How to make NRP Plans a success
August 2025
The EU plans for the period after 2027 (see also earlier blog post in the next EU budget (Opens in a new window)). The proposed long-term budget for 2028–2034 introduces a revolutionary change: National and Regional Partnership Plans (NRP Plans). As part of the broader vision for a new integrated funding architecture, these Plans could transform how EU funds are allocated, who decides how they are spent, and the implications for territorial cohesion. At first glance, they promise streamlined governance and strategic integration. However, concerns have emerged about centralisation from the regional to the national level, and the dilution of the EU’s cohesion objectives.
Are the NRP Plans a bold step towards policy integration and comprehensive visions for the territories, or are they a technocratic smokescreen for entrenched sectoral silos and national control? What would be needed to ensure that the NRP Plans become truly integrated and work for cohesion and place-based development?
The Commission proposal
To enable a more coordinated, harmonised and effective implementation of EU funds, the MFF 2028–2034 proposal involves grouping nationally pre-allocated funds under the European Fund for Economic, Territorial, Social, Rural and Maritime Sustainable Prosperity and Security, which amounts to approximately 54% of the budget. This fund combines Cohesion Policy, the Common Agricultural Policy and other funds, including aspects of defence.
Most of this fund will be delivered or implemented through National and Regional Partnership Plans (NRP Plans). Each member state should submit an NRP Plan to the Commission by 31 January 2028. The Plans will bring together the various programmes currently run under ERDF, ESF+, EAFRD, EMFAF plus some more. Additionally, an Interreg Plan will bring together the various territorial cooperation programmes.
Partnership principle. Following the proposal, the partnership principle is a key feature of the implementation of the NRP Plans. The involvement of regional, local and urban public authorities, as well as civil society organisations and economic and social partners shall be ensured. However, it remains unclear what this will look like or how it should work.
Performance based payments. The new funding system including the NRP Plans will make EU funding conditional upon achieving outputs and fulfilling agreed conditions, regardless of reimbursement from member states to beneficiaries. This is essentially a shift towards a performance-based approach, with payments made against outputs rather than reimbursement of incurred costs.
Content of the NRP Plans. Each NRP Plan is envisaged as a comprehensive and coherent package, setting out the member state’s agenda and measures, i.e. reforms, investments or other interventions at a national or sub-national level. It shall detail how the measures contribute to all Fund objectives, both the more sectoral and the more place-oriented, taking into account the specific national, regional and territorial challenges. The measures shall also address the country-specific challenges identified in the European Semester and contribute to completing the internal market by including cross-border, transnational or multi-country reforms, investments and other interventions.
The member states may include regional and territorial chapters in their NRP Plans in collaboration with regional managing authorities. This largely resembles the option of having regional programmes, which will be referred to as 'chapters'. A 'Chapter of the NRP Plan' is a part of the NRP Plan focusing on a specific challenge, sector, policy or geographic area.
Early critiques and concerns
Reactions from the cohesion and regional development community have been swift and often critical. Among the concerns raised are:
Weakening the role of regions. Many view the shift of responsibility from regions to member states as a retreat from multi-level governance, which threatens the role of regional and local actors.
Disparities out of focus. There are fears that the plans will prioritise large-scale projects in already thriving areas, further marginalising lagging regions.
Sectoral turf wars. The merger of funding lines could simply relocate conflicts between agriculture, rural development and regional policy from the EU level to the national level.
Loss of budget transparency. Some view the NRP Plans as a way to hide a reduction in support for traditional cohesion constituencies.
Dilution of Treaty commitments. Critics argue that the plans sideline the EU’s explicit cohesion objectives.
Weak territorial logic. Notably, the absence of a territorial impact assessment has raised questions about whether the new system aligns with place-based policy principles.
While some critiques reflect legitimate concerns, others may stem from vested interests or institutional inertia. The key question now is how the NRP Plans can be transformed into effective tools for promoting both competitiveness and cohesion.
The potential of NRP Plans
With some distances the idea of the NRP Plans actually may also have its merits, and therefore we think it is worthwhile to see whether the shortcomings can be resolved and how the idea of the NRP Plans might be developed into a promising tool for promoting cohesion and place-based development in the EU.
First and foremost, the proposal of NRP Plans may have three key merits:
A genuinely integrated instrument. There have long been calls for a more integrated approach to regional and place-based development in order to overcome siloed sector policies. The NRP Plans pave the way for more integrated investment strategies, which could potentially bridge long-standing divides between policy domains, such as the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), as well as between rural and urban development. They could also ease coordination across funding streams.
A turn toward strategic planning. In previous periods, concerns were raised that many EU-funded programmes lacked clear strategies or plans, instead focusing on dispersing money with unclear links to place-based needs and how to support long-term development. The NRP Plans might be a step to a more coherent strategy or plan for structural investments and reforms within the member state and its regions, its urban and rural areas. Indeed, the NRP Plans could be used to harness the various opportunities available in different places, thereby promoting balanced national development.
