Procedure : 2007/2019(BUD)
Document stages in plenary
Document selected : A6-0397/2007

Texts tabled :

A6-0397/2007

Debates :

PV 23/10/2007 - 13
CRE 23/10/2007 - 13

Votes :

PV 25/10/2007 - 7.2
Explanations of votes
Explanations of votes

Texts adopted :

P6_TA(2007)0473

REPORT     
PDF 2118kWORD 2403k
17 October 2007
PE 393.965v01-00 A6-0397/2007

on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2008

(C6-0287/2007 – 2007/2019(BUD))

and Letter of amendment No 1/2008 (13659/2007 - C6-0341/2007) to the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2008

Section III – Commission

Committee on Budgets

Rapporteur: Kyösti Virrankoski

MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION
 ANNEX: Joint Statements agreed at the conciliation of 13 July 2007
 EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
 OPINION of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
 OPINION of the Committee on Development
 OPINION of the Committee on International Trade
 OPINION of the Committee on Budgetary Control
 OPINION of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs
 OPINION of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs
 OPINION of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
 OPINION of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy
 OPINION of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection
 OPINION of the Committee on Transport and Tourism
 OPINION of the Committee on Regional Development
 OPINION of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development
 OPINION of the Committee on Fisheries
 OPINION of the Committee on Culture and Education
 OPINION of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
 OPINION of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs
 OPINION of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality
 PROCEDURE

MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION

on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2008, Section III – Commission (C6-0287/2007 – 2007/2019(BUD)) and Letter of amendment No 1/2008 (13659/2007 - C6-341/2007) to the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2008

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to Article 272 of the EC Treaty and Article 177 of the Euratom Treaty,

–   having regard to Council Decision 2000/597/EC, Euratom of 29 September 2000 on the system of the European Communities' own resources(1),

–   having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities(2),

–   having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management(3),

–   having regard to its resolution of 24 April 2007 on the Commission's annual policy strategy for the 2008 budget procedure(4),

–   having regard to the preliminary draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2008, which the Commission presented on 2 May 2007 (SEC(2007)0500),

–   having regard to the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2008, which the Council established on 13 July 2007 (C6-0287/2007),

–   having regard to the decision of its Committee on Budgets of 9 July 2007 on the mandate for the 2008 budget conciliation procedure given before the Council's first reading(5),

–   having regard to Letter of amendment No 1/2008 (13659/2007 - C6-0341/2007) to the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2008,

–   having regard to Rule 69 and Annex IV of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets and the opinions of the other committees concerned (A6-0397/2007),

Key issues - Overall figures, MFF revision proposal, Letter of amendment No 1

1.   Recalls that its political priorities for the 2008 budget were set out in its abovementioned APS resolution of 24 April 2007, building on the approaches taken in the preparation of budget 2007 and the negotiations leading to the Interinstitutional Agreement (IIA) of 17 May 2006; underlines that the "budget for results" approach endorsed in that resolution is built upon the pillars of transparent presentation, clear objectives and accurate implementation, such that the Commission is judged not on the basis of bureaucratic process but on the results it delivers towards politically agreed objectives; will continue to emphasise these elements in its further work on the 2008 budget;

2.   On overall figures, deplores the fact that the Council reduced commitment appropriations in the Draft Budget (DB) 2008 by EUR 717 million relative to the preliminary draft budget (PDB), such that commitment appropriations were reduced to EUR 128 401 million; takes a strong position against Council's cuts to overall payments in the DB by EUR 2 123 million which left total payments at EUR 119 410 million, equivalent to 0,95% of EU GNI, thus leaving a margin of more than EUR 10 billion beneath the payments ceiling of the multi-annual financial framework (MFF) for 2008;

3.   As regards commitment appropriations, is particularly critical of cuts made by the Council to appropriations for programmes with multi-annual envelopes that have only very recently been negotiated and agreed in co-decision with the European Parliament; proposes, in its first reading on the 2008 budget, to restore these cuts and considers it necessary to make a number of increases in commitment appropriations for certain political priorities; this has resulted in an aggregate level of EUR xxx xxx million;

4.   As regards payment appropriations, considers 0,95 % of EU GNI to be an insufficient figure in the light of the policy challenges faced by the EU; expresses its astonishment that the Council should propose over EUR 1 billion of cuts to payments in headings 1a and 1b for programmes identified as priorities under the Lisbon Strategy for improving European competitiveness and cohesion - a long-standing priority of the Council and Parliament; therefore proposes increases in the overall level of payments to 0,99 % of EU GNI; in line with the emphasis on accurate implementation in the "budget for results" approach, has focused these increases on Lisbon priorities and on programmes where levels of unpaid commitments ("reste à liquider" (RALs)) are persistently high;

5.   Welcomes the Commission's proposal of 19 September 2007 requesting a revision of the MFF to provide adequate financing for Galileo and the European Institute of Technology (EIT) over the 2007 - 2013 period; on Galileo, recalls its resolution of 20 June 2007(6) in favour of a Community solution for Galileo; on EIT, considers that the appropriations ought to be budgeted under the policy area "08 research", with the governing structure having its own line ("European Institute of Technology - governing structure") under Heading 5 (Administration) and the KICs a separate one ("European Institute of Technology - Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs)"); recalls that the appropriations for Galileo and for the EIT were placed in the reserve but were not reduced by the Council in the DB; has proposed amendments for Galileo and EIT in its first reading such that the final appropriations in budget 2008 are contingent upon a satisfactory agreement on the proposed revision of the MFF;

6.   Supports the letter of amendment to the preliminary draft budget 2008 adopted by the Commission on 17 September 2007 and in particular the increases in commitment appropriations proposed for Kosovo (EUR 120 million) and Palestine (EUR 142 million) totalling EUR 262 million over the PDB figures; notes that the Council also proposed increased commitment appropriations for Kosovo and Palestine totalling EUR 260 million in the DB; considers that the Commission and Council should provide a clear explanation of the strategy underlying the proposed increases and the division of appropriations between EC and CFSP categories for Kosovo in advance of Parliament's second reading on the 2008 budget;

7.   Takes note of the Commission's communication of 12 September 2007 on "reforming the budget, changing Europe" (SEC(2007)1188); highlights the fact that the standing rapporteur for the 2007 - 2013 MFF has already prepared a document on this issue and will continue to lead Parliament's further reflections and work on the future of EU budgetary arrangements;

Delivering a budget for results - building on the first reading conciliation

8.   Welcomes the agreement of five joint statements, annexed to this resolution, between the European Parliament and Council at the first reading conciliation on the 2008 budget of 13 July 2007; has reinforced the political importance of these statements by taking them into account in the preparation of amendments to the draft budget in line with the "budget for results" approach;

9.   In line with the joint statement agreed with the Council on 13 July 2007, wishes to see more rapid approval of operational programmes by the Commission in structural funds, cohesion fund and rural development so that operational money can be spent; demands rapid progress in this area from the Commission; in order to accelerate progress, places certain administrative costs of the Commission in reserve; underlines that no operational funds are placed in reserve; will release the reserves on administrative costs in line with an improved rate of approval of operational programmes;

10. On recruitment and redeployment, has placed EUR 49 million in reserve pending the commitment of the Commission to carry out a study on ABM implementation before 30 April 2008 with the following information for the budgetary authority:

· How the different components of the SPP-ABM cycle (APS, CLWP, AMP ...) can be better integrated with each other?

· How the integration of the SPP-ABM cycle with other cycles (HR cycle, risk management, evaluation ...) can be improved, possibly via an integrated IT system?

· The communication of a list of clear pre-determined performance indicators to be used throughout the whole cycle in order to improve performance management;

and:

The commitment of the Commission to present a follow-up to its report "on planning and optimising Commission human resources to serve EU priorities" by 30 April 2008 which will highlight in particular a detailed breakdown of staff per category, and by Directorate General, and the evolution foreseen for the coming years;

A communication by the Commission on the current situation and the state of play concerning the implementation of Point 44 of the IIA of 17 May 2006;

11. On assigned revenues, insists on improved transparency in this area; proposes changes to the assigned revenues instrument for decentralised agencies with a view to a closer matching of assigned revenues to specific agencies; expresses its concern that the use of assigned revenue within the sugar restructuring fund has created a de facto "budget within a budget" that is difficult to reconcile with the budgetary principle of universality enshrined in the Financial Regulation; expresses its openness to revise the Financial Regulation as regards assigned revenue;

12. On decentralised agencies, restores PDB levels with the exception of FRONTEX for which an increase of EUR 30 million is adopted under Title 3 and with the exception of the European Environment Agency with a slight increase under Title 3; welcomes the progress made by the newest agencies in expanding their activities in an effective and efficient manner; requests greater clarity in the future regarding work-plans and medium-term staffing needs;

13. On executive agencies, recalls the obligations of the Commission set by the "Code of Conduct on the setting up of an Executive Agency"(7); considers that executive agencies must not, either now or in the future, lead to an increase in the share of administrative cost; underlines that any proposal for the creation of a new executive agency, and the expansion of existing executive agencies, must be based on a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis and that lines of accountability and responsibility should be clearly set out in the proposal;

14. Welcomes the fact that the activity statements provided with the PDB 2008 delivered an improved focus on objectives and indicators of results rather than long descriptions of administrative process; notes, however, that there remains a significant gap between Commission Directorates-General as regards the quality of Activity Statements; expects further improvements in future years;

15. Considers that performance indicators are now being used by the Commission as an integral part of ex ante budgetary planning but requests that performance indicators should play a stronger role in ex post performance evaluation; is of the opinion that the data provided in activity statements should be better integrated with the annual activity reports of each Directorate-General; considers that this would assist the Budgetary Authority in monitoring the extent to which additional resources requested lead to the delivery of results and not simply to the creation of additional bureaucracy;

16. Welcomes the monitoring group exercise conducted by its Committee on Budgets in the course of 2007; hopes that this exercise can continue to contribute to an enhanced level of budgetary monitoring; continues to support the Budget Forecast Alert (BFA) system as a contribution to improving budget implementation; requests that the second BFA document be presented in September, and not October, 2008 so that Parliament may take this document into account in preparing its first reading on the 2009 draft budget;

17. Recalls that, in accordance with Article 53c of the Financial Regulation and Point 44 of the IIA of 17 May 2006, which aim at ensuring effective and integrated internal control of Community funds and national management declarations as a final goal, the Member States have committed themselves to "produce an annual summary at the appropriate national level of the available audits and declarations"; notes that, according to information received from the Commission, only a limited number of Member States have complied with the provisions of the IIA so far; regrets that none of the concrete proposals on national (management) declarations put forward by the European Parliament in its 2003, 2004 and 2005 discharge resolutions are incorporated in the Commission's Audit Strategy and requests the Commission to keep the Parliament informed; reminds the Member States of their obligation to comply with the provisions of the revised Financial Regulation, to which they only recently agreed; reiterates that Member States are further obliged to fulfil the conditions set out in Point 44 of the IIA as well as being obliged under Article 274 TEC to cooperate fully with the Commission according to the principles of sound financial management;

18. Reiterates the importance of improving budget implementation in line with the declaration adopted at the November 2006 budget conciliation; requests the Commission to provide information on the actions undertaken or foreseen in order to apply this declaration; recalls that this information should be presented regularly at the trialogue meetings;

19. Urges the Commission to apply in full Council Regulation No 1/1958 of 15 April 1958 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community and dismisses financial grounds for derogations as invalid, since they have not been advanced during the budgetary procedure;

Specific issues - main elements by budget heading, pilot projects, preparatory actions

20. On heading 1a, "Competitiveness for growth and employment", rejects the cuts in commitment and payment appropriations made by the Council in its first reading, especially where these cover multi-annual programmes recently co-decided with Parliament that aim to deliver on the Lisbon Strategy; restores these cuts and proposes increases on a number of lines that are political priorities for Parliament; proposes a number of pilot projects and preparatory actions in line with its budgetary prerogatives; underlines the importance of reducing the stigma of business failure in the context of the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme (CIP);

21. On heading 1b, "Cohesion for growth and employment", deplores the cuts in payment appropriations made in the Council's first reading; restores these cuts and proposes increases totalling EUR x xxx million in payments on lines where RALs have been consistently high in recent years; demands more streamlined administrative procedures in order to improve implementation of operational programmes for structural and cohesion funds also in terms of qualitative aspects which have the strongest impact of the Union on its citizens' lives;

22. Welcomes the documentation and explanations provided by the Commission and the European Investment Bank (EIB) concerning the Risk Sharing Finance Facilities (RSFF); is of the opinion that the reserve on these lines can be taken out of the budget; asks however to be informed and for the relevant documents to be forwarded to it when the guidelines are adopted for the second component of CIP, the venture capital instruments, and asks to be informed on the outcome of the negotiations between EIB and Commission on the joint cooperation for the Loan guarantee instrument for TEN-Transport (LGTT);

23. On heading 2, "Preservation of natural resources", is strongly opposed to the indiscriminate cuts proposed by Council to many lines under this heading of the budget; restores the PDB for many such lines but notes that the Council will have the final say on those lines which concern compulsory expenditure; demands clearer presentation of the figures for market measures and direct aids in future budgetary procedures; is concerned by the slow rate of adoption of operational programmes as regards the rural development pillar of the CAP, a long-standing priority of Parliament; expects to see rapid improvements in this regard;

24. Emphasises the need to speed up the procedure regarding the drawing-up of special national programmes for the recovery of crops and animal production in the areas affected by fires and other forms of natural disasters; stresses that those programmes should be financed from the EAFRD (European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development) by internal transfers or subsidies within a Member State;

25. On heading 3a, "Freedom, security and justice", places appropriations for the Return Fund in reserve pending the adoption of the legal base; also places appropriations in reserve pending the provision of improved information to Parliament regarding the fight against crime; underlines the importance of the work of the Frontex agency; considers that the Frontex agency must play a more effective role in strengthening the EU's external borders, notably in alleviating the burden currently faced by Member States in connection with illegal immigration; calls on the Agency to present regularly to its competent committee the state of play and the scheduled forthcoming operations; urges the Member States to deliver on their promises and support the Agency's missions so that the Agency can perform its tasks more effectively;

26. On heading 3b, "Citizenship", deplores the cuts made by the Council under this heading, which would affect programmes such as Culture 2007, Media 2007 and Youth in action; restores the PDB and proposes appropriations for a number of new and ongoing pilot projects and preparatory actions in this regard; draws attention to the fact that funding for the information and prevention campaign HELP comes to an end in the budget for 2008 and expects the Commission to submit a follow-up initiative; supports, additionally, within the Civil Protection Financial Instrument, the provision of a complementary capability in the form of a stand-by force for handling natural or man-made disasters as well as in cases of acts of terrorism or environmental accidents;

27. Calls on the Commission to give repeated backing for investment in infrastructure to improve accommodation for refugees;

28. Seeks to encourage a stronger voice for less well represented groups in civil society, combating all forms of discrimination and strengthening the rights of women, children, disabled and older persons;

29. Calls on the Commission to use the appropriations earmarked for information to provide diverse information, which, inter alia, caters for the public information needs of parliamentary minorities;

30. On heading 4, "EU as a global partner", supports the increases, including for Kosovo and Palestine, in the Commission's letter of amendment to the PDB of 17 September 2007; proposes an additional EUR 10 million each for Kosovo (line 22 02 02) and Palestine (line 19 08 01 02) and further increases for its priorities up to the MFF ceiling, including the restoration of the PDB for the Emergency Aid Reserve; cuts CFSP spending by EUR 40 million to the level of budget 2007; requests the use of the flexibility instrument to a total of EUR 87 million for CFSP spending and other priorities, including Kosovo and Palestine; considers that this reflects the chronic under-funding of heading 4 in the 2007 - 2013 MFF;

