EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 23.9.2020 SWD(2020) 186 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

on the implementation of EU macro-regional strategies {COM(2020) 578 final}



Table of contents Introduction European Union macro-regional strategies Report on the implementation of the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region Report on the implementation of the European Union Strategy for the Danube Region Report on the implementation of the European Union Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region Report on the implementation of the European Union Strategy for the Alpine Region Contribution of programmes to macro-regional strategies 1.The EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region 2.The EU Strategy for the Danube Region 3.The EU Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region 4.The EU Strategy for the Alpine Region Annexes: Maps of the macro-regional strategies



Abbreviations AII AG AGL ARPAF BAGL Adriatic and Ionian Initiative Action Group Action Group leader Alpine Region Preparatory Action Fund Board of Action Group leaders BONUS BSR BSAP CBC CPMR CF DG DSP Joint Baltic Sea Research and Development Programme Baltic Sea Region Baltic Sea Action Plan Cross-border cooperation Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions of Europe Cohesion Fund Directorate General Danube Strategy Point EAFRD EB European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development Executive Board EMFF ENI EAFRD European Maritime and Fisheries Fund European Neighbourhood Instrument European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development ERDF ESI Funds European Regional Development Fund European Structural and Investment Funds ESF ETC European Social Fund European territorial cooperation EU EUSAIR EUSALP European Union European Union Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region European Union Strategy for the Alpine Region EUSBSR EUSDR FP GA GB European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region European Union Strategy for the Danube Region EUSAIR Facility Point General Assembly Governing Board HA Horizontal action HAC(s) Horizontal action coordinator(s) HELCOM ICPDR IMO IPA JRC Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission − Helsinki Commission International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River International Maritime Organisation Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance Joint Research Centre LNG MA Liquefied Natural Gas Managing authority MRS MSP Macro-regional strategy (-ies) Maritime Spatial Planning NC(s) NDICI National coordinator(s) Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument NGO OP(s) Non-Governmental Organisation Operational programme(s) PA Policy/Priority area PAC(s) PC Policy/Priority area coordinators Pillar coordinators SMEs SG TEN-T TO TSG Small and medium-sized enterprises Steering Group Trans-European Transport Network Thematic objective Thematic Steering Group





Introduction This document comes in support of the third report to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, on the implementation of EU macro-regional strategies (‘MRS’): the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR), the EU Strategy for the Danube Region (EUSDR), the EU Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region (EUSAIR) and the EU Strategy for the Alpine Region (EUSALP). The report covers the period from mid-2018 to mid-2020. It aims at providing more detailed information concerning the state of implementation of each MRS and future expectations. The document is based inter alia on contributions from MRS national and thematic coordinators (MRS ‘key implementers’) and experts. The differences between the individual chapters on each of the four macro-regional strategy is due to the different maturity of each strategy (they have been adopted at different time) hence the differing availability of data and deliverables. More information on the strategies can be found on their websites: http://www.balticsea-region-strategy.eu/ http://www.danube-region.eu/ http://www.adriatic-ionian.eu/ https://www.alpine-region.eu/

European Union macro-regional strategies The size and diversity of the European territory warrants a differentiated and strategic approach to its development. Increasing interdependence between countries, the growing role of sub-national authorities, and borderless, territorially-relevant challenges such as climate change, ecological degradation, natural and man-made hazards, call for cooperative frameworks whereby groups of countries belonging to a wider geographical space can work together to address common challenges and opportunities. Wanting to provide an effective and collective response to issues better handled by working together, a macro-regional approach arose in the Baltic Sea region with discussions launched in the European Parliament in 2006. This gained momentum overtime, to such an extent that there are now four European Union (EU) macro-regional strategies (MRS): ·EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR; 2009) ·EU Strategy for the Danube Region (EUSDR; 2010) ·EU Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region (EUSAIR; 2014) ·EU Strategy for the Alpine Region (EUSALP; 2016) The MRS are accompanied by an action plan that should be regularly updated in light of new, emerging needs and changing contexts. The 4 MRS cover 19 EU Member States and 9 non-EU countries. Some EU Member States (such as Germany and Slovenia) are involved in 3 MRS, and some EU Member States (such as Croatia, Italy and Austria) are in 2.

An MRS is a policy framework which allows EU and non-EU countries located in a defined geographical area to jointly address challenges and opportunities they have in common by setting a set of shared, long-term objectives to meet the needs of the macro-region. By doing this, they benefit from stronger cooperation, making their policies more efficient than if they had addressed the issues in isolation. The MRS are an important innovation in territorial cooperation and cohesion. However, they differ in several respects from cross-border and transnational territorial cooperation. One key feature of macro-regional cooperation is its anchoring to integrated, strategic, longer-term and open-ended frameworks. The MRS are initiated and requested by the relevant EU Member States via the European Council. The strategies cover a number of policy/thematic areas that have been jointly agreed by the participating countries and which reflect their strong political commitment towards joint achievement of common objectives. Following the European Council request, the MRS (Communication and accompanying action plan) are drafted by the European Commission in partnership with the participating countries. Therefore, their implementation relies heavily on the commitment and ambition of the participating countries that lead the process. The process is as important as the result: it must be inclusive and bottom up to ensure ownership. In 2017, an independent study by COWI , mandated by the Commission, presented a three-phase MRS development model over time: • Phase 1: setting up of the MRS (governance system) – the focus is on internal stakeholders – the results are internal; • Phase 2: capacity developing – the MRS is understood by external stakeholders and starts to operate – the focus moves more towards external stakeholders; • Phase 3: capacity developed – the strategy is mature and delivers tangible measures and results – the focus is on external performance. The assessment made in this study, showed that the four MRS were between Phase 1-2. Since then, the four strategies have developed – especially the more recent MRS (EUSAIR and EUSALP) which have caught up with the older MRS (EUSBSR and EUSDR). ·In 2019, the OECD Synthesis report assessed the EUSAIR as being between Phase 1 and 2; currently it is close to Phase 2. In the last 2 years, the Thematic Steering Groups have improved their cooperation and their awareness of their role as the link between stakeholders and the governance structures in the EUSAIR. The connection with the coordination level is provided by the by pillar coordinators, while the link with stakeholders has improved as a result of several initiatives and platforms. ·The EUSALP is the most recent MRS, but it builds on a strong existing regional cooperation. For this reason, its progress into Phase 2 happened faster than in other MRS. The Action Groups have been set up and are functioning (although not all participating countries have representatives in all Action Groups) and drive processes such as setting up platforms and initiatives. The issue of delineating responsibilities between coordination and implementation levels indicate a need to clarify governance structures. ·For the EUSBSR, the oldest of the strategies, many of the thematic areas are well into Phase 3, while a few remain in Phase 2. A broad thematic spread and a lack of participation in steering groups and involvement at national level have an impact on the more external effects of the MRS. Interestingly, a few policy areas may have gone back to Phase 1 due to reorganisation or a change in thematic coordinators. This leads to a renewed need to develop the necessary capacity in implementing the MRS. ·In the EUSDR, many priority areas are well into Phase 3, and have been there for some time. Other priority areas move around Phase 2 due to their broad thematic mandates, a lack of clear strategic framework and fluctuating (even decreasing) participation by national representatives (with unclear or no mandates) in the steering groups.



Report on the implementation of the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR) The EUSBSR was the first macro-regional strategy in the European Union (EU). Its origins date back to 2006 when the European Parliament in its resolution on a Baltic Sea Region Strategy for the Northern Dimension urged the European Commission to come up with a proposal for an EU Baltic Sea Strategy. The EUSBSR 10-year anniversary was celebrated in 2019. The implementation of the EUSBSR has been progressing over the last years and results have been achieved, varying from one thematic area to another. The EUSBSR brings together eight EU Member States (Estonia, Denmark, Finland, Germany (Berlin; Brandenburg; Hamburg; Mecklenburg-Vorpommern; Schleswig-Holstein), Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Sweden) representing 80 million inhabitants. The Strategy welcomes cooperation with non-EU countries from the region, namely Belarus, Iceland, Norway and Russia, in actions and projects of common interest. The EUSBSR’s three main objectives are; Save the sea, Connect the region, and Increase prosperity. ·Save the sea objective is related to the poor state of the sea which threatens the quality of life of the inhabitants living around it. The overall aim is to achieve good environmental status for the sea. The policy areas (PA) under this objective are: PA ‘Nutri(ent)’, PA ‘Hazards’, PA ‘Bioeconomy’, PA ‘Ship’ and PA ‘Safe’. ·Connect the Region is focussing on internal and external transport, accessibility, efficiency and security of energy markets and also with connecting the people in the region. The policy areas related to this objective are: PA Transport and PA Energy. ·Increase Prosperity includes actions to promote entrepreneurship, innovation, trade and digitally driven growth. This will improve business opportunities and make the internal market work better on the ground. Policy areas under this objective are: PA Secure, PA Tourism, PA Culture, PA Innovation, PA Health and PA Education. In addition to policy areas listed above, there are four horizontal actions (HA). Horizontal action by its nature is an action having an impact on more than one or all policy areas within the Strategy. The horizontal actions are: HA Spatial Planning, HA Neighbours, HA Capacity and HA Climate. RESULTS Governance and administrative Capacity General The EUSBSR’s governance structure is important to the successful implementation of its actions and the achievements of its objectives, targets and overall goals. The participating countries have the main responsibility for implementing the EUSBSR, which requires a continuous political commitment by the countries. Each country nominates a national coordinator (NC) who represents their government in the national coordinators group (NCG). The ‘policy area focal points’ serve as a liaison at national level for all matters regarding each policy area (PA)/horizontal action (HA) in the Baltic Sea region countries. The policy area coordinators (PAC) and horizontal action coordinators (HAC) facilitate involvement of, and cooperation with, relevant stakeholders from the entire macro-region.

The European Commission plays a leading role in the strategic coordination of the key delivery stages of the EUSBSR. The EUSBSR’s governance structure has been in place for a decade and is currently being examined as part of the extensive revision of the EUSBSR action plan that began in December 2018. The main principles set out in the EUSBSR Communication (COM (2009) 248) remain valid, including the overall principles of EUSBSR governance and the Strategy’s three main objectives. However, detailed governance issues are also being assessed with a view to simplifying and streamlining where needed. The action plan is considered a ‘rolling document’, which means that the Baltic Sea region countries should continuously assess its relevance and whether it needs adjustment. The main aim of revising the EUSBSR action plan is to carry out a strategic review in order to develop more focused and streamlined policy areas and to strengthen coordination. This should also facilitate the inclusion of the EUSBSR’s priorities in the next generation of EU funding programmes, known as ‘embedding’. This revision has also been important in improving monitoring and reporting on results for the coming period and in assessing the Baltic Sea region´s contribution to the UN Sustainable Development Goals. The transnational cooperation programme for the Baltic Sea region (Interreg BSR) is strongly linked to the EUSBSR thematically, geographically, and in terms of support for its governance. The Interreg BSR is a key partner in implementing the EUSBSR objectives, and Interreg BSR-funded projects/activities have an important role in this respect. In terms of EUSBSR governance, the Interreg BSR provides financial support for PACs, HACs, and the organisation of the EUSBSR annual forum. The collaboration between the programme and the EUSBSR is enhanced by inviting the Interreg BSR Managing Authority / Joint Secretariat in the NC meetings, when relevant. The future support of the Interreg BSR to the EUSBSR will need to be specified during the Interreg BSR programming process 2021-2027. Political level The EUSBSR provides a unique platform for cooperation and coordination for its eight EU Member States and, to some extent, also for the non-EU countries in the region. The EUSBSR has been successful in generating structures, projects and networks to tackle common challenges faced by the region. There is a consensus among the Baltic Sea countries on the value added by the Strategy and the need to continue and improve this collaboration between countries in the future. In particular, many of the emerging new challenges – such as COVID-19, demographic changes and migration (of non-EU nationals) – are becoming more urgent and need to be addressed in a coordinated way across country borders. On a rotating basis, the EUSBSR Chair is taken by the NC of a EUSBSR country for a 1-year period (beginning of July – end of June). This rotation follows the order agreed by the NC group and included in their rules of procedure. The Chair proactively coordinates the NCs, works with the European Commission, and strives to facilitate decision-making and cooperation. Since 2010 an annual forum has been organised to communicate the Strategy’s work and results, stimulate policy discussion, and provide stakeholders with a networking opportunity. The annual fora take place in one of the eight EUSBSR country and aim to attract key policy makers, stakeholders and active partners of the Strategy from local, regional, national and EU level. The order of hosting the annual forum is based on an agreed sequence set out in the rules of procedure for the NC group. The recent annual fora have brought together close to 1 000 participants from governments, international organisations, NGOs, universities, local and regional administrations, business and media. The EUSBSR’s 10th annual forum, entitled ‘Circular and sharing economy as an answer to demographic changes and environmental challenges in the Baltic Sea region’, was organised in Gdańsk, Poland in June 2019. The 2020 annual forum was planned to be held in Turku in June, but the COVID-19 crises has affected the timing and format of the event. The aim of the Turku forum was to facilitate stronger dialogue among stakeholders from different countries and sectors by forming innovative groupings to address the Strategy’s three main objectives. Coordination level National coordinators should facilitate the overall coordination of and political support for EUSBSR implementation in their country. This includes consulting with national institutions, facilitating the involvement of relevant stakeholders, and encouraging dialogue between financial instruments on the alignment of resources. Stakeholders find that the national coordinators group mainly monitor the progress of the EUSBSR and ensure that updates etc. are carried out. The NC group also approves ‘flagship’ project and processes implementing the EUSBSR. Implementation level Most policy areas in the Strategy cover a wide range of policies and are interlinked with and interdependent on the other policy areas. Typically, one EUSBSR country coordinates one of the policy area or horizontal action, and nominates the PAC/HAC. The assignment of the PAC/HAC varies between countries, with some PAC/HACs being national institutions and others pan-Baltic institutions. The PAC/HACs are usually supported by a co-PAC/HAC and in some cases there are more than two. The PACs/HACs are supported by steering groups, which mainly consist of representatives from the EUSBSR countries (‘focal points’). The PACs and HACs are responsible for implementing the action plan in their respective areas. One of their tasks is to facilitate the involvement by and cooperation of relevant stakeholders from the entire macro-region. This requires working closely with a variety of stakeholders regarding the policy area on: topics, updates to policy area indicators and targets, policy discussions, visibility, alignment of funding, monitoring and reporting on progress within the policy area. The document on ‘Roles and responsibilities of the implementing stakeholders of the EUSBSR and a flagship project concept’ does not specifically mention the roles and responsibilities of the steering groups. Nevertheless, a guideline was developed that that each PA/HA should have a steering group chaired by the PAC/HAC. Steering groups have a number of functions that vary from PA/HA to PA/HA. Some have a broad range of functions and focus on policy implementation and dialogue; others are primarily a forum for discussing financing etc. Steering groups identify and decide on actions pertaining to implementing the policy area and cooperate with other PAs and HAs. The projects and processes implementing the EUSBSR are called ‘flagships’. They serve as pilot examples for desired change. A flagship is frequently the result of a policy discussion within a PA or HA. It fleshes out the ambition of a PA or HA in a specified field. It may, for example, develop key solutions, new methodologies or practises, or be a network looking at new forms of cooperation. The Interreg BSR Programme supports the EUSBSR’s basic coordination work. A total amount of EUR 9.43 million ERDF was allocated to supporting PAC/HAC. They use Interreg BSR funding mainly for essential networking activities, such as organising steering committees, meetings with civil society groups, local and regional organisations or national ministries and agencies. Civil society The process of implementing and managing the EUSBSR is dynamic and changeable and therefore changes over time. Civil society organisations such as NGOs and private sector organisations have always played an important role in the EUSBSR. Higher education and research institutions make up the largest category of project partners in Interreg BSR-funded activities in the EUSBSR.

