At the heart of its efforts, the Peer Reviews offer cities a structured opportunity to reflect on their strategies, receive feedback from peers, and identify pathways to access and optimise funding. This article explores how recent Peer Reviews in Jiu Valley (Romania), Athienou (Cyprus), Basso Piave (Italy), and Torrelavega (Spain) have helped cities not only improve their Sustainable Urban Development (SUD) strategies but also strengthen their financial foundations.

From strategy to investment

Peer Reviews are more than just knowledge exchange events -they can also be accelerators for turning ideas into funded projects. By helping cities refine their strategic focus, clarify their priorities, and align with EU policy frameworks, Peer Reviews support cities in improve the design and implementation of their Sustainable Urban Development (SUD) strategies. But they can also increase the cities’ chances of securing resources from Cohesion policy, national programmes, or EU-level initiatives like Horizon Europe or URBACT, especially as they can be teamed with another format  EUI proposes, the City-to-City Exchanges.

In each Peer Review, cities under review present their sustainable urban development strategies and receive tailored feedback from peer reviewers and experts. This process often reveals gaps in funding logic, missed opportunities for resource mobilisation, and ways to better leverage existing financial tools.

This format becomes a bridge between planning and implementation, as it helps identify not only what needs to be done, but also how to fund it. For example, a city may have a robust vision for green mobility but lack clarity on how to finance electric vehicle infrastructure. Through peer feedback, cities can uncover funding mechanisms such as the Connecting Europe Facility or national green transition funds.

Funding challenges and peer solutions

Across recent Peer Reviews, three recurring funding-related challenges emerged—along with practical solutions:

1. Mobilising resources for citizen engagement

Citizen engagement is often the cornerstone of sustainable urban development, yet it remains underfunded. Smaller cities, in particular, struggle to allocate resources for inclusive planning. Peer reviewers emphasised the importance of embedding engagement costs into broader project budgets. They also highlighted the role of digital platforms and social media as cost-effective tools for outreach. In addition, cities were encouraged to explore philanthropic grants and Corporate social responsibility (CSR) partnerships with local businesses to support civic participation.

Cities like Balvi (Latvia) and Athienou highlighted the difficulty of funding participatory processes, especially in smaller municipalities with limited budgets.

Peer reviewers offered several approaches:

• URBACT Transfer Networks: These provide funding for local stakeholder groups and coordinators, enabling cities to build participatory capacity without straining municipal budgets.
• CERV programme: Suggested as a source for training local ambassadors and community facilitators.
• Micro-funding models: Alba Iulia (Romania) shared how NGOs and schools can act as intermediaries, accessing funds to support engagement activities on behalf of the municipality.

2. Financing inter-municipal cooperation

Inter-municipal cooperation is essential for addressing challenges that transcend administrative boundaries, such as transportation, housing, and environmental management. However, aligning financial interests across jurisdictions is complex. Peer reviewers suggested establishing inter-municipal councils with rotating leadership to ensure shared ownership. They also recommended exploring EU instruments like Interreg Europe, which supports cross-border collaboration. Examples from Scandinavian countries illustrated how joint ventures in waste management and energy efficiency can yield both economic and environmental benefits.

Territorial fragmentation often leads to fragmented funding. Cities like Verona (Italy) and Balvi noted that collaboration with neighbouring municipalities is typically limited to formal projects, with little strategic or financial continuity.

Practical advice included:

• Joint project development: using flagship projects to attract shared investment, as seen in Brno’s metropolitan strategy.
• Pooling resources: Danish municipalities were cited as an example of joint procurement for data services, reducing costs and increasing bargaining power.
• Flexible governance models: Granada’s multi-municipal strategies showed how informal cooperation can evolve into formalised, fundable structures.

3. Accessing climate adaptation funding

Climate adaptation requires forward-looking investments in infrastructure, data systems, and community resilience. Cities were advised to conduct vulnerability assessments and integrate climate risk into all planning documents. Peer reviewers also pointed to the LIFE Programme and the European Investment Bank’s advisory services as valuable resources. Moreover, cities were encouraged to partner with academic institutions to co-develop climate models and pilot innovative solutions such as green roofs, permeable pavements, and urban cooling corridors.

Perhaps the most urgent funding gap identified was in climate adaptation. Cities like Balvi admitted that their current SUD strategies lacked a clear climate focus, making it difficult to access dedicated funding streams.

Key advice included:

• Start with a separate strategy: Alba Iulia and Piraeus recommended developing a standalone climate plan to unlock funding, then integrating it into the SUD strategy in the next programming cycle.
• Leverage EU Missions and Horizon Europe: Piraeus shared its experience with the EU Cities Mission and Horizon-funded projects like Buildspace.
• Engage with national agencies: In Romania, technical assistance for climate planning is available through national programmes -cities were encouraged to explore similar options in their own countries.

Peer Reviews as funding accelerators

Peer Reviews are valuable because they both help identify challenges and spark action. Cities not only gain insight into their current strategic gaps and improvement paths, but also leave with a roadmap for action. The collaborative nature of these sessions fosters trust and opens doors for future joint applications. For instance, several cities from Peer Reviews have formed consortiums to apply for a Horizon Europe call focused on digital urban innovation. This illustrates how Peer Reviews can spark long-term partnerships that extend beyond the event itself. Moreover, cities under review can now organize follow-up City-to-City Exchanges to move one step closer to implementing the recommendations received during the Peer Review process.

What makes Peer Reviews so effective to tackle funding-related challenges? Their ability to connect reflection with funding foresight. Cities leave with:

• A clearer understanding of how to align their strategies with funding criteria
• Concrete ideas for joint projects and partnerships
• Awareness of underused funding instruments (e.g. LEADER, Interreg, CERV)
• A network of peers to co-develop and co-finance initiatives

In Piave, for example, participants discussed using the Portico platform to share good practices and prepare inputs for future funding applications. In Athienou, the idea of an interactive map of participating cities was proposed -not just as a visibility tool, but as a way to identify potential funding consortia.

Recommendations and next steps

In a time of growing ambition and limited resources, Peer Reviews are proving to be strategic investments in a city’s funding future. By helping cities align their goals with available resources, build partnerships, and tap into EU-wide expertise, EUI is fostering not only better strategies but also better outcomes.

To support this journey, a range of tools and knowledge sources are available. Cities were encouraged to explore the Urban Innovative Actions (UIA) legacy projects and many of other resources – including practical guidance, toolkits, and case studies –available on Portico, the European knowledge hub. Portico consolidates insights from across the urban ecosystem, helping cities connect with the tools and practices most relevant to their needs.

Participation in the Peer Review activity is open to all urban authorities, not only capital cities or large municipalities. While cities under review can only be Article 11 cities, the peer reviewers can come from any EU urban authority. EUI encourages applications from small and medium-sized cities, recognising their unique challenges and potential. The process is designed to be accessible, with templates, guidance notes, and individualised support available.

Cities that take part often report increased confidence in applying for EU funds and a stronger sense of community across Europe. Whether you’re looking to refine your strategy, unlock new funding, or build lasting partnerships, Peer Reviews offer a unique opportunity to do all three.

Is your city ready to turn reflection into funding?

Stay tuned for our Autumn call and join the Peer Review journey!