draft AEBR Resolution on Cohesion and Territorial Cooperation after 2027
The AEBR Executive Committee met in Gronau on 5 July and, among other topics, debated the future of European cohesion and territorial cooperation after the current programming period.
Below, you will find the draft text of the Resolution, which is still open for comments and amendments.
New text in blue colour.
The AEBR Executive Committee, in a significant meeting at EUREGIO’s premises in Gronau-Glanerburg on 5 July 2024, has put forth the following resolution. This is a response to the ongoing debate on the future of European Cohesion Policy, with a specific focus on Territorial Cohesion (ETC) and is of critical importance in the context of the Cohesion Policy after 2027.
Our stance on Cohesion is resolute and unwavering. We view this major EU investment instrument as fundamental to fostering the balanced growth and prosperity of all EU territories, providing benefits to all regions and cities by boosting economic growth, job creation, business competitiveness, sustainable development and environmental conservation. It was enshrined in the foundation of the European Communities and strengthened in the following decades. It is not an outdated relic but rather a contemporary policy carrying a significant legacy and a promising future for the joint development of all European territories, in particular, those more challenged, such as cross-border and rural areas, regions undergoing industrial or energy transition, and those facing serious natural or demographic challenges.
In line with this, we have been and continue to be actively involved in showcasing the achievements of Cohesion in close collaboration with EU institutions and other European local and regional authorities (LRAs). This collective effort is channelled through the #CohesionAlliance, reflecting our shared overarching goal. We particularly highlight the Joint Call of European Regions and Cities for a renewed Cohesion Policy post-2027 that leaves no one behind, adopted by 111 regions from 15 member states during the European Summit of Regions and Cities in Mons on 17-18 March, expressing deep concerns and opposition to a centralised model of managing the EU’s multiannual budget.
The AEBR’s unique contribution lies in the significance of European Territorial Cooperation in achieving one of the pillars of European Cohesion. It was a challenge to include this third component in the Cohesion Policy some years ago, but it has become a standard (see the 9th Report on Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion, published by the European Commission on 27 March 2024), but this should not be taken for granted, as it is the case of many assumptions about the EU. Nevertheless, the 9th Cohesion Report demonstrates that the Cohesion Policy facilitates a sustainable and swift response to the multiple crises that Europe currently faces.
First of all, we denounce the risk of “dying of success”: everybody agrees on the very positive contribution of cross-border cooperation to European integration, but after every debate on the future EU financial framework, the usual result is a new bite to the meagre resources left for ETC. Interreg is about connecting people and stakeholders across borders, but we also need to finance small infrastructure and other public services or, otherwise, increase the territorial/cross-border approaches in other EU policies and many national ones.
It is very important to communicate the achievements of ETC and territorial cohesion outside the usual “bubbles”, in particular to Member States. LRAs need to have a sincere exchange with the Member States to talk about national sovereignty and European integration, and to agree on the level of integration we want to achieve. The national mentality prevails in really multilateral, European or global matters, and this is not very useful. To face current challenges, we need a stronger Europe without complex, and also ambitious European policies (and budgets).
To succeed in this very challenging process of integration, Member States should increase their sharing of sovereignty upwards (to the EU institutions) and continue doing so downwards (decentralisation processes), while considering the need to rationalise cross-border governance mechanisms. Considering that shifting regulations towards the centralisation of EU funds threatens the cohesion of European territories and undermines the principle of subsidiarity, fundamental to European integration. It also jeopardises the development of an effective multilevel governance.
ETC should be integrated or, at least, considered in most EU policies, particularly in those affecting mobility and public services, including healthcare, labour market, infrastructure and transport, etc. Furthermore, in some specific aspects, a specific regulation should be in place, such as a European CB Workers Statute.
A stronger focus should be paid to capacity building, with incentives for the exchange and implementation of good practices.
Most stakeholders seem to welcome more thematic flexibility, keeping the current level of EU co-financing or increasing it slightly, continuing to develop simplified cost options, and the joint monitoring system. However, the growing centralisation of programme management should be reverted into a more decentralised one, with stronger participation of LRAs.
There still exist barriers to successful CB projects within the EU Single Market. There are still plenty of legal and administrative obstacles to CBC (see b-solutions cases). A European approach would also be needed here (the proposed CB tool). This would be extremely useful to boost CB operations to cover public services, for instance, when it is about public resources, to design new CB approaches, to facilitate CB infrastructures, exchanges, mobility, etc., in many places where non-coordinated regulations still pose enormous obstacles. b-solutions offers a growing database of evidence. Without these obstacles and a more integrated vision, many CB operations would solve long-lasting bottlenecks and facilitate access to all services by all, while being economically more efficient.
ETC is already a successful story in many aspects. However, better visibility, including research to show the real impact of CB interventions after almost 35 years of Interreg should be further promoted. This could be based on databases like Interact’s KEEP or the CPS one developed by ESPON. Much more evidence is available, and the impact of growing practices with a high EU-added value, such as people-to-people projects and small project funds (P2P & SMF), should also be made more visible. It is important to stress that P2P & SMF should be kept anchored in the ETC regulations, including their decentralised management and simple management options.
Maritime cooperation and the outermost regions should be particularly supported due to their particular challenges and opportunities. Transnational and Interregional programmes might play a stronger role in this regard.
The development of macroregional strategies and their coordination with transnational approaches have been a fruitful exercise in most cases. They are very good laboratories for multi-level governance, and they should not lose this focus, paying stronger attention to the coordinated initiatives by LRAs. National authorities should also be more involved, not only in terms of decision-making but also in showing their implication by committing their own resources and adopting a more generous approach
Very complex challenges such as the green and digital transition should carefully consider successful experiences as well as failures. In this sense, networking, exchange of experiences, and benchmarking are key issues. Again, a stronger multi-level focus would be needed in cross-border regions, coordinating the European, national, and subnational levels without losing the CB perspective (the CB coordination points proposed in the amended Commission’s proposal for a CB tool could play an extraordinary role here).
Further synergies between the different elements of the Interreg family should be promoted, for instance, towards mainstreaming programmes, as already highlighted above. INTERACT, ESPON, and URBACT can play a stronger role in their current facilitation of capacities and research, among other services, to continue developing sound ETC.
We should also continue promoting current and very valuable instruments such as the EGTCs. Combining them with new tools, such as the proposed one to facilitate CB solutions, would be extremely useful for implementing a more ambitious ETC within a more ambitious Cohesion Policy. This can only be achieved with strong coordination with the European Commission (not only REGIO) and the European Parliament (not only REGI) and a better understanding of the Cohesion Policy by the Member States (the Council).
Therefore, the Executive Committee of the AEBR, convened in Gronau-Glanerburg (DE/NL) on 5 July 2024, has unanimously agreed to present a clear position, appealing to the EU institutions to protect European Cohesion and strengthen Territorial Cooperation:
- The AEBR firmly opposes any further centralisation of the management of Cohesion funds and staunchly defends the enhancement of cooperation between regions, particularly those located at the national boundaries.
- It advocates for bottom-up approaches and multi-level management models involving regional and local authorities and territorial cooperation institutions.
- The forthcoming EU multi-annual budget must uphold the historical legacy of the Cohesion Policy, keeping a decentralised model that ensures robust participation of LRAs and acknowledging the vital role of CB in promoting proximity to citizens and reducing territorial disparities.
- It reaffirms the positions already taken by other European networks, autonomously or in the framework of the Cohesion Alliance, and it particularly supports the position of the European Committee of the Regions.
Back to overview