EU funds: absorption difficulties persist

A study by the European Parliament examined the use of cohesion funds in the seven-year period 2014-2020, highlighting a decrease in absorption rates. It is necessary to reform the administrative system at national level and simplify the rules governing cohesion policy

A preliminary study , published by the European Parliament, analysed the main trends at European level in the use of cohesion funds in the seven-year period 2014-2020. The study is mainly based on the concept of absorption of funds, i.e. on the analysis of how much of the funds initially foreseen by the EU is programmed, allocated, and above all actually spent by individual member states.

The 2014-20 seven-year period confirmed some trends that had already emerged in the previous one, including the constant decrease in the absorption rate by the member states. This observation applies to most countries, especially the larger ones, which at the end of 2020 showed absorption rates lower than the European average, including Italy, Bulgaria, Romania, and Croatia.

The reasons behind the data are different: on the one hand, countries like Italy - which have been part of the EU since its birth - present on average a higher level of economic development and territorial cohesion, a factor which would justify a less systematic use of cohesion funds; on the other hand, countries that have achieved EU member status more recently, and which present much more marked socio-economic disparities, are hindered in the absorption of funds by internal structural problems, which concern the absence of appropriate systems to develop projects that can make use of EU funds.

More specifically, the study presents four types of challenges that member states face in increasing their absorption capacity. In addition to the aforementioned need to improve the national administrative structures set up for the management of the funds, other problems concern the delay in the adoption of European guidelines, political instability and the discontinuity in the support for the policies financed by the EU, and a general inefficiency of institutional structures, including poor training in public administration and its insufficient digitalisation.

The study then presents case studies of different countries. In Italy, the main issue seems to be reconfiguration, i.e. the reallocation of resources for better alignment with the requests and priorities set by the EU. For Croatia, however, clear limitations and delays emerge in project planning due to cumbersome bureaucracy, as well as complaints that delay the achievement of objectives.

Finally, the case of Bulgaria is characterised above all by slowdowns in the approval of infrastructure projects, a situation further aggravated by the numerous archaeological finds that block the progress of public works. Furthermore, internal political instability and frequent changes in national regulations complicate the adoption of new laws that align the country with European standards.

On the basis of these analyses, the study suggests a number of possible solutions that States could adopt to improve their performance in the levels of absorption of cohesion funds both in the current and next seven-year period. Particular emphasis is placed on the need for the EU to simplify its rules, showing more attention to the specific needs of each country and avoiding adopting universal, standardised approaches.

On the other hand, member states are called to strengthen their administrative structures, making them more efficient in managing the selection of projects, and to strengthen coordination between all the parties involved in the implementation of programmes aimed at reducing the socio-economic disparities of the interested territories.