The Government of Pedro Sánchez has failed to comply with the deadlines agreed with the European Union (EU) in more than half of the social policies financed with European funds. These are delays that, In some cases, they reach two years.
This is stated in a report from the Court of Accounts, which analyzes the degree of execution of the Recovery, Transformation and Resilience Plan (PRTR) in spending area 2 of the General State Budgets for the years 2022 and 2023, that is, those activities intended for social protection and promotion.
This is, for example, initiatives aimed at employment, social inclusion, training, strengthening the health system or even policies aimed at housing, which are among the greatest concerns of Spaniards, according to the CIS.
The supervisory body ensures that, of the 56 projects reviewed, 36 (64.4%) are still in progress, despite the fact that the critical milestones and objectives – that is, the mandatory conditions that the Spanish Government agrees with Europe to ‘demonstrate’ that it is using the financing correctly – had a scheduled completion date that has expired.
Furthermore, the Court chaired by Enriqueta Chicano states that, in the majority of cases, the ministries responsible for each program “have not contributedin response to the express request of this Court, “no information about the specific state of execution of the projects.” This, in the opinion of the organization, reveals a lack of information that even the responsible ministerial entities have.
This lack is also aggravated by the poor functioning of the CoFFEE information system, designed to centralize the monitoring of milestones, projects and budget execution of the PRTR.
According to the Court, the system was not fully operational and contained incomplete or outdated data, which also compromised supervisory capacity. This reflects, therefore, that not even the Administration itself has a clear and homogeneous vision of the status of the projects.
Failure to meet or delay deadlines also makes it difficult to disburse funds to Europe. For this reason, the Court recommends “extreme rigor in the monitoring and control of the execution of the Plan, so that Spain can guarantee compliance with all the criteria acquired with the EU.
In this sense, it must be remembered that, The European Commission already issued a report last October to the European Parliament to warn that Spain should accelerate the pace of execution to meet the deadlines set in August of this year.
As he claimed, Our country was among the Member States that had between 85% and 50% of the objectives not metas of June of last year, “having already reached disbursements that exceeded 30% of its allocation.”
This same document also warned that Spain was the first case of “reversal”, that is, funds already disbursed worth more than 600 million euros were partially suspended when it was found that certain commitments were no longer fulfilled. In this sense, the Commission set until April of this year as the deadline for the Government of Pedro Sánchez to adopt “corrective measures.”
Warning to the CC. AA
The supervisory body also focuses on the management of European funds when execution is transferred to the Autonomous Communities. He assures that, of the measures available to them to comply with the policies –preparation of reports, periodic meetings, creation of monitoring, surveillance and control commissions, etc.–, “none” has been implemented effectively, despite the fact that they are mandatory.
“Nor has this Court been provided, in the majority of cases, with information on the execution of the actions (…), a circumstance indicative of its lack of effective monitoring,” the Court notes.
The supervisory body also points out that, in part, the delays may have been caused by an “excessive” fragmentation of the projects which, therefore, give the system an “administrative overload.”
Even so, he assures that, ultimately, it is the responsibility of the General Secretariat of European Funds to ensure compliance with projects with European funds.
This body dependent on the Ministry of Finance has allowed, according to the Court, too much flexibility to the Government’s portfolios to meet EU deadlines. This is something that implies a “non-observance” of the times and that “puts at risk” Spain’s compliance with European regulations.
Only two ministries comply with ‘green’ demands
The same report from the Court of Accounts states that of the twelve ministries audited Only two have explained how they have complied with the environmental requirements demanded by the EU.
In this sense, only the Ministry of Social Rights, Consumption and Agenda 2030 (MDSCA) and the Ministry of Labor and Social Economy (MTES) have prepared documentation or carried out dissemination actions on the so-called green and digital labeling and, specifically, on the principle of Do No Significant Harm (DNSH).
These are criteria that, on the one hand, allow the impact of each program to be classified in areas such as ecological transition or digitalization and, on the other hand, that They require that projects financed with European funds do not cause significant “harm” to the environment, in accordance with the demands of the 2030 Agenda.
The absence of documentation or communication mechanisms on these aspects does not necessarily imply a material non-compliance, but it does show a lack of transparency and control in the management of the plan, according to the report. Even more so, taking into account that the Government of Pedro Sánchez has championed environmental policies and compliance with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) since the beginning of its legislatures.
Furthermore, within the framework of the Recovery and Resilience Mechanism, Member States must rigorously justify that their investments meet these requirements, as they constitute essential conditions for the approval of disbursements by the European Commission.
On the other hand, the Court has also identified that, with respect to the application of procedures to assess compliance with not causing significant “harm” to the environment, Several ministerial portfolios have been awarded the “highest scores for compliance with these requirements” in a self-assessment, despite not having real processes that allow rigorous verification.
That is to say, although the ministries ensure maximum compliance with environmental requirements, there is no real system that verifies such maxim, limiting itself in practice to formal and dispersed actions.
These include the inclusion of environmental risk questionnaires in administrative files, the incorporation of “green” clauses in contracts and subsidies or the requirement of responsible declarations from the beneficiaries of the funds.
These measures are, however, classified as insufficient and poorly coordinated, since they do not respond to a common model nor do they guarantee an effective evaluation of the possible environmental impacts of the projects.
In many cases, verification of compliance falls on the beneficiaries themselves, who must declare or report on the degree of adequacy of their actions with these principles.