REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS concerning the governance of macro-regional strategies
Date: 2014-05-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Adriatic Sea, Alpine Region, Baltic Sea, Ionian Sea, environmental protection, information technology, regional cooperation, regional development, regional planning













EUR-Lex - 52014DC0284 - EN











|



52014DC0284

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS concerning the governance of macro-regional strategies /* COM/2014/0284 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 governance of
macro-regional strategies
1.                      
Introduction
Since the start
of the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region in 2009, Europe has seen a growing
interest in cooperation in greater European regions. Macro-regional strategies
represent a new opportunity for comprehensive development of a larger region,
addressing common challenges and potential. They represent a clear EU value
added, and existing EU horizontal policies are reinforced. They respond to
matters such as: 
·                        
the deterioration of the environmental state of
the Baltic Sea; 
·                        
unused potential for improved navigability and
water quality for an attractive Danube Region;
·                        
economic, social and environmental diversity and
fragmentation in the Adriatic Ionian Region, and
·                        
territorial, economic and social imbalances
between cities and rural areas in the Alps, to be addressed in a potential
future EU Strategy for the Alpine Region. 
Their integrated
approach also allows important overall policy objectives, such as mainstreaming
of climate action, as well as support for a low-carbon economy and climate
resilient society, to be incorporated in regional development work.
Good practice
examples of successful macro-regional actions already exist in the EU Strategy
for the Baltic Sea Region and the EU Strategy for the Danube Region. The
environmental status of the Baltic Sea is improving, through collective action
to reduce pollution with projects like CleanShip. Navigation on the Danube is being made easier through reinforced maintenance work. Innovations concerning the
environment, clean technology and eco-innovation are developed for example through
the BONUS Baltic Sea Research and Development Programme[1], with
similar work underway in the Danube Region. 
However, as work
has gained momentum, experience[2]
has also revealed obstacles to implementation. Devastating flooding in the Danube region in 2013, for example, was, despite initiatives at high political level, not
followed up by a sufficiently coordinated response. Changes are needed. 
This Report responds
to the Council invitation to facilitate discussions to improve governance of
macro-regional strategies, and to report by end-2014.[3]  Better
governance must clarify what is required for the success of the approach,
including responsibility being more effectively taken by the countries that
initiated the Strategies.
The term “governance”
describes the
process
to be addressed - how and by whom the Strategies are implemented,
joint actions initiated and financed. More specifically, current key
elements of governance include: 
-           Member State and Commission involvement at high
political (i.e. ministerial) level providing political commitment and strategic
orientation; 
-           National Contact Points[4],
high level officials in each participating country coordinating work at senior
administrative level; 
-           experts[5],
responsible for each thematic priority (e.g. environment, transport, research
and innovation etc.), or horizontal issue (e.g. climate change, spatial
planning), from each country involved, and normally forming a steering group
for the topic at the level of the macro-region. 
These elements
constitute the structure to be reviewed and strengthened, to ensure that the
implementation of the Strategies brings clear impact and better results.
2.                      
The needs
Based on
analysis and experience of existing Strategies[6],
it appears that improvements are especially required in the following fields:
·                        
Stronger political leadership and decision
making from countries and regions concerned:
Ministers and national authorities coordinating the work need to take full ownership,
and more clearly direct what is happening on the ground; 
·                        
Greater clarity in the organisation of work: For authorities working on day-to-day implementation, there is a
need for explicit lines of responsibility, effective coordination and
sufficient resources.
To be clear, better
governance of macro-regional strategies is not about new funds or new
institutions. Instead, it should aim for smarter use of existing resources.[7]
Furthermore, one
size cannot fit all. The different strengths of the macro regions and
participating countries must be understood and taken into account. In
particular, good use should be made of current regional
organisations. Strategies should complement work done in other
formats. Related initiatives – for example, sea-basin strategies under the
Integrated Maritime Policy – can also benefit from the approaches outlined
here.
