LONDON — Chancellor Rachel Reeves will make a statement responding to new assessments of the U.K.’s finances on March 3, the U.K. Treasury said on Monday. In a statement, the Treasury said it had asked the U.K.’s independent fiscal watchdog, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), to prepare an economic and fiscal forecast for that date. However, it said the forecast will “not make an assessment of the government’s performance against the fiscal mandate and will instead provide an interim update on the economy and public finances.” “This approach gives families and businesses the stability and certainty they need and supports the government’s growth mission,” it said. The Labour government has previously said it intends to only hold one “major fiscal event” per year. However, a worsening financial outlook forced the chancellor into announcing significant tax and spending changes at last year’s spring statement. At the most recent government-wide budget in November, Reeves increased taxes by a further £22 billion per year. She refused to rule out further tax increases in an interview last week.

BRUSSELS ― The European Parliament’s four centrist groups are to demand Commission President Ursula von der Leyen make major changes to her plan for the EU’s next seven-year budget, according to the draft of a letter seen by POLITICO. In an escalation of tensions between politicians across the mainstream spectrum and the head of the bloc’s executive, the groups will threaten to reject a key part of the 2028-2034 budget unless their conditions are met. The draft of the letter, which is still being finalized, asks the Commission to overhaul its proposal, published in July, to meet the views of von der Leyen’s own center-right European People’s Party (EPP), the center-left Socialists and Democrats (S&D), the liberal Renew Europe group and the Greens. This quartet forms a majority in the European Parliament, which must approve the budget. Lawmakers oppose the Commission’s “national plans,” an idea to pool funds for farmers and regions — which make up around half of the total EU budget, worth €1.8 trillion — into single pots managed by the bloc’s 27 governments. This is a change from the current system, where regions play a crucial role in handling the funding. “As the current proposal on the [national plans] does not take our core requests into consideration, it cannot constitute a basis for negotiations,” the draft says. “We therefore look forward to seeing our key requests meaningfully reflected in an amended proposal of the European Commission, which would allow the negotiations with the European Parliament to move forward.” The letter is designed to increase pressure on the EU executive to make concessions after weeks of stalled negotiations. If no agreement is reached, the four political groups will put forward a resolution rejecting the national plans part of the budget in the full plenary session of Parliament starting Nov. 12. RURAL DEVELOPMENT The Commission argues that this model will allow governments to spend the EU’s money according to their specific needs and create a stronger link between payments and governments’ economic reforms. But lawmakers say the plan would expand the power of central governments at the expense of regions, which have traditionally played a key role in handling EU funds. One of the most significant demands from the political groups is that the Commission allocate specific funding to rural development and all regions — something that’s not included in the current budget proposal. MEPs are also calling on the EU executive to overhaul its cash-for-reforms model, which, in their view, creates an “inherent democratic deficit.” Parliament also wants greater power to decide and scrutinize how the EU’s public funding is allocated over the seven-year period. Political groups already agreed this month to add a debate on the architecture of the EU’s long-term budget, known as the Multiannual Financial Framework, to the full session of Parliament on Nov. 12. If no agreement is reached, the four political groups will put forward a resolution rejecting the national plans part of the budget in the full plenary session of Parliament starting Nov. 12. | Thierry Monasse/Getty Images That date also marks the cutoff for Parliament and the Commission to agree on changes to the national plans. The Socialists and liberals had already said they were ready to reject the EU budget proposal, but the EPP had not yet confirmed it would also officially do so, despite many of its lawmakers in the past weeks indicating it was likely.  Away from the Parliament, EU governments are currently haggling over the budget proposal in deliberations expected to stretch until early 2027. At that point, Parliament will negotiate the spending plan with national capitals and vote on it before it’s scheduled to come into force in 2028.

