Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-05-14-Speech-2-046"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020514.5.2-046"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on 30 April, the Commission decided on the preliminary draft of the Budget for 2003. I am glad to be able to present the rough outline of it to you today.
I have already referred to agriculture, in which area there is, according to the Commission proposal, a margin of EUR 2.3 billion, meaning that the Commission's preliminary draft remains EUR 2.3 billion under the maximum set for agriculture in the financial perspective. This positive outcome results from a combination of several factors: firstly the prognosis of relatively favourable market developments in agriculture, then a situation in which stocks are relatively low, and an underlying euro/dollar exchange rate of EUR 1 to USD 0.88. At this point, I must observe that this is not the Commission's prediction for the future development of the euro/dollar exchange rate, but regulations state that, when drawing up the preliminary draft Budget, we have to base our calculations on the average over the preceding months. However, I will point out that, in the event of the euro/dollar exchange rate changing, or, to put it another way, the euro rising, expenditure in the agricultural sector will also rise. That does not, though, represent a risk to the Budget, as the large margin will remain and will be able to take it up.
In June, the Commission will be presenting its so-called mid-term-Review of agriculture. My fellow-Commissioner Fischler will then present an overview estimating how agricultural expenditure will develop in the future, and proposals for reforms. These will not, however, have any direct effect on the 2003 Budget year.
I would like to observe that our agricultural policy will have different rates of increase. Firstly, that used for rural development is, as in previous years, and in accordance with the Commission proposal, to be the whole amount provided for in the financial perspective; this instrument will play a very major role in the future and it is certain to receive special attention in the mid-term review of agricultural reform, as incentives need to be used to promote alternative economic opportunities in rural areas. Above all, this category includes environmental measures of relevance to agricultural policy and this makes it highly significant in terms of sustainable agricultural development.
Still on market measures and direct aids for agricultural policy, I would like to point out that 2003 will be the first year in which the new organisation of the agricultural markets in goats and sheep will apply. This gives us a slight increase in this area, because, according to the resolutions adopted so far, for example, a premium of EUR 21 per head per annum is paid for sheep. This is an increase over the previous year.
I now turn to structural policy, where the commitment appropriations for structural measures are in line with the current financial perspective, although here the Budget ceiling is exceeded to a negligible degree, as the Commission, adhering to the resolutions passed by Parliament and the Council, is looking to present the second tranche, of EUR 27 million, for the special measures to restructure the fishing fleet in Spain and Portugal. The Commission proposes that this should be funded out of the flexibility reserve, and I believe this is in accord with the arrangement reached as part of last year's resolutions.
Over the past two years, estimating the payment appropriations required for the structural policy as a whole was made very difficult by the programmes' start-up phase, so that there was under-utilisation in these areas in 2000 and 2001. Some of the resources were able to be transferred to other programmes. It is due to this delay in implementation that we now have, of course, a sharp increase in the payment appropriations we must reckon with, and the Commission's preliminary draft Budget envisages a 4.4% increase in the structural policy's payment appropriations. It is to be noted that a major part of this is intended to pay the balance for the old programmes carried out by the Member States between 1994 and 1999. Delays occurred in all the Member States, with consequent delays to the final payments, but we hope that all of these can be dealt with in 2003.
I would now like to turn to category 3, the internal policy measures, which are indeed wide-ranging. It is proposed that funds amounting to EUR 6.7 billion be allocated, leaving a reserve of EUR 81 million, which is sure to be called on in the course of the discussions on the Budget. Let me also point out that a very large number of new measures have been adopted. Your House has just had a debate on the new Sixth Framework Programme; I am glad that a decision can now be taken on it and that, as I have just heard, the Framework Programme can be voted on tomorrow. It is endowed with an overall EUR 17.5 billion up to 2006. That this is a very large amount of money should be reiterated, as the accusation is frequently levelled that the European Budget, with its particular focus on agricultural policy, would never promote new developments. I believe that the Framework Programme demonstrates that the opposite is the case, in that a truly massive amount is being invested in joint promotion of research, and preparations for the programme's implementation can be set in train as soon as the decision is taken. The preliminary draft of the Budget already allocates over EUR 4 billion to this research programme for next year.
I would like to quote, as another example of new measures, the transport sector, in which it is envisaged that EUR 53 million will be spent on maintaining safety measures, so that 2003 will be marked by the establishment of the European Aviation Safety Agency and the European Agency for Safe Seas. This is something else that the public can expect of the European Union – action being taken to prevent accidents of the sort we have experienced in the past, and to ensure, moreover, that the steps that are taken are effective without delay. That will be another of the tasks for the Agency for Safe Seas.
Resources for the new so-called Marco Polo programme have also to be incorporated. These are Community financial aid to improve the impact on the environment of freight transport networks. As one final example of category 3, I will point out that measures for a rational energy policy, in the form of the promotion of innovative sources of energy, show, with almost 50%, the greatest increase. I believe this is another example of how the priority given to the promotion of sustainable development results in corresponding approaches to funding.
I would now like to discuss the area of external policy, that is, category 4, where commitment appropriations totalling EUR 4.9 billion are envisaged, representing an increase of 2.3% over the current Budget year. In its draft, the Commission is standing by its priorities and the foreign policy commitments we have made. Let me mention the Balkans, to which, for next year, we are allocating EUR 685 million. Aid for Afghanistan is also in accordance with commitments which the Commission made on behalf of the European Union in December 2001 in Tokyo. Funds for this have also been budgeted for, although it will of course be necessary to exert proper financial control on all these resources.