This Report
looks at the existing Strategies at the following levels:
·                        
Political leadership and ownership: Who gives strategic direction?  Who takes the major decisions? How
to ensure identification with, and communication and accountability of the
Strategies? 
·                        
Coordination: Who
is responsible for overall administrative coordination at participating country
(or region) level?
·                        
Implementation:
Who should lead day-to-day implementation, who needs to be associated and how
should it be supported? How can full involvement of non-EU countries
participating in the Strategies be ensured? 
These
levels are inter-related. Clear political leadership is a pre-requisite for
effective coordination and implementation. An agreed structure, between the
Commission and countries involved, with a hierarchy of responsibilities, is
essential to create a robust framework for the medium to long term.
3.                      
Political leadership, and ownership
A high-level and
structured political dimension, providing overall direction, setting priorities
and taking key decisions, is crucial for effective macro-regional strategies. 
This political
level is responsible for the strategy, setting priorities, and addressing key
matters, such as the alignment of funding to the macro-regional approach. It
should ensure that authorities involved in implementation are able to work
effectively with sufficient resources, and adequate authority. Problems unsolved
at technical level, must be sought at political level. 
The current
system relies heavily on the European Commission for strategic
leadership. The Commission ensures momentum, mediates in
stalemates, and organises key events. It gives support to key actors, and is
central to reporting and evaluation. The Commission is also a key facilitator,
and guarantor of the EU dimension. 
However,
over-dependence on the Commission as the principle driving force is not
desirable. To succeed, the macro-regional strategies need a better balance
between the leadership provided by the countries and regions involved and the
role of the Commission. 
Existing good
practices include: 
–     
Sector-specific ministerial meetings organised
in the Baltic Sea Region, committing to action to improve the environmental quality
of the Baltic Sea (Helsinki Commission Ministerial Meetings), and in the Danube
Region, committing to enhanced river maintenance (dedicated meeting of transport
ministers);
–     
Ministerial meetings in the Danube Strategy linked
to the Annual Forum. In addition, a specific meeting of regional development
ministers at the 2013 Forum reinforced the alignment of European Structural and
Investment Funds with the Strategy; 
–     
High-level Baltic meetings in the existing
cooperation frameworks (e.g. Council of Baltic Sea States Summits, Baltic Sea
Parliamentary Conference, etc.) regularly discuss the Baltic Strategy; 
–     
The Adriatic-Ionian Council, at foreign minister
level, is a key driver for the forthcoming Adriatic-Ionian Strategy. 
However
ministerial meetings are not yet sufficiently systematic, or concrete, to
give clear strategic leadership. Potential gaps between ministerial
declarations and results need to be closed. When decisions are taken, they
should be followed by concerted action. Consideration should be given to
whether some ministerial meetings should become more regular, in order to
further implementation on the ground. 
Ministers
hosting the National Contact Point need to have a more strategic national coordination function within their
government. Good practice exists: in Sweden, the Minister and staff inform
national agencies, the parliament, line ministries and their ministers of
on-going initiatives and challenges in their macro-regional strategy, thus
strengthening national/regional coordination and involvement of all relevant
parts of the government. The National Contact Point is a key actor in
facilitating this. This model could usefully be copied elsewhere.
As well as
leadership, a sense of ownership is important. The involvement of stakeholders
needs to be strengthened, including parliaments at different levels, regional
governments and civil society. Meetings of members of EU and national
parliaments of the Baltic Sea and Danube Region already take place.[8] Civil
society is becoming more involved in implementation (e.g. in Priority
“Biodiversity” in the Danube Region; Priority “Energy” in the Baltic), and in
the development of the potential EU Strategy for the Alpine Region, but more
can be done.   
3.1.                
