# C_2017017EN.01000101.xml

| 18.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 17/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 17/1

---

Resolution on the draft annual EU budget for 2017

(2017/C 017/01)

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

| — | having regard to its opinions on the draft EU budget for 2014, 2015 and 2016; |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to its opinions on the draft EU budget for 2014, 2015 and 2016;

| — | having regard to its opinion on the Mid-term revision of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF); |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to its opinion on the Mid-term revision of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF);

| — | whereas the budgetary procedure for the EU budget for 2017 coincides with the mid-term review/revision of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) foreseen by Article 2 of the Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/2013 of 2 December 2013 laying down the MFF 2014-2020; |
| --- | --- |

—

whereas the budgetary procedure for the EU budget for 2017 coincides with the mid-term review/revision of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) foreseen by Article 2 of the Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/2013 of 2 December 2013 laying down the MFF 2014-2020;

| 1. | underlines the important role of the EU budget for 2017 in the development and delivery of the Union’s objectives and priorities to boost growth, promote employment and create new jobs while enhancing effective EU cohesion and competitiveness to address new challenges; |
| --- | --- |

1.

underlines the important role of the EU budget for 2017 in the development and delivery of the Union’s objectives and priorities to boost growth, promote employment and create new jobs while enhancing effective EU cohesion and competitiveness to address new challenges;

| 2. | highlights that the EU’s annual budget is faced with several structural misconceptions of the MFF:






  — | limited resources in the whole MFF, but in particular in Headings 3 and 4, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

highlights that the EU’s annual budget is faced with several structural misconceptions of the MFF:

—

limited resources in the whole MFF, but in particular in Headings 3 and 4,

| — | the system of own resources, which is based mainly on national contributions based on GNI, |
| --- | --- |

—

the system of own resources, which is based mainly on national contributions based on GNI,

| — | an increased use of ‘satellite’ instruments, which increases budget flexibility on the one hand, but also undermine the unity of the EU budget as well as the democratic scrutiny of the European Parliament on the other hand, |
| --- | --- |

—

an increased use of ‘satellite’ instruments, which increases budget flexibility on the one hand, but also undermine the unity of the EU budget as well as the democratic scrutiny of the European Parliament on the other hand,

| — | the de-commitment of unspent appropriations, which are definitely lost, rather than being carried over to the following year as a reserve for unexpected needs; |
| --- | --- |

—

the de-commitment of unspent appropriations, which are definitely lost, rather than being carried over to the following year as a reserve for unexpected needs;

| 3. | reiterates on the basis of the Commission’s Annual Growth Survey 2016 the need for the EU budget to contribute towards economic recovery and fill the still significant post-crisis investment gap in the EU, which harms competitiveness and threatens economic, social and territorial cohesion; |
| --- | --- |

3.

reiterates on the basis of the Commission’s Annual Growth Survey 2016 the need for the EU budget to contribute towards economic recovery and fill the still significant post-crisis investment gap in the EU, which harms competitiveness and threatens economic, social and territorial cohesion;

| 4. | Highlights the significance of the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF), the European Fund for Strategic Investment (EFSI), Horizon 2020, Erasmus+, SME funding programmes, and other policies and programmes that stimulate the development of the EU economy; calls on the Commission to further increase investment in research, innovation and infrastructure; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Highlights the significance of the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF), the European Fund for Strategic Investment (EFSI), Horizon 2020, Erasmus+, SME funding programmes, and other policies and programmes that stimulate the development of the EU economy; calls on the Commission to further increase investment in research, innovation and infrastructure;

| 5. | notes that Member States’ local and regional authorities are often left alone in dealing with large numbers of displaced people and in managing integration policies, with very limited financing and/or coordination from national/European authorities. Financial resources should be made directly accessible for local and regional authorities in order to allow them to fulfil their obligations where migration and integration are concerned, and to ensure they have rapid access to national and EU funds; suggests that Member States and local and regional authorities also be provided with practical guidelines on potential funding sources; |
| --- | --- |

5.

notes that Member States’ local and regional authorities are often left alone in dealing with large numbers of displaced people and in managing integration policies, with very limited financing and/or coordination from national/European authorities. Financial resources should be made directly accessible for local and regional authorities in order to allow them to fulfil their obligations where migration and integration are concerned, and to ensure they have rapid access to national and EU funds; suggests that Member States and local and regional authorities also be provided with practical guidelines on potential funding sources;

| 6. | Assistance to local and regional authorities in countries of origin and the surrounding regions, including ‘transit’ areas, in coping with migration flows should also be provided; as without EU support, LRAs in partner countries will not be able to provide decent living conditions and the basis for economic development in the countries of origin. To this end, a responsible review of the MFF should — in view of agreements with third countries aimed at effective border control, reducing migration flows, cooperation on return, and combating human trafficking — provide for greater financial and operational support, including through new and innovative funding sources; |
| --- | --- |

6.

