ΠΕΡΙΕΧΟΜΕΝΑ ΦΥΛΛΟΥ

• ΠΡΩΤΟΣΕΛΙΔΟ ΦΥΛΛΟΥ 316 – ΙΟΥΛΊΟΥ 2025

ΕΠΙΧΕΙΡΗΜΑΤΙΚΗ ΔΡΑΣΤΗΡΙΟΤΗΤΑ

• ANAΨYKTHPIO – KAΦE MΠAP «ΠAPAΛOΣ (ΠAP’ AΛOΣ)» AΔΕΛΦΩN PAΠTEA ΣTHN KAΛOΓPIA ΣTOYΠAΣ

  

  Από το 1991 δίπλα στην παραλία της Καλόγριας λειτουργεί το αναψυκτήριο των αδελφών Πανάγου και Γιάννη Pαπτέα. Ευέλικτοι, δημιουργικοί, πρόθυμοι και εύστροφοι, πάντα χαμογελαστοί να εξυπηρετήσουν τον πελάτη. Το κατάστημα συνδυάζει το παραδοσιακό καφενείο, ένα πρόχειρο μεζεδοπωλείο για φαγητά της ώρας, ενώ σε ιδιαίτερο χώρο λειτουργεί χώρος με είδη θαλάσσης και αναμνηστικά τουριστικά. Αποτελεί τόπο συνάντησης, σημείο αναφοράς για να απολαύσει κάποιος τον καφέ του, το ποτό του, το αναψυκτικό του, το παγωτό του σ’ ένα ειδυλλιακό περιβάλλον κάτω από τη σκιά των δένδρων, σημείο ξεκούρασης ύστερα από ένα απολαυστικό κολύμπι ή ένα ευχάριστο παιγνίδι στην όμορφη αμμουδιά. Οι πελάτες μένουν ευχαριστημένοι, το διαπίστωσα και ο ίδιος όσες φορές το επισκέφτηκα, από τις προσφερόμενες υπηρεσίες και το χώρο.

  Ξεκινά τη λειτουργία του από τις εννιά το πρωί και κλείνει το βράδυ.

  Οι προσερχόμενοι κυρίως νέοι αλλά και διερχόμενοι τουρίστες, απολαμβάνουν τη μαγεία της περιοχής κρατώντας μια μοναδική εμπειρία. Είναι εποχιακό μαγαζί. Ξεκινά τη λειτουργία του από τη Μεγάλη Πέμπτη και κλείνει στο τέλος του Οκτώβρη.

  Είναι μια επιχείρηση στρωμένη, με καλή φήμη και ευρύτερη αποδοχή από την πελατεία της, με μελλοντική προοπτική. O ανταγωνισμός είναι έντονος στην περιοχή με πολλά παρόμοια καταστήματα, αλλά κερδίζει εκείνος που διαθέτει ευγένεια, ευσυνειδησία και ποιότητα προϊόντων και παρεχόμενων υπηρεσιών και όπως φαίνεται οι ιδιοκτήτες του «ΠAPAΛOY» διαθέτουν με το παραπάνω τις προαναφερόμενες ιδιότητες.

  Μέσα σ’ αυτό το υγιές περιβάλλον, το εμποτισμένο με αισιοδοξία, οι επισκέπτες καταφέρνουν να μειώσουν το άγχος τους και να αποκτήσουν ευεξία.

  Αντώνης Ρουμανέας

ΒΙΒΛΙΑ ΤΩΝ ΕΚΔΟΣΕΩΝ ΜΑΝΙΑΤΙΚΗ ΑΛΛΗΛΕΓΓΥΗ

Η ΜΑΝΗ ΣΕ ΞΕΝΟΓΛΩΣΣΑ ΒΙΒΛΙΑ - ΕΞΩΦΥΛΛΟ[1047]

EXOF NEW.

odigos-touristikwn-ependysewn-exantlimeno

003

007

010

013

MAIN ARTICLE IN ENGLISH

• REFLECTIVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE GENEROUS COMMUNITY FUNDING PROGRAMS

  No one can dispute that the government, thanks to the strong political instinct of the Prime Minister, brought to our country generous funding from all the European Community Funds. The numbers themselves attest to this, showing our country first among the European Union countries in Community funding. However, what is more important than the volume of funding is its effectiveness and, even more so, the diffusion of its results across society. Regarding this matter, many objections are raised, some of which we will try to present below.

  Now that the duration of funding from most Community Funds is coming to an end, the concept of “absorption capacity” is re-emerging intensely. This means we are seeking ways to spend the money, so that it does not return unspent to the European Union’s coffers.  To achieve this, the usual strict requirements are largely relaxed in the following areas: project study quality, ensuring the effectiveness of bidding terms, widely publicising the proposals for bids and proactively addressing any obstacles until contracts are signed and executed smoothly according to specifications.  This relaxation of the smooth flow of these procedures ultimately leads to a reduction in their efficiency, which is ultimately reflected in the impression they leave on the average citizen. The significant difference between effectiveness and absorption capacity, a common phenomenon in our country, ultimately gives a negative impression when evaluating the final results of the funding in comparison with most other EU countries.

  Based on evidence from how Community Programs have been managed over many past decades, serious shortcomings are documented throughout the process—from the selection of projects included in these programs to their completion. The outcome is that effectiveness has been largely weakened, often due to a multitude of shortcuts. While government inefficiency plays a part, it is not the only factor. Many types of shortcuts are evident, resulting in rushed studies that require revisions, cause significant delays, large financial costs, and deliver final results far different from what was initially intended. It is worth investigating to what extent political or micro-political motivations are involved in the overall network of ineffectiveness. Unfortunately, this is difficult to determine, as effective domestic control mechanisms have not been institutionalised during the many decades of our country’s European course.

  Some deviations from legality come to light through audits by competent Community bodies, such as the European Court of Auditors and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, which unfortunately have limited jurisdiction—only regarding the lawful administrative management of Community funding, which, however, is implemented under the domestic legal framework. These audits, which are unfortunately only conducted on a sample basis due to the large number of projects, result in some cases in fines and reimbursement of funding, and in even fewer cases, in referrals of individuals to criminal justice, but only for offences strictly related to the management of Community funds. The fines and reimbursement of funds are quietly paid from the state budget, but the criminal procedures are publicly accessible and reach broader audiences, thus provoking more generalised concerns. Unfortunately, our country lacks significant investigative journalism that could highlight the scale and consequences of some Community funds whose outcomes clearly diverge from those initially intended—thus serving as a model for broader public awareness and understanding of the causes that lead to their limited impact on living standards.

  Phenomena like those mentioned above in the management of Community funds have also occurred in our region, Mani. From the Community fundings thirty years ago under the measure “Improving Transport Connectivity of Mountainous Areas”, through the initiative of the then Prefect of Messinia, Panagiotis Foteas, the road projects Exochori–Saidona and Platza–Milea were included and implemented. Unfortunately, due to excessive budget overruns beyond what was determined in the technical-economic studies of these projects, large financial resources were spent from the next Community Support Framework to complete them. The later road project Gytheio – Areopoli – Gerolimenas (in sections) suffered a similar fate, with its budget revisions reaching a double-digit number.

  What citizens have not understood is that budget overruns in projects—especially those funded by European resources—deprive opportunities to fund equally necessary future projects. In other words, they have not grasped that if part of the funding “pie” entitled to each region is consumed inefficiently, there remains only a small slice to meet many needs…

                                                                                                                                                THE EDITORIAL BOARD