Summary Report of the Public Consultation concerning the Mid-term evaluation of the Recovery &Resilience Facility (RRF)
Disclaimer: This document should be regarded solely as a summary of the contributions made by stakeholders. It cannot in any circumstances be regarded as the official position of the Commission or its services.
Introduction
This public consultation supported the preparation of the mid-term Evaluation of the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF). The RRF is the main instrument to mitigate the economic and social impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the EU and to increase the EU’s economic resilience. The RRF is evaluated in light of the five criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and coherence of the initiative, and its added value.
The public consultation was conducted from 16 March 2023 to 8 June 2023. The consultation was available via a dedicated webpage in all official EU languages. It was open to feedback from anyone interested in the topic.
Overview of respondents
A total of 172 responses were received. Data was screened in line with the Better Regulation Toolbox. No duplicates or campaigns were identified, which means that all responses were included in the analysis. The largest number of contributions stems from Portugal (57 responses), followed by Belgium (16) and Germany (15), Spain (13), Romania (12), Italy (11) and Czechia (10 responses). Four replies come from Austria and three from Hungary. Jointly, respondents from these countries accounted for almost three out of four replies. All but one respondent indicated an EU Member State as their country of residence. Respondents from 24 Member States provided responses.
The largest share of replies stems from citizens, jointly accounting for almost two-thirds of the responses (99 replies). Public authorities provided the second-largest share of replies (32). Including ministries and other authorities (26 replies) and agencies (3 replies), their scope is local (7 replies), regional (7 replies), national (15 replies), and international (1 reply) level. Companies, businesses, and business associations provided 16 replies, while 12 responses stem from NGOs and environmental organisations. The figure below provides a detailed overview of the distribution of replies among stakeholder types.
n=172
The public consultation was open to anyone. Still, as also the numbers above suggest, the views expressed by respondents in this consultation are not necessarily representative of the views of EU overall. It is particularly noteworthy that the responses are – to a certain degree – driven by the perceptions and responses provided by the large share of respondents from Portugal.
Overview of the feedback provided
Awareness and visibility of the RRF
More than 90% of all respondents indicate that they are aware of the existence of the RRF, compared to about 75% for Next Generation EU. Excluding citizens, awareness is even higher: Among organisations and institutions, 97% (64 replies) are aware of the RRF, and 93% (64 replies) are aware that Next Generation EU exists.
Generally, respondents appear to be familiar with the RRF. More than half (59%) of respondents indicate a good understanding of the RRF, and another 35% of respondents indicate that they have at least a general understanding of the facility. Among organisations and institutions responding to the public consultation, almost all (97%) of respondents indicate that they have at least a general understanding of the RRF. The majority among these, about 80% of responses from organisations (55 replies), indicate that they have a good understanding of the RRF. Just about half of the respondents (78 replies) have consulted the RRF Scoreboard, which is a public online platform set up by the European Commission that transparently displays an overview of how the implementation of the national recovery and resilience plans and of the RRF is progressing.
Close to 90% of respondents to the question indicate that they are aware of the strict link between payments and the satisfactory implementation of pre-agreed reforms and investments (146 replies). For public authorities, all respondents are aware of this feature of the RRF. More than 9 out of ten respondents who are aware of this link consider it at least to a limited extent positive (135 replies). Apart from one public authority which indicated ‘do not know’, all other responding public authorities agreed to at least a limited extent.
Slightly more respondents indicate that they or their organisation have been directly involved in activities related to the RRF (48%) than not (45%). A plurality of respondents have been involved in the monitoring of the national plan or the RRF (35 replies, including 12 of the public authorities, 14 of the citizens, and 4 of the NGOs responding). 28 respondents indicated that they have been beneficiaries or have been involved in projects funded by the RRF (including 14 citizens, 10 public authorities, and 2 companies), and 26 other respondents were according to themselves involved in the implementation of the plan (including 6 citizens, 13 public authorities, and 3 NGOs). Among the ‘other’ option, individual respondents clarified that they are involved, e.g. in auditing, have been involved in the consultation process on the RRF, or that member organisations are beneficiaries. The majority of respondents suggest that their organisation has been sufficiently considered in the national consultation process (12 replies). However, the response rate to this question has been particularly low (21 replies overall, 6 from public authorities, 8 from EU citizens, 4 from NGOs, and one each from a company, a business association, and a trade union).
Close to two-thirds of respondents (63%) indicate that the financing through the RRF has been at least somewhat visible in their countries, although a plurality overall suggests that the financing has only been somewhat visible. Close to 35% of respondents suggest that the financing through the RRF has not been visible at all in their countries. Among citizens, visibility appears to be lower. About 45% of the citizens responding to the public consultation (43 replies) suggest that the RRF is not visible at all, compared to only 21% (14 replies) among organisations.
Almost 9 out of 10 respondents (89% or 146 replies) are aware that the EU finances a programme of reforms and investments under a national recovery and resilience plan. All public authorities responding to the question are aware of this fact (29 replies). 92% of respondents (133 replies) are aware that the RRF supports investments, while a slightly lower share of respondents (85%, 122 replies) is aware that the RRF also supports reforms in the countries.
