A shot in the arm. I would like to concentrate on one aspect of the "lucky week for Europe" which has just unfolded, that of the positive effects that the agreement on the financial perspectives will have on European activity and even the economic situation. Swift effects which may provide a shot in the arm to European construction, helping it gradually to regain the confidence of the citizens.
The absence of financial perspectives left programmes essential for the future actions of the Union hanging in the air, such as the multi-annual research programme, or the application rules for the structural policy, or plans relating to the trans-European networks. Most of the planned Community economic activities were stranded in a situation of uncertainty with, on occasion, their very completion in doubt. The structural supports to the new Member States remained in a fog of uncertainty, the Galileo leaders were wondering what the volume of their guaranteed funding would be, the priority railway axes seemed compromise. To say nothing of the blow suffered by programmes such as Erasmus, one of Europe's unanimously recognised success stories, and similar uncertainties on environmental programmes and support programmes for small and medium-sized enterprises. Even if we could be sure that sooner or later, a decision would be made, the delay to legislative texts which are vital to the implementation of various programmes was becoming almost dramatic. Crisis point had been reached. A few weeks more, and the structural funds in central and Eastern Europe would have all been postponed by a year, due to a lack of legal basis. The same would have been true for the research programmes. Thanks to the agreement, and the commitment of the Council and the Parliament to adopt the financial perspectives formally next month, all of these programmes will now be able to start on 1 January 2007. The financial framework is clear for all.
A better distribution of the fruits of growth. It is true that some of the allocated sums are less than what the Commission and the Parliament had asked for. But this is quite normal, even in national budgets. As each institution did its best in the long and, occasionally, dramatic, negotiations, what matters now is to manage the available resources as well as possible and to implement alternative funding, which is sometimes not only possible, but also desirable. What I mean is that the pressure groups, quite logically, try to secure the maximum of public funding, but it has to be said that it is not always justified to give them all that they ask for. Several analyses show that having made record profits in recent times, big businesses distribute them mainly among their managers and shareholders, far more than they plough back into investments, employment, innovation and research. It cannot, therefore, be a bad thing to seek a better balance in the distribution of the fruits of growth, wherever this growth re-establishes itself. The statistics show, for example, that in order to achieve the objective of spending 3% of European GNI on research, it is not the public funding which is falling short, but the private funding. And if you're talking about competitiveness, it is clear that research, innovation and investment are at least as important as salary moderation.
Virtually the same can be said for other sectors. Given that European funding has fallen below the hoped-for levels in various fields, this means that we must mobilise national and private investments more and explore "innovative mechanisms". The new guarantee instruments studied by the European Investment Bank (EIB) now have political approval, interested parties must use them (their objectives and functioning have already been commented on in this column at the end of February: see our bulletin 9138). For the trans-European networks in particular, under the impulse of Vice-President Jacques Barrot, the European Commission started to examine the use of innovative finance mechanisms last month, with the participation of EIB president Philippe Maystadt and former European Commissioners Etienne Davignon and Loyola de Palacio, deciding to concentrate Community funding on the cross-border sections of the priority axes and on the interoperability of the rail networks. For the rest, Member States, regions and private investors have their part to play.
My conclusion is simple: the political and economic forces must make the best possible use of the resources available, which are far from negligible. It should also be borne in mind that: a) the European Parliament fought tooth and nail for a significant increase of credits for training, aimed at the Erasmus programme in particular; b) the functioning of the new financial perspectives has been improved considerably. Enough with the lamentations: the instruments are there, it is time for action.
(F.R.)