A window for reform. Good governance and relevant reforms in public policies and governance arrangements have long been recognised as key to successful place-based development. The proposed NRP Plans can support investments and reforms in various areas of public policy and administration. With over 50 eligible reform areas listed in the intervention fields, there are ample opportunities to improve conditions for effective governance at local and regional levels. If used effectively, this could create many opportunities to improve the context and preconditions for the governance of local and regional development, as well as address persistent structural bottlenecks.
But potential alone is not enough. The challenge lies in the how.
Towards NRP Plans that work for cohesion
If the NRP Plans take the above points seriously, they could represent progress. Otherwise, the critics from the cohesion policy community may well materialise. Then, as today, sector policies will dominate and decide, ignoring cohesion objectives, particularly with regard to territorial impacts and cohesion. Key questions to be addressed are: Will it be obligatory to outline the aspired long term development as part of the NRP Plan? How will the plans be coordinated across national borders to promote coherence and synergies? How will it be assured that putting the plans together constitute a coherent EU map?
It is important to convince the Commission, EU policymakers, member states and regions that the NRP Plans should comply with key criteria in order to be successful, i.e. to promote cohesion and competitiveness in a balanced way.
The following is an initial proposal of elements for further reflection and discussion that could lead to key criteria for successful NRP Plans, i.e. plans that do not dilute or sideline cohesion objectives:
Multi-level governance. The national process of developing an NRP Plan must be conducted in an inclusive manner, giving all relevant actors from policy and civil society and sub-national levels a role and a say. The analysis, vision development, identification of measures and implementation of the Plan must be carried out in close cooperation with subnational stakeholders and the necessary partnerships. This must go beyond the mere formal fulfilment of the partnership principle. Partners must be co-owners of the Plan and have a real stake in it.
Cross-sector integration. The potential for cross-sector integration within the NRP Plans must be realised. Currently, the proposed structure of the NRP Plans and their link to underlying sector funds carries the risk that integration will only be nominal. The Plans and the processes for developing them must follow a genuinely integrated, cross-sectoral approach that is sensitive to the territorial dimension laid down in the NRP Plan. The national process of developing an NRP Plan must be comprehensive, giving all relevant sectors a role and a say. In other words, the integrative character of the Plans should be ensured through an integrative process.
Cross-border consultation. The NRP Plans, along with their vision and actions, should be discussed and coordinated with neighbouring member states and regions to ensure good coherence and synergy, and to prevent any insurmountable conflicts from arising across borders. Interlinkages between neighbouring NRP Plans need to be explored to prevent the EU from becoming a patchwork of seemingly disconnected national plans. Where NRP plans include regional chapters, these should also cover cross-border and broader transnational issues
Guiding spending within a long-term vision for the national territory. The NRP Plans must include an explicit vision or outlook for the desired development of the national territory and its regions, to guide budget implementation and spending. This vision should have a long-term dimension of at least 15 to 20 years and also include a cross-border and transnational perspective. The national territorial priorities for the Plan should be translated into long-term overall priorities for the development of regions, cities, rural areas and infrastructure, integrating the wider range of policies and funds envisaged.
Territorial analysis. The visionary part of the NRP Plan should be based on an analysis of the entire national territory and the diversity of opportunities and challenges in different regions, urban and rural areas. It also needs to address cross-border and transnational contexts. The analysis should also integrate the different sector policy areas and objectives of the Plan and set comprehensive priorities for actions, e.g. which regions, cities and rural areas should receive what investment.
Territorial impact assessment. The single NRP Plans as well as the collection of 27 NRP Plans plus the Interreg Plan should undergo a territorial impact assessment. This will ensure that their contribution to balanced development and territorial cohesion is clear, and that any unintended consequences leaving places behind can be identified and mitigated.
EU territorial reference framework. The NRP Plans of each member state needs to ensure compliance with EU policy and consistency across borders, thereby avoiding a non-coherent EU territory. In order to support the national work on visions and to perform a quality approval process, the Commission ideally needs an overall territorial reference framework for the EU. Preferably, this should be outlined by 2027 following an EU-wide process, to be able to guide the work on the NRP Plans in different member states. Putting all NRP Plans together must ensure a coherent EU map.
The above may be ambitious in the current policy climate, which seem to have little appetite for cohesion. But without a firm framework, the NRP Plans risk becoming an empty shell – overburdened with expectations and underpowered in implementation.
The opportunity is there: to reform EU spending in ways that balance performance with place, national priorities with shared values, and integration with inclusion. The NRP Plan system must be set up with firm content criteria as well as a territorially mindset, to promote a balance between cohesion and competitiveness. Whether that opportunity is seized or squandered remains to be seen.
by Kai Böhme, Peter Mehlbye, Derek Martin and Peter Schön
(Opens in a new window)