Procedure : 2011/2019(BUD)
Document stages in plenary
Document selected : A7-0230/2011

Texts tabled :

A7-0230/2011

Debates :

PV 23/06/2011 - 4
CRE 23/06/2011 - 4

Votes :

PV 23/06/2011 - 12.22
CRE 23/06/2011 - 12.22
Explanations of votes
Explanations of votes

Texts adopted :


REPORT     
PDF 425kWORD 326k
16 June 2011
PE 464.693v02-00 A7-0230/2011

on the mandate for the trilogue on the 2012 Draft Budget

(2011/2019(BUD))

Committee on Budgets

Rapporteur: Francesca Balzani

MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION
 OPINION of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
 OPINION of the Committee on Development
 OPINION of the Committee on Budgetary Control
 OPINION of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs
 OPINION of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs
 OPINION of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy
 OPINION of the Committee on Regional Development
 OPINION of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development
 OPINION of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
 OPINION of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs
 OPINION of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality
 ANNEX: LETTER OF THE COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
 RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE

MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION

on the mandate for the trilogue on the 2012 Draft Budget

(2011/2019(BUD))

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the draft budget for the financial year 2012, which the Commission adopted on 20 April 2011 (SEC(2011)0498),

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

–   having regard to article 314 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–   having regard to its resolution of 24 March 2011 on the general guidelines for the preparation of the 2012 budget(2),

–   having regard to the Council conclusions of 15 February 2011 on the budget guidelines for 2012,

–   having regard to Title II, Chapter 7 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the letter of the Committee on Fisheries,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets and the opinions of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on Development, the Committee on Budgetary Control, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, the Committee on Regional Development, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality (A7-0230/2011),

A. whereas the 2012 budgetary procedure is the second procedure carried out on the basis of the Treaty of Lisbon, and important lessons can be drawn from last year’s experience,

B.  whereas the trilogue which will be held in July should enable the representatives of the two arms of the budgetary authority to discuss the priorities they have identified with regard to the annual budget 2012 and possibly find common ground that could be taken into account in their respective readings,

C. whereas the Polish and Hungarian presidencies have made public commitments to entering into an open, constructive and political dialogue with the EP on budgetary matters,

D. whereas the Council as a whole is therefore expected to act as a trustworthy political partner throughout the procedure, avoiding making arbitrary or purely arithmetical cuts across the budget lines,

Draft Budget 2012 – general assessment

1.  Recalls that in its resolution of 24 March 2011 the EP put the Europe 2020 strategy for a smart, sustainable and inclusive growth at the centre of the 2012 EU budgetary strategy in order to help Europe recover from the economic and social crisis and come out stronger;

2.  Recalls that the promotion of a smart, sustainable and inclusive economy, which creates jobs and high-quality employment by delivering on the Europe 2020 strategy’s seven flagship initiatives is a jointly endorsed goal of the 27 Member States and the EU institutions; recalls that the implementation of this strategy will require a huge amount of future-oriented investment up to 2020, estimated at no less than EUR 1 800 billion by the Commission in its communication entitled ‘The EU Budget Review’(3); underlines, therefore, that necessary investments - at both EU and Member State level - must be made now and delayed no longer, to improve education levels, foster social inclusion, in particular through the reduction of poverty, and the development of a knowledge-based society rooted in the overall EU scientific and technological capacity; in this context, insists on the need to support research, development, innovation and SMEs and the development of resource-efficient technologies;

3.  Is deeply concerned, against this background, that the current crisis has resulted in a drop in public investment in some of these areas because of the adjustments that Member States have made to their national budgets; calls for this trend to be reversed and firmly believes that investments need to be guaranteed at EU and national level if the EU as a whole is to deliver on the EU 2020 strategy; is of the opinion that the EU budget has a role to play as a leverage tool for Member States’ recovery policies by triggering and supporting national investment to reinforce growth and employment; underlines in that respect that aligning the EU budget with the goals of the EU 2020 strategy is of utmost importance; reminds in this regard that support for youth training, mobility and employment, SMEs, research and development should be a key priority of the EU budget; emphasises that this is fully in line with the dynamics of the European Semester, which, as a new mechanism for enhanced European economic governance, aims at increasing consistency, synergies and complementarities between the EU and the national budgets in delivering on the jointly agreed Europe 2020 goals;

4.  Recalls that EU 2020 strategy and the European Semester need a strong parliamentary dimension, and shows its firm conviction that stronger parliamentary involvement would significantly improve the democratic nature and transparency of such an exercise;

5.  Observes that the EU draft budget (DB) for 2012, as proposed by the Commission, amounts to EUR 147 435 million in commitment appropriations (CA) (EUR 146 676 million without the European Globalisation Fund (EGF) and the Emergency Aid Reserve (EAR) and EUR 132 738 million in payment appropriations (PA); notes that these amounts represent respectively 1.12 % and 1.01% of the EU’s forecast gross national income (GNI) for 2012 and emphasises that this proportion remains noticeably stable between 2011 and 2012, with GNI growth estimated by the Commission at no less than +4.7% in 2012 (in current prices);

6.  Acknowledges that if the EU budget is to contribute to the collective effort of Member States in times of austerity this effort should be commensurate with its size, specific features and real economic impact; believes that account should be taken of ongoing national budgetary consolidation efforts which are taking place in many Member States owing to past fiscal indiscipline but recalls that under Treaty provisions the EU budget cannot run a deficit and that it represents only 2% of total public spending in the EU;

7.  Observes that the EU 27 annual inflation rate for 2011 is estimated at 2.7%, meaning that the proposed nominal 2012 increases of 3.7% in CA and 4.9% in PA are, compared to the Budget 2011, in real terms 1% and 2.2%; underlines the fact that several Member States are planning increases in their national budgets greater than the one proposed by the European Commission for the EU budget; notes also some Member States’ efforts to reduce budget deficits and slow the growth of sovereign debt, bringing it to a more sustainable level;

8.  Highlights the fact that the proposed figures in the 2012 EU annual budget are consistent with the profile of EU expenditure set in the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2007-2013, provided that an agreement of the budgetary authority can be found for a revision of the MFF, accommodating the additional financing needs of ITER; emphasises that any increase (or decrease) compared to Budget 2011 must therefore be assessed bearing in mind its impact on the delivery of the multiannual programmes; stresses that this is a question of institutional credibility and coherence of the EU project when EU responsibilities and commitments keep on growing; believes, from this point of view that endowing targeted policy areas and new competencies established at EU level with meaningful and visible financial capacity is a priority;

9.  Observes that according to the DB 2012 there is an overall margin of EUR 1 603 million in CA under the 2012 ceiling agreed in the MFF; is determined to make use, should it prove necessary, of this available margin as well as – if necessary – of other flexibility mechanisms foreseen by the current IIA to support and strengthen certain targeted political objectives, which are not adequately addressed in the current MFF; expects Councils full cooperation as regards the use of these mechanisms;

10. Recalls that a first round of discussions on budgetary priorities has already started in Parliament in the form of the extensive consultation of its specialised committees by its general rapporteur for the Budget 2012; emphasises that the process must now be fine-tuned in each committee for its respective field of competence so as to identify the positive and negative priorities for the Budget 2012;

11. Notes the Commissions estimate that all in all 43.5% of the DB 2012 (in CA) contributes to the objectives of the EU 2020 strategy; finds this estimate positive but not sufficient; acknowledges that the priorities set by the Commission seem consistent with those defined by Parliament in its resolution on general guidelines for the 2012 Budget, but calls for a more ambitious approach to the funding of the Europe 2020 strategy; is, however, determined to further analyse these figures in full association with all its specialised committees;

12. Takes the view that, besides the delivery of the EU 2020 strategy, appropriations in the EU 2012 Budget should be set at an appropriate level to ensure the continuation of EU policies and the achievement of EU objectives; underlines in particular the need to allow the EU to shoulder its global responsibility, especially in the wake of the Arab Spring and the unrest in the Middle East;

13. Observes that the difficult economic situation across the EU has led the Commission to make a first endeavour to identify negative priorities and savings in some policy areas as compared with what was initially foreseen in the financial programming, particularly in those characterised by poor performance and low implementation rates in the recent past as requested by the EP in its Resolution of 24 March 2011; asks however the Commission to provide additional information supporting its assessment to enable EP to clearly determine political and budgetary positive and negative priorities as well as the possibility of further savings and reallocations, whereas it is essential that the implementation of EU programmes and actions, including the financing of actions aiming at tackling the effects of the crisis and promoting growth, continue at EU level;

14. Strongly warns against any attempt by the Council, to make horizontal cuts in the budget, deciding on the overall level of appropriations a priori, without duly taking into account an accurate assessment of the actual needs for the achievement of the Union’s agreed objectives and political commitments; requests, if cuts are made, for the Council to instead publicly explain and clearly identify which of the EU’s political priorities or projects could be delayed or dropped altogether;

15. Notes the proposed increase in PA of 4.9% compared to 2011; is convinced that the Commission is proposing such figures on the basis of a careful and critical analysis of forecasts provided by Member States, which themselves co-manage 80% of the EU budget; notes that the bulk of this increase is linked to legal needs arising in relation to the 7th Research Programme and the Structural and Cohesion Funds; is convinced that the proposed level of payments represents the bare minimum required to honour EU legal commitments made in previous years and that it is the EU’s duty to comply with the legal obligations deriving from these commitments and ensure that programmes unfold their full potential and run at full speed; strongly urges the Council, therefore, to refrain from cutting the proposed level of payments; expresses its intention to keep the level of payments at the level proposed by the Commission in the Draft Budget, particularly in view of Council’s early 2011 reluctance to honour its formal commitment of December 2010 to providing fresh appropriations in case of need;

16. Observes, moreover, that the overall margin in PA under the ceiling of the MFF remains high at EUR 8 815 million; highlights the fact that any decrease below the figure proposed by the Commission would in turn worsen the situation in relation to the urgent need to reduce the unprecedented level of outstanding commitments (RALs) and to ensure the correct implementation of EU policies and programmes;

17. In this context recalls that the draft amending budget 03/2011 shows a budgetary surplus of 4.9 bn Euro in payments in 2010; Deplores the Commission’s proposal to lower the Member States’ contributions by this amount; is of the opinion that such an approach is not good budgeting and will have no impact on the overall deficit level of Member States, while this amount can make a clear difference to the EU’s annual budget;

Heading 1a

18. Takes note of the Commissions proposal in the DB 2012 to increase CA by 12.6% (to EUR 15 223 million) and PA by 8.1% (to EUR 12 566 million) as compared to Budget 2011, since Heading 1a is the key heading of the MFF 2007-2013 in terms of reaching the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, thanks to its direct or indirect contribution to the financing of all its five headline targets and the seven flagship initiatives;

19. Regrets, however, that most of the increases foreseen under this heading for 2012 do not go beyond the mere yearly breakdown of multiannual global amounts agreed to by both Parliament and Council when these programmes and actions were adopted; underlines therefore that the Commission does not generally propose to boost – beyond what was originally planned – the support for investments urgently needed to implement the seven flagship initiatives, and notes that it is regrettably inclined to postpone the necessary big leap in terms of common financial effort to the post-2013 MFF; is convinced that this attitude will seriously endanger the achievement of the headline goals by 2020;

20. Underlines that, with the DB 2012 and the updated financial programming for 2013, the total amount of funds committed by 2013 for key programmes for the achievement of the EU 2020 strategy, such as the 7th EC Framework Research Program (EC FP7), anti-pollution measures, Marco Polo II, PROGRESS, Galileo and GMES, would be less than the reference amount agreed by Parliament and Council when these programmes were adopted; notes that, on the contrary, these reference amounts would be slightly exceeded in the case of the following key Europe 2020 programmes: the Competiveness and Innovation Framework programme (CIP), Trans-European Transport Network, Trans-European Energy network, Erasmus Mundus and Lifelong Learning; intends to take full advantage , where appropriate, of the 5% legislative flexibility allowed under Point 37 of the IIA, in order to further boost key and pressing investments;

21. Notes, moreover, that an important part of the nominal increase in Heading 1a in the DB 2012 compared to Budget 2011 is linked to the additional funds of EUR 750 million (in CA) required by ITER in 2012, of which EUR 650 million are truly additional and EUR 100 million redeployed from all budget lines of EC FP7; strongly reaffirms its opposition to any form of redeployment from EC FP7 since this would endanger its successful implementation and significantly reduce its contributions to the achievement of the headline goals and the implementation of the flagship initiatives of the Europe 2020 strategy;

