COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT   Impact Assessment Report Accompanying the  COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION  TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 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}
Date: 2010-12-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Central and Eastern Europe, common strategy, cross-border cooperation, economic and social cohesion, natural resources

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 COMMITTEE 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 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 3 

2. 

3. 

2.1. 
2.2. 
2.3. 
2.4. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES .............................. 3 
LEAD DG.............................................................................................................................................. 3 
CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES.............................................................................................. 3 
TIMETABLE FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT........................................................ 6 
RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT BOARD ON THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT..... 7 
PROBLEM DEFINITION.......................................................................................................................... 8 
PROBLEM DEFINITION FOR THE GOVERNANCE....................................................................................... 8 
PROBLEM DEFINITION BY TOPIC ............................................................................................................ 9 
SUBSIDIARITY ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................... 17 
CONCLUSIONS OF THE PROBLEM DEFINITION ...................................................................................... 18 
4.  OBJECTIVES............................................................................................................................................ 19 

3.1. 
3.2. 
3.3. 
3.4. 

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 

2 

   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 Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, developed 
under the coordination of the European Commission 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 coordinated 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 (identifying the needs of the Danube Region) 

The socio-economic analysis is drafted by DG Regional Policy, in cooperation 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 Regional Policy. It draws on the experience gained 
in the preparation of the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region. The unit 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 expertise is also gathered in 
meetings  of  the  Inter-Service  Working  Group  consisting  of  22  DGs  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  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-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 

3 

   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  experts  from  the  Danube 
Region in the fields of transport, environment, 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  topic  that  they  cover)  -  this  includes  an 
assessment  of  the  effectiveness  of  the  existing  inter-governmental  bodies  -;  (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 with 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  Region,  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 asked to present the national views, priorities 
and actions realised or planned for the development of the Danube Region through written 
position  papers3.  In  addition  regular  meetings  with  the  National  Contact  Persons  take 
place.  

–  Five  conferences  with  substantial  public  participation  were  organised  by  DG  Regional 
Policy in the Region. Each conference had a thematic focus and enabled 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.  International  Convention  for  the  Protection  of 
the Danube River - ICPDR -, Danube Commission and Danube Cooperation Process) and 
key non-governmental organisations were consulted 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-governmental  bodies,  international  financial 
institutions,  and  the  private  sector.  It  was  also  open  to  individuals.  The  consultation  was 
widely  announced  at  conferences,  prominently  advertised  on  the  homepage  of  DG 
Regional Policy and communicated through the channels of National Contact Points in the 
Member States to guarantee broad publicity. The results of the consultation 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 are available on the homepage of DG Regional Policy: 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/cooperation/danube/events_en.htm 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
than 100 received contributions will be published on the website of DG Regional Policy. 
The list of the authorities / organisations / citizens who replied is in Annex 2.  

2.2.2.  Consultation results 

The challenges identified in the consultation are markedly of a cross-border 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  particular  country  but  carries  advantages  or 
disadvantages also for other countries.  

The  public  consultation  furthermore  showed  that  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 important effects on the environmental status 
of  the  river  or  on  energy  supply  (hydro-electric  power  plants).  Another  example  was  a 
growing  tourism  industry  that  potentially  affects  biodiversity  and  natural  habitats.  To  solve 
these  problems  in  the  Danube  Region,  consultation  has  revealed  that  coherent,  integrated 
solutions  are  necessary.  Sector  approaches  alone  have  often  become  blocked  in  their 
implementation.  For  these  solutions,  strong  political  support  and  governance  systems  are 
needed  to  implement  actions  at  the  macro-regional  level.  Where  existent,  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 / prioritise 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 all 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  (cid:39)  mobility  (cid:39)  economic  development  (cid:39)  human  resource  development 
etc.),  may  facilitate  resolution  of  issues  otherwise  blocked  in  stand-off.  It  allows  for 
political trade-offs and permits better planning; 

(4)  An  implementation  oriented  approach  delivering  concrete  results  would  reinforce  the 
implementation of EU policies in a Region characterised by the most recent enlargement 
process; 

(5)  An  inclusive  approach,  covering  also  neighbouring  non  Member  States,  could  improve 
the effectiveness of actions in the whole Region, aligning all relevant policies and funds, 
and  could  facilitate  the  accession  process  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 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 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(6)  As  the  Danube  River  and  the  Black  Sea  are  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 expressed the need to address the common challenges and opportunities 
together.  Whilst  there  are  some  differences  regarding  the  priorities,  they  can  be  explained 
through  recent  history  and  also  through  different  institutional  capacities.  However,  for  each 
country to achieve its objectives, it clearly requires input and cooperation from the others, and 
balancing  of  differing  priorities  in  a  coordinated  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  infrastructures,  especially  ports;  Hungary  emphasises  the 
quality of water, especially groundwater, as crucial and in need of a common approach, due to 
its  physical  geography  and  situation.  Non  Member  States  underline  linkages  to  the  EU.  A 
global  approach  allows  these  differences  in  emphasis  to  be  addressed  overall  and  mutual 
benefits to be identified and achieved. 

2.3. 

Timetable for the preparation 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 

30/04 

1st meeting with the Impact Assessment Steering Group; 

Report from the experts; 

12, 18/05 

Meeting with the experts; 

4/06 

2nd meeting of the Impact Assessment Steering Group: Discussion on the 
first draft Impact Assessment Report; 

4-16/06 

Informal consultation of the Directorates General; 

16/06 

14/07 

Submission of Impact Assessment to the Impact Assessment Board; 

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 

6 

   EN 

 
2.4. 

Recommendations by the Impact Assessment 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 work. This work has been done by DG Regional 
Policy  and  the  present  Impact  Assessment  Report  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 "Problem definition by topic". Examples are 
given in different policy fields such as mobility, environment, energy and socioeconomic 
development.  The  conclusion  is  that  if  nothing  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  priorities  of  the  countries  in  the  Danube  Region  are  better 
explained in § 2.2.2 on the "Consultation results". Whilst the countries expressed the need 
to address the common challenges and opportunities together there are some differences 
regarding  priorities.  For  example:  Germany  focuses  on  trade  and  innovation;  Austria  on 
navigability of the Danube and innovation; the countries in Central Europe on transport in 
general as well as on energy; Romania and Bulgaria on infrastructures, especially ports; 
Hungary  emphasises  the  quality  of  water,  especially  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 "Sustainable 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 the 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  "Sustainable  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  implementation  is  facilitated  by  the  countries 
themselves.  The  coordination  of  each  Priority  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  framework  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 existing levels of administrative activity. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
(7) The comparison of the options is better explained 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 challenges of the public consultation (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 screened through 3 criteria (a) is there a need 
to cooperate between different countries?; (b) is the issue specific to the Danube Region?; and 
(c) is the issue in line with the policies of the EU? The results are summarised in a table. The 
chapter  furthermore  analyses  already  existing  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  governance,  especially  transnational  governance 
which  under-emphasises  cooperation  (lack  of  shared  interests  and  even  some  conflicting 
issues).  The  EU  already  provides  a  frame  (through  legislation  and  financial  instruments) 
which  should  address  major  challenges  and  opportunities.  In  addition,  there  are  already 
existing  inter-governmental  frameworks  which  facilitate  cooperation  on  certain  issues. 
However,  there  is  a  lack  of  institutional  capacity,  and  there  are  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 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  Danube  Commission  (DC)  and  the  Danube  Cooperation 
Process (DCP).  

