• About Us
  • Our Practice Areas
    • Competition & Antitrust
    • Digital & Tech
    • EU & International
    • Food & Drink
    • Green Transition
    • Healthcare, Life Sciences & Wellbeing
    • Trade & Investment (including EU-UK)
    • Transport, Travel & Logistics
  • Our Team
    • FIPRA International
    • Special Advisors
  • FIPRA Network
  • Latest News
  • Events
  • Careers
Skip to content

FIPRA

Search for:
Analysis

FIPRA Explainer: Breaking down the 2.39 trillion euro European Recovery and Resilience Budget

By Maria Assimakopoulou-Sorensen
Friday, 19 June 2020
FIPRA Explainer: Breaking down the 2.39 trillion euro European Recovery and Resilience Budget
Ursula von der Leyen

The big picture of the European Commission’s proposals for the European recovery and resilience after the Covid19 crisis is composed of the long-term EU budget 2021-2027 (1.1 trillion euros) and the recovery instrument “new generation EU” fund running from 2021-24 (750 billion euros).

This is the first time the European Commission has been asked to raise such voluminous funds of 750 billion euros from the capital markets.

This package comes on top of what has already been decided during the confinement period of 540 billion euros for immediate financial support towards Member States, business and labour market [European Stability Mechanism (ESM) 240 billion euros, European Investment Bank (EIB) 200 billion euros, Support to mitigate Unemployment Risks in an Emergency (SURE) 100 billion euros respectively]. 

These are mainly loans and guarantees, with some grants from SURE. This financial support package was basically to be used during the Covid19 lockdown in order to address emergencies and keep business on hold so it is then easier to restart the economy. The ECB has simultaneously agreed to intervene aggressively on the bond markets in order to provide liquidity up to 1.5 billion euros.

It’s the first time, by increasing the ceiling of the EU budget, that the Commission as an institution and not as Member States should raise those funds with obviously much favorable conditions and very low interest rates. It breaks with a number of taboos and sets the Union on the course of much closer economic governance.

The EU proposal for the “new generation EU” of 750 billion, (500 billion grants and 250 billion loans) together with the 1.1 trillion proposal for the new the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for the periods 2021-2027 and the already decided emergency package of 540 billion, adding all the sums together the total amount of funds on the table is 2.39 trillion. This is a lot of money and it is the first time the European Commission has been asked to raise such voluminous funds from the capital markets.

Breaking taboos & embracing closer economic governance

The most innovative and expansionary element of this proposal is the new generation EU fund. The 750 billion euros should be raised from the capital markets through a “common issuance” by the European Commission using as guarantee the EU budget. It’s the first time, by increasing the ceiling of the EU budget, that the Commission as an institution and not as Member States should raise those funds with obviously much favourable conditions and very low interest rates. It breaks with a number of taboos and sets the Union on the course of much closer economic governance.

From the 750 billion, 500 billion will be given to the Member States as grants and the other 250 as long-term loans. The proposal should be agreed fast and the funds should be transmitted to the real economy as soon as possible. It is interesting that the announcement itself, even before the proposal has been legally adopted, has had a positive influence on the financial markets. The spreads for new Italian debt has been reduced by 40 points immediately in the aftermath of the proposal. Going back will immediately have adverse effects on the markets.

The prediction is that the proposals will be adopted as such. I believe that this will happen basically because there is a fundamental shift in the German position. The Germans have realised that there is no money in Europe for a recovery and that a prolonged depressed economy in the eurozone would threaten the German economy.

The prediction is that the proposals will be adopted as such. I believe that this will happen basically because there is a fundamental shift in the German position. The Germans have realised that there is no money in Europe for a recovery and that a prolonged depressed economy in the eurozone would threaten the German economy. 

The only possibility was to raise funds through the capital markets at the European level. If the operation is successful and if the markets see this as a safe asset investment then in practice we have created a “safe asset” at the European level which will help to move faster towards monetary and fiscal integration. That means that rather soon we will expect the completion of the banking union and the capital market union. 

