EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 8.12.2010 
SEC(2010) 1490 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
  
Impact Assessment Report  
 
 
Accompanying the 
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION  
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT , THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN 
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMI TTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE 
REGIONS 
  
European Union Strategy for the Danube Region 
 
  
 
{COM(2010) 715 final} 
{SEC(2010) 1489 final} {SEC(2010) 1491 final} 
 
 
 
EN 2   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS  
 
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... .................... 3  
2. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF IN TERESTED PARTIES .............................. 3  
2.1. LEAD DG............................................................................................................................. ................. 3  
2.2. CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES .............................................................................................. 3  
2.3. TIMETABLE FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT ........................................................ 6  
2.4. RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT BOARD ON THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT ..... 7 
3. PROBLEM DE FINITI ON............................................................................................................. ............. 8  
3.1. PROBLEM DEFINITION FOR THE GOVERNANCE ....................................................................................... 8  
3.2. PROBLEM DEFINITION BY TOPIC ............................................................................................................ 9  
3.3. SUBSIDIARITY ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................... 17  
3.4. CONCLUSIONS OF THE PROBLEM DEFINITION ...................................................................................... 18  
4. OBJECTIVES..................................................................................................................... ....................... 19  
5. POLICY OPTIONS................................................................................................................. .................. 20  
6. ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS OF THE DIFFERENT POLICY OPTIONS............................................ 22  
7. COMPARING THE OPTIONS .......................................................................................................... ..... 31  
8. MONITORING AND EVALUATION .................................................................................................... 32  
9. CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................... ..................... 33  
 
 
EN 3   EN 1. INTRODUCTION  
The Member States expressed the need for the Commission to prepare an EU Strategy for the 
Danube Region1. This request follows the EU Strate gy for the Baltic Sea Region, developed 
under the coordination of the European Comm ission in 2008/2009 and currently in the phase 
of implementation. It specifically underlines the importance of sustainable development 
which should be pursued using an integrated approach. 
The Danube Region can be defined in several ways . This point will be analysed in detail in 
the options (chapters 5. and 6.). 
2. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  
2.1. Lead DG 
The EU Strategy for the Danube Region is co ordinated by DG Regional Policy. The Impact 
Assessment has therefore also been  prepared by DG Regional Policy.  
2.2. Consultation of interested parties 
2.2.1.  Consultation process 
The Impact Assessment and the Strategy will be based on three main information sources: 
a. A socio-economic analysis (identifyi ng the needs of the Danube Region) 
The socio-economic analysis is drafted by DG Re gional Policy, in cooper ation with external 
experts from the Region. The first results were presented to DG Regional Policy in February 
2010 and are incorporated in this Impact Assessment Report.   
b. Internal and external expertise 
Internal expertise is available within DG Regi onal Policy. It draws on th e experience gained 
in the preparation of the EU Strategy for th e Baltic Sea Region. The un it which coordinates 
the work on the Baltic Sea Region Strategy is  coordinating the work on the Danube Region 
Strategy ensuring first-hand transfer  of lessons learned. Internal e xpertise is also gathered in 
meetings of the Inter-Service Working Gr oup consisting of 22 DG s and the European 
Investment Bank2. Cooperation with the Secretariat General, DG Enlargement, DG 
Enterprise, DG Environment, DG Employment  and Social Affairs, DG Research and 
Technological Development, DG Transport and DG Energy is especially close. Other EU 
Institutions, in particular the European Parliament, the Committee of the Regions and the 
                                                 
1 The European Council has formally asked the European Commission to coordinate an EU Strategy for the 
Danube Region, stating in its conclusions of 19 June 2009: “Sustainable development should also be pursued 
through an integrated appr oach to the specific challenges facing particular regions (…). It (…) invites the 
Commission to present an EU strategy for the Danube region before the end of 2010.”  
2 The following DGs take part to the Inter-Service Working Group: AGRI, EAC, ECFIN, ELARG, RELEX, 
AIDCO, ECHO, EMPL, ENTR, ENV, CLIM, INFSO, JLS, MARE, MOVE, ENER, MARKT, RTD, SANCO, 
TAXUD, TRADE and SG  
 
EN 4   EN European Economic and Social Committee are making their views available through their 
resolutions, opinions and debates. 
The Impact Assessment Report and the Strategy  also draw on six e xperts from the Danube 
Region in the fields of transport, environm ent, innovation and governance. Each provided a 
synthesis paper on their specific field of experience that covered: (a) the main problems and 
governance weaknesses in the Region (for the t opic that they cover) - this includes an 
assessment of the effectiveness of the existin g inter-governmental bodi es -; (b) the main 
solutions (concrete actions / projects) and improvements to the governance systems; and (c) 
an assessment of the added-value for the EU to  be involved. The inputs of the experts were 
discussed in a joint meeting w ith them in May 2010. The results  from the consultation with 
these experts are incorporated in  the present Impact Assessment. 
c. Consultation of interested parties 
To understand the main challenges of the Re gion, DG Regional Policy also consulted the 
main stakeholders from the Region as well  as the general public  through meetings, 
conferences and a public consultation.  
– Member States and non Member States were  asked by DG Regional Policy to nominate a 
National Contact Person. They were further aske d to present the nationa l views, priorities 
and actions realised or planned for the de velopment of the Danube  Region through written 
position papers3. In addition regular meetings with  the National Contact Persons take 
place.  
– Five conferences with substantial public pa rticipation were organised by DG Regional 
Policy in the Region. Each conference had a th ematic focus and enab led consultation with 
key stakeholders. Outcomes from discussions in the workshops were incorporated in the 
Impact Assessment and in establishing cooperation needs4. 
– The main inter-governmental bodies (e.g. Inte rnational Convention for the Protection of 
the Danube River - ICPDR -, Danube Commissi on and Danube Cooperation Process) and 
key non-governmental organisations were consu lted with specific meetings organised. 
– A call for inputs was also published on the Commission website. For the consultation, the 
stakeholders were provided with information about the Strategy, the context and aims of 
the consultation and the timetable. They were  furthermore provided with a set of open 
questions regarding the Strategy (Annex 1) . The call was open for 10 weeks from 2 
February until 12 April. It addressed all interested parties, especially regional and local authorities, inter-governmental and non-govern mental bodies, international financial 
institutions, and the private sector. It was also open to individuals. The consultation was 
widely announced at conferences, promin ently advertised on the homepage of DG 
Regional Policy and communicated through the channels of Nati onal Contact Points in the 
Member States to guarantee br oad publicity. The re sults of the consul tation and the more 
                                                
 
3 Available on the homepage of  DG Regional Policy:  
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/cooperation/danube/documents_en.htm  
4 Summaries of the discussions at the conferences ar e available on the homepage of DG Regional Policy: 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/cooperation/danube/events_en.htm  
 
EN 5   EN than 100 received contributions will be pub lished on the website of DG Regional Policy. 
The list of the authorities / organisations  / citizens who replie d is in Annex 2.  
2.2.2.  Consultation results 
The challenges identified in the consultation are markedly of a cross-bo rder nature and thus 
show cross-border externalities5. Externalities (such as market  failures) in the Danube Region 
are especially prominent in the fields of mobility and accessibility, energy, environment and 
risk management. For example, pollution of the Danube River by a country upstream has negative external effects on the environmental situation of countries downstream. Improving 
flood protection demands investments in one part icular country but carries advantages or 
disadvantages also for other countries.  
The public consultation furthermore showed th at certain challenges not only have cross-
border impacts but influence other parts of the economy. One example given relates to 
improvements in navigability, which can have im portant effects on the environmental status 
of the river or on energy supply (hydro-elect ric power plants). Another example was a 
growing tourism industry that pot entially affects biodiversity a nd natural habita ts. To solve 
these problems in the Danube Region, consultati on has revealed that coherent, integrated 
solutions are necessary. Sector approaches alone have often become blocked in their 
implementation. For these solutions, strong po litical support and gove rnance systems are 
needed to implement actions at the macro-re gional level. Where exis tent, macro-regional 
structures should be reinforced. In other areas these structures  still need to be created.  
Apart from the identification of key areas  for action, the inputs also argued that: 
(1) It is crucial to focus / prioriti se on main actions for each topic; 
(2) Given the different priorities set by countries  in the Region, a coherent approach must 
cover a reasonable range of topics so that al l parties can identify gains for themselves. In 
particular this implies that the issues to be  covered are wider than the river-related ones; 
(3) The integrated approach, which links issues  that are in reality inter-related (e.g. 
environment ' mobility ' economic development ' human resource development 
etc.), may facilitate resolution of issues ot herwise blocked in stand-off. It allows for 
political trade-offs and permits better planning; 
(4) An implementation oriented approach delive ring concrete results would reinforce the 
implementation of EU policies in a Region ch aracterised by the most recent enlargement 
process; 
(5) An inclusive approach, covering also ne ighbouring non Member States, could improve 
the effectiveness of actions in the whole Re gion, aligning all relevant policies and funds, 
and could facilitate the accession proce ss and support the European Neighbourhood 
Policy;   
                                                
 
5 In economics, an externality is defined as a spillover effect (a cost or benefit) impacting a party, who is not 
participating in the decision regarding the action which ha s resulted in the effect, and where no payment is made 
to compensate for the effect: A cross-border externality occurs when an action implemented by one country has 
positive or negative impacts on other countries. 
 
EN 6   EN (6) As the Danube River and the Black Sea ar e interlinked in many ways, a coherent 
approach for the Danube Region should also take into consideration the impacts of 
policies on the Black Sea. This should take account of linkages with existing initiatives 
in the Black Sea Region, but should not replace them. 
Overall, the countries expresse d the need to address the comm on challenges and opportunities 
together. Whilst there are some differences rega rding the priorities, they can be explained 
through recent history and also through different  institutional capacities. However, for each 
country to achieve its objectiv es, it clearly requires input and cooperation from the others, and 
balancing of differing priorities in a coordi nated and beneficial way, which can only be 
provided within an overall cooperation framework. 
In relation to certain issues, there is at times a particular emphasis due to different situations: 
in the consultations, Germany focuses on trade and innovation; Austria navigability of the 
Danube and innovation; the countries in Central Europe on transport in general as well as on 
energy; Romania and Bulgaria on infrastructure s, especially ports; Hungary emphasises the 
quality of water, especially groundwater, as cruc ial and in need of a common approach, due to 
its physical geography and situa tion. Non Member States unde rline linkages to the EU. A 
global approach allows these di fferences in emphasis to be addressed overall and mutual 
benefits to be identified and achieved. 
2.3. Timetable for the preparatio n of the Impact Assessment 
The Impact Assessment Report is drafted according to the following timetable: 
10/2009 – 06/2010  Consultation phase with Member  States and stakeholders, collection of 
expertise from external experts and discussion of inputs, development of 
the draft Impact Assessment Report; 
21/01 1st meeting with the Impact  Assessment Steering Group; 
30/04 Report from the experts; 12, 18/05 Meeting with the experts; 4/06 2
nd meeting of the Impact Assessmen t Steering Group: Discussion on the 
first draft Impact Assessment Report; 
4-16/06 Informal consultation of  the Directorates General; 
16/06 Submission of Impact Assessment to the Impact Assessment Board; 14/07 Meeting of the Impact Assessment Board; This is followed by the following timetable for the Communication itself: 15/09 - 12/11 Inter-Service Consultations; 15/12/2010  Adoption of the Communication in relation to the Strategy (with 
accompanying Action Plan) by the Commission. 
 
EN 7   EN 2.4. Recommendations by the Impact Assessm ent Board on the Impact Assessment 
Report 
On 15 July 2010, the Impact Assessment Board provided a positive Opinion on the Impact 
Assessment Report highlighting that "the level of  analysis in the Impact Assessment Report is 
in general proportionate to the objective of the initiative". However, the Board highlighted 
areas on which the Report required further wo rk. This work has been done by DG Regional 
Policy and the present Impact Assessment Re port includes these additional elements. In 
particular: 
(1) The implementation and coordination problems which have been identified in the Danube 
Region are better explained in § 3.2 on the "P roblem definition by topic". Examples are 
given in different policy fields such as m obility, environment, energy and socioeconomic 
development. The conclusion is that if nothi ng is done there will be a considerable lost 
potential in the Region, leading to long-term indirect costs – especially in socio-economic 
matters. 
(2) The different interests and pr iorities of th e countries in the Da nube Region are better 
explained in § 2.2.2 on the "Consultation results" . Whilst the countries expressed the need 
to address the common challeng es and opportunities together there are some differences 
regarding priorities. For example: Germany focuses on trade and i nnovation; Austria on 
navigability of the Danube and innovation; the countries in Central Eu rope on transport in 
general as well as on energy; Romania and Bulg aria on infrastructures, especially ports; 
Hungary emphasises the quality of water, es pecially groundwater. Non Member States 
underline linkages to the EU.  
(3) The coordination mechanism and the role of the Commission is better explained in the 
Conclusion especially under the paragraph "S ustainable framework for cooperation". The 
Commission would facilitate the process (e.g. brokering agreements between partners as 
an independent player), coordinate the work (e.g. by working on the alignment of 
organisations, policy-making and EU funds to th e actions of the Strategy), monitor (e.g. 
through an Annual Forum with all the stakeholders) and report on progress. 
(4) The role of the participating countries is better explained in the Conclusion especially 
under the paragraph "Sustainab le framework for cooperation"  which confirms that the 
organisation proposed is similar to the one used (and being tested) for the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region. The latter is explained in § 6 on the "Analysis of the impact of the 
different options" (option n°3). The implem entation is facilitated by the countries 
themselves. The coordination of each Prior ity Area would be done by a Member State 
with the involvement of the Commission. 
(5) The role of the Inter-governmental Bodies is better explained in the Conclusion especially 
under the paragraph "Sustainable framew ork for cooperation". This covers the 
International Convention for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR), the Danube 
Commission (DC) and the Danube Cooperation Process. 
(6) The administrative costs are better explained in § 7 on "Comparing the options". Since the 
approach is built on re-alignment of existing efforts, the administrative costs of additional coordination are comparable to existi ng levels of administrative activity. 
 
