The Committee
on Budgets adopted the report by Sidonia Elżbieta JĘDRZEJEWSKA
(EPP, PL) on the priorities for the 2011 budget – Section III – Commission,
recalling that the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2007-2013 provides
for an overall level of commitment appropriations (CA) of EUR 142.629 billion
- representing a potential maximum increase of only 0.83% over the 2010
budget - of payment appropriations (PA) of EUR134.263 billion - an increase
of 9.2% over the 2010 budget. Members note that these amounts represent only
about 1% of the EU’s Gross National Income (GNI).
Discrepancy
between commitment and payment appropriations:
Members stress that discrepancy between CA and PA in the MFF amounts to EUR
8.366 billion. Despite a gap of only EUR 6.689 billion for 2010 in the MFF,
the budget that was finally adopted shows a gap of EUR 18.515 billion owing
to further reductions in payments. They reiterate their concerns over
increased discrepancies between CA and PA, which result in deficits in
the long run. They stress that they will do their utmost to keep the
discrepancy at a sustainable and manageable level.
Revision of
the financial framework to respond to challenges facing the EU: MEPs stress that it is absolutely essential to revise the MFF in
depth. They call on the Commission to submit concrete proposals to adapt the
Interinstitutional Agreement on the financial framework by the end of the
first half of 2010. They note that with the entry into force of the Lisbon
Treaty, the strengthening of a number of EU policies will require
additional financial capacity for the EU and call on the Commission (in
the context of the mid-term revision of programmes adopted by codecision) to
provide it with a detailed overview of the budgetary implications in all
sections.
Priorities
for the 2011 budget: in recalling how the EU has
been able to respond collectively to the financial crisis with its European
Recovery Plan, Members noted that the community’s economic situation,
nevertheless, remains unsatisfactory. In this context of economic slowdown,
they stressed that some of the priorities would need to be developed and
supported by the EU budget with greatest priority being accorded to citizens
and their needs:
- focus on
youth: according to Members, young people
should receive special attention when defining the EU’s medium-and
long-term priorities. In their view, it is time to define a youth policy
in the broadest sense. In this regard, MEPs insist on the development of
instruments enabling the encouragement of language learning and dialogue
among cultures because, among young people, it is possible to obtain a
greater awareness of European issues. Efforts should also be made
to facilitate their mobility;
- capitalise
on innovation: MEPs point out that
innovation and the digital agenda are essential for economic development
and job creation in Europe. They therefore call for special attention to
be given to new skills, including numerical skills and entrepreneurship
through research. The European Union should focus its efforts on giving active
support to innovative technologies, in particular green technologies
that will help overcome the economic crisis, to ensuring the access of
SMEs to markets and to making the EU a leading sustainable and
competitive economy;
- promote
equality of opportunity: MEPs also stress
the promotion of equal opportunities and the transition from education
to integration in the labour market (including through the actions of
the European Social Fund). They recall that 2011 has been designated
European Year of voluntary activities and stress that volunteering can
help people acquire new skills and abilities, thus promoting their
social integration;
- regional
development: MEPs underline the decisive
role played by SMEs in the development of disadvantaged regions at a
structural level, especially in rural areas. Efforts should therefore be
encouraged in this area. They believe that the EU should provide
financial incentives at all levels of government (national, regional and
local) to increase benefits for all Member States;
- support
for entrepreneurship: Members believe that
support should continue for all programmes and instruments promoting
entrepreneurship in rural areas, giving support to newly established
firms in their start-up phase and encouraging exchanges of experiences
between young entrepreneurs. In this respect, they say they will follow
closely the legislative proposals to be submitted in this context by the
Commission;
- strengthen
transnational cooperation: MEPs also call
for a focus on regional cooperation (including in the framework of
Euro-regions) and call for more pilot projects promoting cross-border
cooperation in economic, social and cultural development between regions
within the European Union.
2020
strategy: Members welcome the Commission’s paper
on strategy for the future: “EU 2020”. However, they consider that this
strategy should place greater emphasis on the fight against unemployment.
