- Adopt a more cross-border cooperation approach in Future Cohesion Policy received 24% of the voting: Indeed, CB Regions embrace around 40% (Nuts 3) of the EU territory, and 30% of Inhabitants. Since the Internet was launched, it never received more than 3% of the total funding allocated to EU Cohesion Policy. In view of its achievements (read Impacts – I have quite a few studies on the main territorial impacts of the Interreg-A programmes), territorial and population coverage, it is about time it receives a more adequate (read higher) share from EU Cohesion Policy post-2027. 

- The remaining topics on the pool were very balanced: this means that all the related policy aspects are similarly relevant. I agree.

All of the options are relevant and important from the point of view of the border regions, but if I have to pick only one, I prefer to select the 4th option. Providing more cooperative tools/structures options for cross-border regions can establish the conditions to tailor the developments to the needs and potentials of the given regions.

Regarding: 1) Promote cross-border cooperation in mainstream programmes, 3) Substantially increase funding for European Territorial Cooperation (ETC), 6) Adopt a more cross-border cooperation approach in Future Cohesion Policy, we would like to address the importance of real funds for cross-border cooperation that also reflect the needs of cross-border regions in a sustainable manner. In present (Interreg) programmes our research has shown that member states try to promote their own interests, not always linked to cross-border needs. We found that for example in the Interreg programme Euregio Meuse-Rhine, where 'innovation' is very much supported without always strengthening cross-border structures. In our Crossquality Final Report, we therefore concluded that more attention should be paid to investments for enabling sustainable cross-border cooperation networks. At the moment, the Interreg fund is not suitable enough to do so.

Very important is also 2) Create an EU legal tool to resolve border obstacles. In 2018, we published a report on cross-border legal and governance instruments. Even in border regions like the Benelux with comparatively close cooperation, high level of mobility, a strong institution and a legal toolbox, the 'old' obstacles to cross-border cooperation still persist. It shows that we still need innovative new instruments that allow for instance unbureaucratic deviations or exemptions. This was for example part of the recommendations in the Flemish-Dutch initiative (Donner/Berx report, translated to a Schakelmechanisme) and in the French-German Treaty of Aachen. The new BridgEU on the other hand focusses more on the governance structure than providing a legal tool for deviations.

Regarding 4) Provide more cooperative tools/structures options for cross border regions, the new BridgEU proposal of the European Parliament is a good initiative for establishing structured processes for the analysis of border obstacles and their removal.

Finally, 5) Further enhance bottom-up policy making in cross border regions should be highlighted in our opinion. For example regarding impact assessments of new policies and legislation, the bottom-up approach would mean that there is input and help from the cross-border experts in the region. At ITEM, we developed a method for Cross-border Impact Assessment that was taken on board by the Dutch government in their policy framework and promoted by DG REGIO as good practice. See for instance our article on an EU Cross-border Impact Assessment.