Then Europe will be in a different situation where indeed it can have more competitive growth vis-à-vis the other big economic entities in the world (US and China). I don’t believe there is any possibility for certain Member States (like the frugal 4) to stop this proposal. Probably some extra conditionality will be associated in the existing proposal for reimbursing the available funds.

How are the funds going to be transmitted?

The biggest chunk of money of the recovery fund is going to be given to the Member States through the existing and well-defined channels as the structural funds and programmes.

Member States should propose recovery programmes, which will be part of the national stability programmes and will be embodied in the European semester process. This provides for benchmarking and monitoring, probably through a reinforced surveillance. 

The stability programmes should be established fast. Member States have to provide them as soon as possible and they have to be inline with the main EU priorities as the green and digital transitions. The private sector should push the national governments to construct as soon as possible those national plans and they should provide their assistance to create specific proposals such as around the green, digital, health, pharmaceuticals sectors.

Some of the funds are going to be spent on big strategic European projects. Those projects most probably will be financed by the strategic investment facility which through leverage is expected to provoke investments of 150 billion. Those European projects will incentivise somehow the Member States to align their priorities for growth at the same priority sectors.

Introducing 5G or 6G broadband all over Europe will help enormously the creation of a digital financial internal market, which is needed to boost the capacity of raising funds, providing liquidity for investments for economic and sustainable growth in the EU. Likewise, the clean transition fund will boost investments in the green economy and energy shifts.

The key is to get the Commission’s proposal to increase the European budget, while new own resources by introducing new taxes will take some more time to find agreement. The repayments of the loans will only start at the end of the next financial perspectives and run for a period of 30 years (2028-2058).

I believe that Germany and France have understood the benefits of creating european synergies and they are willing to move fast. In order to achieve agreement on the proposal, they are going to split the discussions and they are going to concentrate for the moment on the increase of the EU budget ceiling. The repayment discussion will be left for later including the ideas for new sources of income, such as carbon tax, digital tax etc. 

The key is to get the Commission’s proposal to increase the European budget, while new own resources by introducing new taxes will take some more time to find agreement. The repayments of the loans will only start at the end of the next financial perspectives and run for a period of 30 years (2028-2058). 

Speed is of the essence

There is time for discussion on the best ways of increasing the EU budget’s own resources.

There will also be direct financial support (mainly loans, guarantees and equity) to target areas and companies through the EIB and the European Investment Funds (EIF). Although, EIB mainly provides financial assistance through the national promotional banks they have since the last Commission (the Juncker Commission) directly financed projects above 25 millions.

New financial possibilities are the ones foreseen under the pillar “kickstart the economy” and in particular:

– The new solvency support instrument: aims to unlock 300 billion in investments

– the Upgrade InvestEU: aims at 240 billion in investments

– The new strategic investment facility: to generate investments up to 150 billion in strategic sectors such as green, digital and key value chains in the internal market.

They are also foreseen extra individual funds such as: EU4Health (9.4 billion), Horizon Europa (94.4 billion), External Action (16.5 billion).

It remains to be seen where and how fast the money will be invested. This time the EU understands the importance of making the difference and strengthening its economic performance towards a more competitive european at the global level. There is a sense of urgency also prompted by the forecasts from the Commission and the OECD that look increasingly worrying.

Speed is of the essence. The corporate world should push the EU for accelerated and simplified procedures and ask governments to establish their national plans as soon as possible.

