In the period 2014 to 2020, the European Commission did not spend 216 billion euros on ‘climate-relevant’ measures, as it has calculated itself, but only 144 billion. As a result, the predetermined target of spending at least 20 percent of the budget on policy that benefits the climate has not been achieved.
That is what the European Court of Auditors concludes in an extensive investigation to the Brussels climate policy. According to the Court of Auditors, some EUR 72 billion for policies that the Commission believes are related to climate change, in fact have little to do with it. The Court of Auditors believes that the Commission is often far too optimistic about the climate effects of European policies.
Change crop
In agriculture in particular, measures are too easily regarded as beneficial for the climate. But the Court’s auditors calculated that 80% of expenditure that the Commission believes has a positive impact on the climate has been mislabeled.
For example, the Commission encourages farmers to change crops regularly. According to the Commission, this is good for the climate. However, according to the Court of Auditors, changing crops is good for soil quality, but has few benefits for the climate.
Promoting organic farming is not always good for the climate, the Court of Audit states. If the yield per hectare decreases, more agricultural land is needed for the same yield.
The Commission also finds itself too easily rich when it comes to spending the so-called Structural Funds, money for poor regions to reduce social inequality within the EU. For example, the positive effects of the construction of a bicycle path are considered good for the climate, but the negative consequences of the construction of a motorway are not included in the calculations. This creates a distorted picture of the effects of these types of funds.
New budget period
The Court of Auditors fears that the problems will only get worse in the new budget period (2021-2027). There is more money to be distributed (€800 billion) and the Commission has promised that 30% of policies will be climate-relevant. In addition, the Court of Audit writes that the billions that flow to the Member States via the corona recovery fund are hardly subject to climate requirements, except that they must not be harmful to the climate and must not conflict with measures to protect the environment.
The auditors therefore argue in favor of a clear calculation method, with more attention for possible negative effects of policy on the climate. In addition, the Court of Audit believes that a distinction should be made between the prevention of climate change and adaptation to the consequences of warming.