31. Reminds the Council that the regular joint committee meetings on CFSP should promote a real, ex ante political dialogue, instead of being used merely to inform Parliament in an ex post manner;

32. Believes that the EU should better coordinate its various and laudable initiatives to fight and eradicate poverty-related diseases in neighbouring and developing countries; proposes to allocate adequate budget resources to provide these countries with the necessary technical assistance instruments; has decided to create a separate budget line for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria in order to improve transparency and guarantee the necessary funding for both the Global Fund and the other health priorities;

33. On heading 5, "Administration", considers that clear lines of responsibility and accountability are an essential component of continuing the process of modernising the EU's administration; recalls that clear political objectives and individual responsibility for carrying them out against indicators to be laid down when the data from the various studies requested by its Committee on Budgets on the subject are submitted should be the direction of future reforms of the system;

34. In this context, deplores the inefficiencies inherent in a competition system that can leave "approved candidates" languishing on a reserve list for years with no guarantee of being offered a position; considers that maintaining this approach would contribute to lowering the average standard of new EU officials as the best candidates will seek employment in more dynamic sectors of the EU economy; requests a serious commitment from the Commission to look again at this issue in the context of follow-up work to the screening exercise and provide further information with a more detailed breakdown of staff per category and by Directorate General and the evolution foreseen for the coming years;

35. Calls on the Commission to take the employment of trainees into account as a criterion when awarding procurement or service contracts to outside firms;

36. Restores the PDB for the cuts made by Council to appropriations and establishment plans in heading 5; places EUR 49 million in reserve pending the provision of the abovementioned data and studies; wishes to maintain and develop a constructive inter-institutional dialogue regarding ongoing efforts to improve administrative practices in the EU institutions; underlines the importance of adequate recruitment from "EU 12" Member States; takes the view that, in connection with enlargement, documents of relevance to discussions and decisions, such as, for example, impact assessments, should be made available in all languages necessary, since those documents are tools for better lawmaking; recalls in this connection that its Committee on Budgets has launched, via two studies, a process to analyse the objectives of the administrative reform of the Commission, focusing on the introduction of activity-based budgeting (ABB) and activity-based management (ABM), the introduction of the strategic planning cycle and allocation of the related administrative expenditure;

37. Calls on the Commission to present a report on benchmarks with staff in other international organisations as a follow-up to its report on planning and optimising human resources; further calls on the Commission to present guidelines to facilitate the financing of public infrastructure under public-private partnerships (PPP);

38. On pilot projects, adopts a range of innovative projects that respond to current policy challenges in the EU;

39. On preparatory actions, adopts a range of initiatives that should pave the way for future actions that enhance the European Union's capacity to deal with the real needs of its citizens;

0

0 0

40. Takes note of the opinions voted by the specialised committees as contained in report A6-xxxx/2007;

41. Instructs its President to forward this resolution and its annexes, together with the amendments and proposed modifications to Section III of the draft general budget, to the Council and Commission, and to the other institutions and bodies concerned.

(1)

OJ L 253, 7.10.2000, p. 42.

(2)

OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1995/2006 (OJ L 390, 30.12.2006, p.1).

(3)

OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.

(4)

Texts Adopted, P6_TA(2007)0131.

(5)

PE 391.970.

(6)

Texts adopted, P6_TA(2007)0272.

(7)

"Code of Conduct on the setting up of an Executive Agency" as agreed by the Commission in its letter of 20 April 2004 (Annex to the European Parliament resolution of 22 April 2004 on Draft amending budget No 6 of the European Union for the financial year 2004 (OJ C 104 E, 30.4.2004, p. 951)).


ANNEX: Joint Statements agreed at the conciliation of 13 July 2007

1.      Structural and Cohesion Funds and Rural Development 2007-2013 programmes

"The European Parliament and the Council attach the greatest importance to a rapid approval by the Commission of the operational programmes and projects presented by Member States in relation with the new Structural and Cohesion Funds programmes for the 2007-2013 period, as well as for programmes financed under rural development.

In order to avoid the past experience during the beginning of the 2000-2006 programming period, the European Parliament and the Council will monitor rigorously and on a regular basis the process of approval of operational programmes and projects in view of more efficiency and good administration. To this end, the Commission is requested to continue to provide regularly specific monitoring tools, including a flow chart, during the budgetary procedure."

2.      Recruitment in relation with the 2004 and 2007 enlargement

"The European Parliament and the Council note with concern the low occupancy of posts at Middle Management level, the rather high ratio of permanent posts occupied by temporary agents and the lack of a sufficient number of appropriate competitions.

The European Parliament and the Council insist that all efforts should be made by the institutions and specifically by EPSO to ensure that the necessary action is taken to rectify the situation and to speed up the whole process of filling up the posts granted by the budgetary authority with officials. The criteria should be as stipulated in Article 27 of the Staff Regulation and to arrive at the broadest possible geographical proportional basis as soon as possible.

The European Parliament and the Council intend to continue to monitor closely the ongoing recruitment process. To this effect, they request each institution and EPSO to provide twice a year an information to the budgetary authority on the state of affairs regarding recruitments in relation with the 2004 and 2007 enlargement.

The European Parliament and the Council invite the Secretaries-general of the institutions to present a report on the progress made in the field as follows:

-       concerning the filling of the posts granted in 2004-07 budgets by the end of January 2008;

-       concerning the filling of the posts granted in 2008 by 15 June 2008 and by 31 October 2008."

3.      Assigned revenues

"The European Parliament and the Council believe that increasing transparency in the budgetary field is part of a sound financial management of the EU funds.

In this context, they ask the Commission and the other institutions to provide appropriate, timely and detailed documentation on assigned revenues, covering actual implementation and forecasts as far as possible, to accompany the Preliminary Draft Budget. The Commission will provide appropriate information on assigned revenues in relation to carry-overs and when available transfers of appropriations; this will entail changes to the format and content of the current documentation and will not prejudge the decisions to be taken by the budgetary authority.

They attach a great importance to the monitoring of the assigned revenues, especially to those related to the Community agencies, and ask the Commission to report regularly on their implementation, in particular on the basis of a specific document before the first reading of the budget. They invite the Commission to present appropriate proposals allowing an effective monitoring and control of the assigned revenues in the context of the upcoming revision of the Framework Financial Regulation No. 2343/2002 for Community agencies.

The Commission is invited to report about the improvements made no later than the beginning of the following budgetary procedure. The European Parliament and the Council will continue to closely pay attention to the management of the assigned revenues expecting rapid improvements in this field."

4.      Decentralised agencies

Concerning the creation or the modification of the scope of a body falling under Article 185 of the Financial Regulation, the two arms of the budgetary authority ask the Commission to inform them timely on the ongoing legislative procedure in order to enable them to exert their prerogatives in accordance with Point 47 of the IIA.

The European Parliament, the Council and the Commission demand greater transparency in relation to the decentralised agencies, with a view to better monitoring their development. The Commission will identify for each heading the expenditure for agencies, including its evolution over the 2007-2013 period.

They recall their joint statement on Community agencies adopted on 18 April 2007, especially its point 4, and invites the Commission to provide a list of the agencies that it is going to assess including a detailed timetable for this procedure and a detailed explanation of the criteria used for the selection of the agencies and to present the results each year at the October trilogue at the latest.

To allow the budgetary authority to get a clear and comprehensive picture of evaluations already made, the Commission should give the list of the agencies that have already been evaluated and a short summary of the major findings of these analysis.

They also recall that the abovementioned joint statement of 18 April 2007, the Commission has been invited to provide, simultaneously with each PDB, a working document covering all Community agencies.

To achieve this, decentralised agencies are requested to provide detailed information, on an annual basis, to accompany their draft estimates for the coming budget year. This should include an update of their staff policy plan, with information on the number of permanent and temporary agents covered by the establishment plans and on external staff (contractual agents) for the years n-1, n and n+1; the work programme of the agency and information on the content of their budget, detailing titles 1 and 2.

They shall also make available estimates and indicators such as rents or estimated value of buildings, statute of staff and any privileges granted to the agencies by the host Member States.

Moreover, the agencies should provide, by the end of March each year n at the latest, an estimate of the operating surplus from the year n-1, which is to be returned to the Community budget later in year n, in order to complete the information already available concerning the surplus of n-2.

The European Parliament and the Council invite the Commission to proceed to the collection of all information mentioned above, in due time for each PDB, and to collect missing information for this year."

5.      Executive agencies

"The European Parliament and the Council welcomes all efforts to improve the efficiency of the methods used by the European Commission to implement EU policies and programmes.

The creation of executive agencies can constitute a contribution to such efficiency, but only if this method fully respects the principle of sound financial management and total transparency. This means that such agencies must not, either now or in the future, lead to an increase in the share of administrative cost. Therefore, the principle of freezing of posts as defined in Council Regulation (EC) No. 58/2003 of 19 December 2002, as a result of such a reorganisation of tasks, must be adhered to rigorously. Any proposal for the creation of a new executive agency should be based on a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis. Lines of accountability and responsibility should be clearly set out in the proposal.

The budgetary authority must be in possession of all the requisite information enabling it to monitor closely the implementation of this principle both currently and in the future. The information in the specific financial statement for the executive agency should therefore cover:

a.      the resources in terms of appropriations and staff required to run the executive agency, showing a breakdown of staff expenditure (permanent and temporary officials and contractual agents) and other administrative expenditure;

b.      the planned secondments of officials from the Commission to the executive agency;

c.      administrative resources freed by transferring tasks from the Commission departments to the executive agency, and the re-allocation of the human resources; in particular the number of staff (including external staff) assigned to each relevant task within the Commission, the number of this staff to be transferred to a proposed new or enlarged agency, the number of Commission posts to be frozen as a consequence and the number of Commission staff to be proposed to be redeployed to other tasks;

d.      consecutive redeployment within the Commission's establishment plan;

e.      the advantages of delegating implementing tasks to an executive agency versus direct management by the Commission services: any comparison of a "Direct management by the Commission services"-scenario to an "executive agency"-scenario shall be based on the resources used to implement the existing programme(s) and its (their) current form in order to have a sound and factual basis for comparison; for new and expanding programmes the evolution of the related financial envelope to be managed by the agency will also be taken into consideration;

f.       a draft establishment plan per grade and per category as well as a well-founded estimate of the number of contractual agents planned and provisionally budgeted;

g.      a clear breakdown of all actors involved in the implementation programme including the remaining share of the operational programme envelope for the implementation of which they are responsible (Commission, executive agencies, remaining Technical Assistance Offices, Member States, national agencies, etc.)

The European Parliament and the Council call on the Commission, before deciding to create a new agency or to extend the remit of an existing agency, to supply complete and detailed information on staffing levels and utilisation enabling the budgetary authority to assess whether the administrative expenditure of implementing a programme has indeed not been increased.

It is recalled that the final decision on staffing remains a matter for the budgetary authority."

Commission declaration on assigned revenue

"The Commission recalls that recovery of amounts wrongly paid is a vital tool for sound financial management; these amounts should be considered in the perspective of a full implementation of the programmes decided under the multi-annual financial framework.

Moreover, the Commission considers that it is not possible to provide the Budgetary Authority with forecasts of assigned revenue other than those that are already included in the Preliminary Draft Budget."


EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

Working document on a budget for results

This working document is the first in the series that will be produced by the general rapporteur during the course of the preparation of the 2008 budget.

2.  In the budgetary negotiations that will take place in the second half of this year, the European Parliament will achieve most vis-à-vis the Commission and Council if it is able to negotiate on the basis of broadly shared objectives and common goals. Your rapporteur therefore underlines his intention to consult regularly with members of Parliament, its specialised committees and, in particular, his colleagues on the Budgets Committee, with a view to building a strong Parliamentary approach to the 2008 budget.

3.  Your rapporteur notes that this working document has benefited from the debate and views expressed during the first exchange of views on priorities for the 2008 budget held in the Committee on Budgets on 23 January 2007.

4.  The structure of the working document is as follows. The first section sets out the rapporteur's concept of a budget for results. The second section focuses on the early stages of the annual budget procedure and on issues linked to the structure of the EU budget and human resources. The third section deals with policy priorities.

5.  Preparatory work on the 2008 budget is of course not being conducted in a vacuum. In terms of the politics of the European Union, 2007 sees the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Rome and a renewed push to make progress on the Constitutional Treaty. Globalisation, with all of its attendant opportunities and challenges - economic, social and environmental - appears set to continue apace and issues such as energy security, climate change and migration are gaining ever greater prominence.

6.  As regards the financing of the European Union, 2007 is the first year of the 2007 - 2013 multi-annual financial framework (MFF). The 2008 budget will therefore be the second to be agreed within the overall ceilings set out in annex 1 (attached as annex 1 of this working document) of the 17 May 2006 inter-institutional agreement (IIA). 2008 will be the penultimate year of Parliament's sixth legislature and of the Barroso Commission. As a result, the 2008 budget will be prepared in the context of further work towards the review of the financial perspective concerning both revenue and expenditure. The 2008 budget will build upon the 2007 budget. Your rapporteur highlights the work of the standing rapporteurs on the financial perspective, own resources, and of the 2007 general rapporteur, respectively, and notes that annex 2 of this working document sets out the summary results of the 2007 budget procedure by MFF budget heading. These figures provide the backdrop to the work ahead in preparing the 2008 budget.

I. A budget for results

7.  The 2008 general rapporteur proposes that the 2008 budget should be a "budget for results". The overall philosophy that your rapporteur proposes to the Committee builds directly upon the approach of the 2007 general rapporteur. A "budget for results" means that what counts in the end is the policy outcome. The Budgetary Authority should focus a great deal of attention on ensuring that policy is delivered to meet the political objectives for which it was legislated in the first place. For example:

· Is European policy actually improving citizens' lives?

· Is European education and training policy building a mature understanding of European culture and values and improving the skills of young people in a way that raises EU competitiveness in the modern, globalised economy?

· Is research and development support leading to modernisation and enhanced efficiency of EU companies, reflected, for example, by more patents being filed by EU companies?

· Is regional policy raising GDP per capita in the less-developed regions of the EU?

· Is the EU fulfilling its obligations as a global player in an effective and balanced way?

8.  In order to answer these questions, hard evidence is needed on the impact of spending. Your rapporteur intends to invite the Commission to present such data on evidence of the delivery of political objectives to the benefit of EU citizens to the Committee on Budgets. He wishes to build on the approach taken in the 2007 budget procedure to use studies and evidence from external experts to try to gather evidence about the effectiveness of EU spending. This should serve in turn to increase the impact of Parliament's role as one half of the Budget Authority in ensuring that public money is well spent. Your rapporteur therefore wishes to see a number of studies conducted on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, which can then inform priorities during the budget negotiation. A number of ideas are set out in the second section of this working document.

9.  Your rapporteur notes the excellent outcome that Parliament was able to achieve on the revision of the Financial Regulation during 2006. However, he considers that there remain examples in which an excessively legalistic approach to the process of implementing EU policy hampers effective and efficient delivery. Striking the right balance between, on the one hand, trust, and, on the other, a structure of rules to prevent malfeasance, is one of the major challenges of an effective approach to budgetary monitoring and oversight.

II. Budget process and budget structure

The Annual Policy Strategy

10. The Commission is due to present its Annual Policy Strategy (APS) for 2008 on 22 February. The APS is an important document that sets out the Commission's policy objectives for 2008. The Commission's proposal for the financing of these objectives is the preliminary draft budget (PDB) 2008, which is likely to be adopted on 2 May 2007. It is therefore imperative that Parliament is able to communicate a coherent set of priorities of its own for the 2008 budget year in advance of 2 May in order that the Commission can incorporate these priorities into the 2008 PDB. Your rapporteur intends to use this working document, and the subsequent comments of fellow members of the Budgets Committee, in preparing his draft report on the 2008 APS. The APS resolution should then serve as a tool of Parliamentary influence in advance of the adoption by the Commission of the PDB.

