Brussels, 15/11/2011 (Agence Europe) - Several countries, such as Spain, Italy, the United Kingdom, Greece, Portugal, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Romania, Bulgaria and Belgium, expressed doubt in Brussels on Tuesday 15 November 2011 about the macroeconomic requirements that would suspend Cohesion Policy funding for countries breaking the Stability and Growth Pact (Structural Funds, Cohesion Funds, etc). They made the criticism during a debate at the General Affairs Council on aspects of the draft multiannual Financial Framework for 2014-2020. The ministers discussed economic, social and territorial cohesion, the European Interconnection Mechanism idea, the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy.
During the debate, a number of countries repeated their calls for the EU budget to be frozen, thus formulating criticism of the European Commission's proposals for the Financial Framework for 2014-2020.
Sweden recommended that the budget be frozen, saying that there was no wriggle room to increase contributions from the member states to the EU budget. Like Germany, Sweden opposes the idea of the funding mechanisms suggested by the Commission that are not included in the budget. The Cohesion Policy should, it says, focus on the most backward regions where co-funding of 75% should apply, rather than 85%. It called for a reduction in funding for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and a gradual phasing out of aid. France pointed out that countries were having to tighten their belts and it would therefore not be right to call for a large increase in the EU budget. The French minister said that the CAP was the only EU policy whose funding had barely kept up with inflation compared with the current financial framework and called for similar budget discipline to apply to all policies across the board.
Germany said that 1% of the EU's gross national product for the EU budget was plenty, but the Commission's draft budget exceeded this. New expenditure is only legitimate, argued Germany, if it increases the EU's competitiveness and economic growth.
The Netherlands said that the overall level of expenditure was too high and, like other countries, including Germany and France, it called for a top-down approach (first of all define the acceptable level of spending to fit the economic situation). The Dutch called for the European Development Fund to be incorporated into the EU budget.
Belgium opposed the idea of cuts in the EU budget, particularly the Cohesion Policy. The Belgian minister said that the EU's budget was a budget for investment and one would be shooting oneself in the foot if one cut the budget for cohesion.
Cohesion Policy. Germany said one should focus on the important parts of the Cohesion Policy, rejecting the idea of intermediary regions, which France is not opposed to. Belgium and Spain backed the idea of intermediary regions. Hungary set out the joint position of 13 countries (Hungary, Spain, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Lithuania, Latvia, Malta, Portugal, Romania and Slovakia), calling for a strong, integrated, development policy to remain in place as part of the Cohesion Policy. Hungary, speaking for that country, strongly criticised the Commission's suggestions, which would reduce Hungary's share of the cake by 10%. The Council of Ministers was divided over the absorption of funds policy. The Baltic States oppose the proposed approach on the absorption of funding (e.g. reducing the capping rates for cohesion allocations from 4% to 2.5% of Gross Domestic Product).
Interconnection mechanism. Several delegations back the idea of creating a European Interconnection Mechanism although many, like the Netherlands and Germany, criticise the suggested cost. Doubts were expressed by several countries about the connection made between the new mechanism and funds available for economic, social and territorial cohesion. Some delegations were unhappy about the €100 billion budget (at 2011 prices) set aside for transport under the Cohesion Fund.
Common Agricultural Policy. The Commission suggests in its reform plans that a balance be struck in farm aid to ensure it reaches the people who earn the least. France said that it did not oppose the idea of convergence in theory but wanted it to be very gradual and be implemented across the entire time-period. Several new EU member states, like the Baltic States and Poland, called for the changes to be made rapidly, but others, like Belgium, criticised the new division of funding as being damaging to farmers. Several countries (France, Italy Portugal and others) criticised the suggested manner for “greening” 30% of farm aid. Hungary, France, Ireland and other countries called for a strong budget to remain in place for the CAP. The United Kingdom said that the budget for the first pillar of the CAP (direct aid and market spending) should be cut, but it was not given much backing from other member states. (LC/transl.fl)