2010/2004(BUD)

2011 budget, section III, Commission: guidelines

Procedure completed

2010/2004(BUD) 2011 budget, section III, Commission: guidelines
RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Opinion AFCO
Opinion AFET
Opinion AGRI
Lead BUDG JĘDRZEJEWSKA Sidonia Elżbieta (EPP)
Opinion CONT
Opinion CULT
Opinion DEVE BERMAN Thijs (S&D)
Opinion ECON
Opinion EMPL
Opinion ENVI
Opinion FEMM
Opinion IMCO
Opinion INTA
Opinion ITRE
Opinion JURI
Opinion LIBE
Opinion PECH
Opinion PETI
Opinion REGI
Opinion TRAN
Lead committee dossier: BUDG/7/01977
Subjects
Links

Activites

  • 2010/03/25 Parliament's opinion on budgetary estimates/guidelines
    • T7-0086/2010 summary
    • Results of vote in Parliament
  • 2010/03/24 Debate in Parliament
  • 2010/03/09 Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
  • 2010/03/09 Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
  • 2010/03/04 Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
  • 2010/02/25 Deadline Amendments
  • 2010/02/24 Document attached to the procedure
    • 06794/2010 summary
  • 2010/02/12 Committee draft report
  • 2010/01/08 EP officialisation

Documents

AmendmentsDossier
118 2010/2004(BUD) 2011 budget, section III, Commission: guidelines
2010/02/26 BUDG 118 amendments...
source: PE-439.297

History

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

2012-02-09
activities added
  • body
    EP
    date
    2010-01-08
    type
    EP officialisation
  • date
    2010-02-12
    docs
    • url
      http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE438.504
      type
      Committee draft report
      title
      PE438.504
    body
    EP
    type
    Committee draft report
  • date
    2010-02-24
    docs
    • url
      http://register.consilium.europa.eu/servlet/driver?page=Result&lang=EN&typ=Advanced&cmsid=639&ff_COTE_DOCUMENT=6794%2F10&fc=REGAISEN&srm=25&md=100
      text
      • The Council adopted a series of conclusions on the budget guidelines for 2011 which will be forwarded to the European Parliament, the European Commission and the other institutions.

        The Council, firstly, recalls that the 2011 budgetary procedure will play a crucial role in the pursuit and development of the European Union's objectives and priorities and takes place in a very specific context due to two main factors:

        • the consequences of the economic crisis will still impact on 2011: considering that most of the Member States find themselves in an excessive deficit procedure, the budget for 2011 will more than ever have to take into account economic and budgetary constraints at national level. The implementation of agreed EU programmes and actions, including those aiming at tackling the effects of the crisis, should continue. Therefore, reallocations allowing the best use of available resources should be encouraged;
        • implementation of the Lisbon Treaty: the 2011 budgetary procedure is the first procedure under the Lisbon Treaty. With this in mind, the Council underlines the importance of a good collaboration between the two arms of the budgetary authority and with the Commission. The need for strong cooperation is reinforced in a situation where both arms of the budgetary authority will only have a single reading of the draft budget (DB), and where an agreement has to be reached during the conciliation procedure on all expenditure. The two arms of the budgetary authority should therefore coordinate their positions as early as possible during the procedure.

        Key elements of the budget for 2011: the budget for 2011 should remain strictly within the limits fixed in the current 2007-2013 financial framework and sufficient margins should be left under all the ceilings of various headings and sub-headings of the financial framework, with the exception of sub-heading 1b, for the purpose of sound financial management and notably to cater for unforeseen circumstances. Council underlines the need for a realistic budgeting. Commitment and payment appropriations should be set so as to reflect real and well defined needs. The Council stresses the great importance of keeping payment appropriations firmly under control, taking into account the payment profile included in the financial framework. It also notes with great concern the volume of outstanding commitments and considers that the relation between the level of commitment and payment appropriations must be carefully weighed against the absorption capacity. It calls on all actors involved to continue to do their utmost to avoid overestimation in order to limit undue pressure on national budgets. Lastly, the Council recalls the importance of reallocation, as a primary tool for budgetary flexibility, in order to allow the budgetary authority to adapt the appropriations in a balanced and realistic way.

        The Council identifies the following elements as crucial in preparing the budget for 2011:

        • competitiveness for growth and employment: the Council underlines the importance of measures contributing to economic recovery, notably in the field of research and innovation. Special attention should be given to the timely implementation of agreed measures in the context of the European Economic Recovery Plan;
        • cohesion for growth and employment: the Council considers that payments from Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund should be at cruising speed in 2010 and 2011. It urges the Commission and Member States to maintain this momentum in order to avoid recurrent under-implementation in this area. All actors involved should continue their efforts in order to establish a realistic and accurate level of payments for structural measures, and pursue an efficient and effective implementation of the 2007-2013 programmes;
        • CAP expenditure: the Commission is invited to present realistic and clearly defined forecasts already in its DB and then in its ad hoc letter of amendment on agriculture, taking into account past implementation and foreseeable market prices evolution at European and international level. The ad hoc letter of amendment on agriculture should be presented in due time before the conciliation meeting;
        • citizenship, freedom, security and justice: the Council recalls the importance of allocating sufficient resources to EU policies such as immigration;
        • external actions: taking into account the present and forthcoming challenges, both at the economic level and in terms of international stability, the Council firmly believes that the Union should have a sufficient margin under the ceiling of heading 4 in order to enable it to provide for unexpected needs and crises in the most effective, flexible and rapid way. It recalls the importance of the setting up of the European External Action Service (EEAS), which should be guided by the principle of cost-efficiency aiming towards budget neutrality;
        • administrative expenditure: the Council recalls the common objective of increasing administrative efficiency along the same line adopted by Member States to optimise the use of limited resources. It intends to continue to monitor and to improve EU institutions' effectiveness with a view to increasing administrative efficiency and stresses the crucial importance of redeployment of resources and reprioritisation. This is even more important in a situation where the Lisbon Treaty assigns new tasks to institutions. It expects all the institutions to provide in advance all the necessary information for a clear, comprehensive, and consolidated picture of all administrative expenditure, including administrative expenditure financed under other headings and sub-headings of the multiannual financial framework, thus allowing the budgetary authority to evaluate the situation and take well-founded decisions on the allocation and use of resources. Due attention should be given to the comprehensiveness and comparability over time and between institutions of information provided.

        It also recalls the content of the joint statement on the building policy of EU Institutions and bodies agreed during the 2010 budgetary procedure and expects all institutions and bodies to comply with its content and awaits the publication of the study of the budgetary implications of pension costs covering the next 30 years.

        As far as the Union's decentralised agencies are concerned, the Council reiterates the importance of keeping their funding under firm control. It expects the Commission to continue providing a comprehensive picture concerning decentralised agencies, including their building policy, in due time for the draft budget for 2011.

      type
      Document attached to the procedure
      title
      06794/2010
    body
    CSL
    type
    Document attached to the procedure
  • body
    EP
    date
    2010-02-25
    type
    Deadline Amendments
  • date
    2010-03-04
    text
    • The Committee on Budgets adopted the report by Sidonia Elżbieta JĘDRZEJEWSKA (EPP, PL) on the priorities for the 2011 budget - Section III - Commission, recalling that the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2007-2013 provides for an overall level of commitment appropriations (CA) of EUR 142.629 billion - representing a potential maximum increase of only 0.83% over the 2010 budget - of payment appropriations (PA) of EUR134.263 billion - an increase of 9.2% over the 2010 budget. Members note that these amounts represent only about 1% of the EU's Gross National Income (GNI).

      Discrepancy between commitment and payment appropriations: Members stress that discrepancy between CA and PA in the MFF amounts to EUR 8.366 billion. Despite a gap of only EUR 6.689 billion for 2010 in the MFF, the budget that was finally adopted shows a gap of EUR 18.515 billion owing to further reductions in payments. They reiterate their concerns over increased discrepancies between CA and PA, which result in deficits in the long run. They stress that they will do their utmost to keep the discrepancy at a sustainable and manageable level.

      Revision of the financial framework to respond to challenges facing the EU: MEPs stress that it is absolutely essential to revise the MFF in depth. They call on the Commission to submit concrete proposals to adapt the Interinstitutional Agreement on the financial framework by the end of the first half of 2010. They note that with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the strengthening of a number of EU policies will require additional financial capacity for the EU and call on the Commission (in the context of the mid-term revision of programmes adopted by codecision) to provide it with a detailed overview of the budgetary implications in all sections.

