EUR 865 billion across 27 plans: the dispute over who will decide investments under the EU’s future budget

The Commission proposes that the nearly 540 programmes currently managed separately be brought together, primarily into one National and Regional Partnership Plan for each Member State. Raffaele Fitto says that regional and local authorities must be involved at every stage, while the European Committee of the Regions warns that the new architecture could concentrate decision-making at the level of national governments.

The proposal for the 2028–2034 EU budget changes not only the amounts available to regions, but also how decisions on investments will be made. The European Commission wants to move from nearly 540 programmes to 27 National and Regional Partnership Plans, one for each Member State, plus a separate plan for Interreg territorial cooperation. Regional and local authorities should be involved in drafting and implementation, but the plan is formally prepared and submitted by each country’s government, and the European Committee of the Regions is calling for stronger safeguards to ensure that territorial participation means effective decision-making power.

In brief

1.The Commission proposes approximately EUR 865 billion for the National and Regional Partnership Plans from the 2028–2034 budget.

2.Each Member State would prepare and submit a single plan to the Commission bringing together investments and reforms currently financed through several instruments, including cohesion, agriculture, social policies and migration.

3.The proposal requires countries to involve regional and local authorities through the principle of partnership and multilevel governance, but regional and territorial chapters appear in the text “where relevant”.

4.After the Commission’s assessment, each plan would be approved through a Council implementing decision. The European Parliament participates in adopting the general legislative framework, not in approving each individual plan.

5.The European Committee of the Regions warns that regional priorities could end up competing with one another within national packages and calls for the full involvement of local and regional authorities in preparing, implementing and evaluating the plans.

The change proposed by the Commission is structural. Instead of a large number of programmes with separate rules and processes, each country would have a National and Regional Partnership Plan bringing together reforms, investments and other interventions within a single framework. The Commission estimates that this architecture would reduce administrative costs, simplify access to funding and allow resources to be reallocated more quickly when new priorities or crises arise.

The plans would represent one of the largest components of the future European budget. The Commission’s proposal indicates approximately EUR 865 billion for this architecture. Around EUR 450 billion would be available for economic, social and territorial cohesion, while at least EUR 218 billion would be reserved for less-developed regions. Other components include support for agriculture and fisheries, social policies, migration, borders and security.

However, simplification raises the question of who sets priorities within each national package. The proposed legislative text states that each Member State prepares and submits the plan to the Commission. The plan must be developed in partnership with regional and local authorities, economic and social partners, civil society organisations and, where appropriate, academia.

The principle is not limited to formal consultation. The proposal calls for multilevel governance and a bottom-up approach. Regional, local, urban and rural authorities must be represented in partnership structures, and relevant stakeholders must be involved in preparing the plan, implementing and evaluating the chapters, and serving on monitoring committees.

Raffaele Fitto, Executive Vice-President of the Commission for Cohesion and Reforms, defended this architecture at the opening of European Week of Regions and Cities. He argued that partnership is a requirement at every stage and that regional and local authorities must have a role in designing, managing and implementing the plans, including at the level of the chapters concerning them.

There is, however, a difference between this principle and the formal distribution of powers. The Member State remains responsible for drafting and submitting the plan. The proposal provides for national and sectoral chapters, while regional and territorial chapters are included “where relevant”. After submission, the Commission assesses the document and, if the assessment is positive, proposes that the Council adopt an implementing decision.

This structure explains the concerns of territorial authorities. The European Committee of the Regions is calling for the involvement of regions not to depend solely on how each national government organises the process. In the position adopted in May, the Committee proposed amending the text so that regional and local authorities would be fully involved in preparing, implementing and evaluating the plan.

Kata Tüttő, President of the European Committee of the Regions, warned on 12 October that the new system could create competition between priorities within the same national packages. Cohesion investments could compete with agriculture, security, migration, energy, climate adaptation or other objectives for available resources. At the same time, regions could compete with one another for public and private investment.

Another concern concerns the geographical concentration of competitiveness investments. Tüttő argues that directing some instruments towards projects considered the most competitive could favour areas that are already economically strong, while regions with weaker infrastructure, skills or investment capacity risk falling behind. For this reason, the Committee of the Regions believes that cohesion policy must remain a distinct territorial instrument and not merely a component of a general competition for funding.

The Commission makes the opposite argument. In its architecture, combining funds allows plans to be adapted to the specific needs of each country and each region. The proposal retains minimum amounts for less-developed regions and requires countries to explain the division of responsibilities between national, regional and local authorities for programming, implementation, financial management, monitoring and evaluation.

The payment method would also change. The Commission proposes that transfers to countries be linked more closely to achieving agreed results, milestones and conditions than to reimbursing each eligible expenditure. This approach is presented as a way to accelerate implementation, but it increases the importance of the initial negotiation concerning the objectives, indicators and responsibilities set out in each plan.

For regions, the stakes are therefore broader than the overall level of the cohesion budget. What matters is who sets priority projects, who can request changes to the plan, what resources are territorially guaranteed and how much autonomy regional managing authorities retain after the different policies are brought together within a single national architecture.

The proposal is not yet definitive legislation. The European Parliament and the Council are negotiating the regulations that will establish the architecture of the 2028–2034 budget. The dispute over the role of regions is therefore taking place before the model is definitively established. If the proposed system enters into force, the first plans will have to be prepared before the new financial framework begins on 1 January 2028.

https://2eu.brussels/ro/news/865-de-miliarde-eur-in-27-de-planuri-disputa-privind-cine-va-decide-investitiile-din-viitorul-buget-ue