COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS concerning the added value of macro-regional strategies
Date: 2013-06-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Baltic Sea, competitiveness, project evaluation, regional cooperation, regional development

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 27.6.2013  
SWD(2013) 233 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accompanying the document 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE 
COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE 
COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 
concerning the added value of macro-regional strategies 

{COM(2013) 468 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
Introduction 

Table of Contents 

Chapter 1: an analysis of responses to questionnaire for the survey on the added value of macro-
regional strategies 

Chapter 2: independent assessments of external experts 

2.1 Added value of macro regional strategies: a governance perspective 

2.2 The added value of macro-regional strategies from the perspective of spatial planning 

2.3 Assessing the added value of macro-regional strategies – Environment Discussion paper 

2.4 Do macro-regional strategies boost innovation and competitiveness? 

Chapter 3: list of literature used by Commission 

Chapter 4: key messages of literature review 

Chapter 5: fact sheets of the EUSBSR and the EUSDR 

5.1 The EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region 

5.2 The EU Strategy for the Danube Region 

3 

4 

9 

9 

24 

45 

54 

63 

63 

63 

63 

63 

Chapter 6: questionnaire for a survey on the added value of macro-regional strategies (the EU Strategy 
63 
for the Baltic Sea Region and EU Strategy for the Danube Region) 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Introduction 

This  document  comes  in  support  of  report  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European 
Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions,  on  the  added  value  of  two 
existing macro-regional strategies (the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR) 
and the European Union Strategy for the Danube Region (EUSDR)), adopted in June 2013. 

It  aims  at  providing  more  detailed  information  concerning  the  evaluation  of  added  value  of  macro-
regional  strategies.  It  collects  the  contributions  the  Commission  has  received  from  the  key 
stakeholders  of  the  EUSBSR  and  the  EUSDR,  independent  external  experts,  as  well  as  the  relevant 
academic and policy-development literature. 

More information on the Strategies can be found on the EUSBSR and the EUSDR websites:  
http://www.balticsea-region-strategy.eu/ 
http://www.danube-region.eu/  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chapter  1:  an  analysis  of  responses to  questionnaire  for  the  survey  on  the 
added value of macro-regional strategies 

Questionnaires in total: 
EUSBSR: 
EUSDR 

104 
52 
52 

Rationale  
Received the highest response rate in the both surveys 

1a) 
83%  of  respondents  agreed  or  strongly  agreed  that  objectives  of  the  EUSBSR/EUSDR  correctly 
addressed  the  main  challenges  faced  by  respective  region.  11  %  were  neutral  on  this  statement  and 
only 2% disagreed. 

When we examine the responses, we find that the EUSDR respondents are more in agreement than the 
EUSBSR respondents (3 percentage points difference).  

1b)  
60 % of respondents strongly agreed or agreed that the number of priority areas/horizontal actions was 
reasonable  in  macro-regional  strategies,  even  though  27%  were  neutral  and  14%  disagreed  or 
disagreed strongly. 

However,  taking  into  account  the  difference    of  13  percentage  points,  EUSDR  respondents  (70% 
agreed or agreed strongly) were more positive on this statement than the EUSBSR respondents (only 
48 % agreed or agreed strongly, while 21% disagreed or strongly disagreed.) 

1c)  
54  %  of  respondents  agreed  or  strongly  agreed  that  some  priority  areas  were  more  important  than 
others. However, 18 % disagreed or disagreed strongly and 27 % were neutral. 

We  find  after  examination  of  the  results  that  this  agreement  is  stronger  in  the  EUSBSR  case  (62% 
agreed or strongly agreed) than in the EUSDR (46% agreed or strongly agreed; 17 percentage points 
difference). 

1d) 
38%  of  respondents  disagreed  or  strongly  disagreed  with  the  statement  that  the  political  statements 
towards  the  macro  regional  strategies  in  participating  countries  were  high.  However,  a  nearly  equal 
30% agreed or agreed strongly and 32% were neutral. 

Given the difference of 33%, we find that the opinions of the respondents of the two existing strategies 
differ in that case. While 54% of the EUSDR respondents agreed or fully agreed with the statement, 
EUSBSR respondents are less positive (21% agreed or strongly agreed). 

The  EUSBRS  insider  respondents  were  43%  neutral,  while  38%  rather  disagreed  and  19%  rather  or 
strongly agreed. Of the status categories the PAC respondents represented the most negative response 
and the managing authorities of EU programmes represented the most positive. The EUSBRS outsider 
respondents were 46% neutral, 27% rather or strongly agreed and 27% rather or strongly disagreed. 
The  pan-regional  and  regional  organizations  represented  the  most  positive  response.  The  national 
institutions represented the most negative. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  EUSDR  insider  respondents  were  46%  rather  or  strongly  agreed,  22%  neutral  and  32%  rather 
disagreed. Of the status categories the NCP respondents represented the most positive response, while 
the PACs represented the most negatives response. The EUSDR outsider respondents were 77% rather 
or strongly agreed and of the majority were national institution respondents. 

1e)  
63%  of  respondents  agreed  or  strongly  agreed  that  if  implemented  effectively,  the  macro-regional 
strategies  were  contributing  to  social,  economic  and  territorial  cohesion.  28  %  were  neutral  on  this 
statement and 9% disagreed or disagreed strongly. 

When we examine the responses, we find that the EUSDR respondents are more in agreement than the 
EUSBSR respondents (9 percentage points difference).  

2. Governance 

2a) 
51%  of  respondents  agreed  or  strongly  agreed  that  the  internal  administrative,  technical  and 
institutional  organisations  in  all  participating  countries  were  still  not  effective  enough  to  implement 
the EUSBSR/EUSDR. However, 29% were neutral. 

The  EUSBSR  respondents  are  more  positive  than  the  EUSDR  respondents  (7  percentage  points 
difference). 

The EUSBRS insider respondents were 55% rather or strongly disagreed, 19% neutral and 26% rather 
agreed. Of the status categories the managing authorities on EU programmes respondents represented 
the  most  negative  response,  while  the  PACs  represented  the  most  positive.  The  EUSBRS  outsider 
respondents were 46% rather or strongly disagreed and 36% neutral. There are no outstanding groups 
in both response categories. 

The EUSDR insider respondents were 49% rather or strongly disagreed, 37% neutral, 14% rather or 
strongly agreed. Of the status categories the PAC respondents represented the most negative response, 
the NCPs the most positive. The EUSDR outsider respondents were 50% rather or strongly disagree, 
split  of  25%  for  neutral  and  rather  agree.  There  were  no  majority  status  groups  as  most  positive 
respondents; yet, the national institution respondents were most negative. 

2b) 
35% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed on the statement that the key stakeholders of the macro-
regional  strategy  (NCP,  PAC)  effectively  coordinated  their  activities  with  other  stakeholders. 
However, 16 % disagreed or disagreed strongly and 50 % were neutral. 

The  EUSBSR  respondents  are  less  positive  (23  %  of  the  disagreed  or  strongly  disagree  with  this 
statement)  than  the  EUSDR  respondents  (46%  agreed  or  strongly  agreed),  given  the  difference  of 
22percentages points. 

2c) 
31 % of the respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that the multilevel governance dimension was 
fully  taken  into  account  in  the  actions  and  decisions  taken  for  implementing  projects,  actions  or 
policies at Member States level/at project level.  

The stakeholders of the EUSBSR are less positive than the EUSDR (17 percentage points difference). 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
31%  of  the  respondents  disagreed  or  strongly  disagreed  that  there  is  clear  evidence  that  national, 
regional and EU governance systems have improved thanks to the EUSBSR/EUSDR. However, 26 % 
agreed or strongly agreed and 43% were neutral. 

The  EUSDR  respondents  are  less  positive  (44%  of  the  respondents  disagreed  or  strongly  disagreed 
with this statement) than the EUSBSR respondents (33% agreed or strongly agreed). 

3. Funding  
3a) 
50  %  of  the  respondents  disagreed  or  strongly  disagreed  with  the  statement  that  the  alignment  of 
national, regional and EU policies and funding with the objectives of the EUSBSR/EUSDR had been 
successfully achieved.  

When we examine the responses, we find that the EUBSR respondents were more in agreement than 
the EUDSR respondents (14 percentage points difference),  

3b) 
54.8%  of  the  respondents  agreed  or  strongly  agreed  that  technical  assistance  provided  by  European 
Commission facilitated the implementation of the EUSBSR/EUSDR. 36% though were neutral. 

The  EUSDR  respondents  (62%  agreed  or  strongly  agreed)  were  more  positive  than  the  EUDSR 
respondents (14% difference), among whom 48% agreed or strongly agreed. 

3c) 
46%  of  the  respondents  agreed  or  strongly  agreed  that  macro-regional  strategies  could  contribute  in 
mobilizing the existing funding, to use it in more efficient and coordinated manner.  

When we examine the responses, we find that the EUBSR respondents were more in agreement than 
the  EUDSR  respondents  (23  percentage  points  difference:  while  56%  of  the  EUSBSR  stakeholder 
agreed or strongly agreed, only 33% of the Danube respondents are of one of these opinions).  

3 d) 
According to 61% of the respondents (agreed or strongly agreed) there is a need for additional funding 
only for the project preparation stage and networking.  

This  is  especially  in  case  in  the  EUSDR:  while  79%  of  the  Danube  respondents  agreed  or  strongly 
agreed, 43% of the EUSBSR did so. This fact corresponds to a difference of 37 percentage points. 

4. Cooperation 

4a) 
37  %  of  the  respondents  disagreed  or  strongly  disagreed  that  at  the  absence  of  additional  money 
favoured  the  reinforcement  of  cooperation  among  partners  and  the  main  core  partners  (NCP,  PAC, 
HAL,  and  Commission).  However,  a  nearly  equal  33%  agreed  or  agreed  strongly  and  30%  were 
neutral. 

4b) 
64%  agreed  or  strongly  agreed  that  the  cooperation  mechanisms  had  improved  thanks  to  the 
EUSBSR/EUSDR. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4c) 
77%  of  the  respondents  agreed  or  strongly  agreed  that  the  implementation  of  the  EUSBSR/EUSDR 
strengthened  the  existing  cooperation  among  and  within  participating  countries,  in  particular  among 
ministries. 

4d) 
54%  of  the  respondents  agreed  or  strongly  agreed  that  the  cooperation  between  EU  Member  States 
with  neighbouring  non-EU  countries  expanded  and  improved  thanks  to  the  relevant  macro-regional 
strategy.  

However,  the  EUSDR  respondents  are  more  positive  than  the  EUSBSR  respondents,  taking  into 
account the difference of 37%. 79% among the Danube  respondents agreed or fully agreed with the 
statement.  In  comparison  to  that,  only  36%  of  the  Baltic  respondents  agreed  or  fully  agreed  (25% 
disagreement or strong disagreement). 

4e) 
27%  of  the  respondents  agreed  or  strongly  agreed  to  the  statement  that  cooperation  had  led  yet  a 
tangible effect on national policies such as those on environment, energy and etc. However, a nearly 
equal 28% agreed or agreed strongly and 44.9% were neutral. 

When  we  examine  the  responses,  we  find  that  the  EUDSR  respondents  are  less  positive  than  the 
EUDSR respondents (8 percentage points difference regarding disagreement)  

5. Policy orientations 
5a) 
60%  of  the  respondents  agreed  or  strongly  agreed  that  the  implementation  of  the  EUSBSR/EUSDR 
helped to move from a sectoral approach to a multi-sectoral, integrated one.  

EUSDR  respondents  are  more  positive  than  the  EUSBSR  respondents  (23  percentage  points 
difference). 

5b) 
50% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that many successful projects and actions would not 
be implemented if the EUSBSR/EUSDR would not have been endorsed. However, 24% disagreed or 
disagreed strongly and nearly equal 25% were neutral. 

EUSBSR  respondents  are  in  more  agreement  than  the  EUSDR  respondents  (24.2  percentage  points 
difference). 

5c) 
62% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the macro-regional strategy helped to mobilize 
the existing policies and create more synergies.  

EUSBSR  respondents  are  in  more  positive  than  the  EUSDR  respondents  (10    percentage  points 
difference). 

5d) 
20% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed to the statement that macro-regional strategies could 
lead changes in policy developments in several areas in respective country. However, 32% disagreed 
or disagreed strongly and 48% were neutral. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5e) 
Only 14% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed to the statement new policy developments had 
improved  the  situation  in  the  areas  concerned,  and  that  this  improvement  would  be  measurable  or 
could  be  described.  However,  30.2%  disagreed  or  disagreed  strongly  and  more  than  the  half,  that  is 
56%, were neutral. 

6. Next programming period 

6a) 
94%  of  the  respondents  agreed  or  strongly  agreed  to  the  statement  that  the  objectives  of  the  macro-
regional  strategy  must  be  firmly  embedded  in the  2014–2020  policy  framework  at  EU,  national  and 
regional level (high agreement among both groups: EUSBSR as well as EUSDR respondents). 

6b) 
88%  of  the  respondents  agreed  or  strongly  agreed  that  the  EUSBSR/EUSDR  core  partners  (NCP, 
PAC,  HAL)  should  be  consulted  in/associated  to  the  discussions  of  the  next  programmes  in  their 
respective countries (high agreement among both groups: EUSBSR as well as EUSDR respondents). 

The  EUSBRS  insider  respondents  were  89%  rather  or  strongly  agreed  and  the  EUSBRS  outsider 
respondents were 84% rather or strongly disagreed. 

The  EUSDR  insider  respondents  were  92%  rather  or  strongly  agreed  and  the  EUSDR  outsider 
respondents were 100% rather or strongly agreed. 

6c) 
75%  of  the  respondents  agreed  or  strongly  agreed  that  relevant,  actions  or  projects  of  the  macro-
regional  strategy  should  be  clearly  identified  in  the  draft  programmes  submitted  to  the  European 
Commission.  

EUSDR  respondents  are  more  positive  than  the  EUSBSR  respondents  (18  percentage  points 
difference). 

6d) 
64% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that that for each priority area/horizontal action, a 
cooperation platform (where PAC/HAL, programmes authorities, projects managers, NGOs, etc. can 
exchange) and a Steering Committee should be set up.  

EUSDR  respondents  are  more  positive  than  the  EUSBSR  respondents  (20  percentage  points 
difference). 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chapter 2: independent assessments of external experts 

2.1 Added value of macro regional strategies: a governance perspective  

by Kai Böhme (Spatial Foresight GmbH) 

08.03.2013 

Some selected key findings deriving from this paper  

(cid:131)  Too  young.  Macro  regional  strategies  are  still  rather  new  and  have  not  been  around  long  enough  to  allow  for  solid 

conclusions about their actual added value.  

(cid:131)  Transnationality.  Macro  regional  strategies  offer  a  new  governance  framework  for  approaching  development 

challenges and potentials, which cannot be solved by the states (independently from each other) and are too specific for 

the macro region to be approached at EU level. However, there is a risk that the focus on issues specific for a macro 

region is weakened by an increasing attention to more general policy priorities.  

(cid:131)  Multi-sector. Macro regional strategies offer a new governance framework for brining together various relevant sector 

policies to approach joint challenges or potentials. Bringing together resources (financial and non-financial) of relevant 

sectors can contribute to more efficiently approach development challenges and potentials. However, there is a risk that 

the focus is rather on contributions in terms of funding single projects that can be linked (vaguely) to the macro regional 

challenges or potentials.  

(cid:131)  Complexity.  The  governance  frameworks  set  up  for  macro  regional strategies  are  rather  complex  and  rely  on  a  wide 

range of stakeholders. The challenge is to keep all stakeholders committed and motivated in the long-run.  

(cid:131) 

Political  backing.  The  high  political  profile  and  backing  of  macro  regional  incl.  attention  at  Council  Level  is  an 

important asset with regard to their standing as a platform bringing together different policy sectors and levels. 

(cid:131)  Action. Various flagship projects have been linked to macro regional strategies. Whereas some exist independently from 

the  strategy,  others  show  that  stakeholders  develop  new  activities  inspired  by  macro  regional  strategies.  A  lot  of  the 

actual added value of macro regional strategies will be generated by their projects and their ability to stimulate projects 

which would not have come about otherwise.   

A governance perspective  
Macro regional strategies are integrated frameworks, which allow the EU and Member States to identify needs 
and  match  them  to  available  resources  through  coordination  of  appropriate  policies.  The  strategies  shall 
contribute  to  better  governance  of  large  territories  confronted  with  similar  problems.  The  basic  principle  of 
macro regional strategies is therefore to rationalise existing resources and use them more efficiently.  

The  general  objective  of  the  strategies  is  to  address  macro  regional  challenges.  The  specific  objective  is  to  develop  a 

framework for the individual challenges and address deficiencies in governance structures to ensure that a range of strategic 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
actions  to  deal  with  the  challenges  are  implemented  in  the  most  efficient,  effective  and  coherent  way.  (see  COM 

2009/REGIO/02) 

3 No’s as framework conditions. From the beginning, three No’s have been spelled out clearly (COM (2009) 
0248  final),  partly  to  avoid  the  risk  of  a  high-spending,  ineffective  and  ‘vast  contraption’  once  the  first 
enthusiasm over a new strategy has faded: 

  No  new  EU  legislation.  The  driving  moments  are  Action  Plans  which  also  underline  developments  and 
regular  updates  and  adaptations  to  new  developments.  No  additional  new  legislation  is  envisaged  for 
developing and implementing macro regional strategies.  

  No new EU funds. There is no own budget for macro-regional strategies. “Though this aspect maybe seen 
as  a  weakness,  it  seems  to  constitute  an  innovative  factor,  given  that  all  actors  are  stimulated  towards  a 
greater degree of coordination and synergies of the various financial resources available at different levels.” 
(Stocchiero 2010) The aim is to use existing funds more effectively and in a more coordinated way.  

  No additional EU formal structures. Instead of creating new institutions, the macro regional strategies are 

to be supported by a multi-level and multi-actor governance approach.   

These  three  No’s  are  however  not  uncontested,  and  there  are  even  proposals  for  a  ‘three  yeses  rule’:  more 
complementary  funding,  more  institutional  coordination  and  more  new  projects.  (European  Parliament, 
Committee on Regional Development 2011) 

Integrated  approach  as  potential.  The  added  value  of  the  macro  regional  strategies  is  often  seen  in  the 
integrated  approach,  i.e.  a  collective  action  that  strives  towards  a  common  objective,  providing  a  platform  for 
bringing together various actors, policies and financial resources. Consequently, the potential to mobilise a broad 
range of stakeholders and create a broad and shared ownership is a key strength of macro regional strategies.  

It  is  argued  that  macro  regional  strategies  offer  a  new  pragmatic  approach  to  finding  more  efficient  policy 
modalities  and  better  coordination  among  existing  institutions  and  resources.  Macro  regional  strategies  aim  at 
providing integrated governance approaches addressing a pressing issue of policy making in Europe: the need for 
better policy coordination in order to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of policy making.  

Potential  to  reduce  the  costs  of  non-coordination?  Robert  et.  al  (2001)  pointed  at  the  costs  of  non-
coordination of European policies. The question whether the integrated governance approach used for the macro 
regional  strategies  can  reduce  these  costs  would  need  to  be  subject  to  a  specific  study.  This  could  investigate 
whether the costs of non-coordination could be reduced and what are the costs of the coordination procedures 
introduced by macro regional studies.  

Macro  regional  strategies  often  are  considered  as  an  example  of  integrated  (territorial)  governance,  even 
advocating the idea of place based policy making. The governance structures for drafting and also implementing 
the  strategies  are  rather  complex  and  involve  a  wide  range  of  different  stakeholders.  The  review  of  existing 
documents  shows,  that  macro  regional  strategies  have  good  potentials  to  improve  policy  coordination  in  three 
different ways, i.e. transnational (coordination between countries), multi-sector (coordination between sectors), 
multi-level  (coordination  between  levels).  However,  there  are  also  a  number  of  obstacles,  which  suggest  that 
these potentials are not fully realised.  

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Transnational coordination  
Broaden geographical perspective of sector policies. Many development challenges and potentials cut across 
administrative  boundaries  and  call  therefore  for  joint  approaches.  There  is  an  increasing  demand  for  shared 
implementation mechanisms. Macro regional strategies stress the need to approach development challenges and 
potentials  in  a  wider  geographical  context,  as  appropriate  responses  require  joint  approaches  across  national 
boundaries. This line of thought can enrich European and national policy developments and there are indications 
that  the  strategies  function  as  ambassadors  and  manage  to  inspire  other  policy  developments  to  transnational 
approaches. A few examples are mentioned in the below textbox as well as in other textboxes throughout this 
paper.  

Examples: Strengthening transnational solutions   

The vision of the Clean Water project is to create a vital Baltic Sea Region Clean Water Cluster, a cooperation platform of 

different  clusters  for  interaction  of  all  triple  helix  sectors  in  the  BSR.  The  purpose  of  this  platform  is  to  develop  water 

protection  with  new  and  innovative  technologies,  products  and  services.  The  cluster  combines  competences  of  BSR 

countries’  innovation  milieus,  clusters  and  SME-networks  around  water  protection  (wastewater  treatment,  hazardous 

chemical  substitution),  to  bring  business  opportunities  and  boost  competitiveness  of  the  Baltic  Sea  Region.  (Source: 

http://www.bsrstars.se/project/clean-water/) 

“Develop  and improve  coordination and cooperation among  Member  States  and  stakeholders” on  fisheries  management in 

the Baltic Sea. A forum called Baltfish has been established to enhance collaboration among Baltic Sea Member States as a 

first  step  towards  further  regionalisation  of  fisheries  management.  The  forum  will  elaborate  with  relevant  Baltic  Sea 

organisations including the BS RAC and HELCOM how integration of concerned stakeholders in fisheries management and 

policy implementation can be strengthened and the forum be developed further in this regard. (Source: SEC(2009) 712/2) 

Dubois  et  al.  (2009)  go  even  one  step  further  and  suggest  that  macro  regional  strategies  may  help  avoiding 
cannibalistic competition between regions, and rather foster competition on the basis of complementarities. To 
what degree this happens is hard to tell at present.  

Despite  the  positive  examples,  one  needs  to  remember  that  transnational  and  cross-border  cooperation  is  not 
entirely new. Cooperation across national borders (not only in the meaning of Interreg) has been promoted for a 
long time in Europe and a range of institutions and platforms have been established during the past decades. In 
parts  these  sub-regional  cooperation  groups  do  also  facilitate  processes  of  European  integration.  In  that  sense 
macro regional strategies are nothing new, but rather offer a platform for improved cooperation between existing 
sub-regional groups or (as e.g. in the Alpine case) are perceived as giving new stimulus or momentum to existing 
cooperation areas.   

Contributing  to  working-level  links  with  Third  Countries.  With  regard  to  cross-border  coordination,  the 
integration of Third countries is of particular interest (at least for macro regions going beyond the EU). Macro 
regional strategies are a flexible framework complementing existing EU and national policies. With relation to 
Third  countries,  they  can  be  seen  as  a  tool  for  bridging  European  Neighbourhood  Policies  and  territorial 
development  policies.  The  involvement  of  non-EU  partners  in  macro  regional  strategies  may  facilitate  (a)  the 
collaboration  between  institutions  and  governments  in  and  outside  the  EU,  and  (b)  a  gradually  economic 
integration and make EU’s external borders less of an obstacle to the flow of goods, services, capital and persons 
within a macro-region. (see Dubois et al. 2009).  

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Examples: Cooperation with Third countries 

“Implement fully the EU – Russia Energy Efficiency Initiative”, particularly the annual work programmes of the Joint EU – 

Russia Thematic Group on Energy Efficiency of the EU – Russia Energy Dialogue, to be implemented jointly by the EU and 

Russian side. 

“Assessment of regional nutrient pollution load and identification of priority projects to reduce nutrient inputs from Belarus 

to the Baltic Sea”, in particular in the context of the Northern Dimension Environmental Partnership. The aim of this project 

is  to  reduce  the  nutrient  inputs  from  Belarus  to  the  Baltic  Sea  in  the  context  of  the  Northern  Dimension  Environmental 

Partnership, with particular consideration given to such key sectors and areas as agriculture, municipal waste water, industry, 

and  the  production  and  use  of  detergents  containing  phosphorus.  So  far,  the  terms  of  reference  for  an  assessment  and 

identification  study  have  been  developed  by  the  Central  Research  Institute  for  Complex  Use  of  Water  Resources,  the 

Ministry of the Environment, Finland, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and HELCOM, and 

agreed with the Belarusian Ministries of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection and the Ministry of Housing and 

Communal Services. (Source: SEC(2011) 1071 final) 

 “Monitor  implementation  of  the  priorities  of  the  EU-Russia  Strategic  Framework  for  Customs  Cooperation”  for  ensuring 

trade  facilitation  and  the  protection  of  citizens,  and  combating  fraud.  The  Strategic  Framework  is  based  on  three  broad 

priorities: a) Safe and fluid trade lanes; b) Risk management and fight against fraud; c) Investment in customs modernisation. 

(Source: SEC(2009) 712/2) 

At the same time, the Baltic Sea Strategy has been developed with focus on internal dynamics of EU integration 
and only little attention has been paid to external relations. Although Russia is an important player for various 
development  in  the  Baltic  Sea  Region  it  is  not  part  of  the  Strategy.  The  involvement  of  Russia  runs  via  the 
involvement of Russian partners in flagship projects and existing frameworks such as the Northern Dimension. 
This imbalanced involvement of EU and non-EU Member State may weaken the Baltic Sea Strategy (see Dühr 
2009 and Borg 2009). The situation is somewhat different in the case of the Danube Strategy. Also here non EU 
Member States are not part of the strategy, but play a larger role in the implementation activities, e.g. as priority 
coordinators and by involving funding sources targeting non-EU areas, e.g. WBIF1 and ENPI CBC2.  

Overall, macro regional strategies seem to increase the transnational dimension in various policy sectors. They 
contribute  to  a  better  integration  of  countries  covered  by  a  macro  region  as  well  as  on  developing  joint 
approaches which are more efficient than approaches taken by single countries independently.  

With  regard  to  the  involvement  of  Third  countries,  there  are  a  series  of  flagship  projects  that  address  Third 
countries.  The  exact  success  is  however  hard  to  tell  from  available  information.  In  any  case,  approaches  to 
integrating  Third  countries  in  the  work  on  macro  regional  strategies  need  to  be  detached  from  sensitive 
diplomatic issues. 

Cross-sector coordination  
Platform for stakeholders from different EU and national policy sectors. Macro regional strategies aim at 
bringing together a wide range of different policy sectors and underline the necessity that different policy sectors 
need to cooperate in order to firstly define the most pressing issues for a macro region and thereafter develop and 
implement a suitable strategy. In that sense macro regional strategies are a valuable platform.  

1

2

 Western Balkan Investment Framework 

 European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument Cross-Border Cooperation Programmes 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
To a certain degree this approach has been successful as it has brought new stakeholders to the table and made 
them thinking about the development of the macro region outside their usual institutional context. Indeed, both at 
EU level and in some Member States, the elaboration of the macro-regional strategies implied major efforts of 
bringing together representatives from a wide range of different policy sectors. For the Baltic Sea Strategy, DG 
Regio  coordinated  the  input  of  about  20  other  DGs  just  at  EU  level,  let  alone  the  wide  range  of  national 
ministries involved in various consultations. 

However, it would be naïve to believe that this goes without any conflicts between different policy sectors and 
their ambitions to be the integrating or coordinating body. Borg (2009) points at the challenge of how to achieve 
more efficient cooperation in the case of overlapping policy agendas. One example from the Baltic Sea Strategy 
is the Integrated Maritime Policy, which – similar to macro regional strategies – aims at a better coordination of 
different policy areas, albeit with focus on a more coherent approach to maritime issues. Another example from 
the  Danube  Strategy  concerns  the  work  towards  a  more  integrated  approach  to  the  Danube  river  taking  into 
account both the Danube as transport axis and the environmental concerns related to the Danube river.  

Overall, the multi-facetted policy platform provided by macro regional strategies facilitates dialogue and mutual 
influence  between  different  policy  sector  policies.  In  the  ideal  case  this  may  even  go  beyond  their  respective 
contribution to the development and implementation of a strategy and even result in mutual learning or dialogue 
with regard to other policy developments.  

Next  to  the  wide  governance  arrangements  used  to  develop  and  implement  macro  regional  strategies,  also  the 
non-existence of specific  funds  may  play  a  crucial  role for keeping different  sectors on  board and  in dialogue 
with each other in order to continuously work on the implementation of the strategies.  

Macro  regional  projects  funded  by  a  large  number  of  sector  instruments.  Macro  regional  strategies  have 
been successful in bringing on board other sector policies. This been illustrated e.g. with regard to the funding 
sources  used  financing  flagship  projects  of  the  strategies.  The  Action  Plans  provide  examples  of  different 
financing sources that are used, and illustrates the potential of the strategies to contribute to a better coordination 
and  alignment  of  funding.  Next  to  ERDF3  programmes  a  wide  range  of  other  funding  sources  from  other 
European  sector  policies  as  well  as  non  EU  sources  contribute  to  funding  flagship  projects  of  macro  regional 
strategies, e.g. ESF4, CPFI5, EIB6 & EIF7, TEN-T8, JRC9, FP710 as well as national, regional and Nordic sources 
fund projects. The below box provides some examples on project funded via schemes from different EU sector 
policies.  This  shows  that  a  wide  range  of different  EU  sector  policies  contribute  with  their  respective  funding 
instruments to implementing the macro regional strategy. 

At  the  same  time,  experience  form  the  Baltic  Sea  Strategy  also  shows  that  the  contribution  of  the  different 
financing sources differs widely. SWECO (2011) underlines, that there is a concentration to a few of over 100 
(theoretically) available funding opportunities: “The five most mentioned sources of funding were the following, 
starting  with  the  most  mentioned;  Baltic  Sea  Region  Programme,  South  Baltic  Programme,  TEN-T  (different 
schemes), Central Baltic Programme, Nordic Council of Ministers (different schemes).“ (SWECO 2011, p. 12).  

3 European Regional Development Funds  
4 European Social Funds 
5 Civil Protection Framework Programme  
6 European Investment Bank  
7 European Investment Fund  
8 Trans-European Transport Networks  
9 Joint Research Centre  
10 Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development  

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Examples: Sector policies strengthening macro regional approach   

ESF.  The  Managing  Authority  for  the  European  Social  Fund  (ESF)  in  Sweden,  will  the  coming  years  strengthen  the 

transnational  cooperation  between  projects  funded  by  the  ESF  in  the  Member  States.  A  particular  focus  will  be  on  the 

cooperation between projects and stakeholders in the Member States in the Baltic Sea Region. The Baltic Sea Network ESF 

project will serve that purpose, for Sweden as well as for the other Member States concerned. The intention is also to analyse 

the relation and linkage between the ESF and the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR). Subsequently actions 

will  be  taken  to  encourage  projects  to  be  better  prepared  to  support  the  implementation  of  the  social  dimension  in  the 

EUSBSR. A network of the Managing Authorities for the ESF between the Member States concerned  – Sweden, Finland, 

Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Germany -  has been consolidated and a number of joint activities will be carried out: 

conferences,  partner  search  forums  and  learning  seminars  in  Sweden  as  well  as  in  the  other  Member  States.  (Source: 

http://www.inclusiveeurope.se)  

CPFI. The project 14.3 is financed with support from the European Commission through the EU Civil Protection Financial 

Instrument. The project aims to develop scenarios and identify gaps for all main hazards and the potential of such hazards in 

the  Baltic  Sea  Region,  in  order  to  anticipate  disasters,  thus  enabling  a  rapid  and  effective  EU  response  through  the 

Community  Civil  Protection  Mechanism.  The  work  will  reinforce  disaster  prevention  and  response  capacity  as  well  as 

coherence and coordination between different institutions. (Source: http://www.14point3.eu) 

TEN-T.  The  flagship  project  conducted  a  feasibility  study  on  LNG  infrastructure  for  short  sea  shipping  was  financed  via 

TEN-T. The purpose of the project was to develop recommendations for how to establish an infrastructure facilitating the use 

of  LNG  as  a  ships’  fuel.  However,  other  important  areas  have  also  been  identified.  The  project’s  recommendations 

concentrate  on  five  main  areas:  Bunkering  of  ships  with  LNG,  Economic  and  financial  conditions,  Safety,  Technical  and 

operational conditions and finally Permits for an infrastructure ashore. (Source: SEC (2009) 712/2 – status February 2013). 

JRC.  The  Joint  Research  Centre  has  launched  an  initiative  to  provide  scientific  support  to  the  Danube  Strategy,  in 

cooperation  with  key  partners  from  the  Region.  Work  has  already  started  on  the  setting-up  of  Danube-wide  reference 

scientific data sets, which will allow policy makers and other stakeholders to access comparable and harmonised data on 

common challenges, such as water and soil quality, or landscapes. 

FP7.  The  7th  Framework  Programme  for  Research,  has  launched  three  calls  specifically  addressing  Danube  Region 

challenges. 

Regional Example. The state of Baden Württemberg has set aside funds to support the implementation of the EU Strategy 

for  the  Danube  Region,  with  a  special  focus  on  providing  support  for  the  initial  phase  of  projects  with  an  explicit  macro-

regional impact. 

Whereas the strategies as such are multi-sectoral the implement projects usually focus on a specific issue within 
a  specific  policy  sector  in  order  to  make  progress  on  concrete  implementation  tasks.  To  what  degree  single 
projects influence other sectors than their own is hard to tell. In that sense one may conclude that although the 
strategies set out to integrate different (sector) processes, their orientation (in terms of projects) tends to remain 
rather  sectoral.  More  attention  could  be  paid  to  sector-integrating  or  cross-cutting  tools  and  instruments. 
Nevertheless, going beyond single projects, macro regional strategies provide a platform where resources from 
different sectors are used to achieve common macro regional objectives. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Multi-level coordination  
European and national level key players. Macro regional strategies aim also at bringing together stakeholders 
from different policies levels. The work with macro regional strategies relies on the capacity to bring together 
different  policy  levels  and  funds  from  different  policy  levels  in  a  transnational  approach.  When  it  comes  to 
strategy development, mainly the European level and the Member States are involved. Overall, closer and better 
coordinated  action  at  various  levels  of  governance  is  seen  as  a  positive  step  towards  further  deepening  of  EU 
integration process. (see Katsarova 2009, and Cugusi & Stocchiero 2010).  

“Bottom-up”  development  of  priorities.  One  important  aspect  of  the  multi-level  coordination  is  the 
development  of  thematic  orientations  of  a  macro  regional  strategy.  Macro  regional  strategies  focus  on  themes 
identified in a “bottom-up” process, were various consultations process and in particular national representatives 
play an important role. The basic idea is that, macro regional strategies work on themes which are perceived as 
common and important to the participating countries. 

The “bottom-up” approach may generate thematic orientations which are not (as highly ranked) on European or 
national policy agendas, but which address actual challenges of the region. It might even offer opportunities to 
become more concrete and address pressing issues (incl. conflicts of interest) which in EU-wide strategies might 
be covered by rhetoric because of the diversity of the EU. (see Böhme & Zillmer 2010)  

Regional and local level important implementers. There is a certain criticism that the local and regional level 
is  not  sufficiently  taken  on  board  when  it  comes  to  the  development  of  the  strategies.  At  the  same  time 
stakeholders from the local and regional level can play a substantial role when it comes to the implementation of 
the  strategies,  although  not  all  are  interested.  On  the  one  hand  regional  stakeholders  are  e.g.  involved  in  the 
implementation  structures  of  macro  regional  strategies,  e.g.  by  taking  on  responsibilities  as  priority  area 
coordinators.  On  the  other  hand,  a  regional  stakeholders  are  involved  in  concrete  projects.  A  wide  range  of 
projects  bridges  local  or  regional  action/responses  with  national  policies  in  the  countries  involved  and 
development challenges or potentials at macro-regional level or even EU wide policy approaches.  

Facilitating  the  implementation  of  EU  policies.  Macro  regional  strategies  comprise  among  others  flagship 
projects with a focus on improving or furthering the implementation of EU policies in the countries or regions 
covered by the strategy. There are e.g. projects linked to the EU chemicals regulation REACH (1907/2006/EC), 
European Transport Networks (TEN-T), the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Marine Strategy 
Framework Directive (2008/56/EG), as well as to the agreements within the Helsinki Convention on the Baltic 
Sea Action Plan (BSAP).  

Informing European, national and regional policy processes. A wide range of projects also aim at providing 
new evidence relevant for improving policy making at various levels of decision making. Examples can be found 
with regard to many different policy fields and the envisaged actions roughly be grouped in three categories (a) 
providing new  information  through  studies  or  monitoring  exercise,  (b)  informing  relevant  stakeholder,  and (c) 
setting up transnational networks for increasing information flows and efficiency by sharing resources.   

Examples: Implementing and improving EU policies  

The project “Reduce the Use of the Substances of Very High Concern in the Baltic Sea Region” aims at including substances 

relevant for the environment in the Baltic Sea region, such as the recommendations made through the Baltic Sea Action Plan 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(BSAP), to the REACH candidate list. Selected substances will be assessed to see whether they fulfil the REACH criteria of 

SVHCs. If that is the case, the substances will be incorporated into an extended SIN-list and work for their later inclusion in 

the candidate list will be carried out. (Source: http://www.balticsea-region-strategy.eu) 

The  project  “Implementing  European  space  for  maritime  transport  without  barriers  in  the  Baltic  Sea  Region”  addresses 

several  legislative  measures,  including  a  proposal  aimed  at  simplifying  administrative  formalities  based  on  Community 

regulations  and  recommendations  to  the  Member  States  for  reducing  the  administrative  burden  imposed  on  shipping 

companies. (Source: SEC(2009) 712/2) 

The project “Complement the agreed priority transport infrastructure” addresses a number of TEN-T priority projects in the 

Baltic Sea Region. To the target group to be addressed by the project belong national long-term infrastructures planners in the 

Baltic  Sea  region,  national,  regional  and  local  politicians,  governments  and  governmental  agencies,  public  and  private 

stakeholders  in  the  transport  sector  and  transport  networks  in  the  Baltic  Sea  Region  (Sources:  SEC(2009)  712/2  and 

http://www.baltictransportoutlook.eu)  

Overall,  macro  regional  strategies  strengthen  multi-level  coordination  in  different  ways.  When  it  comes  to 
strategy  development  a  key  aspect  is  the  interaction  between  the  European  and  national  level  and  potential  to 
identify genuine priority areas that require transnational cooperation but are not suitable for EU-wide policies. 
Looking at single project, there is a large variety of specific project activities focusing on multi-level aspects of 
policy  design  and  implementation  in  different  policy  areas.  At  this  stage  also  the  regional  and  local  level  is 
included.   

Specific & focused or broad & inclusive?  
There are a number of aspects which may hamper a clearer added value of macro regional strategies. Overall, 
macro regional strategies have a tendency to focus very broadly at a better coordination between sectors, levels 
and  across  countries.  This  integrated  approach  to  providing  a  new  governance  platform  for  better  policy 
coordination comes at a cost: complexity.  

Complex structures and risks of fading ownership. Given the broad nature of the strategies and the absence of 
single  institutions  for  their  implementation,  they  develop  rather  complex  implementation  mechanisms.  These 
rely on a wide range of organisations that take over responsibilities and carry through coordination tasks. The 
multiplicity of actors brings the risk that a strategy could lose (a) focus and (b) the ownership and responsibility 
felt  by  the  single  stakeholders.  If  the  feeling  of  ownership  and  subsequently  commitment  and  responsibility 
towards the strategy declines, the entire strategy is weakened. This leads ultimately to the question whether the 
complexity  needed  for  the  elaboration  and  in  particular  for  the  implementation  of  the  strategies  is  too  high  to 
actually being able to make use of the manifold potentials for better coordination offered by them. 

Potential stronger links between macro regional strategies and ETC or EGTC 

Both cases are rather risky. Many involved stakeholders may see them as opportunities to be freed from their responsibility 

and  obligations  to  contribute  to  the  (implementation  of)  macro  regional  strategies.  Consequently  macro  regional  strategies 

would  be  downgraded  to  the  level  of  the  spatial  strategies  which  where  elaborated  as  guiding  documents  of  transnational 

cooperation 10 to 15 years ago. (see also Zilmer et al. 2012)  

“Interreg  solution”.  The  transnational  dimension  of  macro  regional  strategies  implies  that  transnational  cooperation 

programmes often are seen as the most natural funding opportunity. Such a development risks, that many other funding actors 

will reduce (their partially already low) engagement / contribution to implementing macro regional strategies and leave it all 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
for transnational cooperation programmes. This in turn will weaken the cross-sector coordination dimension of the strategies 

as the implementation will be dominated by the Interreg Community. Furthermore, territorial cooperation programmes might 

not be financially strong enough to support all kinds of activities (e.g. infrastructure investments) needed to achieve the aims 

of the strategies, nor is it guaranteed that all themes of the macro regional strategies are eligible for territorial cooperation. 

Instead of giving the impression that transnational programmes will be the main implementer of macro regional strategies, 

efforts are needed to increase the ownership and contribution of other sectors and their funding sources (incl. other Structural 

Funds programmes). (see also Zillmer et al. 2012) 

“EGTC solution”. The idea to set up an EGTC for implementing a macro regional strategy has been aired in some informal 

discussions. Indeed, it may have the charm that there would be finally a clear responsible for driving the processes and could 

possibly keep the momentum in the implementation. However, this would be a clear deviation from the announced “No” to 

new institutions. Furthermore, it would bring about multiple questions as concerns the financing of such an EGTC, as well as 

the membership and its implications for the broad governance approach on which the strategies are currently based.  

There  are  signs  that  the  commitment  is  not  always  as  high  as  might  be  desirable  or  needed.  SWECO  (2011) 
points  for  the  Baltic  Sea  case  towards  the  need  for  increased  support  and  commitment  by  the  Member  States 
including a strengthening of their National Contact Points and the Priority Area Coordinator. Along a similar line 
stakeholders involved in the Danube case point out that they need further political support from  the European 
Commission to activate relevant national or regional stakeholders (see e.g. Summary of the 3rhd meeting of the 
EUSDR  Contact  Points  and  Area  Coordinators,  or  EUSDR  Report  June  2012  Priority  Area  10  Institutional 
capacity and cooperation). 

High-level political backing. In comparison to other policy fields, macro regional strategies can refer to a strong 
political  backing.  They  are  not  just  agreed  and  dealt  with  at  informal  ministerial  meetings,  or  meetings  of 
transnational  monitoring  and  steering  committees.  They  do  have  the  attention  and  backing  at  the  level  of  the 
European General Affairs Council. This is an important asset with regard to their standing as a platform bringing 
together different policy sectors and levels. What ever is to be done in future, it should be ensured that this high-
level political backing remains and is not downgraded.  

Between unique focus and collecting pond. There is a constant criticism that the strategies are thematically too 
broad and not focused enough. Whereas a broad thematic approach is seen as an advantage with regard to the 
possibility  to  involve  a  wide  range  of  different  sectors,  it  may  also  be  a  hinder  when  it  comes  to  actually 
developing  into  a  powerful  tool.  As  outlined  above,  one  strength  of  the  strategies  is  seen  in  the  fact  that  they 
manage to point towards real development challenges (which require joint action) in the respective geographical 
area. At the same time there are also expectations that these strategies reflect better the Europe 2020 aims and 
targets and cover most aspects which are perceived as policy relevant. The question is to what degree this suits a 
clear focus of the strategies on specific needs of the region.    

Overall, the governance approach used for macro regional strategies focuses on a broad involvement. This comes 
with a number of challenges and not all of them seem to be solved at present. However, a quick fix and simple 
solution  to  solving  these  governance  challenges  risks  to  become  the  beginning  of  the  end  of  macro  regional 
strategies.  

Conclusions  
The task of this paper was to provide input to a discussion on the added value of macro regional strategies from a 
governance perspective. The following will shortly summarise some key points. 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Main  achievements.  Macro  regional  strategies  have  the  potential  to  contribute  to  improved  coordination 
between different policy sectors and policy levels and they also do allow for increasing the efficiency of policy 
implementation by strengthening transnational solutions.  

Whereas  macro  regional  strategies  have  potential  at  the  level  of  the  strategy  itself  the  main  contributions  are 
made at project level. As the strategies are still rather young it is too early for counter factual assessments. At 
present  it  is  difficult  to  tell  to  what  degree  various  projects  would  have  been  implemented  even  without  the 
existence of macro regional strategies.  

Dubois  et  al.  2009  argue  even  that  macro  regional  strategies  may  also  be  used  to  accelerate  the  ‘catching  up’ 
phase between the “new” and “old” Member States. 

To  further  strengthen  the  role  of  macro  regional  strategies,  it  is  necessary  to  continue  encouraging  all  EU 
funding sources in their geographical areas to contribute to them. Otherwise, there is a risk that it will be mainly 
EU Cohesion Policy and in particular territorial cooperation programmes that take the strategies on board. This 
would certainly weaken the potential to contribute to a better coordination of different policy sectors.   

Influence on EU and national policy development. Macro regional strategies have a potential to influence both 
EU and national policies. EU policies could be influenced e.g. by the macro regional themes which are identified 
bottom-up and therefore could also inform EU policy making with fresh ideas. At the same time various flagship 
projects  of  the  strategies  focus  on  EU  policies  and  on  informing  policy  design  or  improving  policy 
implementation.  

As  for  national  policies  it  seems  the  main  power  of  influence  comes  with  the  various  flagship  projects  which 
inform and improve policy development and implementation in the countries and regions involved. This is done 
using  different  types  of  funding.  Furthermore,  the  strategies  encourage  stakeholders  in  sector  policies  which 
usually operate at national or regional scale to consider a transnational approach and investigate whether there 
are efficiency gains by cooperating transnationally (see examples in textbox).  

Examples: Influencing national policy making 

The MIMIC project has comprehensive, holistic approach to risks related to maritime oil transportation in the Baltic Sea. The 

final task of this project will be carried out in order to consider, how the scientific findings of the other WP’s and tasks could 

be  implemented,  in  practise,  in  the  society.  Possible  new  elements  to  legislation  or  international  agreements  are 

recommended. Also the potential improvements of both safety and security related monitoring systems (hard data, interviews, 

etc.) are suggested. In practice, a comprehensive seminar for all managing organisations will be held during the project. In 

addition, workshops will be organised: possible improvements to risk communication will be discussed between managers. 

The risk model will also be discussed in a workshop with the related actors (e.g. universities, Finnish Environment Institute, 

Ministry  of  the  Environment,  Ministry  of  Transport  and  Communications,  and  maritime  safety  authorities).  (Source: 

http://www.merikotka.fi) 

BRISK,  a  flagship  project  under  Priority  Area  Major  Emergencies  and  co-financed  by  the  Baltic  Sea  Region  programme, 

made  headlines  in  both  leading  newspapers  and  TV  news  programs  in  Denmark  in  late  September.  The  project  findings 

addressed the lack of response capacity in case of, for instance, oil spills in the Baltic Sea. In this respect, the Danish Defense 

Minister Nick Hækkerup has promised that this topic gets top priority in discussions on the future Danish defense. (Source: 

EUBSR News November 2012)  

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Coordination  between  different  actors.  Macro  regional  strategies  stress  and  support  increased  cooperation 
between  different  stakeholders  in  order  to  increase  the  efficiency  of  public  policy  making.  In  some  cases  this 
makes use of existing cooperation patterns and ways, and in others new cooperation patterns emerge. Again, the 
strategies are too young to engage in a counterfactual debate allowing to pinpoint details.  

With regard to Third countries, macro regional strategies offer platforms for increasing cooperation and reducing 
barriers at working level.  

Improving governance structures. Given the high complexity it also appears that the governance approach for 
macro  regional  strategies  does  not  necessarily  serve  as  role  model  for  integrated  policy  making.  At  the  same 
time,  macro  regional  strategies  are  a  first  step  to  improving  the  coordination  of  policy  development  and 
implementation  and  may  in  the  long-run  also  contribute  to  developing  improved  governance  structures  going 
beyond single projects.  

There  are  a  range  of  projects  that  for  concrete  purposes  and  tasks  work  on  establishing  joint  solution  across 
countries (and sometimes even across sectors). Some of them may result in stable new governance structures.  

Main drivers. At the level of the strategy the main driver – next to the need to collaborate at macro-regional 
level in order to solve certain challenges – seems the enthusiasm for something new, at least in the beginning. In 
the long-run however, it appears that the main drivers are the European Commission and a few stakeholders in 
some Member States. There is a risk that the interest and engagement of many national and regional stakeholders 
declines over time.  

The projects create added value driven by single project partners. At large, three different types of projects can 
be identified (a) strategic policy development projects with rather broad and intangible impacts, (b) explorative 
pilot projects often focusing on developing and testing new approaches and tools, and (c) policy implementation 
projects e.g. focusing no how EU policies can be better implemented in EU Member States.  

Overall, challenges that only can be solved jointly at macro regional level are the key driver. 

Recommendations 
Contributing to EU2020 objectives as part of the hierarchy of policies 

Following  the  above,  macro  regional  strategies  can  work  as  a  catalyst  for  improving  the  implementation  of 
European policies, directives and regulations in an area. This can certainly also be true with regard to the Europe 
2020 Strategy.  

However, at the same time the text argues for a stronger focus of macro regional strategies towards issues that 
require cooperation at macro regional level, as they cannot be solved by each Member State individually and are 
too specific to be solved by a EU-wide approach. Putting too much emphasis on macro regional strategies as an 
instrument for achieving the Europe 2020 objectives might contradict the need for a stronger focus.  

Building blocks in reaching European objectives 

Macro  regional  strategies  can  fill  a  vacuum  between  the  Member  State  level  and  the  European  level  which  is 
perceived by some people as the EU has grown large and distant with its soon 28 Member States.  

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
There are various different ways in which macro regional strategies can function as building blocks in reaching 
European objectives: 

-  Macro  regional  strategies  can  be  important  platforms  for  solving  challenges  and  utilising  developing 

potentials more effectively than could be done individually by each Member State or at EU level.  

-  Macro  regional  strategies  can  function  for  increasing  European  integration,  by  increasing  the  number  of 
stakeholders  and  policy  sectors  that  work  at  a  geographically  wider  scale  than  their  usual  national  ore 
regional level. 

-  Macro  regional  strategies  can  also  facilitate  the  implementation  of  European  policies,  directives  and 

regulations in the Member States.   

Levels of intensity in macro regional cooperation  

The overall question is whether different levels of intensity in macro regional cooperation are a problem, or not. 
Given the broad and inclusive character of macro regional strategies and their implementation work there will 
always be variations as concerns intensity and commitment.  

This becomes problematic if the intensity and commitment for important parts of a strategy decline to a degree 
that  the  implementation  is  at  risk.  To  minimize  this  risk,  a  stronger  leadership  and/or  a  stronger  focus  of  the 
strategies may help. A stronger leadership can help to keep a minimum of intensity and commitment for all parts 
of a strategy, while a stronger focus may help to reduce the complexity of the implementation mechanisms (as 
less it might require the involvement of fewer stakeholders).  

Leadership question and improving resilience  

To  increase  leadership  and  reduce  the  fragility  of  the  currently  complex  implementation  structures  of  macro 
regional strategies, two different options can be imagined: 

-  Parametric  Governance  Power.  Keeping  the  wide  range  of  themes  and  stakeholders  involved  it  seems 
necessary to point out one “coordinating organisation” which gets a clear mandate to push stakeholders that 
have taken over responsibilities where necessary. To do this a clear and simple monitoring system would be 
needed at two levels: 

o  Priority area level. For all priority areas targets and related indicators need to be developed into 
realistic  and  easily  measurable  targets  (e.g.  comparable  to  the  Europe  2020  headline  targets  or 
ERDF  programme  indicators).  The  indicators  presently  used  are  only  partially  suitable  as  clear 
measures on what progress has been made. The development with regard to these targets needs to 
be monitored on annual basis and the results need to be presented to the general public in an easily 
understandable and communicative way.  

o  Stakeholder level. To strengthen the leadership and individual responsibility of every stakeholder 
involved,  there  should  be  clear  and  measurable  targets  what  each  stakeholder  should  achieve  in 
each reporting period (e.g. year). These targets have to be agreed upon with the stakeholders and 
should be developed based on each stakeholder’s specific role in the implementation process (see 
e.g. document such as one on rules and responsibilities developed for the Baltic Sea Strategy).  

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
For  both  monitoring  levels,  the  “coordinating  organisation”  should  regularly  collect  information  on  the 
progress  made  to  achieving  the  set  targets,  and  remind  or  encourage  stakeholders  to  work  towards  their 
targets.  By  regularly  publishing  the  progress  made  on  the  website  and  pin  pointing  who  has  made  good 
progress  and  who  not  (naming,  shaming  and  blaming),  there  would  be  a  certain  pressure  /  incentive  for 
everybody  to  try  to  work  towards  their  targets.  One  may  even  consider  particular  actions  /penalties  for 
stakeholders  who  have  not  achieved  their  targets.  This  approach  would  follow  the  idea  of  parametric 
governance or the open method of coordination.  

-  Exclusivity Driver. Alternatively, one might consider to reduce the number of stakeholders included in the 
implementation, and make it a rather exclusive club. The rationale behind this would be that if it is difficult 
and  exclusive  (honourable)  to  become  part  of  the  club  of  stakeholders  directly  working  with  the 
implementation, this might motivate as well as ensure commitment and efforts in the long-run.  

Recommendations for future work  

Overall, there are three main recommendations for future work that can arrive from the above: 

-  Focus. As mentioned several times, it might be wise to focus the strategies towards issues where there is a 
genuine  need  or  added  value  to  cooperation  at  macro  regional  level  (instead  of  any  other  level).  If  it  is 
necessary for political reasons to also include other, broader policy fields, efforts should be undertaken to 
identify within these policy fields particular actions with a clear macro regional rationale.  

-  Coordination & monitoring. Given the complex implementation mechanisms, it might be wise to appoint 
for  each  strategy  one  stakeholder  with  a  stronger  coordination  and  monitoring  responsibility  and  the 
necessary  resources,  i.e.  a  “coordination  organisation”.  The  monitoring  should  also  involve  the  activities 
carried  out  by  the  various  stakeholders,  and  the  “coordinating  organisation”  need  to  have  the  standing  to 
publicly present which stakeholders have achieved a lot and which did not.  

-  Political backing. The high political profile and backing of macro regional incl. attention at Council Level 
is  an  important  asset  with  regard  to  their  standing  as  a platform  bringing  together different  policy  sectors 
and levels. The high level political backing should be maintained.  

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Literature 
Bengtsson, R. (2009) An EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region: Good Intentions Meet Comples Challenges. In: European 

Policy Analysis Issue 9-2009.  

Böhme,  K.  &  S.  Zillmer  (2010)  Die  Territoriale  Agenda  der  EU  und  ihr  Aktionsprogramm:  zwischen  europäischen 

Obstkörben und Papiertigern. In: Informationen zur Raumentwicklung 2010 (8). 

COM  (2009)  Commission  Staff  Working  Document.  Accompanying  Document  to  the  Proposal  for  a  EU  Strategy  for  the 

Baltic Sea Region. Draft Impact Assessment Report. 2009/REGIO/002. 

COM (2010) Commission Staff Working Document concerning the European Union Strategy for the Danube Region Impact 

Assessment Report. SEC(2010) XXX 

COM (2010) Commission Staff Working Paper. Action Plan. European Union Strategy for the Danube Region. SEC(2010) 

1489 final.  

COM  (2011)  Commission  Staff  Working  Paper  on  the  implementation  of  the  European  Union  Strategy  for  the  Baltic  Sea 

Region. SEC(2011) 1071 final.  

COM  (2011)  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social 

Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Implementation of the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUBSR).  

COM(2011) 381 final.  

COM  (2013)  Commission  Staff  Working  Paper  concerning  the  European  Union  Strategy  for  the  Baltic  Sea  Region. 

SEC(2009) 712/2. Version of February 2013.  

Deabaltica  (2012)  Expertise  on information  and  communication  issues  for  the European  Union Strategy  for  the Baltic  Sea 

Region (EUSBSR).  

Dubois, A., S. Hedin, P. Schmitt  & J. Sterling (2009) EU macro-regions and macro-regional strategies – A scoping study. 

Nodregio electronic Working Paper 2009:4. 

Dühr,  S.  (2011)  Baltic  Sea,  Danube  and  Macro-Regional  Strategies:  A  Model  for  Transnational  Cooperation  in  the  EU? 

Notre Europe.  

European  Parliament,  Committee  on  Regional  Development  (2011)  Working  Document  on  the  evolution  of  EU 

macro‐regional  strategies:  present  practice  and  future  prospects,  especially  in  the  Mediterranean  Committee  on  Regional 

Development, Rapporteur: François Alfonsi, 21 October 2011. 

EUSBR (2013) Roles and responsibilities of the implementing stakeholders of the EUSBSR and a flagship project concept. 

Working document.  

Gløersen,  E.,  T.  Bausch,  H.  Hurel,  W.  Pfefferkorn,  F.  del  Fiore,  C.  Ratti,  A.  Zavodnik‐Lamovšek  (2012) 

Strategy‐development for the Alpine Space Second Draft Report. 

Grömar,  W.  (2010)  Makroregionale  Strategien:  eine  neue  Dimnesion  europäischer  Zusammenarbeit.  In:  Informationen  zur 

Raumentwicklung 2010 (8).  

Katsarova,  I.  (2012)  EU  macro-regional  strategies:  state  of  play.  Library  Briefing.  Library  of  the  European  Parliament 

(120265REV1). 

Metis (2012) Analysis of needs for financial instruments in the EU Strategy for the Danube Region (EUSDR).  

Robert, J., T. Stumm, J.M. de Vet, C.J. Reincke, M. Hollanders & M.A. Figueiredo (2001) Spatial Impacts of Community 

Policies and Costs of Non-Coordination. Study carried out at the request of DG Regio.  

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Samecki,  Pawel  (2009)  Macro‐regional  strategies  in  the  European  Union,  Discussion  Paper  presented  by  Commissioner 

Pawel Samecki in Stokholm on 18 September 2009. 

Schneidewind, P., H. Hildegard & L. Wortmann (2010) Alpine Space Programme Impact Assessment, Final Report to the 

Alpine Space Programme. 

Schymik,  C.  (2011)  Modellversuch  Makroregion:  Die  EU  Strategien  für  den  Ostsee‐  und  Donauraum.  SWP  Studie  S1. 

Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik. Deutsches Institut für Internationale Politik und Sicherheit. Berlin. 

Schymik, C. & P. Krumrey (2009) EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region: Core Europe in the Northern Periphery?. Working 

Paper FG 1, 2009/08. Berlin: SWP. 

Stocchiero, A. (2010) Macro-Regions of Europe: Old Wine in a New Bottle? Background Paper. Working Papers 65/2010. 

CESPI.  

Sweco (2011) Analysis of needs for financial instruments in the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region. 

t33 (2013) Options for building a Macro-Region. Scenarios for the development of the Adriatic-Ionian Macro-Region.  

Zillmer,  S.,  K.  Böhme,  K.,  C.  Lüer,  Sauerborn,  V.  Harder  &  J.  Maurer  (2012)  Territorial  cohesion  in  future  EU  cohesion 

policy. BMVBS Forschungen, issue 156. Berlin. 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
2.2  The  added  value  of  macro-regional  strategies  from  the  perspective  of  spatial 
planning 

Stefanie Dühr 
Nijmegen School of Management 
Radboud University Nijmegen, Netherlands 

Background and introduction  

This  discussion  paper  was  prepared  as  an  input  for  the  assessment  of  the  added-value  of  European 
Union (EU) macro-regional strategies from the perspective of spatial planning. The European Council 
(Council  2011a)  has  invited  the  European  Commission  to  ‘clarify  the  concept  of  macro-regional 
strategies,  to  evaluate  their  value  added  and  submit  the  outcomes  to  the  Council  and  the  European 
Parliament  by  June  2013’.  The  assessment  of  existing  macro-regional  strategies  should  provide 
information  on  their  effects  to  date  and  provide  input  for  the  further  development  of  the  macro-
regional strategies.  

