion reallocates amounts which a Member State has decided no longer to commit and uses them for the
tasks of the Structural Funds.

During the programming period which ended on 31 December 1999, several single programming

3.
documents (SPDs) for Objective 5(a) (fisheries) did not use up all the Community assistance available.

The corresponding appropriations under the Financial
reduced as follows:

Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) were

(cid:129) Denmark: € 12,25 million,

(cid:129) Italy: € 25 million (reallocated to the Objective 1 CSF for Italy),

(cid:129) Netherlands: € 2,5 million (reallocated to the fisheries section of the Objective 1 SPD for Flevoland),

(cid:129) United Kingdom: € 28,63 million.

All the other Objective 5(a) (fisheries) SPDs programmed the total FIFG appropriations available, including
the entire proceeds from indexing; all the appropriations thus programmed were committed at Community
level.

The other FIFG appropriations were allocated to Objective 1 programmes. In the event of underutilisation,
reallocating unused appropriations as necessary is first and foremost a matter for the authority managing
the programmes. They are allocated either to other operational programmes within the same Community
support framework or to other priorities under the same regional multifund SPD.

4.
The term (cid:145)sums returned(cid:146) should first be clarified, since it could give rise to confusion. The
reallocation or non-allocation of these sums is to be understood in relation to the indicative financial
programming which resulted from the Edinburgh financial perspective. Most instances therefore involve
a portion of the indicative programming which was not implemented as initially programmed, but whose
reallocation occurred before legal commitment decisions (Commission decisions on contributions from the
Funds) and budgetary commitments. In some instances (e.g. single-instalment programmes), reallocation
led to amendment of the legal commitment decision and to budgetary decommitment. Reallocation did not
entail returning sums to the Community budget, however.

Reallocation generally took place within the same Member State and at that Member State(cid:146)s request. In
many instances, reallocation was carried out between regions under the same Objective or Initiative. It also
occurred between different Initiatives within the same region. In both instances, the link with the initial
programming remains clear. Member States sometimes wished to carry out a broader reallocation. Such
instances include that referred to at point 3 above, where Italy wished to reinforce the programmes for its
central regions affected by an earthquake.

Programming amendments between Member States are exceptional; during the reference period they
related principally to financing the Peace Community Initiative, which was programmed and committed (cid:129)
as regards the 1999 instalment of € 100 million (cid:129) from a levy on all Member States(cid:146) programming for the
Community Initiatives.

Lastly, as the Honourable Member emphasises by referring to the Commission(cid:146)s previous answers, some
Member States relinquished part of their initial allocation (cid:129) generally the proceeds from indexing final
instalments (cid:129) without reallocation taking place. As the Commission has already stressed, the sums
in relation to the total 1994-1999 appropriations. As the Honourable Member
involved are marginal
points out, in 1999 those appropriations actually helped to close the gap between budgetary allocations
and programming. As the Commission has already explained, it was no longer possible, as it had been in
previous financial years, for the budget underspend in 1998 to give rise to a corresponding increase in the
financial perspective ceilings at the end of the 1994-1999 period. Because the programmes and program-
ming are multiannual and not subject to annual budgetary constraints, there was divergence between the

C 235 E/108

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.8.2001

programming and the budgetary funds available, which were in deficit by the amount of the 1998 budget
underspend. The fact that some Member States did not consider it possible to absorb all their indicative
programming helped to resolve the problem. Consequently, there were no unutilised or available budget
appropriations for further reallocation at the end of the period.

5.
As referred to at point 4 above, reallocations were normally carried out within a Member State. The
sums involved were usually insignificant, but the number of operations was quite large (cid:129) particularly in
1999. The only noteworthy instance between Member States concerned the Peace programme, with
a reallocation of € 100 million affecting all Member States.

6.
The absence of net amounts available at the end of the period (as indicated at point 4 above), the
insignificant sums reallocated, and above all the very nature of Structural Funds programming meant that
the Commission was not able to play a central role vis-(cid:224)-vis the reallocated amounts in order to improve
absorption and effectiveness. There are nevertheless good grounds for assuming that Member States
requested reallocations with a view to meeting a more urgent need or to improving absorption capacity,
and that those reallocations therefore address the concern expressed by the Honourable Member.

(1) OJ L 374, 31.12.1988.
(2) OJ L 193, 31.7.1993.
(3) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2001/C 235 E/111)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0060/01

by Esko Sepp(cid:228)nen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 January 2001)

Subject: Economic aid to Montenegro

Before Montenegro(cid:146)s local elections in June, the EU decided to accord € 15 million in economic aid for the
administration of the republic. To the Commission(cid:146)s knowledge, for what purposes has this aid been used,
and has the aid been properly administered in Montenegro?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2001)

In reply to the question asked by the Honourable Member regarding the assistance provided by the EC to
Montenegro:

(cid:129) In 2000 the EC approved substantial assistance to the Republic of Montenegro. This included more
than € 9 million for humanitarian support, up to € 20 million for macro-financial assistance, € 11
million for food security and a total of € 20 million (in two phases worth € 5 million and € 15 million
respectively) for reconstruction. This is in addition to bilateral assistance provided by the Member
States, mainly in the areas of infrastructure, public administration reform and economic reform. This
level of support reflected the priority attached by the General Affairs Council, and indeed the
European Parliament, to supporting Montenegro in withstanding considerable and economic pressure
from the Milosevic regime, and to help it on the path of democracy and reform.

(cid:129) The humanitarian aid and macro-financial assistance has since been disbursed. The latter was subject
to conditionalities which the Government respected in order to receive payment of the second
tranche. The € 11 million for food security is yet to be converted into a financing agreement as the
Government has only just received the last tranche of a 1999 food security support programme,
which also had stringent conditionalities attached.