The European Parliament is concerned about a renationalisation of the EU budget (see EUROPE 13742/1) in the new structure of the Multiannual Financial Framework 2028-2034. Germany stresses that “it is vital that Member States have the opportunity to define their own priorities”.
These are the words of Gunther Krichbaum: on Monday 17 November, the German Minister of State for European Affairs took a firm stance at a meeting of European Affairs ministers on Pillar 1 of the MFF, which is dedicated to National and Regional Partnership Plans (NRPPs).
Germany is in favour of the Regions being able to “dialogue directly with the Commission”, as proposed by the Commission in response to requests from the European Parliament (see EUROPE 13749/2). But the Member State warns that it will not support an MFF in which cohesion and the CAP do not feature in the NRPPs. “I’m saying it very clearly: we need a new approach”, insisted Gunther Krichbaum.
Germany is defending the EU’s next long-term budget, revised to reflect its new priorities: “defence, technology and artificial intelligence”, the latter two enabling the EU to “compete with China and the United States”, according to the German minister.
In this approach, the place given to the Common Agricultural Policy and to cohesion needs to be reassessed, since Germany and the so-called “frugal” countries prefer a budget in which choices are made to a budget that is revised upwards.
“At a time of national consolidation, we need to tighten our belts”, warned Austria. Also a member of the ‘frugal’ group, Sweden advocated “more efficient use of resources and, ultimately, real savings”. Another net contributor to the EU budget, the Netherlands is defending a modernised MFF that is “more flexible, to be better prepared for changing circumstances” and that allows for “prioritising spending”. For its part, Finland publicly supported the reduction in “cohesion funding amounts”.
To date, the reception of the National and Regional Partnership Plans is still the source of major divergences between the Member States, which will have to adopt the 2028-2034 MFF unanimously. The integration of the CAP and cohesion policy remains one of the most sensitive issues. Several Member States were quick to point this out during the debate on Monday 17 November. Italy, Poland, Romania, Spain, Hungary and Belgium are concerned about the merging of these two traditional pillars of the EU budget into the NRPPs.
Italy, for example, insisted on the specificity and autonomy of each policy, while Poland expressed its desire to give priority to cohesion and the CAP and to maintain the latter’s two-pillar structure. The loss of funds dedicated to the CAP and cohesion and the loss of predictability were also among the concerns of these Member States, as pointed out by the pro-European majority groups in the European Parliament.
The importance of involving the Regions in drawing up the NRPPs was stressed by some countries (Poland, Bulgaria, Ireland, Belgium, etc.). Hungary and Slovakia explicitly mentioned the common position of eleven Member States, which reject the merger of cohesion policy and the CAP.
Have the revisions proposed by the European Commission to Parliament reassured these countries? Partly. Croatia, which wants “cohesion policies to be more visible in the MFF”, explicitly welcomed “the outcome of the meetings with Parliament and the Commission”. For France, the answers given to Parliament on the CAP, fisheries and cohesion “represent the first elements of a response, but more needs to be done”. According to the French Minister for Europe, Benjamin Haddad, this will involve maintaining the resources allocated to the CAP and to fisheries, as well as preserving the “common character” of the CAP.
On the other hand, the introduction of an annual trilogue on the political priorities of the NRPPs between the Council of the EU and the European Parliament, via the steering mechanism, is not to the liking of France, Ireland or Malta. Involving Parliament is “neither justified nor desirable”, insisted Benjamin Haddad, while Malta pointed out that the specific characteristics of each Member State must be respected. (Original version in French by Florent Servia)