Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions – The future of European Territorial Cooperation (ETC) post-2027
Date: 2024-11-21
Institutions: Commission for Territorial Cohesion Policy and EU Budget, European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: EU financing, European territorial cooperation, co-financing, cross-border cooperation, economic and social cohesion, peripheral region, regional cooperation








C_202500286EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/286


24.1.2025






Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions – The future of European Territorial Cooperation (ETC) post-2027
(C/2025/286)














Rapporteur



:


Karsten Uno PETERSEN (DK/PES), Regional Councillor, South Denmark region









POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS (CoR),

General comments









1.


agrees with the High-Level Group on the Future of Cohesion Policy and the Letta report that territorial cooperation is essential for improving development and cohesion in Europe. Cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation, as well as cooperation in the outermost regions, are well suited to addressing problems that transcend national borders. Such cooperation makes it possible to share knowledge on how all of the EU’s regions can adapt to the current demographic, industrial and geopolitical challenges and at the same time implement the green and digital transitions;












2.


considers cohesion policy and European territorial cooperation (ETC) to be the epitome of European added value and thinks that they should be strengthened in the future. ETC is the main tool for European integration and solidarity; in the next budget in the next programming period, it should be increased to at least 8 % of the total cohesion funding budget;












3.


points out that border regions account for 40 % of EU territory and that 30 % of the EU population live in border regions; believes that funding for cross-border cooperation (Interreg A) should be doubled in the next programming period, given the need to boost cooperation across borders after it suffered a slowdown related to COVID restrictions and the Russian aggression against Ukraine;












4.


is deeply concerned that the principles of cohesion policy and the Interreg programmes – shared management and action on an equal footing in local and regional partnerships – are being jeopardised by efforts to centralise management of EU funds in the post-2027 period; points out that ETC requires by definition cooperation at sub-national level across more than one Member State; coordinating that multi-actor cooperation through separate national plans will be impossible and alienate sub-national stakeholders from the European project;












5.


criticises the fact that the 9th Cohesion Report does not include a clear appraisal of Interreg’s results, nor does it clearly explain the added value of all four strands of the Interreg programmes in terms of reducing regional disparities, promoting inclusion and synergies, supporting the implementation and functioning of the single market and promoting peace, security and prosperity;












6.


points out that recent crises in Europe, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, migration and Russia’s war against Ukraine, highlight how exposed the EU’s border regions are to unexpected challenges; draws also attention to the challenges at the EU’s external border regions as a result of the current geopolitical context, including the instrumentalisation of migrants;












7.


stresses that ETC supports the objectives of cohesion policy. It contributes to the territorial cohesion and long-term social and economic development of EU regions and helps to cover various types of areas and challenges (e.g. islands, mountain areas, sparsely populated areas, outermost regions, etc.);





Interreg: fit for the future









8.


believes that cohesion policy, in particular Interreg programmes, provides a great opportunity for local and regional authorities – especially Article 174 regions – to address their challenges and to record improvements in the areas of innovation, climate action, sustainable tourism, youth, employment, mobility and social areas, including in the health and public services sectors;












9.


believes that ETC should be seen as a key EU policy for promoting cohesion, EU enlargement and good relations with the EU’s neighbours. It should be considered one of the EU’s most important measures for strengthening the single market and removing obstacles to the free movement of people, services and goods in the EU;












10.


stresses that the golden rules of ETC must be maintained: joint planning, joint implementation, joint management and joint reporting on the state of achievements and results, based on bottom-up initiatives, place-based approaches, local and regional partnerships and trust; to this end, the tools for developing these approaches, such as the political objective of ‘a Europe closer to citizens’, must be maintained and strengthened;












11.


calls on the European Commission to ensure that, in ETC in the future, the partnership principle is taken into account and the integrated territorial approach is strengthened in all four types of cooperation (cross-border, transnational, interregional and outermost regions) in order to guarantee that local, regional and EU objectives are achieved;












12.


calls on the European Commission to continue its efforts to simplify the implementing rules for ETC and calls on the Member States to avoid setting additional, potentially implementation-hindering requirements beyond those set at EU level or, where necessary, to amend national and regional legislation and administrative procedures to ensure that implementation is as simple as possible;












13.


is aware that thematic priorities must reflect the general direction of the EU, but calls on the Commission to reduce the requirements for cross-border cooperation programmes so that regions and cities can propose projects that meet their actual needs;












14.


highlights the importance of territorial cooperation between cities and regions in promoting cooperation between public authorities with a view to addressing joint challenges;












15.


points out that there needs to be a stronger link between ETC and regional cohesion programmes so that these programmes produce better results. This can only be achieved by ensuring that an effective mechanism between Member States, regions and cities is in place during the preparatory phase of future programmes;












16.


calls, therefore, on the European Commission to, together with the European Committee of the Regions, reach out to interested Member States, regions and cities during the ongoing programming period to discuss effective territorial cooperation arrangements that could be included in regional programmes;





Cross-border cooperation (Interreg A)









17.


stresses that Interreg A is an EU flagship programme that brings EU citizens closer together in a tangible and direct way, improves life in border regions and promotes European integration;












18.


emphasises that Interreg A should continue to play an important role in overcoming the main cross-border obstacles, including building trust across borders, improving language skills, developing transport links, identifying and reducing legal and administrative barriers, recognising qualifications and increasing the use of cross-border public services;












19.


highlights the particular need to enhance cross-border cooperation among emergency services, as these obstacles can unnecessarily cost lives; refers in this context to the CoR opinion ‘Solving obstacles to the cooperation of emergency services in the EU’s border regions’ (1);












20.


stresses the potential of using Interreg A to support cross-border functional areas through integrated instruments (e.g. Integrated Territorial Investments (ITI) and Community Led Local Development (CLLD)), and calls for their further simplification to enable their easy use in cross-border context;












21.


draws attention to the unique value of people-to-people projects and the Small Project Fund and calls for their further simplification; in this context, calls for the removal of the single legal entity requirement for the management of Small Project Fund projects and enabling the partnership principle, especially in areas without joint cross-border structures; thinks that the next regulation should include the Small Project Fund in all Interreg A programmes, as small people-to-people projects and cooperation in culture and sport give new partners the opportunity to meet, exchange ideas, build new relationships and create the mutual trust needed for cross-border cooperation;












22.


deems it necessary to continue to treat maritime borders with a distance of up to 150 km as equal to land borders in the context of cross-border cooperation;












23.


supports the European Commission’s proposal for a ‘Regulation on Facilitating Cross-Border Solutions’ for removing legal and administrative obstacles, encouraging Member States to resolve cross-border challenges; notes that action should be voluntary and flexible with regard to existing national and bilateral solutions. The Interreg managing authorities, as well as the European groupings of territorial cooperation (EGTC), with their experience and knowledge, could be of great help to the national and regional cross-border coordination bodies provided for in this regulation;












24.


recommends using Interreg to test new cross-border solutions, making border regions laboratories of European integration; underlines the crucial role of joint coordination structures in facilitating cross-border partnerships and coordinating dialogue on solutions to joint challenges;












25.


stresses the important role that Interreg A can play in capacity building in regions in the candidate countries during the accession process. Interreg programmes help to develop the skills of local and regional authorities and help them prepare for carrying out more complex projects that they can implement upon accession to the EU;





Transnational cooperation (Interreg B)









26.


recognises the value and importance of Interreg B, as it is a preferred financial instrument for macro-regional strategies and covers larger transnational areas with shared geographical, historical, cultural and socio-economic characteristics such as mountains, maritime areas and macro-regions;












27.


points out that Interreg B is an important tool for supporting opportunities and challenges in neighbouring and enlargement countries by involving them and their regions;












28.


calls for Interreg B programmes to be more differentiated and specialised based on the specific needs and potential of each transnational area, as well as for more synergies and greater coordination with other EU and national programmes and policies, in particular in the areas of climate, environment, energy, transport, digitalisation, competitiveness and social inclusion;





Interregional cooperation (Interreg C)









29.


recognises the role and potential of Interreg C, which is the only strand that enables all cities and regions across the EU to cooperate at EU level and involve regions from all EU Member States and some third countries;





Interreg Europe









30.


stresses how important the Interreg Europe programme is in supporting local and regional authorities in improving their regional development policies in the most important and urgent policy areas, such as the digital and green transitions, sustainable mobility, education, social inclusion, health and care, integrated development and better regional governance;












31.


acknowledges the role that the Interreg Europe programme plays in supporting the exchange of knowledge and best practices between EU regions with different levels of development;












32.


supports the high-level group’s view that interregional cooperation deserves more attention, not least in order to address the challenges of regions in economic stagnation or decline;





Interact









33.


recognises the role of the Interact programme in harmonising and simplifying the implementation of Interreg programmes and ensuring the smooth management of EU funds, and welcomes training and digital tools for shortening application times, detecting overlaps and minimising the risk of double financing;












34.


calls for Interact to continue to promote multilevel governance and provide regions and cities with more technical and administrative support. In targeted workshops for regions and cities, in particular on the green and digital transitions, knowledge should be applied, capacity should be built and processes should be simplified and exchanged;





ESPON









35.