22. Recalls that, in order to finance ITER, it will be necessary for the budget authority to agree on the parallel Commission’s proposal(4) amending the MFF 2007-13, which suggests financing the missing EUR 1 300 million for ITER in 2012 and 2013 by using available and unused 2011 margins under Heading 2 and 5 of the MFF 2007-13 for a total amount of EUR 840 million and redeploying in 2012 and 2013 EUR 460 million from EC FP7; expresses its willingness to enter into negotiation with Council to amend the Commission’s proposal by having recourse to the different means provided for in the current 17 May 2006 IIA;

23. Notes with concern, in addition to the proposed EUR 100 million redeployment for ITER, the extra cuts of EUR 64 million made to EC FP7 as compared to the financial programming; demands that the Commission proposes to use all the savings (amounting in total to EUR 190 million) to be made in 2012 thanks to re-assessment of staffing needs and the reduced financial contributions to some Joint Undertakings for the benefit of operational expenditure under the EC FP7;

24. Points out in this regard to the need to improve the funding conditions for the sustainable energy priorities, energy storage technologies and other priorities on renewables under the newly introduced Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET Plan), including energy efficiency, which are vital for meeting the economic, energy and climate challenges; believes that clear goals for sustainable energy policy and energy efficiency can deliver cost-efficient solutions from which the European economy as a whole could benefit; notes also that additional innovative ways of leveraging investments and fostering research and innovation, such as the Risk Sharing Finance Facility (RSFF), could be explored in the frame of the 2012 budgetary procedure;

25. Regrets that with the limited increase foreseen for the PROGRESS programme in the DB 2012 as compared to Budget 2011, the Commission will not be able to reinstate the amount of EUR 20 million for the period 2011-2013 to which it had committed itself in 2010 in order to compensate partially for the redeployment of PROGRESS in favour of the Microfinance Facility; recalls the contribution of the PROGRESS programme to the two EU 2020 strategy flagship initiatives ‘European Platform against Poverty’ and ‘Youth on the Move’; points out that Member States, local and regional authorities and national and regional bodies receive PROGRESS programme funding to implement gender budgeting measures;

26. Welcomes the increase (+ EUR 5.7 million) in the overall level of commitment appropriations for the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework programme compared to what was initially foreseen; hopes that this increase will contribute to improving the access of SMEs to this programme and to developing specific programmes and innovative financial mechanisms; recalls, in this context, the key role played by SMEs in boosting the EU economy and supports, in particular, the CIP-EIP programme as an indispensable tool of recovery from the crisis; stresses the need to improve SMEs' access to capital markets and different EU financing opportunities by making funding procedures easier, quicker and less bureaucratic;

27. Reiterates the importance of the Single Market for the competitiveness of EU enterprises and for the growth and stability of European economies, and reminds the Commission and the Member States that sufficient resources need to be ensured to improve the implementation of the single market rules;

28. Stresses the European added value of investments in cross-border transport, particularly the TEN-T programme, which improve trans-border and intermodal connections, thus promoting economic development and employment; recalling the traditional under-funding of TEN-T, urges that increased resources be made available for this purpose, including through recourse to alternative sources of financing such as Public Private Partnerships (PPP), earmarking of revenues and other forms of financial instrument; underlines that Cohesion and Regional Funds should be closely linked to TEN-T projects;

29. Takes the view that, given its high European added value, support for the Lifelong Learning programme should be continued and increased in 2012, because of its strong contribution to the flagship initiatives ‘Youth on the Move’ and ‘Innovation Union’; stresses in particular that, given the growing number of people in adult education in Europe, Grundtvig, which currently represents only 4% of the allocations in the Lifelong Learning Programme, should be reinforced;

30. Is concerned about the proposed reduction in appropriations for the Union Statistical Programme and the very limited – below the rate of inflation – increase in staff expenditure in the ‘Statistics’ policy area; emphasises that there is a strong need to continuously make sure that the resources of Eurostat match the expanding workload and the enhanced quality demands in the key area of economic and financial statistics;

31. Recalls that the bulk of the new EU competences introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon, in the areas of energy, tourism and space, falls within the remit of Heading 1a; expresses its disappointment that no extra funding for these new policies is proposed by the Commission in the third year after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty; underlines that neither Galileo nor GMES – the two main EU space programmes – is to benefit from extra funding by the end of the current MFF and that the Galileo funding is decreasing between 2011 and 2012; reiterates the need to introduce some specific, visible measures in support of tourism, given the economic relevance of this sector, which represents the third socio-economic activity in Europe in terms of employment and GDP creation, and regrets that the Commission is not proposing a new legal basis to replace the three preparatory actions in this field which cannot be extended in 2012; asks that appropriate resources be allocated for the tourism sector in 2012 and 2013 as well as in the future multiannual financial framework;

32. Notes that the crisis has clearly highlighted the importance for the strength of government finances of having effective and fraud-proof tax collection systems; stresses that the fight against tax fraud and evasion must be highly prioritised and that the appropriations for Fiscalis must enable the programme to respond to this ambition;

33. Welcomes the Commission’s decision to include in the DB for the second consecutive year payment appropriations (EUR 50 million) for the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF); underlines the fact that this not only gives higher visibility to the fund but also avoids transfers from other budget lines pursuing different aims and covering different needs; eagerly awaits the presentation of the mid-term review of the EGF Regulation by the Commission as a means of identifying ways to speed up the procedure for mobilising the fund and of simplifying its management rules;

Heading 1b

34. Stresses the decisive contribution of cohesion policy to growth and employment, as well as to economic, social and territorial cohesion between EU regions and Member States; stresses that cohesion policy plays an instrumental role in enabling all EU regions to participate in the achievement of Europe 2020 objectives and in supporting regional investments aimed at implementing all flagship initiatives; takes the view accordingly that, while its redistributive nature and its aim to reduce regional disparities should be preserved, cohesion policy must remain EU-wide investment policy and accessible to all EU regions and citizens;

35. Notes that total expenditure for Heading 1b is estimated at EUR 52 739 million in commitments appropriations, representing an increase of 3.4% compared to 2011, which is fully in line with the allocations set out in the MFF 2007-13, account being taken of the latest 2010 adjustment in favour of some Member States; notes that the margin left available (EUR 22.1 million) under the ceiling stems mostly from the technical assistance allocation and represents only 0.04% of the total allocation under this heading;

36. Welcomes the 8.4% increase in PA to EUR 45 134 million proposed for 2012 as compared to 2011, and believes that this increase will allow for programme implementation to catch up quickly following the very slow start-up of programmes at the beginning of the 2007-13 period; emphasises that this increase should also make it possible to address additional payment needs stemming from the recent legislative changes, the approval of all management and control systems and the closure of the 2000-2006 programmes;

37. Stresses therefore that this level of payments is a bare minimum and complies fully with realistic budgeting, taking due account of the general payment profile over the period, the Member States’ available forecast in respect of payment claims to be sent to the Commission, and the need to fill the gap between commitments and payments; underlines the fact that these cash flows will also help accelerate the recovery of the European economy and contribute to the Europe 2020 strategy in the regions; will therefore strictly oppose any possible decrease in the level of payments compared to the one proposed by the Commission in its Draft Budget;

38. Asks the Commission to collect demographic data of the beneficiaries of the cohesion policy, the European Social Fund notably, in order to monitor the real impact of the funds provided for human capital development and job market insertion, keeping in mind the particularly worrying problem of youth unemployment;

39. Asks the Commission to keep on working closely with those Member States with a low absorption rate in order to further improve absorption on the ground; calls, therefore, for the further promotion of mutual learning, exchange of best practices and improvement of administrative capacities in Member States as well as in candidate countries through paying attention to the proper functioning of the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance supporting the countries preparations for the implementation of Community programmes;

40. Urges the Commission also to continue its reflection on how to simplify the complex system of rules and requirements imposed by the EU and/or national legislation and reduce the bureaucratic burden, in order to place a significantly stronger focus on achieving specific objectives, in addition to legality and regularity, without departing from the key principles of transparency, accountability and sound financial management;

Heading 2

41. Notes that the DB 2012 proposes to increase commitment appropriations by 2.6% to EUR 60 158 million and payment appropriations by 2.8% to EUR 57 948 million as compared with Budget 2011; underlines that these increases remain below the increase proposed by the Commission for the budget as a whole;

42. Observes that these increases are above all the consequence of continuous phasing-in of direct payments to new Member States and additional needs for rural development; underlines the fact that market interventions remain almost stable compared with Budget 2011, while price volatility and the instability of certain markets continue to affect the agricultural sector; asks the Commission to develop proposals for a more long-term approach for all agricultural sectors, as well as concrete proposals for dealing with price volatility in their markets;

43. Notes that the traditional agricultural amending letter to be presented in Autumn 2011 will adjust the current estimates to a more precise assessment of the real needs; against this background, draws attention to the final level of assigned revenue to be available in 2012 (conformity clearance correction, irregularities and milk super levy), which will eventually set the level of fresh appropriations to be adopted in the Budget 2012; estimates that the current margin left (EUR 651 6 million) should be sufficient to cover the needs under this heading in the absence of unforeseen circumstances;

44. Stresses that over the last few years the budgetary authority could, thanks to specific circumstances, make use of the unallocated funds (margin) available under the ceilling of this heading to reach global agreement on the annual budgets, by having recourse to point 23 of the IIA;

45. Endorses the continued support for programmes concerning school fruit , as well as for the Aid for Deprived Persons programme; deplores, conversely, the reduced budgetary allocation to the school milk scheme and is concerned about the cuts made to veterinary and phyto-sanitary measures;

46. Calls for a further reduction of export refunds and regrets the continued subsidising of the tobacco production in the EU, which is contrary to the objectives of the EU health policy;

47. Stresses that part of the spending under Heading 2 is instrumental in realising the Europe 2020 goals; emphasises that the priority goals of this strategy – growth and employment – are also accomplished through the rural development programmes; regards food security and sustainability as two of the main challenges for the CAP; recalls that direct aids should better take into account environmental and social objectives and calls for a more sustainable CAP, which should contribute further to meeting the environmental challenges the EU faces, including water pollution, without compromising the competitiveness of EU farmers;

48. Welcomes, in this context, the increase for the LIFE+ programme (+4.3% and +1.9% in commitments and payments respectively) which gives priority solely to environment and climate action projects; reminds again that environmental problems and their solutions do not recognise national borders, thus dealing with it at EU level is self-evident; points out nevertheless that the LIFE+ appropriations remain at a quite limited level;

49. Emphasises that energy efficiency, the fight against climate change and the promotion of renewable energy are transversal priorities that can be financed under several headings of the EU budget, and that Parliament will pay specific attention to their funding, by budget line and overall; urges the Commission to further mainstream such priorities, as well as water protection and the preservation of biodiversity in other policies, including EU financial support to developing countries; takes the view that the proper implementation of the existing legislation on these topics is crucial and therefore asks the Commission to carefully analyse whether more resources are required in order to examine seriously the implementation of EU environmental legislation, and to report back to Parliament;

50. Points out that, owing to its political importance, the financing and existing actions of the Common Fisheries Policy should be preserved and maintained at the proposed DB levels, not least given its upcoming reform; takes the view that the funding of the integrated maritime policy, which should reach an adequate amount in 2012, should not be detrimental to that of other fisheries actions and programmes under Heading 2; further considers it crucial to keep on monitoring the size of the European fishing fleet, giving appropriate support to Member States in this regard and, in particular, combating Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing (IUU); considers effective fisheries’ management of crucial importance in order to preserve fish stocks and prevent overfishing;

Heading 3a

51. Notes that the overall increase in funding proposed in the DB 2012 compared to Budget 2011 for actions encompassed under this heading (+17.7% in commitments appropriations, +6.8 % in payment appropriations) is in line with the growing ambitions of the EU in the area of freedom, security and justice, as outlined in both the the Treaty of Lisbon and the Stockholm Programme (2010-2014), which the European Council itself adopted in December 2009;

52. Notes that these increases are mostly linked to three of the four Solidarity and Management of Immigration programmes: External Borders Fund (+38%), European Return Fund (+43%) and European Fund for the Integration of Third-Country Nationals (+24%); emphasises, however, that the increases foreseen under this heading for 2012 are simply the result of the yearly breakdown of multiannual global amounts agreed upon by both Parliament and Council when these programmes and actions were adopted;