LONDON — The British aristocracy has always seen talking about money as a little bit grubby. But the scandalized Prince Andrew is forcing the issue front and center. King Charles’ transgressive younger brother is facing torrid headlines over his friendship with pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. And the revelation in The Times this week that he appears to be living rent-free in a vast lodge is prompting a barrage of wider questions about the way Britain’s royals are funded. In the House of Commons Wednesday, Britain’s center-left Prime Minister Keir Starmer did nothing to tamp down opposition calls for an inquiry into whether taxpayer interests are being protected when it comes to Andrew, who stepped back from Royal duties in 2019 and gave up key titles just last week. “It is important, in relation to all Crown properties, that there is proper scrutiny,” Starmer said. On Thursday, Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, chair of the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee — parliament’s public spending watchdog — said he would be requesting more information on Andrew’s Royal Lodge agreement.  The scandal has sent questions about royal finances rocketing up the U.K. political agenda, just months before a scheduled review of a key part of the arrangement, known as the Sovereign Grant, kicks off. Andrew’s living arrangements are part of “much, much wider problem” with a system of royal finances, which is still mired in secrecy, said Margaret Hodge, the U.K. government’s anti-corruption czar. PAYING FOR THE PRIVILEGE  How the U.K. government covers the cost of the monarchy — expenses like royal engagements, staffing costs and the upkeep of grand residences such as Buckingham Palace — has long been a subject of debate. The current system — known the Sovereign Grant — was brought in by then-Prime Minister David Cameron in 2012. It links public funding of the monarch to the profits of the Crown Estate. The Crown Estate is essentially a portfolio of assets that was owned and managed by monarchs pre-1760 and is now run as a business whose revenue is returned to the U.K. Treasury. It generates significant revenue, which has been bolstered in recent years by lucrative wind farm deals with developers. In the wake of the Andrew revelations, Clifton-Brown said his committee would decide next year whether to “undertake any work” on the Crown Estate accounts. King Charles’ transgressive younger brother is facing torrid headlines over his friendship with pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. | Eric Reid/EPA Charles and Prince William also receive an income from two vast inherited estates — the Duchy of Lancaster and Duchy of Cornwall respectively. This money, according to their own websites, is used to support themselves and their families, and their philanthropic work.  They also have their own investments and inherited wealth — which include private residences in Balmoral, Scotland, and in Sandringham, Norfolk.  Charles and William are not legally liable for income tax, capital gains tax or inheritance tax. But they pay certain taxes voluntarily under an agreement the late Queen Elizabeth II made with the Treasury. As part of this agreement, the government agrees not to publish any information about their tax bill. Because some assets, such as the official residences, the Royal Archives, the Royal Collection of paintings and other works of art are not sold to provide income or capital for the personal use of the king, and pass from one sovereign to the next, it would be inappropriate for inheritance tax to be paid on them, the agreement argues. A former senior official involved in past decisions about royal finances said this system had been designed to ensure the British monarchy, which still has public support, is “not placed in a position of subservience” to the government of the day. It is also meant to allow the royals the “same principle of confidentiality” as other British citizens. But that same former official, granted anonymity to speak candidly, warned there was a “quid pro quo” to that.  “The public will acquiesce in these arrangements if it is seen that the members of the royal family conduct themselves in a way that is, although privileged, not extravagant, and not flagrant. Things break down if there are members of the royal family who aren’t keeping that side of the bargain,” the former official added.  Senior royals are acutely conscious of the sensitivities around the way they’re funded. William is reported to be mindful of the cost of the monarchy and will assess the “footprint” of the institution, The Times reported in June. But Hodge, an ex-public accounts committee chair who has long probed royal finances, believes the system needs much wider reform. She said the Royal Lodge deal for Andrew looked “rotten.” This matters to the taxpayer, she argued. Financial reports on both Duchies are published, but they remain private estates and Hodge believes this makes for “muddy territory.” “In my view, they are public [funds] because they were given by the state to the royal family for the purpose of sustaining themselves,” she said of the arrangement. “I think we need transparency.”

