LÕPLIK
A6-0154/2005
25.5.2005
*
RAPORT
Ettepanek võtta vastu nõukogu määrus, millega muudetakse määrust (EÜ) nr 382/2001 seoses selle kehtetuks muutumisega ja teatud eelarve täitmist reguleerivate sätetega
(KOM(2004)0840 – C6‑0044/2005 – 2004/0288(CNS))
Rahvusvahelise kaubanduse komisjon
Raportöör:
David Martin
PE 355.685v02-00
Kasutatud tähised
* nõuandemenetlus
antud häälte enamus
**I koostöömenetlus (esimene lugemine)
antud häälte enamus
**II koostöömenetlus (teine lugemine)
antud häälte enamus ühise seisukoha heakskiitmiseks, parlamendi liikmete h äälte enamus ühise seisukoha tagasilükkamiseks või muutmiseks
*** nõusolekumenetlus
parlamendi liikmete häälteenamus v.a EÜ asutamislepingu artiklites 105, 107, 161 ja 300 ja ELi lepingu artiklis 7 toodud juhtudel
***I kaasotsustamismenetlus (esimene lugemine)
antud häälte enamus
***II kaasotsustamismenetlus (teine lugemine)
antud häälte enamus ühise seisukoha heakskiitmiseks, parlamendi liikmete häälteenamus ühise seisukoha tagasilükkamiseks või muutmiseks
***III kaasotsustamismenetlus (kolmas lugemine)
antud häälte enamus ühise teksti heakskiitmiseks
(Antud menetlus põhineb komisjoni esitatud õiguslikul alusel.)
Õigusloomega seotud tekstide kohta esitatud muudatusettepanekud
Euroopa Parlamendi muudatusettepanekutes tõstetakse muudetud tekst esile paksus kaldkirjas .
Tavalises kaldkirjas märgistus on mõeldud asjaomastele osakondadele lõpliku teksti ettevalmistamise abistamiseks ja tähistab neid õigusakti osi, mille kohta on tehtud parandusettepanek lõpliku teksti vormistamiseks (nt ilmselgelt valed või puuduvad lõigud mõnes tõlkeversioonis).
Selliste parandusettepanekute puhul tuleb saada vastavate osakondade nõusolek.
SISUKORD
EUROOPA PARLAMENDI ÕIGUSLOOMEGA SEOTUD RESOLUTSIOONI PROJEKT.....5
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT................................................................................................7
MENETLUS..............................................................................................................................10
EUROOPA PARLAMENDI ÕIGUSLOOMEGA SEOTUD RESOLUTSIOONI PROJEKT
ettepaneku kohta võtta vastu nõukogu määrus, millega muudetakse määrust (EÜ) nr 382/2001 seoses selle kehtetuks muutumisega ja teatud eelarve täitmist reguleerivate sätetega
( KOM(2004)0840 – C6‑0044/2005 – 2004/0288(CNS) )
(Nõuandemenetlus)
Euroopa Parlament ,
– võttes arvesse komisjoni ettepanekut nõukogule ( KOM(2004)0840 )
ELT C ... / ELTs seni avaldamata. ;
– võttes arvesse EÜ asutamislepingu artikleid 133 ja 181a, vastavalt millele nõukogu konsulteeris parlamendiga ( C6-0044/2005 );
– võttes arvesse kodukorra artiklit 51;
– võttes arvesse rahvusvahelise kaubanduse komisjoni raportit ning väliskomisjoni, eelarvekomisjoni ja kultuuri- ja hariduskomisjoni arvamusi ( A6‑0154/2005 ),
1. kiidab komisjoni ettepaneku muudetud kujul heaks;
2. palub komisjoni oma ettepanekut vastavalt muuta, järgides EÜ asutamislepingu artikli 250 lõiget 2;
3. palub nõukogul parlamenti informeerida, kui nõukogu kavatseb kõrvale kalduda parlamendi poolt vastu võetud tekstist;
4. nõuab 4. märtsi 1975. aasta ühisdeklaratsioonis ettenähtud lepitusmenetluse alustamist, kui nõukogu kavatseb kõrvale kalduda parlamendi poolt vastu võetud tekstist;
5. palub nõukogul parlamendiga uuesti konsulteerida, kui nõukogu kavatseb komisjoni ettepanekut oluliselt muuta;
6. teeb presidendile ülesandeks edastada parlamendi seisukoht nõukogule ja komisjonile.
