5.7.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/1

—

considers it imperative to maintain a strong political and economic framework, with sufficient resources in the medium to long term, in order to be able to give expression to the collective will to achieve the goals which have been set,

—

considers that the future Community budget must be based on the EU competences laid down in the Lisbon Treaty and on the subsidiarity principle and must reflect the enlargement of the legal bases of the Treaty and rejects the idea of competition between pre-existing policies on the one hand and the new areas of European activity on the other, or new policies made necessary by new global challenges,

—

suggests that the development of the budget should, rather, be considered in the light of gradual progress towards integration, based on Community actions of an experimental nature, in clear contrast to the current trend to cut the size of the European budget,

—

calls for the objective of exploiting the full potential of multi-level governance to be placed at the heart of the strategy of the European budget review and points out that the design, programming, co-financing and implementation of European policies can gain significantly from the contribution of regional and local authorities,

—

is particularly concerned that the renationalisation of Community policies could result in insufficient, ineffective and incoherent responses at EU level and the loss of the leverage effect of the Union's financial intervention,

—

reiterates that a stable multiannual financial framework, covering significantly more than five years, is an essential precondition for ensuring the effectiveness of the European Union's action and proposes therefore that the programming period of the multiannual financial framework be extended to 10 years, allocating all the funds only for the first five years and reassigning the amounts kept in reserve, for example 25 % as part of a genuine mid-term review; this approach would make it possible to ensure consistency with the European electoral timetable,

—

considers that the new system of financing the Community budget must be based on transparency and on own resources which guarantee the principles of fairness, solidarity, stability, visibility, clarity, accuracy and simplicity with as few exemptions as possible.

Rapporteurs

:

Michel DELEBARRE — Mayor of Dunkirk (FR/PES)

Luc VAN DEN BRANDE — Member of the Flemish Parliament (BE/EPP)

1.

considers that, in order to respond in an ambitious way to the expectations of Europeans, the EU budget review must serve primarily to reinforce the democratic pact of trust which binds the people to the Union, and thus to renew the partnership between the institutions responsible for policies at the various territorial levels;

2.

points out that the European Union strives to create a global model for prosperity and cohesion, where a Europe-wide political blueprint is reconciled with the preservation of identity, and the promotion of participation and democracy at local and regional level;

3.

is convinced that the European Union's added value resides in the peace, protection and stability it guarantees its citizens; the opportunities it offers Europeans to develop their full potential as individuals beyond national borders and at a European level; the creation of a European consciousness and solidarity between citizens of different nationality and culture through the promotion of economic, social and territorial cohesion; the creation of a space for Europeans to trade with each other in a single market; and the pursuit of common approaches to the challenges of the 21st century;

4.

considers that the challenge of the budget review is to allow this economic and social model to progress, avoiding the dismantling of its foundations and drawing more on Europe's territorial wealth and its diversity, including cultural diversity, in the interests of its cohesion;

5.

considers it imperative to maintain a strong political and economic framework, with sufficient resources in the medium to long term, in order to be able to give expression to the collective will to achieve the goals which have been set;

6.

draws attention to the value of the Community budget which, being based on the principles of solidarity, the stability of its multiannual financial framework and the conditions attached to its benefits, is essential for ensuring the effectiveness and continuity over time of the action of the European Union as a whole;

7.

is convinced that it is the multiannual financial framework of the EU budget which ensures long-term strategic continuity of the broad lines of European policy and provides certainty for local investment;

8.

reiterates in this context its support for the new Treaty, which represents progress in the process of European integration, with the reinforcement, updating or redefinition of policies which are already at the centre of European integration and with the communitarisation of other major policies;

9.

considers that the future Community budget must be based on the EU competences laid down in the Lisbon Treaty and on the subsidiarity principle and must, wherever necessary, reflect the enlargement of the legal bases of the Treaty and rejects the idea of competition between pre-existing policies on the one hand, the objectives of which are still relevant, and the new areas of European activity on the other, or new policies made necessary by new global challenges;

10.

suggests that the development of the budget should also be considered in the light of gradual progress towards integration, based on the implementation of measures conducive to social, economic and territorial cohesion;

11.

would like to see the future European budget being able to accommodate Community actions of an experimental nature;

12.

firmly believes in the need to adopt a global vision of public intervention and finances, against a general backdrop of budget constraints, at European, national, local and regional level. Means of financing other than pure subsidies should also be included, including the use of fiscal measures, and account should be taken of the contribution of other financial partners, such as the European Investment Bank;

13.

considers that the objective of the European budget review is clear: equipping the European Union with financial instruments appropriate to the political, economic, social and territorial tasks and prospects conferred on it by the Treaties and providing it with a simple and transparent system which makes European added value clearly visible to the general public;

14.

considers that Europe must seize this opportunity to become a more coherent political entity, to which our fellow citizens will be proud to belong, and which will give them confidence in the future and in their relations with the rest of the world.

