title: Ehdotus: Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston päätös päätösten N:o 1720/1999/EY, 253/2000/EY, 508/2000/EY, 1031/2000/EY, 1445/2000/EY, 163/2001/EY, 1411/2001/EY, 50/2002/EY, 466/2002/EY, 1145/2002/EY, 1513/2002/EY, 1786/2002/EY, 291/2003/EY ja [...]/2003/EY muuttamisesta rahoitusohjeiden mukauttamiseksi Euroopan unionin laajentumisen vuoksi {SEK(2003) 1432} # Ehdotus: Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston päätös neuvoston päätöksen 96/411/EY sekä päätösten N:o 276/1999/EY, 1719/1999/EY, 2850/2000/EY, 507/2001/EY, 2235/2002/EY, 2367/2002/EY, 253/2003/EY, 1230/2003/EY ja [...]/2003/EY muuttamisesta rahoitusohjeiden mukauttamiseksi Euroopan unionin laajentumisen vuoksi {SEK(2003) 1432} # Ehdotus: Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston asetus asetusten (EY) N:o 2236/95, (EY) N:o 1655/2000, (EY) N:o 1382/2003 ja (EY) N:o [...]/2003 muuttamisesta rahoitusohjeiden mukauttamiseksi Euroopan unionin laajentumisen vuoksi {SEK(2003) 1432}

text:
Tärkeä oikeudellinen huomautus

|

52003PC0777(01)

Ehdotus: Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston päätös päätösten N:o 1720/1999/EY, 253/2000/EY, 508/2000/EY, 1031/2000/EY, 1445/2000/EY, 163/2001/EY, 1411/2001/EY, 50/2002/EY, 466/2002/EY, 1145/2002/EY, 1513/2002/EY, 1786/2002/EY, 291/2003/EY ja [...]/2003/EY muuttamisesta rahoitusohjeiden mukauttamiseksi Euroopan unionin laajentumisen vuoksi {SEK(2003) 1432}  /* KOM/2003/0777 lopull. - COD 2003/0303 */

Ehdotus: EUROOPAN PARLAMENTIN JA NEUVOSTON PÄÄTÖS päätösten N:o 1720/1999/EY, 253/2000/EY, 508/2000/EY, 1031/2000/EY, 1445/2000/EY, 163/2001/EY, 1411/2001/EY, 50/2002/EY, 466/2002/EY, 1145/2002/EY, 1513/2002/EY, 1786/2002/EY, 291/2003/EY ja [...]/2003/EY muuttamisesta rahoitusohjeiden mukauttamiseksi Euroopan unionin laajentumisen vuoksi {SEK(2003) 1432}(komission esittämä)PERUSTELUT1. Mukauttaessaan vuosien 200022006 rahoitusnäkymiä Euroopan unionin laajentumisen huomioon ottamiseksi (10 uutta jäsenvaltiota liittyy EU:hun toukokuussa 2004) Euroopan parlamentti ja neuvosto sopivat seuraavasta julkilausumasta:   "[Euroopan parlamentti ja neuvosto] päättivät tarkistaa yhteispäätösmenettelyn mukaisesti (vuoden 2004 talousarviomenettelyn loppuun mennessä) yhteispäätösmenettelyssä vahvistettujen ohjelmien rahoitusohjetta niiden enimmäismäärien rajoissa, jotka johtuvat edellä mainituista rahoitusnäkyminen mukautuksista ja  tarkistamisesta".2. Tämän vuoksi on tarpeen mukauttaa kyseisten säädösten rahoitusohjeita, jotka koskevat rahoitusnäkymien otsakkeesta 3 (sisäiset politiikat) rahoitettuja yhteispäätösmenettelyssä vahvistettuja ohjelmia. Komissio ehdotti alustavan talousarvioesityksen yleisessä johdannossa (osassa 0) uusia määriä kyseisiksi rahoitusohjeiksi ja pyrki täten saamaan budjettivallan käyttäjän poliittisen hyväksynnän ennen vastaavien säädösehdotusten esittämistä.3. Euroopan parlamentti ja neuvosto sopivat 16 päivänä heinäkuuta 2003 pidetyssä neuvottelukokouksessa seuraavasta julkilausumasta, joka koskee rahoitusohjeita mukautettaessa noudatettavaa menettelyä:"Euroopan parlamentti ja neuvosto sopivat seuraavasta menettelystä sellaisten rahoitusohjeiden mukauttamiseksi, jotka sisältyvät yhteisön ohjelmien perussäädöksiin, kun ohjelmista on päätetty yhteispäätösmenettelyä noudattaen, edellä mainituista rahoitusnäkymien mukautuksista ja tarkistamisesta johtuvien enimmäismäärien rajoissa:    - Euroopan parlamentti ja neuvosto pyrkivät poliittiseen sopimukseen määristä, jotka tulisi lisätä laajentumisen vuoksi rahoitusohjeisiin viimeistään 24 päivänä marraskuuta.   - Sen jälkeen ne pyytävät komissiota esittämään aiheellisen säädösehdotuksen / aiheelliset säädösehdotukset.   - Euroopan parlamentti ja neuvosto pyrkivät hyväksymään säädöksen/säädökset yhteispäätösmenettelyllä, jotta mukautettuja määriä voitaisiin soveltaa liittymissopimuksen voimaantulosta lähtien."4. Neuvottelukokouksessa, joka pidettiin 24 päivänä marraskuuta 2003, sovittiin mukautetuista rahoitusohjeista sekä seuraavasta Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston yhteisestä julkilausumasta:"Viitaten 16 päivänä heinäkuuta 2003 annettuun yhteiseen julkilausumaan Euroopan parlamentti ja neuvosto ovat päässeet poliittiseen sopimukseen ohjeellisista rahoitusohjeista, jotka sisällytetään yhteispäätösmenettelyllä hyväksyttyjen yhteisön ohjelmien perussäädökseen laajentumisen vuoksi. Ne pyytävät komissiota esittämään viipymättä asianmukaisen säädösehdotuksen / asianmukaiset säädösehdotukset ja vahvistavat ryhtyvänsä kaikkiin tarvittaviin toimiin ottaakseen asianmukaisesti yhteispäätösmenettelyssä huomioon tähän lausuntoon liittyvät määrät, jotta niitä voitaisiin soveltaa liittymissopimuksen voimaantulosta lähtien.Euroopan parlamentti ja neuvosto muistuttavat vastaaville elimilleen, että lainsäädäntömenettelyssä tulisi noudattaa aina rahoitusnäkymien mukautusta ja tarkistusta laajentumisen vuoksi, sellaisena kuin ne on hyväksytty 9 päivänä huhtikuuta 2003, ja jättää riittävä marginaali tuleville ohjelmille, myös sellaisille, jotka eivät perustu yhteispäätösmenettelyyn.">TAULUKON PAIKKA>(miljoonaa euroa)>TAULUKON PAIKKA>>TAULUKON PAIKKA>5. Komissio vastaa täten Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston esittämään kehotukseen ja muuttaa kyseisten ohjelmien säädöksiä sisällyttäen niihin ainoastaan edellä mainitut rahoitusohjeet. Määrien sisällyttäminen säädöksiin nostaa esiin seuraavia huomioita:- Kuudetta tutkimuksen ja teknologisen kehittämisen puiteohjelmaa koskee kaksi päätöstä. Niistä toinen perustuu Euroopan yhteisön perustamissopimukseen ja toinen Euroopan atomienergiayhteisön perustamissopimukseen. Kahden perussäädöksen kesken on jaettu 1 735 miljoonan euron lisämäärä suhteessa niiden rahoitusohjeisiin. Päätöksen N:o 1513/2002/EY enimmäismäärään on lisätty 1 613 miljoonaa euroa ja 122 miljoonaa euroa on lisätty päätökseen 2002/668/Euratom sisältyvään rahoitusohjeeseen. Päätös N:o 1513/2002/EY on annettu yhteispäätösmenettelyä noudattaen, ja se kuuluu seuraavaan säädösehdotukseen. Päätöstä 2002/668/Euratom koskee erillinen ehdotus, jonka viitenumero on KOM(2003) 778. Kukin toimen osuutta sekä päätöksen N:o 1513/2002/EY enimmäismäärän ohjeellista jakautumista, jotka on esitetty liitteessä II, on myös päivitetty ottaen huomioon budjettivallan käyttäjän vuoden 2004 talousarviomenettelyn aikana tekemät päätökset.- Hallintoelinten välisiin tietojenvaihtoverkkoihin (HVT) liittyvää ohjelmaa koskee kaksi päätöstä, jotka on kummatkin tehty yhteispäätösmenettelyllä. Kahden perussäädöksen kesken on jaettu 1,5 miljoonan euron lisämäärä suhteutettuna niiden rahoitusohjeisiin, eli 0,7 miljoonaa euroa on lisätty päätöksen N:o 1720/1999/EY rahoitusohjeeseen ja 0,8 miljoonaa euroa päätöksen N:o 1719/1999/EY rahoitusohjeeseen.- Edellä olevassa taulukossa on eroteltu toisistaan Euroopan laajuiset energia- ja kuljetusverkot sekä Euroopan laajuiset televerkot. Kumpaakin kokonaisuutta koskee sama perussäädös, ja tämän vuoksi vastaavaa rahoitusohjetta on mukautettu kahden lisämäärän yhteismäärällä. Erottelu energia-, kuljetus- ja televerkkojen välillä tehdään vuotuisen talousarviomenettelyn puitteissa.6. Perustelut kuhunkin ohjelmaan ehdotetulle lisäykselle sisällytetään vastaaviin säädöksiin. Yksityiskohtainen esitys niistä on tämän ehdotuksen kanssa toimitetussa rahoitusselvityksessä.7. Koska tämä ehdotus perustuu talousarvioon ja ehdotetuista määristä on päästy poliittiseen sopimukseen, komissio suosittaa seuraavien kolmen säädösehdotusten käsittelemistä ja antamista yhdessä (kustakin säädöstyypistä, sui generis -päätöksestä, päätöksestä ja asetuksesta on esitetty yksi ehdotus). Se suosittaa myös ehdotuksen tarkastelun rajoittamista koskemaan ainoastaan tässä esitettyjä budjettinäkökohtia.2003/0303 (COD)Ehdotus: EUROOPAN PARLAMENTIN JA NEUVOSTON PÄÄTÖS päätösten N:o 1720/1999/EY, 253/2000/EY, 508/2000/EY, 1031/2000/EY, 1445/2000/EY, 163/2001/EY, 1411/2001/EY, 50/2002/EY, 466/2002/EY, 1145/2002/EY, 1513/2002/EY, 1786/2002/EY, 291/2003/EY ja [...]/2003/EY muuttamisesta rahoitusohjeiden mukauttamiseksi Euroopan unionin laajentumisen vuoksiEUROOPAN PARLAMENTTI JA EUROOPAN UNIONIN NEUVOSTO, jotkaottavat huomioon Euroopan yhteisön perustamissopimuksen ja erityisesti sen 129 artiklan, 137 artiklan 2 kohdan, 149 ja 150 artiklan, 151 artiklan 5 kohdan, 152, 153 ja 156 artiklan, 166 artiklan 1 kohdan, 175 artiklan 1 kohdan ja 285 artiklan,ottavat huomioon komission ehdotuksen [1],[1]  EUVL C [...], [...], s. [...].ottavat huomioon Euroopan talous- ja sosiaalikomitean lausunnon [2],[2]  EUVL C [...], [...], s. [...].ottavat huomioon alueiden komitean lausunnon [3],[3]  EUVL C [...], [...], s. [...].noudattavat perustamissopimuksen 251 artiklassa määrättyä menettelyä [4],[4]  EUVL C [...], [...], s. [...].sekä katsovat seuraavaa:Euroopan unionin laajentumisen vuoksi olisi mukautettava seuraavien Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston päätösten rahoitusohjetta tai enimmäismäärää vastaavasti:eräistä toimista ja toimenpiteistä hallintojen välisen telemaattisen tietojenvaihdon (HVT) Euroopan laajuisten verkkojen yhteentoimivuuden ja niihin pääsyn varmistamiseksi 12 päivänä heinäkuuta 1999 tehty päätös N:o 1720/1999/EY [5][5]  EYVL L 316, 20.11.2002, s. 1.yhteisön koulutusalan Sokrates-toimintaohjelman toisesta vaiheesta 24 päivänä tammikuuta 2000 tehty päätös N:o 253/2000/EY [6][6]  EYVL L 28, 3.2.2000, s. 1.Kulttuuri 2000 -ohjelman perustamisesta 14 päivänä helmikuuta 2000 tehty päätös N:o 508/2000/EY [7][7]  EYVL L 63, 10.3.2000, s. 1.yhteisön Nuoriso-toimintaohjelman perustamisesta 13 päivänä huhtikuuta 2000 tehty päätös N:o 1031/2000/EY [8][8]  EYVL L 117, 18.5.2000, s.1.pinta-ala- ja kaukokartoitustekniikan maataloustilastoihin soveltamisesta vuosina 199922003 22 päivänä toukokuuta 2000 tehty päätös N:o 1445/2000/EY [9][9]  EYVL L 163, 4.7.2000, s. 1. Päätöstä muutettu viimeksi päätöksellä N:o 2066/2003/EY (EUVL L 309, 26.11.2003, s. 9).Euroopan audiovisuaalisessa ohjelmatuotannossa toimivien ammattilaisten koulutusohjelman täytäntöönpanosta (Media-koulutus) (200122005) 19 päivänä tammikuu 2001 tehty päätös N:o 163/2001/EY [10][10]  EYVL L 26, 27.1.2001, s. 1.kaupunkien kestävää kehitystä edistävästä yhteisön yhteistyöjärjestelmästä 27 päivänä kesäkuuta 2001 tehty päätös N:o 1411/2001/EY [11][11]  EYVL L 191, 13.7.2001, s. 1.yhteisön toimintaohjelman perustamisesta sosiaalisen syrjäytymisen torjuntaa koskevan jäsenvaltioiden yhteistyön edistämiseksi 7 päivänä joulukuuta 2001 tehty päätös N:o 50/2002/EY [12][12]  EYVL L 10, 12.1.2002, s. 1.yhteisön toimintaohjelmasta sellaisten valtioista riippumattomien järjestöjen tukemiseksi, jotka toimivat ensisijaisesti ympäristönsuojelun alalla 1 päivänä maaliskuuta 2002 tehty päätös N:o 466/2002/EY [13][13]  EYVL L 75, 16.3.2002, s. 1.yhteisön edistämistoimista työllisyyden alalla 10 päivänä kesäkuuta 2002 tehty  päätös N:o 1145/2002/EY [14][14]  EYVL L 170, 29.6.2002, s. 1.eurooppalaisen tutkimusalueen toteuttamista ja innovointia tukevasta Euroopan yhteisön kuudennesta tutkimuksen, teknologian kehittämisen ja esittelyn puiteohjelmasta (200222006) 27 päivänä kesäkuuta 2002 tehty päätös N:o 1513/2002/EY [15]; mukautettua ohjetta tulee soveltaa EY:n perustamissopimuksen 166 artiklan 3 kohdan mukaisesti kaikkiin puiteohjelman toimiin[15]  EYVL L 232, 29.8.2002, s. 1.yhteisön kansanterveysalan toimintaohjelman (200322008) hyväksymisestä 23 päivänä syyskuuta 2002 tehty päätös N:o 1786/2002/EY [16][16]  EYVL L 271, 9.10.2002, s. 1.Euroopan liikuntakasvatuksen teemavuodesta 2004 6 päivänä helmikuuta 2003 tehty päätös N:o 291/2003/EY [17][17]  EUVL L 43, 18.2.2003, s. 1.kuluttajapolitiikkaa tukevien yhteisön toimien rahoitusta koskevista yleisistä puitteista vuosille 200422007 [...] tehty päätös N:o [...]/2003/EY [18],[18]  Ei vielä julkaistu Euroopan unionin virallisessa lehdessä.OVAT PÄÄTTÄNEET SEURAAVAA:1 artiklaKorvataan päätöksen N:o 1720/1999/EY 15 artikla seuraavasti:"15 artiklaRahoitus1. Rahoituspuitteet tämän päätöksen mukaisen yhteisön toiminnan toteuttamiseksi kaudella 200222004 ovat 34,9 miljoonaa euroa.2. Budjettivallan käyttäjä myöntää vuotuiset määrärahat rahoitusnäkymien rajoissa."2 artiklaKorvataan päätöksen N:o 253/2000/EY 10 artiklan 1 kohta seuraavasti:"Tämän ohjelman toteuttamiseen tarvittavat rahoituspuitteet 1 artiklassa tarkoitetulle kaudelle vahvistetaan 2 060 miljoonaksi euroksi."3 artiklaMuutetaan päätöksen N:o 508/2000/EY 3 artikla seuraavasti:1) Korvataan otsikko "Talousarvio" otsikolla "Rahoitus".2) Korvataan ensimmäinen alakohta seuraavasti:"Rahoituspuitteet Kulttuuri 2000 -ohjelman toteuttamiseksi 1 artiklassa tarkoitettuna kautena vahvistetaan 170,7 miljoonaksi euroksi."4 artiklaKorvataan päätöksen N:o 1031/2000/EY 9 artiklan 1 kohta seuraavasti:"Tämän ohjelman täytäntöönpanoon myönnetyt rahoituspuitteet 1 artiklassa tarkoitetulle kaudelle vahvistetaan 605 miljoonaksi euroksi."5 artiklaMuutetaan päätöksen N:o 1445/2000/EY 3 artiklan ensimmäinen alakohta seuraavasti:"Rahoituspuitteet tämän ohjelman toteuttamiseksi kaudeksi 200422007 vahvistetaan 14,75 miljoonaksi euroksi, josta 11 miljoonaa euroa on tarkoitettu 31 päivään joulukuuta 2006 jatkuvalle kaudelle.Ehdotettu määrä 1 päivästä tammikuuta 2007 alkavalle kaudelle katsotaan vahvistetuksi, jos se on kyseisen kauden osalta 1 päivästä tammikuuta 2007 alkavalla kaudella voimassa olevien rahoitusnäkymien mukainen."6 artiklaKorvataan päätöksen N:o 163/2001/EY 4 artiklan 5 kohta seuraavasti:"Tämän ohjelman täytäntöönpanon edellyttämät rahoituspuitteet 1 artiklassa tarkoitettuna kautena ovat 52 miljoonaa euroa."7 artiklaKorvataan päätöksen N:o 1411/2001/EY 6 artiklan 1 kohdan ensimmäinen alakohta seuraavasti:"Tämä yhteistyöjärjestelmä otetaan käyttöön 1 päivänä tammikuuta 2001, ja se lakkaa 31 päivänä joulukuuta 2004. Tämän yhteistyöjärjestelmän toteuttamisen rahoituspuitteet ovat 14,8 miljoonaa euroa vuosina 200122004"8 artiklaKorvataan päätöksen N:o 50/2002/EY 6 artiklan 1 kohta seuraavasti:"Rahoituspuitteet ohjelman toteuttamiseksi 1 artiklassa tarkoitetuksi ajanjaksoksi ovat 85,04 miljoonaa euroa tekniset ja hallinnolliset menot mukaan luettuina."9 artiklaKorvataan päätöksen N:o 466/2002/EY 7 artiklan 2 kohta seuraavasti:"Rahoituspuitteet tämän ohjelman täytäntöönpanemiseksi kaudella 200222006 ovat 34,3 miljoonaa euroa."10 artiklaKorvataan päätöksen N:o 1145/2002/EY 12 artiklan 1 kohta seuraavasti:"Rahoituspuitteet tässä päätöksessä tarkoitettujen yhteisön toimien toteuttamiseksi vahvistetaan 62,3 miljoonaksi euroksi 1 päivän tammikuuta 2002 ja 31 päivän joulukuuta 2006 väliseksi ajaksi."11 artiklaMuutetaan päätös N:o 1513/2002/EY seuraavasti:1) Korvataan 2 artiklan 1 kohta seuraavasti:"Koko kuudennelle puiteohjelmalle osoitettavan yhteisön rahoitusosuuden enimmäismäärä on 17 883 miljoonaa euroa. Kunkin toimen osuus vahvistetaan liitteessä II."2) Korvataan liite II tämän päätöksen liitteellä.12 artiklaKorvataan päätöksen N:o 1786/2002/EY 7 artiklan 1 kohdan ensimmäinen alakohta seuraavasti:"Rahoituspuitteet tämän ohjelman toteuttamiseksi 1 artiklassa mainituksi ajanjaksoksi ovat 353,77 miljoonaa euroa, josta 227,51 miljoonaa euroa on tarkoitettu 31 päivään joulukuuta 2006 jatkuvalle kaudelle.Ehdotettu määrä 1 päivästä tammikuuta 2007 alkavalle kaudelle katsotaan vahvistetuksi, jos se on kyseisen kauden osalta 1 päivästä tammikuuta 2007 alkavalla kaudella voimassa olevien rahoitusnäkymien mukainen."13 artiklaMuutetaan päätöksen N:o 291/2003/EY 10 artikla seuraavasti:1) Korvataan otsikko "Talousarvio" otsikolla "Rahoitus".2) Korvataan 1 kohta seuraavasti:"Rahoituspuitteet tämän päätöksen täytäntöönpanemiseksi ovat 12,1 miljoonaa euroa."14 artiklaKorvataan päätöksen N:o [...]/2003/EY 5 artiklan ensimmäinen alakohta seuraavasti:"Kokonaisrahoitus tämän ohjelman toteuttamiseen 1 artiklassa tarkoitettuna kautena vahvistetaan 81,8 miljoonaksi euroksi, josta 60,6 miljoonaa euroa on tarkoitettu 31 päivään joulukuuta 2006 jatkuvalle kaudelle.Ehdotettu määrä 1 päivästä tammikuuta 2007 alkavalle kaudelle katsotaan vahvistetuksi, jos se on kyseisen kauden osalta 1 päivästä tammikuuta 2007 alkavalla kaudella voimassa olevien rahoitusnäkymien mukainen."15 artiklaTämä päätös tulee voimaan päivänä, jona se julkaistaan Euroopan unionin virallisessa lehdessä.Tehty Brysselissä [...]Euroopan parlamentin puolesta Neuvoston puolestaPuhemies Puheenjohtaja[...]    [...]LIITE"LIITE IIRAHOITUKSEN SUURIN KOKONAISMÄÄRÄ, ERI TOIMIEN OSUUDET JA OHJEELLINEN JAKAUTUMINENYhteisön rahoituksen suurin kokonaismäärä ja perustamissopimuksen 164 artiklassa tarkoitettujen eri toimien ohjeelliset osuudet ovat seuraavat://  (milj. euroa)Ensimmäinen toimi (1)  //  15,174Toinen toimi (2)  //  658Kolmas toimi (3)  //  319Neljäs toimi (4)  //  1,732Suurin kokonaismäärä  //  17,883(1) Ensimmäinen toimi kattaa osioon "Yhteisön tutkimuksen kohdentaminen ja integrointi" liittyvät toimet lukuun ottamatta kansainvälistä yhteistyötä, osioon "Eurooppalaisen tutkimusalueen jäsentäminen" liittyvät tutkimusinfrastruktuureja koskevat ja aiheeseen "Tieteen ja yhteiskunnan väliset suhteet" liittyvät toimet sekä osioon "Eurooppalaisen tutkimusalueen perustan lujittaminen" liittyvät toimet.(2) Toinen toimi kattaa osioon "Yhteisön tutkimuksen kohdentaminen ja integrointi" liittyvän kansainvälisen yhteistyön ensisijaisilla aihealueilla ja osioon "Useita tutkimusaloja kattavat erityistoimet" liittyvän kansainvälisen yhteistyön(3) Kolmas toimi kattaa osion "Eurooppalaisen tutkimusalueen jäsentäminen" aiheeseen "Tutkimus ja innovointi" liittyvät erityistoimet ja täydentää osion "Yhteisön tutkimuksen kohdentaminen ja integrointi" yhteydessä toteutettuja innovointitoimia.(4) Neljäs toimi kattaa ne osioon "Eurooppalaisen tutkimusalueen jäsentäminen" liittyvät toimet, jotka koskevat tutkijavoimavaroja sekä liikkuvuuden edistämistä.Toimet toteutetaan seuraavien osioiden alla (mukana ohjeellinen rahoituksen jakautuminen):>TAULUKON PAIKKA>DOCUMENT DE TRAVAIL DES SERVICES DE LA COMMISSION - "Proposition de modification des montants de référence contenus dans les actes législatifs relatifs aux programmes de dépenses pluriannuels adoptés selon la procédure de co-décision, pour tenir compte de l'élargissement" ANNEXE A LA FICHE FINANCIERE LEGISLATIVE {COM(2003)777 final et 778 final}Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Development>VIITTAUS KAAVIOON>The justification sets out, in an indicative manner, the research priorities for the additional resources for the Sixth Framework Programme for research in the context of the revised financial perspectives 2004-2006.ContextFrom the total enlargement "topping up", an extra 1 735 million euro is foreseen for the Sixth Framework Programme. This amount is expected to fund priorities, through the work programme and calls for proposals that have a strong emphasis on involving the accession countries in the Community's research policy and in the European Research Area.  In particular, in line with the decisions made by the budgetary authority during the 2004 budget procedure, 35 million euro will be allocated to the research on combating major diseases, in particular cancer, compensated by a reduction of other priorities: SPP/NEST (-20 million euros), infrastructures (-5 million), human resources (-5 million), support to the coordination of activities (-5 million). The remaining part of the additional amount is distributed in prorate of the current amounts as shown in Annex II. The multi-annual ceiling for administrative expenditure is also to be increased proportionally.RationaleThe rationale for concentrating the additional allocation on research priorities that take full account of the involvement of the accession countries is as follows:- The inclusion of the accession countries will mark a major step in the enlargement of the boundaries of the European Research Area, a policy for which these countries have been enthusiastic supporters.- These countries have a strong scientific tradition and significant potential. They have strengths, notably as regards their resources in qualified scientific manpower and a track record of innovation.- Enlargement will therefore represent a major stimulus to research in Europe, both substantively and psychologically. Above all, it will give a boost to the knowledge society and the agenda set out in the Lisbon/Barcelona process.- At the same time, their integration in the mainstream of European research poses major challenges. Although the picture varies from country to country, generally they face structural weaknesses as well as difficulties in increasing research investment which, averaging 0.79 % of GDP (EU 15 average: 1.93 %), falls far below the target of 3% of GDP by 2010. It also fails to match their scientific potential measured in terms of qualified scientists and engineers. The total number of researchers in the 10 accession countries corresponds to about 10 % of the total in the enlarged European Union, whereas their GDP represents only about 4 % of that of EU 25.