REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation
11.10.2010 - (COM(2010)0102 – C7‑0079/2010 – 2010/0059(COD)) - ***I
Committee on Development
Rapporteur: Charles Goerens
DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation
(COM(2010)0102 – C7-0079/2010 – 2010/0037B(COD))
(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2010)0102),
– having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 209(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C7-0079/2010),
– having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
– having regard to the reasoned opinions sent to its President by national parliaments on the compliance of the draft act with the principle of subsidiarity,
– having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Development and the opinion of the Committee on Budgets (A7-0285/2010),
1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;
2. Considers that the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council, by drastically reducing the margin under the ceiling of heading 4 of the multiannual financial framework (MFF) for 2007-2013, does not leave sufficient room for manoeuvre to face and to react adequately to a potential upcoming crisis;
3. Considers that, due to the long‑standing issue concerning trade in bananas, the proposed measures could have been integrated at an earlier stage into the MFF;
4. Reiterates its conviction that any new instrument should not be financed through redeployment as this would jeopardise the existing priorities;
5. Recalls that the Flexibility Instrument aims at financing ‘clearly identified expenditure which could not be financed within the limits of the ceilings[1]’, and considers measures relating to trade in bananas to be accompanying measures falling into that category;
6. Considers therefore that the proposal is not compatible with the ceiling for heading 4 of the MFF, and calls for the revision of the latter by all means provided for by points 21 to 23 of the Interinstitutional Agreement (IIA) of 17 May 2006, or by other means such as those included in points 25 and 27;
7. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend its proposal substantially or replace it with another text;
8 Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.
Amendment 1 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Recital -1 (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(-1) The European Union’s development policy aims to reduce and ultimately eradicate poverty. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 2 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Recital 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(1) The European Union (EU), as a contracting party of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), is committed to mainstreaming trade in development strategies and to promoting international trade in order to advance development and poverty reduction worldwide. |
(1) The EU, as a contracting party of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), is committed to mainstreaming trade in development strategies and to promoting international trade in order to advance development and reduce – and, in the long term, eradicate – poverty worldwide. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Article 208 TFEU emphasises that the primary objective of Union development cooperation policy is the reduction, and in the long term, the eradication of poverty. It also states that the Union shall take account of the objectives of development cooperation in the policies that it implements which are likely to affect developing countries. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 3 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Recital 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(3) The EU is committed to supporting the smooth and gradual integration of developing countries into the world economy with a view to sustainable development. The main ACP banana-exporting countries may face challenges in the context of changing trade arrangements, notably as a consequence of Most Favoured Nation (MFN) liberalisation in the framework of the WTO. Hence an ACP Banana Accompanying Measures programme should be added to the existing Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation6. |
(3) The EU is committed to supporting the smooth and gradual integration of developing countries into the world economy with a view to sustainable development. The main ACP banana-exporting countries may face challenges in the context of changing trade arrangements, notably liberalisation of the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) tariff in the framework of the WTO and the bilateral and regional agreements concluded, or in the process of being concluded, between the EU and Latin American countries. Hence an ACP Banana Accompanying Measures programme should be added to the existing Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation6. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It is also important to take account of the impact of the bilateral and regional agreements concluded between the EU and Latin American countries. Latin American countries are the leading exporters of bananas to the EU. Cuts in customs tariffs for bananas under trade agreements concluded with Latin American countries consequently have an impact on banana exports from ACP countries. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 4 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Recital 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(4) The financial assistance measures to be adopted under this programme should aim at supporting the adaptation and/or restructuring of areas dependent upon banana exports through sector-specific budget support or project-specific interventions. The measures should aim to provide for social resilience policies, economic diversification or investment to improve competitiveness, where this is a viable strategy, taking into account the results of and experiences gained through the Special System of Assistance to traditional ACP suppliers of bananas7 and the Special Framework of Assistance to traditional ACP suppliers of bananas8. |
(4) The financial assistance measures to be adopted under this programme should aim at improving the living standards and living conditions of people in banana growing areas and banana value chains, specifically small farmers and small entities, as well as complying with labour and occupational health and safety standards, and environmental standards, notably those regarding the use of and exposure to pesticides, by supporting the adaptation and including, when relevant, the reorganisation, of areas dependent upon banana exports through sector-specific budget support or project-specific interventions. The measures should aim to provide for social resilience policies, economic diversification or investment to improve competitiveness, where this is viable, taking into account the results of and experiences gained through the Special System of Assistance to traditional ACP suppliers of bananas7 and the Special Framework of Assistance to traditional ACP suppliers of bananas8. The EU acknowledges the importance of promoting a more equitable distribution of the banana revenues. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 5 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Recital 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(5) The programme should accompany the adaptation process in ACP countries which have exported significant volumes of bananas to the EC in recent years and which will be affected by liberalisation in the framework of the WTO9. The programme builds on the Special Framework of Assistance (SFA) for traditional ACP suppliers of bananas. It is in conformity with the EU’s international obligations in the framework of the WTO and has a clear restructuring and hence temporary nature, with a maximum duration of four years (2010-2013), |
(5) The programme should accompany the adaptation process in ACP countries which have exported significant volumes of bananas to the EC in recent years and which will be affected by liberalisation in the framework of the WTO9 and by the bilateral and regional agreements concluded, or in the process of being concluded, between the EU and Latin American countries. The programme builds on the Special Framework of Assistance (SFA) for traditional ACP suppliers of bananas. It is in conformity with the EU’s international obligations in the framework of the WTO, focuses on restructuring and boosting competitiveness, and is consequently temporary in nature, with a duration of four years (2010-2013). One year prior to the programme’s expiry, an assessment shall be made of the programme and the progress made by countries; this shall include recommendations on any further measures to be taken and the nature thereof. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Commission recently concluded (Colombia/Peru), or is in the process of concluding (Central America), bilateral trade agreements that go even further towards dismantling the banana customs tariff negotiated at the WTO in December 2009. Those customs concessions will thus have a lasting impact on ACP countries still exporting bananas and competing with MFN countries that are by far the leaders on this market. The EU must therefore, via this financial instrument, provide priority support to the competitiveness of ACP countries still exporting bananas, while also enabling countries wishing to do so to escape their dependence on this product, restructure and diversify part of their economy. Lastly, in line with the written undertaking given by the Commission to Cameroon’s Minister for Trade (the ACP coordinator for bananas) and depending on the circumstances of the ACP banana industry come 2013, consideration should be given to maintaining this type of instrument in order to respond to the consequences of the reduction in customs duties. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 6 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Recital 5 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(5a) The conclusions of the Biennial Report on the Special Framework of Assistance for Traditional ACP Suppliers of Bananas indicate that past assistance programmes made substantial contributions to achieving improved capacity for successful economic diversification, although the full impact cannot be quantified, and that the sustainability of ACP banana exports remains fragile. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 7 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Recital 5 b (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(5b) The Commission has carried out an evaluation of the SFA programme and has not carried out an impact assessment of the banana accompanying measures (BAMs). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Commission recently concluded (Colombia/Peru), or is in the process of concluding (Central America), bilateral trade agreements that go even further towards dismantling the banana customs tariff negotiated at the WTO in December 2009. Those customs concessions will thus have a lasting impact on ACP countries still exporting bananas and competing with MFN countries that are by far the leaders on this market. The EU must therefore, via this financial instrument, provide priority support to the competitiveness of ACP countries still exporting bananas, while also enabling countries wishing to do so to escape their dependence on this product, restructure and diversify part of their economy. Lastly, in line with the written undertaking given by the Commission to Cameroon’s Minister for Trade (the ACP coordinator for bananas) and depending on the circumstances of the ACP banana industry come 2013, consideration should be given to maintaining this type of instrument in order to respond to the consequences of the reduction in customs duties. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 8 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Recital 5 c (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(5c) The Commission should ensure proper coordination of this programme with the regional and national indicative programmes operating in the beneficiary countries, in particular as regards the achievement of economic, agricultural, social and environmental objectives. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
In order to improve policy coherence, it is essential to point out that the programming and implementation of the BAMs must be coordinated with EDF programming through the NIPs and RIPs. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 9 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Recital 5 d (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(5d) Almost 2% of the world’s trade in bananas is endorsed by fair‑trade producers’ organisations. The minimum fair-trade prices are set on the basis of a calculation of the ‘sustainable production costs’, established following consultations with stakeholders, with a view to internalising the costs of meeting decent social and environmental standards and generating a reasonable profit, enabling producers to safeguard their livelihoods in the long term. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 10 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Recital 5 e (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(5e) To prevent the exploitation of local workers, the production chain in the banana industry should agree to ensure that the revenue generated by the industry is allocated fairly. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 11 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Article 1 – point -1 (new) Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 Recital 27 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 12 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Article 1 – point 2 Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 Article 17 a, paragraph 1, introductory part | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 13 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Article 1 – point 2 Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 Article 17a – paragraph 1 – point b | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
