EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 8.12.2010 
SEC(2010) 1491 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
  
Impact Assessment Summary  
 
 
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) 1490 final} 
 
 
EN 2   EN 1. INTRODUCTION  
The Member States requested that the European  Commission prepare an EU Strategy for the 
Danube Region1. This follows the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, developed under the 
coordination of the Commission in 2008/2009 and now being implemented. The current request specifically underlines  the importance of sustainable development which should be 
pursued using an integrated approach. With in the Commission, the EU Strategy for the 
Danube Region is coordinated by DG Regional Polic y, which therefore also  has prepared this 
Impact Assessment.  
2. P
ROBLEM DEFINITION  
The problem definition is based on a socio-economic analysis and a wide consultation. This 
consultation included Member States and non Memb er States of the Danube Region, the inter-
governmental and non-governmental bodies, and st akeholders, including citizens and experts 
on the Region. The European Investment  Bank and 22 DGs of the Commission2 have also 
been involved in this work. The challenges id entified are markedly of a cross-border nature 
and show many cross- border externalities3. It is increasingly appare nt that compartmentalised 
policy development and decision-making are no  longer adequate in relation to the Danube 
Region.  
• Problem definition for the governance 
In the Danube Region, a key problem is governance.  There is a lack especially of adequate 
transnational governance. This re sults in insufficient cooperation (lack of shared interests and 
even conflicting issues). For instance, there ar e differing perspectives on environmental and 
other river-use issues between countries, which ma y be more easily addressed if considered in 
a wider context, or with innovative technologies , likely to be proposed in the Strategy. 
The EU provides some frames (through legisla tion and financial instruments) which should 
address certain major challenges and opportun ities, and there are some existing inter-
governmental frameworks. However, there is a lack of institutional capacity, and there are 
serious implementation gaps (for example, some EU Directives are transposed in law but not 
in place in reality). The result  is a fragmented approach to  many of the challenges of the 
Region, and under-performance in terms of its po tential. Interactions must be better 
understood and managed; common or cooperative instruments and tools must be developed; 
synergies identified and exploited both across  borders and across se ctors; and conflicts 
avoided or resolved. 
                                                 
1 The European Council formally as ked 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 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.”  
2 The following DGs take part to the Inter-Serv ice 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. 
3 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 has 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 3   EN • Problem definition by topic 
There are several issues for which coopera tion is particularly needed: mobility and 
accessibility; energy; environment; and risk management. These problems in principle must be covered by any Strategy. In addition, in th e public consultation - especially in the 
contributions of Member States - it became clear that other issues should or could be also 
covered either because of cross-border ex ternalities (innovation and competitiveness, 
implementation of the Single Market, human capital, security, tourism) and / or as it is clearly beneficial to exchange experiences (information society, institutional capacity or marginalised 
communities). The inclusion of these issues al so enables the partners / stakeholders to 
counterbalance actions they consid er are of lesser priority with  others that are essential: 
politically, it is important to include a range of other issues to secure agreement on the whole 
‘package’. In addition, these socio-economic and other aspects will reinforce the integration 
of those countries which joined the European Union only recently.  
2.1.1.  Issues for which cooperation must happe n as they cannot be addressed alone: 
– Mobility and accessibility: For in land navigation, the Danube River is clearly not used to 
its full potential. This could be better exploi ted by a series of measures such as greater 
inter-modality, improved management, better inve stment in infrastructure and equipment 
and availability of qualified staff. As well as a lack of demand, there is also a lack of 
supply. The Danube channels are not always naviga ble, the ports are often not efficient, the 
boats are not numerous enough and often in a ba d state of repair, and there is not enough 
crew due to insufficient training facilities. For roads and railways, infrastructure is often not efficient or simply missing, especially re garding cross-border connections (to which 
national authorities do not give priority).  
– Energy: Energy security and efficiency is of ten problematic in the Region. Much energy is 
imported, and its transport is costly; in  addition, markets are fragmented, and 
interconnectors are missing. The Danube Region is specifically vulnerable regarding 
security of supply, as in January 2009 when gas supplies were cut. At the same time, 
energy generation and use is a source of pollu tion. There is a challenge to improve energy 
efficiency (and savings) and for incr eased production from renewables.  
– Environment: In many Member States of th e Danube Region, the water quality is often 
poor, both in the rivers and in the ground. Th ere are many pollutants, in particular 
nutrients. It is similar for soils, especially in  cross-border industrial ar eas, and for the air in 
urban areas. Landscapes and biodiversity are also threatened through losses of natural 
areas, especially untouched mountainous areas , which lead to a diminution of species. 
Destruction of biodiversity and ecosystems may lead to irrevers ible changes and non-
capability of provisioning goods and services such as flood protecti on, water purification, 
food and timber, or mitigation of and adaptation  to climate change. In  the rivers, fish are 
caught at unsustainable levels  and migration is prevented by hydromorphologi cal changes. 
The existence of sturgeon spec ies, an important migratory fi sh for the whole Danube basin, 
is particularly at risk.  
– Risk management: The Danube Region faces three main risks: floods, droughts and 
industrial pollution. None of this respects borders. The aim is to manage both the 
prevention (avoid that the risk occurs) and the reaction (assist when the risk occurs). The 
main cause of floods is that the Danube River and its tributaries are, to a large extent, 
rivers where the banks are channelled artifici ally, not allowing for the additional water to 
 