Written by
Maria Assimakopoulou-Sorensen
Special Advisor - Financial Services, EU Funding
Profile
Trade & Investment (including EU-UK)
Trade & Investment (including EU-UK)
FIPRA helps you to navigate the complex trade & investment sector by providing strategic insight, intelligence and advice tailored to your business needs. We also assist our clients in assessing and responding to the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement.
More
Latest News
  • FIPRA Network
    FIPRA Expands Its Network Footprint in Latin America
    20 September 2023
  • News
    Highlights from the SOTEU23 : “Innovate, develop and manufacture”
    15 September 2023
  • News
    Pawel Swieboda joins FIPRA as Senior Advisor on Brain Health Policy
    7 September 2023
  • Analysis
    European Commission’s Initiative on Web 4.0 and Virtual Worlds: a head start in the next technological transition
    28 July 2023
  • Analysis
    From Code to Conservation: Promoting Sustainable Software for a Greener Digital Future
    24 July 2023
Some of our experts
  • Gerd Götz
    Gerd Götz
    Special Advisor - Green Transition
  • Peter Chase
    Peter Chase
    Special Advisor - EU, International Trade
  • Phil Evans
    Phil Evans
    Special Advisor - Competition & Antitrust, International Trade
  • Ghazi  Ben Ahmed
    Ghazi Ben Ahmed
    Special Advisor - Trade, Development
  • Una O'Dwyer
    Una O'Dwyer
    Special Advisor - EU Economic Governance
  • Christina  Hippisley
    Christina Hippisley
    Special Advisor - Trade, Development
  • Daniel Furby
    Daniel Furby
    Senior Advisor - Healthcare, EU Economic Governance, Health Systems
  • Dirk Hudig
    Dirk Hudig
    Special Advisor - Competition, Green Transition, Energy, Industrials
  • FIPRA in Australia
    FIPRA in Australia
    is known locally as Richardson Coutts
    FIPRA in Australia
  • FIPRA in Austria
    FIPRA in Austria
    is known locally as Mastermind Public Affairs Consulting
    FIPRA in Austria
  • FIPRA in Belgium
    FIPRA in Belgium
    is known locally as Greenlane Public Affairs
    FIPRA in Belgium
  • FIPRA in Brazil
    FIPRA in Brazil
    is known locally as Licks Advogados
    FIPRA in Brazil
  • FIPRA in Cambodia
    FIPRA in Cambodia
    is known locally as Vriens & Partners
    FIPRA in Cambodia
  • FIPRA in Canada
    FIPRA in Canada
    is known locally as Earnscliffe Strategy Group
    FIPRA in Canada
  • FIPRA in Central America and the Caribbean
    FIPRA in Central America and the Caribbean
    is known locally as CCA Business Strategy
  • FIPRA in Chile
    FIPRA in Chile
    is known locally as BLGP
    FIPRA in Chile
  • FIPRA in China
    FIPRA in China
    is known locally as Yuan Associates
    FIPRA in China
  • FIPRA in Colombia
    FIPRA in Colombia
    is known locally as ORZA
  • FIPRA in Croatia
    FIPRA in Croatia
    is known locally as Vlahovic Group
    FIPRA in Croatia
  • FIPRA in Czech Republic
    FIPRA in Czech Republic
    is known locally as PAN Solutions
    FIPRA in Czech Republic
  • FIPRA in Denmark
    FIPRA in Denmark
    is known locally as Substantia
    FIPRA in Denmark
  • FIPRA in Estonia
    FIPRA in Estonia
    is known locally as META Advisory Group
    FIPRA in Estonia
  • FIPRA in France
    FIPRA in France
    is known locally as Cabinet Samman
    FIPRA in France
  • FIPRA in Georgia
    FIPRA in Georgia
    is known locally as BGI Advisory Services Group
    FIPRA in Georgia
  • FIPRA in Germany
    FIPRA in Germany
    is known locally as Miller & Meier Consulting
    FIPRA in Germany
  • FIPRA in Greece
    FIPRA in Greece
    is known locally as One Team S.A
    FIPRA in Greece
  • FIPRA in Hungary
    FIPRA in Hungary
    is known locally as CEC Group
    FIPRA in Hungary
  • FIPRA in India
    FIPRA in India
    is known locally as Chase India
    FIPRA in India
