Brussels, 30/06/2011 (Agence Europe) - Satisfaction regarding the proposed Tobin tax but disappointment for the amount and lack of ambition. Those were the mitigated reactions from environment and development players to the Commission's proposals on the next financial perspectives (2014-2020).
At the European Parliament, the Greens/EFA welcomed the proposal to create new own resources through a tax on financial transactions - “crucial” innovation and a “long-standing demand” on the part of the Greens, they point out. They deplore, however, that the Commission is seeking to “present what is in effect a budget freeze as an increase”. According to Helga Trüpel (Greens, Germany), the spokesperson for the Group when it comes to budgetary matters, the “Commission has grasped the bull by the horns in proposing a meaningful new resources system. This is the only way to ensure real European budgetary planning and to end the self-defeating annual squabbling on the EU budget”. She states that the tax on financial transactions “will also help address the excesses of the financial sector”. Bas Eickout (Greens, Netherlands), the shadow rapporteur, appeals for an “honest” debate on the budget “based on transparency and not accounting chicanery”.
On the side of the environmental NGOs, BirdLife Europe welcomes several positive elements: - the fact that 30% of the CAP income subsidies are attached to (unspecified) “greening” commitments; - re-orientation of the fisheries fund towards support for sustainable fisheries and conservation of the marine environment; - and environmental and climate proofing of cohesion policy investments. She deplores, however, the lack of ambition. “Instead of a bold move away from perverse subsidies and towards investments in a sustainable future, it safeguards inefficiencies while starving environmental programmes”, deplores Angelo Caserta, Regional Director of BirdLife Europe. Like WWF, the NGO deplores, on the other hand, that: - the part of the budget for rural development has not increased, and might even potentially decrease in real terms, while ineffective and untargeted subsidies in the so-called Pillar I are to be reformed only partially; - despite a tiny increase of LIFE, the only dedicated tool for the environment, this fund is still going to receive an almost irrelevant 0.31% of the budget; - and no clear financial targets have been set for investments in biodiversity and climate. This comes at a time when the loss of biodiversity could cost over €1 trillion to Europe by 2050. This means that any investments are only a minimal investment saving on future costs. For example, the estimated cost for management of the Natura 2000 is €6 billion per year, and by 2050 it would cost less than one quarter of the estimated cost of inaction.
Development NGOs such as Oxfam and CIDSE applaud the “real leadership” shown by the Commission by adopting the idea of a tax on financial transactions, but comment that such a tax will only have public support if proceeds thus generated are used for tackling poverty and climate change, and not if they are swallowed up in the general EU budget. (A.N./transl.jl)