Brussels approves Spain’s plan

On 16 June 2021, European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen announced in Madrid the approval of Spain’s recovery plan. This opened the door to the first disbursements of European funds, which would arrive in stages and be tied to meeting the commitments undertaken. It was the decisive step after the plan was sent to Brussels at the end of April. Since then, administrations and companies had been waiting for the Commission’s assessment.

For companies, the news meant that the funds stopped being a promise and became a reality with a timetable. The approval was a starting point, not an end point: from then on, what mattered was how the overall amounts would be translated into specific calls for applications, with requirements and deadlines that each company would have to interpret and meet in order to access the aid. Those who have informed themselves in advance will be better placed to react in time.

The decisive step

The approval opened the door to the first disbursements, which are released as progress on the agreed reforms and investments is shown, so each tranche requires showing results before the next one is received.

That system of conditional payments has a practical consequence: the funds do not arrive all at once or without oversight. There are controls, deadlines and the possibility that payments are withheld if milestones are not met. Turning the approval into actual aid, and not just announced figures, would depend on the capacity of administrations and companies to deliver. A delay in a call for applications or in a procedure can affect projects that depended on those deadlines. That is why it pays to have projects ready, with the documentation and complementary financing in place before each call opens.

The race for calls for applications

With the plan approved, the race for calls for applications began. Each line of aid has its own requirements, deadlines and assessment criteria, and the resources available are limited. It is therefore worth knowing in advance which ones suit the company’s profile. Those who arrive at a call with a half-defined project tend to fall behind those who have it ready.

Speed matters, but the quality of the application matters more. A fast but poorly documented proposal may be discarded at the first review, whereas a well-argued one, with a realistic investment plan and a clear justification of the expected results, has a better chance of passing the assessment even if it arrives a little later. Assessors tend to value coherence, feasibility and expected impact more than speed of submission.

Who will really get access

The best-prepared companies, with mature projects and the ability to justify spending, would be the ones that really gained access to the funds. That requires orderly accounts, a solid investment plan and the financial capacity to advance costs when necessary. It is worth talking to advisers about which line fits best and what documentation will be required. It is also worth reserving time and resources for the subsequent monitoring of any aid awarded.

It is also sensible to ask whether the project would make sense without the aid. A grant improves the return on an investment, but it should not be the only reason for undertaking it. And it is worth reviewing which other partners, suppliers or financial institutions could be involved. A project with bank backing and reliable partners conveys more solidity to whoever assesses it. The funds reward not intention but preparation.

Those who plan the application in good time do not depend on luck.

This article is general information. It is not legal, tax or investment advice, and it does not take anyone’s particular circumstances into account.