WRITTEN QUESTION E-3915/02 by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Financial assistance for Latin America.
Date: 2003-01-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community budget, EU aid, EU programme, Latin America, aid system, commitment of expenditure, cooperation policy, financial aid

14.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192 E/145

(2003/C 192 E/181)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3915/02

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 January 2003)

Subject: Financial assistance for Latin America

Can the Commission provide an annual breakdown by budget heading of European Union financial
assistance to Latin America during the periods 1995-1999 and 2000-2002?

What were the annual payments made during those periods?

How does the Commission justify the ‘traditional’ underimplementation of these budget headings?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2003)

An annual breakdown by budget heading of commitments and payments for cooperation with Latin
America for the period 1996-2002 (the figures for 2002 are provisional as commitments have not yet
been entered in the computerised system for certain budget headings) (1)
is being sent direct to the
Honourable Member and Parliament’s Secretariat.

During the period in question the total amount of commitments for all headings was EUR 3,12 billion
compared with EUR 2,04 billion in payments.

There are a number of explanations for the difference of EUR 1,08 billion between the two amounts.

Firstly, a large proportion of the commitments for 2001 and 2002 have to be deducted from this figure.
Although these amounts are entered as commitments in the Community’s accounts they have to be
covered by contracts in order to generate payments, and this requires financing agreements with
beneficiary countries and/or bodies. Financing agreements covering commitments made in 2001 have
obviously generated very little expenditure and, consequently, payments. As regards 2002, there are not
yet any financing agreements for some commitments.

Secondly, the initial budget has not been used up for some projects as objectives have had to be adapted in
the light of the beneficiary area’s absorption capacity or projects have had to be suspended or halted as
they could not be satisfactorily implemented in a particular local situation. Consequently the level of
payments is lower than that of commitments.

An analysis of payments for the main budget heading for the Latin American programme also reveals:

(cid:1) a net

improvement

in the rate of payments under heading B7-310 (financial and technical
cooperation). In 2002 the global volume of payments was 85 % of commitments for the year whereas
it was only 60 % in 1998;

(cid:1) a reduction in the ratio of payments to commitments under heading B7-311 (economic cooperation).
Payments accounted for 58 % of commitments for the year in 1998 compared with only 20 % in
2002. This is due to the large increase in commitments under this heading (which rose from
EUR 49 million in 1998 to EUR 125 million in 2002)
regional
programmes (Alfa, Alban, Alis, Al-Invest) in recent years. These take some time to get going before
they generate a significant flow of payments;

following approval of major

(cid:1) a subsequent increase in the rate of payments under heading B7-313 (rehabilitation) covering the
programme for the reconstruction of Central America (RPRCA) following hurricane Mitch. The total
volume of payments compared with commitments rose from 12,8 % in 1999 to 34,8 % in 2002. It
the payment schedule for this heading provides for 100 % utilisation of
should be noted that
commitments already made over four years.

The Commission does, however, recognise that the problem raised by the Honourable Member, namely the
slow rate of
factor in Community
cooperation in recent years.

implementation of payment appropriations, has been a critical

C 192 E/146

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

14.8.2003

Since management of Community external aid has been reformed this problem is being constantly
monitored and an action programme has been drawn up with quantifiable objectives to reduce the volume
of payments to be made and to close accounts for projects which still have outstanding commitment
appropriations. As a result of the measures taken and efforts by Commission departments the rate of
payments is improving and outstanding balances are constantly being reduced.

(1)

It is impossible to make the same breakdown for 1995 as changes in the titles of certain budget headings and
changes made at the time to the computerised system make it very difficult to compare data. Consequently data has
been included solely for budget headings B7-310 (financial and technical cooperation) and B7-311 (economic
cooperation).

(2003/C 192 E/182)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3919/02

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(14 January 2003)

Subject: European satellite agency

At a meeting between the President of the Lazio Region, Francesco Storace, and the President of the
Commission, Romano Prodi, in Brussels a few days Rome was once again put forward as a candidate for
the seat of the European satellite agency.

Mr Prodi stressed that the criterion of unanimity risked paralysing the process of choosing the location of
agencies,
including the food and satellite agencies, and emphasised that despite the complexity of the
situation the Commission would make every endeavour to reach a decision.

Although these statements were very general and wide-ranging they reveal some sort of commitment on
the part of the Commission and suggest that the issue is on the way to being settled.

However, this conclusion is not confirmed by the answer to Question P-1940/02 (1) of 26 June 2002,
given by Mrs Palacio on behalf of the Commission. To the questions concerning the desirability of making
Rome the seat of the future satellite agency Mrs Palacio replied ‘no decision has been taken as to the
possible setting-up of a European multimodal satellite navigation agency. Consequently,
its location,
resources and the number of people which it would employ are of course unknown.’

In view of this, can the Commission say:

1. how the Galileo programme will be developed;

2. how the two contradictory statements are to be interpreted;

3. what the Commission’s position is on the subject?

(1) OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 249.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2003)

During its development phase, which will last until 2005, the Galileo satellite radionavigation programme
will be run by the Galileo Joint Undertaking, whose statutes, adopted by the Council in May 2002, locate
its seat in Brussels.

Once the joint undertaking is dissolved, the private entity holding the Galileo concession will take over
responsibility for the system’s deployment and operational phases. It will be for that entity to decide,
according to its own criteria (efficiency, cost, etc.) where to set up its company head office and operations
centre(s).