Activity-based budgeting and activity statements

11. Your rapporteur has long been a supporter of the activity-based budgeting (ABB) concept, which has at its heart the objective of matching financial and human resources to political priorities. He was a strong supporter of the introduction of the ABB approach into the Commission's resource budgeting system, which allocated resources across "policy areas" (also sometimes referred to as budget "titles") that essentially mapped directly onto each of the Commission's Directorates-General (DGs). Spending on environmental policy, for example, is therefore covered under budget title 07 "Environment". This spending is allocated to the Commission's Environment Directorate-General. In broad terms the ABB concept has allowed the Budgetary Authority to gain a better grip on the direction of spending.

12. However, your rapporteur wishes to highlight that the ABB approach and the heading structure of the financial perspective and its multi-annual envelopes (see annex 1) are not easily reconciled. Whilst the financial perspective headings are a useful political categorization of the EU spending for 2007 - 2013, overlapping ABB budget titles and MFF heading categorisations can lead to obfuscation. For example, in the 2007 PDB, the policy area/ budget title "Environment" is spread across 4 MFF headings (2, 3b, 4 and 5). Your rapporteur wishes to underline that clarity of presentation by the Commission of its spending proposals is important for proper scrutiny of spending by the Budgetary Authority.

13. The activity statements that each Commission Directorate-General produces on the objectives, activities and outcomes of its policies are a key tool for the Budgetary Authority to assess the extent to which the ABB approach is functioning. The activity statements are produced by each Commission DG and included in the PDB. Your rapporteur welcomes the production of these documents but notes that they have, in the past, focussed too much on long descriptions of process and insufficiently on the link between policy objectives and policy outcomes. Your rapporteur intends to look closely at the activity statements for 2008.

Human resources

14. Before turning to policy priorities for the 2008, your rapporteur wishes also to highlight the importance of human resources. The Parliament supported a number of elements of the Commission's argument against stringent cuts in Commission staffing levels during the 2007 budget procedure, but demanded a screening exercise to be carried out by the Commission on its real staffing needs by 30 April 2007. Your rapporteur awaits this document with interest.

15. An issue linked to the debate about the MFF/ ABB budget structures is that heading 5 "administration" may not be capturing all of the real administration costs of the Commission. In the context of the ongoing work of the Committee on Budget's standing rapporteur on agencies, it is worth highlighting three specific issues at this early stage of preparatory analysis for the 2008 budget procedure. First, the Commission appears to be making increasing use of executive agencies to deliver specific policies. Where executive agencies take work away from the "parent" DG previously conducting these tasks, other things equal fewer staff should be needed in the "parent" DG. The budget 2008 activity statements should deal with this issue. Second, executive agencies are just one example of the apparent growth of an "outsourcing" culture within the Commission that may be seeing implementation activities handed out to "ad hoc bodies" that are not clearly specified in the Financial Regulation. Such "outsourcing" may help to ensure more effective implementation, but it should be done in a manner that is transparent to the Budgetary Authority and which does not lead to an expansion of hidden human resources costs that are not easily visible in heading 5 of the budget. Third, it is important that there is effective oversight of the implementation tasks carried out by agencies, executive agencies and other ad hoc bodies, which all employ a higher proportion of staff on fixed term contracts than the Commission itself. Further information is required on the human resources policies of these bodies in order to assess the level of oversight and to ensure that there exists an appropriate level of individual responsibility for the staff they employ.

III. Policy priorities

16. Your rapporteur considers that Parliament's resolution on the Commission's Annual Policy Strategy is the appropriate place for a presentation of its policy priorities for the 2008 budget. He does not attempt to set out a comprehensive list here. However, in line with the "budget for results" approach, the remainder of this working document sets out some ideas on key themes and priorities. These priorities are presented in the form of topics for studies that the Committee on Budgets might commission to external experts. If these studies can be presented to the committee before the summer break, then they might provide stimuli for the main stages of budgetary procedure in the autumn. It would of course be important to ensure that these studies were consistent with work being conducted in the specialised committees.

The topics covered might also provide ideas for pilot projects and preparatory actions, on which Annex II (D) of the IIA includes the commitment for the Parliament to come forward with its intentions by mid-June.

17. Your rapporteur has striven to include ideas from colleagues, in particular during the discussion in the Committee on Budgets on 23 January. He looks forward to further discussion with colleagues.

Policy priorities and issues for further study

· EU competitiveness and life-long learning

18. The high living standards of EU citizens relative to other regions of the world are reflected in a relatively high cost-base for EU companies. EU companies therefore need to be adaptable and to employ well-trained staff to compete in a globalised economy. Consequently, the European economy depends, to a large degree, on the skills of its people. The service sector represents over 70 percent of employment in some of the wealthiest regions of the EU and the general trend, linked to the ongoing process of globalisation, would seem to be towards further growth in the services sector in Europe. EU economic competitiveness is too often characterised in terms of industrial numbers. These matter, but are only a part of the story. The life-long learning programme is an important element of efforts to help European citizens to engage with a globalised world. The study could look at the, perhaps sometimes neglected, economic value added of the scheme by looking at the opportunities that the scheme helps to create for those involved.

· The EU as a global player/ assessment of the budgetary implications of the EU's growing role in civilian and military crisis missions

19. In recent years the EU's engagement in civilian and military crisis missions has increased very significantly.  Such missions can be financed through the Stability Instrument, CFSP budget, Athena mechanism or national contributions.  Partly in view of the forthcoming mission to Kosovo, this study would seek to draw lessons from previous missions as regards the most appropriate/ effective means of providing finance for different types of mission.  The study would also examine the degree of parliamentary oversight that can be achieved through the various funding approaches.  The study could also usefully set out the linkages between the financing decisions and the "life-cycle" of a mission: from inception to post hoc evaluation.

· Evaluating administrative reform in the European Commission

20. This study would seek to evaluate the effectiveness of the "Kinnock" reforms in streamlining the administration of the European Commission.  The study would examine the extent to which the reforms have improved recruitment and promotion on the basis of merit, staff and financial management procedures within the Commission.  The Activity-based budgeting (ABB) approach was also introduced in recent years as a means of better matching Commission resources to policy objectives.  The study should also examine the extent to which this has been effective and any cross-linkages that may have occurred between the Kinnock reforms and the introduction of ABB.

· Improving the impact of the structural funds on achieving the Lisbon objectives

21. The structural funds are aimed at funding structural and cohesion policy in the EU's less-developed regions and are spent according to programmes presented by member states. However, the Lisbon Goals include a commitment to raise EU spending on research and development to 3% of EU GDP.  The 7th research framework programme is designed to help achieve this objective, but there is scope for a greater contribution from existing structural funds.  The Commission's Annual Progress report on Lisbon from December 2006 indicates that member states could be doing more in this area. This may be particularly so for those member states that joined the EU in 2004 and 2007.  The study should therefore look at the extent to which existing structural funds are really contributing to enhancing the EU's R+D capacity and suggest measures through which this contribution could be improved.

· Assessment of EU funding for illegal migration monitoring

22. The EU's external borders are subject to a permanent and a considerable migratory pressure, with the whole of the southern border under particular pressure. The necessity to better control the EU's external borders is one of the top priorities of the European Parliament.  This study should therefore assess EU funding for illegal migration monitoring to compare the financial resources given to the new instruments such as the External Borders Fund, European Refugee Fund, European Fund for the integration of third-country nationals as well as the FRONTEX Agency, with their aims and policy objectives. The study should also cover the assessment of whether the funds and the division between different instruments are optimal to achieve policy goals and give support to member states coping with immigration.

· Does the EU have the financial resources available to meet its common objectives on energy policy and climate change?

23. The Commission presented major communications in January 2007 on climate change and an energy policy for Europe.  The communications set out ambitious objectives as regards sustainability, security and competitiveness of supply.  Within the EU budget, as within any budget, there is competition between competing priorities for limited funds.  However, given the prominence that energy/ climate change policies have acquired in recent years, this study would examine whether the financial resources available have been able to keep pace?  This study should therefore compare the financial resources available with the real needs that the policy objectives imply and make suggestions about how additional financing, if considered necessary, might be most effectively and transparently used.

· Funding the multifunctionality of European agriculture

24. The multifunctionality of the agricultural sector has long been recognised in European policymaking.  An important element of the rural development pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) concerns programmes to ensure the sustainability of European farmland, countryside and rural livelihoods.  The European Union now includes 27 member states, and the CAP will undergo further reforms in the future.  In this context, this study could begin by describing the changes in rural development policy so far enacted.  It could then examine scenarios concerning what further developments in rural development policy might imply for the European agricultural sector: how would this affect farmers' activities and incomes? what role would there be for innovative agricultural businesses, including in the bio-technology area? how would these changes fit with international obligations under the WTO and other international bodies?  Given that the CAP overall accounts for roughly 40% of EU spending, there are important financial implications for any changes to EU agricultural policy.  The study should also therefore examine the financial consequences of the scenarios explored.

· Information and communication policy and "going local"

25. In an age of ever-broadening internet communication, the enlarged European Union of 27 members faces a major challenge in communicating with citizens. A theme that has developed in recent years is the importance of communicating with citizens in a way that is readily accessible to them. This does not just mean in a language that they speak, but also in a media context that can relate European themes to the real lives and concerns of people in the region in which they live. The Commission is devoting significant resources to "going local" and the Parliament adopted a pilot project on "pilot information networks" in the 2007 budget that aimed to link up better national politicians, journalists and opinion-formers with the EU machinery of Brussels. This study could look at lessons from these efforts: what works? what does not? where are more resources needed? how should they be spent?

ANNEX I

FINANCIAL FRAMEWORK 2007-2013

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(EUR million - 2004 prices)

COMMITTMENT APPROPRIATIONS

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Total
2007-2013

1.            Sustainable Growth

51 267

52 415

53 616

54 294

55 368

56 876

58 303

382 139

1a               Competitiveness for Growth and Employment

8 404

9 097

9 754

10 434

11 295

12 153

12 961

74 098

1b              Cohesion for Growth and Employment

42 863

43 318

43 862

43 860

44 073

44 723

45 342

308 041

2.            Preservation and Management of Natural Resources

54 985

54 322

53 666

53 035

52 400

51 775

51 161

371 344

               of which: market related expenditure and direct

payments

43 120

42 697

42 279

41 864

41 453

41 047

40 645

293 105

3.            Citizenship, freedom, security and justice

1 199

1 258

1 380

1 503

1 645

1 797

1 988

10 770

3a.              Freedom, Security and Justice

600

690

790

910

1 050

1 200

1 390

6 630

3b.             Citizenship

599

568

590

593

595

597

598

4 140

4.            EU as a global player

6 199

6 469

6 739

7 009

7 339

7 679

8 029

49 463

5.            Administration(1)

6 633

6 818

6 973

7 111

7 255

7 400

7 610

49 800

6.            Compensations

419

191

190

 

 

 

 

800

TOTAL COMMITTMENT APPROPRIATIONS

120 702

121 473

122 564

122 952

124 007

125 527

127 091

864 316

as a percentage of GNI

1,10%

1,08%

1,07%

1,04%

1,03%

1,02%

1,01%

1,048%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOTAL PAYMENT APPROPRIATIONS

116 650

119 620

111 990

118 280

115 860

119 410

118 970

820 780

as a percentage of GNI

1,06%

1,06%

0,97%

1,00%

0,96%

0,97%

0,94%

1,00%

Margin available

0,18%

0,18%

0,27%

0,24%

0,28%

0,27%

0,30%

0,24%

Own Resources Ceiling as a percentage of GNI

1,24%

1,24%

1,24%

1,24%

1,24%

1,24%

1,24%

1,24%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(1)       The expenditure on pensions included under the ceiling for this heading is calculated net of the staff contributions to the relevant scheme, within the limit of EUR 500 million at 2004 prices for the period 2007-2013.

2007 Budgetary Procedure

Parliament's Second Reading - 14 December 2006

Multi-annual Financial Framework - Margins

Cat.

2007 MFF

Council 2nd Reading

Parliament amendments

Parliament's 2nd Reading

Margins left by EP

Commitments

Payments

Commitments

Payments

Commitments

Payments

Commitments

Payments

Commitments

Payments

1

54.405.000.000

0

54.274.887.015

44.137.342.319

80.065.000

724.708.000

54.354.952.015

44.862.050.319

50.047.985

0

1a

8.918.000.000

0

8.788.328.511

6.772.076.511

79.839.000

299.708.000

8.868.167.511

7.071.784.511

49.832.489

0

1b

45.487.000.000

0

45.486.558.504

37.365.265.808

226.000

425.000.000

45.486.784.504

37.790.265.808

215.496

0

European Gobal Adjustment Funds

(outside the MFF & margin)

500.000.000

0

 

 

500.000.000

 

 

 

2

58.351.000.000

0

56.240.800.036

54.665.465.736

9.430.000

53.080.000

56.250.230.036

54.718.545.736

2.100.769.964

0

3

1.273.000.000

0

1.149.840.000

1.049.687.652

96.606.000

127.278.000

1.246.446.000

1.176.965.652

26.554.000

0

3a

637.000.000

0

561.695.000

400.145.000

62.138.000

73.538.000

623.833.000

473.683.000

13.167.000

0

3b

636.000.000

0

588.145.000

649.542.652

34.468.000

53.740.000

622.613.000

703.282.652

13.387.000

0

4

6.578.000.000

0

6.401.214.000

7.179.921.578

176.719.000

172.825.154

6.577.933.000

7.352.746.732

67.000

0

Emergency Aid Reserve (outside the MFF & margin*) 

234.527.000

0

 

 

234.527.000

 

 

 

5

7.115.000.000

0

6.849.570.101

6.849.470.101

92.793.929

92.793.929

6.942.364.030

6.942.264.030

172.635.970

0

6

445.000.000

0

444.646.152

444.646.152

0

0

444.646.152

444.646.152

353.848

0

Total

128.167.000.000

123.866.000.000

126.095.484.304

114.326.533.538

455.613.929

1.170.685.083

126.551.098.233

115.497.218.621

2.350.428.767

8.368.781.379

Working document on the research policy of the European Union under the current multi-annual financial framework

Introduction

This working document analyses the financial resources that the European Union provides for research and innovation bearing in mind that 2007 was the first year of spending within the new 2007-2013 multi-annual financial framework (MFF) and therefore only the beginning of a number of new programmes.

Key budget-related issues

The original Commission proposal for the 7th Framework Programme for Research (FP7) foresaw an overall amount of Community financial participation of EUR 72 726 million for the 2007-2013 period. This proposed budget was firmly supported by the European Parliament in its resolution on Policy Challenges and Budgetary Means of the enlarged Union 2007-2013 (Böge report)(1). Following the adoption of the new MFF, the final budget is now significantly lower.

According to the new MFF the maximum indicative overall amount for Community financial participation in the 7th framework programme (FP7) - excluding EURATOM- shall be EUR 50 521 million(2) for a period of 7 years starting on 1 January 2007.(3) The overall amount for EURATOM-related research between 2007 and 2011 will be EUR 2 751 million.(4) For comparison: the previous Framework Programme (FP6) which covered the period 2002-2006 had a total budget of EUR 17 500 million.(5)

The funding for FP7 is divided between different policy areas: Enterprise (Title 02), Energy and Transport (Title 6), Research (Title 08), Information Society and Media (Title 09), Fish (Title 11), Direct research - Joint Research Centre (Title 10).

