EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT. Financial Perspective WORKING DOCUMENT N 21

Transcription

1 EUROPEAN PARLIAMT 2004 ««««««««««««2009 Temporary Committee on Policy Challenges and Budgetary Means of the enlarged Union Financial Perspective WORKING DOCUMT N 21 on the organisation of the Financial Perspective after 2006: timeframe, structure and flexibility Temporary Committee on Policy Challenges and Budgetary Means of the enlarged Union Rapporteur: Reimer Böge DT\ doc PE v01

2 INTRODUCTION 1. At this stage of the work achieved by the Temporary Committee after the analysis of the different headings and before the presentation of the resolution which, according to its mandate, should adopt the European Parliament's negotiating position, the rapporteur considers useful to make an analysis of some horizontal aspects such as the timeframe, the structure (including the treatment of the administrative expenditure and the agencies) and the different flexibility mechanisms. These horizontal elements are linked together (at least timeframe and flexibility) and will be part of the global package in the European Parliament's position, and maybe, key "variables" in the future negotiations with the Council. Part I: Timeframe of the Financial Perspective 2. The next Financial Perspective will be the fourth financial framework of the European Union. Over the past, the previous FP had different timeframes: : 5 years : 7 years : 7 years : 7 years (proposed by the Commission) 3. In its resolution on the reform of the budgetary procedure (Cobu's initiative report to the Convention) 1 the European Parliament stipulated the following: "the length of the period covered by the Financial perspective should correspond to the length of the mandate of the Parliament and the Commission, to ensure continuity in the decision; the Commission should present the proposal for the new Financial perspective within six months after its new mandate;" 4. In its communication of 10 February the Commission justifies its decision in favour of a seven-year period as follows: "The period covered by the financial framework must be long enough to provide a coherent coverage within reasonable budget limits, for the complete phasing in of reformed Community policies and for the successful integration of twelve new Member States. The Commission as well as the European Parliament have a five-year term. Future financial frameworks should become more consistent with this institutional rhythm. [...] However, the Commission proposes transitionally a seven-year period extending from 2007 to 2013 before moving to a normal five-year cycle. This would be necessary since the evolution of market-related expenditure and direct payments in agriculture (EU 25) has been set until 2013 and the current implementation of structural funds as well as some adjustments on the side of all institutions will take time to implement." 5. Article III-402 of the Constitutional Treaty contains the following provisions: "The multiannual framework shall be fixed for a period of at least five years." 1 A5-0046/2003 (Wynn report) 2 COM (2004) 101. PE v01 2/1 DT\ doc

3 6. In line with this observation, the former Parliament adopted the following position 1 : "13. Reiterates its will, as already expressed in its report to the European Convention and widely taken on board by the draft Constitution (Article III-308), to have a financial framework established for a period of at least 5 years; takes the view that, for reasons of democratic responsibility and accountability it is fitting that the timeframe be better adapted to the mandates of the Parliament and the Commission; 14. Considers that the Parliament is not bound by the decision taken by the European Council of October 2002 on agricultural spending until 2013 and sees no reason to accept a 7 year period for the new financial perspective as a result of this decision;" 7. In their answers to paragraph 32 of Working document n 2, the political groups give a clear signal in favour of a five-year period with the same justification. In their opinions for the Temporary Committee, AFCO and ECON are in favour of a five-year period to avoid binding a new Parliament and a new Commission by a decision on the next financial framework. 8. However, for technical reasons a strict correspondence with the mandates of the Parliament and the Commission is not workable. A period of 1½ to 2 years is necessary for the institutions to set up their political agenda when taking over their mandate (year n): the new Parliament and the new Commission adopt new Financial Perspectives for a 3½year period of their mandate and for 1½ years of the following mandates. 9. A five-year scenario including 1½ years of preparation would mean that the next Financial Perspective starting in 2007 should last until the end of the year This timeframe would allow the new Parliament, and the new Commission elected in 2009, to do the preparatory work for the next Financial Perspective ( ). The 2013 scenario is not justified and therefore not acceptable. The alternative would be 2015 and would imply that Council agrees on maximum flexibility linked to a longer period. 10. The rapporteur considers that the institutional and democratic reasons developed by the European Parliament and shared by the Commission and by the Member States in approving the Constitution, should be endorsed by the Temporary Committee. In his view, there is no legal obligation for the financial framework to match the timeframe of a specific decision, which covers only a part of the whole expenditure, but it would be more appropriate that legislation would have the same length as the financial framework. The rapporteur also points out that even if most of the programmes are terminating in 2006 with the end of the current Financial Perspective although there is no legal obligation, some run until 2008 or later. 11. If the Temporary Committee can endorse the rapporteur's views, the next Financial Perspective should start in 2007 and end in 2010 justified by reasons of political agenda, of democracy (matching the Commission's and the Parliament's terms) and finally for institutional reasons - entry into force foreseen in November 2006 of the Constitution which will occur during the next Financial Perspective. 1 P5_A(2004)0268, para. 13 and 14. DT\ doc 3/1 PE v01

