CoR-CEMR consultation highlights weak involvement of regional and local level in the RRF

Page Content

​​​The EU's response to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic was the largest economic support plan in its history: the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RFF), which was launched in 2021 and is now half-way through its implementation phase. All Member States have presented their National Recovery and Resilience Plans (NRRPs), in which they outlined priorities for investments and reforms to be financed before 2026 thanks to RRF support, and those plans are being actively implemented. In February 2024, the European Commission published its RRF mid-term review and an independent evaluation, which provide an opportunity to further investigate the functioning of this unprecedented instrument.

Local and regional authorities (LRAs) have been at the forefront of the pandemic response and their role is equally crucial in the recovery efforts. However, a 2021 consultation by the European Committee of the Regions (CoR) and the Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR) shed light on the very limited involvement of local and regional governments in the design phase of the NRRPs. These results were confirmed in 2022 by a second consultation. Two years later, the CoR and CEMR launched a third consultation with the aim of gaining a deeper understanding of the role LRAs are playing in the implementation phase of the plans, and of identifying evolutions and trends since previous consultations.

Key findings

• The highly centralised management of the RRF by Member States is confirmed by this new consultation.
• LRA involvement remains inadequately weak in the various phases of preparation, implementation or monitoring of the NRRPs. The specific provisions of REPowerEU to improve involvement of LRAs do not seem to have had concrete results.
• The green and digital transitions stand out as the two objectives effectively supported by the NRRPs, according to consultation respondents.
• Conversely, fully one third of respondents state that the NRRP does "not at all" effectively contribute to enhancing territorial cohesion, despite this being the legal basis and general objective of the RRF.
• Almost all respondents encounter barriers to their involvement in the NRRP, and the main barrier identified is the national government providing an inappropriate framework for involvement.
• The share of respondents indicating insufficient LRA capacity or expertise as a barrier is significantly higher than in the previous consultation, which is likely linked to the higher-than-expected administrative burden of the RRF.
• Potential overlaps and lack of coordination with European Structural and Investment Funds remains the highest risk perceived by local and regional governments in the implementation of the RRF.
• While the overall impact of projects funded by the RRF is rated positively by respondents, they are rather divided regarding its synergies with other funds, its additionality and flexibility.
• The territorial allocation of RRF funds is broadly perceived as unfair. Nearly half of respondents rate territorial fairness as "poor or very poor" while only a few see it as "good or very good". And the degree of ownership at local and regional level is also unsatisfactory with significantly more respondents seeing it as "poor or very poor" than "good or very good".
  

The complete findings and further details are avaiable in the consultation results note.