Luxembourg, 25/04/2005 (Agence Europe) - The compromise of the Luxembourg presidency on cohesion policy after 2006 met a lot of criticism from Member States and the European Commission but enable the go-ahead to be given for the difficult negotiations on the next financial perspectives. On Monday in Luxembourg the acting president of the General Affairs Council and foreign affairs minister, Jean Asselborn stated, “I get the feeling that the real negotiations began today. The delegations have not spared the presidency from criticism but their content and tone encourages me to believe that we're on the right track”. On 22 May a conclave of foreign affairs ministers will meet in Brussels (on the eve of the next General Affairs Council) to look at the financial framework for 2007-13 and the EU own resources section. The Commission in charge of the budget, Dalia Grybauskaite, said that it was good that things were moving.
During another press conference a few hours earlier, Commission president José Manuel Barroso indicated that he had sent “three messages” to ministers: the Commission has a “general reservation” about the presidency proposal on cohesion policy. He explained that the Commission wanted to have an overall picture of cohesion policy, “We still don't have the figures for the different sections. An overall balance needs to be retained, taking into account the needs of the new Member States but also the old ones”; it is necessary for the European Parliament to be “entirely involved” in the work on financial perspectives; not only an agreement is needed on spending but on income too.
In his replies to the press, Barroso underlined the fact that the main guidelines in the Commission's proposals were supported by most Member States “with the exception of the six countries” (considered to be net contributors to the EU budget and who want the EU budget to be 1% of the Gross National Income of the enlarged EU) and that the position of the European Parliament was very similar to the Commission's position. Barroso explained that it would therefore be a “total mistake” for the Commission to withdraw its position.
During the General Affairs debate, five Member States (Germany, Austria, Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom) explicitly withdrew their position in favour of a budget that did not go above 1% pf Gross National Income (GNI). France did not mention this figure in the session but explained to the press that it wanted a “less costly” compromise than that proposed by the Commission and which preserved the “desire for rigour and good housekeeping” at the same time as that of solidarity. The French minister, Michel Barnier, told the press that they wanted a compromise around 1%. Most ministers thought it desirable to reach an agreement on this case in June.
In a letter addressed to his counterparts, Jean Asselborn underlined the need to find a “balance between the very different opinions on the total spending level”. Without at this stage providing the figures, the presidency considers that a compromise will get inevitably get through by way of reducing funding in each spending category compared to the Commission's proposals. As opposed to the section on own budget resources, for which there is still no basis for a sufficient agreement on proposals, the presidency deems it necessary to present “concrete proposals” on the subject of section 1b on “cohesion at the service of growth and jobs” (cohesion policy), explained Asselborn. This proposal figures in the presidency document on negotiations at the Council for reorientating discussions. The document presents ideas for phasing out more efficiently and focusing funds on those who need them most, while taking account of regions in Member States particularly affected by the statistical effect of enlargement.
Countries known as supporters of rigour stated during Monday's Council that the compromise presented by the presidency went in the right direction (reduction of initial proposal) but that it still did not go far enough. For Italy, Greece and Portugal, the proposed reduction of aid is unacceptable. Spain appreciates the presidency's openness towards a provisional system in its favour (getting rid over two years of aid in the “cohesion funds” section in the “convergence objective but thinks that it is still insufficient. The new Member States were not pleased with the suggested ceiling adjustments on transfers to cohesion but said that it was not yet sufficient. The new Member States did not seem to be satisfied with the adjustments suggested in the ceilings regarding transfers under the banner of cohesion.
In addition to this, France and Ireland stressed the need to respect the European Council agreement of 2002 on the CAP at the level of 2006, from 2007 to 2013, of credits for market agricultural expenditure. Italy pointed out that if agricultural expenditure were reduced, it had proposed to introduce cofinancing of part of the CAP expenditure.
The UK recalled its opposition to questioning its rebate. “We want the anachronism that is the UK rebate to end, and I have registered my opposition to any form of generalised correction mechanism”, Michel Barnier declared to the press. “We are continuing difficult work, with the ambition of arriving at an agreement in June”, Mr Barnier stressed, saying that it was in the general interest to conclude in June, particularly for cohesion policy. In fact, he pointed out, the year 2006 “will be used to prepare the programming documents, the Community support frameworks and the plans, in order to commit policy from the first year of the new period”. Mr Barnier also stressed that France wants Objective 2 of the cohesion policy to be maintained.