{"id":7562,"date":"2021-07-02T10:57:26","date_gmt":"2021-07-02T10:57:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.greens-efa.eu\/dossier\/?p=7562"},"modified":"2021-07-02T16:13:00","modified_gmt":"2021-07-02T16:13:00","slug":"italy-needs-a-green-recovery","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.greens-efa.eu\/dossier\/italy-needs-a-green-recovery\/","title":{"rendered":"Italy needs a green recovery – but the Italian Plan does not lead there"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>\n\n
\n

02.07.2021<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n

\n

Despite some good last-minute changes, the Italian Recovery and Resilience Plan greenlit by the European Commission still seems unable to face the challenges ahead of Italy after COVID-19, write Greens\/EFA Italian MEPs, Rosa D\u2019Amato<\/a>, Ignazio Corrao<\/a>, Eleonora Evi<\/a> <\/strong>and Piernicola Pedicini<\/a><\/strong>. We need a path that leads towards a more sustainable economy, and a fair and inclusive society.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n

\n
\"Children
Children riding bicycles \/ CC0 herr-bohn<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n
<\/div>\n\n
\n

What is the Italian Plan and what\u2019s at stake?<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n

\n

The Italian Recovery and Resilience Plan<\/a> outlines reforms and investments accounting for a total of \u20ac235\nbillion and scheduled until 2026 along six policy lines: Digitalisation, Green\nTransition, Sustainable mobility, Education and research, Inclusion and\ncohesion, and Health. The Plan includes young people, women and the North\/South\ndivide as \u201chorizontal priorities\u201d, meaning to address them across the six\npolicy areas. It also proposes priority reforms of public administration and\nthe justice system. <\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n

\n

For the part that is financed by the Recovery and Resilience Facility<\/a> (RRF), the Italian\nPlan constitutes 29% of the total envelope. It is therefore the biggest and the heaviest in the EU budget.<\/strong> This\ngroup of recovery measures is meant to address the dramatic social and economic\nrepercussions of COVID-19 in Italy, but its success – or failure – will reflect\non the Union as a whole.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n

<\/div>\n\n
\n
\"European
European flag \/ CC0 sara-kurfess<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n
\n

The Italian Plan looks fine at first glance, but does it actually\ncomply with EU rules?<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n

\n

On 22nd June, the European Commission published its assessment of the\nItalian Plan<\/a>. Based on\nthe eleven indicators against which all national plans are evaluated, Italy\u2019s\nPlan passed with top marks: all \u2018A\u2019s and one \u2018B\u2019 on cost efficiency. The\nCommission has certified that the Plan as it stands fully complies with the\nrequirements of its Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF)<\/a> particularly with the binding targets of 37% for climate spending and\n20% for digital spending. It also attested that none of the measures will do\nsignificant harm against the environment, and that the Plan is solid in terms\nof stakeholders\u2019 involvement, guarantees against fraud and corruption, and\nlasting impact of its reforms and investment.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n

\n

Our assessment is different.<\/strong> If we take a closer look at these eleven indicators, and keep in mind\nthe rules for the functioning of the RRF and EU law, such a \u201ctop of the class\u201d\nevaluation comes as a surprise. As the Greens\/EFA Group in the European\nParliament, we have urged the Commission to pay attention to a number of measures\nin the Italian Plan <\/a>which we\nbelieve do not follow the rules. These include investments in fossil\nfuels-related activities, financial support for intensive agriculture,\nviolations of procedures for the Environmental Impact Assessment, and a general\ndisregard of those regional disparities that EU treaties prescribe to solve.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n

\n

Our call was heard.<\/strong> In the final version of the Italian Plan<\/a>, approved by the European Commission, \nsome of these very problematic measures have been changed and replaced\nwith:<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n

\n