FP7 is divided into 7 Specific Programmes:

Cooperation (EUR 32 413 million for 2007-2013): This is the most important Specific Programme in terms of budget. It aims at promoting research at the highest level of excellence. Support will be provided to trans-national cooperation in nine thematic areas: health, food-agriculture-biotechnology, information-communication technologies, nanosciences-nanotechnologies-materials-new production technologies, energy, environment (including climate change), transport, socio-economic sciences-humanities, security-space.

Ideas (EUR 7 510 million for 2007-2013): The objective of this Specific Programme is to reinforce excellence, dynamism and creativity in European research and improve the attractiveness of Europe for the best researchers from both European and third countries, as well as for industrial research investment, by providing a Europe-wide competitive funding mechanism for "frontier research" executed by individual teams.

People (EUR 4 750 million for 2007-2013): This Programme aims at strengthening the human potential in research and technology in Europe by supporting training and career development of researchers referred to as "Marie Curie Actions" with a better focus on the key aspects of skills and career development and strengthened links with national systems.

Capacities (EUR 4 097 million for 2007-2013): This Specific Programme aims at enhancing research and innovation capacities throughout Europe

- by optimising the use and development of research infrastructures;

- by strengthening innovative capacities of SMEs and their ability to benefit from research;

- by supporting the development of regional research-driven clusters;

Two specific programmes concerning the Joint Research Centre (non-nuclear: EUR 1 751 million for the period 2007-2013) and the Joint Research Centre (nuclear: EUR 517 million for the period 2007-2011):

As regards the non-nuclear side of its work, the scientific and technical support which the Joint Research Centre (JRC) gives to the European Union’s policies is concentrated mainly in the following areas: prosperity in a highly knowledge-based society, solidarity and responsible resource management, security and freedom and Europe as a world partner.

In terms of nuclear activities, the JRC’s work focuses mainly on the following themes: management of nuclear waste, environmental impact, nuclear safety (safeguards - non-proliferation) and nuclear security.

Concerning the JRC, the rapporteur would like to ask the Commission to forward recent information on the staffing, the mission statement, current projects being carried out by the JRC and the relation to the proposed European Institute of Technology, the European Research Council as well as the envisaged Executive Agency. The total staff of the Joint Research Centre is currently 1 957 (only permanent posts). In title 10 (Direct Research), which is part of heading 1 a, the appropriations foreseen for expenditure related to research staff in 2007 amount to more than EUR 167 million. This appropriation covers expenditure relating to staff covered by the Staff Regulations occupying posts on the authorised establishment plan of the Joint Research Centre for the execution of tasks entrusted to it.

EURATOM (EUR 2 234 million for 2007-2011): This Specific Programme covers the 2007-2011 period, which in turn is based on Article 7 of the EURATOM Treaty. In accordance with this Article, second paragraph, research programmes are drawn up for a period of not more than five years. Hence, this programme (as well as the above-mentioned programme on the JRC - EURATOM) is not for the same duration as the EC Specific Programmes.

The Commission proposes that, unless extenuating circumstances arise, the two Specific Programmes concerning EURATOM will be renewed for the 2012-2013 period, in accordance with the foreseen legislative procedure.

This Specific Programme covers the following two thematic priorities:

- nuclear fusion including ITER as the major step towards, the creation of prototype reactors for power stations that are safe, sustainable, environmentally responsible and economically viable;

- nuclear fission and radiation protection in order to promote the safe use and exploitation of nuclear fission and other uses of radiation in industry and medicine.

An innovation of FP7 is the establishment of the European Research Council (ERC): the Specific Programme "Ideas" will be implemented according to the principles of scientific excellence, autonomy, and efficiency by means of the ERC consisting of an independent Scientific Council composed of scientists, engineers and scholars of the highest repute, representing the European research community, supported by an implementation structure which would be set up as an Executive Agency in accordance with Council Regulation Nr 58/2003 of 19 December 2002 laying down the statute for executive agencies to be entrusted with certain tasks in the management of Community programmes.(6)

According to the Commission another Executive Agency will be entrusted with certain tasks required to implement the Specific Programmes of indirect actions (all Specific Programmes except for the two concerning the Joint Research Centre).

The Executive Agency was already foreseen in the PDB 2007. However, the EP has deleted this budget line in the Budget 2007 as the Commission had not yet submitted the relevant document (financial statement, cost-benefit analysis etc) required by the Code of Conduct before setting up a new Executive Agency.

Completion of previous framework programme for research (chapter 08 21)

and outstanding commitments (RAL)

The completion of previous framework programmes (above all FP5 and FP6) will be one of the main issues for 2007.

Programmes prior to 1999 (article 08 21 01)

Payment appropriations foreseen for the completion of programmes prior to 1999

EUR 125 00

Pre-2006 commitments still outstanding/RAL

EUR 3 210 655

Appropriations that will be de-committed (7)

EUR 1 034 655

Completion of the 5th framework programme (1998-2002) article 08 21 02

Payment appropriations foreseen for the completion of the 5th framework programme

EUR 300 816 000

Pre-2006 commitments still out-standing/RAL

EUR 1 149 020 246

Completion of the 6th framework programme (2003-2006) article 08 21 03

Payment appropriations foreseen for the completion of the 5th framework programme

EUR 1 849 133 000

Pre-2006 commitments still out-standing/RAL

EUR 5 318 531 763

source: Budget 2007

The European Parliament will monitor very closely the implementation of previous research programmes bearing in mind that the funding for the current FP7 represents an increase by 75% compared to the former MFF. The European Parliament also reserves its right to take appropriate action within the 2008 budgetary procedure.

Rules for participation in the research programmes

There has been much discussion on the need for more funding for research. However, there have also been proposals on how to improve the overall cost-benefit balance. The Court of Auditors has looked into the implementation of research programmes and has made recommendations on how to increase the value for money. The main problems concerned the following issues:

§ long duration of funding procedures under the current Framework programme (FP6)

§ up to 263 calendar days between receipt of documents by Commission and the signing of the contract

§ long pre-financing by participants is often necessary (difficult for SMEs)

§ a simplification of the whole procedure is badly needed (e.g. through the creation of an integrated database)

§ need to reduce administrative cost.

These issues have been tackled by the EP´s input on the Regulations laying down the rules for the participation in actions, to which the Committee on Budgets proposed amendments aiming at improving the current system.(8)

Furthermore, the EP succeeded in improving considerably the relevant rules laid down in the Financial Regulation bearing in mind the following principles (see Report by Ingeborg Gräßle A6-0057/2006):

§ Proportionality of administrative action (the required effort and the work to be put into checking should be proportionate to the amounts and risks involved)

§ Improvement of access to grants and streamlining of application procedures

§ According to the revised Art. 109 par. 1 of the Financial Regulation "grants shall be subject to the principles of transparency and equal treatment"(9)

Budget implementation in 2006

According to the Commission´s report on budget implementation in 2006 (Budget Forecast Alert System) which the Commissioner presented to the Committee on Budgets on 21 March 2007, the implementation in chapter 06 06 (research in the field of energy and transport) was about 80%, with EUR 37 million still remaining to be spent after a transfer of + EUR 13 million. The report concludes that "the under-implementation relates on the one hand to the closure of the 5th Research Framework Programme, for which final cost claims were lower than expected and some expenditure turned out not to be eligible; and on the other hand to the 6th Research Framework Programme, for which cost claims were lower than expected and less advance payments were made due to missing bank guarantees".

Financial programming as updated in January 2007

Within title 02, in order to take account of the proposal of a European Institute of Technology, a new budget item is created with a global amount of EUR 308,7 million for the whole period 2008-2013.

Concerning the 7th framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities, as well as the 7th framework programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) for nuclear research and training activities, the recent update of the financial programming took into account that the legal acts had finally been adopted and the final figures of specific programmes and sub-programmes were consequently adjusted, although the annual amounts for the framework programmes will remain unchanged.

European Institute of Technology (EIT)

Last autumn the Commission proposed a Regulation establishing the European Institute of Technology (COM(2006)604) which is currently being considered by the European Parliament and the Council.

The proposed reference amount is EUR 308 million for a period of 6 years from 1 January 2008 (till 2013). Additionally, EUR 1,5 billion are supposed to come from other EU programmes (FP7, CIP, Structural Funds etc.) Moreover, EUR 527 million would come from Member States, private sector and EIB loans. This means that in total, the Commission estimates the spending of the EIT and the KICs ((Knowledge and Innovation Communities) at EUR 2,367 billion (see Annexe).

The problems linked to the financing concern the following issues:

§ The funding was not explicitly foreseen in the MFF 2007-2013. Therefore, the financial reference amount (EUR 308 million) would reduce the margin left under heading 1a.

§ According to the proposal the funding for the EIT will partly be taken from existing programmes such as FP7, the Competitiveness and innovation programme (CIP) and the Structural Funds (ERDF, ERF).

There is also concern that the EIT could overlap with already existing structure set up by FP7 such as the European Research Council. The rapporteur would also like to clarify the relationship between the existing Joint Research Centre and the EIT.

Conclusions

1.)  Funding for FP7 is considerably lower than initially proposed by the Commission and demanded by the European Parliament. Therefore a maximum percentage of this reference amount should be allocated to operational funding reducing additional administrative expenditure such as Executive Agencies to the minimum that is absolutely necessary and justified by a real improvement of the implementation. The Commission could therefore be requested to provide clear information on the exact amount of overall administrative expenditure that will be funded from FP7 (heading 1a).

2.)  The Committee on Budgets, in cooperation with the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE), has to carefully monitor if the improvements introduced in the Financial Regulation are sufficient in order to ease the implementation of the current Framework Programme for Research and encourage researchers to apply for funding.

3.)  In view of recent legislative developments such as the Commission proposal on a European Institute of Technology (EIT) it has become clear that the funding finally agreed for Research and Development under heading 1a of the current MFF seems to be insufficient bearing in mind that the margin left under this heading has been reduced considerably by the recent updates of the financial programming presented by the Commission and by new actions not foreseen in the MFF and financed under the remaining margin. This could be a topic for the mid-term review of the MFF.

4.)  The rapporteur is of the opinion that the main aim of European research policy is to promote competitiveness, and enhance cooperation and networking between research centres and centres of excellence thus improving efficiency. Cooperation with enterprises as well as the participation of SMEs are crucial. The promotion of the European dimension of research is necessary in order to be able to compete with third countries such as the US which spend important amounts on research. The EU is behind competitors in applied research (see number of patents). EU funding should represent an added value to research already undertaken by the Member States (e.g. research areas that are so expensive that no single Member State could afford to do so alone such as ITER).

5.)  One should not forget that Member States also finance research activities and EU funding is one (important) contribution to the overall aim of fostering research. An important part of the objective of 3% of the GNI will have to come from the Member States (public R&D expenditure in EU-25 Member States in 2003 was at 0.81% of GDP as an average, of which 0.76% from national sources and 0.05% from the EU) Therefore, the European research programmes, although the final allocation (EUR 48.081 million) remains far behind the Commision proposal (Prodi package - EUR 68.011), can only be one part of the solution but they should nevertheless play an important role in trying to achieve the Lisbon goals.

ANNEX

EUROPEAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

DETAILS OF RESOURCES (as set out in the financial statement of the Commission proposal)

Objectives of the proposal in terms of their financial cost and resource (scenario of 6 KICs in 2013)

Costs

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Total

EIT governing structure

2.900

5.800

8.700

8.700

8.700

8.700

43.500

Knowledge and Innovation Communities

0.000

0.000

220.800

303.600

441.600

662.400

1,628.400

Grants for Master students and PhD candidates

0.000

0.000

5.600

20.600

45.200

73.800

145.200

Improvement of innovation/research/education capacity

0.000

0.000

100.000

150.000

150.000

150.000

550.000

Total costs

2.900

5.800

335.100

482.900

645.500

894.900

2,367.100

Resources

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Local authorities and Member States, Enterprises, EIB loans, Venture Capital, (directly to KICs or directly to EIT depending on source)

0.000

0.000

47.080

113.040

133.740

233.100

526,960

Community budget (programmes: FP7, CIP, LLL, Structural Funds: ERDF, ESF) (directly to KICs)(10)

 

 

238.020

309.860

436.760

546.800

1,531.440

Community budget (unallocated margin, subheading 1A) (directly to EIT)

2.900

5.800

50.000

60.000

75.000

115.000

308.700

Total resources

2.900

5.800

335.100

482.900

645.500

894.900

2,367.100

Working document on Freedom, Security and Justice - Heading 3A

Since the beginning of the financial period 2007 - 2013, "Home affairs" have for the first time a sub-heading ("Freedom, Security and Justice") for its own, Number 3 A. Having "ring fenced" for the first time the amounts allocated to "Justice, Freedom and Security" in a specific subheading in the MFF marks the priority given to it compared to the period 2000 - 2006 and ensures increased visibility and a stable financial basis to its policies as the Commission can not easily reshuffle its budget to other policy areas.

It has to be repeated that the confusion of terminology noted in Working document 10 during the 2007 budget procedure has still not been remedied. The responsible Commissioner's, Vice-President Franco Frattini, portfolio is called "Freedom, Security and Justice"(11) whereas it's Directorate General is called "Justice, Freedom and Security"(12) (equals to the renamed ex-DG "Justice and Home affairs" -until August 2004).

But title 18 in the Budget is again called "Freedom, Security and Justice" (implemented by the fore-mentioned Directorate General, abbreviated "JSL")(13).

II. Overview of the programmes

The operational expenditure in Heading 3a "Freedom, Security and Justice" of the MFF amounts to EUR 600 (637 in current prices) million in 2007 and EUR 690 (747 in current prices) million in 2008. The budget 2007 of DG JLS adopted by the European Parliament amounts to approximately EUR 612,2 million. It comprises 7 operational chapters. (Table 1):

Table 1: Operational and administrative expenditure (EUR)

Operational

Expenditure

Programmes

Budget 2007 C.A.

Budget 2007

P.A.

18 02

Solidarity — External borders, visa policy and free movement of people

238 200 000

151 200 000

18 03

Migration flows — Common immigration and asylum policies

149 030 000

135 605 000

18 04

Fundamental rights and citizenship

33 476 000

33 576 000

18 05

Security and safeguarding liberties

61 946 000

48 046 000

18 06

Justice in criminal and civil matters

58 294 000

39 594 000

18 07

Drugs prevention and information

14 851 060

12 851 060

18 08

Policy strategy and coordination

5 400 000

6 200 000

Total operational expenditure

561 197 060

427 072 060

Administrative expenditure I

51 021 005

51 021 005

Total

612 218 065

478 093 065

I of which EUR 47 607 005 are financed under Heading 5 and EUR 3 414 000 are financed under Heading 3A

Budget 2007 has seen the launch of three new framework programmes in the field of Freedom, Security and Justice: Fundamental Rights and Justice, Solidarity and Management of Migration flows and Security and Safeguarding Liberties(14).

The situation concerning the corresponding legal acts is as follows by of end of March 2007:

· "Fundamental Rights and Justice": First Reading EP on 6 September and 14 December 2006. Council Common Position only on sub-programme "Daphne III" on 12 March 2007, the other Common positions are pending.

· "Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows": First Reading EP on 14 December 2006 Council Common Positions are pending since. From which sub-programme "European Refugee Fund" can not be considered as delayed as it covers 2008 - 2013 only.

· "Security and Safeguarding Liberties": Although EP had adopted its opinions on 14 December 2006, Council adopted the final acts only on 14 February 2007.

As the majority of the corresponding legal basis are not yet adopted finally and Article 49 of the Financial regulation(15) provides that a basic act shall first be adopted before the appropriations entered in the budget for any action by the Communities or by the European Union may be used, these programmes can be considered as being "delayed".

Apparently, the Commission will try to remedy the situation by "backloading" (although calling it "further frontloading in 2009 and 2010") when stating on page 21 (point 3.2.3.) of the APS-document(16) that the additional funds for FRONTEX and EUROJUST will be obtained by "adjusting" the amounts for those programmes whose start-up has been delayed.

III. The new programmes in detail according the new financial programming of the Commission

Meeting its obligations under the IIA, the European Commission in January 2007 has submitted an exhaustive document giving an overview of the recent development within each expenditure Heading of the MFF with the objective to ensure the consistency of the legislative process with the agreed expenditure ceilings, taking into account, for example the adoption of new legal bases or of the actual amounts agreed in the recently adopted (2007) Budget.

The new details for the legislative envelopes of the programmes in Heading 3A are now as follows(17) (Table 2):

HEADING 3A - FREEDOM, SECURITY AND JUSTICE

period 

global envelope over period

BUDG 2007 + PADB 1

Fin.

Prog.

2008

 Fin.

Prog.

2009

 Fin.

Prog.

2010

Fin.

Prog.

2011

 Fin.

Prog.

2012

Fin.

Prog.

2013

Consultation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Integration Third-countries

(07-13)

825,0

65,0

78,0

98,0

106,0

132,0

163,0

183,0

Fundamental rights

(07-13)

96,5

10,9

12,3

13,4

14,1

14,1

15,7

16,0

Criminal justice

(07-13)

199,0

29,5

30,3

30,6

26,5

26,9

27,4

28,0

Terrorism

(07-13)

139,4

12,8

15,4

18,0

20,5

23,4

23,7

25,6

Crime

(07-13)

605,6

45,2

51,6

73,0

86,5

109,6

118,3

121,4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Co-decision

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

European Refugee Fund

(05-07)

176,4

78,3

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

European Refugee Fund

(08-13)

628,0

0,0

82,0

98,0

98,0

110,0

110,0

130,0

European Return Fund

(08-13)

676,0

0,0

56,0

67,0

83,0

114,0

163,0

193,0

External Borders Fund

(07-13)

1.820,0

170,3

155,0

186,0

208,0

254,0

350,0

496,7

Daphne

(07-13)

116,9

14,2

14,7

16,1

17,6

18,0

17,9

18,4

Civil justice

(07-13)

109,3

14,4

14,7

14,9

15,8

16,0

16,5

17,1

Drugs prevention & information

(07-13)

21,4

3,1

3,1

3,1

3,1

3,1

3,1

3,1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HEADING 3A

 

 

443,6

513,0

618,0

679,0

821,0

1.008,5

1.232,2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other expenditure

 

 

180,2

201,2

212,4

298,1

324,5

326,4

320,5

Total Heading 3a

 

 

623,8

714,2

830,4

977,1

1.145,5

1.334,9

1.552,7

Financial framework ceiling

(in current prices)

 

 

637,0

747,0

872,0

1.025,0

1.206,0

1.406,0

1.661,0

Margin

 

 

13,2

32,8

41,6

47,9

60,5

71,1

108,3


The main change also reflected in the APS concerns the external border fund (line 18 02 06) where available appropriations have been increased by EUR 15,3 million compared to the initial financial programming.

IV. Agencies

Currently, there are six agencies operating under the Title 18 Policy area (Table 3):

Table 3: Agencies under Heading 3A (EUR million)

 

FINANCIAL PROGRAMMING

Location

BUDG +PADB1

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

TOTAL

07 - 13

18 02 03

European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders

Warsaw

33,980

27,100

33,100

35,000

52,000

52,000

52,000

285,180

18 04 05

European Union agency for fundamental rights

Wien

14,000

15,000

17,000

20,000

20,000

22,000

22,000

130,000

18 05 02

Europol

0,000

0,000

0,000

82,000

83,000

84,000

85,000

334,000

18 05 05

European Police College

Bramshill

7,439

8,700

8,800

9,000

9,200

9,400

9,400

61,939

18 06 04

Eurojust

Den Haag

18,414

17,500

18,000

19,000

19,500

20,500

20,500

133,414

18 07 01

European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction

Lisboa

13,000

13,200

13,400

13,600

14,000

14,400

14,400

96,000

TOTAL

 

86,833

81,500

90,300

178,600

197,700

202,300

203,300

1040,533

As to FRONTEX, your rapporteur considers the increase of EUR 15,3 million from 2007 compared with 2006 justified. But he would like to remind that a further additional amount of EUR 10.9 million in 2008, as announced by the Commission in the APS-document (point 3.2.3, page 21), would mean a reduction for the co-decided programme of "Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows". Moreover, this "backloading" of the co-decided programme would have the effect that the margin would be significantly reduced at the end of the programming period. Also it remains to be verified if the beneficiary is in fact asking for any additional funding at all.

The same is valid for EUROJUST, an agency which does a good job. But is not too easy to fund an agency generously with additional money and express one's hope that the establishment of a "single area of justice in criminal and civil matters will be reinforced by an additional EUR 2,5 million for EUROJUST"(18) from 2008 to 2013 ? First its tasks are focussed on criminal offences only, not civil matters. Secondly, in the field of a single area of justice in "civil matters", there is an excellent long -run Commission initiative, supported by university teachers, stakeholder and the European Parliament to create a European code of obligations or even a full-blown European Civil Code.(19) Would it not give better results to support efforts of this kind, of professionals outside the institutional sphere than increasing every financial year the annual cheque for a Community body?

The rapporteur would like to ask on the Commission to clarify if the solving of problems with the management of the "new" EU agency for fundamental rights (the successor of the monitoring centre on Racism and Xenophobia(20)) that have been arisen in the past is on its good way.

It is to note that the appropriations for Europol (EUR 82 million from 2010 on) are subject to the creation of this body as an agency of the Union as the legal successor of the European Police Office (established by the Europol Convention). This has been proposed by the Commission(21), but the question is currently being discussed in the Council. In this context it has to be reminded that Article 47 of the Interinstitutional agreement on budgetary discipline and sound financial management(22) provides for an assessment of the Commission of the budgetary implications for Heading 3A during the process of creating Europol as a Union Agency.

In line with your rapporteurs efforts to achieve a budget for results, he fully endorses the Council's Budget Committee's recent conclusion(23) that it was important to keep a tight grip on the funding of the decentralised agencies with the purpose of making economies through realistic appropriations, in line with real needs, and of avoiding over-budgeting. It has also asked on the Commission to provide together with the PDB a concise and comprehensive budgetary overview of all the decentralised agencies.

V. Pilot projects and preparatory actions

There are no pilot projects or preparatory actions under Heading 3A in 2007 Budget. The following pilot schemes and preparatory actions have been completed in 2006:

Heading

Budget line

18 03 05

European Migration Monitoring Centre

18 03 06

Completion of Integration of nationals of non-member countries

18 03 08

Completion of Return management in the area of migration

18 04 03

Completion of research and evaluation programme on respect for fundamental rights

18 04 04

Completion of preparatory action to support civil society in the new EU Member States

18 05 01 03

Completion of exchange programme for juridical authorities

18 05 04

Completion of preparatory actions for the victims of terrorist acts

18 05 06

Completion of fight against terrorism

As to commitments, all the corresponding lines have become "pour mémoire". As to payments, a total of EUR 37,75 million still has to be paid off in 2007.

In this context it is worth to mention that your rapporteur suggested an internal study by Directorate D of DG IPOL to be drawn up dealing with assessing EU funding for migration monitoring to compare the financial resources given to the new instruments such as External Borders Fund, European Refugee Fund, European Fund for the integration of third-country nationals as well as FRONTEX Agency, with their aims and the policy objectives. Assessment should be done whether the funds and its division between different instruments and whether they can achieve the best possible results and give support to member states coping with immigration.

EU's external borders are subject to a permanent and a considerable migratory pressure.. The necessity to better control the EU's external borders is one of the top priority.  Therefore EP, on the initiative of it's committee on civil Liberties, has voted a preparatory action "Migration management - Solidarity in action" (Title 18 03 12) with an amount of EUR 15 million in the 2007 Budget. The objective will be to cope with influxes but also provide dignified reception conditions for desperate the "Solidarity" Framework Programme is fully operational. EU resources were already made available in certain cases (with the "specific (urgent) actions" within the context of the ARGO programme in 2005 and 2006 for example).

It will be a top priority of your rapporteur to monitor carefully the implementation of this preparatory action by the European Commission:

VI. Other remarks

1. SIS II and VIS

In 2007 Budget, EUR 20 million were foreseen for the "Schengen information system" (SIS II)(24) (line 18 02 04) and EUR 48 million for the "Visa information system (VIS)"(25) (line 18 02 05). SIS II consists basically of a large computer based in Strasbourg giving Member States the possibility of detecting wanted persons or objects, following the abolition of internal border controls. VIS also is a database, facilitating the exchange of data concerning the common visa policy and consular co-operation between Member States on applications in order to prevent threats to internal security of any of the Member States, to prevent the bypassing of the criteria for application and to facilitate the fight against fraud and to assist in the identification and return of illegal immigrants.

Since there were no details available concerning the contract between the Commission and the Member State which will be responsible for system management, EUR 5 million on the SIS II line had been entered in the reserve.

According to the conditions, EUR 1 m will be released from the reserve when the legal basis authorising SIS II and VIS interoperability has been adopted, and EUR 4 m will be released when Parliament has been notified of the details of the contract and the real costs for the Member State responsible for system management.

Concerning VIS, even EUR 16 million have been entered into the reserve, given the lack of detail concerning VIS management arrangements. According to the conditions they will be released, on a case-by-case basis, once the appropriate legal bases have been adopted and Parliament has been duly notified of the VIS management arrangements.

The rapporteur notes that, apparently, the Member States are not yet ready to implement the communitarisation of these policies.

2. Civil protection

Your rapporteur wishes to explore the details of an apparently new initiative of the Commission, mentioned in the Annual Policy strategy(26), consisting in strengthening the EU Civil Protection Mechanism and developing an integrated strategy on disaster prevention occurring. As Civil Protection might have a "Home affairs" dimension, it must be mentioned in the framework of this document.

VII. Conclusions

The rapporteur considers that the possible follow up in the Budget 2008 could be:

1.  The budgetary authority is aware of the delay of the new generation of framework programmes, and the risks such delay might cause for the implementation. This must be carefully monitored in the course of the budgetary procedure 2008.

2.  "Back-loading" certain programmes may cause problems, as stated in paragraph 18 and 22 of the European Parliament's resolution on the Commission's annual policy strategy for the 2008 budget procedure, mentioning Parliament's "concern about the proposed back-loading of certain programmes in the 2008 APS and the problems that this may be storing up for future years of the MFF".

3.  A balanced ratio between agencies and programmes should be looked for to avoid jeopardising the operational programmes. Any possible additional funding that could be provided to the agencies has to be agreed within the framework of the global annual budget. The attention is drawn to the fact that the more is spent on agencies, the less is left for the legislative programmes, pilot projects and preparatory actions.

4.  As the only preparatory action left now is "Migration management - Solidarity in action", it should be accompanied by the further prospective of an in-House study, in order to evaluate as early as possible its contribution for a budget for results.

5.  Concerning SIS II and VIS, should the same problems identified last years persist, the Commission should inform the Budgetary Authority about the possible developments expected in 2007. In the course of the annual budgetary procedure EP will evaluate which actions have to be taken

Working documents on pilot projects and preparatory actions

Introduction

1.        The working document is structured as follows. Part I sets out the legal framework in line with the modifications to the legal framework for pilot projects (PPs) and preparatory actions (PAs) in the Inter-Institutional Agreement (IIA) of 17 May 2006. Part II deals with PPs and PAs in the 2007 budget procedure. Part III looks at the scope for and ideas regarding PPs and PAs for the forthcoming 2008 budget procedure.

I - The legal framework for pilot projects and preparatory actions

2.   The legal framework for pilot projects and preparatory actions was changed significantly in the IIA of 17 May 2006. This section sets out the main changes. Issues relating to the provision of information by the Budgetary Authority about the creation of new PPs and PAs are covered in section III of this working document.

3.   PPs and PAs are an important tool for the Parliament to set out its political priorities and for introducing new initiatives outside existing legislative programmes. For PPs and PAs, the relevant budgetary decision typically precedes and may later give rise to the associated legislative decision, reversing the usual order. Article 49 of the Financial Regulation(27) sets out the exceptions to the general budgetary principle that a basic act must be adopted before the budget appropriations entered for any Community action may be used. The sections of article 49 concerning this issue are point 6, letters (a) and (b) respectively.

4.   The Financial Regulation defines a pilot project as a scheme "of an experimental nature designed to test the feasibility of an action and its usefulness". The Financial Regulation further states that "commitment appropriations may be entered in the budget for only two successive financial years".

5.   Preparatory actions are defined by the Financial Regulation as actions "designed to prepare proposals with a view to the adoption of future actions ... The relevant commitment appropriations may be entered in the budget for only three successive years at most. The legislative procedure must be completed before the end of the third financial year".

6.   The 2008 budget is being prepared in the context of the IIA of 17 May 2006. In Annex II, section D of the 2006 IIA "the institutions agree to limit the total amount of appropriations for pilot schemes to € 40 million in any budget year. They also agree to limit to € 50 million the total amount of appropriations for new preparatory actions in any budget year, and to € 100 million the total amount of appropriations actually committed for preparatory actions".

7.   Your rapporteurs also wish to stress that the funds available for financing PPs and PAs are affected by the margins available under the heading structure of the MFF and notes in this regard that paragraph 20 of Parliament's resolution on the Annual Policy Strategy (APS) of the Commission adopted in plenary on 24 April 2007 stated that: "... as regards pilot projects and preparatory actions for the 2008 budget procedure ... expresses its concern that, in some headings and sub-headings of the budget, there may not be sufficient margins available for major new pilot projects and preparatory actions".

8.   Before a PP or PA agreed in an annual budget procedure can be implemented, it must go through certain procedures foreseen by the Financial Regulation. Public procurement and grants provisions apply to PPs and PAs. Article 49 of the Financial Regulation also requires the Commission to present, with the PDB, "a report to the budgetary authority ... which shall cover an assessment of the results and the follow-up envisaged".

9.   The Commission recently produced its first interim report on the implementation of pilot projects and preparatory actions 2007. This document (page 6) provides the following description of the expenditure cycle of a PP or PA:

"The implementation of a Pilot Project or a Preparatory Action has to go through a certain number of steps, which are foreseen by the Financial Regulation. The procedures differ, depending on whether they concern procurements or grants. However, in both cases, before arriving at the final financing decision, the Commission has to prepare the way for the best use of the action or project, and the related budgetary appropriations.

First the specific objectives and ways of implementing the proposed action must be analysed and, on this basis, attributed to the responsible Directorate General. It may take several weeks before the final attribution is decided, especially when the action has links to several policy areas. Then, as foreseen by the Financial Regulation, the authorising officer and the manager responsible have to elaborate a sufficiently detailed framework, in respect of which the financing decision is finally taken. Only when all these preparatory phases are completed, can the financial implementation start.

The indicative deadlines can be summarised as follows:

· 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 63days.

· 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 (AWP), which has to be adopted by 31 March of the year concerned. As soon as the AWP is adopted, the preparation of the calls for proposals takes 30 days on average, while answers are usually expected to arrive after a period of two months from the publication of the call for proposals. The length of time need for the evaluation of proposals depends on the number of responses, and it can take from a few days to more than 60 days. 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, which must be carefully analysed. The process also requires the respect of the procedures of sound and efficient financial management.

The Commission would also like to point out the success of a Pilot Project or a Preparatory Action is to be measured on the sustainability of the results produced, and much less on the speediness of the commitments."

10. The rapporteurs 2007-2008 wish to remind the Commission that in the last revision of the Financial Regulation and its Implementing rules, EP aimed at simplifying the procedures to facilitate the access of the european citizens to E.U. funding. The Commission should clarify how it entends to put the new rules in practice for PP and AP.

