Strasbourg, 17/05/2006 (Agence Europe) - On 17 May, the European Parliament approved the text of the new inter-institutional agreement on budgetary discipline and good financial management, which lays down the details for the implementation of the financial perspectives 2007-2013. In its adoption (440 in favour, 190 against and 14 abstentions) of the report by Reimer Böge (CDU), the EP has enshrined the inter-institutional agreement, including recent adjustments to the financial framework agreed on 4 April with the Council (4 billion EUR more than the conclusions of the Summit of December 2005). The Greens and the GUE/NGL voted against, as did the majority of the French Socialists.
Further to the EP's blessing, the inter-institutional agreement was signed by the three institutions in a short ceremony marking the adoption of the forthcoming financial framework, the total expenditure of which will rise to 864.316 billion EUR in commitment appropriations (1.048% of the gross national income of the EU) and to 820,780 billion in payment appropriations (1.00% of GNI). This compromise is certainly far less ambitious than the initial proposals of the Commission (992.7 billion EUR in commitment appropriations, or 1.20% of GNI) and Parliament (973.3 billion, or 1.18% of GNI), but all the institutions acknowledge that this is the best possible compromise. The Austrian Presidency pointed out that it had only a very small amount of leeway further to the hard-fought success of the European Council last December.
Of a total of 864.316 in commitment appropriations, the new financial framework provides for- 74.098 billion for "Competitiveness for Growth and Employment", of which 7.203 billion will go to the trans-European networks (+139% if the figures for the 2006 budget are compared to the estimates for 2013), 48.081 billion for the seventh framework programme of research (+75% based on the same comparison), 6.752 billion for life-long learning programs (including Erasmus), and 1.328 billion for the dismantling of nuclear installations; - 308.041 billion for heading 1b "Cohesion for Growth and Employment", including 246.523 billion in structural funds (+11% still based on a comparison of the 2006 and 2013 figures) and 61.518 billion for the cohesion funds (+74%); - 371.344 billion for heading 2 "Preservation and Management of Natural Resources", including 293.105 billion for direct agricultural aid and market support (a reduction of 7% in 2013, compared to 2006), 69.750 billion for rural development (-12%) and 3.849 billion for fishing (-12%); - 6.6 3 billion for heading 3a "Liberty, Security and Justice" (+163%), to include programs to manage migratory flows, fundamental rights and justice, security and more; - 4.140 billion for heading 3b "Citizenship" (+1%); - 49.463 billion for heading 4 "External Actions" (+29%); - 49.800 billion for heading 5 "Administration" and 800 million for compensations (heading 6).
In its resolution, the EP approves the results of the trialogue of 4 April, whilst making clear that it is aware of the fact that a "number of shortcomings subsist", and that these will be dealt with at the re-examination of 2008-2009 and, as far as possible, the annual budgetary procedures. The EP hopes to see an urgent reform in the system of own resources, in order to avoid further difficult negotiations dominated by national interests, at the forthcoming financial perspectives.
The rapporteur, Reimer Böge, said that the EP's strength in these negotiations had been the fact that it had not reasoned under the principle of "fair return" (the difference between what a country pays into the budget and what it gets back out of it). He explained that at the trialogue, the EP had obtained important results, which had helped to strengthen the position of the European Council of December 2005, to wit: - greater flexibility to react better and faster to emergency situations (humanitarian or political crises, or natural disasters); - the preservation of the budgetary and legislative prerogatives of the EP; - improved quality in the execution of funding (reinforcement of the Member States' responsibilities in activities with shared management); - the inclusion of the principles of proportionality and user-friendly procedures in the revised financial regulation; - the EP's involvement in financial programming and in the funding of new agencies; - the setting in place of a co-funding mechanism with the EIB with a view to boosting the leverage of Community policies. Mr Böge went on to point out the EP had obtained an increase of 4 billion EUR for certain priority projects (TENs, life-long learning, research, the social agenda, SMEs, cross-border cooperation, Natura 2000…), allowing it to sign this financial framework, even though it had not obtained everything it wanted, "far from it". The EP's role in the revision work in 2008-2009 has been respected, but Mr Böge spoke out against the lack of funds for Galileo, rural development and Natura 2000. "Our work is not yet done", he concluded. Sergio Sousa Pinto (PES, Spain), rapporteur on the legal aspects of the inter-institutional agreement, stressed that there was no legal obstacle to the adoption of this text and confirmed the EP's position, which is that all of the financial frameworks should, in future, be established for a period of five years, to coincide with the mandates of the EP and the Commission.
