SPRAWOZDANIE w sprawie projektu budżetu ogólnego Unii Europejskiej na rok budżetowy 2006

18.10.2005 - (C6-0299/2005 –2005/2001 (BUD))

Sekcja III – Komisja
Część 1: Projekt rezolucji
Komisja Budżetowa
Sprawozdawca: Giovanni Pittella

PROJEKT REZOLUCJI PARLAMENTU EUROPEJSKIEGO

w sprawie projektu budżetu ogólnego Unii Europejskiej na rok budżetowy 2006, sekcja III – Komisja (C6‑0299–2005/2001 (BUD))

Parlament Europejski,

–   uwzględniając art. 272 Traktatu WE oraz art. 177 Traktatu Euratom,

–   uwzględniając decyzję Rady 2000/597/WE, Euratom z dnia 29 września 2000 r. dotyczącą systemu środków własnych Wspólnot Europejskich[1],

–   uwzględniając rozporządzenie Komisji (WE, Euratom) nr 1605/2002 z dnia 25 czerwca 2002 r. w sprawie rozporządzenia finansowego mającego zastosowanie do budżetu ogólnego Wspólnot Europejskich[2],

–   uwzględniając Porozumienie Międzyinstytucjonalne z dnia 6 maja 1999 r. pomiędzy Parlamentem Europejskim, Radą a Komisją w sprawie dyscypliny budżetowej i poprawy procedury budżetowej[3],

–   uwzględniając rezolucję z dnia 13 kwietnia 2005 r. w sprawie sprawozdania w sprawie rocznej strategii politycznej Komisji (RSP)[4],

–   uwzględniając rezolucję z dnia 6 lipca 2005 r. w sprawie mandatu w zakresie procedury pojednawczej dotyczącej budżetu na rok 2006 przed pierwszym czytaniem Rady[5],

–   uwzględniając wstępny projekt budżetu ogólnego Unii Europejskiej na rok budżetowy 2006 przedstawiony przez Komisję dnia 15 czerwca 2005 r. (COM(2005)0300),

–   uwzględniając projekt budżetu ogólnego Unii Europejskiej na rok budżetowy 2006 sporządzony przez Radę dnia 15 lipca 2005 r. (C6‑0299/2005),

–   uwzględniając art. 69 oraz załącznik IV Regulaminu

–   uwzględniając sprawozdanie Komisji Budżetowej oraz opinie zainteresowanych komisji (A6‑0309/2005),

Ogólne uwagi i priorytety

1.  ponownie wyraża swoje zaangażowanie w dążenie do osiągnięcia kluczowych celów politycznych na rok 2006 oraz budowę wiarygodnych rozwiązań służących przejściu do nowej perspektywy finansowej; pod tym względem wyraża żal w związku z redukcjami dokonanymi bez wyjątku w projekcie budżetu Rady, które nie uwzględniają żadnych przypadków indywidualnych;

2.  postanowił zwiększyć zobowiązania budżetowe, na rzecz Strategii Lizbońskiej, Strategii z Goeteborga, polityki informacyjnej i działań zewnętrznych, w celu zapewnienia realizacji istotnych i znaczących dla obywateli działań UE zgodnie z wcześniejszymi rezolucjami Parlamentu dotyczącymi budżetu na 2006 r.; wzywa Radę do pełnej współpracy z Parlamentem w celu opracowania zadowalającego rozwiązania, w tym wykorzystania środków przewidzianych w ramach Porozumienia Międzyinstytucjonalnego z dnia 6 maja 1999 r.;

3.  wyraża ten sam pogląd odnośnie środków na płatności i uważa przyjęty przez Radę poziom w wysokości 111, 4 miliarda euro (1,01 % DNB) za nieodpowiedni dla skutecznej realizacji dotychczas uzgodnionych polityk oraz nowych niezbędnych działań; postanowił zatem zwiększyć płatności w całym budżecie do poziomu 115,4 mld euro (1,04 % DNB); podkreśla, że pozostaje to w zgodzie z rygorem budżetowym w stosunku do problemów gospodarczych, w obliczu których stoją niektóre Państwa Członkowskie;

4.  utrzymuje, że budżet UE powinien przyczyniać się do większej skuteczności działań na rzecz obywateli europejskich, przede wszystkim poprawy Strategii Lizbońskiej w drodze jej koncentracji na kwestiach spójności społecznej, gospodarczej i środowiskowej oraz konkurencyjności Europy; stwierdza, że zaangażowanie ludzi młodych jest kluczowym elementem wszelkich rozsądnych strategii europejskich i podziela ambicje polityczne Rady polegające na stworzeniu paktu dla młodzieży; zasadniczo nie zgadza się z redukcjami budżetu w tym obszarze i postanowił zwiększyć koncentrację na agendzie lizbońskiej, łącznie z podniesieniem pułapów ustalonych w drodze współdecyzji dla programów Sokrates i Młodzież, Badania Naukowe, Life, i programu Inteligentna Energia; wzywa Radę do udzielenia zgody na wzmocnienie tych priorytetów, jak uczyniono pod koniec ostatniego okresu programowania;

Pozycja 1

5.  z dużym zadowoleniem przyjmuje rewizję podpułapów w pozycji 1 celem umożliwienia wykonania środków modulacyjnych ustalonych w związku z reformą WPR, uzgodnioną między Parlamentem a Radą w ramach postępowania pojednawczego w lipcu 2005 r.;

6.  przypomina swoje stanowisko odnośnie uznania kwot proponowanych przez Radę w projekcie budżetu za niezbędne minimum, w związku z czym postanawia odrzucić redukcje Rady; uważa, że środki te są konieczne i jednocześnie w pełni popiera działania podejmowane obecnie w celu reformy tego sektora;

7.  podkreśla wagę innowacji i odnowienia w ramach zreformowanej Polityki Rolnej Unii Europejskiej, zwłaszcza w obszarze szkoleń i działań na rzecz młodych rolników;

8.  pragnie sprawdzać wykorzystanie kwot zapisanych w podpozycji 1b budżetu (rozwój obszarów wiejskich), a zwłaszcza działania związane z pustynnieniem i niszczeniem w wyniku pożaru obszarów wiejskich i środowiska naturalnego, które niestety w ciągu ubiegłych lat okazały się istotnym wyzwaniem dla UE; wzywa Komisję do udostępnienia zarysu wykorzystania środków finansowych na rozwój obszarów wiejskich w tym rejonie; przypomina jednocześnie o wadze pomocy i solidarności w pozycji 1, możliwych zwłaszcza dzięki dostarczeniu niektórym organizacjom, środków spożywczych pochodzących z zapasów interwencyjnych przeznaczonych dla najuboższych osób we Wspólnocie;

Pozycja 2

9.  zwraca uwagę na ostatnie prognozy płatności w zakresie działań strukturalnych oraz na informacje przekazane przez Komisję zgodnie ze Wspólną Deklaracją uzgodnioną w ramach procedury budżetowej 2005; zawraca również uwagę na znaczne różnice między prognozami płatności Państw Członkowskich a wstępnym projektem budżetu; z tego powodu postanawia podwyższyć środki na płatności do wysokości 39,2 mld euro; jednocześnie wyraża zaniepokojenie ogólnymi wskaźnikami wykorzystania środków przez Państwa Członkowskie, które ostatnio przystąpiły do UE, i w zawiązku z tym pragnie zbadać, czy zachodzi potrzeba zastosowania rozwiązania pomostowego łączącego bieżący i następny okres programowania celem zapewnienia, iż nowe Państwa nie są pod tym względem dyskryminowane;

10. nalega na dalsze wsparcie programu PEACE dla Irlandii Północnej, lecz przypomina, że dnia 25 listopada 2004 r. Parlament i Rada w obecności Komisji wspólnie uzgodniły w ramach procedury pojednawczej kwotę do przesunięcia z „działań na rzecz innowacji”; postanowił zatem przywrócić ten poziom i zachęca Komisję do uzgodnienia rozwiązania, w ramach wszystkich środków przewidzianych w Porozumieniu Międzyinstytucjonalnym z dnia 6 maja 1999 r., celem pokrycia pozostałej kwoty 12 mln euro dla programu PEACE;

Pozycja 3

11. odrzuca postawę Rady polegającą na dokonaniu bezwzględnych redukcji i stojącą w sprzeczności z aktualnymi pilnymi priorytetami politycznymi, zwłaszcza zaś z potrzebą zapewnienia większych niż przewidziane w budżecie na 2005 r. środków na realizację założeń związanych z nową Strategią Lizbońską;

12. uważa, że budżet 2006 jest budżetem przejściowym do nowego okresu programowania i powinien dlatego też spełnić swoją przejściową funkcję i przygotować wyższe finansowanie przewidziane dla kluczowych obszarów polityki począwszy od roku 2007; postanawia zatem wzmocnić szereg istotnych linii budżetowych związanych z badaniami i innowacjami, MŚP, konkurencyjnością, programami Sokrates i Młodzież, rozwojem rynku wewnętrznego, programami Life i Inteligentna Energia oraz programem Leonardo Da Vinci; ponadto, Parlament jest skłonny zgodzić się z Radą w sprawie wystarczającego finansowania priorytetów finansowych obiektywnie i długoterminowo, poprzez stosowanie postanowień porozumienia międzyinstytucjonalnego z dnia 6 maja 1999 r., zwłaszcza art. 33 i 34 lub poprzez zastosowanie postanowień art. 272 Traktatu WE;

13. pragnie większej koncentracji na uproszczeniu procedur na poziomie programów UE z korzyścią dla osób i organizacji, które otrzymują finansowanie z UE; w tym celu przegłosował szereg poprawek dotyczących uproszczenia, które zgodne są z pracami prowadzonymi obecnie w celu dostosowania rozporządzenia finansowego, z tym że wnosi o szybszy postęp oparty na uproszczeniu procedur wewnętrznych;

14. uważa przydzielenie kwoty przewidziane na europejską politykę informacyjną są nieodpowiednie i postanawia zwiększyć tę kwotę; podkreśla pilną potrzebę przedstawienia przez Komisję Białej Księgi w sprawie polityki informacyjnej; w międzyczasie postanawia wpisać część środków do rezerwy;

15. w pełni potwierdza znaczenie i popiera ambicje nowego działania na rzecz „mobilności pracowników”, które zostało zaproponowane jako projekt pilotażowy; proponuje jednak, aby finansować tę akcję jako specjalne wydarzenie roczne zgodnie z własnymi instytucjonalnymi prerogatywami Komisji; jednocześnie przypomina Komisji, aby wszystkie projekty pilotażowe popierane przez Parlament Europejski zostały skutecznie wdrożone;

16. oczekuje, że kwoty odłożone na Europejski Rok Mobilności Pracowników zostaną wydane na zdecentralizowane kampanie bliskie obywatelom oraz że widoczność i usługi w ramach istniejących instrumentów, takich jak EURES i EUROPASS zostaną rozszerzone, a ich zakres będzie obejmował migrantów z krajów trzecich, ponieważ, zważywszy na starzenie się społeczeństwa, wzmożony napływ imigracji będzie coraz bardziej potrzebny, aby zaspokoić potrzeby rynku pracy UE;

17. podkreśla znaczenie kwestii związanych z ochroną danych podlegających trzeciemu filarowi oraz popiera sformalizowanie structury ad-hoc obejmującej przestawicieli organów ds. ochrony danych w Państwach Członkowskich oraz innych organów zajmujących się konkretnymi problemami Highlights the importance of data protection matters falling under the third pillar and supports the formalisation of an ad-hoc structure involving representatives of Member States' data protection authorities;

Pozycja 4

18. potwierdza przekonanie, że działania zewnętrzne UE zostały rozszerzone o nowe zobowiązania, które w ciągu ostatnich pięciu lat zostały dodane bez równoległej korekty niezbędnych zasobów finansowych; zwraca uwagę na zobowiązania w tym zakresie, które związane są z finansowaniem dla Kosowa, Serbii, Afganistanu i Iraku, coraz większymi ambicjami w dziedzinie WPZiB oraz, w ostatnim czasie, deklaracją solidarności z ofiarami katastrofy spowodowanej przez tsunami;

19. stanowczo stwierdza, że Rada musi dostrzec zasadność i wyrazić zgodę na finansowanie nowych priorytetów bez uszczerbku dla istotnych działań prowadzonych obecnie; postanowił zatem odrzucić podejście Rady polegające na dokonaniu redukcji w liniach dotyczących praw człowieka i demokracji, programach współpracy geograficznej, w tym polityce sąsiedztwa, oraz działaniach istotnych z punktu widzenia Milenijnych Celów Rozwoju; postanowił zapisać środki na poziomie zabezpieczającym wykonanie takich polityk, przy jednoczesnym stworzeniu możliwości dla polityk nowych; w związku z powyższym postanawia sfinansować program odbudowy w Iraku oraz program związany ze skutkami tsunami, jak również program wsparcia dla krajów objętych protokołem w sprawie cukru poza istniejącym marginesem; zachęca Radę do uzgodnienia rozwiązania finansowego w ramach wszystkich środków przewidzianych w postanowieniach porozumienia międzyinstytucjonalnego z dnia 6 maja 1999 r. w szczególności art. 19 i 24, lub wykorzystując stosowne postanowienia Traktatu;

