COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT   Impact Assessment Summary
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) 1491 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Impact Assessment Summary 

Accompanying the 

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

European Union Strategy for the Danube Region 

{COM(2010) 715 final} 
{SEC(2010) 1489 final} 
{SEC(2010) 1490 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The Member States requested that the European Commission prepare an EU Strategy for the 
Danube Region1. This follows the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, developed under the 
coordination  of  the  Commission  in  2008/2009  and  now  being  implemented.  The  current 
request  specifically  underlines  the  importance  of  sustainable  development  which  should  be 
pursued  using  an  integrated  approach.  Within  the  Commission,  the  EU  Strategy  for  the 
Danube Region is coordinated by DG Regional Policy, which therefore also has prepared this 
Impact Assessment.  

2. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

The problem definition is based on a socio-economic analysis and a wide consultation. This 
consultation included Member States and non Member States of the Danube Region, the inter-
governmental and non-governmental bodies, and stakeholders, including citizens and experts 
on  the  Region.  The  European  Investment  Bank  and  22  DGs  of  the  Commission2  have  also 
been involved in this work. The challenges identified are markedly of a cross-border nature 
and show many cross-border externalities3. It is increasingly apparent that compartmentalised 
policy  development  and  decision-making  are  no  longer  adequate  in  relation  to  the  Danube 
Region.  

•  Problem definition for the governance 

In the Danube Region,  a  key  problem  is governance. There  is a lack  especially of adequate 
transnational governance. This results in insufficient cooperation (lack of shared interests and 
even conflicting issues). For instance, there are differing perspectives on environmental and 
other river-use issues between countries, which may be more easily addressed if considered in 
a wider context, or with innovative technologies, likely to be proposed in the Strategy. 

The  EU  provides  some  frames  (through  legislation  and  financial  instruments)  which  should 
address  certain  major  challenges  and  opportunities,  and  there  are  some  existing  inter-
governmental  frameworks.  However,  there  is  a  lack  of  institutional  capacity,  and  there  are 
serious implementation gaps (for example, some EU Directives are transposed in law but not 
in  place  in  reality).  The  result  is  a  fragmented  approach  to  many  of  the  challenges  of  the 
Region,  and  under-performance  in  terms  of  its  potential.  Interactions  must  be  better 
understood and managed; common or cooperative instruments and tools must be developed; 
synergies  identified  and  exploited  both  across  borders  and  across  sectors;  and  conflicts 
avoided or resolved. 

1 

2 

3 

The European Council 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.”  
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. 
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 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  Problem definition by topic 

There  are  several  issues  for  which  cooperation  is  particularly  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  in  the 
contributions  of  Member  States  -  it  became  clear  that  other  issues  should  or  could  be  also 
covered  either  because  of  cross-border  externalities  (innovation  and  competitiveness, 
implementation of the Single Market, human capital, security, tourism) and / or as it is clearly 
beneficial to exchange experiences (information society, institutional capacity or marginalised 
communities).  The  inclusion  of  these  issues  also  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’. In addition, these socio-economic and other aspects will reinforce the integration 
of those countries which joined the European Union only recently.  

2.1.1. 

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

–  Mobility and accessibility: For inland navigation, the Danube River is clearly not used to 
its  full  potential.  This  could  be  better  exploited  by  a  series  of  measures  such  as  greater 
inter-modality,  improved  management,  better  investment  in  infrastructure  and  equipment 
and  availability  of  qualified  staff.  As  well  as  a  lack  of  demand,  there  is  also  a  lack  of 
supply. The Danube channels are not always navigable, the ports are often not efficient, the 
boats are not numerous enough and often in a bad state of repair, and there is not enough 
crew  due  to  insufficient  training  facilities.  For  roads  and  railways,  infrastructure  is  often 
not  efficient  or  simply  missing,  especially  regarding  cross-border  connections  (to  which 
national authorities do not give priority).  

