On Tuesday 26 June, the Council of Ministers of the EU adopted without debate a progress report on the work over the first half of 2018 on the multiannual financial framework (MFF) 2021-2027, which confirms the differences of opinion on many elements of the package (see EUROPE 12048).
The European Council will discuss the dossier on Thursday 28 and Friday 29 June, to give the necessary shot in the arm to the ongoing negotiations on the MFF, with a view to an agreement, before the elections of May 2019 if possible.
According to the report by the Bulgarian Presidency of the Council, which takes stock of the work, the delegations overall approved the proposed seven-year term for the next MFF. Some delegations considered that there was no need for a mid-term review, and others called for the proposed date of the mid-term review to be put back.
Structure. The streamlining of programmes, which will fall in number from 58 to 37, went down well, although some delegations struggled to compare the current and future programmes.
There are, however, differences of opinion over a number of elements, such as: - dividing up the cohesion policy instruments between different groups and moving from a sub-heading to a sub-ceiling of the cohesion policy; - the possibility of transferring resources from shared management to direct or indirect management in certain programmes; - the consolidation of external instruments, with various delegations fearing that this will come at the expense of the neighbourhood policy; - the proposal to include the European Development Fund in the budget; - the number and size of instruments currently outside the MFF (and the treatment of all special instruments in the framework, or outside it, of the upper limits set within the MFF for both commitments and payments).
Budgets and allocation criteria. The delegations disagreed over the size and levels of proposed MFF and over the policies presented, the report states. The Council is also divided over the balance between the agriculture and cohesion policies and the other policies, as well as the allocation criteria.
Whilst recognising the need to update the agriculture and cohesion policies, some delegations asked for guarantees that the proposed changes will have no negative effects on the less-developed regions and member states or on rural communities throughout the Union.
Differences of opinion were also expressed on the higher national co-financing rates proposed for the agriculture and cohesion policies, on the proposed thematic concentration and the details this and on the proposed return to the n+2 decommitment rules.
As regards the agriculture policy, convergence and upper limits on direct payments, as well as the new implementation model, were also the subject of a debate.
Flexibility. Although all delegations took position in favour of a more flexible budget, some nonetheless expressed misgivings over the increased flexibility proposed for transfers of resources between programmes, considerably higher margins and the increase in amount allocated to the special instruments.
Some delegations voiced criticism of the suggestion that decommitments could be recycled into the proposed EU reserve.
Own resources. Proposals for a simplified VAT own resource, an own resource based on the emissions quotas trading system and an own resource based on plastic packaging waste were examined in detail. The delegations expressed a wide range of positions and called for more information to facilitate an analysis of the possible effects on the annual contributions of each member state of each new resource.
Any other business. Many questions were raised over the conditions for the use of EU funds, the use of constant prices versus current prices and the inflation deflator. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)