EN 8   EN (7) The comparison of the options is better explai ned in § 6 on the "Analysis of impacts of the 
different policy options" where the impact on non-EU countries is presented and also 
where a new table compares the impacts of the different options including the different 
possible geographical scopes. 
3. PROBLEM DEFINITION  
In the following, the identified ch allenges of the public consulta tion (including the input from 
the experts) will be set out in detail, putting emphasis on the specific problems in the Danube 
Region and the need to cooperate. Each issue is screen ed through 3 criteria (a) is there a need 
to cooperate between different c ountries?; (b) is the issue specific to the Danube Region?; and 
(c) is the issue in line with th e policies of the EU? The results are summarised in a table. The 
chapter furthermore analyses already existi ng intergovernmental bodies in the Region and 
finally presents the conclusions on identified problems. 
3.1. Problem definition for the governance 
In the Danube Region, a key problem is govern ance, especially tran snational governance 
which under-emphasises cooperation (lack of sh ared interests and even some conflicting 
issues). The EU already provides a frame (t hrough legislation and financial instruments) 
which should address major challenges and opportunities. In additi on, there are already 
existing inter-governmental frameworks whic h facilitate cooperation on certain issues. 
However, there is a lack of institutional cap acity, and there are implementation gaps (for 
example, some EU Directives are transposed in law but not in plac e in reality). The result is a 
fragmented approach to many of the challe nges of the Region, and under-performance in 
terms of its potential.  
Analysis of existing inter-governmental cooperation frameworks 
The main inter-governmental bodies in the Danube Region are the International Commission for the 
Protection of the Danube (ICPDR), the Da nube Commission (DC) and the Danube Cooperation 
Process (DCP).  
The broad consultation process, including the consul tation of experts in the field of governance in the 
Danube Region, and a discussion with these inter-governmental bodies underlined the following: 
• The International Commission for the Protection  of the Danube River (ICPDR), created in 1991, 
includes all the countries along the Danube as well as the European Commission. It focuses mainly 
on environmental aspects of the Danube River. In  its specific field, certain progress has been 
made. The most prominent is the adoption of the Danube River Basin Management Plan. It has 
developed, together with the Danube Commission, guid ing principles for the development of inland 
navigation and environmental pr otection in the Danube River Basin. The ICPDR is well-
established, and should be used when designing  and implementing policies regarding the 
environmental status of the river. Its main drawback  is its difficulty to ensur e the necessary political 
commitment to implement its approach when considered alongside other policies (economy, 
agriculture, etc.). 
• The Danube Commission (DC), created in 1948, focuses on the navigability aspects on the 
Danube River. It has developed, together with the IC PDR, guiding principles for the development of 
inland navigation and environmental protection in the Danube River Basin. The DC is not however 
active in developing legally binding documents or in implementing projects. In addition, the political 
support is problematic. Nevertheless, the DC provides good technical expertise on navigability 
questions, which could be used in the development of joint actions.   
 
EN 9   EN • The Danube Cooperation Process (DCP), created in 2002, is a policy coordination process at 
ministerial level. It has however only met three times since its creation. The geographical scope 
covers the entire Danube Basin and the them atic scope is wide. It is not equipped with a 
permanent secretariat and appears to lack resour ces to sustain an ongoing cooperation process. 
Its links to sector policies, appears to be probl ematic. During the consultation process members of 
the DCP (Foreign ministers, Regional Cooperatio n Council) have repeatedly stated that the 
process has weaknesses in delivering on the set priorities. One main difficulty seems to be the 
missing link to the implementation side, i.e. to the respective line ministries as well as to possible 
funding instruments/ programmes. In a recent statement the DCP not ably declares that it welcomes 
the increasing role of the European Commission. In general, there is an assessment that an 
intergovernmental approach has not led to the desired results. 
One of the clear consequences is the insufficient alignment of EU and national funds. In 
particular, EU and national funds are currently almost exclusively used for national projects. 
This is confirmed by the fact that the possibi lity to have interregi onal cooperation under the 
ERDF Regulation (article 37(6)b of R. 1083/2006) is not used in the countries of the Danube 
Region. Regarding the substance, existing EU and national funds are not always used for 
clearly-identified priorities of the Danube Region as a whole. An example of this are 
Information Society measures, which have been  identified as priority for the Danube Region, 
but for which the Structural Funds are not us ed to anything like th eir full potential.  
As mentioned, another consequence is the fact that the EU Directives are not implemented 
fully on the ground in all Member States. This goe s for the main Directives in the fields of 
transport, environment, energy, Single Market, etc. For example, we understand that the use 
of electronic signatures s hould be facilitated by the EU Services Directives , but that there is a 
lack of coordination between the countries so that the rules diffe r from one to another, thereby 
hindering rather than facilita ting cross-border e-commerce. 
3.2. Problem definition by topic 
Through this analysis, we have identified seve ral issues for which cooperation is needed: 
mobility and accessibility, energy, environment and risk management. These problems in principle must be covered by any Strategy. In ad dition, in the public consultation - especially 
of Member States - it became clear that other i ssues should or could be also covered either 
because of cross-border externalities
6 (innovation and competitiveness, implementation of the 
Single Market, human capital, secu rity, tourism) or as it is clearly beneficial to exchange 
experiences (information society, institutional capacity or marginalised communities). The 
inclusion of these issues enable s the partners / stakeholders to counterbalance actions they 
consider are of lesser priority with others th at are essential: politically, it is important to 
include a range of other issues to secu re agreement on the whole ‘package’.  
Examples of poor implementation or poor coordination of policies agreed  
• Mobility: There are several EU policies supporting mobility and accessibility, in 
particular the TEN-T networks, the EU transport corridors and NAIADES (Inland 
Waterway Action and Development in Eur ope) and Structural Funds provide good 
funding opportunities for projects. However, in frastructures and policies do not always 
deliver. Implementation gaps in the TEN-T netw orks occur particular ly at cross-border 
                                                 
6 Cross-border externalities mean that the actions of one country on these issues have an impact on other 
countries. For example, if the trade barriers for the implementation of  the Single Market are reduced by one 
country, it affects trade of its neighbours. 
 
EN 10   EN sections and for East-West European connectio ns, in particular in the TEN-T Priority 
Projects 6, 22, and 23 (rail), and 7 and 25 (road). Rega rding the naviga bility on the 
Danube, the Danube Commission should be s upported in finalising the process of 
reviewing the Belgrade Convention (which created the Danube Commission in 1948), to 
be of better effect for the promotion of inland navigation. 
 Environment: There are several EU policies supporting the environment, in particular the 
various EU Directives (in particular the Water Framework Directive, the Habitat Directive, the Birds Directiv e, Natura 2000) or Action Plan s (Biodiversity Action Plan, 
Sturgeon Action Plan, work of the Internat ional Convention for the Protection of the 
Danube River (ICPDR)). In addition, th e Structural Funds provide good funding 
opportunities for projects. However, there are many implementation gaps, as well as 
practical or organisational diffi culties leading to regulations  often not followed up on the 
ground. The EU Water Framework Directive obliges countries to develop national water 
management plans and the International Co mmission for the Protection of the Danube 
(ICPDR) coordinates these national water management plans in the Danube Basin. 
However being comprised of Environment Mini stries only, the ICPDR lacks the links to 
other sectors and other ministries. Political commitment at the overall level is also 
problematic. These links are however crucia lly important to make water management 
plans actually deliver results on the ground.  
 Energy: There are several EU policies suppo rting energy, in pa rticular the TEN-E 
networks, the European Recovery Plan, the third energy package, the Directive on the 
promotion of the use of energy from rene wable sources and the EU2020 Strategy. In 
addition, the Structural Funds provide good f unding opportunities for projects. However, 
energy infrastructures are not well interconnected, which hind ers development of a well-
functioning energy market. One example is th e Pan-European Oil Pipeline (PEOP) where 
the Memorandum of Understanding (signed by Croatia, Italy, Romania, Serbia and 
Slovenia) has been in place since 2007 and little has since advanced.  
 Socioeconomic development: EU programmes such as the Framework Programme for 
Research and Technological Development support excellence in the EU, making it 
difficult for regions with  less developed innovation infrastruc ture to participate. There is 
too little involvement of partners from new Me mber States in these programmes, which is 
a particular issue in the Danube Region. The inve stment that is undertaken is often widely 
dispersed, lacks coordination and linkages, and fails to achieve the concentration needed 
for excellence. If coordinated and targeted  to the needs of the Danube Region, national 
and regional funds could reach  a critical mass to support the catching up process in the 
Region. Such a coordinated approach is cu rrently missing in many such fields, from 
Information and Communication Technologies  to enterprise development, and 
particularly crucially, in th e missing links between resear ch, innovation and business. In 
fact, the relatively recent acce ssion (2004 or 2007) of  the majority of Member States in 
the Region means that the Strategy can contribute substantially to reinforcing the integration of the Region into the EU overall (while also helping to prepare Candidate or 
pre-Candidate Countries). Movement of goods, services and people is still less developed 
in the Region than elsewhere in the EU (e.g. an integrated employment market is still 
very distant and mobility of researchers a pa rticular issue). Even cooperation on obvious 
matters (e.g. tourism, culture, etc.) and vital matters (e.g. security) is  still much below its 
potential. In addition, the Eur opean Council conclusions formally requesting the Strategy 
underline the need for an integrated appro ach to promote sustainable development. 
 
EN 11   EN All of the above leads to considerable lost  potential in the Region, leading to long-term 
indirect costs – especially in soci o-economic matters – if nothing is done. 
3.2.1.  Issues for which cooperation must happe n as they cannot be addressed alone 
• Mobility and accessibility 
Why is the issue important?  
There is general agreement that good, inter-li nked and sustainable transport systems are 
important for the Region.   
For inland navigation, the Danube River is clearly not used to  its full potent ial. Freight 
transported on the Danube is only 10% of that on the Rhine. This potential could be better 
exploited by a series of measures such as  greater inter-modalit y, improved management, 
better equipment and availability of qualified sta ff. As well as a lack of demand, there is also 
a lack of supply. The Danube channels are not  always navigable (for example due to 
variations in the depth of the water), the ports are often not efficient (n eed for modernisation, 
need for adapting to multimodal solutions), the boats are not numerous and often in a bad state and there is not enough cr ew (especially captain s and pilots) due to insufficient training 
facilities. At the same time environmenta l issues have to be taken into account.
7 
For roads and railways, infrastr ucture is often not efficient or simply missing, especially 
regarding cross-border connections (to which nati onal authorities do not gi ve priority). There 
is a lack of investment on cross border links.  
There are several EU policies supporting mobilit y and accessibility, in particular the TEN-T 
networks, the EU transport corridors and NAIADES (Inland Waterway Action and 
Development in Europe). In addition, the Structural Funds provide good funding 
opportunities for projects. However, infrastructu res and policies do not always deliver. One of 
the reasons is the lack of cooperation wh en it comes to planning and implementing 
transnational projects. For example, many TE N-T projects are implemented nationally but 
without taking fully into consider ation the need to be interli nked across borders. In addition, 
there is a need to plan the links between th e TEN-T and the transport links in non Member 
States (e.g. to further stimulate trade connections  with the Caucasus and Central Asia through 
the Black Sea ports)8. 
How can cooperation help?  
The problem is linked to lack of coordinate d planning, funding and implementation. There is 
a failure of the market, as the benefits of th e investments often fall elsewhere (for example 
investments to improve the navigability in dow nstream countries will also be of benefit for 
countries upstream). The existing inter-governme ntal bodies do not deliver sufficient concrete 
results. 
                                                 
7 As expressed in the "Joint Statement on Inland Navigation and Environment Protection in the Danube River 
Basin".   
8 This can be facilitated as Romania and Bulgaria are signatory parties to the ‘Transport Corridor Europe-
Caucasus-Asia’ (TRACECA) Multi Lateral Agreement c onstituting the development of a transport network 
connecting the EU through the Black Sea regi on with the Caucasus and Central Asia. 
 
