Transition Strategies for Finland’s Eastern and South‑Eastern Border Regions

10. Recommendations for the entire eastern and southeastern border region

Abstract

This chapter presents recommendations for the eight eastern and southeastern border regions as a single strategic area. It proposes establishing a Joint Coordinating Body to strengthen multi-level governance, improve strategic coherence, and enhance access to national and EU funding. The chapter outlines actions for a joint regional strategy focused on economic diversification, dual-use infrastructure, innovation, and security preparedness. It also highlights measures to expand opportunities for young people through improved education, training, employment, and entrepreneurship support. Additional recommendations address civic resilience, sustainable tourism, and international student attraction. The chapter concludes with a joint action plan.

The present chapter presents the recommendations for the entire eastern and southeastern border region. The recommendations are aimed at strengthening strategic co‑ordination and enhancing the role of young people in regional development planning and decision-making.

Multi-level governance and policy co‑ordination

Establish a unified regional framework for eastern and southeastern border area

To strengthen policy coherence and improve the region’s capacity to respond to its current and future challenges, it is recommended that the eight eastern and southeastern border regions of Finland form a closer collaboration by establishing a Joint Co‑ordinating Body (JCB) to lead strategic co‑ordination efforts.

The clarification of currently fragmented definitions such as "Eastern Finland", "Northern Finland" and "East Finland" into a single regional framework titled for example as “Eastern and Southeastern Border Region”, or “Finland’s Eastern Border Region”, would reduce policy overlap and confusion. At present, the overlapping labels create confusion from external reviewer’s viewpoint, and may also weaken the effectiveness of national and EU-level policies by dispersing focus, funding, and administrative capacity. A unified regional identity would allow for better alignment of national and EU investments, tailored to the specific challenges and opportunities of this distinct border region.

A key recommendation is the formation of a Joint Co‑ordinating Body (JCB) - a formal inter-regional collaborative authority grounded in the provisions of the Finnish Municipal Act1. The creation of the JCB is justified on several grounds:

• Cross-regional benefit spillovers: Many of the measures necessary for revitalising the region - such as investments in transport infrastructure, broadband connectivity, security integration, and labor market development - will produce benefits that go beyond administrative boundaries. A joint authority would ensure that these benefits are captured and shared across the entire region.

• Strategic coherence and efficiency: A formal co‑ordinating body would make it easier to align regional development plans, reduce duplication, utilise economies of scale and scope, and present a unified strategic voice in dialogue with national ministries and EU institutions. This would strengthen the regions’ negotiating power and ensure more coherent investment planning.

• Pooling of expertise and resources: The regions face similar demographic and economic challenges, including depopulation, industrial restructuring, and weakened labor markets. By pooling analytical capacity, project development expertise, and policy planning through a joint secretariat, the JCB could enhance the effectiveness of regional initiatives and reduce administrative burdens on individual regions.

• Security and geopolitical co‑ordination: Given the regions' shared exposure to border-related security issues and geopolitical risks, a single co‑ordinating body could play an important role in integrating regional preparedness and civil protection measures with national strategies.

• Improved access to external funding: A unified strategic framework and institutional co‑ordination mechanism would make the region more competitive in securing national and EU-level funding. This includes funding for infrastructure, green transition, innovation, and labor market resilience under various cohesion policy instruments.

• Platform for innovation and transition management: As the border region shifts away from previous economic dependencies, the JCB can provide a platform to pilot innovative transition measures, support experimentation, and promote cross-regional learning and replication of successful initiatives.

While the practical governance of the Joint Co‑ordinating Body, if established, is ultimately for the regions to determine, it could be operationally structured with a board representing the participating regional councils and supported by a dedicated secretariat. The body could also establish thematic working groups focusing on key strategic areas such as economic diversification, connectivity and infrastructure, security, and labor market renewal. To ensure alignment with broader policy frameworks, it should maintain close co‑operation with relevant national ministries and co‑ordinate with EU institutions.

The Finnish eastern and southeastern border regions could benefit from experiences in other countries, such as Canada’s Council of Atlantic Premiers (CAP) and the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) when considering the development of the proposed Joint Co‑ordinating Body (JCB). Like the proposed JCB, the CAP is designed to amplify regional voices, co‑ordinate planning, and pursue shared strategic goals (Box 10.1).

