WRITTEN QUESTION E-1634/01 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission. Execution of Commission initiatives over the period 1994-1999.
Date: 2001-06-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community budget, EU financing, EU initiative, European Commission

C 93 E/16

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2002

The aim of the Commission is not to try to convince the Maltese people of the advantages of EU
membership. The Commission considers that it is for the Maltese people to decide on the issue. To help
them do so the Commission adopted in May 2000 a communication strategy on enlargement which
includes Malta along with the other applicant countries.

The strategy has three aims:

(cid:31) to improve the understanding of the EU;

(cid:31) to explain the implications of membership;

(cid:31) to explain the link between preparing for accession and making progress in the negotiations.

With this strategy, the Commission aims to give ongoing objective information to the Maltese people and
to the citizens of other applicant countries. The Commission is thereby responding to a demand from
Maltese civil society and Maltese citizens who want to be correctly informed in order to make the right
decision on the question of EU membership. EUR 1 million will be available until 2004, of which EUR
200 000 will be spent this year and EUR 300 000 in 2002.

To date one Local Technical Assistance Staff (ALAT) member has been recruited at the EU delegation in
Malta and another is due to be taken on. This extra staff will be mainly concerned with managing the pre-
accession aid package (EUR 38 million for 2000-2004) and monitoring Malta’s progress in implementing
the acquis communautaire.

Negotiations on the environment have just started with Malta and at this stage the Commission is not in a
position to prejudge their outcome.

(2002/C 93 E/020)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1634/01

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(12 June 2001)

Subject: Execution of Commission initiatives over the period 1994-1999

The Community initiatives created in 1989 enable the Commission to play a more active role, on the
supposition that
the Member States. The
Commission has, in these Community initiatives, a leading role in dealing with specific problems affecting
the EU as a whole.

it has an overall vision allegedly lacking at

the level of

Over the programming period 1994-1999 13 initiatives were adopted, with a total budget of EUR 13 450
m. These initiatives were characterised by a ‘value added’ element vis-à-vis the other measures financed by
the Structural Funds, since they were aimed at encouraging transnational, crossborder and interregional
cooperation, the participation of local economic and social agents, and aid to real cooperation among all
interested parties.

In view of all the above, the Commission and the Member States may logically be expected to have made
efforts to execute, in their entirety, the resources allocated to each of the 13 initiatives for the period
1994-1999.

Can the Commission state the real execution level of the appropriations earmarked for this set of initiatives
over the period 1994-1999?

What was the real execution level for each of the initiatives (Interreg II, Leader II, REGIS II, NOW, Horizon,
Youthstart, Integra, ADAPT, Rechar II, Resider II, Konver, RETEX, SME, URBAN and PESCA)?

What is the Commission’s assessment of the execution percentage? Why were the remaining funds
earmarked for each initiative not executed?

18.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 93 E/17

In particular, what was the total amount of funds under these initiatives executed for Spain? What amount
the total allocated for the
was executed in Spain under each initiative, and what percentage of
programming period does this represent? What
the execution
percentage? Why were the remaining funds earmarked for each initiative not executed?

is the Commission’s assessment of

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 2001)

At the end of 2000, total appropriations committed and paid for the Community Initiatives (CIs) for the
1994-1999 programming period were as shown in the table below:

CIs 1994-1999

Commitments
EUR 15

Payments
EUR 15

(€)

Pesca

Interreg

Peace

Now

Horizon

Integra

332 321 579,11

201 428 313,00

3 624 590 366,00

1 821 763 216,70

506 812 700,00

338 035 448,00

319 069 244,00

229 066 846,70

537 089 276,00

447 942 715,00

409 907 925,00

354 316 411,00

Youthstart

460 060 641,00

371 668 242,00

Employment (not broken down)

201 218 027,00

201 218 027,00

Adapt

Rechar II

Resider II

Konver

Retex

Regis II

Urban

Leader

SMEs

1 674 698 155,00

1 381 920 169,00

472 152 599,00

376 561 900,90

572 443 268,00

422 899 008,40

709 521 551,00

539 592 679,80

588 977 214,00

481 246 385,00

649 413 401,00

496 037 440,00

906 324 375,00

602 311 483,70

1 807 684 346,10

1 296 338 294,60

1 033 643 623,30

749 499 722,00

Total

14 805 928 290,51

10 311 846 302,80

The amount of € 13.45 billion referred to by the Honourable Member in her question is the total funding
in 1994 prices for the CIs for 1994-1999 before the accession of Austria, Sweden and Finland. The
amount actually committed is greater than this amount because of: indexation over the programming
period 1994-1999;
inclusion of the amount allocated to these three Member States who joined the
Community in 1995; the additional allocation to the Peace Initiative and the general impact of the revision
of allocations in 1998.

The final implementation of the final funding for the CIs as a whole was 100 %. This means that all the
Community funds provided were fully committed for this assistance. However, the actually implementation
of the programmes will not be known until they are closed, i.e. from June in 2002, in accordance with
their implementing conditions.

The rate of implementation for Spain to the end of 2000 is shown in the table below. The figures for the
Community Initiative for border areas (Interreg) are not shown because the amount per Member State is
not always available for these programmes. The implementation rate and the Commission’s assessment of
that rate are the same for Spain as for the Member States as a whole.

C 93 E/18

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2002

CI 1994-1999

Commitments Spain

Payments Spain

(Euro)

Pesca

Now

Horizon

Integra

Youthstart

47 263 071,00

34 118 251,50

57 990 753,00

36 749 376,00

140 327 322,00

119 826 832,00

112 449 657,00

94 617 288,00

111 063 400,00

90 285 326,00

Employment (not broken down)

51 277 995,00

51 277 995,00

Adapt

Rechar II

Resider II

Konver

Retex

Regis II

Urban

Leader

SMEs

288 575 048,00

256 583 804,00

39 291 000,00

31 432 800,00

77 803 000,00

76 138 074,00

23 758 000,00

19 006 400,00

106 649 000,00

100 810 529,00

230 799 000,00

211 747 800,00

247 372 927,00

144 447 302,00

416 739 546,00

340 153 660,60

248 791 673,00

206 963 564,88

Total

2 200 151 392,00

1 814 159 002,98

(2002/C 93 E/021)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1681/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(14 June 2001)

Subject: Vacancies in the European Commission’s Socrates Technical Assistance Office

In December 2000 and March 2001, the Socrates Technical Assistance Office posted two vacancies in The
Bulletin (1) (see below) for the recruitment of various members of staff. In the recruitment procedure, non-
English and non-French speakers were discriminated against. They were excluded in advance from the
selection procedure, even when their command of English or French was more than adequate. Other
language speakers manifestly did not come in for consideration for these duties. It is astonishing that
Socrates, a technical assistance office of the European Commission, should be guilty of this kind of
discrimination.

I therefore ask the Commission the following:

1. Who is responsible for the discriminatory notices of vacancy in The Bulletin?

2. Will Socrates pursue a non-discriminatory personnel policy in future? If not, why not?

3. How many applicants were of English mother tongue?

4. How many applicants were of French mother tongue?

5. How many applicants were of neither English nor French mother tongue?

6. How many applicants had studied for more than one year at an English-language university?

7. How many applicants had studied for more than one year at a French-language university?