EN 12   EN Furthermore, mobility and accessibility require cos tly investments. Therefore, it is important 
to plan so that these investments are used to  their full potential (e.g. joint investments with 
shared costs and benefits). This is higher if c onsidered transnationally. Indeed, the more users, 
the more efficient investments become. In addi tion, if these investment s are linked together, 
there can be economies of scale. 
Mobility and accessibility are also linked to other policy fields such as environment, and 
socio-economic development. A cooperation a pproach means overall benefits are more 
realistically assessed, to include the be nefits for all the countries concerned. 
• Energy 
Why is the issue important?  
Energy prices are high in the Region9. Much of it is imported, and its transport is costly; in 
addition, markets are fragmented resulting in sma ll markets with large companies able to set 
prices higher than the competitive ones. In addition, the Danube Region is specifically vulnerable regarding security of supply, as in January 2009 when gas supplies were cut. At 
the same time, energy is a source of pollu tion. There is a challenge to improve energy 
efficiency (and savings) and for incr eased production from renewable energy. 
Therefore there is need for improvement of in frastructures, market organisation and energy 
efficiency, and for increased use of renewable energy that are su stainable also as regards for 
instance the environmental protectio n such as of water. This needs action at a level above the 
national, to overcome fragment ation of markets and gaps in  the infrastructure networks, 
especially in terms of interconnectors.  
There are several EU policies supporting ener gy, in particular the TEN-E networks, the 
European Energy Programme for Recovery, the th ird energy package, the promotion of the 
use of energy from renewable sources and th e EU2020 Strategy. In addition, the Structural 
Funds provide good funding opportunities for proj ects. However, energy infrastructures are 
not well interconnected and energy  markets need better coordina tion. There is also lack of 
expertise in many parts of the Region regardin g energy efficiency measures and renewable 
energies.  
Several measures, which would help to protect  environment and prevent other risks can be 
done through better implementa tion of the Rural Development Policy in all EU Member 
States. If the measures will be implemented on ground sufficiently, it can reduce and prevent 
other environmental damages in the future and save finances for their solving later on. How 
can cooperation help?  
Regarding investment in infrastructure, coop eration is necessary in  relation to planning, 
funding and implementation. Reinforcement of th e TEN-E network (especi ally in the context 
of the upcoming revision) and implementatio n of the Energy Recove ry Plan using the 
Structural Funds in a coordi nated manner is essential. 
Regarding market organisation, the benefits of cooperation are to ensure security  of supply, to 
better balance supply and demand and to realise economies of scale on investments. The 
                                                 
9 i.e. prices corrected w ith purchase power index. 
 
EN 13   EN development and integration of the energy mark et in the Region is promoted by the Energy 
Community. The Energy Community ex tends relevant parts of the EU acquis communautaire  
to the Region. 
Regarding energy efficiency and renewable energi es, there is a need to better integrate these 
sources in the energy market. In particular, there is a potential to increa se security of supply 
by reducing energy demand and increasing the share of energy produced in the Danube 
Region. In addition exchanges of  experiences and pr actices, especially  for eco-innovations 
need to be reinforced.  
This underlines the benefits of sound planning in tegrating all the aspect s (energy prices, clean 
energy, innovations, prices, jobs created, etc.). 
• Furthermore, cooperation with the Energy Community should be sought. South-East 
European countries as well as Moldova and Uk raine are now parties to the treaty of the 
Energy Community which extends the EU internal  energy market to these countries on the 
ground of a legally binding framework. It thereby provides a stable investment 
environment based on the rule of law, and tie s the Contracting Parties together with the 
European Union. Through its actions, the Ener gy Community contributes to security of 
supply in wider Europe, including in particular the Danube Region countries. Environment 
Why is the issue important?  
The EU emphasises the need for sustainable polic ies preserving the quality of water, soils, air 
as well as landscapes and biodiversity. This ma tters for the quality of life and for future 
generations. 
In many Member States of the Danube Region, the water quality is often poor, both in the 
rivers and in the ground. There are many pollutants,  in particular nutrients. It is similar for 
soils, especially in cross-border industrial areas, and for the ai r in urban areas. Apart from the 
contamination, the soil is also su bjected to other threat s, in particular th e erosion which also 
has a negative impact on water quality. In fact, er osion from arable lands is the main source of 
the agricultural diffuse pollu tion in the Danube river basin.   
Landscapes and biodiversity are also threatened  through losses of natural areas, especially 
untouched mountainous areas, whic h lead to a diminu tion of species and ecosystem services. 
In the rivers, fish are caught at unsustainab le levels and migration is prevented by 
hydromorphological changes. The existence of st urgeon species, an impo rtant migratory fish 
for the whole Danube basin, is  particularly  at risk. 
This situation is due to long periods of  economic development without sufficient 
environmental concern, to the absence of Wa ste Water Treatment Plants and to the low 
starting point for implementation of EU Directiv es. Indeed, as environmental costs were not 
properly included in production costs, the market  failed to generate sustainable production 
systems.  
Environmental issues have a clear transnational dimension: if a river is polluted upstream, it 
has an impact downstream; if factories emit pol lutants, this affects neighbouring countries; if 
soil is polluted it leaches regardle ss of administrative boundaries.  
 
EN 14   EN There are several EU policies supporting the e nvironment, in particular the various EU 
Directives (in particular the Water Framework Directive, the Habitat Directive, the Birds 
Directive, Natura 2000) or Ac tion Plans (Sturgeon Action Pla n, work of the International 
Convention for the Protection of the Danube Ri ver (ICPDR)). In addition, the Structural 
Funds provide good funding opportunities for projects. However, there is often 
implementation gaps, practical or organisationa l difficulties leading to regulations often not 
properly followed up on the ground.  
How can cooperation help?  
As many of the issues are tran snational, solutions should be transnational. A good cooperation 
framework should avoid that effort s made only by some result in benefits enjoyed by all. It is 
important to encourage rules to agree joint decisi ons (including a real po litical support at the 
highest level), tools to monito r the progress, and a commitment  to implement EU Directives. 
In particular, the work of the International C onvention for the Protecti on of the Danube River 
(ICPDR), such as the River Basin Management Pl an, should be supported so that their actions 
- agreed by all countries in the River Basi n as well as the Commission - are implemented 
effectively (providing political , technical and financial suppor t where appropriate). This 
requires a commitment to cooperate. In this rega rd, it is also important that there is real 
dialogue or contact between people working on th e protection of the river waters and those 
polluting these waters (industry, farmers, ships ,…). In addition the different ministries and 
other bodies must cooperate better both  transnationally and cross-sectorally. 
• Risk management 
Why is the issue important?  
The Danube Region faces three main risks: floo ds, droughts and industrial pollution. None of 
this respects borders. The aim is to manage bot h the prevention (avoid that the risk occurs) 
and the reaction (assist when the risk occurs).  
The main cause of floods is that the Danube Ri ver and its tributaries are, to a large extent, 
rivers where the banks are channelled artificiall y, not allowing for the ad ditional water to flow 
freely over larger areas (so that the water leve l increases). The main cause of droughts is its 
semi-continental climate, vulnerable also to clim ate change. The main caus e of industrial risks 
is outdated enterprises provoking accidents, which can significantly pollute neighbouring 
countries. For example in 2000, gold exploitation in Baia Mare (northern Romania) polluted 
the whole Tisza river downstream with cyanide causing very extensive damage to the fauna, with over 1000 tonnes of fish killed. The issue was not only environmental, the commercial fishing activity was severely a ffected. Another recent disaster, alkali sludge depository dyke 
breach in Hungary in October 2010, brought tragic loss of human lives as well as 
contamination of large areas of land and loss es for biodiversity in the Danube river basin.In 
the case of a flood or an industrial risk it is also important to react quickly and strongly. 
Coordination of effort is needed, and availab ility of information, e xpertise, personnel and 
equipment are important. As time matters, all this  needs to be planned in a coordinated way. 
There are some EU policies conc erning risk management such as the Floods Directive. In 
addition, the Structural Funds provide good funding opportunities for projects, as well as the 
European Solidarity Fund. However, the impact of  these policies is limited if the countries do 
not cooperate.  
 
EN 15   EN How can cooperation help?  
River floods and pollution clearly have a transn ational dimension. Policies in these matters 
must therefore be organised transnationally (as addressed by the Floods Directive which 
includes a solidarity clause between Member St ates). This should be addressed by the public 
sector as the market cannot lead to a pr oper solution (those who will benefit from the 
preventive actions are not necessarily those wh o will implement them), and real risk is not 
often correctly assessed / considered in costs. 
In order to prevent these risks,  there is a need for a coordi nated approach. Countries need 
assurance that their neig hbours do their best to prevent the ri sks occurring. It is important to 
work jointly on the means to reduce the risks (i f needs be financially) as the impacts will be 
shared. Whilst some plans already exist, there should be sustainable frameworks to cooperate 
on these matters both to prevent and to react in case the risks materialise. 
To combat floods, in particular, it is necessary to create sufficient retention areas and to give 
land back to the river where excess waters can flow (by re-transformi ng agricultural land into 
wetland and by reducing the urbanisation of ri ver banks), to strengthen management 
capacities for forecasting and early action for lim iting impacts of  flood waters, including joint 
activities for research and experience sharing fo r developing innovative solu tions that are also 
responsive to climate change impacts. This requires wide r cross-border planning and 
integrated burden-sharing efforts, often of a substantial nature. For droughts, there are limited 
actions to reduce their occurrence but better water management could limit the consequences. For industrial risks, it is necessa ry to ensure that the sites at risk meet all the EU Directives’ 
requirements and to ensure - through appropriate  joint spatial planning and land use choices - 
that the locations are suitable to  minimise risks or to reduce co sts of mitigation. Overall, there 
is a need to cooperate across bor ders to take the most effec tive actions. The ICPDR plays an 
important role in international flood risk mana gement and prevention of accidental pollution, 
but further efforts and commitment are needed to reinforce this. 
3.2.2.  Issues for which cooperation should be done  as there are cross-border externalities 
• Innovation and competitiveness 
The Danube Region is characterised by a pron ounced divide across the Region with great 
disparities in cooperation intens ity (between and within the re search sector, enterprises and 
the public sector), entrepreneurship, capita lisation on innovations and investments in 
Research and Development
10. The close geographic proximity and the need for research in 
some common areas should be a distinct asset and opportunity for developing also longer 
term joint and shared research  infrastructures and actions. Wh ilst there are some cooperation 
structures between universities and research inst itutes already in place, common resources are 
often lacking, both financially and institutionally. Th erefore, joint research cooperation 
between universities, business and the public  sector should be much more strongly 
encouraged. 
Regarding competitiveness, significant differe nces can also be observed across the Region. 
National innovation policies supporting the compet itiveness of enterprise s through centres of 
excellence and clusters, do not su fficiently take into considera tion the international dimension 
                                                 
10 European Innovation Scoreboard (EIS) 2009 
 
EN 16   EN of business cooperation and research netw orks, thus leaving cross-border innovation 
potentials unused. Innovation polic ies and actions would benefit if better coordinated, pooled 
and inter-linked. 
• Implementation of the Single Market 
Regarding the Single Market, di fferent national regulations ma ke it less common for service 
providers to establish operations in other Danube States than it should be, or to provide their 
services across borders. Small a nd Medium-size Enterp rises often lack re sources to overcome 
the administrative and other hurdles to access external markets. This is more pronounced in the Danube Region than in other parts of EU27, w ith the majority of countries in the Region 
having joined the EU relatively recently. However there is clearly a large potential for future growth and economic integration in the area. Th erefore, the functioning of the Single Market 
should be reinforced and improved in the Danube Region.  
• Human capital 
The share of highly educated people in the Da nube Region is lower compared to the EU27 
average, again with a pronounced divide. Mobility, especially of researchers and students, of 
highly qualified workers and skill ed workers, is still limited. However, the Region currently 
benefits from a high share of dynamic workers, presenting a potential so  far not fully used. 
Therefore, the quality of education systems in  the New Member States  should be improved in 
particular through exchanges of experiences, and mobility should be facilitated. Existing 
contacts and cooperation in the area should be built upon. 
• Security 
Growing economic integration an d rising cross-border trade bear s the danger of a rise of 
organised crime in the Region (smuggling, tra fficking of human beings, black market,…). 
Besides the immediate damage it causes, organi sed crime also leads to higher transaction 
costs for business in the whole Region and th us limits the possibility of further economic 
growth. The recent history and the different stages  of EU integration of the Region make this 
issue a particular problem. Different types of legislation and differences in existing policies 
also make cross-border law enforcement lengt hy and cumbersome and facilitate organised 
crime. Therefore, frameworks of internationa l cooperation, and existing initiatives should be 
reinforced.  
• Tourism 
The Danube Region has a striking cultural, ethnic and natural diversity. Much of this could be 
of great interest to visitors. Ho wever, this touristic potential is  not used to its full capacity. 
Existing initiatives are not linked to each othe r and have no common strategy for aligning 
their efforts. This potential could be better c oordinated, in particular  seeking to develop a 
critical mass in terms of support structures and services to at tract tourists to the region. 
3.2.3.  Issues for which cooperation could be done as it is useful to exchange experiences  
• Information Society 
The Information Society is not well developed in the Danube Re gion compared to the rest of 
EU27. People have less access to computers, to  internet connections and to e-content. 
 