4 Part II: Structure of the Financial Perspective The Structure 12. The Commission has reshaped the current Financial Perspective under a new structure whose main features are described below: - the substitution of the traditional classification of expenditure based on the legacy of the first Financial Perspective with eight headings, which become eleven when taking subheadings into account, by a thematic approach reflecting the Union's priorities for the next period and giving them more visibility for the citizens; - a ring-fencing of resources limited to market-related expenditure and direct payments under heading 2, which prefigurates the suppression of the distinction between compulsory and non compulsory expenditure foreseen in the Constitution but which reflects the decision of October 2002 as far as the amounts are concerned; - the suppression of the Commission's administrative expenditure from heading 5, which includes expenditure for institutions other than the Commission, pensions and European schools; - the Commission's administrative expenditure is linked to operational expenditure following the logic of activity-based management already in use for the establishment of annual budgets; - the suppression of current heading 6 "Reserves" whose two components emergency aid and loan guarantee reserves, are integrated under heading 4 European Union as a global partner; - the suppression of heading 7 Pre-accession strategy merged into one of the new instruments under heading 4 (PI); 13. At the request of the European Parliament, the Commission has provided a corresponding table which facilitates the comparison between the volume of expenditure allocated to the current programmes and foreseen under the new ones (see annex I and fiche n 14). However, the rapporteur notices that the comparison remains difficult for several reasons: - the contents of the new headings have changed drastically; - most of the terminating programmes are replaced by new financial instruments, which concentrate different activities (old ones and new ones) under a different name and different envelopes; - the different headings contain appropriations for 27 Member States; - the administrative expenditure linked to the programmes is aggregated with the operational expenditure; 14. The answers received from the political groups on paragraph 32, concerning the new thematic structure and the discussion on the different working documents indicate that the PE v01 4/1 DT\ doc

5 Commission's proposals are generally acceptable. 15. Nevertheless, the rapporteur wishes to draw the attention to the questions raised in working documents n 16, 17 and 18. They concern in particular Heading 3 Citizenship, Freedom, Security and Justice as regards its magnitude (with a cumulated amount of 24,7 billion over the period) which is far smaller than all the other operational headings and as regards its contents and objectives in relation to Heading 1a) Competitiveness for growth and employment. 16. As far as Culture (including Media) and Information are concerned, the argument is the obvious link of these policy areas with the Lisbon process. However, the rapporteur also notices that no specific request to modify the Commission's proposal is made by the Committee on Culture and Education. 17. Concerning Citizenship, the rapporteur asks whether a category, which represents only 2,3% of the global commitments over the period, is relevant and whether alternatives should be envisaged. The opinion by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs states the following: "is aware of the relative size of the proposed heading in comparison to other headings [...] underlines therefore the need for increased flexibility in case of unforeseen events". 18. As conclusion concerning the structure, the rapporteur considers that although the rationality of Heading 3 can still be questioned at a further stage of the negotiations, the Commission proposal for Heading 3 is acceptable. 19. His preference would be to concentrate on the degree and possible mechanisms of flexibility, including the Solidarity Instrument (1 billion per year) which the Commission last proposal includes under Heading 3. Administrative expenditure 20. The Commission 's proposal foresees to include the Commission administrative expenditure linked to the implementation of the programmes under the other four headings. Heading 5 (Administration) would only include administrative expenditure for institutions other than the Commission, pensions and European schools. The justification given by the Commission is to streamline the budgetary presentation of administrative expenditure to make it consistent with the ABB (Activity Based Budgeting) and ABM (Activity Based Management) approach. 21. Administrative expenditure, currently linked to operational expenditure, include all administrative expenditure from current Heading 5, the so called "mini budgets" under the Structural Funds and the former B A lines under internal policies and external actions. 22. The share of the administrative expenditure for the Commission will correspond to 47% of the current Heading 5 in 2006, even to 53% with pensions and European schools. These forecasts include the needs linked to the last enlargement (EU-10) and also those for Bulgaria and Romania. The total amount foreseen is 28,62 billion over the period. DT\ doc 5/1 PE v01