As in the case of support for competitiveness, the Commission must be extremely careful to envisage the economic diversification of banana-dependent areas only where such an option is mentioned in multi-annual national strategy papers. Indeed, a number of examples from the previous support programme for banana-producing ACP countries (SFA (1999-2008)) show that the use of funds allocated for economic diversification has not always had the desired effect. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 14 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Article 1 – point 2 Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 Article 17a – paragraph 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The criteria for the apportioning of assistance must be transparent. They should therefore be weighted to increase the transparency of the allocation of assistance. Besides this, the allocation must be based on countries’ requirements. The aim of the accompanying measures is primarily that of enabling banana‑producing ACP countries to adapt to the reduction in their preferential tariffs. Resources should therefore be targeted, as a priority, at ACP countries that actually wish to retain their banana sector in view of the role it plays in the sustainable development of their country. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 15 Proposal for a regulation - amending act Article 1 – point 2 Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 Article 17a – paragraph 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 16 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Article 1 – point 3 Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 Article 21 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 17 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Article 1 – point 3 a (new) Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 Article 25 – paragraph 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 18 Proposal for a regulation– amending act Article 1 – point 5 a (new) Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 Article 35 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 19 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Article 1 – point 5 b (new) Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 Article 35 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 20 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Article 1 – point 5 c (new) Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 Article 35 b (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
- [1] Point 27 of the IIA of 17 May 2006.
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
The aim of the Commission proposal is to support the main banana-exporting countries in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific (ACP) via banana accompanying measures (BAMs), which are intended to last four years (2010-2013).
Although measures for which funding was provided in the past (special framework of assistance, SFA) were designed to help the ACP countries adjust to changing trends in international competition, we are still faced with similar problems today, and ‘the sustainability of ACP banana exports remains fragile’[1].
We must therefore look at the issue from the point of view of development aid and combating poverty. Our job in the Committee on Development is to check that the proposed measures seek to attain the main objective of the EU’s development policy, which is to reduce and ultimately eradicate poverty. The key challenge is therefore to move away from the old structures, which were set up with trade, rather than development, in mind. Efforts need to be made to effectively improve the standard of living of the people concerned and compliance with labour and safety standards. There is also a need to ensure that assistance is allocated in a way that does not distort competition on the market, but nevertheless supports farmers, who are now at the beginning of the production chain and yet only receive a small percentage of the final price paid by European consumers.
We will have done a good job if we manage to move beyond the trade policy aspects of this issue and improve the Commission proposal so that it really can foster sustainable development and poverty reduction in the areas concerned.
How banana accompanying measures work
The aim of the banana accompanying measures proposed by the Commission is to use budget support or specific interventions to help areas dependent on banana exports adjust. The Commission has identified the following three areas for cooperation:
· improving competitiveness;
· promoting the economic diversification of banana-dependent areas;
· noting the broader impact of the adaptation process.
The following ACP countries are beneficiaries of banana accompanying measures: Belize, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Dominica, the Dominican Republic, Ghana, Jamaica, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines and Suriname.
The Commission is therefore proposing to adopt multi-annual support strategies, and to establish, for each country benefiting from BAMs, the maximum amount of funding on the basis of a set of objective indicators:
· trade in bananas with the EU;
· the importance of banana exports to the economy of the ACP country concerned;
· the country’s level of development.
Assistance to the tune of €190 million should allow ACP countries that have exported significant volumes of bananas to the EU in the recent past to continue and/or launch immediate investments and adjustment programmes in order to counter and mitigate the impacts of the tariff reduction.
The Commission takes the view that each country, along with the stakeholders concerned, should draw up its own national adaptation strategy for the banana industry, or, if such a strategy already exists, update it, in line with the country’s broader policies relating to agriculture, the environment and employment. The same should be done for development strategies.
*****
Supporting BAMs would seem to be the right idea with a view to improving the standard of living of the people in ACP banana-supplying countries, which will be affected by trends in tariffs on banana imports into the EU. To do this, however, innovative solutions must be found. The Commission proposal should therefore take the following issues into account:
· Banana accompanying measures must have a positive impact on farmers, who are now at the beginning of the production chain and yet only receive a very small percentage of the final price paid by European consumers.
