Progress: Procedure completed
Lead committee dossier:
Subjects
Events
The European Parliament adopted by 540 votes to 93, with 52 abstentions, a resolution on the mandate for the trilogue on the 2013 Draft Budget.
Draft budget for 2013 – general assessment: Parliament recalls that in its resolution of 14 March 2012 Parliament placed the promotion of growth and jobs at the centre of its priorities, in line with the Europe 2020 strategy, arguing in particular for the concentration of resources in support of SMEs and youth .
Recognising the persistent economic and budgetary constraints at national level, as well as the need for fiscal consolidation, Parliament reiterates its conviction that the EU budget represents a common and effective instrument of investment and solidarity, which is needed particularly at the present time to trigger economic growth, competitiveness and job creation in the 27 Member States. Despite its limited size, not exceeding 2 % of total public spending in the Union, the EU budget has had a real economic impact. Accordingly, Members intend strongly to defend an adequate level of resources for next year’s budget, especially for policies delivering growth and employment. They believe that the EU budget should not be the victim of unsuccessful economic policies at national level.
In terms of priorities, Parliament believes that resources must be concentrated on those areas where the EU budget can deliver added value, whilst they could be reduced in sectors which are experiencing unjustified delays and low absorption. It considers that real savings can be made by identifying overlaps and inefficiencies across budgetary lines. It asks the Commission, to this end, to provide both arms of the budgetary authority with prompt, regular and complete information on the implementation - on the basis of performance target indicators - of the various programmes and initiatives´, and to weigh them against the EU’s political commitments.
In an amendment adopted in plenary, Members consider that the EU, not least in the context of the austerity policies being implemented in the Member States, must show responsibility and take immediate, concrete measures to establish a single seat for Parliament .
Budget 2013: Parliament notes that the EU draft budget for 2013 proposed by the Commission amounts to:
EUR 150 931.7 million in commitment appropriations (CA) (i.e. +2 % compared to the 2012 budget) and EUR 137 924.4 million in payment appropriations (PA) (i.e. +6.8 % compared to Budget 2012).
These amounts represent respectively 1.13 % and 1.03 % of the EU's forecast GNI for 2013. Noting the ongoing discrepancy between the levels of commitment and payment appropriations, Members stress that this will result in a further increase of reste-à-liquider (RAL).
RAL : Parliament understands that the Commission, at the end of the programming period, is putting the accent on the side of payments, as it intends also to provide a solution to the ever-growing level of RALs. While sharing this approach, Parliament is particularly concerned at the proposed freezing of commitment appropriations at the level of the estimated inflation rate for next year. It stresses the importance of commitments for determining political priorities and thus ensuring that the necessary investment will eventually be made to boost growth and employment. It intends to analyse carefully whether such a level of commitments will allow the proper implementation of key EU policies. It is also of the opinion that even if the freezing of commitment appropriations can be presented by the Commission and Member States as a partial solution to the RAL problem, it cannot be considered an acceptable strategy for keeping the level of RAL under control .
On the issue of payments : Parliaemnt views the proposed increase of 6.8 % in PA compared to 2012 as an initial response to Parliament's call for responsible and realistic budgeting. It notes that the increases in payments are concentrated in the areas of competitiveness and cohesion. It remains, however, sceptical as to whether the proposed level of payment appropriations in 2013 is adequate to cover the actual needs for next year, especially in Headings 1b and 2. Members also warns that the insufficient level of payments for 2012 combined with the level proposed by the Commission for 2013 might not be sufficient to honour the claims being addressed to the Commission , and could then result in billions of decommitments for cohesion policy alone.
Parliament also highlights the following:
the current proposal would bring the overall level of payments for the period 2007-2013 to EUR 859.4 billion, i.e. approximately EUR 66 billion lower than the agreed MFF ceilings. Parliament asks the Commission to present, in the context of the amending budget for 2012, accurate information on the results of the current implementation of the European Economic Recovery Plan programmes; the endorsement of the increase in payment appropriations, as proposed by the Commission, which is the result not only of past commitments that need to be honoured but also of the actual implementation of programmes, which is expected to reach cruising speed by the last year of the current MFF. Parliament calls on the Commission to verify with the Member States that their estimated demands for payment increases are accurate and realistic; the significant number of legitimate claims, notably in the field of cohesion policy, could not be paid out and will also need to be covered by the 2012 budget, requiring the Commission to come up with a draft amending budget in order to rectify this situation, and to avoid shifting 2012 payments to the following year, since this would create an unsustainable level of payments in 2013 ; the Council Presidency’s reluctance to participate in the interinstitutional political meeting on payments proposed by Parliament as a follow-up to last year's budgetary conciliation, which behaviour is seen as an irresponsible attempt to ignore the lack of payments issue and the question of RAL; the fact that any reduction in the level of payment appropriations below that of the Commission proposal would also result in a further increase in the outstanding commitments (RALs), which at the end of 2011 already reached the unprecedented level of EUR 207 billion and reiterate the call on the Council to refrain from making artificial cuts by deciding on the overall level of payments a priori, without taking into account the assessment of actual needs.
Taking note of the overall margin of EUR 2.4 billion in CA in the DB 2013, Parliament states its determination to make full use of it - as well as of the other flexibility mechanisms foreseen by the IIA - whenever it proves to be necessary. It also notes that no appropriations have been entered in the draft budget for the accession of Croatia in July 2013, and asks for the necessary amounts to be provided.
Budget headings : Parliaments makes the following comments on the separate budget headings:
Heading 1a: it notes the Commission's proposal for increasing commitments under this Heading by 4.1 % (to EUR 16 032 million) as compared to the 2012 budget. It is pleased to see that the highest increases in CA are concentrated in Heading 1a, where most of the policies and programmes triggering growth, competitiveness and jobs are placed, and that they reflect the priorities highlighted by Parliament for 2013: the increases for FP7-EC (+6.1 %), CIP (+7.3 %) and TEN-T (+6.4 %) programmes. Furthermore, Members consider the substantial increase in payments, by 17.8% (to EUR 13.552 million) as compared to the Budget 2012 a realistic estimation of the payments needed under this heading, stating that the level of payments proposed by the Commission to be the minimum level needed under Heading 1a .
Taking note of the rationale adopted by the Commission when proposing reductions as compared to the financial programming, Members ask for increased resources for SME’s which created 85 % of jobs in the last ten years. They ask for measures that will facilitate access to debt and equity financing for innovative SMEs.
They deeply regret that, at a time of economic crisis and especially of high youth unemployment the appropriations for the PROGRESS programme have been reduced by EUR 5.3 million compared to the financial programming, thus being brought back practically to the 2012 levels, despite the good performance of this programme so far. Parliament also deplores the fact that not even in the last year of the current MFF has the Commission seized the opportunity to reinstate under this programme the EUR 60 million redeployed in favour of the Progress Microfinance Facility. It regrets that the contribution to the Youth on the Move Flagship Initiative is slightly reduced compared to last year, and opposes, therefore, the proposed reduction by EUR 10.2 million as compared to the 2012 budget for the Lifelong Learning Programme.
As regards the EGF , Parliament welcomes the Commission's decision to include in the DB, for the third year running, payment appropriations (EUR 50 million) for the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF). As regards ITER , Members are concerned that the Commission proposes to finance an additional amount of EUR 360 million in 2013 only through redeployment from lines of the FP7 programme, contrary to Parliament’s long-standing position on the matter. It aims to explore other means available under the IIA and the Financial Regulation for this purpose. Parliament emphasises the need for an adequate staffing level for Fusion for Energy (F4E), the European Joint Undertaking for ITER, so as to ensure the careful management and sound implementation of the EU's contribution to the ITER project. On supervisory authorities , Members stress generally that innovative solutions are urgently required in order to mobilise private or public funds to a greater extent and extend the range of financial instruments available for infrastructure projects. They deplore the Commission's proposed cuts for the European Supervisory Authorities, compared to what was originally envisaged in the financial programming, and consider the current level of appropriations insufficient to allow those agencies to cope efficiently with their tasks.
Heading 1b : Parliament notes that the DB 2013 provides for an increase in CA of 3.3 % (to EUR 54 498 million) compared to the 2012 budget, of which EUR 42 144 million are for the Structural Funds (ERDF and ESF) and EUR 12 354 million for the Cohesion Fund. It stresses that cohesion policy has long proved its added value as a necessary investment tool to deliver growth and job creation effectively by accurately addressing the investment needs of the regions, thus contributing to economic recovery and the development of the Union as a whole. Members welcome, therefore, the Commission's initiative of reprogramming where possible EUR 82 billion of unallocated Structural Fund moneys in some Member States in favour of SMEs and youth employment, in line with Parliament’s priorities for 2013.
However, they are extremely concerned over the payment situation of cohesion projects under this Heading, and note that two-thirds of the total level of RAL at the end of 2011 (i.e. EUR 135.8 billion) reflects unpaid projects under cohesion policy. They recall that at the end of 2011 the Commission was unable to reimburse some EUR 11 billion corresponding to legitimate payment claims submitted by project beneficiaries due to the insufficient level of payment appropriations provided in the budget. This has led to a considerable payment backlog, which will have to be addressed through the availability of sufficient payment appropriations in 2012. Parliament firmly points out that it will not accept a recurrence of this situation in 2013.
Accordingly, Members call on the Council and Commission to immediately analyse and assess, along with Parliament, the figures and requirements concerned, so as not to jeopardise implementation for 2013, pointing out that a lack of payment appropriations could endanger currently well-functioning programmes. They consider therefore as a minimum the proposed increase in payment appropriations by 11.7 % (to EUR 48 975 million) as compared to last year. They stress that this increase in payments is only a first step to cover the actual needs of running projects, and call on the Council and Commission to carefully evaluate the real needs in terms of payments for 2013 under Heading 1b, stating that they will oppose any possible cut in the level of payments compared to the proposal included in the DB 2013.
Heading 2 : Parliament notes that the DB 2013 proposes to increase CA by 0.6 % (to EUR 60 307 million) and PA by 1.6 % (to EUR 57 964 million) as compared to the 2012 budget (these levels remain below the increase proposed by the Commission for the budget as a whole). It notes that the proposed funds for market interventions are EUR 419 million less for 2013 than in the 2012 budget. It also stresses that the appropriations for Heading 2 are lower than the estimated needs, since assigned revenues to the EAGF are estimated to be higher in 2013 than in 2012. Members recall that an adjustment of the current estimates on the basis of actual needs will be made in the autumn through the agricultural amending letter. They note the proposed slight increase of CA - by 3.3 % to EUR 366.6 million - for LIFE +, but regret that the appropriation is EUR 10.55 million below the level of the financial programming of January 2012. Parliament welcomes the amounts proposed by the Commission for the food distribution programme for Most Deprived Persons (MDP) and considers it important to maintain the financial support for the common fisheries policy (CFP) with a view to its imminent reform.
Heading 3a : Members note the overall increase in funding proposed in DB 2013 - EUR 1 392,2 and 928 3 million in commitments and payments respectively - compared to the 2012 budget. They stress the need : (i) to reinforce appropriations for cybersecurity in the IT sector ; (ii) to continue support for FRONTEX, as well as for the various recently created agencies under this heading ; (iii) to take note of the significant increase in commitments and comparatively low level of payments for SIS II. Members recommend maintaining a substantial part of the budget for SIS II in the reserve until its operational progress and compliance with the financial planning have been justified. They appreciate the increase proposed by the Commission for the European Refugee Fund and reiterate their request for an appropriate and balanced answer to the challenges of legal migration and slowing-down of illegal migration .
Heading 3b : Members deplore the fact that again for 2013 the overall appropriations under this Heading, compared to 2012 budget, are to be reduced, with a cut in CA of 1.2 % (EUR 26.8 million) and in PA of 0.4%, excluding the Solidarity Fund. They welcome the increased funding in 2013 for the Youth in Action programme and the increase in commitments compared to the 2012 budget for the Culture
programme (+1.4 %), Media 2007 (+1.1 %) and Union action in the field of health (+3.1%), but regrets the cuts in appropriations compared to the 2012 budget for the Europe for Citizens programme - especially during the European Year of Citizens – as well as for Union action in the field of consumer policy and Media Mundus. They also regret the decreased volume of commitments for communication actions compared to the 2012 budget, at a time when the gap between the European Union and its citizens is more evident than ever.
Heading 4 : Parliament notes that the commitment and payment appropriations presented in the DB 2013 mark an increase of 0.7 % and 5.1 %, as compared to the 2012 budget, to EUR 9 467.2 and EUR 7 311.6 million respectively. It points out that these increases remain below that proposed by the Commission for the budget as a whole. Noting the significant increase of EUR 272.3 million in the proposed margin for Heading 4 compared to the financial programming for 2013 which reflects the net effect of the increase in commitments for ENPI, ICI and ICI + and decreasing the growth in commitments for the Guarantee Fund, the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance, macro financial assistance, the Development Cooperation Instrument, and the Instrument for Stability, Members call on the Commission to provide sufficient explanation as to why such a significant scaling-down of some programmes was needed compared to the financial programming . They regret, in particular, the ongoing decrease of appropriations in the field of development cooperation. They wonder how this is compatible with the EU’s international commitments in terms of allocating, by 2015, 0.7 % of GNP to the Millennium Development Goals. They call on the Commission to ensure a more coherent, realistic and better planned approach to the financing of DCI. They also note the proposal to increase appropriations under the European Neighbourhood Instrument, addressing the needs of countries facing major political and economic change in the wake of the Arab Spring.
Members consider that a sufficient level of EU financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority and UNRWA is still needed in order to adequately and comprehensively respond to the political and humanitarian situation in the Middle East and the peace process. As regards Croatia, Members are concerned that the Commission is proposing a greater than expected reduction in support for institutional capacity building for candidate countries, with the cut in IPA allocations for Croatia. They recognise the need to react to the transregional challenges posed by organised crime, trafficking, the need to protect critical infrastructure, threats to public health and the fight against terrorism.
Heading 5 : Parliament notes that total administrative expenditure for all institutions is estimated at EUR 8.544.4 million, representing an increase of 3.2 % as compared to 2012 and leaving a margin of EUR 636.6 million, including additional expenditure linked to Croatia's accession. Acknowledging that most institutions, including the European Parliament, have made an effort to restrict their administrative budgets to an increase below the expected inflation rate, Parliament underlines the need for the long-term rationalisation of administrative resources, and insists on the need to strengthen interinstitutional cooperation in areas such as human resources, translation and interpretation, buildings, and information technology. Overall, Members welcome this effort towards budget consolidation in administrative expenditure at a time of economic and budgetary constraints at national level. However, they are concerned at the adverse impact such measures may have on the swift, regular and effective implementation of EU actions and programmes. According to Members, any staff reduction should be based on a prior impact assessment and take full account of, inter alia, the Union's legal obligations, the EU’s priorities and the institutions' new competences and increased tasks arising from the treaties. Such assessment should also take carefully into account the effects on the different Directorates-General and services, given their size and workload notably, as well as on the different types of posts concerned as presented in the Commission's annual screening of human resources. Members take the view that questions remain about the high number of costly management positions at high grade levels among the staff of the European External Action Service. They also state that the European Schools should be adequately funded.
Agencies : Members note the overall level of EUR 748 million (i.e. 0.5 % of the total EU budget) devoted to the decentralised EU agencies in DB 2013, resulting in an increase in the total EU contribution (including assigned revenue) as compared to the 2012 budget amounting to EUR 24 million, or +3.2 %. They note that for the first time the Commission has cut the budgetary requests of almost all the agencies, which were in line with the financial programming amounts overall.
Interinstitutional budgetary trilogue: lastly, in an amendment adoptd in plenary, Parliament states that the following issues are of specific interest for the trilogue due to take place on 9 July 2012:
a sufficient level of payments to allow for the 2012 June European Council commitment to mobilise EU budget funds for fast-acting growth measures to be implemented without any delay and within the current MFF;
support for growth, competitiveness and employment, and particularly for SMEs and youth, in the budget for 2013; a sufficient level of payment appropriations to cover the increasing needs of running projects, in particular under Headings 1a, 1b and 2, at the end of the programming period; the problem of outstanding commitments (RAL); an amending budget for 2012, in order to cover past and current payment needs and avoid shifting 2012 payments to 2013 as was the case this year; a sufficient level of commitment appropriations - more Europe in times of crisis; an interinstitutional meeting on payments;
financing of ITER in the 2013 budget; the discrepancy between financial programming and the DB 2013 in the case of Heading 4.
The Committee on Budgets adopted the report by Giovanni La Via (EPP, IT) on the mandate for the trilogue on the 2013 Draft Budget.
Draft budget for 2013 – general assessment: Members recall that in its resolution of 14 March 2012 Parliament placed the promotion of growth and jobs at the centre of its priorities, in line with the Europe 2020 strategy, arguing in particular for the concentration of resources in support of SMEs and youth.
Recognising the persistent economic and budgetary constraints at national level, as well as the need for fiscal consolidation, Members reiterate their conviction that the EU budget represents a common and effective instrument of investment and solidarity, which is needed particularly at the present time to trigger economic growth, competitiveness and job creation in the 27 Member States. Despite its limited size, not exceeding 2 % of total public spending in the Union, the EU budget has had a real economic impact. Accordingly, Members intend strongly to defend an adequate level of resources for next year’s budget, especially for policies delivering growth and employment. They believe that the EU budget should not be the victim of unsuccessful economic policies at national level.
In terms of priorities, the committee believes that resources must be concentrated on those areas where the EU budget can deliver added value, whilst they could be reduced in sectors which are experiencing unjustified delays and low absorption. It considers that real savings can be made by identifying overlaps and inefficiencies across budgetary lines. It asks the Commission, to this end, to provide both arms of the budgetary authority with prompt, regular and complete information on the implementation - on the basis of performance target indicators - of the various programmes and initiatives´, and to weigh them against the EU’s political commitments.
Budget 2013: Members note that the EU draft budget for 2013 proposed by the Commission amounts to:
EUR 150 931.7 million in commitment appropriations (CA) (i.e. +2 % compared to the 2012 budget) and EUR 137 924.4 million in payment appropriations (PA) (i.e. +6.8 % compared to Budget 2012).
These amounts represent respectively 1.13 % and 1.03 % of the EU's forecast GNI for 2013. Noting the ongoing discrepancy between the levels of commitment and payment appropriations, Members stress that this will result in a further increase of reste-à-liquider (RAL).
The committee understands that the Commission proposes freezing commitment appropriations at the level of the estimated inflation rate for next year, but feels that this cannot be considered an acceptable strategy for keeping the level of RAL under control.
The report also makes the following points:
Members view the proposed increase of 6.8 % in PA compared to 2012 as an initial response to Parliament's call for responsible and realistic budgeting; they remain sceptical as to whether the proposed level of payment appropriations in 2013 is adequate to cover the actual needs for next year, especially in Headings 1b and 2, warning also that the insufficient level of payments might not be sufficient to honour the claims being addressed to the Commission, and could then result in billions of decommitments for cohesion policy alone; they note a significant number of legitimate claims, notably in the field of cohesion policy, could not be paid out and will also need to be covered by the 2012 budget, requiring the Commission to come up with a draft amending budget in order to rectify this situation, and to avoid shifting 2012 payments to the following year, since this would create an unsustainable level of payments in 2013; they deplore the Council Presidency’s reluctance to participate in the interinstitutional political meeting on payments proposed by Parliament as a follow-up to last year's budgetary conciliation, which behaviour is seen as an irresponsible attempt to ignore the lack of payments issue and the question of RAL; they stress that any reduction in the level of payment appropriations below that of the Commission proposal would also result in a further increase in the outstanding commitments (RALs), which at the end of 2011 already reached the unprecedented level of EUR 207 billion and reiterate the call on the Council to refrain from making artificial cuts by deciding on the overall level of payments a priori, without taking into account the assessment of actual needs.
Taking note of the overall margin of EUR 2.4 billion in CA in the DB 2013, the committee states its determination to make full use of it - as well as of the other flexibility mechanisms foreseen by the IIA - whenever it proves to be necessary. It also notes that no appropriations have been entered in the draft budget for the accession of Croatia in July 2013, and asks for the necessary amounts to be provided.
Members make the following comments on the separate budget headings :
Heading 1a: they note the Commission's proposal for increasing commitments under this Heading by 4.1 % (to EUR 16 032 million) as compared to the 2012 budget. They are pleased to see that the highest increases in CA are concentrated in Heading 1a, where most of the policies and programmes triggering growth, competitiveness and jobs are placed, and that they reflect the priorities highlighted by Parliament for 2013: the increases for FP7-EC (+6.1 %), CIP (+7.3 %) and TEN-T (+6.4 %) programmes. Furthermore, Members consider the substantial increase in payments, by 17.8% (to EUR 13.552 million) as compared to the Budget 2012 a realistic estimation of the payments needed under this heading, stating that the level of payments proposed by the Commission to be the minimum level needed under Heading 1a.
Taking note of the rationale adopted by the Commission when proposing reductions as compared to the financial programming, Members ask for increased resources for SME’s which created 85 % of jobs in the last ten years. They ask for measures that will facilitate access to debt and equity financing for innovative SMEs.
They deeply regret that, at a time of economic crisis and especially of high youth unemployment the appropriations for the PROGRESS programme have been reduced by EUR 5.3 million compared to the financial programming, thus being brought back practically to the 2012 levels, despite the good performance of this programme so far. The committee also deplores the fact that not even in the last year of the current MFF has the Commission seized the opportunity to reinstate under this programme the EUR 60 million redeployed in favour of the Progress Microfinance Facility. It regrets that the contribution to the Youth on the Move Flagship Initiative is slightly reduced compared to last year, and opposes, therefore, the proposed reduction by EUR 10.2 million as compared to the 2012 budget for the Lifelong Learning Programme.
Stressing the role of the TEN-T programme for meeting the goals of adaptation to climate change, Members welcome the Commission's proposed increase of approximately EUR 85 million compared to the 2012 budget, but asks for further clarification on the proposed reduction by EUR 118 million as compared to the financial programming. They stress generally that innovative solutions are urgently required in order to mobilise private or public funds to a greater extent and extend the range of financial instruments available for infrastructure projects. They deplore the Commission's proposed cuts for the European Supervisory Authorities, compared to what was originally envisaged in the financial programming, and consider the current level of appropriations insufficient to allow those agencies to cope efficiently with their tasks.
As regards ITER, Members are concerned that the Commission proposes to finance this additional amount only through redeployment from lines of the FP7 programme, contrary to Parliament’s long-standing position on the matter.
Heading 1b: the committee notes that the DB 2013 provides for an increase in CA of 3.3 % (to EUR 54 498 million) compared to the 2012 budget, of which EUR 42 144 million are for the Structural Funds (ERDF and ESF) and EUR 12 354 million for the Cohesion Fund. It stresses that cohesion policy has long proved its added value as a necessary investment tool to deliver growth and job creation effectively by accurately addressing the investment needs of the regions, thus contributing to economic recovery and the development of the Union as a whole. Members welcome, therefore, the Commission's initiative of reprogramming where possible EUR 82 billion of unallocated Structural Fund moneys in some Member States in favour of SMEs and youth employment, in line with Parliament’s priorities for 2013.
