Key takeaways from the first national consultation on Cohesion Policy 2027-2034

Discussion on important aspects of future Cohesion Policy followed the remarks delivered by the minister. The starting points for the discussion were outlined by the representatives of the Ministry of Cohesion and Regional Development.

2. Lessons learned from the previous programming periods as outlined by the participants (based on the questionnaires filled out and received prior to the event)

2.1       Baselines

• Timeframe challenges: overlapping programming periods, late adoption of the legislative framework, delays in the programming process, coordination of multiple actors.
• Administrative challenges: programme structures cannot always benefit from adopted simplifications; complex set of rules, shift to performance monitoring, staff continuity and need for multidisciplinary knowledge of staff.
• Financial challenges: disconnection between funding resources, liquidity issues, unforeseeable outcomes of calls for proposals, long reimbursement periods, high costs, low budgetary flexibility, low absorption, low added value.
• Technological challenges: shared IT system, programme interoperability, modern technologies, limitations of data reuse.
• Lack of adaptability: need for flexible project budgeting and more relaxed employee redeployment legislation.
• Achievement of results: unclear indicators, lack of programme visibility, poor understanding of indicators and milestones.
• Cooperation and trust: need for bottom-up approach, synergies within institutions, investments in HR development.
• Place-based approach: functional areas, lack of level playing field for regions, misalignment between regional and national needs, poorly defined goals.
• Future challenges: the green and digital transition, climate change, migrations, demographic change, global competitiveness of the EU.

Where are we now? What is the way forward?

We need Cohesion Policy. We need European Territorial Cooperation. The green and digital transition, climate change, demographic change and development gaps remain key challenges to be tackled in the future.

Preserving key principles, tailoring action to meet the actual needs of regions, introducing simplifications for the managing authority and other stakeholders, building administrative capacity, embracing the place-based approach, ensuring synergies with other policies, developing the post-2027 Cohesion Policy proposal by July 2025.

Emerging challenges such as security, migrations, the twin transition, education, housing, and EU enlargement are coming to the forefront; Cohesion Policy will also have to tackle issues such as low absorption, complementarity of funding systems, place-based approaches.

2.2       Key takeaways:

• Participants expressed satisfaction that consultation was launched early enough and that the discussion on ways to tackle future challenges was kicked off in time.
• Participants welcomed the ‘’less is more’’ approach.
• Cohesion Policy should not be the core development policy in Slovenia. The discussion should focus on development in general, not only on cohesion-driven development. Other development policies and all available development funding (EU, national, regional. etc.) should be considered as well.
• Instead of sectoral, local, or regional projects, we should rather consider development projects and match them with different funding sources. Combining national and cohesion funding is key. We need integrated projects and system complementarities. Different programmes should be better aligned, there should be stronger synergies between them.
• A better organisational structure is a must to enable a more efficient Cohesion Policy implementation with shorter implementation processes.
• Building trust between stakeholders within the system is necessary, but breakthrough cannot happen without legislative changes and ‘’cultivation’’ of mindset in several areas (performance-based funding, i.e., linking EU funding to the achievement of outputs, results, milestones).
• It is worth considering supporting ready-to-go projects at the national level and, consequently, setting aside a dedicated amount of funding under each call for proposals to ‘’cover’’ at least most of the applications evaluated positively or considered ready-to-go, given that municipalities invest large sums of money in the development of such projects.
• The system needs stability and continuity given that institutional, IT, and regulatory frameworks constantly change. We also need a leaner set-up.
• Proposals for simplification: continuity of Cohesion Policy implementation processes, appropriate IT support, regular staff training (technical assistance funding is unevenly distributed at regional and local level). No funding was set aside for staff training at regional and local level.
• Introduction of simplifications should be well-thought-out to avoid creating unnecessary additional work (e.g. introduction of lump sum funding complicates the work of the Josef Stefan Institute).
• Economic goals are well defined but underachieved. SRIPs carried out the relevant prioritisation, however, there was simply not enough funding to achieve economic goals.
• We need to address competence gaps; we need a higher level of collaboration.
• We need to ensure synergies between programmes and collaboration with universities and research organisations. We need to embed development goals in regional development policies and set aside Cohesion Policy funding to support the achievement of research and development goals.
• Integrated planning calls for alignment between spatial policy and Cohesion Policy.
• Municipalities often struggle to secure their share of financing when it comes to co-financing projects.
• The option of co-financing Interreg programmes with national resources should be reintroduced.
• A specific feature of Slovenia, in relation to Europe and European calls for proposals, is the small size of municipalities. As administrative units, they can be participating entities or applicants – this can be a very big obstacle in certain calls for proposals (e.g. European Urban Initiative), as the basic condition of the size of the entity (e.g. in terms of number of residents) is not fulfilled. Thus, municipalities are forced to adapt their project ideas to meet the initial size criterion, which worsens their chances of meeting the other criteria and being positively evaluated. This aspect should be taken into account when designing EU programmes and conditions, and the relevant exceptions for smaller countries/units should be introduced.
• We should rethink and adjust programme priorities according to the current Slovene and European challenges (yes to green transition, but yes to other themes as well).

3. Financial aspects of project financing in the future

3.1       Baselines

• Smaller Cohesion Policy envelope
• Matching development projects with national funding sources
• Combining Objective 1 themes with Objective 2 themes
• Combining so-called soft themes with physical infrastructure in projects
• Adding more value to projects
• Tailored technological solutions (IT system e-MA currently fails to allow for complementarities between funding resources)

Budget cuts will be manifested through increased competitiveness, higher borrowing costs, and promotion of innovation and efficiency.

Which steps are needed to successfully combine funding sources: ensuring effective planning and coordination, designing a comprehensive financial strategy, strengthening institutional capacity, ensuring effective monitoring and evaluation and promoting cooperation.

3.2       Key takeaways:

• We should get prepared for new EU regulations and sectoral policies in time as we expect another significant delay in the adoption of the legislative package.
• We need greater flexibility in reallocation of funds. We also need stronger focus on growth, jobs, sustainable development, simplifications, effectiveness, place-based approach and involvement of local stakeholders. Our goal is to support meaningful development not just spend EU money.
• A single set of rules for everyone will no longer be possible.
• We need flexibility and agility all the way from managers to beneficiaries. Two challenges will be key: territorial and thematic concentration where all stakeholders understand that projects cannot be limited as they are a living thing and evolve with time.
• We need good conditions for beneficiaries to prepare quality projects. Slovenia has a rigid legislation, but resourceful stakeholders push boundaries.
• Beneficiaries need funding stability and continuity (calls for proposals) to have enough time to prepare quality projects. It is worth considering introducing a two-stage application process (in place for ITI-funded projects). Project administration consumes too much time, but too little time is left to implement the project (one third of time).
• There is a great need for flexibility in reallocation of funds and adjustment of projects. Combining different funding sources is key and, in some cases, already possible. We will need to combine Interreg funds with funds under Objective 1. Combining reimbursable funding (e.g. financial instruments) with non-reimbursable funding for a single project should be made available.
• Combining different funding sources will have to be discussed at the EU level given the specific features of individual EU instruments.
• Knowledgeable staff that excels both in administrative management and operational planning is a must to implement changes. Staff should be offered different types of training on new technologies; e.g. green technologies require new sets of skills and horizontal principles call for new approaches. More trust and autonomy for decision-making should be given to staff at the ministries.
• Infrastructure gaps remain (e.g. sewage systems and water supply systems); however, infrastructure development does not necessarily have to be supported by Cohesion Policy funding. We also need national reforms.
• Bottom-up approach is needed to better address regional needs. Once post-2027 Cohesion Policy budget is set, regional needs should be considered first and specific objectives second.
• Discussion on whether Slovenia actually needs two cohesion regions shows that there are differences in opinion on costs and administration.
• Smaller municipalities are understaffed and face resource shortage, encounter problems co-financing projects and applying innovative projects. Technical support to help strengthen administrative capacity at regional level is a must.
• We need a shift in programming paradigm; bottom-up approach is currently underused, timely involvement of all stakeholders and identification of strategic objectives that need to be addressed are important.
• In terms of the discussion on keeping a single programme or having multiple programmes, the consensus is to keep one programme for the entire country with the regions tackling their specific needs through the relevant regional development programmes.
• Proposal to direct financial flows in the IT system e-MA directly to implementing bodies.

4. Impact of changes in implementing rules on project implementation

4.1       Baselines

• Direct or shared management
• Allowing for flexibility in reallocation of funds while staying focused on key goals
• Simplifications and monitoring of programme/project impacts
• Selecting the right place-based approaches

4.2       Key takeaways

• Consider introducing new key areas in Cohesion Policy implementation such as earthquake resistance as regards focus on key future challenges.
• Put in place a mechanism allowing for verification whether the proposed projects are included in the existing national strategies.
• Ensure continuity in the preparation and development of RDI projects (with a view of upgrading the existing and good solutions instead of constantly inventing new ones).
• Ensure stability of the system as the basis for further development of Cohesion Policy.
• Involve larger and smaller municipalities in the process of identifying priority and focus areas.
• The instrument ‘’agreement on the development of region’’ is not systematic enough and lacks linkages.

5. Conclusions and next steps

• A subpage on post-2027 Cohesion Policy will be created on the dedicated website, featuring all expert documents and relevant information.
• Next consultations will be more focused and methodological. Focus groups will be formed.
• Next consultation is scheduled for November 2024.