Read on Twitter
Tuesday’s #EUCO deal on the budget and recovery fund commits to spend 30% on climate objectives. Can we be confident this will be measured accurately? A new IEEP report https://ieep.eu/news/climate-tracking-in-the-eu-budget-needs-a-more-robust-system for @EP_Budgets identifies problems with the tracking system. [Thread: 1/12]
![Tuesday’s #EUCO deal on the budget and recovery fund commits to spend 30% on climate objectives. Can we be confident this will be measured accurately? A new IEEP report https://ieep.eu/news/climate-tracking-in-the-eu-budget-needs-a-more-robust-system for @EP_Budgets identifies problems with the tracking system. [Thread: 1/12]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EdibH_IXYAA9a25.png "Tuesday’s #EUCO deal on the budget and recovery fund commits to spend 30% on climate objectives. Can we be confident this will be measured accurately? A new IEEP report https://ieep.eu/news/climate-tracking-in-the-eu-budget-needs-a-more-robust-system for @EP_Budgets identifies problems with the tracking system. [Thread: 1/12]")
First point to make is that the EU has a better climate tracking system than anyone else. Because no-one else has a comprehensive tracking system. And tracking climate spend is difficult. [2/12]
But the current system doesn’t really track spending “on” climate change. It tracks spending expected to make a positive impact, even if the purpose of the spending is unrelated to climate objectives. [3/12]
![But the current system doesn’t really track spending “on” climate change. It tracks spending expected to make a positive impact, even if the purpose of the spending is unrelated to climate objectives. [3/12]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EdicOLhXsAA5M7v.png "But the current system doesn’t really track spending “on” climate change. It tracks spending expected to make a positive impact, even if the purpose of the spending is unrelated to climate objectives. [3/12]")
Some programmes have a pretty good methodology, given these limitations. Others have been identified as weaker, including by @EUauditors in 2016 https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR16_31/SR_CLIMATE_EN.pdf , and this year https://www.eca.europa.eu/lists/ecadocuments/rw20_01/rw_tracking_climate_spending_en.pdf . [4/12]
Key problem is agriculture. In the current (2014-2020) period, around 20% of income support for farmers is counted as “climate spending”. @EUAuditors thought this was too high. [5/12]
![Key problem is agriculture. In the current (2014-2020) period, around 20% of income support for farmers is counted as “climate spending”. @EUAuditors thought this was too high. [5/12]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EdicnegXYAE3BU-.png "Key problem is agriculture. In the current (2014-2020) period, around 20% of income support for farmers is counted as “climate spending”. @EUAuditors thought this was too high. [5/12]")
In their 2018 proposals for the new period, Commission proposed *raising* the recorded climate share of income support – the exact share would depend on MS decisions, but could be as high as 50%. [6/12]
![In their 2018 proposals for the new period, Commission proposed *raising* the recorded climate share of income support – the exact share would depend on MS decisions, but could be as high as 50%. [6/12]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EdidBqUWoAkXG2w.png "In their 2018 proposals for the new period, Commission proposed *raising* the recorded climate share of income support – the exact share would depend on MS decisions, but could be as high as 50%. [6/12]")
The increase in climate relevance of the EAGF budget is not enough to justify this – as noted by @xAlan_Matthews ( http://capreform.eu/climate-mainstreaming-the-cap-in-the-eu-budget-fact-or-fiction/) and @EUAuditors. [7/12]
![The increase in climate relevance of the EAGF budget is not enough to justify this – as noted by @xAlan_Matthews ( http://capreform.eu/climate-mainstreaming-the-cap-in-the-eu-budget-fact-or-fiction/) and @EUAuditors. [7/12]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EdideqoWkAAAG3Q.png "The increase in climate relevance of the EAGF budget is not enough to justify this – as noted by @xAlan_Matthews ( http://capreform.eu/climate-mainstreaming-the-cap-in-the-eu-budget-fact-or-fiction/) and @EUAuditors. [7/12]")
And this increase in climate *scoring* of the EAGF accounts for more than the whole of the Commission’s original proposal for an increase from 20% to 25% in climate spend, and most of the increase to 30%. [8/12]
![And this increase in climate *scoring* of the EAGF accounts for more than the whole of the Commission’s original proposal for an increase from 20% to 25% in climate spend, and most of the increase to 30%. [8/12]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Edid218XkAIZMKz.png "And this increase in climate *scoring* of the EAGF accounts for more than the whole of the Commission’s original proposal for an increase from 20% to 25% in climate spend, and most of the increase to 30%. [8/12]")
Legislators in EP and Council now face a tough choice – either dramatically increase climate ambition of CAP so that it genuinely matches these numbers or… [9/12]
.. (better still, *and*) secure massive improvements in climate focus of other programmes to make up the difference to the new 30% target. [10/12]
And we need to move to a better climate tracking system – our report recommends basing this on clear, measurable targets for climate objectives, and for delivery of those targets to be monitored. [11/12]
A better system would take time to develop. In the meantime, it is urgent to ensure a dramatic improvement in the climate focus of the EU budget, and to put climate at the heart of #NGEU. [12/12]