6 23. The new Heading 5 would therefore cover all the other institutions, including the European Parliament. The rapporteur wishes to point out that under such a proposal, the European Parliament's self-imposed ceiling of 20% of (current) heading 5 will have to be reviewed. 24. In their replies to paragraph 32 of Working document n 2, all the political groups have mentioned the need to maintain more transparency on the Commission's administrative expenditure. In the various working documents on the Council, most of the delegations were in favour of keeping more transparency and more political control over the Commission's administrative expenditure. Agencies 25. According to the principle of new governance linked to the Commission's administrative reform, the Commission will propose the creation of more and more types of agencies: decentralised agencies (5 in 1995, 20 in 2005) regulatory agencies, executive agencies (see annex II). The rapporteur has asked the Commission to provide the Temporary Committee with a multiannual programming of agencies over the period, but the Commission indicated that this was not possible. 26. Based on the number of existing agencies and the amount allocated to them in the 2005 Budget, the rapporteur considers that the cost of agencies should amount to 2,4 billion over the period This forecast is based on a 2% deflator and does not include any margin for new agencies. When one knows that the new agencies have had an increase of more than 50% of their budget during the first two years after their creation, the amount of 2,4 billion is likely underestimated. 27. Over the last budgetary procedures, the European Parliament has been particularly concerned about the constant growth of agencies, not as such, but in a global context. Therefore the rapporteur, after consulting the standing rapporteur for agencies of the Committee on Budgets, considers that a solution to ring-fence the agencies is necessary in the next multiannual framework in order to avoid that the development of agencies in future creates a limitation of the other programmes under the same policy area. In absence of clear indication on programming he is also in favour of having a non-allocated margin for new agencies. 28. Concerning administrative expenditure and agencies, the rapporteur wishes to present three options which could apply to both administrative expenditure and agencies. 29. Concerning administrative expenditure, the rapporteur wishes to present three options, all aimed at improving transparency and control of administrative expenditures. Option a) Transparency and control Commission administrative expenditures should be ringfenced to avoid absorption of operational expenditure. These expenditure should be treated, as in the past, in the same way as all other Institutions in Heading 5. PE v01 6/1 DT\ doc

7 - Option b) Transparency and control in the ABB approach Commission administrative expenditures should be ring-fenced with a subceiling within each heading of the Financial Perspective. Option c) Third option :Transparency and control in the ABB approach in a flexible way This option is a combination of the two previous ones: it would consist in having a supplementary global ceiling for Commission administrative expenditure, outside the financial perspective table, on the model of the xx chapter in the annual budget. This option will guarantee transparency, control and, at the same time, respect of the ABB approach. This approach will leave some flexibility to the Commission in micro-management. This ceiling can be increased only by a joint decision of the Budgetary Authority: with the eventual margin under heading 5; with all the other means offered by the IIA (i.e. revision or flexibility); Concerning the Agencies your Rapporteur considers that a similar approach expenditure can be followed for Agencies Option a) Option b) all the agencies should be grouped in heading 5 (or in a specific heading) a sub ceiling for agencies should be created in each heading Option c) a ceiling for the agencies, outside the financial perspective table; This ceiling can be increased only by a joint decision of the Budgetary Authority: with the eventual margin under the respective heading; with all the other means offered by the IIA (i.e. revision or flexibility); Part III: Flexibility mechanisms 30. Flexibility was introduced already in the first Interinstitutional Agreement of December 1988 (Delors I package) which for the first time introduced five headings, as opposed to the terms of the Treaty which foresee only two categories of expenditures (compulsory and non-compulsory expenditure). The increase of non-compulsory expenditure was subject to the mechanism of the maximum rate of increase (MRI) foreseen by article of the Treaty. 31. The revision of the Financial Perspective should respond to more permanent and structural needs. The current Financial Perspective was adjusted and revised in April 2004 to finance the enlargement to the ten new countries to finance unforeseen needs under heading 2, 3 and 4 and therefore also proved its relevance in a multiannual context. The attitude of Council to resist to any revision, in the spirit of the IIA has obliged the DT\ doc 7/1 PE v01