The broad consultation process, including the consultation 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, guiding principles for the development of inland 
navigation  and  environmental  protection  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 ensure 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 ICPDR, 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 

8 

   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  thematic  scope  is  wide.  It  is  not  equipped  with  a 
permanent secretariat and appears to lack resources to sustain an ongoing cooperation process. 
Its links to sector policies, appears to be problematic. During the consultation process members of 
the  DCP  (Foreign  ministers,  Regional  Cooperation  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 notably 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 possibility to have interregional 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 used to anything like their 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 goes for the main Directives in the fields of 
transport, environment, energy, Single Market, etc. For example, we understand that the use 
of electronic signatures should be facilitated by the EU Services Directives, but that there is a 
lack of coordination between the countries so that the rules differ from one to another, thereby 
hindering rather than facilitating cross-border e-commerce. 

3.2. 

Problem definition by topic 

Through  this  analysis,  we  have  identified  several  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 addition, in the public consultation - especially 
of  Member  States  -  it  became  clear  that  other  issues  should  or  could  be  also  covered  either 
because of cross-border externalities6 (innovation and competitiveness, implementation of the 
Single  Market,  human  capital,  security,  tourism)  or  as  it  is  clearly  beneficial  to  exchange 
experiences  (information  society,  institutional  capacity  or  marginalised  communities).  The 
inclusion  of  these  issues  enables  the  partners  /  stakeholders  to  counterbalance  actions  they 
consider  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’.  

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  Europe)  and  Structural  Funds  provide  good 
funding  opportunities  for  projects.  However,  infrastructures  and  policies  do  not  always 
deliver.  Implementation  gaps  in  the  TEN-T  networks  occur  particularly  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 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
sections  and  for  East-West  European  connections,  in  particular  in  the  TEN-T  Priority 
Projects  6,  22,  and  23  (rail),  and  7  and  25  (road).  Regarding  the  navigability  on  the 
Danube,  the  Danube  Commission  should  be  supported  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. 

(cid:127)  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  Directive,  Natura  2000)  or  Action  Plans  (Biodiversity  Action  Plan, 
Sturgeon  Action  Plan,  work  of  the  International  Convention  for  the  Protection  of  the 
Danube  River  (ICPDR)).  In  addition,  the  Structural  Funds  provide  good  funding 
opportunities  for  projects.  However,  there  are  many  implementation  gaps,  as  well  as 
practical or organisational difficulties 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  Commission  for  the  Protection  of  the  Danube 
(ICPDR)  coordinates  these  national  water  management  plans  in  the  Danube  Basin. 
However being comprised of Environment Ministries 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  crucially  important  to  make  water  management 
plans actually deliver results on the ground.  

(cid:127)  Energy:  There  are  several  EU  policies  supporting  energy,  in  particular  the  TEN-E 
networks,  the  European  Recovery  Plan,  the  third  energy  package,  the  Directive  on  the 
promotion  of  the  use  of  energy  from  renewable  sources  and  the  EU2020  Strategy.  In 
addition, the Structural Funds provide good funding opportunities for projects. However, 
energy infrastructures are not well interconnected, which hinders development of a well-
functioning energy market. One example is the 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.  

(cid:127)  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 infrastructure to participate. There is 
too little involvement of partners from new Member States in these programmes, which is 
a particular issue in the Danube Region. The investment 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  currently  missing  in  many  such  fields,  from 
Information  and  Communication  Technologies 
to  enterprise  development,  and 
particularly crucially, in the missing links between research, innovation and business. In 
fact, the relatively recent accession (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 particular 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 European Council conclusions formally requesting the Strategy 
underline the need for an integrated approach to promote sustainable development. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
All  of  the  above  leads  to  considerable  lost  potential  in  the  Region,  leading  to  long-term 
indirect costs – especially in socio-economic matters – if nothing is done. 

3.2.1. 

Issues for which cooperation must happen as they cannot be addressed alone 

•  Mobility and accessibility 

Why is the issue important? 

There  is  general  agreement  that  good,  inter-linked  and  sustainable  transport  systems  are 
important for the Region.   

For  inland  navigation,  the  Danube  River  is  clearly  not  used  to  its  full  potential.  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-modality,  improved  management, 
better 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  navigable  (for  example  due  to 
variations in the depth of the water), the ports are often not efficient (need for modernisation, 
need  for  adapting  to  multimodal  solutions),  the  boats  are  not  numerous  and  often  in  a  bad 
state and there is not enough crew (especially captains and pilots) due to insufficient training 
facilities. At the same time environmental issues have to be taken into account.7 

For  roads  and  railways,  infrastructure  is  often  not  efficient  or  simply  missing,  especially 
regarding cross-border connections (to which national authorities do not give priority). There 
is a lack of investment on cross border links.  

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  Europe).  In  addition,  the  Structural  Funds  provide  good  funding 
opportunities for projects. However, infrastructures and policies do not always deliver. One of 
the  reasons  is  the  lack  of  cooperation  when  it  comes  to  planning  and  implementing 
transnational  projects.  For  example,  many  TEN-T  projects  are  implemented  nationally  but 
without taking fully into consideration the need to be interlinked across borders. In addition, 
there is a need to plan the links between the 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 coordinated planning, funding and implementation. There is 
a  failure  of  the  market,  as  the  benefits  of  the  investments  often  fall  elsewhere  (for  example 
investments  to  improve  the  navigability  in  downstream  countries  will  also  be  of  benefit  for 
countries upstream). The existing inter-governmental 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  constituting  the  development  of  a  transport  network 
connecting the EU through the Black Sea region with the Caucasus and Central Asia. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Furthermore, mobility and accessibility require costly 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 considered transnationally. Indeed, the more users, 
the more efficient investments become. In addition, if these investments 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  approach  means  overall  benefits  are  more 
realistically assessed, to include the benefits 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 small 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  pollution.  There  is  a  challenge  to  improve  energy 
efficiency (and savings) and for increased production from renewable energy. 

Therefore  there  is  need  for  improvement  of  infrastructures,  market  organisation  and  energy 
efficiency, and for increased use of renewable energy that are sustainable also as regards for 
instance the environmental protection such as of water. This needs action at a level above the 
national,  to  overcome  fragmentation  of  markets  and  gaps  in  the  infrastructure  networks, 
especially in terms of interconnectors.  

There  are  several  EU  policies  supporting  energy,  in  particular  the  TEN-E  networks,  the 
European  Energy  Programme  for  Recovery,  the  third  energy  package,  the  promotion  of  the 
use  of  energy  from  renewable  sources  and  the  EU2020  Strategy.  In  addition,  the  Structural 
Funds  provide  good  funding  opportunities  for  projects.  However,  energy  infrastructures  are 
not  well  interconnected  and  energy  markets  need  better  coordination.  There  is  also  lack  of 
expertise  in  many  parts  of  the  Region  regarding  energy  efficiency  measures  and  renewable 
energies.  

