Greece risks losing billions from Recovery Fund

Greece risks losing part of the funds Recovery Fund EU: money is formally allocated, but real projects and investments lag noticeably behind.

Greece once again faced with a painful question: can the country really use the billions of euros from EU Recovery and Resilience Facility or a significant part of the historical possibility will remain on paper. This time we are not talking about beautiful presentations, not about government slides and not about another slogan about “new Greece”but about how quickly money turns into roads, hospitals, digital systems, business support and jobs.

According to Greek publications citing European statistics, Greece remains among the EU countries where the actual promotion of funds and implementation of projects Recovery Fund raises serious questions. Publications indicate that the level of development for a number of indicators is estimated at approximately 39%while the EU average is higher. At the same time, the estimate that only about 13.3% funds reached real investments.

It is important here not to confuse different indicators. Official details of the Greek plan Greece 2.0 they say that after the last payment from European Commission the country has already received 24.6 billion eurosthat is, about 68.5% total budget plan. But receiving money from Brussels is not the same as the full implementation of projects in the economy. This is precisely the main political question: how much money actually works in the country, and how much remains in banking, administrative and bureaucratic pipes.

Government Kyriakos Mitsotakis represented from the very beginning Recovery Fund as a historic chance for the country. Citizens were promised digital transformation, green transitionsupport for the middle class, infrastructure modernization and an economic breakthrough. On paper, everything looked almost perfect: Europe is giving money, Athens is preparing reforms, the country is emerging from old crises and is finally changing its development model.

In practice, the picture turned out to be much less festive. A significant part of projects are stalled, competitions are delayed, procedures remain complex, and small and medium-sized businesses often see European money in much the same way as a mirage in the August heat: it seems to be there somewhere, but it’s just out of reach. For thousands of businesses that relied on loans, subsidies and modernization programs, this means lost time and missed opportunities.

The problem is not just percentages. Behind every delay are specific roads that could have been built; hospitals that could receive modern equipment; digital systems that could reduce queues and humiliating paperwork; enterprises that could update production. Instead, the country risks getting the familiar Greek classics again: a big announcement, a beautiful ceremony, several showcase projects and a very long list of what “we didn’t have time”.

There is money, but where is the result?

What’s especially annoying is that Recovery Fund was not originally conceived as an ordinary European subsidy that could be dragged on for years. It was an emergency tool after the pandemic, created to quickly restore the economy, modernize states and move to a more sustainable development model. That is, the money had to not just pass through budget reporting, but have a tangible effect on the economy and society.

However, in Greece, old diseases again proved stronger than new programs. Bureaucracy remains cumbersome, control mechanisms are opaque, and the distribution of funds too often raises suspicions that it is not the most necessary and effective projects that benefit, but those closest to the decision-making centers. And this is no longer a technical problem, but a political one.

Ministers can talk as much as they want about “historical records”but citizens do not evaluate the economy by press releases. They look at hospitals, roads, wages, prices, the health of small businesses and the quality of government services. If, after billions of European aid, everyday life remains almost unchanged, then the question must be posed harshly: either the money is being used incorrectly, or the state machine is again unable to turn the resource into a result.

Other EU countries including Portugal And Croatiademonstrate more noticeable progress in a number of areas. Greece risks once again finding itself in a situation where European opportunities exist, but the national management system does not stand the test of speed, quality and responsibility.

Responsibility lies in Athens

In this story it would be too convenient to blame again Brusselscomplex European rules or external circumstances. But this is a weak excuse. Recovery Fund It requires from the state not heroism, but basic managerial ability: to plan, announce competitions, monitor execution, eliminate delays and make sure that money reaches the real economy.

If projects are not implemented on time, if businesses do not get access to programs, if infrastructure remains on the drawing board, it is not the abstract Europe that is responsible, but the concrete authorities in Athens. It is the government that is responsible for ensuring that European funds do not turn into just another showcase for reports and photographs from events.

There is less and less time left until the end of the program. European Commission has already emphasized that with the mechanism ending by the end of 2026, Member States must complete the remaining milestones and targets within the established time frame. And this means a simple thing: unused opportunities may be completely lost.

For Greece It’s not just a financial risk. This is the risk of another historical failure: the country gets a chance to modernize, but again may emerge from the process with a few ostentatious projects and a lot of unfulfilled promises. After so many crises, society can no longer afford the luxury of another lost opportunity.

The main question now sounds extremely simple: why, with European billions, do citizens still not see a comparable improvement in their daily lives? And why does the state, which speaks so confidently about modernization, again stumble where it needs to not talk, but do it?

Source link