  • FIPRA in Indonesia
    FIPRA in Indonesia
    is known locally as Vriens & Partners
    FIPRA in Indonesia
  • FIPRA in Ireland
    FIPRA in Ireland
    is known locally as Vulcan Consulting
    FIPRA in Ireland
  • FIPRA in Italy
    FIPRA in Italy
    is known locally as Telos A&S
    FIPRA in Italy
  • FIPRA in Japan
    FIPRA in Japan
    is known locally as GR Japan
    FIPRA in Japan
  • FIPRA in Korea
    FIPRA in Korea
    is known locally as FIPRA Korea
  • FIPRA in Latvia
    FIPRA in Latvia
    is known locally as Meta Advisory
    FIPRA in Latvia
  • FIPRA in Luxembourg
    FIPRA in Luxembourg
    is known locally as Huggard Consulting Group
    FIPRA in Luxembourg
  • FIPRA in Malaysia
    FIPRA in Malaysia
    is known locally as Vriens & Partners
    FIPRA in Malaysia
  • FIPRA in Malta
    FIPRA in Malta
    is known locally as Maritimus Company Limited
    FIPRA in Malta
  • FIPRA in Mexico
    FIPRA in Mexico
    is known locally as InStrag
    FIPRA in Mexico
  • FIPRA in Myanmar
    FIPRA in Myanmar
    is known locally as Vriens & Partners
    FIPRA in Myanmar
  • FIPRA in The Netherlands
    FIPRA in The Netherlands
    is known locally as Public Matters
    FIPRA in The Netherlands
  • FIPRA in Norway
    FIPRA in Norway
    is known locally as First House
    FIPRA in Norway
  • FIPRA in the Philippines
    FIPRA in the Philippines
    is known locally as Vriens & Partners
    FIPRA in the Philippines
  • FIPRA in Poland
    FIPRA in Poland
    is known locally as CEC Group
    FIPRA in Poland
  • FIPRA in Portugal
    FIPRA in Portugal
    is known locally as Initium
  • FIPRA in Singapore
    FIPRA in Singapore
    is known locally as Vriens & Partners
    FIPRA in Singapore
  • FIPRA in Slovakia
    FIPRA in Slovakia
    is known locally as FIPRA Slovakia
  • FIPRA in South Africa
    FIPRA in South Africa
    is known locally as Ethicore Political Lobbying
    FIPRA in South Africa
  • FIPRA in Spain
    FIPRA in Spain
    is known locally as Influence Spain
    FIPRA in Spain
  • FIPRA in Sweden
    FIPRA in Sweden
    is known locally as Hallvarsson & Halvarsson (H&H)
    FIPRA in Sweden
  • FIPRA in Switzerland
    FIPRA in Switzerland
    is known locally as House of Policy
    FIPRA in Switzerland
  • FIPRA in Thailand
    FIPRA in Thailand
    is known locally as Vriens & Partners
    FIPRA in Thailand
  • FIPRA in Tunisia
    FIPRA in Tunisia
    is known locally as Mediterranean Development Initiative
    FIPRA in Tunisia
  • FIPRA in Turkey
    FIPRA in Turkey
    is known locally as Stamina Public Affairs
    FIPRA in Turkey
  • FIPRA in Ukraine
    FIPRA in Ukraine
    is known locally as Stober Poltavets & Associates
    FIPRA in Ukraine
  • FIPRA in the United Kingdom
    FIPRA in the United Kingdom
    is known locally as Lexington
    FIPRA in the United Kingdom
  • FIPRA in the United States
    FIPRA in the United States
    is known locally as Alpine Group
    FIPRA in the United States
  • FIPRA in Vietnam
    FIPRA in Vietnam
    is known locally as Vriens & Partners
    FIPRA in Vietnam
FIPRA Network

FIPRA

© FIPRA 2023.
All rights reserved.

Follow us on Twitter  Find us on LinkedIn

  • Privacy Policy
Explore
  • About Us
  • Our Practice Areas
  • Our Team
  • FIPRA Network
  • Latest News
  • Events
  • Careers
  • FIPRA Tools
  • Contact Us
Practice Areas
  • Competition & Antitrust
  • Digital & Tech
  • EU & International
  • Food & Drink
  • Green Transition
  • Healthcare, Life Sciences & Wellbeing
  • Trade & Investment (including EU-UK)
  • Transport, Travel & Logistics
Contact

info@fipra.com

Brussels Office  map
FIPRA International SRL
Rue de la Loi 227
Brussels 1040
+32 (0)2 613 28 28
Company number: 0733.774.811

London Office  map
FIPRA International Limited
201 Borough High Street
London
SE1 1JA
Company number: 3936157