BETA


2004/2209(INI) Policy challenges and budgetary means of the enlarged Union 2007-2013

Progress: Procedure completed

RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Lead FINP BÖGE Reimer (icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE)
Committee Opinion AFET DE KEYSER Véronique (icon: PSE PSE)
Committee Opinion DEVE CARLOTTI Marie-Arlette (icon: PSE PSE)
Committee Opinion INTA JONCKHEER Pierre (icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE)
Committee Opinion BUDG
Committee Opinion CONT MULDER Jan (icon: ALDE ALDE)
Committee Opinion ECON LETTA Enrico (icon: ALDE ALDE)
Committee Opinion EMPL MADEIRA Jamila (icon: PSE PSE)
Committee Opinion ENVI HAUG Jutta (icon: PSE PSE)
Committee Opinion ITRE RÜBIG Paul (icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE)
Committee Opinion IMCO WHITEHEAD Phillip (icon: PSE PSE)
Committee Opinion TRAN BARSI-PATAKY Etelka (icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE)
Committee Opinion REGI KREHL Constanze (icon: PSE PSE)
Committee Opinion AGRI MAAT Albert Jan (icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE)
Committee Opinion PECH CASACA Paulo (icon: PSE PSE)
Committee Opinion CULT HIERONYMI Ruth (icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE)
Committee Opinion JURI
Committee Opinion LIBE DEPREZ Gérard (icon: ALDE ALDE)
Committee Opinion AFCO VOGGENHUBER Johannes (icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE)
Committee Opinion FEMM FIGUEIREDO Ilda (icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL)
Committee Opinion PETI
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 197, RoP 52

Events

2005/07/13
   EC - Commission response to text adopted in plenary
Documents
2005/06/13
   CSL - Debate in Council
Details

The Ministers held an exchange of views at an informal meeting ("conclave") on 12 June on a negotiating box drawn up by the Presidency with a view to the establishment of a financial perspective for the European Union for the period 2007-13.

The third version of the document, which was circulated on 2 June, gives more precise indications of amounts by category of expenditure and an outline of a proposal concerning the EU's own resources. The Presidency's intention is to reach agreement on the new financial framework at the European Council meeting on 16 and 17 June 2005.

In order to do so, the Presidency is holding bilateral talks with the Member States, at Head of State or Government level, which will go on until 14 June. It proposes to make the final adjustments to the negotiating box in the light of those talks.

Documents
2005/06/13
   CSL - Council Meeting
2005/06/08
   EP - Text adopted by Parliament, single reading
Details

The European Parliament adopted a resolution based on the own-initiative report of Reimer BÖGE (EPP-ED, DE) with 426 votes in favour 140 against and 122 abstentions. The report sets out the figures the European Parliament will defend in negotiations with Council on the next Financial Perspective 2007-2013.

The figures proposed within the multi-annual framework are:

- payment appropriations: 1.07% of the European Union's Gross National Income (GNI) (EUR 883 billion over seven years);

- commitment appropriations: 1.18% of GNI (EUR 975 billion over seven years).

The Commission is proposing payments of 1.14% (EUR 943 billion) and commitments of 1.24% (EUR 1 022 billion), whilst the latest compromise from the Luxembourg Presidency proposes 1.06% in commitments (roughly EUR 873billion).

The following points should be noted:

- Parliament has opted not to incorporate the European Development Fund (EUR 21.876 bn) - which is currently outside the Community budget - into the financial perspective. Were the EDF ever to be incorporated into the Community budget, this must not lead to cuts in other policy areas;

- Parliament proposes a number of reserves be established outside the financial perspective in order to cope with contingencies or situations that are difficult to anticipate (cohesion, emergency aid, solidarity fund, guarantee fund), and assist the EU to make economic adjustments designed to boost competitiveness.

Parliament recalled that under the current Treaties, a Financial Perspective does not have a formal status and can only be established with the approval of the European Parliament on a voluntary basis. If no agreement is reached, the EC Treaty will be applied for the purpose of regulating the adoption of annual budgets. Parliament stressed that it will not agree on the next Financial Perspective if its priorities are not taken into consideration by the Council.

The following comments were made:

- Competitiveness: Parliament felt that an increase of EUR 200 million is necessary in order to attain the goals of the Social Policy Agenda. An increase of EUR 670 million is necessary in order to attain the EU’s education and training goals. Parliament insisted on a legally binding mechanism which guarantees proper implementation and EU funding for Natura 2000 at the level of the EU's estimated contribution to the envisaged overall amount, which is approximately EUR 6.1 billion for the EU-25 per year. An amount of EUR 21 billion for Natura 2000 should therefore be earmarked ("ring-fenced") in the Financial Perspective within the respective areas.

- Cohesion: the existence of a strong, well-financed European regional policy is a condition sine qua non of the Union’s ability to deal with successive enlargements and reduce regional disparities. The amount of 0.41% of the Union's GNI and 4% of national GNI of the new Member States is adequate, provided the Member States can ensure that the actions take place in addition to national and regional measures and that the corresponding co-financing (using public and private funds) is made available.

