Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee – Strengthening the results orientation of post-2027 cohesion policy – challenges, risks and opportunities (exploratory opinion at the request of the Polish Presidency)
Date: 2025-02-27
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU growth strategy, competitiveness, economic and social cohesion, economic development, energy transition, green economy, regional development, sustainable development, twin transition








C_202502018EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/2018


30.4.2025







Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee


Strengthening the results orientation of post-2027 cohesion policy – challenges, risks and opportunities


(exploratory opinion at the request of the Polish Presidency)

(C/2025/2018)


Rapporteur: 
David SVENTEK

Co-rapporteur: 
Florian MARIN






Advisor


Petr ZAHRADNÍK, advisor to the rapporteur




Referral


Letter from Adam Szlapka, Minister for the European Union, Republic of Poland, 6.9.2024




Legal basis


Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union




Section responsible


Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion




Adopted in section


6.2.2025




Adopted at plenary session


27.2.2025




Plenary session No


594




Outcome of vote
(for/against/abstentions)


144/0/2




1.   Conclusions and recommendations









1.1.


The EESC strongly supports the continuation of EU cohesion policy, deeming the reasons behind it to be clear, rational and legitimate. On the other hand, the EESC recognises that cohesion policy has to be modernised and adjusted, reflecting development trends and needs, which will generally influence the new, 2028+ EU Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF). Mainly, there seems to be a strong focus on greater sustainable competitiveness, while at the same time ensuring that no one is left behind.
The EU’s fiscal capacity, which was recently broadened by the NextGenerationEU (NGEU) instrument to about 1,8 % of EU GDP, must not be reduced in the future. The existing share of the EU budget for cohesion policy should not be reduced in the next MMF, but instead it should be increased.












1.2.


The EESC recommends managing cohesion policy in future according to the following general principles: partnership (including the active contribution of organised civil society); shared management (balanced participation among EU, national and regional authorities, reflected in programming and implementation); multi-level governance (including regions, cities, local authorities and stakeholders according to the subsidiarity principle); place-based approach (reverting to the traditional cohesion policy principle based on subsidiarity, and implementing a bottom-up approach and tailor-made solutions, specific to particular territories); thematic concentration (being interlinked via the EU’s strategic priorities and the process of the European Semester); territorial targeting (also based on the regional specificities, i.e. less developed regions, just transition regions, regions in development traps, shrinking and vulnerable regions, and border and outermost regions and islands); result orientation (financial support on condition that there are real and quantified results and benefits); simplification (of the rules, procedures and administrative requirements) and social conditionalities for the investments financed.












1.3.


The EESC believes that a future, result-oriented cohesion policy should include the following:






—


geopolitical challenges should be clearly considered, taking into account the need for a balanced approach between competitiveness, convergence, complementarity and social investments;










—


technical assistance funds should also be dedicated to civil society, and investment in capacity building is strongly needed;










—


the partnership principle should be consolidated and civil society should be integrated into the programming, implementation, management, monitoring and control of operational programmes.
















1.4.


Making a result-based approach a core principle will contribute to a more efficient allocation of limited cohesion policy resources and bring visible and transparent benefits in socio-economic terms and in terms of the policy’s financial achievements. The EESC also strongly recommends making the obligations arising from a result-based approach an integral part of the supervisory and audit processes and using them to verify the effectiveness and efficiency of the policy and the feasibility of the projects it supports.
The EESC believes that the obligations arising from the introduction of a results-based approach should not be added to the existing control and audit processes for verifying the effectiveness, efficiency and economy of expenditure on projects financed by cohesion funds.












1.5.


The EESC is deeply convinced that, despite all the necessary changes to cohesion policy’s content and orientation, the core of the policy must remain regions and their specific development and resilience needs, while also seeking to reduce inequalities. The EESC still agrees with the reasons for supporting the just transition process in the next financial period. Securing economic, social and territorial resilience for border countries should be an integral part of cohesion policy.












1.6.


EESC believes that more attention should be paid to social investments, including housing, as structural ingredients for territorial development, to access to quality public services, to demographic and depopulation challenges and to improving quality of life.












1.7.


The EESC, as a representative of organised civil society, recommends creating a transparent policy environment with a clearly defined position for specific stakeholders, including representatives of organised civil society, in terms of expertise and, where appropriate, at decision-making level. Involving stakeholders will increase their sense of ownership of cohesion policy and EU programmes.












1.8.