20. nalega, aby Komisja i Rada kontynuowały wspieranie Inicjatywy Europejskiej na rzecz Demokracji i Praw Człowieka oraz decyduje o zapewnieniu wystarczajacego poziomu finansowania; ponawia swój apel do Komisji o przedstawienie projektu odrębnego narzędzia prawnego dla Praw Człowieka na okres programowania na lata 2007-2013; ponadto, podkreśla, że zaangażowanie Parlamentu w ustalenie priorytetów dla wdrożenia nowych programów na lata 2007-2013 (komitologia) musi być znacznie poprawione;

21. przypomina zalecenie Parlamentu skierowane do Rady w dniu 24 września 2003 r. dotyczące sytuacji w Iraku[6] oraz własną rezolucję z dnia 6 lipca 2005 r. w sprawie dokumentu „Unia Europejska i Irak – Ramy Zaangażowania”[7], w których wyrażona jest prośba do ONZ o zarządzanie funduszami WE przeznaczonymi na odbudowę Iraku; krytykuje Komisję za wyrażenie zgody na to, aby znaczną częścią wkładu Wspólnoty zarządzał Bank Światowy; zaznacza, iż fundusze przyznane w budżecie na rok 2004 i 2005 jedynie w niewielkiej części zostały przejęte przez Bank i na tej podstawie prognozuje, iż w roku 2006 Bank nie będzie zwracał się o kolejne środki; przypomina Komisji, że Bank Światowy uzależniony jest od władz irackich w kwestii realizacji swoich programów; w związku z tym zwraca uwagę na słabą strukturę administracyjną i powtarzające się przypadki korupcji w Iraku; wnioskuje wobec tego o zaprzestanie przekazywania funduszy Bankowi Światowemu oraz o wyznaczenie innych europejskich pośredników do wydatkowania omawianych środków; wzywa Komisję do przeprowadzenia w 2006r. niezależnej kontroli wykorzystania funduszy WE przez ONZ i Bank Światowy;

22. ponawia opinię, że Komisja powinna dołożyć wszelkich starań, aby osiągnąć progi referencyjne ustalone przez Parlament w ramach rocznej sumy zobowiązań na rzecz współpracy rozwojowej wynoszące odpowiednio 35% na infrastrukturę społeczną i 20% na podstawową opiekę zdrowotną i podstawowe kształcenie; przesuwa 10-procentowy udział do rezerwy w celu zachęcenia Komisji do podjęcia niezbędnych kroków w celu osiągnięcia progu referencyjnego w wysokości 20 % dla podstawowej opieki zdrowotnej i podstawowego kształcenia;

23. odrzuca podwyższenie przez Radę środków na dwóch dodatkowych specjalnych przedstawicieli w obszarze WPZiB, czego dokonała ona nie spełniwszy wymogu konsultacji z Parlamentem Europejskim; zauważa, że w oparciu o wspólną deklarację z dnia 25 listopada 2002 r., prezydencje irlandzka i holenderska osiągnęły znaczący postęp w ustanowieniu procesu informacji politycznej i konsultacyjnego z Parlamentem; wyraża ubolewanie, że pomimo, iż takie spotkania powinny odbywać się średnio 5 razy w roku, zaledwie jedno odbyło się w tym roku (do września 2005); w związku z tym Parlament nalega na poprawę i na kontynuowanie dialogu politycznego jak zadecydowano pomiędzy dwoma instytucjami;

24. podkreśla znaczenie wkładu ze strony sektora prywatnego w zwalczanie ubóstwa oraz wzywa Komisję i Europejski Bank Inwestycyjny (EBI) do wspólnego rozpatrzenia możliwości przyznania dotacji do spłaty oprocentowania na pożyczki udzielone przez EBI z zasobów własnych dla sektora MŚP w krajach rozwijających;

25. wzywa Komisję do zapewnienia, aby pomoc Wspólnoty przewidziana w linii budżetowej 4 nie była przyznawana żadnemu rządowi ani organizacji ani programowi, wspierającemu lub uczestniczącemu w zarządzaniu programem, włączającym łamanie praw człowieka jak na przykład. aborcja wbrew woli, sterylizacja wbrew woli czy zabijanie dzieci zważywszy, że takie łamanie praw jest niezgodne z zakazem konferencji ICPD w Kairze w sprawie przymusów w zakresie seksualności i reprodukcji;

26. uważa, że nowa linia budżetowa „Pomoc handlowa” jest konieczna w celu: i) zwiększenia przejrzystości, a tym samym także demokratycznej kontroli nad pokaźną kwotą; ii) zapewnienia bardziej widocznej pomocy handlowej oraz; iii) umożliwienia większej elastyczności w szybkim uruchamianiu funduszy, w razie potrzeby również poprzez wielostronne inicjatywy.

Pozycja 5

27. jest świadomy deklaracji Komisji odnośnie rekrutacji urzędników pochodzących z nowych Państw Członkowskich i uważa ten priorytet za słuszny; uważa, że bezwzględne redukcje Rady są nie do przyjęcia i postanawia w pierwszym czytaniu ponownie przyznać Komisji kwotę 90,4 mln euro z sumy 94,4 mln euro stanowiącej redukcję, której dokonała Rada; z powodów wymienionych poniżej postanawia wpisać kwotę 16 mln euro ze środków przeznaczonych na wynagrodzenia do rezerwy;

28.    postanowił przewidzieć wszystkie stanowiska, o jakie wnioskuje Komisja i zwolni te stanowiska z rezerwy jeśli następujące warunki zostaną spełnione:

· wyjaśnienie sytuacji w odniesieniu do rekrutacji i możliwości obsadzenia stanowisk związanych z rozszerzeniem;

· pełna rewizja wszystkich zaproponowanych rozporządzeń w zawieszeniu (w tym tych, z programu działalności legislacyjnej i prac na rok 2005) dla zapewnienia, że wszystkie istniejące i planowane projekty legislacyjne Komisji spełniają kryteria poszanowania subsydiarności i zmniejszenia biurokracji i kosztów; wymaga tej analizy do listopada 2005 r. ;

· porozumienie pomiędzy Parlamentem i Komisją w sprawie programu legislacyjnego i roboczego Komisji na rok 2006;

· przedstawienie szczegółów wieloletniego planowania dotyczącego wszystkich propozycji legislacyjnych przewidzianych w przyszłych ramach finansowych;

· jasne zobowiązanie, że Komisja będzie respektować wspólne oświadczenie w sprawie programowania finansowego, przyjęte podczas postępowania pojednawczego w dniu 13 lipca 2004 r. oraz, że przekaże ważne informacje i dane Parlamentowi;

· zobowiązanie do przedłożenia Agencjom, przed drugim czytaniem, propozycji mającej na celu ustalenie polityki personalnej, ścieżki kariery i najlepszych praktyk;

· przedłożenie Białej Księgi na temat przyszłej strategii informacyjnej i komunikacyjnej;

· przedłożenie projektu rewizji przepisów wykonawczych rozporządzenia finansowego do 31 października 2005 r.;

· przedstawienie oddzielnego instrumentu na rzecz praw człowieka, zgodnie z wnioskiem Parlamentu wyrażonym w rezolucji z dnia 8 czerwca 2005 r. w sprawie wyzwań politycznych i środków budżetowych w rozszerzonej Unii w latach 2007-2013 [8];

29. wzywa Komisję do zbadania ewentualnych oszczędności przed drugim czytaniem, łącznie z krytycznym przeglądem jej wniosków dotyczących budżetu;

Pozycja 7

30. domaga się wprowadzenia do budżetu większej przejrzystości odnośnie pomocy WE udzielanej krajom kandydującym lub znajdującym się na etapie przed kandydowaniem; przypomina, iż ma to decydujące znaczenie ze względu na wejście w życie nowego instrumentu przedakcesyjnego, który połączy w jeden akt prawny kilka programów zróżnicowanych geograficznie i tematycznie;

Kwestie horyzontalne

Agencje

31. uważa, że preliminarze Agencji należy traktować indywidualnie, a zmiany, za którymi opowiada się Komisja, powinny zostać uwzględnione przez władzę budżetową; postanowił zatem w ogólnym wymiarze przywrócić poziom wstępnego projektu budżetu z indywidualnym uwzględnieniem szczególnych potrzeb finansowych po ich niezbędnym uzasadnieniu; zwraca się do Komisji o przedstawienie planu struktury zatrudnienia oraz innych wymaganych informacji;

Dopłaty

32. przypomina, że poprzednie linie A-30 regulowane są podstawowymi aktami prawnymi oraz podlegają ograniczonym ramom finansowym, które wygasają w 2006 r.; podkreśla zatem, że w tym sektorze istnieje niezwykle ograniczone pole manewru; kładzie nacisk na znaczenie miast bliźniaczych, postanowił zatem utrzymać środki na ten cel na takim samym poziomie jak w roku 2005; zauważa ponadto, że w 2006 r. zacznie w pełni obowiązywać zasada ogłaszania przetargów dla wszystkich programów i nie będzie już możliwości rezerwowania środków; wzywa Komisję do zaproponowania koniecznych rozwiązań pomostowych celem niedopuszczenia do wystąpienia pomiędzy dwoma systemami braku środków finansowych dla beneficjentów;

33. Zauważa, że istnieje wiele organizacji kulturalnych odnoszących sukcesy jak Młodzieżowa Orkiestra Unii Europejskiej, Orkiestra Barokowa Unii Europejskiej, Międzynarodowa Fundacja Yehudi Menuhina, które Parlament Europejskie wspierał finansowo przez wiele lat; podkreśla, że oczekuje się, że te organizacje będą kontynuować swoją działalność w kontekście nowych wieloletnich ram finansowych począwszy od roku 2007 r.; z niepokojem zauważa, że istnieje realne ryzyko, że te organizacje nie będą w stanie kontynuować działalności w 2006 r. bez pomocy na czas okresu przejściowego pomiędzy dwoma okresami programowania finansowego; w związku z tym Parlament jest skłonny zgodzić się z Radą w sprawie wystarczającego finansowania priorytetów finansowych obiektywnie i długoterminowo, poprzez stosowanie postanowień porozumienia międzyinstytucjonalnego z dnia 6 maja 1999 r., zwłaszcza art. 33 i 34 lub poprzez zastosowanie postanowień art. 272 Traktatu WE;

Projekty pilotażowe, działania przygotowawcze i badania

34. z zadowoleniem przyjmuje poprawę współpracy z Komisją w zakresie projektów pilotażowych, działań przygotowawczych i badań, wyrażając jednocześnie żal, że nadal występują trudności w realizacji pewnej liczby projektów;

35. postanowił stworzyć kilka istotnych inicjatyw zgodnych z priorytetami, w tym: współpraca transgraniczna w zwalczaniu katastrof naturalnych, która podniosłaby świadomość bliższej współpracy w zakresie środków obrony cywilnej, w celu zapobieżenia lub przynajmniej zminimalizowania konsekwencji takich katastrof; indywidualna mobilność uczniów szkół średnich, projekt pilotażowy dotyczący bezpieczeństwa w ramach sieci transeuropejskich, mobilność młodych przedsiębiorców w ramach wspierania wymian na płaszczyźnie europejskiej, Modelowe Ośrodki Turystyczne Europy oraz działania przygotowawcze do utworzenia systemu internetowego, w celu zapewnienia doskonalszego prawodowstwa i udziału społecznego oraz udoskonalenia sieci Natura 2000;

Budżetowanie na podstawie działań

36. Przypomina, że po zeszłorocznej weryfikacji przez Parlament sprawozdania z działalności z 2005 r. Komisja została poproszona o zamieszczanie dokładniejszych informacji w sprawozdaniu ze względu na procedure budżetową w roku 2006; zauważa, że chociaż osiagnięto pewne postępy, należy dołożyć dodatkowych starań, aby informacje miały większy związek z budżetem, zwłaszcza zaś cele i wskaźniki; zauważa, że sprawozdanie z działalności powinno stać się cennym narzędziem pracy dla komisji parlamentarnych, które powinny częściej z niego korzystać; wzywa zatem Komisję do wznowienia wysiłków w celu przygotowania pełniejszego oraz w większym stopniu odnoszącego się do budżetu sprawozdania z działalności przed następną procedurą budżetową;

37. podkreśla , że Komisja musi zapewnić, by równość płci była brana pod uwagę podczas wykonywania budżetu oraz by każde działanie było oceniane z punktu widzenia zróżnicowanego wpływu, jaki wywiera ono na kobiety i mężczyzn;

* * *

38. zobowiązuje swojego Przewodniczącego do przekazania niniejszej rezolucji, wraz z poprawkami oraz propozycjami zmian do sekcji III projektu budżetu ogólnego, Radzie i Komisji, a także innym zainteresowanym instytucjom oraz organom.