EN 17   EN Thereby, the countries concerned are not benef iting fully from a source of growth, cohesion 
and sustainability. Availability of computers in homes, enterp rises and admini strations should 
be improved; the broadband coverage and penetr ation should be extended, especially in rural 
areas; and the content available such as e-government, e-heal th, e-education, e-commerce and 
e-inclusion should be expanded, and existing initiatives reinforced.  
• Institutional capacity 
The transnational, national, regional and local  governance systems in the Region are at times 
still evolving and developing, often continui ng to overcome the profound changes of recent 
years. This covers the ways the decisions are taken (stability of th e public sector staff, 
transparency, consultation, planning, financia l engineering, project preparation, spatial 
planning,…) and the ways the ac tions are implemented (on tim e, efficiently, effectively, 
economically, without corruption,…). In most countries of the Danube Region the systems 
had to be radically modified after the regi me change (or also after the break-up of 
Yugoslavia). Although the accession to the EU (o r the prospects for accession) has improved 
the situation, new systems take time to be impl emented as they require changes in mentalities, 
building confidence amongst stakeholders and fa cilitating skills improvements. Therefore the 
functioning of political bodies an d administrations, combined w ith a greater involvement of 
the civil society / stakeholders also at decentra lised smaller, remote regional levels, should be 
improved (for example by involving better the non-governmental bodies and civil society in 
the decision-making process so that these d ecisions have fuller support from stakeholders 
before their implementation). As the recent cr isis shows, this also extends to financial 
governance, which needs reinforcing in all countries of the region, as  part of EU wide efforts. 
• Marginalised communities  
In the Danube Region, there are several marginalised communities  such as minorities or the 
Roma (10 million Roma inhabit the Danube Regi on representing 80% of Roma in Europe). 
These communities often live in poor conditions without basic infrastructure. Discrimination, 
social exclusion and spatial segregation are ob served as well as soci al tensions. Public 
authorities however often lack the resources an d experience to address these challenges in a 
holistic manner. Coordination of policies and ac tions is not evident, either within the 
countries or between communities with similar challenges. In addition, comprehensive studies 
to collect comparable data on the situation of these communities have not been conducted so 
far. This is due to limited public awareness an d low political interest. Therefore, a coherent 
strategy, putting emphasis on the challenges and providing good examples and tools to tackle 
these challenges should be established. This coul d benefit considerably by working together. 
3.3. Subsidiarity analysis 
In general, decisions are best taken at th e appropriate level and the actions should be 
implemented by those who have the knowledge and competence to do so. For Europe-wide 
issues, this can be done with th e institutions of the European Union, for national issues, this 
can be done by the national governments and for regional and local issues, this can be done by the regions and cities. However, for macro-regi onal issues (which conc ern several countries, 
but at different levels depending on the issue, an d also non Member States),  there is a need for 
a specific cooperation framework at the level of the macro-region. Experience shows that, 
without this, there are signi ficant implementation gaps. 
 
EN 18   EN As mentioned, there is already cooperation be tween the countries, be  it through inter-
governmental organisations or be it through co operation on specific issues. However, these 
are not efficient, do not cover all the issues  which would require cooperation and are not 
considered in a strategical perspective. In eff ect, this is why the Member States themselves 
asked, through the Council, that the Commissi on prepares a macro-regi onal strategy for the 
Danube Region.  
3.4. Conclusions of the problem definition 
Summing up the above, there are important  common problems in the Danube Region. These 
would benefit from common solutions. Ther e is an absence of a common governance 
approach to address these challenges or i ndeed to develop potential. This has led to 
implementation gaps, particularly in areas that  have a cross-border dimension. The following 
main problems can be identified: 
Lack of political solution  beneficial for all states in the Danube Region 
The consultation, especially with Member St ates and regions, has shown that distinct 
economic differences in the macro-region result in different priority set tings of the countries. 
Recently joined Member States tend to put emphasis on actions that above all foster economic growth, whereas the protection of natural wealt h, natural resources and ecosystems - above all 
the Danube River itself -  still receive insufficient attention and need to rank higher on the 
political agenda (especially as they are indispensable for a sustained socio-economic 
development). During the consultation proce ss it was argued that the success of any 
coordinated approach depends on coverage of a range of topics, so that all countries can 
identify benefits for themselves, i.e. allowing for political trade-offs and equitable profit / burden sharing based on a wide r Danubian solidarity.  
Lack of good coordination be tween different policy fields 
Inter-governmental bodies and the national minist ries have developed coherent policies for 
the Region in their field of activity. However,  these policies face implementation gaps as 
investment decisions or binding agreements ar e often blocked by other policy fields with 
seemingly conflicting interests. The most of ten cited conflict of interest during the 
consultation phase was the one between navigabi lity and environmental policies. There is a 
need to find a solution supporting the objective of  longer term sustainable development in a 
wider territorial context on the political level. Agreements are more likely to be reached, if a balanced political trade-off can be obtained in the frame of an integrated territorial approach 
and in a reciprocally beneficial way. 
Lack of good coordination of national, regional and EU funds 
To date, Member States have of ten defined their policies and ta ken their investment decisions 
individually and in an uncoordina ted way. Consultation showed that there is a need to act in a 
more coherent way to allow national actions and policies to be mutually reinforcing, 
increasing their effectiveness and efficiency. This holds true for EU co-funded programmes, 
for funds of International Financial Institutions , and for many other sources of public (and 
private) funding. Funding instruments coul d provide effects of improved return on 
investments and synergy and secondary benef its if they could be deployed to support 
commonly agreed objectives and related investments. 
 
EN 19   EN Lack of full implementation of EU policies 
The major part of the Danube Region is characterised by the most recent EU enlargement 
process. The majority of c ountries are in an evolving pr ocess in respect of economic 
competitiveness and the implementation of EU policies. Stronger cooperation in areas where 
implementation gaps are important obstacles shou ld be tackled urgently to make the Region 
more consistent with the EU policy objectiv es of sustainable development and notably 
EU2020.  
Lack of cooperation with non Member States 
The Danube River Basin consists of 8 Member States and 6 non Member  States, 4 of which 
are candidate or potential candidate countries and the other two participate in the European 
Neighbourhood Policy, thus all of them shar e similar challenges  and opportunities. 
Consultation has shown the desi rability to include all countr ies in the Region. With their 
involvement, policies and investments in the whol e Region can be more effective, as they will 
be coordinated and will follow common objectives.  
Lack of links between policies in the Da nube Region and those of the Black Sea 
The Danube River and the Black Sea are li nked through a common eco-system and common 
interests to develop inland and maritime routes for transport and energy. Whilst there is an 
existing joint task-force (the Danube and Black Sea task force (DABLAS)) to develop 
investment projects in the field of environmen t, its scope is limited, and cooperation needs to 
be strengthened.  Although the Danube has by far the most  rigorous nutrient loads monitoring 
programme of all rivers flowi ng into the Black Sea (and it is likely that nutrient loads from 
other rivers are underestimated) it appears that as much as 80% of th e river-borne inorganic 
nitrogen load and around 50% of the river-borne  phosphate load enters the Black Sea from the 
Danube - hence the need to  link policies especially for environmental matters.  
4. OBJECTIVES  
The general objective (‘vision’ ) is to develop a long-ter m cooperation and integration 
mechanism between the countries, towns and re gions of the Danube Region to tackle the 
challenges, and to profit from and share th e opportunities in common. An added-value should 
be demonstrated in cooperating closer and in  joining forces that  require longer term 
commitment and acceptance of lasting interdepende ncies. This can evolve from a political and 
practical territory-specific framework, allowing fo r political trade-offs in  order to be mutually 
beneficial.   
Concretely, the countries can benefit from a be tter basis to jointly discuss, decide and 
implement actions, which address common challe nges and opportunities. A more coordinated 
approach in each policy field is possible, ho wever, bearing in mind the interlinkages with 
other parts of the economy (e.g. transport - environment - economic development - agriculture). 
The aim is to overcome current blockages by addressing common develo pment interests in a 
wider territorial context. National policy obj ectives can be better achieved and can be 
enhanced through joint implementation orient ed approaches, i.e. going “from words to 
 
EN 20   EN action”. These can reinforce already existing EU-wide or region-wid e policies that have 
lacked political support until now. Resources may al so be better utilised by working together. 
To achieve this, the focus should be on three specific objectives: 
(1) Effectiveness: Improved coordination and coherence.   Analysis of existing overlaps; 
definition of competencies and roles; pla nning and development of an integrated 
approach; improved coordination of investment priorities; 
(2) Efficiency: To strengthened institutional capability to ensure implementation of 
actions.  Reinforcing existing institutions wi th a good track record; intensifying 
cooperation where governance structures are mi ssing; jointly agreeing on strategically 
important projects; pooling of human and in frastructural structur al resources using 
existing centres of excellence and areas of competence; creating ownership, affordability 
and access to well equipped and functioning institutions and services; strengthening longer term interests and commitments. 
(3) Political acceptance: To en sure a long term, politica lly supported cooperation 
process. Improve visibility and accountability; continuous monitoring and evaluation of 
expected results; review and upda te of strategically important  plans, activity packages 
and projects. 
5. P
OLICY OPTIONS  
The challenges identified above point towa rds the need for incr eased coordination, 
cooperation and integration betw een different sectors and betw een Danube countries, cities 
and regions. Enhanced capacity is needed to implement and enforce existing policies. Given 
this analysis, the options and mechanisms to be  analysed below are most likely to deliver the 
defined objectives. These options concern the possible frameworks for cooperation in the 
Danube Region. Among other differences the leve l of involvement of the Commission varies 
in the different options.  
Option n°1: The Commission is not involved (baseline scenario) 
The Commission does not prepare a strategy fo r the Danube Region. Under this option two 
possible scenarios have been developed as it cannot  be excluded that the countries themselves 
will prepare such a strategy.  
Scenario 1.1: There is no strategy for the Danube Region 
A strategy for the Danube Region is not prepare d. Policies are designed and implemented at 
EU and national level. In the mid-term, c ooperation between the countries of the Danube 
Region may be organised by th e countries themselves.  
Scenario 1.2: There is a strategy, but not prepared by the Commission 
A strategy for the Danube Region is develope d by the countries of the Danube Region 
themselves, through an intergovernmental ag reement or a stronger  cooperation between 
regions.  
 
EN 21   EN Option n°2: The Commission’s role is limited to preparing a strategy 
The Commission prepares a st rategy but the implementation happens solely at inter-
governmental level, without the EU.  
Option n°3: The Commission coordinates action s at EU level (using the EU structures) 
A coordinated strategy is developed using the existing EU structures, with the Commission 
playing a facilitating role. The strategy is prepared by the Comm ission as a communication to 
the European Council, European Parliament, Committee of the Regions and to the European Economic and Social Committee. Future decisions are taken by the institutions in partnership.   
Option n°4: The Commission supports the crea tion of a new body with financial and 
legislative powers 
A new international organisation is created with the power to adopt new legislation for the 
Danube Region and to manage funds to  finance transnational projects. 
Geographical options
 
Option a: Limited to the Danube River  
The approach covers the territories immedi ately along the river (Member States and non 
Member States) and thus only concentrates on issu es related to the rive r such as navigability 
and the environment. 
The approach is based on the Danube River (the river and the river basin)  but for some issues 
considers extended interdependence (e.g. tran sport systems/ intermodal hub/ hinterland 
connections) in combination with planning focu s (soft measures)  for the wider area e.g. 
Danubian management plans (water, waste,  energy, tourism, biodiversity, nature 
conservation, civil society networking, agriculture). 
Option b: Extended to functional geographical area  
The approach covers the Danube Region as a wh ole, (Member States and non Member States) 
and can thus address a range of ch allenges related to the area. In certain cases it is appropriate 
to include regions adja cent to the above mentioned (for example on trade, transport or 
environment issues) as they link Black, Adri atic and Baltic Sea Regions. Following this 
option, the ‘Danube Region’ is a functional area, including ac tors necessary to ensure 
cooperation on different issues, whether they ar e EU-Member States or not. Under such an 
option, the strategy covers issu es where countries and stake holders have signalled their 
intention to cooperate and wh ich are not directly related to the river (e.g. innovation).  
Option c: Extended to the Membe r States of the Danube Region 
The approach is based on option b, but is limited to EU Member States of the Danube Region. 
Hence it can cover issues on which the EU has al ready some legal and financial instruments. 
In addition, it can cover a broa d range of issues, including th ose not related to the river.  
 
