The European
Parliament adopted by 571 votes to 45, with 41 abstentions, a resolution on
the mandate for the trilogue on the 2011 draft budget.
General remarks on the 2011 draft budget: Parliament recalls that the 2011 budgetary
procedure is the first of its kind under the Lisbon Treaty with a single
reading. This calls for increased cooperation and coordination with the
other branch of the budgetary authority, the Council, in order to reach an
agreement during the conciliation procedure on all expenditure.
As far as the amount of expenditure is concerned,
Parliament underlines that the 2011 draft budget (DB) is EUR 142 576.4
million in commitment appropriations (CA) and EUR 130 147.2 million in
payment appropriations (PA), leaving therefore a margin of EUR 1 224.4
million in CA and EUR 4 417.8 million in PA. These total amounts represent
respectively 1.15% and 1.05% of the EU's forecast GNI for 2011.
Parliament is concerned by the fact that the increase in
CA is only 0.77% compared to the 2010 budget as adopted, a difference which
is out of step with the widely voiced expectations of the EU budget playing a
crucial role in support of Europe's post-crisis economies. It welcomes the
reduction in the discrepancy between CA and PA compared with the 2010 which
indicates better implementation of the EU budget. It notes that the bulk
(70%) of the overall margin of EUR 1 224.4 million in the DB stems from the
margin under heading 2 on the preservation and management of natural
resources, and that the other headings – in particular headings 1a, 3b and 4
– have very limited margins, thus proportionally reducing the capacity of the
EU to react to policy changes and to unforeseen needs while maintaining its
priorities.
A modest 2011 budget to meet important challenges:
Parliament draws attention to the large number of outstanding procedures with
far-reaching budgetary consequences that will need to be concluded by the two
branches of the budgetary authority in 2011 (budget review, setting up of the
European External Action Service (EEAS), amending budgets, revision of the
IIA, revision of the Financial Regulation, etc.). It recalls the priorities
established by the Commission for 2011, which are as follows:
- post-crisis
support of the European economy,
- implementation
of the Lisbon Treaty,
- funding
of the new authorities responsible for financial supervision,
- funding
of the Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) initiative,
- implementation
of the Stockholm programme, etc.
Overall, Parliament questions whether the modest increase
in CA compared to the 2010 budget is enough to address them. It
underlines the importance of a strong reaction to the crisis and to the
instability of financial markets that should involve greater funding capacity
and flexibility for the EU budget. It awaits further detailed information on
the impact that the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism decided on at
the extraordinary Ecofin Council meeting in May 2010, as well as the impact
of the setting up of an efficient monitoring system designed to
prevent such a crisis in the future, which would be required to keep
Parliament directly informed.
Top priority of the 2011 budget: young people: Parliament recalls that
Parliament’s main budgetary priority for 2011 is youth policy.
However, the increase in appropriations proposed in the DB for the key youth
instruments and programmes, such as Lifelong Learning, Youth in Action and
Erasmus Mundus, is rather symbolic. Parliament calls, therefore, for
increased funding for these programmes.
Institutions: Parliament is determined
to tackle the negotiations on the 2011 budget in a constructive and
open-minded manner and expect in return that the Council will adopt a
cooperative approach and will depart from an accounting exercise based on
savings and budget cuts. It also recalls that the Union’s budget can be
instrumental in key areas in supporting long-term investment and jobs. The
Council is called upon to take this duly into consideration when deciding on
the EU budget and to refrain from making across-the-board cuts.
Parliament reviews each of the budget headings and makes
the following remarks:
- Heading 1a: Parliament notes an increase of 4.4% in CA (to EUR 13 437
million) and of 7% in PA (to EUR 11 035 million) for this
heading and notes the reduction in appropriations for a number of
programmes, such as Customs 2013 and CIP-Entrepreneurship and
Innovation. It calls for enhanced support for all programmes and
instruments aimed at fostering SMEs, given the importance of the sector
in ensuring the recovery of the European economy. It also recalls that
the new needs to be financed under this heading (Kozloduy
decommissioning programme, European financial supervision authorities,
ITER, and GMES, including Parliament's request for increased
appropriations for its operational phase) were not provided for when the
current MFF was adopted. It underlines that this heading includes many EU2020
strategy flagship initiatives (such as Innovation Union, Youth on
the Move, Resource-efficient Europe, New Skills and Jobs, and Industrial
Policy for the Globalisation Era) and expresses doubts regarding the
capacity to ensure, in the context of the current financial framework,
adequate funding for these initiatives. Among the other policies
financed under this heading are the European space policy, which
requires both the EU and the Member States to make a further financial
effort within the context of the GMES. Members support initiatives in
favour of young people and call on the Union to give an unprecedented
momentum for the development of a comprehensive EU youth policy.
They are disappointed that tourism, which indirectly generates more than
10% of the EU's GDP is not clearly identified in the 2011 DB. They also
note the stagnation in the commitment appropriations for EURES and for
the three budget lines supporting industrial relations and social
dialogue which runs counter to actual needs in terms of the funding of
measures in favour of employment;
- Heading 1b: Parliament notes that the 2011 DB provides for an increase
of 3.2% in CA to a total of EUR 50 970 million for this heading. It
considers, moreover, that adequate resources for cohesion policy are
crucial in order to accelerate the recovery of the European economy
and to contribute to the Europe 2020 strategy for the regions. It
therefore calls on the Commission and Council to adopt an amending
budget without delay, should payment appropriations not be sufficient to
cover needs. It also calls on the Commission to keep on working closely
with those Member States with a low absorption rate and to continue its
reflection on how to reshuffle the complex system of rules and
requirements applicable in the sector;
- Heading 2: Parliament points out that, over the last few years, the
budgetary authority has made use of this heading to reach global
agreement on the annual budgets, through use of the margin or
redeployment of appropriations for use in other programmes and actions.
It notes that, despite the claim that appropriations remain stable,
assigned revenue is down by more than 25 % in 2011, that market support
is down by almost 22% (to EUR 3 491 million), and that appropriations
for veterinary and phytosanitary measures show a fall of 7.8%. It
expresses concern about the Commission's optimistic assumptions (in view
of increased market volatility and the vulnerability of agricultural
activity to health hazards) with regard to trends in agricultural
markets in 2011, resulting in a reduction of around EUR 900 million in
market-related expenditure. Members urge the Commission and the Council
to carefully monitor developments in agricultural markets and to be
prepared to react swiftly and effectively with the necessary safety net
measures to counter adverse market developments and volatility in
market prices. Although they welcome the increase in appropriations for
decoupled direct aid, the school fruit and vegetables scheme, and school
milk, as well as the appropriations earmarked for the aid for deprived
persons programme, Members recall that the Milk Fund adopted
under the 2010 budget to mitigate the consequences of the dairy crisis
and ask the Commission to examine how the EUR 300 million in exceptional
funding for the dairy sector is being used by the Member States with a
view to making it permanent, together with proposals for a permanent
approach and concrete proposals for dealing with price volatility in
this sector. They also mention the increase in appropriations proposed
for the implementation of EU policy and legislation on climate action,
as well as the increase in CA for LIFE+. They call for increased funding
to combat water pollution and for the integrated maritime policy;
- Heading 3a: Parliament welcomes the overall increase in the funds
pertaining to this heading (+12.8%) to give practical effect to the
Stockholm Programme. It stresses the need to increase appropriations for
the improvement of detention conditions, for social inclusion measures
and social resettlement programmes and to support anti-drug initiatives.
Members also welcome the proposed increase in CA for the External
Borders Fund, the European Return Fund and the European Refugee Fund.
They call for sufficient resources to be allocated to the European
Asylum Support Office (EASO). They comment once more on the uncertainty
of the timetable for the development and entry into operation of the SIS
II. They consider it necessary, given that the prospect of a
migration to SIS II is growing increasingly unlikely and a replacement
option is currently being prepared, to place part of these funds in the
reserve, pending further analysis;
- Heading 3b: this heading covers issues of key concern to citizens and is
the subject of great concern because appropriations are, once again,
reduced (by 0.03% compared with the 2010 budget). Parliament reiterates
that coordinated and multidisciplinary investment in youth must
be started without delay as a cross-policy theme. In this regard,
it calls for an increase in youth policy instrument funding and deplores
the lack of ambition shown by the Commission in failing properly to
address this priority. Members confirm their intention to amend the
draft budget in order to provide appropriate funding for this priority.
They also deplore that there no funding is planned for encouraging and
promoting cooperation in the field of youth and sports, that funding has
been reduced for programmes promoting European citizenship,
communication and information for the media and the DAPHNE Programme to
combat violence against children, adolescents and women;
- Heading 4: once again, Members are critical of the very tight margins
available under heading 4, which do not allow the EU to react adequately
to recurring and emerging crises and emergencies. They point out that
the increasing and unbearable discrepancy between this underfinanced
heading and the Council's new political commitments on the world stage can
only be addressed by a revision of the ceiling under the existing MFF.