- An Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: the proposed allocation to this area of around two thirds of the funds provided for in the proposed Heading 3 may not be sufficient to cover the needs and the ambitions of the European Union in this area as defined by the European Parliament and the Council. Parliament believed that an increase of EUR 1 billion is necessary in order to attain its goals. Moreover, a sufficient margin must be left under Heading 3 to allow for unforeseen needs and new developments. There should be a consolidation of the budgetary resources made available to Europol and Eurojust. That measure should be accompanied by a strengthening of the democratic scrutiny of Europol.

- Citizenship: the Youth in Action Programme is a priority. Parliament welcomed the proposed rationalisation of Community instruments in this field, and believed that an increase from EUR 811 million to EUR 1 000 million is necessary in order to attain its goals. It also welcomed the rationalisation of Community instruments in the field of culture envisaged in the Commission's proposal for a Culture 2007 programme COM(2004)0469). An increase from EUR 360 million to EUR 500 million is necessary to improve the financing of the Commission proposal.

- Funding for external actions: Parliament stressed its unwillingness to perpetuate a situation of constant pressure under Heading 4 as occurred under the current Financial Perspective and pointed particularly to the need for a high level of flexibility and sufficient margin to allow for unforeseen events. Parliament felt that an increase of funds is necessary in order to deepen relations with its neighbouring countries and to provide an adequate level of funds for potential candidate and candidate countries that guarantees them fair and equal treatment.

- Duration of the financial framework: Parliament supported the Commission's proposal for a financial framework of 7 years' duration. A shorter time framework would be technically and politically impractical, and a longer financial perspective will contribute to the stability of the system and facilitate the programming of the cohesion policy and of other financial instruments of the common budget

- Revision and flexibility: Parliament decided

- to accept the Commission proposal for a revision procedure with multi-annual effect to cover lasting changes to the financial framework which may be facilitated by being adopted by the same majority as for the adoption of the budget (qualified majority in Council and absolute majority in Parliament),

- to accept the Commission proposal on flexibility for legislative acts but to increase this flexibility to 10 %, above or below the amounts fixed under co-decision;

- to reject the Commission proposal for the reallocation flexibility between headings,

- to create significant reserves for flexibility outside the financial framework to enable the European Union to respond to unforeseen needs and unexpected crises;

- to plan an overhaul of the Financial Perspective if fundamental assumptions regarding economic development change, for example in the event of a significant deviation from the assumed growth rate of 2.3%;

- Reserve for flexibility (up to a maximum of EUR 3.5 billion): the existing instrument already placed outside the Financial Perspective and with an increased amount of EUR 500 million;

- Reserves: these should be established outside the financial framework are as follows: a competitiveness reserve (capped at EUR 7 billion and replacing the Growth Adjustment Fund), a cohesion reserve (EUR 3 billion), an emergency aid reserve (EUR 1.5 billion), a Solidarity Fund reserve (EUR 6.2 billion) and a loan guarantee reserve (EUR 3 billion).

2005/06/08
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
2005/06/08
   EP - Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
Details

The European Parliament adopted a resolution based on the own-initiative report of Reimer BÖGE (EPP-ED, DE) with 426 votes in favour 140 against and 122 abstentions. The report sets out the figures the European Parliament will defend in negotiations with Council on the next Financial Perspective 2007-2013.

The figures proposed within the multi-annual framework are:

- payment appropriations: 1.07% of the European Union's Gross National Income (GNI) (EUR 883 billion over seven years);

- commitment appropriations: 1.18% of GNI (EUR 975 billion over seven years).

The Commission is proposing payments of 1.14% (EUR 943 billion) and commitments of 1.24% (EUR 1 022 billion), whilst the latest compromise from the Luxembourg Presidency proposes 1.06% in commitments (roughly EUR 873billion).

The following points should be noted:

- Parliament has opted not to incorporate the European Development Fund (EUR 21.876 bn) - which is currently outside the Community budget - into the financial perspective. Were the EDF ever to be incorporated into the Community budget, this must not lead to cuts in other policy areas;

- Parliament proposes a number of reserves be established outside the financial perspective in order to cope with contingencies or situations that are difficult to anticipate (cohesion, emergency aid, solidarity fund, guarantee fund), and assist the EU to make economic adjustments designed to boost competitiveness.

Parliament recalled that under the current Treaties, a Financial Perspective does not have a formal status and can only be established with the approval of the European Parliament on a voluntary basis. If no agreement is reached, the EC Treaty will be applied for the purpose of regulating the adoption of annual budgets. Parliament stressed that it will not agree on the next Financial Perspective if its priorities are not taken into consideration by the Council.