      Priorities for the 2011 budget: in recalling how the EU has been able to respond collectively to the financial crisis with its European Recovery Plan, Members noted that the community's economic situation, nevertheless, remains unsatisfactory. In this context of economic slowdown, they stressed that some of the priorities would need to be developed and supported by the EU budget with greatest priority being accorded to citizens and their needs:

      • focus on youth: according to Members, young people should receive special attention when defining the EU's medium-and long-term priorities. In their view, it is time to define a youth policy in the broadest sense. In this regard, MEPs insist on the development of instruments enabling the encouragement of language learning and dialogue among cultures because, among young people, it is possible to obtain a greater awareness of European issues. Efforts should also be made to facilitate their mobility;
      • capitalise on innovation: MEPs point out that innovation and the digital agenda are essential for economic development and job creation in Europe. They therefore call for special attention to be given to new skills, including numerical skills and entrepreneurship through research. The European Union should focus its efforts on giving active support to innovative technologies, in particular green technologies that will help overcome the economic crisis, to ensuring the access of SMEs to markets and to making the EU a leading sustainable and competitive economy;
      • promote equality of opportunity: MEPs also stress the promotion of equal opportunities and the transition from education to integration in the labour market (including through the actions of the European Social Fund). They recall that 2011 has been designated European Year of voluntary activities and stress that volunteering can help people acquire new skills and abilities, thus promoting their social integration;
      • regional development: MEPs underline the decisive role played by SMEs in the development of disadvantaged regions at a structural level, especially in rural areas. Efforts should therefore be encouraged in this area. They believe that the EU should provide financial incentives at all levels of government (national, regional and local) to increase benefits for all Member States;
      • support for entrepreneurship: Members believe that support should continue for all programmes and instruments promoting entrepreneurship in rural areas, giving support to newly established firms in their start-up phase and encouraging exchanges of experiences between young entrepreneurs. In this respect, they say they will follow closely the legislative proposals to be submitted in this context by the Commission;
      • strengthen transnational cooperation: MEPs also call for a focus on regional cooperation (including in the framework of Euro-regions) and call for more pilot projects promoting cross-border cooperation in economic, social and cultural development between regions within the European Union.

      2020 strategy: Members welcome the Commission's paper on strategy for the future: "EU 2020". However, they consider that this strategy should place greater emphasis on the fight against unemployment. They stress that the 2011 budget should adopt clear and proactive measures to give more substance to the EU2020 strategy, particularly in the fields of climate change, environment and social policies. Members do not want it to be confined to vague targets, as was the frustrating experience of the Lisbon strategy. Instead, they want to make clear and ambitious financial commitments in the budget framework to ensure the success of the EU 2020 strategy and to prove that the EU is ready to take the lead on these crucial issues. They call on the Commission to take account of this commitment when adopting its draft budget.

      2011 Budget Strategy: MEPs say they will use the entire arsenal offered by the IIA of 17 May 2006 to mobilise funds for the priorities identified. It could, for example, be possible to transfer some funds from other instruments or programmes that have not operated well in order to fund certain priorities. They stress, however, that funding priorities through the reallocation of funds should not undermine fundamental EU policies, such as cohesion policies, structural policies or the common agricultural policy.

      Members stress that, following the entry into force of the provisions of the new Treaty, Parliament does not intend to curb its budgetary prerogatives. In regard to each of the budget lines, Members expressed the following remarks:

      • Heading 1a: they call on the Commission to submit a progress report on the implementation of the European economic recovery plan. They stress that the priorities for 2011, in view of the EU 2020 strategy, will be financed mainly from this heading, and that the Lisbon Treaty's extension of EU competences (e.g. in space policy and tourism) is likely to have budgetary implications. Members also point to "lifelong education and training" as a means of strengthening youth policy. This programme should incorporate new aspects that would facilitate the establishment of a clear link between education and the labour market. They call in particular, for increased efforts to be made to enhance the mobility of young people and to promote first jobs for young people (via a programme called "Erasmus first job"). Further efforts are required in the field of investment in transport, in particular via the trans-European transport network (TEN-T), with special attention accorded to funding transport safety. They also cite the need to finance other crucial elements that are still pending, such as the financial supervision package and the decommissioning of the Kozloduy nuclear plant (75 million EUR in 2011) and are extremely concerned about the sharp fall in funding for this heading (down by EUR 1.875 billion compared to the 2010 budget);
      • Heading 1b: Members, once again, stress the need to simplify the framework and the implementation of actions in the context of the cohesion and structural policies. While welcoming the considerable progress in this area, Members call for further efforts to be made in the implementation of projects. They call on the Commission to work closely with those Member States which reported a low take-up rate during the previous programming period to improve the situation. They emphasise that improving the performance and quality of expenditure should be a guiding principle to achieve the optimal use of the EU's budget;
      • Heading 2: expressing their concern about the narrow margin in Heading 2, MEPs urge the Commission to closely monitor agricultural markets. In terms of budgetary priorities, MEPs would like to ensure that, in 2010 and 2011, the fight against climate change remains high on the Union's post-Copenhagen political agenda. In their view, sustainable development remains an ongoing responsibility vis-à-vis future generations. They therefore urge the Commission to provide a clear action plan and timetable for the implementation of appropriations under the EU action programme to combat climate change. They also stress that the transport sector offers great potential in the fight against climate change and urge the Commission to give priority to "decarbonisation" measures in all transport modes. In passing, they recall that the release of the reserve on this line will depend on the Commission's proposals. They call on the Commission to provide for, in the 2011 budget, the means to address the new needs arising from the economic crisis among farmers and for a report on the measures taken to combat the dairy crisis introduced in the 2010 budget. In addition, they consider that a permanent approach needs to be presented in this area with concrete proposals to deal with price volatility in dairy and other commodity markets; 
      • Heading 3a: reiterating their intention to maintain a level of financing commensurate with the establishment of an area of freedom, security and justice in the European Union, MEPs stress the importance of full and effective implementation, enforcement and evaluation of existing instruments in this area. It is therefore necessary to reassess the relevance of financial instruments and resources available in this area in light of the Stockholm Programme goals, for example, in the fields of migration, border control and management, data protection and anti-terrorism. In this connection, they recall that a number of programmes will soon be undergoing a mid-term review, which could require a reconsideration of the financial means allocated to them. Overall, Members feel that there is a need to strengthen immigration policy and policy to assist the integration of immigrants and that further efforts are required to harmonise Member States' immigration policies. Members state, moreover, that they intend to conduct a thorough review of the transition from SIS to SIS II, which has experienced repeated delays and uncertainties, before deciding whether to maintain the level of funding foreseen. They reserve the right to hold in reserve any funds pertaining to the migration to SIS II, pending the outcome of the analysis under way;
      • Heading 3b: covering actions in areas such as youth, culture, people, etc., Members recall that this heading is one of Parliament's flagship priorities. They indicate that they will monitor closely the implementation of projects, both from a qualitative and quantitative perspective. They regret, however, that the ceiling for this heading in the 2011 budget has increased by only EUR 15 million compared to the 2010 budget - something that they consider to be unjustified;
      • Heading 4: as was the case in recent years, MEPs point out, once again, the constant and almost unbearable pressure affecting the financing of the EU's activities as a global player. This is, in particular, because of the low financial margin of this heading. MEPs stress, once again, the importance of providing the Union with sufficient funds to enable it to fulfil its tasks (e.g. the CFSP budget, as planned for 2011, might prove to have been underestimated). They point to the need for a revision of the 2006 Inter-Institutional Agreement on budgetary discipline concerning Parliament's prerogatives regarding the CFSP/CSDP budget under the Lisbon Treaty, including the need for new rules on the flexible use of the CFSP budget for civilian CSDP missions and the full transparency over military crisis management operations, in particular the use of the start-up fund. MEPs also point out that 2011 will be the first year that the European External Action Service (EEAS) will be fully operational. They therefore intend to give it the necessary administrative means to fulfil its mission. Members recall, in this regard, that, under the Treaty and in accordance with the common intention to strengthen Parliament's involvement in the shaping and management of the EU's external relations, it will fully exercise its scrutiny over the budget and budgetary control of EEAS. Members recall that full budgetary transparency regarding the establishment plan of the Service needs to be ensured and that its likely "sui generis" nature will probably entail the creation of a new section in the EU budget. MEPs also call for: i) additional information on the funding commitment made by the Union to support developing countries in their fight against climate change, ii) a more ambitious plan to help Haiti (with new funding sources), iii) appropriate funding for the Western Balkans and the eastern partnership, iv) appropriate financing of accompanying measures for bananas (without resorting again to the existing, already very tight margin). Lastly, Members note that the European Union is mobilising all its resources, in addition to existing programmes, in order to support peace-building and reconstruction measures in conflict zones, namely in Georgia, Afghanistan, the Middle East and in sub-Saharan Africa. Members consider it unacceptable to substitute new priorities for existing ones;
      • Heading 5: with a view to gaining a better understanding of the requirements of this heading, Members stressed the need to be transparent and forward-looking with regard to a number of questions with major financial implications, such as staffing requirements, pensions, real estate policy, outsourcing policy and administrative versus operational functions and trends. Regarding the salary issue, MEPs point out that the increase adopted by the Council in December 2009 was 1.85%, i.e. only half of the percentage resulting from the 'method', and that, depending on the outcome of the court case resulting from the challenge lodged by the Commission and the European Parliament, the difference, with retroactive effect, could amount to about EUR 135 million across all the institutions. MEPs call on the Commission to state its view as to the criteria to be applied in order to define total administrative expenditure and to continue to provide a clear description of those areas outside Heading 5. They request that all administrative expenditure be included in Heading 5.

