The budget outlines three major pillars to deliver on Europe’s climate, digital, and competitiveness goals.

While the proposal brings welcome continuity in terms of scale, simplification, and a climate ambition of allocating 35% of funds to environmental objectives, it fails to prioritise urban mobility or ensure a strong role for cities and regions, the key actors in turning these ambitions into real-world impact.

Senna Maatoug, Deputy Mayor for Mobility, Energy and Climate for the City of Utrecht and President of POLIS, warns:

'Urban mobility is where European ambitions become reality—from the Trans-European Transport Network to alternative fuels infrastructure, digitalisation, and the EU Cycling Strategy. Yet in this MFF proposal, the urban dimension is once again structurally overlooked.'

Budget scale and climate goals welcomed, but delivery risks remain

POLIS acknowledges that reaching consensus on a budget of this magnitude was no small feat. The commitment to climate and digital transition is clear and necessary. However, the structure of the MFF and the operational mechanisms behind it risk recentralising decision-making, marginalising urban mobility, and weakening multilevel governance.

The Local Alliance, comprising POLIS and seven other European city and regional networks, has issued a strong warning: the proposed framework may derail the very climate and mobility targets it seeks to achieve by sidelining local actors and limiting direct access to EU funds.

Pillar I – National & Regional Partnership Plans: Symbolic recognition, limited leverage

The first pillar consolidates EU funding through national planning instruments, with National & Regional Partnership Plans (NRPs) and cohesion policy at the core.

Positives:

• TEN-T is mentioned as a priority, and Social Climate Fund (SCF) integration is possible after 2028;
• Local and regional authorities are to be consulted, which is a minimum step toward multilevel governance;
• Interreg preserved as a standalone 28th 'plan', supporting cross-border cooperation.

Concerns:

• No sectoral earmarking for transport or TEN-T investments, weakening delivery accountability;
• Urban Nodes missing as a dedicated focus—despite their central role in TEN-T and sustainable mobility;
• Planning and investment remain heavily controlled by Member States, risking delays, political bottlenecks, or exclusion of local priorities.

Françoise Guaspare, POLIS Ambassador and Senior Policy Advisor at Île-de-France Europe, highlights:

'Although the Commission is proposing to double the transport budget in the next MFF, the new Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) will only fund major cross-border projects. This goes against the spirit of the CEF, which regional and local actors have supported since its creation.' She adds: 'To implement the new TEN-T Regulation and Urban Nodes provisions, regional and local authorities need additional resources and funding. This must be engraved in national and regional plans—not depend solely on the will of Member States.

Pillar II – Competitiveness: Innovation recognised, but cities sidelined

This second pillar contains Horizon Europe, the new Competitiveness Fund, and CEF.

Positives:

• Doubling of Horizon Europe budget and eligibility of public entities;
• Focus on green and digital transitions within competitiveness;
• Complementarity encouraged between CEF, NRPs, and Horizon calls.

Concerns:

• Urban mobility is nowhere to be found as a standalone theme;
• CEF still focused on cross-border megaprojects, bypassing local needs like cycling, public transit, or digital mobility services;
• Urban Nodes have no structural support or funding visibility.

Cities are not meaningfully embedded in innovation ecosystems under the Competitiveness Fund or FP10.

As Susanne Schilderman, Deputy Mayor of Utrecht and ICLEI Europe Board Member, notes:

'Competitiveness and cohesion are two sides of the same coin. Cities and regions are key enablers of clean industrial transitions and strategic autonomy at the local level. Yet they’re absent from the decision-making tables.'

The CEF dilemma: Funding doubled, but is urban mobility left out?

While CEF Transport sees a substantial increase:

• It remains targeted at the core network and cross-border infrastructure;
• There is no clear mention of urban mobility or Urban Nodes, even though the TEN-T Regulation highlights these as vital links;
• Military mobility is newly added—a pragmatic shift, but one that could displace sustainable transport projects unless clearly ring-fenced.

POLIS reiterates its long-standing ask: Reintegrate Urban Nodes into CEF with a specific funding strand and guarantee access for cities to drive deployment of clean transport infrastructure.

POLIS key asks

1. Explicitly name urban mobility as a priority in both the Fund and CEF;
2. Reintegrate Urban Nodes funding into CEF, with clear calls and criteria;
3. Require binding territorial chapters in national plans, with mechanisms to ensure direct access when national authorities fall short;
4. Guarantee local and regional access to innovation funds, especially under FP10 and the Competitiveness Fund;
5. Institutionalise multilevel governance, from strategy to execution, across all funding streams.
6.  

A test of democratic governance

POLIS supports the Local Alliance’s call for a revised governance model that ensures local authorities are not implementers by obligation, but partners by design. The budget is not only a financial tool—it is a signal of political ambition.

As the Alliance concludes in the joint statement we contributed to:

'Delivering a truly inclusive and effective EU budget means recognising cities and regions not just as implementers, but as strategic partners. That requires adapting governance structures, investment criteria, and funding access—so the budget delivers where it matters most: in people’s lives.'

🔗 Useful links

• Commission’s MFF 2028–2034 Proposal
• EP Commissioner Presentation
• Local Alliance Joint Statement (July 2025)
• Zag Daily article featuring Françoise Guaspare