Resolution of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Involvement of Organised Civil Society in the National Recovery and Resilience Plans — How can we improve it?’

(2022/C 323/01)

At its plenary session of 18 and 19 May 2022 (meeting of 18 May), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following resolution by 197 votes with 4 abstentions.

1.   Introduction

1.1.

In its February 2021 resolution (1), the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) assessed the participation, by consultation, of social partners and civil society organisations in the design of National Recovery and Resilience Plans (NRRPs), as well as the quality of their involvement. These plans were submitted by Member States to the European Commission (EC) in order to benefit from the support of the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), the centrepiece of the temporary recovery instrument NextGenerationEU (NGEU). Despite Article 18(4)(q) of the RRF Regulation (2), the main conclusion of the EESC was that the involvement of organised civil society (OCS) was largely insufficient in a majority of Member States. Furthermore, it appeared that consultations, often initiated by social partners and civil society organisations (CSOs), were generally viewed as mere formalities without any real capacity to influence the content of the plans. The Committee urged the European institutions and national governments to correct this situation in the implementation, monitoring and adjustment of the plans. In addition, the EESC continues to stress the importance of organised civil society also being better prepared to respond to this need to increase its involvement.

1.2.

In the aforementioned resolution and in various opinions, the EESC has also expressed its agreement with the investment objectives and the guidelines for the reforms of the RRF, which should aim at achieving a change of production model towards a climate-neutral and digitalised economy, carried out through fair transition processes that ensure the protection of workers and the regions concerned, the redeployment of workers and the regeneration and renewal of the productive fabric. In the Committee’s view, the investments and reforms set out in the NRRPs should promote the improvement of business productivity and economy in the Member States, the strengthening of the innovative industrial fabric through support for SMEs and social economy enterprises, and the enhancement of social cohesion, which can also be achieved through the development and implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights.

1.3.

Just as the European economy was recovering from the economic recession caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the public health measures taken to combat it, and seeking to overcome the supply distortions and inflationary pressures that the pandemic had produced in the global economy, an unexpected external shock created a new political and economic scenario full of difficulties and risks: the invasion of Ukraine by the army of the Russian Federation. The EESC has strongly condemned this as a severe violation of international rules and agreements in force (3). It threatens European and global security, is causing enormous human suffering, material destruction and environmental damage, and has radically changed the European and global economic framework.

1.4.

In March, year-on-year inflation in the euro area reached 7,5 %, the highest since the adoption of the euro, and energy price inflation reached 44,7 %. Moreover, a prolonged war in Ukraine could lead to shortages of fossil fuels, on which we still depend, and of other raw materials and food products, making the development of prices and growth unpredictable, with huge impact on poorest countries, i.e. in Africa and Middle East. Stagflation is a real risk for the economies of Europe and other regions of the world. The objectives of the measures and instruments of the Green Deal, which aims at climate-neutrality for Europe by 2050, may also be affected. The geopolitical implications of the war will affect the entire food value chain, industry, defence and trade in Europe and globally, the corresponding EU policies in these and other fields, and also the ongoing reflection on the Future of Europe and the levels of integration we collectively want to achieve as European nations and citizens. A revision of EU’s financial tools taking should therefore be considered in the light of this new scenario. Besides, the situation created by the war in Ukraine will affect the implementation of the NRRPs, which will need to be carried out in a manner consistent with the new economic policy objectives that will be set to address the risks and challenges of the new situation. These worsening scenarios imply a stronger and more united European ‘Whatever it takes’.

1.5.

Through this resolution, the EESC aims to assess whether Member States have addressed the identified shortcomings with regards to the involvement of social partners and civil society organisations in the preparation of the NRRPs, and how their participation in the implementation of the plans is developing. To this end, the EESC’s European Semester Group has collected the views of the OCS through a questionnaire sent to the members of the group. The questionnaire includes 21 questions on social partner and CSOs involvement regarding the content and the implementation of NRRPs, and the impact of the green and digital transition on the economy and society of Member States. In total, responses to the questionnaire were received from 21Member States (4). In addition, this consultation was also carried out via round tables, organised jointly with the OSC and/or the national economic and social councils, in seven Member States between autumn 2021 and the end of March 2022.