- The Sixth Framework Programme provides major leverage for the creation of the European Research Area with the accession countries as full and equal partners. It also has a fundamentally multinational character which will further consolidate their position within an enlarged Europe.- The extra funding for the framework programme should therefore provide a focus for the accession countries to adjust to the challenges and to take advantage of the opportunities of the European knowledge-based society, as well as to maximise their contributions to it.- The extra funding will, furthermore, help ensure that the enlarged Europe will continue to be an attractive base for the whole European research community and thereby help reinforce Europe's competitive position in the world.- The funding provides an opportunity to give a clear message of the importance of enlargement for European research. These funds should therefore be used in priority on activities which would capitalise on the strengths of the accession countries (for example in terms of their human resources and capacities in fundamental research) as well as addressing their needs (for example in terms of weakness of the industrial sector and access to and use of research infrastructures).Main PrioritiesThe main priorities involving the new accession countries would most likely include [19]:[19]  All activities funded would be open to all participants in the framework programme on an equal footing.- issues of direct concern to them, such as environmental protection and monitoring, lower end commercial aircraft, improving safety management of power plants (particularly nuclear ones), health care;- addressing their weaknesses such as accessing research infrastructures (for example using GRIDs), in developing industrial research capacity (for example by encouraging their involvement in technology platforms, reinforcing hydrogen initiatives), and paying particular attention to the SME sector (for example via the Co-operative Research scheme or by dedicated actions to raise the technological level of SMEs in traditional industrial sectors);- strengthening their competencies, in terms of their human resources and capacities in fundamental research, by funding, for instance, research in animal disease, and hygiene in food technology;- reinforcing their co-operation and networking including in and between regions, building in particular on existing cross-border co-operations (for example via ERA-NET) as well as between the university and industrial sectors (for example via the new research instruments of integrated projects and networks of excellence), and expanding, for instance, the network of fusion associations;- stimulating debate involving representatives from their countries in the broad field of science and society (for example through the support of international conferences and discussions), and further raising awareness on such issues as women in science, ethics, and science governance;- supporting their human resources especially young scientists, encouraging their career development, for example via short-term scientific exchanges as well as their retention within their national research fabric (it is proposed to fund a special action on "Human Potential in an Enlarged EU"); and- ensuring adequate research in support of emerging policy issues of concern to an enlarged Europe, including those covering emergency situations, research in agriculture (in view of enlargement), environmental and economic effects in the light of international agreements, illegal immigration, anticipating crime trends and causes, and addressing refugee related issues.Base légaleDécision n° 1513/2002/CE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 27 juin 2002 relative au sixième programme-cadre de la Communauté européenne pour des actions de recherche, de développement technologique et de démonstration contribuant à la réalisation de l'espace européen de la recherche et à l'innovation (2002-2006) (JO L 232 du 29.8.2002, p.1)Décision 2002/668/Euratom du Conseil du 3 juin 2002 relative au sixième programme-cadre de la Communauté européenne de l'énergie atomique (Euratom) pour des activités de recherche et de formation visant également à contribuer à la réalisation de l'Espace européen de la recherche (2002-2006) (JO L 232 du 29.8.2002, p.34)Information complémentaireAPB 2004 Document de travail, partie I "Activity Statements"ENTR-02; p. 42-45TREN-06; p.182-185RTD-08; p. 216-252INFSO-09; p.279-284CCR-10; p. 293-300FISH-11; p. 328-330APB 2004 Document de travail, partie II "Financial Statements and Human Resources"ENTR-02; p. 262-264TREN-06; p. 545-552RTD-08; p. 615-663INFSO-09; p. 695-699CCR-10; p. 706-721FISH-11; p. 751-752Chapter XX-01-05; p. 187-196Five-year Assessment of the Community activities carried out under the RTD Framework ProgrammesProgramme/activity and budget line(s) concerned:- Fifth Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (1998 to 2002),- Fifth Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) for research and training activities (1998 to 2002),- Specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration on quality of life and management of living resources (1998 to 2002) / B6-6111,- Specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration on a user-friendly information society (1998 to 2002) / B6-6121 (for information, implemented by DG INFSO),- Specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration on competitive and sustainable growth (1998 to 2002) / B6-6131 (implemented by DG RDT and DG TREN),- Specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration on energy, environment and sustainable development (1998 to 2002) / B6-6141 and B6-6142 (implemented by DG RDT and DG TREN),- Specific programme on confirming the international role of Community research (1998 to 2002) / B6-6211,- Specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration on promotion of innovation and encouragement of SME participation (1998 to 2002) / B6-6311 (implemented both by DG ENTR and DG RDT),- Specific Programme for research and technological development, including demonstration, to be carried out by the Joint Research Centre by means of direct action for the European Community (1998-2002), (for information, implemented by the Joint Research Centre),- Specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration on improving the human research potential and the socio-economic knowledge base (1998 to 2002) / B6-6411,- Research and training programme (Euratom) in the field of nuclear energy (1998 to 2002) / B6-6511 and B6-6512,- Specific Programme for research and training to be carried out by the Joint Research Centre by means of direct action for the European Atomic Energy Community (1998-2002) (for information, implemented by the Joint Research Centre),- Fourth framework programme of the European Community activities in the field of research and technological development and demonstration (1994 to 1998),- Framework programme of Community activities in the field of research and training for the European Atomic Energy Community (1994 to 1998),- Specific programme for research and technological development, including demonstration, in the field of industrial and materials technologies (1994 to 1998) / B6-7121- Specific programme for research and technological development, including demonstration, in the field of advanced communication technologies and services (1994 to 1998) / B6-7112 (for information, implemented by DG INFSO),- Specific programme for research and technological development, including demonstration, in the field of telematics applications of common interest (1994 to 1998) / B6-7111 (for information, implemented by DG INFSO),- Specific programme for research and technological development, including demonstration, in the field of information technologies (1994 to 1998), (for information, implemented by DG INFSO),- Specific programme for research and technological development, including demonstration, in the field of standards, measurements and testing (1994 to 1998) / B6-7122- Specific programme of research and technological development, including demonstration, in the field of marine science and technology (1994 to 1998) / B6-7132- Specific programme of research, technological development and demonstration in the field of agriculture and fisheries (1994 to 1998) / B6-7143 (implemented by DG RDT, DG AGRI and DG FISH),- Specific programme for research and technological development, including demonstration, in the field of non-nuclear energy (1994 to 1998) / B6-7151 (implemented by DG RDT and DG TREN)- Specific programme of research and technological development, including demonstration, in the field of cooperation with third countries and international organisations (1994 to 1998) / B6-7211- Specific programme of research and technological development, including demonstration, in the field of environment and climate (1994 to 1998) / B6-7131- Specific programme of research and technological development, including demonstration, in the field of biotechnology (1994 to 1998) / B6-7141- Specific programme of research and technological development, including demonstration, in the field of biomedicine and health (1994 to 1998) / B6-7142- Specific programme of research and technological development, including demonstration, in the field of transport (1994 to 1998), (implemented by DG TREN),- Specific programme of research and technological development, including demonstration, in the field of targeted socio-economic research (1994 to 1998) / B6-7171- Specific programme of research and technological development, including demonstration, in the field of training and mobility of researchers (1994 to 1998) / B6-7411- Specific programme for the dissemination and optimisation of the results of activities in the field of research and technological development, including demonstration (1994 to 1998), (implemented by DG ENTR),- Specific programme of research and training in the field of nuclear fission safety (1994 to 1998) / B6-8111- Specific programme of research and training in the field of controlled thermonuclear fusion (1994 to 1998) / B6-8121- Specific programme for research and technological development, including demonstration, to be carried out for the European Community, on the one hand by the Joint Research Centre and, on the other, by means of activities within the framework of a competitive approach and intended for scientific and technical support to Community Policies (1995-1998), (for information, implemented by the Joint Research Centre and the Secretariat General),- Specific programme for research and technological development, including demonstration, to be implemented by the Joint Research Centre for the European Atomic Energy Community (1995-1998), (for information, implemented by the Joint Research centre).>TAULUKON PAIKKA>Purpose of evaluationAssess the implementation and achievements of Community RTD activities carried out during the last five years, as requested in the article 5.1 of the Decisions on the Framework Programmes (182/1999/EC et 1999/64/Euratom). The assessment is planned so that the results can be exploited for the preparation of the next Framework Programmes (FP).Summary of findings and recommendationsThe most important conclusion of the FP Panel is that the Framework Programme alone will not be enough to serve the goals set at Lisbon. Although there is much to commend in past and current Framework Programmes, the challenges we face as we move towards the new economy call not only for the Framework Programme itself to become a much more flexible policy instrument, but also for additional instruments and actions.RTD policy is inextricably linked with policies in other spheres, especially education and innovation. The Panel is convinced that the required changes need to be conceived within an overall strategy for Europe, articulated at the level of the EU and supported by all the Member States.AS REGARDS FUTURE FRAMEWORK PROGRAMMESThe Framework Programme has helped academic and industrial partners all across the EU to tackle problems collaboratively. It has also contributed to the training of researchers and to the development of the European research infrastructure.There is still a need for these activities and they deserve to be continued, but the scope of the Framework Programme should also be increased in line with the need to meet the Lisbon goals and the demands of enlargement. The Panel recommends:* maintaining the emphasis on social relevance and continuing to use Key Actions as a way of focusing programmes;* maintaining a strong emphasis on collaborative RTD projects supplemented by a variety of other actions;* emphasising excellence and the participation of leading-edge researchers; encouraging participants to propose 'riskier' projects;* enhancing measures encouraging the mobility of researchers within the EU and between the EU and elsewhere;* retaining support for generic, competence-building RTD activities;* increasing the emphasis on the research needed to support other EU policies;* to further exploit existing policy tools in a restructured and expanded Framework Programme;* a major review of the systems and procedures used to decide overall goals, specify delivery mechanisms and implement programmes;* Adoption of a European RTD strategy at the highest political levels. The Heads of Government should then delegate the task of formulating and implementing this strategy to the European Commission, supported by an appropriate advisory structure. In particular, the Panel sees no need to continue the Programme Committees;* Re-engineering existing structures and procedures to delegate responsibility for tasks downwards within the Commission, or externalise them. At present there is excessive focus on adherence to procedures and not enough emphasis on ensuring overall goal attainment.BEYOND THE FRAMEWORK PROGRAMMESThe Panel* recommends increasing the relative size of the budgets allocated to science and technology compared to other policy domains;* is convinced that the percentage of GDP spent in the EU on public and private RTD should rise to at least 3% over the next ten years, and recommends the use of indirect measures such as RTD tax incentives across the EU in order to flag to the rest of the world that Europe is an attractive place to conduct RTD;* considered that RTD policies in the Member States need to reinforce rather than duplicate each other, the European Commission has a key facilitation role to play in this area;* recommends that support provided to the Central and Eastern European countries for RTD activities be channelled temporarily through the existing scientific Academies until new competitive structures for the organisation of science and industry can be developed;* recommends urgent action to counter envisaged skill shortages over the next decade;* urges the Commission to ensure that innovation-related activities are high on the agenda of actions supported by the Community Structural Funds and the Accession Funds for the applicant countries.FRAMEWORK PROGRAMMES ASSESSMENTThe Panel's positive assessment of activities over the last five years is the basis for recommending continuation and expansion of the Framework Programme. The emphasis on collaborative RTD projects was much appreciated by academic and industrial participants, allowing them to undertake strategically important work, which would have been difficult to undertake otherwise. Networking, training-related activities and adequate procedures for the involvement of SMEs were also widely regarded as successful features of the Framework Programme.Concerning programme administration, many participants were dissatisfied with application procedures and, to a lesser extent, with payment delays. The Panel recommends making procedures much simpler and easier to understand.The Panel endorsed the overall orientation of the Fifth Framework Programme, though the initial implementation of the programme was not smooth. The new matrix management structures put in place to ensure adequate communication within and across programme areas did not function well. The Panel recommends an urgent re-engineering of the overall management and administration of the Framework Programme. The system of evaluation can be considered as well established. Impact assessment should become one of the most important elements of evaluation.Main evaluation methods and data usedPanels of independent highly qualified experts: 8 Panels for the assessment in the RTD area of each Specific Programme and 1 global Panel for the overall assessment at the Framework Programme level. The Panels make use of questionnaire surveys; interviews; support studies on results and impacts, analysis of indicators collected during programme implementation, analysis of basic documentation, discussion and exchange of opinion among the Panel members and formulation of Panel's findings, opinion, conclusions and recommendations.Action taken / follow-up plannedOfficial comments of the Commission (COM (2000) 659 final) have been transmitted to the Council, European Parliament, Social and Economic Committee and to the Committee of the Regions. (They are also published on the web site: http://www.cordis.lu/fp5/ 5yr_reports.htm.)The evaluation results have provided input to the Commission guidelines for future EU actions in the field of research (COM (2000) 612 final). They will also be utilised for the formulation of the 6th Framework Programme. They also provide the European Parliament and Council with a point of reference for the discussions on the future of EU research. The reports provide also useful recommendations, which can be implemented already during the implementation of the 5th Framework Programme. They also provided input to the mid-term report of the Commission on the implementation of the 5th Framework programme.Availability of the reportAvailable on the web site:  http://www.cordis.lu/fp5/ 5yr_reports.htm(The report was also transmitted to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Social and the Economic Committee and the Committee of Regions. Paper copies are available on request.)Exécution Vème Programme Cadre>TAULUKON PAIKKA>>VIITTAUS KAAVIOON>>VIITTAUS KAAVIOON>>VIITTAUS KAAVIOON>>VIITTAUS KAAVIOON>>VIITTAUS KAAVIOON>>VIITTAUS KAAVIOON>>VIITTAUS KAAVIOON>>VIITTAUS KAAVIOON>>VIITTAUS KAAVIOON>>VIITTAUS KAAVIOON>>VIITTAUS KAAVIOON>>VIITTAUS KAAVIOON>>VIITTAUS KAAVIOON>>VIITTAUS KAAVIOON>The justification for an EUR +25 million increase of the budget available to the Marco Polo Programme for the 10 Acceding Countries is as follows:The Marco Polo Programme is a key initiative of the Commission's White Paper on European Transport Policy for 2010 "Time to Decide" published in 2001. The "Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Granting of Financial Assistance to Improve the Environmental Performance of the Freight Transport System (Marco Polo programme)" has been adopted on 03 July 2003 with a budget of EUR 75 million for the EU15 for 2003 to 2006. The budget for the rest of its lifetime 2007 to 2010 will be decided in 2006.The Programmes principal objective is to shift the entire annual growth in international freight traffic off the road onto more environmentally friendly modes of transport, namely short-sea shipping, rail and inland waterways until 2010. According to the White Paper this amounts to a shift 12 billion tonne-kilometres per year. The EUR 75 million figure finally agreed upon by Council is a significant reduction of the Commission's originally proposed budget of EUR 115 million.Fighting congestion on the EU15 roads is already an obvious and urgent need. Marco Polo does this by subsidising transport services using the above mentioned non-road modes of transport, i.e. by utilising modes which still have spare capacity or are less congested than the road ("balancing the modes of transport").For the Acceding Countries this is even more important, because of their less developed transport infrastructure and in view of their much higher expected economic growth (compared to EU15 average). Normally, transport growth is directly linked to economic growth.Also, Marco Polo is an initiative which will have an immediate effect, whereas infrastructure works requires many years to complete, even will ample funding.Based of the experience with the Marco Polo Help Desk, which is in operation since last year (mid 2002), very large interest by undertakings from the Acceding Countries as well as undertakings from the EU15 wishing to create transport services towards the Acceding Countries has been noted. This despite the fact that costs arising on the territory of Acceding Countries will only be eligible from 2004 onwards (i.e. not in the 2003 proposal selection round).Consequently, a very much above average increase of the Marco Polo budget is required especially for the first years of EU membership for the EU+10, in order to help them with immediate effect. Note, that economic growth is hindered, if transport capacity cannot be increased significantly.Ideally, taking all the above arguments into account, the Marco Polo budget should have been increased by EUR +75 million for the EU+10. However, in assuming similar quality of transport infrastructure one may calculate an absolute lower limit:Based on the 2001 statistical data of the Commission published by DG-Elarg (http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/ docs/pdf/eurostatapril2003.pdf) this following short calculation may be done:The ratio in population of EU+10 to EU15 = 75 million / 378 million = 1/5;The ratio in economic growth for 2001 of EU+10 to EU15 = +2.5%  / +1.5%  = 5/3;Multiplication of these two ratios with the EU15 budget of EUR 75 million gives the lower limit. Note, that the reason for using the EU15 figure for the period 2003 to 2006 is justified by the fact that the increase of freight traffic is not waiting for EU membership. It has already significantly picked-up in 2003. I.e. the extra amount integrated into this calculation is needed to catch-up once EU membership is achieved for the EU+10.Hence: EUR 75 million * (1/5) * (5/3) = EUR 25 million.The absolute lower limit for the increase of the Marco Polo budget for the Acceding Countries for the period 2004 to 2006 is EUR 25 million.