· Aspects relating to combating poverty must be taken into account so as to ensure that those all along the chain can benefit from acceptable standards of living and easier access to the markets.
· The entire chain should agree to ensure that the revenue from bananas is allocated fairly.
· The allocation formula needs to be made clearer.
· Enhanced coordination mechanisms with other donors (donor matrices) must be set out in the strategy paper to flag up additional action being taken by Member States and other donors and to avoid any duplication.
· All the country strategies must include:
· an ‘independent assessment’ strand, which must be central to the negotiations in the form of a set of specifications that applies for all agreements;
· indicators to be used in assessing eligibility conditions for budget support;
· the expected results of targeted reforms of the banana industry;
· the conditions for granting aid;
· a detailed schedule of reforms and expected expenditure for each recipient country;
· environmental protection measures, and measures relating to the health of workers who are overly exposed to pesticides on a regular basis.
· The strategy papers should give priority to supporting projects that promote on-the-spot banana processing and that improve workers’ standards of living.
· For countries choosing conversion, conversion projects should be carried out on the basis of an ex ante impact assessment indicating the sector(s) in which the converted banana plantations might be used.
· The measures the Commission decides upon must be compatible with the absorption capacity of the beneficiary countries.
· Assistance measures should not distort competition at the expense of workers’ incomes and health, in particular through massive exposure to pesticides or failure to comply with ILO labour standards.
Efforts must therefore be made to implement accompanying measures that have a positive impact on workers in the industry so that, after 2013, we can assess whether the progress expected has actually been brought about, rather than once again having to note the difficulties involved in measuring the expected results.
***
Procedure
Your rapporteur takes the view that the European Parliament’s role is a primarily political one, meaning that the procedures used must take full account of Parliament’s prerogatives. Bearing in mind the need to respect these democratic prerogatives, it is vital that Parliament should be able to exercise all the powers of democratic scrutiny it currently enjoys, including the possibility opened up by the Lisbon Treaty for delegating to the Commission the power to adopt non-legislative acts of general application to supplement or amend certain non-essential elements of the legislative act, including multi-annual strategy papers and programming documents relating to the BAMs.
A final comment on the procedures that enable the national parliaments to check that legislative proposals are in line with the principle of subsidiarity: the text of the report takes account of the reasoned opinions issued by the Portuguese Assembly, the Italian Senate and the Polish Senate, including the Polish Senate’s request for compliance with the obligation under Article 5 of the Protocol on subsidiarity, which provides for the inclusion in the legislative text of ‘a detailed statement making it possible to appraise compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality’[2].
15.9.2010
OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON BUDGETS
for the Committee on Development
on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council of amending Regulation (EC) No °1905/2006 establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation
(COM(2010)0102 – C7‑0079/2010 – 2010/0059(COD))
Rapporteur: Ivailo Kalfin
SHORT JUSTIFICATION
On 17 March, the Commission adopted its proposal on amending DCI Regulation aiming at allowing the financing of Bananas Accompanying Measures (BAM), as foreseen in the framework of WTO negotiations on the issue. Actually, the Commission has acknowledged that the Agreement on new trading conditions in bananas mean that ACP producing and exporting countries will face additional adjustment needs.
The measures, designed to support the adaptation of these countries, would have a budget of 190 million over the four years 2010, 2011, 2012 & 2013, with a potential supplementary 10 million if margins allow (an average allocation of BAM fixed at EUR 47.5 million). It should be underlined that BAM are not a compensatory programme, but a targeted support to accompany the adaptation efforts of involved countries, and that the overall proposed envelope is based on the average annual level of assistance to ACP countries under the Special Framework of Assistance (1998-2008), including the increase in trade in bananas since the start of the SFA programme.
The annual breakdown is the following, in commitment appropriations:
2010: 75 million
2011: 43 million
2012: 41 million
2013: 31 million
Total: 190 million
This discrepancy in allocation over the four years stems from the fact that the first and largest tariff cut will take place in 2010 with retroactive application as of December 2009 (a decrease of 45% of the total tariff cut will be applied already in 2010).