EN 4   EN flow freely over larger areas (so that the wate r level increases). The main cause of droughts 
is the semi-continental climate, vulnerable al so to climate change. The main cause of 
industrial risks is outdated enterprises provoki ng accidents, which can significantly pollute 
neighbouring countries.  
2.1.2.  Issues for which cooperation should be facilitated as there are cross-border 
externalities: 
– Innovation and competitiveness:  The Danube Region is char acterised by a pronounced 
divide across the region with great disparities in cooperation intensity (between and within 
the research sector, enterprise s and the public sector), entr epreneurship, capitalisation on 
innovations, investments in Research and Development and overall competitiveness. The Region could benefit considerably from greater  linkages, especially east-west across the 
area. 
– Implementation of the Single Market:  Regarding the Single Ma rket, different national 
regulations make it less common for service pr oviders to establish operations in other 
Danube States than it should be, or to provi de their services across borders. In many 
instances, Small and Medium-size Enterp rises lack resources to overcome the 
administrative and other hurdles to access markets in neighbouring countries, thus 
substantially restricting their potential.  
– Human capital: The share of highly educated people in the Danube Region is lower than 
the EU27 average, again with a pronounced divide . Mobility, especially  of researchers and 
students, of highly qualified workers and skil led workers, is still limited. The Region 
currently does not benefit even from the full potential of these workers, presenting an important attribute so far not fully used.  
– Security: Growing economic integration and risi ng cross-border trade bears the danger of a 
rise of organised crime in the Region (sm uggling, trafficking of human beings, black 
market…). Besides the immediate damage it ca uses, organised crime also leads to higher 
transaction costs for business in the whole Regi on and thus limits the possibility of further 
economic growth. Addressing this is  clearly a cross-border issue.  
– Tourism:  The Danube Region has a striki ng cultural, ethnic and na tural diversity. Much of 
this could be of great interest to visitors. However, this touristic potential is not used to its 
full capacity. Existing initiatives  are not linked to each other and have no common strategy 
for aligning their efforts.  
2.1.3.  Issues for which cooperation may be faci litated as it is useful to exchange 
experiences 
– Information Society: The Information Society is not well develope d in the Danube Region 
compared to the rest of EU27. People have  less access to comput ers, to internet 
connections and to e-content. Thereby, the countries concerned are not benefiting fully 
from a source of growth, cohesion and sust ainability. Access to good experience and the 
most recent developments in the highest-pe rforming parts of the Region would be highly 
beneficial. 
–
 Institutional capacity: The tran snational, national, regional and local governance systems in 
the Region are at times sti ll evolving and developing, often continuing to overcome the 
 