However, they are extremely concerned over the payment situation of cohesion projects under this Heading, and note that two-thirds of the total level of RAL at the end of 2011 (i.e. EUR 135.8 billion) reflects unpaid projects under cohesion policy. They recall that at the end of 2011 the Commission was unable to reimburse some EUR 11 billion corresponding to legitimate payment claims submitted by project beneficiaries due to the insufficient level of payment appropriations provided in the budget. This has led to a considerable payment backlog, which will have to be addressed through the availability of sufficient payment appropriations in 2012. The committee firmly points out that it will not accept a recurrence of this situation in 2013.
Accordingly, Members call on the Council and Commission to immediately analyse and assess, along with Parliament, the figures and requirements concerned, so as not to jeopardise implementation for 2013, pointing out that a lack of payment appropriations could endanger currently well-functioning programmes. They consider therefore as a minimum the proposed increase in payment appropriations by 11.7 % (to EUR 48 975 million) as compared to last year. They stress that this increase in payments is only a first step to cover the actual needs of running projects, and call on the Council and Commission to carefully evaluate the real needs in terms of payments for 2013 under Heading 1b, stating that they will oppose any possible cut in the level of payments compared to the proposal included in the DB 2013.
Heading 2: Members note that the DB 2013 proposes to increase CA by 0.6 % (to EUR 60 307 million) and PA by 1.6 % (to EUR 57 964 million) as compared to the 2012 budget (these levels remain below the increase proposed by the Commission for the budget as a whole). They note that the proposed funds for market interventions are EUR 419 million less for 2013 than in the 2012 budget. They also stress that the appropriations for Heading 2 are lower than the estimated needs, since assigned revenues to the EAGF are estimated to be higher in 2013 than in 2012. They recall that an adjustment of the current estimates on the basis of actual needs will be made in the autumn through the agricultural amending letter. Members note the proposed slight increase of CA - by 3.3 % to EUR 366.6 million - for LIFE +, but regrets that the appropriation is EUR 10.55 million below the level of the financial programming of January 2012. The committee welcomes the amounts proposed by the Commission for the food distribution programme for Most Deprived Persons (MDP) and considers it important to maintain the financial support for the common fisheries policy (CFP) with a view to its imminent reform.
Heading 3a: Members note the overall increase in funding proposed in DB 2013 - EUR 1 392,2 and 928 3 million in commitments and payments respectively - compared to the 2012 budget. They stress the need : (i) to reinforce appropriations for cybersecurity in the IT sector ; (ii) to continue support for FRONTEX, as well as for the various recently created agencies under this heading ; (iii) to take note of the significant increase in commitments and comparatively low level of payments for SIS II. Members recommend maintaining a substantial part of the budget for SIS II in the reserve until its operational progress and compliance with the financial planning have been justified. They appreciate the increase proposed by the Commission for the European Refugee Fund and reiterate their request for an appropriate and balanced answer to the challenges of legal migration and slowing-down of illegal migration.
Heading 3b: Members deplore the fact that again for 2013 the overall appropriations under this Heading, compared to 2012 budget, are to be reduced, with a cut in CA of 1.2 % (EUR 26.8 million) and in PA of 0.4%, excluding the Solidarity Fund. They welcome the increased funding in 2013 for the Youth in Action programme and the increase in commitments compared to the 2012 budget for the Culture
programme (+1.4 %), Media 2007 (+1.1 %) and Union action in the field of health (+3.1%), but regrets the cuts in appropriations compared to the 2012 budget for the Europe for Citizens programme - especially during the European Year of Citizens – as well as for Union action in the field of consumer policy and Media Mundus. They also regret the decreased volume of commitments for communication actions compared to the 2012 budget, at a time when the gap between the European Union and its citizens is more evident than ever.
Heading 4: Members note that the commitment and payment appropriations presented in the DB 2013 mark an increase of 0.7 % and 5.1 %, as compared to the 2012 budget, to EUR 9 467.2 and EUR 7 311.6 million respectively. They point out that these increases remain below that proposed by the Commission for the budget as a whole. Noting the significant increase of EUR 272.3 million in the proposed margin for Heading 4 compared to the financial programming for 2013 which reflects the net effect of the increase in commitments for ENPI, ICI and ICI + and decreasing the growth in commitments for the Guarantee Fund, the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance, macro financial assistance, the Development Cooperation Instrument, and the Instrument for Stability, Members call on the Commission to provide sufficient explanation as to why such a significant scaling-down of some programmes was needed compared to the financial programming . They regret, in particular, the ongoing decrease of appropriations in the field of development cooperation. They wonder how this is compatible with the EU’s international commitments in terms of allocating, by 2015, 0.7 % of GNP to the Millennium Development Goals. They call on the Commission to ensure a more coherent, realistic and better planned approach to the financing of DCI. They also note the proposal to increase appropriations under the European Neighbourhood Instrument, addressing the needs of countries facing major political and economic change in the wake of the Arab Spring. Members consider that a sufficient level of EU financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority and UNRWA is still needed in order to adequately and comprehensively respond to the political and humanitarian situation in the Middle East and the peace process. As regards Croatia, Members acknowledge the fact that with the accession of Croatia to the Union, a reduction of EUR 67.6 million will be made to the IPA allocations. They are nevertheless concerned that the Commission is proposing a greater than expected reduction in support for institutional capacity building for candidate countries, with the cut in IPA allocations for Croatia. They recognise the need to react to the transregional challenges posed by organised crime, trafficking, the need to protect critical infrastructure , threats to public health and the fight against terrorism and call on the Commission to provide evidence as to why an increase of 50 % is needed for these measures in 2013.
Heading 5: Members note that total administrative expenditure for all institutions is estimated at EUR 8.544.4 million, representing an increase of 3.2 % as compared to 2012 and leaving a margin of EUR 636.6 million, including additional expenditure linked to Croatia's accession. Acknowledging that most institutions, including the European Parliament, have made an effort to restrict their administrative budgets to an increase below the expected inflation rate, Members underline the need for the long-term rationalisation of administrative resources, and insists on the need to strengthen interinstitutional cooperation in areas such as human resources, translation and interpretation, buildings, and information technology. Overall, Members welcome this effort towards budget consolidation in administrative expenditure at a time of economic and budgetary constraints at national level. However, they are concerned at the adverse impact such measures may have on the swift, regular and effective implementation of EU actions and programmes. According to Members, any staff reduction should be based on a prior impact assessment and take full account of, inter alia, the Union's legal obligations, the EU’s priorities and the institutions' new competences and increased tasks arising from the treaties. Such assessment should also take carefully into account the effects on the different Directorates-General and services, given their size and workload notably, as well as on the different types of posts concerned as presented in the Commission's annual screening of human resources. Members take the view that questions remain about the high number of costly management positions at high grade levels among the staff of the European External Action Service. They also state that the European Schools should be adequately funded.
Agencies: Members note the overall level of EUR 748 million (i.e. 0.5 % of the total EU budget) devoted to the decentralised EU agencies in DB 2013, resulting in an increase in the total EU contribution (including assigned revenue) as compared to the 2012 budget amounting to EUR 24 million, or +3.2 %. They note that for the first time the Commission has cut the budgetary requests of almost all the agencies, which were in line with the financial programming amounts overall.
Interinstitutional budgetary trilogue: lastly, Members consider the following issues to be of specific interest for the trilogue due to take place on 9 July 2012:
support for growth, competitiveness and employment, and particularly for SMEs and youth, in the budget for 2013; a sufficient level of payment appropriations to cover the increasing needs of running projects, in particular under Headings 1a, 1b and 2, at the end of the programming period; the problem of outstanding commitments (RAL); an amending budget for 2012, in order to cover past and current payment needs and avoid shifting 2012 payments to 2013 as was the case this year; a sufficient level of commitment appropriations - more Europe in times of crisis; an interinstitutional meeting on payments; financing of ITER in the 2013 budget; the discrepancy between financial programming and the DB 2013 in the case of Heading 4.
The Council adopted conclusions setting its priorities for the EU's general budget for 2013 . They will serve as the basis for negotiations with the European Parliament.
They may be summarised as follows:
A realistic budget reflecting real absorption capacities : the first key element of the requested budgetary discipline is that the budget for 2013 should strictly respect the ceilings of the current multiannual financial framework (MFF). Moreover, with the exception of sub-heading 1b (Cohesion for growth and employment), the Council stresses the need to leave sufficient margins under all ceilings of the various headings and sub-headings of the MFF, in order to be able to deal with unforeseen circumstances.
The Council insists on the need for a realistic budget respecting the principle of sound financial management. Especially in the current economic context, commitment and payment appropriations have to be kept under strict control and correspond to real needs.
The Council encourages the Commission and Member States to continue their efforts to deliver better forecasts in all domains. An accurate draft budget is essential to allow Member States to precisely anticipate the level of their contribution to the Union's budget. The draft budget has to present appropriations reflecting genuine needs, taking into account past implementation, future needs and absorption capacities . In this respect, the Council asks the Commission to provide precise and frequent information on the budget implementation at every stage of the budgetary procedure. This rigorous follow-up is essential to avoid past experience of significant under-implementation of certain funds and unjustified carry-overs, or to justify any additional need for appropriations or redeployment of existing resources.
In close relation with all these issues, the Council notes with great concern the volume of outstanding commitments ( at the end of 2011, outstanding commitments (RAL) amounted to EUR 207 billion ). This issue has to be examined thoroughly and the Council urges the Commission to take all appropriate remedial measures in each annual budgetary procedure.
Specific issues : on a strictly technical level, the Council encourages the Commission to continue the improvement of the documents accompanying its draft budget which should be as transparent, simple and concise as possible, and clearly justify the appropriations requested to facilitate decision-making to a maximum.
- Administrative expenditure : in the context of a rigorous fiscal consolidation in Member States, already highlighted in the introduction, national administrations have to optimise the use of limited resources. Therefore, the Council urges the institutions not to increase administrative expenditure and to provide financing only for real needs, in order to give a positive signal to the citizens. All the institutions should continue their efforts by increasing administrative efficiency with restricted resources and by preferring r edeployment and reprioritisation to requests for additional appropriations.
The Council welcomes the Commission's initiative to reduce by 1% the number of posts for 2013 in its establishment plans. It calls on all institutions and agencies to follow a similar approach, without prejudice to its position in the context of the revision of the staff regulation and the negotiations on the next MFF. The Council is concerned about the evolution in appropriations for pensions and their impact on administrative expenditure in the future.
- Agencies : the Council regrets the recurrent over-budgeting of some agencies , leading to unjustified carry-overs. It reiterates the importance of keeping their funding under firm control, so as to provide for real needs. It expects the Commission to continue to provide a comprehensive picture concerning agencies, including their building policy, in due time for the draft budget for 2013. The Council strongly urges the Commission, when establishing its draft budget, to continue to take into account the appropriations unused by the agencies, in order to bring down their annual surpluses . It also urges the Commission to carefully check, and if necessary revise, the requirements of funds and posts as proposed by the agencies taking into account proven problems with implementation and recruitment with the aim of presenting a realistic budget proposal.
- Financing of the ITER project : the Council recalls the agreement reached in December 2011 on the additional financing of the ITER project in 2012 and 2013. According to this agreement the ceiling for commitment appropriations under sub-heading 1a (Competitiveness for growth and employment) has been increased in 2013 by EUR 190 million and a further EUR 360 million will be made available within the ceilings. It recalls its preference that the outstanding appropriations in the budget for 2013 should be made available through redeployments. Therefore, the Council asks the Commission to examine all possibilities of redeployment and accordingly make concrete proposals within the draft budget for 2013.
The Council concludes that the annual budgetary procedure is one of the main ways to ensure that the Union is accountable to its citizens . In particular, it stresses that in the current context, well-targeted and responsible use of the Union’s resources is a vital means of strengthening European citizens’ confidence. As a result, it underlines that it considers these guidelines to be of the utmost importance and hopes that they will be taken fully into account in the 2013 draft budget.
These guidelines shall be forwarded to the European Parliament and to the Commission, as well as to the other institutions.
Documents
- Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament
- Decision by Parliament: T7-0289/2012
- Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
- Committee report tabled for plenary: A7-0215/2012
- Committee opinion: PE487.958
- Committee opinion: PE486.135
- Committee opinion: PE486.209
- Committee opinion: PE486.233
- Committee opinion: PE485.881
- Committee opinion: PE486.122
- Committee opinion: PE487.912
- Committee opinion: PE487.917
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE489.697
- Committee opinion: PE486.033
- Committee opinion: PE486.105
- Committee opinion: PE488.069
- Committee draft report: PE489.403
- Document attached to the procedure: 06260/2012
- Document attached to the procedure: 06260/2012
- Committee draft report: PE489.403
- Committee opinion: PE488.069
- Committee opinion: PE486.033
- Committee opinion: PE486.105
- Committee opinion: PE485.881
- Committee opinion: PE486.122
- Committee opinion: PE487.912
- Committee opinion: PE487.917
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE489.697
- Committee opinion: PE486.135
- Committee opinion: PE486.209
- Committee opinion: PE486.233
- Committee opinion: PE487.958
Activities
- Giovanni LA VIA
Plenary Speeches (3)
- Roberta ANGELILLI
Plenary Speeches (2)
- 2016/11/22 2013 budget - mandate for trialogue (debate)
- 2016/11/22 2013 budget - mandate for trialogue (debate)
- Alexander Nuno PICKART ALVARO
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 2013 budget - mandate for trialogue (debate)
- Marta ANDREASEN
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 2013 budget - mandate for trialogue (debate)
- Richard ASHWORTH
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 2013 budget - mandate for trialogue (debate)
- Elena BĂSESCU
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 2013 budget - mandate for trialogue (debate)
- Philippe BOULLAND
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 2013 budget - mandate for trialogue (debate)
- Hynek FAJMON
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 2013 budget - mandate for trialogue (debate)
- Enrique GUERRERO SALOM
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 2013 budget - mandate for trialogue (debate)
- Lucas HARTONG
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 2013 budget - mandate for trialogue (debate)
- Edit HERCZOG
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 2013 budget - mandate for trialogue (debate)
- Salvatore IACOLINO
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 2013 budget - mandate for trialogue (debate)
- Anneli JÄÄTTEENMÄKI
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 2013 budget - mandate for trialogue (debate)
- Sidonia MAZUR
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 2013 budget - mandate for trialogue (debate)
- Jan KOZŁOWSKI
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 2013 budget - mandate for trialogue (debate)
- Alain LAMASSOURE
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 2013 budget - mandate for trialogue (debate)
- Gay MITCHELL
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 2013 budget - mandate for trialogue (debate)
- Lambert van NISTELROOIJ
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 2013 budget - mandate for trialogue (debate)
- Jaroslav PAŠKA
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 2013 budget - mandate for trialogue (debate)
- Bernd POSSELT
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Alda SOUSA
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 2013 budget - mandate for trialogue (debate)
- Peter ŠŤASTNÝ
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 2013 budget - mandate for trialogue (debate)
- Georgios STAVRAKAKIS
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 2013 budget - mandate for trialogue (debate)
- László SURJÁN
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 2013 budget - mandate for trialogue (debate)
- Sampo TERHO
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 2013 budget - mandate for trialogue (debate)
- Helga TRÜPEL
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 2013 budget - mandate for trialogue (debate)
- Derek VAUGHAN
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 2013 budget - mandate for trialogue (debate)
- Alejo VIDAL-QUADRAS
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Angelika WERTHMANN
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 2013 budget - mandate for trialogue (debate)
- Jacek WŁOSOWICZ
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 2013 budget - mandate for trialogue (debate)
Amendments | Dossier |
411 |
2012/2016(BUD)
2012/04/27
EMPL
29 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Stresses that the 2013 budget should support the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy and calls for a
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Points out that micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises employ a great many workers in the EU and that, from the point of view of setting them up and keeping them going, one of the main problems lies in obtaining finance; proposes, therefore, that the microfinance element be expanded;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 b (new) 2 b. Takes the view that the 2013 budget should also support the set of concrete measures proposed by the Commission to boost jobs, such as focusing on the demand-side of job creation, setting out ways for Member States to encourage hiring by reducing taxes on labour or giving more support to business start-ups;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Welcomes the decision to target unallocated European Social Fund aid at reducing youth unemployment and promoting SMEs;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Welcomes the decision to target unallocated European Social Fund aid at reducing youth unemployment and promoting SMEs; calls for the
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Welcomes the decision to target unallocated European Social Fund aid at reducing youth unemployment and promoting SMEs (and mainly micro- enterprises, as 90% of SMEs are actually micro enterprises); calls for the increased and redirected ESF programming to be taken into account in the 2013 budget in view of the end of the current multiannual financial framework;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Calls on the Members States to target unallocated Structural Funds for improving the existing conditions for new entrepreneurs, in order to better exploit their high potential for creating new, sustainable jobs;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Calls for a sustained effort to be made through the budget to provide for appropriate training
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Calls for a sustained effort to be made through the budget to provide for appropriate training and reskilling,
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Calls for a sustained effort to be made through the budget to provide for appropriate training and reskilling, with the support of the social partners for sectors with labour shortages, and for improved utilisation of the ESF and enhancement of the EGF; calls on the Member States to make full use of the EGF and in particular increase their efforts to improve awareness of this instrument;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Stresses that the 2013 budget should support the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy and calls for adequate funding of the flagship initiatives ‘Youth on the Move’, ‘New Skills for New Jobs’, ‘European Platform Against Poverty’ and ‘An Innovation Union’; calls for particular emphasis to be put on job creation through the establishment and consolidation of new businesses and to highlight the significant role they play in achieving the employment target of 75% for 2020;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Maintains that budget appropriations for social action need to be increased across the board; considers that the European Social Fund in particular needs to double in volume in order to cope with the social consequences of the crisis, especially unemployment and poverty;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Stresses that the current revision of the EGF implementing regulation must make the fund more effective, in particular as regards the budgetary aspects of its mobilisation;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 b (new) 4b. Calls for the EU co-financing rate to be raised, especially for projects in social fields (ESF, the Cohesion Fund, and the Progress programme), so as to ensure that Member States with financial problems will be able to make full use of EU funding; considers that their national contribution should be no higher than 10%;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 c (new) 4c. Points to the need for gender mainstreaming in EU fund regulations and implementation as a whole and draws particular attention to the ESF, which should have sufficient resources to promote policies for equality, high-quality permanent jobs, and fair redistribution of income;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Calls for an enhancement of targeted public information on existing programmes, such as EURES, the ‘Your First EURES Job’ and ‘Social Solidarity for Social Integration’ pilot projects and the Microfinance Facility;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Proposes that a budget line, backed by the necessary funding, be established with a view to encouraging a change from bogus self-employed status to genuine employment contracts, this being a key issue where workers’ rights are concerned;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Calls for Parliament be given regular, detailed updates on the various stages in the implementation of pilot projects by the Commission;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 b (new) 5b. Calls for pilot projects to be launched, focusing primarily on a youth guarantee and worker shareholding schemes;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Stresses that the EU budget should support the promotion of completion of Single Market, competitiveness and social convergence, the development of a policy on socially responsible enterprises and the monitoring of the application of statutory social standards by enterprises in order to ensure the creation of decent jobs
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Stresses that the EU budget should support the promotion of social convergence, the development of a policy on socially responsible enterprises and the monitoring of the application of statutory social standards by enterprises in order to ensure the creation of decent jobs (jobs that are stable and offer good working conditions and sufficient pay to gain access to essential goods and services).
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1 a. Is convinced that the EU budget should be aligned with the austerity budgets of the EU Member States; this will force better prioritization, more efficiency and put greater emphasis on the quality rather than on the quantity of spending;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Stresses th
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Stresses the
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Stresses the need for recognition in the budget of the dramatic situation facing the young unemployed and the need to create dynamic, innovative and business-friendly environment in order to relaunch job creation; highlights the need to provide for appropriate financing of all employment instruments;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Stresses the need for recognition in the budget of the dramatic situation facing the young unemployed and the need to
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Stresses the need for recognition in the budget of the dramatic situation facing the young unemployed and the need to relaunch job creation; stresses the need to place special emphasis on young unemployed coming from socially disadvantaged groups; highlights the need to provide for appropriate financing of all employment instruments;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2 a. Urges also the financial support of programmes creating jobs for those having multiple disadvantages on the labour market, such as long-term unemployed people, disabled people and people coming from a minority background;
source: PE-487.994
2012/05/02
ITRE
56 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Believes that EU policies
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. Stresses that no progress has been made in reducing the number of people living below the poverty threshold, even when they are in employment; considers that people working on a temporary or part time basis are liable, in the long term, to fall into poverty; calls on the Commission and the Member States to promote quality jobs that are well paid and offer secure and decent working conditions;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 c (new) 1c. Believes that, in the context of the EU strategy for prolonging active life, too little is being done to help older people acquire IT skills, and urges the Commission and Member States to develop broad-based educational programmes targeting that group;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Is convinced that, in some areas, the EU budget
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Is convinced that the EU budget represents a unique synergetic potential for implementing policies that could not be carried out by the Member States alone; calls for optimal use to be made of existing EU funding by focusing on EU added value, increased economic, social and territorial cohesion, effective streamlining and leveraging effects;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Understands the Council's concern regarding economic and budgetary constraints at national level as a result of the global crisis that damaged Member States' economic growth, financial stability and worsened their debt position, but believes that in 2013 for measures to strengthen solidarity and boost sustainable growth and employment must be taken to achieve economic recovery;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Emphasises the need for the Commission and Member States to shape and facilitate the creation of new, high-quality, sustainable jobs through the development in the EU not only of eco-friendly industries and efficient green transport and energy, but also of up-to-date, innovative services;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 b (new) 2b. Draws attention to the fact that the EU and the Member States have not invested sufficiently in measures to reduce CO2 emissions or increase energy efficiency in the fields of construction and transport; calls on the Commission to take steps, in cooperation with the Member States, to increase the energy efficiency of buildings, and especially of centralised urban heating and cooling networks and dwellings, and to increase the level of funding allocated for this in 2013;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 b (new) 2b. Recalls that the annual European Union budget with its leverage effect, the priorities in national budgets and all other European instruments must support Member States' recovery policies and need to be aligned with the Europe 2020 Strategy for Growth and Jobs;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Acknowledges the need to strengthen and coordinate funding in order to implement the EU 2020 strategy
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Acknowledges the need to strengthen and coordinate funding in order to
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Believes th
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Acknowledges the need to
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Acknowledges the need to strengthen and coordinate funding in order to implement the EU 2020 strategy; is concerned that the ceilings under Heading 1a within the current financial framework are insufficient to meet the EU’s priority policies in the fields of industrial policy, research and energy;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Acknowledges the need to strengthen and coordinate funding in order to implement the EU 2020 strategy;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. In this regard believes that there should be a stronger focus on deployment projects within research and innovation funding to bridge the gap between research results and commercialisation thereby ensuring European competitiveness;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Calls on the Commission to provide, in conjunction with the Member States, the necessary funding for projects that contribute to achieving the objectives of the Digital Agenda, and especially that of ensuring 100% broadband coverage by 2013;f
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 b (new) 3b. Calls on the Commission to ensure a sufficient level of funding in 2013 for research and development relating to specific GNSS applications and services;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Notes the pivotal role of EU flagship programmes such as Horizon 2020, COSME and the Connecting Europe Facility; calls for more substantial resources to be mobilised in order to boost
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Notes the pivotal role of the future EU flagship programmes such as Horizon 2020, COSME and the Connecting Europe Facility for EU's economic recovery; believes the 2013 budget should provide for a smooth transition towards the establishment of these new programmes; calls for more substantial resources to be mobilised in order to boost the green economy as a key driver for future competitiveness and resilience;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Notes the pivotal role of EU flagship programmes such as Horizon 2020, COSME and the Connecting Europe Facility; calls for more substantial resources to be mobilised in order to boost the green economy as a key driver for future competitiveness and resilience; stresses that appropriate allocation of funds is crucial to increase energy security of the EU by introducing new infrastructure and new technologies.
