Ms Maria Toptsidou (p), Dr Kai Böhme (p)

Since 2020, Europe has experienced a sequence of overlapping crises that no policy framework could reasonably have anticipated: the COVID-19 pandemic, the large-scale displacement of people following Russia’s invasion and the subsequent energy crisis. These shocks unfolded in rapid succession putting significant strain on regional economies and governance systems. In this context, cohesion policy, was called upon to respond with speed, flexibility and territorial sensitivity. The ex-post evaluation of European Regional and Development Fund (ERDF) crisis responses provides reflections on how cohesion policy functioned under extreme pressure, as well as gives valuable insights for enhancing preparedness and resilience in view of crises.
Beyond the introduction of specific crisis mechanisms, such as the CRII/CRII+, REACT-EU, CARE/FAST-CARE and SAFE, the experience highlights the importance of structural features of cohesion policy. These have been the shared management, the established programme structures, the existing networks, the place-based implementation. All these enabled a rapid programming, resources mobilisation, adaptation to region-specific needs, while at the same time maintaining the long-term cohesion objectives.
At the same time cohesion policy’s crisis instruments demonstrated that Europe’s resilience is uneven and territorial disparities can exacerbate crises. Cohesion policy must evolve in the future by reducing unnecessary complexity, strengthening the local capacity, investing in foresight for better anticipating crises, ensuring the long-term development goals.
The crisis response revealed that cohesion policy is more than a funding mechanism. Although the ERDF volumes mobilised were modest compared to the national measures in place, their added value was essential, especially for regions with limited fiscal space. The crisis response demonstrated that existing institutional arrangements managed to absorb the shocks of the polycrises and support territorial resilience in the EU. It also showed what must change if the EU is to cope with a next wave of disruptions. Cohesion policy can act as EU’s backbone for territorial resilience by progressively equipping prepared territorial systems, capable institutions, trusted partnerships and adaptive delivery mechanisms. The session presentation will first outline the crisis context and the underlying framework of the ex-post evaluation of the ERDF crisis response. It will then briefly introduce the methodological approach and conclude with the main findings and lessons learned for strengthening cohesion policy preparedness and resilience in view of future crises.

Mr Alessandro Valenza (p)

The polycrisis context of 2020–2023 prompted an unparalleled degree of simplification and flexibility within Cohesion Policy. Drawing on the 2014–2020 Ex Post Evaluation (Work Package 12), this paper analyses the efficiency implications and longer-term risks associated with crisis-driven simplification.
Evidence shows that rapid reprogramming and flexibilities, such as 100% co-financing, the increased use of financial instruments, simplified cost options and faster amendment procedures, enabled timely adjustments and supported emergency responses.
Building on established delivery systems enabled swift mobilisation while maintaining place-based governance structures. However, these measures also created administrative challenges and, in some cases, increased centralisation.
The evaluation identifies three dimensions of flexibility: executive, extraordinary, and extended. highlighting both opportunities and trade-offs. Although simplification improved responsiveness, concerns were raised regarding long-term strategic coherence and potential diversion from cohesion objectives. The lessons learned stress that flexibility is essential in crisis situations, but it must be balanced with preparedness, foresight, and
This paper discusses how simplification mechanisms could be institutionalised for future crises without undermining Cohesion Policy's long-term identity.

Mr Andrea Gramillano (p), Ms Elena Iacobucci (p)

This paper draws on the findings of the Ex-Post Evaluation of Cohesion Policy 2014–2020, Work Package 12 (Crisis Response) and focuses on Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). SMEs were disproportionately affected by the pandemic and subsequent energy crisis, facing a sudden loss of revenue due to reduced or halted operations. They had to adapt to changes in customer demand, with some products experiencing sudden drops and supply chain interruptions, reducing the capacity to acquire necessary materials. The effects varied across sectors and territories, disproportionately affecting smaller enterprises, as it necessitated rapid adaptation often beyond their capacity.
Drawing on Case Study I of the ex-post evaluation, this paper assesses how ERDF crisis-response mechanisms — particularly CRII/CRII+ and REACT-EU — supported SME resilience across six Member States.
Despite the difficulty of obtaining a final assessment of the impact of Cohesion Policy, the analysis of COVID-19 indicators on SME working capital support shows high target achievement by the end of 2022. The findings suggest that liquidity loans and working capital grants played a key role in preventing bankruptcies and sustaining business continuity. In limited cases, it shows the net effects of the interventions, the importance of an appropriate sectoral approach to ensure effectiveness, and the capacity of programmes to sustain SME resilience and prepare the future recovery. Meanwhile, REACT-EU contributed to long-term investments in digitalisation, decarbonisation and competitiveness. Finally, the flexibilities granted by the crisis response mechanisms have mitigated difficulties in programme implementation.
The case study examined differential effects. The crisis response instruments were also aimed at maintaining support for less developed regions and promoting territorial cohesion. Other positive unintended effects were intangible, such as raising awareness of opportunities offered by technological and green solutions, enhancing administrative processes for project application and selection, and increasing proficiency in using financial instruments.
The response to the crisis was extensive, especially in the Member States covered by the study. However, accelerated reprogramming and tight implementation deadlines increased administrative burdens and favoured simpler, pre-existing instruments. These were often extensions of existing measures, ensuring coherence. This paper explores the trade-offs between emergency support and strategic transformation, and draws conclusions on how crisis responsiveness can be embedded within future Cohesion Policy frameworks. One lesson learned for the future is that defining flexible, easy-to-implement rules is critical to ensuring a fast response.

Ms Sabrina Mansutti (p)

The COVID-19 pandemic placed unprecedented pressure on health systems across the European Union and rapidly evolved into a systemic economic and territorial crisis. In this context, Cohesion Policy provided an immediately available channel for emergency support. Through CRII/CRII+, REACT-EU and related flexibility measures, significant resources were redirected within the 2014–2020 framework towards urgent health investments.

Drawing on the health case study of the ex-post evaluation of the ERDF and Cohesion Fund 2014–2020, this paper examines to what extent the emergency use of Cohesion Policy effectively supported health systems and how this mobilisation affected longer-term structural investment priorities and implementation dynamics. The analysis covers six Member States and is based on triangulated evidence from programme data, indicators, document review and stakeholder interviews.

The findings indicate that Cohesion Policy played a complementary stabilisation role. Although it did not represent the main source of health financing during the pandemic, reprogramming and REACT-EU eased pressure on public finances and supported urgent investments in medical equipment, hospital capacity and laboratory infrastructure. In some cases, investments accelerated digitalisation and infrastructure modernisation, while in others short implementation periods and administrative constraints limited transformative impact.

The balance between emergency response and structural reform depended on framework conditions such as crisis severity, available unspent funds and national co-financing. Administrative capacity was decisive in determining how effectively crisis instruments could be used. The short implementation period, increased administrative workload and centralisation of crisis decisions placed considerable pressure on governance systems, often leading managing authorities to favour simpler and tried-and-tested projects to ensure timely execution.

The experience suggests that future Cohesion Policy design must reconcile crisis-responsiveness with the preservation of long-term territorial cohesion objectives.