Several  measures,  which  would  help  to  protect  environment  and  prevent  other  risks  can  be 
done  through  better  implementation  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,  cooperation  is  necessary  in  relation  to  planning, 
funding and implementation. Reinforcement of the TEN-E network (especially in the context 
of  the  upcoming  revision)  and  implementation  of  the  Energy  Recovery  Plan  using  the 
Structural Funds in a coordinated 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 with purchase power index. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
development and integration of the energy market in the Region is promoted by the Energy 
Community. The Energy Community extends relevant parts of the EU acquis communautaire 
to the Region. 

Regarding energy efficiency and renewable energies, there is a need to better integrate these 
sources in the energy market. In particular, there is a potential to increase security of supply 
by  reducing  energy  demand  and  increasing  the  share  of  energy  produced  in  the  Danube 
Region.  In  addition  exchanges  of  experiences  and  practices,  especially  for  eco-innovations 
need to be reinforced.  

This underlines the benefits of sound planning integrating all the aspects (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  Ukraine  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  ties  the  Contracting  Parties  together  with  the 
European  Union.  Through  its  actions,  the  Energy  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 policies preserving the quality of water, soils, air 
as  well  as  landscapes  and  biodiversity.  This  matters  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 air in urban areas. Apart from the 
contamination, the soil is also subjected to other threats, in particular the erosion which also 
has a negative impact on water quality. In fact, erosion from arable lands is the main source of 
the agricultural diffuse pollution in the Danube river basin.  

Landscapes  and  biodiversity  are  also  threatened  through  losses  of  natural  areas,  especially 
untouched mountainous areas, which lead to a diminution of species and ecosystem services. 
In  the  rivers,  fish  are  caught  at  unsustainable  levels  and  migration  is  prevented  by 
hydromorphological changes. The existence of sturgeon species, an important 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  Waste  Water  Treatment  Plants  and  to  the  low 
starting point for implementation of EU Directives. 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 pollutants, this affects neighbouring countries; if 
soil is polluted it leaches regardless of administrative boundaries.  

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
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 
Directive,  Natura  2000)  or  Action  Plans  (Sturgeon  Action  Plan,  work  of  the  International 
Convention  for  the  Protection  of  the  Danube  River  (ICPDR)).  In  addition,  the  Structural 
is  often 
Funds  provide  good  funding  opportunities  for  projects.  However, 
implementation  gaps,  practical  or  organisational  difficulties  leading  to  regulations  often  not 
properly followed up on the ground.  

there 

How can cooperation help? 

As many of the issues are transnational, solutions should be transnational. A good cooperation 
framework should avoid that efforts made only by some result in benefits enjoyed by all. It is 
important to encourage rules to agree joint decisions (including a real political support at the 
highest level), tools to monitor the progress, and a commitment to implement EU Directives. 

In particular, the work of the International Convention for the Protection of the Danube River 
(ICPDR), such as the River Basin Management Plan, should be supported so that their actions 
-  agreed  by  all  countries  in  the  River  Basin  as  well  as  the  Commission  -  are  implemented 
effectively  (providing  political,  technical  and  financial  support  where  appropriate).  This 
requires  a  commitment  to  cooperate.  In  this  regard,  it  is  also  important  that  there  is  real 
dialogue or contact between people working on the 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: 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 artificially, not allowing for the additional water to flow 
freely over larger areas (so that the water level increases). The main cause of droughts is its 
semi-continental climate, vulnerable also to climate change. The main cause 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 affected. 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 losses 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  availability  of  information,  expertise,  personnel  and 
equipment are important. As time matters, all this needs to be planned in a coordinated way. 

There  are  some  EU  policies  concerning  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 

14 

   EN 

 
How can cooperation help? 

River  floods  and  pollution  clearly  have  a  transnational  dimension.  Policies  in  these  matters 
must  therefore  be  organised  transnationally  (as  addressed  by  the  Floods  Directive  which 
includes a solidarity clause between Member States). This should be addressed by the public 
sector  as  the  market  cannot  lead  to  a  proper  solution  (those  who  will  benefit  from  the 
preventive  actions  are  not  necessarily  those  who  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  coordinated  approach.  Countries  need 
assurance that their neighbours do their best to prevent the risks occurring. It is important to 
work jointly on the means to reduce the risks (if 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-transforming agricultural land into 
wetland  and  by  reducing  the  urbanisation  of  river  banks),  to  strengthen  management 
capacities for forecasting and early action for limiting impacts of  flood waters, including joint 
activities for research and experience sharing for developing innovative solutions that are also 
responsive  to  climate  change  impacts.  This  requires  wider  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 necessary 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 costs of mitigation. Overall, there 
is a need to cooperate across borders to take the most effective actions. The ICPDR plays an 
important role in international flood risk management 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  pronounced  divide  across  the  Region  with  great 
disparities  in  cooperation  intensity  (between  and  within  the  research  sector,  enterprises  and 
the  public  sector),  entrepreneurship,  capitalisation  on  innovations  and  investments  in 
Research  and  Development10.  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. Whilst there are some cooperation 
structures between universities and research institutes already in place, common resources are 
often  lacking,  both  financially  and  institutionally.  Therefore,  joint  research  cooperation 
between  universities,  business  and  the  public  sector  should  be  much  more  strongly 
encouraged. 

Regarding  competitiveness,  significant  differences  can  also  be  observed  across  the  Region. 
National innovation policies supporting the competitiveness of enterprises through centres of 
excellence and clusters, do not sufficiently take into consideration the international dimension 

10 European Innovation Scoreboard (EIS) 2009 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
                                                 
of  business  cooperation  and  research  networks,  thus  leaving  cross-border  innovation 
potentials unused. Innovation policies and actions would benefit if better coordinated, pooled 
and inter-linked. 

•  Implementation of the Single Market 

Regarding the Single Market, different national regulations make 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 and Medium-size Enterprises often lack resources 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, with 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. Therefore, 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  Danube  Region  is  lower  compared  to  the  EU27 
average, again with a pronounced divide. Mobility, especially of researchers and students, of 
highly qualified workers and skilled 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  and  rising  cross-border  trade  bears  the  danger  of  a  rise  of 
organised  crime  in  the  Region  (smuggling,  trafficking  of  human  beings,  black  market,…). 
Besides  the  immediate  damage  it  causes,  organised  crime  also  leads  to  higher  transaction 
costs  for  business  in  the  whole  Region  and  thus  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  lengthy  and  cumbersome  and  facilitate  organised 
crime. Therefore, frameworks of international 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.  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.  This  potential  could  be  better  coordinated,  in  particular  seeking  to  develop  a 
critical mass in terms of support structures and services to attract 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 Region compared to the rest of 
EU27.  People  have  less  access  to  computers,  to  internet  connections  and  to  e-content. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
Thereby, the countries concerned are not benefiting fully from a source of growth, cohesion 
and sustainability. Availability of computers in homes, enterprises and administrations should 
be improved; the broadband coverage and penetration should be extended, especially in rural 
areas; and the content available such as e-government, e-health, 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  continuing to overcome the profound changes of recent 
years.  This  covers  the  ways  the  decisions  are  taken  (stability  of  the  public  sector  staff, 
transparency,  consultation,  planning,  financial  engineering,  project  preparation,  spatial 
planning,…)  and  the  ways  the  actions  are  implemented  (on  time,  efficiently,  effectively, 
economically,  without  corruption,…).  In  most  countries  of  the  Danube  Region  the  systems 
had  to  be  radically  modified  after  the  regime  change  (or  also  after  the  break-up  of 
Yugoslavia). Although the accession to the EU (or the prospects for accession) has improved 
the situation, new systems take time to be implemented as they require changes in mentalities, 
building confidence amongst stakeholders and facilitating skills improvements. Therefore the 
functioning of political bodies and administrations, combined with a greater involvement of 
the civil society / stakeholders also at decentralised 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  decisions  have  fuller  support  from  stakeholders 
before  their  implementation).  As  the  recent  crisis  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 Region  representing  80%  of  Roma  in  Europe). 
These communities often live in poor conditions without basic infrastructure. Discrimination, 
social  exclusion  and  spatial  segregation  are  observed  as  well  as  social  tensions.  Public 
authorities however often lack the resources and experience to address these challenges in a 
holistic  manner.  Coordination  of  policies  and  actions  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 and 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 could benefit considerably by working together. 