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Notes the pivotal role of EU flagship programmes such as Horizon 2020, COSME and the Connecting Europe Facility might play if they are given sufficient funding; calls for more substantial resources to be mobilised in order to boost the green economy as a key driver for future competitiveness and resilience;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Believes that EU policies and the EU budget should make a substantial contribution to the revitalisation of sustainable growth in the EU and to addressing major societal challenges such as resource scarcity
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Notes the
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Notes the pivotal role of EU flagship programmes such as Horizon 2020, COSME and the Connecting Europe Facility; calls for more substantial resources to be mobilised in order to boost the
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Notes the pivotal role of EU flagship programmes such as Horizon 2020,
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Emphasises the importance of EU support policies for media pluralism, especially through research, education and dissemination activities; stresses the valuable role that can be played by the newly established Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5.
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Calls for enhanced EU support policies for SMEs, i.e. investments in their innovation and growth potential, and simplification of their access to funding; welcomes the increased allocation to the Entrepreneurship and Innovation programme supporting innovation in SMEs; deeply regrets however that the Commission proposal does not provide for the full implementation of the Intelligent Energy Europe Programme;
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Calls for
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Congratulates the Commission on the success of the Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs preparatory action, welcomes the decision to incorporate the programme into the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme, but at the same time regrets the fact that action to extend the programme is being hampered because of the trifling financial allocation and, for that reason, interested and capable partners are being turned away, and therefore calls on the Commission to make funding available for the programme to grow adequately in 2012 and 2013;
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Reminds the European Commission of the need to enhance focus and funding of the programmes that aim to achieve the goals in the "Small Business Act" in which a set of 10 principles were laid out to ensure an SME-friendlier business environment;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Emphasises the need of specific actions and enhanced budgetary efforts to support small and medium-sized enterprises, therefore the enhancement of entrepreneurial mindsets and business start-ups through concrete actions is of utmost importance and adequate resources should be provided for that purpose;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Believes that EU policies and the EU budget should make a substantial contribution to the revitalisation of sustainable growth in the EU and to addressing major societal challenges
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 b (new) 5b. Acknowledges the need to prevent SMEs from cutting back their investments, in particular in research and development; considers that strengthening EIB support for SMEs and infrastructure should be considered a key priority thus the uptake of these financial supports must be maximised;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Believes it necessary to invest in improving the rural environment and the quality of life in rural areas, and in encouraging the diversification of rural economies;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Fully supports the pilot Project Bond Initiative, aimed at mobilising private savings and improving the range of financial instruments available for infrastructure projects in energy, transport and ICT; stresses th
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Calls for specific financial instruments to be set up to support EIF initiatives to build up a European funding infrastructure for social entrepreneurship in order to establish that sector as an equal economic sector in Europe;
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to consider it a priority, with a view to reducing transport pollutant emissions, to invest in developing a pan-European intelligent energy network that can harness energy generated at local and regional level from renewable sources and which helps to develop the necessary infrastructure for the use of electric vehicles;
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Recalls that around one trillion EUR1 must be invested in our energy system between today and 2020 in order to achieve the Union's energy and climate policy objectives and that there is a financing gap on around 100 billion euro for energy transmission networks; __________________ 1 Energy infrastructure priorities for 2020 and beyond - A Blueprint for an integrated European energy network, COM(2010) 677 final.
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 b (new) 6b. Deplores the fact that initiatives aimed at enhancing the EU's energy headline targets are not given sufficient funding and that the SET plan is yet to receive sufficient funds despite the European Parliaments continuous demands;
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 b (new) 6b. Believes that the EU needs to invest to ensure guaranteed European access to space and orbital infrastructure;
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Recalls that 2013 will be the last year of the programming period
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Recalls that 2013 will be the last year of the programming period and is concerned by possible cuts in the level of payment appropriations; stresses that it is essential to meet the EU's commitments to ongoing projects and supports the proposed increased in payments as put forward by the Commission in its draft budget;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Believes that EU policies and the EU
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Recalls that 2013 will be the last year of the current programming period and is concerned by possible cuts in the level of payment appropriations; stresses that it is essential to meet the EU’s commitments to ongoing projects;
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8.
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Continues to firmly oppose the redeployment to the ITER project of funds allocated to FP7 or other Heading 1 flagship programmes as put forward by the Commission in the draft budget; believes that the FP7 should be fully implemented and that any savings from Joint Technology Initiatives should not be reallocated to ITER, but to research and development activities that can provide the EU with sustainable energy solutions in the near future.
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Continues to firmly oppose the
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Continues to firmly oppose the redeployment
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Welcomes the agreement reached on financing the additional costs of ITER in December 2011, but is the view that securing the amount of EUR 360 million in the 2013 budget should not threaten the successful implementation of other EU policies, especially those that contribute to achieving the goals of the EU 2020 strategy during this last year of the programming period, and specifically opposes any redeployments infringing upon this budgetary priority.
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Believes that EU policies and the EU budget should make a substantial contribution to the revitalisation of sustainable growth in the EU and to addressing major societal challenges such as secure, clean and efficient energy, resource scarcity
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Recalls that the European Union's budget is a significant instrument of solidarity between Member States and generations, and that it provides a clear added value, given its extraordinary impact on the real economy, the daily lives and the future living conditions of European citizens;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Highlights the importance of long term investment in R&D&I and securing a suitable level of funding in 2013 for the transition towards a low-carbon, green economy;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Expresses concern at the fact that only 58.5% of women aged between 15 and 64 are in employment, as compared with 70.1% of men aged between 15 and 64. Believes that steps need to be taken to integrate women into the labour market and to reconcile family and working life;
source: PE-488.017
2012/05/03
REGI
4 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Notes that in these difficult times for the European economy, the Member States and EU institutions need to consider jointly how to formulate an ‘Agenda for Growth’ and to lend greater meaning and credibility to the policy on tax consolidation; considers that, in this context, mobilising EU instruments, be it the structural funds or the possibilities offered by the European Investment Bank, can make a significant contribution to meeting that objective.
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Stresses that Cohesion Policy has long proved its
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Is also concerned that these shortfalls are likely to worsen in 2013, whilst implementation under heading 1b is expected to accelerate further; calls on the Council and the Commission to immediately analyse and assess, along with Parliament, the figures and requirements in order not to jeopardise implementation for 2013; points out that a lack of payment appropriations could put in danger currently well-functioning programmes and could limit attainment of the objectives of those programmes;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Also calls on the Council and on the Commission to carefully evaluate the real needs in terms of payments for 2013 under heading 1b,
source: PE-488.036
2012/05/07
INTA
13 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Stresses that the European Union's budget should take into account the priorities defined for the common commercial policy as part of the EU2020 strategy as well as its long term strategic interests, notes in this regard the conclusions of the ''Global Trends 2030'' document produced by the European Strategy Policy Analysis System (ESPAS); recalls the need to prepare funding for the review of the EU's trade policy strategy in 2013;
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph C C.
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Calls for public communication campaigns to be mounted with a view to ensuring that European citizens are well informed about EU trade policy; emphasises the need – particularly in a time of crisis – to en
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Stresses that the inclusion of the project of coordination platform in support of EU businesses' internationalization under ICI+ implies a consistent increase of that funding over the next years;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 b (new) 6b. Recalls that sufficient funding must be secured to enable the European Union to fulfill its obligations of legal and linguistic checks and translation upon concluding trade agreements in order to ensure initialing, signing and implementing of these agreements as fast as possible;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Recalls the EU's renewed commitments to promoting SMEs' internationalisation and competitiveness; recognises the need to increase the efficiency of existing tools in that area and takes the view that EU SME Centres should be expanded to cover new priority markets; supports the funding of business fairs for SMEs to help them overcome the barrier of establishing the first business contacts and partners, such as clients, intermediaries or suppliers in third markets and initialize or increase their presence there;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Emphasises the need to provide adequate technical support and assistance for the countries of Europe's eastern and
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Emphasises the need to provide adequate technical support and assistance for the countries of Europe’s eastern and southern neighbourhoods
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Supports the extension into 2013 of the preparatory action "Euromed innovation entrepreneurs for change" which was adopted last year and is currently being implemented. This preparatory action aims at reinforcing the innovation and investment networks of young companies between the EU and four associated mediterranean countries, namely Egypt, Lebanon, Tunisia and Morocco. Establishing such links is vital to the future economic and political prospects in these countries and is in line with the Parliament's position expressed in the report "Trade for Change: EU trade and investment strategy for the Southern Mediterranean following the Arab spring revolutions";
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Believes that the appropriat
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Regrets the decision of the Commission to disregard the wish of the Parliament as expressed in the budget exercise 2011 to promote Fair Trade by extending the budget line under Article 20 02 01 under the sub-heading "Actions aiming to strengthen the capacity of developing countries to participate in the world trading system" and asks for the re- introduction of actions specifically designated to promote Fair Trade in the Budget 2013, with an appropriate budget allocation;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 b (new) 5b. Notes that schemes of fair and ethical trade and those involving corporate social responsibility and accountability, such as the "Fair Trade" scheme, also strengthen the position of small producers towards big companies in the global market; therefore calls on the EU to further develop existing schemes as a positive signal for the support of Fair Trade;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6.
source: PE-488.005
2012/05/10
AFCO
63 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Recital A A. whereas the Union budget represents, a
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Emphasises that
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Takes the view that political parties at European level and European foundations should receive sufficient funding to perform the function attributed to parties by the treaties in terms of forming European political awareness and expressing the will of citizens.
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Recalls the request of the European Parliament for the Secretary-General and the Bureau to prepare an updated version of the 2002 Secretary-General's report to the Bureau regarding the cost of maintaining three places of work, and calls for appropriate funding to be made available for the completion of the report.
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Highlights the need to
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Highlights the need to
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Points to the need for gender mainstreaming in the regulations on and implementation of all the Community funds and draws attention to the ESF in particular, which has to have sufficient capacity to promote policies geared towards equality, high-quality permanent jobs, and fair redistribution of income, which are essential conditions for achieving the objective of equality between men and women;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Urges the Commission to draw up and implement the relevant budget headings in its legislative proposals to increase the number of women on company boards;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Urges the Commission to draw up and implement the relevant budget headings in its legislative proposals to increase the number of women in politics and on boards;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5.
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Urges the Commission to draw up and implement the relevant budget headings in
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5 a. Emphasises the important role of the programme in the prevention of, and the fight against all forms of violence (DAPHNE) has played in eliminating violence against women in the European Union and stresses the importance of appropriate financing for the programme in 2013; Measures aimed at combating gender violence must be sufficiently funded;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Recital A A. whereas the Union budget
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1 a. Recognises the need to be vigilant and mindful of the amount of money spent in times of austerity and therefore stresses the importance of effective EU funding which provides added value for all projects; stresses that gender equality is not only an issue of justice, but also has also been shown to have a positive economic impact;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 b (new) 5 b. Acknowledges the Commission’s decision to create a more flexible funding programme for actions undertaken by DG JUST under the headings of Justice and Rights and citizenship; urges that the Commission considers a lower limit for funding for the elimination of violence against women to guarantee the sustainability of future actions in this field;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 c (new) 5 c. Points out the important role the gender-equality and anti-discrimination headings of the PROGRESS programme have played in promoting equality between men and women and combating discrimination in the European Union; urges that these budget lines are not reduced in the final year of the 2007-2013 MFF and that measures are taken to ensure that funding is guaranteed in the succeeding MFF of 2014-2020
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 d (new) 5 d. Reminds the Member States to make use of the funds available under the European Social Fund and the European Regional Development Fund to promote gender equality, specifically in the field of employment, not merely by implementing gender mainstreaming; measures should be aimed at vulnerable groups of women, taking due account of the impact of the economic crisis, investing in high-quality public services and, specifically, guaranteeing adequate provision of high- quality services at affordable prices for childcare, care of the aged and care of other dependent persons; calls for genuine budgetary transparency in respect of the funds allocated to gender equality policies (ESF, PROGRESS, DAPHNE);
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Reaffirms the importance of appropriate funding for the European Institute for Gender Equality to enable it to achieve in full its general objectives of promoting gender equality and supporting the activity of the EU institutions, the rotating EU Council presidencies and the Member States by providing important studies, data and statistics relating to gender policies in Europe;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Reaffirms the importance of appropriate funding for the European Institute for Gender Equality, in order to ensure that the Institute has sufficient human resources and the necessary expertise in order to be fully operational and meet its overall objectives to promote gender equality, as set out in the regulation establishing the Institute;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Reaffirms the
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6.
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Deplores the fact that a high number of women continue to live in poverty or are at risk of poverty; calls on the Commission to pay particular attention
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Deplores the fact that a high number of women continue to live in poverty or are at risk of poverty
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Deplores the fact that a high number of women, men and children continue to live in poverty or are at risk of poverty; calls on the Commission to pay particular attention to this problem when drawing up and implementing the relevant budget headings;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Takes the view that
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 – introductory part 8. Asks the Commission to launch a pilot project
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 – indent 2 Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 – indent 2 Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 – indent 2 – measures aimed at increasing the number of women at all levels of
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 – indent 3 Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 – indent 3 Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 – indent 4 Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 – indent 4 A (new) - measures to combat trafficking in women and prostitution, and in particular effective measures to protect those victims who speak out, guaranteeing them jobs with rights and fostering their social inclusion, as well as to fight the traffickers and promote development aid in victims’ home countries;
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8 a. measures aimed at involving women into green collar jobs and ecological transformation
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 b (new) 8 b. measures aimed at developing indicators to benchmark the state of implementation of ‘The Charter for Equality of Women and Men in Local Life’ against its objectives.
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Takes the view that 2013 could see the start of an exit from the crisis, and budget policy should not in itself act as a barrier to the prospect of a return to growth; takes the view, therefore, that the next multiannual financial framework 2014-2020 should provide a better balance between restrictive measures and measures to stimulate job creation and the return to employment, taking due account of the gender mainstreaming policies;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9.
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10. Stresses the importance of the DAPHNE programme and the
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10. Stresses the importance of the DAPHNE programme and the continuation of
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 a (new) 11 a. Stresses that many non- governmental organisations (NGOs) active at various levels make an important contribution at European level, assisting in developing policy orientations relating to the general objectives of the DAPHNE and PROGRESS programme
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 12 Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 12 12. Highlights the need for appropriate
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 12 12. Highlights the
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 12 12. Highlights the need for
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 12 a (new) 12a. Calls for the EU co-financing rate to be raised, especially for projects in social fields (ESF, the Cohesion Fund, and the Progress programme), so as to ensure that Member States with financial problems will be able to make full use of EU funding; considers that their national contribution should be no higher than 10%.
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 13 13.
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 13 13.
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Stresses that 2013 is a pre-election year, which calls for
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Highlights the need for
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Highlights the need for
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Takes the view that political parties at European level and European foundations should receive sufficient funding to perform the function attributed to parties by the treaties in terms of expressing the will of citizens; looks forward to the Commission's proposal to create a new title in the Financial Regulation devoted solely and tailored specifically to the funding of European parties and foundations.
