# EUR-Lex - 52013DC0468 - EN

*|*

# 52013DC0468

**REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS concerning the added value of macro-regional strategies /* COM/2013/0468 final */**

			*

			*

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE
AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

concerning the added value of
macro-regional strategies

1. Introduction

The macro-regional concept arose from a wish for a collective
response to environmental deterioration of the Baltic Sea, and for concerted
action on challenges and opportunities of that region. This resulted in the EU
Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR), adopted 2009. The EU Strategy for
the Danube Region (EUSDR) was adopted
in June 2011, and the European Council invited the Commission to present an EU
Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region by end 2014 subject to the
evaluation of the concept.[1]
Other regions are considering the merits of the approach.

The objective is a coordinated response to issues better handled
together than separately. The two strategies aim to overcome obstacles holding
up development, and unlock the potential of the regions. They seek to place
issues in a multilateral setting, and to reach out beyond current EU borders to
work as equals with neighbours. The approach encourages participants to
overcome not only national frontiers, but also barriers to thinking more
strategically and imaginatively about the opportunities available.

The aim of a macro-regional strategy is to mobilise new projects and
initiatives, creating a sense of common responsibility. They are an important innovation in territorial cooperation and
cohesion. Nevertheless, this approach – building on a tradition of cooperation
evolving from Community initiatives such as INTERREG[2] – has to be judged by results,
and success measured against effort required. While the approach itself enjoys
a certain popularity, implementation is challenging, with improvements needed
to deliver real value added in the most efficient and sustainable way.

1.1 The purpose of the Report

The Council asked the Commission to ‘clarify the concept of
macro-regional strategies, to evaluate their value added and submit the outcomes
to the Council and the European Parliament by June 2013’.[3]

This Report:

·
seeks to clarify the concept;

·
evaluates the added value of existing
macro-regional strategies;

·
provides recommendations for future work.

It considers achievements to date, both advantages and difficulties,
against the overall EU policy framework, including the Europe 2020 Strategy,
and the territorial perspective now present in the Treaties.

1.2 Method of Assessment[4]

This work is based on a number of inputs, including:

·
Reports by the Commission on the EUSBSR and
EUSDR, and subsequent Council Conclusions and EUSBSR Communication in March
2012;

·
an extensive survey of over 100 key
stakeholders;

·
independent assessments by external experts;

·
a review of relevant academic and policy-development
literature.

Commentators advise that:

·
as both existing macro-regional strategies are
relatively new, their impact is still hard to judge, and has to be measured in
the medium to long-term;

·
a distinction should be drawn between the worth
of the overall concept, and issues in implementation.

2. The concept of a macro-regional strategy

Many elements provide a basis for macro-regional cooperation: a
regional sense of identity; a wish for common strategic planning; and a
willingness to pool resources.

Initial definitions[5]
are now being consolidated in the Common Provisions Regulation for 2014–2020[6], which says that a macro-regional strategy:

1) is an integrated framework relating to Member States and third countries in the same geographical area;

2) addresses common challenges;

3) benefits from strengthened cooperation for economic, social and
territorial cohesion;

A macro-regional strategy should be endorsed by the European
Parliament and Council.

The concept also incorporates principles of:

·
integration –
objectives should be embedded in existing policy frameworks (EU, regional,
national, local, pre-accession), programmes (EU, country-specific, territorial
cooperation, sectorial), and financial instruments;

·
coordination – policies,
strategies and funding resources should avoid compartmentalisation whether
between sectorial policies, actors or different tiers of government;

·
cooperation – countries
should cooperate, and sectors also, across the region, changing the ‘mind-set’
from inward to outward-looking regional development ideas;

·
multi-level governance – different levels of policy-makers should work better together,
without creating new tiers of decision-making;

·
partnership – EU
and non-EU countries can work together on the basis of mutual interest and
respect.

Objectives vary according to the needs of the region concerned.
Prominence should, however, be given to issues which are of strategic relevance,
providing genuine value-added in relation to horizontal community policies,
with particular reference to the Europe 2020 Strategy. Both challenges and
opportunities must be included, as countries at different stages of development
have different priorities:

·
challenges, where
increased cooperation is crucial (e.g. environmental, climate or connectivity
issues);

·
opportunities,
where increased cooperation is of mutual interest, with joint initiatives,
networking, sharing of experience, pooling of funding (e.g. research,
innovation, business, capacity-building).