3.3. 

Subsidiarity analysis 

In  general,  decisions  are  best  taken  at  the  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 the 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-regional issues (which concern several countries, 
but at different levels depending on the issue, and 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 significant implementation gaps. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
As  mentioned,  there  is  already  cooperation  between  the  countries,  be  it  through  inter-
governmental  organisations  or  be  it  through  cooperation  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  effect,  this  is  why  the  Member  States  themselves 
asked,  through  the  Council,  that  the  Commission  prepares  a  macro-regional  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.  There  is  an  absence  of  a  common  governance 
approach  to  address  these  challenges  or  indeed  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  States  and  regions,  has  shown  that  distinct 
economic differences in the macro-region result in different priority settings of the countries. 
Recently joined Member States tend to put emphasis on actions that above all foster economic 
growth, whereas the protection of natural wealth, 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  process  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 wider Danubian solidarity.  

Lack of good coordination between different policy fields 

Inter-governmental  bodies  and  the  national  ministries  have  developed  coherent  policies  for 
the  Region  in  their  field  of  activity.  However,  these  policies  face  implementation  gaps  as 
investment  decisions  or  binding  agreements  are  often  blocked  by  other  policy  fields  with 
seemingly  conflicting  interests.  The  most  often  cited  conflict  of  interest  during  the 
consultation  phase  was  the  one  between  navigability  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 often defined their policies and taken their investment decisions 
individually and in an uncoordinated 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  could  provide  effects  of  improved  return  on 
investments  and  synergy  and  secondary  benefits  if  they  could  be  deployed  to  support 
commonly agreed objectives and related investments. 

EN 

18 

   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  countries  are  in  an  evolving  process  in  respect  of  economic 
competitiveness and the implementation of EU policies. Stronger cooperation in areas where 
implementation gaps are important obstacles should be tackled urgently to make the Region 
more  consistent  with  the  EU  policy  objectives  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  share  similar  challenges  and  opportunities. 
Consultation  has  shown  the  desirability  to  include  all  countries  in  the  Region.  With  their 
involvement, policies and investments in the whole Region can be more effective, as they will 
be coordinated and will follow common objectives.  

Lack of links between policies in the Danube Region and those of the Black Sea 

The Danube River and the Black Sea are linked 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 environment, 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 flowing into the Black Sea (and it is likely that nutrient loads from 
other rivers are underestimated) it appears that as much as 80% of the 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-term  cooperation  and  integration 
mechanism  between  the  countries,  towns  and  regions  of  the  Danube  Region  to  tackle  the 
challenges, and to profit from and share the 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 interdependencies. This can evolve from a political and 
practical territory-specific framework, allowing for political trade-offs in order to be mutually 
beneficial.   

Concretely,  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  with 
other  parts  of  the  economy  (e.g.  transport  -  environment  -  economic  development  - 
agriculture). 

The aim is to overcome current blockages by addressing common development interests in a 
wider  territorial  context.  National  policy  objectives  can  be  better  achieved  and  can  be 
enhanced  through  joint  implementation  oriented  approaches,  i.e.  going  “from  words  to 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
action”.  These  can  reinforce  already  existing  EU-wide  or  region-wide  policies  that  have 
lacked political support until now. Resources may also 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;  planning  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  with  a  good  track  record;  intensifying 
cooperation  where  governance  structures  are  missing;  jointly  agreeing  on  strategically 
important  projects;  pooling  of  human  and  infrastructural  structural  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  ensure  a  long  term,  politically  supported  cooperation 
process. Improve visibility and accountability; continuous monitoring and evaluation of 
expected  results;  review  and  update  of  strategically  important  plans,  activity  packages 
and projects. 

5. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

The  challenges  identified  above  point  towards  the  need  for  increased  coordination, 
cooperation  and  integration  between  different  sectors  and  between  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 level 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 for 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 prepared. Policies are designed and implemented at 
EU  and  national  level.  In  the  mid-term,  cooperation  between  the  countries  of  the  Danube 
Region may be organised by the countries themselves.  

Scenario 1.2: There is a strategy, but not prepared by the Commission 

A  strategy  for  the  Danube  Region  is  developed  by  the  countries  of  the  Danube  Region 
themselves,  through  an  intergovernmental  agreement  or  a  stronger  cooperation  between 
regions.  

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
Option n°2: The Commission’s role is limited to preparing a strategy 

The  Commission  prepares  a  strategy  but  the  implementation  happens  solely  at  inter-
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  existing  EU  structures,  with  the  Commission 
playing a facilitating role. The strategy is prepared by the Commission 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  creation  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  immediately  along  the  river  (Member  States  and  non 
Member States) and thus only concentrates on issues related to the river 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.  transport  systems/  intermodal  hub/  hinterland 
connections)  in  combination  with  planning  focus  (soft  measures)    for  the  wider  area  e.g. 
Danubian  management  plans 
tourism,  biodiversity,  nature 
(water,  waste,  energy, 
conservation, civil society networking, agriculture). 

Option b: Extended to functional geographical area  

The approach covers the Danube Region as a whole, (Member States and non Member States) 
and can thus address a range of challenges related to the area. In certain cases it is appropriate 
to  include  regions  adjacent  to  the  above  mentioned  (for  example  on  trade,  transport  or 
environment  issues)  as  they  link  Black,  Adriatic  and  Baltic  Sea  Regions.  Following  this 
option,  the  ‘Danube  Region’  is  a  functional  area,  including  actors  necessary  to  ensure 
cooperation  on  different  issues,  whether  they  are  EU-Member  States  or  not.  Under  such  an 
option,  the  strategy  covers  issues  where  countries  and  stakeholders  have  signalled  their 
intention to cooperate and which are not directly related to the river (e.g. innovation).  

Option c: Extended to the Member 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 already some legal and financial instruments. 
In addition, it can cover a broad range of issues, including those not related to the river. 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
6. 

ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS OF THE DIFFERENT POLICY OPTIONS 

This  section  compares  the  options  by  analysing  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  commitment  (political  acceptance).  This  analysis  is 
based  on  the  geographical  option  b  where  the  Danube  Region  is  extended  to  functional 
geographical areas. A full analysis (for each geographical option) is included in the summary 
table at the end of the chapter 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 (baseline scenario) - There is no strategy 
for the Danube Region 

Effectiveness 
Efficiency 
Political acceptance 

-- 

(cid:57) 

- 

0 
(cid:57) 
(cid:57) 

+ 

++ 

Under  this  scenario,  the  situation  of  the  Danube  Region  will  probably  not  improve 
significantly.  Joint  challenges  are  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-economic  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,  socio-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.  Given  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 Commission from the Member States.  

(cid:214)  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  

Effectiveness 
Efficiency 
Political acceptance 

-- 

- 

(cid:57) 

0 

(cid:57) 

+ 
(cid:57) 

++ 

Under this scenario a strategy would be developed and be implemented by the countries using 
existing  or  new  inter-governmental  processes.  There  is  little  or  no  involvement  of  the 

EN 

22 

   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 would 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 Region) that enjoy a long history of cooperation 
and can build on well established structures. However, the consultation of countries, experts 
and  stakeholders  reveals  doubts  that  this  option  could  be  successful  in  the  Danube  Region, 
given its size and heterogeneity, and given the lack of well established governance structures 
to  build  upon.  The  inter-governmental  bodies  already  in  place  may  not  be  appropriate  for 
reaching  viable  compromises  on  controversial  issues,  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 with less emphasis on the 
implementation  dimension  (Danube  Cooperation  Process).  They  may  also  need  reinforced 
resources  and/or  political  support  (e.g.  Danube  Rectors  Conference,  Danube  Tourism 
Commission).  As  the  intergovernmental  bodies  already  in  place  also  largely  consider  issues 
directly connected to the river, it is likely that only such issues would be addressed under the 
strategy. What regards effectiveness, this option may thus be able 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 involved, no additional administrative costs will fall 
on the European Commission. Costs for the preparation of the Strategy will need to be borne 
by Member States. In addition, without the European Commission 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. Hence it can be presumed 
that this option would be neutral what concerns efficiency.  

(cid:214)  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 availability of funding is 
evolving and diverse in the different countries. 

Option n°2: The Commission’s role is limited to the preparation of the strategy 

Option n°2: The Commission’s role limited to the preparation of the strategy 

Effectiveness 
Efficiency 
Political acceptance 

-- 

- 

(cid:57) 

0 

(cid:57) 

+ 
(cid:57) 

++ 

Danube  states  create  a  new  inter-governmental  body  to  cooperate  closer  on  Danube  Region 
related  issues,  organise  regular  meetings  by  policy  fields  to  coordinate  their  work,  develop 
and  regularly  update  a  list  of  prioritised  strategic  projects.  The  European  Commission 
prepares  the  Strategy,  but  does  not  have  a  facilitating,  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  stable  resources  from  the  Danube  countries.  Past 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
experience,  e.g.  with  the  Danube  Cooperation  Process,  has  however  shown  that  such  an 
approach is vulnerable to changing political interests in the countries and that the cooperation 
process  is  difficult  to  maintain.  The  effectiveness  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  Commission  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 this option will be neutral what 
concerns  efficiency.  Furthermore,  the  approach  lacks  an  independent  facilitator  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 might be suitable for regions with a long history 
of cooperation, building upon long-standing and well-functioning processes or networks. This 
seems  however  not  to  be  the  case  for  the  Danube  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.  

(cid:214)  Role of non-EU countries: The non Member States are involved in the preparation of the 

Strategy. The other elements mentioned under option 1, scenario 1.2 remain valid. 

Option n°3: The Commission coordinates actions at EU level (using the EU structures) 

Option n°3: The Commission coordinates actions at EU level (using the EU structures) 

Effectiveness 
Efficiency 
Political acceptance 

-- 

- 

0 

+ 

(cid:57) 

++ 
(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

This  option  actively  involves  the  European  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 Strategy is done in close cooperation with the involved 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  effective.  The  coordinating  role  of  the  Commission 
furthermore  allows  for  an  alignment  of  national,  regional  and  EU  funds  to  support  the 
implementation of the Strategy, thus raising the efficiency of the available funds.  

An implementation oriented approach also allows the Commission 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 availability of national, regional, EU funds 
and the financial instruments of International Financial Institutions for the Region, given the 
existence of a number of inter-governmental bodies and institutions and given the legislative 
framework of the countries and the EU, the approach emphasises better use of what is already 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
in  place.  This  approach  thus  raises  the  efficiency  and  effectiveness  of  given  funds  and 
structures and closes implementation gaps related to legislation, without creating new funds, 
structures or institutions. This also raises the potential political acceptance of this approach. 

The  direct  costs  of  this  approach  for  the  Commission  are  related  to  the personnel resources 
needed for facilitating the process in the development and implementation phase. The option 
can be regarded as efficient regarding administrative costs in the sense that one central body 
coordinates the overall work. 

In  terms  of  effectiveness,  this  option  is  considered  likely  to  deliver  on  common  objectives. 
The  EU  institutions  are  relatively  independent,  competent  (covering  many  policy  fields 
through the DGs) and credible (through the experience in designing transparent policies and 
implementing them). Therefore, the EU Institutions have the potential to create a stable form 
of cooperation among stakeholders in the Region.  

Regarding the governance mechanism, 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 is described in further detail in Annex 4. 

(cid:214)  Role  of  non-EU  countries:  The  non  Member  States  are  involved  in  the  preparation  and 
implementation of the Strategy. The Commission can promote the alignment of EU funds, 
and  facilitate  the  financing  by  International  Financial  Institutions,  as  well  as  assisting 
them in the speeder and correct implementation of the acquis. 

Option  n°4:  The  Commission  supports  the  creation  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 

Effectiveness 
Efficiency 
Political acceptance 

-- 

- 

(cid:57) 
(cid:57) 

0 

+ 

++ 
(cid:57) 

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,  staffing  and  decision  making  procedures,  this 
option  could  indeed  be  effective  in  reaching  common  goals.  However,  as  such  political 
processes are lengthy, especially with the large number of countries involved, this approach is 
likely to suffer a substantial delay until agreements can be reached and actions implemented. 
There is also the danger of countries not agreeing 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  governments  will  be  able  to  release  fresh  funds. 
The political acceptance of this approach could therefore be viewed as rather limited.  

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(cid:214)  Role  of  non-EU  countries:  The  non  Member  States  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  river,  this  option  aims  to  strengthen  already 
existing  inter-governmental  bodies  dealing  with  these  issues  and  would  encourage  their 
cooperation: the Danube Commission (navigability) and the International Convention for the 
Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR). Whilst the situation of the river could be improved, 
the  other  policy  fields  relevant  for  the  Danube  Region  are  not  addressed.  In  particular,  the 
potential  to  reinforce  the  socio-economic  development  of  the  region  post-enlargement  is 
overlooked. 

In  addition,  if  the  Strategy  was  limited  to  the  issues  directly  relevant  to  the  Danube  River, 
those  who  have  little  interest  to  the  navigation/  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 stretch is vital for others; placed 
in  an  overall  socio-economic  development  context  this  perspective  is  changed.  In  fact, 
previous concentration of efforts limited to the river has been at the root of slow progress to 
date. In general, if the Strategy covers different topics, there are much greater opportunities 
for countries to advance/ reinforce their own needs, 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-acceptable solutions. This integrated approach is 
specifically underlined in the European Council conclusions formally 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 covered, relating to the challenges of the Danube 
Region  and  not  only  the  Danube  River.  As  the  consultation  process  has  shown,  the  wider 
approach  may  facilitate  resolution  of  issues  otherwise  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  benefit  of  addressing  the  policy 
fields  in  an  integrated  way  taking  into  account  the  interactions  between  them.  There  is 
potential to reinforce the EU integration of the region, both in administrative / judicial terms 
and  also  in  relation  to  socio-economic  development.  This  option  is  thus  likely  to  enjoy 
broader  political  acceptance  and  advance  in  fields  characterised  by  conflicting  political 
agendas. 

Option c: Extended to the Danube Region Member States 

Whilst  this  option  would  facilitate  the  implementation  of  the  actions  as  the  whole  territory 
covered  has  a  common  legal  framework  (the  EU  Directives)  and  common  funding 
instruments  (especially,  the  Structural  Funds),  it  would  not  be  able  address  fully  the 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
challenges  and  opportunities  of  the  Danube  Region.  For  example,  the  improvement  of 
navigability  would  be  limited  as  the  Danube  River  flows  through  Croatia  and  Serbia.

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
Summary table on the analysis of the impacts of the different options 

Option 

Geographical scope 

Effectiveness 

Efficiency 

Political 
Acceptance 

Comments 

1.1 - The Commission is 
not involved; there is no 
strategy 

1.2 - There is a strategy, 
but not prepared by the 
Commission 

2 - The Commission’s 
role is limited to the 
preparation of the 
strategy 

3 - The Commission 
coordinated actions at EU 
level (using the EU 
structures) 

Not applicable 

a) Danube river 

b) Functional 
geographical areas 

c) Danube Member 
States 

a) Danube river 

b) Functional 
geographical areas 

c) Danube Member 
States 

a) Danube river 

b) Functional 
geographical areas 

c) Danube Member 
States 

0 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

++ 

+ 

EN 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

+ 

+ 

+ 

28 

-- 

- 

- 

-- 

- 

- 

-- 

- 

++ 

-- 

This  option  would  not  improve  the  situation  of 
the Danube Region and opportunities will be lost. 

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. 

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. 

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 

 
  
Option 

Geographical scope 

Effectiveness 

Efficiency 

Political 
Acceptance 

Comments 

4 - The Commission 
supports the creation of a 
new body with financial 
and legislative powers 

a) Danube river 

b) Functional 
geographical areas 

c) Danube Member 
States 

+ 

++ 

+ 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

-- 

0 is the baseline scenario 
+ and ++ means that the impact is positive compared to the baseline scenario 
- and -- means that the impact is negative compared to the baseline scenario 

be  limited.  In  particular  the  non  participation  of 
non  Member  States  would  result  in  gaps,  and 
substantially reduce impact. 

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. 

EN 

29 

EN 

 
  
 
Environmental, Social and Economical Impact Assessment 

Environmental Impact Assessment 

The environmental impact of actions within the framework of the EU Strategy for the Danube 
Region is expected to be positive for the following reasons: 

–  The preservation and restoration of the environment 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 
the  Strategic 
Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Assessments made in the Danube 
Region; 

the  environmental  field, 

improving 

including 

in 

–  The Strategy underlines the integration of policy fields so that the environmental point of 
view  is  systematically  taken  into  account  when  deciding  on  a  project  or  when 
implementing it; 

–  The  Strategy  aims  at  improving  the  implementation  of  EU  legislation  and  EU  funding 
instruments which have undergone an Environmental Impact Assessment when required; 

–  The actions and projects deriving from the Strategy 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 Danube Region is also expected to be positive 
for the following reasons: 

–  The content has been proposed and validated by national authorities, stakeholders and DGs 

of the Commission (including DG Employment and Social Affairs); 

–  One  of  the  aims  of  the  Strategy  is  to  provide  better  social  conditions  especially  by 
improving  the  human  capital,  the  labour  market  and  the  conditions  of  marginalised 
communities, especially the Roma; 

–  Finally,  overall,  the  Strategy  should  generate  growth  and  jobs  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 countries involved that economic development is 
prioritised. The Commission intends to include actions in these matters such as removing 
the  bottlenecks  for  the  functioning  of  the  Single  Market,  promoting  research  and 
innovation, and making the labour market more efficient; 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
–  The  Strategy  follows  the  objectives  of  Territorial  Cohesion11  including  the  reduction  of 
territorial disparities, facilitating equivalent living conditions, allowing for a fair access to 
infrastructures and services, strengthening polycentricity, and building good links between 
urban and rural areas.  

7. 

COMPARING THE OPTIONS 

In view of the analysis of impacts of the different policy options (chapter 6.) we conclude that 
the best options are: 

–  For the involvement of the Commission: option n°3 (the Commission coordinates actions 

at EU level, using the EU structures); 

–  For the geographical scope: option b (extended to functional geographical areas). 

Given the results from the broad consultation process, 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  Commission,  facilitating  the  development  and 
implementation of a long-term cooperation process in the wider Danube Region.   

These options are preferred to the other options presented in relation to: 

–  Efficiency, allowing for a better alignment of policies and funds for the Region; 

–  Effectiveness, facilitating the implementation of concrete actions through the guiding role 
of  the  Commission,  the  broad  ownership  of  the  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  commitment  than  the  baseline 
scenario,  but  is  less  resource  intensive  than  other  options  creating  new  institutions.  The 
central coordination role of the Commission allows 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 existing levels of administrative 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  potential  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 

31 

   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  aggregated  way.  On  the  side  of  the  Commission, 
functions related to managing high level groups, coordinating and facilitating the meetings of 
the Priority Areas, producing annual reports and maintaining an integrated approach is based 
on  improving  internal  coordination  of  Commission  services  and  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  cooperation  between  countries)  and  improves  the  visibility  and 
accountability  (as  it  will  be  continuously  monitored  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  countries  in  the  Danube  River  Basin  (therefore,  it  is  not 
limited 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 Republic, the Czech Republic, 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 certain 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 the Danube Region could be monitored at three 
levels: 

•  Milestones for putting in place the necessary structures (putting in place thematic working 
groups,  establishing  responsible  actors  for  the  collection  of  data,  establishment  of 
communication  arrangements  within  region  and  contact  points  for  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 general evolution in the Danube Region in respect 
of  the  key  challenges.  These  would  form  the  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  established.  The  Commission  could  report  on  a 
regular  basis  on  progress  towards  achieving  the  monitoring  indicators  set  out  in  the  Action 

EN 

32 

   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  appropriate,  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  therefore  to  establish  an  EU  Strategy  for  the 
Danube  Region,  as  a  sustainable  framework  for  cooperation  to  support  sustainable 
development  and  integrated  action  in  a  transnational  context.  The  Strategy  should  be 
accompanied  by  a  rolling  Action  Plan  that  features  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  process;  (b)  Communication  and  Action  Plan;  (c) 
Proposed Framework for Cooperation; and (d) involvement 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 needs of the Danube Region. 

(cid:127)  Consultation process: The consultation processes are similar. Indeed, from the EUSBSR 
it  was  clear  that  the  acceptance  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  Group  (over  20  services  and  the  European 
Investment Bank), series of conferences, public consultation, bilateral meetings with each 
country and an ‘open doors’ policy. 