The policy areas involve civil society in a number of ways. For example, the PA ‘Education’ has a network of 1 085 stakeholders, of which an increasing number represent NGOs. They participate in stakeholder seminars in EUSBSR countries and they are members of flagships. Some of them actively contribute to developing policy briefings, new methods and new structures in flagships and their thematic working groups. Flagships in the ‘Nutri’ PA have been active in involving civil society via communication channels (social media, webpages, and newsletters) and meetings (for example in the ‘networking villages’ at the annual fora). These ‘networking villages’ are an integral part of the EUSBSR annual fora. They provide a place to find information and are where participants can meet with EUSBSR PACs and HACs, as well as other stakeholders. The HA ‘Capacity’ organises a yearly Participation Day, back-to-back with the EUSBSR annual fora. This is an opportunity for local and regional actors and public and civil society to present project proposals and other ideas for cooperation in the Baltic Sea region. The PACs provide feedback and advice on getting involved in implementing the Strategy. The Baltic Sea Youth Camp was organised in conjunction with the 10th annual forum in Gdańsk in 2019. The event was aimed at young people aged between 18 and 29 from 11 Baltic countries and Iceland. The goal of the meeting was to strengthen dialogue and solidarity between young people across the region, through seminars and workshops in the areas of culture, sport, politics, technology, art, human rights and economy. Multi-level governance EUSBSR has a multi-level governance system with different roles and responsibilities. The EUSBSR’s approach is that implementation should be carried out by national, regional and local authorities, intergovernmental and non-governmental bodies in close cooperation with the European Commission. Other stakeholders can be involved at many levels of the EUSBSR — including at the steering level and at the 'operational level. To ensure overall coordination and support for EUSBSR implementation in each country, strategic approaches must be aligned across relevant stakeholders. Pan-Baltic organisations operating at the macro-regional level, such as the Council of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS), Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission – Helsinki Commission (HELCOM), or Vision and Strategies around the Baltic Sea (VASAB), also participate in implementing the Strategy. For example, the joint HELCOM-UNESCO-EUSBSR status report on pharmaceuticals in the aquatic environment represents an information basis to develop measures to reduce pharmaceuticals in the Baltic Sea through the EUSBSR regional cooperation platform which was established by PA ‘Hazards’. The Pan-Baltic organisations, in addition, carry out the function as PACs and especially HACs. The involvement of the many Baltic Sea region organisation is generally regarded as a strength and reflects the extensive cooperation in the region since the beginning of the 1990s. The role of the regional and municipal stakeholders in the Baltic Sea region varies. In general, many regional and municipal actors are interested in transnational cooperation, with many of them already active in cooperation across the region. Participation beyond immediate participation as a partner in a flagship could be further encouraged. Policy and thematic priorities Achievements The EUSBSR is a successful initiative that has brought significant results in diverse areas such as innovation, safety and pollution prevention of maritime transportation, preparedness for maritime emergencies or reduction of plastic and air pollution in the Baltic Sea. The EUSBSR has also contributed to shaping and developing policy on energy, navigation, environment and climate change. The EUSBSR action plan sets a number of goals, both ‘hard’ specific ones for which evaluation is easier, and ‘soft’ or more vague goals, which are often more difficult to assess. The Strategy’s implementation also brings side benefits, unintentional gains that should be viewed as an added value of the EUSBSR. In the past 2 years, the implementation of actions under the EUSBSR has continued to support and further encourage the implementation of relevant EU legislation and policies, in particular relating to the environment. Tackling environmental issues in the Baltic Sea basin is one of the most successful areas of cooperation within the EUSBSR, especially in terms of creating synergy between different policy settings and implementing platforms. The EUSBSR also facilitates cooperation between sectors, such as in relation to the environment and agriculture. The Strategy’s stakeholders confirm that more cooperation has developed in water projects, as the EUSBSR provides an opportunity to focus more on tangible solutions and to target objectives specific to the Baltic Sea region. Of 105 cooperation projects co-financed by the Interreg BSR to date, 60 projects were labelled as ‘flagship project of the EUSBSR’. The total budget of those flagship projects amounts to EUR 181.9 million, of which ERDF funding was EUR 135.8 million. The PA ‘Innovation’ received funding for six flagships, including on smart specialisation, blue growth or product innovations for senior citizens. The PA ‘Transport’ had four finalised flagships. These projects advanced transport corridors in the region, including inland waterways and multimodal transport. In the PA ‘Bioeconomy’, the three flagships contributed to recycling manure and water management in forests. Flagships were also finalised in the PAs ‘Culture’, ‘Education’, ‘Energy’, ‘Hazard’, ‘Nutri’, ‘Safe’, ‘Secure’ and ‘Ship’ and in the HA ‘Spatial Planning’. Project examples 1. ‘Save the sea’ objective NutriTrade (https://nutritradebaltic.eu/) developed innovative methods to extract nutrients from the Baltic Sea. The aim was to create fast, effective and economically efficient measures through different pilots tested on land, sea and online. The project created a crowdfunding platform ‘Nutribute’ to support or launch a campaign for saving the sea. DAIMON flagship project: In March 2020 an amendment to the Helcom Baltic Sea Action Plan was produced, aiming to integrate data about and management of munition dumping grounds in the Baltic with important input from the DAIMON flagship project. 2. ‘Increase prosperity’ objective The HAZARD project developed and tested ways of mitigating the effects of emergencies in major seaports in region. It addressed challenges related to exposing a large number of people to accidents such as leakages of hazardous materials, fires on passenger ships at ports, oil spills in port areas and explosions of gases or chemicals. HAZARD is also part of the Interreg platform ResQU2, a flagship of the PA ‘Secure’, to promote the dissemination and impact of the project’s results. The BSR S3 Ecosystem platform aligns smart specialisation initiatives to better direct investments across the Baltic Sea region. By sharing best practices, it activates research and academic communities, industry and public sector organisations to strengthen the regional innovation ecosystem. The platform builds on the experiences of Interreg Baltic Sea Region’s projects ‘LARS’, ‘BSR Stars S3’, ‘Smart-up BSR’ and ‘GoSmart BSR’, and the ‘S34 Growth’, ‘BIOREGIO’, ‘ClusterFy’ and ‘TraCS3’ projects, co-funded by Interreg Europe. 3. ‘Connect the region’ objective The project Scandria®2Act followed an initiative of regions, located along the Baltic Sea region stretch of the Scandinavian-Mediterranean core network corridor to harmonise understanding and actions on different policy levels for the benefit of corridor development. One result was the creation of a multi-level governance mechanism, the Scandria®Alliance. NSBCoRe – North Sea Baltic Connector of Regions – The project aimed to improve the accessibility of the Eastern Baltic Sea region (EBSR) for freight and passenger transport. The project contributed to the EU TEN-T transport infrastructure policy, that connects the continent between east and west, north and south, by connecting the North Sea Baltic TEN-T core network corridor to its catchment area and access routes in EBSR at regional and local level. 4. Horizontal objectives The BEA-APP project gathered experience from eight countries around the Baltic Sea to help regional planning authorities accelerate the setup of windfarms, solar parks, biogas plants and the like. The Baltic Smart Water Hub connects water experts from companies, associations, authorities, academia and NGOs. The BSR WATER project platform provides the hub with knowledge on managing smart sludge, storm and waste water, manure and energy efficiency. BSR WATER builds on the Interreg Baltic Sea Region’s IWAMA, Manure Standards, Village Waters, BEST and Baltic Blue Growth projects as well as Interreg Central Baltic’s iWater, NutriTrade, Blastic and Waterchain and South Baltic’s RBR projects. Policy impact The EUSBSR has increased cooperation and networks across the region, for example HELCOM, CBSS and Northern Dimension. The EUSBSR also has strong links with the Nordic cooperation, Arctic cooperation and the Barents Euro–Arctic Council. The implementation of the EUSBSR has contributed to the achievement on several EU level, including macro-regional, national and local policy goals. The EUSBSR helps implement policies developed by other platforms, such as HELCOM or CBSS. Some good examples are the ‘Secure’ and ‘Safe’ PAs, where there is a strong connection between general policy goals and actions with clearly defined projects and solid results. For example, some projects of common interest under the EUSBSR have made substantial contributions to the implementation of the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) of HELCOM, towards a clean and healthy Baltic Sea. PAs/HAs have a variety of wider effects on policy in the region, either by feeding into regional or national strategies, supporting decision making at ministerial/agency level, or by providing tools and advice that support decision-making processes. Overall, it is assessed that all PAs/HAs support project development through their activities. Work carried out through the EUSBSR has also helped increase policy dialogues within the region and implement new EU regulations, including the strategy on the use of plastics. Project clusters and platforms have been set up to coordinate activities, further communicate and develop results following policy recommendations. For example, the ‘Innovation’ PA’s projects have had an impact on smart specialisation strategies in Finnish regions.

Monitoring and Evaluation Monitoring An overall macro-regional territorial monitoring tool has been developed by the ESPON programme to observe development trends and patterns at the level of the four EU MRS, including the EUSBSR, and for the whole of the EU. The ESPON tool focuses on identifying development opportunities and territorial challenges. This insight is provided to the MRS in order to improve or re-focus their objectives and policies, bringing together statistical information and policy objectives. Currently, the annual implementation reports of the performance of PAs/HAs are the EUSBSR’s main monitoring tool. The indicators and monitoring framework used by each PA/HA are found in the action plan. It is expected that the revised action plan will further develop indicators and targets for each PA, which will enable improved monitoring and evaluation. Evaluation The EUSBSR has delivered numerous achievements, but these are difficult to aggregate in order to provide an overview. A 2017 study found that although there are clear differences between the policy areas, results had been achieved both in terms of content and process in all of the policy areas analysed. When comparing the achievements with the objectives set, all PAs showed progress. However, the 2017 study concluded that while technical cooperation has developed, the policy part is still somewhat lagging behind . In addition to the study, various PAs/HAs have carried out evaluations of their specific areas. For example PA ‘Health’ carried out an evaluation in 2018 in the framework of a grant received. Funding Funding mobilisation Availability of funding has been one of the most discussed aspects of the EUSBSR. Achieving the Strategy’s goals without assigned own funding has always been a challenge. One of the Strategy’s core principles is that its implementation is based on mobilising and bundling existing public and private funding at EU, national, regional and local levels. At EU level, the EU Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds) are one of the key sources of funding. Other EU level instruments (e.g. Horizon 2020, LIFE, and Erasmus+) also support projects. Funds from the European Investment Bank or other International Financial Institutions could be used. There are 86 mainstream, Interreg and ENI-CBC programmes are relevant for the EUSBSR. The key funding mechanism for projects within the PAs/Has to date has been the Interreg BSR programme and the various cross-border cooperation (Interreg) programmes in the Baltic Sea region. Interreg BSR has been the key source of funding for PAs ‘Nutri’, ‘Innovation’, ‘Energy’, and HA ‘Neighbours’. The PA ‘Education’ receives funding from the Interreg BSR and South Baltic programmes, from the ESF for larger projects, and seed funding for other activities. The funding sources for HA ‘Spatial Planning’ are also quite diverse and include the Interreg BSR and Central Baltic programmes, other EU programmes, Maritime and Fisheries fund programmes, and seed funding sources. The European Neighbourhood Instrument (ENI) is a significant funding source for PA ‘Health’, in addition to Interreg BSR, and the policy area is relatively well-funded regarding seed funding activities. Other CBC funds – for example the Interreg Central Baltic and South Baltic programmes – are the main sources of funding for PAs ‘Hazards’ and ‘Tourism’, respectively. EU programmes such as BONUS, the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), and Horizon 2020 are key for the PA ‘Safe’, and the PA also depends on Interreg BSR for a variety of activities. There are a number of other PAs that receive funding from these EU programmes. However, EU programmes are not limited to these. Erasmus+ provides support for the PA ‘Culture’, and the DG MARE supports the PA ‘Spatial Planning’. Funding sources in the ‘other’ category mainly include national-level institutions, such the Swedish Institute and Uppsala University, or intergovernmental organisations such as the Nordic Council of Ministers. The Interreg BSR links projects from different EU funding sources by creating project platforms. Project platforms, a funding instrument from Interreg BSR set up in the 2014-2020 programming period, support EUSBSR PAs and HAs by linking the results of EU-funded projects and feeding them into policy development in their thematic areas. To date, nine platforms have been set up. All nine project platforms selected by the Interreg BSR’s Monitoring Committee support the EUSBSR’s three main objectives. The platforms help structure new knowledge for public authorities and other target groups for the EUSBSR, bringing together results of different EU-funded projects in one particular field. During the reporting period the use of the ‘mainstream’ ESI Funds programmes has remained relatively limited, and participants in the EUSBSR do not yet consider that ESI Funds programmes and the EUSBSR are aligned. Embedding Until now, the main funding source for the EUSBSR has been the territorial cooperation (Interreg) programmes, even though the Interreg programmes have limited financial resources and cannot on their own cover all of the Strategy’s needs. Therefore, the use of the national and regional cohesion policy programmes (known as ‘mainstream’ programmes) to support the priorities of the MRS and cooperation activities is being facilitated for the 2021-2027 programming period in the draft legislation proposed by the Commission. It is important to ensure that the MRS priorities are included in the mainstream cohesion policy programmes that are already being drafted. This process is known as ‘embedding’. In the Baltic Sea Region, networks of ESI Funds programmes’ managing authorities have been created on a voluntary basis for all funds (ESF, ERDF, EAFRD and EMFF), reflecting the need and desire for stronger macro-regional cooperation in the region, by providing funding. The first managing authorities network, created in 2011, was the ESF managing authorities network, the ‘Baltic Sea Network - European Social Fund’ (BSN-ESF). An important aim for the network was to coordinate activities between national ESF programmes during the 2014-2020 programming period and to identify possible areas for cooperation. The BSN-ESF network has created a forum for discussion among the countries and the relevant PAs. The flagship ‘School to Work’ was also created as a result of the BSN-ESF network. The BSN-ESF has organised their meetings back-to-back with the thematic network on Youth Employment (and Inclusion), which has facilitated carrying out coordinated calls. Following the example of the ESF-network in the Baltic Sea region, the EUSBSR NC group created an ERDF network of managing authorities in 2016. It aims to facilitate, on a voluntary basis, the funding of transnational collaboration by ERDF regional/national programmes in order to support the EUSBSR’s activities. As a first step, pilot projects were developed, focusing on innovation in clean-tech to help regions implement their smart specialisation strategies. The process is coordinated by the EUSBSR ‘Innovation’ policy area. A programme has been developed in the EUSBSR for capacity building (by the HA ‘Capacity’) for and with the managing authorities (ERDF and ESF) in preparation for the 2021-2027 programming period. The programme is designed to meet the needs for coordination between the ERDF/ESF, with their Baltic Sea region networks and the PACs/HACs flagship leaders. The programme consists of three round tables and five modules.

