Interview with Luca Menesini - CoR rapporteur on the performance framework regulation 2028-34

You are the CoR rapporteur on the new performance framework regulation included in the MFF 2028-34 proposal. It sounds very technical, could you explain why this topic is so important?

At first glance, the performance framework regulation looks like a technical exercise about indicators and reporting. In reality, it is deeply political, because it will shape how the EU budget defines success, allocates funding, and enforces priorities across all policies.

This regulation does not merely measure spending efficiency; it also sets the principles that determine what the EU budget is for. As highlighted in the CoR draft opinion I am working on, which was adopted in COTER commission on 5 February, the European Commission's proposed governance model risks ending regional policy and common European level playing field by fostering a nationalisation of EU finances, and by weakening the place of regions and cities in EU funding delivery. In that sense, the framework could alter, in a bad way, the balance between EU objectives, national priorities, and territorial cohesion.

Moreover, the performance framework affects administrative burden, innovation capacity, and territorial fairness. If poorly designed, it could discourage innovative projects and reduce the added value of cohesion and rural development policies.

What are the main concerns and requests central to the opinion you are working on?

The opinion focuses on three core concerns:

1. Preventing the renationalisation of Cohesion Policy.
The proposed framework risks shifting control away from managing authorities and regional actors toward national-level performance plans, undermining place-based policy and territorial diversity.

2. Avoiding false simplification and excessive bureaucracy.
While framed as simplification, evidence from managing authorities suggests the system may increase administrative burdens, as performance reporting would stack on top of existing audit and spending controls, not replace them.

3. Protecting innovation, risk-taking, and territorial added value.
Overly rigid indicators and standardised targets risk penalising experimentation, discouraging innovative local projects, and reducing cohesion policy to box-ticking rather than impact.

To address this, the opinion calls for:

· A new horizontal principle: 'do no harm to cohesion', ensuring all EU budget instruments support territorial cohesion - not only cohesion funds. And this should apply to all headings, including competitiveness and innovation.

· Stronger application of subsidiarity, guaranteeing regional and local authorities' involvement in National and Regional Plans.

· Real simplification, including adequate technical assistance funding, especially for smaller municipalities.

· Transitional periods to avoid implementation shocks that could delay funding and harm beneficiaries.

Do you have the feeling that the European Parliament is listening to the voice of regions and cities in this phase? How close are you working with its members?

There is growing awareness in the European Parliament that the future of Cohesion Policy and EU budget governance cannot be shaped without regions and cities. We are working closely with members of the European Parliament (MEPs) across political groups, particularly those engaged in Regional Development, Agriculture and Rural Development, and Budgets committees, and with rapporteurs on related files. There is convergence on key concerns: avoiding excessive centralisation, safeguarding cohesion, and maintaining local flexibility.

That said, the institutional balance remains delicate. The Parliament is receptive, but strong, coordinated input from territorial actors remains essential. The CoR's role is precisely to translate territorial realities into legislative impact, and we are reinforcing alliances with Parliament to ensure local and regional voices are reflected in negotiations.

In October, you participated in the #CohesionAlliance public protest against the proposed nationalisation of the Cohesion Policy. Since then, a few months have passed. European Commission's President Ursula von der Leyen has sent two letters proposing amendments to the initial proposal. However, it appears that achieving unanimity among national governments remains a challenge. Do you believe the negotiations are heading in the right direction?

The mobilisation of regions and cities, including through the #CohesionAlliance, has already had a tangible political impact. The Commission's follow-up letters and proposed adjustments signal that pressure from territories and progressive actors matters.

However, risks remain. Achieving unanimity among Member States is difficult, and some governments continue to push for greater national control over EU funds, which could weaken cohesion, reduce territorial fairness, and fragment EU solidarity. Progress is possible - but only if political pressure continues. The direction of travel must remain clear: Cohesion Policy must stay European, place-based, and territorially anchored - not transformed into a set of national spending envelopes.

The performance framework regulation is therefore not a technical footnote, but one of the battlegrounds that will determine whether the EU budget remains a tool for convergence and solidarity, or becomes a mechanism of national fragmentation.

At this stage, despite an increasingly challenging geopolitical context, it still appears that President von der Leyen and several Member States have not fully grasped that a stronger Europe necessarily requires a stronger EU budget, and that a more competitive Europe can only be built if all regions are empowered to compete. Abandoning certain territories or underfunding key sectors will not make Europe stronger - it will make it more fragmented, more unequal, and ultimately more vulnerable.

[The interview was published in the 15th edition of the #CohesionAlliance newsletter]