POROČILO o predlogu Uredbe Sveta o spremembah Uredbe (ES) št. 382/2001 v zvezi s prenehanjem njene veljavnosti in nekaterimi določbami, povezanimi z izvrševanjem proračuna

25.5.2005 - (KOM(2004)0840 – C6‑0044/2005 – 2004/0288(CNS)) - *

Odbor za mednarodno trgovino
Poročevalec: David Martin

OSNUTEK ZAKONODAJNE RESOLUCIJE EVROPSKEGA PARLAMENTA

o predlogu Uredbe Sveta o spremembah Uredbe (ES) št. 382/2001 v zvezi s prenehanjem njene veljavnosti in nekaterimi določbami, povezanimi z izvrševanjem proračuna

(KOM(2004)0840 – C6‑0044/2005 – 2004/0288(CNS))

(Postopek posvetovanja)

Evropski parlament,

–   ob upoštevanju predloga Komisije Svetu (KOM(2004)0840)[1],

–   ob upoštevanju členov 133 in 181 a Pogodbe ES, v skladu s katerima se je Svet posvetoval s Parlamentom (C6‑0044/2005),

–   ob upoštevanju člena 51 svojega Poslovnika,

–   ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za mednarodno trgovino in mnenj Odbora za mednarodno trgovino, Odbora za zunanje zadeve, Odbora za proračun ter Odbora za kulturo in izobraževanje (A6‑0154/2005),

1.  odobri predlog Komisije, kakor je bil spremenjen;

2.  poziva Komisijo, naj ustrezno spremeni svoj predlog, na podlagi člena 250(2) Pogodbe ES;

3.  poziva Svet, naj obvesti Parlament, če namerava odstopati od besedila, ki ga je Parlament odobril;

4.  poziva k sprožitvi spravnega postopka na podlagi skupne izjave 4. marca 1975, če namerava Svet odstopati od besedila, ki ga je Parlament odobril;

5.  poziva Svet, naj se ponovno posvetuje s Parlamentom, če namerava bistveno spremeniti predlog Komisije;

6.  naroči svojemu predsedniku, naj stališče Parlamenta posreduje Svetu in Komisiji.

Besedilo, ki ga predlaga Komisija	Predlogi sprememb Parlamenta
Predlog spremembe 1 ČLEN 1, TOČKA -1 (novo) Uvodna izjava 9 a (novo) (Uredba (ES) št. 382/2001)
	-1. Po uvodni izjavi 9 se vstavi naslednja uvodna izjava. "(9a) Program Vrata na Japonsko in program usposabljanja vodilnih delavcev sta tako uspešna, da bi morali v prihodnje podobne programe pripraviti tudi za druge države, npr. Kitajsko."
Obrazložitev
China is not a possible partner under this regulation that covers only industrialised countries. But economic relations with China are important and a programme that facilitates contacts would be beneficial. Other possible countries could be Thailand or India.
Predlog spremembe 2 ČLEN l, ODSTAVEK -1 A (novo) Člen 4, točka (h a) (novo) (Uredba (ES) 382/2001)
	-1a. V členu 4 se po točki (h) doda naslednja točka:
	"(ha) usklajevanje dejavnosti znotraj posamezne države partnerice in med različnimi državami partnericami."
Obrazložitev
The EU Centres need a common website to exchange information and to inform about their activities. This website could be used not only by the Centres in the USA, but by all Centres outside the EU. Furthermore, the Centres within the US should coordinate their cooperation among themselves and not through the European Commission. Funding for these activities should be foreseen.

• [1]  UL C ... / Še neobjavljeno v UL.

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

The regulation concerns co-operation and commercial relations with the following industrialised countries: United States, Canada, Japan, Korea (Republic of Korea), Australia and New Zealand. Initially, it had been drafted to provide the legal base for several programmes or actions that the Community wanted to fund but where the legal base was missing. The regulation is colloquially known as "omnibus regulation" as it covers a range of different and unrelated programmes - for all of which the legal base was missing before its existence.

It covers two main areas:

A) Co-operation - all concerned countries

– education and information of the public;

– strengthening people-to-people links;

– dialogue between political, economical and social partners;

– research and studies;

– projects in science and technology;

– customs co-operation;

– enhancing the visibility of the EU;

– pilot schemes.

These aims are achieved mainly by co-funding EU Centres. They support research activities, support fellowship programms, e.g. for faculty and graduate students, organise academic conferences on EU topics, etc.

B) Commercial Relations - Japan and, to a lesser extent, Korea

– Japan: targeted programs that bring added value to efforts by the Member States;

– Japan: participation of groups of business executives from SMEs to actions in Japan (Gateway to Japan);

– Japan: conferences and seminars, high-level business missions, etc.;

– Japan and Korea: Executive Training Programmes (ETP) - to enable European executives to communicate and operate in the Japanese and Korean business environment. Groups of young executives are taught the language (for 9 months in Japan, a shorter period in Korea) and then do an internship in a company.

What has been funded?

23 EU Centres have been opened, 15 in the US, 5 in Canada, one each in Australia, New Zealand and Japan. These centres vary in size and activities. In the US, they are hosted by major universities. Some are housed within International departments, some are hosted jointly by several departments, some are independent. The majority have some sort of advisory board. In Canada, the Centres are hosted within European focused international departments. In Australia and New Zealand, they are not hosed within one department.

