Caceres, Brussels, 08/02/2002 (Agence Europe) - On Friday afternoon in Caceres (see below) EU foreign ministers started discussing the Commission's proposals on the financing of enlargement (see EUROPE of 31 January). The discussions should lead to political perspectives but the ministers are not expected at this stage to take a clear position on the different aspects of the proposed financial package. Most Member States announced before the meeting that they were not planning to decide on their official position until the Commission unveils its draft common positions (probably in March).
The Council's enlargement working group is expected to examine the Commission's document this week, and COREPER held its first discussion on the subject on Wednesday afternoon when it prepared for the Caceres meeting. At the COREPER meeting it emerged that most Member States see the financial package as proposed by the Commission as a feasible starting point (since it is based on a balanced, realistic approach) for entering discussions on the financing of enlargement and the closure of negotiations in sensitive areas like agriculture, regional policy and the budget; all Member States highlight the need to respect the financial framework for 2000-2006 that was laid down in Berlin in 1999, even for enlargement to 10 new countries rather than 6 as forecast in Berlin; but some countries (reportedly Germany, the Netherlands, the UK, France and Austria) are challenging the dates selected by the Commission of 2004/2006 - most of these countries are net contributors and therefore want the 2002-2004 budgets to constitute the financial framework to be adhered to. When it comes to agriculture, most delegations hailed the Commission's recommendation for direct aid to farmers, but a few countries (Germany, the Netherlands, the UK and a few others) pointed out that the financial perspectives for 2000-2006 set out in Berlin did not cover direct aid, so it is not appropriate to grant such aid to new Member States, not before 2006 at any rate. The same countries made objections to the very idea of direct aid (on the grounds that it is not the best way to help future Member States restructure agriculture) and are therefore recommending a sharp cut in direct aid after 2006, without wanting to make a formal, official link between accession negotiations and the upcoming review of the Common Agricultural Policy.