On Tuesday 15 October in Luxembourg, European Ministers for European Affairs discussed a 'working document' from the Finnish Presidency of the Council of the EU containing possible compromise proposals on the EU's multiannual financial framework (MFF) for 2021-2027 (see EUROPE 12347/1).
The General Affairs Council prepared the discussions for the European Council on 17 and 18 October, in particular on the sensitive subject of the next MFF.
Tytti Tuppurainen, Finnish Minister for European Affairs, said that the EU Council had had a "long and open" debate on the next MFF. "The discussion is becoming real, we are starting to negotiate about numbers", she added. European ministers discussed the total volume of the MFF, amounts for major EU policies and conditionality in the budget, she said. The discussion will continue at the European Council.
Following the European Council's debate on the 2021-2027 MFF, the Finnish Presidency will prepare a revised version of the negotiating box including figures, in order to facilitating negotiations for an agreement between EU Heads of State or Government, to be reached by the end of 2019. But the debates are likely to be difficult.
Some delegations from countries known as 'net contributors' to the EU budget (Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Sweden) do not want a sum of over 1% of the EU Twenty-Seven's GNI. On the other hand, some so-called 'cohesion' countries considered the compromise figure suggested by the Finnish Presidency to be insufficient.
In the working document seen by EUROPE, the Finnish Presidency proposed to strike a balance between the new challenges (climate, migration, research, defence) and traditional policies (agriculture and cohesion), suggesting a total volume of between 1.03 and 1.08% of the EU-27 GNI, i.e. a total of between €1050 and 1100 billion over 2021-2027, compared with the figure of €1135 billion (or 1.114% of the GNI) proposed by the Commission.
The question of whether or not to include special instruments (solidarity funds, globalisation adjustment funds, etc.) would be decided in the final phase of the negotiations.
The Finnish Presidency also suggests maintaining the current balance: 1/3 for the common agricultural policy (between 29.6 and 29.8% of total expenditure), 1/3 for cohesion (between 30.9 and 30.5%) and 1/3 for other policies (between 32.8 and 33%), while the Commission proposal reduces agricultural expenditure (total expenditure 28.6%) and cohesion (29.1%) by 5% and 7% respectively.
With regard to cohesion policy, the Finnish Presidency does not plan to make any changes to the calculation method for the Cohesion Fund or the least developed regions compared with the Commission's proposal. But reductions would affect the ERDF and the European Social Fund, as well as the minimum and maximum levels of funding.
For the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the planned approach is a reallocation of funds from the first pillar (market expenditure) to the second pillar (rural development), which would result in a freeze (in nominal terms) on first pillar appropriations. There would be the possibility of reallocating funds from other headings to the second pillar, which would be slightly reduced. It is also planned to continue the progressive alignment of the levels of direct payments between Member States, according to a solution yet to be determined (external convergence).
The Presidency suggests the creation of a mechanism linking EU funds to respect for the rule of law, with clear triggering criteria in the form of a closed list.
The amounts proposed by the Commission on migration are confirmed, as is the target of earmarking 25% of the next MFF expenditure for climate and environment actions, even if countries such as France and Germany are asking for a more ambitious figure. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)