Brussels, 05/12/2011 (Agence Europe) - Denmark is taking over the reins of the presidency of the Council of Ministers of the EU for six months beginning on 1 January 2012. It wants to prepare the ground for pushing through an agreement on the financial framework for 2014-2020, under the Cypriot Presidency, during the second half of the year. On Monday 5 December, during the presentation of the Polish Presidency's progress report on the 2014-2020 multiannual financial framework at the General Affairs Council, Denmark recognised that the Danish Presidency's task would be “difficult and tough. We will need everyone's support to make the progress we would like to achieve. We can significantly increase the number of meetings but if there is no real will to make progress, this will be a waste of time.”
Nineteen delegations intervened during the debate. Among the major countries absent were Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Greece is hoping that all of the discussions on the financial framework for 2014-2020 will be concluded during the Cypriot Presidency (second half of 2012).
Italy's representative pointed out that the government had just adopted measures for getting the country on the right footing. Italy stated: “Since we are requesting efforts to be made from our citizens, we are mainly concerned by how to use public funds. It will be necessary to maintain the same concerns with regard to the European budget. We will also demonstrate prudence with regard to the system of own resources proposed and we will see how it is ultimately structured.” On the issue of expenditure, Italy warned that they would be “even more circumspect”. Italy has major reservations about proposals involving the CAP (common agricultural policy) and misgivings concerning proposals for cohesion policy.
France considered the Polish Presidency report was not very encouraging and although stabilisation of agricultural spending was acceptable it was “imperative that other policies are subject to the same discipline”.
The Czech Republic believed it is necessary to reach an agreement by the end of 2012 on the next financial framework. It considers that the 2014-2020 budget must reflect efforts made by EU countries to consolidate their public finances at national level and at the same time they want funding for Community priorities. The country agrees with the proposals to increase parts of the budget for competitiveness, research and the important role to be played by cohesion policy.
Austria considered that the Commission's budget proposals are too high. It also thinks that payment appropriations and commitments should be stabilised at the current level and that during the negotiations on the 2014-2020 framework, it will be necessary to firstly reach an agreement on the overall amount and then see how it should be allocated between the different policies. Austria is opposed to strengthening instruments that make the EU budget more flexible. Sweden defended modernisation of the EU budget for the 2014-2020 period and argued for “spending on action that helps generate growth and guarantees a return on investment”. According to Sweden, the level of spending and contributions from countries to the EU budget should remain unchanged “because we have to tackle the difficult economic situation”.
Romania appealed for appropriate funding for the CAP and cohesion policy for the 2014-2020 period.
Belgium considered that the Commission proposals for 2014-2020 represent a good compromise, despite the decrease in EU spending in percentage terms for EU gross national income and despite the increase in the EU's tasks and the wave of accessions.
Denmark provided a few indications on how the country intended to guide discussions on this dossier during the first half of 2012. The Danish minister explained: “We intend to tackle this dossier during the six General Affairs meetings. This dossier is also included on the Ecofin Council agenda, in order to have the contribution of European finance ministers.” There will not, however, be formal conclusions at the Ecofin Council. During the first few months of 2012, the Presidency will seek to focus on technical aspects, before moving onto political aspects. The Danish representative pointed out that the objective was to “reduce the gap between the different positions of member states”. The Danish delegation explained that “we will need to examine member states' current priorities on the 2014-2020 financial framework and define priorities within this framework”. Denmark added: “I hope that we will able to present to you in June, at the end of our presidency, a package for negotiations and that the majority of the main problems will have been resolved. We will need to reach an agreement on the figures before the end of 2012.”
Cohesion policy. Spain called for a gradual as opposed to an abrupt elimination of cohesion policy funds in certain regions. “It is for this reason that we are in favour of setting up an intermediate category for regions that are no longer part of the convergence of objective”. Nonetheless, it has to be admitted that many countries are opposed to creating the “regions in transition category” because it involves focusing aid on the least developed regions.
Portugal considers cohesion as a central policy in the European project given the current period of crisis, as it is fundamental in generating growth and creating jobs. Portugal defends a concentration of ¾ of the funds in convergence regions. The calculation of national envelopes has to take into account the level of prosperity of countries in which the different regions concerned are located.
Belgium defended a “strong and ambitious” cohesion policy to the benefit of the whole of the EU.
Ceiling on cohesion spending. Hungary and the Baltic countries reiterated their opposition to the proposed ceiling (to 2.5% of the country's GDP) for cohesion policy spending. According to these countries, this limitation does not represent the absorption capacity and constitutes unfair treatment.
Conditionality. Many delegations consider that macro-budgetary conditionality runs the danger of creating unjustifiable pro-cyclical effects at an economic level and introducing double sanctions (sanctions that have just been added to those resulting from the “six-pack”) and penalising beneficiaries. Romania is not opposed to macro-economic conditionality but only on the condition that it applies to all EU policies. It stated that “it can not be applied in a discriminatory fashion to certain policies”.
Agriculture. Ireland considers that paragraph 26 of the Presidency report (the opinions of delegations do not all concur with regard to the budget level for agriculture; some of them support the Commission proposal to stabilise spending at 2013 levels in nominal terms, whilst others are in favour of a more restrictive approach with regard to spending on agriculture) does not reflect the real discussions that took place. The proposal is a starting point but Ireland considers that this is only the minimum acceptable and Europe must have a common agricultural policy that works. It also considers that the changes proposed to the CAP must be gradual. Convergence between countries (providing more direct agricultural aid to those which previously received less) must be carried out pragmatically.
Latvia underlined the need to ensure the principle of equity in direct payments. Bulgaria called for sufficient funding, at least with regard to what the Commission proposed.
Portugal said: “Equity and equality at both the pace and intensity of convergence is required with regard to direct payments between countries.”
Romania considers that the CAP is a strategic sector and that it requires a sufficient budget level to meet the challenges it has to face. This country considers that the Commission proposal on reducing disparities “does not go far enough”.
Belgium accepts the idea of redistributing direct aid between the countries more fairly, “but we need to understand that this has to remain an economically and socially sustainable exercise for the countries involved” (Ed: namely those that are losing out the most from this convergence).
Dismantling nuclear plants. Bulgaria, Latvia and Lithuania consider that the funds planned (€500 million from 2014 2020, see EUROPE 10502) for the dismantling of nuclear plants was insufficient. They have called on the Commission to revise the funding proposed.
Own resources. Austria supported implementation of a tax on financial transactions, as did Greece and Spain. Bulgaria called for own resources to be based on the GDP of the different countries. The Czech Republic is against the introduction of new own resources and advocates a “simple” system of revenue. Greece supported the Commission proposals on creating new own resources of the EU (tax on financial transactions, European VAT). According to Greece, this would help reduce EU countries' contributions. Malta is opposed to the tax on financial transactions “unless it is applied internationally”. (LC/transl.fl)