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, EU growth strategy, European Region, environmental protection, regional cooperation, regional development, regional integration, third country

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 27.6.2013  
COM(2013) 468 final 

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 

{SWD(2013) 233 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
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 

1. Introduction 

The  macro-regional  concept  arose  from  a  wish  for  a  collective  response  to  environmental 
deterioration  of  the  Baltic  Sea,  and  for  concerted  action  on  challenges  and  opportunities  of 
that region. This resulted in the EU Strategy for  the Baltic  Sea Region (EUSBSR), adopted 
2009. The EU Strategy for the Danube Region (EUSDR) was adopted in June 2011, and the 
European  Council  invited  the  Commission  to  present  an  EU  Strategy  for  the  Adriatic  and 
Ionian  Region  by  end  2014  subject  to  the  evaluation  of  the  concept.1  Other  regions  are 
considering the merits of the approach. 

The objective is a coordinated response to issues better handled together than separately. The 
two strategies aim to overcome obstacles holding up development, and unlock the potential of 
the regions. They seek to place issues in a multilateral setting, and to reach out beyond current 
EU  borders  to  work  as  equals  with  neighbours.  The  approach  encourages  participants  to 
overcome  not  only  national  frontiers,  but  also  barriers  to  thinking  more  strategically  and 
imaginatively about the opportunities available.  

The  aim  of  a  macro-regional  strategy  is  to  mobilise  new  projects  and  initiatives,  creating  a 
sense  of  common  responsibility.  They  are  an  important  innovation  in  territorial  cooperation 
and  cohesion.  Nevertheless,  this  approach  –  building  on  a  tradition  of  cooperation  evolving 
from Community initiatives such as INTERREG2 – has to be judged by results, and success 
measured  against  effort  required.  While  the  approach  itself  enjoys  a  certain  popularity, 
implementation is challenging, with improvements needed to deliver real value added in the 
most efficient and sustainable way. 

1.1 The purpose of the Report  

The  Council  asked  the  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’.3  

This Report: 

•  seeks to clarify the concept; 
•  evaluates the added value of existing macro-regional strategies; 
•  provides recommendations for future work.  

It  considers  achievements  to  date,  both  advantages  and  difficulties,  against  the  overall  EU 
policy  framework,  including  the  Europe  2020  Strategy,  and  the  territorial  perspective  now 
present in the Treaties.  

1.2 Method of Assessment4 

1 
2 
3 

European Council Conclusions of 13-14 December 2012, point 26. 
Now the European Territorial Cooperation programmes. 
General Affairs Council Conclusions of 13 April 2011, point 20. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
This work is based on a number of inputs, including: 

•  Reports  by  the  Commission  on  the  EUSBSR  and  EUSDR,  and  subsequent  Council 

Conclusions and EUSBSR Communication in March 2012; 

•  an extensive survey of over 100 key stakeholders; 
• 
independent assessments by external experts;  
•  a review of relevant academic and policy-development literature. 

Commentators advise that: 

•  as both existing macro-regional strategies are relatively new, their impact is still hard to 

judge, and has to be measured in the medium to long-term;  

•  a distinction should be drawn between the worth of the overall concept, and issues in 

implementation. 

2. The concept of a macro-regional strategy 

Many elements provide a basis for macro-regional cooperation: a regional sense of identity; a 
wish for common strategic planning; and a willingness to pool resources. 
Initial  definitions5  are  now  being  consolidated  in  the  Common  Provisions  Regulation  for 
2014–20206, which says that a macro-regional strategy:  

1)  is  an  integrated  framework  relating  to  Member  States  and  third  countries  in  the  same 
geographical area; 

2) addresses common challenges; 

3) benefits from strengthened cooperation for economic, social and territorial cohesion; 

A macro-regional strategy should be endorsed by the European Parliament and Council. 

The concept also incorporates principles of:   

• 

integration  –  objectives  should  be  embedded  in  existing  policy  frameworks  (EU, 
regional,  national,  local,  pre-accession),  programmes  (EU,  country-specific, territorial 
cooperation, sectorial), and financial instruments; 

•  coordination  –  policies, 

avoid 
compartmentalisation  whether  between  sectorial  policies,  actors  or  different  tiers  of 
government; 

resources 

strategies 

funding 

should 

and 

•  cooperation – countries should cooperate, and sectors also, across the region, changing 

the ‘mind-set’ from inward to outward-looking regional development ideas; 

•  multi-level governance – different levels of policy-makers should work better together, 

without creating new tiers of decision-making;  

•  partnership  –  EU  and  non-EU  countries  can  work  together  on  the  basis  of  mutual 

interest and respect.  