The following comments were made:

- Competitiveness: Parliament felt that an increase of EUR 200 million is necessary in order to attain the goals of the Social Policy Agenda. An increase of EUR 670 million is necessary in order to attain the EU’s education and training goals. Parliament insisted on a legally binding mechanism which guarantees proper implementation and EU funding for Natura 2000 at the level of the EU's estimated contribution to the envisaged overall amount, which is approximately EUR 6.1 billion for the EU-25 per year. An amount of EUR 21 billion for Natura 2000 should therefore be earmarked ("ring-fenced") in the Financial Perspective within the respective areas.

- Cohesion: the existence of a strong, well-financed European regional policy is a condition sine qua non of the Union’s ability to deal with successive enlargements and reduce regional disparities. The amount of 0.41% of the Union's GNI and 4% of national GNI of the new Member States is adequate, provided the Member States can ensure that the actions take place in addition to national and regional measures and that the corresponding co-financing (using public and private funds) is made available.

- An Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: the proposed allocation to this area of around two thirds of the funds provided for in the proposed Heading 3 may not be sufficient to cover the needs and the ambitions of the European Union in this area as defined by the European Parliament and the Council. Parliament believed that an increase of EUR 1 billion is necessary in order to attain its goals. Moreover, a sufficient margin must be left under Heading 3 to allow for unforeseen needs and new developments. There should be a consolidation of the budgetary resources made available to Europol and Eurojust. That measure should be accompanied by a strengthening of the democratic scrutiny of Europol.

- Citizenship: the Youth in Action Programme is a priority. Parliament welcomed the proposed rationalisation of Community instruments in this field, and believed that an increase from EUR 811 million to EUR 1 000 million is necessary in order to attain its goals. It also welcomed the rationalisation of Community instruments in the field of culture envisaged in the Commission's proposal for a Culture 2007 programme COM(2004)0469). An increase from EUR 360 million to EUR 500 million is necessary to improve the financing of the Commission proposal.

- Funding for external actions: Parliament stressed its unwillingness to perpetuate a situation of constant pressure under Heading 4 as occurred under the current Financial Perspective and pointed particularly to the need for a high level of flexibility and sufficient margin to allow for unforeseen events. Parliament felt that an increase of funds is necessary in order to deepen relations with its neighbouring countries and to provide an adequate level of funds for potential candidate and candidate countries that guarantees them fair and equal treatment.

- Duration of the financial framework: Parliament supported the Commission's proposal for a financial framework of 7 years' duration. A shorter time framework would be technically and politically impractical, and a longer financial perspective will contribute to the stability of the system and facilitate the programming of the cohesion policy and of other financial instruments of the common budget

- Revision and flexibility: Parliament decided

- to accept the Commission proposal for a revision procedure with multi-annual effect to cover lasting changes to the financial framework which may be facilitated by being adopted by the same majority as for the adoption of the budget (qualified majority in Council and absolute majority in Parliament),

- to accept the Commission proposal on flexibility for legislative acts but to increase this flexibility to 10 %, above or below the amounts fixed under co-decision;

- to reject the Commission proposal for the reallocation flexibility between headings,

- to create significant reserves for flexibility outside the financial framework to enable the European Union to respond to unforeseen needs and unexpected crises;

- to plan an overhaul of the Financial Perspective if fundamental assumptions regarding economic development change, for example in the event of a significant deviation from the assumed growth rate of 2.3%;

- Reserve for flexibility (up to a maximum of EUR 3.5 billion): the existing instrument already placed outside the Financial Perspective and with an increased amount of EUR 500 million;

- Reserves: these should be established outside the financial framework are as follows: a competitiveness reserve (capped at EUR 7 billion and replacing the Growth Adjustment Fund), a cohesion reserve (EUR 3 billion), an emergency aid reserve (EUR 1.5 billion), a Solidarity Fund reserve (EUR 6.2 billion) and a loan guarantee reserve (EUR 3 billion).

Documents
2005/06/08
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2005/06/07
   EP - Debate in Parliament
2005/05/23
   CSL - Debate in Council
Details

Ministers held an exchange of views, at an informal meeting ("conclave") held on 22 May, on a revised version of the "negotiating box" submitted by the Presidency in order to help prepare the financial framework laid down for the budget of the European Union during the period 2007-2013.

For the first time, the document includes indications of the amounts per category of expenditure, and the outline of a proposal concerning the EU's own resources. It also makes adjustments to the section concerning the cohesion policy in order to take into account the positions expressed by delegations. The Presidency's intention is for the European Council to reach agreement on the new financial framework at its meeting on 16 and 17 June 2005. To do so, it intends to adjust the negotiating box one last time in the light of bilateral talks which it will hold between 30 May and 9 June.

