FantasticSearch

1. Scope The purpose of these guidelines is to serve together with this Regulation as a basis for the Commission to assess - in a transparent and equitable manner - the recovery and resilience plans proposed by Member States and to determine the financial contribution in conformity with the objectives and any other relevant requirements laid down in this Regulation. These guidelines represent the basis for the application of the assessment criteria and the determination of the financial contribution as referred to, respectively, in Articles 19(3) and 20(4). The assessment guidelines are designed to:

(a) give further guidance on the assessment process of the proposals for recovery and resilience plans submitted by Member States;

(b) provide further details on the assessment criteria and provide for a rating system to be established with a view to ensuring an equitable and transparent process; and

(c) define the link between the assessment to be made by the Commission under the assessment criteria and the determination of the financial contribution to be set out in the Commission proposal for a Council decision in relation to the recovery and resilience plans. The guidelines are a tool to facilitate assessment by the Commission of the proposals for recovery and resilience plans as submitted by Member States and to ensure that the recovery and resilience plans support reforms and public investment that are relevant and display high added value with regard to the objectives of the Facility, while ensuring equal treatment among the Member States.

2. Assessment criteria In accordance with Article 19(3), the Commission shall assess the recovery and resilience plans under the criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and coherence. As a result of the assessment process, the Commission shall give ratings to the recovery and resilience plans submitted by the Member States under each of the assessment criteria referred to in Article 19(3), with a view to establishing the financial allocation in accordance with Article 20(4).

For the sake of simplification and efficiency, the rating system shall range from A to C, as set out in the following: Relevance: 2.1. The recovery and resilience plan represents a comprehensive and adequately balanced response to the economic and social situation, thereby contributing appropriately to all six pillars referred to in Article 3, taking the specific challenges and the financial allocation of the Member State concerned into account. The Commission shall take into account the following elements for the assessment under this criterion: Scope — the recovery and resilience plan contributes in a comprehensive and adequately balanced manner to all six pillars referred to in Article 3, considering the specific challenges of the Member State concerned and taking into account the financial contribution of the Member State concerned and the requested loan support. Rating A – to a large extent B – to a moderate extent C – to a small extent

2.2. The recovery and resilience plan is expected to contribute to effectively addressing all or a significant subset of challenges identified in the relevant country-specific recommendations including fiscal aspects thereof and recommendations made pursuant to Article 6 of Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 where appropriate, addressed to the Member State concerned or challenges identified in other relevant documents officially adopted by the Commission in the context of the European Semester. The Commission shall take into account the following elements for the assessment under this criterion: Scope — the recovery and resilience plan is expected to contribute to effectively addressing all or a significant subset of challenges identified in the relevant country-specific recommendations, including fiscal aspects thereof and recommendations made pursuant to Article 6 of Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 where appropriate, addressed to the Member State concerned or challenges identified in other relevant documents officially adopted by the Commission in the context of the European Semester, taking into account the financial contribution of the Member State concerned and the requested loan support as well as the scope and scale of country-specific challenges and the information included in the National Reform Programme; and — the recovery and resilience plan represents a comprehensive and adequate response to the economic and social situation of the Member State concerned; and — the challenges addressed by the recovery and resilience plan are considered as significant to boost the growth potential of the economy of the Member State concerned in a sustainable manner; and — following the completion of the proposed reforms and investments, the related challenges would be expected to have been resolved or addressed in a manner that significantly contributes to their resolution. Rating A – the recovery and resilience plan contributes to effectively addressing all or a significant subset of challenges identified in the country-specific recommendations, or challenges in other relevant documents officially adopted by the Commission under the European Semester, and the recovery and resilience plan represents an adequate response to the economic and social situation of the Member State concerned B – the recovery and resilience plan contributes to partially addressing all or a significant subset of challenges identified in the country-specific recommendations, or challenges in other relevant documents officially adopted by the Commission under the European Semester and the recovery and resilience plan represents an adequate response to the economic and social situation of the Member State concerned C – the recovery and resilience plan does not contribute to addressing any challenges identified in the country-specific recommendations, or in other relevant documents officially adopted by the Commission under the European Semester and the recovery and resilience plan does not represent an adequate response to the economic and social situation of the Member State concerned

2.3. The recovery and resilience plan is expected to effectively contribute to strengthening the growth potential, job creation, and economic, social and institutional resilience of the Member State, contributing to the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights, including through the promotion of policies for children and youth, and to mitigating the economic and social impact of the COVID-19 crisis, thereby enhancing the economic, social and territorial cohesion and convergence within the Union. The Commission shall take into account the following elements for the assessment under this criterion: Scope — the recovery and resilience plan contains measures that aim to foster economic growth and economic cohesion in an inclusive manner, in particular addressing weaknesses of the economy of the Member States, boosting the growth potential of the economy of the Member State concerned, stimulating job creation, and mitigating the adverse effects of the crisis; and — the recovery and resilience plan contains measures that aim to strengthen social cohesion and social protection systems, including policies for children and youth, by reducing social vulnerabilities, contributing to the implementation of the principles of the European Pillar of Social Rights and contributing to improving the levels of the indicators of its Social Scoreboard; and — the recovery and resilience plan aims to reduce economic vulnerabilities of the Member State to shocks; and — the recovery and resilience plan aims to increase the capacity of the economic and/or social structures and institutions of the Member State to adjust to and withstand shocks; and — the recovery and resilience plan is expected to contribute to enhancing economic, social and territorial cohesion and convergence. Rating A – high expected impact B – medium expected impact C – low expected impact