(cid:127)  Communication and Action Plan: The Structure and the organisation 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 leadership and responsibilities for progress. 

(cid:127)  Proposed  Framework  for  Cooperation:  The  proposed  framework  is  based  on  the  one 
proposed for the EUSBSR with Member States’ involvement via the 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 Commission facilitating the process, coordinating 
the work, monitoring and reporting on progress.  

(cid:127)  Involvement of  the EU Funds: From  the EUSBSR experience, it was clear that e.g. the 
Structural Funds programmes should be involved early on in the process to secure their 
readiness to align funding to the Action Plan. This has been done through the Monitoring 
Committees  of  the  programmes  and  through  an  advisory  group  which  also  organises 
regular wider practical discussions. 

In addition, the EUSBSR experience has also facilitated organisation of the work taking into 
account  principles  of  competence  and  subsidiarity,  notably  in  respect  of  security  and 
institutional capacity, but also in respect of cooperation on education and culture. 

EN 

33 

   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  this  approach.  It  is 
particularly useful as a point of reference.  

Overall,  the  Commission  is  a  key  actor  in  ensuring  that  the  process  advances,  providing 
leadership  and,  in  cases  of  disagreements,  facilitating  the  discussion  as  a  relatively 
independent,  legitimate  and  credible  partner.  As  it  is  present  in  e.g.  the  Monitoring 
Committees  of  EU  Structural  Funds  programmes,  it  has  a  key  opportunity  to  work  with 
programmes to realise the objectives established by the Strategy, whether by re-programming 
or other means. 

In addition, the monitoring and reporting would be done by the Commission on the basis of 
information from the ‘Priority Area Coordinators’ (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 implementation 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 would include the countries, the EU Institutions, the stakeholders 
(namely  non-governmental  and  inter-governmental  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  reinforce  the  efforts  of  many  existing  organisations, 
following  the  practice  already  established  as  worthwhile  in  the  Baltic  Sea  Region.  By  providing  a 
common framework and reinforcing practical commitment (within an EU context with its policies and 
funds), the Strategy can significantly 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 should reinforce its influence on individual countries 
and local decision-making and its access to funding. 

•  Danube  Commission:  The  European  Commission  could  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 members), with more credibility in political terms and easier access to 
funding. 

•  The  European  Commission:  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 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  aim  is  to  go  from  ‘words  to 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
 
actions’ by identifying the concrete priorities for the macro-region (those which are important 
for  the  Commission  and  the  countries  of  the  Danube  Region,  those  which  have  a  macro-
regional nature and those which are realistic / feasible). 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  evolve  and  hence,  the  actions  and  projects  may  be  updated, 
transformed or replaced (these decisions will be taken by the countries and the Commission 
who will meet regularly during the implementation 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 European Council it has a certain status making 
its implementation easier. 

issues 

(trade, 

The Action Plan covers the priorities of the Strategy, likely to be mobility  and accessibility 
issues (waterways, road, rail, air), environmental issues (climate change, water, biodiversity), 
issues 
economic 
(interconnections,  supply,  clean  energies,  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  between  countries  as  well  as  attracting  a  critical  mass  of 
investments in those areas. 

labour  market, 

innovation, 

education), 

energy 

The Action Plan also can underline the importance of an integrated approach whereby actions 
have  to  be  considered  with  other  policy  fields.  Concretely,  for  the  implementation  of  these 
actions, it can encourage broad consultation of the bodies in charge of other policy fields.  

In conclusion, the EU Strategy for the Danube Region can deliver concrete results based on 
clear political support (Commission, Heads of State). It can facilitate concrete improvements, 
as it has been prepared with technical expertise (DGs, Ministries, stakeholders) and a specific 
Commission  involvement.  It  can  build  on  a  process  leading  to  actions  seen  as  open, 
transparent  and  legitimate.  Finally,  it  can  benefit  from  significant  impact  through  policy 
alignment  and  through  funding  alignment  of  existing  instruments.  It  needs  however  to 
continue  foster  the  cooperative  attitude  of  the  countries  and  stakeholders  of  the  Danube 
Region, in a partnership, with shared aims and responsibilities. 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
 
Justification of the inclusion of a priority area in the EU Strategy for the Danube Region 

ANNEX 1 

The following table analyses whether each topic should be treated in a macro-regional framework. To do so, it uses three criteria: is there a need to 
cooperate between different countries on specific issues (a strategy being a process to agree and implement 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 territorial cohesion approaches (e.g. spatial planning) can be usefully 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 

Energy 

Sea 

-  Have a Danube Region Transport Development 

Plan 

-  Transnational road and rail networks 
-  Reinforcement of air connections 
-  Exchange of experiences (e.g. on 

multimodality) 

-  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 

-  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 

-  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 

36 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
Priority area 

Need for strategy (cooperation) 

Specific to Danube Region 

In line with EU policies 

Environment 

-  Renewable energy directive provides for the 

possibility of joint projects 

-  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) 

Risk management 

-  Risks concerns several countries at the same 

-  Specific vulnerability and exposure due to 

time as risks and their impacts traverse 
boundaries 

-  Need to coordinate prevention 
-  Need to coordinate the reaction (civil 

protection) 

-  Exchange of experiences 

climate change impacts  

-  Floods due to semi-continental climate  
-  Rivers without wetlands aggravating floods 
-  Industrial sites which are not modernised 
-  Population located along rivers 

-  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 

-  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 

-  Regional disparities in terms of innovation 

-  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 

indicators – potential for knowledge exchange, 
potential for regional specialisation 

-  EU 2020 
-  ERA – European Research Area 
-  European Research Framework 

-  Common challenges that can be tackled 

Programmes 

through a comprehensive approach and joint 
incentives 

-  Competitiveness and Innovation 

Programme (CIP) 

-  Responsible use of specific development 

-  European Research Framework 

-  Pooling of resources (limited staff and markets 

for e.g. eco-innovation, green economy) 

potential / seize opportunities in a territorial 
context  

Implementation of the Single Market 

-  Need to systematically address the 

implementation gaps concerning Single Market  

-  Recent enlargement, strong disparities 
-  Close trade links but limited knowledge 

transfer hinders the catching up process of 
parts of the Region 

Programmes 

-  ERDF and Cohesion Fund  
-  Common Agricultural Policy and European 
Agricultural and Rural Development Fund 

-  EU 2020 
-  Single Market / Service Directive  

Tourism 

-  Need to capitalise on natural and cultural 

-  Vast natural heritage  along the Danube River 

heritage jointly to promote the common region 

and the Carpathian Mountains  

-  Need for a cooperative approach to reach 

-  Weakly developed touristic market  

-  EU 2020 
-  The European Agenda for Culture 
-  Culture Programme 

EN 

37 

EN 

 
  
 
Priority area 

Need for strategy (cooperation) 

critical masses in terms of structures and 
services 

-  Need for exchange of experience in the 

restoration and preservation of natural and 
cultural heritage 

Specific to Danube Region 

-  Marketing "Danube area" image / identity 

In line with EU policies 

-  Sustainable tourism policy 
-  European Agricultural and Rural 

Development Fund 

Human Capital 

-  Need to address common challenges 

-  Large socio-economic disparities trigger brain 

(migration, population decline, weaknesses in 
education systems, lack of recognition of 
diplomas) through cooperation and 
specialisation 