*****Base légaleRèglement (CE) N° 1382/2003 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 22. 07. 2003 concernant l'octroi d'un concours financier communautaire visant à améliorer les performances environnementales du système de transport de marchandises  ("Programme Marco Polo"), (JO L 196 du 02. 08. 2003, p.1).Informations complémentairesSource:fiche financière législative annexée à la proposition de règlement.Objectifs du programme "Marco Polo"The general objective of the Marco Polo programme is to help shift the aggregate expected increase in international road freight to short sea shipping, rail, and inland waterway.This should be achieved with three different types of actions: modal shift actions, catalyst actions and common learning actions. These types of actions are interrelated: common learning actions provide market participants with the knowledge to engage in catalyst actions. These actions pave the way and market conditions for a full success of modal shift actions.Dispositions prises à la suite de l'évaluation  ex post du programme "Pact"The Marco Polo programme contains some elements of the Pilot Actions for Combined Transport (PACT programme), which has expired on 31 December 2001. Politically, it is seen as the successor programme to PACT, although it contains a broader scope and quite different interventions from PACT to achieve its goals. In this context, the lesson learned from the ex-post evaluation of the PACT programme, conducted by the external evaluators AEA Technology between May and November 2000, are particularly relevant. The main findings and recommendations are as follows:1. Most operational measures supported by the PACT programme are cost-effective in terms of avoided carbon dioxide emissions, even without replication.2. Commercial viability of the intermodal projects is difficult to achieve, even with the start-up support provided by PACT. This is due to the challenging market conditions for combined transport in Europe.3. Asking for technological or logistics innovation in conjunction with achieving commercial viability under current market conditions may expose projects to inordinate risk and ultimate failure.4. Receiving Community funding was of course important to the project partners. Moreover, beneficiaries reported that the commitment created by the PACT contract with the Commission and the political and operational support provided through the programme was essential for reaching the goals of the project.The evaluation recommended:1. Stopping the funding of feasibility studies as precursors to operational projects. Instead, some funding should be allocated to fund generic studies aimed at market enablement.2. Strengthening the dissemination aspects of the promotion programme through the development of a targeted programme-level strategy, which would also encourage more widespread replication of pilot actions.3. The evaluation also suggested to generate some large-scale projects which could help lower the market barriers for intermodal transport in Europe.The proposed Marco Polo programme has taken all the findings and recommendations into account, and in the following way.Finding 1: this finding was essential for the continuation of this type of market promotion. Although not strictly defined as an objective, the PACT programme had created net benefits for society, in terms of saved external costs, through its intervention. The Marco Polo programme builds the whole intervention mechanism for modal shift actions  around this notion, in order to ensure in a verifiable way that net benefits are produced on a large scale through the interventions.Finding 2: the reaction to this finding is not only the continuation of start-up financial assistance. It has also led to the introduction of catalyst actions, which should tackle some root problems in the sector in order to increase the chances for viability on a long-term basis.Finding 3: the direct consequence from this finding in the Marco Polo programme is the decoupling of start-up aid - modal shift actions - and aid to introduction of innovative technologies and ideas - catalyst and common learning actions.Finding 4: the introduction of common learning actions, which should foster the co-operative spirit in the industry, is a direct consequence of this finding. Further, the steering functions of the Commission in the catalyst and common learning actions are also introduced on the basis of this finding.Recommendation 1: the Marco Polo programme does not feature feasibility studies any more. Instead, a structural instrument to foster market enablement is proposed through the common learning actions.Recommendation 2: as the draft Regulation makes clear, the programme will feature a strong dissemination activity. Common learning and catalyst actions will only reach their goals if adequately disseminated.Recommendation 3: the introduction of catalyst actions is a direct response to this recommendation.*****>VIITTAUS KAAVIOON>In the framework of the 2004 budgetary procedure, it is proposed to allocate - for the period 2004 - 2006 - an additional amount of 255 million EUR to the trans-European transport network budget line (50, 90 and 115 million EUR respectively for the individual years) to meet the needs of the new Member States. As for the trans-European energy network, it is estimated that the needs of the new Member States can be met from the amounts currently programmed for EU 15.Massive investment need for TEN-T in future Member StatesThe massive need for infrastructure investments in the extended trans-European transport network of the new Member States, which have been estimated at 100 billion EUR for the period until 2015, fully justifies the proposed additional allocation of 255 million EUR for the next 3 years. This cost estimate is backed by a thorough assessment of infrastructure needs and investment capacity of the future Member States which was carried out during the pre-adhesion period. The relevant investments are considered to be essential to ensure the functioning of the extended internal market.Concentration of Community interventions on pan-European transport corridorsThe Commission follows a clear policy of concentrating all available Community sources on key elements of the extended transport TEN, i. e. in particular on the pan-European transport corridors endorsed at the pan-European Transport Conferences at Crete in 1994 and at Helsinki in 1998. Important progress has already been achieved along these corridors through ISPA contributions in the last few years. It is now vital to build on these initial achievements and to ensure, through the continuing provision of appropriate Community support, that full benefit can be drawn in the years ahead.TEN-T contributions 2004 - 2006: to focus on whole range of studiesBesides the concentration of Community funds on key corridors, the Commission will pursue (as it already does for TEN projects in the current Cohesion countries) a clear policy of co-ordination of contributions from the different funds (TEN budget and CF / ERDF / EIB) so as to maximise their effect. In this respect, the TEN budget line has proven to be particularly appropriate to support the whole range of studies (feasibility studies, technical, environmental and - often very costly - geological studies) where the Community contribution can go up to 50 % of the respective cost.Experience with the current Member States has shown that the significant contributions of the TEN-T budget line to studies (1995 - 1999: 868 million EUR, i. e. 47 % of the total available budget; 2000 - 2002: 832 million EUR, i. e. 49 % of the total available budget) played a vital role to overcome risks / uncertainties in early project development phases and to prepare these major TEN projects for construction. For the 14 priority projects, endorsed by the Essen European Council in 1994, for example, TEN-T contributions for studies (672 million EUR since 1995) have been crucial to enable works to start.Priority projects in new Member States: considerable support for studies needed to facilitate start-up phaseAs for the transport infrastructure in the new Member States, in the last half year a High-Level Group composed of representatives of the current and future Member States as well as the Commission and chaired by Mr. Karel Van Miert, made a thorough and extensive assessment of the most important projects of the future TEN and identified key priority projects on the basis of a highly selective methodology. Although the priority status of these projects will only be formally approved in the context of the forthcoming revision of the TEN-T Guidelines, the majority of them will be eligible for Community funding as soon as the States concerned join the Community as they meet the criteria of the current Guidelines (extending to the new Member States upon their adhesion). Amongst these projects (essentially located on the pan-European transport corridors) are, for example:>TAULUKON PAIKKA>To meet the target completion dates set out above, an important part of the studies related to the projects concerned will have to be carried out during the period 2004 - 2006. Experience with other projects shows that the cost share for studies (depending on the geographical / geological situation) may go up to 10 % of total project cost. This means that up to 1,8 billion EUR might be needed to carry out the studies for the above projects. Although the implementation period of the projects extends to 2010 to 2015, according to a very first estimate, 30 to 50 % of the studies should be undertaken during the period until 2006. The total cost of the studies would thus reach 540 to 900 million EUR.To support these studies at the maximum intervention rate of 50 % (and thus ensure full complementarity's with the Cohesion Fund), the proposed 255 million EUR Community contribution would be the absolute minimum to meet the needs. If this amount was not provided, the smooth launching of the projects would be at risk. In addition to this, works on several of these projects are expected to start in 2004 and might seek support for works. (Any decision to grant aid - both for studies and for works - will of course depend on future Member States' requests and be subject to an in-depth evaluation in accordance with the conditions and criteria set out in the relevant Regulation).The allocations would essentially be made in the framework of the Indicative Multi-annual Programme for the transport TEN 2001 - 2006 (to be revised at the beginning of 2004 to include projects in the new Member States); the above projects fully comply with the funding priorities of this programme. This programme, adopted by the Commission in 2001, has proven its worth (for EU 15 so far) in increasing the efficiency of the management of the TEN budget and in reducing outstanding commitments in comparison with the previous approach.The above list of projects reflects the highest priorities for the transport TEN development in the new Member States which have been identified so far. Furthermore, the High-Level Group has identified a number of smaller projects which cover horizontal priorities, for example intelligent transport systems. There are already projects under preparation in this field, involving both current and new Member States. Further important projects may come up which serve important objectives of the trans-European transport network in the shorter term (removal of bottlenecks, safety improvements etc.) and would deserve Community funding. Appropriate Community contributions need thus to be foreseen for these horizontal / shorter term priorities as well.Overall conclusionThe support for studies related to the new priority projects identified by the High Level Group Van Miert alone would require at the very least the allocation of the proposed 255 million EUR. In addition to this, it is foreseeable that there will be need for support of horizontal priorities, projects promising more short term benefits as well as support for first works on the above priority projects. This shows that the proposed amount represents an absolute minimum of what is needed to ensure appropriate support of the transport TEN in the new Member States from the very beginning of their membership on.*****Base légale>VIITTAUS KAAVIOON>>VIITTAUS KAAVIOON>Afin de financer les projets RTE- transport qui visent à supprimer les goulets d'étranglement aux frontières avec les pays candidats, la Commission a présenté une proposition de modification du règlement  n° 2236/95 fixant notamment le montant de l'enveloppe financière à 4.700 mio EUR pour la période 2000-2006. Cette proposition - COM(2003) 38 final du 24.01.2003- est en attente d'une position commune du Conseil.*****Informations complémentairesExécution RTE - Transport pour la période 2000-2003.>VIITTAUS KAAVIOON>Mid-term evaluation - final report (executive summary) June 1999Scope of the budget line and of this evaluation.1. This document is the report of a mid-term evaluation study into the implementation of financial interventions by the European Commission through the Trans-European Transport Networks (TEN-T) budget line. Specifically, this study has been concerned with the evaluation of spending on transport studies and projects between 1995 and 1997 under Council Regulation 2236/95/EC of September 18th 1995, and the associated Guidelines set out in Decision 1692/96/EC of July 23rd 1996.2. The evaluation was conducted between June 1998 and April 1999. National Economic Research Associates (NERA) led the evaluation team, in partnership with Kampsax. The team also included BPM, TIFSA and Uniconsult.3. The TEN-T budget line is administered by Unit A3 of DGVII, though some parts of the programme are administered in co-operation with units A2 (road traffic management, rail traffic management, global navigational satellite systems), C3 (air traffic management), C4 (airports), D3 (vessel traffic management systems) and D4 (ports).4. The budget line includes all modes of transport, including traffic management systems to optimise use of the existing network. Between 1995 and 1997 railways received 58 per cent of the funds disbursed, roads received 14 per cent, air traffic management six per cent, road traffic management seven per cent, airports three per cent, global navigational satellite system three per cent, and rail traffic management three per cent. Other modes (ports, vessel traffic management, sea infrastructure, inland waterways, multi-modal and combined transport) received the remaining six per cent.5. Some 70 per cent of the budget is allocated to the 14 Essen Priority Projects. Eight of these projects are concerned exclusively with rail, and six of these eight are high-speed rail lines. Three of the other Essen projects are multi-modal links. In addition, there are two road-only projects (the PATHE and Via Egnatia in Greece, and the Ireland/UK/Benelux road link), plus Malpensa Airport in Italy.6. The TEN-T budget line evaluated in this study is not the only source of EU funds for the Trans-European Transport Network defined in the Guidelines. In particular, the Cohesion Fund, administered by DGXVI, funds environmental and transport projects in the four Cohesion Fund countries (Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain). Cohesion Fund spending directed to transport projects on the TEN-T network in these four countries was around two and a half times higher than spending on the TEN-T budget line in all Member States in the period 1995-1999. This evaluation report is not concerned with Cohesion Fund spending on the TEN-T network.The conduct of this evaluation7. We conducted this evaluation in three main stages. In the first stage we interviewed officials in the Commission and in European financial institutions. Results of these interviews fed into our Interim Report in November. In the second stage we conducted interviews in all the Member States. This was followed by the third main stage of the evaluation, which was the analysis of the results of the interviews and the writing of this final report.8. The first stage interviews covered four main groups of people. First, we held separate interviews with all the Desk Officers in Unit A3 of DGVII, to assess at first hand their experiences in administering the TEN-T budget line, and to hear their views on how the processes work. Secondly, we interviewed those officials in units A2, C3, C4, D3 and D4 concerned with liasing with A3 in the administration of the interventions concerned with the different forms of traffic management, and the airport and seaport sectors. Thirdly, we talked to relevant officials in other Directorates with an interest in the TEN-T programme and this evaluation, namely DGII (Economic and Financial Affairs), DGXI (Environment, Nuclear Safety and Civil Protection), DGXVI (Regional Policy and Cohesion: Cohesion Fund and Structural Fund), and DGXIX (Budgets: Evaluation Unit). Finally, we interviewed officials at the European Investment Bank and the European Investment Fund in Luxembourg.9. On the basis of these interviews we constructed a questionnaire to be sent to all the national representatives in the Member States. This questionnaire formed the basis of face-to-face interviews held in each country, and was designed to elucidate Member State views on the working of the TEN-T programme. The interviews with DGVII Desk Officers, and subsequent discussions with DGVII, were also used to draw up a list of some fifty interventions between 1995 and 1997 to be considered in the interviews with Member States in more detail. These interventions were intended to provide a representative sample of the interventions funded under the budget line between 1995 and 1997.10. Following the Member State interviews, which were conducted between late October 1998 and early January 1999, and a progress meeting at the Commission, we have analysed the results and drawn up our main recommendations. We provided DGVII with an opportunity to comment on our provisional recommendations at an informal seminar in late March.Overall conclusions11. In terms of our overall conclusions, we believe that the TEN-T budget line is administered efficiently. We were impressed with the dedication of the officials administering the budget line, faced as they are with conflicting pressures on their time and their needs to satisfy bureaucratic procedures. We also appreciated their positive and helpful approach to this evaluation. Although Member States made a variety of suggestions for changes to the present procedures, none of the people we spoke to raised any fundamental criticisms with regard to the way the budget line is administered.Recommendations12. One of our major recommendations is that the objectives of the TEN-T programme should be expressed more clearly. At present there are high level objectives which are expressed in broad, non-operational terms, and lower level objectives which are defined by a variety of documents that indicate a very wide range of types of expenditures that might be eligible for funding under the budget line. There needs to be a clearer statement of what criteria