Since  its  inception,  there  has  been  considerable  interest  in  the  concept  of  EU  macro-regional 
strategies. The first macro-regional strategy – the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region 
(EUSBSR) - was adopted in 2009 (CEC 2009a, 2010a, b), followed by the European Union Strategy 
for  the  Danube  Region  (EUSDR)  in  2011  (CEC  2010c,  d).  Others  are  under  discussion,  e.g.  for  the 
Adriatic – Ionian region. Of a somewhat different status, but relevant in a discussion on EU macro-
regional  strategies,  are  other  integrated  policy  frameworks  of  a  transnational  dimension,  such  as  the 
existing  EU  policy  frameworks  for  the  Northern  Dimension11  and  the  EU’s  Integrated  Maritime 
Policy12. 

The focus of macro-regional strategies has from the beginning been on making more effective use of 
existing funds, institutions / structures, and policies (local, regional, national, EU). No new funding, 
legislation or institutions were supposed to be created. A macro-regional strategy has been described 
as  ‘an  integrated  framework’  (Samecki  2009:  para  2.1),  which  is  expected  to  allow  ‘the  European 
Union  and  Member  States  to  identify  needs  and  match  them  to  the  available  resources  through  co-
ordination of appropriate policies’ (CEC 2010a: 2). This formulation places the spotlight on the key 
ingredients of the EU macro-regional approach: the key actors (primarily the EU institutions and the 
EU member states, as EU decisions don’t cover other countries), a joint approach to identifying issues 
that  require  transnational  cooperation,  and  the  role  of  the  strategy  as  a  framework  for  coordinating 
policies and resources (including its governance arrangements for implementation).  

Although EU macro-regional strategies have not been presented as spatial planning instruments (or as 
integrated  spatial  development  frameworks),  reflecting  the  long-standing  debate  over  an  EU 
competence in this field, their coordination objective and spatially-relevant goals and actions warrant 
this  paper’s  focus  on  their  added-value  from  the  perspective  of  spatial  planning.  The  argument  for 
considering whether macro-regional strategies offer added-value for spatial planning in the Baltic Sea 
Region  and  Danube  Region  derives  from  the  core  of  their  rationale,  i.e.  that  large-scale  landscape 
features (the Baltic Sea, the Danube corridor), which each have their own very specific characteristics 
and challenges, require a coordinated approach. Coordination for such large-scale functional regions 
that  cut  across  administrative  boundaries  implies  considerable  political  and  governance  challenges, 
however, because of the great number of actors involved and because each issue addressed at this level 

11 http://eeas.europa.eu/north_dim/index_en.htm 
12 http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/publications_en.html 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
of  scale  may  have  a  different  functional  ‘reach’  and  therefore  the  boundaries  of  the  macro-regions 
should  be  flexible  in  response  to  the  issue  addressed.  From  a  spatial  planning  perspective,  and 
respecting  the  principle  of  subsidiarity,  this  implies  on  the  one  hand  that  macro-regional  strategies 
should  focus  on  ‘transnational  issues’  only,  i.e.  issues  that  countries  or  regions  cannot  address 
satisfactorily by acting alone. On the other hand, it means that numerous actors at different levels of 
scale  will  be  involved  in  transnational  spatial  planning  initiatives,  and  in  different  geographical 
compositions  depending  on  the  issue  considered.  This  implies  great  complexity  for  governance 
arrangements in any policy area, but especially for an area such as spatial planning which is in many 
countries  not  strongly  institutionalized  at  national  level  and  where  the  argument  for  ‘upscaling’  a 
spatial  planning  perspective  to  the  transnational  level  may  therefore  not  gain  much  support.  As  this 
paper will show, indeed progress on injecting a spatial planning perspective into the macro-regional 
strategies  has  been  modest  to  date,  and  the  actual  and  potential  added-value  of  macro-regional 
strategies for spatial planning therefore requires further discussion.  

Objective of study and approach 

The  objective  of  this  study  is  to  assess  the  added  value  of  macro  regional  strategies  from  the 
perspective of spatial planning. This is done through a review of publicly available documents such as 
action  plans,  communications  from  the  European  Council  and  the  European  Commission  as  well  as 
other  documents  available  on  the  EUSBSR  and  the  EUSDR  websites.  The  assessment  also  refers  to 
the impact assessments that were completed prior to the launch of the two strategies.  

The questions addressed in this paper are the following:  

•  What  are  the  main  achievements  in  implementing  the  macro-regional  strategies  and  what 
contribution have they made to EU policies and targets; national, regional, sectoral policies? 
The  question  of  the  relevance  of  macro-regional  strategies  to  EU  Cohesion  Policy13  and 
Europe 2020 Strategy objectives14 particularly should be addressed;  

13 The EU Cohesion Policy for the programming  period 2007-13 responded to the EU objectives as set out in the Lisbon-
Gothenburg  Agenda  (2000/2001)  and  the  relaunched  Agenda  in  2005,  which  put  emphasis  on  directing  EU  funding 
programmes  (including  the  Structural  Funds)  towards  growth  and  jobs.  For  the  2007-2013  programming  period,  EU 
Cohesion Policy is organised in three ‘objectives’: the ‘convergence’ objective (for regions with a GDP per inhabitant of less 
than 75% of Community average), the ‘regional competitiveness and employment’ objective (for all other regions), and the 
‘European territorial cooperation’ objective. The European territorial cooperation objective includes the former INTERREG 
Community  Initiative  programmes  and  has  three  strands:  cross-border  cooperation,  transnational  cooperation  and 
interregional cooperation. According to the Community Strategic Guidelines on Cohesion 2007-2013, all programmes had 
to earmark a certain proportion of the resources for investments linked to the Lisbon strategy for Growth and Jobs, such as 
research  and  innovation,  infrastructures  of  European  importance,  industrial  competitiveness,  renewable  energies,  energy 
efficiency, eco-innovations, entrepreneurship and human resources.  
14  ‘Europe  2020:  A  strategy  for  smart,  sustainable  and  inclusive  growth’  was  adopted  in  March  2010  by  the  European 
Council  (CEC  2010e),  and  was  prepared  in  response  to  the  economic  crisis.  It  is  the  successor  of  the  ‘Growth  and  Jobs 
Agenda’ and focuses on three key areas:  
• 
• 
• 
The EU 2020 strategy sets out five goals, which are to be broken down into national targets: 
• 
• 
• 

75% of the population aged 20-64 in employment 
3% of the EU‘s GDP invested in research and development 
Successful implementation of the EU‘s environmental goals, i.e. a 20% reduction in CO2 emissions and a 20% increase 
in renewable energies 

Smart growth: developing an economy based on knowledge and innovation 
Sustainable growth: promoting a more efficient, greener and more competitive economy 
Inclusive growth: fostering a high-employment economy, where all communities and regions participate and flourish. 

20 million fewer people should be at risk of poverty 

•  A minimum of 40% of the younger generation to obtain a tertiary degree, and 10% fewer early school leavers 
• 
In  the  European  Council  conclusions  (June  2010),  it  was  expressed  that  ‘all  common  policies,  including  the  common 
agricultural  policy  and  cohesion  policy,  will  need  to  support  the  strategy’.  The  EU  Cohesion  Policy  2014-2020  will  be 
focused on the EU 2020 objectives.  

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
•  What  concrete  progress  has  been  made  in  the  priority  areas/horizontal  actions/actions  and 

flagship projects? 

•  Do  Macro  regional  strategies  have  the  potential  to  influence  EU  and  national  policy 
developments,  e.g.  through  mobilization  of  existing  funding,  and  alignment  of  funding  and 
policies with EU 2020 priorities and programmes, and what evidence supports this?  

•  What  is  the  added  value  of  macro  regional  strategies  in  terms  of  coordination  of  activities 
between different actors; for example via cooperation between EU Member States and Third 
countries, through improved cooperation structures, development of new ways of cooperation 
or strengthening existing ones?  

•  What  is  the  added  value  of  the  macro  regional  strategies  in  terms  of  improving  governance 
structures for the achievement of overall objectives including interaction/links with other EU 
initiatives (such as the Northern Dimension, Eastern Partnership, etc.)? 

•  What are the main drivers to increase the added value of macro-regional strategies for spatial 

planning in their establishment and in their implementation?  

The  approach  to  this  assessment  requires  setting  out  a  few  provisos.  First,  macro-regional  strategies 
are still very young and therefore ‘work in progress’. The progress that has been made so far should be 
seen  in  this  context,  especially  considering  the  complexity  of  the  task.  Cooperation  structures  need 
time to mature, so any assessment after a relatively short period of time can only attempt to point out 
areas which may require further attention in future, rather than allowing a comprehensive evaluation. 
Second, this study relies on published sources (action plans, reports etc) that were prepared by actors 
involved in the macro-regional strategies. While some critical issues come to the fore in these papers, 
they  are  nonetheless  by  definition  to  a  certain  extent  self-referential  and  not  based  on  external 
evaluation.  Moreover,  macro-regional  strategies  were  not  presented  as  spatial  strategies,  so  the 
assessment  of  their  added-value  for  spatial  planning  remains  somewhat  hypothetical  as  evidence  is 
scarce  (and  indeed  there  are  relatively  few  explicit  references  to  spatial  planning  in  the  documents 
analysed).  

Definitions and conceptual framework 

For  a  discussion  of  the  added  value  of  EU  macro-regional  strategies  from  the  perspective  of  spatial 
planning,  it  is  important  to  provide  some  definitions  and  a  conceptual  framework.  The  traditionally 
land-based focus of spatial planning of EU member states has over the past years been complemented 
by EU initiatives in the field of maritime spatial planning (CEC 2008a). Maritime spatial planning is 
defined as ‘planning and regulating all human uses of the sea, while protecting marine ecosystems. It 
focuses on marine waters under national jurisdiction and is concerned only with planning activities at 
sea’  (DG  Mare  website),  thus  it  does  not  cover  management  of  coastal  zones  or  spatial  planning  of 
sea-land interface. While ‘maritime spatial planning remains a prerogative of individual EU countries’ 
(ibid.), agreement at EU level should help to ensure that national, regional and local maritime spatial 
plans are compatible and that conflicts can be avoided and cross-border cooperation and investments 
are better coordinated. While EU competences for maritime spatial planning are as weak as for land-
based spatial planning, the EU policy field has developed quickly and with considerable support from 
the  member  states.  In  contrast  to  the  fierce  debates  over  an  EU  involvement  in  land-based  spatial 
planning  since  the  end  of  the  1990s,  seen  as  violating  the  sovereignty  of  nation-states  and  the 
subsidiarity  principle,  the  interest  of  EU  member  states  and  regions  in  coordinated  approaches  to 
maritime spatial planning may at least be partly explained by the novelty of this approach and the fact 
that domestic institutions had not been well established (thus that resistance to change, as can be found 
in established policy communities, is low).  

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Reflecting  the  discussions  about  the  role  of  the  EU  in  land-based  spatial  planning,  in  the  academic 
literature  a  distinction  is  now  made  between  spatial  planning  at  the  supra-national  scale  (e.g.  for 
transnational spaces) and spatial planning within nation-states, mirroring the distinction made between 
‘spatial planning for Europe’, and ‘spatial planning in Europe’ (Böhme and Waterhout 2008). Spatial 
planning at a scale above the nation-state relies on different mechanisms for achieving its goals than 
spatial  planning  within  countries  and  regions.  Within  nation-states,  spatial  planning  is  a  sector  of 
government  activity  alongside  others  such  as  transport,  agriculture  and  environment,  and  seeks  to 
manage and regulate spatial development and land uses in pursuit of agreed objectives. At European 
level,  spatial  planning  refers  to  creating  strategies  and  policies  for  the  development  of  (parts  of)  the 
European  territory.  What  has  been  called  the  ‘European  spatial  planning  approach’  concentrates  ‘on 
establishing  better  co-ordination  of  spatial  policy:  horizontally  across  different  sectors;  vertically 
among different levels of government; and geographically across administrative boundaries’ (Dühr et 
al. 2010: 32). As there is no explicit competence for spatial planning in the EU Treaties, and reflecting 
the  subsidiarity  principle,  spatial  planning  for  Europe  focuses  on  the  strategic  dimension  of  spatial 
planning (as opposed to detailed land use planning), and has relied on intergovernmental cooperation 
and  unanimous  support  of  the  participating  governments  for  agreement  on  policy  objectives  and  to 
achieve the common goals.  

Spatial  strategies  for  the  EU  (such  as  the  ESDP,  TAEU  or  TA2020)  or  for  transnational  territories 
(such  as  INTERREG  IIC/IIIB  transnational  spatial  visions)  are  thus  by  definition  very  different 
instruments  than  ‘spatial  plans’  prepared  within  the  established  governance  systems  of  sovereign 
nation-states.  The  scale,  scope  and  range  of  interests  involved  are  much  more  diverse  at  the 
transnational level than for the preparation of plans and strategies within member states. There is no 
law  or  guidance  that  specifies  the  characteristics  or  content  of  transnational  strategies,  nor  are  there 
clearly  defined  processes  that  would  ensure  their  implementation.  Given  their  usually  non-binding 
nature, transnational spatial strategies are thus understood to function by ‘framing’ the understanding 
of  actors  involved  (e.g.  sectoral  actors  who  may  have  much  stronger  powers  of  implementation)  to 
particular  problems  and  possible  approaches,  rather  than  prescribing  solutions.  Such  a  shared 
understanding about the need for collective action should then provide a lasting basis to ensure that the 
strategy and its principles are applied in policy- and decision-making processes (Dühr et al. 2010).  

Given  the  lack  of  strong  instruments,  the  communicative  potential  of  transnational  spatial  strategies 
requires particular attention. To ensure their continuing support and use, transnational spatial strategies 
need to provide a vision ‘so powerful and attractive that all those whose support is needed willingly 
range up behind it’ (Needham et al. 1997). Given the multitude of actors and interests involved and the 
consensus-led  process  of  preparing  spatial  development  frameworks  for  the  European  territory,  this 
implies that spatial concepts are needed which are ‘capable of papering over the cracks between the 
various views prevailing’ (Faludi 2002: 904).  

Identifying  issues  for  cooperation  at  the  supra-national  scale  inevitably  involves  struggles  about  the 
prioritising  of  interests,  rights  and  claims  for  policy  attention.  Yet  the  filtering  is  a  crucial  process, 
because if strategies are to inspire and motivate a range of actors over a long period of time, they need 
to  be  more  than  merely  an  aggregation  of  issues.  Moreover,  the  experience  with  the  transnational 
INTERREG  programmes  has  shown  that  broad  frameworks  with  largely  generic  funding  priorities 
rarely  result  in  projects  of  real  significance  for  the  transnational  region  (Panteia  et  al.  2010).  It  is 
therefore important that policy priorities and actions are specific to the macro-region, and not merely 
replicate EU policy objectives. Two types of truly transnational issues can be identified, which offer 
real value for an ‘upscaling’ of policy responses: 

• 

Issues  that  are  currently  not  dealt  with  appropriately  within  a  country  and  by  nation-states 
acting alone, and  

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
• 

Issues  that  may  in  future  not  be  dealt  with  satisfactorily  by  nation-states  acting  alone  as  a 
consequence of changing framework conditions (political, economic, environmental, social, or 
else).  

There  are  likely  considerably  fewer  issues  that  are  usefully  addressed  at  transnational  level  than  the 
long lists of actions and projects in the Baltic Sea or the Danube Region strategies would suggest. At 
present, both the action plans for the Baltic Sea Region and for the Danube Region list several issues 
that are of common concern or are not specific to the region.  

The need for cooperation among countries to achieve effective coordination of all sea-related as well 
as  land-based  spatial  planning  policies  at  the  different  decision-making  levels  when  preparing 
comprehensive and integrated plans is evident, and so is the link to the activities of EU macro-regional 
strategies. While EU involvement in spatial planning – certainly for the land-based component – has 
been critically viewed by some member states, the inclusion of the objective of territorial cohesion as a 
shared  competence  in  the  Treaty  of  Lisbon  in  2009  has  generally  been  interpreted  as  providing  an 
alternative approach to bringing the spatial dimension into sectoral policy. However, there is to date 
no clear or politically agreed definition of the objective of territorial cohesion which would allow an 
assessment of whether the concept will be interpreted as a form of European spatial planning (in the 
meaning presented above) in EU Cohesion Policy 2014-2020 (cf. CEC 2008b).  

The EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR) and spatial planning 

Littoral countries of the Baltic Sea are eight EU member states (Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Germany, 
Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), Belarus and Russia. Since the 1990s, the countries surrounding the 
Baltic Sea have been cooperating at the transnational level. Besides the political forum of the Council 
of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS, also involving Norway and Iceland next to the littoral states), there are 
other well-established forums of cooperation with influence on policy- and decision-making, such as 
HELCOM15  in  the  field  of  environmental  policy  and  VASAB16  for  transnational  spatial  planning. 
Indeed,  the  ‘model’  for  transnational  spatial  visions  prepared  in  the  context  of  the  transnational 
INTERREG  IIC  and  IIIB  Community  Initiative  is  commonly  acknowledged  to  be  the  ‘Vision  and 
Strategies around the Baltic Sea 2010’ (VASAB2010 1994) document (Dühr 2011b). It was prepared 
by the ministries for spatial planning and development of countries around the Baltic Sea Region even 
before  the  INTERREG  IIC  initiative  (which  envisaged  the  preparation  of  ‘transnational  spatial 
visions’)  was  launched.  The  VASAB  vision  sought  to  address  shared  concerns  over  environmental 
pollution of the shallow sea and to consider policy responses for the somewhat peripheral transnational 
region  after  the  fall  of  the  ‘Iron  Curtain’.  An  action  programme,  entitled  ‘From  vision  to  action’ 
(VASAB2010 1996) proposed measures for the application of the spatial vision. In 1997, INTERREG 
funding  supported  the  process  of  updating  of  the  VASAB  2010  strategy  (VASAB2010+  2001).  In 
2009, the ‘VASAB Long-term perspective for the Territorial Development of the Baltic Sea Region’ 
(VASAB LTP 2009) was adopted and is intended to provide strategic direction until 2030.  

Main achievements of the EUSBSR and contribution to EU, national and regional policies 

It  seems  widely  accepted  that  the  EU  macro-regional  strategy  has  at  least  partly  succeeded  in 
overcoming the ‘stalemate’ of intergovernmental cooperation, given the high political profile and EU 
involvement in many activities covered by the EUSBSR (CEC  2010f). A report by the Commission 
(CEC 2011a: 1) identified ‘commitment of partners at national, regional, and civil society levels’. It 

15  The  Helsinki  Commission  (HELCOM)  is  an  intergovernmental  organization  (Denmark,  Estonia,  the  European  Union, 
Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia and Sweden) working to protect the marine environment of the Baltic 
Sea. 
16 VASAB - Vision and Strategies around the Baltic Sea - is an intergovernmental network of 11 countries of the Baltic Sea 
Region promoting cooperation on spatial planning and development in the Baltic Sea Region. 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
further  noted  as  main  achievements  that  ‘the  Strategy  has  led  to  concrete  action,  with  a  more 
streamlined use of resources. New working methods and networks have been established, and many 
initiatives  developed’,  including  the  setting  up  of  new  projects  (such  as  the  designation  of  marine 
protected areas in the Baltic Sea) and providing new momentum to existing projects. The Commission 
report  further  finds  that  ‘the  Strategy  …  provides  a  common  reference  point  for  the  many 
organisations  in  the  Baltic  Sea  Region’.  Examples  given  to  support  this  observation  are  the  new 
framework for the maritime community, which has brought together actors and initiatives around the 
EUSBSR;  and  that  ‘transport  ministries  in  the  Region  now  plan  infrastructure  investments  in  a 
coordinated way’ (CEC 2011a).  

Despite  such  positive  signs,  the  Commission  (CEC  2011a,  b;  CEC  2012a)  highlights  areas  for 
improvement,  including:  the  need  to  reinforce  the  integrated  nature  of  the  Strategy  through  closer 
alignment with the themes and flagships of Europe 2020; to assure the European nature of the Strategy 
through regular discussions of the Strategy at policy Councils; to establish targets to make the Strategy 
more focused; to maximise efforts to align Cohesion Policy and other funding sources in the Region 
with  the  objectives  of  the  Strategy;  to  strengthen  implementation  structures  both  financially  and  in 
terms  of  staff;  and  to  develop  a  “Communication  initiative”  to  ensure  broader  participation  in  the 
Strategy, as well as understanding of its overall achievements.  

A  review  of  the  Action  Plan  was  published  in  late  February  2013.  The  horizontal  action  on  spatial 
planning  (‘HA  Spatial’)  was  maintained,  although  with  a  more  explicit  focus  on  maritime  spatial 
planning. In comparison to the previous version, the new Action Plan has been broadened to include 
more actions that are not directly spatial in focus, nor specific for the macro-region. This implies a risk 
of  watering  down  the  initial  intentions  of  the  macro-regional  approach,  and  will  certainly  present 
further challenges to applying a more explicit spatial planning perspective to the strategy, should this 
be envisaged in future.   

Progress on the priority areas/horizontal actions/actions and flagship projects  

While  most  of  the  priority  areas  in  the  Action  Plan  are  not  explicitly  spatial  in  focus,  many  can  be 
expected to either have direct, or at least indirect, spatial effects. There are isolated examples where a 
reference to spatial planning is being made under individual actions or flagship projects (e.g. Flagship 
project  2.1.  (Fast  Track)  “Create  marine  protected  areas”  (Lead:  Germany)’)  (CEC  2012b:  14).  To 
date,  progress  on  land-based  spatial  planning  within  the  EUSBSR  in  particular  has  been  very  slow, 
however.  The  implementation  report  (CEC  2011b)  refers  to  the  LTP  process  and  ministerial  and 
stakeholder meetings, and some relevant INTERREG IVB projects such as BaltSeaPlan, Eco-Region, 
New  Bridges,  Baltmet  Promo,  TransBaltic  and  Rail  Baltica  Growth  Corridor.  There  is  no  clear 
evidence  that  these  actions  would  not  have  taken  place  also  without  the  EUSBSR,  and  the  current 
added-value  of  the  EUSBSR  for  land-based  spatial  planning  is  therefore  doubtful.  Furthermore,  the 
question could be asked whether such largely ‘soft measures’ will be sufficient to achieve the ambition 
of  providing  horizontal  coordination  for  the  EUSBSR  priority  actions  and  projects  through  spatial 
planning. There has been some progress in the field of maritime spatial planning, with some projects 
(e.g.  projects  ‘Plan  Bothnia’,  ‘BaltSeaPlan  Vision  2030’)  completed,  although  only  involving  EU 
member  countries  besides  some  international  and  transnational  organisations  (CEC  2010f;  CEC 
2011b;  Gee  et  al.  2011).  The  emphasis  is  on  sharing  data,  establishing  joint  principles  and  setting 
cooperation platforms, and on supporting progress on national and regional maritime spatial plans.  

In  the  most  recent  action  plan  (February  2013),  the  17  priority  areas  (PAs)  and  6  horizontal  areas 
(HAs) are shown as contributing (in various degrees) to achieving the three objectives (‘ to save the 
sea’,  ‘to  connect  the  region’,  ‘to  increase  prosperity’)  with  related  sub-objectives,  thus  seeking  to 
communicate  the  integrated  approach.  Indeed,  Annex  II  of  the  Action  Plan  (CEC  2013:  191)  shows 
that most priority areas that are presented as contributing to achieving the defined sub-objectives are 
either explicitly or indirectly spatial in focus (e.g. PA Ship, PA Transport, PA Energy, PA Nutri). This 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
would suggest that the HA on spatial planning would receive a more prominent role in coordinating 
these  PA’s  and  thus  contributing  to  the  objectives  of  the  EUSBSR.  On  the  contrary,  however,  ‘HA 
Spatial’  is  only  shown  to  contribute  directly  to  sub-objective  ‘Connecting  People’  and  to  a  lesser 
degree  to  the  sub-objectives  of  ‘Rich  and  healthy  wildlife’  and  ‘better  cooperation’.  In  terms  of 
contributing to the EU2020 strategy, almost all PA’s and HA’s are shown to have a relation. A notable 
exception  is  ‘HA  Spatial’  which  is  not  envisaged  to  make  a  contribution  to  any  sub-objectives  of 
objective 3 to ‘Increase Prosperity’, including the EU2020 strategy.  

In  comparison  to  the  previous  version  of  the  Action  Plan,  which  sought  to  give  equal  attention  to 
maritime and land-based spatial planning, the ‘HA Spatial’ in the Action Plan of February 2013 almost 
exclusively focuses on maritime spatial planning. Land-based spatial planning is mentioned in relation 
to  the  work  of  VASAB,  noting  that  ‘the  VASAB  Long  Term  Perspective  for  the  Territorial 
Development of the Baltic Sea Region (LTP) … should be taken into account by the coordinators of 
other  priority  areas  when  they  address  spatial  objectives,  conditions  and  impacts  of  their  actions’ 
(CEC 2013: 170). It is doubtful that this reference will have the desired effect of better coordinating 
land-based  spatial  planning  around  the  Baltic  Sea,  nor  that  it  will  achieve  the  overall  goal  of  the 
horizontal  action,  stated  as  ‘to  achieve  territorial  cohesion  perspective  in  the  BSR  by  2030,  i.e.  the 
region  is  a  well-integrated  and  coherent  macro-region,  and  it  has  overcome  the  socio-economic 
development divides between its individual parts and turned the global challenges into assets‘ (CEC 
2013: 171).  In  the  new  Action  Plan,  targets  are  only  defined  for  the  drawing  up  of  maritime  spatial 
plans, whereas there are no indicators for land-based spatial planning. Accordingly, only one flagship 
project  is  identified,  ‘PartiSEApate  –  Multi-level  Governance  in  MSP  (Maritime  Spatial  Planning) 
throughout the Baltic Sea Region’, led by the Maritime Institute in Gdańsk, Poland.  

The  updated  action  plan  seems  to  illustrate  a  trend  of  marginalizing  spatial  planning  further,  rather 
than giving it a more prominent role by identifying the added-value for the macro-regional strategy by 
seeking  also  spatial  coordination.  This  may  be  a  flaw  in  the  architecture,  with  allocating  spatial 
planning to a ‘horizontal action’, which seems added-on to the main priority areas rather than being 
integrated throughout (something which would seem important to achieve the HA’s ambitious goals). 
It may also be a problem of leadership and prioritisation, despite the existence of VASAB in the BSR, 
which prevents considering the role of transnational spatial planning for the BSR more explicitly, and 
especially so for the land-based dimension.  

Evidence of the potential of the EUSBSR to influence EU and national policy developments 

In  terms  of  policy  development  and  coherence  in  areas  of  relevance  to  this  paper,  the  Commission 
report (CEC 2011a) takes positive notice of the link between the regional implementation of the EU 
Integrated  Maritime  Policy,  and  the  progress  on  integration  of  maritime  surveillance  systems  which 
has been made in the BSR. There is no evidence that the macro-regional strategy to date has provided 
any impetus for the review and coordination of land-based spatial plans in the countries and regions 
around the BSR, as it has for the development of maritime spatial plans. Indeed, the EUSBSR does not 
seem to have made any substantial contribution to the ongoing work of VASAB, nor does it seem to 
have revived the discussion on the role and objectives for transnational spatial planning in the BSR.   

The need for a better alignment of funding remains a key concern, and this is also of relevance to the 
HA  on  spatial  planning  which  may  have  fewer  dedicated  funding  sources  to  draw  on,  given  the 
integrated  nature  of  spatial  planning  and  the  increasingly  thematic  orientation  of  many  EU  funding 
programmes (in pursuit of the EU’s Growth and Jobs agenda). A recent study of ‘needs for financial 
instruments in the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region’ (Savbäck et al. 2011: 3) concluded that ‘the 
implementation  of  the  EUSBSR  is  perceived  as  a  major  undertaking  by  the  stakeholders.  The 
development  of  partnerships  and  projects  is  time  demanding  and  real  implementation  requires 
financial resources. There is still a certain hesitation regarding how the implementation is structured. 
Many activities are in the start-up or early implementation phase and have a preparatory or planning 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
character  rather  than  “real”  implementation.  However,  the  implementation  differs  considerably 
between sectors as there are differences of maturity in transnational cooperation. Currently, more than 
20 different funding instruments are used as sources of financing, not including national and regional 
co-financing sources. The implementation of most Priority Areas is to a large extent dependent on EU 
Structural Funds… Despite the large amount of available instruments it is clear that various financial 
and non-financial needs are not sufficiently met.’  

The  European  territorial  cooperation  programmes,  and  especially  the  INTERREG  IVB  Baltic  Sea 
Region programme, are of particular relevance for the EUSBSR. The transnational Baltic Sea Region 
Programme (INTERREG IVB) has contributed EUR 88 million to Flagship Projects, and targeted its 
fourth  call  specifically  to promoting  the  Strategy  (CEC  2011a). Yet,  ‘when  moving  beyond  projects 
covered  by  ETC  programmes,  all  other  available  instruments  are  perceived  as  difficult  and  non-
accommodating  for  transnational  activities.  This  problem  of  funding  is  mainly  related  to  structural 
challenges, as many programmes (EU-funded, national and regional alike) have difficulties to support 
transnational activities‘ (Savbäck et al. 2011: 4) 

In the Commission report (2011a), several improvements to better align funding to the EUSBSR are 
mentioned,  including  new  selection  criteria  for  several  ERDF  programmes  in  the  BSR.  The  recent 
review  of  the  strategy  has  clarified  the  availability  of  financial  instruments  for  the  main  objectives 
(available  as  overview  table  on  the  EUSBSR  website).  The  main  focus  is  on  Cohesion  Policy 
programmes,  but  ‘other  programmes,  funds  and  institutions’  are  also  listed.  The  ‘fit’  of  financial 
instruments  with  the  EUSBSR  has  only  been  assessed  in  this  table  for  the  main  priority  areas, 
however,  and  not  for  the  horizontal  actions  which  have  the  most  explicit  focus  on  spatial  planning. 
Yet,  achieving  spatial  coordination  through  a  horizontal  action  as  in  the  EUSBSR  would  clearly 
benefit from some transparency about available funding.  

Added  value  of  macro  regional  strategies  in  terms  of  coordination  of  activities  between  different 
actors and links with other EU initiatives  

Perhaps  inevitably  given  its  ambition,  the  EUSBSR  is  characterized  by  a  complex  governance 
structure, and in earlier reviews this prompted calls for an improved organization structure. Recently, 
the  roles  and  responsibilities  of  the  different  actors  have  been  clarified  (Council  2012),  and  an 
overview  made  available  on  the  website  of  the  EUSBSR.  However,  the  focus  has  been  on  listing 
contacts for (thematic) priority actions and flagship projects, rather than the cross-cutting, ‘horizontal’, 
actions, where arguably a stronger lead and visibility would be desirable.  

