Proposition de RÈGLEMENT DU PARLEMENT EUROPEEN ET DU CONSEIL modifiant les règlements (CE) n° 2236/95, (CE) n° 1655/2000, (CE) n° 1382/2003 et (CE) n° [...]/2003 en vue d'adapter les montants de référence pour tenir compte de l'élargissement de l'Union européenne {SEC(2003) 1432}

(présentée par la Commission)

EXPOSÉ DES MOTIFS

1. Lors de l'adaptation des perspectives financières pour la période 2000-2006 destinée à tenir compte de l'élargissement (l'adhésion de dix nouveaux États membres en mai 2004), le Parlement européen et le Conseil ont adopté la déclaration suivante: [Le Parlement européen et le Conseil] « [sont] convenu[s] de réexaminer (avant la fin de la procédure budgétaire pour 2004), conformément à la procédure de codécision, les montants de référence des programmes relevant de la codécision dans les limites du plafond résultant de l'adaptation et de la révision susmentionnées des perspectives financières ».

2. Pour tous les programmes relevant de la codécision financés au titre de la rubrique 3 des perspectives financières (politiques internes), il est donc nécessaire d'adapter les montants de référence financière figurant dans chacun des actes législatifs concernés. Dans l'introduction générale (volume 0) de l'avant-projet de budget, la Commission a proposé de nouveaux montants pour les montants de référence en question, cherchant ainsi à obtenir l'accord politique de l'autorité budgétaire avant de présenter la (les) proposition(s) législative(s) correspondante(s).

3. Lors de la réunion de conciliation du 16 juillet 2003, le Parlement européen et le Conseil ont adopté la déclaration suivante relative à la procédure à suivre pour l'adaptation des montants de référence financière:

« Le Parlement européen et le Conseil conviennent de la procédure ci-dessous pour adapter les montants de référence qui figurent dans les actes de base de programmes communautaires décidés selon la procédure de codécision, dans les limites du plafond résultant de l'adaptation et de la révision des perspectives financières: - le Parlement et le Conseil s'emploieront à dégager, au plus tard le 24 novembre, un accord politique sur les montants qui devraient être ajoutés aux montants de référence à la suite de l'élargissement;

- ils inviteront ensuite la Commission à présenter la ou les proposition(s) législative(s) appropriée(s);

- le Parlement européen et le Conseil s'efforceront d'adopter l'acte ou les actes législatif(s) selon la procédure de codécision, dans des délais permettant l'application éventuelle du montant adapté à partir de la date d'entrée en vigueur du traité d'adhésion ».

4. La réunion de conciliation du 24 novembre 2003 s'est conclue sur un accord relatif aux montants de référence adaptés et sur la déclaration commune suivante du Parlement européen et du Conseil:

« Se référant à la déclaration commune du 16 juillet 2003 et ayant dégagé un accord politique sur les montants de référence indicatifs devant figurer dans l'acte de base des programmes communautaires décidés selon la procédure de codécision après l'élargissement, le Parlement et le Conseil invitent la Commission à présenter sans délai la ou les propositions(s) législative(s) appropriée(s) et confirment qu'ils s'efforceront de tenir dûment compte, dans la procédure de codécision, des montants annexés à la présente déclaration, dans un délai permettant leur éventuelle application à compter de la date d'entrée en vigueur du traité d'adhésion.

Le Parlement européen et le Conseil rappellent à leurs organes respectifs que les procédures législatives doivent en toutes circonstances se conformer à l'adaptation et à la révision des perspectives financières en vue de l'élargissement, approuvées le 9 avril 2003, et conserver une marge suffisante pour de futurs programmes, y compris ceux qui ne relèvent pas de la codécision ».

(montants en millions d' euros)

>EMPLACEMENT TABLE>

>EMPLACEMENT TABLE>

5. La Commission répond par la présente à l'invitation du Parlement européen et du Conseil, en limitant la modification proposée des actes législatifs relatifs aux programmes concernés à la seule adaptation des montants de référence susmentionnés. Cette adaptation appelle les observations suivantes:

- Le 6ème programme-cadre pour la recherche et le développement technologique relève de deux décisions, l'une fondée sur le Traité instituant la Communauté européenne, l'autre sur le Traité instituant la Communauté européenne de l'énergie atomique. Le montant supplémentaire de 1 735 millions d'euros est réparti entre les deux actes de base au prorata de leurs montants de référence respectifs: 1 613 millions d'euros sont ajoutés au montant global maximal de la décision n° 1513/2002/CE, 122 millions d'euros au montant de référence financière mentionné dans la décision 2002/668/Euratom. La décision CE, adoptée suivant la procédure de co-décision, est incluse dans la proposition législative suivante. La décision Euratom fait l'objet d'une proposition séparée sous la référence COM(2003) 778. La quote-part de chacune des activités et la répartition indicative du montant global maximal inscrit dans la décision n° 1513/2002/CE, présentée à l'annexe II, est également actualisée eu égard aux décisions prises par l'autorité budgétaire durant la procédure budgétaire 2004.

- Le programme concernant les réseaux d'échange de données entre les administrations (IDA) est couvert par deux décisions, toutes deux arrêtées selon la procédure de codécision. Le montant additionnel de 1,5 million d'euros est réparti entre les deux actes de base au prorata de leurs montants de référence respectifs: 0,7 million d'euros sont ajoutés au montant de référence de la décision n° 1720/1999/CE; 0,8 million d'euros sont ajoutés au montant de référence de la décision n° 1719/1999/CE.

- Dans le tableau ci-dessus, deux montants sont indiqués pour les réseaux transeuropéens, une distinction étant établie entre, d'une part, les réseaux en matière d'énergie et de transport, et, d'autre part, les réseaux de télécommunications. Ces deux montants relevant du même acte de base, le montant de référence correspondant est adapté en fonction de la somme des deux montants supplémentaires. La distinction entre les réseaux dans les domaines de l'énergie, du transport et des télécommunications sera opérée dans le cadre des procédures budgétaires annuelles.

6. Les justifications invoquées à l'appui de la majoration proposée pour chaque programme, qui figurera dans les actes législatifs concernés, sont exposées en détail dans la fiche financière accompagnant la présente proposition.

7. En raison de l'origine budgétaire de la présente proposition et eu égard à l'accord politique dégagé au sujet des montants proposés, le Commission recommande de traiter et d'adopter conjointement les trois propositions législatives suivantes (une proposition par type d'acte législatif concerné: décision sui generis, décision et règlement), et d'en limiter l'examen aux considérations budgétaires formulées ici.

2003/0305 (COD)

Proposition de RÈGLEMENT DU PARLEMENT EUROPEEN ET DU CONSEIL modifiant les règlements (CE) n° 2236/95, (CE) n° 1655/2000, (CE) n° 1382/2003 et (CE) n° [...]/2003 en vue d'adapter les montants de référence pour tenir compte de l'élargissement de l'Union européenne

LE PARLEMENT EUROPEEN ET LE CONSEIL DE L'UNION EUROPÉENNE,

vu le traité instituant la Communauté européenne, et notamment son article 71, paragraphe 1, son article 80, paragraphe 2, son article 156, premier alinéa et son article 175,

vu la proposition de la Commission [1],

[1] JO C [...] du [...], p. [...].

vu l'avis du Comité économique et social européen [2],

[2] JO C [...] du [...], p. [...].

vu l'avis du Comité des régions [3],

[3] JO C [...] du [...], p. [...].

statuant conformément à la procédure visée à l'article 251 du traité [4],

[4] JO C [...] du [...], p. [...].

considérant ce qui suit:

Afin de tenir compte de l'élargissement de l'Union européenne, il convient d'adapter le montant de référence repris dans le règlement (CE) n° 2236/95 du Conseil du 18 septembre 1995 déterminant les règles générales pour l'octroi d'un concours financier communautaire dans le domaine des réseaux transeuropéens [5], le règlement (CE) n° 1655/2000 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 17 juillet 2000 concernant un instrument financier pour l'environnement (LIFE) [6], le règlement (CE) n° 1382/2003 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 22 juillet 2003 concernant l'octroi d'un concours financier communautaire visant à améliorer les performances environnementales du système de transport de marchandises («programme Marco Polo») [7], et dans le règlement (CE) n° [...]/2003 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du [...] concernant la surveillance des forêts et des interactions environnementales dans la Communauté (Forest Focus) [8],

[5] JO L 228 du 23.9.1995, p. 1. Règlement modifié en dernier lieu par le règlement (CE) n° 1655/1999 (JO L 197 du 29.7.1999, p. 1).

[6] JO L 192 du 28.7.2000, p. 1.

[7] JO L 196 du 2.8.2003, p. 1.

[8] En attente de publication au Journal Officiel.

ONT ARRÊTÉ LE PRÉSENT RÈGLEMENT:

Article premier

L'article 18 du règlement (CE) n° 2236/95 est modifié comme suit :

1) Le titre "Ressources budgétaires" est remplacé par le titre "Financement";

2) Le paragraphe 1 est remplacé par le texte suivant:

« L'enveloppe financière pour la mise en oeuvre du présent règlement pour la période 2000-2006 est de 4 874,88 millions d'euros. »

Article 2

L'article 8 du règlement (CE) n° 1655/2000 est modifié comme suit :

1) Le titre "Durée de la troisième étape et ressources budgétaires" est remplacé par le titre "Durée de la troisième étape et financement";

2) Les paragraphes 1 et 2 sont remplacés par le texte suivant:

« 1. LIFE est mis en oeuvre par étapes. La troisième étape commence le 1er janvier 2000 et se termine le 31 décembre 2004. L'enveloppe financière prévue pour la mise en oeuvre de la troisième étape couvrant la période allant de 2000 à 2004 est établie à 649,9 millions d'euros.

2. Les ressources budgétaires affectées aux actions prévues au présent règlement font l'objet d'une inscription de crédits annuels au budget général des Communautés européennes. L'autorité budgétaire détermine les crédits disponibles pour chaque exercice dans la limite des perspectives financières. »

Article 3

L'article 13 du règlement (CE) n° 1382/2003 est modifié comme suit:

1) Le titre "Budget" est remplacé par le titre "Financement";

2) Le premier alinéa est remplacé par le texte suivant:

« Le cadre financier prévu pour la mise en oeuvre du programme Marco Polo, pour la période allant du 1er janvier 2003 jusqu'au 31 décembre 2006, est de 100 millions d'euros. »

Article 4

L'article 13 du règlement (CE) n° [...]/2003 est remplacé par le texte suivant:

« Article 13

1. L'enveloppe financière pour l'exécution de l'action pour la période 2003-2006 est de 65 millions d'euros, dont 9 millions d'euros peuvent être utilisés au titre des mesures de prévention des incendies.