Documents
2005/05/23
   CSL - Council Meeting
2005/05/20
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
Documents
2005/05/20
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
Documents
2005/05/10
   EP - Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
Details

The Temporary Committee on Policy Challenges and Budgetary Means of the enlarged Union 2007-2013 adopted the report by Reimer BÖGE ( EPP-ED , DE ) on the next Financial Perspective. The committee's key conclusion was that the financial perspective must make it possible to fund both enlargement and future priorities. The main recommendations set out in the report were as follows:

- within the multiannual financial framework, payment and commitment appropriations should be set at 1.07% and 1.18% respectively of EU gross national income, as opposed to the Commission proposal for 1.14% and 1.24% respectively;

- the European Development Fund (EUR 21.876 bn) should not be incorporated into the Financial Perspective. If the EDF were ever to be incorporated into the budget, this must not lead to cuts in other policy areas;

- Heading 1a - Competitiveness: research funding should be "simplified", and there should be a EUR 200 m increase for the social policy agenda, mainly to achieve the Lisbon objectives and stimulate employment;

- Heading 1b - Cohesion: regional policy is "indispensable" for stimulating EU economic and social cohesion. Cohesion policy appropriations should be used exclusively for that purpose in order to support growth, employment and sustainable development and, above all, to reduce disparities between EU regions. The proposed ceiling of 4% of GNI for eligibility for funding from the Cohesion Fund should be handled in a more "elastic" fashion, i.e. this figure could be exceeded if a country showed it could absorb more Community funding. MEPs also urged the introduction of a transitional mechanism for regions which have been hit by the "statistical effect" (i.e. falling below eligibility thresholds for structural aid) and therefore no longer qualify for structural funds.

- Heading 2 - Conservation and management of natural resources: MEPs said that the sums earmarked for the Rural Development Fund by the Commission were very low and in fact amounted to a bare minimum. The intrinsic problems of rural areas should also be addressed by supporting firms that promote diversification. The report also proposed allocating EUR 21bn to the Natura 2000 programme (biodiversity and protection of natural habitats). MEPs opposed the idea of renationalising the Common Agricultural Policy but backed the phasing-in of cofinancing for agricultural expenditure within the EU-15 if needs outstripped the resources available after the accession of Bulgaria and Romania ;

- Heading 3 - Citizenship, freedom, security and justice: the temporary committee believed that a EUR 1bn increase over the Commission proposal was "necessary in order to attain its goals", while making provision for a "sufficient margin" for unforeseen needs. Europol and Eurojust should also benefit from the increased funding in the light of the priority given to the fight against organised crime and terrorism. Other funding increases were proposed for youth and culture programmes;

- Heading 4 - The EU on the world stage: MEPs called for more flexibility (see below) to meet new needs and for adequate funding for key areas such as the new neighbourhood policy. The EU should strengthen its influence in the Mediterranean and envisage a Baltic Sea strategy involving Russia as an equal partner. MEPs also wanted to be consulted on any EU external actions with budgetary implications. With regard to cooperation aid, a distinction should be made between developing and industrialised countries;

- Flexibility instrument: annual funding should be increased to EUR 500 m;

- Reserves: to ensure greater flexibility in the way in which the Union operates, MEPs proposed that a number of reserves be established outside the financial framework in order to cope with contingencies or situations that are hard to anticipate, or to facilitate the EU's economic adjustment with regard to competition. They suggested creating a competitiveness reserve (capped at EUR 7 bn and replacing the Growth Adjustment Fund), a cohesion reserve (EUR 3 bn), an emergency aid reserve (EUR 1.5 bn), a Solidarity Fund reserve (EUR 6.2 bn) and a loan guarantee reserve (EUR 3 bn);

- Duration of the Financial Perspective: whereas t he Commission had proposed a seven-year financial framework (2007-2013), the temporary committee wanted the coming one to expire in 2011 and to be followed by five-year periods, so that the terms of office of the Commission and Parliament would run in parallel with the Financial Perspective.

2005/04/29
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2005/04/25
   CSL - Debate in Council
Documents
2005/04/25
   CSL - Council Meeting
2005/04/18
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2005/04/15
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2005/04/15
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2005/04/15
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2005/04/12
   CSL - Debate in Council
Documents
2005/04/12
   CSL - Council Meeting
2005/03/31
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2005/03/31
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2005/03/22
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2005/03/22
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2005/03/18
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2005/03/17
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2005/03/16
   CSL - Debate in Council
Details

The Council took note of the Presidency's presentation of the first version of its "negotiating box" for the financial perspective, a tool intended to assist in preparing the financial framework laid down for the EU's budget during the period 2007-2013.

The Presidency's aim is to enable the European Council to reach political agreement at its meeting on 16 and 17 June 2005, in accordance with the timetable laid down in the Council's multiannual strategic programme. The Permanent Representatives Committee (Coreper), which is responsible for preparing the Council's proceedings, will begin its examination of the negotiating box at its meeting on 17 March 2005.

Documents
2005/03/16
   CSL - Council Meeting
2005/03/02
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2005/02/22
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2005/02/21
   CSL - Debate in Council
Details

The Council held an exchange of views on the preparation of a new heading of "competitiveness for growth and employment" (Chapter 1a), intended to group together various categories of expenditure under the Financial Framework being drawn up for the EU budget for the period 2007-2013.

The new chapter will provide for the financing of policies aimed at competitiveness, Research and Technical Development (RTD), trans-European networks, education and training and the social agenda. The Commission also proposes the creation of a "Growth Adjustment Fund", which would allow expenditure on Chapters 1a (competitiveness) and 1b (cohesion policy) to be adjusted.

The debate covered three areas:

• policy content;

• financial envelope and allocation;

• the Growth Adjustment Fund;

At its meeting on 31 January 2005 (see below), the Council discussed cohesion policy (Chapter 1b) in terms of the new financial framework. The Presidency will draw on the outcome of these two debates in drawing up a "negotiating framework" so that agreement can be reached on the financial framework as a whole. Its aim is to enable the European Council to reach political agreement at its meeting on 16 and 17 June 2005. Starting in March, work will focus on the preparation of the agreement to be concluded at the June European Council. Applying a method used successfully in the negotiation of previous Financial Frameworks, the Presidency intends to fill out the "negotiating framework" as it goes along,

Reflecting the outcome of discussions.

Documents
2005/02/21
   CSL - Council Meeting
2005/02/17
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2005/02/17
   CSL - Debate in Council
Documents
2005/02/17
   CSL - Council Meeting
2005/02/09
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2005/02/07
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2005/02/03
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2005/02/03
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2005/02/03
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2005/02/03
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2005/02/02
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2005/02/02
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2005/02/01
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2005/01/31
   CSL - Debate in Council
Details

The Council held an exchange of views on the cohesion policy to be determined under Heading 1b of the Financial Framework being drawn up for the EU budget for the period 2007-2013.

The debate covered five areas:

• policy content;

• financial envelope;

• allocation method;

• capping rule;

• transitional arrangements.

The aim of the Luxembourg Presidency is to enable the European Council to arrive at a political agreement on the new Financial Framework in June 2005. To do so, the Council, in its "General Affairs" configuration, will be responsible for organising work on this dossier; any discussion in other Council configurations will be without prejudice to the outcome of negotiations, although the specific interest of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council will be recognised.

The Permanent Representatives Committee will be responsible for preparing the Council's discussions and will be assisted in this by a "Friends of the Presidency" group.

Preparations for the European Council in June will start in March. Applying a method used successfully in the negotiation of previous Financial Frameworks, the Presidency intends to fill out the "negotiating framework" as it goes along, reflecting the outcome of discussions.

Documents
2005/01/31
   CSL - Council Meeting
2005/01/28
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2004/12/07
   CSL - Debate in Council
Documents
2004/12/07
   CSL - Council Meeting
2004/11/30
   EP - MULDER Jan (ALDE) appointed as rapporteur in CONT
2004/11/25
   EP - FIGUEIREDO Ilda (GUE/NGL) appointed as rapporteur in FEMM
2004/11/23
   EP - WHITEHEAD Phillip (PSE) appointed as rapporteur in IMCO
2004/11/22
   CSL - Debate in Council
Documents
2004/11/22
   CSL - Council Meeting
2004/11/17
   EP - CARLOTTI Marie-Arlette (PSE) appointed as rapporteur in DEVE
2004/11/16
   CSL - Debate in Council
Documents
2004/11/16
   CSL - Council Meeting
2004/11/16
   EP - DEPREZ Gérard (ALDE) appointed as rapporteur in LIBE
2004/11/16
   EP - VOGGENHUBER Johannes (Verts/ALE) appointed as rapporteur in AFCO
2004/11/10
   EP - DE KEYSER Véronique (PSE) appointed as rapporteur in AFET
2004/10/27
   EP - HIERONYMI Ruth (PPE-DE) appointed as rapporteur in CULT
2004/10/26
   EP - RÜBIG Paul (PPE-DE) appointed as rapporteur in ITRE
2004/10/25
   EP - JONCKHEER Pierre (Verts/ALE) appointed as rapporteur in INTA
2004/10/21
   CSL - Debate in Council
Documents
2004/10/21
   CSL - Council Meeting
2004/10/18
   EP - BARSI-PATAKY Etelka (PPE-DE) appointed as rapporteur in TRAN
2004/10/14
   EP - BÖGE Reimer (PPE-DE) appointed as rapporteur in FINP
2004/10/11
   EP - MADEIRA Jamila (PSE) appointed as rapporteur in EMPL
2004/10/06
   EP - KREHL Constanze (PSE) appointed as rapporteur in REGI
2004/09/21
   EP - MAAT Albert Jan (PPE-DE) appointed as rapporteur in AGRI
2004/09/15
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
2004/09/13
   EP - LETTA Enrico (ALDE) appointed as rapporteur in ECON
2004/09/01
   EP - HAUG Jutta (PSE) appointed as rapporteur in ENVI
2004/09/01
   EP - CASACA Paulo (PSE) appointed as rapporteur in PECH
2004/07/14
   EC - Non-legislative basic document published
Details

PURPOSE : to present the communication from the Commission on the Financial Perspectives 2007 - 2013.