Moreover, the governance arrangements are EU-centred, with scope for involving non-EU  members 
and  other  EU  initiatives  at  the  operational  level  (programmes,  Flagship  project  leaders)  and  the 
coordination  level  (Priority  Area  Coordinators,  Priority  Area  Focal  Points,  Horizontal  Action 
Leaders), but not at the policy level (Council, Commission, High Level Group). As an EU initiative, 
the Strategy does not commit non-Member States. Existing transnational bodies in the BSR, such as 
the  Council  of  the  Baltic  Sea  States  (CBSS),  the  Nordic  Council  of  Ministers  or  the  Helsinki 
Commission (HELCOM) or VASAB, have well-established (intergovernmental) forms of cooperation 
between  EU  and  non-EU  countries.  The  fact  that  the  macro-regions  are  strategies  of  the  European 
Union has from the beginning put much weight on the need to establish constructive cooperation with 
the external partners in the region, and in particular Russia (CEC 2012b). The Northern Dimension, a 
common policy of the EU, Russia, Norway and Iceland, provides the basis for these external aspects 
of the strategy. However, Russia continues to seem to have limited involvement in the implementation 
of the Strategy, either through specific projects or existing regional frameworks such as the Northern 
Dimension.  

The implementation of the Strategy through actions and projects is predominantly the task of national 
ministries,  national  public  agencies  or  transnational  bodies,  as  Annexe  1  shows.  The  Commission 
report  notes  efforts  to  involve  more  sub-national  actors  and  existing  cooperative  structures  in  the 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUSBSR (CEC 2011a). Moreover, differences in the level of ambition (and achievements) across the 
priority areas, depending on existing networks and the maturity of cooperation arrangements on which 
the implementation could draw, has been noted before (CEC 2010f). This may at least partly explain 
the  differences  in  achievements  in  relation  to  maritime  spatial  planning  on  the  one  hand,  and  land-
based spatial planning on the other. 

Main drivers to increase the added value of macro-regional strategies in their establishment and in 
their implementation  

The  Commission  Communication  (CEC  2012a,  later  adopted  by  Council  (2012))  proposed  the 
following key areas for improvement:  

• 

Improvements to the strategic focus, by defining three key objectives for the EUSBSR and by 
aligning the Strategy more clearly to the Europe 2020 objectives. 

•  Alignment of policies and funding, with a better coordination through the Common Strategic 
Framework  2014-2020.  ‘There  must  be  a  stronger  transnational  dimension  to  national  and 
regional  programmes,  as  relying  on  territorial  cooperation  programmes  alone  will  not 
suffice….  When  developing  partnership  contracts  and  operational  programmes,  at  the 
regional,  national,  cross-border  and  transnational  levels,  macro-regional  objectives  and 
priorities must be present’ (CEC 2012a). 

•  Clarification  of  responsibilities  of  different  actors  and  improved  governance  arrangements. 
The  Strategy  should  be  included  on  the  agenda  of  the  Council  of  Ministers  in  its  different 
formations  as  appropriate.  Strategy  considerations  should  be  reflected  in  budget  and  other 
discussions.  Regional  and  municipal  actors  must  be  more  involved.  Political  commitment 
must be translated into administrative commitment, with sufficient staffing and continuity of 
personnel.  Involvement  of  other  stakeholders,  including  the  private  sector,  and  of  third 
countries should be improved.  

•  Better  communication  by  promoting  awareness  of  the  Strategy  and  its  results.  Setting 

indicators and targets and evaluating progress will be given increasing attention. 

While all of these suggestions are sensible, they will arguably do little to strengthen the coordination 
role of the horizontal action on spatial planning, given the apparent focus on the main priority areas in 
clarifying  the  governance  arrangements  and  aligning  funding.  A  closer  connection  to  the  EU2020 
objectives, which are very thematic and largely non-spatial, will provide further challenges for making 
sure the horizontal action on spatial planning can live up to its stated goals.  

Overall,  the  added-value  of  macro-regional  strategies  for  spatial  planning  has  been  modest  and 
variable to date. An added-value is apparent for the area of maritime spatial planning: as a new policy 
field  both  at  EU  level  and  in  most  countries,  and  with  a  clear  transnational  focus  on  the  maritime 
environment of the Baltic Sea, the EUSBSR appears to have supported a constructive and cooperative 
process  for  joint  databases  and  cooperation  on  maritime  spatial  plans.  These  may  not  be 
groundbreaking results yet, and have mostly been agreed between EU member states only, but given 
the novelty of the EUSBSR they are a promising start. This is especially so given what appears wide 
support by many actors in the region (even if at present mostly from the EU), which may provide a 
lasting basis for future (and more far-reaching) action. The same cannot be said for land-based spatial 
planning, however. Indeed, the EUSBSR so far does not seem to have brought any added-value to the 
work of VASAB. Given  the EU-focus of  macro-regional strategies on the one hand and lack of EU 
competence  for  spatial  planning  on  the  other,  an  intergovernmental  approach  such  as  pursued  by 
VASAB  may  seem  more  appropriate  than  a  macro-regional  strategy  focused  on  spatial  planning. 
However, there are strong arguments for reconciling the maritime spatial planning approach and the 
land-based dimension to a more comprehensive and integrated approach, and the current trends in the 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BSR suggest that there may be a danger of their lasting separation into different policy communities. 
Spatial planning should be given a much more central role in the EUSBSR if such cross-sectoral and 
multi-level  governance  coordination  is  to  be  achieved.  The  coordination  ambitions  of  the  EUSBSR 
would  make  a  case  for  more  closely  involving  VASAB  and  national  and  regional  spatial  planning 
ministries  in  the  actions  and  projects  of  the  EUSBSR.  Political  commitment  and  appropriate 
administrative  capacity  will  be  important  to  ensure  EUSBSR  initiatives  on  spatial  planning  are  well 
coordinated with those within the countries. First, however, a clear definition of spatial planning (land-
based  and  maritime,  also  in  relation  to  the  EU  objective  of  territorial  cohesion)  is  required  for  a 
discussion on the role of spatial planning in the BSR. 

The EU Strategy for the Danube Region (EUSDR) and spatial planning 

The  EU  Strategy  for  the  Danube  Region  covers  eight  EU  countries  (Germany,  Austria,  Hungary, 
Czech  Republic,  Slovak  Republic,  Slovenia,  Bulgaria  and  Romania)  and  six  non-EU  countries 
(Croatia,  Serbia,  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina,  Montenegro,  Ukraine  and  Moldova).  While  international 
cooperation  bodies  exist  for  river  basin  management  (e.g.  the  Danube  Commission  and  the 
International  Commission  for  the  Protection  of  the  Danube  River),  there  is  no  transnational  spatial 
planning institution for the Danube comparable to VASAB for the BSR.  

The  EUSDR  (CEC  2010c:  6)  places  ‘emphasis  on  an  integrated  place-based  approach.  Good  links 
between  urban  and  rural  areas,  fair  access  to  infrastructures  and  services,  and  comparable  living 
conditions  will  promote  territorial  cohesion’.  Based  on  the  many  suggestions  from  the  initial 
consultation (cf. CEC 2010g), four pillars were defined to address the key issues for the region, with 
together  eleven  thematic  priority  areas  (see  Annexe  2).  There  is  no  dedicated  priority  or  action  for 
spatial planning, but it is mentioned in relation to some initiatives such as the river basins management 
plan for the Danube (prepared under the Water Framework Directive).  

Main achievements of the EUSDR and contribution to EU, national and regional policies 

In the First Annual Forum on the EUSDR in November 2012 (Bayrische Staatsregierung 2012), it was 
emphasised  that  the  Strategy  has  strengthened  cooperation  in  the  region  and  at  all  levels,  and  that 
numerous  meetings  and  conferences  were  held.  To  date,  over  seventy  new  projects  have  been 
recommended  for  funding,  and  several  other  projects  have  been  identified  by  the  Priority  Action 
Coordinators  (PACs)  as  contributing  to  achieving  the  targets  of  the  EU  Strategy  for  the  Danube 
Region  (see  EUSDR  PA  reports  2012).  The  reports  note  achievements  in  terms  of  facilitating 
cooperation  on  concrete  infrastructure  investments  (e.g.  finalisation  of  the  Calafat-Vidin  Bridge, 
Bulgaria-Serbia  gas  interconnector  project),  and  other  spatially-relevant  projects.  For  example,  the 
DANUBE FLOODRISK project is listed as having produced a ‘Manual of harmonized requirements 
on the flood mapping procedures for the Danube River’, which should provide the basis for a shared 
database.  

Progress on the priority areas/horizontal actions/actions and flagship projects  

In the Impact Assessment, albeit in a footnote, the European Commission referred to spatial planning 
as an important means to achieve the objective of territorial cohesion within the EUSDR. The report 
argued that ‘given the wide scope of these objectives [of territorial cohesion], 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)‘ (CEC 2010g). 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
While  this  consideration  given  to  territorial  cohesion  and  spatial  planning  has  not  resulted  in  a 
dedicated priority (or horizontal action, as for the EUSBSR), there are several actions with a spatial 
planning component (both maritime and land-based) listed in the Action Plan under different priorities 
(CEC 2010d). These are:  

•  Priority  4)  TO  RESTORE  AND  MAINTAIN  THE  QUALITY  OF  WATERS:  Action  -  “To 
further  strengthen  Integrated  Coastal  Zone  Management  (ICZM)  and  Maritime  Spatial 
Planning 
Sea”  
the  Western 
In  the  PA  4  progress  report  (EUSDR  PA4  2012:  17),  progress  in  the  implementation  of  the 
action was reported as follows:  

the  Black 

practices 

(MSP) 

shores 

on 

of 

-  Development  of  specific  project  regarding  the  improvement  of  the  Integrated  Coastal 

Zone Management in the Black Sea Region: in progress, waiting for approval.  

-  Provide  contribution  to  the  development  of  the  ICZM  Strategy  for  the  Black  Sea 
coordinating  with  the  Permanent  Secretariat  of  the  Black  Sea  Commission  and  its 
Advisory: by 30 November 2013.  

-  Development  of  a  project  proposal  concerning  Black  Sea  marine  environment 
protection  including  the  planning  of  fishery,  energy  and  transport  activities:  by  30 
March 2013.  

•  Priority  5)  TO  MANAGE  ENVIRONMENTAL  RISKS:  Action  -  “To  develop  spatial 
planning and construction activities in the context of climate change and increased threats of 
floods”,  covering  both  coordination  and  data  exchange  as  well  as  coordination  of  land  uses 
(also 
impacts).  
In  the  progress  report  on  PA5,  it  is  reported  that  ‘No  progress  has  been  made  under  this 
Action. We are looking for an organisation that can execute this Action.’ (EUSDR PA5 2012: 
12) 

expected 

account 

climate 

change 

taking 

of 

•  Priority  6)  TO  PRESERVE  BIODIVERSITY,  LANDSCAPES  AND  THE  QUALITY  OF 
AIR AND SOILS: Action - “To develop green infrastructure in order to connect different bio-
geographic regions and habitats (incl. Natura 2000 sites)”.  

•  Priority  6)  TO  PRESERVE  BIODIVERSITY,  LANDSCAPES  AND  THE  QUALITY  OF 
AIR  AND  SOILS:  Action  -  “To  prepare  and  implement  transnational  spatial  planning  and 
development policies for functional geographical areas (river basins,  mountain ranges etc.)”. 
An  example  of  a  project  for  this  action  is:  “To  implement  the  VASICA  -  Visions  and 
Strategies in the Carpathian area” (led by Carpathian Convention UNEP Office). 

•  Priority 10) TO STEP UP INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY AND COOPERATION: Action - 
“To  ensure  sufficient  information  flow  and  exchange  at  all  levels”,  including  cooperation 
between  planning  institutes  through  the  development  and  implementation  of  cross-border 
cooperation  in  settlement  and  regional  planning.  An  example  of  a  project  that  could  be 
developed  under  this  action  is  mentioned:  ‘To  establish  common  guidelines  for  improving 
spatial  planning’  in  order  to  ‘advise  the  local  authorities  on  best  practices  for  the  human 
settlements  in  the  Danube  Region  and  on  the  way  to  prioritise  infrastructure  and  other 
investments’ (CEC 2010d).  

This  overview  shows  that  consideration  of  spatial  planning  as  a  coordination  instrument  is  rather 
selective  under  individual  priorities,  rather  than  consistently  across  the  EUSDR,  and  that  progress 
have been variable to date. The approach taken does not appear to lend itself to comprehensive spatial 
coordination and remains partial. Indeed, the potential value of a stronger spatial planning dimension 
in the EUSDR, or in any case the need for better coordination of the spatial impacts of actions under 
different  priorities,  shines  through  in  several  of  the  PAC  progress  review  reports.  Here  it  is 
acknowledged that ‘the cross-sectoral cooperation between the different Priority Areas (e.g. transport 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
and  environment)  has  just  started  in  the  first  year  of  the  EUSDR’s  implementation,  but  ….  a  more 
comprehensive cooperation form between the PACs still needs to be developed’ (EUSDR PA1a 2012). 
Moreover, a need for ‘reliable and comprehensive data overview about planned, on-going and existing 
projects along the Danube which …. allow to identify the implementation status of the EUSDR’s PA 
1a actions (including gaps)’ has been identified (ibid.). For PA 1b, it is noted that ‘the most important 
lesson so far is a general understanding of the contribution of the EUSDR. It is important to coordinate 
activities beyond the actual activities on the ground which has been initiated within different national 
policies.  As  a  critical  element  for  the  further  work  a  need  for  the  common  picture  on  the  transport 
system in the region (common transport vision) was identified. This picture should give a basis to the 
group to identify critical projects for the region and to assure coordination with other priority Areas’ 
(EUSDR PA1b 2012: 3). Already work has begun on mapping the transport infrastructure system of 
the Danube region (EU and non-EU Member States)in order to identify bottlenecks and missing links 
(ibid.).  

Evidence of the potential of the EUSDR to influence EU and national policy developments 
The alignment of funding has also appeared to be difficult for the EUSDR, and may have been even 
more complicated by the later start of the Strategy, when ‘most of the main funding programmes are 
exhausted or were undergoing or preparing their last calls for projects, for which in many cases it was 
too  late  for  new  project  developments.  ....  As  a  consequence,  main  attention  to  align  funding  to 
labelled  projects  had  been  given  to  the  well  known  EU  funding  programmes,  mostly  the  European 
Territorial Cooperation (ETC) programmes in general and here the South East Europe Programme as 
the  most  prominent  one’  (EUSDR  PA6  2012:  13;  see  also  EUSDR  PA5  2012:  5-6).  Moreover, 
‘national budget restrictions in several EUSDR countries’ have been identified for some priority areas 
as presenting considerably challenges (EUSDR PA1a 2012).  

In  the  Annual  Forum  (Bayrische  Staatsregierung  2012),  several  initiatives  to  better  align  existing 
funding  to  the  EUSDR  were  reported.  For  example,  the  two  transnational  cooperation  programmes, 
South  East  Europe  and  Central  Europe,  have  financed  five  new  Danube  Strategy  projects,  with  an 
overall budget of over EUR 10 million. The Danube River is considered in its full length in the revised 
guidelines  for  the  Trans-European  Transport  Networks,  allowing  for  funding  in  the  TEN-T 
programmes. However, it is emphasized that EU funding for the 2014-2020 should be better aligned 
with the Danube Strategy (Bayrische Staatsregierung 2012). The Commission proposals to modify the 
current  geography  of  transnational  cooperation  programmes  within  the  Structural  Funds,  in  order  to 
create  a  future  transnational  cooperation  programme  for  the  Danube  Region  (rather  than  two 
INTERREG  ‘B’  programmes  as  currently)  is  welcomed  in  the  region,  as  it  promises  added  value 
through ‘concrete financing of Danube Region projects, as well as in providing technical assistance to 
the governance structure of the Strategy’ (Bayrische Staatsregierung 2012). 

Added  value  of  macro  regional  strategies  in  terms  of  coordination  of  activities  between  different 
actors including interaction/links with other EU initiatives 

In the Action Plan for the Danube Region Strategy, non-EU countries are listed as co-coordinators for 
several of the priorities (see Annexe 2), suggesting a more equal involvement of all countries along the 
Danube  than  is  currently  the  case  for  the  EUSBSR.  Yet,  also  the  EUSDR  is  faced  with  governance 
challenges.  The  reports  from  the  PACs  highlight  that  participation  in  the  Steering  Groups  varies 
considerably and has not been satisfactory in several PAs, and that more political and administrative 
support  will  be  needed  to  ensure  a  representative  and  stable  cooperation  (Bayrische  Staatsregierung 
2012). Moreover, it is rarely senior-level administrators from the responsible ministries, able to take 
important  decisions,  who  participate  in  the  meetings  (EUSDR  PA8  2012).  The  embedding  of  the 
EUSDR  in  national  settings  reportedly  varies  considerably  and  it  has  been  noted  that  ‘national 
coordination  works  better  in  those  eight  countries  which  have  installed  an  inter-ministerial  working 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
group for coordinating Danube work at the national level. An even stronger support is assured in those 
three countries that have introduced an additional coordination platform at the highest political level, 
with a technical secretariat supporting this work’ (ibid.). The implementation of the Strategy requires 
‘ownership on national and regional level’ although it remains a challenge ‘to motivate stakeholders to 
taking  over  responsibilities’  (EUSDR  PA10  2012).  This  seems  to  be  also  a  particular  problem  for 
actions  in  the  field  of  spatial  planning.  The  level  of  international  and  transnational  cooperation  has 
been reportedly difficult to increase also in some priority areas related to spatial planning, including 
the  field  of  biodiversity  and  nature  protection  (cf.  EUSDR  PA6  2012).  Partly  this  may  be  a 
consequence  of  the  lack  of  political  support  in  some  countries,  and  resulting  weak  capacity  to 
strengthen cooperation in the required areas related to spatial planning.  

Main drivers to increase the added value of macro-regional strategies in their establishment and in 
their implementation  

The  main  barriers  that  stand  in  the  way  of  a  better  implementation  of  the  EUSDR  seem  to  be  in 
relation to better alignment of funding, and to ensure better political support for the EUSDR in general 
and more coherently across all priority areas. In terms of the role of spatial planning, while there are 
several relevant actions in the Strategy across different priorities, these are rather dispersed, progress 
has been  modest to date and especially slow for land-based spatial planning initiatives. A debate on 
the role of spatial planning in the context of the EUSDR would therefore be useful, on which basis the 
various calls for a better and more integrated and coordinated ‘spatial vision’ may be considered.  

EU macro-regional strategies and spatial planning: concluding reflections and recommendations 

The  EU  macro-regional  approach  appears  to  have  helped  to  revitalise  the  process  of  transnational 
cooperation  in  the  Baltic  Sea  Region,  and  offered  a  platform  for  coordinated  action  in  the  Danube 
Region.  It  has  provided  a  forum  for  EU  and  national  actors  to  discuss  those  actions  that  groups  of 
countries  in  both  regions  need  to  jointly  undertake,  though  this  may  have  come  at  the  expense  of 
closely involving non-EU members. Yet tensions and challenges remain, and these will also determine 
the potential role of spatial planning in these regions which remains strongly dependent on the support 
of  nation-states  and  regions.  The  challenge  of  reconciling  the  ambitions  of  the  strategies  to  address 
functional relations with the reality of the political commitment of actors that often remains focused 
on  their  administrative  territories  may  not  easily  be  resolved.  Given  the  long  time-scale  of  spatial 
developments  and  the  need  for  continuing  political  support,  further  institutionalisation  at  the 
transnational level might be required to ensure that macro-regional strategies can offer an added-value 
for spatial planning in future. Prioritisation is another test for consensus-led processes, as will be the 
identification  of  spatial  impacts  of  different  sector  policies  and  at  different  levels  of  scale  in  the 
macro-regions, which would benefit from spatial planning coordination.  

So far, thus, the added-value of macro-regional strategies for spatial planning has overall been limited. 
It  has  been  almost  non-existent  for  land-based  spatial  planning,  although  there  has  been  more 
enthusiasm and progress for maritime spatial planning for the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea. There are 
hardly any maps available for the two strategies, neither to show an analysis of the current situation 
and trends or to map proposed actions (e.g. transport infrastructure investments), nor in the sense of 
policy proposals or seeking to provide a coordinated view on the spatial effects of all the actions and 
projects  envisaged  under  the  MRS’s.  The  strategies,  thus,  are  at  present  largely  non-spatial,  which 
seems to be a shortcoming given the evident spatial dimension of many of the proposed initiatives.  

In  the  EUSBSR,  the  understanding  of  spatial  planning  seems  to  be  increasingly  that  of  maritime 
spatial  planning  alone,  while  the  consideration  of  land-based  spatial  planning  is  overall  weak  and 
seems to be diminishing. Indeed, there is no evidence of added-value of the EUSBSR to the ongoing 
initiatives under VASAB. Also for the EUSDR, although more recent and therefore more difficult to 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
assess its progress, the spatial planning contribution in the EUSDR seems to be understood largely in 
terms of data sharing and soft coordination. Especially for land-based spatial planning initiatives it has 
been difficult to find relevant lead organizations that would be able to coordinate at transnational level. 
The slow progress on spatial planning in both strategies stands in contrast to their rhetoric that attaches 
great value to the coordinating powers of spatial planning, but it may suggest that there is not currently 
a clear and shared understanding in the two regions of what the role of transnational spatial planning 
could be, and in particular within the context of the macro-regional strategies.  

Yet while at the moment the added-value is limited for spatial planning (possibly because so far most 
energy  went  into  setting  up  the  more  thematic  actions  in  the  macro-regional  strategies,  where  also 
better established policy communities are able to drive progress), it may be useful to consider whether 
there  could  not  be  a  stronger  added-value  for  spatial  planning  from  the  macro-regional  strategies  in 
future.  After  all,  many  proposed  actions  and  projects  have  either  explicit  or  at  least  indirect  spatial 
impacts. The considerable energy that goes into setting up coordination mechanisms and multi-level 
governance arrangements for the two strategies suggests that there would be synergies in applying a 
spatial perspective to the actions pursued, and to prioritise the transnational spatial issues that would 
benefit from cooperation in the future. Before this may be achieved, a number of key questions need to 
be addressed, however. Besides a clear prioritisation (and political agreement) on transnational spatial 
issues,  these  refer  to  the  understanding  of  spatial  planning  at  this  level  of  scale;  the  architecture  of 
macro-regional  strategies  and  the  role  of  spatial  planning  within;  and  the  question  of  leadership  on 
transnational spatial planning (both land-based and maritime).  

In  the  first  instance,  a  discussion  on  the  added-value  of  macro-regional  cooperation  for  spatial 
planning  is  needed  among  the  actors  in  the  regions,  which  should  result  in  an  identification  of  the 
issues that require spatial coordination at the transnational level. Despite the work of VASAB in the 
region, it is not clear from the documents reviewed whether there is indeed a shared understanding of 
what transnational spatial planning in the BSR, and in the context of the EUSBSR in particular, should 
deal  with.  While  the  spatial  impacts  of  EU  sector  policies  seem  to  be  widely  recognized,  and  are 
indeed a key driver for many actions in the two macro-regional strategies, this does not seem to have 
led to clear action on how to better coordinate spatial planning activities of the involved countries.  

In  terms  of  the  role  of  spatial  planning  within  the  MRS’s,  for  the  EUSBSR  there  is  a  cross-cutting 
action  on  spatial  planning,  but  arguably  this  does  not  result  in  more  attention  to  spatially-relevant 
coordination  within  the  different  priority  areas  than  in  the  EUSDR,  where  spatial  planning  is 
considered  under  individual  priorities.  While  placing  spatial  planning  in  a  ‘horizontal  action’  may 
have  great  appeal  as  it  suggests  a  more  cross-cutting  approach,  in  practice  it  seems  to  increase  the 
coordination  burden  and  (in  the  case  of  the  EUSBSR)  seems  to  effectively  marginalise  spatial 
planning.  

The question of leadership on spatial planning action is a challenge which will be difficult to address, 
as even intergovernmental bodies (such as VASAB) still rely on the support of the cooperating nation-
states and require the backing of powerful sectoral ministries, while in many countries national spatial 
planning is not strongly developed. After identifying the key issues for transnational spatial planning 
in  the  regions  (e.g.  inter-regional  transport  and  energy  connections,  large-scale  agricultural  and 
environmental  issues  –  including  those  where  pollution  sources  have  distant  effects;  large-scale 
economic  effects  through  trade  corridors,  R&D  networks  etc)  and  identifying  the  need  for  spatial 
coordination  on  these  issues,  it  may  be  useful  to  identify  strong  lead  actors  (possibly  from  sectoral 
ministries) who can pursue such coordination in a more integrated way throughout the strategy. Other 
governance arrangements, e.g. a central coordination unit which can ensure dialogue with key actors 
on  spatial  impacts  and  across  different  priorities,  may  be  worth  considering  (although  this  would 
imply a departure from the ‘no new institutions’ rule of EU macro-regional strategies).  

For  both  existing  strategies,  it  would  be  important  to  give  a  stronger  focus  to  land-based  spatial 
planning, alongside maritime and coastal zone management, in order to provide a more comprehensive 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
spatial development perspective for the entire region. After all, many land-based activities also have 
an impact on the marine or fluvial environments (e.g. run-offs from agricultural land uses or transport 
links), and spatial planning activities on the territories of the countries around the Baltic Sea and along 
the  Danube  should  thus  also  be  coordinated  and  the  maritime  and  land-based  dimensions  of  spatial 
planning be reconciled. While the added-value of a maritime spatial planning approach for the Baltic 
Sea and the Black Sea seems to be more widely accepted, and progress may be facilitated by the fact 
that  this  is  a  new  policy  area  and  therefore  not  yet  firmly  institutionalized  in  most  countries,  there 
would  also  be  value  in  coordinating  the  spatial  impacts  of  sector  policies  across  different  levels  of 
governance  and  across  administrative  borders  on  land.  Mapping  the  proposals  under  the  different 
priorities may be a first start to better understand the spatial implications of all activities and projects 
proposed under the  macro-regional strategies, and to identify the areas that would require or benefit 
from better spatial coordination. 

For  new  EU  macro-regional  strategies,  it  should  be  recommended  that  they  are  selective  in  their 
choice  of  joint  actions  at  the  macro-regional  scale,  and  that  they  prioritise  those  that  clearly  require 
transnational cooperation and are specific to the particular region. Identifying key actors who would be 
able  to  ensure  coordination  from  a  spatial  planning  perspective,  and  to  preferably  do  so  for  the 
maritime and land-based spatial planning aspects in an integrated way, will be important. It would be 
useful to ‘build in’ spatial planning as a central consideration in future strategies from the beginning, 
as retrofitting such an important coordination task to ongoing actions and projects seems to be a major 
challenge. For future macro-regional strategies it could even be considered to start arranging macro-
regional  strategies  from  a  spatial  planning  perspective,  by  identifying  the  large-scale  spatial 
development trends and transnational spatial impacts of sector policies, and agreeing on joint action on 
this basis. This would ensure a stronger focus and clearer prioritization of the actions and projects, and 
ensure that the transnational spatial dimension is the key driving force.   

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Bibliography 

Barca,  F.  (2009)  An  agenda  for  a  reformed  cohesion  policy.  A  place-based  approach  to  meeting 
European Union challenges and expectations (Independent report prepared at the request of Danuta 
Hübner, Commissioner for Regional Policy). Rome: Ministry of Economics and Finance, Italy. 

Bayrische  Staatsregierung  Communities  (2012)  Reflection  Paper  on  the  implementation  of  the  EU 
Strategy for the Danube Region. First Annual Forum of the EU Strategy for the Danube Region, 27-28 
November 2012. Regensburg: Bayrische Staatsregierung. 

Böhme, K. and Waterhout, B. (2008) ‘The Europeanization of planning’, in A. Faludi (ed.) European 
Spatial Research and Planning, Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. 

CEC  Commission  of  the  European  Communities  (2008a)  Roadmap  for  Maritime  Spatial  Planning: 
Achieving Common Principles in the EU, COM (2008) 791 final, Brussels: CEC. 

CEC  Commission  of  the  European  Communities  (2008b)  Green  Paper  on  Territorial  Cohesion  - 
Turning territorial diversity into strength, COM(2008) 616 final. Brussels: CEC. 

CEC Commission of the European Communities (2009a) European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea 
Region. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European 
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM(2009) 248 final, Brussels: 
CEC. 

CEC  Commission  of  the  European  Communities  (2009b)  Commission  Staff  Working  Document. 
Accompanying Document to the Proposal for a EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region. Draft Impact 
Assessment Report, version 2. Brussels: CEC. 

CEC Commission of the European Communities (2010a) Commission staff working document: Action 
Plan.  Accompanying  document  to  European  Union  Strategy  for  the  Baltic  Sea  Region.  Updated 
version May 2010 (SEC(2009) 712/2), Brussels: CEC. 

CEC Commission of the European Communities (2010b) Commission staff working document: Action 
Plan. Accompanying document to European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region. December 2010 
version (SEC(2009) 712/2), Brussels: CEC. 

CEC  Commission  of  the  European  Communities  (2010c)  European  Union  Strategy  for  Danube 
Region. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European 
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM(2010) 715 final, Brussels: 
CEC. 

CEC Commission of the European Communities (2010d) Commission staff working document: Action 
Plan. Accompanying document to European Union Strategy for the Danube Region. SEC(2010) 1489 
final, Brussels: CEC. 

CEC  Commission  of  the  European  Communities  (2010e)  Europe  2020:  A  Strategy  for  Smart, 
(http://eur-
Sustainable 
Growth, 
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:2020:FIN:EN:PDF).  

Brussels: 

Inclusive 

CEC 

and 

CEC Commission of the European Communities (2010f) Report from the European Commission: The 
implementation of the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (First Annual Report). Brussels: CEC. 

CEC  Commission  of  the  European  Communities  (2010g)  Commission  Staff  Working  Document. 
Accompanying Accompanying the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, 
the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions 
concerning the European Union Strategy for the Danube Region. Impact Assessment Report. Brussels: 
CEC. 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CEC  Commission  of  the  European  Communities  (2011a)  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the 
European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee 
of  the  Regions  on  the  Implementation  of  the  EU  Strategy  for  the  Baltic  Sea  Region  (EUSBSR). 
COM(2011) 381 final (June 2011). Brussels: CEC. 

CEC  Commission  of  the  European  Communities  (2011b)  Commission  Staff  Working  Paper  on  the 
implementation  of  the  EU  Strategy  for  the  Baltic  Sea  Region.  SEC  (2011)  1071  final  (September 
2011). Brussels: CEC. 

CEC Commission of the European Communities (2012a) Communication from the Commission to the 
European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee 
of the Regions concerning the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region. COM(2012) 128 
final. Brussels: CEC. 

CEC Commission of the European Communities (2012b) Commission staff working document: Action 
Plan. Accompanying document to European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region. January 2012 
version (SEC(2009) 712/2), Brussels: CEC. 

CEC  Commission  of  the  European  Communities  (2013)  Commission  staff  working  document. 
Accompanying the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the 
European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  concerning  the 
European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region: Action Plan. February 2013 version (SEC(2009) 
712/2). Brussels: CEC. 

Council of the European Union (2011a) Council conclusions on the European Union Strategy for the 
Danube  Region.  3083rd  GENERAL  AFFAIRS  Council  meeting,  Brussels,  13  April  2011.  Brussels: 
Council of the European Union. 

Council  of  the  European  Union  (2011b)  Council  conclusions  on  the  review  of  the  European  Union 
Strategy  for  the  Baltic  Sea  Region.  3125th  GENERAL  AFFAIRS  Council  meeting,  Brussels,  15 
November 2011. Brussels: Council of the European Union. 

Council  of  the  European  Union  (2012)  Council  conclusions  on  the  completion  of  the  review  of  the 
European  Union  Strategy  for  the  Baltic  Sea  Region.  3180th  GENERAL  AFFAIRS  Council  meeting, 
Luxembourg, 26 June 2012. Brussels: Council of the European Union. 

CSD  Committee  on  Spatial  Development  (1999)  European  Spatial  Development  Perspective, 
Luxembourg: Office for the Official Publications of the European Community. 

Dühr,  S.  (2007)  The  Visual  Language of  Spatial  Planning:  Exploring  Cartographic  Representations 
for Spatial Planning in Europe, London: Routledge. 

Dühr,  S.  (2011a)  Territorial  cohesion  and  its  impact  on  sustainable  development.  EcoRegion 
Perspectives:  Territorial  Cohesion  -  Baltic  Sea  Region  examples.  Baltic  contribution  to  the  revised 
Territorial Agenda of the European Union, Baltic 21 Series No. 2/2011, pp. 14-15. 

Dühr,  S.  (2011b)  Baltic  Sea,  Danube  and  macro-regional  strategies:  a  model  for  transnational 
the  EU?  Available  online:  http://www.notre-europe.eu/en/axes/competition-
cooperation 
cooperation-solidarity/works/publication/baltic-sea-danube-and-macro-regional-strategies-a-model-
for-transnational-cooperation-in-the-eu/ 

in 

Dühr,  S.;  Colomb,  C.;  Nadin,  V.  (2010)  European  spatial  planning  and  territorial  cooperation. 
Routledge, London, New York. 

EU  Ministers  responsible  for  urban  and  spatial  development  (2007)  Territorial  agenda  of  the 
European  Union:  Towards  a  more  competitive  and  sustainable  Europe  of  diverse  region.  Agreed  at 
the  occasion  of  the  informal  ministerial  meeting  on  urban  development  and  territorial  cohesion, 
HTTP: 
Leipzig, 

Available 

Online. 

24/25 

May. 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
http://www.bmvbs.de/Anlage/original_1005295/Territorial-Agenda-of-the-European-Union-Agreed-
on-25-May-2007-accessible.pdf (accessed 1 July 2009).  

EUSDR  PA10  (2012)  EUSDR  Report  June  2012.  Priority  Area  10  –  Institutional  capacity  and 
cooperation. EUSDR. 

EUSDR  PA1a  (2012)  EUSDR  Report  June  2012.  Priority  Area  1a:  To  improve  mobility  and 
multimodality – Inland waterways. EUSDR. 

EUSDR  PA1b  (2012)  EUSDR  Report  June  2012.  Priority  Area  PA1b:  To  improve  mobility  and 
multimodality - road, rail and air links. EUSDR. 

EUSDR PA2 (2012) Progress Report on the First Year’s Implementation. EU Strategy for the Danube 
Region. Priority Area 2 (“to encourage more sustainable energy”). EUSDR. 

EUSDR  PA3  (2012)  EUSDR  Report  June  2012.  Priority  Area  3  -  To  promote  culture  and  tourism, 
people to people contacts. EUSDR. 

EUSDR PA4 (2012) EUSDR Report June 2012. Priority Area 4 - To restore and maintain the quality 
of waters. EUSDR. 

EUSDR  PA5  (2012)  EUSDR  Report  June  2012.  Priority  Area  5  -  To  manage  environmental  risk. 
EUSDR. 

EUSDR  PA6  (2012)  Implementation  of  the  EUSDR  Priority  Area  6  to  preserve  biodiversity, 
landscapes and the quality of air and soils. Report to the European Commission. Reporting period 13 
April 2011 – 30 June 2012. EUSDR. 

EUSDR PA7 (2012) EUSDR Report June 2012. Priority Area 7 - To develop the knowledge society 
through research, education and information technologies. EUSDR. 

EUSDR  PA8  (2012)  EUSDR  Report  June  2012.  Priority  Area  8  –  To  support  competiveness  of 
enterprises, including cluster development. EUSDR. 

EUSDR  PA9  (2012)  EUSDR  Report  June  2012.  Priority  Area  9  –  To  invest  in  people  and  skills. 
EUSDR. 

Faludi,  A.  (2002)  ‘Positioning  European  Spatial  Planning’,  European  Planning  Studies,  10(7):  897-
909.  

Gee,  K.;  Kannen,  A.;  Heinrichs,  B.  (2011)  BaltSeaPlan  Vision  2030  –  Towards  the  sustainable 
planning of Baltic Sea space. Geesthacht: Dept. Human Dimensions of Coastal Areas.  

Needham,  B.,  Zwanikken,  T.  and  Faludi,  A.  (1997)  ‘Strategies  for  improving  the  performance  of 
planning: some empirical research’, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 24(6): 871-
80. 
Panteia, EureConsult S.A., Policy Research and Consultancy; Géphyres Eurl and Radboud University 
Nijmegen  (2010)  Ex-Post  Evaluation  of  INTERREG  2000-2006  Initiative  financed  by  the  Regional 
Development Fund (ERDF) (No. 2008.CE.16.0.AT.016). Final report. Zoetermeer: Panteia. 

Samecki, P. (2009) Macro-regional Strategies in the European Union, Discussion Paper presented by 
Commissioner  Pawel  Samecki 
in  Stockholm,  18  September,  Brussels:  DG  Region 
(http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/cooperation/baltic/pdf/macroregional_strategies_2009.pdf) 

Savbäck, U.; Böhme, K.; Johansson, U. (2011) Analysis of needs for financial instruments in the EU 
Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region. Final report. Stockholm: SWECO. 

VASAB  2010  (1994)  Vision  and  Strategies  around  the  Baltic  Sea  2010:  Towards  a  Framework  for 
Spatial Development in the Baltic Sea Region, Gdansk: VASAB. 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
VASAB  2010  (1996)  Vision  and  Strategies  around  the  Baltic  Sea  2010.  From  Vision  to  Action, 
Gdansk: VASAB. 

VASAB 2010 (2001) VASAB 2010+. Spatial Development Action Programme, Gdansk: VASAB. 

VASAB LTP (2009) VASAB Long-Term Perspective for the Territorial Development of the Baltic Sea 
Region, Riga: VASAB. 

Table 1: Priority areas (PA’s) and Horizontal Actions (HA’s) of the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea 
Region 

Priority areas 

Coordinator(s) 

Number of 
actions 

PA Agri – Reinforcing sustainability of agriculture, forestry 
and fisheries 
PA Bio – Preserving natural zones and biodiversity, including 
fisheries 
PA Crime – Fighting cross-border crime 
PA Culture – Developing and promoting teh common culture 
and cultural identity 

PA Education – Developing innovative education and youth 

PA Energy – Improving the access to, and the efficiency and 
security of the energy markets 
PA Hazards – Reducing the use and impact of hazardous 
substances 
PA Health – Improving and promoting people’s health, 
including its social aspects 

PA Innovation – Exploiting the full potential of the region in 
research and innovation 
PA Internal Market – Removing hindrances to the internal 
market 
PA Nutri – Reducing nutrient inputs to the sea to acceptable 
levels 
PA Safe – To become a leading region in maritime safety and 
security 
PA Secure – Protection from emergencies and accidents on 
land 

PA Ship – Becoming a model region for clean shipping  
PA SME – Promote entrepreneurship and strengthen the 
growth of SMEs 
PA Tourism – Reinforcing cohesiveness of the macro-region 
through tourism 

42 

Finland / Lithuania 
/ Sweden 
Germany 

7 

2 

Finland / Lithuania  2 
5 
Schleswig-
Holstein 
(Germany) / 
Poland 
Hamburg 
(Germany) / 
Norden 
Association (in 
Sweden) 
Denmark / Latvia 

7 

2 

Sweden 

Northern 
Dimension 
Partnership in 
Public Health and 
Social Well-being 
Sweden / Poland 

Estonia 

Finland / Poland 

Denmark / Finland 

Sweden / the 
Council of the 
Baltic Sea States 
(CBSS) Secretariat 
Denmark 
Denmark 

Mecklenburg-
Vorpommern 

4 

3 

1 

3 

6 

7 

3 

1 
4 

2 

Number of 
flagship 
projects 
(incl. 
Potentials) 
11 

4 

4 
13 

11 

9 

6 

6 

6 

4 

7 

8 

6 

6 
9 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5 

5 

14 

2 

1 

8 

8 

2 

(not further 
specified) 

(Germany) 
Lithuania / Sweden  4 

Region 
Västerbotten and 
Kalmar / the Baltic 
Sea NGO Network 
City of Turku 
(Finland) / the 
Council of Baltic 
Sea States 
Secretariat 
Baltic Metropoles 
Network / Baltic 
Development 
Forum 
VASAB / 
HELCOM 

Council of Baltic 
Sea States 
Secretariat for 
sustainable 
development / 
Nordic Council of 
Ministers for bio-
economy 

3 for 
sustainable 
development, 
none further 
specified for 
bio-economy 

10 for 
sustainable 
development, 
3 for bio-
economy 

PA Transport – Improving internal and external transport 
links 
Horizontal Actions 
HA Involve – Strengthening multi-level governance including 
involving civil society, business and academia  

HA Neighbours – To increase the co-operation with 
neighbouring countries to tackle joint challenges in the Baltic 
Sea Region 

HA Promo – Boosting joint promotion and regional identity 
building actions 

HA Spatial Planning – Encouraging the use of Maritime and 
Land-based Spatial Planning in all Member States around the 
Baltic Sea and develop a common approach for cross-border 
cooperation 
HA Sustainable development and bio-economy 

Source: based on CEC 2013 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2: Pillars and priority areas of the EU Strategy for the Danube Region 

Coordinating 
country/-ies 

Number of 
actions 

Number of 
projects 

10 

7 

17 

14 

14 
8 
16 

8 

7 

8 

9 

11 

9 

6 

10 

20 

7 
11 
13 

12 

10 

7 

8 

10 

Pillar/priority area 

Pillar A: Connecting the Danube Region 
1. To improve mobility and multimodality 

2. To encourage more sustainable energy 

Inland waterways 
transport: Austria, 
Romania 
Rail, road and air 
transport: Slovenia, 
Serbia, (Interest: 
Ukraine) 
Hungary, Czech 
Republic 

3. To promote culture and tourism, people to people contacts  Bulgaria, Romania 
Pillar B: Protecting the environment in the Danube 
Region 
4. To restore and maintain the quality of waters 
5. To manage environmental risks 
6. To preserve biodiversity, landscapes and the quality of air 
and soils 
Pillar C: Building prosperity in the Danube Region 
7. To develop the knowledge society through research, 
education and information technologies 
8. To support the competitiveness of enterprises, including 
cluster development 

Hungary, Slovakia 
Hungary, Romania 
Germany (Bavaria), 
Croatia 

Slovakia, Serbia 

9. To invest in people and skills 
Pillar D: Strengthening the Danube Region 
10. To step up institutional capacity and cooperation 

11. To work together to promote security and tackle 
organised and serious crime 
Source: Dühr 2011b, based on CEC 2010d 

Germany (Baden-
Württemberg), 
Croatia 
Austria, Moldova 

Austria (Vienna), 
Slovenia 
Germany, Bulgaria 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.3  Assessing  the  added  value  of  macro-regional  strategies  –  Environment  Discussion 
paper 

Ágnes Kelemen 

Introduction 
The  EU  Strategy  for  the  Baltic  Sea  Region  (EUSBSR)  and  the  EU  Strategy  for  the  Danube  Region 
(EUSDR)  do  not  provide  for  new  funding  or  new  legislation,  and  build  to  the  extent  possible  on 
existing institutional frameworks. This does not, however mean that macroregional strategies have no 
added value. 

Macroregional  strategies  have  a  general  role  in  improving  coordination  among  different  actors, 
countries and regions and priorities, decreasing the likelihood of duplication of efforts, and increasing 
the  likelihood  that  agreed  actions  will  be  implemented  due  to  increased  political  commitment  and 
visibility.  

The Impact Assessment of the EUSBSR states that “[i]ssues which have spillover effects into parts or 
the whole of the macroregion and which are not already dealt with in the context of EU policies are 
deemed  to  be  of  strategic  relevance  to  the  [macroregion].  For  issues  which  are  of  common  concern 
(e.g. countries are facing similar problems without spillover effects such as an ageing population) the 
relevance of the macroregion is mainly limited to coordination and exchange of information regarding 
experience  gained  from  policy  implementation.”17  This  also  reflects  the  extent  to  which  a 
macroregional strategy can have an added value: the potential for added value is greater for issues of 
strategic relevance than for issues of common concern. 

Macroregional strategies can have added value for actions specifically related to environmental issues, 
despite the expansive volume of EU legislation in the field of environment, as well as already existing 
EU  funding  sources  for  this  purpose.  Examples  of  environmental  issues  where  macroregional 
strategies  can be of greatest added value, i.e. issues  where these  strategies  are of strategic relevance 
are: 

1.  Addressing 

to 

issues 

relating 

particular 
feature  reaching  across 
ecosystem/landscape/ecological  corridor/other  environmental 
borders which is specific to a number of regions/MS but not the entire EU. This is the case for 
both  the  EUSBSR  and  EUSDR,  where  due  to  the  specific  environmental,  ecological, 
geological  features  of  the  Danube  and  Baltic  Sea,  the  issues  affecting  them  can  be  best 
addressed by surrounding MS and regions. 

approach 

shared 

to 

a 

a 

2.  Coordinating  action/policy  response  needed  to  achieve  results  in  relation  to  cross-border 
externalities  at  a  macroregional  level,  especially  if  these  externalities  are  not  sufficiently 
addressed by EU legislation because of the sensitivity of the area, because there is ambition on 
the  part  of  a  few  MS  to  go  beyond  what  is  required  by  EU  legislation,  or  because  not  all 
countries producing the externality are EU Member States and therefore EU legislation does 
not apply to them, but nonetheless causes external impacts in the EU. This is the case with e.g. 
the  Baltic  Sea,  where  the  MARE  Nest  Model  has  shown  that  implementing  the  Water 
Framework  Directive  will  not  achieve  good  environmental  status  of  the  sea.  The  Baltic  Sea 
was  also  declared  a  Particularly  Sensitive  Sea  Area  by  the  International  Maritime 
Organisation. In such cases, action by a group of countries (MS and non-MS) may be needed 
which goes beyond EU legislation. Another example is the waste water discharge from ships 
representing 15% of the world’s maritime traffic, taking place on a sea which is a designated 

17 SEC(2009) 702 Commission Staff Working Document Accompanying the Commuication from the Commission to the 
European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 
concerning the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region Impact Assessment. 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
as a particularly sensitive area; here also, EU legislationis insufficient to achieve the required 
results.  With  respect  to  the  Danube  region,  cross-border  externalities  include  environmental 
risks  posed  by  flooding,  where  upstream  management  options  influence  downstream 
outcomes, as well as externalities relating to water pollution and biodiversity.  

3.  Promoting  the  integration  of  environment  into  other  activities  resulting  from  the  integrated 
approach of macroregional strategies.  For example, the EUSBSR has enabled a cross-sectoral 
approach  to  environmental  issues.  This  has  helped  address  problems  where  previously 
HELCOM, which has an environmental focus, has not been able to curb many of the sectoral 
interests (e.g. agricultural) which drive environmental issues (eutrophication). 

Within the scope of this paper, resources and time are scarce for an evaluation of the outputs or results  
of  the  macroregional  strategies  in  comparison  with  a  counterfactual  scenario.  Although  e.g.  the 
January 2012 version of the EUSBSR Action Plan contains a number of targets and related indicators 
for measuring progress in creating an environmentally sustainable region, there is a lack of monitoring 
data. Often projects and actions are in the first phases of implementation. Therefore the focus of the 
assessment is often on the aims and planned activities of the actions and projects rather than outputs 
and results. In addition, due to the ‘soft’ nature of macroregional strategies, it is difficult to establish a 
counterfactual scenario, i.e. to know what would have happened in the absence of the strategies, and to 
understand  exactly  to  what  extent  the  strategies  have  given  new  impetus  to  cooperation.  Within  the 
scope  of  this  paper  time  and  resources  are  also  insufficient  for  an  approach  which  assesses  every 
priority  area  and  project.  The  assessment  is  further  constrained  by  the  fact  that  it  relies  on  publicly 
available  information  only.  The  approach  taken  in  this  assessment  is  therefore  to  demonstrate  the 
added  value  of  macroregional  strategies  through  examples  of  positive  developments  in  the  widest 
sense.  This  is  similar  to  the  approach  taken  by  the  Commission  in  its  report  of  June  2011  on  the 
implementation  of  the  EUSBSR18,  where  project  examples  demonstrating  the  added  value  of  the 
strategy were identified under the following headings: 

•  new activity generated (new projects) 
•  momentum given to existing activity (more visibility, clustering of existing projects) 
•  new networks, better cooperation  
•  policy development and coherence  
• 
• 

alignment of funding with other instruments 
cooperation with non-EU states 

The  focus  of  the  assessment  is  on  a  number  of  guiding  questions  provided  by  the  Commission 
Services. 

Within the scope of this paper, due to the information, timing and resource constraints of the current 
assessment, a thorough assessment of the added value of macroregional strategies was not possible. In 
future, there is need for a true evaluation of the outputs and results of macroregional strategies, the use 
of resources and methodologies which go beyond a synthesis of publicly available information. 

Achievements  and  contribution  to  EU  policies  and  targets,  national,  regional  and 
sectoral policies 

There is evidence to support that both strategies are contributing to the sustainable growth pillar of the 
EU  2020  Strategy,  promoting  a  more  resource  efficient,  greener  and  more  competitive  economy,  as 
well as to the smart growth and inclusive growth pillars. The EUSDR was already formulated with the 
aim to contribute to the EU 2020 Strategy. The original EUSBSR was formulated before the Europe 

18 COM(2011) 381 final Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and 
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Implementation of the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region 
(EUSBSR). 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2020 Strategy. The Council called on the European Commission to review the strategy at the end of 
2011,  and  the  review  process  came  to  its  conclusion  at  the  end  of  2012  when  the  Commission 
presented the new EUSBSR, which now has several references to the Europe 2020 Strategy. 

The Sustainable Growth pillar of the Europe 2020 Strategy has a very strong focus on the issues of the 
low  carbon  economy,  resource-efficiency  and  green  growth,  with  targets  of  the  Sustainable  Growth 
Pillar relating to renewable energy, energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Of these 
issues,  not  all  lend  themselves  equally  well  to  be  addressed  within  the  scope  of  a  macroregional 
strategy, as e.g. climate change mitigation is generally not macroregionally specific. This fact has been 
recognised  by  the  review  process  of  the  EUSBSR.  While  the  first  version  of  the  strategy  contained 
many  references  to  renewable  energy  and  energy  efficiency,  the  Communication  on  the  EUSBSR 
adopted in December 2012 does not contain a reference to these issues.  

However,  in  a  wider  sense  the  macroregional  strategies  both  have  a  strong  focus  on  sustainable 
growth. Examples include: 

•  The  BONUS  joint  Baltic  Sea  Research  and  Development  Programme  developed  within  the 
context of the Strategy has a budget of EUR 100 million. It is a joint research effort bz 8 MS 
to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Baltic Sea Region's environmental research 
programming.  

•  The  CleanShip  and  InnoShip  projects  both  transform  innovations  into  operations  to  reduce 

emissions at sea while retaining the competitiveness of Baltic shipping. 

•  The Blue Danube project aims at providing improved framework conditions for fast track eco-

innovation in waste water treatment. 

Both  macroregional  strategies  have  as  their  stated  aims  to  contribute  to  the  implementation  of  EU 
environmental  acquis,  and  sometimes  going  beyond  what  is  required  bz  EU  legislation.  This  is 
supported by evidence from several projects: 

(cid:131)  The strategic action “Implement actions to reduce nutrients” of the EUSBSR concerns the full 
implementation  of  key  directives19  related  to  reducing  eutrophication  and  the  “Baltic  Sea 
Action Plan” of HELCOM.  

(cid:131)  Flagship Project 2.1. “Create marine protected areas” has, in accordance with the Birds20 and 
Habitats Directives21 called on MS to designate of a network of marine protected areas in the 
Baltic Sea. As a result an area of 10.3% of the Baltic Sea has been designated as protected; 
(cid:131)  The Flagship project “Development of HELCOM Core Set Indicators” aims to develop core 
indicators  to  monitor  Good  Ecological  Status  (GES)  as  defined  in  the  EU  Marine  Strategy 
Framework Directive. 

Evidence  of  the  contribution  of  macroregional  strategies  to  achieving  targets  of  existing  national, 
regional and sectoral policies is less clear. One example is the CLISP project, which has helped Italian 
provinces to ensure the coherence of territorial planning, which by law is their responsibility. Due to 
the involvement of the Mountain Community “Appenino Aleramico Obertengo” in the project, it was 
able to transfer the main results of the project directly to different institutions and associations which 
operate at different levels within the model region.22 

19 Water Framework Directive, Nitrate Directive and the Urban Waste Water Directive 
20 Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds. 
21 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. 
22 Final Results Booklet CLISP 
www.clisp.eu%2Fcontent%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FCLISP_Model%2520Region%2520Report_Alessandria.pdf 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Potential  to  influence  EU  and  national  policy  developments  (e.g.  through  mobilization  and 
alignment of funding and policy priorities with Europe 2020) 

Generally  actions  and  projects  aim  at  influencing  national  policies.  Examples  of  macroregional 
projects wishing to influence EU policies exist, but are much more scarce. 

The way that projects have tried influence national and regional policies differs. Practices include: 

(cid:131)  Ensuring involvement of policymakers: In the project: In the “CC WaterS - Climate Change 
and Impacts on Water Supply” project government bodies are working with other stakeholders 
which will make policy uptake of the recommendations more probable.  

(cid:131)  Preparation of draft legislation: Action 7 of Priority Action 4 of the EUSDR “To legislate at 
the appropriate level to limit the presence of phosphates in detergents”. Similarly, in relation 
to  phosphates,  the  EUSBSR  Flagship  project  1.1  “Remove  phosphates  in  detergents  in 
countries where this is not yet the case” prepared a draft proposal for a harmonised regulation 
regarding the use of phosphates and other phosphorus compounds in households. 

(cid:131)  Preparation  of  concepts  and  strategies:  the  WANDA  project  elaborated  national  ship  waste 
concepts  in all partner countries. The focus of BaltAdapt is on preparing a regional climate 
change adaptation plan. The EUSDR project “CC-Ware – Mitigating Vulnerability of Water 
Resources” aims to facilitate the development of national action plans for assuring sustainable 
drinking  water  supply  by  setting  up  a  transnational  strategy.  The  SMIWASTRES  project 
elaborates guidelines and recommendations for policy level in relation to waste disposal.  

For  the  EUSDR,  according  to  the  implementation  reports  of  June  2012,  the  funding  for  approved 
projects was EUR 26 million for PA 4, 44.3 million for PA5 and 27.1 million for PA6. Most of the 
funding came from EU funds (especially ERDF, but also IPA, ENPI and LIFE) with a small amount of 
funding coming from private companies and foundations. For the EUSBSR Priority Areas 1-5 which 
concern the environment, the total budget was EUR 43.6 million according to a survey of projects in 
June 2012.23 

However, lack of cohesion policy funding is an issue for the EUSBSR. “It should be noted that due to 
the  end  of  the  current  programming  period  (2007-2013),  most  of  the  financial  resources  of  the 
programmes  have  been  already  allocated.  Therefore,  it  is  difficult  to  find  open  calls  for  territorial 
cooperation projects. However, financial support for projects is provided by some organisations such 
as CBSS, Nordic Council of Ministers or BONUS.”24 

Evidence from the EUSDR suggests that there have generally been difficulties in mobilising funding, 
and  this  has  caused  a  widespread  problem.  Therefore  actors  are  currently  focused  on  preparing 
projects for the 2014-2020 period and have put implementation on hold. This is mentioned in several 
places in the implementation reports of Priority Areas 4-6 of the EUSDR. 

The  current  level  of  funding  is  of  the  magnitude  which  can  sustain  projects  which  promote  best 
practices,  share 
in  both 
macroregions,  addressing  environmental  issues  will  require  a  substantial  volume  of  physical 
investment.  

information,  conduct  research,  prepare  guidelines,  etc.  However, 

Reasons  for  lack  of  funding  are  the  timing  of  the  strategies  has  meant  that  funds  have  already been 
committed. This issue is therefore not a long-term challenge for the two macroregional strategies, and 
will be addressed from 2014 onwards by the new programmes. 

23 http://eu.baltic.net/redaktion/download.php?type=file&id=1298  
24 EUSBSR Newsletter November 2012 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Added value for coordination of activities between actors 

Macroregional strategies, through their territorial scope and integrated approach, have the potential to 
ensure  coordination  of  activities  between  different  regions  and  MS  and  between  representatives  of 
different  sectors  and  interests.  For  environmental  issues  this  is  particularly  important  due  to  the 
existence of cross-border externalities, and the need to integrate environmental considerations into all 
activities.  To  avoid  duplication  with  the  assessment  on  governance,  this  assessment  focuses  on  the 
value of coordination between actors at the level of projects. 

Different  projects  realised  within  the  scope  of  the  strategies  take  advantage  of  the  possibilities  for 
coordination  in  different  ways  and  to  a  varying  degrees.  Examples  of  different  types  and  levels  of 
coordination include: 

•  Coordination  of  actors  within  a  sector:  The  EUSDR  Green  Danube  Network  and  Bavarian 

Network projects both focus on building a network of environmental NGOs. 

•  Coordination between different sectors: The EUSBSR Flagship project “Develop and improve 
coordination  and  cooperation  among  Member  States  and  stakeholders”  on  fisheries 
management in the Baltic Sea has established the Baltfish forum to investigate how integration 
of  concerned  stakeholders  in  fisheries  management  and  policy  implementation  can  be 
strengthened. This is viewed as a first step towards regional management of fisheries. 

Various  tools  are  used  in  different  projects  to  increase  coordination  and  cooperation.  Some  projects 
focus  on  bringing  together  different  stakeholders,  others  on  developing  strategies,  action  plans  and 
legislation common to the entire area of the macroregion. 

The  effort  to  increase  coordination  and  cooperation  is  not  a  finished  process  but  is  ongoing.  The 
implementation report of Priority Action 6 of the EUSDR notes that “In dialogue with stakeholders it 
was  detected  that  the  level  of  international/transnational  cooperation  and  the  setting  of  existing 
networks in the field of biodiversity and nature protection is quite weak, which is a precondition for 
EUSDR-related activities and a big challenge to steer the process of capacity building.”25 

Added  value  for  improving  governance  structures,  including  interlinkages  with  EU  initiatives 
(Northern Dimension, Eastern Partnership) 

The Northern Dimension has benefited from additional funding of EUR 20 million in 2010. The total 
funding  made  available  to  environmental  projects  financed  under  the  Northern  Dimension 
Environmental Partnership from its establishment in 2001 until end of 2012 was EUR 121.81 million, 
with  the  total  cost  of  projects  at  EUR  3338.9  million.26  The  additional  funding  of  EUR  20  million 
makes up a sixth of the funding available to the NDEP and is therefore significant.  

The funding is aimed at environmental projects primarily. Project with Russia in water, wastewater, 
solid  waste  and  energy  efficiency  are  implemented  in  the  framework  of  the  Northern  Dimension 
Environmental Partnership.27 The Northern Dimension Environmental Partnership has also contributed 
to activities in Belarus under Flagship Project 1.5. “Assessment of regional nutrient pollution load and 
identification of priority projects to reduce nutrient inputs from Belarus to the Baltic Sea”. 

25 Report to the European Commission Implementation of the EUSDR Priority Area 6 to preserve biodiversity, landscapes 
and the quality of air and soils Reporting period 13 April 2011 – 30 June 2012 Final 
26 http://www.ndep.org/projects.asp?type=nh&cont=prjh&pageid=4  
27 SEC(2009) 712/2  Januarz 2012 version Commission Staff Working Document Accompanzing the Communication from 
the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee 
of the Regions concerning the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region Action Plan 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
There  is  little  evidence  of  the  contribution  of  the  two  macroregional  strategies  to  the  Eastern 
Partnership, despite initial intentions. 

Main drivers to increase the added value of macro-regional strategies  

Although  the  added  value  of  macroregional  strategies  for  the  environment  can  be  clearly 
demonstrated, there is scope for further increasing added value.  