Assistance to local and regional authorities in countries of origin and the surrounding regions, including ‘transit’ areas, in coping with migration flows should also be provided; as without EU support, LRAs in partner countries will not be able to provide decent living conditions and the basis for economic development in the countries of origin. To this end, a responsible review of the MFF should — in view of agreements with third countries aimed at effective border control, reducing migration flows, cooperation on return, and combating human trafficking — provide for greater financial and operational support, including through new and innovative funding sources;

| 7. | asks the budgetary authority to consider the need for directly accessible financial resources for European farmers affected by various crises (such as price volatility) since the beginning of the current MFF, most notably the dairy, meat fruit and vegetable sectors; highlights the budgetary impact of the emergency measures taken in response to these crises, totalling EUR 500 million in the 2016 budget and EUR 300 million in 2015; underlines the ongoing crisis situation in several Member States’ agricultural sectors; |
| --- | --- |

7.

asks the budgetary authority to consider the need for directly accessible financial resources for European farmers affected by various crises (such as price volatility) since the beginning of the current MFF, most notably the dairy, meat fruit and vegetable sectors; highlights the budgetary impact of the emergency measures taken in response to these crises, totalling EUR 500 million in the 2016 budget and EUR 300 million in 2015; underlines the ongoing crisis situation in several Member States’ agricultural sectors;

| 8. | recalls that the European Commission shall in 2016 review all Member States’ total allocations under the ‘Investment for growth and jobs’ goal of cohesion policy for years 2017-2020 and shall adjust the total allocations on the basis of the more recent statistics while stressing the need to ensure sufficient budgetary resources in 2017 to finance these adjustments; |
| --- | --- |

8.

recalls that the European Commission shall in 2016 review all Member States’ total allocations under the ‘Investment for growth and jobs’ goal of cohesion policy for years 2017-2020 and shall adjust the total allocations on the basis of the more recent statistics while stressing the need to ensure sufficient budgetary resources in 2017 to finance these adjustments;

| 9. | calls on the European Commission, the Member States and the regions to use these adjustments as a flexible tool to address new challenges in the framework of cohesion policy, in view of the fact that Article 7 of the MFF stipulates that these adjustments must be made taking account of the particularly difficult situation of Member States suffering from the crisis; |
| --- | --- |

9.

calls on the European Commission, the Member States and the regions to use these adjustments as a flexible tool to address new challenges in the framework of cohesion policy, in view of the fact that Article 7 of the MFF stipulates that these adjustments must be made taking account of the particularly difficult situation of Member States suffering from the crisis;

| 10. | notes that early analyses show rapid commitments and implementation of projects financed under the Horizon 2020 and Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) programmes and negative effects of the budgetary cuts of both programmes; requests the budgetary authority to compensate the budgetary cuts to Horizon 2020 and CEF related to the creation of the EFSI during the annual budgetary procedure for 2017; |
| --- | --- |

10.

notes that early analyses show rapid commitments and implementation of projects financed under the Horizon 2020 and Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) programmes and negative effects of the budgetary cuts of both programmes; requests the budgetary authority to compensate the budgetary cuts to Horizon 2020 and CEF related to the creation of the EFSI during the annual budgetary procedure for 2017;

| 11. | recalls that the annual budgetary procedure can only temporarily address the lack of finances as well as the increase of the gap between commitments and payments and that these issues should be addressed within a fully-fledged mid-term revision of the MFF; |
| --- | --- |

11.

recalls that the annual budgetary procedure can only temporarily address the lack of finances as well as the increase of the gap between commitments and payments and that these issues should be addressed within a fully-fledged mid-term revision of the MFF;

| 12. | regrets the reduction of funding available for energy investment under the CEF facility, stresses that this priority heading should not suffer as the result of the transfer of further amounts to other headings. Recommends that better geographical balance be ensured in the implementation of the CEF in the area of energy, so that not only the South Eastern regions of the EU and its neighbours, but also other regions could benefit in a more geographically balanced way from improved interconnections, which are crucial for a well-functioning internal energy market across the EU; |
| --- | --- |

12.

