Romania cuts EU-funded recovery funds package to 21.6 billion euros
Romania has so far tapped roughly 9 billion euros out of an initial package of 28.5 billion euros worth of grants and loans available until mid-2026 under the EU's Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF).
"Romania will not lose a single euro from the non-refundable part of 13.57 billion euros," Pislaru told reporters. "There is a reduction in the loan component, now at 8 billion euros from 15 billion euros that were initially available.
Pislaru said Brussels is expected to approve the new package on October 20.
The payments are conditional on reforms, but Romania's progress has stalled as it faced an extended election season which included a presidential ballot that was cancelled in December and re-run in May.
The country and Brussels have been renegotiating the terms of the package for much of the past year to identify the investment projects that could still be concluded before the deadline next year. They reached an agreement on Thursday.
Romania has struggled to rein in its budget deficit since before the COVID-19 pandemic. It must reduce it from last year's 9.3% of output - the EU's largest - to below 3% by 2031.
The one-month-old broad coalition government will hike value added tax and excise duties from August, with more levies to rise from 2026, and is also working on cutting state spending to eliminate waste and ensure Romania keeps its investment grade rating.
($1 = 0.8763 euros)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
22 minutes ago
- BBC News
UK independent space agency scrapped to cut costs
The UK Space Agency will cease to exist as an independent entity to cut the cost of bureaucracy, the government said on will be absorbed by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) in April government says this will save money, cut duplication and ensure ministerial one leading space scientist said the move would lead to disruption in the short term and the UK losing ground to its international competitors over the long run. Dr Simeon Barber of the Open University feared that scrapping UKSA would lead to Britain's space sector "losing focus"."Around the world countries have been recognising the importance of space by setting up national space agencies, and for the government to be scrapping ours seems like a backward step," he said. UKSA was created 2010 in response to the growing importance of the sector to the economy. The development of small spacecraft, satellites and space instrumentation is a field that the UK excels at, thanks in part due to the agency. Its role is to develop the country's space strategy, coordinate research and commercial activities and liaise with international partners. During its tenure UKSA saw a UK astronaut, Tim Peake launched into space to work on the International Space Station and the development of Britain's own capability to launch small satellites and other small payloads into space from space sector generates an estimated £18.6bn a year and employs 55,000 people across the agency, its budget and activities will now be absorbed into DSIT. It follows a commitment from Prime Minister Keir Starmer to reduce costs and cut the number of arms length government bodies, known as quangos (quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations), starting with the abolition of NHS England announced in minister Sir Chris Bryant said: "Bringing things in house means we can bring much greater integration and focus to everything we are doing while maintaining the scientific expertise and the immense ambition of the sector."The merger will see the agency become a unit within DSIT, staffed by experts from both organisations and retaining the UKSA supporters of the space agency, such as Dr Barber fear that this will mean a loss of the agency's dynamic, proactive approach which has proved to be so successful for the UK's space science and its space industry. He said there was a danger of moving to more bureaucratic, less incentivised ways of working, which he said were more typical of government departments, and were the reason the agency was created in the first place."It feels like we're going to get stuck in the mud again," he told BBC News.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Why is the New Zealand government cutting Māori words from some school books?