2. Les crédits annuels sont autorisés par l'autorité budgétaire dans le cadre de la procédure budgétaire annuelle et dans la limite des perspectives financières. »

Article 5

Le présent règlement entre en vigueur le troisième jour suivant le jour de sa publication au Journal officiel de l'Union européenne.

Le présent règlement est obligatoire dans tous ses éléments et directement applicable dans tout État membre.

Fait à Bruxelles, le [...]

Par le Parlement européen Par le Conseil

Le Président Le Président

[...] [...]

Annexe FICHE FINANCIERE LEGISLATIVE

Domaines politiques: Entreprise (02), Emploi et Affaires Sociales (04), Agriculture et Développement rural (05), Énergie et Transports (06), Environnement (07), Recherche (08), Société de l'information (09), Recherche Directe (10), Fiscalité et Union Douanière (14), Éducation et Culture (15), Santé et Protection des Consommateurs (17) et Statistiques (29).

Dénomination de l'action:

Proposition de modification des montants de référence - au sens de l'accord interinstitutionnel du 6 mai 1999, article 33 - des programmes de dépenses adoptés selon la procédure de codécision, pour tenir compte de l'élargissement.

1. LIGNE(S) BUDGÉTAIRE(S) + INTITULÉ(S) ET DONNÉES CHIFFRÉES GLOBALES (partie B, Mio EUR)

(en millions d'euros)

>EMPLACEMENT TABLE>

>EMPLACEMENT TABLE>

1.1. Compatibilité avec la programmation financière et les perspectives financières

| | Proposition compatible avec la programmation financière existante

|X| Cette proposition nécessite une reprogrammation de la rubrique concernée des perspectives financières,

| | y compris, le cas échéant, un recours aux dispositions de l'accord interinstitutionnel.

1.2. Incidence financière sur les recettes

|X| Aucune implication financière (concerne des aspects techniques relatifs à la mise en oeuvre d'une mesure)

OU

| | Incidence financière - L'effet sur les recettes est le suivant:

Les fiches financières législatives relatives aux différents actes de base mentionnés dans le tableau au point 1 restent valables. Leur mise à jour est effectuée par les fiches en annexe [9].

[9] Document de travail des services de la Commission, sous référence SEC(2003) 1432.

Les besoins en ressources humaines et administratives nécessaires à la mise en oeuvre de cette proposition ont été pris en compte dans la Communication de la Commission "Activités et ressources humaines de la Commission dans l'Union européenne élargie" [10], et seront couverts par l'allocation accordée aux services responsables de cette mise en oeuvre dans le cadre de la procédure d'allocation annuelle.

[10] COM(2002) 311 final, du 5.6.2002.

DOCUMENT DE TRAVAIL DES SERVICES DE LA COMMISSION - "Proposition de modification des montants de référence contenus dans les actes législatifs relatifs aux programmes de dépenses pluriannuels adoptés selon la procédure de co-décision, pour tenir compte de l'élargissement" ANNEXE A LA FICHE FINANCIERE LEGISLATIVE {COM(2003)777 final et 778 final}

Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Development

>REFERENCE A UN GRAPHIQUE>

The justification sets out, in an indicative manner, the research priorities for the additional resources for the Sixth Framework Programme for research in the context of the revised financial perspectives 2004-2006.

Context

From the total enlargement "topping up", an extra 1 735 million euro is foreseen for the Sixth Framework Programme. This amount is expected to fund priorities, through the work programme and calls for proposals that have a strong emphasis on involving the accession countries in the Community's research policy and in the European Research Area. In particular, in line with the decisions made by the budgetary authority during the 2004 budget procedure, 35 million euro will be allocated to the research on combating major diseases, in particular cancer, compensated by a reduction of other priorities: SPP/NEST (-20 million euros), infrastructures (-5 million), human resources (-5 million), support to the coordination of activities (-5 million). The remaining part of the additional amount is distributed in prorate of the current amounts as shown in Annex II. The multi-annual ceiling for administrative expenditure is also to be increased proportionally.

Rationale

The rationale for concentrating the additional allocation on research priorities that take full account of the involvement of the accession countries is as follows:

- The inclusion of the accession countries will mark a major step in the enlargement of the boundaries of the European Research Area, a policy for which these countries have been enthusiastic supporters.

- These countries have a strong scientific tradition and significant potential. They have strengths, notably as regards their resources in qualified scientific manpower and a track record of innovation.

- Enlargement will therefore represent a major stimulus to research in Europe, both substantively and psychologically. Above all, it will give a boost to the knowledge society and the agenda set out in the Lisbon/Barcelona process.

- At the same time, their integration in the mainstream of European research poses major challenges. Although the picture varies from country to country, generally they face structural weaknesses as well as difficulties in increasing research investment which, averaging 0.79 % of GDP (EU 15 average: 1.93 %), falls far below the target of 3% of GDP by 2010. It also fails to match their scientific potential measured in terms of qualified scientists and engineers. The total number of researchers in the 10 accession countries corresponds to about 10 % of the total in the enlarged European Union, whereas their GDP represents only about 4 % of that of EU 25.

- The Sixth Framework Programme provides major leverage for the creation of the European Research Area with the accession countries as full and equal partners. It also has a fundamentally multinational character which will further consolidate their position within an enlarged Europe.

- The extra funding for the framework programme should therefore provide a focus for the accession countries to adjust to the challenges and to take advantage of the opportunities of the European knowledge-based society, as well as to maximise their contributions to it.

- The extra funding will, furthermore, help ensure that the enlarged Europe will continue to be an attractive base for the whole European research community and thereby help reinforce Europe's competitive position in the world.

- The funding provides an opportunity to give a clear message of the importance of enlargement for European research. These funds should therefore be used in priority on activities which would capitalise on the strengths of the accession countries (for example in terms of their human resources and capacities in fundamental research) as well as addressing their needs (for example in terms of weakness of the industrial sector and access to and use of research infrastructures).

Main Priorities

The main priorities involving the new accession countries would most likely include [11]:

[11] All activities funded would be open to all participants in the framework programme on an equal footing.

- issues of direct concern to them, such as environmental protection and monitoring, lower end commercial aircraft, improving safety management of power plants (particularly nuclear ones), health care;

- addressing their weaknesses such as accessing research infrastructures (for example using GRIDs), in developing industrial research capacity (for example by encouraging their involvement in technology platforms, reinforcing hydrogen initiatives), and paying particular attention to the SME sector (for example via the Co-operative Research scheme or by dedicated actions to raise the technological level of SMEs in traditional industrial sectors);

- strengthening their competencies, in terms of their human resources and capacities in fundamental research, by funding, for instance, research in animal disease, and hygiene in food technology;

- reinforcing their co-operation and networking including in and between regions, building in particular on existing cross-border co-operations (for example via ERA-NET) as well as between the university and industrial sectors (for example via the new research instruments of integrated projects and networks of excellence), and expanding, for instance, the network of fusion associations;

- stimulating debate involving representatives from their countries in the broad field of science and society (for example through the support of international conferences and discussions), and further raising awareness on such issues as women in science, ethics, and science governance;

- supporting their human resources especially young scientists, encouraging their career development, for example via short-term scientific exchanges as well as their retention within their national research fabric (it is proposed to fund a special action on "Human Potential in an Enlarged EU"); and

- ensuring adequate research in support of emerging policy issues of concern to an enlarged Europe, including those covering emergency situations, research in agriculture (in view of enlargement), environmental and economic effects in the light of international agreements, illegal immigration, anticipating crime trends and causes, and addressing refugee related issues.

Base légale

Décision n° 1513/2002/CE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 27 juin 2002 relative au sixième programme-cadre de la Communauté européenne pour des actions de recherche, de développement technologique et de démonstration contribuant à la réalisation de l'espace européen de la recherche et à l'innovation (2002-2006) (JO L 232 du 29.8.2002, p.1)

Décision 2002/668/Euratom du Conseil du 3 juin 2002 relative au sixième programme-cadre de la Communauté européenne de l'énergie atomique (Euratom) pour des activités de recherche et de formation visant également à contribuer à la réalisation de l'Espace européen de la recherche (2002-2006) (JO L 232 du 29.8.2002, p.34)

Information complémentaire

APB 2004 Document de travail, partie I "Activity Statements"

ENTR-02; p. 42-45

TREN-06; p.182-185

RTD-08; p. 216-252

INFSO-09; p.279-284

CCR-10; p. 293-300

FISH-11; p. 328-330

APB 2004 Document de travail, partie II "Financial Statements and Human Resources"

ENTR-02; p. 262-264

TREN-06; p. 545-552

RTD-08; p. 615-663

INFSO-09; p. 695-699

CCR-10; p. 706-721

FISH-11; p. 751-752

Chapter XX-01-05; p. 187-196

Five-year Assessment of the Community activities carried out under the RTD Framework Programmes

Programme/activity and budget line(s) concerned:

- Fifth Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (1998 to 2002),

- Fifth Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) for research and training activities (1998 to 2002),

- Specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration on quality of life and management of living resources (1998 to 2002) / B6-6111,

- Specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration on a user-friendly information society (1998 to 2002) / B6-6121 (for information, implemented by DG INFSO),

- Specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration on competitive and sustainable growth (1998 to 2002) / B6-6131 (implemented by DG RDT and DG TREN),

- Specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration on energy, environment and sustainable development (1998 to 2002) / B6-6141 and B6-6142 (implemented by DG RDT and DG TREN),

- Specific programme on confirming the international role of Community research (1998 to 2002) / B6-6211,

- Specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration on promotion of innovation and encouragement of SME participation (1998 to 2002) / B6-6311 (implemented both by DG ENTR and DG RDT),

- Specific Programme for research and technological development, including demonstration, to be carried out by the Joint Research Centre by means of direct action for the European Community (1998-2002), (for information, implemented by the Joint Research Centre),

- Specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration on improving the human research potential and the socio-economic knowledge base (1998 to 2002) / B6-6411,

- Research and training programme (Euratom) in the field of nuclear energy (1998 to 2002) / B6-6511 and B6-6512,

