A new spending logic to make the EU more accountable

Member states should be as serious about spending EU funds as they are about national budgets.

The good news is that the European Court of Auditors’ assessment of the European Commission’s implementa-tion of the EU’s budget for 2009 is one of the most positive so far. It notes significant improvements, especially in cohesion policy, the principal problem in the past. In that area, the error rate in spending fell from 11% in 2008 to 3% in 2009.

The bad news, of course, is that the Court of Auditors felt unable – for the 16th year in a row – to give a positive statement of assurance.

The failings are long-standing and the primary culprits have long been known: the member states, which are in charge of 80% of EU funds. The member states are, therefore, the ones to blame, the European Commission argues. The European Parliament has taken the same line in the past.

But there are also deficiencies within the Commission. The Court identified a number of irregularities in areas such as research or educational policy. The Commission has already tried to simplify regulations for research funding, to reduce errors. However, member states have failed to comply – further reason, then, for the Commission to feel frustrated with member states.

It is not, however, enough for the Commission – or for the Parliament – simply to point fingers, particularly now.

When, in April 2011, the Parliament has to consider whether to ‘discharge’ the Commission for its implementation of the 2009 budget, the Parliament needs to press for three major changes.

Firstly, there should be mandatory ‘national management declarations’, signed by finance ministers themselves, in which countries would explicitly take responsibility for how EU funds are spent in their country.

Secondly, member states should automatically lose money for mismanagement.

And, thirdly, commissioners ought to take on – and feel – more responsibility for the audits and for the Commission’s own misspending: commissioners should co-sign the ‘activity reports’ compiled by directors-general for the EU’s spending in their areas. At present, only directors-general sign those reports.

Such changes could – and should – have been introduced long ago. But failure to bring improvements would be especially damaging now.

With budget cuts being made across Europe, it is especially important that we improve EU citizens’ view of the way EU money is spent.

With discussions on the long-term budget framework looming, we need to ensure that negotiations do not become simply a reprise of long-running battles, complicated by old spending failings. These budget talks need to be guided, instead, by a new spending logic. That logic is set out in the Lisbon treaty, which says that EU spending needs to demonstrate “European added value”.

It is the obligation of the Commission, under the treaty, to produce evaluations of EU spending based on the “European added value” in EU-funded projects. Algirdas Šemeta is a man with the right experience for his job as audit commissioner: he is a former finance minister and director-general of Lithuania’s national statistics. He now has to press his colleagues to address more vigorously the shortcomings within the Commission and in the monitoring and control systems at member-state level.

Under the treaty, it falls to the Parliament to ensure that funds provided by European taxpayers are spent not only correctly, but also well and efficiently. That is why I and other MEPs are pressing for changes.

Click Here: Putters

And the member states should feel a political responsibility. Most have shown how seriously they view their own budget problems, by introducing austerity measures. At home, they want their euros to do more. As we head into talks on the long-term budget, they need to show that they are also serious about using the EU’s euros better.

German Liberal MEP Jorgo Chatzimarkakis is drafting the European Parliament’s review of the 2009 discharge.