• [1]  Dz.U. L 253 z 7.10.2000, str. 42.
• [2]  Dz.U. L 248 z 16.9.2002, str. 1.
• [3]  Dz.U. C 172 z 18.6.1999, str. 1. Porozumienie zmienione decyzją 2003/429/WE, (Dz.U. L 147 z 14.6.2003, str. 25).
• [4]  Teksty przyjęte w tym dniu, P6_TA(2005)0126.
• [5]  Teksty przyjęte w tym dniu, P6_TA(2005)0286.
• [6]  Dz.U. C 77 E z 26.3.2004, str. 226.
• [7]  Przyjęte teksty P6_TA(2005)0288
• [8]  Teksty przyjete, P6_TA(2005)0224.

UZASADNIENIE (w języku angielskim)

On the Lisbon strategy

1.  At the adoption of the 2006 PDB it was said that the EU must invest in a knowledge-based economy to put the European economy back on track. The goals of prosperity and solidarity would underpin the re-launching of the Lisbon Strategy. The adoption of the PDB had also been preceded by the Parliament resolution on the mid-term review of the Lisbon strategy of 9 March 2005, the European Council conclusions on re-launching the Lisbon Strategy of 29 March and the Parliament resolution on the Annual Policy Strategy. All of these contained political guidelines for the Lisbon re-launch.

2.  In total, the rapporteur notes that the Commission's PDB figure of EUR 40 billion for the Lisbon Strategy was made up of (all amounts rounded):

Heading	Title	PDB 2006
1b	Rural development	7 800
2	Cohesion fund	6 000
2	Structural funds	18 500
3	Internal Polices	8 000
out of which
(approximate figures)	Research	5 285
	TENs	700
	Education & Training	650
	SMEs	100
	Information Society	200
	Others	50
TOTAL		40 285

3.  The rapporteur would stress the fact that these actions are spread out over the budget and it is in fact not possible to get such a direct overview from the PDB itself. This information was also compiled from the press statements and other additional information given by the Commission. Naturally, these figures were/are highly dependent on subjective choices as to what can and should be included in the Lisbon Agenda and must be treated with caution.

5. Under the internal policies (heading 3), the 6th research framework programme constitutes the main element. The whole of this area is counted as a Lisbon "element" for an amount of some EUR 5.285 billion in the PDB. The figure for payments amount to EUR 5.048 billion. The amount for commitments in the PDB naturally makes up the final amounts to arrive at the global amounts co-decided for the whole period of the framework programme. What seems contradictory to the focus on the Lisbon strategy is that the Council has introduced reductions of some EUR 429 million in payments. Although the Council Presidency always state that this level is still significantly higher than the 2005 payment level, it constitutes a serious reduction in the Commission's planned payments rhythm and implementation.

6. Trans-European networks (TENs) are counting towards the overall Lisbon figure in the PDB for an amount of some EUR 700 million. This would largely correspond to budget lines 06 03 01 (main TEN line on transport networks) and 06 03 02 (energy networks). In this case, the Council has maintained the PDB. There is a modest increase for transport networks (+ 20 million to a total of 692 million) whereas the energy networks remain at 2005 level with 21.5 million.

7.  Linked to the idea of a knowledge-based economy, education and vocational training are counted for an amount of EUR 650 million according to the Commission. This essentially corresponds to all education and training measures under policy area 15, Education and Culture, including the Leonardo and Socrates programmes. There is no increase for Socrates in the PDB and Leonardo is even decreased by 10 million. The Council have maintained the Commission figures. If this is part of the Lisbon strategy, why is it stagnating? The rapporteur thought the Lisbon strategy should be reinforced. In the area of education and culture, the rapporteur has already before highlighted the serious contradiction of arguing for a knowledge based society with great aspirations for the future, while at the same time reducing appropriations for youth. What could be the purpose of a Lisbon strategy if it is not sustainable for future generations and include a strengthened focus on the young people of Europe?

8.  The Commission has counted actions for SMEs up to an amount of some EUR 100 million. The rapporteur refers to his initial analysis in the global working document on the PDB where it is noted that financing for Parliament's SME actions are actually reduced compared to 2005. The Council has maintained the Commision's restrictive approach. As an illustration of this situation, see annex one the state of play for a few of the SME lines. The rapporteur would like to reinforce the actions to facilitate for SMEs.

9.   In the rapporteur's opinion, and in line with the Parliament's Lisbon Group-and the Kok report- it is not possible to continue with only the same actions as before and still "talk" about the need to revitalise the Lisbon strategy. So much has been said about   fresh ideas for Lisbon that it seems that, in addition to a general budget priority, this could be a very interesting area for some innovative actions, i.e pilot projects/preparatory actions. In this respect, the rapporteur would highlight as important actions that could facilitate competitiveness for SMEs as well as projects aiming at developing Europe's competitiveness in general. Also, in line with Parliament's APS resolution, and in line with the conclusions of the European Council, actions to involve and prepare young people should be a priority.

10. In the rapporteur's view, as partly also recognised by the Commission, some other actions should also be considered as part of the Lisbon strategy. This could for example include elements of environment protection as this also goes to the heart of the question of sustainability. It must, however, be pointed out that this area is under co-decision and the framework amounts are already foreseen in the legislation and taken into account in the PDB and DB.

11. Overall, the Commission considered as part of the Lisbon Strategy actions amounting to more or less EUR 8 billion under heading 3. This corresponds to the majority of actions as the total for this heading is about 9 billion. The Council confirms the Commission's restrictive approach in commitments with a further modest cut of - 43 million. The situation for payments casts a serious doubt as to the Council's willingness to do anything to speed up implementation of the Lisbon Strategy. The cut in payments is - 516 million. out of which - 280 million in research.

12. In agriculture, heading 1, some EUR 7.8 billion is counted within the total EUR 40 billion. In effect, this corresponds to all actions under sub-heading 1b rural development, including, for example, the support line for young farmers. Again, this is a figure which was estimated to be part of Lisbon, as defined by the Commission, at the time of the adoption of the PDB. The Council has not modified the Commission's PDB here.

13. The rapporteur does not consider it useful at this stage to engage in an extensive discussion as to whether also actions under 1a could or should be counted although this could be argued by some (ex. more environmental links in agriculture) In any case, given the competencies of Council and Parliament, the scope for any budgetary amendments under 1a is limited.

14. As for structural actions in heading 2, the rapporteur notes that one could argue about which part of these can be considered as Lisbon-oriented. Nevertheless, the rapporteur notes first of all that the Cohesion fund is fully counted by the Commission for an amount of about EUR 6 billion.

15. The rapporteur then notes that the Commission is counting some EUR 18.5 billion from the structural funds towards the total EUR 40 billion. This figure corresponds to approximately 50% (15.8 billion) of structural funds for the old "EU-15" and about 40% (2.7 billion) for the new "EU-10" programmes. The rapporteur would consider the inclusion of such percentages as "Lisbon-linked" very optimistic in the case of structural funds. In any event, since the commitment appropriations are fully committed up to the ceiling, the relevant scope for amendments here will normally be on payments. As is known, the Council chooses to reduce payments by EUR 150 million overall in heading 2. The rapporteur considers that this is not acceptable.

16. Conclusion: the PDB has talked about the re-launch of the Lisbon Strategy

     but, in fact, the figures demonstrate little or no increase compared with the 2005 budget. The attitude of Council in its first reading is fully based on reducing appropriations in an across-the-board fashion and does nothing to facilitate the necessary backing of political announcements with financial means.

Annex 1: Summary of budget lines increased in the "Lisbon Table" in the budget procedure 2005 and the proposals by the Commission and Council for Budget 2006.

On Tile 15 - Education and Culture

INTRODUCTION

1.  Education and culture is divided into eight chapters:

Chapter	Heading	Description of activities
OPERATIONAL EXPENDITURE
15 02	Education	Support for activities and bodies active at European level in the field of education (former A-30 lines, European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education); General and higher education (Socrates, eLearning, Erasmus Mundus); Cooperation with non-member countries on education and vocational training
15 03	Vocational training	Vocational training and guidance (work-linked training, Leonardo da Vinci, European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training); Phare contribution to the European Training Foundation; European Training Foundation
15 04	Culture and language	Support for bodies active at European level in the field of culture (former A-30 lines); Culture (Framework programme); Language (promotion of linguistic diversity, minority languages and culture)
15 05	Audiovisual policy and sports	Audiovisual media (MediaPlus, MediaTraining, Growth and the audiovisual sector); Preparatory measures for a Community policy in the field of sport; European year of education through sport
15 06	Dialogue with the citizens	Support for activities and bodies active at European level in the field of active European citizenship (former A-30 lines); Cost of organising graduate traineeships with the institution; Visits to the Commission; Special annual events
15 07	Youth	Support for bodies active at European level in the field of youth (European Youth Forum, international youth NGOs, former A-30 lines); YOUTH programme; PP to support young people's participation in civil life
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE
15 01	Administrative expenditure	Former BA lines
15 49	Expenditure on administrative management of programmes committed in accordance with the former Financial Regulation	Support expenditure for operations of the policy area

2.  Most of the budget lines of title 15 (education and culture) belong to heading 3 of the financial perspective. However, there are also some in heading 4[1] and in heading 7 [2]. The budget lines concerning administrative expenditure (except former B-A lines) plus all ex A-30 lines (grants) fall under heading 5 of the financial perspective .

3.  The vast bulk of expenditure under title 15 goes to multi-annual programmes which will be terminated in 2006, in parallel with the current financial perspective. They will have to be renegotiated if the political authority considers useful to continue them. The same applies to the former A-30 lines (grants) which multi-annual envelope has been jointly decided in 2004 by the European Parliament and the Council until 2006:

EU GRANTS
Period 2004-2006 (except for Equality 2004-2005)	Agreed amounts	Remaining amounts (in €) in 2006
Youth	13 000 000	4 720 000
Training and education	77 000 000	27 253 500
Culture	19 000 000	5 410 000
Protection of EU Financial interests	11 775 000	3 925 000
Equality	2 200 000	50 000
Civic participation	72 000 000	26 572 000
Relex	4 100 000	1 223 500
Total	199 775 000	69 154 000

IMPLEMENTATION 2004

4.  In 2004, implementation of the Policy area Education and culture was generally satisfactory. For the policy area as a whole the level of implementation is 99%. At the level of individual chapters, there is not much variation, ranging from 97% to 100% (Annex II).

BUDGET 2005

Budgetary decisions

5.  The following table gives a comparison between PDB and final budget 2005 (in c.a for EU 25 in €):

Chapt.	Heading	PDB 2005	Budget 2005	Difference %
15 01	Administrative expenditure	114 120 843	118 ,803 286	3,9%
15 02	Education	414 499 000	414 079 000	-0,1%
15 03	Vocational training	237 100 000	241 966 880	2%
15 04	Culture and language	39 924 000	38 082 000	-4,8%
15 05	Audiovisual policy and sports	88 665 000	87 935 000	-0,8%
15 06	Dialogue with the citizens	27 725 000	35 385 000	21,6%
15 07	Youth	112 410 000	111 240 000	-1%
TITLE 15 - TOTAL		1 034 443 843	1 047 491 166	1,24%

Implementation 2005

6.  It is still too early in the year to asses the implementation of title 15 for 2005. However, in spite of the usual very good overall implementation, significant problems with the implementation of pilot projects and preparatory actions, justified that the European Parliament has, entered funds into the reserve. Thus, a consistent follow-up is necessary.

Pilot projects

7.  The new pilot project "Erasmus style programme for apprentices (line 15 03 01 05)" : it was decided by the European Parliament with an amount of € 2 million allocated as part of the European Parliament' strategic objective of "reinforcement of the Lisbon Strategy". The principal objective of this pilot project is to analyse the main aspects of the apprentice in professional training and the possibility of having a European credit transfer system for professional training, similar to ERASMUS. Five studies are already foreseen[3].

8.  The pilot project for "participation of young people" (line 15 07 03)[4]: only € 1,150 million in payment appropriations were left to cover the completion of this pilot project.

9.  The pilot project on "promotion and safeguard of the Community's regional languages and cultures" (15 04 03 02)[5]: There are only € 50 000 left in payment appropriations for the completion of this project.

Special Programmes

10.  Within the education chapter (15 02) two programmes deserve a close monitoring: The implementation of eLearning (developed from a pilot project initiated by Parliament in Budget 2002) and Erasmus Mundus (one of Parliament's priorities):

Line	Heading	Budget 2005 (CA in € million)
15 02 02 04	eLearning	12,980
15 02 02 05	Erasmus Mundus	25,000

The implementation of Budget 2004 has been very satisfactory for both of them (100% and 99% respectively).