8 Institutions to abuse of the flexibility instrument. 32. The flexibility instrument, due to allow the financing of unforeseen needs, was created at EP s request despite Council's initial opposition and although it was not included in the Commission's initial proposal. However, over the past years, and especially during the current Financial Perspective ( ), the flexibility instrument has been mobilised six years out of seven. 33. Finally, during the same period, the Solidarity Instrument was set up to cover natural disasters (floods, droughts, forest fires etc ) with funding above the Financial Perspective. All in all, the current Financial Perspective agreed in 1999 was increased by 33 billion, of which 30,7 billion for revision. Characteristics of both instruments are that they are not foreseen under the ceilings of the Financial Perspective, but they are added when a co-decision of mobilisation is taken by the budgetary authority. 34. The Rapporteur considers flexibility as an indispensable tool of financial programming; the level of flexibility to be included in the future Financial Perspective is closely linked to a number of parameters: - the multiannual character of expenditure - the duration of the multiannual framework (longer period, more flexibility) - the number of categories and subcategories (more headings more rigidity then more flexibility). - the margins left available (less margin of foreseen legislation under each heading more flexibility) within the ceiling of the different headings of the Financial Perspective by the share of pre-determined amounts of legislation for annual actions and new initiatives (pilot projects, preparatory actions) the magnitude and frequency of unforeseen needs. 35. For the next Financial Perspective, the Commission proposes several instruments of flexibility which are described below : Over the period - Revision procedure: it aims to revise the expenditure ceilings in view to finance unforeseen events with a multiannual impact on the financial framework During the annual procedure - reallocation flexibility between headings 1 : it would replace the existing flexibility 1 According to the Commission, the Reallocation facility aims to correct the distortions experienced in the recurrent use of the existing flexibility instrument, whose original purposes was to allow the financing of clearly identified expenditure which could not be financed beneath the agreed ceilings. PE v01 8/1 DT\ doc

9 instrument and would allow the budgetary authority, on the basis of a Commission proposal, to re-allocate appropriations within certain limits between expenditure headings; - Growth Adjustment Fund within heading 1a) Competitiveness for growth and employment. Up to 1 billion per year could be made available to increase the policy areas identified as most effective to fulfill the defined priorities; in addition, unused appropriations from the two cohesion instruments: ERDF and ESF (European Solidarity Fund) as a result of the N+2 rule can be added to the Growth Adjustment Fund up to a maximum of 1 billion per year; Legislative flexibilities: 36. the Commission foresees the possibility to introduce some flexibility in the financial envelopes of the multiannual co-decided legislative programs (5%).This would allow within the annual budgetary procedure some marginal adjustments to the multiannual envelopes of legislative programmes. 37. The rapporteur welcomes the Commission s efforts to find means to finance unforeseen needs over the period. Flexibility has proved to be necessary over the last period, under different forms: flexibility instrument, adjustment, revision, European Solidarity Fund and use of the emergency reserve. 38. Having in mind the significant margin likely to be left beneath the ceiling of own resources, he believes that it would be unrealistic to decide on a multiannual framework with a duration of 5 or 7 years for a Union with 25 or 27 Members States without fixing appropriate means and procedures to overpass the ceilings when necessary. Under the next financial framework, the recourse to the different forms of flexibility to be defined should also avoid to create institutional tensions like in the past. 39. On the basis of the above considerations, the rapporteur makes the following proposals: concerning the principles : - flexibility should be part of the global package and as such, it should be a strong point of the European Parliament's negotiating position; - the magnitude and the instruments of flexibility should be closely linked to the decision on the overall figures and on the structure of the Financial Perspective; - the longer the timeframe of the FP, the more flexibility will be required; - the more sub-headings and sub-ceilings exist in the structure, the more flexibility will be required; concerning the mechanisms : The Rapporteur could propose the following: DT\ doc 9/1 PE v01

