Cohesion Policy is entering a critical phase. Member States and programme authorities are being asked to prepare for a fundamental reshaping of the policy after 2027. The proposed National and Regional Partnership Plans (NRPPs) would significantly change how EU investment is programmed, governed, financed and assessed, bringing together multiple policy areas within a single national planning framework and linking payments more closely to milestones, targets and outputs.
Almost one year after the Commission’s proposals for the 2028-34 MFF and Cohesion Policy regulatory framework were tabled, attention is shifting to the practical implications and how Member States and regions can prepare Plans, organise governance, define institutional responsibilities, manage performance-based delivery, and preserve the territorial logic of Cohesion Policy within a more integrated framework.
The preparation of NRPPs is taking place under conditions of considerable uncertainty. Regulatory negotiations on the MFF and sectoral legislation are ongoing, future allocations are not yet settled, and in many Member States the designation of lead coordinating bodies, Managing Authorities and Intermediate Bodies remains undecided. In some cases, preparatory work has begun through internal coordination, scenario-building, working groups, analytical studies and early priority identification. In others, preparation remains limited or informal. This reflects the difficulty of planning early enough to avoid delays, while avoiding premature decisions before the final regulatory, financial and institutional parameters are known.
The governance implications are significant. The single-plan model could improve coordination across funds, sectors and reforms, but it also raises concerns about centralisation, administration, regional involvement and the continuity of established delivery systems. The possible use of sectoral, thematic or regional chapters will shape the future role of national and regional authorities and intermediate bodies. The integration of Cohesion Policy with CAP, Home Funds, the Social Climate Fund and other policy areas also raises practical questions about how systems with different objectives, legal bases, payment models and administrative traditions can operate within one framework.
The proposed performance framework is potentially important for aligning priorities and incentivising a stronger focus on outputs and potentially results, but also adds complexity. Milestones, targets, outputs, cost estimates, pay-out values and verification arrangements would need to be defined at the outset and monitored throughout implementation. While this could strengthen results orientation, programme authorities question whether the framework will be flexible enough to accommodate territorial diversity, innovative projects, procurement delays and changing economic conditions. There are also concerns that performance-based payments, Financing Not Linked to Costs and Simplified Cost Options may not reduce administrative burden if traditional checks on procurement, State aid, double-funding and sound financial management continue in parallel at the same intensity.
Budgetary flexibility and simplification are similarly viewed with caution. Some unprogrammed flexibility is welcomed where it allows Plans to adapt to new priorities or implementation problems. However, the proposed flexibility amount, the role of the mid-term review and the treatment of non-programmed resources raise concerns about predictability, project pipelines and regional influence over funding decisions. Similarly, the objective of simplification is widely supported, but IQ-Net programme authorities question whether complexity will really be reduced or instead shifted into programming, negotiation, costing, monitoring, audit and national coordination.
This report examines these issues through the experience and expectations of IQ-Net programme authorities. Drawing on desk research and fieldwork conducted in Spring 2026, it assesses the state of NRPP preparation, emerging governance choices, the design and feasibility of the performance framework, the implications of budgetary flexibility, and the prospects for simplification. The analysis focuses on how the proposed reforms may operate in practice across different administrative, territorial and institutional contexts. A key conclusion is that there is support for the broad objectives of greater strategic coherence, adaptability, performance orientation and simplification. However, the new framework will only work in practice if it provides clear rules, proportionate requirements, transparency and meaningful multilevel governance and capacity.