Simplification is a critical issue for all administrative processes, including cohesion policy. The EESC is aware of the system’s complexity, which needs to be greatly simplified and made more transparent. The problem starts with the form of regulations and associated additional bureaucratic implementation procedures at Member State level, but also includes the administrative capacities of implementation bodies, the requirements of the processes for beneficiaries as well as the supervisory and audit mechanisms. All of this requires cohesion policy to become more user-friendly, which the EESC supports.












1.9.


The EESC underlines that, especially in the current and upcoming period of economic and social development in the EU, convergence and sustainable competitiveness are not contradictory. In fact, convergence should be based on processes that accelerate sustainable competitiveness, boost the business environment and ensure a well-functioning and sustainable economic system as this is the only way to accommodate not only convergence, but also all wealth and social needs and requirements.




2.   Background, facts and description of the topic









2.1.


The future EU Multiannual Financial Framework 2028+ (MFF 2028+) is likely to see significant changes from the current framework. In view of the economic, social and territorial development of the EU regions, as comprehensively described, for example, in the 9th Cohesion Report, the EESC notes that there is a clear need and legitimacy for the continuation of cohesion policy, which is unparalleled in the EU’s economic policy instrument. However, it is equally clear that future cohesion policy will have to undergo a major modernisation towards better targeting of real priorities, more efficient financing, more convincing results, substantial simplification and greater flexibility and responsiveness to the major stimuli that will arise during the period.












2.2.


Given the need for EU funding, stemming from the objectives of green and digital transformation, promoting the sustainable competitiveness of the EU economy or ensuring open strategic autonomy, it can be assumed and recommended that the current EU fiscal capacity be maintained at a minimum of 1,8 % of EU GDP (i.e. including the NGEU). An important indicator of the EU’s future financing needs can be found, for example, in the calculation and estimate published in the recent Draghi report (1), which refers to at least EUR 750–800 billion of additional investment annually; this would increase the EU’s investment rate from the current 22 % of EU GDP to 27 %. Even from this quantification, it is clear that the financial volume of around EUR 1 900 billion under today’s MFF 2021–2027 + NGEU will not be sufficient to meet this need.












2.3.


Given that, despite significant progress in bringing the EU’s least developed regions closer together, there is still a gap between the most developed and less developed regions, that poverty and inequality are major problems and that many more regions are caught in the middle-income development trap (2), the rationale for a strong cohesion policy remains. Future competitiveness requires investments in all regions. The existing EU budget proportion for cohesion policy needs to remain intact and even increased in MFF28+.




3.   Formulating the basic principles for a result-oriented Cohesion Policy 2028+ and its implementation









3.1.


Thematic concentration. In the case of thematic concentration, it is desirable to precisely formulate the areas of future support in line with the EU’s strategic policy priorities. It can be assumed that they will focus on narrowing the innovation and investment gap, especially in the technology sectors, digitisation, skills, labour market and decarbonisation, supporting sustainable competitiveness, strengthening social cohesion and resilience, ensuring defence and security and reducing external dependence. Thematic concentration on youth, health, and social and civil dialogue is imperative for supporting the needs involved in accelerating the green and digital transitions. Poverty reduction, youth, sustainable development and gender should be horizontal principles in the next programming period. Cohesion policy requires a geographical concentration for border areas, taking into account the asymmetry of the development challenges and risks. This will also require investments in dual use infrastructures to be maximised.












3.2.


Place-based approach. The future cohesion policy should be as simple and universal as possible and its instruments should allow for the implementation of specific regional and local development strategies according to specific conditions. A positive inspiration for the next period here can be the implementation of the newest of the cohesion policy funds – the Just Transition Fund – in the period 2021–2027, where a very useful consensus and coherence is emerging between the general rules of the Fund at EU level, the specifically articulated needs of the Operational Programme at Member State level and the precisely documented project priorities at the level of the Just Transition regions concerned. Financial support is also needed for development centres with national and regional importance as the main drivers of regional growth and competitiveness for smart and sustainable infrastructural development, taking into account demographic trends, climate goals and digitalisation opportunities.












3.3.


Results. The issue of reflecting on results in a context of increasingly scarce and limited funding for cohesion policy is taking on a qualitatively new dimension. More should be done to ensure effective results orientation by better monitoring whether cohesion funds contribute to the political goals set out in corresponding regulations. At the same time it must be made clear that some results are difficult to measure or that the effects are only measurable after a longer period of time. The European Commission’s 9th cohesion report itself stresses the long-term nature of the effects. The long lasting and diffuse positive effects of cohesion policy have to be acknowledged. A greater focus on results orientation should not increase pressure to deliver immediate effects. In short, working with the results of cohesion policy has its own huge reserves; these can be addressed inter alia by focusing on the returns from cohesion policy investments and the value-for-money principle.