Due to the ‘soft’ nature of macroregional strategies (especially the no new funding provision) it can be 
expected  that  there  will  be  some  weaknesses  in  implementation.  E.g.  the  EUSBSR  “Cleaner  waste 
water” Flagship project includes information gathering, prioritisation related to waste water treatment 
plants,  and  an  identification  of  countries’  difficulties.  It  also  aims  to  build/upgrade  priority  Waste 
Water Treatment Plants around the Baltic Sea. However, as environmental infrastructure is investment 
heavy and several countries around the Baltic Sea cannot finance this type of infrastructure either from 
government revenues or from user fees to the extent necessary, it is unlikely that this project alone, or 
even the EUSBSR as a whole can lead to real results. Lack of is an even bigger issue for the EUSDR. 
Here the implementation reports of the priority areas of the EUSDR mention in several places the lack 
of funding and the missed opportunity to align the strategy with EU funding due to the timing of the 
strategy. For the added value of macroregional strategies to be truly realised, stronger integration into 
cohesion policy programming is needed to ensure the necessary funds for implementation will become 
available.  The  closer  alignment  of  cohesion  policy  programming  with  macroregional  strategies  in 
2014-2020  is  therefore  welcome,  and  will  help  to  deliver  results.  Such  funding  will  be  needed  for 
upscaling  of  demonstration  projects  (e.g.  delivered  by  the  Baltic  Deal  project  in  relation  to  best 
agricultural  practices)  or  for  implementing  guidelines  (e.g.  those  delivered  by  SMOCS  for  the 
management  of  contaminated  sediments)  as  well  as  carrying  out  planned  investments  (e.g.  Cleaner 
waste water flagship project).  

In  some  cases,  to  ensure  that  there  is  some  kind  of  benefit  to  all  MS  and  regions  participating  in  a 
macroregional strategy, actions and projects which seem to have less added value for the macroregion 
as a whole, but are of high importance to a small group of regions and MS  have also been included in 
the strategies. However, a stronger focus on actions and projects with true macroregional significance 
should  be  encouraged.  This  means  that  the  focus  should  be  primarily  on  issues  within  the 
environemntal theme which the EUSBSR Impact Assessment refers to as being of strategic relevance. 
Projects which are relevant to a smaller territory within the macroregion or address issues which are 
not specific to the macroregion only but to the EU in general should have lower priority, as these can 
be  addressed  through  other  approaches.  This  would  also  ensure  stronger  focus  and  avoid 
fragmentation of efforts. The process of refocusing the EUSBSR on issues of strategic relevance has 
already  taken  place  through  the  review  of  the  strategy.  However,  the  EUSDR  is  still  very  much  an 
umbrella strategy for all activities which take place in the Danube region and require cooperation, and 
is focused on addressing many issues which are not of strategic relevance to the Danube region. It is 
therefore not clear for every project how the EUSDR is complementary to other territorial cooperation 
initiatives in the region, and what the added value is. 

For certain project types, particularly those that do not produce tangible results on their own, such as 
those  focused  on  gathering  information,  increasing  scientific  knowledge,  preparing  guidance 
documents, etc., there should be an attempt to ensure that they feed into the policy making process in 
some way. This does not always seem to be the case.  

Transitory governance structures are less likely to follow-up activities, and provide feedback, and are 
therefore less suited for projects which aim to provide long term results. Although the macroregional 
strategies have, out of consideration for existing institutions at the request of participating MS, focused 
on an approach which does not hinge on new structures, these may in some cases be necessary, where 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
they  do  not  exist  already.  The  need  for  new  structures  is  an  issue  addressed  by  the  Danubeparks  II 
project. 

For  future  macroregional  strategies  and  for  possible  further  reviews  of  the  existing  strategies  a  top-
down  determination  of  specific  targets  related  to  the  strategy  should  be  avoided  as  this  may  hinder 
ownership  of  the  strategy  in  the  macroregion.  The  EUSDR  has  set  specific  targets  related  to  the 
navigability of the river which does not have the support of all MS and environmental organisations in 
the  macroregion  and  may  prevent  constructive  discussions  on  trade-offs  between  transport  and 
environment between stakeholders and hinder progress by entrenching views on the issue. 

An example of a project which is of true added value in all respects and can be considered as a project 
which  addresses  issues  of  strategic  relevance  to  the  macroregion  is  the  Danubeparks  II  project.  It 
addresses  an  issue  specific  to  the  macroregion,  is  aimed  at  a  direct  contribution  to  the  goals  of  the 
macroregional  strategy,  in  terms  of  governance  sets  out  to  establish  formal  links  between  actors, 
ensures  that  results  are  translated  into  action  at  the  policy  level,  has  an  integrated  approach  across 
different  areas  and  themes,  focuses  also  on  implementation  by  building  on  previous  project  results. 
According to the implementation report of PA6 of the EUSDR, “[t]he project focuses on networking 
and  cooperation  processes  of  protected  areas  alongside  the  Danube  river.  The  activities  stretch  over 
eight countries in the Danube Region and include member states and non-member states, Lead Partner 
is Donau-Auen National Park, Orth a.d. Donau, Austria. Whereas the first DANUBEPARKS project 
basically  formed  the  network  of  relevant  actors,  the  follow-up  projects  aims  to  further  anchor  the 
network on international and political level with the aim of a long-term and stable organisation as a 
binding  link  between  the  policy  level,  the  NGOs  and  the  citizens.  A  direct  contribution  to  the 
implementation of the EUSDR is envisaged. Beside these policy oriented activities, content-oriented 
activities  focus  on  flagship  species  (Black  Poplar,  White-tailed  Eagle),  River  Morphology 
(cooperation  with  the  ICPDR)  and  Tourism.”  The  EUSBSR  “Cleaner  waste  water”  Flagship  project 
similarly  addresses  a  true  macroregional  challenge  and  ensures  that  its  findings  are  translated  into 
action by not onlz gathering information and prioritising investment in waste water treatment plants, 
but bz aiming build/upgrade priority Waste Water Treatment Plants around the Baltic Sea. 

Recommendations on future work on macroregional strategies 

The added value of macroregional strategies depends in part on how the strategy is initially conceived 
and also on how it is implemented. The issues that macroregional strategies focus on is already largely 
decided when these strategies are formulated, through the identification of obejctives, priority areas, a 
list of actions in the action plans, etc. Other areas where decisions at EU level have a strong impact is 
the no new funding and no new institutions concept in relation to these strategies. A lot of other issues 
(such as the extent to which all relevant stakeholders are involved in projects or how the results of the 
projects are fed into the policy process in the relevant MS and regions) can be influenced during the 
implementation phase of macroregional strategies rather than at EU level during the formulation of the 
strategy. 

The following recommendations can be made for policy makers at the EU level: 

•  Focusing  macroregional  strategies  on  areas  within  the  environmental  theme  which  are  of 
strategic  relevance  to  the  particular  macroregion  and  which  are  specific  to  the  macroregion 
would  increase  added  value  of  these  strategies.  In  the  field  of  environment  these  are  easily 
identifiable  and  relate  in  particular  to  macroregional  level  externalities  and  ecosystems 
common to the entire macroregion. 

•  Focusing  macroregional  strategies  on  areas  which  are  priorities  for  the  EU,  e.g.  on  issues 
which are contained in the Europe 2020 Strategy, in the Environmental Action Programme of 
the EU, or relate to addressing obligations contained in the EU environmental Acquis where 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
implementation is lagging behind could promote macro-regional strategies as a link between 
the EU policy level and implementation. 

• 

•  The  rule  of  no  new  institutions  should not  be  applied  too  strictly.  New  institutions  have  the 
potential  to  fill  gaps  where  institutions  do  not  currently  exist,  which  may  be  important  for 
future macroregional strategies which do not have the same kind of history of cooperation as 
e.g. the Baltic Sea region. New institutions may also be necessary to ensure sustained results 
after projects have been implemented. 
It is important to ensure that EU funding can be made available also for new macroregional 
strategies  which  are  developed  during  a  programming  period,  and  that  there  are  sufficient 
incentives to make funding available. It is also important to ensure sufficient funding for the 
implementation of macroregional strategies, either by increased the level of funding for these 
strategies,  or  through  ensuring  that  funding  is  made  available  from  national  and  regional 
programmes even if programming has taken place already. 
Identify  good  practices  for  projects  (e.g.  regarding  involvement  of  stakeholders,  producing 
policy-relevant results, etc.) and encouraging/ensuring that these are applied when projects are 
selected  and  implemented  may  promote  added  value  at  the  level  of  implementation,  help 
minimise the number of projects which do not have true macroregional added value due to less 
than optimal implementation, and avoid an umbrella effect of macroregional strategies where 
all  projects  taking  place  within  the  macroregion  are  sold  under  the  banner  of  the  strategy 
without an examination of added value for the macroregion as a whole. 

• 

•  The potential of macroregional strategies to involve non-MS should be further strengthened, 
as this can improve relations with these countries and regions, and also improve outcomes for 
the macroregion as a whole.  

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
References 

Projects  with  a  clear  link  to  the  EU  Strategy  for  the  Baltic  Sea  Region  Based  on  the  Action  Plan 
SEC(2009) 712/2, January 2012 version Updated 26.06.2012 
HELCOM Ministerial Declaration on the implementation of the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan 20 
May 2010, Moscow. Helsinki Commission, Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission 
COM(2012) 128 final Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, 
the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  concerning  the 
European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region 
SEC(2011)  1071  final  Commission  Staff  Working  Paper  on  the  implementation  of  the  European 
Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region 
COM(2011)  381  final  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the 
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Implementation 
of the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR) 
SEC(2009)  712/2  JANUARY  2012  VERSION  COMMISSION  STAFF  WORKING  DOCUMENT 
Accompanying  the  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council, 
the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  concerning  the 
European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region 
COM(2009) 248 final Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, 
the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  concerning  the 
European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region 
SEC(2009)  702  COMMISSION  STAFF  WORKING  DOCUMENT  Accompanying 
the 
Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European 
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions concerning the European Union 
Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region Impact Assessment 
COM(2010) 715 final 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 Danube Region  
Report  to  the  European  Commission  Implementation  of  the  EUSDR  Priority  Area  6  to  preserve 
biodiversity, landscapes and the quality of air and soils Reporting period 13 April 2011 – 30 June 2012 
Final 
EUSDR  Report  June  2012  Priority  Area  4  TO  RESTORE  AND  MAINTAIN  THE  QUALITY  OF 
WATERS 
EUSDR Report June 2012 Priority Area 5 To manage Environmental Risk  
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  
Conference  Report  2012    Connecting  Europe  –  Smart  and  Green  Partnerships  14th  Baltic 
Development Forum Summit European Commission’s 3rd Annual Forum on the EU Strategy for the 
Baltic Sea Region Copenhagen, 17-19 June 2012 

Web pages: 
http://www.balticsea-region-strategy.eu/  
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/cooperate/baltic/index_en.cfm 
http://www.danube-region.eu/ 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/cooperate/danube/index_en.cfm 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.4 Do macro-regional strategies boost innovation and competitiveness? 

Alasdair Reid 

Introduction 
This paper was drafted at the request of Directorate General for Regional and Urban Policy, Unit D1, 
Competence Centre for macro-regions and European territorial cooperation. The paper forms part of 
the European Commission’s response to the European Council’s request (April 2011) to “clarify the 
concept  of  macro-regional  strategies,  to  evaluate  their  value  added  and  submit  the  outcomes  to  the 
Council  and  the  European  Parliament  by  June  2013“.  Based  on  available  documentation,  the  paper 
considers  the  value  added  of  macro-regional  strategies  for  business  competitiveness,  research  and 
innovation policies addressing the following questions  

1.  What  are  the  main  achievements  in  implementing  the  macro-regional  strategies  and  what 
contribution have they made to EU policies and targets; national, regional, sectoral policies? The 
question  of  the  relevance  of  macro-regional  strategies  to  EU  Cohesion  Policy  and  Europe  2020 
Strategy objectives particularly should be addressed; 

2.  Do Macro regional strategies have the potential to influence EU and national policy developments, 
e.g. through mobilisation of existing funding, and alignment of funding and policies with EU 2020 
priorities and programmes, and what evidence supports this? 

3.  What is the added value of macro regional strategies in terms of coordination of activities between 
different  actors;  for  example  via  cooperation  between  EU  Member  States  and  Third  countries, 
through  improved  cooperation  structures,  development  of  new  ways  of  cooperation  or 
strengthening existing ones? 

4.  What  is  the  added  value  of  the  macro  regional  strategies  in  terms  of  improving  governance 
structures  for  the  achievement  of  overall  objectives  including  interaction/links  with  other  EU 
initiatives (such as the Northern Dimension, Eastern Partnership, etc), and what concrete progress 
has been made in the priority areas/horizontal actions/actions and flagship projects assessed?. 

5.  What  are  the  main  drivers  to  increase  the  added  value  of  macro-regional  strategies  in  their 

establishment and in their implementation? 

The European Commission defines a macro-region as “an area including territory from a number of 
different  countries  or  regions  associated  with  one  or  more  common  features  or  challenges.28”.  A 
macro-regional  strategy  (MRS)  does  not  provide  additional  funding  or  create  new  policy,  legal  and 
institutional frameworks; rather the aim is to foster a better and more effective use of existing funds, 
institutions/structures, (local, regional, national, EU) policies, etc. Hence, the added value of a MRS is 
principally  through  more  effective  trans-national  coordination  and  creation  of  synergies  between 
national and regional policies. 

Two macro-regional strategies have been approved: 

• 

• 

the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR) in 2009 

the EU Strategy for the Danube Region (EUSDR) in 2011.  

Moreover, the December 2012 Council conclusions invited the Commission to present a EU Strategy 
for the Adriatic and Ionian region before the end of 2014. 

28

 See: http://www.interact-eu.net/macro_regional_strategies/macro_regional_strategies/283/3921  

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
1. The main achievements of macro-regional strategies in the field of innovation 

It is still early to draw robust, evidence-based, conclusions on the extent to which the existence of a 
MRS creates added value (in the simplest terms, was the intervention additional to what would other 
wise have taken place?) with respect to existing regional, national and EU policies. Two approaches 
are adopted towards assessing the potential achievements and added value of the two existing MRS: 

•  A comparison of the expected impact of the two strategies on innovation and competitiveness to 
what has been actually achieved to date. On this basis, it may be possible to extrapolate the added 
value  of  the  MRS  in  the  future  programming  period  (2014-20)  and  the  contribution  to  Europe 
2020. 

•  A  logical  impact  assessment,  examining  areas  where  concerted  action  at  a  macro-regional  level 

could have a greater added value than action at either regional/national or European levels. 

1.1 The expected impact of the macro-regional strategies 
This section reviews the intervention logic in the strategies and action plans and the expected impact 
on business competitiveness, research and innovation. 

1.1.1 The EUSBSR: intervention logic in favour of innovation and competitiveness 
The  EUSBSR  (European  Commission,  2009)  identified  both  a  number  of  economic  challenges 
(notably wide disparities in R&D and innovation and practical obstacles to trade in goods and services 
despite the internal market) as well as significant potential that may be better used (very well-educated 
workforce, expertise in innovation, a strong tradition of intra-regional cooperation, etc.). The strategy 
noted that there was networking among research funding agencies from all EU Baltic States, supported 
by  the  EU’s  Research  Framework  Programme  (FP7  currently,  Horizon  2020  from  2014),  which 
provides a sound basis for collaboration in research and knowledge transfer. 

The  2009  strategy  and  action  plan  were  structured  in  15  priority  areas  grouped  into  four  thematic 
pillars plus a number of horizontal actions.  The Action Plan underlined that this structure was ‘only 
for  ease  of  analysis’  since  each  pillar  relates  to  a  wider  range  of  inter-linked  and  interdependent 
policies  and  will  hence  impact  on  other  pillars.  The  2012  review  and  revised  EUSBSR  led  to  the 
adoption  of  three  overall  objectives:  to  Save  the  Sea;  to  Connect  the  Regions;  and  to  Increase 
Prosperity. However, this has not changed the structure of the priority areas and pillars in the updated 
Action Plan. Under the second pillar, ‘To make the Baltic Sea a Prosperous Place’, two priority areas 
tackle the ‘innovation divide’ and ‘competitiveness’ challenges: Priority Area 7 (PA7) To exploit the 
full potential of research and innovation and Priority Area 8 (PA8) Implementing the Small Business 
Act: Entrepreneurship, SMEs and human resources29. In the Baltic Sea Region the general conditions 
for growth need to be strengthened.  

Hence, on a ‘macro-level, the EUSBSR intervention logic seeks to reduce “the East–West division” in 
innovation  capacity  across  the  Baltic  Sea.  The  assumption  is  that  “transfer  of  knowledge  and 
competence  and  deepened  cooperation  from  the  Nordic  countries  and  Germany  as  innovation  top-
performers  can  help  Poland  and  the  Baltic  States  to  continue  catching  up”.  Similarly,  the  strategy 
argues  that  the  obstacles  to  competitiveness30  and  hindrances  to  the  single  market  require  more 
effective  support  for  entrepreneurship  and  SME  development,  as  well  as  strengthened  cooperation 
between business support institutions. 

1.1.2 The EUSDR: intervention logic in favour of innovation and competitiveness 
The Communication establishing the EUSDR (European Commission 2010a) argues that by ‘building 
on considerable research and innovation perspectives, the Region can be at the forefront of EU trade 

29 The other two priority areas in this pillar are PA6 To remove hindrances to the internal market in the Baltic Sea Region and 
PA9 To reinforce sustainable agriculture, forestry and fishing. 
30  For  an  up 
to  date  overview,  see 
content/uploads/BDF_SoRR_2012.pdf 

in  BSR  report  http://www.bsr2012.eu/wp-

the  2012  Competitiveness 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
and  enterprise.’  However,  the  DR  is  also  characterised  by  very  wide  disparities,  with  ‘some  of  the 
most successful but also the poorest regions in the EU’.  In particular, the following weaknesses were 
pinpointed: 

• 

• 

contacts and cooperation are often lacking, both financially and institutionally. 

enterprises  do  not  sufficiently  exploit  the  international  dimension  of  marketing,  innovation  or 
research.  

•  The share of highly educated people is lower than the EU27 average. 

• 

internal market bottlenecks and a need to improve the business environment. 

The intervention logic assumes that innovation performance and the intra-macro-region ‘polarisation’ 
can  be  tackled  by  ‘targeted  support  for  research  infrastructure  that  will  stimulate  excellence  and 
deepen  networking  between  knowledge  providers,  companies  and  policy-makers’.  In  contrast  to  the 
BSR,  the  level  of  current  co-operation  in  the  fields  of  R&I  appears  to  start  from  a  lower  level  of 
intensity  with  the  strategy  noting  that  “existing  bilateral  agreements  should  lead  to  multilateral 
coordination”, driven either by geographic proximity or by fields of excellence. Indeed, the strategy 
argues,  “developing  regions  downstream  can  benefit  from  the  leading  -  indeed  world-class  - 
innovative  regions  upstream”.  Moreover,  there  is  an  expectation  that  the  EUSDR  will  help  to  “use 
national and regional funds better, and benefit fully from the European Research Area”. 

In terms of business development, the divide across the macro-region between ‘top-performing’ and 
‘lagging’  region  is  also  the  focus  of  attention.  The  latter  are  expected  to  benefit  from  connections 
between  innovation  and  business  supporting  institutions.  In  particular,  the  strategy  assumes  that 
‘Clusters and links between centres of excellence, binding them into existing education and research 
networks, will extend the competitiveness of upstream enterprises to the whole region’. 

The accompanying actions plan sets out a total of 11 priorities grouped under four pillars. The third 
pillar, entitled ‘Building Prosperity in the Danube Region’, includes two priority areas (PA): PA7 To 
develop the Knowledge Society through Research, Education and Information Technologies; and PA8: 
To support the Competitiveness of Enterprises, including Cluster Development. In terms of cross PA 
linkages, under the priority for energy, there is an identified need for exchange of experience notably 
on smart grids, smart cities and eco-innovation. 

1.2 State of play: implementing the Baltic Sea and Danube strategies 
The  concrete  implementation  of  the  two  current  macro-region  strategies  is  pursued  essentially  via  a 
in  
number 

summarised 

flagship 

projects 

of 

Figure 1. The evidence on progress available in the published implementation reports underlines that 
there  is  a  rather  variable  degree  of  progress  both  between  the  EUSBSR  and  the  EUSDR  (which  is 
logical given launch dates) but also between the various projects in each strategy. It is also clear, that a 
large number of the flagship projects build on pre-existing co-operation or networks supported under 
both  the  European  Territorial  Co-operation  (Interreg)  programmes  or  supported  under  other  EU 
funding programmes (e.g. CIP, FP7: ERANETS, joint programming, etc.).   

In short, the value added of the macro-region strategies at this initial phase appear to be more about 
structuring and combining efforts than radically new initiatives.  

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 1 Flagship projects of the EU Strategies for the Baltic Sea and Danube regions 

Priority area 

EUSBSR 

EUSDR 

Research and Innovation 

•  7.1 BSR Stars (leader: Sweden and Lithuania) 

•  Danube Region Research and Innovation 

•  7.2 A Baltic Sea Fund for Innovation and Research 

Fund (DRRIF) 

(leader: Swedish Region Skâne) 

•  Danube River Research and Management 

Competitiveness & 
entrepreneurship 

•  7.3 Baltic Sea Region strategy to promote services 

innovation (leader: Lithuania and Finland) 

•  7.4 ScanBalt Health Region (leader: Lithuania and 

Germany) 

•  7.5 Baltic Science Link (leader: Swedish Research 

Council) 

(DREAM) 

•  •8.1 Promote young entrepreneurs 

•  8.2 Develop deeper cooperation on environmental 
technology to create new business opportunities  

•  8.3 Implement the project Sustainable Production 
through Innovation in Small and Medium sized 
Enterprises 

•  8.4 Make the Baltic Sea an Eco-efficient region 

•  8.5 Baltic Supply 

Seven flagship projects (as of June 2012): 
•  Cluster Atlas 

•  South East Europe Centre for 

Entrepreneurial Learning (SEECEL) 

•  SEE Management Forum 

•  Centres of Excellence 

•  Centres of Competence Smart and 

Innovative Rural Areas (SIRA DANUBE) 

•  8.6 Make the Baltic Sea region a leader in design 

•  Blue Danube 

•  8.7 Implement the Baltic Sea Labour Network project 

•  Vocational Training (Seeged+Innoinfo and 

•  8.8 Cooperation between Public Employment services 

SEeDual) 

1.2.1 The EUSBSR: achievements to date in field of innovation and competitiveness 
Based on the 2011 EUSBSR progress report, the projects that have made notable progress are: 

•  BSR  Stars  (7.1)31  which  supports  a  programmed  approach  for  innovation,  clusters  and  SME-
networks  increasing  the  joint  innovation  capacity  in  the  region,  significantly  extending  existing 
networks  and  clusters,  and  creating  new  networks  of  innovation  specialists,  companies,  R&D 
organisations and policy makers 

•  ScanBalt Health Region32 which aims to structure co-operation between the Baltic Sea Health and 

Life science community, 

•  Baltic Science Link33 which aims to ‘pool’ and facilitate access to research facilities in the field of 

material science. 

In  addition,  there  are  strong  cross  PA  links  between  the  Bonus34  programme  (under  priority  area  1) 
and BSR Stars leading to the former to include clean tech innovation and eco-innovation35.  The 2011 
progress report argues that “without the EUSBSR this would not have been possible”, although it is not 
entirely  clear  why  co-operation  could  not  have  been  generated  in  the  absence  of  the  macro-region 
strategy. 

The Baltic Sea Region Programme is funding elements of each the flagship projects although the 2011 
report also underlines that national funds have been mobilised to support specific actions. Moreover, a 

31 http://www.bsrstars.se/  
32 http://www.scanbalt.org/ 
33 http://www.science-link.eu/  
34 http://www.bonusportal.org  
35 http://www.bsrstars.se/project/bonus-call-2012-innovation/  

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
‘cluster’  of  SME  innovation  related  actions  has  been  created  with  a  view  to  fostering  exchange  and 
learning36 that could help to develop more structured future co-operation.  

1.2.2 The EUSDR: achievements to date in field of innovation and competitiveness 
The June 2012 progress report for PA7 outlines progress to date, including: 

• 

a main focus on the policy level recognition of the PA7 targets, actions and possible funding, as 
well  as  on  the  networking  with  the  most  relevant  stakeholders  able  to  support  progress  towards 
defined targets 

•  discussions  on  the  creation  of  the  Danube  Region  Research  and  Innovation  Fund  (DRRIF), 
drawing on the ‘best practice of the BONUS programme’. The Conference of the Ministers of the 
Danube  Region  agreed,  in  July  201237,  on  the  principles  of  a  DRRIF  with  at  least  10  million 
Euros:  half  coming  from  national  sources,  half  from  the  EU.  Before  launching  the  DRRIF,  a 
feasibility study will carried out to consider the legal, administrative and financial pre-conditions.  
It  is  expected  that  the  feasibility  study  will  be  completed  by  end  2013,  allowing  the  launch  of 
DRRIF by mid 2014. 

Other actions are still in a preliminary phase and reportedly face difficulties in mobilising actors in the 
absence  of  additional  dedicated  funds  from  the  EUSDR.  Aside  from  the  two  approved  flagship 
projects, the PA7 progress report summarises actions taken towards meeting other ‘milestones’ such 
as: the co-ordination of ‘Smart Specialisation’ strategies; identifying centres of excellence, creation of 
a  Danube  Region  Reference-Data  and  Services  Infrastructure  (Danube  RDSI),  etc.    Actions  under 
broadband, e-government, research infrastructure, etc. are still at the stage of project design. Access to 
funding is a critical issue, notably in south-East European countries where national funds for research 
and innovation are extremely limited38. 

Under 

PA8, 

the 

seven 

flagship 

projects 

listed 

in  

Figure 1 are reported to be making progress. In order to structure discussions across a wide range of 
stakeholders,  four  working  groups  (WG)  have  been  established:  clusters  of  excellence,  vocational 
training,  innovation  and  technology  transfer  and  competitiveness  in  rural  and  urban  areas.    These 
working groups have drawn up road-maps and have begun to identify possible future actions (e.g. the 
WG  clusters  of  excellence  is  investigating  the  idea  of  an  innovation  voucher  that  would  give 
companies access to expertise in universities in the more advanced parts of the region).  

1.3  A  conceptual  framework  for  assessing  the  added  value  of  macro-regional  strategies  for 
competitiveness and innovation 

As can be seen from the previous sections, the intervention logic of the two MRS are broadly similar 
and there is also a degree of commonality between the types of actions pursued. In order to consider 
the value added of a MRS for innovation and competitiveness it is important to understand what the 
expected  result  and  the  relationship  (intervention  logic)  between  the  activities  supported  and  the 
targets set.  Both the strategies have set a number of broad targets. 

The EUSBSR targets were revised in 2012 (European Commission, 2012x) and detailed in the annex 
to  the  Council  Conclusions  on  the  review  of  the  EUSBSR.  Two  overall  ‘policy  indicators’  are 

36 http://eu.baltic.net/Innovation.21800.html and http://www.bsr-innovation.eu/  
37 http://bit.ly/VFyHtq  
38 See the annual ERAWATCH country reports available at 
http://erawatch.jrc.ec.europa.eu/erawatch/opencms/information/reports/ 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
proposed: increasing (by 15%) the volume of intra-regional trade and cross-border services by 2020; 
increasing  (by  20%)    the  number  of  people  participating  in  programmes  of  cultural,  educational, 
scientific  exchange  and  co-operation  by  2020.  In  addition,  a  number  of  context  indicators  were  set 
including  that  Gross  expenditure  on  R&D  (GERD)  should  be  at  least  3%  of  GDP  (in  line  with  the 
Europe 2020 target) across the BSR. The detailed table annexed to the Council conclusions proposes a 
broader range of indicators and details the baselines, which is useful.  However, it is not clear to what 
extent and how directly the EUSBSR is expected to influence these context indicators.  Although, the 
GERD/GDP  target  is  defined  as  both  an  average  improvement  and  as  a  narrowing  of  the  ‘divide’ 
between  the  most  and  least  R&D  intensive  regions  in  the  macro-region,  it  remains  a  very  ‘blunt’ 
measure of innovation activity, since it fails to take account of differences in industrial structure, level 
of development, etc.  

It would appear that the EUSDR targets in the field of R&I were set without any real analysis of their 
relevance  or  realism  (in  numerical  or  temporal  terms39).  The  issue  seems  to  be  that  the  strategy  is 
aligned  in  a  ‘mechanistic’  way  with  the  Europe  2020  headline  targets  without  due  consideration  of 
their  ‘bottom-up’  realism.  For  instance,  for  PA7,  the  target  of  spending 3%  of  GDP  on  R&D  is  not 
coherent  with  the  average  of  the  national  targets  (currently  2.23%).  Even  if  the  targets  were 
achievable, they are not necessarily directly related to the intervention logic nor do they contribute per 
se to the expected impact. For example, the target of increasing patents by 50% in the macro-region is 
a)  not  guaranteed  to  reduce  polarisation  b)  not  directly  linked  to  any  priority  action  c)  nonsensical 
unless there is a proven causality between increased patenting and increased competitiveness (which 
there is not40, rather the commercial value of a limited number of patents plays a role in restructuring 
economies). 

In  contrast,  PA8  of  the  EUSDR  proposed  a  set  of  targets  that  describe  the  outcome  of  a  ‘process’ 
rather  than  a  set  of  quantified  targets.  These  ‘targets’  include:  establishing  a  cluster  network  for  the 
EUSDR (identification of the founded institutions in this connection, as well as the existing networks) 
by  2014;  or  improvement  of  technological  transfer  through  establishing  measures  like  consulting 
services by chambers and other institutions or organisations. 

In order to set realistic targets, that consider the value added from a formative as well as a summative 
perspective, there is a need for a clearer intervention logic where the MRS objectives are more closely 
related to the expected results of the flagship projects. To this end, sets out a range of possible ‘added 
value’ effects of a macro-regional strategy on innovation and competitiveness. 

39 For instance, how could a macro-region strategy adopted in 2010 possibly contribute to the target of “Broadband access for 
all EU citizens in the Region by 2013”. 
40  See  for  instance:  http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2012/2012-035.pdf  for  a  survey  of  the  literature  on  the  link  between 
patenting, innovation and productivity. 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 2 Potential types of value added of macro-region strategies on innovation 

Accordingly, it is recommended to further refine the indicators used to measure progress and assess 
the  value  added  of  the  MRS.  Whilst  the  indicator  framework  for  the  EUSBSR  is  not  perfect,  it  is 
recommended, firstly, that a similar process of contextualising the indicators should take place for the 
EUSDR. This should lead to the adjustment of specific targets (e.g. lowering the 3% of GDP on R&D 
target to the average national targets for all Danube region countries) but also to the introduction of 
targets  that  measure  the  reduction  of  differentials  in  performance  between  the  regions/countries  that 
make up the macro-region.  

Secondly,  for  both  the  current  MRS  and  any  future  strategies,  more  operational  targets  and 
accompanying  indicators  directly  linked  to  the  intervention  logic  should  be  set.      As  an  example, 
considering the impact of MRS on ‘optimising public-private investments in R&I infrastructure’, the 
expected outcomes could be an increase in joint investments by several countries/regions in research 
infrastructure  facilities  (either  new  or  investment  by  one  or  more  countries  in  existing  facilities  in 
another)  labelled  as  ‘strategic’  for  macro-region  development  priorities.  The  target  could  that  a 
minimum percentage (taking account of the baseline situation but realistically no less than 10% if the 
target is to be meaningful) of national research infrastructure funds invested during 2014-20 are jointly 
invested in ‘macro-region’ research facilities. 

2. Influence of macro-regional strategies on EU and national policy 
Given the absence of a dedicated financial envelope for the implementation of the MRS, it is clear that 
a main element of ‘added value’ is the extent to which such a strategic framework helps to align and 
mobilise existing funds or leverage additional public (but also potentially private) funding. Aside from 
the Structural Funds (and notably the transnational co-operation programmes), the Member States are 
expected “to examine funding projects and actions aligned with the Strategy priorities from their own 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
resources”  (EUSBSR).  Moreover,  the  European  Investment  Bank,  the  European  Bank  for 
Reconstruction  and  Development  and  regional  financial  institutions,  such  as  the  Nordic  Investment 
Bank, are also expected to be involved. 

From an innovation and competitiveness perspective, the potential influence of MRS on both national 
(regional)  and  EU  policies  is  significant.  Hypothetically,  MRS  could  help  fill  the  ‘missing  middle’ 
between  broad  European  objectives  (such  as  those  set  out  in  European  Research  Area  (ERA)  or 
Innovation  Union  (IU)  communications),  funding  programme  and  partnerships  (such  as  the  new 
European Innovation Partnerships41) and the diverse national and regional policies. This is particularly 
the case as the “polarisation” in capacities and performance implies that the potential to participate in 
European level programmes and initiatives is equally variable. 

In the field of innovation and competitiveness, the most relevant EU instruments are: 

•  The Structural Funds programmes, both national operational programmes and European Territorial 
Co-operation  programmes,  which  provide  a  significant  opportunity  for  funding  the  types  of 
initiatives identified in the strategies. 

•  The  European  Commission’s  research  and  innovation  programmes  and  initiatives  including 
notably, the Research Framework Programme (currently FP7, Horizon 2020 from 2014) but also 
joint-programming  and  joint  investment  planning  such  as  through  the  European  Strategy  Forum 
on Research Infrastructures (ESFRI). 

•  Financial  institutions  and  funds,  notably  those  managed  through  the  European  Investment  Bank 

(EIB), but also the EBRD in the Danube Region.  

 In addition, within the BSR, the Nordic Council institutions have historically played a major role in 
structuring and funding, to some extent, co-operation between the Nordic Countries, including in the 
fields of research and innovation (NordForsk, Nordic Innovation Centre, etc.).  Nothing similar exists 
in the Danube Region.   

Error! Reference source not found. explores the potential role of MRS as ‘alignment’ mechanisms 
with  respect  to  multi-national/inter-regional  policy  co-operation  and  EU  level  policies.    Five  broad 
areas  of  potential  influence  are  suggested  through  which  the  MRS  may  help  align  both 
national/regional policies and contribute to influencing EU level policies 

•  Enhancing participation in European partnerships for research and innovation 

•  Contributing to joint R&I programming and investment 

•  Optimising the effectiveness of Structural Fund operational programmes 

•  More effective use of funds available through the ETC programmes 

•  Leveraging finance in and into the macro-region 

It is clear that there remains considerable room for further ‘gains’ to be made. 

Considering the first two themes, the real or potential influence of the macro-region strategies needs to 
be judged in terms of the additional structuring effect on R&D activities, cluster programmes, etc. with 
respect  to  what  can  be  achieved  through  other  EU  instruments.  Following  the  adoption  of  the  ERA 
concept  the  Commission  introduced  a  number  of  instruments  including  ERA-NET,  ERA-NET  Plus 
and Article 18542 initiatives to help develop the ERA. In 2008 the Commission introduced the Joint 
Programming43  approach  in  order  to  make  better  use  of  public  R&D  funds  through  enhanced 

41 http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/index_en.cfm?pg=eip  
42 See: http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/art185/about-185_en.html  
43  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  “Towards  Joint  Programming  in  Research”.  COM(2008)  468.  Brussels, 
15.7.2008 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
cooperation.  The  expected  benefits  include:  eliminating  wasteful  duplication,  developing  scale  and 
scope, promoting scientific excellence, and pooling data and expertise scattered across Member States. 

Both  of  the  macro-regions  have  common  interests  and  potential  in  specific  fields  of  research  and 
innovation  which  create  scope  for  a  more  (cost-)effective  mobilisation  of  available  human, 
infrastructural  and  financial  resources  for  research.  A  mapping  of  innovation  policy  priorities  in  the 
Baltic  Sea  region  (Technopolis  Group,  2011)  identified  a  number  of  common  areas  where  national 
funding is focused, including: ICT, Life science (notably biotechnology), Healthcare (and ‘wellness’) 
services,  Agro-food,  ‘cleantech’  (notably  in  Denmark  and  Finland);  Energy  (notably  renewables), 
materials (ranging from nanotech, through plasma to more traditional materials).  

Similarly,  in  the  Danube  region,  the  potential  for  research  cooperation  in  a  joint  programming 
framework appears to be particularly strong in the field of renewable energy: geothermal energy in the 
Pannonian  basin,  renewable  energy  for  mobility,  smart  grids,  energy  efficient  cities  and  regional 
planning, biomass, environmentally and socially compatible development of the energy system  

The  BSR  has  been  a  precursor  in  the  EU’s  joint  programming  initiative  through  the  BONUS 
programme44 which can be viewed as a ‘best-practice’ for other macro-regions, It serves as a model 
for the DRRIF, which intends to build on “existing European network projects, such as the INCO.NET 
for the Western Balkan countries (WBC-INCO.NET)…and in the near future the INCO-NET Danube 
Region”.  

Figure 3 Potential links between macro-region strategies, national and EU policies 

However,  the  achievements  to  date  are  still  sub-optimal  despite  a  multitude  of  projects  that  have 
sought  to  explore  various  fields  of  R&D  and  innovation  co-operation  in  fields  such  as  life  science, 
energy, environment, mobility, etc. The current co-operation is too often a response to calls for project 
from EU funded programmes rather than being driven by ‘demand’ (public or private) for R&D and 
innovation  within  the  macro-region.    Hence,  there  is  a  need  to  move  beyond  project-based  co-
ordination of research activities to more structured co-operation over a longer time-frame.  

44 The BONUS Programme was established under Article 185 in September 2010, with a budget of €100m. Its objective is to 
support  joint  programming  and  targeted  research  to  tackle  the  most  important  issues  facing  the  Baltic  Sea.  Its  full 
implementation phase began in November 2011. 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
There is also significant scope, in a time of restricted public budgets, to optimise investments in the 
field of research infrastructure. The ESFRI agenda is ‘top down’ and focused on a number of single 
site major European research infrastructures or distributed infrastructures. There is a need to structure 
research  infrastructures  of  an  intermediary  level  in  the  macro-regions  that  are  coherent  with  the 
societal  challenges  and  socio-economic  development  factors  specific  to  the  macro-region.  A  macro-
region  road-map  for  research  infrastructure  that  built  on,  but  that  is  more  than  the  sum  of,  national 
road-maps  would  be  a  major  step  forward  in  informing  investment  decisions  during  the  up-coming 
2014-20  period.  Despite  the  efforts  of  initiatives  like  Science  Link  in  the  BSR,  there  is  still  no 
significant  co-ordination  of  research  infrastructure  investments  or  mechanism  to  facilitate  ‘open 
access’  for  researchers  to  facilities  in  neighbouring  regions.  This  leads  to  a  duplication  of  research 
infrastructure  (equipment)  and  a  non-optimal  utilisation  intensity  of  installed  equipment  (often  co-
funded by the ERDF). 

In the field of clusters policy, the BSR has also been a precursor with an initial project funded under 
the CIP (Europe Innova/Pro-Inno Europe) leading to the development of BSR Stars and the Star Dust 
project.  A  key  element  of  the  BSR  Stars  approach  is  the  adoption  of  a  longer-term  strategic 
programming approach that should help to foster a greater sustainability of the cluster co-operation.  

Concerning the main stream Structural Funds, the two MRS were launched well after SF programmes 
adopted and too late in the programming cycle to have scope for significant leverage or mobilisation 
of existing funding. When the EUSBSR was adopted, programming authorities were invited to review 
the allocation criteria and facilitate the selection of projects aligned with the strategy. The Commission 
also indicated that it would welcome appropriate modifications of the programmes where necessary. 
However, in the Baltic Sea Region, this did not occur to any significant extent, at least in the field of 
innovation policy (see Technopolis Group, 2011). Indeed, INTERACT (2010) concluded that “many 
programmes  are  concerned  about  the  timing  for  implementation  of  upcoming  macro-regional 
strategies – too late for the current programming period and still too early for the next one”.  

Hence,  to  date,  partly  due  to  the  lack  of  additional  finance,  the  macro  regional  strategies  have  had 
limited influence on national (regional) innovation and competitiveness policies. The progress reports 
do underline that non Cohesion Policy countries like Sweden or Finland in the BSR or the region of 
Baden-Württemberg  in  the  DR  have  mobilised  own  resources  to  implement  initiatives  in  the 
framework  of  the  macro-region  strategies.    However,  this  remains  the  exception  rather  than  rule.  
Given the limited mobilisation of national funds to support MRS, the ETC programmes are the main 
source of funding for implementation of flagship projects.  

There is not yet a clear break with past practice of cross-border and inter-regional programmes to fund 
‘soft’  projects,  only  rarely  combined  with  physical  investments,  with  little  significant  effect  on 
territorial development. Indeed, Panteia (2010) found that “substantial trans -national co-operation in 
the fields of R&D and innovation was rare and focussed mostly on furthering polycentric and urban 
development or on improving access to information society”. INTERACT (2010) found a resistance to 
use  cross-border  and  transnational  cooperation  programmes  for  co-financing  MRS,  as  this  neglects 
‘the achievements so far and the value of bilateral co-operation at smaller scale’. INTERACT suggest 
a  danger  of  a  macro-regional  ‘labelling  virus’,  whereby  promoters  sell  their  projects  as  ‘macro-
regional’ without sound justification. 

On the other hand, macro-regional strategies are seen to offer new opportunities and perspectives for 
successful ideas on a larger scale, as well as providing the impetus for know-how transfer beyond the 
respective  programme  areas.  This  conclusion  is  particularly  relevant  for  research  and  innovation 
initiatives where either scale of investment, range of know-required or skills and expertise in business 
value chains increasingly can be found only at the level of a wide group of countries.  In this context, 
the  MRS  may  provide  a  framework  for  more  sustainable  transnational  public-private  innovation 
partnerships,  that  are  accessible  by  macro-region  participants  from  ‘’weaker  innovation  performing 
countries’; and that can provide a stepping stone to participation in European level partnerships. 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Finally, in terms of financial engineering, the scope for creating seed/early-stage and venture funds in 
the  macro-regions  is  considerable,  since  few  countries  (even  the  Nordic  countries)  have  a  sufficient 
‘deal flow’ of viable start-ups to sustain specialised funds. Indeed, NICE (2010) argued that much was 
to be gained by benchmarking and sharing best practices among Nordic public investors and financers. 
Hence,  the  macro-region  may  provide  a  sufficient  critical  mass  through  pooling  national  early  stage 
investment resources. For example, the three Baltic States have joined forces with the support of the 
EIB  to  create  the  Baltic  Innovation  Fund45.    This  example  could  be  extended  to  early-stage  co-
investment  funds  at  macro-region  level  that  support  the  growth  of  specific  emerging  clusters  or 
technology based sectors. 

3. Added value of macro-regional strategies on co-ordination 
In  both  the  BSR46  and  Danube  Region47,  a  range  of  existing  transnational  or  multi-country  (e.g.  the 
Nordic Council in the BSR) co-ordination structures existed prior to the launch of the MRS. Indeed, in 
the BSR, there are so many structures that  some experts have called for a rationalisation48. Both the 
strategies underline that the need to build on existing co-operation structures and the 2011 EUSBSR 
review noted, “as a result of the Strategy, the Nordic Council of Ministers has extended its networks to 
cover the entire Baltic Sea Region”.  

In  the  field  of  innovation  and  competitiveness,  a  number  of  specific  co-ordination  structures  exist, 
most notably in the BSR49 (see Technopolis Group, 2011) but also in the Danube Region, such as the 
Danube Rectors conference or the INCO-NETs.  However, while the EUSBSR 2011 implementation 
report argued that the strategy “provides a common reference point for the many organisations in the 
Baltic Sea Region. Increasingly, people and structures are basing their work on the priorities set out 
in  the  Action  Plan”,  there  is  little  evidence  backing  up  this  view  in  the  field  of  innovation  and 
competitiveness policies. Moreover, in comparison to the public sector networks, the business sectors, 
seems  however  to  be  less  organised  and  represented  in  the  macro-region  cooperation  landscape 
(Technopolis Group, 2011). 

Few if any of the national or regional strategies in the BSR refer in more than a fleeting way to co-
ordinating policies or investments. This may change as the Member States draft ‘smart specialisation’ 
strategies  in  the  run  up  to  the  2014-20  period  and  there  is  some  anecdotal  evidence  of  an  increased 
awareness of the need to adopt a more ‘open’ approach to policy design and planning leading to joint 
the  Latvian  proposal  for  a  Baltic  Innovative  Research  and  Technology 
initiatives  (e.g. 
Infrastructure50).    However,  at  national  level,  the  macro-region  dimensions  of  innovation  policy 
remain  very  much  a  secondary  consideration  even  in  countries  playing  a  leading  role  in  flagship 
projects. 

Secondly,  in  the  absence  of  additional  financial  resources,  the  question  of  the  extent  to  which  the 
macro-regional strategies can effectively influence existing transnational co-ordination networks needs 
to  be  raised.  Again  the  EUSBSR  2011  report  argued  “there  are  many  examples  of  new  networks 
emerging  to  promote  green  public  procurement,  to  cooperate  on  the  full  implementation  of  the 
Internal  Market,  to  boost  research  and  innovation,  and  even  in  areas  of  traditional  rivalry  like 

45 http://www.eif.org/what_we_do/resources/BIF/index.htm 
46 Technopolis Group (2011) stated “it is striking to see the significant number of inter-intergovernmental forums and 
political networks established in the BSR.  
47 The International Convention for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR), the Danube Commission, the Regional 
Cooperation Council, the Danube Cooperation Process (DCP), the Council of Danube Cities and Regions, the Danube 
Tourism Commission, etc. 
48 The NB8 Wise Men report (2010) noted ‘there is no need for new regional structures; indeed, there are voices advocating 
the dissolution of many of the existing ones which some find to be redundant or inefficient”. 
49 Such as the Baltic Development Forum (BDF) which publishes a competitiveness report, The Baltic Metropoles Network 
(BaltMet), the Nordic Innovation Centre, etc. 
50 http://www.birti.eu/en/about-birti  

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
tourism”. However, aside from the specific activities of the flagship projects, there is little evidence of 
enhanced co-ordination between different actors.   

This may be because the potential scope of co-operation partners and funding source for universities, 
technology based firms, innovation centres, etc. is much wider than the macro-region. Considering co-
ordination of research activities, assuming excellence or complementary skills of partners is the main 
criteria for project selection, it is not self-evident that a partner from the macro-region will be the best 
choice  when  bidding  into  European  programmes.  Indeed,  the  EUSDR  PA7  progress  report  (June 
2012) argued that “…for some countries and stakeholders the “Three No” of the EUSDR, mainly the 
one in connection with the financing of the activities within the Danube Strategy, has raised doubt on 
the subject of the assets of the Strategy and evoked questions due to the facts  that even without the 
Strategy  scientific-research  projects  did  apply  for  support  (more  or  less  successfully)  from  existing 
European  grant  schemes.  To  overcome  these  issues  the  strong  support  and  understanding  of  the 
Strategy  on  behalf  of  national  policymakers  are  precondition  for  better  utilization  of  the  present 
legislative, existing supportive institutions as well as the available (and not always utilized) financial 
mechanism”. 

Indeed,  if  national  (or  regional)  programmes  do  not  amend  selection  criteria  to  allow  macro-region 
partners  to  be  involved  in  projects,  then  despite  the  best  intentions  stated  in  strategies,  intra-macro-
region co-operation may remain limited.  

Hence,  to  enhance  the  added  value  of  the  MRS  on  co-ordination  of  innovation  and  competitiveness 
policies there is a need to introduce considerably more ‘incentives’ to co-operate. The existing flagship 
projects in the BSR do suggest that there is a value added in the enhanced co-ordination on specific 
research  fields,  clusters  and  life  science  policies  or  research  infrastructures.  However,  the  co-
ordination remains fragile, dependent on ETC project funding and poorly linked to national policies. 

4. Added value of macro-regional strategies on governance 

Strategic  governance  in  a  macro-region  formed  of  countries  of  different  scale  and  constitutional 
structures  (from  ‘single  region’  to  highly  federal  countries)  is  clearly  a  significant  challenge.  The 
experience of the EUSBSR has led to changes being made in the overall governance procedures for 
the macro-regions and this ‘learning by doing’ is available for other macro-regions as they develop. 

The  governance  structures  for  research  and  innovation  policies  are  becoming  increasingly  complex, 
involving  public-private  partnerships  at  all  levels  from  the  local/regional  level  up  through  Member 
States  to  European  level.  Potentially,  the  MRS  support  the  creation  for  research,  innovation  and 
competitiveness policies of: 

• 

a multi-partner - the so-called triple of public-business-academic sectors, recently extended to the 
‘quadruple helix’ by adding civil society as users, and 

• 

a multi-level governance (regional-national-European-International) framework. 

Within  a  macro-region  the  potential  range  of  actors  that  could  be  mobilised  is  large.  Technopolis 
Group (2011) identified 490 main organisations active in the field of innovation or an average of 20 
per  BSR  region.  Similarly,  the  EUSDR  PA7  progress  report  underlines  that  the  steering  group 
discussions  on  ‘project  labelling’  led  to  the  conclusion  that  the  scale,  number  and  possible  funding 
sources  of  the  projects  is  more  extensive  in  the  research  and  innovation  field  than  in  other 
infrastructure oriented priority areas. In particular, “it became obvious that the list of stakeholders and 
possible project leaders includes not only relevant ministries and governmental institutions from the 
Danube Region countries, but the long list of education institutions, research organisations, clusters, 
civil society and business organisations from the entire region”. 

Hence, governance can be viewed at least in two dimensions:  

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
• 

cross-organisational governance where various thematic (e.g. life science, environmental research, 
etc.) or organisational (e.g. clusters, science parks, incubators, early-stage funders, etc.) networks 
create or further develop longer-term ‘institutional’ arrangements to support pooling of resources, 
joint R&D, value chain  management,  etc.  Such governance  structures will only develop if they 
are based on a clear understanding of the core missions of each partner and of the ‘business case’ 
for sharing responsibilities and resources. 

•  Policy  governance,  where 

the  co-management  of  strategies,  flagship  projects,  funding 
programmes,  etc.  leads  to  a  need  to  create  linkages  between  national  and  regional  governance 
structures  towards  the  emerging  macro-region  management  bodies  and  upwards  to  link  to 
European level initiatives.  This raises the issue of how to handle  multi-level governance across 
Member States with varying levels of decentralisation. 

In  this  context,  the  progress  reports  underline  the  difficulties  of  mobilising  stakeholders,  a  lack  of 
support for experts involved in the MRS from senior decision makers; as well as a variable geometry 
of  involvement  (some  Member  States/regions  are  heavily  involved,  others  largely  absent).    At  the 
current time, there is not a single governance forum for research, innovation or competitiveness policy 
discussions within the macro-regions that has enough power and influence to significantly. Both the 
current  macro-regions  have  plans  to  develop  an  innovation  strategy  and  the  Danube  Region  has  a 
specific  action  aimed  at  peer-reviewing  smart  specialisation  strategies.  Some  countries,  e.g.  Finland 
and Estonia, have begun holding joint sessions of their high-level advisory councils on research and 
innovation.  One option might be to extend such bilateral co-operation and formalise a macro-region 
research  and  innovation  council,  ideally  supported  by  a  secretariat  (or  at  least  by  an  existing 
organisation such as NICE in the BSR or the INCO-NET in the Danube Region).  The experience of 
the  Northern  Dimension  in  developing  partnerships  for  Public  Health  and  Social  Well-being  and 
Transportation  and  Logistics  Partnership  could  be  usefully  extended  to  a  research  and  innovation 
partnership. 

5. Drivers to increase the added value of macro-regional strategies  
A number of suggestions can be made in terms of the drivers that could increase the added value of 
macro-regional  strategies  both  in  terms  of  establishment  and  implementation.    In  our  view,  the 
following drivers could be exploited: 

•  The Commission should ensure the Member States to explain how the 2014-20 national strategies 
will contribute to implementing the macro region strategies; SF; either through specific strategic 
orientations  but  most  importantly  through  investment  plans  in  joint  projects  or  initiatives.  In 
particular, the European Commission should require the Member States and regions to explain in 
their  smart  specialisation  strategy  (an  ex-ante  conditionality  for  ERDF  funding  for  research  and 
innovation),  how  they  will  mobilise  to  the  maximum  extent  possible  the  option  to  invest  up  to 
10% Structural Funds in other regions (Article 60 of the new Structural Fund regulations for the 
2014-20 period).51 

•  The  Member  States  (and  regions)  should  commission  one  or  more  studies  on  the  possibility  of 
extending the joint programming experience of BONUS to ‘pool’ available R&D and innovation 
funding in a broader range of fields.  

51 Article 60 
Eligibility of operations depending on location 
1. Operations supported by the CSF Funds, subject to the derogations referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3, and the Fund-specific 
rules, shall be located in the area covered by the programme under which they are supported (the 'programme area'). 
2. The managing authority may accept that an operation is implemented outside the programme area but within the Union, 
provided that all the following conditions are satisfied: 
(a) the operation is for the benefit of the programme area; 
(b) the total amount allocated under the programme to operations located outside the programme area does not exceed 10 % 
of the support from the ERDF, Cohesion Fund and EMFF at the level of the priority, or 3% of the support from the EAFRD 
at the level of the programme. 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
•  There is significant scope for enhancing critical mass and reducing overlap through improved co-

ordination of national research infrastructures investments: 

•  The  Commission  should  ask  Member  States  to  include  in  their  research  infrastructure  road 
maps,  to  be  submitted  as  part  of  the  ex-ante  conditionality  for  future  ERDF  funding,  to 
explicitly  assess  the  extent  to  which  the  same  facilities  exist  in  other  regions  of  the  macro-
region.   

•  The  Commission  and  Member  States  should  support  the  development  of  ‘research  pooling’ 
initiatives52, like Science Link, to draw up an inventory of infrastructure in the macro-region 
in  their  field,  develop  open  access  policies  to  available  facilities  and  design  a  research  road 
map for the scientific field. 

•  The  Member  States  should  consider  an  ‘open-access’  grant  scheme  providing  support  for 
macro-region researchers to travel and conduct research in designated research infrastructures 
(notably,  but  not  exclusively  those  which  have  received  support  under  Structural  Fund 
programmes).  

•  The  Commission  should  consider  focusing  future  ETC  funding  for  research,  innovation  and 
clustering  towards  innovation  platforms/partnerships  and  avoid  funding  ad  hoc  projects.  The 
models of the European Innovation Partnerships, European Technology Platform, the Knowledge 
and Innovation Communities of the European Institute of Technology, etc. or the experience of the 
BSR Stars and Scan Balt projects are useful in this respect. 

•  The  PA  coordinators  and  steering  groups  should  consider  launching  a  macro-regions  innovation 
voucher  programme  to  enable  companies  from  the  ‘weaker’  innovation  regions  to  access 
specialised expertise in universities and research and technology organisations in more advanced 
regions. Ideally the vouchers would be managed by a ‘neutral broker’ (e.g. the Enterprise Europe 
Network), which would assist companies to develop project ideas and identify the best source of 
expertise. 

• 

In terms of governance and co-ordination, the macro regional dimension could be promoted more 
widely, since, despite claims to the contrary, the MRS exist mainly in the minds of a small circle 
of  government  and  public  officials  and  actors  involved  in  the  flagship  projects.  There  is  little 
resonance  in  the  national  research  and  innovation  policy-making  circles,  to  date.  Without 
necessarily  creating  a  formal  new  ‘institution’,  a  macro-region  research  and  innovation  council, 
could be formed by 2-3 representatives of similar national/regional councils, would reinforce the 
current  disparate  efforts  to  structure  transnational  research  and  innovation  activities.  Such  a 
council  could  supported  by  a  secretariat  (a  role  that  could  be  tendered  out  or  allocated  to  an 
existing  organisation  such  as  NICE  in  the  Baltic  Sea  region)  that  would  commission  supporting 
studies and evaluations 

To conclude, this report has been based on documentary evidence and there is need for further analysis 
and stock-taking work, in order to: 

• 

review  in  more  depth  the potential  for macro-regional  co-operation  in  specific  economic  sectors 
and enterprise related policies such as tourism, agro-food, etc.; as well as the potential synergies 
and  ‘conflicting  objectives’  between  innovation  and  competitiveness  policies  and  other  strategic 
objectives such as in the environmental field or maritime policies. 

•  design a strategic approach to co-ordinating research and innovation investments and programmes 
in the macro-regions. This could include studies on technological and societal challenges, trends 
and drivers that are specific to, or have specific impacts on, the development of the macro-region; 

52 For a national level example of research pooling see the Scottish Funding Council supported initiatives: 
http://www.sfc.ac.uk/research/researchpools/researchpools.aspx  

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
the  development  of  a  mapping  or  inventory  of  available  research  and  innovation  equipment  and 
infrastructures to inform national and macro-regional investment plans, etc. 

•  develop solutions to ensure that the MRS institutional structures are sufficiently robust to ensure a 
representative  (both  in  terms  of  geographical  spread  but  also  range  of  actors)  involvement  in 
flagship  project  and  co-ordination  structures.  As  noted  in  this  paper,  the  creation  of  macro-
regional  level  ‘platforms’  or  ‘partnerships’  could  provide  a  better  basis  for  both  co-ordinating 
actions in the macro-region as well as providing a ‘building block’ or ‘stepping stone’ towards EU 
level  objectives  and  platforms.    The  PA  coordinators  could  consider  both  mapping  relevant 
organisations  for  specific  R&I  themes  but  also  commission  a  study  to  examine  the  potential  for 
such macro-region innovation partnerships. 

• 

enhance the operational linkages between the ‘non-funded’ MRS and the main streams of funding 
available at the European level. The ex-ante conditionalities for the 2014-20 programming period 
provide  an  opportunity  for  ensuring  that  regional  and  national  strategies  and  funds  are  better 
aligned  and  focus  on  maximising  joint  investments  and  reducing  duplication  of  effort.    The 
Commission  could  consider  establishing  an  expert  group,  or  tender  a  study,  to  review  the  draft 
smart  specialisation  strategies  and  make  recommendations  to  ensure  maximum  alignment  and 
linkages. 

•  Ensure  that  non-EU  countries  and  regions  are  fully  integrated  in  the  research  and  innovation 
activities of the MRS. The ‘unequal’ playing field in terms of access to funding for research and 
innovation activities and the less advanced ‘innovation systems’ of these countries require specific 
recognition and should be studied in more depth. 

68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Appendix A References 
A.1   EU Baltic Sea Strategy 

European  Commission  (2009,  January  2012  Version)  Commission  Staff  Working  Document 
accompanying the communication from the Commission concerning the European Union Strategy for 
the Baltic Sea Region - Action Plan 

European  Commission  (2011a)  Report  on  the  Implementation  of  the  EU  Strategy  for  the  Baltic  Sea 
Region (EUSBSR). COM(2011) 381 final. 

European  Commission  (2011b)  Commission  Staff  Working  Paper  on  the  implementation  of  the 
European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region. SEC(2011) 1071 final. 

European  Commission  (2012a)  Communication  concerning  the  European  Union  Strategy  for  the 
Baltic Sea Region. COM(2012) 128 final 

Falck  S.,  F.  Snickars,  H.  Westlund  (2011)  Research  Hubs  in  the  Baltic  Sea  Region:  an  Explorative 
study about Research Cooperation and the Usage of Research Facilities in Physics and Life Sciences. 
Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm. 

Technopolis  Group  (2011)  Innovation  in  the  Baltic  Sea  region.  Final  Report  to  the  European 
Commission, Directorate-General Regional Policy. Brussels 

A.2   EU Danube Strategy 

European  Commission  (2010a)  Communication  from  the  Commission  on  the  European  Union 
Strategy for Danube Region. COM(2010) 715 

European  Commission  (2010b)  Commission  Staff  Working  Document.  Action  Plan.  Accompanying 
document  to  the  Communication  from  the  Commission  on  the  European  Union  Strategy  for  the 
Danube Region. SEC(2010) 1489 

EUSDR  Report  June  2012  Priority  Area  8  Competitiveness  of  enterprises,  including  cluster 
development 

EUSDR  Report  June  2012  Priority  Area  7  To  develop  the  Knowledge  Society  through  Research, 
Education and Information Technologies 

METIS (201?) Analysis of needs for financial instruments in the EU Strategy for the Danube Region 
(EUSDR) 

A.3   Other references 

INTERACT  (2010)  INTERACT  study  towards  cross-programme  evaluation.  Joint  summary. 
Thematic and operational aspects of cross-border cooperation in Central and South-Eastern Europe 

Panteia  and  Partners  (2010)  INTERREG  III  Community  Initiative  (2000-2006)  Ex-Post  Evaluation. 
Executive Summary. 

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chapter 3: list of literature used by Commission 

The EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region 
1.  Communication – concerning the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region. COM(2009) 

248. 