Komisjoni ettepanek
Euroopa Parlamendi muudatusettepanek
Muudatusettepanek
1
ARTIKLI 1 PUNKT -1 (uus)
Põhjendus 9 a (uus) (määrus (EÜ) nr 382/2001)
-1.
Pärast põhjendust 9 lisatakse järgmine põhjendus:
"9 a) Programm "Gateway to Japan" ja juhtimisalane koolitusprogramm olid nii edukad, et edaspidi tuleks kavandada sarnaseid programme ka teiste riikidega, näiteks Hiinaga."
Justification
China is not a possible partner under this regulation that covers only industrialised countries.
But economic relations with China are important and a programme that facilitates contacts would be beneficial.
Other possible countries could be Thailand or India.
Muudatusettepanek
2
ARTIKLI 1 PUNKT -1 A (uus)
Artikli 4 punkt (h a) (uus) (määrus (EÜ) nr 382/2001)
-1 a.
Artiklis 4 lisatakse pärast punkti h) järgmine punkt:
"h a) tegevuse koordineerimine üksikute partnerriikide raames ja erinevate partnerriikide vahel."
Justification
The EU Centres need a common website to exchange information and to inform about their activities.
This website could be used not only by the Centres in the USA, but by all Centres outside the EU.
Furthermore, the Centres within the US should coordinate their cooperation among themselves and not through the European Commission.
Funding for these activities should be foreseen.
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
The regulation concerns co-operation and commercial relations with the following industrialised countries: United States, Canada, Japan, Korea (Republic of Korea), Australia and New Zealand.
Initially, it had been drafted to provide the legal base for several programmes or actions that the Community wanted to fund but where the legal base was missing.
The regulation is colloquially known as "omnibus regulation" as it covers a range of different and unrelated programmes - for all of which the legal base was missing before its existence.
It covers two main areas:
A) Co-operation - all concerned countries
– education and information of the public;
– strengthening people-to-people links;
– dialogue between political, economical and social partners;
– research and studies;
– projects in science and technology;
– customs co-operation;
– enhancing the visibility of the EU;
– pilot schemes.
These aims are achieved mainly by co-funding EU Centres.
They support research activities, support fellowship programmes, e.g. for faculty and graduate students, organise academic conferences on EU topics, etc.
B) Commercial Relations - Japan and, to a lesser extent, Korea
– Japan: targeted programs that bring added value to efforts by the Member States;
– Japan: participation of groups of business executives from SMEs to actions in Japan (Gateway to Japan);
– Japan: conferences and seminars, high-level business missions, etc.;
– Japan and Korea: Executive Training Programmes (ETP) - to enable European executives to communicate and operate in the Japanese and Korean business environment.
Groups of young executives are taught the language (for 9 months in Japan, a shorter period in Korea) and then do an internship in a company.
What has been funded?
23 EU Centres have been opened, 15 in the US, 5 in Canada, one each in Australia, New Zealand and Japan.
These centres vary in size and activities.
In the US, they are hosted by major universities.
Some are housed within International departments, some are hosted jointly by several departments, some are independent.
The majority have some sort of advisory board.
In Canada, the Centres are hosted within European focused international departments.
In Australia and New Zealand, they are not hosed within one department.
The US Centres have usually more than one goal.
Only one (Harvard, USA) sees teaching as its main objective.
Most see outreach as main target.
It is interesting that none of the 17 US centres sees networking with the others as a goal.
The Canadian Centres are similar to those in the US, whereas those in Australia and N.Z. focus on academic objectives.
ETP has been running since 1979.
Since then, more than 850 European executives have participated.
A Korean version of ETP was launched in 2002.
Some 1500 SMEs have participated in the Gateway to Japan Programme.
Budget
The budgetary means were between MEUR 15.2 and 16.8 per annum, around 50% of which goes to ETP, 22% to Gateway to Japan and 17% to the EU centres.
The original regulation expires on 31 December 2005.
According to the planning of the Commission, the expenditures covered by it should fall under the new financial instruments for Community External Assistance from 2007 on.
This amending legislation has been drafted to cover the gap between 31 December 2005 and 1 January 2007.
Future legislative coverage
The Commission has proposed that there will be four financial instruments.
For one, the instrument for development co-operation, the Committee on International Trade has recommended to the lead committee, the Committee on Development, that the proposal be rejected.
The Committee on Development has subsequently adopted a recommendation to reject the proposal.
