Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament — Building our common future: Policy challenges and budgetary means of the enlarged Union 2007-2013’COM(2004) 101 final
Date: 2004-09-15
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: Community budget, accession to the European Union, budget estimate, budget policy, reform of the CAP, sustainable development

C 74/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.3.2005

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the
Commission to the Council and the European Parliament — Building our common future: Policy
challenges and budgetary means of the enlarged Union 2007-2013’

COM(2004) 101 final

(2005/C 74/07)

On 18 March 2004 the European Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social
Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned
communication.

The Section for Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion, which was responsible
for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 13 July 2004. The rapporteur
was Mr Dassis.

At its 411th plenary session of 15 and 16 September 2004 (meeting of 15 September), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 143 votes to 26 with 11 abstentions.

1. Scope of the opinion

Communication from the Commission: Third Report on
Economic and Social Cohesion (1).

1.1
On 1 May 2004 the European Union made a leap
towards realising the vision of the founders of the first Euro-
pean Community in 1952 – a vision shared by people who
had known wars, disasters and other misfortunes and had lived
in poverty and misery. The road to real European integration is
no longer so long. The Europe of 25 is a reality and the Europe
of 27 has already been decided upon.

The EESC does not, however,

1.5
limit itself to a critical
analysis of these two documents, but also addresses policy
issues and questions or dimensions not covered by them, in
spite of their considerable importance to building a common
European future and the financial functioning of the Union,
during the period in question.

1.1.1
However, this does not mean that the risk of a regres-
sion with unforeseen consequences has been removed. The
common European structure requires
supports. The best
support is for European citizens to be sure that they are an
integral part of that structure – to feel proud that they belong
to a large geographical entity which is democratic, safeguards
and guarantees peace and respect for human dignity, and aims
for prosperity for all. They should also be inspired by a
patriotic feeling towards Europe and proud to live there.

1.2
However, for all these things to happen it is necessary
for the European Union to consolidate the already existing
common policies and to proceed at a stable pace, through
the
democratic procedures,
and apply all
remaining common policies
to go beyond the
Economic and Monetary Union to become a social and political
entity.

to formulate
in order

1.3
The formulation and implementation of these policies
naturally entail some cost, which will need to be divided up
fairly in accordance with the financial capacity of each citizen
and of each country.

In response to a referral by the Commission, the EESC,
1.4
wishing to contribute to the debate on the drawing up of the
budget for the new 2007-2013 programming period, is issuing
the
the present opinion, which also takes

account of

1.6
Consequently, given the nature and membership of the
EESC, while taking the above documents – in particular the
Commission communication on the 2007-2013 financial
perspective – into account, we cannot limit ourselves to a
critical analysis of them, but must also address policy issues
and questions or dimensions not covered by the communica-
tion.

1.7
In other words, as well as giving its opinion (whether in
favour or against) on the various positions and proposals of the
European Commission, the EESC must help to develop the
discussion about Europe's future, drawing attention to other
relevant factors.

2. General review of the European Commission communi-

cation

In its Communication to the Council and the European
2.1
Parliament (2), the European Commission sets out its vision for
the European Union and its budget planning for the period
2007-2013.

2.2 With a view to reaping the full benefits of enlargement
and helping Europe prosper, three main priorities are proposed:
sustainable development, the interests of the European public
and strengthening the Union's role as a global partner.

(1) COM(2004) 107 final
(2) COM(2004) 101 final) of 10 February 2004

23.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 74/33

2.3 Sustainable development: growth, cohesion and employment

2.3.1
At the 2000 Lisbon European Council, the heads of
state and government agreed a programme with a view to
building a Europe which would become ‘the most competitive
and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable
of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and
greater social cohesion’.

2.4
The Commission feels that this process must be reinvi-
gorated and given credible and operational targets, both at
national and at EU level: promoting the competitiveness of
enterprises in the single market, improving research and devel-
opment, connecting Europe through networks, improving the
quality of education and training in the EU, further strength-
ening the social policy agenda and helping society to anticipate
and manage social change.

The objectives of growth and competitiveness would
2.5
also be the main priorities of the next generation of regional
and cohesion policies, with particular emphasis on aid for
regions whose development is lagging behind. Growth and
cohesion must complement each other even more than they
did in the past.

In the future, cohesion policy must

2.6
systematically
address the problem of lack of competitiveness so that more of
the Union's regions can contribute to growth and employment.

The Commission's proposals also explicitly notes the
2.7
Council's decisions of 2003 to reform the Common Agri-
cultural Policy and to set agricultural spending for market
measures and direct payments until 2013. The reform will radi-
cally shift the focus of the EU's agricultural policy to sustainable
development by decoupling aid from production. The future
rural development policy,
reorganised to form a single
instrument, will help to increase competitiveness in agriculture
and enhance the environment and the diversity of the country-
side. Additional funds will be released by the partial transfer of
amounts from direct payments to farmers in order to reinforce
rural development programmes.

The new, reformed common fisheries policy will
2.8
continue to focus on sustainable exploitation of resources.
Environment policy is there to respond to the European
public's expectations of a better standard of living and interge-
nerational solidarity, to meet international commitments and to
promote efficiency and competitiveness.

2.9 Citizenship

2.9.1
Since the Amsterdam Treaty, responsibility for most
of the policies in the field of freedom, security and justice has
been transferred to the Community. Today, everyone recognises
that the challenges posed by immigration, asylum, and the fight
against crime and terrorism can no longer be adequately met

by measures taken at national level only. The same holds true
for protection from natural disasters, health and environmental
crises, access to public services and consumer and health issues.

Improved instruments and adequate funding will help

2.10
make that possible.

2.11 The European Union in the world

The enlarged Union must play a greater role, both as
2.11.1
a regional leader and a global partner. To meet these expecta-
tions,
the EU must become a politically responsible actor
capable of punching its weight.

2.12
The Union needs to play its full role in global political
governance and strategic security. This includes protection
against threats, ensuring civil security and protecting the Euro-
pean public against risks.

2.13 Financial requirements

2.13.1
These objectives can be achieved for a Union of
27 Member States without increasing the current ceiling for
expenditure.

If the Union is to succeed in the challenge of building
2.14
it must be equipped with the
a credible political project,
resources to implement
that project. The Commission has
calculated an average spending level of 1.14 % for the period
in question. There will be a significant shift in the balance of
the EU budget to support the new priorities. Expenditure levels
will increase initially due to the effect of enlargement but will,
at the end of the period, be close to the initial level. Payments
will lie below the current ceiling of 1.24 % of GDP.

2.15
The Commission proposes that, for the future, an EU-
wide correction mechanism should be considered, establishing
a transparent, objective method for correcting a budgetary
burden deemed excessive in relation to a country's relative
prosperity.

In the course of 2004, the Commission will draw up
2.16
appropriate legislative proposals and a specific plan designed to
achieve the objectives.

3. Comments of the EESC on the Commission's document

and proposals

The EESC generally endorses the European Commission
the communication as a

3.1
communication. More specifically,
whole can be considered:

— to be cohesive, in that the different sections are logically
connected and present a uniform whole, without contradic-
tions, inconsistencies or omissions;

C 74/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.3.2005

— to have a solid, farsighted political premise: the political
foundation is developed broadly, comprehensively and with
foresight, on the basis of objectives that warrant the pursuit
of a shared future;

— to provide clear and consistent practical policy priorities
and choices: it proposes lines of action and the implementa-
tion of measures which follow logically from the policy
objectives laid down;

— to be balanced: while accepting certain compromises or re-
weighting certain factors or structures, the communication
endeavours to adapt available financial resources to the
needs arising from the pursuit of the political objectives,
based on concrete political practice.

3.2
The EESC considers certain decisions and positions
expressed in the communication to be valuable (or very valu-
able) and supports them, namely:

3.2.1
The concept and definition of sustainable development
and the correlation of economic, social and environmental
factors.