regrets the reduction of funding available for energy investment under the CEF facility, stresses that this priority heading should not suffer as the result of the transfer of further amounts to other headings. Recommends that better geographical balance be ensured in the implementation of the CEF in the area of energy, so that not only the South Eastern regions of the EU and its neighbours, but also other regions could benefit in a more geographically balanced way from improved interconnections, which are crucial for a well-functioning internal energy market across the EU;

| 13. | considers the youth employment initiative (YEI) to be a key political priority, as it is, with the support of the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF), one concrete supporting tool for young people to enter the labour market; suggests, therefore, that sufficient commitment and payment appropriations be provided in the 2017 budget for the YEI out of the total budget heading of EUR 3,2 billion adopted for the period 2014 to 2020; |
| --- | --- |

13.

considers the youth employment initiative (YEI) to be a key political priority, as it is, with the support of the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF), one concrete supporting tool for young people to enter the labour market; suggests, therefore, that sufficient commitment and payment appropriations be provided in the 2017 budget for the YEI out of the total budget heading of EUR 3,2 billion adopted for the period 2014 to 2020;

| 14. | highlights the fact that after initial delays, the implementation of ESIF is gaining speed and therefore asks for the payment appropriations to be increased in the EU budget for 2017 to avoid future payments backlogs; calls on the Commission to regularly monitor the evolution of the RAL and to set up an early-warning mechanism; |
| --- | --- |

14.

highlights the fact that after initial delays, the implementation of ESIF is gaining speed and therefore asks for the payment appropriations to be increased in the EU budget for 2017 to avoid future payments backlogs; calls on the Commission to regularly monitor the evolution of the RAL and to set up an early-warning mechanism;

| 15. | proposes that the European Parliament carry out some pilot projects under the 2017 budget to investigate the needs and growth potential of closing ‘missing links’ in transport infrastructure in cross-border areas; |
| --- | --- |

15.

proposes that the European Parliament carry out some pilot projects under the 2017 budget to investigate the needs and growth potential of closing ‘missing links’ in transport infrastructure in cross-border areas;

| 16. | emphasises that should new unforeseen payment needs occur in the future, these should be financed through new payment appropriations and not by redeploying existing resources; |
| --- | --- |

16.

emphasises that should new unforeseen payment needs occur in the future, these should be financed through new payment appropriations and not by redeploying existing resources;

| 17. | points out that the EU budget should be focussed on results and therefore supports any efforts of the European Commission to simplify the financial regulation, to complement better the different EU funding instruments and to ensure a level playing field for all EU policies and programmes with regard to State aid rules, public procurement and reporting requirements; underlines the need for the EU budget to be guided by a place-based multi-level governance approach; |
| --- | --- |

17.

points out that the EU budget should be focussed on results and therefore supports any efforts of the European Commission to simplify the financial regulation, to complement better the different EU funding instruments and to ensure a level playing field for all EU policies and programmes with regard to State aid rules, public procurement and reporting requirements; underlines the need for the EU budget to be guided by a place-based multi-level governance approach;

| 18. | underlines the need for the EU budget to be guided by a place-based multi-level governance approach so that EU Funds and policies deliver better results that capitalise on local and regional specificities; |
| --- | --- |

18.

underlines the need for the EU budget to be guided by a place-based multi-level governance approach so that EU Funds and policies deliver better results that capitalise on local and regional specificities;

| 19. | recalls that the COP 21 Agreement of December 2015 commits donor countries to support developing countries with USD 100 billion per annum but that a common methodology to account for climate finance has to be agreed upon before the COP 22 in Marrakesh. Asks that against this background the Commission presents a consolidated EU regulatory framework on climate finance and integrates it in its draft budget for 2017 considering that the EU had also agreed that at least 20 % of the 2014-2020 MFF, i.e. EUR 180 billion, should be spent on climate-related actions; |
| --- | --- |

19.

recalls that the COP 21 Agreement of December 2015 commits donor countries to support developing countries with USD 100 billion per annum but that a common methodology to account for climate finance has to be agreed upon before the COP 22 in Marrakesh. Asks that against this background the Commission presents a consolidated EU regulatory framework on climate finance and integrates it in its draft budget for 2017 considering that the EU had also agreed that at least 20 % of the 2014-2020 MFF, i.e. EUR 180 billion, should be spent on climate-related actions;

| 20. | notes, finally, that many local and regional authorities have recently introduced policies of gender-based budgeting, and asks the European Commission to take the gender impact into account in the draft 2017 budget; |
| --- | --- |

20.

notes, finally, that many local and regional authorities have recently introduced policies of gender-based budgeting, and asks the European Commission to take the gender impact into account in the draft 2017 budget;

| 21. | instructs the President to forward this resolution to the Commission, the European Parliament, the Council and the President of the European Council. |
| --- | --- |

21.

instructs the President to forward this resolution to the Commission, the European Parliament, the Council and the President of the European Council.

Brussels, 15 June 2016.

The President of the European Committee of the Regions

Markku MARKKULA

---