11.      The rapporteurs note that according to maximum deadlines foreseen by the rules, it might take 461 days (ie more than a financial year) before a PP-PA can be implemented. The Commission should indicate what has been the average duration of the preparatory phases over the past years.

II - PPs and PAs from the 2007 budget

12.                 The 2007 budget includes 30 PPs and 28 PAs. It is not possible to give comments on all of the projects in this working document. The rapporteur would therefore like to highlight the annexed overview tables provided by the Commission and by Parliament's secretariat and to note that the Commission's First Interim Report on the implementation of pilot projects and preparatory actions provides detailed information on each ongoing project.

13.    Members will find in annex the table on PP/ PAs provided by the Commission in its first interim report

14.    It should be noted that for most PP/ PAs, the preparations leading up to a grant payment, following a call for proposals, will be at least 6 months or so. In the cases of procurement (calls-for-tender) the procedures will be even longer and this may delay payments in the first year. The rapporteur intends, however, to scrutinise the implementation figures to ensure that the Commission continues to do its utmost as regards the implementation of projects adopted by the Budgetary Authority.

15.    In preparing for further work on the 2008 budget the rapporteur is fully aware of the fact that the availability of funds for new PPs and PAs will be affected by the extent to which requests are made for existing PPs and PAs to receive continuing funding.

16.    The rapporteur welcomes the constructive engagement of the Commission on its first interim report on the implementation of Pilot Projects and Preparatory Actions in 2007. He notes that the Commission is taking them seriously and is ready to ensure a close follow-up.

Nevertheless, following the information provided in the report (see above pag. 9), notably on the complex and lengthy procedures, the rapporteur is concerned about the concrete starting up of these PPs and APs.

17. The rapporteur asks the Commission to give up-dated information on the state of play of particularly:

-   The EU assuming its Role in a Globalised World – IPR Help Services for EU SMEs in Beijing (02 02 09);

-   Pilot Information Networks (PINs) (16 03 06);

-   Business and Scientific Exchange with India (19 10 01 03) and

-   Business and Scientific Exchange with China (19 10 01 04)

-   Cooperation between European institutes of Technology (15 02 29)

The rapporters have taken note of the Commission's initiative to create a European Institute of Technology (COM(2006)0604). They would like to raise the following question: how the Commission intends to ensure the complementarity of the PP, concerning the network of EITs, and the legal basis establishing the European Institute of Technology?

    - Transatlantic measures for handing global challenges (19 05 03)

The rapporteur asks for more information about the follow-up of the EU-US annual summit held in Washington on 30 April. How the Commission intends to incorporate the conclusions into the pilot project?

III - The 2008 budget procedure

18. With regard to the agreement of new PPs and PAs in the annual budget procedure, Section D of annex II of the 2006 IIA includes a new element relative to the previous IIA. It states that "in order for the Commission to be able to assess in due time the implementability of amendments envisaged by the budgetary authority which create new preparatory actions/ pilot projects or prolong existing ones, both arms of the budgetary authority will inform the Commission by mid-June of their intentions in this regard, so that a first discussion may already take place at the conciliation meeting of the Council's first reading."

Following the presentation of the PDB last 2 May, the rapporteur will evaluate whether the margins left under the different headings will allow EP(s priorities to be financed. The rapporteur wishes to recall that over the past PP and PAs initiated by the Parliament have become successful community programmes (Life, Refugee Fund, etc).

19. Whilst fully aware of the text of the IIA, the rapporteur notes that requests for PPs and PAs from the side of the European Parliament traditionally take the form of budgetary amendments. According to Parliament's internal procedures in advance of its first reading in October, the deadline for tabling such amendments in first reading falls in September. Although procedures constitute a practical constraint as regards the degree of specificity with which Parliament is able to inform the Commission by mid-June of its intentions as regards PPs and PAs, the Parliament will endeavour to anticipate the information of the Commission on its priorities for 2008 as much as possible.

20. The remainder of this working document therefore sets out some ideas as regards the areas in which Parliament may come forward with proposals for PPs and PAs during the 2008 budget procedure. These ideas are intended to stimulate discussion on forthcoming priorities in light of the wording of Annex II (D) of the IIA and the first reading conciliation that is foreseen for 13 July 2007.

21. The themes set out below are based upon the rapporteur's earlier work in the preparation of his working document 1 on a budget for results, which received very broad support in the Committee on Budgets, and which provided a basis for the preparation of this resolution on the Commission's APS.

Areas in which new PPs and PAs might be suggested

22. The rapporteur would strongly welcome input from and discussion with his colleagues in the Committee on Budgets and in Parliament's specialised committees in the coming weeks and months with a view to preparing a set of proposals for PPs and PAs in the 2008 budget that is forward-looking and in line with the rapporteur's philosophy of a budget for results.

23. In line with his working document 1 on a budget for results, Parliament's resolution of 24 April 2007 on the Commission's Annual Policy Strategy 2008, and the studies that are being conducted on behalf of the Committee on Budgets during 2007, the rapporteur would suggest the following indicative and preliminary list of areas in which Parliament might propose pilot projects for the 2008 budget:

· Boosting competitiveness and life-long learning

· Enhancing Europe's contribution to international cultural understanding

· Boosting Europe's global competitiveness

· Funding for illegal migration monitoring

· Flagship projects toward energy efficiency and dealing with climate change

· Boosting the multi-functionality of European agriculture and enhancing the sustainability of rural livelihoods

· Improving communication through local links

· Enhancing and developing multi-lingualism

Annex - summary tables on PPs and PAs provided by the Commission

Note: These tables are taken from the Commission's first interim report on the implementation of pilot projects and preparatory actions. Two points should be noted as regards the Commission's tables:

(i) Budget line 02 02 09 "The EU assuming its role in a globalised world" is a PA and not as a PP as in the below tables.

(ii) Budget line 05 08 03 "Restructuring of systems for agricultural surveys" has been omitted from the PA table .

Summary Table on Pilot projects

ABB
Nomenclature

DG responsible

2005

2006

2007

Heading

Budget 2005

Budget 2006

Budget 2007

C.A.

P.A.

C.A.

P.A.

C.A.

P.A.

Heading 1a

 

 

 

 

 

 

02 02 03 01

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

3.00

4.50

p.m.

2.00

02 02 03 03

ENTR

PP1

PP2

 

Transfer of expertise through mentoring in SMEs

2.00

2.00

3.00

3.00

p.m.

2.00

02 02 03 04

ENTR

 

 

PP1

Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs

 

 

 

 

3.00

3.00

02 02 05 01

ELARG

 

 

 

Enlargement programme for SMEs

 

 

p.m.

1.60

p.m.

1.00

02 02 05 05

ENTR

 

 

PP1

Measures to promote cooperation and partnerships between micro, small and medium-sized enterprises.

 

 

 

 

2.00

2.00

02 02 06

RTD

 

 

 

Regions of knowledge

 

 

p.m.

0.60

p.m

0.55

02 02 08

ENTR

 

PP1

PP2

European Destinations of Excellence

 

 

1.00

0.50

1.00

0.85

02 02 09

ENTR

 

 

PP1

The European Union assuming its role in a globalised world

 

 

 

 

5.00

3.00

02 02 10

ENTR

 

 

PP1

Technological Transfer

 

 

 

 

2.00

2.00

04 04 05

EMPL

PP2

 

 

Mainstreaming of disability actions

3.00

3.00

p.m.

1.50

p.m.

2.00

06 04 07

TREN

 

 

PP1

Energy security bio-fuels

 

 

 

 

5.00

2.00

06 07 02

TREN

 

PP1

PP2

Security along the trans-European road network

 

 

5.50

5.50

2.00

3.60

15 02 02 06

EAC

 

PP1

PP2

Individual mobility of upper secondary pupils

 

 

2.50

2.00

p.m.

0.50

15 02 23

EAC

PP1

PP2

 

Erasmus-style programme for apprentices

2.00

2.00

2.00

1.70

p.m.

1.80

15 02 28

EAC

 

 

PP1

European Neighbourhood Policy scholarships at the College of Europe

 

 

 

 

0.80

0.80

15 02 29

EAC

 

 

PP1

Cooperation between European institutes of technology

 

 

 

 

5.00

2.50

Heading2

 

 

 

 

 

 

05 01 04 07

AGRI

 

PP1

PP2

Security fund in the fruit and vegetables sector

 

 

0.50

0.50

 

 

05 01 04 08

AGRI

 

 

PP1

Sustainable agriculture and soil conservation through simplified cultivation techniques

 

 

 

 

2.00

2.00

07 03 11

ENV

 

 

PP1

Forest protection and conservation

 

 

 

 

3.00

1.50

17 01 04 04

SANCO

PP2

 

 

Risk financing model for livestock epidemics

 

0.50

p.m.

p.m.

p.m.

p.m.

Heading 3a

 

 

 

 

 

 

18 05 06

JLS

PP1

PP2

 

Completion of fight against terrorism

7.00

4.00

9.00

7.00

p.m.

6.00

Heading 3b

 

 

 

 

 

 

07 04 02

ENV

 

PP1

PP2

Cross Border Cooperation in fight against natural disasters

 

 

6.50

6.50

p.m.

3.90

15 06 01

EAC

 

PP1

 

Pilot project in favour of citizenship

 

 

0.50

0.50

p.m.

p.m.

15 06 07

EAC

 

 

PP1

European Political Foundations

 

 

 

 

1.00

1.00

16 03 05

COMM

 

 

PP1

Euroglobe

 

 

 

 

1.50

1.50

16 03 06

COMM

 

 

PP1

Pilot information networks (PINs)

 

 

 

 

5.00

3.00

Heading 4

 

 

 

 

 

 

19 05 03

RELEX

 

 

PP1

Transatlantic methods for handling global challenges

 

 

 

 

2.50

1.50

21 04 04

RELEX

 

 

PP1

European emergency judicial assistance

 

 

 

 

0.20

0.10

21 04 06

AIDCO

 

 

PP1

Water management in developing countries

 

 

 

 

3.00

0.00

Heading 5

 

 

 

 

 

 

26 01 08

tbc

 

 

PP1

Pilot Project: minimizing administrative burdens

 

 

 

 

2.00

2.00

TOTAL Pilot Projects

 

 

 

 

40.00

 

Annual ceiling Pilot Projects

 

 

 

 

46.00

52.10

Margin left

 

 

 

 

-6.00

 

Summary Table on Preparatory actions

ABB
Nomenclature

DG responsible

2005

2006

2007

Heading

Budget 2005

Budget 2006

Budget 2007

C.A.

P.A.

C.A.

P.A.

C.A.

P.A.

Heading 1a

 

 

 

 

 

 

02 02 03 02

ENTR

AP2

AP3

 

Support for SMEs in the new financial environment

8.00

8.00

7.00

7.00

p.m.

7.00

02 04 02

ENTR

AP2

AP3

 

Enhancement of European security research

15.00

8.00

15.00

19.00

p.m.

6.00

04 03 06

EMPL

PP2

AP1

AP2

ENEA preparatory action on active ageing and mobility of elder people

(p.m.)

(3.00)

1.50

0.75

3.00

1.50

06 04 03 01

TREN

AP2

AP3

 

Security of conventional energy supplies

p.m.

p.m.

0.50

0.90

p.m.

0.70

09 03 03

INFSO

 

AP1

AP2

Creation of an Internet-based system for better legislation and for public participation

 

 

2.00

2.00

5.00

3.8

09 06 04

INFSO

 

 

 

Initiative i2i audiovisual

p.m.

2.20

p.m.

1.00

-

p.m.

Heading 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

05 04 03 01

AGRI

AP2

AP3

 

Forestry (outside the EAGF and the EAFRD)

0.50

16.00

0.30

3.10

p.m.

0.38

07 03 10

ENV

 

AP1

AP2

NATURA 2000 preparatory action

 

 

2.00

2.00

1.00

1.60

Heading 3a

 

 

 

 

 

 

18 03 05

JLS

AP3

 

 

European Migration Monitoring Centre

3.00

3.80

p.m.

1.80

p.m.

3.00

2.00

1.00

18 03 06

JLS

AP2

AP3

 

Integration of nationals of non-members countries

5.00

6.00

5.00

5.75

p.m.

6.45

18 03 08

JLS

AP1

AP2

AP3

Financial instrument for return management in the area of migration

15.00

8.00

15.00

10.00

p.m.

12.50

18 03 12

JLS

 

 

AP1

Migration management – Solidarity in Action

 

 

 

 

15.00

15.00

18 04 03

JLS

AP2

AP3

 

Research and evaluation programme on respect for fundamental rights

1.00

1.40

0.50

1.00

p.m.

0.80

18 04 04

JLS

AP2

AP3

 

Support of Civil society in the new Member States

2.00

2.00

1.00

1.00

p.m.

2.80

18 05 01 03

JLS

PP2

AP1

 

Exchange programme for judicial authorities

(3.00)

2.50

3.00

2.80

p.m.

1.00

18 05 04

JLS

PP2

AP1

 

Victims of terrorist acts

(2.00)

1.00

2.00

1.20

p.m.

1.20

Heading 3b

 

 

 

 

 

 

17 03 04

SANCO

 

AP1

AP2

Public Health

 

 

2.00

1.04

p.m.

0.96

22 02 05 05

ELARG

AP2

AP3

 

Impact of enlargement in EU border regions

4.00

16.98

p.m.

4.00

p.m.

3.00

22 02 05 06

ELARG

PP2

AP1

 

De-mining activities in Cyprus

p.m.

p.m.

1.00

1.00

p.m.

0.40

Heading 4

 

 

 

 

 

 

19 04 04

AIDCO

PP2

AP1

AP2

Conflict prevention network

p.m.

0.90

1.50

1.25

1.50

1.25

21 02 07 04 (old line)

AIDCO

AP1

AP2

 

Aid for poverty-related diseases in developing countries, other than HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis

10.00

8.00

10.00

14.10

 

 

19 06 01 03

AIDCO

AP2

 

 

Voluntary technical assistance

p.m.

0.50

p.m.

0.20

p.m.

0.20

19 06 02 02

AIDCO

PP2

AP1

AP2

Preparatory action to reduce NBC weapons and small arms

(3.00)

(3.00)

3.00

2.50

p.m.

2.00

19 10 01 03

RELEX-AIDCO

 

 

AP1

Business and scientific exchange with India

 

 

 

 

7.00

5.00

19 10 01 04

RELEX-AIDCO

 

 

AP1

Business and scientific exchange with China

 

 

 

 

7.00

5.00

21 04 05

ENVI

 

 

AP1

Global Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Fund (GEEREF)

 

 

 

 

5.00

5.00

TOTAL Preparatory Actions

 

 

 

 

47.5

86.54

Annual ceiling Preparatory Actions

 

 

 

 

100.0

 

Margin left

 

 

 

 

52.5

 

Working document on Heading 4, the EU as a global partner

.

General outlook

1.        Heading 4 was adopted at EUR 6, 8 billion in the 2007 budget, which, not surprisingly, meant taking external spending right to the limit of what the financial framework allowed.

2.        The PDB 2008 proposes EUR 6, 9 billion (+1, 5 %) in commitments and EUR 7, 9 billion in payments (+7, 7%). This leaves a quite substantial margin but, as discussed below, does not correspond to the real situation. The Commission is already aware of substantial elements that are not so far budgeted.

Table 1: overall comparison of figures 2007 - 2008.

