BETA


2008/2053(INI) The ABB-ABM method as a management tool for allocating budgetary resources

Progress: Procedure completed

RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Lead BUDG VIRRANKOSKI Kyösti (icon: ALDE ALDE)
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 052, RoP 052-p4

Events

2009/10/08
   EC - Commission response to text adopted in plenary
Documents
2009/03/25
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
2009/03/25
   EP - Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
Details

The European Parliament adopted by 657 votes to 13, with 20 abstentions, a resolution on the ABB-ABM method as a management tool for allocating budgetary resources.

Parliament notes that this management tool has been a success and has brought about an important cultural change in the Commission, whilst at the same time helping to clarify personal responsibilities and accountability, and making management more effective, result oriented and transparent. However, it also stresses that there is still real danger of bureaucratisation of the Commission through the proliferation of burdensome rules and cumbersome procedures. Simplification is therefore necessary.

Responsibilities : Parliament stresses that that political responsibility lies with the Commissioners . Vis-à-vis the Parliament, they are fully responsible for the implementation of sound and effective management in their respective departments. Parliament considers it of utmost importance that, as the Executive responsible for implementation, the Commission has enough means. The Commission should also have more flexibility and freedom to take action. It should also establish clear quantitative and qualitative indicators to measure the achievement of policy and administrative objectives. Parliament also recalls that a level of management and administrative responsibility lies with Directors General of Commission DGs, in terms of efficient, effective and, of course, legally correct implementation of programmes and policies. It therefore stresses the need to clarify this chain of responsibility in order to prevent it from resulting in a lack of “ownership” for specific issues in the Commission. It calls on the Commission to establish some clear guidelines in this respect.

Feedback : Parliament considers that a more concise version of the relevant Annual Activity Reports (AARs) and their Synthesis Report should be made available to Parliament and Council in the annual budgetary procedure. It also considers that it is a serious shortcoming that, until now, the Annual Policy Strategy (APS), and the parallel budgetary information feeding into the Preliminary Draft Budget (PDB), have introduced new priorities without identifying any " negative priorities ". As a result, the whole cycle tends to add one priority after another without taking any political decision on what has been done. Parliament is not convinced that the SPP/ABM process sufficiently takes into account 'lessons learned' and previous results. Moreover, it calls for greater consideration to be given to the implementation of the general budget and the consequences of that implementation for the following years.

Within the Commission : Parliament believes that, by and large, the strategic objectives are unfortunately not subject to any real attempt of evaluation in terms of progress. It believes that, for example, a mid-term review on how the strategic goals have been met could be implemented and that each DG could feed into that process by indicating what actions have been undertaken, what resources have been used, and how this has contributed to fulfilling the overall goals. Ultimately, such involvement is key to responsible management of resources at the operational levels . Moreover, Parliament stresses that ABB/ABM must be developed in such a way that greater transparency and explanations concerning the division of responsibilities between central and decentralised functions in the Commission can be available.

Concluding remarks : Parliament requests the Commission to better integrate and streamline the SPP-ABM cycle so that the actual results of the implementation of policies and activities can be taken into due consideration when allocating human and financial resources. This should also result in the identification of possible "negative priorities" in the budget.

In general, Parliament considers that greater consideration should be given to making the Annual Policy Strategy an exercise by which the results of previous years are systematically taken into account and that simplifications and improvements in presentation should also be made to the content of the SPP-ABM key documents, such as Commission's Annual Activity and Synthesis Reports, to make them better match the Budgetary and Discharge Authority's needs.

Moreover, Parliament calls on the Commission to report back to the Parliament on the results of such analyses before Parliament's first reading on Budget 2010. MEPs also ask the Commission to keep the Parliament informed of the actions taken to assess and improve organisational efficiency and effectiveness. More generally, Parliament calls for alignment between programming and budgeting activities, through a better link between the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), the Commission's Strategic Plan and the APS.

