Brussels, 12/02/2002 (Agence Europe) - At the EcoFin Council, the Netherlands, Austria, the United Kingdom and Sweden opposed direct agricultural aid for candidate countries proposed by the Commission in its enlargement package. Expressing more stringent positions than in Caceres (see yesterday's EUROPE, p.4), these four countries clearly indicated that they would not agree to that proposal, whereas Germany was more measured, simply expressing "doubts". These countries referred to the necessary reform of the common agricultural policy, without for that making formal links, noted Commissioner Gunter Verheugen. France confirmed that it was "open to" direct aid, but criticised, as did Germany and the United Kingdom, the global amount provided for for financing enlargement (some 40 billion euro in commitment appropriations). Armed with the support of other Member States, Mr, Verheugen said that, on the basis of the discussions in the EcoFin and in Caceres, he would present draft common positions for negotiations with the candidate countries: early-March for regional policy, mid-March for the budget and end-March for agricultural policy. Here are the major outlines of the fracture that emerged in the EcoFin Council:
Direct aid: heading the crusade, Dutch Minister Gerrit Zalm accused the Commission of having "opened Pandora's Box" of the debate on the CAP, by proposing direct aid that was not provided for in the financial perspectives set in Berlin in 1999. It has thus "complicated things", and must now "assume the consequences", he considered. Along the same lines, the Swedish and Austrian Ministers were particularly critical, the former, Karl Heinz Grasser, also stressing the need for a reform of the CAP. British Minister Gordon Brown considered that the Commission had strayed from the Berlin perspectives by proposing direct payments, with the risk of prolonging the current CAP system. France's Laurent Fabius, declared he was "open" over direct aid, and considered that the debate over the CAP needed initiating and reach an agreement on the financial framework before adoption of the negotiating positions with candidate countries, otherwise, "the debate risks getting bogged down". Ireland, Greece, Denmark, Finland and Portugal. On the other hand, supported the Commission's proposals, Portugal, however, also at times taking up the subject of the reform of the CAP.
The Commissioner for the budget, Michaele Schreyer replied to Grasser by recalling that Austria had not been as virulent when it secured direct aid of 800 million euro at the time of its accession, which proved, in passing, that direct payments was part of the acquis communautaires. More generally speaking, she stressed that the alternative to the gradual introduction of direct aid between 2004 and 2013 was an introduction of aid in a single go, in 2007. Mr. Verheugen acknowledged that it was the "hottest" issue of the package for candidate countries, "notably the largest of them", and ironically urged Ministers to explain to a million Polish farmers how they could keep their "heads above water" during the reforms.
Overall budget. The UK went further than the others, feeling that the Commission should put forward new proposals more in line with the Berlin Financial Perspectives. Likewise, Germany repeated its Caceres position by calling for the reference date to be 2002 (as stipulated in Berlin when enlargement to 6 new Member States) rather than 2004. France criticised the Commission's tactical error of not leaving enough room for manoeuvre for the negotiations. Mr Fabius also stressed the principle of differentiation and the target of 10 new countries joining at once should not be an aim in itself. Mr Zalm was more reticent, saying that apart from in agriculture, the Commission had respected the Berlin ceilings, while Mr Grasser called for the cost of shutting down the Temelin nuclear power station to be included in the financial package.
Mr Verheugen responded to Mr Fabius by saying that 10 new Member States joining would be the outcome of negotiations that nobody to date had any guarantees about, refuting French criticism about "tactics", pointing out that the Commission had put forward proposals that were close to the acceptable limits.
Structural policy. The UK, France and Austria expressed doubt about the candidate countries' ability to absorb funding. This was challenged by Mr Verheugen, stressing there had been 100% take up of the Phare programme. He said it would be unfair to blame the candidate countries for delays in the Sapard and Ispar programmes since the EU had imposed complicated rules on them.