In an analysis published on 26 February, Bruegel welcomes the EU’s commitment to allocate 30% of the current multiannual financial framework (MFF) and 37% of the ‘Recovery and Resilience Facility’ (RRF) to combatting climate change, but the think tank also points out the existing climate mainstreaming framework’s complexity and fragmented implementation into every stage of the EU budgeting process—highlighting a need for significant reform.
According to the analysis, the various regulations set corresponding rules that are not properly harmonised, and there is a lack of documentation adequate to understand and apply the architecture.
“Some of the Commission’s methodologies are undisclosed, while the application of climate mainstreaming remains inconsistent, with varying interpretations and implementations across programmes and countries”, indicate the authors of the analysis.
They also note that intervention fields, which potentially include activities with varied climate impacts, are too broadly defined. Moreover, how the coefficients used in these fields were established is considered to be unclear, “implying that overall estimates of climate spending in the EU budget are questionable”.
In order to eliminate inconsistencies across programmes, Bruegel proposes consolidating the mainstreaming architecture—including the ‘Do No Significant Harm’ (DNSH) principle—into a single legal act with a unified list of intervention fields applied to all EU investments.
The think tank is also urging that the scope of intervention fields be narrowed, a science-based methodology for assigning climate coefficients to intervention fields be developed, and even a legal requirement to report on projects that are harmful to biodiversity and the climate be introduced.
To see the analysis: https://aeur.eu/f/fq4 (Original version in French by Pauline Denys)