will determine the acceptability of proposals. In particular, the principle that the programme should be paying for EU-wide benefits, which are external to the Member States making the expenditure, should be explicitly recognised, and emphasised as an important criterion determining priorities. We think that DGVII should start work on examining the appropriate policy role of the EU institutions, as distinct from Member States, in surface transport strategy, insofar as this is needed for the purposes of defining an operational strategy for TEN-T. Another step forward would be to reduce considerably the scope of the Trans-European Transport Network, following the example provided by TINA.13. We did not find strong evidence of effective co-operation between DGVII and the Cohesion Fund. This is despite an emphasis in the 1998 Annual Report of the Cohesion Fund on there being regular meetings and consultations to ensure a consistent approach. We think that DGVII should play a stronger role in choosing projects in the four Cohesion Fund countries. In this regard we think that there needs to be closer liaison between DGVII and the Cohesion Fund, with DGVII more proactive in approving or rejecting transport proposals from the Cohesion Fund. With DGVII playing a leading role in matters of transport strategy, we think that the TEN-T budget in Cohesion Fund countries should only be made available for studies and not for projects. At present Cohesion Fund countries have little incentive to apply for TEN-T funding for projects because of the low percentage of finance provided in comparison with the Cohesion Fund. Restricting the TEN-T budget to studies in these countries would reflect this reality, and enable DGVII to concentrate on strategic issues.14. While TEN-T application procedures for project finance require applicants to indicate that they have produced an Environmental Impact Assessment, and while DGXI are asked to comment on this, we found little evidence of close interaction. Given the considerable importance of environmental issues in the transport sector, we believe it would be desirable for DGVII and DGXI to develop a joint policy on the assessment of the environmental impact of interventions in the TEN-T network. This could then be developed into a guidance notice for applicants and others on the appropriate way to treat environmental issues in TEN-T applications. The results of existing studies on the environmental impacts of transport funded under the TEN-T programme, together with results of other studies funded by DGVII on the environmental impacts of transport infrastructure investments, should feed into this process.15. We recommend that application procedures for TEN-T funding should be improved in order to: make the process easier for those without previous experience; explain the need for the information requested; avoid duplication of information at different stages of the application process; remove information which is not used in the funding decision; include explanatory examples; and explain the use of different types of intervention methods. In order to do this there needs to be a general guidance manual to provide advice to applicants to the TEN-T budget line. In our report we provide detailed recommendations on the structure of this manual.16. We believe that DGVII staff involved with administering the TEN-T budget line should have a clearer internal view of the nature of good practice in cost-benefit analysis in the transport sector, including "best practice" in regard to time saving valuation, safety valuation, traffic forecasting, choice of discount rate, etc. It would be desirable to have some formal initial training for new Desk Officers in transport appraisal techniques. We also think it would be sensible to have some in-service training for existing Desk Officers, to improve sharing of ideas on transport appraisal techniques, and to generate more of an "appraisal culture" within the sections dealing with TEN-T applications. We also recommend that there should be a relatively brief "best practice" CBA manual related to transport projects available to Commission staff and to applicants.17. We do not think it realistic to co-ordinate the annual TEN-T round with the financial calendar in individual Member States since each Member State will have a different financial calendar. However, to facilitate individual Member States' financial planning, and the co-ordination between Member State financed transport infrastructure, as well as that financed by the TEN-T budget line, we believe that the Commission should try to reduce the time between Member State applications for TEN-T support and Commission approval, and between the Commission decision and the actual provision of funds.18. We strongly believe that medium-term planning is essential for major transport infrastructure projects, so that some form of plan is essential to break away from the existing system where each decision relates to an annual budget. However, we also believe that the MIP has only been partially successful in this aim. Like many Member State representatives, we would like to see the powers and use of the MIP increased to include medium-term commitment of funding to the larger individual projects over several years. This would reduce the uncertainty faced by projects which had to have separate applications each year for funds, and might also help attract longer-term financing commitments from other institutions. The plan should be related more closely to the overall objectives of the TEN-T programme, and there should be a clear explanation in the proposed guidance manual to applicants as to the role of the plan in determining TEN-T decisions.19. We believe that the current level of monitoring of interventions approved under the TEN-T budget line is appropriate. The Project Status Reports provide a useful role at a basic administrative level, and enable the Commission to keep track of the progress of studies and projects, and to generate useful statistics. They should be retained, and attempts made to ensure that Member States provide the necessary information to keep them updated. In this regard, the development of a consensus between all Member States and the Commission as to why the information on the PSRs is valuable would be very helpful. However, the PSRs contain no information that would enable ex post evaluation of individual interventions or the TEN-T programme as a whole to be made. Site visits play an especially valuable role, both in ensuring financial propriety, and in providing feedback between recipients and the Commission.20. We do not believe that the Commission should conduct ex post evaluations of whether individual projects or studies assisted by TEN-T intervention have been cost effective. This would be an expensive procedure, and would yield little information about the specific contribution to EU economic and social welfare of the money paid through the TEN-T budget line. In any case, the information which the Commission keeps on file is much too limited to form a basis for evaluations of this type. However, we do see an important role for summative evaluation at a strategic level, and make a number of detailed specific recommendations regarding this in the report.21. The administration and effectiveness of the TEN-T budget would be improved if its scope, including its coverage of modes were reduced. Information is not currently available to produce definitive conclusions about effectiveness by mode. However, we recommend that the programme should concentrate on a more narrowly defined network, and that the Commission should consider alternative methods of supporting traffic management. One of our strongest recommendations is that the total number of interventions should be reduced considerably, in agreement with Member States.22. We recommend that the current support rate of 50 per cent for studies be continued. In addition, we recommend that DGVII look to ways to increase the dissemination of TEN-T study results more widely. It may be appropriate to do this in collaboration with the Research Branch of DGVII and, where environmental issues are involved, in collaboration with DGXI.23. Member States nearly always prefer grants to interest rate subsidies, or guarantees, but there is some concern in DGII that the benefits of other forms of assistance are not fully appreciated. We see no reason, on present evidence, for measures to steer Member States towards interest rate subsidies or guarantees. On the other hand, their continued availability provides flexibility at little cost. The development of risk capital participation as an option, led by DGII, should be encouraged, even though it is unlikely to be used much, if at all, unless and until PPPs are more actively developed by Member States.24. We support the encouragement within TEN-T of PPPs as a priority, but do not believe that DGVII should otherwise be expected to take a heavy leading role in promoting PPPs at this stage. An appropriate role might be the provision of rather simple guidance for firms and/or for national governments on the status, prospects and major issues raised by transport PPPs in Member States. The scope for any further activity could usefully be reviewed as part of a summative evaluation of TEN-T in a few years' time.25. The Commission should publish, as part of its general guidance manual on the TEN-T programme, a clear indication of the types of additionality that may be provided by the TEN-T budget line. The present normal maximum of 10 per cent for projects should be raised in those circumstances where there is clear evidence of additionality.26. Finally, the Commission should develop with Member States some key physical performance targets, including the completion of the fourteen Essen projects by a certain date, and a large reduction in the number of current interventions, and in the number of new interventions approved each year. We believe that the Commission should seek to agree targets with Member States for reduction in the numbers of interventions to be approved each year.>VIITTAUS KAAVIOON>>VIITTAUS KAAVIOON>>VIITTAUS KAAVIOON>In the Decision adopting a multiannual programme for action in the field of energy "Intelligent Energy - Europe" (2003-2006) the European Parliament and the Council [20] have agreed on the following statement, which is included in the Annex of the Decision:[20]   Decision (CE) 1230/2003 of 26.06.2003, OJ L 176 of 15.07.2003 p.39"An additional contribution, reflecting the number, size and particular needs of new Member States, is to be anticipated from 2004 onwards as a result of the enlargement of the European Union. The Commission could propose that this contribution would be at least EUR 50 million."In addition, several factors justify an upward revision of the programme budget in an enlarged Union.Firstly, under current trends, the EU's objectives and fixed targets in the energy sector up to 2010 will not be met by the 10 future Member States. These relate in particular to the following objectives:* to increase the share of renewable energy source in gross domestic consumption by 2010 according to EU-15 objective of 12%;* to implement the national indicative targets of electricity from renewable energy sources contributing to the objective of 21% in an enlarged Union-25;* to increase to 5,75% the share of biofuels in diesel and gasoline use for transport;* to replace 20% of traditional fuels by alternative fuels in the road transport by 2020;* to promote and increase the use of high-efficiency cogeneration;* to reduce energy intensity.It should be highlighted that candidate countries will not have transitional period for the transposition of newly adopted legislation in the field of renewable energy sources and energy efficiency. In addition, energy intensity should be improved in acceding countries (e.i. in terms of GDP in 2000 was of 170.0 in EU-15 compared to 501.2 in Acceding countries, so three times higher [21]). In that context, support measures in the framework of the Intelligent Energy - Europe programme are of paramount importance to help those countries to meet EU standards and justify the necessity of an increased budget in the framework of enlargement.[21]   Commission: Shared Analysis project - ratio growth energy consumption / GBPSecondly, socio-economic development and growth in these countries need to go in hand with sustainable energy production and use, respectful of the environment and climate change. In particular, international commitments assumed individually and by the Union can be respected.Thirdly, in these countries there is an enormous unrealised potential for renewable energy sources use, as well as for energy savings and diversification, in particular in the buildings and transport sector. For instance, in the buildings sector, potential economies at low cost can reach 60% in these countries. In fact, the participation of accession and candidate countries to the ALTENER and SAVE programme, which are now included in the new Intelligent Energy - Europe programme started in 1998. Since then they have accumulated experience and no starting up period is necessary for them full participation can start immediately. For instance, regarding the SAVE programme in 2001 and 2002 52% and 61% of selected proposals included Candidate countries.Against this background, strong action in these countries is needed during the period immediately after accession. Community support in the framework of "Intelligent Energy - Europe" programme in these 10 new Member States will focus in particular on the implementation of medium and long term strategies, in order to:* to create adequate structures and instruments at local and regional level for energy planning and management,* to develop information, training and education structures,* to promote know-how and technology and exchanges of experience with other EU countries,* to increase recourse to renewables and to improve energy efficiency.The annual budget increase in 2004 and 2005 as proposed will accommodate these new activities. In 2006 a further increase will be needed in order to ensure a proper monitoring and assessment of the impacts obtained and, especially, to guarantee the valorisation of the results that have been achieved EU-wide.*****Base légale :Décision n° 1230/2003CE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 26 juin 2003 arrêtant un programme pluriannuel pour des actions dans le domaine de l'énergie :"Energie intelligente - Europe" (2003-2006) (JO L 176 du 15.7.2003, p. 29)*****Informations complémentaires:* Exécution du programme-cadre énergie 1998/2002.>VIITTAUS KAAVIOON>* EvaluationSource: fiche financière législative annexée à la proposition de décision.Évaluation annuelle (année 2000)  du programme-cadre Énergie 1998/2002Conformément à l'article 5, paragraphe 1, de la décision du Conseil arrêtant le programme-cadre pluriannuel pour des actions dans le secteur de l'énergie (1998-2002), la Commission examine chaque année l'état de réalisation du programme-cadre et de ses programmes spécifiques. L'évaluation, effectuée par des experts indépendants en 2000, portait principalement sur l'efficacité et la transparence de chaque programme, la coordination interne à la Commission, ainsi que la cohérence entre les projets sélectionnés et les objectifs des programmes en 1998 et 1999. Dans leur rapport, les évaluateurs ont reconnu l'importance des programmes ALTENER, SAVE, SYNERGY et ETAP dans le cadre de la stratégie communautaire de réduction des émissions de CO2. Les analyses effectuées lors de cet exercice d'évaluation font toutefois apparaître quatre domaines principaux appelant certaines réorientations:- d'abord, l'existence de "petits" programmes ayant des publics cibles très différents et des actions et des procédures indépendantes; or, ces programmes pourraient tout aussi bien constituer les lignes d'action d'un ou de deux programmes, ce qui permettrait des gains d'efficacité par la mise en commun des ressources humaines et par l'harmonisation des procédures de sélection, d'évaluation et de gestion;- le manque d'adéquation entre les objectifs de certains programmes et les moyens alloués, en particulier aux programmes ALTENER et SAVE; il s'agit, à moyens constants, soit de restreindre les objectifs, soit de fournir les moyens financiers et de gestion nécessaires pour les atteindre;- les méthodes et procédures de sélection, d'évaluation et de gestion doivent être modernisées;- la promotion du programme-cadre et des programmes spécifiques et la diffusion de leurs résultats, très insuffisante et, en tout cas, non systématique ou inadéquate, constituent un élément crucial qui demande une réorientation.Selon l'analyse des experts, pour accroître l'efficacité d'un futur programme au-delà de 2002, il ne devrait subsister qu'un seul programme à deux techniques: les énergies de substitution et les économies d'énergie. Viendraient en soutien horizontal à ces activités, des activités de diffusion des technologies dans l'Union et les pays tiers, ainsi que l'acquisition de services et d'études nécessaires à la gestion du programme. Le programme SURE devrait être rattaché aux activités dans le domaine de l'énergie nucléaire.Évaluation à mi-parcours (2001) du programme-cadre Énergie 1998/2002The Energy Framework Programme was the multiannual programme for energy covering the period 1998-2002 which was divided into 6 sub-programmes : 1) CARNOT (Clean and efficient use of solid fuels); 2) SURE (Safe transport of radioactive materials); 3) ALTENER (Promotion of renewable energy sources); 4) SAVE (Promotion of energy efficiency); 5) ETAP (Studies, analyses and forecasts in the energy sector); 6) SYNERGY (Promotion of international co-operation in the energy sector).The mid term evaluation (regulatory requirement) has been launched at the end of 2001 and it has been used as input for the proposal of the new programme "Intelligent Energy for Europe".The main findings of the evaluation of the Energy Framework Programme have been :- Lack of synergies between programmes (except for the sub-programmes SAVE and ALTENER);- Low visibility;- Low attention to dissemination of project outputs;- Lack of co-ordination in the management of the overall programme.The Commission response has been the following:The future programme (Intelligent Energy for Europe) has been structured following the recommendations of the evaluation report : only four sub-programmes (SAVE-energy efficiency, ALTENER-renewable energy, STEER-energy aspect of transport, and COOPENER-international co-operation) instead of six as in the old one, of which 35% and 40% of funds have been allocated respectively to "energy efficiency" (SAVE) and "renewable energy" (ALTENER), 16.2% to the "energy aspect of transport" (STEER) and 8.8% to the "international co-operation" (COOPENER) . The general objectives of the new programme are: security of supply; competitiveness and environmental protection.The future programme should be concentrated on a reduced number of working areas in order to enhance the coherence amongst the different interventions, and so improve their impact and visibility.The Commission will allocate a fraction of programme funding to the dissemination activities and impact assessment.The unified future programme will bring a greater coherence and impact to the supported actions as well as a greater effectiveness and efficiency (on the management side too).Les conclusions de ces évaluations ont été communiquées au Parlement européen, au Conseil, au Comité économique et social et au Comité des régions et prises en compte lors de la préparation du programme de travail.