EN 5   EN profound changes of recent years. This covers th e ways the decisions are taken (stability of 
the public sector staff, transparency, consu ltation, planning, financia l engineering, project 
preparation, spatial planning,…) and the wa ys the actions are implemented (on time, 
efficiently, effectively, economically, without corruption,…). Given that certain parts of 
the Region have notably successful governance, transfer of experien ce would bring real 
progress. 
– Marginalised communities: In the Danube Region, there are several marginalised 
communities such as minorities or the Roma (10 million Roma inhabit the Danube Region 
representing 80% of Roma in Europe). Th ese communities often live in poor conditions 
without basic infrastructure. Discrimination, so cial exclusion and spatial segregation are 
observed as well as social te nsions. Public authorities in certain areas of the Region 
however often lack the resource s and experience to address these challenges in a holistic 
manner, but could benefit greatly from bette r practices and organisation available nearby. 
3. ANALYSIS OF SUBSIDIARITY  
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 not the entire European Union with, sometimes , non Member States), there is a need for a 
specific cooperation framework at the level of the macro-region. 
There is already some coopera tion between the countries, be it through inter-governmental 
organisations or be it through cooperation on speci fic issues. However, these are not always 
as efficient as they should, do not cover all the issues which would require cooperation and 
are not put in a strategical perspective involving  the highest political level. This is why the 
Member States themselves asked, through the Council, that the Commission prepares a macro-regional strategy for the Danube Region.  
4. O
BJECTIVES OF EU INITIATIVE  
The general objective (‘vision’) is  to develop a long-term cooperative and integrated approach 
between the countries, towns and regions of th e Danube Region to tackle the challenges, and 
to profit from and share the opportunities in common. Concrete ly, the countries can benefit 
from a better basis to jointly discuss, decide  and implement actions, which address common 
challenges and opportunities. A more coordinated approach in each policy field is possible, 
however, bearing in mind the interlinkages w ith other parts of the economy (e.g. transport - 
environment - economic development). 
To achieve this, the focus should be on three specific objectives: improved coordination and 
coherence (to gain effectiveness), strengthened institutional capability (to gain efficiency), 
long-term cooperation process (t o gain political acceptance). 
 
EN 6   EN 5. POLICY OPTIONS  
The challenges identified above point towa rds the need for bette r policy development, 
decision-making and implementation, based on increased coordination, cooperation and 
integration between different sectors and be tween Danube countries, cities and regions. 
Enhanced capacity is needed to align, implemen t and reinforce existing policies. Given this 
analysis, the options and mechanisms describe d below are to be considered in terms of 
delivering the defined objectives. These opti ons concern the possible frameworks for 
cooperation in the Danube Region as  well as the geographical scope.  
• Possible frameworks for cooperation 
– Option n° 1: The Commission is not involve d (baseline scenario); The Commission does 
not prepare a strategy for the Danube Region. Under this option two possible scenarios could be foreseen: (1.1) there is no strate gy for the Danube Region and (1.2) there is a 
strategy, but not prepared by the Commission 
– Option n° 2: The Commission’s role is limite d to preparing a stra tegy; The Commission 
prepares a strategy but the implementation ha ppens solely at inte r-governmental level, 
without the EU.  
– Option n° 3: The Commission coordinates actions at EU level (using the EU structures); A 
coordinated strategy is developed using the ex isting EU structures, with the Commission 
playing a facilitating role. The strategy is prepared by the Co mmission but future decisions 
are taken by the institutions in partnership.  
– Option n° 4: The Commission supports the cr eation of a new body with financial and 
legislative powers; A new international organi sation 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 a pproach covers the territories immediately 
along the river (Member States and non Member  States) and thus on ly concentrates on 
issues related to the river such as  navigability and the environment. 
– Option b: Extended to functional geographical  area; The approach covers the Danube 
Region as a whole, (Member States and non Me mber States) and can thus address a range 
of challenges related to the area (and not onl y to the River). Following this option, the 
‘Danube Region’ is considered as a functiona l area, including actors necessary to ensure 
cooperation on different issues, whether they are EU-Member States or not
4.  
                                                 
