In the European Parliament's REGI committee meeting on April 14, 2026, a pronounced divide emerged between speakers over the future of cross-border cooperation under the post-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF). Joris Bengevoord from the Association of European Border Regions and Peter Berkowitz representing DG REGIO clashed over the autonomy of Interreg, a key EU cross-border cooperation programme. Bengevoord warned that integrating Interreg into national plans would undermine subsidiarity and territorial cohesion, pressing for decentralised governance and continuous support for local projects. In contrast, Berkowitz defended the Commission's proposal as preserving a distinct Interreg framework and continuity in its management structure, emphasizing new reforms to address border obstacles while keeping Interreg distinct from national plans.
This debate unfolded during the REGI committee meeting focused on territorial cohesion and EU spending oversight, with input from European Commission officials, civil society representatives, and members of the Committee of the Regions. The discussion centered on the balance between simplification of EU funds management and safeguarding the autonomy and effectiveness of cross-border cooperation mechanisms.
Several speakers provided detailed policy proposals and institutional commitments. Joris Bengevoord advocated concretely for continued decentralised management, training for controllers, and mechanisms such as the BridgeforEU initiative to remove tangible legal and administrative barriers in border regions. He underscored the importance of preserving small-scale accessibility and rural inclusion in Interreg funding. Peter Berkowitz presented the Commission's concrete plans for sub-national reforms to tackle obstacles like certification and qualifications, backed by a stable budget allocation within a distinct and separate Interreg programme.
Other voices, including Raquel García Hermida-van der Walle (Renew) and members of the Greens/EFA and S&D, echoed concerns about potential over-centralisation and the risk of sidelining regional actors, warning that simplification should not translate into national control and weakening of cross-border projects. Meanwhile, Gaetano D’Adamo from DG BUDGET introduced a performance regulation emphasizing simplification, transparency, and output-based accountability aligned with OECD methodologies, though some members sought more granular and impact-focused monitoring frameworks.
The policy cleavages exposed revolve around preserving local and regional control versus increasing national oversight, strengthening Interreg's separate identity against potential integration into national partnership plans, and balancing simplification of rules with the need to maintain traceability, accountability, and tangible territorial impact.
Stakeholders impacted include local and regional authorities which stand to gain or lose operational autonomy, EU producers and consumers in border areas who rely on effective cooperation for services like transport and labor mobility, and EU taxpayers interested in efficient and transparent use of funds. A shift towards national integration of Interreg might streamline administration but risks diluting cross-border cooperation's effectiveness and reducing accessibility for small-scale actors, especially in rural border regions.
Looking ahead, the committee plans to amend and improve the Commission's proposal ahead of a September 2026 vote, with broad consensus on defending a strong cross-border dimension in cohesion policy while seeking more flexible, measurable, and locally attuned performance frameworks. The outcome will likely influence the balance of power between EU regional frameworks and national governments in cohesion spending and cross-border policy enforcement.