BRUSSELS ― The far-right Patriots for Europe is taking legal action after the European Parliament suspended access to millions of euros in public funds over alleged misspending. In two separate cases, the Patriots party is contesting rulings by the Parliament and the EU’s party watchdog that resulted in it losing access to more than €4 million in funds, arguing the decisions were illegitimate and the product of bias and lack of impartiality. The far-right political family, home to France’s Marine Le Pen and Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, has consistently complained of being sidelined from EU policymaking and key positions of power since the 2024 European elections, where it surged to become the third-largest group in Parliament. Mainstream politicians have kept the Patriots at arm’s length under the so-called cordon sanitaire — an informal pact to avoid cooperation with factions on the far right and far left. Now, the Patriots are also accusing EU officials of sabotaging their access to public cash earmarked for political parties. “There is a problem with certain agents of the administration of the Parliament,” said Belgian MEP Gerolf Annemans, honorary president of the Patriots party. The Patriots scored its first win on Wednesday when the European Court of Justice annulled a sanction by the party watchdog, the APPF, which had required the party to pay a €47,000 fine. The sanction came after the party wrongly referred to one of its lawmakers as being part of its board in a social media post, which the APPF took as a sign the party had lied in its entry to the authority’s register — a serious offense that could lead to all public funding for the party being withheld. The APPF ruling enabled the European Parliament to cut the Patriots party off from accessing €4 million of EU funding in 2023, documents obtained by POLITICO show. That meant a substantial cut to the party’s available budget for the 2024 elections — where other European political parties carried their 2023 funds over for the following year. Wednesday’s court ruling will allow the Patriots to try to claim part of these funds back — and will likely bolster the party’s claims of bias from the Parliament’s administration. EQUAL TREATMENT In a separate lawsuit filed mid-July, the Patriots accused the Parliament of bias and lack of impartiality after it ruled the party had misspent funds in a campaign in Czechia. The Parliament’s Bureau, composed of MEPs and tasked with taking decisions on administrative issues, ruled the Patriots should pay for that campaign with their own money and give back the EU funds spent on it, which came to €228,000. The decision violated “the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination, as it deemed similar campaigns by other parties to be reimbursable,” the Patriot’s case document, seen by POLITICO, read. The far-right political family, home to France’s Marine Le Pen and Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, has consistently complained of being sidelined from EU policymaking and key positions of power since the 2024 European elections. | Wojtek Radwanski/Getty Images They also argue that the decision was not impartial, as the Bureau is composed mostly of center-right, liberal and left-wing lawmakers, with no far-right MEPs from the Patriots present to defend the case. On top of that, they contend the Parliament violated their rights to defense as it censored big chunks of the letter the Patriots had sent to the bureau to defend themselves. In the first version of the letter, the Patriots compared their campaign with that of another EU party. In the letter that the administration circulated in the bureau, the justification was redacted. ‘VERY GOOD LAWYERS’ The Parliament refused to comment on the ongoing judicial proceedings. The APPF “remains committed to protecting integrity of European democracy” in accordance with its obligations under EU law, it said after the ruling. These two lawsuits follow threats of a separate challenge from the Patriots group — a distinct legal entity from the Patriots party, which represents the far-right camp in Parliament. At the beginning of September, the Parliament’s budgetary control committee recommended the administration seek the reimbursement of €4.3 million from the group in reparations for alleged misspending by the now-defunct far-right Identity and Democracy. The ID group dissolved in the summer of 2024, with many of its members and staff joining the new Patriots. “We will fight it in court if necessary,” said a Patriots group official, granted anonymity to speak about sensitive matters. “We have very good lawyers, and we are sure we are right.”

PARIS — President Emmanuel Macron’s allies don’t seem to have any good answers as to what happens after the almost certain fall of the government of Prime Minister François Bayrou in the Sept. 8 parliamentary vote of confidence. The names of Armed Forces Minister Sébastien Lecornu and Justice Minister Gérald Darmanin are emerging in the chatter as potential successors to the poisoned chalice of the premiership, but what would a new recruit really solve? A new PM will be ensnared in exactly the same quagmire. French politics will still be too internally riven to pass vital deficit-slashing reforms, despite Bayrou’s Cassandra-like warnings that France could be headed toward a Greek-style debt crisis if it sits on its hands and doesn’t implement an unpopular €43.8 billion budget squeeze. So how about another snap election? If Macron calls one, the political landscape could still be mired in exactly the same impasse — but the blame after a vote would more obviously fall on him rather than on his prime minister. And all that time, the financial markets will be running out of patience regarding France’s ability to put its books in order. All in all, a state of shock grips elected officials, aides and