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Highlights the need to earmark increased funding for the fight against all forms of discrimination against women; calls on the Commission to earmark financial resources
source: PE-489.473
2012/05/11
AGRI
14 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Notes that, on account of the austerity measures approved in many Member States in order to rebalance national budgets and reduce public debt, a realistic EU budget stipulating
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Voices its concern about the continuing problems in the fruit and vegetable sector owing to adverse weather conditions, and points, therefore, to the need to earmark additional resources for PO-led crisis prevention and management measures; notes that this sector has already faced severe problems in certain Member States since 2011 as a result of the handling of the EHEC outbreak; points out the important role that promotion measures can play in improving the sector’s health;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Voices its concern about the continuing problems in the fruit and vegetable sector owing to adverse weather conditions, and notes that this sector has already faced severe problems in certain Member States since 2011 as a result of the handling of the EHEC outbreak; points out the important role that promotion measures can play in improving the sector’s health; notes in this respect that the Commission already proposes to increase overall expenditure on promotion measures by EUR 3.63 million in commitments and EUR 4.02 million in payments in 2013 and calls on the Commission to explain what these extra funds are to be used for;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Voices its concern about the continuing problems of some producers, for example in the milk sector, caused by the abolition of milk quotas, and in the fruit and vegetable sector, owing to adverse weather conditions, and notes that th
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10. Highlights the continuing imbalances in the food supply chain, in which the position of primary producers is considerably weaker than that of the other actors; urges the Commission to take action to improve the transparency of prices and margins for producers in the food supply chain; highlights the value of a pilot project in this area;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Notes that, on account of the austerity measures approved in many Member States in order to rebalance national budgets and reduce public debt, a realistic EU budget stipulating both positive and negative priorities is needed; notes that the commitments budgeted for agriculture and
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Notes that, on account of the austerity measures approved in many Member States in order to rebalance national budgets and reduce public debt, a realistic EU budget stipulating both positive and negative priorities is needed; notes that the commitments budgeted for agriculture and rural development have been raised slightly, with increases in commitments of 0.4% and 1.3% respectively compared with 2012, and increases in payments of 0.5% and 5.4% respectively, resulting in a total increase in payments under Heading 2 of 1.6%, which is well below the
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Notes that there is an increase of 5.4 % in payment appropriations for rural development, with further payments under the European Economic Recovery Plan also expected in 2013;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Notes th
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Notes that the
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. (new) As the direct payments represent an important part of the commitments budgeted for agriculture and the fact that European taxpayer rightly expects that these sums are correctly spent, recalls the Commission’s engagement to amend Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 and Regulation (EC) No 259/2008, taking account of the objections made in the judgment of the European Court of Justice;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Expresses its concern about the volatility of agricultural markets causing uncertainty to farmers and agribusinesses; calls on the Commission to monitor developments in agricultural markets, to deliver better forecasts and to react swiftly and effectively when needed; strongly urges the Commission to increase the level of knowledge among farmers as to how to respond to volatile markets;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Expresses its concern about the volatility of agricultural markets causing uncertainty to farmers and agribusinesses; calls on the Commission to monitor developments in agricultural markets and to react swiftly and effectively when needed; strongly urges the Commission to provide means of action for times of crisis and to increase the level of knowledge among farmers as to how to respond to volatile markets;
source: PE-489.462
2012/05/16
AFET
68 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Recalls that even at a time when the national budgets of all Member States are subject to severe austerity measures, the 2013 budget
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Insists that the EU and the Member States must take seriously their partnership with DCI-funded developing countries which receive funding under the DCI and that long-term predictability is an essential element of this partnership; insists that the poorest and most vulnerable populations in DCI beneficiary countries should not be made to bear the brunt of the substantial increases in funding of the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument in response to the Arab Spring; draws attention to the commitment made in connection with the Agenda for Change to gradually scale back the EU programmes still in progress in middle- income countries, starting from the next multiannual financial framework (2014- 2020);
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Regrets that the draft budget proposed by the Commission represents only a slight increase in subheading 3a in comparison with 2012 despite the growing ambitions of the EU in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, as outlined in both the Treaty of Lisbon and the Stockholm Programme (2010-2014);
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Notes the proposal to contain increases for appropriations under the European Neighbourhood Instrument, addressing the needs of countries facing major political and economical changes; welcome
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 (new) Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Deplores the cuts proposed by the Commission in the programmes for preventing and fighting crime
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Notes the proposal to contain increases for appropriations under the European Neighbourhood Instrument, addressing the needs of countries facing major political and economical changes; welcomes the focus on the Eastern Partnership but considers the Commission’s reporting on the application of the ‘more for more’ principle to be insufficient; notes the EUR 80 million allocated for the SPRING programme but considers that allocations to this programme should be increased further in order to intensify EU-Southern Mediterranean relations; is critical of the 3.2% reduction of commitment appropriations to the Mediterranean countries in 2013;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Regrets that the draft budget proposed by the Commission for the European Year of Citizens 2013 constitutes the smallest budget ever allocated for a European Year and recommends granting the 2013 European Year sufficient and appropriate funding;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Notes the proposal to contain increases for appropriations under the European Neighbourhood Instrument, addressing the needs of countries facing major political and economical changes; welcomes the focus on the Eastern Partnership but nevertheless reaffirms its support for the Southern partnership, which should translate into sufficient funding; considers the Commission’s reporting on the application of the ‘more for more’ principle to be insufficient and calls for clear criteria to be developed for its implementation;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Considers that a significant share of the available funds in the appropriate budget lines should be allocated to answer the EU's growing cybersecurity needs, making full use of possible synergies of existing programmes;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Notes the proposal to contain increases for appropriations under the European Neighbourhood Instrument, addressing the needs of countries facing major political and economical changes; welcomes the increased focus on the Eastern Partnership and the continuing efforts in the Southern Mediterranean but considers the Commission’s reporting on the application of the ‘more for more’ principle to be insufficient;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Underlines the fact that the fight against cybercrime is one of the major priorities of the EU's Internal Security Strategy; insists that an enhanced fight against cybercrime at Union level via the upcoming European Cybercrime Centre (EC3) requires adequate funding and that the EC3's tasks as identified by the Commission cannot be carried out with Europol's current human and financial resources; deplores, in this context, the cuts proposed by the Commission for Europol;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Stresses that, thanks to Parliament’s strong commitment, the EU’s annual contribution to the Palestinian Authority, the UNRWA and the Middle East peace process over the last years amounts, at a minimum, to EUR 300 million,
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Welcomes the budget increase for the four funds under the Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows programme; deeply regrets, however, the
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Stresses that, thanks to Parliament’s strong commitment, the EU’s annual contribution to the Palestinian Authority, the UNRWA and the Middle East peace process over the last years amounts
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Welcomes the budget increase for the four funds under the Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows programme; deeply regrets, however, the fact that the amount
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Recalls that it is important for the EU that it promotes the Arctic and Northern dimension policies ensuring the highest priority of all to protecting the ecosystem of the Arctic region and it's inhabitants, and reiterates its support to all existing mechanisms that serve to strengthen this priority and cooperation;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Welcomes the budget increase for the four funds under the Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows programme in comparison to the 2012 budget; deeply regrets, however, the fact that the amounts foreseen in the financial programming for 2007-2013 are maintained only for the Refugee Fund;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Recalls that it is important for the EU that it promotes the Arctic and Northern dimension policies
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Notes that sufficient financial resources should be made available for the purpose of intra-EU relocation of migrants, on the basis of solidarity with Member States which face disproportionate migratory pressures due to their geographical location;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Recalls that it is important for the EU that it promotes
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Considers it necessary to put into reserve: a) substantial parts of SIS II, until proof is received that the increase in funds is wholly justified, b) a part of the staff related budget until the legal proposal for the legal and technical framework for the extraction of financial transaction data on EU territory has been presented and all elements of the TFTP Agreement have been implemented according to its provisions and c) a positive reserve in the programme for Prevention of and fight against crime, in order to support actions to coordinate better the efforts on cybercrime between the different Agencies, including ENISA;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Recalls that it is important for the EU that it promotes the Arctic and Northern dimension policies, and reiterates its support to all existing mechanisms that serve to strengthen this cooperation; stresses the importance of incorporating both the potential opportunities and threats of new technologies in all its policies;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Takes note of the significant increase in commitments and comparatively low level of payments for SIS II; points out that, as of 2013, SIS II will be managed by the IT Agency and should therefore be mostly covered under the Agency's budget; recommends that a substantial share of the budget for SIS II should be kept in reserve until operational progress and compliance with the financial planning have been proven;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Recalls that at a time when the national budgets of all Member States are subject to severe austerity measures, the 2013 budgetary procedure must be part of the general effort to
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Supports
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Stresses that further efforts should be made to provide sensible and user-friendly information on the Union’s programmes and actions; in this regard, is of the opinion that the Commission should start producing annual reports that consolidate information on all external funding in the broad remit (such that is covered by Heading IV and such that may not be confined only to Heading IV) and that offers a breakdown of spending by inter alia beneficiary country, general area of application of the funds, use of financial instruments, commitments and payments, level of participation of partners;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Welcomes the budget increase for the IT Agency which will take over the existing systems (Eurodac, VIS and SIS II); underlines the importance of ensuring through the IT Agency the coordination between all existing EU IT systems and the development of integrated border management;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Stresses that further efforts should be made to provide sensible and user-friendly information on the Union’s programmes and actions in order to increase the effectiveness and visibility of EU support;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Asks the Commission to justify the further increased financial needs for SIS II and inquires when it will finally be operational;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Stresses that further efforts should be made to provide sensible and user-friendly information, in particular online, on the Union’s programmes and actions;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Reiterates its concerns regarding the parliamentary scrutiny and transparency of the CFSP budget; firmly believes that a clear breakdown should be made of all items financed within the CFSP budget, including for each CSDP operation
Amendment 23 #
5. Insists that the Agencies should, on the basis of their outputs and results and taking into account the overall situation of public finances in the EU, receive appropriate funding and be allocated the necessary staff for carrying out their activities;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Reiterates its concerns regarding the parliamentary scrutiny and transparency of the CFSP budget; firmly believes that a clear breakdown should be made of all items financed within the CFSP budget, including CSDP operations, EU
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Regrets the fact that the Commission has proposed insufficient human and financial resources to ensure the
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Welcomes the substantial expenditure savings achieved by the External Action Service in 2012, and the continuation of this trend in 2013 as projected in the Estimates;
Amendment 25 #
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Welcomes the substantial expenditure savings achieved by the External Action Service in 2012, and the continuation of this trend in 2013 as projected in the Estimates; takes the view, in this context, that while the phasing-in of the Service can justify an expenditure increase proportionally greater than that foreseen by the other Institutions,
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Considers that, in the light of its new mandate, Frontex should be allocated additional staff; furthermore, appropriate funding is needed for the Frontex supporting activities, such as training, for the actions in case of emergency situations and for the new European system of border guards;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Is convinced that prevention and mediation are among the most cost- efficient ways to manage conflicts by preventing them from escalating into violence; welcomes, therefore, the proposal to introduce a budget line amounting to EUR 500 000 for Conflict Prevention and Mediation Support Services in the EEAS budget, following the successful completion at the end of this year of a preparatory action proposed by the European Parliament;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Considers that, in the light of its new mandate, Frontex should
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Considers that, in the light of its
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Reiterates the need for funding in case of emergency situations and considers that a response mechanism should be made available quickly and be allocated according to the evolving situations;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Reiterates that, in order to allow the EU to play an active role in the world, sufficient funds need to be provided in the EU budget; recalls that at a time when the national budgets of all Member States are subject to severe austerity measures, the 2013 budgetary procedure must be part of
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Calls on the Commission to ensure that a more controlled and coherent approach is taken to the funding of alternative energies in the fight against climate change, so as to make sure that the EU does not indirectly provide financial support for activities that give rise to price distortions and speculation in connection with food raw materials or are conducive to land grabbing;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Regrets that the draft budget proposed by the Commission represents only a slight increase in subheading 3a in comparison with 2012; calls for a budget that is more in line with the current multiannual financial framework;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Insists that specific funding should be allocated for the development of protection-sensitive border controls that fully respect the fundamental rights of migrants and comply with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, including in the context of Frontex operations;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 b (new) 7b. Welcomes the role of EU funding in fostering solidarity among Member States and with third countries in the area of migration and asylum;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Recalls that at a time when the national budgets of all Member States are subject to severe austerity measures, the 2013 budgetary procedure must be part of the general effort to reduce expenditures; takes the view that, for the sake of exemplarity and solidarity, the EU must show a commensurate commitment to scale down or control increases in program funding; maintains that heading 4 in the EU budget cannot be exempted from this politically difficult exercise; in particular CSDP related expenses, such as military or civil- military(-training) missions within or outside the framework of the IfS, should be reduced drastically or even terminated rather than cuts in development aid;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 b (new) 5b. Calls on the Commission to provide financial support for targeted development cooperation measures to forestall and combat land grabbing, which is becoming increasingly common, and to promote the establishment of a code of conduct at EU and international level;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Insists that,
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Recalls that at a time when the national budgets of all Member States are subject to severe austerity measures, the 2013 budgetary procedure must be part of the general effort to reduce expenditures; takes the view that, for the sake of exemplarity and solidarity, the EU must show a commensurate commitment to scale down
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Urges the Commission to introduce funding to improve access to
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Stresses the importance of focusing the EU budget on EU added value and maximising the efficiency of national funding in areas of common interest;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Urges the Commission to
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Regrets that only a small increase is proposed for the Fundamental rights and citizenship programme; calls for due attention and sufficient resources for the promotion and protection of fundamental rights, the fight against racism, xenophobia and all forms of discrimination, especially in the context of the growing intolerance experienced in Europe as a consequence of the current financial crisis;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Stresses the need for the Commission to ensure that the assistance is effective and has a direct impact on poverty eradication, human development and social cohesion; asks the Commission, in this connection, to introduce, as part of capacity building measures for non-state actors, arrangements for funding small- scale projects involving private stakeholders, such as SMEs, cooperatives and local associations;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Deplores the cuts proposed by the Commission in the programmes for preventing and fighting crime and terrorism, considering the importance of this area for the EU as proven by the recent setting-up of the Special Committee on Organised Crime, Corruption and Money Laundering and stresses that money needs to be available for crime prevention;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Supports, in this regard, the Commission’s proposal to scale down programmes that are not implemented in a satisfactory way, but
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 (new) 7. Insists that the European Consensus on Development remains the guiding document for EU aid and development cooperation, especially in relation to health and education; urges the Commission to ensure that the Development Cooperation Instrument remains a relevant and effective tool for implementing the European Consensus on Development, especially on the support to and integration of health, education and relevant cross cutting issues such as gender equality and HIV/AIDS;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 (new) 7. Underlines the importance of maintaining sufficient funding levels for the humanitarian aid budget lines as well as the Emergency Aid Reserve; insists that, bearing in mind the marked increase in the frequency, severity and scale of humanitarian crises and natural disasters witnessed over the last few years, the EU must be ready to quickly mobilise funding in response to such crises abroad;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3.
source: PE-489.451
2012/05/31
BUDG
164 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 6 a (new) - having regard to the conclusions of the interinstitutional meeting on payments of May 30th 2012,
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Believes that advancing the Europe 2020 Strategy requires judicious selection of policy instruments and objectives, such as promoting trade, strengthening the single market and providing a supportive framework for innovation, and takes the view that the Europe 2020 strategy can be credible only if adequately funded but believes that funding for EU2020 should not be increased for 2013 unless accompanied by savings elsewhere in the budget, thus allowing for an inflationary freeze in both commitment and payment appropriations;
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 34 34. Points out that Heading 2 is instrumental in realising the EU 2020 strategy goals of growth
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 36 36. Reminds that price volatility in this sector is a
Amendment 102 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 36 a (new) 36a. Calls for a further reduction of export refunds and regrets the continued subsidising of the tobacco production in the EU, which is contrary to the objectives of the EU health policy;
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 37 Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 37 37. Notes that climate action and environmental objectives are a priority
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 37 37. Notes that climate action and environmental objectives are a priority stipulated in the Europe 2020 strategy, which must be translated into concrete actions to be implemented under the various programmes;
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 37 37. Notes that climate action and environmental objectives are a priority stipulated in the Europe 2020 strategy, which must be translated into concrete actions to be implemented under the various programmes; welcomes in this context the proposed increase of CA by 3,3% to EUR 366,6 million for LIFE + and considers that this increase must be offset by a reallocation of funds from existing budget lines; considers a cross-cutting approach should be applied whereby sustainable growth becomes a horizontal priority underpinning all EU policies;
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 37 a (new) 37a. Notes with concern that the number of projects financed under the LIFE+ programme each year is below the indicative allocation in various Member States; invites the Commission to assess the reasons for this under-implementation and where necessary to propose changes to the rules governing the programme, particularly as regards co-financing levels;
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 37 b (new) 37b. Advocates greater Community accountability for the protection of natural resources in the Natura 2000 network, especially in terms of its financing; points to the difficulties encountered by various Member States with regard to the management of areas included in the Natura 2000 network owing to the lack of a specific financial instrument geared to the management of such areas, as a complement to the inclusion of biodiversity in sectoral policies;
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 37 c (new) 37c. Draws attention to the threats affecting numerous forest ecosystems, including dispersal of invasive exotic species, diseases (e.g. pine nematode) and forest fires; considers that suitable financial resources need to be channelled, via Community programmes and support measures, into the evaluation of ecological and plant health conditions in forests and rehabilitation measures, including reforestation;
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Emphasises that the EU Budget can have a crucial role to help some of its member states to recover from the crisis and come out stronger, through smart, sustainable and inclusive growth based on the five EU headline targets, namely promoting employment, improving the conditions for innovation, research and development, meeting our climate change and energy objectives, promoting high education standards and social policies, in particular social inclusion and poverty reduction; recalls that the Member States themselves have fully endorsed these five targets;
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 37 a (new) 37a. Welcomes the amounts proposed by the Commission for the PEAD; calls on the Council to respect the joint decision taken at the end of 2011 on maintaining funding for this programme for 2012 and 2013;
Amendment 111 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 37 d (new) 37d. Stresses that the common fisheries policy (CFP) should bear responsibility for financing its costs, in particular the decisions and measures adopted as part of that policy,
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 38 38. Considers important to
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 38 38. Considers important to maintain the financial backing to the common fisheries policy (CFP) with a view to its imminent reform; stresses in particular the need to support SMEs in the fisheries sector and the access to jobs for young people in this field, as well as all measures ensuring the social, economic and environmental viability of the sector; welcomes in this regard the proposed increase for the European Fisheries Fund by respectively 2,2% (to EUR 687,2 million) in CA and 7,3% (to EUR 523,5 million) in PA, compared to the 2012 Budget; however, regrets the decrease planned in the field of governance of the CFP, conservation, management and exploitation of fisheries resources and control and enforcement of the CFP;
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 38 38. Considers important to maintain the financial backing to the common fisheries policy (CFP) with a view to its imminent reform; stresses in particular the need to
Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 38 38. Considers important to maintain the financial backing to the common fisheries policy (CFP) with a view to its imminent reform; stresses in particular the need to support SMEs in the fisheries sector and the access to jobs for young people in this field, which presupposes ensuring the sustainable character of the CFP; welcomes in this regard the proposed increase for the European Fisheries Fund by respectively 2,2% (to EUR 687,2 million) in CA and 7,3% (to EUR 523,5 million) in PA, compared to the 2012 Budget;
Amendment 116 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 38 a (new) 38a. Deplores the reduction in appropriations earmarked for the common organisation of the market in fishery products by comparison with the 2012 budget (a drop of 10.74% in CA and 6.56% in PA), which will restrict intervention mechanisms at a time when they have been made all the more necessary by the persisting and worsening socio-economic problems in the sector; believes it is essential to devote more budget resources to this area in order to boost stability and incomes in the fisheries sector;
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 40 Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 40 40. Stresses the need to reinforce appropriations for cyber security in the informatics sector, due to the enormous damage that increasing criminal activity in this domain is causing to the EU national economies; insists that an enhanced fight against cybercrime at Union level via the upcoming European Cybercrime Centre requires adequate funding and therefore deplores the cuts proposed by the Commission for Europol, as the Centre's tasks as identified by the Commission cannot be carried out with Europol's current human and financial resources; notes that contrary to the Financial programming, a decrease by EUR 64,4 million is foreseen for the Prevention of and fight against crime programme, compared to Budget 2012, although the programme was supposed to cover also cybercrime and illegal use of the internet;
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 41 Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 b (new) 2b. Rejects the "Economic Governance" and the Pact for the Euro which enshrine the austerity measures taken both at EU and Member States level; these led to the deepening and aggravation of the economic and social crises, particularly in countries which already had a difficult economic and social situation; reiterates that the EU budget should give priority to policies of real convergence, social and territorial cohesion, focused on job creation, social progress, solidarity, the sustainable use of natural resources and protection of the environment;
Amendment 120 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 41 41.
Amendment 121 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 42 a (new) 42a. Takes note of the significant increase in commitments and comparatively low level of payments for SIS II; points out that, according to the global schedule for SIS II, in 2013 the development and migration of the SIS II should be completed and the IT Agency should take over the management of the system; therefore challenges the significant budget increase far beyond its original financial planning at such a late stage before the SIS II is to become operational; recommends to maintain a substantial parts of the budget for SIS II in reserve until operational progress and compliance with the financial planning have been justified;
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 43 43.
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 43 43. Appreciates the increase by EUR 9,8 million compared to the Budget 2012 proposed by the Commission for the European Refugee Fund, which is coherent with the line taken in the previous years; takes notes of the 19% increase in the External Borders Fund's budget allocation up to EUR 415,5 million which is limited to half that foreseen by the Financial programming;
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 43 43. Appreciates the increase by EUR 9,8 million compared to the Budget 2012 proposed by the Commission for the European Refugee Fund, which is coherent with the line taken in the previous years and the on- going implementation of a Common European Asylum System ; takes notes of the 19% increase in the External Borders Fund's budget allocation up to EUR 415,5 million which is limited to half that foreseen by the Financial programming; recalls its strong request for an appropriate and balanced answer to the challenges, with a view to the management of legal migration and slowing down of illegal migration;
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 46 46. Whilst appreciates the increases in commitments compared to the Budget 2012 for the Culture programme (+1,4%), Media 2007 (+1,1%) and the Union action in the field of health (+3,1%),
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 47 Amendment 127 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 47 Amendment 128 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 47 47.
Amendment 129 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 47 47.
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 48 48. Underlines the fact that again this year a very limited margin (EUR 25,6 million) is left available under this heading, which will leave a limited room for manoeuvre should new actions or decisions on funding priorities directly relevant to citizens be needed; underlines that this margin would have been even smaller without the decreases proposed by the Commission (compared to financial programming) of several programmes;
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 50 a (new) 50a. Reiterates that a budgetary shift away from military action and security- oriented policies to civil conflict prevention is a necessary alternative in order to reduce military expenditure during a period of austerity;
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 51 51. Notes the significant increase of EUR 272,3 million in the proposed margin for
Amendment 133 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 51 51. Notes the significant increase of EUR 272,3 million in the proposed margin for Heading 4 compared to the Financial programming for 2013 (from EUR 119,6 million to EUR 391,9 million), which is the
Amendment 134 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 51 a (new) 51a. Deplores in particular the ongoing decrease of appropriations in the field of development cooperation; wonders how this is compatible with the international commitments taken by the EU to allocate by 2015 0,7 % of GNP to development aid and the European Consensus on Development;
Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 52 52. Considers that a sufficient level of EU financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority and UNRWA is still needed in order to adequately and comprehensively respond to the political and humanitarian situation in the Middle East and the Peace Process; notes that the net effect of the increase in commitments for ENPI is mainly due to continued support to the occupied Palestinian territory at the level of the 2012 Draft Budget;
Amendment 136 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 52 52. Considers that a sufficient level of EU financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority and UNRWA is still needed in order to adequately and comprehensively respond to the political and humanitarian situation in the Middle East and the Peace Process; stresses the particularly difficult situation faced by UNWRA at the moment, notably following the events in Syria;
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 52 52.
Amendment 138 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 53 Amendment 139 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 54 54. Calls on the Commission to update the multi-annual indicative financial framework (MIFF) accordingly to reflect the inclusion of Serbia as a candidate country under IPA; reminds that the change in candidacy status is seen as a significant amendment to the MIFF and should normally be revised before its annual revision in the autumn; Acknowledges the fact that with the accession of Croatia to the Union, a reduction of EUR 67,6 million will be made to IPA allocations; is nevertheless concerned that the Commission proposes a
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 54 54. Acknowledges the fact that with the accession of Croatia to the Union, a
Amendment 141 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 55 55. Reiterates that especially in times of austerity commitment appropriations should be carefully planned for each CFSP budgetary line in order to guarantee that EU money is streamlined towards the measures where it is mostly needed, as much as possible taking into consideration the flexibility and unpredictability of CFSP operations; in this context, welcomes calls for greater synergies by inter alia pooling, sharing and integration of capabilities and through improved performance, planning and conducting of missions and operations; welcomes efforts for a transparent and complete overview of all CFSP missions; will carefully analyse the increase of 9,2% in CA for CFSP in 2013;
Amendment 142 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 56 56. Recognizes the need for reaction to trans-regional threats of organised crime, trafficking, protection of critical infrastructure and threats to public health
Amendment 143 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 57 a (new) 57a. Acknowledges that most institutions, including the European Parliament, have made an effort to restrict their administrative budgets to an increase below the expected inflation rate, excluding the cost of enlargement to Croatia; in this context, underlines the need for long term rationalisation of administrative resources and insists on the need to strengthen inter-institutional cooperation in areas such as human resources, translation, interpretation, buildings, and information technology;
Amendment 144 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 58 58. Stresses that th
Amendment 145 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 59 59.
Amendment 146 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 59 59. Understands that this was achieved through a reduction in the number of posts in its establishment plans by more than 1% already for 2013, notably in administrative support, budgetary management and anti- fraud, as well as through further cuts in other items of administrative expenditure;
Amendment 147 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 60 60.
Amendment 148 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 60 60. Welcomes this effort towards budget consolidation in administrative expenditure at a time of economic and budgetary constraints at national level;
Amendment 149 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 60 60. Welcomes this effort towards budget consolidation in administrative expenditure at a time of economic and budgetary constraints at national level
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Intends, therefore, to
Amendment 150 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 61 61. Reiterates
Amendment 151 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 62 62. Emphasises that for many areas of EU action, sufficient staffing should be ensured in view of the stage of programmes
Amendment 152 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 62 62. Emphasises that for many areas of EU action, sufficient staffing should be ensured in view of the stage of programmes
Amendment 153 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 62 a (new) 62a. Takes the view that questions remain about the high number of costly management positions at high grade levels among the staff of the European External Action Service; therefore requests the EEAS to provide additional information in particular regarding the significant increase (+9.2%) in AD 14 posts proposed in the draft budget; requests likewise further information on the large increases in proposed appropriations for security and surveillance of buildings (+57.2%);
Amendment 154 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 62 b (new) 62b. Is convinced that prevention and mediation are among the most cost- efficient ways to manage conflicts by preventing them from escalating into violence; welcomes therefore the proposal to introduce a budget line amounting to EUR 500 000 for Conflict Prevention and Mediation Support Services in the EEAS budget, following the successful completion at the end of this year of a preparatory action proposed by the European Parliament;
Amendment 155 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 63 Amendment 156 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 63 63.
Amendment 157 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 64 64. Stresses the importance of pilot projects and preparatory actions as key tools for the formulation of political priorities and for paving the way for new long-term initiatives both at regional and EU level that might turn into EU activities and programmes improving the lives of EU citizens; intends to proceed to the identification of a balanced package of PP- PAs based on the Commission's assessment and recommendations and carefully considering the sustainability and durability of the aimed results produced;
Amendment 158 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 69 Amendment 159 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 69 69.
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Intends, therefore, to strongly defend an adequate level of resources for next year’s budget, as defined in the Draft Budget, and to oppose any attempt to cut down the resources especially for policies delivering growth and employment; believes that the EU budget, which cannot run a deficit, should not be the victim of unsuccessful economic policies at national level; notes that in 2012 several Member States are increasing the size of their national budgets and in any case the fiscal consolidation argument is unfounded;
Amendment 160 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 69 69.
