The European Parliament’s Committee on Budgets held its first debate on the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) on Monday 14 October, in the presence of the European Committee of the Regions (CoR) and the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC).
This discussion prefigures the publication of an own-initiative report by the European Parliament Committee on Budgets entitled “A reshaped long-term budget for the Union in a changing world”. It will have to define the priorities and expectations for the EU’s next long-term budget (2028-2034). The European Commission’s proposal is expected in the summer of 2025, but the potential broad outlines of the future MFF, focusing on budget simplification and performance, have already been leaked via a working document from the Commission’s Directorate-General for Budget (see EUROPE 13498/11).
Simplify without recentralising. The idea of merging hundreds of programmes into a single national plan for each Member State was received rather negatively during these discussions. The Committee of the Regions has expressed its “concern” at these “rumours” of “recentralisation”. However “complex” and “impenetrable to citizens” it may be, the MFF must not be simplified at the expense of local authorities. On the contrary, the Committee of the Regions has proposed that “the reduction of the fragmentation of European funds” should be based on the principle of subsidiarity. The Cohesion Fund, the CoR pointed out, “was created by Jacques Delors to counter the potential negative effects of the single market”.
By way of harmonising funds, the CoR suggested bringing together “the various policies that have a territorial dimension, including reindustrialisation”. The CoR is therefore calling for “greater involvement of local and regional authorities from the design stage of a programme”. MEPs recognised that the implementation of reforms is most effective when entrusted to local authorities, whose role should be safeguarded.
Adapting the ‘Recovery and Resilience Facility’. The post-Covid fund, whose performance-based structure serves as a model for the next MFF, lacks transparency, according to the MEP, Siegfried Mureșan (EPP, Czech), co-rapporteur for the next MFF. As the “reforms” linked to the Recovery and Resilience Facility are “not linked to investments”, Siegfried Mureșan regretted that it was not clear “which concrete projects are being financed”. The MEP pointed out that sometimes “the money gets stuck in government budgets and doesn’t reach the regions, where the final beneficiaries are”.
As the Cohesion Fund is “not perfect either”, the European Economic and Social Committee recommended drawing on the ambition of the Recovery and Resilience Facility (see EUROPE 13502/16), which has made it possible to “deploy resources more quickly”. (Original version in French by Florent Servia)