4 
All inputs are available on the EUSBSR and the EUSDR websites. 
5 
E.g. Macro-regional strategies in the European Union (September 2009). 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/cooperate/baltic/pdf/macroregional_strategies_2009.pdf.  
6 
Proposal  for  Common  provisions  on  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund,  the  European  Social 
Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime 
and Fisheries Fund. COM (2011) 615 Final, as amended.  

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
 
Objectives vary according to the needs of the region concerned. Prominence should, however, 
be given to issues which are of strategic relevance, providing genuine value-added in relation 
to horizontal community policies, with particular reference to the Europe 2020 Strategy. Both 
challenges and opportunities must be included, as countries at different stages of development 
have different priorities:  

•  challenges,  where  increased  cooperation  is  crucial  (e.g.  environmental,  climate  or 

connectivity issues);  

•  opportunities, where increased cooperation is of mutual interest, with joint initiatives, 
networking,  sharing  of  experience,  pooling  of  funding  (e.g.  research,  innovation, 
business, capacity-building). 

This  dual  aspect  is  noted  in  Council  Conclusions  of  June  20127,  endorsing  the  approach  as 
deepening  the  EU  internal  market  and  competitiveness,  facilitating  implementation  of 
Integrated Maritime Policy (especially Blue Growth), as well as addressing shared pollution 
challenges or missing infrastructure links. In addition, the strategies can be used to mobilise 
joint efforts on innovation, climate action, risk management, security issues, and tourism.   

3. Value-added of macro-regional strategies 

The  two  existing  macro-regional  strategies  operate  with  no  additional  EU  funds,  no  new 
institutions,  and  no  new  legislation.  This  has  required  more  coherence  between  funds, 
structures and policies. The strategies have created working structures around priority areas, 
selected in a bottom-up process of consultation, with political leadership in each area taken by 
participating countries, regions or organisations, supported by the Commission as facilitator.  

3.1 Results in terms of projects, actions, decisions, networks 

The  implementing  reports  of  the  EUSBSR  and  the  EUSDR  highlight  that  macro-regional 
strategies  have  helped  to  develop  new  projects  or  have  given  momentum  to  existing 
transnational projects. Flagship projects alone number over 100 in the Baltic Sea region, with 
many  other  spin-off  projects,  while  over  400  projects  worth  €  49  bn  overall  are  being 
considered by the EUSDR, of which 150 are already in implementation.   

Projects 

–  The  status  of  the  Baltic  Sea  is  improving,  nutrient  loads  are  being  addressed  through 
projects  like  CleanShip  (which  reduces  pollution  from  vessels),  or  those  phasing  out 
phosphates in detergents, while better collaboration on fisheries management is facilitated by 
project BALTFISH; 

– Prevention of flooding in the Danube region is a major concern, addressed by projects like 
DANUBE FLOODRISK, providing shared databases and flood mapping;   
–  Improvement  of  E-infrastructure:  projects  in  the  7th  Framework  Programme  to  improve 
availability of advanced computing services to researchers have been launched in the Danube 
Region;  

– As part of adaptation strategies for Danube and Baltic regions, actions re climate change are 
being planned together by Member State institutions, e.g. under BALTADAPT. 

7 

General Affairs Council Conclusions of 26 June 2012, point 7. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The macro-regional approach also facilitates networking and joint initiatives. 

Joint initiatives  

–  the  BONUS  Baltic  Sea  Research  and  Development  Programme  is  fostering  research 
cooperation in clean tech and eco-innovation; 

– SMEs are being supported through the Danube Region Business Forum. 

The  approach  also  facilitates  political  decisions  at  collective  level.  Navigability  of  Danube 
waterways  is  being  improved,  for  example,  via  the  July  2012  ministerial  Declaration  on 
maintenance, or the recent agreement between Romania and Bulgaria to share equipment. 

