FIU, Alm.del - 2009-10 - Bilag 124: Invitation til møde med de europæiske budgetudvalg den 1. juni 2010 i Bruxelles

MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTIONon the mandate for the trilogue on the 2011 draft budget(??? – C7-0000/2010 – 2010/2002(BUD))The European Parliament,– having regard to the draft budget for the financial year 2011 which the Commissionadopted on 27 April 2010,– having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the EuropeanParliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financialmanagement (IIA),– having regard to the Joint Declaration (adopted at conciliation in November 2009) onTransitional measures applicable to the budgetary procedure after the entry into force ofthe Lisbon Treaty,– having regard to article 314 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,– having regard to its resolution of 25 March 2010 on priorities for the 2011 budget –Section III – Commission,– having regard to the Council conclusions of 16 March 2010 on the budget guidelines for2011,– having regard to Chapter 7 of its Rules of Procedure,– having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets and the opinions of theCommittees on ... (A7-0000/2010)A. whereas the 2011 budgetary procedure is the first of is kind under the Lisbon Treaty andwhereas its single reading calls for increased cooperation and coordination with the otherbranch of the budgetary authority in order to reach an agreement during the conciliationprocedure on all expenditure,B. whereas the trilogue to be held in July should aim at clearing the ground before theCouncil adopts its position on the draft budget, in order to identify the points of agreementin advance,

(PA), leaving therefore a margin of EUR 1 224.4 million in CA and EUR 4 417.8 billionin PA; notes that these total amounts represent respectively 1.15% and 1.05% of the EU'sforecast GNI for 2011;2. Is concerned by the fact that the increase in CA is only 0.77% compared to the 2010budget as adopted, a difference which is out of step with the widely voiced expectations ofthe EU budget playing a crucial role in support of Europe's post-crisis economies; notesthat PA increases by 5.85 %, but recalls that the abnormally low level of PA in 2010provides the mathematical explanation for this increase; recalls that the multiannualfinancial framework (MFF) provides for ceilings of EUR 142 965 million for CA andEUR 134 280 million for PA, in current prices;3. Acknowledges the reduction of the discrepancy between CA and PA as compared with the2010 budget (EUR 12 429 million compared to EUR 18 535 million), which indicatesbetter implementation of the EU budget, but points out at the same time that the MFFprovides for a difference of only EUR 8 366 million between CA and PA for 2011;recalls, in that respect, that these discrepancies create deficits in the long run and shouldtherefore be avoided for the sake of budgetary sustainability and manageability;4. Points out that the bulk (70%) of the overall margin of EUR 1 2244 million in the DBstems from the margin under heading 2 on the preservation and management of naturalresources, and that the other headings – in particular headings 1a, 3b and 4 – have verylimited margins, thus proportionally reducing the capacity of the EU to react to policychanges and to unforeseen needs while maintaining its priorities;5. Recalls, in that respect, that a proposal for a substantial budget review is awaited, and thatthe difficulties encountered in previous budgetary procedures in reacting properly andsatisfactorily to various challenges that have arisen render a revision of the current MFFunavoidable;6. Draws attention to the large number of outstanding procedures with far-reachingbudgetary consequences that will need to be concluded by the two branches of thebudgetary authority in 2011 (budget review, setting up of the European External ActionService (EEAS), amending budgets, revision of the IIA, revision of the FinancialRegulation, etc.);7. Takes note of the priorities set out by the Commission (namely supporting the EUeconomy post-crisis and adapting to new requirements, i.e. implementation of the LisbonTreaty, new financial supervision authorities, financing of the Global Monitoring forEnvironment and Security (GMES) initiative, implementation of the StockholmProgramme, etc.) and questions whether the modest increase in CA compared to the 2010budget is enough to address them;8. Recalls that, as stated in its resolution of 25 March 2010 on priorities for the 2011 budget,youth is one of the key priorities for the 2011 budget, which should be promoted as an EUcross-cutting theme, developing synergies between different policy areas relating to youth,notably education, employment, entrepreneurship and health, while facilitating andencouraging young people's mobility and skills development; points out that 'youth'PE439.418v01-004/14PR\807667EN.doc

