Mr President, last night we discussed the topic of Serbia and the revolutionary changes that are taking place there. In somewhat less dramatic style, Croatia changed governments last year. In any event, the election victory of the opposition was given the same recognition. This is why it is possible to pick up where we left off in 1995. The chances of achieving a stabilisation and association agreement have now been looked into, and it is expected that negotiations on this topic will begin before the end of this year. A delegation of the European Union has been primed for action, and as you know, the Summit at the end of November will take place precisely in Zagreb, in order to give Croatia the message that the country is welcome in European Union circles. This is why it is necessary for the economy to be rebuilt. In its recent past, Croatia has witnessed dramatic changes for the worse and widespread corruption. Let us not forget that, until recently, Croatia was the classic example of a privatisation programme which had got completely out of hand, and which benefited only one individual. This whole process will need bolstering, which will require enormous investments – investments in infrastructure, in the environment, but also investments in very risky operations. As we all know, setting up small and medium-sized businesses in that kind of country is risky. Things can go wrong, and this also applies to the reception of refugees, an investment goal which was lacking from the rapporteur’s report, unfortunately. These too are risky investments. It is therefore only justified that the mandate of the European Investment Bank will be increased by 250 million. The European Union is acting as guarantor. But this is exactly where the problem lies, because we are now at the same point where we were last night when we were discussing the subject of Serbia, namely the fact that the Council underestimated the actual cost to be incurred in the Balkans last year in Berlin. As a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, I know that the members of the Committee on Budgets have criticised me and my colleagues for continually wanting more funds for the Balkans, and for having to enter into negotiations with the Council, which is not always that easy. But there is very definitely a real problem. I mentioned it yesterday when we were debating Serbia and I am repeating it here. It is not acceptable that the rift between the pledges and promises made by the European Union on the one hand, and the reserved funding on the other hand, should be as huge as it is now threatening to become. Having spoken fine words yesterday and having granted this guarantee today, the European Union cannot afford to arrive in Belgrade empty-handed tomorrow. I would therefore urge the fellow Members but also, and mainly, the Council, to stick as closely as possible to the Commission’s proposal during the next couple of months of negotiations on the budget for next year and subsequent years, the reason being that, in my view, the proposal still provides the best estimate of the total cost in Croatia, but also in other parts of the Balkans. I would now like to turn my attention to the overall programme for the Balkans. I support the amendment by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, which is right in saying that this loan is important, but that, in the final analysis, the overall programme, given the necessary financial backing, is more important.

Political group: Verts-ALE