Rapporteurs from three influential European Parliament committees—Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI), Regional Development (REGI), and Budgets (BUDG)—have recently unveiled their Draft Report on the National and Regional Partnership Plans (NRPP) regulation, sparking immediate and sharp criticism from environmental advocates who argue it dangerously undermines the European Union’s nature protection and restoration ambitions. This pivotal report, which will shape the allocation of a staggering 44% of the EU’s proposed budget, is seen by many as a critical political juncture, determining the future trajectory of Europe’s investment priorities. Critics contend that the current draft represents a significant misstep, failing to align financial mechanisms with the urgent ecological challenges facing the continent.
The Strategic Importance of the National and Regional Partnership Plans
The National and Regional Partnership Plans (NRPP) regulation is a cornerstone of the European Union’s financial architecture for the upcoming programming period, typically spanning seven years as part of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF). These plans are designed to guide how Member States will invest substantial EU funds, particularly from the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF), including the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+), the Cohesion Fund, and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). The NRPP mechanism is intended to ensure that investments are strategically coordinated, contribute to EU-wide objectives, and address national and regional development needs, including those related to environmental protection and climate action. Given that these plans dictate the deployment of nearly half of the entire EU budget, their design holds immense power in either accelerating or hindering the bloc’s ambitious environmental agenda, prominently articulated in the European Green Deal and the Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. The current scrutiny highlights a fundamental tension between economic development priorities and ecological imperative.
Core Criticisms: A Retreat from Environmental Commitments
The primary concern voiced by environmental organisations, including BirdLife Europe, centres on the Draft Report’s conspicuous absence of robust provisions for nature protection and restoration. Specifically, critics point to three major deficiencies:
-
Absence of Ring-fenced Funding for Nature: Despite the EU’s explicit commitments to biodiversity conservation and ecosystem restoration, the Draft Report reportedly contains no dedicated, ring-fenced financial allocations specifically earmarked for nature protection and restoration initiatives within the NRPP framework. This lack of specific funding mechanisms is alarming for environmentalists, who argue that without such safeguards, environmental spending is historically vulnerable to being ‘crowded out’ by other, often more politically palatable, investment priorities. Past experience, they warn, demonstrates that integrated environmental spending often diminishes when not protected by dedicated budget lines.
-
Undermining the LIFE Programme: The LIFE programme, the EU’s dedicated funding instrument for environment and climate action, is widely regarded as a critical tool for implementing nature conservation projects across the Union. However, the Draft Report is accused of backtracking on previous parliamentary commitments to bolster LIFE funding. The European Parliament had, with a broad cross-party majority, adopted an Interim Report backing dedicated LIFE funding. This political consensus, which spanned various political groups, is now allegedly being abandoned by rapporteurs from the European People’s Party (EPP) and Renew Europe groups. Instead of dedicated funding, the Draft Report proposes a "vague joint budget" that lumps LIFE actions together with Union technical support. This move is deemed "incoherent" and a "betrayal of the Parliament’s own position." Environmental groups are advocating for a minimum of €3.56 billion to be ring-fenced for LIFE within the NRPPs, with an additional €3 billion secured within the European Competitiveness Fund (ECF) to ensure its vital work can continue effectively.
-
Disregard for National Nature Restoration Plans: A significant legislative achievement of the current EU mandate is the Nature Restoration Law, which mandates Member States to develop and implement National Nature Restoration Plans (NNRPs) to restore degraded ecosystems. These plans will undoubtedly identify substantial funding needs. Paradoxically, the Draft Report on the NRPP—the very mechanism intended to channel significant EU funds—makes no requirement for investment plans to reflect these identified funding needs. Critics find this disconnect illogical and counterproductive, arguing that it creates a chasm between policy ambition and financial reality. Member States are currently in the process of preparing their NNRPs, making the omission in the NRPP particularly glaring.
The Economic Imperative: Cost of Inaction
The criticism is not merely ecological; it is also deeply rooted in economic pragmatism. The European Environment Agency (EEA) has starkly highlighted the financial toll of environmental degradation and climate change. Between 2021 and 2024 alone, the EU lost over €208 billion due to extreme climate and weather events, a figure that underscores the escalating costs of climate inaction. Furthermore, the European Commission’s 2025 Environmental Implementation Review estimated an annual investment gap of €37.4 billion in biodiversity and ecosystems, including crucial soil ecosystems. Without a mechanism within the NRPP to ensure a meaningful share of its budget flows towards closing this gap, environmental spending will inevitably be outcompeted. Each euro not invested in nature, according to BirdLife Europe, is effectively a euro invested in deepening the ongoing ecological crisis, guaranteeing higher costs in the future.