The proposed financing of the measure is the following:
Redeployment: 95.8 million
Margin under Heading 4: 75.9 million
Flexibility Instrument: 18.3 million
Total: 190 million
Although the measures have to be supported as they follow previous commitments, your draftsperson is of the opinion that several aspects of the legislative financial statement are not satisfactorily dealt with and create great concerns:
- first of all, it is surprising to note that, notwithstanding the fact that the issue of bananas' trade has been open for decades within WTO, the Commission and the Council have not taken on board the potential financial consequences of the end of the preferential regime, neither during the negotiations of the 2007-2013 MFF, nor during mid-term review of the Development and Cooperation Instrument;
- secondly, no proper impact assessment has been conducted, leaving therefore the EU with unclear and unpredictable results ensuing from these specific measures on the medium and long runs;
- the proposed redeployment over the four years affects instruments whose positioning in the frame of EU as a global player could have on the contrary been reinforced; as an example, it could be questionable to reduce appropriations for the Civil Protection Instrument in third countries when natural catastrophes hit regularly the poorest third world countries;
- furthermore, as regards the mobilisation of the Flexibility Instrument, a contribution of only 9.6% (18.3 million out of 190 million) to the whole financing of BAM, is foreseen (in 2010 only), whereas this Instrument could be mobilised up to 115 million in year 2010;
- as a result, the extensive use of the margin jeopardises the Union's ability to face and to react to unforeseeable emerging crisis, and do not speak in favour of the proposed financing;
- therefore, the chronic under financing of Heading 4, rightly pointed out by the Commission in its report assessing the functioning of the IIA, does not allow the sustainability of the financing of BAM. As it stands, the proposal is not compatible with the MFF 2007-2013, and its revision, through all means provided for by points 21 to 23 of the IIA, is unavoidable.
For information, the proposed overall financing (including redeployment) over the four years
is the following (in EUR million):
B.A.M. Financing 2010-2013 |
EUR million |
||||||
FINANCING SOURCES |
Budget line |
2010 |
2011 |
2012 |
2013 |
TOTAL |
|
Mobilisation of the Flexibility instrument |
|
18,3 |
|
|
|
18,3 |
|
Margin Heading 4 |
|
0,875 |
25 |
25 |
25 |
75,875 |
|
Redeployment |
|
55,825 |
18 |
16 |
6 |
95,825 |
|
Facility for rapid response to soaring food prices in developing countries |
21 02 03 |
17,4 |
|
|
|
17,4 |
|
Commodities Agreements |
21 07 04 |
1,8 |
|
|
|
1,8 |
|
Emergency response to the financial and economic crisis in developing countries |
19 06 08 |
2,5 |
|
|
|
2,5 |
|
Preparatory action - Pharmaceutical-related transfer of technology in favour of developing countries |
21 05 01 06 |
3,3 |
|
|
|
3,3 |
|
Preparatory action - Environmental monitoring of the Black Sea Basin and a common European framework programme for development of the Black Sea region |
07 02 04 |
1,5 |
|
|
|
1,5 |
|
Food security |
21 02 01 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
|
4 |
|
Non-State actors in development |
21 03 01 |
|
1 |
2 |
|
3 |
|
Human and social development |
21 05 01 01 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
|
4 |
|
Adjustment support for sugar protocol countries |
21 06 03 |
24,325 |
|
|
|
24,325 |
|
Cooperation with developing countries in Latin America |
19 09 01 |
1 |
4 |
4 |
|
9 |
|
Cooperation with developing countries in Asia |
19 10 01 01 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
|
9 |
|
Civil protection CPFI |
23 03 06 |
|
5 |
5 |
6 |
16 |
|
|
|
75 |
43 |
41 |
31 |
190 |
|
AMENDMENTS
The Committee on Budgets calls on the Committee on Development, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following amendments in its report:
Amendment 1 Draft legislative resolution Paragraph 1 a (new) | |
Draft legislative resolution |
Amendment |
|
