Halfway there but facing a mid-life crisis: why the EU’s recovery fund is failing to deliver

The evaluation [1] presents too rosy a picture of how public money has been spent on investments and reforms. But it fails to detail the challenges underlying the implementation of the programme, casting doubt on the potential of this massive fund to reach its objectives. This is particularly true for green measures, since fossil fuel investments are still allowed, money for nature and the ambition of ‘green measures’ is severely lacking, and the majority of funds continue to be channelled into big companies instead of benefitting community-led initiatives.  

Progress remains uneven across the EU, with some countries, particularly in central and eastern Europe, struggling to roll out key measures for the energy transition. Some of these are aimed at modernising electricity grids, deploying renewables and renovating buildings. In Bulgaria, for example, just 2 per cent of green measures have been implemented, while in Latvia, only 2.3 per cent of funds have reached their intended beneficiaries. With the recovery fund due to end in 2026, the pressure to spend quickly and compromise on climate ambition is now a major challenge for governments and the European Commission, with potentially negative impacts on the implementation of the 2030 climate goals.  

The use of the fund to tackle the biodiversity crisis has also been poor: less than 1 per cent of spending has been earmarked for nature restoration and conservation measures. Meanwhile, several Member States have watered down their environmental assessments under the guise of ‘emergency’ procedures, jeopardising the goals of the EU 2030 Biodiversity Strategy and European Green Deal.  

Unlike other EU-funded instruments, the recovery fund almost exclusively relies on milestones and targets to assess implementation progress. But due to the structure, it is incredibly difficult to assess the level of implementation, the contribution to green objectives, and the impacts of projects on the ground. Compounding matters, the imposition of tight deadlines has limited opportunities for meaningful public consultations, particularly with civil society and local authorities, leaving the needs of citizens unmet [2].  

The EU and its Member States must start discussing what comes next, as meeting the EU’s self-stated objectives will require further funding beyond 2026. Any future fund must learn from the experience of the Recovery and Resilience Facility for the benefit of both citizens and the environment.  

Christophe Jost, Senior EU Policy Officer at CEE Bankwatch Network, said: ‘The Recovery and Resilience Facility was initially a breath of fresh air, allowing Member States to invest in the energy transformation. But implementation has proved complex. Now there’s a real risk that not all of its objectives will be achieved. We need to see more detailed and transparent monitoring of the measures and debate the future of EU funding after 2026.’ 

Daniel Thomson, EU Policy Officer for Biodiversity at CEE Bankwatch Network, said: ‘The Recovery and Resilience Facility was clearly aimed at speedy disbursement. But we need to honestly assess what impact it has had on the quality of the measures and whether environmental safeguards have been properly applied. Time is of the essence when it comes to spending, but it shouldn’t come at the cost of achieving the EU’s green objectives.’ 

For more information, please contact: 

Daniel Thomson
EU Policy Officer for Biodiversity
CEE Bankwatch Network
daniel.thomson@bankwatch.org, +32 (0)2 893 08 61 

Christophe Jost
Senior EU Policy Officer
christophe.jost@bankwatch.org
+32 (0)489 69 03 56   

Notes for editors

[1] European Commission, Mid-term evaluation of the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF),  21 February 2024. 

[2] Citizen’s Observatory for Green Deal Financing, No recovery without citizens: why public involvement is key to Europe’s green transformation, June 2023.