3.2.1.1
notes that sustainable development
encompassing:

Agreeing with the Commission's position, the EESC
is a complex concept

— protection of the Union's natural resources (environmental

aspect);

— creating a climate favourable to:

1) promoting
aspect);

competitiveness

(economic-quantitative

2) promoting solidarity (social-qualitative aspect) paying
special attention to citizens who run the risk of social
exclusion, and ensuring more prosperity and security for
all European citizens.

Thus

3.2.1.2
sustainable development
includes not just quantitative (economic) but also qualitative
(social and environmental) factors.

concept of

the

3.2.1.3
The EESC criticises the confusion which occurs in
other texts between the concepts of sustainable economic
growth and sustainable development. In its opinion on ‘Asses-
sing the EU sustainable development strategy’ (1),
the EESC
notes that the financial perspectives could constitute an oppor-
tunity to give a decisive boost to sustainable development. The
EESC also notes that it is not enough merely to continue the
application of the various policies which have turned out to be
problematic for sustainable development and to include them
in future under a budget heading for ‘sustainable growth’. The
EESC would add that economic growth and sustainable devel-
opment are two different concepts which can sometimes come
into conflict.

3.2.1.4
The EESC reiterates its view that, to achieve sustain-
able development, there is an urgent need to devote to it
greater financial resources than those currently allocated and
those foreseen in the financial perspectives for 2007-2013.
Moreover, since the financial resources are insufficient and the
environment constitutes a collective public good which trans-
cends frontiers, as well as a substantial aspect of the strategy
for sustainable development, the EESC wonders to what extent
it would be advisable to separate the relevant investments in
this sector from the calculation of the budget deficit which is
envisaged under the terms of the Stability and Growth Pact (2).

sustainable

development. However,

3.2.1.5
Europe can play an important role in the globalised
economy and can influence developments in the direction of
more
financial
resources envisaged for this are insufficient. The European
Union must speak with a single voice. The Member States,
however large or important
they are, can barely influence
developments at global level. It is urgently necessary for them
to coordinate their efforts with the aim of pursuing common
goals as the European Union.

the

The economic efficacy of social cohesion depends on
3.2.2
a clear understanding that in addition to its social function and
role in reducing disparities, the cohesion process also entails
quantitative improvements in aspects of the economic dimen-
sion.

3.3
The whole plan for pursuing and achieving the overall
political project is based on the key concept of sustainable
development, as defined within the complex framework of its
economic, social and environmental aspects.

In conjunction with the relevant analyses of the Third
3.4
Report on Economic and Social Cohesion,
the European
Commission also raises the issue of how the organisation and
process of promoting interregional cooperation must be
addressed and discussed.

3.4.1
It is proposed that the additional programmes of the
CSFs be abolished, as well as the CSFs themselves as manage-
ment tools, replacing them with an equivalent strategic instru-
ment for promoting cohesion that is equitable at Community
level.

3.4.2
In addition, since the practice followed to date, with
the 60-70 priorities of the old provisions, has been seen to be
ineffective, it is proposed that 3-4 specific priorities be set for
each country, but with the common priority of improving
governance. Moreover, in order to take more account of the
particularities of the member countries, the European Union
could adopt more flexible and decentralised forms of adminis-
tration, always requiring full transparency and rigour.

(1) CESE 661/2004 of 28 April 2004

(2) EESC Opinion on Budgetary policy and type of investment, OJ C

110, 30.4.2004, p. 111

23.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 74/35

to adapt
the method of monitoring
3.4.3
The proposal
is particularly significant: rather than
financial management
monitoring being carried out project-by-project,
it would be
based on prior signing of a ‘confidence pact’ setting out the
management rules.
In this sense the monitoring procedure
should take place within a single framework and should be
acceptable to all institutions concerned.

3.4.4
Furthermore, the EESC expresses its concern at the
widening gulf between credits and payments. At the end of the
2007-2013 programming period, it is estimated that the gap
will reach €188 billion, the equivalent of one year's budget.
The EESC therefore takes the view that the financial perspec-
tives need to be made more flexible. Allowing the possibility of
lengthening the period of payment of commitments undertaken
in the framework of the Structural Funds by one further year
(by changing the N+2 rule into an N+3 rule) would enable the
available funds to be used and exploited more calmly, free of
time pressure: this would turn out to be wiser and more effec-
tive.