Box 10.1. International examples in interregional co‑operation

Council of Atlantic Premiers (CAP), Canada

The Council of Atlantic Premiers (CAP) is a formal co‑operation mechanism among the four eastern Canadian provinces: Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador. It was established in 2000 through a Memorandum of Understanding on Regional Co‑operation, building on earlier regional collaboration dating back to the 1970s.

CAP serves as a platform for joint decision-making and strategic co‑ordination among the provinces. Its primary objectives are to promote common regional positions on national policy issues, co‑ordinate joint economic and social initiatives, and strengthen the representation of Atlantic Canada’s interests in federal-level decision-making.

Key features of CAP include a shared governance structure led by the four provincial premiers, a joint secretariat supporting co‑ordination and policy development, and a broad mandate covering economic, social, and environmental issues. CAP also plays a key role in preparing unified regional positions for national forums.

While no comprehensive impact evaluation of CAP has been conducted, available documentation suggest that it has played a constructive role in regional policy co‑ordination. CAP has advanced climate and energy co‑operation, promoted regional economic growth, and addressed shared challenges such as labour shortages and housing affordability. The joint trade missions are recent examples of practical outcomes.

Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC), United States

The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) in the United States offers a complementary model of interregional co‑operation, one that focuses on long-term investment, institutional capacity-building, and place-based economic development in a historically disadvantaged region. Established in 1965, ARC is a federally funded partnership that encompasses 423 counties across 13 states in the Appalachian region.

Governance is shared between the governors of the participating states and a federal co-chair appointed by the President, ensuring strategic alignment across national and subnational levels. ARC directs funding and technical assistance towards a set of clearly defined priorities, including entrepreneurship and business development, workforce training, education and public health, infrastructure investment (notably in broadband and transport), cultural and natural heritage development, and the strengthening of local leadership and institutional capacity.

Implementation is delivered through a network of 73 local development districts, which play a crucial role in ensuring that programmes are responsive to local needs while remaining co‑ordinated across jurisdictions. One of ARC’s flagship initiatives, the POWER (Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce and Economic Revitalisation) programme, supports economic diversification and labour market resilience in coal-dependent communities, providing a replicable model for other structurally transitioning regions.

Source: (Council of Atlantic Premiers (CAP), 2025[1]; Appalachian Regional Commission, 2025[2])

Developing a joint regional strategy for eastern and southeastern Finland

Joint regional strategies often require mechanisms that allow actors to co‑ordinate across administrative borders, sectors, and levels of government. While such arrangements differ in formality and scope, they offer valuable models for regions seeking to build collaborative frameworks. Although the eastern and southeastern Finnish border regions form a distinct case, international experiences from Germany and Sweden may offer relevant inspiration (Box 10.2). The Hamburg Metropolitan Region illustrates how structured inter-state governance can support coherent spatial planning and joint investment, while Agenda 2030 in West Sweden demonstrates the potential of a flexible, bottom-up platform for voluntary, cross-sectoral co‑operation around shared sustainability goals. Both examples show how regions can align efforts and pool resources to tackle complex, cross-cutting challenges.

To address the profound economic and security challenges facing eastern and southeastern Finland, it is recommended that the eight border regions establish a Joint Co‑ordinating Body (JCB). This structure would support strategic action on issues that individual regions cannot manage effectively on their own due to limited scale and capacity. The JCB’s mission would be to develop and implement a cohesive regional strategy that delivers shared benefits across all participating areas.

The creation of such a co‑ordinating structure is also important in view of potential new EU funding instruments. If new resources were to be made available to support transition and resilience in Finland’s eastern and southeastern border regions it is likely that the donor would require structured inter-regional co‑operation as a precondition for eligibility. Fragmented approaches by individual regions would risk weakening the overall case for support. A jointly developed strategy, backed by a co‑ordination mechanism such as the JCB, would help present a unified regional voice, improve strategic alignment of investments, and enhance the region’s collective bargaining power at both the national and EU levels. Importantly, fund implementation could remain with existing NUTS3-level bodies, while the JCB would focus on joint prioritisation, strategic positioning, and engagement with relevant institutions.

In this regard, the following recommendations are made:

One of the central pillars of the joint strategy should be strategic investment in dual-use infrastructure, i.e. in assets that serve both civilian and military purposes. Co‑ordinated planning and investment in transport networks, logistics hubs, port facilities, and product development environments - such as testbeds and innovation platforms - would strengthen regional preparedness, innovation capacity, and logistical resilience. Particular attention should be given to enhancing westward connections to Sweden and Norway, thereby improving regional connectivity and security readiness in a way that transcends regional borders.

Innovation is another critical focus. The creation of cross-regional innovation hubs would bring together universities, research institutions, businesses, and local authorities to foster joint projects and facilitate knowledge transfer and commercialisation. This effort could build on existing NUTS2-level Smart Specialisation collaboration, while extending co‑ordination across all eight border regions. To maximise impact, the regions should develop a comprehensive action plan for joint R&D initiatives involving Finnish, Nordic, and broader EU partners. This would allow the border regions to benefit from synergies and scale that go beyond the capacity of any single region.

The strategy should also support a co‑ordinated approach to economic diversification. A shared plan should guide the transition of regional economies toward future-oriented sectors such as the bioeconomy, sustainable agriculture, renewable energy, digital technology, and sustainable tourism.. By leveraging each region’s unique strengths and natural assets, and by implementing clear regulatory frameworks and strategic funding mechanisms, the regions can ensure the efficient use of national and EU resources to support initiatives of regional significance.

In light of growing and enduring security concerns, the establishment of an integrated security and defence innovation cluster is recommended. This would include defence, cybersecurity, and surveillance hubs that transform regional vulnerabilities into competitive advantages. Co‑operation with national institutions such as the Finnish Defence Forces, NATO, and relevant EU programmes will be essential. Activities should align with Finland’s national defence strategy and EU security priorities, enabling the pursuit of targeted funding, joint research projects, and strategic partnerships.

Another vital area is regional emergency preparedness. A unified strategy should be developed to strengthen civil protection and emergency response capabilities, including the establishment of co‑ordinated emergency centres and the deployment of AI-driven surveillance systems and modern border control technologies. Close collaboration with national authorities is necessary to ensure comprehensive and effective coverage of critical public services - such as police, rescue, and emergency healthcare - in remote and sparsely populated border areas.

To strengthen long-term resilience and preparedness in Finland’s eastern and southeastern border regions, it is essential also to acknowledge and support the role of local civic actors as part of the broader security and development framework. Civil society organisations, volunteer networks, and informal community groups are often the first to identify local vulnerabilities and mobilise responses in both acute crises and long-term societal shifts. Their embedded knowledge, social trust, and ability to reach marginalised populations complement institutional capacities, particularly in sparsely populated and ageing areas. Public authorities could therefore foster sustained co‑operation with key civic actors, integrate them into preparedness planning and ensure that funding mechanisms and communication structures recognise their role as partners.

Tourism also offers significant potential for joint development. The regions should work together to create a coherent branding and marketing strategy that positions the border areas as a sustainable, multi-day destination for EU tourists. This strategy should emphasise sustainability, regional identity, and ecological responsibility, with co‑ordinated efforts from regional councils and municipalities to highlight shared tourism offerings and transport links. Investments in shared tourism infrastructure - including sustainable facilities and digital tourism services - would improve accessibility and enhance the visitor experience. Special Economic Zone (SEZ) incentives could be considered to attract investment into underdeveloped tourism areas, supporting equitable growth across the regions.

Finally, given Finland’s demographic trends and the increasing global demand for international education, it is recommended that the regions adopt a joint strategy to attract and retain international students. This initiative should be led by the proposed JCB, which would co‑ordinate institutional collaboration, oversee marketing campaigns, streamline administrative processes, and engage with national authorities to support student recruitment. Acting as a unified regional voice, the JCB would help ensure a consistent and strategic approach to strengthening the education sector and addressing long-term demographic challenges.

Box 10.2. Regional co‑ordination beyond administrative boundaries: Examples from Germany and Sweden

Hamburg Metropolitan Region: A model of inter-state spatial co‑ordination

The Hamburg Metropolitan Region (HMR) spans four German federal states - Hamburg, Lower Saxony, Schleswig-Holstein, and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania - covering 8% of the national territory. Due to this fragmented governance landscape, co‑ordinated spatial planning and investment are essential for balanced regional development.

Formalised through a co‑ordination body, HMR brings together state and municipal actors to develop strategies and implement joint projects in areas such as transport, economy, tourism, housing, and climate. Originating in the 1950s, co‑operation was institutionalised in 1997 with the creation of a governance structure comprising a Regional Council, Steering Committee, and thematic working groups. A key feature is the flexible decision-making rule: members may abstain from projects but cannot veto others’ participation - helping to prevent deadlock.

Key initiatives include a digital co‑ordination system for managing construction and traffic disruptions, a Mobility Competence Centre, and a Spatial Development Co‑ordination Group to plan infrastructure to 2045. The Hamburg Public Transport Association (HVV) exemplifies the benefits of collaboration, having integrated services and fare systems across the region - leading to a 30% increase in public transport use from 1990 to 2015 and inspiring similar models across German-speaking Europe.

HMR demonstrates how structured governance and flexible co‑operation can support effective regional development across administrative boundaries.

Agenda 2030 in West Sweden: A regional partnership for sustainable development

Agenda 2030 in West Sweden is a regionally initiated, bottom-up collaboration platform designed to support the implementation of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) through voluntary, cross-sectoral co‑operation. The initiative brings together a wide range of actors, including universities (such as the University of Gothenburg and Chalmers University of Technology), public authorities (including Region Västra Götaland), research institutes, private companies, and civil society organisations.

Functioning as an open and informal network, the platform facilitates dialogue, knowledge exchange, and joint action on sustainable development. It places strong emphasis on SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) as a means to unlock progress across all areas of the 2030 Agenda. Regular workshops, thematic forums, and co-creation activities help stakeholders explore solutions to shared challenges and align regional efforts with global sustainability objectives.

Although not a formal governance structure, Agenda 2030 in West Sweden exemplifies effective regional co‑ordination through trust-building, shared goals, and mutual learning. It demonstrates how regions can take ownership of complex, long-term challenges by pooling expertise and resources - without relying on central mandates. As such, it offers a useful model for other regions seeking to strengthen strategic collaboration, including those developing joint co‑ordinating bodies across administrative boundaries.

Source: (OECD, 2024[3]; UN, 2025[4])

Expand economic and social opportunities for young people in Finland’s eastern and southeastern border regions

Address the innovation gaps faced in many of the regions, including through greater support for industry-academia partnerships that involve multi-nationals and SMEs through knowledge transfer activities, while also providing career and upskilling opportunities for domestic and international students alike.

Strengthen education and vocational training opportunities

Improving access to education and vocational training is essential to support the long-term resilience and competitiveness of remote and rural regions in eastern and south-eastern Finland. To this end, targeted investments should be made to expand access to upper secondary schools and vocational education and training (VET) institutions in sparsely populated areas. In particular, digital and blended learning solutions offer a practical means to overcome geographic barriers and ensure that young people in remote communities have access to a full range of learning opportunities.

In parallel, public transport options and financial support schemes for rural youth should be enhanced to facilitate physical access to education and training institutions. This will help reduce drop-out rates, increase participation, and ensure that location is not a limiting factor in a young person’s educational journey.

Stronger partnerships between businesses, higher education institutions, and employment services are also needed to expand regional apprenticeship and work-based learning programmes. These collaborations should include co-financed training models, such as joint training schemes (e.g. the Further Education and Training Centres or FEC programmes) and other employer-led upskilling initiatives. Integration with existing employment service tools - such as wage subsidies and, where applicable, apprenticeship contracts - can help align supply and demand, improve the relevance of training, and support smoother transitions into the labour market.

In addition, more structured approaches to identifying the potential of jobseekers should be developed, especially in areas with high unemployment or economic restructuring. From 2026 onwards, it would be advisable to explore the possibility of offering higher education degree programmes through labour market training under defined conditions, creating new pathways for adults and career-changers to access advanced qualifications while responding to evolving regional labour market needs.

Boosting employment opportunities and entrepreneurship support

Enhancing employment prospects and fostering entrepreneurship are critical to strengthening the socio-economic fabric of high-unemployment and rural regions in eastern and south-eastern Finland. Special attention should be given to young people, who face particular barriers to entering the labour market in these areas.

To address this, targeted employment initiatives should be introduced for youth in regions with persistently high unemployment. These could include wage subsidies and internship schemes focused on key growth sectors, helping young people gain relevant work experience, strengthen employability, and build pathways to long-term employment.

At the same time, rural areas should benefit from expanded support for young entrepreneurs, recognising their potential to create local jobs and diversify regional economies. This support should include mentorship programmes, start-up grants, and improved access to financing, alongside the provision of adequate funding and institutional resources to ensure that entrepreneurship support services are effective and meaningful. Strengthening this ecosystem will not only help retain young talent in the regions but also contribute to a more dynamic economy.

Proposal for Action Plan

The proposed joint action plan presented in Table 10.1 outlines a co‑ordinated framework for the eight eastern and southeastern border regions of Finland. While each region has its own distinct characteristics, they share common challenges arising from the closure of the Finnish–Russian border, demographic pressures, and structural economic change. At the same time, they also share opportunities for innovation, diversification, and resilience that can be more effectively realised through joint planning and co‑ordinated action.

The proposed action plan translates broad strategic priorities (presented above) into concrete, regionally driven measures, covering themes such as joint governance, economic diversification, youth and education, employment and entrepreneurship, innovation, dual-use infrastructure and security, civic resilience, sustainable tourism, and international education. For each theme, the table identifies key actions, responsible actors, indicative timelines, resources, and measurable indicators. The indicators are designed for straightforward monitoring, while the actions provide a basis upon which governments and regional stakeholders could later set appropriate numerical targets, aligned with national policies and EU frameworks.

The joint action plan for the eight regions underscores the importance of collective governance structures such as a Joint Co‑ordinating Body, and the need to align regional strategies with national and EU instruments. It also places strong emphasis on young people, skills, and entrepreneurship as cornerstones of long-term vitality. Infrastructure, connectivity, and dual-use investments are included to ensure that resilience and security of supply go hand in hand with competitiveness.

Taken together, the actions proposed for the eight border regions provide a roadmap for building a more resilient, connected, and forward-looking eastern and southeastern Finland. They are intended as a starting point for dialogue and implementation with regional councils, municipalities, national ministries, and EU partners, ensuring that the area can position itself as both a secure borderland and an innovative growth area within Finland and the European Union.

Table 10.1. Proposed joint action plan for the area formed by the eight eastern and southeastern border regions of Finland

