Examen à mi-parcours du plan de relance européen post-Covid (Facilité pour la reprise et la résilience)
ECON-VII/037
Examen à mi-parcours du plan de relance européen post-Covid (Facilité pour la reprise et la résilience)
This opinion is based on the mid-term evaluation foreseen in article 32 of the regulation establishing the Recovery and Resilience Facility.
Its main objective is to assess, from the perspective of local and regional authorities, the mid-term evaluation of the Recovery and Resilience Facility with regards to its requirements specified in the regulation and beyond, and with regards to the Facility's aims, not least that of supporting cohesion.
This opinion is an opportunity to follow up on the CoR's extensive work on the Recovery and Resilience Facility, including the opinion on the Regulation and the latter opinions on RRF implementation and on the RRF review report. It is an opportunity to explore whether The CoR demands have been met, and make recommendations for the continued implementation of the Facility in the second half of its lifetime.
Its main objective is to assess, from the perspective of local and regional authorities, the mid-term evaluation of the Recovery and Resilience Facility with regards to its requirements specified in the regulation and beyond, and with regards to the Facility's aims, not least that of supporting cohesion.
This opinion is an opportunity to follow up on the CoR's extensive work on the Recovery and Resilience Facility, including the opinion on the Regulation and the latter opinions on RRF implementation and on the RRF review report. It is an opportunity to explore whether The CoR demands have been met, and make recommendations for the continued implementation of the Facility in the second half of its lifetime.
This opinion follows up on the CoR's extensive work on the Recovery and Resilience Facility to date, including the opinion on the original Regulation (in 2020), and the latter opinions on RRF implementation (2021), and on the RRF review report (2023), as well as analytical work, notably targeted consultations of local and regional authorities carried out together with CEMR in 2022 and 2024.
The CoR's work on the RRF overall has been instrumental in raising the issue of insufficient participation of local and regional authorities (LRAs) in the RRF, which is now widely recognised.
For instance, during his hearing in the European Parliament in November 2024, Commissioner Dombrovskis, unprompted, acknowledged the insufficient involvement of LRAs as an important issue requiring improvement in the RRF. This was echoed also by Commissioner Fitto in his own hearing.
After its adoption in ECON, this CoR opinion as well as the consultation of local and regional authorities mentioned above, were extensively referenced in the "In Depth Analysis" on the RRF prepared for Members of the European Parliament by the Economic Governance and EMU Scrutiny (EGOV) unit. (Ref: PE 760.237760237_EN.pdf))
This CoR opinion also had a notable impact on the political work of the European Parliament. The European Parliament Resolution of 18 June 2025 (ref: P10_TA(2025)0128) on the Implementation of the RRF makes reference to this CoR opinion, takes up a number of key CoR concerns and demands, and is generally very supportive of the need to better involve local and regional authorities (LRAs) in the RRF, as well as future similar instruments.
The Resolution notably:
regrets the insufficient involvement of LRAs, leading to worse policy outcomes and limited ownership,
recalls that the European Parliament had supported a binding provision in the RRF regulation to establish a multilevel dialogue to prepare and implement the plans under the RRF,
calls for the application of the partnership principle and a stronger involvement of LRAs,
highlights that a meaningful social and territorial dialogue with a high level of involvement of LRAs ... is essential for ownership, successful implementation and accountability,
stresses that regions and city councils cannot be mere recipients of decisions, without being given the opportunity to have a say on reforms and investments that truly transform their territories,
calls for data on regional distribution of funding,
highlights that prioritising RRF implementation contributed to delays with cohesion,
calls on MS to avoid concentrating RRF projects in more developed regions to serve the RRF objective of cohesion,
emphasises the importance of fair regional distribution,
with regards to the next MFF, calls on EC to take due account of the lessons learned from the RRF and the recommendations of LRAs (among others).
The CoR's work on the RRF overall has been instrumental in raising the issue of insufficient participation of local and regional authorities (LRAs) in the RRF, which is now widely recognised.
For instance, during his hearing in the European Parliament in November 2024, Commissioner Dombrovskis, unprompted, acknowledged the insufficient involvement of LRAs as an important issue requiring improvement in the RRF. This was echoed also by Commissioner Fitto in his own hearing.