1a. Considers that the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council, by drastically reducing the margin under the ceiling of heading 4 of multiannual financial framework 2007-2013(MFF), does not leave sufficient room for manoeuvre to face and to react adequately to a potential upcoming crisis; |
Amendment 2 Draft legislative resolution Paragraph 1 b (new) | |
Draft legislative resolution |
Amendment |
|
1b. Considers that, due to the long‑standing issue concerning trade in bananas, the proposed measures could have been integrated at an earlier stage into the MFF; |
Amendment 3 Draft legislative resolution Paragraph 1 c (new) | |
Draft legislative resolution |
Amendment |
|
1c. Reiterates its conviction that any new instrument should not be financed through redeployment as this would jeopardise the existing priorities; |
Amendment 4 Draft legislative resolution Paragraph 1 d (new) | |
Draft legislative resolution |
Amendment |
|
1d. Recalls that the Flexibility Instrument aims at financing “clearly identified expenditure which could not be financed within the limits of the ceilings1”, and considers measures relating to trade in bananas to be accompanying measures falling into that category; |
|
____________ 1 Point 27 of the IIA of 17 May 2006. |
Amendment 5 Draft legislative resolution Paragraph 1 e (new) | |
Draft legislative resolution |
Amendment |
|
1e. Considers therefore that the proposal is not compatible with the ceiling for heading 4 of the MFF, and calls for the revision of the latter by all means provided for by points 21 to 23 of the IIA of 17 May 2006, or by other means such as those included in points 25 and 27; |
PROCEDURE
Title |
Amendment of Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation |
|||||||
References |
COM(2010)0102 – C7-0079/2010 – 2010/0059(COD) |
|||||||
Committee responsible |
DEVE |
|||||||
Opinion by Date announced in plenary |
BUDG 24.3.2010 |
|
|
|
||||
Rapporteur Date appointed |
Ivailo Kalfin 21.4.2010 |
|
|
|||||
Date adopted |
13.9.2010 |
|
|
|
||||
Result of final vote |
+: –: 0: |
36 2 0 |
||||||
Members present for the final vote |
Damien Abad, Marta Andreasen, Francesca Balzani, Reimer Böge, Giovanni Collino, Jean-Luc Dehaene, Isabelle Durant, James Elles, Göran Färm, José Manuel Fernandes, Eider Gardiazábal Rubial, Salvador Garriga Polledo, Jens Geier, Ivars Godmanis, Ingeborg Gräßle, Estelle Grelier, Carl Haglund, Lucas Hartong, Jutta Haug, Jiří Havel, Monika Hohlmeier, Sidonia Elżbieta Jędrzejewska, Anne E. Jensen, Ivailo Kalfin, Jan Kozłowski, Giovanni La Via, Vladimír Maňka, Barbara Matera, Nadezhda Neynsky, Dominique Riquet, László Surján, Helga Trüpel, Derek Vaughan |
|||||||
Substitute(s) present for the final vote |
Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, Roberto Gualtieri, Riikka Manner, Jan Olbrycht, Paul Rübig |
|||||||
PROCEDURE
Title |
Amendment of Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation |
|||||||
References |
COM(2010)0102 – C7-0079/2010 – 2010/0059(COD) |
|||||||
Date submitted to Parliament |
17.3.2010 |
|||||||
Committee responsible Date announced in plenary |
DEVE 24.3.2010 |
|||||||
Committee(s) asked for opinion(s) Date announced in plenary |
INTA 17.6.2010 |
BUDG 24.3.2010 |
AGRI 24.3.2010 |
|
||||
Not delivering opinions Date of decision |
INTA 28.9.2010 |
AGRI 6.4.2010 |
|
|
||||
Rapporteur(s) Date appointed |
Charles Goerens 4.5.2010 |
|
|
|||||
Discussed in committee |
21.6.2010 |
13.7.2010 |
30.8.2010 |
|
||||
Date adopted |
5.10.2010 |
|
|
|
||||
Result of final vote |
+: –: 0: |
28 0 0 |
||||||
Members present for the final vote |
Thijs Berman, Michael Cashman, Corina Creţu, Leonidas Donskis, Charles Goerens, Catherine Grèze, Enrique Guerrero Salom, András Gyürk, Eva Joly, Gay Mitchell, Norbert Neuser, Bill Newton Dunn, Maurice Ponga, David-Maria Sassoli, Birgit Schnieber-Jastram, Michèle Striffler, Alf Svensson, Eleni Theocharous, Ivo Vajgl, Anna Záborská, Gabriele Zimmer |
|||||||
Substitute(s) present for the final vote |
Kriton Arsenis, Santiago Fisas Ayxela, Isabella Lövin, Miguel Angel Martínez Martínez, Bart Staes, Patrizia Toia |
|||||||
Substitute(s) under Rule 187(2) present for the final vote |
Róża Gräfin von Thun und Hohenstein |
|||||||
Date tabled |
11.10.2010 |
|||||||