Officials find the devil is in detailed data

Date: 21/11/1996

By Mark Turner

ASSESSING the ten central and eastern European countries' applications for EU membership is turning out to be much more difficult than originally expected, officials admitted this week.

Despite early optimism, the European Commission is discovering that analysing 50,000 pages of often ambiguous data is a momentous task and will take until next spring at least.

The Commission sent the CEEC applicants a 165-page questionnaire in April to help it prepare a set of avis - its opinion on each country's application to join the EU.

When all ten hopefuls replied on time in July, Foreign Affairs Commissioner Hans van den Broek was quick to praise the quality of their answers. But more than three months later, officials are wondering if their enthusiasm was premature.

As the Commission's directorates-general delve deeper into the sectors covered by the questionnaire, aided by country desk officers, it seems that - in many cases - respondents told the Commission what they thought it wanted to hear, rather than what it needed to know.

“This is not necessarily a problem unique to the CEECs - even EU member states can put a gloss on their data. But we are encountering substantial data problems and ambivalent replies. At the moment things are not in shape for us simply to assemble our opinions,” said one official.

This has come as a blow to the Directorate-General in charge of relations with central and eastern Europe (DGIA), which had hoped to have a coherent analysis ready by the end of this year.

The Commission has now embarked upon a large-scale verification and clarification exercise, both with CEEC governments and through its network of national representations and member state embassies.

Officials say that in general, the applicants' responses tended to focus on the theoretical rather than the actual.

For example, some countries boasted comprehensive legislation complying with EU competition rules. But closer inspection revealed that, in one case at least, there was no cartel office in place to enforce them.

Similar problems have been uncovered in CEEC customs regimes, where regulations exist but there are not enough customs officers to implement them.

While sections on transport infrastructure are largely trouble-free - it is hard to disguise the state of roads, airports and railways - the answers to questions raised in more 'evaluative' areas are far from clear-cut.

Particular difficulties have been encountered in the section on political culture, broaching such sensitive issues as human rights and the treatment of minorities.

“We have to be very careful in this area,” said an official. “We hear inflammatory claims from non-governmental organisations, but we have to check them out through reliable channels.”

There are also many question marks over environmental standards in the applicant countries, in the absence of proof that sewage plants are really working or that laboratories are operating effectively.

The Commission's problems are compounded by the fact that any checking-up has to be carried out with extreme care.

Officials are acutely aware of the need not to be seen to favour any one country's bid above any other until the avis are ready, and are therefore anxious not to provide any clues as to whom they regard as the top contenders for early enlargement.

In practice, this means that every time a supplementary question is put to one country, it must also be asked in the others. This is creating a huge layer of sometimes unnecessary work.

“Many of the CEECs are comparing notes with each other. If you ask one you must ask them all,” confirmed an official.