Amendment 161 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 69 69. Is however worried that for the first time the Commission cut the budgetary requests of almost all agencies, which were in line with Financial programming amounts overall, including of those agencies which belong to Parliament's priorities, for a total amount of some EUR
Amendment 162 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 69 69. Is however worried that for the first time the Commission cut the budgetary requests of almost all agencies, which were in line with Financial programming amounts overall, including of those agencies which belong to Parliament's priorities, for a total amount of some EUR 44 million; will carefully analyse the methodology, rationale and possible impact of such cuts; Underlines once more that EU agencies‘ budget allocations are far from consisting in administrative expenditure alone, but instead contribute to achieving the Europe 2020 goals and EU objectives in general, in particular job creation, employment and social progress as decided by the legislative authority;
Amendment 163 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 69 a (new) 69a. Believes that when the ESAs are given additional tasks in the future there should be a cost assessment made at a suitable stage during the legislative process such as during trilogue negotiations in order for MEPs and Member States understand the cost consequences of the proposals they are making;
Amendment 164 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 69 a (new) Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Intends, therefore, to strongly defend an adequate level of resources for next year's budget, as defined in the Draft Budget, and to oppose any attempt to cut down the resources especially for policies delivering growth and employment; believes that the EU budget, which cannot run a deficit, should not be the victim of unsuccessful economic policies
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Is convinced that, particularly in a period of crisis, financial responsibility is of utmost importance; believes, therefore, that resources must be concentrated on those areas, where the EU budget can deliver an added value whilst they can be decreased in sectors which are experiencing unjustified delays,
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Is convinced that, particularly in a period of crisis, financial responsibility is of utmost importance; believes, therefore, that resources must be concentrated on those areas, where the EU budget can deliver an added value whilst they can be decreased in sectors which are experiencing unjustified delays, low absorption and under-implementation or are unsustainable; on this basis, it intends to identify, together with its specialised committees, both positive and negative priorities for 2013; for this purpose asks the Commission to provide both arms of the budgetary authority with a prompt, regular and complete information on the implementation of the various programmes and initiatives;
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Recalls that
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Is convinced that, particularly in a period of crisis, financial responsibility is of utmost importance; believes, therefore, that resources must be concentrated on those areas, where the EU budget can deliver an added value whilst they c
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Is convinced that, particularly in a period of crisis, financial responsibility is of utmost importance; believes, therefore, that resources must be concentrated on those areas, where the EU budget can deliver an added value whilst they can be decreased in sectors which are experiencing unjustified delays, low absorption and
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Underlines that European policies and programmes are key elements in order to achieve the Europe 2020 targets, notes that climate action and environmental objectives are of a cross-cutting nature which must be translated into concrete actions to be implemented under the various programmes and policies to foster sustainable growth;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Calls on the Commission to budget realistically and insists that the utmost done to examine the European added value of all current EU programmes, calls for systematic, regular and independent evaluations, ensuring that all spending is achieving the desired outcomes in a cost effective manner while contributing to the EU2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth and respecting the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Recalls that Europe is not on track to meet its 2020 Energy saving targets, however moving towards a green economy represents an important goal to exit the crisis, deliver a stronger European economy, create jobs, maximizing economic opportunities in every European region, reducing energy costs and improving energy security. Stresses that an adequate financial effort should be considered as a priority within the next year's budget;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Notes that the EU Draft Budget for 2013 proposed by the Commission amounts to EUR 150.931,7 million in commitment appropriations (CA) (i.e. +2% compared to the Budget 2012) and EUR 137.924,4 million in payment appropriations (PA) (i.e. +6,8% compared to Budget 2012); observes that these amounts represent respectively 1,13% and 1,03% of the EU's forecast GNI for 2013; recalls that the multiannual financial framework (MFF) provides for ceilings of EUR 152.502 million for CA and EUR 143.911million for PA, in current prices; notes the ongoing discrepancy between the level of commitment and payment appropriations which will result in a further increase of reste-à-liquider (RAL);
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Takes note that the level of appropriations proposed in the Commission's draft budget corresponds to the current Union of 27 Member States and that the Commission intends to present a draft amending budget in early 2013 to integrate the additional operational expenditure which will be required for the accession of Croatia to the European Union; recalls that any new funding requirements shall be financed with fresh money; highlights that the existing margins currently entered in the draft budget need to be read in this regard;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Understands that the Commission, at the end of the programming period,
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Understands that the Commission, at the
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Understands that the Commission, at the end of the programming period, puts the accent on the side of payments, as it intends to also provide a solution to the ever more growing level of RALs;
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Recalls that in its resolution of 14 March 2012 the European Parliament
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Understands that the Commission, at the end of the programming period, puts the accent on the side of payments, as it intends to also provide a solution to the ever more growing level of RALs;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Considers the proposed increase of 6
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7.
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7.
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Considers the proposed increase of 6,8% in PA compared to 2012 as an initial response to Parliament's request for a responsible and realistic budgeting; notes that the increases in payments are concentrated in
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8.
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Remains, however, sceptical on whether the proposed level of payment appropriations
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Remains, however, sceptical on whether the proposed level of payment appropriations in 2013 will be sufficient to cover the actual needs for next year, especially in Headings 1b and 2; warns also that the insufficient level of payments for 2012
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Reminds that already in 2011 a significant level of legitimate claims, notably in the field of cohesion policy, could not be paid out by the Commission; notes that those claims will also need to be covered by the Budget 2012, which already suffers from a shortage of funds as a consequence of the limited increase in payment appropriations due to Council's position throughout last year's budgetary procedure; calls, therefore, on the Commission to come up with a draft amending budget as early as possible, in order to rectify this situation, and to avoid shifting 2012 payments to the following year, which would create an unsustainable level of payments in 2013; further calls on the Commission and the Council to work constructively, together with Parliament, to avoid repetition of this situation in future budget cycles by improving forecasting accuracy and agreeing upon realistic budget estimates;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Reminds that already in 2011 a significant level of legitimate claims, notably in the field of cohesion policy, could not be paid out by the Commission;
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Believes that EU policies and the EU budget should make a substantial contribution to the revitalisation of sustainable growth in the EU and to addressing major societal challenges such as resource scarcity and climate change;
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Deplores the Presidency of the Council's reluctance to participate in the inter-institutional political meeting on payments proposed by the Parliament as a follow up to the last year's budgetary conciliation; regards this behaviour as an irresponsible attempt to ignore the lack of payments issue and the question of RAL; considers such a meeting the ideal platform for the two arms of the budgetary authority to reach a common understanding - ahead of their respective positions on the Draft Budget - regarding the available data on implementation and absorption capacity and to correctly estimate the payment needs for 2012 and 2013; firmly believes that any doubts –as expressed by some Council delegations- over the Commission's figures and calculations need to be communicated, examined and
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Deplores Council's reluctance to participate in the inter-institutional political meeting on payments proposed by the Parliament as a follow up to the last year's budgetary conciliation; considers such a meeting the ideal platform for the two arms of the budgetary authority to reach a common understanding - ahead of their respective positions on the Draft Budget - regarding the available data on implementation and absorption capacity and to correctly estimate the payment needs for 2012 and 2013; reminds that payment appropriations proposed by the European Commission in its draft budget are based on the estimates made by Member States themselves; firmly believes therefore that any doubts or any second thoughts –as expressed by some Council delegations- over the Commission's figures and calculations need to be communicated, examined and clarified as soon as possible, in order not to become an impediment for reaching an agreement in this year's conciliation;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10.
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Highlights that, according to the recent data presented by the Commission in the inter-institutional meeting on payments which took place on 30 May, any reduction in the level of payment appropriations below the Commission proposal would also result into a further increase of the outstanding commitments (RALs), which at the end of 2011 already reached the unprecedented
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Notes that according to the Commission‘s estimation all in all 43,7% of the DB 2013 (i.e. EUR 64,5 billion) is allocated to the objectives of Europe 2020, which represents a
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Takes note of the overall margin of EUR 2,4 billion in CA in the DB 2013 and is determined to
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Recalls that the annual Budget 2013 will be the last budget of the current multiannual financial framework,
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Recalls that the annual Budget 2013 will be the last budget of the current multiannual financial framework, whose ceilings will become the reference for the next financial framework in the event of no agreement, according to what foreseen by point 30 of the IIA of 17 May 2006; is therefore determined to conduct the negotiations with the Council with the view to achieving for the Budget 2013 a realistic and adequate level of appropriations both in commitments and in payments
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 a (new) 14a. Is concerned of the fact that, apart from administrative expenditure, no appropriations have been entered into the Draft Budget for the accession of Croatia in July 2013; expects that the revision of the MFF 2007 -2013 foreseen by Point 29 of the 17 May 2006 IIA will be adopted swiftly and calls the Commission to present its proposal for the corresponding additional appropriations as soon as the Act of Accession has been ratified by all Member States;
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Takes note of the Commission's proposal for increasing commitments under this Heading by 4,1% (to EUR 16.032 million) as compared to Budget 2012; notes, that the proposal of CA below the Financial programming possibilities (i.e. TEN-T, EIT, Progress) leaves an increased margin of EUR 90,9 million compared to the EUR 47,7 million foreseen in the Financial programming; is pleased to see that the highest increases in CA are concentrated in Heading 1a, where most of the policies and programmes triggering growth,
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. Calls for more substantial resources to be mobilised in order to boost the green economy as a key driver for future competitiveness and resilience;
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 a (new) 15a. Recalls the importance of the inclusion of payment appropriations for the European Globalisation Fund; reiterates that the use of a transfer for the EGF should mean a speedier process, and underlines the need for the further simplification of the practical modalities of the procedure, as mentioned on the report from the Commission to the European Parliament and Council on the functioning of the Interinstitutional Agreement on the Budgetary discipline and sound financial management of 27 April, 2010;
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16.
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Welcomes in particular the increases for FP7-EC (+6,1%), CIP (+7,3%) and
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Takes note of the rationale adopted by the Commission when proposing reductions as compared to the Financial programming, which has led, in the view of the Commission, to the identification of potential savings within under- implemented lines of –among others- FP7, TEN-T, Marco Polo, Progress, Statistical programme, Customs and Fiscalis; points out that all these programmes are priorities for the European Parliament and adequate resources must be made available for them; is determined to carefully analyse the performance under each of these programmes in order to check the appropriateness of the proposed cuts and exclude negative impacts on the programmes concerned;
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Takes note of the rationale adopted by the Commission when proposing reductions as compared to the Financial programming, which has led, in the view of the Commission, to the identification of potential savings within under- implemented lines of –among others-
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Takes note of the rationale adopted by the Commission when proposing reductions as compared to the Financial programming, which has led, in the view of the Commission, to the identification of potential savings within under- implemented lines of –among others- FP7 (especially research related to energy), TEN-T, Marco Polo, Progress, Statistical programme, Customs and Fiscalis; is determined to carefully analyse the performance under each of these programmes in order to check the
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Takes note of the rationale adopted by the Commission when proposing reductions as compared to the Financial programming, which has led, in the view of the Commission, to the identification of potential savings within under- implemented lines of –among others- FP7, TEN-T, Marco Polo, Progress, Statistical programme, Customs and Fiscalis; is determined to carefully analyse the performance under each of these programmes in order to check the appropriateness of the proposed cuts and exclude negative impacts on the programmes concerned; recalls that the main TEN-T programme was fully executed in 2011 and points out that a final judgement on how commitments have been implemented and paid out on projects in the 2007-2013 financial framework can be made only in 2017;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 a (new) 18a. Underlines that at a time of fiscal constraint, innovative solutions are urgently required to mobilise a greater share of private savings and to improve the range of financial instruments available for infrastructure projects;
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 b (new) 18b. Believes that the Programme to support the further development of an Integrated Maritime Policy needs adequate funding for 2013; underlines its disappointment on the absence of a budgetary line on tourism and regrets the constant decrease in the road safety budgetary allocation;
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Recalls the Joint Declaration of 1 December 2011 on financing the additional
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Recognises the persistent economic and budgetary constraints at national level, as well as the need for fiscal consolidation;
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Recalls the Joint Declaration of 1 December 2011 on financing the additional costs of the ITER programme for 2012- 2013, where the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission also agree to make available EUR 360 million in CA in
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Recalls the Joint Declaration of 1 December 2011 on financing the additional costs of the ITER programme for 2012- 2013, where the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission also agree to make available EUR 360 million in CA in the 2013 budget procedure ‘making full use of the provisions laid down in the Financial Regulation and in the IIA of 17 May 2006, excluding any further ITER- related revision of the MFF’; is concerned that the Commission proposes to finance this additional amount only through redeployment from lines of the FP7 programme, contrary to Parliament's long-
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 a (new) 19a. Deeply regrets the dramatic increase in budgetary appropriations for nuclear research, whereas this energy form is increasingly questioned in Member States; points out that the Commission proposal will result in an even more serious imbalance between spending on nuclear research compared to renewable energy research; is therefore determined to abolish the foreseen increases for ITER;
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 a (new) 19a. Emphasises the need for an adequate staffing level for Fusion for Energy (F4E), the European Joint Undertaking for ITER, to ensure a carful management and sound implementation of Europe's contribution to the ITER project; is concerned by the current staffing level proposed by the Commission;
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 20. Recognises the fundamental role played by small and medium enterprises as drivers of the EU economy and creators of 85% of jobs in the last ten years; stresses the traditional difficulties faced by SMES to access capital markets for research and innovation projects, exacerbated by the current financial crisis; is firmly convinced that the EU budget should contribute to overcoming this market failure, by facilitating access to debt and equity financing for innovative SMEs
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 20. Recognises the fundamental role played by small and medium enterprises as drivers of the EU economy and creators of 85% of jobs in the last ten years; stresses the traditional difficulties faced by SMES to access capital markets for research and innovation projects, exacerbated by the current financial crisis; is firmly convinced that the EU budget should contribute to overcoming this market failure, by facilitating access to debt and equity financing for innovative SMEs;
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 21.
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 21.
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 21.
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 21. Regrets that appropriations for the PROGRESS programme have been reduced by EUR 5,3 million compared to the Financial programming and practically brought back to the 2012 levels, despite the good performance of this programme so far; deplores that not even in the last year of the current MFF the Commission has seized the opportunity to reinstate to this programme the EUR 60 million redeployed in favour of the Progress Microfinance Facility, to what it had committed in 2010; points out that the European Parliament has highlighted the key role played by social programmes in achieving the social and employment targets of the Europe 2020 Strategy in various resolutions and has expressed its view that these should be treated as a political priority and receive corresponding funding;
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Recognises the persistent economic and budgetary constraints at national level
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 a (new) 21a. Welcomes the Commission's decision to include in the DB for the third consecutive year payment appropriations (EUR 50 million) for the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF); underlines the fact that this not only gives higher visibility to the fund but also avoids transfers from other budget lines pursuing different aims and covering different needs;
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 a (new) 21a. Regrets the scant appropriations for the various headings of the Progress programme; maintains that they need to be increased substantially, given that the crisis is such that greater attention and support need to be focused on the social sectors encompassed within the Progress programme; calls for the Community co- financing rate to be increased, above all for social projects, enabling Member States with financial problems to make full use of Community funding, whereby their contribution should not exceed 10%;
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22. Regrets that the contribution to Youth on the Move Flagship Initiative is slightly reduced compared to last year; highlights in this context the added value of the Lifelong Learning, Erasmus and Erasmus Mundus programmes which, against a modest financial dimension, have a great return in terms of effective implementation and positive image of the Union vis-à-vis its citizens; in many EU countries young people are significantly hit by the economic and financial crisis, in this context adequate funding and targeting of educational and mobility schemes and life long learning programmes are significant in modernising education and training system, raising levels of skills, mobility and adaptability of young people and thereby overall contributing to an innovative, knowledge-based, smart and inclusive Europe; to this end, strongly supports the promotion of equal opportunity in order to enable young people no matter their educational background to profit from the EU´s various youth programmes and policies; opposes therefore to the proposed reduction by EUR 10,2 million as compared to the Budget 2012 for Lifelong Learning and, in line with its established position in the last budgetary procedures and the excellent performance rates of this programme, intends to reinforce commitment appropriations for the corresponding budget line;
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22.
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22.
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 23. Stresses that the TEN-T programme
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 23. Stresses that the TEN-T programme plays a central role in the attainment of the objectives of
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 23. Stresses that the TEN-T programme plays a central role in the attainment of the objectives of competitiveness and employment in the Europe 2020 Strategy by creating the missing infrastructure, removing bottlenecks and ensuring the future sustainability of the EU transport networks; welcomes the Commission's proposed increase by ca. EUR 85 million compared to the Budget 2012 but asks for
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 23. Stresses that the TEN-T programme plays a central role in the attainment of the objectives of competitiveness and employment in the Europe 2020 Strategy by creating the missing infrastructure, removing bottlenecks and ensuring the future sustainability of the EU transport networks;
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 a (new) 23a. Welcomes that the Draft Budget includes appropriations for the pilot phase of the Project bond initiative as a way to boost investment capacity in the field of Europe's transport, energy, information and communication networks, even if these appropriations are actually redeployed within the relevant budget lines (CIP - TEN-T - TEN -E) as agreed by the legislative authority;
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Recognises the persistent economic and budgetary constraints at national level, as well as the need for fiscal consolidation; points out, however, that savings in the Member States' contributions from their national budgets have been able to make only an inadequate contribution towards consolidation, and reiterates
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24. Deeply deplores the Commission's proposed decreases for the European Supervisory Authorities compared what originally foreseen in the Financial programming; considers the current level of appropriations insufficient to allow these agencies to cope efficiently with their tasks; strongly expresses therefore the intention to rein
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24. Deplores the Commission's proposed decreases for the European Supervisory Authorities compared to what was originally foreseen in the Financial programming and which are contrary to the repeated appeal of the European Parliament to fund them adequately ; considers the current level of appropriations insufficient to allow these agencies to cope efficiently with their tasks notably the recruitment of highly qualified experts; expresses therefore the intention to reinstate appropriations at least at 2012 level for the European Banking Authority (EBA) and the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) as well as to further reinforce the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) due to the new tasks entrusted to it;
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24.
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24.
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 a (new) 25a. Regrets the proposed cuts for technical assistance to macro-regional strategies; reiterates the need for continuous technical and administrative support for the implementation of the strategies as well as for seed money for new projects, as indicated by the high implementation rate in 2011;
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 a (new) 25a. Insists on an across-the-board increase in budget appropriations for social action; considers that the European Social Fund in particular needs to double in volume in order to cope with the social consequences of the crisis, especially unemployment and poverty;
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 26.
