European Recovery Fund requires flexibility in implementation

Executive Summary

A new EU blueprint couples money to results. The RRF ties disbursements to milestones and targets in national plans and is increasingly seen in Brussels as a template for future EU budgeting and integration.

The model promises efficiency but clashes with reality. As a crisis instrument with six-year spending windows, it asks countries—often with limited administrative capacity—to deliver thousands of detailed reforms and investments; past evaluations warn that preset milestones and timelines rarely survive contact with politics and uncertainty.

Implementation has brought both momentum and centralisation. Detailed plans have improved transparency and accountability, yet monitoring is heavy and the European Commission plays a much larger, continuous role than in earlier funds.

Outcomes and capacity differ across the Union. Southern/Eastern members report pressure-driven progress (including major reforms passed under deadlines), while some northern plans are less ambitious; funds skew to municipalities with high planning capacity and the bureaucracy can deter smaller actors.

Flexibility in execution is essential for success. Given changing conditions and the 2027 end date, monitoring should allow adjustments and focus on risk cases; the Council should grant more room in implementation so effectiveness is prioritised over box-ticking and artificial deadlines.

Policy Recommendations

1. Balance discipline with flexibility: Adjust implementation and monitoring to permit sensible plan changes as circumstances evolve while maintaining accountability.
2. Shift to risk-based monitoring: Develop a system that emphasises risk cases and ownership, reducing paperwork that prioritises form over outcomes.
3. Give Member States more room: As final decider, the Council—supported by the Netherlands—should allow greater flexibility in execution and monitoring where justified.
4. Prioritise outcomes over deadlines: Allow more time where needed to ensure money is well spent, rather than creating “paper realities” to meet the 2027 cut-off.
5. Apply lessons to future funds: When using the RRF as a blueprint for new EU instruments, build in a better balance between control and flexibility from the start.