Brussels, 05/09/2013 (Agence Europe) - At the end of the summer break, progress on several controversial points has been made in the interinstitutional negotiations on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF). Provisional agreements have been reached on the elimination of the special regime for the agriculture sector and on the return of the derogation due to the crisis. These two sensitive issues that have now been regulated only partly make the upcoming negotiations easier. The list of controversial points is still very long.
MEPs from the European Parliament's employment and social affairs committee (EMPL) can be satisfied. Some of their demands have been accepted by the Council, although until very recently the Council had the greatest trouble in finding a compromise in order to launch the interinstitutional negotiations (see EUROPE 10871). Besides the two most important issues, provisional compromises have been found in trilogue concerning the articles on the intervention criteria, gender equality, training and communication, spending eligibility, budgetary procedures, financial control and management, and the reimbursement of financial contributions. The Parliament's satisfaction has, however, been short-lived because, as Pervènche Berès (S&D, France) and the chair of the EMPL committee said on Thursday 5 September, despite the provisional agreements, “at this stage, it is difficult for the political agreement to be accepted at the Council”.
Indeed, “other crucial issues remain to be clarified”, Marian Harkin MEP (ALDE, Ireland) said, during an exchange of views in the committee on Thursday 5 September. Among these issues are, in particular, the unannounced idea proposed by the Council, which is described by Berès as a “baroque proposal” because “it mixes the legal bases” - in other words it includes the issue of youth unemployment in the EGF objectives. This is an idea which therefore bothers the MEPs because, as Harkin commented, it is “totally outside the regulatory framework” of the EGF in its current form. Alongside this is the issue of defining the recipients of the fund. Among the other challenges that still have to be met is the rate of co-financing. The Council set this at 55%, although the Parliament is still fighting for a progressive rate. The EGF's personalised services and financial means which can be allocated are, in Harkin's opinion, one of the “difficult issues”, that promises involved negotiations. (JK/transl.fl)