The European Parliament's REGI committee debate on the 2028–2034 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) revealed deep divisions on the future architecture of EU cohesion policy. On one side, Social Democrats (S&D) like Dragoş Benea and Carla Tavares strongly opposed merging cohesion funding into broader national plans, warning this would reduce budget predictability and politicize allocations. They advocated for separate, ring-fenced envelopes to maintain clear visibility and operational continuity. On the opposing side, Christian Democrats (EPP) such as Daniel Buda and centrist André Rougé supported more flexible merged frameworks, arguing they could allow for strategic prioritization but were warned might grant the European Commission excessive discretionary power.
This discussion unfolded during the REGI committee meeting on January 28, 2026, anchored around the interim report on the MFF proposal and the European Court of Auditors' critique of budget flexibility.
Concrete policy proposals emerged primarily from the S&D camp. Dragoş Benea demanded that cohesion policy's share be fixed at no less than 13/30 of the MFF total, with calls from Marcos Ros Sempere for restoring a 30% allocation benchmark. They also sought to cap unprogrammed funds at a maximum of 15%, markedly tighter than the Commission's 25% proposal, to bolster planning reliability. On governance, Carla Tavares and others insisted on stronger roles for local authorities, cautioning against centralization that would bypass regional actors and parliament. In contrast, EPP figures like Buda raised concerns about implementation delays, advocating a quicker N+3 rule over the Commission's proposed N+10 months for spending deadlines.
Proposals to maintain cohesion policy's independence and prevent it from competing with CAP or defense spending budgets underscored a significant cleavage between parties favoring integration of funds versus those defending programmatic separations. Greens and The Left further pushed for clearer earmarking, with Cristina Guarda proposing 50% of cohesion resources dedicated to climate and environmental goals.
From a stakeholder perspective, stricter earmarking and capped unprogrammed funds would benefit regional authorities and NGOs seeking transparency and predictability, but could limit the Commission's adaptive budget management and potentially increase administrative complexity for EU producers and taxpayers. Conversely, greater flexibility and merged funding could support efficiency and allow prioritization during emergencies but risk diluting funds' territorial impact and accountability.
Looking ahead, Parliament’s emphasis on clear quantitative targets and enhanced local participation signals an intent to strengthen cohesion policy’s distinct role within the MFF. The Commission appears open to dialogue but will face pressure to balance discretion with legal clarity and measurable outcomes. The European Court of Auditors’ critique on performance measurement underscores a growing demand for outcome-based, transparent budgeting.
With a March 5 deadline for committee amendments looming, the REGI debate sets the stage for intense negotiations on the future governance and financing of EU cohesion policy, highlighting enduring tensions between centralization versus subsidiarity and strategic flexibility versus predictability.