advisers from the various parties that support France’s minority government. “It’s a tough blow for the president,” said one minister’s political adviser who, like others in this piece, was granted anonymity to speak candidly about the political chaos. They noted that a day of mass protests, potentially shutting the country down, was in the offing only two days after Bayrou’s expected exit. “A political crisis on Sept. 8, a social crisis on Sept. 10. That’s a regime crisis, isn’t it?” NEW MAN FOR THE MATIGNON Macron’s centrists seem to be clutching at straws. The first signals coming out of the Elysée Palace seemed to indicate the president is not considering dissolving parliament and going for another election. Instead, Macron is thought to be considering tapping the young, center-right Lecornu to lead the government. Someone close to Macron said Justice Minister Darmanin, who has long eyed the premiership, is also a candidate, but doesn’t want to inherit what appears to be a suicide mission. Bother Lecornu and Darmanin originally hailed from the conservative Les Républicains party and have been with Macron since 2017. Lecornu is closer to the president, and Macron almost nominated him before Bayrou imposed himself as premier. He’s seen as more biddable, while Darmanin is highly ambitious and more independent-minded. They noted that a day of mass protests, potentially shutting the country down, was in the offing only two days after Francois Bayrou’s expected exit. | Pool Photo by Thibaud Moritz via EPA An individual close to Lecornu said the 39-year-old privately boasts of enjoying a privileged relationship with Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally, while at the same time insisting he could lead a coalition government of both the right and the left.  But will that relationship with the National Rally help him succeed in the bloody budget arena where both Bayrou and former Prime Minister Michel Barnier failed? Many centrists say no: Nothing indicates that either Le Pen or the socialists have any intention of supporting him any more than they did Bayrou. “There is no scenario, no new casting choice that can resolve the crisis,” the ministerial adviser said. For the conservative Les Républicains supporting Bayrou’s minority government, the suggestion of Lecornu is yet another example of an unfailingly optimistic president who refuses to accept defeat. Macron himself reportedly tried to downplay the crisis at Wednesday’s weekly meeting of the Council of Ministers. “He can’t help trying to regain control,” said a dejected member of Les Républicains. “It’s his natural inclination.” Even a technocratic government of experts to solve the budget mess — a rather Italian-sounding fix — would need to navigate a splintered National Assembly filled with lawmakers looking head to key municipal elections next year and the presidential election in 2027. UNAPPETIZING ELECTION Sending the French back to the ballot box, however, also carries its own set of risks for a president worried about his legacy. It was, after all, the surprise snap vote following European elections last summer that shunted France into its current deadlock and irrevocably damaged Macron’s reputation. Polling shows voters could easily deliver another hung parliament in any election in the coming weeks or months. “The worst for him is a dissolution that doesn’t work, because then he’s the one who gets the boot,” another ministerial adviser said. Someone close to Emmanuel Macron said Justice Minister Darmanin, who has long eyed the premiership, is also a candidate, but doesn’t want to inherit what appears to be a suicide mission. | Mohammed Badra/EPA That doesn’t mean it’s impossible, however. Before Monday, Macron had repeatedly ruled out calling new elections before the end of his term, but the Elysée insists he will not deprive himself of a constitutional power . “Mystery is part of the presidential strategy,” said a close associate of Macron. BAYROU FOR PRESIDENT Bayrou’s camp, meanwhile, remains stunned by the speed at which his fate was sealed by opposition lawmakers — especially the far right — and is struggling to convince people the situation is under control. One individual in the prime minister’s entourage said he hoped Le Pen and the National Rally would reconsider their position after 48 hours. The hope was that Bayrou’s team could do the dirty work of balancing France’s books before 2027 while also avoiding the danger of a legislative election in which Le Pen would be barred from running due to her embezzlement conviction. Bayrou for now appears to be waging a battle in the court of public opinion, giving a flurry of speeches and interviews in the hope of leaving the Matignon Palace, the prime ministerial residence, with his head held high.  It has the air of a campaign strategy for 2027, and Bayrou has long aspired to the Elysée. “At least he will have earned his stripes as a presidential candidate,” one Macron supporter said.

BRUSSELS — As Europe prepares to enter a new technology race, the hurdles it faces to beat out the U.S. and China are all too familiar. After rapidly falling behind in the global rush to artificial intelligence, Brussels has a fresh chance at an economic success story in the emerging field of quantum technology. But in a new strategy to be released Wednesday, the EU will warn that promising homegrown quantum tech risks being snatched up to make money abroad as the bloc continues to lag in turning research into “real-market opportunities,” according to a draft seen by POLITICO. “Europe attracts only five percent of the global private quantum funding, compared to over 50 percent captured by the U.S. and 40 percent by China,” the undated draft read. Governments and technology companies — most notably in the U.S. — are plowing billions into the quantum wave, which would be revolutionary because quantum computers