Adriatic-Ionian region, is territorial cooperation still needed?

What developments do cohesion policies foresee? Is the Interreg programme, after over two decades, still valid? We asked Lodovico Gherardi, coordinator of the managing authority (the Emilia Romagna Region) of the Interreg IPA Adrion Programme

The 9th Annual Forum of the European Union Strategy for the Adriatic-Ionian Region (EUSAIR) was held in Sibenik (Croatia) on 15 and 16 May. The event brought together partners from ten countries, four EU members (Italy, Slovenia, Croatia and Greece) and six non-EU countries (in addition to San Marino, all the Western Balkan states except Kosovo).

The Forum closed the year of the Croatian presidency of EUSAIR and was therefore an opportunity to take stock of common themes, projects and challenges in the area, but it also took place at a time when the debate has begun on the future of the European Union's cohesion policies and the process of European integration of the Western Balkan countries has regained strength after years of stagnation.

To understand the stakes and terms of the ongoing debate, we interviewed Lodovico Gherardi, coordinator of the managing authority (the Emilia Romagna Region) of the Interreg IPA Adrion Programme.

Let's start by clarifying things a little. What is EUSAIR and what is the Interreg IPA Adrion Programme?

EUSAIR is an acronym for the European Union Strategy for the Adriatic-Ionian region. It is one of the four macro-regional strategies that exist in Europe today. The other three strategies concern the Baltic, Danube and Alpine macro-regions. In essence, it is an agreement between nations, approved and ratified by the European Council.

The objective is to identify and share issues of particular importance for the development of the territories of the macro-region, around which projects can then be developed to be presented in the various European Union programmes. To do this, discussion panels and permanent working groups were set up among experts from the nations participating in the strategy. The general themes on which the working groups focus are those that characterise the cohesion policies of the European Union and a lot of attention is paid to the involvement of local communities.

The IPA Adrion programme (formerly known simply as Adrion) was created to respond almost directly to the work of this strategy. The geographical area of competence is in fact the same, as is the case for the Interreg programmes linked to the Alpine, Danube and Baltic strategies.

These programmes, which overlap with macro-regional strategies, have some particular characteristics. For example, they must dedicate at least 80% of their resources to the themes developed by the strategy. In the case of EUSAIR, the pillars on which its action is concentrated are the so-called "blue growth", i.e. the economy linked to the sea, tourism, the environment, transport and energy. And the "youth" pillar has been added in the revision of the Action Plan currently being approved.

Let's talk about the Sibenik event. What does the EUSAIR Annual Forum represent?

The Forum is the final act of the rotating presidency. Each nation undertakes in its year of presidency to carry forward the discussion framed by the macro-regional strategy by developing the issues of greatest interest. The Forum is therefore a meeting moment that is also very political where the roundtables and technical events actually surround the real meeting which is the one between political representatives at a national and local level. It is an opportunity for important bilateral meetings (in short, it is not uncommon for there to be ministers from the countries involved).

The Sibenik Forum is particularly interesting because it took place at the end of the first period of operation of the strategy launched in 2014 with the Croatian presidency (at the time the event was organised in Dubrovnik). In short, with the review of the Action Plan currently underway, we are at a turning point. New pillars have been identified, such as the "youth" pillar, and two new countries have been admitted: North Macedonia and San Marino, which was represented at the Forum.

The Forum also took place at a particular moment at European level for cohesion policies. The Commission has launched a consultation  on the future of Interreg after 2027…

Yes. For this reason in Sibenik there was also a congress dedicated to the future of Interreg, held on 14 May, before the official start of the Forum. This is a meeting organised by the Committee of the Regions. The debate on the future of cohesion policy is very interesting. We ask ourselves whether, faced with the introduction of heavy and urgent financial aid instruments, such as the Next Generation EU, it makes sense to continue with cohesion policies as they are defined today.

Interreg, which is perhaps the most advanced component of these policies, is however the one that provides results that are least directly perceivable by ordinary citizens. Interreg, by its nature, does not finance heavy physical interventions on the territory, but finances projects in which networks of dialogue, exchange of experiences between stakeholders, technicians (including local administration technicians) and scientists are created on specific issues of different nations and in this they are synergistic and useful to the macro-regions. In fact, if macro-regional strategies operate between states, between ministries... Interreg projects connect local administrations and territories. They take the discussion from the central to the local level.

In short, Interreg helps national or local entities to share what they are doing with other entities facing similar challenges. The programme has existed in its current configuration since 2000, we have reached its fourth programming cycle and there are those who today, due to its "soft" actions, question its usefulness.

So is Interreg no longer needed?

In my opinion, Interreg maintains its usefulness, even if I understand the need for a review of its operating methods. However, I believe that the situation is different within the member countries of the European Union and in areas that include non-EU states. Within the Union, it can perhaps be argued that after 24 years of Interreg, relations between local administrations exist and have consolidated. However, this is not so true for territories where the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) or the European Neighborhood Policy operates.

I'll give you an example: I recently went to a candidate country to discuss a project financed by EU funds. Well, I have found that in those communities there are great difficulties in understanding the functioning of European planning and the values on which it is based. For this reason, I believe that territorial cooperation must continue to exist in these regions, because it brings value added.

Is cooperation at the local level a priority for the Adriatic-Ionian macroregion?

Yes. I would say that, among the most important common challenges for the region, the need to develop dialogue at the local level is perhaps the most pressing. Of course, we have our concrete technical pillars, such as environmental protection, the problem of the dispersion of young talent, infrastructure... but collaboration underlies all these issues and is fundamental for the European integration of the area, especially in times of geopolitical crisis like the current one. It is urgent that the countries of the Western Balkans all join the European Union and dialogue on concrete issues can advance at a local level, even if at a national level it struggles on the major political-ideological issues. This is the great value added of Interreg and territorial cooperation.