CONTENT : to recall, in February 2004, the Commission laid out a political project for the Union to tackle the key challenges facing Europe and its citizens until 2013. Its objective was to launch a forward looking debate on the European Union’s goals, and the tools required to make these goals a reality. If action is to be in place by the target date of 1 January 2007, the debate now needs to move into a new phase. Attention needs to shift to the practical measures required to put the political framework into practice. To this end, the Commission has been working to develop a set of detailed policy proposals. Many of these proposals are now ready. So this is a good moment to take stock of the work done since February, recall the value added of the EU action as well as expenditure required to further the political project proposed by the Commission for 2007-2013, and explain how the delivery instruments of this project will be simplified and rationalised. This is the purpose of this paper.

In the light of the above, the Commission has tested the value added by proposed expenditure in all policy areas concerned by the political project for the period 2007-2013. To perform this test, the Commission has used the following criteria, in order to address the problems highlighted above:

- Effectiveness: cases where EU action is the only way to get results to create missing links, avoid fragmentation, and realise the potential of a border-free Europe;

- Efficiency: cases where the EU offers better value for money, because externalities can be addressed, resources or expertise can be pooled, an action can be better coordinated;

- Synergy: cases where EU action is necessary to complement, stimulate, and leverage action to reduce disparities, raise standards, and create synergies.

As stated, the Commission laid out the principles on the basis of which it announced that it will simplify and rationalise its financial instruments. The new structure represents a major step in the simplification of EU action. It aims at ensuring that spending programmes operate under principles of good governance which bring efficiency savings, and to make action more accessible and more user-friendly. The package of measures adopted today will be complemented with other proposals, to come later, in the areas of external relations, research, and freedom, security and justice.

The result of this rationalisation is presented below by budgetary Heading:

- Heading 1: Sustainable Growth : to reach this target, action is required across three key axes: making Europe into a dynamic knowledge-based economy geared towards growth; reinforcing cohesion; and ensuring the sustainable management and protection of natural resources.

- Heading 2: Conservation and Management of Natural Resources : with significant sums of public money to be devoted to the objectives under Heading 2, it is all the more important that the instruments and delivery mechanisms are in place to implement efficiently. With the CAP reforms of 2003 and 2004 so fresh and with agricultural spending fixed to 2013, the framework for the period covered by the Financial Perspectives is set. Although most environmental action is delivered by mainstreaming into other actions, there remains a need for an instrument to deliver action of a uniquely environmental nature. The LIFE+ programme would seek to contribute to the development, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of EU environment policy and legislation.

- Heading 3: Citizenship/Strengthening the EU as an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice : the Freedom of movement and solidarity in the area of external borders, asylum and immigration programme will support the implementation of solidarity in this area and will represent the bulk of funding for freedom, security and justice. The creation of an Agency for External Borders in the field of migratory flows management has already been proposed by the Commission. The Security programme will strengthen the prevention of crime and terrorism, reinforce cooperation and exchange between law enforcement authorities. The Justice and Fundamental Rights Programme will seek to promote judicial cooperation, easy access to justice and offer enhanced legal certainty, both to business and citizens, to back up the growth in cross-border situations. A food safety programme will mainly seek to combat animal diseases, facilitate better cooperation between EU laboratories, narrow the gap in food safety standards within and between countries and ensure protection of the whole food chain.

A consumer policy and public health programme will provide sustained capacity building among consumer organizations. The European Food Safety Authority and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control should provide the necessary assistance (regulatory and executive) required by the Commission in the execution of its tasks. Fostering European culture and diversity is important. A solidarity and rapid reaction instrument will provide citizens with a European response in the event of major disasters.

- Heading 4: Europe as a global partner : over time, the Union has developed a broad spectrum of external relations tools (common trade policy, cooperation under bilateral and multilateral agreements, development cooperation, common foreign and security policy, common defence and security policy, humanitarian aid and financial assistance, as well as the external projection of internal policies: energy, environment, transport, justice and home affairs, etc). The creation of new budget lines through the annual budgetary procedure, and the subsequent adoption of ad hoc legal bases for their implementation, has added to the proliferation of instruments.

Documents

Votes

Rapport Böge A6-0153/2005 - am. 2

2005/06/08 Outcome: -: 635, +: 31, 0: 19
LU MT SI CY EE LV DK LT FI AT SK IE EL SE BE NL HU PT CZ ES PL IT FR DE GB
Total
6
5
6
6
6
9
11
11
14
18
14
13
23
17
22
27
22
22
24
52
53
66
73
92
73
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
40

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Sweden Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Spain Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

3

Italy Verts/ALE

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

For (1)

4
icon: NI NI
28

Austria NI

Against (1)

3

Slovakia NI

Against (1)

Abstain (2)

3

Belgium NI

3

Czechia NI

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom NI

Against (2)

2
icon: UEN UEN
24

Denmark UEN

Against (1)

1

Lithuania UEN

Against (1)

1
icon: IND/DEM IND/DEM
34

Denmark IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Ireland IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Greece IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Sweden IND/DEM

2

Netherlands IND/DEM

2

Czechia IND/DEM

Against (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
39

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Finland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Ireland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

2

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Spain GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