*  Un nouveau programme pour l'énergie: "Énergie Intelligente pour l'Europe"Source: fiche financière législative annexée à la proposition de décision.La stratégie de sécurité d'approvisionnement énergétique à moyen et long terme, ainsi que l'intégration de la stratégie communautaire pour le développement durable et la protection de l'environnement dans le domaine de l'énergie et dans les aspects énergétiques des transports requièrent une réorientation des programmes de soutien, afin de regrouper l'action communautaire dans un ensemble cohérent et efficace, tant du point de vue procédural qu'en termes d'objectifs.Il convient d'agir avec intelligence, d'où le nom du programme ("Énergie intelligente pour l'Europe"), afin de préserver les ressources naturelles et de maintenir durablement le niveau de développement acquis dans notre société par une pratique énergétique responsable basée sur l'innovation technologique et sur la capacité des secteurs professionnels et économiques d'incorporer les meilleures pratiques énergétiques dans les délais les plus courts.Dans le contexte actuel, il est important d'élargir et de renforcer certaines actions et de les inscrire dans un cadre unique. Le programme contribue à la sécurité de l'approvisionnement énergétique, à la compétitivité et à la stratégie de l'Union pour le développement durable. Il représente une valeur ajoutée renforcée par rapport à l'action isolée de chaque État membre.La présente décision du Parlement européen et du Conseil concerne un programme pluriannuel pour des actions dans le domaine de l'énergie, le Programme «Énergie intelligente pour l'Europe», pour la période 2003-2006. Ce programme est conçu comme le principal instrument communautaire de support non technologique dans le domaine de l'énergie. Le programme donne continuité aux actions relevant des programmes ALTENER, SAVE et, en partie, SYNERGY et il regroupe toutes les actions dans les domaines énergétiques contribuant à l'accomplissement des principaux objectifs des stratégies communautaires pour l'énergie et le transport, en ce qui concerne les aspects énergétiques, et la stratégie de développement durable.Le nouveau programme renforce les volets «énergies renouvelables» et «efficacité énergétique» et introduit un troisième et un quatrième volets concernant l'énergie dans les transports et la promotion au niveau international, notamment dans les pays en voie de développement, des sources d'énergie renouvelables et de l'efficacité énergétique. Il renforce aussi les activités de diffusion et de promotion des meilleures pratiques afin de préparer les acteurs de ce secteur, les entreprises et les citoyens, aux changements déjà amorcés, mais qui prendront toute leur ampleur dans le futur, et à induire un changement réel de leur comportement en matière énergétique par la sensibilisation, l'éducation et la promotion des investissements dans les nouvelles technologies.Le programme est structuré en quatre domaines spécifiques: l'utilisation rationnelle de l'énergie et la maîtrise de la demande (SAVE), les énergies nouvelles et renouvelables (ALTENER), les aspects énergétiques des transports (STEER) et la promotion internationale dans les domaines des énergies renouvelables et l'efficacité énergétique (COOPENER). Six types d'actions sont prévus pour chacun des domaines, à savoir: a) la mise en oeuvre des stratégies, l'élaboration des normes, les études, etc.; b) la création des structures et des instruments financiers et de marché, y compris, la planification locale et régionale; c) la promotion des systèmes et des équipements pour faciliter la transition entre la démonstration et la commercialisation; d) le développement des structures d'information et d'éducation et la valorisation des résultats; e) le monitorage et f) l'évaluation de l'impact des actions. En outre, le programme est mis en oeuvre au moyen d'initiatives ciblées, dénommées «actions-clés», qui portent sur un ou plusieurs domaines d'action spécifiques.*****>VIITTAUS KAAVIOON>Titre 7ENVIRONNEMENTNom du programme:Protection des forêtsEnveloppe totale EUR-15:  61 Millions EURONouvelle enveloppe EUR-25:   65 Millions EUROBase légale:Proposition de règlement du Parlement européen et du Conseil  concernant la surveillance des forêts et des interactions environnementales dans la communauté   COM(2002)404 final.Etat de la procédure: Le Conseil, le 6 novembre, a approuvé l'amendement proposé par le Parlement européen en deuxième lecture fixant à 61 millions  EUR le montant de référence financière pour l'exécution du programme. La publication est en cours.Ligne concernée: B4-303 07-03-01-01>TAULUKON PAIKKA>A proposal for a European Parliament and Council Regulation concerning monitoring forests and environmental interactions in the Community (Forest Focus) was adopted by the Commission on 15th July 2002. This legislative process for this programme, which shall run from 1st January 2003 until 31st December 2008, is still ongoing and the adoption was 6 November 2003. The proposal for Forest Focus foresees an additional amount for the new Member States (Article 13 (2)). The increase of 4 millions EUR requested for the programming period 2004-2006 is to take into account in particular actions to be funded in the new countries under their national programmes (set up of the monitoring infrastructure, monitoring activities, studies and fire related activities) as well as the additional costs of co-ordination (additional work of the Scientific Co-ordination Body).Exécution des exercices précédents en millions d'EURO:Due to the fact that the legal basis was adopted in November, no execution was possible for the year 2003. A transfer from the reserve to the line is presented to the budgetary authorities in order to have the 2004 report following the financial regulation art.6 2b.Informations complémentaires:Voir document de travail:  Tome I, page 198 à 201 et Tome II, pages 574 à 575Titre 7ENVIRONNEMENTNom du programme:Soutien aux ONG qui travaillent dans le domaine de l'EnvironnementAttention cette Base légale concerne également un volet externe sur la rubrique 4Enveloppe totale EUR-15: 32 Millions Euro dont 27,38 Millions Euro en rubrique 3Nouvelle enveloppe EUR-25:  34,3 Millions Euro dont 29,68 Millions Euro en rubrique 3Base légale:Décision N°466/2002/CE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 1er mars 2002 établissant un programme d'action communautaire pour la promotion des organisations non gouvernementales actives principalement dans le domaine de la protection de l'environnement  (JO N°L75 du 16.03.2002).Ligne concernée: B4-306 07-03-02>TAULUKON PAIKKA>(1) Pour la rubrique 3The legal base (Decision n°466/2002/EC of 1 March 2002) foresees a financial envelope of 32MEUR; the funding programme is due to expire on 31 December 2006. The part of the funding programme open to NGO's, primarily active in the field of environmental protection, in the Member States was initially foreseen to require 25MEUR. The part of the programme open to Associated countries, Cyprus, Malta, Turkey and Balkan countries (therefore under the external policy budget line) was foreseen to require 7MEUR. As from 2004, and following enlargement, a significant part of the funds foreseen under external policies will need to be transferred to the internal policies line. The modest increase requested which is over and above the initial envelope foreseen in the legal base is to cover additional proposals for funding expected to be received when the 10 accession countries become full members and as such fully active in and aware of EU policies.Exécution des exercices précédents en millions d'EURO:>TAULUKON PAIKKA>Informations complémentaires:Voir document de travail:  Tome I, page 198 à 201 et Tome II, pages 577 à 578Titre 7ENVIRONNEMENTNom du programme:Life III    L'instrument financier pour l'EnvironnementAttention cette Base légale concerne également un volet externe sur la rubrique 4Enveloppe totale EUR-15:  640 Millions EURONouvelle enveloppe EUR-25:   649,9 Millions EUROBase légale:Règlement N°1655/2000 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 17 juillet 2000 concernant un instrument financier pour l'environnement  (JO N°L192 du 28.07.2000)Cet instrument se compose de 3 volets, chaque volet disposant d'une ligne budgétaire distincte:Life NAT (47%)  B4-3200 07-03-03Life ENV (47%)  B4-3201 07-03-04Life pays tiers (6%)  B7-811 07-02-02 (rubrique 4)Bien que la base légale couvre l'ensemble des 3 volets, il faut signaler que les volets Nature et Environnement figurent à la rubrique 3 alors que le volet Life pays tiers figure à la rubrique 4. L'augmentation de 9,9 Millions EUR proposée ici, ne porte que sur la rubrique 3 (c'est-à-dire Life ENV pour 5 Millions et Life NAT pour 4,9 Millions), l'élargissement ne présentant qu'un impact marginal sur le volet extérieur.>TAULUKON PAIKKA>Calcul de l'impact de l'élargissement:La Direction générale de l'environnement dispose, déjà depuis quelques années, d'une certaine expérience quant à la situation des pays candidats par rapport à l'acquis communautaire en matière d'environnement.D'une part à travers l'Agence européenne pour l'Environnement à Copenhague, qui a été il faut le signaler, la première agence à ouvrir ses travaux à l'ensemble des pays candidats.Mais également dans le cadre de l'ouverture du programme Life à certains d'entre eux dès 1999. Ainsi depuis 1999 (Life II à l'époque) six pays participent à Life sur la base d'une contribution volontaire. Parmi ces six pays cinq d'entre eux rejoindront l'union en 2004. Le tableau ci-joint reprend les contributions de chaque pays pour chacun des deux volets concernés (base 2003).>TAULUKON PAIKKA>Aussi afin de continuer d'assurer le volume actuel, il s'avère nécessaire d'augmenter le montant co-décidé du volet interne de life. L'équilibrage en fonction des PIB nous conduit au chiffre de 9,9 Millions.Cette augmentation n'est pas linéairement proportionnelle au nombre des pays participant mais à leur PIB. C'est ainsi que la Pologne joue un rôle décisif vu son PIB élevé par rapport aux autres pays concernés.Pour mémoire voici le PIB pour EUR 10 en 2004>TAULUKON PAIKKA>Vous pouvez constatez que les 5 pays qui participent actuellement à LIFE parmi les 10 ne représentent que 33% du PIB EUR 10. Leur contribution actuelle de 3,2 Millions doit donc être triplée.Les projets retenus pour un financement communautaire dans le cadre de Life font l'objet d'une sélection sur les mêmes critères d'évaluation que les projets soumis par les Etats membres.Le nombre des projets sélectionnés, en  augmentation régulière, démontre l'excellente qualité moyenne des propositions reçues. A titre d'exemple pour l'exercice 2003 sur le volet Life ENV, les projets sélectionnés en provenance des pays candidats représentent à eux seuls 5,067 Millions soit 7% du total de 69,470 Millions EUR disponible. Dès à présent le "retour" a largement dépassé les contributions négociées sur une base volontaire.Dès 2004, cinq pays vont rejoindre l'union dont la Pologne qui par le nombre de ses habitants et sa longue frontière commune avec l'Allemagne disposera d'un intérêt économique particulier afin d'atteindre rapidement l'acquis communautaire dans le domaine de l'environnement.Ainsi le montant de 9,9 Million (EUR 10) proposé est très raisonnable en restant nettement en dessous d'une extrapolation linéaire par rapport à la situation actuelle (6,29 Millions pour les deux volets pour 5 pays). Cette approche prudente est motivée par le fait qu'il s'agit de la dernière année de validité de la base légale. Il incombera aux instruments suivants, sur la base de l'impact effectivement constaté de l'élargissement d'adapter les montants en conséquence.Base légaleRèglement N°1655/2000 du Parlement  européen et du Conseil du 17 juillet 2000 concernant un instrument financier pour l'environnement (J.O. L 192 du 28.07.2000)Information complémentaireDocuments de travail ("Preliminary Draft General Budget of the European Commission for the financial Year 2004")Part I - Activity Statement07-03 Environmental Programs and Projects (pages 198 à 201)Part II - Financial Statement and Human Resources07-03-03 Life ENV et 07-03-04 Life NAT  (pages 579 à 584)ÉvaluationInterim evaluation of the interim report on the implementation of the Financial Instrument for the Environment - LIFE III; current status: on-goingTitre 7ENVIRONNEMENTNom du programme:Développement urbain soutenableEnveloppe totale EUR-15:  14 Millions EURONouvelle enveloppe EUR-25:   14,8 Millions EUROBase légale:Decision N°1411/2001/CE du parlement européen et du Conseil du 27 juin 2001 favorisant le développement durable en milieu urbain.Ligne concernée: B4-305 07-03-08>TAULUKON PAIKKA>This programme expires at the end of 2004 although it is likely that a proposal for an extension of 2 years will be put forward by the Commission whilst the next steps for programme are developed. The increase of EUR 0.8 million in 2004 is requested to expand the work supported by programme in light of the importance of recent policy developments in this area. The Thematic Strategy on the Urban Environment is a priority action from the 6th Environment Action Programme and a key objective of DG Environment. The Strategy aims to create sustainable urban environments and make cities healthier places to live in. Projects funded by the programme in 2003 are directly linked to these objectives and support global initiatives such as Local Agenda 21. The programme supports networking between towns and cities and specific projects to improve the quality of life in urban areas.The depth and extent of problems in towns and cities in the Accession States is greater than in the Member States. One likely focus of the 2004 call for proposals will be to raise standards in these towns and cities to those of the EU 15. The programme already supports projects in accession states but the additional EUR 0.8 million will allow a greater number of projects than envisaged. The Commission's policy objectives of achieving high quality urban environments and towns and cities that are healthy to live in will benefit accordingly.Exécution des exercices précédents en millions d'EURO:>TAULUKON PAIKKA>(1) Une ligne spécifique (B4-305) n'a été crée qu'en 2002 (auparavant utilisation pour partie de la ligne B4-3040). Ce taux de consommation faible en 2001 correspond au fait que sur les 3 projets sélectionnés l'un d'entre eux a du être annulé et le montant dégagé.Informations complémentaires:Voir document de travail:  Tome I, page 198 à 201 et Tome II, pages 589 et 590Titre 7ENVIRONNEMENTNom du programme:Programme de coopération dans le domaine de la Pollution marineEnveloppe totale EUR-15:  7 Millions EURONouvelle enveloppe EUR-25:   12.6 Millions EUROBase légale:Decision 2850/2000/EC sets up a Community framework in the field of accidental or deliberate Marine Pollution. The programme started on 1 January 2000 and will end on 31 December 2006. The financial framework for the implementation for the period is 7MEUR. The increase foreseen for the remaining period of the programme (2004-2006) is to take into account additional actions to be funded in the new countries (representing a significant increase in maritime Member-States) and to ensure their full participation to the work in this fieldLigne concernée: B4-307 07-03-09>TAULUKON PAIKKA>Exécution des exercices précédants en millions d'EURO:>TAULUKON PAIKKA>(1) Une ligne spécifique (B4-307) n'a été crée qu'en 2002 (auparavant utilisation pour partie de la ligne B4-3040)Informations complémentaires:Voir document de travail:  Tome I, page 198 à 201 et Tome II, pages 591 et 592>TAULUKON PAIKKA>>VIITTAUS KAAVIOON>>VIITTAUS KAAVIOON>>VIITTAUS KAAVIOON>>VIITTAUS KAAVIOON>>VIITTAUS KAAVIOON>Titre 14:    FISCALITE et UNION DOUANIERENom du programme :   Douanes 2007Ligne budgétaire :   14.04.02 (B5-307)Période d'application:   2003/2007Enveloppe financière actuelle : 133 Mio EURO>VIITTAUS KAAVIOON>L'enveloppe financière actuelle comprend également un montant inscrit à la sous-section B7 (volet externe du programme).An additional budget of 32,55 Mio EUR is requested for 2004 to 2007 to finance the participation of the 10 new Member States in the joint actions, other actions and IT actions of the programme, 23,55 Mio EUR in 2003-2006, 9 Mio EUR in 2007.Adaptation de l'enveloppe financière proposée :Enveloppe actuelle 2003-2007 (EUR 15) :   133,000 Mio EURMontant supplémentaire proposé 2004-2006 (EUR 10):   23,550 Mio EURMontant supplémentaire proposé 2007 (EUR 10):         9,000 Mio EURNouvelle enveloppe 2003-2007 (EUR 25):    165,550 Mio EURA. Justification de la demande supplémentaire de crédits d'engagement pour  2004-2006An additional budget of 23,55 Mio EUR is requested for 2004 to 2006 to finance the participation of the 10 new Member States in the joint actions, other actions and IT actions of the programme (4,95 Mio EUR in 2004, 9,4 Mio EUR in 2005 and 9,2 Mio EUR in 2006).Crédits d'engagement pour EUR 10 2004-2006 en Mio EUR  (à la 3e décimale)>TAULUKON PAIKKA>* IT SYSTEMSAfter the adhesion of 10 new members, the IT systems will need an additional budget of 2,46 Mio EUR in 2004, 6,91 Mio EUR in 2005 and 6,71 Mio EUR in 2006. These amounts are broken down as follows:* 1,735 Mio EUR in 2004, 4,910 Mio EUR in 2005 and 4,510 Mio EUR in 2006 for the impact of enlargement on CCN/CSI to cover the post-adhesion needs in operational services, including upgrade and evolution of the infrastructure, preventive and evolutive maintenance, increase of the volume of support services and additional training for the new delegates.* 0,725 MEUR in 2004, 2 Mio EUR in 2005 and 2,2 Mio EUR in 2006 for the impact of enlargement on Tariff applications to cover the post-adhesion needs in operational services, including namely upgrade and evolution of the infrastructure, preventive and evolutive maintenance, increase of the volume of support services and additional training for the new delegates.Ces montants ont été calculés en tenant compte des taux d'accroissement respectifs des coûts liés à l'adhésion pour les applications dans le domaine tarifaire d'une part, du système CCN/CSI d'autre part :- les équipements centraux dans le Centre de calcul à Luxembourg nécessitent plus de puissance pour permettre le fonctionnement des applications tarifaires ;- les équipements nécessaires pour l'extension du réseau de télécommunication CCN/CSI (Common Customs Network/Common System Interface) devront être mis à niveau dans les locaux de toutes les administrations nationales concernées ;- il y a également lieu de tenir compte des frais supplémentaires pour faire face à l'augmentation importante du flux de données dans le réseau de télécommunication CCN/CSI suite au déploiement du NSTI (Nouveau Système de Transit Informatisé) vers les nouveaux Etats membres.No additional budget is requested after the adhesion for the IT applications on Transit (NCTS: New Computerised Transit System), E-customs and Enlargement.The Customs 2007 (EUR 15) budget does not include any provision to finance the participation of the 10 new Member States in the Joint and Other Actions.Ventilation des actions informatiques EUR 10 2004-2006Crédits d'engagements en Mio EUR (à la 3e décimale)>TAULUKON PAIKKA>La répartition des montants entre les composants Études, développement, maintenance, Gestion de services et Assurance de qualité est basée sur les pourcentages moyens constatés au cours des années précédentes.Les éléments suivants pourraient avoir comme conséquence que la répartition réelle soit différente de celle prévue:- le degré de maturation des projets (au fur et à mesure du cycle de vie des projets, leur volet opérationnel s'accroît au détriment des prestations de développement)- l'organisation des services proposés en sous-traitance (l'évolution de la situation du marché après l'établissement du cahier des charges peut mener à des coûts différents de ceux estimés).* JOINT ACTIONSFor Joint Actions an additional amount of 2,03 Mio EUR will be needed each year from 2004 to 2006. From a budgetary point of view, the different Joint Actions can be considered as different kinds of meetings. The costs involved are travel tickets and daily allowances. These costs will rise linearly when 10 new Member States join the EU. As a result the initial budget EUR 15 for joint actions needs to be increased with two thirds.Ventilation des Actions communes EUR 10 2004-2006Participation of 10 extra Member States in seminars, exchanges, ...en EUR>TAULUKON PAIKKA>* OTHER ACTIONSFor Other Actions an additional amount of 0,46 Mio EUR will be needed each year from 2004 to 2006. From a budgetary point of view, the different Other Actions are also a kind of meetings and the costs involved are again travel tickets and daily allowances. These costs will rise linearly when 10 new Member States join the EU. As a result the initial budget EUR 15 for joint actions need to be increased with two thirds.Ventilation des autres actions EUR 10 2004-2006* Participation of 10 extra Member States in 10 management group and some 120 project group meetings in the years 2004 to 2006.in EUR>TAULUKON PAIKKA>B. Justification de la demande supplémentaire de crédits d'engagement pour 2007After the adhesion of 10 new members, the IT systems will need an additional budget of 6,51 in 2007. These amounts are broken down as follows:* 4,310 Mio EUR in 2007 for the impact of enlargement on CCN/CSI to cover the post-adhesion needs in operational services, including upgrade and evolution of the infrastructure, preventive and evolutive maintenance, increase of the volume of support services and additional training for the new delegates.