A shake-up of New Zealand's curriculum has resulted in Māori words being scrapped from a selection of books used to teach five-year-olds and a decision not to reprint a well-loved book for young readers because it contained too many Māori words. The changes have sparked widespread criticism from academics, teachers and authors, who have called it 'an assault' on Māori identity and the latest in the coalition government's efforts to prioritise English over the Indigenous language – criticisms the education minister has strongly rejected. In 2024, education minister Erica Stanford announced she was implementing a 'structured literacy approach' to reading, which teaches children to read by using sounds and phonics to understand words. Part of that change has resulted in a decision to cut Māori words – except for characters' names – from any new books in the education ministry's Ready to Read Phonics Plus series – a series of 78 books provided to primary schools. The move affects 12 new books, and has resulted in the decision not to reprint the small take-home-version of At the Marae, a well-known early reader book that teaches children about visiting traditional Māori meeting grounds. The book will instead be printed in full-size format for teachers to read aloud in class because it contains six Māori words – some of which could be hard for children to decode, the education ministry told the Guardian. The ministry also said while its new books in its early reader series will not contain Māori words, except for names, some existing titles will retain Māori words. The decision to remove the Māori words was driven by concern that incorporating Māori words into English texts could be confusing for children learning to read English, according to an education ministry report to Stanford in October. 'Introducing different orthographies simultaneously could lead to confusion for learners, making it more difficult for them to master English phonetics within these crucial early years of school,' the report noted in its advice. However, it went on to say the evidence of this was 'mixed' and 'uncertain'. In hand-written notes on the report, the minister said the government had made 'a real commitment' to invest in Māori language books and that 'language revitalisation is so important'. She said Māori language schools and teachers had told her they did not want English language in the Māori language 'decodable' books – texts designed for children to practise decoding sounds and letters – and it would be 'consistent to keep to one language only' in the very early decodable books. The ministry said 'all words, including English words, in these early readers are very tightly controlled to make sure they are decodable for students'. Principles, academics and authors have criticised the decision, saying it undermines the place of the Indigenous language and children's ability to learn both English and Māori. 'It's not only harmful from a cultural identity perspective, but it also gives very little faith in our children that they can grasp these very few, simple words,' said Dr Awanui Te Huia, associate professor at Victoria University of Wellington's Māori studies department, Te Kawa a Māui. Te Huia said Māori children face barriers attending Māori-immersion preschools and schools due to lengthy waitlists, so most end up going into mainstream education. 'The very limited opportunities that they have to see the language, to see themselves thrive, is being further reduced by advice that I don't see as being evidence based,' she said. The minister's argument that Māori experts did not want English in their text and therefore, Māori should be limited in English texts, was drawing a false equivalence between the status of the two languages, Te Huia said. 'We need to create some boundaries around how much English – the dominant language – is put into that very limited space where you're exposed to [Māori] language.' In a statement, the Māori principals association, Te Akatea, said it was outraged and disappointed at the decision to not reprint the small versions of At the Marae. 'This decision is a direct attack on our language, a dismissal of our culture, and an assault on our identity as Māori,' it said, adding that books like At the Marae expose the 97% of Māori children in English-medium schools, and many non-Māori to the language. 'These are acts of racism, cultural suppression and are deliberate attempts to recolonise our education system.' Stanford declined the Guardian's request for comment but in interviews with other media has rejected any claims her policy is an attack on the language. The education ministry told the Guardian it 'firmly rejects claims made by some commentators that this decision is about race' and the decision was 'grounded in evidence'. The ministry said it had also, for the first time, offered all schools a complete set of Māori decodable books. Since taking office, the coalition government has minimised Māori language use in the public service and ushered in sweeping rollbacks to policies designed to improve Māori health and wellbeing. The rationale behind many of the government's proposals is to end 'race-based' policies and the coalition has said it is committed to improving outcomes for Māori and all New Zealanders. But Te Huia says New Zealand's position as a 'global leader' in language revitalisation was at stake, and 'government push back' on the language had resulted in its stagnation. Principals' Federation president Leanne Otene told RNZ it felt like New Zealand 'was deliberately going backwards'. 'It's not just one book, it's part of a concerning pattern of removing te reo Māori [Māori language] from government services across the board,' she said. 'Our children are growing up watching their government treat te reo Māori as less important.'
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
How many wars has President Trump ended?
