EU funds at risk of being used twice for same project, Italy an example of attention

Brussels – Cohesion and the NextGenerationEU Recovery Mechanism with its Recovery Fund: due to “insufficient” control mechanisms and the “numerous levels of governance” involved that make coordination and oversight “very difficult,” there is a risk of funding the same project twice with different EU funds. The European Court of Auditors, in the special report on the use of EU resources, is sounding the alarm bell. In this maze of procedures and sums of money, Italy stands out positively. In essence, the national government has been good and wise in avoiding cases of double funding as much as possible. So from Luxembourg comes praise for Raffaele Fitto, commissioner-designate for Cohesion and Reform and minister responsible for NRRP and cohesion funds.

The auditors’ audit first sanctions in black and white that Italy, France, and the Czech Republic have avoided combining the Recovery Fund with other EU programs, and “this approach helps mitigate the risk of double funding.” One example? The Bicocca-Catenanuova section of the Palermo-Catania high-speed rail line. Included in the National Recovery Plan (NRRP) and therefore eligible for funds from Recovery, the same section was also included in regional development projects under cohesion policies and already invested by the ERDF fund for rural development. Eventually, the rail route was removed from the revised NRRP in December 2023. “The same approach was followed for other rail routes,” the Luxembourg auditors note.

Italy is cited as an example on more than one occasion, such as in the case of the electronic census of funded projects. Centralized information systems help avoid episodes of double funding, and the country has equipped itself with ReGis, software that covers projects supported through the Recovery Fund and allows links with tools and 53 databases containing data on cohesion projects from the 2014-2020 period. Admittedly, not all public administrations had access to the system during the Court of Auditors’ audits. Still, the Italian one is nonetheless to be mentioned for good intentions and good practices.

It is precisely because of the ReGis computer system that Italy has been able to conduct cross-checks and detect erroneous registrations and other EU funding, limiting the negative impact and being cited as a member state that has worked well for the good of the EU and its citizens.

According to Annemie Turtelboom, the Court member responsible for the report, “double funding constitutes a misuse of EU funds and a waste of EU taxpayers’ money.”

This is not to say that Italy is safe from risk, given the difficulties associated with managing funds, the amount of money that needs to be disbursed, bureaucratic procedures that need to be streamlined, and, on a general level, “largely insufficient existing safeguards.” But certainly, the government and its outgoing minister bring home a result that is well spent politically and administratively. However, the message for everyone, including Italy, is the same: be careful and tighten the mesh.