Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-17-Speech-5-043"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000317.5.5-043"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, the principle of additionality exists in order to ensure that transfers to the Member States under the Structural Funds add to, rather than replace, national expenditures on structural development measures. In this way, European Union structural policies will have a greater impact on reducing regional and social disparities.
The
verification of additionality is at present being undertaken in application of Article 11 of Regulation 1260/99. This is an integral part of the negotiation of the Structural Funds programmes with the Member States. This exercise is a demonstration of the Member States' intention to implement the principle of additionality over the programming period that lies ahead. Where necessary, the Commission may request clarification from the Member States on the details of their forecasts for eligible expenditure for the period 2000-2006. As a further measure, the Commission has prepared detailed implementing provisions for inclusion in the programming documents covering both the situation
and also the mid-term and final verification of additionality.
The second issue covered by the questions is the possibility of the verification of additionality at regional level. I would like to develop a number of elements of previous answers. Firstly, although additionality is implemented at the level of the overall eligible spending by the Member States rather than at regional level, it must be borne in mind that the overall additionality required to be demonstrated is, by definition, the sum of the eligible expenditures at the lower level. In practice, reduced national eligible expenditure in some regions would have to be balanced with an increase in other regions in order for additionality to be respected overall. On this point the Commission can give a clear assurance that, where evidence exists of reduced national expenditure in a given region or regions, it will be particularly attentive with regard to the credibility of the overall figures.
A second point of clarification concerns the scope of additionality and the suggestion that, when implemented at national level, it may be incompatible with the regional vocation of the Structural Funds. It must be borne in mind that the development-related expenditure of a Member State which is taken into account for the assessment of additionality is generally a mixture of resources allocated and managed at national level and those managed at regional level.
While there might be some categories of expenditure for which stability could be expected at regional level between the programming periods, it could hardly be suggested that the level of spending on, for example, major infrastructure should be maintained at the same level in each region regardless of current needs. This is why the Commission takes the view that the strict application of additionality at regional level would lead to excessive rigidity in the management by the Member States of their own development expenditure.
Finally, regarding budgetary provisions within the Member States between the central government and the regions, the Commission can only repeat that these are matters exclusively for national consideration and are not related to additionality as defined in the regulations."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples