Cohesion Policy is at a point of transition. As the 2014-2020 programmes move towards final closure, attention is increasingly turning to the implementation of the 2021-2027 programming period, which has accelerated considerably in recent months. Meanwhile, programmes are beginning to implement the changes introduced through the Mid-Term Review (MTR).
For 2014-2020 programme closure, most programmes submitted their closure documents by the February 2026 deadline. But submission does not mean that the process is finished everywhere. Audits, technical corrections, indicator issues and final exchanges with the European Commission are still ongoing in some programmes. Flexibility measures have been introduced to ease financial and timing pressures, but administrative and audit-related difficulties remain.
Implementation of the 2021-2027 programmes has progressed substantially since the end of 2025, especially in terms of commitments and project selection. Yet progress remains very uneven across countries, regions and policy areas. While some programmes are already well into delivery, others continue to show a mismatch between committed funding and actual spending. Several factors influence how quickly commitments translate into expenditure. Administrative capacity is important, alongside the timing of calls, the maturity of project pipelines and the types of projects being supported. Procurement and regulatory requirements can slow down the delivery process, and interactions with other EU instruments (particularly the Recovery and Resilience Facility) can introduce additional complexity in some countries. It is therefore important to move beyond simple comparisons of commitment or spending rates and consider how programmes are moving from project selection to actual delivery, and what is helping or slowing that process.
The Mid-Term Review (MTR) has also played an important role in the unfolding of 2021-2027 programmes. Across the IQ-Net network, programmes responded very differently. Some made substantial reallocations towards priorities such as STEP, affordable housing, water resilience, defence and dual-use investments. Others made only limited changes, especially where funding was already largely committed or existing priorities were already broadly in line with the new priorities established by the EU. The MTR was generally regarded positively across the IQ-Net network, with authorities recognising the benefits of greater Cohesion Policy flexibility, and incentives such as additional pre-financing and extended eligibility periods were widely appreciated. 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 strategic change. The process also highlighted the administrative costs of introducing new priorities relatively late in the programming period.
Looking ahead, this leaves Cohesion Policy with a familiar but increasingly important challenge: how to respond to evolving EU priorities without losing sight of long-term, place-based development. The current programming period shows the value of being able to adapt, but also the limits of flexibility when it comes to late or time-restricted pressure. For flexibility to work in practice, programmes need enough time, clarity and capacity to turn new priorities into projects that can be delivered.
Drawing on desk research and fieldwork with IQ-Net programme authorities in Spring 2026, the Review Paper looks at how these developments are playing out across countries and regions. It brings together the latest evidence on 2014-2020 closure and 2021-2027 implementation, before taking a closer look at how the Mid-Term Review is moving from reprogramming into delivery and what this means for programmes in practice.