EN 22   EN 6. ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS OF THE DIFFERENT POLICY OPTIONS  
This section compares the options by analysin g how each of them would ensure that the 
objectives outlined in chapter 4 are met (effectiveness); how easily they are achieved (efficiency); and whether there is likely commitme nt (political acceptance). This analysis is 
based on the geographical option b where th e Danube Region is extended to functional 
geographical areas. A full analys is (for each geographical option)  is included in the summary 
table at the end of the chap ter 6. “Analysis of impacts of the different options”. 
Option n°1: The Commission is not involved (baseline scenario) 
Scenario 1.1: There is no strategy for the Danube Region 
Scenario n°1.1: The Commission is  not involved (bas eline scenario) - Th ere is no strategy 
for the Danube Region 
 -- - 0 + ++ 
Effectiveness   9   
Efficiency   9   
Political acceptance 9     
 
Under this scenario, the s ituation of the Danube Region will probably not improve 
significantly. Joint challenges ar e unlikely to be addressed in  a coherent way and joint 
opportunities will not be seized as  sector policies and national interests will continue to block 
each other. Limited advances could be made in  non-controversial issues. The effectiveness of 
this baseline scenario, what regards reaching the objectives is therefore in general limited. 
This option would not create any additional direct costs to either Member States or European 
Commission. The indirect, long term  costs relate however to the unused potentials with regard 
to mobility and accessibility and socio-econom ic development, to the damages of the 
environment and to dangers of natural disasters such as floods. Due to limited advances there 
is a likelihood that the environmental, soci o-economic and accessibility situation will, in 
relation to other regions in Europe, worsen. As  this approach will not require additional 
resources, will however also not create any considerable outputs, it can be regarded neutral what concerns efficiency. Give n the request of the European Council to prepare a coherent 
strategy (and the continuous support to the idea  received since), this option would create 
political pressure on the Commi ssion from the Member States.  
Ö Role of non-EU countries: unchanged. 
Sceniario 1.2: There is a strategy , but not prepared by the Commission 
Scenario n°1.2: The Commission is  not involved (baseline scenario) - There is a strategy, 
but not prepared by the Commission  
 -- - 0 + ++ 
Effectiveness    9  
Efficiency   9   
Political acceptance  9    
 
Under this scenario a strategy would be devel oped and be implemented by the countries using 
existing or new inter-governmental processes.  There is little or no involvement of the 
 
EN 23   EN European Commission, the European Council, the European Parliament or other EU 
Institutions.  
There is a danger that consultation of stakeholders, as conducted for EU initiatives, may be 
neglected and that the Strategy w ould thus not take into account the full range of challenges 
and opportunities of the Region. This option may however have the capacity to deliver on 
commonly agreed priorities in the long run, given there is consensus on the issues and 
political will. Experience could show that such an approach can be effective for small, relatively homogenous regions (e.g. Alpine Regi on) that enjoy a long history of cooperation 
and can build on well established structures. Ho wever, the consultation of countries, experts 
and stakeholders reveals doubts that this option could be successful in the Danube Region, given its size and heterogeneit y, and given the lack of well es tablished govern ance structures 
to build upon. The inter-governmental bodies al ready in place may not be appropriate for 
reaching viable compromises on controversial issu es, as they either have a sector approach 
(International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR), the Danube 
Commission (DC)), or they work primarily on the diplomatic level wi th less emphasis on the 
implementation dimension (Danube Cooperation Process). They may also need reinforced 
resources and/or political support (e.g. Da nube Rectors Conference, Danube Tourism 
Commission). As the intergovernme ntal bodies already in place al so largely consider issues 
directly connected to the river, it is likely th at only such issues would be addressed under the 
strategy. What regards effectivenes s, this option may thus be ab le to deliver on some of the 
defined objectives but is likely to be weak in  reaching agreements on controversial and/or 
interrelated issues.  
As the European Commission will not be involv ed, no additional administrative costs will fall 
on the European Commission. Costs for the preparat ion of the Strategy will need to be borne 
by Member States. In addition, without the European Commissi on playing an active part, the 
alignment of EU policies and funds from EU programmes to proposed actions may prove to 
be difficult, as the leverage effect of EU funds would be missing. He nce it can be presumed 
that this option would be neutra l what concerns efficiency.  
Ö Role of non-EU countries: The non Member States are likely to be involved in the 
preparation and implementation of the Strategy.  As appropriate, they will be invited to 
align with the Member State efforts, though the acquis  base and availab ility of funding is 
evolving and diverse in the different countries. 
Option n°2: The Commission’s role is li mited to the preparation of the strategy 
Option n°2: The Commission’ s role limited to the preparation of the strategy 
 -- - 0 + ++ 
Effectiveness    9  
Efficiency   9   
Political acceptance  9    
 
Danube states create a new inter-governmental  body to cooperate closer on Danube Region 
related issues, organise regular meetings by pol icy fields to coordinate their work, develop 
and regularly update a list of prioritised st rategic projects. The European Commission 
prepares the Strategy, but does not have a fac ilitating, steering or monitoring role in the 
follow-up. This option creates limited direct costs for the European  Commission but needs 
considerable long term commitment and stab le resources from the Danube countries. Past 
 
EN 24   EN experience, e.g. with the Danube Cooperation Pr ocess, has however shown that such an 
approach is vulnerable to changing political inte rests in the countries an d that the cooperation 
process is difficult to maintain. The effectivene ss of this option to deliver on the objectives 
can thus be positive only with continuous political support in the Danube states.  
As in scenario 1.2., the European Commissi on does not play an active part in the 
implementation of the Strategy, so here again, the alignment of EU policies and funds from 
EU programmes to proposed actions may prove to  be difficult. The leverage effect of EU 
funds is therefore missing. It can therefore be presumed that th is option will be neutral what 
concerns efficiency. Furthermore, the approach lacks an independent f acilitator to organise 
and manage the cooperation process in the future . This would likely result in a static strategy, 
which would not evolve further in the future.  
Again, as with option 1.2., such an approach mi ght be suitable for regi ons with a long history 
of cooperation, building upon long-st anding and well-functioning pr ocesses or networks. This 
seems however not to be the case for the Da nube Region. On the contrary, stakeholders 
underline the weaknesses of an inter-governmental approach. This appears to be an important 
reason for the request from the Member States formally, through the European Council, for an 
active involvement of the European  Commission in the process.  
Ö Role of non-EU countries: The non Member States  are involved in th e preparation of the 
Strategy. The other elements mentioned under option 1, scenario 1.2 remain valid. 
Option n°3: The Commission coordinates action s at EU level (using the EU structures) 
Option n°3: The Commission coor dinates actions at EU leve l (using the EU structures) 
 -- - 0 + ++ 
Effectiveness     9 
Efficiency    9  
Political acceptance     9 
 
This option actively involves the European Co mmission as a facilitator to the process, 
supporting the Danube countries in developing  a coherent Strategy for the Region. The 
development of such an EU Stra tegy is done in close cooperati on with the invo lved countries 
and with all relevant services of the European  Commission. The process is  assisted by a broad 
open consultation process of all stakeholders of the Region and a consultation process with 
regional experts.  
With the active involvement of the European Commission such an approach could reinforce 
the implementation of EU policies in the Danube Region. This closes existing implementation gaps and makes EU policies more effectiv e. The coordinating ro le of the Commission 
furthermore allows for an alignment of nati onal, regional and EU funds to support the 
implementation of the Strategy, thus raising the efficiency of the available funds.  
An implementation oriented appr oach also allows the Commissi on to develop, together with 
the Danube countries, an evolving action plan, providing examples of actions and projects that 
should be implemented in the Region. Given the av ailability of national,  regional, EU funds 
and the financial instruments of  International Financial Institu tions for the Region, given the 
existence of a number of inter-governmental bodie s and institutions and given the legislative 
framework of the countries and the EU, the appro ach emphasises better use of what is already 
 
EN 25   EN in place. This approach thus raises the effi ciency and effectiveness of given funds and 
structures and closes implementation gaps rela ted to legislation, with out creating new funds, 
structures or institutions. This  also raises the potential politic al acceptance of this approach. 
The direct costs of this approach for the Co mmission are related to the personnel resources 
needed for facilitating the pr ocess in the development and implementation phase. The option 
can be regarded as efficient regarding administ rative costs in the sens e that one central body 
coordinates the overall work. 
In terms of effectiveness, this option is cons idered likely to deliv er on common objectives. 
The EU institutions are relatively independent, competent (covering many policy fields through the DGs) and credible (through the expe rience in designing transparent policies and 
implementing them). Therefore, the EU Instituti ons have the potential to create a stable form 
of cooperation among stakeholders in the Region.  
Regarding the governance mechanism, this opti on could draw on the experiences of the EU 
Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, which was de veloped during 2009 and is now in the phase 
of implementation. This is descri bed in further detail in Annex 4. 
Ö Role of non-EU countries: The non Member St ates are involved in  the preparation and 
implementation of the Strategy. The Commissi on can promote the alignment of EU funds, 
and facilitate the financing by International Financial Institutions, as well as assisting 
them in the speeder and co rrect implementation of the acquis . 
Option n°4: The Commission supports the crea tion of a new body with financial and 
legislative powers 
Option n°4: The Commission supports the creation of a new body with financial and 
legislative powers 
 -- - 0 + ++ 
Effectiveness     9 
Efficiency  9    
Political acceptance  9    
 
A new body with financial and legislative power  is created to support the development and 
implementation of common objectives. With this  option, the objectives of the Strategy are 
met through the financial and legislative powers of this body. Given that countries agree on 
the means of financing, location of the body, st affing and decision making procedures, this 
option could indeed be effec tive in reaching common goals. Ho wever, as such political 
processes are lengthy, especially with the large number of countri es involved, this approach is 
likely to suffer a substantial delay until agreem ents can be reached and actions implemented. 
There is also the danger of countries not agre eing on the conditions for setting up such a body.  
With fresh funds, this approach is likely to produce concrete outputs. However, the direct 
costs associated with this approach are also substantial. Given that the Region is well 
provided with EU funds and instruments of the International Financial Institutions, this option 
would however have weaknesses what regards cost efficiency. In addition, given current 
economic circumstances, it is unlikely that govern ments will be able to release fresh funds. 
The political acceptance of this approach coul d therefore be viewed as rather limited.  
 
EN 26   EN Ö Role of non-EU countries: The non Member St ates could be involved in the process, 
although it is unlikely that they could have the same decision-making power. Differentiations between member States and non Member States could become over-
institutionalised, which is not particularly desirable.  
Geographical options
 
Option a: Limited to the Danube River  
Following an approach only limited to the rive r, this option aims to strengthen already 
existing inter-governmental bodies  dealing with these issues and would encourage their 
cooperation: the Danube Commissi on (navigability) and the Inte rnational Convention for the 
Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR). Whilst th e situation of the rive r could be improved, 
the other policy fields relevant for the Danube  Region are not addresse d. In particular, the 
potential to reinforce the socio-economic deve lopment of the region post-enlargement is 
overlooked. 
In addition, if the Strategy was limited to the is sues directly relevant to the Danube River, 
those who have little interest to the naviga tion/ environmental issues would have less 
incentive to cooperate. For example, countries without significant current waterborne trade 
are little interested in ensuring navigability, though their river st retch is vital for others; placed 
in an overall socio-economic de velopment context this perspe ctive is changed. In fact, 
previous concentration of efforts limited to the river has been at the ro ot of slow progress to 
date. In general, if the Strategy covers diffe rent topics, there are much greater opportunities 
for countries to advance/ reinforce their own need s, in cooperation and/ or trade-offs with the 
interests of others. Hence, it considerably opens the space for compromises, and increases the 
opportunities to develop good and mutually-acceptabl e solutions. This integrated approach is 
specifically underlined in the Eu ropean Council conclusions fo rmally requesting the Strategy. 
This is one of the key reasons for the importance of socio-economic issues, a particular priority in the lower Danube. 
Option b: Extended to functional geographical areas 
With this option a wider range of topics is c overed, relating to the challenges of the Danube 
Region and not only the Danube River. As th e consultation process has shown, the wider 
approach may facilitate resolution of issues ot herwise blocked in stand-off (navigability vs. 
environment) and allows all parties to identify gains for themselves, i.e. this approach allows for political trade-offs. By doing so, it is possible to have an outcome which is broader than 
the lowest common denominator. In addition, there is the bene fit of addressi ng the policy 
fields in an integrated way taking into a ccount the interactions between them. There is 
potential to reinforce the EU in tegration of the region, both in administrati ve / judicial terms 
and also in relation to socio-economic development. This option is thus likely to enjoy broader political acceptance and advance in fi elds characterised by  conflicting political 
agendas. 
Option c: Extended to the Danube Region Member States 
Whilst this option would facilitate the implemen tation of the actions as the whole territory 
covered has a common legal framework (t he EU Directives) and common funding 
instruments (especially, the Structural Funds ), it would not be able address fully the 
 
EN 27   EN challenges and opportunities of  the Danube Region. For example, the improvement of 
navigability would be limite d as the Danube River flows through Croatia and Serbia.
 
EN 28   EN Summary table on the analysis of th e impacts of the different options  
Option Geographical scope Effectiveness Efficiency Political 
Acceptance Comments 
1.1 - The Commission is 
not involved; there is no strategy Not applicable 0 0 -- This option would not improve the situation of 
the Danube Region and opportunities will be lost. 
a) Danube river + 0 - 
b) Functional 
geographical areas + 0 - 1.2 - There is a strategy, 
but not prepared by the 
Commission 
c) Danube Member 
States + 0 -- This option could lead to some positive results, 
but given the lack of existing cooperation results, 
it is not likely to be very efficient.  If this option was limited to the Danube River its effectiveness 
would be limited as opportunities to address 
issues not related to the river would not be 
seized. The same goes if it was limited to the 
Danube Member States, and this would result in substantial gaps. 
a) Danube river + 0 - 
b) Functional 
geographical areas + 0 - 2 - The Commission’s 
role is limited to the 
preparation of the strategy 
c) Danube Member 
States + 0 -- The same arguments go as for the option 1.2. In 
particular, the strategy would not deliver the 
same level of results as there would be no independent and stable player, to facilitate the 
cooperation and the alignment of policies and 
funding and to monitor / report on the progress. 
a) Danube river + + - 
b) Functional geographical areas ++ + ++ 3 - The Commission 
coordinated actions at EU 
level (using the EU 
structures) 
c) Danube Member 
States + + -- This option is clearly the one which the countries 
prefer, since it is most likely to facilitate concrete 
results. With a governance framework (cf. the 
proposed one in the Impact Assessment), an Action Plan with key actions and the involvement 
of the Commission it is considered most likely to 
be both effective and efficient. If it was limited to the Danube river or to the Member States, it 
would be much less, but less effective as the 
number of issues which would be covered would 
 
EN 29   EN Option Geographical scope Effectiveness Efficiency Political 
Acceptance Comments 
be limited. In particular the non participation of 
non Member States would result in gaps, and substantially reduce impact. 
a) Danube river + - - 
b) Functional 
geographical areas ++ - - 4 - The Commission 
supports the creation of a 
new body with financial and legislative powers 
c) Danube Member 
States + - -- Theoretically, this option could be effective. 
However, in practice, it would be complicated to 
agree on the powers of this body, on its funding, on its location, etc. In addition, the coordination 
of its work with the one of the European 
Commission would be complex. If it was limited 
to the Danube river or to the Member States, it 
would be less effective as the number of issues which would be covered would be limited. In 
particular the non participation of non Member 
States would result in significant gaps. 
0 is the baseline scenario 
+ and ++ means that the impact is positive compared to the baseline scenario - and -- means that the impact is negativ e compared to the baseline scenario 
 
 
EN 30   EN Environmental, Social and Ec onomical Impact Assessment  
Environmental Impact Assessment The environmental impact of actions within th e framework of the EU Strategy for the Danube 
Region is expected to be positive for the following reasons: 
– The preservation and restoration of the enviro nment is one of the underlying principles on 
which the Strategy is built. This follows the specific request made by the Member States that it aims at a sustainable development. In particular, the Action Plan will contain specific actions in the environmental field, including improving the Strategic 
Environmental Assessments and Environmenta l Impact Assessments made in the Danube 
Region; 
– The Strategy underlines the integration of polic y fields so that the environmental point of 
view is systemati cally taken into account when deciding on a project or when 
implementing it; 
– The Strategy aims at improving the implem entation of EU legisl ation and EU funding 
instruments which have undergone an Envir onmental Impact Assessment when required; 
– The actions and projects deriving from the St rategy have to follow the requirements of the 
EU legislation and will hence have to undergo Environmental Impact Assessments; 
– Finally, the Strategy itself, and in  particular the Action Plan, is  systematically reviewed by 
DG Environment and DG Climate Action. 
Social Impact Assessment 
The social impact of the EU Strategy for the Da nube Region is also expected to be positive 
for the following reasons: 
– The content has been proposed and validated by  national author ities, stakeholders and DGs 
of the Commission (including DG Em ployment and Social Affairs); 
– One of the aims of the Strategy is to prov ide better social cond itions especially by 
improving the human capital, the labour mark et and the condition s of marginalised 
communities, especially the Roma; 
– Finally, overall, the Strategy should gene rate growth and j obs by improving the 
competitiveness of enterprises, and of the Region generally. 
Economic Impact Assessment 
The Economic Impact Assessment of the EU Strategy for the Danube Region is as well 
expected to be positive for the following reasons: 
– There has been a strong demand by the coun tries involved that economic development is 
prioritised. The Commission intends to include actions in these matters such as removing 
the bottlenecks for the functioning of th e Single Market, promoting research and 
innovation, and making the labour market more efficient; 
 
EN 31   EN – The Strategy follows the objectives of Territorial Cohesion11 including the reduction of 
territorial disparities, facilitating equivalent living condi tions, allowing for a fair access to 
infrastructures and services, strengthening pol ycentricity, and buildi ng good links between 
urban and rural areas.  
7. COMPARING THE OPTIONS  
In view of the analysis of impacts of the differe nt policy options (chapter  6.) we conclude that 
the best options are:  
– For the involvement of the Commission: op tion n°3 (the Commission coordinates actions 
at EU level, using the EU structures); 
– For the geographical scope: option b (ext ended to functional geographical areas). 
Given the results from the broad consultation pr ocess, the identified problems and the above 
presented impacts of various options, this report concludes that the most suitable option is an 
active involvement of the European Comm ission, facilitating th e development and 
implementation of a long-term cooperation process in the wider Danube Region.   
These options are preferred to the ot her options presented in relation to: 
– Efficiency , allowing for a better alignment of  policies and funds for the Region; 
– Effectiveness , facilitating the implementa tion of concrete actions through the guiding role 
of the Commission, the broad ownership of th e Strategy on the ground, as well as the 
feasibility of actions; 
– Political acceptance , using existing funds, institutions and legislation and applying an 
inclusive approach making it possible for all parties to identify with the Strategy.  
In terms of administrative costs  this option requires more co mmitment than the baseline 
scenario, but is less resource intensive than  other options creating new institutions. The 
central coordination role of the Commission allo ws more effective implementation of policies 
and funds, which can result in better use of resources overall.   
Since the approach is built on re-alignment of existing efforts, the administrative costs of 
additional coordination are comparable to exis ting levels of administ rative activity. Improved 
coordination and coherence, although they will require a combination of contacts at working 
                                                 
11 Territorial Cohesion is an objective of the European Union as a basis for sustainable development. The 
Strategy is expected to contribute specifically to this. For reference, the objectives of territorial cohesion are 
namely: reduction of territorial disparities, ensuring equivalent living condition, building on the territories, 
recognising diversity as an asset, acknowledging the po tential of the regions, allowing for a fair access to 
infrastructures and services, strengthening polycentricity, building good links between urban and rural areas, 
promoting good governance with equal participation and the sharing of common resources. Given the wide 
scope of these objectives, it requires  a framework of multi level governance for the integrated development of 
the area (namely through spatial planning), horizontal coordination between sectoral plans and agendas (so as to 
assure a coherence of sectoral policies); and vertical  coordination between levels (European Union, Member 
States and regional and local authorities). It is expected that the Strategy can reinforce this.  
 
EN 32   EN and political level, result in more effective use of resources and the development of common 
approaches both within and across sectors to achieve better impact. Much data collection, 
planning, monitoring and reporting is a question of wider utilisation of existing efforts, e.g. 
extracting and combining information available from the development and monitoring of EU 
Structural Funds programmes, but in an aggr egated way. On the si de of the Commission, 
functions related to managing high level groups, c oordinating and facilitating the meetings of 
the Priority Areas, producing a nnual reports and maintaining an integrated approach is based 
on improving internal coordina tion of Commission services a nd re-alignment of existing 
efforts. 
Related to the defined objectives as presented in chapter 4, this option improves the 
coordination and coherence  of policies and investment decisions, strengthens the 
institutional capacity  of the Region (as it makes use of existing structures and institutions 
and as it intensifies coope ration between countries) and improves the visibility and 
accountability  (as it will be continuously monito red and evaluated by the European 
Commission and the Member States).  
In terms of geographical scope, to give an idea  of the territory concerned, one can use as a 
proxy to the Danube Region the c ountries in the Danube River Basin (therefore, it is not 
limited to the river), used by the Danube Cooperati on Process, which is widely accepted in the 
area. The territory concerned is: Germany (e specially Baden-Württemberg and Bavaria), 
Austria, the Slovak Republic, the Czech Republ ic, Hungary, Slovenia, Romania and Bulgaria 
as Member States and Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia  and Herzegovina, Montenegro as candidates 
and potential candidates countries  and the Republic of Moldova  and Ukraine (the regions 
along the Danube) as third countries. This does not exclude neighbouring countries (or 
maritime areas) participating on certa in issues. It is to be emphasised that the Danube Region 
is not limited to the Danube River. Finally, the scope of the Strategy remains open for 
extension to other countries. 
8. MONITORING AND EVALUATION  
The implementation of the EU Strategy for th e Danube Region could be monitored at three 
levels: 
• Milestones for putting in place the necessary st ructures (putting in place thematic working 
groups, establishing responsible actors for the collection of data, establishment of 
communication arrangements within region and contact points fo r stakeholders). A 
reporting framework and timetable should be established. 
• Monitoring indicators set out under each of the priorities in the Action Plan with a detailed 
framework to allow assessment of the implementation process. These milestones / 
indicators would be adopted with the Action Plan. 
• Headline indicators defined to assess the gene ral evolution in the Da nube Region in respect 
of the key challenges. These would form th e basis for the establishment of baselines 
against which progress on achieving objectives in  the field of environment, prosperity, 
accessibility and security could be evaluated.  
Reporting arrangements would need to be esta blished. The Commission could report on a 
regular basis on progress towards achieving the monitoring indicators set out in the Action 
 
EN 33   EN Plan. A timetable for evaluation (perhaps after 3 years of implementation) could also be set 
out. In line with its role in supporting the peer  review process, the Commission could identify 
areas where progress is slow, and, where a ppropriate, make proposals to the Council on 
specific measures to address. There should be an opportunity to update the Strategy regularly 
in light of the effectiveness and efficiency of  the governance structure in delivering collective 
action, and in light of the adequacy of targets.  
9. CONCLUSION  
This Impact Assessment Report proposes theref ore to establish an EU Strategy for the 
Danube Region, as a sustainable framework for cooperation to support sustainable 
development and integrated action in a tran snational context. The Strategy should be 
accompanied by a rolling Action Plan that feat ures concrete examples of where and how 
cooperation should be intensified.  
As outlined, the design of the EU Strategy for the Danube Region is based on several 
elements: (a) an extensive consultation pro cess; (b) Communication and Action Plan; (c) 
Proposed Framework for Cooperation; and (d) i nvolvement of EU Funds. For each of these 
elements, the experiences from the preparation and implementation of the EU Strategy for the 
Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR) have been used  as inspiration, while acknowledging the 
differences and specific n eeds of the Danube Region. 
 Consultation process: The consultation proces ses are similar. Indeed, from the EUSBSR 
it was clear that the acceptanc e level of the actions proposed  was high due to the wide 
and open consultation process. Therefore, the Commission used the same tools and the 
same approach: Meetings with specifically -nominated National Contact Points, creation 
of a Commission Inter-Service Working Gr oup (over 20 services  and the European 
Investment Bank), series of conferences, public  consultation, bilateral meetings with each 
country and an ‘open doors’ policy. 
 Communication and Action Plan: The Structure and the organi sation of the Action Plan 
are similar because this is shown to work well in the implementation of the EUSBSR. In 
particular, the idea to have a Priority Area Coordinator organising the work is seen as 
especially useful, as it crystallises l eadership and responsibilities for progress. 
 Proposed Framework for Cooperation: The proposed framework is based on the one 
proposed for the EUSBSR with Member Stat es’ involvement via th e Council, follow-up 
of the Strategy done by a High-Level Group, the coordination for each Priority Area done 
by a Priority Area Coordinator, and the Comm ission facilitating the process, coordinating 
the work, monitoring and reporting on progress.  
 Involvement of the EU Funds: From the EUSB SR experience, it was clear that e.g. the 
Structural Funds programmes should be involve d early on in the process to secure their 
readiness to align funding to the Action Plan. This has been done through th e Monitoring 
Committees of the programmes and through an advisory group which also organises 
regular wider practical discussions. 
In addition, the EUSBSR experience has also f acilitated organisation of  the work taking into 
account principles of competence and subsidia rity, notably in respect of security and 
institutional capacity, but al so in respect of cooperati on on education and culture. 
 
EN 34   EN  
Sustainable framework for cooperation 
The organisation proposed is similar to the one used (and being tested) for the EU Strategy for 
the Baltic Sea Region (cf. Annex 4). There is existing support for th is approach. It is 
particularly useful as a point of reference.  
Overall, the Commission is a key actor in ensuring that th e process advances, providing 
leadership and, in cases of disagreements, facilitating the discu ssion as a relatively 
independent, legitimate and credible partner.  As it is present in e.g. the Monitoring 
Committees of EU Structural Funds programme s, it has a key opportunity to work with 
programmes to realise the objec tives established by the Strate gy, whether by re-programming 
or other means. 
In addition, the monitoring and reporting would be done by th e Commission on the basis of 
information from the ‘Priority Area Coordinato rs’ (and also by compiling material from other 
regular sources, e.g. the annual reports of EU programmes). The Commission intends to draft 
a yearly report indicating the state of play regarding the implementa tion of the Action Plan. 
Finally, the Commission also intends to organise  regularly a Forum to report on progress, to 
consult on new / updated actions and to network (trans-nationally, inter- sectorally and inter-
institutionally). This forum w ould include the countries, the EU  Institutions, the stakeholders 
(namely non-governmental and inter-governmen tal bodies), the private sector and civil 
society. 
How would the “division of labour” among existing cooperation frameworks be changed?  
The main objective is to better coordinate and rein force the efforts of many existing organisations, 
following the practice already established as worthw hile in the Baltic Sea Region. By providing a 
common framework and reinforcing practical commitm ent (within an EU context with its policies and 
funds), the Strategy can significant ly increase the impact of existing bodies (a point they themselves 
consistently make). For example; 
• International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR): The ICPDR would not be 
changed but would be a key partner for the implementation of the Priority Area on water. By 
supporting the work of the ICPDR, the Strategy sh ould reinforce its influence on individual countries 
and local decision-making and its access to funding. 
• Danube Commission: The European Commission coul d develop a similar relationship as with the 
ICPDR, to increase impact. 
• The Danube Cooperation Process (DCP): The Danube Cooperation Process is reinforced (or even 
replaced, if agreeable to its memb ers), with more credibility in polit ical terms and easier access to 
funding. 
• The European Commission: The Commission woul d facilitate the proc ess (e.g. brokering 
agreements between partners as an independent playe r), coordinate the work (e.g. by working on 
the alignment of organisations, policy-making and EU funds to the actions of the Strategy), monitor 
(e.g. through an Annual Forum with all the stakeholders) and report on progress.   
Action Plan 
Again, with reference to the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, the Action Plan can be 
one of the concrete outputs of a macro-regional strategy. Its ai m is to go from ‘words to 
 
EN 35   EN actions’ by identifying the concrete priorities for the macro-region (those which are important 
for the Commission and the coun tries of the Danube Region, those which have a macro-
regional nature and those which are realistic / f easible). Once an action or project is included 
in the Action Plan, it should be implemented by the countries and stakeholders concerned. In 
that sense, the Action Plan should be stable for a certain period of time. However, over the 
years, the priorities may e volve and hence, the actions and projects may be updated, 
transformed or replaced (these decisions w ill be taken by the countries and the Commission 
who will meet regularly during the implementati on phase). The Action Plan will be regularly 
reviewed (i.e. the Action Plan presented by the Commission is just a first attempt and will be 
improved over time). It has no legally binding value, but being approved by the Commission, 
endorsed by the Council and supported by the Eur opean Council it has a certain status making 
its implementation easier. 
The Action Plan covers the prior ities of the Strategy, likely to be mobility and accessibility 
issues (waterways, road, rail, air), environmental issues (climate change, water, biodiversity), 
economic issues (trade, innovation, labour  market, education), energy issues 
(interconnections, supply, clean en ergies, energy efficiency), cultural issues, security issues, 
the information society, the institutional capacity  as well as the issue of the marginalised 
communities. By doing so, it operationalises the priorities for the Danube region and 
facilitates the cooperation betw een countries as well as attr acting a critical mass of 
investments in those areas. 
The Action Plan also can underline the importance of an integrated approach whereby actions 
have to be considered with other policy fiel ds. Concretely, for the implementation of these 
actions, it can encourage broad c onsultation of the bodies in char ge of other policy fields.  
 In conclusion, the EU Strategy for the Danube Region can deliver conc rete results based on 
clear political support (Commission, Heads of State). It can facilitate concrete improvements, 
as it has been prepared with technical expertis e (DGs, Ministries, stak eholders) and a specific 
Commission involvement. It can build on a pr ocess leading to actions seen as open, 
transparent and legitimate. Finally, it can be nefit from significant impact through policy 
alignment and through funding alignment of ex isting instruments. It needs however to 
continue foster the cooperative attitude of the countries and stakeh olders of the Danube 
Region, in a partnership, with shar ed aims and responsibilities. 
 
EN 36   EN ANNEX 1  
 
Justification of the inclusion of  a priority area in the EU Strategy for the Danube Region 
 
The following table analyses whether each topic should be treated in a macro-regional framework. To do so, it uses three criter ia: is there a need to 
cooperate between different countries on spec ific issues (a strategy bein g a process to agree and im plement concrete actions)?;  is the topic specific to 
the Danube Region?; and is action in this topic in line with priorities / policies at EU level? 
Cooperation in the following policy fields should also facilitate an integrated approach, valuable in addressing challenges and  opportunities in a 
holistic way. In particular, sustainable development and territ orial cohesion approaches (e.g. sp atial planning) can be usefull y reinforced. 
Priority area Need for strategy (cooperation) Specific to Danube Region In line with EU policies 
Issues for which cooperation is a must  due to strong cross-border externalities  
Mobility and accessibility 
 - Make the Danube River navigable to the Black 
Sea 
- Have a Danube Region Transport Development 
Plan 
- Transnational road and rail networks 
- Reinforcement of air connections 
- Exchange of experiences (e.g. on 
multimodality) - Infrastructure not always efficient 
- Potential of the Danube River 
- Access to markets in the Balkans, Turkey and 
Central Asia 
 - TEN-T 
- Sustainable EU transport Corridors 
- NAIADES (Inland Waterway Action and 
Development in Europe) 
- ERDF and Cohesion Fund 
Energy - Reduction of energy intensity, energy saving 
and efficiency  in a wider regional context (joint 
approaches / programmes to avoid externalities  and to obtain synergy effects) 
- Need for energy security 
- Lack of interconnectors 
- Need to coordinate the demand / supply 
- Economies of scale to produce and sell clean 
energies (sharing investment costs, bigger market to make action profitable for enterprises) 
- Exchange of experiences - Infrastructures not always efficient or sufficient 
- Vulnerability of the gas supply via pipelines 
from Russia 
- Potential for biomass and hydropower 
- Specific potential to improve energy efficiency 
(insulation of buildings , decentralised power 
generation, greater Danube area action plans, common building standards etc.)  - EU2020 
- Renewable energy directive 
- Opening of EU electricity markets 
- TEN-E 
- ERDF and Cohesion Fund  
- European Recovery Plan 
 
EN 37   EN Priority area Need for strategy (cooperation) Specific to Danube Region In line with EU policies 
- Renewable energy directive provides for the 
possibility of joint projects 
Environment - Water pollution concerns several countries 
- Soil and air pollution concerns several 
countries 
- Biodiversity and landscapes are transnational 
- Cooperation is needed to avoid destroying 
biodiversity and landscapes to be more competitive in the short-term - Environmental issues are transnational 
- Rich and unique biodiversity and landscapes 
- Hydromorphological modifications 
- Large untouched territory but strong pressures 
to use of the natural resources (due to economic development) 
 - Natura 2000 
- Habitat Directive 
- Birds Directive 
- Water Framework Directive 
- Sturgeon Action Plan 
- 6th Environment Action Programme, 
Thematic Strategies 
- ERDF and Cohesion Fund  
- Common Agricultural Policy and European 
Agricultural and Rural Development Fund 
Risk management - Risks concerns several countries at the same 
time as risks and their impacts traverse boundaries 
- Need to coordinate prevention 
- Need to coordinate the reaction (civil 
protection) 
- Exchange of experiences - Specific vulnerability and exposure due to 
climate change impacts  
- Floods due to semi-continental climate  
- Rivers without wetlands aggravating floods 
- Industrial sites which are not modernised 
- Population located along rivers - Flood Directive 
- ERDF and Cohesion Fund  
- European Recovery Plan  
- Common Agricultural Policy and European 
Agricultural and Rural Development Fund 
Issues for which cooperation should  strengthened, due to common challenges, cross- border externalities and political trade offs  
Innovation and competitiveness - Need to promote joint R&D projects for 
common challenges of the Region 
- Need for a comprehensive approach to support 
excellence in research and support the catching up process of innovation  
- Need to develop incentives for closer 
cooperation in knowledge transfer 
- Pooling of resources (limited staff and markets 
for e.g. eco-innovation, green economy) - Regional disparities in terms of innovation 
indicators – potential for knowledge exchange, potential for regional specialisation 
- Common challenges that can be tackled 
through a comprehensive approach and joint incentives 
- Responsible use of specific development 
potential / seize opportunities in a territorial context  - EU 2020 
- ERA – European Research Area 
- European Research Framework 
Programmes 
- Competitiveness and Innovation 
Programme (CIP) 
- European Research Framework 
Programmes 
- ERDF and Cohesion Fund  
- Common Agricultural Policy and European 
Agricultural and Rural Development Fund 
Implementation of the Single Market - Need to systematically address the 
implementation gaps conc erning Single Market  - Recent enlargement, strong disparities 
- Close trade links but limited knowledge 
transfer hinders the ca tching up process of 
parts of the Region - EU 2020 
- Single Market / Service Directive  
Tourism - Need to capitalise on natural and cultural 
heritage jointly to promote the common region 
- Need for a cooperative approach to reach - Vast natural heritage  along the Danube River 
and the Carpathian Mountains  
- Weakly developed touristic market  - EU 2020 
- The European Agenda for Culture 
- Culture Programme 
 
EN 38   EN Priority area Need for strategy (cooperation) Specific to Danube Region In line with EU policies 
critical masses in terms of structures and 
services 
- Need for exchange of experience in the 
restoration and preservation of natural and 
cultural heritage - Marketing "Danube area" image / identity - Sustainable tourism policy 
- European Agricultural and Rural 
Development Fund 
 
Human Capital - Need to address common challenges 
(migration, population decline, weaknesses in education systems, lack of recognition of diplomas) through cooperation and specialisation - Large socio-economic disparities trigger brain 
drain 
- High density of relatively weak tertiary 
education institutions 
- Recent enlargement results in limited mutual 
recognition of diplomas and professions 
- Issuing of Danube specific diploma /certificates 
( e.g. post graduation, chambers of commerce, business, environmental  management to ensure homogeneity, exchange, employability) - EU 2020 
- Education and Training 2020 
- Bologna Process - Towards the European 
Higher Education Area 
- Common Agricultural Policy and European 
Agricultural and Rural Development Fund 
Security - Need for stronger cooperation against 
organised crime and to promote  increased 
economic integration - Difficulties in cross-border law enforcement 
- Differences between Member States and non 
Member States - EU 2020 
- Stockholm Programme 
- Vienna Action Plan on Organised Crime 
Issues for which cooperation could  be done as it is useful to exchange experiences  
Information Society - Need to coordinate pl anning and investment 
regarding broadband infrastructure 
- Need to have joint strategies - Low broadband penetration 
- Low level of IT equipment 
- Low level of content - EU2020 
- Digital Agenda 
- ERDF and Cohesion Fund 
Institutional capacity - Exchange of experiences on common problems  - Enlargement and regime change have been 
prominent elements in the region’s development - EU promotes good governance 
- Institutional Capacity building financed by 
the Structural Funds 
- Important to improve the use of EU funds 
Marginalised communities - Need to support local communities in 
cooperating on common challenges 
- Need to jointly develop a comprehensive 
strategy on Roma inclusion and Roma living and health conditions, in cluding a joint effort 
to collect reliable data  - The majority of Roma live in the Danube 
Region  
- Roma settlements face  severe health and 
environmental risks and are subject to discrimination, social and spatial segregation, leading to social and environmental issues and 
tensions - EU 2020 
- Territorial Cohesion policy 
- European Year for Combating Poverty and 
Social Exclusion 
 
 
EN 39   EN ANNEX 2  
Scoping Paper for the public consultation 
 
The European Council has formally asked th e European Commission to present an EU 
Strategy for the Danube Region, stating in its conclusions of 19 June 2009: “Sustainable 
development should also be pursued through an in tegrated approach to the specific challenges 
facing particular regions (…). It (…) invites the Commission to  present an EU strategy for the 
Danube region before the end of 2010.”  
Objectives of the EU Strategy for the Danube Region 
The Danube Region is one of the most important areas in Europe. It covers several Member 
States and neighbouring countries in the river basin and in the coastal zones on the Black Sea. 
The area of the whole River Basi n can be considered to be 800.000 km2, with a population 
over 100 million, centred on - but not exclusive to  - the 3.000 km of river passing through ten 
countries (more than any other European River) . On it lie four capital  cities, and significant 
other important centres are part of the Region. Th ere are many major issues to be addressed in 
the Region including economic and social disparities, infrastructure deficiencies, 
environmental status, prevention against risk s, etc.. Following the accessions of 2004 and 
2007, there is a need and an opport unity to overcome the legacy of former divisions and for 
the potential of the Region as an in tegral part of the European Un ion to be more fully realised. 
This EU Strategy for the Danube Region is also  within the EU 2020 framework being adopted 
at the Spring European Council. In addition, it is in line with the adopted Lisbon Treaty which 
states that the EU shall promote economic, so cial and territorial cohesion, and solidarity 
among Member States. Macro-regional strategies are prime test cases of what territorial 
cohesion means in practical terms. In particular , the cross-sectoral integrated approach is 
overarching the whole process of  the strategy development. 
Context and aims of the consultation 
The European Commission is therefore activel y seeking the contribu tions of all those 
interested (including Member States, neig hbouring countries, regi ons, municipalities, 
international organisations, fi nancial institutions, the socio- economic partners and civil 
society). This is why the Commission is organi sing a wide consultation including a series of 
public events starting in Ulm in February and concluding in Roma nia in June 2010, also 
incorporating this public  consultation through internet. Th e purpose of this Scoping Paper is 
to guide those providing a cont ribution by identifying the main  issues to be discussed.  
Below (in the section ‘specific questions’) are the main topics suggested, together with 
examples of questions to be raised and on wh ich input would be welcomed. Please feel free 
also to raise other issues.  When considering the questions, ideally, it is important to keep in 
mind that the actions and proj ects to be proposed should (a) concern the Danube Region as a 
macro-region - as opposed to the national or EU level -, (b) have a positive impact on the citizens, enterprises, and the environment and (c ) be feasible in the short to mid-term. The 
actions and projects should also consider the di fferent issues as much as possible in an 
integrated manner, for example looking at how research can be taken into account in policy 
fields such as the environment, the energy, th e human capital, health, etc., as well as how 
cooperation can be reinfo rced across borders.  
 
EN 40   EN Next steps 
All contributions will be anal ysed by the Commission, and a re port summarising the inputs 
will be available on internet shortly after th e end of the consultation. These will also be 
further discussed in the frame of the confer ences organised before the Summer 2010 (full list 
of these events available at RE GIO-EU-DANUBE-STRATEGY@ec.europa.eu ). The Strategy 
will be adopted by the Commission by December 2010. 
 
EN 41   EN  
OVERALL QUESTIONS  
Topics  
– What are the main challenges and opportunities in the Danube Region?  
– Which topics should be covered by the Strategy?  
– What are the main concrete actions and proj ects to be recommended in the coming years?  
Implementation  
– How is it possible to cooperate better, to c oordinate more and to exchange good practices?  
– How can the cross-border links and th e transnational policies be improved?  
– What would be the added value of this Strate gy to the existing mechan isms in the Region?  
– What would be expected of the different EU policies and their financial instruments?  
– What are the needs in terms of funding and how to improve the use of existing financial 
instruments to achieve the objective of the strategy? 
Approach  
– How could the Strategy contribut e to improve the situation?  
– What are the advantages / disadvantages  of an approach going beyond national 
boundaries?  
– What is the value - if any - of an approach wh ich covers several topi cs together and looks 
at their interrelationship (e.g. how economic and envir onmental issues interact?)  
– What is the added value of the EU in the process?  
 
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS  
To improve connectivity and communication systems (within and outside the Region)  
For the following topics, in addition to the spec ific questions, you are invited to indicate: 
- The main challenges / opportunities; - The main concrete actions and projects to be recommended in the coming years. 
You are also invited to indicate  how these topics might be cons idered together and how they 
can interact positively with each others and with the other topics mentioned below. 
1. Inland waterways, road and rail systems 
2. Intermodal nodes (includi ng ports and airports) 
3. Energy systems and security of supply 
 
EN 42   EN 4. Increased use of renewable and clean en ergies, energy efficiency and savings 
5. Information Society 
To protect the environment, preserve water resources and prevent against natural risks  
For the following topics, in addition to the spec ific questions, you are invited to indicate: 
- The main challenges / opportunities; - The main concrete actions and projects to  be recommended in the coming years. 
You are also invited to indicate  how these topics might be cons idered together and how they 
can interact positively with each others and with the other topics mentioned below. 
6. Environment of the water (especially rivers) 
7. Quality of air and soils (including waste) 
8. Biodiversity and landscapes 
9. Natural risks (floods and droughts) 
10. Mitigation and adaptation to climate change 
To reinforce socio-economic, human  and institutional development
 
For the following topics, in addition to the spec ific questions, you are invited to indicate: 
- The main challenges / opportunities; - The main concrete actions and projects to  be recommended in the coming years. 
You are also invited to indicate  how these topics might be cons idered together and how they 
can interact positively with each others and with the other topics mentioned below. 
11. Internal market / trade 
12. Competitiveness of economic sectors (a griculture, industry and services) 
13. Innovation / research 
14. Human capital (including job ma rkets, education and health) 
15. Institutional capacity 
16. Danube identity / culture (including tourism) 
17. Roma community and othe r disadvantaged groups 
 
Please also feel free to add other relevant  topics or suggest improved approaches.  
Your contributions in relation to  these questions will be most useful to us in  developing an 
EU Strategy which addresses th e critical concerns of the Da nube Region. These contributions 
can be sent to REGIO-EU- DANUBE-STRATEGY@ec.europa.eu
 before the 12 April 2010. 
Thank for your contributions! 
 
EN 43   EN ANNEX 3  
List of the authorities / organ isations / citizens who replied 
 
No Name of the person/organisation 
1 Bundesarbeiterkammer Österreich/  Labour Union Austria 
2 Evolaris Centre of Excellence 3 Juliane Gierach, Johann-Jakob Wulf 
4 Zentrum für Allgemeine Wissen schaftliche Weiterbildung (ZAWiW) 
5 Baden Württtemberg - Ministry for the Environment 6 Donaubüro Ulm 
7 International Association for Danube Research 
8 Umweltdachverband Österreich 9 Donauhochschule Ulm 
10 Danube Rectors Conference I 
11 Verband Region Stuttgart 12 Handwerkskammer Niederbayern-Oberpfalz 
13 Croatian Employers Association 
14 AFM-Verband 15 N. Anastasijevic 
16 European Sea Ports Organisation 
17 European Federation of Inland Ports 
18 Assoc of churches 
19 IOM Migration 20 PL Ministry for Regional Development 
21 Inland Navigation Europe (INE) I 
22 Inland Navigation Europe (INE) II 23 Council of the Danube Cities and Regions I 
24 Council of the Danube Cities and Regions II 
25 Centre for efficient transport (CEDOP) 26 Danube Commission 
27 Kartographie Huner 
28 ÖBB 29 ALADIN 
30 G4 
31 Verein Projektwerkstatt für Umwelt und Soziales 32 High-Tech Alliance Ulm e.V 
33 Donau Büro Ulm 
34 Europäisches Verbands der Donau-Journalisten 35 Deutschen Industrie- und Handelskammern 
36 Wirtschafts Kammern Österreich (WKÖ) 
37 Austrian Länder (Burgenlan, NÖ, OÖ, Vienna) 
38 Foster Europe 
39 Corridor VII 40 European Federation of Inland Ports 
41 Common NGOs position 
42 Tirol Adria K.G. 43 Bund Naturschutz in Bayern e.V 
44 Mikhail Stoyanov 
45 Watermode 47 Anonymous 
48 Union pétrolière européenne indépendante (UPEI) 
49 Jürgen Koppers 50 Centr aEurop ass border regions 
51 Hungarian Civil Society organisations (Joint statement) 
52 Pilis-Dunakanyar microregion 53 Attila Agh 
54 Office for the European Representation of Hungarian National Minorities - HUNINEU 
 
EN 44   EN No Name of the person/organisation 
55 Foster Europe 
56 Acta Danubiana - Hungarian Chamber of Engineers  57 MGYOSZ - Confederation of Hungarian Empl oyers and Industrialists (Joint Statement) 
58 Municipality of city Szentendre 
59 Vadkacsa Children’s Fleet Ltd. 60 Danube Partnership Network 
61 Association of Hungarian Settlements’ and Regions’ Developers 
62 Hungarian National Parks along the Danube 64 Danube Women's Network 
65 Danube Women's Network 
66 Joint Contribution of the Church and Society Commission of the Conference of European 
Churches (CSC of CEC), of the Secretariat of the Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of 
the European Community (COMECE) and of the Community of Protestant Churches in Europe 
(CPCE) (Joint Statement) 
67 Austrian Federal Ministry for Education, Arts and Culture 
68 Danube Tourist Commisison 
69 Central European Service for Cross-Border Initiatives  70 German Chambers of Industry and Commerce and the German Chamber Network along the 
Danube 
71 Vier Pfoten 
72 Austrian Länder Burgenland, Lower Austria, Upper Austria and Vienna 
73 UNEP - Interim Secretariat of the Carpathian Convention 
74 NNA Germany (Alfred Topfer Akademie fur Naturschutz) 
75 DANUBEPARKS network 
76 Environment-People-Law  77 Global Water Partnership CEE  
78 REGIO-In  
79 VIRUS Environmental NGO 80 WWF Danube and Carpathian Programme 
81 WWF Hungary 
82 ECOVAST Rural Network 83 M-Teampannon Kft 
84 Regional Future 
85 EcoResource 86 International Convention for the Protection of the River Danube 
87 City of Cernavoda 
88 Bouygues 89 Interact 
90 European Maritime Pilots' Association (EMPA) 
91 Ms Irina Korolkova, journalist 
92 Danube Connects 
93 South Moravian Region 94 Agency Danube Dialogue 
95 Ulmer Beirat des Donau-Frauen-Netzwerks 
96 Czech Institute of Public Health 97 Ad Hoc Expert Group on the Transition from Institutionalised to community care, Report by 
REGIO 
98 Donauschwäbisches Zentralmuseum Ulm 99 Danube Rectors Conference - Novi Sad Declaration II 
100 European Association of Mutual Guarantee Societies 
101 Danube Competence Centre 102 Danube Environmental Forum (DEF) 
 
EN 45   EN ANNEX 4  
 
Cooperation framework for the EU Strate gy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR) 
 
(a) Development of the Strategy: The Strate gy was prepared by th e Commission as a 
Communication to the European Council, European Parliament, Committee of the 
Regions and to the European Economic and Social Committee. An Action Plan accompanied the Communication. This format is also proposed for this Strategy, which is based on the same principle of extensive consultation. 
(b) Coordination: The coordination of the Strate gy is done through a ‘H igh Level Group’ with 
representatives of all Member States and the Commission. This  is also propos ed for this 
Strategy. 
(c) Implementation: The implementation is faci litated by the countri es themselves. The 
coordination of each Priority Area would be done by a Member State (sometimes together 
with a non Member State) or an inter-govern mental body, with the involvement of the 
Commission. This ‘Priority Ar ea Coordinator’ would ensure  that the implementation 
progresses (e.g. by agreeing on roadmaps with  milestones and timet ables, and through 
regular meetings with all the countries / stakeholders concerne d). This coordination 
should be trans-national, inter-sectoral and inter-institutional. It should be based on 
serious planning (e.g. spatial planning), cons ultation and involvement of all relevant 
stakeholders (e.g. including the private sector) and exchange of experiences (e.g. in the 
transposition of EU Directives). The Baltic ex perience shows this to be one of the most 
successful aspects of implementation, with the leadership role particularly appreciated. 
(d) Monitoring and Reporting: The monitoring an d reporting is done by the Commission on 
the basis of information from the ‘Priority Ar ea Coordinators’, and other sources such as 
the Annual Report of EU programmes. The Co mmission drafts a regular report to the 
other EU Institutions. This ensures a realistic and independent process. 
(e) Facilitation: The Commission is  involved in the coordina tion, process through the ‘High 
Level Group’ and through an active particip ation in the implementation work of the 
‘Priority Area Coordinators’. By doing so it maintains the process. In case of 
disagreements it can facilitate the discussion as an independent, legitimate and credible partner. Again, this will be replicated in  this Strategy, since mobilising Commission 
expertise has been especially useful. 
(f) Consultation: The Commission or ganises regularly a forum to review the progress, consult 
the stakeholders and review the Action Plan. This will be  replicated in the Danube 
Region. 
Use of existing legislation, existing institutio ns and existing funds within the EUSBSR 
The existing instruments (legis lation, institutions a nd funds) are respected and utilised. 
Existing agreements are maintained. The St rategy may recommend that these existing 
instruments are streamlined to the objectives of the Strategy  which is then followed-up under 
the usual processes, with the aim that they be better used to implement these objectives. 
 
EN 46   EN Funding for the implementation of acti ons and projects within the EUSBSR 
Regarding the Structural Funds, for example, the Strategy recommends  that the funds are 
better aligned to the objectives of the Strategy as  set out in the Action Plan. This means that 
the programme authorities are encouraged to give  priority to the projects that support the 
Strategy.  
In relation to the Da nube Region, There are several existing funding opportunities: (a) 
National and regional funds; (b) private funds; (c ) EU instruments: Structural Funds (in the 
Danube Region there are EUR 100 billion thro ugh Structural Funds 2007-2013, of which a 
certain proportion has not yet been committe d), TEN-T/E funds, 7th Research Framework 
Programme, EAFRD, LIFE, Competitivene ss and Innovation Programme, European 
Investment Bank (in the Danube Region, the EIB provides 30 billion EUR 2007-2009), etc.. 
The experience of the Baltic sea Region is that this is a challenging alignment task, but is of 
great benefit when it is achieved. 
 
 
EN 47   EN ANNEX 5  
Map of the Danube Region