Agencies

11.  Decentralised agencies: The European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP) and the European Training Foundation (ETF), are also instruments for the implementation of the EU vocational training policy and are financed under title 15 of the budget. The CEDEFOP[6] budget lines belong exclusively to Heading 3 of the financial perspective. The appropriations for the ETF, however, belong to heading 4[7] and heading 7[8].

12.  In 2005 the amounts allocated for these two agencies reached € 34,6 million, (€ 16,1 to CEDEFOP and € 18,5 million to ETF).

13.  Education and Culture Executive Agency: The appropriations for administrative expenditure on most of the programmes in this policy area shall be partially used in budget 2005 to finance this executive agency, which will manage all Education and culture programmes as from 2005 onwards. Two new budget lines were created in 2005 for this agency :

15 01 04 30 EAC executive agency for programmes of Heading 3 € 23,870 m

15 01 04 32 EAC executive agency for programmes of Heading 5 € 0, 650m                                                                  € 24,520m

BUDGET 2006 PRIORITIES

Background: The EU as a world reference for knowledge

14.  In its APS resolution for budget 2006 the European Parliament reflected the new priorities of the Lisbon Strategy. It gives, therefore, a central role to the promotion of knowledge, life-long learning and fostering young people's prosperity[9].

15.  The Lisbon Strategy underlines the importance of fostering students, trainers and young people mobility, as a way to deal with diversity in Europe[10]. Not only legal and administrative instruments, but also cultural and linguistic differences, together with the diversity of labour markets, make it difficult to people to move freely within the Union.

16.  The EU, at the Barcelona European Council of March 2002, decided that the European education and training systems should become a world reference for quality by 2010. It recognised early-foreign language acquisition as the forerunner to the better cultural understanding and to the increase of mobility of the labour market[11].

17.  The Education Council of May 2003 set the participation in lifelong learning as one of the reference of European average performance.

18.  In February of last year the Education Council and the Commission' joint report for the 2004 Spring European Council pointed out that even if progress has been made in the area of cooperation in education and training, not enough has been done to facilitate and actively promote the mobility of students[12].

19.  Recently, the European Council of 22nd and 23rd of March confirmed, once again, growth and employment as one of the main priorities. The Heads of State and Government concluded that "human capital is Europe's most important asset and that lifelong learning is a sinequanon if the Lisbon objectives are to be achieved, taking into account the desirability of high quality at all levels"[13].

Socrates (budget line 15 02 02 02)

20.  SOCRATES programme comprises eight actions: Comenius (school education), Erasmus (higher education), Grundvig (adult education), Lingua (learning European languages), Minerva (ICT in education), innovation of education systems, joint actions and accompanying measures.

21.  The general rapporteur is of the opinion that special attention needs to be paid to Comenius (students language exchange projects) and Erasmus (students mobility) as both actions are decentralised and, therefore, managed by the National Authorities of the different Member states[14].

22.  According to the Commission, from 2000 to 2004 some 130,000 students per year were involved in Erasmus and over 10 000 schools per year were involved in Comenius [15].

23.  Although these two programmes are very successful, they did not yet achieve the goal established in the Parliament and Council' decision of attaining a participation rate in mobility activities of 10% of schools (COMENIUS) and of 10% of students (ERASMUS).

24.  The percentage of participation per year has been, until now, less than 1% of the students population in the EU and EFTA countries[16]. The main reason for this has been the reduced EU budget made available.

25.  During the monitoring group on education, held at the initiative of the general raporteur, DG EAC Commission' representatives expressed their concern about the high level of unsatisfied applications due to high absorption capacity.

26.  There is a gap between the political will of becoming the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, through a modern educational system, and the budgetary resources allocated to the necessary instruments and programmes. The 25 Member States confirmed, during the last European Council, that the European education area should be developed by encouraging geographical and occupational mobility[17]. The EU budgetary allocation should, therefore, be coherent with this political message.

27.  COMENIUS student language projects could be improved. Whereas ERASMUS gives the students the opportunity of moving individually to study abroad, COMENIUS language projects involve a minimum of 10 pupils, what makes it more complex from the organisational side.

28.  Funding for an ERASMUS style project for pupils aged from 16 to 18 should be envisaged to cover this gap as the current ERASMUS action on students' mobility is only available to university students.

29.  In its proposal for a new programme in the sector of education, the Commission proposes a new mobility action within COMENIUS, addressed to upper secondary school pupils.

30.  With regard to ERASMUS, the mobility grants are intended as a contribution to cover the extra costs involved in studying abroad, such as travel expenses, language preparation costs and higher general costs of living in the host country.

31.  The limited amount of the monthly mobility grant (€ 150) has contributed to enrolling the ERASMUS programme only to those students who have the means to pay the difference with their own resources. An increase of the ERASMUS student mobility grant should, therefore, be decided in order to directly benefit the students. This increase should be decided without increasing the administrative expenses and could also contribute to reaching the 10% mobility goal, above mentioned[18].

Youth (budget line 15 07 02)

32.  The main objectives of this programme are to promote an active contribution of young people to the building of Europe, to strengthen their sense of solidarity, to encourage young people's initiative and to reinforce cooperation by fostering the exchange of good practices. It covers five actions: youth for Europe, European voluntary service, youth initiatives, joint actions and support measures.

33.  The financial framework for the Youth action programme for the period 2000-2006 at EU 15 was € 520 million[19]. An additional amount of € 85 million was decided after the enlargement for the period 2004-2006 (total= € 605 million).

34.  In contradiction with the budgetary resources available, the EU has recently pointed out that "a sustained and sustainable growth requires a fuller utilisation of the human potential embodied by European youth"[20] and a European Youth Pact[21] was adopted by the European Council in this regard.

35.  The Financial Programming for 2006 foresees only € 100,6 million[22] (excluding the administrative expenditure). This amount appears limited when considering the importance that the European Institutions give to the European Youth Pact.

36.  The European Parliament has noticed in its Resolution that it attaches great importance to take advantage of the ongoing pilot project "Erasmus for apprentices" and that it intends to launch a mobility action "ERASMUS for young entrepreneurs"[23].

Leonardo Da Vinci (budget line 15 03 01 02)

37.  The main objectives of this programme are: improving people's skills and competencies, in particular of young people, in initial vocational training at all levels[24].

38.  For Budget 2005 the European Parliament has significantly increased the budget for this programme, reaching a final amount of € 205,3 million, despite the reduced margin under heading 3.

39.  For 2006, however, despite the contribution of this programme to the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy the current financial programming foresees only € 196,4[25] million.

Final budgetary considerations and recommendations

40.  The 2006 budget shall contribute to the political ambitions expressed by the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy. It shall be a bridging budget to the new generation of programmes 2007-2013.

41.  The general rapporteur recommends the Committee on Budgets to develop pilot actions, in the area of education and youth, in line with the European Parliament APS ' resolution[26].

42.  Promoting mobility in education and reinforcing the Youth programme shall be seeked. In this regard Parliament committed to launch an ERASMUS style programme for secondary school pupils and a mobility action for Young entrepreneurs. An increase of the ERASMUS student mobility grant should also be envisaged .

43.  As far as co-decided reference amounts are concerned, the Parliament could consider the possibility, within the framework of the 1999 Interinstitutional Agreement and taking into account the results obtained from the implementation of the programme, of increasing the available amounts foreseen at this stage for SOCRATES and YOUTH. In this regard the rapporteur recalls that the European Parliament and the Council agreed, within the previous interinstitutional framework[27], to higher amounts initially co-decided.

***

ANNEX I: FINANCIAL PROGRAMMING/IMPLEMENTATION 2000-2006 IN MIO EUROS

SOCRATES
		2000 UE-15		2001		2002		2003		2004[28] UE-25		2000-2004	2005	2006	TOTAL
FINANCIAL PROGRAMMING		238,5		245,820		254,0		263,0		335,7		(1337)	361,2	361,780	2060
APPROP- RIA- TIONS VOTED	OP.A	231,8		239,3		248,1		256		327,9		(1303,1)	351,1
	AD.A	6,6		6,5		5,8		7		7		(32,9)	3,6[29]
	TOTAL	238,4		245,8		253,9		263		334,9		(1336)	354,7
IMPLEMENTATION[30]		amount	%	amount	%	amount	%	amount	%	amount[31]	%
OPERATIONAL.A		229,6	99%	235,9	98,6%	243,0	97,9%	254,8	99,5%	327	99%
ADMINIST.A		6,6	100%	6,5	100%	6,5	100%	8,1	99%	7,8	100%
CARRY OVER IMPLEMENTATION		1,9 1,8		3,3 3,0		4,2 4,2		4,2
TOTAL IMPLEMENTATION		238,1		245,4		253,8		262,9		334,8		(1 335)

ANNEX I: FINANCIAL PROGRAMMING/IMPLEMENTATION 2000-2006 IN MIO EUROS

YOUTH
		2000 UE-15		2001		2002		2003		2004[32] UE-25		2000-2004	2005	2006	TOTAL
FINANCIAL PROGRAMMING		79,4		70,0		72,0		81,0		97,0		(399,4)	111,5	104,1	605
APPROP-RIA-TIONS VOTED	OP.A	76		66,7		69,1		77,9		93,5		(383,2)	106,7
	AD.A	3,3		3,2		2,8		3,1		3,5		(15,9)	1,5
	TOTAL	79,3		69,9		71,9		81,0		97		(399,1)	108,2
IMPLEMENTATION[33]		amount	%	amount	%	amount	%	amount	%	amount[34]	%
OPERATIONAL. A		74,86	98,4%	66,1	99%	68,5	99,1%	77,88	99,9%	93,47	100%
ADMINIST. A		3,33	100%	3,24	100%	2,56	89,1%	3,09	99,8%	3,47	99%
CARRY OVER IMPLEMENTATION				0,604 0.603		0,611 0,607
TOTAL IMPLEMENTATION		78,19		69,95		71,68		80,97		96,94		(397,7)

ANNEX I: FINANCIAL PROGRAMMING/IMPLEMENTATION 2000-2006 IN MIO EUROS

LEONARDO
		2000 UE-15		2001		2002		2003		2004 UE-25		2000-2004	2005	2006	TOTAL
FINANCIAL PROGRAMMING		143		147		159		175,7		216		(840,7)	212,237	202,063	1.255
APPROP- RIA- TIONS VOTED	OP.A	138,2		142,3		154,8		170,6		210,3		(816.2)	205,3
	AD.A	4,7		4,6		4,1		5,1		5,7		(24,2)	2,7
	TOTAL	142,9		146,9		158,9		175,7		216		(840,4)	208
IMPLEMENTATION[35]		amount	%	amount	%	amount	%	amount	%	amount[36]	%
OPERATIONAL.A		136,9	99%	141,0	99%	153,6	99,3%	170,1	99,76%	210,3	100%
ADMINIST.A		4,4	91,6%	4,6	100%	4,3	99,3%	4,9	97,8%	5,7	100%
CARRY OVER IMPLEMENTATION		0,620 0,620		0,579 0,569		0,841 0,841
TOTAL IMPLEMENTATION		141,9		146,2		158,7		175,2		216		(838)

ANNEX II : BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION AS AT 31st DECEMBER 2004