The President of the Ecofin Council, Karl-Heinz Grasser, pointed out that this kind of agreement is never easy to negotiate, particularly as the EP is an institution which has grown in confidence and wants to make its voice heard. He went on to state that this compromise is fair and well-balanced, and that it illustrates the EU's capacity to increase the funding for programmes such as the TENs, education and research. The Commissioner with responsibility for the Budget, Dalia Grybauskaité, declared that this agreement "does not reflect the initial ambitions", but is the best possible compromise under the current circumstances. "We have a clear financial framework for the development of the EU over the next seven years" and the new Member States will be able to participate fully in all Community policies, she said, pointing out that the multi-annual programming has been relaunched and a new generation of programmes will be able to start in 2007. Next week, the Commission will present a raft of a revised proposals taking account of the inter-institutional agreement, which will allow the legislative process to be concluded, allowing a "gentle" start to the programmes as of 2007.
Speaking on behalf of the committee on development, Glenys Kinnock criticised the reduction (of 20.4%) decided upon by the Summit on the Commission's proposal for the heading on external actions, lamenting the fact that the EU will not have the financial resources it needs to fulfil its role as a major player in the fight against poverty. Karl von Wogau, speaking for the committee on foreign affairs, spoke in favour of more resources for research in the field of security. Speaking on behalf of the committee on budgetary control, Jan Mulder noted that checks and the certification of expenditure had been tightened up, but voiced concern at the obligatory modulation for agricultural expenditure (reduction in direct aid and market support and transfer of the money saved into the rural development policy), which, he warned, may "undermine the Common Agricultural Policy". Constanze Angela Krehl, of the regional committee, spoke out against the 40 billion EUR cut in expenditure under the cohesion policy, but urged support for this agreement in spite of its shortcomings. Bernadette Bourzai (committee on agriculture) voiced her dissatisfaction, pointing out that of the 4 billion extra obtained by the EP to improve the compromise of the European Council, heading 2 (preservation and management of natural resources) had been increased by just 100 million, for "Life +" and Natura 2000 alone. She also criticised the reduction of 20 billion in the envelope for rural development as this will, she explained, translate into a drop of 35%, compared to the funding allocated to the EU of 15 in 2000-2006. She rejected the possibility for the Member States to levy up to 20% in additional modulations for rural development as this will, she explained, lead to serious technical problems and competition distortions. "In my view, this is the start of the renationalisation of the CAP, and I will vote against this agreement", she concluded. Rosa Miguélez Ramos, for the committee on fisheries, was also highly critical: the allocation to the European fisheries fund is insufficient, because this presupposes a reduction of 22% on the figures called for by the EP. However, the agreement is the bare minimum which we can approve, Ms Miguélez Ramos concluded. The rapporteur for the committee on culture and education, Ruth Hieronymi, welcomed the improvement obtained for life-long learning: for example, the final agreement will allow us to increase from 170,000 to 185,000 the mobility bursaries granted to Erasmus students, whereas the reduction decided upon by the Summit would have reduced them to 140,000. Speaking on behalf of the committee on liberties, Gérard Deprez was particularly pleased by the increase of 167% in funding for the creation of an area of liberty, security and justice.
"Under the current circumstances, this was the only compromise possible", said Jean-Luc Dehaene, speaking on behalf of the EPP-ED, even though it is still not enough. "This is why the budget revision clause and budgetary flexibility are vitally important", he said, calling for an in-depth report on a system of own resources "which has reached its limits". Ralf Walter, on behalf of the Socialist group, welcomed the improvements made to the financial framework by the EP, particularly on the revision of the financial regulation and the reinforcement of checks in the Member States. "This result does not respond to everybody's wishes (...), but we will return to the attack" over the next few years, particularly on the own resources, the funding of the CAP, or Galileo, he promised. "This is not the compromise I had dreamed of, but I support it with all my heart and urge my colleagues to do the same", he added. Speaking on behalf of the ALDE group, Anne Elisabeth Jensen welcomed the agreement and the improvements made by the EP, particularly those on research, training, transport and support to the poorest regions, declaring: "I recommend that we vote yes to this agreement". "This compromise is a bad one and I am voting against it", was the retort of Helga Trüpel of the Greens/EFA. She was particularly critical of the Council's attitude, fixed on a need not to exceed a total volume of expenditure equivalent to 1% of GN I and the conservative structure of this budget. Esko Seppänen of the GUE/NGL also announced that his group is against this new financial framework, for many reasons (insufficiently ambitious budget, the attitude of the Council and the Commission…).