Theme1	Key actions	Key actors	Timeline	Resources	Indicators
Joint co‑ordination and governance	Establish a Joint Co‑ordinating Body (JCB) to provide strategic leadership, align regional planning, and engage with national and EU institutions, ensuring that the JCB would not duplicate existing regional co‑operation, but serve as a light and flexible co‑ordination platform.	Regional Councils; Ministry of Finance; Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment; Ministry of Education and Culture	2026-2028; A 2-3-year window would allow for negotiation, legal structuring, and initial operation.	Municipal contributions; national facilitation grants; EU technical support; targeted EU funding mechanisms (if established)	JCB formally established; governance charter adopted; number of joint strategic documents
Unified regional strategy	Develop and implement a joint strategy covering economic diversification, dual-use infrastructure, innovation, connectivity, and security preparedness.	JCB; Regional Councils; relevant line ministries	2026-2029; Work could begin once the JCB is in place. Finalisation in 2029 would ensure readiness for the 2028-2034 EU funding period and provides a framework for strategic investment proposals.	EU cohesion and transition funds; national co-financing; private-sector engagement; targeted EU funding mechanisms (if established)	Strategy adopted; funding aligned to shared priorities; number of joint investment proposals approved for funding under EU or national programmes
Youth and education	Expand access to VET (existing and new) and upper secondary education	Ministry of Education and Culture; municipalities; education providers	2026-2031; Pilot initiatives could begin in 2026-2027, with gradual rollout and integration with national reforms by 2031.	National education funding; ESF+; municipal infrastructure grants	Student access rates; youth employment rate; new VET programmes; digital learning uptake
	Enhance blended learning	Ministry of Education and Culture; municipalities and other education providers; digital learning providers; teacher training institutions.	2026-2031. Early pilot in 20262027, gradual rollout by 2028-2029, mainstreaming and integration with national reforms by 2031.	National education funding (curriculum and digital infrastructure); ESF+ for skills and training; municipal ICT grants; partnerships with private digital learning providers.	Number of schools offering blended learning; student participation rates; digital learning uptake; teacher training hours in blended learning methods.
	Support employer-led training and rural student mobility	Ministry of Education and Culture; Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment; municipalities; other education providers; employers associations; local businesses; Regional Councils.	2026-2031. Pilot employer-led training schemes and student mobility support in 2026-2027, expand programmes by 2028-2029, integration with broader education and employment reforms by 2031.	National education and employment budgets; ESF+ for mobility and skills development; municipal support; employer co-financing or in-kind contributions (e.g. apprenticeships; internships).	Number of employer-led training programmes established; student participation in mobility schemes; rural youth employment rates; share of students completing placements with local employers.
Employment and entrepreneurship	Implement youth employment initiatives (e.g. apprenticeships, employer incentives, and targeted support for NEETs and rural youth)	Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment; ELY Centres (Employment Areas); municipalities; JCB; regional councils	2026-2030. Pilot targeted youth employment schemes from 2026; expand employer incentives and apprenticeships by 2028; consolidate programmes by 2030.	National employment budgets; ESF+/ERDF for active labour market measures; employer co-financing (apprenticeships, wage subsidies); municipal youth services; targeted EU funding mechanisms (if established)	Number of youth employed through the initiatives; youth employment rate relative to national average; number of apprenticeships created; share of NEETs engaged in programmes.
	Scale entrepreneurship support in rural areas (e.g. expansion of advisory services and rural business networks, scaling of rural innovation hubs and support programmes)	Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment; ELY Centres; regional entrepreneurship hubs; municipalities; Regional Councils	2026-2030. Initial expansion of advisory services and rural business networks in 2026-2027; scaling of rural innovation hubs and support programmes by 2028-2030.	National SME/entrepreneurship funding; ERDF rural development funds; municipal co-financing for infrastructure (e.g. co-working spaces, business incubators); private-sector sponsorship.	Number of rural entrepreneurs receiving support; participation in rural business networks; business survival rates at 3 years; increase in rural self-employment rate.
	Support start-ups with finance, mentorship, and networks	Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment; Business Finland; ELY Centres; regional entrepreneurship hubs; universities and research institutes; private investors/venture funds.	2026-2030. Early-stage funding and mentorship pilots from 2026; expansion of start-up finance mechanisms and cross-regional networks by 2028-2030.	National innovation and start-up funding; ERDF/Innovation ecosystem grants; Horizon Europe/Interreg for cross-border collaboration; private equity and venture capital.	Number of start-ups supported; volume of early-stage finance mobilised; number of mentorship matches; share of supported start-ups surviving beyond 3 years; patents and commercialisation outcomes.
Innovation	Establish cross-regional innovation hubs and R&D collaboration	Universities and universities of applied sciences; VTT (Technical Research Centre of Finland); Business Finland; Regional Councils; municipalities; private sector R&D partners.	2026-2030. Consortium-building and hub design in 2026; launch of first cross-regional hubs from 2027; network consolidation and scaling by 2030.	Horizon Europe, Interreg, national innovation funding; ERDF for infrastructure and regional support; private-sector contributions. targeted EU funding mechanisms (if established)	Hubs operational, number of cross-regional research projects, number of joint patents or commercialisation outcomes;
	Pilot joint smart specialisation initiatives	Regional Councils (responsible for RIS3 strategies); universities and research institutes; Business Finland; Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment; private sector actors in priority sectors.	2026-2029. Joint priority-setting and design of pilots in 2026-2027; implementation of pilot smart specialisation projects from 2028; evaluation and scaling by 2029.	Horizon Europe and Interregional Innovation Investments (I3) instrument; ERDF; national innovation and cluster funding; private-sector co-financing.	Number of joint smart specialisation pilots launched; participation rate of regional firms and research actors; number of cross-regional value chains or clusters created.
Dual-use infrastructure and security	Plan and invest in shared dual-use infrastructure (e.g. logistics, broadband, testbeds)	JCB, Ministry of Defence; Ministry of Interior; Ministry of Transport and Communications, municipalities, regional councils, wellbeing services counties	2026-2032, aligned with infrastructure planning and delivery cycles	CEF; national security budget; NATO/EU defence innovation instruments; targeted EU funding mechanisms (if established)	Number of p. logistics upgrades, broadband expansion (coverage, % households with 1 Gbps), number of dual-use testbeds established; share of population covered by secure/dual-use digital or energy systems..
	Co‑ordinate civil protection services and defence innovation clusters.	JCB; Ministry of Defence; Ministry of Interior; municipalities; regional councils; wellbeing services counties; National Emergency Supply Agency; civil protection authorities.	2026-2032, consistent with the roll-out of preparedness frameworks and innovation pilots	National security budget; EU Civil Protection Mechanism; NATO/EU defence innovation funds; municipal co-funding; targeted EU funding mechanisms (if established)	Number of civil protection exercises conducted; preparedness metrics improved; number of defence innovation cluster projects launched; volume of funding secured for preparedness and innovation
Civic resilience and civil society	Development of preparedness plans with civil society and community actors.	Regional authorities, Ministry of Interior, NGOs, wellbeing services counties, emergency services, community organisations	2026-2029. allows pilot models to be institutionalised and evaluated	Public preparedness funds, NGO support schemes; training resources; municipal co-funding	Number of preparedness plans co-developed; , participation metrics
	Establish a funding plan to ensure recognition and sustainability of civic contributions.	Ministry of Interior; Ministry of Finance; Regional authorities; NGOs; wellbeing services counties	2026–2029; aligned with development and roll-out of preparedness plans	Public preparedness funds; dedicated budget lines for civic engagement; EU/national grant mechanisms for NGOs	Funding plan developed; amount of funds secured for civic contributions; number of NGOs receiving sustained support
Sustainable tourism and branding	Co-create a regional strategy and shared brand identity for eco-tourism and sustainable tourism, highlighting the unique and vulnerable natural environments of the eastern and southeastern border regions..	Regional councils; municipalities; JCB; Visit Finland; NGOs.	2026-2027; A 2-year window for consultation, design, and adoption of the brand/strategy.	Tourism development grants; ERDF (strategy and planning support); national branding/marketing funds	Joint tourism strategy adopted; brand identity established and in use; number of stakeholders engaged in strategy development
	Roll out joint marketing initiatives, cross-regional packages, and promotional campaigns aligned with the shared strategy, targeting Nordic, Central European, and Asian markets.	Regional councils; municipalities; JCB; Visit Finland; local tourism businesses	2027–2030; A 3–4 year window for campaign implementation, scaling, and measurable results	Tourism development grants; ERDF (campaigns and promotion); private-sector co-financing from tourism operators	Number of co‑ordinated promotional campaigns implemented; increase in international visitor numbers; regional tourism revenue growth; overnight stays.
International education strategy	Develop a shared strategy to attract and retain international students, co‑ordinate HEI partnerships and support infrastructure.	JCB, higher education institutions, Ministry of Education and Culture	2026-2029, A 3-year period would allow the development of joint campaigns, institutional co‑operation, and initial student cohorts to be monitored.	Ministry funding, institutional marketing grants, EU mobility programmes	Number of international enrolments, retention rates, regional graduate employment