53. Very much wonders, therefore, whether the DB presented by the Commission constitutes an appropriate and updated answer to the current challenges facing the EU, not least in the context of the ongoing events in the Southern Mediterranean; recalls its strong call for an appropriate and balanced answer to these challenges, with a view to the management of legal migration and slowing down of illegal migration; acknowledging the obligation of EU Member States to conform to established EU law, emphasises the need for sufficient funding and support tools to handle emergency situations in a spirit of full respect of internal protection rules and human rights and solidarity amongst all Member States; highlights in particular the role and support of the European Refugee Fund, including emergency measures in the event of mass influxes of refugees, and greatly regrets that the Commission did not propose any increase for this fund beyond what was initially foreseen in the financial programming;

54. Takes note of the repeated calls by the European Council to strengthen the operational capacity and role of FRONTEX, in a period of increasing migration pressures; asks the Commission to present the full budgetary implications for 2012 of the ongoing revision of FRONTEX and to provide a clearer picture of the Member States’ financial participation in its functioning;

55. Recalls that one third of 2011 appropriations for SIS II are still in reserve; therefore expects clear and substantiated assurance by the Commission on the prospects for delivery, without which 2012 appropriations should be allocated to alternative solutions;

Heading 3b

56. Recalls that Heading 3b, though the smallest heading of the MFF in terms of financial allocation, covers issues of key concern to the citizens of Europe, such as youth, educational and cultural programmes, public health, consumer protection, the civil protection instrument and communication policy;

57. Deeply regrets that overall appropriations under this heading are down for a third consecutive year, with CA being reduced by 0.1% (to EUR 683 5 million) and PA by 0.3 % (to EUR 645 7 million) as compared to the 2011 Budget (excluding the EU Solidarity Fund), leaving a margin of EUR 15.5 million;

58. Takes the view that programmes and actions under this heading play an important role in achieving headline targets and flagships initiatives of the Europe 2020 strategy; reiterates that education, training and culture carry economic value since they contribute notably to economic growth and quality job creation and support the development of active citizenship;

59. Underlines the fact that the very small margin available will allow limited room for manoeuvre when proposing new actions or taking decisions on stepping up the funding of priorities directly relevant to citizens;

60. Takes due note of the Commission’s proposal to increase by EUR 8 million, as compared to the initial financial programming, the 2012 allocations for Youth in Action (EUR 134.6 million foreseen in 2012), a programme which constitutes one of the main tools of the Youth on the Move’ flagship initiative and provides support for non-formal learning experiences and the development of active citizenship for young people;

61. Regrets that similar efforts are not being proposed for programmes such as MEDIA and Culture 2007, although they contribute greatly to the richness and diversity of European culture and give support to actions which would not be funded by Member States alone;

62. Deplores that the Commission has not proposed in its Draft Budget 2012 any specific measure in favour of sport, although this is now a fully-fledged competence of the Union deriving from the Treaty of Lisbon; considers indeed that some funding – though of limited magnitude – shall continue to be available in Budget 2012;

63. Welcomes the increase for the Public Health programme as public health has become a key-driver for competitiveness in ageing European societies,; acknowledges the Commission’s efforts to find financing solutions for continuing important educational campaigns such as the HELP campaign for a life without tobacco;

64. Deplores the decrease in the Civil Protection Financial Instrument’s funding as compared to the financial programming (EUR -1.8 million ), and asks the Commission to provide further explanations for this decrease, given that civil protection is now a new competence of the EU;

65. Recalls that, in order to ensure transparency and full involvement of the European Parliament and its Members, European Public Spaces need to have their own separate line; regrets the Commission proposal to empty this line and to merge the EPS allocations with the Commission Representations’ line; recalls that the European Public Spaces are run jointly by the Commission and the Parliament and therefore their budget should be separated from the Commission Representations’ budget as reflected in the 2010 and 2011budgets; underlines that Parliament will not accept any attempt to change the will of the budgetary authorities in this matter;

Heading 4

66. Notes that the commitment and payment appropriations requested in the DB 2012 have increased by 2.9% and 0.8%, as compared to the 2011 Budget, to EUR 9 009.3 and EUR 7 293.7 million respectively (account being taken of the Emergency Aid reserve); points out that these increases remain below the increase proposed by the Commission for the Budget as a whole;

67. Recalls that until now the Commission has failed to return funds (240 Million) used for the Food Facility to heading 4 and especially the Instrument for Stability as demanded by the Committee on Budgets in paragraph 28 of its report A7-0038/2009 adopted on 12. October 2009;

68. Is firmly convinced that a particular and concrete effort must be made to make optimal, coordinated use of all European instruments available (not only financial envelopes within the EU budget, but also instruments managed by the EIB, EBRD etc.) and Member State actions; emphasises that flexibility in the programming and implementation of the EU instruments must be further improved to allow an adequate and effective response to political and humanitarian crises in third countries without, however, jeopardising long-term political commitments and priorities; calls, to this end, for the Commission, the European External Action Service and the European Investment Bank to coordinate their efforts with a view to ensuring that the objectives of EU external action are as targeted and effective as possible;

69. Believes it to be the EU’s duty to respond adequately and comprehensively to recent political developments in Mediterranean neighbouring countries and to provide support and assistance to movements fighting for democratic values and the establishment of the rule of law; reiterates that reinforcement of financial assistance to these countries must not be detrimental to priorities and instruments for the benefit of neighbouring Eastern European countries;

70. Is very concerned from this point of view that the proposed margin of EUR 246.7 million for Heading 4, while far above that foreseen by the January 2011 update of the financial programming (EUR 132.2 million), may be insufficient to address the new needs under Heading 4, since it seems to be based on cuts to some major EU programmes; is determined to further check and analyse the impact of these cuts;

71. Recalls that Parliament and Council have still not agreed on the legal basis for Banana Accompanying Measures and Cooperation with Industrialised and other High-Income Countries (ICI +) and that this agreement will have an impact on Budget 2012 appropriations; regrets the Commission’s proposal to cut funding for the cooperation with developing countries in Asia and Latin America ; calls for a swift adoption of the ICI+ legislation and for an endorsement of adequate funding for Asia and Latin America;

72. Asks the Commission, therefore, not to limit its upcoming amending letter to the budgetary consequences of its review of the European Neighbourhood Policy but also to address, if necessary together with the use of all the means provided for by the IIA, all other outstanding issues and needs, including the financing of Palestine and UNRWA, which is decreased by EUR 100 million as compared to 2011 Budget, in order to maximise the impact of EU assistance in the world;

73. Deplores the reduction of the programmed increase in the funding for the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance from EUR 139 million to only EUR 79 million, as compared to Budget 2011;

74. Notes the proposed increase in the funding of environment and sustainable management of natural resources (ENRTP) under the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) by EUR 51.8 million as compared to financial programming in order to address the fast-start climate change action; strongly opposes the other decreases, amounting to EUR 78 million overall, made to DCI geographical programmes, which would run counter to the EU effort to contribute to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals and respect the EU commitment, at the highest level, to reaching the 0.7% of GNI target by 2015 for development cooperation;

75. Recalls that it will firmly reject any systematic, quasi-automatic and sometimes unconsidered cuts by the other branch of the budgetary authority in administrative expenditure under Heading 4 for the sole sake of decreasing appropriations, since this would deprive the EU of its means to properly and efficiently implement its programmes;

Heading 5

76. Notes that total administrative expenditure for all institutions is estimated at EUR 8 281 million, representing an increase of 1.3% as compared to 2011, leaving a margin of EUR 472.5 million;

77. Notes the letter from the Commissioner for Financial Programming and Budget of 3 February 2011 committing to an increase in Heading 5 expenditure below 1% and no new staff as compared to 2011 and calling upon all institutions to follow the same approach as regards the evolution of their budgets;

78. Observes that the Commission, the Council, the Court of Auditors, the Ombudsman and the Data Protection Supervisor have followed suit; underlines that the European Parliament has succeeded to reduce its own estimates by around 50 mio EUR compared to the first proposal of preliminary draft estimates; stresses that it will scrutinise in depth the other institutions’ estimates, inter alia against the additional needs and activities related to the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty;

79. Acknowledges the Commission’s great effort to freeze its own administrative expenditure in nominal terms; notes that this was rendered possible through the offsetting of the increases linked to statutory and contractual obligations against other drastic cuts in other administrative expenditure; is nevertheless concerned about the possible consequences;

80. Stresses that any further cut to 2012 administrative appropriations within Section III, including to the administrative support expenditure lines (former BA-lines), might have an adverse impact on the implementation of programmes, in particular in view of the new EU tasks following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty; insists that the savings resulting from reduced administrative support expenditure remain within the corresponding programmes’ financial envelopes for enhanced delivery on the ground; emphasises, furthermore, that while EU competences keep on increasing, this trend is not sustainable in the long term and will have an adverse impact on the swift, regular and effective implementation of EU actions and programmes;

81. Acknowledges the Commissions efforts not to request any additional posts and its commitment to meet all its needs, including those relating to new priorities and to the entry into force of the TFEU, merely by means of internal redeployment of existing human resources; asks for further information in particular where the 230 additional posts needed to ensure the appropriate monitoring of Member States’ economic and financial situation within DG ECFIN are to be redeployed from and what the impact of 70 fewer posts for administrative support and programmes management will be, following redeployments within specific Directorates-General; stresses that the human resources issue is made all the more important by the fact that DG ECFIN may have to be further strengthened to cope with vital additional tasks as soon as the economic governance package has been adopted;

82. Underlines that the increase proposed for EPSO (+5.4% in CA and PA) seems to contradict the Commission’s efforts to reduce administrative expenditure; requests more information on the proposed increase of EPSO's allocations and on the externalization by EPSO of key services;

83. Notes the 4% increase in expenditure on pensions (as against +5.2% from 2010 to 2011) in view of the wave of retirements of officials; invites the Commission to supply a more in-depth analysis of the long-term budgetary consequences of this trend, while at the same time considering the possible consequences, whether direct and indirect, of any change in the EU pension scheme on the attractiveness, quality and independence of the European civil service; stresses that any such change should follow due social dialogue;

84. Takes the view that the European Schools should be adequately funded in the interests of addressing the specific situation of the children of agents of the EU institutions; will carefully scrutinise the proposed overall 1.7% increase as compared to 2011, which is below that foreseen in the financial programming, as well as each of the European Schools’ budget lines, and make, during its reading, any modification it considers appropriate in this respect;

Pilot projects – preparatory actions

85. Stresses that pilot projects (PPs) and preparatory actions (PAs) are key tools for the formulation of political priorities and for paving the way for new initiatives that might turn into EU activities and programmes likely to improve the lives of EU citizens; intends, therefore, to support by all possible means its proposals regarding pilot projects and preparatory actions for the 2012 Budget, while stressing the need carefully to study the Commission’s preliminary assessment expected in July 2011 for the definition of a global and balanced final package on this issue;

86. Intends to this end to forward to the Commission, as provided for in Annex II, part D of the IIA, a first provisional list of potential pilot projects and preparatory actions for the 2012 Budget; expects the Commission to provide a well-reasoned analysis of Parliament’s indicative proposals; stresses that this first provisional list does not preclude the formal tabling and adoption of amendments concerning pilot projects and preparatory actions during Parliament’s reading of the budget;

87. Takes note of one new pilot project and five preparatory actions – two of them new – proposed by the Commission under different headings; states its firm intention of analysing the content and objectives of the newly proposed initiatives in the course of the upcoming negotiations;

Agencies

88. Notes the overall level of EUR 720.8 million (i.e. 0.49% of the total EU budget) devoted to EU decentralised agencies in DB 2012, an increase in the total EU contribution as compared to the 2011 Budget of EUR 34.6 million, or +4.9%; is aware that this increase mainly stems from the one new5 and seven phasing-in agencies6 , with a view to providing them with adequate funding; underlines the importance of additional funding for those 10 agencies7 , the tasks of which have been extended, so as not to hinder their performance; notes that the increase in the EU contribution to the agencies at cruising speed is in line with, or even below, inflation correction (2%), with no additional staff;

89. Stresses that EU agencies’ budget allocations are far from consisting in administrative expenditure alone, but instead contribute to achieving the Europe 2020 goals and EU objectives in general, as decided by the legislative authority; endorses therefore, in times of austerity, the Commission’s restrictive approach to determining EU decentralised agencies’ subsidies from the EU budget, but disapproves again of the use of assigned revenue to reduce the EU Budget contribution to fee-dependent agencies, which is used by the Commission to increase margins artificially, is in this context concerned that the Commission repeatedly ignores the political will of the European Parliament;

90. Stresses that the European Supervisory Authorities have a crucial role to play in safeguarding market stability and that they need to be adequately funded in order for regulatory reforms to be effective; reiterates that one single supervisory authority would be more cost-efficient; welcomes the budget increases proposed for all three authorities as important steps in their build-up procedures, while calling for additional resources for the joint committee; emphasises that any additional tasks entrusted to these authorities must be swiftly accompanied by the corresponding allocation of supplementary resources; underlines, inter alia, that the new responsibilities planned for the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) in the areas of short-selling and derivatives must be promptly reflected in the 2012 budget procedure as soon as the legal bases are in place;

91. Notes that, among the 213 new establishment plan posts for agencies (out of a total of 4 854), 80 will be allocated to new or starting-up agencies, and the rest to agencies whose tasks are being extended; reiterates its call for a specific approach to the recruitment of specialised scientific staff with professional experience, especially when these posts are financed exclusively from fees and are thus budget-neutral for the EU budget;

92. Disapproves the Commission’s approach to change the presentation of the two-self-financed agencies OHIM and CPVO in the DB 2012, i.e. deleting the respective budget lines and deciding not to publish the establishment plans; takes note, nevertheless, that the two respective agencies are not bound to any decisions by the Budget Authority regarding the subsidy levels or the staffing; intends, however, to provide these information in the budget as a matter of transparency; reiterates again that a solution needs to be found for the excessive surpluses gained by the OHIM fee regulation;

93. Considers the following issues to be of specific interest for the trilogue due to take place on 11 July 2011:

- 2012 EU budgetary allocations in support of the EU2020 strategy,

- overall level of payments in the 2012 Budget and outstanding RAL,

- proposal for a revision of the current MFF 2007-13 to address additional financing needs of the ITER project,

- financial sustainability and manageability of heading 4 in 2012, particularly in view of forthcoming amending letter to address the democratic transition in Southern Mediterranean,

- outstanding issues related to Budget 2011;

94. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission and the Council.

