budgetary implementation

Recommendations

Info

By Fund, as of the end of 2012, the ERDF and the EAGGF have de-commitments which are lower than the average (1.59% of 2000 to 2006 commitments). For these two Funds the ongoing closure process has resulted in relatively fewer preliminary closure de-commitments so far. The FIFG is still indicated as having the highest cumulative de-commitments with 4.73% of 2000 to 2006 commitments. The FIFG de-commitments are still mainly related to the application of the N+2 rule as there were just 0.03% of FIFG closure de-commitments before the end of 2012. For the ESF, however, there is already a high rate of closure de-commitments of 2.42% of 2000-2006 commitments which correspond mostly to the second case of preliminary closure de-commitment described above (i.e. where the outstanding commitment not covered by the certified expenditure is already de-committed before final closure). Chart 17: Relative significance of the cumulative de-commitments up to the end of 2012, by Fund 34
By objective, the de-commitments as of the end of 2012 are only below the average of 1.59% for Objective 1; for Objective 2 they are close to the average, whereas for all of the other objectives/initiatives the de-commitments are above average. Chart 18: Relative significance of the cumulative de-commitments up to the end of 2012 by objective 14,00% 12,00% 10,00% 8,00% 6,00% 4,00% 2,00% 0,00% 2010-2012 closure decommitments in % of 2000- 2006 commitments Cumulative N+2 de-commitments (2003-2008) in % of (2000-2006)Commitments FIFG out Obj.1 EQUAL OBJ. 3 LEADER+ INTERREG URBAN OBJ. 2 OBJ. 1 0,00% 4,77% 3,53% 2,18% 1,60% 2,86% 1,42% 0,46% 12,59% 3,47% 1,29% 2,23% 2,34% 0,89% 0,34% 0,25% 3.4 OUTSTANDING COMMITMENTS FROM THE PROGRAMMING PERIOD 2000-2006 3.4.1 Evolution of 2000-06 outstanding commitments in 2012 35 Average = 1,59% In 2012, the RAL from the 2000-2006 programming period decreased by 31%, from EUR 8.2 billion to EUR 5.6 billion (see Table 10 below). This reduction was the consequence of the continuation of the closure procedure through the processing of both payments and decommitments. EUR 4 million had to be recommitted in 2012 in order to pay for closures of programmes for which RAL had previously been unduly decommitted.
Page 1: Analysis of the budgetary implement
Page 4 and 5: NOTE: THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN
Page 6 and 7: TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 BUDGET IMPLEMEN
Page 8 and 9: 1 BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION IN 2012 1.1
Page 10 and 11: 1.2 OUTSTANDING COMMITMENTS IN 2012
Page 12 and 13: 1.3 TRANSFERS MADE IN 2012 In 2012
Page 14 and 15: Chart 4: Monthly pattern of cumulat
Page 16 and 17: Financial Framework. Implementation
Page 18 and 19: second half of December. The high p
Page 20 and 21: Chart 6: Cumulative execution of ad
Page 22 and 23: The EU-12 countries accounted for 5
Page 24 and 25: Any amounts at risk, calculated as
Page 26 and 27: counterbalanced the general trend o
Page 28 and 29: 3 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 2000-2006 P
Page 30 and 31: Chart 10: Progress of closure of to
Page 32 and 33: allocation. Nine EU-15 Member State
Page 34 and 35: Chart 15: Total EU-10 execution at
Page 38 and 39: Table 10: Outstanding commitments f
Page 40 and 41: 4.2 Clearance of outstanding commit
Page 42 and 43: OVERVIEW OF CHARTS Chart 1: Outstan
Page 44 and 45: ANNEXES ANNEX 1: IMPLEMENTATION BY
Page 46 and 47: ANNEX 1 : IMPLEMENTATION BY BUDGET
Page 48 and 49: ANNEX 3: N+2/N+3 DECOMMITMENTS IN 2
Page 50 and 51: Chart 2: Execution of commitments a
Page 52 and 53: Table 1: Overall forecasting errors
Page 54: ANNEX 7: REFERENCES More informatio

budgetary implementation

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?