10 - to accept the Commission proposal for a revision procedure with a multiannual effect to cover lasting changes of the financial framework. In order to facilitate the revision procedures, the rapporteur proposes that this mechanism should be adopted with the same majority for the adoption of the budget (qualified majority in Council and Parliament); - to reject the Commission proposal for the reallocation flexibility between headings; - to propose a flexibility mechanism similar to the existing one to be used with an annual effect for unforeseen events, but with an initial amount of 500 million, to increase every year by 100 million; - to reject the Commission proposal to include the Solidarity Fund under the ceilings; - to propose not to change the current system for the Solidarity Fund which be maintained outside the ceilings with a maximum amount to mobilise only when deemed necessary; - to reject the Commission proposal on the Growth Adjustment Fund; - to reject the Commission proposal to include the Emergency Aid under the ceilings; - to propose the creation of an Emergency aid mechanism, but outside the ceiling to be funded, when deemed necessary with the Flexibility instruments with the same mechanism of the current Solidarity Fund. Other flexibilities: - to accept the legislative flexibility in the legislative acts but proposes an increase of this flexibility to 10 %, above or below the amounts fixed under codecision. - the rapporteur also proposes that in the calculation of the ceilings/sub-ceilings an increasing margin should be left with respect to the legislation programmed in each heading with a percentage to be defined and increasing every year (i.e. 2% in 2007, 3% 2008, 4% in 2009 etc.). Part IV: Aspects linked to the Constitution 40. Taking into account that the draft Constitution for Europe should enter into force at the end of 2006 if ratified by all Member States, the link between the changes flowing from the Constitution and the next multiannual financial framework commencing in 2007 is evident. In this context, the rapporteur believes it is of his responsibility to draw the Committee's attention to the fact that the Constitution will introduce provisions which increase the European Parliament's legislative prerogatives. Therefore, a way to anticipate the provisions of the Constitution leading to an increase of EP's powers, should be found. 41. The Constitution will allow for new legal basis for some existing policies, which will imply the increase of EP's powers through co-decision, or "ordinary legislative procedure", to use the words of the Constitution (in most of the cases, replacing simple PE v01 10/1 DT\ doc

11 consultation): i.e. the cases of external programmes such as PI, some sectors in the area of freedom, justice and security etc.. To this adds several totally new legal bases, i.e. in some new policies, such as space policy or tourism, in which Parliament also acquires codecision (see list annexed). 42. The problem concerns particularly the cases in which the legal basis will change with the Constitution. In these areas Parliament should not accept to foresee any amounts in the Financial Perspectives that would go beyond the entering into force of the Constitution without a guarantee from the Council that no legislative acts will be adopted (before the entering into force of the Constitution) without its opinion being fully taken into consideration. 43. Regarding the multiannual financial framework, the Constitution foresees that in the future it becomes a law of the Council, to which the EP must give its consent by the majority of its component members. At present, the Financial Perspectives are not even mentioned in the Treaties, and until now have been adopted through an Interinstitutional Agreement. It can be argued that article 198 of the EC Treaty only requires a simple majority. 44. Taking into consideration that the Constitution provides for the future European law establishing the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) to be approved by the Parliament by the majority of its Members and that the next Financial Perspective will go beyond the entering into force of the Constitution, the rapporteur proposes that the Parliament asks: - for a gentleman's agreement in the next Interinstitutional Agreement to anticipate all matters linked to the Constitution; - or for a revision clause in the IIA to be activated when the Constitution enters into force, in view to guarantee EP's new legislative and budgetary powers flowing from the Constitution. DT\ doc 11/1 PE v01

12 Annex I Million at 2004 prices OVERVIEW OF THE FINANCIAL FRAMEWORK INDICATIVE ESTIMATES FOR ADMINISTRATIVE EXPDITURE COMMITMT 2006 (a) Commission administrative expenditure 1. Sustainable growth 1a. Competitiveness for growth and employment b. Cohesion for growth and employment Preservation and management of natural resources Citizenship, freedom, security and justice The EU as a global partner Other support administrative expenditure (b) 360 Administrative expenditure - Total Administration (Other institutions, pensions and European schools) Total administrative expenditure (a) 2006 expenditure under the current financial perspective has been broken down according to the proposed new nomenclature for reference and to facilitate comparisons. (b) Includes so-called 'mini budgets' under heading 2 'structural actions', and former so-called 'BA lines' in heading 3 'internal policies' and heading 4 'external actions'. PE /1 DT\ doc

