Français (France) 
Finnish (FI) 
English (United Kingdom) 
The rules governing EU funding are changing. The European Commission's proposal for the 2028–2034 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) merges cohesion, agricultural, migration and security funding into a single framework, delivered through National and Regional Partnership Plans. At the same time, disbursement is being tied more tightly to results, milestones and national-level reforms. Administrative "simplification" at the top does not mean lighter requirements at project level — quite the opposite.
How do project standards and competence frameworks help?
When a funder, client or partner organisation asks how a project is being managed, earlier "experience" is no longer a sufficient answer. Recognised project management standards and competence frameworks — IPMA®, PMBOK®, P3.express, or PM² — offer clear advantages compared to an individual's personal working style:
- A shared language between the project owner, steering committee, funder and delivery team, regardless of who happens to be in charge of the project.
- Traceability — decisions, risks and changes get documented the same way from one project to the next, supporting a funder's audit trail.
- Portability — things are carried out using the same proven method even when a project manager changes or the organisation grows.
This is true regardless of which standard or framework is in use. But when the funder in question is specifically the EU, one framework stands out.
What is changing in EU funding from 2028 onward?
Key changes in the Commission's proposed 2028–2034 MFF, from a project implementer's point of view:
| Change | What it means? |
|---|---|
| Funds merged into National and Regional Partnership Plans (NRPPs) | Funding logic and reporting are increasingly channelled through the national level rather than governed directly by a single fund's own rules. |
| Stronger performance framework | Payments are tied to measurable milestones and results, not simply to eligible spending. |
| Reform conditionality | Part of the funding depends on the member state delivering agreed structural reforms — the same logic already used in the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF). |
| Rule-of-law conditionality continues | The existing protection mechanism remains in place and covers the whole EU budget. |
| Administrative "simplification" at the top level | The number of programmes and headings is reduced, but individual projects still need to demonstrate their results more transparently than before. |
"To increase impact, the new long-term EU budget will rely extensively on results-based funding. This will shift the focus to the essential: ensuring that investment is delivering the desired outcomes." - A dynamic EU Budget for the priorities of the future - The Multiannual Financial Framework 2028-2034
Negotiations continue through the rest of 2026 and into 2027, and details will still be refined. But the direction is clear: the top-level structure is getting lighter, while project-level accountability and evidence requirements are getting stricter.
What this means for project implementers?
Organisations managing EU programs, such as ERDF, ESF+ and JTF-funded projects through regional authorities (elinvoimakeskukset), regional councils and other intermediate bodies should expect:
- tighter milestone-based reporting throughout the project lifecycle, not just at interim and final reporting points
- a stronger requirement to demonstrate the link between results, impacts and the objectives set out in the project plan
- a need to describe and justify the project's governance model and role allocation more explicitly at the application stage
In this environment, an implementing organisation's project management competence becomes a genuine competitive advantage — not only in securing funding, but in retaining it throughout the project.
Why PM² fits this situation particularly well?
PM² is the European Commission's own, open project management methodology, which is exactly why its underlying logic supports the administration of an EU-funded project. The methodology's pillars — governance, lifecycle, processes, artefacts — together with the mindsets produce directly the evidence for tightening reporting requirements:
| Requirement | PM²'s answer |
|---|---|
| Clear governance model and role allocation | PM²'s governance model defines roles and responsibilities (Project Owner, Business Manager, Project Manager, Steering Committee) in different project levels. |
| Milestone-based tracking | PM²'s lifecycle (Initiating–Planning–Executing–Closing) provides clear phases with milestones and phase-gate reviews. |
| Traceability of objectives and results | Tailorable artefacts (Business Case, Project Charter, Project Handbook, Status Report) support definition, control and reporting of objectives, risks and results. |
| Alignment with the funder's own practices | PM² is developed by the Commission and extended specifically for EU-funded projects through the EU-Funded Projects Addendum. |
Unlike many other project management standards or frameworks, PM² hasn't needed to be retrofitted to the EU context — it was built for it. The project is naturally managed using an approach that employs the same language and methods as the funder.
When to proceed?
The details of the 2028–2034 MFF are not yet finalised, but the direction is clear enough. It pays off to get ready right away by mapping your project team's current PM² competencies, reviewing governance and reporting practices in ongoing projects, and, when needed, planning PM² training before next projects and ahead of the new funding period.
Join the PM² Finland community View the training calendar Read more: PM² EU-Funded Projects Addendum