From Turin to Milan: balances and proposals in the debate on the future of European funds
A debate that widens and consolidates
After Turin, the discussion on the new European programming moves to Milan. Last May 25, a new meeting, promoted by Fondazione Cariplo together with the Lombardy Region and ANCI Lombardia, involved representatives of the main European institutions, representatives of public administrations, foundations and the third sector.
The event consisted of institutional speeches and contributions from European institutions, a session dedicated to the future of cohesion policy and social policies, and a concluding one on the role of local authorities, regions, the Third Sector and foundations. It took up and deepened themes that had already emerged in recent months – including in the pages of EUknow.it – confirming an increasingly shared perception: the 2028-2034 cycle of European funds will be profoundly different from the current one. Not only in the structure of the programs, but in the very way European resources are designed, programmed and used.
The event opened with an infographic video on the upcoming EU budget 2028-2034, effectively capturing its challenges, features, milestones, and questions now at the heart of the debate.
A full recording of the event“The Future of European Programming” can be reviewed at this link.
A new MFF: fewer (relative) resources, more pressure
One of the first elements to emerge concerns the overall budget of the European Union. Despite the growing challenges of Europe and local organisations, the level of the budget remains contained and in line with the positions of the more prudent member states. The European Parliament has proposed a value of 1.27 percent of European Gross National Income (excluding NGEU debt repayment), an increase of about 10 percent compared to the European Commission’s original proposal.
In concrete terms, this means more pressure on available resources and more competition among policy priorities and between beneficiaries. At the same time, an increasing share of the funds will be directed toward issues such as competitiveness, defense, and strategic transitions. The risk, repeatedly pointed out, is that the social, territorial and environmental dimensions – central to many local actors – will be progressively marginalized or put in competition with each other.
The national “megafund”: a paradigm shift
One of the most disruptive elements of the new architecture is the creation of a large, nationally managed fund, the National and Regional Partnership Plan (NRP), combining hitherto separate policies: cohesion, social, agricultural and regional development funds-and other shared-management instruments.
This “megafund” is inspired by the NRP model and is based on a “performance-based” logic. This logic is also a response to the evaluations of cohesion policy, which have been less than positive for some European areas and contexts, and from the desire to move from a spending logic, which has been predominant until now (focus on when, what and how funds have been committed and spent) to a results-based logic (focus on the results expected and actually achieved thanks to the funds).
It brings with it, however, some major consequences: a greater centralization of decisions, a reduction in the programming and management role of territorial administrations (for example, Italian regions are at risk of becoming implementers and no longer protagonists of European programming), and competition among priorities (social, environmental, rural and territorial) that previously referred to dedicated funds.
Added to this is a further element of attention: the need to overcome some of the critical issues that have emerged in the PNRR experience, which despite its pervasiveness has not produced effects on growth and competitiveness in Italy comparable to those observed in other countries, such as Spain.
Governance and participation: an open node
Another central issue concerns the governance of this new system.
The partnership principle-a traditional pillar of cohesion policy-remains present in the new programming, but it is not yet clear how it will be applied. In the absence of strict constraints, the risk is that the involvement of local organisations and civil society will be limited. The experience of the NRP represents, in this respect, a significant precedent: programming that was effective in terms of speed, but perceived as having little participation by many local actors.
Local organisations and civil society are calling in this regard for a strengthening of partnership mechanisms, with clearer constraints on consultation and involvement in the definition (and eventual approval) of national plans.
An additional element of complexity is the conditionalities that will be applied: the new fund will have to operate within national budget structural plans and the European Commission’s “spring recommendations,” narrowing the margins of operational flexibility. The targeting of funds will have to follow parameters and priorities for investment, public spending and reform predefined in a multi-year budget plan, and detailed each year through specific recommendations.
Added to this is the complexity of “performance-based” management, which requires advanced planning, monitoring and evaluation skills. Skills that not all territorial actors possess today. In the new system (as was the case in the PNRR experience), the simplification of relations between the Commission and Member States does not necessarily translate into simplification for Local Authorities and beneficiaries.
Competitiveness vs. Cohesion: a balance to be rebuilt
The new programming tends to overcome rigid thematic and territorial constraints by introducing a cross-cutting logic based on performance and excellence.
This approach has its rationality, but it also carries the risk of exacerbating social and territorial gaps: it could in fact incentivize the implementation of interventions with immediate and easily measurable impact and on dynamic local organisations; and disincentivize the implementation of actions with long-term effects that are more difficult to measure (employment, inclusion, environment), or in more “difficult” local organisations.
In other words, the big issue will be how to hold competitiveness and cohesion together, preventing the former from completely absorbing the latter.
Local organisations and civil society are calling in this regard for an allocation by more defined and specific “sub-headings” on social, environmental and territorial aspects: aspects that risk being penalized in both nationally managed and European funds.
Foundations: from stakeholder to partner
In this context, the role of foundations also emerges strongly.
Indeed, the new programming opens up a space-and in part a need-for the involvement of philanthropic resources alongside European ones. An involvement that would make it possible to respond to common challenges and reach beneficiaries more effectively in local organisations.
However, an involvement that is sporadically realized because it is not yet specifically regulated in the regulations on the use of European funds(Financial Regulation), and does not provide for a channel of dialogue during the construction of work programs. These conditions could be realized with a forthcoming revision of the Financial Regulation, with the launch of a dialogue platform provided for in the European Strategy for Civil Society, and with other solutions provided specifically within European programs.
These are significant changes in terms of role, rules and responsibilities, already at the center of discussions at the European level(including through Philea) and increasingly present in the national debate, of which the events in Turin and Milan were important stages.
Preparing now: planning, not just designing
Finally, one of the clearest messages from the meeting concerns the need to start preparing now.
In the new context, it will no longer be sufficient to “write projects” in response to calls for proposals. Instead, it will be necessary to help define strategies and programs, from the local to the national level, working in networks to build coherent and measurable portfolios of interventions. It will require strengthening skills on impact and reporting, and creating a robust battery of data and indicators, especially at the municipal and local levels, consistent with a “performance-based” logic.
This is true not only for the national level, but also for the future European Competitiveness Fund, for which it is necessary to build a recognized position in the areas identified as priorities, through coherent competencies and projects. And start thinking about projects capable of achieving – also – a demonstrable impact in terms of development and competitiveness.
Some signs in this direction are already visible. Fondazione Cariplo, for example, is working on a structured discussion with the Lombardy Region, ANCI Lombardia and local organisations to set up a shared planning for 2028-2034. The same is being done by the CRC Foundation in the local organisations of Cuneo.
These are still evolving experiences, but they clearly indicate a direction.
A decisive (and open) phase
The framework of the new European programming is not yet final, but many key elements now seem to be outlined. The coming months will see us enter the negotiating phase between European institutions and member states, with margins for change likely to be limited.
Precisely for this reason, the current moment is strategic. As Fondazione Cariplo President Giovanni Azzone pointed out, the key point is to equip ourselves-as foundations, local authorities, and local organisations-for a framework that will be different from the current one.
For those working in local organisations, European projects and civil society, the challenge is not just to adapt to change, but to anticipate it and, as far as possible, to define it.
