Brussels, 05/02/2009 (Agence Europe) - EU member states are finding it extremely hard to find a solution as to how to raise another €5 billion for projects intended to get Europe's economy going again. This was what came out of the discussions held on Tuesday 3 and Wednesday 4 February within the various Council working groups and within the Committee of Permanent Representatives of EU member states (Coreper). For now, the issue seems blocked and European finance ministers will discuss the matter again on Tuesday 10 February.
The European Commission suggests using margins of Heading 2 of the EU budget (€3.5 billion in 2008 and €1.5 billion in 2009), which includes agricultural subsidies, to find: €3.5 billion for projects in the field of energy interconnection, and €1.5 billion for the rural world (€1 billion for developing broad band internet in rural areas and €500 million for meeting the “new challenges” which are, for example, climate change, water management and the restructuring of the dairy sector) (see EUROPE 9827). According to an opinion from the Council's legal service, the 2008 Heading 2 margin (amounting to €3.6 billion) can no longer be used to finance the economic recovery plan because the 2008 budget is now closed. This means that the €5 billion must be found from the 2009 and 2010 budgets (especially 2009 given the urgency of economic recovery).
During the Coreper meeting, a number of delegations sought to put forward alternative solutions, such as the redeployment of funds under Heading 1a (competitiveness for growth and employment) or the spreading out of financing over several years. It has to be admitted, however, that, as the financial package does not make sense, EU countries are still less inclined to make these extra funds available. Several delegations (such as Austria, the Netherlands, Sweden and Hungary) are reported to have said that the sum of €5 billion is not set in stone. And other countries, with Germany and the United Kingdom in the lead, do not wish to hear of revision of the financial perspectives as the Commission suggests. The Commission is reported to have objected to comments on alternative solutions: - that there is more margin of manoeuvre in Heading 1a (programmes have all been adopted with their respective budgets and it is not possible at this stage to readjust or considerably amend the budgets within annual ceilings; - and that spreading out funding over several years is no solution as the margin of Heading 2 in 2010 is expected to be clearly less than in 2009.
Member state experts were clearly not very enthusiastic when it came to the rural development chapter. To sum up, they find it difficult to get it across to their farmers that internet installation will kick-start the economy and some challenge the breakdown of 2/3 (for the internet) and 1/3 (for new challenges). (L.C./transl.jl)