“How would you balance flexibility and predictability” in the European Union’s 2028-2024 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF)? That is one of the key questions put by the Irish Presidency of the Council of the EU to the Member States, in a discussion paper ahead of a discussion on the post-2027 European budget this Wednesday 22 July, at the level of the Member States’ ambassadors to the EU (Coreper).
The MFF must “be flexible enough to allow the Union to respond quickly when circumstances change unexpectedly or when new policy priorities need to be addressed, while ensuring ownership and accountability”, states this Irish document dated 17 July, seen by Agence Europe. Accordingly, “what is a realistic landing zone for these two competing goals?”, Dublin asks.
More specifically, Coreper is being asked about “a series of elements of the [budgetary] framework included as options in the negotiating box”, presented at the beginning of June by the previous Cyprus Presidency.
First of all, this concerns the “proposed crisis mechanism, [...] within and between programmes and Headings”. The Cyprus ‘nego box’ had in fact placed in square brackets certain amounts allocated to the ‘EU Facility’, which would be intended to increase the flexibility of the EU budget by responding more effectively to unforeseen events.
Likewise, the percentage of the overall budget under the National Plans (NRPP) to be allocated only after the mid-term review of the MFF, in order to take account of “new needs”, remains uncertain.
Another unclear element, to be debated on Wednesday, is “annual budget governance”. For the 2028-2034 period, the European Commission has proposed a new “political steering mechanism” aimed at designing the draft budgets for each year more effectively.
“Every year, by mid-December at the latest, the Commission will present an integrated strategic report (...) setting out the potential funding priorities of the Union policies concerned (...)”, the Nicosia ‘nego box’ currently states, in a paragraph that has also remained in square brackets.
In practical terms, the Commission’s intention would be to decide on a much less prescriptive multiannual framework, so as to leave far greater room for manoeuvre in the annual draft budgets as regards the precise allocation of expenditure. But at this stage, the co-legislators are struggling fully to understand how the new annual procedure would work.
Lastly, the states will be asked on Wednesday about the Commission proposal to move to a so-called ‘N+1’ rule for expenditure, in order to speed up the implementation of the funds. Member countries would have one year, rather than three, to commit and declare expenditure linked to European appropriations before it is automatically lost for the programme concerned and returned to the Union budget.
However, this proposal, intended to limit the outstanding commitments (‘RAL’) building up each year, appears to be meeting with scepticism both around the table of the EU27 and in the European Parliament. (Original version in French by Clément Solal)