* 2,2 Mio EUR in 2007 for the impact of enlargement on Tariff applications to cover the post-adhesion needs in operational services, including namely upgrade and evolution of the infrastructure, preventive and evolutive maintenance, increase of the volume of support services and additional training for the new delegates.The Customs 2007 (EUR 15) budget does not include any provision to finance the participation of the 10 new Member States in the Joint and Other Actions.Therefore, for Joint Actions an additional amount of 2,03 Mio EUR will be needed in 2007, and for Other Actions an additional amount of 0,46 Mio EUR.>VIITTAUS KAAVIOON>Base légaleDécision n° 253/2003/CE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 11 février 2003  portant adoption d'un programme d'action pour la douane dans la Communauté (Douane 2007) (JO L 36 du 12.2.2003, p. 1).Information complémentaire* APB 2004 Document de travail partie I "Activity Statements", p. 407-413* APB 2004 Document de travail partie II "Financial Statements and Human Resources", p. 821-822Intermediate evaluation of the Customs 2002 ProgrammeProgramme/activity and budget line(s) concerned: B5-303 and B7-860 (Customs 2002; Customs cooperation and international assistance (Customs 2002))>TAULUKON PAIKKA>Purpose of evaluationThe intermediate evaluation should review the achievements and results identified so far to feed the debate on the future of the programme. A communication on the usefulness to continue the programme, eventually accompanied by an appropriate proposal, has to be submitted by the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council in accordance with Article 17 of Decision 105/2000/EEC.The 2002 Customs programme, which follows the Customs 2000 programme, introduced modifications that had been judged necessary. The Customs 2002 Decision adopted only at the beginning of 2000, the report on its implementation (required for June 2001) covered just one year of activities.Summary of findings and recommendationsThe report highlights the value added of the reforms introduced to improve the management of the 2002 Customs programme compared to Customs 2000 and identifies the expected impact of the programme. For the reasons stated in the previous point, it was not possible to measure within the short time of one year the impact, in particular since impact indicators had not been prepared from the beginning of the programme. The evaluation report stresses the need to identify more precise impact indicators and that certain instruments are used more than others, but that measures have already been adopted to remedy. In view of a new programme, it would be necessary to take account of the implications of future enlargements and of the current changes in the role of customs (at the level of objectives). The ex post evaluation report, scheduled for June 2003, will have to confirm the identified impact logic.Main evaluation methods and data usedThe data was collected by means of a questionnaire transmitted to Member States. Statistical data on monitoring was also used. The method is that of the deductive analysis of the impact: On the basis of the activities of the programme, the logic was identified, which will have to be confirmed in the ex post evaluation scheduled for June 2003.Action taken / follow-up plannedThe report contains only few recommendations because of the too short period covered since the adoption of the last improvements. It confirms that the last reforms (in 2000 and after which the Customs 2000 programme became Customs 2002) were necessary and show their value added after a year.The intermediate evaluation report of the Customs 2002 programme was also used for the preparation of a communication on the usefulness to continue the Customs programme. The decision of a new programme incorporates suggested improvements concerning the definition of the objectives, the evaluation arrangements of the programme and the incorporation of the specific needs of the candidate states.Availability of the reportCopy available on the web site:  http://europa.eu.int/comm/ taxation_customs/french/publications/working_doc/working_doc_fr.htmSEC(2001)%201329Final evaluation of the Customs 2002 ProgrammeProgramme/activity and budget line(s) concerned: B5-303 and B7-860 (Customs 2002; Customs cooperation and international assistance (Customs 2002))>TAULUKON PAIKKA>Purpose of evaluationFinal evaluation aims to present the results and impact generated by all the activities of the programme. A final evaluation report has to be submitted by the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council in accordance with Article 17 of Decision 105/2000/EEC. The Commission is adopting this report in written procedure.Summary of findings and recommendationsThe final report stresses that the activities (including operations of IT systems) of the programme have been contributing to the achievement of its objectives, especially that the programme has helped to enhance cooperation both among Member States and between Member States and the Commission. In addition, Customs 2002 has prepared the way for the integration of future Member States' administrations into the management of Community customs.The evaluation report stresses the need to reinforce cooperation and co-ordination between Customs administrations to facilitate management of the new common external border. It also stresses the need to define better impact indicators to measure the results and impact of the programme.Main evaluation methods and data usedThe data was collected by means of questionnaires, of which evaluation forms (covering each activity) and questionnaires on the results and impact of the programme (filled by each Member State). Quantitative data on the results and impact generated by IT systems financed by the programme was also collected.Evaluation was based on MEANS methodology.Action taken / follow-up plannedA number of the evaluation reports (interim and final) recommendations have been incorporated into the new Customs 2007 programme. The definition of impact indicators for the new programme has been subject to a specific external contract.Availability of the reportIt is foreseen that the report will be on the website of DG TAXUD in October 2003.Titre 14:    FISCALITE et UNION DOUANIERENom du programme :   FISCALISLigne budgétaire :   14.05.03 (B5-308)Période d'application:   2003/2007Enveloppe financière actuelle : 44 Mio EURO>TAULUKON PAIKKA>An additional budget of 22,550 Mio EUR is requested to finance in 2004 to 2007 the participation of the 10 new Member States in the joint actions, other actions and IT actions of the programme (6,5 Mio EUR in 2007).Adaptation de l'enveloppe financière proposée :Enveloppe actuelle 2003-2007 (EUR 15) :   44,000 Mio EURMontant supplémentaire proposé 2004-2006 (EUR 10):   16,75 Mio EURMontant supplémentaire proposé 2007 (EUR 10):         6,50 Mio EURNouvelle enveloppe 2003-2007 (EUR 25):    67,25 Mio EURC. Justification de la demande supplémentaire de crédits d'engagement pour  2004-2006An additional budget of 16,750 Mio EUR is requested to finance in 2004 to 2006 the participation of the 10 new Member States in the joint actions, other actions and IT actions of the programme (4,45 Mio EUR in 2004, 6 Mio EUR in 2005 and 6,3 Mio EUR in 2006).Crédits d'engagement EUR 10 2004-2006 en Mio EUR>TAULUKON PAIKKA>(1) FITS : Fiscalis Information Technology Services* IT SYSTEMSAfter the adhesion of 10 new members, the IT systems will need an additional budget of 2,6 Mio EUR in 2004, 4,15 Mio EUR in 2005 and 4,45 Mio EUR in 2006. These amounts are broken down as follows:* 1,475 Mio EUR in 2004, 2 Mio EUR in 2005 and 2,1 Mio EUR in 2006 for the impact of enlargement on CCN/CSI to cover the post-adhesion needs in operational services, including upgrade and evolution of the infrastructure, preventive and evolutive maintenance, increase of the volume of support services and additional training for the new delegates.* 1,125 MEUR in 2004, 2,15 Mio EUR in 2005 and 2,35 Mio EUR in 2006 for the impact of enlargement on Fiscalis IT systems to cover the post-adhesion needs in operational services, including upgrade and evolution of the infrastructure, preventive and evolutive maintenance, increase of the volume of support services and additional training for the new delegates.Ventilation des actions informatiques EUR 10 2004-2006Crédits d'engagement en Mio EUR (à la 3e décimale)>TAULUKON PAIKKA>La répartition des montants entre les composants Études, développement, maintenance, Gestion de services et Assurance de qualité est basée sur les pourcentages moyens constatés au cours des années précédentes.Les éléments suivants pourraient avoir comme conséquence que la répartition réelle soit différente de celle prévue:- le degré de maturation des projets (au fur et à mesure du cycle de vie des projets, leur volet opérationnel s'accroît au détriment des prestations de développement)- l'organisation des services proposés en sous-traitance (l'évolution de la situation du marché après l'établissement du cahier des charges peut mener à des coûts différents de ceux estimés).* JOINT ACTIONSFor Joint Actions an additional amount of 1,85 Mio EUR will be needed each year from 2004 to 2006.  From a budgetary point of view, the different Joint Actions can be considered as different kinds of meetings. The costs involved are travel tickets and daily allowances. These costs will rise linearly when 10 new Member States join the EU. As a result the initial budget EUR 15 for joint actions needs to be increased with two thirds.Ventilation des Actions Conjointes EUR 10* Participation of 10 extra Member States in seminars, exchanges, multilateral controls and other activities in 2004, 2005 and 2006.in EUR>TAULUKON PAIKKA>D. Justification de la demande supplémentaire de crédits d'engagement pour 2007After the adhesion of 10 new members, the IT systems will need an additional budget of 4,65 in 2007. This amounts is broken down as follows:* 2,2 Mio EUR in 2007 for the impact of enlargement on CCN/CSI to cover the post-adhesion needs in operational services, including upgrade and evolution of the infrastructure, preventive and evolutive maintenance, increase of the volume of support services and additional training for the new delegates.* 1,450 Mio EUR in 2007 for the impact of enlargement on Fiscalis IT systems to cover the post-adhesion needs in operational services, including upgrade and evolution of the infrastructure, preventive and evolutive maintenance, increase of the volume of support services and additional training for the new delegates.For Joint Actions an additional amount of 1,85 Mio EUR will be needed in 2007 as for 2004-2006.>VIITTAUS KAAVIOON>Base légaleDécision n° 2235/2002/CE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 3 décembre 2002  portant adoption d'un programme d'action communautaire visant à améliorer le fonctionnement des systèmes fiscaux dans le marché intérieur (programme Fiscalis 2003- 2007) (JO L 341 du 17.12.2002, p. 1).Information complémentaire* APB 2004 Document de travail partie I "Activity Statements", p. 414-423* APB 2004 Document de travail partie II "Financial Statements and Human Resources", p. 826-827Intermediate evaluation of the Fiscalis ProgrammeProgramme/activity and budget line(s) concerned: B5-305  (FISCALIS - Action programme for the reinforcement of the indirect taxation systems of the internal market)>TAULUKON PAIKKA>Purpose of evaluationIntermediate evaluation to review the results and impact identified to feed the debate on the future of the programme. A communication on the usefulness of continuing the programme, eventually accompanied by an appropriate proposal, has to be submitted by the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council in accordance with Article 12 of Decision 888/98/EEC.Summary of findings and recommendationsThe intermediate report stresses that so far the activities of the programme seem to contribute to the achievement of its objectives. It proposes a series of measures allowing to increase its effectiveness and its efficiency: (1) Increase the use of the joint actions of the programme (specific measures are suggested), (2) Diffuse better the assets of the activities of the programme within the national administrations, (3) Re-examine the provisions (a Regulation and a Directive) that organise administrative cooperation in order to eliminate obstacles for exchange of information. For the ex post evaluation of the programme, scheduled for June 2003, the report stresses the need to specify better the objectives of the programme (integration of new VAT strategy adopted in 2000) and to improve the definition of impact indicators.Main evaluation methods and data usedThe data was collected by means of questionnaires, of which evaluation forms (covering each activity) and questionnaires on the assets of the halfway programme (filled by each Member State). The method is that of the explicit analysis of the impact: The logic of the expected impact was built beforehand and the evaluation made it possible to adapt this logic and to measure certain stages quantitatively.Action taken / follow-up plannedConcerning the recommendation regarding the joint actions, the proposed specific measures are currently introduced by the programme managers. (A guide on multilateral controls was updated, the definition of specific objectives of the exchange and seminars is more precised and the monitoring of use by the Member States of the funds of the joint action was strengthened.) The instruments of administrative cooperation were re-examined and the Commission proposed in June 2001 a new Regulation (COM(2001) 294  final). The problems of administrative cooperation mentioned in the intermediate evaluation report of the Fiscalis programme had already been stressed in the third report concerning the administrative cooperation (COM(2000)28 of 28.01.2000).The intermediate evaluation report of the Fiscalis programme was also used for the preparation of a communication on the usefulness of continuing the Fiscalis programme. The decision of the new programme incorporates suggested improvements concerning the definition of the objectives and the evaluation arrangements of the programme.Availability of the reportCopy available on the web site: http://europa.eu.int/comm/ taxation_customs/french/publications/working_doc/working_doc_fr.htmSEC(2001)%201328Final evaluation of the Fiscalis ProgrammeProgramme/activity and budget line(s) concerned: B5-305  (FISCALIS - Action programme for the reinforcement of the indirect taxation systems of the internal market)>TAULUKON PAIKKA>Purpose of evaluationFinal evaluation aims to present the results and impact generated by all the activities of the programme. A final evaluation report has to be submitted by the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council in accordance with Article 12 of Decision 888/98/EEC. The Commission is adopting this report in written procedure.Summary of findings and recommendationsThe final report indicates how the improvements proposed in the interim evaluation report of June 2001 have been implemented and how the new VAT strategy guidelines have been incorporated into the action plans for 2001 and 2002. It stresses that the activities (including operations of IT systems) of the programme have been contributing to the achievement of its objectives. It recommends to have greater complementary between the programme's activities and to improve the definition of impact indicators.Main evaluation methods and data usedThe data was collected by means of questionnaires, of which evaluation forms (covering each activity) and questionnaires on the results and impact of the programme (filled by each Member State). Quantitative data on the results and impact generated by IT systems financed by the programme was also collected.Evaluation was based on MEANS methodology.Action taken / follow-up plannedA number of the evaluation reports (interim and final) recommendations have been incorporated into the new Fiscalis 2007 programme. The definition of impact indicators for the new programme has been subject to a specific external contract.Availability of the reportIt is foreseen that the report will be on the website of DG TAXUD in October 2003.Title 15: Education and Culture>TAULUKON PAIKKA>JustificationLa détermination du montant additionnel pour 2004, résultat d'une simulation de la répartition des crédits dans une Europe à 25, tient compte du souci de ne pas pénaliser les Etats membres actuels, dans le contexte particulier qui caractérise la gestion des principaux volets du programme.Les nouveaux Etats membres participent déjà au programme Socrates, dans le cadre d'accords d'association parfois déjà signés en 1997; sur cette base, leurs ressortissants bénéficient du programme dans une mesure, négociée, compatible avec les ressources additionnelles (non incluses dans l'enveloppe codécidée du programme) découlant de l'application des accords d'association, ce qui fait que, pendant toute cette période, l'ouverture du programme aux pays candidats n'a pas eu de conséquence négative pour les actuels Etats membres de l'Union. A partir du moment où ces pays auront adhéré comme membres de plein droit à l'Union, le bénéfice, jusqu'alors négocié, qu'ils tirent du programme ne pourra plus être limité aux ressources additionnelles découlant de l'adhésion: s'appliqueront, à ces pays comme aux actuels Etats membres, les règles de participation prévues par le programme. Or, ce programme est caractérisé par d'importants volets, notamment de mobilité, gérés de manière décentralisée par allocation de fonds à des agences nationales, sur base de critères objectifs comme la taille de la population cible, les distances entre les pays et le différentiel de coût de la vie. L'application aux nouveaux Etats membres des règles générales relatives à la détermination des fonds à allouer et les caractéristiques de l'élargissement (les nouveaux Etats membres seront des pays périphériques, donc logiquement favorisés par le critère des distances géographiques, alors que perdront cette caractéristique de périphéricité des pays qu'elle favorisait jusqu'alors; par ailleurs, ils sont des pays à faible coût de la vie et seront également favorisés par l'application de ce critère) font que, à défaut d'une augmentation suffisante du budget du programme, l'adhésion des nouveaux Etats membres pourrait avoir des effets négatifs très importants pour les Etats membres actuels.Une grande attention a donc été portée à la détermination, par simulation, des ressources budgétaires à prévoir dans le cadre de l'élargissement: le montant minimal dont doit être augmentée la dotation 2004 du programme, pour assurer que, globalement, les Etats membres actuels ne seront pas pénalisés par l'adhésion des nouveaux pays est de 67 MioEUR.Compte tenu de ce qui précède, l'augmentation proposée ne vise pas directement à répondre à un besoin des nouveaux Etats membres (ils participent déjà au programme), mais à assurer que le programme, globalement, disposera de crédits tels que le changement des règles de participation des nouveaux Etats membres ne se fasse pas au détriment des Etats membres actuels.La répartition, volet par volet, des crédits additionnels peut être ainsi estimée:enseignement scolaire (Comenius)  //  16,100 MioEURenseignement supérieur (Erasmus)  //  25,000 MioEURéducation des adultes et autres parcours éducatifs (Grundtvig)  //  2,300 MioEURautres actions décentralisées  //  3,900 MioEURactions centralisées  //  19,000 MioEURdépenses d'appuiTotal  //  0,700 MioEUR67,000 MioEURPar comparaison, sur base d'une augmentation de 33 MioEUR (12% des crédits EUR15, soit plus ou moins l'augmentation retenue pour les politiques internes), environ la moitié des actuels Etats membres verraient les allocations de fonds pour leurs agences nationales diminuer de plus de 10% [22]); la dotation additionnelle de 67 MioEUR n'empêche certes pas que certains des actuels Etats membres voient leurs dotations diminuer (éviter cela supposerait une augmentation de 82 MioEUR), mais ce sera dans des proportions moins préjudiciables.[22]  Par exemple, l'Allemagne recevrait en 2004 une allocation au titre de la mobilité des étudiants (Erasmus) diminuée de plus de 1,4 MioEUR par rapport à celle de 2003.Le même montant a plus ou moins été retenu pour les années 2005 et 2006, ce qui conduit à une augmentation totale sur les trois ans de 210 MioEUR.Base légaleDécision no 253/2000/CE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 24 janvier 2000 établissant la deuxième phase du programme d'action communautaire en matière d'éducation Socrates (JO L 28 du 3.2.2000, p. 1).>TAULUKON PAIKKA>Information complémentaireAPB 2004, Document  de travail partie I, p. 431-437APB 2004, Document  de travail partie II, p. 878-882ÉvaluationSocrates 2000 Evaluation Study; executive summary, November 2000Title 15: Education and Culture>TAULUKON PAIKKA>1.  