Unsurprisingly, EU European Affairs Ministers were very divided on Tuesday 9 April in Luxembourg on the financial resources to be allocated to cohesion policy and the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) during the EU's next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2021-2027.
The EU General Affairs Council continued to prepare for the debates planned at the June European Council on the next MFF. This time it focused on the EU's two main traditional policies, the CAP and cohesion. The Romanian Presidency of the Council of the EU is planning further discussions on the MFF in the General Affairs Council in May and June.
Mr Oettinger calls on the Member States to move. EU Commissioner for Budget Günther Oettinger hoped that EU leaders would prioritise this issue at the European Council on 20-21 June. He regretted that he had only heard today a “few new points of view”. He called on the "CAP-friendly countries" to accept a slight decrease in CAP appropriations over the period 2021-2027. At the same time, he asked countries that do not wish to spend more than 1% of EU GNI on the EU budget to “make concessions”, otherwise it will be necessary to “destroy new modern programmes such as Erasmus or Horizon Europe”.
"If we have not done our preparatory work sufficiently, then EU Heads of State or Government will not be able to adopt the MFF, they will just talk about Brexit!", Mr Oettinger said. He asked the Romanian Presidency of the Council of the EU to make better use of the May and June General Affairs Council meetings to make progress on the MFF.
Sweden called for a modern budget giving priority to added value policies (climate, research, migration...) over traditional policies. Denmark, like Sweden, asked for a reduction in appropriations for the CAP and cohesion policy.
Germany considered that the CAP and cohesion now represent 72% of EU budget expenditure and that these two policies “cannot remain as they are”.
Spain asked to speed up work in order to reach an agreement on the MFF 2021-2027 before the end of the Commission's mandate in October. Spain wants talks on the MFF figures to begin now.
France called in particular for new dedicated resources for the EU budget and the abolition of all rebates from 2021 onwards.
Divergences on the cohesion budget. Poland immediately said that it rejected the reductions proposed by the Commission (a 7% reduction over the period 2021-2027) and considered that no region should be left behind. The significant reductions in appropriations are not justified, either economically or politically, according to Poland.
Hungary cannot accept a reduction in cohesion appropriations.
Spain called for sufficient resources and for “those who need it most to benefit most from the funds”.
France asked that cohesion policy “relate to all European regions” and supported the proposal to “preserve the enlargement of the category of regions in transition”, in response to the disengagement of entire territories. In addition, the amount of flexibility between funds should not exceed 5%, according to France.
Italy criticised the Commission's proposals on regions in transition.
Latvia and Ireland, in particular, wanted cohesion policy to invest more in the least developed regions.
Sweden called for a significant reduction in the Structural Funds and for cohesion policy to be concentrated on the poorest countries. It called for the end of the 'safety net' (avoiding excessive funding cuts) and the category of regions in transition. Denmark also wanted this policy to help the least developed regions.
A conditional cohesion policy. Germany called for cohesion policy to be more closely linked in the future to: - the fight against climate change; - the solidarity of countries that are doing more to welcome and integrate refugees; - the principle of the rule of law; - structural reforms.
France, the Netherlands and Finland also called for conditionalities based on rule of law and migration.
CAP. France called for a strong CAP to be maintained after 2020. Poland protested against the reduction in CAP appropriations proposed by the Commission over the period 2021-2027. Spain also requested that the 2021-2027 CAP appropriations be maintained at their current level, as did Ireland. Italy also requested a sufficient budget for the CAP.
Several Central and Eastern European countries, such as Latvia, called for equity in direct payments, i.e. an equivalent level in all Member States. They therefore want the Commission's proposal to be more ambitious. On the contrary, Denmark, Italy and Belgium criticised the proposals on external convergence.
Germany and Belgium requested that 40% of CAP funds be allocated to climate actions.
Poland requested an increase in appropriations for the second pillar (rural development).
Slovakia protested against the significant decrease in rural development funding.
The Netherlands argued for a gradual decrease in direct payments, while Sweden and Denmark advocated a decrease in CAP appropriations.
Denmark and Finland considered that the capping of aid to large companies should be optional, not mandatory as proposed by the Commission. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)