(1)

OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p.1.

(2)

Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0114.

(3)

COM(2010)0700.

(4)

COM (2011)0226.


OPINION of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (25.5.2011)

for the Committee on Budgets

on a mandate for the trilogue on the 2012 draft budget

(2011/2019(BUD))

Rapporteur: María Muñiz De Urquiza

SUGGESTIONS

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

1.  Underlines that the European Union as a global player has the responsibility to promote peace and stability, economic development and respect for fundamental values and human rights throughout the world;

2.  Recalls the EU’s role in fostering multilateral cooperation with a view to promoting collective action in order to meet international challenges;

3.  Warns that the EU risks international marginalisation if its foreign policy remains underfunded; underlines, however, that there is room for making more efficient use of the existing resources by better targeting assistance funds to areas where the EU can bring added value such as democracy, good governance, rule of law and education;

4.  Is convinced that, with the creation of the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy post and the EEAS, the system of permanent analysis and monitoring mechanisms of democratic parliamentary control at national and European levels of foreign policy should be put in place under the auspices of the European Parliament; such a mechanism would be instrumental in enabling the challenges of the democratic legitimacy of the European Union in the area of EU Foreign Policy to be met;

5.  Believes that the EU budget must reflect the Union’s fundamental values, therefore calls for better and more targeted use of EIDHR funds, which must be at least maintained at current levels; underlines the need to further consider ways to make EIDHR more proactive and emphasises that proposals for the establishment of a European endowment for democracy must be realised within the ordinary budgetary framework ensuring full parliamentary involvement and oversight;

6.  Emphasises the need to provide adequate yet conditional support for the neighbouring South Mediterranean countries, to help them make the transition to democracy and build democratic institutions, including support for civil society; stresses that this support to the Southern dimension of the ENP should not be at the expense of the Union’s commitment to giving similar, adequate and yet conditional support to the eastern dimension of the ENP/ENPI;

7.  Reiterates that the EU’s relations with Latin America are underfunded, taking into account the strategic partnership between both regions and the conclusions of the Madrid Summit from May 2010, as well as the potential of Latin America as an emergent region and economic growth hub. This underfunding is specially aggravated by the deadlock of the allocation of funds from the ICI+ programme, since the legal basis for the participation of several Latin American countries entitled to benefit from ICI+ has not yet been adopted; calls therefore for a swift adoption of the ICI+ legislation in 2011;

8.  Calls for a clear strategy for Palestine, linking the European Union’s financial assistance to an increased political role for the EU in the peace process; to this end, points out that the financial assistance to Palestine should reflect the Middle East’s strategic importance to the European Union; is of the view that, when programming the assistance needed, the Commission should build on past experience and estimated needs, and should therefore be able to allocate the funding required to contribute to the viability of the Palestinian authorities and to the Middle East peace process; therefore insists that the amount envisaged for 2012 should, as a minimum, be the same as that spent in 2011;

9.  Is convinced that increased budgetary resources are necessary but not sufficient to guarantee the effectiveness of EU external action, and that greater flexibility and rapidity in disbursing financial assistance are also required; calls therefore for greater flexibility between headings and above such headings in the financial perspective; is in favour of a revision of the financial perspective that would enable the EU to react rapidly to crises, taking full account of political priorities;

10. Emphasises the need to provide sufficient clarity and more flexibility and ensure better-targeted assistance, particularly aimed at civil society, respect of human rights and aspirations towards democracy including at local and regional level, so as to promote a bottom-up approach; underlines the importance of guaranteeing the rapid identification and elimination of shortcomings in the future and thus increasing the quality and effectiveness of EU assistance; calls also, in the context of the ENP review, for a comprehensive efficiency analysis of ENPI in coordination with other instruments such as EIDHR, with the aim of making better use of the financial instruments available in the EU’s relations with southern and eastern neighbours and in cross-border cooperation, and of ensuring that EU assistance is used adequately in beneficiary countries based on conditionality of the ‘more for more’ concept and differentiated according to the specific situation of each beneficiary country; calls likewise for a critical analysis of the lending activities and policies of the European Investment Bank before it is given a more prominent role in EU support for neighbouring countries, in particular in the Southern Mediterranean;

11. Believes that appropriate resources should also be provided in order to develop strategic relations with the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) for financing non-ODA activities, notably to cover financial and technical funding for cooperation in areas of mutual interest between the EU and these countries;

12. Encourages the EU to cooperate at budgetary level with bodies that fight for gender equality and the empowerment of women in the international sphere, especially with UN-Women, the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women;

13. Recalls that the Instrument for Stability provides funds in situations of crisis or emerging crises, when timely financial help cannot be provided from other EU sources; considers that the proposed reduction of the IfS’s budget for 2012 is disproportionate and inconsistent with political priorities and ignores the fragile political climate in many regions in our neighbourhood and beyond;

14. Regrets that conflict prevention has not received enough political weight and attention within the EU and is of the opinion that innovative ways to make use of the existing legislative and financial instruments, including IfS, EIDHR and development assistance, should be elaborated to advance conflict prevention in third countries;

15. Regrets that there is currently little transparency about the cost of the CSDP missions and reaffirms its support for the establishment of specific budget lines for major CSDP missions;

16. Regards the enlargement of the EU as a key area in the EU’s foreign policy spectrum and is of the opinion that in order to prevent the candidate countries and the potential candidate countries falling behind, a sufficient level of IPA funding needs to be maintained; considers nevertheless that the IPA funding needs to be critically reviewed in areas where the implementation level of IPA funds is low;

17. Believes that savings need to be made, given the economic difficulties and resulting budgetary restraints in many EU Member States; is convinced that targeted savings can be made by identifying overlaps and inefficiencies across all headings and flagging up areas where results are not in line with the expectations and requests of the European Parliament, in order to create the necessary budgetary leverage for key political priorities, including the foreign affairs priorities.

RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE

Date adopted

24.5.2011

 

 

 

Result of final vote

+:

–:

0:

56

1

6

Members present for the final vote

Sir Robert Atkins, Dominique Baudis, Frieda Brepoels, Elmar Brok, Arnaud Danjean, Michael Gahler, Marietta Giannakou, Ana Gomes, Andrzej Grzyb, Heidi Hautala, Anna Ibrisagic, Anneli Jäätteenmäki, Jelko Kacin, Ioannis Kasoulides, Tunne Kelam, Nicole Kiil-Nielsen, Evgeni Kirilov, Andrey Kovatchev, Paweł Robert Kowal, Eduard Kukan, Alexander Graf Lambsdorff, Krzysztof Lisek, Sabine Lösing, Ulrike Lunacek, Barry Madlener, Mario Mauro, Kyriakos Mavronikolas, Willy Meyer, Francisco José Millán Mon, María Muñiz De Urquiza, Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck, Norica Nicolai, Raimon Obiols, Kristiina Ojuland, Ria Oomen-Ruijten, Cristian Dan Preda, Fiorello Provera, Libor Rouček, José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, Nikolaos Salavrakos, Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, Werner Schulz, Marek Siwiec, Hannes Swoboda, Charles Tannock, Inese Vaidere, Geoffrey Van Orden, Kristian Vigenin, Graham Watson, Boris Zala

Substitute(s) present for the final vote

Reinhard Bütikofer, Nikolaos Chountis, Véronique De Keyser, Tanja Fajon, Kinga Gál, Elisabeth Jeggle, Georgios Koumoutsakos, Norbert Neuser, Doris Pack, Vittorio Prodi, Dominique Vlasto, Luis Yáñez-Barnuevo García

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

Joachim Zeller


OPINION of the Committee on Development (26.5.2011)

for the Committee on Budgets

on the mandate for the trilogue on the 2012 draft budget

(2011/2019(BUD))

Rapporteur: Charles Goerens

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:

Honouring our global commitments

1.  Points up the fact that, without additional sources of funding, the Member States will be unable to honour the commitments entered into in connection with the Millennium Development Goals; advocates establishing a European tax on financial transactions with a view to funding global public goods, i.e. poverty eradication and combating climate change; recalls that innovative financing for development is not designed to be a substitute for ODA, but is complementary; reiterates its conviction that the introduction of a FTT should therefore be linked with a more binding commitment of all member countries to achieve the 0.7% objective of ODA spending;

2.  Points out that, world-wide, public aid to poorer countries has increased in 2011, without however matching undertakings and needs; questions the Commission’s performance assessment of the DCI, firmly opposes the Commission’s proposal to reduce DCI by EUR 70 million and calls for the EU’s commitment to be maintained in 2012 despite the difficult budgetary situation;

3.  Reiterates its conviction that environment issues must be better mainstreamed and financed throughout all external policies, as the environment, natural resources and healthy ecosystems play an essential role in human development and in the eradication of poverty; in this context, supports the proposal to increase the thematic programme on the environment and the sustainable management of natural resources as a step towards fulfilling the EU’s commitments at the climate conference in Cancun in 2010; urges, however, that expenditure committed in order to mitigate the impact of climate change on developing countries should come from an additional financial injection and should not be the result of reclassifying funds originally allocated for development purposes; recalls that, for this principle to be secured, separate accounting for climate finance is needed; reiterates that, in order to make climate funding effective, there is a need to better mainstream climate change concerns into EU development cooperation, while enforcing Policy Coherence for Development;

4.  Considers that the responsibility for reducing poverty in emerging countries lies primarily with their governments; urges the Commission to gradually phase out development aid in the form of subsidies to emerging economies and instead to take a differentiated approach tailored to the needs of each economy, taking national programmes – in particular those relating to women’s rights, combating domestic violence and upholding gay rights – as a basis and using various methods, such as cofinancing and blending of loans and grants; urges the EU, during the phasing-out period, to target its assistance on capacity-building for the establishment of tax collection systems, the strengthening of emerging countries’ fiscal policies, measures to promote the mobilisation of domestic revenue, and the establishment of social security and other redistribution systems, whilst, at the same time, combating tax havens, tax evasion and illicit capital flight;

5.  Stresses the need to help all countries achieve the MDGs by 2015 and actively to encourage developing countries to meet MDG targets; calls on the Commission to concentrate development aid on the poorest countries, including fragile states, and, within these countries, on the least favoured and most vulnerable sections of their populations, whilst emphasising the importance of improving the quality of aid; calls, furthermore, for all cooperation with developing countries which does not meet the OECD Development Assistance Committee’s criteria to be funded through instruments other than those earmarked for development cooperation;

6.  Regrets the 33% reduction in the budget line ‘European Neighbourhood and Partnership – Financial assistance to Palestine, the peace process and UNRWA’ proposed by the Commission in the 2012 budget; points out that this is liable to jeopardise UNRWA’s payment of salaries to more than 28 000 members of the local staff (based in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan) working inter alia in the educational, social and health sectors;