As President Donald Trump tries to broker an end to the Russia-Ukraine war, he has been highlighting his track record in peace negotiations since starting his second term in at the White House on 18 August, where he was pressed by European leaders to push for a ceasefire, he claimed: "I've ended six wars… all of these deals I made without even the mention of the word 'ceasefire'."The following day the number he cited had risen to "seven wars". The Trump administration says a Nobel Peace Prize is "well past time" for the "peacemaker-in-chief", and has listed the "wars" he has supposedly lasted just days - although they were the result of long-standing tensions - and it is unclear whether some of the peace deals will last. Trump also used the word "ceasefire" a number of times when talking about them on his Truth Social Verify has taken a closer look at these conflicts and how much credit the president can take for ending them. Israel and Iran The 12-day conflict began when Israel hit targets in Iran on 13 confirmed that he had been informed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ahead of the US carried out strikes on Iranian nuclear sites - a move widely seen as bringing the conflict towards a swift 23 June, Trump posted: "Officially, Iran will start the CEASEFIRE and, upon the 12th Hour, Israel will start the CEASEFIRE and, upon the 24th Hour, an Official END to THE 12 DAY WAR will be saluted by the World."After the hostilities ended, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei insisted his country had secured a "decisive victory" and did not mention a has since suggested it could strike Iran again to counter new threats. "There is no agreement on a permanent peace or on how to monitor Iran's nuclear programme going forward," argues Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution think tank."So what we have is more of a de facto ceasefire than an end to war, but I'd give him some credit, as the weakening of Iran by Israel - with US help - has been strategically significant." Pakistan and India Tensions between these two nuclear-armed countries have existed for years, but in May hostilities broke out following an attack in Indian-administered four days of strikes, Trump posted that India and Pakistan had agreed to a "FULL AND IMMEDIATE CEASEFIRE".He said this was the result of "a long night of talks mediated by the United States".Kashmir: Why India and Pakistan fight over itPakistan thanked Trump and later recommended him for the Nobel Peace Prize, citing his "decisive diplomatic intervention".India, however, played down talk of US involvement: "The talks regarding cessation of military action were held directly between India and Pakistan under the existing channels established between both militaries," Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri said. Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo Long-standing hostilities between these two countries flared up after the M23 rebel group seized mineral-rich territory in eastern DR Congo earlier in the year. In June, the two countries signed a peace agreement in Washington aimed at ending decades of conflict. Trump said it would help increase trade between them and the text called for "respect for the ceasefire" agreed between Rwanda and DRC in August 2024. Since the latest deal, both sides have accused each other of violating the ceasefire and the M23 rebels - which the UK and US have linked to Rwanda - have threatened to walk away from peace the fighting in DR Congo all about?"There's still fighting between Congo and Rwanda - so that ceasefire has never really held," says Margaret MacMillan, a professor of history who taught at the University of Oxford. Thailand and Cambodia On 26 July, Trump posted on Truth Social saying: "I am calling the Acting Prime Minister of Thailand, right now, to likewise request a Ceasefire, and END to the War, which is currently raging."A couple of days later, the two countries agreed to an "immediate and unconditional ceasefire" after less than a week of fighting at the held the peace talks, but President Trump threatened to stop separate negotiations on reducing US tariffs (taxes on imports) unless Thailand and Cambodia stopped are heavily dependent on exports to the 7 August, Thailand and Cambodia reached an agreement aimed at reducing tensions along their shared border. Armenia and Azerbaijan The leaders of both countries said Trump should receive the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts in securing a peace deal, which was announced at the White House on 8 August."I think he gets good credit here - the Oval Office signing ceremony may have pushed the parties to peace," says Mr O' March, the two governments had said they were ready to end their nearly 40-year conflict centred on the status of Conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenians explainedThe most recent, serious outbreak of fighting was in September 2023 when Azerbaijan seized the enclave (where many ethnic Armenians lived). Egypt and Ethiopia There was no "war" here for the president to end, but there have long been tensions over a dam on the River Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam was completed this summer with Egypt arguing that the water it gets from the Nile could be 12 years of disagreement, Egypt's foreign minister said on 29 June that talks with Ethiopia had ground to a said: "If I were Egypt, I'd want the water in the Nile." He promised that the US was going to resolve the issue very welcomed Trump's words, but Ethiopian officials said they risked inflaming formal deal has been reached between Egypt and Ethiopia to resolve their differences. Serbia and Kosovo On 27 June, Trump claimed to have prevented an outbreak of hostilities between them, saying: "Serbia, Kosovo was going to go at it, going to be a big war. I said you go at it, there's no trade with the United States. They said, well, maybe we won't go at it."The two countries have long been in dispute - a legacy of the Balkan wars of the 1990s – with tensions rising in recent years. "Serbia and Kosovo haven't been fighting or firing at each other, so it's not a war to end," Prof MacMillan told us. The White House pointed us towards Trump's diplomatic efforts in his first two countries signed economic normalisation agreements in the Oval Office with the president in 2020, but they were not at war at the time. Additional reporting by Peter Mwai, Shruti Menon and Eve Webster. What do you want BBC Verify to investigate?