Heading 4: external actions Budget 2007

Commitment appropriations (CA)

EUR

%

Development cooperation and economic cooperation instrument (DCI)

2 208 696 784

32,4%

European neighbourhood and partnership instrument (ENPI)

1 419 955 400

20,8%

Instrument for pre-accession (IPA)

1 263 130 000

18,5%

Humanitarian aid

732 160 000

10,7%

Instrument for stability (IfS)

212 895 738

3,7%

Other actions and programmes (including decentralised agencies)

390 162 000

5,7%

EC guarantees for lending operations

200 000 000

2,9%

Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP)

159 200 000

2,3%

Democracy and Human Rights Instrument (EIDHR)

142 091 078

2,1%

Macroeconomic assistance

58 201 000

1,2%

Industrialised Countries Instrument (ICI)

24 700 000

0,4%

Instrument for Nuclear safety Cooperation (INSC)

1 268 000

0,02%

Budget 2007: Total

6 812 460 000

100%

Financial ceiling 2008

7 002 000 000

 

PDB 2008

6 911 400 000

 

Margin

329 800 000

 

* EUR 239 million budgeted for the emergency aid reserve is included in the overall amounts but does not count when calculating the margin (i.e. it is financed outside the ceiling).

3.        In the APS communication the Commission had worked with a predicted margin of EUR 334 million, after having added about EUR 23 million to new priorities compared to the January financial programming (climate change, Global Energy Fund, Prince and Development awareness). The margin shown in the PDB is EUR 4 million less so there has been some additional allocation made that the Commission should clarify.

4.        The PDB margin shown is quite substantial at nearly 5% of total possible expenditure under the ceiling. The rapporteur has already drawn attention to the fact that this is due to an exceptional situation, as the full amount of EUR 200 million foreseen for the guarantee fund will not be needed in 2008 and has been added to the margin. The rapporteur therefore recommends a certain amount of caution since this money (compulsory expenditure) will be needed again in 2009.

5.        The rapporteur considers the situation even more worrying when it seems clear that these PDB amounts do not actually cover all that which the Commission wants to request. It seems clear that substantial additional amounts could be asked by the Commission for both Kosovo and Palestine. This would be new and un-programmed expenditure that would come on top of the existing budget appropriations for these areas. The rapporteur wonders if a similar situation could exist for other areas as well and expects the commission to be as clear as possible.

6.        In any case, the rapporteur draws attention to the fact that such "new needs", which are not included in the PDB, could possibly amount to as much as EUR 300 million or thereabouts. If the Commission should come forward with such requests, it would mean that the effective margin could be virtually zero. Obviously, if so financed, there would then be nothing left for any other priorities!

7.        The rapporteur draws attention to the fact that for CFSP an overall amount of at least EUR 1 740 million has been agreed for the period 2007-2013 as part of the IIA. On average, this amounts to about EUR 250 million per year. The funding for 2007 was adopted at EUR 159, 2 million and, for 2008, the Commission had in its programming an amount of EUR 200 million. The PDB should show an amount just over the 200m mark.

The character of heading 4

8.        In the era of multi-annual frameworks and co-decision, it is true to say that the resources available are more or less fixed and, barring exceptional events (such as Iraq or the tsunami), the magnitude and general thrust of funding will normally be very similar to the previous year. This is not necessarily a bad thing as the Budgets Committee normally defends the "traditional priorities" and, of course, lives by the MFF, but it does highlight the structural difficulty of making any really significant adjustments. In this sense, there is something to be said for the view that heading 4 is probably still under-funded, something that could not be fully rectified during the MFF negotiations.

9.        It is of course possible to make quite significant changes within the heading, but even this pre-supposes broad political support and, crucially, impetus and agreement from various specialised committees. It would be unrealistic to foresee any major changes in heading 4 for 2008 in what will only be the second year of the new MFF and the new generation of programmes.

10.      The rapporteur notes that, in what has been the enfant terrible of financial headings over the period 2000-2006, the conflicting demands of, on the one hand, facing "new challenges" and crises and, on the other hand, respecting the traditional policies toward EU neighbours and partners further away, will, again, simply have to be looked at side-by-side. This is not a static equation and, luckily, it should have multiple solutions. The only problem is that some of these solutions might be painful, especially given the traditional attitude of the Council.

11.      It should be noted that the budget structure of heading 4 is now largely "instruments-based" reflecting the agreements reached during last year for the legal bases (regulations) which, in several cases, were co-decided. As can be seen in the table above, this does not really facilitate the immediate understanding of heading 4 as many people tend to be involved or interested in "regions and countries" rather than "instruments".

12.      From a point of view of transparency and budget scrutiny, it was therefore decided to maintain some geographical splits at the level of budget chapters/lines in B2007. For example, there are different chapters/lines for Asia and Latin America, although most actions will be financed by the same legal Instrument. In addition to the main political scrutiny of the PDB, the rapporteur may also look into the budget structure of the heading and propose some adjustments.

The character of the Instruments

13.      Members will recall that an extended legislative battle took place in order to settle the new Instruments for external actions. Essentially, this centred on the basic character of the legislation, i.e. should the legal instruments have the character of general frameworks and give a very large degree of implementing freedom to the Commission? Or, should they have a higher degree of policy content co-decided by the Parliament.

14.      In the end, it is fair to say that a European compromise was reached with substantial policy content included but, also, with important aspects left to the implementing phase. The need for a certain degree of flexibility ("it is not possible to change the Regulation every time an adjustment is needed") came to be handled through renewed emphasis on concepts such as multi-annual "Strategy Papers" and, at the next lower level, "Annual Action Programmes".

15.      Basically, such important "Strategy Papers" and other programming documents of a mixed policy/political-implementation nature fall under the agreement on Democratic Scrutiny, which was negotiated with the adoption of the new IIA on budgetary discipline and sound financial management 2007-2013 and is annexed to this IIA in the form of a Declaration. As the Budgets Committee played a key role, the rapporteur is keen to follow up on the Commission's commitments under this agreement. It could be interesting, in particular, to see how the Commission takes Parliament's comments on the strategy papers into account. Ultimately, it cannot be excluded that the budgetary procedure could be used to strengthen Parliament's position.

16.      As already adopted in the APS resolution, the rapporteur considers that the work of the AFET and DEVE Working-Groups set up to examine these Commission papers and to monitor implementation is very important. Indeed, the Budgets Committee has for many years called for an increased role of the specialised committees to monitor implementation. He is keen to work with the specialised committees in this respect.

Some budget aspects of the Instruments

17.      First of all, with the legislative agreements on heading 4 only being reached recently and with the programming process and calls-for-tenders currently under way, it is unlikely that 2007 implementation will be of much use for the assessment of 2008, at least as far as payments are concerned. For most programmes, the Commission will hopefully reach a satisfactory level of commitment implementation but even this would have to be verified later in the year.

18.     In any case, most instruments under heading 4 have financial reference amounts, some of them co-decided as previously stated. The main co-decisions are the following:

- Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI)

- European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI)

- European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR)

- Instrument for Stability (ifS)

The pre-Accession Instrument (IPA) was only simple consultation but has a reference amount agreed by the Council (not binding like the co-decisions).

19.      In general, the rapporteur would like to have a discussion on how to treat the co-decided envelopes. He is convinced that, as usual, many amendments will be received asking for higher annual amounts and COBU should not just have a random approach to these cases.

20.      The rapporteur notes that the DCI and ENPI, both co-decided by the Parliament, were endowed with an annual amount in 2007 that would indicate a higher total by 2013 than the legislated reference amounts foresee. In other words, these programmes were somewhat "front-loaded" in the last procedure. The rapporteur is not sure that such an approach should be maintained.

21.      The rapporteur notes that there could be several ways to deal with this "problem" and would like to hear the views of the political groups:

a) leave the situation for now and, in future years, make reference to the legislative flexibility of +/- 5 % negotiated and included in the IIA? Given the situation of the ceilings, this may of course imply that if one programme "goes up", another one must "go down".

b) leave the situation for now while hoping that it would be possible to "break" the reference amounts in 2012/2013 or, failing this, make a big reduction in the last year of the MFF?

c) leave the situation for now and aim to do something about it in connection with the 2008/2009 review?

d) make some adjustment or, at least, limit any asked increases to these programmes, to bring the annual amount into "conformity" with the average allowed by the overall reference amount?

22.      Also, the rapporteur notes that - whether co-decided or not - some aspects of heading 4 traditionally (and unfortunately) have sometimes had to rely on emergency solutions and improvisation. This is relevant for humanitarian aid but, increasingly, also for other instruments that might include the co-decided DCI and/or ENPI, as the case of Palestine has proven.

23.      For the sake of argument, in the case that there should now exist unforeseen (not programmed) needs for 2008 and/or coming years, say an extra EUR 100 million to be implemented under the ENPI or DCI for a new crisis somewhere, the rapporteur would like to ask the Commission if this would always be counted against the co-decided reference amount (meaning a re-programming and taking space away from previously programmed actions?) or if it could somehow be implemented over and above the reference amount? Would the means of financing make any difference, i.e. if financed within the margin or through additional means such as the flexibility instrument?

Conclusions

24.      The 2008 PDB margin of EUR 330 million is entirely misleading as an indicator of the real situation in this heading and is the result of some areas/needs not being budgeted yet in combination with the coincidental availability of funds originally foreseen for the guarantee fund.

25.      Many amounts are locked into co-decided envelopes or, such as for CFSP, other agreements. Some strategy should be found how to deal with amendments to the annual amounts in these areas.

26.      The progress on democratic scrutiny (declaration negotiated in the IIA last year) should be followed in close cooperation with AFET and DEVE.

27.      Given the late adoption of the new generation of external Instruments, it may be unlikely that 2007 implementation will be of much guidance for assessing 2008 needs.

Working document on the information and communication Policy. Budgetary aspects

The general objective pursued by the institutions is to address an accurate information policy to European citizens to raise their awareness of EU activities, structures and decision-making processes.

To that end, the institutions have elaborated a number of strategies run at centralised and decentralised levels, in line with their respective competences. The centralised actions are initiated by the European Institutions, addressed to Brussels' public and/or to the Member States. At a decentralised level, the information policy is mainly initiated by the Houses of Europe located in the capital cities of the Member States, including the regional offices.

In the first part, information will be provided on the budgetary means concerning the funding for the communication policy at centralised level. The information concerning the cooperation between the Institutions and the decentralised aspects will be provided in the second part.

Background

The objective of the communication an information policy area is informing about European policy and ensuring better connection with citizens.

For overview, in budgetary terms, during the last five years budget appropriations for communication policy have increased by 36.55% against an increase of the general budget by 13.65% for the same period.

At the same time, the purpose of the actions has been modified to match the needs expressed by civil society. In particular the rejection of the Treaty for a Constitution by the French and the Dutch people had a major impact on the strategy pursued by the Commission in the field of communication.

The publication by the Commission of two communications on an "Action plan to improve communicating in Europe"(28) and "The Commission's contribution to the period of reflection and beyond: Plan-D for Democracy, Dialogue and Debate"(29) aimed at making citizens more aware of EU policies and their impact on them and the submission of a White Paper on a European communication policy(30) with the aim of bringing the Union closer to its citizens.

These represent the three pillars of the new Commission's communication policy, initiated in 2005.

At the same time, the interest of the European Parliament in the information policy has also considerably increased. Indeed in the first reading's resolution on the 2006 budget, the Parliament has adopted a paragraph which reaffirms its concerns by considering that the amounts envisaged for the EU Information Policy are inadequate and has decided to increase them; emphasises the urgent need for the Commission to bring forward its White Paper on Information Policy"(31).

Following the Parliament's requests the Commission adopted in February 2006 a White Paper on a European Communication Policy(32). The Parliament welcomed "the Commission's intentions to make communication policy a policy in its own right"(33).

With a view to assess the value for money of the Commission's programmes, the Committee on Budgets has requested two studies "toward communication" and "Informing European citizens", in the context of the 2007 budgetary procedure.

The study "Toward communication", published in September 2006, notes the improvements made following the launch of the Action Plan on communication and the Plan-D but recommends better coordination among the different actors in particular in the external offices where the Parliament and the Commission target the same public. This coordination should be facilitated thanks to the fact that with the exception of the Edinburgh and Athens offices, the two institutions share the buildings in the so called "Houses of Europe". This point has also been raised in several budgetary resolutions adopted by the Parliament. Another aspect mentioned by the study and expressed in the resolution on the White Paper which might be of interest, is the recommendation that the work done by the external offices "should be more political and less bureaucratic".

In view of a better understanding of the issues surrounding this policy area and of future developments, the European Parliament's Committee on Budgets (COBU) organised, in the context of the 2008 Budget procedure, a hearing on information policy: "The efficiency and effectiveness of the EU information policy from the professional's perspective" on 8 of May 2007.

The objective of the hearing was to listen to the approach of professionals in communication on the information policy conducted by the two main institutions. The hearing gave the opportunity for an in-depth discussion between professionals and the representatives of the Institutions on the marketing and/or "institutional" points of view and on how to use the means allocated to these policies by the EU budget. The participants stressed that improvements in this matter are still necessary, mainly by ensuring more visibility and transparency of actions, better coordination at a centralised (EU) level, development of the "think local, act local" approach at a decentralised level, ensuring a better financial management and improving the instruments.

Legal context

The Committee on Budgets has always defended the idea that information policy should be lead by Institutions and considered that it falls under their autonomy. In its view, a legal basis could create rigidity for each Institution. Therefore, it has strongly opposed every attempt of setting up a legal basis(34), which would impose the rigidity of both co-decision and comitology procedures on the legal basis and the individual actions respectively, including the multiannual programme also.

To that end, the European Parliament recalled, in its Resolution of 24 April 2007 on the Commission's annual policy strategy for the 2008 budget procedure that "all Institutions have the right to implement communication policy as part of their institutional autonomy", as established in article 49 of the Financial regulation and encouraged the Commission and the other Institutions to continue to defend their own autonomy in the matter.

Overview of actions

The actions run by the Commission

In the Commission's budget, communication policy is mainly supported by title 16. It reflects the decisions and the proposals made in the last three years by the Commission with an increased number of actions directly managed by external delegations, and actions conducted by the headquarters more focused on media and general information. In order to do this, an important number of tools have been developed over the last two years to improve audio communication, video and writing.

Since 2005, the budget allocated for communication policy has increased constantly to attain in 2007 an amount of EUR 201 031 110 in commitment appropriations and EUR 192 303 110 in payment appropriations. Detailed information is provided in the annexes: see table 1: Section III - Commission budget allocated to title 16 - communication (2005-2008).

PDB2008

Regarding the Commission's proposal for the 2008 budget, a slight increase of commitment appropriations by 0,07% compared to 2007 budget can be observed (+ EUR 132 196) and a decrease in payments (- EUR 519 804).

These amounts cover both, administrative and operational expenditure. The PDB 2008 has proposed respectively EUR 107 501 306 for administrative expenditure and EUR 93 662 000 for operational expenditure. That represents 53% of appropriations for administrative expenditure when only 47% of the total budget is for operational expenditure.

The exceeding of the appropriations for administrative expenditure over the appropriations for operational expenditure is constant during the 2005-2008 period. The Rapporteur asks for more information about how this repartition of appropriations ensures the achievement of communication policy objectives and actions and how this breakdown may be reversed.

Title 16 is structured around three main actions: 16 02 "communication and the media", 16 03 "going local" communication and 16 04 "Analysis and communication tools". Chapter 16 01 corresponds to administrative expenditure and accompanies the actions mentioned above.

During the 2005-2007 period the most spectacular increase of appropriations has been observed for 16 02 02 "Multimedia actions" activities, which increased by 108,33% in commitment appropriations and by 111,11% in payment appropriations. It is followed by 16 02 03 "Information for the media" activities, increased by 29,62% in commitment appropriations and by 47,07% in payment appropriations. These increases have been justified by the need for better information of the media, improvement of media tools and an increase of EU publications.

