Procedure : 2010/2004(BUD)
Document stages in plenary
Document selected : A7-0033/2010

Texts tabled :

A7-0033/2010

Debates :

PV 24/03/2010 - 16
CRE 24/03/2010 - 16

Votes :

PV 25/03/2010 - 6.19
Explanations of votes
Explanations of votes

Texts adopted :

P7_TA(2010)0086

REPORT     
PDF 1835kWORD 1534k
9 March 2010
PE 438.504v02-00 A7-0033/2010

on priorities for the 2011 budget – Section III – Commission

(2010/2004(BUD))

Committee on Budgets

Rapporteur: Sidonia Elżbieta Jędrzejewska

MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION
 ANNEX
 OPINION of the Committee on Development
 RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE

MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION

on priorities for the 2011 budget – Section III – Commission

(2010/2004(BUD))

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to Articles 313 and 314 TFEU,

–   having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement (IIA) of 17 May 2006 on budgetary discipline and sound financial management(1),

–   having regard to the Commission’s updated financial programming for 2007-2013, submitted in accordance with point 46 of the aforementioned IIA of 17 May 2006,

–   having regard to the European Union’s general budget for the 2010 financial year,

–   having regard to the outcome of the conciliation committee meeting of 18 November 2009,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets and the opinion of the Committee on Development (A7-0033/2010),

General budgetary aspects

1. Notes that, for 2011, 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 as adopted by the European Parliament (EUR 141,453 billion in CA); notes that the level of payment appropriations (PA) is set at EUR 134,263 billion, an increase of 9.2% over the 2010 budget (EUR 122,937 billion in PA); recalls that these amounts represent only about 1% of the EU’s GNI and are considerably lower than the current Own Resources Decision;

2. Points out that the discrepancy between CA and PA in the MFF amounts to EUR 8,366 billion; recalls that, despite a gap of only EUR 6,689 billion for 2010 in the MFF, the budget adopted for 2010 shows a gap of EUR 18,515 billion owing to further reductions in payments; reiterates its concerns over increased discrepancies between CA and PA, which create deficits in the long run, and stresses that it will do its utmost throughout the budgetary procedure to keep the discrepancy at a sustainable and manageable level;

3. Recalls that, in addition to considerations regarding the MFF ceilings for the remaining years (2011-2013), the budgetary authority has been obliged to revise the MFF several times because it did not allow the EU to react properly and satisfactorily to various challenges that have arisen in recent year; reiterates its conviction that an in-depth review and revision of the MFF is an absolute necessity; asks the European Commission to publish its report on the functioning of the current IIA and on the mid-term review of the MFF on the basis of declarations 1 and 3 of the IIA of 17 May 2006 , accompanied by concrete proposals to adjust and to revise the current IIA before the end of first semester 2010;

4. Points out that the 2011 budget is the fourth of seven under the current MFF, and emphasises that point 37 of the IIA on the use of the 5% margin of legislative flexibility now makes full sense, since the two arms of the budgetary authority have a clearer view of the shortfalls of, and positive developments in, existing programmes; recalls that, irrespective of the provisions of the IIA, ensuring an appropriate level of flexibility in the EU budget is a prerequisite for its effective implementation in a useful manner;

5. Points out that the strengthening of a number of policies at EU level following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty should logically imply additional financial capacity for the EU;

6. In the context of the mid-term reviews of co-decided programmes, asks the Commission to provide it with an extensive overview of the budgetary implications across all headings;

7. Welcomes the fact that, according to the July 2009 own assessment of the Commission, the majority of the activity statements supporting the 2010 Preliminary Draft Budget contained a clear and concise justification of the EU added value, and included SMART and result-related objectives and indicators; stresses, however, the need to improve the quality of expenditure-related output and to make better use of evaluation results; deplores the fact that variations in appropriations were rarely explained by the use of performance data; expects, therefore, that the Commission will improve its activity statements for 2011 accordingly;