Options and recommendations 
·                        
Countries and regions involved should take
general strategic leadership at ministerial level. Ministers hosting
the National Contact Point should be the ultimate decision makers, and together,
constitute a regular decision making formation. They should be responsible for evaluating
progress, guiding implementation, and seeking breakthroughs when stalemates
occur. Meetings should coincide with the Annual Forum. Other options to ensure
strategic leadership could include:
–              
a rotating chair for each Strategy for a
given period, with an agreed rotation principle.[9]
Holding the chair could also imply hosting and organising the Annual Forum,
ensuring direct links to implementation; 
–              
the nomination of a special representative
for a Strategy, approved by the countries concerned. S/he could be given the
role of steering implementation, trouble shooting, and reporting back to the
ministerial level. S/he might be  ministerial level or equivalent, following
the experience of European Coordinators for TEN-T[10]. S/he
could be financed by the transnational cooperation programme, or by other means;
·        
Sectoral ministers should drive progress in their thematic areas. In each area of work, leadership at ministerial level should be
assumed first and foremost by the country leading the priority area in
question. Meetings could be scheduled regularly and
consideration should be given to meetings in the margins of Council meetings. The special representative would be expected to take a proactive
role in such meetings;
·        
Ministers hosting the National Contact Point should have a strategic coordination function within their national or regional government, regularly informing the
government of on-going initiatives, and ensuring the alignment of policies and
funding;
·                        
National Contact Points, should coordinate at national level with the thematic experts
– to ensure decisions lead to action;
·                        
The Commission should continue to offer strategic support. It will facilitate the evaluation of
progress, identify shortcomings that need to be addressed at political level,
as well suggest resolution of implementation stalemates. It should ensure coherence
with EU policies and positions, especially the integration of the macro-regional
approach into EU policies;  
·                        
More effort should be given to better communication of results and
activities, to ensure public debate on the macro regional approach, and its
achievements. All actors should be encouraged to play their part in this
including national, regional public and private participants in the Strategies;
·                        
The participating countries and the Commission
should fully utilise the new potential of transnational
cooperation programmes[11] (and the programme INTERACT providing EU wide support for
cooperation[12])
to facilitate and support the political level activities outlined above.
4.                      
Coordination
A strong and
operational macro-regional strategy needs professional management and
coordination, both at national and macro-regional level. 
This coordination
is the link between the political leadership and those charged with 
implementation. It includes tasks such as
operational guidance, reporting and evaluation of performance,
national/regional coordination, and facilitation of major events. It should
include cooperation with existing regional organisations.
Currently,
coordination and management functions are only partly fulfilled. The
National Contact Points are the key actors in this respect, with their
counterparts in the Commission. A clarification of the National Contact Points
role, leading to stronger management and co-ordination inside each
administration, is required. 
To date, the Commission
has been extensively involved in co-ordination activities, above all in the
start-up phase of the Strategies. However, day-to-day technical support has diverted
resources from its core tasks where it can add most value, such as ensuring
coherence with EU objectives, and providing expert EU thematic and policy support.[13]
Baltic and
Danube National Contact Points are increasingly assuming the management role in
implementation. They are establishing links between Strategies and European
Structural and Investment Funds, such as in Latvia and Hungary. This is good practice. However, while several are well staffed to carry out their
key tasks, many others require more resources. 
Most National
Contact Points have set up a national coordination platform, bringing
together national/ regional stakeholders to facilitate implementation. Good
examples are Austria and Poland, bringing together central/federal and regional actors, sector ministries, managing
authorities of programmes, local associations and e.g. scientific institutes.  
In addition, a High
Level Group, with representatives (National Contact Point or equivalent) of
all 28 EU Member States, and non-EU countries present, meets to consider the
overall approach for all macro-regional strategies. Regional National Contact Point
discussions are organised back-to-back with these meetings. However, the role
of the Group, and its communication with other institutions and key actors,
needs to be clarified. The forthcoming Adriatic-Ionian Strategy and a potential
Strategy for the Alpine Region, will make exchange of information and good
practice, and participation of non-EU countries and regions, even more
important. 
4.1.                