3.2 Improved policy development 

Macro-regional  strategies  provide  regional  building  blocks  for  EU-wide  policy,  marshalling 
national approaches into more coherent EU-level implementation. Macro-regional work has a 
particular impact on the Integrated Maritime Policy, the Trans-European Transport Network 
(TEN-T),  the  Trans-European  Energy  Network  (TEN-E),  and  civil  protection  cooperation. 
The  expert  report  on  environment  matters  sees  macro-regional  strategies  in  general  as 
encouraging implementation of EU directives.8  

Contributions to connectivity 

– a macro-regional perspective to planning infrastructure investment in TEN-T frameworks is 
developing, e.g. Baltic Transport Outlook, providing analytical/planning support; 

– to ensure gas supply security, the Danube Region Gas Market Model supports planning of 
infrastructure projects, and removal of technical and other transnational market barriers. 

Although  the  survey  of  key  stakeholders  of  the  EUSBSR  and  EUSDR  also  points  to  the 
macro-regional approach being an impetus for mobilising different EU, regional and national 
policies,  stakeholders  underline  that  more  time  and  effort  is  needed,  EUSBSR  respondents 
being  more  positive  in  this  respect  (over  55%)  than  those  in  the  Danube  region  (33%), 
probably because of earlier start. 

Integrating EU concerns in national policy-making 

–  The  EUSDR  targets  on  inland  waterways  form  part  of  the  new  Austrian  Master  Plan  for 
Transport; 

– Nordic health and life science innovation strengths, expanded to the Baltic context by the 
project  ScanBalt  Bioregion,  are  taken  up  in  the  Estonian  strategy  for  biotechnology,  with 
networking to neighbours giving critical mass.  

8 

Á. Kelemen. Assessing the added value of macro-regional strategies – Environment. 2013. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.3 Improved value for money 

Making money work harder is important at a time of restricted budgets. The macro-regional 
approach  helps  align  EU  programmes  to  act  together  on  major  shared  goals.  Lack  of 
additional  EU  money  also  pushes  implementers  to  seek  funds  more  actively.  This  has 
stimulated: 

• 

• 

the  Danube  Finance  Dialogue  (matching  of  project  ideas  to  funds,  bringing  together 
project  promoters  with  banks,  international  financing  institutions  and  funding 
programmes); 
the EUSBSR Seed Money Facility (small funding to develop project ideas to the point 
of loans or grants).  

Available  resources  are  concentrated  on  higher-level  priorities:  ‘Sweden  or  Finland  in  the 
Baltic  Sea  region  or  the  land  of  Baden-Württemberg  in  the  Danube  region  have  mobilised 
own resources to implement initiatives in the framework of the macro-region strategies’9. The 
private sector is also involved, whether through work with the Baltic Development Forum, or 
e.g. in removing shipwrecks from the Danube, Sava and Tisa. 

The  strategies  also  encourage  pooling  of  resources:  ‘in  terms  of  financial  engineering,  the 
scope  for  creating  seed/early-stage  and  venture  funds  in  the  macro-regions  is  considerable, 
since few countries […] have a sufficient ‘deal-flow’ of viable start-ups to sustain specialised 
funds […] the macro-region may provide a sufficient critical mass’.10 

3.4 Greater integration and coordination  

Most  stakeholders  surveyed  see  the  process  as  improving  existing  cooperation  mechanisms 
(over  60%),  and  strengthening  cooperation  between  participating  countries  (over  75%). 
Political leaders also emphasise the wider integration aspects.11   

Just  as  importantly,  strategies  enhance  cooperation  between  authorities  inside  countries. 
Respondents  to  the  survey,  as  well  as  the  independent  assessments  and  literature  review, 
underline  integrated  approaches  to  issues  of  macro-regional  importance.  For  example  the 
EUSBSR  ‘has  enabled  a  cross-sectorial  approach  to  environmental  issues.  This  has  helped 
address  problems  where  previously  Helsinki  Commission  (HELCOM),  which  has  an 
environmental  focus,  has  not  been  able  to  curb  many  of  the  sectorial  interests  (e.g. 
agricultural) which drive environmental issues (eutrophication).12 

