European Union European Affairs Ministers were divided on Tuesday 19 March on the link to be established between the post-2020 disbursement of EU funds and the fulfilment of commitments on the management of migration flows.
The General Affairs Council discussed the climate and migration aspects of the proposals on the EU's multiannual financial framework (MFF) for the period 2021-2027.
European Budget Commissioner Günther Oettinger hoped that the June European Council will be “decisive” on the next MFF. “It is under this time pressure that we move forward”, he said. Hoping that EU leaders will take the necessary decisions to meet the October 2019 deadline to “finalise an agreement” on the 2021-2027 MFF, the Commissioner hoped that work would progress on the 'negotiating framework' document, so that EU leaders could talk about the figures.
Proposals. In line with the Paris Agreement and the commitment to the UN's sustainable development objectives, the Commission has proposed to set a more ambitious target for the integration of climate issues into all EU programmes to increase to 25% (from 20% today) the share of EU spending contributing to the achievement of climate objectives.
25% of a budget of the Twenty-Seven represents a total of €320 billion, Mr Oettinger said.
The EU budget for the management of external borders, migration and refugee flows will be considerably increased, reaching a total of almost €33 billion over the period 2021-2027, compared to €12.4 billion for the period 2014-2020.
Asylum structures must be improved, Mr Oettinger insisted in particular.
Climate. Poland referred to the risks of pressure on cohesion policy and the common agricultural policy. The increase in climate targets and the decrease in funding for cohesion and the CAP could lead to a double penalty, the Polish minister warned.
The 25% target is legitimate and realistic, Italy responded. This country called for vigilance in the efforts required of farmers (the figure of 40% is mentioned) while the CAP budget is likely to dominate. On cohesion policy, Italy has asked to respect the equal treatment of European regions.
The Czech Republic considered that the 25% target is “the right one”.
Germany considered that 25% should be “a minimum”, as does Belgium.
France wanted a clear and ambitious target of 40% of the EU budget for the environment. The imperative of achieving carbon neutrality by 2050 requires that 30% of the European budget be linked to the fight against global warming, the French minister pointed out. He would also require 10% of the budget to fight pollution and preserve biodiversity (compared to 8% today). The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has a role to play, France recalled, calling for a reinforcement of the greening of direct payments.
Latvia asked to take into account the waste treatment sector. The 40% target asked of farmers must be accompanied by a decision on a convergence of direct agricultural payments, according to the country.
The 25% target is supported by Slovakia, which has also called for convergence of direct aids.
The Czech Republic considered that the 25% target was “the right one”. Spain also supported the 25% target for “ecological transition” and defended a strong CAP.
Estonia also agrees with the 25% target, although this target should be adjusted according to policy.
Migration. Italy requested a chapter dedicated to migration policy in the next MFF and was confused about the proposal on the recruitment of 10,000 staff to be integrated into the European Coast Guard and Border Guard Agency (see EUROPE 12198/2).
“The acceptance of migrants must be improved”, Germany said. Migration must therefore be an essential criterion for the breakdown of cohesion spending, it said.
Sweden also asked to introduce a link between responsibility for migration and the disbursement of funds from the EU budget.
France wishes to avoid “using instruments outside the budget”. It also advocated that more support should be given to the communities that receive migrants.
Trust funds should only be established in case of emergency, according to Slovenia.
Conditionality on migration spending should not be introduced, Poland warned. Linking EU budget spending to possible deficiencies in the rule of law is unacceptable, it said (see other news).
Slovakia also opposed any conditionality on migration.
“Tripling funding for these actions” is a good thing, Slovenia said. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)