Communication Recent years have seen some progress on communicating about the EUSBSR, in particular with the implementation of the ‘Let's communicate!’ project. , However, challenges remain. Various activities have been carried out as part of the project, leading to increased visibility of the Strategy and better internal and external communication. These include — but are not limited to — creation of a blog platform on the EUSBSR website, actively using social media channels (for example Twitter @EUSBSR with over 3200 followers, Facebook with almost 2000 followers, Flickr), organisation of thematic events with various EUSBSR stakeholders (including business representatives), producing a series of promotional videos on the EUSBSR, launching communication toolkits for EUSBSR implementers (national coordinators, thematic area coordinators and flagship leaders), etc. The ‘Let’s communicate!’ project aims to maintain and further develop the EUSBSR’s communications. The project gathers current information about EUSBSR developments and shares them through its communication channels, promotes the use of the EUSBSR visual identity and provides with communication support and tools to EUSBSR stakeholders. The project will also reach out to new target groups to attract new stakeholders to take part in actions. The Interreg BSR Programme is co-financing the ‘Let’s communicate!’ project, providing almost EUR 780 000 between 2016 and September 2021. The lead partner is Centrum Balticum. Beyond the PACs/HACs, institutions eligible to receive financing include international bodies and national ministries and agencies acting as coordinators. The key annual event for the EUSBSR is the annual forum, which has brought together up to a 1 000 participants and provides good opportunities for increasing visibility and communication of the strategy and its results. The Interreg BSR provided the EUSBSR annual fora with funding of nearly EUR 930 000 between 2016 and 2019. An additional EUR 255 000 has already been committed for the 2020 forum in Turku, Finland, plus an amount of EUR 255 000 for the 2021 annual forum. Cooperation within and across Strategies Cooperation within the EUSBSR Many PAs/HAs have taken advantage of the potential for cooperation within the EUSBSR, working across themes or PAs/HAs. Cooperation can take the form of workshops, seminars, and the development of joint implementation strategies and joint development of flagship projects, as well as 'flagship processes'. PAs/HAs vary in their current and planned cooperation but, in general, they are well aware of the potential and necessity for inter-PA/HA cooperation in terms of sharing ideas, transferring of know-how and sharing resources. A key mechanisms for doing this is participating in the steering groups of other PAs/HAs. For example, the networks of both ‘Secure’ PA and ‘Climate’ HA have been used as bases for developing the Community Safety Action for Supporting Climate Adaptation and Development (CASCADE) project . Cross-sectoral/thematic cooperation may be more relevant for some areas than for others, and that cross-sectoral cooperation may happen at different levels in the PA/HA. The extent and forms of cooperation thus vary depending on the type of initiatives pursued by the PA/HAs. The key issue is still how to ensure that the results of this cooperation are used for policy development/implementation and disseminated to relevant stakeholders. Cooperation across MRS The cooperation between the EUSBSR and the other three MRS has been further developed to increase alignment and maximise mutual benefits, impacts and synergies. This cross-strategy cooperation has taken different forms, such as implementing joint projects and sharing best practices and experience. Cross-strategy cooperation is facilitated by Interact, a programme that has organised thematic meetings among stakeholders/project partners coming from different macro-regions (for example on climate change and disaster risk prevention issues, transport-related issues, capacity building, etc.). The HA ‘Capacity’ works with similar structures in the other three MRS and with the Interact programme. The collaboration covers exchange of good practice in capacity building/stakeholder involvement and joint development of measures for capacity building. CHALLENGES Governance and administrative capacity In spite of the high levels overall of interest and support for the EUSBSR in the Baltic Sea countries and the wider region, high-level political commitment to EUSBSR still remains a challenge. Some of the reasons for this are that the deliverables and results are often not tangible or simple to communicate. The need to secure increased political commitment is also evident in the lack of national resources made available to finance the EUSBSR governance. The EUSBSR is at times perceived too bureaucratic and technical. The on-going work to strengthen EUSBSR governance should clarify what is essential for the EUSBSR’s success, including stronger ownership of the Strategy by countries. Areas that require increased focus include stronger political leadership and continued commitment, effective decision making and greater clarity in organising work. The main goals are to improve coordination and cooperation to further increase commitment to the EUSBSR and its effective implementation and to build the necessary administrative capacity to ensure that political commitment translates into effective implementation. A renewed focus on the role of the NCs will be important to improve coordination. The key is to empower relevant implementers (PACs/HACs, steering groups) and increase ownership by the relevant line ministries at national level. The relationship between the NC group and PACs/HACs needs to be clearly delineated. The degree to which the countries participate in PA/HA steering groups varies. Some PAs/HAs consider the majority of countries to be active, while others identify only a few active countries. The extent to which other participants are included also varies across PAs/HAs – some include a broad range of macro-regional and EU stakeholders, and Pan-Baltic organisations, while others include non-EU countries representatives to a lesser degree. This makes the management of PA/HA steering groups a challenge for all actors involved. The current EUSBSR governance and annual forum support mechanisms are seen as too time consuming and putting too much administrative burden on the PACs/HACs and organisers of the annual fora. The support mechanisms therefore need to be reconsidered and simplified to better utilise existing resources and reducing administrative burden. Policy and thematic priorities The Strategy’s broad scope remains an issue and this is being addressed in the revision of the EUSBSR action plan currently underway. A tighter focus, especially on the areas where macro-regional cooperation can bring clear added value, will increase the Strategy’s effectiveness and impact. This is also in line with the Council Conclusions on the first report on the implementation of MRS from April 2017, stressing that a stronger focus on results and relevant priorities is likely to increase overall performance and improve the visibility of the MRS.

The Baltic Sea itself is the uniting element for the region: It serves as a source of common identification across the region and constitutes a joint environmental and economic asset. It also highlights challenges, e.g. in relation to environmental protection and transport routes across the sea. The region includes a large amount of coastal areas and islands that are very attractive to residents, as well as significant biodiversity that is vulnerable to economic uses and climate change. The Arctic regions, in the northernmost part of the region, present specific challenges and opportunities in respect of their remoteness, geography and climate conditions. The EUSBSR’s three overall objectives (‘Save the sea’, ‘Connect the region’ and ‘Increase prosperity’) and the sub-objectives remain relevant. There is a need to streamline policy areas and link these more strongly to the strategic context. In addition, the role of climate change is a core element that affects all parts of the Strategy. Climate change and sustainable development should therefore be a key part of all policy areas. Many stakeholders consider that there is room for even more involvement of NGOs, civil society and young people in the EUSBSR’s work. For example, in a recent survey of Swedish stakeholders, respondents cited a need for increased public engagement and greater involvement from the business community and other societal actors. Respondents noted that greater involvement of the private sector is needed to address climate change. Monitoring and evaluation A general issue with the EUSBSR is that it is difficult to measure, report and communicate its achievements. Part of the reason for this is that many of the achievements are very technical or administrative and are difficult to relay to the broader public outside the topic or area. Monitoring therefore remains an area that needs further development in the EUSBSR. It is difficult to collect information about outputs, progress and results. Many indicator targets are broadly formulated, with limited monitoring and milestones used. Reporting by the PAs/HAs is often focused on projects/flagships and less on policy impact. In addition, very few PAs/HAs report on their current indicators, which means that these are generally not used for measuring or monitoring progress. PACs/HACs have not been consistently successful in measuring their performance with quantitative and/or qualitative indicators. This is mainly due to the fact that very few PAs/HAs have, so far, developed a robust strategy with goals, targets and indicators of their action. Therefore, it is difficult to capture the full scope and character of their work, meaning that there is a risk that the many effects and results described above go underreported. Further development and monitoring of indicators in the EUSBSR is needed. The revised action plan will further develop indicators and targets for each PA that will in turn enable improved monitoring and evaluation. The lack of a robust and clear indicator system for the individual policy areas and horizontal actions also makes it difficult for Interreg BSR to judge how the actions financed by the programme have contributed to achieving the EUSBSR’s objectives. A more strategic approach, particularly with regard to monitoring the impact and added value of the PAs/HAs, would benefit from the further development of appropriate indicators, target setting and monitoring. Only a few PAs/HAs, so far, have developed a robust strategy with goals, targets and indicators for their actions. Most PAs/HAs use their section of the action plan as their main 'strategic document'. Funding Funding for the EUSBSR remains a concern among many of the Strategy's stakeholders. The EUSBSR does not have any ‘own’ funding and is based on effective and coordinated mobilisation of existing funding sources, and the promotion of synergies and complementarities. However, embedding the EUSBSR priorities into relevant existing funding frameworks remains an issue. A study in 2017 (COWI) found that a relatively high percentage of survey participants agree that it is difficult to find/obtain funding for specific projects and activities, and that funding for the administration and coordination of the Strategy is limited. The survey respondents also found that competition for funding in EU programmes is high . Until now, the main source of funding for the EUSBSR has been the Interreg programmes, and in particular the Interreg BSR programme. Funding from the ‘mainstream’ national and regional ESI Funds programmes has been fairly limited. However, in light of the magnitude of EUSBSR actions needed to effectively deliver the Strategy’s three main objectives, the Interreg BSR programme can only be a suitable funding source for governance support and to initialise and catalyse smaller pilot projects and processes. Interreg funding is too limited to finance the substantial actions or infrastructure investments to bring real change to the region. It is therefore vital to ensure that the EUSBSR priorities are included into mainstream national and regional programmes under ESI Funds in the upcoming 2021-2027 budgetary period, known as ‘embedding’. In line with the Council Conclusions on the second report on the implementation of the MRS, better integration of the EUSBSR priorities with the relevant EU, regional, national and local policy frameworks in the next programming period 2021-2027 is needed in order to better utilise the potential provided by the Strategy. This process has been facilitated by the draft cohesion policy legislation proposed by the Commission. However, the NC group and PACs/HACs need to be active in encouraging programme authorities to take the EUSBSR priorities into account from the early stages of the drafting process. The existing managing authorities networks can be particularly useful tools to identify common EUSBSR actions to be promoted within the next generation of ESI Funds programmes. Communication Communication is a recurring issue, and a key weakness, in the reporting on EUSBSR activities and results. Although progress has been made on communication, further work is needed to strengthen it, especially at national level and in national languages, as most of communication to date has been done in English. Additional work is needed on using clear and simple language that is easy to understand, including for those not familiar with EU and/or MRS terminology. Ensuring transparency and ease of access to information for stakeholders and interested parties is an important way of demonstrating the progress and achievements of the EUSBSR. Better communication also helps to encourage future cooperation. While communication on active flagships is generally good for most PAs/HAs, reporting on results of completed flagships needs improvement. One area to further develop in terms of communication is to improve the online communication of the PAs/HAs, as some of these completely lack an online presence and many fall short in promoting their activities and progress. While some webpages are up-to-date and provide useful content, all would benefit from better and continuous communication of the achievements of PAs/HAs. Likewise, the webpages would improve transparency if they made steering committee minutes and meeting information more readily available. Stakeholders note that there are limitations with the 'Let’s communicate' project, in part because it only involves a limited number of partners, rather than all EUSBSR countries. Stakeholders have highlighted that it is mainly project results that are promoted whereas communication regarding the 'work' of the PA/HAs and policy development is limited. Several countries suggest that creating a EUSBSR technical support structure or focal point would help coordinate and streamline communication efforts, which would improve communication among PAs and HAs, with countries and stakeholders.

Cooperation within and across Strategies There have been increased exchanges of information and experience between regional actors involved in the four MRS. The annual High Level Group meeting and the first Macro-Regional Strategies Week (organised by DG REGIO in February 2020 in Brussels) have provided useful opportunities for dialogue and exchange of experience and best practices with other MRS. Nevertheless, countries and stakeholders indicate that different terminologies and structures in the MRS complicates exchange. There are also issues with lack of financial means or other administrative processes in the MRS, preventing improvements to exchanges at regional and/or national levels.. While some interactions exist between the EU Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region (EUSAIR), the WestMED initiative , and relevant Interreg programmes, it would be useful to strengthen cooperation and synergies between those MRS that have a strong maritime component. These MRS, such as the EUSAIR and EUSBSR, and sea basin strategies would benefit from identifying best practice and knowledge sharing. THE WAY FORWARD Lessons learnt Ten years after it was launched, the EUSBSR is a well-established macro-regional strategy in the EU. It is one of the key tools for promoting territorial cooperation. It is a developing framework in terms of substance, finance and management. Improving links with the existing funding instruments needs to continue to be able to realise the Strategy’s full potential. The EUSBSR’ significance goes beyond meeting the objectives set 10 years ago. Its future depends on the extent to which it will be able to adjust to meet the new challenges that Europe and the world are facing, and on the continued commitment and ownership of the participating country to invest in the Strategy and cooperation with their partner countries. Governance and administrative capacity: The governance of the EUSBSR plays a strategic role in the successful implementation of its actions and the achievement of its objectives. The EUSBSR’s governance structure has been in place for almost a decade and feedback from Member States and stakeholders confirms that there is a need for improvements. The areas that need further development include stronger political leadership and commitment, more effective decision making and greater clarity in roles and responsibilities in organising work. Stakeholders have highlighted the importance of the role that European Commission plays in providing strategic coordination of the Strategy, in partnership with the participating countries and regions. Nevertheless, even though the Commission has an important facilitating and supporting role, the commitment and engagement of all relevant stakeholders at national, regional and local levels in the participating countries remains vital for the Strategy’s success. Policy and thematic priorities: EUSBSR creates a unique platform for cooperation and coordination for its eight EU Member States and the non-EU countries of the region, and has successfully generated projects, and networks to tackle common challenges. There is a consensus among the Baltic Sea countries that this positive cooperation has to be continued. The Strategy’s three overall objectives: ‘Save the sea’, ‘Connect the region’ and ‘Increase prosperity’ remain valid. However, the EUSBSR has to adapt to and take account of new challenges – such as the climate change, COVID-19 crises, demographic changes and migration (of non-EU nationals) – which are becoming more urgent and which need to be addressed in a coordinated way across borders. There is also a need to streamline some of the current 13 policy areas and 4horizontal actions so that they fit more clearly into the strategic context and facilitate the embedding of the EUSBSR priorities and activities into other programmes. Many EUSBSR stakeholders find that some of the current objectives and sub-objectives have limited relevance to implementing the Strategy and say very little about what actually goes on in the Strategy. Better formulation and restructuring may help to create a stronger link between the Strategy and its action plan. Funding: The Interreg BSR programme remains a key partner for implementing the EUSBSR objectives and supporting its governance. The support to EUSBSR governance by the Interreg BSR will have to be specified in the cooperation programme 2021-2027. In addition, projects and activities funded by the Interreg BSR also need to be aligned with the EUSBSR. Even closer collaboration between the EUSBSR and Interreg BSR could be helpful during the preparation of the new programming/funding period. Main issues The MRS do not come with their own funding, hence the aim is to mobilise all relevant EU (including ESI Funds, Horizon Europe, CEF, Erasmus+, EAFRD, LIFE, etc.), national and regional funding sources, to invest in the MRS priorities. No country or region can address the major challenges in a globalised world on its own, whether these are climate change, the COVID crisis, energy issues, global competitiveness, peace and security, fighting terrorism, or managing refugee flows. Cooperation between EU Member States, non-EU countries and regions is vital. The projects to be supported within the framework of EUSBSR must be aligned with the relevant action plan and respective policy areas. In the 2021-2027 period, the Commission's proposals aims to facilitate and increase cooperation between regions and countries within the ‘mainstream’ cohesion policy programmes. This means ensuring that actions and investments that have a higher EU added value when implemented jointly should be promoted. This can be done through, for example, synergies and alignment with the priorities of the macro-regional strategies and sea-basin strategies/initiatives. At the heart of macro-regional cooperation is translating overarching European policies and priorities into bottom-up initiatives by smaller/non-governmental/local institutions that work together macro-regionally on finding joint solutions to shared challenges. The EU’s multi-level governance of the Strategy’s implementation involves several institutional and non-institutional actors, in line with the EU’s regional policy goals.. The debate among the Baltic Sea region’s stakeholders and experts confirms the increasing willingness to strengthen the key implementers of the Strategy, to make the Strategy more coherent, and to simplify its governance mechanism The delays in the revision process for the action plan highlighted the lack of technical resources available. The potential for creating a technical support structure should be urgently considered. Future development The EUSBSR creates a unique platform for cooperation and coordination for its eight EU Member States and the non-EU countries in the region. The Strategy has successfully generated projects and networks to tackle common challenges. No country or region can address the major challenges in a globalised world on its own, whether this is COVID-19, climate change, or energy and connectivity issues. Cooperation between EU Member States, non-EU countries and regions remains indispensable. In order to ensure long-term effects and a bigger impact, it is important to build on existing capacities and results. There is further potential to identify complementarities and synergies in results and to explore methods of combining different funding sources. The networks and platforms are important tools that maximise the benefits of cooperation for greater effectiveness. ‘Flagships’ are an example of this development and they remain a feature of implementing the EUSBSR. Project platforms, as developed by Interreg BSR, are another tool to interlink and connect similar activities and results from projects under different funds, better structure these and communicate results in a coordinated way.