7.  Rejects any attempt to merge the development cooperation and humanitarian aid budgets; considers that humanitarian aid and civil protection in non-EU countries are underfunded, especially in view of the growing number of humanitarian crises and natural disasters; calls, therefore, for all or some of the amount in the emergency reserve to be directly transferred to DG ECHO’s initial budget;

8.  Notes that the efforts of actors funded through the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria has led to substantial and rapid results and commends the Fund on what has been achieved thus far; emphasises that continued support to these actors is essential to counteract and eliminate the spread of AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria; however, is highly concerned about the misappropriation of funds from the Global Fund and considers that it is of critical importance that concrete measures be taken against future fraud; stresses that the misuse of funds and corruption are totally unacceptable;

9.  Stresses the importance of zinc for the treatment and prevention of diarrhoea and malnutrition in order to improve the survival rate, growth and brain development of young children; urges the EU and the Member States to allocate the necessary funds to provide zinc supplementation in developing countries which could save the lives of 450 000 children under the age of five every year;

10. Urges that funding for mechanisms to improve access to financial services in developing countries be continued and stepped up; calls on the EU and developing countries to strengthen property rights and to facilitate access to credit and loans for small businesses, farmers and local communities;

Rebalancing the budget and complementarity

11. Notes the growing disparity between the chronic underfunding of heading 4 (external policy) and the new political commitments entered into by the Council, particularly as regards development policy; calls, accordingly, for the ceiling for heading 4 to be raised for 2012 and 2013 and for the next funding period;

12. Urges the Council not to cut administrative expenditure lines, since they are necessary for full and effective implementation of multiannual programmes;

13. Calls on the Commission to provide Parliament with exhaustive information, in a timely manner, on utilisation of the European Development Fund, on the Commission’s assessment of the eligibility criteria for budget support and on monitoring measures;

14. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to encourage, in a spirit of complementarity, more frequent co-planning of their development programmes in countries not receiving budget support, with a view to ensuring that actions on the ground complement each other;

15. Takes the view that the EU, as the world’s leading donor, ought to take the leading role in global development cooperation; in this context, takes the view that an independent internal think-tank might prove useful in helping the Commission make its strategic choices.

RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE

Date adopted

25.5.2011

 

 

 

Result of final vote

+:

–:

0:

27

0

0

Members present for the final vote

Thijs Berman, Corina Creţu, Nirj Deva, Leonidas Donskis, Charles Goerens, Catherine Grèze, Franziska Keller, Miguel Angel Martínez Martínez, Norbert Neuser, Bill Newton Dunn, Maurice Ponga, Birgit Schnieber-Jastram, Michèle Striffler, Alf Svensson, Eleni Theocharous, Patrice Tirolien, Ivo Vajgl, Anna Záborská, Iva Zanicchi, Gabriele Zimmer

Substitute(s) present for the final vote

Kriton Arsenis, Santiago Fisas Ayxela, Isabella Lövin, Csaba Őry, Åsa Westlund

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

Ashley Fox, Göran Färm


OPINION of the Committee on Budgetary Control (26.5.2011)

for the Committee on Budgets

on the mandate for the trialogue on the 2012 draft budget

(2011/2019(BUD))

Rapporteur: Jorgo Chatzimarkakis

SUGGESTIONS

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

A. whereas the EU budget should be an instrument for achieving objectives that bring European added value, and not simply a mechanism for redistributing funds between Member States,

B.  whereas the 2012 budget should specifically reflect the priorities identified in the EU2020 strategy, and whereas, through the European Semester, national budgets will also have to contribute to smart, sustainable and inclusive growth,

C. whereas a high level of transparency and clear accountability regarding the use of public money are fundamental in order to ensure that money is spent correctly and efficiently, and to strengthen the confidence of EU citizens in the Union,

D. whereas the Commission should be accountable not only in terms of compliance with the rules, but also in terms of the extent to which the expected results were achieved,

E.  having regard to Article 317 TFEU, which states that the Commission must implement the budget on its own responsibility,

1.  Asks the Commission and the Member States to ensure that the simplification of programme structures and management systems does not undermine the effectiveness of control systems;

2.  Calls, moreover, on the Commission and the Member States to do their utmost to ensure that, in 2012, the necessary acceleration in the implementation of programmes is not to the detriment of the quality of expenditure and the consistency of the measures funded with the relevant objectives;

3.  Notes that investment in large-scale projects and trans-European and regional development programmes takes several years to deliver results and needs a relatively lengthy financial programming period and as such does not facilitate effective parliamentary control of expenditure and results on a yearly basis;

4.  Invites the Commission, in relation to the new financial instruments, to take the following areas into account:

(i) as regards cohesion policy, a focus on project-related loans in order to achieve a leverage effect via the EIB or other entities implementing parts of the EU budget;

     (ii) as regards innovation and certain research programmes, a system rewarding successful innovation, which could replace or complement the current upfront financing;

5.  Invites the Commission to put forward ambitious proposals to provide the EU with real and autonomous financial resources in such a way as to strengthen the EU’s competitiveness and economic growth;

6.  Notes that the current statement of assurance (DAS) is an expression of the quality of financial management in the Union overall, and regrets the fact that it does not contain information on error rates in individual Member States;

7.  Invites the Commission, therefore, to publish in the synthesis report an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of individual Member States’ management and control systems and anti-fraud strategies and create an exchange of best practices in order to achieve efficient and effective management and control systems in the entire EU;

8.  Believes that the EU should introduce ‘accreditation’ of national systems;

9.  Takes the view that the Commission should be able to disqualify already accredited national systems if they are found to be underperforming, and is convinced that this kind of ‘reputational sanction’ would be far more effective that the present financial corrective mechanisms.

RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE

Date adopted

24.5.2011

 

 

 

Result of final vote

+:

–:

0:

20

2

0

Members present for the final vote

Marta Andreasen, Inés Ayala Sender, Zigmantas Balčytis, Andrea Češková, Jorgo Chatzimarkakis, Andrea Cozzolino, Ryszard Czarnecki, Tamás Deutsch, Martin Ehrenhauser, Jens Geier, Ingeborg Gräßle, Cătălin Sorin Ivan, Iliana Ivanova, Monica Luisa Macovei, Crescenzio Rivellini, Paul Rübig, Theodoros Skylakakis, Georgios Stavrakakis

Substitute(s) present for the final vote

Zuzana Brzobohatá, Christofer Fjellner, Ivailo Kalfin, Jan Mulder, Derek Vaughan


OPINION of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (8.6.2011)

for the Committee on Budgets

on mandate for the trilogue on the 2012 Draft Budget

(2011/2019(BUD))

Rapporteur: Olle Ludvigsson

SUGGESTIONS

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

1.  Supports the Commission’s intention – demonstrated by the proposed increases in appropriations – of making better use of heading 1a to strengthen European competitiveness by promoting research, innovation and forward-looking investments; underlines, however, that even more active EU measures in these fields is a precondition for the Europe 2020 strategy being able to successfully create jobs and sustainable growth;

2.  Welcomes the fact that the margin under heading 1a – proposed at EUR 129.4 million – has been raised in comparison with the 2011 budget and the financial programming update; is nevertheless concerned that this margin is still too narrow, taking into account the room for manoeuvre needed to support the economic recovery in a flexible and effective way;

3.  Stresses that the European Supervisory Authorities have a crucial role to play in safeguarding market stability and that they need to be adequately funded in order for regulatory reforms to be effective; reiterates that one single authority would be more cost-effective, welcomes the budget increases proposed for all three authorities as important steps in their build-up procedures, while calling for additional resources for the joint committee, emphasises that any additional tasks entrusted to these authorities must be swiftly accompanied by the corresponding allocation of supplementary resources; underlines, inter alia, that the new responsibilities planned for the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) in the areas of short-selling and derivatives must be promptly reflected in the 2012 budget procedure as soon as the legal bases are in place;

4.  Believes that it would be beneficial to the independence and integrity of the European Supervisory Authorities if they were to be funded for the most part via the EU budget; calls, therefore, for the Commission to initiate a dialogue on changing their current funding key so that the share to be covered by the EU budget is, as a first step, increased from 40 % to 60 %;

5.  Supports the sharp increase in payments proposed for the CIP-EIP programme as an indispensable reaction to the positive trend of SMEs recovering from the crisis; notes that the present budgetary request – being based on very recent developments – is to be seen as provisional; underlines, therefore, the fact that there should be a preparedness throughout the 2012 budget process to further increase the payments in this programme if the recovery over the coming months turns out to be stronger than currently foreseen;

6.  Welcomes the reinforcement of DG ECFIN – by means of internal Commission redeployments – to ensure appropriate monitoring of the economic situation in the Member States; stresses that this DG will have to be further strengthened to cope with vital additional tasks as soon as the economic governance package has been adopted;

7.  Is concerned about the proposed reduction in appropriations for the Union Statistical Programme and the very limited – below the rate of inflation – increase in staff expenditure in the ‘Statistics’ policy area; emphasises that there is a strong need to check continuously that the resources of Eurostat match the expanding workload and the enhanced quality demands in the key area of economic and financial statistics;

8.  Notes that the crisis has clearly highlighted the importance to the strength of government finances of having effective, fraud-proof tax collection systems; stresses that the fight against tax fraud and evasion must be highly prioritised and that the appropriations for Fiscalis must enable the programme to respond to this ambition;

9.  Welcomes the interesting Commission initiative of a new pilot project to strengthen civil society involvement in EU policy-making in the area of financial services.

RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE

Date adopted

6.6.2011

 

 

 

Result of final vote

+:

–:

0:

35

0

1

Members present for the final vote

Burkhard Balz, Udo Bullmann, Pascal Canfin, Nikolaos Chountis, George Sabin Cutaş, Leonardo Domenici, Derk Jan Eppink, Elisa Ferreira, Vicky Ford, Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz, José Manuel García-Margallo y Marfil, Jean-Paul Gauzès, Sven Giegold, Sylvie Goulard, Liem Hoang Ngoc, Othmar Karas, Wolf Klinz, Jürgen Klute, Philippe Lamberts, Werner Langen, Hans-Peter Martin, Íñigo Méndez de Vigo, Ivari Padar, Anni Podimata, Antolín Sánchez Presedo, Olle Schmidt, Edward Scicluna, Peter Simon, Peter Skinner, Ivo Strejček, Kay Swinburne, Marianne Thyssen, Ramon Tremosa i Balcells, Corien Wortmann-Kool

Substitute(s) present for the final vote

Carl Haglund, Olle Ludvigsson


OPINION of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (25.5.2011)

for the Committee on Budgets

on the mandate for the trialogue on the 2012 draft budget

(2011/2019(BUD))

Rapporteur: Pervenche Berès

SUGGESTIONS

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

A.  whereas the economic, financial and social crisis is continuing, with 23 million unemployed, including 5.2 million young people,

1.   Stresses that the 2012 budget must provide support for the five main objectives of the EU2020 strategy, in particular increasing the employment rate and reducing the number of people facing, or at risk of, poverty and social exclusion;

2.   Calls for adequate funding for the flagship initiatives ‘New Skills for New Jobs’, ‘Youth on the Move’ and ‘European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion’;

3.   Draws attention to the need to continue the studies and actions concerning the living conditions of posted workers, given the current upward migration trend;

4.   Takes the view that these objectives require national budgets and the Union budget to be comparable, compatible and complementary, as well as more closely aligned;

5.   Calls, with a view to the implementation of the European Year of Active Ageing and Intergenerational Solidarity (2012), and for reasons of transparency, for a budget line to be provided specifically for that purpose and financed by the Commission by means of transfers of appropriations from existing lines, such as 04 03 07, ‘Analyses, studies and awareness raising on the social situation, demographics and the family’;

6.   Calls on Member States to ensure that greater synergies are generated between the European Social Fund (ESF) and the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF), whilst maintaining the latter’s specific nature in the context of globalisation and the crisis;

7.   Takes the view, further, that unless available resources are used more innovatively and effectively, Member States' budgetary consolidation cannot be sustainable;

8.   Advocates, therefore, a joint approach to corporate restructuring through a strengthened role for the social partners and the dissemination of good practices concerning training for workers made redundant;

9.   Emphasises the need for a rapid intervention tool to address mass redundancies related to the crisis or globalisation, combined with medium- and long-term measures that address the process of transition to a greener, more sustainable economy; underscores the role of an improved EGF in this process as part of a integrated approach, and calls for appropriate funding for the relevant budget line;