should be seen as a broad concept encompassing the ability of individuals to changepositions and status several times throughout their lives, switching without restrictionbetween settings such as apprenticeships, academic or professional environments andvocational training, and that, to this end, one of the objectives would be transition fromthe education system to the labour market;9. Deplores the fact that, in spite of an extremely high profile and a very highimplementation rate – reaching between 95-100% every year over the period 2007-2009 –the increase in appropriations proposed in the DB for the key youth instruments andprogrammes, such as Lifelong Learning, Youth in Action and Erasmus Mundus, is rathersymbolic; considers that this increase does not allow the EU to adequately address thispriority and therefore intends to provide further support for these programmes; recalls, inthis context, that these programmes have an indisputable European added value andgreatly contribute to the creation of a strong European civil society, despite the modestfinancial allocation that they receive;10. Calls for further clarification of the breakdown between operational and administrativeexpenditure, while acknowledging the efforts made as regards the presentation ofadministrative expenditure outside heading 5; notes that an already substantial amount ofwhat is, in reality, administrative expenditure, for instance that of EU agencies, is financedfrom operational appropriations;11. Is determined to tackle the negotiations on the budget for the financial year 2011 in aconstructive and open-minded manner, bearing in mind the goals of efficiency andEuropean added value; expects in return that the other branch of the budgetary authoritywill adopt a cooperative approach ensuring genuine political dialogue and will departfrom an 'accounting exercise' in which savings and contributions from Member States aregiven an excessively prominent place in the negotiations; recalls that the Treaty has notonly modified the legal framework for the budgetary procedure, but has also introduced anew method and new deadlines for negotiating and reaching compromises;12. Recalls its priorities as expressed in the above-mentioned resolution of 25 March;Heading 1a13. Notes an increase of 4.4% in CA (to EUR 13 437 million) and of 7% in PA (toEUR 11 035 million1), together with a margin of EUR 50.1 million (compared to EUR 37million in the financial programming), stemming from decreases in appropriations foradministrative and technical support expenditure (former 'BA lines') and for decentralisedand executive agencies, and from decreases in appropriations for a number ofprogrammes, such as Customs 2013 and CIP-Entrepreneurship and Innovation;14. Recalls that the new needs to be financed under this heading (Kozloduy decommissioningprogramme, European financial supervision authorities, ITER, and GMES, includingParliament's request for increased appropriations for its operational phase) were notprovided for when the current MFF was adopted; stresses that the financing of these needs1

should not be detrimental to the financing of other heading 1a programmes and actionswhich are crucial to the European post-crisis recovery effort;15. Recalls that the European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP) is partly financed under thisheading, as are a large number of multiannual programmes (CIP, FP7, TENs,Galileo/Egnos, Marco Polo II and the Progress programme) which will have reachedmaturity in 2011; reiterates, therefore, its request to the Commission to present the follow-up report on the implementation of the EERP, including measures entrusted to the EIB;16. Welcomes the increases in appropriations for the main programmes (FP7, 13.8%; CIP,4.4%; Lifelong Learning, 2.6%; TEN 16.8%), and stresses that these programmes provideessential leverage in the EU post-crisis economic strategy; takes note of the 78% decreasein CA for Galileo, as provided for in the financial programming, and welcomes the 22%increase in PA, indicating that, in the main, the programme is running smoothly; regretsthat the increase in appropriations for the Lifelong Learning programme, so crucial forParliament's priorities, is disappointing compared to other above-mentioned programmes;17. Stresses that heading 1a includes many EU2020 strategy flagship initiatives, such asInnovation Union, Youth on the Move, Resource-efficient Europe, New Skills and Jobs,and Industrial Policy for the Globalisation Era; deplores the fact that it is impossible toidentify clearly, from a budgetary point of view, the financial implications of the EU2020strategy and expresses its doubts regarding the capacity to ensure, in the context of thecurrent financial framework, adequate funding for these initiatives;18. Recalls that the priorities for 2011, with a view to the EU2020 strategy, will be financedmainly from this heading, and that the EU competences stemming from the entry intoforce of the Treaty are likely to have budgetary implications; emphasises that spacepolicy, seeking to promote European scientific, technological and environmental progressand industrial competitiveness, requires both the EU and the Member States to make a realfinancial effort within the context of the GMES;19. Welcomes the Commission's Youth on the Move initiative seeking to enhance theperformance and international attractiveness of Europe's higher education institutions andraise the overall standard of education and training in the EU; wishes to stress theimportance of ensuring sufficient funding for an ambitious policy in the area of educationand training, which plays a crucial role in the EU2020 strategy; stresses that the EU willbring all its resources to bear in meeting this ambitious challenge, which creates anunprecedented momentum for the development of a comprehensive EU youth policy;stresses, nevertheless, that the launch of such an over-arching flagship initiative coveringa number of distinct and well-established EU programmes in this area should not lowerthe profile of the individual programmes;20. Stresses that the budgetary resources made available in the future for instruments such asthe Lifelong Learning programme and cross-cutting skills, such as e-skills, internationalskills, entrepreneurial skills and multilingualism, reflect the European added value theydeliver;