EUSBSR’s structure is complex and difficult to understand for stakeholders and those not closely involved in the Strategy. The revision currently underway of the EUSBSR action plan aims to streamline the implementation of the EUSBSR, including by simplifying the governance structures and ensuring effective decision making and distribution of tasks and responsibilities. The revision of the EUSBSR action plan is also an effective mechanism for taking into account changing needs/priorities. The action plan’s relevance should be reviewed more frequently and plan should be regularly updated (for example linked to the Commission’s term) on the basis of an appropriate evaluation. To improve the implementation process for the EUSBSR, it should be considered whether administrative and technical support for the Strategy should be created, such as the Danube Strategy Point in the EUSDR. The EU macro-regional and sea basin strategies and initiatives provide a framework for focusing cooperation activities between the participating countries and regions to tackle commonly identified challenges in a particular functional area. The strategies do not come with their own funding, hence the aim is to mobilise all relevant EU, national and regional funding sources, to invest in the MRS priorities. The programming exercise for the 2021-2027 period should be used to further embed selected EUSBSR priorities in mainstream EU funding programmes as cooperation elements (in the proposed regulations, cooperation is introduced as a cross-cutting objective for the cohesion policy). Monitoring and evaluation needs to be strengthened so as to better link the activities and objectives in the EUSBSR to overall development in the region, but also to better monitor progress in the different policy areas and horizontal actions. This could help stakeholders to see how the EUSBSR can support the region and what the real results of the Strategy are. Additional work on communication is also needed to increase the Strategy’s visibility and better communicate its results thereby increasing interest in and commitment to the EUSBSR. Emphasising and clearly communicating the potential benefits of the EUSBSR can help strengthen the ownership of and commitment to the Strategy by participating countries and stakeholders. The EUSBSR, as the other MRS, has already showed that it can play an important role in the implementation of the European Green Deal in the Baltic Sea region. In this regard, it is important that the actions developed in the framework of the EUSBSR continue to ensure synergies with HELCOM and, as all the other MRS, to be linked with the EU Acquis and its implementing documents (e.g. actions in the field of energy and transport are linked with National Energy and Climate Plans and National Air Pollution Control Programs required by EU Acquis).



Report on the implementation of the European Union Strategy for the Danube Region (EUSDR) The EUDR is currently celebrating its 10-year anniversary. Dating from 2010 it was the second macro-regional strategy (MRS) to be launched after the adoption of the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR), and over the years the Strategy has provided stimulus to start new projects and processes of macro-regional relevance. The access to know-how and best practices within the macro-region has been of great benefit to many actors at various levels who were looking for different approaches and solutions when designing and implementing policy. Covering 14 countries that differ considerably in terms of their development level and position in relation to the EU, the EUSDR includes nine EU Member States, two candidate countries, one potential candidate country and two neighbouring countries. The EUSDR is organised around four main pillars: ·‘Connecting the region’ focuses on improving inland navigation along the Danube and promoting culture and tourism. ·‘Protecting the environment’ seeks to restore and maintain water quality, among other issues. ·‘Building prosperity’ aims, among other things, to develop the knowledge society. ·‘Strengthening the region’ focuses on improving decision-making capacity and structures in the public and private sector. The four pillars are divided into 12 priority areas. RESULTS Governance and administrative capacity General The governance structure of the EUSDR consists of the following levels: ·the national coordinators; ·the presidency; ·the 'Trio presidency' (consisting of the incumbent, past and future presidencies);

·the priority area coordinators; ·the steering groups and their working groups. Annual ministerial meetings in the EUSDR are held within the framework of the annual forum that normally takes place in October. A major development during the reporting period was the revision of the EUSDR action plan. The revision mobilised EUSDR stakeholders on all levels and provided an opportunity to re-energise political commitment and facilitate convergence between the EUSDR and policies in the participating countries and regions. The result is an action plan that is better suited for the future, in particular with respect to the 2021-2027 programming period. Content-wise, the plan links the Danube macro-regional actions with the new Commission’s priorities, such as the Green Deal, sustainable development, digitalisation, migration (of non-EU nationals) and demographic change. It also sets out new measures to support small and medium-sized enterprises and has specific actions for the tourism sector, which is highly topical given that both of these groups have been severely hit by the COVID-19 crisis. Another key event during the reporting period that actively contributed to the Strategy’s success was the re-establishment of the Danube Strategy Point (DSP) . The former DSP ceased its activities in 2017, and as a result, the Strategy lacked a coordination body. This hampered implementation of the Strategy, in particular in coordinating between the different priority areas. To address this, during the second half of 2018 the ‘new’ DSP was set up. It is run as a single project with two partners, the city of Vienna as Lead Partner, together with the Romanian Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration. Key tasks for the DSP include supporting EUSDR stakeholders, internal and external communication, coordination between EUSDR stakeholders and financing/funding instruments, monitoring and evaluation and capacity building for priority area coordinators (PACs) and non-EU countries. In 2019, the Croatian Presidency of the EUSDR took the initiative to draft two documents: a paper on EUSDR governance, clarifying the roles of various key actors, and an update of the EUSDR rules of procedures. Both of these will be finalised during 2020. The level of maturity of the various priority areas differs. While some are still busy building their implementation machine (with a focus on roles and responsibilities, and ensuring institutional commitments to the macro-regional work), others have reached a level where their key focus is on producing results and outcomes. Political level The countries that participate in the EUSDR are the Strategy’s backbone. Each year, the EUSDR presidency is handed over to the subsequent country at the annual forum. Within the reporting period the Strategy was chaired by Bulgaria in 2018, by Romania in 2019 and by Croatia in 2020. The presidency is assisted by the ‘Trio presidency’ which includes also the current presidency and the former and next presidencies. As it was proving difficult to find a country to voluntarily take over the presidency (following Croatia in 2021), the national coordinators decided in the new governance paper to move to a system where the presidencies are determined in alphabetical order. To support cooperation in the Danube region at political level, annual conferences of Danube parliamentarians take place periodically. These conferences are held to keep national and regional parliaments in the countries along the Danube closely involved with the EUSDR and to support transparent decision making. The fifth conference, on 4-5 October 2018 in Budapest, focused on preventing climate change effects on agriculture, water management and the system of water use. The sixth annual conference was organised in Bucharest on 20-21 March 2019, on the topic of the Danube as a tourist brand and developing cooperation between the countries in the Danube region by stimulating the development of the knowledge society and information technologies. High-level political dialogue is also organised within the Bled Strategic Forum , which is one of the major regional conferences that deals with current questions relating to all aspects of society. The EUSDR annual forum provides an opportunity for the governments in the EUSDR countries to express their continued commitment and to give strategic direction to key implementers. A ministerial meeting is held relating to each annual forum. The seventh EUSDR annual forum in 2018, took place in Sofia with a focus on developing tourism as a precondition for economic growth and territorial cohesion. A joint statement by ministers responsible for tourism in the EUSDR countries was issued . The eighth EUSDR annual forum on the theme of ‘building cohesion for a shared prosperity in the Danube region’, went ahead in Bucharest in 2019.A Danube Participation Day was held, linked to this annual forum, on the theme of ‘Youth – Participation – Empowerment’ to improve engagement by the public and civil society with the Strategy’s work. This addressed challenges and opportunities for boosting the Danube strategy in light of the changes to the EUSDR action plan. The 2020 annual forum is expected to take place in Zagreb in October. Additionally, several priority areas are seeking to more closely involve their line ministers to gain broader policy support. Coordination level The national coordinators (NCs) are the focal point at national level and the decision-making body for the Strategy. Their primary task is to oversee implementation of the Strategy in their countries and ensure that the Strategy is firmly anchored in the national political environment. Together, the NCs form the ‘group of NCs’ which meets regularly. Each participating country has to officially nominate a NC and one or more deputies. The NCs keep the current EUSDR presidency and the European Commission updated on an continuous basis. As the participating countries govern the EUSDR and are the Strategy’s sole owners, the key role of NCs, with DSP support upon request, is to coordinate, guide and monitor participation in the implementation of the EUSDR. This includes engaging with all 12 priority areas (including participation in steering group meetings,), and liaising with national line ministries and other relevant organisations to encourage them to consider and implement EUSDR actions in their policy field. In order to facilitate involvement at political level, all participating countries have set up mechanisms at national level to coordinate EUSDR issues. To illustrate, cross-sectoral national platforms were set up in several Danube countries — such as Romania, Austria and Hungary — to support continuous dialogue by the relevant national/regional/local stakeholders in key development areas and about on-going initiatives. They aim to coordinate EUSDR issues and involve a wider range of actors, including stakeholders in charge of cohesion policy operational programmes. Implementation level The EUSDR participating countries are responsible for coordinating each priority area. Each priority area is managed by at least two Priority area coordinators (PACs), working with their steering group (SG) members. Having an overview of the sector, the PACs’ main role is to identify key processes that will achieve the Strategy’s goals through different actions and identifying how to best implement solutions. The EUSDR steering groups are the central executive and decision-making bodies at priority area level for objectives and actions, formats, key areas of cooperation, and future developments. The steering groups meet, in principle, twice a year, a requirement met by most priority areas. However, participation by steering group members at the meetings greatly varies between priority areas. Certain countries record very high participation levels, while others participate more sporadically.

Some priority areas report that there is continuity in terms of activities developed. Some also indicate that the quality of contributions and discussions is very good and that all participants are committed to the work. Others however, have noted a decrease in the level of participation. In some cases, steering group members have not been empowered with the necessary mandate and authorisation to implement effective actions at national level. Additionally, in certain cases regular attendance is hampered by limited human resources. In particular, it is important to facilitate the participation of steering group members from non-EU countries. Limited financial resources is one reason for the low level of participation although several priority areas cover travel and accommodation costs. As a follow-up to the operational evaluation of the EUSDR, the DSP developed a needs assessment regarding closer cooperation in steering groups to improve participation by different stakeholder groups from the participating countries. Civil society Civil society organisations in the Danube region act through platforms based on participatory planning, community-building and empowerment. An example of such a platforms is DANET - Danube Networkers for Europe . DANET promotes exchanges and working together in the areas of lifelong learning, social participation, dialogue and co-operation between generations and cross-cultural dialogue in Europe and particularly in the Danube region. Other examples include Transdanube.Pearls , which focuses on sustainable mobility in tourism by developing socially fair, economically viable, environmentally friendly and health promoting mobility services for visitors to the Danube region, and the network of Danube Transfer Centers , which includes partners from across the region. Efforts to involve civil society have been made across all EUSDR priority areas. In particular, Priority Area 10 (institutional capacity & cooperation) focuses on the involvement of civil society in public governance. Key outputs include the Agenda for Participation drafted by the priority area and the Danube Civil Society Forum (DCSF). The DCSF is a member of the steering group for this priority area and it also has a working group, the Danube Local Actors Platform (D-LAP), which consists of representatives from civil society, cities and municipalities. In the other priority areas, civil society has been actively included in the meetings of some steering groups and in events and annual fora. Some priority areas rely heavily on technical input by civil society organisations, such as environmental and nature protection within the tasks forces in Priority Area 6 (biodiversity). Other priority areas, such as Priority Areas 4 (water), 5 (environmental risks) and 9 (people & skills), focus on stakeholder meetings, conferences and events. Priority Area 9 organised several thematic workshops e.g. involving teachers with the goal of empowering people with disabilities and young people who are not in education or employment. Finally, representatives of civil society organisations are key partners in arranging and implementing the National Participation Days and Danube Participation Day, which are important platforms that bring together public administration representatives and civil society organisations and coordinate the implementation of the EUSDR at national/regional level. Multi-level governance Actors from different administrative levels are involved in the Strategy's governance structure, although to varying degrees. The participating countries have put structures in place to encourage multi-level involvement. Priority Area 10 (institutional capacity & cooperation) deals with institutional capacity-building at local, regional and national level. In order to provide an inclusive platform to support exchanges and cooperation by local actors in the Danube region, Priority Area 10 created the Danube Local Actors Platform (D-LAP) mentioned above. Actions have also been taken at national and regional level. In Austria, a coordination platform was set up at national level. It functions as a platform for actors from national, regional and local levels, social and economic partners, and NGOs. Community-Led Local Development (CLLD) is a particular format for the inclusion of local stakeholders, conducted by Local Action Groups (LAGs) based on local integrated development strategies. In Bulgaria, conservation measures for habitats and species in the Natura 2000 network which fall within the scope of the EUSDR, are implemented through such CLLD LAGs. In Baden-Württemberg, the Minister responsible for policy coordination has been appointed special envoy for the implementation of the EUSDR. This special role allows for cross-sectoral coordination of Danube activities across all issues and levels of government. Different levels of government are involved in implementing the EUSDR in Baden-Württemberg, such as the city of Ulm, as well as other smaller municipalities. Other levels of government, e.g. Regierungspräsidium Stuttgart, have also been involved in partnerships on many issues. Policy and thematic priorities Achievements A key added value of the EUSDR is that it brings together new actors across sectors, countries and levels. Macro-regional cooperation stimulates policy learning at all levels. EUSDR has proven to be a useful tool for focusing the attention of politicians, administrations, cluster organisations, educational and cultural institutions and civil society organisations on the Danube region. During the reporting period, actions with a distinct macro-regional added value continued to be implemented, as shown by the examples provided below (see box). Implementing the Strategy also brings ‘side benefits’ and unintentional gains. MRS activities very often complement formal policy processes and/or the implementation of tangible projects by adding a soft policy element. This is illustrated by the following examples: ·Promoting actions to put harmonised border control procedures in place for navigation while implementing the EU regulatory framework of border control at the EU’s external borders (joint working group for Priority Area 1A - navigation and Priority Area 11 - security). ·Thematic agenda setting and pilot initiatives by Priority Area 9 (people & skills) in relation to the labour market and education policy, as part of social policy processes complementing activities at national and European level. ·Priority Area 1B (land transport) serving as a valuable format for macro-regional exchanges on transport issues in the Danube region - complementing existing forms of EU and international cooperation on transport and infrastructure policy issues. Finally, there is a specific added value in involving non-EU countries in managing priority areas as a way of supporting the preparations and initiatives the countries are taking in connection with their aspirations to EU membership.

Project examples: Pillar 1 - Connecting the Danube region The key focus of Priority Area 1A (navigation) has been on implementing the Fairway Rehabilitation and Maintenance Master Plan and rolling out harmonised border control procedures for Danube navigation. At present, more than EUR 70 million have been invested through EU co-financed projects within the Connecting Europe Facility, the ESI Funds national operational programmes and the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA) between 2014 and 2020. Key projects — FAIRway Danube and other EU co-financed initiatives — constitute a major proportion of the necessary investments. As a result, fairway conditions are improving at several critical waterway sections. The DARLINGe project was initiated and supported by Priority Area 2 (energy), based on an earlier study of the geothermal potential of the region. In this project 15 partners representing geological surveys, universities, industry, regional energy and development agencies, ministries and municipalities, assisted by 7 associated strategic partners from Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Romania worked together to improve energy security and efficiency by promoting the sustainable utilization of the existing, however still largely untapped deep geothermal resources in the heating sector. Pillar 2 - Protecting the environment in the Danube region The JOINTISZA project of Priority Areas 4 (water) and 5 (environmental risks) was a project financed by the Interreg Danube Transnational Programme for EUR 2.3 million between 2017 and 2019. It aimed to improve the status of the waters of the Tisza river basin and save its ecosystem for future generations, including the Tisza mayfly. The project was a joint effort by the institutions of all the five countries that share the Tisza river basin (Hungary, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia and Ukraine) and other stakeholders and sectors. The results of the project were endorsed by ministers from all the Tisza countries in September 2019, signing a memorandum of understanding to ensure the joint implementation of the plan produced in the framework of the JOINTISZA project. Pillar 3 - Building prosperity in the Danube region Priority Area 7 (knowledge society) has been actively working on RIS3 development in the Danube region. These activities have strong support from the Joint Research Centre (JRC). The Serbian co-priority area coordinator (PAC) is a leader of the Serbian RIS3 team and is also a member of the JRC Board of Governors. In 2019, Montenegro finalised its Smart Specialization Strategy, while Serbia is in the final phase of finalising its strategy. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Moldova and Ukraine have also started the process of drafting their RIS3. The Danube Funding Cooperation Network (DFCN) continued to coordinate and synchronise national, bilateral and regional efforts to support multilateral cooperation in research and innovation in the Danube region. Achievements included starting to work with the COST Association including organising a ‘Cost-Connect’ event on sustainable energy in the Danube region in October 2018 in Belgrade, and opening a second call to support multilateral scientific cooperation in the Danube region. Pillar 4 - Strengthening the Danube region Work carried out by Priority Area 10 (institutional cooperation) has mobilised NGOs, individuals and volunteers to engage directly with their neighbours across borders. This has generated several interesting projects. An example is Tastes of Danube – Bread Connects , run by DANET. The idea is to have people experience bread as a form of cultural heritage that they all share and that unites them in their diversity. In 2018, the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) awarded its civil society award (first prize) to the project. Policy impact The Strategy has been important in mobilising political capital within the region and institutionalising networks of stakeholders on many levels, which would not have materialised otherwise. It has helped to encourage better policy dialogue, greater visibility of and engagement from actors and has been instrumental in supporting better cooperation and information exchange. In addition, it has helped develop innovative funding solutions and rejuvenate the role of existing regional initiatives along the Danube River. Furthermore, it has contributed to the implementation of Multilateral Environmental Agreements relevant for the EUSDR territory, such as the Danube River Protection Convention, e.g. in the field of water quality, and the Framework Convention on the Protection and Sustainable Development of the Carpathians (Carpathian Convention), e.g. in the field of biodiversity. The following examples demonstrate the different types of activities: Political commitment to coordinate planning: activities in Priority Area 1A (navigation) have brought about a series of ministerial conclusions. Following the invitation from Commissioners Elisa Ferreira (Cohesion and Reforms) and Adina Vălean (Transport), on 30 June 2020 10 transport ministers of Danube riparian countries reconfirmed their commitment to implementing the Fairway Rehabilitation and Maintenance Master Plan for the Danube and its navigable tributaries, as adopted in December 2014. In their conclusions, ministers announced the necessary national budgets and that they would make full use of EU co-financing opportunities to implement required measures. They also welcomed the proposed harmonised border control forms (arrival and departure reports, crew lists and passenger lists) – the result of the joint working group of EUSDR Priority Area 1A (navigation) and Priority Area 11 (security). They support the embedding of national thematic priorities in line with the ‘Council Conclusions on Inland Waterway Transport of 3 December 2018’ in the ongoing national programming processes for the ESI Funds post 2020, where applicable. They also stress the need to pursue the implementation of important flanking measures, such as the reduction of administrative barriers in cross-border Danube navigation, the development of land-side infrastructure (in particular mooring places) and the further greening of the inland fleet in order to reach the ambitious targets of the ‘European Green Deal’. They encourage the further digitalisation of border control processes, amongst others with the help of the CEF co-financed RIS COMEX project. That project also facilitates cross-border control procedures and encourage all Danube riparian states to engage in the development of digitalised waterway infrastructure and traffic management systems in line with the Digital Inland Navigation endeavour. Hungary, Croatia and Serbia have already started using the so called DAVID forms in their border control procedures, replacing their national forms. Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine and Moldova – the four other Danube riparian countries – intend to follow by the end of 2021. Another policy topic discussed is the greening and modernisation of the Danube fleet. A workshop with stakeholders and policy makers was organised in spring 2019, resulting in a consolidated policy recommendation on fleet modernisation. Development of the task force: Within the framework of Priority Area 6 (biodiversity), the Danube Sturgeon Task Force (DSTF) has become a recognised player in relation to sturgeon conservation in the Danube region. As a result of its work, the WePass projects was launched to facilitate fish migration in the Danube river basin. Preparation and planning for a ministerial conference on Priority Area 6 (biodiversity) related topics started in 2019. As a result, the Bavarian State Minister for Environment and Consumer Protection has invited all Environmental Ministers from the Danube countries and the European Commission’s Commissioner for the Environment to a ministerial conference to be held in Munich in October 2020. Starting from the revised EUSDR action plan, the conference will express its commitment to the revised targets and activities and draw strategic conclusions on the further need for action at different levels (topics, governance mechanisms, funding requirements). The aim is to adopt a joint declaration. Policy brief: Priority Area 9 (people & skills) has set up a constant exchange process with all of the Danube region countries regarding national developments in the fields of education and the labour market. As part of this, the priority area published the ‘Danube Region Monitor – People and Skills’ report to demonstrate developments in the countries with respect to labour market and education. The report includes detailed information and statistics on recent developments in the labour market and education systems of the Danube region. It can be used by the authorities in all of the Danube region countries as a basis for further policy work in relation to the labour market and education. Monitoring and evaluation Monitoring Progress on implementing EUSDR actions is monitored through reporting on targets. National coordinators (NCs) and priority area coordinators (PACs) have important roles to play in this reporting. At national level, monitoring is carried out by the NCs through coordination structures set up between the relevant ministries. At the level of the priority areas, the steering groups are crucial in monitoring the progress of their areas. In addition, each PAC reports regularly on implementation of the priority area to the DSP. In addition, as all PACs are funded as projects under the Interreg Danube Transnational Programme (DTP), each PAC also reports its activities according to the rules for reporting under this programme. Monitoring at project level is done at the level of each priority area but also by the programmes under which the projects are funded. Monitoring and reporting of progress and achievements by priority area activities has been the subject of discussion since 2014. In 2016 the former DSP introduced a plan for a monitoring system that did not become operational. The EUSDR NCs decided in September 2017 in Budapest that the current DSP should be tasked with preparing a new monitoring system. In addition, specific initiatives were taken by several priority areas. To illustrate, Priority Area 1A (navigation) carried out a gap analysis during the autumn of 2018. The aim was to identify themes and geographic locations for additional project initiatives, in the light of targets that had been set. In 2019, Priority Area 6 (biodiversity) commissioned a study on opportunities and proposals for a revised roadmap. The study provides further recommendations on how to improve and generate a tool that can serve as the basis for improving the governance of the priority area. It also provides proposals and guidance on how to implement more output-based and added value actions to reach the EUSDR goals in future. Alongside EUSDR monitoring, cooperation with initiatives that generate evidence of territorial dynamics and trends will remain beneficial and may ease the (re-definition of future focuses (e.g. the ESPON Macro-Regional and Territorial Monitoring Tool (EMTM) that will be prepared during 2020). Evaluation As a first step, in June 2019 the DSP commissioned an operational evaluation with a focus on EUSDR governance, communication and stakeholder involvement. This evaluation provided valuable input for the revision of the action plan. An impact evaluation is planned for 2021. No systematic evaluation of the priority areas has been carried out at Strategy level to date. Funding Funding mobilisation