- Specific Programme for research and training to be carried out by the Joint Research Centre by means of direct action for the European Atomic Energy Community (1998-2002) (for information, implemented by the Joint Research Centre),

- Fourth framework programme of the European Community activities in the field of research and technological development and demonstration (1994 to 1998),

- Framework programme of Community activities in the field of research and training for the European Atomic Energy Community (1994 to 1998),

- Specific programme for research and technological development, including demonstration, in the field of industrial and materials technologies (1994 to 1998) / B6-7121

- Specific programme for research and technological development, including demonstration, in the field of advanced communication technologies and services (1994 to 1998) / B6-7112 (for information, implemented by DG INFSO),

- Specific programme for research and technological development, including demonstration, in the field of telematics applications of common interest (1994 to 1998) / B6-7111 (for information, implemented by DG INFSO),

- Specific programme for research and technological development, including demonstration, in the field of information technologies (1994 to 1998), (for information, implemented by DG INFSO),

- Specific programme for research and technological development, including demonstration, in the field of standards, measurements and testing (1994 to 1998) / B6-7122

- Specific programme of research and technological development, including demonstration, in the field of marine science and technology (1994 to 1998) / B6-7132

- Specific programme of research, technological development and demonstration in the field of agriculture and fisheries (1994 to 1998) / B6-7143 (implemented by DG RDT, DG AGRI and DG FISH),

- Specific programme for research and technological development, including demonstration, in the field of non-nuclear energy (1994 to 1998) / B6-7151 (implemented by DG RDT and DG TREN)

- Specific programme of research and technological development, including demonstration, in the field of cooperation with third countries and international organisations (1994 to 1998) / B6-7211

- Specific programme of research and technological development, including demonstration, in the field of environment and climate (1994 to 1998) / B6-7131

- Specific programme of research and technological development, including demonstration, in the field of biotechnology (1994 to 1998) / B6-7141

- Specific programme of research and technological development, including demonstration, in the field of biomedicine and health (1994 to 1998) / B6-7142

- Specific programme of research and technological development, including demonstration, in the field of transport (1994 to 1998), (implemented by DG TREN),

- Specific programme of research and technological development, including demonstration, in the field of targeted socio-economic research (1994 to 1998) / B6-7171

- Specific programme of research and technological development, including demonstration, in the field of training and mobility of researchers (1994 to 1998) / B6-7411

- Specific programme for the dissemination and optimisation of the results of activities in the field of research and technological development, including demonstration (1994 to 1998), (implemented by DG ENTR),

- Specific programme of research and training in the field of nuclear fission safety (1994 to 1998) / B6-8111

- Specific programme of research and training in the field of controlled thermonuclear fusion (1994 to 1998) / B6-8121

- Specific programme for research and technological development, including demonstration, to be carried out for the European Community, on the one hand by the Joint Research Centre and, on the other, by means of activities within the framework of a competitive approach and intended for scientific and technical support to Community Policies (1995-1998), (for information, implemented by the Joint Research Centre and the Secretariat General),

- Specific programme for research and technological development, including demonstration, to be implemented by the Joint Research Centre for the European Atomic Energy Community (1995-1998), (for information, implemented by the Joint Research centre).

>EMPLACEMENT TABLE>

Purpose of evaluation

Assess the implementation and achievements of Community RTD activities carried out during the last five years, as requested in the article 5.1 of the Decisions on the Framework Programmes (182/1999/EC et 1999/64/Euratom). The assessment is planned so that the results can be exploited for the preparation of the next Framework Programmes (FP).

Summary of findings and recommendations

The most important conclusion of the FP Panel is that the Framework Programme alone will not be enough to serve the goals set at Lisbon. Although there is much to commend in past and current Framework Programmes, the challenges we face as we move towards the new economy call not only for the Framework Programme itself to become a much more flexible policy instrument, but also for additional instruments and actions.

RTD policy is inextricably linked with policies in other spheres, especially education and innovation. The Panel is convinced that the required changes need to be conceived within an overall strategy for Europe, articulated at the level of the EU and supported by all the Member States.

AS REGARDS FUTURE FRAMEWORK PROGRAMMES

The Framework Programme has helped academic and industrial partners all across the EU to tackle problems collaboratively. It has also contributed to the training of researchers and to the development of the European research infrastructure.

There is still a need for these activities and they deserve to be continued, but the scope of the Framework Programme should also be increased in line with the need to meet the Lisbon goals and the demands of enlargement. The Panel recommends:

* maintaining the emphasis on social relevance and continuing to use Key Actions as a way of focusing programmes;

* maintaining a strong emphasis on collaborative RTD projects supplemented by a variety of other actions;

* emphasising excellence and the participation of leading-edge researchers; encouraging participants to propose 'riskier' projects;

* enhancing measures encouraging the mobility of researchers within the EU and between the EU and elsewhere;

* retaining support for generic, competence-building RTD activities;

* increasing the emphasis on the research needed to support other EU policies;

* to further exploit existing policy tools in a restructured and expanded Framework Programme;

* a major review of the systems and procedures used to decide overall goals, specify delivery mechanisms and implement programmes;

* Adoption of a European RTD strategy at the highest political levels. The Heads of Government should then delegate the task of formulating and implementing this strategy to the European Commission, supported by an appropriate advisory structure. In particular, the Panel sees no need to continue the Programme Committees;

* Re-engineering existing structures and procedures to delegate responsibility for tasks downwards within the Commission, or externalise them. At present there is excessive focus on adherence to procedures and not enough emphasis on ensuring overall goal attainment.

BEYOND THE FRAMEWORK PROGRAMMES

The Panel

* recommends increasing the relative size of the budgets allocated to science and technology compared to other policy domains;

* is convinced that the percentage of GDP spent in the EU on public and private RTD should rise to at least 3% over the next ten years, and recommends the use of indirect measures such as RTD tax incentives across the EU in order to flag to the rest of the world that Europe is an attractive place to conduct RTD;

* considered that RTD policies in the Member States need to reinforce rather than duplicate each other, the European Commission has a key facilitation role to play in this area;

* recommends that support provided to the Central and Eastern European countries for RTD activities be channelled temporarily through the existing scientific Academies until new competitive structures for the organisation of science and industry can be developed;

* recommends urgent action to counter envisaged skill shortages over the next decade;

* urges the Commission to ensure that innovation-related activities are high on the agenda of actions supported by the Community Structural Funds and the Accession Funds for the applicant countries.

FRAMEWORK PROGRAMMES ASSESSMENT

The Panel's positive assessment of activities over the last five years is the basis for recommending continuation and expansion of the Framework Programme. The emphasis on collaborative RTD projects was much appreciated by academic and industrial participants, allowing them to undertake strategically important work, which would have been difficult to undertake otherwise. Networking, training-related activities and adequate procedures for the involvement of SMEs were also widely regarded as successful features of the Framework Programme.

Concerning programme administration, many participants were dissatisfied with application procedures and, to a lesser extent, with payment delays. The Panel recommends making procedures much simpler and easier to understand.

The Panel endorsed the overall orientation of the Fifth Framework Programme, though the initial implementation of the programme was not smooth. The new matrix management structures put in place to ensure adequate communication within and across programme areas did not function well. The Panel recommends an urgent re-engineering of the overall management and administration of the Framework Programme. The system of evaluation can be considered as well established. Impact assessment should become one of the most important elements of evaluation.

Main evaluation methods and data used

Panels of independent highly qualified experts: 8 Panels for the assessment in the RTD area of each Specific Programme and 1 global Panel for the overall assessment at the Framework Programme level. The Panels make use of questionnaire surveys; interviews; support studies on results and impacts, analysis of indicators collected during programme implementation, analysis of basic documentation, discussion and exchange of opinion among the Panel members and formulation of Panel's findings, opinion, conclusions and recommendations.

Action taken / follow-up planned

Official comments of the Commission (COM (2000) 659 final) have been transmitted to the Council, European Parliament, Social and Economic Committee and to the Committee of the Regions. (They are also published on the web site: http://www.cordis.lu/fp5/ 5yr_reports.htm.)

The evaluation results have provided input to the Commission guidelines for future EU actions in the field of research (COM (2000) 612 final). They will also be utilised for the formulation of the 6th Framework Programme. They also provide the European Parliament and Council with a point of reference for the discussions on the future of EU research. The reports provide also useful recommendations, which can be implemented already during the implementation of the 5th Framework Programme. They also provided input to the mid-term report of the Commission on the implementation of the 5th Framework programme.

Availability of the report

Available on the web site: http://www.cordis.lu/fp5/ 5yr_reports.htm

(The report was also transmitted to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Social and the Economic Committee and the Committee of Regions. Paper copies are available on request.)

Exécution Vème Programme Cadre

>EMPLACEMENT TABLE>

>REFERENCE A UN GRAPHIQUE>

>REFERENCE A UN GRAPHIQUE>

>REFERENCE A UN GRAPHIQUE>

>REFERENCE A UN GRAPHIQUE>

>REFERENCE A UN GRAPHIQUE>

>REFERENCE A UN GRAPHIQUE>

>REFERENCE A UN GRAPHIQUE>

>REFERENCE A UN GRAPHIQUE>

>REFERENCE A UN GRAPHIQUE>

>REFERENCE A UN GRAPHIQUE>

>REFERENCE A UN GRAPHIQUE>

>REFERENCE A UN GRAPHIQUE>

>REFERENCE A UN GRAPHIQUE>

>REFERENCE A UN GRAPHIQUE>

The justification for an EUR +25 million increase of the budget available to the Marco Polo Programme for the 10 Acceding Countries is as follows:

The Marco Polo Programme is a key initiative of the Commission's White Paper on European Transport Policy for 2010 "Time to Decide" published in 2001. The "Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Granting of Financial Assistance to Improve the Environmental Performance of the Freight Transport System (Marco Polo programme)" has been adopted on 03 July 2003 with a budget of EUR 75 million for the EU15 for 2003 to 2006. The budget for the rest of its lifetime 2007 to 2010 will be decided in 2006.

The Programmes principal objective is to shift the entire annual growth in international freight traffic off the road onto more environmentally friendly modes of transport, namely short-sea shipping, rail and inland waterways until 2010. According to the White Paper this amounts to a shift 12 billion tonne-kilometres per year. The EUR 75 million figure finally agreed upon by Council is a significant reduction of the Commission's originally proposed budget of EUR 115 million.

Fighting congestion on the EU15 roads is already an obvious and urgent need. Marco Polo does this by subsidising transport services using the above mentioned non-road modes of transport, i.e. by utilising modes which still have spare capacity or are less congested than the road ("balancing the modes of transport").