France GUE/NGL

3

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
73

Luxembourg ALDE

Against (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

Against (1)

1

Cyprus ALDE

Against (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

Against (2)

2

Latvia ALDE

Against (1)

1

Denmark ALDE

3

Ireland ALDE

Against (1)

1

Sweden ALDE

2

Hungary ALDE

Against (1)

1
2
icon: PSE PSE
191

Luxembourg PSE

Against (1)

1

Slovenia PSE

Against (1)

1

Lithuania PSE

2

Finland PSE

3

Slovakia PSE

3

Ireland PSE

Against (1)

1

Czechia PSE

2
icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE
256

Luxembourg PPE-DE

3

Malta PPE-DE

Against (2)

2

Slovenia PPE-DE

4

Estonia PPE-DE

Against (1)

1

Latvia PPE-DE

3

Denmark PPE-DE

Against (1)

1

Lithuania PPE-DE

2

Rapport Böge A6-0153/2005 - am. 48

2005/06/08 Outcome: -: 618, +: 48, 0: 17
CY MT SI EE LU EL LV IE LT DK CZ FI SK AT PT SE NL BE HU PL ES IT FR GB DE
Total
6
5
6
6
6
23
9
13
11
11
24
14
14
18
23
17
27
22
22
53
52
67
73
71
90
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
39

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Greece GUE/NGL

3

Ireland GUE/NGL

1

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Sweden GUE/NGL

2

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

France GUE/NGL

3

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1
icon: IND/DEM IND/DEM
34

Greece IND/DEM

1

Ireland IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Denmark IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Czechia IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Sweden IND/DEM

2

Netherlands IND/DEM

2
icon: NI NI
28

Czechia NI

Against (1)

1

Slovakia NI

Against (1)

Abstain (2)

3

Austria NI

For (1)

Against (1)

Abstain (1)

3

Belgium NI

3

United Kingdom NI

Against (2)

2
icon: UEN UEN
24

Lithuania UEN

Against (1)

1

Denmark UEN

Against (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
41

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Sweden Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Italy Verts/ALE

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

4
icon: ALDE ALDE
72

Cyprus ALDE

Against (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

Against (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

Against (2)

2

Luxembourg ALDE

Against (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

Against (1)

1

Ireland ALDE

Against (1)

1

Denmark ALDE

3

Sweden ALDE

2

Hungary ALDE

Against (1)

1
2
icon: PSE PSE
188

Slovenia PSE

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg PSE

Against (1)

1

Ireland PSE

Against (1)

1

Lithuania PSE

2

Czechia PSE

2

Finland PSE

3

Slovakia PSE

3
icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE
257

Malta PPE-DE

Against (2)

2

Slovenia PPE-DE

4

Estonia PPE-DE

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE-DE

3

Latvia PPE-DE

3

Lithuania PPE-DE

2

Denmark PPE-DE

Against (1)

1

Rapport Böge A6-0153/2005 - ams. 8,37,45

2005/06/08 Outcome: -: 527, +: 140, 0: 11
PL LV LT EE IE MT CY LU EL SI SK CZ DK PT FI BE AT SE NL HU IT FR ES GB DE
Total
53
9
10
4
13
5
6
5
22
6
13
24
11
22
14
22
18
16
26
22
67
73
52
74
91
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
39

Ireland GUE/NGL

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Greece GUE/NGL

3

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

2

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

France GUE/NGL

3

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1
icon: NI NI
26

Slovakia NI

Abstain (2)

2

Czechia NI

Against (1)

1

Austria NI

For (1)

3

United Kingdom NI

Abstain (2)

2
icon: UEN UEN
24

Lithuania UEN

1

Denmark UEN

Abstain (1)

1
icon: IND/DEM IND/DEM
34

Ireland IND/DEM

For (1)

1

Greece IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Czechia IND/DEM

1

Denmark IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Sweden IND/DEM

2

Netherlands IND/DEM

2

France IND/DEM

Abstain (1)

3
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
41

Latvia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Sweden Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Italy Verts/ALE

2

Spain Verts/ALE

3

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

Against (1)

4
icon: ALDE ALDE
71

Latvia ALDE

Against (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

2

Ireland ALDE

Against (1)

1

Cyprus ALDE

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

Against (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

Against (1)

1

Denmark ALDE

3

Sweden ALDE

2

Hungary ALDE

Against (1)

1
2
icon: PSE PSE
189

Lithuania PSE

For (1)

2

Estonia PSE

Against (1)

1

Ireland PSE

Against (1)

1

Malta PSE

Against (1)

3

Luxembourg PSE

For (1)

1

Slovenia PSE

Against (1)

1

Slovakia PSE

3

Czechia PSE

2

Finland PSE

3
icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE
254

Latvia PPE-DE

Against (1)

3
2

Estonia PPE-DE

For (1)

1

Malta PPE-DE

Against (2)

2

Luxembourg PPE-DE

2

Slovenia PPE-DE

4

Denmark PPE-DE

Against (1)