Documents
2009/03/25
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2009/03/24
   EP - Debate in Parliament
2009/02/25
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
Documents
2009/02/25
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
Documents
2009/02/24
   EP - Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
Details

The Committee on Budgets unanimously adopted the report drawn up by Kyösti VIRRANKOSKI (ALDE, FI), noting that this management tool has been a success and has brought about an important cultural change in the Commission, whilst at the same time helping to clarify personal responsibilities and accountability, and making management more effective, result oriented and transparent. However, MEPs stress that there is still real danger of bureaucratisation of the Commission through the proliferation of burdensome rules and cumbersome procedures. Simplification is therefore necessary.

Responsibilities : MEPs stress that that political responsibility lies with the Commissioners . Vis-à-vis the Parliament, they are fully responsible for the implementation of sound and effective management in their respective departments. MEPs consider it of utmost importance that, as the Executive responsible for implementation, the Commission has enough means. The Commission should also have more flexibility and freedom to take action. It should also establish clear quantitative and qualitative indicators to measure the achievement of policy and administrative objectives. MEPs also recall that a level of management and administrative responsibility lies with Directors General of Commission DGs, in terms of efficient, effective and, of course, legally correct implementation of programmes and policies. They therefore stress the need to clarify this chain of responsibility in order to prevent it from resulting in a lack of “ownership” for specific issues in the Commission. They call on the Commission to establish some clear guidelines in this respect.

Feedback : MEPs consider that a more concise version of the relevant Annual Activity Reports (AARs) and their Synthesis Report should be made available to Parliament and Council in the annual budgetary procedure. They also consider that it is a serious shortcoming that, until now, the Annual Policy Strategy (APS), and the parallel budgetary information feeding into the Preliminary Draft Budget (PDB), have introduced new priorities without identifying any " negative priorities ". As a result, the whole cycle tends to add one priority after another without taking any political decision on what has been done. MEPs are not convinced that the SPP/ABM process sufficiently takes into account 'lessons learned' and previous results. Moreover, MEPs call for greater consideration to be given to the implementation of the general budget and the consequences of that implementation for the following years.

Within the Commission : MEPs believe that, by and large, the strategic objectives are unfortunately not subject to any real attempt of evaluation in terms of progress. MEPs believe that, for example, a mid-term review on how the strategic goals have been met could be implemented and that each DG could feed into that process by indicating what actions have been undertaken, what resources have been used, and how this has contributed to fulfilling the overall goals. Ultimately, such involvement is key to responsible management of resources at the operational levels . Moreover, MEPs stress that ABB/ABM must be developed in such a way that greater transparency and explanations concerning the division of responsibilities between central and decentralised functions in the Commission can be available.

Concluding remarks : MEPs request the Commission to better integrate and streamline the SPP-ABM cycle so that the actual results of the implementation of policies and activities can be taken into due consideration when allocating human and financial resources. This should also result in the identification of possible "negative priorities" in the budget.

In general, MEPs consider that greater consideration should be given to making the Annual Policy Strategy an exercise by which the results of previous years are systematically taken into account and that simplifications and improvements in presentation should also be made to the content of the SPP-ABM key documents, such as Commission's Annual Activity and Synthesis Reports, to make them better match the Budgetary and Discharge Authority's needs.

Moreover, MEPs call on the Commission to report back to the Parliament on the results of such analyses before Parliament's first reading on Budget 2010. MEPs also ask the Commission to keep the Parliament informed of the actions taken to assess and improve organisational efficiency and effectiveness. More generally, MEPs call for alignment between programming and budgeting activities, through a better link between the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), the Commission's Strategic Plan and the APS.