They stress that the 2011 budget should adopt clear and proactive measures to
give more substance to the EU2020 strategy, particularly in the fields of
climate change, environment and social policies. Members do not want it to be
confined to vague targets, as was the frustrating experience of the Lisbon strategy. Instead, they want to make clear and ambitious financial commitments in
the budget framework to ensure the success of the EU 2020 strategy and to
prove that the EU is ready to take the lead on these crucial issues. They call
on the Commission to take account of this commitment when adopting its draft
budget.
2011 Budget
Strategy: MEPs say they will use the entire
arsenal offered by the IIA
of 17 May 2006 to mobilise funds for the priorities identified. It could,
for example, be possible to transfer some funds from other instruments
or programmes that have not operated well in order to fund certain
priorities. They stress, however, that funding priorities through the reallocation
of funds should not undermine fundamental EU policies, such as cohesion
policies, structural policies or the common agricultural policy.
Members stress
that, following the entry into force of the provisions of the new Treaty,
Parliament does not intend to curb its budgetary prerogatives. In regard to
each of the budget lines, Members expressed the following remarks:
- Heading
1a: they call on the Commission to submit a
progress report on the implementation of the European economic recovery
plan. They stress that the priorities for 2011, in view of the EU 2020
strategy, will be financed mainly from this heading, and that the Lisbon
Treaty’s extension of EU competences (e.g. in space policy and
tourism) is likely to have budgetary implications. Members also point to
"lifelong education and training" as a means of strengthening
youth policy. This programme should incorporate new aspects that would
facilitate the establishment of a clear link between education and the
labour market. They call in particular, for increased efforts to be made
to enhance the mobility of young people and to promote first jobs for
young people (via a programme called "Erasmus first job").
Further efforts are required in the field of investment in transport, in
particular via the trans-European transport network (TEN-T), with
special attention accorded to funding transport safety. They also cite
the need to finance other crucial elements that are still pending, such
as the financial supervision package and the decommissioning of the
Kozloduy nuclear plant (75 million EUR in 2011) and are extremely
concerned about the sharp fall in funding for this heading (down by EUR
1.875 billion compared to the 2010 budget);
- Heading
1b: Members, once again, stress the need to
simplify the framework and the implementation of actions in the context
of the cohesion and structural policies. While welcoming the
considerable progress in this area, Members call for further efforts to
be made in the implementation of projects. They call on the Commission
to work closely with those Member States which reported a low take-up
rate during the previous programming period to improve the situation. They
emphasise that improving the performance and quality of expenditure
should be a guiding principle to achieve the optimal use of the EU’s
budget;
- Heading
2: expressing their concern about the narrow
margin in Heading 2, MEPs urge the Commission to closely monitor
agricultural markets. In terms of budgetary priorities, MEPs would like to
ensure that, in 2010 and 2011, the fight against climate change
remains high on the Union’s post-Copenhagen political agenda. In their
view, sustainable development remains an ongoing responsibility
vis-à-vis future generations. They therefore urge the Commission to
provide a clear action plan and timetable for the implementation of
appropriations under the EU action programme to combat climate change.
They also stress that the transport sector offers great potential in the
fight against climate change and urge the Commission to give priority to
"decarbonisation" measures in all transport modes. In passing,
they recall that the release of the reserve on this line will depend on
the Commission’s proposals. They call on the Commission to provide for,
in the 2011 budget, the means to address the new needs arising from the
economic crisis among farmers and for a report on the measures taken
to combat the dairy crisis introduced in the 2010 budget. In
addition, they consider that a permanent approach needs to be presented
in this area with concrete proposals to deal with price volatility in
dairy and other commodity markets;
- Heading
3a: reiterating their intention to maintain
a level of financing commensurate with the establishment of an area of
freedom, security and justice in the European Union, MEPs stress the
importance of full and effective implementation, enforcement and
evaluation of existing instruments in this area. It is therefore
necessary to reassess the relevance of financial instruments and
resources available in this area in light of the Stockholm Programme
goals, for example, in the fields of migration, border control and
management, data protection and anti-terrorism. In this connection, they
recall that a number of programmes will soon be undergoing a mid-term
review, which could require a reconsideration of the financial means
allocated to them. Overall, Members feel that there is a need to strengthen
immigration policy and policy to assist the integration of immigrants and
that further efforts are required to harmonise Member States’
immigration policies. Members state, moreover, that they intend to
conduct a thorough review of the transition from SIS to SIS II,
which has experienced repeated delays and uncertainties, before deciding
whether to maintain the level of funding foreseen. They reserve the right
to hold in reserve any funds pertaining to the migration to SIS II,
pending the outcome of the analysis under way;
- Heading 3b: covering actions in areas such as youth, culture, people,
etc., Members recall that this heading is one of Parliament’s flagship priorities.