Contribution of the RRF
Close to two-thirds of the respondents (101 replies) suggest that the RRF has contributed to support the economic recovery from the COVID-19 crisis at least to some extent (see figure below). Similar shares of respondents also suggest that the RRF contributes to at least some extent to the green (103 replies) and digital (101 replies) transition. A majority of respondents (54%) further express the view that the RRF fosters the growth potential of the EU to some or a large extent. Views of respondents are less positive with regard to the contribution of the RRF in relation to enhancing resilience in the EU, as well as strengthening social and territorial cohesion. About 44% of respondents express the opinion that the RRF increased resilience to at least some extent (71 replies), while 49% (80 replies) suggest that the extent has been limited or that the RRF did not increase resilience at all. About half (83) of the respondents express the view that the RRF's contribution is limited or nonexistent for social and territorial cohesion.
n= 164
Only a small share of respondents (14% or 22 replies) suggest that the RRF did not contribute to the initiation or implementation of reforms, while almost 4 out of 5 respondents suggest that it did to at least a limited extent. All but two respondents among public authorities suggest that the RRF contributed at least to a limited extent. Examples of areas where the RRF contributed to the initiation or implementation of reforms include for example, the green and digital transition, labour reforms, and the health sector.
Four out of five respondents were aware that the RRF supports measures that respect the “Do no significant harm” principle. A similar share of respondents suggests that this principle has or will contribute to at least to a limited extent to the green transition.
Respondents appear to be less certain about the contribution of the RRF towards gender equality, equal opportunities, and the promotion of policies targeting children and young people. Less than 10% of respondents suggest that the RRF addresses these issues to a large extent. Less than a third of respondents express the view that the RRF addresses gender and equal opportunities to at least some extent, while just about a third express this view for policies targeting children and young people.
Features of the RRF
A majority of respondents consider the performance-based feature of the RRF very valuable and important (93 replies), followed by the speed of payments to Member States, as well as the support for reforms, which still close to half of the respondents consider to a large extent valuable and important (77 and 78 replies respectively), and more than 70% of respondents consider to be at least to some extent valuable and important. Respondents are least convinced of the importance and value of support for projects in multiple countries. Yet, also here three out of four respondents (124 replies) suggest that it is valuable and important to at least a limited extent.
n=166
One in two respondents suggests that the RRF created unnecessary burden and complexity. 54% of citizens (52 replies), 53% of the public authorities (16 replies), and 47% among businesses and their associations (7 replies) indicate that the RRF created burden to some or a large extent.
A majority of respondents identifies this unnecessary burden and complexity across all stages of the RRF, ranging from the preparation of the national plans to monitoring, audits, and controls. Stages at which the highest shares of respondents see unnecessary burden and complexity are the implementation of the plans (80%, or 74 replies) as well as audits and controls (70%, or 66 replies). Two-thirds (62 replies) of respondents also consider that the reporting on the plans created unnecessary administrative burden and complexity. Some respondents specified their view further, suggesting for example that the workload for the preparation of payment requests was very high. In addition, some respondents point out that the performance-based delivery model is a change to the current administrative set-up, creating transaction costs.
More than half (55%) of the respondents see opportunities to simplify the RRF. Apart from general calls for a reduction of the administrative burden, respondents suggest for example that more guidance should be provided by the European Commission, and that procedures, especially on the reporting, could be streamlined and further harmonised with other existing reporting requirements to reduce complexity.
Links to other policies and additionality
Almost 75% of respondents (118 replies) suggest that it has been beneficial for the EU to support reforms and investments together under one instrument. More than two-thirds (112 replies) also suggest that the RRF continues to be an appropriate way to support the COVID-19 recovery in Member States to at least some extent. Majorities of respondents suggest that the RRF has supported the Green Deal, initiatives on the circular economy, sustainable transport, the digital agenda and the European Semester to some or to a large extent. For the European Semester (110 replies) and the European Green Deal (106 replies), just above or below two-thirds of the respondents express these views. For respondents, the support of the RRF towards the biodiversity strategy and the European Pillar of Social Rights is less apparent. Less than half of the respondents see support to at least some extent (74 respondents for the biodiversity strategy and 67 respondents for the European Pillar on Social Rights). Among all policies, the largest share of respondents sees no support from the RRF for the biodiversity strategy (17% or 28 replies).
Among respondents aware that the RRF seeks to improve the rule of law (61%, or 99 replies), 46% of respondents (46 replies) suggest that the RRF strengthened the rule of law to at least some extent, while another 28% (28 replies) suggest that it did so to a limited extent.
More than half of respondents (92 replies) suggest that the RRF complements national measures for the COVID-19 recovery to some extent. Another 18% (30 replies) suggest that it does so to a limited extent.
Almost 4 in 5 respondents express the view that the RRF produced at least to a limited extent more results than what Member States could have done on their own. Two-thirds of respondents express the view that this has happened to some or even a large extent, compared to only 14% of respondents who do not see any additional contribution from the RRF overall.