Agriculture and the CAP: A Misguided Approach?
Beyond nature-specific funding, the Draft Report’s approach to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has also drawn fire. While the report reportedly "fiddles with CAP pillar structures," critics argue it fundamentally "misses the point." The CAP, which accounts for a significant portion of the EU budget, is intended to support farmers and ensure food security. However, environmentalists and progressive voices contend that it must primarily serve as a vehicle for guiding farmers through the essential transition to sustainable, nature-friendly practices. Instead, the current structure is often perceived as disproportionately channelling public money to wealthy landowners, sometimes even those based outside the EU, as recent revelations have indicated concerning beneficiaries in the UAE. The call is for a radical reorientation of the CAP to genuinely incentivize agri-environmental actions, with proposals suggesting that no less than 35% of the CAP budget should be ring-fenced for such initiatives. This would ensure that public money delivers public goods, including biodiversity protection, climate mitigation, and healthy soils.
A Chronology of EU Environmental Ambition and Funding Debates
The current debate around the NRPP is not an isolated incident but part of a longer, often contentious, journey to integrate environmental sustainability into the EU’s core policies and financial frameworks.
- 2019-2020: Launch of the European Green Deal and Biodiversity Strategy: Ursula von der Leyen’s Commission launched the ambitious European Green Deal in December 2019, aiming to make Europe the first climate-neutral continent by 2050. This was followed by the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 in May 2020, setting ambitious targets for protecting and restoring nature. These strategies explicitly acknowledged the need for significant investment.
- 2020: Negotiations for the 2021-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF): During these negotiations, there was intense lobbying for increased environmental spending and the mainstreaming of biodiversity objectives across all EU funds. While some greening targets were introduced, critics argued they often lacked sufficient teeth or dedicated financial instruments.
- 2021: Post-COVID Recovery and NextGenerationEU: The launch of the NextGenerationEU recovery instrument, coupled with the MFF, brought unprecedented funding. There was an emphasis on ‘building back greener,’ with a 37% climate spending target, but less explicit focus on biodiversity restoration.
- 22 June 2023: Adoption of European Parliament’s Interim Report on NRPP: The Parliament adopted an interim report on the NRPP regulation, which included strong backing for dedicated LIFE funding, reflecting a cross-party consensus on the importance of this programme.
- 2023-2024: Development and Adoption of the Nature Restoration Law: After intense political negotiations, the Nature Restoration Law was formally adopted, obliging Member States to implement measures to restore at least 20% of the EU’s land and sea areas by 2030 and all ecosystems in need of restoration by 2050. This landmark legislation created a clear legal obligation, intensifying the need for robust financial support.
- May 2024: Presentation of the Draft Report by AGRI, REGI, BUDG Rapporteurs: The present Draft Report on the NRPP is presented, drawing immediate criticism for its perceived lack of commitment to environmental funding, particularly regarding ring-fencing for nature and the LIFE programme.
- 11 June 2024 (5 PM): Deadline for Amendments: MEPs are given a critical window to propose amendments to the Draft Report, offering a final opportunity to address the identified shortcomings and realign the NRPP with the EU’s stated environmental ambitions.
Statements and Reactions from Stakeholders
The unveiling of the Draft Report has elicited strong reactions across the EU political and civil society spectrum.
Anouk Puymartin, Head of Policy, BirdLife Europe, articulated the urgency: "The NRPP represents 44% of the EU budget, and right now, nature gets none of it guaranteed. MEPs have until 11 June to ring-fence funding for nature, align budget plans with National Nature Restoration Law implementation financing needs, ensure a future for the LIFE programme, and ring-fence no less than 35% of the CAP budget for agri-environmental actions. This is a once-in-a-generation chance to put Europe’s money where its commitments are. Squandering it would be a failure neither MEPs nor our planet can afford."
