The European Parliament is not happy with the way in which the billions of euros from the corona recovery fund are spent by many EU countries. They believe that in many cases the EU countries do not adhere to the criteria that were agreed a few years ago.
MEPs from the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs will hold their first Recovery and Resilience Dialogue (RRD) with European Commissioners Valdis Dombrovskis (Trade) and Paolo Gentiloni (Economy) on Monday in Strasbourg.
The Commissioners are expected to update Members on the multi-billion dollar expenditure of the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), in particular on the achievement of milestones and targets, amounts disbursed, including partial payments, and outstanding issues.
Just last week, a critical report was published by the European Court of Auditors on the expenditure from the recovery fund. According to the auditors, it is unclear to what extent the expenditure contributes to climate improvement or environmental goals. It was agreed that more than a third (37%) of the European billions should be earmarked for this. This is far from being possible to determine, it is concluded.
The European Commission states that this percentage has been achieved by more than 40 percent, but according to the Court of Auditors this has been overestimated by tens of billions.
The dialogue on recovery and resilience is organised under Article 26 of the Regulation establishing the Recovery and Resilience Facility to ensure greater transparency and accountability in the implementation of the Facility.
One of the main objectives of the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) is to contribute to the European climate objectives and the green transition in the EU Member States. Unlike previous forms of EU spending, RRF funds are disbursed based on achieved milestones and targets, rather than on actual expenditure.
Among other shortcomings, the auditors found that given this financing model and the relatively short timeframe for the implementation of the RRF, it is questionable whether all the money earmarked for climate action will actually contribute to it. Among other things, the auditors found that some measures were less green than they seemed.