"Overall, the revised list of projects is broadly welcomed, although some further adjustments may still be required," reads a note prepared by the Czech EU Presidency for a meeting of ambassadors from the EU's member states on Wednesday (4 March).
However, there are still doubts as to where the money will come from. "Most delegations exclude the use of 2008 margins for political as well as legal reasons," the note reads.
"The Presidency considers that the option of funding through the 2008 margins is definitively out."
A French diplomat in Brussels confirmed that the 2008 budget margins "do not exist anymore". However, she was more positive regarding the overall aim of the Commission's initiative, saying that "the headline objective of five billion euro remains".
"The majority of member states are now clearly in favour of an envelope of five billion euro," said Claude Turmes, a Green MEP involved in the negotiations on behalf of the European Parliament.
"The UK, Sweden and the Netherlands are still opposing it, but much less vigorously than before," Turmes explained.
According to the MEP, discussions are now focusing mainly on the duration of the Commission's proposed recovery plan. Most member states, including France, have clearly stated that they would favour mature projects that could be implemented quickly. For them, spending should be primarily spread over 2009 and 2010, so that they can deliver quick results and help ward off the recession.
Other countries, such as the UK, are more favourable to spreading spending over a longer period of time. This is because carbon capture and sequestration schemes proposed in the Commission's plan is not expected to be ready soon enough, due to a "lack of authorisation for CO2 storage," Turmes said.
"A compromise could be to consider 2009, 2010 and 2011," the MEP said. This option was confirmed by a French diplomat, who said the plan would now be spread over three years.
The Czech Presidency is due to prepare a new document for next week's meeting of EU ambassadors on Wednesday (11 March).
Bulgaria asking for more
Speaking on Thursday (5 March) after receiving Bulgarian Prime Minister Sergei Stanishev, Barroso confirmed that a revised version of the five billion investment package had been submitted to member states.
He specified that Bulgaria, as the country worst hit by the recent gas crisis, would benefit from EU funding for an additional gas interconnector with Romania.
Bulgaria and Slovakia, the countries worst hit by the recent Ukraine-Russia gas crisis, were allocated only modest sums under the Commission's proposal. Bulgaria was allocated €20m for the Haskovo-Commotini gas interconnection with Greece, and Slovakia €25m for the Velky Krtis-Ballasaqyarmat interconnector with Hungary (EurActiv 29/01/09).
Stanishev made it plain that his country had wished for more. However, Barroso said the package had not yet been agreed upon, and if one country were to obtain more, other countries should agree to get less.
Barroso also confirmed that the funds had yet to be found. As EurActiv recently reported, as a result of a legal problem, the five billion euro of unspent EU money that the Commission proposed to reallocate is in fact unavailable (EurActiv 19/02/09).
Parliament: The next stumbling bloc?
The next obstacle for Barroso could well be the European Parliament, which will be called to give the final green light to the Commission's plan after member states have approved it, probably during an EU summit on 19-20 March.
According to Turmes, the Socialists (PES), Liberals (ALDE) and Greens have teamed up to form a majority in favour of "a limited number of amendments" that would concentrate on bringing more leverage to the 3.5 billion earmarked for energy projects, using "innovative financial instruments".
According to Turmes, the amendments would open the five billion euro of funding to green projects and energy efficiency in cities, as demanded by Belgium and Denmark, as well as renewable energy projects that are "larger than only offshore wind".
However, the amendments would still respect the detailed list of projects debated in the Council, Turmes explained, eliminating the need for further discussion among member states.
