The President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, has hinted at a few minimalist concessions she might consider during the day to the President of the European Parliament, Ms. Metsola, in an attempt to ease the criticism surrounding her proposed single fund unveiled on July 16. However, the elements of flexibility she is offering in no way respond to the clear demands expressed by the main political groups in the European Parliament. Moreover, the European Commission is not proposing at this stage any formal modification to its proposal but merely suggesting amendments for Members of the European Parliament to table themselves.
On the issue of the autonomy of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), transferring a few articles from the NRPP regulation to the CAP implementing regulation is far from solving the structural problem created by the single fund. The Common Agricultural Policy would remain dependent on discussions taking place outside its framework, and its governance would still be constrained by an ill-suited performance framework, detached from agricultural realities.
Concerning the role of the co-legislators, and of the European Parliament in particular, the new “strategic” discussion framework proposed by the Commission only adds further confusion to the overall governance of the single fund. The President of the European Commission proposes that MEPs hold annual “strategic” discussions on national envelopes that have already been allocated within the framework of the national strategic plans. Either this proposal shows contempt for the role of the European Parliament, or it represents yet another step towards even less predictability for European farmers.
Finally, regarding the financial aspect, the proposed 10% “rural target” that Member States would have to dedicate —beyond the agricultural envelope— to so-called “rural” issues, they roughly corresponds, on average across the EU, to the measures excluded from the protected scope of the initial proposal, such as cooperation measures, school fruit distribution schemes, or programs for outermost regions. For countries like Ireland or France, however, fully financing these measures excluded from the CAP by the European Commission would require not 10%, but rather around 25% and 16%, respectively. Furthermore, this suggestion does nothing to solve the budgetary equation for the core CAP measures, which continue to face a 17.6% cut, and does not provide additional investment capacity for former rural development measures.
In short, the President of the European Commission continues to shift the burden onto regions and Member States to make up for the budget cuts she plans to impose on the CAP and its measures—while maintaining an unconvincing narrative of ample financial resources within the NRPP fund, which is itself shrinking by 40%.
BACKGROUND
The European Commission has put forward a radical proposal to overhaul the EU budget, largely inspired by the governance of the post-COVID recovery fund (RRF), which is mainly structured around national envelopes, leaving aside the Community method. Within the framework of a requested overall allocation of EUR 2 trillion, the European Commission proposes to distribute the funds among four main funds: the Regional and National Fund (incorporating the CAP, Cohesion, Frontex, Climate, Interreg, etc.); the Competitiveness Fund; the Global Europe Fund for third country actions and Ukraine; and the Fund for Administrative Expenditure.
The Commission proposes to merge traditional EU policies and their financing into a single regulation and fund. The current CAP, cohesion, ESF+, fisheries, climate & social fund, and the EU crisis fund would be merged into a single framework: the “National and Regional Partnership Plans” regulation, with a reduced overall allocation of €865 billion for the 2028–2034 period. This budget would be distributed among Member States, except for the Interreg budget (€10.5 billion), leaving an EU reserve margin of €15 billion only. €293.7 billion would be ring-fenced for the new CAP and allocated to Member States, along with an additional €6.3 billion earmarked for agricultural crises. The CAP budget would decrease sharply by 17.6% between 2021–2027 and 2028–2034.
Considering the sharp reduction in the CAP budget tabled, the Commission leaves it to Member States to top up the CAP budget by drawing on other funds from their allocated NRP Plans’ envelopes. To maintain the CAP budget in current euros alone, Denmark, Ireland, & Austria would need to dedicate more than three-quarters of their remaining NRP allocations (NRP funds after deducting CAP, Social Climate, and Border allocations). The Netherlands, France, Finland, Sweden, and Luxembourg would need to allocate around 50%, while Italy, Spain, Belgium, and Germany would have to mobilize between 18% and 35%.Yet, these NRP funds are supposed to finance, among other things, future cohesion and ESF+. The Commission’s assertions do not withstand a careful analysis.
O artigo foi publicado originalmente em Farm Europe.