3.4.


Enhanced flexibility and reserve capacity. The EESC recommends that there should be a significantly more flexibility inside the cohesion funds to reallocate financial resources between and within programmes. Reallocation of the funds from less developed to more developed regions should be avoided.












3.5.


Simplification. Both from the perspective of the beneficiaries, the administration itself and the functioning of the shared management principle, cohesion policy remains very complex and administratively complicated. A simplification process is required that leads to the definition, at regulation level, of clearly defined and non-negotiable rules allowing the adoption, at national and regional level, of an appropriate development strategy in the territory and a programme linked to it.












3.6.


Subsidiarity. The principle of subsidiarity should play an important role in the implementation structure at the national level, which should be reflected primarily in the form of individual Operational Programmes and their division into centralised and regional ones, which should primarily reflect the specifics of individual regions or the solution of regional problems from the central level. More clearance between national and EU competences is important.




4.   General comments









4.1.


The EESC also considers the results-based approach to be inspiring; for example, it considers it particularly useful to set clearly defined objectives and outputs relating to the priorities of the funds approved under the legislative procedure, to define indicators to measure the achievement of objectives, to report regularly on project performance, to make financial conditionality conditional on the achievement of aims, but also to be flexible and adaptable to new circumstances. The focus on the long-term sustainability of the results achieved is also very important.












4.2.


The results-based approach should result in simplification, with controls and audits verifying the achievement of policy objectives and corresponding indicators. The EESC is concerned that the obligations arising from the introduction of the results-based approach should not be added to the existing control and audit processes for verifying the effectiveness, efficiency and economy of expenditure on projects financed by cohesion funds.












4.3.


The EESC notes and respects one of the main conclusions of the Draghi report, namely that the development of competitiveness is a necessary condition for ensuring high social standards in the EU, high living standards, but also respect for the law and ensuring a mature democracy. For this reason, too, it seems justified that programmes that develop and promote sustainable competitiveness and social resilience in its entirety should constitute the dominant thematic focus of future cohesion policy, in terms of relevance to a specific territory. A results-oriented Cohesion Policy needs social indicators alongside GDP to be integrated into the fund distribution mechanism in order to promote inclusive growth.












4.4.


The theme of strategic autonomy and resilience, and the resulting need to make certain structural changes, both developmental and security-related, is primarily relevant to the nation-state level and, at the same time, has a regional and local dimension that should not be overlooked by future cohesion policy. It concerns both existing or future strategic operations located in a given territory, but also a number of horizontal issues (health, cost of living security, youth, gender, the ability to cope with the consequences of legal migration and to resist illegal migration). The EESC recommends that these issues be given appropriate attention, including cross-border interregional cooperation, especially in the event of crisis and risk situations and consolidation of the social market economy. EU Cohesion policy needs to aim for territorial, economic and social resilience for EU border regions, specifically taking into account the challenges faced by border countries.












4.5.


The EESC is aware of the fact that different types of reforms can have a strong territorial dimension and require adaptation to the regional and local context. Sub-national authorities are best equipped to handle land use and territorial planning matters. Since cohesion policy is a place-based approach, its implementation and effectiveness rely heavily on tailored territorial delivery. Simplifying administrative processes, strengthening regional administrative capacities, involving the social partners and civil society and adapting policies to regional needs are all necessary in future reforms.












4.6.


The EESC believes that an optimal cohesion policy makes it possible, within the framework of commonly agreed uniform rules, to draw up programmes that take very specific account of the very specific development needs of the territory concerned. This is where it is unique and distinguishable compared to other types of development policy. It is the task of the territory or the authorities responsible for its development to formulate these development needs in an authentic and objective manner, to scale them up according to priorities and to assign them to cohesion policy instruments. The definition of the specific objectives must be broad enough to cover a variety of place-based needs. Regions should however not only describe what they intend to support, but also what they want to achieve, and this should be qualitatively assessed.












4.7.


The EESC considers that cohesion policy is not able to cover the economic, social and environmental problems of the climate and digital transition, which is why more financial resources are needed, taking into account the multilateral territorial challenges faced by regions. The results of the cohesion policy were affected by financing needs linked to different crises since cohesion policy is not a crisis instrument and dedicated and adapted instruments are needed in the future in this regard.




5.   Specific comments









5.1.


The EESC is convinced that the EU’s future policy for sustainable competitiveness, social resilience and cohesion should largely be implemented within a model of shared and multi-level governance, respecting the partnership principle. The centralisation of the policy management system in the EU poses a risk to the future sustainability of the European project.












