WRITTEN QUESTION E-0866/04 by Miet Smet (PPE-DE) to the Commission. European subsidies for the Flemish Community.
Date: 2004-03-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, European Court of Auditors, European Regional Development Fund, Flemish Community, management audit

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/897

Can the Commission therefore say:

1. whether any research has been carried out into the impact of the forthcoming accession on traditional

industries, in particular the match industry, and of China’s accession to the WTO;

2. what measures it will take to support these traditional industries, with a view to safeguarding jobs?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

Certain studies have been carried out by the Commission on the impact of enlargement on European
Union industries although no specific studies have been carried out on the match industry. Similarly, no
specific studies have been carried out on the impact on the match industry of China’s accession to the
World Trade Organisation (WTO). In the case of unfair competition from the industry of the accession
countries or from the Chinese industry, and in particular the non-respect of the WTO rules, the concerned
European enterprise is invited to contact the Commission.

The Commission’s general industrial policy is to enhance the competitiveness of European enterprises and
to help create an environment in which they can thrive. The Commission refers the Honourable Member
to the various work programmes and studies on the impact of enlargement which can be found at: (http://
europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/enterprise_policy/sme-package/index.htm or http://europa.eu.int/comm/arti-
cles/enterprise/enlargement/studies.htm).

Moreover, the Commission invites the Honourable Member to refer to the second communication on
industrial policy (1) adopted on 20 April 2004.

(1) COM(2004) 274.

(2004/C 84 E/0991)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0866/04

by Miet Smet (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Subject: European subsidies for the Flemish Community

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. What were the findings of

the auditing bodies with regard to the financial management and
the Flemish Community in Belgium in respect of European subsidies, what
accountability of
recommendations were made, and how were these recommendations implemented by the Flemish
Community?

2. How many investigations were made by the European Court of Auditors in relation to subsidies to the
Flemish Community, within the framework of the Statement of Assurance, for each year of the period
1999 to 2003?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

In accordance with normal procedures, the Commission departments responsible for Structural Funds have
checked the systems put in place by the Flemish Community of Belgium to manage these funds. They have
made a number of recommendations to the Flemish authorities in relation to various elements. The
Flemish authorities have accepted the recommendations and the commitments to this effect are being
followed up. The Directorate General for Regional Policy informed the Parliament of its findings for the
European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) in a report of 30 April 2003.

C 84 E/898

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

The European Court of Auditors has audited the current management and control systems for Structural
Funds set up by the Flemish Community twice,
in 2002 and 2003, for the years 2001 and 2002
respectively within the framework of the Statement of Assurance. The Honourable Member is referred to
the Court’s annual reports for 2001 and 2002 (1).

(1) OJ C 295, 28.11.2002 and OJ C 286, 28.11.2003.

(2004/C 84 E/0992)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0869/04

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Subject: ECHO and Chechnya

Many aid organisations which wish to provide humanitarian aid to people in the Chechnya region in
Russia complain that the EU’s humanitarian aid office ECHO does not process their aid applications
sufficiently quickly and efficiently and that accordingly aid does not reach its destination. What criteria
does ECHO apply to aid to Chechnya, and can the Commission accelerate the processing of aid
applications from church and other organisations which provide humanitarian aid?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission is not aware that many aid organisations which wish to provide humanitarian aid to
people in Chechnya complain that the EU’s Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO) does not process their aid
applications sufficiently quickly and efficiently.

ECHO, which is in charge of humanitarian aid to the Northern Caucasus, has never received such
complaints. The Office is working with quick procedures which allow for a rapid signature of grant
agreements and disbursement of funds.

The Commission adopts, in general, two funding decisions every year for the victims of the Chechnya
conflict. These decisions are based on previous discussions with potential partners who are asked to submit
concept papers where they explain which operations they would like to see funded by ECHO. ECHO then
decides to retain a certain number of these on the basis of the needs, the experience of the non
governmental organisation (NGO) and the coherence with ECHO’s strategy.

Once the decision has been adopted, and approximately one month before the start of the operation,
ECHO asks the partner to submit a proposal. The proposal is then discussed in detail and a contract is
signed in the following weeks. There is therefore no possibility to accelerate the processing of applications,
which is already very short.

As for the destination of the aid, there are very strict mechanisms put in place by ECHO’s partners in order
to ensure that
the aid reaches the intended beneficiaries. Partners work on the basis of a list of
beneficiaries, which is established after an assessment of the households’ economy and needs. The aid is
delivered directly to these beneficiaries, without an intermediary, which ensures that the people who are
on the lists do receive what they are entitled to.