2009/02/16
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2009/01/28
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2008/03/13
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
2008/01/23
   EP - VIRRANKOSKI Kyösti (ALDE) appointed as rapporteur in BUDG

Documents

Activities

Votes

Rapport VIRRANKOSKI A6-0104/2009 - am 2

2009/03/25 Outcome: -: 388, +: 282, 0: 20
PT IT PL DK SE BE IE EE CY MT LV FR ?? EL BG ES LU AT LT CZ SI FI SK HU NL RO GB DE
Total
22
67
45
14
16
22
11
5
2
4
8
65
1
20
17
47
6
15
12
23
7
14
14
22
24
29
71
87
icon: PSE PSE
191

Ireland PSE

1

Estonia PSE

3

Luxembourg PSE

Against (1)

1

Lithuania PSE

2

Czechia PSE

2

Slovenia PSE

For (1)

1
icon: UEN UEN
38

Denmark UEN

For (1)

1

Lithuania UEN

2
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
35

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

1

Ireland GUE/NGL

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

France GUE/NGL

2

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2
icon: IND/DEM IND/DEM
18

Poland IND/DEM

3

Denmark IND/DEM

For (1)

1

Sweden IND/DEM

2

Ireland IND/DEM

For (1)

1

France IND/DEM

2

Czechia IND/DEM

1

Netherlands IND/DEM

2

United Kingdom IND/DEM

Against (1)

6
icon: NI NI
29

Italy NI

Against (1)

3

Poland NI

1

Belgium NI

2

Austria NI

Abstain (1)

2

Czechia NI

Against (1)

1

Slovakia NI

3
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
41

Italy Verts/ALE

2

Denmark Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Sweden Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Latvia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Finland Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Romania Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

5
icon: ALDE ALDE
84

Sweden ALDE

Against (2)

2

Ireland ALDE

Against (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

Against (2)

2

Cyprus ALDE

Against (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

Against (1)

1
2

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Austria ALDE

Against (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Hungary ALDE

2

Netherlands ALDE

4
icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE
254

Denmark PPE-DE

Against (1)

1

Ireland PPE-DE

4

Malta PPE-DE

Against (2)

2

Latvia PPE-DE

2

PPE-DE

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE-DE

3

Lithuania PPE-DE

2

Slovenia PPE-DE

4

Rapport VIRRANKOSKI A6-0104/2009 b - résolution

2009/03/25 Outcome: +: 657, 0: 20, -: 13
DE IT FR GB ES PL RO NL HU CZ PT BE BG EL SE FI AT SK DK LT IE LV SI LU EE MT CY ??
Total
87
66
67
70
47
45
28
25
22
23
22
22
17
20
16
14
15
14
14
12
11
8
7
6
5
4
2
1
icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE
253

Denmark PPE-DE

1
2

Latvia PPE-DE

2

Luxembourg PPE-DE

3

Malta PPE-DE

2

PPE-DE

For (1)

1
icon: PSE PSE
191

Czechia PSE

2

Lithuania PSE

2

Ireland PSE

1

Slovenia PSE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PSE

For (1)

1

Estonia PSE

3
icon: ALDE ALDE
85
2

Sweden ALDE

2

Austria ALDE

1

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

2

Cyprus ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
41

Italy Verts/ALE

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

5

Romania Verts/ALE

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Sweden Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: UEN UEN
38

Denmark UEN

Abstain (1)

1

Lithuania UEN

2
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
35

France GUE/NGL

2

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Portugal GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

3

Sweden GUE/NGL

1

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Ireland GUE/NGL

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

For (1)

1
icon: NI NI
29

Italy NI

Abstain (1)

3

United Kingdom NI

Abstain (1)

7

Poland NI

1

Czechia NI

Abstain (1)

1

Belgium NI

2

Austria NI

Abstain (1)

2
icon: IND/DEM IND/DEM
18

France IND/DEM

2

Poland IND/DEM

3

Netherlands IND/DEM

2

Czechia IND/DEM

1

Sweden IND/DEM

2

Denmark IND/DEM

For (1)

1

Ireland IND/DEM

For (1)

