Cohesion policy mid-term review (2025)

Key points

The EESC:

• acknowledges, and agrees with, the need for a mid-term review of cohesion policy for the period 2021-2027 due to the radical change in conditions and circumstances compared to those that prevailed when the rules governing the policy were adopted;
• recognises that the review of cohesion policy for this period has been the broadest and most thorough so far in the history of this policy. Even the NGEU instrument, established prior to this review due to the COVID-19 pandemic, has not been enough to properly meet the new common needs of the European Union;
• accepts that increased needs – for example in terms of competitiveness, strengthening defence capabilities and ensuring strategic autonomy – make it necessary to shift priorities towards these areas within cohesion policy as well;
• sees the mid-term review of cohesion policy as an indication of what shape cohesion policy will take in the post-2027 MFF, with intensive preparations currently under way;
• calls for the mid-term review of cohesion policy to functionally synergise with and complement the revision of the MFF as a whole, where the issues of competitiveness, strengthening defence capabilities and ensuring the EU’s strategic autonomy also play a key role;
• recommends that the mid-term review of cohesion policy should not focus exclusively on paying greater attention to the new thematic priorities, but should also bring about a significant shift in funding towards the use of financial instruments and thus towards more efficient and targeted use of the available funding allocations;
• welcomes the efforts being made to provide financial incentives and stimuli to implement projects under the strategic priorities, in the form of an expanded right to pre-financing and larger advance payments, or even zero contribution from national funding;
• draws attention to the fact that, when a change is adopted during the programming period, it favours those Member States that have a slower absorption rate and thus still have a larger share of their initial allocation, compared to those that have tried to make continuous use of their allocation since the start of the programming period. When it comes to solving the current problems, the 15% limit appears to be an overly strict requirement for Member States;
• notes that the mid-term review of cohesion policy, just like the revision of the MFF as a whole, focuses exclusively on the expenditure side of the EU budget and completely omits its revenue;
• stresses, that, in order to make effective and rational use of financial resources in the context of the mid-term review of cohesion policy, it is essential to carefully determine the territorial dimension of the new priorities, in line with the subsidiarity principle.