This dual aspect is noted in Council Conclusions of June 2012[7], endorsing the approach as
deepening the EU internal market and competitiveness, facilitating
implementation of Integrated Maritime
Policy (especially Blue Growth),
as well as addressing shared pollution challenges or missing infrastructure
links. In addition, the strategies can be used to mobilise joint efforts on
innovation, climate action, risk management, security issues, and tourism.

3. Value-added of macro-regional strategies

The two existing macro-regional strategies operate with no
additional EU funds, no new institutions, and no new legislation. This has
required more coherence between funds, structures and policies. The strategies
have created working structures around priority areas, selected in a bottom-up
process of consultation, with political leadership in each area taken by
participating countries, regions or organisations, supported by the Commission
as facilitator.

3.1 Results in terms of projects, actions, decisions, networks

The implementing reports of the EUSBSR and the EUSDR highlight that
macro-regional strategies have helped to develop new projects or have given
momentum to existing transnational projects. Flagship
projects alone number over 100 in the Baltic Sea region, with many other
spin-off projects, while over 400 projects worth € 49 bn overall are being
considered by the EUSDR, of which 150 are already in implementation.

Projects

– The status of the Baltic
Sea is improving, nutrient loads are being addressed through projects like
CleanShip (which reduces pollution from vessels), or those phasing out
phosphates in detergents, while better collaboration on fisheries management is
facilitated by project BALTFISH;

– Prevention of flooding in
the Danube region is a major concern, addressed by projects like DANUBE
FLOODRISK, providing shared databases and flood mapping;

– Improvement of
E-infrastructure: projects in the 7th Framework Programme to improve
availability of advanced computing services to researchers have been launched
in the Danube Region;

– As part of adaptation
strategies for Danube and Baltic regions, actions re climate change are being
planned together by Member State institutions, e.g. under BALTADAPT.

The macro-regional approach also facilitates networking and joint
initiatives.

Joint initiatives

– the BONUS Baltic Sea
Research and Development Programme is fostering research cooperation in clean
tech and eco-innovation;

– SMEs are being supported
through the Danube Region Business Forum.

The approach also facilitates political decisions at collective
level. Navigability of Danube waterways is being improved, for example, via the
July 2012 ministerial Declaration on maintenance, or the recent agreement
between Romania and Bulgaria to share equipment.

3.2 Improved policy development

Macro-regional strategies provide regional building blocks for
EU-wide policy, marshalling national approaches into more coherent EU-level
implementation. Macro-regional work has a particular impact on the Integrated
Maritime Policy, the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T), the
Trans-European Energy Network (TEN-E), and civil protection cooperation. The expert report on environment
matters sees macro-regional strategies in general as encouraging implementation
of EU directives.[8]

Contributions to connectivity           
– a macro-regional perspective to planning infrastructure investment in TEN-T frameworks
is developing, e.g. Baltic Transport Outlook, providing analytical/planning
support;

– to ensure gas supply
security, the Danube Region Gas Market Model supports planning of
infrastructure projects, and removal of technical and other transnational
market barriers.

Although the survey of key stakeholders of the EUSBSR and EUSDR also
points to the macro-regional approach being an impetus for mobilising different
EU, regional and national policies, stakeholders underline that more time and
effort is needed, EUSBSR respondents being more positive in this respect (over
55%) than those in the Danube region (33%), probably
because of earlier start.

Integrating EU concerns in
national policy-making
– The EUSDR targets on inland waterways form part of the new Austrian Master
Plan for Transport;

– Nordic health and life
science innovation strengths, expanded to the Baltic context by the project
ScanBalt Bioregion, are taken up in the Estonian strategy for biotechnology,
with networking to neighbours giving critical mass.

3.3 Improved value for money

Making money work harder is important at a time of restricted
budgets. The macro-regional approach helps align EU programmes to act together
on major shared goals. Lack of additional EU money also pushes implementers to seek
funds more actively. This has stimulated:

·
the Danube Finance Dialogue (matching of project
ideas to funds, bringing together project promoters with banks, international
financing institutions and funding programmes);

·
the EUSBSR Seed Money Facility (small funding to
develop project ideas to the point of loans or grants).