1
AmendmentsDossier
12 2008/2053(INI)
2009/02/16 BUDG 12 amendments...
source: PE-420.146

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)

committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Budgets
committee
BUDG
rapporteur
name: VIRRANKOSKI Kyösti date: 2008-01-23T00:00:00 group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Budgets
committee
BUDG
date
2008-01-23T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: VIRRANKOSKI Kyösti group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
docs/2/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2009-104&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2009-0104_EN.html
docs/3/body
EC
events/2/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2009-104&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2009-0104_EN.html
events/5/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2009-173
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-6-2009-0173_EN.html
activities
  • date: 2008-03-13T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: True committee: BUDG date: 2008-01-23T00:00:00 committee_full: Budgets rapporteur: group: ALDE name: VIRRANKOSKI Kyösti
  • date: 2009-02-24T00:00:00 body: EP committees: body: EP responsible: True committee: BUDG date: 2008-01-23T00:00:00 committee_full: Budgets rapporteur: group: ALDE name: VIRRANKOSKI Kyösti type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
  • date: 2009-02-25T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2009-104&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A6-0104/2009 body: EP type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
  • date: 2009-03-24T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20090324&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2009-03-25T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=16824&l=en type: Results of vote in Parliament title: Results of vote in Parliament url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2009-173 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T6-0173/2009 body: EP type: Results of vote in Parliament
commission
  • body: EC dg: Budget commissioner: GRYBAUSKAITĖ Dalia
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Budgets
committee
BUDG
date
2008-01-23T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: VIRRANKOSKI Kyösti group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
committees/0
body
EP
responsible
True
committee
BUDG
date
2008-01-23T00:00:00
committee_full
Budgets
rapporteur
group: ALDE name: VIRRANKOSKI Kyösti
docs
  • date: 2009-01-28T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE416.369 title: PE416.369 type: Committee draft report body: EP
  • date: 2009-02-16T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE420.146 title: PE420.146 type: Amendments tabled in committee body: EP
  • date: 2009-02-25T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2009-104&language=EN title: A6-0104/2009 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading body: EP
  • date: 2009-10-08T00:00:00 docs: url: /oeil/spdoc.do?i=16824&j=0&l=en title: SP(2009)3245 type: Commission response to text adopted in plenary
events
  • date: 2008-03-13T00:00:00 type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2009-02-24T00:00:00 type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading body: EP summary: The Committee on Budgets unanimously adopted the report drawn up by Kyösti VIRRANKOSKI (ALDE, FI), noting that this management tool has been a success and has brought about an important cultural change in the Commission, whilst at the same time helping to clarify personal responsibilities and accountability, and making management more effective, result oriented and transparent. However, MEPs stress that there is still real danger of bureaucratisation of the Commission through the proliferation of burdensome rules and cumbersome procedures. Simplification is therefore necessary. Responsibilities : MEPs stress that that political responsibility lies with the Commissioners . Vis-à-vis the Parliament, they are fully responsible for the implementation of sound and effective management in their respective departments. MEPs consider it of utmost importance that, as the Executive responsible for implementation, the Commission has enough means. The Commission should also have more flexibility and freedom to take action. It should also establish clear quantitative and qualitative indicators to measure the achievement of policy and administrative objectives. MEPs also recall that a level of management and administrative responsibility lies with Directors General of Commission DGs, in terms of efficient, effective and, of course, legally correct implementation of programmes and policies. They therefore stress the need to clarify this chain of responsibility in order to prevent it from resulting in a lack of “ownership” for specific issues in the Commission. They call on the Commission to establish some clear guidelines in this respect. Feedback : MEPs consider that a more concise version of the relevant Annual Activity Reports (AARs) and their Synthesis Report should be made available to Parliament and Council in the annual budgetary procedure. They also consider that it is a serious shortcoming that, until now, the Annual Policy Strategy (APS), and the parallel budgetary information feeding into the Preliminary Draft Budget (PDB), have introduced new priorities without identifying any " negative priorities ". As a result, the whole cycle tends to add one priority after another without taking any political decision on what has been done. MEPs are not convinced that the SPP/ABM process sufficiently takes into account 'lessons learned' and previous results. Moreover, MEPs call for greater consideration to be given to the implementation of the general budget and the consequences of that implementation for the following years. Within the Commission : MEPs believe that, by and large, the strategic objectives are unfortunately not subject to any real attempt of evaluation in terms of progress. MEPs believe that, for example, a mid-term review on how the strategic goals have been met could be implemented and that each DG could feed into that process by indicating what actions have been undertaken, what resources have been used, and how this has contributed to fulfilling the overall goals. Ultimately, such involvement is key to responsible management of resources at the operational levels . Moreover, MEPs stress that ABB/ABM must be developed in such a way that greater transparency and explanations concerning the division of responsibilities between central and decentralised functions in the Commission can be available. Concluding remarks : MEPs request the Commission to better integrate and streamline the SPP-ABM cycle so that the actual results of the implementation of policies and activities can be taken into due consideration when allocating human and financial resources. This should also result in the identification of possible "negative priorities" in the budget. In general, MEPs consider that greater consideration should be given to making the Annual Policy Strategy an exercise by which the results of previous years are systematically taken into account and that simplifications and improvements in presentation should also be made to the content of the SPP-ABM key documents, such as Commission's Annual Activity and Synthesis Reports, to make them better match the Budgetary and Discharge Authority's needs. Moreover, MEPs call on the Commission to report back to the Parliament on the results of such analyses before Parliament's first reading on Budget 2010. MEPs also ask the Commission to keep the Parliament informed of the actions taken to assess and improve organisational efficiency and effectiveness. More generally, MEPs call for alignment between programming and budgeting activities, through a better link between the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), the Commission's Strategic Plan and the APS.
  • date: 2009-02-25T00:00:00 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2009-104&language=EN title: A6-0104/2009
  • date: 2009-03-24T00:00:00 type: Debate in Parliament body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20090324&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2009-03-25T00:00:00 type: Results of vote in Parliament body: EP docs: url: https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=16824&l=en title: Results of vote in Parliament
  • date: 2009-03-25T00:00:00 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2009-173 title: T6-0173/2009 summary: The European Parliament adopted by 657 votes to 13, with 20 abstentions, a resolution on the ABB-ABM method as a management tool for allocating budgetary resources. Parliament notes that this management tool has been a success and has brought about an important cultural change in the Commission, whilst at the same time helping to clarify personal responsibilities and accountability, and making management more effective, result oriented and transparent. However, it also stresses that there is still real danger of bureaucratisation of the Commission through the proliferation of burdensome rules and cumbersome procedures. Simplification is therefore necessary. Responsibilities : Parliament stresses that that political responsibility lies with the Commissioners . Vis-à-vis the Parliament, they are fully responsible for the implementation of sound and effective management in their respective departments. Parliament considers it of utmost importance that, as the Executive responsible for implementation, the Commission has enough means. The Commission should also have more flexibility and freedom to take action. It should also establish clear quantitative and qualitative indicators to measure the achievement of policy and administrative objectives. Parliament also recalls that a level of management and administrative responsibility lies with Directors General of Commission DGs, in terms of efficient, effective and, of course, legally correct implementation of programmes and policies. It therefore stresses the need to clarify this chain of responsibility in order to prevent it from resulting in a lack of “ownership” for specific issues in the Commission. It calls on the Commission to establish some clear guidelines in this respect. Feedback : Parliament considers that a more concise version of the relevant Annual Activity Reports (AARs) and their Synthesis Report should be made available to Parliament and Council in the annual budgetary procedure. It also considers that it is a serious shortcoming that, until now, the Annual Policy Strategy (APS), and the parallel budgetary information feeding into the Preliminary Draft Budget (PDB), have introduced new priorities without identifying any " negative priorities ". As a result, the whole cycle tends to add one priority after another without taking any political decision on what has been done. Parliament is not convinced that the SPP/ABM process sufficiently takes into account 'lessons learned' and previous results. Moreover, it calls for greater consideration to be given to the implementation of the general budget and the consequences of that implementation for the following years. Within the Commission : Parliament believes that, by and large, the strategic objectives are unfortunately not subject to any real attempt of evaluation in terms of progress. It believes that, for example, a mid-term review on how the strategic goals have been met could be implemented and that each DG could feed into that process by indicating what actions have been undertaken, what resources have been used, and how this has contributed to fulfilling the overall goals. Ultimately, such involvement is key to responsible management of resources at the operational levels . Moreover, Parliament stresses that ABB/ABM must be developed in such a way that greater transparency and explanations concerning the division of responsibilities between central and decentralised functions in the Commission can be available. Concluding remarks : Parliament requests the Commission to better integrate and streamline the SPP-ABM cycle so that the actual results of the implementation of policies and activities can be taken into due consideration when allocating human and financial resources. This should also result in the identification of possible "negative priorities" in the budget. In general, Parliament considers that greater consideration should be given to making the Annual Policy Strategy an exercise by which the results of previous years are systematically taken into account and that simplifications and improvements in presentation should also be made to the content of the SPP-ABM key documents, such as Commission's Annual Activity and Synthesis Reports, to make them better match the Budgetary and Discharge Authority's needs. Moreover, Parliament calls on the Commission to report back to the Parliament on the results of such analyses before Parliament's first reading on Budget 2010. MEPs also ask the Commission to keep the Parliament informed of the actions taken to assess and improve organisational efficiency and effectiveness. More generally, Parliament calls for alignment between programming and budgeting activities, through a better link between the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), the Commission's Strategic Plan and the APS.
  • date: 2009-03-25T00:00:00 type: End of procedure in Parliament body: EP
links
other
  • body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/budget/ title: Budget commissioner: GRYBAUSKAITĖ Dalia
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee
Old
BUDG/6/60350
New
  • BUDG/6/60350
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure EP 052
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
procedure/legal_basis/1
Rules of Procedure EP 052-p4
procedure/legal_basis/1
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052-p2
procedure/subject
Old
  • 8.40.03 European Commission
  • 8.70 Budget of the Union
  • 8.70.02 Financial regulations
New
8.40.03
European Commission
8.70
Budget of the Union
8.70.02
Financial regulations
activities
  • date: 2008-03-13T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: True committee: BUDG date: 2008-01-23T00:00:00 committee_full: Budgets rapporteur: group: ALDE name: VIRRANKOSKI Kyösti
  • date: 2009-02-24T00:00:00 body: EP committees: body: EP responsible: True committee: BUDG date: 2008-01-23T00:00:00 committee_full: Budgets rapporteur: group: ALDE name: VIRRANKOSKI Kyösti type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
  • date: 2009-02-25T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2009-104&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A6-0104/2009 body: EP type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
  • date: 2009-03-24T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20090324&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2009-03-25T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=16824&l=en type: Results of vote in Parliament title: Results of vote in Parliament url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2009-173 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T6-0173/2009 body: EP type: Results of vote in Parliament
committees
  • body: EP responsible: True committee: BUDG date: 2008-01-23T00:00:00 committee_full: Budgets rapporteur: group: ALDE name: VIRRANKOSKI Kyösti
links
other
  • body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/budget/ title: Budget commissioner: GRYBAUSKAITĖ Dalia
procedure
dossier_of_the_committee
BUDG/6/60350
reference
2008/2053(INI)
title
The ABB-ABM method as a management tool for allocating budgetary resources
legal_basis
stage_reached
Procedure completed
subtype
Initiative
type
INI - Own-initiative procedure
subject