4 To give an idea of the territory concerned, one can use as a proxy to the Danube Region the countries in 
the Danube River Basin (therefore, it is not limite d to the river), used by the Danube Cooperation 
Process, which is widely accepted in the area. The territory concerned is: Germany (especially Baden-
Württemberg and Bavaria), Austria, the Slovak Re public, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia, 
Romania and Bulgaria as Member States and Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine (the regions along the Danube) as non Member States. This does not 
exclude neighbouring countries (or maritime areas) to take part on certain issues. It is to be emphasised 
that the Danube Region is not limited to the Danube River. 
 
EN 7   EN – Option c: The approach is extended beyond th e River, but confined only to the Member 
States of the Danube Region; the approach is based on option b, but is limited to EU 
Member States.  
6. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS  
• Possible frameworks for cooperation 
The following table summarises how each of thes e options might ensure that the objectives 
outlined in paragraph 4. are met: (effectiveness); how easily they are achieved (efficiency); and whether there is likely commitment (political acceptance).  
Option 1 - The Commission is not involved (baseline scenario)  
Scenario n°1.1: There is no st rategy for the Danube Region 
 -- - 0 + ++ 
Effectiveness   9   
Efficiency   9   
Political acceptance 9     
Option 1 - The Commission is not involved (baseline scenario)  
Scenario n°1.2: There is a strategy, but not prepared by the Commission  
 -- - 0 + ++ 
Effectiveness    9  
Efficiency   9   
Political acceptance  9    
Option n°2:  
The Commission’s role limited to the preparation of the strategy 
 -- - 0 + ++ 
Effectiveness    9  
Efficiency   9   
Political acceptance  9    
Option n°3:  
The Commission coordinates actions at EU level (using the EU structures) 
 -- - 0 + ++ 
Effectiveness     9 
Efficiency    9  
Political acceptance     9 
Option n°4:  
The Commission supports the creation of a new body with financial a nd legislative powers 
 -- - 0 + ++ 
Effectiveness     9 
Efficiency  9    
Political acceptance  9    
 
• Geographical options 
– Option a: Limited to the Danube River; Whilst the situation of the ri ver could be improved, 
the other policy fields relevant  for the Danube Region are not addressed. In particular, the 
potential to reinforce the socio-economic deve lopment of the region post-enlargement is 
overlooked. 
– Option b: Extended to functional geographical area; This option enables a wider range of 
topics to be covered, relati ng to the challenges of the Da nube Region and not only the 
Danube River. As the consultation process ha s shown, the wider appr oach may facilitate 
resolution of issues otherwise blocked in st and-off (navigability vs. environment) and 
 