Available resources are concentrated on higher-level priorities: ‘Sweden or Finland in the Baltic Sea region or the land of Baden-Württemberg in the Danube region have mobilised own resources to implement initiatives in
the framework of the macro-region strategies’[9].
The private sector is also involved, whether through work with the Baltic
Development Forum, or e.g. in removing shipwrecks from the Danube, Sava and Tisa.

The strategies also encourage pooling of resources: ‘in terms of
financial engineering, the scope for creating seed/early-stage and venture
funds in the macro-regions is considerable, since few countries [...] have a
sufficient ‘deal-flow’ of viable start-ups to sustain specialised funds [...] the
macro-region may provide a sufficient critical mass’.[10]

3.4 Greater integration and coordination

Most stakeholders surveyed see the process as improving existing
cooperation mechanisms (over 60%), and strengthening cooperation between
participating countries (over 75%). Political leaders also emphasise the wider
integration aspects.[11]

Just as importantly, strategies enhance cooperation between authorities
inside countries. Respondents to the survey, as well as the independent
assessments and literature review, underline integrated approaches to issues of
macro-regional importance. For example the EUSBSR ‘has enabled a cross-sectorial
approach to environmental issues. This has helped address problems where
previously Helsinki Commission (HELCOM), which has an environmental focus, has
not been able to curb many of the sectorial interests (e.g. agricultural) which
drive environmental issues (eutrophication).[12]

Greater coordination

– in the Danube region,
better links are developing to existing initiatives, such as the International
Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR), the Energy
Community, the International Organisation for Migration and the Black Sea
Synergy;

– in the  Baltic Sea region,
joint work is increasing between Northern Dimension (ND), CBSS, Nordic Council
of Ministers and other frameworks, mobilising together their structures such as
VASAB for coordinated spatial planning, or the ND Partnership for Transport and
Logistics;

– in the Baltic Sea region,
joint work is ongoing on hazard scenarios, while in the Danube there is greater
coordination on security threats such as organised crime.

3.5 Tackling regional inequality and promoting territorial cohesion

Over 60% of survey respondents, as well as academic commentators[13], see the strategies as tools
to increase social, economic and territorial cohesion. The European Parliament
states they ‘also could be useful instruments for identifying and combating
regional disparities and for promoting convergence between European regions’.[14]

3.6 Promoting multi-level governance

The macro-regional approach can only work if there is strong
cooperation between regional, national, and local levels to plan together and
align funding. It reinforces multi-level governance as an element of Cohesion
Policy, given the variety of actors involved. Civil society is also present, and the approach is based on
broad bottom-up consultation. Several regions and (in the EUSBSR) regional
organisations serve as coordinators.

3.7 Improved cooperation with neighbouring countries

The two strategies help improve cooperation with neighbours. In the
EUSBSR, Russia, though not part of the strategy itself, has agreed on a list of
common projects. Norway and Iceland have also been actively involved,
especially on logistics and social issues. In the EUSDR, with non-EU countries
with varying membership perspectives, the Strategy facilitates the preparation
of candidates and potential candidates. Almost 80% of EUSDR respondents
consider that the strategy has improved cooperation with neighbouring
countries, serving as a platform for the future. This opportunity to experience
EU policies and processes, in common activities, should also be part of future
work.

4. Lessons learnt and challenges to overcome

If the added value of the strategies is clear, it remains essential
to improve implementation methods.

·
Choosing the right objectives

The objectives of each strategy are divided into priority areas
emerging from the consultation process, and may be reviewed, as recently in the
EUSBSR. Most survey respondents believe the objectives of the EUSBSR and the
EUSDR address the main challenges (over 80%), but fewer are convinced by the
number of priority areas (60% see the number as reasonable, 26% – neutral, 14%
– too many), overall a bigger issue in the EUSBSR, which has more priorities.

·
Maintaining political commitment

High-level political commitment has been evident in the initial
calls for the strategies, in Council Conclusions, and in statements at major
events like the Annual Fora. While this is important[15], survey respondents believe it
is not always followed through. Comments show it varies by country, by
institution, and at different levels of decision making: 38% agree that the
political commitment is high, 30% disagree, with 32% neutral, with EUSBSR less
positive than EUSDR, and strategy ‘insiders’ being less convinced than
‘outsiders’.