1. Actions are generally presented together under each theme as a single entity when their key actors, resources, and indicators are largely shared. To distinguish multiple actions within one row, they are separated by semicolons (“;”) rather than bullet points. This ensures clarity and avoids unnecessary duplication across the table. Where actions differ significantly in terms of actors, resources, timelines, or indicators, they are listed in separate rows with distinct entries.

References

[2] Appalachian Regional Commission (2025), Appalachian Regional Commission - Investing in Appalachia’s economic future., https://www.arc.gov/ (accessed on 23 May 2025).

[1] Council of Atlantic Premiers (CAP) (2025), The Council of Atlantic Premiers, https://cap-cpma.ca/ (accessed on 5 May 2025).

[3] OECD (2024), COORDINATING SPATIAL PLANNING AND INVESTMENT ACROSS STATE AND LOCAL BOUNDARIES IN THE HAMBURG METROPOLITAN REGION, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/providing-local-actors-with-case-studies-evidence-and-solutions-places_eb108047-en/coordinating-spatial-planning-and-investment-across-state-and-local-boundaries-in-the-hamburg-metropolitan-region_737dba96-en.html (accessed on 6 May 2025).

[4] UN (2025), Agenda 2030 in West Sweden - a collaborative forum for partnerships for implementation of the goals | Department of Economic and Social Affairs, https://sdgs.un.org/partnerships/agenda-2030-west-sweden-collaborative-forum-partnerships-implementation-goals (accessed on 6 May 2025).

Note

← 1.  The Finnish legal framework permits cooperation not only between municipalities but also among joint municipal authorities such as regional councils, providing a solid institutional basis for such a body.