The 16 03 chapter covers the EU's expenditure on decentralised communication. Its concerns two types of actions: Local actions 16 03 02 and Specific actions on priority themes, of which PRINCE 16 03 04. For the referred period, the increase of appropriations is by 55,19% in commitment appropriations and by 95,97% in payment appropriations for local actions, and by only 8,54% in commitment appropriations and by 1,30% in payment appropriations for specific actions which is in the line with the commitment taken by the Commission in its White Pater.

This chapter also covers the funding of the pilot project on Pilot Information Networks (PINs): line 16 03 06. The project was included in a specific line of the 2007 budget at the initiative of the European Parliament. No credit has been requested within the framework of the PDB 2008.

Due to its transversal vocation this might be the instrument of cooperation that involves better the MEPs. During the hearing on the "Efficiency and effectiveness of the communication and information policy" it was also highlighted that the Members of the European Parliament have an important role to play in promoting the image of the EU, and they should be more involved in communication and information activities.

Concerning "communication and the media" and "going local communication", both experts and officials, stressed the need for improvement in these areas. Therefore, better coordination between institutions at a central level, more efficient use of existing tolls of communication and information and better use of professional media are necessary.

Globally, administrative expenditure increased by 19,65% in commitment appropriations and decreased by 3,81% in payment appropriations between 2005-2007.

Implementation

The following graph presents the quantitative aspects of implementation of the resources allocated to Communication policy area at the end of 2006. It has to be noted that administrative expenditure were overestimated compared with the support needs for operational expenditure. The Rapporteur could take it into account for the next procedure.

Policy area 16 - Communication: Total Implementation as of 31.12.2006

Budget line

Title

Commitments

Payments

16 01 04 01

Information on EU, general actions — Expenditure on administrative management

58,97%

54,51%

16 01 04 02

Communication actions — Expenditure on administrative management

63,52%

7,71%

16 01 04 03

PRINCE— Expenditure on administrative management

55,49%

35,24%

16 01 04 04

Communication actions— Expenditure on administrative management

71,63%

43,77%

16 02 02

Multimedia actions

99,60%

47,32%

16 02 03

‘Going Local' communication

99,92%

77,01%

16 03 01

Information outlets

95,14%

91,94%

16 03 02

Local actions

97,78%

74,22%

16 03 04

Specific actions on priority themes, of which PRINCE

93,54%

59,94%

16 04 02

Online information and communication tools

98,47%

83,78%

16 04 03

Targeted written publications

87,74%

100%

In view of the qualitative aspects, the Discharge Resolution of 2005 for the Commission underlines the need for:

· more transparency in the Commission's actions

· better guarantees of the right to access to information on the projects and actions pertaining to shared management for the EU citizens

· more guarantees for sound use of EU funds allocated for information campaigns by the Member States

· better management of the use of subsidy attributions

The actions run by the Parliament

The European Parliament's communication is made up of a mosaic of different channels, which are complementary and share common goals which are to inform the EU citizen effectively on its activities and to contribute to European construction.

Simultaneously with the Commission, the Parliament has initiated a process by considerably enlarging the scope of actions of its DG Information which was accompanied by a substantial increase of its budget to reach EUR 89 580 000 and 658 staff members in 2007. This has resulted in the definition of a "strong and effective information strategy", a better use of the means available, the creation of a press officer in each of the European Parliament's Information offices for "going local" and the development of three major projects:

· the Visitors Centre

· the WebTV and

· the new audiovisual centre.

Communication policy is of course a key issue as regards the 2009 elections. To that end, the Parliament has proposed an 18-month action programme to make EU citizens more aware of the European elections. An amount of EUR 10 300 000 is planned for 2008; a supplementary funding would be probably needed for 2009.

The tables billow present the appropriations allocated to communication policy by the European Parliament.

European Parliament appropriations : DG INFO

Title

Appropriations

Variations

(Chapter)

 

2006

2007

2008

2006/2007

21 Data processing, equipment and furniture: purchase, hire and maintenance

6.040.000

4.985.000

21.780.000

260,60%

23 Current administrative expenditure

2.470.000

1.620.000

1.220.000

-50,61%

32 Expertise and information: acquisition, archiving, production and distribution

49.377.000

60.575.000

88.942.000

80,13%

104 Reserve for information and communication policy

20.000.000

22.400.000

0

 

Total

77.887.000

89.580.000

111.942.000

 43,72%

Total Staff: DG INFO (including temporaries, contractual and external staff)

 

2005

2006

2007

Variation05/07

AD

189

187

231

22,22%

AST

412

407

427

3,64%

total

601

594

658

9,48%

The actions run by the Council

Appropriations allocated to communication policy are presented in the following table.

COUNCIL

Title

Appropriations

Variations

(Chapter)

 

2006

2007

2008

2006/2008

2213 Information and public events

389.000

1.428.000

1.198.000

207,96%

3312 Information and public events (PESD&PESC)

p.m.

p.m.

50.000

 

Total

389.000

1.428.000

1.198.000

220,82%

Inter-institutional cooperation

The EU is a common project shared by all levels of government, all types of organisation and people from all walks of life.

Institutions aim to bring the EU closer to the citizens. Therefore the coordination between the European institutions, in the field of communication and information policy, is necessary. A synergy of actions is even more important when the communication and information policy targets the same public.

The cooperation between the Commission and European Parliament is operated at a centralised and decentralised level.

At a centralised level, the only instrument that the Commission and the Parliament have for pooling their ideas in the field of better communication and joint actions is the Interinstitutional Group on Information.

Created with o view to set the priorities for the PRINCE programme, the Interinstitutional Group on Information has gained the role of the "forum" proposing the guidelines for the activities in the field of communication. Nevertheless, the statute of the Interinstitutional Group on Information is still to be defined. The European Parliament considers that the group should be predominantly political. The possibility of the creation of a second-level coordination group, implementing the guidelines laid down by the IGI, should be considered as recommended by the EP Resolution on the White Paper of the Commission(35).

At a decentralised level, the European Parliament and the Commission deliver the information through the Houses of Europe, which combine under the same roof the Commission's Representations and EP Information offices.

According to the Mission Statement of the European Parliament, the Information Offices of the European Parliament shall be responsible for delivery of DG Information's overall information and communication strategy in the Member States. Its objectives are to inform the citizen, both directly and via the European, national, regional and specialist media outlets, of decisions taken by the Parliament and to promote and project the Parliament and its activities(36).

The Representations act as the official representatives of the Commission in each Member State. They play a triple role that consists of: Implementing the Commission's Communication strategy at a local level, providing relevant information about developments within the Commission,interface between the Commission and the political world and civil society in the Member States.

The global costs of Information Offices and Representations for 2007 are EUR 128 693 310 of with EUR 39 636 700 are foreseen for the EP Information Offices and EUR 89 056 610 for the Commission's Representations.

The Prince Programme(37) aims to fund actions on priority themes. Based traditionally on the partnership between the Commission and the Member States it should involve the European Parliament more in the establishment of programme priorities, by involving the MEPs fully in the events organised under the programme's auspices.

The European Parliament is aware of the Commission's demand to replace the five existing budgetary lines for the Prince Programme with a single programme run by the DG for Communication, as this would bring currently greater flexibility for Commission's DG and a central interlocutor.

The improvement in communication and information policy can be achieved in a more coherent way within a global concept of communication for citizens. This can only be realised on the basis of an analysis of the added value of each information tool(38).

Conclusions:

The information and communication strategy has improved over the past few years but more progress needs to be made in order to employ the available resources in the most efficient way possible

Some first reflections on a "Budget for results" in the field of information and communication policy could centre on the following points:

Ø Inter-institutional cooperation versus institutions' autonomy

Of course, from a budgetary view synergies between the institutions in their communication and information efforts are welcome and sought after. The institutions should cooperate as closely as possible in order to cut overheads for decentralised structures, etc. On the other hand they might have their own concrete communication targets which are not always identical.

The right balance needs to be achieved between the independence of each EU institution to carry out its own information and communication policy and (i) the extra budgetary costs of separate policies and (ii) possible confusion due to a multiplicity of messages and opinions.

Ø More structured and better prioritised communication

If resources are scarce, priorities for employing them need to be decided upon. A strategic list of priorities has to be set up which would then have to be checked against budgetary and human resources available. All actors involved in decision taking need to be aware that any new communication and information activity which has not been programmed yet by the European Commission will have to come from the margins existing in the current MFF 2007 - 2014 - and these margins are dwindling.

Ø Cost-effectiveness of modern information technologies

In the past few budgetary resolutions, Parliament has consistently argued for effective use of modern information technologies in communication policy. Pilot Information Networks are one example, WebTV might be considered to be another. The cost-effectiveness of the media to be used in communication and information campaigns deserves some close scrutiny and regular re-evaluation in order to be able to keep up with technological developments and possibilities.

Ø Think local - go local

In order to achieve the most results with the least means the message one would like to transmit should be adapted to different audiences, sectors or countries. There is a clear link between the medium through which a message is communicated and the level at which this occurs and, besides, local communication may not only be a lot cheaper but at least as efficient as centralised activities. As Parliament has noted regularly in the past, efforts should be made to strengthen the extent to which communications policy can be delivered locally, i.e. in a manner that may be readily understood by the people of Europe in local terms. In the short term, this may require greater investment in staff in local offices in Member States with communication and information strategies focussing more on individual citizens.

ANNEX: TABLE 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SECTION III - COMMISSION BUDGET ALLOCATED TO TITLE 16 - COMMUNICATION (2005-2008)

Line N°

Title (2007 nomenclature)

Outturn 2005

2006

2007

PDB 2008

Evolution 2005/2007

CE

CP

CE

CP

CE

CP

CE

CP

CE

CP

16 01 01

Dépenses liées au personnel en activité du domaine politique "Communication"

41.204.969

49.610.664

41.878.352

41.878.352

48.208.448

48.208.448

47.370.795

47.370.795

17,00%

-2,83%

 

92.001

445.154

445.154

 

 

 

 

 

 

16 01 02

Personnel externe et autres dépenses de gestion à l'appui du domaine politique "Communication"

19.061.325

21.489.186

20.444.425

20.444.425

26.097.642

26.097.642

25.934.989

25.934.989

36,91%

21,45%

 

13.364

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16 01 03

Dépenses relatives aux achats d'équipements et de services, dépenses immobilières et autres dépenses de fonctionnement du domaine polituque "Communication"

28.207.775

38.212.439

30.111.009

30.111.009

31.377.020

31.377.020

30.595.522

30.595.522

11,24%

-17,89%

16 01 04

Dépenses d'appui aux actions du domaine politique "Communication"

3.082.255

4.465.000

4.264.500

4.264.500

3.864.500

3.864.500

3.600.000

3600000

25,38%

-13,45%

16 01

Sub total

91.556.324

113.882.654

97.143.440

97.143.440

109.547.610

109.547.610

107.501.306

107.501.306

19,65%

-3,81%

 

Actions multimédias

9.000.000

9.000.000

15.250.000

15.250.000

18.750.000

19.000.000

20.700.000

17.000.000

108,33%

111,11%

 

 

1.000.000

1.000.000

 

 

 

 

 

 

16 02 03

Informations destinées aux médias

2.600.000

2.200.000

3.250.000

2.709.535

3.370.000

3.235.500

3.970.000

3.500.000

29,62%

47,07%

16 02 04

Exploitation des studios de radiodiffusion et de télévisions et équipements audiovisuels

5.600.000

5.600.000

5.600.000

5.600.000

5.600.000

5.600.000

6.212.000

6.212.000

0,00%

0,00%

16 02

Sub total

17.200.000

16.800.000

25.100.000

24.559.535

27.720.000

27.835.500

30.882.000

26.712.000

61,16%

65,69%

16 03 02

Actions locales

5.408.343

3.571.938

8.249.000

7.175.136

8.393.000

7.000.000

9.200.000

8.500.000

55,19%

95,97%

 

 

401.000

200.000

 

 

 

 

 

 

16 03 04

Actions spécifiques sur des thèmes prioritaires, dont PRINCE

7.248.792

7.403.630

7.300.000

6.968.000

7.868.000

7.500.000

12.830.000

8.500.000

8,54%

1,30%

 

 

1.068.000

533.333

 

 

 

 

 

 

16 03 05

EuroGlobe

 

 

 

 

1.500.000

1.500.000

 

 

 

 

16 03 06

Projet pilote concernant des réseaux d'information pilotes (RIP)

 

 

 

 

5.000.000

3.000.000

 

 

 

 

16 03

Sub total

12.657.136

10.975.568

17.018.000

14.876.469

22.761.000

19.000.000

22.030.000

17.000.000

79,83%

73,11%

16 04 01

Analyse de l'opinion publique (ex 16 03 01)

7.110.000

5.713.091

5.069.000

4.000.000

5.600.000

5.600.000

5.800.000

5.800.000

-21,24%

-1,98%

 

 

531.000

266.667

 

 

 

 

 

 

16 04 02

Outils d'information et de communication en ligne

9.253.333

7.233.372

8.800.000

8.016.377

10.180.000

9.400.000

10.880.000

8.500.000

10,01%

29,95%

16 04 03

Publications écrites ciblées

5.709.064

5.079.912

6.050.000

5.398.952

6.050.000

4.500.000

5.150.000

5.150.000

5,97%

-11,42%

16 04 04

Publications écrites générales (ex 16 03 03)

2.420.000

1.884.815

2.420.000

2.420.000

2.420.000

2.420.000

2.420.000

2.420.000

0,00%

28,39%

16 04 05

Prince - rôle de l'union européenne dans le monde

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16 04

Sub total

24.492.397

19.911.190

22.870.000

20.101.996

24.250.000

21.920.000

24.250.000

21.870.000

-0,99%

10,09%

16 05 01

Relais d'information

17.788.301

9.340.315

16.752.500

15.132.500

16.752.500

14.000.000

15.300.000

15.300.000

-5,82%

49,89%

 

 

1.000.000

500.000

 

 

 

 

 

 

16 49 04

Dépenses d'appui aux actions du domaine politique "Presse et Communication"

p.m.

 

 

 

 

 

 

16 04

Facilité de performance pour la rubrique 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16 05

Sub total

17.788.301

9.340.315

17.752.500

15.632.500

16.752.500

14.000.000

15.300.000

15.300.000

-5,82%

49,89%

 

Total

163.694.158

170.909.727

179.883.940

172.313.940

201.031.110

192.303.110

201.163.306

191.783.306

18,57%

11,12%

ANNEX: TABLE 2 IMPLEMENTATION POLICY AREA 16 - COMMUNICATION as of 31/12/2006

 

 

 

Commitments

Payments

Budget Line

Title

Cat

Initial Budget

Reserve

Appropriations
(inc. Abs, Transfers)

Total Implementation

Implementation
same date lst year

Difference (%)
at same date

Implementation
on 31/12/2005 (%)

Initial Budget

Reserve

Appropriations
(inc. Abs, Transfers)

Total Implementation

Implementation
same date last year

Difference (%)
at same date

Implementation
on 31/12/2005 (%)

16 01 04 01

Actions générales d'information sur l'Union européenne — Dépenses pour la gestion administrative

3

0,2

0,2

58,97%

42,79%

-16,18%

42,79%

0,2

0,2

54,51%

22,38%

-32,13%

22,38%

16 01 04 02

Relais d'information — Dépenses pour la gestion administrative

3

0,3

0,3

63,52%

24,42%

-39,10%

24,42%

0,3

0,3

7,71%

20,03%

12,32%

20,03%

16 01 04 03

Prince (programme d'information du citoyen européen) — Actions d'information pour des politiques spécifiques — Dépenses pour la gestion administrative

3

1,5

1,5

55,49%

63,20%

7,71%

63,20%

1,5

2,4

35,24%

38,82%

3,58%