WRITTEN QUESTION E-0935/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Responsibility of a Commission official.
Date: 2001-03-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European official, disciplinary proceedings, fraud against the EU, humanitarian aid, liability

C 350 E/60

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

11.12.2001

(2001/C 350 E/064)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0933/01

by Jonas Sj(cid:246)stedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Speeding up emergency aid

(cid:145)The Eurocrats(cid:146), a Danish TV programme broadcast on 11 February 2001 on Swedish television, reported
inter alia on the time taken to process emergency aid and aid projects in general. One example was
a project to save the rainforests in Bolivia. The project application was lodged with the Commission in
December 1997. It was formally approved by the Commission five months later, but the work on the
contract and the budgetisation etc. has dragged on. Commissioner Nielson stated in February 2000 that
the finance had been arranged, but in November 2000 nobody yet knew whether the project would be
allowed to go ahead.

Another example quoted was the emergency aid following the devastation caused by Hurricane Mitch in
Central America in November 1998. In December 1998 and May 1999 the Commission promised € 200-
250 million as disaster aid. The appropriations were approved in May 2000 which was followed by the
procedure to launch the emergency aid project. The project began three years after the disaster.

The handling of these emergency aid projects reveals only too well the bureaucratic inefficiency involved.
Has the Commission reviewed its emergency aid procedures and produced any proposals for establishing
a fast-track emergency aid procedure which does not take years?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question P-1085/01 by
Mr Schmidt (1).

The Commission would like to underline yet again that there is a confusion between humanitarian aid
provided by the European Community(cid:146)s Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO) and the longer-term
development aid provided by other Community instruments. Therefore, it reaffirms that humanitarian aid
to victims of hurricane Mitch was delivered in a record period and the amount committed (around € 40
million) has been totally disbursed.

The development projects that are being implemented have had to be agreed with national authorities and
have had to undergo a long phase of preparation (needs assessment, appraisal, design of proposals, etc. (cid:133)).
This necessarily implies a longer-term approach.

Nevertheless, the Commission has recognised the need for urgent and major improvements in the speed
and quality of aid delivery, and is currently working on it in the context of the reform of Community(cid:146)s
external aid.

(1) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001, p. 197.

(2001/C 350 E/065)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0935/01

by Jonas Sj(cid:246)stedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Responsibility of a Commission official

In the fraud case involving Messrs. Perry Lux, some of the few project documents that remained showed
that Mr Gomes-Reino, the Director of ECHO, had signed three or four contracts with Perry Lux and
Hubert Onidi one. The latter was forced out of his post at the Commission. Mr Gomes-Reino on the other
hand was absolved by the Commission.

11.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 350 E/61

Does the Commission thereby consider that a Commission official holding a director(cid:146)s post can sign and
hence approve a project but not subsequently have to take responsibility for its negative consequences?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 2001)

The Commission draws the attention of the Honourable Member to the fact that the various disciplinary
proceedings opened in connection with the Perry Lux-European Community(cid:146)s Humanitarian Office (ECHO)
file included a case against Mr G(cid:243)mez Reino.

The proceedings were instituted to clarify Mr G(cid:243)mez Reino(cid:146)s responsibility as Director of ECHO. Particular
attention was given to the lawfulness of certain contracts signed by him for the intended purpose of
implementing humanitarian aid measures but inter alia used instead to obtain the human resources needed
for implementing those measures.

Following due disciplinary process, none of the allegations against Mr G(cid:243)mez Reino was found to be
justified in fact or in law. He was cleared of the charges brought against him in the disciplinary
proceedings on the grounds that he could not be held responsible for the acts of which he was accused
since they were concealed from him. At no time was Mr G(cid:243)mez Reino accused of deriving any personal
benefit from any irregularities.

As in all other cases, the decision taken in the disciplinary proceedings which were the subject of the
Honourable Member(cid:146)s question is final unless new evidence comes to light. No new evidence has become
available.

(2001/C 350 E/066)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0940/01

by Jonas Sj(cid:246)stedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: The value of further-processing aid

The EU further-processing aid paid to the food industry in Sweden during the 1995-1999 programming
period to improve production efficiency has turned out to have had no effect on either productivity or raw
material consumption in the industry. It was therefore of no benefit to agriculture either. On the other
hand the companies receiving the aid believed that it was helping to achieve its purpose. These were the
findings of an assessment carried out by the Swedish Institute for Food and Agricultural Economics, the
SLI, published in February 2001.

According to the analyses carried out by the SLI, there was no evidence of any effect produced by the aid.
The companies(cid:146) main investments would have been made even without the aid. The conclusion was that
the aid acted as transfer of money to the companies and thus increased their profits. Over the period in
question the investment aid has turned out to be an ineffective instrument for its purpose.

There are also considerable constraints on the use of the aid, which reduce the likelihood that it will have
any decisive effect on the viability of the industry. Public investment aid in Sweden amounted to some
SEK 329 million in 1996-1999. The cost of administering the aid has been calculated at about SEK 15
million. Further-processing aid is continuing for the 2000-2006 programming period.

If financial aid produces no benefits, should it continue? Does the Commission believe that further
processing aid is producing benefits, and have similar assessments been carried out in other Member
States?