1

Rapport Böge A6-0153/2005 - par. 4/2

2005/06/08 Outcome: +: 543, -: 125, 0: 10
DE GB ES FR IT HU BE NL PT AT SE FI CZ DK SK SI LU MT EL LT IE CY EE LV PL
Total
89
75
52
74
65
22
21
26
22
18
17
14
24
11
14
6
6
4
22
11
13
5
5
9
53
icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE
252

Denmark PPE-DE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE-DE

3

Malta PPE-DE

2

Lithuania PPE-DE

2

Cyprus PPE-DE

2

Estonia PPE-DE

Against (1)

1

Latvia PPE-DE

For (1)

3
icon: PSE PSE
188

Czechia PSE

2

Slovenia PSE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PSE

Abstain (1)

1

Malta PSE

2

Lithuania PSE

Against (1)

2

Ireland PSE

Against (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
73

Hungary ALDE

1

Sweden ALDE

2

Denmark ALDE

3

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Cyprus ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

Against (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
41

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

For (1)

4

Spain Verts/ALE

Against (1)

3

Italy Verts/ALE

2

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Sweden Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1
icon: IND/DEM IND/DEM
34

Netherlands IND/DEM

2

Sweden IND/DEM

2

Czechia IND/DEM

1

Denmark IND/DEM

1

Greece IND/DEM

1

Ireland IND/DEM

For (1)

1
icon: NI NI
27

United Kingdom NI

Abstain (2)

2

Belgium NI

2

Austria NI

3

Czechia NI

1

Slovakia NI

3
icon: UEN UEN
24

Denmark UEN

Against (1)

1

Lithuania UEN

Against (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
39

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Spain GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

France GUE/NGL

3

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Sweden GUE/NGL

2

Finland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Greece GUE/NGL

3

Ireland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Rapport Böge A6-0153/2005 - am. 35

2005/06/08 Outcome: +: 549, -: 119, 0: 11
DE ES IT FR GB CZ PT EL HU NL AT IE SK PL BE SE LV MT CY FI LU SI DK EE LT
Total
90
52
67
74
75
24
22
23
21
27
14
13
14
52
21
17
9
5
6
14
6
5
11
6
11
icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE
254

Malta PPE-DE

2

Luxembourg PPE-DE

3

Denmark PPE-DE

For (1)

1

Estonia PPE-DE

For (1)

1
2
icon: PSE PSE
189

Czechia PSE

2

Ireland PSE

1

Luxembourg PSE

For (1)

1

Lithuania PSE

2
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
41

Italy Verts/ALE

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

4

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Sweden Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
39

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

France GUE/NGL

3

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Greece GUE/NGL

3

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Ireland GUE/NGL

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

2

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1
icon: UEN UEN
24

Denmark UEN

For (1)

1

Lithuania UEN

1
icon: NI NI
25

United Kingdom NI

Abstain (2)

2

Czechia NI

1

Austria NI

Abstain (1)

1

Slovakia NI

3

Belgium NI

2
icon: IND/DEM IND/DEM
34

Italy IND/DEM

3

Czechia IND/DEM

1

Greece IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Netherlands IND/DEM

2

Ireland IND/DEM

For (1)

1

Sweden IND/DEM

2

Denmark IND/DEM

Against (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
73

Spain ALDE

Against (1)

2

Hungary ALDE

Against (1)

1

Ireland ALDE

Against (1)

1

Sweden ALDE

2

Latvia ALDE

Against (1)

1

Cyprus ALDE

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

Against (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

Against (1)

1

Denmark ALDE

3

Estonia ALDE

Against (2)

2

Rapport Böge A6-0153/2005 - am. 9

2005/06/08 Outcome: -: 519, +: 153, 0: 10
GB PL CZ LV CY IE MT EE SI LU LT SE SK DK FI PT AT EL BE HU NL FR IT ES DE
Total
75
52
24
9
6
13
5
6
6
6
11
16
13
11
14
22
18
23
21
22
26
74
66
52
91
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
39

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Ireland GUE/NGL

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

2

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

France GUE/NGL

3

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1
icon: NI NI
27

United Kingdom NI

For (1)

Abstain (1)

2

Czechia NI

Against (1)

1

Slovakia NI

3

Austria NI

Against (1)

3

Belgium NI

2
icon: UEN UEN
23

Lithuania UEN

1

Denmark UEN

Against (1)

1
icon: IND/DEM IND/DEM
34

Czechia IND/DEM

1

Ireland IND/DEM

Abstain (1)

1

Sweden IND/DEM

2

Denmark IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Greece IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Netherlands IND/DEM

2

France IND/DEM

Against (1)

3
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
41

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

4

Latvia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Sweden Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Italy Verts/ALE

2
icon: ALDE ALDE
74

Latvia ALDE

Against (1)

1

Cyprus ALDE

Against (1)

1

Ireland ALDE

Against (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

Against (2)

2

Slovenia ALDE

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

Against (1)

1

Sweden ALDE

2

Denmark ALDE

3