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 2021-2027 programming period 2021-2027. 

Below is the text of the Gronau Resolution ratified by the AEBR General Assembly held in Trysil, Innlandet County (Norway) on 24 October 2024. This Resolution was decided to be an open document to which AEBR members have been encouraged to contribute, and it remains open for discussion. The objective is to provide arguments to address policymakers and the general public during online and on-site meetings or through the media.

During the AEBR General Assembly in Gorizia on 13 November 2025, various contributions were proposed and accepted, in particular an update of the common position summarised in ten points at the end of the Resolution prepared by Euregio Scheldemond and Norte Region of Portugal.

AEBR members and other CBC activists are encouraged to use excerpts of this resolution, illustrated with own examples based on your experience, to lobby in favour of territorial cohesion and cross-border cooperation in your specific context: at the European, the national or regional Parliament, the national or regional government, the city council, the classroom, the chamber of commerce or the marketplace.

Please give us some feedback about your opinion on and your experience with this open Resolution at info@aebr.eu.

 

Image: Lightspring, Shutterstock

(reposted on 5 May 2025)

(updated in Gorizia on 13 November 2025 and reposted)

(updated on 22 March 2026)

(includes the Gorizia Declaration, based on this Gronau one, but drawing on the proposals of regulation presented by the Commission in July 2025)

The AEBR Executive Committee, in a significant meeting at EUREGIO’s premises in Gronau-Glanerburg on 5 July 2024, put forward the following resolution, which was ratified by the AEBR General Assembly held in Trysil on 24 October 2024. This is a response to the ongoing debate on the future of European Cohesion Policy, with a specific focus on Territorial Cohesion (ETC), which is of critical importance in the context of Cohesion Policy after 2027.

Our stance on Cohesion is resolute and unwavering. We view this major EU investment instrument as fundamental to fostering 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 founding of the European Communities seven decades ago and strengthened by subsequent developments. 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 associations of 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 2024, expressing deep concerns and opposition to a centralised model of managing the EU’s multiannual budget.

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 now become standard, as evidenced by the 9^th Report on Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion, published by the European Commission on 27 March 2024. However, this should not be taken for granted, as with many assumptions about the EU. Nevertheless, the 9^th Cohesion Report demonstrates that the Cohesion Policy facilitates a sustainable and swift response to the multiple crises that Europe currently faces. Other very relevant reports also highlight the importance of cohesion and cross-border cooperation, such as Mario Draghi’s The future of European competitiveness report (DE, EN, FR) or Enrico Letta’s Much More Than a Market report on the Single Market, even if “cross-border” is sometimes considered a too broad concept.

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 cross-border infrastructure and other cross-border public services, or otherwise increase the territorial/cross-border approaches in other EU policies and many national ones. This is particularly evident in essential public services such as health and social care and in critical infrastructure, but a special lens must be applied: a place-based, cross-border one. Both aspects are still very difficult to understand for some national authorities. 

This is probably another consequence of a major challenge: how to communicate the achievements of ETC and territorial cohesion beyond the usual “bubbles” (and, particularly, to Member States). LRAs need to have a sincere and honest 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 complexes, and also ambitious European policies (and budgets). We have to be able to discuss with national authorities not only about cross-border public services (a main priority for us, and also for them), but also about aspects such as energy autonomy, for instance, which cannot be built state-by state, or the development of new industries (IT components, batteries, online commerce and coaching, enterntainment, …) and the rise of “digital-nomadism”, which opens new opportunities in cross-border areas (if they are well connected and fitted). A European framework is certainly needed, but at least neighbouring states should agree on basic and crucial aspects. And this also applies to other policies (infrastructure, SME strengthening, taxation, and social benefits).

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. The shifting regulations towards the centralisation of EU funds threaten the cohesion of European territories and undermine the principle of subsidiarity, which is fundamental to European integration. It also jeopardises the development of an effective multilevel governance.

ETC should be integrated, or at least considered, into most EU policies, particularly those affecting mobility and public services, including healthcare, the labour market, infrastructure, and transport. Furthermore, in certain aspects, a specific regulation should be in place, such as a European CB Workers Statute. A pilot action to clarify the status of workers in cross-border organisations, such as EGTCs, is already under preparation.

A stronger focus should be paid to capacity building, with incentives for the exchange and implementation of good practices. In cross-border contexts, this should start in the earliest stages. Existing Interreg initiatives on cross-border kindergartens, but also on vocational and dual training, could be good sources of information on the difficulties (and how to overcome them) in establishing cross-border education and training services. Special training for public authorities on the scope and impact of territorial cooperation in the short-, mid- and long-term could be very useful for better understanding opportunities which are often missed. And specific corps, such as public accountants and comptrollers, could benefit from structured training to facilitate the effective implementation of simplified cost options.

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 to a more decentralised one, with stronger participation of LRAs.

Barriers to successful CB projects within the EU Single Market still exist. There are still plenty of legal and administrative obstacles to CBC (see b-solutions cases). A European approach would also be needed here, and BRIDGEforEU is now a reality. If effectively implemented, this will 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 address long-standing bottlenecks, facilitate access to all services for all, and be more economically efficient.

ETC is already a success in many aspects, but it is neither spontaneous nor self-fuelled. It needs to be planted, fertilised, irrigated and looked after to finally harvest benefits for the citizens. However, better visibility, including research to show the real impact of CB interventions after more than 35 years of Interreg, should be further promoted. This could be based on databases like Interact’s KEEP or the CPS inventory (CB public services) 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.

