For and against direct payments. The debate between the Fifteen on the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has certainly begun, at ministerial level, even before the European Commission has presented its proposals. Statements of principles on the need not to mix discussions on the subject with the "agricultural" chapter of accession negotiations mustn't fool us: the reality is that foreign ministers first, then finance ministers, discussing Commission proposals on the financial framework of the new accessions, had especially in mind the reform of the CAP; and, moreover, have not concealed the fact.
Reports on the debate that was held last week in the EcoFin Council (see our bulletin of 13 February, p.11) were eloquent on the subject. Four countries (the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Austria and Sweden), and to a lesser extent Germany, were firmly against direct EU aid being provided for farmers of candidate countries being granted now already. The debate does not revolve around percentages or the timetable; it's a refusal out of principle. Beyond the legal aspects (direct aid to candidate countries was not provided for in the Berlin financial perspectives of 1999, valid until end-2006), the reason for this opposition was explicitly indicated by some ministers: the fact of introducing direct aid for candidate countries would mean that it would be kept on in the context of the CAP. And, on that point, they do not agree. The link between the "accession" financial framework, which is urgent, and the reform of the CAP, which is for tomorrow, has not been formally established, but it's there. Some say: it's the Commission's fault, which has introduced direct aid in accession negotiations. The Commission replies: this type of payment exists, it is therefore part of the "acquis communautaire", applicant countries will have a right (gradually, it has proposed) as much as the current Member States. But if the Union promises these payments to candidate countries until 2006 and already with commitments for later years, how will the outcome of the reform of the CAP not be prejudiced? The Commission, indeed, is providing for a 10-year transition period, ending in 2013. It stipulates, true, that payments to new Member States will be situated at levels that will then be applicable in current Member States; but, according to the aforementioned Member States, this indication is far from being satisfactory.
And this is why the debate on the reform of the CAP has already begun at ministerial level. The prelude to which we have assisted indicates to what extent negotiations will, when the time comes, be difficult. One Member State, Italy, has already submitted its views on the reform, and, in its document, precisely opposes the policy that pleases Germany, France and the Commission itself, aimed at reducing direct aid to increase funding towards rural development (see our bulletin of 13 February, p.14).
A timetable that risks blowing-up. One could consider that there is no need to dramatise the situation: given that the debate on the reform has to occur anyway, there is nothing serious about its beginning earlier than scheduled. But this reasoning, possibly valid for the Fifteen, neglects one essential political fact: the repercussions on accession negotiations. It is obvious that the factual link between the two elements accession/reform comprises the risk of drastically slowing down these negotiations; if we have to wait for agreement between the Fifteen on the reform of the CAP to broach the agricultural chapter with candidate countries, farewell to the timetable formally affirmed, and confirmed on several occasions at the highest level, for their conclusion. To break this deadlock, the Netherlands has proposed that the Summit rapidly approve a statement declaring that all direct agricultural aid be gradually abolished in the CAP; and Germany expressed its agreement for this idea. To which, other Member States reply that it would be yet another more obvious way to prejudice the result of negotiations ion he reform.
As we see, the situation is complex and delicate Especially as the German Foreign Minister has included in the issue of the budgetary national affair, saying: Germany has received a "blue letter" from the Commission over its deficit, and if you increase the cost of enlargement, it will be a red card (read: non-respect o the Stability Pact). At the same time, a certain number of candidate countries reject the gradual nature of direct payments proposed by the Commission, to the point of angering Mr. Verheugen, who finds absurd Poland's attitude of endangering Community funding to the tune of 13 billion euro to fight over 1.3 billion in direct payments. Germany is exaggerating (the cost of enlargement, shared between all Member States, is reasonable), Poland too. Experience shows us that often, after unpleasant battles, compromises are finally reached around the Commission's initial plan. May as well begin there. (F.R.)