ECA: “Using cohesion funds for defence risks regional disparities”

Brussels – Cohesion funds used for new and different priorities, including defence? Not a good idea, given “the proposed measures could increase complexity, put pressure on administrative capacity and decrease policy focus on reducing regional disparities.” It is this the opinion of the European Court of Auditors, which sees risks in the mid-term program review proposal for regions developed by the European Commission. 

As Executive Vice President Raffaele Fitto often explains, the EU executive offers governments and local authorities the option of drawing on structural funds to finance five new priorities (competitiveness, defence, housing policies, water management and security, and energy transition). While acknowledging that the choice is not mandatory and remains ‘a political matter for the EU co-legislators’, and therefore their decision, the Luxembourg auditors believe that shifting cohesion policy resources to the new priorities entails “the risk that the implementation of these new priorities will weaken the territory-based approach and negatively affect the effectiveness of the policy, resulting in increased regional disparities.” Appropriate remedies are therefore called for to “mitigate” this risk.

https://www.eunews.it/en/2025/03/06/leaders-back-von-der-leyens-defense-plan-meloni-italy-will-not-divert-cohesion-funds/
Regarding the defence chapter, ECA’s opinion highlights that concerns are raised about “the way transparency obligations and the principle of ‘not cause significant harm’ (i.e. ensuring that EU initiatives are in line with the Union’s climate and environmental objectives) may apply to defence investments.” The latter, in essence, would have nothing to do with structural funds.

It doesn’t end there, because the von der Leyen team is also challenged on the initiative regarding the favourable EU contribution if states and regions choose to use EU resources for new priorities. The ECA believes that the 100 per cent European funding (i.e., no obligation for public or private co-financing), regardless of the regional level of economic development, “could disproportionately favour rich regions and reduce the overall leverage of EU cohesion funds,” and the recommendation here is to leave traditional co-financing rates unchanged.