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.
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.