After its adoption in ECON, this CoR opinion as well as the consultation of local and regional authorities mentioned above, were extensively referenced in the "In Depth Analysis" on the RRF prepared for Members of the European Parliament by the Economic Governance and EMU Scrutiny (EGOV) unit. (Ref: PE 760.237760237_EN.pdf))
This CoR opinion also had a notable impact on the political work of the European Parliament. The European Parliament Resolution of 18 June 2025 (ref: P10_TA(2025)0128) on the Implementation of the RRF makes reference to this CoR opinion, takes up a number of key CoR concerns and demands, and is generally very supportive of the need to better involve local and regional authorities (LRAs) in the RRF, as well as future similar instruments.
The Resolution notably:
regrets the insufficient involvement of LRAs, leading to worse policy outcomes and limited ownership,
recalls that the European Parliament had supported a binding provision in the RRF regulation to establish a multilevel dialogue to prepare and implement the plans under the RRF,
calls for the application of the partnership principle and a stronger involvement of LRAs,
highlights that a meaningful social and territorial dialogue with a high level of involvement of LRAs ... is essential for ownership, successful implementation and accountability,
stresses that regions and city councils cannot be mere recipients of decisions, without being given the opportunity to have a say on reforms and investments that truly transform their territories,
calls for data on regional distribution of funding,
highlights that prioritising RRF implementation contributed to delays with cohesion,
calls on MS to avoid concentrating RRF projects in more developed regions to serve the RRF objective of cohesion,
emphasises the importance of fair regional distribution,
with regards to the next MFF, calls on EC to take due account of the lessons learned from the RRF and the recommendations of LRAs (among others).
THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS (CoR)
emphasises that local and regional authorities have not been sufficiently involved, or have not been involved at all, in the entire RRF implementation process; regrets, in this regard, that the RRF does not respect multilevel governance or the partnership principle, both of which apply to cohesion policy, thereby undermining the very principle of economic, social and territorial cohesion enshrined in the Treaties;
regrets that the effective contribution of the RRF to cohesion is only superficially addressed by the Commission’s mid-term evaluation, even though the promotion of economic, social and territorial cohesion forms the legal basis of the RRF Regulation, and social and territorial cohesion is one of the six pillars set out in Article 3 of the RRF Regulation;
believes that reforms supported by the RRF must have their own democratic legitimacy, based on consultation, dialogue and a collaborative approach, including with local and regional authorities, to ensure ownership of these reforms;
calls for the next RRF annual report to include a thematic analysis of the involvement of local and regional authorities on the basis of the summaries provided for in Article 18(4)(q) and, due to its legal basis, a qualitative and detailed assessment of the RRF’s contribution to economic, social and territorial cohesion;
proposes that the Commission examine the administrative capacity of all levels of government to assess their capacity to implement EU funds, as this is one of the main factors determining the success and speed of implementation of RRF and other funds, as well as their long-term impact.
emphasises that local and regional authorities have not been sufficiently involved, or have not been involved at all, in the entire RRF implementation process; regrets, in this regard, that the RRF does not respect multilevel governance or the partnership principle, both of which apply to cohesion policy, thereby undermining the very principle of economic, social and territorial cohesion enshrined in the Treaties;
regrets that the effective contribution of the RRF to cohesion is only superficially addressed by the Commission’s mid-term evaluation, even though the promotion of economic, social and territorial cohesion forms the legal basis of the RRF Regulation, and social and territorial cohesion is one of the six pillars set out in Article 3 of the RRF Regulation;
believes that reforms supported by the RRF must have their own democratic legitimacy, based on consultation, dialogue and a collaborative approach, including with local and regional authorities, to ensure ownership of these reforms;
calls for the next RRF annual report to include a thematic analysis of the involvement of local and regional authorities on the basis of the summaries provided for in Article 18(4)(q) and, due to its legal basis, a qualitative and detailed assessment of the RRF’s contribution to economic, social and territorial cohesion;
proposes that the Commission examine the administrative capacity of all levels of government to assess their capacity to implement EU funds, as this is one of the main factors determining the success and speed of implementation of RRF and other funds, as well as their long-term impact.