Montant pour l'élargissement pour la base légale en cours (2000-2004)L'augmentation retenue pour Culture s'inscrit dans la moyenne des augmentations retenues pour la rubrique 3 (environ 12%). Le programme Culture est d'ores et déjà ouvert à la participation des nouveaux Etats membres; le montant dont il est proposé de renforcer sa dotation EUR15 en 2004 correspond au montant des crédits additionnels dont il bénéficie d'ores et déjà dans le contexte de la participation de ces pays. Seule l'année 2004, dernière année du programme, est concernée.2.  Mise à jour du montant final pour la prolongation du programme (2005-2006):Dans l'hypothèse que l'Autorité Budgétaire accepte les montants proposés pour l'élargissement et la proposition pour une prolongation du programme, il convient d'ajouter pendant la procédure législative à la base légale proposée pour 2000-2006 le montant de 3,7 mioEUR pour 2004 pour l'élargissement, ce qui amènera le programme à un total de 240,20 mioEUR:EU  15   2000 - 2004      167,00 mioEUREU  10              2004           3,70 mioEUREU  25   2005 - 2006        69,50 mioEUR   (34,90 pour 2005 et 34,60 pour 2006)Total      2001 - 2006      240,20 mioEURBase légale1) Décision no 508/2000/CE du Parlement européen et du Conseil, du 14 février 2000, établissant le programme «Culture 2000» (JO L 63 du 10.3.2000, p. 1).2) Proposition de décision du Parlement européen et du Conseil, présentée par la Commission le 16/04/2003, modifiant la décision n°508/2000/CE du 14 février 2000 établissant le programme « Culture 2000 » COM/2003/0187 final>TAULUKON PAIKKA>Information complémentaireAPB 2004, Document  de travail partie I, p. 444-449APB 2004, Document  de travail partie II, p. 914-916La Fiche Financière législative concernant la proposition pour la prolongation du programme pour les années 2005 et 2006 est attachée.SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION REPORT ON "INTERIM EVALUATION OF THE CULTURE 2000 PROGRAMME - FINAL REPORT"A. Relevant evaluation source* Title of the evaluation report: Interim Evaluation of the Culture 2000 Programme - final report, June 2003* Type of the evaluation: External evaluation (PLS Ramboll Management)* Availability of the report: paper copy +  http://www.eac.cec/evaluation/resultats/ culture.htmlCulture2000* Other relevant info: multi-annual programme 2000-2004.B. Main characteristics of the activity/programme/action evaluatedABB activity: 15 04 02 Culture.Budget line:  B3-2008Annual appropriations : 2000 : 34.6, 2001 : 31.0, 2002 : 33.1, 2003 : 33.3, 2004 : 35.0Financial framework:  167 mio EUR on 5 yearsThe evaluation covers the implementation of the programme in the years 2000 and 2001. The Decision sets out eight explicit objectives for the programme within the framework of the promotion of a cultural area which is common to the European people, thereby supporting co-operation between creative artists, cultural operators, private and public promoters, cultural networks, cultural institutions and other partners. This intermediary evaluation includes the management of the programme, the achievements attained with the support of the programme, its use of resources, the programme results and impacts and a view on the efficiency and effectiveness.C. Findings, conclusions and recommendations of the evaluation reportFindingsOverview of the programme, including management issues :The Commission manages "directly" this programme (call for proposals, expert panel, Management Committee, consultation of European Parliament)  The programme management and specifications underwent some changes during 2000-2001. At present, no integrated electronic system for programme monitoring exists.  The programme follows clear objectives and the programming is in accordance with these objectives. Furthermore, the objectives seem complementary to those of other Community programmes, while the latter are not subsumed by a crosscutting cultural priority that assures further logical coherence between the Community's interventions.More than 1600 projects were submitted during the first two years of the programme and 400 were granted funding. The programme funded projects managed by a wide variety of organisations but most of them were relatively small in terms of operational capacity. Project partnerships were based on previous collaboration.Quality and relevanceBased on the assessments of the project leaders and co-organisers, it appears that the Culture 2000 Programme has had a fairly high impact with respect to creating European added value (understood as good co-operation with (known and hitherto unknown) partners that it is desired to repeat, plus the creation of a larger transnational network for the organisations involved); and cultural added value (creating new forms of cultural expressions, attracting plenty of attendance to one's performances or events, and encouraging the movement of artists and cultural operators from one place to another). The socio-economic impact of the programme, however, seems to have been of a more restricted nature, as approximately half of the projects stated that they had not improved cultural access.Efficiency and effectivenessAt projects level (based on self-declaration from projects and from the case-studies): the efficiency and the effectiveness was positively assessed.Of the "Cultural Contact Points" (CCP) : After the start-up process having been completed, the majority of the CCPs also tended to agree that the current funding level were sufficient to achieve their output requirements. The CCPs state that they seek to pay attention to cost reduction issues. In the majority of the cases, the CCP were effective in reaching their objectives (information to the public, setting up a database, give technical assistance)At programme level: The Commission did not make use of an integrated electronic monitoring system of the programme (also a challenge to the evaluation) Human resources at Commission level were "scarce" which had an influence on the delays in the selection procedure. As far as effectiveness is concerned, most operators have targeted more than one objective simultaneously. One out of six project leaders found difficult to convert the objectives of the program into project ideas. Delays in payments (sometimes due to the incomplete information provided by the projects) were considered as an "impediment to the quality of output" (to a certain extent) by 2/3 of the projects. Opinions were divided on the transparency of the procedure and a majority of projects welcomed the earlier publication by the Commission of the call for proposals for 2003.ConclusionsThe evaluator concludes that:- The programming cohere with to the objectives of the programme. However, the current level of funding is very limited compared to the ambitious and broad objectives defined in the Decision. The Commission could consider prioritising programme objectives by narrowing objectives and/or target groups;- Programme management is implemented according to the programming of resources. Measures have been taken to improve the performance of the programme (selection procedures and co-operation with projects in order to facilitate the operators' implementation of the projects and achieving results at both project and programme level.)- Management of the programme has been carried out efficiently and the programme has been implemented effectively in achieving its objectives given the constraints induced by the level of funding.- CCPs has implemented their contractually activities in an efficient way. A challenge lies ahead for the Commission and the CCPs in reducing the quantity of Culture 2000 applications which are refused on technical rather than on qualitative grounds, as well as streamlining communication between the Commission and the CCPs in order to improve effectiveness of the programme further.- The Culture 2000 Programme did create cultural added value through creating new forms of cultural expression, attracting greater attendances than planned to its participants' performances, and encouraging the movement of artists and cultural operators. Also, the evaluators considers that projects completed their projects with the level of quality foreseen when they submitted their applications.- Further the Culture 2000 Programme succeeded in creating European value-added in terms of creating new trans-national co-operation and new partnerships that appear to be sustainable.- Funding of projects which would have been carried out also without Culture 2000 funding, have enabled the scale and scope of the projects facilitating intensified trans-national cooperation.- the Culture 2000 funding for projects was relevant for the majority of the projects supported.The interpretation of these conclusions must take into account that the present evaluation is a mid-term evaluation, and the programme's impact defined as the long-term effects of the intervention are not necessarily established at this point in time. The ex post evaluation of the programme, should therefore assess e.g. the longevity and sustainability of the partnerships, and the use and sustainability of the "new forms of cultural expression". In that sense, the current evaluation results are preliminary and indicative of the impact of the programme.LEGISLATIVE FINANCIAL STATEMENTPolicy area(s): Education and CultureActivity/activities: Cultural cooperationTitle of action: Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No 508/2000/EC of 14 February 2000 establishing the "Culture 2000" programme1. Budget line(s) + heading(s)B3-2008B (ABB : 15 04 02 01) - Framework programme in support of cultureB3-2008A (ABB : 15 01 04 07) - Framework programme in support of culture - Expenditure on administrative management2. OVERALL FIGURES2.1. Total allocation for action (Part B): commitment appropriationsEUR 69,500 million EUR25This corresponds to the budgetary impact over the two years concerned, 2005 and 2006, of the proposed extension of the programme scheduled to end on 31 December 2004.An amount corresponding to the impact of enlargement in 2004 will be added to the programme's allocation as modified by this proposal for extension.2.2. Period of application:From 1 January 2005 to 31 December 20062.3. Overall multiannual estimate of expenditure:a) Schedule of commitment appropriations/payment appropriations (financial intervention)EUR million (to 3 decimal places)>TAULUKON PAIKKA>b) Technical and administrative assistance and support expenditure (cf. point 6.1.2)EUR million (to 3 decimal places)>TAULUKON PAIKKA>EUR million (to 3 decimal places)>TAULUKON PAIKKA>c) Overall financial impact of human resources and other administrative expenditure (cf. points 7.2 and 7.3)EUR million (to 3 decimal places)>TAULUKON PAIKKA>>TAULUKON PAIKKA>2.4 Compatibility with financial programming and financial perspective[ X ] Proposal compatible with the existing financial programming.[...] Proposal will entail reprogramming of the relevant heading in the financial perspective.[...] Proposal may require application of the provisions of the Interinstitutional Agreement.2.5 Financial impact on revenue:[ X ] Proposal has no financial implications (involves technical aspects regarding implementation of a measure)3. BUDGET CHARACTERISTICS>TAULUKON PAIKKA>4. Legal basisArticle 151 of the EC Treaty.5. DESCRIPTION AND GROUNDS5.1 Need for Community intervention5.1.1. Objectives pursued and Community interventionThe objective is to enable European Union action on cultural cooperation to be continued on the basis of the Culture 2000 framework programme, due to expire on 31 December 2004.The programme will be coming to an end at a time of change of major significance for the future of the European Union. The accession of ten new Member States, the results of the Intergovernmental Conference based on the work of the Convention on the Future of Europe, the election of the European Parliament and appointment of a new Commission are bound to change the shape of the Union's future action.Obviously, these changes will be felt in the cultural sector as well, and programmes will have to be adapted. We are not yet in a position, however, to see exactly what those changes will be, particularly as the financial perspective has only been defined up to 2006.It is therefore proposed to extend Decision No 508/2000/EC establishing the framework programme by two years to avoid any disruption of the Community's cultural activities, the objectives of which - derived from Article 151 of the Treaty - are (Article 1 of the Decision):a) promoting cultural dialogue and mutual knowledge of the culture and history of the European peoples;b) promoting creativity and transnational dissemination of culture, and the movement of artists, creators and other cultural operators and professionals and their works, with a strong emphasis on young and socially disadvantaged people and on cultural diversity;c) highlighting cultural diversity and developing new forms of cultural expression;d) sharing and highlighting, at European level, the common cultural heritage of European significance; disseminating know-how and promoting good practice in conserving and safeguarding that heritage;e) recognising the role of culture in socio-economic development;f) fostering intercultural dialogue and mutual exchange between European and non-European cultures;g) explicit recognition of culture as an economic factor and as a factor in social integration and citizenship;h) improved access to and participation in culture in the European Union for as many citizens as possible.5.1.2 Measures taken in connection with ex ante evaluationEvaluation work (monitoring, ongoing evaluation, initial conclusions of the mid-term evaluation of the Culture 2000 programme required under Article 8 of Decision No 508/2000/EC) has been taken into account in deciding to propose extending the programme.In all, the programme has supported over 700 cooperation projects in performing arts, visual arts, literature and cultural heritage. It has also financed the translation of 250 works and supported events organised as part of "European Capitals of Culture", "European Heritage Days", etc.It has contributed to promoting the development of a common cultural area, encouraging cooperation between cultural operators with a view to developing intercultural dialogue, knowledge of history and culture, transnational dissemination of culture, cultural diversity, creativity, promotion of cultural heritage, socio-economic and social integration and disseminating best practice.This proposal is also based on a broad debate with the various parties concerned (in the course of the Forum on cultural cooperation in November 2001, dialogue with the other institutions, meetings with professionals and on-site visits). The conclusion was that implementation of Community action through the "Culture 2000" programme has been a positive experience.The final results of the mid-term evaluation of the Culture 2000 programme will provide further guidance for the European Commission on the follow-up to the Community's action in support of culture and on the design and management of a future cultural programme in a greatly enlarged European area.5.1.3 Measures following ex post evaluationLessons can be drawn from the experience in respect of:a) the programme design;b) the programme management.On the question of design, the proposal is based on the proven value of the Community action on cultural cooperation and the need to ensure continued Community support and avoid any disruption of that action, provided for by the Treaty, pending the proposal for a decision on new Community intervention policy in the field of culture for the period beyond 2006, to be presented by the Commission by the end of 2003.Concerning the programme management, the Commission will draw on its past experience and the comments made in evaluations and audits. Care will be taken in implementing the programme to ensure that it is as straightforward and easy to use as possible, as these qualities are essential to its effectiveness and large-scale use in Europe. The possibility of an executive agency is currently being considered which, as far as possible, and if justified by a cost-effectiveness analysis, will be put in charge of the programme's management and other responsibilities in connection with its implementation, such as monitoring and documentation of project results.5.2 Action envisaged and budget intervention arrangementsThe programme, to be extended unchanged, if accepted, will involve three types of action:1. Annual cooperation projects (action 1)2. Projects run under multiannual cooperation agreements (action 2)3. Special cultural events with a European or international dimension (action 3).The ultimate purpose of the three actions will be the same, i.e. to promote the creation of a common cultural area.They are addressed directly to cultural operators (event organisers, theatre managers, etc), and, through them, artists and creators, and, more indirectly, to all European citizens, in particular disadvantaged groups and young people.Co-financing grants are planned for the three types of action above.The necessary support will also be provided for project evaluation and information and communication services.Financing will be 100% for purchases of services (studies, publications, meetings of experts, evaluations, technical assistance contracts) and for any contribution to a future executive agency, the creation of which is currently being considered.5.3 Implementation arrangementsThe proposal follows the traditional Community approach on implementation in respect of grants and co-financing, based on detailed requests for funding.The programme will be managed centrally by the Commission, possibly assisted by a future executive agency currently under consideration. Funds will be needed to cover administrative expenditure directly connected to the programme's objective (studies, meetings of experts, information and publications, contribution to the operating costs of an executive agency or other technical and administrative assistance).Funding will be granted on the basis of calls for proposals and invitations to tender.6. Financial impact6.1 Total financial impact on Part B (over the entire programming period)6.1.1 Financial interventionCommitments in EUR million (to three decimal places)>TAULUKON PAIKKA>6.1.2 Technical and administrative assistance, support expenditure and IT expenditure (Commitment appropriations)>TAULUKON PAIKKA>The nature of this expenditure may vary if a cost-effectiveness study, to be launched in 2003, recommends using an executive agency for the programme management.6.2 Calculation of costs by measure envisaged in Part B (over the entire programming period)Commitments in EUR million (to three decimal places)>TAULUKON PAIKKA>7. IMPACT ON STAFF AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITUREThe current managers will continue to run the extended programme.The human and administrative resources will be covered by the funds already granted for management purposes.7.1 Impact on human resourcesThere are no plans to add further human resources to those already managing the Culture 2000 programme.>TAULUKON PAIKKA>7.2 Overall financial impact of human resources>TAULUKON PAIKKA>*The amounts represent total expenditure for 12 months.7.3 Other administrative expenditure deriving from the measure>TAULUKON PAIKKA>*The amounts represent total expenditure for 12 months.