2.   Method

2.1.

The data and information required for this report were collected between October 2021 and April 2022. In total, 23 national contributions (responses to the questionnaire and/or the holding of a round table) were received. Consultations took place on the basis of members’ own knowledge, and involved social partners and CSOs. In some countries, national economic and social councils or equivalent bodies were involved, and in others, government representatives were also consulted.

2.2.

Due to various reasons, not all the NRRPs have been approved by the European Commission, while some Member State had not yet moved beyond the implementation phase during our consultation. Therefore, some Member States could only partially or not at all respond to the questionnaire. In order to complement the missing information, this resolution also draws upon external sources, such as publications from think tanks, comparative research studies and national debates. Besides, the questionnaire was also sent out to a few European civil society organisations, parts of the EESC Liaison Group (5) and other representatives of the three groups of the EESC. The additional information, aimed at drawing a complete picture of the situation, is clearly distinguished in this resolution (6).

2.3.

The 21 questions that formed the basis for the consultations are grouped into the following four sections: — Section I: What is the opinion of organised civil society on the content of the plans, their investment objectives and the proposed reforms? — Section II: How is the implementation of the plans, their investments and the reforms progressing? — Section III: Potential impact of NRRPs on the economy and society of Member States. — Section IV: Involvement of social partners and civil society organisations in the implementation of the plan.

3.   Observations on the results of the consultations

3.1.   Section I: What is the opinion of organised civil society on the content of the plans, their investment objectives and the proposed reforms?

3.1.1.

With regard to the inclusion of proposals from organised civil society in the content of the NRRPs, the European Commission highlighted, in its analysis of the plans the specific proposals from stakeholders that are effectively reflected, for example, in the plans of Czechia (7), Germany (8), Cyprus (9), Austria (10), Portugal (11), or Slovakia (12). Latvia published, alongside its NRRP, the suggestions from partners, and included some in the plan. The consultations carried out in the context of this resolution showed that while a majority of civil society organisations in the Member States believe that the plan will be a success and support its green, digital and social objectives, it was however frequently mentioned that the social dimension is relatively undeveloped. Moreover, concerns were raised about the capacity of the Member States to manage RRF funds or to do so within an appropriate time frame, which may hinder the success of the plan. This is particularly true for the largest beneficiaries of the funds. The assessment of the plan’s capacity to build economic resilience is mixed. In particular, countries that receive relatively little funding do not expect the plan to contribute to long-term resilience of their economy. Finally, OCS largely regrets that its views on the priorities to be reflected in the plan were not sufficiently taken into account in the final version. OCS also repeatedly pointed out that many of the reforms contained in the NRRP were already envisaged in previous national reform programmes, independently of the RRF and its investment and reform objectives, which left little leeway for OCS to influence the content of the plan.

3.2.   Section II: How is the implementation of the plans, their investments and the reforms progressing?

3.2.1.

On 15 December 2021, the Commission launched the RRF Scoreboard (13), as provided for in the RRF Regulation. It gives an overview of how the implementation of the RRF and of the national RRPs is progressing, but it does not reflect the extent to which Member States are effectively channelling funds to finance their projects. Therefore, some Member States, such as Austria, Italy, Latvia, Portugal, Slovakia and Spain, disclose on their websites some information on how funds are being spend and measures implemented.

3.2.2.

The majority of the stakeholders consulted by early April 2022 indicated that it was still too early to provide a comprehensive overview of the implementation of the plan and their involvement in it. In some Member States, this is partly due to a slow implementation process or delay in the implementation and enforcement of the plan. However, OCS states that it has already expressed its views on the (potential) challenges that would arise during the implementation phase. In this respect, one of the main bottlenecks that was identified is the administrative capacity of the Member States, particularly at regional and local levels (as also underlined in the CEPS reflection paper published in March 2022 (14)). This is especially the case for the largest beneficiaries of the RRF funds. For this reason, many social partners and civil society organisations insist on greater involvement of local and regional communities. However, most stakeholders believe that the participation of OSC in the implementation of the NRRP at regional and local levels is ineffective. A second frequently mentioned bottleneck is the lack of information exchange between the national government and the social partners and civil society organisations, which could severely hamper their involvement in the implementation and monitoring phase.