For the Acceding Countries this is even more important, because of their less developed transport infrastructure and in view of their much higher expected economic growth (compared to EU15 average). Normally, transport growth is directly linked to economic growth.

Also, Marco Polo is an initiative which will have an immediate effect, whereas infrastructure works requires many years to complete, even will ample funding.

Based of the experience with the Marco Polo Help Desk, which is in operation since last year (mid 2002), very large interest by undertakings from the Acceding Countries as well as undertakings from the EU15 wishing to create transport services towards the Acceding Countries has been noted. This despite the fact that costs arising on the territory of Acceding Countries will only be eligible from 2004 onwards (i.e. not in the 2003 proposal selection round).

Consequently, a very much above average increase of the Marco Polo budget is required especially for the first years of EU membership for the EU+10, in order to help them with immediate effect. Note, that economic growth is hindered, if transport capacity cannot be increased significantly.

Ideally, taking all the above arguments into account, the Marco Polo budget should have been increased by EUR +75 million for the EU+10. However, in assuming similar quality of transport infrastructure one may calculate an absolute lower limit:

Based on the 2001 statistical data of the Commission published by DG-Elarg (http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/ docs/pdf/eurostatapril2003.pdf) this following short calculation may be done:

The ratio in population of EU+10 to EU15 = 75 million / 378 million = 1/5;

The ratio in economic growth for 2001 of EU+10 to EU15 = +2.5% / +1.5% = 5/3;

Multiplication of these two ratios with the EU15 budget of EUR 75 million gives the lower limit. Note, that the reason for using the EU15 figure for the period 2003 to 2006 is justified by the fact that the increase of freight traffic is not waiting for EU membership. It has already significantly picked-up in 2003. I.e. the extra amount integrated into this calculation is needed to catch-up once EU membership is achieved for the EU+10.

Hence: EUR 75 million * (1/5) * (5/3) = EUR 25 million.

The absolute lower limit for the increase of the Marco Polo budget for the Acceding Countries for the period 2004 to 2006 is EUR 25 million.

*****

Base légale

Règlement (CE) N° 1382/2003 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 22. 07. 2003 concernant l'octroi d'un concours financier communautaire visant à améliorer les performances environnementales du système de transport de marchandises ("Programme Marco Polo"), (JO L 196 du 02. 08. 2003, p.1).

Informations complémentaires

Source:fiche financière législative annexée à la proposition de règlement.

Objectifs du programme "Marco Polo"

The general objective of the Marco Polo programme is to help shift the aggregate expected increase in international road freight to short sea shipping, rail, and inland waterway.

This should be achieved with three different types of actions: modal shift actions, catalyst actions and common learning actions. These types of actions are interrelated: common learning actions provide market participants with the knowledge to engage in catalyst actions. These actions pave the way and market conditions for a full success of modal shift actions.

Dispositions prises à la suite de l'évaluation ex post du programme "Pact"

The Marco Polo programme contains some elements of the Pilot Actions for Combined Transport (PACT programme), which has expired on 31 December 2001. Politically, it is seen as the successor programme to PACT, although it contains a broader scope and quite different interventions from PACT to achieve its goals. In this context, the lesson learned from the ex-post evaluation of the PACT programme, conducted by the external evaluators AEA Technology between May and November 2000, are particularly relevant. The main findings and recommendations are as follows:

1. Most operational measures supported by the PACT programme are cost-effective in terms of avoided carbon dioxide emissions, even without replication.

2. Commercial viability of the intermodal projects is difficult to achieve, even with the start-up support provided by PACT. This is due to the challenging market conditions for combined transport in Europe.

3. Asking for technological or logistics innovation in conjunction with achieving commercial viability under current market conditions may expose projects to inordinate risk and ultimate failure.

4. Receiving Community funding was of course important to the project partners. Moreover, beneficiaries reported that the commitment created by the PACT contract with the Commission and the political and operational support provided through the programme was essential for reaching the goals of the project.

The evaluation recommended:

1. Stopping the funding of feasibility studies as precursors to operational projects. Instead, some funding should be allocated to fund generic studies aimed at market enablement.

2. Strengthening the dissemination aspects of the promotion programme through the development of a targeted programme-level strategy, which would also encourage more widespread replication of pilot actions.

3. The evaluation also suggested to generate some large-scale projects which could help lower the market barriers for intermodal transport in Europe.

The proposed Marco Polo programme has taken all the findings and recommendations into account, and in the following way.

Finding 1: this finding was essential for the continuation of this type of market promotion. Although not strictly defined as an objective, the PACT programme had created net benefits for society, in terms of saved external costs, through its intervention. The Marco Polo programme builds the whole intervention mechanism for modal shift actions around this notion, in order to ensure in a verifiable way that net benefits are produced on a large scale through the interventions.

Finding 2: the reaction to this finding is not only the continuation of start-up financial assistance. It has also led to the introduction of catalyst actions, which should tackle some root problems in the sector in order to increase the chances for viability on a long-term basis.

Finding 3: the direct consequence from this finding in the Marco Polo programme is the decoupling of start-up aid - modal shift actions - and aid to introduction of innovative technologies and ideas - catalyst and common learning actions.

Finding 4: the introduction of common learning actions, which should foster the co-operative spirit in the industry, is a direct consequence of this finding. Further, the steering functions of the Commission in the catalyst and common learning actions are also introduced on the basis of this finding.

Recommendation 1: the Marco Polo programme does not feature feasibility studies any more. Instead, a structural instrument to foster market enablement is proposed through the common learning actions.

Recommendation 2: as the draft Regulation makes clear, the programme will feature a strong dissemination activity. Common learning and catalyst actions will only reach their goals if adequately disseminated.

Recommendation 3: the introduction of catalyst actions is a direct response to this recommendation.

*****

>REFERENCE A UN GRAPHIQUE>

In the framework of the 2004 budgetary procedure, it is proposed to allocate - for the period 2004 - 2006 - an additional amount of 255 million EUR to the trans-European transport network budget line (50, 90 and 115 million EUR respectively for the individual years) to meet the needs of the new Member States. As for the trans-European energy network, it is estimated that the needs of the new Member States can be met from the amounts currently programmed for EU 15.

Massive investment need for TEN-T in future Member States

The massive need for infrastructure investments in the extended trans-European transport network of the new Member States, which have been estimated at 100 billion EUR for the period until 2015, fully justifies the proposed additional allocation of 255 million EUR for the next 3 years. This cost estimate is backed by a thorough assessment of infrastructure needs and investment capacity of the future Member States which was carried out during the pre-adhesion period. The relevant investments are considered to be essential to ensure the functioning of the extended internal market.

Concentration of Community interventions on pan-European transport corridors

The Commission follows a clear policy of concentrating all available Community sources on key elements of the extended transport TEN, i. e. in particular on the pan-European transport corridors endorsed at the pan-European Transport Conferences at Crete in 1994 and at Helsinki in 1998. Important progress has already been achieved along these corridors through ISPA contributions in the last few years. It is now vital to build on these initial achievements and to ensure, through the continuing provision of appropriate Community support, that full benefit can be drawn in the years ahead.

TEN-T contributions 2004 - 2006: to focus on whole range of studies

Besides the concentration of Community funds on key corridors, the Commission will pursue (as it already does for TEN projects in the current Cohesion countries) a clear policy of co-ordination of contributions from the different funds (TEN budget and CF / ERDF / EIB) so as to maximise their effect. In this respect, the TEN budget line has proven to be particularly appropriate to support the whole range of studies (feasibility studies, technical, environmental and - often very costly - geological studies) where the Community contribution can go up to 50 % of the respective cost.

Experience with the current Member States has shown that the significant contributions of the TEN-T budget line to studies (1995 - 1999: 868 million EUR, i. e. 47 % of the total available budget; 2000 - 2002: 832 million EUR, i. e. 49 % of the total available budget) played a vital role to overcome risks / uncertainties in early project development phases and to prepare these major TEN projects for construction. For the 14 priority projects, endorsed by the Essen European Council in 1994, for example, TEN-T contributions for studies (672 million EUR since 1995) have been crucial to enable works to start.

Priority projects in new Member States: considerable support for studies needed to facilitate start-up phase

As for the transport infrastructure in the new Member States, in the last half year a High-Level Group composed of representatives of the current and future Member States as well as the Commission and chaired by Mr. Karel Van Miert, made a thorough and extensive assessment of the most important projects of the future TEN and identified key priority projects on the basis of a highly selective methodology. Although the priority status of these projects will only be formally approved in the context of the forthcoming revision of the TEN-T Guidelines, the majority of them will be eligible for Community funding as soon as the States concerned join the Community as they meet the criteria of the current Guidelines (extending to the new Member States upon their adhesion). Amongst these projects (essentially located on the pan-European transport corridors) are, for example:

>EMPLACEMENT TABLE>

To meet the target completion dates set out above, an important part of the studies related to the projects concerned will have to be carried out during the period 2004 - 2006. Experience with other projects shows that the cost share for studies (depending on the geographical / geological situation) may go up to 10 % of total project cost. This means that up to 1,8 billion EUR might be needed to carry out the studies for the above projects. Although the implementation period of the projects extends to 2010 to 2015, according to a very first estimate, 30 to 50 % of the studies should be undertaken during the period until 2006. The total cost of the studies would thus reach 540 to 900 million EUR.

To support these studies at the maximum intervention rate of 50 % (and thus ensure full complementarity's with the Cohesion Fund), the proposed 255 million EUR Community contribution would be the absolute minimum to meet the needs. If this amount was not provided, the smooth launching of the projects would be at risk. In addition to this, works on several of these projects are expected to start in 2004 and might seek support for works. (Any decision to grant aid - both for studies and for works - will of course depend on future Member States' requests and be subject to an in-depth evaluation in accordance with the conditions and criteria set out in the relevant Regulation).

The allocations would essentially be made in the framework of the Indicative Multi-annual Programme for the transport TEN 2001 - 2006 (to be revised at the beginning of 2004 to include projects in the new Member States); the above projects fully comply with the funding priorities of this programme. This programme, adopted by the Commission in 2001, has proven its worth (for EU 15 so far) in increasing the efficiency of the management of the TEN budget and in reducing outstanding commitments in comparison with the previous approach.

The above list of projects reflects the highest priorities for the transport TEN development in the new Member States which have been identified so far. Furthermore, the High-Level Group has identified a number of smaller projects which cover horizontal priorities, for example intelligent transport systems. There are already projects under preparation in this field, involving both current and new Member States. Further important projects may come up which serve important objectives of the trans-European transport network in the shorter term (removal of bottlenecks, safety improvements etc.) and would deserve Community funding. Appropriate Community contributions need thus to be foreseen for these horizontal / shorter term priorities as well.

Overall conclusion

The support for studies related to the new priority projects identified by the High Level Group Van Miert alone would require at the very least the allocation of the proposed 255 million EUR. In addition to this, it is foreseeable that there will be need for support of horizontal priorities, projects promising more short term benefits as well as support for first works on the above priority projects. This shows that the proposed amount represents an absolute minimum of what is needed to ensure appropriate support of the transport TEN in the new Member States from the very beginning of their membership on.

*****

Base légale

>REFERENCE A UN GRAPHIQUE>

>REFERENCE A UN GRAPHIQUE>

Afin de financer les projets RTE- transport qui visent à supprimer les goulets d'étranglement aux frontières avec les pays candidats, la Commission a présenté une proposition de modification du règlement n° 2236/95 fixant notamment le montant de l'enveloppe financière à 4.700 mio EUR pour la période 2000-2006. Cette proposition - COM(2003) 38 final du 24.01.2003- est en attente d'une position commune du Conseil.

*****

Informations complémentaires

Exécution RTE - Transport pour la période 2000-2003.

>REFERENCE A UN GRAPHIQUE>

Mid-term evaluation - final report (executive summary) June 1999

Scope of the budget line and of this evaluation.

1. This document is the report of a mid-term evaluation study into the implementation of financial interventions by the European Commission through the Trans-European Transport Networks (TEN-T) budget line. Specifically, this study has been concerned with the evaluation of spending on transport studies and projects between 1995 and 1997 under Council Regulation 2236/95/EC of September 18th 1995, and the associated Guidelines set out in Decision 1692/96/EC of July 23rd 1996.

2. The evaluation was conducted between June 1998 and April 1999. National Economic Research Associates (NERA) led the evaluation team, in partnership with Kampsax. The team also included BPM, TIFSA and Uniconsult.

3. The TEN-T budget line is administered by Unit A3 of DGVII, though some parts of the programme are administered in co-operation with units A2 (road traffic management, rail traffic management, global navigational satellite systems), C3 (air traffic management), C4 (airports), D3 (vessel traffic management systems) and D4 (ports).

4. The budget line includes all modes of transport, including traffic management systems to optimise use of the existing network. Between 1995 and 1997 railways received 58 per cent of the funds disbursed, roads received 14 per cent, air traffic management six per cent, road traffic management seven per cent, airports three per cent, global navigational satellite system three per cent, and rail traffic management three per cent. Other modes (ports, vessel traffic management, sea infrastructure, inland waterways, multi-modal and combined transport) received the remaining six per cent.

5. Some 70 per cent of the budget is allocated to the 14 Essen Priority Projects. Eight of these projects are concerned exclusively with rail, and six of these eight are high-speed rail lines. Three of the other Essen projects are multi-modal links. In addition, there are two road-only projects (the PATHE and Via Egnatia in Greece, and the Ireland/UK/Benelux road link), plus Malpensa Airport in Italy.

6. The TEN-T budget line evaluated in this study is not the only source of EU funds for the Trans-European Transport Network defined in the Guidelines. In particular, the Cohesion Fund, administered by DGXVI, funds environmental and transport projects in the four Cohesion Fund countries (Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain). Cohesion Fund spending directed to transport projects on the TEN-T network in these four countries was around two and a half times higher than spending on the TEN-T budget line in all Member States in the period 1995-1999. This evaluation report is not concerned with Cohesion Fund spending on the TEN-T network.

The conduct of this evaluation

7. We conducted this evaluation in three main stages. In the first stage we interviewed officials in the Commission and in European financial institutions. Results of these interviews fed into our Interim Report in November. In the second stage we conducted interviews in all the Member States. This was followed by the third main stage of the evaluation, which was the analysis of the results of the interviews and the writing of this final report.

8. The first stage interviews covered four main groups of people. First, we held separate interviews with all the Desk Officers in Unit A3 of DGVII, to assess at first hand their experiences in administering the TEN-T budget line, and to hear their views on how the processes work. Secondly, we interviewed those officials in units A2, C3, C4, D3 and D4 concerned with liasing with A3 in the administration of the interventions concerned with the different forms of traffic management, and the airport and seaport sectors. Thirdly, we talked to relevant officials in other Directorates with an interest in the TEN-T programme and this evaluation, namely DGII (Economic and Financial Affairs), DGXI (Environment, Nuclear Safety and Civil Protection), DGXVI (Regional Policy and Cohesion: Cohesion Fund and Structural Fund), and DGXIX (Budgets: Evaluation Unit). Finally, we interviewed officials at the European Investment Bank and the European Investment Fund in Luxembourg.

9. On the basis of these interviews we constructed a questionnaire to be sent to all the national representatives in the Member States. This questionnaire formed the basis of face-to-face interviews held in each country, and was designed to elucidate Member State views on the working of the TEN-T programme. The interviews with DGVII Desk Officers, and subsequent discussions with DGVII, were also used to draw up a list of some fifty interventions between 1995 and 1997 to be considered in the interviews with Member States in more detail. These interventions were intended to provide a representative sample of the interventions funded under the budget line between 1995 and 1997.

10. Following the Member State interviews, which were conducted between late October 1998 and early January 1999, and a progress meeting at the Commission, we have analysed the results and drawn up our main recommendations. We provided DGVII with an opportunity to comment on our provisional recommendations at an informal seminar in late March.

Overall conclusions

11. In terms of our overall conclusions, we believe that the TEN-T budget line is administered efficiently. We were impressed with the dedication of the officials administering the budget line, faced as they are with conflicting pressures on their time and their needs to satisfy bureaucratic procedures. We also appreciated their positive and helpful approach to this evaluation. Although Member States made a variety of suggestions for changes to the present procedures, none of the people we spoke to raised any fundamental criticisms with regard to the way the budget line is administered.

Recommendations

12. One of our major recommendations is that the objectives of the TEN-T programme should be expressed more clearly. At present there are high level objectives which are expressed in broad, non-operational terms, and lower level objectives which are defined by a variety of documents that indicate a very wide range of types of expenditures that might be eligible for funding under the budget line. There needs to be a clearer statement of what criteria will determine the acceptability of proposals. In particular, the principle that the programme should be paying for EU-wide benefits, which are external to the Member States making the expenditure, should be explicitly recognised, and emphasised as an important criterion determining priorities. We think that DGVII should start work on examining the appropriate policy role of the EU institutions, as distinct from Member States, in surface transport strategy, insofar as this is needed for the purposes of defining an operational strategy for TEN-T. Another step forward would be to reduce considerably the scope of the Trans-European Transport Network, following the example provided by TINA.

13. We did not find strong evidence of effective co-operation between DGVII and the Cohesion Fund. This is despite an emphasis in the 1998 Annual Report of the Cohesion Fund on there being regular meetings and consultations to ensure a consistent approach. We think that DGVII should play a stronger role in choosing projects in the four Cohesion Fund countries. In this regard we think that there needs to be closer liaison between DGVII and the Cohesion Fund, with DGVII more proactive in approving or rejecting transport proposals from the Cohesion Fund. With DGVII playing a leading role in matters of transport strategy, we think that the TEN-T budget in Cohesion Fund countries should only be made available for studies and not for projects. At present Cohesion Fund countries have little incentive to apply for TEN-T funding for projects because of the low percentage of finance provided in comparison with the Cohesion Fund. Restricting the TEN-T budget to studies in these countries would reflect this reality, and enable DGVII to concentrate on strategic issues.

14. While TEN-T application procedures for project finance require applicants to indicate that they have produced an Environmental Impact Assessment, and while DGXI are asked to comment on this, we found little evidence of close interaction. Given the considerable importance of environmental issues in the transport sector, we believe it would be desirable for DGVII and DGXI to develop a joint policy on the assessment of the environmental impact of interventions in the TEN-T network. This could then be developed into a guidance notice for applicants and others on the appropriate way to treat environmental issues in TEN-T applications. The results of existing studies on the environmental impacts of transport funded under the TEN-T programme, together with results of other studies funded by DGVII on the environmental impacts of transport infrastructure investments, should feed into this process.

15. We recommend that application procedures for TEN-T funding should be improved in order to: make the process easier for those without previous experience; explain the need for the information requested; avoid duplication of information at different stages of the application process; remove information which is not used in the funding decision; include explanatory examples; and explain the use of different types of intervention methods. In order to do this there needs to be a general guidance manual to provide advice to applicants to the TEN-T budget line. In our report we provide detailed recommendations on the structure of this manual.

16. We believe that DGVII staff involved with administering the TEN-T budget line should have a clearer internal view of the nature of good practice in cost-benefit analysis in the transport sector, including "best practice" in regard to time saving valuation, safety valuation, traffic forecasting, choice of discount rate, etc. It would be desirable to have some formal initial training for new Desk Officers in transport appraisal techniques. We also think it would be sensible to have some in-service training for existing Desk Officers, to improve sharing of ideas on transport appraisal techniques, and to generate more of an "appraisal culture" within the sections dealing with TEN-T applications. We also recommend that there should be a relatively brief "best practice" CBA manual related to transport projects available to Commission staff and to applicants.

17. We do not think it realistic to co-ordinate the annual TEN-T round with the financial calendar in individual Member States since each Member State will have a different financial calendar. However, to facilitate individual Member States' financial planning, and the co-ordination between Member State financed transport infrastructure, as well as that financed by the TEN-T budget line, we believe that the Commission should try to reduce the time between Member State applications for TEN-T support and Commission approval, and between the Commission decision and the actual provision of funds.

18. We strongly believe that medium-term planning is essential for major transport infrastructure projects, so that some form of plan is essential to break away from the existing system where each decision relates to an annual budget. However, we also believe that the MIP has only been partially successful in this aim. Like many Member State representatives, we would like to see the powers and use of the MIP increased to include medium-term commitment of funding to the larger individual projects over several years. This would reduce the uncertainty faced by projects which had to have separate applications each year for funds, and might also help attract longer-term financing commitments from other institutions. The plan should be related more closely to the overall objectives of the TEN-T programme, and there should be a clear explanation in the proposed guidance manual to applicants as to the role of the plan in determining TEN-T decisions.

19. We believe that the current level of monitoring of interventions approved under the TEN-T budget line is appropriate. The Project Status Reports provide a useful role at a basic administrative level, and enable the Commission to keep track of the progress of studies and projects, and to generate useful statistics. They should be retained, and attempts made to ensure that Member States provide the necessary information to keep them updated. In this regard, the development of a consensus between all Member States and the Commission as to why the information on the PSRs is valuable would be very helpful. However, the PSRs contain no information that would enable ex post evaluation of individual interventions or the TEN-T programme as a whole to be made. Site visits play an especially valuable role, both in ensuring financial propriety, and in providing feedback between recipients and the Commission.

20. We do not believe that the Commission should conduct ex post evaluations of whether individual projects or studies assisted by TEN-T intervention have been cost effective. This would be an expensive procedure, and would yield little information about the specific contribution to EU economic and social welfare of the money paid through the TEN-T budget line. In any case, the information which the Commission keeps on file is much too limited to form a basis for evaluations of this type. However, we do see an important role for summative evaluation at a strategic level, and make a number of detailed specific recommendations regarding this in the report.

21. The administration and effectiveness of the TEN-T budget would be improved if its scope, including its coverage of modes were reduced. Information is not currently available to produce definitive conclusions about effectiveness by mode. However, we recommend that the programme should concentrate on a more narrowly defined network, and that the Commission should consider alternative methods of supporting traffic management. One of our strongest recommendations is that the total number of interventions should be reduced considerably, in agreement with Member States.

22. We recommend that the current support rate of 50 per cent for studies be continued. In addition, we recommend that DGVII look to ways to increase the dissemination of TEN-T study results more widely. It may be appropriate to do this in collaboration with the Research Branch of DGVII and, where environmental issues are involved, in collaboration with DGXI.

23. Member States nearly always prefer grants to interest rate subsidies, or guarantees, but there is some concern in DGII that the benefits of other forms of assistance are not fully appreciated. We see no reason, on present evidence, for measures to steer Member States towards interest rate subsidies or guarantees. On the other hand, their continued availability provides flexibility at little cost. The development of risk capital participation as an option, led by DGII, should be encouraged, even though it is unlikely to be used much, if at all, unless and until PPPs are more actively developed by Member States.

24. We support the encouragement within TEN-T of PPPs as a priority, but do not believe that DGVII should otherwise be expected to take a heavy leading role in promoting PPPs at this stage. An appropriate role might be the provision of rather simple guidance for firms and/or for national governments on the status, prospects and major issues raised by transport PPPs in Member States. The scope for any further activity could usefully be reviewed as part of a summative evaluation of TEN-T in a few years' time.

25. The Commission should publish, as part of its general guidance manual on the TEN-T programme, a clear indication of the types of additionality that may be provided by the TEN-T budget line. The present normal maximum of 10 per cent for projects should be raised in those circumstances where there is clear evidence of additionality.

26. Finally, the Commission should develop with Member States some key physical performance targets, including the completion of the fourteen Essen projects by a certain date, and a large reduction in the number of current interventions, and in the number of new interventions approved each year. We believe that the Commission should seek to agree targets with Member States for reduction in the numbers of interventions to be approved each year.

>REFERENCE A UN GRAPHIQUE>

>REFERENCE A UN GRAPHIQUE>

>REFERENCE A UN GRAPHIQUE>

In the Decision adopting a multiannual programme for action in the field of energy "Intelligent Energy - Europe" (2003-2006) the European Parliament and the Council [12] have agreed on the following statement, which is included in the Annex of the Decision:

[12] Decision (CE) 1230/2003 of 26.06.2003, OJ L 176 of 15.07.2003 p.39

"An additional contribution, reflecting the number, size and particular needs of new Member States, is to be anticipated from 2004 onwards as a result of the enlargement of the European Union. The Commission could propose that this contribution would be at least EUR 50 million."

In addition, several factors justify an upward revision of the programme budget in an enlarged Union.

Firstly, under current trends, the EU's objectives and fixed targets in the energy sector up to 2010 will not be met by the 10 future Member States. These relate in particular to the following objectives:

* to increase the share of renewable energy source in gross domestic consumption by 2010 according to EU-15 objective of 12%;

* to implement the national indicative targets of electricity from renewable energy sources contributing to the objective of 21% in an enlarged Union-25;

* to increase to 5,75% the share of biofuels in diesel and gasoline use for transport;

* to replace 20% of traditional fuels by alternative fuels in the road transport by 2020;

* to promote and increase the use of high-efficiency cogeneration;

* to reduce energy intensity.

It should be highlighted that candidate countries will not have transitional period for the transposition of newly adopted legislation in the field of renewable energy sources and energy efficiency. In addition, energy intensity should be improved in acceding countries (e.i. in terms of GDP in 2000 was of 170.0 in EU-15 compared to 501.2 in Acceding countries, so three times higher [13]). In that context, support measures in the framework of the Intelligent Energy - Europe programme are of paramount importance to help those countries to meet EU standards and justify the necessity of an increased budget in the framework of enlargement.

[13] Commission: Shared Analysis project - ratio growth energy consumption / GBP

Secondly, socio-economic development and growth in these countries need to go in hand with sustainable energy production and use, respectful of the environment and climate change. In particular, international commitments assumed individually and by the Union can be respected.

Thirdly, in these countries there is an enormous unrealised potential for renewable energy sources use, as well as for energy savings and diversification, in particular in the buildings and transport sector. For instance, in the buildings sector, potential economies at low cost can reach 60% in these countries. In fact, the participation of accession and candidate countries to the ALTENER and SAVE programme, which are now included in the new Intelligent Energy - Europe programme started in 1998. Since then they have accumulated experience and no starting up period is necessary for them full participation can start immediately. For instance, regarding the SAVE programme in 2001 and 2002 52% and 61% of selected proposals included Candidate countries.

Against this background, strong action in these countries is needed during the period immediately after accession. Community support in the framework of "Intelligent Energy - Europe" programme in these 10 new Member States will focus in particular on the implementation of medium and long term strategies, in order to:

* to create adequate structures and instruments at local and regional level for energy planning and management,

* to develop information, training and education structures,

* to promote know-how and technology and exchanges of experience with other EU countries,

* to increase recourse to renewables and to improve energy efficiency.

The annual budget increase in 2004 and 2005 as proposed will accommodate these new activities. In 2006 a further increase will be needed in order to ensure a proper monitoring and assessment of the impacts obtained and, especially, to guarantee the valorisation of the results that have been achieved EU-wide.

*****

Base légale :

Décision n° 1230/2003CE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 26 juin 2003 arrêtant un programme pluriannuel pour des actions dans le domaine de l'énergie :"Energie intelligente - Europe" (2003-2006) (JO L 176 du 15.7.2003, p. 29)

*****

Informations complémentaires:

* Exécution du programme-cadre énergie 1998/2002.

>REFERENCE A UN GRAPHIQUE>

* Evaluation

Source: fiche financière législative annexée à la proposition de décision.

Évaluation annuelle (année 2000) du programme-cadre Énergie 1998/2002

Conformément à l'article 5, paragraphe 1, de la décision du Conseil arrêtant le programme-cadre pluriannuel pour des actions dans le secteur de l'énergie (1998-2002), la Commission examine chaque année l'état de réalisation du programme-cadre et de ses programmes spécifiques. L'évaluation, effectuée par des experts indépendants en 2000, portait principalement sur l'efficacité et la transparence de chaque programme, la coordination interne à la Commission, ainsi que la cohérence entre les projets sélectionnés et les objectifs des programmes en 1998 et 1999. Dans leur rapport, les évaluateurs ont reconnu l'importance des programmes ALTENER, SAVE, SYNERGY et ETAP dans le cadre de la stratégie communautaire de réduction des émissions de CO2. Les analyses effectuées lors de cet exercice d'évaluation font toutefois apparaître quatre domaines principaux appelant certaines réorientations:

- d'abord, l'existence de "petits" programmes ayant des publics cibles très différents et des actions et des procédures indépendantes; or, ces programmes pourraient tout aussi bien constituer les lignes d'action d'un ou de deux programmes, ce qui permettrait des gains d'efficacité par la mise en commun des ressources humaines et par l'harmonisation des procédures de sélection, d'évaluation et de gestion;

- le manque d'adéquation entre les objectifs de certains programmes et les moyens alloués, en particulier aux programmes ALTENER et SAVE; il s'agit, à moyens constants, soit de restreindre les objectifs, soit de fournir les moyens financiers et de gestion nécessaires pour les atteindre;

- les méthodes et procédures de sélection, d'évaluation et de gestion doivent être modernisées;

- la promotion du programme-cadre et des programmes spécifiques et la diffusion de leurs résultats, très insuffisante et, en tout cas, non systématique ou inadéquate, constituent un élément crucial qui demande une réorientation.

Selon l'analyse des experts, pour accroître l'efficacité d'un futur programme au-delà de 2002, il ne devrait subsister qu'un seul programme à deux techniques: les énergies de substitution et les économies d'énergie. Viendraient en soutien horizontal à ces activités, des activités de diffusion des technologies dans l'Union et les pays tiers, ainsi que l'acquisition de services et d'études nécessaires à la gestion du programme. Le programme SURE devrait être rattaché aux activités dans le domaine de l'énergie nucléaire.

Évaluation à mi-parcours (2001) du programme-cadre Énergie 1998/2002

The Energy Framework Programme was the multiannual programme for energy covering the period 1998-2002 which was divided into 6 sub-programmes : 1) CARNOT (Clean and efficient use of solid fuels); 2) SURE (Safe transport of radioactive materials); 3) ALTENER (Promotion of renewable energy sources); 4) SAVE (Promotion of energy efficiency); 5) ETAP (Studies, analyses and forecasts in the energy sector); 6) SYNERGY (Promotion of international co-operation in the energy sector).

The mid term evaluation (regulatory requirement) has been launched at the end of 2001 and it has been used as input for the proposal of the new programme "Intelligent Energy for Europe".

The main findings of the evaluation of the Energy Framework Programme have been :

- Lack of synergies between programmes (except for the sub-programmes SAVE and ALTENER);

- Low visibility;

- Low attention to dissemination of project outputs;

- Lack of co-ordination in the management of the overall programme.

The Commission response has been the following:

The future programme (Intelligent Energy for Europe) has been structured following the recommendations of the evaluation report : only four sub-programmes (SAVE-energy efficiency, ALTENER-renewable energy, STEER-energy aspect of transport, and COOPENER-international co-operation) instead of six as in the old one, of which 35% and 40% of funds have been allocated respectively to "energy efficiency" (SAVE) and "renewable energy" (ALTENER), 16.2% to the "energy aspect of transport" (STEER) and 8.8% to the "international co-operation" (COOPENER) . The general objectives of the new programme are: security of supply; competitiveness and environmental protection.

The future programme should be concentrated on a reduced number of working areas in order to enhance the coherence amongst the different interventions, and so improve their impact and visibility.

The Commission will allocate a fraction of programme funding to the dissemination activities and impact assessment.

The unified future programme will bring a greater coherence and impact to the supported actions as well as a greater effectiveness and efficiency (on the management side too).

Les conclusions de ces évaluations ont été communiquées au Parlement européen, au Conseil, au Comité économique et social et au Comité des régions et prises en compte lors de la préparation du programme de travail.

* Un nouveau programme pour l'énergie: "Énergie Intelligente pour l'Europe"

Source: fiche financière législative annexée à la proposition de décision.

La stratégie de sécurité d'approvisionnement énergétique à moyen et long terme, ainsi que l'intégration de la stratégie communautaire pour le développement durable et la protection de l'environnement dans le domaine de l'énergie et dans les aspects énergétiques des transports requièrent une réorientation des programmes de soutien, afin de regrouper l'action communautaire dans un ensemble cohérent et efficace, tant du point de vue procédural qu'en termes d'objectifs.

Il convient d'agir avec intelligence, d'où le nom du programme ("Énergie intelligente pour l'Europe"), afin de préserver les ressources naturelles et de maintenir durablement le niveau de développement acquis dans notre société par une pratique énergétique responsable basée sur l'innovation technologique et sur la capacité des secteurs professionnels et économiques d'incorporer les meilleures pratiques énergétiques dans les délais les plus courts.

Dans le contexte actuel, il est important d'élargir et de renforcer certaines actions et de les inscrire dans un cadre unique. Le programme contribue à la sécurité de l'approvisionnement énergétique, à la compétitivité et à la stratégie de l'Union pour le développement durable. Il représente une valeur ajoutée renforcée par rapport à l'action isolée de chaque État membre.

La présente décision du Parlement européen et du Conseil concerne un programme pluriannuel pour des actions dans le domaine de l'énergie, le Programme «Énergie intelligente pour l'Europe», pour la période 2003-2006. Ce programme est conçu comme le principal instrument communautaire de support non technologique dans le domaine de l'énergie. Le programme donne continuité aux actions relevant des programmes ALTENER, SAVE et, en partie, SYNERGY et il regroupe toutes les actions dans les domaines énergétiques contribuant à l'accomplissement des principaux objectifs des stratégies communautaires pour l'énergie et le transport, en ce qui concerne les aspects énergétiques, et la stratégie de développement durable.

Le nouveau programme renforce les volets «énergies renouvelables» et «efficacité énergétique» et introduit un troisième et un quatrième volets concernant l'énergie dans les transports et la promotion au niveau international, notamment dans les pays en voie de développement, des sources d'énergie renouvelables et de l'efficacité énergétique. Il renforce aussi les activités de diffusion et de promotion des meilleures pratiques afin de préparer les acteurs de ce secteur, les entreprises et les citoyens, aux changements déjà amorcés, mais qui prendront toute leur ampleur dans le futur, et à induire un changement réel de leur comportement en matière énergétique par la sensibilisation, l'éducation et la promotion des investissements dans les nouvelles technologies.

Le programme est structuré en quatre domaines spécifiques: l'utilisation rationnelle de l'énergie et la maîtrise de la demande (SAVE), les énergies nouvelles et renouvelables (ALTENER), les aspects énergétiques des transports (STEER) et la promotion internationale dans les domaines des énergies renouvelables et l'efficacité énergétique (COOPENER). Six types d'actions sont prévus pour chacun des domaines, à savoir: a) la mise en oeuvre des stratégies, l'élaboration des normes, les études, etc.; b) la création des structures et des instruments financiers et de marché, y compris, la planification locale et régionale; c) la promotion des systèmes et des équipements pour faciliter la transition entre la démonstration et la commercialisation; d) le développement des structures d'information et d'éducation et la valorisation des résultats; e) le monitorage et f) l'évaluation de l'impact des actions. En outre, le programme est mis en oeuvre au moyen d'initiatives ciblées, dénommées «actions-clés», qui portent sur un ou plusieurs domaines d'action spécifiques.

*****

>REFERENCE A UN GRAPHIQUE>

Titre 7

ENVIRONNEMENT

Nom du programme:

Protection des forêts

Enveloppe totale EUR-15: 61 Millions EURO

Nouvelle enveloppe EUR-25: 65 Millions EURO

Base légale:

Proposition de règlement du Parlement européen et du Conseil concernant la surveillance des forêts et des interactions environnementales dans la communauté COM(2002)404 final.

Etat de la procédure: Le Conseil, le 6 novembre, a approuvé l'amendement proposé par le Parlement européen en deuxième lecture fixant à 61 millions EUR le montant de référence financière pour l'exécution du programme. La publication est en cours.

Ligne concernée: B4-303 07-03-01-01

>EMPLACEMENT TABLE>

A proposal for a European Parliament and Council Regulation concerning monitoring forests and environmental interactions in the Community (Forest Focus) was adopted by the Commission on 15th July 2002. This legislative process for this programme, which shall run from 1st January 2003 until 31st December 2008, is still ongoing and the adoption was 6 November 2003. The proposal for Forest Focus foresees an additional amount for the new Member States (Article 13 (2)). The increase of 4 millions EUR requested for the programming period 2004-2006 is to take into account in particular actions to be funded in the new countries under their national programmes (set up of the monitoring infrastructure, monitoring activities, studies and fire related activities) as well as the additional costs of co-ordination (additional work of the Scientific Co-ordination Body).

Exécution des exercices précédents en millions d'EURO:

Due to the fact that the legal basis was adopted in November, no execution was possible for the year 2003. A transfer from the reserve to the line is presented to the budgetary authorities in order to have the 2004 report following the financial regulation art.6 2b.

Informations complémentaires:

Voir document de travail: Tome I, page 198 à 201 et Tome II, pages 574 à 575

Titre 7

ENVIRONNEMENT

Nom du programme:

Soutien aux ONG qui travaillent dans le domaine de l'Environnement

Attention cette Base légale concerne également un volet externe sur la rubrique 4

Enveloppe totale EUR-15: 32 Millions Euro dont 27,38 Millions Euro en rubrique 3

Nouvelle enveloppe EUR-25: 34,3 Millions Euro dont 29,68 Millions Euro en rubrique 3

Base légale:

Décision N°466/2002/CE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 1er mars 2002 établissant un programme d'action communautaire pour la promotion des organisations non gouvernementales actives principalement dans le domaine de la protection de l'environnement (JO N°L75 du 16.03.2002).

Ligne concernée: B4-306 07-03-02

>EMPLACEMENT TABLE>

(1) Pour la rubrique 3

The legal base (Decision n°466/2002/EC of 1 March 2002) foresees a financial envelope of 32MEUR; the funding programme is due to expire on 31 December 2006. The part of the funding programme open to NGO's, primarily active in the field of environmental protection, in the Member States was initially foreseen to require 25MEUR. The part of the programme open to Associated countries, Cyprus, Malta, Turkey and Balkan countries (therefore under the external policy budget line) was foreseen to require 7MEUR. As from 2004, and following enlargement, a significant part of the funds foreseen under external policies will need to be transferred to the internal policies line. The modest increase requested which is over and above the initial envelope foreseen in the legal base is to cover additional proposals for funding expected to be received when the 10 accession countries become full members and as such fully active in and aware of EU policies.

Exécution des exercices précédents en millions d'EURO:

>EMPLACEMENT TABLE>

Informations complémentaires:

Voir document de travail: Tome I, page 198 à 201 et Tome II, pages 577 à 578

Titre 7

ENVIRONNEMENT

Nom du programme:

Life III L'instrument financier pour l'Environnement

Attention cette Base légale concerne également un volet externe sur la rubrique 4

Enveloppe totale EUR-15: 640 Millions EURO

Nouvelle enveloppe EUR-25: 649,9 Millions EURO

Base légale:

Règlement N°1655/2000 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 17 juillet 2000 concernant un instrument financier pour l'environnement (JO N°L192 du 28.07.2000)

Cet instrument se compose de 3 volets, chaque volet disposant d'une ligne budgétaire distincte:

Life NAT (47%) B4-3200 07-03-03

Life ENV (47%) B4-3201 07-03-04

Life pays tiers (6%) B7-811 07-02-02 (rubrique 4)

Bien que la base légale couvre l'ensemble des 3 volets, il faut signaler que les volets Nature et Environnement figurent à la rubrique 3 alors que le volet Life pays tiers figure à la rubrique 4. L'augmentation de 9,9 Millions EUR proposée ici, ne porte que sur la rubrique 3 (c'est-à-dire Life ENV pour 5 Millions et Life NAT pour 4,9 Millions), l'élargissement ne présentant qu'un impact marginal sur le volet extérieur.

>EMPLACEMENT TABLE>

Calcul de l'impact de l'élargissement:

La Direction générale de l'environnement dispose, déjà depuis quelques années, d'une certaine expérience quant à la situation des pays candidats par rapport à l'acquis communautaire en matière d'environnement.

D'une part à travers l'Agence européenne pour l'Environnement à Copenhague, qui a été il faut le signaler, la première agence à ouvrir ses travaux à l'ensemble des pays candidats.

Mais également dans le cadre de l'ouverture du programme Life à certains d'entre eux dès 1999. Ainsi depuis 1999 (Life II à l'époque) six pays participent à Life sur la base d'une contribution volontaire. Parmi ces six pays cinq d'entre eux rejoindront l'union en 2004. Le tableau ci-joint reprend les contributions de chaque pays pour chacun des deux volets concernés (base 2003).

>EMPLACEMENT TABLE>

Aussi afin de continuer d'assurer le volume actuel, il s'avère nécessaire d'augmenter le montant co-décidé du volet interne de life. L'équilibrage en fonction des PIB nous conduit au chiffre de 9,9 Millions.

Cette augmentation n'est pas linéairement proportionnelle au nombre des pays participant mais à leur PIB. C'est ainsi que la Pologne joue un rôle décisif vu son PIB élevé par rapport aux autres pays concernés.