21. Notes, for the first time, the inclusion of payment appropriations for the EuropeanGlobalisation Fund, and considers this an important element in the overall reflection onthe management and visibility of this fund;Heading 1b22. Notes that the 2011 DB provides for an increase of 3.2% in CA to a total of EUR 50 970million, EUR 39 891.5 million of which are for the Structural Funds (ERDF and ESF) –an amount similar to the 2010 figure – and EUR 11 078.6 million for the Cohesion Fund;23. Notes that this proposal is in line with the allocations set out in the MFF, taking intoaccount the technical adjustment to the financial framework for 20111(increase ofEUR 336 million), as provided for in point 17 of the IIA; understands in that respect themargin of EUR 16.9 million, stemming mostly from the technical assistance allocationand representing 0.03% of the heading;24. Welcomes the 16.9% increase in PA to EUR 42 541 million proposed for 2011, but isnevertheless concerned that payment needs have been estimated on the basis of thehistorical payment rates against the corresponding commitment tranches in the 2000-2006programming period, while programme implementation was much slower at the beginningof the 2007-2013 period and will therefore need to catch up strongly, particularly in 2011;25. Doubts that the adjustments made, notably through the allocation of delayed payments asa ratio of expected payments in future years, are fully appropriate to address all additionalpayment needs stemming notably from the following:--recent legislative changes, which notably aim at facilitating the management of EUfunding and accelerating investments;2011 will be the first full year when all Management and Control Systems will beapproved, which is a precondition for interim payments, which means that theimplementation of programmes will reach cruising speed, projects being alreadyselected for more than 93 billion or 27% of the total financial volume for the period, asper end of March 2010;the closure of the 2000-2006 programmes is expected to continue in 2011, therebyrequiring final payments to be made but also freeing up some resources to furtherspeed up implementation of 2007-2013 programmes;

27. Requests the Commission to keep on working closely with those Member States with alow absorption rate, in order to further improve the situation regarding absorption on theground;28. Asks to Commission also to continue its reflection on how to reshuffle the complexsystem of rules and requirements imposed by the Commission and/or Member States, inorder to focus more on achieving objectives and less on legality and regularity, withoutdeparting from the key principle of sound financial management; stresses that such areflection should also contribute to better drafting of the next programming period's basicregulation; recalls in this context the November 2009 Joint Declaration on simplificationand a more targeted use of structural and cohesion funds in the context of the economiccrisis;Heading 229. Recalls that one of the main changes introduced by the TFEU is the abolition of thedistinction between compulsory and non-compulsory expenditure, allowing, at last, thetwo branches of the budgetary authority to negotiate on a equal footing on annualappropriations and multiannual financial programming for an heading which accounts foralmost 42% of the overall draft budget for 2011;30. Stresses that, over the last few years, the budgetary authority has made use of this headingto reach global agreement on the annual budgets, through use of the margin orredeployment of appropriations for use in other programmes and actions;31. Notes that, despite the claim that appropriations remain stable, assigned revenue is downby more than 25 % in 2011, that market support is down by almost 22% (to EUR 3 491million), and that appropriations for veterinary and plant protection measures show a fallof 7.8%;32. Welcomes the increases in appropriations for decoupled direct aid (9,7%), the school fruitand vegetables scheme (up 50% to EUR 90 million), and school milk (5,3%), and noteswith satisfaction the constant decrease in export refunds since 2007 (to EUR 166 millionin the 2001 DB);33. Notes that climate action is a priority, as set out in the Europe 2020 strategy, and notes thechange in the heading of Title 07 to 'Environment and climate action'; takes note of theincrease in appropriations proposed for the implementation of EU policy and legislationon climate action and a new preparatory action on mainstreaming climate action andadaptation;34. Welcomes the increase in CA for LIFE+ to EUR 333.5 million (up by 8.7%) andwelcomes the sharp increase in PA (24,3%, to EUR 268.2 million) in line with improvedimplementation rates;35. Recalls that the Milk Fund adopted under the 2010 budget to mitigate the consequences ofthe dairy crisis was supposed to be a one-off action; asks the Commission to forward its

evaluation of this measure, together with proposals for a permanent approach andconcrete proposals for dealing with price volatility in this sector;Heading 3a36. Notes that the overall increase in the funds pertaining to this heading (+12.8%) appears togive practical effect to the ambitions in this area expressed in the Treaty of Lisbon and tothe Stockholm Programme;37. Takes note, in this respect, of the Commission's communication on an Action Plan toimplement the Stockholm Programme, and welcomes, in the field of immigration andsupport for the integration of immigrants, the proposed increase in CA for the ExternalBorders Fund (254 million, +22 %) and the European Return Fund (114 million, + 29 %);38. Acknowledges that the proposed decrease in appropriations for FRONTEX in 2011,despite its growing workload, stems from an updated evaluation of its unusedappropriations and annual surpluses;39. Deplores the fact that, pending the submission (scheduled for 2013) of the proposal for aregulation on EUROPOL, an EU agency financed under the EU budget since 2010, thevolume of appropriations for 2011 (EUR 82.9 million) remains almost unchanged ascompared to 2010 (EUR 79.7 million), despite the Stockholm Programme having calledfor EUROPOL to be strengthened;40. Notes that, despite the timetable for the development and entry into operation of theSchengen Information System II (SIS II) being uncertain, it is proposed that CA decreaseonly slightly from EUR 35 million to EUR 30 million, while payment appropriationsincrease from EUR 19.5 million to EUR 21 million; welcomes, nevertheless, the changewith respect to the financial programming for SIS II and VIS (as drawn up in January2010, when EUR 112 million were programmed), while the DB provides for onlyEUR 51.2 million; considers it necessary, given that the prospect of a migration to SIS IIis growing increasingly unlikely and a replacement option is currently being prepared, toplace part of these funds in the reserve, pending further analysis;Heading 3b41. Recalls that heading 3b covers issues of key concern to the citizens of Europe, such asyouth, educational and cultural programmes, public health, consumer protection, the civilprotection instrument and communication policy; notes, therefore, with great concern thatoverall appropriations are down for a second consecutive year, with CA being reduced by0.03% (to EUR 667.8 million) and PA by 3.1% (to EUR 638.9 million) as compared tothe 2010 budget, leaving a margin of EUR 15.2 million;42. Notes that the proposed increase for some programmes (Media 2007, Culture 2007, PublicHealth, etc.) has been made possible by the absence of CA for several pilot projects andpreparatory actions; deplores, therefore, the fact that the small margin will afford limitedroom for manoeuvre when taking decisions on stepping up the funding of prioritiesdirectly benefiting citizens and adopting proposals for projects and actions;PR\807667EN.doc9/14PE439.418v01-00

43. Reiterates that coordinated and multidisciplinary investment in youth must be startedwithout delay as a cross-policy theme, and that an increase in youth policy instrumentfunding should accordingly be proposed; deplores the lack of ambition shown by theCommission in failing properly to address this priority and confirms its intention to amendthe draft budget in order to provide appropriate funding for this priority;44. Recalls that encouraging and promoting cooperation in the field of youth and sports is apriority for the 2011 budget and stresses that financial support for special annual events isan important tool to this end; deplores the fact that no CA have been included in the draftbudget for 2011 (p.m. in CA and only EUR 2.9 million in PA), as against EUR 9.8 millionand EUR 10.25 million respectively in the 2010 budget;45. Welcomes the launch of the European Year on Volunteering in 2011, building on thepreparatory action introduced under the 2010 budget 2010, and recalls Parliament'sdecision to increase the overall allocation provided for in the relevant legislative act toEUR 8 million;Heading 446. Welcomes the proposed increase in appropriations for ENP South and ENP East, andmore specifically for the Eastern partnership dimension of the latter; takes good note ofthe proposed emptying of the budget line dedicated to the EU Baltic Sea Strategy, butdeplores that an equivalent amount is not dedicated to this strategy under ENP East;47. Is extremely worried by the proposed decrease of more than 32% in CA for financialassistance to Palestine, the peace process and UNRWA; considers that the Commission'sstatement on 'the exceptionally high allocations of previous years [that] cannot bemaintained without jeopardising the funding for other countries in the region' reinforcesthe urgent need for a substantial revision of financing capacities under heading 4, andshould not lead to a decrease in financial assistance which is vital for the Palestinianpeople, the Palestinian Authority, and UNRWA;48. Points out, in that respect, that even the use of the entire margin of heading 4 exclusivelyfor financial assistance to Palestine would not suffice to reach the 2010 level of CA(EUR 295 million in 2010, as compared to a hypothetical EUR 270 million in 2011)49. Takes note of the substantial increase in appropriations (13.2%) to cover the enlargementprocess, in which further progress is expected in 2011 (ongoing and potential negotiationswith Croatia, Iceland, FYROM, Turkey and Western Balkans);50. Considers the proposed increase for DCI to be appropriate, but deplores the misleadingpresentation by the Commission, which flags up an increase of EUR 65 million for theenvironment and sustainable management of natural resources as a follow-up to theCopenhagen Accord, whereas that increase is based on the financial programming and noton the 2010 budget (the 2011 DB in fact provides for a decrease of EUR 1.2 millionagainst this line, as compared to the 2010 budget);

51. Recalls its support for the principle of financial assistance for the main ACP bananasupplying countries, but reiterates its firm opposition to the financing of BananaAccompanying Measures via the use of the margin; recalls that the limited margin underthe heading does not allow the financing of such measures, which were not provided forwhen the MFF was adopted in 2006; is also firmly opposed to any redeployment fromexisting instruments within heading 4 that would jeopardise existing priorities;52. Welcomes the increase in appropriations for the CFSP to EUR 327.4 million (CA), asprovided for in the financial programming and in line with the ever more ambitious rolethe EU wishes to play in zones undergoing a stabilisation process or affected by conflicts;takes note of the emptying of the budget line for EU Special Representatives, as providedfor in connection with the setting up of the EEAS, and recalls that the specific provisionsregarding the CFSP in the IIA will have to be substantially rethought in the framework ofthe negotiations on a revised IIA and of the adoption of a proposal on the EEAS;53. Welcomes the setting up of a preparatory action on a European Voluntary HumanitarianAid Corps, stemming from the entry into force of the TFEU (Article 214), and in line withthe European year for Volunteering in 2011;Heading 554. Notes that total administrative expenditure for all institutions is estimated atEUR 8 266.6 million, i.e. an increase of 4.5%, leaving a margin of EUR 149 million;55. Stresses that the draft estimates of each institution, together with the amending budgetspresented in 2010, should take into account all the additional needs relating to the entryinto force of the Lisbon Treaty, notably as regards Parliament, the Council, the EuropeanEconomic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions; recalls in this contextthe Joint Declaration of November 2009 on heading 5, which called on the institutions tomake all possible efforts to finance the administrative needs related to their staff'sremuneration within the appropriations entered in their respective sections of the 2010budget;56. Takes note of the 2,9% increase in the Commission's share of the administrative budget;notes, however, that all costs associated with the functioning and the setting up of theEEAS are included at this stage; takes the view that any additional requests in this regardshould not impact negatively on the institutions' current activities; strongly emphasises,therefore, the need to arrive at an effective structure, with a clear definition ofresponsibilities, in order to avoid any overlapping of tasks and unnecessary(administrative) costs to be borne by the budget that could otherwise further worsen thefinancial situation under this heading;57. Agrees with the Commission's approach that the 3.7% salary adjustment proposed in2009, which could become fully payable should the Court of Justice rule in theCommission's favour, should be budgeted for as a matter of precaution; notes that, evenwhen taking this high level as the basis for the future, the projected salary adjustment forthe end of 2010 is still estimated at 2.2 %, in a context of economic and social crisis, and

