The new proposals of the Finnish Presidency of the Council of the EU within the framework of the “negotiation box” on the next Multiannual Financial Framework 2021-2027, which provide for significant budget cuts in almost all European programmes and funds, are of the utmost concern to the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions (CPMR), as indicated in an analysis published on Tuesday 3 December.
Overall, the CPMR regrets the Finnish proposal to reduce the European budget to 1.07% of EU GNI), i.e. 1,087 billion euros in commitment appropriations (see EUROPE 12381/1), while the European Commission proposed 1.114% of GNI. For the organisation, only a budget corresponding to 1.3% of EU GNI can meet the objectives pursued for the coming decade.
This overall reduction is logically reflected in trade-offs between the different European policies and programmes, which are not to the taste of the CPMR, in particular concerning the drastic budget cuts for the transport pillar of the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), i.e. 30% compared to the European Commission's proposal.
In addition, the CPMR denounces the reductions suggested by the Presidency for the objective dedicated to investment for employment and growth of 2.8% compared to the European Commission's proposal, but also the future of the fifth component, interregional investment in innovation, in the regulation dedicated to European territorial cooperation, whose allocation would change from 970 million euros to 500 million euros.
Budget cuts for all regional categories. More unexpectedly, the Finnish Presidency suggests cuts for all regional categories: the most developed (-2.8%), in transition (-6.3%) and the least developed (-1.8%) in the field of employment and growth. Some people see this as a manoeuvre of the Finnish Presidency.
By putting forward a proposal that will most certainly lead to the rejection of the beneficiary Member States, the Presidency would seek to force the contributing States (in particular those that want cuts in cohesion policy, in particular the four most reluctant to pay) to give up on the allocation for the most developed and transitional regions, to transfer them to the poorest regions.
For the full analysis: http://bit.ly/34Kvq3D (Original version in French by Pascal Hansens)