A report published by the Bruegel think-tank on Wednesday 26 February indicates that it would be essential to reform the integration of climate objectives into the Multiannual Financial Framework.
The EU’s fight against climate change requires this political priority to be incorporated into every stage of the budgetary process. The European Commission, for example, has set itself the target of allocating 30% of the current MFF to investments in climate change mitigation and adaptation.
The problem is that the methodology overestimates the beneficial impact of EU spending on the climate, Bruegel argued, referring in particular to the European Court of Auditors (ECA), which revealed that spending on climate objectives in the 2014-2020 MFF had been overestimated (13% instead of 20.1%).
Bruegel explained that the coefficients (0, 40 or 100%), used to categorise each EU-funded activity, are broken down into indicators that are still too broad. Expenditure weighted at 100% plays a major role in achieving the EU’s climate objectives, projects weighted at 40% make a positive contribution and those weighted at 0% are deemed to have no impact on the climate.
But these activities are weighted a priori. This led the Bruegel think-tank to say that an ex-post evaluation of actual achievements would be necessary. The report stated that weightings of 40 or 100% for Common Agricultural Policy activities were considered generous.
In addition, some EU-funded programmes have negative environmental impacts. According to the WWF, the CAP allocates around €32 billion a year to activities that are harmful to biodiversity. However, according to the European Commission, all EU-funded programmes comply with the ‘Do No Significant Harm’ principle. The ECA has noted a lack of transparency in this area.
Bruegel has recommended that the Commission be required to publish estimates of the real impact of green spending. It would also be necessary to harmonise the application of the DNSH between Member States and introduce a finer scale for its coefficient system (0, 25, 50, 75 and 100%), with the addition of a negative score.
Published on the same day as the European Commission’s ‘omnibus’ package (see EUROPE 13588/5), the aim of which is to reduce the regulatory burden, Bruegel’s recommendations do not appear to be heading in the same direction.
See the Bruegel Institute report: https://aeur.eu/f/fok (Original version in French by Florent Servia)