would surpass the problem-solving capacities of current computers by vast orders of magnitude, revolutionizing industries from communications to drug development. Europe is the global leader in the number of scientific publications on the technology. “Europe has been falling behind [when it] comes to the technology in many sectors. This sector is something where we are several years ahead of other countries,” said Juha Vartiainen, co-founder of the Finnish quantum computing company IQM. But in the race to commercialize that research, Europe risks falling behind quickly, ranking only third in patents filed, behind the U.S. and China. To many, it’s déjà vu. Europe is generally best in class in the research that precedes revolutionary technologies, as it was in artificial intelligence. But the U.S. and China leapfrogged the continent in building the companies to deploy mass-market applications. A major point of debate is whether Europe will give its quantum industry free rein. Quantum computers are considered sensitive technology since they are expected to break the digital encryption that protects data and communications from being surveilled and stolen — making the technology a matter of national security. Several European governments have already imposed export restrictions. CASH FLOW PROBLEMS U.S. tech giant IBM recently announced it expects to have the first workable quantum computer by 2029 — adding urgency to the timeline for Europe to get its house in order. For decades, Europe has failed to overcome its fragmented financial market and pool funding on the scale that the U.S. and China can provide. Efforts to overcome the barriers to investment through a bloc-wide capital markets union have yielded no significant outcomes. U.S. tech giant IBM recently announced it expects to have the first workable quantum computer by 2029 — adding urgency to the timeline for Europe to get its house in order. | Anna Szilagyi/EPA The strategy notes significantly more investment will be needed to roll out reliable technology that is widely adopted by several industries. “Raising a scale-up in Europe is super difficult, because we lack the European instruments, the European venture capital … large enough to support that,” said Enrique Lizaso, CEO of Spanish software company Multiverse Computing, which is crossing quantum-inspired software applications with artificial intelligence. Multiverse last month raised €189 million in a funding round that included both U.S.-based and European investors. Lizaso said that if Europe wants to help scale its companies it must be prepared to invest €100 million per company, “which is what you’re going to have from the U.S.” According to IQM’s Vartiainen, “we would need to have funding levels which are significantly larger than they have been so far.” In an interview Tuesday, the EU’s tech commissioner Henna Virkkunen said that Brussels and the capitals have jointly funded quantum technology with €11 billion. “Now it’s important, because we are quite fragmented, that we are putting different dots together,” she said. PICKING WINNERS Both Brussels and EU capitals have rolled out public funding plans to complement private funding, but the industry fears these are insufficient and lack focus. Europe’s approach has been to be “technology-neutral” and fund several strands of quantum technology, Vartiainen said, but spreading out funding can dilute its impact. Europe should follow the U.S. example of unlocking larger investments for focused “challenges,” he said. Under a program led by the U.S. government’s DARPA defense research agency, 18 companies have been selected as part of a larger bid to come up with an error-free quantum computer by 2033. Those companies could reportedly tap up to $300 million if they pass all the stages. The EU’s draft strategy promises to launch “two grand challenges” between 2025 and 2027, with one focused on quantum computing and another on quantum navigation systems in “critical environments.” Another way for governments to support companies to commercialize the technology would be if they are the primary buyers of technology, which then lowers the bar for the industry to follow suit. Some industry voices have warned that the EU’s approach to regulating AI offers a cautionary tale. | Etienne Laurent/EPA The draft strategy said the Commission would “support innovation-oriented procurement schemes,” but didn’t offer much detail on how it would do so. Companies are adamant on what they don’t want from Brussels: regulation and restrictions on quantum technology, like restrictions on the export of the technology. Some industry voices have warned that the EU’s approach to regulating AI offers a cautionary tale. Worried about the potential harms of the technology, the EU rolled out the world’s first AI rulebook, only to quickly backtrack to focus on AI innovation and commercial success. “We cannot afford to regulate what is not yet mature,” said Cecilia Bonefeld-Dahl, director general of DigitalEurope, one of Brussels’ leading tech lobbies. “Otherwise, Europe risks losing the quantum race.”

The EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is grounded in the recognition that people, land, and society are deeply interlinked. But today, that connection is under strain. Farmers face mounting pressure from extreme weather, rising input costs and increasing regulatory complexity. Against this backdrop, the upcoming CAP reform is a pivotal moment, one that must deliver real outcomes to future-proof European agriculture.   To do that, policymakers should focus on three clear priorities: enabling co-investment between the public and private sectors; ensuring payments are simpler and rewarding farmers for what really matters; and equipping farmers with tailored support beyond payments. This is the foundation for a CAP that truly supports food security, climate action, and farmer livelihoods, while keeping food affordable for consumers.   By aligning around these priorities, the CAP can move beyond being just a rulebook for farmers and become a framework that brings together everyone involved in sustaining and shaping our food future, balancing agricultural progress with care for the environment and our communities. At PepsiCo, we see the impact of these policies up close, starting from the very first step of our value chain. Across the EU, we work with over 800 farmers to source key agricultural crops and ingredients, including potatoes, corn and oats. These ingredients are the backbone of iconic brands like Lay’s, Doritos, and Quaker, which rely on thriving farming communities and sustainable agricultural practices. Their success is our success. And so is their sustainability.  But I can also see that today’s farmers face an uncertain future. With the EU standing at a crossroads, we have to rethink how to support food security, respond to climate impacts and deliver more equitable outcomes for farmers, while keeping food affordable and accessible for consumers.   That’s why CAP reform matters now. Done right, the CAP can become a global model for a public-private partnership that drives meaningful and measurable progress across the full agri-food value chain.  On PepsiCo’s part, we remain committed to being a constructive partner in support of a more competitive, resilient and sustainable food system — based on regenerative agriculture.  This approach uses science-based farming practices that aim to restore ecosystems by improving soil health and fertility, reducing emissions, enhancing water quality and protecting biodiversity while also supporting farmer livelihoods. For example, in Jaén, southern Spain, we recently launched ‘Viva Oliva’ to support local olive growers, many of whom have been working in this historic trade for generations. Through this project, we’re providing hands-on training from agronomy experts so that farmers can protect the ecosystem more efficiently and conserve vital resources.   Crucially, these practices also create new opportunities, ensuring that farming can continue to be a viable option for the next generation. In 2024 we sourced 100 percent of the olive oil for our Alvalle gazpacho brand from Jaén, securing a high-quality local supply for Alvalle while strengthening the role of farmers in our supply shed.  > We’re investing in innovative techniques that bring life back to the land > because it is the right thing to do for our business, for the farmers we work > with and for the planet. Viva Oliva is just one of the many projects that’s helped us spread regenerative agriculture across a total of 3.5 million acres (approximately 1.4 million hectares) of farmland. Recently, we extended our target and are now aiming to reach 10 million acres (around 4 million hectares) globally by 2030.   We’re also taking action further upstream through partnerships with fertilizer companies like Yara, equipping farmers with precision tools to improve nutrient efficiency, increase yields and lower the carbon footprint of their crops. This collaboration supports approximately 1,000 farms across the EU and the UK that supply key ingredients for Lay’s and Walkers, covering around 128,000 hectares. By 2030 the partnership aims to reduce fertilizer production emissions by up to 80 percent and in-field fertilizer emissions by up to 20 percent, helping scale regenerative practices while supporting farmer productivity.  > Recently, we extended our regenerative agriculture target and are now aiming > to spread these practices across 10 million acres of farmland globally by > 2030. I know that we have the expertise and ambition to meet these goals, but we can’t do it alone. To make this a reality, we need EU policymakers to deliver a coherent and enabling regulatory framework that’s fit for purpose, based on three guiding principles.  Firstly, policymakers must match ambition with investment. Strong public funding is essential, but the CAP should be reimagined to enable co-investment through blended finance models, where public and private capital work together to accelerate impact. Private investment should be results driven, allowing trusted private-sector partners, who operate at size and scale, to co-design solutions with farmers.  Secondly, payments should be simpler and pay farmers for what really matters. This requires rewarding farmers not just for compliance but also for delivering real, measurable environmental benefits such as healthier soils, lower emissions, cleaner water, and richer biodiversity. Farming is unlike most other businesses, with income around 40 percent lower than non-agricultural income,1, which is why CAP incentives must reflect the true costs farmers face, including machinery upgrades and land-use shifts. And the system should incentivize progress over perfection — farmers who are already taking action should be compensated accordingly.  Thirdly, the CAP must recognize that farmers need support beyond payments. Investing in climate information systems, knowledge sharing networks, rural infrastructure and novel technologies will help accelerate and scale the implementation of new techniques — while ensuring profitability. Travelling across Europe to meet our teams on the ground, I see firsthand how local needs differ, so farmers should also be free to choose the solutions that are best suited to their region and crops to ensure policies are impactful.    > “Done right, the CAP can become a global model for a public-private > partnership that drives meaningful and measurable progress across the full > agrifood value chain. Archana Jagannathan And PepsiCo is committed to being part of that solution. Together with like-minded partners, we’re fully committed to growing food in a way that revitalizes the earth, supports farmer livelihoods, and feeds a growing population.  