The plenary will have to consider this recommendation in the next weeks.
If the proposal fails to secure a majority of the votes in plenary, the EP President will ask the Commission to withdraw the proposal.
If the Commission fails to do so, the President will refer the matter back to the committee responsible.
There will be no adoption in first reading and thus a blockage of the legislative draft.
As the four instruments have been drafted as a package, the rejection would have an impact on the other instruments.
Commission’s proposed changes
1.
Extension of the period of validity - until 2007, i.e. until the new Financial Perspective becomes applicable.
Budgetary consequences: MEUR 17 in commitments and payments.
2.
Compliance with the new Financial regulation - participants under the ETP program receive individual grants or scholarships.
This needs to be covered in a different way since the new FR came into force.
3. the legal base changes, Art. 181a is added - economic, financial and technical cooperation with third countries.
Comments
The rapporteur agrees that the prolongation is only necessary to bridge the gap between the end of 2005 and the beginning of the period covered by the new financial perspective and the new financial instruments in the EC's foreign policy.
As soon as the new instruments will be in place, this regulation will be repealed.
The evaluations for the EU centres, ETP and the Gateway programme are both very positive.
The Gateway programme shows that €1 spent on the programme created €37 in additional sales for the companies participating.
The evaluation of ETP is slightly less enthusiastic albeit still very positive, thus the programme should be continued.
The EU centres also do a very relevant work, the only negative aspect being a lack of coordination between the different centres in the US.
Whereas in the first time after their founding, the US Centres had a coordinator and a website, this has been abandoned since and today coordination is done by the European Commission's delegation in Washington.
With the loss of the website, the Centres have lost a common, everyday platform for interaction between themselves.
Having the Commission is not so positive either.
The rapporteur recommends to re-introduce a coordinator.
There is no room in the regulation to include other countries, such as India or China in the programmes, as they are emerging economies and not industrialised countries.
However, the rapporteur would support the extension of different parts of this programme to other countries.
The model character of both the ETP and the Gateway programme could be promoted for other bilateral relations, e.g. for China, Thailand, or India.
MENETLUS
Pealkiri
Ettepanek võtta vastu nõukogu määrus, millega muudetakse määrust (EÜ) nr 382/2001 seoses selle kehtetuks muutumisega ja teatud eelarve täitmist reguleerivate sätetega
Viited
( KOM(2004)0840 – C6-0044/2005 – 2004/0288(CNS) )
Õiguslik alus
art 133 ja 181 (EÜ)
Menetlusalus
art 51
EP-ga konsulteerimise kuupäev
21.2.2005
Vastutav komisjon istungil teada andmise kuupäev
INTA 24.2.2005
Nõuandev komisjon / Nõuandvad komisjonid istungil teada andmise kuupäev
CULT
BUDG
AFET
Arvamuse esitamisest loobumine otsuse kuupäev
CULT 17.1.2005
BUDG 20.4.2005
AFET 18.1.2005
Tõhustatud koostöö istungil teada andmise kuupäev
Raportöör(id) nimetamise kuupäev
David Martin 3.2.2005
Aseraportöör(id)
Lihtsustatud menetlus otsuse kuupäev
Õigusliku aluse vaidlustamine JURI arvamuse kuupäev
Rahaeraldise määra muutmine BUDG arvamuse kuupäev
Konsulteerimine Euroopa majandus- ja sotsiaalkomiteega istungil otsuse tegemise kuupäev
Konsulteerimine regioonide komiteega istungil otsuse tegemise kuupäev
Arutamine komisjonis
18.4.2005
Vastuvõtmise kuupäev
23.5.2005
Lõpphääletuse tulemused
poolt:
vastu:
erapooletuid:
18
Lõpphääletuse ajal kohal olnud liikmed
Daniel Caspary, Christofer Fjellner, Georgios Papastamkos, Tokia Saïfi, Zbigniew Zaleski, Françoise Castex, Erika Mann, Javier Moreno Sánchez, Sajjad Karim, Johan Van Hecke, Caroline Lucas, Jacky Henin, Helmuth Markov
Lõpphääletuse ajal kohal olnud asendusliikmed
Maria Martens, Zuzana Roithová, Panagiotis Beglitis, Elisa Ferreira, Danute Budreikaitė
Lõpphääletuse ajal kohal olnud asendusliikmed (kodukorra art 178 lg 2)
Esitamise kuupäev – A6
25.5.2005
A6-0154/2005
Märkused