15.

stresses that the new Treaty represents major progress in terms of multi-level European governance, with the extension of the subsidiarity principle to the local and regional levels and the addition of the territorial dimension of cohesion. This reinforces the link between the Union and its citizens and makes it possible to go forward while respecting identities and diversity;

16.

stresses that the partnership between the European institutions, the Member States and the regional and local authorities constitutes a model of governance which is more appropriate to our era, where opportunities and challenges are often local while their repercussions are more widely felt;

17.

points out that the design, programming, co-financing and implementation of European policies can gain significantly from the contribution of regional and local authorities, and in particular from their transnational, interinstitutional and intersectoral experience;

18.

calls therefore for a credible European budget which makes it possible to adapt the major European objectives to specific local needs;

19.

draws attention in this context to the fact that, as a result of a general trend towards devolution and decentralisation in a number of our Member States, the regional and local authorities have taken on more and more powers and responsibilities which are essential for their intervention in the areas which are most directly affected by the major challenges facing Europe;

20.

also points out that the local and regional authorities have become leading public financial players on which the European budget can exert a considerable leverage effect in both quantitative and qualitative terms. In 2004 they were already responsible for more than 60 % of total public investment in the enlarged Europe;

21.

agrees with the statement contained in the European Commission's Fourth Report on Economic and Social Cohesion that in a large number of Member States responsibility for public investment often lies as much with the local and regional authorities as with central government. They are also responsible for investment in the fields of education, housing, research and development, transport, public infrastructure and environmental protection. This trend has been reinforced over the last decade;

22.

points out that, faced with the demand for integrated and flexible implementation of European policies, the regional and local authorities can translate strategic policies agreed at European level into specific action, working together with the European and national institutions;

23.

considers that it is often up to the local and regional authorities to coordinate the various national and European policies, by combining the various sectoral policies on a regional and urban scale;

24.

stresses the need to achieve the objective of social, economic and territorial cohesion, by assigning to it the necessary financial resources, using as a basis the principles of solidarity, integration, multi-level governance and territorial cooperation already implemented in Europe and drawing on the experience of extended institutional partnership already accumulated;

25.

considers that the Treaty's new territorial cohesion objective gives an additional impetus to the process of designing and implementing all the policies of the European Union on a territorial basis. This impels us on the one hand to exploit the diversity of our regions and, on the other hand, to seek solutions to the disparities which persist at different levels of governance in the European Union;

26.

calls for the objective of exploiting the full potential of multi-level governance and the contribution of the regional and local authorities to be placed at the heart of the strategy of the European budget review.

27.

considers that the European Union is currently going through a period of profound socio--economic change as an enlarged and still growing Community and major global player, and that it has to face major environmental, energy-policy, demographic, technological and security challenges;

28.

notes that, in the light of these changes and challenges, the Member States are not always able to provide appropriate responses separately;

29.

observes that, in most areas, the ‘open method of coordination’ has not yet demonstrated its ability to make good these shortcomings, even when used in a complementary way;

30.

reiterates that common or Community policies and the ‘Community method’ are still an effective way of pursuing a collective political objective;

31.

is particularly concerned that the possible — total or partial — renationalisation of policies financed by the Union could result in insufficient, ineffective and incoherent responses at EU level, or in a lag between global changes and fragmented developments on the ground;

32.

draws attention to the fact that the renationalisation of Community policies would result in the loss of the leverage effect which the Union's financial intervention brings by multiplying the beneficial impact on the financing of the specific measures implemented;

33.

points out that renationalisation would also impede the coherent and sustainable development of cross-border activities;

34.

reiterates that the leverage effect of the Union's financial intervention goes well beyond financial multiplication, which is traditionally fed by systems of public co-financing; the leverage effect, from the operational and financial point of view, is also felt in the facilitation of public-private partnerships;

35.

also stresses that the lever of Community financing supports the strategic orientation of other public investment policies carried out locally. It helps to improve substantially the programming and management capacities of public administrations and private operators and it is an essential part of the process of Community integration and of the public perception of this;

36.

calls for an evaluation of added value which takes proper account of the various levels of governance (European, national, regional and local);

37.

notes that the added value of European financial intervention may also derive from activities which are not necessarily regarded relevant or priority at national or sub-national level, such as, for example, cross-border cooperation;

38.

considers that added value is closely linked to the application of the additionality principle, according to which Community intervention must not be used as a pretext for withdrawing financing at national level. The cohesion policy is an example of this;

39.

calls for recognition of the general incentive value of Community budget intervention which, by encouraging the countries and regions lagging furthest behind to catch up with the others and modernise, generates benefits for the whole European socio-economic system.