8. Underlines that the remaining improvements needed in this respect, notably as regards the DGs within the RELEX family and pre-accession, are crucial both in order to ensure better-informed decision-making by the budgetary authority and with a view to deriving full benefit from the introduction of activity-based budgeting and strategic planning and programming within the Commission, especially when taking into account the new tasks and challenges foreseen by the Lisbon Treaty;

Priorities for the 2011 budget

9. Recalls that the EU was able to react collectively to the financial and economic crisis by adopting a European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP), but notes that the overall economic situation in the EU is still not satisfactory;

10. Stresses that youth is tremendously important both now and for the future of the EU, and that it should be given particular attention in the course of defining our mid-and long-term priorities; points out that youth is at the heart of social and inclusive strategies, and that its the innovation ability is a key resource for development and growth the EU should rely on; recalls that investing in youth and in education means investing in today and in the future, as outlined by the "EU Youth Strategy", and that this coordinated and multidisciplinary investment must be started up without delay as a cross-policy theme;

11. Stresses that youth policy must be defined broadly, encompassing the ability of individuals to change positions and status several times throughout their lives, switching without restriction among settings such as apprenticeships, academic or professional environments and vocational training; one of the objectives should be the transition from the education system to the labour market;

12. Believes that instruments promoting the study of languages and intercultural dialogue must be introduced and form the centrepiece of public sector youth measures; these could generate an increase in awareness of European issues among the public, aimed at the acquisition of an increasingly rooted European identity;

13. Recalls the importance of innovation and digital agenda for the economic development and job creation in Europe, and points out that pecial attention should be devoted to new skills, such as e-skills and entrepreneurship aspects;underlines that the priorities of Research, Innovation and Digital Agenda are crucial elements for a sustainable development in Europe and recalls the importance of some programmes, such as European Institute of Innovation and Technology, that contribute to this objective;

14. Is convinced, in the context of the global economic slowdown, that the EU should concentrate its efforts on actively supporting innovative in particular green technologies that are making an essential contribution to overcoming the economic crisis, ensuring the markets access to SMEs and establishing the EU as a leading sustainable and competitive economy; notes that the smooth implementation of the R&D programs should be guaranteed in order to achieve this goal;

15. Stresses in this context that SMEs play a decisive role in the development of structurally disadvantaged regions, particularly in rural areas, and thus in boosting the whole EU economy; points out therefore the need to launch more pilot projects for SMEs for the development of rural areas;

16. Recalls, in this respect, that innovative results in research are very likely to have a decisive impact in terms of economic activity, and is of the opinion that the EU should now be fully prepared to provide the necessary financial incentives at every level of government, be it national, regional or local; believes that this European added-value, on top of national efforts to support research activities, will generate increased spill-over effects for the benefit of all the Member States;

17. Underlines that mobility, as a freedom enshrined in the treaties and an essential condition for the functioning of a genuine internal market within the EU, must be regarded as one of the prerequisites for all support actions in favour of youth; stresses, therefore, the importance of structuring the EU budget to reflect, inter alia, the increase in youth mobility;

18. Stresses that transport is an essential element of the European economy, enabling the mobility of persons, goods and knowledge across borders; underlines that transport is a vector of equality and social mobility, for young people in particular, since it opens up opportunities and improves exchanges in the field of knowledge and training;

19. Is of the opinion that support for entrepreneurship and SMEs is a cornerstone of EU policy on youth and innovation; is convinced of the necessity to confirm support to all programmes and instruments aiming at fostering entrepreneurship also in rural areas, providing assistance for start-up phases of newly created enterprises and exchanging experiences among young entrepreneurs; recalls in that respect the role played by the Small Business Act facilitating access to finance and public procurement for SMEs and further promoting their skills and innovation capacities; recalls that it has put forward several pilot projects and preparatory actions in recent years with the aim of supporting young entrepreneurs, promoting interconnections between SMEs and enhancing worker mobility, and underlines that it will closely monitor the legislative proposals to be presented following the completion of these projects and actions;

20. Bearing in mind, the important role youth will have to play in recovering from the current financial and economic crisis, believes that the promotion of equal opportunities and better facilitation of the transition from education to the integration into the labour market should be emphasised and enhanced also within the European Social Fund as the EU can no longer afford that especially the youth suffers from poverty, bad education systems and high unemployment;

21. Recalls that 2011 has been designated as the European Year of Voluntary Activities Promoting Active Citizenship; and 2010 the European Year for combating poverty and social exclusion; points out that volunteering plays a crucial role in many sectors as varied and diverse as, inter alia, education, health, social care and development policy, and that it can provide people with new skills and competences, thereby improving their employability and contributing to social inclusion;

22. Underlines the importance of an integrated and coordinated approach on EU level to support and strengthen measures at national, regional and local level; considers it necessary to build up further appropriate policy responses and to develop a knowledge base which is also made available to other countries; reiterates its conviction that still the EU budget does not reflect satisfactorily this general context to mitigate climate change;

23. Believes that these priorities represent a common effort to put EU citizens first, which should remain one of the EU’s priorities;

24. Emphasises the importance of transnational cooperation by regions within the Euroregions framework and their importance in deepening European integration; calls therefore for the establishment of more pilot projects to promote cross-border economic, social and cultural cooperation among regions within the EU;

25. Welcomes the Commission working document on the future ‘EU 2020’ strategy(2), which identifies three key drivers for the EU’s future while addressing the real challenges that the EU needs to face as the basis of a broad discussion of the EU economic strategy; believes that this strategy should put more emphasis on the fight against unemployment; underlines, however, in conjunction with the priorities set for the 2011 budget, that clear, proactive measures have to be taken to endow EU 2020 with more substance, especially in the field of climate change, environment and social policies, and firmly asserts that this strategy should not turn into another vague and purely indicative scoreboard for the Member States; refuses to duplicate the frustrating experience of the Lisbon Strategy, with the Council making systematic cuts to the lines supporting efforts consistent with the agreed strategy;

26. Calls, therefore, for clear and ambitious financial commitments in the course of the budgetary procedure, in line with these priorities, in order to pave the way for the completion of the EU 2020 strategy and to demonstrate the EU’s readiness to take the lead on these crucial issues; expects the Commission’s proposal for the draft budget to match this ambition, and would regret a missed opportunity to start the budgetary procedure in a manner commensurate with the challenges ahead;

27. Stresses that it intends to use all the means provided for in the IIA of 17 May 2006 to mobilise funds for these priorities, and underlines that this financial effort may necessitate the shifting of funds from other instruments or programmes; considers that the EU could transfer funds from badly implemented programmes, or those with a comparatively large level of appropriations, to these priorities; believes that the Committee on Budgets should rely on the work undertaken by EP specialised committees in that respect; thereby improving the quality of its spending, which is essential in a context of constrained public finances;

28. Takes the view that a clear and comprehensive presentation of the EU’s budget is necessary, and intends pay close attention to the financial programming and the modifications made by recent major budgetary agreements; welcomes the Commission’s improved presentation of its financial programming documents and calls for further clarification of the breakdown between operational and administrative expenditure; while recognising that this distinction might be difficult to make in some cases; recalls that adequate administrative expenditure is necessary for running the programmes;

29. Recalls that the financing of these priorities through a possible reallocation of funds must not be detrimental to fundamental EU policies such as the cohesion, structural or common agriculture policies; points out that cohesion policy, through its unique multilevel governance structure and horizontal character, plays a central role in EU Economic Recovery Plan and is predestined to play an important role in the implementation of the EU2020 strategy, furthering subsidiarity by means of a bottom-up approach and enhancing acceptance and mobilizing support by the citizens of the Union; points out that these policies fulfil one of the founding principle of the EU, namely social inclusion and solidarity amongst Member States and regions;

30. Underlines that it considers this first procedure under the rules of the new treaty to afford a greater opportunity to exercise full parliamentary scrutiny over the EU budget as a whole, and points out that it does not intend to curb its budgetary prerogatives;

Heading 1a

31. Recalls that a number of policies and measures constituting the EERP are covered under this heading, together with a great number of multiannual programmes (CIP, FP7, TENs, etc.) which will have reached maturity in 2011; calls on the Commission to present a follow-up report on the implementation of the EERP including on measures entrusted to the EIB;

32. Underlines 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 (for example in space policy and tourism) is likely to have budgetary implications; emphasises that space policy that's seeking to promote European scientific, technological and environmental progress and industrial competitiveness needs a real financial effort from both the EU and the Member States; points out in particular the need for concrete proposals as regards to adequate financing of GMES;

33. Takes the view that the lifelong learning programme, by focusing on education and vocational training, supports the efforts to be made with regard to youth in particular to their access to autonomy; stresses that this programme should cover the activities planned at the beginning of the programming period and integrate possible new developments, allowing, inter alia, for a clear link to be established between education and the labour market, both of which are crucial for economic development and recovery; stresses the request, already approved by the Parliament, to move forward with a specific mobility programme to promote youth first jobs called "Erasmus First Job";

34. Recalls that, in the context of Europe's economic recovery, investment in transport particularly via investment in the TEN-Ts, has a crucial role to play in driving forward growth and employment as well as in advancing Europe's economic and environmental interests; attaches in that respect high importance to investment in favour of transport safety in all modes;

35. Recalls that the financing of other crucial elements is still pending and will need to be taken into account and agreed upon in the course of the budgetary procedure, even though they were not foreseen in the MFF for 2011: implementation of the financial supervision package consisting of the creation of three new decentralised agencies; financing for the decommissioning of the Kozloduy nuclear power plant (EUR 75 million in 2011), which was financed by the flexibility instrument in 2010; and financing of Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (EUR 10 million in 2011);

36. Is therefore extremely worried by the sharp decrease in appropriations foreseen in the MFF, amounting to a huge drop of EUR 1,875 billion compared with the 2010 budget; understands that the financing of the EERP partially explains this situation, but remains absolutely convinced that an ambitious, consistent mid-term review of the current MFF is a sine qua non condition for an effective EU budget;

Heading 1b

37. Takes the view that the key focus when assessing the cohesion and structural policies should be their simplification and implementation in both quantitative and qualitative terms; welcomes the submission of MCS (Management and Control Systems) descriptions by the Member States for almost all operational programmes, and the Commission’s 87% approval rate by the end of 2009; expects, therefore, a considerable increase in interim payments in 2010 and 2011;

38. Recalls that strengthening economic, social and territorial cohesion is one of the fundamental objectives of the EU as laid down in the Treaty of Lisbon; considers, therefore, that reinforcing EU cohesion policy should remain a high priority for 2011; highlights the need for a close monitoring of the N+2, N+3 rule and requests that full and updated information be delivered to the budgetary authority in time, in particular on budgetary commitments that are in danger of being cancelled;

39. Notes that several delays have been reported in the start-up phase of the current programming period and states its concern for the low take-up rate of all EU structural funds in the past years leading to an increasing gap between commitment and payment appropriations under this Heading; calls on the Commission to work closely especially with those Member States with a low take up rate during the previous programming period, in order to improve this situation;

40. Recalls the Joint Declaration adopted in conciliation last November, calling for a simplification of implementing procedures and urging the Member States to make use of the possibility of revising their operational programmes in order better to address the effects of the economic crisis; welcomes, in this respect, the current revision of the General Regulation on Structural Funds 2007-2013 (Reg. EC 1083/2006) that aims at improving simplification in the management of the funds as well as introducing measures to enable Member States tackle the consequences of the economic crisis; requests that these provisions are implemented without further delay in the Member States; calls on the Commission to estimate the possible impact on payment appropriations of the new provisions, as well as to assess the effect of the proposed derogation from the automatic decommitment (N+2, N+3) rule on the budget;

41. Insists that improving implementation and the quality of spending should constitute a guiding principle for achieving the optimal use of the EU budget; calls on the Commission and the Member States to gear their efforts in this direction and monitor closely the implementation of policies on the ground;

Heading 2

42. Expresses its concern about the narrow margin in Heading 2, which could lead to the application of the financial discipline according to Article 11 of Regulation 73/2009, if agricultural commodity prices show a similar pattern of volatility as in recent years; urges the Commission to closely monitor agriculture markets in order to prevent such a situation; argues for a sufficient margin in Heading 2 in the 2011 budget;

43. Recalls that the second branch of the EERP – broadband internet in rural areas – is being financed under the rural development budget line in 2010 (EUR 420 million), and that no new commitments are foreseen for 2011;

44. Recalls that the abolition of the distinction between compulsory and non-compulsory expenditure will profoundly change the traditional interinstitutional dialogue, and confirms that it intends to screen carefully all appropriations at the various stages of the procedure in view of the difficulty of anticipating changes in agricultural markets; calls, therefore, on the Commission to present its amending letter on agriculture as early as possible in order to allow constructive and efficient decision-making by the Conciliation Committee;

45. Emphasises that the continuing process of ageing in agriculture dictates that efforts be made towards generational turnover, with a view to keeping agriculture competitive and able to meet the new environmental challenges post-Copenhagen;

46. Expects the fight against climate change to remain high on the EU’s ‘post-Copenhagen’ political agenda in 2010 and 2011, and recalls that, as part of a broader approach, sustainable development is an ongoing responsibility to the next generations; asks the Commission to provide a clear action plan and timetable for the implementation of appropriations under the EU action programme to combat climate change; underlines that the transport sector represents a great potential in the fight against climate change and calls on the Commission to give priority to measures for decarbonisation in all transport modes; recalls that the release of the reserve on this line will depend upon the Commission’s proposals;

47. Recalls that the primary goal of the CAP is to guarantee market stabilisation, provide security and ensure reasonable prices for consumers and producers and therefore calls on the Commission to provide in the 2011 budget for the necessary means to address the new needs arising from the economic crisis;

48. Asks the Commission to report on the implementation of the measures against dairy crisis introduced in the 2010 budget, and to present a permanent approach together with concrete proposals for dealing with price volatility in dairy and other commodity markets for the future;

Heading 3a

49. Reaffirms its intention of maintaining a level of financing commensurate with the establishment of an area of freedom, security and justice in the Union and stresses the importance of full and effective implementation, enforcement and evaluation of existing instruments in this area; considers it necessary, to that end, to re-evaluate the appropriateness of the financial instruments and means available in this area in the light of the Stockholm Programme goals, for example in the fields of migration, border control and management, data protection and anti-terrorism; recalls, in this context, that many programmes in this area will soon be subject to mid-term review, which may also necessitate reconsideration of the financial means allocated to them;

50. Believes it essential, as part of furthering an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, to strengthen the policy on immigration and support for the integration of immigrants. To that end, considers that action to harmonise the immigration policies of individual Member States must be viewed as a political priority for EU action, with a view to firmly balancing security demands and the defence of fundamental human rights;

51. Intends to undertake in-depth scrutiny of the financial management of the development of the great data network systems, in particular the transition from SIS I to SIS II, which has been subject to repeated delays and setbacks, before deciding whether to maintain the level of financing foreseen for those systems and reserves the right to hold in reserve any funds pertaining to the migration to SIS II pending the outcome of further analysis and testing;

52. Will be particularly attentive to the implementation of changes such as the bringing of EUROPOL fully within the Community sphere and the establishment of the European Asylum Support Office as well as scrutinising the financial needs of FRONTEX;

Heading 3b

53. Recalls that this heading covers a wide range of actions in favour of youth through multiannual programmes such as Youth in Action, the Culture Programme, Europe for Citizens, annual events including Special Olympics and Erasmus Mundus(3); intends, therefore, to support those EU programmes relating to this issue that are directly relevant to the priorities for the 2011 budget, and to monitor their implementation closely in both qualitative and quantitative terms; regrets, however, that the ceiling of this heading for 2011 is only EUR 15 million above the budget adopted in 2010;

54. Emphasises that the systematic cuts made to these programmes by the other branch of the budgetary authority are unjustified and have a counterproductive effect on the development of a ‘Europe for citizens’;

Heading 4

55. Recalls the constant, almost unbearable pressure on the financing of the EU’s activities as a global player, with its room for manoeuvre caught between low financial margins, unpredictable and ever increasing crises in third countries and a desire to affirm its priorities and responsibilities on the world stage; underlines the need to equip the Union with the necessary financial means for a consistent and adequate response to unforeseen global challenges and stresses in particular that the programmed CFSP budget for 2011might prove underestimated; regrets that any increase beyond the programmed annual envelope would put further pressure on heading 4;

56. Points 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;

57. Points out that, following an amending budget for 2010, 2011 will be the first fully operational year for the European External Action Service (EEAS); intends to provide the EEAS with the necessary administrative means to fulfil its mission, especially with regard to the civil crisis management capabilities, but recalls that, under the treaty and in full accordance with the common intention to increase the EP’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; recalls 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;

58. Expresses its concerns over the scarcity of information regarding the financing of the EU’s commitments to support developing countries in their fight against climate change, and recalls that this commitment was not foreseen in the MFF; strongly emphasises that the funding for these measures should be additional to the existing ODA funds;

59. Reaffirms its firm commitment to assist the Haitian people to the largest possible extent in the aftermath of the devastating earthquake that has struck their country; asks the Commission to present, on the basis of an extensive needs assessment, the most ambitious assistance plan possible for Haiti; recalls that such a plan should not jeopardise existing commitments toward other developing and less advanced countries, and should consist of new funding sources; in that context, recalls EP's position on establishing a permanent EU civil protection force and calls once more on the Commission to make concrete proposals accordingly;

60. Points out that the EU is currently mobilising all its resources, in addition to existing programmes, in order to support peace-building and reconstruction efforts in conflict zones, namely Georgia, Afghanistan, the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa, and that it considers it unacceptable to trade existing priorities for new ones;

61. Recalls the importance of appropriate funding for the stabilisation of the Western Balkans´ region, and for its gradual integration into the European Union;

62. Emphasises that the Eastern Partnership, as a component of its neighbourhood policy, is of great significance for the EU, and reiterates its support for the proposed framework; considers it equally important to ensure an adequate financial envelope reflecting the EU's commitment vis-à-vis its southern neighbours;

63. Recalls that the issue of the financing of ‘banana accompanying measures’, following the Geneva Agreement on trade on bananas, was not dealt with during the conciliation for the 2010 budget; expresses its strong opposition to the proposal to use heading 4 margins for such financing (EUR 25 million per year), which was not foreseen in the MFF and believes that this item deserves an appropriate multiannual financing solution;

Heading 5

64. Wishes, in the spirit of effective and efficient spending of EU funds, carefully to evaluate the situation as regards this heading once more information has been provided about the Commission’s actual requests, implied growth rates and overall room for manoeuvre under the MFF ceiling;

65. Stresses the need to be transparent and forward-looking on a number of issues with major financial implications, such as staffing needs, pensions, a cost and energy efficient building policy also with regard to location, outsourcing policy and administrative versus operational functions and trends;

66. Points out that, with respect to salaries and pensions, 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;

67. Recalls that, although the Commission’s growth forecast for 2010 was limited to 0.9%, it did not include a number of administrative areas that are in fact financed outside this heading, such as technical and administrative support lines (ex-BA lines), executive agencies (outside research agencies) and administrative expenditure on decentralised agencies and direct and indirect research; asks 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; requests that all administrative expenditure must be included in heading 5;

68. Calls on the Commission to present an update of the ‘screening report’ with a view to clear analysis and follow-up of staffing needs;

Decentralised agencies

69. Encourages the Commission to continue the policy followed in recent budgetary exercises as regards the financing of decentralised agencies, notably by taking into consideration the surpluses resulting from the implementation of their budgets when deciding on the subsidies to be proposed; insists, however, that those agencies which depend to some extent on revenue generated by fees should still be able to make extensive use of assigned revenues, so as to give them the budgetary flexibility they need; welcomes the transparent presentation of the annual subsidies requested in a working document on the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation No 1605/2002 to accompany the Commission's draft budget;

70. Expects the activities of the interinstitutional working group on decentralised agencies to be resumed promptly, and reaffirms its expectation that this group will manage to produce operative conclusions allowing the institutions to agree on a common approach to the establishment, management and financing of decentralised agencies, as well as their place in the institutional landscape of the Union;

The procedure for the adoption of the 2011 annual budget

71. Stresses that the budgetary procedure for the adoption of the 2011 budget will be the first one entirely run under the new rules defined in the Treaty of Lisbon; recalls that the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission agreed on transitory measures applicable to the budgetary procedure after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty(4) which should apply until the necessary legal acts (the new regulation on the MFF, the revised Financial Regulation and a possible residual interinstitutional agreement) defining the rules on these matters enter into force;

72. Considers it necessary, in order to ensure that the 2010 budgetary procedure runs smoothly, that the EP, the Council and the Commission agree on principles and modalities concerning the organisation, the preparation and the functioning of the Conciliation Committee, as foreseen in paragraph 7 of the mentioned Joint Declaration; stresses that these principles must comply with the principles defined in its resolution on the financial aspects of the Treaty of Lisbon(5) and in its resolution on transitional procedural guidelines on budgetary matters in view of the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty(6); instructs its Committee on Budgets to negotiate these principles with the Council and the Commission;

73. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission, the Council and the Court of Auditors.

(1)

OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.

(2)

COM(2009)0647 final.

(3)

As a reminder, this specific programme falls under heading 1a.

(4)

see Annex 5 Resolution of the 15/12/2009 on European Parliament resolution of 17 December 2009 on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010 as modified by the Council (all sections)

(5)

Resolution of 7 May 2009.

(6)

Resolution of 12 November 2009.


ANNEX


OPINION of the Committee on Development (2.3.2010)

for the Committee on Budgets

on priorities for the 2011 budget – Section III – Commission

(2010/2004(BUD))

Rapporteur: Thijs Berman

SUGGESTIONS

The Committee on Development calls on the Committee on Budgets, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions in its motion for a resolution:

1.  Is extremely concerned that poor countries face an extra burden of at least EUR 50 billion a year to tackle climate change and expects the 'fast start' package to yield substantial and additional funds in the 2011 budget specifically to initiate EU assistance to help developing countries mitigate and adapt to climate change;

2.  Points out that while ACP states benefit from significant EDF funds to address the economic and financial crisis, other developing countries — home to the most of the planet's poor — do not; calls for a sizeable increase in the funding of the preparatory action included for this in the 2010 budget(1);

3.  Notes that, through the EU Food Facility, the EU proved able to provide a rapid and efficient response by respecting comprehensive, transparent and democratic procedures and to play a leading role in addressing the food crisis through global coordination mechanisms. The lessons learned from the programming, identification, appraisal and implementation of the EU Food Facility could be adapted to formulate the EU response to tackle climate change and other key issues.