PARIS — French taxpayers footed a nearly €6 billion bill to host the 2024 Paris Olympics, the country’s highest audit authority said in a report published Monday. France’s Court of Auditors found state and local authorities spent €2.77 billion to help organize the Games and an additional €3.19 billion on infrastructure. The French government had initially promised that public funding for the Games would cost around €1 billion. Tony Estanguet, the president of the 2024 Paris Organizing Committee, disputed the auditors’ figures in a response included in their report and said the true public cost attributable to the event “does not exceed €2 billion.” He also noted that the projected economic benefits linked to the Olympics are “three to five times that amount.” Both Estanguet and Prime Minister François Bayrou, whose response was also included in the report, stressed that the Court of Auditors had failed to adequately quantify the long-term benefits of the Games, including the infrastructure investments that will benefit Parisians long after the Olympics finished, and focused solely on tallying up expenditures. For example, the French government spent an additional €214 million to extend the Paris metro network to make Olympic sites accessible via public transport by the time the Games began. The president of the Court of Auditors projected before the Olympics began that they would cost €3 to €5 billion. The report notes that the Games’ organizing committee was “largely self-funded,” but that public funds were used to ensure the event’s success. Securing the Games ended up being particularly expensive. France spent some €665 million to deploy 35,000 police and gendarmes each day near the various events

The availability of water, across households and industries, is the basis for peace, security and economic development. It is the source of all life, connects communities, transcends borders and is central to achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals from health to education and from gender equality to climate adaptation.  Since the Millennium Development Goals were introduced in 2000, millions of people have gained access to safe water. But this progress has stalled in recent years, with the climate crisis exacerbating water scarcity and extreme weather events jeopardizing water quality.  Women and girls are disproportionately affected by water scarcity. Traditional roles often assign them the tasks of water management. In rural areas across the globe, women spend an estimated 40 billion hours a year fetching water, as much as the entire working time spent in France. The lack of basic infrastructure in their households or close vicinity deprives them of educational and professional opportunities — and can expose them to violence.   > In rural areas across the globe, women spend an estimated 40 billion hours a > year fetching water, as much as the entire working time spent in France. Water is not only essential for life, but it is also a driving force for — and foundational to — economic growth. The provision of water supply, sanitation and wastewater services (WASH) generates substantial benefits for public health, the economy and the environment.  Evidence underscoring the significant economic return on investments in climate-resilient water and sanitation infrastructure is clear. According to the UN, every euro invested in water and sanitation projects generates four times the economic benefit, mainly in the form of reduced healthcare costs. OECD analysis indicates even stronger numbers, demonstrating that benefit-to-cost ratios can be as high as 7 to 1 for basic water and sanitation services in developing countries.   The majority — about three-quarters — of the total benefits are due to saved time, as people no longer need to travel long distances or wait in lines to access water. In terms of health benefits, enhancing water, sanitation and hygiene could prevent nearly one in ten cases of illness worldwide.  > enhancing water, sanitation and hygiene could prevent nearly one in ten cases > of illness worldwide. The EU’s leadership on the global water agenda has been most welcome, to support improved governance on addressing mutual water challenges.     The development of its first European Water Resilience Strategy comes at a crucial time, providing continuity between the UN Water Conferences, and when support toward SDG6 has been, in recent years, lagging.  Support and investments in WASH services should be prioritized in the international dimension of its strategy, for it to effectively address global water stress from a social and economic perspective.    To achieve this, WaterAid encourages the European Commission to:  * Align the objectives of the strategy with the EU’s 2028-2034 Multi-Annual Financial Framework, ensuring financing for the strategy’s delivery and its UN Water 2023 commitments.  * Through Team Europe Initiatives, increase cooperation among EU member states’ water resilience programs for complementarity, with a focus on climate-resilient water and sanitation services and infrastructure.  * Increase the share of the EU’s climate adaptation financing to climate-resilient water and sanitation infrastructure, in particular to the partner countries most vulnerable to fluctuating weather trends.  * Expand the Global Gateway areas of partnerships to include water resilience, by encouraging blended finance models that combine private and public funding while maintaining government leadership.  By prioritizing WASH investments in its global water resilience strategy, the EU can lead the charge in tackling water insecurity worldwide. As Jessika Roswall, Commissioner for environment, water resilience and a competitive circular economy, declared a few days ago from Poland: “Investing in water resilience is an investment in our future, and in the continued prosperity and security of Europe and beyond.” 

