For decades, Europe has promoted an investment policy to balance opportunities, regardless of where people are born. The Cohesion Policy and European Territorial Cooperation (Interreg) programs have funded infrastructure, innovation, and social services in numerous cities and regions. However, the recurring question arises: are we using these resources effectively? The key is no longer just the amount or execution rate, but whether funds address the right problems and are integrated into lasting territorial strategies.
The upcoming 2028-2034 budgetary cycle is shaping up amidst contradictory pressures, with increasing demands in security and defense, and debates about the very logic of Cohesion Policy. In this scenario, its continuity and territorial focus are not guaranteed. This is where territorial evidence, provided by the European Observation Network for Territorial Development and Cohesion (ESPON), plays a crucial role, connecting research with public policies for data-driven decisions. The URDICO project, for instance, analyzes how the urban dimension of cohesion materializes in cities like Valencia.
Cohesion Policy extends beyond the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF). It involves a shared governance architecture among the EU, states, regions, and cities. Interreg complements this framework by fostering cross-border cooperation, while ESPON provides territorial intelligence to understand inequalities and governance models. While ESIF offers funding and Interreg practical cooperation, ESPON helps formulate the right questions about territorial vulnerabilities and the real impact of policies.
URDICO examines how eight European cities, including Valencia, utilize European funds and interact with regional and national authorities. The project's value lies in analyzing governance: who decides, who executes, and how administrations coordinate. It is found that European funds work best when cities are active players, connecting European priorities with local strategies. The green transition, digitalization, or mobility are implemented in specific neighborhoods and metropolitan areas.
Participation in the URDICO project in Valencia has confirmed that the challenge with European funds is not just obtaining them, but connecting them with administrative capacities, urban strategies, and clear responsibilities. Moving from a European priority to a real project requires technical teams, institutional coordination, and legal certainty. Therefore, cohesion should not be reduced to financial absorption; a policy can spend a lot and transform little if projects do not align with a clear strategy.
For the 2028-2034 cycle, there is a consensus on the need to simplify rules and reduce administrative burdens. However, simplification should not mean recentralization. A simpler Cohesion Policy, yet further removed from cities and regions, could lose its adaptability. The key is who knows the territory, who integrates investments into a coherent strategy, and who is accountable for their effects.
Territorial evidence, through ESPON, allows for model comparison and solution identification. Interreg facilitates testing and transferring learnings. The ERDF and ESF turn these lessons into investments. The challenge is to connect these pieces and change how success is measured: not just by financial execution, but by strengthening institutional capacities, improving coordination, and generating sustainable changes. What distinguishes spending from investment is the contribution to a more cohesive and inclusive city.
Europe has diagnoses but needs to strengthen the link between evidence, funding, and implementation. In a context of profound transitions and budgetary negotiations, this connection is crucial for cohesion to be more than just a noble word. The territorial policy of the future will require better decisions and capacities, based on territorial knowledge as a starting point to move from maps to action.
