Presentation by Harald Wögerbauer, Member of the European Court of Auditors, on ECA's Special Report No 5/2013 "Are EU Cohesion Policy funds well spent on roads?"
Type: Complete press conference
Brussels - International Press Centre
Harald Wögerbauer, Member of the European Court of Auditors, presented the Court of Auditors’ Special Report No 5/2013 entitled "Are EU Cohesion policy funds well spent on roads?" at a press conference in Brussels on 15 July 2013. The Court checked whether the objectives of the road infrastructure projects co-financed by EU cohesion policy funds have been achieved at a reasonable cost. The audit covered co-financed road projects in Germany, Greece, Spain, and Poland. The audit showed that all the audited projects have enabled the capacity and quality of road networks to be increased, and have led to a reduction in journey time and improved road safety. However, the economic development goals could not be measured and no information is available concerning the impact of the projects on the local or national economy. For half of the projects, the true economic viability, calculated as a cost-benefit ratio based on the actual costs and use, was significantly lower than the forecasts made during the planning phase, which were based on lower costs and/or a higher volume of traffic. The Court found that the cost-effectiveness ratio of the projects did not receive due attention.
Only the original language version is authentic and it prevails in the event of its differing from the translated versions.
||Opening remarks by Aidas Palubinskas, Press Officer at the European Court of Auditors, (in ENGLISH)
||Statement by Harald Wögerbauer, Member of the European Court of Auditors, (in GERMAN) on the Court’s Special Report No 5/2013 entitled "Are EU Cohesion policy funds well spent on roads?"; saying that the audit covered road projects (10 motorways, 10 express roads, and 4 ordinary national dual carriageway roads) co-financed by the EU in Germany, Greece, Spain, and Poland; the two main findings of the Court were as follows: there are major differences in cost in the road projects co-financed by the EU, and the cost-effectiveness ratio of the projects did not receive due attention; in the light of the audit results, the Court has made recommendations to the Commission, including fostering the exchange of good practice between national road services in relation to the optimum technical solutions for road projects based on reliable traffic forecasts; there are also positives: all the audited road projects have led to a reduction in journey time and improved road safety.
||Question and answer session