OFFICIAL POSITION	DESCRIPTION	INITIAL BUDGET COMMITMENTS	BUDGETARY APPROPRIATIONS WITHOUT RESERVE COMMITMENTS	TOTAL IMPLEMENTATION COMMITMENTS	TOTAL IMPLEMENT. COMMITMENTS (%)	INITIAL BUDGET PAYMENTS	BUDGETARY APPROPRIATIONS WITHOUT CURRENT RESERVE PAYMENTS	TOTAL IMPLEMENTATION PAYMENTS	TOTAL IMPLEMENT. PAYMENTS (%)	RAL AS AT DATE OF REPORT
15 01 01	Dépenses liées au personnel en activité du domaine politique «Éducation et culture»	51,3	52,8	52,8	100%	51,3	52,8	52,8	100%	0,0
15 01 02 01	Personnel externe	5,2	6,3	5,9	94%	5,2	6,3	5,1	81%	2,1
15 01 02 11	Autres dépenses de gestion	5,5	5,5	5,4	98%	5,5	5,5	1,7	31%	3,7
15 01 03	Dépenses immobilières et dépenses connexes du domaine politique «Éducation et culture»	12,9	12,9	12,9	100%	12,9	12,9	10,0	78%	2,9
15 01 04 01	Renforcement des actions communautaires dans le domaine de l'éducation - Dépenses pour la gestion administrative	0,0	0,6	0,3	58%	0,0	0,6	0,1	9%	0,3
15 01 04 02	Socrates- Dépenses pour la gestion administrative	7,0	7,8	7,8	100%	7,0	7,8	2,5	32%	5,8
15 01 04 04	Jeunesse- Dépenses pour la gestion administrative	3,1	3,5	3,5	100%	3,1	3,5	1,0	30%	2,6
15 01 04 05	Promotion de parcours européens de formation en alternance dont l'apprentissage - Dépenses pour la gestion administrative	0,2	0,2	0,2	100%	0,2	0,2	0,1	28%	0,1
15 01 04 06	Leonardo da Vinci - Dépenses pour la gestion administrative	5,1	5,7	5,7	100%	5,1	5,7	2,2	38%	4,5
15 01 04 07	Programme-cadre en faveur de la culture - Dépenses pour la gestion administrative	1,2	1,3	1,3	100%	1,2	1,3	0,7	54%	0,8
15 01 04 08	Media (mesures pour encourager le développement de l'industrie audiovisuelle) - Dépenses pour la gestion administrative	5,6	6,3	6,2	99%	5,6	6,3	2,9	46%	3,6
15 01 04 09	Autres actions dans le domaine audiovisuel - Dépenses pour la gestion administrative	0,1	0,1	0,0	0%	0,1	0,1	0,0	0%	0,0
15 01 04 11	Intégration européenne dans l'université - Dépenses pour la gestion administrative	0,0	0,5	0,5	99%	0,0	0,5	0,4	85%	0,1
15 01 04 12	Actions en faveur de la société civile et visites de la Commission - Dépenses pour la gestion administrative	0,0	1,1	0,6	59%	0,0	1,1	0,3	29%	0,3
15 01 04 14	Erasmus World - Dépenses pour la gestion administrative	0,0	0,7	0,6	85%	0,0	0,7	0,2	35%	0,3
15 01 04 15	E-Learning - Dépenses pour la gestion administrative	0,0	1,0	0,9	92%	0,0	1,0	0,4	38%	0,5
15 01 04 16	Année européenne de l'éducation par le sport - Dépenses pour la gestion administrative	0,4	0,4	0,3	93%	0,4	0,4	0,0	8%	0,3
15 01 60 01	Fonds de bibliothèque, abonnements, achat et conservation de livres	2,4	2,4	2,4	100%	2,4	2,4	2,0	82%	0,5
		99,9	108,9	107,2		99,9	108,9	82,4		28,5
15 02 01 01	Intégration européenne dans l'université	0,0	3,8	3,1	80%	1,9	3,8	3,8	100%	3,9
15 02 01 02	Collège d'Europe	2,9	2,9	2,9	100%	2,9	2,9	2,3	80%	0,6
15 02 01 03	Institut universitaire européen de Florence	4,4	4,4	4,4	100%	4,4	4,4	4,4	100%	0,0
15 02 01 04	Académie de droit européen (Trèves)	1,6	1,6	1,6	100%	1,6	1,6	1,2	80%	0,3
15 02 01 05	Institut européen d'administration publique de Maastricht	0,8	0,8	0,8	100%	0,8	0,8	0,7	80%	0,2
15 02 01 06	Centre d'études et de recherche	0,0	1,5	0,9	63%	0,0	1,5	0,7	49%	0,2
15 02 01 07	Centre international pour la formation européenne	2,0	2,0	2,0	100%	2,0	2,0	1,6	80%	0,4
15 02 01 08	Agence européenne pour le développement de l'éducation pour les élèves à besoins spécifiques	0,0	0,8	0,8	100%	0,0	0,8	0,6	80%	0,2
15 02 02 01	Renforcement des actions communautaires dans le domaine de l'éducation	0,0	3,4	2,3	66%	7,0	12,9	9,1	71%	16,6
15 02 02 02	Socrates	261,7	327,9	327,0	100%	245,0	305,0	304,7	99%	145,7
15 02 02 03	Connect - Innovation et connexion des programmes communautaires - Mesures préparatoires	0,0	0,0	0,0	0%	0,0	0,1	0,0	0%	0,2
15 02 02 04	E-Learning	0,0	15,0	15,0	100%	0,0	6,9	6,7	97%	8,5
15 02 02 05	Erasmus World	0,0	7,4	7,3	99%	0,0	5,7	5,1	90%	2,3
15 02 03	Coopération avec des pays tiers dans le domaine de l'éducation et de la formation professionnelle	2,9	2,9	2,9	100%	3,3	3,3	2,9	87%	5,0
		276,3	374,3	370,9		268,9	351,6	343,8		184,0
15 03 01 01	Promotion de parcours européens de formation en alternance, dont l'apprentissage	1,6	1,7	1,6	95%	1,5	1,6	1,4	88%	1,4
15 03 01 02	Leonardo da Vinci	172,9	210,3	210,3	100%	163,0	190,0	189,8	100%	249,6
15 03 01 03	Centre européen pour le développement de la formation professionnelle - Subvention aux titres 1 et 2	9,9	10,6	10,6	100%	9,9	10,6	10,6	100%	0,8
15 03 01 04	Centre européen pour le développement de la formation professionnelle - Subvention au titre 3	4,9	5,2	5,2	100%	2,9	3,1	3,1	100%	4,2
15 03 02 01	Contribution de Phare à la Fondation européenne pour la formation - Subvention aux titres 1 et 2	2,0	2,0	2,0	100%	2,0	2,0	2,0	100%	0,0
15 03 02 02	Contribution de Phare à la Fondation européenne pour la formation - Subvention au titre 3	0,5	0,5	0,5	100%	0,5	0,5	0,5	100%	0,5
15 03 03 01	Fondation européenne pour la formation - Subvention aux titres 1 et 2	11,0	11,0	11,0	100%	11,0	11,0	11,0	100%	1,0
15 03 03 02	Fondation européenne pour la formation - Subvention au titre 3	3,7	4,1	4,1	100%	3,7	4,1	4,1	100%	3,8
		206,5	245,4	245,3		194,5	222,9	222,6		261,1
15 04 01 01	Bureau européen des langues les moins répandues et Mercator	1,2	1,2	0,3	28%	1,2	0,2	0,1	52%	0,2
15 04 01 02	Préservation des sites des camps de concentration nazis en tant que monuments historiques	0,8	0,8	0,8	100%	0,8	0,0	0,0	0%	0,8
15 04 01 03	Subvention à des organisations d'intérêt culturel européen	5,3	5,3	5,1	97%	5,3	4,0	3,7	91%	1,5
15 04 01 04	Route cistercienne européenne	0,1	0,1	0,0	0%	0,1	0,1	0,0	0%	0,0
15 04 02 01	Programme-cadre en faveur de la culture	29,3	32,9	32,9	100%	23,3	34,6	34,2	99%	38,6
15 04 02 02	Achèvement des programmes et actions antérieurs	0,0	0,0	0,0	0%	0,0	0,4	0,2	68%	0,3
15 04 02 03	Actions préparatoires de coopération dans le domaine culturel	2,0	2,1	2,1	99%	2,0	2,1	2,1	99%	1,3
15 04 03 01	Actions préparatoires de promotion de la diversité linguistique de la Communauté dans la société de l'information	0,0	0,0	0,0	0%	0,0	0,0	0,0	7%	0,1
15 04 03 02	Promotion et sauvegarde des langues et des cultures régionales et minoritaires	0,0	0,0	0,0	0%	0,0	0,1	0,0	11%	0,3
		38,7	42,4	41,2		32,8	41,5	40,3		43,1
15 05 01 01	Media Plus (mesures pour encourager le développement de l'industrie audiovisuelle)	66,9	75,5	75,5	100%	55,4	56,2	56,2	100%	102,1
15 05 01 02	Media «Formation» (mesures pour encourager le développement de l'industrie audiovisuelle)	8,0	8,4	8,3	98%	8,3	9,5	9,5	100%	13,3
15 05 01 03	Autres actions dans le domaine audiovisuel	2,0	2,0	1,1	57%	2,0	2,0	1,6	80%	1,8
15 05 01 04	Achèvement des programmes et actions antérieurs	0,0	0,0	0,0	0%	0,0	0,5	0,1	26%	1,1
15 05 01 05	Croissance et audiovisuel: initiative i2i audiovisuel	2,5	2,7	2,7	100%	1,9	2,0	2,0	100%	3,3
15 05 03	Sport: actions préparatoires à une politique communautaire dans le domaine du sport	0,0	0,0	0,0	0%	1,0	1,7	1,5	91%	0,1
15 05 04	Année européenne de l'éducation par le sport	7,7	8,3	8,0	97%	5,1	5,7	5,0	88%	4,7
		87,1	96,8	95,6		73,7	77,5	75,9		126,4
15 06 01 01	Actions en faveur de la société civile	0,0	4,2	3,8	92%	2,0	3,8	2,9	76%	3,2
15 06 01 02	Association «Notre Europe»	0,0	0,6	0,6	100%	0,0	0,6	0,5	80%	0,1
15 06 01 03	Subventions à des groupes de réflexion européens et à des organisations promouvant l'idée européenne	2,4	2,4	2,3	97%	2,4	2,4	1,8	75%	0,5
15 06 01 04	Associations et fédérations d'intérêt européen	1,5	1,5	1,5	98%	1,5	1,5	0,7	49%	0,7
15 06 01 05	Groupes de réflexion européens	0,5	0,5	0,5	100%	0,5	0,5	0,4	79%	0,1
15 06 01 06	Aide en faveur de la maison Jean Monnet et de la maison Robert Schuman	0,4	0,4	0,4	100%	0,4	0,4	0,3	80%	0,1
15 06 01 07	Jumelage des villes de l'Union européenne	14,0	14,0	11,7	84%	14,0	3,0	2,5	85%	9,2
15 06 01 08	Mouvement européen international	0,5	0,5	0,5	100%	0,5	0,5	0,4	80%	0,1
15 06 02	Frais d'organisation de stages dans les services de l'institution	5,3	5,3	5,3	100%	5,3	5,3	4,7	88%	0,6
15 06 05	Visites de la Commission	0,0	1,5	1,3	85%	0,0	1,5	1,3	87%	1,2
15 06 06	Événements annuels spéciaux	0,0	0,0	0,0	0%	2,3	1,8	1,7	96%	0,0
		24,6	30,8	27,8		28,9	21,3	17,3		15,8
15 07 01 01	Forum européen de la jeunesse	0,0	2,0	2,0	100%	0,0	1,8	1,8	100%	0,2
15 07 01 02	Soutien à des organisations internationales non gouvernementales de jeunesse	1,9	1,9	1,9	100%	1,9	1,6	1,4	92%	0,4
15 07 02	Jeunesse	67,9	93,5	93,5	100%	68,0	82,6	82,4	99%	78,1
15 07 03	Projets pilotes en faveur de la participation des jeunes	2,0	2,1	1,8	86%	2,0	1,0	0,8	80%	2,6
		71,8	99,5	99,1		71,9	87,0	86,4		81,3
15 49 04 01	Actions préparatoires de coopération dans le domaine de l'éducation et de la politique de la jeunesse - Dépenses pour la gestion administrative	0,0	0,0	0,0	0%	0,0	1,0	0,8	84%	0,9
15 49 04 02	Socrates- Dépenses pour la gestion administrative	0,0	0,0	0,0	0%	5,7	5,0	4,3	85%	1,5
15 49 04 04	Jeunesse- Dépenses pour la gestion administrative	0,0	0,0	0,0	0%	2,0	2,0	1,8	89%	0,5
15 49 04 05	Promotion de parcours européens de formation en alternance dont l'apprentissage - Dépenses pour la gestion administrative	0,0	0,0	0,0	0%	0,0	0,0	0,0	90%	0,0
15 49 04 06	Leonardo da Vinci - Dépenses pour la gestion administrative	0,0	0,0	0,0	0%	2,8	2,8	2,4	86%	1,0
15 49 04 07	Programme-cadre en faveur de la culture - Dépenses pour la gestion administrative	0,0	0,0	0,0	0%	0,8	0,7	0,6	79%	0,4
15 49 04 08	Media (mesures pour encourager le développement de l'industrie audiovisuelle) - Dépenses pour la gestion administrative	0,0	0,0	0,0	0%	2,0	2,9	2,6	91%	0,7
15 49 04 09	Autres actions dans le domaine audiovisuel - Dépenses pour la gestion administrative	0,0	0,0	0,0	0%	0,1	0,1	0,1	100%	0,0
15 49 04 11	Intégration européenne dans l'université - Dépenses pour la gestion administrative	0,0	0,0	0,0	0%	0,1	0,1	0,1	56%	0,1
15 49 04 12	Actions en faveur de la société civile - Dépenses pour la gestion administrative	0,0	0,0	0,0	0%	0,0	0,4	0,3	89%	0,1
15 49 04 13	Sport: actions préparatoires à une politique communautaire dans le domaine du sport - Dépenses pour la gestion administrative	0,0	0,0	0,0	0%	0,0	0,0	0,0	0%	0,0
		0,0	0,0	0,0		13,5	14,9	12,9		5,3
15 88 88 01	Centre eur forma(PC)	0,0	0,0	0,0	0%	0,0	0,0	0,0	0%	0,0

ANNEX III: ERASMUS STUDENT MOBILITY EVOLUTION

On Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund

Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund - Introduction

1.   The Structural Funds consist of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European Social Fund (ESF), the Guidance Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG). The legal bases of the Funds are set in the Treaty (Articles 158 to 162, former Articles 130a to 130d), in the Treaty of Accession (Act of Accession, Article 28) and in the June 1999 Regulations (listed below).