EN 8   EN allows all parties to identify gains for themse lves, i.e. this approach allows for political 
trade-offs. By doing so, it is po ssible to have an outcome which is broader than the lowest 
common denominator. In addition, there is the be nefit of addressing the policy fields in an 
integrated way taking into account th e interactions between them, avoiding 
compartmentalisation. There is potential to rein force the EU integration of the region, both 
in administrative / judicial te rms and also in relation to socio-economic development. This 
option is thus likely to en joy broader political accepta nce and advance in fields 
characterised by conflicti ng political agendas. 
– Option c: Extended beyond the River, but conf ined only to the Member States of the 
Danube Region; Whilst this option would facilit ate the implementation of many actions as 
the whole territory covered has a common le gal framework (the EU Directives) and 
common funding instruments (esp ecially, the Structural Funds), it would not be able 
address fully the challenges and opportunities of the Danube  Region as a whole. For 
example, the improvement of navigability would be limited, as the Danube River flows 
through Croatia and Serbia. Most other policy areas would also be incomplete in their 
formulation and implementation, as topics of ten cross over into neighbouring candidate, 
pre-candidate and third country territories. 
7. COMPARISON OF OPTIONS  
In view of the analysis of impacts of the diffe rent policy options we conclude that the best 
options are: 
• Possible frameworks for cooperation 
The preferred option is n°3 where the Commission coordinates actions at EU level, using the 
EU structures. This option activ ely involves the Commission 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. This option could draw on the experiences of the EU Strategy for the Baltic 
Sea Region, which was developed during 2009 and is now in the phase of implementation.  
This option is preferred to the othe r options presented in relation to: 
– Efficiency, allowing for a better alignmen t of policies and funds for the Region; 
– Effectiveness, facilitating the implementation of concrete actions th rough 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 ex isting 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 commitment 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. 
 
EN 9   EN Related to the defined objectives as presen ted in chapter 4, this option improves the 
coordination and coherence of policies and inve stment decisions, strengthens the institutional 
capacity of the Region (as it makes use of and reinforces existing structures and institutions and as it intensifies coope ration between countries) and improves the visibility and 
accountability (as it will be continuously monitored and evaluated by the European 
Commission and the Member States).  
• Geographical options 
The preferred option is option b where the Danube Region is ex tended to the full functional 
geographical area. This approach would cover the Danube Region as a whole, (Member States 
and non Member States) and hence has the poten tial to address all the main issues of the 
whole Danube Region, helping to overcome othe rwise administrative a nd political barriers 
and gaps. 
8. M
ONITORING AND EVALUATION  
The monitoring and evaluation co uld be done at three levels: 
– Milestones regarding the necessary structures (putting in place them atic working groups, 
responsible actors for the coll ection of data, communication arrangements within region 
and contact points for stakeh olders) would be establishe d. A reporting framework and 
timetable would be instituted; 
– Monitoring indicators would be set out under each of the priorities in the Action Plan with 
a detailed framework to allow assessment of the implementation process. These indicators 
would be adopted with the Action Plan. 
– Headline objectives would be de fined to assess the general e volution in the Danube Region 
in respect of the key challenges. These would form the basis for the establishment of baselines against whic h progress on achieving key aims in the field of environment, 
prosperity, accessibility and s ecurity 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 
Plan. A timetable for evaluation (e.g. after 3 year s of implementation) could also be set out.  
9. C
ONCLUSION  
This Impact Assessment Report proposes theref ore to establish an EU Strategy for the 
Danube Region, with the European Commission coordinating a sustainable framework for 
cooperation, facilitating support to development and integrated  action in a transnational 
context, using the existing EU structures. Th e Strategy should be accompanied by a rolling 
Action Plan that features concrete exampl es of where and how cooperation should be 
intensified. The organisation proposed is similar to the one used (and being tested) for the EU 
Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region. Since there is  existing support for th is approach, the Baltic 
Sea region approach may be particularly  useful as a point of reference.  
The EU Strategy for the Danube Region will be  a sustainable framework for cooperation to 
support development and integrated action in a tr ansnational context. It will be accompanied 
 
EN 10   EN by a rolling Action Plan that features concrete  examples of where and how cooperation should 
be intensified. Each Priority Area of the Ac tion Plan will be coordinated by a country. In 
addition, the Member States will be involve d via the Council and the follow-up of the 
Strategy will be done by a High-Level Group.  
The Commission would be a ke y 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. Therefore, the Commission will facilitate the process, coordinating the work and reporting on progress. Regardi ng- financing, the Structural 
Funds programmes will be involved early on in th e process to secure their readiness to align 
funding to the Action Plan. 
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.