Brussels, 22/03/2006 (Agence Europe) - During the 21 March Trialogue, the three institutions of the EU made progress towards the definitive adoption, planned in April, of the financial perspectives for 2007-13. Divergences, however, still persist between the Council and Parliament on two of the most controversial subjects, namely, the total amount of EU spending for 2007-13 and the degree of budgetary flexibility. Another Trialogue meeting has been set for 4 April in Strasbourg (Council, Commission and Parliament), which will aim to finalise a complete agreement at the EP for the definitive adoption, probably during the plenaries of 26-27 April in Brussels, of the financial perspectives packet for 2007-13. The EU will have eight months before the 1 January 2007 deadline to prepare, present and adopt the new generation of Community programmes.
The results attained during the 21 March Trialogue on the financial framework for 2007-13 were rather negligible but allow for some hope for a definitive agreement in April. They demonstrate that the Council and Parliament finally got round to work, in an atmosphere that was much better than at the two previous meeting in January and February. This is borne out by the decision of the European Parliament to not examine until now, the draft resolution of its budgets committee, which formally denounces the inter-institutional agreement in force (dating from 1999), to protest against the lack of willingness from the Council to negotiate.
The Council and Parliament found elements of compromise on one aspect of the new draft inter-institutional agreement, which determines the modalities for implementing the financial framework and the participation of the EP in the process of reviewing the EU budget, due to begin in 2008-09. The EP is only expected to be consulted in the procedures. The Council and Parliament also brought their positions closer together on two other dossiers completing the inter-institutional text: the procedure for reviewing financial regulation provisions (with a concertation procedure granted to the EP) and the commitment from Member States to improve management of Community funds. On this latter point, the EP will have to revise its initial ambitions downwards, which consist of calling on the national authorities of Member States to certify, in a declaration, the good management of Community funds, and Member States only have to commit themselves to improving current procedures (see below).
The Council and Parliament remain divided on two dossiers:
Total amount of spending: the EP is calling for an increase from 12 to 13 billion Euros - a 1.5% increase in total spending figuring in the common position of the December European Council (EUR 862.363 billion in commitment appropriations). It is seeking to revise these appropriations upwards, particularly for transport, research, education and training. During a press conference following the Trialogue meeting, the Austrian Finance Minister, Karl-Heinz Grasser, whose country is current presiding the Council of the EU, recognised that Member States should finally agree to increase the total amount of spending planned at the December European Council a little, for concluding a complete agreement with the EP. However, Grasser highlighted that in substance, the EP's request for an increase from 12 to 13 billion Euros in the total amount was unrealistic. To give an idea of what the financial agreement may consist of, he pointed out that negotiations between institutions on the adoption of the financial framework for 2000-06 attained an increase of 0.21% of spending on that initially planned by Heads of State and governments. Applied to the financial framework for 2007-13, the percentage retained in 1999 could be translated into an increase of around 1.8 billion Euros.
The Council is prepared to make a gesture towards the EP, mainly because it wants to reach an agreement with it on the increase of almost EUR 300 million a year in CFSP funding. According to the breakdown of funding agreed at the December European Council, the CFSP budget will be between EUR 100-160 million a year (EUR 99 million in 2006).
Flexibility: the Commission will be proposing to increase the maximum amount for the flexibility instrument a year from EUR 200 million to EUR 700 million (which allows for the mobilisation of money when there is no margin in the financial framework sections). For the time being, the Council is proposing that the current amount of EUR 200 million is maintained but the Parliament wants more than the Commission by creating a multitude of emergency reserves (EUR 7 billion for the whole period for competitiveness; 3 billion for cohesion, 6.2 billion for the Solidarity Fund and 1.5 billion for emergency aid). The EP acknowledges that it will find it difficult to obtain these concessions and would be happy to be able to get an increase in the amount for the flexibility instrument. It aims to increase ways of freeing new money to deal with unforeseen events, especially for actions outside the EU.
Commission also welcomes progress made
The spokesman for Dalia Grybauskaité, the Commissioner with responsibility for the Budget, welcomed progress made at the trilogue and said he was “optimistic” about the chances of concluding a final agreement in April. He pointed out the Commission had called for further financial efforts for those programmes where funding had been most reduced at the December European Council and noted with satisfaction “a certain flexibility” on this among Member States.
Parliament negotiating team acknowledge progress made, notably on re-baptised future
inter-institutional agreement, but ask for extra 12 billion
On Wednesday morning, the Parliament negotiating team was more optimistic when talking to press than after previous trilogues: both the chairman of the budgets committee Janusz Lewandowski (EPP-ED, Poland) and rapporteur Reimer Böge (EPP-ED, Germany) announced that, given progress made, the Parliament was postponing the vote on the resolution condemning the current inter-institutional agreement, which had been scheduled for Thursday's plenary session in Brussels. We will see how thing develop between now and the next trilogue on 4 April, said Mr Böge, going on to say that postponing did not mean removing, “we want to give the Council a chance” to move. Questioned by reporters on this topic, German Social Democrat Ralf Walter, deputy chairman of the budgets committee, recalled that President Roosevelt said that in negotiations you had to speak softly, but carry a big stick, adding that carrying did not mean “striking straight away”.
Today, the Austrian Presidency showed that it was “ready to discuss the rules of the game and figures, to discuss money,” stated Mr Lewandowski, noting that, even if elements remain suspended, progress has been made on retaining Parliament “prerogatives”, including the CFSP, and its role in the 2009 review, as part of the inter-institutional agreement for 2007-2013. This will be an agreement not only “on budgetary discipline, but on sound financial management,” said Mr Böge, exhorting the Council not to cast doubt over the points where agreement had been reached with the Parliament during Tuesday evening's trilogue. Otherwise, the CDU MEP said, we will put all the demands, which we retracted, back on the table. Questioned on the European Commission's role in the trilogue, Mr Böge said that on the inter-institutional agreement, it had helped us, and in its February document analysing the Council's figures, it had finally come down “on the side of European added value”, which had been “seen as provocative by the Coreper” (see below). Still on the subject of the inter-institutional agreement, Dutch Liberal Jan Mulder, also deputy chairman of the budgets committee, felt that the trilogue had reached an “acceptable compromise” on the Parliament's call for Member States to certify annually that Community funds had been well spent: this should not be done by Finance Ministers themselves (Parliament's initial call), and Member States will be able to choose an independent “certification agency”, he said.
Mr Böge noted that Parliament was asking 1.5% (12 billion euro) more than the Council's figure. He said that increases that Parliament had wanted, for Erasmus, trans-European networks, health and consumers, research, CSFP, among others) were not there just by chance, the calculation had been based on the analysis carried out by the European Commission last February. He went on, “What is more credible: wanting a 1.5% increase to bring a European added value, or giving more than 10 billion euro in Christmas presents which have no added value, as the December Summit did?” Flexibility was another very important issue for the Parliament, and Mr Lewandowski commented that some people saw a trade-off between flexibility and increases in funding, but flexibility could not entirely replace the increases which we considered necessary.