Towards a cohesion dimension of EU policies post 2027

July 2025  

• Innovate the use of a place-based approach

• National and regional partnership plans and a EU competitiveness fund?

• A territorial development vision for the EU

European long-term policy considerations have reached a certain level of maturity. In a few weeks, the European Commission will table its proposal. As stakeholders across the EU prepare for the discussion, we have also started to organise our arguments. Importantly, EU cohesion policy looks to continue, however in a new, integrated relationship with other EU funds and probably under a different heading. And, even more promising, a territorial and place-based policy dimension is included as part of EU’s future advancement towards cohesion.

Three important policy markers

Recently three important documents have indicated what European Cohesion Policy could or should contain post 2027.

1.   Mid-term review and a modernised Cohesion Policy

Earlier this year, and as a step in the preparation of future EU policy financing, the European Commission launched a Communication including a mid-term review of cohesion policy 2020-27, detailing several opportunities for a modernised the policy.

The review provides recommendations and new options for the implementation of ongoing programmes and the funding priorities to pursue by member states and regions towards 2027.

The review urges member states and regions to reinforce the role of cities in delivering on the many EU objectives, and to contribute concretely to the New European Bauhaus. In this context, the Commission intends to launch an ambitious Urban Agenda.

Also, the well-known special situation for islands and outermost regions is reiterated in the mid-term review, where the Commission announced a consultation on the development of a Strategy for Islands and on an updated Strategy for Outermost Regions. And, for the Eastern border regions of the EU – bordering Russia, Belarus and Ukraine – the Commission proposes more favourable co-financing possibilities towards 2027.

You can obtain full information about the EC Communication and the mid-term review [here (S'ouvre dans une nouvelle fenêtre)].

2.   Commission President’s outlook beyond 2027

On 20 May 2025, the Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, gave a speech on EU policy perspectives beyond 2027 emphasising the need for flexibility, simplicity and coherence in funding. It is intended to further enhance the principles of cohesion to achieve higher impact, more effectiveness, through simple and flexible rules, following a place-based approach and with tailored policies.

In this endeavour, it is envisaged to strengthen the principle of EU partnership with national, regional and local authorities, where regions and cities should have an important role to play in programming and thereby in improving tailored, place-based interventions, as no single recipe exists for all places.

The Commission’s wish to strengthen coherence and coordination includes a single gateway to EU funds, or maybe two. On the one hand, there are the national and regional partnership plans, which are expected to integrate a wide range of funds currently linked to cohesion policy. On the other hand, a European competitiveness fund will be created. It remains to be seen how the division of labour will be organised between the two.

One can only guess how such plans and the single EU fund would operate, how the mix of sectoral and territorial EU funding priorities could be implemented in a coherent way without clear overall European ideas and visions. Here seems to be a missing link in the EU logic, where more needs to be done.

The entire speech of the President of the Commission is available [here (S'ouvre dans une nouvelle fenêtre)].

3.   Informal member state commitments

On 21 May 2025 in Poland, the Informal meeting of Ministers for Cohesion Policy, Territorial Development and Urban Matters called on the Commission to ensure that the EU strategic, legislative and financial frameworks for post 2027 as well as current policy actions, include a territorial dimension and effectively contribute to addressing the Challenges and Joint EU Priorities.

The conclusions of ministers, among others, reiterate the need for territorial impact assessment, a new policy agenda for cities, active partnerships with regions, cities and functional areas, closer attention to cities and urban matters and synergies among EU policies.

Ministers committed themselves to improve coordination and apply territorial impact analyses of national sector policies, and to advance the Territorial Agenda principles, including a European territorial development vision.

The conclusions from the Informal Meeting of Ministers for Cohesion Policy, Territorial Development and Urban Matters can be accessed [here (S'ouvre dans une nouvelle fenêtre)].

Three major observations that need action

The policy markers mentioned above give rise to many more considerations related to European Cohesion Policy post 2027 than can be covered by this blog, such as financial mechanisms and management issues, etc.

In the following, focus is on key observations seen from the perspective of territorial cohesion, for the development of places and the EU territory as such.

Three major observations and corresponding recommendations are important to address in the further policy dialogue on defining Cohesion Funds Policy post 2027.

1.   The use of the place-based approach needs clarity and innovation

From a territorial cohesion perspective, it is significant, and positive to note, that the EC Communication highlights the need to “foster prosperity and the right to stay in all territories, with tailored policies for each place”. Non-urban territories (rural, inner and remote) and urban areas shall be given explicit attention.

However, a major deficit is that the mid-term review fails to connect the ambitions on the development of places with the more sectoral funding priorities mentioned. These priorities promote investment in innovation, competitiveness, decarbonisation, defence and security, housing, water resilience, and energy transition.

Looking ahead, the Commission needs to ensure strong links and interaction between the many funding priorities and the territorial diversity of potentials and needs of places. It is about finding the added value by crossing a vertical (sectoral) and horizontal (place-based) approach to development and to consider territorial impact ex-ante.

More strategic considerations are needed to determine where targeted investments would benefit development and territorial cohesion the most. Innovative methods for applying a place-based approach in practice, preferably with examples, are in high demand as is more EC guidance and know-how transfer towards member states and regions.

More clarity on how to integrate and apply the place-based approach would be beneficial for European policy development as such, for sector policies and for the spending of funds allocated to European Cohesion Policy post 2027.   

2.   Partnership plans and integrated EU funds needs clarity and guidance

As cited, a European competitiveness fund and national and regional partnership plans seem to be in the pipeline. It is rumoured that the main proposal plans shall integrate all cohesion policy funds and programmes as well as other instruments and that each should act as a strategic reference framework. As the wording has recently changed from 'national plans' to 'national and regional partnership plans', it remains to be seen how many of these plans there will be and what their geographical coverage will be. Let’s assume there will be one plan per member state.

A crucial challenge from a territorial perspective - should the Commission, EU member states and regions continue towards an EU funding regime with these plans and a competitiveness fund - is then to:

• ensure that the plans reflect and comply with European level aspirations,

• guarantee coherence across national borders, and stimulate territorial cooperation across borders,

• include strategic views on the development of the different places within the national territory and within the regions, and 

• make certain the plans offer a clever selection of the EU funding priorities calibrated to the diversity of places.

Such a multi-level coordinated approach, including local actors, would lead to place-based investments (or investment mixes) that benefit businesses and people according to the needs and opportunities on the ground. And, it would benefit cohesion on the national territory and reflect European level ambitions.

The national level will need EU guidelines for the content of the plan, and for the cooperation of member states and regions. Here it is crucial that the plans take a strategic outset by looking at the territorial entity and analysing the needs and opportunities of urban and non-urban places, as well as parts of national/regional territories in need of special attention.

This first strategic part of the plans should result in clear development perspectives at national/regional level that promote competitiveness in a balanced way between places. This strategy could then function as a reference for concrete interventions and projects.

Based on the common strategic knowledge and ambition of member states and regions, the EU level sectoral funding priorities should one by one be considered for their potential contribution to and impact of different urban and non-urban places within the national territory.

The sectoral funding priorities would in this way perform as an analytical grid in preparing the operational part of the national plan and be used to find and decide the most promising mix of priorities for different places that in turn could be transformed into concrete projects eligible for the European Competitiveness Fund.

It goes without saying, that to reach a high-quality level of the plans, it will be very important that human resource capacity for strategy development, for analysing opportunities and the needs of places, and for interlinking sectoral and territorial funding priorities are present in member states and regions. Therefore, recommendations on future capacity building in member states and regions that match the idea of plans, need to ensure that more funding-oriented administrators, where necessary, will be complemented with more analytical and strategic oriented collaborators. 

3.   The overall EU strategic outlook is lacking 

To enable all places to foster prosperity and offer attractive living conditions through tailored policies, it is inevitable to have an overall reference framework that offers clarity on the European level aspirations for the EU territory. This would offer member states and regions valuable input for the planning processes and for being able to strengthen the interaction between more sectoral and more territorial funding priorities.

The key is not only to address what type of investment and how best to implement it, as stated in the speech by the Commission President in her recent speech, but also be strategically clear on where, in which places investments should take place to best promote competitiveness and cohesion aims.

On that backdrop, ministers committed themselves to “initiate the renewal of the Territorial Agenda 2030 in the context of the European territorial development vision, with a view to employing it as a tool in support of the delivery of the vision and a response to the Challenges, in close cooperation with the European Commission, between the Member States, Partner States, regions and relevant intergovernmental groups such as the NTCCP and UDG.” It is proposed that ESPON organise a foresight study and provide the evidence base for the territorial development vision. 

The recognition at ministerial level of the need for a territorial development vision or strategy for the EU is a welcome and major new input to European policy development and to the further dialogue and clarity on future of European Cohesion Policy post 2027.  

The commitment of Ministers for Cohesion Policy, Territorial Development and Urban Matters of contributing to a vision for territorial development should be considered seriously as an important and innovative element to the decision-making at EU and national levels as well as in regions and cities. The Commission is therefore urged to commit and contribute to the elaboration of a European territorial development vision or strategy as proposed. This would in turn contribute to the implementation of a European Competitiveness Fund post 2027.

In conclusion

It is positive that the Commission, in forward-looking public considerations, explicitly expresses a sensitivity to territories, cities and places in line with the aim of territorial cohesion. However, there is a need to further develop and innovate the execution of a place-based approach.

Should the EU decide on the proposed national and regional partnership plans and the competitiveness fund for the  post 2027 period, a clever and integrative conceptualisation of these plans and also their links to the competitiveness fund will be crucial.

It will be inevitable to guide member states and regions on the best process and expected content of the plans. A close interplay between sectoral funding priorities and territorial funding priorities is key to determine what should receive investment, how it should be implemented and where, at what place specific investments should be carried through.

Moreover, it will be crucial to request that the plans include a strategic view on the national territory and its regions as basis for tailoring the mix of priorities most relevant for the individual places within the member state.

However, national strategic considerations require greater clarity on visions and strategies on the long-term perspectives for the EU, including for the development of its territory and places. The informal invitation of member states to elaborate a vision for territorial development should therefore be welcomed by all relevant partners, including the Commission, and considered as a valuable prerequisite for future EU competitiveness and cohesion.

Without a clear strategic vision of tomorrow, it is impossible to take the right decisions today.   

by Peter Mehlbye, Kai Böhme, Derek Martin and Peter Schön

(S'ouvre dans une nouvelle fenêtre)

(S'ouvre dans une nouvelle fenêtre)