2.4. The recovery and resilience plan is expected to ensure that no measure for the implementation of reforms and investments projects included in the recovery and resilience plan does significant harm to environmental objectives within the meaning of Article 17 of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 (the principle of ‘do no significant harm’). The Commission shall take into account the following elements for the assessment under this criterion: Scope — no measure for the implementation of reforms and investments projects included in the recovery and resilience plan does significant harm to environmental objectives within the meaning of Article 17 of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 (the principle of ‘do no significant harm’). Rating A – no measure does significant harm to environmental objectives (the principle of ‘do no significant harm’) C – one or more measure does significant harm to environmental objectives (the principle of ‘do no significant harm’)

2.5. The recovery and resilience plan contains measures that effectively contribute to the green transition, including biodiversity, or to addressing the challenges resulting therefrom, that account for an amount which represents at least 37 % of the recovery and resilience plan’s total allocation and such measures in the REPowerEU chapter account for an amount which represents at least 37 % of the total estimated costs of the measures in the REPowerEU chapter, based on the methodology for climate tracking set out in Annex VI; that methodology shall be used accordingly for measures that cannot be directly assigned to an intervention field listed in Annex VI; the coefficients for support for the climate objectives may be increased up to a total amount of 3 % of the allocation of the recovery and resilience plan for individual investments to take account of accompanying reform measures that credibly increase their impact on the climate objectives, subject to the agreement of the Commission. The Commission shall take into account the following elements for the assessment under this criterion: Scope — the implementation of the envisaged measures is expected to effectively contribute to the green transition, including biodiversity, and, where applicable, to addressing the challenges resulting therefrom, thereby contributing to the achievement of the Union 2030 climate targets while complying with the objective of EU climate neutrality by 2050; and — Member States apply a methodology consisting of assigning a specific weighting to the support provided, which reflects the extent to which such support makes a contribution to climate objectives. The weightings shall be based on the dimensions and codes for the types of intervention established in Annex VI and may be increased for individual investments to take account of accompanying reform measures that credibly increase their impact on the climate objectives. The same weighting system shall apply for measures that cannot be directly assigned to an intervention field listed in Annex VI; and — the implementation of the envisaged measures is expected to have a lasting impact. Rating A – to a large extent B – to a moderate extent. C – to a small extent

2.6. The recovery and resilience plan contains measures that effectively contribute to the digital transition or to addressing the challenges resulting therefrom, and that account for an amount which represents at least 20 % of the recovery and resilience plan’s total allocation, based on the methodology for digital tagging set out in Annex VII; that methodology shall be used accordingly for measures that cannot be directly assigned to an intervention field listed in Annex VII; the coefficients for support for the digital objectives may be increased for individual investments to take account of accompanying reform measures that increase their impact on the digital objectives. The Commission shall take into account the following elements for the assessment under this criterion: Scope — the implementation of the envisaged measures is expected to significantly contribute to the digital transformation of economic or social sectors; or — the implementation of the envisaged measures is expected to significantly contribute to address the challenges resulting from digital transition; and — Member States apply a methodology consisting of assigning a specific weighting to the support provided, which reflects the extent to which such support makes a contribution to digital objectives. The weightings shall be based on the dimensions and codes for the types of intervention established in Annex VII and may be increased for individual investments to take account of accompanying reform measures that increase their impact on the digital objectives. The same weighting system shall apply for measures that cannot be directly assigned to an intervention field listed in Annex VII; and — the implementation of the envisaged measures is expected to have a lasting impact. Rating A – to a large extent B – to a moderate extent C – to a small extent Effectiveness:

2.7. The recovery and resilience plan is expected to have a lasting impact on the Member State concerned. The Commission shall take into account the following elements for the assessment under this criterion: Scope — the implementation of the envisaged measures is expected to bring about a structural change in the administration or in relevant institutions; or — the implementation of the envisaged measures is expected to bring about a structural change in relevant policies; and — the implementation of the envisaged measures is expected to have a lasting impact. Rating A – to a large extent B – to a moderate extent C – to a small extent

2.8. The arrangements proposed by the Member States concerned are expected to ensure effective monitoring and implementation of the recovery and resilience plan, including the envisaged timetable, milestones and targets, and the related indicators. The Commission shall take into account the following elements for the assessment under this criterion: Scope — a structure is tasked within the Member State with:

(i) the implementation of the recovery and resilience plan;

(ii) the monitoring of progress on milestones and targets; and (iii) the reporting; and — the proposed milestones and targets are clear and realistic and the proposed indicators for those milestones and targets are relevant, acceptable and robust; and — the overall arrangements proposed by the Member States in terms of organisation (including provision to ensure sufficient staff allocation) of the implementation of the reforms and investments, are credible. Rating A – adequate arrangements for effective implementation B – minimum arrangements for effective implementation C – insufficient arrangements for effective implementation Efficiency: