When the dust finally starts settling from the COVID-19 crisis, von der Leyen will have to refocus on her original agenda. Will she deliver?
Fast-forward five months, Commission President von der Leyen will
deliver her second State of the Union address. In effect, it will be her
mid-mandate speech and chance to turn the corner from her disappointing
management of the pandemic. New waves of the virus might still hit, but
by then, vaccinations levels will likely offer Europeans and EU
institutions the long-sought reprieve to focus on recovery and the
future.
At its inception, von der Leyen’s Commission formulated bold and inspiring promises:
a European Green Deal and climate neutrality by 2050; making the 2020s
Europe’s Digital Decade; a stronger, geopolitical Europe. The seven-year
Next Generation EU budget and its €672.5 billion Recovery and
Resilience Facility (RRF) increase the means to deliver on these
substantially.
These four, highly ambitious priorities stand as a
formidable test for the remainder of von der Leyen’s mandate. It is a
trial that she – and the EU – cannot afford to fail. By September, she
will need to prove that she can transform her Presidency and deliver on
these expectations.
Test 1: Delivering the recovery, "Europe's moment"
As the 27 national Recovery and Resilience Plans (RRPs) are being put on the table, the Commission must show its clout and acumen by ensuring that they deliver on the fundamental RRF priorities.
At best, money well spent will support the green and digital
transitions and strengthen territorial and social cohesion. At worst,
member states will recycle and greenwash old spending plans and waste
another opportunity to harness digital technologies for convergence and
competitiveness.
The first indications of Italy’s national plan point to a proper transformational drive, but not without tensions with the Commission.
When the Council reviews the spending plans in July, the Commission
will have to show that all member states have been treated equally. If
big member states like Germany or France are given an easy pass, the
Commission’s credibility will be on the line.
The pay-out of
what has been promised is another imminent test. The Commission must
raise up to €70 billion on financial markets by September to deliver the 13% pre-financing payment to each member state. Although the German Constitutional Court’s provisional green light
came as a relief, difficult debates on some member states’ ratification
of the own resources decision (e.g. Poland) still await. Ultimately, it
is unlikely that the funding will be held up by capitals, as the price
of delaying and failing is simply too high. But the Commission and its
president, who has put the delivery of the funds under her direct
authority, will certainly feel the heat of expectations.
In any
case, the optics will be difficult this autumn. Delivery and impact will
be compared with Biden’s $1.9 trillion fiscal stimulus, and the US’
return to or above pre-pandemic growth rates. From the outset, there is a
communication problem at the heart of the EU’s plans: disbursed over
six years, it is not a crisis bazooka to kickstart growth. It is essentially a structural reform instrument – and only if it is put to proper use.
Should
EU growth remain anaemic, this will lead to much bigger economic and
policy problems. More money will be needed faster, as will reforms of
the spending rules in the Stability and Growth Pact, as already voiced
by France. Calls will undoubtedly intensify in the coming months if
opportunity and income inequalities exacerbated by the pandemic are not
effectively dealt with and political repercussions start to show.
Test 2: The European Green Deal “first and fast”
In
December 2019, von der Leyen and First Vice President Timmermans
presented the Green Deal, promising to “[show] the rest of the world how
to be sustainable and competitive”. In essence, the Deal is a two-track
affair. On the one hand, the mainstreaming of climate and green
priorities in spending and investment is undeniably helped by the EU’s
new ambitious spending plans, but therefore the European Green Deal also
stands or falls with their funds’ effective delivery. On the other, the
Green Deal is a fast-tracked regulatory drive that aims to deliver
essential legislation on climate change, the circular economy, pollution
and biodiversity loss ‘first and fast’.
Is the Commission on track to deliver this fundamental transformation? The Green Deal does come out of the pandemic with momentum.
President Biden’s recent climate summit and announcements have upped
global ambitions, and a race to the top is welcome. But on both sides of
the Atlantic, the true test lies in turning bold words into action.
A flagship upon which the EU can credibly claim leadership is last week’s #EUTaxonomy
proposal, aiming to channel financial markets and private investment
from ‘brown’ to ‘green’ investments. It was born in controversy, as key
environmental and consumer organisations suspended their participation
in reaction to the classification of forestry practices and highly
emitting biomass as ‘sustainable’. Difficult decisions on agriculture,
nuclear and natural gas have been pushed to later. #EUTaxonomy remains a
highly transformational tool, although its full effect will have to be
judged over the next years.
This first spat could be a taste of
things to come. Non-governmental organisations regularly complain that
the Commission’s green credentials and delivery are held up because of poor resource allocation. And the bigger test for von der Leyen and Timmermans is still ahead, as a mega-package of legislation
covering the Emissions Trading System, energy efficiency, renewables,
land use and border tax goes to Parliament and Council before the
summer. Should it clog up as lobbying interests from aviation and
shipping to cars come out in full force, it will point to a broader
problem of method and lack of inter-institutional ownership. Common Agricultural Policy reform is another future test of the EU’s commitment.
Ultimately,
this Green Deal must also be about tomorrow’s growth and prosperity.
With a number of world-leading “green” companies, Europe now has the
chance to create a competitive industrial base in new fields such as
hydrogen, fuel cells and clean steel. But we could also lose out yet
again to the US and China if they press ahead with more speed and
resources than Europe can muster collectively. The stakes are high:
Europe cannot afford that this ‘first and fast’ European Green Deal ends
as a Berlaymont chimera.
Test 3: “Making this Europe’s Digital Decade”
Empty
words are a predicament that the Commission knows all too well from its
past digital and industrial strategies. In a few days it will launch
its fourth industrial strategy in seven years. If the shelf-life is one to three years, many would argue it is in fact not a strategy.
But
this criticism would be unfair. Commissioner Thierry Breton has put
strategic thinking and new energy into the portfolio, aiming to address
both the structural economic parameters, such as R&D, finance and trade policy, and the lack of ‘deep technologies’ in Europe. And the Commission’s recent AI proposal – the first law of its kind – does not shy away from tackling some of the difficult issues...
More at EPC
© European Policy Centre EPC
Key
Hover over the blue highlighted
text to view the acronym meaning
Hover
over these icons for more information
Comments:
No Comments for this Article