3.2.3.

Despite these identified challenges, according to an in-depth analysis of the EPRS published in March 2022 (15), on the one hand, several Member States, for example, Belgium, Cyprus, Greece, Estonia, Finland, have made a general commitment to continue to engage with the social partners and civil society organisations during the implementation phase of the NRRP, and on the other hand, other countries, such as the Czechia, France, Italy, Portugal referred to a specific committee/body that will be responsible, among other things, for monitoring and supervising the achievement of progress, compliance with the milestones and objectives of the different strands, publicity activities and evaluation of the implementation reports.

3.3.   Section III: Potential impact of NRRPs on the economy and society of Member States

3.3.1.

According a study conducted by the European Parliament Research Service (16), the RRF is expected to ‘trigger public investments, with the focus to increase real output, and enabling additional fiscal space, which should in turn allow already planned national expenditures based on the additionally principle’. The RRF would, on the one hand, lead to a substantial increase in GDP in the short and medium term through public and private investment demand, thus building up the capital stock which is necessary to generate, on the other hand, higher GDP in the medium and long term through employment growth, higher productivity and wages, and a positive output effect.

3.3.2.

The views of social partners and CSOs on the potential impacts of the NRRP on their country’s economy and society are rather fragmented. This perception varies notably according to the size the amounts of RRF funding allocated to each Member State. Indeed, in Member States that receive large amounts, the impact is perceived more positively than in Member States that receive relatively small amounts in relation to the size of their economy. Despite these disparities, the OCS generally views the impact of RRF funds and NRRP investments on reforms positively, as they provide an impetus for achieving the objectives of the twin transition.

3.4.   Section IV: Involvement of social partners and civil society organisations in the implementation of the plan

3.4.1.

The participation of organised civil society in the implementation phase of the plan, in the few Member States where it has actually started, has taken place in different forms. The information provided by the stakeholders identified four categories of involvement: (1) Statutory; (2) through special NRRP working groups; (3) through stakeholder meetings; (4) no specific form of involvement planned. Compared to the conclusions drawn in 2021 about the obvious lack of involvement of OCS in the drafting phase of the plan, its involvement in the implementation phase is assessed more positively, although it is still far from satisfactory in all Member States. Indeed, it was pointed out that in some countries, initiatives specifically designed to involve OCS in the implementation of the NRRP are being promoted. Furthermore, with regard to the potential difference in involvement between the social partners, on the one hand, and civil society organisations, on the other, it appears, in general, that in the Member States there is either no involvement of either party or the involvement of both parties, without distinction. However, stakeholders in three (Austria, Greece and Portugal) of the 20 Member States consulted reported that there is a significant distinction in the involvement of these parties. In these countries, the social partners are more involved than CSOs.

3.4.2.

In this regard, a BusinessEurope survey (17) conducted in early 2022 showed that social partners are increasingly involved in the recovery plans, and this is reflected in a dissatisfaction rate of only 30 % regarding their role so far in the implementation of the plan, compared to 71 % last year regarding their role in the design of the plan. Besides, as underlined in Eurofound’s report (18) of March 2022, following the adoption of the plans, social partners stressed the importance of the country reports issued by the European Commission in the context of the European Semester (19), which framed the discussion on the implementation of national reforms and investments, allowing social partners to exchange ideas and contribute to the NRRPs using a sound baseline.

4.   Conclusions

4.1.

In general, the final content of the plans is evaluated positively. In some cases, comments of OCS were taken into account in the finalised versions of the NRRPs. Overall, OCS supports the green, digital and social objectives of the NRRPs. Concerning the contribution to the green and digital transitions, positive views were expressed even though the impact of the NRRP is evaluated to be limited except for a few cases. Regrettably, it was often expressed that the social dimension of the plan was relatively underdeveloped despite the importance of this for the resilience aspect. The view was expressed that the transition requires more investment, especially given the current crisis. Despite the perceived improvements in some Member States, it remains difficult to answer conclusively whether participation in the implementation phase has improved, not least because the implementation of many NRRPs has been significantly delayed in many Member States. However, the social partners and civil society organisations stressed that the institutional social dialogue had improved in this phase. Indeed, for example in Spain, the social partners recognise that the framework of the RRF and the NRRP has contributed to important agreements on labour and pension reforms through tripartite social dialogue.

