The post-Covid recovery plan is incomplete and opaque

According to a new report from European Court of Auditorsil Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF)i.e. the main fund of theUe and 577 billion euros for the post-pandemic recoveryhas gaps for the traceability and the transparency of spending. Furthermore, information to the public on recipients of the fundingsui actual costs of the measures and on results achieved they are insufficient.

The Court’s critical findings come as i EU legislators they are negotiating the next one multiannual budget of the Unionwhich is inspired by the spending model ofRrf of financing not linked to costs but to reforms.

Traceability of funds

The Court found that although the funds are to some extent traceable e transparentthe picture remains incomplete. In terms of traceability, i Villages they generally comply with regulatory requirements and, for the most part, can track i Rrf payments from source to final use. However, not all countries collect i necessary data systematically and, in some cases, information is provided only upon request, resulting in delays even several months.

The European Commission does not collect data on amounts actually spent under the individual measures of theRrfnot even when Member States I have it. This lack of information prevents the Commission from fully assessing whether Member States have used the funds of theRrf in a way efficient.

Deviations between estimates and actual spending

Furthermore, at Member State level, information on actual costs of the measures ofRrf are important to adapt the cost estimates and make sure that i funding received from each country remain close to actual costs. However, countries do not systematically use actual cost data to update cost estimates savings o overruns.

Although for some measures they have registered cost overrunsin several countries the actual costs for most of the completed measures included in the champion of the Court were lower than estimates. If this trend were to continue, i Rrf financing totals received by a Member State may not be reasonably close to actual costs.

Transparency on beneficiaries

Furthermore, the rules regarding transparency of the Rrf do not provide complete information on flow of funds. Although all Member States publish the required list of one hundred largest final recipientsthis list does not adequately reflect the overall use of funds.

First, beyond the half of the recipients is made up of public bodies which ministries and Member States are not required to publish the payments that these authorities in turn make to contractors through public procurement. Secondly, in the published lists none of the 10 countries (Austria, Bulgaria, Estonia, France, Germania, Latvia, Malta, Netherlands, Romania e Spain) controlled by the Court had gone beyond the minimum number of 100.

The response of the European Commission

L’European executive reacted to the analysis of European Court of Auditors: “The Commission recognizes the interest of the European Court of Auditors in accessing data on the actual costs of measures taken by Member States under their Recovery and Resilience Plans (RRPs). However, the RRF Regulation explicitly excludes cost-based controls”.

“Although the Court of Auditors highlights that the absence of cost data may limit broader assessments of efficiency”the executive still states, the Commission maintains that the legal framework of the Rrf guarantees responsibility through robust measures of transparency.