2.   The key principles which condition the specific budgetary profile of the funds are:

§ concentration: operations under the funds are concentrated on objectives set in advance for regions meeting specific criteria;

§ additionality: the Community contribution must be additional to national funding;

§ partnership: measures are implemented in cooperation between the Commission, the Member States, regional and local authorities and social and economic partners;

§ programming: operation of the funds is based on a multiannual programming process;

§ evaluation: mechanisms are put in place both at EU level and for each of the individual programming instruments with a view to ensuring that implementation of the funds is properly monitored and assessed.

3.   With the exception of evaluation, the above principles do not apply to the Cohesion Fund. This fund's specific purpose is to help finance major infrastructure projects connected with the trans-European networks and the environment in Member States where per capita GDP stands at less than 90% of the Community.

Financial Perspective 2000-2006

4.   The commitment appropriations for the Structural Funds in the Financial Perspective 2000-2006 amount to €226 973 million at current, all reserves included. The below table shows annual commitment appropriations for 2000-2006 (EU-25):

€ millions - 2005 prices

	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Structural Funds	30 019	30 005	30 849	31 129	35 395	37 319	37 875
Cohesion Fund	2 659	2 715	2 789	2 839	5 699	5 209	5 952
Total structural actions	32 648	32 720	33 638	33 968	41 094	42 528	43 827

5.   The reform of the Structural Funds´ and the Cohesion Fund's legislation was conducted in 1999[37] alongside the negotiations on the current financial perspective and led to the opening of the 2000-2006 programming period. Three Structural Fund objectives were set for the current programming period, namely:

§ Objective 1: development and structural adjustment of regions lagging behind in

development terms (i.e. in which per capita income is less than 75% of the

Community average);

§ Objective 2: economic and social conversion of regions in structural difficulties;

§ Objective 3: adjustment and updating of education, training and employment

policies and systems.

6.   The Community initiatives (Interreg, Urban, Equal and Leader+) and innovative measures and technical assistance account for 5.53% and 0.51 % of the total allocation respectively. Lastly, structural operations in the fisheries sector (outside Objective 1 areas) are allocated 0.5% of the total. 4% of the total allocation is entered in the performance reserve.

2006 budgetary procedure

2004 and 2005 implementation

7.   Overall, the payment rate increased from 89% in 2003 to 99% in 200 4. The overall improvement is mainly due to the earlier programmes lines, given that the payment rate for the 2000-2006 programmes was already high (96%) in 2003. Most 'objectives' executed quite well in 2004, though there is clearly room for significant improvement in FIFG outside Objective 1 and Innovative Measures and Technical Assistance.

Comparison of implementation rates in 2003, 2004 and 2005 (Sept).

	2003			2004			2005 Sept	2004 Sept
	old	current	total	old	current	total
Objective 1	70%	99%	95%	99%	99%	99%	63%	62%
Objective 2	70%	99%	91%	100%	100%	100%	61%	69%
Objective 3	27%	83%	74%	100%	100%	100%	79%	65%
FIFG (out obj. 1)	57%	63%	60%	100%	76%	82%	57%	32%
CI	30%	75%	48%	99%	98%	99%	86%	62%
IM & TA	94%	88%	90%	73%	79%	78%	32%	57%
TOTAL	59%	96%	89%	99%	99%	99%	including Cohesion Fund
							63%	63%

8.   The implementation as of 19 September 2005 is high, very similar to the rates of 2004 (63% both in 2004 and 2005) and even higher for Objective 3 and for Community Initiatives. It was however lower for the Cohesion Fund, for the Objective 2 and for innovative measures and technical assistance.

2006 Forecasts by Member States

9.   Under the terms of the Structural Funds regulation[38] "the Member States shall send the Commission their updated forecasts of applications for payment for the current year and the forecast for the following year" by 30 April of each year. Member States are asked to submit their forecasts for each individual programme and within each programme, by Fund.

10. The Member States in their forecasts for the year 2006 estimate that they need 44.394,5 million euro in payment appropriations for the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund, compared with the 35.223,2 million foreseen in the Commission's PDB (see Annex 1).

      Your rapporteurs therefore underline that the Commission's PDB proposed 9,2 billion euro less than the Member States forecast as their payments needs.

11.  The Commission notes that the Member States have been making forecasting errors, but it should be noted that there was an improvement in 2004 when the forecasting error for the EU-15 programmes came down to 23% (from 51% in 2003)[39].

12.  Your rapporteurs believe that the Member States´ payment needs forecasts are a relevant budgetary planning tool and, therefore, should be taken into consideration during the budgetary negotiations.

N+2 rule

13. The Commission shall automatically decommit any part of a commitment for which it has not received an acceptable payment application by the end of the second year following the year of commitment and therefore the contribution from the Funds to that assistance shall be reduced by that amount. This novelty, which has been named as the N+2 rule, aims at and apparently is able to keep outstanding commitments for structural operations down to acceptable levels.

14. 2003 was the first year of N+2 decommitments for the programming period 2000-2006. The total amount decommitted under the N+2 rule was € 31.1 million (0.20% of the corresponding commitment tranche of 2000). Six Member States - Belgium, Denmark, the UK, Ireland, the Netherlands (72% of the total amount decommitted) and Portugal - were affected by the decommitments.

15. So far, there have been two rounds (2003 and 2004) of N+2 decommitments, affecting the commitments made in 2000 and 2001. The total amount decommitted under the N+2 rule in 2004 was € 219.3 million. While this is more than 7 times the total decommitments made in 2004 (€31.1 million), the decommitments are still quite small in comparison with the average annual commitment instalment (around €30 billion). The decommitments made in 2004 account for 0.58% of the corresponding commitments of 2001.

16.  In September 2005 (provisional data) n+2 decommitments amount to 299 million euro. The table below compares n+2 decommitments of 2003, 2004 and 2005.

	2003	2004	2005 (until September, provisional data)
Amount decommitted	31.1 million	219.3 million	299 million
% of the annual instalment	0.20%	0.58%	to be confirmed
MS concerned	PT, UK, IE, NL, BE, DK	ES, DE, IT, PT, UK, FR, IE, NL, BE, AT	ES, DE, IT, GR, PT, UK, FR, IE, NL, SE, BE, AT, DK

The rapporteurs stress, however, that the payment claims from Member States normally arrive late in the year and, under the N+2 rule, even have a tendency to arrive just before the deadline. The final figure for decommitments for 2005 is therefore likely to come down as the last payment claims are introduced.

17. It is worth noting that this rule does not apply to the Cohesion Fund, the regulation for which does however contain a similar provision which takes account of the fact that this fund is used only to finance projects: any financial support granted for projects on which work has not commenced two years after the scheduled starting date must be cancelled.

RAL 2005 (outstanding commitments/reste à liquider)

18.  The total stock of RAL at the end of 2004 was €73,28 billion, which has, to date (Sept 05), risen to EUR 92,2 billion. As a comparison, at the end of 2003 the figure was EUR 69,3 billion which then rose to some EUR 80 billion in September 2004. As the majority of payment claims will come towards the end of the year, the rapporteurs stress that an overall increase is therefore normal in the first part of the year and, essentially, corresponds to "normal" RAL as a consequence of the cycle of structural actions spending. The rapporteurs nevertheless ask the Commission to comment on the current overall trend. It could also be noted that, as late as the end of 2003, the RAL on the pre-2000 programmes still accounted for 15% of the total.

19. The outstanding commitments associated with 2000-2006 programmes increased by some €7 billion in 2004 (€8.3 billion in 2003). In relative terms though (the RAL in proportion to an average annual commitment tranche) the RAL was reduced, from 1.77 by the end of 2003 to 1.7 by the end of 2004.

Conclusions

20.  Your rapporteurs wish to underline the high implementation rates for the Structural Funds and the positive result of the implementation of the n+2 rule. The implementation rates in 2005 are good and it was already clear, since some time back, that the Amending Budget to reinforce payments would be necessary.

21. The rapporteurs naturally stress that this expected Amending Budget for the final payment needs in 2005 will also play an important role in assessing the needs for 2006.

22.  The budget should be based on real needs. The rapporteurs can reasonably predict that higher payment appropriations will be necessary. The rapporteurs finally note that the difference of over EUR 9 billion between the Commission's budget proposal and the Member States forecasts is too big to be justified. They therefore call for increasing the payment appropriations for the Structural Actions for the year 2006.

Annex 1

	budget lines	execution 2004	MS Forecast 2006	PDB 2006	DB 2006
OBJECTIVE 1
ERDF	130301	12.654,0	17.246,0	14.446,7	14.412,6
ESF	040201	4.317,0	6.671,1	5.309,9	5.297,1
EAGGF	05040201	2.724,0	4.287,4	2.999,2	2.992,1
FIFG	110601	335,0	417,4	410,8	409,8
TOTAL		20.030,0	28.621,9	23.166,6	23.111,6
OBJECTIVE 2
ERDF	130304	3.476,0	3.619,6	2.802,5	2.795,4
ESF	040204	356,0	427,9	361,3	360,4
TOTAL		3.832,0	4.047,5	3.163,8	3.155,8
OBJECTIVE 3
ESF	040206	2.546,0	4.217,9	3.628,9	3.619,9
TOTAL		2.546,0	4.217,9	3.628,9	3.619,9
OTHER ACTIONS (outside obj.1)
FIFG	110604	145,0	154,3	170,2	170,2
TOTAL		145,0	154,3	170,2	170,2
COMMUNITY INITIATIVES
INTERREG	130313	543,0	1.107,0	819,5	798,5
EQUAL	040208	424,0	608,1	429,7	417,0
LEADER	05040206	239,0	390,4	259,2	219,0
URBAN	130306	89,0	149,4	85,3	81,1
TOTAL		1.295,0	2.254,9	1.593,7	1.515,6
TOTAL STRUCTURAL FUNDS		27.848,0	39.296,5	31.723,2	27.848,0
COHESION FUND	130401	2.642,0	5.098,0	3.500,0	3.500,0
Grand total		30.490,0	44.394,5	35.223,2	35.073,1

On External Actions

1.        The EP is actually aware of a serious structural problem in heading 4 of the financial      perspective- External Actions - where the ever increasing demands on the budget,   added incrementally over the years, is a far way off from the levels envisaged at the   time of adopting the financial ceilings back in 1999. These problems have been   accentuated in an extremely clear way by the Council's Draft Budget. The rapporteur has also thought it useful to present a table (Annex 1) which gives an indication of the evolution in real terms of the External Actions. It can in fact be concluded that many programs have been eroded over time despite the fact that parts of this heading have been transferred to pre-accession strategy, heading 7.

2.        The EP delegation to the July conciliation made this abundantly clear and were acting    on the back of support from the Parliament as whole, expressed in the APS report   and   the Mandate report. Paragraph 25 of the APS report of March 2005 and paragraph   12 of the mandate report of July 2005 read as follows:

25.        Stresses the current difficulty of reconciling the traditional priorities of the Union with a      large    number of new budget responsibilities, which have been taken over under Category IV in   recent years (Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq, tsunami and other natural disasters); reminds the   Council that new tasks should not be financed to the detriment of Parliament's traditional   priorities;

12.       Highlights the major external assistance programmes which could not be foreseen at the time         of adopting the current financial perspective, such as Afghanistan, Iraq and the recent   proposal for a reconstruction programme after the tsunami; is concerned about the need to   provides resources for new strategic partnerships and expects the Council to recognise the   current difficulties and to clearly commit to agreeing the new priorities without jeopardising   the traditional policies; notes worrying decreases both for some geographical and thematic   programmes and believes that a re-balancing of budgetary amounts and new resources is   necessary; stresses the importance of the European Neighbourhood Policy, including   support for democratic change in neighbouring countries; regrets the reduction in particular of   the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights, the only external programme which   can be applied without host country consent; highlights, further, the need to increase the EU's   role at international level in the field of the CFSP and ESDP and wishes to explore the needs in   the established joint CFSP-meetings with the UK Presidency before taking a final decision;

3.        In this context, It is also useful to recall that the Commission's PDB suggested   additional resources (over and above the financial ceiling) to the tune of EUR 123.5   million (flexibility instrument) to partially finance new tsunami reconstruction needs.   The PDB thus contained a negative margin of - 123.5 million. As the EU pledged   amounts for the tsunami amount to EUR 350 million in total for two years and EUR   170 million is expected to be financed in 2005, an additional EUR 180 million was   included in the Commission's PDB. Since the request for flexibility is EUR 46.5   million less, this amount was found through internal cuts in other PDB   lines.

4.        The EP thus considered the PDB as insufficient, not least because it contained   reductions in some important traditional priorities that simply seemed unacceptable.   For example, this was the case for Human Rights line which was cut from EUR 105   million to EUR 77.5 million (- 27.5 million). Other cuts already in the PDB included   Latin America and Development cooperation policy (see Annex 2).