4.2.

Despite the delay in the implementation of many NRRPs, good practices were identified in some Member States with regard to the implementation and monitoring of NRRPs. For example, in Austria, France, Luxembourg, Spain and Sweden close and constructive cooperation between social partners, civil society organisations and the government, strengthened by transparency and ongoing dialogue, is an important tool for their involvement in the RRF. Moreover, in Czechia, Estonia, Finland, Italy and Spain, an RRF campaign website or government portal has been implemented with transparent information accessible to the public. In Italy, which is the main beneficiary of RRF funds, a Permanent Round Table Partnership (Tavolo permanente del partenariato) was established in November 2021 at government level, with specific working groups that critically monitor the direction and quality of NRRP implementation in terms of citizens’ expectations. This body is chaired by the Italian prime minister and coordinated by the president of the National Council for Economics and Labour (CNEL). In addition, a specific structured agreement was signed with the National Association of Italian Municipalities (ANCI) for developing dialogue and structured assistance in the implementation phases at local level relating to matters of their concern. Similarly, involvement of municipalities and other local actors is being encouraged in Italy with regard to administrative capacity. In Croatia, OCS is involved in the working groups preparing tenders for the implementation of the NRRP, and also in agreements with the Ministry of Tourism concerning measures under the plan for the tourism sector. Finally, in Portugal, OCS is involved in monitoring the implementation of the NRRP notably by analysing the results of the plan and the impact assessment reports. In this respect, a monitoring body, the National Monitoring Committee (CNA), has been created and includes, among others, representatives of social partners, universities and the social sector. These exchanges of good practices are encouraged and serve as an example for the other Member States.

4.3.

In many Member States, there are calls for better involvement of social partners and civil society organisations in the implementation phase of the NRRPs. Organised civil society calls for more transparency in the implementation and monitoring of the plans and asks that information be made publicly available and that dialogues around the NRRP with all relevant stakeholders be further encouraged. If this is lacking, there is a likelihood that key challenges would not be addressed correctly. Finally, in the majority of Member States, it remains to be seen whether the participation of OCS will be significantly improved during the implementation and monitoring phases of the plans, which are currently still too slow or delayed.

4.4.

The Committee calls on the national governments of those Member States where the involvement of the social partners and civil society organisations (20) is still insufficient to remedy this situation as a matter of urgency and to comply with the rules laid down in the RRF Regulation. It calls on the Commission and the European Parliament to enforce compliance with the rules in force.

4.5.

Notwithstanding the above, the EESC believes that the lack of effective and quality participation of organised civil society in the economic governance of the EU will not be resolved in a satisfactory manner until there is a reform of the European Semester which guarantees this via a directive or a regulation. The Committee draws attention to the fact that proper participation takes place when, in formal consultation processes based on legal rules and public and transparent procedures, civil society organisations are duly informed in writing, given sufficient time to analyse the government’s proposals and draft their own proposals, and the inclusion or rejection of these proposals is accompanied by a justification contained in public minutes or documents.

4.6.

The Ukraine war and its immediate risks to the European and global economy do not call into question the objectives of the NRRPs but, on the contrary, in the Committee’s view, should encourage European institutions and national governments to speed up the implementation and enforcement of the plans, as well as the associated investments and reforms, and to push forward the EU Green Deal, in order to sustain growth and accelerate the decarbonisation of the energy system and the green strategic autonomy of the European Union. At the same time, the EU must do whatever is necessary to help the government and people of Ukraine, to provide adequate care for the millions of people who have been forced to seek refuge in EU countries, and to assist the most directly affected Member States in various sectors of their economies.

4.7.

Prior to the outbreak of the war, the total amount of national and NGEU funds was insufficient to achieve the objectives of the Green Deal and deliver the just and inclusive energy transition required, in particular the objective of replacing fossil fuels with clean and renewable energy production sources in line with the recommendations of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In addition, there is now the pressing geopolitical need to end to the EU’s energy dependence on Russia. Moreover, it will lead to a strong increase in security and defence investments, which will weigh heavily on public budgets.

4.8.