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 26. Considers the Structural Funds a crucial instrument - both for their financial size and for the objectives pursued - to accelerate the EU economic recovery and to deliver the objectives of sustainable growth and employment enshrined in the Europe 2020 Strategy; welcomes therefore the Commission's initiative of re- programming
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 26. Considers the Structural Funds a crucial instrument - both for their financial size and for the objectives pursued - to accelerate the EU economic recovery and to deliver the objectives of growth
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Recognises the persistent economic and budgetary constraints at national level, as well as the need for fiscal consolidation which must be reflected at European level; reiterates, however, its conviction that the EU budget represents a common and effective instrument of investment and solidarity, which is needed particularly at the present time to trigger economic growth, competitiveness and job creation in the 27 Member States; stresses that, despite its limited size that does not exceed 2% of total public spending in the Union, the EU budget has had a real economic impact and successfully complemented so far Member States
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 27. Is extremely worried about the payment situation of cohesion projects under this Heading and notes that two thirds of the total level of RAL at the end of 2011 (i.e. EUR 135,8 billion) are due to unpaid projects under the Cohesion policy; reminds that at the end of 2011 the Commission could not reimburse ca. EUR 11 billion of legitimate payment claims submitted by project beneficiaries due to insufficient payment appropriations foreseen in the budget; this situation has led to a considerable payment backlog, which will have to be addressed through the availability of sufficient payment appropriations in 2012; firmly points out that will not accept that this situation occurs again in 2013;
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 28. Recalls in this context that 2013 is the last year of the current MFF, where implementation of co-financed projects runs at full speed and the bulk of payment requests is expected to reach the Commission in the second half of the year; highlights moreover that 2013 will be a year when, due to the lapsing of the N+3 rule, payment claims submitted by 12 Member States will need to be presented for two annual commitment tranches (2010 and 2011 tranches under the N+3 rule and N+2 rule, respectively);
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 28. Recalls in this context that 2013 is the last year of the current MFF, where implementation of co-financed projects runs at full speed and the bulk of payment requests is expected to reach the
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 28. Recalls in this context that 2013 is the last year of the current MFF, where implementation of co-financed projects runs at full speed and is expected to accelerate further and the bulk of payment requests is expected to reach the Commission in the second half of the year; calls on the Council and the Commission to immediately analyse and assess, along with Parliament, the figures and requirements in order not to jeopardise implementation for 2013; points out that a lack of payment appropriations could put in danger currently well-functioning programmes; highlights moreover that 2013 will be a year when, due to the lapsing of the N+3 rule, payment claims submitted by 12 Member States will need to be presented for two annual commitment tranches (2010 and 2011 tranches under the N+3 rule and N+2 rule, respectively); considers therefore as a minimum the proposed increase in payment appropriations by 11,7 % (to EUR 48.975 million) as compared to last year since, as mentioned by the Commission, it strictly relates to 2013 and assumes that payment needs from previous years will
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 28. Recalls in this context that 2013 is the last year of the current MFF, where implementation of co-financed projects runs at full speed and the bulk of payment requests is expected to reach the Commission in the second half of the year; highlights moreover that 2013 will be a year when, due to the lapsing of the N+3 rule, payment claims submitted by 12 Member States will need to be presented for two annual commitment tranches (2010 and 2011 tranches under the N+3 rule and N+2 rule, respectively);
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 29 29. Considers this increase in payments only as a first step to cover the actual needs of running projects and reiterates its concern as to a possible shortage of funds in the field of cohesion policy;
Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 29 29. Considers this increase in payments only as a first step to cover the actual needs of running projects and reiterates its concern as to a possible shortage of funds in the field of cohesion policy; calls on the Council and on the Commission to carefully evaluate the real needs in terms of payments for 2013 under heading 1b, not to make any cuts which are unrealistic and not to take decisions that are at odds with forecasts provided by Member States themselves and used as a basis for the Commission's draft budget; will therefore oppose any possible cut in the level of payments compared to the proposal included in the DB 2013;
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 29 29. Considers this increase in payments
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 30 a (new) 30a. Highlights the fact that in terms of CA the amount proposed for Heading 2 (preservation and management of natural resources) under the DB 2013 falls far short of the amount programmed for 2013 under the multiannual financial framework, falling by EUR 981.5 million, which represents a drop of 1.6% by comparison with the scheduled amount;
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 34 34. Points out that Heading 2 is instrumental in realising the EU 2020 strategy goals of sustainable growth and employment, in particular through its rural development programmes; highlights the need to support SMEs in the rural areas, as main creators of jobs with a particular target on young people; welcomes in this respect the proposed increase of CA by 1,3% (to EUR 14.808 million) for rural development;
source: PE-489.697
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
docs/1/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE489.403New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/BUDG-PR-489403_EN.html |
docs/2/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE488.069&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/AFET-AD-488069_EN.html |
docs/3/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE486.033&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/INTA-AD-486033_EN.html |
docs/4/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE486.105&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/AFCO-AD-486105_EN.html |
docs/5/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE485.881&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CONT-AD-485881_EN.html |
docs/6/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE486.122&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/REGI-AD-486122_EN.html |
docs/7/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE487.912&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/AGRI-AD-487912_EN.html |
docs/8/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE487.917&secondRef=03New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/LIBE-AD-487917_EN.html |
docs/9/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE489.697New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/BUDG-AM-489697_EN.html |
docs/10/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE486.135&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/ITRE-AD-486135_EN.html |
docs/11/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE486.209&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/FEMM-AD-486209_EN.html |
docs/12/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE486.233&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/EMPL-AD-486233_EN.html |
docs/13/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE487.958&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/DEVE-AD-487958_EN.html |
events/0/type |
Old
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single readingNew
Vote in committee |
events/1 |
|
events/1 |
|
events/2/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20120703&type=CRENew
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CRE-7-2012-07-03-TOC_EN.html |
events/4 |
|
events/4 |
|
procedure/Modified legal basis |
Rules of Procedure EP 159
|
procedure/Other legal basis |
Rules of Procedure EP 159
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/3 |
|
committees/3 |
|
committees/4 |
|
committees/4 |
|
committees/6 |
|
committees/6 |
|
committees/8 |
|
committees/8 |
|
committees/11 |
|
committees/11 |
|
committees/12 |
|
committees/12 |
|
committees/16 |
|
committees/16 |
|
committees/17 |
|
committees/17 |
|
committees/18 |
|
committees/18 |
|
events/1/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2012-215&language=ENNew
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2012-0215_EN.html |
events/4/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2012-289New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-7-2012-0289_EN.html |
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/3 |
|
committees/3 |
|
committees/4 |
|
committees/4 |
|
committees/6 |
|
committees/6 |
|
committees/8 |
|
committees/8 |
|
committees/10 |
|
committees/11 |
|
committees/12 |
|
committees/13 |
|
committees/14 |
|
committees/15 |
|
committees/16 |
|
committees/17 |
|
committees/18 |
|
committees/19 |
|
activities |
|
commission |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/3 |
|
committees/3 |
|
committees/4 |
|
committees/4 |
|
committees/5 |
|
committees/5 |
|
committees/6 |
|
committees/6 |
|
committees/7 |
|
committees/7 |
|
committees/8 |
|
committees/8 |
|
committees/9 |
|
committees/9 |
|
committees/10 |
|
committees/11 |
|
committees/12 |
|
committees/13 |
|
committees/14 |
|
committees/15 |
|
committees/16 |
|
committees/17 |
|
committees/18 |
|
committees/19 |
|
docs |
|
events |
|
links |
|
other |
|
procedure/Modified legal basis |
Old
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150New
Rules of Procedure EP 159 |
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee |
Old
BUDG/7/08796New
|
procedure/subject |
Old
New
|
activities/0/committees/2/rapporteur/0/mepref |
Old
545fcd88d1d1c52175000000New
4f1ad236b819f27595000010 |
committees/2/rapporteur/0/mepref |
Old
545fcd88d1d1c52175000000New
4f1ad236b819f27595000010 |
activities/0 |
|
activities/0/committees |
|
activities/0/date |
Old
2012-05-08T00:00:00New
2012-06-20T00:00:00 |
activities/0/docs |
|
activities/0/type |
Old
Committee draft reportNew
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading |
activities/2 |
|
activities/2/docs |
|
activities/3 |
|
activities/3/type |
Old
Parliament's opinion on budgetary estimates/guidelinesNew
Results of vote in Parliament |
committees/0/rapporteur/0/mepref |
Old
4de1852d0fb8127435bdbe9eNew
4f1ac8c7b819f25efd0000f1 |
committees/1/rapporteur/0/mepref |
Old
4de185a50fb8127435bdbf3dNew
4f1ac940b819f25efd000122 |
committees/2/rapporteur/0/group |
Old
EPPNew
PPE |
committees/2/rapporteur/0/mepref |
Old
4de1864e0fb8127435bdc034New
545fcd88d1d1c52175000000 |
committees/3/rapporteur/0/group |
Old
EPPNew
PPE |
committees/3/rapporteur/0/mepref |
Old
4de1865e0fb8127435bdc04eNew
4f1ad23cb819f27595000012 |
committees/3/shadows |
|
committees/4/rapporteur/0/group |
Old
EPPNew
PPE |
committees/4/rapporteur/0/mepref |
Old
4de184b90fb8127435bdbdf5New
4f1ac800b819f25efd0000bf |
committees/6/rapporteur/0/group |
Old
EPPNew
PPE |
committees/6/rapporteur/0/mepref |
Old
4de186e50fb8127435bdc10eNew
4f1ad9c5b819f207b3000035 |
committees/8/rapporteur/0/group |
Old
EPPNew
PPE |
committees/8/rapporteur/0/mepref |
Old
4de183810fb8127435bdbc2dNew
4f1ac45cb819f2589600000a |
committees/10/committee_full |
Old
Women's Rights and Gender EqualityNew
Women’s Rights and Gender Equality |
committees/10/rapporteur/0/mepref |
Old
4de185570fb8127435bdbed9New
4f1ac91fb819f25efd000110 |
committees/12/rapporteur/0/group |
Old
EPPNew
PPE |
committees/12/rapporteur/0/mepref |
Old
4de1888e0fb8127435bdc371New
4f1adb95b819f207b30000d1 |
committees/13/rapporteur/0/mepref |
Old
4de183860fb8127435bdbc33New
4f1ac6e9b819f25efd000054 |
committees/15/rapporteur/0/group |
Old
EPPNew
PPE |
committees/15/rapporteur/0/mepref |
Old
4de1858f0fb8127435bdbf1fNew
4f1ac92eb819f25efd000116 |
committees/18/rapporteur/0/mepref |
Old
4de188ad0fb8127435bdc399New
4f1adb98b819f207b30000d2 |
procedure/Modified legal basis |
Old
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 138New
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150 |
procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Procedure completed, awaiting publication in Official JournalNew
Procedure completed |
procedure/Modified legal basis |
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 138
|
activities/5/docs |
|
procedure/legal_basis |
|
activities/5/docs |
|
procedure/legal_basis |
|
activities/5/docs |
|
procedure/legal_basis |
|
activities/3/committees/10/committee_full |
Old
Women’s Rights and Gender EqualityNew
Women's Rights and Gender Equality |
committees/10/committee_full |
Old
Women’s Rights and Gender EqualityNew
Women's Rights and Gender Equality |
activities/5/docs |
|
procedure/legal_basis |
|
activities/0/docs/0/text/0 |
Old
The Council adopted conclusions setting its priorities for the EU's general budget for 2013. They will serve as the basis for negotiations with the European Parliament. They may be summarised as follows: A realistic budget reflecting real absorption capacities: the first key element of the requested budgetary discipline is that the budget for 2013 should strictly respect the ceilings of the current multiannual financial framework (MFF). Moreover, with the exception of sub-heading 1b (Cohesion for growth and employment), the Council stresses the need to leave sufficient margins under all ceilings of the various headings and sub-headings of the MFF, in order to be able to deal with unforeseen circumstances. The Council insists on the need for a realistic budget respecting the principle of sound financial management. Especially in the current economic context, commitment and payment appropriations have to be kept under strict control and correspond to real needs. The Council encourages the Commission and Member States to continue their efforts to deliver better forecasts in all domains. An accurate draft budget is essential to allow Member States to precisely anticipate the level of their contribution to the Union's budget. The draft budget has to present appropriations reflecting genuine needs, taking into account past implementation, future needs and absorption capacities. In this respect, the Council asks the Commission to provide precise and frequent information on the budget implementation at every stage of the budgetary procedure. This rigorous follow-up is essential to avoid past experience of significant under-implementation of certain funds and unjustified carry-overs, or to justify any additional need for appropriations or redeployment of existing resources. In close relation with all these issues, the Council notes with great concern the volume of outstanding commitments (at the end of 2011, outstanding commitments (RAL) amounted to EUR 207 billion). This issue has to be examined thoroughly and the Council urges the Commission to take all appropriate remedial measures in each annual budgetary procedure. Specific issues: on a strictly technical level, the Council encourages the Commission to continue the improvement of the documents accompanying its draft budget which should be as transparent, simple and concise as possible, and clearly justify the appropriations requested to facilitate decision-making to a maximum. - Administrative expenditure: in the context of a rigorous fiscal consolidation in Member States, already highlighted in the introduction, national administrations have to optimise the use of limited resources. Therefore, the Council urges the institutions not to increase administrative expenditure and to provide financing only for real needs, in order to give a positive signal to the citizens. All the institutions should continue their efforts by increasing administrative efficiency with restricted resources and by preferring redeployment and reprioritisation to requests for additional appropriations. The Council welcomes the Commission's initiative to reduce by 1% the number of posts for 2013 in its establishment plans. It calls on all institutions and agencies to follow a similar approach, without prejudice to its position in the context of the revision of the staff regulation and the negotiations on the next MFF. The Council is concerned about the evolution in appropriations for pensions and their impact on administrative expenditure in the future. - Agencies: the Council regrets the recurrent over-budgeting of some agencies, leading to unjustified carry-overs. It reiterates the importance of keeping their funding under firm control, so as to provide for real needs. It expects the Commission to continue to provide a comprehensive picture concerning agencies, including their building policy, in due time for the draft budget for 2013. The Council strongly urges the Commission, when establishing its draft budget, to continue to take into account the appropriations unused by the agencies, in order to bring down their annual surpluses. It also urges the Commission to carefully check, and if necessary revise, the requirements of funds and posts as proposed by the agencies taking into account proven problems with implementation and recruitment with the aim of presenting a realistic budget proposal. - Financing of the ITER project: the Council recalls the agreement reached in December 2011 on the additional financing of the ITER project in 2012 and 2013. According to this agreement the ceiling for commitment appropriations under sub-heading 1a (Competitiveness for growth and employment) has been increased in 2013 by EUR 190 million and a further EUR 360 million will be made available within the ceilings. It recalls its preference that the outstanding appropriations in the budget for 2013 should be made available through redeployments. Therefore, the Council asks the Commission to examine all possibilities of redeployment and accordingly make concrete proposals within the draft budget for 2013. The Council concludes that the annual budgetary procedure is one of the main ways to ensure that the Union is accountable to its citizens. In particular, it stresses that in the current context, well-targeted and responsible use of the Unions resources is a vital means of strengthening European citizens confidence. As a result, it underlines that it considers these guidelines to be of the utmost importance and hopes that they will be taken fully into account in the 2013 draft budget. These guidelines shall be forwarded to the European Parliament and to the Commission, as well as to the other institutions. New
The Council adopted conclusions setting its priorities for the EU's general budget for 2013. They will serve as the basis for negotiations with the European Parliament. They may be summarised as follows: A realistic budget reflecting real absorption capacities: the first key element of the requested budgetary discipline is that the budget for 2013 should strictly respect the ceilings of the current multiannual financial framework (MFF). Moreover, with the exception of sub-heading 1b (Cohesion for growth and employment), the Council stresses the need to leave sufficient margins under all ceilings of the various headings and sub-headings of the MFF, in order to be able to deal with unforeseen circumstances. The Council insists on the need for a realistic budget respecting the principle of sound financial management. Especially in the current economic context, commitment and payment appropriations have to be kept under strict control and correspond to real needs. The Council encourages the Commission and Member States to continue their efforts to deliver better forecasts in all domains. An accurate draft budget is essential to allow Member States to precisely anticipate the level of their contribution to the Union's budget. The draft budget has to present appropriations reflecting genuine needs, taking into account past implementation, future needs and absorption capacities. In this respect, the Council asks the Commission to provide precise and frequent information on the budget implementation at every stage of the budgetary procedure. This rigorous follow-up is essential to avoid past experience of significant under-implementation of certain funds and unjustified carry-overs, or to justify any additional need for appropriations or redeployment of existing resources. In close relation with all these issues, the Council notes with great concern the volume of outstanding commitments (at the end of 2011, outstanding commitments (RAL) amounted to EUR 207 billion). This issue has to be examined thoroughly and the Council urges the Commission to take all appropriate remedial measures in each annual budgetary procedure. Specific issues: on a strictly technical level, the Council encourages the Commission to continue the improvement of the documents accompanying its draft budget which should be as transparent, simple and concise as possible, and clearly justify the appropriations requested to facilitate decision-making to a maximum. - Administrative expenditure: in the context of a rigorous fiscal consolidation in Member States, already highlighted in the introduction, national administrations have to optimise the use of limited resources. Therefore, the Council urges the institutions not to increase administrative expenditure and to provide financing only for real needs, in order to give a positive signal to the citizens. All the institutions should continue their efforts by increasing administrative efficiency with restricted resources and by preferring redeployment and reprioritisation to requests for additional appropriations. The Council welcomes the Commission's initiative to reduce by 1% the number of posts for 2013 in its establishment plans. It calls on all institutions and agencies to follow a similar approach, without prejudice to its position in the context of the revision of the staff regulation and the negotiations on the next MFF. The Council is concerned about the evolution in appropriations for pensions and their impact on administrative expenditure in the future. - Agencies: the Council regrets the recurrent over-budgeting of some agencies, leading to unjustified carry-overs. It reiterates the importance of keeping their funding under firm control, so as to provide for real needs. It expects the Commission to continue to provide a comprehensive picture concerning agencies, including their building policy, in due time for the draft budget for 2013. The Council strongly urges the Commission, when establishing its draft budget, to continue to take into account the appropriations unused by the agencies, in order to bring down their annual surpluses. It also urges the Commission to carefully check, and if necessary revise, the requirements of funds and posts as proposed by the agencies taking into account proven problems with implementation and recruitment with the aim of presenting a realistic budget proposal. - Financing of the ITER project: the Council recalls the agreement reached in December 2011 on the additional financing of the ITER project in 2012 and 2013. According to this agreement the ceiling for commitment appropriations under sub-heading 1a (Competitiveness for growth and employment) has been increased in 2013 by EUR 190 million and a further EUR 360 million will be made available within the ceilings. It recalls its preference that the outstanding appropriations in the budget for 2013 should be made available through redeployments. Therefore, the Council asks the Commission to examine all possibilities of redeployment and accordingly make concrete proposals within the draft budget for 2013. The Council concludes that the annual budgetary procedure is one of the main ways to ensure that the Union is accountable to its citizens. In particular, it stresses that in the current context, well-targeted and responsible use of the Unions resources is a vital means of strengthening European citizens confidence. As a result, it underlines that it considers these guidelines to be of the utmost importance and hopes that they will be taken fully into account in the 2013 draft budget. These guidelines shall be forwarded to the European Parliament and to the Commission, as well as to the other institutions. |
activities/4/docs/0/text/0 |
Old
The Committee on Budgets adopted the report by Giovanni La Via (EPP, IT) on the mandate for the trilogue on the 2013 Draft Budget. Draft budget for 2013 general assessment: Members recall that in its resolution of 14 March 2012 Parliament placed the promotion of growth and jobs at the centre of its priorities, in line with the Europe 2020 strategy, arguing in particular for the concentration of resources in support of SMEs and youth. Recognising the persistent economic and budgetary constraints at national level, as well as the need for fiscal consolidation, Members reiterate their conviction that the EU budget represents a common and effective instrument of investment and solidarity, which is needed particularly at the present time to trigger economic growth, competitiveness and job creation in the 27 Member States. Despite its limited size, not exceeding 2 % of total public spending in the Union, the EU budget has had a real economic impact. Accordingly, Members intend strongly to defend an adequate level of resources for next years budget, especially for policies delivering growth and employment. They believe that the EU budget should not be the victim of unsuccessful economic policies at national level. In terms of priorities, the committee believes that resources must be concentrated on those areas where the EU budget can deliver added value, whilst they could be reduced in sectors which are experiencing unjustified delays and low absorption. It considers that real savings can be made by identifying overlaps and inefficiencies across budgetary lines. It asks the Commission, to this end, to provide both arms of the budgetary authority with prompt, regular and complete information on the implementation - on the basis of performance target indicators - of the various programmes and initiatives´, and to weigh them against the EUs political commitments. Budget 2013: Members note that the EU draft budget for 2013 proposed by the Commission amounts to:
These amounts represent respectively 1.13 % and 1.03 % of the EU's forecast GNI for 2013. Noting the ongoing discrepancy between the levels of commitment and payment appropriations, Members stress that this will result in a further increase of reste-à-liquider (RAL). The committee understands that the Commission proposes freezing commitment appropriations at the level of the estimated inflation rate for next year, but feels that this cannot be considered an acceptable strategy for keeping the level of RAL under control. The report also makes the following points:
Taking note of the overall margin of EUR 2.4 billion in CA in the DB 2013, the committee states its determination to make full use of it - as well as of the other flexibility mechanisms foreseen by the IIA - whenever it proves to be necessary. It also notes that no appropriations have been entered in the draft budget for the accession of Croatia in July 2013, and asks for the necessary amounts to be provided. Members make the following comments on the separate budget headings : Heading 1a: they note the Commission's proposal for increasing commitments under this Heading by 4.1 % (to EUR 16 032 million) as compared to the 2012 budget. They are pleased to see that the highest increases in CA are concentrated in Heading 1a, where most of the policies and programmes triggering growth, competitiveness and jobs are placed, and that they reflect the priorities highlighted by Parliament for 2013: the increases for FP7-EC (+6.1 %), CIP (+7.3 %) and TEN-T (+6.4 %) programmes. Furthermore, Members consider the substantial increase in payments, by 17.8% (to EUR 13.552 million) as compared to the Budget 2012 a realistic estimation of the payments needed under this heading, stating that the level of payments proposed by the Commission to be the minimum level needed under Heading 1a. Taking note of the rationale adopted by the Commission when proposing reductions as compared to the financial programming, Members ask for increased resources for SMEs which created 85 % of jobs in the last ten years. They ask for measures that will facilitate access to debt and equity financing for innovative SMEs. They deeply regret that, at a time of economic crisis and especially of high youth unemployment the appropriations for the PROGRESS programme have been reduced by EUR 5.3 million compared to the financial programming, thus being brought back practically to the 2012 levels, despite the good performance of this programme so far. The committee also deplores the fact that not even in the last year of the current MFF has the Commission seized the opportunity to reinstate under this programme the EUR 60 million redeployed in favour of the Progress Microfinance Facility. It regrets that the contribution to the Youth on the Move Flagship Initiative is slightly reduced compared to last year, and opposes, therefore, the proposed reduction by EUR 10.2 million as compared to the 2012 budget for the Lifelong Learning Programme. Stressing the role of the TEN-T programme for meeting the goals of adaptation to climate change, Members welcome the Commission's proposed increase of approximately EUR 85 million compared to the 2012 budget, but asks for further clarification on the proposed reduction by EUR 118 million as compared to the financial programming. They stress generally that innovative solutions are urgently required in order to mobilise private or public funds to a greater extent and extend the range of financial instruments available for infrastructure projects. They deplore the Commission's proposed cuts for the European Supervisory Authorities, compared to what was originally envisaged in the financial programming, and consider the current level of appropriations insufficient to allow those agencies to cope efficiently with their tasks. As regards ITER, Members are concerned that the Commission proposes to finance this additional amount only through redeployment from lines of the FP7 programme, contrary to Parliaments long-standing position on the matter. Heading 1b: the committee notes that the DB 2013 provides for an increase in CA of 3.3 % (to EUR 54 498 million) compared to the 2012 budget, of which EUR 42 144 million are for the Structural Funds (ERDF and ESF) and EUR 12 354 million for the Cohesion Fund. It stresses that cohesion policy has long proved its added value as a necessary investment tool to deliver growth and job creation effectively by accurately addressing the investment needs of the regions, thus contributing to economic recovery and the development of the Union as a whole. Members welcome, therefore, the Commission's initiative of reprogramming where possible EUR 82 billion of unallocated Structural Fund moneys in some Member States in favour of SMEs and youth employment, in line with Parliaments priorities for 2013. However, they are extremely concerned over the payment situation of cohesion projects under this Heading, and note that two-thirds of the total level of RAL at the end of 2011 (i.e. EUR 135.8 billion) reflects unpaid projects under cohesion policy. They recall that at the end of 2011 the Commission was unable to reimburse some EUR 11 billion corresponding to legitimate payment claims submitted by project beneficiaries due to the insufficient level of payment appropriations provided in the budget. This has led to a considerable payment backlog, which will have to be addressed through the availability of sufficient payment appropriations in 2012. The committee firmly points out that it will not accept a recurrence of this situation in 2013. Accordingly, Members call on the Council and Commission to immediately analyse and assess, along with Parliament, the figures and requirements concerned, so as not to jeopardise implementation for 2013, pointing out that a lack of payment appropriations could endanger currently well-functioning programmes. They consider therefore as a minimum the proposed increase in payment appropriations by 11.7 % (to EUR 48 975 million) as compared to last year. They stress that this increase in payments is only a first step to cover the actual needs of running projects, and call on the Council and Commission to carefully evaluate the real needs in terms of payments for 2013 under Heading 1b, stating that they will oppose any possible cut in the level of payments compared to the proposal included in the DB 2013. Heading 2: Members note that the DB 2013 proposes to increase CA by 0.6 % (to EUR 60 307 million) and PA by 1.6 % (to EUR 57 964 million) as compared to the 2012 budget (these levels remain below the increase proposed by the Commission for the budget as a whole). They note that the proposed funds for market interventions are EUR 419 million less for 2013 than in the 2012 budget. They also stress that the appropriations for Heading 2 are lower than the estimated needs, since assigned revenues to the EAGF are estimated to be higher in 2013 than in 2012. They recall that an adjustment of the current estimates on the basis of actual needs will be made in the autumn through the agricultural amending letter. Members note the proposed slight increase of CA - by 3.3 % to EUR 366.6 million - for LIFE +, but regrets that the appropriation is EUR 10.55 million below the level of the financial programming of January 2012. The committee welcomes the amounts proposed by the Commission for the food distribution programme for Most Deprived Persons (MDP) and considers it important to maintain the financial support for the common fisheries policy (CFP) with a view to its imminent reform. Heading 3a: Members note the overall increase in funding proposed in DB 2013 - EUR 1 392,2 and 928 3 million in commitments and payments respectively - compared to the 2012 budget. They stress the need : (i) to reinforce appropriations for cybersecurity in the IT sector ; (ii) to continue support for FRONTEX, as well as for the various recently created agencies under this heading ; (iii) to take note of the significant increase in commitments and comparatively low level of payments for SIS II. Members recommend maintaining a substantial part of the budget for SIS II in the reserve until its operational progress and compliance with the financial planning have been justified. They appreciate the increase proposed by the Commission for the European Refugee Fund and reiterate their request for an appropriate and balanced answer to the challenges of legal migration and slowing-down of illegal migration. Heading 3b: Members deplore the fact that again for 2013 the overall appropriations under this Heading, compared to 2012 budget, are to be reduced, with a cut in CA of 1.2 % (EUR 26.8 million) and in PA of 0.4%, excluding the Solidarity Fund. They welcome the increased funding in 2013 for the Youth in Action programme and the increase in commitments compared to the 2012 budget for the Culture programme (+1.4 %), Media 2007 (+1.1 %) and Union action in the field of health (+3.1%), but regrets the cuts in appropriations compared to the 2012 budget for the Europe for Citizens programme - especially during the European Year of Citizens as well as for Union action in the field of consumer policy and Media Mundus. They also regret the decreased volume of commitments for communication actions compared to the 2012 budget, at a time when the gap between the European Union and its citizens is more evident than ever. Heading 4: Members note that the commitment and payment appropriations presented in the DB 2013 mark an increase of 0.7 % and 5.1 %, as compared to the 2012 budget, to EUR 9 467.2 and EUR 7 311.6 million respectively. They point out that these increases remain below that proposed by the Commission for the budget as a whole. Noting the significant increase of EUR 272.3 million in the proposed margin for Heading 4 compared to the financial programming for 2013 which reflects the net effect of the increase in commitments for ENPI, ICI and ICI + and decreasing the growth in commitments for the Guarantee Fund, the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance, macro financial assistance, the Development Cooperation Instrument, and the Instrument for Stability, Members call on the Commission to provide sufficient explanation as to why such a significant scaling-down of some programmes was needed compared to the financial programming. They regret, in particular, the ongoing decrease of appropriations in the field of development cooperation. They wonder how this is compatible with the EUs international commitments in terms of allocating, by 2015, 0.7 % of GNP to the Millennium Development Goals. They call on the Commission to ensure a more coherent, realistic and better planned approach to the financing of DCI. They also note the proposal to increase appropriations under the European Neighbourhood Instrument, addressing the needs of countries facing major political and economic change in the wake of the Arab Spring. Members consider that a sufficient level of EU financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority and UNRWA is still needed in order to adequately and comprehensively respond to the political and humanitarian situation in the Middle East and the peace process. As regards Croatia, Members acknowledge the fact that with the accession of Croatia to the Union, a reduction of EUR 67.6 million will be made to the IPA allocations. They are nevertheless concerned that the Commission is proposing a greater than expected reduction in support for institutional capacity building for candidate countries, with the cut in IPA allocations for Croatia. They recognise the need to react to the transregional challenges posed by organised crime, trafficking, the need to protect critical infrastructure , threats to public health and the fight against terrorism and call on the Commission to provide evidence as to why an increase of 50 % is needed for these measures in 2013. Heading 5: Members note that total administrative expenditure for all institutions is estimated at EUR 8.544.4 million, representing an increase of 3.2 % as compared to 2012 and leaving a margin of EUR 636.6 million, including additional expenditure linked to Croatia's accession. Acknowledging that most institutions, including the European Parliament, have made an effort to restrict their administrative budgets to an increase below the expected inflation rate, Members underline the need for the long-term rationalisation of administrative resources, and insists on the need to strengthen interinstitutional cooperation in areas such as human resources, translation and interpretation, buildings, and information technology. Overall, Members welcome this effort towards budget consolidation in administrative expenditure at a time of economic and budgetary constraints at national level. However, they are concerned at the adverse impact such measures may have on the swift, regular and effective implementation of EU actions and programmes. According to Members, any staff reduction should be based on a prior impact assessment and take full account of, inter alia, the Union's legal obligations, the EUs priorities and the institutions' new competences and increased tasks arising from the treaties. Such assessment should also take carefully into account the effects on the different Directorates-General and services, given their size and workload notably, as well as on the different types of posts concerned as presented in the Commission's annual screening of human resources. Members take the view that questions remain about the high number of costly management positions at high grade levels among the staff of the European External Action Service. They also state that the European Schools should be adequately funded. Agencies: Members note the overall level of EUR 748 million (i.e. 0.5 % of the total EU budget) devoted to the decentralised EU agencies in DB 2013, resulting in an increase in the total EU contribution (including assigned revenue) as compared to the 2012 budget amounting to EUR 24 million, or +3.2 %. They note that for the first time the Commission has cut the budgetary requests of almost all the agencies, which were in line with the financial programming amounts overall. Interinstitutional budgetary trilogue: lastly, Members consider the following issues to be of specific interest for the trilogue due to take place on 9 July 2012:
New
The Committee on Budgets adopted the report by Giovanni La Via (EPP, IT) on the mandate for the trilogue on the 2013 Draft Budget. Draft budget for 2013 general assessment: Members recall that in its resolution of 14 March 2012 Parliament placed the promotion of growth and jobs at the centre of its priorities, in line with the Europe 2020 strategy, arguing in particular for the concentration of resources in support of SMEs and youth. Recognising the persistent economic and budgetary constraints at national level, as well as the need for fiscal consolidation, Members reiterate their conviction that the EU budget represents a common and effective instrument of investment and solidarity, which is needed particularly at the present time to trigger economic growth, competitiveness and job creation in the 27 Member States. Despite its limited size, not exceeding 2 % of total public spending in the Union, the EU budget has had a real economic impact. Accordingly, Members intend strongly to defend an adequate level of resources for next years budget, especially for policies delivering growth and employment. They believe that the EU budget should not be the victim of unsuccessful economic policies at national level. In terms of priorities, the committee believes that resources must be concentrated on those areas where the EU budget can deliver added value, whilst they could be reduced in sectors which are experiencing unjustified delays and low absorption. It considers that real savings can be made by identifying overlaps and inefficiencies across budgetary lines. It asks the Commission, to this end, to provide both arms of the budgetary authority with prompt, regular and complete information on the implementation - on the basis of performance target indicators - of the various programmes and initiatives´, and to weigh them against the EUs political commitments. Budget 2013: Members note that the EU draft budget for 2013 proposed by the Commission amounts to:
These amounts represent respectively 1.13 % and 1.03 % of the EU's forecast GNI for 2013. Noting the ongoing discrepancy between the levels of commitment and payment appropriations, Members stress that this will result in a further increase of reste-à-liquider (RAL). The committee understands that the Commission proposes freezing commitment appropriations at the level of the estimated inflation rate for next year, but feels that this cannot be considered an acceptable strategy for keeping the level of RAL under control. The report also makes the following points:
Taking note of the overall margin of EUR 2.4 billion in CA in the DB 2013, the committee states its determination to make full use of it - as well as of the other flexibility mechanisms foreseen by the IIA - whenever it proves to be necessary. It also notes that no appropriations have been entered in the draft budget for the accession of Croatia in July 2013, and asks for the necessary amounts to be provided. Members make the following comments on the separate budget headings : Heading 1a: they note the Commission's proposal for increasing commitments under this Heading by 4.1 % (to EUR 16 032 million) as compared to the 2012 budget. They are pleased to see that the highest increases in CA are concentrated in Heading 1a, where most of the policies and programmes triggering growth, competitiveness and jobs are placed, and that they reflect the priorities highlighted by Parliament for 2013: the increases for FP7-EC (+6.1 %), CIP (+7.3 %) and TEN-T (+6.4 %) programmes. Furthermore, Members consider the substantial increase in payments, by 17.8% (to EUR 13.552 million) as compared to the Budget 2012 a realistic estimation of the payments needed under this heading, stating that the level of payments proposed by the Commission to be the minimum level needed under Heading 1a. Taking note of the rationale adopted by the Commission when proposing reductions as compared to the financial programming, Members ask for increased resources for SMEs which created 85 % of jobs in the last ten years. They ask for measures that will facilitate access to debt and equity financing for innovative SMEs. They deeply regret that, at a time of economic crisis and especially of high youth unemployment the appropriations for the PROGRESS programme have been reduced by EUR 5.3 million compared to the financial programming, thus being brought back practically to the 2012 levels, despite the good performance of this programme so far. The committee also deplores the fact that not even in the last year of the current MFF has the Commission seized the opportunity to reinstate under this programme the EUR 60 million redeployed in favour of the Progress Microfinance Facility. It regrets that the contribution to the Youth on the Move Flagship Initiative is slightly reduced compared to last year, and opposes, therefore, the proposed reduction by EUR 10.2 million as compared to the 2012 budget for the Lifelong Learning Programme. Stressing the role of the TEN-T programme for meeting the goals of adaptation to climate change, Members welcome the Commission's proposed increase of approximately EUR 85 million compared to the 2012 budget, but asks for further clarification on the proposed reduction by EUR 118 million as compared to the financial programming. They stress generally that innovative solutions are urgently required in order to mobilise private or public funds to a greater extent and extend the range of financial instruments available for infrastructure projects. They deplore the Commission's proposed cuts for the European Supervisory Authorities, compared to what was originally envisaged in the financial programming, and consider the current level of appropriations insufficient to allow those agencies to cope efficiently with their tasks. As regards ITER, Members are concerned that the Commission proposes to finance this additional amount only through redeployment from lines of the FP7 programme, contrary to Parliaments long-standing position on the matter. Heading 1b: the committee notes that the DB 2013 provides for an increase in CA of 3.3 % (to EUR 54 498 million) compared to the 2012 budget, of which EUR 42 144 million are for the Structural Funds (ERDF and ESF) and EUR 12 354 million for the Cohesion Fund. It stresses that cohesion policy has long proved its added value as a necessary investment tool to deliver growth and job creation effectively by accurately addressing the investment needs of the regions, thus contributing to economic recovery and the development of the Union as a whole. Members welcome, therefore, the Commission's initiative of reprogramming where possible EUR 82 billion of unallocated Structural Fund moneys in some Member States in favour of SMEs and youth employment, in line with Parliaments priorities for 2013. However, they are extremely concerned over the payment situation of cohesion projects under this Heading, and note that two-thirds of the total level of RAL at the end of 2011 (i.e. EUR 135.8 billion) reflects unpaid projects under cohesion policy. They recall that at the end of 2011 the Commission was unable to reimburse some EUR 11 billion corresponding to legitimate payment claims submitted by project beneficiaries due to the insufficient level of payment appropriations provided in the budget. This has led to a considerable payment backlog, which will have to be addressed through the availability of sufficient payment appropriations in 2012. The committee firmly points out that it will not accept a recurrence of this situation in 2013. Accordingly, Members call on the Council and Commission to immediately analyse and assess, along with Parliament, the figures and requirements concerned, so as not to jeopardise implementation for 2013, pointing out that a lack of payment appropriations could endanger currently well-functioning programmes. They consider therefore as a minimum the proposed increase in payment appropriations by 11.7 % (to EUR 48 975 million) as compared to last year. They stress that this increase in payments is only a first step to cover the actual needs of running projects, and call on the Council and Commission to carefully evaluate the real needs in terms of payments for 2013 under Heading 1b, stating that they will oppose any possible cut in the level of payments compared to the proposal included in the DB 2013. Heading 2: Members note that the DB 2013 proposes to increase CA by 0.6 % (to EUR 60 307 million) and PA by 1.6 % (to EUR 57 964 million) as compared to the 2012 budget (these levels remain below the increase proposed by the Commission for the budget as a whole). They note that the proposed funds for market interventions are EUR 419 million less for 2013 than in the 2012 budget. They also stress that the appropriations for Heading 2 are lower than the estimated needs, since assigned revenues to the EAGF are estimated to be higher in 2013 than in 2012. They recall that an adjustment of the current estimates on the basis of actual needs will be made in the autumn through the agricultural amending letter. Members note the proposed slight increase of CA - by 3.3 % to EUR 366.6 million - for LIFE +, but regrets that the appropriation is EUR 10.55 million below the level of the financial programming of January 2012. The committee welcomes the amounts proposed by the Commission for the food distribution programme for Most Deprived Persons (MDP) and considers it important to maintain the financial support for the common fisheries policy (CFP) with a view to its imminent reform. Heading 3a: Members note the overall increase in funding proposed in DB 2013 - EUR 1 392,2 and 928 3 million in commitments and payments respectively - compared to the 2012 budget. They stress the need : (i) to reinforce appropriations for cybersecurity in the IT sector ; (ii) to continue support for FRONTEX, as well as for the various recently created agencies under this heading ; (iii) to take note of the significant increase in commitments and comparatively low level of payments for SIS II. Members recommend maintaining a substantial part of the budget for SIS II in the reserve until its operational progress and compliance with the financial planning have been justified. They appreciate the increase proposed by the Commission for the European Refugee Fund and reiterate their request for an appropriate and balanced answer to the challenges of legal migration and slowing-down of illegal migration. Heading 3b: Members deplore the fact that again for 2013 the overall appropriations under this Heading, compared to 2012 budget, are to be reduced, with a cut in CA of 1.2 % (EUR 26.8 million) and in PA of 0.4%, excluding the Solidarity Fund. They welcome the increased funding in 2013 for the Youth in Action programme and the increase in commitments compared to the 2012 budget for the Culture programme (+1.4 %), Media 2007 (+1.1 %) and Union action in the field of health (+3.1%), but regrets the cuts in appropriations compared to the 2012 budget for the Europe for Citizens programme - especially during the European Year of Citizens as well as for Union action in the field of consumer policy and Media Mundus. They also regret the decreased volume of commitments for communication actions compared to the 2012 budget, at a time when the gap between the European Union and its citizens is more evident than ever. Heading 4: Members note that the commitment and payment appropriations presented in the DB 2013 mark an increase of 0.7 % and 5.1 %, as compared to the 2012 budget, to EUR 9 467.2 and EUR 7 311.6 million respectively. They point out that these increases remain below that proposed by the Commission for the budget as a whole. Noting the significant increase of EUR 272.3 million in the proposed margin for Heading 4 compared to the financial programming for 2013 which reflects the net effect of the increase in commitments for ENPI, ICI and ICI + and decreasing the growth in commitments for the Guarantee Fund, the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance, macro financial assistance, the Development Cooperation Instrument, and the Instrument for Stability, Members call on the Commission to provide sufficient explanation as to why such a significant scaling-down of some programmes was needed compared to the financial programming. They regret, in particular, the ongoing decrease of appropriations in the field of development cooperation. They wonder how this is compatible with the EUs international commitments in terms of allocating, by 2015, 0.7 % of GNP to the Millennium Development Goals. They call on the Commission to ensure a more coherent, realistic and better planned approach to the financing of DCI. They also note the proposal to increase appropriations under the European Neighbourhood Instrument, addressing the needs of countries facing major political and economic change in the wake of the Arab Spring. Members consider that a sufficient level of EU financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority and UNRWA is still needed in order to adequately and comprehensively respond to the political and humanitarian situation in the Middle East and the peace process. As regards Croatia, Members acknowledge the fact that with the accession of Croatia to the Union, a reduction of EUR 67.6 million will be made to the IPA allocations. They are nevertheless concerned that the Commission is proposing a greater than expected reduction in support for institutional capacity building for candidate countries, with the cut in IPA allocations for Croatia. They recognise the need to react to the transregional challenges posed by organised crime, trafficking, the need to protect critical infrastructure , threats to public health and the fight against terrorism and call on the Commission to provide evidence as to why an increase of 50 % is needed for these measures in 2013. Heading 5: Members note that total administrative expenditure for all institutions is estimated at EUR 8.544.4 million, representing an increase of 3.2 % as compared to 2012 and leaving a margin of EUR 636.6 million, including additional expenditure linked to Croatia's accession. Acknowledging that most institutions, including the European Parliament, have made an effort to restrict their administrative budgets to an increase below the expected inflation rate, Members underline the need for the long-term rationalisation of administrative resources, and insists on the need to strengthen interinstitutional cooperation in areas such as human resources, translation and interpretation, buildings, and information technology. Overall, Members welcome this effort towards budget consolidation in administrative expenditure at a time of economic and budgetary constraints at national level. However, they are concerned at the adverse impact such measures may have on the swift, regular and effective implementation of EU actions and programmes. According to Members, any staff reduction should be based on a prior impact assessment and take full account of, inter alia, the Union's legal obligations, the EUs priorities and the institutions' new competences and increased tasks arising from the treaties. Such assessment should also take carefully into account the effects on the different Directorates-General and services, given their size and workload notably, as well as on the different types of posts concerned as presented in the Commission's annual screening of human resources. Members take the view that questions remain about the high number of costly management positions at high grade levels among the staff of the European External Action Service. They also state that the European Schools should be adequately funded. Agencies: Members note the overall level of EUR 748 million (i.e. 0.5 % of the total EU budget) devoted to the decentralised EU agencies in DB 2013, resulting in an increase in the total EU contribution (including assigned revenue) as compared to the 2012 budget amounting to EUR 24 million, or +3.2 %. They note that for the first time the Commission has cut the budgetary requests of almost all the agencies, which were in line with the financial programming amounts overall. Interinstitutional budgetary trilogue: lastly, Members consider the following issues to be of specific interest for the trilogue due to take place on 9 July 2012:
|
activities/6/docs/0/text/0 |
Old
The European Parliament adopted by 540 votes to 93, with 52 abstentions, a resolution on the mandate for the trilogue on the 2013 Draft Budget. Draft budget for 2013 general assessment: Parliament recalls that in its resolution of 14 March 2012 Parliament placed the promotion of growth and jobs at the centre of its priorities, in line with the Europe 2020 strategy, arguing in particular for the concentration of resources in support of SMEs and youth. Recognising the persistent economic and budgetary constraints at national level, as well as the need for fiscal consolidation, Parliament reiterates its conviction that the EU budget represents a common and effective instrument of investment and solidarity, which is needed particularly at the present time to trigger economic growth, competitiveness and job creation in the 27 Member States. Despite its limited size, not exceeding 2 % of total public spending in the Union, the EU budget has had a real economic impact. Accordingly, Members intend strongly to defend an adequate level of resources for next years budget, especially for policies delivering growth and employment. They believe that the EU budget should not be the victim of unsuccessful economic policies at national level. In terms of priorities, Parliament believes that resources must be concentrated on those areas where the EU budget can deliver added value, whilst they could be reduced in sectors which are experiencing unjustified delays and low absorption. It considers that real savings can be made by identifying overlaps and inefficiencies across budgetary lines. It asks the Commission, to this end, to provide both arms of the budgetary authority with prompt, regular and complete information on the implementation - on the basis of performance target indicators - of the various programmes and initiatives´, and to weigh them against the EUs political commitments. In an amendment adopted in plenary, Members consider that the EU, not least in the context of the austerity policies being implemented in the Member States, must show responsibility and take immediate, concrete measures to establish a single seat for Parliament. Budget 2013: Parliament notes that the EU draft budget for 2013 proposed by the Commission amounts to:
These amounts represent respectively 1.13 % and 1.03 % of the EU's forecast GNI for 2013. Noting the ongoing discrepancy between the levels of commitment and payment appropriations, Members stress that this will result in a further increase of reste-à-liquider (RAL). RAL: Parliament understands that the Commission, at the end of the programming period, is putting the accent on the side of payments, as it intends also to provide a solution to the ever-growing level of RALs. While sharing this approach, Parliament is particularly concerned at the proposed freezing of commitment appropriations at the level of the estimated inflation rate for next year. It stresses the importance of commitments for determining political priorities and thus ensuring that the necessary investment will eventually be made to boost growth and employment. It intends to analyse carefully whether such a level of commitments will allow the proper implementation of key EU policies. It is also of the opinion that even if the freezing of commitment appropriations can be presented by the Commission and Member States as a partial solution to the RAL problem, it cannot be considered an acceptable strategy for keeping the level of RAL under control. On the issue of payments: Parliaemnt views the proposed increase of 6.8 % in PA compared to 2012 as an initial response to Parliament's call for responsible and realistic budgeting. It notes that the increases in payments are concentrated in the areas of competitiveness and cohesion. It remains, however, sceptical as to whether the proposed level of payment appropriations in 2013 is adequate to cover the actual needs for next year, especially in Headings 1b and 2. Members also warns that the insufficient level of payments for 2012 combined with the level proposed by the Commission for 2013 might not be sufficient to honour the claims being addressed to the Commission, and could then result in billions of decommitments for cohesion policy alone. Parliament also highlights the following:
Taking note of the overall margin of EUR 2.4 billion in CA in the DB 2013, Parliament states its determination to make full use of it - as well as of the other flexibility mechanisms foreseen by the IIA - whenever it proves to be necessary. It also notes that no appropriations have been entered in the draft budget for the accession of Croatia in July 2013, and asks for the necessary amounts to be provided. Budget headings: Parliaments makes the following comments on the separate budget headings: Heading 1a: it notes the Commission's proposal for increasing commitments under this Heading by 4.1 % (to EUR 16 032 million) as compared to the 2012 budget. It is pleased to see that the highest increases in CA are concentrated in Heading 1a, where most of the policies and programmes triggering growth, competitiveness and jobs are placed, and that they reflect the priorities highlighted by Parliament for 2013: the increases for FP7-EC (+6.1 %), CIP (+7.3 %) and TEN-T (+6.4 %) programmes. Furthermore, Members consider the substantial increase in payments, by 17.8% (to EUR 13.552 million) as compared to the Budget 2012 a realistic estimation of the payments needed under this heading, stating that the level of payments proposed by the Commission to be the minimum level needed under Heading 1a. Taking note of the rationale adopted by the Commission when proposing reductions as compared to the financial programming, Members ask for increased resources for SMEs which created 85 % of jobs in the last ten years. They ask for measures that will facilitate access to debt and equity financing for innovative SMEs. They deeply regret that, at a time of economic crisis and especially of high youth unemployment the appropriations for the PROGRESS programme have been reduced by EUR 5.3 million compared to the financial programming, thus being brought back practically to the 2012 levels, despite the good performance of this programme so far. Parliament also deplores the fact that not even in the last year of the current MFF has the Commission seized the opportunity to reinstate under this programme the EUR 60 million redeployed in favour of the Progress Microfinance Facility. It regrets that the contribution to the Youth on the Move Flagship Initiative is slightly reduced compared to last year, and opposes, therefore, the proposed reduction by EUR 10.2 million as compared to the 2012 budget for the Lifelong Learning Programme.
