WRITTEN QUESTION E-3630/03 by Carles-Alfred Gasòliba i Böhm (ELDR) to the Commission. Unspent Structural Fund resources.
Date: 2003-12-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, Structural Funds, amending budget, implementation of the budget

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/837

(2004/C 78 E/0891)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3630/03

by Carles-Alfred Gasòliba i Böhm (ELDR) to the Commission

Subject: Unspent Structural Fund resources

(5 December 2003)

The preliminary draft amending budget No 7 to the 2003 budget, submitted by the Commission (1)
establishes a considerable total of resources to be returned to the Budgetary Authority in the pre-2000
period, due to the low uptake of the Structural Funds: no less than EUR 5 000 million. This Community
‘saving’ will be allocated between the Member States in terms of their revenue contributions.

What are the Commission estimates for unused Structural Fund resources pre-2000 by Member State and
by Fund?

(1) SEC(2003) 1111 final, 29 October 2003.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2004)

The amending Budget presented by the Commission on 29 October 2003 (1) and adopted by the budgetary
authority was a response to the Court of Auditors, which stresses in its report on the 2002 financial year
the necessity for the Commission to bring available appropriations into line with actual needs as soon as it
becomes aware that there is a risk of underutilisation.

Although the Member States had estimated that the payment appropriations for 2003 should cover almost
all the remainder still to be paid in respect of the 1994-99 programmes, the closure files were not sent to
the Commission until 31 March 2003 (cid:1) the cut-off date stipulated by the Regulation (cid:1) and were often
incomplete. Concern to maintain the quality of the requisite controls at the time of closure consequently
led to identification of that underutilisation risk.

The adoption of that amending budget in the course of operations, which indicates progress in steering
implementation, did not prevent reducing the remainder still to be paid in respect of 1994-1999 from
15,6 billion to 9 billion in 2003, a reduction of 41 %.

The estimate of funding which would ultimately remain unutilised by the Member States in respect of all
the 1994-1999 programmes is still very provisional and may still change significantly. Indeed, while some
partial or final closures have already given rise to recoveries or decommitments, the total amount of
unutilised funding will not be known until after all the programmes have been finally closed and the
requisite adversarial procedures completed in the event of financial corrections.

The following table gives an estimate, by Fund and Member State, of resources which might not be utilised
in respect of 1994-1999 programmes for Objectives 1 to 6 and for the Community Initiatives. The figures
correspond to projects which could not be finished or which ultimately cost less than forecast. They
include the financial corrections made by the Commission, e.g. in cases of ineligible expenditure, and may
change in the light of any financial corrections still to come.

Country

EAGGF

FIFG

ERDF

Belgium

Denmark

Germany

Greece

Spain

France

19

7

92

29

85

180

3

13

5

11

29

27

145

18

425

440

228

807

ESF

53

8

213

40

48

489

Total

220

46

735

520

390

1 503

C 78 E/838

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

Country

Ireland

Italy

Luxembourg

Netherlands

Austria

Portugal

Finland

Sweden

United Kingdom

Unspecified

EAGGF

3

212

2

3

18

31

11

5

19

0

FIFG

1

21

1

15

0

5

3

6

9

0

ERDF

62

432

4

143

15

106

36

44

775

100

Total

716

149

3 780

ESF

268

489

3

362

16

49

42

22

353

0

2 455

Total

334

1 154

10

523

49

191

92

77

1 156

100

7 100

These amounts totalling EUR 7,1 billion represent on average 5 % of the 1994-1999 programmes (even
less in present value). This means that, 10 years after their launch, the programmes’ implementation rate is
over 95 %.

(1) SEC(2003) 1111.

(2004/C 78 E/0892)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3636/03

by Salvador Jové Peres (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(2 December 2003)

Subject: Reform of the CMO in olive oil

Regulation (EC) No 1638/98 (1) amending the common organisation of the market in oils and fats lays
down that: ‘No aid … may be paid to olive growers in respect of additional olive trees or the relevant areas
planted after 1 May 1998’.

Under the recent Commission proposal, aid for olive oil would be calculated on the basis of the aid
received in the period 2000-2002. Olive groves begin to yield fruit five years after being established, and
only reach full productive capacity ten years after planting. As a consequence, the entitlements for olive
trees planted between 1990 and 1 May 1998 would, despite their being eligible for aid, be inferior to
those for other olive trees. Similarly, the Council regulation of 1998 established guaranteed national
quantities which, if exceeded, trigger the application of penalties, and therefore the granting of less aid.
In this way, if the approach announced by the Commission were to be applied, there would be a reduction
in the aid entitlements for olive trees planted between 1988 and 1 May 1998. Olive groves that are the
subject of restructuring or replanting measures in these periods would also be affected by both sets of
circumstances.

The Commission has commissioned studies and investigations (cid:1) Olistat, Olisig, Oliarea and Olicount,
Olicount 2000, Oliarea and Geomatics (cid:1) to obtain reliable information on Community olive groves, and
has been able to use GIS for this.

What surface area of olive groves planted prior to 1998 in each Member State would not have come into
full production in 2000? What surface area of olive groves subject to restructuring or replanting measures
in each Member State would not have come into full production in 2000? How many producers fall into
each of these two categories in each Member State?

(1) OJ L 210, 28.7.1998, p. 32.