5.        The rapporteur underlines that, of course, the financing for the tsunami reconstruction    was and is not the only factor to be considered. The point to remember is that   programmes/lines that are increased, or maintained at a high level, such as also Iraq   and Afghanistan, have a clear and direct impact on some other, less fortunate, areas.

6.        In the Council's DB, the rapporteur underlines that this structural problem has taken   an "extreme" expression in that the Council has refused the use of any part of the   flexibility instrument. The resulting across-the-board speaks for themselves.

7.        As if this wasn't enough, the Council has in fact reduced the PDB by an amount (EUR   165 million) which even creates an entirely artificial margin of EUR 41.7 million.   According to the Council, this (illusionary) space could be used to finance a new EUR   40 million proposal to support ACP sugar producers following the EU's reform   measures in the sugar sector.

8.        The rapporteur recalls paragraph 13 of the July mandate report in this context:

13.   Stresses that Parliament, Council and Commission have agreed to back the UN Millennium  Development Goals and will undertake to support those goals in the 2006 budget, including   relevant targets for social infrastructure, basic health and education, and support for "Quick-  Win-Actions"; regrets that there is currently no space under the ceiling to provide a true   boost for these goals or to provide for possible support measures related to sugar reform;

9.                   As far as Iraq reconstruction is concerned, the rapporteur notes an increasing trend              in the Commission's proposals despite obvious difficulties to keep up implementation.

                                             million EUR in commitments

Line	Budget 2004	Budget 2005	PDB 2006	DB 2006
19 08 07	160	190	200	200

10.      The € 160 million is provided for Iraq in 2004 was covered by a pledge (EC    commitment at Madrid Conference to provide € 200 million for 2003 and 2004). The   amounts for subsequent years are not covered by an official pledge. Out of the EUR   190 million in   2005, EUR 100 million was financed through the mobilisation of the   flexibility instrument   in heading 4.

11.      In a "monitoring group" on external actions with the rapporteurs from AFET and           DEVE, a request was made to the Commission to provide implementation data from   the international trust funds that manage the EC contribution. The reply from the   Commission showed that the two trust funds - by March 2005 - had managed to   implement 20% and 27 %, respectively, of an amount of some EUR 860 million   committed not only coming. The rapporteur asks the Commission to update these   figures.

12.      Rather than analysing technically in this document all the various cuts in programmes      made by the Council, the rapporteur prefers to reiterate the political message that the   Council's attitude is unacceptable in the field of external relations. In order to respect   Parliament's priorities, a first reading based on its proper evaluation should be   followed. There is no chance that this necessary exercise can stay even close to the   Council's proposal.

13.      The Commission itself put forward a PDB requesting EUR 123 million in flexibility.       This PDB, as mentioned, did already include, for example, the significant reductions   for Human Rights, reductions for Latin America, internal re-programming for Asia,   less money for development NGOs, and other doubtful proposals. The fact that   Council has wiped out the Commission's request for flexibility (which was considered   too modest by EP in the first place) and the fact that Council has introduced EUR 40   million in an entirely new action for sugar measure at the expense of other   programmes, all make clear that there is a serious funding shortfall in heading 4.

14.      The rapporteur intends to put forward some tables with various possible options for      Cobu members on different scenarios. It currently seems that the funding gap to bridge   is very substantial indeed and it cannot be excluded that the Council's attitude in the   external actions field will be a crucial element as to whether the2006 budget will   "make or break".

Heading	BUDGET 2005 (AB 1 and 2 included)			PDB 2006			DB 2006 Council 1st reading			DB-PDB				% DB-2005
	Commitments		Payments	Commitments	Payments		Commitments	Payments		Commitments		Payments		Commitments		Payments
4    EXTERNAL ACTION
01 - Economic and Financial Affairs	82.200.000	96.638.000		74.000.000		91.438.000	71.136.000		90.006.000	-2.864.000	-1.432.000		-13,5%		-6,9%
05 - Agriculture and Rural Development	5.920.000	5.920.000		6.000.000		6.000.000	5.768.000		5.884.000	-232.000	-116.000		-2,6%		-0,6%
06 - Energy and Transport	5.000.000	1.275.000		5.045.000		3.175.000	5.045.000		3.175.000	0	0		0,9%		149,0%
07 - Environment	16.000.000	16.278.000		16.000.000		13.845.800	15.686.000		13.688.800	-314.000	-157.000		-2,0%		-15,9%
11 - Fisheries	196.200.000	202.983.000		202.100.000		204.625.000	194.279.000		200.718.000	-7.821.000	-3.907.000		-1,0%		-1,1%
14 - Taxation and customs union	1.700.000	2.066.000		1.755.000		2.059.920	1.755.000		2.059.920	0	0		3,2%		-0,3%
15 - Education and Culture	19.000.000	18.700.000		19.500.000		19.500.000	19.384.000		19.442.000	-116.000	-58.000		2,0%		4,0%
19 - External Relations, of which	2.888.580.000	2.989.263.603		3.085.200.000		3.027.732.200	2.996.522.200		2.983.394.200	-88.677.800	-44.338.000		3,7%		-0,2%
Multilateral relations and general external relations matters	97.350.000	86.825.000		101.550.000		88.545.000	99.968.000		87.754.000	-1.582.000	-791.000		2,7%		1,1%
Common Foreign and Security Policy	62.600.000	54.000.000		62.600.000		60.900.000	62.600.000		60.900.000	0	0		0,0%		12,8%
Human Rights and Democratisation	111.630.000	129.900.000		83.500.000		101.225.000	83.500.000		101.225.000	0	0		-25,2%		-22,1%
Relations with non-EU OCDE Countries	16.000.000	17.000.000		17.000.000		17.000.000	16.342.000		16.671.000	-658.000	-329.000		2,1%		-1,9%
Relations with East Europe Caucasus and Centr.Asian Repub	483.580.000	563.650.000		504.900.000		523.000.000	485.361.000		513.730.000	-19.539.000	-9.270.000		0,4%		-8,9%
Relations with middle east and south Mediterranean	1.047.673.000	921.298.353		1.087.565.000		995.734.000	1.055.180.000		980.541.000	-32.385.000	-15.193.000		0,7%		6,4%
Relations with latin America	310.625.000	442.050.000		301.200.000		378.500.000	290.259.000		373.030.000	-10.941.000	-5.470.000		-6,6%		-15,6%
Relations with Asia	634.000.000	623.150.000		794.515.800		723.266.000	775.711.000		714.342.000	-18.804.800	-8.924.000		22,4%		14,6%
Policy strategy and coordination	20.605.000	18.680.000		21.000.000		19.600.000	20.187.000		19.194.000	-813.000	-406.000		-2,0%		2,8%
Others	104.517.000	132.710.250		111.369.200		119.962.200	107.414.200		116.007.200	-3.955.000	-3.955.000		2,8%		-12,6%
20 - Trade	10.700.000	11.720.000		10.800.000		10.800.000	10.382.000		10.600.000	-418.000	-200.000		-3,0%		-9,6%
21 - Development and Relations with ACP countries, of which	1.017.200.000	1.097.756.500		998.700.000		977.220.000	971.650.000		963.702.244	-27.050.000	-13.517.756		-4,5%		-12,2%
Develop.cooper. policy and sectorial strategies	794.086.000	834.267.500		780.630.000		747.700.000	756.428.000		736.115.244	-24.202.000	-11.584.756		-4,7%		-11,8%
Relations with ACP, OCT and South Africa	166.000.000	202.400.000		164.500.000		173.450.000	163.262.000		172.831.000	-1.238.000	-619.000		-1,6%		-14,6%
Policy strategy and coordination	16.200.000	14.550.000		15.300.000		14.450.000	14.708.000		14.154.000	-592.000	-296.000		-9,2%		-2,7%
22 - Enlargement, of which	481.000.000	535.700.000		473.000.000		500.000.000	454.695.000		490.847.000	-18.305.000	-9.153.000		-5,5%		-8,4%
Relations with western Balkans	466.500.000	489.000.000		460.500.000		480.000.000	442.679.000		471.331.000
Others	14.500.000	46.700.000		12.500.000		20.000.000	12.016.000		19.516.000
23 - Humanitarian Aid	495.500.000	497.862.500		500.000.000		500.400.000	480.650.000		490.726.000	-19.350.000	-9.674.000		-3,0%		-1,4%
Total 4	5.219.000.000	5.476.162.603		5.392.500.000		5.357.195.920	5.227.344.950		5.274.643.164	-165.155.050	-82.552.756		0,2%		-3,7%
Margin	-100.000.000			-123.500.000			41.655.050

On pilot projects and preparatory actions

1. INTRODUCTION

The 1999 Interinstitutional Agreement on budgetary discipline and improvement of the budgetary procedure confirmed the principle that "the implementation of appropriations entered in the budget requires a prior adoption of a basic legal instrument"[40]. Exceptions to this principle were split out and may apply to three types of action: pilot projects, preparatory actions and one-off actions[41]. In the first two cases, which we considerate in this working document, there are strict limits to these exceptions as regards both time and amounts.

Pilot projects are "aimed at testing the feasibility of an action and its usefulness" while preparatory actions should "intend to prepare proposals with a view to the adoption of future Community actions".

According to the 1999 Interinstitutional Agreement and the Financial Regulation, commitment appropriations for Pilot Projects may be entered for two financial years with a maximum annual amount of EUR 32 million[42].

The respective amounts for Preparatory Actions are EUR 75 million per year, out of which a maximum of EUR 30 million for new actions[43].These actions can be entered for a maximum of three financial years.

Pilot Projects and Preparatory Actions not only represent significant budgetary amounts (up to EUR 107 million per year), but have an important role in presenting Parliament’s political priorities and introducing new initiatives. For institutional reasons they also allow flexibility and autonomy for the EP outside legislative programmes. In most of the cases the budgetary decision relating to these activities precedes and gives rise to the legislative decision, reversing the usual order.

The implementation of a Pilot Project or a Preparatory Action has to go through a certain number of steps foreseen by the Financial Regulation. Public Procurement and grant's provisions apply to pilot projects and preparatory actions. The Commission has first to analyse the specific objectives and ways of implementing the proposed action and, on this basis, attribute it to the responsible General Directorate.

As to the deadlines to be fulfilled in the case of pilot projects and preparatory actions they are not explicitely mentioned in legislation they probably result from a combine reading on the Financial Regulation and the internal practice. The Commission does a detailed description of the procedure to be followed in its First Interim Report:

"In the case of procurement, the preparation and the launching of the prior information notice can take from a minimum of 32 days to a maximum of 63 days. The tendering phase can take from a minimum of 85 days to a maximum of 195 days. The committing/contracting phase can take between a minimum of 55 days to a maximum of 203 days.

In the case of grants there are no compulsory deadlines to respect, except for the Annual Working Programme, which has to be adopted by 31 January of the year concerned[44]. As soon as the Annual Working Programme is adopted, the preparation of the calls for proposals takes 30 days on average, whilst the answers are usually expected after a period of two months, after the publication of the calls for proposals.

The evaluation of proposals depends on the number of answers received and it can take from a few days to more than 60 days when there is a large volume of responses.

Once the grant agreements are signed, which takes a maximum of 30 days, the payment will be made as soon as the Commission receives the necessary information from the contractor".

Regarding the future scenario for these actions, point 31 of the European Commission working document on its proposal for renewal of the Interinstitutional Agreement on budgetary discipline and improvement of the budgetary procedure[45] laid down the possibility of starting up policies through pilot projects and preparatory actions.

Regarding these actions the aforementioned Commission working document proposes the establishment of a calendar for the procedure to create or maintain a pilot project or a preparatory action as follows:

           "Both arms of the budgetary authority inform the Commission by mid

June of their intentions in this field, so that a first discussion may already take place at the conciliation meeting of the Council's first reading"[46].

The European Commission also suggest in its working document to increase the maximum amounts for both actions: 38 million euro for pilot projects, 36 million euro for new preparatory actions in any budget year, and 90 million euro for the total amount of appropriations actually committed for preparatory actions[47].

2. 2006 BUDGETARY PROCEDURE

The European Parliament should, in line with its APS resolution[48], use its power of iniciative, within the limits of the Interinstitutional Agreement and the Financial Regulation, to reinforce and create pilot projects and preparatory actions in line with the new approach of the Lisbon Strategy. This new approach gives a central role to the promotion of knowledge, life- long learning and the fostering of young people's prosperity, while reinforcing competitiveness, research and development, SMEs, and dissemination of environmental technologies.

Your General Rapporteur for Budget 2006 has expressed on different occasions his will to improve through a pilot project current COMENIUS student language projects. Whereas ERASMUS gives the students the opportunity of moving individually to study abroad, COMENIUS language projects involve a minimum of 10 pupils . Funding for an ERASMUS style project for pupils aged from 16 to 18 should be envisaged to cover this gap.

In its proposal for a new programme for the period after 2007 in the sector of education, the Commission has foreseen a new mobility action within COMENIUS addressed to upper secondary school pupils. This pilot project will, in fact, allow to anticipate the start of this programme.