The US Centres have usually more than one goal. Only one (Harvard, USA) sees teaching as its main objective. Most see outreach as main target. It is interesting that none of the 17 US centres sees networking with the others as a goal. The Canadian Centres are similar to those in the US, whereas those in Australia and N.Z. focus on academic objectives.

ETP has been running since 1979. Since then, more than 850 European executives have participated.

A Korean version of ETP was launched in 2002.

Some 1500 SMEs have participated in the Gateway to Japan Programme.

Budget

The budgetary means were between MEUR 15.2 and 16.8 per annum, around 50% of which goes to ETP, 22% to Gateway to Japan and 17% to the EU centres.

The original regulation expires on 31 December 2005. According to the planning of the Commission, the expenditures covered by it should fall under the new financial instruments for Community External Assistance from 2007 on. This amending legislation has been drafted to cover the gap between 31 December 2005 and 1 January 2007.

Future legislative coverage

The Commission has proposed that there will be four financial instruments. For one, the instrument for development co-operation, the Committee on International Trade has recommended to the lead committee, the Committee on Development, that the proposal be rejected. The Committee on Development has subsequently adopted a recommendation to reject the proposal. The plenary will have to consider this recommendation in the next weeks. If the proposal fails to secure a majority of the votes in plenary, the EP President will ask the Commission to withdraw the proposal. If the Commission fails to do so, the President will refer the matter back to the committee responsible. There will be no adoption in first reading and thus a blockage of the legislative draft. As the four instruments have been drafted as a package, the rejection would have an impact on the other instruments.

Commission’s proposed changes

1.  Extension of the period of validity - until 2007, i.e. until the new Financial Perspective becomes applicable. Budgetary consequences: MEUR 17 in commitments and payments.

2.  Compliance with the new Financial regulation - participants under the ETP program receive individual grants or scholarships. This needs to be covered in a different way since the new FR came into force.

3.  the legal base changes, Art. 181a is added - economic, financial and technical cooperation with third countries.

Comments

The rapporteur agrees that the prolongation is only necessary to bridge the gap between the end of 2005 and the beginning of the period covered by the new financial perspective and the new financial instruments in the EC's foreign policy. As soon as the new instruments will be in place, this regulation will be repealed.

The evaluations for the EU centres, ETP and the Gateway programme are both very positive. The Gateway programme shows that €1 spent on the programme created €37 in additional sales for the companies participating. The evaluation of ETP is slightly less enthusiastic albeit still very positive, thus the programme should be continued. The EU centres also do a very relevant work, the only negative aspect being a lack of coordination between the different centres in the US. Whereas in the first time after their founding, the US Centres had a coordinator and a website, this has been abandoned since and today coordination is done by the European Commission's delegation in Washington. With the loss of the website, the Centres have lost a common, everyday platform for interaction between themselves. Having the Commission is not so positive either. The rapporteur recommends to re-introduce a coordinator.

There is no room in the regulation to include other countries, such as India or China in the programmes, as they are emerging economies and not industrialised countries. However, the rapporteur would support the extension of different parts of this programme to other countries. The model character of both the ETP and the Gateway programme could be promoted for other bilateral relations, e.g. for China, Thailand, or India.

POSTOPEK

Naslov	Predlog Uredbe Sveta o spremembah Uredbe (ES) št. 382/2001 v zvezi s prenehanjem njene veljavnosti in nekaterimi določbami, povezanimi z izvrševanjem proračuna
Referenčni dokumenti	(KOM(2004)0840 – C6-0044/2005 – 2004/0288(CNS))
Pravna podlaga	člena 133 in 181 ES
Podlaga v Poslovniku	člen 51
Datum posvetovanja s Parlamentom	21.2.2005
Pristojni odbor   Datum razglasitve na zasedanju	INTA 24.2.2005
Odbori, zaprošeni za mnenje   Datum razglasitve na zasedanju	CULT	BUDG			AFET
Odbori, ki niso dali mnenja   Datum sklepa	CULT 17.01.2005	BUDG 20.4.2005			AFET 18.1.2005
Okrepljeno sodelovanje   Datum razglasitve na zasedanju
Poročevalec (-ka)   Datum imenovanja	David Martin 3.2.2005
Prejšnji poročevalec (-ka)
Poenostavljeni postopek   Datum sklepa
Oporekanje pravni podlagi   Datum mnenja JURI
Popravek finančne ocene sredstev   Datum mnenja BUGD
Posvetovanje z Evropskim ekonomsko-socialnim odborom   Datum sklepa na zasedanju
Posvetovanje z Odborom regij   Datum sklepa na zasedanju
Obravnava v odboru		18.4.2005
Datum sprejetja	23.5.2005
Izid končnega glasovanja	za: proti: vzdržani:		18 0 0
Poslanci, navzoči pri končnem glasovanju	Daniel Caspary, Christofer Fjellner, Georgios Papastamkos, Tokia Saïfi, Zbigniew Zaleski, Françoise Castex, Erika Mann, Javier Moreno Sánchez, Sajjad Karim, Johan Van Hecke, Caroline Lucas, Jacky Henin, Helmuth Markov
Namestniki, navzoči pri končnem glasovanju	Maria Martens, Zuzana Roithová, Panagiotis Beglitis, Elisa Ferreira, Danute Budreikaitė
Namestniki, navzoči pri končnem glasovanju v skladu s členom 178(2)
Datum predložitve – A6	25.5.2005			A6-0154/2005
Pripombe