Skip to content
DRAFT REPORT (2024/2106(INI))

On possibilities for simplification of cohesion funds

REGI-PR-769947

Committee on Regional Development · Rapporteur: Vladimir Prebilič

Official HTML ↗ PDF DOCX
✦ In shortFull text
✦ In short · AI summary of this text, generated 4 Sept 2026

Written by a language model from the full text only; every figure comes from the text. The paragraph links open the paragraph a statement rests on — check the text itself before relying on it.

This draft report on possibilities for simplification of cohesion funds recalls the role of cohesion policy, acknowledges existing simplifications, and makes recommendations for the future. It calls for a bottom-up approach, fewer funds, a single set of rules, an integrated IT interface, and mandatory consultation of local and regional authorities. It suggests exploring territorial impact assessments, well-being indicators, earmarking for CLLD and ITI, and opposes top-down centralisation. It calls for increased pre-financing, binding code of conduct, measures against double funding, direct funding for cities, administrative capacity, and preventive controls. It also suggests consolidating funds, including reintegrating EAFRD into the CPR.

Committee position. The rapporteur proposes a resolution that acknowledges existing simplifications but calls for further measures, including bottom-up approach, fewer funds, and binding involvement of LRAs.

Key points

  1. Recalls cohesion policy's role in addressing emergencies and stresses keeping its long-term investment and place-based rationale.
  2. Acknowledges simplifications in 2021-2027 but notes that frequent regulatory changes and gold-plating have weakened them.
  3. Calls on the Commission to promote a bottom-up approach and ensure mandatory consultation of LRAs, civil society, and SMEs.
  4. Considers that fewer funds, a single set of rules, and a single IT interface could make policy more flexible.
  5. Stresses obligatory involvement of LRAs in all stages as a precondition for successful simplification.
  6. Calls for exploring territorial impact assessments in the European Semester and well-being indices to complement GDP.
  7. Suggests exploring mandatory allocation of a share of the budget to CLLD and ITI.
  8. Opposes top-down centralisation, acknowledges positive RRF elements, but notes issues with direct management.
  9. Cautions against one-size-fits-all performance-based mechanisms for 2028-2034, considering sector specificities.
  10. Calls for significant and tailored increase in pre-financing to address liquidity problems for beneficiaries.
  11. Suggests integrating a revised European Code of Conduct into the CPR to ensure binding nature.
  12. Calls for measures to prevent double funding, ensure interoperability of data-mining tools, and balance simplification with budget protection.

Who is affected

  • Local and regional authorities: would be mandatorily consulted and involved in all stages of projects.
  • Beneficiaries such as municipalities: would benefit from increased pre-financing and simpler rules.
  • Managing authorities and intermediary bodies: would face reduced administrative burdens and clearer rules.
  • Cities: could receive direct funding in the next multiannual financial framework.

Figures and deadlines

  • 54 to 58 % of total public investments are carried out by local and regional authorities.

Legal basis: Articles 4, 162, 174 to 178, and 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union