Cohesion Policy is entering a phase of significant change. As discussions on the shape of the post-2027 Cohesion Policy progress, exchanging experience on programme management is especially important for national and regional authorities across Europe. Learning from how others are responding to common challenges can help authorities address implementation issues and contribute their perspectives to the preparation of the National and Regional Partnership Plans (NRPPs) for 2028-2034.
For three decades, the IQ-Net network has provided a space for Managing Authorities, Intermediate Bodies and Coordination Units to discuss practices, report emerging challenges and reflect on how Cohesion Policy funds can be implemented effectively. This collaborative approach was at the heart of the 60th IQ-Net Conference, held on 18-20 May 2026 in Prague, Czechia. Bringing together programme authorities from across Europe, the Conference provided an opportunity to take stock of current programme developments while also looking ahead to the future direction of Cohesion Policy beyond 2027.
One deadline after another: closure, delivery and reprogramming
The first session of the conference examined the challenge of managing the closure of the previous programming period, advancing implementation of the current one and, increasingly, preparing for the future.
The Review Paper, “One Deadline After Another: Cohesion Policy between closure, delivery and reprogramming”, authored by Eléna Jabri and Virginia Arena (EPRC Delft), examines how these pressures are playing out across countries and regions. It brings together the latest evidence on the closure of the 2014-2020 programmes and implementation of the 2021-2027 period, as well as looking at how changes introduced through the Mid-Term Review are being put into practice.
Concerning the 2014-2020 programme closure, most programmes submitted their closure documents by the February 2026 deadline, even though administrative and audit-related difficulties persist in some cases.
Implementation of the 2021-2027 programmes has progressed significantly since December 2025, but progress remains uneven across countries, regions and policy areas. The degree to which commitments translate into expenditure depends on a range of factors. Administrative capacity is important, alongside the timing of calls, the maturity of project pipelines and the types of projects being supported.
The Mid-Term Review (MTR) has also played an important role to the 2021-2027 programmes. Some programmes made significant reallocations towards priorities such as STEP, affordable housing, water resilience, defence and dual-use investments while others made more limited changes, especially where funding was already committed or existing priorities were broadly in line with the new EU priorities. In general, the MTR was regarded positively, with authorities valuing the additional flexibility and incentives such as additional pre-financing and extended eligibility periods. In practice, however, these measures often helped programmes to manage immediate delivery pressures, such as N+3 compliance, liquidity and timing risk, rather than act as catalyst for major strategic change.
Preparing for a new delivery model
The future of Cohesion Policy post 2027 was another major focus of the Conference. The Thematic Paper, “Cohesion Policy and NRPPs 2028-2034: Preparing for a New Delivery Model” by Carlos Mendez, Stefan Kah and Odilia Van der Valk (EPRC Delft), explores the emerging post-2027 framework as Member States begin preparing National and Regional Partnership Plans (NRPPs) while negotiations on the future regulatory and budgetary framework continue.
Conference discussions showed that uncertainty around budgets, institutional structures and the future role of regions is affecting preparations. Many participants were concerned that the proposed model could lead to greater centralisation and reduce the influence of regional authorities.
Governance was one of the most debated aspects of the NRPP model. Programme authorities generally favour continuity and the retention of existing Cohesion Policy structures and systems. There are concerns that a single-plan approach and stronger national coordination could weaken regional management and place-based delivery. Discussions showed broad support for preserving a meaningful role for regions, particularly in countries with diverse territorial needs and decentralised management, while also recognising the complexity that can come with highly fragmented governance arrangements.
Performance is another important element of the proposed framework. A stronger focus on performance is broadly supported in principle, but programme authorities see challenges in putting the EU proposals into practice. Setting fixed milestones and targets can be difficult, particularly when linked to disbursement of funding. Participants noted that this could encourage more conservative project choices and make authorities less willing to support innovative or higher-risk interventions.
Greater budgetary flexibility was also generally welcomed, particularly where it allows programmes to respond to emerging challenges. However, authorities expressed concerns about the proposed 25 percent flexibility reserve and its potential implications for planning certainty and the development of long-term project pipelines.
Expectations around simplification are also cautious. A recurring concern was that reducing complexity at EU level may simply move some of that complexity to programming, coordination, monitoring, verification and audit at national and regional levels. Several participants questioned whether the proposed architecture and simplification measures would be felt by the authorities and beneficiaries responsible for implementation.
Finally, discussions highlighted the importance of operational guidance, training and capacity building. The success of a new delivery model will depend not only on its overall design, but also on clear rules, workable methodologies and implementation arrangements that authorities can apply in practice.
Learning from the current period
As discussions on the future of Cohesion Policy continue, the two papers highlight an important challenge: how to respond to evolving EU priorities while safeguarding long-term place-based development. The experience from the current programming period shows the value of flexibility but also its limitations when it comes to late changes or tight timelines. For flexibility to work in practice, programmes need enough time, clarity and capacity to turn new priorities into projects that can be delivered. The Prague Conference emphasised the value of spaces like IQ-Net, where programmes can compare experience, learn from different practices and discuss solutions to common challenges. This exchange is particularly valuable at a time of change, when insights from current and previous programme periods can inform the design and delivery of effective future Cohesion Policy.