then comes down to 1.3% for the end of 2011; asks the Commission to justify itscalculations;58. Acknowledges the Commission's efforts not to request any additional posts, but viewswith scepticism its commitment to meet all its needs, including those relating to newpriorities and to the entry into force of the TFEU, merely by means of internalredeployment of existing human resources;59. Is deeply concerned about the fact that, in general, the Commission's outsourcingtendencies, together with the conversion of posts into appropriations for contract agents,have led to a situation where an increasing number of staff employed by the EU areneither visible in the institutions' establishment plans as adopted by the budgetaryauthority nor paid under heading 5; is therefore of the opinion that changes inCommission staff numbers should be considered on the basis of not only establishmentplan posts but also other staff, including executive and decentralised agency staff wherethe tasks of those staff have been transferred from the Commission; considers, although itgenerates savings on pay, the conversion of establishment plan posts into external staff islikely to have an impact on the quality and independence of the European civil service;60. Welcomes the 13% decrease in the EPSO budget, which is linked to the lower level ofexpenditure on competitions resulting from the new system proposed in the EPSODevelopment Programme, provided that this decrease does not come at the expense of thequality, transparency, fairness and impartiality of EU selection procedures; expects solidguarantees from the Commission in this respect;61. Welcomes the Commission's achievement of its overall objectives in terms of recruitmentof new-Member-State nationals as well as its commitment to close and regular monitoringof EU-12 recruitment in order to ensure compliance with recruitment targets as well as abalanced representation of EU-2 and EU-10 nationals in each function group;62. Takes note of the increased expenditure on pensions and the European Schools, in theview of the generational change in the EU institutions resulting from the wave ofretirements of officials born in the 1950s and the recruitment of the new staff; expects theCommission to supply a more in-depth analysis of the long-term budgetary consequencesof this process;Pilot projects and preparatory actions63. Reiterates its serious concern over the Commission's recurring habit of not entering anyCA for almost all pilot projects and preparatory actions; notes the very selective approachfollowed for the inclusion of CA for an extremely limited number of pilot projects andpreparatory actions, and requests the Commission to explain the reasoning behind thedistinction made between different projects and actions;64. Recalls that, in accordance with point 46 (a) of the IIA, the Commission should providefor multiannual estimates and for margins being left under the authorised ceilings;

65. Stresses the importance of pilot projects and preparatory actions as key tools for theformulation of political priorities and for paving the way for new initiatives that mightturn into EU activities and programmes; confirms, therefore, already at this stage in theprocedure, that it is determined to use all the means at its disposal to ensure the adoptionof its proposals regarding pilot projects and preparatory actions for the 2011 budget;66. Recalls that the pilot projects and preparatory actions were adopted under the 2010 budgetaccounted for a total of EUR 103.25 million in CA across all headings; stresses that,should the budgetary authority adopt, for 2011, pilot projects and preparatory actions at asimilar level and with a similar breakdown among headings, 56% of the margin underheading 1a (and 33% of the margin under heading 1b, 59% under heading 3b, and 37%under heading 4) would already be used up, even though the total amount earmarked forthis purpose in the 2010 budget did not even reach the maximum amount permitted underthe IIA (EUR 103.25 million as against EUR 140 million);67. Intends to forward to the Commission, as provided for in Annex II, part D of the IIA, afirst provisional list of potential pilot projects and preparatory actions for the 2011 budget2011, in order for the Commission to contribute to Parliament's definition of a global andbalanced final package on this issue; stresses that this first provisional list does notpreclude the formal tabling and adoption of amendments concerning pilot projects andpreparatory actions during Parliament's reading of the budget;Agencies68. Welcomes the overall stabilisation of EU budget expenditure on decentralised agencies atEUR 679.2 million; notes that the budget increases proposed for the six new and threephasing-in agencies are offset by the Chemicals Agency becoming self-financing;69. Takes note that among the 258 new establishment plan posts for agencies, 231 will beallocated to new or starting-up agencies;70. Wonders why no assigned revenue at all is expected to stem from some agencies'surpluses, and invites the Commission to update the proposed contribution from the EUbudget in light of further information received, notably when agencies' final accounts areadopted; is at the same time concerned about the persistent surpluses of some agencies atyear-end, which shows poor budgetary and cash management and infringes the provisionsof the framework Financial Regulation;71. Takes note of the expected increase from EUR 86.5 million to EUR 226.2 million in theChemicals Agency's revenue; considers that, although this agency will not be EU-fundedany more, any surpluses should continue to be paid back into the EU budget;�� 72. Recalls, as far as procedural aspects of the conciliation committee are concerned, that theinstitutions involved are supposed to reach agreement at the trilogue scheduled for July;considers, as far as the mandate regarding the 2011 draft budget is concerned, all aspectsand points raised in this resolution to be of importance for this trilogue;