Brussels, 26/05/2011 (Agence Europe) - The European Parliament's special committee on post-2013 budget challenges is convinced that the solution to the economic and financial crisis is not less but more Europe. It considers that for the next financial framework (2014-2020), an increase of at least 5% in the EU's budget will be required for 2013 levels.
By adopting the report of Salvador Garriga Polledo (EPP, Spain) by a very large majority (39 votes in favour, five against, with four abstentions, the special committee on political challenges and budgetary resources for a post-2013 sustainable European Union is demanding that agricultural spending be maintained at more or less the same levels (direct aid, market spending and rural development) and that expenditure on cohesion policy (structural funds etc) also be maintained, at the same levels. In this report, which will be debated by the European Parliament during the week of Monday 8 June in Strasbourg, MEPs will also argue for a substantial rise in EU investments in research and innovation, energy and transport and a new multiannual financial framework structure, which takes into account the EU 2020 strategy. The freezing of the EU budget, as advocated by certain member states, is not a viable option according to the EP special committee.
Own resources. MEPs are critical of the current EU budget financial system, which is primarily based on national contributions and has become extremely complicated. They point out that the rule included in the Treaty explains that “the budget must be fully funded by own resources”. Committee members are also demanding an end to “reduced contributions, exceptions and correction mechanisms”, which have spiralled within the current system. The Commission will present its proposal on own resources on 29 June, at the same time as the proposals on the future multiannual financial framework.
Structure. The committee voted in favour of a budgetary structure in line with the EUROPE 2020 strategy, defining the following headings for the future financial framework:
1) EUROPE 2020, including subheadings: 1a) Knowledge for growth (research, innovation, education, internal market); - 1b) Cohesion for growth and employment (cohesion and social policies; - 1c) Management of natural resources and sustainable development (including agriculture, fisheries, environment, climate change, energy and transport); 1d) - Citizenship, freedom, security and justice;
2) Global Europe (external action, neighbourhood policy and development policies);
3) Administration.
MEPs want to ring-fence a special place in the budget for large strategic investment projects such as Galileo (satellites) and ITER (nuclear fusion).
Duration. On the duration of the MFF, MEPs suggest one more 7-year cycle as a transitional solution. This should then be followed by 5-year-cycles or 5+5-year cycles, starting in 2021, so as to bring the MFF's duration into line with the European Parliament's 5-year mandates.
Flexibility. One problem with the current MFF is the lack of flexibility it allows within annual budgets. If something new or unexpected comes up, it is hard to adapt the budget to accommodate it. MEPs would therefore like to see a “global MFF margin” created, which can be drawn upon in the context of the annual budgetary procedure. They also advocate creating an additional “reserve margin” to accommodate risks relating to loan guarantees from the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism and the Facility for non-euro area EU member states. (L.C./transl.fl)