Brussels, 22/10/2008 (Agence Europe) - There are sharp divergences between the Council of Ministers of the EU and European Parliament on the level of ambition contained in next year's budget, particularly on payment appropriations, funding modalities and the EU external action sector (Afghanistan, Palestine, Kosovo, Georgia and aid to agriculture in third and poorest countries). On Thursday 23 October, the European Parliament is expected to conclude its first reading of the draft 2009 budget, without, however, resolving the subjects opposed at the Council of Ministers. A compromise is not expected before 21 November, the day when the Council proceeds to a second reading of the said budget. Many MEPs stressed that the ball is now in the Council's court.
Jutta Haug (PES, Germany), the rapporteur for the general 2009 budget pointed out that the EP wanted to get rid of the disparity as much as possible between the level of commitment appropriations and payment appropriations. According to Haug, this gap is contrary to the principle of obtaining balance. None of the gap has been filled but the EP will vote to reduce this gap by 50%. These commitment appropriation increases are not down to chance but reflect EP priorities, explained Ms Haug, citing: growth in jobs, the fight against climate change, fostering security for citizens and the social dimension. She also regretted that in section 4 (EU external action) there was a serious lack of resources available in the financial framework limits and said, as others had, that appropriations available in this section did not allow the European Union to play its role of international partner. Ms Haug did not hide the EP's difficulty in obtaining the money (€1bn) for the “rapid response facility to soaring food prices in developing countries”. This is a section where high levels of funding have to be mobilised for food aid and reconstruction in Georgia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Palestine.
Dalia Grybauskaité, the Budget Commissioner, said that she appreciated the EP's political priorities for 2009 but defended her initial proposal on financial effort. She explained that her proposal better reflected the absorption capacity of funds by EU countries and budget execution. Some of the issues of concern to the Commission involve funding put in reserve by the Parliament, particularly the €36 million which should be used to recruit new Commission officials. The Commission made no comment on how to resolve the problem of lack of resources in section 4.
Speaking on behalf of the EU, the French secretary of state for European affairs, Jean-Pierre Jouyet, said that he hoped that the institutions would obtain a balanced agreement on the 2009 budget by the end of the year which was, “satisfactory to everyone”. Mr Jouyet explained that over and above, “our divergences, we are pursuing the same goal”: ensuring funding of EU political priorities (competitiveness, cohesion, growth). In the current international context, Europe has to play its role on the international scene but in respect of the financial framework decided for 2007-13. He did not hide the fact that the Council is very “concerned” by the level of payment appropriations the EP intends to vote on (a level well above the Commission's initial proposal). Since 1988, the Community budget has been insufficiently executed. Data illustrates that payment appropriations in 2008 were overvalued, particularly those involving cohesion policy and, “nothing allows us to say that it won't be the same in 2009”, indicated the French secretary of state.
The Council also considers that spending should respect the limits set out and that they should plan on sufficient margins under the ceilings in order to tackle unexpected situations, particularly for CFSP. Jouyet affirmed that systematic saturation up to ceiling levels was not acceptable.
He suggested that in the context of agricultural aid to poor countries, they should combine different funding sources to bring this initiative to life, while respecting the financial framework. He did not actually state it but negotiations are expected to focus on the scale of flexibility instrument use for respecting EU commitments on external action, which are certainly not lacking: Georgia, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Palestine, as well as the facility for a rapid response to soaring food prices in developing countries. One thing is clear: EU countries and the EP reject the European Commission's initial proposal to obtain €1bn in non-used funding from the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). They urge use of section 4 but while the Council specifically defends a redeployment of funding to section 4, the EP would like an increase in resources available in section 4. (L.C./trans/rh)