Heading 1b: Parliament notes that the DB 2013 provides for an increase in CA of 3.3 % (to EUR 54 498 million) compared to the 2012 budget, of which EUR 42 144 million are for the Structural Funds (ERDF and ESF) and EUR 12 354 million for the Cohesion Fund. It stresses that cohesion policy has long proved its added value as a necessary investment tool to deliver growth and job creation effectively by accurately addressing the investment needs of the regions, thus contributing to economic recovery and the development of the Union as a whole. Members welcome, therefore, the Commission's initiative of reprogramming where possible EUR 82 billion of unallocated Structural Fund moneys in some Member States in favour of SMEs and youth employment, in line with Parliaments priorities for 2013. However, they are extremely concerned over the payment situation of cohesion projects under this Heading, and note that two-thirds of the total level of RAL at the end of 2011 (i.e. EUR 135.8 billion) reflects unpaid projects under cohesion policy. They recall that at the end of 2011 the Commission was unable to reimburse some EUR 11 billion corresponding to legitimate payment claims submitted by project beneficiaries due to the insufficient level of payment appropriations provided in the budget. This has led to a considerable payment backlog, which will have to be addressed through the availability of sufficient payment appropriations in 2012. Parliament firmly points out that it will not accept a recurrence of this situation in 2013. Accordingly, Members call on the Council and Commission to immediately analyse and assess, along with Parliament, the figures and requirements concerned, so as not to jeopardise implementation for 2013, pointing out that a lack of payment appropriations could endanger currently well-functioning programmes. They consider therefore as a minimum the proposed increase in payment appropriations by 11.7 % (to EUR 48 975 million) as compared to last year. They stress that this increase in payments is only a first step to cover the actual needs of running projects, and call on the Council and Commission to carefully evaluate the real needs in terms of payments for 2013 under Heading 1b, stating that they will oppose any possible cut in the level of payments compared to the proposal included in the DB 2013. Heading 2: Parliament notes that the DB 2013 proposes to increase CA by 0.6 % (to EUR 60 307 million) and PA by 1.6 % (to EUR 57 964 million) as compared to the 2012 budget (these levels remain below the increase proposed by the Commission for the budget as a whole). It notes that the proposed funds for market interventions are EUR 419 million less for 2013 than in the 2012 budget. It also stresses that the appropriations for Heading 2 are lower than the estimated needs, since assigned revenues to the EAGF are estimated to be higher in 2013 than in 2012. Members recall that an adjustment of the current estimates on the basis of actual needs will be made in the autumn through the agricultural amending letter. They note the proposed slight increase of CA - by 3.3 % to EUR 366.6 million - for LIFE +, but regret that the appropriation is EUR 10.55 million below the level of the financial programming of January 2012. Parliament welcomes the amounts proposed by the Commission for the food distribution programme for Most Deprived Persons (MDP) and considers it important to maintain the financial support for the common fisheries policy (CFP) with a view to its imminent reform. Heading 3a: Members note the overall increase in funding proposed in DB 2013 - EUR 1 392,2 and 928 3 million in commitments and payments respectively - compared to the 2012 budget. They stress the need : (i) to reinforce appropriations for cybersecurity in the IT sector ; (ii) to continue support for FRONTEX, as well as for the various recently created agencies under this heading ; (iii) to take note of the significant increase in commitments and comparatively low level of payments for SIS II. Members recommend maintaining a substantial part of the budget for SIS II in the reserve until its operational progress and compliance with the financial planning have been justified. They appreciate the increase proposed by the Commission for the European Refugee Fund and reiterate their request for an appropriate and balanced answer to the challenges of legal migration and slowing-down of illegal migration. Heading 3b: Members deplore the fact that again for 2013 the overall appropriations under this Heading, compared to 2012 budget, are to be reduced, with a cut in CA of 1.2 % (EUR 26.8 million) and in PA of 0.4%, excluding the Solidarity Fund. They welcome the increased funding in 2013 for the Youth in Action programme and the increase in commitments compared to the 2012 budget for the Culture programme (+1.4 %), Media 2007 (+1.1 %) and Union action in the field of health (+3.1%), but regrets the cuts in appropriations compared to the 2012 budget for the Europe for Citizens programme - especially during the European Year of Citizens as well as for Union action in the field of consumer policy and Media Mundus. They also regret the decreased volume of commitments for communication actions compared to the 2012 budget, at a time when the gap between the European Union and its citizens is more evident than ever. Heading 4: Parliament notes that the commitment and payment appropriations presented in the DB 2013 mark an increase of 0.7 % and 5.1 %, as compared to the 2012 budget, to EUR 9 467.2 and EUR 7 311.6 million respectively. It points out that these increases remain below that proposed by the Commission for the budget as a whole. Noting the significant increase of EUR 272.3 million in the proposed margin for Heading 4 compared to the financial programming for 2013 which reflects the net effect of the increase in commitments for ENPI, ICI and ICI + and decreasing the growth in commitments for the Guarantee Fund, the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance, macro financial assistance, the Development Cooperation Instrument, and the Instrument for Stability, Members call on the Commission to provide sufficient explanation as to why such a significant scaling-down of some programmes was needed compared to the financial programming. They regret, in particular, the ongoing decrease of appropriations in the field of development cooperation. They wonder how this is compatible with the EUs international commitments in terms of allocating, by 2015, 0.7 % of GNP to the Millennium Development Goals. They call on the Commission to ensure a more coherent, realistic and better planned approach to the financing of DCI. They also note the proposal to increase appropriations under the European Neighbourhood Instrument, addressing the needs of countries facing major political and economic change in the wake of the Arab Spring. Members consider that a sufficient level of EU financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority and UNRWA is still needed in order to adequately and comprehensively respond to the political and humanitarian situation in the Middle East and the peace process. As regards Croatia, Members are concerned that the Commission is proposing a greater than expected reduction in support for institutional capacity building for candidate countries, with the cut in IPA allocations for Croatia. They recognise the need to react to the transregional challenges posed by organised crime, trafficking, the need to protect critical infrastructure, threats to public health and the fight against terrorism. Heading 5: Parliament notes that total administrative expenditure for all institutions is estimated at EUR 8.544.4 million, representing an increase of 3.2 % as compared to 2012 and leaving a margin of EUR 636.6 million, including additional expenditure linked to Croatia's accession. Acknowledging that most institutions, including the European Parliament, have made an effort to restrict their administrative budgets to an increase below the expected inflation rate, Parliament underlines the need for the long-term rationalisation of administrative resources, and insists on the need to strengthen interinstitutional cooperation in areas such as human resources, translation and interpretation, buildings, and information technology. Overall, Members welcome this effort towards budget consolidation in administrative expenditure at a time of economic and budgetary constraints at national level. However, they are concerned at the adverse impact such measures may have on the swift, regular and effective implementation of EU actions and programmes. According to Members, any staff reduction should be based on a prior impact assessment and take full account of, inter alia, the Union's legal obligations, the EUs priorities and the institutions' new competences and increased tasks arising from the treaties. Such assessment should also take carefully into account the effects on the different Directorates-General and services, given their size and workload notably, as well as on the different types of posts concerned as presented in the Commission's annual screening of human resources. Members take the view that questions remain about the high number of costly management positions at high grade levels among the staff of the European External Action Service. They also state that the European Schools should be adequately funded. Agencies: Members note the overall level of EUR 748 million (i.e. 0.5 % of the total EU budget) devoted to the decentralised EU agencies in DB 2013, resulting in an increase in the total EU contribution (including assigned revenue) as compared to the 2012 budget amounting to EUR 24 million, or +3.2 %. They note that for the first time the Commission has cut the budgetary requests of almost all the agencies, which were in line with the financial programming amounts overall. Interinstitutional budgetary trilogue: lastly, in an amendment adoptd in plenary, Parliament states that the following issues are of specific interest for the trilogue due to take place on 9 July 2012:
New
The European Parliament adopted by 540 votes to 93, with 52 abstentions, a resolution on the mandate for the trilogue on the 2013 Draft Budget. Draft budget for 2013 general assessment: Parliament recalls that in its resolution of 14 March 2012 Parliament placed the promotion of growth and jobs at the centre of its priorities, in line with the Europe 2020 strategy, arguing in particular for the concentration of resources in support of SMEs and youth. Recognising the persistent economic and budgetary constraints at national level, as well as the need for fiscal consolidation, Parliament reiterates its conviction that the EU budget represents a common and effective instrument of investment and solidarity, which is needed particularly at the present time to trigger economic growth, competitiveness and job creation in the 27 Member States. Despite its limited size, not exceeding 2 % of total public spending in the Union, the EU budget has had a real economic impact. Accordingly, Members intend strongly to defend an adequate level of resources for next years budget, especially for policies delivering growth and employment. They believe that the EU budget should not be the victim of unsuccessful economic policies at national level. In terms of priorities, Parliament believes that resources must be concentrated on those areas where the EU budget can deliver added value, whilst they could be reduced in sectors which are experiencing unjustified delays and low absorption. It considers that real savings can be made by identifying overlaps and inefficiencies across budgetary lines. It asks the Commission, to this end, to provide both arms of the budgetary authority with prompt, regular and complete information on the implementation - on the basis of performance target indicators - of the various programmes and initiatives´, and to weigh them against the EUs political commitments. In an amendment adopted in plenary, Members consider that the EU, not least in the context of the austerity policies being implemented in the Member States, must show responsibility and take immediate, concrete measures to establish a single seat for Parliament. Budget 2013: Parliament notes that the EU draft budget for 2013 proposed by the Commission amounts to:
These amounts represent respectively 1.13 % and 1.03 % of the EU's forecast GNI for 2013. Noting the ongoing discrepancy between the levels of commitment and payment appropriations, Members stress that this will result in a further increase of reste-à-liquider (RAL). RAL: Parliament understands that the Commission, at the end of the programming period, is putting the accent on the side of payments, as it intends also to provide a solution to the ever-growing level of RALs. While sharing this approach, Parliament is particularly concerned at the proposed freezing of commitment appropriations at the level of the estimated inflation rate for next year. It stresses the importance of commitments for determining political priorities and thus ensuring that the necessary investment will eventually be made to boost growth and employment. It intends to analyse carefully whether such a level of commitments will allow the proper implementation of key EU policies. It is also of the opinion that even if the freezing of commitment appropriations can be presented by the Commission and Member States as a partial solution to the RAL problem, it cannot be considered an acceptable strategy for keeping the level of RAL under control. On the issue of payments: Parliaemnt views the proposed increase of 6.8 % in PA compared to 2012 as an initial response to Parliament's call for responsible and realistic budgeting. It notes that the increases in payments are concentrated in the areas of competitiveness and cohesion. It remains, however, sceptical as to whether the proposed level of payment appropriations in 2013 is adequate to cover the actual needs for next year, especially in Headings 1b and 2. Members also warns that the insufficient level of payments for 2012 combined with the level proposed by the Commission for 2013 might not be sufficient to honour the claims being addressed to the Commission, and could then result in billions of decommitments for cohesion policy alone. Parliament also highlights the following:
Taking note of the overall margin of EUR 2.4 billion in CA in the DB 2013, Parliament states its determination to make full use of it - as well as of the other flexibility mechanisms foreseen by the IIA - whenever it proves to be necessary. It also notes that no appropriations have been entered in the draft budget for the accession of Croatia in July 2013, and asks for the necessary amounts to be provided. Budget headings: Parliaments makes the following comments on the separate budget headings: Heading 1a: it notes the Commission's proposal for increasing commitments under this Heading by 4.1 % (to EUR 16 032 million) as compared to the 2012 budget. It is pleased to see that the highest increases in CA are concentrated in Heading 1a, where most of the policies and programmes triggering growth, competitiveness and jobs are placed, and that they reflect the priorities highlighted by Parliament for 2013: the increases for FP7-EC (+6.1 %), CIP (+7.3 %) and TEN-T (+6.4 %) programmes. Furthermore, Members consider the substantial increase in payments, by 17.8% (to EUR 13.552 million) as compared to the Budget 2012 a realistic estimation of the payments needed under this heading, stating that the level of payments proposed by the Commission to be the minimum level needed under Heading 1a. Taking note of the rationale adopted by the Commission when proposing reductions as compared to the financial programming, Members ask for increased resources for SMEs which created 85 % of jobs in the last ten years. They ask for measures that will facilitate access to debt and equity financing for innovative SMEs. They deeply regret that, at a time of economic crisis and especially of high youth unemployment the appropriations for the PROGRESS programme have been reduced by EUR 5.3 million compared to the financial programming, thus being brought back practically to the 2012 levels, despite the good performance of this programme so far. Parliament also deplores the fact that not even in the last year of the current MFF has the Commission seized the opportunity to reinstate under this programme the EUR 60 million redeployed in favour of the Progress Microfinance Facility. It regrets that the contribution to the Youth on the Move Flagship Initiative is slightly reduced compared to last year, and opposes, therefore, the proposed reduction by EUR 10.2 million as compared to the 2012 budget for the Lifelong Learning Programme.
Heading 1b: Parliament notes that the DB 2013 provides for an increase in CA of 3.3 % (to EUR 54 498 million) compared to the 2012 budget, of which EUR 42 144 million are for the Structural Funds (ERDF and ESF) and EUR 12 354 million for the Cohesion Fund. It stresses that cohesion policy has long proved its added value as a necessary investment tool to deliver growth and job creation effectively by accurately addressing the investment needs of the regions, thus contributing to economic recovery and the development of the Union as a whole. Members welcome, therefore, the Commission's initiative of reprogramming where possible EUR 82 billion of unallocated Structural Fund moneys in some Member States in favour of SMEs and youth employment, in line with Parliaments priorities for 2013. However, they are extremely concerned over the payment situation of cohesion projects under this Heading, and note that two-thirds of the total level of RAL at the end of 2011 (i.e. EUR 135.8 billion) reflects unpaid projects under cohesion policy. They recall that at the end of 2011 the Commission was unable to reimburse some EUR 11 billion corresponding to legitimate payment claims submitted by project beneficiaries due to the insufficient level of payment appropriations provided in the budget. This has led to a considerable payment backlog, which will have to be addressed through the availability of sufficient payment appropriations in 2012. Parliament firmly points out that it will not accept a recurrence of this situation in 2013. Accordingly, Members call on the Council and Commission to immediately analyse and assess, along with Parliament, the figures and requirements concerned, so as not to jeopardise implementation for 2013, pointing out that a lack of payment appropriations could endanger currently well-functioning programmes. They consider therefore as a minimum the proposed increase in payment appropriations by 11.7 % (to EUR 48 975 million) as compared to last year. They stress that this increase in payments is only a first step to cover the actual needs of running projects, and call on the Council and Commission to carefully evaluate the real needs in terms of payments for 2013 under Heading 1b, stating that they will oppose any possible cut in the level of payments compared to the proposal included in the DB 2013. Heading 2: Parliament notes that the DB 2013 proposes to increase CA by 0.6 % (to EUR 60 307 million) and PA by 1.6 % (to EUR 57 964 million) as compared to the 2012 budget (these levels remain below the increase proposed by the Commission for the budget as a whole). It notes that the proposed funds for market interventions are EUR 419 million less for 2013 than in the 2012 budget. It also stresses that the appropriations for Heading 2 are lower than the estimated needs, since assigned revenues to the EAGF are estimated to be higher in 2013 than in 2012. Members recall that an adjustment of the current estimates on the basis of actual needs will be made in the autumn through the agricultural amending letter. They note the proposed slight increase of CA - by 3.3 % to EUR 366.6 million - for LIFE +, but regret that the appropriation is EUR 10.55 million below the level of the financial programming of January 2012. Parliament welcomes the amounts proposed by the Commission for the food distribution programme for Most Deprived Persons (MDP) and considers it important to maintain the financial support for the common fisheries policy (CFP) with a view to its imminent reform. Heading 3a: Members note the overall increase in funding proposed in DB 2013 - EUR 1 392,2 and 928 3 million in commitments and payments respectively - compared to the 2012 budget. They stress the need : (i) to reinforce appropriations for cybersecurity in the IT sector ; (ii) to continue support for FRONTEX, as well as for the various recently created agencies under this heading ; (iii) to take note of the significant increase in commitments and comparatively low level of payments for SIS II. Members recommend maintaining a substantial part of the budget for SIS II in the reserve until its operational progress and compliance with the financial planning have been justified. They appreciate the increase proposed by the Commission for the European Refugee Fund and reiterate their request for an appropriate and balanced answer to the challenges of legal migration and slowing-down of illegal migration. Heading 3b: Members deplore the fact that again for 2013 the overall appropriations under this Heading, compared to 2012 budget, are to be reduced, with a cut in CA of 1.2 % (EUR 26.8 million) and in PA of 0.4%, excluding the Solidarity Fund. They welcome the increased funding in 2013 for the Youth in Action programme and the increase in commitments compared to the 2012 budget for the Culture programme (+1.4 %), Media 2007 (+1.1 %) and Union action in the field of health (+3.1%), but regrets the cuts in appropriations compared to the 2012 budget for the Europe for Citizens programme - especially during the European Year of Citizens as well as for Union action in the field of consumer policy and Media Mundus. They also regret the decreased volume of commitments for communication actions compared to the 2012 budget, at a time when the gap between the European Union and its citizens is more evident than ever. Heading 4: Parliament notes that the commitment and payment appropriations presented in the DB 2013 mark an increase of 0.7 % and 5.1 %, as compared to the 2012 budget, to EUR 9 467.2 and EUR 7 311.6 million respectively. It points out that these increases remain below that proposed by the Commission for the budget as a whole. Noting the significant increase of EUR 272.3 million in the proposed margin for Heading 4 compared to the financial programming for 2013 which reflects the net effect of the increase in commitments for ENPI, ICI and ICI + and decreasing the growth in commitments for the Guarantee Fund, the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance, macro financial assistance, the Development Cooperation Instrument, and the Instrument for Stability, Members call on the Commission to provide sufficient explanation as to why such a significant scaling-down of some programmes was needed compared to the financial programming. They regret, in particular, the ongoing decrease of appropriations in the field of development cooperation. They wonder how this is compatible with the EUs international commitments in terms of allocating, by 2015, 0.7 % of GNP to the Millennium Development Goals. They call on the Commission to ensure a more coherent, realistic and better planned approach to the financing of DCI. They also note the proposal to increase appropriations under the European Neighbourhood Instrument, addressing the needs of countries facing major political and economic change in the wake of the Arab Spring. Members consider that a sufficient level of EU financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority and UNRWA is still needed in order to adequately and comprehensively respond to the political and humanitarian situation in the Middle East and the peace process. As regards Croatia, Members are concerned that the Commission is proposing a greater than expected reduction in support for institutional capacity building for candidate countries, with the cut in IPA allocations for Croatia. They recognise the need to react to the transregional challenges posed by organised crime, trafficking, the need to protect critical infrastructure, threats to public health and the fight against terrorism. Heading 5: Parliament notes that total administrative expenditure for all institutions is estimated at EUR 8.544.4 million, representing an increase of 3.2 % as compared to 2012 and leaving a margin of EUR 636.6 million, including additional expenditure linked to Croatia's accession. Acknowledging that most institutions, including the European Parliament, have made an effort to restrict their administrative budgets to an increase below the expected inflation rate, Parliament underlines the need for the long-term rationalisation of administrative resources, and insists on the need to strengthen interinstitutional cooperation in areas such as human resources, translation and interpretation, buildings, and information technology. Overall, Members welcome this effort towards budget consolidation in administrative expenditure at a time of economic and budgetary constraints at national level. However, they are concerned at the adverse impact such measures may have on the swift, regular and effective implementation of EU actions and programmes. According to Members, any staff reduction should be based on a prior impact assessment and take full account of, inter alia, the Union's legal obligations, the EUs priorities and the institutions' new competences and increased tasks arising from the treaties. Such assessment should also take carefully into account the effects on the different Directorates-General and services, given their size and workload notably, as well as on the different types of posts concerned as presented in the Commission's annual screening of human resources. Members take the view that questions remain about the high number of costly management positions at high grade levels among the staff of the European External Action Service. They also state that the European Schools should be adequately funded. Agencies: Members note the overall level of EUR 748 million (i.e. 0.5 % of the total EU budget) devoted to the decentralised EU agencies in DB 2013, resulting in an increase in the total EU contribution (including assigned revenue) as compared to the 2012 budget amounting to EUR 24 million, or +3.2 %. They note that for the first time the Commission has cut the budgetary requests of almost all the agencies, which were in line with the financial programming amounts overall. Interinstitutional budgetary trilogue: lastly, in an amendment adoptd in plenary, Parliament states that the following issues are of specific interest for the trilogue due to take place on 9 July 2012:
|
procedure/subject/0 |
Old
8.70.14 2013 budgetNew
8.70.53 2013 budget |
procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting Council 1st reading position / budgetary conciliation convocationNew
Procedure completed, awaiting publication in Official Journal |
activities/0 |
|
activities/0/body |
Old
EPNew
CSL |
activities/0/date |
Old
2012-05-31T00:00:00New
2012-02-08T00:00:00 |
activities/0/docs/0/text |
|
activities/0/docs/0/title |
Old
PE489.697New
06260/2012 |
activities/0/docs/0/type |
Old
Amendments tabled in committeeNew
Document attached to the procedure |
activities/0/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE489.697New
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/servlet/driver?page=Result&lang=EN&typ=Advanced&cmsid=639&ff_COTE_DOCUMENT=6260%2F12&fc=REGAISEN&srm=25&md=100 |
activities/0/type |
Old
Amendments tabled in committeeNew
Document attached to the procedure |
activities/2/date |
Old
2012-02-09T00:00:00New
2012-05-31T00:00:00 |
activities/2/docs |
|
activities/2/type |
Old
EP officialisationNew
Amendments tabled in committee |
activities/3/docs |
|
activities/3/type |
Old
Deadline AmendmentsNew
Amendments tabled in committee |
activities/7/docs/1 |
|
activities/7/docs/0/text |
|
activities/7 |
|
activities/6/type |
Old
Debate scheduledNew
Debate in Parliament |
activities/8/docs |
|
activities/8/type |
Old
Vote scheduledNew
Parliament's opinion on budgetary estimates/guidelines |
procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stageNew
Awaiting Council 1st reading position / budgetary conciliation convocation |
activities/5/docs/0/text |
|
activities/5/docs/0/url |
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2012-215&language=EN
|
activities/6/type |
Old
Vote scheduledNew
Debate scheduled |
activities/8 |
|
activities/5 |
|
activities/4/committees |
|
activities/4/type |
Old
Prev Adopt in CteNew
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading |
activities/6 |
|
activities/5/type |
Old
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single readingNew
Vote scheduled |
activities/4/type |
Old
EP 1R CommitteeNew
Prev Adopt in Cte |
activities/4/type |
Old
Vote scheduled in committee, 1st reading/single readingNew
EP 1R Committee |
activities/2 |
|
activities/5/date |
Old
2012-07-02T00:00:00New
2012-07-03T00:00:00 |
activities/0/docs/0/url |
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/servlet/driver?page=Result&lang=EN&typ=Advanced&cmsid=639&ff_COTE_DOCUMENT=6260%2F12&fc=REGAISEN&srm=25&md=100
|
activities/2 |
|
activities/0/docs/0/text |
|
activities/0/docs/0/url |
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/servlet/driver?page=Result&lang=EN&typ=Advanced&cmsid=639&ff_COTE_DOCUMENT=6260%2F12&fc=REGAISEN&srm=25&md=100
|
activities/0/docs/0/url |
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/servlet/driver?page=Result&lang=EN&typ=Advanced&cmsid=639&ff_COTE_DOCUMENT=6260%2F12&fc=REGAISEN&srm=25&md=100
|
committees/15/date |
2012-03-20T00:00:00
|
committees/15/rapporteur |
|
committees/1/date |
2012-03-06T00:00:00
|
committees/1/rapporteur |
|
activities/0/docs/0/url |
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/servlet/driver?page=Result&lang=EN&typ=Advanced&cmsid=639&ff_COTE_DOCUMENT=6260%2F12&fc=REGAISEN&srm=25&md=100
|
committees/10/date |
2012-01-25T00:00:00
|
committees/10/rapporteur |
|
activities/0/docs/0/url |
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/servlet/driver?page=Result&lang=EN&typ=Advanced&cmsid=639&ff_COTE_DOCUMENT=6260%2F12&fc=REGAISEN&srm=25&md=100
|
activities/0/docs/0/url |
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/servlet/driver?page=Result&lang=EN&typ=Advanced&cmsid=639&ff_COTE_DOCUMENT=6260%2F12&fc=REGAISEN&srm=25&md=100
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/18 |
|
committees/18 |
|
activities |
|
committees |
|
links |
|
other |
|
procedure |
|