2.  The revised Action Plan of the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region. SEC(2009) 712. (February 

2013 version).  

3.  European  Commission  Communication  –  concerning  the  European  Union  Strategy  for  the  Baltic 

Sea Region. COM(2012) 128. 

4.  European Commission Report on the Implementation of the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region 

(EUSBSR). COM(2011) 381. 

5.  European Commission Staff Working Paper on the implementation of the European Union Strategy 

for the Baltic Sea Region. SEC(2011) 1071. 

The EU Strategy for the Danube Region 
6.  European  Commission  Communication  on  the  European  Union  Strategy  for  Danube  Region. 

COM(2010) 715. 

7.  Action Plan of the EU Strategy for the Danube Region. SEC(2010) 1489. 
8.  Reflection  paper  on  the  implementation  of  the  EU  Strategy  for  the  Danube  Region,  27-28 

November 2012. 

9.  Draft Report on the Implementation of the EU Strategy for the Danube Region. 

Council Conclusions 
10. European Council Conclusions of 14 December 2007. 
11. European Council Conclusions of 18-19 June 2009. 
12. European Council Conclusions 29/30 October 2009. 
13. Council conclusions on the European Union Strategy for the Danube Region of 13 April 2011. 
14. Council Conclusions on the review of the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region of 15 November 

2011.   

15. Council conclusions on the completion of the review of the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region 

of 26 June 2012. 

16. European Council Conclusions 13/14 December 2012. 

European Parliament and Committee of the Regions: 
17. European  Parliament  resolution  on  a  Baltic  Sea  Region  Strategy  for  the  Northern  Dimension 

(2006). 

18. European  Parliament,  Committee  on  Regional  Development:  Report  on  the  European  Union 
Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region and the role of macro-regions in the future cohesion policy (June 
2010). 

19. European  Parliament,  Committee  on  Regional  Development,  Report:  Evolution  of  EU  macro-
regional strategies: present practice and future prospects, especially in the Mediterranean (2012). 
20. Opinion  of  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  on  ‘Revised  EU  strategy  for  the  Baltic  Sea  region’ 

(October 2012). 

21. Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘The Danube Region Strategy’ (2011). 
22. European  Parliament,  Committee  on  Regional  Development:  Report:  on  optimising  the  role  of 

territorial development in cohesion policy (December 2012). 

23.  Opinion  of  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  on  ‘Developing  a  macro-regional 

strategy in the Mediterranean — the benefits for island Member States’ (February 2013). 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Other: 
24. Drafting  and  implementing  macro-regional  and  sea  basin  strategies  (MRS  and  SBS),  CPMR 

(March 2013). 

25. R.  Bengtsson,  An  EU  Strategy  for  the  Baltic  Sea  Region:  Good  Intentions  Meet  Complex 

Challenges. Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies, 2009. 

26. A. Dubois, S. Hedin, P. Schmitt, J. Sterling. EU macro-regions and macro regional strategies – A 

scoping study. Nordregio 2009. 

27. M.  Salines.  Success  Factors  of  Macro-Regional  Cooperation:  The  Example  of  the  Baltic  Sea 

Region., 2010.  

28. State of the Region Report, 2012. 
29. State of the Region Report, 2011. 
30. Guidelines for drafting and implementation of macro-regional strategies, CRPM, September 2012. 
31. S.  Duhr.  Baltic  Sea,  Danube  and  Macro-regional  Strategies:  A  Model  for  Transnational 

Cooperation in the EU?  

32. G.  Braun,  Z.  L.  Kovács.  Macro-Regional  Strategies:  Experiment  for  the  Renewal  of  Economic 

Policy of the EU. 

33. A.  Stocchiero.  The  geopolitical  game  of  the  European  Union  strategy  for  macro-regions:  Where 
does the Mediterranean stand? CeSPI (Centro Studi di Politica Internazionale) Working Papers No. 
74/2010, July 2010. 

34. Macro-regional  strategies  in  the  EU  –  A  Discussion  Paper  presented  by  Commissioner  Pawel 

Samecki in Stokholm on 18 September 2009. 

35. Metzger,  P.  Schmitt.  When  soft  spaces  harden:  the  EU  strategy  for  the  Baltic  Sea  Region. 

Environment and Planning A 2012, volume 44. 

36. What role for the Regions in the Baltic Sea Strategy? Summary of the Enquiry, CRPM (July 2010) 
37. Policy Recommendations for Regional Co-operation, BDF, 2010. 
38. Analysis of needs for financial instruments in the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, SWECO, 

2011. 

71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chapter 4: key messages of literature review  

European  Parliament,  Committee  on  Regional  Development,  Report:  Evolution  of  EU  macro-
regional strategies: present practice and future prospects, especially in the Mediterranean (2012) 
‘Importance  to  ensure  the  involvement  of  local  and  regional  authorities  and  of  the  greatest  possible 
number of partners and stakeholders, such as representatives of civil society, universities and research 
centres,  in  both  the  elaboration  and  the  implementation  of  macro-regional  strategies  in  order  to 
increase their ownership at local and regional level’. 

‘It  necessary,  if  this  strategy  is  to  be  fully  successful,  to  retain  the  governance  structure  in  the  long 
term,  extending  it  to  include  local  and  regional  authorities,  by  including  it  in  the  upcoming 
programming period 2014–2020.’ 

‘Macro-regional strategy could steer the European Neighbourhood Policy and/or pre-accession policy 
towards being more effective.’ 

Drafting  and  implementing  macro-regional  and  sea  basin  strategies  (MRS  and  SBS),  CPMR 
(March 2013) 
‘It  is  necessary  for  Regions  to  be  involved  in  all  stages  of  preparation  and  implementation  of  these 
Strategies so that the realities on the ground can be actually taken into account’. 

‘The  transnational  strand  of  European  Territorial  Cooperation  is  the  most  obvious  instrument  for 
implementing  MRS  and  SBS.  However,  given  the  limited  budgets  allocated  to  ETC  it  is  crucial  to 
utilise funds from other EU sectoral programmes such as Horizon 2020 for research, the Connecting 
Europe Facility for transport, as well as national, regional and local funding’. 

‘Although the ‘Three Nos’ rule is currently accepted by most parties,  it is  necessary in the start-up 
phases  of  MRS  to  allocate  a  relatively  small  but  specific  initial  budget,  designed  to  help  establish 
contacts and identify core projects’. 

Guidelines  for  drafting  and  implementation  of  macro-regional  strategies,  CRPM,  (September 
2012) 
‘MRS as a new type of territorial cooperation at the interregional and transnational level to meet the 
European  objectives  defined  in  the  Europe  2020  strategy,  cohesion  policy,  the  integrated  maritime 
policy and external cooperation policies’. 

‘MRS  provide  an  integrated  framework  within  which  to  facilitate  and  coordinate  policies  and 
resources within a defined area that is both geographical (going beyond national borders), horizontal 
(going beyond sectoral policies) and vertical (ranging through various levels of governance)’. 

‘The other European funds should also be used to achieve macro-regional priorities. As an example,  
for transport, Connecting Europe Facility and the Trans-European Networks – Transport (TEN-T); For 
fisheries,  the  EMFF  (European  Maritime  and  Fisheries  Fund,  for  neighbourhood  and  pre-accession, 
the new European neighbourhood instruments (ENI) and instruments for pre-accession assistance (IPA 
II) and etc.’ 

72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
What  role  for  the  Regions  in  the  Baltic  Sea  Strategy?  Summary  of  the  Enquiry,  CRPM  (July 
2010) 
‘The  new  approach  of  cooperation  would  allow  a better  use  of  each  actor’s  resources,  including  the 
civil society, local and regional authorities, in a cross-border and international context’. 

‘Governance patterns should be clarified and allow for an effective association of regional and local 
authorities  in  terms  of  implementation,  advice  and  expertise.  Continued  multi-level  governance  and 
dialogue are key factors for the success of the Strategy, especially in some policy areas’. 

Opinion  of  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  on  ‘Revised  EU  strategy  for  the  Baltic  Sea  region’ 
(October 2012) 
‘The EUSBSR seeks to improve policy coordination and cohesion between the regions in the area with 
a  view  to  solving  common  problems  affecting  the  Baltic  Sea  region  and  strengthening  the  region's 
prosperity on a sustainable basis’. 

‘There should also be ‘three yeses’: jointly agreed application and monitoring of existing rules in the 
macro-region; creation of a platform, network or territorial cluster of regional and local authorities and 
Member States which also brings in stakeholders; agreed use of existing Union funding for developing 
and implementing macro-regional strategies’. 

‘In order to strengthen economic cohesion and competitiveness there must be stronger links between 
research, innovation and industry stake-holders’. 

‘The  success  of  macro-regional  strategies  across  Europe  depends  largely  on  the  commitment  and 
contribution  of  local  and  regional  stakeholders  to  meeting  objectives.  Getting  the  private  sector 
involved is also crucial’. 

R.  Bengtsson.  An  EU  Strategy  for  the  Baltic  Sea  Region:  Good  Intentions  Meet  Complex 
Challenges. Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies, 2009.  
The need for an integrated approach to ensure impact. 

‘The  strategy  has  the  potential  for  success  in  the  form  of  added  value,  both  regarding  concrete 
improvements  of  the  current  situation  and  development  prospects  of  the  Baltic  Sea  region  and 
regarding the making of a new mechanism for functional cooperation elsewhere in the EU. the strategy 
will yield added value also in the form of an enhanced Baltic Sea identity.’ 

A. Dubois, S. Hedin, P. Schmitt, J. Sterling. EU macro-regions and macro regional strategies – A 
scoping study. Nordregio, 2009. 
‘Macro-regional  strategies  may  be  seen  as  a  tool  of  European  integration  and  increased  territorial 
cohesion.  The  elaboration  of  macro-regional  strategies  makes  it  possible  to  promote  the  territorial 
dimension of EU policies and cooperation. Tailor-made solutions for each macro-region are needed in 
order  to  ensure  that  the  macro-regional  approach  delivers  added-value  and  helps  to  release 
undeveloped potential within a macro-region’. 

‘Organisational capacity and willingness to cooperate of the various stakeholders involved will play a 
crucial role in ensuring that the macro-regional approach can deliver a measure of ‘added-value’. 

73 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
M.  Salines.  Success  Factors  of  Macro-Regional  Cooperation:  The  Example  of  the  Baltic  Sea 
Region, 2010. 
‘Given  the  increasing  heterogeneity  within  the  EU  due  to  the  successive  enlargements  over  the  last 
years, such an empowerment of macro-regions might be an innovative and effective way to bring the 
European integration process forward’. 

‘Macro-regions can offer a higher problem-solving capacity than the EU-27 in a number of fields such 
as  innovation  policy,  environmental  protection,  etc.,  as  it  might  be  easier  to  achieve  common 
understanding and mutual trust at this level’. 

State of the Region Report, 2012. 
‘The  EUSBSR  has  signiﬁcantly  enhanced  co-ordination  across  existing  organisations,  networks, 
projects,  and  ﬁnancing  tools.  This  has  been  achieved  be  ‘repurposing’  the  existing  structure  of 
institutions  and  policies  that  were  mostly  developed  in  a  different  context.  If  the  ambition  is  to 
accomplish more, more fundamental changes in this institutional architecture are needed’. 

‘The  Strategy  provides  the  focal  point  for  the  relevant  efforts  in  the  Region,  and  all  networks  and 
organisations have found it the natural platform to coordinate their individual activities. This has led to 
more  coherence  and  more  effectiveness  in  the  way  available  structures  and  resources  are  being 
utilized’. 

State of the Region Report, 2011. 
‘The EUSBSR has played a very positive role in enhancing the effectiveness of collaboration. It has so 
far been less impactful in introducing new participants, topics, or solutions to address regional issues’. 

Private sector engagement remains limited. 

‘The  EUSBSR  has  proven  effective  in  coordinating  the  efforts  of  many  existing  cross-regional 
organizations and networks’. 

Analysis  of  needs  for  financial  instruments  in  the  EU  Strategy  for  the  Baltic  Sea  Region, 
SWECO, 2011 
‘The  implementation  of  the  EUSBSR  is  to  a  large  extent  dependent  on  EU  Structural  Funds,  in 
particular European Territorial Cooperation Programmes are widely used. However, in total there are 
more than 100 programmes available plus a wide range of national and regional instruments’. 

In the preparatory phase there is a widely perceived lack of funding (seed money is needed). 

S.  Dühr.  Baltic  Sea,  Danube  and  Macro-regional  Strategies:  A  Model  for  Transnational 
Cooperation in the EU? 2011 
‘The expectation is that the added-value of macro-regional strategies lies in the coordination of actions 
across policy areas, which should lead to more effective outcomes and ensure a more efficient use of 
resources than individual initiatives ’. 

‘The  potential  added-value  of  an  EU  macro-regional  strategy  to  existing  cooperation  arrangements 
should  be  carefully  considered.  For  the  Alpine  Region,  for  example,  actors  in  the  region  have 
emphasised that a macro-regional strategy should only be developed if it helps to reinforce, rather than 
replaces, existing agreements and instruments’. 

‘Given  the  large  number  of  actors  involved  at  different  levels  this  has  led  to  rather  complex 
governance arrangements’. 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
“The savings through better coordination will far exceed the coordination costs”.  

There is a need of technical assistance for coordination activities.  

G. Braun,  Z. L. Kovács. Macro-Regional Strategies: Experiment for the Renewal of Economic 
Policy of the EU. 
‘More tightened fiscal and sectoral coordination through macro-regions can give a new impulse to the 
cooperation on EU level and improve EU’s competitiveness’. 

‘Macro-regional strategies can serve as an important instrument to deepen integration and strengthen 
territorial cohesion’. 

‘The Union has not yet set a limit for the number of macro-regions, and there might even be overlaps 
between them’. 

A. Stocchiero. The geopolitical game of the European Union strategy for macro-regions: Where 
does the Mediterranean stand? CeSPI (Centro Studi di Politica Internazionale) Working Papers 
No. 74/2010, July 2010 
‘The macro-regional strategy added value is the integrated approach, namely the multi-level and  
trans-national governance for an effective coordination of EU, national and regional instruments  
and financing of flagship projects. The innovation concerns the building of a new governance for  
achieving more efficacy in facing common challenges and opportunities’. 

J.  Metzger,  P.  Schmitt.  When  soft  spaces  harden:  the  EU  strategy  for  the  Baltic  Sea  Region. 
Environment and Planning A 2012, volume 44. 
‘The macro-regional concept, as elaborated in the EUSBSR, appears to build upon and promote ideas 
of territorial cohesion, coherence, and cooperation’. 

Policy Recommendations for Regional Co-operation, BDF, 2010 
‘With  the  EU  strategy  for  the  Baltic  Sea  Region,  the  EU  countries  of  the  region  have  a  unique 
opportunity to link national and European growth initiatives to a regional context’. 

European  Parliament,  Committee  of  the  Regions:  Report  on  the  European  Union  Strategy  for 
the Baltic Sea Region and the role of macro-regions in the future cohesion policy (2010). 
‘The EU2020 Strategy, which is consistent with the goals set on the Baltic Sea Strategy, can act as an 
efficient framework for the implementation and strengthening of the Baltic Sea Strategy’. 

‘Strategy’s  territorial  dimension  will  lead  to  the  concrete  development  of  the  idea  of  territorial 
cohesion, which the Treaty of Lisbon places on an equal footing with economic and social cohesion’. 

‘The European added value of macro-regions lies in greater cooperation between states and regions’. 

European Parliament, Committee on Regional Development: Report: on optimising the role of 
territorial development in cohesion policy (December 2012). 
‘Territorial cooperation and macro-regional strategies could be useful instruments for identifying and 
combating  regional  disparities,  e.g.  in  access  to  education  and  employment,  and  for  promoting 
convergence between European regions’. 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Opinion  of  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  on  ‘Developing  a  macro-regional 
strategy in the Mediterranean — the benefits for island Member States’ (February 2013) 
‘The  approach  to  macro-regional  strategies  hitherto  has  been  limited  to  implementing  EU  internal 
policies. However, to be effective, such a strategy in the Mediterranean where many non-EU countries 
are involved requires implementation of elements of external policy, obviously with the emphasis on 
EU ‘good neighbour’ policy ’. 

‘Funding  is  needed  for  technical  assistance  to  collect  data  and  promote  the  necessary  structural 
projects’. 

‘They [macro-regional] also facilitate convergence between the resources of the regions and those of 
the various Member States, based on the implementation of coordinated ‘governance’, and the creation 
of ‘mutual benefit" for all parties’. 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chapter 5: fact sheets of the EUSBSR and the EUSDR 

5.1 The EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region 

The European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR) is the first macro-regional strategy 
in Europe. It aims at reinforcing cooperation within this large region in order to face several challenges 
by working together as well as promoting a more balanced development in the area. The Strategy also 
contributes to major EU policies and reinforces the integration within the area. 

The Baltic Sea Region counts 85 million inhabitants (17 percent of EU population) and eight countries 
(Sweden, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland) which share common 
features  and  challenges.  Hence  there  is  a  clear  need  for  joining  forces  and  working  in 
cooperation. Against  this  background,  the  Strategy  intends  to  increase  the  levels  of environmental 
sustainability, prosperity, accessibility and attractiveness and safety and security. 

The  Strategy  was  approved  by  the  European  Council  in  2009  following  a  communication  from  the 
European  Commission.  In  this  respect,  it  provides  an  integrated  framework  for  improving  the 
environmental  condition  of  the  sea,  transport  bottlenecks  and  energy  interconnections  as  well  as 
facilitating the development of competitive markets across borders and common networks for research 
and innovation. 

Milestones 

(cid:131)  December  2007:   the  European  Council  invites  the  European  Commission  to  present  an  EU 

(cid:131) 

Strategy for the Baltic Sea region no later than June 2009 
June  2009:  European  Commission  presents  the  Action  Plan  and  Communication  for  the 
EUSBSR 

(cid:131)  October 2009: European Council endorses the EUSBSR 
(cid:131) 
(cid:131)  November 2011: Council Conclusions calls the European Commission to review the EUSBSR 

June 2011: Commission publishes the first implementing report of the EUSBSR 

by early 2012 

(cid:131)  March  2012:  Commission  publishes  the  Communication  specifying  the  three  overall 

(cid:131) 

objectives for the Strategy: Save the Sea, Connect the Region and Increase Prosperity  
June 2012: General Affairs Council endorses Commission’s Communication and calls for the 
review of the EUSBSR Action Plan 

(cid:131)  February  2013:  the  update  Action  Plan  reflecting  the  three  objectives  of  the  Strategy  is 

adopted 

How does it work in practice? 

The Strategy aims at bringing together initiatives in different sectors (growth, sustainable development 
etc.) as well as promoting cooperation between stakeholders in the Baltic Sea region. 

The Strategy also promotes flagship projects and contributing projects funded in the Baltic Sea region. 
These projects have a macro-regional impact and start from joint initiatives involving partnership from 
different countries. 

Implementation  of  the  Strategy  requires  active  participation  by  all  the  actors  and  stakeholders 
implicated in the process not only at a national level but at a macro-regional level. 

77 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Governance and actors in the strategy 

Each  participating  state  in  the  strategy  has  a  national  contact  point  that  is  the  main  contact  for 
implementing the strategy on the national level. 

The objectives of the strategy are operationalized through priority areas and horizontal actions. Each 
of these are coordinated by one or more country or organisation in the macro-region. An overview of 
the 17 priority areas and 5 horizontal actions in the EUSBSR can be found below: 

Priority Area AGRI (Finland, Sweden, Lithuania) 

Priority Area NUTRI (Poland, 

Priority Area Hazards (Sweden) 

Priority Area BIO (Germany) 

Priority Area SHIP (Denmark)  

Priority Area SAFE (Denmark, Finland) 

Priority Area SECURE (Sweden, Council of Baltic Sea States) 

Priority Area TRANSPORT (Lithuania, Sweden) 

Priority Area ENERGY (Denmark, Latvia) 

Priority Area CULTURE (Schleswig-Holstein, Poland) 

Priority Area CRIME (Finland, Lithuania) 

Priority Area TOURISM (Mecklenburg Vorpommern, Germany) 

Priority Area INTERNAL MARKET (Estonia) 

Priority Area INNOVATION (Sweden, Poland)  

Priority Area SME (Denmark) 

Priority Area EDUCATION (Hamburg, Norden Association) 

Priority Area HEALTH (Northern Dimension Partnership in Public Health and Social Well-being) 

Horizontal Action SPATIAL PLANNING (VASAB and HELCOM) 

Horizontal Action NEIGHBOURS (Council of Baltic Sea States and City of Turku) 

Horizontal Action INVOLVE (Region Västerbotten, Kalmar, Baltic Sea NGO Network) 

Horizontal Action SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND BIOECONOMY (Council of Baltic 
Sea States and Nordic Council of ministers)  

Horizontal Action PROMO (Baltic Metropoles Network, Baltic Development Forum) 

78 

 
 
 
 
 
 
5.2 The EU Strategy for the Danube Region 

The EU Strategy for the Danube Region (EUSDR) is a second macro-regional strategy adopted by the 
European  Commission  in  December  2010  and  endorsed  by  the  European  Council  in  2011.  The 
Strategy  was  jointly  developed  by  the  Commission,  together  with  the  Danube  Region  countries  and 
stakeholders, in order to address common challenges together. The EUSDR seeks to create synergies 
and  coordination  between  existing  policies  and  initiatives  taking  place  across  the  Danube  Region.  

Background and Objective 
In 2009, the European Council formally asked the European Commission to prepare an EU Strategy 
for  the  Danube  Region  (EUSDR).  ‘The  importance  of  the  Danube  Basin  for  the  EU  cannot  be 
underestimated.  Our  policies  and  the  investments  we  are  making  in  the  Basin  through  the  EU's 
cohesion  policy  in  particular  have  an  impact  on  the  livelihoods  of  20  million  citizens.  The  Danube 
needs a specific strategy comparable to the strategy we are developing for the Baltic Sea Region. A 
one-size-fits  all  approach  doesn't  work  in  an  EU  of  27  Member  States  and  271  regions.  We  need  a 
targeted  policy  for  the  Danube  that  meets  its  ecological,  transport  and  socio-economic  needs,’  said 
Commissioner Hübner on the open day in October 2008. 

Governance – How does it work? 
The priority area coordinators (PACs)  ensure the implementation of the Action Plan by agreeing on 
planning,  with  targets,  indicators  and  timetables,  and  by  making  sure  there  is  effective  cooperation 
between project promoters, programmes and funding sources. They also provide technical assistance 
and  advice.  The  coordinators  work  in  consultation  with  the  Commission,  and  relevant  EU  agencies 
and national/regional bodies. 

The  national  contact  points  (NCPs)  coordinate  and  keep  an  overview  of  the  participation  of  their 
country in the implementation of the EUSDR including all 11 Priority Areas. The role of the NCP is to 
level  of  key 
promote 
developments.  NCPs also assist the European Commission in its facilitation role. 

relevant  stakeholders  on 

the  Strategy  and 

the  national 

inform 

Milestones 

(cid:131)  19 June 2009:  The European Council invites the European Commission to develop a strategy 

(cid:131) 

for the area around the Danube. 
July  2009-December  2010:  Preparation  of  the  Strategy  by  the  European  Commission, 
including public consultation and consultations with participating countries. 

(cid:131)  8 December 2010: European Commission adopts the Action Plan and Communication for the 

EUSDR. 

(cid:131)  3 February 2011: Commissioner Hahn designates the Prioritiy Area Coordinators. 
(cid:131)  13 April 2011: Adoption of the Council Conclusions by the EU Council for General Affairs. 
(cid:131)  24 June 2011: Official endorsement of the EUSDR by the European Council and launch of the 

implementation phase. 

More information on the Strategy: 
The Strategy is defined in a Communication, accompanied by a detailed Action Plan, which presents 
the operational objectives and concrete projects and actions of the EUSDR. 

79 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
Chapter 6: questionnaire for a survey on the added value of macro-regional strategies (the EU Strategy for the Baltic 
Sea Region and EU Strategy for the Danube Region) 

Who are you? (tick the right one) 

a) Priority Area Coordinator (PAC)    
b) Horizontal Action Leader (HAL) 
c) Project/Flagship Project Leader (FPL) 
d) National Contact Point (NCP) 
e) Priority Area/Horizontal Action Focal Point/ Steering Group Member 
f) Private sector, economic and social partners 
g) NGO 
h) Managing Authority of EU programmes 
i) National Institution 
j) Pan-regional and regional organization 
k) European institution 
l) Other (please specify)               

Overall assessment  

Question  
What  in  your  experience  has  the  impact  of  the 
macro-regional  strategy  been?  What  concrete 
the  macro-regional  strategy 
differences  has 
the 
is 
made?  What 
EUSBSR/EUSDR? 

the  added  value  of 

Answer 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
What  positive  processes  /  initiatives  have  been 
stimulated by the EUSBSR/EUSDR? 

Question  
Are  you  aware  that  policy  (local,  national, 
regional,  EU)  has  been  aligned  with 
the 
objectives  /  priorities  of  the  macro-regional 
strategy? If yes, please specify.   

Yes  No Comments  

81 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Are  you  aware  that  funding  (national,  regional, 
EU)  has  been  aligned  with  the  objectives  / 
priorities  of  the  macro-regional  strategy?  If  yes, 
please specify.   

1. Rationale 
Please  evaluate  the  following  statements  on  a  scale  from  1  to  5  and  justify  your  choice  or  provide  proposals  in  the 
column “comments”.  

1  Strongly disagree 
2  Rather disagree 
3  Neutral 
4  Rather agree 
5  Strongly agree 

Rationale  

Scale 
1 2 3 4 5  

Comments 

a)  Objectives  of 
the  EUSBSR/EUSDR 
correctly  address  the  main  challenges  faced 
by respective Region; 

b)  The  number  of  Priority  Areas  and 
Horizontal Actions is reasonable; 

82 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
c)  Some  priorities  in  the  EUSBSR/EUSDR 
are  more  important  than  others  to  reach  the 
objectives of the macro-regional strategy; 

d)  There 
towards 
participating countries; 

is  high  political  commitment 
the 

the  EUSBSR/EUSDR 

in 

The 

the 
implementation 
e) 
EUSBSR/EUSDR effectively is contributing 
to social, economic and territorial cohesion.  

of 

Scale 
1 2 3 4 5  

Comments 

2. Governance Process 
Governance Process 

a)  The  internal  administrative,  technical  and 
institutional  organisation  in  all  participating 
countries  is  already  effective  enough  to 
implement the EUSBSR/EUSDR; 

b)  The  key  stakeholders  of  the  macro-
(NCP,  PAC,  HAL) 
regional 

strategy 

83 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
effectively  coordinate  their  activities  within 
and with other stakeholders;  

c)  The  multilevel  governance  dimension  is 
fully  taken  into  account  in  the  actions  and 
decisions  taken  for  implementing  projects, 
actions or policies at Member States level/at 
project level; 

d)  There  is  clear  evidence  that  national, 
regional  and  EU  governance  systems  have 
improved thanks to the EUSBSR/EUSDR. 

3. Funding 
Funding 

Scale 
1 2 3 4 5  

Comments 

a)  The  alignment  of  national,  regional  and 
EU  policies  and  funding  with  the  objectives 
of 
been 
successfully achieved; 

the  EUSBSR/EUSDR 

has 

b)  The  technical  assistance  provided  by 
significantly 
European 
the 
facilitated 
EUSBSR/EUSDR; 

implementation  of 

Commission 

the 

84 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
c)  The  EUSBSR/EUSDR  helps  to  mobilize 
the  existing  funding,  to  use  it  in  more 
efficient and coordinated manner; 

d)  There  is  a  need  for  additional  funding 
the  project  preparation  stage, 
only  for 
networking. 

4. Cooperation 
Cooperation 

a)  The  absence  of  additional  money  favours 
the  reinforcement  of  cooperation  among 
partners  and  the  main  core  partners  (NCP, 
PAC,  HAL,  Commission)  fully  play  their 
role  of  cooperation  and  coordination  with 
other key partners; 

b) There is a clear evidence that cooperation 
mechanisms  have  improved  thanks  to  the 
EUSBSR/EUSDR; 

The 

the 
implementation 
c) 
EUSBSR/EUSDR  strengthened  the  existing 
cooperation  among  and  within  participating 
countries, in particular among ministries; 

of 

Scale 
1 2 3 4 5  

Comments 

85 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
d)  The  cooperation  between  EU  Member 
States  with  neighbouring  non-EU  countries 
expanded and improved thanks to the macro-
regional strategy;   

e)  Cooperation  has  led  a  tangible  effect  on 
national  policies 
those  on 
environment, energy and etc.  

such 

as 

5. Policy orientations 
Policy orientations 

Scale 
1 2 3 4 5  

Comments 

implementation 

The 

a) 
EUSBSR/EUSDR  helps 
sectoral 
integrated one; 

approach 

of 
to  move 

the 
from 
to  multi-sectoral, 

b)  Many  successful  projects  and  actions 
would 
the 
EUSBSR/EUSDR would not be endorsed; 

implemented 

not 

be 

if 

c)  The  macro-regional  strategy  helped  to 

86 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
mobilize  the  existing  policies  and  create 
more synergies; 

d) The implementation of the macro-regional 
strategy has led the new policy developments 
in several areas in your country; 

e)  The  new  policy  developments  have 
improved 
the  areas 
situation 
is 
this 
concerned, 
measurable or can be described (eg. a trend). 

improvement 

and 

the 

in 

Scale 
1 2 3 4 5  

Comments 

6. Next programming period 
Next programing period 

a)  The  objectives  of  the  macro-regional 
strategy  must  be  firmly  embedded  in  the 
2014–2020 policy framework at EU, national 
and regional level; 

b)  The  EUSBSR/EUSDR  core  partners 
(NCP,  PAC,  HAL)  must  be  consulted 
in/associated  to  the  discussions  of  the  next 
programmes in their respective countries; 

87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
c) Where relevant, actions or projects of the 
macro-regional  strategy  must  be  clearly 
identified in the draft programmes submitted 
to the European Commission; 

d) For each Priority Area/Horizontal Action, 
a  cooperation  platform  (where  PAC/HAL, 
programmes  authorities,  projects  managers, 
NGOs,  etc.  can  exchange)  and  a  Steering 
Committee must be set up. 

88