They also urge the Commission to ensure that extra financial assistance
is provided for the new ENPI Multi-Annual Indicative Programmes and
National Indicative Programmes for the period 2011-2013 covering Eastern
Partnership countries. Noting the proposed decrease of more than 32%
in CA for financial assistance to Palestine, the peace process and
UNRWA, Members protest against the Commission’s statement according to
which 'the exceptionally high allocations of previous years [that]
cannot be maintained without jeopardising the funding for other
countries in the region. According to MEPs, there is an urgent need for
a substantial revision of financing capacities under heading 4, and,
above all, this should not lead to a decrease in financial support for
the Palestinian Authority in stepping up its institutional capacities.
An amendment introduced in plenary points out that, even if the EU were
to be ready to extend its package of assistance to the Palestinians,
this commitment is not open-ended, and insists that, while humanitarian
aid must remain unconditional, the EU must play a political role which
delivers tangible results in terms of progress towards the creation of a
Palestinian state which are consistent with its significant financial
assistance and economic influence in the region. It points out, in that
respect, that even the use of the entire margin of heading 4 exclusively
for financial assistance to Palestine would not suffice to reach the
2010 level of CA (EUR 295 million in 2010, as compared to a hypothetical
EUR 270 million in 2011). Although Parliament recalls its support for
the principle of financial assistance for the main ACP banana supplying
countries, it reiterates its firm opposition to the financing of
Banana Accompanying Measures via the use of the margin. Members
welcome the increase in appropriations for the CFSP to EUR 327.4 million
(CA) in line with the ever more ambitious role the EU wishes to play in
zones undergoing a stabilisation process or affected by conflicts and
crises. They reiterate Parliament’s intention to provide the European
External Action Service with the necessary administrative means to
fulfil its mission. As regards climate change, Parliament considers that
the proposed increase for DCI to be appropriate, but deplores the
misleading presentation by the Commission, which flags up an increase of
EUR 65 million for the environment and sustainable management of natural
resources as a follow-up to the Copenhagen Accord, whereas that increase
is based on the financial programming and not on the 2010 budget (the
2011 DB in fact provides for a decrease of EUR 1.2 million against this
line, as compared to the 2010 budget), which is a source of concern). It
insists that the 'fast start' climate finance package must be additional
and not come at the expense of existing development cooperation programmes.
Members express concern regarding the coherence and visibility of the EU
'fast start' finance contribution, and call on the Member States to make
information available to the Commission promptly so as to ensure the
full transparency and additionality of the EU contribution. Moreover,
Parliament welcomes the proposal to amend the regulation creating an
instrument for industrialised countries (ICI+), but is firmly opposed to
its being financed from appropriations programmed for use under the
Development Cooperation Instrument; stresses that funds earmarked for
development cooperation must target poverty alleviation. It is extremely
dissatisfied that of the total of EUR 70.6 million in appropriations
earmarked for this new instrument in the draft budget, EUR 45 million
have been taken from the Development Cooperation Instrument;
- Heading 5: Parliament notes that the total administrative expenditure
for all institutions is estimated at EUR 8 266.6 million, i.e. an
increase of 4.5%. It recalls that the institutions must make all
possible efforts to finance the administrative needs related to their
staff's remuneration within the appropriations entered in their
respective sections of the 2010 budget. Once again, it stresses the
need to arrive at an effective structure, with a clear definition of
responsibilities, in order to avoid any overlapping of tasks and
unnecessary (administrative) costs. Members are deeply concerned about
the fact that, in general, the Commission's outsourcing tendencies,
together with the conversion of posts into appropriations for contract
agents, have led to a situation where an increasing number of staff
employed by the EU are neither visible in the institutions'
establishment plans as adopted by the budgetary authority nor paid under
heading 5. Moreover, this conversion of establishment plan posts into
external staff is likely to have an impact on the quality and
independence of the European civil service. Members therefore ask for
further information regarding the amounts written into the budget in
relation to building projects that have significant financial
implications for the budget.
Parliament also makes some general remarks in regard to
pilot projects and preparatory actions, as well as the agencies.
Although its welcomes the overall stabilisation of the agencies’ budgets (at
EUR 679.2 million), it disapproves, as regards the assigned revenue of
fee-dependent agencies, of the Commission's approach in increasing margins
artificially.
Conciliation: in regard to the
conciliation procedure, Parliament recalls that the institutions involved are
supposed to reach agreement at the trilogue scheduled for July and recall the
following points to be of specific interest for the trilogue due to take
place on 30 June 2010:
- budgetary
implications of the European Stabilisation Financial Mechanism,
- budgetary
implications of the EU2020 strategy,
- youth-related
programmes,
- financial
sustainability and manageability of heading 1a, including the changes
made by the Lisbon Treaty,
- heading
4, including the setting up of the European External Action Service,
- the limited margins in the 2011 DB and the need for
a revision of the current MFF.