      Procedure for adoption of the 2011 budget: MEPs point out that the budgetary procedure for the adoption of the 2011 budget will be the first to be conducted entirely under the new provisions introduced by the Lisbon Treaty. They recall that the Parliament agreed, with the Council and the Commission, on transitional measures until the necessary legal acts defining the rules on these matters enter into force. They therefore await agreement with the Council and the Commission on principles and methods of organisation, preparation and operation of the Conciliation Committee in order to ensure that the budget procedure runs smoothly. In this context, Parliament's Committee on Budgets would be instructed to negotiate these principles with the Council and the Commission.

    body
    EP
    committees
    type
    Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
  • date
    2010-03-09
    docs
    • url
      http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2010-0033&language=EN
      type
      Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
      title
      A7-0033/2010
    body
    type
    Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
  • date
    2010-03-09
    docs
    • url
      http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2010-0033&language=EN
      type
      Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
      title
      A7-0033/2010
    body
    EP
    type
    Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
  • date
    2010-03-24
    body
    EP
    type
    Debate in Parliament
  • date
    2010-03-25
    docs
    body
    EP
    type
    Parliament's opinion on budgetary estimates/guidelines
committees added
  • body
    EP
    responsible
    False
    committee_full
    Constitutional Affairs
    committee
    AFCO
  • body
    EP
    responsible
    False
    committee_full
    Foreign Affairs
    committee
    AFET
  • body
    EP
    responsible
    False
    committee_full
    Agriculture and Rural Development
    committee
    AGRI
  • body
    EP
    responsible
    True
    committee
    BUDG
    date
    2009-12-16
    committee_full
    Budgets
    rapporteur
    • group
      EPP
      name
      JĘDRZEJEWSKA Sidonia Elżbieta
  • body
    EP
    responsible
    False
    committee_full
    Budgetary Control
    committee
    CONT
  • body
    EP
    responsible
    False
    committee_full
    Culture and Education
    committee
    CULT
  • body
    EP
    responsible
    False
    committee
    DEVE
    date
    2010-02-04
    committee_full
    Development
    rapporteur
    • group
      S&D
      name
      BERMAN Thijs
  • body
    EP
    responsible
    False
    committee_full
    Economic and Monetary Affairs
    committee
    ECON
  • body
    EP
    responsible
    False
    committee_full
    Employment and Social Affairs
    committee
    EMPL
  • body
    EP
    responsible
    False
    committee_full
    Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
    committee
    ENVI
  • body
    EP
    responsible
    False
    committee_full
    Women’s Rights and Gender Equality
    committee
    FEMM
  • body
    EP
    responsible
    False
    committee_full
    Internal Market and Consumer Protection
    committee
    IMCO
  • body
    EP
    responsible
    False
    committee_full
    International Trade
    committee
    INTA
  • body
    EP
    responsible
    False
    committee_full
    Industry, Research and Energy
    committee
    ITRE
  • body
    EP
    responsible
    False
    committee_full
    Legal Affairs
    committee
    JURI
  • body
    EP
    responsible
    False
    committee_full
    Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
    committee
    LIBE
  • body
    EP
    responsible
    False
    committee_full
    Fisheries
    committee
    PECH
  • body
    EP
    responsible
    False
    committee_full
    Petitions
    committee
    PETI
  • body
    EP
    responsible
    False
    committee_full
    Regional Development
    committee
    REGI
  • body
    EP
    responsible
    False
    committee_full
    Transport and Tourism
    committee
    TRAN
links added
other added
  • body
    EC
    dg
    Budget
    commissioner
    LEWANDOWSKI Janusz
procedure added
dossier_of_the_committee
BUDG/7/01977
reference
2010/2004(BUD)
title
2011 budget, section III, Commission: guidelines
stage_reached
Procedure completed
subtype
Budgetary preparation
type
BUD - Budgetary procedure
subject
  • 8.70.12 2011 budget

code AGPLv3.0+, data ODBLv1.0, site-content CC-By-Sa-3.0
© European Union, 2011 – Source: European Parliament