3.5
The discussion must be underpinned by the realisation
that the Community budget and financial resources are directly
dependent on the degree of economic growth of the Member
States and the size of their national GDPs.

3.5.1
Therefore the Community budget, by also helping to
promote economic growth in the ten new Member States, will
pave the way for improving and broadening the base for calcu-
lating the EU's own resources. In effect, strengthening national
economies and increasing national GDPs will
improve the
Community budget by raising Member States' contributions
(percentage calculation on a broader basis).

3.5.2
It is also pointed out that incorporating the markets of
the new countries in the Single European Market guarantees an
improvement
the earlier 15
in the growth prospects of
Member States. Indeed, it would not be too difficult to assess
the extent of
those
15 countries can expect from the multiple effects of the growth
of the new countries and the incorporation of their markets in
the Single European Market. However, this expected additional
growth of the E-15 countries also entails additional allocations
from the Community budget.

the additional growth which each of

In addition,

the EESC considers that,

3.5.3
in order to
ensure that EU resources are distributed in such a way as to
meet the basic objective of convergence, priority must be given
to the needs of the new Member States, where most of the less
developed regions are located and where the process of integra-
tion has not yet been completed.

based on the gross Community revenue,
the estimation of
which must take account of employment hypotheses related to
economic growth, the exchange rate between the euro and the
dollar, the crude oil price, etc. Consequently, the existing uncer-
tainties influencing total
financial resources are many. The
EESC therefore recommends that the European Commission
work out alternative scenarios on the basis of pessimistic and
optimistic hypotheses in order to give the parameters within
which the annual budget figures for 2007-2013 will be found.

3.6
In the EESC's view, the question of how to reconcile the
economic cost of major political objectives with the available
(inadequate) economic resources can be resolved by deter-
mining to what extent the available resources suffice to achieve
the objectives.

3.7
A dilemma arises with regard to adjusting these factors:
either there will be pressure to dilute the political objectives
and the vision that they represent in line with the available
it will be necessary to try and
resources or, alternatively,
increase resources to an adequate level so that the ambitious
objectives remain intact. This dilemma may remain theoretical
if the available resources in practice are adequate.

3.8
Given that these objectives are considered necessary for
effectively building the future of Europe, any ‘watering down’
of them raises problems. In this sense it is not easy to accept,
nor can one fully understand, the Commission's attempt to
redefine the necessary balances, even if the dilution of its poli-
tical objectives is minimal.

4. Alternative options for the appropriations ceiling

4.1
The communication indicates that before reaching its
compromise proposal, the Commission considered three alter-
native ceilings for funding the Community budget, also taking
account of recent relevant developments.

4.2
Option one was to set the appropriations ceiling at 1 %
of GDP, which would also have reflected the stated preference
of certain Member States. The European Commission explicitly
states that this ceiling for the Community budget is quite inade-
quate.

4.3
Option two was to set the ceiling at 1.30 % of GDP. The
Commission considers that this ceiling, though still moderate,
would allow the European Union to better respond to the
needs involved in meeting all its political objectives.

3.5.4
The EESC takes the view that, going beyond the
ceiling of the European budget, special attention will need to
be given to the projections of that budget. Indeed, the budget is

4.4
Option three was to set the ceiling at 1.24 % of GDP,
which is the current financial framework. However, the Euro-
pean Commission notes that if the final choice is 1.24 % of
GDP, then shifts in EU spending will be required in order to
ensure that there is a margin for financing the new priorities.

C 74/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.3.2005

In the end, the Commission chose the third option,

4.5
which obviously means:

4.5.1
First, maintaining the current fiscal framework: this
raises the question of whether it will ultimately be possible to
manage and finance the new priorities with the appropriations
used until now to cover fewer priorities. It is pointed out that
the level of development of most of the ten (and in the future
twelve) new Member States is lagging significantly behind that
of the E-15 countries and that, as a result, effective financial
support to ensure the development of the new member coun-
tries will require the allocation of new resources on a consider-
able scale. The Commission text points out that ‘In the enlarged
Union, average GDP per capita will be more than 12 % lower
than in the Fifteen, while income disparities will double
overall.’

Second, corrections and adjustments to the Com-
4.5.2
munity budget:
these
this raises the question of whether
required corrections and adjustments will also result in a corre-
sponding ‘dilution’ of the political objectives set in the Commis-
sion's communication, which would undermine the basis for
building Europe's future.

4.5.3
Third, with the adoption and putting into effect of its
constitutional charter, the EU will acquire to a greater extent a
federal structure and operation, in terms of a reduction in addi-
tionality and greater support for common European policies,
and consequently for the necessary resources.

The EESC draws attention to specific references in the
4.5.4
Commission communication which demonstrate clearly the
probable financial shortfalls which could arise during the
2007-2013 programming period, thereby overturning the poli-
tical expectations and removing any chance of putting into
effect the proposed action plan described above.

Indeed, despite the conciliatory tone, moderation and
4.5.5
balanced logic which characterise the text, the Commission
does not fail to stress that ‘since enlargement will have an
asymmetric impact on the Community budget – increasing
expenditure more than revenues – even the simple preservation
financial effort’
implies an intensification of
of
(Introduction). This elegantly expressed comment does not
leave any room for doubts about the inability simply to main-
tain (let alone improve) the Community ‘acquis’ if the funding
is not increased.

the 'acquis'

between the demands on the Union and the resources at its
disposal has grown too wide’, and this is followed immediately
by the warning that ‘To saddle the Union with a set of goals
and then deny it the resources required would be to condemn
it to the justified criticism of citizens denied their legitimate
expectations’.

4.5.8
The EESC thinks it useful to point out the Commis-
sion's declaration that, if an agreement is not reached on the
objectives of the European plan, and if the necessary funds are
not provided, ‘all Member States stand to lose’.

4.5.9
The above must be considered in connection with the
fact that, because the European Development Fund will be
incorporated in the Community budget for the new 2007-
2013 programming period, in practice a Community budget
will not be maintained at the same level but reduced.

4.5.10
In the course of the new programming period, 2007-
2013, common European policies would be strengthened,
while the corresponding national policies would be limited.
This development is justified by the fact that the EU cannot be
transformed into a mere executive of national policies. The
common interest requires the formulation and implementation
of common European policies.

4.5.11
However, the improvement of added value cannot be
left to national policies. The Commission explains unequivo-
cally that effectiveness requires ‘large critical masses’ at supra-
national
it can therefore best be achieved
through common policies (page 4 of the English text).

level, and that

4.5.12
It is therefore a mistake to regard the question as a
simple matter of redistribution of resources between Member
States. On the contrary, it should be presented as a question of
optimalising the impact of European common policies, with a
view to further increasing the added value of the Community
funds made available for them (page 4 of the English text).

4.5.13 Moreover, in listing the positive points, the Commis-
sion points out the scope of Community measures and the
ensuing creation of a European added value for every euro paid
out from the EU budget.

4.5.14
following passages of the Commission text:

References of

this

type are also found in the

4.5.6
The Commission further reinforces this observation by
referring to a further widening of the gap between the EU's
political commitments and their practical implementation, and
to an undermining – through lack of political will and inade-
quacy of funds – of the EU's capacity to keep its promises in
many of the new priority sectors (Introduction).

4.5.7
Similar allusions are also made elsewhere in the
Communication. Thus, in Chapter II, it is stated that ‘the gap

— in the Introduction, where it is stated that ‘The goal must
be to maximise the efficiency of public spending and make
national and European efforts more than the sum of the
parts’;

— in Chapter I.A.1.e), where the operation of Community
policies is analysed, seeing them as a catalyst for the imple-
mentation by the Member States of the social policy agenda
which is an integral part of the Lisbon strategy;

23.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 74/37

— in Chapter I.A.2, which studies the added value of political

cohesion;

— in Chapter I.A.3, which notes the implications of
Common Agricultural Policy in terms of added value;

the

— in Chapter I.C, where it is stated that ‘coherent external rela-
tions can increase [the European Union's] influence far
beyond what Member States can achieve separately or even
along parallel lines of action’;

— in Chapter I.C.2, with the observation that the ‘leverage of
EU financial assistance and of trade bilateral preferences
would be considerably increased by such a unified presence
in the organs of multilateral economic governance such as
World Bank, IMF and UN economic agencies: in particular,
the value for each euro spent in this new context, would
rise substantially’;

— in Chapter I.C.3, which analyses the added value of the
assistance provided by the EU to third countries (compara-
tive advantage of a joint European approach to crises
outside its territory);

— in Chapter III.B, which examines the question of the added
value to be provided by the creation and operation of the
New Neighbourhood Instrument.

4.5.15
The EESC thinks it useful to point out that there is
no sense at aiming at ‘more Europe’ while providing smaller
resources for it. Moreover, the limitation of own resources to
1 % of GDP would lead in the end to cuts in the funding of the
structural policies and cohesion policies.
Indeed, given the
framework for funding the Common Agricultural Policy up to
2013, all the further cuts arising from the reduction in the
Community budget will aim at
the cohesion policy, with
dramatic effects in relation to the challenges and needs arising
from the enlargement of the EU. More than that, such a trend
would render any developmental initiative or incentive devoid
of content and value.

4.5.16
On the basis of these observations, the EESC takes
the view that it is necessary to overcome the Commission's
reservations and opt for increasing the own resources of the
for the new 2007-2013 programming
Community budget
period beyond the current budgetary framework,
to the
maximum level of 1.30 % of GDP, while ensuring in parallel
that the annual approximation to this ceiling does not vary too
much.

4.5.17
This viewpoint is further strengthened by the point
that in the case of countries which are net contributors to the
Community budget, part of
the resources made available
through the Structural Funds returns to the economy thanks to
exports. This question has already been studied in the 15-
member EU, and this is expected to operate in the same way in
the 25-member EU. As a result, a significant proportion of the
the 10 new
funds to be released for the development of

Member States will still come back to the countries which will
be net contributors to the Community budget (market in tech-
nological or electronic equipment, provision of special services,
transfer of know-how, etc.). This aspect cannot be ignored with
a view to the preparation of the new Community budget. The
Commission does not fail to refer in its Communication to this
specific question, pointing out that applying the rules of the
single market also to cohesion policy makes it possible to
obtain a measurable added value, through the increase in intra-
Community trade between the less developed Member States
and regions and the rest of the EU. The reason for this rise in
intra-Community trade is that ‘around one quarter of expendi-
ture under the programmes for these areas returns to the rest
of the Union in the form of increased exports’.

4.6
The EESC fully agrees with the Commission's comments
on the consequences of acquiring the status of European
citizen.
Indeed, the advantages attaching to it must not be
confined to market freedoms: in parallel with freedom, justice
and security, it is also necessary to ensure that citizens have
access to the basic public services. The Commission rightly
notes that the benefits of a Europe without frontiers must be
equally available and accessible. The Union ought to supple-
ment the Member States' efforts in this respect, but such action
involves a cost.

4.7
The EESC also shares the Commission's analysis that it is
necessary to have available not only funds but also resources
for exploiting them if Europe is to be able to play a leading
role (development aid, trade policy, external policy, security
policy, external aspects of other policies, etc. (see page 5 of the
English text).

4.7.1
Going beyond that, on the basis of the forecasts of the
draft constitutional charter of the European Union, the protec-
tion of European citizenship undertaken by the EU is not
merely a matter of its recognition, but creates a corresponding
legal responsibility through guaranteeing it, and consequently
commitments and obligations in terms of compensation (e.g. in
a case where a European citizen is the victim of terrorist action
or a natural disaster).

The EESC welcomes the progress on certain budget
4.8
headings. However, the relevance of the percentage changes
should not escape us. Indeed, for the chapter on citizenship,
freedom, security and justice, an increase of 162 % is envisaged
for the seven-year period 2007-2013, although this amounts
only to €2,239,000,000. For the same period, the expenditure
on agriculture will be reduced by 3 % (€1,442,000,000). At the
end of the period, the expenditure for these two chapters will
correspond to 2 % and 26 % of the budget respectively. As
regards the agricultural share of the budget, it should be borne
in mind that EU enlargement and reform of further Common
Market Organisations create new, substantial challenges for the
CAP.

C 74/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.3.2005

5. Specific comments

5.1
Neither the text of the communication, nor the third
report on economic and social cohesion, tackles a question the
management of which is likely to have repercussions on the
Community budget, namely that of
the free movement of
workers from the ten new Member States on the labour market
of the fifteen current Member States and the application of the
relevant transition period of two, five or seven years. In this
field, the main question is to what extent the employment
restrictions imposed on workers from the ten new countries in
the Fifteen will affect the scale of the expected economic and
social development of those countries.

DE, NL, AT, SE; 48.7 % of the GDP) and assuming their exclu-
sion from the financing of the correction, the burden would
have been shared between the ten other countries representing
48.9 % of the EU's GDP! The recent enlargement to include
countries with a lower standard of living would further worsen
this unfairness.

At all events,

5.5.2
if a generalised corrective mechanism
proved to be necessary, the EESC takes the view that correction
of
take account of expenditure
incurred as part of structural interventions, since they have an
explicit aim of redistribution.

the imbalances should not

The balance between the contribution of European
5.2
funds and the degree of adoption and promotion of
the
commitments already made by the 10 new Member States
could form the subject of a discussion.

5.3
An examination of the economic prospects for a specific
period requires separate consideration of own resources and
expenditure. The Commission Communication is set out on
these lines: in Chapter 4 it examines the new financial frame-
work, emphasising expenditure, while Chapter 5 contains
reflections on the funding system.

The EESC takes the view that, with a view to the
5.5.3
possible introduction of the generalised corrective mechanism,
the calculation of budgetary balances should be based solely on
operational expenditure, as suggested in Berlin as early as
1999. This would avoid the perverse effects linked to the char-
ging of the Union's administrative expenditure and expenditure
on Community policies to the country where these sums are
actually spent. It would also be more consistent with the ‘direct
budgeting’ method whereby (a) administrative expenditure is
linked to the operational expenditure which gives rise to it and
(b) the funds for administrative expenditure are broken down
among all the categories.

5.4
This opinion concentrates on examining expenditure,
because the EESC will return to the question of own resources
when the Commission has submitted a report on the subject to
the Council.

At this stage, however, the EESC thinks it useful for it to

5.5
give its views on the following two points:

— setting the level of any Community tax (which will be paid
directly by European citizens to support the resources of
the Community budget) is a positive and in any case inter-
esting proposal. However, it must be applied very carefully
to avoid any anti-European repercussions;

— it seems desirable to establish a new system of contribu-
tions with a fairer weighting. A simple study of the balance
of contributions as against profits shows that the operation
of
take
the Community contributions system does not
account of average income per head in each Member State
– a figure which is a good indicator of the wealth of the
citizens of the country concerned.

5.5.1
On the other hand, the EESC has serious reservations
as to the generalised corrective mechanism which would only
institutionalise the principle of ‘fair return’. It is an unaccep-
table form of solidarity between the less rich and the richer
countries.
the Commission attempted
simulations for the implications of such a mechanism.
It
emerged that in 1996, on the assumption that the generalised
corrective mechanism had been applied to five countries (UK,

In a 1998 report (1),

in the indirect

taxation sector,

5.6 Moreover,
the EESC
reiterates the proposal it made in its opinion on the widespread
introduction and interoperability of electronic road-toll systems
in the Community (2), for the creation of a European infrastruc-
ture and transport fund to be financed by levying one euro
cent per litre of fuel consumed by all vehicles.

The EESC agrees with the Commission proposal

5.7
to
synchronise the period of the financial budget with the period
of office of the European institutions (Parliament and Commis-
sion).

5.7.1
The EESC is pleased that the financial perspectives
have been included in the Constitution. This will give greater
stability to the EU's budgetary framework.