The Interreg Danube Transnational Programme (DTP) continues to be the most utilised source of funding for implementing projects under the EUSDR action plan. Over the years, integration and alignment of the EUSDR with the DTP has greatly helped in conceiving, developing and co-financing EUSDR projects. In this respect, it is worth mentioning that DTP not only contributes to implementing the Strategy but also funds the DSP and all PACs. However, as the budget of the DTP is rather small and is therefore limited to projects/activities with a relatively small budget, additional funds are needed to finance larger projects/activities. Important additional sources are other Interreg programmes in the region, including ERDF, IPA and ENI cross-border cooperation programmes. Furthermore, the Interreg Central Europe transnational programme provided financial support to several projects under Priority Area 4 in the field of water management. Although there is still room for improvement, funding has also been secured from ‘mainstream’ (i.e. regional and national) ESI Funds programmes. To illustrate, the 2014-2020 Bulgarian operational programme ‘Environment’ contributes to the achievement of the objectives in the priority areas under Pillar 2 (Protecting the environment in the Danube region) of the EUSDR, while the Hungarian ‘Environment and Energy Efficiency’ operational programme contributes more than EUR 2.5 billion to implementing Priority Areas 2 (energy), 4 (water), 5 (environmental risks) and 6 (biodiversity). Several ESIF programmes allocate extra points in the selection process to projects that support the EUSDR. The Romanian ‘Large Infrastructure Programme ERDF/CF’ allocated extra points to biodiversity and energy projects with a macro-regional dimension. The monitoring committees for three programmes (‘Human Resources Development in Bulgaria (ESF)’, ‘Research and Innovation in Slovakia (ERDF)’, and ‘Interreg V-A – Romania-Hungary’) allocate funds to EUSDR objectives through targeted calls for proposals. EUSDR projects have also been co-financed by other EU funding instruments, such as the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), Erasmus, LIFE, COSME and Horizon 2020. The CEF has been of particular importance to projects in Priority Areas 1A (navigation) and 1B (land-transport). COSME funded several projects in Priority Area 3 (tourism & culture) , while Horizon 2020 supported projects in Priority Areas 4 (water), 5 (environmental risks) and 7 (knowledge society), notably the DAREnet project (to strengthen flood resilience in the Danube region). Erasmus funding was also explored by Priority Area 7 (knowledge society). As an illustration, the INVET project in Slovakia introduces elements of vocational education and training, using experience and best practice from Germany and Austria. The project LIFE Sterlet supports the conservation of sturgeons. A number of other initiatives have also been taken in order to facilitate the funding of projects. The Danube Project Support Toolkit is a first step towards setting up and improving funding instruments relevant to the Danube region. EuroAccess Macro-Regions already provides practical guidance on funding, including an overview of all financing possibilities in the Danube region and the other MRS. Finally, in addition to looking for new funding, on-going projects such as LIFE Integrated Projects (e.g. for clean air in Hungary, Slovakia and Bulgaria) could also provide useful building blocks for closer cooperation and exchange of best practice on shared problems in the EUSDR area. Embedding As discussed above, the DTP alone cannot cover, by far, all requests for funding to implement the revised action plan. That is why, it is necessary to embed the Strategy in other funding programmes. In November 2019, on the initiative of the Croatian EUSDR Presidency, the EUSDR embedding task force was set up with the aim of facilitating access to other financial sources, notably ESI Funds mainstream national and regional programmes. The focus is on facilitating the embedding of the Strategy’s priorities in mainstream programmes of the upcoming 2021-2027 programming period. The revised EUSDR action plan provides a good starting point for the exercise. To date, two meetings of the task force have been held (Vienna, January 2020 and Brussels, February 2020). The revised action plan contains 85 actions. As a first step, it was agreed to shortlist 2-3 strategic topics per priority area for embedding. To help streamline the process and to coordinate the next steps by key stakeholders in the process (e.g. PACs and NCs), a ‘Guidance paper for embedding the EUSDR into EU programmes’ was provided, along with a tool to support stakeholders in identifying strategic topics. These identified strategic topics are considered as fundable topics for the tentative second DTP Seed Money Facility call. The aim is to raise awareness at national level (e.g. by organising thematic events) in the authorities responsible for the ESI, IPA and NDICI funds and to increase coordination with them. The EUSDR countries are at different stages in the embedding process and start from different levels. However, everyone agrees that the ambition should be to strive for an embedding that goes beyond the identification of strategic projects with macro-regional relevance (project labelling). It is also noted that in addition to the ESI and IPA programmes, the previous ENI (now NDICI) programmes need to be taken into account as they are relevant for some EUSDR participating states and their neighbouring regions. Most participating countries have initiated some kind of ‘embedding’ structured dialogue between MRS and EU programmes authorities. At the level of EUSDR priority areas, the picture varies. Priority Area 7 (knowledge society) contributed to the preparation of the joint proposal by Priority Areas 7 – 8 – 9 on ‘Better embedding of the EUSDR’s Prosperity pillar into suitable funding instruments’ . Priority Area 9 (people & skills), working with Priority Area 10 (institutional cooperation), organised several network meetings of the ESF managing authorities in the Danube Region. The aim of these meetings was to identify relevant policy areas and necessary factors for successful transnational cooperation in the ESF in 2021-2027 in the Danube region. During these meetings a common text module was prepared for the 2021-2027 operational programmes supporting transnational cooperation. Communication The DSP is the coordinating and connecting structure between countries and key implementers of the EUSDR acting as a communication hub. During the reporting period important actions were taken