Thursday

19th Oct 2017

Opinion

The EU budget is unmanageable

The EU's budget simply doesn't make sense. In its current form, the budget is hugely complex, off-target, unmanageable and hopelessly out of date.

The fundamental problem of waste and mismanagement involving EU money lies primarily with the budget itself – not with the member states, although they should not entirely escape blame.

Thank you for reading EUobserver!

Subscribe now for a 30 day free trial.

  1. €150 per year
  2. or €15 per month
  3. Cancel anytime

EUobserver is an independent, not-for-profit news organization that publishes daily news reports, analysis, and investigations from Brussels and the EU member states. We are an indispensable news source for anyone who wants to know what is going on in the EU.

We are mainly funded by advertising and subscription revenues. As advertising revenues are falling fast, we depend on subscription revenues to support our journalism.

For group, corporate or student subscriptions, please contact us. See also our full Terms of Use.

If you already have an account click here to login.

  • EU-funded projects can easily become expensive solutions to invented problems (Photo: wfabry)

Every year we get a reminder of the state of the EU's finances, when the Court of Auditors publishes its annual report on the bloc's budget.

The report is about the management of the EU's accounts, and the implementation of the budget. But the publication also presents a valuable opportunity for citizens, media and policy makers to take a step back to evaluate the merits and drawbacks of the EU budget as a whole – or where their money is spent.

Not all people agree with that of course. Commissioner Siim Kallas, for example, thinks it "sad" that "rather than listen to what the auditors say, some quarters will yet again use the report to promote their own anti-EU agendas."

The Commissioner apparently equates scrutiny of how taxpayers' money is spent and a desire to reform the budget with an "anti-EU agenda". But political cynicism of this nature is not the way to achieve the serious and rigorous debate about the EU budget – or the EU more generally – that the Commissioner says he wants to see. Fortunately, it is not within the Commission's mandate to decide when and how we discuss how taxpayers' money is used.

Mismanagement and waste in the EU budget are two sides of the same coin. They both stem from the size, complexity and irrational nature of the EU budget. Both receive their thrust from the blurred line between spending and accountability, owing to the set-up of the EU's budget programmes. And both can be radically reduced by simplifying the budget, cutting down on the spending and by repatriating a large chunk of regional spending and the CAP to member states.

Commission should be congratulated

First, let's take mismanagement and fraud. In this year's report, the Auditors did give the reliability of the Commission's accounts a clean bill of health, and signed off the bulk of CAP spending for the first time. The Commission should be congratulated for this.

However, payments from the rural development programme, the structural funds and the overseas aid scheme were still subject to substantial errors. For instance, 11% of the total amount reimbursed from the structural funds should not have been paid out in the first place, according to the Auditors.

What are described as "material errors", in the Auditor's jargon, do not always indicate outright fraud. But what they do indicate is that something is clearly wrong with the budget.

The Commissioner blames lax financial controls in the member states for these errors, noting that "National authorities are the ones in charge of deciding which projects make sense, selecting and managing these."

Of course, the member states must tighten up their controls. But as the Auditors point out in this year's report, "In many situations the errors are a consequence of too complex rules and regulations".

In previous reports the Auditors have stressed that the EU budget – and especially cohesion policy – are particularly prone to errors because of its sheer size, complexity and the number of levels involved in its administration. The EU budget is simply unmanageable.

This is not rocket science: the bigger and more complex the spending scheme, the more sensitive it is to mismanagement, and the harder it is to hold policy makers and bureaucrats to account for how taxpayers' money is being spent.

The Commission could do itself a favour by urging member states to regain control of powers over regional policy and rural development spending. Although it runs counter to the Commission's natural impulse, this would make the budget much easier to manage, reduce the number of instances where mismanagement can take place and fully re-establish the link between the spending of public money and accountability.

Richest member states get most money

The same reasoning can be applied to the second – arguably more serious – problem: the waste. Currently, the EU budget is irrational in terms of where money is spent, where money is raised and what the money is spent on.

Firstly, for the EU-15 in particular, sending money to Brussels only to get some of it back, minus the administration cost, is becoming increasingly hard to justify from an economic point of view. This recycling exercise adds extra layers of administration, in turn adding unnecessary complexity and costs both for governments and recipients alike. This is particularly unfortunate for small players, which may not have the resources to absorb the administrative costs despite these being the people usually in most need of the money.

Secondly, the budget is off-target on many different levels. Some of the richest member states still cash in on the most money from the EU budget, meaning that the link between expenditure and need is weak.

In addition, every single area – no matter how rich – receives money from the structural funds in some form. Even within regions money is poorly targeted. Research by Open Europe found that as little as 10-30% of funds given to South East England, for instance, were spent in the poorest one-fifth of areas.

At the same time, the introduction of the Single Farm Payment has paved way for the bizarre scenario where non-farmers – such as multinational corporations, assorted European royalty and golf courses – are now paid not to farm.

Expensive solutions to invented problems

Thirdly, the process underpinning how EU money is spent almost encourages poor project selection. National governments are handed a pot of money that has to be spent, regardless of whether there's a real need or demand for a certain type of project.