ATHENS — Greece’s opposition parties are demanding an investigation into the government’s ties to a politically connected communications company that they link to shadow financing and online propaganda for the ruling New Democracy party. The questions about the role of the PR company focus on a host of top New Democracy officials and close associates of center-right Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis — including Thanasis Bakolas, outgoing secretary general of the European People’s Party, the pan-EU grouping of center-right parties. The little-known communications company at the heart of the political furor is called Blue Skies, and was founded by Thomas Varvitsiotis, the son and brother of former New `Democracy ministers, and Yiannis Olympios. Blue Skies is an offshoot of the far better known V+O agency, which represents some of Greece’s biggest businesses. It was founded in 2003 with V+O as a shareholder and Varvitsiotis and Olympios as board members. At the time, it shared the same headquarters as V+O. The opposition’s main allegation is that Blue Skies employed high-profile New Democracy officials as a form of undisclosed political funding and that some 15 of the agency’s employees engaged in social media trolling to promote Mitsotakis’ interests, including attacking the families of victims of the country’s worst rail disaster in 2023. The government denies any link to the agency. OPPOSITION WANTS ANSWERS The main opposition center-left Pasok party is demanding “answers about the activities of this company and the links between New Democracy, a propaganda machine and private companies, between which, according to publications, black political money seems to be produced and channelled.” “After so many revelations, we expect the immediate intervention of the competent judicial authorities,” the party said in a statement on Tuesday. The opposition’s main allegation is that Blue Skies employed high-profile New Democracy officials as a form of undisclosed political funding and that some 15 of the agency’s employees engaged in social media trolling to promote Mitsotakis’ interests, including attacking the families of victims of the country’s worst rail disaster in 2023. | Sakis Mitrolidis/AFP via Getty Images Opposition Syriza MEP Kostas Arvanitis called on EU Justice Commissioner Michael McGrath and the European Parliament “to act accordingly in order to restore the confidence of Greek citizens in the democratic process.” New Left MP Nasos Iliopoulos complained: “The evidence raises reasonable suspicions that public funding is being used to sustain the government’s propaganda, in flagrant violation of the Constitution and the laws on transparency of political money. This is an extreme institutional aberration that undermines democracy.” BIG PARTY NAMES More than half of the 57 people officially listed as employees of Blue Skies had high-ranking positions close to Mitsotakis or New Democracy at the same time, according to a report in Documento newspaper. None listed their corporate PR roles on their CVs. In addition to outgoing EPP Secretary-General Bakolas, the names include Minister of Labor and Social Security Domna Michailidou and Deputy Minister of Transport Konstantinos Kyranakis. Most of them appear to have worked at the company when Mitsotakis took over the party leadership in 2016, and stopped in 2019 when New Democracy was elected and they received official roles. Others, like Orsaki Roussetou, who works in the prime minister’s communications office, continue to appear on the company’s payroll. When asked specifically about Bakolas, Michailidou, Kyranakis and Roussetou, government spokesperson Pavlos Marinakis dismissed the accusations, saying many party members would naturally receive their income from the private sector when not in a paid party role. “In New Democracy, a party position, a position, that is, in the party, is not a job. In parallel with this position, people work in the private sector,” he told a press briefing. The opposition’s objection is that Blue Skies looks like a New Democracy shadow operation, but Marinakis called that allegation “a relic of science fiction.” Instead, he said he supported public officials having experience of the private sector. “I don’t know in which companies these people have worked. It is good that they are working in the private sector and we still want more executives who are working either in the public or private sector and at the same time working for the party they believe in,” he argued. Bakolas declined to comment. Kyranakis confirmed to local television that he was employed by Blue Skies from 2016 to 2019, when he served as deputy party spokesman, and argued that he was “a normal employee who paid taxes normally.” Government officials did not respond to a request for comment on Roussetou. When asked about specific politicians’ connections with Blue Skies, representatives for the PR company declined to comment. In addition to outgoing EPP Secretary-General Bakolas, the names include Minister of Labor and Social Security Domna Michailidou and Deputy Minister of Transport Konstantinos Kyranakis. | Konstantinos Tsakalidis/AFP via Getty Images “Unfortunately, we cannot comment on specific individuals and their role at Blue Skies due to Greek data protection laws, which do not allow companies to provide information on current or former employees,” representatives of the group said in a statement. More broadly, however, the representatives of the group argued the criticism about indirect party funding “does not correspond to reality.”  “The truth is that, in the past, many of our businesses have employed people with an understanding of the policy and political world to help us navigate the complicated waters of crises. This is a standard market practice followed by our peers in both the Greek and international markets. This reality has been distorted.” PROPAGANDA MACHINE The opposition’s demand for a probe into potentially problematic political funding comes on the back of a controversy about the involvement of some 15 employees of Blue Skies in a “propaganda machine” of social media creators aiming to support Mitsotakis’ government. This was revealed in a separate investigation by the “Inside Story” website. The “Inside Story” investigation focused on a news site called “Team Truth” with hundreds of thousands of followers on social media, run by two people working for Blue Skies. The account has sparked particular outrage with its attacks on families of victims of the Tempi train crash, which has become a major political headache for the Mitsotakis government. The PR company has distanced itself from the activities of those employees, insisting “Team Truth” and other anonymous accounts were not a company project. “As a company we do not monitor the social media accounts of our employees. However we absolutely condemn any use of anonymity to cause harm or defamation,” the representatives of the company said in a statement. Ministers and government officials, however, issued statements to defend “the kids comprising Team Truth.” “I have great respect for them,” Marinakis said. “I have absolutely no involvement with them,” he added, but insisted he supported them against the “smear campaign.”