Small projects, big choices: Making Interreg’s micro-cooperation tools matter

October 2025

Since 2021, all Interreg cross-border programmes have been required to support projects with a limited financial volume. This can be achieved through small-scale projects (SSPs) or small project funds (SPFs).

Small projects, whether in SSPs or SPFs, have a smaller financial volume, shorter duration and fewer partners than standard Interreg projects. Depending on whom you ask, this is either welcome recognition of grassroots cooperation or a well-meaning administrative headache. With budgets ranging from EUR 750 to EUR 800 000 or even more, it is difficult to define what 'small' means in this context, let alone agree on what these projects are meant to achieve.

Yet, as the 2028–2034 programming cycle approaches, it is worth taking stock to see what needs to change for these projects to become more than just policy ornamentation.

From social glue to strategic lever

The rationale for small projects is deceptively simple. Many of the players that make up the everyday cross-border cooperation fabric, such as local associations, schools, youth clubs, cultural groups and small municipalities, are said to find that most Interreg projects are rather big, complex or often too slow.

Small projects can provide an entry point to cross-border cooperation for target groups who would otherwise find it difficult to engage in Interreg projects.

In principle, there are three rationales for the added value of smaller projects bringing in new players:

• Some argue that smaller players require a specific type of project, as standard Interreg projects are too large and complex for them.

• Small projects are sometimes considered stepping stones that introduce these players to Interreg and develop their capacity to participate in standard projects.

• Small projects may help small organisations capitalise on the results of previous 'regular' projects.

In any case, the appeal lies in the kind of cooperation they enable. These are not showcase investments or lengthy policy dialogues. They are practical, often spontaneous forms of interaction between people, such as shared theatre performances, training exchanges, joint summer camps and start-up hackathons. They are often seen to deliver visibility, inclusion and trust.

They also address a core territorial challenge: how to sustain integration in places where legal and administrative barriers have been lowered, but social, linguistic, or institutional barriers remain. While full-fledged Interreg projects might build a bridge, it is the small projects that create the cross-border dance class that gets people walking across it.

SSPs vs SPFs: Two pathways, one bottleneck

Small Interreg projects are usually run either directly by the programmes (SSPs) or via small project funds (SPFs), which are managed by delegated bodies such as Euroregions or EGTCs. Both options have their pros and cons.

SSPs are easier to manage. Programmes retain control and can integrate these projects into existing structures, making them ideal stepping stones for newcomers. However, they are harder to adapt to local realities and place the full administrative burden on Joint Secretariats.

SPFs offer local anchoring, contextual sensitivity and hands-on outreach. At their best, they act as one-stop shops with extensive networks, guiding applicants through the process and making EU funding more accessible. However, they rely on strong intermediaries and a management budget that often fails to match the task. While politically tidy, in many cases the 20% cap on management costs underestimates the effort needed to mobilise new players at scale.

This isn’t just a governance issue. It's also a question of political economy: who is trusted to manage public money, whose local knowledge is valued, and whether the EU is willing to pay the true cost of engaging with new groups.

Demand exceeds supply, but who gets in?

Demand is strong for both SSPs and SPFs. Over half of all SPFs report application volumes that exceed their budgets by at least 50%. Even among SSPs, around a third of programmes are heavily oversubscribed.

However, this does not automatically mean success. Some programmes struggle to reach the intended target groups. This may be because the rules are too complex, the calls are too infrequent, or the formats are too indistinguishable from regular projects. There is a risk that small projects will be captured by larger institutions looking for easier funding streams.

In other words, size alone does not guarantee accessibility. Without dedicated outreach, mentoring, and thematic clarity, small projects can become miniaturised versions of standard Interreg projects – perhaps with less paperwork, but not necessarily more inclusive.

Functional areas: the missing territorial lens?

Small projects really shine when they are tied to functional territories with visible identities, coherent needs and capable intermediaries. Bodensee, the Pamina Eurodistrict and the Luxembourg Greater Region are examples of how small projects targeting functional areas as sub-regions of programme areas can strengthen long-standing cultural, economic and institutional ties.

However, this remains the exception. A more strategic approach would involve mapping functional areas and tailoring small project instruments to specific border dynamics. This would also make it easier to communicate the purpose of these projects and their contribution to wider cooperation goals and to European integration.

Recalibrating for the next period

There are seven lessons to consider for the next funding period. They are worth repeating here, not as bureaucratic tick-boxes, but as political choices:

• Clarify purpose. Be clear about understanding the purpose and target audience of small projects, which are aimed at individuals and smaller organisations.

• Support, don't just oblige. Incentivise the use of small projects and provide a clear rationale for doing so, rather than making it mandatory.

• Value intermediaries. Involve Euroregions, EGTCs, etc. as they offer important interfaces for engaging with small, local players who are difficult for programme authorities to reach.

• Link to functional areas. Link the implementation of territorial strategies to the use of small projects, addressing the particular needs of cross-border functional areas.

• Upgrade the tools. Administrative tools, from SCOs to monitoring routines, need to be fit for purpose. The purpose isn’t standard projects with fewer zeros.

• Measure what matters. Participation, trust and leverage are more important here than traditional output indicators.

• Accept the cost of inclusion. If the inclusion of new voices in European cooperation is a political priority, we must be honest about the cost and provide the necessary funding.

Final thought: small projects as democratic infrastructure

It’s tempting to treat small projects as an added bonus. They generate positive publicity and create a buzz in the community. However, if Interreg is serious about being a space for all, then small projects cannot be considered marginal. They are infrastructure. Not the hard kind, but the democratic kind.

They connect people to the idea of cooperation. They demystify the EU. They enable small places to undertake meaningful cross-border initiatives. If designed well, they prepare not only beneficiaries for Interreg, but Interreg itself for a wider, more grounded future.

However, this won't happen through good intentions alone. As the debates about the next EU long-term budget unfold, policymakers should ask themselves what they are really investing in when they talk about cohesion. If the answer includes proximity, inclusion and long-term trust, then small projects deserve a significant role.

by Kai Böhme

(Abre numa nova janela)