The EESC therefore proposes: a) the urgent adoption of a new EU Energy Strategy that promotes an effective connection of its energy networks, rapid replacement of fossil fuels with renewable energy sources, high energy efficiency and reduction of energy demand; b) considering the possibility of redirecting NRRP investments towards greater investment in clean and renewable energy while ensuring the strategic autonomy of the EU; c) that all Member States use their share of NRRP funds to finance new programmes in this direction, such as programmes for sustainable energy investments; d) that in the short term, European authorities and national governments should take all necessary measures, in both the production and consumption areas, to protect economies from the cascading effects of the war on the EU economy, which is severely disrupting food, energy and financial markets, with rising energy prices and supply chain disruptions; e) assessing the creation of a new financial investment instrument and supporting the European Commission’s proposal contained in the REpowerEU Communication to accelerate the restructuring of the energy sector, in order to provide a more secure and sustainable strategic autonomy of the EU. To this end, the most appropriate model to be identified should be used, based on the best practices and results of the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) and the RRF.

4.9.

The conclusions of the UN IPCC 2022 are a further serious reminder of the inadequacies in the fight against climate change. The EESC calls on the European authorities to take these into account when adopting energy, industrial and economic policy initiatives.

4.10.

The EESC is aware of the enormous difficulties involved, in the current circumstances, in implementing an economic policy that simultaneously aims to reduce inflation and ensure economic growth, employment and the sustainability of public finances in the medium and long term. The European authorities, national governments and the ECB must act in close coordination and take the necessary steps to ensure that the withdrawal of expansionary monetary and fiscal policies is carried out in such a way as not to lead to a new recession. The EESC believes that the reform of the rules of the Stability and Growth Pact should be undertaken by setting realistic deficit and debt targets, incorporating the golden rule of investment, and establishing flexible paths, according on the situation of each country, to achieving the targets for reducing public debt levels.

4.11.

Education and lifelong learning efforts for workers and the population in general are essential to ensure fair and inclusive green and digital transitions. Priority should be given to training and vocational guidance for workers affected by restructuring processes, but also to anticipating the needs arising from the different types of technological changes in the productive apparatus. Digitisation requires special attention in the case of people who, because of their age or other circumstances, have more difficulties in accessing digitised services. This part of the population must be guaranteed access to training and special support services to help them access all types of benefits and services.

---

(1)  EESC Resolution on Involvement of Organised Civil Society in the National Recovery and Resilience Plans — What works and what does not? (OJ C 155, 30.4.2021, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2021/241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 February 2021 establishing the Recovery and Resilience Facility (OJ L 57, 18.2.2021, p. 17).

(3)  War in Ukraine and its economic, social and environmental impact (OJ C 290, 29.7.2022, p. 1).

(4)  NB: Before 1 April 2022, the Commission endorsed 23 plans (including the Swedish plan in late March 2022 that still needs to be approved by the Council). In early April, the Commission endorsed also the Bulgarian plan that, likewise, still needs to be approved by the Council (i.e. 24 plans endorsed so far by the Commission and 22 approved so far by the Council).

(5)  Liaison Group with European civil society organisations and networks.

(6)  The reports from the various Member States are analysed in the annex to this resolution. All this material is available on the Committee's website.

(7)  SWD(2021) 211 final.

(8)  SWD(2021) 163 final/2.

(9)  SWD(2021) 196 final.

(10)  SWD(2021) 160 final.

(11)  SWD(2021) 146 final.

(12)  SWD(2021) 161 final.

(13)  Recovery and Resilience Scoreboard.

(14)  Comparing and assessing recovery and resilience plans — Second edition, Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS).

(15)  Recovery and Resilience Plans: stakeholders’ views.

(16)  Recovery and Resilience Dialogue with the European Commission, 7 March 2022.

(17)  BusinessEurope Reform Barometer 2022.

(18)  Involvement of social partners in the national recovery and resilience plans.

(19)  Report on the European Semester for economic policy coordination: employment and social aspects in the annual sustainable growth survey 2022.

(20)  And other relevant stakeholders, for instance youth organisations as the EESC notably underlined in its opinion on How to guarantee decent work for young people and ensure the inclusion of NEETs through the proper elaboration of National Recovery Plans (OJ C 152, 6.4.2022, p. 27 ).