Joachim Streit / Jan 2026
European Commissioner Michael McGrath. Photo: European Union 2025
In the world dominated by the news on Trump it is easy to forget what happens in our own backyard. And while everyone is distracted, we might be losing the EU cohesion policy, at least the way we knew it for the last 20 years.
In July 2025 Commission President von der Leyen proposed a new Multiannual Financial Framework for 2027-2034. The long-awaited proposal turned out to be a major disappointment for the members of the Regional Committee of the European Parliament (REGI). Their main concern? - Bundling together of multitudes of funds and initiatives which are currently managed under separate budgetary instruments.
The so-called new “national and regional partnership plans (NRPPs)” are supposed to regroup common agricultural policy, industrial base, defence, digital transition, cohesion, innovation, housing, social affairs, education, migration, disaster management, food quality and even such fundamental things as democracy, the rule of law, the quality of public administration... So, instead of carefully defined funding priorities, the Commission proposed a maxi-fund, where regional development will have to compete with security, border management, industry and so on.
For me, it is unheard of that regional cohesion gets lost in the sea of other priorities. The stakes are too high when it comes to the quality of life of citizens living in local communities. And these are concrete numbers which tell us this: today regional policy is roughly one third of the EU budget, covering rural areas representing more than 80 % of total EU territory. It is responsible for the quality of life of roughly 60% of the EU population who live in small towns and rural areas. The Commission also knows these numbers though. The reason why it deliberately de-prioritises cohesion remains a mystery.
Like in other Member States, cohesion policy is also responsible for development in 400 German districts, including the ones in Rhineland-Pfalz. This is why this question is so close to my heart. Cohesion Policy traditionally helped business competitiveness, economic growth, sustainable development and served the improvements to citizens’ quality of life. To maintain the cohesion priority high, I brought a series of amendments as the shadow rapporteur in the REGI committee.
They go strongly against the centralisation of the EU funds in the hands of national governments and bundling in single NRPPs. Regional policy must remain what it is meant to be - regional, and not telecommanded by the national government. Centralised plans proposed by the Commission make the money fully dependent on national governments – this will discourage private investments which this sector absolutely needs.
Furthermore, I propose provisions to save cohesion resources from the power grab: we need to guarantee direct funding to local and regional authorities. Only in this way can we make sure that regions do not fall victims of political rivalry. Just ask yourself an easy question: would Viktor Orbán be interested in channelling EU funds to mayors from opposition parties? The answer is clear. And clear is the need for regions to get resources directly from the EU.
There are serious risks coming from centralised NRPPs: politicisation, clientelism, nepotism. National governments naturally would prioritise the spending which also brings political benefits to the existing government administration. This risk of politicisation would endanger the political plurality and subsidiarity, which are at the heart of the EU integration project. Moreover, it would also impinge on the existing powers of the regions in terms of their independent determination of regional development priorities. We are speaking among others of essential services here, like healthcare, childcare and elderly care - we cannot make them dependent on the political nitty-gritty.
There is however another big risk related to NRPPs - the risk of corruption and maladministration. Every Euro spent must be traceable and be accounted for. This exercise becomes very difficult with an opaque maxi-fund, compared to the previous cohesion structure. If the Commission does not want to make a gift to mafias by presenting this proposal, it needs to reinforce the audit and oversight.
But probably the most important novelty which I bring as the shadow rapporteur on this REGI opinion is the connectivity principle - a principle known in Germany, but not so well-known in Brussels. The idea is that new EU legal obligations must always come with money needed for implementation. Implementing EU norms can entail very high costs for municipalities, particularly in remote or sparsely populated areas. They must be equipped under the new MFF with sufficient financial resources to implement EU law.
It must be clearly said that the regions are not begging for money, they just claim their due part. This is why it is our minimal duty to guarantee to the local population an easy access to the EU funds. The application procedure for the EU funds should be much easier and not so costly, as it is today. However, the Commission’s proposal implies that in the end the final beneficiaries will have to play the game of shells, guessing under which container they might find the funds for their projects. This is not the future we want for our regions.
EU cohesion policy needs heroes. I am joined by many colleagues in this battle, a battle which promises long working hours, intense debates with European Commissioners and discussions with people on the ground. But for me, every effort is worth it, if we think of the local citizens and their essential needs. For my whole professional life I have been guided by the principle “knowledge of the locality is the soul of the service”. Or how they say it in German “Die Kenntnis der Örtlichkeit ist die Seele des Dienstes”.
EU Commissioners should also get inspiration from these words, visit places in Europe, go to speak to the local authorities, see how much people need cohesion funds on the ground - only this way can the EU deliver results where they are most needed. Only this way will the EU integration project maintain its legitimacy and usefulness in the eyes of constituents.
