Mission possible? : Managing closure, delivery and the Mid-Term Review

Tools

Jabri, Elena and van der Valk, Odilia (2025) Mission possible? : Managing closure, delivery and the Mid-Term Review. European Policies Research Centre Delft, Delft.

[thumbnail of Jabri-van-der-Valk-EPRC-2025-Managing-closure-delivery-and-the-Mid-Term-Review]
Preview
 Text. Filename: Jabri-van-der-Valk-EPRC-2025-Managing-closure-delivery-and-the-Mid-Term-Review.pdf
Final Published Version
License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 logo
Download (966kB)| Preview

Abstract

As the 2014-20 programmes move into their final stages, programme authorities are balancing closure with the accelerating implementation of the 2021-27 period and the demands of the 2025 Mid-Term Review (MTR). Closure is broadly on track, but progress is frequently slowed by late audits, indicator verification challenges and capacity constraints linked to overlapping programme cycles. Flexibility instruments such as STEP have helped ease timing and financing pressures, although they have also added new administrative and audit complexities. Implementation of the 2021-27 programmes remains modest in financial terms, though momentum is improving. Programme authorities report stronger project pipelines and gradual resolution of initial bottlenecks, supported by clearer procedures, targeted adjustments to calls and improved engagement with beneficiaries. Nonetheless, common challenges persist, including staffing shortages, IT system issues, evolving environmental and State aid requirements, and external pressures such as inflation and constrained co-financing. Territorial instruments show mixed progress. While some countries report smooth uptake due to mature governance structures and clear strategies, others face delays linked to complex approval processes, limited local capacity or competition from alternative funding streams. The 2025 MTR has become a defining moment. Initially expected to be a technical exercise, it was reshaped by the Commission’s April Communication, which encouraged Member States to reorient funding towards new EU priorities such as STEP, defence, affordable housing, water resilience and the energy transition. Responses were generally pragmatic: most authorities introduced only feasible, low-risk adjustments aligned with existing pipelines and competencies, while politically or administratively complex themes were set aside. Across the IQ-Net programmes, concerns were raised about frequent strategic changes, administrative burdens, and the risk of diluting the territorial mission of Cohesion Policy. Some authorities have called for clearer guidance, earlier planning and greater flexibility that is more predictable. Discussions on the future of Cohesion Policy are already taking shape. The key challenge ahead will be to balance strategic EU priorities with territorial needs, ensuring that Cohesion Policy remains both responsive and place-based.

CORE (COnnecting REpositories)