5.2.


Introducing Financing not linked to cost (FNLC) schemes with a focus on achieving results rather than cost recovery could increase efficiency and effectiveness. However, it is essential that support under cohesion policy not be limited to FNLC alone. Additionally, the further use of simplified cost options, financing not linked to costs, and functional principles from the implementation of the Recovery and Resilience Facility should be thoroughly and promptly discussed and evaluated at both the national and European levels.












5.3.


The EESC strongly recommends that the implementation system be radically simplified. Simplification does not necessarily mean a reduction in the number of programmes, but above all in the rules and procedures associated with their operation. The EESC believes that, in the future thematic structure of cohesion policy, it should become a matter of course that all projects within a given territory implemented together should be integrated (integrated territorial approach), thus synergistically increasing the resulting benefits.












5.4.


Regarding the building of appropriate administrative capacities, the EESC is convinced that cohesion policy brings together a wide range of actors and stakeholders, fostering democratic engagement and ownership. However, the governance model, especially if measures are to be better targeted and the reforms included, must be improved. The technical assistance funds should also be dedicated to civil society by assuring a weight dedicated to this taking into account the role of civil society in obtaining the cohesion policy results. The simplification process should also include financing organisations which are the main stakeholders at national, regional and local level, alongside with grants, financial instruments and other projects.












5.5.


The EESC considers that a reform of the European Code of Conduct on Partnership is strongly needed with clear sanctions attached. Civil society should be involved in the programming, implementation, management, monitoring and control of the operational programmes included in the Cohesion Policy. The partnership principle should be consolidated for a better result- oriented Cohesion Policy and in this regard the structure of the monitoring committee should be changed in order to assure a true participatory approach by involving civil society with at least 50 % of total voting rights.












5.6.


In order to foster European competitiveness, it is crucial to adopt a results-oriented approach to supporting innovation within companies. Implementation strategies that enable the execution of ambitious and innovative projects, even when they involve a risk of failure, must be considered. Such projects could have a significant impact on the structural transformation of our economy.












5.7.


The cohesion policy should take into account the attractiveness of the EU enlargement process. The enlargement of the EU needs to ensure a clear balance between actual and future development needs. Missions such as Climate-Neutral and Smart Cities should be used for future qualitative results of the cohesion policy. More missions need to be added in relation to social aspects. A results-oriented cohesion policy requires more control of horizontal principles. A reform of the competition principle should be taken into account due to the fact that in some specific areas such as innovation the competition principle is increasing inequalities. The future of the competition principle should assure fair competition between regions, organisations and stakeholders in the different selection processes with a special focus on those that are vulnerable.












5.8.


The EESC suggests that more caution is needed from moving from a programme-based approach to a policy-based approach taking into account that this could negatively affect flexibility, the involvement of civil society, the place-based approach and the shared management principle. The shared management principle needs significant consolidation alongside the capacity of civil society to be part of the implementation process.












5.9.


Cohesion Policy should have social conditionalities attached transversally, in full complementarity with the Common Agriculture Policy so that public money will not contribute to the consolidation of poverty or precariousness. More attention should be placed on social investments as structural ingredients for territorial development, access to quality public services and demographic challenges alongside improving quality of life.












5.10.


The consolidation of the involvement of local actors and ensuring strong regional involvement is needed to deliver on the treaty objectives. Building a structure that is based on a regional approach, reducing the transfer of allocations from less developed regions, and concentrating investment predominantly in less developed regions, in full synergy with multi-level governance, the partnership principle and shared management, are all crucial for a more effective, impactful policy.












5.11.


The EESC considers that both a reform and a programme-based approach are possible. Learning form RRF experience should take into account the difficulty of amending the reform, the dynamic of the economic and social needs and lack of transparency, of involvement of civil society together with arbitrary reforms in some cases. Cohesion policy already includes an enabling condition and this could be extended in a limited reform-oriented instrument. Only reforms should be considered that are conductive to better absorption and management of funds and that help achieve the policy priorities relating to the funds. The imposition of arbitrary reform recommendations that do not contribute to the achievement of these objectives must be avoided.






Brussels, 27 February 2025.


The President


of the European Economic and Social Committee

Oliver RÖPKE
               





(1)  The future of European competitiveness: a competitiveness strategy for Europe; Draghi, Mario, Brussels, September 2024, based on an estimate by the European Commission which will certainly be specified very soon in the priority areas of the new European Commission for the period 2024-2029.

(2)  For example, The 9th Cohesion Report, European Commission, DG REGIO, February 2024.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2018/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)