91997E2780

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2780/97 by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Community Initiative Leader and the towns of Ioanina and Igoumenitsa

The Greek region of Epirus, an Objective 1 region in which agriculture is of great economic importance, is one of the poorest regions in the European Union in absolute terms. The towns of Ioanina and Igoumenitsa (Epirus) are excluded from the Community Initiative Leader in Greece and the local authorities are questioning the criteria adopted in the selection of regions which benefit under Leader in Greece.

Can the Commission say:

1. who was responsible for selecting the areas which benefit under Leader in Greece;

2. what criteria were used in the selection;

3. why Igoumenitsa and Ioanina were excluded;

4. whether it intends to use its powers to ascertain whether the selection was made objectively or not and, if not, whether it intends to find out who was responsible for mismanaging the selection procedure and to review it?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (26 September 1997)

With regard to the four questions raised by the Honourable Member concerning the non-inclusion of the towns of Ioannina and Igoumenitsa in the Community initiative Leader II, the Commission wishes to point out the following:

1. In the Notice on Leader II ((OJ C 180, 1.7.1994. )) and in particular in point 15 thereof, it is clearly stated that the Commission does not intend to intervene in the choice of projects and recipients (local groups and other collective bodies). The Commission cannot a fortiori intervene in the selection of the partners in each group.

2. The general criteria for the choice of the project sponsors are also set out in the Notice, under point 16(b). These are as follows: innovation, capacity to serve as a model and transferability of know-how, the rural character of the projects and the participation of the rural population of the area concerned. Moreover, as stated in point 8 of the Notice, that population should not as a general rule exceed 100 000 inhabitants in order to avoid the funds granted being dissipated.

3. In view of the foregoing, and bearing in mind that the chief objective of Leader II is the development of rural areas, the Commission considers that the inclusion of two urban areas in the project of the Leader group concerned would have entailed, in addition to the excessive overshooting of the abovementioned population criterion, a straying from the objectives of Leader II and a dilution of government aid.

4. The operational plans of the project sponsors under Leader II in Greece were the subject of an independent ex-ante evaluation prior to the Greek programme being approved by the Commission.

The selection terms and criteria of the various recipients, including the Leader group of the Epirus region, were checked at that stage. Under these circumstances, the Commission has no intention of intervening to review the choices made.

Moreover, in the light of what is stated above, it is not difficult to see why the partners concerned (local group, regional and national authorities) did not include the towns of Ioannina and Igoumenitsa.