Transparency in regional policy and its funding
It is widely (and incorrectly) assumed that the EU wastes taxpayers' money on pointless regional development projects.
Yet regional development funds are not actually spent by the EU itself.
The Commission and individual Member States broadly agree on the type of projects to be subsidised, then the Commission pledges to reimburse project-related expenses detailed by the Member States.
From then on, it is up to the Member States, who know best, to decide how funds should be used and how each project should evolve. The Commission merely monitors the progress made with these projects.
What was the Greens' position?
We Greens believe that various past spending scandals have highlighted a clear need for that transparency, if the EUSF's objectives are to be achieved.
If Member States hold back any information or only disclose it after lengthy delays, this opens the door for abusive uses of EUSF grants, for example expenditure designed to satisfy local political interests rather than fulfil the EUSF's broader objectives.
Accordingly, the Greens called for clear transparency requirements to be imposed on Member States and the beneficiaries of funds.
In particular we believe that auditors should name and shame the parties guilty of abusive uses of EUSF grants.
We also believe that local civil society should be closely involved, to increase political control over how EUSF resources are spent.
Did other MEPs accept the Greens' position?
The Greens succeeded in securing majority support for all our key demands.
Parliament has asked the Commission to specify precisely which data beneficiaries are required to provide.
EU Member States should be obliged to transmit all required information in a timely manner, and European financial auditors should be actively encouraged to take the very proactive approach outlined above.
Special attention needs to be paid to prestigious major infrastructure projects.
Which points did the Greens lose?
Outcome of the vote
Below you find the results of the final vote in plenary. How did the political groups vote? What about national delegations? And what was the position of your MEP?