A spokesperson for the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), speaking on condition of anonymity due to ongoing internal consultations, echoed similar sentiments: "This Draft Report is a litmus test for the European Green Deal. If we fail to secure dedicated funding for nature restoration within such a massive financial instrument, it sends a clear message that our environmental ambitions are merely rhetorical. We risk a future where Member States struggle to meet their Nature Restoration Law obligations simply because the EU’s own budget mechanisms don’t support them."
Conversely, sources within the EPP and Renew Europe political groups, whose rapporteurs are implicated in the Draft Report’s current form, have informally suggested that the approach aims for greater flexibility for Member States. "We believe in the principle of subsidiarity," one parliamentary aide explained. "Member States are best placed to identify their specific environmental needs and integrate them into broader regional development strategies. Strict ring-fencing can sometimes limit effective local implementation and create administrative burdens. The goal is to ensure environmental considerations are mainstreamed, not compartmentalized in a way that hinders holistic development."
A representative from Copa-Cogeca, a leading European farmers’ association, might also weigh in, emphasizing the need for practical support for farmers. "Any new environmental requirements must come with adequate financial support and clear guidance. Farmers are willing to contribute to environmental goals, but they need stability and investment to make the transition. The CAP must be a reliable partner, not a source of additional, unfunded mandates."
The European Commission, while not directly commenting on a parliamentary draft report, would likely reiterate its overarching commitment to the European Green Deal and the Biodiversity Strategy. A Commission official might state, "The Commission remains steadfast in its commitment to achieving the ambitious goals of the European Green Deal and the Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. We trust that the co-legislators will ensure that the final NRPP regulation effectively supports Member States in delivering on their environmental and climate objectives, fostering sustainable growth across the Union."
Broader Impact and Implications
The implications of the NRPP Draft Report, if adopted in its current form, extend far beyond mere budgetary allocations, potentially impacting the EU’s environmental trajectory, economic resilience, and global credibility.
Environmental Impact: A significant shortfall in dedicated funding for nature protection and restoration would likely lead to a slowdown, if not outright failure, in achieving the ambitious targets set by the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 and the Nature Restoration Law. This could result in continued habitat loss, species decline, and the degradation of vital ecosystem services such as pollination, water purification, and climate regulation. The cumulative effect would be a weakened natural environment less capable of buffering the impacts of climate change.
Economic Consequences: The economic cost of inaction on biodiversity loss and climate change is already immense and projected to grow. As highlighted by the EEA figures, extreme weather events and ecosystem degradation incur colossal financial losses. Failing to invest proactively in nature restoration represents a missed opportunity for green job creation, sustainable rural development, and the long-term economic stability that healthy ecosystems underpin. Ecosystem services are estimated to contribute trillions of euros annually to the global economy, and their degradation poses a significant economic risk.
Political Credibility and International Standing: The European Union has positioned itself as a global leader in climate action and environmental protection. A perceived weakening of its financial commitment to nature within its own budget mechanisms could severely damage this reputation on the international stage. It might undermine the EU’s ability to advocate for ambitious environmental policies in international forums and erode trust among its citizens who expect the Union to deliver on its Green Deal promises. Internally, it could fuel cynicism about the sincerity of political commitments to sustainability.
Future of EU Funding and Green Mainstreaming: The outcome of this debate will also set a precedent for future Multiannual Financial Frameworks. If dedicated environmental funding is diluted or abandoned now, it sends a signal that ‘green mainstreaming’ can be achieved without specific financial safeguards, potentially making it harder to secure robust environmental allocations in subsequent budget cycles. This could challenge the very principle of integrating environmental considerations across all EU policies.
The Path Forward: A Critical Amendment Window
With the deadline for amendments looming on June 11, MEPs face a crucial decision. This period represents a final opportunity to re-inject ambition and concrete financial mechanisms into the NRPP regulation. Environmental groups are intensifying their lobbying efforts, urging MEPs to champion amendments that include clear ring-fencing for nature, a revitalised and dedicated LIFE programme budget, and explicit requirements for NRPPs to align with National Nature Restoration Plans. The choice before the European Parliament is stark: either solidify the EU’s commitment to a sustainable future through robust financial backing or risk undermining its own environmental agenda at a time when ecological crises demand unprecedented action and investment.
Photo: Little egret by Yves Adams/Vilda