Security 

-  Need for stronger cooperation against 

drain 

-  High density of relatively weak tertiary 

education institutions 

-  EU 2020 
-  Education and Training 2020 
-  Bologna Process - Towards the European 

Higher Education Area 

-  Recent enlargement results in limited mutual 

recognition of diplomas and professions 

-  Common Agricultural Policy and European 
Agricultural and Rural Development Fund 

-  Issuing of Danube specific diploma /certificates 
( e.g. post graduation, chambers of commerce, 
business, environmental  management to 
ensure homogeneity, exchange, employability) 

-  Difficulties in cross-border law enforcement 
-  Differences between Member States and non 

organised crime and to promote  increased 
economic integration 
Issues for which cooperation could be done as it is useful to exchange experiences 
Information Society 

-  Need to coordinate planning and investment 

Member States 

Institutional capacity 

Marginalised communities 

regarding broadband infrastructure 

-  Need to have joint strategies 
-  Exchange of experiences on common problems  

-  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, including a joint effort 
to collect reliable data  

-  Low broadband penetration 
-  Low level of IT equipment 
-  Low level of content 
-  Enlargement and regime change have been 

prominent elements in the region’s 
development 

-  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 
-  Stockholm Programme 
-  Vienna Action Plan on Organised Crime 

-  EU2020 
-  Digital Agenda 
-  ERDF and Cohesion Fund 
-  EU promotes good governance 
-  Institutional Capacity building financed by 

the Structural Funds 

-  Important to improve the use of EU funds 
-  EU 2020 
-  Territorial Cohesion policy 
-  European Year for Combating Poverty and 

Social Exclusion 

EN 

38 

EN 

 
  
 
 
Scoping Paper for the public consultation 

ANNEX 2 

The  European  Council  has  formally  asked  the  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 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.”  

Objectives of the EU Strategy for the Danube Region 

including  economic  and  social  disparities, 

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 Basin 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. There are many major issues to be addressed in 
the  Region 
infrastructure  deficiencies, 
environmental  status,  prevention  against  risks,  etc..  Following  the  accessions  of  2004  and 
2007, there is a need and an opportunity to overcome the legacy of former divisions and for 
the potential of the Region as an integral part of the European Union 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,  social  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  actively  seeking  the  contributions  of  all  those 
interested  (including  Member  States,  neighbouring  countries,  regions,  municipalities, 
international  organisations,  financial  institutions,  the  socio-economic  partners  and  civil 
society). This is why the Commission is organising a wide consultation including a series of 
public  events  starting  in  Ulm  in  February  and  concluding  in  Romania  in  June  2010,  also 
incorporating this public consultation through internet. The purpose of this Scoping Paper is 
to guide those providing a contribution 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 which 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 projects 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  different  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,  the  human  capital,  health,  etc.,  as  well  as  how 
cooperation can be reinforced across borders. 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
 
Next steps 

All  contributions  will  be  analysed  by  the  Commission,  and  a  report  summarising  the  inputs 
will  be  available  on  internet  shortly  after  the  end  of  the  consultation.  These  will  also  be 
further discussed in the frame of the conferences organised before the Summer 2010 (full list 
of these events available at REGIO-EU-DANUBE-STRATEGY@ec.europa.eu). The Strategy 
will be adopted by the Commission by December 2010. 

EN 

40 

   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 projects to be recommended in the coming years? 

Implementation 

–  How is it possible to cooperate better, to coordinate more and to exchange good practices? 

–  How can the cross-border links and the transnational policies be improved? 

–  What would be the added value of this Strategy to the existing mechanisms 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 contribute 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 which covers several topics together and looks 

at their interrelationship (e.g. how economic and environmental 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 specific 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 considered 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 (including ports and airports) 
3.  Energy systems and security of supply 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
 
 
4.  Increased use of renewable and clean energies, 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 specific 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 considered 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 specific 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 considered 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 (agriculture, industry and services) 
13. Innovation / research 
14. Human capital (including job markets, education and health) 
15. Institutional capacity 
16. Danube identity / culture (including tourism) 
17. Roma community and other 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 the critical concerns of the Danube Region. These contributions 
can be sent to REGIO-EU-DANUBE-STRATEGY@ec.europa.eu before the 12 April 2010. 

Thank for your contributions! 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
 
List of the authorities / organisations / citizens who replied 

ANNEX 3 

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 Wissenschaftliche Weiterbildung (ZAWiW) 
5  Baden Württtemberg - Ministry for the Environment 
6  Donaubüro Ulm 
7 
8  Umweltdachverband Österreich 
9  Donauhochschule Ulm 

International Association for Danube Research 

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 
Inland Navigation Europe (INE) I 
21 
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 

43 

   EN 

 
 
Name of the person/organisation 

No 
55  Foster Europe 
56  Acta Danubiana - Hungarian Chamber of Engineers  
57  MGYOSZ - Confederation of Hungarian Employers 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 
87  City of Cernavoda 
88  Bouygues 
89 
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 

International Convention for the Protection of the River Danube 

Interact 

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 

44 

   EN 

 
ANNEX 4 

Cooperation framework for the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR) 

(a)  Development  of  the  Strategy:  The  Strategy  was  prepared  by  the  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 Strategy is done through a ‘High Level Group’ with 
representatives of all Member States and the Commission. This is also proposed for this 
Strategy. 

(c)  Implementation:  The  implementation  is  facilitated  by  the  countries  themselves.  The 
coordination of each Priority Area would be done by a Member State (sometimes together 
with  a  non  Member  State)  or  an  inter-governmental  body,  with  the  involvement  of  the 
Commission.  This  ‘Priority  Area  Coordinator’  would  ensure  that  the  implementation 
progresses  (e.g.  by  agreeing  on  roadmaps  with  milestones  and  timetables,  and  through 
regular  meetings  with  all  the  countries  /  stakeholders  concerned).  This  coordination 
should  be  trans-national,  inter-sectoral  and  inter-institutional.  It  should  be  based  on 
serious  planning  (e.g.  spatial  planning),  consultation  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  experience  shows  this  to  be  one  of  the  most 
successful aspects of implementation, with the leadership role particularly appreciated. 

(d) Monitoring and Reporting: The monitoring and reporting is done by the Commission on 
the basis of information from the ‘Priority Area Coordinators’, and other sources such as 
the  Annual  Report  of  EU  programmes.  The  Commission  drafts  a  regular  report  to  the 
other EU Institutions. This ensures a realistic and independent process. 

(e)  Facilitation: The Commission is involved in the coordination, process through the ‘High 
Level  Group’  and  through  an  active  participation  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 organises 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 institutions and existing funds within the EUSBSR 

The  existing  instruments  (legislation,  institutions  and  funds)  are  respected  and  utilised. 
Existing  agreements  are  maintained.  The  Strategy  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 

45 

   EN 

 
 
 
Funding for the implementation of actions 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  Danube  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  through  Structural  Funds  2007-2013,  of  which  a 
certain  proportion  has  not  yet  been  committed),  TEN-T/E  funds,  7th  Research  Framework 
Programme,  EAFRD,  LIFE,  Competitiveness  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 

46 

   EN 

 
 
Map of the Danube Region 

ANNEX 5 

EN 

47 

   EN