Pilot projects

The Commission has proposed a total amount for pilot projects of 18, 95 million euro in commitment appropriations and 20,7 in payment appropriations. For a detailed overview of the distribution of these appropriations see table annexed.

The Commission itself proposed two new pilot projects:

04 04 11 -Pilot project for a Year of Mobility for Workers

The European Commission decided to anticipate the European Year for workers mobility to 2006. For time restraints there was apparently no possibility to follow the usual procedure followed for the creation of a "European Year" action, was the case for the European year for disable people (Budget 2003) or the European year of education through sport. Normally the Commission should first submit a Communication presenting the guidelines or objectives/goals to be reach followed by a Council Decision and an opinion of the Parliament.

The Council proposed in its First reading to cut commitments by -2 million euro appropriations and by -0,455 payment appropriations.

This action is proposed at 6 million euro, its main objective is to raise the level of awareness among the stakeholders (including public authorities, institutions, social partners and private sector) at European and national levels of the potential for and advantages of greater geographical and occupational mobility. These actions would be managed by the Commission and be addressed mainly to the organisation of conferences, seminars, European training initiatives, surveys and studies.

The pilot projects and preparatory actions must not relate to activities which are already covered by legal bases in force as this would introduce some redundancy and impair the budgetary decisions relating to the legal bases concerned. In this case the Commission proposes to create a new pilot project which actions could presumably be covered by current secondary legislation based in articles 39, 43, 17 and 18 of the EC Treaty. Could the Commission explain why none of the current legal bases have been chosen to finance this action?

This activity could be financed through other current budgetary lines. Another solution could be the creation of a new specific line to be fed through different budgetary lines related to free movement of workers, citizens and social security. Could the Commission consider these options and indicate why the financing through a pilot project is the better option? It should be noted that 6 million takes a large portion of the margin available for pilot projects and, if so financed, would of course limit the room for other initiatives. This is a main reason why it is so important to examine the possibility to finance this action under an existing legal base.

15 06 01 09 Pilot project in favour of citizenship

This action completes other current actions regarding: citizens panels, town twinning multi-annual partnerships, think tanks networking, ONG'S networking, structural support for NGO's, organisation of a civil society and citizens meeting.

This pilot project is proposed at 1,5 million euro in commitment appropriations and 1 million euro in payment appropriations. The Council has proposed to cut this action by -0,130 million euro in payment appropriations.

The Commission also proposed the continuation as pilot projects in its second year of the following actions:

02 02 01 02 Consolidation of internal market – pilot project for cooperation and cluster-building among small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)

02 02 03 03 Transfer of expertise through mentoring in SMEs

15 03 01 05 Erasmus-style programme for apprentices

18 05 06 Fight against terrorism

The following pilot projects will not be reconducted

04 04 08 ENEA – Pilot project on mobility of elderly people

04 04 10 Mainstreaming of disability actions

05 01 04 06 Pilot project on quality promotion

15 05 02 Pilot project for participation of young people

17 01 04 04 Pilot study: risk financing model for livestock epidemics

19 04 05 Pilot project to establish a conflict prevention network

21 02 17 Cultural cooperation with developing countries

22 02 09 Pilot project on de-mining activities in Cyprus

Preparatory Actions

The Commission proposed a total amount for preparatory actions of 64, 50 in commitment appropriations[49] and 68,1 in payment appropriations[50]. For a detailed overview of the distribution of these appropriations see annexed table.

The Commission proposes five new preparatory actions out of which three are current pilot projects. The Commission proposes to continue these three as preparatory actions as they were coming to an end, as pilot projects, after having completing their second year.

These pilot projects have been proposed by the Commission to become preparatory actions:

18 05 01 03 Exchange programme for judicial authorities: From 2007 onwards the activities will be covered by the new framework programme ‘Fundamental Rights and Justice’. A budget of 3 million euro in compromise appropriations and 2,80 million euro in payment appropriations is anticipated as being required for 2006. This would mean and increase of 0,30 million euro in payment appropriations compared to budget 2005. The Council in its First reading proposes a reduction of -0,125 million euro in payment appropriations

18 05 04 Preparatory action in favor of the victims of terrorist acts: as there is currently no legal instrument foreseeing the funding of the project in 2006 it is proposed to continue the activity as a preparatory action in 2006. From 2007 onwards the activities will be covered by the new framework programme ‘Security and safeguarding liberties’. The Commission proposes a budget of 2 million euro in commitment appropriations and 1,2 million euro in payment appropriations, this means an increase in payments of + 80 000 euro in payment appropriations compared to Budget 2005. Despite the good functioning of this action during the period 2004 to 2005 and the terrorist attacks suffered in Europe during the last years the Council proposes in its First Reading to cut payments by -50 000 euros. This seems to send the wrong political message.

19 02 12 Preparatory action to reduce NBC weapons and small arms: The PA will be used to prepare two Communications and develop Strategies and Programming for new policy areas under the new Stability Instrument. In 2006, the Preparatory Action will consolidate the Small Arms and Light Weapons activities launched under the first and second Pilot Projects. The Commission proposed a budget of 3 million euro in commitment appropriations and 2,5 million euro in payment appropriations. The Council proposed to cut the commitments by -116 000 euro and the payments by -58 000 euro.

Two preparatory actions of new creation have been proposed by the Commission:

17 03 04 Public Health: The Commission proposed for this action a budget of 2 million euro in commitment appropriations and 1,20 million euro in commitment appropriations. This Preparatory action intends to set up the bases to create a pre-emergency system or co-ordination mechanism which can quickly mobilise resources when a disaster occurs. The Council proposed in its First Reading cut payments by -156 000 euro.

18 06 05 Criminal record: The Commission required budget for 2006 is 1 million euro which encompasses 500.000 euro for phase 1 on design and pre-analysis on the system and 500 000 euro for phase 2 on a study on the impact of a Corpus Juris on an enlarged EU.

2. 2005 BUDGET

As the attached table shows, Parliament entered in the budget a total of EUR 29 million in commitment appropriations and EUR 24, 9 million in payment appropriations for the pilot projects and EUR 64,9million in commitment appropriations and EUR 64 million in payment appropriations for the preparatory actions.

In Budget 2005 there are four new Pilot Projects: Transfer of expertise through mentoring in SMEs, cooperation and cluster-building among small and medium sized enterprises, Erasmus-style programme for apprentices, fight against terrorism.

Two Preparatory Actions have been created in Budget 2005: Financial Instrument for return management in the area of migration and Aid for Poverty-related diseases in developing countries, other than HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis (previously Pilot Project).

During the budgetary procedure 2005, the Committee on Budgets insisted on improving the implementation of Pilot Projects and Preparatory Actions. The European Parliament, in its resolution approving the budget for 2005, established a direct link between their implementation and the granting of the new posts to the Commission.

Aside from this in paragraph 87 of its resolution on the Commission's legislative and work programme for 2005, adopted on 24 February 2005, the European Parliament called, once again, on the Commission to fully implement the corresponding decisions of Parliament, as adopted in the 2005 budgetary procedure, and to provide an appropriate follow-up.

3.1. EVOLUTION OF IMPLEMENTATION

The Commission has provided the Parliament with the following information during 2005:

– 17 March, the First Interim Report on the implementation of Pilot Projects and preparatory Actions[51].

– 2 May, the Working Document accompanying the PDB 2006 on pilot projects and preparatory actions[52], acting accordingly with point 37 of the Interinstitutional agreement and article 49.2 of the Financial Regulation. . According to the Financial Regulation this report consist on "P's and PA's assessment of the results and the follow-up for each action".

In its March First Interim report the Commission has advanced that a new updated report will be sent at the end of September and will be submitted to Parliament at a meeting to be organised for this purpose.

The General Rapporteur for Budget 2005 welcomes the Commission improvement on the implementation of EP pilot projects and preparatory actions proposed. In particular, the Pilot project in favour of the victims of terrorist attacks. In this regard, welcomes the step forward proposed by the Commission to convert this pilot project into a preparatory action.

The General Rapporteur regrets, nevertheless, the lack of information from the Commission about the state of play of some other pilot projects. See annexed tables on Implementation for detailed information.

CONCLUSIONS

The rapporteurs note that the current DB proposed by the Council must be evaluated carefully in light of Parliament's expectations. The cuts reductions in payments, in particular, are worrying.

The information set out in the Commission working documents accompanying the PDB is quite detailed. Your rapporteurs reiterate that this information should be exploited more effectively by the specialised/competent committees in connection with the monitoring of the implementation of the budget, particularly as regards the qualitative aspects of projects.

Given the limited life of the pilot projects and preparatory actions, the link between implementation and allocation should be strengthened in view to maintain political coherence and to optimise the rationalisation of budgetary resources

The rapporteurs stress that, according to article 274 of the Treaty, the Commission has the responsibility to organise its human and structural resources in view to implement the budget and not the contrary (the budget to be adjusted to the Commission management facilities).

The Commission, on the basis of the implementation plan, should take the initiative to raise possible implementation problems which might jeopardise the spending targets.

Summary table on Pilot projects

ABB Nomenclature	DG responsible	2004	2005	2006	Heading	Budget 2005		Prel. Draft 2006		Council 1stReading
						C.A.	P.A.	C.A.	P.A.	C.A.	P.A.
HEADING 1
05 01 04 06	AGRI	PP1	PP2		Pilot project on quality promotion	0.50	0.50	p.m	p.m	pm.	pm.
Sub-total Heading 1						0.50				-
HEADING 3
02 02 01 02[53]	ENTR		PP1	PP2	Consolidation of internal market – pilot project for cooperation and cluster-building among small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)	6.00	5.00	p.m	4.50	pm.	4.50
02 02 03 03	ENTR		PP1	PP2	Transfer of expertise through mentoring in SMEs	2.00	2.00	2.00	2.00	2.00	2.00
04 04 08	EMPL	PP2			ENEA – Pilot project on mobility of elderly people	p.m	3.00		0.75		0.75
04 04 10	EMPL	PP1	PP2		Mainstreaming of disability actions	3.00	3.00	p.m.	1.50	pm.	1.50
04 04 11	EMPL			PP1	Projet pilote pour une année de la mobilité des travailleurs — vers un marché de travail européen			6.00	3.50	4.00	3.045
15 03 01 05	EAC		PP1	PP2	Erasmus-style programme for apprentices	2.00	2.00	2.00	1.70	2.00	1.70
15 05 02[54]	EAC	PP1	PP2		Pilot project for participation of young people	p.m	1.15		0.50	-	0.50
15 06 01 09	EAC			PP1	Projet pilote en faveur de la citoyenneté			1.50	1.00	1.50	0.870
17 01 04 04	SANCO	PP1	PP2		Pilot study: risk financing model for livestock epidemics	0.50	0.50	p.m	p.m	pm.	pm.
18 05 06	JLS		PP1	PP2	Fight against terrorism	7.00	4.00	7.00	5.00	7.00	4.60
22 02 09	ELARG	PP1	PP2		Pilot project on de-mining activities in Cyprus	p.m.	p.m.		p.m.		pm
Sub-total Heading 3						28.50[55]		18.50
HEADING 4
19 04 05	AIDCO	PP1	PP2		Pilot project to establish a conflict prevention network	p.m.	0.90	p.m	0.225	pm	0.225
21 02 17	AIDCO	PP1			Cultural cooperation with developing countries	-	0.50		0.10		0.10
Sub-total Heading 4
TOTAL Pilot Projects						29.00		18.50		16.50
Annual ceiling Pilot Projects						32.00		32.00		32.00
Margin left						3.00		13.50		15,5

Summary table on Preparatory actions

ABB Nomenclature	DG responsible	2004	2005	2006	Heading	Budget 2005		Preliminary Draft Budget 2006			Council First Reading Budget 2006
						C.A.	P.A.	C.A.		P.A.	C.A.	P.A
HEADING 3
02 02 03 02	ENTR	AP1	AP2	AP3	Support for SMEs in the new financial environment	8.00	8.00	6.00		6.00	6.00	6.00
02 04 02[56]	ENTR	AP1	AP2	AP3	Preparatory action for research in the field of security	15.00	8.00	24.00		22.70	15.00	19.74
04 04 02 03[57]		AP2			Preparatory action to take account of demographic trends in European and national policies	0.50	0.50	-		pm		pm
05 04 03 01	AGRI	AP1	AP2		Forestry (outside the EAGGF)	0.50	0.50	p.m.		0.50	pm	0.50
05 08 03	AGRI	AP2	AP3		Restructuring of systems for agricultural surveys	0,.90	0.90	p.m		0.40	p.m	0.40
06 04 03 01	TREN	AP1	AP2	AP3	Security of conventional energy supplies	p.m.	p.m.	1.00		0.90	1.00	0.90
09 05 05[58]	INFSO	AP3			Growth and the individual sector: preparatory action to an i2i audiovisual initiative	p.m.	2.20	p.m.		1.00