They indicate that they will monitor closely the implementation of
projects, both from a qualitative and quantitative perspective. They
regret, however, that the ceiling for this heading in the 2011 budget
has increased by only EUR 15 million compared to the 2010 budget –
something that they consider to be unjustified;
- Heading 4: as was the case in recent years, MEPs point out, once again,
the constant and almost unbearable pressure affecting the financing of
the EU’s activities as a global player. This is, in particular, because
of the low financial margin of this heading. MEPs stress, once again,
the importance of providing the Union with sufficient funds to enable it
to fulfil its tasks (e.g. the CFSP budget, as planned for 2011, might
prove to have been underestimated). They point to the need for a
revision of the 2006 Inter-Institutional Agreement on budgetary
discipline concerning Parliament's prerogatives regarding the CFSP/CSDP
budget under the Lisbon Treaty, including the need for new rules on
the flexible use of the CFSP budget for civilian CSDP missions and the
full transparency over military crisis management operations, in
particular the use of the start-up fund. MEPs also point out that 2011
will be the first year that the European External Action Service (EEAS)
will be fully operational. They therefore intend to give it the necessary
administrative means to fulfil its mission. Members recall, in this
regard, that, under the Treaty and in accordance with the common
intention to strengthen Parliament's involvement in the shaping and
management of the EU’s external relations, it will fully exercise its
scrutiny over the budget and budgetary control of EEAS. Members recall that
full budgetary transparency regarding the establishment plan of the
Service needs to be ensured and that its likely "sui generis"
nature will probably entail the creation of a new section in the EU
budget. MEPs also call for: i) additional information on the funding
commitment made by the Union to support developing countries in their
fight against climate change, ii) a more ambitious plan to help Haiti
(with new funding sources), iii) appropriate funding for the Western
Balkans and the eastern partnership, iv) appropriate financing of
accompanying measures for bananas (without resorting again to the
existing, already very tight margin). Lastly, Members note that the
European Union is mobilising all its resources, in addition to existing
programmes, in order to support peace-building and reconstruction measures
in conflict zones, namely in Georgia, Afghanistan, the Middle East and
in sub-Saharan Africa. Members consider it unacceptable to substitute
new priorities for existing ones;
- Heading
5: with a view to gaining a better
understanding of the requirements of this heading, Members stressed the
need to be transparent and forward-looking with regard to a number of
questions with major financial implications, such as staffing
requirements, pensions, real estate policy, outsourcing policy and
administrative versus operational functions and trends. Regarding the
salary issue, MEPs point out that the increase adopted by the Council in
December 2009 was 1.85%, i.e. only half of the percentage resulting from
the ‘method’, and that, depending on the outcome of the court case
resulting from the challenge lodged by the Commission and the European
Parliament, the difference, with retroactive effect, could amount to
about EUR 135 million across all the institutions. MEPs call on
the Commission to state its view as to the criteria to be applied in
order to define total administrative expenditure and to continue to
provide a clear description of those areas outside Heading 5. They
request that all administrative expenditure be included in Heading 5.
Procedure
for adoption of the 2011 budget: MEPs point out
that the budgetary procedure for the adoption of the 2011 budget will be the
first to be conducted entirely under the new provisions introduced by the
Lisbon Treaty. They recall that the Parliament agreed, with the Council and
the Commission, on transitional measures until the necessary legal acts
defining the rules on these matters enter into force. They therefore await
agreement with the Council and the Commission on principles and methods of
organisation, preparation and operation of the Conciliation Committee in
order to ensure that the budget procedure runs smoothly. In this context, Parliament’s
Committee on Budgets would be instructed to negotiate these principles with
the Council and the Commission.