WRITTEN QUESTION E-0940/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. The value of further-processing aid.
Date: 2001-03-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Sweden, aid evaluation, food industry, investment aid

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?

C 350 E/62

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

11.12.2001

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(1 June 2001)

The Commission officially received the report referred to by the Honourable Member at the beginning of
March 2001 and is currently studying it.

Any examination of an evaluation report must ensure that the evaluation work was carried out in
accordance with standard practice and meets the minimum quality requirements. Where an evaluation
report draws conclusions, it is important to examine whether the conclusions are tied to the context in
which the measures were applied or if they have a wider significance.

The Swedish evaluation report to which the Honourable Member refers was drawn up in accordance with
the Community guidelines requiring the Member States to assess the impact of the measures on the
processing and marketing of agricultural products. In particular, the guidelines call for answers to a number
of common assessment questions covering competitiveness, the situation of the basic agricultural products,
the environment, and the implementation and targeting of the measures. They also recommend that the
Member States should assess the quality of the individual reports by reference to eight standard criteria.

All the Member States must send the Commission evaluation reports on these measures by 30 September
2001. About forty reports have been announced. The Commission plans to conduct an assessment at
Community level, essentially based on the reports provided by the Member States, and intends to publicise
the results of the survey. For the reasons indicated above, it is not possible at present to arrive at a verdict
on the validity of the conclusions of the Swedish study to which the Honourable Member refers.

The Commission notes that, for the 2000-2006 programming period, the Swedish authorities decided to
continue with the processing and marketing measure, as is permitted under Council Regulation (EC)
No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural
Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (1). However, in
the light of the conclusions of the above report, they opted for a more targeted approach, focusing the
measure on small and medium-sized enterprises.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(2001/C 350 E/067)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0942/01

by Johannes Voggenhuber (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Conclusion of an aid contract with the designated Austrian national agency for the EU(cid:146)s (cid:145)Youth(cid:146)

programme

The Republic of Austria has designated EuroTech Management Consulting GmbH as the Austrian national
agency for the EU(cid:146)s (cid:145)Youth(cid:146) programme.

This appointment may be in contravention of Commission directives. In particular, as a (cid:145)GmbH(cid:146) (limited
liability company) EuroTech is by definition a profit-making organisation and has expressed a gainful
intent with regard to its activity as a national agency. An inquiry is under way in Austria.

Was there any reason why the Commission did not continue to use the existing national agency? Why was
EuroTech preferred to the existing national agency?

What specific experience and specialist competencies does EuroTech have in the field of youth exchanges,
international/intercultural education, the further training of youth workers, the handling of EU action
programmes and/or the management of EU funds on behalf of third parties? Did EuroTech have staff with
appropriate qualifications at the time when it was nominated?