40.

recognises that Europe has to face major challenges, such as cohesion and competitiveness against a background of innovation, improvements in the quality and level of human resources and employment, climate change, modernisation of our energy model, demographic imbalances and migration pressures and security in Europe and worldwide;

41.

stresses, however, that the Union's mission must not be restricted to responding to new challenges but must also pursue its objective of integration;

42.

therefore considers it essential that the Union continue work on completing the internal market in the interests of sustainable development, fairness and inclusion, drawing on Europe's territorial richness and cultural diversity;

43.

calls for the Union, in order to promote its values and achieve its political objectives, to work to make the political life of the Union more democratic, promoting the development of local and regional autonomy and of civil society;

44.

points out that the new challenges make it necessary, on the one hand, to get to grips with globalisation and, on the other hand, to ensure territorial cohesion throughout the European Union and at its frontiers;

45.

stresses that, putting socio-economic gaps aside, the local and regional authorities of Europe have to face similar challenges, taking account of the specific forms which these take in different areas;

46.

recognises that, in this process, which must be based on a system of multi-level governance, the local and regional authorities must also find room for exploiting their unused potential;

47.

believes that the new Community budget framework must be able to ensure:

48.

considers that in the Lisbon Treaty the European Union potentially has a more effective decision-taking mechanism to determine the structure of the budget;

49.

reiterates that a stable multiannual financial framework, covering significantly more than five years, is an essential precondition for ensuring the effectiveness of the European Union's action and for enabling players to plan their investments in the long-term and to carry out territorial development projects;

50.

proposes therefore that the programming period of the multiannual financial framework be extended to 10 years, without allocating all the funds immediately. In order to ensure consistency with the European electoral timetable, one possible way forward could be to divide the period in two: funding for the first five years would be fully allocated and there would then be a mid-term review to reassign the amounts kept in reserve, for example 25 %, to new expenditure in order to launch new initiatives or reinforce those policies which have the greatest need;

51.

considers that flexibility offers useful ways of maximising the impact of Community spending and that it is necessary in order to be able to adapt to any changes in the situation, but that it also carries the risk, if it is not properly managed, of opening up the way to a multi-speed Europe;

52.

considers that targeting mechanisms, such as those tried out for the 2007-2013 cohesion policy, can make it easier to coordinate key policy objectives through different budget headings;

53.

calls for a specific percentage of the future Community budget to be allocated to support for experimentation, with this amount being separate from the resources earmarked for backing up general measures;

54.

calls for clarification of the control mechanisms and more direct and effective application of sanctions, where necessary;

55.

reiterates the need to implement the partnership principle practically during both the planning and implementation phases of the Community budget;

56.

points out that the European Commission has launched and developed the idea of tripartite contracts and agreements on objectives, reiterates its proposal that these instruments be revised and, on the basis of the lessons learned from the experimental phase of tripartite agreements launched by the European Commission, proposes the establishment of European territorial pacts;

57.

stresses that there can be no real partnership without a financial contribution from each of the parties to the agreement; proposes that the discussion of the question of the financing of European territorial pacts focus on possible synergies between the existing budget headings in the areas concerned and the Structural Funds at European level, and the available budget headings at local, regional and national level, considering the added value this could create; this should be done without establishing an additional Community regional policy financial instrument or calling for additional financial resources for this purpose;

58.

considers that the European budget should aim for greater transparency, reinforcing partnership at local level and stepping up communication efforts at local, regional and European level.

59.

Shares the view that Europe must reorientate its political action framework and financial resources, aiming for a sufficiently long time horizon, between 2020 and 2030;

60.

points out that the agreed ceiling on own resources is currently set at 1.24 % of EU gross national income;

61.

notes that the EU budget:

62.

regrets that the gap between the resources actually available in the budget and the agreed ceiling on own resources continues to grow;

63.

draws attention to the fact that calculations of a ‘fair return’ have progressively trapped the Member States in a narrow mindset which is far removed from the European ideal and the interests of the people;

64.

rejects any exacerbation of this mindset on behalf of the representatives of local and regional authorities. Such authorities are the essential driving force behind wealth creation at national level and which, in a number of cases, are also institutional players directly involved in drawing up national tax systems;

65.

considers that a qualitative jump in the system of financing the Community budget has become essential in order to enable the various institutions concerned to share a forward-looking view of the same budget;

66.

considers that the new system of financing the Community budget must be based transparency and on own resources which guarantee the principles of fairness, solidarity, stability, visibility, clarity, accuracy and simplicity;

67.

asks the institutions with budgetary powers to draw up and implement a new financing formula which has as few exemptions as possible and is aimed at achieving the objectives that have been set out in connection with the promotion of the economic and social model;

68.

announces its intent to continue to participate actively in the European discussions and debates on the budget review, e.g. in connection with the examination of the European Commission's review proposal;

69.

considers that the review of the EU budget and its sources of financing must be accompanied by a strong and transparent communication policy aimed at the general public and the institutional and socio-economic actors most closely concerned. In this way the people would be better informed as to how their money is being used, which would bring them closer to the institutions responsible for the management of Community programmes and projects. The Committee is willing to engage with the other institutions in this democratic effort.