In this scenario EU-funded projects can easily become expensive solutions to invented problems. And who can blame national governments for 'taking the money' when they have fought so hard to secure it in EU negotiations?

As the Court of Auditors have pointed out in a separate report, this tendency is exacerbated by the EU rules which state that allocated funds must be paid out within two years or the money will be cancelled. Taken together, the focus becomes on getting money out of the door rather than spending it when and where it is necessary.

Money could be spent far more wisely by simplifying, scaling down and injecting more accountability into the EU budget.

In practical terms this would mean fully repatriating regional policy to the member states except those with a GDP of less than 90% the EU average (which would target the funds on the poorer member states where the money actually can have a real impact); repatriating all parts of the rural development programme which are not related to promoting the environment (as the environment is inherently a cross-border issue); and establishing a better link between performance and receipt of subsidies.

As Commissioner Kallas himself points out: "One cannot reasonably expect an EU official from an office in the Commission's headquarters in Brussels to know what best fits the needs of a small town in the West Midlands - this is for the local authorities to say."

Exactly, but this begs the question why in the world the EU is involved in regional spending and rural development in the first place?

The writer is Research Director at the Open Europe think tank

See where the EU millions end up

Errors found by EU auditors in the community accounts do not mean 'billions lost', as any undue payments are clawed back by the commission, but they reflect a lack of vigilance from national authorities, says Siim Kallas, EU commissioner responsible for administrative affairs, audit and anti-fraud.

Court blames three EU states for wasted billions

Spain, Italy and Portugal are responsible for the bulk of financial errors detected by European auditors in the field of regional policy, where some €2.7 billion should not have been paid out in 2008.

News in Brief

  1. EU summit moved to previous building after fumes scare
  2. Catalonia will 'not back down'
  3. New toxic incident in EU building ahead of summit
  4. Murdered Malta journalist's family invited to Parliament
  5. EU food safety chief denies keeping studies 'secret'
  6. EU states pledge 24,000 resettlement places so far
  7. US ready for arms sale to update Greece's F-16 fleet
  8. Austria's Green leaders step down following election failure

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. EU2017EENorth Korea Leaves Europe No Choice, Says Estonian Foreign Minister Sven Mikser
  2. Mission of China to the EUZhang Ming Appointed New Ambassador of the Mission of China to the EU
  3. International Partnership for Human RightsEU Should Seek Concrete Commitments From Azerbaijan at Human Rights Dialogue
  4. European Jewish CongressEJC Calls for New Austrian Government to Exclude Extremist Freedom Party
  5. CES - Silicones EuropeIn Healthcare, Silicones Are the Frontrunner. And That's a Good Thing!
  6. EU2017EEEuropean Space Week 2017 in Tallinn from November 3-9. Register Now!
  7. European Entrepreneurs CEA-PMEMobiliseSME Exchange Programme Open Doors for 400 Companies Across Europe
  8. CECEE-Privacy Regulation – Hands off M2M Communication!
  9. ILGA-EuropeHealth4LGBTI: Reducing Health Inequalities Experienced by LGBTI People
  10. EU2017EEEHealth: A Tool for More Equal Health
  11. Mission of China to the EUChina-EU Tourism a Key Driver for Job Creation and Enhanced Competitiveness
  12. CECENon-Harmonised Homologation of Mobile Machinery Costs € 90 Million per Year

Latest News

  1. EU okays Privacy Shield's first year
  2. EU seeks to decrypt messages in new anti-terror plan
  3. EU agencies defend research ahead of glyphosate vote
  4. Spain points at elections as exit to Catalan crisis
  5. How EU can ensure Daphne Caruana Galizia's legacy survives
  6. Juncker dinner to warm up relations with eastern EU
  7. Court hearing in MEPs 'private' expenses battle
  8. The unbearable lightness of leadership

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. ILGA-EuropeMass Detention of Azeri LGBTI People - the LGBTI Community Urgently Needs Your Support
  2. European Free AllianceCatalans Have Won the Right to Have an Independent State
  3. ECR GroupBrexit: Delaying the Start of Negotiations Is Not a Solution
  4. EU2017EEPM Ratas in Poland: "We Enjoy the Fruits of European Cooperation Thanks to Solidarity"
  5. Mission of China to the EUChina and UK Discuss Deepening of Global Comprehensive Strategic Partnership
  6. European Healthy Lifestyle AllianceEHLA Joins Commissioners Navracsics, Andriukaitis and Hogan at EU Week of Sport
  7. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic Council Representative Office Opens in Brussels to Foster Better Cooperation
  8. UNICEFSocial Protection in the Contexts of Fragility & Forced Displacement
  9. CESIJoin CESI@Noon on October 18 and Debate On: 'European Defence Union: What Next?'
  10. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic Innovation House Opens in New York to Support Start-Ups
  11. ILGA EuropeInternational Attention Must Focus on LGBTI People in Azerbaijan After Police Raids
  12. European Jewish CongressStrong Results of Far Right AfD Party a Great Concern for Germans and European Jews