Greater coordination  

–  in  the  Danube  region,  better  links  are  developing  to  existing  initiatives,  such  as  the 
International  Commission  for  the  Protection  of  the  Danube  River  (ICPDR),  the  Energy 
Community, the International Organisation for Migration and the Black Sea Synergy; 

–  in  the    Baltic  Sea  region,  joint  work  is  increasing  between  Northern  Dimension  (ND), 
CBSS, Nordic Council of Ministers and other frameworks, mobilising together their structures 
such  as  VASAB  for  coordinated  spatial  planning,  or  the  ND  Partnership  for  Transport  and 
Logistics; 

A. Reid. Do macro-regional strategies boost innovation and competitiveness? 
Ibid. 
E.g.  Chancellor  Merkel  at  the  EUSDR  Annual  Forum  2012,  President  Ilves  at  the  Ministerial 

9 
10 
11 
Conference on the EUSBSR 2009. 
12 
Á. Kelemen. Ibid. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
–  in  the  Baltic  Sea  region,  joint  work  is  ongoing  on  hazard  scenarios,  while  in  the  Danube 
there is greater coordination on security threats such as organised crime.  

3.5 Tackling regional inequality and promoting territorial cohesion 
Over  60%  of  survey  respondents,  as  well  as  academic  commentators13,  see  the  strategies  as 
tools  to  increase  social,  economic  and  territorial  cohesion.  The  European  Parliament  states 
they ‘also could be useful instruments for identifying and combating regional disparities and 
for promoting convergence between European regions’.14 

3.6 Promoting multi-level governance 

The macro-regional approach can only work if there is strong cooperation between regional, 
national,  and  local  levels  to  plan  together  and  align  funding.  It  reinforces  multi-level 
governance  as  an  element  of  Cohesion  Policy,  given  the  variety  of  actors  involved.  Civil 
society  is  also  present,  and  the  approach  is  based  on  broad  bottom-up  consultation.  Several 
regions and (in the EUSBSR) regional organisations serve as coordinators.   

3.7 Improved cooperation with neighbouring countries 

The  two  strategies  help  improve  cooperation  with  neighbours.  In  the  EUSBSR,  Russia, 
though  not  part  of  the  strategy  itself,  has  agreed  on  a  list  of  common  projects.  Norway  and 
Iceland  have  also  been  actively  involved,  especially  on  logistics  and  social  issues.  In  the 
EUSDR,  with  non-EU  countries  with  varying  membership  perspectives,  the  Strategy 
facilitates  the  preparation  of  candidates  and  potential  candidates.  Almost  80%  of  EUSDR 
respondents consider that the strategy has improved cooperation with neighbouring countries, 
serving as a platform for the future. This opportunity to experience EU policies and processes, 
in common activities, should also be part of future work. 

4. Lessons learnt and challenges to overcome 

If  the  added  value  of  the  strategies  is  clear,  it  remains  essential  to  improve  implementation 
methods.  

•  Choosing the right objectives   

The objectives of each strategy are divided into priority areas emerging from the consultation 
process, and may be reviewed, as recently in the EUSBSR. Most survey respondents believe 
the objectives of the EUSBSR and the EUSDR address the main challenges (over 80%), but 
fewer are convinced by the number of priority areas (60% see the number as reasonable, 26% 
– neutral, 14% – too many), overall a bigger issue in the EUSBSR, which has more priorities.  

•  Maintaining political commitment 

13 
Nordregio, 2009. 
14 
(December 2012). 

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

European  Parliament,  Report:  on  optimising  the  role  of  territorial  development  in  cohesion  policy 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
High-level  political  commitment  has  been  evident  in  the  initial  calls  for  the  strategies,  in 
Council  Conclusions,  and  in  statements  at  major  events  like  the  Annual  Fora.  While  this  is 
important15, survey respondents believe it is not always followed through. Comments show it 
varies by country, by institution, and at  different levels of decision making: 38% agree  that 
the political commitment is high, 30% disagree, with 32% neutral, with EUSBSR less positive 
than EUSDR, and strategy ‘insiders’ being less convinced than ‘outsiders’.  

•  Funding  

While alignment of funds has significant potential, the EUSBSR and EUSDR were launched 
in mid – financial period, making coherence with existing policies and programmes at times 
problematic. Use of loans has been constrained by debt levels. 

