( Posts pre-allocated within the APS/PDB exercise for year n

2. Deplores the fact that, in its draft budget, Council has reduced the Commission's Preliminary draft budget (PDB) even further: commitment appropriations in the draft budget total EUR 137 944 million, which represent a decrease relative to the PDB of EUR 613 million, and payment appropriations of EUR 120 521 million represent a decrease relative to the PDB of EUR 1 795 million; underlines that this has even further increased the disparity between the level of commitments and payments, which is contrary to the principle of sound financial management;

8. Supports Letter of amendment No 1 to the Preliminary draft budget (PDB) 2009, in particular as it seems to give a slightly more realistic picture of needs in heading 4 than the PDB; takes note of Letter of amendment No 2/2009 in its traditional aspects of updating the figures underlying the estimate of agricultural expenditure in the PDB; takes note of Letter of amendment No 3/2009 aiming at covering - within Council's budget - the cost (EUR 1,06 million) of the reflection group set up by the European Council on 15-16 October 2008;

66. Takes note that the Guarantee Fund for loans is included in the PDB 2009 with an amount of EUR 92,46 million as opposed to the original financial programming which foresaw EUR 200 million for its provisioning; points out that an important part of the margin available in PDB 2009, i.e. EUR 107,54 million of EUR 243,6 million, is artificial insofar as it is the result of this manoeuvre; underlines with strong concern that it is very likely that these "savings" in the budgeting of the Guarantee Fund in 2009 will need to be compensated by higher expenditure in the years to come, leaving even smaller margins in heading 4 than those prog ...[+++]rammed now;

57. Points out that, prior to the PDB presentation, Parliament had requested in its abovementioned resolution of 24 April 2008 a realistic picture of all budgetary needs, especially in heading 4 of the MFF; does not consider the PDB, in this heading, to follow the principle of sound financial management;

11. Cannot always see a clear correlation between the Commission's political priorities, as described in its Annual Policy Strategy (APS) and the PDB, and increases in the corresponding budget lines and policy areas; is still not satisfied with the attempts of the Commission to include Parliament's priorities in the PDB; is not convinced, for example, that the climate change priority really is reflected throughout the budget as proposed by the Commission; wishes to receive more precise information as to the methodology used to come to the conclusion that over 10%, or EUR 14 billion, of the EU budget is spent on environmental targets; ...[+++] requests a comprehensive presentation of all climate change related expenditure in the budget, including rural development and structural funds, to be able to evaluate the correlation between political and budgetary priorities; points to the need to revise current programmes at the mid term review in order to better integrate climate change objectives and provide for improved policy coherence;