–  Energy: Energy security and efficiency is often problematic in the Region. Much energy is 
imported,  and  its  transport  is  costly;  in  addition,  markets  are  fragmented,  and 
interconnectors  are  missing.  The  Danube  Region  is  specifically  vulnerable  regarding 
security  of  supply,  as  in  January  2009  when  gas  supplies  were  cut.  At  the  same  time, 
energy generation and use is a source of pollution. There is a challenge to improve energy 
efficiency (and savings) and for increased production from renewables.  

–  Environment:  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.  Landscapes  and  biodiversity  are  also  threatened  through  losses  of  natural 
areas,  especially  untouched  mountainous  areas,  which  lead  to  a  diminution  of  species. 
Destruction  of  biodiversity  and  ecosystems  may  lead  to  irreversible  changes  and  non-
capability of provisioning goods and services such as flood protection, water purification, 
food and timber, or mitigation of and adaptation to climate change. In the rivers, fish are 
caught at unsustainable levels and migration is prevented by hydromorphological changes. 
The existence of sturgeon species, an important migratory fish for the whole Danube basin, 
is particularly at risk.  

–  Risk  management:  The  Danube  Region  faces  three  main  risks:  floods,  droughts  and 
industrial  pollution.  None  of  this  respects  borders.  The  aim  is  to  manage  both  the 
prevention (avoid that the risk occurs) and the reaction (assist when the risk occurs). The 
main  cause  of  floods  is  that  the  Danube  River  and  its  tributaries  are,  to  a  large  extent, 
rivers where the banks are channelled artificially, not allowing for the additional water to 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
flow freely over larger areas (so that the water level increases). The main cause of droughts 
is  the  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.  

2.1.2. 

Issues  for  which  cooperation  should  be  facilitated  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,  investments  in  Research  and  Development  and  overall  competitiveness.  The 
Region  could  benefit  considerably  from  greater  linkages,  especially  east-west  across  the 
area. 

–  Implementation  of  the  Single  Market:  Regarding  the  Single  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.  In  many 
instances,  Small  and  Medium-size  Enterprises 
the 
administrative  and  other  hurdles  to  access  markets  in  neighbouring  countries,  thus 
substantially restricting their potential.  

lack  resources 

to  overcome 

–  Human capital: The share of highly educated people in the Danube Region is lower than 
the EU27 average, again with a pronounced divide. Mobility, especially of researchers and 
students,  of  highly  qualified  workers  and  skilled  workers,  is  still  limited.  The  Region 
currently  does  not  benefit  even  from  the  full  potential  of  these  workers,  presenting  an 
important attribute so far not fully used.  

–  Security: Growing economic integration and 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. Addressing this is clearly a cross-border issue.  

–  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.  

2.1.3. 

Issues  for  which  cooperation  may  be  facilitated  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.  Thereby,  the  countries  concerned  are  not  benefiting  fully 
from a source of growth, cohesion and sustainability. Access to good experience and the 
most recent developments in the highest-performing parts of the Region would be highly 
beneficial. 

–  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 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
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,…).  Given  that  certain  parts  of 
the  Region  have  notably  successful  governance,  transfer  of  experience  would  bring  real 
progress. 

–  Marginalised  communities:  In  the  Danube  Region,  there  are  several  marginalised 
communities such as minorities or the Roma (10 million Roma inhabit the Danube Region 
representing  80%  of  Roma  in  Europe).  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  in  certain  areas  of  the  Region 
however often lack the resources and experience to address these challenges in a holistic 
manner, but could benefit greatly from better practices and organisation available nearby. 

3. 

ANALYSIS OF SUBSIDIARITY 

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 not the entire European Union with, sometimes, non Member States), there is a need for a 
specific cooperation framework at the level of the macro-region. 

There  is  already  some  cooperation  between  the  countries,  be  it  through  inter-governmental 
organisations or be it through cooperation on specific issues. However, these are not always 
as efficient as they should, do not cover all the issues which would require cooperation and 
are  not  put  in  a  strategical  perspective  involving  the  highest  political  level.  This  is  why  the 
Member  States  themselves  asked,  through  the  Council,  that  the  Commission  prepares  a 
macro-regional strategy for the Danube Region.  

