2028–2034 EU Budget: Cohesion Policy at the Centre of Political Dispute

Imagine a regional policy with no regions. Is this the kind of Cohesion Policy that the European Commission wants to put in place during the next programming period? Following the publication of the 2028-2034 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) proposal in July 2025, European Institutions, bodies, and regional interest stakeholders immediately opposed it, instead suggesting strategic alternatives that would restore regional and multi-level governance to their rightful place at the heart of the Cohesion Policy.

The Commission’s proposal

On 16 July 2025, the Commission released a communication entitled “A dynamic EU Budget for the priorities of the future – the Multiannual Financial Framework 2028-2034”, in which it identified the policy priorities for the next programming period and the financial design through which they would be achieved. The financial design, implemented by the Commission, provoked a lively debate among relevant stakeholders and European institutions, whose views and opinions are seemingly trying to dismantle the proposed Cohesion Policy structure, put forward by the College.

In regard to the overall size, the Commission presented the MFF as a nearly €2 trillion budget, equivalent to 1.26% of EU gross national income (GNI). However, the European Parliament has criticised this presentation, noting that the headline figure is expressed in current prices. In 2025 constant prices, instead, the budget amounts to approximately €1.763 trillion, which Parliament considers insufficient to meet the Union’s growing ambitions and challenges.

The budget categorises expenditure into four headings. Cohesion Policy, usually a stand-alone policy, will, this time, fall under heading 1 in combination with different funds that have, until now, always been kept separate. In particular, the new single fund will include economic, social and territorial cohesion, agricultural and rural, fisheries and maritime, prosperity and security. It receives the largest share of resources, with a total of €797 billion representing only 45% of the total MFF which is a sharp drop when compared to the 2021-2027 budget, where the same policy priorities accounted for around 65% of total spending.

The proposal introduced an updated governance system to manage this new single fund. Interestingly, it will be implemented through National and Regional Partnership Plans (NRPPs), replacing the current multi-fund cohesion structure. As indicated by DG CASP of the European Parliament, this new methodology generates some causes for concern, regarding, in particular, the role of regional and local governments in the implementation of the programmes, from planning to monitoring, to fund distribution across regions within the member state, to the interaction between cohesion and other EU policies.

The “Single Fund” approach 

The portion of the budget dedicated to the Single Fund was highly criticised, especially by the European Parliament. According to the Parliament, the reduction of funding destined to the first heading, in comparison with the previous programming period may undermine the achievement of the objective outlined in Article 174 of the TFEU regarding the strengthening of the Union’s economic, social, and territorial cohesion. Put simply: an ambitious goal requires ambitious funding. This is why the European assembly has called for a higher allocation of the budget to the first heading to try to maintain funding at the level of the current MFF.

The current design of the Single Fund, which combines multiple funds and programmes, creates significant uncertainty. Funding is less predictable, beneficiaries are pitted against one another for resources, and the distribution of EU funds risks essentially becoming a political exercise. If, on the one hand, policy priorities concentration allows more flexibility, in turn making it easier to shift money between programmes, on the other hand, it introduces ambiguity, especially without the instruments required to safeguard the regional perspective. However, it is also true that the application of the same policy measures under different programmes has always created confusion for beneficiaries, especially for those with limited administrative capacities. A more integrated approach could help address territorial challenges more coherently and reduce fragmentation of funding opportunities.

The role of regions under the new National and Regional Partnership Plans

The idea of having one plan per member state, allowing the Commission to deal with 27 authorities rather than engaging with each region individually, does not seem driven by Cohesion Policy’s needs. On the contrary, it seems to be justified as a way in which to simply reduce overlaps and increase the efficiency of EU funds. In other words, it is just simplification. The Committee of the Regions (CoR) pointed out that simplification should serve, first and foremost, the beneficiaries who are interested in accessing the EU budget and to make spending more efficient. It cannot be a pretext for undermining the partnership principle.

Additionally, this type of management generates ambiguity around how cohesion funds are distributed between regions within member states. For this reason, relevant stakeholders called for clear eligibility criteria for all regional categories so that the allocation of funds is not left to the sole discretion of the member state, but rather grounded in shared management, partnership, and multi-level governance.

Although the proposal states that NRPPs will be executed through multi-level governance and a bottom-up approach, the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions (CPMR), among others, pointed out that these concepts run the risk of remaining mere guiding principles. That is, if they are not able to prompt or oblige the member state to implement a shared governance and management system that effectively involves regions. Furthermore, while the proposal defines compulsory national and sectoral chapters of the plan, regional and territorial chapters should only be inserted “if relevant”. In this regard, the Parliament called for the establishment of regional chapters in accordance with the member states’ institutional framework and called for regional and local authorities to be fully involved in the design, monitoring, and implementation of funds.

More broadly, the “one plan for all member states” model risks eroding the European dimension of the EU budget, turning common EU policies and priorities into national spending plans. Within a more centralised framework, regions would struggle to find meaningful roles, and principles like subsidiarity, multi-level governance, partnership, and proportionality would risk becoming empty words.

Beyond cohesion: the uncertain future of regions in the EU

As largely noted in the policy debate, the design of the next MFF and of Cohesion Policy seems to be another Commission attempt to sacrifice decentralisation in favour of simplification and flexibility. Despite the College of Commissioners having declared several times that the NRPPs will not be the blueprint of the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), it is impossible not to notice a worrying trend that seems to be heading towards centralisation and renationalisation.

Now, more than ever, international bodies and regional associations need to step up and defend regional interest. In this context, the CoR has proposed an interinstitutional agreement between the Parliament, the Council and the Commission regarding budgetary discipline that calls for the establishment of a structured dialogue between the CoR and European Economic and Social Committee to ensure that the territorial considerations, impact on cohesion, and experience of local and regional authorities are duly taken into account when deciding on the allocation of funds.

The role of local authorities in the EU does not concern only Cohesion Policy, as regions and cities are responsible for implementing 70% of all EU policies. However, in a context in which decentralisation is losing ground and, as reported by Politico, even the DG REGIO’s destiny is uncertain, what kind of future can we imagine for regions in the EU?