[Publication] Flexibility and Simplification in Cohesion Policy under the 2028-2034 MFF Proposals

Background

The European Commission’s proposals for the 2028–2034 EU budget would significantly reconfigure Cohesion Policy. Presented under the banner of simplification, flexibility and performance, the new framework would replace the current fund-specific architecture with a more integrated model centred on a single European Fund and National and Regional Partnership Plans (NRPPs). At the same time, it would reshape key features of Cohesion Policy delivery, including programming, financial management, thematic steering, territorial targeting and the governance of Interreg. The central question for the European Parliament is whether these reforms would deliver genuine simplification and flexibility without weakening its core mission of reducing economic, social and territorial disparities.

Study aim

This study assesses the main implications of the Commission’s 2028-34 proposals for the future design and implementation of Cohesion Policy, from the perspective of the European Parliament. It examines the likely effects of the proposed new framework on simplification, flexibility, territorial and thematic concentrations, and Interreg, while paying particular attention to legislative, institutional and implementation issues likely to matter during the negotiations.

Key findings

1. Simplification and performance-based delivery

The Commission presents the post-2027 framework as a major simplification, based on fewer programming documents, a single rulebook, stronger performance-based delivery and wider use of simplified cost options and financing not linked to costs. The study finds that these changes may simplify the system at EU level, but they are unlikely to reduce complexity proportionately at national, regional and beneficiary levels, where coordination, negotiation, monitoring and compliance demands may increase. The shift to performance-based payments may improve predictability and reduce invoice-level checks, but it also shifts administrative effort towards costing, milestone-setting, verification and audit.

The key issue for the European Parliament is, therefore, to ensure that simplification delivers real administrative relief in implementation and does not merely replace cost-based burdens with new demands in coordination, performance management and control. The study also highlights the importance of administrative capacity, arguing that performance-based delivery will only work if national and regional authorities have sufficient technical capability in areas such as indicator design, milestone calibration, data systems and compliance management.

2. Flexibility, predictability and the EU Facility

The proposals would create a more flexible architecture through a larger flexibility amount, a stronger mid-term review and a new EU Facility capable of topping-up national allocations and financing Union actions in response to crises, market disturbances and emerging priorities. This may improve speed, adaptability and Union-level coordination, but it also creates risks of reduced predictability for long-term territorial and sectoral investment, weaker national ownership over programming choices, and greater complexity through overlapping flexibility instruments.

The study underlines that the EU Facility is broader than a narrow emergency reserve and could evolve into a more open-ended instrument for Union-level reprioritisation during implementation. This has direct implications for the European Parliament, notably the need to seek clearer legal boundaries, more detailed allocation criteria and activation triggers, and stronger scrutiny of annual work programmes and strategic reporting.

3. Programming flexibility, territorial earmarking and thematic concentration

The proposals make Cohesion Policy more flexible but weaken some territorial and thematic protections. This may improve adaptability, but it may also reduce the policy’s place-based focus and strategic clarity. The broader and more integrated NRPP structure could encourage standardisation at a higher level, even where the formal framework appears more flexible. The 2025 Mid-Term Review already points in this direction, with greater emphasis on priorities such as competitiveness, defence and housing. However, uptake of these priorities has been uneven, showing that flexibility does not guarantee balanced implementation.

For the European Parliament, the central issue is whether strategic focus can be preserved without undermining territorial responsiveness. The study suggests that the Parliament should seek clearer territorial targeting, more transparency in reprioritisation, and stronger safeguards for partnership and multilevel governance.

4. Interreg simplification and flexibility

Compared with the previous programming period, the fundamentals of Interreg in terms of its strands, rationales, partnerships and core geographies remain broadly intact. However, the post-2027 framework also points towards a more centralised and strategically steered Interreg in some respects. In particular, the increased use of implementing acts and the stronger performance-based approach represent a significant departure from the current model.

These reforms may make Interreg more streamlined and more focused on results, but they also risk creating new challenges for legal certainty, operational clarity and effective delivery in a multi-country setting. From the European Parliament’s perspective, a key priority is to ensure that operational provisions governing Interreg remain sufficiently anchored in the basic act, and that any performance-based model is adapted to the specific realities of cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation.

Conclusions

The study concludes that the Commission’s proposals would reshape both the architecture and delivery logic of Cohesion Policy. Although the reforms respond to real weaknesses in the current system, including procedural complexity, limited adaptability and cumbersome implementation, they also imply a broader change in policy logic. Cohesion Policy would move away from a rule-bound, programme-based and territorially differentiated model towards one that is more integrated, more discretionary and more strongly steered through national plans, performance arrangements and Commission-led reprioritisation. The expected gains from simplification, flexibility and performance are therefore likely to be uneven. The overarching challenge for the European Parliament is to ensure that the future framework improves responsiveness and effectiveness without weakening predictability, regional and local ownership or the cohesion rationale of the policy itself.

The key recommendations are:

Test simplification claims against implementation reality. Parliament should seek firmer evidence that the reforms reduce burdens for managing authorities, intermediate bodies and beneficiaries, not only for the Commission and central administrations.

Make performance-based delivery proportionate and workable. The legislation should provide clearer methodologies for milestones, targets and payment values, while allowing sufficient flexibility for long-term, innovative and territorially specific interventions.

Protect predictability within the new flexibility architecture. Parliament should review the size and operation of the flexibility amount/reserve, the timing and scope of the mid-term review, and the link between reprogramming and performance in order to limit unnecessary uncertainty for long-term investment.

Tighten the legal framework for the EU Facility. The Regulation should define more clearly the scope of Union actions, activation triggers, allocation criteria and the relationship between the Facility and national plans, while strengthening ex ante scrutiny of work programmes.

Preserve the territorial and place-based character of Cohesion Policy. Parliament should seek greater transparency in the allocation model and stronger guarantees that reduced regional differentiation and wider national discretion do not weaken the territorial focus of the policy.

Strengthen partnership and multilevel governance. The new framework should include robust provisions ensuring timely and meaningful involvement of regional and local actors in plan design, implementation, monitoring, revision and reprogramming.

Keep key Interreg provisions in the basic act and adapt performance rules to cooperation realities. Core operational rules should remain anchored in primary legislation and any performance model should reflect the collective and long-term nature of territorial cooperation.