Almost  50%  of  survey  respondents  disagree  that  ‘alignment  of  policy-making  and  funding 
with  objectives  has  been  successfully  achieved’,  although  EUSBSR  is  more  positive, 
reflecting the earlier start. Insufficient resources in non-EU countries remain a challenge. 

Experience  shows  that  European  Territorial  Cooperation  (ETC)  programmes  are  the  main 
source  of  funding.  However,  in  implementing  the  approach,  all  policies  and  programmes, 
including country-specific ones, as well as private sources, support from financial institutions 
(e.g. European Investment Bank) etc., should be mobilised. If the macro-regional approach is 
to succeed, it must be embedded in 2014–2020 programming by providing explicit references 
in  Partnership  Agreements  as  well  as  in  programme  texts.  This  requires  attention  across  all 
ministries,  to  develop  a  positive  investment  climate.  The  blending  of  grants  and  loans,  e.g. 
through the Western Balkans Investment Facility, is a valuable way forward, particularly for 
non-EU countries. 

In  general,  the  approach  should  increase  the  impact  of  all  available  funding,  strengthen  the 
implementation of existing ‘acquis’, and improve use of existing structures. 

•  Organisation and governance 

The survey confirms that macro-regional strategies remain a challenge to the administrations 
concerned.  Difficulties  include  lack  of  human  resources,  changes  of  staff,  and  poor 
knowledge.  With  staffing  and  travel  cuts,  the  frequent  meetings  (e.g.  EUSDR  priority  area 
steering groups) are not always well attended. 

Commentators note the complexity of structures. They call for ‘stronger leadership (to) help 
to keep a minimum of intensity and commitment while a stronger focus may help to reduce 
the complexity of implementation mechanisms’.16 

Survey respondents also call for improved exchange of experience within and between macro-
regions, and want better cooperation between all levels of governance. 

•  Measuring progress    

Indicators provide markers against which progress can be measured. Both EUSDR and 
EUSBSR  have  strategy  level  targets.  Work  on  setting  indicators  at  priority 
area/horizontal action level is foreseen in 2013.   

15 
16 

K. Böhme. Added value of macro regional strategies: A governance perspective. 2013. 
Ibid. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
This is a challenging task, as progress against indicators is due to factors not exclusive to the 
strategies, whose specific contribution is hard to measure. Programme targets and indicators 
should be consistent with the strategy level work.   

The EUSDR and EUSBSR also use different approaches (the former at more headline general 
level,  the  latter  with  more  detail  and  local  input).  However,  further  work  is  required:  while 
agreed  indicators  and  targets  are  essential  to  focus  effort,  progress  should  also  be  seen  in 
terms of networks created, projects successfully pursued, and improvements in integration and 
coordination.   

5. The Way Ahead – recommendations 

5.1 Realising the full potential of the strategies  

To realise the potential of the approach the following will be crucial:  

•  All  participants  must  recognise 

their  macro-regional  strategies  as  horizontal 

responsibility of their governments as a whole;  

•  All partners must seize the funding opportunity offered by inclusion of the approach in 
the  new  generation  of    Regulations,  especially  in  Partnership  Agreements  and 
Operational  Programmes,  so  that  the  principle  of  embedding  the  approach  in  all 
decisions (‘mainstreaming’) can be achieved; 

•  New (Danube and South-East Gateway) and existing transnational programmes (Baltic 
Sea region) must be fully exploited, as should instruments such as European Groupings 
of  Territorial  Cooperation  (EGTCs)  and  Integrated  Territorial  Investment.  Good 
practice should be shared, working closely with the INTERACT programme; 

•  Operational  problems  inside  administrations  should  be  tackled  with  appropriate  staff 
and resources. Modern communication means should be fully exploited to avoid undue 
burdens or unnecessary travel;  

•  The coherence and credibility of macro-regional work needs regular review in relevant 
sectorial  Councils,  and  in  ad  hoc  meetings  of  ministers  on  specific  topics.  Continued 
input from the public is important;    

•  Monitoring and evaluation of the approach should be based on realistic indicators and 

• 

targets as well as an overview of priority area activities; 
If  there  are  concerns  about  performance  or  relevance,  sunset  clauses  should  be 
introduced  for  the  priority  concerned,  with  the  option  of  reducing  the  number  or 
changing the focus of priority areas; 

•  Greater  attention  should  be  given  to  communication  of  the  strategies’  purpose  and 
achievements, and the bottom up approach taken at the start should be maintained.   

