Just what is this absorption capacity of the European Union? - Launch of a CEPS Policy Brief

Speaker: Michael Emerson, Senior Research Fellow, CEPS
 
Discussant: Timo Summa, Director of Directorate A - Strategy Coordination, Bulgaria, Romania and Task Force T.C.C., DG Enlargement, European Commission
 
Chair: Gergana Noutcheva, Research Fellow, CEPS
 
Date: 5 December 2006
 
On 5 December 2006, CEPS organized a seminar on the capacity of the European Union to absorb new members. The seminar had the same title as the recent report, published by CEPS on this topic – “Just what is this absorption capacity of the European Union?” This timely discussion was held in a period when the debate on the future of the enlargement process takes centre stage, especially regarding Turkey`s negotiations with the EU. 
 
The chair of the seminar Gergana Noutcheva started by emphasizing on the fact, that the term “absorption capacity” has gained a lot of attention in the recent months. She mentioned the communication, published by the European Commission on this topic, as well as the resolution and the special report by the European Parliament on the institutional aspects of this issue. The CEPS paper represents an important part of the debate, and Ms. Noutcheva noted that one of its main conclusions already became a fact – the Commission dropped the term “absorption capacity” in its report by replacing it with “integration capacity”.
 
Following these introductory remarks, CEPS Senior Research Fellow Michael Emerson gave a comprehensive presentation of the study (LINK). He began by stressing on the popularity of the term “absorption capacity”, which according to him raises some concerns. Then he moved on to the different occasions, on which the term was used, and pointed out that the June 2006 European Council added to the ambiguity of the term by asking the Commission to present not only the present, but the future perceptions of the citizens on the enlargement process. Then he presented the tendencies of the public opinion towards the enlargement and noted that there is a “gentle decline” in support of the process. According to the surveys, Norway and Switzerland are the most desired countries to join the EU, and Croatia (with just over 50% of support) has a better position than the newcomers Bulgaria and Romania.
 
The next element from the paper outlined by Mr. Emerson was the de-constructing of the term “absorption capacity”. He compared the vagueness of the term to the rather concrete Copenhagen criteria. Moreover, the term has a territorial (the “final frontiers” of the EU) as well as a time dimension (the key issue is the state of the Union in a decade, not the situation of today).
 
The main components of the “absorption capacity” according to the CEPS paper were outlined as follows:
- Capacity of goods and service markets;
- Capacity of the labour market to absorb new member states – Mr. Emerson emphasized on the predicted population decline in Turkey by the time it eventually joins the EU;
- Capacity of the EU’s finances to absorb new member states – a point here was the qualification for Objective 1 of the structural funds for the new member states and the eventual members;
- Capacity of the EU institutions to function with new member states;
- Capacity of society to absorb new member states – this, according to Mr. Emerson, is the most sensitive aspect. It is connected with the feeling of islamophobia and its repercussions for the accession of Turkey;
- Capacity of the EU to assure its strategic security – here the “final frontier” debate was mentioned again, and
Mr. Emerson confirmed that all the regions and countries which could join the Union are improving EU`s strategic security, not damaging it.
 
Mr. Emerson clearly pointed out that all of these components and “capacities” are manageable and do not pose serious problems. He also argued that the term “absorption capacity” should not be used and should be avoided in official documents. Another important remark was that the issues outlined above are not static, so it is difficult to predict what the situation in the Union and in the candidate countries will be in 10 years` time. Moreover, setting final frontiers for the EU is not productive at all, Mr. Emerson concluded.
 
The discussant, Mr.Timo Summa, Director of Directorate A - Strategy Coordination, Bulgaria, Romania and Task Force T.C.C. in DG Enlargement, began his presentation by examining a certain paradox, connected to the enlargement of the EU – on one hand, it provided and still provides many benefits which are obvious; but on the other hand, there are great doubts about it and the notion of an “enlargement fatigue” is widespread. He continued by mentioning that the expression “absorption capacity” is not new, and that it reflects the well-known dilemma of the “deepening and widening” of the Union. On its part, the Commission prefers to use the term “integration capacity”, which means accepting new members while keeping the momentum of European integration. This was reflected in the recently published EU Enlargement Strategy with the annexed special report on the EU's capacity to integrate new members.
 
Concerning the “final frontiers”, Mr. Summa said that the integration capacity of the EU is not a geographical concept, but is instead determined by the values that the member states share. His remarks were in line with the position advocated by the enlargement Commissioner Mr. Olli Rehn, who defended the idea for flexible EU borders. However, Mr. Summa insisted that not all European countries must enter and the Union is not obliged to accept all of them unconditionally.
 
Furthermore, it was argued that the integration capacity has two main elements:
- Integration capacity as a functional concept – maintaining the momentum (budget, institutions); ensuring that the candidates are ready; listening to the public opinion; widening and deepening must go hand in hand;
- Integration capacity in practice – an institutional settlement should be found before the next member joins; the Commission will establish detailed impact assessments and benchmarks throughout the negotiations; early emphasis on the reform of the judiciary is needed; the transparency of the process should be improved through screening reports, published on the web; and last, but not least - ensuring broad public support for the enlargement process.
 
In conclusion. Mr. Summa called for a renewed consensus on enlargement and advocated the need for a broad debate on it.
 
The Q&A session touched upon some aspects of the discussion. One of the participants asked if the conclusions in the Commission report are applicable to Ukraine, which for now is not on the enlargement agenda. It was argued that Ukraine lacks the broad consensus on the European project, which was clearly visible in the last enlargement. Mr. Emerson added that the Commission could have been more direct in the Ukraine ENP Report by stating that all European countries have the possibility to join the Union.
Another discussant argued that the extension of EU`s borders might actually lead to instability and insecurity, having in mind that Turkey borders the Middle East region. Mr. Emerson replied by saying that there is an increasing convergence of Turkey`s positions with those of the EU on many questions, including the Palestine conflict. The changes in the institutional settlement of the EU and the future of the Constitutional Treaty were also discussed, providing a lively conclusion to the seminar.