10. Calls for better use to be made of and strengthened financial support to be earmarked for PROGRESS so as to step up the fight against poverty and social exclusion through support for civil society organisations providing tailor-made solutions on the ground and through transnational cooperation and exchanges of best practices with regard to labour-market integration measures, as PROGRESS is the main instrument for implementing the Open Method of Coordination; points out that, in keeping with the microfinance facility agreement, the budget for PROGRESS must be topped up by at least EUR 10 million in order to maintain the budget originally set aside for the programme;

11. Insists on an across-the-board increase in budget appropriations for social action; considers that payment appropriations for the ESF in particular need to be increased in order to cope with the social consequences of the crisis, especially unemployment and poverty; considers that this call for an increase in ESF payment appropriations should also be reflected in the creation of a new category of intermediate regions under the Cohesion Fund;

12. Stresses that Union programmes must also be geared to other vulnerable groups;

13. Stresses that targeted use of the microfinance facility can help unemployed persons or those on low incomes to start up, stabilise or expand a small business and encourages Member States to offer complementary assistance to such ventures in order to help ensure their sustainability;

14. Stresses the need to invest in the creation of decent jobs, including green jobs, with the aim of improving working conditions, fighting precarious employment and promoting sustainable development;

15. Stresses the need for budgetary support to fight youth unemployment, as unemployment at an early stage of working life puts individuals at a significantly higher risk of poverty; stresses that efforts to create decent work for young people also have an impact on the EU2020 goal relating to poverty reduction;

16. Takes the view that the EU budget must provide support for partner countries in the Mediterranean region in an effort to foster the emergence of democratic social dialogue arrangements founded on trade-union freedoms and the recognition of collective agreements, and help those countries reform their labour markets and vocational training systems in order to make real labour market integration possible and facilitate the recognition of professional qualifications;

17. Proposes the creation of a European civic service programme designed to capitalise on the exceptional abilities of a group of young people to allow them to take on responsibilities in civic, economic and social life in Europe;

18. Calls for an increase in funding from Eures for the free movement of workers and advocates the coordination of social security systems by means both of additional financial support for the technical implementation of Regulation No 883/2004 and of the PROGRESS Programme.

RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE

Date adopted

25.5.2011

 

 

 

Result of final vote

+:

–:

0:

40

4

0

Members present for the final vote

Regina Bastos, Edit Bauer, Heinz K. Becker, Jean-Luc Bennahmias, Pervenche Berès, Philippe Boulland, Milan Cabrnoch, David Casa, Alejandro Cercas, Ole Christensen, Derek Roland Clark, Sergio Gaetano Cofferati, Marije Cornelissen, Frédéric Daerden, Karima Delli, Proinsias De Rossa, Frank Engel, Richard Falbr, Thomas Händel, Roger Helmer, Nadja Hirsch, Vincenzo Iovine, Ádám Kósa, Jean Lambert, Patrick Le Hyaric, Veronica Lope Fontagné, Olle Ludvigsson, Elizabeth Lynne, Thomas Mann, Elisabeth Morin-Chartier, Csaba Őry, Siiri Oviir, Konstantinos Poupakis, Licia Ronzulli, Elisabeth Schroedter, Jutta Steinruck

Substitute(s) present for the final vote

Georges Bach, Raffaele Baldassarre, Sergio Gutiérrez Prieto, Jan Kozłowski, Evelyn Regner, Csaba Sógor

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

Liam Aylward, Ashley Fox


OPINION of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (27.5.2011)

for the Committee on Budgets

on the mandate for the trilogue on the 2012 Draft Budget

(2011/2019(BUD))

Rapporteur: Reinhard Bütikofer

SUGGESTIONS

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

1.  Welcomes the European Semester process, which is intended to achieve stronger economic governance; believes that successful implementation of the EU 2020 strategy requires substantial, coordinated, transparent and appropriate financial commitments to be made to meeting its priorities at both EU and Member State level and that any limitation of the relevant EU budget appropriations would undermine its achievement;

2.  Calls on the Commission and Member States to ensure basic broadband coverage for all EU citizens by 2013; points out that, with a view to speeding up the roll-out of high-speed internet and reaping the benefits of a digital single market for households and firms in line with the Europe 2020 Digital Agenda flagship initiative, the financing of broadband infrastructure investments and infrastructure programmes should be better coordinated via improved planning at national, regional and local level and the EU should liaise more closely with regions to help them take up structural and rural development funding available for these purposes;

3.  Welcomes the Commission’s intention to focus the objectives of the 2012 draft budget on the Europe 2020 strategy; is deeply concerned, nevertheless, about the mismatch between the political priorities for the EU budget and actual financial allocations – in particular in the energy policy area, which represents only 0.5% of the EU budget and in which budget allocations are actually set to decrease in 2012; regrets, furthermore, the fact that support for sustainable energy priorities still accounts for only a very minor share of the R&D&I programmes;

4.  Highlights the importance of the Risk Sharing Financial Facility (RSFF) under the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) and of the Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme (EIP) under the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP), which serve as models for European innovative financial instruments pooling EU budget funds and EIB financial resources in support of business development and of the goals of the Europe 2020 Innovation Union flagship initiative; calls on the Commission to enhance these instruments in the fields of research, innovation and energy;

5.  Recalls that investment in R&D&I is a long-term process of essential importance to achieving the goals of the Europe 2020 strategy; believes that the EU should concentrate its spending on areas, such as innovation and R&D, that stimulate economic growth, competitiveness and sustainability and help address major societal challenges of our time; points, in this context, to the need to improve the conditions for R&D&I; stresses that R&D in renewable and sustainable energy, energy efficiency and energy storage technologies and resource efficiency is of particular interest in view of the EU’s energy and climates objectives; calls for an evaluation to be made of the feasibility and effectiveness of sustainability criteria in EU R&D&I programmes and project selection procedures;

6.  Recalls the importance of integrated EU energy infrastructure to energy security and a common EU energy market; stresses that, although for the TEN-Energy programme provision has been made for a significant increase in the 2007-2013 budget compared to the initial envelope, the draft budget provides for a 12.5% decrease in funding for this programme and the planned sum of EUR 22 million is still very limited compared to the challenges arising and to the TEN-Transport programme; calls for more budget allocations for the developments of EU energy infrastructure networks and technology, such as smart grids and a European super-grid, in order to foster better integration of the EU energy market and the uptake of energy generated by renewable sources and contribute to the infrastructure required for electric vehicles;

7.  Draws attention to the fact that the EU and the Member States have not invested sufficiently in measures to reduce CO2 emissions or increase energy efficiency in the building and transport sectors; calls on the Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, to take measures to increase the energy efficiency of buildings and of centralised urban heating and cooling networks, and to allocate increased funding in 2012 as part of the review of the multiannual financial framework;

8.  Recalls that the FP7 needs to be fully implemented; supports efforts to develop, in conjunction with the EIB and the EIF, innovative ways of leveraging investments and fostering research and innovation, such as the RSFF; supports the release of additional budget appropriations for the RSFF, but calls for better uptake among SMEs;

9.  Opposes the Commission’s proposal to redeploy budget appropriations allocated to the FP7 to the ITER project; suggests that the ITER programme should be financed from the remaining margin;

10. Stresses the importance of the Erasmus programme for young entrepreneurs, and calls on the Commission to ensure that it has a suitable level of funding in 2012;

11. Recalls the urgent need to focus on safe and sustainable technologies that will be available in the foreseeable future, or are already available as technology pillars of the EU’s energy and climate policy, such as the most mature technologies identified in the EU’S SET Plan, which must be promoted and implemented in order to deliver the Europe 2020 goals; regrets the fact that the 2012 draft budget does not include financial allocations for SET Plan technologies directly in the existing SET Plan budget line; takes the view, therefore, that arrangements for the long-term financing of the development of this type of innovative and sustainable energy technologies should be made immediately;

12. Calls for full implementation of the Small Business Act, with the introduction of SME-related policy actions including measures to improve SMEs’ access to financing, increase their participation in public contracts and develop specific programmes and innovative financial mechanisms; calls for the specific programmes under the CIP – an SME flagship programme – to be substantially upgraded and the executive agency responsible for its implementation (the EACI) to be fully supported;

13. Supports the idea of issuing project bonds to finance Europe’s significant 2020 agenda infrastructure needs and structural projects, anticipated new EU strategies such as the new strategy on energy infrastructure development, and other large-scale projects; calls on the Commission and Member States to ensure that the European project bonds mechanism is in place as soon as possible before 2014, which is the target date set in the Commission’s relevant consultation document;

14. Believes that clear and ambitious goals and sufficient financing for sustainable energy policy, energy efficiency and resource efficiency policy can deliver cost-efficient benefits for the European economy as a whole; calls for the allocation of EU and Member State public and private resources to investments in those priority sectors; welcomes in this regard the review of the Energy Taxation Directive, which can provide major incentives to shift towards renewable energy sources;

15. Welcomes the proposed increase in the budget for the European Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) in light of the adoption of the REMIT Regulation and the agency’s growing responsibilities; calls for more budget allocations for the development of EU energy infrastructure networks and technology, in particular smart grids and a European super-grid;

16. Recalls that the financial programming figures for EURATOM for the year 2012 are highly tentative; emphasises therefore that EU allocations for nuclear safety and security projects must be seen to be sufficient to cover the costs of the stress tests at all EU nuclear facilities;

17. Emphasises that emergency solutions are likely to jeopardise the success and added value of strategic EU projects; believes that long-term budgetary solutions must be found instead, together with sustainable financing solutions; stresses that proper governance, accurate planning and scheduling, sound financial management, and clear limits on EU participation must be ensured for large-scale projects before any additional funding is allocated; emphasises that EU allocations to such projects should not result from the redeployment of funds from other EU R&D programmes and that any additional costs that may arise must be fully substantiated; awaits the upcoming proposals from the Commission on the technical and financial options for further deployment of Galileo and GMES and stresses the need to identify ways of financing the deployment of Galileo with full operational capacity; asks the Commission to look into the possibility of using revenues from the Public Regulated Service or the Commercial Services to finance Galileo.

RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE

Date adopted

26.5.2011

 

 

 

Result of final vote

+:

–:

0:

30

3

2

Members present for the final vote

Jean-Pierre Audy, Ivo Belet, Bendt Bendtsen, Reinhard Bütikofer, Maria Da Graça Carvalho, Jorgo Chatzimarkakis, Adam Gierek, Fiona Hall, Edit Herczog, Romana Jordan Cizelj, Lena Kolarska-Bobińska, Philippe Lamberts, Bogdan Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz, Judith A. Merkies, Jaroslav Paška, Anni Podimata, Herbert Reul, Teresa Riera Madurell, Jens Rohde, Paul Rübig, Francisco Sosa Wagner, Claude Turmes, Niki Tzavela, Vladimir Urutchev, Kathleen Van Brempt, Alejo Vidal-Quadras, Henri Weber

Substitute(s) present for the final vote

Antonio Cancian, Jolanta Emilia Hibner, Yannick Jadot, Ivailo Kalfin, Vladko Todorov Panayotov, Algirdas Saudargas, Silvia-Adriana Ţicău, Catherine Trautmann


OPINION of the Committee on Regional Development (30.5.2011)

for the Committee on Budgets

on the mandate for the trilogue on the 2012 Draft Budget

(2011/2019(BUD))

Rapporteur: László Surján

SUGGESTIONS

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

1.  Considers that the indisputable added value of European cohesion policy offers the best means of creating jobs and promoting economic growth and sustainable development, contributing to the regions’ economic and social development and the well-being of the population; stresses the fact that programmes that started after 2007 are becoming fully operational and therefore require higher payment appropriations, and that this need must be reflected accordingly in the EU Budget for 2012;

2.  Considers cohesion policy to be a crucial instrument, correcting structural imbalances in the less-developed regions and promoting regional competitiveness and sustainable development in a globalised world, in line with the Europe 2020 Strategy objectives but also with flexibility, according to specific regional characteristics, needs and objectives; recalls Parliament's conviction that whilst the budgetary resources under headings 1a and 1b should be used so as to align policy areas with the objectives of the EU 2020 Strategy, the objectives of cohesion policy, namely the reduction of regional disparities, are of equal importance and should be reflected in the budgetary appropriations, in order to promote real convergence and genuine economic and social cohesion;

3.  Calls on Member States to assume their responsibility towards European taxpayers by foreseeing and demanding commitment appropriations for 2012 based on thorough planning in line with the multiannual financial framework and by ensuring the successful and effective implementation of cohesion policy, in line with a more outcome-oriented approach to the implementation;

4.  Reiterates Parliament’s view on the need for further simplification of the relevant rules and procedures of implementation, without prejudice to the need for transparency and accountability; is aware, in this context, of the need to harmonise the rules on shared-management funds as part of the revision of the Financial Regulation;

5.  Considers that pilot projects contribute to innovation in regional development and hopes that the capacity to implement such projects will be stepped up;

6.  Recalls that cohesion policy is an instrument which is used to fund a substantial number of fields of EU policy; underlines and reiterates Parliament's position that cohesion policy must be given adequate and sufficient resources in order to achieve its purpose under the Treaties; is therefore of the view that a real terms increase in the Cohesion Policy budget is required for 2012.

RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE

Date adopted

26.5.2011

 

 

 

Result of final vote

+:

–:

0:

31

0

2

Members present for the final vote

François Alfonsi, Zuzana Brzobohatá, John Bufton, Salvatore Caronna, Francesco De Angelis, Tamás Deutsch, Elie Hoarau, Danuta Maria Hübner, Juozas Imbrasas, María Irigoyen Pérez, Seán Kelly, Mojca Kleva, Constanze Angela Krehl, Petru Constantin Luhan, Ramona Nicole Mănescu, Riikka Manner, Iosif Matula, Erminia Mazzoni, Lambert van Nistelrooij, Jan Olbrycht, Wojciech Michał Olejniczak, Markus Pieper, Georgios Stavrakakis, Nuno Teixeira, Michail Tremopoulos, Kerstin Westphal

Substitute(s) present for the final vote

Karima Delli, Karin Kadenbach, James Nicholson, Maurice Ponga, Elisabeth Schroedter, László Surján, Derek Vaughan


OPINION of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (25.5.2011)

for the Committee on Budgets

on the mandate for the trilogue on the 2012 draft budget

(2011/2019(BUD))

Rapporteur: Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos

SUGGESTIONS

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

1.  Notes that the commitments budgeted for agriculture and rural development have been increased, with EUR 43 813 million committed for direct aids and market-related expenditure and EUR 14 617 million for rural development, corresponding to an increase of 3 % and 1.3 % respectively compared to 2011;

2.  Notes that austerity measures are being implemented in many Member States in order to rebalance national budgets and reduce debts;

3.  Points out, however, that the projected margin of EUR 651.6 million for Heading 2 represents a large reduction compared to 2011, which, according to the Commission, is mostly due to lower assigned revenues at this stage of the budgetary procedure and higher direct aids; notes with concern that, according to Commission estimates, the margin in the 2013 budget will still be considerably reduced, which might require that the financial discipline mechanism be exercised in 2013;

4.  Notes that the increase in market-related expenditure and direct aids is due to the ongoing phasing-in of direct payments in the new Member States, which creates an additional budgetary need of roughly EUR 900 million per year, as well as to the lower amount of assigned revenue, compared to 2011, at this stage of the budgetary procedure, while expenditure on market interventions has in reality undergone a slight decrease;

5.  Welcomes the fact that there is an increase of 1.5 % in payment appropriations for rural development, with further payments in the context of the European Economic Recovery Plan also expected in 2012, and that funding of the EAFRD will be further increased and strengthened in 2012 with increased funds from modulation and specific transfers;

6.  Voices its concern about the Commission’s optimistic assumption that the evolution of agricultural markets will remain fairly stable and largely favourable, as well as about the consistent decrease in needs for market-related expenditure; points out that improved market situations often have differentiated impacts on certain sectors; urges the Commission to monitor developments in agricultural markets carefully and to be prepared to react swiftly and effectively with the necessary mechanisms to counter adverse market developments, such as the current situation in the olive oil sector and the pigmeat sector;

7.  Points out that ideally farmers should be able to obtain a reasonable standard of living via the market and should not be dependent for this purpose, as at present, on funds from the European agriculture budget; calls therefore on the Commission to identify the distribution of profit margins in the producer-to-consumer chain and, on the basis of the results of this investigation, to take measures to achieve a fair distribution of profit margins within the scope of the present competition policy;

8.  Underlines the importance of adequate financing for specific programmes such as the school fruit scheme and school milk; recalls that those specific programmes not only benefit farmers but also support vulnerable population groups and encourage a healthier diet;

9.  Recalls that programmes for deprived persons have to be implemented in light of the proceedings before the General Court, as the Commission rightly points out in its statement of estimates; notes that the Court, in its Judgment T-576/08 of 13 April 2011, stated that only the supply of food coming from intervention stocks shall be covered by this programme as opposed to expenditure engendered by the buying of food supplies on the market;

10. Stresses the importance of increasing the measures to promote high-quality local agricultural products at European and international level; notes that, for the promotion of local products, appropriate measures are required to encourage action to preserve and protect their distinctive characteristics and origin;

11. Notes the Commission’s justification based on the improved disease situation and in particular the lower needs for the eradication of the bluetongue disease which explains the decreased financing for veterinary and phytosanitary measures; urges the Commission however to continue to monitor closely the situation regarding animal and plant health in order to maintain a high level of health and consumer protection;

12. Calls on the Commission to establish a pilot project aimed at building a Europe-wide methodology, set of indicators and robust measurement capacity (per unit of production) to develop evidence-based agricultural programmes and support instruments that reward producers who deliver extra-environmental public goods and reduce agriculture GHG emissions, in view of the reform of the CAP post-2013;

13. Calls for a pilot project to be introduced to provide information in schools, at points of sale and at other consumer contact points on the high-quality, food-safety, environmental and animal-welfare standards that European farmers have to meet, as compared with those required in third countries; believes that this project should highlight the important contribution made by the CAP in achieving these high standards and include explanations of the various quality schemes in force, such as denominations of origin and geographical indications;

14. Supports the extension of the pilot project for a young farmers exchange programme, which provides an opportunity for cross-border exchange of knowledge, the potential integration of farm management methods and the promotion of practices that allow farmers to meet the demands of consumers and the dissemination of best-practice techniques in environmental protection, taking into particular account the challenges facing European agriculture.

RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE

Date adopted

24.5.2011

 

 

 

Result of final vote

+:

–:

0:

32

4

0

Members present for the final vote

John Stuart Agnew, Richard Ashworth, Liam Aylward, José Bové, Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos, Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă, Michel Dantin, Paolo De Castro, Albert Deß, Herbert Dorfmann, Hynek Fajmon, Lorenzo Fontana, Béla Glattfelder, Martin Häusling, Esther Herranz García, Peter Jahr, Elisabeth Jeggle, Jarosław Kalinowski, Elisabeth Köstinger, Agnès Le Brun, George Lyon, Mairead McGuinness, Krisztina Morvai, Mariya Nedelcheva, James Nicholson, Rareş-Lucian Niculescu, Wojciech Michał Olejniczak, Georgios Papastamkos, Marit Paulsen, Britta Reimers, Alfreds Rubiks, Giancarlo Scottà, Czesław Adam Siekierski, Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris, Csaba Sándor Tabajdi, Marc Tarabella

Substitute(s) present for the final vote

Luís Paulo Alves, Salvatore Caronna, Esther de Lange

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

Pablo Zalba Bidegain


OPINION of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (27.5.2011)

for the Committee on Budgets

on the Mandate for the trilogue on the 2012 Draft Budget

(2011/2019(BUD))

Rapporteur: Franziska Keller

SUGGESTIONS

The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs calls on the Committee on Budgets, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions in its motion for a resolution:

A. whereas the priorities of the area of freedom, security and justice are outlined in the Stockholm Programme, namely to build a Europe of rights, a Europe of law and justice, a Europe that protects, and a Europe of responsibility, solidarity and partnership in migration and asylum matters,

B.  whereas the Commission’s Communication COM(2010) 673 of 22 November 2010 on Internal Security Strategy in Action sets out steps for the effective implementation of EU objectives as regards fighting and preventing serious and organised crime, terrorism and cybercrime, strengthening the management of EU external borders and building resilience to natural and man-made disasters,

C. whereas in times of economic crisis the EU institutions should take special care that money is spent wisely and in accordance with clearly defined and measurable priorities,

D. whereas the Commission is proposing an increase in the budget of the area of freedom, security and justice of 17.7 % in commitment appropriations,

E.  whereas every possible change to the EU’s external borders in the future as a result of possible EU enlargement should be taken into account in budgetary planning,

F.  whereas the Commission will present its proposals for the next multiannual financial framework in June and the specific proposals for programmes by the end of the year,

1.  Asks the Commission to review and evaluate programmes and projects in terms of their ability to reach the targets, and to report the results to Parliament;

2.  Reiterates that the large number of legal bases and their implementing rules for the current Home Affairs funds create a heavy workload and delays and are difficult to manage; welcomes the proposed simplification of the Home Affairs instruments for the period after 2013, reducing the number of Funds to two: ‘Migration and Asylum’ and ‘Internal Security’, including border management and visa policy, which will allow in the future for a better understanding of the rules by all stakeholders;

3.  Calls on the Commission to examine in a study the possibility of simplifying the management rules of the funds and avoiding duplications, bureaucracy and delays because of the different levels involved (European and national), focusing on rationalisation of spending and a more cost-efficient implementation of policy priorities;

4.  Stresses the importance of focusing the EU budget around EU added value and maximising the efficiency of national funding in areas of common EU interest;

5.  Considers that sufficient EU funding is needed in areas where burden sharing is important (external borders, asylum) and areas where cooperation between Member States is crucial (security and safeguarding liberties);

6.  Welcomes the Commission’s proposal to increase the budget of the area of freedom, security and justice by 17.7 % in commitment appropriations and calls on the Commission to dedicate sufficient funding to ensuring that adequate measures are taken to guarantee international protection and integration;

7.  Considers that, especially in the current situation, sufficient money should be allocated to the Refugee Fund and EASO;

8.  Considers that financing should be allocated to support Mobility Partnerships especially with the Southern Mediterranean countries, in line with external policies;

9.  Considers that it is necessary to coordinate the use of funds in the area of the EU’s external action with JHA funds, in order for them to become mutually reinforcing and serve the Union’s goals concerning asylum, migration and international protection;

10. Reiterates that securing the external EU border should be complemented by programmes and the necessary funding for strengthening the third country borders neighbouring the EU, which should be included in the current framework of the negotiations with the Western Balkans countries and the European Neighbourhood Policy (EUROMED, Eastern Partnership);

11. Stresses that the Citizenship and Fundamental Rights programme needs to be reinforced in order to support the full implementation and mainstreaming of the binding Charter of Fundamental Rights, and should be devoted as a priority to the full implementation of citizenship rights as well as the fight against discrimination on all grounds, especially against Roma;

12. Stresses that the agencies should have sufficient funding to fulfil the new tasks stemming from the Lisbon Treaty and the Stockholm Programme;

13. Notes the need for closer cooperation with the UNHCR and the FRA to ensure that fundamental rights and humanitarians concerns are duly taken into account in the operational activities of the EU agencies, notably FRONTEX;

14. Takes note of the Commission’s decision to divide the Justice, Freedom and Security Directorate-General into two separate Directorates-General; insists that the net effect on administrative expenditure must be neutral;

15. Highlights the fact that the revision of the FRONTEX mandate should be taken into consideration when deciding on the budget for the Agency for 2012; emphasises the importance of funding for supporting activities, such as training, and reiterates its support for the creation of a European system of border guards;

16. Reiterates that there is a need for an envelope for rapid and substantial action in case of emergency situations; considers that emergency funding should be made available quickly and be allocated according to the evolving situations;

17. Considers that the money allocated to programmes that do not yet have a legal basis, such as the IT Agency, should be put in reserve;

18. Reiterates that the Commission should think in terms of the necessity and cost of the border equipment when considering the architecture of the EU’s border management strategy; therefore, in order to estimate the scope for more effective allocation of new funding for SIS II, calls on the Commission to carry out a thorough assessment which would clearly state the necessary funding for SIS II and a realistic timetable envisaged for the operability of SIS II;

19. Insists that a substantial part of the funding for SIS II should be put in reserve, as SIS II is still not functional;

20. Considers that part of the expenditure related to staff in active employment in the ‘Home Affairs’ policy area should be put in reserve, until the legal proposal for the legal and technical framework for the extraction of financial transaction data on EU territory has been presented and all elements of the TFTP Agreement have been implemented according to its provisions.

RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE

Date adopted

25.5.2011

 

 

 

Result of final vote

+:

–:

0:

42

1

3

Members present for the final vote

Jan Philipp Albrecht, Alexander Alvaro, Roberta Angelilli, Vilija Blinkevičiūtė, Mario Borghezio, Emine Bozkurt, Simon Busuttil, Philip Claeys, Carlos Coelho, Cornelia Ernst, Tanja Fajon, Hélène Flautre, Kinga Gál, Kinga Göncz, Nathalie Griesbeck, Sylvie Guillaume, Anna Hedh, Salvatore Iacolino, Sophia in ‘t Veld, Lívia Járóka, Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio, Timothy Kirkhope, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Baroness Sarah Ludford, Monica Luisa Macovei, Véronique Mathieu, Louis Michel, Claude Moraes, Jan Mulder, Antigoni Papadopoulou, Georgios Papanikolaou, Carmen Romero López, Csaba Sógor, Rui Tavares, Wim van de Camp, Daniël van der Stoep, Axel Voss, Manfred Weber, Tatjana Ždanoka

Substitute(s) present for the final vote

Monika Hohlmeier, Franziska Keller, Marian-Jean Marinescu, Mariya Nedelcheva, Hubert Pirker, Marie-Christine Vergiat

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

Knut Fleckenstein


OPINION of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (24.5.2011)

for the Committee on Budgets

on the mandate for the trialogue on the 2012 draft budget

(2011/2019(BUD))

Rapporteur: Algirdas Saudargas

SUGGESTIONS

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

A. whereas the regulation on the citizens’ initiative, which entered into force on 31 March 2011 and is due to be implemented as from 1 April 2012, requires an effective and efficient communication policy and appropriate implementing arrangements,

B.  whereas as a result of the economic crisis the EU Member States have had to take difficult decisions and make cuts in their own budgets,

C. whereas a proper communication policy should be based on the provision of relevant information to citizens, for example concerning the steps taken to address the euro crisis, the reform of the European electoral system, the prospects for EU enlargement and the benefits of closer integration,

D. whereas the ongoing discussions on the application of the regulation on European political parties demonstrate the need to give those parties appropriate consideration and provide them with appropriate funding with a view to raising citizens’ awareness,

1.  Is aware that the new instrument for participatory democracy at Union level, the citizens’ initiative, requires appropriate funding in order to be effective;

2.  Points out that, if citizens are to understand the benefits stemming from further European integration and identify themselves more closely with Europe, it is crucial to inform them by means of a comprehensive communication policy about the Union’s more urgent and relevant policies which affect their daily lives;

3.  Considers that European political parties and foundations should continue to enjoy adequate funding, also with a view to future European elections.

RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE

Date adopted

24.5.2011

 

 

 

Result of final vote

+:

–:

0:

18

4

0

Members present for the final vote

Andrew Henry William Brons, Carlo Casini, Andrew Duff, Ashley Fox, Matthias Groote, Enrique Guerrero Salom, Zita Gurmai, Gerald Häfner, Constance Le Grip, David Martin, Paulo Rangel, Potito Salatto, Algirdas Saudargas, József Szájer, Søren Bo Søndergaard, Indrek Tarand, Rafał Trzaskowski, Luis Yáñez-Barnuevo García

Substitute(s) present for the final vote

John Stuart Agnew, Sylvie Guillaume, Íñigo Méndez de Vigo, Rainer Wieland


OPINION of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality (27.5.2011)

for the Committee on Budgets

on the mandate for the trialogue on the 2012 draft budget

(2011/2019(BUD))

Rapporteur: Barbara Matera

SUGGESTIONS

The Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality calls on the Committee on Budgets, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions in its motion for a resolution:

1.  Emphasises that under Article 8 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union the promotion of equality between men and women is a fundamental principle of the European Union; recalls that the issue of gender equality should be incorporated into all policies and addressed at all levels of the budgetary process;

2.  Reiterates the call for the gender-budgeting approach to be used in assessing and restructuring all budget programmes, measures and policies, in determining to what extent resources are allocated in gender-equal or unequal ways, and, ultimately, in achieving gender neutrality, whereby equal consideration is given to every individual regardless of gender;

3.  Highlights the need for appropriate funding for the actions outlined in the Commission’s Strategy for equality between women and men 2010-2015, and encourages the adoption of ‘gender budgeting’ in both European and national strategies for more effective promotion of gender equality;

4.  Highlights the need to earmark increased funding for the fight against all forms of discrimination against women, and, in particular, calls on the Commission to make financial resources available for targeted sectoral research and information, awareness-raising and training actions concerning the gender pay gap, in particular by the social partners;

5.  Deplores the fact that an increasing number of women live in extreme poverty or are at risk of poverty, in particular women with special needs, such as disabled women, immigrant women, women belonging to minorities, elderly women and single mothers; urges the Commission to pay particular attention to this problem when both drawing up and implementing the relevant budget headings and also in the policies it adopts;

6.  Stresses the importance of appropriate funding for the European Institute for Gender Equality, particularly as regards its administrative expenditure, in order to ensure that the institute has sufficient human resources and the necessary expertise in order to be fully operational and meet its overall objectives to promote gender equality, as set out in the regulation establishing the Institute;

7.  Reminds the Member States to make use of the funds available under the European Social Fund and the European Regional Development Fund to promote gender equality, more specifically in the field of employment, not merely by implementing gender mainstreaming, but also by providing measures aimed directly at vulnerable groups of women, taking due account of the impact of the economic crisis, investing in high-quality public services and, specifically, guaranteeing adequate provision of high-quality services at affordable prices for childcare, care of the aged and care of other dependent persons, and calls for genuine budgetary transparency in respect of the funds allocated to equality policies for women and men (ESF, PROGRESS, DAPHNE);

8.  Asks the Commission to launch pilot projects in the following fields:

–   measures aimed at facilitating the reconciliation of family and working life;

–   bringing women who have been victims of gender violence back into the labour market;

–   measures aimed at improving the situation of single mothers in Europe;

–    measures aimed at developing indicators to evaluate the degree of equality of women and men in local life;

–    measures aimed at involving women professionals in ecological transformation and green collar jobs;

–    measures to promote active parental responsibility for children, regardless of the parents' social situation, in accordance with the international instruments in force;

asks the Commission, further, to transform the current pilot project on ‘Conversion of precarious work into work with rights’ into a preparatory action, specifying that particular attention should be paid to the significant proportion of female workers in precarious jobs;

9.  Calls on the Commission to include funds earmarked for gender-specific activities in the budget for the 2012 European Year for Active Ageing, for example for measures relating to the health and social care of elderly women and the inclusion and re-inclusion of women in active ageing programmes;

10. Emphasises the important role of the programme on the fight against violence (DAPHNE) in combating violence against women in the European Union; stresses, therefore, the importance of appropriate financing for the DAPHNE programme in order to ensure that all measures aimed at combating gender violence are sufficiently funded;

11. Points out the important role of the gender-equality and anti-discrimination headings of the PROGRESS programme in promoting equality between men and women and combating discrimination in the European Union; stresses that these headings should continue to be managed by the Commission unit responsible for gender equality and asks that they be considerably increased;

12. Highlights the importance of appropriate funding for measures to promote gender equality in third countries; stresses the need for EU-funded measures to combat trafficking and gender violence in third countries, particularly the phenomenon of female genital mutilation, and for programmes to combat female illiteracy, promote the participation of women in decision-making centres and encourage female entrepreneurship and microfinancing;

13. Calls on the Commission, in its humanitarian aid policy, to prioritise aid and financial assistance for women victims of gender-based violence perpetrated during conflicts;

14. Recognises the need to be vigilant and mindful of the amount of money spent on such causes, owing to the economic crisis, and therefore calls for steps to be taken to ensure that EU funding provides added value for all projects;

15. Stresses the need to increase Community co-funding of projects submitted by women’s organisations and other social organisations working with projects which include women, so as to boost their implementation and take due account of the difficulties which these organisations face; takes the view that the NGOs’ contribution should not exceed 10% of the cost of the projects submitted for Community funding.

RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE

Date adopted

25.5.2011

 

 

 

Result of final vote

+:

–:

0:

24

2

0

Members present for the final vote

Regina Bastos, Edit Bauer, Emine Bozkurt, Marije Cornelissen, Silvia Costa, Iratxe García Pérez, Lívia Járóka, Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio, Nicole Kiil-Nielsen, Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou, Constance Le Grip, Astrid Lulling, Barbara Matera, Elisabeth Morin-Chartier, Siiri Oviir, Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska, Eva-Britt Svensson, Britta Thomsen, Marina Yannakoudakis, Anna Záborská

Substitute(s) present for the final vote

Izaskun Bilbao Barandica, Mojca Kleva, Kartika Tamara Liotard, Gesine Meissner, Norica Nicolai, Antigoni Papadopoulou

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

Jacek Włosowicz


ANNEX: LETTER OF THE COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES

IPOL-COM-PECH D(2011)19172

Mr Alain LAMASSOURE

Chair of the Committee on Budgets

ASP 13E205

Subject: PECH committee’s priorities for the 2012 budget - resolution on the mandate for the trialogue to be held in June/July

Dear Mr Lamassoure,

As part of the 2012 budget procedure, the committees dealing with specific policy areas have been asked to submit their contributions to the resolution on the mandate for the trialogue to be held in June/July. In the light of its own calendar of activities, and given the time available, my committee will not be able to submit a proper opinion. For that reason, I would ask you to consider the following points, which reflect our priorities for 2012.

This letter represents the outcome of a consultation process involving all the group coordinators for our committee and our rapporteur on the 2012 budget, Ms Britta REIMERS. It also follows on from the conclusions of the structured dialogue on political and legislative priorities for 2012 which the members of our committee held with Commissioner Maria DAMANAKI on 4 April 2011.

The PECH committee’s first priority is that, looking ahead to the imminent revision, funding for the common fisheries policy (CFP) should be maintained at current levels with a view to ensuring that the CFP’s objectives can be met. In that connection, the Commission has informed us that it intends to adopt in July the first proposals which will form part of the CFP revision package. Without knowing the precise substance of those proposals, however, we regard it as crucial that long-term funding should be secured for measures in the following areas:

1.  Ensuring that the small-scale family coastal fishing sector receives the economic boost it needs, thereby fostering local employment and the proper functioning of markets, whilst encouraging diversification and retraining or the improvement of working conditions on boats.  

2.  Earmarking sufficient appropriations for research and scientific development in the areas of the conservation, management and sustainable use of marine resources and in that of aquaculture.

3.  Maintaining the level of inspections and monitoring both inside and outside the EU, in particular in the context of the fight against illegal fishing.

4.  Looking ahead to the revision of the CFP, earmarking sufficient appropriations to fund the implementation of international agreements and regional fisheries organisations.

A second priority for our committee concerns the funding of the Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP): we are keen to see all the IMP stakeholders contrubute to its funding, without this affecting the appropriations allocated to fisheries under heading 2 of the Multiannual Financial Framework 2007-2013.

Finally, balanced support should be provided for the Member States’ efforts to reduce fishing fleet capacities, since overcapacity is one of the main causes of the depletion of fish stocks, hampering the long-term preservation of those stocks.

We hope that the Committee on Budgets and its general rapporteur, Ms Francesca BALZANI, will endorse these priorities and incorporate them into the resolution on the mandate for the trialogue to be held in June/July.

Yours sincerely,

Carmen FRAGA ESTÉVEZ

Copy to: Ms Francesca BALZANI, general rapporteur on the 2012 budget


RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE

Date adopted

15.6.2011

 

 

 

Result of final vote

+:

–:

0:

25

7

7

Members present for the final vote

Damien Abad, Alexander Alvaro, Marta Andreasen, Francesca Balzani, Reimer Böge, Lajos Bokros, Andrea Cozzolino, Jean-Luc Dehaene, Isabelle Durant, James Elles, Göran Färm, José Manuel Fernandes, Eider Gardiazábal Rubial, Salvador Garriga Polledo, Jens Geier, Ivars Godmanis, Estelle Grelier, Carl Haglund, Jutta Haug, Monika Hohlmeier, Sidonia Elżbieta Jędrzejewska, Anne E. Jensen, Sergej Kozlík, Jan Kozłowski, Alain Lamassoure, Giovanni La Via, Vladimír Maňka, Barbara Matera, Claudio Morganti, Nadezhda Neynsky, Miguel Portas, László Surján, Helga Trüpel, Angelika Werthmann, Jacek Włosowicz

Substitute(s) present for the final vote

Frédéric Daerden, Edit Herczog, María Muñiz De Urquiza

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

Marisa Matias

Last updated: 25 October 2012Legal notice