Recommendations
·                        
National Contact Points should have the lead in
coordination and operational leadership. National arrangements should
facilitate this. They should meet regularly to ensure continuous
coordination and good information flow. Meetings could
be chaired by the country holding the rotating chair of the macro-regional
strategy, or by the proposed special representative; 
·                        
The Commission should continue playing a
key role, where there is a clear added value for its involvement. In addition
to the role outlined above this includes, in partnership with National Contact
Points, addressing issues, such as insufficient staffing, insufficient
synergies with existing institutions or uneven commitment of government
authorities. Where these lead to concern about progress on performance and the
added value of Priority Areas, joint decisions on future viability should be
taken; 
·                        
The High Level Group should become more
active in ensuring coherence between macro-regional strategies, and with EU
actions and objectives overall. This group should share good practice on issues
such as governance, the setting of targets and indicators, monitoring and
evaluation, and on raising public awareness. It should
be the forum where the approaches and practices in each Region are compared,
with a view to maximising leverage and impact;
·                        
The relevant transnational cooperation programmes
and INTERACT should provide targeted facilitation to this key
coordination level. Tasks could include conceptual and
further developmental work on projects (existing, on-going, planned, and
proposed), funding sources, and targets. They should facilitate reporting and publicity.

·                        
It is important to ensure the macro regions are
covered by debates at EU 28 level, including in the European Parliament, the
Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee.  
5.                      
Implementation
The implementation
of the Strategies includes tasks such as
facilitating generation and implementation of initiatives and projects, setting
of indicators and targets, reinforcing bridges to the relevant funding
programmes, such as the European Structural and Investment Funds, Horizon 2020,
LIFE, COSME, and participation in programme committees, where appropriate.
Synergies with EU external instruments, and notably the Pre-Accession
Instrument and the European Neighbourhood Instrument, should be sought.
Thematic experts
and their Steering Groups are the key force to drive implementation forward in
a thematically sound way. Current challenges include:
–         
their capacities and resources: while
some do outstanding work, for others Strategy-related tasks are an add-on
extra, on top of core duties, and lacking institutional and financial backing
from their authorities. Although Steering Groups,
comprising of national experts have been set up in most thematic areas, not all
have good participation. Good examples include Priority Areas “People and
Skills” in the Danube, or “Safe” or “Ship” in the Baltic; 
–         
non EU countries and regions are officially fully involved. However, in practice their active
participation is often limited, due to capacity and resources;
–         
lines of accountability are currently not clear with respect to reporting on progress
towards targets and overall evaluation of performance;
–         
temporary financial support[14] is
provided to coordinators but the Strategies lack professional and durable
support on a day-to-day basis.  Transnational cooperation programmes now
allow closing this gap. It is crucial that sufficient resources are dedicated
in these programmes;
–         
although the INTERACT support programme
has facilitated specific communication work and overall facilitation, it must
now evolve to provide conceptual and developmental facilitation overall, and in
particular to complement macro-region specific transnational programme support,
to promote particularly the exchange of good ideas and approaches between
regions;
–         
While availability of funding had up to now
frequently been an issue, the new regulatory frameworks for 2014-2020
programming, and the start of a new financial period, mean that projects can
now be supported by EU programmes. However, important work still
remains better to align funds with the goals of the Strategies. 
5.1.                
Recommendations 
·                        
Sector Ministers
(or where relevant, leaders of other organisations leading Priority Areas)
should be fully accountable for the work in the thematic areas, and for the
conditions offered to thematic experts and Steering Group members. These should
be officially appointed and receive a clear mandate, along with sufficient
resources; 
·                        
Thematic experts and Steering Groups should be the expert drivers of day-to-day implementation. Steering
Groups, with members from all involved countries, should be established for all
areas. Their role, capacities, resources and engagement is key to success. The Commission should provide equivalent thematic expertise.
Information and communication technologies could facilitate good communication
flows between meetings;
·                        
Integration of non EU countries and regions participating
in the Strategies should be facilitated, based on the good approach developed
in the Danube Region with regard to participation to Steering Group meetings,
and making use of communications technology; 
·                        
Cooperation with existing institutions,
avoiding duplication or overlapping of activities is a must. Where agreed, and building on good examples from the Baltic work,
existing regional institutions should play their role in implementation; 
·                        
Transnational cooperation programmes, while retaining current objectives, should also be used
effectively to support coordination and implementation of the Strategies. They
should exploit innovative approaches to networking and discussions. Platforms
or points, where appropriate to be hosted by existing regional institutions, could
include tasks such as: 
–              
supporting the work of key implementers, both in
practical ways, and in terms of data collection, analysis and advice;
–              
providing a platform for the involvement of
civil society, regional and multi-governance levels, and parliamentary debate;
–              
facilitating the Annual Forum.