(1) Specify the type of committee and the group to which it belongs>TAULUKON PAIKKA>The human resource and administrative requirements will be covered by the budget allocated to the managing Directorate-General under the annual allocation procedure.8. MONITORING AND EVALUATION8.1 Monitoring arrangementsFor the implementation of the programme, output indicators have been defined in respect of the number of projects to be supported: 310 under action 1, 34 under action 2 and 77 under action 3.The data collection system for projects and measures co-financed by Culture 2000 operates on several levels:- grant application forms- mid-term and final reports submitted by the beneficiaries to the Commission for its approval;- any audits and on-site visits by Commission staff.8.2 Arrangements and schedule for the planned evaluationOn completion of the Culture 2000 programme, the Commission will present a report on its implementation to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.The Commission will also present a short annual progress report on the implementation of the Culture 2000 programme to the European Parliament, the Council and the Committee of the Regions.These assessment reports will emphasise in particular the creation of added value, particularly of a cultural nature, and the socio-economic consequences of the Community's financial support.9. Fraud prevention measuresAll contracts, agreements and legal undertakings entered into by the Commission and the beneficiaries provide for checks to be carried out by the Commission or the Court of Auditors on the premises of a direct beneficiary of a Community grant, and for evidence to be required of any expenditure under such contracts, agreements and legal undertakings, within five years of the end of the contract period. Beneficiaries are subject to reporting and financial accounting obligations, and these are analysed from the point of view of content and eligibility of expenditure, bearing in mind the purpose of Community funding and taking account of contractual obligations and of the principles of economy and sound financial management.Title 15: Education and Culture>TAULUKON PAIKKA>1. Montant pour l'élargissement pour la base légale en cours (2001-2005)L'augmentation retenue pour Media-Formation s'inscrit dans la moyenne des augmentations retenues pour la rubrique 3 (12%). Elle conduit à ajouter un million d'euros à la dotation EUR15 de 2004. Cette augmentation, faible en valeur absolue et conforme, en pourcentage, à la moyenne retenue pour la rubrique est supérieure au montant des crédits additionnels dont bénéficie d'ores et déjà le programme dans le contexte de la participation actuelle des futurs nouveaux Etats membres; toutefois, seuls huit de ces pays adhérents participent actuellement au programme; ces crédits additionnels doivent donc être augmentés pour prendre en compte l'élargissement à deux pays supplémentaires. Il est proposé de reconduire le montant additionnel de 1 MioEUR pour l'année 2005, dernière année du programme.2. Mise à jour du montant final pour la prolongation du programme (2006)Dans l'hypothèse que l'Autorité Budgétaire accepte les montants proposés pour l'élargissement et la prolongation du programme, il convient d'ajouter pendant la procédure législative à la base légale proposée pour 2001-2006 le montant de 2,00 mio EUR (1,00 pour 2004 et 1,00 pour 2005) pour l'élargissement 2004 et 2005, ce qui amènera le programme à un total de 59,40 mioEUR:EU  15   2001 - 2005     50,00 mioEUREU  25             2006         7,40 mioEUR      (6.6 EUR 15 et 0.8 pour EUR 10)Total                               57,40 mioEUREU  10   2004 - 2005       2,00 mioEUR       (1.0 pour 2004 et 1,0 pour 2005)Total      2001 - 2006     59,40 mioEURBase légale1) Décision no 163/2001/CE du Parlement européen et du Conseil, du 19 janvier 2001, portant sur la mise en oeuvre d'un programme de formation pour les professionnels de l'industrie européenne des programmes audiovisuels (Media«Formation») (2001-2005) (JO L 26 du 27.1.2001, p. 1).2) Proposition de décision du Parlement européen et du Conseil, présentée par la Commission le 16/04/2003, modifiant la décision nº 163/2001/CE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 19 janvier 2001 portant sur la mise en oeuvre d'un programme de formation pour les professionnels de l'industrie européenne des programmes audiovisuels (MEDIA-formation) (2001-2005) COM/2003/0188 final.>TAULUKON PAIKKA>Information complémentaireAPB 2004, Document  de travail partie I, p. 450-456APB 2004, Document  de travail partie II, p. 925La Fiche Financière législative concernant la proposition pour la prolongation du programme (2006) est jointe.ÉvaluationNo specific interim evaluation is on-going. But an ex-post evaluation of the Media II programme started in April 2002. This evaluation should include an analysis of the results obtained by the programme as a whole as well the outcome of the programme in every specific sector of intervention of the programme, namely training, distribution, promotion and development.FICHE FINANCIÈRE LÉGISLATIVEDomaines(s) politique(s): culture - politique industrielleActivité(s): soutien à l'industrie audiovisuelleDénomination de l'action: DÉCISION DU PARLEMENT EUROPÉEN ET DU CONSEIL modifiant la décision nº 163/2001/CE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 19 janvier 2001 portant sur la mise en oeuvre d'un programme de formation pour les professionnels de l'industrie européenne des programmes audiovisuels (MEDIA-formation) (2001-2005)1. LIGNE(S) BUDGÉTAIRE(S) + INTITULÉ(S)B3-2011 MEDIA-formation (15.05.01.02)2. DONNÉES CHIFFRÉES GLOBALES2.1. Enveloppe totale de l'action (partie B):7,4 millions d'euros en crédits d'engagementCette somme représente l'incidence budgétaire de la proposition de prolonger le programme, qui doit se terminer le 31 décembre 2005, pendant l'année supplémentaire concernée, c'est-à-dire 2006.Elle concerne UE25. A l'enveloppe du programme, telle que modifiée par cette proposition de prolongation, s'ajoutera un montant correspondant à l'impact de l'élargissement sur 2004.2.2. Période d'application: 1er janvier 2006 - 31 décembre 20062.3. Estimation globale pluriannuelle des dépenses:a) Échéancier crédits d'engagement/crédits de paiement (intervention financière) (voir point 6.1.1)Millions d'euros (à la 3e décimale)>TAULUKON PAIKKA>b) Assistance technique et administrative (ATA) et dépenses d'appui (DDA) (voir point 6.1.2)>TAULUKON PAIKKA>>TAULUKON PAIKKA>c) Incidence financière globale des ressources humaines et autres dépenses administratives  (voir points 7.2. et 7.3)>TAULUKON PAIKKA>>TAULUKON PAIKKA>2.4. Compatibilité avec la programmation financière et les perspectives financières[X] Proposition compatible avec la programmation financière existante.2.5. Incidence financière sur les recettes [23]:[23]  Pour plus d'informations, voir la note explicative séparée.[X] La proposition n'a aucune incidence financière (concerne des aspects techniques relatifs à la mise en oeuvre d'une mesure).3. CARACTÉRISTIQUES BUDGÉTAIRES>TAULUKON PAIKKA>4. BASE JURIDIQUEArticle 251 du traité CEArticle 150 du traité CE5. DESCRIPTION ET JUSTIFICATION5.1. Nécessité d'une intervention communautaire [24][24]  Pour plus d'informations, voir la note explicative séparée.5.1.1. Objectifs poursuivisLa prolongation vise à garantir la continuation du programme MEDIA-formation de soutien à l'industrie audiovisuelle européenne en 2006. Le programme actuel prendra fin le 31 décembre 2005. La prolongation est jugée nécessaire pour garantir la continuité de l'action communautaire durant la période de transition, qui sera caractérisée par des changements institutionnels très importants (élargissement de l'Union, nouveau Parlement européen et nouvelle Commission). En outre, la prolongation permettra au programme MEDIA de respecter les perspectives financières établies jusqu'en 2006.La demande de prolongation ne requiert aucune modification de la décision 163/2001/CE du Conseil du 19 janvier 2001, sauf pour ce qui concerne le durée du programme. Par conséquent, une dotation budgétaire sera établie pour une année supplémentaire.L'objectif de cette décision reste le soutien de l'industrie audiovisuelle européenne par l'amélioration de sa compétitivité. Le programme MEDIA-formation est axé sur l'offre de programmes de formation pour les professionnels du secteur audiovisuel portant sur les capacités créatives et les compétences commerciales nécessaires pour mener à bien le processus de production. La priorité est donnée à l'utilisation des nouvelles technologies dans la production audiovisuelle ainsi qu'au renforcement de la coopération transnationale en Europe.5.1.2. Dispositions prises relevant de l'évaluation ex anteLe programme MEDIA-formation s'appuie sur les réalisations des programmes MEDIA I et MEDIA II. Ces programmes ont fait l'objet d'exercices d'évaluation détaillés ayant servi à l'élaboration du programme MEDIA-formation, qui constitue leur prolongement. L'évaluation ex ante réalisée par les services de la Commission a confirmé qu'un programme de formation spécifique visant à améliorer la compétitivité de l'industrie audiovisuelle européenne était nécessaire. Elle a également fait ressortir l'opportunité de privilégier l'utilisation des nouvelles technologies aux stades de la production et de la distribution et a révélé les avantages en termes d'efficacité de la consolidation des réseaux européens entre instituts de formation. Enfin, elle a identifié dans les actions de formation un moyen de réduire les déséquilibres des capacités de production en Europe et soutient dès lors plus particulièrement les programmes de formation dans les pays à faible capacité audiovisuelle.5.1.3. Dispositions prises à la suite de l'évaluation ex postUne évaluation à mi-parcours du programme MEDIA-formation est actuellement réalisée par les services de la Commission, assistés par un consultant indépendant. Comme le prévoit la décision, les résultats de l'évaluation peuvent conduire à un ajustement du programme en vue d'améliorer son efficacité. La Commission transmettra à toutes les institutions compétentes le résultat de l'évaluation sous la forme d'une communication officielle.5.2. Action envisagée et modalités de l'intervention budgétaireLa prolongation du programme MEDIA-formation ne requiert pas de modification de la structure du programme. Il continuera à soutenir les institutions qui organisent et gèrent des projets de formation en Europe. La formation soutenue associera tous les acteurs du processus de production tels que les réalisateurs, les producteurs et les scénaristes et favorisera également leur coopération. Elle doit avoir pour but le renforcement de leurs compétences artistiques et commerciales. Les instituts de formation feront également l'objet d'une action de formation destinée à permettre un échange de savoir-faire.Les bénéficiaires recevront une aide financière de la Commission jusqu'à concurrence de 50 % du budget total des projets concernés. Cette aide financière sera accordée sous forme d'aides non remboursables et pourra également couvrir les frais liés à la participation aux programmes de formation des participants issus de pays européens autres que le pays organisateur. Dans des cas exceptionnels, la participation communautaire pourra représenter jusqu'à 60 % du budget total du projet.5.3. Modalités de mise en oeuvreLe mécanisme de mise en oeuvre respectera la réglementation générale des actions communautaires. Il comprend des subventions, des prêts et des programmes de cofinancement basés sur des demandes de financement détaillées. La Communauté finance intégralement des services comme l'organisation de groupes d'experts, les études de marché, l'évaluation des projets et l'assistance technique. Le financement sera octroyé à la suite d'appels d'offres et d'appels à propositions.Le programme MEDIA Plus est géré de façon centralisée par les services de la Commission. Un bureau d'assistance technique situé à Bruxelles prête son concours aux services de la Commission pour les questions liées à la gestion. Ce bureau est financé sur la ligne budgétaire B3-2010A (15.01.04.08) (qui couvre MEDIA Plus et MEDIA-formation). Au niveau national et en coopération avec les autorités nationales, les MEDIA desks assurent l'interface avec les bénéficiaires du programme. Il convient de préciser qu'une étude a été lancée pour étudier la possibilité de remplacer le bureau d'assistance technique actuel par une agence d'exécution.6. INCIDENCE FINANCIÈRE6.1. Incidence financière totale sur la partie B (pour toute la période de programmation)6.1.1. Intervention financièreCrédits d'engagement (en millions d'euros à la 3e décimale)>TAULUKON PAIKKA>6.2. Calcul des coûts par mesure envisagée en partie B (pour toute la période de programmation) [25][25]  Pour plus d'informations, voir la note explicative séparée.Crédits d'engagement (en millions d'euros à la 3e décimale)>TAULUKON PAIKKA>7. INCIDENCE SUR LES EFFECTIFS ET LES DÉPENSES ADMINISTRATIVES7.1. Incidence sur les ressources humainesLes fonctionnaires chargés de la mise en oeuvre des programmes existants (MEDIA Plus et MEDIA-formation) géreront la prolongation du programme MEDIA-formation. Cette procédure est décrite dans la fiche financière relative à la prolongation du programme MEDIA Plus.7.2. Incidence financière globale des ressources humaines7.3. Autres dépenses de fonctionnement découlant de l'actionIl est à noter que les dépenses de fonctionnement du programme MEDIA-formation sont couvertes par celles du programme MEDIA Plus.8. SUIVI ET ÉVALUATION8.1. Système de suiviEn ce qui concerne la mise en oeuvre du programme, la prolongation s'effectuera selon le système créé pour MEDIA-formation. Celui-ci comprend la participation des comités de sélection des différents appels à propositions, la supervision des contrats de service en cours et le contrôle financier de toutes les transactions.8.2. Modalités et périodicité de l'évaluation prévueUne évaluation à mi-parcours du programme MEDIA-formation est actuellement réalisée par les services de la Commission avec l'aide d'un consultant indépendant externe. Les résultats de cette évaluation aideront à corriger, si nécessaire, les lacunes en matière de mise en oeuvre et les déficiences structurelles du programme actuel. Au terme du programme MEDIA-formation, un évaluateur indépendant réalisera une évaluation de son impact. Les résultats de l'évaluation ex post seront transmis au Parlement, au Conseil, au Comité des régions et au Conseil économique et social.9. MESURES ANTIFRAUDETous les contrats, conventions et engagements juridiques conclus entre la Commission et les bénéficiaires dans le cadre du programme prévoient la possibilité d'un contrôle dans les locaux des bénéficiaires par les services de la Commission ou la Cour des comptes, ainsi que la possibilité d'exiger des bénéficiaires la présentation de tous les documents et données concernant les dépenses liées à ces contrats, conventions ou engagements juridiques jusqu'à cinq ans après la période contractuelle. Les bénéficiaires sont soumis à l'obligation de fournir des rapports et des comptes financiers, aux fins de l'analyse de l'éligibilité des coûts et du contenu, conformément aux règles relatives au financement communautaire et en tenant compte des obligations contractuelles et des principes économiques et de bonne gestion financière.Title 15: Education and Culture>TAULUKON PAIKKA>Justification:Cette année est un événement ponctuel.L'augmentation retenue est modeste, inférieure à l'augmentation moyenne au titre des politiques internes.Base légaleDécision no 291/2003/CE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 6 février 2003 établissant l'Année européenne de l'éducation par le sport 2004 (JO L 43 du 18.2.2003 p. 1).Information complémentaireAPB 2004, Document  de travail partie I, p. 450-456APB 2004, Document  de travail partie II, p. 931Title 15: Education and Culture>TAULUKON PAIKKA>JustificationLa détermination du montant additionnel pour 2004, résultat d'une simulation de la répartition des crédits dans une Europe à 25, tient compte du souci de ne pas pénaliser les Etats membres actuels, dans le contexte particulier qui caractérise la gestion des principaux volets du programme.Les nouveaux Etats membres participent déjà au programme Jeunesse, dans le cadre d'accords d'association parfois déjà signés en 1997; sur cette base, leurs ressortissants bénéficient du programme dans une mesure, négociée, compatible avec les ressources additionnelles (non incluses dans l'enveloppe codécidée du programme) découlant de l'application des accords d'association, ce qui fait que, pendant toute cette période, l'ouverture du programme aux pays candidats n'a pas eu de conséquence négative pour les actuels Etats membres de l'Union. A partir du moment où ces pays auront adhéré comme membres de plein droit à l'Union, le bénéfice, jusqu'alors négocié, qu'ils tirent du programme ne pourra plus être limité aux ressources additionnelles découlant de l'adhésion: s'appliqueront, à ces pays comme aux actuels Etats membres, les règles de participation prévues par le programme. Or, ce programme est caractérisé par d'importants volets, notamment de mobilité, gérés de manière décentralisée par allocation de fonds à des agences nationales, sur base de critères objectifs comme la taille de la population cible, les distances entre les pays et le différentiel de coût de la vie. L'application aux nouveaux Etats membres des règles générales relatives à la détermination des fonds à allouer et les caractéristiques de l'élargissement (les nouveaux Etats membres seront des pays périphériques, donc logiquement favorisés par le critère des distances géographiques, alors que perdront cette caractéristique de périphéricité des pays qu'elle favorisait jusqu'alors; par ailleurs, ils sont des pays à faible coût de la vie et seront également favorisés par l'application de ce critère) font que, à défaut d'une augmentation suffisante du budget du programme, l'adhésion des nouveaux Etats membres pourrait avoir des effets négatifs très importants pour les Etats membres actuels.Une grande attention a donc été portée à la détermination, par simulation, des ressources budgétaires à prévoir dans le cadre de l'élargissement: le montant minimal dont doit être augmentée la dotation 2004 du programme, pour assurer que, globalement, les Etats membres actuels ne seront pas pénalisés par l'adhésion des nouveaux pays est de 26 MioEUR.Compte tenu de ce qui précède, l'augmentation proposée ne vise pas directement à répondre à un besoin des nouveaux Etats membres (ils participent déjà au programme), mais à assurer que le programme, globalement, disposera de crédits tels que le changement des règles de participation des nouveaux Etats membres ne se fasse pas au détriment des Etats membres actuels.La répartition, volet par volet, des crédits additionnels peut être ainsi estimée:Jeunesse pour l'Europe  //  7,200 MioEURService volontaire européen  //  7,700 MioEURinitiatives Jeunes  //  2,100 MioEURautres actions   //  8,600 MioEURdépenses d'appuiTotal  //  0,400 MioEUR26,000 MioEURPar comparaison, une augmentation de 8,5 MioEUR (12% des crédits EUR15, soit plus ou moins l'augmentation retenue pour les politiques internes) serait inférieure aux crédits additionnels qui résultent actuellement de la participation des dix pays concernés par application des accords d'association; la dotation additionnelle de 26 MioEUR n'empêche certes pas que certains des actuels Etats membres voient leurs dotations diminuer, mais ce sera dans des proportions moins préjudiciables.Le même montant a plus ou moins été retenu pour les années 2005 et 2006, tenant compte de la progression de l'enveloppe EUR15, ce qui conduit à une augmentation totale sur les trois ans de 85 MioEUR.Base légaleDécision no 1031/2000/CE du Parlement européen et du Conseil, du 13 avril 2000, établissant le programme d'action communautaire Jeunesse (JO L 117 du 18.5.2000, p. 1).>TAULUKON PAIKKA>Information complémentaireAPB 2004, Document  de travail partie I, p. 461-465APB 2004, Document  de travail partie II, p. 949-951Evaluation of the Youth for Europe III programmeProgramme/activity and budget line(s) concerned: B3-1010 (Youth)>TAULUKON PAIKKA>Purpose of evaluation   Main purpose of the evaluation was to verify to what extent the objectives of the programme have been achieved and to provide recommendations for the implementation of the YOUTH programme (2000-2006).Summary of findings and recommendations  The evaluation reveals a significant positive impact on the young participants (better appraisal of European diversity, will to take part in social life), a stimulation of the adoption of partnerships and exchange of good practices, as well as of the opening of Youth organisations to Europe.The report recommendated increased decentralisation of the implementation of the actions allowing action closer to the ground, greater visibility of the actions, improved monitoring and evaluation of the actions carried out.Main evaluation methods and data usedInterviews with the national agencies; Questionnaires to the promoters and participants in the projects; Thematic working parties. Alltogether, more than 550 people were consulted.Action taken / follow-up planned   The evaluation results and the action taken on base of it were presented in an official Commission staff working paper "Youth for Europe and European Voluntary Service - Evaluation report" (SEC(2001)1621) of 9 October 2001.The findings and recommendations of the evaluation have to be appreciated with respect to the YOUTH programme. In fact, a major part of them are already applied in this programme: intensified decentralisation (via the national agencies), adoption of a strategy to ensure more visibility of the programme, definition of a framework for the monitoring by taking up some of the evaluation recommendations.Availability of the reportCopy available on request from G. Urban Penon (DG EAC)*****>VIITTAUS KAAVIOON>>VIITTAUS KAAVIOON>>VIITTAUS KAAVIOON>>VIITTAUS KAAVIOON>>VIITTAUS KAAVIOON>>VIITTAUS KAAVIOON>>VIITTAUS KAAVIOON>>VIITTAUS KAAVIOON>>VIITTAUS KAAVIOON>>VIITTAUS KAAVIOON>>VIITTAUS KAAVIOON>>VIITTAUS KAAVIOON>>VIITTAUS KAAVIOON>