All three committees, European Parliament’s Committees on Budgets, Regional Development and Agriculture and Rural Development, jointly debated on Wednesday 3 June the regulation on national plans for the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF).
The committees’ three respective rapporteurs, Karlo Ressler (EPP, Croatian), Andrey Novakov (EPP, Bulgarian) and Elsi Katainen (Renew Europe, Finnish), presented their proposal for the functioning of these future ‘National and Regional Partnership Plans’ (NRPPs) proposed by the Commission last July (see EUROPE 13682/1). The trio strongly emphasised the need to strengthen the role of the regions, a position supported by many colleagues.
Modelled on the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) of the post-Covid-19 recovery fund, these NRPPs, totalling €698.3 billion, would encompass a range of flagship budgetary programmes, including the common agricultural policy (CAP), cohesion policy, and those related to migration and fisheries.
This innovation, aimed at creating a single national plan per Member State, has raised a number of concerns, particularly regarding a potential weakening of the role of regional and local levels in the 2028-2034 budget (see EUROPE 13869/17).
To avoid this, the three co-rapporteurs proposed establishing a “horizontal condition” within the regulation, designed to guarantee “multi-level governance”. “If mayors, local authorities, regional leaders (...) are not brought on board and do not demonstrably and verifiably participate (...) in drawing up and implementing the plan, it will be rejected”, summarised Andrey Novakov (EPP), rapporteur for the REGI committee.
This mechanism “must operate on the model of conditionalities linked to the Rule of law and fundamental rights”, Elsi Katainen (EPP) specified on behalf of the AGRI committee.
From left to right, the idea seemed to garner considerable consensus. Otherwise, “there is a real risk of losing the territorial dimension, which constitutes the added value of cohesion”, added, for instance, Italian MEP Denis Nesci (ECR). Parliament will, however, have to negotiate with the Member States, which may seek to preserve their own prerogatives.
Unsurprisingly, MEPs also support granting Parliament significantly more power in preparing the NRPPs and monitoring their implementation. The draft report proposes that approval of the future plans take the form of a delegated act rather than an implementing act of the EU Council. This change would allow European Parliament to have the same say as the Member States.
While they will not have the final say on the overall amounts, MEPs are also pushing for increased funding to Cohesion and the CAP. To create room for manoeuvre, the draft proposes reducing the flexibility reserve provided for by the Commission from 25% to 5%. These are European funds that would not be programmed in advance, in order to respond to crises and readjust priorities at mid-term. “A quarter of the funds not mobilised is excessive”, said Andrey Novakov, who then argued for “a 25% increase in the cohesion budget, to around €307 billion in the next MFF”.
Regarding the CAP, the co-rapporteurs insist on maintaining the current ‘two-pillar’ system, rather than merging the two pillars into a single instrument.
Their proposal also provides for moving a series of articles relating to the CAP, currently included in the NRPP regulation, to the regulation specifically linked to agricultural policy. “This may seem technical, but it’s a very important signal: we’re taking agricultural matters in hand and we’re capable of defining their content”, welcomed Norbert Lins (EPP, German), vice-chair of the AGRI committee.
Finally, the co-rapporteurs propose reverting to the so-called ‘N+3’ rule for expenditures under future national plans, whereas the Commission wants to introduce an ‘N+1’ mechanism to accelerate the disbursement of funds. In practical terms, Member States would have three years, rather than just one, to commit and declare expenditures linked to EU funding before these funds are automatically lost for the programme in question and returned to the Union budget. In the view of the trio, and apparently a majority of MEPs, the deadline proposed by the Commission risks complicating the implementation of long-term investment projects.
Initially set for 9 June, the deadline for the tabling of amendments has been postponed to 16 June, given the issue’s complexity.
See the draft report: https://aeur.eu/f/m5x (Original version in French by Clément Solal, with Nithya Paquiry)