The comprehensive, cross-thematic, and free advice to cross-border commuters is also of overriding importance. In many Interreg programme spaces, corresponding services (e.g., Infobest, GrenzInfoPunkte, and others) have been established within cross-border structures without any additional support, challenging their sustainability. A future structural support by EU funds and/or other interested regions (in relation to the demand for advice) will be crucial.

Maritime cooperation, islands 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, in most cases, proved fruitful. 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 decision-making but also in showing their implication by committing their own resources and adopting a more generous approach. Stronger cooperation should be promoted with our immediate neighbours, including the UK and the Mediterranean countries.

Very complex challenges, such as the green and digital transitions, should be carefully considered, including both 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 national coordination points included in the BRIDGEforEU regulation 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. The Border Focal Point at DG Regio is also extremely useful for facilitating a systematic exchange of experiences and supporting numerous initiatives, particularly pilot actions in new fields. A consolidation of this service for European border regions is vital to continue meeting current expectations on the ground.

We should also continue to promote current, highly valuable instruments such as the EGTCs. Combining them with new tools, such as BRIDGEforEU, the CB Data Hub ACROSS, and others, would be extremely useful for implementing a more ambitious ETC within a more ambitious Cohesion Policy. This can only be achieved with our current strong coordination with the European Committee of the Regions and other CB networks within the European CB Platform, but also 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:

1. The AEBR firmly opposes any further centralisation of the management of Cohesion funds and staunchly defends the enhancement of cooperation between regions, particularly those along national boundaries. The AEBR firmly opposes any further centralisation of more than 500 European subsidy programmes into 27 “national and regional partnership plans”, if this means that the role of regions and local authorities in programme management will be eroded. NRPPs take a central government perspective rather than a border-region-oriented one and lack the area-specific approach that border regions need to “grow at the border”. The AEBR calls on the European Commission and Member States to withdraw or revise this model to ensure that regional voices remain central in the governance of Cohesion policy.
2. It advocates a more balanced approach between bottom-up and top-down governance, ensuring effective multi-level governance that involves regional and local authorities and territorial cooperation institutions. Only multi-level governance can ensure that European projects are implemented in a citizen-centred, needs- and place-based manner, and effectively. It is therefore crucial that regional and local authorities can continue to play their full role in the management, monitoring and implementation of EU funds and programmes.
3. Cohesion policy is not a crisis instrument but a structural pillar of European integration. The essence of this policy – namely, to transcend and improve national territorial policies – must be preserved. Any attempt to reduce it to a short-term response instrument would betray its founding purpose and weaken Europe’s capacity to act in the long term.
4. The forthcoming EU multi-annual budget must uphold the historical legacy of the Cohesion Policy, maintaining 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. A strong and well-funded Cohesion policy is essential for a fair, resilient and competitive Europe.
5. It reaffirms the positions already taken by other European networks, either individually or within the framework of the Cohesion Alliance, and particularly supports the European Committee of the Regions‘ position in favour of a reinforced ETC, as an integral part of a strengthened European Cohesion Policy. Ensuring Europe’s territorial balance must remain a shared political responsibility across all levels of governance.
6. Lessons must be learnt from the implementation of Interreg V and the current experience with Interreg VI to keep tuning what works and what doesn’t: Why is it so challenging to establish CB ITIs and CLLD? Why do some borders perform better than others with Small Project Funds? Do Interreg programme authorities implement the place-based approach effectively? And what about subsidiarity? Interreg programmes cannot be designed in a simplistic way at decision-making centres without taking into account the particularities of each border/dyad. The impact of specific programmes (or sub-programmes) developed over more than 35 years of territorial cooperation, taking into account operational, functional, and governance aspects, should not be underestimated. Furthermore, the implementation of support instruments (ITI, CLLD, etc.) must be further stimulated in the future as they go to the core of Cohesion policy and to the very heart of the European ideal – cooperation across borders, for and with all citizens.
7. As has been the case at the institutional level with the CB Review launched by the EU in 2015 and its outputs—the Border Focal Point and the series of studies, pilot actions and initiatives to boost CBC such as b-solutions or IVY (Interreg Volunteer Youth), or the new instruments, the strengthened focus on external borders, emergency, health and other public services, etc.—, there is growing research about European Territorial Cooperation, which provides integrated pieces of evidence about the circumstances, needs and impact of the territory, also the border, in the citizens’ lives. AEBR emphasises the need for reinforced approaches (and funding) through an ambitious European Cohesion policy capable of addressing new and evolving challenges in border areas, including the outermost, mountain and island regions.
8. The AEBR stresses the importance of knowledge, evidence and innovation in policymaking. We call for the establishment of a single platform integrating all available evidence-based information to generate valuable recommendations for policymakers on decisions affecting cross-border regions, including data and insights produced by the AEBR projects. Knowledge must drive policy – and border regions must be recognised as key contributors to Europe’s collective intelligence.
9. Finally, the AEBR calls for a territorial approach across all EU policies, both within and outside the EU, including the EU’s usual partners (EFTA), and its neighbours, such as the UK and IPA countries, in territorial cooperation programmes. Territorial cohesion must remain a guiding principle in Europe’s external and internal action alike.
10. From Gorizia, the members of AEBR (European border and cross-border regions) speak with one voice: a stronger Europe needs strong regions. Only by empowering its territories can Europe remain united, resilient and democratic.

Ratified by the AEBR General Assemblies in Trysil on 24 October 2024 and in Gorizia on 13 November 2025. New elements are still being proposed and included.

 

 

Back to overview