4. 

OBJECTIVES OF EU INITIATIVE 

The general objective (‘vision’) is to develop a long-term cooperative and integrated approach 
between the countries, towns and regions of the Danube Region to tackle the challenges, and 
to  profit  from  and  share  the  opportunities  in  common.  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). 

To achieve this, the focus should be on three specific objectives: improved coordination and 
coherence  (to  gain  effectiveness),  strengthened  institutional  capability  (to  gain  efficiency), 
long-term cooperation process (to gain political acceptance). 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
5. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

The  challenges  identified  above  point  towards  the  need  for  better  policy  development, 
decision-making  and  implementation,  based  on  increased  coordination,  cooperation  and 
integration  between  different  sectors  and  between  Danube  countries,  cities  and  regions. 
Enhanced  capacity  is  needed  to  align,  implement  and  reinforce  existing  policies.  Given  this 
analysis,  the  options  and  mechanisms  described  below  are  to  be  considered  in  terms  of 
delivering  the  defined  objectives.  These  options  concern  the  possible  frameworks  for 
cooperation in the Danube Region as well as the geographical scope.  

•  Possible frameworks for cooperation 

–  Option n° 1: The Commission is not involved (baseline scenario); The Commission does 
not  prepare  a  strategy  for  the  Danube  Region.  Under  this  option  two  possible  scenarios 
could  be  foreseen:  (1.1)  there  is  no  strategy  for  the  Danube  Region  and  (1.2)  there  is  a 
strategy, but not prepared by the Commission 

–  Option  n°  2:  The  Commission’s  role  is  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 but 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. 

–  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  (and  not  only  to  the  River).  Following  this  option,  the 
‘Danube  Region’  is  considered  as  a  functional  area,  including  actors  necessary  to  ensure 
cooperation on different issues, whether they are EU-Member States or not4.  

4 

To give an idea of the territory concerned, one can use as a proxy to the Danube Region the countries in 
the  Danube  River  Basin  (therefore,  it  is  not  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, the 
Republic of Moldova and Ukraine (the regions along the Danube) as non Member States. This does not 
exclude neighbouring countries (or maritime areas) to take part on certain issues. It is to be emphasised 
that the Danube Region is not limited to the Danube River. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
–  Option  c:  The  approach  is  extended  beyond  the  River,  but  confined  only  to  the  Member 
States  of  the  Danube  Region;  the  approach  is  based  on  option  b,  but  is  limited  to  EU 
Member States.  

6. 

ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS 

•  Possible frameworks for cooperation 

The  following  table  summarises  how  each  of  these options might ensure that the objectives 
outlined  in  paragraph  4.  are  met:  (effectiveness);  how  easily  they  are  achieved  (efficiency); 
and whether there is likely commitment (political acceptance).  

Option 1 - The Commission is not involved (baseline scenario)  
Scenario n°1.1: There is no strategy for the Danube Region 

-- 

- 

Effectiveness 
Efficiency 
(cid:57) 
Political acceptance 
Option 1 - The Commission is not involved (baseline scenario)  
Scenario n°1.2: There is a strategy, but not prepared by the Commission  

0 
(cid:57) 
(cid:57) 

+ 

++ 

-- 

- 

0 

Effectiveness 
Efficiency 
Political acceptance 
Option n°2:  
The Commission’s role limited to the preparation of the strategy 
-- 

(cid:57) 

- 

0 

(cid:57) 

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

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

-- 

- 

0 

+ 
(cid:57) 

+ 
(cid:57) 

+ 

Effectiveness 
Efficiency 
Political acceptance 
Option n°4:  
The Commission supports the creation of a new body with financial and legislative powers 

(cid:57) 

Effectiveness 
Efficiency 
Political acceptance 

-- 

- 

(cid:57) 
(cid:57) 

0 

+ 

++ 

++ 

++ 
(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

++ 
(cid:57) 

•  Geographical options 

–  Option a: Limited to the Danube River; 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. 

–  Option b: Extended to functional geographical area; This option enables a wider range of 
topics  to  be  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 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 
them,  avoiding 
the 
compartmentalisation. 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. 

interactions  between 

into  account 

taking 

–  Option  c:  Extended  beyond  the  River,  but  confined  only  to  the  Member  States  of  the 
Danube Region; Whilst this option would facilitate the implementation of many 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  challenges  and  opportunities  of  the  Danube  Region  as  a  whole.  For 
example,  the  improvement  of  navigability  would  be  limited,  as  the  Danube  River  flows 
through  Croatia  and  Serbia.  Most  other  policy  areas  would  also  be  incomplete  in  their 
formulation  and  implementation,  as  topics  often  cross  over  into  neighbouring  candidate, 
pre-candidate and third country territories. 

7. 

COMPARISON OF OPTIONS 

In  view  of  the  analysis  of  impacts  of  the  different  policy  options  we  conclude  that  the  best 
options are: 

•  Possible frameworks for cooperation 

The preferred option is n°3 where the Commission coordinates actions at EU level, using the 
EU  structures.  This  option  actively  involves  the  Commission  as  a  facilitator  to  the  process, 
supporting  the  Danube  countries  in  developing  a  coherent  Strategy  for  the  Region.  The 
development of such an EU 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. This option could draw on the experiences of the EU Strategy for the Baltic 
Sea Region, which was developed during 2009 and is now in the phase of implementation.  

This option is preferred to the 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. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
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 and reinforces 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).  

•  Geographical options 

The preferred option is option b where the Danube Region is extended to the full functional 
geographical area. This approach would cover the Danube Region as a whole, (Member States 
and  non  Member  States)  and  hence  has  the  potential  to  address  all  the  main  issues  of  the 
whole  Danube  Region,  helping  to  overcome  otherwise  administrative  and  political  barriers 
and gaps. 

8. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

The monitoring and evaluation could be done at three levels: 

–  Milestones  regarding  the  necessary  structures  (putting  in  place  thematic  working  groups, 
responsible  actors  for  the  collection  of  data,  communication  arrangements  within  region 
and  contact  points  for  stakeholders)  would  be  established.  A  reporting  framework  and 
timetable would be instituted; 

–  Monitoring indicators would be set out under each of the priorities in the Action Plan with 
a detailed framework to allow assessment of the implementation process. These indicators 
would be adopted with the Action Plan. 

–  Headline objectives would be 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  key  aims  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 
Plan. A timetable for evaluation (e.g. after 3 years of implementation) could also be set out.  

9. 

CONCLUSION 

This  Impact  Assessment  Report  proposes  therefore  to  establish  an  EU  Strategy  for  the 
Danube  Region,  with  the  European  Commission  coordinating  a  sustainable  framework  for 
cooperation,  facilitating  support  to  development  and  integrated  action  in  a  transnational 
context,  using  the  existing  EU  structures.  The  Strategy  should  be  accompanied  by  a  rolling 
Action  Plan  that  features  concrete  examples  of  where  and  how  cooperation  should  be 
intensified. The organisation proposed is similar to the one used (and being tested) for the EU 
Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region. Since there is existing support for this approach, the Baltic 
Sea region approach may be particularly useful as a point of reference.  

The EU Strategy for the Danube Region will be a sustainable framework for cooperation to 
support development and integrated action in a transnational context. It will be accompanied 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
by a rolling Action Plan that features concrete examples of where and how cooperation should 
be  intensified.  Each  Priority  Area  of  the  Action  Plan  will  be  coordinated  by  a  country.  In 
addition,  the  Member  States  will  be  involved  via  the  Council  and  the  follow-up  of  the 
Strategy will be done by a High-Level Group.  

The  Commission  would  be  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.  Therefore,  the  Commission  will  facilitate  the 
process, coordinating the work and reporting on progress. Regarding- financing, the Structural 
Funds programmes will be involved early on in the process to secure their readiness to align 
funding to the Action Plan. 

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 

10 

   EN