·                        
Building on experiences, skills and networks
already developed in its initial support work, INTERACT should provide overall
conceptual and developmental assistance. Tasks should include:
–              
providing overall services across macro-regional
strategies, such as communication, and capitalising on cooperation results; 
–              
exchange of good practice between existing and
upcoming macro-regional strategies; 
–              
facilitating links between macro-regional
strategies and funding programmes;
–              
facilitating thematic synergies.
6.                      
Conclusions
In
summary, macro-regional strategies, delivering meaningful results and leveraging
existing policies require a well- performing governance system. They require:
·                        
political leadership and clearer
responsibility, including a decision-making
formation, recognising the Strategies as horizontal interests and
responsibilities at every level of government; 
·                        
continued involvement by the Commission,
in partnership with countries and regions, ensuring a coordinated approach at
EU level; 
·                        
a sustainable framework to provide systematic
linkage between this political level and coordination and implementation,
including clear lines of responsibility ensured by regular ministerial
meetings, and where so agreed, by the appointment of a special
representative;
·                        
improved mechanisms to ensure full engagement of
non-EU countries at all levels; 
·                        
better use and complementing work of existing
regional organisations, at the appropriate level; 
·                        
stronger management at the level of National Contact Points, giving strategic
coordination and monitoring implementation; 
·                        
better focused use of existing funds and
better coordination of sector-specific initiatives and programmes, through key
implementers and the Commission, but also including involvement of the private
sector and international financing institutions, where appropriate; 
·                        
sustained support to key implementers, using
especially the institutional and capacity-building support of newly-aligned transnational
programmes 2014-2020;
·                        
better publicity and communication about
the work ; 
·                        
enhanced use of information and communication technologies to facilitate modern, fast and cheap communication between
stakeholders;
·                        
stronger involvement of civil society,
including through national and regional parliaments and consultative
networks or platforms, enhancing awareness for the strategic objectives and
timetable. 
The
Commission invites other institutions, and countries and regions involved, to
endorse the proposed recommendations, and work with the Commission to improve
the governance of the Strategies to maximise results and impact, taking into
account the different macro-regional contexts. 
1 The Baltic Sea
Research and Development Programme BONUS Art 185 is founded by decision
862/2010/EU.
[2] Communication
concerning the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, 23 March 2012
COM (2012)128 final; Report on the implementation of the EU Strategy for the
Danube Region, 8 April 2013 COM (2013) 181 Final. Report concerning the added
value of macro-regional strategies, 27 June 2013 COM (2013) 468 Final;
Conclusions of the General Affairs Council, 22 October 2013.
[3] Conclusions
of the General Affairs Council, 22 October 2013.
[4] This name could be
reviewed, to reflect better their central coordination responsibility.
[5]  Variously known as
Priority Action Coordinators, Horizontal Action Leaders, Pillar coordinators
etc. in work to date.
[6] ibid. footnote 2.
[7] ibid. footnote 2.
[8] Conferences in 2013
under the Lithuanian EU Presidency, and of Danube Region parliamentarians. 
[9] As currently in the
EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, the rotation principle for the chair of
a Strategy could take into account EU Presidencies in the Council, presidencies
in other macro-regional institutions, or be on a voluntary basis. 
[10] Trans-European
Transport Networks.
[11] Transnational cooperation programmes of the European
Structural and Investment Funds, such as the Baltic Sea Programme, or the
Danube Region Programme.
[12] INTERACT is
co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund, to facilitate the work
of European Territorial Cooperation programmes and macro-regional strategies.
www.interact-eu.net
[13] A good example of
Commission guidance linking the Strategy to the policy level discussions is the
Commission Staff working document on "A Sustainable Blue Growth Agenda for
the Baltic".
[14] Pilot
projects and preparatory actions introduced in the EU budget by the European
Parliament.