considers ESPON to be a unique cohesion policy tool that makes it possible to develop territorial knowledge and reduce knowledge gaps in order to help EU regions become more crisis-resilient and take advantage of new development opportunities;












36.


deems ESPON territorial impact assessments essential for improving the Commission’s overall analysis of the impact of EU legislation;





URBACT









37.


sees the URBACT programme as a tool for change in EU cities through integrated urban development, construction skills and knowledge sharing for the European Urban Initiative and the EU Urban Agenda;












38.


supports the outcome of the URBACT III impact assessment, which calls for URBACT to be better aligned with the EU’s overall political discourse, including the Green Deal;












39.


calls for the fragmented approach to urban development at EU level to be counteracted, given the numerous new initiatives and funding opportunities that have emerged in recent years. This requires more synergies and complementarity between EU urban development measures and regional cohesion programmes;





Cooperation in outermost regions (Interreg D)









40.


points out that the outermost regions are some of the external borders of the EU and that they are subject to the permanent structural constraints referred to in Article 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU); stresses the importance of Interreg D programmes and of cooperation between the outermost regions and neighbouring third countries, in order to strengthen their regional integration as well as the EU’s external action and presence in the geographical areas in which the outermost regions are located;












41.


welcomes the fact that, in her political guidelines for the next European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen addresses the challenges of the outermost regions; stresses the need to make progress in devising specific development strategies for the outermost regions and neighbouring third countries and the need for Interreg D to be flexible enough to enable a better link to these development strategies;












42.


calls for Interreg D programmes to become full cooperation programmes at the external borders that may include funding from external financial tools (NDICI-Global Europe and the Overseas Association Decision);





Simplifications









43.


believes that there should be more flexibility and fewer administrative constraints in the implementation of place-based, shared and comprehensive strategies with implementation plans that use different types of grants and funding;












44.


calls for more involvement and support from national authorities and EU institutions in order to streamline and simplify the legal and administrative framework for territorial cooperation and ensure coherence and complementarity between ETC programmes and other EU and national programmes and strategies. This includes identifying new forms and formats of territorial cooperation, such as small projects, strategic border connections, functional areas and cross-border public services;












45.


points out that developing data exchange systems overburdens programmes. The Commission should therefore assess whether a single application procedure can be established for all programmes as well as the advantages and disadvantages of doing so; in this regard, draws attention to the knowledge sharing and resources available under Interact;












46.


believes that the indicator system should be reviewed and improved to better reflect the actual – and more qualitative – outcomes of ETC projects, thus supporting programme documentation on the benefits and value of the EU’s contribution;












47.


calls on the Commission, Interreg A managing authorities and local communities to actively promote the Small Project Fund, open it up to people living in border regions and enable them to apply for funding through simple procedures and lump sums;





Finance and management









48.


points out that the decision of the amount allocated to programmes and spaces must be made at European level, but that current funding is insufficient and does not meet the need for or satisfy the interest in European territorial cooperation. Many applications are rejected due to budget constraints, even if the projects are of high quality and importance;












49.


insists on keeping the governance of cooperation programmes at regional and local level, in particular in the context of cross-border cooperation. This approach ensures a better understanding of the specific needs of the territories concerned, promotes more flexible and tailored project management and strengthens solidarity between local communities. The proximity of regional and local authorities to the realities on the ground is essential to ensure that cross-border initiatives are effective, relevant and sustainable;












50.


deems it necessary to vary the amount of co-financing provided between 50 % and 85 % depending on the level of development and integration in the regions;












51.


proposes providing for more flexibility and the possibility of transferring funds between programmes and priorities and increasing pre-financing and advance payments for programmes and projects;












52.


believes that the existing repayment system, based on checks and certificates from the Member States, key management and control requirements and detailed rules for reporting irregularities in order to protect EU taxpayers’ money, has so far proven its worth;












53.


recognises, however, that lessons should be learned from more performance-based approaches in both cohesion policy and the Recovery and Resilience Facility, and calls on the Commission to analyse the feasibility of potential systems based on targets and milestones and help demonstrate the goals and added value of Interreg;












54.


calls on the Commission, the European Parliament and the Member States to swiftly adopt the new legal framework and calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that programmes are approved in good time before the start of the relevant period so that they can quickly be approved, used and disbursed to promote growth and development in the regions, thereby avoiding the usual delays in approving programmes that lead to constraints and difficulties in implementation.






Brussels, 21 November 2024.


The President


of the European Committee of the Regions

Vasco ALVES CORDEIRO
               





(1)  Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions – Solving obstacles to the cooperation of emergency services in the EU’s border regions (OJ C, C/2025/282, 24.1.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/282/oj).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/286/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)