Brussels, 26/06/2012 (Agence Europe) - On 28 and 29 June, at the European Council, the Danish Presidency will present the “complete negotiating box” on the multiannual financial framework 2014-2020, and the EU General Affairs Council in Luxembourg on Tuesday 26 June prepared the ground for those discussions. The European Council will not cover the thorniest question, that of budget figures, but debates at the General Affairs Council have confirmed that there are differences over the size of the budget (with net contributors not wanting a budget above 1% of the EU's Gross National Income), macro-economic conditionality in cohesion policy, convergence, the capping and the greening of agricultural subsidies, and projects financed outside the EU budget.
The so-called “friends of cohesion” countries (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Spain, Croatia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia) have presented a policy paper on quality investments, giving good examples (projects to boost growth and jobs) and courses of action to improve the situation. The Danish Presidency met European Parliament representatives on Tuesday morning. The latter highlighted the following elements: - respect of the EP's prerogatives (codecision procedure); - the importance of the budget unit; - the importance of budget flexibility; - and the need to reform the “receipts” part of the European budget. The budgets commissioner Lewandowski underlined with regard to macro-economic conditionality that the initial provisions, although challenged by a number of delegations, must not be toned down. On budget flexibility, he said: “We do not agree with what was proposed for ITER and GMES”. The Commission does not want the funding necessary for such projects to come from the EU's budget but suggests funding from outside the budget (refused by most countries).
Finland called for the breakdown of the rural development funds to maintain a link with past results. Helsinki called for caution when granting preferential treatment to the islands (as far as the breakdown for low population density areas is concerned). It is necessary to keep the “reverse safety net” in the field of cohesion policy and not weaken the concept of macro-economic conditionality, Finland also said. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Bulgaria in particular mainly highlighted the need to find a more equitable solution than that proposed relating to convergence of agricultural aid. Belgium supported the creation of a category of regions in transition (cohesion policy) and presented a document defending common agricultural policy (CAP). It called for the convergence process for aid to be spread out a little more over time (six years instead of four), and for the reduction in aid to the different countries to be limited to 4% at most. Convergence must also be financed in a linear manner, it said. Finally, Belgium sent a message to the countries that want to spend as little as possible, saying: “It is not because spending is of quality that one should necessarily spend less”.
Malta said it had benefitted too little from the CAP's first pillar (direct aid). Italy agrees that cohesion policy is becoming an investment policy but that the less developed regions should benefit from preferential treatment. Italy is opposed to the Commission's proposals on CAP (the dominant surface area criterion for the breakdown of aid is “not satisfactory”). Rome deplored the lack of progress made on the receipts strand of the financial framework. Italy evoked the problem of discounts and compensations and supported a rise in own resources based on VAT and a financial transactions tax. Slovenia expressed reservation regarding macro-economic conditionality. Spain took the view that the amounts proposed by the Commission for CAP and cohesion are an acceptable minimum. Spain (as well as Ireland) is opposed to a reduction in agricultural subsidies (mentioned as a possibility in the negotiating box). The reserve set aside to cover agricultural crises must be financed from outside the financial framework, according to Spain. For regions exiting convergence, an allocation of two-thirds of funding received during the current period should be guaranteed. Portugal (and Bulgaria) said ITER and GMES must in future remain outside that framework. Portugal does not agree with the text on the safety net for regions in transition and the urban bonus and regrets that very outlying areas are less well treated than in the past. The aid programme for the very poor in the EU must be maintained and financed at 100% by the EU budget, Portugal asserted. Hungary does not agree to the significant reduction in the aid it receives under cohesion policy. Bulgaria consents to the financial transactions tax if it fuels own resources and if it is applied to all EU countries.
The United Kingdom was of the opinion that money should be spent better and that discussions on own resources are going nowhere. Sweden called for direct agricultural aid to be rethought and for cohesion policy to be focused on the poorest regions. Ireland hailed the proposal on the convergence of agricultural subsidies. France is hostile to the establishment of a regional safety net and to the abolition of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. It took a stance in favour of reviewing the current financing system (receipts) and for EU financing to be diversified, and welcomed the presidency's text on the funding of ITER and GMES under the financial framework ceiling. This negotiating box, said Germany, is a must if an agreement is to be reached in 2012 on the 2014-2020 financial framework. It was backed by the Netherlands. Germany considers that spending better should be at the heart of European Council discussion. Account should also be taken in cohesion policy of the safety net question and of “phasing out”. (LC/transl.jl)