5.2 Leadership in the regions and the role of the Commission  

The  key  to  the  future  will  be  stronger  leadership,  reinforcing  ownership  in  the  regions 
concerned,  delivering  clear  decision-making  and  greater  visibility.  While  the  Commission 
will  continue  to  play  a  key  role,  its  support  must  be  better  balanced  by  effective  leadership 
within the regions concerned. 

The Commission proposes a review process to  be finalised by the  2014 Annual  Fora of the 
existing strategies. This process should consider operational improvements, as well as options 
to  improve  political  leadership.  Clearly,  given  the  strategies’  varied  states  of  advancement, 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
and  their  diverse  roots,  the  way  forward  may  be  different  in  each  case.  However,  the 
following points are important:   

• 

In  line  with  the  current  regulatory  proposals,  transnational  programmes  can  in  future 
play  a  more  significant  role  in  supporting  implementation.  EGTCs  may  also  provide 
opportunities. 

•  The  current  systems  for  managing  the  strategies  (PACs,  NCPs)  are  just  becoming 
established.  Calls  for  simplification  should  take  into  account  potential  delays  that 
changes could bring. 

•  Member States and partner countries should consider how to reinforce their ownership 
of  the  strategies,  and  the  appropriate  response  to  calls  for  a  more  easily  recognisable 
leadership. The choices must take into account issues of legitimacy, accountability, and 
continuity. 

•  The  Commission  facilitates  the  strategies,  ensuring  coherence  and  continuity,  as  well 
as  a  clear  EU  dimension  and  added  value.  However,  its  resources  are  limited  and 
measures must be considered to enable it to play an appropriate role.  

•  The potential for involving public and other EU institutional Fora in the governance of 

the strategies should be considered. 

5.3 New strategies  

When considering the launch of any new EU macro-regional strategy the following should be 
borne in mind:  

•  New initiatives should only be launched if there are particular needs for improved and 
high-level cooperation. These should be of strategic importance for the macro-regions 
and translated into a limited number of well-defined objectives with an appropriate set 
of  indicators  to  measure  progress.  Common  challenges  (such  as  environmental 
deterioration,  climate  change  adaption,  impact  of  natural  and  man-made  disasters, 
connectivity  gaps,  striking  income  disparities) and/or  opportunities  (such  as  openings 
for  research  networks,  expanded  markets,  modernising  administrations)  should  be 
evident, as well as agreed geographical identity. It is therefore an approach only to be 
used  in  particular  circumstances  where  involvement  of  the  EU  is  appropriate,  and 
existing EU horizontal policies reinforced.  

•  There must be readiness to translate political commitment into administrative support. 

Only with this are there good prospects of success.  

•  Macro-regional  and  sea-basin  strategy  approaches  answer  similar  aspirations.  The 
EUSBSR  combines  characteristics  of  both,  while  an  Adriatic  and  Ionian  macro-
regional  strategy  could  use  the  adopted  maritime  strategy17  as  one  of  its  key 
components.  

•  The  current  macro-regions  may  well  not  have  exhausted  all  possible  paradigms.  It  is 
easy to envisage regional cooperation inspired by this model, but without involvement 
of  the  Commission,  or  based  more  exclusively  on  a  transnational  programme.  Those 
seeking  to  intensify  cooperation  and  integration  should  look  for  the  best  fit  for  their 
situation. 

EU  macro-regional  strategies  should  demonstrate  particular  added-value  at  EU  level, 
such as better enforcement of EU environmental legislation, or specifically intensified 
investment in EU connectivity, or innovation critical mass. 

17 

COM(2012) 713 on ‘A maritime strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Seas’. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
6. Conclusions 

The  two  existing  macro-regional  strategies  are  demonstrating  their  merit  both  strategically 
and  politically.  Clear  results  are  already  evident  in  terms  of  projects  and  more  integrated 
policy making, although further improvements are essential in implementation and planning. 
The issue of leadership is central to the review process to be completed in 2014. 

The Commission invites the Parliament and the Council to endorse the recommendations of 
this report. 

EN 

11 

   EN