Pour mémoire voici le PIB pour EUR 10 en 2004

>EMPLACEMENT TABLE>

Vous pouvez constatez que les 5 pays qui participent actuellement à LIFE parmi les 10 ne représentent que 33% du PIB EUR 10. Leur contribution actuelle de 3,2 Millions doit donc être triplée.

Les projets retenus pour un financement communautaire dans le cadre de Life font l'objet d'une sélection sur les mêmes critères d'évaluation que les projets soumis par les Etats membres.

Le nombre des projets sélectionnés, en augmentation régulière, démontre l'excellente qualité moyenne des propositions reçues. A titre d'exemple pour l'exercice 2003 sur le volet Life ENV, les projets sélectionnés en provenance des pays candidats représentent à eux seuls 5,067 Millions soit 7% du total de 69,470 Millions EUR disponible. Dès à présent le "retour" a largement dépassé les contributions négociées sur une base volontaire.

Dès 2004, cinq pays vont rejoindre l'union dont la Pologne qui par le nombre de ses habitants et sa longue frontière commune avec l'Allemagne disposera d'un intérêt économique particulier afin d'atteindre rapidement l'acquis communautaire dans le domaine de l'environnement.

Ainsi le montant de 9,9 Million (EUR 10) proposé est très raisonnable en restant nettement en dessous d'une extrapolation linéaire par rapport à la situation actuelle (6,29 Millions pour les deux volets pour 5 pays). Cette approche prudente est motivée par le fait qu'il s'agit de la dernière année de validité de la base légale. Il incombera aux instruments suivants, sur la base de l'impact effectivement constaté de l'élargissement d'adapter les montants en conséquence.

Base légale

Règlement N°1655/2000 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 17 juillet 2000 concernant un instrument financier pour l'environnement (J.O. L 192 du 28.07.2000)

Information complémentaire

Documents de travail ("Preliminary Draft General Budget of the European Commission for the financial Year 2004")

Part I - Activity Statement

07-03 Environmental Programs and Projects (pages 198 à 201)

Part II - Financial Statement and Human Resources

07-03-03 Life ENV et 07-03-04 Life NAT (pages 579 à 584)

Évaluation

Interim evaluation of the interim report on the implementation of the Financial Instrument for the Environment - LIFE III; current status: on-going

Titre 7

ENVIRONNEMENT

Nom du programme:

Développement urbain soutenable

Enveloppe totale EUR-15: 14 Millions EURO

Nouvelle enveloppe EUR-25: 14,8 Millions EURO

Base légale:

Decision N°1411/2001/CE du parlement européen et du Conseil du 27 juin 2001 favorisant le développement durable en milieu urbain.

Ligne concernée: B4-305 07-03-08

>EMPLACEMENT TABLE>

This programme expires at the end of 2004 although it is likely that a proposal for an extension of 2 years will be put forward by the Commission whilst the next steps for programme are developed. The increase of EUR 0.8 million in 2004 is requested to expand the work supported by programme in light of the importance of recent policy developments in this area. The Thematic Strategy on the Urban Environment is a priority action from the 6th Environment Action Programme and a key objective of DG Environment. The Strategy aims to create sustainable urban environments and make cities healthier places to live in. Projects funded by the programme in 2003 are directly linked to these objectives and support global initiatives such as Local Agenda 21. The programme supports networking between towns and cities and specific projects to improve the quality of life in urban areas.

The depth and extent of problems in towns and cities in the Accession States is greater than in the Member States. One likely focus of the 2004 call for proposals will be to raise standards in these towns and cities to those of the EU 15. The programme already supports projects in accession states but the additional EUR 0.8 million will allow a greater number of projects than envisaged. The Commission's policy objectives of achieving high quality urban environments and towns and cities that are healthy to live in will benefit accordingly.

Exécution des exercices précédents en millions d'EURO:

>EMPLACEMENT TABLE>

(1) Une ligne spécifique (B4-305) n'a été crée qu'en 2002 (auparavant utilisation pour partie de la ligne B4-3040). Ce taux de consommation faible en 2001 correspond au fait que sur les 3 projets sélectionnés l'un d'entre eux a du être annulé et le montant dégagé.

Informations complémentaires:

Voir document de travail: Tome I, page 198 à 201 et Tome II, pages 589 et 590

Titre 7

ENVIRONNEMENT

Nom du programme:

Programme de coopération dans le domaine de la Pollution marine

Enveloppe totale EUR-15: 7 Millions EURO

Nouvelle enveloppe EUR-25: 12.6 Millions EURO

Base légale:

Decision 2850/2000/EC sets up a Community framework in the field of accidental or deliberate Marine Pollution. The programme started on 1 January 2000 and will end on 31 December 2006. The financial framework for the implementation for the period is 7MEUR. The increase foreseen for the remaining period of the programme (2004-2006) is to take into account additional actions to be funded in the new countries (representing a significant increase in maritime Member-States) and to ensure their full participation to the work in this field

Ligne concernée: B4-307 07-03-09

>EMPLACEMENT TABLE>

Exécution des exercices précédants en millions d'EURO:

>EMPLACEMENT TABLE>

(1) Une ligne spécifique (B4-307) n'a été crée qu'en 2002 (auparavant utilisation pour partie de la ligne B4-3040)

Informations complémentaires:

Voir document de travail: Tome I, page 198 à 201 et Tome II, pages 591 et 592

>EMPLACEMENT TABLE>

>REFERENCE A UN GRAPHIQUE>

>REFERENCE A UN GRAPHIQUE>

>REFERENCE A UN GRAPHIQUE>

>REFERENCE A UN GRAPHIQUE>

>REFERENCE A UN GRAPHIQUE>

Titre 14: FISCALITE et UNION DOUANIERE

Nom du programme : Douanes 2007

Ligne budgétaire : 14.04.02 (B5-307)

Période d'application: 2003/2007

Enveloppe financière actuelle : 133 Mio EURO

>REFERENCE A UN GRAPHIQUE>

L'enveloppe financière actuelle comprend également un montant inscrit à la sous-section B7 (volet externe du programme).

An additional budget of 32,55 Mio EUR is requested for 2004 to 2007 to finance the participation of the 10 new Member States in the joint actions, other actions and IT actions of the programme, 23,55 Mio EUR in 2003-2006, 9 Mio EUR in 2007.

Adaptation de l'enveloppe financière proposée :

Enveloppe actuelle 2003-2007 (EUR 15) : 133,000 Mio EUR

Montant supplémentaire proposé 2004-2006 (EUR 10): 23,550 Mio EUR

Montant supplémentaire proposé 2007 (EUR 10): 9,000 Mio EUR

Nouvelle enveloppe 2003-2007 (EUR 25): 165,550 Mio EUR

A. Justification de la demande supplémentaire de crédits d'engagement pour 2004-2006

An additional budget of 23,55 Mio EUR is requested for 2004 to 2006 to finance the participation of the 10 new Member States in the joint actions, other actions and IT actions of the programme (4,95 Mio EUR in 2004, 9,4 Mio EUR in 2005 and 9,2 Mio EUR in 2006).

Crédits d'engagement pour EUR 10 2004-2006 en Mio EUR (à la 3e décimale)

>EMPLACEMENT TABLE>

* IT SYSTEMS

After the adhesion of 10 new members, the IT systems will need an additional budget of 2,46 Mio EUR in 2004, 6,91 Mio EUR in 2005 and 6,71 Mio EUR in 2006. These amounts are broken down as follows:

- 1,735 Mio EUR in 2004, 4,910 Mio EUR in 2005 and 4,510 Mio EUR in 2006 for the impact of enlargement on CCN/CSI to cover the post-adhesion needs in operational services, including upgrade and evolution of the infrastructure, preventive and evolutive maintenance, increase of the volume of support services and additional training for the new delegates.

- 0,725 MEUR in 2004, 2 Mio EUR in 2005 and 2,2 Mio EUR in 2006 for the impact of enlargement on Tariff applications to cover the post-adhesion needs in operational services, including namely upgrade and evolution of the infrastructure, preventive and evolutive maintenance, increase of the volume of support services and additional training for the new delegates.

Ces montants ont été calculés en tenant compte des taux d'accroissement respectifs des coûts liés à l'adhésion pour les applications dans le domaine tarifaire d'une part, du système CCN/CSI d'autre part :

- les équipements centraux dans le Centre de calcul à Luxembourg nécessitent plus de puissance pour permettre le fonctionnement des applications tarifaires ;

- les équipements nécessaires pour l'extension du réseau de télécommunication CCN/CSI (Common Customs Network/Common System Interface) devront être mis à niveau dans les locaux de toutes les administrations nationales concernées ;

- il y a également lieu de tenir compte des frais supplémentaires pour faire face à l'augmentation importante du flux de données dans le réseau de télécommunication CCN/CSI suite au déploiement du NSTI (Nouveau Système de Transit Informatisé) vers les nouveaux Etats membres.

No additional budget is requested after the adhesion for the IT applications on Transit (NCTS: New Computerised Transit System), E-customs and Enlargement.

The Customs 2007 (EUR 15) budget does not include any provision to finance the participation of the 10 new Member States in the Joint and Other Actions.

Ventilation des actions informatiques EUR 10 2004-2006

Crédits d'engagements en Mio EUR (à la 3e décimale)

>EMPLACEMENT TABLE>

La répartition des montants entre les composants Études, développement, maintenance, Gestion de services et Assurance de qualité est basée sur les pourcentages moyens constatés au cours des années précédentes.

Les éléments suivants pourraient avoir comme conséquence que la répartition réelle soit différente de celle prévue:

- le degré de maturation des projets (au fur et à mesure du cycle de vie des projets, leur volet opérationnel s'accroît au détriment des prestations de développement)

- l'organisation des services proposés en sous-traitance (l'évolution de la situation du marché après l'établissement du cahier des charges peut mener à des coûts différents de ceux estimés).

* JOINT ACTIONS

For Joint Actions an additional amount of 2,03 Mio EUR will be needed each year from 2004 to 2006. From a budgetary point of view, the different Joint Actions can be considered as different kinds of meetings. The costs involved are travel tickets and daily allowances. These costs will rise linearly when 10 new Member States join the EU. As a result the initial budget EUR 15 for joint actions needs to be increased with two thirds.

Ventilation des Actions communes EUR 10 2004-2006

Participation of 10 extra