·
Funding

While alignment of funds has significant potential, the EUSBSR and
EUSDR were launched in mid – financial period, making coherence with existing
policies and programmes at times problematic. Use of loans has been constrained
by debt levels.

Almost 50% of survey respondents disagree that ‘alignment of
policy-making and funding with objectives has been successfully achieved’,
although EUSBSR is more positive, reflecting the earlier start. Insufficient
resources in non-EU countries remain a challenge.

Experience shows that European Territorial Cooperation (ETC)
programmes are the main source of funding. However, in implementing the
approach, all policies and programmes, including country-specific ones, as well
as private sources, support from financial institutions (e.g. European
Investment Bank) etc., should be mobilised. If the macro-regional approach is
to succeed, it must be embedded in 2014–2020 programming by providing explicit
references in Partnership Agreements as well as in programme texts. This requires
attention across all ministries, to develop a positive investment climate. The
blending of grants and loans, e.g. through the Western Balkans Investment
Facility, is a valuable way forward, particularly for non-EU countries.

In general, the approach should increase the impact of all available
funding, strengthen the implementation of existing ‘acquis’, and improve use of existing structures.

·
Organisation and governance

The survey confirms that macro-regional strategies remain a
challenge to the administrations concerned. Difficulties include lack of human
resources, changes of staff, and poor knowledge. With staffing and travel cuts,
the frequent meetings (e.g. EUSDR priority area steering groups) are not always
well attended.

Commentators note the complexity of structures. They call for
‘stronger leadership (to) help to keep a minimum of intensity and commitment
while a stronger focus may help to reduce the complexity of implementation
mechanisms’.[16]

Survey respondents also call for improved exchange of experience
within and between macro-regions, and want better cooperation between all
levels of governance.

·
Measuring progress   
Indicators provide markers against which progress can be measured. Both EUSDR
and EUSBSR have strategy level targets. Work on setting indicators at priority
area/horizontal action level is foreseen in 2013.

This is a challenging task, as progress against indicators is due to
factors not exclusive to the strategies, whose specific contribution is hard to
measure. Programme targets and indicators should be consistent with the
strategy level work.

The EUSDR and EUSBSR also use different approaches (the former at
more headline general level, the latter with more detail and local input).
However, further work is required: while agreed indicators and targets are
essential to focus effort, progress should also be seen in terms of networks
created, projects successfully pursued, and improvements in integration and
coordination.

5. The Way Ahead – recommendations

5.1 Realising the full potential of the strategies

To realise the potential of the approach the following will be
crucial:

·
All participants must recognise their
macro-regional strategies as horizontal responsibility of their governments as
a whole;

·
All partners must seize the funding opportunity
offered by inclusion of the approach in the new generation of  Regulations,
especially in Partnership Agreements and Operational Programmes, so that the
principle of embedding the approach in all decisions (‘mainstreaming’) can be achieved;

·
New (Danube and South-East Gateway) and existing
transnational programmes (Baltic Sea region) must be fully exploited, as should
instruments such as European Groupings of Territorial Cooperation (EGTCs) and
Integrated Territorial Investment. Good practice should be shared, working
closely with the INTERACT programme;

·
Operational problems inside administrations
should be tackled with appropriate staff and resources. Modern communication means
should be fully exploited to avoid undue burdens or unnecessary travel;

·
The coherence and credibility of macro-regional
work needs regular review in relevant sectorial Councils, and in ad hoc
meetings of ministers on specific topics. Continued input from the public is
important;

·
Monitoring and evaluation of the approach should
be based on realistic indicators and targets as well as an overview of priority
area activities;

·
If there are concerns about performance or
relevance, sunset clauses should be introduced for the priority concerned, with
the option of reducing the number or changing the focus of priority areas;

·
Greater attention should be given to
communication of the strategies’ purpose and achievements, and the bottom up
approach taken at the start should be maintained.

5.2 Leadership in the regions and the role of the Commission

The key to the future will be stronger leadership, reinforcing
ownership in the regions concerned, delivering clear decision-making and
greater visibility. While the Commission will continue to play a key role, its
support must be better balanced by effective leadership within the regions
concerned.

