The failure of the Globalization Fund. Quarrel of figures but real question!

(B2) Asking, benignly (yes!), today during the daily press briefing at the European Commission for the results of its Globalization fund, Chantal Hughes, the spokeswoman for the Commissioner in charge of Employment (Vladimir Spidla), and former "social" adviser to the British permanent representation (need we specify), discarded with a smile (charming but not sufficient in the face of the brutal rigor of the figures). In particular, she refused to give details of the sums paid, year by year, preferring to stick to a figure
overall: 67 million euros paid in 2 years. From a communication point of view, she is not wrong. It is difficult to admit in the gallery that what the President very recently presented
of the Commission, José-Manuel Barroso, as being a "personal proposal" (interview with Agence Europe at the end of January), is in fact... a failure. Because 67 million euros in 2 years is not only feeble compared to the magnitude and brutality of the economic crisis that is hitting Europe, which we can deny is linked to globalization. It is also very, very low compared to the available budget (1 billion euros) - a record for budget lapses! (*). But it is above all a Fund in decline. 9 to 11 files submitted in 2007 for 53/67 million euros paid. And 1 to 3 filed in 2008 for 0,3/15 million euros (and again in the 1st half!).

Confusion maintained around the figures. Chantal Hughes claimed that my figures were wrong... The only problem is that they are taken from the official website of the European Commission, at the
Globalization Fund page. A site normally very well informed since the spokesperson's service refers to it directly, as this communicated. For Chantal Hughes, it should not be trusted: "The website is difficult to understand as it classifies the application as to when they were made, not when approved or when the money was paid out. On top of that, the amounts in the website are the amounts requested, not necessarily the amounts finally paid out. " Just remark. Indeed, it is rather the b... The figures differ according to... the versions linguistics! The version English thus displays different versions of the version French, and other versions, for 2008. Except that it is expressly mentioned "paid-in full" in the English version (**) - which, unless my English is faulty, means "paid in full" -, he cannot trust it: the sums indicated sometimes correspond to the are paid but not always. Basically, the figures announced by the spokesperson's service... are, if not totally false, a little inaccurate!

To be complete, here is the detail as I was able to reconstitute it (without the help of the spokesperson's service who was still doing the additions last night...):
• In 2007, there were 9 requests for a total amount of 53 million euros (to which must be added a Spanish request of 14 million withdrawn - to be "reformulated" - it was not
complete and risked "not passing")
• In 2008, there were 3 requests for an amount just under 15 million euros. Of these three requests, in fact, two correspond to files from 2007: the resubmitted Spanish request (10,9 million euros instead of 14 million) and an Italian regional file (Tuscany) which came in addition to the three others filed in 2007 (and were instructed at the same time). In reality, for 2008, there was only one real request, that of Lithuania for an amount of less than... 300 euros. We thus arrive at a utilization rate of less than 000% of the funds (out of an available budget of nearly 1 million euros). Record loss. And above all a huge mess. Whereas the year 500 was not "excellent" for employment!

The Globalization Fund: a gadget fund? One may ask. Because beyond the quarrels of figures, the only interesting question is: why so few requests? So there, Chantal Hughes - usually more prolific - begins by not answering then in front of a reminder (by email), boot in touch: "Member States should be asked why there are so few requests ..." That's all! It seems a little easy. Indeed, it is no secret that this Fund does not work properly. Everything was done for that, right down to the initial proposal. Germany and the United Kingdom, in particular, made every effort when the Fund was created to limit its use.First of all, the procedure is very cumbersome and technocratic: it is necessary - as for a financial procedure - , an investigation by the services of the Commission of the file, and - as in a legislative procedure -, a proposal from the Commission, an opinion from the parliamentary committees (budget and employment) of the European Parliament and a decision from the Council. "we have to wait for many months before the money is paid. Then, the conditions are drastic (and very far from the real market): departure of a minimum of 1000 employees, in a company (or several from neighboring regions), directly suffering the effects of globalization, etc. Result: for a sum that is quite low, compared to the sums available in other Funds such as the European Social Fund or the Regional Funds, and the time spent, the Member States prefer not to file any more files! Too hard. We are the very opposite of the "better regulation" displayed as a slogan by this European Commission.

The need to overhaul this Fund in depth. It was clear - already a year ago - that what threatened the Fund was not the backlog of files but the low number of files. Last year, the German member of the Budget Committee, Raimer Böge, himself, while he had not been an ardent defender of the Fund, recognized that it was necessary to move forward and make the operating rules more flexible. The European Commission finally moved only last December, proposing a modification of the Fund (download the proposal), who is still I think very shy. This proposal is still under discussion in the parliamentary committee. A first draft report has just been presented on February 11 (download the draft report).

(*) This is not strictly speaking a budget line but a possibility of using unspent budget margins, basically a "drawing right".
(**) The only version to be updated apparently is the English version, it is confirmed at DG Employment.