Blog Articles

Last week the European Parliament adopted an important resolution concerning the mid-term revision of the political priorities of the European Union’s budget.

When the 2014-2020 regulations were adopted, it was decided that the European Commission would conduct an interim review to assess if the framework decided in 2013 was still adequate to manage the EU’s economic and social situation. The Commission is expected to have completed its review by the end of the year.

The European Parliament expressed its views ahead of the Commission’s assessment. We have been working with our members on this, in cooperation with Civil Society Europe. This resolution contains many positive aspects and others on which we have reservations. Below are some of my considerations.

What are the good and the bad aspects of the resolution?

Good: It states that the review should strike a balance between having the necessary financial means to deliver on EU long-term objectives enshrined in the Europe 2020 strategy, as well as to address new challenges. We are happy to see that the final version of the text mentions the persistent high level of poverty and social exclusion among the challenges. It also recalls that meeting the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy remains the main priority to be supported by the EU budget, to achieve economic, social and territorial cohesion, and promote solidarity. Bad: it fails to acknowledge worrying levels of inequalities in the EU.

Good: It acknowledges that the budget allocated to tackle the root causes of the refugee and migration crisis are insufficient and that additional means should allow for the inclusion of the most vulnerable migrants, such as women, children and the LGBTI community. It also insists that all countries should assume a fair share of responsibilities in the context of the humanitarian crisis.

Good: While recognising that the EU has suffered from low and insufficient levels of investment and fully supporting the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) introduced with the European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker’s Investment Plan, it stresses that the financing of EFSI should not be at the detriment of existing EU programmes and policies. Bad: it does not address the fact that very few projects have been submitted under the priorities of human capital, social infrastructures and social economy.

Good: It encourages making significant progress towards more effective integration of gender issues in the EU budget. Bad: it fails to say how. We proposed the introduction of gender budgeting in all EU funds, but it was not taken on board.

Good: It recognises that the backlog of outstanding payment claims from cohesion funds from 2007 until now has severely affected beneficiaries, such as civil society organisations, students, universities, small- and medium-sized enterprises, and local and regional authorities.

Good: It calls at least the same amount of funding as 2014 and 2015 for the Youth Employment Initiative until 2020, to tackle youth unemployment with the involvement of all relevant stakeholders such as youth organisations.

Good: It asks for increased amounts for the three programmes that directly concern citizens, such as Europe for Citizens, Creative Europe and Erasmus+. These programmes contribute to the integration and education of refugees, improving the social situation, as well as promoting mutual understanding and living together in our societies.

Good: It invites the Commission to come up with concrete proposals to reduce the administrative burden for beneficiaries. Bad: It fails to identify other barriers in access to funds, such as inadequate information about funding instruments, ineffective use of capacity building and technical assistance for Managing Authorities and beneficiaries, and inadequate involvement of stakeholders in planning, implementation and evaluation of programmes. It raises doubts about the impact of the introduction of some key preconditions to ensure that all institutional and strategic policy arrangement are in place before using the funds (the so-called “ex-ante conditionalities”).

Good: it takes a cautious approach towards the use of more innovative financial instruments (such as loans and guarantees) instead of grants, as it is not advisable in all policy areas. Bad: it does not give examples in relation to sensitive policy areas, such as social policies.