What I wrote about the work underway on the “financial perspectives” 2007-2013 (bulletin 9818) was preliminary in nature, I put the debate into context, leaving aside a couple of essential points: a) dealings in progress between the Member States (which have something of a whiff of pre-negotiations about them); b) the work of the European Parliament, whose influence will be considerable.
The Member States get ready. The main reason behind the stances of the Member States is to allow them to get across their fundamental concerns. In particular, as we know: a) eight countries are calling for expenditure to be capped (1% of the gross income, GNI, of the Union), but this percentage is bound to be negotiable; b) the main beneficiaries of the structural funds are keen to ensure that some of their regions lagging behind do not all of a sudden lose all support for statistical reasons: they will be listened to; c) the United Kingdom remains firm on the “British rebate”; this is a position of principle which cannot be resolved as an isolated issue. The governments are going around looking for allies; these alliances will merge in the official work of the Council being arranged by the Luxembourg Presidency.
A plan that will make waves. The European Parliament has got a lot further with its work: the temporary ad hoc committee will approve its report on 10 May; the plenary session will take position in June before the Summit. Its draft takes position not only on the content but on the figures earmarked for the various actions and policies of the Union, and figures will be included in the resolution (see our bulletin 8918 for details of the press conference of rapporteur Reimer Böge).
Various aspects of this draft will no doubt prove controversial within the EP itself, but the Parliament seems to be standing firm on one principle: there will be no financial perspectives 2007-2013 unless its voice is heard. The Constitution will make the Parliament's blessing obligatory; for the time being, the current Treaty only insists on it for annual budgets. As a result, the EP feels that in the absence of an EP-Council agreement, “there will be no financial perspectives (...). The Parliament will not give its agreement unless its priorities are taken on board”. The EP took as its starting point the well-known proposals of the Prodi Commission, which “enjoyed general support and are therefore an acceptable basis for analysis and future negotiations”. The problems start when we get into the nitty-gritty. Within the Parliament itself, various rapporteur choices will run into trouble. The draft resolution focuses on expenditure of 1.10% of EU GNI in payment appropriations and 1.12% in commitment appropriations, a compromise between the 1% ceiling of the eight Member States of rigour and the Commission's draft: 1.14% in payment appropriations and 1.26% in commitment appropriations. This means that around thirty million will have to be trimmed off the Commission's proposals over seven years. How? The Böge draft suggests two possibilities:
a) co-funding a proportion of agricultural expenditure (with the Member States). The rapporteur phrased this very carefully, given the need to respect the conclusions of the December 2002 Summit. He said that “the envelope given over to agriculture still represents a disproportionate volume of credits” (which is undeniably the case) and adds: “it would be better to consider the possibility of implementing (…) a temporary co-funding process, if needs outweigh the forecasts”.
b) reducing some “Lisbon objective” funding. These objectives remain a priority; however, their financial means must be “appropriate but realistic. They should be increased (compared to the current situation) but not over-evaluated”, respecting subsidiarity and the need for a “clear European added value”. Administrative expenditure, too, should come down. The savings this will make will be transferred to the “freedom, security and justice” objectives (including the “Youth in Action” programme and external actions, such as the common foreign and security policy (CFSP).
Credits to safeguard. Various credits, however, will be kept at the level proposed by the Commission: regional policy (0.41% of Union GNI); priority transport networks (the resources proposed are “a minimum, which may be increased”); rural development funds (its share will be increased, with 6.1 billion EUR a year for “Natura 2000”, for instance). The EDF (European Development Fund) will also remain outside the Union's budget. As for the British rebate, the draft simply calls on the Council to look at revising the mechanism to balance out inequalities “before the end of the forthcoming financial perspectives” (i.e. 2013).
On the various elements referred to, we can expect the odd row in Strasbourg. (F.R.)