13 SOURCE OF FINANCING FOR EXISTING AND FUTURE AGCIES Heading Budget item Name of Agency/Body Location Indicative financial programming 2006 ( mn) Annex II Existing agencies/bodies included in the EU Budget 1 1a European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products London Subsidy to titles 1 and Subsidy to title Special contribution for orphan medicinal products a European Foundation for the improvement of living and working conditions Dublin Subsidy to titles 1 and Subsidy to title a European Agency for Safety and Health at work Bilbao Subsidy to titles 1 and Subsidy to title a European Aviation Safety Agency Köln Subsidy to titles 1 and Subsidy to title 3 5 1a European Maritime Safety Agency Lisbon Subsidy to titles 1 and Subsidy to title Antipollution vessels a European Railway Agency for Safety and Interoperability Lille Subsidy to titles 1 and 2 Valenciennes Subsidy to title a Galileo Supervisor Authority Subsidy to titles 1 and Subsidy to title a European Agency for Networks and Information Security Greece Subsidy to titles 1 and Subsidy to title 3 9 1a Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (self-financed) Alicante pm Subsidy to titles 1 and 2 pm Subsidy to title 3 pm 10 1a European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training Thessaloniki Subsidy to titles 1 and Subsidy to title Community Fisheries Control Agency Vigo Subsidy to titles 1 and Subsidy to title European Environment Agency Copenhagen Subsidy to titles 1 and Subsidy to title DT\ doc 13/1 PE v01

14 Heading Budget item Name of Agency/Body Location Indicative financial programming 2006 ( mn) Community Plant Variety Office (self-financed) Angers p.m European Centre for desease and control Sweden 14.3 Subsidy to titles 1 and Subsidy to title Food Safety Authority Parma 46.6 Subsidy to titles 1 and Subsidy to title European Agency for the management of operational cooperation 9.8 at the external borders Subsidy to titles 1 and Subsidy to title European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia/Fundamental rights agency (to replace EUMC) Vienna 8.8 Subsidy to titles 1 and Subsidy to title European Police College (CEPOL) UK 4.5 Subsidy to titles 1 and Subsidy to title Eurojust Den Hague 11.2 Subsidy to titles 1 and Subsidy to title European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction Lisbon 12.0 Subsidy to titles 1 and Subsidy to title Translation Centre for the bodies of the European Union Luxembourg Financed by charging translations made for agencies Sub-total including antipollution vessels and Special contribution for orphan medicinal products Sub-total of which: Sub-heading 1a Heading Heading PE v01 14/1 DT\ doc

15 Heading Budget item Name of Agency/Body Location Indicative financial programming 2006 ( mn) Other agencies/bodies not yet included in the EU Budget 22 3 EUROPOL: European Police Office 23 1a European Chemical Agency 24 1a Gender Equality Institute 25 3 European Migration Observatory 26 3 European Consumer Institute EXECUTIVE AGCIES (financed from appropriations of related programmes) Existing 27 1a Intelligent Agency executive agency Executive agency for health and consumer protection Executive agency for education and culture a/ Under consideration 30 1a T-T Executive Agency 31 1a Executive Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation programme 32 1a Executive Agency for Research 33 3 Executive Agency - Information Systems in Border Areas and Visas 34 4 Executive Agency for TAIEX Other existing agencies financed from related programme appropriations European Training Foundation Turin Of which: Phare contribution to the European Training Foundation European Agency for Reconstruction Thessaloniki Max. 8% of appropriations of operational expenditure in budget items (mandate expires end-2006) DT\ doc 15/1 PE v01

16 Financial Perspective Annex III Adjustment for enlargement and revision Amount - million prices April 2004 Adjustment for enlargement to 10 new Member States Total of commitments April 2004 Revision: Ceiling of heading Total of commitments Mobilisation of the flexibility instrument Amount - million- current prices 2000 Kosovo (R4) Serbia (R4) Fisheries ex-agreement w/morocco and border regions (heading 4) Fisheries ex-agreement w/morocco (heading 4) Irak (heading 4) 74 PDB + AL Irak (heading 4) + Agencies (heading 3) 140 Total 826 Mobilisation of the Solidarity Fund (above the financial perspective ceilings) Amount - million- current prices 2002 Austria 134 Czech Republic 129 France 21 Germany 444 Total Italy 47 Spain 9 Portugal 49 Total March 2004 France, Malta and Spain (Proposal from the Commission) 22 DT\ doc PE v01