4.  Notes that the international community's reaction to the Haiti earthquake was swift and substantial but underlines the ongoing need for improved coordination between humanitarian aid donors and for greater efforts to foster cohesive, transparent partnerships with other humanitarian aid actors in order to maximise their potential contributions in cash or in kind;

5.  Draws attention to the vital importance of speed when responding to humanitarian emergencies: insists, therefore, that this type of funding be available for mobilisation at very short notice;

6.  Notes the vital contribution played by microfinance schemes in helping smallholder farmers, particularly women, secure food self-sufficiency and food security; welcomes the success of financing in the 2009 and 2010 budgets to support such schemes and stresses the need for this to be continued;

7.  Calls on the Commission to give significantly higher priority to securing better access to financial services in developing countries, access to loans and savings, and to insurance schemes, for health and crops for example;  

8.  Stresses that funds set aside for development instruments must target poverty alleviation and strongly opposes the diversion of appropriations programmed for use under the Development Cooperation Instrument to other legislation with different objectives;

9.  insiste sur la nécessité d'augmenter le budget de l'Union pour le financement des actions visant à faire face aux phénomènes migratoires, afin d’améliorer la gestion de la migration légale, de ralentir les flux de migration clandestine et d’optimiser les effets de la migration sur le développement;

10. Calls on the Commission to extend existing initiatives that target water management in developing countries;

11. demande à la Commission de financer des programmes, actions et campagnes d'information visant à combattre l’exploitation du travail de mineurs grâce à l'intégration de la responsabilité sociale des entreprises, avec un contrôle sur les filiales;

12. Recalls that 2011 is European Year of Voluntary Activities promoting active citizenship and calls for adequate funding for the rapid establishment of a European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps and to ensure the safety of its volunteers.

RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE

Date adopted

1.3.2010

 

 

 

Result of final vote

+:

–:

0:

22

0

0

Members present for the final vote

Thijs Berman, Michael Cashman, Nirj Deva, Leonidas Donskis, Charles Goerens, Catherine Greze, Enrique Guerrero Salom, Eva Joly, Franziska Keller, Gay Mitchell, Norbert Neuser, Bill Newton Dunn, Maurice Ponga, Birgit Schnieber-Jastram, Ivo Vajgl, Anna Záborská, Iva Zanicchi

Substitute(s) present for the final vote

Miguel Angel Martínez Martínez, Cristian Dan Preda, Judith Sargentini

Substitute(s) under Rule 187(2) present for the final vote

Rosario Crocetta, Róża, Gräfin von Thun Und Hohenstein

(1)

19 06 08 — Emergency response to the financial and economic crisis in developing countries


RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE

Date adopted

4.3.2010

 

 

 

Result of final vote

+:

–:

0:

31

0

4

Members present for the final vote

Alexander Alvaro, Reimer Böge, Giovanni Collino, Jean-Luc Dehaene, James Elles, Göran Färm, José Manuel Fernandes, Salvador Garriga Polledo, Jens Geier, Estelle Grelier, Jutta Haug, Jiří Havel, Monika Hohlmeier, Sidonia Elżbieta Jędrzejewska, Ivailo Kalfin, Alain Lamassoure, Barbara Matera, Nadezhda Neynsky, Miguel Portas, Dominique Riquet, Helga Trüpel, Derek Vaughan, Angelika Werthmann

Substitute(s) present for the final vote

Maria Da Graça Carvalho, Frédéric Daerden, Roberto Gualtieri, Edit Herczog, Riikka Manner, Paul Rübig, Theodor Dumitru Stolojan

Substitute(s) under Rule 187(2) present for the final vote

Elisabeth Jeggle, Hans-Peter Mayer, Vladko Todorov Panayotov, Marit Paulsen, Dirk Sterckx

Last updated: 11 March 2010Legal notice