Let me start by setting out in general terms the 2003 Budget's basic figures, which we had the opportunity of briefly discussing in the Committee on Budgets yesterday evening.
I would like, furthermore, to emphasise that an increase of 4.2% is planned in the financing of the Mediterranean programme, which includes pre-accession aid
for Turkey, Malta and Cyprus, but also new resources for the commitment made as part of the Barcelona process to make available additional resources from the European Investment Bank, constituting the provision of a special facility. The Commission proposes to set aside EUR 25 million for this purpose, for example, to give financial support to a risk capital programme.
One external affairs policy focus for the Commission is the combating of serious infectious diseases in many parts of the world. In consequence, the appropriations for health measures in 2003, have, on the Commission's proposal, had around EUR 55 million added to them, EUR 35 million of which is an additional contribution to the Global Health Fund.
Still in the external policy field, I would like above all to mention that the Commission proposes to allocate EUR 40 million to the Common Foreign and Security Policy, EUR 20 million of which would be set aside for the joint European peace mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina. This makes it clear that this new type of activity under the Common Foreign and Security Policy is funded out of the operational part of the Community Budget.
Let me, in conclusion, turn to the administrative costs, where the appropriations come up against something of a peculiar situation. On the one hand, there is here a very large increase in pensions payments, but, on the other, we made no provision in the financial perspective for the European Community institutions – both Parliament and the Commission, the European Court of Justice and the Council – to have to take preparatory steps in the run-up to enlargement. It is for this reason that the Commission's preliminary draft Budget exceeds the upper limit only in respect of these preparatory measures. The Commission proposes that the resources needed for this should be made available from the flexibility instrument.
For myself, I am sure that this will be one of the main points to be covered in discussion, including with the Council, which has held out the prospect of an increase of 11% for its staff appropriations. That is not the increase for which the Commission is planning, but I do believe that it is this very area that we have to debate together, in very definite terms, how to go about the preparatory measures that are necessary if enlargement is to be a success for the institutions as well.
I take it as read that this will be a keynote in the debates, as much of course as the issue of how to fund any new requirements in the area of foreign policy, such as – and I will give just two examples – Palestine and Cyprus. I hope that the conciliation meeting in July will enable us to find a common outlook. The Commission was unanimous in deciding on the preliminary draft Budget after a very matter-of-fact discussion, and the unanimity was due, among other things, to the preliminary draft Budget again being so well prepared by the Directorate-General and above all by its Director-General, Mr Mingasson. As it is, so to speak, the last draft prepared by him in his capacity as Director-General of the Budget Directorate-General, I would like to take this opportunity to thank him warmly for the work he has done.
I am delighted by this burst of applause for Mr Mingasson. Thank you very much!
Our discussion of the priorities has shown that Parliament's and the Commission's are very largely the same after all, something that is also shown in the preliminary draft Budget. I believe it to be a successful draft that looks to fund new requirements and is, at the same time, guided by budgetary discipline. I look forward, of course, to the debates, and am highly optimistic that we will be able to achieve a good outcome this year as well.
The Commission's preliminary draft Budget amounts to EUR 98.2 billion, representing an increase of 2.7% over the current Budget. Compared with those predicted for the Member States' public budgets, this rate of increase is lower than the average. I want above all to emphasise that the preliminary draft Budget is, with EUR 4.7 billion, below the amount that the Agenda 2000 financial perspective fixed as a maximum. I also see it as good news that a preliminary draft Budget, despite the many new demands that are made on it, can be set out in such a way that there remains a large margin for unforeseen eventualities, and that this can also be captured within the financial perspective.
The Budget amounts to 1.03% as a proportion of gross domestic income, which means that the share of European GDP attributable to public expenditure for next year is 1.03%. That is very small – less, indeed, than in previous years. The reason I lay such emphasis on this is that it demonstrates that Budget discipline is taken very seriously even at European level. I also emphasise it because it is often said in public discussions that, okay, there will be these developments and those developments, and they will exceed what is budgeted for. On the contrary, that is not the case; rather, we again have a preliminary draft Budget below what was laid down as an upper limit in the financial perspective.
Above all, we should also make clear what will be financed within the European Budget with this share of GDP attributable to public expenditure that amounts to just over one per cent of the EU's economic performance, and which policy areas will benefit from this money from the taxpayer.
Let us take agriculture first, which continues to be the most significant area. If we add all the agricultural policy outgoings together, they amount to a total of EUR 48.7 billion allocated to this area.
This figure includes, for example, aid for the candidate countries, that is, for the farmers in the candidate countries, and also the staff in the Directorate-General which has responsibility for this area. To put it another way, if we express it as a percentage of the EU's gross national income, just about 0.5% of the EU's gross national income is to be spent on agriculture via the European Budget.
The illustration I have just given with reference to agriculture corresponds to the new approach to breaking down the Budget by policy areas. In the past it was very often the case that the public had difficulty reading the Budget – if they had any access to it at all – because it listed only the Budget lines, but not the legal bases, which one might term the policy content, what was to be achieved with the money. With the new Budget breakdown, that has now been done, and it is clear at a glance how much is to be used and for which policy areas.
To quote a few more figures before I move on to something else, EUR 21.8 billion have been allocated to regional policy, EUR 940 million to fisheries policy, EUR 3.2 billion for external relations, EUR 1.1 billion to development policy, EUR 9.8 billion for employment and social affairs, and EUR 1 billion solely for promoting the information society. Such a breakdown is in fact capable of expressing much more than would be possible through a breakdown of figures only by reference to categories in the financial perspective. All the same, I propose now to enlarge on these categories."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples