Those who are truly responsible for the wastage. The closer the European summit on the multiannual financial perspectives for the seven year period of 2014-2020 approaches, the harder the pressure groups are working to safeguard - indeed to increase - the contributions of the EU budget that interest them. And each has its good reasons. This pressure is added to that of the member states - whose pressure is understandable, whose interests diverge and who give their opinion on this in the Community institutions (including the Committee of the Regions, which is fighting for funding to the EU regions and local authorities to be maintained).
In the face of this pressure, it is essential not to forget a crucial but often neglected aspect - wastage. The European organs that monitor the use of the European budget continue to criticise the existence of large-scale irregularities. Despite a few improvements and efforts from the European Commission, the deviations continue. News sources often rush to report the bad use of the EU's financial resources, and public opinion ends up with the impression that it is the responsibility of Brussels - a vague term that includes all the institutions and Community organs. Yet this conclusion is false. Studies prove that the bad use of Community resources, the gaps and irregularities are especially produced in the member states - in their management of EU funding. This is not the case in all domains, but it is acknowledged that: (1) most of the funding that relates to cohesion policy is destined for one country or another, or for projects uniting different member states; (2) common agricultural policy spending is carried out by national authorities following commonly defined rules; (3) the common fisheries policy is so greatly criticised and contested that a general reflection has become necessary.
EUROPE 10724 reported in detail on the Court of Auditors' report on the 2011 budget, which once again failed to state that European money had been correctly used. A couple of weeks ago, the Court of Auditors presented its report to the European Parliament's budgetary control committee. European Commissioner Algirdas Semeta said he was generally satisfied with the situation. Victor Caldeira, the head of the Court of Auditors, stressed that the greatest share of the errors once again lay with the bad management of the member states - because they in fact manage 80% of the EU budget. Yet again, most of the irregularities concern, in volume, rural development, the fisheries policy and the structural funds. And the controls are often pretty ineffective.
From next year onwards the national or regional authorities of the member states will assume political responsibility in the use of European funds, publishing annual Statements. It is true that this is provided for on a voluntary basis, but it is significant even so.
In conclusion, there is a great deal of understanding for the person who defends legitimate interests, and a great deal of mistrust for the person who tries to prolong illicit or unjustified advantages.
Wise compromise. The EU will give its opinion on the opportunity of women being duly able to sit on the boards of blue chip companies. Yet the laws on this subject will be national and there will be no obligation or sanction for the company that does not respect the arrangements of the Community directive. It is in this direction that the Commission's draft directive - proposed by one of its vice-presidents - is moving (see EUROPE 10730).
I have already said that I am against a binding European directive on this - not out of reticence for its objective but because I don't think it's the right time for obligations on this issue to be defined at Community level. The EU can and must establish principles - but the minimum obligatory number of women on boards, fixing binding deadlines, fines and other things is for the member states, whose legislations differ and whose requirements and traditions are not always uniform. It is worth remembering that within the Community institutions - the Commission included - reluctance for this directive often comes from women. What is more, the number of companies concerned by the rules that are being worked on regarding this is only about 5,000 in the whole EU.
It is now up to the Parliament. In the opinion of several female MEPs, the planned draft is too weak and they will fight to strengthen it. The Council is mainly expected to support this ambition which will consolidate at European level a widely shared objective - while respecting national prerogatives for its implementation. The EU does not have to rule everything itself. (FR/transl.fl)