Spending without substance: Czech flagship industry programme fails to track climate impact

With more than CZK 81 billion (EUR 3.3 billion) at its disposal, the Operational Programme Technologies and Applications for Competitiveness (OP TAC) is designed to help companies innovate, strengthen their technological capacity and reduce their energy intensity. In practice, however, the OP TAC’s evaluation framework remains heavily skewed towards monitoring the pace of spending rather than assessing whether the money is actually delivering meaningful results. Without rigorous, transparent monitoring of outcomes, it’s impossible to determine whether the billions in public funding are serving their intended purpose. 

Why OP TAC matters in the Czech context 

OP TAC is part of a broader ecosystem of national level programmes through which the Czech Republic channels EU cohesion policy funding. These operational programmes cover a wide range of areas, including the environment, transport, employment, research and regional development. 

The programme stands out not because its design is unique, but because it plays a central role in supporting the competitiveness and decarbonisation of Czech industry. It’s also one of the largest programmes in terms of budget and among the most significant for the country’s long-term energy transition. 

The Centre for Transport and Energy, a Czech-based Bankwatch member group, focuses closely on OP TAC because we have a direct seat at the table. Through our membership in the programme’s monitoring committee – the only seat reserved for civil society among its 42 members – we have gained a unique, first-hand insight into how the programme is being implemented, what information is being shared and where the gaps lie. This insider perspective allows us to monitor the programme’s functioning in a way that wouldn’t be possible in operational programmes where civil society has no representation. 

Chasing spending targets, ignoring real-world impact 

Throughout the work of the monitoring committee, the same issue resurfaces: the programme’s actual impact is impossible to assess. Discussions tend to revolve around financial absorption, the number of calls launched, the volume of applications submitted and the amount of funding approved. Meanwhile, outcome and performance indicators – the metrics that show whether the programme is achieving its goals – receive only marginal attention. 

This imbalance was once again evident at the committee’s most recent meeting in March 2026. Despite managing billions intended to support innovation, energy savings and circular economy measures, the programme’s real-world impacts remain largely secondary in the monitoring process. 

Yet the European Commission is clear: EU Member States must not only report on how quickly they spend EU funds, but also systematically monitor indicators and regularly assess the programme’s concrete results and achievements. Financial performance alone is not enough. 

Environmental indicators must not be sidelined 

Within the monitoring committee, the Centre for Transport and Energy has consistently argued that environmental indicators must be treated as a core part of programme evaluation. These include: 

• energy savings; 

• greenhouse gas emission reductions; 

• renewable energy deployment; and 

• circular economy outcomes. 

We have repeatedly called for these indicators to be systematically included in the materials prepared for the committee, accompanied by short explanations of key trends and developments. So far, however, these proposals have been rejected, often on the grounds that there is ‘insufficient interest’ among committee members in receiving such information. 

This is particularly concerning given that the European Commission itself explicitly highlighted the need to strengthen the use of indicators within monitoring committees. The reluctance to integrate environmental data into regular reporting undermines the committee’s ability to fulfil its oversight role. 

Buried data, blind oversight 

What makes the situation even more problematic is that the data is already available. Internal documents prepared by the Ministry of Industry and Trade include indicators on energy savings, greenhouse gas emissions, renewable energy capacity and the volume of waste used as secondary raw material, along with corresponding targets and commitments. 

However, this information appears only occasionally, often as supplementary material and only upon request. It’s not integrated into the regular monitoring cycle, nor is it presented in a way that allows committee members to evaluate progress or identify shortcomings. For a programme of this scale and importance, such an approach is inadequate. 

Closing the accountability gap 

The operational programme manages more than CZK 81 billion intended to support innovation, energy efficiency and circular economy projects. Without systematic monitoring of indicators, it’s impossible to determine whether these funds are delivering the intended outcomes. The monitoring committee, whose role is to oversee the programme’s implementation, cannot act as a guarantor of accountable public spending if it lacks access to the data needed to evaluate performance. 

If the programme is to be evaluated credibly, it’s not enough to track how many billions have been allocated or disbursed. What matters is whether the programme is delivering tangible results and measurable impacts. This evidence based assessment should be one of the committee’s core responsibilities – one it has so far been unable to fully discharge. 

Strengthening the monitoring of indicators is not a bureaucratic exercise. It’s essential for ensuring that public money is spent effectively, that environmental goals are met and that the Czech Republic’s industrial transformation is grounded in real progress rather than optimistic assumptions. As long as indicators remain sidelined, the programme will continue to operate in an accountability vacuum, and the opportunity to steer the programme towards meaningful impact may be lost.