The Commission proposes a review process to be finalised by the 2014
Annual Fora of the existing strategies. This process should consider
operational improvements, as well as options to improve political leadership.
Clearly, given the strategies’ varied states of advancement, and their diverse
roots, the way forward may be different in each case. However, the following
points are important:

·
In line with the current regulatory proposals,
transnational programmes can in future play a more significant role in
supporting implementation. EGTCs may also provide opportunities.

·
The current systems for managing the strategies
(PACs, NCPs) are just becoming established. Calls for simplification should
take into account potential delays that changes could bring.

·
Member States and partner countries should consider how to reinforce their
ownership of the strategies, and the appropriate response to calls for a more
easily recognisable leadership. The choices must take into account issues of
legitimacy, accountability, and continuity.

·
The Commission facilitates the strategies,
ensuring coherence and continuity, as well as a clear EU dimension and added
value. However, its resources are limited and measures must be considered to
enable it to play an appropriate role.

·
The potential for involving public and other EU
institutional Fora in the governance of the strategies should be considered.

5.3 New strategies

When considering the launch of any new EU macro-regional strategy
the following should be borne in mind:

·
New initiatives should only be launched if there
are particular needs for improved and high-level cooperation. These should be
of strategic importance for the macro-regions and translated into a limited
number of well-defined objectives with an appropriate set of indicators to
measure progress. Common challenges (such as environmental deterioration,
climate change adaption, impact of natural and man-made disasters, connectivity
gaps, striking income disparities) and/or opportunities (such as openings for
research networks, expanded markets, modernising administrations) should be
evident, as well as agreed geographical identity. It is therefore an approach
only to be used in particular circumstances where involvement of the EU is
appropriate, and existing EU horizontal policies reinforced.

·
There must be readiness to translate political
commitment into administrative support. Only with this are there good prospects
of success.

·
Macro-regional and sea-basin strategy approaches
answer similar aspirations. The EUSBSR combines characteristics of both, while an
 Adriatic and Ionian macro-regional strategy could use the adopted maritime
strategy[17]
as one of its key components.

·
The current macro-regions may well not have
exhausted all possible paradigms. It is easy to envisage regional cooperation
inspired by this model, but without involvement of the Commission, or based
more exclusively on a transnational programme. Those seeking to intensify
cooperation and integration should look for the best fit for their situation.
EU macro-regional strategies should demonstrate particular added-value at EU
level, such as better enforcement of EU environmental legislation, or
specifically intensified investment in EU connectivity, or innovation critical
mass.

6. Conclusions

The two existing macro-regional strategies are demonstrating their
merit both strategically and politically. Clear results are already evident in
terms of projects and more integrated policy making, although further
improvements are essential in implementation and planning. The issue of
leadership is central to the review process to be completed in 2014.

The Commission invites the Parliament and the Council to endorse the
recommendations of this report.

[1]               European Council Conclusions of 13-14 December 2012,
point 26.

[2]               Now the European Territorial Cooperation programmes.

[3]               General Affairs Council Conclusions of 13 April 2011,
point 20.

[4]               All inputs are available on
the EUSBSR and the EUSDR websites.

[5]               E.g. Macro-regional strategies in the European Union
(September 2009). http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/cooperate/baltic/pdf/macroregional_strategies_2009.pdf.

[6]               Proposal for Common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the
European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for
Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund. COM (2011) 615 Final, as amended.

[7]               General Affairs Council Conclusions of 26 June 2012, point 7.

[8]               Á.
Kelemen. Assessing the added value of macro-regional strategies – Environment.
2013.

[9]               A.
Reid. Do macro-regional
strategies boost innovation and competitiveness?

[10]             Ibid.

[11]             E.g. Chancellor Merkel at the EUSDR Annual Forum 2012,
President Ilves at the Ministerial Conference on the EUSBSR 2009.

[12]             Á. Kelemen. Ibid.

[13]             A. Dubois, S. Hedin, P. Schmitt, J. Sterling. EU macro-regions and macro-regional strategies. Nordregio,
2009.

[14]             European Parliament, Report: on optimising the role of
territorial development in cohesion policy (December 2012).

[15]             K. Böhme. Added value of macro regional strategies: A
governance perspective. 2013.

[16]             Ibid.

[17]             COM(2012) 713 on ‘A maritime strategy for the Adriatic
and Ionian Seas’.