However, the EESC regrets that the European Council
5.7.2
has not managed to put into practice the progress made by the
European Convention whereby the financial perspectives would
have been adopted by a qualified majority in the medium term.
The European Council in fact preferred to retain the unanimity
rule, albeit allowing for the possibility of changing to a quali-
fied majority rule – provided that the decision to do so is taken
unanimously at the European Council! Indeed, the EESC fears
that retaining the unanimity rule may plunge the Union into a
serious constitutional crisis, or that the Union's political ambi-
tions may have to be scaled down.

(1) The funding of the European Union: Commission report on the

operation of the own resources system

(2) OJ C 32, 5.2.2004, p. 36, point 4.1

23.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 74/39

The EESC supports the proposal to make the European
5.8
Parliament
the main body responsible for the Community
budget in the sense that the Parliament would become respon-
sible for the whole (obligatory and non-obligatory parts) of the
budget.

5.9
The EESC also thinks it necessary to point out that,
despite the clear challenges created and the necessary initiatives
presupposed by the Lisbon Strategy, the Commission text does
not appear to propose specific measures likely to give rise to
economic development initiatives in the EU. The only specific
idea put forward in the text is the foundation of a special
(IV. The new financial framework:
‘growth adjustment fund’

C. Flexibility). However, the funds envisaged under this chapter
are regarded as completely inadequate. The application of the
Lisbon strategy was based on a framework of average annual
economic growth of 3 %, whereas the forecasts for the coming
years do not exceed 2.3 % for a 27-member EU. In addition,
the anaemic economic growth experienced by the EU since
2000 does not enable it to make up for this ‘economic growth
deficit’.

5.10
Thus it is necessary to revise these sums upwards in
order to meet the basic condition for promotion and success of
the Lisbon Strategy, which amounts to changing our system for
investment in training and research.

Brussels, 15 September 2004.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘The role of women's organisations
as non-state actors in implementing the Cotonou Agreement’

(2005/C 74/08)

At its plenary session of 17 July 2003, the European Economic and Social Committee decided, under Rule
29(2) of its Rules of Procedure, to draw up an opinion on ‘The role of women's organisations as non-state
actors in implementing the Cotonou Agreement’.

The Section for External Relations, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the
subject, adopted its opinion on 7 July 2004. The rapporteur was Ms Florio.

its 411th plenary session (meeting of 15 September 2004),

At
Committee adopted the following opinion by 115 votes to eight, with eight abstentions.

the European Economic and Social

1. Introduction

1.1
As part of the activities relating to the European Union's
policies towards developing regions, and in particular towards
the ACP countries,
the European Economic and Social
Committee has had the opportunity to monitor developments
in the EU's cooperation policy. These developments have
increasingly been towards a participatory approach, i.e. moving
towards involving and recognising the role of non-state actors
(NSAs) in defining and implementing those policies. Thus, insti-
tutions and NSAs play a complementary role in activities aimed
at enhancing the impact of development programmes.

The Cotonou Agreement is currently the only example of such
participation being put on institutional footing. It demands that
governments fully involve non-state actors in the various stages
of the national development strategy.

In view of those guidelines and of the fact that the
1.2
Committee has already set out
its position in a previous
opinion on the role of civil society in European development
policy (REX 097/2003), we feel it is important to look in more
depth at the subject of women's participation and their funda-
mental and specific contribution to the formulation and imple-
mentation of development policies in the ACP countries that
are covered by the Cotonou Agreements. We believe that it
would be useful to emphasise how valuable their role can be
and how it needs to be properly supported within the frame-
work of the Cotonou Agreements and indeed in all develop-
ment policies.

1.3 Moreover, as the EU body that represents organised civil
society,
the Committee has previously affirmed ‘the funda-
mental role played by women as leading players in develop-
ment, and emphasize[d] the need to promote their organiza-
tions and ensure that they participate fairly in advisory and
decision-making bodies.’ (Opinion on the Green Paper on rela-
tions between the European Union and the ACP countries on the eve
of the 21st century - challenges and options for a new partnership
(Rapporteur: Mr Malosse), EXT 152/1997).